JUDGMENT : Hon'ble Shashi Kant Gupta, J. (Delivered by Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII, J.) Both the aforementioned connected appeals have been filed against the judgment and order dated 6.5.1982 passed by IV Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Kanpur in Sessions Trial No. 351 of 1981 (State Vs. Jaswant Singh and Others). Since both these appeals have been heard together, we proceed to decide the same by a common judgment. Accused-appellant Sukhai Singh was convicted under Sections 302 read with 34 I.P.C. and was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment whereas accused-appellant Deo Singh was convicted under Sections 302 IPC and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. Accused Jaswant Singh and Bishambhar Singh were given benefit of doubt and they were acquitted from the charges levelled against them. It was reported by the learned A.G.A. that no State Appeal has been filed against acquittal. The facts giving rise to these appeals are that on 7.8.1981 informant Surendra Singh son of Jagdev Singh, resident of Village Raipur, P.S. Akbarpur, District Kanpur gave a written report (Ex.Ka-1) at police station Akbarpur, District Kanpur Dehat with the averments that in his village Raipur, on 6.8.1981, a cycle show was going on. Jaipal Singh, brother of the informant, was watching the said show wherein Deo Singh son of Jaswant Singh was also present, who desisted the organizer and stated that he would not allow the show to go on. On this, Jaipal put pressure on Deo Singh and again the show was started, whereupon Deo Singh did marpeet with Jaipal. At that juncture, one Mahaveer Gupta intervened in the matter to save Jaipal. In the meantime, Jagdev Singh, father of the informant, also reached there and warned Deo Singh. Accused Deo Singh went away from there extending threats of dire consequences. On 7.8.1981 at about 7:00 A.M., when Jagdev Singh, father of the informant, was coming back to village after attending the nature's call and as and when he reached near the shop of barber Mohan Lal, accused Deo Singh armed with a pharsa, Jaswant Singh armed with a barchhi, Bishambhar Singh armed with a gun and Sukhai Singh armed with a lathi surrounded him. They challenged Jagdev Singh saying that he had insulted Deo Singh before the villagers, therefore, they would not spare him alive. Bishambhar directed their companions to kill Jagdev Singh. They challenged Jagdev Singh saying that he had insulted Deo Singh before the villagers, therefore, they would not spare him alive. Bishambhar directed their companions to kill Jagdev Singh. On his exhortation, rest of the three accused persons started assaulting Jagdev Singh. On hearing the hue and cry, the informant Surendra Singh, Chhunni Singh, Sheo Raj Singh, Awadhesh Singh, Kedar Mali, Mahaveer Gupta and other villagers arrived at the scene of occurrence and witnessed the incident. None of the witnesses due to fear of assailants came to his rescue. After assaulting Jagdev Singh with pharsa, barchhi, lathi and assuming him to be dead, all the four accused persons fled away towards the riverside. After the accused persons left the place of occurrence, the witnesses came near Jagdev Singh and found him barely breathing. Jagdev Singh was lying in a pool of blood with multiple injuries and consequently succumbed to his injuries while he was being taken for treatment to Kanpur in a truck. The informant Surendra Singh went to the police station with dead body of the deceased Jagdev Singh in the same truck. As per the informant, this incident took place at the instigation of Kaka Dev, the elder son-in-law of accused Jaswant Singh. On the basis of this report (Ex.Ka-1) written by Rajjan and submitted by the informant Surendra Singh, on 7.8.1981 at 10:00 A.M. chick first information report Ex.Ka.-3 was registered under Sections 304 IPC at case crime no.278 against the accused persons at P.S. Akbarpur, District Kanpur Dehat. An entry in the G.D. was also made by the Moharrir Anek Singh (P.W.6), who prepared the chick report, on the same day at Rapat No.12 which is Ex.Ka.-4. The distance between the place of occurrence and the police station was about 10 miles. Investigation of the case was entrusted to S.I. Ajan Singh (P.W.7), who was posted as Chowki Incharge, Rania, P.S. Akbarpur. Since the dead body of the deceased was kept outside the police station, he started inquest proceedings on the dead body of the deceased Jagdev Singh. He prepared the inquest report Ex. Ka-5, photo lash Ex. Ka-6, challan lash Ex. Ka.-7 and letters to C.M.O. for postmortem examination Ex. Ka.-8 & Ex. Ka.-9. Thereafter, the dead body of the deceased was sealed and sent for postmortem through the police constables Beerbal Singh and Uma Shanker after completing necessary formalities. He prepared the inquest report Ex. Ka-5, photo lash Ex. Ka-6, challan lash Ex. Ka.-7 and letters to C.M.O. for postmortem examination Ex. Ka.-8 & Ex. Ka.-9. Thereafter, the dead body of the deceased was sealed and sent for postmortem through the police constables Beerbal Singh and Uma Shanker after completing necessary formalities. The investigating officer recorded the statement of the informant Surendra Kumar and head constable Anek Singh at the concerned police station. Thereafter, he visited the place of occurrence and recorded the statements of witnesses Kedar Mali, Shivraj Singh and Mahaveer Gupta there and inspected the place of occurrence and prepared the site plan (Ex.Ka.