JUDGMENT : (Delivered by Hon'ble Harsh Kumar, J.) Heard Sri Darwari Lal Advocate, learned counsel for the appellants Om Prakash and Bhajan Lal, Sri Amit Kumar Srivastava Advocate, learned counsel for appellant Lalta Prasad and Sri Satish Trivedi Advocate, learned Senior counsel assisted by Sri Ajay Kumar Pandey, Advocate on behalf of appellant Hardwari and Sri Rajiv Gupta, Sri R.Y. Pandey, Sri Pradeep Pandey, Sri V.P. Tripathi and Sri U.K. Mishra, learned Government Advocate for the State. All the three appeals mentioned above have arisen out of one and the same judgement dated 04.11.82 passed by Additional Sessions Judge Vth, Bareilly passed in joint trial of S.T. no. 466 of 1981 (State vs. Bhajan Lal & Another) and S.T. No. 559 of 1981 (State vs. Lalta Prasad and Another) arisen out of case crime no. 223 of 1981, P.S. Baheri, District Bareilly, convicting Bhajan Lal & Hardwari for the offence under section 302 I.P.C. and appellants Om Prakash and Lalta Prasad for the offence under section 302 read with section 34 I.P.C. and sentencing each of them with life imprisonment. Feeling aggrieved Om Prakash & Lalta Prasad have filed Criminal Appeal No. 2816 of 1982, Bhajan Lal has filed Criminal appeal No. 2940 of 1982 and Hardwari has filed Criminal Appeal No. 2941 of 1982, separately. Since the three appeals arises out of one and the same judgment dated 4.11.1982 in respect with the F.I.R., dated 14.8.1981 regarding the criminal incident of murder of Ganga Ram, they were connected with each other, were heard together and are being disposed of by one common judgment. Since the three appeals arises out of one and the same judgment dated 4.11.1982 in respect with the F.I.R., dated 14.8.1981 regarding the criminal incident of murder of Ganga Ram, they were connected with each other, were heard together and are being disposed of by one common judgment. The brief facts relating to the appeals as per F.I.R. under Section 302 I.P.C. lodged by the first informant Duli Ram Son of Hori Lal, at 9.20 a.m. On 14.8.1981, in respect of murder of his son Ganga Ram by the appellants are that :- "about one month back when Bhajan Lal, Hardwari, Lalta Prasad and Om Prakash were taking liquor, they had a quarrel with the son of first informant, Ganga Ram and committed Marpeet with him; that upon interference of Musharraf Ali and Kalyan Rai, the dispute was settled but Bhajan Lal and others threatened Ganga Ram that he will meet the consequences in future and they were keeping enmity with him; that on the day of occurrence at about 07:00 a.m. his son was going to fetch milk from Toti Ram Gadaria and on way was near the Chaupal of Bechey Lal Chaudhari, the accused Bhajan Lal, Om Prakash, Lalta Prasad and Hardwari with common intention to cause his death made a 'GHERAO' of Ganga Ram; that on alarm raised by Ganga Ram, the first informant (Duli Ram), Bechey Lal Chaudhari, Ram Kishan as well as Ganga Ram s/o Kareh and Nabi Khan arrived near the spot, where Bhajan Lal and Hardwari were causing injuries to his son Ganga Ram with the knives, Lalta Prasad & Om Prakash weilding lathis proceeded towards them and warned that if any body comes forward for rescue, they will cause his death; that in the circumstances first informant and witnesses could not dare protect Ganga Ram from the accused persons or to catch hold of or chase the accused persons; that due to grievous injuries caused to Ganga Ram with the knives, he died on the spot upon which the accused persons after kicking him, managed to flee away". Upon investigation charge-sheet was submitted and case of accused Bhajan Lal and Hardwari was committed to Sessions on 04.11.1981, while that of co-accused Lalta Prasad and Om Prakash was committed to Sessions on 18.12.1981 and they were registered as S.T. Nos. Upon investigation charge-sheet was submitted and case of accused Bhajan Lal and Hardwari was committed to Sessions on 04.11.1981, while that of co-accused Lalta Prasad and Om Prakash was committed to Sessions on 18.12.1981 and they were registered as S.T. Nos. 466 of 1981 and 559 of 1981 respectively and were consolidated with each other treating the S.T. No. 466 of 1981 as leading case. Upon hearing the accused, on 14.04.1982 for causing death of Ganga Ram in the occurrence in question, charges were framed against Bhajan Lal & Hardwari under section 302 I.P.C. and against co-accused Lalta Prasad and Om Prakash under section 302 read with section 34 I.P.C. In order to prove its case, the prosecution produced 2 witnesses of facts and 5 formal witnesses total 7 persons as prosecution witnesses, who proved the factual as well as documentary evidences viz. F.I.R., written report, recovery and search memos, Postmortem report, charge sheet etc. Thereafter statements of accused persons were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. and they were given opportunity of defence evidence. In defence the accused persons filed only one paper, the copy of application given by Bhajan Lal on 20.06.1981 to City Magistrate Bareilly which being