Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 2730 (ALL)

RANVIR SINGH v. STATE OF U. P.

2015-09-03

ARVIND KUMAR TRIPATHI, RANJANA PANDYA

body2015
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Mrs. Ranjana Pandya, J.—This appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the judgment dated 24.3.1982 passed by III Additional Sessions Judge, Hardoi on 23.3.1982 in Sessions Trial No. 695 of 1981, Police Station Kotwali, District Hardoi in Case Crime No. 507 of 1981 whereby the accused Ranvir, Chandra Prakash, Sheo Pratap Singh Manni and Chhotey Lal were convicted and sentenced to two years R.I., under Section 148 I.P.C., life imprisonment, under Section 302 I.P.C. read with Section 149 I.P.C., seven years R.I., under Section 307 I.P.C. read with Section 149 I.P.C. and one year R.I., under Section 379 I.P.C. and the accused Nand Lal was convicted and sentenced to one year R.I., under Section 147 I.P.C, life imprisonment, under Section 302 I.P.C. read with Section 149 I.P.C., seven years R.I., under Section 307 I.P.C. read with Section 149 I.P.C., seven years R.I. under Section 307 I.P.C. read with Section 149 I.P.C. and one year R.I., under Section 379 I.P.C. All the sentences of the accused were to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution story in brief is that the complainant Raja Bux Singh (PW-1) and the accused persons are resident of village Itauli, P.S. Kotwali, District Hardoi. The deceased was the brother of the complainant and accused Sheo Pratap and Chandra Prakash were also related to the deceased and the complainant being descendants of the common ancestor Fauzey Singh. All the six accused are friends and belong to the same party. Chhotkaunu Singh @ Rameshwar Singh (deceased) was Block Pramukh of Tandiwan Block at the time of occurrence and was also Director of the Cooperative Bank. His elder brother Ravindra Singh was also the Pradhan of his village. In the year 1977, Dacoity took place at the house of Manni in which his father Mangali had been murdered. A report of the incident was lodged by Brij Lal, the elder brother of Manni against Shishupal Singh, the cousin of the complainant and Gullu Pasi and Balak Ram Pasi, servants in which all the accused were acquitted. Further in 1974 an unlicensed gun was recovered from the possession of Ranvir Singh in which Dwarika and Dirgaj servants of the complainant were witnesses. The accused Sheo Pratap Singh suspected that the deceased Chhotkaunu Singh had chopped the bamboo clumps which belonged to him and the accused sheo Pratap. Further in 1974 an unlicensed gun was recovered from the possession of Ranvir Singh in which Dwarika and Dirgaj servants of the complainant were witnesses. The accused Sheo Pratap Singh suspected that the deceased Chhotkaunu Singh had chopped the bamboo clumps which belonged to him and the accused sheo Pratap. sheo Pratap accused complained against this action at which the deceased remarked that he had chopped the bamboo clumps of his own share. At this sheo Pratap threatened that he would cut Chhotkaunu in the same way as Chhotkaunu has chopped the bamboo clumps. Thus, Ranvir, sheo Pratap and Chandra Prakash alongwith co-accused were enmical towards deceased. 3. On 21.6.1981 at about 07:00 P.M., the complainant was sitting on a cot in the bound of a semi constructed house belonging to the deceased. Rakesh Singh, Nanhaku Singh and Raj Kumar Singh were also sitting there. There was another cot on which Chhotkaunu Singh and Shatrughan Singh were also sitting. Nearby the servants Daulat and Zalim were sitting. All were talking to the servants regarding starting of the construction of the house. When all of a sudden, the accused sheo Pratap Singh armed with spear, Ranvir Singh armed with kanta, Nand Lal armed with lathi, Chhotey Lal armed with spear, Manni armed with Kanta and Chandra Prakash armed with gun appeared there and approaching Rameshwar Singh @ Chhotkaunu Singh challenged to kill him. At this Nand Lal plied his lathi on the head of Chhotkaunu Singh at which Chotkaunu Singh stumbled down and fell on the ground. At this accused Ranvir Singh, Chhotey Lal and Manni pounced upon the Rifle and Gun of Chhotkaunu Singh placed on his cot. Ranvir Singh placed the rifle on his shoulder and Chhotey Lal placed the gun on his shoulder. After that all the accused persons began to beat the deceased Chhotkaunu Singh with lathi, kanta and spear. When Shatrughan Singh tried to save the deceased, he was attacked with spear. When Shatrughan Singh stepped back, Chandra Prakash fired with his gun while firing he was saying that whoever would come forward would met the same fate as Chhotkaunu Singh had met. Hue and cry was raised at the occurrence and after hearing noise of firing, people from the village came and the accused persons ran away. The complainant and the witnesses approached Chhotkaunu Singh and found that he had succumbed to his injuries. Hue and cry was raised at the occurrence and after hearing noise of firing, people from the village came and the accused persons ran away. The complainant and the witnesses approached Chhotkaunu Singh and found that he had succumbed to his injuries. Thus, the written First Information Report was lodged by PW-1 Raja Bux Singh who has also said to be an eye-witness and proved the written report as Exhibit Ka-1. 4. The First Information Report was lodged by the complainant Raja Bux Singh on the same day at 21:10 hrs. The place of occurrence being six miles away from the police station. S.I. Sri Ram Tripathi was entrusted with the investigation. The Investigating Officer in whose presence the case was registered and who was examined as PW-4, proved the chick report as Exhibit Ka-5. Copy of G.D. as Exhibit Ka-6, proceeded to prepare the inquest report of the deceased proving it as Exhibit Ka-7. He also prepared Challen of dead body Exhibit Ka-8. Photo of the dead body as Exhibit Ka-9. Letter to C.M.O. as Exhibit Ka-10 and 11. Sample of the seal as Exhibit Ka-12, sight plan at the pointing out of the complainant and proved it as Exhibit Ka-13, took into possession four rings, and one iron Chhala, three rupees one pair of sleepers and a belt and prepared the memo and proved it as Exhibit Ka-14. After that he collected blood stained and ordinary earth from the spot and sealed it and prepared a memo and proved it as Exhibit Ka-15. He also recovered “Makkhi of the rifle” and one live cartridge and prepared its memo and proved the memo as Exhibit Ka-16. He further picked up three sleepers and one spectacle and prepared memo and proved it as Exhibit Ka-17. After that, he took the statements of the witnesses since the statement of the complainant was recorded at the police station. After that he took into possession, the license of the arms carried away by the accused persons. The accused who had surrendered before the C.J.M., Farrukhabad were brought back. The custody remand application regarding accused Chhotey Lal and Manni was moved on 28.7.1981. S.I. Ram Awatar Singh was instructed to recover the arms from a well situated in the grove of Jagatpal Singh which memo was proved as Exhibit Ka-35. The accused who had surrendered before the C.J.M., Farrukhabad were brought back. The custody remand application regarding accused Chhotey Lal and Manni was moved on 28.7.1981. S.I. Ram Awatar Singh was instructed to recover the arms from a well situated in the grove of Jagatpal Singh which memo was proved as Exhibit Ka-35. On the date of occurrence, he had prepared Mazrobi Letter as regards the injured and sent him for medical examination and finally submitted charge-sheet against the accused. 