JUDGMENT (Delivered by Hon'ble Akhtar Husain Khan,J) Present Criminal Appeal No. 2616 of 1988 has been filed by accused-appellants Ram Asre Mahra and Bachcha Lal @ Ram Sahare under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C. against judgement and order dated 15.11.1988 passed by VI Additional Sessions Judge, Allahabad in Sessions Trial No. 508 of 1983 (State Vs. Gulab Mahra and two others) whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge, Allahabad has convicted accused-appellants Ram Asre Mahra and Bachcha Lal @ Ram Sahare for offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and sentenced each of them thereunder to imprisonment for life. Sri Dilip Kumar and Sri D.N. Yadav, learned counsels for accused-appellants appeared. Sri Narendra Kumar Singh Yadav, learned Additional Government Advocate for State-respondent appeared. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused records. Criminal Appeal No. 2615 of 1988 Gulab Mahra Vs. State of U.P. filed by co-accused appellant Gulab Mahra against said judgement and order was abated due to death of accused-appellant Gulab Mahra. According to F.I.R. (Ex. Ka-1) prosecution case is that there was a long standing enmity between accused Gulab Mahra and Bhaiya Lal (Now deceased). The reasons for this enmity was that Gulab Mahra and others had murdered Ram Chandra, father of Bhaiya Lal on 2nd July, 1975 and thereafter in October, 1981 accused Gulab Mahra falsely implicated Bhaiya Lal in a case under Section 307 I.P.C. which was pending before the Court at the time of occurrence. In view of above animosity, accused Gulab Mahra was seeking opportunity to murder Bhaiya Lal and in pursuance of his said design on 12.8.1983 in the morning when Bhaiya Lal was going along with P.W. 3 Hori Lal for exercise in 'Jai Bajrang Vyayamshala' situated at Shankar Lal Bhargav Road and his uncle Biswanath complainant was going to the house of his Munshi along with P.W. 2 Pradeep Kumar. As soon as Bhaiya Lal and Hori Lal reached near house of Jeevan Lal at about 6.00 a.m., an ambassador car came from west side and was stopped near them. Accused Gulab Mahra armed with gun and his brothers accused Ram Asre Mahra and Bachcha Lal @ Ram Sahare armed with gun and tamancha respectively, came out of said ambassador car. Bhaiya Lal attempted to run away but the said assailants cordoned him and started firing at him. Accused Gulab Mahra armed with gun and his brothers accused Ram Asre Mahra and Bachcha Lal @ Ram Sahare armed with gun and tamancha respectively, came out of said ambassador car. Bhaiya Lal attempted to run away but the said assailants cordoned him and started firing at him. Bhaiya Lal suffered injuries of fire arms and fell down on earth. Complainant Biswanath and aforesaid persons accompanying them raised alarm, thereafter, said three assailants sat in the car and went away towards Minto Park in east. Thereafter, complainant Biswanath and aforesaid persons accompanying them came near injured Bhaiya Lal and saw him seriously injured. They took him and started for hospital but soon Bhaiya Lal succumbed to injuries in the way. Thereafter, the complainant Biswanath brought the dead body of Bhaiya Lal to his house no. 201-A Chaukhandi, Kydganj and thereafter, he presented written report (Ex. Ka-1), in police station Kydganj on 12.8.1983 at 7.15 a.m. On the basis of said written report (Ex. Ka-1) Crime No. 190 of 1983, under Section 302 I.P.C. was registered in P.S. Kydganj on 12.8.1983 at 7.15 a.m. against Gulab Mahra, Ram Asre Mahra and Bachcha Lal @ Ram Sahare and investigation was started by police, thereafter, inquest report of deceased Bhaiya Lal was prepared and after having completed necessary formalities dead body was sent for post morterm in sealed cover. Thereafter, investigation was completed in accordance with law and after having completed investigation police submitted charge sheet against accused Gulab Mahra, Ram Asre Mahra and Bachcha Lal @ Ram Sahare for offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. whereupon 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. 