JUDGMENT Hon’ble Om Prakash-VII, J.—This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 29.4.1983 passed by IV Additional Sessions Judge, Allahabad in Sessions Trial No. 375 of 1981 (State v. Sadho and others), whereby the accused-appellants Sadhoo, Lalloo, Mangar, Bachchan and Desraj have been convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment under Sections 302 read with 149 I.P.C. They have been further convicted and sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment under Section 148 I.P.C. It was further directed that both the implanted sentences shall run concurrently. 2. It was reported that appellants Sadhoo and Mangar died during pendency of appeal, therefore, appeal filed on behalf of them has been abated and we are required to consider this appeal only with regard to the appellants Lalloo, Bachchan and Desraj. 3. The facts giving rise to this appeal are that on 13.9.1980 at about 8.30 a.m. informant Hanuman son of Ram Prasad resident of Village Tikri gave a written report (Ex.Ka-1) at police station Manjhanpur, District Allahabad with the allegations that in the morning of 13.9.1980, informant Hanuman, his father Ram Prasad, his Bua Gulahri and his sister were doing peeling work (nirai) in their field. At about 7:00 a.m., accused persons namely Sadhu, Bachchan, Lalloo of the same village and his maternal uncle accused Mangar and Mangar’s nephew belonging to village Chhikalpur and accused Deshraj resident of village Bhaktan Ka Purva came there armed with kulhari, pharsa and tamancha from the side of the gauda of Sadhu. Accused Mangar and Lalloo were armed with tamancha, while Sadhu and Bachchan had pharsas with them. Accused Deshraj and Mangar’s nephew were armed with kulharis. They surrounded the informant’s father Ram Prasad in the field. Ram Prasad ran towards the village raising alarm. The assailants chased Ram Prasad and caught him near the gauda of Rameshwar. Informant Hanuman, his Bua and Sister also followed them. Mangar and Lalloo fired shots with their pistols on Ram Prasad. Sadhoo and Bachchan assaulted Ram Prasad with pharsa, while Deshraj and Mangar’s nephew assaulted him with kulharis. On alarm being raised, witnesses Mani Ram Pradhan, Chaube Gaderiya and Rameshwar Kori reached there. Accused Mangar exhorted the other assailants not to spare Hanuman also, but his Bua and sister intervened in the matter and rescued him. In the meantime, other villagers also reached there. The assailants fled away towards east. On alarm being raised, witnesses Mani Ram Pradhan, Chaube Gaderiya and Rameshwar Kori reached there. Accused Mangar exhorted the other assailants not to spare Hanuman also, but his Bua and sister intervened in the matter and rescued him. In the meantime, other villagers also reached there. The assailants fled away towards east. It was further stated in the written report that about one and a half months back, somebody assaulted Mangar in his house. He implicated Ram Prasad and Hanuman as accused in that incident. Accused Mangar was the real maternal uncle (mama) of the informant Hanuman. The mother of the informant had died. Mangar had given some land and a house to the father of the informant. Later on, Mangar took back the land from Ram Prasad due to which relations between them became strained. When Mangar was assaulted by some one in the night while sleeping, he raised suspicion on Ram Prasad (deceased) and falsely implicated Ram Prasad (deceased) and the informant. Due to this reason, Mangar and his companions committed the murder of his father Ram Prasad. 4. On the basis of written report Ex.Ka-1 submitted by the informant Hanuman, chick First Information Report was registered under Sections 147, 148, 302 and 149 IPC at case crime No. 155 against the accused persons at P.S. Manjhanpur, District Allahabad as Ex.Ka.-15. An entry in the G.D. was also made by the head moharrir Raj Kishore Srivastava (P.W.6) on the same day at Rapat No. 12. The distance between the place of occurrence and the police station is about 5 miles. 5. Sri Raja Ram, S.I. (P.W.4) of P.S. Manjahnpur commenced the investigation. First Information Report was lodged in his presence. He recorded the statement of the informant Hanuman and head constable Raj Kishore Srivastava at the police station concerned. Thereafter, he visited the place of occurrence and prepared the inquest report Ex.Ka-3 at the scene of occurrence keeping the dead body of the deceased in a sealed cover. Sample seal (Ex.Ka.-6) was also prepared. He also prepared the report to C.M.O. (Ex.Ka.-4 and Ex.Ka.-5), letter to R.I. (Ex.Ka.7), challan lash (Ex.Ka.-8), photo lash (Ex.Ka.-9) while preparing the inquest report. Dead body of the deceased Ram Prasad was sent for post-mortem through the police constables after completing necessary formalities. 6. Dead body of the deceased Ram Prasad was brought for post-mortem by constable Uma Shankar Shukla (P.W.5). 7. Dr. Dead body of the deceased Ram Prasad was sent for post-mortem through the police constables after completing necessary formalities. 6. Dead body of the deceased Ram Prasad was brought for post-mortem by constable Uma Shankar Shukla (P.W.5). 7. Dr. Anil Kumar, (P.W.3) conducted the post-mortem on 14.9.1980 at 3:30 p.m. As per post-mortem report, rigor mortis was present in lower limbs, passed off from upper limbs. Duration of death was about 1½ day. The following ante-mortem injuries were found on the dead body of the deceased Ram Prasad : (i) Lacerated wounds three in number on the front upper portion of right thigh, blackening around each wound was present. Margins were inverted, size 1'’ x 1'’ x muscle deep. Two large size pellets were recovered from this site. (ii) Lacerated wound 1'’ x 1'’ x muscle deep on the front of lower portion, right side of abdomen. Blackening was present around the wound. Margins were inverted. (iii) Lacerated wound 1'’ x 1'’ x muscle deep three in number. Blackening present around each wound, just above injury No. 2. Two large sized pellets and one piece of wadding recovered from this site. Margins of wound were inverted. (iv) Multiple incised wounds 6 in number - size from 1'’ to 4'’ x muscle deep on the front of neck and chin. (v) Multiple incised wound size 1½ ‘’ to 4½’’ x muscle to bone deep on the back base of skull and neck. On internal examination, stomach was found empty. Four large sized pellets and one piece of wadding found from the body of the deceased were sealed in separate envelopes and sent to S.S.P. Allahabad through C.M.O., Allahabad. According to doctor cause of death was haemorrhage as a result of anti mortem injuries. Post-mortem report was marked as Ex.Ka.