JUDGMENT : Vivek Singh Thakur, J. 1. Aggrieved by acquittal of respondents/accused vide judgment, dated 08.05.2009 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Solan in Sessions Trial No. 4-S/7 of 2008 in Case FIR No. 137/2008, dated 27.11.2008 registered under Sections 304 Part II, 341 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code in Police Station Solan, District Solan, H.P. the State has preferred present appeal, with prayer to set aside impugned judgment and to convict respondents/accused under Sections 304 Part II, 341 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. We have heard counsel for parties and have gone through documents placed on record. Learned Deputy Advocate General for appellant-State has advanced arguments that there is sufficient evidence on record to prove guilt of respondents/accused under Sections 304 Part II, 341 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and prayed for allowing the appeal, whereas counsel for respondents/accused has supported judgment contending that evidence on record is not sufficient to connect respondent with commission of crime and has prayed for dismissal of appeal. 3. As per prosecution story, PW-4 Anil Kumar and Pardeep Kumar, Home Guard officials in Police Station, Sadar Solan and he had received telephonic intimation from Police Station Sadar at about 12.00-12.30 AM during their patrolling in the night of 22nd/23rd.06.2008 that someone was lying injured on railway track, near Old Bus Stand, Solan and he xrequired to be taken to hospital. On reaching railway track, they noticed a person lying under railway line bridge who was unable to stand. They came to know that said person was Hari Om who had come from Uttar Pradesh to train employees of Gupta Bakery, Solan. Injured was removed from spot to the hospital, Solan with help of Fire Brigade services on a stretcher and injured was admitted by Medical Officer. Information to Police Station, Solan was also sent. On receiving information in Police Post, Solan, PW-16 H.C. Kuldeep Singh at about 1.00 AM, had departed for hospital. In this regard, rapat No. 16, Ex. PW 9/A was entered in Police Post, Solan. 4. In the hospital, PW-16 Kuldeep Singh had approached PW-5 Dr. Mukta with application Ex.PW-5/A for her opinion regarding fitness of injured to make statement. At 1.30 AM. PW-5 had stated that the injured was not fit for statement, however at about 7.30 AM, PW-5 Dr. PW 9/A was entered in Police Post, Solan. 4. In the hospital, PW-16 Kuldeep Singh had approached PW-5 Dr. Mukta with application Ex.PW-5/A for her opinion regarding fitness of injured to make statement. At 1.30 AM. PW-5 had stated that the injured was not fit for statement, however at about 7.30 AM, PW-5 Dr. Mukta had considered injured fit for making statement. Thereafter, PW- 16 H.C. Kuldeep Singh had recorded statement of injured Ex.PW-16/A and had sent the same to Police Station, Sadar and on the basis of said statement, FIR Ex.PW-8/B was registered. 5. As per statement Ex.16/A, injured had stated that he is resident of Noida, Uttar Pradesh and is an operator of biscuit bakery machine. On 22.6.2008, at about 10.00 PM, he was coming from byepass Kather towards Solan Bazaar and when he reached near railway line, 2-3 persons had come from opposite side who are known to him by face. After restraining his path, they had beaten him with fists and kicks and had thrown him down from bridge. He had been brought to hospital by local people and he has sustained injuries on his back and other parts of body. 6. On 23.06.2008 at about 8.00 PM, PW-15 Naveen Kumar had reached hospital on asking of owner of Gupta Bakery to see and attend Hari Om. Injured had disclosed to him that he was beaten on previous night at about 10.00 PM by respondents and was thrown down from bridge. Statement of PW-15 Naveen Kumar was also recorded to this effect by PW-16 H.C. Kuldeep Singh and on same day, PW-15 Naveen Kumar had left for Shimla alongwith injured for taking him to IGMC, Shimla keeping in view his serious condition, injured was referred by PW-5 Dr. Mukta to I.G.M.C. Shimla. PW-15 Naveen Kumar remained in IGMC, Shimla till next morning and had come back to Solan after arrival of parents and other relatives of the injured at Shimla from Ghaziabad. 7. PW-1 Raju Kashyap is father and PW-2 Rajinder Singh is uncle (chacha) of injured Hari Om. PW-1 is a labourer at Noida. On 23.06.2008, one Ashu Tyagi had informed him about accident of his son asking him to go to IGMC, Shimla. Upon this PW-1 Raju Kahsyap, PW-2 Rajinder Singh, mother, brother-in-law and brother of injured had immediately started for Shimla from their places and had reached Shimla on 24.06.2008 in the morning. PW-1 is a labourer at Noida. On 23.06.2008, one Ashu Tyagi had informed him about accident of his son asking him to go to IGMC, Shimla. Upon this PW-1 Raju Kahsyap, PW-2 Rajinder Singh, mother, brother-in-law and brother of injured had immediately started for Shimla from their places and had reached Shimla on 24.06.2008 in the morning. As per PW-1 injured had informed him that he was beaten at Mal Godam and was thrown from bridge by 3-4 persons namely Prakash Joshi, Sher Singh and Kanwar Singh, workers of Gupta Bakery and they have beaten him. PW-1 