Judgment U.C. Dhyani, J. PW1 Pargat Singh wrote a complaint (Ext. Ka-1) to Inspector, police station, Kotwali, Haldwani, Nainital on 10.10.1996, enumerating the facts contained therein, that on 10.10.1996, between 2:30 to 2:45 P.M., he was returning from Block Office to his house by his jeep. Jeep was being driven by his elder brother Harjinder Singh, Gram Pradhan. Gurcharan Singh, Gurmeet Singh, Hardeep Singh and Jaswant Singh were also sitting in the jeep. No sooner the jeep reached in front of the sugarcane field of Kulwant Singh, accused Gurmej Singh came on the road. He was hiding himself in the sugarcane field. Accused Gurmej Singh fired a shot with his gun upon the jeep, which hit the radiator of the jeep. Driver Harjinder Singh, Gram Pradhan, stopped the jeep. All the travellers alighted from the jeep. Accused Kulwant Singh and Mahender Singh, who were carrying guns, Basant Singh and Dilbag Singh, who were carrying country made pistols, also came out of the sugarcane field. Kashmir Singh, who was the relative of Basant Singh, exhorted the co-accused persons to kill the informant and others. Accused Kulwant Singh, Gurmej Singh, Dilbag Singh, Mahender Singh and Basant Singh fired upon the informant and others with the weapons, with which they were armed, with the intention of killing the victims. Harjinder Singh, Gurcharan Singh, Gurmeet Singh sustained injuries in the process. Accused Harbhajan Singh and Sakattar Singh exhorted other co-accused to kill the victims. Harjinder Singh, Gurcharan Singh and Gurmeet Singh fell on the ground. Presuming them to be dead, accused persons fled away from the place of incident. The reason attributed to the incident was that the accused persons wanted to refrain Harjinder Singh from contesting the election of Gram Pradhan. 2) A chik FIR was lodged, on the basis of said complaint on 10.10.1996, at 03:20 P.M. The incident allegedly took place on 10.10.1996 between 2:30 and 02:45 P.M. The distance between the place of incident and the police station concerned was negligible and hence there appeared to be no delay in lodging the complaint. After the investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 307 of IPC read with Section 149 of IPC. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. After the investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 307 of IPC read with Section 149 of IPC. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. When the trial began and prosecution opened it’s case, charge for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 307 of IPC read with Section 149 of IPC was framed against the accused persons, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 3) PW1 Pargat Singh, PW2 Harjinder Singh, PW3 Gurmeet Singh, PW4 B.D. Joshi, PW5 Gurcharan Singh and PW6 Dr. P.C. Kapri were examined on behalf of the prosecution. Incriminating evidence was put to the accused persons under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., in reply to which they said that they were falsely implicated in the case. No evidence was given in defence. After considering the evidence on record, learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Haldwani, vide judgment and order dated 22.12.2001, convicted all the accused-appellants under Sections 147, 148, 307 of IPC read with Section 149 of IPC and were sentenced appropriately. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Feeling aggrieved against the impugned judgment and order, present criminal appeals were preferred by the accused-appellants. Since both the criminal appeals have arisen out of same FIR, therefore, they are being decided together by this common judgment and order for the sake of brevity and convenience. 4) PW1 set the criminal law into motion by lodging FIR, which was well within time. PW1 was not the injured. In his examination-in-chief, he supported the contents of his complaint and also supported prosecution story. Reproduction of his examination-in-chief will amount to mere repetition of the contents of FIR and, therefore, testimony of PW1 in his examination-in-chief is not being mentioned here. 5) In his cross-examination, PW1 said that Harjinder Singh was his elder brother. An altercation took place between accused Harbhajan Singh and Harjinder Singh over election of Gram Pradhan. Harjinder Singh lost the election of Gram Pradhan. Harbhajan Singh was declared winner. Harjinder Singh did not want the election of Gram Pradhan. He wanted anybody to be elected unopposed. There was no enmity of Harjinder Singh with the accused persons before the election of Gram Pradhan. 6) PW1 further stated in his cross-examination that a litigation regarding a piece of land was pending between Gurmej Singh and Jaswant Singh. Such litigation started after the present incident. He wanted anybody to be elected unopposed. There was no enmity of Harjinder Singh with the accused persons before the election of Gram Pradhan. 