Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2664 (ALL)

Kallu Singh and Om Prakash v. State of U. P.

2014-08-29

AKHTAR HUSAIN KHAN, ARUN TANDON

body2014
JUDGMENT Akhtar Husain Khan,J Present appeal has been filed by accused appellants Kallu Singh alias Om Prakash, Raghunath Singh, Chhunni Singh alias Surendra Singh and Chotey Singh under section 374(2) Cr.P.C. against judgement and order dated 17.2.1988 passed by learned Special Judge (Dacoity Affected Area), Kanpur Dehat in S.T. No.67 of 1986 (State Vs. Kallu Singh and others), under sections 302/34 and 323/34 I.P.C., Police Station Shivli, District Kanpur Dehat, whereby learned Special Judge (Dacoity Affected Area), Kanpur Dehat has convicted accused appellants Kallu Singh alias Om Prakash, Raghunath Singh, Chhunni Singh alias Surendra Singh and Chotey Singh for offences punishable under sections 302/34 I.P.C. and section 323/34 I.P.C. and sentenced each of them for offence punishable under sections 302/34 I.P.C. to imprisonment for life and for offence punishable under sections 323/34 I.P.C. to rigorous imprisonment for one year. Learned Special Judge (Dacoity Affected Area), Kanpur Dehat has directed that all sentences of all accused appellants shall run concurrently. 2. Accused appellant Raghunath Singh has died during pendency of appeal. Appeal abated in respect of accused appellant Raghuanth Singh. 3. Smt. Sunita Singh Chauhan, learned counsel appeared for the appellants and learned A.G.A. appeared for State respondent. 4. We have heard the parties and perused the record. 5. According to the first information report Exhibit Ka.1 in short prosecution version is that complainant Rambir Singh and all the accused are resident of same village and there had been a quarrel between Satyabir Singh; brother of complainant and accused Chunni Singh and others about three years before present occurrence in which compromise was made but due to said incident on 21.2.86 at about 6.00 P.M. while complainant's brother Satyabir Singh was coming back from the house of Babu Pandit alongwith Yogendra Singh P.W.2 and they went towards canal to ease themselves and reached near grove of Bhagwan Singh, accused Kallu Singh armed with Addhi, accused Chhunni Singh armed with Pharsa, accused Chotey Singh armed with Gandasa and accused Raghunath Singh armed with lathi came there and surrounded complainant's brother Satyabir Singh and Yogendra Singh. They abused Satyabir Singh and began to assault him. Accused Kallu Singh assaulted with Butt of Addhi while accused Chhunni Singh and Chotey Singh assaulted with pharsa and gandasa respectively. Accused Raghunath also assaulted with lathi. Satyabir Singh and Yogendra Singh raised alarm whereupon accused Kallu Singh fired with Addhi. They abused Satyabir Singh and began to assault him. Accused Kallu Singh assaulted with Butt of Addhi while accused Chhunni Singh and Chotey Singh assaulted with pharsa and gandasa respectively. Accused Raghunath also assaulted with lathi. Satyabir Singh and Yogendra Singh raised alarm whereupon accused Kallu Singh fired with Addhi. After having heard the noise of firing complainant Rambir Singh, Rasool, Madhav Singh, Jaswant Singh and Raghuraj Singh rushed to the spot and challenged the accused. Thereafter accused ranaway towards jungle and Satyabir Singh brother of complainant succumbed to injuries on spot. 6. According to the F.I.R. Exhibit Ka.1 Yogendra Singh was also caused injury with butt of Addhi. 7. According to F.I.R. Exhibit Ka.1 due to night and fear of accused complainant did not go to police station at once. He went to police station on 22.2.1986 at 6.15 A.M. after arranging conveyance and presented report Exhibit Ka.1, whereupon crime no.28 of 1986, under sections 302, 323 I.P.C. was registered in Police Station Shivli, District Kanpur Dehat against accused Kallu Singh, Chhunni Singh, Chotey Singh and Raghunath Singh and investigation was started by police. Thereafter inquest report of deceased Satyabir Singh was prepared and after having completed other formalities the dead body was sent for post-mortem in sealed cover. 