Judgment : Subal Baidya, J. 1. This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 5000/- with default clause passed by the learned City Sessions Judge, 12th Bench, Calcutta in a Sessions Trial arising out of Sessions Case No. 80 of 2003. The appeal was admitted vide order dated June 9, 2005 and the appellants’ prayer for bail pending hearing of the appeal was rejected vide order dated April 20, 2006. The background fact of the prosecution case out of which the Criminal Appeal No. 309 of 2005 is arising is as follows: one Mustaque Ahmed residing at 17/2, Smith Lane, Kolkata- 13, P.S. Taltala is the owner of a bookshop facing towards east styled as Hyder Ali book seller at 22, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Road, Kolkata – 16. On April 11, 2003 at about 20.40 hours he came to his shop from his residence and sat in his shop to run his business and at about 20.50 hours on that day he heard a hue and cry and noticed that in front of his shop on the tram -line on Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Road four persons were in hot altercation and out of them two persons carrying Choppers were in hot altercation with two others and suddenly he heard a shouting of cry and noticed one person came in front of his shop and fell down on the western side in front of premises No. 22, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Road and another person also fell down on the road and they were lying in a pool of blood coming out of their persons profusely. The other two persons who assaulted the said two persons went away along Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Road towards Goltala and thereafter the local people removed the two injured persons to a hospital where they got admitted in a precarious condition and he would be able to identify the miscreants if he saw them again. On the basis of this statement of Mustaque Ahmed New Market Police Station Case No. 113 dated April 12, 2003 was started by the police and on completion of investigation the Investigating Officer submitted the charge-sheet under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. On the basis of this statement of Mustaque Ahmed New Market Police Station Case No. 113 dated April 12, 2003 was started by the police and on completion of investigation the Investigating Officer submitted the charge-sheet under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Thereafter, both the appellants were placed on trial to answer the charge under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code before the learned City Sessions Judge, 12th Bench, Calcutta. During trial prosecution has examined as many as 33 witnesses. PW 1, ASI of Calcutta Police attached to Detective Department, Calcutta prepared the rough sketch map and the final sketch map of the place of occurrence and PW 4, constable attached to the same department took the photographs of the place of occurrence and also the photographs of two deceased identified by a constable of New Market Police Station in the morgue. PW 3, an assistant record keeper attached to Mission of Mercy Hospital (previously known as Assembly of God Church Hospital) supplied the medical treatment sheets of deceased Mansur Ali and Tafsir Ahmed Khan on April 14, 2003 to the Police Officer of New Market Police Station who seized the same under seizure list. PW 2, Ruhi Begam is the wife of deceased Mansur Ali. PW 5 is the friend of PW 20, the younger brother of PW 2. PW 6 is the cousin of deceased Mansur Ali. PW 7, constable attached to New Market Police Station as per direction of Sri D. Banerjee, S.I. of police (Investigating Officer) carried the dead body of Tafsir Ahmed khan to Calcutta Police morgue and identified the said dead body to the Magistrate who held inquest over the said dead body and also took the dead body of deceased Mansur Ali to the police morgue and identified the dead body of the deceased Mansur Ali to the Magistrate holding inquest over the said dead body. PW 8, Deputy Manager of system Control Department, C.E.S.C. at Poddar Court, 18, Rabindra Sarani, Kolkata deposed regarding any interruption of supply of electricity at 22, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Road and its surroundings on April 11, 2003 in between 20 hours and 22 hours. PW 9, PW 10 and PW 11 are the medical officers attached to Mission of Mercy Hospital who treated both the deceased in that hospital when removed them there. PW 13 is the brother-in-law of the deceased Tafsir Khan. PW 9, PW 10 and PW 11 are the medical officers attached to Mission of Mercy Hospital who treated both the deceased in that hospital when removed them there. PW 13 is the brother-in-law of the deceased Tafsir Khan. PW 14 identified both the appellants who stabbed both the deceased on Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Road. PW 15, driver of Auto-ricksaw took the injured Mansur Ali and Tafsir Ahmed Khan to Mission of Mercy Hospital where they succumbed to their injuries. PW 16, as Metropolitan Magistrate held T.I. Parade in Presidency Correctional Home in respect of both the appellants. PW 17 used to work as a manager of Wasim Lodge located at 22, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Road in the month of April, 2003. PW 18, a resident of Meerut, U.P. having leather business was in Calcutta on April 11, 2003 with whom both the deceased came to meet in the evening in the Wasim Lodge. PW 19, having leather business used to tan leather after receiving leather from the customers and stated that Kallu (appellant) was under obligation to pay Rs. 50,000/- to him in respect of the business which he used to deal in. PW 20 Imran Ahmed is the brother-in-law of victim Mansur Ali. PW 21 and PW 24 are the two seizure witnesses in respect of seizure of a knife brought out by the appellant Kallu from the bush of south-western corner of the tank located at Goltala Park. PW 12, a fruit seller, PW 14, a passer-by and PW 22, a technician then working in a spectacle manufacturing firm are the eyewitnesses to the occurrence. PW 23 held the post mortem examination of the dead body of the deceased Mansur Ali and Tafsir Ahmed Khan. PW 25 is the maker of the statement treated as FIR. PW 26 is a witness to the seizure of leather chappals, hawai chappals, knife and blood seized from the place of occurrence and PW 27 is attached to C.I.D., West Bengal as Examiner of Questioned Documents and PW 28, S.I. of Police brought the two appellants to Calcutta as per order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gaziabad. PW 29 is the Receptionist-cum-Manager of Standard Guest House at 84, Rabindra Sarani. PW 30 is a senior Scientific Officer, Photo Print Section, Forensic Science Laboratory, Government of West Bengal. PW 29 is the Receptionist-cum-Manager of Standard Guest House at 84, Rabindra Sarani. PW 30 is a senior Scientific Officer, Photo Print Section, Forensic Science Laboratory, Government of West Bengal. PW 31, Receptionist-cum-Manager of Standard Guest House is a witness to the seizure of Registers in respect of booking of rooms in their hotel at 84, Rabindra Sarani. PW 32 is a witness to the seizure of leather chappals, hawai chappals and a big knife, blood stained mud from the place of occurrence. PW 33 is the Investigating Officer. On the other hand, the defence has examined two witnesses and out of them the DW 1 is a professional photographer who took the snaps of the park, the tank of Goltala Park, Muslim Institute, the premises no. 22, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Road from its outside, tram -line and around of Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Road, the shops at nearby 22, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Road and its adjoining premises and also the church located just opposite to the entrance gate of Muslim Institute and DW2 is a fruit seller who used to sell fruits sitting on the footpath in front of Muslim Institute since last 30 years. From the trend of cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses, the answers given by the appellants during their examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and the witnesses examined for the defence it appears that the defence case is one of innocence and false implications. In support of the appeal the learned advocate for the appellants firstly contended that the statement of Mustaque Ahmed recorded by the Investigating Officer which, according to the prosecution, is FIR, does not bear any endorsement of the Officer-in-Charge of New Market Police Station to the effect that the same has actually been treated as FIR. So, having no such endorsement of the Officer-in-Charge of New Market Police Station it cannot be treated under any stretch of imagination that the statement of Mustaque Ahmed is the FIR of the case. So, having no such endorsement of the Officer-in-Charge of New Market Police Station it cannot be treated under any stretch of imagination that the statement of Mustaque Ahmed is the FIR of the case. He also contended that the alleged FIR (exhibit 36) discloses that the alleged incident took place in front of his bookshop, but the said Mustaque Ahmed as PW 25 stated that while he was reading newspaper in his shop, he heard a hue and cry from behind his shop and the public were running out of fear and hearing the said hue and cry he also came out from his shop and started running towards a lane. He further submitted that according to PW 25, the alleged incident took place behind his bookshop, but this PW 25 has not been declared hostile by the prosecution during his examination in the trial Court and, therefore, the place of alleged occurrence has been shifted and as such there is a clear contradiction regarding the place of alleged occurrence which hits at the very root of the prosecution case rendering it disbelievable one. Secondly, Mr. Milon Mukherjee, learned advocate appearing for the appellants contended that as per prosecution case, the appellant Md. Amjad is a person having squint eyes, but the witnesses attending T.I. Parade held in the correctional home clearly stated that only ? persons having squint eyes were mixed up amongst the 20 UTPs with whom both the appellants were mixed up at the time of holding T.I. Parade. He also contended that the normal ratio of holding T.I. Parade 1:10 has not been followed by the learned Magistrate holding T.I. Parade and as such it cannot be held under any stretch of imagination that the T.I. Parade was held precluding possibilities of all collusions. He also contended that the T.I. Parade was held after more than one month of the alleged incident and even long after the appellants were brought to Kolkata from Gaziabad under arrest. He also contended that the T.I. Parade was held after more than one month of the alleged incident and even long after the appellants were brought to Kolkata from Gaziabad under arrest. He also contended that while the appellants were in the police custody, the photographs of them were taken by the police and showed the same to the T.I. Parade witnesses so that they can easily identify the appellants in the T.I. Parade and in this regard the appellants immediately after the completion of T.I. Parade made statement before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate holding T.I. Parade that both the suspects stated to him that they were shown to the witnesses prior to the date of holding T.I. Parade while they were in the custody of the police i.e. in New Market Police Station. He also contended that both the appellants are not named in the FIR and the story of identification of the appellants by the witnesses in the T.I. Parade has been imported to the prosecution case by the Investigating Officer with a view to entangle the appellants falsely in this case of murder with which the appellants, in fact, had no connection at all and therefore, the report of test identification parade (exhibit 30) cannot be used and accepted as an unimpeachable documentary evidence and therefore, it cannot be relied on. Thirdly, the learned advocate for the appellants contended that according to Section 212 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the charge shall contain such particulars as to the time and place of the alleged offence, and the person against whom, or the thing in respect of which, it was committed, as are reasonably sufficient to give the accused notice of the matter with which he is charged. He also contended referring to the charge under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code framed against both the appellants by the learned trial Court that it does not contain the place of alleged offence and as such the vital omission in respect of the place of alleged occurrence in the charge framed against both the appellants in the Court below renders it defective and not curable under Section 464 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He also contended that in the