-10). On the same day, he took into his possession the blood stained and plain earth from the place of occurrence, kept it in separate containers and prepared the fard Ex.Ka-11. In the next morning he recorded the statement of witnesses Chhuni Singh, Awadhesh Singh, Rajjan and Mohan barber. Accused Jaswant Singh was arrested while the other three accused Sukhai Singh, Bishambhar Singh and Deo Singh surrendered before the Court. Dr. Satish Chandra, (P.W.5) conducted the post mortem on the dead body of the deceased Jagdev Singh on 8.8..1981 at 12:15 P.M. As per postmortem report, deceased was aged about 50 years. He was of average built. Duration of death was about 1½ day. Rigor mortis was present in lower limbs, passed off from upper limbs. Postmortem staining was also present on the back and on buttock. The following antemortem injuries were found on the dead body of the deceased Jagdev Singh : (i) Incised wound 3 cm. X 2 cm. X bone cut deep on right side of scalp 8 cm. above from halex of rigth ear. (ii)Incised wound 13 cm. X 3 cm. X bone cut deep on right side neck, 3 cm. Below right ear. (iii) Contusion 6 cm. X 3 cm. on outer side of left upper arm middle part. (iv) Contusion 3 cm. X 3 cm. on base of left thumb. (v) Contusion 1 cm. X 1 cm. on back of right forearm middle part. (vi) Abrasion 4 cm. X 1 cm. on outer side of right thigh upper part. On internal examination, scalp bone was found cut at level of injury no.1. Membranes of brain were found congested. Vertebrae was found cut. Trachea was found cut under injury no.2. Both lungs were pale and heart was empty. on back of right forearm middle part. (vi) Abrasion 4 cm. X 1 cm. on outer side of right thigh upper part. On internal examination, scalp bone was found cut at level of injury no.1. Membranes of brain were found congested. Vertebrae was found cut. Trachea was found cut under injury no.2. Both lungs were pale and heart was empty. Oesophagus was found cut underneath injury no.2. Stomach was empty. Small and large intestine were half full with gases. Bladder was empty. According to the doctor, death of the deceased had occurred on account of shock and haemorrhage with respiratory failure. The postmortem report is marked as Ex.Ka-2. After completing investigation, the investigating officer submitted the charge-sheet (Ex.Ka.-12) against all the four accused persons named above. Concerned Magistrate took the cognizance in the matter. Case, being exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial where charges against all the accused-appellants were framed by the trial Court under Section 302 read with 34 IPC to which the accused-appellants denied and claimed their trial. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses. P.W.1 Surendra Singh, the informant, who claimed himself to be an eyewitness of the incident occurred on 6.8.1981 and 7.8.1981. He also proved the written report (Ex.Ka.-1) as well as the material Ex.Kha-1, 2 and 3 i.e. Dhoti, Baniyan and Angochha found on the body of the deceased. P.W.2 Mahaveer Gupta also claimed himself to be an eyewitness of both the incidents. P.W.3 Constable Vir Bal Singh, who had carried the dead body of the deceased for postmortem. P.W.4 Awadhesh Singh, who also claimed himself to be an eyewitness of the incident took place on 7.8.1981. P.W.5 Dr. Satish Chandra, who had conducted the postmortem of the deceased and prepared the postmortem report (Ex.Ka.-2). P.W.6 Moharrir Anek Singh, the chick (Ex.Ka.-3) and G.D. (Ex.Ka.-4) writer. P.W.7 S.I. Ajan Singh, who had prepared the inquest report and police papers (Exs. Ka-5 to Ka.-9). He had also inspected the place of occurrence and prepared the site plan Ex.Ka.-10. After taking the blood stained and plain earth from the place of occurrence, memo (Ex.Ka.-11) was also prepared by this witness. He had also submitted the charge-sheet (Ex.Ka.-12). After conclusion of the prosecution evidence, statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. of the accused-appellants were recorded by the trial Court. After taking the blood stained and plain earth from the place of occurrence, memo (Ex.Ka.-11) was also prepared by this witness. He had also submitted the charge-sheet (Ex.Ka.-12). After conclusion of the prosecution evidence, statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. of the accused-appellants were recorded by the trial Court. Accused-appellants Deo Singh in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has admitted the relations (father-son, cousin brothers) between the appellants, but denied the prosecution case, as narrated in the first information report and as deposed by the witnesses in their statements. He showed ignorance about the first information report, inquest report and other police papers. Noting was uttered by this appellant regarding the postmortem report. He has specifically stated that he has not committed the present offence. Witnesses have deposed against him before the Court due to enmity. Witnesses examined by the prosecution were the relatives of the deceased. He has specifically stated that there were inimical terms between this appellant and Kedar Mali. Deceased and Kedar Mali were very close to each other. Witness Awadhesh Singh had enticed away a girl belonging to the family of this appellant. On which, he and his father scolded him due to which he was inimical to him. Awadhesh Singh was relative of the informant Surendra Singh. At one point of time, before this incident, an occurrence of marpeet took place between the witness Mahaveer and this appellant. Due to the reasons mentioned above, the witnesses have deposed against him. Accused-appellant Sukhai has more or less stated the same fact. This accused has also categorically stated that he was falsely implicated in this case due to animosity. Accused-appellants did not adduce any oral evidence, but filed the certified copy of the N.C.R. No.204 under Sections 504, 506 IPC regarding the occurrence took place on 23.6.1980, original copy of the sale deed dated 14.10.1976, certified copy of the N.C.R. No.256 under Section 323 IPC regarding the incident occurred on 30.7.1980, and certified copy of the plaint (Ex.Kha-1) filed by Bishambhar Singh against Jaswant Singh. We have heard Sri Dileep Kumar assisted by Sri Nitin Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Dheeraj Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the complainant, Sri Narendra Kumar Singh Yadav, learned A.G.A. for the State and have also gone through