JUDGMENT Hon’ble Arvind Kumar Tripathi, J.—The Criminal Appeal No. 5921/06 (Kitab Singh v. State of U.P.), connected with Criminal Appeal No. 4979/06 (Leela v. State of U.P.), Criminal Appeal No. 5878/06 (Moola v. State of U.P.) and Criminal Appeal No. 1044 of 2011(Veerendra and another v. State of U.P.) have been preferred against the same judgment and order of conviction and sentence vide order dated 31.7.2006 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Court No. 2, Mathura in S.T. 100/2004 arising out of Case Crime No. 105/03 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307 I.P.C. PS.Farah, District Mathura and S.T. No. 101/04 under Section 25 Arms Act arising out of Case Crime No. 111/02, hence all the appeals are being heard and decided jointly by a common order. 2. Appellants Moola, Leela, Mahesh, Veerendra and Kitab Singh were convicted under Section 148 I.P.C. for two years’ R.I. with fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default one month’s further R.I., life imprisonment under Section 302 I.P.C. read with Section 149 I.P.C. with fine for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- and in default two years’ further R.I. and under Section 302 I.P.C. read with Section 149 I.P.C. ten years’ R.I. with fine for a sum of Rs. 5000/- and in default one month’s further R.I. However, the accused appellant Mahesh was convicted and sentenced for one year’s R.I., under Section 25 of the Arms Act with fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default one month’s further R.I. However, direction was that all the sentences would run concurrently. 3. Shri Ali Hasan and Shri Ishtiyaq Ali, learned counsel appeared on behalf of the appellants, Sri Chandrajeet Yadav, learned A.G.A. appeared on behalf of the State. 4. We heard learned counsel for the parties at length and judgment was reserved on 10.12.2015. 5. The brief facts of the case are that the First Information Report was lodged by Radha Kishan on 26.8.2003 at 1.30 a.m. at police station Farah, Mathura. According to First Information Report they were sitting on cot outside their house at 8.30 p.m. in the night of 25.8.2003. At that time one Maruti Car came and stopped near the field of Atar Singh and Bhura s/o Moola of his village came out from the car and after sometime he left the place with the car. According to First Information Report they were sitting on cot outside their house at 8.30 p.m. in the night of 25.8.2003. At that time one Maruti Car came and stopped near the field of Atar Singh and Bhura s/o Moola of his village came out from the car and after sometime he left the place with the car. Thereafter at about 11.00 p.m. Leela s/o Bhikam Singh passed through the Gher of Atar Singh and again he went. Thereafter at about 12 in the night Bhura s/o Moola, Leela and Kitab Singh s/o Gautam Singh, Khubi s/o Kesi, Mahesh s/o Moola and Virendra s/o Radhey Shyam of his village came from side of the house of Khubi. They were having country made pistol, rifle and all of sudden they started indiscriminate firing at Atar Singh who was sleeping. Munni Devi w/o deceased Atar Singh s/o Nathhi and his brother Ishwari, reached to save him and they shot fire causing injuries to them. After hearing firing Hoshiyar s/o Ishwari, Radha Kishan s/o Pancha, Rajpal s/o Radha Kishan, Anar Singh s/o Roshan Lal came at the place who saw the incident and saved. Atar Singh died. Bhura and his family members were annoyed because Bhura had purchased a land of the informant. There was balance of a sum of Rs. 2,25,000/- for which Bhura issued a blank cheque which was dishonoured by the bank. The deceased Atar Singh twice-thrice asked Bhura and his family members to make the payment. Due to that Atar Singh was annoyed using abusing language and warned not to dare to demand the money otherwise he had to face serious consequence. Leaving the dead body of Atar Singh at the place of the occurrence, Munni Devi whose condition was serious, was taken to hospital for treatment and he went to the Police Station alongwith injured for lodging of the First Information Report and written report was scribed by one Sanjay Kumar s/o Jagdish Prasad, r/o village Nahrai, Post Ehav. The First Information Report was lodged and registered at 1.30 a.m. On 26.8.2003 at Police Station Farah, District Mathura. Munni Devi injured and Ishwari were got medically examined. Panchyatnama of dead body of Atar Singh was prepared. Post-mortem was conducted. The site plan was prepared by the investigating officer. After completing formalities the Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet. The First Information Report was lodged and registered at 1.30 a.m. On 26.8.2003 at Police Station Farah, District Mathura. Munni Devi injured and Ishwari were got medically examined. Panchyatnama of dead body of Atar Singh was prepared. Post-mortem was conducted. The site plan was prepared by the investigating officer. After completing formalities the Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet. The case was committed to the Court of Session and in the Sessions Trial No. 101/04 the charges were framed. There was also recovery of country made pistol of 315 bore from co-accused Mahesh. The charge-sheet was submitted under Section 25 Arms Act. Charges were framed. The accused appellants denied the charges and pleaded to be tried. 