JUDGMENT Vimlesh Kumar Shukla, J. Present criminal appeal is directed against the judgement and order dated 21st June, 1988 passed by Shri P.C. Mathur, III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Aligarh holding appellants; Ganga Singh s/o Moti Singh, Jagpal Singh s/o Moti Singh, Satyaveer Singh s/o Ram Sarup and Ramveer s/o Bhagwan Sahai, guilty under Section 302 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C. and awarding life imprisonment. 2. The factual matrix of the case as has been indicated by complainant in the First Information Report is to the effect that on 11.10.1985 at about 4 pm informant Jaswant Singh along with Sheoraj Singh s/o Soran Singh, Mahaveer Singh s/o Chidda, Lakkha Singh s/o Moti Singh and Surendra Pal Singh s/o Sonpal Singh and his son Ravindra and Bijendra Singh s/o Sonpal Singh was returning back from Aligarh towards their village and the two boys Ravindra Singh and Bijendra Singh were walking half furlong ahead and the moment both the said incumbents reached one furlong away from the Sumerpur bridge then from patel bushes Ganga Singh s/o Moti Singh, Jagpal Singh s/o Moti Singh, Satyaveer Singh s/o Ram Sarup and Ramveer s/o Bhagwan Sahai, all belonging to his village came out and at the said point of time Ganga Singh s/o Moti Singh was armed with country made pistol and Jagpal Singh, Satyaveer Singh and Ramveer were armed with knives and they surrounded Ravinder and Brijendra and Ganga Singh opened fire that hit Bijendra Singh and on voices being raised by them, the informant and others rushed to save them then they were threatened by Ganga Singh and fire was opened by him and on account of this they did not proceed ahead and continued to raise their voice and the accused-assailants caused various knife injuries that has been witnessed by them and after all these accused persons thinking that both are dead ran away from the spot and thereafter for medical treatment by bhainsa buggi of Surendra Singh the injured were sent to Malkhan Singh Hospital and the informant Jaswant Singh came to lodge First Information Report at Police Station. 3. The informant has also come up with the case that on the spot he has found a knife lying left by assailants and the said knife in question was handed over to the police and the fard of the same was prepared at the Police Station itself. 4. 3. The informant has also come up with the case that on the spot he has found a knife lying left by assailants and the said knife in question was handed over to the police and the fard of the same was prepared at the Police Station itself. 4. In the present case, this much is also reflected that while Jaswant Singh has proceeded to lodge First Information Report after parting his way at tiraha, at the said point of time Surendra Singh along with others was carrying injured persons on bhainsa buggi to Aligarh at Malkhan Singh Hospital, en-route Ravindra Singh died and in injured condition Bijendra Singh was taken to hospital and there he was medically examined and then was referred to the Medical College where he has subsequently died. 5. After First Information Report in question has been lodged, the Station House Officer went on the spot and collected blood stained earth and plain earth and also took statement of witnesses Uday Singh and Raghuraj Singh on the spot and after that he left for Bahadurpur and conducted raid, but none of the accused-appellants were found there and then he went to the hospital where he was informed that Ravindra has died and in reference to Bijendra Singh he was informed that he has been referred to medical college and then he went to the medical Collage where he found that Bijendra Singh was in precarious condition and doctor has asked him not to talk to Bijendra Singh and thereafter case was converted under Section 302 I.P.C. and the sample of blood stained earth and plain earth was deposited in Malkhana and Ct. Padam Singh submitted the medical examination report of Brijendra on 12.10.1985 and thereafter inquest was carried out of the body of deceased Ravindra and the body was sent for postmortem. Padam Singh submitted the medical examination report of Brijendra on 12.10.1985 and thereafter inquest was carried out of the body of deceased Ravindra and the body was sent for postmortem. Statement of witnesses Mahaveer Singh, Jaswant Singh, Sheoraj Singh, Jugendra Singh, Dafedar Singh and S.I. Shivdan Singh was taken and it was found that Bijendra Singh was still not in senses and statement of Surendra Singh and Lakha Singh was taken on 14.10.1985 and again he went to the Medical College where he was informed that condition of Bijendra Singh was not at all good and his statement could not be recorded and then steps were undertaken for arrest of accused-appellants and then on 18.10.1985 when I.O. again went to the medical college he was informed that Bijendra Singh has already died on 15.10.1985. Thereafter, inquest report and postmortem report was obtained and after investigating the matter charge-sheet in question has been filed. After charge-sheet in question has been filed, the matter has been committed to the Court of Sessions and following charges have been framed: "I, P.C. Mathur, III, Addl. Sessions Judge Aligarh hereby charge you: - (1) Ganga Singh both sons of Moti Singh (2) Jagpal Singh (3) Satyaveer Singh S/O Ram Swarup (4)Ramveer S/O Bhagwan Sahai all resident of village Bahadurpur P.S. Jawa Distt. Aligarh as follows: - 6. Firstly that on 11.10.85 at about 4 P.M. One forlong away from Sumer pur Bamba bridge on partri P.S. Jawan Distt. Aligarh in furtherance of your common intention you committed the murder of Ravendra by intentionally or knowingly causing his death and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 302 read with sec. 34 I.P.c. and within the congnizance of court of sessions. 7. Secondly on the aforesaid date time and place in furtherance of your common intention your committed the murder of Bijendra by intentionally or knowingly causing his death and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and within the cognizance of court of sessions. And I hereby direct that you be tried by this court on the said charges. Sd/-Illegible (P.C. Mathur)" 8. The accused-appellants Ganga Singh s/o Moti Singh, Jagpal Singh s/o Moti Singh, Satyaveer Singh s/o Ram Swarup and Ramveer s/o Bhagwan Sahai denied their participation in the commission of offence and requested for being tried. And I hereby direct that you be tried by this court on the said charges. Sd/-Illegible (P.C. Mathur)" 8. The accused-appellants Ganga Singh s/o Moti Singh, Jagpal Singh s/o Moti Singh, Satyaveer Singh s/o Ram Swarup and Ramveer s/o Bhagwan Sahai denied their participation in the commission of offence and requested for being tried. Thereafter this much is reflected that to support the case of the prosecution, prosecution examined PW 1 Jaswant Singh informant (father of deceased Ravindra Singh); PW 2 Surendra Pal Singh (brother of deceased Bijendra); and PW 3 Sheoraj Singh family member of deceased persons, as witnesses of fact and apart from the same, Shri Taj Mohd., Head Constable was examined as PW 4, who has prepared G.D. Report and who has also prepared fard of the knife in question that has been handed over by the informant as well as has also made entries after Constable Padam Singh has returned back. Dr. Ashok Kumar, who has conducted postmortem of the body of deceased Bijendra has also been examined as PW 5 and similarly Dr. S.N. Gupta, who has conducted postmortem of the body of deceased Ravindra Singh has also been examined as PW6. Constable Sone Lal, who has carried the dead body of Ravindra Singh for the purpose of postmortem had also been examined as PW 7, Shri Sukhbir Singh, Station House Officer, who has conducted the investigation has also been examined as PW 8, Dr. M.K. Mittal , who has examined injured Bijendra at Malkhan Singh Hospital, Aligarh has been examined as PW 9 and Constable Satyaveer Singh, who has proved the writing of Station House Officer Sukhbir singh has also been examined as PW 10. Statement of accused-appellants were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and thereafter the Trial Court on the basis of evidence adduced concluded that prosecution has succeeded in establishing the guilt of the accused persons and accordingly, they have been convicted and same has impelled them to be before this Court. 