(Delivered by Hon. Akhtar Husain Khan,J) Present appeal has been filed by accused appellants Harendra Singh, Jitendra Singh, Deena Nath Mishra and Hari Shanker Yadav under section 374(2) Cr.P.C. against judgement and order dated 3.5.1995 passed by learned Special Judge, Deoria in S.T. No.114 of 1978 (State Vs. Ravindra Singh and others), under sections 148 and 302/149 I.P.C., Police Station Mail, District Deoria, where by learned Special Judge, Deoria has convicted aforesaid accused appellants for offence punishable under section 302 I.P.C. read with section 34 I.P.C. and has sentenced each of them thereunder with imprisonment for life. Appellant no.2 Jitendra Singh and appellant no.4 Hari Shanker Yadav died during pendency of appeal. Therefore, appeal abated in respect of them. Learned counsel Shri Sudhir Dixit and Shri Akhilanand Mishra appeared for the surviving accused appellants. Shri Narendra Kumar Singh Yadav, learned A.G.A. appeared for State respondent. We have heard the parties and have gone through record of the case. According to F.I.R. Exhibit Ka.3 in brief prosecution case is that on 24.11.1977 at about 5.00 P.M. Ram Nakshtra Rai, Principal of Pandit Jawahar Lal Krishak Inter College, Mahuabari went to village Padrigajraj for purchasing buffalo of Ram Awadh Singh alongwith complainant Harihar Singh, Krishna Mohan Singh, Jai Ram Singh, Ram Badan Singh, Rama Kant Singh, Ram Chhabila, Bhairo, Subhnarain Yadav and Khoob Lal Yadav whose parentage and address have been given in F.I.R. Exhibit Ka.3, but transaction regarding purchase of buffalo could not be finalised because parties did not agree on price. Thereafter Principal Ram Nakshtra Rai was returning back to his house alongwith aforesaid persons. As soon as they reached near sugar cane fields of Jaidhari Singh and others situated towards west of village at the time of sun set accused Ravindra Singh, Hirdaya Narain Singh, Jitendra Singh, Deena Nath Mishra and Hari Shanker Yadav suddenly came out of field of sugar cane. They intercepted Principal, Ram Nakshtra Rai and started firing at him with close range. Above named persons accompanying him fell down here and there in panic and raised alarm. Principal, Ram Nakshtra Rai felldown after having received injuries. Thereafter accused Deena Nath Mishra caused injuries on his one leg with but of gun. When having heard noise villagers rushed to spot, accused ranaway towards west. At the time of running away accused threatened as to whoever comes he shall be killed. Principal, Ram Nakshtra Rai felldown after having received injuries. Thereafter accused Deena Nath Mishra caused injuries on his one leg with but of gun. When having heard noise villagers rushed to spot, accused ranaway towards west. At the time of running away accused threatened as to whoever comes he shall be killed. Complainant Harihar Singh and persons accompanying him could not chase accused due to fear. According to F.I.R. Exhibit Ka.3 accused Deena Nath Mishra was armed with double barrel gun, accused Jitendra Singh was armed with single barrel gun and remaining accused were armed with cuttas. According to F.I.R. Exhibit Ka.3 after aforesaid occurrence complainant Harihar Singh as well as persons accompanying him brought injured Principal, Ram Nakshtra Rai to Salempur Hospital by tractor trolley where doctor declared him dead. Thereafter leaving dead body of Principal, Ram Nakshtra Rai in Salempur Hospital on tractor trolley complainant Harihar Singh went to Police Station Salempur and presented written first information report Exhibit Ka.3 In F.I.R. Exhibit Ka.3 it has been mentioned by complainant Harihar Singh that there was going on a dispute between Principal, Ram Nakshtra Rai and accused for a long time regarding removal of certain teachers and proceeding under section 107 Cr.P.C. was also pending between them. On the basis of written report Exhibit Ka.3 chick report Exhibit Ka.29 was written in Police Station Salempur on 24.11.1977 at 9.10 P.M. and was transferred to Police Station Lar. Thereafter Crime No.183 of 1977, under sections 147, 148, 149, 302/34 I.P.C. was registered in Police Station Lar on the basis of said written report Exhibit Ka.3 and chick report Exhibit Ka.29 and investigation was started by police of Police Station Lar. Thereafter inquest report of deceased Principal, Ram Nakshtra Rai was prepared and dead body of deceased Principal Ram Nakshtra Rai was sent for post mortem in sealed cover after having completed necessary formalities. Later on investigation was completed by police in accordance with law and after having completed investigation police submitted charge sheet against aforesaid six accused for offences punishable under section 148 I.P.C. and section 302 I.P.C. read with section 149 I.P.C. whereupon learned 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.114 of 1978 (State Vs. Thereafter S.T. No.114 of 1978 (State Vs. Ravindra Singh and others), under sections 148, 302/149 I.P.C, Police Station Mail, District Deoria was registered in session court of district Deoria. Later on said session trial was transferred to the Court