JUDGMENT Akhtar Husain Khan, J. 1. Above Criminal Appeal No. 127 of 1983 and Criminal Appeal No. 592 of 1983 have been filed by accused-appellants Veer Pal and Rameshwar respectively against judgment and order dated 7.1.1983 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad in Sessions Trial No. 120 of 1982, State v. Veer Pal and others, under sections 302, 302/34 I.P.C., P.S. Kaimganj, District Farrukhabad whereby learned Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad has convicted accused-appellant Rameshwar for offence under section 302 I.P.C. and accused-appellant Veer Pal for offence under section 302 I.P.C. read with section 34 I.P.C. and has sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life thereunder respectively. Learned Counsel Sri Nitin Kumar Singh holding brief of Sri Veer Singh appeared for accused-appellants and Sri Rajeev Gupta, learned AGA appeared for respondent-State. 2. We have heard learned Counsel for the appellants as well as learned AGA and have perused record. 3. In brief relevant fact for determination of these appeals is that Crime No. 295 of 1981, under section 302 I.P.C. has been registered in P.S. Kaimganj, District Farrukhabad on 6.9.1981 at 10 a.m. on written report of complainant Siyaram (Ext. Ka-1) against accused-appellants Veer Pal and Rameshwar. 4. According to First Information Report (Ext. Ka-1) version of prosecution is that on 6th September, 1981 at about 8.30 a.m., Siya Ram P.W. 1, Raja Ram P.W. 2 and Ram Bilas were smoking hubble bubble in the guava grove of Siya Ram and Brij Raj son of Siya Ram was plucking guavas. At the sometime, accused-appellants Veer Pal and Rameshwar came at the North West corner of guava grove of complainant Siya Ram and tried to enter into his grove. Vikram Singh son of complainant Siya Ram, who was ploughing field of Sanai situated on North side adjacent to said guava grove, forbade accused-appellants Veer Pal and Rameshwar from entering into guava grove whereupon accused-appellants Veer Pal and Rameshwar became annoyed and entered into altercation with Vikram Singh. But Vikram Singh firmly prohibited both accused-appellants from entering into his guava field whereupon accused-appellant Veer Pal exhorted and both accused-appellants Rameshwar and Veer Pal rushed to Vikram Singh and after having come near Vikram Singh accused-appellant Rameshwar fired at him. Complainant Siya Ram and others sitting with him in the grove saw occurrence and rushed towards Vikram Singh. But Vikram Singh firmly prohibited both accused-appellants from entering into his guava field whereupon accused-appellant Veer Pal exhorted and both accused-appellants Rameshwar and Veer Pal rushed to Vikram Singh and after having come near Vikram Singh accused-appellant Rameshwar fired at him. Complainant Siya Ram and others sitting with him in the grove saw occurrence and rushed towards Vikram Singh. Vikram Singh also raised alarm and ran towards guava grove to save himself but accused-appellants Veer Pal and Rameshwar chased him making exhortation. After entering into guava grove Vikram Singh ran towards peanuts field of Ramjeet Mehtar situated in east. Complainant Siya Ram also ran towards him and asked him to come near him whereupon Vikram Singh came near complainant Siya Ram in injured condition and fell down on earth. Complainant Siya Ram covered his son Vikram Singh and prayed accused-appellants to leave his son. Aforesaid Ram Bilas, Raja Ram and Brij Raj also were coming to Siya Ram and his son Vikram Singh but accused-appellants Rameshwar and Veer Pal pointed out Tamancha on them and warned them that if they come they shall shoot them, thereafter, accused-appellant Rameshwar asked complainant Siya Ram to separate himself from his son Vikram Singh but Siya Ram did not separate him from his son whereupon, accused-appellant Veer Pal dragged him and separated him from his son. In the meantime, Vikram Singh tried to run away but accused-appellant Rameshwar fired at him. Vikram Singh sustained injuries and fell on earth and succumbed to injuries on the spot at about 8.45 a.m. Thereafter, both accused-appellant went toward south. They were threatening that if any one attempts to apprehend them, he shall be shooted. 5. According to F.I.R. (Ext. Ka-1) one day before occurrence in evening Vikram Singh son of complainant Siya Ram intervened when accused appellant Rameshwar was eating guava after having entered into his grove. Due to which accused-appellant Rameshwar was annoyed and had gone with challenging eyes. 6. After occurrence complainant Siya Ram got F.I.R. (Ext. Ka.-1) written by his son Brij Raj and sent the same to P.S. Kaimganj through his son Brij Raj after having signed it. Thereafter F.I.R. (Ext. Ka-1) was presented at P.S. Kaimganj on the same day at 10.00 a.m. whereupon aforesaid crime number was registered in P.S. Kaimganj and investigation was started by police. Inquest report of deceased Vikram Singh (Ext. Thereafter F.I.R. (Ext. Ka-1) was presented at P.S. Kaimganj on the same day at 10.00 a.m. whereupon aforesaid crime number was registered in P.S. Kaimganj and investigation was started by police. Inquest report of deceased Vikram Singh (Ext. Ka-5) was prepared and dead body of deceased Vikram Singh was sent for post-mortem in sealed cover after having completed necessary formalities. 