9. This Court at this juncture notices the fact that Jagpal Singh s/o Moti Singh, accused-appellant no.2 is no more and appeal against appellant no.2 has already been abated by this Court and in view of this, the present appeal in question has been pressed on behalf of Ganga Singh s/o Moti Singh, Satyaveer Singh s/o Ram Sarup and Ramveer s/o Bhagwan Sahai. 10. 10. Counsel for the appellant, Shri Raghuraj Kishor, Advocate appearing alongwith Shri Dharmendra Singhal, Advocate has assailed the validity of the conviction order by contending that : i.All the three alleged eye-witnesses are near and dear ones i.e. close relatives of both the deceased and their evidence in question is not at all credible one and they cannot be accepted as reliable witnesses of the incident in question, in as much as from their statement and attending circumstances it is clear that they have not at all seen the occurrence and it is too much of coincidence that all of them have arrived on the spot subsequent to the occurrence of incident in question. ii.No independent witness has come forward to support the case of prosecution and all the three alleged witnesses are unreliable eye-witnesses and their conduct at the point of time of incident and after the incident clearly exposes them and same cannot be said to be a normal one and there are inherent inconsistencies and inherent improbabilities in the story set up and large scale improvements have been made in the statement of witnesses and there are material contradictions also in the statement of witnesses entailing discarding of their testimony. iii.The evidence in question is totally in conflict with the medical evidence and being conscious of this fact, a deliberate attempt has been made to improve the case of the prosecution by proceeding to mention that Ganga Singh was armed with countrymade pistol and knife both and once, such is the factual situation that none of the eye-witnesses were present on the spot, then this Court should come to the rescue of the appellants and record acquittal of accused-appellants in the present case. 11. Learned A.G.A. Shri Narendra Kumar Singh Yadav, on the other hand, has resisted the request that has been made by contending that here each one of the witness who has appeared in the witness box, his testimony has been tested and his testimony in question is a consistent one and is in line with the story that has been given by other witnesses and their testimony is creditworthy and whatever story has been given by them is in line with the medical evidence in view of this, rightful conviction has been recorded under Section 302 I.P.C. with the aid of Section 34 I.P.C. and accordingly, the present appeal should be dismissed. 12. 12. In order to appreciate the respective arguments that has been so advanced, this Court at the outset proceeds to examine the evidence that has come on record in the shape of eye-witness account. 13. PW1 Jaswant Singh, PW2 Surendra Pal Singh and PW3 Sheoraj Singh have come up with specific case that they have witnessed the incident in question and whatever account has been submitted by them is a truthful one qua the way and manner incident in question has taken place. It is true that PW1 is father of deceased Ravindra Singh, it is also equally true that Surendra Pal Singh is brother of deceased Bijendra and it is also further equally true that Sheoraj Singh is also a family member of both the deceased persons and thus there is no doubt of the fact that all the three eye-witnesses who have come forward to support the case of the prosecution are near and dear ones of the deceased persons. This much has also come on record that independent witnesses have not at all come forward to support the case of the prosecution, as is reflected from the statement of Investigating Officer that he contacted Udai Singh and Raghuraj Singh of Sumerpur, but they did not disclose the eye-witness account. Can this be a ground to discard the testimony of such eye-witnesses who are near and dear ones of deceased has to be found out, on the parameters as has been settled by Apex Court. 14. The testimony of an eye-witness merely because he happens to be a relative of the deceased cannot be discarded as close relatives would be the last one to screen out the real culprit and implicate innocent person, as per the Apex Court in the case of Dilip Singh vs. State of Punjab AIR 1953 SC 364 and this aspect of the mater has further been clarified by the Apex Court in the case of Dharnidhar v. State of Uttar Pradesh [ (2010) 7 SCC 759 ) as follows: "12. There is no hard-and-fast rule that family members can never be true witnesses to the occurrence and that they will always depose falsely before the court. It will always depend upon the facts and circumstances of a given case. There is no hard-and-fast rule that family members can never be true witnesses to the occurrence and that they will always depose falsely before the court. It will always depend upon the facts and circumstances of a given case. In Jayabalan v. UT of Pondicherry (2010) 1 SCC 199 , this Court had occasion to consider whether the evidence of interested witnesses can be relied upon. The Court took the view that a pedantic approach cannot be applied while dealing with the evidence of an interested witness. Such evidence cannot be ignored or thrown out solely because it comes from a person closely related to the victim. The Court held as under: (SCC p. 213, paras 23-24) 23. We are of the considered view that in cases where the court is called upon to deal with the evidence of the interested witnesses, the approach of the court, while appreciating the evidence of such witnesses must not be pedantic. The court must be cautious in appreciating and accepting the evidence given by the interested witnesses but the court must not be suspicious of such evidence. The primary endeavour of the court must be to look for consistency. The evidence of a witness cannot be ignored or thrown out solely because it comes from the mouth of a person who is closely related to the victim. 