Hon'ble Arun Tandon,J. Hon'ble Akhtar Husain Khan,J. (Delivered by Hon'ble Akhtar Husain Khan,J) Accused-appellants Raj Guru Mishr, Gorakh Dubey and Paras Dubey have filed this criminal appeal under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C. against judgement and order dated 23.12.1985 passed by Sessions Judge, Azamgarh in Session Trial No. 463 of 1983 (State Vs. Raj Guru and others), under Sections 302/34 I.P.C., P.S. Kandhrapur, District Azamgarh whereby learned Sessions Judge has convicted accused-appellants Raj Guru, Gorakh Dubey and Paras Dubey for offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C. and sentenced each of them to imprisonment for life thereunder. Accused-appellant Gorakh Dubey is reported dead. Appeal abated in respect of him. Sri Brijesh Sahai and Sri Rajiv Lochan Shukla, learned counsel appeared for accused-appellants and Sri Narendra Kumar Singh Yadav, learned AGA appeared for the State respondent as well as Sri S.M. Mishra, appeared for complainant. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. According to first information report Ex. Ka-1 in brief prosecution case is that complainant Jagdamba Dubey son of Sri Dudh Nath Dubey is resident of village Kapsa, P.S. Kandhrapur, District Azamgarh. On the date of occurrence i.e. on 11.5.1981 at about 7 p.m. after sunset, complainant Jagdamba Dubey was going along with Shesh Nath Dubey and Durga Prasad Dubey @ Keertan Dubey of his own village and one Maheep Pasi resident of village Kohadi Khurd to see Dwarpooja in village Chevta. At the same time, Ram Prakat Dubey was coming from Jhajhava Pokhar towards his house and in the east of said Pokhar accused Gorakh Dubey and Paras Dubey were standing towards west in their Chak along with co-accused Raj Guru Mishr. As soon as Ram Prakat Dubey came at Chak road suddenly said three accused began to assault him, after having encircled him. Ram Prakat Dubey sustained injuries of bomb blast, Katta and Lathi. According to F.I.R. Ex. Ka.-1, accused-appellant Gorakh Dubey had Bomb in his hand, accused-appellant Paras Dubey had Katta and accused-appellant Raj Guru had Lathi. According to F.I.R. Ex. Ka-1, when complainant and other persons accompanying him raised alarm accused appellant ran towards south, thereafter, other persons came on spot and arranged to send injured Ram Prakat Dubey to Sadar Hospital for medical treatment. Thereafter, complainant Jagdamba Dubey went to P.S. Kandhrapur and presented written report i.e. Ex. Ka.-1. In first information report (Ex. According to F.I.R. Ex. Ka-1, when complainant and other persons accompanying him raised alarm accused appellant ran towards south, thereafter, other persons came on spot and arranged to send injured Ram Prakat Dubey to Sadar Hospital for medical treatment. Thereafter, complainant Jagdamba Dubey went to P.S. Kandhrapur and presented written report i.e. Ex. Ka.-1. In first information report (Ex. Ka-1) a note has been written that due to fear, complainant did not go Kandhrapur straightway, he went to Kaptanganj through canal and in Kaptanganj due to unavailability of conveyance delay has been caused in reaching P.S. Kandhrapur. On the basis of first information report (Ex. Ka-1) Crime No. 99 of 1981, under Section 307 I.P.C. was registered in P.S. Kandhrapur on 11.5.1981 at 22.00 p.m. against accused Gorakh Nath Dubey, Paras Dubey and Raj Guru Mishr. On 12.5.1981, an information was received from Sadar Hospital to P.S. Kotwali, Azamgarh regarding death of injured Ram Prakat Dubey. Thereafter, an information was sent to P.S. Kandhrapur through R.T. Set by P.S. Kotwali regarding death of injured Ram Prakat Dubey whereupon crime was converted into Section 302 I.P.C. on 12.5.1981 and entry of conversion of crime was made in Rapat No. 17 of G.D. Dated 12.5.1981 of P.S. Kandharapur. Inquest report of deceased Ram Prakat Dubey was prepared by police of P.S. Kotwali and dead body was sent for post-morterm in sealed cover, after having complete necessary formalities. Investigation was completed by police of P.S. Kandharapur in accordance with law and after having completed investigation police submitted charge-sheet against all accused under Sections 307 and 302 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 Sessions Trial No. 463 of 1983 was registered in the Session Court of District Azamgarh. Learned Sessions Judge, Azamgarh framed charge against accused Raj Guru Mishra, Gorakh Dubey and Paras Dubey for offence punishable under Sections 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. All the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Prosecution examined P.W. 1, complainant Shesh Nath Dubey, P.W. 2, Durga Prasad Dubey, P.W. 3, complainant Jagdamba Dubey, P.W. 4 Dr. K.S. Mishra, P.W. 5 Head Moharrir Achhaibar dubey, P.W. 6, Head Constable Mishri Lal Gupta and P.W. 7, Investigation Officer Sahdeo Mishra (S.I.). Prosecution examined P.W. 1, complainant Shesh Nath Dubey, P.W. 2, Durga Prasad Dubey, P.W. 3, complainant Jagdamba Dubey, P.W. 4 Dr. K.S. Mishra, P.W. 5 Head Moharrir Achhaibar dubey, P.W. 6, Head Constable Mishri Lal Gupta and P.W. 7, Investigation Officer Sahdeo Mishra (S.I.). After prosecution evidence statement of all accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. All of them stated that they have been falsely implicated due to enmity. No evidence was adduced on behalf of accused in defence. Learned Sessions Judge, Azamgarh heard the arguments of both the parties and passed impugned judgement and order dated 23.12.1985 whereby he has convicted and sentenced accused-appellants as mentioned above. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants contended that the accused-appellants are innocent and has been falsely implicated. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants contended that the medical evidence and post-morterm report are inconsistent with the version of F.I.R. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants contended that there is material contradiction between version of F.I.R. and statement of witnesses of fact and occurrence. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants further contended that F.I.R. is delayed and prosecution story is concocted. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants contended that witnesses of occurrence examined by prosecution are related to deceased Ram Prakat Dubey. Their testimony may not be relied to convict the accused appellant. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants prayed that appeal should be allowed and all accused-appellants should be acquitted. Learned AGA contended that conviction and sentence recorded by trial court is in accordance with evidence and law. There is no sufficient ground to interfere in the impugned judgement and order passed by the trial court. Learned AGA prayed that appeal should be dismissed. We have considered the submissions made by the parties. Out of seven witnesses examined by prosecution, P.W. 1 Shesh Nath Dubey, P.W. 2 Durga Prasad Dubey and P.W. 3 complainant Jagdamba Dubey are witnesses of fact and occurrence. These witnesses have supported version of prosecution in their statements on oath with variation. All of them have stated that accused-appellant Raj Guru assaulted deceased Ram Prakat Dubey with Lathi while accused-appellant Paras Dubey assaulted deceased Ram Prakat Dubey with Katar. They have stated that accused-appellant Paras Dubey had Katta in his left hand and Katar in his right hand but used Katar for causing injury to deceased Ram Prakat Dubey. All of them have stated that accused-appellant Gorakh had bomb in his hand. They have stated that accused-appellant Paras Dubey had Katta in his left hand and Katar in his right hand but used Katar for causing injury to deceased Ram Prakat Dubey. All of them have stated that accused-appellant Gorakh had bomb in his hand. All of them have stated that Katta (country made pistol) and bomb were used for threatening. P.W. 3 Jagdamba Dubey, complainant has proved first information report (Ex. Ka-1) also in his statement. P.W. 4 Dr. K.S. Mishra has stated on oath that on 12.5.2981, he was posted as Medical Officer in District Hospital, Azamgarh. On that date at 4.00 p.m. he conducted post-morterm of deceased Ram Prakat Dubey son of Lallan Dubey, resident of village Kapsa, Police Station Kandharapur. The dead body was identified by Constable No. 160 Bhrigunath Yadav, P.S. Kotwali. P.W. 4 Dr. K.S. Mishra has proved post-morterm report of deceased Ram Prakat Dubey (Ex. Ka-2). He has stated in his statement that the death of deceased Ram Prakat Dubey might have occurred on 11.5.1981 at about 10.30 p.m. He has further stated that anti-morterm injuries found on his body were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course. P.W. 4 Dr. K.S. Mishra has stated in his statement on oath that inquest report of deceased Ram Prakat Dubey, Challan Nash, Photo Nash, letter to C.M.O., letter of information regarding death of Ram Prakat Dubey and copy of G.D. dated 12.5.1981 of P.S. Kotwali were received along with dead body and on the said papers, he had signed. Trial court has marked (Ex. Ka-3 to Ex. Ka-8) on said papers. P.W. 5 head Moharrir, Achhaibar Dubey has stated in his statement on oath that on 12.5.1981, he was posted as Head Moharrir at P.S. Kotwali Azamgarh. He has stated that on that date at 7.10 a.m. Ram Subodh, Ward Boy presented memo dated 11.5.1981 regarding death of Ram Prakat Dubey son of Lallan Dubey resident of Kapsa, P.S. Kandharapur, District Azamgarh. He made entry of said memo in G.D. He has proved copy of the said G.D. as Ex. Ka-8). P.W. 6 Head Constable Mishri Lal Gupta has stated in his statement that on 11.5.1981 he was posted as Head Constable at P.S. Kandharapur. He has stated that on that date at 22.00 p.m., complainant