JUDGMENT : Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. The case of the prosecution is that on 22nd of April, 2002 at about 08.30 A.M. Chhatrapal, Mahaveer, Kakku @ Pratap, Sharvan, Kalla, Ramsingh and present appellant-Nanna @ Prahlad after consultation, with the common object, armed with lathis and guns came to the house of complainant-Ramchandra (PW-1) and constituted unlawful assembly for causing injuries to Smt. Bhago, the wife of Ramchandra (PW-1) and Bittu, the son of Ramchandra (PW-1). 2. It is a case of the prosecution that Chhatrapal fired shot from the country-made-pistoi and caused injury on the head of Smt. Bhago, whereas Nanna @ Prahlad (present appellant) fired shot from the twelve bore gun and caused injury in the abdomen of Bittu, resulting into death of both, Smt. Bhago, the wife of Ramchandra (PW-1) and Bittu, the son of Ramchandra (PW-1). 3. In the instant case, prosecution agency had sent four persons, namely (i) Ramsingh s/o Natha, (ii) Nanna @ Prahlad (present appellant), (iii) Chhatrapal s/o Kinta and (iv) Kakku @ Pratap s/o Kinta for the trial. 4. During trial of present case i.e. Sessions Case bearing No. 24/2004, Chhatrapal s/o Kinta and Kukku @ Pratap s/o Kinta were declared as proclaimed offenders; and the trial proceeded against Ramsingh s/o Natha and present appellant-Nanna @ Prahlad. 5. The Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Bharatpur, vide its impugned judgment dated 16.7.2005 acquitted Ramsingh s/o Natha for offences punishable under Sections 148, 302 and 302/149 of Indian Penal Code, by holding that prosecution has failed to prove the case against him beyond a reasonable doubt. However, the trial Court acquitted Nanna @ Prahlad (present appellant) for offences punishable under Sections 148 and 302/149 of Indian Penal Code, and convicted him for offences punishable under Sections 302 of Indian Penal Code and 3/25 of the Arms Act. 6. Having convicted the appellant-Nanna @ Prahlad for causing murder of Bittu s/o Ramchandra (PW-1), the trial Court, vide a separate order of even date, sentenced him as under "for offence under Section 302 I.P.C. : to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-. In default of payment of fine, to further undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. For offence under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-. 5000/-. In default of payment of fine, to further undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. For offence under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-. In default of payment of fine to further undergo one month rigorous imprisonment. (Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently)" 7. Aggrieved against his conviction pronounced and sentence awarded by the trial Court, the present appellant, namely Nanna @ Prahlad has preferred present appeal under Section 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before this Court. 8. During pendency of present appeal, Chhatrapal s/o Kinta and Kukku @ Pratap s/o Kinta were apprehended and supplementary charge-sheets were submitted against Chhatrapal on 08.09.2006 and against Kukku @ Pratap on 8.12.2006 before the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deeg. Both the supplementary charge-sheets were consolidated and committed to the Court of Sessions for trial and the trial was entrusted to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.4, Bharatpur. 9. In the subsequent trial against Chhatrapal and Kukku @ Pratap, Ramchandra appeared as PW-12 before the trial Court on 08.10.2007, whereas other eye-witnesses, namely Sheela and Jogendra, appeared as PW-22 and PW-24 and they turned hostile against Chhatrapal s/o Kinta and Kukku @ Pratap s/o Kinta. 10. However, it is to be noted here that Jogendra (PW-24), so far as present appellant is concerned, has specifically stated that Nanna @ Prahlad had fired shot at his brother due to which he died. D.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 3283 dated 26.02.2015 IN D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 708 of 2005. 11. In the present case, during the course of the appeal, an application was submitted by the learned counsel in the Registry, under Section 391 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act for taking on record the statements of Ramchandra (PW-17), Sheela (PW-22) and Jogendra (PW-24) recorded in Sessions Trial bearing No. 27/2006 against accused - Chhatrapal s/o Kinta and Kukku @ Pratap s/o Kinta, as additional evidence. The above statements are subsequent statements made by the witnesses, after conclusion of the trial against the appellant in subsequent trial against co-accused. 12. The above statements are subsequent statements made by the witnesses, after conclusion of the trial against the appellant in subsequent trial against co-accused. 