JUDGMENT Per : Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. Herein we adjudicate all the four appeals titled above as the same have arisen out of one judgment dated 6.9.2012 rendered by the Sessions Judge, Haridwar in Sessions Trial No. 101/2008. The trial pertains to Crime No. 333/2007 under Section 452, 302/34, 504 IPC, PS Ranipur. All the four appellants convicts were found guilty for the above offences. Learned Judge has appropriately sentenced all of them. 2. The incident depicts the twin murder of the real nephew and uncle at the hands of all the appellants including one other person Lakhan Giri. Such Lakhan Giri though named in the FIR, but no chargesheet was submitted by the Investigation Officer against him, nonetheless the learned Sessions Judge has opined the incriminating similar evidence against Lakhan Giri and has directed to prosecute him after ensuring his presence in the Court. We do not know whether the compliance of such directions has been given effect to or not. 3. This dreaded daring happening occurred on 13.11.2007 at about 8 PM when Jaiveer Giri and Dhyan Giri (the real nephew and uncle) were sitting in the Baithak (a room though adjacent to the house but usually used by the male members of such house for meeting and chatting with other villagers) of their residential place. The accused persons, namely, Lakhan Giri A1, Yashpal Giri A2, Ravindra Giri A3 (all sons of Puran Giri), Dhannu Giri A4 (brother-in-law of A2), Prakash Chand A5 (friend of A2), all residents of the same village, thronged into such Baithak. A1 was having battleaxe and A4 was having axe. In addition to, rest of the accused persons were armed with the lathis and batons. The informant Jaiveer Giri, the real brother of Jai Kumar Giri, was present in his home, which is just adjacent to the place of incident. All the accused persons hurled filthy abuses to Jai Kumar Giri and Dhyan Giri. When they were asked not to abuse, they all started to beat Jai Kumar Giri and Dhyan Giri from the weapons in their hands with intention to kill them. All the accused persons hurled filthy abuses to Jai Kumar Giri and Dhyan Giri. When they were asked not to abuse, they all started to beat Jai Kumar Giri and Dhyan Giri from the weapons in their hands with intention to kill them. Hearing the loud shouting, informant Jaiveer Giri, Munesh Giri, Vishal Giri, Liyakat Ali and few others quickly came at the spot and seeing the witnesses arrival at the spot, the accused persons escaped from the place, but by that time both injured have almost been mortally wounded inasmuch as they became unconscious at that very moment. In order to save their life, they were taken to the Government Hospital, Haridwar at 11.25 PM, where their injuries were recorded by the Emergency Medical Officer, but looking to their serious condition they were referred to higher centre within almost half an hour. So, the informant and other family relatives took them to the Jolygrant Private Medical College and Hospital on way from Haridwar to Dehradun, but still the doctors of such big institution finding the injuries very serious, referred the patients to the District Government Hospital, Dehradun perhaps for the more dominant reason that it was a medico-legal case. The family members were constrained to take the serious patients to the District Government Hospital, Dehradun accordingly, where they were admitted at 4.10 AM of that very night. Even the treatment to save their life could not be fruitful and in the result, Jai Kumar Giri breathed his last at 9.55 AM on 14.11.2007. So, the District Government Hospital sent the death report Ex. Ka-21 to the Kotwali, Dehradun through its ward boy. The informant remained indulged to save the life of his uncle but, here too, he could not succeed and Dhyan Giri also passed away at 2.20 PM on 14.11.2007. So, his death information was sent to the Kotwali, Dehradun under the writing and signature of Emergency Medical Officer, Dehradun, which is Ex. Ka-13. Since the police station had received the death reports in a medico-legal case, so a Sub Inspector was sent from the police station for getting recorded the inquest and such inquest (Ex. Ka-9) of Dhyan Giri was conducted on 14.11.2007 up to 16.30 PM and Jai Kumar Giri’s inquest (Ex. Ka-18) had been conducted up to 2 PM because he had died earlier. Ka-9) of Dhyan Giri was conducted on 14.11.2007 up to 16.30 PM and Jai Kumar Giri’s inquest (Ex. Ka-18) had been conducted up to 2 PM because he had died earlier. After 4.30 PM, Jaiveer Giri moved an application to the District Magistrate, Dehradun requesting for conducting the post-mortem of the deceased on the same day. In the evening he could procure the favourable orders. Thus, the autopsy of both the deceased could be conducted on the same day. Such post-mortem of Jai Kumar Giri, since died earlier, was conducted at 2.45 PM, while that of Dhyan Giri was conducted at 6.25 PM. The doctor has found the following injuries on the body of Jai Kumar Giri, a man of 48 years. (1) Stitched wound 1.5 cm with 2 stitches, 4 cm above left eyebrow. (2) Contused swelling 7 x 6 cm on top of the head in left side, 7 cm above left ear. In the opinion of the doctor, the death occurred due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem head injury. 4. Autopsy of Dhyan Giri discloses following injury on his body: 5 (1) Stitched wound 6 cm long with 5 stitches, 6 cm above inner side of right eyebrow. (2) Lacerated wound 2 x 1 cm, 1 cm above and right to the injury no.1. (3) Incised wound 6 x 1 cm on left forearm, 10 cm above left wrist. (4) Abrasion 3 x 2 cm on centre of lower back, 5 cm above coccyx. In the opinion of the doctor, the death occurred due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem head injury. 