Jagdamba Dubey presented written report (Ex. He made entry of said memo in G.D. He has proved copy of the said G.D. as Ex. Ka-8). P.W. 6 Head Constable Mishri Lal Gupta has stated in his statement that on 11.5.1981 he was posted as Head Constable at P.S. Kandharapur. He has stated that on that date at 22.00 p.m., complainant Jagdamba Dubey presented written report (Ex. Ka-1) in P.S. Kandharapur on the basis of which he registered Crime No. 99 of 1981 under Section 307 I.P.C. and prepared Chick report (Ex. Ka-9). He has stated that at the same time he made entry regarding registration of Crime in G.D. He has proved copy of G.D. relating to registration of crime (Ex. Ka-10) also. P.W. 6, Head Constable Mishri Lal Gupta ha stated that chick F.I.R. (Ex. Ka-9) bears signature of S.I. Sahdeo Mishra also. He has stated that Sahdeo Mishra had been entrusted investigation. P.W. 6, Head Constable Mishri Lal Gupta has further stated that on 12.5.1981, an information was received by R.T. Set to his police station from P.S. Kotwali that injured Ram Prakat Dubey has died whereupon crime under Section 307 I.P.C. was converted into Section 302 I.P.C. and an entry was made in G.D. He has proved copy of G.D. regarding conversion of crime (Ex. Ka-11) also. P.W. 7 I.O., Sub Inspector Sahdeo Mishra, has stated in his statement that on 11.5.1981, he was posted as Station Officer at P.S. Kandharapur. Crime No. 99 of 1981 under Section 307 I.P.C. was registered on 11.5.1981 at his police station and he took investigation into his hand. He recorded statement of complainant Jagdamba Dubey and went to place of occurrence. He searched the accused but could not trace them. Thereafter, on 12.5.1981, he recorded statement of witnesses Mahesh Pasi and Shesh Nath Dubey and inspected place of occurrence. He has proved site plan of place of occurrence (Ex. Ka-12) in his statement. P.W. 7, S.I. Sahdeo Mishra has stated in his statement that he took Blood stained earth and plain earth from the place of occurrence and kept in sealed container. He recovered a peace of Lathi as well as blood stained residue of Lathi and kept in sealed cover. He has further stated that one fired cartridge was also recovered from the place of occurrence. He has stated that four broken teeth were also recovered from the place of occurrence. He recovered a peace of Lathi as well as blood stained residue of Lathi and kept in sealed cover. He has further stated that one fired cartridge was also recovered from the place of occurrence. He has stated that four broken teeth were also recovered from the place of occurrence. He kept all the said articles recovered from the place of occurrence in sealed cover and prepared recovery memo of all above articles (Ex. Ka-13). P.W. 7, S.I. Sahdeo Mishra has stated in his statement that he made search of houses of accused-appellant Gorakh, Paras and Raj Guru and prepared search memos (Ex. Ka-14 and 15). P.W. 7 Sahdeoi Mishra has stated in his statement that he went to Sadar Hospital, Azamgarh on the same day and recorded statement of Durga Prasad Dubey @ Keertan Dubey son of deceased. P.W. 7 S.I. Sahdeo Mishra has stated that the case was converted into Section 302 I.P.C. on receiving information regarding death of Ram Prakat Dubey. P.W. 7 S.I. Sahdeo Mishra has stated that on 13.5.1981 he made search of accused-appellant and executed process under Sections 82 / 83 Cr.P.C. P.W. 7 S.I. Sahdeo Mishra has stated that he completed investigation in accordance with law and submitted charge-sheet against accused Paras Dubey, Gorakh Dubey and Raj Guru. He has proved charge-sheet (Ex. Ka.14) in his statement. All the accused appellants have stated in their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that they have been falsely implicated . Accused-appellant Gorakh Dubey (now deceased) has stated in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that they have enmity with P.W. 3 complainant Jagadamba Dubey. They have no enmity with deceased Ram Prakat Dubey. Jagadamba Dubey has falsely implicated them due to animosity. We have examined the evidence in the light of contentions of parties. In F.I.R. it has been mentioned that accused appellant Gorakh Dubey had bomb in his hand, accused Paras Dubey had Katta and accused Raj Guru had Lathi. But in statements on oath before trial court all the three witnesses of fact and occurrence, namely, P.W. 1 Shesh Nath Dubey, P.W. 2 Durga Prasad Dubey and P.W. 3 Jagdamba Dubey have stated that accused Raj Guru had Lathi, accused Gorakh Dubey had bomb and accused Paras Dubey had Katta in his left hand and Katar in his right hand. Defence has given suggestion to P.W. 7 I.O. Sahdeo Mishra, S.I. in cross-examination that after post-morterm he has introduced Katar in the hand of accused Paras Dubey in statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. P.W. 7 S.I. Sahdeo Mishra has negatived the suggestion of defence. P.W. 