6) PW1 further stated in his cross-examination that a litigation regarding a piece of land was pending between Gurmej Singh and Jaswant Singh. Such litigation started after the present incident. PW1 further stated that when the incident took place, he reached near the house of Kulwant Singh. The houses of Kulwant Singh, Basant Singh, Jaswant Singh, Mahender Singh and Ajeet Singh are in the close vicinity of the place of incident. PW1 clarified that none except PW1 alongwith co-passengers of the jeep and accused persons were present on the place of incident. When accused persons fired upon the jeep, Gurmej Singh was sitting in the East direction. Others were sitting in South-West direction. Jeep was running on moderate speed as there was bend / diversion on the road. All the accused persons were present when fire was shot on the jeep. PW1 denied the suggestion that the accused persons Mahender Singh, Kulwant Singh, Basant Singh, Dilbag Singh, Sakattar Singh, Kashmir Singh and Harbhajan Singh reached thereafter. Harbhajan Singh, Sakattar Singh and Kashmir Singh exhorted the co-accused to kill the informant and co-passengers. Harjinder Singh, Gurcharan Singh and Gurmeet Singh fell on the ground. Blood spilled on the road. Complaint was lodged by PW1. Injured persons were taken to the police station on jeep. The complaint was written outside the police station while sitting in the jeep. Mahender Singh was armed with DBBL gun. PW1 was an agriculturist. He denied the suggestion that no such incident took place and no firearm injuries were sustained by the victims. PW1 further denied the suggestion that the accused persons received blows of sticks somewhere else and the accused persons were implicated falsely on account of enmity with the victims. 7) Whereas PW1 was not an injured, PW2 was the injured-eyewitness. In his examination-in-chief, PW2 stated that on 10.10.1996, he alongwith Pargat Singh (PW1), Gurmeet Singh (PW3), Gurcharan Singh (PW5), Jaswant Singh and Hardeep Singh were coming from Block Office, Haldwani to their respective residences. Jeep was being driven by PW2 himself. When the jeep reached near the sugarcane field of Kulwant Singh, Gurmeet Singh came out of the field and fired upon the jeep, which hit the radiator. There was a bend / diversion on the road. Jeep was being driven by PW2 himself. When the jeep reached near the sugarcane field of Kulwant Singh, Gurmeet Singh came out of the field and fired upon the jeep, which hit the radiator. There was a bend / diversion on the road. PW2, PW3 and PW5 alighted from the jeep. PW2 saw that Mahender Singh, armed with DBBL gun, Kulwant Singh, armed with gun, Basant Singh and Dilbag Singh, armed with country made pistols, appeared from the sugarcane field. They were accompanied with Harbhajan Singh, Sakattar Singh and Kashmir Singh. Harbhajan Singh, Sakattar Singh and Kashmir Singh were exhorting Mahender Singh, Gurmej Singh, Kulwant Singh, Dilbag Singh and Basant Singh to kill PW2 and others. Enmity over the election of Gram Pradhan was apparent from the words, which they were speaking. Accused persons fired upon PW2, PW3 and PW5 with the weapons they were carrying. PW2 sustained pellet injuries. PW3 and PW5 also sustained pellet injuries. PW2, PW3 and PW5 fell on the ground. PW1 brought them to the police station. Thereafter, they were taken to hospital, where they were medically examined and treated. FIR was lodged by PW1. 8) PW2 further stated that on 09.10.1996, a panchayat was convened, in which it was decided that the Gram Pradhan would be elected unopposed. PW2 objected that if Gram Pradhan was to be elected unopposed, then why the forgery was being done in the voters list. An altercation took place between Mahender Singh and Gurmej Singh. 9) In the cross-examination, PW2 stated that Harbhajan Singh was declared elected in the election of Gram Pradhan. PW2 was defeated. He admitted that an altercation took place between PW2 alongwith his companions and accused persons before the election of Gram Pradhan. No litigation over a piece of land was initiated before the incident. PW2 admitted that blood spilled on the ground. The wearing apparels of the injured persons were stained with blood. It was admitted that the I.O. did not collect bloodstained wearing apparels of the injured persons. FIR was written outside the police station while sitting in the jeep. There was no abadi near the place of incident. No other person except the assailants and injured persons were present on the place of incident. PW2 denied the suggestion that the accused persons were falsely implicated on account of enmity over the election of Gram Pradhan. FIR was written outside the police station while sitting in the jeep. There was no abadi near the place of incident. No other person except the assailants and injured persons were present on the place of incident. PW2 denied the suggestion that the accused persons were falsely implicated on account of enmity over the election of Gram Pradhan. 