508 of 1983 (State Vs. Gulab Mahra and two others) was registered in the Sessions Court of District Allahabad. Later on, Sessions Trial was transferred to the court of IV Additional Sessions Judge, Allahabad, who framed charges against accused Gulab Mahra, Ram Asre Mahra and Bachcha Lal @ Ram Sahare for offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C. All accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Prosecution examined P.W. 1 complainant Biswanath, P.W. 2 Pradeep Kumar, P.W. 3 Hori Lal, P.W. 4 Constable Radhakrishna Giri, P.W. 5 Head Constable Abad Ali, P.W. 6 Dr. Prosecution examined P.W. 1 complainant Biswanath, P.W. 2 Pradeep Kumar, P.W. 3 Hori Lal, P.W. 4 Constable Radhakrishna Giri, P.W. 5 Head Constable Abad Ali, P.W. 6 Dr. S.P. Gautam, P.W. 7 I.O., S.I. Amar Nath Singh and P.W. 8 I.O., S.I. Yadu Nath Dwivedi. After prosecution evidence, statements of accused Gulab Mahra, Ram Asre Mahra and Bachcha Lal @ Ram Sahare were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. All the said accused stated that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of accused in defence. Learned VI Additional Sessions Judge, Allahabad heard the arguments of parties and passed impugned judgement and order dated 15.11.1988 whereby he has convicted and sentenced accused-appellants as mentioned above. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants contended that accused-appellants are innocent and have been falsely implicated due to animosity. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants contended that the whole story of prosecution is false and concocted and witnesses have been planted. He further contended that there are material contradiction in statements of witnesses and the evidence adduced by prosecution may not be relied. Trial court has committed error in placing reliance on evidence adduced by prosecution to convict accused-appellant. Learned counsel for accused-appellants contended that P.W. 2 Pradeep Kumar and P.W. 3 Hori Lal have themselves stated in further cross-examination that they have given false statements under pressure of complainant Biswanath. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants contended that conviction and sentence recorded by trial court against accused-appellants are against evidence as well as against law. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants contended that both appeals should be allowed and accused-appellant should be acquitted from charge levelled against them. Learned AGA contended that evidence on record is sufficient to hold accused-appellants guilty of offence punishable under Section 302/34 I.P.C. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants contended that witnesses P.W. 2 Pradeep Kumar and P.W. 3 Hori Lal have fully supported the version of F.I.R. in their earlier statements but later on they have been win-over by defence and thereafter, further cross-examination has been made by defence on 15.7.1988, in which they have stated facts in favour of defence. Statements of theses witnesses shall be read as a whole and not in part. Statements of theses witnesses shall be read as a whole and not in part. Learned AGA contended that the conviction recorded by trial court is based on evidence and there is no sufficient ground to disturb conviction recorded by trial court. Learned AGA contended that sentence awarded by trial court is not excessive. Learned AGA prayed that both appeals should be dismissed. We have considered the contentions of parties. P.W. 1 complainant Biswanath, P.W. 2 Pradeep Kumar and P.W. 3 Hori Lal, all are the witnesses of fact and occurrence and have supported the version of prosecution in their statements made on oath. P.W. 1 complainant Biswanath has proved F.I.R. (Ex. Ka-1) also in his statement. P.W. 4 Constable Radhakrishna Giri has stated in his statement that on 12.8.1983, he was posted in out post Nai Basti of police station Kydganj as constable, on that date he brought the dead body of Bhaiya Lal