7 Sahdeo Mishra has stated in examination-in-Chief that he recorded statement of complainant P.W. 3 Jagdamba Dubey under Section 161 Cr.p.C. just after registration of crime and went to place of occurrence. He has further stated in examination-in-chief that he recorded statement of P.W. 1 Shesh Nath Dubey on 12.5.1981 and on the same day he went to Sadar Hospital and recorded statement of P.W. 2 Durga Prasad Dubey. In cross-examination he has stated that he recorded statement of Durga Prasad Dubey P.W. 2 on 12.5.1981 at 3.00 p.m. Post-morterm of deceased Ram Prakat Dubey has been conducted on 12.5.1981 at 4.00 p.m. Thus it is apparent that statements of P.W. 1 Shesh Nath Dubey, P.W. 2 Durga Prasad Dubey and P.W. 3 complainant Jagdamba Dubey have been recorded by S.I., P.W. 7 Shahdeo Mishra before post-morterm of deceased and all of the said witnesses have stated in their statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that accused Paras Dubey had Katar also. Thus it is apparent that these witnesses have not introduced Katar for first time before Court. Katar has been stated by P.W. 3 complainant Jagdamba Dubey in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. immediately after registration of F.I.R. There is no sufficient ground to believe that statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. are anti time. Illustration (e) of Section 114 of Evidence Act provides that court may presume that "the judicial and official acts have been regularly performed." Therefore, under Section 114 of Evidence Act presumption arises that case diary has been properly maintained by I.O. In view of facts mentioned above, we are of the view that non-mentioning of Katar in the hands of accused appellant Paras Dubey in F.I.R. is an accidental slip or mistake of complainant P.W. 3 Jagdamba Dubey and merely on this ground prosecution case should not be discarded. P.W. 1 Shesh Nath Dubey has stated that all the accused encircled Ram Prakat Dubey and accused Raj Guru began to assault him with Lathi. P.W. 1 Shesh Nath Dubey has stated that all the accused encircled Ram Prakat Dubey and accused Raj Guru began to assault him with Lathi. Having received injuries Ram Prakat Dubey fell down then accused Paras Dubey, who had Katta in his left hand and Katar in his right hand assaulted him with Katar. He has further stated that accused Gorakh Dubey gave threatening by show of bomb and said who ever come forward, he shall be killed. P.W. 1 Shesh Nath Dubey has further stated in his statement on oath that when after having heard noise Jagat Pradhan, Jangali Singh and Dalsingar Yadav began to come from the village the accused fired with Katta and thrown bomb and ran away towards south. P.W. 2 Durga Prasad Dubey has stated in his statement on oath before trial court that all the three accused encircled his father now deceased Ram Prakat Dubey and Raj Guru began to assault him with lathi. His father fell down after having received injuries then accused Paras assaulted him with Katar. P.W. 2 Durga Prasad Dubey has further stated that accused Paras had Katta in his left hand and Katar in his right hand. He has further stated that accused Paras threatened by Katta and stated who ever come forward, he shall kill him. P.W. 2 Durga Prasad Dubey has stated in his statement that accused Gorakh Dubey had bomb in his left hand and was making exhortation. P.W. 2 Durga Prasad Dubey has stated in cross-examination that his father was caused injuries not with bomb and Katta but threatening were given by bomb and katta. P.W. 3 Jagdamba Dubey has also stated in his statement that accused Paras Dubey, Gorakh Dubey and Raj Guru encircled Ram Prakat Dubey and accused Raj Guru began to assault him with lathi. Ram Prakat Dubey fell down after having received injuries then accused Paras Dubey assaulted him with Katar. He has further stated that Paras Dubey was threatening by Katta and said that who ever come, he shall be killed. P.W. 3 Jagdamba Dubey has stated in his statement that accused Gorakh Dubey had bomb in his hand and he was making exhortation and was saying that who ever come he shall be killed. He has further stated that Paras Dubey was threatening by Katta and said that who ever come, he shall be killed. P.W. 3 Jagdamba Dubey has stated in his statement that accused Gorakh Dubey had bomb in his hand and he was making exhortation and was saying that who ever come he shall be killed. P.W. 3 complainant Jagdamba Dubey has stated in cross-examination at page 12 (page 66 of paper book) that he had seen accused Gorakh Dubey throwing bomb on deceased Ram Prakat Dubey. He has further stated in cross-examination on the same page that he has seen Paras Dubey making fire with Katta at Ram Prakat Dubey. Description of statements of P.W. 1 Shesh Nath Dubey, P.W. 2 Durga Prasad Dubey and P.W. 3 Jagdamba Dubey mentioned above shows that all of them have stated that