Raju Kashyap has further stated that his son had come to Solan to repair machine and to train respondents in Gupta Bakery. Keeping in view serious condition of injured Investigating Officer PW-16 H.C. Kuldeep Singh was asked by PW-1 Raju Kashyap and other relatives of injured to record statement of injured. Investigating Officer H.C. Kuldeep Singh was requested on telephone as well as visiting personally by parents and relatives of injured but statement of injured was not recorded. On 28.06.2008 injured had succumbed to injuries and thereafter police had reached in IGMC, Shimla. PW-1 Raju Kashyap has stated that injured has disclosed names on 24.6.2008 in the morning and same was conveyed to Investigating Officer Kuldeep Singh but he did not come to Shimla despite their visits of Police Chowki, Solan on the same day at about 2.30 PM. As per this witness, on informing, Investigating Officer Kuldeep Singh had stated that there were large number of persons working in Gupta Bakery and all those could not be taken to Shimla. Injured had lost his senses after 24.06.2008 and was kept on artificial ventilator. 8. PW-2 Rajinder Singh had also corroborated statement of PW-1 Raju Kashyap on material particulars. There is a positive suggestion on behalf of respondents that it is correct that Hari Om told that he was beaten in Mal Godam and thereafter thrown on railway line. There is a discrepancy in statement of PW-1 and PW-2 with regard to number of persons who had beaten Hari Om injured however both of them consistently have stated that injured had disclosed names of three persons who are respondents. 9. PW-15 Naveen Kumar was also working in Gupta Food Industries, Solan. There is a discrepancy in statement of PW-1 and PW-2 with regard to number of persons who had beaten Hari Om injured however both of them consistently have stated that injured had disclosed names of three persons who are respondents. 9. PW-15 Naveen Kumar was also working in Gupta Food Industries, Solan. He has stated that Hari Om deceased was known to him and he was his friend and respondents are known to him as they were working in Gupta Food Industries, Solan. He has further stated that in May, 2008 injured had come alongwith machine for installation of biscuit preparing machine in Gupta Industry who had also imparted 15 days training to workers of Gupta Industry, Solan regarding operation of machine in industry and had returned back. As per this witness Hari Om had come back on 17/18.06.2008 and had requested to Gupta Food Industries to give him employment with suggestion that more workers will be brought by him if required. On this respondents had asked Hari Om that why he was snatching their bread and butter and there were hot arguments exchanged between Hari Om and respondents. On asking of Gupta Ji PW-15 had visited hospital and on his enquiry injured Hari Om revealed the names of respondents who had beaten him. In his cross-examination he has stated that police has recorded his statement in the hospital on the gate and he remained with Investigating Officer PW-16 for about half an hour in the hospital at that time and statement of Hari Om injured was not recorded in his presence. He has stated that when he reached in hospital Hari Om was not in good senses. He had taken Hari Om to Shimla at about 10.30 AM in a hired van. He remained in hospital till arrival of relatives of Hari Om on next morning. Positive suggestion has also been put to him that it is correct that on enquiry by the relatives of Hari Om, Hari Om had disclosed names of accused persons to them. He has stated that he had neither asked about owner nor he disclosed him about the accused. He has stated that he has not disclosed this fact to anybody else except police. 10. PW-5 Dr. Mukta has corroborated the fact that she was approached by PW-16 H.C. Kuldeep Singh at 01.30 AM and thereafter at 7.30 AM on 23.06.2008. He has stated that he had neither asked about owner nor he disclosed him about the accused. He has stated that he has not disclosed this fact to anybody else except police. 10. PW-5 Dr. Mukta has corroborated the fact that she was approached by PW-16 H.C. Kuldeep Singh at 01.30 AM and thereafter at 7.30 AM on 23.06.2008. She medically examined injured on 23.06.2008 and after that referred injured to IGMC, Shimla. She has issued MLC Ex.5/C and after considering report of Senior Medical Officer Dr. J.B. Kaushik Ex.5/C and case summary of injured Ex.5/D issued from IGMC, Shimla she had opined that all four injuries mentioned in Ex.PW-5/C are grievous in nature. As per her opinion, injury No. 1 could not be caused by fists and rest injuries could be caused by fist blows. Injuries were also possible if someone was thrown from height. She has stated that probable time of injuries was less than six hours. She has admitted that there were cuttings in column of probable duration of injuries in Ex.PW-5/C but she has stated that it was made by her instantaneously at that time. PW-6 Sangeet Dhillon has proved post-mortem report EX.PW-6/B. 11. After death of injured respondents were arrested on 29.06.2008. Prosecution has also relied upon disclosure statement Ex.PW-3/A made by Prakash Joshi during his custody in Police Station, Sadar followed by identification of place of occurrence claiming that the same was known only to Parkash Joshi and his co-accused and none else. PW-15 Naveen Kumar has been examined to prove disclosure statement but in fact disclosure statement in no way is supporting the prosecution case. The place of occurrence was known to Home Guards who had removed injured from the spot to hospital and also had informed police. PW-4 Anil Kumar has stated that on their identification, police had also inspected the spot. Therefore, it cannot be said that facts disclosed vide disclosure statement Ex.PW-3/A were such as it were known only to respondent Parkash Joshi. Therefore, disclosure statement Ex.PW-3/A and identification memo Ex.PW-3/B cannot be considered a piece of evidence for proving the guilt of the respondent. 