8. P.W.2 Yogendra Singh was also sent for medical examination by police. His medical examination was conducted on 22.2.1986 at 6.00 P.M. by P.W.3 Dr. S.C. Mishra and injury report Exhibit Ka.2 was prepared by him. Police completed investigation in accordance with law and submitted charge sheet against accused Kallu Singh, Chhunni Singh, Chotey Singh and Raghunath Singh under sections 302/323/34 I.P.C. whereupon concerned Magistrate took cognizance and after compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C. committed the case to the court of session for trial of all accused. Thereafter S.T. No. 67 of 1986 (State Vs. Kallu Singh and others), under sections 302/34 and 323/34 I.P.C. Police Station Shivli, District Kanpur Dehat was registered in session court of district Kanpur Dehat. Later on said session trial was transferred to the court of Special Judge (Dacoty Affected Area), who framed charges against all accused for offences punishable under sections 302/34 and 323/34 I.P.C. 9. All accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 10. Prosecution examined P.W.1 Rambir Singh, P.W.2 Yogendra Singh, P.W.3 Dr. S.C. Mishra, P.W.4 Indrapal Singh and P.W.5 Dr. O.P. Agrawal and closed his evidence. 11. All accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 10. Prosecution examined P.W.1 Rambir Singh, P.W.2 Yogendra Singh, P.W.3 Dr. S.C. Mishra, P.W.4 Indrapal Singh and P.W.5 Dr. O.P. Agrawal and closed his evidence. 11. After prosecution evidence, statements of all accused were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. All the accused stated that they have been falsely implicated due to animosity. 12. Accused examined D.W.1 Krishna Kumar Shukla in defence. 13. Learned Special Judge heard arguments of both parties and passed impugned judgement and order whereby he has convicted and sentenced accused appellants as mentioned above. 14. Learned counsel for accused appellants contended that impugned judgement and order passed by trial court is against law and well as evidence on record. 15. Learned counsel for accused appellants contended that P.W.1 complainant Rambir Singh and P.W.2 Yogendra Singh are pattidar and interested persons. He further contended that injury of P.W.2 Yogendra Singh is fabricated. 16. Learned counsel for accused appellants contended that there are contradictions in statements of P.W.1 complainant Rambir Singh and P.W.2 Yogendra Singh. 17. Learned counsel for accused appellants contended that that murder of deceased Satyabir Singh has been committed by unknown persons in late night and due to enmity accused appellants have been implicated. 18. Learned counsel for accused appellants contended that medical evidence is inconsistent with statements of P.W.1 complainant Rambir Singh and P.W.2 Yogendra Singh. 19. Learned counsel for accused appellants contended that in the month of February sunset was at 5.51. Therefore even at 6.00 P.M. darkness must have prevailed. But no source of light has been alleged by prosecution and in absence of light identification of assailants is highly doubtful. 20. Learned counsel for accused appellants contended that in view of above evidence adduced by prosecution is not reliable. Therefore, trial court has committed error in recording conviction against accused appellants. 21. Learned counsel for accused appellants prayed that appeal should be allowed and all accused appellants should be acquitted. 22. Learned A.G.A. contended that P.W.2 Yogendra Singh is injured witness. Therefore, his presence at the time of occurrence may not be denied. 23. Learned A.G.A. contended that statement of P.W.1 complainant Rambir Singh shows that having heard the noise of firing he reached spot and saw the occurrence and there is nothing on record to disbelieve his presence. 24. 22. Learned A.G.A. contended that P.W.2 Yogendra Singh is injured witness. Therefore, his presence at the time of occurrence may not be denied. 23. Learned A.G.A. contended that statement of P.W.1 complainant Rambir Singh shows that having heard the noise of firing he reached spot and saw the occurrence and there is nothing on record to disbelieve his presence. 24. Learned A.G.A. contended that testimonies of P.W.1 complainant Rambir Singh and P.W.2 Yogendra Singh are fully corroborated by medical evidence and there is no reasonable ground to presume that murder of Satyabir Singh has been committed during late night. 