JUDGMENT Om Prakash-VII, J. 1. This criminal appeal has been preferred by the accused appellants against the judgement and order dated 5.12.1985 passed by the VIIth Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad in Session Trial No. 414 of 1983 (State of U.P. vs. Mobin and others) convicting and sentencing the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC read with Section 149 IPC to undergo life imprisonment, for the offence under Section 307 IPC read with Section 149 IPC to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and for the offence under Section 148 IPC to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently. 2. At the outset, it is relevant to mention here that during pendency of this appeal, the appellant no.1 - Mobin @ Momin, appellant no.2 Kalwa, appellant no.7 Firasat, appellant no.8 Intzar and appellant no.9 Sadaqat Ali have died. Accordingly, vide orders dated 10-03-2015, this Court has abated the appeal in respect of the appellant no.1 - Mobin @ Momin, appellant no.2 Kalwa, appellant no.7 Firasat, appellant no.8 Intezar and appellant no.9 Sadaqat Ali. 3. Now, we are proceeding to consider the present appeal in respect of rest of the appellants i.e. Akidat, Tasreef, Anis, Ali Murtaza and Inshad. 4. The facts of the case, as unfolded by the informant Shakil Ahmad son of Zarif Ahmad in the First Information Report (in short 'FIR'), are that in the morning of 13.7.1983 at 7.00 a.m. his uncle Riyasat was coming from the fields. When he reached near a culvert on the chak-road, Mobin, Kalwa son of Fida Husain and Tahir @ Chunna surrounded him and caused injuries with LATHI and DANDA and fell down to the ground. Information about the incident was given to the informant by Shaukin son of Ahsan, informant alongwith his brother Kalwa and cousin Sabir rushed to the place of incident and found Riyasat lying injured on the ground. The miscreants fled away from the scene to settle all the litigations. The informant and his brother took Riyasat to their house. Zarif and Munazar, who were also sitting there at that time, advised them to arrange for some carriage and to go to the police station to lodge a report. At that time, villagers, namely, Abid son of Mohd. The miscreants fled away from the scene to settle all the litigations. The informant and his brother took Riyasat to their house. Zarif and Munazar, who were also sitting there at that time, advised them to arrange for some carriage and to go to the police station to lodge a report. At that time, villagers, namely, Abid son of Mohd. Shafi, Mukarib son of A. Rahim, Umed son of A. Ghani, and Irshad son of Azam Ali had also reached at 'Baithak' after receiving information about the incident. When conversation was going-on, the accused Mobin son of Bundu, Kalwa son of Fida Hussain, Tasreef son of Jamshed, Anis Ahmad @ Shah Alam son of Mobin, Fida Hussain son of Amir Hussain, Tahir son of Ali Hussain, Sadaqat son of Naseer, Ali Murtaza son of Kale, Akidat son of Mansab armed with guns and Intezar son of A. Ghani , Firasat son of Intezar and Inshad, brother-in-law of Firasat, armed with country made pistols reached there at 7.30 a.m.. On exhortation of Mobin and Akidat to kill them, all the accused opened fire on all the persons who were present in the 'Baithak' with the intention to kill them. The informant, his brother Abid, Mukarib, Umed, Irshad Ali and the aunt of the informant rushed inside the house and hiding themselves behind the walls of the house and the roof, saw the incident through a hole in the wall. They saw that the accused were firing inside the Baithak of the Zarif through the eastern and western side windows of the Baithak. Accused Mobin was shouting that none should be spared. Due to the indiscriminate firing, Zarif sustained injuries and he tried to escape from that place by running away getting out from the Baithak. However, while he was trying to run away, the accused Mobin, Kalwa and Aqidat fired at him from the hay-stack lying near the door of the house of Zarif. On receiving the shots, Zarif fell down on the ground and died on the spot. Riyasat and Munazar also received fire-arm injuries and were not in a condition to speak. They were taken to the hospital by the villagers and the informant went to the police station to lodge the F.I.R.. 5. On the basis of the written report (Ext. ka-1), chik First Information Report (Ext. Riyasat and Munazar also received fire-arm injuries and were not in a condition to speak. They were taken to the hospital by the villagers and the informant went to the police station to lodge the F.I.R.. 5. On the basis of the written report (Ext. ka-1), chik First Information Report (Ext. Ka-4) was registered at Police Station Babugarh on 13.7.1983 at 9.30 a.m. mentioning all the details as disclosed in Ext. Ka-.1. G.D. entry Ext. Ka-5 was also made at the same time. 6. Investigation of the matter was taken by Ram Singh Manral, the Station Officer, police station Babugarh. The Investigating Officer along-with S.I. Raj Kumar reached the spot on the same day, prepared the inquest report (Ext. ka-6). The Investigating Officer also prepared photo lash, challan lash, letter to R.I., letter to Chief Medical Officer for post-mortem and sample seal (Ext. Ka-21-A to Ka-25). The dead body was kept in sealed cover preparing the sample seal and was dispatched through constable Dharam Vir and Raj Vir alongwith the police papers for post mortem. Site plan (Ext. Ka-7) was also prepared. The Investigating Officer also took the sample of plain earth and bloodstained earth from the place of occurrence and kept them in separate container in sealed condition and also prepared memo (Ext. Ka-8). The Investigating Officer also recovered six pellets from the frame / ply of the door of 'Bathak' and sealed them and prepared memo Ext. ka-9. Ram Sing Manral, Investigating Officer conducted the investigation of the case only on 13.7.1983 and thereafter on 13.7.1983 itself in evening, the investigation was transferred to Raghu Raj Singh, the then S.O. Hapur by the Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad. He has also recovered the gun and six cartridges belonging to the accused Aqidat and one SBBL gun belonging to accused Kalua and memo were prepared. The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the witnesses and searched the accused. As per statements of C.W.-2 constable Shyoraj Singh of the police station Hapur, telephonic information about the incident was received on dtd.13-07-1983 at 08.20 a.m. at the police station Hapur, which was entered in G.D. as Ext. C.-4. G. D. entry of the departure of Police personnels of the Police station Hapur was also made. 7. Autopsy report (Ext. ka-21) was prepared after conducting the post mortem on the dead body of the deceased Zarif on 14.7.1983 at 3.30 p.m. 8. C.-4. G. D. entry of the departure of Police personnels of the Police station Hapur was also made. 7. Autopsy report (Ext. ka-21) was prepared after conducting the post mortem on the dead body of the deceased Zarif on 14.7.1983 at 3.30 p.m. 8. As per the post mortem report, the deceased was about 40 years old and probable time of death was about one and a half day before. On external examination, the deceased was average body built and the rigor mortis was present in both the extremities. 9. On examination of the dead body of the deceased, following ante-mortem injuries were found: "1. Wound of entry (gun shot) over the forehead 2 cm above the left eye. 2. Gun shot wound of entry on the right side of face 1 cm away the right portion of nose. 3. Gun shot wound of entry over neck 2.5 cm above clavicle notch (bullet recovered). 4. Gun shot wound of entry, 14 cm below the right nipple at the 11 O'clock position (pellet recovered from lung). 5. Gun shot wound at 5 O' clock position 5 cm below left nipple (pellet recovered from liver). 10. According to the doctor, 280 c.c. blood was found in the chest and 100 c. c. blood was found in the stomach. Left lung was badly hit by pellets and the lever was also damaged by the pellets. left parietal, temporal and occipital bones were fractured. Semi digested food was there in the small and large intestines. 11. In the opinion of the doctor, death was caused due to shock and internal bleeding and injuries on the vital parts of the body. 12. Accused Fida Husain and Tahir were arrested by the Hapur police on 13-07-1983 and were medically examined on the same day . 13. According to the prosecution, Fida Hussain (accused) received injuries in the first incident whereas according to the accused he suffered injuries at some other place and time. He was medically examined on 13.7.1983 at 7.15 p.m. by Dr. R.P. Gupta. Following injuries were found on his body: "1. Lacerated wound 3 cm x ½ cm x skin deep on the left side of the skull, 6.5 cm from the ear. 2. Lacerated wound 1.5 cm x 1.4 cm, skin deep on the head, 14 cm above the nose. 3. Tr. R.P. Gupta. Following injuries were found on his body: "1. Lacerated wound 3 cm x ½ cm x skin deep on the left side of the skull, 6.5 cm from the ear. 2. Lacerated wound 1.5 cm x 1.4 cm, skin deep on the head, 14 cm above the nose. 3. Tr. swelling 8 cm x 6 cm on the left side of temporal region. 