-2. 8. The investigating officer inspected the place of occurrence and prepared the site plan (Ex.Ka.-10). The baniyan and a black coloured thread belonging to the deceased were also taken into possession by the investigating officer and the memo Ex.Ka.-12 was prepared. On 13.9.1980, the investigating officer had also taken the tipni of kartoos from the place of occurrence and prepared the memo Ex.Ka.-13. On the same day, he took the blood stained earth and plain earth from the place of occurrence and prepared the memo Ex.Ka-14. On 13.9.1980, the investigating officer had also taken the tipni of kartoos from the place of occurrence and prepared the memo Ex.Ka.-13. On the same day, he took the blood stained earth and plain earth from the place of occurrence and prepared the memo Ex.Ka-14. During investigation, he interrogated the witnesses of the inquest as also the witnesses Gulahri, Mani Ram and other witnesses. He received the copy of the post-mortem report on 8.10.1980. After completing investigation, the investigating officer submitted the charge-sheet (Ex.Ka.-11) against the accused-appellants Sadhoo, Lalloo, Mangar, Bachchan and Desraj. 9. Concerned Magistrate took the cognizance in the matter and committed the case to the Court of Sessions for trial. 10. Learned Additional Sessions Judge framed the charges under Sections 148, 302 read with 149 IPC against the accused-appellants, who pleaded not guilty and claimed their trial. 11. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined P.W.1 Hanuman Prasad, the informant, who claimed himself to be an eye-witness, P.W.2 Ganga Devi, who also claimed herself to be an eye-witness of the incident, P.W. 3 Dr. Anil Kumar, who conducted the post-mortem on the dead body of the deceased and prepared the post-mortem report (Ex.Ka.-2), P.W.4 Raja Ram, Sub Inspector, who investigated the matter and submitted the charge-sheet, P.W.5 Constable Uma Shanker Shukla, through whom the dead body of the deceased was transmitted to the mortuary for post-mortem, P.W.6 Head Moharrir Raj Kishore Srivastava, who prepared the Chick F.I.R. (Ex.Ka.-15) and the General Diary (Ex.Ka.-16). He also prepared the G.D. regarding submission of the case property in the police station by S.O. Sri S.P. Shukla, which was marked as Ex.Ka.-17. 12. After conclusion of the prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused-persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, who denied the prosecution case and submitted that they have been falsely implicated in this case. 13. Accused-appellant Lalloo in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. stated the prosecution story to be false. P.W.1 Hanuman Prasad, P.W.2 Ganga Devi, Gulahri and other people have not witnessed the incident. First Information Report was lodged on the basis of false facts. He also showed ignorance about the investigation made by the police and the post-mortem report. He specifically stated that tainted, biased and unfair investigation was made by the police and prosecution was launched on the basis of enmity. First Information Report was lodged on the basis of false facts. He also showed ignorance about the investigation made by the police and the post-mortem report. He specifically stated that tainted, biased and unfair investigation was made by the police and prosecution was launched on the basis of enmity. This appellant categorically stated that he does not know whether accused-appellant Mangar (since died) had given the house and agricultural land to the deceased Ram Prasad or not, but Ram Prasad and Hanuman had beaten Mangar and he was one of the witnesses in that matter and due to that reason he was implicated in this case. 14. More or less the same facts were stated by the accused-appellants Bachchan and Desraj in their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 15. Trial Court after hearing both the parties, vide impugned judgment and order convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants as above. Hence, this appeal. 16. In order to appreciate the respective contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, it will be appropriate to refer the statement of Dr. Anil Kumar (P.W.3). 17. Dr. Anil Kumar (P.W.3) stated that on 14.9.1980, he was posted as Medical Officer, Motilal Nehru Hospital, Allahabad. He had conducted the post-mortem on the body of the deceased Ram Prasad on the same day at 3:30 p.m. He found the ante-mortem injuries on the body of the deceased as noted above. According to this witness cause of death was haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries. He stated that the deceased might have died on 13.9.1980 at about 7:00 a.m. Injuries were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause the death of the deceased. Injuries No. 1, 2 and 3 could have been caused by fire-arm and the remaining injuries could be caused by any sharp edged weapon. Details of injuries have been mentioned by us in the earlier portion of the judgment. There was blackening around each wound of injury No. 1. This witness has not indicated the total area of all the three injuries shown in injury No. 1. As per this witness, it cannot be said whether these injuries were the result of three separate shots or not. The injuries could be caused within the distance of about four to six feet. The area of injuries No. 2 & 3 was also not shown, but size of wound was written. As per this witness, it cannot be said whether these injuries were the result of three separate shots or not. The injuries could be caused within the distance of about four to six feet. The area of injuries No. 2 & 3 was also not shown, but size of wound was written. Injuries No. 2 and 3 were separate injuries, but he did not state whether they were caused by separate shot or not. Injuries No. 2 & 3 may be caused within a distance of six feet. The area of each injury was not written in post-mortem report in respect of injury No. 4 and 5, but size of the injuries was written which is 1'’ to 4'’ and 1½ ‘’ to 4½’’. There can be variation of six hours on either side in regard to the time of death. He had also stated that small and large intestines of the deceased were empty which indicates that the deceased had eased himself before his death. 