JUDGMENT 1. By this common judgment, D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 526/2011 Navi Khan son of Aasin Khan, aged about 75 years, and S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 512/2011 instituted by brother of Navi Khan, Nasru son of Aasin and Kasam son of Nasru shall be decided together. 2. The present three appellants along with nine other co-accused, namely Dildar @ Dillu son of Aasin Khan, Hakku @ Hakmuddin son of Rahimshah, Munshi son of Rasula, Mohammad Khan son of Chirag Ali, Jaikam son of Samal, Samal son of Aasin, Lallu son of Kumbha, Billu son of Lallu and Fajru son of Kumbha, were sent for trial in case arising out of FIR No. 45/05 registered P.S. Gopalgarh, District Bharatpur for offence under Section 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 325, 336, 452, 307, 302 IPC and 3/25 of the Arms Act. The Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Bharatpur, Camp Kaman, granted benefit of doubt to nine co-accused non-appellants, names of which have been noted above for major offences falling under Section 148, 302/149, 452 and 307/149 IPC and Section 3/25 of Arms Act. However, the trial court held appellant Navi Khan guilty of offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs. 10,000 in default thereof, to undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment. Appellant Nasru and his son Kasam were held guilty of offence under Section 324 IPC and were sentenced to undergo three years S.I. The trial court, however, acquitted remaining nine co-accused, non-appellants for offence under Section 323/149, 341 and 325/149 IPC, on the basis of compromise. 3. The criminal proceedings were set into motion on the basis of written report Exhibit P.1, presented by Yakoob, PW-1. The said written report was presented before ASI, Hari Singh, at police Station Gopalgarh, District Bharatpur. 4. In the written report Exhibit P.1, the complainant Yakoob, stated that Navi Khan son of Aasin Khan and his family members and other relatives were having electoral grudge with him. On 31.7.2005 at about 5:00 PM, Hakku and Munshi were disconnecting electric cable, supplying electricity to their house. Ayub son of the complainant, restrained them but still they disconnected the electric wire due to which trivial dispute went out of control. Hakku and Munshi left the spot. On 31.7.2005 at about 5:00 PM, Hakku and Munshi were disconnecting electric cable, supplying electricity to their house. Ayub son of the complainant, restrained them but still they disconnected the electric wire due to which trivial dispute went out of control. Hakku and Munshi left the spot. After some time, Navi Khan, Samal, Nasru, Jameel, Dillu son of Aasin Khan, Kasam son of Nasru, Fajru son of Kumma, Jaikam son of Samal, came armed with guns, Jakar son of Navi Khan, Lallu son of Kumma, Ballu son of Lallu, Ashrafi wife of Jaikam came armed with lathis, dandas and stones. Mohammad Khan son of Chirag Ali, Munshi son of Rasula, Hakku son of Rahim Shah, Batuli wife of Munshi were armed with lathis, dandas and stones, Fakir son of Lavana and all others came together with common intention to cause murder of Ayub. They came towards Ayub. Seeing them, Ayub in order to save and conceal himself, ran inside the house of Sheodan. All the accused said that the enemy be killed, they should not escape. Saying so, Munshi gave a lathi blow to Ayub. Navi Khan fired a shot, which hit Ayub. Ayub immediately died at the spot. On hearing noise, Habib son of Gariba, Mundari wife of Raees, Tahira wife of Jahid, Jubair son of Sajjan, Jahid son of Sheodan, Akhtari daughter of Sheodan, Makuli wife of Akoop, Akhtari wife of Mukat, Jassi daughter of Jumma, Jumma son of Nasiba, Jahir son of Sajjan, Akoop, Maunvi wife of Juhroo also came at the spot. They restrained the accused. Then Samal, Dillo fired shot at Habib, who received pellet injuries. Then Habib etc. had gone inside the house of Sheodan. Accused persons had also gone inside the house. Nasru and Kasam caused pellet injuries to Mundari, Jahira was caused pellet injuries by Fajru, Jubair received pellet injuries at the hands of Jaikam. Safi to Jahid, Juber to Jakir caused injuries with lathi. Then all the persons armed with lathis caused injuries to Akhtari, Makuli, Jassi, Jummi and Jahir. The complainant had also received injuries on his person. Mauzvi also received injury. Jassi received serious injury on his head from lathi blow given by Ballu. At that time, Jumma, Jahid and Nasiba came. They saw the occurrence. They with great difficulty saved complainant party from the accused. Ayub died at the spot. They all received injuries. The complainant had also received injuries on his person. Mauzvi also received injury. Jassi received serious injury on his head from lathi blow given by Ballu. At that time, Jumma, Jahid and Nasiba came. They saw the occurrence. They with great difficulty saved complainant party from the accused. Ayub died at the spot. They all received injuries. Due to receipt of serious injury, the condition of Mundari had deteriorated. The injured were referred to Bharatpur. After coming from Bharatpur on the next day, the report was presented by Yakoob. 