25. Learned A.G.A. contended that evidence on record is sufficient to hold accused appellants guilty. Learned trial court has rightly convicted accused appellants and sentence awarded by trial court is not excessive. 26. Learned A.G.A. contended that appeal filed by accused appellants has no merit and it should be dismissed. 27. We have considered the submissions made by both parties. 28. Out of above five witnesses examined by prosecution before trial court P.W.1 complainant Rambir Sinth and P.W.2 Yogendra Singh are the witnesses of fact and occurrence. Both of them have fully supported version of F.I.R. in their statements on oath. P.W.1 complainant Rambir Singh and P.W.2 Yogendra Singh have proved F.I.R. Exhibit Ka.1 also. 29. P.W.3 Dr. S.C. Mishra has stated on oath that on 22.2.1986 he was posted as Medical Officer in Ursla Hospital and on that day at 6.00 P.M. he conducted medical examination of P.W.2 Yogendra Singh, who was brought by Constable C.7256 R.C. Singh, Police Station Shivli. He has proved injury of P.W.2 Yogendra Singh as well as his injury report Exhibit Ka.2 in his statement. 30. P.W.4 Inspector Indrapal Singh has stated in his statement on oath that on 22.2.1986 he was Incharge Inspector of Police Station Shivli. He has proved chick F.I.R. Exhibit Ka.3 as well as copy of G.D. relating to registration of crime Exhibit Ka.4 as secondary witness. He has stated that he took investigation into his hand on 22.2.1986. On that day he recorded statements of complainant P.W.1 Rambir Singh and injured witness P.W.2 Yogendra Singh. Thereafter he went to spot alongwith S.I. K.P. Singh and other police officials. He has stated that he took investigation into his hand on 22.2.1986. On that day he recorded statements of complainant P.W.1 Rambir Singh and injured witness P.W.2 Yogendra Singh. Thereafter he went to spot alongwith S.I. K.P. Singh and other police officials. He reached at spot on 22.2.1986 at 7.15 A.M. and prepared inquest report Exhibit Ka.5 at 9.30 A.M. He has proved letter to C.M.O. Exhibit Ka.6, letter to R.I. Exhibit Ka.7, specimen of seal Exhibit Ka.8, Photo Nash Exhibit Ka.9 and Chalan Nash Exhibit Ka.10 also. 31. P.W.4 Inspector Indrapal Singh has further stated in his statement that after having kept dead-body in sealed cover he handed over it to Constable C.212 Narendra Prakash and C.352 Mohd. Iftar Ahmad for post-mortem. He has proved site plan of occurrence Exhibit Ka.11. He has further stated that he took blood stained earth and plain earth from place of occurrence. He has proved memo of blood stained earth and plain earth Exhibit Ka.12 also. He has stated that after having completed investigation he submitted charge sheet Exhibit Ka.13. 32. P.W.5 is Dr. O.P. Agrawal. He has stated in his statement on oath that on 22.2.1986 at 2.00 P.M. he has conducted post-mortem of deceased Satyabir Singh. He has proved post-mortem report of deceased Satyabir Singh Exhibit Ka.14. 33. D.W.1 Krishna Kumar Shukla has been examined on behalf of defence. He has stated in his statement that his house is situated at about 100 yards away from chakroad. He has further stated that about 21 months have passed it was about 10 1/2 or 11 O' clock of night. He heard noise of "bachao bachao". He went to chakroad with lantern. He saw five or six men running away towards canal. Thereafter when he went further he saw Satyabir Singh was lying injured and fresh bleeding was present. He has further stated that he called Satyabir Singh but he did not reply. He was senseless. In the meantime, some more people came there. He sent information to the house of Satyabir Singh whereupon his uncle Chhote Singh and ladies of his house came on spot. He has further stated in his statement that on that day complainant Rambir Singh brother of Satyabir Singh and his father Harnam Singh were not present in the village. They came on the next day in the morning. 34. He has further stated in his statement that on that day complainant Rambir Singh brother of Satyabir Singh and his father Harnam Singh were not present in the village. They came on the next day in the morning. 