5. PW-2 is Shatrughan Singh who is said to be an injured eye-witness. PW-3 is Dr. S.K. Luthara who conducted the post-mortem on the body of the deceased and proved the post-mortem report as Exhibit Ka-4. The doctor found one pant, one shirt, one vest, one underwear on the body of the deceased besides a black thread, he sealed theses articles and handed it over to Constable Prabhu Nath. 6. Doctor has found the following anti mortem injuries on the body of the deceased: “i. Fire-arm wound of entry over right side of head 8 cm. above the right ear measuring 2 cm. X 2cm. X Cranial cavity deep. Margins were inverted and irregular. Direction of the wound to the left and downwards. ii. Fire-arm wound of entry 3cm. X 3cm. and communicating with wound of entry No. 1 placed on the left mastoid region just below and behind lobule of left ear. Margins everted and irregular. Loss of tissue between the margins present. iii. lacerated wound 10 cm. X 1cm. X Bone deep on the forehead just above the root of nose, with multiple frontal bone. iv. Lacerated wound 9 cm. X 1.5 cm. and bone deep on top of head 12 cm. above the left ear, multiple fractures of frontal and parietal bones present. v. Lacerated wound 13 cm. X 1.5 cm. X bone deep over right side of head 10 cm. above the right ear right parietal bone fractured into pieces. vi. Four punctured wounds on the fron of neck and an area of 8 cm. X 5 cm. each measuring 2.5 cm. X 1 cm. X trachea deep trachea cut at 3 pieces. vii. Punctured wound over right side of chest 3 cm. X 1.25 cm. X chest cavity deep 9 cm. above on right nipple at 2 O’clock position on opening 2nd rib and pleura and lung cut right side, pleural cavity contained 150 ml. each measuring 2.5 cm. X 1 cm. X trachea deep trachea cut at 3 pieces. vii. Punctured wound over right side of chest 3 cm. X 1.25 cm. X chest cavity deep 9 cm. above on right nipple at 2 O’clock position on opening 2nd rib and pleura and lung cut right side, pleural cavity contained 150 ml. of clotted blood. viii. Punctured wound over middle of chest 1.5 cm. X 0.5 cm. X 2 cm. deep. ix. Punctured wound over right side of neck 3 cm. X 1 cm. X 4.5 cm., 11 cm. below the right ear. x. Punctured wound over right side of neck 3.5 cm. X 0.75 cm. X 4 cm., 6 cm. behind the injury No. 9. xi. Incised wound 6 cm. X 1.5 cm. X muscle deep on the root of right side of neck 8 cm. medial to top of right shoulder. xii. Incised wound 4 cm. X 1.5 cm. X bone deep on the right mastoid region 1 cm. below and behind right ear lobule. xiii. Incised wound 13 cm. X 4.5 cm. X bone deep over right side of chest just below the nipple 7th and 8th ribs cut under nearth. xiv. Punctured wound 2.5 cm. X 1 cm. X Chest cavity deep on the left side of chest 11 cm. below the left nipple at 8 O’clock position on opening pleura slightly cut. xv. Punctured wound 5 cm. X 2 cm. X abdominal cavity deep over left side of upper abdomen 4 cm. above the umblious at 2 O’clock position. xvi. Incised wound 5 cm. X 2 cm. X muscle deep on left side of upper abdomen 3 cm. lateral to injury No. 8. xvii. Punctured wound 8 cm. X 4.5 cm. X abdominal cavity deep on left side of upper abdomen 3 cm. lateral to injury No. 8. xviii. Incised wound 4 cm. X 1.5 cm. X muscle deep over right side of upper abdomen 4 cm. above the umbilicus at 10 O’clock position. xix. Punctured wound 2.5 cm. X abdominal cavity deep upper abdomen 3 cm. lateral to injury No. 18. xx. Incised wound 12 cm. X 12 cm. X bone deep on the right leg frond and outer side 22 cm. below the right knee joint. Margins were clean cut on opening right fibula cut completely and right title cut partially. xxi. Incised wound 10 cm. X abdominal cavity deep upper abdomen 3 cm. lateral to injury No. 18. xx. Incised wound 12 cm. X 12 cm. X bone deep on the right leg frond and outer side 22 cm. below the right knee joint. Margins were clean cut on opening right fibula cut completely and right title cut partially. xxi. Incised wound 10 cm. X 2.5 cm. X bone deep over back of right leg 9 cm. below the injury No. 20. xxii. 2 incised wounds on the left leg each measuring 3.5 cm. X 2 cm. X skin deep 4 cm. apart from each other 3 cm. above the left ample. xxiii. Incised wound 7 cm. X 2 cm. X muscle deep on the right inter scapular area 2 cm. right to the mid-line. xxiv. Punctured wound 2 cm. X 1 cm. X muscle deep over right side of back 5 cm. below the injury No. 23. xxv. Incised wound 4 cm. X 1.5 cm. X muscle deep on the right side of back 4 cm. below the injury No. 24. xxvi. Punctured wound 2 cm. X 1 cm. X 2.5 cm. over right side of back 4 cm. below the injury No. 25. xxvii. Incised wound 2 cm. X 1 cm. X muscle deep on the right side of back 2 cm. below the injury No. 26.” 7. Margins of all the incised wounds and punctured wounds were clean cut. Punctured wounds were found wider in the middle and tapering on both ends. On internal examination membranes of the brain was badly lacerated and missing at some places. The brain was badly lacerated and dis figured. At the base of skull multiple fractures were found. The right pleurae cavity contained 150 ml. of clotted blood. Abdominal cavity contained 200 ml. of clotted and red fluid. Stomach contained four ounces of brownish liquid. 8. PW-5 is Dr. B.P. Shalya who examined the injuries of the injured Shatrughan and proved the injury report and Exhibit Ka-39 and found the following injuries on the body of the injured Shatrughan : “1. An incised wound 2cm. X 0.5cm. X cavity deep on the left back middle 3 cm. below from left infra scapular angle. Margins were sharp, clean cut. Bleeding from the wound was present. X-ray of chest was advised. 2. An abrasion 2 cm. in length on left upper arm lower 3rd back 3 cm. An incised wound 2cm. X 0.5cm. X cavity deep on the left back middle 3 cm. below from left infra scapular angle. Margins were sharp, clean cut. Bleeding from the wound was present. X-ray of chest was advised. 2. An abrasion 2 cm. in length on left upper arm lower 3rd back 3 cm. above the left elbow joint. 3. An incised wound 2 cm. X 1 cm. X muscle deep on the left forearm at the junction of upper 3rd and lower 3rd, margins were regular, sharp clean cut, bleeding present from the wounds.” 9. PW-6 is Prabhu Nath Mani who took the dead body of the deceased alongwith the concerned papers for post-mortem. In the presence of this witness, the D.B.B.L. gun and rifle belonging to the deceased was recovered from the well. 10. The Court examined Dr. K.K. Singhal as Court witness (CW) 1 who has explained about the injuries of the accused and the weapons used thereof. 11. The prosecution also filed copy of judgment delivered in S.T. No. A178 of 1978. The statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. of the accused Ranvir Singh Exhibit Ka-3 besides some other documents. 12. After close of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. who denied the prosecution case and stated that report was ante timed and was written in consultation with police. It was also stated that Chhotkaunu Singh was killed in the dark, the assailant could not be recognized. He was enmical with many people of his locality and the present accused were falsely implicated due to enmity. 13. The defence filed application under Section 167 Cr.P.C. as Exhibit Kha-1. Exhibit Kha-2 is application moved by the informant to get the rifle and gun cleaned, besides the defence has filed copy of register of the Court Exhibit Kha-3. Copy of Register of criminals Exhibit Kha-4. Exhibit Kha-5 is copy of D.O. Exhibit Kha-6 is copy of report sent to the S.P. Exhibit Kha-7 is copy of report of police station Kotwali. Exhibit Kha-8 is copy of written report lodged by Chandra Prakash. Exhibit Kha-9 is copy of judgment delivered in Criminal Appeal No. 504 of 1980 and 518 of 1980. Exhibit Kha-10 is copy of judgment passed by Special Judge/2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Hardoi dated 28.11.1981 passed in special case. Exhibit Kha-8 is copy of written report lodged by Chandra Prakash. Exhibit Kha-9 is copy of judgment delivered in Criminal Appeal No. 504 of 1980 and 518 of 1980. Exhibit Kha-10 is copy of judgment passed by Special Judge/2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Hardoi dated 28.11.1981 passed in special case. Exhibit Kha-11 is application by the accused Manni and Chhotey Lal for getting themselves identified by the eye-witnesses. Exhibit Kha-12 is application on behalf of accused Ranvir and Chandra Prakash Singh for test identification parade. 