4. Achemoisis around the left eye in an area of 6.5 cm x 3.5 cm. 5. Congectival haemorrhage outside the left eye. 6. Contusion 12 cm x 6 cm on the left arm, 4 cm above the elbow. 7. Tr. swelling 13 cm x 8 cm on the left forearm 4 cm above the elbow. Fracture suspected. 8. Tr. swelling 9 cm x .9 cm behind the left arm on the rear side. 9. Contusion 4 cm x 1.5 cm on the right fore arm on the rear side 11 cm above the elbow. 10. Contusion 8 cm x 2 cm on the right fore arm on the rear side 4 cm below the elbow. 11. Abraded contusion 5 cm x 5 cm on the right forearm, on the rear side 1.5 cm below the injury no. 10. 12. L.W. 6 cm x 1 cm bone deep in the middle of the index finger and the middle finger, X-ray advised. 13. Contusion 14 cm x 12 cm on the left side of the back, 11 cm below the lower and of a left scapula. 14. Contusion 13 cm x 5 cm on the left side of back above the hips. 15. Contusion 8 cm x 2 cm on the right side of the back above the right side of the back. 16. Contusion 5 cm x 2 cm on the outer portion of the left leg, 9 cm above the medulla. 17. Tr. swelling round the guard of the ankle. 18. Contusion 8 cm x 2 cm on the outer side of the thigh, 11 cm above the knee. 19. Contusion 7 cm x 2 cm on the outer side of the left thigh, 1.5 cm below the injury no. 18. 20. Contusion 6 cm x 2.5 cm on the outer side of the left leg, 16 cm below the knee. 21. Contusion 8 cm x 1.5 cm on the front portion of the thigh, 8 cm above the knee." 14. 18. 20. Contusion 6 cm x 2.5 cm on the outer side of the left leg, 16 cm below the knee. 21. Contusion 8 cm x 1.5 cm on the front portion of the thigh, 8 cm above the knee." 14. According to the doctor, all the injuries, except injury nos. 1 to 5, 7,8 and 17, were simple in nature. The injuries could be caused by blunt object. Injury report Ext.C.-1 was also prepared by the Doctor. Duration of those injuries was about half day old. X-ray was advised. 15. Accused Tahir Husain was also medically examined on the same day at 8 p.m.. Following injuries were found on his body: "1. Contusion 6 cm x 2 cm on the right fore arm 7 ½ cm above the wrist. 2. Multiple abrasions 3.5 cm x 2.5 cm on the right forearm in the region of wrist. 3. Tr. swelling 9 cm x 1 cm on the back of the right hand on the outer side. 4. Abraded contusion 2.5 cm x 2.5 cm on the base of the right index finger. 5. Abrasion ½ cm x ½ cm on the inner side of the right thigh, 4 cm from the nail. 6. Abrasion 6 cm x 1 cm on the inner side of the left thigh. 7. Tr. swelling 12 cm x 19 cm above the right knee. 8. Abrasion 4.5 cm x 1.5 cm on the left leg, 10 cm below the knee. 9. Contusion 6 cm x 2.5 cm in front of the left thigh, 2 cm below the injury no.8. 10. Contusion 6 cm x 5 cm on the right thigh, 11 cm above the knee. 11. Abrasion 6 cm x 2.5 cm in front of the right thigh just above the right knee. 12. L.W. 2 cm x 1.5 cm bone deep, 6 cm below the right knee. 13. L.W. 2.5 cm x ½ cm x bone deep on the right leg 9 cm below the injury no.12. 14. Abraded contusion 5 cm x 2 cm in front of the right leg, 5 cm below the injury no.13. 16. According to the doctor, injury nos. 1,4,7 and 14 were kept under observation. All other injuries were simple in nature and caused by blunt object. Injury report Ext.C.-2 was also prepared by the Doctor. X-ray was advised. 14. Abraded contusion 5 cm x 2 cm in front of the right leg, 5 cm below the injury no.13. 16. According to the doctor, injury nos. 1,4,7 and 14 were kept under observation. All other injuries were simple in nature and caused by blunt object. Injury report Ext.C.-2 was also prepared by the Doctor. X-ray was advised. Duration of injuries at the time of examination was half day old. 17. Munazar belonging to prosecution side was also medically examined on 13.7.1983 at 9.30 a.m. by Dr. B.P. Agrawal at Hapur P.H.C.. Following injuries were found on his body: "1. Gun shot wound 1/3 cm x 1/3 cm rounded in shape on the left side of the skull, 7 cm above the ear. No pellet was palpable. 2. Gun shot wound 1/3 cm x 1/3 cm round in shape, 2 cm below the injury no.1. No pellet was palpable. 3. Gun shot wound 1/3 cm x 1/3 cm round in shape muscles deep on the left side of the eye, ½ cm below the lower eye lid. No pellet was palpable. 4. A lacerated wound on the congectiva cornia of the right eye, fresh blood flowing it. 5. Gun shot wound 1/3 cm x 1/3 cm muscles deep on the left side of the neck, 6 cm below the left ear. 6. A gun shot wound 1/3 x 1/3 cm muscles deep, 5 cm on the outer from injury no.5. 7. Gun shot wound 1 cm x ½ cm muscles deep on the supra clavicular region pellets palpable. 8. Gun shot wound 1/3 cm x 1/3 cm muscles deep on the upper side of the left shoulder. 9. Gun shot wound 1/3 cm x 1/3 cm on the left side of the chest, 4.5 cm above the nipple. 10. Gun shot wound 1/3 cm x 1/3 cm near the right colar bone. 11. Gun shot wound 1.3 cm x 1.3 cm on the right side of chest, 8 cm away from the right nipple at the 4.30 O'clock position. 12. Two gun shot wounds 1.3 cm x 1.3 cm round in shape, 3 cm from each other on the right side of the chest, 11.5 cm below the right nipple. 13. A gun shot wound 1.3 cm x 1.3 cm muscles deep on the right side of the waist, 1.5 cm away from navel at 9 O'clock position. 14. 12. Two gun shot wounds 1.3 cm x 1.3 cm round in shape, 3 cm from each other on the right side of the chest, 11.5 cm below the right nipple. 13. A gun shot wound 1.3 cm x 1.3 cm muscles deep on the right side of the waist, 1.5 cm away from navel at 9 O'clock position. 14. Gun shot wound 1/3 cm x 1/3 cm on the upper side of the waist, 8.5 cm above the navel. 15. L.W. 1/3 cm x 1/3 cm on the left forearm, 4.5 cm above the elbow. 18. According to the doctor, there was no exit wound of the pellet on the body. The edges of the wounds noticed blackening but there was no charring. Injury no.4 was opined to be grievous and other injuries were kept under observation. Injury report Ext.ka.-15 was also prepared by the Doctor .X-ray was advised. The injured was sent to Medical College, Meerut for his treatment vide paper Ext.ka-16. 19. Riyasat belonging to prosecution side was also medically examined on 13.7.1983 at 9.55 a.m. by Dr. B.P. Agrawal. Following injuries were found on his body: "1. 4 gun shot wounds of entry each 1/3 cm x 1/3 cm round in shape on the front portion of the skull in an area of 9 cm x 4 cm to 5 cm away from each other. Pellets palpable. X-ray was advised. The edges of the wounds contained blackishness. 2. Gun shot wound 1/3 cm x 1/3 cm muscles deep inside the left eye brow. 3. Swelling on the left eye, bleeding on tough. Swelling in an area 6 cm x 4 cm. 4. Gun shot wound ½ cm x 1/3 cm muscles deep on the left side of the face, 4.5 cm in front of the ear. 5. Swelling on the right in an area 4.5 cm x 3.5 cm having a lacerated wound on the lower eye lid, extending upto the whitish portion of the eye. 6. Two gun shot wounds 2.5 cm away from each other each 1.3 cm x 1.3 cm muscles deep on the right side of the chin, 3 cm below the right end of mouth. 7. 4 gun shot wounds in an area of 6 cm x ½ cm on the left side of the neck and chest each 1/3 cm x 1/3 cm." 20. 7. 4 gun shot wounds in an area of 6 cm x ½ cm on the left side of the neck and chest each 1/3 cm x 1/3 cm." 20. In the opinion of the doctor, injuries were possibly caused by projectile arm. Duration of the injuries were fresh. Injuries were kept under observations. Injury report Ext.ka.-17 was prepared by the Doctor. He was also referred to the Medical college Meerut vide Ext.ka.-18. X-ray report Ext. ka.-13 was prepared .Examination report Ext. ka.-12 was prepared in the Medical college Meerut . 21. Anwar Ali belonging to prosecution side was also medically examined on 13.7.1983 at 10.20 a.m. by Dr. B.P. Agrawal. Following injuries were found on his body: "1. Gun shot wound 1/3 cm x 1/3 cm round in shape containing blackish edges on the front portion of the right shoulder." 22. In the opinion of the doctor, injury was possibly caused by projectile arm. Injury report Ext.ka.-19 was also prepared by the Doctor. X-ray was advised. He was also referred to the Medical college Meerut vide Ext.ka.-20. X-ray report Ext. ka.-11 was prepared. Examination report Ext. ka.-10 was prepared in the Medical college Meerut . 23. After recording the statement of witnesses and completing the investigation, charge-sheet (Ext. ka-14) against the accused was filed. Concerned Magistrate took the cognizance. The case being exclusively triable by the sessions court, was committed to the Court of sessions. 24. Accused appellants appeared and charges under Sections 302 read with Section 149 IPC, Section 307 IPC read with Section 149 IPC and Section 148 IPC were framed. All the accused have pleaded not guilty and claimed their trial. 