34. D.W.1 Krishna Kumar Shukla has further stated in his statement that in the night chaukidar went to police station and returned in the morning with police. He has stated in his statement that he had told Daroga Ji what he had seen. 35. After having gone through evidence adduced by the parties it is apparent that murder of Satyabir Singh at the place of occurrence alleged by prosecution is admitted to defence, but according to defence time of occurrence is about 10 1/2 or 11..00 P.M. and murder has been caused by unknown persons. According to defence complainant Rambir Singh P.W.1 and P.W. 2 Yogendra Singh have not seen occurrence and version of F.I.R. Exhibit Ka.1 regarding occurrence is false and concocted. 36. In view of above first and most important point for proper determination of appeal is time of occurrence. 37. According to P.W.1 complainant Rambir Singh and P.W.2 Yogendra Singh time of occurrence is about 6.00 P.M. while according to D.W.1 Krishna Kumar Shukla time of occurrence is 10 1/2 or 11.00 P.M. 38. Perusal of post-mortem report of deceased Satyabir Singh Exhibit Ka.14 and statement of P.W.5 Dr. O.P. Agrawal shows that post-mortem has been done on 23.2.1986 at 2.00 P.M. In post-mortem report time of death has been mentioned about 2 days. In cross examination by defence P.W.5 Dr. O.P. Agrawal has stated that death of deceased Satyabir Singh may occur latest by 10.00 P.M. on 21.2.1986. Thus death of deceased Satyabir Singh may occur between 2.00 P.M. and 10.00 P.M. 39. According to post mortem report Exhibit Ka.14 small intestine was half full of gases and there was faecal matters and gases in large intestine. Thus it is apparent that small intestine had neither digested food nor any faecal matters while large intestine was full of faecal matters and gases. The condition of small intestine as well as large intestine corroborates the version of F.I.R. and statements of P.W.1 complainant Rambir Singh and P.W.2 Yogendra Singh that at the time of occurrence deceased Satyabir Singh had gone towards canal to ease himself. The condition of small intestine as well as large intestine corroborates the version of F.I.R. and statements of P.W.1 complainant Rambir Singh and P.W.2 Yogendra Singh that at the time of occurrence deceased Satyabir Singh had gone towards canal to ease himself. It is common practice in villages that the villagers goes to fields to ease themselves at the time of sunset. On 21.2.1986 time of sunset was 5.51 P.M. In ordinary course of village life people take food at early hours of night and no one shall remain without food, till 10 1/2 to 11.00 P.M. in night in the month of February. 40. In view of above, we are of the view that time of occurrence alleged in F.I.R. Exhibit Ka.1 as well as in the statements of P.W.1 compalinant Rambir Singh and P.W.2 Yogendra Singh is highly reliable and the time of occurrence alleged by D.W.1 Krishna Kumar Shukla is not acceptable. When time of occurrence alleged by D.W.1 Krishna Kumar Shukla is not acceptable, his whole statement becomes unreliable. 41. Learned trial court has also considered time of occurrence in view of post mortem report Exhibit Ka.14 and has placed reliance at the time of occurrence alleged by prosecution that is 6.00 P.M. 42. P.W.2 Yogendra Singh is an injured witness. His injury has been proved by P.W.3 Dr. S.C. Mishra. 43. Perusal of statement of P.W.3 Dr. S.C. Mishra as well as injury report of P.W.2 Yogendra Singh Exhibit Ka.2 shows that his medical examination has been made on 22.2.19865 at 6.00 P.M. and a scabbed abrasion 2 cm x 2 cm was found on exterior part of his left hand 8 cm below shoulder joint. According to injury report Exhibit Ka.2 and statement of P.W.3 Dr. S.C. Mishra the injury found on the body of P.W.2 Yogendra may be caused at 6.00 P.M. on 21.2.1986. 44. The description of injury of P.W.2 Yogendra Singh given by P.W.3 Dr. S.C. Mishra and contained in injury report Exhibit Ka.2 shows that his injury is very superficial. Therefore, delay in his medical examination may not lead to adverse inference. Specific mention of his injury has been made in F.I.R. Exhibit Ka.1 and his injury has been noted in G.D. Exhibit Ka.4 at the time of registration of case. 45. S.C. Mishra and contained in injury report Exhibit Ka.2 shows that his injury is very superficial. Therefore, delay in his medical examination may not lead to adverse inference. Specific mention of his injury has been made in F.I.R. Exhibit Ka.1 and his injury has been noted in G.D. Exhibit Ka.4 at the time of registration of case. 45. Learned counsel for the accused appellants has drawn our attention to the statement of P.W.1 complainant Rambir Singh in which he has stated that P.W.2 Yogendra Singh came back with him from police station. Thereafter he and Yognedra Singh remained in village continuously. 