18. Heard Sri Rajarshi Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, Sri Rahul Asthana, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the entire record. 19. Sri Gupta, learned counsel for the appellants argued that motive attributed against the appellants to commit the present offence was not in existence on the date of incident. The scribe of the written report was not examined. P.W.1 Hanuman Prasad and P.W.2 Ganga Devi are not the eye-witness accounts. P.W.1 is not the author of the written report because name of his Sister did not find place in the First Information Report. Bhaiya Lal, the scribe of the written report had not prepared the written report, but the informant got prepared the written report with the aid of police after due consultation. Prosecution case is not supported from the evidence of independent witnesses although they were said to be present on the spot at the time of occurrence. There are major contradictions in the statement of P.W.1 and P.W.2. Medical evidence does not support the oral testimony. There is also contradictory statement regarding the manner of incident. There was every chance of false implication of the appellants. Deceased was of a bad character. He was done to death at some other place, but due to enmity, appellants have been falsely implicated in this case. Prosecution witnesses have also changed the version from stage to stage. There is also contradictory statement regarding the manner of incident. There was every chance of false implication of the appellants. Deceased was of a bad character. He was done to death at some other place, but due to enmity, appellants have been falsely implicated in this case. Prosecution witnesses have also changed the version from stage to stage. Learned counsel for the appellants referring the inquest report and police papers also argued that the First Information Report was not in existence at the time mentioned in the chick F.I.R. Crime number and other details of the crime did not find place in police papers. The investigating officer has also not sent the blood stained soil and plain soil to the Forensic Science Laboratory, which is also fatal to the prosecution case. The place of occurrence is not established in this matter. Witnesses are interested and relative witnesses. The prosecution had failed to establish its case against the accused-appellants beyond reasonable doubt and the learned Trial Court has erred in convicting them. 20. Against it, learned A.G.A. for the State has contended that the motive attributed to the accused-appellants was proved by the prosecution and due to that reason, they have committed the present offence. First Information Report was lodged promptly. Place of occurrence was not challenged by the accused-appellants and no question was put to any of the witnesses to challenge the place of occurrence. Presence of P.W.1 Hanuman Prasad and P.W.2 Ganga Devi at the place of occurrence cannot be doubted, as they consistently narrated the whole incident in detail. They were working in their field alongwith the deceased. Only by mentioning Behan as eye-witnesses in the First Information Report and not disclosing her name in the written report, it cannot be said that she was not present on the spot. First Information Report is not an encyclopedia, which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. Material facts have been mentioned in the First Information Report. Medical evidence fully supports the prosecution case. Injuries found on the body of the deceased could be caused by the weapons assigned to the accused-appellants. Doctor conducting the post-mortem report had also supported this fact. Non-examination of the witnesses of the locality by itself may not give rise to adverse inference against the prosecution and does not discredit the cogent and reliable testimony of P.W.1 and P.W.2. Injuries found on the body of the deceased could be caused by the weapons assigned to the accused-appellants. Doctor conducting the post-mortem report had also supported this fact. Non-examination of the witnesses of the locality by itself may not give rise to adverse inference against the prosecution and does not discredit the cogent and reliable testimony of P.W.1 and P.W.2. Accused-appellants have also admitted that there was enmity between the parties. 21. Before proceeding to discuss the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, the findings on material points recorded by the trial Court are quoted here-in-below. (i) The accused persons had caused fire-arm and sharp edged injuries to the deceased Ram Prasad. This fact is supported by the statement of P.W.1 & P.W.2 and also by medical evidence. (ii) There is no material contradiction in the statement of P.W.1 and P.W.2. (iii) The occurrence took place at 7:00 a.m. on the date mentioned in the F.I.R., as has been alleged by the prosecution. (iv) Though P.W.1 Hanuman and P.W. 2 Ganga Devi are the son and daughter of the deceased, but their testimony is free from infirmities and material contradictions. The statements of P.W.1 and P.W.2 are enough to prove the prosecution case beyond any shadow of doubt. Non-examination of the other witnesses is not fatal to the prosecution case. (v) No adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution for the reason that name of