ORDER : Criminal Appeal No. 668 of 2009 at the instance of Shahid and Criminal Appeal No. 669 of 2009 at the instance of Naved challenge the common judgment and order dated 7th August, 2007 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Criminal Appeal Nos. 1993 of 2001 and 1998 of 2001. 2. Originally Criminal Appeal No. 669 of 2009 was preferred by two appellants namely, Islam @ Shamim and Naved. Islam @ Shamim died during the pendency of this appeal on 6th February, 2010 and the appeal as regards Islam @ Shamim was dismissed as abated vide order dated 3rd May, 2010 of this Court. 3. In the present case, there have been three deaths i.e., of Hanif [hereinafter referred to as 'first deceased']; Yasin [hereinafter referred to as 'second deceased']; and Anis [hereinafter referred to as 'third deceased]. The appellants and the deceased accused Islam @ Shamin were tried for having committed the murders of these three deceased on 3rd November, 1994 and were convicted and sentenced by the trial Court under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 30,000/- in default whereof to suffer simple imprisonment for three years. The appellant Shahid @ Kallu was also convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 3000/- under Section 25 of the Arms Act. The sentences as regards appellant Shahid@Kallu were ordered to run concurrently. 4. According to the prosecution, the first deceased and the first accused Islam @ Shamin were brothers and had a tubewell commonly shared by them. There were outstanding dues of electricity charges in respect of the tubewell which were paid by the first deceased but the first accused was refusing to pay his share of the dues. A sum of Rs. 31,000/- (Rupees Thirty One thousand) was paid by the first deceased towards electricity charges but the first accused had refused to pay his share. Resultantly, the first deceased got the electric connection disconnected, which according to the prosecution was the reason for enmity between two brothers. Relevant to note that the third deceased is the son of the first deceased and accused Naved is the son of accused Islam @ Shamin. Further, the second deceased Yasin is the step father of the accused Shahid. 5. Relevant to note that the third deceased is the son of the first deceased and accused Naved is the son of accused Islam @ Shamin. Further, the second deceased Yasin is the step father of the accused Shahid. 5. According to the prosecution, on 3rd November, 1994, at about 12:30 p.m., P.W. 3 Mansab and P.W. 4 Rashid Ahmed were going on a bicycle accompanied by the first deceased, also on a separate bicycle from Manglaure to their house. When they reached near Bhatta at Nanheden Manglaure Road,the accused Islam @ Shamim, Naved and Shahid @ Kallu all of a sudden appeared from behind the eucalyptus trees. The accused were also on their bicycles. Islam @ Shamim was armed with a double barrel gun, while Naved and Shahid were both armed with country made pistols. All the accused started firing upon the first deceased as a result of which he sustained injuries and fell from the bicycle and died at the spot. This part of the incident was witnessed and deposed to by P.W. 3 Mansab and P.W. 4 Rashid Ahmed. 6. Thereafter, on the very same day at about 1:00 p.m. the aforesaid accused went on their bicycles to the house of P.W. 1 Mohd. Hashim where the second deceased Yasin was present. In the verandah of the house, Islam @ Shamim and Naved fired upon Yasin who, however, did not sustain any fire arm injuries at that time and rushed inside. He was chased by the accused followed by P.W. 1 Mohd Hashim and P.W. 2 Raahil. Little later, the accused fired upon Yasin who fell down and succumbed to his injuries immediately. According to the prosecution, Naved also caused injuries on the head and chest of Yasin with a Palkati, a sharp cutting weapon. The accused thus committed the murder of the second deceased at about 1:00 p.m. on the same day. This part of the incident was witnessed and deposed to by P.W. 1 Mohd Hashim and P.W. 2 Raahil. 