accused Raj Guru Mishr had Lathi, accused Gorakh Dubey had bomb and accused Paras Dubey had Katta and Katar both but Ram Prakat Dubey (now deceased) was caused injuries by Lathi and Katar. All of them have stated that Katta and Bomb were used for threatening. Statement of P.W. 1 Shesh Nath Dubey and statement of P.W. 3 complainant Jagdamba Dubey mentioned above, clearly show that bomb was thrown and katta was fired. Recovery memo (Ex. Ka-13) as well as statement of P.W. 7 Investigating Officer, S.I. Sahdeo Mishra shows that fired cartridge as well as broken piece of lathi were recovered from the place of occurrence. The said recovery memo (Ex. Ka-13) as well as statement of P.W. 7 Sahdeo Mishra shows that four broken teeth were also recovered from the place of occurrence. Perusal of post-morterm report of deceased Ram Prakat (Ex. Ka-2) as well as statement of P.W. 4 Dr. K.S. Mishra shows that 21 anti-morterm injuries were found on the dead body of deceased Ram Prakat Dubey. Description of 21 anti-morterm injuries found on the dead body of deceased Ram Prakat Dubey has been given in the judgement of trial court as well as in post-morterm report (Ex. Ka-2). Description of anti-morterm injuries mentioned in the post-morterm report (Ex. Ka-2) shows that injury no. 21 was multiple abraded contusion 16 cm x 16 cm on back at the right scapular region. Perusal of post-morterm report (Ex. Ka-2) shows that buccal cavity was disfigured. Ka-2). Description of anti-morterm injuries mentioned in the post-morterm report (Ex. Ka-2) shows that injury no. 21 was multiple abraded contusion 16 cm x 16 cm on back at the right scapular region. Perusal of post-morterm report (Ex. Ka-2) shows that buccal cavity was disfigured. As mentioned above four broken teeth have also been recovered from the place of occurrence. Therefore, considering the nature of injuries of deceased Ram Prakat Dubey as well as four broken teeth recovered from the place of occurrence, it is apparent that deceased Ram Prakat Dubey had suffered injuries of explosion of bomb also. P.W. 4 Dr. K.S. Mishra has stated in his statement that the incised wounds found on the dead body of deceased may be caused by Katar. He has not stated about the weapon of remaining injuries found on the body of deceased. Description of anti-morterm injures mentioned in post-morterm report (Ex. Ka-2) as well as statement of P.W. 4 Dr. K.S. Mishra show that out of 21 anti-morterim injuries found on the dead body of the deceased Ram Prakat Dubey, 8 injuries were lacerated wound, 7 injuries were incised wound, 3 injuries were contusion, 2 injuries were abraded contusion and one injury was sub-conjuntival haemorrhage. In view of the discussion made above, we are of the view that deceased Ram Prakat Dubey had suffered injuries of bomb blast also and throwing of bomb at the time of occurrence by accused Gorakh Dubey is proved by statement of witnesses P.W. 1 Shesh Nath Dubey, P.W. 2 Durga Prasad Dubey and P.W. 3 complainant Jagdamba Dubey. In case of bomb blast, it is difficult to see movement of splinters of bomb causing injuries because of smoke arising out of explosion. Later on injuries themselves shall speak their cause. As concluded above, nature of injuries shows that deceased Ram Prakat Dubey had suffered bomb injuries also. Therefore, the complainant Jagdamba Dubey, P.W. 3 has rightly mentioned in F.I.R. (Ex. Ka.-1) that deceased Ram Prakat Dubey has suffered injuries of bomb and throwing of bomb by accused-appellant Gorakh Dubey now deceased is fully proved with statements of P.W. 1 Shesh Nath Dubey, P.W. 2 Durga Prasad Dubey and P.W. 3 complainant Jagdamba Dubey. As mentioned above one fired cartridge has been recovered from place of occurrence and it has been proved that fire has also been made by Katta at the time of occurrence. As mentioned above one fired cartridge has been recovered from place of occurrence and it has been proved that fire has also been made by Katta at the time of occurrence. Therefore, mention of fire arm (Katta) injury in F.I.R. does not lead to infer that complainant had not seen occurrence. In view of the discussion made above, we are of the view that there is no material contradiction between version of F.I.R. (Ex. Ka-1) and statements of witnesses namely, P.W. 1 Shesh Nath Dubey, P.W. Durga Prasad Dubey and P.W. 3 complainant Jagdamba Dubey. Non mentioning of Katar in F.I.R. (Ex. Ka-1) is an accidental slip or mistake of complainant Jagdamba Dubey and in view of statements of witnesses recorded by I.O. it cannot be said that Katar has been introduced for the first time before Court with legal advice. In the case of Ranjit Singh and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, A.I.R. 2011 SC 255, Hon'ble Apex Court has placed reliance on its previous judgement rendered in the case of Prem Singh and others Vs. State of Haryana, (2009) 14 SCC 494 ; ( AIR 2009 SC 2573 ), wherein Hon'ble Apex court has held as under: "It is now a well settled principle of law that the doctrine "falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus" has no application in India. In view of above, the law can be summarised to the effect that the aforesaid legal maxim is not applicable in India and the court has to assess to what extent the deposition of a witness can be relied upon. The Court has to separate the falsehood from the truth and it is only in exceptional circumstances when it is not possible to separate the grain from the chaff because they are inextricably mixed up, that the whole evidence of such a witness can be discarded." In the case of State of U.P. Vs. Krishna Master and others; 2010 Cri. L.J. 3889 (SC) Hon'ble Apex Court has 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." In the case of State of U.P. Vs. The main thing to be seen is whether those inconsistencies go to the root of the matter or pertain to insignificant aspects thereof." In the case of State of U.P. Vs. Krishna Master and others (supra), Hon'ble Apex Court has further 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." 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." We have perused the entire statements of P.W. 1 Shesh Nath Dubey, P.W. 2 Durga Prasad Dubey and P.W. 3 complainant Jagdamba Dubey. In view of above pronouncements of Hon'ble Apex Court we are of the view that there is no material contradiction in their statements to disbelieve them. In F.I.R. specific mention has been made that at the time of occurrence complainant Jagdamba Dubey was going to village Chevta to see Dwarpooja along with P.W. 1 Shesh Nath Dubey, P.W. 2, Durga Prasad Dubey and one Mahip Pasi, resident of village Kohadi Khurd. P.W. 1 Shesh Nath Dubey, P.W. 2 Durga Prasad Dubey and P.W. 3 Jagdamba Dubey, all have stated in their statement on oath that at the time of occurrence they were going to village chevta to see Dwarpooja along with one Mahip Pasi but the defence has not cross-examined all the said three witnesses on the point of Dwarpooja and has not given them suggestion in cross-examination that there was no Dwarpooja in the village Chevta on the date of occurrence or they were not going to village Chevta to see Dwarpooja on the date of occurrence. Therefore, the version of prosecution that P.W. 1 Shesh Nath Dubey, P.W. 2 Durga Prasad Dubey and P.W. 3 Jagdamba Dubey were going to village Chevta to see Dwarpooja at the time of occurrence is un-challenged and there is no sufficient ground to disbelieve the statements on oath given by all the three witnesses in this respect. Therefore, the version of prosecution that P.W. 1 Shesh Nath Dubey, P.W. 2 Durga Prasad Dubey and P.W. 3 Jagdamba Dubey were going to village Chevta to see Dwarpooja at the time of occurrence is un-challenged and there is no sufficient ground to disbelieve the statements on oath given by all the three witnesses in this respect. It has also not been challenged by defence that the place of occurrence is not on the chack road leading from the village of the complainant to village Chevta. After considering the all facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the presence of P.W. 1 Shesh Nath Dubey, P.W. 2 Durga Prasad Dubey and P.W. 3 complainant Jagdamba Dubey at the time and place of occurrence is highly probable and there is no ground to disbelieve them. P.W. 1 Shesh Nath Dubey has admitted in cross-examination at page 5 and 6 (Page 22 and 23 of paper book) that he is step brother of father of the deceased Ram Prakat Dubey. He has also admitted in cross-examination at page 6 (Page 23 of paper book) that P.W. 3 complainant Jagdamba Dubey is son of his step brother Doodh Nath Dubey. Admittedly, P.W. 2 Durga Prasad Dubey is son of deceased. Thus, it is apparent that all the three witnesses are related to deceased and belong to same family. But Hon'ble Apex Court has consistently held that testimony of witnesses may not be discarded merely on the ground of relationship. For reference following pronouncements of Hon'ble Apex Court may be cited. (1) Brahm Swaroop and another Vs. State of U.P. A.I.R. 2011 S.C. 280. (2) Vithal Vs. State of Maharastra (2008) 1 SCC (Crl.) 91 (3) Ranjit Singh and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh A.I.R. 2011 S.C. 255 P.W. 1 Shesh Nath Dubey has stated in his statement on oath that there was chack road between chack of deceased Ram Prakat Dubey and that of accused Gorakh Dubey and Paras Dubey. He has further stated in his statement that about 5 or 6 days before occurrence, accused were making encroachment on said chack road by cutting the chack road into their chack. Deceased Ram Prakat Dubey prohibited them whereupon an altercation took place between them. He has further stated in his statement that about 5 or 6 days before occurrence, accused were making encroachment on said chack road by cutting the chack road into their chack. Deceased Ram Prakat Dubey prohibited them whereupon an altercation took place between them. P.W. 2 Durga Prasad Dubey and P.W. 3 complainant Jagdamba Dubey both have also stated in their statement on oath that about 4 to 5 days before occurrence there had been an altercation between Ram Prakat Dubey (Now deceased) and accused-appellants Paras Dubey and Gorakh Dubey regarding encroachment on chack road. P.W. 7, S.I., Sahdeo Mishra, Investigating Officer has shown chack road in site plan (Ex. Ka.