(Delivered by Hon'ble Akhtar Husain Khan,J) Present criminal appeal has been filed by accused-appellants Ganpat, Ram Shanker, Virendra, Shripal and Iqbal against common judgement dated 3.6.1989 passed by Sessions Judge, Etah in Session Trial No. 362 of 1985 (State Vs. Genda Lal and others) and Session Trial No. 217 of 1986 (State Vs. Shripala and another), under Sections 148, 302, 302 I.P.C. read with Section 149 I.P.C. and 307 I.P.C. read with Section 149 I.P.C., Police Station Sahawar, District Etah whereby learned Sessions Judge has convicted accused-appellants Ganpat, Ram Shanker, Virendra, Shripal and Iqabal for offences punishable under Sections 148 I.P.C., 307 I.P.C. read with Section 149 I.P.C. and Section 302 I.P.C. read with Section 149 I.P.C. and has sentenced thereunder each of said appellants with rigorous imprisonment for two years, five years and life imprisonment respectively. Criminal Appeal No. 1355 of 1989 (Genda Lal Vs. State of U.P.) was also filed by co-accused appellant Genda Lal against aforesaid judgement and order passed by learned Sessions Judge, Etah in aforesaid session trials whereby, he has convicted co-accused appellant Genda Lal for offences punishable under Section 148 I.P.C., 307 I.P.C. read with Section 149 I.P.C. and 302 I.P.C. and has sentenced him thereunder to rigorous imprisonment for two years, five years and life imprisonment respectively but co-accused appellant Genda Lal died during pendency of appeal, therefore his appeal has already been abated. Accused-appellants Ganpat, Ram Shanker and Shripal also died during pendency of appeal. Present appeal also stands abated in respect of them. Heard Sri Harish Chandra Tiwari, Advocate holding brief of Shri Brijraj Singh, Advocate on behalf of appellants as well as Shri M. S. Yadav, learned AGA assisted by Sri Hari Krishan Mishra, Advocate for informant. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused records. According to F.I.R. (Ex. Ka-1), in brief prosecution story is that in the intervening night of 23/24.3.1985, complainant Netrapal and his father Sonpal were sleeping in verandah of Baithak (Drawing Room) and his uncle Raghuvar Dayal and brother Bhoop Singh were sleeping inside Baithak (Drawing Room). The lantern was burning in the Verandah. At about 12.30 in night, accused-appellants Genda Lal, Ganpat, Shripal, Virendra, Ram Shanker and Iqbal came armed with gun and Kattas. They got awaken father of complainant Netrapal and asked him where is Chandra Pal, in the meantime, complainant Netrapal also awoke. The lantern was burning in the Verandah. At about 12.30 in night, accused-appellants Genda Lal, Ganpat, Shripal, Virendra, Ram Shanker and Iqbal came armed with gun and Kattas. They got awaken father of complainant Netrapal and asked him where is Chandra Pal, in the meantime, complainant Netrapal also awoke. Father of complainant told them that Chandra Pal is pulling rickshaw in Delhi. He is not at the house. Thereafter, accused-appellant Genda Lal abused and asked where is Bhoop Singh. He further added that they shall return today after taking revenge of enmity. In the meantime, Bhoop Singh brother of complainant and Raghuar Dayal, uncle of complainant, who were sleeping inside Baithak, came out from Baithak, after having heard noise seeing them accused appellant Ganpat exhorted whereupon accused Genda Lal opened fire at Bhoop Singh. Bhoop Singh sustained injuries of fire and fell down. Other accused appellants also fired with their arms. Complainant Netrapal came out of Varandah and raised alarm whereupon other people of village came and raised alarm. Thereafter, aforesaid accused-appellants ran away through lane (Gali). At the time of running away they were making fire. According to F.I.R. (Ex. Ka-1), Sonpal father of complainant and uncle Raghuvar Dayal also suffered injuries of fire made by aforesaid accused-appellants. According to F.I.R. (Ex. Ka-1) complainant and witnesses has seen all accused-appellants and has identified them in the light of lantern. According to F.I.R. (Ex. Ka-1), after occurrence, complainant Netrapal went to police station leaving dead body of his brother Bhoop Singh on spot and presented written report (Ex. Ka-1) in P.S. Sahawar, District Etah. First Information Report (Ex. Ka-1) was presented by complainant at P.S. Sahawar on 24.3.1985 at 9.05 a.m. on the basis of which chick F.I.R. (Ex. Ka-16) was written and Crime No. 44 of 1985, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307 I.P.C. was registered in P.S. Sahawar, District