25. Trial proceeded, and on behalf of the prosecution, thirteen witnesses were examined, wherein PW-1 Shakil, who is eye witness, has supported the prosecution case . PW-2 Riyasat, PW-3 Munazar Ali who are the injured witnesses, have also supported the prosecution case. PW-4 Irshad Ali witness of memo has also supported the prosecution case. PW-5 Gangawasi, who was a Head Constable, proved the chick FIR Ext. ka-4 and G.D. entry (Ext. ka-5). PW-6 Sub-inspector Raj Kumar, who accompanied the first I.O. Ram Singh Manral to the place of occurrence. Due to death of I.O. Ram Singh Manral before his deposition, this witness has proved the papers prepared by him. PW-5 Gangawasi, who was a Head Constable, proved the chick FIR Ext. ka-4 and G.D. entry (Ext. ka-5). PW-6 Sub-inspector Raj Kumar, who accompanied the first I.O. Ram Singh Manral to the place of occurrence. Due to death of I.O. Ram Singh Manral before his deposition, this witness has proved the papers prepared by him. Memo of blood stained and plain earth recovered from the 'Baithak' of Zareef was also proved by this witness. He has also proved recovery memo of six pellets from the frame / ply of the door of the Baithak. PW-7 Mohd. Yamin was the witness of recovery of blood stained and plain earth recovered from the Baithak of Zareef. PW-8 Yasin was the witness of recovery of the pellets from the frame / ply of the door of the Baithak of Zarif. PW-9 Constable Dharam Vir Singh, who took the dead body of deceased Zarif to the mortuary for its post mortem. PW-10 Dr. Sandeep Mittal, who examined the injured Anwar and Riyasat. PW-11 Sub-inspector Raghuraj Singh, who after completing the investigation, has submitted charge-sheet (Ext. ka-14). PW-12 Dr. B.P. Agrawal, who examined injured Munazar, injured Riyasat and injured Anwar Ali. PW-13 Dr. A.K. Tyagi, who conducted the post-mortem on the dead body of the deceased Zarif and prepared post mortem report. C.W.-1 Dr. R.O. Gupta, who has medically examined accused Fida Husain and Tahir, C.W.2 C.P. No. 695 Shyoraj Singh, who proved the G.D. entry No. 27 of police station Hapsburg, were also examined by the Court. 26. After closure of the prosecution evidence, statement of accused appellants under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. 27. Accused persons in their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. have denied the allegations levelled against them and stated that they have been falsely implicated due to enmity. Accused appellant Mobin has stated that Shakil Ahmad and Riyasat had assaulted on 22.8.1982 with the intention to kill him. Case was registered against them and they were punished. He had also made written complaint about the irregularities committed by the police in that case. Due to this reason, the Investigating Officer of the present case, who was also the Investigating Officer of the offence dated 22.8.2012, has falsely implicated him in the present case. Accused appellant Kalwa stated that his uncle Mansab Ali was the Village Pradhan. Litigations were going on between the deceased and Mansab Ali. Due to this reason, the Investigating Officer of the present case, who was also the Investigating Officer of the offence dated 22.8.2012, has falsely implicated him in the present case. Accused appellant Kalwa stated that his uncle Mansab Ali was the Village Pradhan. Litigations were going on between the deceased and Mansab Ali. Due to enmity, he has been falsely implicated in the present case. Accused appellant Fida Husain has stated that in the subsequent night of festival Eid, when he alongwith his nephew Tahir were at the Tubewell, 7-8 persons covering their faces with cloths came there and beat them severely who became unconscious. When Inshad and others were carrying him in Buggi, he was arrested on the way at the instance of Ikram. He further stated that he had lodged a report regarding the theft of Sterio against the brother of Ikram and due to this reason, he has been falsely implicated in the present case. Other accused appellants have stated more or less the same facts regarding their false implication . 28. The defence examined two witnesses, namely, Dr. N.S. Paul, radiologist, District Hospital, Ghaziabad and Dr. S.K. Mishra, Medical Superintendent, District Jail, Meerut and relied on the documentary evidence Ext. kha-1 to Ext. kha-16 showing previous enmity with the witnesses and their antecedents. 29. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, the trial court has found that the prosecution has fully succeeded in bringing home the charges against the accused appellants beyond reasonable doubt warranting their conviction and sentence as above. Hence this appeal. 30. We have heard Shri Daya Shanker Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant nos.6&10, Shri Mukhtar Alam and Km. Ifra Islam, learned counsel for the appellant no.3, Shri Raj Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant nos. 4&5 and Shri Akhilesh Singh, learned Government Advocate assisted by Shri N.K. Singh Yadav and Shri Rajiv Kumar Mishra, learned AGA for the State as well as Shri Sunil Kumar Singh learned counsel for the complainant at length, and perused the entire record carefully. 31. Castigating the impugned judgement and order, learned counsel for the appellants has made the following submissions before the Court: (i). Prosecution could not establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. The findings recorded by the trial court in the impugned judgement and order are illegal, perverse and improper. (ii) Written report (Ext. 31. Castigating the impugned judgement and order, learned counsel for the appellants has made the following submissions before the Court: (i). Prosecution could not establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. The findings recorded by the trial court in the impugned judgement and order are illegal, perverse and improper. (ii) Written report (Ext. ka-1) moved by PW-1 Shakil Ahmad is hit by the provisions of Section 162 Cr.P.C.. A telephonic information about the incident had already been given by one Asghar and concerned police had already started investigation on the basis of the said information. (iii) The F.I.R. is ante-timed document. Details of crime, names of accused persons etc. have not been mentioned in the Inquest report and other police papers. (iv) Special report as required under Section 157 Cr.P.C. had not been sent immediately. (v) Witnesses were interrogated belatedly, hence, prosecution story is not believable. (vi) Incident said to have taken place at culvert on chak-road was not proved by the prosecution, therefore, motive attributed to the accused appellants was not established. (vii) Pellets, cartridges or blood were not recovered/ taken from the 'Baithaka'. (viii) Neither the bloodstained earth and plain earth said to have been taken from the place of occurrence nor any chemical examination report was produced before the Court by the prosecution. Thus, place of occurrence of the main incident was not established by the prosecution. (ix) PW-1 is not an eye account witness. His statement is full of contradictions, exaggeration and improvement. Other eye account witnesses have also made self-contradictory statements on the points of motive, date, time and place of occurrence. Contradictions have also occurred in the statements of the said eye account witnesses about the role of accused appellants and the manner of the incident. (x) Anwar is said to be injured in the same incident but he was not examined as police medico legal case. He was also not produced before the Court by the prosecution. (xi) Medical evidence does not support the prosecution case. (xii) Improvements, omissions, contradictions and exaggerations occurred in the prosecution evidence are fatal to the prosecution case. (xiii) Police papers are not proved as per the General Rules Criminal. (xiv) The witnesses, who had carried the injured for treatment, were not examined. (xv) Prosecution has also suppressed the origin and genesis of the incident. (xii) Improvements, omissions, contradictions and exaggerations occurred in the prosecution evidence are fatal to the prosecution case. (xiii) Police papers are not proved as per the General Rules Criminal. (xiv) The witnesses, who had carried the injured for treatment, were not examined. (xv) Prosecution has also suppressed the origin and genesis of the incident. (xvi) Enmity between the parties are admitted, hence, there is much possibility of false implication of the accused appellants in the present matter. (xvii) Acquittal of two co-accused by the trial court demolishes the whole prosecution case. (xviii) Role of the accused appellants have not been specified by the prosecution and the ingredients to constitute unlawful assembly have also not been proved. (xix) Investigation carried out in the present matter is defective and fatal to the prosecution case. 32. In reply, the learned GA appearing for the State has submitted that both the incidents, one at culvert and another at Baithaka have been proved by the prosecution. Motive attributed to the accused appellants is also proved. Medical evidence supports the oral testimony. FIR is not hit by the provisions of Section 162 Cr.P.C.. Telephonic information to the Hapur Police was not an F.I.R..The eye account witnesses were present on the spot and have received injuries in the same incident and they are reliable. Defective investigation does not affect the oral testimony of the eye account witnesses. Contradictions, omissions, improvement and exaggeration are bound to occur in the statements of untutored witnesses and the same are not fatal to the prosecution case. All the accused appellants have actively participated in the incident. Date, time and place of occurrence are established from the prosecution evidence beyond reasonable doubt. Non-sending of bloodstained earth and gun for expert opinion is not fatal to the testimony of the eye account witnesses. 33. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the entire record and evidence. 34. Before proceeding to discuss the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the parties, we may mention the findings of the trial court on material points passed in the impugned judgement and order, which are as under: (i) First incident of beating of Riyasat by the accused Mobin, Kalwa and Tahir was not proved by the prosecution. 34. Before proceeding to discuss the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the parties, we may mention the findings of the trial court on material points passed in the impugned judgement and order, which are as under: (i) First incident of beating of Riyasat by the accused Mobin, Kalwa and Tahir was not proved by the prosecution. (ii) Failure of prosecution to prove the motive cannot be taken to be fatal for the prosecution case because subsequent (second) incident is based upon direct evidence. (iii) Telephonic message was only a cryptic information given by Asghar Ali to the Hapur police. He was not an eye witness. The information did not disclose the details of crime. (iv) Statement of Munazar and Riyasat, who were injured witnesses, is of great value. (v) Testimony of the eye account witnesses also find support from the medical evidence. (vi) Date, time and Place of the occurrence was also established from the prosecution evidence. (vii) It was also established from the evidence that there was animosity between both the parties. Enmity between both the parties are also admitted to them. (viii) Manner of incident inside the Baithaka was also established beyond reasonable doubt from the prosecution evidence. (ix) Ocular and Medical evidence can not be disbelieved. Merely because the I.O. did not send the pellets or the fire arms to the Ballistic Expert, negligence on the part of the Investigating Officer was not found fatal to the prosecution case. (x) Prosecution has not suppressed the material evidence. It has examined all the witnesses, who could unfold the prosecution story. (xi) FIR is not ante-timed document. Non-mentioning of the details of crime in the inquest report and the police papers is also not fatal to the prosecution case. (xii) There was no deliberate delay in recording the statement of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C.. Delay in recording the statement of some witnesses has been properly explained. (xiii) Contradictions in the statement of the witnesses on some points are not material to discard the prosecution case. (xiv) Charges framed against the accused appellants were proved by the prosecution evidence beyond reasonable doubt. 35. After outlining the findings recorded by the trial court in the impugned judgement and order, we are proceeding to deal with the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. 36. (xiv) Charges framed against the accused appellants were proved by the prosecution evidence beyond reasonable doubt. 35. After outlining the findings recorded by the trial court in the impugned judgement and order, we are proceeding to deal with the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. 36. First of all, we take up the submission regarding marking of exhibits on documents admitted in evidence. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that exhibit numbers, as required under Rule 27 of General Rules Criminal, have not been mentioned, therefore, police papers stated to have been proved, shall not be admissible in the evidence. 37. To analyse this submission, we have gone through the record of the trial court as well as the provisions of the General Rules Criminal. 38. From the perusal of the record, it is quite evident that the exhibit numbers marked at the back of the papers have been admitted / proved by the prosecution witnesses, as such there is no infringement of the Rules. Thus, the submission of the appellants in this regard is not tenable. 39. Now, we proceed to deal with the submissions regarding motive and F.I.R.. 40. In the present matter, main offence is said to have been committed on 13.7.1983 at 7.30 a.m. at the Baithaka of the informant. As per F.I.R., in the morning of 13.7.1983 at about 7.00 a.m. when Riyasat, uncle of the informant, was returning from his field, accused Mobin, Kalwa and Tahir surrounded him near the culvert (Pulia) on the chak-road and beat him with lathi and danda. When Shaukin informed the informant about the incident, he (informant), his brother Kalwa and cousin Sabir rushed there. Accused persons fled away extending threat for dire consequences. Injured Riyasat was taken by them to his residence. To prove this fact, prosecution examined PW-1 Shakil, PW-2 Riyasat Ali and PW-4 Irshad. 41. PW-1 Shakil has stated that when they reached on the spot of the first incident, Riyasat was lying in a injured condition surrounded by accused who were unarmed. Accused fled way from the spot seeing them. This witnesses and his companion chased them. Injuries were caused to accused Tahir and Fida Husain by this witness and his companions. 42. 41. PW-1 Shakil has stated that when they reached on the spot of the first incident, Riyasat was lying in a injured condition surrounded by accused who were unarmed. Accused fled way from the spot seeing them. This witnesses and his companion chased them. Injuries were caused to accused Tahir and Fida Husain by this witness and his companions. 42. PW-2 Riyasat Ali has stated that when he was returning from the field on 13.7.1983 at 7.00 a.m., accused Mobin, Kalwa, Tahir and Fida Husain met him at the culvert on chak-road and caused him injuries by kicks and fists. PW-1 Shakil, Kalwa and Sabir had come and saved him. 43. PW-4 Irshad is not the eye witness of this incident. He received information about the incident by some other person. 44. On close scrutiny of the statements of PW-1 and PW-2, it emerges that the prosecution has changed the version at subsequent stages. As per FIR, information about the first incident was given by one Shaukin (not-examined) and when the witnesses reached there, accused fled away. During the course of examination, PW-1 and PW-2 have set-up different stories. The story set up by PW-2 Riyasat is entirely different from the story set up by PW-1 Shakil and the facts mentioned in the FIR. Injury reports of PW-2 Riyasat, accused Fida Husain and Tahir indicates entirely a different story. Injuries found on the person of Riyasat are not caused by lathi, danda or by kicks and fits. Statements recorded under Section 313 of accused Fida Husain and Tahir also revealed a different story. Prosecution has tried to explain the injuries of accused Tahir and Fida Husain but not succeeded. Accused Fida Husain and Tahir have explained that they were beaten in the night by some miscreants when they were sleeping at the tube-well. The finding of the trial court that the prosecution evidence regarding motive and the fact that the incident took place at culvert near chak-road is not believable. On careful analysis of the entire evidence on these points, we do not find any illegality or perversity in the finding of the trial court. There are many loopholes in the prosecution evidence on this point. The finding of the trial court that incident at culvert and incident at Baithaka cannot be mixed with each other,can not be said to be illegal or perverse. There are many loopholes in the prosecution evidence on this point. The finding of the trial court that incident at culvert and incident at Baithaka cannot be mixed with each other,can not be said to be illegal or perverse. Failure of the prosecution to prove the first incident cannot discredit the prosecution case relating to the main incident. Both the incidents shall be looked into independently. No illegality is found in the finding recorded by the trial court on this point. It would be pertinent to mention here that, though, motive is an essential ingredients to constitute the offence but where there are direct and ocular evidence, non-proving of motive would not be fatal to the prosecution case. 45. Learned counsel for the appellants have also submitted that EX-ka-1 is hit by the provisions of Section 162 Cr.P.C.. Information given to the Hapur Police on Telephone by one Asghar will be treated as FIR in the matter. 