7. Later on investigation was completed by police in accordance with law and charge-sheet was submitted against accused-appellants Veer Pal and Rameshwar under section 302 I.P.C. whereupon Magistrate took cognizance and after compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C. committed the case to the Court of Session for trial of both accused-appellants. Thereafter, Session Trial No. 120 of 1982 was registered in the Session Court of district Farrukhabad and learned Session Judge, Farrukhabad framed charge against accused-appellant Rameshwar for offence under section 302 I.P.C. and against accused-appellant Veer Pal for offence under section 302 I.P.C. read with section 34 I.P.C. 8. Both accused-appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Prosecution examined P.W. 1 complainant Siya Ram, P.W. 2 Raja Ram, P.W. 3 Constable C.P. 93 Mukh Ram Dubey, P.W. 4 C.P. 558, Raghu Raj Singh, P.W. 5 Dr. H.P. Srivastava and P.W. 6 I.O. Karmvir Singh Mallik. 9. After prosecution evidence, statements of both accused-appellants were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. Both accused-appellants stated that they have been falsely implicated due to animosity and witnesses have given evidence against them due to enmity. 10. No witness has been examined on behalf of accused-appellants in defence. But documentary evidence has been adduced in defence. 11. Learned Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad heard the arguments of the parties and passed impugned judgment and order dated 7.1.1983 whereby he has convicted accused-appellants as mentioned above. 12. Learned Counsel for the accused-appellants contended that judgment and order passed by learned Trial Court is against evidence as well as law. 13. Learned Counsel for the accused-appellants contended that deceased Vikram Singh has been killed by unknown persons in the night and accused-appellants have been falsely implicated. 14. Learned Counsel for the accused-appellants contended that F.I.R. is anti-timed and whole story of prosecution is false and concocted. 15. Learned Counsel for the accused-appellants contended that witnesses of occurrence P.W. 1 complainant Siya Ram and Raja Ram are interested as well as inimical witnesses. They are not trustworthy witnesses. Their presence at the time of occurrence is false. 16. Learned Counsel for the accused-appellants contended that F.I.R. is anti-timed and whole story of prosecution is false and concocted. 15. Learned Counsel for the accused-appellants contended that witnesses of occurrence P.W. 1 complainant Siya Ram and Raja Ram are interested as well as inimical witnesses. They are not trustworthy witnesses. Their presence at the time of occurrence is false. 16. Learned Counsel for the accused-appellants prayed that both appeals should be allowed and accused-appellants should be acquitted. 17. Learned AGA contended that judgment and order passed by learned Trial Court is in accordance with evidence and law. He further contended that the witnesses examined by prosecution are natural and reliable witnesses. Learned Trial Court has committed no error in placing reliance on them. 18. Learned AGA contended that both appeals have no merit and should be dismissed. 19. We have considered the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through whole evidence on record. 20. Out of aforesaid six witnesses examined by prosecution P.W. 1 Siya Ram and P.W. 2 Raja Ram are alleged to be the eye-witnesses of occurrence. 21. P.W. 1 complainant Siya Ram has proved first information report (Ext. Ka-1) in his statement and has supported version of prosecution narrated in F.I.R. (Ext. Ka-1). P.W. 2 Raja Ram has supported statement of P.W. 1 complainant Siya Ram as well as version of occurrence stated in F.I.R. (Ext. Ka-1). 22. P.W. 3 C.P. 93 Mukh Ram Dubey has stated in his statement on oath that on 6.9.1981, he was posted in P.S. Kaimganj as constable, on that date written first information report was presented at 10 a.m. by Brij Raj before him in police station, on the basis of which he prepared chick report (Ext. Ka-2) in his hand writing with his signature. He has further stated in his statement on oath that he made entry of registration of crime in G.D. He has proved carbon copy of G.D. relating to registration of crime as Ext. Ka-3. 23. P.W. 4 C.P. 558, Raghu Raj Singh has stated in his statement on oath that on 6.9.1981, he was posted in P.S. Kaimganj as constable. He has stated in his statement that he had carried dead body of Vikram Singh in sealed cover along with papers for postmortem. Ka-3. 