10) PW3, in his examination-in-chief, supported prosecution story and corroborated the statement of PW2. In his cross-examination, PW3 stated that they came to the police station by the same jeep upon which the accused fired the shot. He did not know whether the jeep was inspected by the I.O. or not? PW3 further stated that no independent witness was available at the place of incident when the occurrence took place. Complaint was written while sitting outside the police station. PW3 also said that his wearing apparels were stained with blood. He did not remember whether the I.O. inspected those wearing apparels or not? PW3 himself did not give such bloodstained clothes to the I.O. He denied the suggestion of the defence that the injured persons received blows of sticks elsewhere, they did not receive any firearm injury and accused were falsely implicated on account of enmity with the victims. 11) PW5 also, in his examination-in-chief, supported prosecution story and corroborated the testimony of PW2 and PW3, who were the injured-eyewitness of the incident. PW5 stated that on 10.10.1996, he alongwith PW2, went to Block Office in jeep. Harjinder Singh, Pargat Singh, Gurmeet Singh, Jaswant Singh also accompanied them. When they were coming from Block Office, Haldwani and returning to their houses, Gurmej Singh came out of the sugarcane field of Kulwant Singh and fired upon the jeep of Harjinder Singh. The fire struck the radiator of the jeep. Mahender Singh and Kulwant Singh then came out of the sugarcane field. Basant Singh and Dilbag Singh were armed with country made pistols. Kulwant Singh, Mahender Singh and Gurmej Singh were armed with guns. Sakattar Singh, Harbhajan Singh and Kashmir Singh exhorted other co-accused to kill PW5 and others. PW2, PW3 and PW5 sustained firearm injuries. Injured persons fell on the ground. PW1 brought them from the place of incident to the police station concerned in jeep. Thereafter, police constable took the injured persons to hospital where they were medically examined and were given treatment. PW2, PW3 and PW5 sustained firearm injuries. Injured persons fell on the ground. PW1 brought them from the place of incident to the police station concerned in jeep. Thereafter, police constable took the injured persons to hospital where they were medically examined and were given treatment. 12) In his brief cross-examination, PW5 stated that Harbhajan Singh was unarmed. He was not carrying anything in his hands. The injured were taken to the hospital before registration of FIR. The injured persons were not operated upon to take out pellets, which pierced into their bodies. PW5 also stated that the pellets which were inside the bodies of injured, were removed on a subsequent point of time. PW5 admitted that he gave evidence in a Sessions Trial, captioned as State vs Deepak Sishodia in favour of Harjinder Singh and Pargat Singh. He further admitted that he tendered evidence in favour of Pargat Singh in another case. PW5 also stated that their wearing apparels were stained with blood. Such clothes were not given to the I.O. He denied the suggestion that no such incident ever took place. 13) PW4 found six lacerated wounds on different parts of the body of injured Harjinder Singh (PW2), viz., right face, right ear, right side of neck, upper chest, right costal margin, on abdomen just below umbilicus and below lower end of sternum. PW2 also sustained abraded contusion on left side of abdomen, 7 cm. lateral from umbilicus. PW4 examined injured PW2 on 10.10.1996, at 03:30 P.M. Injuries noted above were fresh in duration and were kept under observation. X-ray of right face, neck, chest and abdomen was advised. As per supplementary report (Ext. Ka-7), injuries no. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7 sustained by PW2 were caused by firearm and were simple in nature. Injury no. 6 was caused by friction of hard object and was simple in nature. 