certified copy of records was marked as Ext. Kha-1 and did not adduce any oral evidence. After hearing the learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for the accused persons, the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence was passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Bareilly holding the accused persons guilty for causing death of Ganga Ram in furtherance of common intention with each other and sentencing each of them with imprisonment for life. According to the prosecution evidence before the occurrence in question about one month back when accused persons were taking liquor a quarrel took place between them and accused persons committed Mar-Peet with Ganga Ram and despite the matter was subsided upon intervention of Musharraf Ali and Kalyan Rai, the appellants Bhajan Lal & others had threatened the deceased with dire consequences in future and due to enmity on account of previous incident, which is not disputed, the accused persons in furtherance of common intention with each other caused death of Ganga Ram on 14.08.1981. The occurrence in question is alleged to have been taken place at the instance of accused persons. The occurrence in question is alleged to have been taken place at the instance of accused persons. It is alleged that at the time of occurrence in question, the deceased as usual was going to fetch milk when the accused persons made his 'GHERAO' in front of Chaupal of Bechey Lal Chaudhari at about 07:00 a.m. and on the alarm having been raised by deceased, the first informant who was getting his mouth washed on nearby handpipe at the crossing, proceeded towards place of occurrence. Simultaneously, Bechey and others also arrived there and when they proceeded and reached near the spot, the accused Bhajan Lal and Hardwari were causing injuries to Ganga Ram indiscriminately with the knives in their hands, and the accused Lalta Prasad and Om Prakash wielding lathis proceeded towards them with warning of causing their death in order to scare and stop them from intervening or making rescue efforts for saving the deceased. Since the first informant and witnesses were empty handed, they could not dare to make any efforts and stop accused persons from causing fatal injuries to Ganga Ram deceased. It has also been stated that due to injuries caused with knives when Ganga Ram fell down, the accused persons put a kick on him. The Postmortem report Ext. A-11 has been duly proved by Medical Officer PW-6 Dr. K.S. Tiwari who in his statement on oath has stated that on 15.8.1981 at 4.15 p.m. he conducted the postmortem examination of the body of Ganga Ram aged about 40 years, death of whom had taken place about 1 ½ days back. The body was average built and rigor mortis had passed from upper body and was passing from lower body. (1) Incised wound 5cm x 1 cm x chest cavity deep on right side chest 7 cm below right nipple obliquely placed, tailing lateraly margins sharp and inverted. (2) Incised would 1 cm x 1 cm x chest cavity deep on right side chest 7 cm below right medial end of collar bone vertically placed tailing downwards, 2 cm from midline directed backwards. (3) Incised would 1 ½ cm x 1 cm x chest cavity deep, ½ cm below injury no.1, vertically placed, directed backwards, tailing downwards. (2) Incised would 1 cm x 1 cm x chest cavity deep on right side chest 7 cm below right medial end of collar bone vertically placed tailing downwards, 2 cm from midline directed backwards. (3) Incised would 1 ½ cm x 1 cm x chest cavity deep, ½ cm below injury no.1, vertically placed, directed backwards, tailing downwards. (4) Incised would 2.5 cm x 1 cm x chest cavity deep 7 cm below medial end of left collar bone, tailing downwards, directed backwards, downwards and slightly, medially, margins sharp obliquely. (5) Incised wound 2 cm x 1 cm x chest cavity deep on left side back 10 cms below angle of scapula, 6 cm from midline, obliquely placed, directions forward. (6) Incised wound 5 cm x 1 cm on back of left hand lateral aspect just below wrist, wound of entry. (7) Incised wound 4 cm x 1 cm on anterior aspect of left hand just below wrist, exit wound of injury. Margins of all the incised wounds were sharp. The impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the four appellants has been assailed by their learned counsel, representing them separately, in day long arguments, mainly on following points:- (i) that the appellants had no motive to cause death of Ganga Ram deceased and the prosecution has failed to prove motive. (ii) that there was dispute of appellants with P.W.2 Bechey Lal over manure pits, and due to above enmity the appellants have been falsely implicated. (iii) that the deceased was having a criminal background and the possibility of his death having been caused by some unknown persons in the darkness of night may not be ruled out. (iv) that the first informant P.W.1 and Bechey Lal P.W.2 did not receive any injury in the incident in question which makes their presence at the spot doubtful and they may not be