Muzaffar Hussain Attar, J. 1. The Pr. Sessions Judge, Budgam vide its order dated 26.02.2010 convicted the appellant for having committed offence under Section 302 RPC and Sec. 7/27 Indian Arms Act. The appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and has been imposed fine of Rs. 5000/- vide order dated 09.03.2010. It has been provided in the said order that in case of non-payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for period of further three months. The appellant being aggrieved of the orders, has challenged the same in this appeal. 2. Police Station Khag, Budgam registered case, FIR No. 60/2002, on 9th October, 2002 when it received an information through reliable source that during the intervening night of 8/9th October, 2002, the appellant Gh.Mohammad Bhat S/o Noor Mohammad Bhat R/o Kokerbagh armed with illegal firearm entered into the house of Sulla Khokhar S/o Rehman Khokhar R/o Kokerbagh and by use of illegal firearm fired upon Abdul Majid Dar S/o Lasa Dar, Mushtaq Ahmad Dar S/o Mehda Dar and Mohammad Maqbool Khatana S/o Gulla Khatana with intention to kill them and because of this illegal act of the appellant the aforementioned three persons died. Case was registered under Section 302 RPC read with 7/27 Indian Arms Act. After completion of the investigation, report under Section 173 Cr.P.C was filed. Since the appellant after killing the three persons, as per prosecution, had fled from the spot alongwith weapon of assault, he was arrested from the Forest of the area on 12.10.2002 in an operation conducted by the police personnel of Police Station, Khag and the illegal weapon was also seized. Consequently, the case, FIR No. 61/2002, Police Station Khag, Budgam was registered against the appellant on 12th October, 2002 under Section 5/27 Indian Arms Act. Initially, charge was framed against the appellant in case FIR No. 60/2002 but subsequently same was amended and the allegations made in FIR 61 of 2002 were incorporated in the charge, which FIR had also culminated in filing of report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. The learned trial judge ordered for trial of both the cases together. 3. Initially, charge was framed against the appellant in case FIR No. 60/2002 but subsequently same was amended and the allegations made in FIR 61 of 2002 were incorporated in the charge, which FIR had also culminated in filing of report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. The learned trial judge ordered for trial of both the cases together. 3. In the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C the police unfolded the case in the following manner: On 9th October, 2002, information was received through reliable Source that appellant during the intervening night of 8/9th October, 2002 entered into the house of Sula Khokar S/o Rehman Khokar R/o Kokerbagh and with intention of killing, fired upon Abdul Majid Dar s/o Lasa Dar R/o Sogin, who was working as Source with the army (34 RR), Mushtaq Ahmad Dar S/o Mehda Dar R/o Sogin and Mohammad Maqbool Khatana S/o Gul Khatana R/o Kokerbagh. The appellant thereafter fled from the spot. On receipt of this information the Police Station, Khag initiated investigation of the case. During the investigation of the case site plan of the place of occurrence was prepared. The site was also got photographed. The wearing apparel of the deceased were seized. The dead bodies of the deceased were also seized. During the investigation on spot five bullets and 11 fired cartridges of AK 47 Rifle and one UBGL grenade thrower were recovered and seized. The seizure memos were prepared. Injury memos of the deceased were prepared. From the wearing apparel of deceased Abdul Majid Dar, one identity card which was issued by Sh. RPS Sand, Lt. Col., Commanding Officer 34 RR was recovered and seized in presence of the witnesses. On the identity card it was mentioned that the deceased Abdul Majid Dar was working as Source with the army. The dead bodies were sent for postmortem to Sub Division Hospital, Beerwah. The Medical Officer issued certificate confirming therein that the deceased have died due to the bullets which were fired on them. The blood drenched wearing apparel of the deceased were seized and were send for chemical examination. The dead bodies were thereafter handed over to the legal heirs enabling them to perform the last religious rites. The Medical Officer issued certificate confirming therein that the deceased have died due to the bullets which were fired on them. The blood drenched wearing apparel of the deceased were seized and were send for chemical examination. The dead bodies were thereafter handed over to the legal heirs enabling them to perform the last religious rites. Statements of prosecution witnesses were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. These witnesses in their statements made before the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C stated that on 8th October, 2002 at about 9 P.M, the deceased Abdul Majid Dar, Mushtaq Ahmad Dar and Mohammad Maqbool Khatana and the appellant entered into the residential house of Sulla Khokar The appellant was in possession of one AK 47 Rifle. Three deceased persons and the appellant asked for food which could not be served to them because the house owner and his family members had already taken their dinner. Thereafter the deceased and the accused slept in one room. The prosecution witness No. 6 who was indisposed was already sleeping in the same room. The appellant kept the AK 47 Rifle under his pillow and even the door of the room was kept open. The appellant slept near the open door of the room. It is further prosecution case that after two hours, the appellant opened fire in the room, sound whereof was heard by PWs 2 and 7 who were sleeping in the same house. On hearing of the sound of the firing these two prosecution witnesses woke up and found that the deceased Maqbool Khatana, in order to save himself, fled from the room and went into the kitchen. The appellant, however, first opened fire on Abdul Majid Dar and Mushtaq Ahmad Dar, and, thereafter followed deceased Mohammad Maqbool Khatana and fired upon him from the door of the kitchen. After firing upon all the three deceased persons the appellant fled from the spot alongwith rifle. It is also the prosecution case that the aforesaid two prosecution witnesses witnessed the occurrence because the kitchen had no ceiling. It is also prosecution case, that the place, where two prosecution witnesses were sleeping and had woken up because of the sound of gun fire, enabled them to witness the incident. It is also the prosecution case that the aforesaid two prosecution witnesses witnessed the occurrence because the kitchen had no ceiling. It is also prosecution case, that the place, where two prosecution witnesses were sleeping and had woken up because of the sound of gun fire, enabled them to witness the incident. The prosecution witnesses 2, 6 and 7 in unison stated that Mohammad Maqbool Khatana, deceased, who was left by the appellant in injured condition, was stating that the appellant had opened fire on the deceased and while making this statement he died on spot. The investigation of the case culminated in filing of challan. The appellant was arrested on 12.10.2002 and FIR 61 of 2002 under Section 5/27 Indian Arms Act was registered as he was found in possession of illegal weapon. Since the trial Judge was, prima facie, satisfied that the appellant has committed offence, he ordered for framing of charge, to which appellant pleaded not guilty. The prosecution was directed to lead evidence in support of the case. 4. On 9th June, 2005 learned defence counsel made a statement before the trial court that he does not want to cross examine PWs 14 to 17 who are expert witnesses from the Forensic Science Laboratory. Learned defence counsel had also submitted before the trial court that evidence of