of II Additional Session Judge, Deoria, who framed charges against all accused for offences punishable under section 148 I.P.C. and section 302 I.P.C. read with section 149 I.P.C. All accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Prosecution examined P.W.1 complainant Harihar Singh, P.W.2 Jai Ram Singh, P.W.3 Ram Chabila, P.W.4 Dr. B.P. Gupta, P.W.5 S.I. Swatantra Singh, P.W.6 Dr. Subash Prasad, P.W. 7 S.I. Karam Hussain and P.W.8 Head Moharrir Chotelal Sharma. After prosecution evidence Ram Nagina Singh was examined by Court as C.W.1. Thereafter statement of all accused were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. All accused stated that they have been falsely implicated due to animosity. D.W. 1 Vishun Deo Singh and D.W.2 Ram Ugrah Yadav were examined on behalf of accused appellants as defence witnesses. Thereafter learned Special Judge/Additional Session Judge, Deoria heard the arguments of the parties and passed impugned judgement and order dated 3.5.1995 whereby he has convicted and sentenced accused appellants as mentioned above. By impugned judgement and order dated 3.5.1995 learned Special Judge/Additional Sessions Judge, Deoria has acquitted co-accused Hirdaya Narain Singh from all charges levelled against him, while co-accused Ravindra Singh died during pendency of session trial and case abated against him. Learned Special Judge/Additional Sessions Judge, Deoria has acquitted all accused appellants also for offence punishable under section 148 I.P.C. No appeal is reported to have been filed against acquittal of co-accused Hirdaya Narain Singh as well as acquittal of accused appellants for offence punishable under section 148 I.P.C. Learned counsel for accused appellants contended that the accused appellants are innocent and have been falsely implicated. Learned counsel for accused appellants contended that F.I.R. is anti time and whole prosecution story has been concocted with aid of P.W. 7 S.I. Karam Hussain whose son had applied as private candidate for appearing in Intermediate Examination of year 1977-1978 at the centre of Mahuabari College where principal was Ram Nakshtra Rai. Learned counsel for accused appellants further contended that all witnesses of occurrence examined by prosecution are chance witnesses and there are material contradictions in their statements. Therefore, their testimonies may not be relied to convict accused appellants. Learned counsel for accused appellants further contended that all witnesses of occurrence examined by prosecution are chance witnesses and there are material contradictions in their statements. Therefore, their testimonies may not be relied to convict accused appellants. Learned counsel for accused appellants contended that post mortem report Exhibit Ka.4 as well as statement of P.W.4 Dr. B.P. Gupta is inconsistent with version of prosecution as no blunt object injury has been found on dead body of deceased Ram Nakshtra Rai in post mortem. Learned counsel for accused appellants contended that trial court itself has not relied upon version of prosecution and has acquitted co-accused Hirdaya Narain Singh from all charges levelled against him and no appeal has been filed against his acquittal. Therefore accused appellants are also entitled to acquittal. Learned counsel for the accused appellants prayed that appeal should be allowed and accused appellants should be acquitted. Learned A.G.A. contended that witnesses of occurrence examined by prosecution are trust worthy witnesses and there is no material contradiction in their statements. Learned A.G.A. contended that there is sufficient reason for lodging F.I.R. in Police Station Salimpur and there is nothing on record to show that F.I.R. is anti time. Learned A.G.A. further contended that all witnesses of fact and occurrence namely P.W.1 complainant Harihar Singh, P.W.2 Jai Ram Singh, P.W.3 Ram Chabila have stated sufficient reason for their presence at the time as well as place of occurrence. Learned A.G.A. further contended that statement of C.W.1 Ram Nagina Singh fully corroborates cause/motive of occurrence alleged by prosecution. Learned A.G.A. further contended that conviction recorded by trial court against accused appellants is based on evidence and there is no sufficient ground for interference in the impugned judgement and order passed by trial court. Learned A.G.A. contended that sentence awarded by trial court is not excessive. Learned A.G.A. prayed that appeal filed by the accused appellants should be dismissed. We have considered the submissions made by the parties. Out of above eight witnesses examined by prosecution before trial court P.W.1 complainant Harihar Singh, P.W.2 Jai Ram Singh and P.W.3 Ram Chabila are the witnesses of fact and occurrence. They have supported story of prosecution in their statements on oath. P.W.1 complainant Harihar Singh has proved F.I.R. Exhibit Ka.3 also in his statement. Out of above eight witnesses examined by prosecution before trial court P.W.1 complainant Harihar Singh, P.W.2 Jai Ram Singh and P.W.3 Ram Chabila are the witnesses of fact and occurrence. They have