considered to be eye witnesses of the occurrence in question. (v) that the medical evidence on record does not show any injury of lathis to deceased or anybody else and so at least the conviction of appellants Om Prakash and Lalta Prasad is wrong and illegal. (vi) that P.W.1 Duli Ram was related with deceased being father and P.W.2 Bechey Lal was interested witness due to above enmity and so the testimony of related and interested witnesses may not be relied and made basis for conviction. (vi) that P.W.1 Duli Ram was related with deceased being father and P.W.2 Bechey Lal was interested witness due to above enmity and so the testimony of related and interested witnesses may not be relied and made basis for conviction. (vii) that the trial court acted wrongly in relying on the testimony of related and interested witnesses of prosecution. (viii) that the trial court failed to appreciate evidence in right perspective. (ix) that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against appellants beyond doubt. (x) that the trial court ought to have acquitted the appellants, by giving them benefit of doubt. Point Nos.1 and 2 The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the prosecution has failed to prove any motive of appellants for causing death of Ganga Ram and since the deceased was a history sheeter, his death appears to have been caused by some unknown persons and so the prosecution case has to fail. It is proved from the evidence on record that prompt F.I.R. of the incident was lodged against named accused with clear averments assigning specific arms and roles to each of the accused. The first informant Duli Ram as PW-1 has categorically reiterated the F.I.R. version in his statement on oath and has been fully corroborated by the statement on oath of P.W.-2, Bechey Lal, another eye witness of the occurrence. The testimony of above two witnesses of fact is consistent and cogent on all points and in the lengthy cross-examination with them no material contradiction has come out so as to disbelieve their testimony. The medical evidence on record is also in conformity with the prosecution case as well as with testimony of two eye witnesses. The happening of earlier incident, in which upon quarrel with all accused, marpeet was allegedly done with deceased, about one month before the incident in question, has not been disputed and it is also not disputed that though the matter was got subsided through intervention of Musharraf and Kalyan, the deceased was threatened of dire consequences in future by accused persons. No cross examination has been made from first informant P.W.-1, Duli Ram, on this part of his examination-in-chief by or on behalf of any of the accused and there is even no suggestion that the alleged earlier incident of quarrel and marpeet or threatening did not take place and the appellants had no grudge/enmity or motive for committing the incident in question on account of alleged enmity. It is settled principle of law as has been laid down by Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Jai Lakshmi Devamma vs Janardan, AIR 1959 Andhra Pradesh 272 (b) that "if on anything in examination-in-chief which is disputed and the opponent avoids asking the questions in cross-examination, the evidence in examination-in-chief must be accepted, unless of course there are inherent improbabilities". Similarly the Apex Court in the case of Swarn Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2003) 1 SCC 240 has held that:- "if opponent declining to avail himself of opportunity to put his case in cross-examination, the evidence tendered on that issue ought to be accepted". Moreover, the enmity between the appellants and the deceased is admitted and has also been proved by the appellants themselves through their application Ex. Kha-1, dated 20.6.1981 which is also sufficient to constitute a motive for causing the incident in question. After completion of prosecution evidence accused Bhajan Lal and Hardwari in their statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. have stated that there was some dispute between them and P.W.-2 Bechey Chaudhari over manure pits with respect to which an application was moved by Bhajan Lal against Bechey Chaudhari and deceased etc. and Bechey Chaudhary has falsely implicated them. Similarly accused Lalta Prasad and Om Prakash who are not brothers in their statements u/s 313 Cr.P.C. have stated that under the influence of police, deceased Ganga Ram had entered in houses of each of them (earlier) & since was beaten by them, they have been falsely implicated. It is pertinent to mention that no cross-examination with reference to the incident of deceased having been entered in houses of Lalta Prasad & Om Prakash was made with P.W.-1 Duli Ram and no cross examination with reference to alleged application was made with P.W.-2 Bechey Chaudhari and the only suggestion put to P.W.-2 was of falsely implicating Bhajan Lal & Hardwari. Since the P.W.