46. Learned counsel for the accused appellants tried to convince us that above statement of P.W.1 complainant Rambir Singh shows that after having returned from police station P.W.2 Yogendra Singh did not go for medical examination. 47. We have considered submission made by learned counsel for accused appellants. As mentioned above medical examination of P.W.2 Yogendra Singh has been made on 22.2.1986 at 6.00 P.M. in Ursala Hospital. P.W.1 complainant Rambir Singh has stated in para 24 in cross examination at page 13 (page 17 of paper book) as follows: ^^;ksxsUnz flag gekjs lkFk Fkkus ls okil ykSVk FkkA fQj eS vkSj og nksuks cjkcj xkao es gh jgsA ** 48. On the basis of this statement it may not be inferred that after returning from police station Yogendra Singh did not go anywhere at any time. P.W.2 Yogendra Singh has stated in his statement on oath that he was medically examined and it is apparent from statement of P.W.3 Dr. S.C. Mishra and injury report of P.W.2 Yogendra Singh Exhibit Ka.2 that medical examination of P.W.2 Yogendra Singh was done by P.W.3 Dr. S.C. Mishra at 6.00 P.M. on 22.2.1986. Therefore, there is no sufficient ground to disbelieve medical examination of P.W.2 Yogendra Singh. 49. In the F.I.R. Exhibit Ka.1 P.W.1 complainant Rambir Singh has specifically mentioned that due to night and fear of accused he did not go to police station at once. He has stated in his statement on oath also that he got written report by P.W.2 Yogendra Singh, but due to night and fear he did not go to police station at once. In the morning he went to the police station and presented report Exhibit Ka.1. He has stated in his statement on oath also that he got written report by P.W.2 Yogendra Singh, but due to night and fear he did not go to police station at once. In the morning he went to the police station and presented report Exhibit Ka.1. P.W.2 Yogendra Singh has stated on oath that he wrote F.I.R. Exhibit Ka.1 on spot as directed by P.W.1 complainant Rambir Singh. 50. Perusal of chick F.I.R. Exhibit Ka.3 and copy of G.D. relating to registration of crime Exhibit Ka.4 shows that F.I.R. has been presented by complainant Rambir Singh to police station Shivli at 6.15 A.M. On the basis of which chick F.I.R. Exhibit Ka.3 has been written and crime no.28 of 1986, under sections 302 and 323 I.P.C. was registered against Kallu Singh, Chhunni Singh, Chotey Singh and Raghunath Singh. 51. Perusal of inquest report Exhibit Ka.5 shows that inquest report Exhibit Ka.5 has been completed at 9.30 A.M. Distance of Police Station from place of occurrence is 15 kilometres. 52. In view of discussion made above, we are of the view that there is sufficient reason for not lodging F.I.R. in night. Therefore, no adverse inference may be drawn against prosecution due to lodging of F.I.R. in the morning. 53. P.W.1 complainant Rambir Singh had admitted in cross examination at page 9 (page 13 of paper book) that P.W.2 Yogendra Singh is pattidar. 54. In the case of Brahm Swaroop and another Vs. State of U.P. A.I.R. 2011 S.C. 280, Hon'ble Apex Court held that "merely because the witnesses were closed relatives to the deceased that cannot be ground to discard their evidence." 55. In the case of Vithal Vs. State of Maharastra (2008) 1 SCC (Crl.) 91, Hon'ble Apex Court held that "testimony of mother of deceased should not be discarded on the ground that she is an interested witness." 56. In the case of Ranjit Singh and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh A.I.R. 2011 S.C. 255, Hon'ble Apex Court held that "undoubtedly, all the eye witnesses including injured witnesses are closely related to the deceased. Thus, in such a fact situation, the law requires the Court to examine their evidence with care and caution. Such close relatives and injured witnesses would definitely not shield the real culprits of the crime and name somebody else because of enmity." 