-12). He has shown in site plan (Ex. Ka. 12) chack road ploughed in chak of accused-appellants. Thus, the statements of P.W. 1 Shesh Nath Dubey, P.W. 2 Durga Prasad Dubey and P.W. 3 Jagdamba Dubey regarding encroachment of chack road by accused-appellants are corroborated by site plan (Ex. Ka-12). In view of above, after having gone through the whole evidence on record as well as facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that cause or motive for the occurrence alleged by the prosecution has been fully proved. Morevoer, in the case of Brahm Swaroop and another Vs. State of U.P. A.I.R. 2011 S.C. 280 Hon'ble Apex Court has held that "if evidence of the eye witnesses is trustworthy and believed by the court, the question of motive becomes total irrelevant." Perusal of statement of P.W. 6 Mishri Lal, Head Moharrir as well as Chick F.I.R. (Ex. Ka-9) and G.D. relating to registration of Crime (Ex. Ka-10) shows that F.I.R. has been lodged at P.S. Kandharapur at 10.00 p.m. Time of occurrence has been alleged 7.00 p.m. Thus, it is apparent that F.I.R. has been lodged in police station Kandharapur within 3 hours of occurrence. Distance of police station Kandharapur from the place of occurrence is four mile as is apparent from Chick F.I.R. (Ex. Ka-9). P.W. 3 complainant Jagdamba Dubey has written a note in F.I.R. (Ex. Ka-1) that due to fear, he could not go to police station Kandharapur straight way. He went to Kaptanganj through canal and due to non availability of conveyance delay was caused in reaching police station Kandharapur. Ka-9). P.W. 3 complainant Jagdamba Dubey has written a note in F.I.R. (Ex. Ka-1) that due to fear, he could not go to police station Kandharapur straight way. He went to Kaptanganj through canal and due to non availability of conveyance delay was caused in reaching police station Kandharapur. P.W. 3 Jagdamba Dubey complainant has stated in his statement on oath that after occurrence injured Ram Prakat Dubey was carried to Kaptanganj by his son P.W. 2 Durga Prasad Dubey and others on cot. He went to his house and wrote F.I.R. (Ex. Ka-1). Thereafter, he went to Kaptanganj where he met with injured Ram Prakat Dubey and others and thereafter a tempo was made available, by which they carried Ram Prakat Dubey to Azamgarh hospital. He also accompanied them and dropped tempo in the way at Kandharapur. Thereafter, he went to P.S. Kandharapur and presented report (Ex. Ka-1). Thus, it is apparent that there is a reasonable explanation for delay in lodging F.I.R. Moreover, F.I.R. lodged within 3 hours of occurrence may not be said to be delayed F.I.R. Defence has given suggestion to P.W. 1 Shesh Nath Dubey, P.W. 2 Durga Prasad Dubey and P.W. 3 Jagdamba Dubey that deceased Ram Prakat Dubey has been killed in darkness at late night by other persons and none has seen the occurrence. All the said witnesses have negatives the suggestion of defence and there is no sufficient ground to disbelieve the time of occurrence alleged by prosecution. In view of above, we are of the view that F.I.R. is prompt and there is no chance of concoction in version of F.I.R. The time of occurrence alleged by prosecution is 7.00 p.m. on 11th May, 1981 sunset will be at 6.55 p.m. Thus, it is apparent that at about 7 p.m. darkness shall not prevail. Therefore, without any source of light occurrence may be seen by witnesses. Statement of P.W. 4, Dr. K.S. Mishra as well as post-morterm report (Ex. Ka-2) shows that out of 21 anti-morterm injuries found on the dead body of deceased Ram Prakat Dubey, there were incised wounds, lacerated wounds, contusions, abraded contusions and sub-conjuntival haemorrhage in left eye. Contusion and lacerated wounds may be caused by blunt object and Lathi is a blunt object, incised wounds may be caused by sharp edged weapon and Katar is a sharp edged weapon. Contusion and lacerated wounds may be caused by blunt object and Lathi is a blunt object, incised wounds may be caused by sharp edged weapon and Katar is a sharp edged weapon. In view of conclusion drawn above, it is apparent that injury no. 21 and condition of buccal cavity shows that deceased had suffered bomb blast injuries also. Therefore, having considered all the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence on record, we are of the view that post-morterm report (Ex. Ka-2) as well as statement of P.W. 4 K.S. Mishra fully corroborates the