6. The prosecution to prove its case examined PW-1 Radha Kishan, the informant, PW-2 Munni Devi injured witness, PW-3 Ishwari, injured witness, PW-4 Head Constable Mahendra Giri, PW-5 Dr.R.P. Goel, PW-6 Dr.A.A. Khan, PW-7 Dr.Kamendra PW-8 S.I. B.K. Sharma. After the evidence was closed by the prosecution, the statement of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They denied the charges and stated that they were falsely implicated due to enmity. 7. In defence three witnesses were examined namely V.K. Sharma, DW-1, Deewan Singh DW-2, Navratan Singh DW-3. 8. After considering the evidence adduced by the parties and given to the opportunity of hearing, the accused appellants were held guilty. They were heard on the point of quantum of sentence and by impugned judgment and order dated 31.7.2006 they were convicted and sentenced. The appellants are in jail. Hence being aggrieved the present appeal was preferred. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants challenged the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence on the ground: (1) that no one has seen the incident. It appears that the offence was committed by unknown persons and due to enmity with one of the accused Bhura not only the First Information Report was lodged against the co-accused Bhura, but against the other persons related with him. The accused Moola, Leela and Kitab Singh are real brothers. Bhura and Mahesh are sons of the appellant Moola; (2) that the accused Bhura was absconding, hence his trial was separated and some of the witnesses did not support the prosecution versions, hence he was acquitted. The accused Moola, Leela and Kitab Singh are real brothers. Bhura and Mahesh are sons of the appellant Moola; (2) that the accused Bhura was absconding, hence his trial was separated and some of the witnesses did not support the prosecution versions, hence he was acquitted. Subsequently in the present case, the appellants have been convicted; (3) that there is contradiction in the statement of the witnesses: (4) that there is improvement in the prosecution case with regard to the weapon and injuries; (5) that the version of the First Information Report is not corroborated by the medical report; (6) that it was a night incident and there was no source of light. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that in view of the facts it appears that none of the witnesses saw the assailants. Some unknown person shot at the deceased Atar Singh and subsequently due to suspicion not only Bhura, co-accused but other accused related to him were also implicated in the present case. No source of light was mentioned in the First Information Report. Had the witnesses were present on the spot, they might have been killed by the assailants as they would not have spared them to appear as witnesses against them. He further contended that from a perusal of the First Information Report it is clear that no source of light was mentioned. There was no allegation and averment that which of the accused were armed with lathi, saria, out of seven persons named in the First Information Report. No specific role of firing was assigned to person by country made pistol, rifle and gun in the mid night at 12 O’clock though the motive was only against the co-accused Bhura because the deceased Atar Singh was demanding balance amount of consideration for a sum of Rs. 2,25,000/ as the sale-deed was executed by PW-1 Radha Kishan in favour of co-accused Bhura for which he had given post-dated cheque for a sum of Rs. 2,25,000/- which was dishonoured. The witnesses have not supported the version of the First Information Report against the co-accused Bhura, hence in his subsequent trial he was acquitted. 