14. Learned lower Court after perusing all the evidence on record and after hearing counsel for the parties convicted the accused as aforesaid. 15. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants have preferred this appeal. 16. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the record. 17. The following points were raised by the counsel for the appellants during the course of arguments for the defence : * The First Information Report is anti time. * The complainant Raja Bux Singh and the injured Shatrughan Singh were not on the spot, hence their evidence cannot be relied upon. * The place of incident could not be established by the prosecution. * The accused claimed identification which was wrongly refused. * The manner of assault and the prosecution version are not supported by the prosecution evidence. * There is no recovery and the alleged recovery is doubtful. * The investigation is tainted which strikes at the root of the case. (i) Whether the First Information Report is ante timed It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the F.I.R. is ante timed. It was written afterwards and not on the date and time as alleged by the prosecution. The alleged incident took place on 21.6.1981 at 7.00 p.m. and the report of the same was lodged on the same day at 9.10 p.m. The police station being 6 miles away from the place of occurrence as is evident from the check report Exhibit Ka-5. Perusal of the record shows that the brother of the complainant Raja Bux Singh was murdered brutally and mercilessly before his own eyes. The chick report Exhibit Ka-5 bears the crime number and also the signatures of I.O. Sri Ram Tripathi of the same day. Perusal of the statement of I.O. Sri Ram Tripathi reveals that the case was registered in his presence. The chick report Exhibit Ka-5 bears the crime number and also the signatures of I.O. Sri Ram Tripathi of the same day. Perusal of the statement of I.O. Sri Ram Tripathi reveals that the case was registered in his presence. According to the copy of the G.D. Exhibit Ka-6, there is entry at report No. 35 at 21:10 hrs that the present F.I.R. was lodged by Raja Bux Singh, who was accompanied by Jai Kumar Singh and Natthu Singh. This finds support from the statement of Raja Bux Singh, who has stated that while going to the police station from the place of occurrence, his house came on the way, he went to his house to inform his maternal aunt about the occurrence, waited there for 2 to 4 minutes, he met Natthu Singh and Jai Kumar Singh, who were also told about the incident. Both Natthu Singh and Jai Kumar Singh sat on the jeep and went with him to the police station. Thus, the entries of the G.D. are being corroborated by the statement of P.W. 1 Raja Bux Singh. In this context the inquest report Exhibit Ka-7 was also perused, in which the crime number has been mentioned. The inquest proceedings started on the next day on 22.6.1981 at 7.00 p.m. P.W. 1 Raja Bux Singh has also said that on the way, he informed Chhotkaunu Singh’s wife also about the incident. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that according to the law laid down in Dharmendra v. State of U.P., 2010(8) ADJ 22 (DB), in which it has been held that if the evidence on record shows that the F.I.R. is a sham document registered as anti timed with a coloured version of the incident, the F.I.R. would not be credible and no reliance be placed on it. Per contra learned A.G.A. has controverted the above argument and has submitted that the F.I.R. was lodged promptly and when the F.I.R. was prompt having been lodged soon after the occurrence, it is difficult to believe that a false story can be put as has been laid down in Nanhe v. State, 1973 SCC (Crl) 226. Thus, there is nothing on record, to substantiate the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants that the F.I.R. is ante timed. Thus, there is nothing on record, to substantiate the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants that the F.I.R. is ante timed. (ii) Whether the complainant Raja Bux Singh and the injured Shatrughan Singh were not on the spot, hence their evidence cannot be relied upon. It has been submitted on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellant that neither the complainant Raja Bux Singh nor the injured witness Shatrughan Singh was present on the spot. Hence, their evidence could not be relied upon. The complainant Raja Bux Singh has given the following pedigree in his statement : Faujey Singh Makrand Singh Ganga Singh Sadho Singh Gopal Singh Gurab Surat Jai Sobran Lalta Munerwar Ayodhya Ram Singh Singh Singh Singh Singh Singh Singh Deep Shishu Pal Singh Singh Asesar Ramendra Rameshwar Suresh Raja Rajesh alias Chandra Bux Chhotkanu Singh Deceased Chandra Ramesh Ranvir Singh Sukh Pal Prem Pal Prakash Accused Accused Shiv Pratap Ram Pratap Sanjeev Guddu Pappu Accused It shows that the accused and the deceased had a common ancestor Faujey Singh. It has also been submitted that because the alleged injured witness Shatrughan Singh was not injured during the incident, hence he was not medically examined on the same day, but was medically examined on the second day. Besides, the Mazrubi Letter of the injured bears the seal of the police station, which indicates that the injured was initially taken to the police station from there he was sent to the hospital. P.W. 1 Raja Bux Singh has stated that after he wrote written report he asked Shatrughan Singh to accompany him to the police station, but Shatrughan Singh refused to go to the police station because after seeing the incident he was feared that the accused would kill him. Shatrughan Singh, the injured witness was examined as P.W. 2, who has also stated that at 8:15 in the night Raja Bux Singh proceeded for the police station. He also requested this witness to accompany him to the police station, but since he was very much frightened and was feeling that if he would go to the police station the accused would kill him, hence he did not accompany the complainant and he also said that he would not go to the police station unless the police comes. He also requested this witness to accompany him to the police station, but since he was very much frightened and was feeling that if he would go to the police station the accused would kill him, hence he did not accompany the complainant and he also said that he would not go to the police station unless the police comes. He has further stated that after the I.O. came at about 10 O’clock in the night he first went to see the dead body of Chhotkaunu Singh after that he was sent with the constable to the hospital. Learned counsel for the appellant has also vehemently submitted that when two jeeps were available one with the informant and the other with the I.O., there was no reason why the injured was not sent to the hospital by jeep for immediate medical aid. He has further submitted that no plausible reason has been given by the prosecution for the injured witness Shatrughan Singh not go to the police station alongwith the complainant, because since he was not injured, this fact would have been noted in the G.D. The constable took him on foot till the road and at 12:30 in the night they went by a truck till Hardoi, from where he took Rickshaw and went to the Hospital, where they reached at 1:15 in the night. The medical report of this witness is Exhibit Ka-37. According to which he was medically examined at 1:30 a.m. On 22.6.1981. Obviously this means that he was examined by Doctor during the intervening night of 21/22.6.1981. As far as the seal of the police station on this document is concerned, it has further been contended that on the Mazrubi Letter 21.6.1981 was over written as 22.6.1981 for which the I.O. has admitted that he did not over write the date and he does not know who over wrote the date. The seal of the police station Exhibit Ka-37 tallies with the seal on the written report Exhibit Ka-1, which supports that fact that when the report was received by the I.O. in the police station the seal of the police station was put on this document. Even otherwise the accused could not be benefited by this over writing. The seal of the police station Exhibit Ka-37 tallies with the seal on the written report Exhibit Ka-1, which supports that fact that when the report was received by the I.O. in the police station the seal of the police station was put on this document. Even otherwise the accused could not be benefited by this over writing. Besides copy of the G.D. Exhibit Ka-38 which has been proved by P.W. 4 depicts that on 22.6.1981 at 2:30 a.m. this injury report was brought from the hospital after medical examination of Shatrughan Singh and deposited at the police station after making its reference in the G.D. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that why the I.O. was not sensitive enough to send the injured, bleeding person by his jeep and why he was sent on foot with the constable has not been explained by the prosecution. Abundant precaution is always desirable in all fears of human activities and it is merely impossible in any criminal trial to prove the element with scientific decision. We are aware of the fact that human moral values are going down day to day. P.W. 1 Raja Bux Singh has admitted in his statement that when the I.O. has come, he was staying on the spot, he was bleeding and the ground was blood stained. As far as the statement of Shatrughan Singh P.W. 2 is concerned on this issue he has said that his clothes were sent by the I.O. He has further stated that he was dependent on the constable. How the constable would take him to the hospital, he has said that he did not say to the I.O. that he if is accompanied by only one constable, the accused could kill him on the way. As far as the presence of Raja Bux Singh is concerned he has categorically stated that he had accompanied the deceased to see the construction of the house. It has been submitted that if Raja Bux Singh would have been present he would definitely have tried to save his brother from the hands of the accused, but his conduct is speaking otherwise. When this witness was examined on this point he specifically stated that since he was empty handed he did not try to save his brother. The presence of Raja Bux Singh is natural. When this witness was examined on this point he specifically stated that since he was empty handed he did not try to save his brother. The presence of Raja Bux Singh is natural. It is well-settled law that the testimony of a related witness cannot be thrown out only on the point of his relationship. The conduct of the witness has also been criticized and it has been submitted that this witness has admitted that after lodging of the report he went back to his house, remained there till 11 O’clock on the next day and came to the place of occurrence on the next day at 11 a.m. In this respect the statement of P.W. 1 Raja Bux Singh has to be examined, in which he has said that during the whole night he was lying in his Chaupal. I do not think this conduct of the witness is unnatural, because different people react differently under given circumstances. Right from 7 p.m. till night this witness was busy in lodging the F.I.R., getting the spot inspected and assisting the I.O. in investigation. He specifically stated that after the occurrence he went to the police station from there he came back to the place of occurrence, where the I.O. was interrogating the injured witness. Obviously, when the injured witness Shatrughan Singh left the place of occurrence for his medical examination, there was no reason for this witness to stay back as he would get busy next day in performing the last rites of the deceased, thus leaving the family members near the dead body, he went to his Chaupal. He has stated that he lying in the Chaupal. Lying and sleeping are two different things and it appears that this witness was just lying at Chaupal. As far as Shatrughan Singh, injured witness is concerned, it has been submitted that he did not receive any injuries on the spot. He is a chance witness, who does not belong to the village of the deceased, hence his evidence should not be relied upon. Examining the statement of Shatrughan Singh on this point, makes it clear that at the time of occurrence, the concerned village was in his “Halka” and he used to visit the village occasionally. He is a chance witness, who does not belong to the village of the deceased, hence his evidence should not be relied upon. Examining the statement of Shatrughan Singh on this point, makes it clear that at the time of occurrence, the concerned village was in his “Halka” and he used to visit the village occasionally. He has further stated as to how he reached the spot, inasmuch as in cross-examination he has stated that on the fateful day he was coming out from the quarter of the B.D.O. He had gone to the house of B.D.O. to discuss about the two semi constructed wells. He met the deceased near the police station, the deceased was going by jeep. Witness P.W. 2 Shatrughan Singh requested the deceased to take him also by the jeep as he had to go to Itauli from where he had to go to Hardoi. Thus although this witness belongs to another village, his presence at the spot cannot be viewed with suspicion. He has further clarified that Raja Bux Singh and Rakesh met these people at their Chaupal, where Chhotkanu Singh stayed for half an hour. The witness Shatrughan Singh has been termed to be a chance witness by the counsel for the appellants. Perusal of the statement shows that this witness was extensively cross-examined by the counsel for the appellants but there is not a whisper or even a suggestion that this witness was friendly with the deceased and the informant and enmical towards accused. A doubt has also been raised about the identity of the accused as regards PW-2 Shatrughan Singh is concerned it has been submitted that Shatrughan Singh did not know the accused persons. He could not recognize them, hence, his evidence is unreliable. Shatrughan Singh PW-2 has specifically stated that he knew the accused persons three years prior to the incident and he was also on talking terms with the accused persons for execution of work. Although this witness could not give the details of the work. In State of A.P. v. S. Rayappa and others, (2006) 4 SCC 512 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under : “Testimony of a witness otherwise inspiring confidence cannot be discarded on the ground that he being a relation of the deceased is an interested witness. Although this witness could not give the details of the work. In State of A.P. v. S. Rayappa and others, (2006) 4 SCC 512 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under : “Testimony of a witness otherwise inspiring confidence cannot be discarded on the ground that he being a relation of the deceased is an interested witness. A close relative who is a very natural witness cannot be termed as an interested witness. The term interested postulates that the person concerned must have some direct interest in seeing the accused person being convicted somehow or the other either because of animosity or some other reasons. On the contrary, invariably the public is reluctant to appear and depose before the Court especially in criminal case because of varied reasons. Criminal cases are kept dragging for years to come and the witnesses are a harassed lot. They are being threatened, intimidated and at the top of all they are subjected to lengthy cross-examination. In such a situation, the only natural witness available to the prosecution would be the relative witness. The relative witness is not necessarily an interested witness. On the other hand, being a close relation to the deceased they will try to prosecute the real culprit by stating the truth. There is no reason as to why a close relative will implicate and depose falsely against somebody and screen the real culprit to escape unpunished. The only requirement is that the testimony of the relative witnesses should be examined cautiously.” It has further been submitted on behalf of