supported story of prosecution in their statements on oath. P.W.1 complainant Harihar Singh has proved F.I.R. Exhibit Ka.3 also in his statement. He has proved letter dated 26.10.1976 written by deceased Ram Nakshtra Rai Principal of Pandit Jawahar Lal Krishak Inter College, Mahuabari as Exhibit Ka.1. He has stated that on the margin of said letter, there is suspension order passed by Manager Ram Nagina Singh. He has proved said suspension order by identifying writing and signature of Manager, Ram Nagina Singh. Learned trial court has marked Exhibit Ka.1/1 on said suspension order. P.W.1 complainant Harihar Singh has proved complaint dated 18.8.1977 sent by Principal Ram Nachhatra Rai to Zila Adhikari and Police Adhikshak, Deoria as Exhibit Ka.2. P.W.4 Dr. B.P. Gupta has stated in his statement on oath that on 25.11.1977 he was posted as Surgeon in District Hospital, Deoria. He has stated that on that day at about 1.30 P.M. he conducted post mortem of deceased Principal, Ram Nakshtra Rai. The dead body was brought by constable Sarvanand Pandey and Ayodhya Chaukidar in sealed cover and was identified by them. He has proved post mortem report of deceased Principal, Ram Nakshtra Rai as Exhibit Ka.4. P.W.4 Dr. B.P. Gupta has stated in his statement on oath that ante mortem injuries found on the dead body of deceased Principal, Ram Nakshtra Rai may be caused by fire arms and were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course. He has further stated that death of deceased may occur on 24.11.1977 between 5 to 6 P.M. P.W.5 S.I. Swatantra Singh has stated in his statement on oath that in the month of November, 1977, he was posted in Police Station Lar. He has stated that chick F.I.R. as well as first information report was received to him through home guard Lallu Pandey of Police Station Salempur at 10.30 P.M. on 24.11.1977. Head Moharrir Chhotey Lal Verma made entry of chick F.I.R. and report in rapat no.34 of G.D. in his presence. Thereafter he took investigation in his hand and went to Police Station Salempur where he reached at 11.30 P.M. and went to Hospital Salempur with Jeep of Police Station Salempur. He reached Salempur Hospital at 12.00 at night. Head Moharrir Chhotey Lal Verma made entry of chick F.I.R. and report in rapat no.34 of G.D. in his presence. Thereafter he took investigation in his hand and went to Police Station Salempur where he reached at 11.30 P.M. and went to Hospital Salempur with Jeep of Police Station Salempur. He reached Salempur Hospital at 12.00 at night. Thereafter on 25.11.1977 at 12.05 A.M. he recorded statements of complainant Harihar Singh, Ram Badan Singh and Rama Kant, who were present in Salempur Hospital. Thereafter he went in search of accused and again came to Hospital Salempur on 25.11.1977 at 7.45 A.M. By that time S.O. Karam Hussain of Police Station Salempur had completed inquest report of deceased Principal, Ram Nakshtra Rai. Therefore, he recorded statements of witnesses of inquest report as well as statement of S.O. Karam Hussain. P.W.5 S.I. Swatantra Singh has further stated that on the same day he recorded statement of Dr. Subash Chandra, Medical Officer, P.H.C. Salempur. Thereafter he went to Police Station Salempur and recorded statement of constable Moharrir Chandirka Rai scribe of chick F.I.R. He has stated that on the same day he went to place of occurrence by government Jeep and recorded statements of witnesses Krishna Mohan Singh, Jai Ram Singh, Ram Chhabila, Bhairo Dubey, Subhnarain and Khoob Lal, who had been summoned by him at place of occurrence. He has stated that he made inspection of place of occurrence and prepared site plan of place of occurrence Exhibit Ka. 5. P.W.5 S.I. Swatantra Singh has stated in his statement that he recovered two fired cartridges from place of occurrence and took blood stained earth and plain earth from place of occurrence. He has proved recovery memos of said articles as Exhibits Ka.6 to Ka. 8 in his statement. P.W.5 S.I. Swatantra Singh has proved in his statement said fire cartridges as material Exhibits no.15 and 16. He has further stated that he sent report for chemical examination on 2.1.1978 thereafter having completed investigation he submitted charge sheet Exhibit Ka.27 before court. P.W.6 Dr. Subash Prasad has stated in his statement that on 24.11.1977 he was posted as Medical Officer at Primary Heath Centre, Salempur. On that day at about 8.15 P.M. Principal, Ram Nakshtra Rai was brought by complainant Harihar Singh and others on trolley in injured condition. He examined him on trolly. He was dead. P.W.6 Dr. Subash Prasad has stated in his statement that on 24.11.1977 he was posted as Medical Officer at Primary Heath Centre, Salempur. On that day at about 8.15 P.M. Principal, Ram Nakshtra Rai was brought by complainant Harihar Singh and others on trolley in injured condition. He examined him on trolly. He was dead. He has stated that he sent report Exhibit Ka.28 to police Station Salempur regarding death of Principal Ram Nakchhatra Rai. P.W. 7 S.I. Karam Hussain has stated in his statement on oath that on 24/25.11.1977 he was posted as