5. Since the post-mortem commenced at 6.25 PM, naturally it would have taken at least one hour and then the informant after taking the dead bodies of the relatives returned to Haridwar and gave the FIR in the police station. Such report could be recorded in the GD on 14.11.2007 at 22.15 PM. So, the contention of the learned Counsel of the appellants that the report was anti-dated or could not be lodged early is quite baseless for the reasons of the time sequence as has been narrated above. The precedent relied by the learned Counsel of the appellants is the case of Ramesh Baburao Devaskar & Others v. State of Maharashtra rendered on 12.10.2007 in Criminal Appeal Nos. The precedent relied by the learned Counsel of the appellants is the case of Ramesh Baburao Devaskar & Others v. State of Maharashtra rendered on 12.10.2007 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 844-846 of 2005, wherein it was held that an FIR cannot be lodged in a murder case after the inquest has been held and this was also one of the grounds, inter alia, for allowing the appeals by the Hon’ble Apex Court. 6. We have perused the law laid down in the judgment (supra) and it is our considered view that the said precedent was stated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in quite different facts and context, where the details of the incident were narrated by an eyewitness to the real brother of the deceased, but he (the real brother) was not an eyewitness and even he did not take trouble to lodge the FIR immediately, but came to his house and informed his sister-in-law. She in turn asked another man Sadashiva and informed about the incident to the first informant PW13. PW13 reached to the police station and lodged the FIR at some later point of time. So, he did not furnish the details of the incident because he was not in a position to furnish the same. But here the position is quite different. Firstly, the informant is the eyewitness of the incident and there is no delay at all in lodging the FIR to the police station because both his real brother and uncle’s life was at stake and he was indulged in saving the life of both in the District Government Hospital, Dehradun. Both lost their life one after another at the gap of few hours. So, he was running from pillar to post right from the place of occurrence to the hospital in Haridwar and then to the Dehradun and again to the hospital in order to take the dead bodies after the post-mortem. Dehradun is at a distance of at least two hours run from Haridwar city by a public vehicle and in such sensitive moments, vehicles are not kept ready by every man in order to facilitate his running from one place to other and that too with the dead bodies. Information was duly sent to the police station under the signature of the Medical Officer through the ward boy or the messenger of the hospital. Information was duly sent to the police station under the signature of the Medical Officer through the ward boy or the messenger of the hospital. Since it occurred in the territory of Haridwar District, so naturally it was not possible for any common man to compel the police station of Dehradun city to lodge his report regarding the occurrence at that very place. Police Station, Dehradun provided the help to the extent of sending the Sub Inspector only to record the inquests as indicated above. So, by no stretch of argument, the FIR can be termed as delayed or anti-timed. 7. The police came into motion and on the next coming day i.e. 15.11.2007, recovered all the weapons of assault at the instance of accused Lakhan Giri from a thatch in front of his house. The batons recovered were found bloodstained. Recovery memo is Ex. Ka-27. So, these were sent for the chemical analysis. The Forensic Science Laboratory report adverts the human blood on the soil recovered from the place of occurrence, pant and all the batons including the battleaxe. This report is admissible under Section 293 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 8. The investigation culminated into the submission of the chargesheet against all the appellants as the learned Sessions Judge has recorded that no chargesheet was submitted against A1 for the reasons best known to the Investigation Officer. Charges were levelled accordingly. 9. PW1 Jaiveer Giri has been examined and he has narrated the incident supporting the contents of the FIR in the chief examination recorded on 14.8.2008. He has also supported the version even in the cross-examination, which could be reduced into writing by the Court on that very day, but his cross-examination could not end up and the same was deferred. The witness again turned up on 6.2.2009 and PW1 Jaiveer Giri put his presence in the witness box, but the learned Counsel for the defence refused to cross-examine him. So, the opportunity was closed. 10. Since PW2 Vishal Giri, though the close relative of the deceased, was also examined. In his chief examination, he supported the entire incident and narrated the same in the similar sequence as deposed by PW1. Here also, since the accused persons obviously had some ill motive, so their Counsel refused to avail the opportunity of cross-examination. So, such opportunity was also closed by the learned Sessions Judge. 11. In his chief examination, he supported the entire incident and narrated the same in the similar sequence as deposed by PW1. Here also, since the accused persons obviously had some ill motive, so their Counsel refused to avail the opportunity of cross-examination. So, such opportunity was also closed by the learned Sessions Judge. 11. Almost after two years, the witnesses were recalled for cross-examination at the application of the accused persons, and here PW1 Jaiveer Giri, on 24.12.2010, made diagonally opposite statement than he earlier deposed before the Court on 14.8.2008. Similar was the situation with PW2 Vishal Giri. He was also recalled for the cross-examination at the application of accused persons and his cross-examination could be recorded almost after quarter and three years of his earlier statement. He also made diagonally opposite statement than the earlier one. So, the argument of the learned Counsel for the appellants that the witnesses have become hostile is quite baseless. It is apparent that when, after turning up the witnesses time and again, they were not cross-examined, rather the accused persons succeeded in deferring their cross-examination inasmuch as a long period of two and half years and all are the residents of the same village, so the truth cannot be concealed that in this long period, they were won over by the accused persons for one ill consideration or the other. In such matters, Hon’ble Apex Court has taken very