23. P.W. 4 C.P. 558, Raghu Raj Singh has stated in his statement on oath that on 6.9.1981, he was posted in P.S. Kaimganj as constable. He has stated in his statement that he had carried dead body of Vikram Singh in sealed cover along with papers for postmortem. He has stated in his statement that he had produced dead body in mortuary and had identified dead body. 24. P.W. 4 C.P. 558, Raghu Raj Singh has stated in his statement on oath that so long dead body remained in his custody none was permitted to interfere with it. 25. P.W. 4 C.P. 558, Raghu Raj Singh has further stated in his statement that after post-mortem, he had brought post-mortem report to police station and had filed the same in police station. 26. P.W. 5 Dr. H.P. Srivastava has stated in his statement on oath that on 7.9.1981, he was posted as Medical Officer in Sadar Hospital, Fatehgarh. On that date at 3.30 p.m., he conducted post-mortem of deceased Vikram Singh son of Siya Ram Krishak resident of village Ranipur Gaund, P.S. Kaimganj, District Farrukhabad. He has stated that dead body was brought by constable C.P. 563 Mahesh Chandra and constable C.P. 558 Raghu Raj Singh, P.S. Kaimganj and was identified by said constables. 27. P.W. 5 Dr. H.P. Srivastava has proved anti-mortem injuries of deceased Vikram Singh as well as his post mortem report (Ext. Ka-4) in his statement on oath. 28. P.W. 6 I.O. Karmvir Singh Mallik has stated in his statement of oath that from 6.9.1981 to 22.9.1981, he was posted as S.O. Kaimganj. He has stated in his statement that present crime was registered in his police station in his presence and he took investigation into his hands. He has stated that he went to place of occurrence and recorded statement of complainant Siya Ram. Thereafter, he prepared inquest report of deceased Vikram Singh as well as Photo Nash, Chalan Nash and letters for postmortem (Ext. Ka 5 to 9). 29. P.W. 6 I.O. Karmvir Singh Mallik has stated in his statement on oath that he took blood stained clothes of deceased in his possession and prepared memo (Ext. Ka-10) for the same. During his statement before Trial Court, he has proved blood stained clothes and other articles of deceased as material Exhibit-1 to 4. 30. Ka 5 to 9). 29. P.W. 6 I.O. Karmvir Singh Mallik has stated in his statement on oath that he took blood stained clothes of deceased in his possession and prepared memo (Ext. Ka-10) for the same. During his statement before Trial Court, he has proved blood stained clothes and other articles of deceased as material Exhibit-1 to 4. 30. P.W. 6 I.O. Karmvir Singh Mallik has stated in his statement on oath that he took blood stained earth and plain earth from the place of occurrence and prepared memo (Ext. Ka-11) for the same. He has stated that he kept blood stained earth and plain earth respectively in sealed containers. He has proved said sealed containers during his statement before Trial Court as material Exhibit-5 and 6. 31. P.W. 6 I.O. Karmvir Singh Mallik has stated in his statement on oath that he recorded statement of witnesses Raja Ram and Siya Ram on the same day. He has further stated that he recorded statement of witnesses of inquest report, thereafter he prepared site plan of occurrence at the pointing out of complainant and witnesses. He has proved site plan (Ext. Ka-12) in his statement on oath. 32. P.W. 6 I.O. Karmvir Singh Mallik has stated in his statement on oath that he took blood stained leaves and plants situated in the way through which the deceased had run and prepared recovery memo (Ext. Ka-13) for the same. 33. P.W. 6 I.O. Karmvir Singh Mallik has stated in his statement on oath that after him S.O. K.S. Rana completed investigation and submitted charge-sheet. He has proved charge-sheet (Ext. Ka-14) as a secondary witness by identifying handwriting and signature of said S.O. K.S. Rana. 34. After having gone through entire evidence on record, it is apparent that P.W. 1 complainant Siya Ram and P.W. 2 Raja Ram are eye-witnesses of occurrence and F.I.R. is prompt. 35. Learned Counsel for the appellants has contended that in inquest report (Ext. Ka-5) the entry in the column of informant and section of crime show that F.I.R. was not in existence at the time of preparation of inquest report (Ext. Ka-5) because in inquest report name of Brij Raj son of complainant Siya Ram has been written in column of the informant and Crime No. 295 of 1981 under section 34/302 I.P.C. has been written whereas chick F.I.R. (Ext. Ka-5) because in inquest report name of Brij Raj son of complainant Siya Ram has been written in column of the informant and Crime No. 295 of 1981 under section 34/302 I.P.C. has been written whereas chick F.I.R. (Ext. Ka-2) shows that Crime No. 295 of 1981 has been registered under section 302 I.P.C. and F.I.R. (Ext. Ka-1) has been lodged by complainant P.W. 1 Siya Ram. 36. We have considered the submissions made by learned Counsel for the appellants. 37. Perusal of chick F.I.R. (Ext. Ka-2) shows that Crime No. 295 of 1981 has been registered under section 302 I.P.C. in P.S. Kaimganj on the basis of written report (Ext. Ka-1) lodged by complainant Siya Ram but in inquest report (Ext. Ka-5), Crime No. 295 of 1981 under section 34/302 I.P.C. has been written. 