57. Thus, in such a fact situation, the law requires the Court to examine their evidence with care and caution. Such close relatives and injured witnesses would definitely not shield the real culprits of the crime and name somebody else because of enmity." 57. In view of above pronouncements of Hon'ble Apex Court testimony of P.W.2 Yogendra Singh may not be discarded merely on the ground of relationship with complainant and deceased. 58. It is apparent from F.I.R. Exhibit Ka.1 as well as the statements of P.W.1 complainant Rambir Singh and P.W.2 Yogendra Singh that deceased Satyabir Singh went to the house of Babu Pandit for taking basket alongwith P.W.2 Yogendra Singh and from that place when they were returning they went near canal to ease themselves where occurrence took place. As concluded above time of occurrence alleged by P.W.1 complainant Rambir Singh and P.W.2 Yogendra Singh is highly reliable in view of condition of small intestine and large intestine as apparent from post mortem report of deceased Satyabir Singh. As mentioned above condition of long intestine and small intestine also corroborates the version that deceased had gone to ease himself. Therefore, the presence of P.W.2 Yogendra Singh with deceased Satyabir Singh who is pattidar is highly reliable. He has suffered injury also in the occurrence. Therefore, considering whole facts and circumstances of the case and evidence on record presence of P.W.2 Yogendra Singh with deceased Satyabir Singh at the time of occurrence is highly reliable. Statement of P.W.2 Yogendra Singh has been recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. on the same day that is 22.2.1986. There is no sufficient ground to disbelieve him. 59. P.W.1 complainant Rambir Singh has stated on oath that after having heard noised of firing he went to the spot and challenged the accused then all accused ranaway towards jungle. 60. Perusal of post mortem report of deceased Satyabir Singh Exhibit Ka.14 shows that 15 ante mortem injuries were found on his body, out of which 12 injures were incised wounds and three injuries were contusions. Out of 12 injuries of incised wounds mentioned in post mortem report Exhibit Ka.14 injuries no. 7 and 10 were multiple incised wounds. 60. Perusal of post mortem report of deceased Satyabir Singh Exhibit Ka.14 shows that 15 ante mortem injuries were found on his body, out of which 12 injures were incised wounds and three injuries were contusions. Out of 12 injuries of incised wounds mentioned in post mortem report Exhibit Ka.14 injuries no. 7 and 10 were multiple incised wounds. Injury no.7 was 12 incised wounds in an area of 27 cm x 5 cm on upper part of chest and injury no.10 was multiple incised wound in fingers of right hand in an area of 10 cm x 2 cm. The nature and number of ante mortem injuries found on the body of deceased Satyabir Singh show that deceased has been caused injuries mercilessly by several blows of sharp edged weapons. Thus it is apparent from injuries caused to deceased Satyabir Singh that considerable long time has been taken in causing injuries to him. Therefore, after hearing the noise of firing arrival of complainant Rambir Singh on spot may not be said unreliable. Defence has not dared to ascertain the distance of the house of complainant P.W.1 Rambir Singh from the place of occurrence in cross examination. Therefore, statement on oath made by P.W.1 complainant Rambir Singh may not be disbelieved. 61. According to F.I.R. Exhibit Ka.1 accused Kallu Singh caused injury to deceased Satyabir Singh with Butt of Addhi, while accused Chhunni Singh caused injuries to him with pharsa, accused Chotey Singh caused injuries to him with gandasa and accused Raghunath Singh caused injures to him with lathi. According to F.I.R. accused Kallu Singh made a fire of Addhi but there is no mention in F.I.R. that said fire of alleged Addhi caused injury to deceased Satyabir Singh. 62. P.W.2 Yogendra Singh has stated in his statement on oath that accused Chotey Singh caused injuries to deceased Satyabir Singh with gandasa, accused Chhunni Singh caused injuries to him with pharsa, accused Raghuanth Singh caused injuries to him with lathi and accused Kallu Singh caused injuries to him with butt of Addhi. P.W.2 has further stated in his statement that accused Kallu Singh made a fire with Addhi but he has not stated that fire of Addhi caused injury to deceased Satyabir Singh. 