the appellants that perusal of the statement of I.O. PW-4 reveals that since clothes of Shatrughan Singh were not taken in possession by I.O. although they were blood stained but were later on submitted in the Court during the course of evidence of PW-2 Shatrughan Singh. Even on this ground the presence of Shatrughan Singh is doubtful. In this regard I.O. PW-4 Sri Ram Tripathi has stated that when he reached the spot, he found Shatrughan Singh sitting at the place of occurrence. He has further stated he did not take the clothes of PW-2 Shatrughan Singh in his possession because Shatrughan did not have alternate clothes to wear. In this regard I.O. PW-4 Sri Ram Tripathi has stated that when he reached the spot, he found Shatrughan Singh sitting at the place of occurrence. He has further stated he did not take the clothes of PW-2 Shatrughan Singh in his possession because Shatrughan did not have alternate clothes to wear. Even Shatrughan Singh has supported this fact and stated that since he did not have other clothes to wear, he did not hand over his blood stained clothes to the I.O. A lot of emphasis has been placed on the conduct of Raja Bux informant. In State of U.P. v. Naresh, (2011) 4 SCC 324 , the Hon’ble Apex Court after considering the large number of its earlier judgments held as under : “In all criminal cases, normal discrepancies are bound to occur in the depositions of witnesses due to normal errors of observation, namely, errors of memory due to lapse of time or due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence. Where the omissions amount to a contradiction, creating a serious doubt about the truthfulness of the witness and other witnesses also make material improvement while deposing in the Court, such evidence cannot be safe to rely upon. However, minor contradictions, inconsistencies, embellishments or improvements on trivial matters which do not affect the core of the prosecution case, should not be made a ground on which the evidence can be rejected in its entirety. The Court has to form its opinion about the credibility of the witness and record a finding as to whether his deposition inspires confidence. Exaggerations per se do not render the evidence brittle. But it can be one of the factors to test credibility of the prosecution version, when the entire evidence is put in a crucible for being tested on the touchstone of credibility. Therefore, mere marginal variations in the statements of a witness cannot be dubbed as improvements as the same may be elaborations of the statement made by the witness earlier. Therefore, mere marginal variations in the statements of a witness cannot be dubbed as improvements as the same may be elaborations of the statement made by the witness earlier. The omissions which amount to contradictions in material particulars i.e. go to the root of the case/materially affect the trial or core of the prosecution’s case, render the testimony of the witness liable to be discredited.” It is to be kept in mind that the occurrence took place on 21.6.1981, whereas the statement of witness Raja Bux was recorded in January, 1982 and the statement of Shatrughan was also recorded in January, 1982. Obviously human memory is liable to fade with passage of time. Criminal Courts should not expect a set of reaction from any eye-witness seeing an incident like murder. If five persons witness one incident there could be five types of reactions from each one of them. It is neither a tutored impact in a structured reaction which the eye-witness could make. It is fallacious to suggest that a particular witness would have done this or that on seeing the incident, unless the reaction demonstrated by the eye-witness is so improbable or inconceivable from any human being pitted in such a situation, it would be unfair to dub his reaction as unnatural. The minor discrepancies between the statements of witnesses have been categorically examined by the trial Court and we do not consider it appropriate or permissible to enter upon a re-appraisal or re-appreciation of the evidence in the context of the minor discrepancies painstakingly highlighted by the counsel for the appellant. Much importance cannot be attached to minor discrepancies. The reasons are obvious : “(1) By and large a witness cannot be expected to possess a photographic memory and to recall the details of an incident. It is not as if a video tape is replayed on the mental screen. (2) ordinarily it so happens that a witness is overtaken by events. The witness could not have anticipated the occurrence which so often has an element of surprise. The mental faculties therefore cannot be expected to be attuned to absorb the details. (3) The powers of observation differ from person to person. What one may notice, another may not. An object or movement might emboss its image on one person’s mind whereas it might go unnoticed on the part of another. The mental faculties therefore cannot be expected to be attuned to absorb the details. (3) The powers of observation differ from person to person. What one may notice, another may not. An object or movement might emboss its image on one person’s mind whereas it might go unnoticed on the part of another. (4) By and large people cannot accurately recall a conversation and reproduce the very words used by them or heard by them. They can only recall the main purport of the conversation. It is unrealistic to expect a witness to be a human tape recorder. (5) In regard to exact time of an incident, or the time duration of an occurrence, usually, people make their estimates by guess work on the spur of the moment 1.1 at the time of interrogation. And one cannot expect people to make very precise or reliable estimates in such matters. Again, it depends on the time- sense of individuals which varies from person to person. (6) Ordinarily a witness cannot be expected to recall accurately the sequence of events which take place in rapid succession or in a short time span. A witness is liable to get confused, or mixed up when interrogated later on. (7) A witness, though wholly truthful, is liable to be overawed by the Court atmosphere and the piercing cross-examination made by counsel and out of nervousness mix up facts, get confused regarding sequence of events, or fill up details from imagination on the spur of the moment. The sub-conscious mind of the witness sometimes so operates on account of the fear of looking foolish or being disbelieved though the witness is giving a truthful and honest account of the occurrence witnessed by him-Perhaps it is a sort of a psychological defence mechanism activated on the spur of the moment. Discrepancies which do not go to the root of the matter and shake the basic version of the witnesses therefore cannot be annexed with undue importance. More so when the all important “probabilities-factor” echoes in favour of the version narrated by the witnesses.” Perusal of the injuries of the injured Shatrughan Singh shows that he sustained two incised wounds, one on the left back and one on the left fore arm besides an abrasion. Thus, the presence of this witness at the spot finds corroboration from the oral and medical evidence both. Thus, the presence of this witness at the spot finds corroboration from the oral and medical evidence both. Thus, we conclude that the complainant Raja Bux Singh and the injured witness Shatrughan Singh were present on the spot and their evidence is wholly reliable, trust worthy and credit worthy. (iii) Whether the place of incident could not be established by the prosecution It has been submitted by counsel for the appellants that the place of incident could not be established by the prosecution. Sri Nagendra Mohan, counsel for the appellants has submitted that the place of occurrence as shown by the prosecution is not actually the place of occurrence. Both PW-1 Raja Bux Singh and PW-2 Shatrughan Singh have stated that the occurrence took place in the house of Raja Bux Singh which was to be constructed. The topography of the place of occurrence has been