these prosecution witnesses may be read as per opinion expressed by them in their reports. It may not be out of place to mention here that during the investigation of the case, the appellant on 17.10.2002 had made a disclosure statement before the police wherein he had stated that "when I opened fire upon Majid, Maqbool and Mushtaq in the house of Sula Khokar and killed them, the shoe I was wearing got contaminated with the blood which I have hidden in Kokarbagh and which shoe I can show to the police and recover it". (EXPW 8/9). In pursuance to the disclosure statement made by the appellant and at his instance, a sports shoe bearing mark "ARNOR" which had prominent blood spots and which was hidden under a hedge in the orchard of one Ali Mohammad Lone R/o Kokerbagh, was retrieved by the appellant. It was seized and sealed on spot (EXPW11/I). (EXPW 8/9). In pursuance to the disclosure statement made by the appellant and at his instance, a sports shoe bearing mark "ARNOR" which had prominent blood spots and which was hidden under a hedge in the orchard of one Ali Mohammad Lone R/o Kokerbagh, was retrieved by the appellant. It was seized and sealed on spot (EXPW11/I). The blood drenched wearing apparel of the deceased, the weapon of assault, AK 47 Rifle, the used bullets of AK 47 rifle, live bullets and the blood stained shoe were send to the authorities of FSL for their expert opinion. The authorities of the J&K Forensic Science Laboratory send its report to Dy. Superintendent of Police, Headquarters, District Budgam vide communication dated 22.11.2002. 5. The report of the FSL experts, about which the learned defence counsel during the trial of the case stated that the opinion shall be read in this case, certifies that the AK 47 Rifle with which the appellant had fired upon the deceased had been fired through, was found in normal working condition. Eleven fired cartridges were found to have been fired through this seized AK 47 Rifle. The jacketed fired bullets were also said to have been fired through AK 47 Rifle. In respect of finger prints on the AK 47 Rifle no opinion was recorded as it was opined that giving of same is not possible. The authorities of FSL also subjected to scientific examination one torn trouser, one torn out half sleeves sweater and one torn out sweater belonging to deceased Mohammad Maqbool Khatana which were marked as exhibit nos. K-369/2002, K-370/2002 and K-371/2002 respectively. Similarly the clothes of deceased Abdul Majid Dar were marked as Exhibit Nos. K-372/2002 K-373/2002 and K-374/2002. Similarly, the clothes of Mushtaq Ahmad Dar were marked as Exhibit Nos. K-375/2002, K-376/2002 and K- 377/2002. The pair of shoes (ARNOR) were collectively marked as Exhibit No. K-378/2002. The blood stains were detected on the exhibits from K-369/2002 to K-378/2002. The blood stains were found to be of human origin. The blood group of exhibit K-369/2002 to K-371/2002 was `O', whereas, blood group of K-372/2002 to K-378/2002 was of `A' Group. 6. Prosecution out of listed 18 witnesses examined 11 witnesses and prosecution witnesses 14 to 17 were not summoned in view of the statement of learned defence counsel made during the trial of the case. 7. The blood group of exhibit K-369/2002 to K-371/2002 was `O', whereas, blood group of K-372/2002 to K-378/2002 was of `A' Group. 6. Prosecution out of listed 18 witnesses examined 11 witnesses and prosecution witnesses 14 to 17 were not summoned in view of the statement of learned defence counsel made during the trial of the case. 7. Prosecution witness, Abdul Rashid Dar in his statement has deposed that he knew Abdul Majid Dar, Maqbool Khatana and Mushtaq Ahmad Dar. On 8th October, 2002, when he was in his house at about 11.30 P.M, he heard sound of firing. Out of fear he stayed in his house. In the morning he learned that firing had taken place in Khokarbagh. On visiting the site of occurrence he saw police and army personnel and three dead bodies. He saw dead body of Abdul Majid Dar who was Source of army, Mushtaq Ahmad Dar and Mohammad Maqbool Khatana. Two dead bodies were in one room and third in another room. The police seized fired cartridges and thrower on spot. The seizure memo was prepared which was signed by the witnesses. He also deposed that the contents of the seizure memo are true and correct, which was marked as EXPW 1/1. He could not say as to how many cartridges were seized. He also stated that seizure memo was also prepared in respect of thrower which he also signed. The same was marked as EXPW 1/2. The wearing apparel was also seized in his presence. The contents of seizure memo were correct which was marked as EXPW 1/3. The wearing apparel of the deceased Majid Dar were also seized in respect of which seizure memo was also prepared which was marked as EXPW 1/4. Similarly, seizure memo regarding wearing apparel of Mushtaq Ahmad Dar, the contents of which were found to be true and correct was marked as EXPW 1/5. The identity card of deceased Abdul Majid Dar was also seized and seizure memo prepared which was marked as EXPW 1/6. The wearing apparel of the deceased were also seized and seizure memo prepared, contents whereof were found to be true and correct and was marked as EXPW 1/8. The seizure memo in respect of dead bodies was also prepared which were seized on spot and marked as EXPW 1/9. He further stated that he has signed all these seizure memos. The wearing apparel of the deceased were also seized and seizure memo prepared, contents whereof were found to be true and correct and was marked as EXPW 1/8. The seizure memo in respect of dead bodies was also prepared which were seized on spot and marked as EXPW 1/9. He further stated that he has signed all these seizure memos. The said witness has also stated that at the instance of the appellant/accused the shoe was recovered. The five live bullets of AK 47 Rifle were also seized and seizure memo prepared, which he also signed. He testified that contents of seizure memo were true and correct which was marked as EXPW 1/10. He also deposed that bullets seized on spot were same which were shown to him in the Court. The seizure memo in respect of the ring which was produced by Sulla Khokhar before the police was also prepared. He also signed the same. The contents were found to be true and correct which was marked as EXPW 1/2. The seizure memo about the shoe and some clothes was also prepared which was signed by the said witness. He also identified the seized items. The seizure memo was marked as EXPW 1/3. The said witness has in specific term deposed that the appellant accused was in the company of police and was empty handed. The Police summoned the witnesses. The Appellant/accused lead the Police party and the witnesses into the forest and took out from underneath a stone one rifle, one wireless set, one pouch and five magazines and handed over the same to the police. The police prepared papers about the same. The said witness signed the said documents. He testified that the contents of the same are true and correct. He also identified the ammunition which was shown to him in the court. 8. In his cross examination the witness deposed that one Ghulam Mohammad Thanthar was also killed but he does not know who killed him. Besides, Rahim Lone was also killed. He, however, stated that one Ghulam Mohammad Khatana was killed by Gh. Mohammad Thanthroo. He further deposed that there was rumor that army and SOG were killing the informers. He also deposed that from amongst the killed persons Majid Dar was an army `Cat' and other two were civilians. Two civilians had joined the company of Majid Dar 2-3 days before occurrence. Mohammad Thanthroo. He further deposed that there was rumor that army and SOG were killing the informers. He also deposed that from amongst the killed persons Majid Dar was an army `Cat' and other two were civilians. Two civilians had joined the company of Majid Dar 2-3 days before occurrence. He also deposed that Majid Dar was a Pak trained militant and on his return he joined the army and worked for them. It is also deposed that Majid Dar escaped from the army camp and joined the militants. He further stated that Gh. Mohammad Thanthroo was also militant and joined army. He also escaped from army Camp and thereafter he was brutally killed. Rumor was that he was killed by army as he had escaped from Army Camp. He also stated that Majid Dar's case can also be same. The witness further deposed that he does not know how much bullets are in a rifle. He also did not know the names of the rifles. He has not used the wireless. The police had seized five magazines which were black in colour. 