-2 is only an eyewitness and is not alleged to be related with deceased in any manner, so the contention of false implication of accused Bhajan Lal & Hardwari by him due to moving of alleged application by accused Bhajan Lal regarding dispute over manure pits (which was not even put before him in cross examination) carries no weight. However, in this manner all the appellants/accused have admitted enmity with the deceased for one reason or the other and the argument of false implication of two or any of them at the hands of an eye witnesses has no force. The above application dated 20.06.1981 Ext. Kha-1 filed by accused persons in defence evidence shows that the application was moved by accused Bhajan Lal on 20.06.1981 to City Magistrate, Bareilly against Bechey Chaudhari and 6 others (including deceased), which states that :- "yesterday in a dispute over manure pits an incident of abusing and marpeet with accused Bhajan Lal and Hardwari was committed by Bechey Chaudhari and his associates i.e. on 19.06.1981". Undisputedly no F.I.R. or N.C.R. is alleged to have been lodged in respect of above criminal incident of marpeet and no subsequent overt act is alleged to have been committed by Bechey Lal and others. It is also noteworthy that the above application was neither filed in court till completion of prosecution evidence, nor any question was put to eye witness P.W.-1 & P.W.-2, nor it was suggested that prior to the incident in question any such incident took place on 19.6.1981, so mere filing of Ext. Kha-1 after completion of prosecution evidence and making a statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. by accused Bhajan Lal & Hardwari, does neither adversely affect the prosecution case nor give any benefit to appellants/accused persons. In view of discussions made above, the observations made by learned trial court, that Ext. Kha-1 appears to have been moved as a 'Peshbandi' may not be considered incorrect. Undisputedly the element of motive remains in minds of miscreants and prosecution may only give an idea of probable cause/motive for the incident, having been committed by them. It is settled principle of law that normally motive remains behind every criminal act but where occular evidence against accused is clear, cogent and reliable, the question of motive is of no importance and looses its importance. It is settled principle of law that normally motive remains behind every criminal act but where occular evidence against accused is clear, cogent and reliable, the question of motive is of no importance and looses its importance. In the case of Shivraj Bapurey Jadhav vs. State of Karnataka 2003 (47) Allahabad Criminal Cases 408 SC the Apex Court has held that "if direct ocular evidence is there on record, law of motive becomes insignificant." In the case of Bipin Kumar Mondal vs. State of West Bengal AIR 2010 SC 3638 , Apex Court held that "proof of motive is not essential where direct evidence establishes crime. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, motive does assume great importance, but to say that the absence of motive would dislodge the entire prosecution story, is giving this one factor an undue importance. The motive is in the mind of accused and can seldom be fathomed with any degree of accuracy." Since in this case the motive has been stated and established by the prosecution and the happening of occurrence in question at the instance of accused persons is proved by the eye witness account of two eye witnesses which is duly corroborated with medical evidence on record, I find that the argument of appellants with regard to lack of motive of appellants and their false implication due to alleged enmity, have no force. Point No. (iii) Lengthy cross-examination has been made with the P.W.-1 with regard to criminal antecedents of deceased which has been denied and there is no iota of evidence to show that except some very old criminal case regarding theft etc. the deceased had any criminal antecedents. In view of the consistent testimony of PW-1, the first informant and independent witness PW-2 Bechey Lal Chaudhari supported with medical evidence, the argument of learned counsel for appellants that the death of deceased appears to have been caused by some unknown persons in midnight due to the criminal antecedents of deceased carries no force. It is noteworthy that according to the prosecution case the death of Ganga Ram was caused at about 7.00 a.m. On 14.8.1981. Dr. It is noteworthy that according to the prosecution case the death of Ganga Ram was caused at about 7.00 a.m. On 14.8.1981. Dr. K.S. Tiwari who conducted the post-mortem of the body of deceased at 4.15 pm on 15.8.1981 has given the opinion that death had taken place about 1 ½ days back which may have a variation of 2 - 4 hours which corresponds with the time of incident 7.00 a.m. on 14.8.1981. According to settled principles of medical jurisprudence there may be variation of six hours on either side in the given approximate time of death, and when the Medical Officer Dr. S.K. Tiwari PW-6 has specifically stated on oath that death