categorically stated by the complainant PW-1 Raja Bux Singh who has stated that there is Pakka Road towards the west of his village Itauly which is known as Hardoi-Sitapur Road. He has further sated that the deceased was getting the house constructed and the foundation of the house had been filled, a round room was present in the house and the accused committed the offence when Rakesh Singh, Nanhaku Singh and Raj Kumar Singh were sitting facing towards north. This statement finds support from the statement of PW-2 Shatrughan Singh and also from the statement of Investigating Officer PW-4 Sri Ram Tripathi who reached the spot on the same night at 10:00 P.M. After the occurrence the dead body of the deceased was found at point Nos. 1 and 2 shown in the site plan (Exhibit Ka-13) which is towards north of the cot placed at point Nos. 3 and 4. This further finds support from the fact that blood was found at point No. 2, inquest report (Exhibit Ka-7) also mentions that brain matter of the deceased was lying at point No. 1, one yards towards south-west of his head and towards east of his head. The investigating officer PW-4 Sri Ram Tripathi has collected blood stained and ordinary earth from this very place of occurrence and also recovered the Makkhi of the rifle of the deceased and the live cartridge from the spot. A pair of sleeper was also found on the spot. The investigating officer PW-4 Sri Ram Tripathi has collected blood stained and ordinary earth from this very place of occurrence and also recovered the Makkhi of the rifle of the deceased and the live cartridge from the spot. A pair of sleeper was also found on the spot. Counsel for the appellants definitely put a suggestion to the I.O. PW-4 Sri Ram Tripathi that the occurrence took place elsewhere but it was not suggested where the occurrence took place, whereas the I.O. has specifically stated that he collected the blood stained and normal earth from the place of occurrence. Although, he could not assert whether the blood was of the deceased or the injured. At this juncture, it has been submitted that since the blood was not examined by the seriologist, hence, it is not reliable. Non sending of blood to the seriologist would not render the prosecution case improbable when otherwise by credible evidence, the occurrence has been proved. Both PW-1 and PW-2 have stated that the occurrence took place at 07:00 P.M. The First Information Report was lodged on the same day at 09:10 P.M. Even the I.O. reached the spot on the same day at 10:00 P.M. The statement of the informant Raja Bux Singh PW-1 was also attacked on the ground that in his statement he had stated that when he wrote the report, there was sufficient sun light, as it is during the noon. The occurrence took place in the month of June and at 07:00 P.M. in the month of June, there is enough day light and a little exaggeration or embellishment by the informant would not render his statement false if otherwise his statement is trust worthy. The occurrence is said to have been taken place at very close quarters because lathi and spears have been used on both the injured and the deceased. The First Information Report also states that Shatrughan Singh was injured on the spot and the presence of the brother of the deceased on the spot is very natural. Thus, we conclude that the place of incident has very well been established by the prosecution. The First Information Report also states that Shatrughan Singh was injured on the spot and the presence of the brother of the deceased on the spot is very natural. Thus, we conclude that the place of incident has very well been established by the prosecution. (iv) The accused claimed identification parade which was wrongly refused It has been submitted on behalf of the appellants that since the witness PW-2 Shatrughan Singh did not know the accused and could not recognize the accused, hence an application for holding test identification parade was submitted by the appellants which was opposed by the prosecution and was wrongly rejected by the trial Court. As far as, test identification parade is concerned, the primary object of test identification parade is to enable the witnesses to identify the persons involved in the crime, if the offenders are not personally known to the witnesses. But where the accused are known to the witnesses not holding test identification parade may not be fatal to the prosecution case. Holding of test identification parade is not a rule of law but it is the rule of prudence. What is substantive evidence is, the identification of an accused in Court by a witness and that the prior identification in a test identification parade is used only to corroborate the identification in Court. Normally, identification of the accused in a test identification parade lends assurance so that the subsequent identification in Court during trial could be safely relied upon. However, even in the absence of such test identification parade, the identification in Court could in given circumstances be relied upon, if the witness is otherwise trust worthy and reliable. In Ashok Debbarma v. State of Tripura, (2014) 4 SCC 751, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under : “Criminal Trial - Identification - Test Identification Parade - Absence of TIP, when not fatal to prosecution case - Accused was known to witnesses (PWs 10 and 13) - Evidence of said witnesses being reliable and credible - Said witnesses identifying accused in open Court - Trial Court and High Court concurrently accepting their evidence and their being no defect in their evidence - The mere fact that no TIP was conducted, held, would not be a reason to discard the evidence of these witnesses.” In Surendra Narain alias Munna Pandey v. State of U.P., 1998 Cri LJ 359. It was held that “Even failure to hold a test identification parade inspite of an order passed by the Sessions Court is not fatal to the prosecution.” The accused persons moved applications (Exhibit Kha-11 and Kha 12) requesting the Court to order the conduction of test identification parade, but both these application were rejected by the Court on the ground that the accused were named in the First Information Report and it was also mentioned in the order that if during trial, the accused feel so, they can move application before the Court for their identification before the Court. Identification, as far as, it relates to Raja Bux Singh was neither claimed nor argued during the course of appeal but as far as PW-2 Shatrughan Singh is concerned, he has specifically named all the accused and has specified the role played by all the accused in giving effect to the incident. He has given a very reasonable and probable reason for his being on the spot. A suggestion was put to this witness that he did not know the accused from before to which he denied. Thus, we conclude that although the accused claimed identification parade which was refused but the accused have not been prejudiced in any way. (v) Whether the manner of assault and the prosecution version are not supported by the prosecution evidence. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that the manner of assault the ocular evidence and medical evidence are different. Hence, the prosecution story is unreliable. It has further been submitted that there were many eye-witnesses, but only two highly interested persons were produced in the cases. The Court has to weigh the quality of the evidence and not the quantity of the witnesses. P.W. 1 Raja Bux Singh has specifically stated that accused Sheo Pratap Singh and Chhotey Lal armed with spear, Ranvir and Manni armed with Kanta, Nand Lal armed with Lathi and Chandra Prakash armed with gun came to the spot. Nand Lal inflicted blow on the head of the deceased with the lathi at this deceased fell down, thereafter the accused attacked the deceased with Kanta and spear. When Shatrughan Singh came to save him he was assaulted twice with the spear and Chandra Prakash fired at Chhotkaunu on the head. Nand Lal inflicted blow on the head of the deceased with the lathi at this deceased fell down, thereafter the accused attacked the deceased with Kanta and spear. When Shatrughan Singh came to save him he was assaulted twice with the spear and Chandra Prakash fired at Chhotkaunu on the head. P.W. 2 Shatrughan Singh has said that Chandra Prakash armed with gun, Ranvir and Manni armed with Kanta, Sheo Pratap and Chhotey Lal armed with spear and Nand Lal armed with lathi came on the exhortation of Sheo Pratap. Nand Lal inflicted blow with lathi on the head of the deceased, who fell down at this Sheo Pratap and Chhotey Lal armed with spear, Nand Lal and Manni with lathi started inflicting blows on the deceased and when he tried to save the deceased Sheo Pratap inflicted one blow of spear on him, he tried to catch the spears by his hand but again a blow was inflicted on him and he fell down on the ground and sustained some injuries on his elbow also. At that Chandra Prakash fired from his gun on the head of the deceased. Thus the statements of P.W. 1 Raja Bux Singh and P.W. 2 Shatrughan Singh are consistent. These statements have been challenged by the learned counsel for the appellant stating that in the F.I.R. this fact has not been mentioned that Chandra Prakash fired a shot on the head of the deceased. A perusal of the F.I.R. Exhibit Ka-1 reveals that it has been mentioned that in the F.I.R. that while Chandra Prakash was opening fire, he was also threatening that witness and other people will be subjected to dire consequences, if they came forward. Thus the fact that fire was opened by Chandra Prakash is very much there in the F.I.R., which is not an encyclopedia because if the date, time and place of occurrence coupled with name of accused alongwith respective weapons is mentioned in the F.I.R. it would suffice. Perusal of the medical report of Shatrughan Singh Exhibit Ka-37 reveals that the injured sustained injury No. 2, which was an abrasion 2 cm. in length on left upper arm lower 3rd back 3 cm. above the left elbow joint. Thus the injuries of Shatrughan Singh tally with the oral evidence of the prosecution story. Perusal of the medical report of Shatrughan Singh Exhibit Ka-37 reveals that the injured sustained injury No. 2, which was an abrasion 2 cm. in length on left upper arm lower 3rd back 3 cm. above the left elbow joint. Thus the injuries of Shatrughan Singh tally with the oral evidence of the prosecution story. Much emphasis has been laid that the real brother of the deceased did not try to save the deceased, but the witness Shatrughan Singh came forward to save the deceased although both were empty handed cannot be believed. This argument have no force because since the deceased was attacked suddenly, prosecution witnesses could no be expected to react in a particular manner. It would depend that their mind worked at the spur of the moment. Coming to the injuries of the deceased he sustained 27 injuries, these injuries are speaking volumes about the incident inasmuch as there were two fire wounds and numerous punctured and incised wounds. The Doctor opined that the injuries could have been sustained by fire-arms, spear, sharp edged weapons like Kanta. He has also opined that margins of the incised wounds and punctured wounds were clean cut. Punctured wounds were found wider in the middle and tapering on both ends. This clearly indicates that Bhala as per prosecution version was also used in the incident. The Doctor who conducted the post-mortem report being P.W. 3 Dr. S.K. Lathura has stated that all the injuries appear to have been caused from a distance within 3 feet, the same is the case of the prosecution. On the point of the injuries of the accused, the trial Court was very conscious inasmuch as Dr. K.K. Singhal was summoned by the trial Court as Court witness being C.W. 1. He has also explained about the injuries and the weapons which could have been used causing injury to the injured. He has stated that the injuries of the injured could have been caused by spear, however, it depended on how the spear was used. The witnesses of fact have not been cross-examined on the point as to how the spear was used, whether horizontally or vertically. The evidence of this witness has been criticised on this point that in Criminal Appeal No. 518 of 1980 and 504 of 1980. The witnesses of fact have not been cross-examined on the point as to how the spear was used, whether horizontally or vertically. The evidence of this witness has been criticised on this point that in Criminal Appeal No. 518 of 1980 and 504 of 1980. In the judgement passed on 23.12.1980 the Hon’ble High Court has made the certain observations against this to which the witness replied that the High Court was not bound to accept the opinion of the experts. Therefore, we come to the conclusion that manner of assault, the prosecution version and the medical evidence are corroborating each other. (vi) Whether there is no recovery and the alleged recovery is doubtful It has further been contended on behalf of the appellant that the recovery of alleged stolen fire-arm is false, concocted and doubtful and cannot be relied upon. The learned A.G.A. has submitted that the recovery of these fire-arms was not a condition precedent to prove guilt against the accused. He has further submitted that the prosecution case is not under 411 I.P.C. The Investigating Officer Sri Ram Tripathi has stated that he received a phone call that the Rifle and Gun are lying in a well. He sent the S.I. to collect the weapons which were seized. On being examined on this point this witness said that some unknown person had sent telephonic call about the fire-arms lying in the well. P.W. 4 Sri Ram Tripathi has stated that the Rifle and Gun were recovered from a well. Witness P.W. 6 recovered the Gun and Rifle. It is very strange that on unknown telephonic call, the police party rushed and recovered the Rifle and Gun from the well, although record proves that after the accused persons had surrendered, the I.O. had moved an application before the Court concerned for police custody remand, so that weapons may be recovered at the pointing out of the accused Chhotey Lal and Manni. This application was moved by the I.O. on 17.7.1981 being Exhibit Ka-34, which was allowed on 23.7.1981. But the I.O. did not do the needful nor he took the accused Manni and Chhotey Lal in his custody for recovery, but on the other hand, has recovered the fire-arms from a well on the basis of information received by unknown telephonic call. But the I.O. did not do the needful nor he took the accused Manni and Chhotey Lal in his custody for recovery, but on the other hand, has recovered the fire-arms from a well on the basis of information received by unknown telephonic call. When he was questioned about this he stated that he had also started proceedings under Section 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. against the accused Manni, Nand Lal and Chhotey Lal. He has also admitted that after the accused surrendered at Farrukhabad, they were shifted to the jail of the Court concerned. But inspite of receiving the order of police custody remand he could not take the custody of the accused due to rush of work. The investigation of this case was an equally important job and overlooking, the orders of the police custody remand and not taking the accused in police custody for recovery of the fire-arms raises a question mark about the recovery. Thus, we conclude that no recovery was made as alleged by the prosecution, but it does not in any way affect the merits of the case. (vii) Whether the investigation is tainted which strikes at the root of the case According to the prosecution case the Gun and Rifle was picked up by Chhotey Lal and Ranvir. There is consistent evidence on this point. Hence the conviction of the accused Chandra Prakash, Sheo Pratap, Manni and Nand Lal is bad in the eye of law, as far as it relates to Section 379 I.P.C. As far as the injuries of Shatrughan Singh are concerned, the Doctor who examined his injuries is P.W. 5 Dr. B.P. Shalya, who has said that