charge framed there is no specific allegation as to who stabbed whom as it is not the prosecution case that both the appellants at random stabbed both the victims indiscriminately and, therefore, holding of both the appellants convicted under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code by the learned trial Court is not sustainable in law and, accordingly, the appellants are entitled to a clear acquittal of the said defective charge framed against them. Fourthly, the learned advocate for the appellants contended that according to the prosecution case, the deceased Mansur Ali while admitted to the Mission of Mercy Hospital as an injured person made a dying declaration before the PW 5 and PW 20 to the effect that he was stabbed by Kallu with a knife whereas deceased Tafsir was also stabbed by the appellant Md. Amjad with a knife in front of Wasim Lodge. He also contended that as per PW 5 when Mansur Ali stated to them about the incident, there was none and PW 20 also stated that at that point of time there was no doctor by the bed-side of Mansur Bhai (deceased). He also contended that PW 20 stated in his cross-examination that he did not record the statement of Mansur as to when he stated to him in the ICCU as to how and at whose instance he was assaulted and he also did not narrate the statement of Mansur to the doctor attending Tafsir and did not narrate the statement of Mansur to any nurse or doctor or to the police on that day. Mr. Mukherjee further contended that in ICCU of a hospital without the permission of the authority or the doctor no visitor or outsider can enter therein and it is not believable as stated by PW 5 and PW 20 that there was none else in the ICCU while the deceased Mansur made the alleged statement to PW 5 and PW 20 and it is also not believable that without the permission of the hospital authority or the doctor attending in the ICCU the PW 5 and PW 20 entered therein. He also contended that in view of the above position and circumstance, the alleged dying declaration made by the deceased Mansur in the ICCU of the said Hospital to PW 5 and PW 20 is not a believable story and the prosecution imported that story of dying declaration only for the purpose of proving the offence of murder against the appellants. He further contended that as per FIR (exhibit 36) PW 25 Mustaque Ahmed whose statement has been treated as FIR as per prosecution case stated therein that he would be able to identify the miscreants if he saw them again. This PW 25 is a vital witness in front of whose bookshop the alleged incident took place, but the said PW 25 has not been called to identify the suspects in the T.I. Parade held in Presidency Correctional Home and the prosecution intentionally withheld this witness by way of not calling him to the T.I. Parade held during investigation. He also contended referring to the report of T.I. Parade (exhibit 30) that the T.I. Parade witnesses namely PW 12, PW 14 and PW 22 while identifying the suspects inside the Presidency Correctional Home did not state anything to the learned Metropolitan Magistrate holding T.I. Parade (P.W. 16) as to what they saw the suspects doing at the relevant time and as such the exhibit 30 is not a helpful evidence at all against the appellants and, therefore, the report of the T.I. Parade (exhibit 30) cannot be used and accepted as an unimpeachable documentary evidence and cannot be relied on. Regarding T.I. Parade the learned advocate for the appellants has relied on the decisions reported in 1970 Supreme Cases (Cri) 393, AIR 1973 Supreme Court 337, AIR 1972 Supreme Court 283, AIR 1974 Supreme Court 276, 1985 Cri L.J. 191 and (2007)10 Supreme Court Cases 175. Fifthly, Mr. Mukherjee contended that the Investigating Officer examined Ruhi Begam (PW 2), the wife of deceased Mansur (within Tapsia Police Station area) and recorded her statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He also contended that the Investigating Officer as per prosecution case seized one knife in Goltala Park situated within the territorial jurisdiction of Taltala Police Station. Mukherjee contended that the Investigating Officer examined Ruhi Begam (PW 2), the wife of deceased Mansur (within Tapsia Police Station area) and recorded her statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He also contended that the Investigating Officer as per prosecution case seized one knife in Goltala Park situated within the territorial jurisdiction of Taltala Police Station. But the Investigating Officer clearly admitted in his cross-examination that he did not send any requisition seeking police help to Taltala Police Station prior to the seizure and even after seizure he did not send any copy of the seizure list to Taltala Police Station. He further contended that the Standard Guest House wherefrom the boarders’ Registers of hotel were seized is located within Jorasanko Police Station area and although the Investigating Officer stated that he informed Jorasanko Police Station, but the case diary is silent about the name of the Police Officer of Jorashankho Police Station and even the Investigating Officer admitted that the said Police Officer of Jorashankho Police Station was not asked to put his signature on the seizure list. He then contended that the Investigating Officer examined Ruhi Begam (PW 2) of Tapsia Police Station area and seized one knife from Taltala Police Station area and seized boarders’ Registers of Standard Guest House of Jorasanko Police Station area practically without informing the Officer-in-Charge of the concerned Police Stations and such conduct of the Investigating Officer is, not only defective, but also renders the prosecution case concocted one. He also contended that in order to make the seizure believable the local people are called to become the witness to the seizure, but in the instant case, the Investigating Officer instead of making the local people of Goltala Park area has made PW 21 Sikander Ali Sardar, a resident of 40/2, Ekbalpur Lane and PW 24 Md. Sabbir, a resident of 18/2, Mominpur Road, P.S. Ekbalpur as witnesses to the seizure who live far away from Goltala Park area. He also submitted that these two witnesses are pocket-witnesses of the police and the alleged seizure list is a manufactured document and actually recovered and seized nothing and, therefore, the recovery and seizure of the knife in question from the bush of Goltala Park at the leading of appellant Md. Kallu is nothing, but a cock and bull story of the prosecution case. Sixthly, Mr. Kallu is nothing, but a cock and bull story of the prosecution case. Sixthly, Mr. Mukherjee appearing for the appellants contended that according to the prosecution case, the PW 12, PW 14 PW 22 are the eyewitnesses to the alleged occurrence, but there arose no occasion for them coming to the place of occurrence at the relevant time and, therefore, these three witnesses have been brought to the prosecution case as chance and planted witnesses and as such they cannot be believed at all. In this regard, he referred to the decision reported in AIR 1974 Supreme Court 276 and AIR 1976 Supreme Court 2032. Seventhly, he contended that as per prosecution case there is a pan-biri shop on the western side and adjacent to 22, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Road and it is also the prosecution case that PW 22 getting down from a tram in front of Muslim Institute on Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Road was taking Limca drinks, at that point of time two others were also taking cold drinks and out of them one was of fair complexion and of considerable height having squint eyes and the remaining one was of black complexion and all on a sudden both the persons who were taking Limca, stopped taking Limca and ran towards northern side i.e. towards Wellington Square where he noticed a scooter was stationed and then a person was about to start the scooter and when another man was trying to sit in the back portion of the scooter and all of a sudden the man who was of fair complexion having squint eyes started assaulting the man who was about to start the scooter, with a knife and the remaining one who was of black complexion and of medium height started assaulting the person who was about to take seat in the back portion of the scooter, with the knife and in the meantime a knife fell down on the tram -line which was of the person having squint eyes and thereafter both the assailants started towards Park Street. He contended that this being the prosecution case, the owner of the pan-biri and drink shop is a very vital witness, but the prosecution withheld the said owner with a view to suppress the truth. Lastly, Mr. He contended that this being the prosecution case, the owner of the pan-biri and drink shop is a very vital witness, but the prosecution withheld the said owner with a view to suppress the truth. Lastly, Mr. Mukherjee, learned Lawyer for the appellants submitted that as per formal FIR, the instant case was registered on 12.04.2003 at 03.00 hours, but the seizure list (exhibit 37/2) was prepared by the PW 33 on 11.04.2003 before the registration of the instant case in the Police Station. Not only so, the PW 33 examined many witnesses and recorded their statements under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. before the registration of the instant case in the Police Station and all these have rendered the investigation defective one. The learned advocate for the appellants submitted further that the appellant Kallu was examined by the learned Court below on 12.10.2004 and on that date he was put 124 questions by the learned Court below during his examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He again submitted that appellant Md. Amjad was also put 124 questions during his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and out of them 13 questions were put to him on 11.10.2004 and the remaining questions were put to him by the learned Court below on 12.10.2004. He then submitted that putting of such huge number of questions to both the appellants in course of their examination under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in a day is nothing, but a farce during trial and thereby the appellants have been prejudiced. In reply to the argument canvassed by the learned advocate for the appellants, the learned public prosecutor, Mr. Manjit Singh referring to the decision reported in (2011) 3 SCC 654 submitted that the T.I. Parade remains in the realm of investigation. The Code of Criminal Procedure does not oblige investigating agency to necessarily hold T.I. Parade nor is there any provision under which accused may claim a right of holding T.I. Parade and therefore, the failure of investigating agency to hold T.I. Parade does not have the effect of weakening evidence of identification in Court during trial. He also submitted that the report of T.I. Parade is not a substantive piece of evidence. Only the identification of the accused in Court by witness constitutes substantive evidence in a case. He also submitted that the report of T.I. Parade is not a substantive piece of evidence. Only the identification of the accused in Court by witness constitutes substantive evidence in a case. He also submitted that the Investigating Officer made prayer before the Court for holding T.I. Parade of both the appellants as suspects of the offence and accordingly, the PW 16, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate held T.I. Parade of both the appellants and all the three witnesses in accordance with law identified both the suspects by touching their persons. He also submitted that admittedly, there is a note in the report of the T.I. Parade (exhibit 30) that after the completion of T.I. Parade both the appellants made the statement before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate holding T.I. Parade that they were shown to the witnesses before T.I. Parade while they were in the custody of the police in New Market Police Station, but such a statement is usually made by the suspects while they are identified by the witnesses in the T.I. Parade. He also submitted that it is not a case that these suspects (appellants) made such a statement before the PW 16 prior to the holding of T.I. Parade, but making such a statement after the completion of T.I. Parade is of no value in the eye of law. He also submitted that admittedly, the appellant Md. Amjad is a person of squint eyes and the T.I. Parade was held in the ratio of 1:10 UTP and out of them ? persons were having squint eyes so far available there. He also submitted that the decisions referred to from the side of the appellants indicate that in most of the cases there is a single UTP having almost similar particulars, but in the instant case there are ? UTPs having squint eyes in the T.I. Parade. So, the decision referred to by the learned advocate for the appellants are not applicable in the instant