2,25,000/ as the sale-deed was executed by PW-1 Radha Kishan in favour of co-accused Bhura for which he had given post-dated cheque for a sum of Rs. 2,25,000/- which was dishonoured. The witnesses have not supported the version of the First Information Report against the co-accused Bhura, hence in his subsequent trial he was acquitted. He also contended that no source of light was mentioned, hence with regard to the lacerated injuries caused by blunt weapon and with regard to the source of light, there is no reliable evidence placed, when the statements were recorded before the trial Court. According to medical report there were three lacerated wounds on right and left side of head of the deceased above right ear and above left eyebrow though according to First Information Report there was clear version that assailants shot fire at the deceased and Munni Devi, wife of the deceased and Ishwari, brother of the deceased. He also contended that since there was enmity with Pradhan of the village who was accompanying the informant and went to the police station, hence under his influence and pressure First Information Report was lodged against the appellants though they were not involved in the incident. There was no source of light. Subsequently light was introduced in the statement just to improve the case. The recovery of country made pistol was shown from one of the appellants Mahesh which was planted recovery. According to the doctor, injuries caused to the injured Ishwari might have been caused at about 8.30 a.m. on 25.8.2003 though according to witnesses the incident of firing and assault took place in the mid night of 25/26.8.2003, hence it appears that the witnesses did not receive the injury as alleged by the witnesses as no one saw the incident of firing in which the deceased Atar Singh was shot dead. These circumstances clearly show that the evidence of witnesses are not reliable and since the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and as such the impugned order and judgment of conviction and sentence is liable to be set aside and the appellants are liable to be acquitted from all the charges levelled against them. 11. These circumstances clearly show that the evidence of witnesses are not reliable and since the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and as such the impugned order and judgment of conviction and sentence is liable to be set aside and the appellants are liable to be acquitted from all the charges levelled against them. 11. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted on the quantum of sentence that all the appellants are old persons, aged about 73-74 years and considering the facts that Bhura co-accused against whom motive was shown has already been acquitted in subsequent trial, hence lesser sentence be awarded in place of life imprisonment. 12. Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the aforesaid prayer and submitted that the First Information Report is not an encyclopedia. The First Information Report was lodged by Radha Kishan, uncle of the deceased Atar Singh. Munni Devi, wife of the deceased Atar Singh and Ishwari, brother of the deceased were also injured. Prompt First Information Report was lodged within half an hour. The distance of Police Station was seven km. from the place of the incident. The incident took place in front of the house of the deceased. Detail facts were not mentioned. Subsequently in the statement it was clearly stated by the witnesses that there was electric light and in the light of electric bulb they saw the incident as the connection was taken from the tubewell. 13. Learned A.G.A. further contended that there is no contradiction in the statement of the witnesses and medical report. Though in the First Information Report it has not been mentioned that the assailants also assaulted by lathi, danda and saria but in the statement it has been clearly stated by wife of the deceased that the assailants assaulted by any weapon on head. However, he could not notice that at that time by which weapon his husband Atar Singh was assaulted. The witnesses are natural witnesses. Their presence is not doubtful. There was no reason of false implication in place of real culprits. He also contended that so for as the evidence adduced in trial of the co-accused Bhura is concerned, it will not be read in the appeal of the accused appellants. The witnesses are natural witnesses. Their presence is not doubtful. There was no reason of false implication in place of real culprits. He also contended that so for as the evidence adduced in trial of the co-accused Bhura is concerned, it will not be read in the appeal of the accused appellants. Subsequently under threat or pressure or doubt or any reason since the witnesses became hostile and did not support the prosecution version against the co-accused Bhura, hence on that ground the witnesses in the present case will not be disbelieved, as the prosecution case is not doubtful. Since the case has been proved beyond reasonable doubt, hence the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 14. Considered the submissions of counsel for the parties and perused the record. 