Ganga Devi was not specified in the First Information Report. (vi) All the accused-persons were witnesses in the case in which Ram Prasad (deceased) and Hanuman Prasad were the accused and this fact clearly goes to show that they were associated with Mangar (since died). (vii) No adverse inference can also be drawn against the prosecution for the reason that blood stained earth was not sent for chemical examination for the purpose of fixing the situs of assault. (viii) Description of the direction of the field, where the deceased and the witnesses were doing nirai work, has not been correctly made by P.W.1 Hanuman Prasad, but this fact does not demonstrate in any way that he was not working in his field. (ix) The suggestion made by the appellants that the deceased was done to death in the wee hours of the morning when he was returning back after easing himself is not acceptable. (ix) The suggestion made by the appellants that the deceased was done to death in the wee hours of the morning when he was returning back after easing himself is not acceptable. (x) Some variation in the statement of witnesses regarding manner of assault would not affect the prosecution case. (xi) When the deceased was being assaulted by kulhari and pharsa, it would be difficult to assess exactly on which part of the body the weapon hit the deceased. (xii) The First Information Report was lodged promptly. The arguments advanced by the accused that it was too prompt was not acceptable. (xiii) The First Information Report was not lodged in consultation with the police. (xiv) Non-recording of the statement of P.W.2 Ganga Devi at the time stated by her does not go to show that the report was lodged in consultation with the police or that the police had reached the place of occurrence before the F.I.R. was lodged. (xv) Smt. Gulahri, the sister of the deceased had filed an affidavit in support of the appellants, which clearly goes to show that she was won over by the accused and no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution for not examining Smt. Gulahri. 22. Now we take up first of all the First Information Report lodged by the prosecution. In the present matter, offence is said to have been committed on 13.9.1980 at 7:00 a.m. in the village Tikri, P.S. Manjhanpur, the then District Allahabad. First Information Report was lodged on the same day at 8:30 a.m. Distance between the place of occurrence and the police station concerned is five miles. Informant is Hanuman Prasad (P.W.1), who is the son of the deceased. Written report Ex.Ka.-1 was scribed by one Bhaiya Lal. It was the prosecution case that informant got prepared the First Information Report from the scribe Bhaiya Lal thereafter he alongwith village chowkidar proceeded to the police station. Learned counsel for the appellants strenuously argued that offence was said to be committed at 7:00 a.m. in the morning and within 1½ hours, First Information Report was lodged. Referring the time of the offence and the lodging of the First Information Report, it was argued that the First Information Report is too prompt. We have minutely analyzed the submission raised by the learned counsel for the appellants on the point of existence of the First Information Report. Referring the time of the offence and the lodging of the First Information Report, it was argued that the First Information Report is too prompt. We have minutely analyzed the submission raised by the learned counsel for the appellants on the point of existence of the First Information Report. P.W.4, the investigating officer has stated that first informant Hanuman Prasad had come alongwith Bhaiya Lal to the police station to lodge the First Information Report, however P.W.6, constable Raj Kishore Srivastava, who prepared the chick and G.D., had denied this fact. He specifically stated that the informant Hanuman came to the police station alongwith the village chowkidar. Bhaiya Lal was not accompanying him. P.W.1, the informant has also stated that Bhaiya Lal had not gone to the police station. Therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that Bhaiya Lal had also gone to the concerned police station to lodge the First Information Report alongwith P.W.1 Hanuman is not acceptable. The distance between the place of occurrence and the concerned police station, which is only five miles, could easily be covered within an hour by foot. Thus, we are of the view that the time, at which the First Information Report was lodged, is not doubtful or improbable. The existence of the First Information Report at the time mentioned in it is natural and probable. Only on this basis that First Information Report was registered within a span of 1½ hour, it cannot be held that the First Information Report was too prompt. To substantiate his argument, learned counsel for the appellants has also referred to the medical evidence. As per P.W.3 Dr. Anil Kumar, who had conducted the post-mortem on the body of the deceased, found the large and small intestines of the deceased empty. He has also opined that the position of the intestines clearly indicates that the deceased eased himself before the death. In this regard, learned counsel for the appellants has also referred the statement of P.W.1 Hanuman which is as follows : “Hamarey pita us waqt tak tatti vagairah nahi gaye thay aur wah aise he khet par chaley gaye thay.” In the light of arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellants and the rebuttal made by the learned A.G.A., we have perused the record. Medical evidence clearly suggests that both the intestines of the deceased were found empty at the time of post-mortem. P.W.1 Hanuman Prasad has admitted in cross-examination that the deceased had gone to the field without easing himself. Offence, in the instant case, is said to have occurred at 7:00 a.m. P.W.1 Hanuman Prasad, his sister and bua (aunt) alongwith the deceased had gone to the field in the morning at 6:00 a.m. The statement made by P.W.1 Hanuman Prasad that his father had gone to the field without easing himself does not tally