the entire record. We have heard Sri Dileep Kumar assisted by Sri Nitin Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Dheeraj Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the complainant, Sri Narendra Kumar Singh Yadav, learned A.G.A. for the State and have also gone through the entire record. Assailing the impugned judgment and order, Sri Dileep Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants strenuously argued that the first information report was not in existence in the matter at the date and time mentioned in it. It was prepared after due deliberation and consultation. Special report was not sent by the police as required under law. Motive attributed to the appellants was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. P.W.1 Surendra Singh, P.W.2 Mahaveer Gupta, P.W.4 Awadhesh Singh were not the eyewitness accounts. They have not witnessed the occurrence. They were also not present at the time of the occurrence which took place on 6.8.1981. The independent witnesses were not examined by the prosecution. Place of occurrence was also not established. The said eyewitness accounts are the interested and relative witnesses. Medical evidence is in conflict with the oral testimony. Investigating officer has not investigated the matter fairly and properly. There are major contradictions in the statements of witnesses with regard to manner of assault on deceased by the appellants and the time of incident and place from where the witnesses had seen the incident. The aforesaid completely demolished the prosecution case. Manner of incident was also not established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. It was lastly argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that co-accused Bishambhar and Jaswant, who were assigned gun and barchhi, have been acquitted of the charges levelled against them extending the benefit of doubt. Since role assigned to the appellant Sukhai is also on similar footings, therefore, he is also entitled to be acquitted on the same ground. Accused-appellant Sukhai was juvenile in conflict with law on the date and time of the offence. Therefore, he is also entitled to the benefit of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. Learned A.G.A. for the State rebutting the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that P.W.1 Surendra Singh, P.W.2 Mahaveer Gupta and P.W.4 Awadhesh Singh are the natural and probable witnesses. Only on the basis that P.W.1 Surendra Singh and P.W. 4 Awadhesh Singh are relatives of the deceased, their testimony cannot be discarded. Learned A.G.A. for the State rebutting the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that P.W.1 Surendra Singh, P.W.2 Mahaveer Gupta and P.W.4 Awadhesh Singh are the natural and probable witnesses. Only on the basis that P.W.1 Surendra Singh and P.W. 4 Awadhesh Singh are relatives of the deceased, their testimony cannot be discarded. Deceased was one of the attesting witnesses in the sale deed executed in favour of P.W.2 Mahaveer Gupta, but this fact alone is not sufficient to disbelieve his testimony. The medical evidence fully supported the prosecution version. On the ground of acquittal of the co-accused Bishambhar Singh and Jaswant Singh, accused-appellant Sukhai cannot get any benefit. Medical evidence clearly suggests that injuries found on the body of the deceased were caused by the accused-appellants from the weapons assigned to them. There was no ground to falsely implicate the accused-appellants. Contradictions, omissions, exaggeration etc. occurred in the statements of the witnesses have no significance. Laches/lapses made on the part of the investigating officer are also not of such nature to disbelieve the statement of the eyewitness accounts and medical evidence. Trial Court's findings regarding date, time and place of occurrence and the participation of the accused-appellants in the present offence are based on evidence available on record and sound reasoning. Since no documentary evidence in support of the argument advanced regarding juvenility has been adduced by the accused-appellant Sukhai, therefore, plea taken by him is not acceptable. We have considered the submissions raised by the rival parties. Before proceeding to discuss the submissions advanced by the parties in consonance with the evidence available on record, we would prefer to first quote the finding of the trial Court on material points :- (i) Prosecution was able to establish the motive attributed to the accused-appellants. (ii) P.W.1 Surendra Singh, P.W.2 Mahaveer Gupta and P.W.4 Awadhesh Singh were the eyewitness accounts. Their testimony finds support with the medical evidence. (iii) Genesis of occurrence was quarrel which took place on 6.8.1981 while cycle show was being performed in the village. (iv) Medical evidence is not in conflict with the oral testimony. (v) Food material found in the intestines does not falsify the prosecution case. (vi) Relations and enmity elucidated by the appellants does not place the eyewitness as untrustworthy. (vii) The first information report was lodged without delay at the time mentioned in the chick. (iv) Medical evidence is not in conflict with the oral testimony. (v) Food material found in the intestines does not falsify the prosecution case. (vi) Relations and enmity elucidated by the appellants does not place the eyewitness as untrustworthy. (vii) The first information report was lodged without delay at the time mentioned in the chick. (viii) Date, time and place of occurrence were found established from the prosecution evidence beyond reasonable doubt. (ix) Non-examination of all the witnesses said to have witnessed the incident would not affect the credibility of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.4. (x) First information report was prepared outside the police station without any consultation with the police. (xi) The injuries found on the body of the deceased could be caused with the weapon assigned to the