JUDGMENT : (Per : Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) All these four appeals, titled above, have arisen out of the same judgment and order dated 24.10.2011 rendered by Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar. Hence, these are being adjudicated by this common judgment. 2. The appellants Babu and Mustakim were found guilty for the offence of Section 302/34, 326/34 IPC as well as Section 25 of the Arms Act. They have been convicted and sentenced for the same appropriately. Learned Trial Judge did not record any conviction for the offence of Section 307/34 IPC against them, wherefor they were also charged. So, for such offence, they were acquitted. 3. It is also pertinent to mention that the trial was conducted along with them for the third accused Bhura for the offence of Section 302/34 and 307/34 IPC, but the learned Judge could not attribute any guilt on him. So, he was acquitted for the same. 4. The trial pertains to various crime numbers, indicated in the impugned judgment. The incident took place within the territorial jurisdiction of Police Station Kotwali, Laksar, District Haridwar. So, the chargesheet was accordingly submitted by the police concerned after culmination of the investigation. 5. The incident happened in the morning at 5.30 AM on 24.9.2006 in village Nagla Khurd around 22 kilometres away from the police station. FIR could be lodged just within two hours at 7.15 AM of the same day. Chick report wherefor is Ex. Ka-8. 6. In order to allay any confusion, it is hereby made clear that the name of the informant Mustakim and the accused is the same, but we will identify them with the distinct names of their father. 7. FIR was lodged by Mustakim S/o Rafiq of the same village disclosing the facts that on such date and time, indicated as above, they heard some commotion and the quarreling noise being aired from the neighbouring house of Jamshed. He along with other family members awakened and came out from the house. He noticed that Babu, S/o Ali Hasan, resident of another village Ratanpur and his brother Mustakim were coming running from the direction of Jamshed’s house. They were being chased by Jamshed and others. Within the moment, Bhura, S/o Masita, (third accused, who was acquitted) also came out from his house and indulged in the wholesome quarrel. He noticed that Babu, S/o Ali Hasan, resident of another village Ratanpur and his brother Mustakim were coming running from the direction of Jamshed’s house. They were being chased by Jamshed and others. Within the moment, Bhura, S/o Masita, (third accused, who was acquitted) also came out from his house and indulged in the wholesome quarrel. Informant Mustakim and his son Saeed and others strived to intervene, which enraged Bhura and he questioned the intervention on the part of Mustakim and his son Saeed. Bhura also exhorted the appellants for opening the fire and the direction was obeyed by these appellants, who accordingly opened the fires, which hit the nephew of informant, namely, Mohsin and a boy named Shaukeen. They soon were shifted to the hospital, but information was received on phone about the death of Mohsin. Appellant Babu was apprehended at the spot along with the lethal weapon. So, he was kept confined in a room till the police arrived at the spot. This FIR is Ex. Ka-1. 8. The post-mortem of the young boy Mohsin, aged 17 years, was conducted at 3.30 PM on 24.09.2006 in the Government Hospital. Autopsy report disclosed the firearm entry wound below left nipple. The entry wound was 1.5 CM x 1.5 CM on the left side of the chest in the lower part. Another firearm exit wound was found in the mid of waist. The size of exist wound was 2 CM x 2 CM and the margins were outwards. Both the injuries were communicating to each other. In the opinion of the doctor, the deceased died on account of shock and haemorrhage due to ante mortem firearm injuries and the duration of death was half-day back, which was matching with the date and time of incident. 9. The police arrived at the spot after lodging of the FIR and the accused Babu was arrested there from a room where he was kept confined. Accused Mustakim surrendered in the Court in due course of time. Police recovered one pistol of 12 bore with cartridge cover after procuring the accused Mustakim in police remand and such pistol was recovered from him at the disclosure and instance of Mustakim from the agricultural field of one Mr. Jahura. The country made pistol, which was in the custody of Babu, was also got recovered from the room where he was kept confined. 10. Jahura. The country made pistol, which was in the custody of Babu, was also got recovered from the room where he was kept confined. 10. Charges were levelled by the learned Sessions Judge as per the result of the investigation. Accused were put to trial. Prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses in support of the charges. Thereafter the statements of the accused persons under Section 313 CrPC were recorded, wherein they denied the incident, but on all other aspects of the evidence produced by the prosecution against them, they have answered in evading manner as much as the accused Mustakim, at whose instance the country made pistol was recovered and the recovery memo was prepared at the spot bearing his signature, has expressed his unawareness about such memo, but he did not make any specific denial of his signatures on the same. 11. Before appreciating the evidence, few facts have pertinence to be mentioned that these appellants are the real brothers-in-law of the third accused Bhura. So, though they are the residents of separate villages falling within the territorial jurisdiction of Police Station Jwalapur, but it is obvious that they were called and stayed in the house of Bhura in the night of the incident. It has been on the record that Bhura had nurtured some animosity with Jamshed for the reason that collection of milk for further sale, as was being done by Bhura in the village before the incident, was now started by his next-door neighbour Jamshed. Although Jamshed had not been produced to prove this fact regarding the animosity developed on that score as well as to prove other facts, but it is difficult for us to be