46. A perusal of the record shows that on the day of the incident, a telephonic message was given to the Hapur police. C.W.2 Constable Shyo Raj Singh has stated that on 13.7.1983 at 8.20 a.m. at police station Hapur a telephonic information given by Asgar regarding the incident of firing at the residence of Pradhan was received. It has also come in the evidence that some police personnels of police station Hapur had proceeded to arrest the accused before the transfer of the investigation from the police station Babugarh to police station Hapur itself. Initially, the investigation was carried out by Shri Ram Singh Manral, the then S.O. police station Bagugarh. Later on, on the day of the incident itself, investigation was transferred from police station Babugarh to police station Hapur. FIR (Ext. ka-1) was registered at police station Babugarh on 13.7.1983 at 9.30 a.m.. Informant Shakil was interrogated at police station Babugarh by the first Investigating Officer on the same day. Inquest report and other police papers were prepared by the police of Babugarh police station on the same day. 47. Now, the question is as to whether the departure of the police personnels from the police station Hapur for effectuating arrest of accused would mean that the police of Hapur police station had entered into the investigation and whether the written report (Ext. ka-1) is hit by the provisions of Section 162 Cr.P.C.. 48. 47. Now, the question is as to whether the departure of the police personnels from the police station Hapur for effectuating arrest of accused would mean that the police of Hapur police station had entered into the investigation and whether the written report (Ext. ka-1) is hit by the provisions of Section 162 Cr.P.C.. 48. Before discussing the issue, we would refer the case laws relied upon by the parties: (i) Yanab Sheikh @ Gagu vs. State of West Bangal, 2013 (6) SCC 418 (paragraphs 8,9 and 12): "8. In the case of Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2010) 6 SCC 1 , a Bench of this Court took the view that cryptic telephone messages could not be treated as FIRs as their object is only to get the police to the scene of offence and not to register the FIR. The said intention can also be clearly culled out from the bare reading of Section 154 of the Code which states that the information if given orally should be reduced to writing, read over to the informant, signed by the informant and a copy of the same be given to him, free of cost. Similar view was also expressed by a Bench of this Court in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh v. V.V. Panduranga Rao (2009) 15 SCC 211 , where the Court observed as under: - "10. Certain facts have been rightly noted by the High Court. Where the information is only one which required the police to move to the place of occurrence and as a matter of fact the detailed statement was recorded after going to the place of occurrence, the said statement is to be treated as FIR. But where some cryptic or anonymous oral message which did not in terms clearly specify a cognizable offence cannot be treated as FIR. The mere fact that the information was the first in point of time does not by itself clothe it with the character of FIR. The matter has to be considered in the background of Sections 154 and 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short "the Code"). A cryptic telephonic message of a cognizable offence received by the police agency would not constitute an FIR." 9. The matter has to be considered in the background of Sections 154 and 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short "the Code"). A cryptic telephonic message of a cognizable offence received by the police agency would not constitute an FIR." 9. Thus, the purpose of telephone call by PW6, when admittedly he gave no details, leading to the recording of Entry, Ex.7, would not constitute the First Information Report as contemplated under Section 154 of the Code. The reliance placed by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant upon the provisions of Section 162 of the Code, is thus, not well-founded. Even in the case of Ravishwar Manjhi and Ors. v. State of Jharkhand, (2008) 16 SCC 561 , another Bench of this Court took the view that "..we are not oblivious to the fact that a mere information received by a police officer without any details as regards the identity of the accused or the nature of the injuries caused to the victim, name of the culprits, may not be treated as FIR, but had the same been produced, the nature of the information received by the police officer would have been clear....." 12. In light of the above settled principle, we are unable to accept that Ex.1/3 was a second FIR with regard to the same occurrence with similar details and was hit by Section 162 of the Code. On the contrary, Ex.7 was not a First Information Report upon its proper construction in law but was a mere telephonic information inviting the police to the place of occurrence. Thus, we have no hesitation in rejecting this contention raised on behalf of the appellant. (ii) Damodar vs. State of Rajasthan, 2003 (47) ACC 883 ; 2004 (12) SCC 336 (paragraphs 10,11 and 12): "10. Coming to the question whether the message received on telephone would be treated as the FIR, the D.D. entry (Ex.P.21) shows that unknown person had given an information about a vehicle hitting the deceased. In order to constitute the FIR, the information must reveal commission of an act which is a cognizable offence. 11. Coming to the question whether the message received on telephone would be treated as the FIR, the D.D. entry (Ex.P.21) shows that unknown person had given an information about a vehicle hitting the deceased. In order to constitute the FIR, the information must reveal commission of an act which is a cognizable offence. 11. As observed by this Court in Ramsinh Bavaji Jadeja v. state of Gujarat [1994] 2 SCC 685 : 1994 (31) ACC 319 (SC), the question as to at what stage the investigation commences has to be considered and examined on the facts of each case, especially, when the information of an alleged cognizable offence has been given on telephone. Any telephonic information about commission of a cognizable offence, if any, irrespective of the nature and details of such information cannot be treated as first information report. If the telephonic message is cryptic in nature and the officer in charge, proceeds to the place of occurrence on the basis of that information to find out the details of the nature of the offence if any, then it cannot be said that the information which had been received by him on telephone shall be deemed to be a FIR. The object and purpose of giving such telephonic message is not to lodge the first information report but to make the officer in charge of the police station to reach the place of occurrence. On the other hand, if the information given on telephone is not cryptic and on the basis of that information the officer in charge is prima facie satisfied about the commission of a cognizable offence and he proceeds from the police station after recording such information to investigate such offence then any statement made by any person in respect of the said offence including about the participants shall be deemed to be a statement made by a person to the police officer in the course of investigation covered by Section 162 of the Code. 12. On reading of the DD entry (Ex. P. 21) we are of the view that the trial Court has rightly held that it did not constitute the FIR and therefore the written report lodged by PW-15 vide Exhibit P-20 is not hit by Section 162 of the Code." (iii) Superintendent of Police (C.B.I.) vs. Tapan Kumar Singh, : 2003 (46) ACC 962 (SC) 2003 (6) SCC 175 (paragraph 20): 20. It is well settled that a First Information Report is not an encyclopedia, which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. An informant may lodge a report about the commission of an offence though he may not know the name of the victim or his assailant. He may not even know how the occurrence took place. A first informant need not necessarily be an eye witness so as to be able to disclose in great details all aspects of the offence committed. What is of significance is that the information given must disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and the information so lodged must provide a basis for the police officer to suspect the commission of a cognizable offence. At this stage it is enough if the police officer on the basis of the information given suspects the commission of a cognizable offence, and not that he must be convinced or satisfied that a cognizable offence has been committed. If he has reasons to suspect, on the basis of information received, that a cognizable offence may have been committed, he is bound to record the information and conduct an investigation. At this stage it is also not necessary for him to satisfy himself about the truthfulness of the information. It is only after a complete investigation that he may be able to report on the truthfulness or otherwise of the information. Similarly, even if the information does not furnish all the details, he must find out those details in the course of investigation and collect all the necessary evidence. The information given disclosing the commission of a cognizable offence only sets in motion the investigative machinery, with a view to collect all necessary evidence, and thereafter to take action in accordance with law. The true test is whether the information furnished provides