12. A further prayer has been made that the witnesses be recalled and subsequent statements recorded in the trial against co-accused, who were earlier declared as proclaimed offenders, be put to them and they be confronted with their subsequent statements. 13. In support of this submission, Mr. D.G. Chaturvedi the learned counsel appearing for the accused-appellant, has relied upon decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sudevanand v. State through C.B.I. reported in 2012 (1) Crimes 137 (S.C.). 14. A perusal of above cited judgment reveals that in case of Sudevanand (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court had distinguished the case of Mishrilal v. State of M.P., reported in (2005) 10 S.C.C. 701 and the case of Hanuman Ram v. State of Rajasthan and Others, reported in (2008) 15 S.C.C. 652 on peculiar facts of Sudevanand's case (supra). However, the Hon'ble Apex Court, on facts of the case of Sudevanand (supra), considering that witness i.e. approver, who had made diametrically opposite statements before the C.B.I. and the State (CID), and both the statements were at loggerheads, held as under :- 30. It is, thus, to be seen that the provision is not limited to recall of a witness for further cross-examination with reference to his previous statement. The Appellate Court may feel the necessity to take additional evidence for any number of reasons to arrive at the just decision in the case. The law casts a duty upon the court to arrive at the truth by all lawful means. This is another reason why we feel any reliance on Mishrilal that considered the recall of a witness in the context of Section 145 of the Evidence Act is quite misplaced in the facts of this case. 31. Mr. Dey contended that Vikram's statement that he is alleged to have made in jail has no legal sanctity and it came to be made and recorded in a manner completely unknown to law. Mr. Dey may be right but on that ground alone it would not be correct and proper to deny the application of Section 391 of the Cr.RC. Take the case where, on the testimony of the Approver, a person is convicted by the trial court under Section 302 and 120- B etc. Mr. Dey may be right but on that ground alone it would not be correct and proper to deny the application of Section 391 of the Cr.RC. Take the case where, on the testimony of the Approver, a person is convicted by the trial court under Section 302 and 120- B etc. of the Penal Code and is sentenced to a life term. After the judgment and order passed by the trial court and while the convict's appeal is pending before the High Court, the 'approver' is found blabbering and boasting among his friends that he was able to take the Court for a ride and settled his personal score with the convict by sending him to jail to rot at least for 14 years. Such a statement would also be completely beyond the legal framework but can it be said that in light of such a development the convicted accused may not ask the High Court for recalling the Approver for further examination. 32. As a matter of fact, if some later statement, has come to be made in some legal ways, it may be admissible on its own without any help from Section 311 or Section 391 of the Cr.RC. It is only such statement or development which is otherwise not within the legal framework that would need the exercise of the Court's jurisdiction to bring it before it as part of the legal record." 15. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, we are of the view that the case of Sudevanand (supra) was on its own facts. 16. So far as present appellant - Nanna @ Prahlad is concerned, Jogendra appearing against appellant as PW-2 and in subsequent trial against Chhatrapal s/o Kinta and Kukku @ Pratap s/o Kinta has made a consistent statement, so far as role of present appellant is concerned. The witness stated that Nanna @ Prahlad had fired shot at his brother-Bittu. 17. So far as murder of his mother, Smt. Bhago is concerned, this witness has turned hostile and stated, in the Court, that he is not aware as he had not seen whether shot fired by Chhatrapal had hit his mother. The witness stated that when he had gone inside the house, shot was fired at his back, upon his mother, Smt. Bhago. 18. The witness stated that when he had gone inside the house, shot was fired at his back, upon his mother, Smt. Bhago. 18. Thus, the factual position, which has emerged in the prosecution case, is that Jogendra appearing as PW-24 and Sheela appearing as PW-22 in subsequent trial having been won over, have not deposed against accused, who were earlier declared as proclaimed offenders and were apprehended later. Simply because they were prevailed upon, it will not obliterate and wash away the evidence given by them in earlier trial against the appellant, as it is apparent that the witnesses, Jogendra (PW-2) and Sheela (PW-4) appearing during the trial against the present appellant, have specifically named appellant, as one who had fired shot at the person of Bittu, resulting in his death. 