of deceased may have taken place at 7.00 a.m. on 14.8.1981, and in absence of any suggestion to him in cross examination that the death of Ganga Ram could have taken place at an earlier time in midnight or beyond a period of two days or so, the argument of learned counsel for appellants that his death would have been caused in the midnight by some unknown persons, is baseless and unacceptable, and does not create any doubt on prosecution case. There is no iota of evidence on record in the shape of any F.I.R. or charge sheet in the name of deceased on record, on any point of time. It is also noteworthy that accused/appellants Lalta Prasad and Om Prakash in their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. have stated that deceased Ganga Ram had entered in their houses (earlier) under influence of police and had been beaten by them, due to which they have been falsely implicated. This statement is in clear contradiction to the plea of deceased being a person of criminal antecedents (as a criminal or history sheeter may not be under influence of police) or of possibility of having been killed by his enemies/rival criminals. Point No.(iv) Learned counsel for appellants contended that PW1 & PW2 the first informant and Bechey Lal are not eyewitnesses of the occurrence and their presence on the spot is doubtful, in absence of any injuries sustained by any of them, because had they been there the accused persons would have caused injuries also to them. This argument also has no force because it has been specifically stated on oath in the F.I.R. itself that when the first informant and Bechey Lal etc. This argument also has no force because it has been specifically stated on oath in the F.I.R. itself that when the first informant and Bechey Lal etc. tried to interfere and proceed to rescue Ganga Ram, accused Lalta Prasad and Om Prakash, wielding lathis in their hands proceeded towards them and warned them of life. Since the four accused armed with deadly weapons out of whom 2 were causing injuries to deceased with knives and other 2 wielding lathis were actively participating in scaring the others. It was quite natural for the PW1, PW2 and other eye witnesses who had arrived there empty handed, to desist from daring to stop accused persons by maintaining safe distance, so merely in absence of any injury to them their presence on the spot may not be doubted. It is not the case of prosecution that any scuffle had taken place between them and accused persons. Point No.(v) The learned counsel for the appellants Lalta Prasad and Om Prakash contended that according to the prosecution case they were armed with lathis and since there is no injury of lathi or of blunt object on the body of deceased and no other overt act of causing injuries to first informant or any other person has been assigned to them so their presence on the place of occurrence highly improbable and prosecution has failed to establish their participation in the crime have been falsely implicated. The above argument of appellants has no force because the prosecution has come with a specific case, and evidences that all the accused were involved in earlier incident of marpeet with deceased which took place about one month back and had threatened the deceased. As per evidence on record, at the time of occurrence in question, they were wielding lathis in order to stop the first informant and other eye witnesses from proceeding for the rescue of the deceased and thus they actively participated in the incident in question in which death of Ganga Ram was committed by all the four accused persons in furtherance of their common intention. Merely for the reason that no injury of lathis was sustained to PW-1 and PW-2, or the deceased their presence at the place of occurrence as well as their active participation in the crime may not be doubted, because all the four accused were armed with deadly weapons and being empty handed it was quite natural for them to maintain some distance due to cruel actions of appellants. It is pertinent to mention that considering the averments made in F.I.R. and evidence collected by I.O., the trial court did not frame simpliciter charge against them under section 302 I.P.C., rather framed it only under section 302 read with section 34 I.P.C. The prosecution does not say that Lalta Prasad and Om Prakash caused death of Ganga Ram by causing injuries with blows of lathis in their hands, rather as per prosecution case & evidence on record they were surrounding Ganga Ram and wielding lathis to stop anyone/every one from interfering or come forward for his rescue in order to ascertain death of Ganga Ram by the hands of their associates in furtherance of their common intention. Point No.vi to x The learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that prosecution has failed to prove its case by evidence of an independent witness and the testimony of PW-1 Duli Ram and PW-2 Bechey Lal Chaudhari may not be relied as PW-1 Duli Ram being father of deceased is a related witness and PW-2 