a reason to suspect the commission of an offence, which the concerned police officer is empowered under Section 156 of the Code to investigate. If it does, he has no option but to record the information and proceed to investigate the case either himself or depute any other competent officer to conduct the investigation. If it does, he has no option but to record the information and proceed to investigate the case either himself or depute any other competent officer to conduct the investigation. The question as to whether the report is true, whether it discloses full details regarding the manner of occurrence, whether the accused is named, and whether there is sufficient evidence to support the allegations are all matters which are alien to the consideration of the question whether the report discloses the commission of a cognizable offence. Even if the information does not give full details regarding these matters, the investigating officer is not absolved of his duty to investigate the case and discover the true facts, if he can." 49. In the present matter, information was received at Hapur police station at 8.20 a.m. and the same was entered in G.D. but it was cryptic telephonic message of a cognizable offence only to inform the police to reach at the scene. PW-1 informant Shakil had no knowledge about this information. Babugarh police registered the chick FIR on the basis of Ext. ka-1 moved by PW-1 Shakil. In fact formal FIR in the present matter was Ext. ka-1. Ratio of law laid down in the case of Yanab Sheikh (supra) is equally applicable to present case. Chick FIR registered at police station Babugarh having jurisdiction over the matter is not hit by the provisions of Section 162 Cr.P.C..Departure of the police personnels of Hapur police station was only to ascertain the truth of the information.The object and purpose of giving such cryptic telephonic message was not to lodge the FIR but to inform the concerned police to reach the place of occurrence. The opinion of the trial court on this point is based on settled legal position and does not require interference by this Court. 50. As far as non-recording of statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of the injured witnesses at the earliest point of time is concerned, the injured witnesses were shifted to Medical college Meerut by the doctor of P.H.C. Hapur. Offence was committed in the Ghaziabad district. The concerned Investigating Officer has explained the reasons for non-interrogation of these witnesses immediately. The explanation given by the Investigating Officer cannot be termed unsatisfactory or illegal. Offence was committed in the Ghaziabad district. The concerned Investigating Officer has explained the reasons for non-interrogation of these witnesses immediately. The explanation given by the Investigating Officer cannot be termed unsatisfactory or illegal. To illustrate the position, we would like to refer the case laws relied upon by the parties: (i) Ganesh Bhavani Patel vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1979 SC 135 . (ii) Raju vs. State of U.P. 1985 (22) ACC (Sum) : ACR 1985 page 6 (Alld. High Court). (iii) Jagdish Murav vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2006 (46) AIC 641 : (2006) 12 SCC 626 . 51. The legal position, as has been propounded in Ganesh Bhavani Patel case (supra) is that "delay of a few hours, simpliciter, in recording the statements of eyewitnesses may not, by itself, amount to a serious infirmity in the prosecution case. But it may assume such a character if there are concomitant circumstances to suggest that the investigator was deliberately marking time with a view to decide about the shape to be given to the case and the eyewitnesses to be introduced ." 52. We have carefully analysed the prosecution evidence in light of the settled legal position and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants. It is evident that injured Riyasat (PW-2) and Munazar (PW-3) were medically examined on the day of incident itself at 9.30 and 9.55 a.m. at P.H.C. Hapur brought by Gyasuddin. They were referred to the Medical College, Meerut for better treatment. It has also come in the prosecution evidence that first Investigating Officer did not record the statement of these two witnesses at P.H.C. Hapur. He has also not interrogated them at Medical College, Meerut. On 1.8.1983, the second Investigating Officer had recorded their statements at Medical College, Meerut. PW-11 Raghu Raj Singh the second I.O. has explained the reasons for not recording the statements of these witnesses before 1.8.1983. It is noteworthy here that all the eye account witnesses have been cited in the FIR lodged on the day of incident. It has also been mentioned in the FIR that villagers had taken the injured Riyasat (PW-2) and Munazar (PW-3) to the hospital. It is noteworthy here that all the eye account witnesses have been cited in the FIR lodged on the day of incident. It has also been mentioned in the FIR that villagers had taken the injured Riyasat (PW-2) and Munazar (PW-3) to the hospital. Under these circumstances, going though the entire evidence, we are of the view that in the present matter, the Investigating Officer cannot be blamed that he was deliberately delaying the interrogation of these witnesses with a view to decide about the shape to be given to the case and eye witnesses to be introduced. In our opinion, the finding of the trial court on these points is not illegal or perverse. The plea taken by the learned counsel for the appellants is not acceptable. More so the fact of the present case is entirely different from the fact of Jagdish Murav case(supra).In the present matter it can not be said that the I.O. conducted the investigation in a slip shod manner. Statement of the complainant was recorded just after registering the case at the police station concerned itself. Entries made in the G.D. were also proved by the prosecution as required under the law. Proper and satisfactory explanation for not recording the statements of the injured witnesses shifted for treatment to the Medical College, Meerut was given by the second I.O. The appellants cannot avail the benefit of the Ratio laid down in the case of Jagdish Murav case(supra). 53. So far as omission to send bloodstained and plain earth as well as the weapons, cartridge and the pellets to the Ballistic Expert for examination due to negligence of the I.O. is concerned, it would not in itself be sufficient to discard the ocular testimony or other reliable evidence. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amar Singh vs. Balwinder Singh and others, (2003) 2 SCC 518 : 2003 (46) ACC 619 (SC)has held that where the prosecution case is fully established by the direct testimony of the eye witnesses, which is corroborated by the medical evidence, any failure or omission of the Investigating Officer cannot render the prosecution case doubtful or unworthy of belief. 54. In the present matter, the prosecution's case is based on the ocular testimony of the injured witnesses and it is argued that the same is corroborated by medical evidence. 54. In the present matter, the prosecution's case is based on the ocular testimony of the injured witnesses and it is argued that the same is corroborated by medical evidence. Hence, in our considered view, the plea raised by the learned counsel for the appellants has to be scrutinised in the light of the law laid down by the Hon,ble Supreme Court in Amar Singh case (supra). 55. Now, we proceed to take up the submission regarding the delay in lodging the FIR and the non-mentioning of crime number and the details of crime in police papers. 56. In the present matter, offence was committed on 13.7.1983 at 7.30 a.m. in village Salai. The distance between the place of occurrence and the police station Babugarh is five kilometres. FIR is lodged on 13.7.1983 at 9.30 a.m. itself on the basis of written report (Ext. ka-1). Crime number etc. have been mentioned in the inquest report and in some police papers prepared at the time of inquest. Hence,in our view, the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants are not acceptable. In this regard, we would refer to the law laid down by the Apex Court in Amar Singh case (supra) (paragraphs 12 and 13): "12. In Zahoor & Ors vs. State of U.P., AIR 1991 SC 40 : 1990 (27) ACC 644 (SC), it was held that mere delay by itself is not enough to reject the prosecution case unless there are clear indications of fabrication. This was reiterated in Jamna & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1994 SC 79 : 1993 (30) ACC 707 (SC) (para 4) that delay by itself is not a circumstance to doubt the prosecution case. This was reiterated in Jamna & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1994 SC 79 : 1993 (30) ACC 707 (SC) (para 4) that delay by itself is not a circumstance to doubt the prosecution case. In the present case the High Court did not at all take into consideration the fact that the first informant Amar Singh and his three sons besides two others had received injuries and they had first gone to Sangrur from their village on a tractor trolley