14) PW4 also examined the injuries of Gurmeet Singh (PW3) on 10.10.1996, at 04:15 P.M. and found four lacerated wounds on different parts of his body, viz., upper part of chest, left palm, left thigh and right leg. PW3 also sustained contusion on left thigh. According to the Medical Officer, the injuries sustained by PW3 were fresh in duration. They were kept under observation. X-ray of chest, left thigh, left hand and right leg was advised. As per the supplementary report (Ext. Ka-6), injuries no. PW3 also sustained contusion on left thigh. According to the Medical Officer, the injuries sustained by PW3 were fresh in duration. They were kept under observation. X-ray of chest, left thigh, left hand and right leg was advised. As per the supplementary report (Ext. Ka-6), injuries no. 1, 2, 3 and 5 sustained by PW3 were caused by firearm and were simple in nature. Injury no. 4 was caused by hard and blunt object and was simple in nature. 15) PW4 also examined the injuries of Gurcharan Singh (PW5) on 10.10.1996, at 04:00 P.M. and found eight lacerated wounds on different parts of his body, viz., right side of head, right ear, tip of nose, upper part of neck, right side of neck, different points on right side chest and left leg. The injuries thus sustained by PW5 were fresh in duration. X-ray of chest, neck and skull was advised. As per supplementary report (Ext. Ka-5), injuries no. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, sustained by PW5 were caused by firearm and were simple in nature. Injuries no. 2 and 8 thus sustained by PW5 were caused by hard and blunt object and were simple in nature. 16) It is made clear that injury reports of the injured persons were prepared and proved by PW4. The supplementary reports were given by PW4 on the basis of the reports of PW6, the then Radiologist, posted in Soban Singh Jeena Base Hospital, Haldwani. PW6 proved X-ray reports of the injured persons, which were prepared by him. 17) Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the appellants were falsely implicated in the case on account of enmity over the election of Gram Pradhan. The assailants cannot be given any benefit of such argument, in as much as enmity is a double-edged weapon. If, on the one hand, there was an occasion to falsely implicate anybody, there was also the occasion to cause hurt to the enemy on account of previous enmity? In the instant case, enmity between the parties over the election of Gram Pradhan is admitted. Therefore, the possibility of causing hurt to the injured persons cannot be ruled out. 18) Learned counsel for the accused-appellants were also at pains to highlight various infirmities and contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. In the instant case, enmity between the parties over the election of Gram Pradhan is admitted. Therefore, the possibility of causing hurt to the injured persons cannot be ruled out. 18) Learned counsel for the accused-appellants were also at pains to highlight various infirmities and contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. This Court has gone through those contradictions and infirmities, which were surfaced in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. In the opinion of this Court, such infirmities and contradictions do not go to the root of the prosecution story. They are insignificant and can be ignored, especially, in view of the fact that the testimony of the injured-eyewitnesses is corroborated by the medical evidence tendered on behalf of PW4 and PW6. 19) PW1 was the reporter of the crime. He was present on the place of incident. He lodged the FIR at an earliest opportunity. PW2, PW3 and PW5 were the injured-eyewitnesses, who, in their examinations-in-chief, fully supported the prosecution story. They were cross-examined on behalf of learned counsel for the defence. Nothing glaring, to the benefit of the accused persons, has surfaced in the cross-examination of PW2, PW3 and PW5. The testimony of PW2 and PW3 was impeccable. PW5’s testimony was not of that quality, but he could be believed. In other words, the appellants, especially the assailants, are not entitled to any benefit of anything coming in the cross-examinations of PW2, PW3 and PW5. 20) Hon’ble Apex Court has observed, in a catena of decisions, that minor discrepancies are bound to occur in the testimony of the eyewitnesses, when they depose before the Courts in a natural way. Any criminal trial is to be decided after considering the totality of facts and circumstances and not on the basis of isolated sentences, here and there. 21) In the instant case, PW2, PW3 and PW5 have deposed in a natural way. Their testimony is corroborated by PW4 and PW6. It has come in medical evidence that most of the injuries sustained by PW2, PW3 and PW5 were caused by firearm, although some of the injuries were also caused by hard and blunt object. 