case. UTPs having squint eyes in the T.I. Parade. So, the decision referred to by the learned advocate for the appellants are not applicable in the instant case. He further submitted that as per decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court referred to by him, identification of the accused persons in Court during trial is substantive evidence and the three eye-witnesses namely PW 12, PW 14 and PW 22 duly identified them in Court during trial and not only so, the PW 2, Ruhi Begam, wife of deceased Mansur Ali who had the occasions to see them when they came to her house on two earlier occasions on 31.1.2003 and 25.3.2003 also identified them in Court during trial. Regarding the delay in holding T.I. Parade as pointed out by the learned advocate for the appellants, the learned public prosecutor submitted that both the appellants after arrest were brought to Kolkata from Gaziabad on 18.04.2003 and they were in police custody as per order of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate from 18.04.2003 to 02.05.2003 and on 02.05.2003 both the appellants were produced before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate with a prayer for holding T.I. Parade which was allowed and accordingly, on 03.05.2003 the matter was placed before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 12th Court, Kolkata who in turn was pleased to fix on 15.05.2003 as the date for holding T.I. Parade and on that date the T.I. Parade was held in respect of both the appellants. He further submitted that the date for holding T.I. Parade was fixed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate and in this regard the Investigating Officer had no hand for fixing the date of T.I. Parade before 15.05.2003 as the entire matter was within the discretionary power of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate and as such the prosecution was not at fault for holding T.I. Parade after delay of such days. In view of the above submission, we have examined the record and found that the submission of the learned public prosecutor being correct is accepted. The learned public prosecutor also submitted that it is true that the PW 25 made such a statement treated as FIR, but, no doubt, it is a mistake on the part of the Investigating Officer by not calling the PW 25 as witness in T.I. Parade. The learned public prosecutor also submitted that it is true that the PW 25 made such a statement treated as FIR, but, no doubt, it is a mistake on the part of the Investigating Officer by not calling the PW 25 as witness in T.I. Parade. He also submitted that this PW 25 in his evidence during trial stated nothing regarding the identification or non-identification of the appellants and in this circumstance, the prosecution ought to declare this PW 25 as hostile witness during trial, but if the deposition of PW 25 is considered in the light of the prosecution case, the non-calling the PW 25 as witness to the T.I. Parade cannot be considered as serious flaw in the prosecution case rendering it disbelievable one. He further submitted that the exhibit 36 can be used only against the maker of it i.e., the PW 25 and it cannot be used against other witnesses. Even if the deposition of PW 25 is discarded, the evidences on record which are cogent and reliable have proved that the place of occurrence was on the street in front of Wasim Lodge at premises no. 22, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Road, Kolkata – 700016. So, it can not be said that the place of occurrence has been shifted. The learned public prosecutor referred to the decision reported in (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 347 and also the Sections 211, 215 and 464 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and submitted that there is an omission about place of occurrence in the charge so framed and also another omission of a particular as to which one of the accused assaulted whom (deceased). He also submitted that the Section 215 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides: ‘No error in stating either the offence or the particulars required to be stated in the charge, and no omission to state the offence or those particulars, shall be recorded at any stage of the case as material, unless the accused was, in fact, misled by such error or omission, and it has occasioned a failure of justice.’ He also submitted that the Hon’ble Apex Court in the above cited case has been pleased to hold that unless the convict is able to establish real prejudice to him and that he was not informed as to what was the real case against him and that he could not defend himself properly, no interference is required on mere technicalities. He also submitted that the conviction needs to be tested on touchstone of prejudice theory. He also submitted that while the charge was framed against the appellants in the trial Court, no grievance was raised there against while framing the charge, nor during the course of trial by filing any petition for quashing the charge. He also submitted that no prejudice caused to appellants could also be established. He also submitted that all the police papers containing the materials were supplied to the accused persons (appellants) before framing of the charge and even before commitment of the case to the Court of Sessions. The witnesses examined by the prosecution clearly deposed in respect of the place of occurrence and also which one of the accused persons (appellants) assaulted whom (deceased) and the defence also at length cross-examined the prosecution witnesses in this regard. He further submitted that both the appellants in the Court below during their examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were specifically told by the Court regarding the place of occurrence and also which one of the appellants assaulted whom. He further submitted that no occasion arose to plead that the appellants have been prejudiced due to the omission of the particulars in the charge framed against them and it has also not been established by the appellants that the appellants were, in fact, misled by such error or omission, and it has occasioned a failure of justice. He further submitted that no occasion arose to plead that the appellants have been prejudiced due to the omission of the particulars in the charge framed against them and it has also not been established by the appellants that the appellants were, in fact, misled by such error or omission, and it has occasioned a failure of justice. He then submitted that the argument advanced by the learned advocate for the appellants in this regard is of no consequence and, therefore, it cannot be said under any stretch of imagination that the trial of the appellants in the Court below has been vitiated on the plea of alleged theory of prejudice. Mr. Manjit Singh, the learned public prosecutor referring to the decision reported in 2005 Cri L.J. 684 submitted that murders are not committed with previous notice to the witnesses soliciting their presence and if the murder is committed in a dwelling house, the inmates of the house are natural witnesses and if the murder is committed in a street, only passers-by will be witnesses and their evidence cannot be brushed aside or viewed with suspicion on the ground that they are mere chance witnesses. He also submitted that even the PW 12, PW 14, PW 22 have not been suggested by the appellants during their cross-examination if they have got any sort of animosity towards the appellants. He then submitted that the depositions of the PW 12, PW 14 and PW 22 clearly disclose the explanations regarding their presence at the place of occurrence at the material point of time and date and therefore, nothing has been established to term the PW 12, PW 14 and PW 22 as mere chance and planted witnesses. The learned public prosecutor referring to the cross-examination of the Investigating Officer (PW 33) submitted that the Investigating Officer made attempt requesting some persons of Goltala Park area (previously known as Hazi Mohammad Mohsin Square area) for witnessing the seizure, but those persons did not co-operate with him. He also submitted that it has been made clear as to why the people of Goltala Park area have not been made as witnesses to the seizure of the knife recovered and seized from the bush of the Goltala Park being led, pointed and brought out by the appellant Md. He also submitted that it has been made clear as to why the people of Goltala Park area have not been made as witnesses to the seizure of the knife recovered and seized from the bush of the Goltala Park being led, pointed and brought out by the appellant Md. Kallu and being compelled the Investigating Officer requested and made the PW 21 and 24 present in the said park as witnesses to the seizure list although they are the residents of a place away from the Goltala Park area. The learned public prosecutor referring to the cross-examination of the Investigating Officer (PW 33) submitted that he examined the shop-keeper from whose shop the soft drinks was taken by Khalid Iqbal (PW 22) and as he (said shop-keeper) could not give any light about the incident, he did not record his statement. He then submitted that the owner of the said pan-biri and soft drinks shop as pointed out by the learned advocate for the appellants has not been made as witness rightly by the prosecution. The learned public prosecutor submitted referring to the deposition of PW 12 Md. Saukat that this witness deals in fruits sitting in the footpath of Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Road under the Muslim Institute situated on the same road for the last 20 years and at the material time and date hearing hue and cry which was going on in front of Wasim Lodge and other lodge when he noticed that two persons were assaulting two others with knives and the said incident took place on the road which is in between the tram -line and the footpath. He also submitted that PW 12 gave his explanation as to why he was near the place of occurrence and as such he cannot be called a chance witness. He also submitted referring to the deposition of PW 14 Sk. He also submitted that PW 12 gave his explanation as to why he was near the place of occurrence and as such he cannot be called a chance witness. He also submitted referring to the deposition of PW 14 Sk. Asmat that this witness was returning to his own house from Didar box Lane, Taltala where he went to see his friend, but as his friend was not available, he was returning to his house and reached in front of Wasim Lodge to board an auto-Ricksaw and at that time he noticed that Mansur Bhai (deceased) came out from Wasim Lodge and on his back Tafsir Bhai was also coming to the place where a scooter of them was stationed and when they were proceeding towards their scooter from behind, at that point of time someone stabbed Tafsir Bhai from behind in his back and the stature of the said man was taller one and another man whose stature was medium stabbed Mansur Bhai from behind with a big knife. He then submitted that the deposition of PW 14 discloses the explanation as to why and how the PW 14 came at the place of occurrence at the material point of time and witnessed the incident. He then submitted that the deposition of PW 14 discloses the explanation as to why and how the PW 14 came at the place of occurrence at the material point of time and witnessed the incident. The learned public prosecutor referring to the deposition of PW 22, Khalid Iqbal submitted that this witness is a resident of 129/1, Collins Street, P.S. New Market and this witness at the material time and date got down from a tram in front of Muslim Institute of Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Road and then he rushed in front of a pan-biri shop wherein the shop-keeper also used to deal in cold drinks, for taking cold drinks and while he was taking Limca drinks, at that point of time two others were also taking cold drinks and out of them one was of fair complexion and of considerable height having squint eyes and the remaining one was of black complexion and of medium height and all on a sudden both the persons those who were taking Limca, stopped taking Limca and ran towards northern side i.e. towards Wellington Square where he noticed a scooter was stationed and then a person was about to start the scooter and when another man was trying to sit in the back portion of the scooter, all on a sudden the man who was of fair complexion having squint eyes started assaulting the man who was about to start the scooter, with a knife and the remaining one who was of black complexion and medium height started assaulting the person who was about to take seat in the back portion of the scooter, with the knife and in the mean time the knife fell down on the tram -line which was of the person having squint eyes and at that time the street lights were on and thereafter, both the assailants