and from there to CMC, Ludhiana on taxies which is about 60 kilometers and further that all the six injured had been admitted in the hospital where one of them died next morning and another, namely, PW7, Bhan Singh had sustained serious injuries which were dangerous to life and he had to be operated upon and in such circumstances he could not have left the hospital for going to PS Sangrur for lodging the FIR. The High Court also failed to take into consideration the fact that the FIR was lodged after PW 14 Sardara Singh, S.I. of Police Station Sangrur had come to the hospital and had recorded the statement of Amar Singh after seeking opinion of the Doctor in writing and thereafter, the said statement was sent through Constable Joga Singh to the Police Station Sangrur. We are, therefore, clearly of the opinion that in the facts and circumstances of the case there was no delay in either lodging of the FIR or in sending the Special Report to the CJM and the view to the contrary taken by the High Court is absolutely incorrect. The High Court has also held that the details about the occurrence were not mentioned in the inquest report which showed that the investigating officer was not sure of the facts when the inquest report was prepared and this feature of the case carried weight in favour of the accused. We are unable to accept this reasoning of the High Court. We are unable to accept this reasoning of the High Court. The provision for holding of an inquest and preparing an inquest report is contained in Section 174 Cr.P.C. The heading of the Section is "Police to enquire and report on suicide, etc." Sub-section (1) of this Section provides that when the officer in charge of a police station or some other police officer specially empowered by the State Government in that behalf receives information that a person has committed suicide, or has been killed by another or by an animal or by machinery or by an accident, or has died under circumstances raising a reasonable suspicion that some other person has committed an offence, he shall immediately give information to the nearest Executive Magistrate and shall proceed to the place where the body of such deceased person is, and there, in the presence of two or more respectable inhabitants of the neighbourhood, shall make an investigation, and draw up a report of the apparent cause of death describing such wounds, fractures, bruises, and other marks of injury as may be found on the body and stating in what manner, or by what weapon or instrument (if any), such marks appear to have been inflicted. The requirement of the section is that the police officer shall record the apparent cause of death describing the wounds as may be found on the body and also the weapon or instrument by which they appear to have been inflicted and this has to be done in the presence of two or more respectable inhabitants of the neighbourhood. The Section does not contemplate that the manner in which the incident took place or the names of the accused should be mentioned in the inquest report. The basic purpose of holding an inquest is to report regarding the apparent cause of death, namely whether it is suicidal, homicidal, accidental or by some machinery, etc. The scope and purpose of Section 174 Cr.P.C. was explained by this Court in Podda Narayana & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1975 SC 1252 and it will be useful to reproduce the same. "The proceedings under Section 174 have a very limited scope. The object of the proceedings is merely to ascertain whether a person has died under suspicious circumstances or an unnatural death and if so what is the apparent cause of the death. v. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1975 SC 1252 and it will be useful to reproduce the same. "The proceedings under Section 174 have a very limited scope. The object of the proceedings is merely to ascertain whether a person has died under suspicious circumstances or an unnatural death and if so what is the apparent cause of the death. The question regarding the details as to how the deceased was assaulted or who assaulted him or under what circumstances he was assaulted is foreign to the ambit and scope of the proceedings under Section 174. Neither in practice nor in law was it necessary for the police to mention those details in the inquest report. 13. It is therefore not necessary to enter all the details of the overt acts in the inquest report. Their omission is not sufficient to put the prosecution out of Court." 57. Thus, applying the ratio laid down in Amar Singh case (supra), we are of the view that ocular evidence and medical evidence cannot be disbelieved merely on the ground that there is omission in the inquest report. It is not mandatory for the Investigating Officer to mention the crime number and other details of crime in the inquest report and other police papers prepared at the time of preparing the inquest report. FIR in the matter was lodged promptly at the earliest opportunity. There was no delay in lodging the F.I.R.. Witnesses present at the concerned police station were interrogated by the Investigating Officer on the same day. Non-mentioning of details of crimes in the police papers and non-examination of one Asgar, who had informed the Hapur police on telephone as also on the ground of non-examination of police personnel Yad Ram, it cannot be held that FIR in the matter was not in existence at the time mentioned in the chik. The genuineness and authenticity of FIR can also be not doubted on this score. Plea raised by the learned counsel for the appellants regarding FIR about ante-timed document is also not acceptable. The FIR was lodged promptly. 58. So far as the delay in sending the special report is concerned, this fact itself is not sufficient to discard the testimony of eye account and injured witnesses. 59. Now we take-up the relation between both the parties. The FIR was lodged promptly. 58. So far as the delay in sending the special report is concerned, this fact itself is not sufficient to discard the testimony of eye account and injured witnesses. 59. Now we take-up the relation between both the parties. It is an admitted case that deceased was village Pradhan at the time of occurrence. Earlier to it, one Mansab Ali, father of accused Akidat was Pradhan continuously for 25 years. It has also come in the evidence that there were village rivalry between the parties regarding election. It is also admitted to the parties that several other litigations were also going on between them prior to the incident. Thus, it is clear that relations between the parties were not cordial rather strained and inimical. Present case is based on the testimony of eye account injured witnesses, therefore, it cannot be held that on the ground of inimical term accused appellants have been falsely implicated in this case. 60. Now, we proceed to deal with the medical evidence. 61. First incident was not proved by the prosecution. Second incident took place at 7.30 a.m. in the Baithaka of the deceased. Deceased and other injured witnesses were talking with each other inside the Baithaka. As per medical evidence, injuries found on the body of the deceased were caused by fire arm weapons. Duration of the injuries also tallies with the time of the incident. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that semi-digested food was found in both the intestines of the deceased, which indicates that deceased had taken food 4-5 hours before the incident.It means in the night at 3 to 4 a.m. itself. It is improbable that a person would take food in the night at 3.00 to 4.00 a.m., as such the time of the second incident was not supported by the medical evidence. 62. To analyse this fact, we have gone through the entire evidence available on record and found that semi-digested food was present in both the intestines of the deceased. Time of the occurrence is 7.30 a.m.. It is possible that deceased would have taken breakfast in the morning itself. 62. To analyse this fact, we have gone through the entire evidence available on record and found that semi-digested food was present in both the intestines of the deceased. Time of the occurrence is 7.30 a.m.. It is possible that deceased would have taken breakfast in the morning itself. It is also noteworthy that digestive process could not come to an end with the death of a person but it continued for some hours, therefore, finding of semi-digestive food in both the intestines is not unnatural or improbable. It also does not improbablise the prosecution case. Presence of semi-digested food in the intestines does not indicate that deceased was done to death in the night of 12/13.7.1983 itself. Injuries found on the body of deceased Zarif and the injured Riyasat (PW-2) and Munazar(PW-3) clearly indicate that they could be caused with the weapons assigned to the accused appellants at the time mentioned in the FIR. There is no conflict between medical evidence and oral version. Name of the injured Anwar is not mentioned in the FIR but prosecution evidence is clear and consistent that he received injuries in the same incident. He was referred to the Medical College, Meerut by the doctor of P.H.C. Hapur on 13.7.1983 itself. 