with the medical evidence. It might be possible that he has made a wrong statement on this point. But defence has not put any question about the source of knowledge of this fact. The statement of P.W.1 itself on this point is not sufficient to discard the expert opinion of the P.W.3. It is possible that the deceased might have eased in the night. Thus, on this point, prosecution story cannot be disbelieved. So far as the non-mentioning of the name of sister of the informant in the written report is concerned, the informant has clearly mentioned in the written report that he alongwith his sister and bua and as well alongwith his father (deceased) had gone to the field for doing agricultural work. What is required under the law to be mentioned in the First Information Report to initiate the investigation or to set the law in motion has been mentioned by the informant in the First Information Report. The name of his sister and bua (aunt) was disclosed by this witness later on at appropriate stage. On this basis also, the genuineness and existence of the First Information Report cannot be doubted. So far as non-mentioning of the name of the accused-persons, details of the weapons used by them, crime number etc. in the police papers and inquest report are concerned, after going through the record, it is evident that in some papers this fact find place. Similarly, what weapons were used by assailants have also not been shown. Learned A.G.A. has argued that there is no legal requirement to mention these details in the inquest report or the police papers. in the police papers and inquest report are concerned, after going through the record, it is evident that in some papers this fact find place. Similarly, what weapons were used by assailants have also not been shown. Learned A.G.A. has argued that there is no legal requirement to mention these details in the inquest report or the police papers. On perusal of the language used in Section 174 Cr.P.C. and also going through the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Radha Mohan Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 2006 SC 951 , we are of the view that there is no requirement under the law to mention the case crime number, names of the accused-persons, details of the weapons used in committing the crime, details as to how the deceased was assaulted or who assaulted him or under what circumstances etc. Neither in practice nor in law was it necessary for the Police to mention all these details in the inquest report/police papers, as has also been held in Shambhu Das alias Bijoy Das and another v. State of Assam, (2010) 10 SCC 374 . The inquest report is prepared only to ascertain whether the death is homicidal or accidental. If the investigating officer mentions this fact in the inquest report, it would be helpful in proving the case, but if he did not mention these details in the inquest report or the police papers, then only on this ground prosecution case or the First Information Report cannot be doubted. In the instant case, the First Information Report was also doubted by the learned counsel for the appellants on the ground that scribe of the written report was not examined, therefore, time of lodging the First Information Report is not proved. It is pertinent to mention here that it is a clear and consistent case of the prosecution that written report (Ex.Ka.-1) was prepared at the concerned village itself and it was carried by the informant P.W.1 and village chowkidar to the concerned police station. P.W.1 Hanuman has proved the written report to be scribed by Bhaiya Lal. Contents mentioned in the written report were also proved by him, therefore, in our considered view, non-examination of the scribe of the written report will not make the prosecution case doubtful. Genuineness of the First Information Report can also not be doubted on this count. P.W.1 Hanuman has proved the written report to be scribed by Bhaiya Lal. Contents mentioned in the written report were also proved by him, therefore, in our considered view, non-examination of the scribe of the written report will not make the prosecution case doubtful. Genuineness of the First Information Report can also not be doubted on this count. The First Information Report in the instant case was lodged at the time mentioned in the chick. It is not too prompt. The time shown in the chick F.I.R. is the actual time. The police papers, inquest report etc. prepared by the investigating officer as well as the statement recorded by him at the time of registration of the First Information Report also support this fact. Therefore, in our view, contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants on point of existence of the First Information Report is not acceptable. 23. So far as the time of occurrence is concerned, we have discussed here-in-above that stomach of the deceased was found empty at the time of post-mortem. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the deceased was done to death early in the morning when he was returning after easing himself. If the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants are considered in the light of the fact and evidence of the instant case, it is evident that the deceased Ram Prasad, P.W.1 Hanuman, P.W.2 Ganga Devi and one Gulahri (not examined) had gone to carry on the peeling work (nirai) in their field at 6 ‘O clock in the morning. Certainly the deceased might have not eaten anything by that time. Generally, villagers do not eat early in the morning. Position of the stomach/intestine also demonstrates that the deceased might have eased himself. Therefore, on the ground of statement made by P.W.1 that the deceased had not gone to ease before the incident cannot be a ground to discard the prosecution case. It is nowhere asked by the defence/appellants that what was the source of knowledge of P.W.1 to state this fact. Therefore, in our considered view, there is no conflict between the medical evidence and the oral evidence. 