JUDGMENT Prabhat Chandra Tripathi, J. – We have heard Sri Rajeev Lochan Shukla, Sri Vikram Bahadur Singh, Sri Ashwani Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Rajeev Gupta, Km. Meena, Sri B.A. Khan, learned A.G.A. and Sri Rahul Ashthana, brief holder for the State. 2. This criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant-Daddul @ Dadulli against the judgment and order of the then Additional Sessions Judge, Karvi (District-Banda) dated 11.10.1985 in Sessions Trial No. 478 of 1983 (Case Crime No. 169 of 1983), Police Station-Karvi (District-Banda), under Sections 147, 148, 302 and 149 I.P.C., convicting the appellant-Daddul @ Dadulli under Section 302 I.P.C. read with Section 149 I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo life imprisonment and under Section 148 I.P.C. sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years with a direction that both the sentences would run concurrently. 3. The written F.I.R. in narrow compass is enumerated as below : - 4. The informant Brij Mohan son of Babu Lal, resident of Rajauli, Police Station-Karvi, handed over a written F.I.R. dated 4.7.1983 signed by him to Kotwal of Kotwali, Karvi mentioning therein that his brother Keshav @ Bawa son of Babu Lal was going to Pasandahar because his father Babu Lal was ploughing the fields there. At about 5: 30 P.M. when his brother Keshav reached near his village, at that time, absconder Raja son of Bihari Lal Brahmin resident of his village along with his companions Daddul Brahmin, resident of Parsaunja, Police Station Pahari and Mustari Ahir, resident of village Sardhuwa, Police Station Rajapur and two more men met and caught hold of the deceased Keshav and tied his hands with 'Angauchha' and forcibly tried to drag him away. His brother raised alarm. The informant Brij Mohan along with his cousin brother Surajbhan son of Ram Asre and his brother Brij Bhukhan, who was working in the fields near the well, ran to rescue his brother. Raja with his rifle and his companions with their firearms fired at Keshav, the brother of the informant. His brother fell down there and died. Raja and his companions fired upon them. Raja with his rifle and his companions with their firearms fired at Keshav, the brother of the informant. His brother fell down there and died. Raja and his companions fired upon them. On hearing the alarm raised by the informant and his brothers, the father of the informant, Babu Lal leaving the plough rushed towards the spot whereupon the accused Raja along with his companions fired at the father of the informant, as a result, the father of the informant collapsed near 'Batasi Mahua'. Thereafter, Raja along with his companions fled away towards 'Budha Semarwar'. Even though Raja had stopped one Shukla from constructing the road, the brother of the informant started constructing the road, owing to which, he killed his brother Keshav. The informant went the police station after leaving the villagers near his brother and father. 5. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant Daddul @ Dadulli has advanced his arguments on the following points : - (a) The F.I.R. is ante-timed. (b) Presence of the witnesses at the scene of occurrence is doubtful. (c) The prosecution has not produced any independent witness. (d) Since the accused-appellant Daddul @ Dadulli was an accused of murder case of one police constable, was falsely implicated by the police. (e) The first informant was known to the present accused-appellant. 6. The prosecution has produced following oral evidence : - PW-1 Brij Mohan (informant), PW-2 Dr. P.N. Dwivedi, PW-3 Surajbhan and PW-4 Inspector CBCID, Gorakhpur S.K. Malik, the Investigating Officer of the case. 7. (e) The first informant was known to the present accused-appellant. 6. The prosecution has produced following oral evidence : - PW-1 Brij Mohan (informant), PW-2 Dr. P.N. Dwivedi, PW-3 Surajbhan and PW-4 Inspector CBCID, Gorakhpur S.K. Malik, the Investigating Officer of the case. 7. The prosecution has produced following documentary evidence : - (1) Written report (Exhibit Ka-1), (2) Postmortem report of the deceased Keshav (Exhibit Ka-2), (3) Postmortem report of the deceased Babu Lal (Exhibit Ka-3), (4) Inquest report of the deceased Keshav (Exhibit Ka-4), (5) Form No. 33 (Exhibit Ka-5), (6) Copy of the chik F.I.R. (Exhibit Ka-6), (7) Challan Nash (Exhibit Ka-7), (8) Photonash (Exhibit Ka-8), (9) Chitthi of A.P.O., Karvi (Exhibit Ka-9), (10) Chitthi of Medical Officer, Karvi (Exhibits Ka-10 and Ka-11), (11) Inquest report of Babu Lal (Exhibit Ka-12), (12) Form No. 33 (Exhibit Ka-13), (13) Copy of the F.I.R. (Exhibit Ka-14), (14) Challan Nash (Exhibit Ka-15), (15) Photonash (Exhibit Ka-16), (16) Chitthi of Medical Officer, Karvi (Exhibits Ka-17 and Ka-18), (17) Chitthi of A.P.O., Karvi (Exhibit Ka-19), (18) Fard memo of one pair of Hawai Chappal (Exhibit Ka-20), (19) Fard memo of one Angauchha (Exhibit Ka-21), (20) Fard memo of bloodstained soil (Exhibit Ka-22), (21) Fard memo of simple soil (Exhibits Ka-23 and Ka-24), (22) Fard memo of bloodstained soil (Exhibit Ka-25), (23) Fard memo of one Angauchha (Exhibit Ka-26) (24) Fard memo of one bullet of 12 bore and two bullets of rifle (Exhibit Ka-27), (25) Site plan (Exhibit Ka-28), (26) Charge-sheet (Exhibit Ka-29), (27) Chik F.I.R. (Exhibit Ka-30), (28) Copy of G.D. No. 31 (Exhibit Ka-31), (29) Special report (Exhibit Ka-32). 8. 8. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant has drawn our attention towards following cross-examination of PW-1, Brij Mohan : - ^^nnqy jktk dk lxk ppsjk HkkbZ gSA nnqy ds firk dk uke eSa ugh tkurk ijlkStk esa jgrk gSA jktk ds ckck dk uke ugha crk ldrkA jktk ds firk rhu HkkbZ FksA jkeukFk] ckcw yky] o fcgkjh yky FksA bu rhuksa esa ls dksbZ Hkh nnqy dk firk ugha gSA** ^^eSa nnqyh dks ?kVuk ds ifgys ls igpkurk FkkA pwWafd ges'kk jktk ds lkFk jgrk Fkk blfy, mls igpkurk FkkA" ds'ko dqokWa ij cSBk Fkk tc eqyfteku vk;s Fks djhc 10 feuV ifgys ls cSBk FkkA lqikjh [kk jgk Fkk ds'ko tc tk jgk Fkk o dqaok ds ikl igqWapk rc eqyfteku vk;s FksA eSaus jiV esa dqokWa esa cSBdj lqikjh [kkus okyh ckr ugha fy[kkbZ FkhA** ^^nnqyh xzhuj ,dukyh cUnwd fy;s Fkk ;g ckr eSaus viuh fjiksVZ esa fy[k nh FkhA ;fn ;g ckr esjh fjiksVZ esa ugh fy[kh rks eSa bldh dksbZ otg ugha crk ldrkA eSaus njksxk th dks vius c;ku esa crk;k Fkk fd nnqyh xzhuj ,dukyh cUnwd fy;s Fk ;fn njksxk th us esjs c;ku esa ugha fy[kk gks eSa bldh dksbZ otg ugha crk