started towards Park Street and he also noticed the wearing apparels of the assailant who was of black complexion became stained with blood and the colour of the said wearing apparels were of white. He then submitted that this is the explanation of PW 22 as to why and how he came to the place of occurrence and saw the incident. He then submitted that this is the explanation of PW 22 as to why and how he came to the place of occurrence and saw the incident. He also submitted that these three witnesses namely PW 12, PW 14 and PW 22 are eye-witnesses to the occurrence and they also identified both the appellants in the T.I. Parade held in Presidency Correctional Home and also identified both the appellants during the trial in the Court below. Therefore, these three eye-witnesses cannot be called in any way as chance and planted witnesses, rather their depositions have proved the occurrence caused by both the appellants and as a result, the deceased Mansur Ali succumbed to his injuries being stabbed by the appellant Md. Kallu with a knife and the deceased Tafsir Khan also succumbed to his injuries being stabbed by the appellant Md. Amjad with a knife. The learned public prosecutor submitted that the Investigating Officer examined PW 2 Ruhi Begam and recorded her statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. without informing the Officer-in-Charge of the concerned Police Station. The same thing also happened in the case of PW 13 Nizam Khan @ Munna, the brother-in-law of the victim Tafsir Khan. He also submitted that Goltala Park is located within Taltala Police Station area and the Investigating Officer recovered and seized the offending knife in presence of PW 21 and PW 24 being led by the appellant Kallu without any intimation prior or after the said seizure to the Officer-in-Charge of Taltala Police Station. He also submitted that the Standard Guest House is situated within the territorial jurisdiction of Jarasanko Police Station and the Investigating Officer seized the registers of boarders of that Guest House without the written permission of the Officer-in-Charge of that Police Station. He also submitted that these are nothing, but only irregularities in the procedural matter. He also submitted that what is required is to see whether the appellants have been prejudiced on account of such irregularities. But in fact, the defence could not make out any such circumstance showing that they have been prejudiced in any way due to such irregularities on the part of the Investigating Officer. He also submitted that what is required is to see whether the appellants have been prejudiced on account of such irregularities. But in fact, the defence could not make out any such circumstance showing that they have been prejudiced in any way due to such irregularities on the part of the Investigating Officer. The learned public prosecutor in connection with the above matter mentioned in the foregoing paragraph referring to the decision reported in 1998 SCC (Cri) 859 at para 29 thereof submitted that the Investigating Officer by virtue of enabling provision under Section 166 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can lawfully make search any place in the limits of another police station in accordance with the provisions of Section 165 of the Cr.P.C. as if such place were within the limits of his own police station, but after the seizure the officer conducting the search shall forthwith send a notice to the Officer-in-Charge of the police stations within the limits of such place and the copy of the seizure list, if any, prepared under Section 100 to that police station and to the nearest Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence along with the copies of the record referred to in sub-Sections (1) and (3) of Section 165. He further submitted referring to the paragraphs 14 and 15 of the case reported in 2004 SCC (Cri) 1722 submitted that the evidence Act or the Code of Criminal Procedure or for that matter any other law in India does not exclude relevant evidence on the ground that it was obtained under an illegal search and seizure. The Hon’ble Apex Court has been pleased to hold that where the test of admissibility of evidence lies in relevancy, unless there is an express or necessarily implied prohibition in the Constitution or other law evidence obtained as a result of illegal search and seizure is not liable to be shut out. He also submitted that as per statement of the accused Kallu leading to the recovery of the knife from the bush of the Goltala Park and also the factum of recovery of the knife being led and brought out by the accused Kallu being relevant evidence is admissible and similarly, the seizure of the registers of boarders from the Standard Guest House in presence of accused persons being relevant evidence is admissible. He also submitted that in view of this legal position, the search and seizure made by the Investigating Officer (PW 33) within Taltala Police Station area and also Jorasanko P.S. area is legally permissible. He also submitted that in view of the above facts and circumstance, the argument advanced by the learned lawyer for the appellants invoking the theory of prejudice has got no manner of application in the instant case. The learned public prosecutor submitted that it is true that normally an outsider cannot enter ICCU without the permission of the hospital authority or the doctor of the ICCU concerned. He also submitted that when the PW 5 and PW 20 reached the Mission of Mercy Hospital on getting the information that both the victims were taken to that hospital and coming to know from the enquiry of that hospital they went in front of ICCU and not being prevented by anybody and being highly anxious about the condition of near relations like victims Mansur and his friend Tafsir, they entered the ICCU and talked to the victim Mansur Ali who was then lying in the ICCU and on being asked Mansur Ali told that he was stabbed by the appellant Kallu with a knife and his friend other victim Tafsir Khan was also stabbed by the other appellant Md. Amjad of Gaziabad with a knife. He also submitted that Mansur was then suffering severe pain as the blood was oozing out from his abdomen and at that time the victim Tafsir who was then in the ICCU was not in a position to tell anything. He also submitted that at that time the doctor and the nurse entered the ICCU and asked them not to disturb the patient and also to leave the ICCU. He further submitted that there is nothing to believe that the victim Mansur was not in a position to make or did not make any such statement to PW 5 and PW 20 and, therefore, it cannot be said that the Investigating Officer imported the story regarding entry of the PW 5 and PW 20 to the ICCU as argued by the learned advocate for the appellants. He then submitted that the evidences adduced from the side of the prosecution have amply proved that the appellant Kallu stabbed the victim Mansur Ali with a knife and the appellant Md. He then submitted that the evidences adduced from the side of the prosecution have amply proved that the appellant Kallu stabbed the victim Mansur Ali with a knife and the appellant Md. Amjad stabbed the victim Tafsir Khan with a knife intentionally to cause their death at about 8.50 PM on 11.04.2003 in front of Wasim Lodge at 22, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Road and as a result, both the victims succumbed to their respective injuries and the learned trial Court rightly convicted both the appellants under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and passed the sentence which being justified and legal should be upheld and the appeal should be dismissed. Regarding the seizure and examination of witnesses and recording their statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the learned public prosecutor submitted that occasion may arise when the seizure list is required to be prepared and the witnesses are required to be examined and recorded their statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. even before the registration of the case in the Police Station, but that should be by mentioning the G.D. Entry number and date following which the Investigating Officer comes to the place of occurrence. He also submitted that of course, it is an omission on the part of the Investigating Officer who failed to record the G.D. Entry number and date in the seizure list prepared by him at the place of occurrence on 11.04.2003 and so also in the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., but this omission in the face of G.D. Entry No. 962 dated 11.04.2003 (exhibit 48) as mentioned in the formal FIR (exhibit 36/1) cannot be considered as fatal to the prosecution case rendering it disbelievable one. We have considered the submissions referred to above. We have also considered the cogent, reliable and material evidences on record. It is our considered view that only due to this omission caused on account of callousness of the Investigating Officer in procedural matter the same cannot totally destroy the prosecution case rendering it disbelievable one. We have considered the submissions referred to above. We have also considered the cogent, reliable and material evidences on record. It is our considered view that only due to this omission caused on account of callousness of the Investigating Officer in procedural matter the same cannot totally destroy the prosecution case rendering it disbelievable one. Regarding the examination of the accused persons in the Court below under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned public prosecutor submitted that in course of examination of the accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the learned trial Judge put questions to the accused on the basis of the evidences adduced against him from the side of the prosecution and it is the learned trial Judge to decide as to how many questions will be put to the accused person on the basis of the evidences on record against him and in this regard prosecution has got no role to play. He also submitted that there is nothing in the record to show that on account of putting such number of questions by the learned trial Judge in course of examination of the accused persons under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellants felt any sort of uneasiness and faced embarrassment in any manner and therefore, the question of being prejudiced as argued by the learned advocate for the appellants concerning the examination of the accused persons under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not arise at all. In view of the argument and counter-argument made by the learned advocate for the appellants as well as learned public prosecutor, we think it fit and proper to go through the evidences adduced from the side of the prosecution as well as from the side of the defence. PW 25 Mustaque Ahmed is the maker of the FIR (exhibit 36) which was recorded by the Investigating Officer on reaching at the place of occurrence which is in front of Wasim Lodge at 22, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Road. On perusal of the FIR it transpires that the incident took place on the tram -line in front of the book shop of PW 25 at 22, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Road, Kolkata – 700 016. On perusal of the FIR it transpires that the incident took place on the tram -line in front of the book shop of PW 25 at 22, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Road, Kolkata – 700 016. It also transpires that the entire incident took place before his eyes, but this FIR- maker as PW 25 deposed deviating what he stated in the FIR. As per his deposition while he was reading newspaper sitting in his bookshop, he heard a hue and cry from behind his shop and like other public he also ran towards a lane and after ten minutes when the situation became normal, he came back to his shop and he was informed that two persons sustained injuries on their person. It is true that it is a flaw on the part of the prosecution by not declaring this witness as hostile as he did not corroborate his earlier statement made before the Investigating Officer. In this regard, the Investigating Officer, PW 33 deposed that on 11.04.2003 at about 9.10 P.M. he received an information over phone from an unknown male person to the effect that a kind of disturbance is going on in front of premises No. 22, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Road and on receipt of the said information he readily recorded a G.D. being No. 962 dated 11.04.2003 (exhibit 48) and thereafter, himself accompanied by the then additional O.C. along with force of New Market Police Station rushed in front of premises No. 22, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Road where at about 9.35 P.M. Mustaque Ahmed (PW 25), the owner of a book-stall narrated the incident which was recorded by him. FIR is nothing, but an