19. We find prayer made in the application filed under Section 391 Cr.PC. is not reasonable. It will prompt accused in subsequent trial to suborn the witnesses, induce them to retract from the statement made in previous trial or shall make them amendable to threat and shall also promote witnesses to resile from their previous statement made before the Court of law, the devices as in present case to file an application under Section 391 Cr.P.C. later for setting aside the judgment passed in earlier trial being against public policy cannot be encourages as such a course, if permitted, is fraught with dangerous consequences. 20. We may note here that in the case of Sudevanand (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court noticed that in Mishri Lal's case (supra) in a subsequent trial, Mokam Singh (PW- 2) before the Juvenile Court had resiled from his previous statement for some extraneous reasons and, therefore, the Court had not allowed any opportunity to completely efface the evidence already given by him under oath. 21. Therefore, in the case of Sudevanand (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court had distinguished the case of Mishrilal (supra) on its own facts, but has not overruled the same. 22. In Para 24 of Sudevanand's case (supra), their Lordships have observed as under :- "24. Anyone associated with the process of adjudication fully knows that even the slightest difference in the facts of two cases can make a world of difference on the question whether or not a statutory provision can be fairly and reasonably applied to it. 22. In Para 24 of Sudevanand's case (supra), their Lordships have observed as under :- "24. Anyone associated with the process of adjudication fully knows that even the slightest difference in the facts of two cases can make a world of difference on the question whether or not a statutory provision can be fairly and reasonably applied to it. Keeping in mind what is said here, if we read Mishrilal, it would be evident that in the overall facts of that case, the Court was satisfied that the statement of the witness (PW.2, Mokam Singh) before the Juvenile Court was for some extraneous reasons and, therefore, he should not have been allowed on opportunity to completely efface the evidence already given by him under oath, (emphasis supplied). The Court with its vast experience of the way criminal justice system works in our country was in a manner commenting upon the serious and widespread malady of prosecution witness being won over by the accused. Once the Court came to realise that the witness was gained over before he was examined in the Juvenile Court, it naturally felt that at least he should not have been allowed to spoil the other case too and it would, therefore, logically follow that his recall and re-examination in the trial of the other accused before the Sessions Court was an abuse of Section 311 of the Cr.RC. To us, it appears that it was mainly due to that reason that the Court frowned upon the latter evidence of PW.2 taken by the Sessions Court on his recall after his examination before the Juvenile Court." 23. We find that in the present case, the facts of Mishrilal's case (supra) will apply, as in a subsequent trial witnesses have turned hostile being won over and, therefore, because of this malady on the part of the witnesses, we will not accept the application for recalling witnesses for confronting them with their subsequent statement. 24. The settled law is that the witness can be confronted with the ; previous statement and it is an unusual circumstance, as it was in the case of Sudevanand (supra), Court can also call the witness to confront them with the subsequent statements, if ends of justice so demand. 25. Therefore, we reject the application filed under Section 391 Cr.PC. The settled law is that the witness can be confronted with the ; previous statement and it is an unusual circumstance, as it was in the case of Sudevanand (supra), Court can also call the witness to confront them with the subsequent statements, if ends of justice so demand. 25. Therefore, we reject the application filed under Section 391 Cr.PC. and refuse to re-summon Sheela (PW-4) and Jogendra (PW-2) and Ramchandra (PW-1), who in the present trial have appeared against appellant. 26. Furthermore, we will not permit them to be confronted with their statements made in the subsequent trial against Chhatrapal s/o Kinta and Kukku @ Pratap s/o Kinta, where they being won over had turned hostile. The statement against co-accused, Chhatrapal and Kukku, by Jogendra (PW- 24) 3 and Sheela (PW-22), being subsequent statements are not required to be put to the witnesses for confrontation by the Appellate Court. 27. Therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we reject the prayer made in the application filed under Section 391 Cr.PC. read with Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act. 28. Having rejected the application, now we shall decide D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 708 of 2005. D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 708 of 2005. 