Station Officer of Police Station Salempur. On 24.11.1977 at about 9.10 P.M. complainant Harihar Singh presented written report Exhibit Ka.3 in his presence. On the basis of which constable Moharrir Chandirka Rai wrote chick no.173 in his presence. He has proved said chick report Exhibit Ka.29 by identifying handwriting of Moharrir Chandirka Rai as well as his own signature. P.W. 7 S.I. Karam Hussain has further stated in his statement on oath that entry of registration of crime was made in G.D. by said Moharrir Chandirka Rai at the same time. He has proved copy of G.D. relating to registration of crime Exhibit Ka.30 also. P.W. 7 S.I. Karam Hussain has stated in his statement that on the same day he went to Hospital Salempur alongwith register of inquest report and police force but due to night he did not prepare inquest report. He prepared inquest report of deceased Principal, Ram Nakshtra Rai on 25.11.1977 at 6.30 A.M. He has proved inquest report of deceased Principal Ram Nakshtra Rai Exhibit Ka.31 in his statement. P.W. 7 S.I. Karam Hussain has proved in his statement Photo Nash Exhibit Ka.32, Chalan Nash Exhibit Ka.33 and letter written to medical officer, District Hospital, Exhibit Ka.34. He has further stated that after having sealed dead body he prepared specimen of seal Exhibit Ka.35 and sent dead body for post mortem through constable Sarvanand Pandey and Ayodhya Chaukidar. P.W.8 Head Moharrir Chotelal Sharma has stated in his statement on oath that on 24.11.1977 he was posted in Police Station Lar as Head Moharrir. He has stated that on that day at 10.30 P.M. papers relating to this crime were received from Police Station Salempur through home guard Lallu Pandey. Thereafter he made entry in G.D. at rapat no.34. He has proved copy of said G.D. as Exhibit Ka.36 in his statement. He has stated that on that day at 10.30 P.M. papers relating to this crime were received from Police Station Salempur through home guard Lallu Pandey. Thereafter he made entry in G.D. at rapat no.34. He has proved copy of said G.D. as Exhibit Ka.36 in his statement. C.W.1 Ram Nagina Singh has stated in his statement that letter Ka.1 dated 26.10.1976 was sent to him by deceased Principal, Ram Nakshtra Rai. On that day he was Manager of Pandit Jawahar Lal Krishak Inter College, Mahuabari. He has proved suspension order Exhibit Ka.1/1 passed by him on the said letter. D.W.1 Vishun Deo Singh has stated in his statement on oath that he is head clerk in Pandit Jawahar Lal Krishak Inter College, Mahuabari. He has proved letter written by deceased Principal Ram Nakshtra Rai Exhibit Kha. 8 and Exhibit Kha.9 in his statement. He has further stated in his statement that deceased Principal Ram Nakshtra Rai had a private motor vehicle which was driven by Khoob Lal peon of said Pandit Jawahar Lal Krishak Inter College, Mahuabari. D.W.1 Vishun Deo Singh has stated in his statement on oath that said Pandit Jawahar Lal Krishak Inter College, Mahuabari was closed from 20.11.1977 to 27.11.1977 due to holidays of Deo Than, Ekadasi, Iduljuha and Kartika Purnima. He has stated in his statement that P.W.3 Ram Chabila has never worked on any post in the said Pandit Jawahar Lal Krishak Inter College, Mahuabari. D.W.2 Ram Ugrah Yadav has stated that he is constable posted in the office of C.O. Salempur. He has stated that he has brought file of special report regarding crime no.183 of 1977, under sections 147, 148, 302 I.P.C., Police Station Lar. He has stated in his statement that parcha no. 1 to parcha no.13 of case diary have been received in C.O. office on 5.1.1978, while parcha nos. 15 and 16 of case diary have been received in C.O. office on 6.1.1978 and 21.1.1978 respectively. He has stated in his statement that S.R. file is maintained in his office according to rules. We have examined the evidence available on record in the light of contentions made by the parties. P.W.7 S.I. Karam Hussain has stated on oath that on 24/25.11.1977 he was posted as Station Officer at Police Station Salempur and on 24.11.1977 at 9.10 P.M. complainant Harihar Singh presented written report Exhibit Ka.3 at Police Station Salempur. We have examined the evidence available on record in the light of contentions made by the parties. P.W.7 S.I. Karam Hussain has stated on oath that on 24/25.11.1977 he was posted as Station Officer at Police Station Salempur and on 24.11.1977 at 9.10 P.M. complainant Harihar Singh presented written report Exhibit Ka.3 at Police Station Salempur. On the basis of which chick report Exhibit Ka.29 has been written. P.W.1 complainant Harihar Singh has stated in his statement on oath that after occurrence he called his tractor trolly on spot and thereafter he brought Principal, Ram Nakshtra Rai to Hospital Salempur by tractor trolly where they reached at 8.00 P.M. When doctor saw him, he declared him dead. Thereafter in Salempur Hospital Ram Badan Singh wrote first information report on his dictation. Thereafter he signed first information report Exhibit Ka.3 and went to Police Station Salempur where he reached at about 9.00 P.M. He handed report Exhibit Ka.3 in Police Station