Etah. Thereafter, investigation was started by police and inquest report of deceased Bhoop Singh was prepared. Thereafter, dead body was sent for post morterm in sealed cover after having completed necessary formalities. Father of complainant Sonpal and uncle Raghuvar Dayal also were sent by police for medical examination and their medical examination was done at P.H.C. Sahawar at 10.30 a.m. and 10.45 a.m. on 24.3.1985. Thereafter, dead body was sent for post morterm in sealed cover after having completed necessary formalities. Father of complainant Sonpal and uncle Raghuvar Dayal also were sent by police for medical examination and their medical examination was done at P.H.C. Sahawar at 10.30 a.m. and 10.45 a.m. on 24.3.1985. Investigation was completed by police in accordance with law and after having completed investigation police submitted original charge sheet against accused-appellants Ganpat, Shripal and Ram Shankar along with deceased accused-appellant Genda Lal and supplementary charge sheet against accused-appellants Virendra and Iqbal under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 and 302 I.P.C. Concerned Magistrate took cognizance on original charge sheet as well as on supplementary charge sheet submitted by police vide two different orders and registered two different cases, thereafter, after compliance of Secton 207 Cr.P.C., learned Magistrate committed both cases to the court of sessions vide two different committal orders. Therefore, two Session Trials No. 362 of 1985 and 217 of 1986 were registered in the court of Sessions Judge, Etah. Both session trials were transferred to the Court of IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Etah, who framed charges against accused-appellants Shripal, Iqbal, Ganpat, Virendra and Ram Shankar for offences punishable under Sections 148, 302 I.P.C. read with Section 149 I.P.C. and 307 I.P.C. read with Section 149 I.P.C. And against accused-appellant Genda Lal for offences punishable under Section 148 I.P.C., 302 I.P.C. and 307 I.P.C. read with section 149 I.P.C. All the accused pleased not guilty claimed to be tried. As the said two session trials were related to same incident, therefore, the said two session trials were consolidated and tried together. Prosecution examined P.W. 1, complainant, Netrapal, P.W. 2, Raghuvar Dayal, P.W. 3, Sonpal, P.W. 4, Dr. O.P. Vaidya, P.W. 5, S.I. Dinesh Kumar Shishodiya and P.W. 6 H.C./146, Bhanwar Singh. After prosecution evidence, statements of all accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. All the accused stated that they have been falsely implicated with animosity. No evidence was adduced on behalf of accused in defence. Learned Sessions Judge, Etah heard the arguments of the parties and passed impugned judgement and order whereby he has convicted accused-appellants as mentioned above. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants contended that accused-appellants are innocent and have been falsely implicated. He further contended that F.I.R. is delayed and whole story of prosecution is false and concocted. Learned Sessions Judge, Etah heard the arguments of the parties and passed impugned judgement and order whereby he has convicted accused-appellants as mentioned above. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants contended that accused-appellants are innocent and have been falsely implicated. He further contended that F.I.R. is delayed and whole story of prosecution is false and concocted. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants contended that occurrence has taken place in darkness of night and accused-appellants have been falsely implicated. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants contended that source of light alleged by prosecution is highly doubtful and in absence of light identification of assaillants is quite unreliable. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants prayed that appeal should be allowed and accused-appellants should be acquitted. Learned AGA contended that conviction recorded by trial court against accused-appellants is based on evidence and is in accordance with law. Learned AGA contended that P.W. 2 Raghuvar Dayal and P.W. 3 Sonpal are injured witnesses and P.W. 1 complainant Netrapal is son of Sonpal. The place of occurrence is their house, therefore, these witnesses are natural witnesses and their presence at the time of occurrence may not be denied. Learned AGA contended that there is no sufficient ground for interference in impugned judgement and order passed by learned Sessions Judge. Learned AGA prayed that appeal should be dismissed. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. Out of six witnesses examined by prosecution, P.W. 1, complainant Netrapal, P.W. 2 Raghuvar Dayal and P.W. 3 Sonpal are the witnesses of facts and occurrence. In their statements on oath they have fully supported the version of F.I.R. (Ex. Ka-1). P.W. 1, complainant, Netrapal has proved first information report (Ex. Ka-1) also. P.W. 4 Dr. O.P. Vaidya has stated in his statement on oath that on 25.3.1985, he was posted as Medical Officer in District Hospital, Etah. He has stated that on that date, he conducted post-morterm of deceased Bhoop Singh at 1.00 p.m., whose dead body was brought by Constable 123 Ram Swaroop and Constable Bheekham Singh in sealed cover and was identified by them. P.W. 4 Dr. O.P. Vaidya has proved post-morterm report of deceased Bhoop Singh (Ex. Ka.2) and has stated in his statement that death of deceased might have occurred in the intervening night of 23/24.3.1985 at 12.30. P.W. 4, Dr. P.W. 4 Dr. O.P. Vaidya has proved post-morterm report of deceased Bhoop Singh (Ex. Ka.2) and has stated in his statement that death of deceased might have occurred in the intervening night of 23/24.3.1985 at 12.30. P.W. 4, Dr. O.P. Vaidya has stated in his statement that 34 pellets were recovered from the body of deceased. He has proved said 34 pellets before trial court. Trial court has marked material (Ex.-4) on the said pellets. P.W. 5, S.I. Dinesh Kumar Sisodiya has stated in his statement on oath that on 24.3.201985 he was posted as S.O. in P.S. Sahawar. On that date Crime No. 44 of 1985 was registered in his police station. He took investigation of said crime into his hands and went to place of occurrence with inquest register. After having reached place of occurrence, he directed S.I. Lal Singh to prepare inquest report of deceased. He recorded statement of witnesses and inspected place of occurrence. He has proved in his statement, site plan (Ex. Ka-5). He has stated that he took blood stained earth and plain earth from the place of occurrence and kept in sealed cover. He has proved Ex. Ka-6 memo of blood stained earth and plain earth. In his statement, he has proved container of blood stained earth and plain earth also as material (Ex. Ka-6 and 7). P.W. 5, S.I. Dinesh Kumar Sisodiya has stated in his statement that at the place of occurrence, he prepared (Ex. Ka-7) memo of Lantern and gave said Lantern in the supurdagi of complainant. P.W. 5, S.I. Dinesh Kumar Sisodiya has proved (Ex. Ka-8) inquest report of deceased Bhoopn Singh by identifying handwriting and signature of S.I. Lal Singh as a secondary witness. P.W. 5, S.I. Dinesh Kumar Sisodiya has stated in his statement that he kept the dead body in sealed cover and handed over it to constable Ram Swaroop Singh and constable Bheekham Singh for post-morterm. P.W. 5, S.I. Dinesh Kumar Sisodiya, has proved Chalannash (Ex. Ka-9), Photonash (Ex. Ka-10), letter to R.I. (Ex. Ka-11) and letter to C.M.O. (Ex. Ka-12) and specimen of seal (Ex. Ka-13) also as a secondary witness by identifying handwriting and signature of S.I. Lal Singh. P.W. 5, S.I. Dinesh Kumar Sisodiya has stated in his statement that after having completed investigation, he submitted original charge sheet (Ex. Ka-14) as well as supplementary charge sheet (Ex. Ka-15) in Court. Ka-11) and letter to C.M.O. (Ex. Ka-12) and specimen of seal (Ex. Ka-13) also as a secondary witness by identifying handwriting and signature of S.I. Lal Singh. P.W. 5, S.I. Dinesh Kumar Sisodiya has stated in his statement that after having completed investigation, he submitted original charge sheet (Ex. Ka-14) as well as supplementary charge sheet (Ex. Ka-15) in Court. P.W. 6, Head Constable Bhanwar Singh has stated in his statement that on 24.3.1985, he was posted as Head Moharrir at P.S. Sahawar. He has proved chick F.I.R. (Ex. Ka-16) as well as G.D. relating to registration of crime (Ex. Ka-17) in his statement. Trial court has marked (Ex. Ka-3 and Ka-18) on injury reports of injured Sonpal and Reghuvar Dayal on the ground that defence has admitted these injury reports. Defence has admitted X-ray report of Raghuvar Dayal also. Ex. Ka-4 has been marked on it by trial court. We have examined the evidence adduced by prosecution in the light of contentions of parties. According to F.I.R., the time of occurrence is 12.30 of intervening night of 23/24.3.1985. P.W. 1, complainant, Netrapal, P.W. 2 Raghuvar Dayal and P.W. 3 Sonpal, all have