29. Instant appeal has been preferred by Nanria @ Prahlad in order to assail the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.07.2005 rendered by the Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Bharatpur, whereby, as already stated, the appellant has been convicted for offences punishable under Sections 302 I.P.C. and 3/25 of the Arms Act. 30. We have already mentioned, while deciding application under Section 391 Cr.RC., the sentence awarded upon the appellant by the trial + Court. 31. Prosecution version, succinctly, stands unfolded in the written-report (Exhibit-P/1) dated 22.04.2002 submitted by Ramchandra (PW-1) before Sub-Inspector Sitaram (PW-27), who was then posted at Police Station, Deeg. 50. 32. Sitaram (PW-27), in the Court, stated that on 22.04.2002 he received a telephonic information that a fight had ensued at Village Chakgharwari. He along with Police party reached at the spot and learnt that Smt. Bhago, the wife of Ramchandra (PW-1) and Bittu, the son of Ramchandra (PW-1) had died. From the spot, this witness, along with the Police party reached at the hospital at Deeg. He along with Police party reached at the spot and learnt that Smt. Bhago, the wife of Ramchandra (PW-1) and Bittu, the son of Ramchandra (PW-1) had died. From the spot, this witness, along with the Police party reached at the hospital at Deeg. There Ramchandra s/o Pyare presented a written report (Exhibit-P/1), on the basis of which a formal First Information Report (Exhibit-P/2) was registered. 33. The written report (Exhibit-P/1) presented by Ramchandra (PW-1), when translated into English reads as under :- "To, The Station House Officer, Kotwali Deeg, Sir, It is submitted that today on 22.04.2002 at about 08.30 A.M. I had gone to lodge a case against Chhatrapal etc. regarding beating to my son. The Police personnel from the Police Station, Deeg had come to investigate the matter. Immediately, after they had returned, Chhatrapal, Mahaveer, Kukku, Sharvan, Kalla, Ramsingh and Nanna with the common intention armed with lathies and guns came to my house. They said that how many you report you will lodge, we will see and started firing shots indiscriminately. The shots hit Bittu, the son of applicant and Smt. Bhago, the wife of applicant. They died at the spot. Their dead bodies were brought to the hospital in a jeep. Signed Ramchandra s/o Pyare by case Bavriya, resident of Chakgharwari, Police Station, Deeg dated 22.04.2002." 34. As stated by us earlier, while deciding application under Section 391 Cr.PC., out of seven accused, the investigating Agency had submitted charge-sheet against four persons, namely Chhatrapal, Kukku, Nanna @ Prahlad and Ramsingh respectively. 35. During investigation, it has emerged in the evidence that the shot fired by Nanna @ Prahlad had hit Bittu and the shot fired by Chhatrapal had hit Smt. Bhago. 36. During the course of trial, Chhatrapal and Kukku @ Pratap deserted the trial and were declared as proclaimed offenders. 37. The trial Judge, vide his impugned judgment dated 16.07.2005, acquitted Ramsingh, as no overt role was assigned to him and convicted Nanna @ Prahlad, the present appellant for the offences, as mentioned herein above. 38. 36. During the course of trial, Chhatrapal and Kukku @ Pratap deserted the trial and were declared as proclaimed offenders. 37. The trial Judge, vide his impugned judgment dated 16.07.2005, acquitted Ramsingh, as no overt role was assigned to him and convicted Nanna @ Prahlad, the present appellant for the offences, as mentioned herein above. 38. Subsequently, Chhatrapal and Kukku @ Pratap, sons of Kinta were arrested and two eye-witnesses, namely Sheela, the sister of Bittu and Jogendra, the brother of Bittu, so far as murder of their mother Smt. Bhago is concerned, turned hostile against Chhatrapal and Kukku @ Pratap, and resultantly Chhatrapal and Kukku @ Pratap were acquitted by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, No.2, Bharatpur, vide its impugned judgment dated 16.07.2005. 39. We have already rejected the application, for taking subsequent evidence of Sheela and Jogendra on record and re summoning them in appeal for confrontation with their subsequent statements, by giving detailed reasons, herein above. 40. So far as present case is concerned, suffice it to say, at the trial, prosecution, in all, had examined twenty-seven witnesses and proved on record as many as forty-nine documents being Exhibit-P/1 to Exhibit-P/49. 41. Prosecution closed its evidence. 