15. In the present case PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 all are eye-witnesses and are related with the deceased. It is well-settled that merely on the ground that the eye-witnesses are highly interested witnesses, their evidence has not to be disbelieved rather the same has to be considered cautiously. 16. So for as the interested witnesses are concerned, if their evidence is found reliable and trust worthy, then there is no reason to disbelieve their statement merely on the ground that they are interested witnesses in view of judgment of the Apex Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. S. Rayappa and others, 2006 (4) SCC 512 , in which it was held by the Apex Court that the testimony of the witness, if otherwise, inspiring confidence cannot be discarded on the ground that the witness being relation of the deceased is an interested witness. It was further held that a close relative who is 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 cases because of varied reasons. 17. 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 cases because of varied reasons. 17. In the present case PW-2 Munni Devi, wife of the deceased and brother of the deceased PW-3 Ishwari, are also injured witnesses, hence if otherwise their statement are reliable and trust worthy, then there is no reason to disbelieve their statement merely because they are related to the deceased, as they will prefer to get real culprit convicted in stead of implicating any unknown person. Though in direct evidence much importance has not to be given to the motive but in the present case there is motive against co-accused Bhura who has purchased the land from the informant Radha Kishan and towards consideration some amount was given in cash and for balance amount, a cheque for a sum of Rs. 2,25,000/- was issued. Subsequently that cheque was dishonoured and inspite of repeated request payment was not made. Since the deceased Atar Singh repeatedly requested for payment of balance amount, co-accused Bhura was annoyed and threatened, even about 10 days back. He had threatened for dire consequences. Since repeatedly there was demand of payment of the amount, hence in the intervening night of 25/26.8.2003 at 12 ‘O clock co-accused Bhura came alongwith appellants Leela, Kitab Singh, Mahesh, Moola and Virendra including one Khubi who died during trial who were having country made pistol, rifle and gun. They shot at Atar Singh who was sleeping. They started indiscriminate firing and Munni Devi, wife of the deceased Atar Singh and Ishwari, brother of the deceased tried to save him. They shot at them causing injuries. After hearing firing the informant Radha Kishan reached at the place of the incident. Atar Singh died on the spot. Munni Devi and Ishwari have also received injuries who were taken to the police station. When the informant went for lodging of the First Information Report he was sent for medical examination and for treatment, who was examined by Dr.R.P.Goel, PW-5 at 3.30 a.m. The First Information Report was lodged and registered at Police Station Farah PW-1 Radha Kishan at 1.30 a.m. in the night on the same day i.e. 26.8.2015. When the informant went for lodging of the First Information Report he was sent for medical examination and for treatment, who was examined by Dr.R.P.Goel, PW-5 at 3.30 a.m. The First Information Report was lodged and registered at Police Station Farah PW-1 Radha Kishan at 1.30 a.m. in the night on the same day i.e. 26.8.2015. As per injury report firearm wound of entry was found on right iliac crest region on back of abdomen, size 1 cm x .8 cm x depth not proved. Oval shape. Blood oozing present. Margin black and burnt. Kept under observation and x-ray was advised. 18. The second injury was firearm wound of exit on right iliac crest region on back of abdomen. Smt.Munni Devi, wife of the deceased brought by her brother Raj Pal was examined on 27.8.2013 at 11.00 a.m. Following injuries were noted: 1. Gun shot wound of entry 10cm x4cm x bone deep (fractured) bone seen on upper part of right upper arm kept under observation x-ray advised. 2. Lacerated wound 2.5 cm x 1 cm x bone deep on left wrist joint, kept under observation, x-ray advised. The post-martem examination was conducted on the body of the deceased Atar Singh on 26.8.2003 at 2.30 p.m. by Dr.Kamendra, PW-7. 