9. Due to paucity of time the cross examination of the said witness was deferred. 10. The prosecution witness Satar Khatana in his statement has stated before the trial court that on the day of occurrence he was in his house. It was noon time. His brother, Maqbool Khatana, was also in the house. By profession they are carpet weavers. He has also deposed that he has not worked either with militants or with Military. The deceased Majid Dar who was an Army `Cat' called deceased Maqbool Khatana who went to meet him and thereafter did not return. Mushtaq Khatana had also accompanied him. After two days he learned that the appellant accused was also in the company of Mushtaq Dar and Majid Dar. The police showed the dead body of Maqbool Khatana to him. Before this he had informed the police that his brother has disappeared. The deceased brother was killed at kokarbagh. Two other persons Majid Dar and Mushtaq Dar were also with the deceased. All these dead bodies were in the house of Sulla Khokhar. The dead body of his brother Maqbool Khatana, who was killed by the accused-appellant, was lying in the kitchen of Sulla Khokar. The appellant accused also was a carpet weaver and used to visit the house of the witness. All these dead bodies were in the house of Sulla Khokhar. The dead body of his brother Maqbool Khatana, who was killed by the accused-appellant, was lying in the kitchen of Sulla Khokar. The appellant accused also was a carpet weaver and used to visit the house of the witness. Besides this what other work was accused/appellant doing was not known to him. The appellant was having association with deceased Majid Dar, who was a surrendered militant. The dead body of his brother was handed over to him by the police. The wearing apparel of the deceased were seized. The seizure memos were prepared which bear his thumb impression, which is already marked as EXPW 1-III. The seized material is same which has been shown to him in the court. The receipt in respect of dead body was also prepared on which he also affixed his thumb impression. The contents thereof were found to be true and correct. It was marked as EXPW 5/1. 11. In cross examination the said witness has stated that he has not seen the killing of deceased himself. The accused appellant was visiting his house. He would be treated with tea. Sula Khokar's family comprises of two sons, mother, his wife and daughter- in- law. All are major. Sula Khokhar's house is on one side bounded by house of Raj Mohammad Khatana. Mahinar Forest is at a distance of about 1 km from the house of Sulla Khokhar. He first time saw body of his brother in the house of Sulla Khokar which is one storied house. Majid Dar deceased was resident of Soganyar which is at a distance of 1 km from Kokarbagh. 12. Prosecution witness, Mohammad Ashraf Khokhar in his statement before the trial Court has deposed that he knew the appellant/accused. On the day of occurrence he was at his house. In the evening at about 8.30 PM four people viz appellant/accused, Maqbool Khatana, Mushtaq Dar and Majid Dar came and entered into his house. They asked for tea. The tea was not served to them. The said persons were having AK 47 Rifle. At about 11.30 PM in the night firing started which resulted in death of Majid Dar, Maqbool Khatana and Mushtaq Dar. Accused/appellant fled through firing and was saved. They asked for tea. The tea was not served to them. The said persons were having AK 47 Rifle. At about 11.30 PM in the night firing started which resulted in death of Majid Dar, Maqbool Khatana and Mushtaq Dar. Accused/appellant fled through firing and was saved. The father of the witness was also sleeping in the same room who stated that the accused/appellant had killed the deceased persons by opening fire on them. The witness was also sleeping in the same house and he had heard the sound of firing of bullets. The witness further deposed that he removed his father from the room and offered him water. The dead bodies were on spot. The brother of witness went to Numberdar and thereafter to police. In the morning police came on spot. The police seized a thrower, 11 fired cartridges and five live bullets on spot. The accused/appellant was arrested from the forest. The police had not seized any rifle in his presence. The said witness had identified the ammunition in the police station. The rifle which was shown to the witness in the court was said to be same which he had seen with the persons who had entered into his house. Second time the rifle was seen in Police Station and thereafter in the Court. The contents of the identification memo dated 12.10.2002 which is part of the trial court record, were read over to the witness which he admitted to be true and correct and also identified his thumb impression on it. The said document was marked as EXPW 2/1. 13. On cross examination the witness stated that he has not seen the thrower and he has no knowledge about it. He had not marked the seized gun. The gun was first time seen by him at his home in possession of the appellant-accused and thereafter it was seen at Police Station. The police wrote on a paper and the witness was made to sign the same. The father of the witness was sleeping in the same room where the militants were sleeping. He was ailing from six months. He was not in a position to move. The witness further stated that he cannot give the dimension of the room. The witness further stated that bedding was provided to the militants which they lifted themselves. The witness was present at that point of time. He was ailing from six months. He was not in a position to move. The witness further stated that he cannot give the dimension of the room. The witness further stated that bedding was provided to the militants which they lifted themselves. The witness was present at that point of time. They lifted two mattresses and two quilts. How many pillows were taken by them the witness did not remember that. They were staying in the first storey of the house. The room in which they stayed has three windows and one door. At the time of firing neighbors did not come to their house. In the morning Numberdar, Police and Army came on the spot. There were many army cats in the area. He further deposed that he know the names of the persons who had entered in his house alongwith accused. 14. PW Mehda Dar in his statement recorded on 17.02.2004 deposed before the trial court that about two years back when the occurrence took place, a fight took place between Majid Dar, Hamid Dar and accused. Majid Dar was his nephew and Hamid Dar was also in his relation. Majid Dar and Hamid Dar went to army. These two persons had some feud. The army summoned them individually. They threatened Majid Dar who fled from the army. The army authorities thereafter went for search of Majid Dar but he could not be found. They asked the respectable persons of the village to ask the Majid Dar to report at the army camp. Majid Dar did not report in the army camp. Son of the witness Mushtaq Dar started searching Majid Dar. He went to search him in the forest and did not return. Thereafter Majid Dar, Mushtaq Dar and Maqbool Khatana were killed. People were saying that they were killed by the accused. The witness identified the wearing apparel in the Court which had been seized by the police. He identified his thumb impression on seizure memo. It was marked as EXPW 1/5. The contents of the seizure memo were also found to be true and correct. Thereafter the police showed rifle to the witness which before the occurrence he had seen in the possession of the accused. The rifle was shown to him in the open court which he said was same which he had seen earlier. 