12. The Apex Court in case Javed Alam vs. State of Chhattisgarh and another, (2009) 6 SCC 450 has held as under:- “19. Section 6 of the Evidence Act is an exception to the rule of evidence that hearsay evidence is not admissible. 12. The Apex Court in case Javed Alam vs. State of Chhattisgarh and another, (2009) 6 SCC 450 has held as under:- “19. Section 6 of the Evidence Act is an exception to the rule of evidence that hearsay evidence is not admissible. The test for applying the rule of res-gastae is that the statement should be spontaneous and should form part of the same transaction ruling out any possibility of concoction. In Gentele Vijayavardhan Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh it was held in para 15 as follows: "Section 6 of the Evidence Act and some of the succeeding Sections embody the rule of admission of evidence relating to what is commonly known as res-gestae. They are in the nature of exception to 'hearsay" rule. Section-6 permits proof of collateral statements which are so connected with the facts in issue as to form part of the same transaction. Whether the statement made by a witness was a part of the same transaction or not is to be considered in the light of the circumstances of each case. The principle is that it should be so intimately connected with the fact in issue as to be a spontaneous utterance inspired by the excitement of the occasion or a spontaneous reaction thereof, there being no opportunity for deliberately fabricating the statement. In other words, the statement which is a part of res-gestae does not narrate a past event, but it is the event itself speaking through a person thus excluding the possibility of any design behind it.” 13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case Krishan Kumar Malik vs. State of Haryana (2011) 7 SCC 130 has held as under:- “34. We shall now deal with Section 6 of the Act, which reads as under:- "6. Relevancy of facts forming part of same transaction-Facts which, though not in issue, are so connected with a fact in issue as to form part of the same transaction, are relevant, whether they occurred at the same time and place or at different times and places. 35. Black's Law Dictionary defines Res Gestae as follows: “(Latin: "things done") The events at issue, or other events contemporaneous with them In evidence law, words and statements about the res gestae are usually admissible under a hearsay exception (such as present sense impression or excited utterance)………… 36. 35. Black's Law Dictionary defines Res Gestae as follows: “(Latin: "things done") The events at issue, or other events contemporaneous with them In evidence law, words and statements about the res gestae are usually admissible under a hearsay exception (such as present sense impression or excited utterance)………… 36. The said evidence thus becomes relevant and admissible as res gestae under Section 6 of the Act. 37. Section 6 of the Act has an exception to the general rule where-under, hearsay evidence becomes admissible. But as for bringing such hearsay evidence within the ambit of Section 6, what is required to be established is that it must be almost contemporaneous with the acts Crl. A. @ S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 8021 of 2009 and there could not be an interval which would allow fabrication. In other words, the statements said to be admitted as forming part of res gestae must have been made contemporaneously with the act or immediately thereafter…………...” 14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Ramesh and another, (2011) 4 SCC 786 has held as under:- “18. In Sukhar v. State of U.P. (1999) 9 SCC 507 , this Court has explained the provisions of Section 6 of the Evidence Act, 1872 observing that it is an exception to the general rule whereunder the hearsay evidence becomes admissible. However, such evidence must be almost contemporaneous with the acts and there should not be an interval which would allow fabrication. The statements sought to be admitted, therefore, as forming part of res gestae, must have been made contemporaneously with the acts or immediately thereafter. The essence of the doctrine is that a fact which, though not in issue, is so connected with the fact in issue "as to form part of the same transaction" that it becomes relevant by itself………..” 