22) It is thus held that the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt against the accused-appellants Kulwant Singh, Gurmej Singh, Mahender Singh, Dilbag Singh and Basant Singh beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt. 22) It is thus held that the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt against the accused-appellants Kulwant Singh, Gurmej Singh, Mahender Singh, Dilbag Singh and Basant Singh beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt. So far as the other accused-appellants, namely, Harbhajan Singh, Sakattar Singh and Kashmir Singh are concerned, they did not inflict firearm injuries on the victims. According to prosecution story itself, accused Harbhajan Singh, Sakattar Singh and Kashmir Singh were unarmed. They did not inflict any blow on any of the victims. Role assigned to them was that of exhortation. This Court is of the opinion that alleged exhortation by Harbhajan Singh, Sakattar Singh and Kashmir Singh was surplusage and inconsequential, in as much as the other accused-appellants were hell-bent upon causing injuries to the victims. Even if accused-appellants Harbhajan Singh, Sakattar Singh and Kashmir Singh would not have spoken a word in exhortation (which, it appears, they did not speak, their presence notwithstanding), accused-appellants Kulwant Singh, Gurmej Singh, Mahender Singh, Dilbag Singh and Basant Singh would have done what they did. Moreover, the prosecution witnesses were not consistent in saying what Harbhajan Singh, Sakattar Singh and Kashmir Singh uttered. No overt act was committed by them. In the facts and circumstances of the case, accused-appellants Harbhajan Singh, Sakattar Singh and Kashmir Singh should be granted benefit of doubt. They are accordingly granted benefit of doubt. 23) Learned counsel for the accused-appellants, at this stage, prayed that although the injuries sustained by PW2, PW3 and PW5 were caused by firearm, but it has come on record that nature of those injuries was simple. Learned counsel further prayed that the punishment, which was awarded to the appellants Kulwant Singh, Gurmej Singh, Mahender Singh, Dilbag Singh and Basant Singh be reduced, as appellants Kulwant Singh, Mahendra Singh and Basant Singh have presently reached the age of 70-80 years, respectively. They are either septuagenarian or octogenarian. Supplementary reports Ext. Ka-5, Ext. Ka-6 and Ext. Ka-7 suggest, in unequivocal terms, that the injuries sustained by PW2, PW3 and PW5 were simple in nature, although caused by firearm. Considering this aspect of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the sentences awarded to the accused-appellants Kulwant Singh, Gurmej Singh, Mahender Singh, Dilbag Singh and Basant Singh should be reduced. 24) Criminal appeal preferred on behalf of appellants Harbhajan Singh, Sakattar Singh and Kashmir Singh (alleged exhorters) is allowed. Considering this aspect of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the sentences awarded to the accused-appellants Kulwant Singh, Gurmej Singh, Mahender Singh, Dilbag Singh and Basant Singh should be reduced. 24) Criminal appeal preferred on behalf of appellants Harbhajan Singh, Sakattar Singh and Kashmir Singh (alleged exhorters) is allowed. Conviction and sentence awarded to these appellants is, accordingly, set aside. They are acquitted of the charges framed against them. They are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties stand discharged. They need not surrender. 25) Criminal appeal field on behalf of accused-appellants Kulwant Singh, Gurmej Singh, Mahender Singh, Dilbag Singh and Basant Singh is partly allowed to the extent of reduction in the quantum of sentence, as was awarded to them by the Court below. Whereas the conviction awarded to accused-appellants Kulwant Singh, Gurmej Singh, Mahender Singh, Dilbag Singh and Basant Singh under Sections 147, 148 and 307 of IPC read with Section 149 of IPC is affirmed, the sentence awarded to them is modified to the extent that the accused-appellants shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years alongwith a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each in respect of offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC read with Section 149 of IPC. In case of default of payment of fine, the convicts shall undergo further imprisonment for two months each. The sentence awarded to the accused-appellants Kulwant Singh, Gurmej Singh, Mahender Singh, Dilbag Singh and Basant Singh under Sections 147, 148 of IPC shall remain the same as was awarded by learned Court below, vide judgment and order dated 22.12.2001. All the sentences shall run concurrently. No interference is called for in so far as the sentence awarded to the accused-appellants under Sections 147, 148 of IPC is concerned. 26) Accused-appellants viz., Kulwant Singh, Gurmej Singh, Mahender Singh, Dilbag Singh and Basant Singh are on bail. Their bail is cancelled. They shall surrender before the court below forthwith to serve out the sentence as modified by this Court. 27) Let a copy of this judgment alongwith the lower court records be sent to the Court below for compliance.