from his house in sealed cover for post morterm. Constable No. 241 Durgaprasad Pandey was also with him. The dead body remained in sealed cover till it was in their custody. P.W. 5 Head Constable Abad Ali has stated in his statement that on 12.8.1983, he was posted as constable Moharrir in police station Kydganj on that date at about 7.15 a.m. in the morning complainant Biswanath came to police station and presented written report (Ex. Ka-1), on the basis of which he wrote chick F.I.R. (Ex. Ka-2) and made entry of registration of crime in G.D.. He has proved chick F.I.R. (Ex. Ka-2) as well as copy of G.D. relating to registration of crime (Ex. Ka-3). P.W. 5 Head Constable Abad Ali has further stated in his statement that he has sent special report of crime on the same day at about 9.15 a.m. and made entry of special report in Rapat No. 12 of G.D. He has proved copy of said G.D. regarding special report (Ex. Ka-4) also in his statement. P.W. 5 Head Constable Abad Ali has stated in his statement that on 13.8.1983 at about 20.05 p.m. three bundles were entered in police station Kydganj relating to this crime. He made entry of those bundles in Rapat No. 32 of G.D. He has further stated that so long these bundles remained in police station, seal remained intact. P.W. 6 Dr. He made entry of those bundles in Rapat No. 32 of G.D. He has further stated that so long these bundles remained in police station, seal remained intact. P.W. 6 Dr. S.P. Gautam has stated in his statement on oath that on 13.8.1983, he was posted in Moti Lal Nehru Hospital, Allahabad on that date at about 2.00 p.m., he conducted post morterm of deceased Ravi Narayan @ Bhaiya Lal. He has proved post morterm report of said deceased (Ex. Ka-4) in his statement. P.W. 7 S.I. Amar Nath Singh has stated in his statement on oath that on 18.9.1983, he took investigation of this crime in his hand. He has stated that previous I.O. was S.I. Y.N. Dwivedi. He has stated that he recorded statements of accused Gulab Mahra, Ram Asre Mahra and Bachcha Lal @ Ram Sahare in Naini jail and after having completed investigation submitted charge sheet against said accused. He has further stated that he had sent the blood stained cloths and earth for chemical examination. P.W. 8 S.I. Yadu Nath. Dwivedi has stated in his statement on oath that on 12.8.1983, he was posted as S.O., P.S. Kydganj. He has stated that present crime was registered in his presence at police station Kydganj. He took investigation in his hand and went to place of occurrence. The dead body of deceased was lying in front of his house. He prepared inquest report (Ex. Ka-5). P.W. 8 S.I. Yadu Nath Dwivedi has further stated that he prepared Chalannash, Photonash, letter to C.M.O. letter for sending cloths of deceased as well as specimen seal Ex. Ka-6 to 10 have been marked on said papers by trial court. P.W. 8 S.I., Yadu Nath Dwivedi has stated in his statement that he inspected place of occurrence and prepared site plan (Ex. Ka-11). P.W. 8 S.I. Yadu Nath Dwivedi has stated in his statement that he took blood stained tarkol and plain Tarkol from the place of occurrence and prepared memo (Ex. Ka-12). He has stated that a fire cartridge was also recovered from the place of occurrence. He took the said fire cartridge in his possession and prepared memo (Ex. Ka-13). P.W. 8 S.I. Yadu Nath Dwivedi has stated that he received information on 16.8.1983 that accused Gulab Mahra has been arrested by police of police station Khaga District Fatehpur in an offence under Section 25 Arms Act. He took the said fire cartridge in his possession and prepared memo (Ex. Ka-13). P.W. 8 S.I. Yadu Nath Dwivedi has stated that he received information on 16.8.1983 that accused Gulab Mahra has been arrested by police of police station Khaga District Fatehpur in an offence under Section 25 Arms Act. P.W. 8 S.I. Yadu Nath Dwivedi has identified fire cartridges as well as Tikuli recovered from place of occurrence as material (Ex. Ka-1 and 2) before trial court. We have examined the evidence on record carefully in the