ldrkA** 9. Thereafter, learned counsel for the accused-appellant has further referred to the following cross-examination : - ^^jktk] eq'rjh o nnqyh us ds'ko dks ekjk FkkA cfd;k rhu vkneh gekjh vksj Qk;j dj jgs FksA rhu vkneh us esjs HkkbZ nnqyh dks ekjk ;g ckr eSaus jiV esa fy[k nh FkhA** 10. In the cross-examination of this witness PW-1, Brij Mohan, it has also been categorically pointed out by the learned counsel for the accused-appellant that there is material discrepancy in the ocular testimony of PW-1 Brij Mohan vis-a-vis the testimony of his cousin brother PW-3 Surajbhan, which creates doubt in the prosecution story. 11. In the cross-examination of this witness PW-1, Brij Mohan, it has also been categorically pointed out by the learned counsel for the accused-appellant that there is material discrepancy in the ocular testimony of PW-1 Brij Mohan vis-a-vis the testimony of his cousin brother PW-3 Surajbhan, which creates doubt in the prosecution story. 11. PW-1 Brij Mohan in his cross-examination has testified as follows : - ^^tc eqyfteku us ds'ko ds mij Qk;j fd;k Fkk rc eSa dqaos ls FkksM+k vkxs FkkA ogha ls [kM+s&[kM+s ?kVuk ns[krs jgsA ftl LFkku ls [kM+s [kM+s ?kVuk ns[kh Fkh mls njksxk th dks fn[kk fn;k Fkk o c;ku esa crk fn;k Fkk ;fn mUgksaus uD'kk utjh esa esjs c;ku esa ugha fy[kk rks eSa bldh dksbZ otg ugha crk ldrkA ge yksx jkLrs esa [kM+s FksA ge yksx gYyk epk jgs Fks ds'ko ds mij dqy 5&6 Qk;j gq;s Fks Qk;j ds'ko ds vkxs ls fd;s x;s Fks tc eqyfteku us mls ekjk og fxj iM+k rc ge yksx Hkkx [kM+s gq;sA ds'ko ds mij nks gkFk dh nwjh ls rhu vkneh us Qk;j fd;kA 2 gkFk dh nqjh ij [kM+s FksA Hkkxdj ge yksx fl/kqyk ds edku dh mRrjh nhokj dh vkM+ esa [kM+s gks x;sA ml txg dk /;ku ugha gS fd njksxk th dks fn[kk;h Fkh ;k ughaA ;g Hkh /;ku ugha gS fd njksxk th dks vius c;ku esa crk fn;k Fkk ;k ughaA ;fn njksxk th us uD'kk utjh esa og txg u fn[kkbZ gks vkSj esjs c;ku esa u fy[kh gks rks eSa dksbZ otg ugha crk ldrkA** The following portion of the cross-examination of PW-1, Brij Mohan has been pointed out in support of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the accused-appellant to create doubt in the prosecution story : - ^^rgjhj eSaus [kqn vius gkFk ls fy[kh FkhA eSa d{kk 5 rd idks mlh fnu yksxksa us crk;k Fkk fd dRy esa nnqyh Hkh FkkA nnqyh ls esjk dHkh vkeuk&lkeuk ugha gqvkA nnqyh dks eSa 'kDy ls ugha tkurk FkkA ;g dguk xyr gS fd eSaus dksbZ ?kVuk ugha ns[kh vkSj iqfyl ds ncko ls >wBh xokgh ns jgk gwWaA** 13. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant has vehemently argued that the alleged special report (Exhibit Ka-32) is a waste paper and has no evidentiary value. No signature(s) of any senior Police/Executive Officer (s) has/have been appended to it. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant has vehemently argued that the alleged special report (Exhibit Ka-32) is a waste paper and has no evidentiary value. No signature(s) of any senior Police/Executive Officer (s) has/have been appended to it. It does not contain the time of its dispatch from the Police Station-Karvi. 14. PW-1 Brij Mohan and his cousin brother PW-3, Suraj Bhan have given the vivid descriptions of the incident as well as scene of occurrence. They are the ocular witnesses. 