15. The contents of the seizure memo were also found to be true and correct. Thereafter the police showed rifle to the witness which before the occurrence he had seen in the possession of the accused. The rifle was shown to him in the open court which he said was same which he had seen earlier. 15. In cross examination the witness deposed that he had seen the dead body of Mushtaq Dar in the courtyard of Sulla Khokar. He does not know the name of the seized gun. In the Police Station there were many guns. On the gun there were some marks and it is for this reason that he identified it. The witness deposed that gun was not seized in his presence. He has also deposed that he was not working with army. He signed two papers in Police Station, whereas, he was shown only one paper in the court. He also denied the suggestion that the police had already written the documents. He also stated that his son Mushtaq Dar was not having any gun. He further deposed that he knew Gulla Thanthar, who killed him he does not know. Sulla Khokhar was Brother-in-law of Gulla Thanthar. Sulla Khokhar and his wife have told him that the accused has killed the deceased. 16. PW, Sulla Khokhar in his statement recorded on 16th July 2004 by the trial court, in the examination-in-chief, deposed that two years before, one evening when he was sleeping in his home, as he was ill, the appellant and three other persons came to his house. The appellant was armed with gun. The other persons had no ammunition with them. During the night the appellant fired from the gun which resulted in the death of three persons. These persons were residents of Sogin village. The appellant fled from the spot. Next day police came on spot. Statement of the witness was record by the police. The appellant and other persons had come to the house of the witness at 9 pm. 17. In cross examination the witness stated that Gulla Thanthroo is known to him. He was his brother in law (looser). The witness also admitted that Gulla Thanthroo was a militant and then became Army Cat and thereafter he was killed by the army. The appellant and other persons had come to the house of the witness at 9 pm. 17. In cross examination the witness stated that Gulla Thanthroo is known to him. He was his brother in law (looser). The witness also admitted that Gulla Thanthroo was a militant and then became Army Cat and thereafter he was killed by the army. The witness also deposed before the trial court that his family comprises of his wife and two major sons named Ashraf and Yousuf. He has further stated that when accused and other persons came to his house at that time they had not slept. He has one storied house. The house has only one door for entry but there are many windows in the rooms. The appellant and other persons slept in the same room where he was sleeping. The appellant did not take meals. Bullets were fired in this very room. The walls of the room bear the marks of the bullets. The witness also deposed that he has not seen the appellant firing. PW, Mst. Saida. Her statement was record on 4th September, 2004 by the trial court. In her examination-in-chief she has stated that she knew the appellant. She also stated that about two years back, four persons, Majid Dar, Mushtaq Dar, Maqbnool Khatana and Gh. Mohammad Bhat, accused entered into their house. The witness requested these persons to leave the house but her request fell on deaf ears and they slept in the house of the witness. After one hour sound of fire was heard from the room they were sleeping. Due to firing three persons died. Appellant was alive. Firing took place in the house and not from outside. No outsider opened the fire. On coming to the first storey, the appellant was not found there. She has also deposed that the gunmen had opened fire on each other. When she entered into the room she did not found anybody firing, neither anyone was holding gun in his hands. No one from the family members of the witness suffered due to firing. The husband of the witness was sleeping in the same room. He was ill. He did not sustain any injury. However, his bedding had marks of bullets. The deceased Majid Dar was working with the army. The other persons were not working with Army. 18. No one from the family members of the witness suffered due to firing. The husband of the witness was sleeping in the same room. He was ill. He did not sustain any injury. However, his bedding had marks of bullets. The deceased Majid Dar was working with the army. The other persons were not working with Army. 18. In cross examination the witness has deposed that Gulla Thanthroo was her brother. He was working with army and was killed by the army. She further deposed that firing took place in only one room. Police took the bedding which was blood stained. In other beddings were lying dead bodies which were also taken by the police to the Police Station. Who opened the fire the witness did not know that. The family of the witness comprises of eight persons. The marks of bullets were visible on one of the walls of the room. Police recovered the bullets. 19. Abdul Rashid Dar. The statement of this witness was recorded by the trial court on 20.09.2004. In his examination-in-chief, the witness has deposed before the trial court that deceased Majid Dar was his brother. He was employed by one person of village Zanigam and was working as shepherd. The deceased Majid Dar in the company of his employer would stay at Tosa Maidan for three months for grazing the cattle there. One day the employer of deceased Majid Dar came to his house and told him that Majid Dar returned about five days before. He was informed that Majid Dar had not come to home. The witness thereafter reported the matter to the police. The deceased Majid Dar came back after one year from Pakistan. One month after his return he surrendered before the army and started working as Source with army. Thereafter he deserted army. He had one gun and thrower of the army with him. On the day of occurrence deceased Majid Dar in the company of appellant and two other persons came to his home. They did not take meals there. The appellant told the witness as to whether he has to say anything to his brother. The appellant also told to the witness that his brother would not now come back and whatever he has to tell him he could tell him and thereafter the accused went away from the spot. They did not take meals there. The appellant told the witness as to whether he has to say anything to his brother. The appellant also told to the witness that his brother would not now come back and whatever he has to tell him he could tell him and thereafter the accused went away from the spot. Next day one Bashir Ahmad Bhat of Kokerbagh came to his house and told him that in the house of Sulla Khokhar three persons have been killed. Witness further deposed that Majid Dar and Mushtaq Dar were lying dead in one bed and dead body of third person was lying in kitchen. Thereafter police and army came on spot and they removed the dead bodies. The dead bodies were taken to Beerwah Hospital. The witness identified the dead bodies. Some documents were prepared by the police which were signed by the witness. The memo in respect of the dead bodies was signed by the witness which he found true and correct. It was marked as EXPW 4/I. Then memo in respect of identification of rifle was also read over to the witness who found the same to be true and