accused-appellants. Now, we will take up the submissions raised by the accused-appellant Sukhai regarding juvenility. It was urged by the learned counsel for the appellant - Sukhai that age of the appellant Sukhai has been mentioned in the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as 18 years. Offence is said to have been committed on 7.8.1981, therefore, the age of the appellant Sukhai on the date of offence will be less than 18 years. Therefore, he will get concession given to the juvenile in conflict with law under the provisions of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. We have closely scrutinized the entire evidence. A perusal of the statement of the accused-appellant Sukhai recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. shows that he claimed that he was aged about 18 years at the time of recording of the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Offence is said to have been committed in the year 1981. Neither Juvenile Justice Act,1986 nor the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 was in existence at the time of the offence. Only Children Act, 1960 was in existence and was applicable. Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 defines the age of the Juvenile as 16 years, but in view of the legislation enacted in the year 2000, the age of the juvenile was increased as 18 years. Section 7 A of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2000 provides that plea of juvenility can be raised before any Court at any stage of the matter. Even after conclusion of the trial, the plea of juvenility may be raised. Section 7 A of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2000 provides that plea of juvenility can be raised before any Court at any stage of the matter. Even after conclusion of the trial, the plea of juvenility may be raised. Section 7 A of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') provides as under : "7A. Procedure to be followed when claim of juvenility is raised before any court.-- (1) Whenever a claim of juvenility is raised before any court or a court is of the opinion that an accused person was a juvenile on the date of commission of the offence, the court shall make an inquiry, take such evidence as may be necessary (but not an affidavit) so as to determine the age of such person, and shall record a finding whether the person is a juvenile or a child or not, stating his age as nearly as may be: Provided that a claim of juvenility may be raised before any court and it shall be recognised at any stage, even after final disposal of the case, and such claim shall be determined in terms of the provisions contained in this Act and the rules made thereunder, even if the juvenile has ceased to be so on or before the date of commencement of this Act. (2) If the court finds a person to be a juvenile on the date of commission of the offence under sub-section (1), it shall forward the juvenile to the Board for passing appropriate order, and the sentence if any, passed by a court shall be deemed to have no effect." As per the provisions of Section 7A of the Act, when an application, raising the plea of juvenility of the accused, was raised before the trial court, the trial court was bound to hold an inquiry under Section 7A of the Act. Thus, it is clear that the plea raised by the learned counsel for the appellants regarding juvenility at this stage is maintainable. Only question that has to be considered is whether on the basis of mere oral submission and the age recorded in the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the Court will have to proceed for inquiry to ascertain the actual age. Only question that has to be considered is whether on the basis of mere oral submission and the age recorded in the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the Court will have to proceed for inquiry to ascertain the actual age. Certainly, on perusal of the record, no oral or documentary evidence in support of the age shown in the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was found, even the appellant has not adduced any oral or documentary evidence at this stage. It appears that the age of the appellant Sukhai was shown in the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on the basis of estimation. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Abuzar Hossain alias Gulam Hossain Versus State of West Bengal, 2012 Volume 10 SCC 489 has held in paragraph 39 as under. 39. Now, we summarise the position which is as under: (i) A claim of juvenility may be raised at any stage even after the final disposal of the case. It may be raised for the first time before this Court as well after final disposal of the case. The delay in raising the claim of juvenility cannot be a ground for rejection of such claim. The claim of juvenility can be raised in appeal even if not pressed before the trial court and can be raised for the first time before this Court though not pressed before the trial court and in appeal court. (ii) For making a claim with regard to juvenility after conviction, the claimant must produce some material which may prima facie satisfy the court that an inquiry into the claim of juvenility is necessary. Initial burden has to be discharged by the person who claims juvenility. (iii) As to what materials would prima facie satisfy the court and/or are sufficient for discharging the initial burden cannot be catalogued nor can it be laid down as to what weight should be given to a specific piece of evidence which may be sufficient to raise presumption of juvenility but the documents referred to in Rule 12(3)(a)(i) to (iii) shall definitely be sufficient for prima facie satisfaction of the court about the age of the delinquent necessitating further enquiry under Rule 12. The statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code is too tentative and may not by itself be sufficient ordinarily to justify or reject the claim of juvenility. The statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code