5. On the basis of report received by ASI, Hari Singh, on 1.8.2005, at 8:30 AM, at police station Gopalgarh, District Bharatpur, FIR was registered. The said FIR was investigated. The charge sheet along with accused was committed to the court of Sessions and was entrusted for trial to Additional District Judge, Deeg, Bharatpur. 6. The appellant Navi Khan on 29.8.2008 was charged for the offence under Section 148, 302, 323, 323/149, 341, 452, 325, 325/149, 307 and 307/149 IPC. 7. The first charge stated that in the village Lavana he along with other co-accused, who were armed with guns, lathis, farsa and other lethal weapons had caused death of Ayub and caused injuries to Mundari, Tahira, Juber, Akhtari, Asmina, Habib, Jahir, Maujwi, Yakoob and Smt. Makuli and for said object constituted unlawful assembly and committed offence punishable under Section 148 IPC. 8. The second charge stated that the appellant had fired a shot due to which Ayub died on the spot and thereby he committed an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. 9. For causing simple injuries to Akhtari, Asmina, Habib, Jahid, Maujwi, Yakoob and Juber, the appellant was charged for offence punishable under Section 323 IPC and 323/149 IPC. 10. For causing injuries to Juber and Makuli, the appellant, Navi Khan was charged for offence punishable under Section 325 and 325/149 IPC. 11. For causing injuries on the person of Mundari and Tahira, the appellant, Navi Khan was charged for offence punishable under Section 307 and 307/149 IPC. He was also charged for offence under Section 341 and 452 IPC. 12. The present appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 13. The prosecution in all examined 37 witnesses. 14. Tahira and Mundari who had allegedly received injuries falling within the ambit of Section 307 IPC were examined as PW-12 and PW-29, respectively. He was also charged for offence under Section 341 and 452 IPC. 12. The present appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 13. The prosecution in all examined 37 witnesses. 14. Tahira and Mundari who had allegedly received injuries falling within the ambit of Section 307 IPC were examined as PW-12 and PW-29, respectively. Jubair and Makuli had received injuries falling within the ambit of Section 325 IPC, they were examined as PW-16 and PW-25, respectively. Akhtari PW-13, Asmeena, PW-11, Habib, PW-4, Jahid PW-27 and Mojvi PW-17, Yakoob PW-1, and Jubair, PW-16 were having simple injuries on their person falling within the ambit of Section 323 IPC. They were also examined by the prosecution. Besides above injured witnesses, the prosecution had examined Dr. R.S. Goyal, PW-21, Dr. Sunil Sharma PW-24, Dr. Rajendra Gupta PW-30 and Dr. Banay Singh PW-33 to prove medical evidence. 15. PW-1, Yakoob stated that three and a half years ago in the evening, at about 5:00 PM, he along with his wife Makuli and his son Ayub, were sitting in the house. Munshi, Hakku, Mohammad Khan, Batuli were disconnecting electric wire going to their house. At that juncture, he along with Ayub went to the spot, they raised protest as to why electric cable going to their house was being disconnected. The accused said that in every case, wire shall be disconnected. At that time, Navi Khan was armed with gun. Samal, Jaikam, Kasam, Fajru, Nasru were also armed with guns, remaining accused were armed with lathis. Munshi caused injury with lathi on the head of Ayub. Hakku also gave injury on the head of Ayub. Mohammad Khan gave a fire arm injury on the right thigh of Ayub. Ayub ran to the house of Sheodan. In the house of sheodan, Shafi gave a lathi blow on the head of Jahid. Dillu gave an injury with lathi on the head of Habib. Lallu, Ballu, Shafi and Zakir had caused fracture on the hands of Jubair. Ayub was running towards the house of Sheodan to save himself. At that time, Navi Khan fired a shot which hit the neck of Ayub, due to which Ayub