information made by a person for the first time regarding the happening of an incident to the police authority. It is settled principle of law that the FIR can be used only for contradicting or corroborating maker of it and it cannot be used against any other witness. At the same time if the maker of it in course of his deposition in Court deviates from his earlier statement recorded by the Investigating Officer, it does not demolish the evidentiary value of the depositions of other witnesses if the same are found believable. As per deposition of PW 2, Ruhi Begam, the wife of deceased Mansur Ali, PW 5 Md. Kamruddin, PW 6 Abid Hossain @ Munna. As per deposition of PW 2, Ruhi Begam, the wife of deceased Mansur Ali, PW 5 Md. Kamruddin, PW 6 Abid Hossain @ Munna. PW 13, Nizam Khan @ Munna, the brother-in-law of deceased Tafsir Khan and PW 20 Imran Ahmed, brother-in-law of deceased Mansur Ali, the two deceased Mansur and Tafsir were the business partners of each other and they used to deal in leather and they had business connection with the appellants Kallu and Md. Amjad of Gaziabad. From the deposition of PW 2 it is found that Kallu and Md. Amjad on 31.01.2003 visited her house and in her presence an altercation in between her husband and the two appellants were going on and thereafter she came to know about the name of the companion of Kallu as Amjad from her husband Mansur. It transpires that no documentary evidence has been seized to show that the deceased Mansur and Tafsir were the partners of leather business. In this regard, the deposition of PW 17 Md. Samin and PW 18 Md. Ayub are very vital. PW 17 deposed that he used to work as a manager of Wasim Lodge which is at 22, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Road and barring Wasim Lodge, there are two other lodges in the said premises namely Amina Lodge and Sahim Lodge. He also deposed that Tafsir and Mansur were known to him as they used to visit their lodge to meet one Ayub who was their permanent customer and on 11.04.2003 Mansur and Tafsir came to their lodge. The said Md. Ayub as PW 18 deposed that he is a resident of Kosba Lawad, Meerat, U.P. and he has got leather business and used to visit Calcutta off and on for the purpose of his business and also stay in Wasim Lodge whenever he visited Calcutta and on 23.03.2003 when he came to Wasim Lodge from Meerat, Mansur and Tafsir met him there. He further deposed that Tafsir and Mansur met him for the purpose of business of leather on 11.04.2003 in the evening for the last time when he was taking dinner and at that point of time he requested them to visit later on and as against the same they asked him to take dinner and they were going outside for doing Namaz (prayer). This PW 18 is an independent witness and there is nothing to disbelieve him. This PW 18 is an independent witness and there is nothing to disbelieve him. So, it is found that the learned trial Court rightly proceeded holding that the deceased Mansur and Tafsir were the partners of leather business and they had also business connection with the appellants who used to bring leather from Meerat for tanning. The deposition of PW 18 also establishes the presence of both the deceased in the Wasim Lodge near the place of occurrence immediately before the incident. In this case, prosecution relied on the depositions of three eyewitnesses namely, PW 12 Md. Saukat, PW 14 Sk. Asmat and PW 22 Khalid Iqbal who are also the witnesses to the T.I. Parade held during investigation in the Presidency Correctional Home where these three witnesses identified both the appellants by touching their persons. According to the appellants, these three eye-witnesses are the chance and planted witnesses. Let us see as to how far this argument canvassed by the appellants is acceptable. PW 12, a fruit seller deals in fruits sitting in the footpath of Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Road under the Muslim Institute for the last 20 years and on 11.04.2003 in between 8.45 P.M. to 8.50 P.M. hearing hue and cry which was going on in front of Wasim Lodge and other lodge when he noticed that two persons were assaulting two others with knives and the said incident took place on the road which is in between the tram -line and the footpath and the stature of one of the assailants was tall who were armed with a knife which fell down on the road and those who were assaulted, they also fell down on the road and thereafter both the assailants proceeded towards Park Street and this witness also identified both the appellants on dock. It transpires that in order to falsify the deposition of PW 12, the defence has examined the DW 2 Md. Saukat Ali, son of Lt. Md. Imtiaz Ali who in his deposition stated that he sells fruits sitting on the footpath in front of Muslim Institute since last 30 years. But he admitted that he was not present on 11.04.2003 as to when two persons sustained injuries on their person in front of Wasim Lodge. He also admitted that there are two other fruit sellers who are selling fruits there. But he admitted that he was not present on 11.04.2003 as to when two persons sustained injuries on their person in front of Wasim Lodge. He also admitted that there are two other fruit sellers who are selling fruits there. So, deposition of D.W. 2 in no way falsified the presence of PW 12 in the footpath under the Muslim Institute on Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Road at the material point of time and date, rather this D.W. 2 admitted the happening of the incident. PW 14 Sk. Asmat who on 11.04.2003 at about 8 P.M. had been to Didar Box Lane, Taltala to see his friend, but as his friend was not available, he was returning to his house and reached in front of Wasim Lodge to board an auto ricksaw when he noticed that Mansur came out from Wasim Lodge and his behind Tafsir was also coming to the place where a scooter of them was stationed and when they were proceeding towards their scooter from behind, at that point of time someone stabbed Tafsir from behind in his back and the stature of the said man was taller one and the other man whose stature was medium one stabbed Mansur from behind with a knife. This witness also noticed that the jama (shirt) of the said person by whom Mansur was assaulted became stained with blood and the knife with which the person assaulted Tafsir fell down on the road and after assault both the miscreants left the place and proceeded towards Park Street. This witness also stated that Tafsir and Mansur fell down on the road and then he left the place. This witness also stated that Tafsir and Mansur fell down on the road and then he left the place. PW 22 who then used to work in a spectacle manufacturing firm as a technician for the year 2003 stated that on 11.04.2003 at about 8.45 P.M. he got down from a tram -line in front of Muslim Institute which is on Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Road and then he rushed in front of a pan-biri shop, wherein the shopkeeper also used to deal in cold drinks, for taking cold drinks and while he was taking Limca drinks, at that point of time two others were also taking cold drinks and out of them one was of fair complexion and of considerable height having squint eyes and the remaining one was of black complexion and of medium height and all on a sudden both the persons those who were taking limca, stopped taking limca and ran towards northern side i.e. towards Wellington Square when he noticed a scooter was stationed there and then a person who was about to start the scooter when another man was trying to sit in the back portion of the scooter, all on a sudden the man who was of fair complexion having squint eyes started assaulting the person who was about to start the scooter, with a knife and the remaining one who was of black complexion and medium height started assaulting the person who was about to take seat in the back portion of the scooter, with the knife and in the mean- time a knife fell down on the tram -line which was of the person having squint eyes and at that time the street lights were on and thereafter both the assailants started towards Park Street and he also noticed the apparels of the assailant who was of black complexion became stained with blood and both the injured also fell down on the road. It transpires that this witness identified both the appellants as the said assailants in the T.I. Parade as well as in the Court during trial and also identified the knife (Material Exhibit III) which fell down on the tram -line after assault by the person who was of fair complexion and squint eyes and also identified the remaining knife (Mat Ext.II) with which the another injured was assaulted by the assailant who was of black complexion and of medium height. It transpires that this PW 22 has had no animosity towards the appellants. Even the victims were not known to him earlier. He is found totally an independent witness. He, not only identified both the appellants in the T.I. Parade, but also identified them in Court during trial. It transpires from the deposition of PW 8 Sri Ashit Kumar Bhattacharyya, Deputy Manager of System Control, CESC at Poddar Court, and also from the letter dated 12.12.2003, (exhibit 7) that there was no disruption of supply of electricity at premises no. 22, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Road and its surrounding areas on 11.04.2003 in between 20.00 hours and 22.00 hours. It is evident that street-lights were on at the material point of time. It is found that the deceased were known to PW 14, but PW 12 and PW 22 are found independent eye-witnesses of the occurrence and in the street light, they saw the occurrence and saw the appellants to stab both the victims and thereafter they also identified both the appellants in the T.I. Parade during investigation and subsequently in the Court during trial. Considering the depositions of the PW 12, PW 14 and PW 22 it is our view that the learned trial court rightly believed these three eye-witnesses who categorically stated as to how these two appellants caused the incident on the victims Mansur Ali and Tafsir Khan resulting to their death due to the sustaining of stab-injuries. In the instant case, double murders were committed on the street. Three eye-witnesses namely PW 12, PW 14 and PW 22 properly explained their presence at the place of occurrence. These three eye-witnesses at least PW 12 and PW 22 are independent witnesses and had no enmity towards the appellants. Their evidences being cogent and reliable cannot be discarded by treating them as chance and planted witnesses. Three eye-witnesses namely PW 12, PW 14 and PW 22 properly explained their presence at the place of occurrence. These three eye-witnesses at least PW 12 and PW 22 are independent witnesses and had no enmity towards the appellants. Their evidences being cogent and reliable cannot be discarded by treating them as chance and planted witnesses. In this regard, the decision reported in 2005 Cr.L.J. 684 (Supreme Court) referred to by the learned public prosecutor can be relied on. Therefore, the decisions reported in AIR 1974 S.C. 276 and AIR 1976 S.C. 2032 cited from the side of appellants cannot be followed. PW 15 Sk. Aslam, an auto-ricksaw driver stated in his deposition that on 11.04.2003 at about 8.45 P.M. while he was driving his auto-ricksaw being no. WB04/1069 through his route from Lohapul to Grant Street via Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Road and reached just by the left side of Muslim Institute noticed an assembly of persons in front of a hotel, some persons stopped his auto-ricksaw and at that time he noticed a person in the street light whose name was Mansur Ali lying on the road and then Mansur requested to take him to a good hospital by his auto and also asked him to take another person who was also lying at some distance from the place where Mansur was lying who was also injured and then some persons took the injured to his Auto and the name of that injured person was Tafsir. This witness stated that he requested some persons to accompany him to the hospital, but they did not agree and then he went to Assembly of God Church Hospital (Mission of Mercy Hospital) with the injured in his auto via a road which is in the back of Mallick Bazar and while he reached behind Mallick Bazar, seeing a person Mansur asked him to stop the auto and requested him to call the said person and when the said person came in front of Mansur who asked him to inform his uncle that he was going to Assembly of God Church Hospital and then he took both the injured namely Mansur and Tafsir to the emergency department of that hospital where both the injured namely Mansur and Tafsir were admitted and in the meantime the cousin of Mansur arrived there. This witness further stated that being asked by the doctor about the where-about of the injured persons, he stated as to how he brought them to the hospital and from where. The