is too tentative and may not by itself be sufficient ordinarily to justify or reject the claim of juvenility. The credibility and/or acceptability of the documents like the school leaving certificate or the voters' list, etc. obtained after conviction would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no hard and fast rule can be prescribed that they must be prima facie accepted or rejected. In Akbar Sheikh and Pawan these documents were not found prima facie credible while in Jitendra Singh the documents viz., school leaving certificate, marksheet and the medical report were treated sufficient for directing an inquiry and verification of the appellant's age. If such documents prima facie inspire confidence of the court, the court may act upon such documents for the purposes of Section 7A and order an enquiry for determination of the age of the delinquent. (iv) An affidavit of the claimant or any of the parents or a sibling or a relative in support of the claim of juvenility raised for the first time in appeal or revision or before this Court during the pendency of the matter or after disposal of the case shall not be sufficient justifying an enquiry to determine the age of such person unless the circumstances of the case are so glaring that satisfy the judicial conscience of the court to order an enquiry into determination of age of the delinquent. (v) The court where the plea of juvenility is raised for the first time should always be guided by the objectives of the 2000 Act and be alive to the position that the beneficent and salutary provisions contained in 2000 Act are not defeated by hyper-technical approach and the persons who are entitled to get benefits of 2000 Act get such benefits. The courts should not be unnecessarily influenced by any general impression that in schools the parents/guardians understate the age of their wards by one or two years for future benefits or that age determination by medical examination is not very precise. The matter should be considered prima facie on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. (vi) Claim of juvenility lacking in credibility or frivolous claim of juvenility or patently absurd or inherently improbable claim of juvenility must be rejected by the court at threshold whenever raised. The matter should be considered prima facie on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. (vi) Claim of juvenility lacking in credibility or frivolous claim of juvenility or patently absurd or inherently improbable claim of juvenility must be rejected by the court at threshold whenever raised. Thus, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Abuzar Hossain alias Gulam Hossain (supra), we are of the view that age recorded in the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is on the basis of estimation of the trial Court and it is tentative one. There is no documentary or oral evidence on record to support the claim. Appellant has not established even prima facie case warranting any enquiry with regard to age of the appellant Sukhai. Thus, we do not find any necessity to proceed to enquire the age of the appellant Sukhai. We are, therefore, of the view that the appellant Sukhai has failed to establish his juvenility on the date of occurrence of the crime i.e. 7.8.1981. Hence, he is not juvenile in conflict with law. The plea taken by the appellant in this regard is not acceptable. Now the Court proceeds to take up the motive part and the incident said to have been taken place on 6.8.1981. It is the prosecution case that on 6.8.1981, a cycle show was going on in the field in front of the hospital in the village. Accused-appellant Deo Singh forced the organizer to stop the show. Thereupon, Jaipal Singh, the brother of the informant, intervened in the matter and restrained accused-appellant Deo Singh from stopping the show. As a result, accused-appellant Deo Singh started beating Jaipal. Jagdev Singh (deceased), father of the informant, also reached there and warned Deo Singh. Witnesses present there also intervened in the matter. Accused Deo Singh went away from there making threatening utterances. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that P.W.1 Surendra Singh and P.W.2 Mahaveer Gupta both were not present at the time of incident occurred on 6.8.1981. Investigating officer had not inspected this place and no evidence was collected by him, therefore, the motive attributed to the accused-appellants for committing the present offence was not proved. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that P.W.1 Surendra Singh and P.W.2 Mahaveer Gupta both were not present at the time of incident occurred on 6.8.1981. Investigating officer had not inspected this place and no evidence was collected by him, therefore, the motive attributed to the accused-appellants for committing the present offence was not proved. If the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the parties are compared with the evidence available on record, it is apparent that P.W.1 Surendra Singh in the first information report itself has mentioned that he was also present at the time of incident which was occurred on 6.8.1981. P.W.2 Mahaveer Gupta was also present there. He intervened in the matter. By merely not lodging any first information report regarding the incident occurred on 6.8.1981itself is not sufficient to throw the evidence of the witnesses. If the investigating officer had not recorded the statement of the organizer of the show and not inspected the place where the show was going on or not prepared any site plan, the testimony of P.W.1 Surendra Singh and P.W.2 Mahaveer Gupta regarding this incident cannot be disbelieved. Trial Court's view that the prosecution was able to establish the incident happened on 6.8.1981, is based on the evidence available on record and the plea taken by the learned counsel for the appellants is not acceptable. So far as presence of the said eyewitness accounts Surendra