Salempur. Thereafter report was registered in Police Station Salempur on the basis of first information report Exhibit Ka.3. P.W.6 Dr. Subash Prasad has stated in his statement on oath that on 24.11.1977 he was posted at Salempur Primary Health Centre. On that day at about 8.15 P.M. injured Ram Nakshtra Rai Principal of Pandit Jawahar Lal Krishak Inter College, Mahuabari was brought with trolly by complainant Harihar Singh and others. Thereafter he went on trolly and saw Principal, Ram Nakshtra Rai and declared him dead. He has stated that he sent written report Exhibit Ka.28 regarding his death to Police Station Salempur. In cross examination P.W.6 Dr. Subash Prasad has stated that at 8.30 P.M. he declared Principal, Ram Nakshtra Rai dead. Perusal of statements of P.W.5 S.I. Swantra Singh and P.W.8 Head Moharrir Chotey Lal Sharma shows that F.I.R. Exhibit Ka.3 and chick F.I.R. Exhibit Ka.29 were received to Police Station Lar from Police Station Salempur on 24.11.1977 at 10.30 P.M. through Home Guard Lallu Pandey. After having gone through chick F.I.R. Exhibit Ka.29 and copy of G.D. relating to registration of crime Exhibit Ka.36 as well as statement of P.W.1 complainant Harihar Singh, P.W.8 Head Moharrir Chotey Lal Sharma, P.W.7 S.I. Karam Husain, P.W.6 Dr. After having gone through chick F.I.R. Exhibit Ka.29 and copy of G.D. relating to registration of crime Exhibit Ka.36 as well as statement of P.W.1 complainant Harihar Singh, P.W.8 Head Moharrir Chotey Lal Sharma, P.W.7 S.I. Karam Husain, P.W.6 Dr. Subash Prasad and P.W.5 S.I. Swantra Singh, we are of the view that prosecution has fully established that F.I.R. Exhibit Ka.3 has been presented on 24.11.1977 at 9.10 P.M. and there is no sufficient ground to hold that F.I.R. is anti time. P.W.7 S.I. Karam Husain has admitted in cross examination at page 5 (page 176 of paper book) that Akhtar Husain is his son and he had submitted form for Intermediate Examination in the year 1977-1978 as private candidate from Mahuabari College. Deceased Ram Nakshtra Rai was principal of Mahuabari College in the year 1977-1978 till the date of incident. But it does not mean that S.I. Karam Husain was under influence of Principal, Ram Nakshtra Rai now deceased because till the date of incident son of S.I. Karam Husain had not appeared in the intermediate examination and there is no evidence or material on record to show that son of S.I. Karam Husain has been given undue favour for examination. In cross examination at pages 21 and 22 ((pages 47 and 48 of paper book) P.W.1 complainant Harihar Singh has stated that in Salempur taxies were easily available for going to Deoria District Head Quarter while in town Lar taxies were not available at all times for Deoria. Thus it is apparent from statement of P.W.1 complainant Harihar Singh that there was reasonable ground to go to Salempur with injured Principal, Ram Nakshtra Rai instead of going to Lar. Therefore, no adverse inference may be drawn on the ground that as to why injured was not brought to Lar after incident and F.I.R. was not lodged in Police Station Lar directly. P.W.7 S.I. Karam Husain has stated in his statement on oath that after registration of F.I.R. in police station he went to Salempur Hospital alongwith register of panchnama but he did not prepare inquest report due to night. He has further stated in his statement that he prepared inquest report on 25.11.1977 at 6.30 A.M. P.W.5 S.I. Swantra Singh has stated in his statement on oath that on 25.11.1977 at 7.45 A.M. he reached Salempur Hospital. He has further stated in his statement that he prepared inquest report on 25.11.1977 at 6.30 A.M. P.W.5 S.I. Swantra Singh has stated in his statement on oath that on 25.11.1977 at 7.45 A.M. he reached Salempur Hospital. Karam Husain, Station Officer Salempur has already prepared inquest report at that time. It is apparent from version of F.I.R. Exhibit Ka.3 as well as statement of P.W.1 complainant Harihar Singh that deceased Principal, Ram Nakshtra Rai was brought from place of occurrence to Hospital Salempur where doctor declared him dead. Thereafter first information report Exhibit Ka.3 was presented in Police Station Salempur and report was registered originally in Police Station Salempur. As the dead body was lying within jurisdiction of police station, Salempur therefore, preparation of inquest report by Karam Husain, Station Officer Salempur is in accordance with law and no adverse inference may be drawn against prosecution on this ground. It is apparent from statement of P.W.7 S.I. Karam Hussain that he did not prepare inquest report just after his visit to Hospital Salempur after registration of crime because of night. It is a matter of common experience that generally police does not prepare inquest report in night. P.W.7 S.I. Karam Hussain has prepared inquest report next day at 6.30 A.M. Preparation of inquest report next day in the morning has no adverse affect on prosecution case. Perusal of statement of D.W.2 Ram Ugrah Yadav shows that all parchas of case diary relating to period 24.11.1977 to 2.12.1977 has been received in office of