in oblivion that Jamshed and Bhura are just the next-door neighbours and the witnesses were returned a number of times restraining them from being examined in the Court and ultimately the learned Trial Judge was constrained to write this attitude of the accused persons facing the trial on the ordersheet of the case file on dated 18.3.2008 with the observation that the accused persons were deliberately prolonging the litigation. Hence, he was further constrained to forfeit the personal bonds and sureties of accused Bhura and Babu issuing the arrest warrants against them nay the notices to their sureties. Hence, he was further constrained to forfeit the personal bonds and sureties of accused Bhura and Babu issuing the arrest warrants against them nay the notices to their sureties. So, the none-examination of the witness Jamshed from whose house the quarrel was initiated should be looked into in the light of the ordersheet, as has been recorded by the learned Trial Judge on such date. 12. That apart, PW1 Raees, PW2 Mustakim, PW3 Saeed; PW4 Shaukeen, PW5 Ishyak, PW6 Smt. Shamina and PW7 Mustafa are all the eyewitnesses of the incident. 13. The contention of learned Sr. Counsel, arguing on behalf of the appellants, that name of PW1 Raees was not disclosed in the FIR is not substantial, for the reason that the disclosure of names of all the witnesses is never a rule of law envisaged in any statute. The FIR is not the encloypedia of each and every sequences of incident disclosing the names and addresses of all the persons who were present at the spot and the omission to write the name of Raees in the FIR is of no relevance for the reason that he and PW3 are the real sons of PW2 Mustakim. All the three have supported the incident. Although there are ignorable variations in the verbatim sequence in deposing the ocular version as it happened at the spot because when such a quarrel occurs among the illiterate persons, then it is not expected from all the rural and rustic persons to memorize each and every aspect of the incident in order to depose them after more than three and half years while standing in the witness box of the Court. 14. PW4 Shaukeen was an injured witness and he has accepted the quarrel and the gathering of a number of persons at the spot. His chief examination by itself is enough to indicate of having been overpowered that when he was examined in the Court on 23.11.2009, i.e. after three years and two months of the incident, then he denied his acquaintance even with these accused persons. It is surprising that he is the resident of the same small village, yet he is stating his inacquaintance with the accused persons while one of the accused Bhura was his neighbour. It is surprising that he is the resident of the same small village, yet he is stating his inacquaintance with the accused persons while one of the accused Bhura was his neighbour. That by itself is enough to show that after such a long period, he was won over by the accused persons and could be permitted to be examined by the prosecution only after winning him like the witness Jamshed, but at the same time, he has accepted the happening of the quarrel and the hitting of one bullet in his thigh. So, just on his evidence, the eyewitness account of other PWs cannot be brushed aside. 15. PW5 Ishyak is the real grandfather of the deceased. His age was 70 years at the time of examination in the Court on 6.4.2010 i.e. little short of four years after the incident. He has supported the incident and the apprehension of the accused Babu along with his firearm at the spot. Minor variations as regards the falling down of the injured either on the road or 1-2 feet away on the road towards the Baithak is ignorable because 1-2 feet distance in falling down after the bullet pierced the body of the deceased cannot be said to be a material contradiction to belie the prosecution story. 16. In addition to, PW6 and PW7, who are the real parents of the deceased, have also supported the incident and their coming out from the house after hearing such quarrel and commotion was a natural consequence. Nothing has come out in their testimony as to shake their credibility regarding their presence on the spot. 17. The contention of the learned Sr. Counsel on behalf of the appellants that Jahura, from whose agricultural field the pistol recovered, was not produced by the prosecution, does not hold any water for the reason that pistol was recovered at the instance of accused Mustakim and the police is not expected to call a person who was the owner of that agricultural field and wait for the recovery of that pistol by the time the owner of field arrives at the spot. 18. The effort has been made by learned Sr. 18. The effort has been made by learned Sr. Counsel on behalf of the appellants to create a doubt about the place of occurrence, but looking to the entire sequence, as it happened and highlighted by the prosecution witnesses in their deposition, it is abundantly clear that the quarrel started in the house of Jamshed and ultimately the fire was opened in the street, which was not very far but very close to the house of Jamshed and Bhura. Coming out of the deceased, from his house, in the street after hearing the quarrel voice was a natural course. He tried to intervene in the matter to avoid the quarrel from being aggravated, but at the exhortation of Bhura (third accused who was acquitted), the fires were opened by these appellants which pierced his chest, as has been indicated in the autopsy report. 19. Simply because the cartridge and pistol were not sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for examination, we feel that this much irregularity is not sufficient to disbelieve the direct eyewitness account. 20. We have carefully gone through the judgment of the learned Trial Judge and feel that there is no infirmity in recording the conviction, as has been done by him. In all, there is no force in these appeals and we dismiss them for the reasons as above in addition to those as held in the impugned judgment. 21. Appellants are in jail. They shall serve out the sentence as awarded by the Court below. 22. Let a copy of this judgment, along with LCR, be sent to the Trial Court for information.