died at the spot. Injuries were caused to his wife by Jamil, Lallu and Ballu. Fajru also fired a shot, which caused injury to Tahira. Kasam fired a shot which caused injury to Tahira. At that time, Navi Khan fired a shot which hit the neck of Ayub, due to which Ayub died at the spot. Injuries were caused to his wife by Jamil, Lallu and Ballu. Fajru also fired a shot, which caused injury to Tahira. Kasam fired a shot which caused injury to Tahira. Nasru also fired a shot which caused injury to Tahira. Samal fired a shot which caused injury to Mundari. Jaikam fired a shot which caused injury to Mundari. Then all the accused ran away from the spot. The complainant Yakoob submitted report Exhibit P.1, FIR Exhibit P.2 was registered, Site Plan Exhibit P.3 was prepared, and Panchayatnama/Inquest of dead body Exhibit P.4 was conducted, clothes of the deceased were taken into possession vide Exhibit P.5, pellets were taken into possession vide Exhibit P.6, Site plan of the spot Exhibit P.7 was also prepared. Investigating Officer had also taken into possession the medico-legal examination reports of above injured witnesses. Medical examination of Yakoob was proved as Exhibit P.9 and receipt of dead body as Exhibit P.10. 16. In cross-examination, this witness stated that electric wire supplying electricity was in existence from last 19 years. He and Ayub had not contested any election against Navi Khan. Navi Khan had been Sarpanch of the village for the last 10/15 years and he also remained member of Zila Parishad. During tenure of Navi Khan as Sarpanch no dispute/fight had arisen. At the time of fight, no elections were being held. This witness denied the fact that shot fired by Navi Khan had hit wall. 17. PW-2, Gariba stated that Ayub had died due to receipt of gun shot injury. He had attested the inquest proceedings Exhibit P.4. 18. PW-3, Mukut, stated that proceedings regarding condition of dead body were prepared at the spot. He had attested the inquest proceedings Exhibit P.4 and other documents. 19. PW-4, Habib, has corroborated the evidence given by PW-1, Yakoob and also stated that shot fired by Navi Khan had hit at the neck of Ayub. In the cross-examination, this witness stated that Ayub was son of his uncle Yakoob. Hakku and Munshi belonged to Fakir community and in the village there were 5-6 houses of Fakir community and there were about 100 houses of Mev community. 20. PW-5, Samru, and PW-6 Sharif had attested the inquest proceedings Exhibit P.4. 21. In the cross-examination, this witness stated that Ayub was son of his uncle Yakoob. Hakku and Munshi belonged to Fakir community and in the village there were 5-6 houses of Fakir community and there were about 100 houses of Mev community. 20. PW-5, Samru, and PW-6 Sharif had attested the inquest proceedings Exhibit P.4. 21. PW-7, Girraj, stated that he knew Navi Khan and Dildar and they were not arrested by police in his presence. He denied his signatures on arrest memo Exhibit P.11 and 12 and therefore, was declared hostile by the prosecution. 22. PW-8, Jummi Khan, stated that four years ago, at about 5:00 PM, he was attracted to place of occurrence. He was told by his son Mustafa that parties were fighting with each other. Stones were also pelted. He had received stone injury. This witness was also declared hostile by the prosecution. 23. PW-9, Hasmal, had also denied his signatures on the arrest memo and was declared hostile by the prosecution. 24. Suffice it to say that PW-10, Jahir, stated that the present appellant Navi Khan had diagonally (Tirchha) fired shot, which hit at the neck of Ayub. 25. PW-11, Asmina, had not supported the prosecution case and was declared hostile. 26. PW-12, Tahira and PW-13 Akhtari, both injured also stated that Navi Khan had fired a shot which hit on the neck of Ayub. 27. To save repetition, it is to be noted that except PW-25, Makuli, not injured in the occurrence, all attributed gun shot injury present on the person of deceased Ayub to the present appellant Navi Khan. 28. PW-25, Makuli, the mother of the deceased Ayub, had stated that she had not seen the fight. Ayub is her son, how he died is not known to her. She had not received any injury in the occurrence. The mother of the deceased Ayub was declared hostile. 