38. In this context, it is relevant to mention that the allegation made in F.I.R. (Ext. Ka-1) shows that offence under section 302 I.P.C. is made out against accused-appellant Rameshwar whereas offence under section 302/34 I.P.C. is made out against accused-appellant Veer Pal. Therefore, addition of section 34 along with section 302 I.P.C. by I.Q. is not against law and on this ground no adverse inference should be drawn against prosecution. 39. Perusal of inquest report (Ext. Ka-5) shows that in the column requiring detail of the person, who has given information in police station about death for the first time, name of Brij Raj son of Siya Ram has been written. P.W. 1 complainant Siya Ram has stated in his statement on oath that after occurrence he got written F.I.R. (Ext. Ka-1) by his son Brij Raj and signed it. 40. P.W. 3 C.P. 93 Mukh Ram Dubey has stated in his statement on oath that written first information report was presented at 10 a.m. by Brij Raj before him in police station on the basis of which he prepared chick report (Ext. Ka-2) in his handwriting with his signature and made entry of registration of crime in G.D. He has proved carbon copy of G.D. as Ext. Ka-3. 41. Perusal of G.D. relating to registration of crime (Ext. Ka-3) also shows that first information report has been presented by Brij Raj in police station, thus, it is apparent that first information report (Ext. Ka-3. 41. Perusal of G.D. relating to registration of crime (Ext. Ka-3) also shows that first information report has been presented by Brij Raj in police station, thus, it is apparent that first information report (Ext. Ka-1) has been lodged by complainant P.W. 1 Siya Ram in police station but he himself had not gone to police station for lodging report. He had sent first information report (Ext. Ka-1) to police station Kaimganj through his son Brij Raj. 42. In view of above facts, we are of the view that entry of name of Brij Raj in the aforesaid column of inquest report (Ext. Ka-5) is not incorrect and against truth. If at the time of preparation of inquest report (Ext. Ka-5), F.I.R. (Ext. Ka-1) was not in existence, it would have been prepared in the name of Brij Raj after entry of name Brij Raj in aforesaid column of inquest report. 43. In view of discussion made above, we are of the view that on the basis of entry of name of Brij Raj in the aforesaid column of inquest report, it cannot be inferred that F.I.R. was not in existence at the time of preparation of inquest report. 44. It is apparent from chick F.I.R. (Ext. Ka-2) and G.D. relating to registration of crime (Ext. Ka-3) as well as statement of P.W. 3, Constable C.P. 93 Mukh Ram Dubey that F.I.R. (Ext. Ka-1) has been presented in police station Kaimganj on 6.9.1981 at 10 a.m. and, Crime No. 295 of 1981, under section 302 I.P.C. has been registered in P.S. Kaimganj at the same time against accused-appellants and chick F.I.R. (Ext. Ka-2) has been written on the basis of F.I.R. (Ext. Ka-1). P.W. 3 Constable C.P. 93 Mukh Ram Dubey has stated in cross-examination made by defence at page 3 (Page 48 of paper book) that he has sent special report of this crime at 1.00 p.m. through constable Shiv Lal Bajpai. Defence has given no suggestion to P.W. 3 C.P. 93 Mukh Ram Dubey to the effect that special report of this crime has not been sent as alleged by him. 45. P.W. 6 I.O. Karmvir Singh Mallik has stated in his statement on oath that present crime was registered in his presence and after registration of crime, he had gone to place of occurrence. According to inquest report (Ext. 45. P.W. 6 I.O. Karmvir Singh Mallik has stated in his statement on oath that present crime was registered in his presence and after registration of crime, he had gone to place of occurrence. According to inquest report (Ext. Ka-5), the preparation of inquest report has been started at 1.00 p.m. and has been completed at 2.30 p.m. Annexure-2 of inquest report is copy of F.I.R. and annexure-3 of inquest report is copy of G.D. 46. P.W. 4 C.P. 558, Raghu Raj Singh has stated in his statement on oath that he carried dead body of Vikram Singh in sealed cover for postmortem along with papers. Defence has not cross-examined P.W. 5 Dr. H.P. Srivastava to ascertain as to whether he has received papers along with dead body mentioned in inquest report (Ext. Ka-5). Defence has given no suggestion to P.W. 5 Dr. H.P. Srivastava to this effect in cross-examination. 47. Considering whole facts and circumstances of the case as well as evidence on record, in view of discussion made above, we are of the view that there is no sufficient ground to hold F.I.R. anti-timed. 48. P.W. 5 Dr. H.P. Srivastava has stated on oath that he has conducted post-mortem of deceased Vikram Singh on 7.9.1981 at 3.30 p.m. He has stated in his statement on oath that one and half day had passed since his death. P.W. 5 Dr. H.P. Srivastava has further stated in his statement that death of deceased Vikram Singh might have occurred on 6.9.1981 at 8.30 a.m. or 9.00 a.m. In postmortem report (Ext. Ka-4) proved by P.W. 5 Dr. H.P. Srivastava also time of death has been written one and half day. 49. Perusal of post-mortem report (Ext. Ka-4) as well as statement of P.W. 5 Dr. H.P. Srivastava show that at the time of post-mortem rigor mortis has passed from upper limbs but was present in lower limbs. 