63. Post-mortem report Exhibit Ka.14 shows that no fire arm injury has been found on the body of deceased Satyabir Singh. P.W.2 has further stated in his statement that accused Kallu Singh made a fire with Addhi but he has not stated that fire of Addhi caused injury to deceased Satyabir Singh. 63. Post-mortem report Exhibit Ka.14 shows that no fire arm injury has been found on the body of deceased Satyabir Singh. The injuries found on the body of deceased Satyabir Singh may be caused by sharp edged weapon or blunt object. Pharsa and gandasa are sharp edged weapons and lathi and butt of Addhi are blunt object. Thus post mortem report Exhibit Ka.14 fully corroborative version of F.I.R. Exhibit Ka.1 as well as the statements of P.W.1 complainant Rambir Singh and P.W.2 Yogendra Singh. 64. In the case of Sampath Kumar Vs. Inspector of Police, Krishnagiri 2012 (IV) SCC 124 , Hon'ble Apex Court held that "minor contradictions are bound to appear in the statement of truthful witnesses as memory sometimes plays false, sense of observation differs from person to person." 65. In the case of State of U.P. Vs. M.K. Anthony A.I.R. 1985 S.C. 48, Hon'ble Apex Court held that "every honest and truthful witness may differ in some details unrelated to main incident because power of observation, retention and reproduction differ with individuals." 66. In the case of Faquira Vs. State of U.P. A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 915, Hon'ble Apex Court held that "minor discrepancy guarantees that witnesses are not tutored." 67. In the case of State of U.P. Vs. Krishna Master and others 2010 Cr.L.J. 3889 (SC), Hon'ble Apex Court held that "prosecution evidence may suffer from inconsistencies here and discrepancies there, but that is a shortcoming from which no criminal case is free. The main thing to be seen is whether those inconsistencies go to the root of the matter or pertain to insignificant aspects thereof." 68. In the case of State of U.P. Vs. Krishna Master (supra) Hon'ble Apex Court held that "the basic principle of appreciation of evidence of a rustic witness who is not educated and comes from a poor strata of society is that the evidence of such a witness should be appreciated as a whole." 69. We have perused statements of P.W.1 complainant Rambir Singh and P.W.2 Yogendra Singh. There appears no material contradiction in their statements to disbelieve them. We have perused statements of P.W.1 complainant Rambir Singh and P.W.2 Yogendra Singh. There appears no material contradiction in their statements to disbelieve them. In view of pronouncements of Hon'ble Apex Court statements of these witnesses may not be discarded on the ground of minor contradiction and discrepancy. 70. In view of above, we are of the view that witnesses P.W.1 complainant Rambir Singh and P.W.2 Yogendra Singh are trust worthy witnesses and there is no sufficient ground to disbelieve them. 71. In the case of Narpal Singh Vs. State of Haryana 1977 Cr.L.J. 642 SC at page 649, Hon'ble Apex Court held that "if the witnesses examined are believed, the question of inference for non-examination does not arise." 72. In the case of Mahesh S/o Janardhan Gonnade Vs. State of Maharashtra 2008 (2) Supreme 898 , Hon'ble Apex Court held that "an eye witness, who received injures in the occurrence, if found to be trustworthy of belief, cannot be discarded merely for non-examination of the independent witnesses." 73. In view of above pronouncements of Hon'ble Apex Court the testimonies of P.W.1 complainant Rambir Singh and P.W.2 Yogendera Singh may not be disbelieved merely on the ground that other witnesses named in F.I.R. or charge sheet have not been examined. 74. Perusal of impugned judgement and order passed by learned trial court shows that learned trial court has discussed evidence of P.W.1 complainant Rambir Singh and P.W.2 Yogendra Singh as well as circumstances of the case at length and has placed reliance on the statements of P.W.1 complainant Rambir Singh and P.W.2 Yogendra Singh. In view of conclusion drawn above, we are of the view that learned trial court has rightly placed reliance on the testimonies of P.W.1 complainant Rambir Singh and P.W.2 Yogendra Singh. 