7. After having committed the murders of Hanif and Yasin, the accused went to the agricultural fields where P.W. 6 Mursalin along with his brother Anis were cutting the crop. The accused are reported to have told them that they had killed Hanif and Yasin and would kill them as well. 7. After having committed the murders of Hanif and Yasin, the accused went to the agricultural fields where P.W. 6 Mursalin along with his brother Anis were cutting the crop. The accused are reported to have told them that they had killed Hanif and Yasin and would kill them as well. The accused then started firing upon them as a result of which Anis sustained injuries and died at the spot. P.W. 6 Mursalin however, escaped and reached the police station Manglaure and lodged a written report Exhibit Ka.1 at 2:20 p.m. principally reporting about the third part of the incident which he had witnessed and also reporting the fact that he was told about the other two murders by the concerned witnesses. This reporting led to the registration of crime against the aforesaid accused. The Investigating Officer, R.K. Singh Yadav prepared panchnama and sent the dead bodies to the District Hospital for post-mortem which was conducted by P.W. 7 - Dr. Virender Kumar Sharma. The post-mortem report in respect of the first deceased Hanif shows the following ante-mortem injuries. '(i) Firearm wound of entry 5cm X 4cm X right temple deep in front of right ear X skull and brain deep. Burning present round the wound margins inverted. (ii) Fire arm wound of exit 10cm X 9cm X skull and brain deep. Margins inverted on left side face and skull. Brain mater open coming out. Skull left side bones fractured with both jaws left side and upper jaw right side. (iii) Fire arm wound of entry 1.5 cm X ½ cm chest on right side front of it 5 cm from right nipple at 5 o'clock position. Margins inverted. (iv) Firearm wound of exit 3cm X 2cm X chest right side lower part of back of chest 2cm from midline. Ijury no. 3 communicating to 4. Margins inverted.' 8. In the opinion of the Doctor, the death was caused as a result of shock and haemorrage resulting from the ante-mortem injuries. 9. The post- mortem in respect of the second deceased namely, Yasin shows the following ante-mortem injuries :- (i) Incised wound 4cm X 1 cm muscle deep on top of head. (ii) Fire arm wound of entry X 1 ½ cm X bone deep on right side of face 2 cm from right ear. Profound wound present. Margins inverted. 9. The post- mortem in respect of the second deceased namely, Yasin shows the following ante-mortem injuries :- (i) Incised wound 4cm X 1 cm muscle deep on top of head. (ii) Fire arm wound of entry X 1 ½ cm X bone deep on right side of face 2 cm from right ear. Profound wound present. Margins inverted. (iii) Fire arm wound entry 1cm X bone deep on right side forehead just above right eye brow. Margins inverted. (iv) Fire arm wound of 10cm X 8cm X brain and skull deep on left side head. Margins inverted. Skull bone fractured. Brain matter coming out. Injury Nos.2 and 3 communicating to no. 4. (v) Fire arm wound of 2½cm X 2½cm X chest deep on front and left side of chest 9 cm below middle. Wound fo entry margins inverted. (vi) Fire arm wound of entry 4cm X 2.5 cm X chest deep of left side back 4 cm below the scapula. Margins inverted no. 5 communicating to no. 6. (vii) Incised wound 2cm X 1cm X chest deep transverse, falling right side upwards." 10. The medical opinion as regards the death was that it was caused by shock and haemorrage. 11. The post-mortem in respect of the third deceased Anis shows following ante-mortem injuries:- (i) Lacerated wound 4cm X 2cm X neck left side of it margins inverted. Blackening tattooing scratching not present. Wound of entry. (ii) Lacerated wound 5cm X 3cm X neck deep on front of neck. Margins inverted carotid and trachea cut. Wound of exit injury no. 1 communicating to injury no. 2. (iii) Lacerated wound 1cm X 1cm X muscle on top of right shoulder margins inverted. One bullet recovered from this wound. (iv) Lacerated wound 6cm X 2cm X chest deep right side front of chest just above right clavicle margins inverted. Injury no. 3 communicating to it. The bullet written in No. 3 actually recovered at muscles of injury no. 4. (v) Lacerated wound 1cm X 1cm X neck deep on left side. Margins inverted wound of entry. (vi) Lacerated woudn 7cm X 3cm X chest deep in front of chest on right side near to injury no.2 (adjacent) margins inverted. Wound of exit no. 5 communicating to injury No. 6. (vii) Lacerated wound 1cm X 1.75cm X chest deep 7cm below from right nipple. Burning present round the wound. Margins inverted wound of entry. (vi) Lacerated woudn 7cm X 3cm X chest deep in front of chest on right side near to injury no.2 (adjacent) margins inverted. Wound of exit no. 5 communicating to injury No. 6. (vii) Lacerated wound 1cm X 1.75cm X chest deep 7cm below from right nipple. Burning present round the wound. Bullet recovere don left side deep below skin in parallel transverse line to injury NO. 7. Margins inverted wound