15. PW-15 Naveen Kuamr had met injured immediately after injured had become fit to give statement and names of assailants disclosed to PW-15 Naveen Kumar by injured were informed by PW-15 immediately to Investigating Officer in the Hospital itself. Similarly PW-1 and PW-2 had met injured on 24.06.2008 for first time and injured had disclosed names of assailants to them which was conveyed to police. Similarly PW-1 and PW-2 had met injured on 24.06.2008 for first time and injured had disclosed names of assailants to them which was conveyed to police. Applying ratio of aforesaid cases to the evidence of PW-1, PW-2 and atleast of PW-15, it can be concluded that his statement that ‘injured told him that respondents had beaten him’ would become admissible under Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act, so as to identify assailants. 16. Even if statements of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-15 become admissible with regard to disclosure of names of respondents as assailants, it is yet to be considered that whether their statements are reliable so as to convict respondents under Section 304 Part II of Indian Penal Code. 17. Only eye-witness was injured himself whose statement was recorded by Investigating Officer PW-16 Kuldeep Singh at 7.30 AM and as per Investigating Officer at that time injured had not disclosed names of respondents. However, immediately thereafter, at 8.30 AM names of assailants were informed to PW-15 Naveen Kumar by injured. As per observation of Doctor in MLC Ex.PW-5/C, injured was conscious but not oriented to time, place and person, but was cooperative and no smell of alcohol was found from him. Keeping in view serious condition of injured, he was referred to IGMC Shimla where he was kept in ventilator and ultimately succumbed to injuries 28.06.2008. He remained in senses till 24.06.2008 and had also disclosed names of assailants to his father and other relatives. In such a serious condition when person is conscious but not oriented to time, place and person, there was possibility of not telling names to Investigating Officer at 7.30 AM when he was just declared fit to make his statement by the doctor and immediately prior to that he was not fit for making statement. After regaining further consciousness, he was able to tell the names to PW-15 Naveen Kumar and later on to his parents and relatives including PW-1 and PW-2. 18. It is settled proposition that at the time of appreciation of evidence of witnesses, minor discrepancies not affecting the case of prosecution may not be the basis of rejecting evidence in its entirety. Such discrepancies are bound to occur for the reason because of witnesses owing to common error in observations, due to lapse of time or errors owing to different mental capacity of reception, retention and narrations. 19. Such discrepancies are bound to occur for the reason because of witnesses owing to common error in observations, due to lapse of time or errors owing to different mental capacity of reception, retention and narrations. 19. The Apex Court in case Mritunjoy Biswas vs. Pranab alias Kuti Biswas and another, (2013) 12 SCC 796 has held as under:- “28. As is evincible, the High Court has also taken note of certain omissions and discrepancies treating them to be material omissions and irreconcilable discrepancies. It is worthy to note that the High Court has referred to the some discrepancies which we find are absolutely in the realm of minor discrepancies. It is well settled in law that the minor discrepancies are not to be given undue emphasis and the evidence is to be considered from the point of view of trustworthiness. The test is whether the same inspires confidence in the mind of the court. If the evidence is incredible and cannot be accepted by the test of prudence, then it may create a dent in the prosecution version. If an omission or discrepancy goes to the root of the matter and ushers in incongruities, the defence can take advantage of such inconsistencies. It needs no special emphasis to state that every omission cannot take place of a material omission and, therefore, minor contradictions, inconsistencies or insignificant embellishments do not affect the core of the prosecution case and should not be taken to be a ground to reject the prosecution evidence. The omission should create a serious doubt about the truthfulness or creditworthiness of a witness. It is only the serious contradictions and omissions which materially affect the case of the prosecution but not every contradiction or omission (See Leela Ram (dead) through Duli Chand v. State of Haryana and another, Rammi alias Rameshwar v. State of M.P. and Shyamal Ghosh v. State of West Bengal…………… 31. The High Court, as we find, has read the evidence not as a whole but in utter fragmentation and appreciated the same in total out of context. It is to be kept in mind that while appreciating the evidence of a witness, the approach must be whether the evidence of the witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. It is to be kept in mind that while appreciating the evidence of a witness, the approach must be whether the evidence of the witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Once that impression is formed, it is undoubtedly necessary for the court to scrutinize the evidence more particularly keeping in view the deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in the evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the evidence given by the witness and whether the earlier evaluation of the evidence is shaken as to render it unworthy of belief. Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the case, hyper-technical approach by taking sentences torn out of context here or there from the evidence, attaching importance to some technical error committed by the investigating officer not going to the root of the matter would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole. (See State of U.P. v. M.K. Anthony). Tested on the anvil of the aforesaid principle, we have no shadow of doubt that the High Court has erroneously discarded the credible evidence by paving the path of totally hyper-technical approach…………” 20. In present case, there are no material contradictions and discrepancies in statement of PW-15 Naveen Kumar read with statement of injured recorded by PW-16 Investigating Officer, Kuldeep Kumar Ex.PW-16/A which is also corroborated by PW-1 and PW-2 with regard to identification of assailants as disclosed by injured. 21. The statement of injured PW-1, PW-2 and PW-15 are natural and believable. Therefore their statements can be accepted to be true for relying for convicting the respondents. 22. Respondents were workers in Gupta Food Industry, Solan. The injured was not having any other enmity with respondents except that he was operator of biscuit making machine and had come to Solan to train workers of Gupta Food Industries and was requesting for employment in Gupta Food Industries, Solan. There is no reason for injured for falsely implicating respondents. PW-15 Naveen Kumar was co-worker of respondents and was knowing injured as he imparted training to workers of Gupta Food Industries for 15 days and during that period he had become friendly with injured. Respondent and PW-15 Naveen Kumar belong to Utterakhand whereas deceased was from Gaziabad Uttar Pradesh. There is no reason for injured for falsely implicating respondents. PW-15 Naveen Kumar was co-worker of respondents and was knowing injured as he imparted training to workers of Gupta Food Industries for 15 days and during that period he had become friendly with injured. Respondent and PW-15 Naveen Kumar belong to Utterakhand whereas deceased was from Gaziabad Uttar Pradesh. There is nothing to suggest on record that PW-1 and PW-2 were knowing respondents prior to disclosure of their names by their injured son. They had no enmity or any other reason to name respondents except on the basis of disclosure made to them by injured. There is nothing on record to suggest that PW-1, PW-2 and/or PW-15 was having any other reason or motive to implicate respondents except for disclosure of names by injured to them. 23. There is sufficient corroboration to disclosure of names of respondents by injured after gaining consciousness so as to hold respondents guilty as they were considering him a threat to their job. So far as gaining consciousness to make statement has also been admitted by respondents in their cross-examination by putting positive suggestions to PW-15 that it is correct that on enquiry by relatives of Hari Om, Hari Om disclosed the names of accused persons to them. 24. There is a defect in investigation and it is settled law that defective investigation or lapse of the Investigating Officer cannot be basis for acquitting the accused, in case there is other reliable trustworthy and credible evidence on record. 25. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case Gajoo vs. State of Uttarakhand, (2012) 9 SCC 532 has held as under:- “21. The present case, when examined in light of the above principles, makes it clear that the defect in the investigation or omission on the part of the investigating officer, cannot prove to be of any advantage to the accused. No doubt the investigating officer ought to have obtained serologist’s report both in respect of Ext. 2 and Ext. 5 and matched it with the blood group of the deceased. This is a definite lapse on the part of the investigating officer which cannot be overlooked by the Court, despite the fact that it finds no merit in the contention of the accused.” 26. The Apex Court in case Ganga Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2013) 7 SCC 278 has held as under:- “15. This is a definite lapse on the part of the investigating officer which cannot be overlooked by the Court, despite the fact that it finds no merit in the contention of the accused.” 