15. It would not be out of place to reproduce their examination-in-chiefs. It does not contain the time of its dispatch from the Police Station-Karvi. 14. PW-1 Brij Mohan and his cousin brother PW-3, Suraj Bhan have given the vivid descriptions of the incident as well as scene of occurrence. They are the ocular witnesses. 15. It would not be out of place to reproduce their examination-in-chiefs. PW-1 Brij Mohan : - ^^ge 5 HkkbZ FksA buesa ,d HkkbZ ds'ko dk dRy gks x;k gS] blds pkj HkkbZ ftUnk gSA esjs firk th 3 HkkbZ FksA ftuds uke jke vkljs] f'koukFkh o ckcw yky gSA jke vkljs ds nks yM+ds gjh eksgu lwjtHkkuA f'koukFkh ds ,d Hkh yM+dk ugha gSA eSa jktk jxkSyh dks vPNh rjg tkurk gwWaA jktk jxkSyh ijlkSuk ds jgus okys FksA gekjs xkWao esa bldk ufugky FkkA jktk jxkSyh 6 HkkbZ Fks ftuesa 5 HkkbZ ftUnk gSA jktk ekj Mkyk x;kA buds uke f'ko izrki cM+dw] HkbZ;k yky] NksVdw o pquokn gSA gekjh [ksrh xkWao esa pkjksa rjQ gSA ilankgkj xkWao ds mRrj gSA djhc 17&18 eghus dh ckr gS tc esjs firk o HkkbZ dk dRy gqvk FkkA djhc 5 1@2 cts 'kke dk le; Fkk cjoDr ?kVuk lw;Z Mqck ugha FkkA esjs firk th ml le; ilaMkgkj esa [ksr tksr jgs FksA esjk HkkbZ Hkwiu o ppsjk HkkbZ lwjtHkku /kku dh xksMkbZ dj jgs FksA xksMkbZ ge xkWao ds ikl dj jgs Fks [ksr esa edbZ cksbZ gqbZ FkhA bl [ksr ds gkM+ esa dqaok gSA [ksr o xkWao ds chp ls ,d jkLrk mRrj dh vksj tkrk gSA esjk HkkbZ ds'ko blh jkLrs ls tk jgk FkkA tc esjk HkkbZ dqok ds ikl vk;k rks ogkWa ij jktk nnqy o eq'rjh o vkneh vKkr vk x;sA buesa ls nnqy gkftj vnkyr gSA ;s ikapksa vkneh cUnwdsa fy;s FksA jktk jkbQy fy;s Fkk nnqyh nks ;k ,d ukyh 12 cksj eq'rjh nks ukyh cUnwd fy;s Fks o nks vU; Hkh ,d ukyh cUnwd fy;s FksA jkbQy dsoy jktk fy; FksA bu yksxksa us esjs HkkbZ dks HkkbZ dh gh lkQh ls gkFk ihNs djds cka/k fn;sA mRrj dh vksj ysdj py fn;sA esjk HkkbZ xksgkj ekj jgk FkkA eSaus Hkw"ku o lwjtHkku us gYyk epk;k o NqM+kus dks nkSM+s Fks rks nnqy ds ifgys esjs HkkbZ dks xksyh ekj nh fQj lkeus xksyh ekjh o gekjh rjQ Qk;j fd;s rks ge yksx Hkkxs ge yksxksa dh xksgkj Qk;jksa dh vkokt ij xkWao dk dksbZ ugha vk;kA gkj dh vksj ls firk th gy NksM+dj blh rjQ vk;sA ikWapksa eqyfteku firk th dh rjQ x;s o firk th ds mij Qk;j fd;k tks muds yxk og crkl egqok ds isM+ ds uhps fxj iM+s o ej x;sA esjk HkkbZ ftl txg ge yksx dke dj jgs Fks ogkWa ls 200 dne mRrj FkkA HkkbZ ls esjs firk th 400 dne dh nwjh ij FksA esjk HkkbZ o esjs firk th ?kVuk LFky ij gh ej x;s Fks muds 'kjhjksa ls xksfy;ksa dh pksVksa ls [kwu fudyk FkkA nnqy ijlkStk dk jgus okyk gS ;g jktk ds lkFk jgrk FkkA tc dohZ ls jktkiqj jksM ?kVuk ds ,d lky ifgys cu jgh Fkh jktk us mldk dke cUn djk fn;k FkkA bl lM+d dks ckWank ds 'kqDyk Bsdsnkj cuok jgk FkkA jktk mlls iSlk ekWax jgk Fkk fd iSlk nks rc dke djksA 'kqDyk us esjs HkkbZ ds'ko ls dgk rks mlus dke 'kq: djk fn;kA ?kVuk ds 1&1@2 &2 eghuk ifgys dke 'kq: djk fn;k FkkA blh jaft'k ds dkj.k ekjk FkkA ?kVuk ds ckn eqyfteku lM+d&lM+d lsejokj dh rjQ Hkkx x;sA dRy gksus ds ckn Hkh esjs HkkbZ o firk th ds ikl Mj ds ekjs dksbZ ugha igqWapkA eSa vius ?kj okyksa dks yk'k rdkdj ?kj vk;k o jiV fy[khA xokg dh fjiksVZ rgjhjh idks jiV dh udy Fkkus ls feyh Fkh fjiksVZ djus ds ckn iqfyl okys esjs lkFk&lkFk vk;s FksA tc ?kj igqWaps rc jkr gks xbZ FkhA** Recalled for Re-examination in