13.Similar view was taken by this Court in Ram Bharosey v. State of U.P. AIR 1954 SC 704 , where the Court stated the dictum of law that a close relative of the deceased does not, per se, become an interested witness. An interested witness is one who is interested in securing the conviction of a person out of vengeance or enmity or due to disputes and deposes before the court only with that intention and not to further the cause of justice. The law relating to appreciation of evidence of an interested witness is well settled, according to which, the version of an interested witness cannot be thrown overboard, but has to be examined carefully before accepting the same." 15. Apex Court in the case of Thoti Manohar vs. State of A.P. 2012 (7) SCC has stated as follows: "39. No evidence can ever be perfect for man is not perfect and man lives in an imperfect world. Apex Court in the case of Thoti Manohar vs. State of A.P. 2012 (7) SCC has stated as follows: "39. No evidence can ever be perfect for man is not perfect and man lives in an imperfect world. Thus, the duty of the court is to see with the vision of prudence and acceptability of the deposition regard being had to the substratum of the prosecution story. In this context, we may reproduce a passage from the decision of this Court in State of Punjab v. Jagir Singh, wherein H.R. Khanna, J., speaking for the Court, observed thus: "23. A criminal trial is not like a fairy tale wherein one is free to give flight to one's imagination and phantasy. It concerns itself with the question as to whether the accused arraigned at the trial is guilty of the crime with which he is charged. Crime is an event in real life and is the product of interplay of different human emotions. In arriving at the conclusion about the guilt of the accused charged with the commission of a crime, the court has to judge the evidence by a yardstick of probabilities, its intrinsic worth and the animus of witnesses. Every case in the final analysis would have to depend upon its own facts. Although the benefit of every reasonable doubt should be given to the accused, the courts should not at the same time reject evidence which is ex facie trustworthy on grounds which are fanciful or in the nature of conjectures." 40. In view of our aforesaid analysis, we are unable to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the evidence of the eyewitnesses should be rejected solely on the ground that they are close relatives and interested witnesses." 16. Law on the subject is thus, clear that in reference to appreciation of evidence of witnesses who are near and dear one of victims, version of such witnesses cannot be thrown outrightly out but the same has to be examined carefully before accepting the same. The testimony of an eye-witness if found truthful, cannot be discarded merely because the eye-witnesses are relatives of the deceased. The testimony of an eye-witness if found truthful, cannot be discarded merely because the eye-witnesses are relatives of the deceased. Where the witness is wholly unreliable, the Court may discard the statement of such witness, but where a witness is wholly reliable or neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable (if his statement is fully corroborated and supported by other ocular and documentary evidence), the Court may base its judgment on the statement of said witness. Of course, in the latter category of witnesses, the court has to be more cautious and see if the statement of witnesses is corroborated by other attending circumstances. Such a view has been taken by the Apex Court in the case of Kuria v. State of Rajasthan (2012) 10 SCC 433 on the issue of independent witnesses not being examined, Apex Court in the case of Ram Pratap Vs. State of Haryana 1983 (SCC) 327 has proceeded to mention that experience reminds that civilized people generally where crime is committed in their presence, try to keep themselves away unless it is inevitable. They think that crime is between two parties and they should not involve themselves. This apathy of general public is unfortunate everywhere, in village and cities. This handicap can not be ignored with which the investigating agency has to discharge its duties. The court, instead of doubting the prosecution case for want of independent witnesses, must consider the broad spectrum of the prosecution version and search for the suggest of truth with due regard to probability suggested by the accused. The discrepancies which do not shape the basic prosecution version may be discarded. Normal errors of perception should not be given due importance. Errors due to lapse of memory may be given due allowance. Court must evaluate entire material on record by excluding exaggerated version of the witnesses. If doubt arises on certain facts given by any witness, proper course is to ignore that fact only unless it goes into the root of the matter demolishing the entire prosecution story. 17. Errors due to lapse of memory may be given due allowance. Court must evaluate entire material on record by excluding exaggerated version of the witnesses. If doubt arises on certain facts given by any witness, proper course is to ignore that fact only unless it goes into the root of the matter demolishing the entire prosecution story. 17. In the light of such principles it is to be seen as to whether in the absence of independent witnesses being there can statement of all these witnesses PW1, PW2 and PW3 be accepted as credible, as to whether they were present at the place of occurrence as claimed by them and their statement on the said score of witnessing the crime is reliable or not? 18. In the present case accepted position is that independent witnesses for reasons best known to them have not come forward to support the case of prosecution and much emphasis has been laid on the fact from the side of the appellants that it is impossible to conceive of a situation that all the witnesses of fact would have planned to leave the house for Aligarh and would have also further planned to come back together from Aligarh and the fact of the matter is that their presence at Aligarh itself is highly doubtful and real story is that after incident in question has been effectuated then they acquired knowledge of the incident, and thereafter only for the purposes of case, theory has been set up by them that they have witnessed the crime in question and to substantiate this story they have gone to the extent of mentioning that on the fateful day they had gone to Aligarh and were returning from Aligarh and, accordingly, they are natural eye-witness of incident in question. 19. This Court has examined the statement of PW1 Jaswant Singh, father of deceased Ravindra Singh wherein he has proceeded to mention that he has left his village for Aligarh alongwith his son Ravindra Singh, Bijendra Singh, Sheoraj Singh, Mahaveer Singh and Lakkha Singh at about 8 am and all of them had walked up to Amrauli and from Amrauli they have gone to Aligarh by Tonga. He and his son had come to Aligarh for the purposes of obtaining loan from the bank and in the said direction requisite exercise was undertaken. He and his son had come to Aligarh for the purposes of obtaining loan from the bank and in the said direction requisite exercise was undertaken. He has also stated in his statement that Mahaveer Singh and Sheoraj Singh had gone to the Court in order to find out the date pertaining to matter under Section 107 /116 Cr.P.C. It has also been specifically mentioned that they have reached Aligarh at about 10: 30 am and from there Sheoraj Singh and Mahaveer Singh had gone to Kutchehri and as far as he is concerned he has gone to the Bank and from there to the market and then came to the Ikka Tonga stand and precisely it was mentioned that at about 2 pm from Tonga stand they left. He has also precisely proceeded to mention that one Chinta Singh had been murdered and he has been prosecuted alongwith his family members and in the said case Ganga Singh and Jagpal Singh have appeared as witnesses. He has also given the name of the Bank wherein he had gone and he has also narrated the way and manner of incident in question has taken place as to how all these four accused-appellants came out and after opening of fire by Ganga Singh how accused persons assaulted the deceased persons with knife and thereafter the way and manner in which the injured persons were taken to hospital and how he left for the Police Station and how he reached the Police Station in between and how First Information Report was got prepared. 