75. According to F.I.R. Exhibit Ka.1 it has been mentioned by complainant that about three years before occurrence there had been a quarrel between deceased Satyabir Singh brother of complainant and accused Chhunni Singh and others in which compromise was made but due to said incident accused committed this occurrence. This version of F.I.R. has been supported by P.W.1 complainant in his statement on oath. 76. After compromise if the said quarrel may not be a cause of present occurrence, it shall also not be a cause of false implication. Therefore there appears no ground for false implication of accused appellants. 77. This version of F.I.R. has been supported by P.W.1 complainant in his statement on oath. 76. After compromise if the said quarrel may not be a cause of present occurrence, it shall also not be a cause of false implication. Therefore there appears no ground for false implication of accused appellants. 77. In the case of Brahm Swaroop and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in A.I.R. 2011 S.C. 280, (Supra) Hon'ble Apex Court held that "if the evidence of eye witnesses is trust worthy and believed by the court the question of motive becomes totally irrelevant". In view of above pronouncement Hon'ble Apex Court motive is irrelevant in this case because the eye witnesses P.W.1 complainant Rambir Singh and P.W.2 Yogendra Singh are trust worthy witnesses and there is nothing on record to disbelieve them. 78. Learned trial court also has considered issue of motive in its impugned judgement and has relied upon judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Molu Vs. State of Haryana A.I.R. 1976 SC 2499 in which Hon'ble Apex Court held that "if, however, the evidence of the eye witnesses is credit worthy and is believed by the Court which has placed implicit reliance on them, the question whether there is any motive or not becomes wholly irrelevant." 79. As concluded above time of occurrence 6.00 P.M. alleged by prosecution is highly reliable and on 21.2.1986 the sun set was at 5.51 P.M. The trial court has rightly observed that even after the sun set there remains sufficient light for at least 30 to 45 minutes. Therefore, without any source of light assailants/accused may easily be seen and identified. In addition to it, it is relevant to mention that P.W.1 complainant Rambir Singh and P.W.2 Yogendra Singh as well as accused are resident of same village and known persons may be identified by their movement and voice in darkness also. 80. Perusal of post mortem report Exhibit Ka.14 shows that ante mortem injuries found on dead body of deceased Satyabir Singh are sufficient to cause his death in ordinary course. 81. In view of discussion made above after having gone through entire evidence on record as well as whole facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that evidence adduced by prosecution is sufficient to hold accused appellants guilty for offences punishable under sections 302/34 and 323/34 I.P.C.. 82. 81. In view of discussion made above after having gone through entire evidence on record as well as whole facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that evidence adduced by prosecution is sufficient to hold accused appellants guilty for offences punishable under sections 302/34 and 323/34 I.P.C.. 82. In view of conclusion drawn above we are of the view that learned trial court has rightly convicted accused appellants for offences punishable under sections 302/34 and 323/34 I.P.C. 83. Sentences awarded by trial court are not excessive and State has not filed appeal for enhancement of sentence. 84. We find no justification for interference in impugned judgement and order of trial court. Appeal has no merit and is liable to be dismissed. 85. Appeal is dismissed accordingly. 86. Surviving accused appellants Kallu Singh alias Om Prkash, Chhunni Singh alias Surendra Singh and Chhotey Singh are on bail. They shall surrender before the trial court for serving sentences within 30 days from the date of judgement of this Court, failing which trial court shall ensure their arrest and shall send them to jail for serving sentence in accordance with law. 87. Office is directed to send copy of judgement to trial court for securing compliance. 88. Lower court record shall be returned to the concerned court immediately.