correct and also identified his thumb impression on it. Same has been marked as EXPW 4/II. 20. In cross examination the witness deposed that he had not gone to Pakistan for any training. He has not even used the gun. Since the brother of the witness was saying thrower so he learned from him. Similarly the deceased brother of the witness was saying rifle and he learned from him what is rifle. He has no knowledge about other weapons. Sogin and Kokerbagh are away from each other by distance of about 1.5 Km. Sulla Khokhar and his other family members are known to the witness. Gulla Thanthroo was also known to him. He was brother- in- law(looser) of Sulla Khokhar. Gul Thanthroo was a militant. The witness further deposed that he did not know whether Gulla Thanthroo was killed by the army. He had also heard that Gulla Thanthroo was also working with the Army. The accused and deceased were often seen together. Another person who was with the accused was cousin of the witness and was a civilian. Besides Majid Dar two more persons died. They were army Cat. He had also heard that Gulla Thanthroo was also working with the Army. The accused and deceased were often seen together. Another person who was with the accused was cousin of the witness and was a civilian. Besides Majid Dar two more persons died. They were army Cat. The dead body of Maqbool Khatana was lying in the kitchen and dead bodies of two persons were lying in the room. He had signed EXPW 4/I and EXPW 4/II in Police Station Beerwah but thereafter he said in Police Station Khag. He further deposed that deceased Majid Dar was working with army as Source for one year. He never knew that after returning from Pakistan for how much time the deceased Majid Dar worked with militants. The weapon which the deceased brought from Pakistan was given by him to the army. However, the weapon was not given to army in presence of the witness. After surrender the deceased Majid Dar would often come to his home. He would come in night hours. He would not stay for night in the house. 21. PW, Abdul Hamid Zargar, Naib Tehsildar. His statement was recorded by the trial court on 19th March 2005. The witness in examination-in-chief has deposed that on 9th October, 2002 he was posed at Khag. Police brought before him some blood soaked clothing and finger impressions. The witness in the capacity of Executive Magistrate affixed his seal and these items were thereafter send to FSL department. 22. In cross examination the witness has stated that the items which the police seized, what happened to them, is not known to him. The items on which he affixed the seal, where from police brought them, is not known to him. The finger prints were not taken in his presence. The seal which was affixed by him was not seen by him in the court. 23. Atta Mohammad Khatana -- The statement of this witness was recorded on 2nd December, 2004. In his examination-in-chief, this witness has deposed that at the instance of the accused the police recovered the shoe. Seizure memo was prepared which bears his thumb impression. The contents of the memo were read over to him which he found true and correct. It was marked as EXPW 11/1. 24. In cross examination the witness has deposed that he has not seen the seized shoe in the court. Seizure memo was prepared which bears his thumb impression. The contents of the memo were read over to him which he found true and correct. It was marked as EXPW 11/1. 24. In cross examination the witness has deposed that he has not seen the seized shoe in the court. Chowkidar and Numberdar also signed EXPW 11/1. The accused's shoe was a `fleet' and was made of cloth. The document which is marked as exhibit 11/1 is seizure memo of same which was prepared by the police on which he put his thumb impression. 25. Statement of PW, Dr.Abdul Rashid Lone was recorded by the trial court on 19th March, 2005. In his examination-in- chief, the witness deposed that on 9th October, 2002 he was posted as Medical Officer, Sub District Hospital, Beerwah. The dead body of the deceased Majid Dar was brought to hospital at 9.30 am by Head Constable Mohammad Shaban. The certificate in respect of deceased Abdul Majid Dar which is on the file is in his hand writing and bears his signatures. The witness deposed that certificate is correct which was marked as EXPW M-1. The another certificate was issued by him on 09.10.2002. The said certificate was also on record and was in his hand writing and was signed by him. The said certificate pertained to deceased Mushtaq Ahmad Dar. The contents of the said certificate were stated to be correct which was marked as EXPW M-2. The third certificate pertaining to Maqbool Khatana was also in his handwriting and signed by him. The contents thereof were stated to be correct. It was marked as EXPW M-3. The fourth certificate is in respect of the post mortem report of all the deceased persons. The said certificate has been written by the witness and signed by him and contents thereof were stated to be correct. 26. The Doctor has opined that as per the post mortem findings cause of death is cardio respiratory arrest due to hemorrhaging shock secondary to bullet injuries. 27. In cross examination the witness deposed that the post mortem report of the deceased was not shown to him in the Court. He was not personally knowing the deceased persons. He did not also conduct inquiry about the deceased persons. He conducted the autopsy. He did not mention duration of death in all three certificates. 28. 27. In cross examination the witness deposed that the post mortem report of the deceased was not shown to him in the Court. He was not personally knowing the deceased persons. He did not also conduct inquiry about the deceased persons. He conducted the autopsy. He did not mention duration of death in all three certificates. 28. The statement of Asif Iqbal was recorded by the trial court on 12.07.2008. In examination-in-chief, the said witness deposed that in October, 2002 he was posted as SHO Police Station Khag. On 9th October, 2002 case FIR No. 60 under Section 302 RPC and 7/27 Indian Arms Act was registered. The FIR bears his signatures. The contents of the FIR were stated to be true and correct. It was marked as EXPW-18. The dead bodies were recovered from the scene of occurrence. He was accompanied by some employees. Photographer was also with him. The offence was committed in the house of Sultan Khokar at Kokerbagh. At the scene of occurrence the witness found that in the front room blood drenched dead bodies of Abdul Mjid Dar and Mushtaq Ahmad Dar were lying, whereas, in the kitchen was lying the blood drenched body of Mohammad Maqbool Khatana. The area was photographed by the photographer. Spot inspection was conducted. Near the door of front room 11 cartridges which were apparently of AK 47 Rifle were seen and 5 bullets were also found on the floor. All the three dead bodies were blood soaked. UBGL Grenades were also lying in the room. The dead bodies were got identified on spot. The used cartridges and UBGL Grenades were separately seized. Ring was obtained from Abdul Rashid Dar, Numberdar which was used as seal. Site plan was prepared which bears his signatures. The witness deposed that the same was correct. It was marked as EXPW 18/1. The contents of the seizure memo in respect of 5 bullets were also said to be correct and was marked as EXPW-1. The said document was also prepared by the said witness. The ring which was given to the Naib Tehsildar was seized and seizure memo was prepared by him under his signatures. The contents thereof were said to be correct. It was marked as EXPW-2. The seizure memo EXPW 1/1 in respect of empty cartridges was prepared and signed by him. The contents thereof were said to true and correct. The ring which was given to the Naib Tehsildar was seized and seizure memo was prepared by him under his signatures. The contents thereof were said to