20. Large scale repetitive arguments have been advanced that here in the facts of present case the testimony of PW1 cannot be said to be creditworthy as there was no reason for him to go to Aligarh and his conduct subsequent to the incident is very very abnormal. 21. In the present case, this Court finds that PW1 had given cogent reasons for his being at Aligarh and in that direction he has specifically come up with the case that in connection with bank loan he alongwith his son Ravindra Singh had gone and Bijendra Singh has accompanied his son there. Not only this, he has also disclosed the name of the bank wherein he has visited. Not only this, he has also disclosed the name of the bank wherein he has visited. Once such is the factual situation that full details have been given by him of the fact that for the purposes of getting loan he has visited the bank alongwith Ravindra Singh and Bijendra Singh, then it cannot be said that they i.e. PW1 and the deceased persons have no reason to be there at Aligarh. The story that has been set up of going together and coming back together is not at all improbable or untrustworthy, once there was work at Aligarh and in the said direction in case it was resolved amongst themselves to go together, by walking upto Amrauli Tonga stand and then going to Aligarh by Tonga, and then returning also in the same manner, the story on this score has been consistent one as has been narrated by PW1 that all of them had gone to Aligarh and after reaching there by tonga, PW1 went to the bank alongwith two deceased and Sheoraj Singh and Mahaveer Singh went to Kutchery. Details have been furnished that after work was finalized, he came back to tonga stand where all others met. Once, such is the factual situation that a consistent story has been given then to cast doubt that PW1 had not gone to Aligarh cannot be accepted in the facts of the case. 22. Here PW1 has clearly mentioned that both Ravindra and Bijendra were walking ahead and this is also not quite unnatural for the reason that these boys were young and in each others company they were walking ahead. Once, such is the factual situation that they were walking ahead and from a distance of 50-60 paces the incident in question has been witnessed wherein all the accused persons surrounded the deceased after coming out from their hiding and Ganga opened fire and thereafter knife injury has been caused by all accused persons and when alarm has been raised, then Ganga opened fire, and same kept them on halt, and the entire incident took roughly about four minutes to be executed. This much is also clear that after the incident in question has taken place then a bhainsa buggi has been called from the village and injured have been taken to the hospital and PW1 accompanied with said buggi up to tiraha and thereafter has proceeded towards Police Station for lodging First Information Report alongwith a knife. 23. Large scale criticism has been made of the abnormal conduct of PW1 Jaswant Singh, that had he been there as has been claimed by him, he would have made all attempt to save his son, without fear of life, and further after incident in question has taken place, he has not even cared to touch his injured son and further while injured were being taken to hospital, instead of accompanying the injured to hospital, which ought to have been his priority instead he has choosen to go to police station and from police station he has gone to the site of occurrence. 24. Once again statement of PW1 has been examined, and he has clearly proceeded to state that both the deceased had raised their voices and PW1 and others went to save them and at the said point of time Ganga Singh opened fire on them and due to fear they did not proceed ahead. Once such a statement has been made, that attempt was made to save but he alongwith others was prevented from helping on account of opening of fire by Ganga Singh, then to say that conduct of PW1 in the facts of case was abnormal, cannot be accepted in the facts of case. In the case of Kuriya vs. State of Rajasthan 2012(10) SCC 445, Apex Court wherein son was following the father from behind and the moment accused persons, who were in large number started assaulting his father, ran away from the site, to call other persons instead of saving his father, due to fear of his life, the said conduct has been held to be normal conduct, and the case in hand also falls in the same category. There is no fixed formula provided for, as to how a horror stricken witness of a dastardly crime is to react, but one thing is certain that witness to a serious crime may not react in normal manner, and may react differently. There is no fixed formula provided for, as to how a horror stricken witness of a dastardly crime is to react, but one thing is certain that witness to a serious crime may not react in normal manner, and may react differently. Apex Court in the case of Appabhai vs. State of Gujrat AIR 1988 SC 686 has proceeded to mention, that even a man of process may become pusillanimous by witnessing a serious crime. Apex Court in the case of Rana Pratap vs. State of Haryana (1983) SCC 372 has taken the view that evidence of a witness of dastardly crime cannot be rejected merely on the ground, that they have behaved or reacted in unusual manner. Apex Court observed as follows: "Every person who witnesses a murder reacts in his own way. Some are stunned, become speechless and stand rooted to the spot. Soe become hysteric and start wailing. Some start shouting for helf, Others run away to keep themselves as far as removed from the spot as possible. Yet others rush to the rescue of the victim, even going to the extent of counter-attacking the assailants. Every one reacts in his own special way. There is not set rule of natural reaction. To discrd the evidence of a witness on the ground that he did not react in any particular manner is to appreciate evidence in a wholly unrealiable and unimaginative way." 25. Once there is no set of rule of natural reaction, and here the only son of PW1 Jaswant Singh, namely Ravinder has been badly injured, on account of injuries caused, and both Ravinder and Brijendra were not in their senses, and blood was oozing out from their body, and he had touched his son, and had called for buggi, and after buggi arrived, injured were put on buggi, then merely because it has been mentioned by PW2 Surendra Pal Singh that PW1 Jaswant Singh has not touched his son and had seen from a distance is of no consequence as PW1 Jaswant Singh has submitted that he has touched his son which is quite natural, and this sentence has been stated by him, after stating that he had send PW2 Surendra Pal Singh to bring buggi. PW3 Sheoraj Singh has accepted that PW1 Jaswant Singh had touched his son. PW3 Sheoraj Singh has accepted that PW1 Jaswant Singh had touched his son. Criticism has also been made that there was no blood on his hand and cloth same also discredits his testimony. PW1 Jaswant Singh has precisely mentioned that he and others had put the injured in the buggi and there was no blood on his hand and dress and he does not recollect as to if there were any blood stains on the hands or dresses of others who had helped in putting injured in buggi. 