50. In Modi's Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, 23rd Edition edited by K. Mathiharan and Amrit K. Parnaik published in 2005 mentioned at page 432; it has been mentioned that "In northern India, the usual duration of rigor mortis is 24 to 48 hours in winter and 18 to 36 hours in summer." 51. Date of occurrence is 6.9.1981. 50. In Modi's Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, 23rd Edition edited by K. Mathiharan and Amrit K. Parnaik published in 2005 mentioned at page 432; it has been mentioned that "In northern India, the usual duration of rigor mortis is 24 to 48 hours in winter and 18 to 36 hours in summer." 51. Date of occurrence is 6.9.1981. Considering the position of rigor mortis of the dead body of the deceased Vikram Singh at the time of post-mortem, it is apparent that death has taken place about 30 hours earlier to post-mortem, it means death has taken place on 21.9.1981 at 8.30 a.m. or 9.00 a.m. 52. Perusal of post-mortem (Ext. Ka-4) shows that at the time of postmortem there was semi digested food in stomach of deceased. Small intestine also had some partly digested food while large intestine was empty. 53. It is apparent from F.I.R. (Ext. Ka-1) as well as statements of P.W. 1 complainant Siya Ram and P.W. 2 Raja Ram that Vikram Singh (now deceased) was ploughing Sanai field just before occurrence. I.O. has shown ploughed Sanai field in the site plan (Ext. Ka-12). In villages generally farmers used to start ploughing their field early in the morning before sun rise. 54. Considering the ploughed field shown by I.O. in site plan (Ext. Ka-12) as well as all facts, it is apparent that the Vikram Singh (now deceased) had started ploughing field about 2 to 3 hours before occurrence and in this 2 to 3 hours the food taken by Vikram Singh (now deceased) before starting work of ploughing may easily be semi digested. 55. In view of above, considering the condition of stomach small instestine and large instestine of deceased Vikram Singh, it appears most probable that his death has been caused at 8.30 a.m. or 9.00 a.m. as alleged by prosecution and not in the night as suggested by defence in cross-examination to P.W. 1 complainant Siya Ram and P.W. 2 Raja Ram. 56. In view of discussion made above after having considered all facts and circumstances and post-mortem report as well as statements of P.W. 1 complainant Siya Ram, P.W. 2 Raja Ram and P.W. 5 Dr. H.P. Srivastava, we are of view that most probable time of death of deceased Vikram Singh is at 8.45 a.m. as alleged by prosecution. 57. In F.I.R. (Ext. H.P. Srivastava, we are of view that most probable time of death of deceased Vikram Singh is at 8.45 a.m. as alleged by prosecution. 57. In F.I.R. (Ext. Ka-1) specific mention has been made by complainant P.W. 1 Siya Ram that he was smoking hubble bubble in his guava grove along with P.W. 2 Raja Ram and Ram Bilas. P.W. 1 complainant Siya Ram has supported this version of F.I.R. (Ext. Ka-1) in his statement on oath also. 58. P.W. 6 I.O. Karmvir Singh Mallik has shown guava grove of complainant Siya Ram in site plan (Ext. Ka-12). He has shown with letter "A" the place where complainant P.W. 1 Siya Ram and P.W. 2 Raj Ram were smoking hubble and bubble in guava grove. In his statement on oath P.W. 2 Raja Ram has also stated that he was smoking hubble and bubble along with Ram Bilas and Siya Ram. 59. Perusal of cross-examination made by defence with P.W. 1 complainant Siya Ram and P.W. 2 Raja Ram as well as statement of accused-appellants recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. show that situation of guava grove of complainant Siya Ram is not disputed. 60. Considering the time of occurrence as well as situation of guava grove of complainant P.W. 1 Siya Ram, it appears most reliable and natural that he had been enjoying hubble bubble along with P.W. 2 Raja Ram and Ram Bilas at the time of occurrence in his guava grove. 61. P.W. 2 Raja Ram has stated in cross-examination made by defence at page 4 (page 41 of paper book) that his field lies towards southwest from grove of complainant Siya Ram. There is no sufficient ground to disbelieve the statement of P.W. 2 Raja Ram regarding situation of his field. 62. P.W. 2 Raja Ram has stated in his statement on oath in cross-examination made by defence at page 4 (page 41 of paper book) that he had told I.O. that he had gone to the grove to smoke hubble bubble. He has further stated that he had not told I.O. that after feeling tired he went to the grove for taking rest. He has further stated that his son was ploughing field. 63. He has further stated that he had not told I.O. that after feeling tired he went to the grove for taking rest. He has further stated that his son was ploughing field. 63. Learned Counsel for the accused-appellants has contended that in statement recorded by I.O. under section 161 Cr.P.C., P.W. 2 Raja Ram has stated that he was ploughing his field after sometime, he felt tired and went near Siya Ram in his grove to take rest and to smoke hubble bubble. Thus, the statement of P.W. 2 Raja Ram before Court is inconsistent with his statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. 