light of contentions made by the parties. Description of statements of witnesses shows that P.W. 1 complainant Biswanath, P.W. 2 Pradeep Kumar and P.W. 3 Hori Lal are witnesses of facts and occurrence. P.W. 1 complainant Biswanath is the uncle of deceased Bhaiya Lal. He has stated in his statement that occurrence took place at about 6.30 a.m., he was going to Bairahana to see his Munshi Vinod Kumar along with P.W. 2 Pradeep Kumar. When they reached about 22 to 25 steps west from the house of Jeevan Lal, they saw Bhaiya Lal (Deceased) and behind him P.W. 3, Hori Lal going towards Akhada. In the meantime, a white Ambassador Car came near Bhaiya Lal (Deceased) and was stopped. Thereafter, three accused persons, namely, Gulab Mahra, Ram Asre Mahra and Bachcha Lal @ Ram Sahare came out of said car, out of which Gulab Mahra and Ram Asre Mahra were armed with gun while Bachcha Lal alias Ram Sahare was armed with Tamancha. They started firing at Bhaiya Lal after having encircled him. P.W. 2, Pradeep Kumar has stated in his statement that on the date of occurrence at about 6.30 a.m., he went to P.W. 1 complainant Biswanath to ask his work, thereafter, he was going along with P.W. 1 complainant Biswanath to the house of Munshi Vinod Kumar at Bairahana. In the way, he saw Hori Lal and Bhaiya Lal, who were going to Akhada. When Bhaiya Lal reached near house of Jeevan Lal, a white Ambassador car came near Bhaiya Lal and was stopped. Accused Gulab Mahra and Ram Asre Mahra armed with gun and accused Bachcha Lal @ Ram Sahare armed with Tamancha came out car and all of them fired at Bhaiya Lal. When Bhaiya Lal reached near house of Jeevan Lal, a white Ambassador car came near Bhaiya Lal and was stopped. Accused Gulab Mahra and Ram Asre Mahra armed with gun and accused Bachcha Lal @ Ram Sahare armed with Tamancha came out car and all of them fired at Bhaiya Lal. P.W. 3 Hori Lal has stated in his statement that on the date of occurrence he was going to Bajrang Akhada with Bhaiya Lal (Deceased). He has further stated in his statement that he had been going to said Akhada daily with Bhaiya Lal for a week earlier to present occurrence. P.W. 3 Hori Lal has stated that when they reached near house of Jeevan Lal, a white Ambassador car came and was stopped in the side of Bhaiya Lal, thereafter, accused Gulab Mahra and Ram Asre Mahra armed with gun and accused Bachcha Lal @ Ram Sahare armed with Katta came out of car. Bhaiya Lal tried to run away but said three accused encircled him and fired at him. P.W. 3 Hori Lal has stated that uncle of Bhaiya Lal P.W. 1 complainant Biswanath and P.W. 2 Pradeep Kumar were also coming behind them. Perusal of site plan (Ex. Ka-11) as well as statement of P.W. 8, I.O., S.I. Yadu Nath Dwivedi shows that blood stains were found at the place of occurrence. P.W. 8 I.O, S.I. Yadu Nath Dwivedi has taken blood stained Tarkol and plain Tarkol from the place of occurrence and has prepared memo (Ex. Ka.12). It is also apparent from the statement of I.O., P.W. 8, S.I. Yadu Nath Dwivedi as well as recovery memo (Ex. Ka-13) that one fired cartridge as well as Tikuli of cartridge has also been recovered from the place of occurrence. In cross-examination defence has given suggestion to P.W. 8 I.O., S.I. Yadu Nath Dwivedi that he has not recovered blood, fired cartridge and Tikuli from place of occurrence alleged. P.W. 8, S.I. Yadu Nath Dwivedi has negative the suggestion and there is nothing on record to show that the blood stained Tarcol, fired cartridge and Tikuli have been recovered from place other than shown by I.O. It has been specifically mentioned in F.I.R. (Ex. Ka-1) that after occurrence, complainant and others tried to carry Bhaiya Lal to hospital but Bhaiya Lal succumbed to injuries soon in the way after going a short distance. Ka-1) that after occurrence, complainant and others tried to carry Bhaiya Lal to hospital but Bhaiya Lal succumbed to injuries soon in the way after going a short distance. Thereafter, the dead body was brought to the house of complainant Biswanath and deceased. P.W. 