29. It is undisputed fact that there was injury on the neck of the deceased Ayub. Autopsy was conducted on the dead body of Ayub by Dr. Sunil Sharma, PW-24. He had found three injuries on the person of Ayub. Injury No. 1 was on the right side of neck having dimension of 0.3 to 0.5 cm in size, having depth of 0.3 to 0.5 cm. Autopsy was conducted on the dead body of Ayub by Dr. Sunil Sharma, PW-24. He had found three injuries on the person of Ayub. Injury No. 1 was on the right side of neck having dimension of 0.3 to 0.5 cm in size, having depth of 0.3 to 0.5 cm. Injury No. 2 was a punctured wound present at the back of neck having dimension of 0.3 to 0.5 cm and depth of 1 cm. Injury No. 3 was a punctured wound between neck and right shoulder having dimension of 0.3 to 0.5 cm in circle. From the above injuries, 15 pellets were extracted. As per this witness, vessels of neck had raptured and cause of death was hemorrhagic shock due to excessive bleeding. 30. We have not noticed all the injuries caused by other accused, as the present appellant Navi Khan in D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 526/2011, has been convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for causing death of Ayub. Appellants Nasru and Kasam have only been convicted for the offence under Section 324 IPC. 31. We need not burden the judgment by noticing injuries suffered by eleven witnesses. 32. Mr. M.K. Kaushik, the learned counsel for the appellant has raised numerous arguments for consideration of this court. 33. Mr. Kaushik submitted that the present occurrence had taken place on 31.7.2005 at about 5:00 PM, whereas, FIR was submitted on the next day by father of the deceased on 1.8.2005 at about 8:00 AM. According to Mr. Kaushik, written report was submitted to police after delay of more than 15 hours and thus, there were consultations and deliberation on the part of the complaint to implicate the present appellant Navi Khan who is a well-known person of the village having remained Sarpanch of that village for about 10/15 years. He further submitted that the appellant and two other accused namely Hakku and Mushi belonged to Fakir community and they had dispute with the complainant party and the appellant Navi Khan has been unnecessarily dragged into litigation. 34. Mr. Kaushik, has contended that it is admitted by Yakoob that he had submitted the report to the police on the night of the occurrence. However, Investigating Officer has admitted that the complaint allegedly earlier submitted by Yakoob is not part of the case file. 34. Mr. Kaushik, has contended that it is admitted by Yakoob that he had submitted the report to the police on the night of the occurrence. However, Investigating Officer has admitted that the complaint allegedly earlier submitted by Yakoob is not part of the case file. Counsel for the appellant has further relied upon the statement of the witnesses, who attested the inquest, namely PW-5 Samru and PW-6, Sharif, who had testified that the police had taken the dead body of the deceased in their possession on the day of occurrence and panchayatnama was executed on the next day to contend that written report was submitted after police had conducted investigation. It is urged that these witnesses had further stated that when inquest proceedings were carried out Yakoob was already present. Thus, counsel for the appellant contended that on 31.7.2005, on the day of occurrence itself, a report was presented by Yakoob and since the same was not helpful to the prosecution, for best reasons known, prosecution has withheld the same from court. It is further contended that as per Yakoob, dead body of the deceased was lying in Nohra, whereas, as per investigation, the same has been recovered from Bada of Sheodan. It is contended that the deceased had died at the spot, thus, from totality of circumstances, it is to be assumed that in the present case, post investigation FIR was registered and the FIR was result of consultations and deliberations. To add force to earlier arguments, it is contended that that that the appellant had become member of Zila Parishad, and since he was leader of Mev community, being Sarpanch for a long time, he has been picked up among all the accused to assign fatal injury and has been named as a prime accused. It is further contended that the PW-24 Dr. Sunil Sharma, who had conducted autopsy, had not specifically stated that injuries received by deceased Ayub were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Thus, it is contended that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the offence of murder on the part of appellant Navi Khan punishable under Section 302 IPC. 35. The learned counsel for the appellant has referred to the statement of PW-10, Zaheer. Thus, it is contended that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the