C.O. on 5.1.1978. Learned trial court has considered this issue and has rightly concluded that this may be the result of negligence of police official concerned and no adverse inference should be drawn against prosecution on this ground. P.W.1 complainant Harihar Singh and P.W.2 Jai Ram Singh both are residents of same village Padri Gajraj where occurrence has taken place. P.W.1 complainant Harihar Singh has stated in his statement on oath that on the day of occurrence i.e. 24.11.1977 Principal, Ram Nakshtra Rai had gone to his village to see buffalo of Ram Awadh Singh resident of same village at about 4.00 P.M. along with him as well as Ram Badan Singh, Rama Kant Singh, Bhairo Dubey, Ram Chhibala Yadav, Khoob Lal and Subhas Naryan Yadav but transaction could not be finalised. Thereafter they were returning back at about 5.00 P.M. At that time Krishna Mohan Singh and Jai Ram Singh also accompanied them. As soon as they reached near sugar cane field of Jaidhari Singh accused Ravindra Singh armed with Kutta, accused Harendra Singh armed with Kutta, accused Hirdaya Narain Singh armed with Kutta, accused Jitendra Singh armed with single barrel gun, accused Deen Nath armed with double barrel gun and accused Hari Shanker armed with Kutta came out of said sugar cane field and started firing at Principal Ram Nakshtra Rai after having encircled him. P.W.1 Harihar Singh complainant has stated in cross-examination at page 55 (page 81 of paper book) that Jai Ram Singh P.W.2 accompanied them from bus station. P.W.1 complainant Harihar Singh has stated in cross-examination at the same page that Ram Nakshtra Rai was his teacher. He had great respect for him. He has stated that on the day of occurrence he reached school after 3.00 P.M. P.W.2 Jai Ram Singh has stated in his statement on oath that Ram Awadh Singh is his elder brother. On 24.11.1977 Principal, Ram Nakshtra Rai had to come to his house to see his buffalo for purchasing. P.W.2 Jai Ram Singh has stated in his statement on oath that there is a bus station near near his village. On the said bus station he met with Principal, Ram Nakshtra Rai, Rama Kant Rai, Harihar Singh, Rambadan Singh, Ram Chabila, Subh Narain, Khoob Lal and Bhairo Dube. He also accompanied them and all of them went to his house. His elder brother Ram Awadh Singh also came there. They saw his buffalo but transaction could not be finalised because parties did not agree on price. Thereafter Principal, Ram Nakshtra Rai alongwith above persons accompanying him was returning to school. P.W.2 Jai Ram Singh has stated in his statement that he and Krishna Mohan also accompanied them. At that time it was above 4.30 P.M. As soon as they reached near sugar cane field of Jaidhari Singh at about 5.00 P.M. accused Jitendra Singh armed with single barrel gun, accused Deena Nath Mishra armed with double barrel gun, accused Ravindra Singh armed with Kutta, accused Harendra Singh armed with Kutta, accused Hirdaya Narain Singh armed with Kutta and accused Hari Shanker Yadav armed with Kutta came out of sugar cane field and fired at Principal Ram Nakshtra Rai. Statement of P.W.6 Dr. Subash Prasad shows that injured Ram Nakshatra Rai was brought by trolly to Salempur Hospital at 8.15 P.M. by complainant Harihar Singh and others. F.I.R. Exhibit Ka.3 has been lodged by complainant P.W.1 Harihar Singh in Police Station Salempur on the same day at 9.10 P.M. Statement of P.W.1 complainant Harihar Singh has been recorded by Investigating Officer P.W.5 S.I. Swantra Singh under section 161 Cr.P.C. at Salempur Hospital in the same night on 25.11.1977 at 12.05 A.M. Ram Nakshatra Rai was principle of local Inter College and was a respectable man. Therefore considering all facts and circumstances of the case as well as whole evidence on record we are of the view that the presence of P.W.1 complainant Harihar Singh and P.W.2 Jai Ram Singh is highly reliable at the time and place of occurrence. Their testimonies may not be discarded merely on the ground of chance witness. P.W.3 Ram Chhabila has stated on oath that he was living with Principal Ram Nakshatra Rai and was doing work of feeding his buffalo. He has stated that he has also gone with Ram Nakshatra Rai to see buffalo. Presence of P.W.3 Ram Chhabila along with Principal Ram Nakshatra Rai appears natural as he was looking after buffalo of Ram Nakshatra Rai. In the case of Dharmaveer and others Vs. State of U.P. 2010 (4) A.L.J. 57 S.C., Honourable Apex Court has held that witnesses did not suffer injury, will not make their evidence untrustworthy. In the case of Sampath Kumar Vs. Inspector of Police, Krishnagiri 2012 (IV) SCC 124 , Hon'ble Apex Court has 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." In the case of State of U.P. Vs. M.K. Anthony A.I.R. 1985 S.C. 48, Hon'ble Apex Court has held that " every honest and truthful witnesses may differ in some details unrelated to main incident because power of observation, retention and reproduction differ with individuals". In the case of Faquira Vs. State of U.P. A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 915, Hon'ble Apex Court has held that "minor discrepancy guarantees that witnesses are not tutored." In the case of State of U.P. Vs. Krishna Master and others; 2010 Cri. In the case of Faquira Vs. State of U.P. A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 915, Hon'ble Apex Court has held that "minor discrepancy guarantees that witnesses are not tutored." 