said cousin of Mansur is the PW 6 Abid Hossain who stated that on hearing the information he readily went to that hospital where he noticed the auto-ricksaw being no. WB04/1069 standing and he then went to the emergency department of that hospital where he noticed that his cousin Mansur was lying in a cot and then he was further told that another injured was lying in the auto and that injured was Tafsir Ahmed Khan known to him as the business partner of Mansur and then he picked up Tafsir from the auto with the help of others and took him inside the hospital and then he again went to the emergency department for admission of both the injured and when he went to Mansur lying in a cot in the emergency department and on being asked Mansur told that he himself and Tafsir were stabbed in front of Wasim Lodge which is on Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Road and at that point of time blood was oozing out from his abdomen and Mansur had pain for which he made statement in a lower voice and then he was called by the hospital authority to fill up the forms relating to the admission of the injured persons and also was asked to deposit the money and then he came out from the hospital to bring medicines and also for collection of money for the treatment of those injured and he could not ask Mansur about the assailants as he was awfully busy for bringing of medicines, money and blood and he also informed the wife of Mansur (PW 2) over phone about the admission of Mansur in Assembly of God Church Hospital. This witness further stated that when he brought medicines and reached that hospital, he noticed the brother-in-law of Mansur namely Imran and his friend (PW 20 and PW 5 respectively) who were then coming down from the upstairs. This witness further stated that when he brought medicines and reached that hospital, he noticed the brother-in-law of Mansur namely Imran and his friend (PW 20 and PW 5 respectively) who were then coming down from the upstairs. So, it is evident from the depositions of PW 6 and PW 15 that both the victims injured in the incident caused by both the appellants were taken to Mission of Mercy Hospital by the auto- ricksaw of PW 15 for treatment and they were admitted in the said hospital. From the evidence of PW 9 Dr. Ranjan Chatterjee, PW 10 Dr. Sayed Mehedi Masud and PW 11 Dr. Manas Roy it transpires that on 11.04.2003 at about 9 P.M. both the injured were brought to their casualty department and no sooner they received the patients, they forwarded both the injured to ICCU and subsequently after their admission they observed the formalities regarding admission of the patients. It also transpires that on that date at about 9.50 P.M. the patient Tafsir Khan was admitted in ICCU, though prior to that the patients were brought to them and were readily forwarded to ICCU and at that time the condition of Tafsir was unconscious, gasping respiration, pulse not palpable, B.P. not recordable. It further transpires from the evidence of PW 9 that when the patient Mansur Ali was admitted in ICCU under Dr. M. Roy, the patient was conscious, alert and oriented as to when he was brought to them. It is the case of prosecution that when the victim Mansur Ali and Tafsir Khan were taken to ICCU of Mission of Mercy Hospital, the PW 5 and PW 20 on getting the information about the incident from PW 2 hurriedly went to that hospital and coming to know from the enquiry they came in front of ICCU and went to the bed-side of Mansur Ali and on being asked to injured Mansur Ali who was then suffering from pain due to the oozing out blood from his abdomen made statement to them that he himself was stabbed with a knife by Kallu of Gaziabad and his friend Tafsir was also stabbed with a knife by the appellant Md. Amjad of Gaziabad in front of Wasim Lodge at premises no. 22, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Road. From the doctors’ evidence it is evident that the injured Mansur was then capable of making statement. Amjad of Gaziabad in front of Wasim Lodge at premises no. 22, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Road. From the doctors’ evidence it is evident that the injured Mansur was then capable of making statement. It also transpires from the medical evidences of doctors that the medical operation of both the injured were done in the said hospital one after another although, it is found that there was some delay in arranging for operation, but the fact remains that the nature of the injuries was so grave and serious, even after operation both the victims namely Tafsir and Mansur succumbed to their injuries. It is not easily believable that a person like Mansur lying in the death-bed made a false statement against both the appellants. It is believable that PW 20, brother-in-law of Mansur accompanied by his friend, PW 5 entered the ICCU to see his elder sister’s husband Mansur lying admitted there and it is the evidence of PW 5 and PW 20 that when they went to the bed-side of Mansur inside ICCU, there was no doctor and nurse. It appears to us that being not prevented by anybody and being the near relation of the injured Mansur to see his condition, they entered the ICCU without the permission of the authority or the doctor and subsequently when the doctor and nurse came there, they asked them to leave the ICCU and then being asked they left the ICCU and while they were going down from upstairs, they were noticed by the PW 6 when they came to the ground floor where the PW 13 met them and came to know from PW 20 that he was told by Mansur that Tafsir Khan was stabbed by Amjad and Mansur was stabbed by Kallu of Gaziabad in front of Wasim Lodge. Going through the evidences of PW 5 and PW 20 and the facts and circumstances herein that the making of the statement as to the cause of injuries on the persons of Mansur and Tafsir made by the victim Mansur while lying in a deathbed to the PW 20 and PW 5 in the ICCU of Mission of Mercy Hospital cannot be called as argued by the learned advocate for the appellants, a cock and bull story, rather in our view, such a statement is quite believable as true and we do not think that a person almost lying on the death-bed in the ICCU implicated the appellants falsely. As per prosecution case, the appellant Md. Amjad is a person of squint eyes. It is also in the evidence that in the T.I. Parade ? persons having squint eyes were among the 20 other under trial prisoners. According to the appellants, there was shortage of persons having squint eyes in the T.I. Parade and due to that the appellant Md. Amjad was easily identified in the T.I. Parade. We have gone through the report of T.I. Parade (exhibit 30) and also depositions of PW 16 who held T.I. Parade on 15.05.2003 as Metropolitan Magistrate in the Presidency Correctional Home. The Exhibit 30 discloses that both the suspects (appellants) after the completion of T.I. Parade and being identified by the witnesses told PW 16 that they were shown to the witnesses while they were in custody of New Market Police Station. It is not a case that such a statement was made by the suspects before holding T.I. Parade. It is also our common experience that the suspects after being identified by the witnesses in the T.I. Parade made such a statement before the learned Magistrate holding T.I. Parade. In our view, it would have been worthwhile if such a statement would have been made to the learned Magistrate prior to the holding of T.I. Parade. So, the statement of the suspects as recorded by PW 16 in the report of the T.I. Parade after the completion of T.I. Parade brings no fruitful result in favour of them. Moreover, the PW 16 was not at all cross-examined by the defence during trial regarding the mixing of under trial prisoners having squint eyes. So, the statement of the suspects as recorded by PW 16 in the report of the T.I. Parade after the completion of T.I. Parade brings no fruitful result in favour of them. Moreover, the PW 16 was not at all cross-examined by the defence during trial regarding the mixing of under trial prisoners having squint eyes. Furthermore, the PW 16 is an impartial witness who held the T.I. Parade as per availability of the under trial prisoners almost similarly dressed and similar in appearance as far as practicable. From the case reported in 1970 SCC 343 it is found that the Hon’ble Apex Court was pleased to acquit the accused persons on the ground that the entire case depends solely on the Test Identification Parade and that too was legally infirm. But the instant case is not founded solely on the Test Identification Parade. There are cogent and reliable evidences of the eye-witnesses to the occurrence and also identification of the appellants in the T.I. Parade and they were also identified in the Court during trial. So, this decision referred to above is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. In the case reported in AIR 1973 SC 337 the suspect was seen by the identifying witnesses before Test Identification Parade. Not only so, the suspect was then with a tape on his neck. It has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that the accused is entitled to a benefit of doubt. But the facts and circumstances of the cited case referred to by the learned advocate for the appellants not being similar with the facts and circumstances of the present case the principle of law laid down in the said reported case is not applicable in the present case. It has been held in the decision reported in AIR 1972 SC 283 that the purpose of test identification is to test the statement of the witness made in the Court, which constitutes substantive evidence, it being the safe rule that the sworn testimony of the witness in Court as to the identity of the accused requires corroboration in the form of an earlier identification proceeding. Where there is no such substantive evidence at all as to the identity to the accused, the earlier identification parade cannot be of any assistance to the prosecution. Where there is no such substantive evidence at all as to the identity to the accused, the earlier identification parade cannot be of any assistance to the prosecution. The legal proposition as mentioned above is always acceptable, but in the present case, T.I. Parade was held during investigation and subsequently both the appellants were identified in the Court during trial. So, the decision referred to above by the learned advocate for the appellants regarding T.I. Parade is of no helpful to the appellants. It has been held in the decision reported in 1985 Cri. L.J. 191 (Bombay High Court) that where two suspects are dissimilarity in appearance, two separate T.I. Parades should be held. It has also been held that if a suspect is to be identified in an identification parade, the most elementary precaution that should be taken is that persons similar in appearance, height, age etc. to the accused should be made to stand as dummies in that parade and if the suspect, according to the witness, was having a clean shaven head and a shendi and ultimately in the identification parade only one person had a clean shaven head and shendi (tuft), that is a farce of an identification parade. In the present case, one accused was of medium height and black complexion and the other accused was taller and of fair complexion and squint-eyes and in the T.I. Parade as appearing from the depositions PW 12 and PW 14 that there were ? UTPs having squint-eyes mixed with the suspects/accused persons in the T.I. Parade. So, having no enormous dissimilarity in appearance and also considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, the decision reported in 1985 Cri. L.J. 191 is found of no helpful to the appellants. It appears from the decision reported in (2007) 3 SCC 755 that the said case was entirely based on circumstantial evidence, but the present case is not of that type and the present case is based on the evidences of the eye-witnesses and also on the basis of identification parade as well as recovery of the offending weapons and other cogent and material evidences. So, the above cited decision referred to by the learned advocate for the appellants is of no helpful to the appellants. So, the above cited decision referred to by the learned advocate for the appellants is of no helpful to the appellants. On going through the decision reported in (2007) 10 SCC 175 referred to by the learned advocate for the appellants the same is also found no helpful to the appellants. So, the submission of the learned advocate for the appellants regarding the T.I. Parade and also regarding the statement of the victim Mansur Ali in the ICCU of the Mission of Mercy Hospital is not acceptable. We are of the view that the learned trial court rightly proceeded placing reliance upon the T.I. Parade matter being subsequently identified in Court during trial as well as on the basis of the statement of the injured Mansur Ali to the PW 20 and PW 5 in the ICCU of