offence of murder on the part of appellant Navi Khan punishable under Section 302 IPC. 35. The learned counsel for the appellant has referred to the statement of PW-10, Zaheer. As per this witness, Navi Khan being leader had incited other co-accused to commit offence and therefore, delay in lodging of the report and various other deficiencies on the part of prosecution case should be taken to infer that the later due to consultations and deliberations, role of Navi Khan from conspirator has been shifted to prime accused. It is further stated that the prosecution is discrepant regarding number of shots fired in the occurrence. Mr. Kaushik has further stated that pellets recovered from injured were of different dimensions. Thus, it cannot be said that injury on the neck of deceased was caused by one shot, as it is stated that number of shots were fired at that time, thus, it cannot be said that shot fired by Navi Khan had hit the neck of the deceased. Therefore, the counsel submits that not only medical evidence, but ballistic evidence also contradict ocular version. It is further stated that scene of occurrence has not been re-constructed by calling ballistic expert. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that since the houses were densely located, the Investigating Officer purposely has not noted the dispersion of pellets on the wall or doors of the house. It is further submitted that the appellants were prosecuted in a cross case and had also received injuries. Injury on the person of accused have not been explained and thus, the prosecution has suppressed the origin and genesis of the occurrence. It is further contended that non-explanation of injuries on the accused by the witness is fatal to the prosecution. 36. Mr. Azad Ahmed, the learned counsel for the appellant Nasru and Kasam, stated that it has come on the record that the compromise was effected between the parties. It is submitted that benefit of compromise has been granted to other co-accused for acquitting them of minor offences, after they were acquitted of major offence by granting benefit of doubt. 36. Mr. Azad Ahmed, the learned counsel for the appellant Nasru and Kasam, stated that it has come on the record that the compromise was effected between the parties. It is submitted that benefit of compromise has been granted to other co-accused for acquitting them of minor offences, after they were acquitted of major offence by granting benefit of doubt. It is stated that since the appellants Nasru and Kasam have been convicted for the offence under Section 324 IPC, compromise arrived between the parties should be considered as mitigating circumstance so far sentence awarded to them is concerned. 37. Mr. Jitendra Shrimali, the learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that in the present case, number of witnesses have received injuries. They have deposed categorically against the appellant and after the compromise so arrived between the parties, later mother of deceased had turned hostile only because of compromise and therefore, her testimony should be ignored and prosecution case should be evaluated and appreciated on the basis of statements made by injured witnesses recorded by the trial court. 38. We have given due consideration to the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. 39. Before we deal with the arguments raised and considered by us, it would be necessary to recapitulate defence evidence also. 40. The accused had examined 13 witnesses in defence. 41. Mardan, DW-1, stated that 5-6 years ago, at about 5/6 PM in the evening, an altercation had taken place outside the house of Sheodan. Number of people had gathered. There were 50-60 persons. Both sides had resorted to pelting of stones and firing. In the fighting Ayub died. Ayub died in the front of house of Sheodan. This witness could not said as to who caused fire injury to Ayub. He further stated that in his Nohra, no occurrence had taken place. 42. To similar effect is the statement of Aameena, DW-2. She further stated that at the time of occurrence, Navi Khan was not armed with gun. He had not fired any shot. Ayub was lying dead near the house of Sheodan. 43. Israel, DW-3, stated that Nasru, the accused-appellant has been falsely implicated. To similar effect, is the statement of DW-4, Farookh. 44. Aas Mohammad, DW-5 and Aasuddin Khan, DW-6, deposed qua alibi of Samal, the acquitted accused. 45. Kamru, DW-7 pleaded alibi qua acquitted accused Lallu and Ballu. 46. Ayub was lying dead near the house of Sheodan. 