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 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." We have gone through whole statements of P.W.1 complainant Harihar Singh, P.W.2 Jai Ram Singh and P.W.3 Ram Chhabila. In view of principle laid down by Honourable Apex Court in aforesaid pronouncements we are unable to find material contradictions in their statements to disbelieve them. In first information report Exhibit Ka.3 it has been mentioned that Principal Ram Nakshatra Rai and others had gone to village Padrigajraj to see buffalo of Ram Awadh Singh at 5.00 P.M. At the same time in F.I.R. Exhibit Ka.3 it has also been mentioned that Principal Ram Nakshatra Rai and persons accompanying him were returning to College at the time of sunset and when they reached near sugar cane field of Jaidhari Singh occurrence took place. In statement on oath P.W.1 complainant Harihar Singh and P.W.3 Ram Chhabila has stated that they have gone to see buffalo with Ram Nakshatra Rai at 4.00 P.M. while P.W.2 Jai Ram Singh has stated in his statement that when transaction for purchasing buffalo could not be finalised Principal Ram Nakshatra Rai and others returned to school. He and Krishna Mohan also accompanied them. At that time it was above 4.30 P.M. P.W.1 complainant Harihar Singh has stated in cross-examination at page 48 (page 74 of paper book) that tractor and trolly came on spot after 1.30 hour of occurrence. He and Krishna Mohan also accompanied them. At that time it was above 4.30 P.M. P.W.1 complainant Harihar Singh has stated in cross-examination at page 48 (page 74 of paper book) that tractor and trolly came on spot after 1.30 hour of occurrence. P.W.2 Jai Ram Singh also has stated in cross-examination at page 11 (page 94 of paper book) that Harihar Singh had sent his brother Harendra Singh for bringing tractor who brought tractor after 1.30 hour because tractor had gone to plough field and was not at his house. Injured Ram Nakshatra Rai was brought to Primary Health Centre Salempur at 8.15 P.M. Delay in bringing him to Primary Health Centre Salempur has been caused because tractor and trolly were not available immediately as is apparent from above statements of P.W.1 complainant Harihar Singh and P.W.2 Jai Ram Singh. At this juncture it is relevant to mention that there may be confusion regarding exact time according to clock. But there may not be confusion regarding sunset. After having gone through whole facts and circumstances of the case and specific mention of sunset as the time of occurrence we are of view that time of occurrence is the time of sunset and there is no sufficient ground to disbelieve this time of occurrence alleged by prosecution. In F.I.R. Exhibit Ka.3 it has been specifically mentioned that when Principal, Ram Nakshtra Rai fell down after having received fire arm injuries accused Deena Nath assaulted him with but of gun. P.W.1 complainant Harihar Singh has also stated in his statement that when Principal, Ram Nakshtra Rai fell down after having received fire arms injuries accused Deena Nath assaulted him with but of gun and caused injury on his right leg. P.W.2 Jai Ram Singh and P.W.3 Ram Chabila have also stated in their statements on oath that accused Deena Nath assaulted Principal, Ram Nakshtra Rai with but of gun also. But P.W.4 Dr. B.P. Gupta has stated in cross examination at page 11 (page 148 of paper book) that no injury of blunt object was found on body of Principal, Ram Nakshtra Rai. He has further stated on the same page that fractures found on his tibia and fibulae bones were directly result of fire arm injury. We have considered above statements of P.W.1 complainant Harihar Singh, P.W.2 Jai Ram Singh and P.W.3 Ram Chabila as well as P.W.4 Dr. He has further stated on the same page that fractures found on his tibia and fibulae bones were directly result of fire arm injury. We have considered above statements of P.W.1 complainant Harihar Singh, P.W.2 Jai Ram Singh and P.W.3 Ram Chabila as well as P.W.4 Dr. B.P. Gupta. It is apparent from above statement of P.W.4 Dr. B.P. Gupta that fractures of tibia and fibulae bones were found which were direct result of fire arm injuries. In view of fractures caused by fire arm injuries the injury caused by but might not have been detected. Therefore, on this ground it may not be said that post-mortem report is consistent with ocular evidence. According to F.I.R. Exhibit Ka.3 as well as statements of P.W.1 complainant Harihar Singh, P.W.2 Jai Ram Singh and P.W.3 Ram Chabila accused caused fire arms injuries to deceased Ram Nakshtra Rai and post mortem report Exhibit Ka.4 as well as statement of P.W.4 Dr. B.P. Gupta fully corroborates the fact that deceased had been caused injuries with fire arms. In the impugned judgement learned trial court