Singh (P.W.1), Mahaveer Gupta (P.W.2) and Awadhesh Singh (P.W.4) on the date, time and place of occurrence is concerned, it is an admitted fact that P.W.1 was working as muneem at the brick kiln and he was returning to his village at the time of occurrence dated 7.8.1981. Incident 7.8.1981, in which injuries were caused to the deceased, had occurred in front of the flour mill of P.W.2. It is also the case of the prosecution that P.W.4 was also returning after attending the call of nature. Other witnesses mentioned in the first information report, who have not been examined by the prosecution, were also sitting at the tea stall near the place of occurrence. P.W.4 had also reached near the gumti of Raj Kumar. Deceased was also returning after easing himself and he reached near the shop of Mohan Barber. Other witnesses mentioned in the first information report, who have not been examined by the prosecution, were also sitting at the tea stall near the place of occurrence. P.W.4 had also reached near the gumti of Raj Kumar. Deceased was also returning after easing himself and he reached near the shop of Mohan Barber. The shop of Mohan Barber was adjacent to the flour mill of P.W.2, as is clear from the site plan (Ex.Ka.-10). It is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that P.W.1 was a chance witness. It is quite improbable and unnatural that this witness would remain sitting on the spot as a mute spectator and not respond at the time of incident when his father was being beaten by the accused-appellants. Learned counsel while referring to the medical evidence has also argued that as per medical evidence, both the intestines of the deceased were half full, therefore, it will be presumed that the deceased might had not eased himself. To analyze the submission raised by the learned counsel for the parties and to ascertain the presence of the said eyewitness accounts at the time of occurrence, we have closely scrutinized the statements of the eyewitness accounts and the medical evidence. At the outset, it is made here clear that although doctor conducting the postmortem opined that both the intestines were half full, but it was also mentioned in the postmortem report that bladder was empty. If these two facts are taken into consideration in consonance with the submission raised by the learned counsel for the appellants, it emerge that the deceased certainly had eased himself because bladder was found empty. It is immaterial whether the intestines were empty or not. The view taken by us also finds support with the opinion expressed by P.W.5 Dr. Satish Chandra that the death of the deceased could have caused after 6:00 A.M. Thus, regarding the time of the death, there is no conflict between oral testimony and medical evidence. So far as the presence of P.W.1 Surendra Singh is concerned, certainly he had not reacted at the time of incident and claimed himself to be present on the spot, but it has also come in the evidence that he was not accompanying the deceased. He was at some distance from the deceased at the time of incident. So far as the presence of P.W.1 Surendra Singh is concerned, certainly he had not reacted at the time of incident and claimed himself to be present on the spot, but it has also come in the evidence that he was not accompanying the deceased. He was at some distance from the deceased at the time of incident. Similarly, P.W.4 Awadhesh Singh was also present at some distance. P.W.1 and P.W.4 are the relatives of the deceased, but this fact alone is not sufficient to discard their testimony. Relationship and interestedness are two distinct facets. Relative witnesses can be distinguished with the interested witnesses. Interested witnesses are those who want to derive some benefit out of the litigation / case. Thus, on this basis, the testimony of the interested witnesses cannot be disbelieved. Only requirement under the law is that testimony of these closely related witnesses be scrutinized carefully and cautiously, as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gangabhavani vs. Rayapati Venkat Reddy and others, JT 2013 (12) SC 117. On close scrutiny of the statement of P.W.1 Surendra Singh and P.W.4 Awadhesh Singh, it is clear that both the witnesses were present on the spot at the time of occurrence. Contradiction in the statement on the points of blow caused by the accused-appellants and the exact place from where the accused-appellants were causing blow upon the deceased and also the exact position of the deceased at the time of occurrence are bound to occur. Not responding or not reacting immediately, to save the deceased, by these two witnesses will also not place them as unworthy of credence or it cannot be held that they were not present on the spot at the time of occurrence, particularly when the depositions made by them are supported from the medical evidence. It is also established from the prosecution evidence that incident dated 7.8.1981 had happened due to alleged threat made by accused-appellant Deo Singh on 6.8.1981. Thus, motive to commit the offence dated 7.8.1981 was a threat extended by accused-appellant Deo Singh, as mentioned above. Flour mill of P.W.2 Mahaveer Gupta was situated near the place of occurrence. Incident is said to have been taken place in front of the shop of Mohan barber. As we have mentioned here-in-above that flour mill of P.W.2 was situated adjacent to the shop of Mohan barber. Flour mill of P.W.2 Mahaveer Gupta was situated near the place of occurrence. Incident is said to have been taken place in front of the shop of Mohan barber. As we have mentioned here-in-above that flour mill of P.W.2 was situated adjacent to the shop of Mohan barber. Distance shown in the site plan (Ex.Ka.