the Mission of Mercy Hospital as dying declaration under Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act. PW 23, Dr. Ashutosh Sarkar, the post mortem doctor who held post mortem examination over the dead bodies of Tafsir Ahmed Khan and Mansur Ali being produced and identified by PW 7 Nadim Hossain, constable no. 13714 then attached to New Market Police Station vividly described the injuries sustained by both the deceased and according to this witness, the death was due to the effect of injuries which were ante mortem and homicidal in nature and the said opinion of the doctor was concurred by Dr. A.K. Gupta, Professor and Head of the Department of FSI, Medical College, Kolkata. Although the PW 11 stated in his cross-examination that there was delay of about 2 hours 15 minutes for operation of the patient, but PW 10 bluntly denied the suggestion of the defence that both the patients died due to the negligence on the part of the hospital. Furthermore, the evidence of PW 23, the post-mortem doctor makes it clear that the death of both the injured was due to the effect of injuries which were ante mortem and homicidal in nature. So, it cannot be said that the cause of death of both the victims was the outcome of the negligence on the part of the hospital authority. So, it cannot be said that the cause of death of both the victims was the outcome of the negligence on the part of the hospital authority. PW 26 Sarfarz Ahmed, a resident of 33, Collins Street, Kolkata-700 0016, who deals in vegetables at New Market stated in his evidence that on 11.04.2003 in between 10.30/11.00 P.M. he was coming from Abdul Mohsin Square and was proceeding towards his residence and noticed an assembly of persons on Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Road opposite to Sahim Lodge and on being asked some persons stated to him that murder took place there and also noticed police to collect blood fell on the road. He also noticed police to collect two chappals made of leather, a pair of hawai chappals and a knife and some blood and scooter lying there and to seize the same in his presence under a seizure list which he signed. PW 32 Sri Lakshmikanta Sharma, a resident of 7, Karim Box Lane stated in his evidence that police seized a pair of leather chappals, (MAT. Ext.-V), a pair of Hawai Chappals (MAT. Ext.-IV), a big knife (MAT. Ext.-III), one scooter and blood stained mud from the place of occurrence in his presence under a seizure list (Ext.-37). Going through the evidences of PW 26 and PW 32 it is evident that these two witnesses were not present at the place of occurrence at the material point of time. They were the signatories to the seizure list by which the police seized leather chappals, hawai chappals, a big knife, a scooter, blood stained earth from the place of occurrence. PW 30 is Dr. Kusum Ranjan Patra, senior Scientific Officer, Foot Print Section, Forensic Science Laboratory, Government of West Bengal to whom the investigating agencies sent leather chappals and hawai chappals along with foot print of both the appellants. On perusal of the evidence of PW 30 it transpires that the left foot and right foot of leather chappals were marked by him as X and X/1 respectively and the pair of hawai chappals were marked by him as Y and Y/1 respectively. It further appears that four specimen inked foot prints of both feet were also marked by him as 3 to 10. It further appears that four specimen inked foot prints of both feet were also marked by him as 3 to 10. It also appears that the PW 30 could not find any comparable feature on the bed soles of exhibit X and X/1 (leather chappals) and through different process and examination he came to the conclusion that the exhibit Y and specimen 7 and exhibit Y/1 and specimen 9 are the production of one and the same left foot and right foot respectively and, accordingly, he prepared the report (exhibit 49). This PW 30 clearly stated that the foot prints were received from the end of the investigating agency by his office and he marked the left foot print of Kallu as 3 and 4 and right foot print was also marked by him as 5 and 6. It further transpires that the PW 30 found no comparable feature on the bed soles of the exhibits X and X/1 (two leather chappals) and hence the same were found unfit for comparison. It also appears that this PW 30 marked left inked specimen foot print of the appellant Md. Amjad as 7 and 8 and the right foot inked specimen foot print of the appellant Md. Amjad as 9 and 10. This witness in his report (exhibit 49) came to the conclusion that the exhibit Y and specimen 7 and the exhibit Y/1 and specimen 9 are the production of the one and the same left foot and right foot respectively. These exhibits Y and Y/1 indicate the marking of the two hawai chappals and the same are matched with the inked specimen foot prints of the accused /appellant Md. Amjad. These two hawai chappals were recovered and seized from the place of occurrence. This clearly establishes the fact that the appellant Md. Amjad came at the place of occurrence at the material point of time and date. It is in the evidence of the prosecution side that whenever the appellants Kallu and Md. Amjad of Gaziabad used to come to Kolkata in connection with their leather business, they used to stay in the Standard Guest House at 84, Rabindra Sarani, P.S. Jorasanko. In this regard, the witnesses examined on the side of the prosecution are PW 29 Hassan Imam Khan and PW 31 Md. Azizur Rahman who were the receptionist -cum -Manager of that Guest House at the relevant time. In this regard, the witnesses examined on the side of the prosecution are PW 29 Hassan Imam Khan and PW 31 Md. Azizur Rahman who were the receptionist -cum -Manager of that Guest House at the relevant time. This PW 29 stated in his evidence that on 30.01.2003, 25.03.2003 and 10.04.2003 Amjad and Kallu visited their Guest House and at the time of induction of these two persons in their Guest House they obtained the signatures of Amjad on 30.01.2003, 25.03.2003 and 10.04.2003 and in connection with this matter the police came to their guest house and seized registers of boarders. This witness also stated in his evidence that the signatures of Amjad were taken in the relevant registers in the columns of arrival and departure (exhibit 45) and again on 25.03.2003 Amjad and Kallu came to their guest house at 8 A.M. and left the guest house on 26.03.2003 at 9.45 P.M. and both the signatures of Md. Amjad in the column of the registers of boarders were taken. This witness further stated in his evidence that on 10.04.2003 again Amjad and Kallu came to their guest house at 9.30 A.M. and this time both of them left their guest house on 11.04.2003 at 9.40 P.M. and the signatures of Md. Amjad in the arrival and departure columns of the registers of boarders were marked exhibit 46/1 collectively and this witness also identified the said Kallu and Amjad in Court during their trial. The evidence of this PW 29 has been corroborated by the evidence of PW 31. This PW 31 further stated in his evidence that he noticed both these persons (identified in Court) to leave their hotel on 11.04.2003 in the evening and then returned to their hotel at about 9.00/9.15 P.M. and when he noticed one of them was without having any shirt on his body and on seeing the said person he asked him as to why he was without any shirt on his body, when he replied that they did not wear the shirt at that point of time due to the heavy temperature of Kolkata and on the same day, that is, on 11.04.2003 both of them left their hotel (guest house). The signatures of appellant Amjad appearing in registers of boarders on different dates have been examined by PW 27 Prabir Kumar Mitra, who compared the same with the specimen signatures of the appellant Md. Amjad taken by the Investigating Officer on 21.04.2003, 22.04.2003, 28.04.2003, 29.04.2003, 30.04.2003 and 01.05.2003 (exhibits 47 collectively) and the findings of PW 27 in this regard have been given in his report (exhibit 44) wherefrom it is found that the signatures of Amjad are matched with the specimen signatures of Amjad marked S, S/1 to S/6. The presence of the appellant Kallu and Amjad in Kolkata in the Standard Guest House on 10.04.2003 and 11.04.2003 have been proved by the evidences of PW 29 and PW 31 along with the documentary evidences i.e. registers of boarders of Standard Guest House. We find no reason to disbelieve the PW 29 and PW 31 and the documentary evidences mentioned above along with the evidence of PW 27. Admittedly, both the appellants are men of Gaziabad and they used to come to Kolkata in connection with their leather business and whenever they would come to Kolkata, they used to stay in the Standard Guest House. The presence of both the appellants in Kolkata on 10.04.2003 and 11.04.2003 till 9.45 P.M. has already been proved. It has been established by cogent and reliable evidences that three eye-witnesses namely PW 12, PW 14 and PW 22 are not the chance and planted witnesses, rather the depositions of PW 12, PW 14 and PW 22 along with the report of T.I. Parade (exhibit 30) have established that the appellant Kallu caused stab-injuries with a knife on the person of victim Mansur Ali and the other appellant Md. Amjad caused stab-injuries with a knife on the person of the victim Tafsir Ahmed Khan on 11.04.2003 at about 8.50 P.M. at 22, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Road in front of Wasim Lodge. It has also been established that the knife with which Md. Amjad caused stab-injuries to victim Tafsir Khan fell down on the street and subsequently the PW 33, the Investigating Officer seized it under a seizure list in presence of PW 26 Sarfaraz Ahmed and PW 32 Lakshmikanta Sharma, who are also the independent witnesses having no enmity towards the appellants. Amjad caused stab-injuries to victim Tafsir Khan fell down on the street and subsequently the PW 33, the Investigating Officer seized it under a seizure list in presence of PW 26 Sarfaraz Ahmed and PW 32 Lakshmikanta Sharma, who are also the independent witnesses having no enmity towards the appellants. It has been mentioned that there is nothing to disbelieve the PW 21 and PW 24 who are the reliable witnesses to the seizure of the offending knife (MAT. Ext. II) from the bush of Goltala Park being led, pointed and brought out by the appellant Kallu. It is also in the evidence that the wearing shirt of appellant Kallu became stained with blood in the incident and while both the appellants returned to the Standard Guest House, the PW 31, the Manager-cum-Receptionist of that Guest House noticed that one of them was without any shirt on the body and on seeing the said person he asked him as to why he was without any shirt on his body when he replied that he did not wear the shirt at that point of time due to the heavy temperature in Kolkata and on the same date, that is, on 11.04.2003 both of them left their hotel (guest house). It is also in the evidence that the appellant Kallu is of black complexion and medium height and Md. Amjad is of fair complexion and taller than Kallu. It is true that the investigating agency could not trace out the blood stained shirt of the appellant Kallu. According to PW 31, both the appellants went out the guest house on 11.04.2003 in the evening and returned to the guest house at 9/9.45 P.M. As per depositions of eye-witnesses namely PW 14 and PW 22, the jama/shirt of the person who caused stab-injuries to Mansur Ali became stained with blood, but the appellants while returning to the guest house soon after the occurrence one of them was found by the PW 31 without any shirt. It is not at all believable that the appellant Kallu went out of the guest house in the evening without any shirt. The return of Kallu to the guest house at 9/9.45 PM from outside without any shirt on his body along with the appellant Md. It is not at all believable that the appellant Kallu went out of the guest house in the evening without any shirt. The return of Kallu to the guest house at 9/9.45 PM from outside without any shirt on his body along with the appellant Md. Amjad raises a strong presumption that the appellant Kallu while returning to the guest house after causing the said occurrence threw anywhere his blood stained shirt with a view to causing disappearance of evidence and was compelled to return to the guest house without any shirt which was noticed by the PW 31 The medical evidences of both oral and documentary and the post mortem examination reports in respect of both the victims and the other cogent and reliable evidences have proved that the victim Mansur Ali who sustained stabinjuries on 11.04.2003 at about 8.50 PM caused by the appellant Kallu and the other victim Tafsir Ahmed Khan who also sustained stab-injuries on 11.04.2003 at about 8.50 PM caused by the appellant Md. Amjad in front of Wasim Lodge at premises No. 22, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Road