1 Biswanath complainant has stated in his statement on oath that after incident he tried to carry Bhaiya Lal to medical college with Rickshaw but after going 50 steps Bhaiya Lal succumbed to injuries, thereafter, he carried dead body of Bhaiya Lal to his house. P.W. 2 Pradeep Kumar and P.W. 3 Hori Lal have also supported above statement of P.W. 1 complainant Biswanath in their statements on oath. The site plan of place of occurrence (Ex. Ka11) has been fully supported by P.W. 1 complainant Biswanath, P.W. 2 Pradeep Kumar and P.W. 3 Hori Lal. After having gone through statements of P.W. 1 complainant, Biswanath, P.W. 2 Pradeep Kumar and P.W. 3 Hori Lal as well as P.W. 8, I.O., S.I. Yadu Nath Dwivedi, we are of the view that place of occurrence stated in F.I.R. (Ex.Ka-1) has been fully established by prosecution and there is no sufficient ground to doubt the place of occurrence. As mentioned above, P.W. 1 complainant Biswanath, P.W. 2 Pradeep Kumar and P.W. 3 Hori Lal have stated specific reasons for reaching on spot at the time of occurrence and there is no sufficient ground to disbelieve their presence at the time of occurrence. P.W. 2 Pradeep Kumar was examined by prosecution and cross-examination was made at length by defence with him. Defence concluded his cross-examination on 22.9.1984, thereafter, after lapse of about four year on 15.7.1988 defence again made further cross-examination with P.W. 2 Pradeep Kumar in which he has turned hostile and has stated that he does not know as to where are the houses of accused. He has further stated that P.W. 1 complainant Biswanath had got him identified with accused before his statement. Before that date, he did not know accused. He has further stated that he has given earlier statement under pressure of P.W. 1 complainant Biswanath. He has stated that it is true that he has not seen the occurrence and he was at that time at the house of Munshi Vinod Kumar. Before that date, he did not know accused. He has further stated that he has given earlier statement under pressure of P.W. 1 complainant Biswanath. He has stated that it is true that he has not seen the occurrence and he was at that time at the house of Munshi Vinod Kumar. After above further cross-examination prosecution also cross-examined P.W. 2 Pradeep Kumar and has suggested him that he has colluded with accused but he has denied the suggestion. Similarly, after examination-in-chief P.W. 3 Hori Lal was cross-examined by defence and his cross-examination was completed by defence on 14.11.1984, thereafter, about four years on 8.8.1988, he was also further cross-examined by defence in which he has stated that he has borrowed money from complainant Biswanath P.W. 1. He has stated in further cross-examination that complainant has got him identified with accused before his statement; he did not know accused before statement. He has stated that he has given his earlier statement under pressure of complainant P.W. 1 Biswanath. He was giving threatening to him that if he did not pay money, he shall sent him jail. P.W. 3 Hori Lal has further stated in further cross-examination that he has seen the accused for the first time in court and all the three accused have been falsely implicated. P.W. 3 Hori Lal has also been cross-examined by prosecution after further cross-examination. Prosecution has suggested him also that he has colluded with accused but he has also negatived the suggestion. After having gone through whole statement of P.W. 2 Pradeep Kumar and P.W. 3 Hori Lal, it is apparent that both the witnesses have fully supported version of F.I.R. (Ex. Ka-1) as well as statement of P.W. 1 complainant Biswanath and defence has made a comprehensive cross-examination but could not elicit any sufficient ground to disbelieve them. After four years when these two witnesses were further cross-examined by defence, they have tried to save accused-appellants. Considering the whole facts and circumstances of the case as well whole evidence of P.W. 2 Pradeep Kumar and P.W. 3 Hori Lal, we are of view that