24. Here, at this stage, we would also like to refer the other aspects of the medical evidence. It is nowhere asked by the defence/appellants that what was the source of knowledge of P.W.1 to state this fact. Therefore, in our considered view, there is no conflict between the medical evidence and the oral evidence. 24. Here, at this stage, we would also like to refer the other aspects of the medical evidence. Post-mortem was conducted on the dead body of the deceased on 14.9.1980 at 3:30 p.m. Five lacerated wounds and multiple incised wounds were found on the body of the deceased at the time of post-mortem. The doctor conducted the post-mortem has clearly opined that all the injuries found on the body of the deceased could be caused with the use of fire-arms and sharp edged weapons. According to the First Information Report, accused-appellants Sadhu and Bachchan were armed with pharsa, Deshraj was armed with kulhari while Mangar and Lalloo were armed with fire-arms. It is the consistent case of the prosecution that the accused-appellants have inflicted injuries to the deceased with the weapons assigned to them. P.W.3 Dr. Anil Kumar has also clearly opined that injuries No. 1, 2 and 3 could be caused by fire-arm and the other injuries could be caused by the sharp edged weapon. Thus, on close scrutiny of the statement of P.W.1 Hanuman and P.W. 2 Ganga Devi and also the statement of P.W.3 Dr. Anil Kumar, we are also of the view that medical evidence fully supported the ocular testimony of the witnesses. There is no conflict between the medical evidence and oral testimony. Finding recorded by the trial Court in this regard is not interferable. 25. So far as the presence of the witnesses on the spot and the manner of the incident are concerned, P.W.1 Hanuman and P.W.2 Ganga Devi are the son and daughter of the deceased. It has come in the evidence that wife of the deceased had died before the incident. In villages, people usually get up early in the morning and go to their fields for agricultural work. The incident had occurred in the month of September. The appellants have not challenged that the field, in which the deceased and the witnesses were said to be present for carrying nirai work, was not in existence. In villages, people usually get up early in the morning and go to their fields for agricultural work. The incident had occurred in the month of September. The appellants have not challenged that the field, in which the deceased and the witnesses were said to be present for carrying nirai work, was not in existence. Presence of the witnesses and the deceased in the field in the morning at the time of occurrence is also not unnatural or improbable, as we have mentioned above, village people start their work early in the morning. Accused-appellants at first had reached at the paddy field of the deceased, where the witnesses were doing the nirai. Accused-appellants surrounded the deceased. When deceased managed to escape from the clutches of the accused-appellants, he ran towards the village in order to protect himself. Accused-appellants also chased him and again surrounded him near the place of Rameshwar ka Gauda. The witnesses made hue and cry. Accused-appellants Mangar and Lalloo opened fire on the deceased. Sadhoo and Bachchan caused injuries to the deceased by pharsa, while Deshraj and Mangar’s nephew assaulted him with kulhari. Witnesses Mani Ram, Chaube Gaderiya and Rameshwar Kori had also reached there. Accused-appellants exhorted to kill Hanuman (P.W.1) also, but he was saved by his sister and bua (aunt). The second place where the deceased was done to death was situated in the vicinity of the village. The site plan Ex.Ka.-10 also indicates that deceased was done to death near Rameshwar Ka Gauda. There is no contradiction on this point in the statement of P.W.1 Hanuman and P.W.2 Ganga Devi. The investigating officer, who inspected the spot was examined as P.W.4, has also supported this fact. Mere non-disclosing the direction of escaping of P.W.1 Hanuman and P.W.2 Ganga Devi by the investigating officer is not sufficient to discard the statement of these two witnesses on material point. Medical evidence fully supported the prosecution case. Both the eye-witnesses examined by the prosecution are the son and daughter of the deceased. Their mother was not alive. Father was done to death in this incident. It is out of imagination that they would falsely implicate the accused-appellants and allow the actual assailants go scot free. 26. Medical evidence fully supported the prosecution case. Both the eye-witnesses examined by the prosecution are the son and daughter of the deceased. Their mother was not alive. Father was done to death in this incident. It is out of imagination that they would falsely implicate the accused-appellants and allow the actual assailants go scot free. 26. So far as the motive part is concerned, it is pertinent to point out that the motive is something which inspires a man to form an intention to do a particular act. Where the prosecution case rests on the testimony of the eye-witness accounts, motive loses both relevance and significance and even if not proved, is not fatal to the prosecution case, but the legal position is well-settled that if prosecution alleges a specific motive against someone, the same must be proved by the prosecution to the hilt. First motive in the instant case is that when the wife of the deceased was alive, accused-appellant Mangar (since died), who was the maternal uncle (mama) of P.W.1 Hanuman, had given some agricultural land and a house to the deceased, but it was taken back by him, therefore, the relations between the deceased and the accused-appellant Mangar became strained. The second motive was that when appellant Mangar was assaulted by some one in the night at his house, he roped the deceased and P.W.1 in that incident, which led to enmity between them and due to that reason, Mangar alongwith his companions, committed the murder of the deceased. No documentary evidence has been adduced by the prosecution to establish whether any agricultural land had been given to the deceased by the accused-appellant