serious view as in the case of Akil @ Javed v. State of NCT of Delhi, (2013) 7 SCC 125 . In that case, when the witness was cross-examined just after two months gap, he completely changed his statement as compared to chief examination in which said witness had inculpated accused. In such circumstances, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the inference must be drawn that the witness has been won over/improperly induced to change his stand and gave false testimony, and such false/induced portion of testimony should be disregarded. Likewise, in an oflate judgment in Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab, rendered on 21.1.2015 in Criminal Appeal No. 554 of 2012, the witness who supported the prosecution version in examination-in-chief and became hostile in cross-examination and gave diagonally opposite statement, Hon’ble Apex Court came down heavily on such witness and has held that the testimony of such witness should always be disregarded because it is clear that he has been won over. Otherwise, there was no reason for him to make this diagonally opposite statement. 12. Here in the present case, the cross-examination was deliberately not done and the learned Sessions Judge was constrained to close the opportunity of such cross-examination. After the lapse of almost two years and three and half years, the witnesses were again recalled only for cross-examination purpose at the application of the accused persons. It is obvious that when these witnesses and all the accused persons are hailing from the same village, it was very difficult for them to survive safe under the position and the pressure of these accused persons. So, they were constrained to resile from their statements for one consideration and the other or some fear. There was no reason for them to retract from their previous statements (examination-in-chief), which was also deposed on oath before the Court. 13. The argument of learned Counsel that any other eyewitness has not been produced is quite unsubstantial for the reason that when those eyewitnesses, who supported the prosecution version in their examination-in-chief, were not cross-examined and they could be cross-examined only after forcing them to make the favourable statements, then to discuss about calling other eyewitnesses is of no avail because other witnesses are also the residents of the same village. So, they have no option but to resile from their statements made under Section 164 CrPC. It is also pertinent to mention that after the support of the case by PW1 and PW2 in the chief examination, an application was moved under Section 319 CrPC by the learned prosecutor on 18.03.2009, and that application remained pending and the Court was permitted to dispose of that application only when the PW1 and PW2 became hostile, as indicated above. So, the prosecutor was also made constrained to make the endorsement of “not pressed” on 08.08.2012. 14. It was also argued by the learned counsel of the appellants that the injured were admitted in the hospital at Haridwar by the Sub Inspector J.S. Negi, as has been indicated in the top of the injury report, but such J.S. Negi has not been examined. 14. It was also argued by the learned counsel of the appellants that the injured were admitted in the hospital at Haridwar by the Sub Inspector J.S. Negi, as has been indicated in the top of the injury report, but such J.S. Negi has not been examined. Before coming to this question, we may like to mention that the genuineness of all the prosecution papers, may be of the papers submitted by the Investigation Officer including the chargesheet or the injury reports, has been admitted by the defence counsel during the course of trial under Section 294 CrPC, and Section 294(3) contemplates that where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document may be read in evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code without proof of the signature of the person to whom it purports to be signed. Not making J.S. Negi as a witness or not producing him in the witness box could have well been explained by the Investigation Officer, but when the genuineness of all the prosecution papers have been admitted by the learned defence counsel then there was no occasion for the prosecutor to call the Sub Inspector J.S. Negi or the Investigation Officer or the doctor, who noted the injury reports first in the District Hospital, Haridwar for deposition. 15. The enmity has been disclosed in the FIR itself and it has been in the evidence also that both the parties were at their loggerheads on account of the enmity nurtured on the subject matter of an agricultural field and on account of this enmity, there had been a quarrel on 19.07.2006 as well between the same parties wherein the cross-reports were lodged against each other, but such cases after submission of chargesheets were compounded. So, it cannot be said that the incident occurred without any motive and there is no cause for the informant Jaiveer Giri to implicate the accused persons who have taken away the life of two family members, exonerating the real culprits. 16. It has been in the FIR as well as in the evidence of PW1 and PW2 that at the spot there was the light of gas lantern. So, in the presence of illuminating light or otherwise also being the residents of the same village, it is difficult to say that the accused persons could not be identified. 17. 16. It has been in the FIR as well as in the evidence of PW1 and PW2 that at the spot there was the light of gas lantern. So, in the presence of illuminating light or otherwise also being the residents of the same village, it is difficult to say that the accused persons could not be identified. 17. In view of what has been stated above, we find that the view expressed by the learned Sessions Judge holding the conviction is based on sound reasoning. We do not find any reason to interfere in the same. In the result, all the appeals are bereft of any merit and liable to be dismissed. These appeals are accordingly dismissed. Convicts/appellants are in jail. They will serve out the sentences as awarded by the Court below. 18. Let a copy of this judgment, along with LCR, be sent to the trial court to ensure its compliance.