Bechey Lal Chaudhari was interested witness and testimony of related and interested witnesses may not be made basis for conviction. The fact that PW-1 is father of deceased and is closely related with him is not disputed but merely due to above relationship, in absence of any material contradiction or any other factor to his discredit it will not be correct to say that the testimony of above eye witness is liable to be discarded. The fact that PW-1 is father of deceased and is closely related with him is not disputed but merely due to above relationship, in absence of any material contradiction or any other factor to his discredit it will not be correct to say that the testimony of above eye witness is liable to be discarded. In the case of Leela Ram vs. State of Haryana (1999) 9 SCC 525 , the Apex Court held that "the evidenciary value of testimony of son and brother-in-law of deceased in absence of any other factor to discredit the said witnesses, can not be rejected merely on the ground that they were interested witnesses and at the same time, the testimony of local Sarpanch witnessing the occurrence was also liable to be treated reliable, as of an independent witness and the fact that brother of accused was his rival candidate at the election, held to be too feeble a ground to doubt or discard his evidence" dismissing the appeal of convict, and upholding the judgment of High Court, wherein High Court setting aside acquittal had passed conviction order,the Apex Court further held that "the ocular account given by relative witness does not by itself loose its evidenciary value unless some other factor is brought on record to discredit the credit worthiness of the witness" and that "Trivial discrepancies cannot affect the credibility of the evidence of the witness if it is otherwise acceptable evidence" In the case of Gangadhar Behra vs. State of Orissa (2002) 8 SCC 381 , it was held by the Apex Court that "relationship is not a factor to affect the credibility of a witness. It is more often than not that a relation would not conceal actual culprit and make allegations against innocent person. Foundation has to be laid if plea of false implication is made. However, Court has to adopt careful approach and analyze the evidence to find out whether it is cogent and credible". It is settled principle of law that testimony of partisan or interested witness cannot be discarded outright, rather it should be examined with more care and caution. In the case of Indra Pal Singh Vs. However, Court has to adopt careful approach and analyze the evidence to find out whether it is cogent and credible". It is settled principle of law that testimony of partisan or interested witness cannot be discarded outright, rather it should be examined with more care and caution. In the case of Indra Pal Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 2009 (1)Allahabad Law Journal 666 SC the Apex Court upholding the order of High Court converting the acquittal passed by Additional Sessions Judge, into conviction held that "minor inconsistencies appearing in statements of two eye witnesses which are of very trivial nature must not be given undue importance and acquittal of the accused on such insignificant contradictions, is not proper" In the present case, no enmity of PW-2 Bechey Lal Chaudhari with appellants could be established from the evidence on record except the alleged moving of application by appellant Bhajan Lal regarding the criminal incident of which no FIR or NCR was ever lodged. It is pertinent to mention that Bechey Lal Chaudhari is proved to be an independent witness and there is nothing on record to put him in the category of interested witness or a witness having any enmity with the appellants. The occurrence in question had taken place in front of the Chaupal of Bechey Lal Chaudhari at 7.00 a.m. and he was the most natural witness as well as the best person to give correct eye witness account of the occurrence. Had Bechey Lal Chaudhari not been produced by prosecution, the plea for drawing adverse inference against the prosecution for not producing the best evidence would have become available to the accused-appellants. In Krishna Mochi vs. State of Bihar reported in (2002) 6 SCC 81 the 3 Judges Bench of Apex Court has held "that in Criminal Trial a prosecutor is faced so many odds. Court shall not loose sight of the realities of life and can not afford to take an unrealistic approach of values in public life. Some discrepancy is inevitable - but a discrepancy existing in a prosecution case should not weigh with the Court so long it does not materially effect the case. Court shall not loose sight of the realities of life and can not afford to take an unrealistic approach of values in public life. Some discrepancy is inevitable - but a discrepancy existing in a prosecution case should not weigh with the Court so long it does not materially effect the case. Duty of Courts is not only to see that no innocent man is punished but also to ensure that no person committing