43. Israel, DW-3, stated that Nasru, the accused-appellant has been falsely implicated. To similar effect, is the statement of DW-4, Farookh. 44. Aas Mohammad, DW-5 and Aasuddin Khan, DW-6, deposed qua alibi of Samal, the acquitted accused. 45. Kamru, DW-7 pleaded alibi qua acquitted accused Lallu and Ballu. 46. Zakir, DW-8 and Bhanwar Singh, DW-9, pleaded alibi qua acquitted accused Jaikam. 47. Jaikam Khan, DW-10, accused stated that he was falsely implicated. 48. Ballu, accused DW-11 had appeared to plead alibi. 49. Nasru, DW-12 and Samal Khan, DW-13, had stepped into witness box to plead alibi. 50. The trial court had returned a finding of free fight and held every accused responsible and liable for individual liability. Since, the appellant Navi Khan caused fatal injury, he has been convicted for offence under Section 302 IPC substantively and other accused were convicted for the offence under Section 324 IPC. Other appellants, Nasru and Kasam were convicted for the offence under Section 324 IPC. Similarly, non-appellant, have been acquitted by the trial court on the basis of compromise arrived between the parties, after statement of the material witnesses were recorded. 51. Much Ado has been made by the counsel for the appellant Navi Khan by building entire edifice on the stray line emerging in the evidence of witness Yakoob that on the day of occurrence itself, he had submitted a written report to the Investigating Agency. Furthermore, said report was suppressed and after the investigation had been carried in consonance with medical evidence on the next day of occurrence i.e. 1.8.2005, at 8:30 AM, written report Exhibit P.1 was submitted by Yakoob, PW-1. 52. All arguments raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, revolve around above argument, which is thrust and primary argument of counsel for the appellant. The said argument raised cannot make us oblivious of the totality of the circumstances and broad features of the prosecution case. Yakoob, PW-1, is the father of the deceased Ayub. He will be the last person to screen the real offender and substitute the same with the appellant Navi Khan merely because he is influential person of the locality. Rather, concern of the father who has lost his son, is to take the real offender to the task. Yakoob, PW-1, is the father of the deceased Ayub. He will be the last person to screen the real offender and substitute the same with the appellant Navi Khan merely because he is influential person of the locality. Rather, concern of the father who has lost his son, is to take the real offender to the task. Therefore, on the touch stone of probability, we shall place implicit reliance upon Yakoob, PW-1, so far role assigned to appellant Navi Khan is concerned. In the present case, 11 persons had received injuries. All injured have unanimously named Navi Khan, the appellant as the one who had fired the shot and the said shot had hit neck of the deceased. Therefore, we reject the argument regarding consultations and deliberations on the part of first informant and false implication of Navi Khan on the part of Yakoob, PW-1. 53. The argument raised that the initial dispute or trigger for occurrence to commence is disconnection of the electric wire by persons belonging to Fakir community, and therefore, Navi Khan who belong to Mev community will not participate in the occurrence, also cannot be accepted. It has come in evidence that Navi Khan has been Sarpanch for last 10/15 years and was member of Zila Parishad. So it cannot be assumed that the members of Fakir community will not be his supporters. The case of the prosecution is that due to electoral grudge, injuries have been caused. It has come in evidence that Navi Khan was regularly winning elections, but had lost the last election to the post of Sarpanch. Therefore, it was a case of assertion. For Navi Khan having lost the battle of ballot, he wanted to assert `Might is Right' by using bullet. 