19. According to PW-1 Radha Kishan, uncle of the deceased Atar Singh he saw the accused person who came with Maruti at about 11 p.m. at 25.8.2003. After looking them they went away. Subsequently co-accused Bhura alongwith the appellants and one Khubi came who were armed with country made pistol and they started indiscriminate firing at Atar Singh who was sleeping. Bhura, Moola, Leela, Kitab Singh, Khubi, Veerendra and Mahesh were armed with country made pistol. They came from outside the house of Khubi. Atar Singh tried to run away to save his life. He fell down. Munni Devi, wife of the deceased Atar Singh, the deceased and Ishwari brother of Atar Singh tried to save him but they shot at them causing firearm injuries. They fired about 15-16 shots. All the assailants fired shot. After hearing the incident he alongwith other witnesses reached on the spot and saw the incident. He lodged the First Information Report. Whatever was dictated by him, the same was written by one Sanjay. He also stated that they were on their cots near place of the incident. 20. They fired about 15-16 shots. All the assailants fired shot. After hearing the incident he alongwith other witnesses reached on the spot and saw the incident. He lodged the First Information Report. Whatever was dictated by him, the same was written by one Sanjay. He also stated that they were on their cots near place of the incident. 20. There are two injured witnesses, Munni Devi, wife of the deceased Atar Singh and Ishwari, brother of the deceased Atar Singh. When they tried to save him, they shot fire at them causing fire-arm injuries. The injured Munni Devi was examined as PW-2. According to her statement she and her husband both were sleeping inside the hut on two separate cots. After hearing some sounds in between 11 to 12 in the mid night after entry of some persons she woke up and saw that Leela accused appellant came with torch and flashed on face of her husband. Her husband came out. She also came out and saw that Moola, Bhura, Khubi, Kitab Singh, Mahesh, Virendra and Leela were having arms in their hands. They surrounded her husband and shot at her husband. Inspite of that he tried to run away but he could not escape. They shot fire at Atar Singh who fell down. She started weeping and covered him to save him but they also shot at her causing firearm injuries in the present case. The assailants run away from the spot and her husband died on the spot. 21. In cross-examination. No contradiction was found. She also stated that she had informed the sub inspector/investigating officer that the assailants assaulted on head of her husband Atar Singh but she could not see whether they assaulted him with lathi or saria. After the incident and gun shot injuries she was shocked but she explained that she did not become unconscious. She was sent to the hospital for medical examination. Ishwari, the brother of the deceased Atar Singh who is also injured, was examined as PW-3. According to him after hearing fire he woke up and rushed towards Atar Singh and in the light of bulb he saw the assailants, the appellants and other assailants who were firing at Atar Singh. Veerendra also shot at him causing injuries on back i.e. on right iliac crest region. According to him after hearing fire he woke up and rushed towards Atar Singh and in the light of bulb he saw the assailants, the appellants and other assailants who were firing at Atar Singh. Veerendra also shot at him causing injuries on back i.e. on right iliac crest region. After receiving injuries he left the place of the occurrence and raised voice, then another villagers reached on the place of occurrence. When he returned, he found Atar Singh dead and Munni Devi was found injured. Apart from that, other villagers also reached on the spot including Babu Lal Pradhan but Babu Lal reached after the incident, even in cross-examination he stated that Veerendra shot fire. Thereafter he raised voice. Nothing was found in cross-examination to demolish the case of prosecution or any material contradiction, hence the presence of the witnesses are not doubtful especially there are two injured witnesses, Munni Devi, wife of the deceased and Ishwari, brother of the deceased. They are natural witnesses. There was motive for committing murder of Atar Singh though motive is not relevant when there is direct evidence. 22. In view of the fact, the presence of the witnesses are not doubtful. They are reliable and trust worthy. There is no such material discrepancy to disbelieve their statement, hence the trial Court has rightly held the appellants guilty and as such the present appeal against the order of conviction and sentence is liable to be dismissed. 23. In view of the above discussion, the present appeals filed against the impugned order of conviction and sentence dated 31.7.2006 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mathura in S.T. No. 100/2004 arising out of Case Crime No. 105/03 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307 I.P.C. PS.Farah, District Mathura and S.T. No. 101/04 under Section 25 Arms Act arising out of Case Crime No. 111/03, is hereby dismissed. ———————