Mangar or not, but P.W.1 and P.W.2 both have consistently stated this fact in their statement. Similarly, in the case lodged against the deceased Ram Prasad and P.W.1 Hanuman, all the accused-appellants were witnesses of that case and this fact was admitted in their statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Since presence of P.W.1 Hanuman and P.W.2 Ganga Devi on the spot at the time of incident was found established beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, non-establishing the motive to the hilt in the present matter will not make the oral testimony of P.W.1 and P.W.2 regarding the time, place and manner of incident unbelievable or impropable. Although, P.W.2 Ganga Devi was already married at the time of incident, but her presence at the place of occurrence cannot be doubted on this ground. Prosecution evidence about her presence on the date, time and place of occurrence is consistent, cogent and clear. This fact was not rebutted by the defence by any evidence. 27. So far as non-examining Gulahri and other witnesses, whose names find place in the written report, is concerned, it appears that an affidavit was filed by Gulahri in support of the defence and she was also relative of the accused Mangar, therefore, her non-examination by the prosecution will also not make the statement of P.W.1 and P.W.2 untrustworthy. Prosecution had also not examined Mani Ram, Chaube Gaderiya and Rameshwar Kori, who reached the spot on hearing the hue and cry of the witnesses. It is true that these witnesses were not examined by the prosecution, but the testimony of P.W.1 and P.W.2 could not be doubted only on this ground. In criminal jurisprudence, it is not required that a large number of witnesses be examined to prove any particular fact. Quantity of the witnesses is not material under the law rather quality, as has been held by the the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Food Inspector v. G. Satyanarayana, AIR 2004 SC 1236 . 28. It can also be safely mentioned here that testimony of P.W.1 Hanuman and P.W.2 Ganga Devi, which are also supported by medical evidence, do not require any corroboration from any other independent witnesses. It is true that P.W.1 Hanuman and P.W.2 Ganga Devi are the relatives of deceased, but their presence on the spot is quite natural. They were present alongwith the deceased from the very beginning in the paddy field. When the deceased ran towards the village to save himself, they also followed him. The testimony of natural and probable witnesses cannot be thrown out or doubted only on the basis that they are the family members of the deceased. P.W.1 Hanuman and P.W.2 Ganga Devi both of them are the eye-witnesses of each and every material fact. Their testimony is corroborated by medical evidence. Close scrutiny of their statement, as required in relation to appreciation of relative witnesses, also does not place them in the category of unbelievable witnesses. P.W.1 Hanuman and P.W.2 Ganga Devi both of them are the eye-witnesses of each and every material fact. Their testimony is corroborated by medical evidence. Close scrutiny of their statement, as required in relation to appreciation of relative witnesses, also does not place them in the category of unbelievable witnesses. Thus, contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants that P.W.1 Hanuman and P.W.2 Ganga Devi cannot be relied upon as they are the relative witnesses, is not acceptable. 29. So far as the false implication of the appellants in the present case, on the basis of earlier case lodged against the deceased and P.W.1 Hanuman by accused Mangar, is concerned, we have discussed here-in-above that father of P.W.1 was done to death. Mother had already died. There was no one in the family except his sister to look after him. Therefore, without any compelling reasons, he will have no reason to falsely implicate innocent persons in a murder case, who have not committed the offence. Enmity tried to establish by the appellants in the cross-examination of the witnesses and narrated in the First Information Report and as well stated by the prosecution witnesses was itself sufficient to commit the present offence by the accused-appellants. Therefore, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants on the point of false implication is also not acceptable. 30. So far as contradictions, omissions, exaggerations, discrepancies occurred in the statement of the eye-witnesses are concerned, the manner of incident itself demonstrates that it was not possible for any witness to recollect the activities of each and every movement of the accused-persons. If there are any contradictions in the manner of using the weapon and exact description of place where the deceased was being beaten and also the place where the other witnesses were present, the testimony of the eye-witnesses cannot be thrown out. P.W.1 and P.W.2 have also made contradictory statement on certain points, but that point does not effect the testimony of these witnesses on material point. 31. So far as the conduct of the investigating officer in not sending the blood stained and plain earth took from the place of occurrence to the Forensic Science Laboratory is concerned, this by itself is not sufficient to disbelieve the place of incident. 31. So far as the conduct of the investigating officer in not sending the blood stained and plain earth took from the place of occurrence to the Forensic Science Laboratory is concerned, this by itself is not sufficient to disbelieve the place of incident. Blood stained and plain earth are taken from the place of occurrence only for the purpose to fix the place of occurrence. In the instant matter, dead body was found at the place where the incident is said to have taken place. Inquest report was prepared at that place. Eye-witnesses have clearly, consistently and categorically stated the place of occurrence near ‘Rameshwar ka Gauda’. 