be correct. It was marked as EXPW-2. The seizure memo EXPW 1/1 in respect of empty cartridges was prepared and signed by him. The contents thereof were said to true and correct. The seizure memo was marked as EXPW1/II. Seizure memo in respect of UBGL Grenade thrower was also prepared by the said witness. The contents thereof were said to be true and correct. The wearing apparel of the three deceased persons were seized from the spot. The seizure memo was prepared by him which was marked as EXPW 1/III, I/4 and 1/5. A card issued by 34 RR was also recovered from the wearing apparel of deceased Abdul Majid Dar which was seized. It was marked as EXPW 1/6. The contents thereof were said to be true and correct and it is also signed by the witness. The contents of the seizure memo in respect of taking into possession of dead bodies were already exhibited as EXPW 1/7, EXPW 1/8 and EXPW 1/9 and contents thereof were said to be true and correct. The autopsy was conducted on the dead bodies by the BMO Beerwah. Request for conducting autopsy was made by the witness in writing which bears his signature. It was marked as EXPW 18/2. The injury memos in respect of the deceased at the time of taking into possession of the dead bodies were also prepared. The contents of the said seizure memo were stated to be true and correct and were respectively marked as EXPW 18/3, 18/4 and 18/5. The forms indicating the injury sustained by the deceased was also seen by him in the court. The contents of the same were said to be true and correct. In column No. 20 opinion of the Doctor in respect of death of the deceased stands recorded. The said forms were respectively marked as EXPW 18/6, EXPW 18/7 and EXPW 18/8. The witness has further deposed that after conducting of postmortem the dead bodies were handed over to the legal representatives. The witness has further deposed that on the basis of the investigation conducted, it is proved that the appellant has committed the offence. Search of the appellant was conducted. The witness has further deposed that after conducting of postmortem the dead bodies were handed over to the legal representatives. The witness has further deposed that on the basis of the investigation conducted, it is proved that the appellant has committed the offence. Search of the appellant was conducted. On 12.10.2002 information was received that one unknown person with weapons is moving in the forests of Sozgun. On receiving this information the police personnel of Khag and army personnels of 34 RR Camp laid ambush in the forest. One person armed with fire arm was coming out of the forest. After seeing the police and army he tried to run away but was caught and one AK 47 Rifle and some other weapons were recovered from him. A docket was prepared by him on spot on the basis of which the case was registered with Police Station Khag. The armed person was identified as Ghulam Mohammad Bhat S/o Noor Mohammad Bhat R/o Kokerbagh (appellant). Memo of identification was prepared and it was marked as EXPW 2/1. It was prepared by the witness and was signed by him. The contents thereof were found to be true and correct. The weapons which were recovered were also seized. The statements of witnesses were recorded in case FIR 61 of 2002 which was registered against the appellant for being in possession of illegal weapons. He was arrested. Since the appellant was required in FIR 60 of 2002 also, therefore, an application was filed before the Court of competent jurisdiction for change of custody from FIR No. 61 of 2002 to FIR No. 60 of 2002. During the investigation of the case the appellant confessed that on the date of occurrence the shoe which the appellant was wearing and had blood stains on it was hidden by him under a hedge in the orchard, which the appellant stated he can show it to the police personnel. The contents of the disclosure were recorded which was marked as EXPW 18/9. Thereafter at the instance of the appellant in the village itself from the land of Ali Mohammad from under a hedge one pair of shoe (ARNOR) was recovered in presence of the witness. The recovery memo was prepared. It bears his signatures and also contents thereof were accepted to be true and correct by the witness. The said document was marked as EXPW 11/1. The recovery memo was prepared. It bears his signatures and also contents thereof were accepted to be true and correct by the witness. The said document was marked as EXPW 11/1. The site plan of the place from where shoe was recovered was also prepared which was signed by the witness and is marked as EXPW 18/10. The seized items viz. 11 cartridges, 5 bullets, blood soaked wearing apparel of the deceased and the rifle seized from the possession of the accused and the blood stained shoes recovered at the instance of the accused were send to the FSL for obtaining their opinion. After conclusion of the investigation, the accused was send up for trial. The witness also identified the seized items viz. rifle, grenade thrower, cartridges and bullets in the court which were marked as under: Rifle as A, Grenade as B, Cartridges as C and Bullets as D. 29. In cross examination the witness deposed that he has conducted the investigation of one murder case only. He has undergone training in Udhampur. He has read the Cr.PC. Initially he stated that for recording disclosure statement application has to be presented before the Magistrate, thereafter he said that this is not required to be done. The witness also deposed that during the investigation the accused is being interrogated. The disclosure statement when made is being recorded. The witness stated that he does not know under which provision of law the disclosure statement was made but then stated that it is Section 25 of Evidence Act. Witness also stated that in his understanding it is not necessary to report to the Magistrate during this period. Witness also stated that "disclosure" is confession. Question was put to witness that for recording disclosure statement is it necessary to approach the Magistrate. The witness answered the question in negative. From amongst the killed persons one Abdul Majid Dar was working with army as their Source. He was having weapon also. One AK 47 Rifle was issued to him by the army. The weapon was without license. Since the army had issued the weapon so it cannot be said that it was illegal. The witness further stated that he did not know under which provisions of Arms Act the weapon which was given to the deceased Ab. Majid Dar can be said to be legal. The weapon was without license. Since the army had issued the weapon so it cannot be said that it was illegal. The witness further stated that he did not know under which provisions of Arms Act the weapon which was given to the deceased Ab. Majid Dar can be said to be legal. Police was knowing that the said person was roaming in the area with the weapon. Police never tried to arrest him. Police knew that army has issued him weapon and could misuse the same. Despite that no action was taken against him. He had no status in the army. The witness further stated that he did not know whether he was part of the army. The deceased was found roaming in civil robes. During the operations he would wear the army uniform. The witness further stated that he has never worked with SOG. Expression "SPO" would mean Special Police Officer. They are being trained in DPL and weapons are also issued to them from the DPL. On the day of occurrence 11 cartridges, 5 used bullets, one UBGL were seized. No other weapon was seized on that date. The weapon of Abdul Majid Dar was used by the accused for killing him and thereafter he fled with the weapon. The deceased imparted training of using the weapon to the accused. The accused was not part of that group which worked with the army. The accused was friend and neighbor of deceased Ab. Mjid Dar. The witness has further deposed that accused told him that he had taken away the weapon of Majid Dar because he wanted to loot the people. Since the deceased Majid Dar did not permit him to loot the people that is why he killed him and took away the weapon. The witness also deposed that report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C was prepared by him. The witness also deposed that the motive of committing crime is also correct. After perusing the case diaries, the witness deposed that he had not recorded anything about it in the said diary. The witness also stated that intention of the accused was to obtain the weapon and indulge in extortion in the area. 30. Statement of prosecution witness Ab. Rashid Dar was recorded on 15.03.2008. In his examination-in-chief he has stated that accused was arrested in his presence. 