further cross-examination of these two witnesses have been made by defence after having winover them. In the case of State of U.P. Vs. Krishna Master & others; 2010 Cri. Considering the whole facts and circumstances of the case as well whole evidence of P.W. 2 Pradeep Kumar and P.W. 3 Hori Lal, we are of view that further cross-examination of these two witnesses have been made by defence after having winover them. In the case of State of U.P. Vs. Krishna Master & others; 2010 Cri. L.J. 3889 (SC) Hon'ble Apex Court has held that, "The 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 insifnificant aspect thereof." In the case of State of U.P. Vs. Krishna Master & 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 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 : "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 view of principles laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in aforesaid pronouncements, after having gone through whole statement of P.W. 2 Pradeep Kumar and P.W. 3 Hori Lal, we are of the view that their earlier statements may not be discarded. They have supported the version of prosecution in to-to in their earlier statement and have turned hostile in collusion with accused in further cross-examination made after four years of their previous statements. P.W. 2 Pradeep Kumar has stated in cross-examination at page 14 (page 23 of paper book) that complainant P.W. 1 Biswanath as well as his father were sitting in court room at the time of his cross-examination. P.W. 2 Pradeep Kumar has stated in cross-examination at page 14 (page 23 of paper book) that complainant P.W. 1 Biswanath as well as his father were sitting in court room at the time of his cross-examination. He has further stated in cross-examination that he has come with Jeep of Biswanath in which Biswanath, his father and two armed guards of P.S. Kydganj were also sitting. They have brought him from his house. Above statement of P.W. 2 Pradeep Kumar makes it clear that he had been brought to court for evidence under police security and merely on the ground that he was brought to Court under police security, it shall not be inferred that police has pressurized him to give false evidence as it is the duty of police to provide security to witnesses of heinous crime. We have perused whole statement of P.W. 1 complainant Biswanath, P.W. 2 Pradeep Kumar and P.W. 3 Hori Lal, we are unable to find any material contradiction in their statements to disbelieve them. Perusal of statement of P.W. 6 Dr. S.P. Gautam as well as post-morterm report of deceased Bhaiya Lal (Ex. Ka-4) shows that post-morterm of Bhaiya Lal was conducted by P.W. 6 Dr. S.P. Gautam on 13.8.1983 at 2 p.m. and three anti-morterm injuries were found on the dead body of deceased. P.W. 6 Dr. S.P. Gautam has stated in his statement on oath that death of deceased might have occurred on 12.8.1983 at 6.30 a.m. P.W. 6 Dr. S.P. Gautam has stated in his statement that injury no. 3 of deceased Bhaiya Lal is lacerated wound on back of scalp and may be suffered due to falling down on earth or may be caused by hard blunt object. He has further stated that pellete is also a blunt object. It is apparent from the statement of P.W. 6 Dr. S.P. Gautam as well as post-morterim report (Ex. Ka-4) that injury no. 1 and 2 of deceased Bhaiya Lal were fire arm injuries and were containing blackening and scorching which shows that the injuries have been caused to Bhaiya Lal with closed range. Thus, we are of the view that the statement of P.W. 6 Dr. S.P. Gautam as well as post-morterm report (Ex. Ka-4) fully corroborates the version of prosecution regarding occurrence. According to prosecution the present incident has taken place on 12.8.1983 at 6.30 a.m. F.I.R. (Ex. Thus, we are of the view that the statement of P.W. 6 Dr. S.P. Gautam as well as post-morterm report (Ex. Ka-4) fully corroborates the version of prosecution regarding occurrence. According to prosecution the present incident has taken place on 12.8.1983 at 6.30 a.m. F.I.R. (Ex. Ka-1) has been lodged