26. Apex Court in the case of Balbir Singh Vs. State of Punjab 1994 (Suppl.) (2) SCC 26, wherein presence of witness at the crime scene has been found to be natural, and their testimony has been sought to be impeached on the premises that once witnesses were attending bleeding deceased, there should have been blood stains on their clothes and absence of blood stains on their clothes clearly reflects that they were not present. Apex Court ruled that it can not be definitely said that there clothes should necessary have got blood stained and same is clearly dependent upon how they have handled the injured deceased. Here qua the way and manner, how PW1 Jaswant Singh has handled the bleeding injured, no questions have been put. In view of this, once testimony of eye-witness is sought to be discredited on this score, that though he was attending bleeding deceased there are no blood stains on the clothes, then specific questions ought to have been put to the said witness as to how he handled the bleeding deceased, that there are not blood stains on his dress. In the present case as no questions have been put, as to how PW1 handled the bleeding deceased, that there are no blood stains on his hand and dress, as such, on this score testimony of PW1 Jaswant Singh cannot be doubted. 27. Much criticism has also been made of the fact that leaving his injured son, he left for police station. 27. Much criticism has also been made of the fact that leaving his injured son, he left for police station. Here PW1 has travelled alongwith buggi to a certain point, described as Tiraha, and from there buggi has gone in the direction of Hospital and PW1 had choosen to go to police station to lodge First Information Report, and he has specifically stated that he had in his mind that without First Information Report injured would not be admitted, and there should be First Information Report, and accordingly he has proceeded to lodge First Information Report. Once such an idea has cropped up in the mind of PW1 and he has proceeded to lodge First Information Report, and other family members, who are near and dear ones, have proceeded to hospital alongwith injured, then in facts of case conduct cannot be said to be abnormal. 28. The totality of circumstances reflect that PW1, PW2 and PW3 all are family members and for taking injured to hospital arrangement has been made as buggi in question has been called and PW1 has proceeded to police station so that police be informed alongwith knife, the conduct of PW1 cannot be said to be abnormal when other family members were there to take care of injured persons and his thinking has been that First Information Report was necessary for treatment, may be a wrongful thought, but here attending circumstances reflect that his thought process cannot be faulted all together, as fortified from the fact that in spite of the fact that injured Brijendra Singh had reached the hospital for treatment at about 10-10: 30 pm, by the said point of time, Constable Padam Singh had also reached the hospital and injured Brijendra Singh has been shown to have been bought by Constable Padam Singh. Criticism has also been made of the fact that after lodging of first information report, he went to the crime scene. Statement of Investigating Officer reflects that after first information report has been lodged, it was the Investigating Officer who took PW1 Jaswant Singh to the place of occurrence, wherein in the light of torch with the aid of witnesses including PW1 Jaswant Singh spot memo report was prepared and blood stained earth and plain earth was taken. Statement of Investigating Officer reflects that after first information report has been lodged, it was the Investigating Officer who took PW1 Jaswant Singh to the place of occurrence, wherein in the light of torch with the aid of witnesses including PW1 Jaswant Singh spot memo report was prepared and blood stained earth and plain earth was taken. On the asking for of the Investigating Officer, if PW1 Jaswant Singh has gone to the crime scene, there is nothing unusual or abnormal in it and specially when there are family members who are taking care of the injured on all front. 29. The evidence of PW1 cannot be said to be unreliable and from his statement and attending circumstances it is clear that he was returning back from Aligarh when the incident in question has taken place wherein two persons have been killed. 30. On same parameters, evidence of PW2 and PW3 is also seen. It is true that both these persons are also relatives but both these persons have given reasons as to why they were at Aligarh on the said date. PW2 has clearly and categorically stated that he had come to make purchases pertaining to engine machinery and he has also specifically mentioned that Bijendra Singh used to stay with Ravindra Singh and Mahaveer Singh had come to Aligarh in connection of the date of case under Section 107 /116 Cr.P.C. The story that has been given by Surendra Pal Singh is natural story, inasmuch as he has also clearly given reasons as to why he has gone to Aligarh and qua the way and manner in which he carried out his activities at Aligarh and thereafter came to tonga stand and whereof Jaswant Singh, Ravindra Singh and Bijendra Singh met him and it is his specific case that from tonga stand he has left at 2 pm. He has also narrated the way and manner in which the incident has taken place as it was Ganga Singh who opened fire and thereafter knife injuries have also been caused. He has also precisely proceeded to mention that a knife was recovered from the spot and bhainsa buggi was called and then injured were taken to the hospital and PW1 had left for lodging of First Information Report. He has also precisely proceeded to mention that a knife was recovered from the spot and bhainsa buggi was called and then injured were taken to the hospital and PW1 had left for lodging of First Information Report. Once, such is the statement of PW2 and he has given cogent reasons for his presence at Aligarh, then to say that he is not reliable witness cannot be accepted in the facts of the case. 31. PW3 Sheoraj Singh has also been very very precise qua his presence at Aligarh and he has given specific reasons as to why he was there and he has precisely proceeded to mention that before the date of incident Shreepal Singh has told him about proceedings in case under Section 107 /116 Cr.P.C. and on the date of incident to find out the date of said proceeding under Section 107 /116 Cr.P.C., he was there and he has engaged Shri Rampal Singh Rawal as his counsel. This is not at all case of prosecution that proceedings under Section 107 /116 Cr.P.C. was not there and once, proceedings under Section 107 /116 Cr.P.C. has been there and reasons have been given by Sheoraj Singh that he wanted to know the exact date and engage the counsel and in this direction he has been there and has engaged counsel then to say that he was not at Aligarh cannot be accepted. 