5 to 8 days after the commission of offence. The witness also stated that intention of the accused was to obtain the weapon and indulge in extortion in the area. 30. Statement of prosecution witness Ab. Rashid Dar was recorded on 15.03.2008. In his examination-in-chief he has stated that accused was arrested in his presence. 5 to 8 days after the commission of offence. The accused was brought to the Police Station by one civilian Satar Khatana. The accused was not having any weapon at that time with him. Thereafter the witness heard that the accused has handed over the weapon to the police. The weapon was recovered at the instance of accused from the forests. Document was prepared which is marked as Mark-A. 31. In cross examination the witness stated that the deceased's weapon was not shown to him in the court and the gun was not used in his presence. 32. The statement of Fayaz Ahmad, Constable was recorded on 15.03.2008. In his examination-in-chief, he has stated that in October, 2002 he was posted at Police Station Khag. One morning the police personnel including the SHO and personnel of 34RR reached Kokerbagh. At about 1 or 2 p.m. one person came. He was having illegal weapon. He tried to flee from the spot. He was asked to surrender. The witness further deposed that the accused who is present in the Court was possessing AK 47 Rifle, 4 Magzines, Pouch and one Wireless set. These items were seized by the police and the accused was arrested. The seized articles were identified by him in the court. 33. In cross examination the witness deposed that the accused fled from the spot but police personnel did not open fire on him. The accused thereafter of his own came to police. The witness further deposed that he could not identify the rifle. The witness denied suggestion that the accused was already in the custody of the police. 34. The statement of the accused under Section 342 Cr.P.C was recorded. The accused examined two witnesses in defence. 35. Statement of Abdul Satar Bhat was recorded on 22.06.2009. In his statement the witness has deposed that accused is his neighbor. He did not belong to any organization. He is a carpet weaver. At the time of his arrest he was minor. The deceased Majid Dar and his companions were Ikhwanies. They were working at the instance of army and were looting the people. In his statement the witness has deposed that accused is his neighbor. He did not belong to any organization. He is a carpet weaver. At the time of his arrest he was minor. The deceased Majid Dar and his companions were Ikhwanies. They were working at the instance of army and were looting the people. They had weapons provided to them by the army. It is for this reason that they would kill the people. The deceased and his companions were living in the house of Sulla Khokhar. Gulla Thanthroo, brother in law of Sulla Khokhar was working as a Source of army. He had unleashed terror. He was killed by the army. Majid and his companions at the gun point kidnapped the accused from his house. We had apprehension that he will be killed but he came back during the night time. He was staying in the house and thereafter police arrested him for interrogation. The other defence witness, Bashir Ahmad Bhat also deposed on the same lines. 36. In his statement recorded under Section 342 Cr.P.C, the accused has stated that by profession he is a carpet weaver. He went to the house of Mst. Saida for seeing work of carpet weaving. He further stated that he did not know from where deceased persons had come to the house of Mst. Saida. 37. Mr. M.A.Qayoom, learned counsel for the appellant extensively made reference to the evidence and other material available on record. Learned counsel in his submissions stated that there are glaring infirmities and inconsistencies in the statements of prosecution witnesses. Learned counsel specifically invited attention of the Court to the statement of Sulla Khokhar, who at the time of conclusion of his cross examination, has stated that he had not seen the accused firing upon deceased. Learned counsel also referred to the statement of Mst. Saida w/o Sulla Khokhar and submitted that she has deposed before the trial court that in the firing three persons were killed and the accused somehow was saved. Learned counsel also referred to the seizure memo of the weapon of assault and submitted that though case FIR No. 61 of 2002 was registered but in the seizure memo of the weapon of assault (AK 47 Rifle) FIR No. 60 of 2002 is mentioned. Learned counsel submitted that this is not the case of direct evidence but is the case of circumstantial evidence. Learned counsel submitted that this is not the case of direct evidence but is the case of circumstantial evidence. Learned counsel also submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove all the necessary circumstances so as to bring home guilt to the accused. Learned counsel submitted that appellant is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the case. Learned counsel submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt beyond all reasonable doubts against the appellant. Learned counsel also referred to the evidence of Abdul Rashid Dar to show that the weapon of assault was not seized from the place as projected by the prosecution in their case. Learned counsel also referred to case titled Majenderan Langeswaran (Appellant) v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another (Respondents) reported in (2013) 7 Supreme Court Cases 192 and submitted that prosecution having miserably failed to prove guilt against the accused, the appeal be allowed and appellant acquitted of the charges. 38. Mr. S.A. Vakil, learned AAG submitted that the appellant has committed a heinous offence by killing three persons. Learned counsel submitted that the prosecution has successfully proved the guilt against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubts. Learned counsel, while referring to the evidence on record, submitted that the prosecution by leading the evidence, some of whom are eye witnesses of the occurrence, has proved the guilt against the appellant. Learned counsel submitted that the learned trial Judge has considered all aspects of the prosecution case in its right perspective and after proper evaluation of the evidence has recorded conviction against the appellant and has rightly sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment. Learned counsel submitted that some minor inconsistencies and infirmities in the prosecution evidence, can in no circumstances, result in acquittal of the appellant. Learned counsel, accordingly, prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 39. On the evaluation and appreciation of the evidence and material on record, the following facts stand proved beyond all reasonable doubt: a) On 8th October, 2002, appellant who was armed with AK 47 Rifle, entered into the house of Sulla Khokhar S/o Rehman Khokhar R/o Kokerbagh. He was accompanied by Abdul Majid Dar S/o Lasa Dar, Mushtaq Ahmad Dar S/o Mehda Dar and Mohammad Maqbool Khatana S/o Gulla Khatana. These three persons were not armed with any firearm or