has held that accused Ravindra Singh, Hridaya Narayan Singh, Harendra Singh, Jitendra Singh and Harishankar Yadav had no motive to cause murder of deceased Ram Nakshatra Rai but at the same time learned trial court has further held that in view of statements of eye witnesses question of motive is immaterial. This view expressed by learned trial court finds full support from judgement of Honourable Apex Court rendered in the case of Brahm Swaroop and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in A.I.R. 2011 S.C. 280. In view of above pronouncement of Honourable Apex court we upheld that question of motive is immaterial in this case in view of statements of eye witnesses; P.W.1 complainant Harihar Singh, P.W.2 Jai Ram Singh and P.W.3 Ram Chhabila. However it is relevant to mention that in F.I.R. Exhibit Ka.3 motive of occurrence has been mentioned. In his statement P.W.1 complainant Harihar Singh has stated that accused Deena Nath Mishra and Jitendra Singh were teachers in the same Pandit Jawahar Lal Krishak Inter College Mahuabari in which Ram Nakshatra Rai was Principal. He has further stated that there was a dispute between Ram Nakshatra Rai and Deena Mishra as well as Jitendra Singh. P.W.1 complainant Harihar Singh has stated in his statement that accused Ravindra Singh is brother in law of accused Jitendra Singh. He has further stated that there was a dispute between Ram Nakshatra Rai and Deena Mishra as well as Jitendra Singh. P.W.1 complainant Harihar Singh has stated in his statement that accused Ravindra Singh is brother in law of accused Jitendra Singh. Accused Hridya Narain Singh is his uncle and accused Harendra Singh is pattidar of Ravindra Singh. P.W.1 complainant Harihar Singh has stated that accused Harishankar Yadav is companion of accused Ravindra Singh. Letter Exhibit Ka.1 written by Principal Ram Nakshatra Rai and suspension order Exhibit Ka.1/1 passed thereon against accused Dina Nath Mishra by C.W.1 Ram Nagina Singh have been proved by P.W.1 complainant Harihar Singh as well as by C.W.1, Ram Nagina Singh. These two papers show that suspension order was passed against accused Dina Nath on report of Principal Ram Nakashtra Rai. Considering whole facts and evidence on record we are of the view that prosecution has stated motive of occurrence and has also proved it. P.W.2 Jai Ram Singh has stated in cross-examination at page 4 (page 85 of paper book) that on the day of occurrence when at about 10.00 A.M., he came to house, he knew that Principal Sahab has to come to see buffalo. This statement of P.W.2 Jai Ram Singh makes it clear that Principal Ram Nakshatra Rai had not come suddenly to village Padrigajraj. He had come to see buffalo in Padrigajraj in pursuance of his prefixed programme. Recovery memos Exhibits Ka.6, Ka.7 and Ka.8 as well as statement of P.W.5 S.I. Swantra Singh shows that blood stained earth and two fired cartridges were recovered by I.O. P.W. 5 S.I. Swantra Singh from place of occurrence and place of occurrence is fully corroborated with site plan Exhibit Ka.5 as well as statement of I.O. P.W. 5 S.I. Swantra Singh. In view of discussion made and conclusion drawn above it is apparent that story put forward by prosecution as well as evidence adduced by prosecution is highly reliable and there is no sufficient ground to discard testimonies of prosecution witnesses. We have perused impugned judgement and order passed by trial court. Learned trial court has gone through entire evidence on record and has considered all aspect and relevant points for determination in detail. The conclusions drawn and findings recorded by trial court are based on judicious analysis of evidence in the light of judicial pronouncements. We have perused impugned judgement and order passed by trial court. Learned trial court has gone through entire evidence on record and has considered all aspect and relevant points for determination in detail. The conclusions drawn and findings recorded by trial court are based on judicious analysis of evidence in the light of judicial pronouncements. In view of discussion made and conclusion drawn above after having gone through whole evidence on record as well as whole facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that evidence on record is sufficient to hold surviving accused appellants guilty for offence punishable under section 302 I.P.C. read with section 34 I.P.C. Learned trial court has rightly convicted surviving accused appellants for offence punishable under section 302 I.P.C. read with section 34 I.P.C. In view of conclusion drawn above surviving accused appellants are not entitled to get any benefit of acquittal of co-accused Hridaya Narayan Singh recorded by trial court. Sentence awarded by 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 find no justification for interference in impugned judgement and order passed by trial court. We are of the view that appeal has no merit and is liable to be dismissed. Appeal is dismissed accordingly. Surviving accused appellants Harendra Singh and Deena Nath Mishra 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. ——————