32. In between the statement of PW1, PW2 and PW3 there is a common line with each other and that is that each one of them has reason to be at Aligarh separately and independently, inasmuch as PW1 has been very very specific that he was there alongwith his son Ravindra Singh and Bijendra Singh and has gone there in reference to bank loan and as far as PW2 is concerned he has also been very very specific that he has been there in order to purchase parts of engine and as far as PW3 is concerned, he has also been very very specific that in connection with the date of proceedings under Section 107 /116 Cr.P.C. and to engage counsel he has been there and had engaged a counsel. Once, such is the factual situation that each one of the three witnesses PW1, PW2 and PW3 has got reason for there presence at Aligarh and they have also given specific reason of there returning together at 2 pm on tonga from tonga stand to a particular point and thereafter each one of them has been walking and two young men had taken a lead, then to say that all these witnesses are not reliable witnesses and have not seen the occurrence, cannot be accepted in the facts of the case. 33. Non production of independent witnesses, in the present case, would not discredit the prosecution case, as here attempt and endeavor has been made to collect evidence from the residents of Sumerpur namely Udai Singh and Raghuraj and they have not come forward to support the prosecution, and here before the trial court PW1, PW2 and PW3 have appeared and their evidence is satisfactory and reliable one. 34. Prosecution story has been consistent here that all these four accused-appellants were hiding in bushes (Patel) and they came out of the same armed with deadly weapon and Ganga Singh opened fire and thereafter knife injuries have been caused with brutality and on noises being raised all these accused persons left the spot. This much has also come up on record that a knife was recovered from the spot and the same was taken and handed over to the police, at the point of time the First Information Report has been lodged and bhainsa buggi was called and on the said buggi injured were send to the hospital wherein Ravindra died en-route and Bijendra was medically examined and referred to Medical College where he died. The eye-witness account in the present case has consistency and is in line with each other on all material aspect of the matter and in view of this, all these three witnesses cannot be said to be unreliable eye-witnesses. 35. Much capital has been sought to be made out in the present case qua the conduct of witnesses in question after the incident in question has taken place. 35. Much capital has been sought to be made out in the present case qua the conduct of witnesses in question after the incident in question has taken place. In respect of the conduct of PW1, elaborate discussion has already been made holding that his conduct was not abnormal inasmuch as he has come up with specific case that at the said point of time he was threatened by Ganga Singh and due to fear he did not proceed and all the four accused-appellants at the said point of time were causing knife injuries to the deceased persons. Similarly, PW2 Surendra Pal Singh has also precisely proceeded to mention in his statement that fire was also opened on them and they had gone back and before they have been fired the accused-appellants were causing knife injuries to the deceased persons. It was also precisely mentioned by him that he does not know as to who precisely was causing injury on whose body and at the point of time they were all raising voices and no one dared to come at all said point of time. 36. Similarly, PW3 has also proceeded to mention that Ganga Singh had opened fire and threatened that no one should come forward and thus each one of the witnesses have come up with consistent case that they were threatened by the accused-appellants not to proceed ahead. Merely because PW1, PW2 and PW3 on account of fear of death and on account of there life being in danger have not proceeded to save the young ones, cannot be a reason to term there conduct as abnormal. Once the accused-appellants were predetermined to commit such a brutal crime in question and were causing knife injuries after opening gun fire then conduct of PWs cannot be said to be abnormal in the facts of the case, inasmuch as, fear of their own life and anxiety to save victim both are there and in such a situation to expect prosecution witnesses to act in a particular manner cannot be accepted. 37. 37. To discard the testimony of PW1, PW2 and PW3 it has been contended that prosecution has come up precisely with the case that Ganga Singh had opened fire on Bijendra Singh and the fact of the matter is that on the body of the deceased there has been no gun shot injury found, thereafter drastic improvements have been made in their statement by saying that Ganga Singh was armed with knife also and in view of this once large scale improvements have been made and the medical evidence clearly belies the case of prosecution there being no gun shot injury, the prosecution story should be turned down on this aspect of the matter. To start with this Court proceeds to examine the injuries that have been noted on the body of Bijendra Singh at the point of time when he has been brought to District Hospital Aligarh, the injuries are as follows: 38. Examined Shree Bijendra Singh 25 yrs. M S/o Shree Son ........ (P.T.) R/o Kota Bahadurpur P.S. Janwa Distt. Aligarh on 11.10.8... (P.T.) 10.25 P.M. M.I.- A mole left side abdomen 7 cm from umblicus at 3.30 O'clock position. B.B.: - C.P. 510 Padam Singh P.S. Janwa Distt ..... (P.T.) Injuries: - (1) A stab wound 3 cm x 1 cm x depth not probed present on Lt. Side chest 9 cm above nipple at 12 O'clock ......(P.T.) Adv. X ray left side chest and referred ..... (P.T.) geon. (II)A stab wound 1.5 cm x .5 cm x depth not probed ..... (P.T.) Neck. 6 cm above medial end of Rt. Clavicle Referred (P.T.) (III)A stab wound 1.5 cm x .5 cm x depth not prob.... (P.T.) neck middle 1/3 and 3 cm medial to in No.(II). Referred to surge..... (P.T.). (IV)A stab wound 1 cm x .5 cm x depth not probed ...... (P.T.) neck 3 cm above medial end of left clavicle. Ref.....(P.T.) rgeon. (V)A gun shot wound of entry 3 cm x 1 cm x bone de.(P.T.) side head 10 cm above left ear. Blackening and tat....(P.T.) Adv. X ray skull. Nature of opinion: - Inj. (1) (II) (III) (IV) K.U.O. caused by object, Referred to surgeon Inj. (v) K.U.O. caused by fire arm (PT) skull. Duration : - About quarter day. (V)A gun shot wound of entry 3 cm x 1 cm x bone de.(P.T.) side head 10 cm above left ear. Blackening and tat....(P.T.) Adv. X ray skull. Nature of opinion: - Inj. (1) (II) (III) (IV) K.U.O. caused by object, Referred to surgeon Inj. (v) K.U.O. caused by fire arm (PT) skull. Duration : - About quarter day. Sd/ Illegible Surgeon scan the case and .....(P.T.) referred to Medical collage A ........(P.T.) Sd/ Illegible L.T.I. Attested to Surgeon Sd/- Illegible/ 11.10.85 Ext. Ka-16 Thereafter Brijendra Singh has died and his autopsy report is as follows: POST MORTEM EXAMINATION REPORT ¼'ko foPNsnu fjiksVZ½ ..... (P.T.) of the Dead body of Bijendra Singh S/o Shohan Pal Singh R/o Kota Bhadur pur R/S Jawan Distt. Aligarh Body sent by S.H.O. Civil Lines Aligarh. Body received in a seal cloth & compared with specimen seal Body identy by accompanying constable. No. 559/85 P.M.done one the body of : Bijendra Singh Place: Aligarh Date: 16.10.85 Time: at 4.00 PM Body Identified by Police Constable/Chaukidar: C.P. 277 Nabab Singh P/S Civil Lines C.P. 1028 Samarjeet Singh Aligarh. Probable Age About 25 years. Probable time since death- Died at J.N. Medical .... (P.T.) at 15.10.85 at 5.50 P.M. vide enclosures 7. Ka. External Examination 1. Condition of body as regards: Muscularity, ------ Stoutness, Emaciation, Rigor mortis and decomposition: Average built body rigor mortis present on lower extremity. P.M. Staining present on Dependent? ... (P.T.) eye & mouth closed. Abdomen Distended. No other ..... (P.T.) decomposition. 