injury No. 3 can be caused by spear. It has further been submitted that in the inquest report the weapons used have not been mentioned. The primary purpose of holding inquest is to ascertain the cause of death and to find out whether it is homicidal Suicide or Accidental. Law therefore, requires a police officer to make an investigation and prepare a report describing the wounds and indicating by what weapon such wounds appears to have been caused. The primary purpose of holding inquest is to ascertain the cause of death and to find out whether it is homicidal Suicide or Accidental. Law therefore, requires a police officer to make an investigation and prepare a report describing the wounds and indicating by what weapon such wounds appears to have been caused. No doubt the weapons used in the incident have not been mentioned in the inquest report, but since the inquest report and the post-mortem report are not substantive piece of evidence, hence any discrepancy appearing therein can never be permitted to be vital which benefit the accused and would result in the dismissal of the prosecution case. The investigation of the case has also been criticized stating that the investigation of the case was not impartial and there are number of contradictions between the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and recorded before the Court. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Krishna Mochi v. State of Bihar, (2002) 6 SCC 81 , has held that : “It is a matter of common experience that in recent times there has been a sharp decline of ethical values in public life even in developed countries much less a developing one, like ours, where the rational of decline is higher. Even in ordinary cases, witnesses are not inclined to depose or their evidence is not found to be credible by Courts for manifold reasons. One of the reasons may be that they do not have courage to depose against an accused because of threats to their life, more so when the offenders are habitual criminals or high-ups in the Government or close to powers, which may be political, economic or other powers including muscle power. A witness may not stand the test of cross-examination, which may be sometimes, because he is a bucolic person and is not able to understand the question put to him by the skillful cross-examiner and at times under the stress of cross-examination, certain answers are snatched from him. When a rustic or illiterate witness faces an astute lawyer, there is bound to be imbalance and, therefore, minor discrepancies have to be ignored. When a rustic or illiterate witness faces an astute lawyer, there is bound to be imbalance and, therefore, minor discrepancies have to be ignored. these days it is not difficult to gain over a witness by money power or giving him any other allurance or giving out threats to his life and/or property at the instance of persons, in/or close to powers and muscle men or their associates. such instances are also not uncommon where a witness is not inclined to depose because in the prevailing social structure he wants to remain indifferent. It is most unfortunate that expert witnesses and the investigating agencies and other agencies which have an important role to play are also not immune from decline of values in public life. their evidence sometimes becomes doubtful because they do not act sincerely, take everything in a casual manner and are not able to devote proper attention and time. Thus, in a criminal trial a prosecutor is faced with so many odds. The Court while appreciating the evidence should not lose sight of these realities of life and cannot afford to make an unrealistic approach by sitting in a ivory tower. I find that in recent times the tendency to acquit an accused easily is galloping fast. It is very easy to pass an order of acquittal on the basis of minor points raised in the case by a short judgment so as to achieve the yardstick of disposal. some discrepancy is bound to be there in each and every case which should not weigh with the Court so long it does not materially affect the prosecution case. In case discrepancies pointed out are in the realm of pebbles, the Court should tread upon it, but if the same are boulders, the Court should not make an attempt to jump over the same.” 18. The attention of the Court was also drawn to the fact that one Daulat was examined by the I.O., whose parentage was different. The I.O. explained that by mistake the parentage of the witness was written incorrect. Learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out that this difference is a very major discrepancy in the investigation and submitted that this would strike at the root of the prosecution case. 19. The I.O. explained that by mistake the parentage of the witness was written incorrect. Learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out that this difference is a very major discrepancy in the investigation and submitted that this would strike at the root of the prosecution case. 19. We do not agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, because even if some other Daulat was interrogated by the I.O. since another witness by the name of Daulat was examined before the Court, hence the parentage of Daulat being different would not tampered the prosecution case. 20. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Sheo Shankar Singh v. State of Jharkhand and another, (2011)3 SCC 654 , has laid down that deficiencies in the investigation cannot a ground for discarding prosecution witnesses. 21. It is well-settled that even if the investigation is illegal or inconsistent the rest of the evidence must be scrutinized independently of the impact of it, otherwise, criminal trial will plummet to the level of Investigating Officer ruling the roost, the Court must have predominant in criminal trials over the action taken by the Investigating Officer. Criminal Justice should not be made the casualty for wrong committed by the Investigating Officer. In other words, if the Court is convinced with the testimony of a witness to the occurrence is true, the Court is free to act on it inspite of the Investigating Officer’s suspicious roll in the case. 22. As far as the papers file by the defence is concerned they are not relevant for the decision of this case, because even if the deceased was a criminal the accused had no right to murder. It has also been submitted that the deceased was holding a license of a Rifle and proceeding was started for cancellation of his license. I do not think that at this the accused could take law into their hands and punish the deceased. Thus, we conclude that even though there may be few shortcomings in the investigation, but they do not go to the root of the case. 23. In view of what has been stated above and on the basis of evidence on record, we conclude that only the accused Ranvir Singh and Chhotey Lal are liable to be convicted under Section 379 I.P.C. The remaining conviction and sentences of all the accused are upheld. 24. 23. In view of what has been stated above and on the basis of evidence on record, we conclude that only the accused Ranvir Singh and Chhotey Lal are liable to be convicted under Section 379 I.P.C. The remaining conviction and sentences of all the accused are upheld. 24. All the accused except Ranvir Singh and Chhotey Lal are acquitted for charges under Section 379 I.P.C. 25. The appeal is partly allowed in the aforesaid terms. 26. The accused namely Ranvir Singh, Chandra Prakash Singh, Sheo Pratap Singh, Chhotey Lal, Nand Lal and Manni Lal are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged. They shall serve out the sentence, they shall be taken into the custody forthwith and sent to jail. 27. The appellants would be entitled to get the benefit of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 28. Let certified copy of the Judgment be sent to the trial Court for ensuring compliance which should be reported to the Court within four weeks. Court should take them into custody to take all steps for execution of the sentence.