version of F.I.R. and ocular evidence adduced by the prosecution. Time of death is also corroborated by post-morterm report (Ex. Ka-2) as well as statement of P.W. 4 Dr. K.S. Mishra. Statement of P.W. 7, S.I. Sahdeo Mishra as well as recovery memo (Ex. Ka-13) shows that one fired cartridge pellets and four broken teeth have been recovered from the place of occurrence by I.O. I.O. has taken blood stained earth also from the place of occurrence. Defence has not challenged place of occurrence. Defence has merely suggested that deceased Ram Prakat Dubey has been assaulted in darkness at late night by other persons and none has seen the occurrence. Therefore, considering all the facts and circumstances of the case as well as evidence on record, we are of the view that place of occurrence alleged by prosecution is proved beyond doubt. In view of discussion made and conclusions drawn above, after having gone through whole facts and circumstances of the case as well as evidence on record, we are of the view that P.W. 1 Shesh Nath Dubey, P.W. 2 Durga Prasad Dubey and P.W. 3 Jagdamba Dubey are trustworthy witnesses and there is no sufficient ground to disbelieve their testimony. In the case of Narpal Singh Vs. State of Haryana 1977 Cr.L.J., 642 SC, Hon'ble Apex Court held that, "If the witnesses examined are believed, the question of inference for non-examination does not arise." In view of this pronouncement of Hon'ble Apex Court no adverse inference may be drawn against prosecution for non-examination of other witnesses of occurrence. Accused-appellant Gorakh Dubey (now deceased) has stated in statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that he had no enmity with deceased Ram Prakat Dubey. He has enmity with complainant Jagdamba Dubey and Jagdamba Dubey has falsely implicated him due to animosity. Accused-appellant Gorakh Dubey (now deceased) has stated in statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that he had no enmity with deceased Ram Prakat Dubey. He has enmity with complainant Jagdamba Dubey and Jagdamba Dubey has falsely implicated him due to animosity. In view of this statement of accused-appellant Gorakh dubey there is no reason for giving false evidence against him by P.W. 2 Durga Prasad Dubey son of deceased Ram Prakat Dubey, who has also fully supported version of F.I.R. in his statement. In view of discussion made above, we are of the view that evidence adduced by prosecution is sufficient to convict surviving accused-appellants Raj Guru Mishra and Paras Dubey for offence punishable under Sections 302 / 34 I.P.C. Perusal of impugned judgement and order passed by trial court shows that trial court has gone through entire evidence available on record and has considered all aspects and relevant points for determination of the case at length. The conclusions drawn and findings recorded by trial court are based on judicious analysis of facts and evidence in the light of various judicial pronouncements of Hon'ble Apex Court. In view of discussion made and conclusion drawn above, we are of the view that the learned trial court has rightly placed reliance upon evidence adduced by prosecution to convict surviving accused appellants for offence punishable under section 302 read with section 34 I.P.C. In the case of Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta (Dr.) and others vs. State of Maharashtra, (2010) 13 SCC 657 , Hon'ble Apex Court has placed reliance on its previous judgement rendered in the case of State Vs. Saravanan; A.I.R. 2009 SC 152, wherein Hon'ble Apex court has held as under: "The trial court, after going through the entire evidence, must form an opinion about the credibility of the witnesses and the appellate court in normal course would not be justified in reviewing the same again without justifiable reasons." In view of this pronouncement of Hon'ble Apex Court as well as discussion made and conclusion drawn above, we are of the view that there is no sufficient ground to disturb the findings as well as conviction recorded by trial court. Sentence awarded by learned trial court is not excessive and State has not filed appeal for enhancement of sentence. Sentence awarded by learned trial court is not excessive and State has not filed appeal for enhancement of sentence. In view of discussion made and conclusion drawn above, we are of the view that there is no sufficient ground for interference in the impugned judgement and order passed by learned trial court. Appeal has no merit and is liable to be dismissed. Appeal is dismissed accordingly. Surviving accused appellants Paras Dubey and Raj Guru are on bail. They shall surrender before the trial court for serving sentence 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. Office is directed to send copy of judgement to trial court for securing compliance. Lower court record shall be returned to the concerned court immediately. ——————