2. Marks of identification specially in the case of unknown person: 3. Body/Eyes: 4. Stage of natural orifices, ears, nostrils, mouth, anus, urethra and vagina: 5. Injuries: Nature and position and measurements including incised wounds: ANTE MORTEM INJURIES ¼e`R;q ds iwoZ dh pksVsa½s 1.Lacerated wound 3 cm x 0.5 cm x muscle .... (P.T.) left side head 10 cm above left ear. ......... (P.T.) wound 3 cm x 0.5 cm x muscle deep ...... (P.T.) region of head 7 cm below injury ..... (P.T.) no. 1 ....... (P.T.) wound 1 cm x 0.5 cm x muscle deep ..... (P.T.) 3 cm away from injury no.2. 4. Stitched wound with one stich on left side neck 3 cm above medial end of left clavicle. 5. Incised wound 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm x muscle deep on front of neck middle 1/3 and 3 cm away from injury no. 4. 6. (P.T.) 3 cm away from injury no.2. 4. Stitched wound with one stich on left side neck 3 cm above medial end of left clavicle. 5. Incised wound 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm x muscle deep on front of neck middle 1/3 and 3 cm away from injury no. 4. 6. Stitched wound 1.5 cm with one stich on right side 6 cm above medial end of right clavicle. 7. Stab wound 3 cm x 1 cm x cavity deep on left side chest 9 cm above nipple at 12 O'clock position. 8. Stiched wound 2 cm with one stiche on left side chest on ant. Axillary line 11 cm away from nipple. Sd/- Illegible. 6- Bones and Joints: 7.External organs of generations: 8.Addl. Remarks: Kha- Internal Examination 1- Head and Neck: Described 1- Bones of Scalp and skull: - NAD. 2- Membranes NAD. 3- Brain NAD. 4- Base of skull NAD 5- Vertebrae NAD 6- Spinal Cord Not exposed 7- Addl. Remark Nil. 2- Thorax a. Walls, ribs & cartilage: Described. b. Pleura: Left side cut on upper part. c. Larynx, Trachea and Bronchi: NAD d. Right lung: NAD e. Left lung: Upper lobe cut. f. Pericardium: NAD g. Heart with wt.: NAD Wt. 6 oz. h. Large vessels: NAD i. Addl. Remark Thoracic cavity contains ½ Pint partly clotted blood. 3- Abdomen 1- Walls NAD. 2- Peritoneum NAD. 3- Cavity NAD. 4- Buccal cavity, teeth, NAD. Teeth 16/16. tongue and pharynx 5- Oesophagus NAD 6- Stomach and its contents 1 oz fluid. M.M. Normal. 7- Small Intestine and its contents Gas & fluid. 8- Large Intestine and its contents Gas & faecal matter half full. 9- Liver with wt. & Gall Bladder: NAD 2 lbs G.B. Half full.. 10- Pancreas NAD. 11- Spleen with weight NAD. wt. 4 ½ oz. 12- Kidneys with weight NAD. Wt. Both 6 ½ oz. 13- Bladder Empty NAD. 14- Organs of Generation NAD Gha. Opinion as to cause and manner of death: Death due to shock & haemorrhage resulting by injuries described. Place: Aligarh. Date: 16.10.85. ENCL: Enclosure 11 & signed. Medical Officer Sd/- Illegible 16.10.85 (Dr. Ashok Kumar) (Seal) Other Notes: Body handed over to accompanying constable after post mortem ..... (paper torn) forwarded to S.S.P. Aligarh. Sd/- Illegible 16.10.85 (Seal) Ext. Opinion as to cause and manner of death: Death due to shock & haemorrhage resulting by injuries described. Place: Aligarh. Date: 16.10.85. ENCL: Enclosure 11 & signed. Medical Officer Sd/- Illegible 16.10.85 (Dr. Ashok Kumar) (Seal) Other Notes: Body handed over to accompanying constable after post mortem ..... (paper torn) forwarded to S.S.P. Aligarh. Sd/- Illegible 16.10.85 (Seal) Ext. Ka-6 28.7.87 Similarly, this Court proceeds to examine the injuries that have been noted on the body of Ravindra Singh at the point of time when autopsy has been conducted on the body of the deceased Ravindra Singh, same are as follows: " POST MORTEM EXAMINATION REPORT ¼'ko foPNsnu fjiksVZ½ P.M. done on the body Ravindra Singh S/o Jaswant Singh Aged 25 yrs. R/o Vill. Bahadur pur P/S Jawan Distt. Aligarh on 12.10.85 at 3.45 P.M. P.M. body received at Mortuary at 12.05 P.M. on 12.10.85 and paper received on 3.30 P.M. on 12.10.85 P.M. No. 554/85 P.M.done one the body of : Ravindra Singh Place: Aligarh Date: 12.10.85 Time: at 3.45 PM Body Identified by Police Constable/Chaukidar: C.P. No. 345 Ram Naresh P.S. Jawan Aligarh. C.P. No. 106 Sone Lal Probable Age About 25 years. Probable time since death- About one day old. Ka. External Examination 1. Condition of body as regards: Muscularity, Stoutness, Emaciation, Rigor mortis and decomposition: Average built, Mouth closed, Eyes closed, cornea hazy, stool at anus. No bleeding from mouth, ear etc. 2. Marks of identification specially in the case of unknown person: 3. Body/Eyes: 4. Stage of natural orifices, ears, nostrils, mouth, anus, urethra and vagina: 5. Injuries: Nature and position and measurements including incised wounds: ANTE MORTEM INJURIES (1)I.W. Size 3 cm x 1 cm x cavity deep on the left Hyhochondrine 10 cm away from umblicus protruding small intestine from the wound. On exploration shows opening ......(sic).... in the peritoneal of T.C. & small intestine with blood in peritoneal cavity. (2)I.W. Size 2 cm x 1 cm x trachea deep on the left side of neck, 2 cm below from the Angle of the left Mandible. (3)I.W. Size 4 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep on the left side of Neck, 4 cm below from the Inj. No. (2). (4)Multiple I.W. (six in number) in an area of 8 cm x 4 cm on the mid clavicular Notch, one Trachea deep and other muscle deep size 2 cm x 1 cm. (3)I.W. Size 4 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep on the left side of Neck, 4 cm below from the Inj. No. (2). (4)Multiple I.W. (six in number) in an area of 8 cm x 4 cm on the mid clavicular Notch, one Trachea deep and other muscle deep size 2 cm x 1 cm. (5)I.W. 1 ½ cm x ½ cm x muscle deep on (Rt.) side of Neck 6 cm below from the Angle of Mandible (Rt.). (6)I.W. Size of 2 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep. On the front of chest. 3 cm below the top of shoulder. (7)I.W. On the middle finger of left hand on the Pal ....(P.T.) surface on ...(P.T.) 2rd, 3rd phalanx size .... (P.T.) (8)8. Abra .... (P.T.) 6. Bones and Joints: 7. External organs of generations: 8.Addl. Remarks: Kha- Internal Examination ¼vkUrfjd ijh{kk½ 1- Head and Neck: NAD. 1- Bones of Scalp and skull: - NAD. 2- Membranes: congested. 3- Brain soft & flabby? 4- Base of skull NAD. 5- Vertebrae N.....(P.T.) 6- Spinal Cord .....(P.T.) 7- Addl. Remark 2- Thorax ¼mjl½ a. Walls, ribs & cartilage: NAD. b. Pleura: NAD. c.Larynx, Trachea and Bronchi: Already described in Injury No. (4) & (T)? d.Right lung: NAD. e. Left lung: f. Pericardium: NAD. g. Heart with wt.: Rt. Full & left empty. h. Large vessels: i.Addl. Remark Nil. ii. 3- Abdomen ¼mnj½ 1- Walls NAD. 2- Peritoneum NAD. 3- Cavity 4- Buccal cavity, teeth, NAD. 16/16. tongue and pharynx 5- Oesophagus NAD . 6- Stomach and its contents containing 2 oz pastry material. 7- Small Intestine and its contents contain usual gases & faecal material 8- Large Intestine and its contents 9- Liver with wt. & Gall Bladder: NAD 2 lb & 5 oz. 10- Pancreas NAD. 11- Spleen with wt NAD. 5 oz. 12- Kidneys with weight NAD. Both 5 oz. 13- Bladder Empty. 