of entry. (viii) Lacerated wound 1cm X 1cm X muscle deep on left forearm in middle. Margins inverted wound of entry. (ix) lacerated wound 2cm X 2cm X muscle deep of right forearm in middle. Margins inverted injury no. 9 communicating to injury no. 8 wound of exit. (x) Lacerated wound 1cm X 1cm on right side of back and muscle deep. Margins inverted wound of entry. Bullet recovered on right side in upper part, just below the inferior of right scapula. (xi) Firearm wound of entry 1½cm X 1½cm X chest cavity deep at line with mid axillary line margins inverted. (xii) Firearm wound of exit 2½cm X 2cm X chest deep back of chest. Margins inverted no. 12 communicating to no. 11. (xiii) Firearm wound of entry 2½cm X 1½cm X abrasion mark left side. Margins inverted. (xiv) Firearm wound of exit 4cm X 3cm X abdominal cavity deep axillary line with ext. in lower part of it. Margins inverted. no. 14 communicating to no. 12." 12. The cause of death according to the medical opinion was due to shock and haemmorage resulting from the ante mortem injures. 13. On 5th November, 1994 accused Shahid was arrested and from his possession two country-made pistols were recovered. The other two accused namely, Islam @ Shahid and Naved were arrested on 6th November, 1994 and from Islam @ Shahid a double barrel gun was recovered. After completing investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused for having caused the murders of the deceased as stated hereinabove. During the trial, the prosecution examined 14 witnesses and placed documentary as well as material evidence. The defence, however, did not choose to lead any evidence. In his 313 Statement, the accused Naved, however, claimed that he was 13½ years of age on the date when the occurrence had taken place. 14. During the trial, the prosecution examined 14 witnesses and placed documentary as well as material evidence. The defence, however, did not choose to lead any evidence. In his 313 Statement, the accused Naved, however, claimed that he was 13½ years of age on the date when the occurrence had taken place. 14. After considering the entire material, the trial Court found that the case of the prosecution was proved beyond any doubt as against the accused. By its judgment and order dated 22nd October, 2001, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused as stated hereinabove. The accused being aggrieved carried the matter further by filing Criminal Appeal Nos. 1993 of 2001 and 1998 of 2001. The High Court after detailed analysis of the evidence on record and after considering the submissions found that the assessment made by the trial Court was absolutely correct. It, therefore, dismissed both the appeals by its judgment and order dated 7th August, 2007, which is presently under appeal by special leave. It may be noted that accused Naved was ordered to be released on bail by this Court vide order dated 22nd October, 2009 while accused Shahid was directed to be released on bail vide order dated 25th November, 2009. Both the accused appellants are still enjoying the facility. 15. At the very outset, Mr. Yunus Malik, learned counsel appearing for Naved contended that said accused was a juvenile on the date of occurrence. He also submitted a School Leaving Certificate which Naved had statedly attended for about 3½ months in the year 1993 when he was in Class X. The School Leaving Certificate makes a reference that he had taken admission in that school on a transfer from the earlier school. In the instant case, the trial Court has specifically recorded the contention of the counsel appearing for Naved that his client was 18½ years of age as on the date of occurrence. We do not find the aforesaid certificate or the material worthy enough to make a reference to the learned Sessions Court to determine whether Naved was a juvenile on the date of occurrence. We, therefore, reject the submission and proceed to consider the matter on merits. 16. We do not find the aforesaid certificate or the material worthy enough to make a reference to the learned Sessions Court to determine whether Naved was a juvenile on the date of occurrence. We, therefore, reject the submission and proceed to consider the matter on merits. 