weapon. This fact is proved by the evidence of Sulla Khokhar, Ashraf Khokhar. He was accompanied by Abdul Majid Dar S/o Lasa Dar, Mushtaq Ahmad Dar S/o Mehda Dar and Mohammad Maqbool Khatana S/o Gulla Khatana. These three persons were not armed with any firearm or weapon. This fact is proved by the evidence of Sulla Khokhar, Ashraf Khokhar. b) All the four persons stayed in the house of Sulla Khokhar. The appellant slept near the door and kept the door open. The rifle was kept by him under his pillow. c) PW Sulla Khokhar in his deposition before the trial court, in his examination-in-chief, has in unequivocal terms stated that during the night the appellant fired from the gun which resulted in the death of three persons. The said witness, however, at the end of his cross examination has stated that he has not seen the appellant firing. The cross examination has been abruptly closed at that point of time. Both public prosecutor and trial court have failed to re-examine the said witness, as in his examination-in-chief, he was lucid and clear in his statement, when he stated that appellant fired from the gun which resulted in death of other three persons. d) Mst. Sadida in her statement has confirmed that firing took place in her house and three persons died. She has further stated that firing took place in the house and no outsider opened the fire. She has stated that deceased was working with army. e) The witnesses, whose depositions have been delineated in this judgment, have proved that dead bodies of Abdul Majid Dar and Mushtaq Ahmad Dar were lying in room and that of Mohammad Maqbool Khatana was lying in the kitchen. f) It has also been proved by the witness that the appellant fled from the spot alongwith AK 47 Rifle. It is proved by the witness that 11 cartridges, 5 bullets, UGB Thrower, bullet ridden beddings and blood drenched bodies of the deceased were recovered and seized on the spot by the police. It is also proved that the appellant was arrested in the Sozgun forest and weapon of assault viz. AK 47 Rifle and other ammunition was recovered and seized from him. Blood stained shoe, which the appellant was wearing at the time of commission of offence and it was stained with blood, was recovered at his instance and in pursuance of the disclosure statement made by him. AK 47 Rifle and other ammunition was recovered and seized from him. Blood stained shoe, which the appellant was wearing at the time of commission of offence and it was stained with blood, was recovered at his instance and in pursuance of the disclosure statement made by him. g) The blood stained articles, including the shoes of the appellant and wearing apparel of the deceased, were send to FSL for obtaining the expert opinion. h) The FSL opinion has proved that there was human blood on the wearing apparel and shoes of the appellant. The blood group of the blood in respect of deceased Abdul Majid Dar and Mushtaq Ahmad Dar and the blood found on the shoe of the appellant was found blood group `A' and of third packet which pertained to the blood soaked clothes of the deceased Maqbool Khatana was having blood group `O'. The very fact that the shoe of the appellant and wearing apparel of the deceased Abdul Majid Dar and Mushtaq Ahmad Dar were having blood group `A', does prove that the appellant and deceased were in the same room and in the room blood oozed from the body of the two deceased persons touched the shoe of the appellant. Maqbool Khatana was fired upon by the appellant when he was fleeing away from the said room and died at the door of kitchen because of the firing of the appellant, so had not blood stains of the said deceased person. i) It is proved that the blood stained shoe was recovered in pursuance to the disclosure statement made by the appellant and at his instance. j) The FSL experts have certified in the report that AK 47 Rifle had been fired through and was found in normal working condition. Eleven fired cartridges had been fired through the same AK 47 Rifle. The jacketed fired bullets have been fired through the same AK 47 Rifle. k) The appellant in his statement recorded under Section 342 Cr.P.C has himself admitted that he was in the house of Mst. Saida W/o Sulla Khokhar, viz. the house in which three persons were killed. Eleven fired cartridges had been fired through the same AK 47 Rifle. The jacketed fired bullets have been fired through the same AK 47 Rifle. k) The appellant in his statement recorded under Section 342 Cr.P.C has himself admitted that he was in the house of Mst. Saida W/o Sulla Khokhar, viz. the house in which three persons were killed. l) AK 47 Rifle, which was seized from the possession of the appellant, was identified to be same by the witnesses which was seen in his possession at the time he in the company of three deceased persons entered into the house of Sulla Khokhar. m) The Doctor has certified that all the three persons died because of the cardio respiratory arrest due to hemorrhaging shock secondary to bullet injuries. n) Two defence witnesses have stated that on the fateful day the appellant was abducted by the three deceased persons, but he succeeded in escaping from their clutches and returned home during the night hours, thus, it is proved by defence evidence also that appellant and deceased were together on the fateful day. The appellant has admitted in his statement recorded under Section 342 Cr.P.C that he had gone to residence of Saida (wife of Sulla Khokhar) on the fateful day. 40. These proved facts and circumstances do lead to the only conclusion that it is the appellant who has killed three persons. Certainly some minor inconsistencies and infirmities have cropped up in the statements of prosecution witnesses. In the human conduct it is natural and normal that some minor inconsistencies and infirmities crop up in the statements of the witnesses. This shows that the witnesses were impartial and made true statements in a natural way before the trial court. The parrot like depositions if would have been made by the prosecution witnesses would have certainly cast shadow on their evidence. The minor inconsistencies and infirmities in the statements of prosecution witnesses cannot become basis for throwing out otherwise proved case. 41. In the judgment cited at bar the facts were not similar as that of the case on hand. One of the major differences between the two cases is that in Majenderan's case (supra) neither medical nor forensic opinion was sought as to whether wounds on deceased or cuts on clothing worn by the deceased at the time of incident could have been caused by murder weapon alone. One of the major differences between the two cases is that in Majenderan's case (supra) neither medical nor forensic opinion was sought as to whether wounds on deceased or cuts on clothing worn by the deceased at the time of incident could have been caused by murder weapon alone. Even the witnesses, in whose presence it was stated that extra judicial confession was made, were not examined. The false implication was not ruled out as there was animosity between the ship officers and the accused. 42. The criminal justice system forms the foundation on which the edifice of an orderly society rests. When it is proved beyond all shadows of doubt that a person has committed offence, then it is the duty of the Court to convict and impose appropriate sentence on such person. Peace and order in the society largely depends upon the punishment inflicted on the offenders. A society grows and develops, both on moral and material fronts, only, when proved crime is dealt with by awarding adequate punishment. 43. We, for our above stated reasons hold that the prosecution has proved the commission of offence by the appellant beyond all shadows of doubt. The trial court has not committed any illegality while passing the impugned judgment. We, accordingly, while upholding the orders, dismiss the appeal.