14- Organs of Generation NAD Gha. Opinion as to cause and manner of death: Death due to above mentioned Injuries as a result of shock & haemorrhage Place: Aligarh. Date: 12.10.85. ENCL: Total enclosure Ten (10). Sd/- Illegible 12.10.85 Sd/- Illegible (Dr. S.M. Gupta) (Seal) Medical Officer Sealed bundle containing Four clothes Kurta-1, Pajama-1, Baniyan, Underwear Sd/- Illegible 12.10.85 Forwarded to S.S.P. Aligarh. Sd/- Illegible 14.10.85 (Seal) Ext. Ka-7 " 39. The injury report of Bijendra Singh reflects that he was brought by Ct. Date: 12.10.85. ENCL: Total enclosure Ten (10). Sd/- Illegible 12.10.85 Sd/- Illegible (Dr. S.M. Gupta) (Seal) Medical Officer Sealed bundle containing Four clothes Kurta-1, Pajama-1, Baniyan, Underwear Sd/- Illegible 12.10.85 Forwarded to S.S.P. Aligarh. Sd/- Illegible 14.10.85 (Seal) Ext. Ka-7 " 39. The injury report of Bijendra Singh reflects that he was brought by Ct. Padam Singh at District Hospital, Aligarh and at the said point of time, the doctor concerned namely Dr. M.K. Mittal has clearly noted a gun shot wound while noting injury no.5 and in the postmortem report that has been so carried out by Dr. Ashok Kumar 8 injuries in all have been noted. Trial Court has dealt with this aspect of the matter as to why discrepancy has been there in noting the injury. On the body of deceased Ravindra also in all 8 injuries have been noted. Capital is being sought to be made of the fact that there was no gun shot injury on the body of Brijendra Singh as has been alleged in the First Information Report and postmortem report of Bijendra exposed the said fact, then improvements have been made in the statement made, by mentioning that Ganga Singh was armed with knife also. 40. It is true that in the First Information Report Ganga Singh has been said to be armed with countrymade pistol and this is also equally true that improvements have been made in the statement by showing knife also in the hand of Ganga Singh, can this be a ground to throw away the entire prosecution case. 41. Dr. M.K. Mittal, Medical Officer, Malkhan Singh Hospital, Aligarh who had examined the injured Bijendra Singh at the outset has clearly proceeded to mention that injury no.5 has been caused by firearm there being wound of entry with blackening and tattooing and has also precisely proceeded to mention that the matter was referred to the Surgeon and Surgeon referred the matter to Medical College and it was also precisely mentioned that in case the pellets of bullet slips and enters in the body then there would be Lacerated wound and in this manner he has proceeded to substantiate the fact that firearm injury was there. PW5 Dr. Ashok had noted 8 injuries on the body of deceased and had mentioned that injury no.1 could have been caused by blunt object. Qua the injury no.1 (noted as injury no. PW5 Dr. Ashok had noted 8 injuries on the body of deceased and had mentioned that injury no.1 could have been caused by blunt object. Qua the injury no.1 (noted as injury no. 5 in the injury report) Dr. M.K. Mittal has clearly stated that when pellets of bullet slips and enters into the body then lacerated wound is caused. Once, such is the factual situation that precise case of prosecution has been that gun shot injury has been caused and at the first instance, the doctor who has attended the injured has clearly opined that there has been gun shot injury and same may result in lacerated wound if pellet slips from the bullet and enters the body and the doctor who has conducted postmortem has simply proceeded to state that same has been caused by blunt object but at no point Dr. Ashok Kumar was ever questioned, as to whether, when shot is fired from country made pistol, which has no fixed specifications, and pellet slips from the bullet, injury caused would be lacerated wound or not. The opinion expressed by Dr. M.K. Mittal remains unchallenged, that there has been gun shot injury and once participation of the accused-appellants is fully substantiated with the ocular evidence available on record, then on this score prosecution story cannot be thrown away. Apex Court in the case of Ram Naresh vs. State of U.P. 2010 (15) SCC 252, wherein specific case of prosecution has been that shot has been fired, and the Doctor who examined the injured came up with the case that it could not be said with certainty that it was a firearm injury, the view taken was that in the light of ocular evidence, the opinion of Doctor can in no way stand in the way of prosecution. The case in hand stands on a better footing, as here prosecution witnesses are consistent on the fact that firearm injury has been caused, and said statement of fact stands corroborated from the statement of Dr. M.K. Mittal, who has been examined subsequently and who has clearly proceeded to state as to under what circumstances, gun shot injury may result in lacerated wound. 42. M.K. Mittal, who has been examined subsequently and who has clearly proceeded to state as to under what circumstances, gun shot injury may result in lacerated wound. 42. Thus from the totality of the circumstance, in the present case, it is clearly reflected that the witnesses who have entered into witness box, their evidence is creditworthy and is consistent with undisputed facts and is in line of each other and there is no noticeable conflict vis-a-vis medical evidence and none of the attending circumstances that has been pointed out from the side of the appellants such as informant has not touched his son's body; deceased had not eaten any thing at Aligarh would cause a dent in the case of the prosecution and whatever slight improvements have been made before the Court, the same in no way creates any legal impediment in accepting the prosecution case and these improvements are not at all materially effecting the case of prosecution and in the facts of the case are insignificant and the same cannot be doubted. 43. Alternatively even if it is accepted as is being suggested by the appellants that Ganga Singh has not opened fire then as he was there alongwith other accused persons, with the common intention to kill with the aid of Section 34 I.P.C. his conviction can always be maintained, as the soul of Section 34 I.P.C. is the joint liability in doing a criminal act. The said section is rule of evidence and does not create substantive offence. The distinctive feature of the section is the element of participation in action and the liability of one person for an offence committed by other in the course of criminal act perpetrates to all other persons under Section 34 I.P.C., if such criminal act is done in furtherance of common intention of the person who joins in committing the crime. Participation of Ganga Singh, Satyaveer Singh and Ramveer is fully substantiated in the present case, from their arrival on the scene wherein blood has been found together armed with deadly weapons such as country made pistol and knife, and firstly by surrounding the deceased persons and by opening fire and then causing knife injuries and then fleeing from the crime scene together. Even if there is no gun shot injury, as is being alleged same will not make any difference on the ultimate result. 44. Even if there is no gun shot injury, as is being alleged same will not make any difference on the ultimate result. 44. Consequently, in the facts of the case, the prosecution has succeeded in bringing home the guilt of the accused-appellants and accordingly this Court concludes that trial court has rightly proceeded to record conviction followed by sentence, in view of this, appeal fails, the judgment and order of trial court is affirmed. The accused appellants, who are alive, namely Ganga Singh s/o Moti Singh, Satyaveer Singh s/o Ram Sarup and Ramveer s/o Bhagwan Sahai be taken into custody to serve out the remaining sentence.