-10) between the place of occurrence and the flour mill of P.W.2 is such that he could easily witness the occurrence from his flour mill. It is immaterial whether the flour mill and the shops situated near the place of occurrence were opened at the time of occurrence or not. It was morning hours. Certainly shops/mill were not opened at that time except the tea stalls. Plea raised by the learned counsel for the appellants that P.W.2 Mahaveer Gupta had made false statement against the accused-appellants on the basis of enmity and he is a partisan witness is also not acceptable. P.W.2 admitted that about 3 - 4 months earlier to the the incident in question, accused-appellant Deo Singh had beaten him, but he did not lodge any complaint of that incident. It has also come in the evidence that deceased was one of the witnesses in the sale deed executed in favour of P.W.2 Mahaveer Gupta, but all these facts raised by the learned counsel for the appellants are not sufficient to hold that P.W.2 was making false statement due to his inimical terms with accused-appellants. It is also pertinent to mention here that he would not invite enmity with the appellant side by making false statement. Thus, in our considered view, P.W.2 Mahaveer Gupta was present at his flour mill at the time of incident. He saw the incident and had kept the dead body of the deceased on the cot. If the investigating officer has not taken into custody the cot on which the deceased was kept lying and did not collect the blood stained thread, then on this ground, the statement of P.W.2 does not become doubtful. He saw the incident and had kept the dead body of the deceased on the cot. If the investigating officer has not taken into custody the cot on which the deceased was kept lying and did not collect the blood stained thread, then on this ground, the statement of P.W.2 does not become doubtful. On close scrutiny of the entire prosecution evidence and comparing it with the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and also comparing it with the finding recorded by the trial Court, we are of the view that learned Court below has rightly held that P.W.1 Surendra Singh, P.W.2 Mahaveer Gupta and P.W.4 Awadhesh Singh are the natural and probable witnesses and they were present on the spot at the time of occurrence and have seen the occurrence. So far as the existence of the first information report in the present matter is concerned, offence is said to have been committed on 7.8.1981 at 7:00 A.M. Distance between the place of occurrence and the concerned police station is about 10 miles. F.I.R. was lodged on the same day at 10:00 A.M. It is the case of the prosecution that the deceased was alive at the time of incident, therefore, he was taken by the prosecution witnesses for treatment after arranging a truck, but he died on the way, therefore, they proceeded to the concerned police station keeping the dead body on the truck itself. Written report (Ex.Ka.-1) was prepared just outside the police station and it was submitted by P.W.1 Surendra Singh, on the basis of which the first information report was registered. The fact that whether P.W.4 Awadhesh Singh was present at the time of lodging of the first information report or not is immaterial. P.W.1 Surendra Singh, P.W.4 Awadhesh Singh and P.W.6 Anek Singh - the chick writer have clearly and consistently stated before the Court that written report was prepared just outside the concerned police station. No assistance or deliberation was made by the police in preparation of the written report. Thus, we are also of the view that there is no delay in lodging the first information report. No deliberation or consultation was provided by the police in preparing the written report. Finding recorded by the trial Court on this point is in accordance with the evidence available on record. No interference is required by this Court in this finding. Thus, we are also of the view that there is no delay in lodging the first information report. No deliberation or consultation was provided by the police in preparing the written report. Finding recorded by the trial Court on this point is in accordance with the evidence available on record. No interference is required by this Court in this finding. It is also established from the prosecution evidence that inquest report was prepared outside the concerned police station where the dead body was kept by the prosecution witnesses. Other police papers have also been prepared while preparing the postmortem report. Non-sending of the special report immediately to the concerned Magistrate by the police will not make any difference in the present matter. This may be a lapse on the part of the police not going to the root of the prosecution case and do not demolish the testimony of the eyewitness accounts and the medical evidence. So far as the conduct of the witnesses said to be present on the spot at the time of occurrence is concerned, it is to be noted here that every person who witnesses a murder reacts in his own way. Some are stunned, become speechless and stand rooted to the spot. Some become hysteric and start wailing. Some start shouting for help. Others run away to keep themselves as far removed from the spot as possible. Yet others rush to the rescue of the victim, even going to the extent of counter-attacking the assailants. Every one reacts in his own special way. There is no set rule of natural reaction. Different persons admittedly seeing an event give different versions of the same incident and usually it varies to a considerable extent. No hard and fast rule regarding the conduct of the witnesses at the time of occurrence can be laid down. Every case has to be decided on the strength of the facts and evidence adduced in the matter. So far as the medical evidence is concerned, the doctor conducting the postmortem has found incised and lacerated wounds on the body of the deceased. Two co-accused Jaswant Singh and Bishambhar Singh have been acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge on the ground that no injuries on the body of the deceased were found said to have been caused by the weapon barchhi and gun assigned to them. Two co-accused Jaswant Singh and Bishambhar Singh have been acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge on the ground that no injuries on the body of the deceased were found said to have been caused by the weapon barchhi and gun assigned to them. It is clear and consistent case of the prosecution that accused-appellant Deo Singh caused injuries to the deceased by pharsa and accused-appellant Sukhai caused injuries to the deceased by lathi. P.W.5 Dr. Satish Chandra has stated that injuries found on the body of the deceased could be caused by pharsa and lathi. Duration of the injuries stated by the doctor clearly tallies with the statements of the eyewitness accounts, thus we are of the firm view that the trial Court has rightly held that medical evidence fully supported the oral testimony of the prosecution witnesses. There is no conflict between the oral evidence and the medical evidence. As far as the role assigned to the present appellants is concerned, accused-appellant Deo Singh was armed with pharsa whereas accused-appellant Sukhai had lathi with him. All the three witnesses i.e. P.W.1 Surendra Singh, P.W.2 Mahaveer Gupta and P.W.4 Awadhesh Singh have clearly and consistently stated that accused-appellant Deo Singh caused injuries to the deceased by pharsa and accused-appellant Sukhai caused injuries to the deceased by lathi. Injuries no.1 and 2 are the incised wounds which were caused by pharsa. Injuries no.3, 4 and 5 are contusions, which were caused by lathi. There is some doubt regarding injury no. 6. Whether this injury was caused by lathi or it could be a result of falling on the earth is doubtful, but the prosecution witnesses have specified the role assigned to the accused-appellants. Injuries no.1 and 2 were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause the death of the deceased, as has been opined by P.W.5 Dr. Satish Chandra. Therefore, in our view, participation of the accused-appellant Deo Singh in committing the present offence has been clearly and consistently established by the prosecution from its evidence. So far as the role assigned to the accused-appellant Sukhai is concerned, we have made clear hereinabove that blunt object injuries were also found on the body of the deceased by the doctor conducting the postmortem and lathi was assigned to this appellant. So far as the role assigned to the accused-appellant Sukhai is concerned, we have made clear hereinabove that blunt object injuries were also found on the body of the deceased by the doctor conducting the postmortem and lathi was assigned to this appellant. Plea was taken by the learned counsel for the appellants that prosecution witnesses have themselves admitted that repeated pharsa blows were made upon the deceased and it might be possible that injuries no.3, 4, 5 and 6 were caused from the back side or other portion of the pharsa. The prosecution was not able to connect the accused-appellant Sukhai with the injuries no.3, 4 and 5 by any cogent evidence. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants were considered and analyzed by the Court in consonance with the evidence available on record. We find no substance in the submission. There is no evidence to the effect that pharsa was used from its back or other side. Until and unless there is some evidence in support of the submission raised by the appellants, no conclusion can be drawn in favour of the accused-appellants. Finding recorded by the trial Court on this point cannot be said to be illegal or perverse. Injuries no.3, 4 and 5 at least have been caused by the accused-appellant Sukhai by lathi. So far as the submission raised by the learned counsel for the appellants that co-accused Jaswant Singh and Bishambhar Singh have been acquitted from the charges levelled against them by giving them the benefit of doubt and, therefore, in similar circumstances appellant Sukhai be also acquitted extending him the same benefit is concerned, we find no substance in this argument. The co-accused Jaswant Singh and Bishambhar Singh were acquitted by the trial Court on different footings, as no injury was found to be caused by gun or barchhi. Also, no criminal appeal has been filed against the acquittal of co-accused. We do not find any ground to extend the benefit of doubt to the accused-appellant Sukhai Singh on the basis of acquittal of co-accused. As is clear from the evidence adduced by the prosecution, both the accused-appellants reached the place of occurrence armed with deadly weapons and they caused injuries to the deceased. We do not find any ground to extend the benefit of doubt to the accused-appellant Sukhai Singh on the basis of acquittal of co-accused. As is clear from the evidence adduced by the prosecution, both the accused-appellants reached the place of occurrence armed with deadly weapons and they caused injuries to the deceased. Attending circumstances emerged at the place of occurrence and the circumstances established regarding the incident of 6.8.1981 clearly demonstrate that accused-appellants have committed the present offence in furtherance of their common intention. Trial Court has found the accused-appellant Deo Singh guilty under Section 302 IPC and accused-appellant Sukhai Singh under Section 302 read with 34 IPC. From a close analysis of the evidence available on record, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the finding recorded by the trial Court regarding the conviction of the accused-appellants. Consequently the appeals being bereft of any merit are hereby dismissed. The conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court against the accused-appellants Deo Singh and Sukhai Singh is affirmed. Since these accused-appellants are on bail, their bail bonds are cancelled. Both 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. The record of the trial Court along with 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. Copy of the judgment be also placed in the records of connected criminal appeal no.1240 of 1982 (Deo Singh Vs. State of U.P.). ———————