an offence should go scot free." By the evidence produced on record the prosecution has fully established the charges against the appellants, to the hilt and beyond any shadow of doubt. There is nothing on record to suggest that leaving the real culprits, appellants have been falsely implicated. It is settled principle of law that "in order to acquit the accused giving benefit of doubt there must be some reasonable doubt and every suspicion on the basis of minor discrepancies, if any, or minor points raised by the accused may not be made basis to acquit the accused." In the case of Gangadhar Behra (supra) it has been further laid down by the Apex Court that "there should be reasonable doubt for acquitting an accused and acquittal on the basis of a imaginary doubt should not be allowed." "Exaggerated devotion to the rule of benefit of doubt must not nurture fanciful doubts or lingering suspicion and thereby destroy social defence. Justice cannot be made sterile on the plea that it is better to let hundred guilty escape than punish an innocent. Letting guilty escape is not doing justice according to law." "Prosecution is not required to meet any and every hypothesis put forward by the accused. A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or merely possible doubt, but a fair doubt based upon reason and common sense. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is a guideline, not a fetish. " Similarly, in the case of G. Parshwanath vs State Of Karnataka reported in 2010 (4) Crimes 41 SC the Apex Court has held that "every suspicion is not a doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is a guideline, not a fetish. " Similarly, in the case of G. Parshwanath vs State Of Karnataka reported in 2010 (4) Crimes 41 SC the Apex Court has held that "every suspicion is not a doubt. Only reasonable doubt gives benefit to the accused and not the doubt of a vacillating judge." "In a case based on circumstantial evidence if the chain of circumstances is complete - it cannot be said that in absence of motive, the other proved circumstances are of no consequence." Upon careful consideration of the statements made by the two witnesses of fact, fully corroborated with the medical evidence on record, duly proved by PW-6 Dr. K. S. Tiwari, we are of considered view that the learned trial court has rightly held that the prosecution has succeeded in proving the case against the appellants beyond any reasonable doubt. It is also pertinent to mention that prompt FIR of the occurrence of murder has been lodged at 9.20 a.m. at the police station, which is at a distance of 10 k.m. from the place of occurrence followed by proceedings of preparation of inquest report from 11.25 a.m. To 1.00 p.m. and there is nothing on record to suggest that anti-timed FIR was lodged by first informant. The non-recovery of weapon of crime also does not affect prosecution case adversely. In view of the testimony of PW-1 Duli Ram and PW-2 Bechey Lal Chaudhari and proof of documentary evidence on record by the formal witnesses, viz., Sub Inspector Tej Singh, who prepared inquest report, Head Constable Charan Singh who prepared chick F.I.R, Constable Shabbir Hussain, who carried the dead body for post-mortem and Investing Officer K.P.S. Rathore along with Dr. K.S. Tiwari, P.W. 3 to 7, the prosecution has fully established the charges framed against the accused persons/ appellants beyond any reasonable doubt and the learned counsel for appellants have failed to show any illegality, irregularity or misreading of evidence by the trial court and have failed to show any sufficient cause for setting aside their conviction as well as the impugned judgment and order. In view of the discussions made above, we are of considered view that the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence are liable to be confirmed and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. In view of the discussions made above, we are of considered view that the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence are liable to be confirmed and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly 3 appeals filed by appellants are dismissed and conviction and sentence of appellants is affirmed. All the interim orders, including order granting bail to appellants or staying operation of impugned order of conviction, if any or otherwise stand discharged. The appellants are on bail pending appeal. Their personal bonds and surety bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged. They are directed to surrender before the trial Court forthwith to serve out of remaining term of sentence imposed upon them by trial Court and if they fail to surrender as directed, the trial Court shall take necessary coercive action against them for ascertaining compliance of order of conviction and sentence. Let the lower court record be transmitted to court below forthwith alongwith a copy of judgment, with a direction that it shall take immediate steps for arrest of appellants for serving the remaining term of sentence.