Anil Kumar Sharma, J. Challenge in these appeals is to the judgment and order dated 11.07.2003 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast track Court No.4, Kanpur Dehat in S.T. No. 559 of 2001 and 45 of 2002, whereby the appellants have been found guilty for the offence punishable under section 302 and 307 IPC and have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 6,000/- under section 302 IPC and 10 years' R.I. and fine of Rs. 3,000/- under section 307 IPC with default stipulation. Since both these appeals arise out of common judgment of trial court, therefore, they have been heard together and are being decided by this judgment. 2. Facts germane to these appeals are that on 11.06.2001 complainant Kamlesh Kumar Raidas s/o Gedan Lal Raidas, resident of village Dhaka Purva Mouja Nanamau, P.S. Bilhour, District Kanpur Nagar submitted a written report to the police stating that today he was studying in the light of a lamp out side his shop and his father Gedan Lal Raidas was sleeping on a Takhat below the Chabutara. At about 2.30 A.M. co-villagers Ajay and Nanhey armed with country-made pistol, and Moti Lal and Amar Singh having guns came there. On exhortation of Moti Lal, Ajay fired shot on the neck of his father. Amar Singh instigated to further injure him, whereupon Nanhey fired another shot on his father. In this firing the father of the complainant instantaneously died on the spot while the complainant also suffered fire-arm injuries. On his screams Bhaiya Lal s/o Murli, r/o village Gurghara and others challenged the accused persons, who threatening them to kill made their escape good towards southern side. The report further stated that complainant and the witnesses have seen and identified the assailants in the light of lamp and torches. The complainant further stated that accused Nanhey wanted to forcibly marry his niece Vitan and Ajay was supporting him but they married her at another place, so on account of this enmity accused persons have eliminated his father and has fired shot to kill him. On the basis of this report case at crime no. 184/2001, under sections 302, 307 IPC was registered against the accused-appellants, investigation whereof was entrusted to S.H.O. J. P. Mishra. The injured was interrogated by the Investigating Officer at the police station and he was sent for medical examination. On the basis of this report case at crime no. 184/2001, under sections 302, 307 IPC was registered against the accused-appellants, investigation whereof was entrusted to S.H.O. J. P. Mishra. The injured was interrogated by the Investigating Officer at the police station and he was sent for medical examination. The injuries were examined on 11.06.2001 at 6.00 A.M. by Dr. S.P. Singh in P.H.C. Bilhour and he found the following injuries on his person: 1.Abrasion on just above top of wring finger of left hand size 0.6 cm x 0.3 cm. 2.Gun shot wound in area of 35 cm x 10 cm on right side of abdomen. Number of wounds is 26 each wounds are same size 0.3 cm in dia meter x muscle deep. Blackening, scorching and tattooing are present around the wound. Fresh blood clots are present on each wound situated between lower part of right chest and upper part of right thigh. 3.Abrasion on just above of right knee joint size 2.8 cm x 1.00 cm. In the opinion of the doctor the injury no. 2 was caused by fire arm while injury nos. 1 and 3 were caused by hard and blunt object or by friction. Injury no. 2 was kept under observation and x-ray was advised. Rest were simple and duration was fresh. After X-ray examination in the supplementary report fire-arm injury was found to be grievous. 3. The Investigation Officer reached at the spot along with other police force and interrogated witnesses Shyam Bihari and Bhaiya Lal. At the instance of the complainant spot was inspected and site plan was prepared. The Investigating Officer seized two empty cartridges and one brass cartridge. He also took sample of blood stained piece of mattress and saw the lamp and torches of the witnesses through different memos prepared by him. 4. Inquest on the dead body of the deceased was conducted by S.I. Shiv Raj Singh under the direction of Investigating Officer. The dead body was sealed and sent for post mortem examination along with usual papers. Dr. Manoj Kumar conducted autopsy on the cadaver of the deceased on 12.6.2001 at 11.00 p.m. He found that the 60-years' old deceased was having average built body. His both eyes were bulging out. Mouth was open and tongue protruding out. Rigor mortis had passed from both extremities. P.M. staining was on whole of back, buttock and thighs. Dr. Manoj Kumar conducted autopsy on the cadaver of the deceased on 12.6.2001 at 11.00 p.m. He found that the 60-years' old deceased was having average built body. His both eyes were bulging out. Mouth was open and tongue protruding out. Rigor mortis had passed from both extremities. P.M. staining was on whole of back, buttock and thighs. Skin had peeled off at places and skull hairs were loose. Abdomen was distended. Following ante-mortem injuries were noted by the doctor in his autopsy notes: i) Fire arm wound of entry 1.0 cm x 1.0 cm x chest cavity deep at back of right shoulder 6 cm. Below front top of shoulder. Tattooing and charring present. Margins are inverted. ii) Fire arm wound of entry 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm x muscle deep at right side of neck and below from mandible. Margins are inverted. Charring present. iii) Multiple fire arm wound of entry in area of 6.0 cm. X 6.0 front of chest 3 cm below from sternal notch, chest cavity deep. Margins are inverted. Charring present. iv) Crush injury left hand. All fingers are partially absent except index finger. In internal examination the doctor found that the pleura, both lungs, both chambers of heart and pericardium were lacerated. 