16. It was submitted by the learned counsel appearing for both the appellants that the witnesses were examined in Court after four years; that in certain cases their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded after 1½ months; that though as alleged by the prosecution accused Naved had used Palkati in the transaction concerning the death of the second deceased, no such sharp edged weapon was recovered; and that there was no reference to Palkati being used in the F.I.R. It was also submitted that as regards the death of the first deceased, according to the prosecution itself one, Mehboob had also witnessed the incident but, said Mehboob was not examined as witness. As regards accused Naved, it was submitted that neither Palkati nor any country made pistol was recovered from him and that he was falsely implicated. Learned counsel appearing for the State submitted that the judgments of the courts below do not call for any interference and that the case of the prosecution stands completely established against the accused. 17. In the instant case, the reporting was made by P.W. 6 Mursaleen who is primarily witness for the third part of the incident. Naturally, his reporting insofar as the earlier two parts would be in the nature of hearsay and as such there is nothing wrong if the reporting does not mention in detail how the incident had occurred at the earlier two stages. It is, however, noteworthy that Exhibit Ka.1 itself makes a reference to the fact that among others, P.W. 4 Rasheed and P.W. 2 Raahil had intimated the informant P.W. 6 Mursaleen about the earlier two parts of the incident. Thus the names of three eye witnesses are available from the first stage itself. The reporting was done at 2:20 p.m. i.e. within the shortest possible time from the occurrence and belies any theory of improvement or false implication. We find the reporting to be completely credit worthy. 18. Thus the names of three eye witnesses are available from the first stage itself. The reporting was done at 2:20 p.m. i.e. within the shortest possible time from the occurrence and belies any theory of improvement or false implication. We find the reporting to be completely credit worthy. 18. The prosecution has relied upon the eye witness account through six witnesses namely, P.W, 1 Hashim, P.W. Raahil, P.W. 3 Mansab, P.W. 4 Rashid, P.W. 5 Jabir and P.W. 6 Mursalin. All three parts of the incident resulting in the deaths of three deceased persons are spoken to in great detail by the witnesses. Their testimony is cogent, consistent and well corroborated by the medical evidence on record. The medical evidence in the form of post-mortem report concerning the second deceased also shows sharp cutting injuries found on the person of the second deceased. This fact completely supports the assertion of the use of a sharp cutting weapon. We do not find any reason to disbelieve the testimony of the eye witness and find their version completely trustworthy. It may further be noted that P.W. 6 Mursalin happens to be son of the first deceased Hanif and the brother of the third deceased Anis but all the other five witnesses are independent witnesses. Merely because one Mehboob who was also shown to have witnessed the incident has not been examined by the prosecution, that would not diminish the value and the strength of the evidence on record. The motive which had driven the accused to commit the crime also stands established. The long standing enmity between the first deceased and the first accused so also the fact that it was at the instance of the first deceased that the electricity connection was disconnected affording the motive is also proved and established. 19. Having considered the matter in its entirity, we do not find any reason to differ from the view which has weighed with the trial Court and the High Court. We, therefore, confirm the conviction and sentence as recorded against Naved and accused Shahid and dismiss their appeals. Accused Naved and Shahid are on bail presently. Their bail bonds stand cancelled and they are directed to be taken into custody forthwith to undergo the sentence as awarded by the Courts below. 20. We, therefore, confirm the conviction and sentence as recorded against Naved and accused Shahid and dismiss their appeals. Accused Naved and Shahid are on bail presently. Their bail bonds stand cancelled and they are directed to be taken into custody forthwith to undergo the sentence as awarded by the Courts below. 20. Before parting, we must record our sincere appreciation for the assistance rendered by the learned counsel appearing for the accused Shahid as Amicus Curiae and we direct the Registry to pay to the learned Amicus a sum of Rs. 15,000/-(Rupees Fifteen thousand) as remuneration for the assistance rendered to this Court. We equally appreciate the efforts put in by the learned counsel for Naved.