64. We have considered the contention of the learned Counsel for the accused-appellants. Considering above statements of P.W. 2, Raja Ram, we are of the view that there is no material contradiction in his statement recorded in Court. In both statements, he has stated that he has gone to smoke hubble bubble in guava grove of complainant Siya Ram and it is apparent from his both statements that he had come to guava grove of Siya Ram from his field which was being ploughed on the date of occurrence. 65. In cross-examination made by defence P.W. 2 Raja Ram has stated at page 3 (Page 40 of paper book) that Hari Lal and Dharmjeet are his brothers. Defence has filed certified copy of judgment rendered in S.T. No. 321 of 1978 (State v. Rameshwar) under section 307 I.P.C. and 25 Arms Act, P.S. Kaimganj, District Farrukhabad, on which Trial Court has marked'(Ext. Kha-4). It is apparent from this judgment (Ext. Kha-4) that present accused-appellant Rameshwar was accused in said Session Trial No. 321 of 1978 and Dharmjeet brother of P.W. 2 Raja Ram was a prosecution witness in said session trial but he has not been examined in said session trial and he has not deposed against accused-appellant Rameshwar in said session trial. 66. In view of above facts, it cannot be said that P.W. 2 Raja Ram is inimical to accused-appellants. Besides, this in view of principles laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court of in the case of Dharmveer and others v. State of U.P. 2010 (69) ACC 347 (SC) Testimony of witnesses cannot be discarded or disbelieved merely on the ground of enmity with accused or relation with deceased. 67. Besides, this in view of principles laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court of in the case of Dharmveer and others v. State of U.P. 2010 (69) ACC 347 (SC) Testimony of witnesses cannot be discarded or disbelieved merely on the ground of enmity with accused or relation with deceased. 67. In view of discussion made above, presence of P.W. 2 Raja Ram at the time and place of occurrence also appears very reliable and natural. 68. In view of principles laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the above pronouncement the testimonies of P.W. 1 complainant Siya Ram and P.W. 2 Raja Ram cannot be disbelieved merely on the ground of relationship with deceased or enmity with accused. 69. In the case of Sampath Kumar v. Inspector of Police, Krishnagiri 2012 (113) AIC 160 (SC) : 2012 (77) ACC 251, Hon'ble Apex Court has held that, "minor contradictions are bound to appear in the statement of truthful witnesses as memory sometimes plays false, sense of observation differs from person to person." 70. In the case of State of U.P. v. M.K. Anthony 1985 (22) ACC 50 (SC), Hon'ble Apex Court has held that, "every honest and truthful witnesses may differ in some details unrelated to main incident because power of observation, retention and reproduction differ with individuals." 71. In the case of Faquira v. State of U.P. AIR 1976 SC 915 , Hon'ble Apex Court has held that, "minor discrepancy guarantees that witnesses are not tutored. 72. In the case of State of U.P. v. Krishna Master and others 2011 (72) ACC 519 (SC), Hon'ble Apex Court has held that, "prosecution evidence may suffer from inconsistencies here and discrepancies there, but that is a shortcoming from which no criminal case is free. The main thing to be seen is whether those inconsistencies to the root of the matter or pertain to insignificant aspects thereof." 73. In the case of State of U.P. v. Krishna Master and others (supra), Hon'ble Apex Court has further held that, "the basic principle of appreciation of evidence of a rustic witness who is not educated and comes from a poor strata of society is that the evidence of such a witness should be appreciated as a whole." 74. We have gone through whole statements of P.W. 1 complainant Siya Ram as well as P.W. 2 Raja Ram. We have gone through whole statements of P.W. 1 complainant Siya Ram as well as P.W. 2 Raja Ram. In view of principles laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in aforesaid pronouncements, we are of the view that there is no material contradiction in statement of these witnesses to disbelieve their statements. 75. Perusal of statement of P.W. 5 Dr. H.P. Srivastava as well as postmortem report (Ext. Ka-4) shows that five ante-mortem injuries have been found on the dead body of Vikram Singh out of which three injuries were gun shot injuries and rest two injuries were contusion and abrasions which may be suffered due to falling on earth or friction of earth. 76. Description of anti-mortem injuries found on the dead body of deceased Vikram Singh corroborates the manner of causing injuries to deceased Vikram Singh alleged in F.I.R. (Ext. Ka-1) as well as in statement of P.W. 1 complainant Siya Ram and P.W. 2 Raja Ram. 77. In view of discussion made and conclusion drawn above time of occurrence is also corroborated by postmortem report (Ext. Ka-4) as well as statement of P.W. 5 Dr. H.P. Srivastava. 