1.5 litre blood was present in chest cavity. 400 ml. Semi-digested food was found in the stomach. In the opinion of the doctor the deceased suffered death about one and half day before due to shock and haemorrhage on account of ante mortem injuries. After completing the other investigatory formalities charges against the accused appellants was submitted. 5. After committal of the case to the Court of Session charges for the offence punishable under section 302/34, 307/34 IPC were framed against accused-appellants, who abjured their guilt and claimed trial. 6. In order to prove its case prosecution examined Shyam Bihari PW-1, Kamlesh Kumar PW-2, Dr. R.B. Singh PW-3, Dr. Manoj Kumar PW-4, Dharmendra Misra PW-5, Dr. S.P. Singh PW-6 and Inspector G.P. Mishra PW-7. 7. The accused persons in their separate statements under section 313 Cr.P.C. have again denied the entire prosecution story. In defence they have examined Teetu DW-1 and Bhagwan Deen DW-2 and stated that deceased was killed and injured Kamlesh Kumar sustained injuries in an accident of dacoity but on account of enmity false report against accused-appellant had been lodged. 8. 7. The accused persons in their separate statements under section 313 Cr.P.C. have again denied the entire prosecution story. In defence they have examined Teetu DW-1 and Bhagwan Deen DW-2 and stated that deceased was killed and injured Kamlesh Kumar sustained injuries in an accident of dacoity but on account of enmity false report against accused-appellant had been lodged. 8. After hearing the parties counsel and on perusal of the evidence on record the learned trial court has convicted and sentenced the appellants as noted earlier. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned AGA for the State at length and also perused the original record of the case carefully. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued the following points before us: i) that the FIR is ante-timed; ii) that there was no motive for the accused to have killed the deceased or to cause injuries to PW-2; iii) that the independent witness examined in the case has not supported the prosecution story; iv) that PW-2 is highly interested witness, so no reliance should be placed on this testimony; v) that in fact it was a case of dacoity and the complainant has falsely implicated the accused persons by concocting the prosecution story; vi) that the manner of assault is not proved and there was no light on the spot at the time of incident; vii)that the medical evidence do not corroborate the prosecution story. Oppugnating the aforesaid arguments, the learned AGA has contended that the incident took place at about 2.30 a.m. on 11.6.2001 and its report was lodged with the police at 4.15 a.m. i.e. within two hours of the incident; that the motive as also the source of light find place in the promptly lodged report of the complainant who himself was injured in the incident; that the testimony of injured cannot be brushed aside simply because he is son of the deceased, that the appellants were rightly convicted and sentenced by the learned trial Court, so the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 11. The alleged incident took place at about 2.30 a.m. on 11.6.2001 and its written report was submitted by complainant Kamlesh Kumar PW-2 at 4.15 a.m. the same day. The distance between the village of incident and police station Bilhour as per check report Ex. Ka-5 and PW-2 is 7 Kilometres. 11. The alleged incident took place at about 2.30 a.m. on 11.6.2001 and its written report was submitted by complainant Kamlesh Kumar PW-2 at 4.15 a.m. the same day. The distance between the village of incident and police station Bilhour as per check report Ex. Ka-5 and PW-2 is 7 Kilometres. The complainant has stated that he got the report scribed by Ajay Pal and had submitted the same in police station. In cross-examination he has stated that he had gone to police station along with Ajay Pal, Ram Sagar, Amar Singh, Ram Shanker and others in Marshal jeep of Arendra Singh. They had left for the police station about half an hour of the incident and reached there in about 20 minutes. Darogaji met him at the police station, he narrated the incident to him and then he directed to submit written report. Thereafter he got the report scribed from Ajay Pal and then handed over to Dargoaji. According to this witness about ¾ or 1 hour was spent in this work. Thus, the report of the incident has been lodged promptly by the complainant to the police. It is important to note that the complainant was also injured in the incident and at 6.00 a.m. he was medically examined by Dr. S. P. Singh PW-6 at PHC, Bilhour. The injury report of the complainant has been prepared by Dr. Singh at the back of Chitthi Majroobi. The inquest upon the cadaver was conducted at 8.00 a.m. on 11.6.2001 and the complainant is also its panch witness. Registration of the case has also been testified by HC Dharmendra Kumar Misra PW-5, who has stated that on 11.6.2001 at 4.15 a.m. he prepared check report on the basis of written report of complainant Kamlesh Kumar and entered the case in the GD vide report no. 6 at 4.15 a.m. In cross-examination this witness has stated that the same day special report of the case was sent to higher officers through Constable-3131 Ganesh Tripathi. Thus, we find that there is nothing on record even to suggest that the check report was not registered at the time given therein or its ante-timed. It is trite law that prompt report of the crime particularly of murder case is of great importance as it rules out the possibilities of exaggeration or concoction after due deliberations and the false nomination of accused is also minimized. It is trite law that prompt report of the crime particularly of murder case is of great importance as it rules out the possibilities of exaggeration or concoction after due deliberations and the false nomination of accused is also minimized. 12. Learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellants has argued that there was no motive for the accused to eliminate the deceased or injure the complainant. This contention is also devoid of any force. In the written report itself the complainant has stated that accused Nanhey wanted to forcibly marry his niece Vitan, accused Ajay was helping him but they were not ready and married her at other place, so the accused bore enmity with them. The motive has been proved by PW-2 through his testimony and he has been extensively cross-examined by the defence. In cross-examination PW-2 has stated that Vitan is daughter of his real uncle Jai Ram's son Prakash and the accused were pressurising for 3-4 months for her marriage with Nanhey and scuffle took place between them. He has further stated due to fear of accused persons they performed marriage of Vitan from other place, so that the accused may not extend threat or interfere. He has fairly admitted that except enmity on the above issue there was no other enmity between them and the accused. It is not out of place of mention her that even PW-1 who has not supported the prosecution story regarding involvement of accused persons in the crime, had spoken about the terror of accused persons in the village. Learned Amicus Curiae has argued that the alleged motive is too weak for committing a heinous crime like murder. We do not agree with her contention. Motive is not a sine qua non for the commission of a crime. Moreover, it takes a back seat in a case of direct ocular account of the commission of the offence by a particular person. In a case of direct evidence the element of motive does not play such an important role as to cast any doubt on the credibility of the prosecution witnesses even if there be any doubts raised in this regard. If the eye-witnesses are trustworthy, the motive attributed for the commission of crime may not be of much relevance. In a case of direct evidence the element of motive does not play such an important role as to cast any doubt on the credibility of the prosecution witnesses even if there be any doubts raised in this regard. If the eye-witnesses are trustworthy, the motive attributed for the commission of crime may not be of much relevance. Failure to prove motive or absence of evidence on the point of motive would not be fatal to the prosecution case when the other reliable evidence available on record unerringly establishes the guilt of the accused. Nowadays murders are being committed on very trivial matters. So far as the motive and its sufficiency for a crime of this diabolical nature such as the instant case, is concerned, the Apex Court in the case of Ranganayaki v. State ( 2004) 12 SCC ( Crl.) has held as under: "The motive for doing a criminal act is generally a difficult area for the prosecution. One cannot normally see into the mind of another. The motive is the mind which impels a man to do a particular act. Such impulsion is .....need not necessarily be proportionally grave to do grave crimes. Many murder has been committed without any known or prominent motive. It is quite possible that the aforesaid imputing factor would remain undiscovered" In this connection, following observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court given in the case of Thaman Kumar v. State of Union Territory of Chandigarh 2003 ( 47) ACC 7 ( SC) are also relevant: "There is no such principle or rule of law that where the prosecution fails to prove the motive for commission of the crime, it must necessarily result in acquittal of the accused. Where the ocular evidence is found to be trustworthy and reliable and finds corroboration from the medical evidence a find of guilt can safely be recorded even if the motive for the commission of the crime has not been proved." Thus from the evidence on record we find that motive alleged by the prosecution is fully proved and considering the age of accused ( unmarried till his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded in the trial) was sufficient too for commission of the crime. 13. 13. Learned Amicus Curiae has argued that the independent witness PW-1 has not supported the prosecution and PW-2, being the son of the deceased is highly interested witness, therefore, no reliance should be place on his testimony. Opposing these arguments learned counsel for the State has submitted that PW-1 due to terror and fear of the accused persons has not supported their involvement in the crime and even from his testimony the date, time and place as also sustaining of injuries by PW-2 is amply proved. He has further contended that PW-2 is an injured witness, so his testimony assumes importance and being the son of the deceased his evidence cannot be discarded, rather in the facts and circumstances of the case, he is the most natural witness, who has supported the prosecution story on all counts. 