32. It is also pertinent to mention here that any lapses or defects made on the part of the investigating officer will not make any difference until and unless any prejudice is caused to the appellants in defending their case, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of State of Rajasthan v. Bhawani and another, AIR 2003 SCC 3346, Shambhu Das alias Bijoy Das and another v. State of Assam, (2010) 10 SCC 374 and Radha Mohan Singh (supra). 33. So far as the participation of the accused-appellants in the present offence is concerned, in the First Information Report, it was mentioned by the informant that the nephew of Mangar armed with kulhari had also participated in the incident, but he was not charge-sheeted by the investigating officer. It may be noted here that only on this basis, the whole prosecution case cannot be doubted. Only requirement in the matter is that the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 be scrutinized carefully and cautiously, which we have done so to ascertain the truth. P.W.1 and P.W.2 have clearly and consistently stated before the Court that accused-appellants Sadhu (since died) and Bachchan were armed with pharsa, Mangar (since died) and Lalloo were armed with pistols and Deshraj was armed with kulhari. All the accused-appellants reached the first place of occurrence armed with deadly weapons. They tried to catch the deceased, but he escaped and rushed towards the village. All the accused-appellants chased him and again caught him at the second place of occurrence. P.W.1 and P.W.2 also stated that all the accused-appellants caused injury to the deceased with the weapons assigned to them at the second place of occurrence. They tried to catch the deceased, but he escaped and rushed towards the village. All the accused-appellants chased him and again caught him at the second place of occurrence. P.W.1 and P.W.2 also stated that all the accused-appellants caused injury to the deceased with the weapons assigned to them at the second place of occurrence. Deceased died on the spot due to injuries received by him in the said incident. 34. The statement of P.W.3 Dr. Anil Kumar also supported the prosecution case. Injuries found on the body of the deceased could be caused with the use of pharsa, kulhari and country made pistol. 35. It is immaterial in the present matter that prosecution witnesses have not clearly and specifically described the actual number of blows/fire caused by each and every accused-appellants to the deceased. But it is clear that all the accused-appellants surrounded the deceased at the second place of occurrence and the accused-appellants armed with fire-arms had opened fire on the deceased and the accused-appellants armed with pharsa and kulhari had caused injuries to the deceased with their respective weapons. 36. As we have mentioned in the earlier portion of the judgment that by and large a witness cannot be expected to possess an exact memory and to recall the details of an incident, the exact position of standing of the accused, deceased and exact number of fire or blows made by them upon the deceased at the time of incident. In this context, usually, people make their estimates by guess work. In the instant case, P.W.1 and P.W.2 are the son and daughter of the deceased. The incident took place in such a manner in which it was not possible for them to recall accurately the sequence of events and the activities of each and every accused-appellants. 37. Thus, we are of the view that all the accused-appellants have participated in committing the present offence and the statements of P.W.1 Hanuman and P.W.2 Ganga Devi on this point are clear, coherent and consistent and fully support the prosecution version. Injuries found on the body of the deceased also support the prosecution case. There is no conflict between the medical evidence and oral testimony. Finding recorded by the trial Court regarding the participation of the appellants is well reasoned. Accused were five in numbers. They have formed an unlawful assembly. Injuries found on the body of the deceased also support the prosecution case. There is no conflict between the medical evidence and oral testimony. Finding recorded by the trial Court regarding the participation of the appellants is well reasoned. Accused were five in numbers. They have formed an unlawful assembly. The common object of unlawful assembly was to commit the murder of the deceased Ram Prasad. All the accused-appellants in furtherance of common object of unlawful assembly have caused fatal injuries to the deceased resulting into his death. Accused-appellants were armed with deadly weapons, therefore, trial Court has rightly held guilty to them under Sections 302 read with 149 IPC and 148 IPC. Finding recorded by the trial Court do not require any interference by this this Court. 38. In view of the foregoing discussions and on close scrutiny of the entire evidence, we are of the considered view that impugned judgment and order passed by the trial Court does not suffer from any illegality, infirmity or perversity. Findings recorded by the trial Court are based on the evidence available on record and also on settled legal proposition of law. Trial Court has not committed any error of law or fact in convicting and sentencing the accused-appellants under the aforesaid offence. 39. Consequently the appeal being bereft of any merit is hereby dismissed. The conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court against the accused-appellants Lalloo, Bachchan and Desraj is affirmed. Since these accused-appellants are on bail, their bail bonds are cancelled. All the accused-appellants are hereby directed to surrender before the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned forthwith to serve out the remaining sentence imposed upon them. Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned is also directed to take coercive steps if the accused-appellants fail to surrender. 40. The record of the trial Court alongwith copy of the judgment be sent to the Court concerned and Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned for immediate compliance. Compliance report be also submitted to this Court. ———————