63. As far as the presence of PW-1 Shakil Ahmad, PW-2 Riyasat Ali and PW-3 Munazar on the spot at the time of main incident is concerned, it is established from the prosecution evidence that deceased and all the witnesses cited in the FIR were talking with each other at the Baithaka. PW-1 and some other witnesses including the female member were present just outside the Baithaka. Site plan (Ext. ka-7) clearly indicates that house of accused Tasrif is situated towards eastern side of the place of occurrence. There were two windows, one in western and another in eastern wall of the Baithaka. Distance between the house of the informant and the Baithaka is about 15 paces. Presence of PW-1 Shakil Ahmad and PW-2 Riyasat outside and inside the Baithaka respectively at the time of the occurrence is not improbable or unnatural. Accused were 12 in number and they were possessing fire arm weapons. They had opened fire initially from the residence of Tasrif, which is situated only 40 paces away from the place of occurrence. Shots made at the house of Tasrif could easily be heard from the place of occurrence. Accused were 12 in number and they were possessing fire arm weapons. They had opened fire initially from the residence of Tasrif, which is situated only 40 paces away from the place of occurrence. Shots made at the house of Tasrif could easily be heard from the place of occurrence. Manner in which present offence was committed is quite probable and convincing. It is very natural and probable on the part of the witnesses present out side the Baithaka to escape from there to enter the house of Shakil to save their lives. In the given circumstances, persons present there would definitely try to save their lives, as such, those who were outside the Baithaka went inside the house, however the persons present inside the Baithaka could not make good their escape from that place. 64. Pellets have been recovered from the frame / ply of the door of Baithaka. PW-3 Munazar and Anwar(not examined), who have also received injuries in the same incident, were present inside the Baithaka at the time of occurrence. There is contradictions in the statement of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 on the point as to whether windows were opened or closed at the time of occurrence. Similarly, there is also contradiction in the statement of prosecution witnesses as to whether fires were being made from both the windows or from only one window. Contradiction is also on the point as to whether the accused making fire from the heap of hay were visible from the house of PW-1 Shakil or not, and which of the accused caused injuries to whom. In our opinion, these contradictions have come in the statements of the eyewitnesses in the course of lengthy cross-examination recorded after long period of time. It would not be possible for the witness to capitulate in the mind the entire facts in a symmetrical and categorical manner. Witnesses perceive the fact in their own way because memory power and the response differs from person to person. Similarly, witnesses answered the question put to them in their own way on the basis what they have actually perceived. Contradictions in the statements of eye account witnesses is bound to occur as they have been examined on different dates and they are not tutored witnesses. PW-3 Munazar had reached the spot and was present there during the course of the occurrence. Contradictions in the statements of eye account witnesses is bound to occur as they have been examined on different dates and they are not tutored witnesses. PW-3 Munazar had reached the spot and was present there during the course of the occurrence. Testimony of this witness is also supported from the medical evidence.Thus the finding of the trial court regarding presence of PW-2 and PW-3 on the spot at the time of occurrence is not liable to be interfered with. 65. So far as witnessing of the incident by PW-1 Shakil Ahmad is concerned, he escaped from the place of occurrence, when the accused persons started firing. If the accused, present at the heap of hay, were not visible from the hole of wall, then also this witness had seen the accused persons coming at the scene armed with fire-arms. Before entering into the house, witnesses have heard the shots of firing made by the accused. The finding recorded by the trial court regarding presence of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 on the spot at the time of occurrence is in accordance with the evidence available on record. No illegality or perversity is found in the said finding. Contradictions and improvements in the statements of eyewitnesses on some points are not fatal to the prosecution case. Place of occurrence is fixed from the oral testimony of eyewitnesses. All the accused appellants have formed an unlawful assembly to commit the present offence in furtherance of common object of the unlawful assembly. They all were armed with deadly weapons i.e. fire arms and have actively participated in the crime. Deceased Zarif sustained fatal injuries resulting into his death caused by the members of unlawful assembly formed by the appellants. PW-2 Riyasat, PW-3 Munazar and one Anwar also received injuries caused by the accused person. Contradictions in the statements of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 on the points-whether accused were making fire from both the windows or from only one window,whether windows remain closed or open during course of the occurrence, have been pointed out. But from the perusal of the entire evidence taking it into totality, it is clear that accused were making fire from all the three places shown in the site plan and stated by the witnesses. Deceased received injuries while he was trying to escape from the baithaka. Other injured received injuries inside the baithaka. 66. But from the perusal of the entire evidence taking it into totality, it is clear that accused were making fire from all the three places shown in the site plan and stated by the witnesses. Deceased received injuries while he was trying to escape from the baithaka. Other injured received injuries inside the baithaka. 66. Acquittal of co- accused Fida Husain and Tahir would not be a ground to acquit all the appellants. The prosecution from its evidence has been able to establish the guilt of the accused appellants beyond reasonable doubt. Since all the accused appellants committed the present offence in furtherance of common object of unlawful assembly, therefore, in our opinion, the trial court has rightly held appellants guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC, Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC for committing the murder of the deceased Zarif and causing fatal injuries to the Riyasat, Munazar and Anwar and under Section 148 IPC regarding forming of unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons. The observations / findings of the trial court are based on cogent and reliable evidence. Ocular evidence is supported by the medical evidence. The conclusion drawn by the trial court regarding conviction and sentence of the accused appellants is also in accordance with law and the evidence available on record. 67. Considering the entire aspects of the matter and looking to the circumstances, under which the present offence has been committed, we are of the view that the impugned judgement and order passed by the trial court is well thought and well discussed and the trial court has rightly held that the prosecution has succeeded to prove the guilt of the accused appellants beyond reasonable doubt. As such, the impugned judgement and order passed by the trial court is liable to be upheld and the appeal having no force is liable to be dismissed. 68. Accordingly the present Criminal Appeal is dismissed. 69. The conviction and sentence imposed upon the accused appellants Akidat, Tasreef, Anis, Ali Murtaza and Inshad vide impugned judgement and order dated 5.12.1985 is hereby confirmed. 70. The accused appellants Akidat, Tasreef, Anis, Ali Murtaza and Inshad are on bail. 68. Accordingly the present Criminal Appeal is dismissed. 69. The conviction and sentence imposed upon the accused appellants Akidat, Tasreef, Anis, Ali Murtaza and Inshad vide impugned judgement and order dated 5.12.1985 is hereby confirmed. 70. The accused appellants Akidat, Tasreef, Anis, Ali Murtaza and Inshad are on bail. Their personal and surety bonds are cancelled and they are directed to surrender before the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned forthwith, who shall take them into custody and send them to jail for serving out the remaining sentence imposed upon them by the trial court. In case they fail to surrender, as directed above, the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned is directed to take coercive action against them in this regard. 71. Copy of this judgement alongwith lower court record be sent forthwith to the Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad for compliance. Compliance report be submitted to this Court.