26. The Apex Court in case Ganga Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2013) 7 SCC 278 has held as under:- “15. We are also unable to accept the submission of Mr. Mehrotra that the investigation by the police is shoddy and hasty and there are defects in the investigation and therefore benefit of doubt should be given to the appellant and he should be acquitted of the charge of rape. The settled position of law is that the prosecution is required to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt by adducing evidence. Hence, if the prosecution in a given case adduces evidence to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, the court cannot acquit the accused on the ground that there are some defects in the investigation, but if the defects in the investigation are such as to cast a reasonable doubt in the prosecution case, then of course the accused is entitled to acquittal because of such doubt…………” 27. PW-1 and PW-2 had categorically stated that on disclosure of names of assailants by injured/deceased Hari Om, they had contacted Investigating Officer PW-16 H.C. Kuldeep Singh to examine injured Hari Om but for the reasons best known to Investigating Officer PW-16 Kuldeep Singh, he had not made any endeavour to record statement of injured. It is also not understandable that for what reasons PW-16 Kuldeep Singh had not associated Medical Officer or any other persons at the time of recording statement of injured in the hospital on 23.06.2008 at 7.30 AM particularly when condition of the patient was serious and he was unable to make any statement, immediately before making his statement, Investigating Officer PW-16, Kuldeep Singh has stated that because of strike in Solan on account of another murder in Shoolini fair, he was busy in handling the situation and therefore was not able to visit Shimla or to investigate the matter further after 23.06.2008. He has also denied that PW-1, PW-2 or/and other relatives of injured had ever approached him for recording statement of injured Hari Om. Be it as may be, it is the Investigating Officer PW-16 Kuldeep Singh who had recorded statement of PW-15 Naveen Kumar on 23.06.2008. He has also denied that PW-1, PW-2 or/and other relatives of injured had ever approached him for recording statement of injured Hari Om. Be it as may be, it is the Investigating Officer PW-16 Kuldeep Singh who had recorded statement of PW-15 Naveen Kumar on 23.06.2008. In this statement PW-15 Naveen Kumar had categorically stated that injured has disclosed names of assailants by specifically mentioning names of respondents in his statement made at gate of Hospital. In such a situation, it was expected from the Investigating Officer to immediately approach injured who was in Hospital and verify the facts and also, particularly keeping in view serious condition of injured to remain in contact with day to day condition of injured and to record his further statement, especially to verify facts stated by PW-15 Naveen Kumar in his statement on 23.06.2008. 28. There is one more lapse on the part of police to join independent persons at the time of recording of his disclosure statement of respondent Parkash Joshi Ex.PW-3/A. Though PW-7 Virender Kumar is purported to have been examined as an independent witness but in the opening line in his statement in Court he has stated that he was a Home Guard official. He has further stated that for the last 11 years, he is serving as Home Guard under the supervision of SHO, Sadar. 29. It appears that injured was a poor outsider and, therefore, Investigating Officers had not cared for injured and had even not adhered to the basic principle of investigation and had tried to complete investigation for sake of completion of formalities. 30. PW-16 Investigating Officer had recorded statement of injured at 7.30 AM in which injured had not disclosed the names of assailants. However, thereafter, the names were disclosed to PW-15 Naveen Kumar after 8.30 AM. Statement of PW-15 was recorded by PW-16 Investigating Officer Kuldeep Singh immediately thereafter but before referring injured to I.G.M.C. Shimla in which he has stated that injured had disclosed names to this witness. However, thereafter, the names were disclosed to PW-15 Naveen Kumar after 8.30 AM. Statement of PW-15 was recorded by PW-16 Investigating Officer Kuldeep Singh immediately thereafter but before referring injured to I.G.M.C. Shimla in which he has stated that injured had disclosed names to this witness. In such a situation, it was incumbent upon Investigation Officer PW-16 Kuldeep Singh to have approached injured immediately on knowing that names were disclosed by him to his friend PW-15 Naveen Kumar but instead of recording supplementary statement of injured Investigation Officer PW-16 Kuldeep Singh not only failed to record supplementary statement of injured at Solan but also avoided to approach the injured even in I.G.M.C. Shimla. As such, conduct on his part reflects laxity on the part of Investigating Officer for conducting fair and proper investigation which amounts dereliction of duty. Therefore, Director General of Police is directed to look into the matter expeditiously and ensure that disciplinary proceedings be initiated against Investigating Officer, PW-16 Kuldeep Singh whether he is still in service or since retired and take suitable action as required. 31. Defect in investigation is not fatal in present case, There is trustworthy, cogent and reliable evidence on record to hold that respondents have committed an offence under Sections 304 Part II, 341 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, the judgment passed by Lower Court is set aside. Respondents are convicted for the offences under Sections 304 Part II, 341 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Bail bonds and surety bonds of respondents are cancelled. 32. The accused be produced for hearing on quantum of sentence on 30.08.2016 List on 30.08.2016. The registry is directed to prepare the production warrants.