42. Thereafter, the statement of accused were recorded under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, all incriminating evidence was put to them. They raised a plea that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated. 43. In defence, accused had not examined any witness. However, they had placed reliance upon statements of Ramchandra (PW-1), Jogendra (PW-2) and Sheela (PW-4) recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. (Exhibit-D/1 to Exhibit-D/3). 44. Ramchandra appeared as PW-1. He stated in the court that occurrence had taken place on 22.04.2002. Before 22.04.2002, on 19.04.2002 accused had picked up a fight. He had lodged a report, and qua alleged incident dated 19.02.2002 Police came to inspect the spot on 22.04.2002. After the Police had left the village, accused with the common intention came armed with weapons. Chhatrapal fired a shot which had hit Smt. Bhago, whereas Nanna @ Prahlad fired a shot which had hit in the abdomen of Bittu. Another shot fired by Kukku had hit Bittu, due to which he fell down. The witness stated that he was not present at the house. After he came to his house, his children had narrated to him the entire incident. Another shot fired by Kukku had hit Bittu, due to which he fell down. The witness stated that he was not present at the house. After he came to his house, his children had narrated to him the entire incident. The witness further stated that he found that his wife and son had died. Lastly, this witness stated that occurrence was witnessed by his son-in-law, Bhoop Singh (PW-5) and son Jogendra (PW-2) and daughter Sheela (PW-4). 45. Jogendra appeared as PW-2. In the court, he specifically stated that accused came armed with lathies and guns. Chhatrapal from the country-made-pistol had fired a shot at his mother Smt. Bhago. Kukku gave slaps and fist blows. Kishan and Ramsingh were giving abuses. Nanna @ Prahlad fired a shot from the gun which had hit on the abdomen of his brother, Bittu. Lastly, this witness stated that his sister, Sheela (PW-4) and brother-in-law, Bhoop Singh (PW-5) were also present at the spot. 46. Sheela appeared as (PW-4). She has also reiterated the same as to what was stated by Jogendra (PW-1). She stated that shot fired by present appellant had hit in the abdomen of her brother, Bittu. Chhatrapal had fired shot from the country-made-pistol which hit on the head of her mother Smt. Bhago; and both had died at the spot. 47. Bhoop Singh (PW-5), is the son-in-law of complainant. He also stated that Chhatrapal fired a shot which hit his mother-in-law on the head and the shot fired by present appellant had hit in the abdomen of Bittu, brother of his wife Smt. Sheela. 48. Netrapal (PW-3) had attested inquest proceedings of deceased Smt. Bhago. Vidhya (PW-6) deposed regarding arrest of appellant - Ramsingh vide memo Exhibit-P/17. She stated that her signatures were obtained on a blank paper and she was declared hostile. 49. We need not notice the statements of the remaining witnesses, who had participated in the investigation. 50. The prosecution case rests upon the testimony of three eye-witnesses, namely Jogendra (PW-2), Sheela (PW-4) and Bhoop Singh (PW-5), who have been duly corroborated by Ramchandra (PW-1), the father of Sheela and Jogendra, who stated in his testimony that Sheela, Jogendra and Bhoop Singh immediately after the occurrence had narrated the incident to him. 51. 50. The prosecution case rests upon the testimony of three eye-witnesses, namely Jogendra (PW-2), Sheela (PW-4) and Bhoop Singh (PW-5), who have been duly corroborated by Ramchandra (PW-1), the father of Sheela and Jogendra, who stated in his testimony that Sheela, Jogendra and Bhoop Singh immediately after the occurrence had narrated the incident to him. 51. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the accused-appellant, as well as the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, and also perused the relevant material available on record as well as the impugned judgment. 52. Mr. D.G. Chaturvedi, the learned counsel appearing for the accused-appellant, has submitted that Ramchandra (PW-1) in the alleged First Information Report had not named Jogendra (PW-2), Sheela (PW-4) and Bhoop Singh (PW-5), as eye-witnesses. 53. It has further been submitted by the learned counsel that the First Information Report is silent, and so far as role assigned to present appellant, Nanna @ Prahalad is concerned, it was stated in the First information Report that all the accused fired shots. It has not been specifically stated in the F.I.R. that the shots fired by Nanna @ Prahad had hit Bittu. 54. Counsel appearing for the accused-appellant has relied upon the case of Ram Kumar Pande v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in 1975 Cri.L.J. 870, wherein it was held that if in the First Information Report, it is not mentioned that the accused had inflicted injury in the abdomen of the deceased, this being material circumstance, which amounted to material improvement, cannot be taken into consideration. 