succumbed to their respective injuries. Question may come as to what was the motive for causing such occurrence on both the victims. In this regard it is necessary to see what are the evidences on record of the prosecution side. The PW 18 Md. Ayub, a resident of Kosba Lawad, Meerat, U.P. who has a business of leather stated that he used to visit Kolkata off and on for the purpose of his business and stay in Wasim Lodge whenever he visited Kolkata. He also deposed that they being the businessmen of Meerat who are engaged in leather business used to bring leathers from Meerat and get it tanned and disposed of those leathers. He also deposed that Tafsir and Mansur used to meet him for the purpose of business and they met him on 11.04.2003 in the evening for the last time in Wasim Lodge. PW 19 Nurul Hassan who also deals in leathers deposed that he knows one Kallu of Gaziabad (identified on dock) who used to bring leather to them for tanning and he also knew one Mansur and Tafsir as they used to visit his house to purchase leather and Kallu also used to deal in leathers business and had business connection with Tafsir and Mansur. He further deposed that Kallu was under obligation to pay Rs. 50,000/- to him in respect of the business which he used to deal in and he asked Kallu to pay Rs. 50,000/- 2/3 times when Kallu stated he would pay the amount after getting the same from Tafsir and Mansur (identified them in the photographs during trial). Going through the depositions of PW 13, PW 2 and PW 20 it transpires that the victim Mansur and Tafsir Ahmed Khan had a partnership business of leather and in connection with their business they had business relation with the appellants namely Kallu and Md. Amjad and in course of business- transaction both the appellants altercated with the victims claiming their dues payable by the victims and even in course of hot altercation both the appellants threatened the victims with dire consequences including threatening to kill them if they fail to pay their dues. The identification of both the appellants during trial in Court by the PW 2 Ruhi Begam, the wife of victim Mansur Ali indicates that both the appellants visited the house of Mansur Ali for getting their dues realized from Mansur and Tafsir regarding the claim for money payable by the victims to the appellants. Although there is no documentary evidence regarding this claim of dues, but we find no cogent ground to disbelieve the deposition of these witnesses regarding the said dues of the appellants payable by the victims which is also corroborated by the PW 19. Therefore, it is found that the non-payment of dues payable by the victims was the root for causing such occurrence by the appellants at the material time, date and place upon the victims resulting to their death due to sustaining of stab-injuries on their persons. It is true that there are some irregularities in procedural matter in course of investigation caused by the Investigating Officer by way of not informing the Officer-in-Charge of Taltala Police Station, Tafsia Police Station and Jorasanko Police Station, but the said irregularities in the procedural matter in no way have made the prosecution case disbelievable one when there are cogent and reliable evidences coupled with the facts and circumstances of the case leading to the conclusion that for non-payment of the dues payable by the victims the appellant Kallu caused stab-injuries with a knife on the person of victim Mansur Ali and the appellant Md. Amjad caused the stab-injuries on the person of victim Tafsir Ahmed Khan with a knife on 11.04.2003 at about 8.50 PM on the street in front of Wasim Lodge at premises No. 22, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Road, Kolkata-16 with a common intention to kill them and as a result, both the victims succumbed to the injuries on 13.04.2003 and 12.04.2003 respectively. It is also true that there is a contradiction in between the deposition of PW 25 and the Exhibit 36. It has already been mentioned that the FIR can be used only for contradicting or corroborating the maker of exhibits 36, but the existence of cogent, reliable and material evidences on record have made this contradiction immaterial one. Of course, there are some other minor contradictions, but in the face of cogent, reliable and material evidences such minor contradictions do not stand on the way of reaching to the finality of the matter. It is also true that there is no endorsement of the Officer-in-Charge of New Market Police Station on the FIR (exhibit 36). In this regard the Investigating Officer (PW 33) clearly stated that on 11.04.2003 at about 9.10 PM he received an information over phone from an unknown male person to the effect that a kind of disturbance was going on in front of premises No. 22, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Road and on receipt of the said information he readily recorded a G.D. entry being No. 962 dated 11.4.2003 (exhibit 48) and thereafter himself accompanied by the then Additional O.C. along with force of New Market Police Station rushed in front of premises No. 22, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Road and on reaching there they noticed clods of blood, scooter, chappals lying in front of premises No. 22, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Road and also noticed a knife lying on the tram-line. Regarding the incident at the said place there is a G.D entry (exhibit 48). This G.D. entry may be considered as the first information report. Regarding the incident at the said place there is a G.D entry (exhibit 48). This G.D. entry may be considered as the first information report. That being the position, in the face of such G.D. entry (exhibit 48) the FIR in question (exhibit 36) looses its importance and in this regard the PW 33 categorically stated that he took charge of investigation of this case as ordered by the then Additional O.C., New Market Police Station who accompanied him at the place of occurrence following the information received regarding the occurrence recorded vide New Market P.S. G.D. entry No. 962 dated 11.04.2003 (exhibit 48). We have considered the submissions of the learned advocate for the appellants and the learned public prosecutor as well regarding the matter of examination of the appellants under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the learned trial Judge. The purpose of examining the accused person under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. is to provide an opportunity of enabling the accused personally to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him. It appears to us that to explain the circumstances appearing in the evidence against the accused the learned trial Judge is the proper, competent and sole authority to decide as to how many questions will be put to the accused person. It is also upon the learned Judge to decide as to how many questions will be put to an accused in a day or in days together. Going through the answers given by both the appellants in course of their examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. we find nothing to believe and hold that the appellants while answering to the questions put to them by the learned trial Judge felt any sort of embarrassment. Furthermore, we find nothing in the record to believe that the appellants during their such examination raised any sort of objection. That being the position, we find no substance in the submission of the learned advocate for the appellants. We further hold that the appellants have not been prejudiced in any manner on account of putting such number of questions to them by the learned trial Judge. We have also considered the submissions made by the learned advocate for the appellants as well as learned public prosecutor regarding the plea of the appellants that the place of occurrence has been shifted. We have also considered the submissions made by the learned advocate for the appellants as well as learned public prosecutor regarding the plea of the appellants that the place of occurrence has been shifted. Considering the cogent and reliable evidences of the eye-witnesses, the seizure list prepared on the street in front of Wasim Lodge at premises no. 22, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Road on 11.04.2013 and the evidences of the seizure witnesses to that seizure list have enormously proved that the place of occurrence has not been shifted. That being the position, it is our considered view that the deposition of PW 25 deviating from the FIR (exhibit 36) regarding the place of occurrence cannot be relied on because his deposition alone cannot falsify the cogent, reliable and material evidences of eye-witnesses as well as seizure witnesses. Regarding non-mentioning of the place of occurrence in the formal charge framed against both the appellants in the Court below, we have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants as well as the learned public prosecutor. We have also considered the evidences adduced from the side of the prosecution. We have also considered the provision of Sections 211, 215 and 464 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. We have also perused the principle of law enunciated in the decision reported in (2009) 3 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 347. It is evident from the evidences on record that the eye-witnesses categorically deposed as to which place the occurrence took place and the defence also cross-examined the prosecution witnesses in this regard and the accused persons were also examined by the learned trial Court under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure regarding the place of occurrence and also on the point which one of the accused assaulted whom (deceased persons). It is also true that in course of trial the defence did not raise any objection either orally or by filing any application regarding the non-mentioning of the place of occurrence in the formal charge framed with a plea that due to such omission in the formal charge the appellants were misled and thereby it has occasioned a failure of justice. So, relying on the principle of law enunciated in the above cited decision and also going through the legal provisions embodied in Sections 215 and 464 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and also considering the evidences on record it is our considered view that due to the omission of the place of occurrence in the formal charge framed against both the appellants in the Court below, the defence has not been prejudiced in any way and there occasioned no failure of justice and, therefore, it did not vitiate the trial. Accordingly, we are not in agreement with the submission of the learned advocate for the appellants in this regard. It has already been found that the deposition of DW 2 is not at all helpful to the defence, rather this witness admitted the happening of the incident. DW 1, a professional photographer stated in his deposition that on 26.09.2004 he took snaps of Goltala Park Tank, premises no. 22, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Road from outside, shops at that premises and its surroundings and tram-line and in total he took 36 paragraphs with negatives. He admitted that all the photographs were taken by him on 26.09.2004 i.e. after more than one year and five months of the incident. This witness admitted that these photographs are not enough to suggest about the condition of Hazi Md. Mohsin Square (Goltala Park) as on 11.04.2003. He also admitted that these snaps of the road including shops taken by him are not in front of premises no. 22, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Road. So, it is clear that the photographs with negatives taken by the DW 1 are not at all helpful to the defence. Therefore, it is evident that the evidence of the defence witnesses in any way do not come in aid of the appellants. Going through the judgment of conviction and sentence under appeal and also considering the facts and circumstances, the evidences of eye-witnesses, dying declaration of the victim Mansur Ali and other cogent and reliable evidences it is our considered view that the learned trial Judge rightly held that both the appellants are guilty of the charge under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, the judgment of conviction and sentence passed against both the appellants is hereby affirmed. In the result, the appeal stands dismissed. Therefore, the judgment of conviction and sentence passed against both the appellants is hereby affirmed. In the result, the appeal stands dismissed. The department concerned is directed to send a cost free certified Xerox of this judgment to both the appellants. The lower Court record also be sent down. The criminal Section is directed to supply the urgent Photostat certified copy of this judgment to the parties, if applied for, following the rules as early as possible.