78. Defence has not challenged the place of occurrence alleged by prosecution. Besides this place of occurrence alleged by prosecution is fully corroborated by statement of I.O. P.W. 6 Karmvir Singh Mallik as well as site plan (Ext. Ka-12). Statement of P.W. 6 I.O. Karmvir Singh Mallik as well as recovery memo of blood stained earth and plain earth (Ext. Ka-11), recovery memo of blood stained guava's twig, plants of Tilli, Arhar, Bajra and Moongfali (Ext. Ka-13) and chemical examination report (Ext. Ka-15) show that blood stained earth and aforesaid blood stained articles have been recovered by I.O. from the place of occurrence. 79. In view of discussion made above, it is apparent that F.I.R. is prompt. P.W. 1 complainant Siya Ram and P.W. 2 Raja Ram are natural and reliable witnesses of occurrence. Version of F.I.R. (Ext. Ka-1) as well as statements of P.W. 1 complainant Siya Ram and P.W. 2 Raja Ram are corroborated by post-mortem report and statement of Dr. H.P. Srivastava as well as statement of I.O. and recoveries made from the place of occurrence. 80. Version of F.I.R. (Ext. Ka-1) as well as statements of P.W. 1 complainant Siya Ram and P.W. 2 Raja Ram are corroborated by post-mortem report and statement of Dr. H.P. Srivastava as well as statement of I.O. and recoveries made from the place of occurrence. 80. After having gone through whole evidence on record as well as all facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that P.W. 1 Siya Ram and P.W. 2 Raja Ram are reliable and trustworthy witnesses. There is no sufficient ground to disbelieve their testimony. 81. In the case of Brahm Swaroop and another v. State of U.P. 2010 (71) ACC 975 (SC), Hon'ble Apex Court has held that "if evidence of the eye-witnesses is trustworthy and believed by the Court, the question of motive becomes total irrelevant." However, motive/cause of occurrence has been alleged in F.I.R. (Ext. Ka-1) and has been proved by P.W. 1 complainant Siya Ram as well as P.W. 2 Raja Ram. 82. In the case of Narpat Singh v. State of Haryana AIR 1977 Cr.L.J. 642 at 649 (SC) : 1978 (15) ACC 7 (Sum.), Hon'ble Apex Court has held that if witnesses examined are believed the question of inference for non-examination does not arise. 83. In view of above pronouncement of Hon'ble Apex Court no adverse inference may be drawn for non-examination of other witnesses. 84. In view of discussion made and conclusion drawn above after having gone through entire evidence on record as well as facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that evidence adduced by prosecution is sufficient to hold guilty accused-appellant Rameshwar for offence under section302 I.P.C. and accused-appellant Veer Pal for offence under section 302 I.P.C. read with section 34 I.P.C. 85. We have perused impugned judgment of learned Trial Court. Learned Trial Court has considered and discussed all relevant facts and evidence available on record. Conclusion drawn by Trial Court is based on judicious analysis of evidence. 86. In view of discussion made and conclusion drawn above, we are of the view that learned Trial Court has rightly convicted the accused-appellant Rameshwar for offence under section 302 I.P.C. and accused-appellant Veer Pal for offence under section 302 I.P.C. read with section 34 I.P.C. 87. Conclusion drawn by Trial Court is based on judicious analysis of evidence. 86. In view of discussion made and conclusion drawn above, we are of the view that learned Trial Court has rightly convicted the accused-appellant Rameshwar for offence under section 302 I.P.C. and accused-appellant Veer Pal for offence under section 302 I.P.C. read with section 34 I.P.C. 87. In the case of State v. Saravanan 2009 (65) ACC 289 (SC), Hon'ble Apex Court has held that, "The Trial Court, after going through the entire evidence, must form an opinion about the credibility of the witnesses and the Appellate Court in normal course would not be justified in reviewing the same again without justifiable reasons." 88. Statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. of accused-appellant Veer Pal has been recorded by Trial Court on 14.12.1982 and at the time of his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C., accused-appellant Veer Pal has stated his age 18 to 19 years. But the Court has not recorded its opinion about age of accused-appellant Veer Pal at the time of statement recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. Neither plea of juvenility has been raised on behalf of accused-appellant Veer Pal before this Court nor any document showing the age of accused-appellant Veer Pal has been filed. 