14. On perusal of the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 we find sufficient force in the contention of the learned State counsel. It is not correct to say PW-1 is an independent witness, as he has admitted in the cross-examination conducted by the learned defence counsel that the complainant is his uncle. He has corroborated the prosecution story with regard to the date, time and place of the incident as also death of Gendan Lal and injuries caused to PW-2 by fire-arms, but has stated that he did not see any of the accused at the spot. He had been declared hostile by the State counsel and with the permission of the Court he has been cross examined on behalf of the prosecution. His statement is very important in the case and we propose to reproduce the relevant part of his testimony, which is as under: Examination-in-Chief @ Hindi @ Cross-examination by ADGC ( Crl.) @ Hindi @ 15. During cross-examination by the defence counsel nothing could be elicited which may show that his above statement about the character and terror of accused-persons is untrue. Now-a-days it is very common that the witnesses due to fear and terror of accused persons or their associates and due to lack of security at the hands of the State do not come out in Courts to tell the truth and or if they appear they fell in the net of marauders. Now-a-days it is very common that the witnesses due to fear and terror of accused persons or their associates and due to lack of security at the hands of the State do not come out in Courts to tell the truth and or if they appear they fell in the net of marauders. However, in the facts of the instant case we find that except the participation of accused-appellants in the crime, PW-1 has supported the prosecution story in all material particulars. 16. As regards testimony of PW-2, an injured witness, in catena of cases, Apex Court has observed that 'Where a witness to the occurrence has himself been injured in the incident, the testimony of such a witness is generally considered to be very reliable, as he is a witness that comes with a built-in guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and is unlikely to spare his actual assailant( s) in order to falsely implicate someone.' Convincing evidence is required to discredit an injured witness. Govindaraju @ Govinda Vs. Stgate by Sriramapuram P.S. And anothers 2012 ( 78) ACC 545 ( SC) In para-20, the Apex Court has observed: "It is also not always necessary that whever the witness turned hostile, the prosecution case must fail. Firstly, the part of the statement of such hostile witnesses that supports the case of the prosecution can always be taken into consideration. Secondly, where the sole witness is an eye-witness who can give a graphic account of the events which he had witnessed, with some precision cogently and if such a statement is corroborated by other evidence, documentary or otherwise, then such statement in face of the hostile witness can still be a ground for holding the accused guilty of the crime that was committed. The Court has to act with greater caution and accept such evidence with greater degree of care in order to ensure that justice alone is done. The evidence so considered should unequivocally point towards the guilt of the accused." PW-2 admittedly had also sustained fire-arm injury in the incident. The presence of an injured eye-witness at the time and place of the occurrence cannot be doubted unless there are material contradictions in his deposition. He would not allow the real culprit to escape and falsely implicate the accused unless it is otherwise established through evidence. The presence of an injured eye-witness at the time and place of the occurrence cannot be doubted unless there are material contradictions in his deposition. He would not allow the real culprit to escape and falsely implicate the accused unless it is otherwise established through evidence. The evidence of injured witness has greater evidentiary value and unless compelling reasons exist, their statements are not to be discarded lightly. Further, the evidence of injured witness cannot be doubted on account of some embellishment in natural conduct or minor contradictions. If there be any exaggeration or immaterial embellishments in the evidence of an injured witness, then they be discarded from the evidence of injured, but not the whole evidence. Then the broad substratum of the prosecution version may be taken into consideration and discrepancies which normally creep due to loss of memory with passage of time should be discarded. 17. Appreciating the deposition of PW-2 on the touchstone of above principles, we find that he had stood the test of cross-examination successfully and there are no embellishment or improvements in his evidence. He has lodged the report of the incident with the police promptly and has named all the accused persons including their roles therein. There is some discrepancy with regard to parentage of accused Moti Lal, but that stood resolved through his re-examination in the trial Court. We find that his testimony is clear, cogent and reliable. He is wholly a reliable witness. The learned trial Court has elaborately discussed the evidence of these witnesses in proper perspective and has reached to a correct conclusion. We fully endorse its findings on all material points. 