by complainant P.W. 1 Biswanath on 12.8.1983 on the same day at 7.15 a.m. within 45 minutes of occurrence. The distance of police station from the place of occurrence is about 2.5 furlong as is apparent from Chick F.I.R. (Ex. Ka-2), P.W. 1 complainant Biswanath has stated in his statement that after carrying the dead body of Bhaiya Lal to his house, he wrote report (Ex. Ka-1) and presented the same to police station Kydganj. P.W. 5 Head Constable Abad Ali has stated in his statement that on 12.8.1983 at 7.15 a.m. complainant P.W. 1 Biswanath presented written F.I.R. (Ex. Ka-1) after having come to police station Kydganj, on the basis of which he wrote Chick F.I.R. (Ex. Ka-2) and made entry of registration of crime in Rapat No. 10 of G.D. Copy of which is (Ex. Ka-3). Chick F.I.R. (Ex. Ka-2) as well as copy of G.D. relating to crime (Ex. Ka-3) shows that F.I.R. (Ex. Ka-1) has been presented by complainant Biswanath on 12.8.1983 at 7.15 a.m. and crime has been registered in P.S. Kydganj at the same time. Relevant entry of G.D. (Ex. Ka-3) is reproduced below : " . . . . . . . . . .mifLFkr Fkkuk vkdj ,d fdrk rgjhj fgUnh fyf[kr o nLr[krh [kqn ckcn tku ls ekjus dh uh;r ls cUnqd ls Qk;j dj Hkrhtk [kqn dks xksyh ls ekjdj e`R;q djus dh nkf[ky fd;k" In the F.I.R. (Ex. Ka-1), it has been alleged that accused Gulab Mahra and Ram Asre Mahra were armed with gun and accused Bachcha Lal @ Ram Sahare was armed with Tamancha. In aforesaid G.D. relating to registration of crime Tamancha has not been mentioned. But we are of the view that ommission of Tamancha in G.D. may be due accidental slip or mistak of scribe of G.D. Therefore, merely on this ground inference may not be drawn that F.I.R. (Ex. Ka-1) was not in existance at that time. Scribe of Chick F.I.R. (Ex. Ka-2) and G.D. relating to registration of crime Ex. But we are of the view that ommission of Tamancha in G.D. may be due accidental slip or mistak of scribe of G.D. Therefore, merely on this ground inference may not be drawn that F.I.R. (Ex. Ka-1) was not in existance at that time. Scribe of Chick F.I.R. (Ex. Ka-2) and G.D. relating to registration of crime Ex. Ka-3, P.W. 3 Head Constable Aabad Ali has stated in cross-examination on page 36 (Page 45 of paper book) that except special report, no paper was sent to C.J.M. or any other court. He has further stated that he did not remember as to whether he sent chick F.I.R. to C.O. City on the same day. He has further stated that on 12.8.1983, constable went from police station at 2.45 p.m. after having taken dispatches, P.W. 5, Head Constable Aabad Ali has further stated in cross-examination that on chick F.I.R. date 15.8.1983 has been written below signature of C.O. We have considered the above statements of P.W. 5, Head Constable Aabad Ali. In his examination-in-chief, P.W. 5, Head Constable Aabad Ali has specifically stated that special report of this crime was sent through constable 331, Rama Shankar at 9.15 and entry was made in rapat no. 12 of G.D. which is Ex. Ka-4. G.D. (Ex. Ka-4) also shows that special report was sent at 9.15 a.m. Defence has not cross-examined P.W. 5, Head Constable Aabad Ali regarding special report. Statement of P.W. 5, Head Constable Aabad Ail regarding special report is unchallenged. Therefore, after having gone through entire statements of P.W. 5, Head Constable, Aabad Ali and P.W. 1 Complainant Biswanath as well as chick F.I.R. (Ex. Ka-2), G.D. relating to registration of crime (Ex. Ka-3) and G.D. relating to special report (Ex. Ka-4), we are of the view that merely on the ground that date 15.8.1983 has been written in Chick F.I.R. (Ex. Ka-2) below signature of C.O, it shall not be presumed that F.I.R. (Ex. Ka-1) has been lodged anti time. It is relevant to mention that 15th of August is a public Holiday. Therefore, signature on chick F.I.R. on public holiday i.e. on 15.8.1983 shows that C.O. worked on holiday to clear arrear of work. Therefore, no adverse inference should be drawn against prosecution on the ground of signature of C.O. on chick report (Ex. Ka-2) on 