supported said time of occurrence alleged in F.I.R. (Ex. Ka-1). Post-morterm report (Ex. Ka-2) shows that the small intestine of deceased was containing small amount of food under process of digestion. This condition of small intestine corroborates the version of F.I.R. as well as statement of aforesaid witnesses regarding time of occurrence and there is nothing on record to disbelieve time of occurrence alleged by prosecution. Perusal of chick F.I.R. (Ex. Ka-16) and G.D. relating to registration of crime (Ex. Ka-17) as well as statement of P.W. 6 Head Constable Bhanwar Singh shows that F.I.R. (Ex. Ka-1) has been presented by complainant Netrapal at P.S. Sahawar at 9.05 a.m. on 24.3.1985. The distance of police station from the place of occurrence is 9 Km. as apparent from chick F.I.R. (Ex. Ka-16). After murder of brother, in night it does not appear natural for complainant Netrapal to run away to police station immediately. Therefore, we are of the view that lodging of F.I.R. in the morning at 9.05 a.m. is not delayed. In cross-examination defence has given suggestion to P.W. 6 Head Constable, Bhanwar Singh that after preparation of inquest report chick F.I.R. has been prepared in police station. Therefore, we are of the view that lodging of F.I.R. in the morning at 9.05 a.m. is not delayed. In cross-examination defence has given suggestion to P.W. 6 Head Constable, Bhanwar Singh that after preparation of inquest report chick F.I.R. has been prepared in police station. Defence has given further suggestion to him that chick F.I.R. and G.D. relating to registration of crime have been prepared anti-time. P.W. 6 Head Constable, Bhanwar Singh has negatived both suggestions of defence. Perusal of inquest report (Ex. Ka-8) shows that preparation of inquest report has been started at 11.15 a.m. on 24.3.1985 and has been completed at 12.15 p.m. on the same day. In inquest report crime no. 44 of 1985, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307 I.P.C. has been mentioned. In inquest report (Ex. Ka-8) annexure no. 2 is copy of F.I.R. Thus, it is apparent that before preparation of inquest report (Ex. Ka-8) certainly Crime No. 44 of 1985, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307 I.P.C. has been registered in P.S. Sahawar and F.I.R. has been lodged. We have gone through whole evidence and documents available on record. There is no sufficient ground to disbelieve chick F.I.R. (Ex. Ka-16) and G.D. relating to registration of crime (Ex. Ka-17) as well as statement of P.W. 6 Head Constable Bhanwar Singh. According to illustrations (e) of Section 114 (1) of Evidence Act Court may presume that judicial and official acts have been regularly performed. In view of discussion made above, we are of the view that neither F.I.R. Is delayed nor it may be held anti-time. The place of occurrence is house of P.W. 1 complainant Netrapal, P.W. 2 Raghuvar Dayal and P.S. 3 Sonpal. Place of occurrence is fully supported by F.I.R. (Ex. Ka-1) and statement of P.W. 1 complainant Netrapal, P.W. 2, Raghuvar Dayal and P.W. 3 Sonpal as well as by siteplan (Ex. Ka-5). Place of occurrence has not been challenged by defence. Considering place and time of occurrence presence of P.W. 1 complainant Netrapal, P.W. 2 Raghuvar Dayal and P.W. 3 Sonpal is highly reliable and they are natural witnesses of occurrence. P.W. 2 Raghuvar Dayal and P.W. 3 are injured also. Ka-5). Place of occurrence has not been challenged by defence. Considering place and time of occurrence presence of P.W. 1 complainant Netrapal, P.W. 2 Raghuvar Dayal and P.W. 3 Sonpal is highly reliable and they are natural witnesses of occurrence. P.W. 2 Raghuvar Dayal and P.W. 3 are injured also. Defence has admitted injury report of P.W. 3 Sonpal under Section 294 Cr.P.C. No endorsement of admission has been made on injury report of P.W. 2 Raghuvar Dayal but X-ray report of Raghuvar Dayal as well as Chitthi Majrubi of Raghuvar Dayal prepared by police has been admitted by defence. In F.I.R. (Ex. Ka-1), complainant Netrapal has specificly mentioned that his father Sonpal and his uncle Raghuvar Dayal suffered injuries of fire made by accused. This version of F.I.R. has been supported by P.W. 1 complainant Netrapal, P.W. 2, Raghuvar Dayal and P.W. 3, Sonpal in their statements on oath. In view of discussion made above after having gone through whole evidence on record, we are of the view that prosecution has fully proved that P.W. 2 Raghuvar Dayal and P.W. 3 Sonpal have also suffered gun shot injury at the time of occurrence as is