55. Relevant Para 9 of the judgment relied in the case of Ram Kumar Pandey (supra) reads as follows:- "9. No doubt, an F.I.R. is a previous statement which can, strictly speaking, be only used to corroborate or contradict the maker of it. But, in this case, it had been made by the father of the murdered boy to whom all the important facts of the occurrence, so far as they were, known up to 9.15 p.m. on 23.3.1970, were bound to have been communicated. If his daughters had seen the appellant inflicting a blow' on Harbinder Singh, the father would certainly have mentioned it in the F.I.R. We think that omissions of such important facts, affecting the probabilities of the case, are relevant under Section 11 of the Evidence Act in judging the veracity of the prosecution case." 56. If his daughters had seen the appellant inflicting a blow' on Harbinder Singh, the father would certainly have mentioned it in the F.I.R. We think that omissions of such important facts, affecting the probabilities of the case, are relevant under Section 11 of the Evidence Act in judging the veracity of the prosecution case." 56. Contention of the learned counsel appearing for the accused-appellant is that, out of four accused sent for trial, co-accused of the appellant, namely Ramsingh was acquitted vide impugned judgment, and in subsequent trial against Chhatrapal and Kukku @ Pratapsons of Kinta, who were declared as proclaimed offenders and were subsequently apprehended, have also been acquitted because the witnesses have turned hostile. 57. Reliance has been placed upon the case of Amarjit Singh v. State of Punjab, reported in 2006 (2) Criminal Court Cases 239 (P&H) (DB), wherein a Division bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court, relying upon the case of Jagir Singh v. The State (Delhi Administration), reported in A.I.R. 1995 SC 1400 observed that in subsequent trial, witnesses have turned hostile and have not supported the prosecution case, they cannot be relied. 58. We are not impressed by both the arguments advanced, which have been duly buttressed by relying upon the judgments cited. 59. The trial Court had acquitted Ramsingh on the ground that Ram Singh standing at the spot was only giving abuses. Considering the fact that he had not played any overt role in the occurrence, he was given benefit of doubt. 60. So far as Chhatrapal and Kukku @ Pratap, sons of Kinta are concerned, witnesses were won over and have not supported the prosecution case. Unfair method adopted and foul play by the accused in a subsequent trial cannot be accepted to discard the testimony of the witnesses, wherein they have specifically deposed against the appellant. We shall not take foul to be fair and make already what is fair to be foul. Therefore, to us, testimony of Jogendra (PW-2), Sheela (PW-4) and Bhoop Singh (PW-5) is reliable. 61. Occurrence, in the present case, had taken place on 22.04.2002 at 08.30 A.M., the written-report (Exhibit-P/1) was submitted on the very same day at 11:30 A.M. i.e. within three hours and the case was registered at 11.50 A.M. Furthermore, alleged First Information Report is not an encyclopedia. 61. Occurrence, in the present case, had taken place on 22.04.2002 at 08.30 A.M., the written-report (Exhibit-P/1) was submitted on the very same day at 11:30 A.M. i.e. within three hours and the case was registered at 11.50 A.M. Furthermore, alleged First Information Report is not an encyclopedia. It has been stated that accused came armed with guns and fired shots. However, First Information Report is silent, as to shot fired by accused, deceased had died, and that explanation by the witnesses, in the Court, is not sufficient for us to (sic.) First Information Report and entire prosecution case, especially when testimony of the witnesses inspires confidence, we cannot become oblivious of the fact that F.I.R. was lodged by non-eyewitness. 62. The First Information Report is not a substantive piece of evidence. The F.I.R. has been only lodged to set criminal proceedings into motion. The presence of Jogendra (PW-2), Sheela (PW-4) and Bhoop Singh (PW-5) in the house is natural. The occurrence had taken place in the house of the accused in the morning and at that time, witnesses are expected to be present in the house. Furthermore, Ramchandra (PW-1) on seeing the death of his wife and son will be the most baffled man, to narrate each and every minute fact in the F.I.R. As stated earlier, author of the F.I.R. is not eye-witness of the occurrence. 63. Therefore, by taking small loopholes, here and there, we will not discard the testimony of Jogendra (PW-2), Sheela (PW-4) and Bhoop Singh (PW-5) and moreso relying upon the testimony, we are convinced that the prosecution has succeeded to bring home the guilt of the present appellant as their statement inspire confidence. 64. Consequently, we find no merit in the present appeal and the same is, hereby, dismissed, being devoid of merit, by affirming the conviction and the sentence awarded upon the appellant by the trial Court.