54. It is to be noted that inquest proceedings were carried on the next day of occurrence i.e. 1.8.2005. On the said day, at about 8:30 AM a written report had already been presented by Yakoob, PW-1. Therefore, lot of confusion had been created by the defence between day of occurrence and the day of inquest. Illiterate witnesses cannot distinguish between the day when inquest was prepared and the occurrence had taken place. To set the facts right, it is to be noted that occurrence had taken place in the month of July, 2005 at 5:00 PM, 11 persons including Yakoob had received injuries. Illiterate witnesses cannot distinguish between the day when inquest was prepared and the occurrence had taken place. To set the facts right, it is to be noted that occurrence had taken place in the month of July, 2005 at 5:00 PM, 11 persons including Yakoob had received injuries. The first anxiety and concern of the witnesses is to receive medical aid. Thus, if the witnesses have gone for medical examination to Bharatpur, where they were referred to, we cannot take delay in itself as a sole consideration to reject the prosecution case. 55. The arguments raised that Doctor, who conducted autopsy on the dead body of Ayub, had not opined that the injuries on the person of Ayub were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature cannot be accepted by us by having mere glance at the injuries received and opinion given by the Doctor regarding cause of death, we can come to the conclusion that injury had proved fatal. 15 pellets were extracted from the neck of the deceased. Gun shot injury had raptured vessels of the neck and had resulted into excessive bleeding. Therefore, this opinion itself is sufficient to assume that injury caused by the appellant had caused death of Ayub. 56. The argument that the pellets extracted from the neck were of different dimensions is not sufficient for us to assume that other persons have also fired shot and the same had hit the neck of the deceased, as in the present case, we are not aware of the number and type of cartridges used by the accused. Since, the accused had not unloaded the weapon, cartridge was not recovered. Therefore, on this count alone, we will not discard the ocular version which had emerged in the testimony of 11 injured witnesses. 57. Counsel for the appellant had doubted the place of occurrence raising an argument that the dead body of the deceased was lying in Nohra of Mardan, DW-1, whereas, witnesses have stated that Ayub had gone inside the house of Sheodan. There is no contradiction so far as place of occurrence and statement of witnesses are concerned. Distance between Nohra of Mardan and house of Sheodan is only 10 feet. Even height of one body is 5 feet. Therefore, to say that after receiving the gun shot injury, deceased had not taken few steps is a futile imagination. There is no contradiction so far as place of occurrence and statement of witnesses are concerned. Distance between Nohra of Mardan and house of Sheodan is only 10 feet. Even height of one body is 5 feet. Therefore, to say that after receiving the gun shot injury, deceased had not taken few steps is a futile imagination. Therefore, we shall place our implicit reliance upon the ocular version emerging in the statement of injured witnesses, whose presence at the place of occurrence is stamped. 58. Taking totality of the circumstances we are of the view that the argument raised by counsel for the appellant Navi Khan are not sufficient to persuade us to record a discordant note and disturb the well reasoned finding given by the trial court. 59. Consequently, we dismiss the D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 526/2011 preferred by the appellant Navi Khan. 60. So far as the appellants Nasru and Kasam are concerned, they have been only convicted for the offence under Section 324 IPC. The occurrence in the present case is 9 years old. They have already suffered pain and agony of protracted trial. Furthermore, qua, offence under Section 325 and 324 IPC, trial court had taken the compromise as a factor to record acquittal of the acquitted co-accused. We also take compromise arrived between the parties and prevailing peace in the village from last nine years as a mitigating circumstance and order that the appellants Nasru and Kasam be released on probation for a period of one year, subject to their executing requisite bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court. The bonds to be executed shall specify that for a period of one year they shall be of good conduct and be of peace. The trial court shall also record in the bonds that in case during the period of probation appellants Nasru and Kasam, commit breach of any condition of bonds they can be called upon to serve the sentence. The trial court in its wisdom may incorporate other conditions in the bonds. 61. With the above modification, qua the sentence awarded upon Nasru and Kasam, we affirm the conviction of the appellants, Nasru and Kasam for the offence under Section 324 IPC and dispose of the S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 512/2011. *******