15.8.1983. Learned trial court has refered in his judgement that Ex. Therefore, signature on chick F.I.R. on public holiday i.e. on 15.8.1983 shows that C.O. worked on holiday to clear arrear of work. Therefore, no adverse inference should be drawn against prosecution on the ground of signature of C.O. on chick report (Ex. Ka-2) on 15.8.1983. Learned trial court has refered in his judgement that Ex. Ka-7 to Ka-10 contained endorsement that papers were received on 13.8.1983 at 12.00 noon while these papers should have been sent with dead body. We have considered carefully this aspect also. Form 13 (Ex. Ka-7) contains endorsement that dead body was received at mortuary on 12.8.1983 at 2.00 p.m. Papers were received on 13.8.1983 at 12 noon and post-morterm started on 13.8.1983 at 2.00 p.m. Letter to C.M.O. (Ex. Ka-8) contains endorsement of C.M.O. to the effect that information was received on 13.8.1983 at 10.25 a.m. and was referred to Dr. S.P. Gautam, M/O M.L.N. Hospital, Allahabad for post-morterm duty. Above endorsements made on (Ex. Ka-7 and Ka-8) make it abundantly clear that dead body was brought to mortuary on 12.8.1983 at 2.00 p.m. and letter to C.M.O. (Ex. Ka-8) was placed before C.M.O. on 13.8.1983 at 10.25 a.m. Thereafter, P.W. 6 Dr. S.P. Gautam was nominated for post-morterm and thereafter, papers were handed over to doctor on 13.8.1983 at 12 noon. In these circumstances, it is unjust to presume that papers were not brought with dead body. P.W. 4, Constable No. 1361 Radhakrishna Giri has stated on oath that on 12.8.1983, he was posted at out post Nai Basti in P.S. Kydganj. Dead body of Bhaiya Lal was handed over to him in sealed cover along with papers. Constable Durga Prasad was also with him. P.W. 8, I.O. S.I. Yadu Nath Dwivedi has also stated on oath that he handed over dead body in sealed cover along with papers to constable Durga Prasad Pandey and Radhakrishna Giri. Perusal of Form 13 (Ex. Ka-7) shows that dead body of Bhaiya Lal was brought to mortuary on 12.8.1983 at 2.00 p.m. but post morterm was not done on that day. Therefore, dead body was brought to police line at 15.30 p.m. on the same day. Perusal of Form 13 (Ex. Ka-7) shows that dead body of Bhaiya Lal was brought to mortuary on 12.8.1983 at 2.00 p.m. but post morterm was not done on that day. Therefore, dead body was brought to police line at 15.30 p.m. on the same day. After having gone through whole evidence on record, we are of the view that prosecutioin has proved that dead body of Bhaiya Lal was brought to mortuary on 12.8.1983 at 2.00 p.m. along with necessary papers and there is no sufficient ground to draw adverse inference against prosecution in this respect. In view of discussions made above after having gone through whole facts and circumstances of the case and evidence on record, we are of the view that F.I.R. (Ex. Ka-1) is prompt and there is no sufficient ground to presume F.I.R. anti time. In view of discussions made and conclusion drawn above, after having gone through whole facts and circumstances and evidence available on record, we are of the view that story of occurrence narrated by prosecution is reliable and evidence on record is sufficient to hold accused-appellants guilty for offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C. We have perused the impugned judgement and order passed by learned trial court. Learned trial court has gone through whole evidence on record and has considered all aspects of the case as well as relevant points for determination. In view of above discussions made and conclusion drawn above, we are of the view that learned trial court has rightly placed reliance on evidence adduced by prosecution to convict accused-appellants for offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. 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. 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. 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. Accused-appellants Ram Asre Mahra and Bachcha Lal @ Ram Sahare 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. ——————