apparent from injury report of P.W. 3 Sonpal and X-ray report of P.W. 2 Raghuvar Dayal. In the case of Dharmveer and others Vs. State of U.P., A.I.R. 2010, 1378, Hon'ble Apex Court has held that "witness did not suffer injury will not make his evidence untrustworthy." In view of above pronouncement of Hon'ble Apex Court statement of P.W. 1, complainant Netrapal may not be discarded merely on the ground that he has not suffered injuries in the occurrence. In the case of Dharmveer and others Vs. State of U.P. (supra) Hon'ble Apex Court has further held that the evidence of an eye witness cannot be rejected only on the ground of enmity. Hon'ble Apex Court has constantly held that testimony of witnesses may not be discarded merely on the ground of relationship. In this context following pronouncements of Hon'ble Apex Court may be cited : - 1. Vithal Vs. State of Maharashtra (2008) 1 SCC Crl. 91. 2. State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Masta Ram (2004) 8 SCC 660 . 3. Kapildeo Mandal & others Vs. State of Bihar; AIR 2008 SC 533 . In this context following pronouncements of Hon'ble Apex Court may be cited : - 1. Vithal Vs. State of Maharashtra (2008) 1 SCC Crl. 91. 2. State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Masta Ram (2004) 8 SCC 660 . 3. Kapildeo Mandal & others Vs. State of Bihar; AIR 2008 SC 533 . In view of above pronouncements of Hon'ble Apex Court testimonies of P.W. 1 complainant Netrapal, P.W. 2 Raghuvar Dayal and P.W. 3 Sonpal may not be discarded on the ground of relationship with deceased or enmity with accused. 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 Cr.L.J. 3889 (SC), Hon'ble Apex Court has held that "prosecution evidence may suffer from inconsistencies here and discrepancies there, but that is a shortcoming from which no criminal case is free. The main thing to be seen is whether those inconsistencies go to the root of the matter or pertain to insignificant aspects thereof." In the case of State of U.P. Vs. 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 Netrapal, P.W. 2, Raghuvar Dayal and P.W. 3 Sonpal. In view of principals laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in above pronouncements, we are of the view that there is no material contradiction in the statements of these witnesses to disbelieve their testimony regarding occurrence. In view of principals laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in above pronouncements, we are of the view that there is no material contradiction in the statements of these witnesses to disbelieve their testimony regarding occurrence. P.W. 1, complainant, Netrapal has stated in his statement that he had enmity with accused Ganpat and Genda Lal. He has further stated that Chheda Lal was uncle of accused Genda Lal and Ganpat. Son of Chheda Lal is Ram Prasad, who has contested election of Pradhan against Sukhram, uncle of complainant. In statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., all the accused have stated that they have been falsely implicated due to animosity. Therefore, it is apparent that enmity between the parties is admitted to both parties. P.W. 2 Raghuvar Dayal has stated in his statement that accused Ganpat and Genda are resident of his own village. Accused Iqbal is resident of Samaspur, accused Shripal and Ram Shanker are resident of Baster and accused Virendra is resident of Ganeshpur. All these accused used to come to Ganpat and Genda Lal. P.W. 3, Sonpal has also stated in his statement that accused Genda Lal and Ganpat are resident of his own village. Accused Shri Pal and Ram Shanker are resident of Baster, accused Virendra is resident of Ganeshpur and accused Iqbal is resident of Samaspur. He has further stated that accused Shripal, Virendra, Ram Shanker and Iqbal are notorious persons and they used to come to accused Genda Lal and Ganpat. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., accused Shripal has stated that he is relative of accused Genda and Ganpat and he used to come to them. After having gone through the whole evidence on record, it is apparent that motive of occurrence has been proved. Moreover, in the case of Brambh Swaroop and another Vs. State of U.P., A.I.R. 2011 SC 280, Hon'ble Apex Court has held that "if evidence of eye witnesses is trustworthy and believed by Court the question of motive becomes total irrelevant." Discussion made above shows that P.W. 1, complainant Netrapal, P.W. 2, Raghuvar Dayal and P.W. 3, Sonpal are reliable and trustworthy witnesses of occurrence and there is no