89. In the case of Abuzar Hossain alias Gulam Hossain v. State of West Bengal 2012 (79) ACC 991 (SC), Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the provisions of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 and has concluded as follows: "36. Now, we summarise the position which is as under (i) A claim of juvenility may be raised at any stage even after final disposal of the case. It may be raised for the first time before this Court as well after final disposal of the case. The delay in raising the claim of juvenility cannot be a ground for rejection of such claim. The claim of juvenility can be raised in appeal even if not pressed before the Trial Court and can be raised for the first time before this Court though not pressed before the Trial Court and in appeal Court. (ii) For making a claim with regard to juvenility after conviction, the claimant must produce some material which may prima facie satisfy the Court that an inquiry into the claim of juvenility is necessary. Initial burden has to be discharged by the person who claims juvenility. (ii) For making a claim with regard to juvenility after conviction, the claimant must produce some material which may prima facie satisfy the Court that an inquiry into the claim of juvenility is necessary. Initial burden has to be discharged by the person who claims juvenility. (iii) As to what materials would prima facie satisfy the Court and/or are sufficient for discharging the initial burden cannot be catalogued nor can it be laid down as to what weight should be given to a specific piece of evidence which may be sufficient to raise presumption of juvenility but the documents referred to in Rule 12(3)(a)(i) to (iii) shall definitely be sufficient for prima facie satisfaction of the Court about the age of the delinquent necessitating further enquiry under Rule 12. The statement recorded under section 313 of the Code is too tentative and may not by itself be sufficient ordinarily to justify or reject the claim of juvenility. The credibility and/or acceptability of the documents like the school leaving certificate or the voters' list, etc. obtained after conviction would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no hard and fast rule can be prescribed that they must be prima facie accepted or rejected. In Akbar Sheikh (supra) and Pawan (supra) these documents were not found prima facie credible while in Jitendra Singh (supra) the documents viz., school leaving certificate, mark-sheet and the medical report were treated sufficient for directing an inquiry and verification of the appellants' age. If such documents prima facie inspire confidence of the Court, the Court may act upon such documents for the purposes of section 7-A and order an enquiry for determination of the age of the delinquent. (iv) An affidavit of the claimant or any of the parents or a sibling or a relative in support of the claim of juvenility raised for the first time in appeal or revision or before this Court during the pendency of the matter or after disposal of the case shall not be sufficient justifying an enquiry to determine the age of such person unless the circumstances of the case are so glaring that satisfy the judicial conscience of the Court to order an enquiry into determination of age of the delinquent. (v) The Court where the plea of juvenility is raised for the first time should always be guided by the objectives of the 2000 Act and be alive to the position that the beneficent and salutary provisions contained in 2000 Act are not defeated by hyper-technical approach and the persons who are entitled to get benefits of 2000 Act get such benefits. The Courts should not be unnecessarily influenced by any general impression that in schools the parents/guardians understate the age of their wards by one or two years for future benefits or that age determination by medical examination is not very precise. The matter should be considered prima facie on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. (vi) Claim of juvenility lacking in credibility or frivolous claim of juvenility or patently absurd or inherently improbable claim of juvenility must be rejected by the Court at threshold whenever raised." 90. In view of principles laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid case Abuzar Hossain alias Gulam Hossain v. State of West Bengal, we are of the view that there is no prima facie ground to presume accused-appellant Veer Pal juvenile at the time of commission of offence and to hold inquiry under section 7-A of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. 91. Sentence awarded by learned Trial Court is not excessive. 92. In view of discussion made and conclusion drawn above, we are of the view that there is no sufficient ground for interference in the impugned judgment and order passed by learned Trial Court. Both appeals have no merit and are liable to be dismissed. 93. Appeal No. 127 of 1983 filed by accused-appellant Veer Pal and Appeal No. 592 of 1983 filed by accused-appellant Rameshwar both are dismissed accordingly. 94. Accused-appellants Veer Pal and Rameshwar are on bail. They shall surrender before the Trial Court for serving sentence within one month from the date of judgment of this Court, failing which Trial Court shall ensure their arrest and shall send them to jail for serving sentence in accordance with law. 95. Office is directed to send copy of judgment to Trial Court for securing compliance. Lower Court record shall be returned to the concerned Court immediately.