18. Much emphasis was laid by the learned Amicus Curiae that in fact it was a case of dacoity and the complainant has falsely implicated the accused persons by concocting the prosecution story. After analysing the evidence led by the prosecution and defence ( DW-1 and DW-2), suffice it to say that it is a cock and bull story concocted after the statement of accused persons u/s 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded in the trial Court. No such suggestion had been given either to PW-1 or PW-2 nor any of the accused has stated in their statement before the trial Court that the deceased died and PW-2 suffered fire arm injury in an incident of dacoity. No such suggestion had been given either to PW-1 or PW-2 nor any of the accused has stated in their statement before the trial Court that the deceased died and PW-2 suffered fire arm injury in an incident of dacoity. If we closely scrutinize the testimony of DW-1 and DW-2 we find that they are not reliable witnesses and have attended the Court simply to support the accused persons. 19. Teetu DW-1 is the neighbour of the complainant. He has stated in the night of 11.6.2001 at about 12.00 O'clock 4-5 armed dacoits came at the house of Gendan Lal who was sleeping on Takhat. They threatening and crushing his fingers from the butts of guns were asking for money and when Gendan Lal did not disclose they shot him at his chest and when he tried to save was also shot fired on his back. On hue and cry village people challenged them and firing shots they made their escape good. In the incident Kamlesh also sustained one fire arm injury. He has stated that the miscreants have covered their faces. In cross-examination he has stated he did not himself see the dacoits crushing the fingers of the deceased. According to him, he saw the incident from the roof of his house and it was so dark that the cloth covering their face was not even visible. Thus, it appears that he has not himself seen any incident. 20. Similarly Bhagwan Din DW-2 has given hearsay evidence about alleged dacoity having been committed in the house of the deceased in the night of incident. However, he has not exonerated the accused persons and had not stated a single word about their non-involvement in the crime. His deposition shows that he is not the neighbour of the complainant. His house has not been shown nearby the house of the deceased in the site plan by the investigating officer. He has admitted in cross-examination that there are houses of Ram Autar, Rameshwar, Ramesh, Suresh and Vijay Bahadur in between his house and the residence of the deceased. He has very clearly stated in cross-examination that - @ Hindi @ The above statement of DW-2 clearly confirms our finding that he is a got-up witness and has not seen any incident. 21. He has very clearly stated in cross-examination that - @ Hindi @ The above statement of DW-2 clearly confirms our finding that he is a got-up witness and has not seen any incident. 21. As regards the manner of assault we have the testimony of injured witness PW-2, who has been found by us as a wholly reliable witness. The source of light on the spot at the time of incident finds place in the promptly lodged report of this witness. The investigating officer has also seen the torch and lamp through memo Ex. Ka-11 and Ka-12 respectively. The manner of incident as spoken by PW-2 finds full corroboration from the medical evidence. The fire-arm injuries have been sustained by the deceased and injured from close range and the post-mortem examination report Ex. Ka-4 of and medico legal report of injured Ex. Ka-7 fully corroborate the testimony of PW-2. 22. Learned Amicus Curiae has vehemently argued that the prosecution has not explained as to how the deceased suffered crush injuries on his left hand. The doctor had found that all fingers were partially absent except index finger. The trial Court has also dealt with this argument in detail and has observed that the injured left the place of incident after sustaining fire arm injury leaving the accused persons at the spot and in the meantime if any of the accused has crushed the left hand of the deceased, it was not possible for PW-2 or the prosecution to explain it. We fully endorse the findings of the trial Court on this count. 23. In view of what has been said and done above lead us to this irresistible conclusion that the prosecution has successfully proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt against the accused-appellants and the trial Court has not erred in convicting and sentencing them on the charges levelled against each of them. The appeals san merits and are accordingly dismissed. Their conviction and sentence as recorded by the trial Court are upheld. 24. Accused-appellants Moti Lal and Amar Singh are on bail. Their bail is cancelled. Steps should be taken by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Dehat to take them into custody and sent to jail to serve out the sentence imposed upon each of them by the trial Court. 25. Accused Ajay and Nanhey are in jail. They will serve out the remaining part of their sentence. Their bail is cancelled. Steps should be taken by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Dehat to take them into custody and sent to jail to serve out the sentence imposed upon each of them by the trial Court. 25. Accused Ajay and Nanhey are in jail. They will serve out the remaining part of their sentence. Since the case was conducted by Amicus Curiae on their behalf, so the Chief Judicial Magistrate would inform the result of their appeal in jail wherever they are presently lodged. 26. Ms. Tabassum Hashmi, Amicus Curiae would be paid Rs. 2,100/- by the State within a month for the services rendered byher in arguing the appeals on behalf of the appellants. 27. Let certified copy of the judgment be sent to the Court concerned and the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Dehat for ensuring compliance which should be reported in 4-weeks.