sufficient ground to disbelive them. In the case of Harpal Singh Vs. State of Haryana 1977 Cr.L.J. 642 SC, Hon'ble Apex Court has held that "if witnesses examined are believed in question of inference for non-examination does not arise. In the case of Harpal Singh Vs. State of Haryana 1977 Cr.L.J. 642 SC, Hon'ble Apex Court has held that "if witnesses examined are believed in question of inference for non-examination does not arise. Same view has been expressed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dharmveer and others Vs. State of U.P. A.I.R. 2010 1378 (Supra) In F.I.R. (Ex. Ka-1), it has been specifically mentioned that lantern was burning in verandah, P.W. 1, complainant Netrapal and P.W. 2 Raghuvar Dayal have stated in their statements on oath that lantern was burning at the time of occurrence in verandah handing on peg. P.W. 3 Sonpal has also stated in his statement that lantern hanging on peg fixed in the wall of Baithak was burning at the time of occurrence. It is apparent from the statement of P.W. 5 S.I. Denish Kumar Sisodiya as well as memo of lantern (Ex. Ka-7) that I.O. has seen lantern at the time of inspection of place of occurrence and has prepared memo of lantern (Ex. Ka-7) at the same time. I.O. has shown with letter 'H' place of lantern in site plan (Ex. Ka-5) and has specifically mentioned that the lantern was hanging above five fit from ground in a peg. Thus, after having gone through whole evidence on record, we are of the view that at the time of occurrence burning of lantern has been proved and there is no sufficient ground to disbelieve light of lantern at the time of occurrence. In view of discussions made above, it is apparent that accused Genda and Ganpat are resident of village of complainant Netrapal and rest accused are their associates, who used to come to them. Therefore, it is apparent that all the accused were previously known to complainant P.W. 1 Netrapal, P.W. 2 Raghuvar Dayal and P.W. 3 Sonpal. It is also apparent from the version of F.I.R. as well as statement of P.W. 1, Netrapal, P.W. 2 Raghuvar Dayal and P.W. 3 Sonpal that all the accused came and got awaken father of complainant and asked him where is Chandra Pal, thereafter, accused Genda asked where is Bhoop Singh. Known persons may easly be identified even in darkness by their voice, manner and style of movement etc. Known persons may easly be identified even in darkness by their voice, manner and style of movement etc. In view of discussion made above, after having gone through whole evidence as well as facts of the case, we are of view that the prosecution has proved source of light at the time of occurrence and acused appellants, who were known to complainant and witnesses may be identified in darkness also. Injuries found on the body of deceased, Bhoop Singh mentioned in post-morterm report (Ex. Ka-2) as well as in statement of P.W. 4 Dr. O.P. Vaidya show that deceased Bhoop Singh had gun shot injury which was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course. Sonpal and Raghuvar Dayal also have gun shot injuries on upper part of body. In view of discussion made and conclusions drawn above after having gone through the whole evidence on record as well as facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that evidence on record is sufficient to hold accused-appellants guilty of offences punishable under Sections 148, 302 I.P.C. read with Section 149 I.P.C. and 307 I.P.C. read with Section 149 I.P.C. We have perused the impugned judgement and order passed by learned trial court. Learned trial court has gone through the whole evidence on record and has considered all relevant points and contentions of parties. The conclusion drawn and findings recorded by trial court is based on judicious analysis of evidence. In view of discussion made and conclusions drawn above, we are of the view that trial court has rightly placed reliance upon evidence adduced by prosecution and has rightly convicted accused-appellants Virendra and Iqbal for offence punishable under Sections 148, 302 I.P.C. read with Section 149 I.P.C. and 307 I.P.C. read with Section 149 I.P.C. 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 are of the view that the appeal has no merit and is liable to be dismissed. Appeal is dismissed accordingly. Surviving accused appellants Virendra and Iqbal 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. Appeal is dismissed accordingly. Surviving accused appellants Virendra and Iqbal 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. ——————