Chief ^^?kVuk ds le; esjs HkkbZ ds'ko vaxkSNk cfu;ku] vUMj fc;j] rger tusm ,d NYyk dze'k% izn'kZ 1 rk 6 igus gq;s FkkA ;g ,d lhy c.My : c: [kksyk x;k ftlesa fudys Fks firk ckcw yky ,d vnn vaxkSNk] iapk] cUMh tusm igus gq, Fkk ftuesa dze'k% izn'kZ 7 rk 10 Mkys x;sA** PW-3 Surajbhan : - ^^esjk uke lwjt Hkku ,l0@vks0 jke vkljs mez 28 o"kZ [ksrh] lk0 jxkSyh Fkkuk dohZ us cgYQ c;ku fd;k fd%& eSa gkftj vnkyr eqyfte nnqy dks tkurk gwWaA ;g ijlkStk xkWao dk jgus okyk gSA ?kVuk ds le; gekjs xkWao jxkSyh esa jktk ds lkFk jgrk FkkA jktk ds lkFk eq'rjh nnqy o vkSj dbZ yksx FksA gekjs xkWao ds ikl lM+d dk dke py jgk FkkA ml dke dks ckank dk ,d Bsdsnkj dke djok jgk Fkk mldks jktk jxkSyh us jksd fn;k Fkk fd ;g lM+d ugh cuokuk gSA ds'ko us dgk fd rqe lM+d cuokvks rc lM+d cuus yxh FkhA lM+d cuokus esa jktk dks cqjk yxkA ds'ko o ds'ko ds cki dk dRy 04-07-1983 dks gqvk FkkA 5&1@2 cts 'kke dk le; FkkA eSa czt eksgu o c`t Hkw"k.k xkWao ds ikl /kku ds isM+ dh xqM+kbZ dj jgs FksA ckcw yky ilUnkgkj esa [ksr tksr jgk FkkA ds'ko ?kj ls ilUnkgkj tk jgk FkkA tc og dqos ds ikl igqWapk rks ogkWa ij jktk nnqy eq'rjh o nks vkneh vkSj vk;sA ;s lc yksx cUnwd fy;s Fks gkftj vnkyr nnqy Hkh ekStwn Fkk bu yksxksa us ds'ko dks idM+ fy;k o ihNs gkFk cka/kdj ds'ko dks lkQh ls mRrj dh vksj py fn;sA rc ds'ko us xksgkj ekjkA geh yksx cpkus nkSM+sA rc gekjs mij Hkh Qk;j djus yxs o ds'ko dks ekj fn;k ds'ko dks lHkh yksxksa us ekj fn;kA nnqy us Hkh ekjk Fkk ds'ko ogha ekSds ij ej x;kA tc gekjs mij Qk;j fd;k Fkk rc ge yksx Hkkx pys FksA gYyk xksgkj lqudj ckcwyky gy cUn dj ds m/kj dks gh vkus yxsA eqyfteku ds'ko dks ekj dj mlh rjQ ds Hkkxs ft/kj ls ckcw yky vk jgk FkkA tc eqyfteku Hkkx jgs Fks rc ge yksx Hkh mUgha ds ihNs x;sA jktk vkfn us ckcw yky dks Hkh ekj fn;kA nnqyh us Hkh Qk;j fd;k FkkA Qk;j yxus ls ckcwyky Hkh ej x;sA ;s crkflu egqok ds isM+ ds uhps ej x;sA blds ckn eqyfteku cwfYy;kW Lacerated & Congested efLr"d Lacerated & Congested efLr"d dk Base Fractured FkkA mjl fHkfRr;kW dVh gqbZ Fkh 8] 9] 10 ilfy;k nkfguh rjQ dh VwVh gq;h FkhA blh izdkj 11] 12 ck;sa rjQ dh ilyh VwVh gqbZ FkhA Plura Punctured FkkA isV fHkfRr;kW Punctured Peritonium QVh gqbZ Fkh dwi esa 1&1@2 yhVj [kwu FkkA nkWar 0@0 FksA vkek'k; [kkyh FkkA NksVh cMh vkWar esa ey xSl ekStwn FkhA yhoj QVk gqvk Fkk dUtsLVsM FkkA nkfguh xqnkZ dVk gqvk FkkA ew=k'k; [kkyh FkkA esjh jk; esa e`R;q dk dkj.k jDrJko lnesa ds dkj.k Fkk tks fd e`R;q ds iwoZ vkbZ gqbZ pksVksa ds dkj.k FkkA 'kjhj ls nks /kkrq ds NjsZ izkIr gq, Fks tks fd nkfgus mjl dh dwi ls ik;s x;s FksA ,d lhYM fyQkQk ftlesa ,d dkCkZu dkih iksLV ekVZe fjiksVZ 61@83 fnukad 06-07-1983 ,d lhYM cUMy ftlesa ,d iapk ,d cUMh ,d tusm ,l0vkbZ0 dohZ ds lkFk esa vk;s gq;s flikfg;ksa }kjk Hkst fn;k x;k FkkA ,d lhYM iSdsV ftlesa nks /kkrw ds NjsZ ,l0vkbZ0 dohZ ds lkFk vk;s flikfg;ksa ls Hkst fn;k x;k FkkA ,d lhYM fYkQkQk ftlesa fd ,d ewy ,d dkCkZu dkih ua0 61@83 fnukad 06-07-1983 9 layXud ds lkFk v/kh{kd ftyk vLirky ckWank dks Hkst fn;k FkkA nksuksa 'ko foPNsnu vk[;k ojoDr eqvkbuk rS;kj dh Fkh tks esj ys[k o gLrk{kj esa gS bu ij dze'k% izn'kZ d&2 o d&3 Mkyk x;kA ds'ko mQZ ckck ds 'ko ds lkFk vk;s gq, 9 layXud o blh izdkj ckcw yky ds 'ko ds lkFk layXud dkxtkr izkIr gq;s FksA lHkh dk eSaus voyksdu fd;k Fkk uEcj Mkys Fks gLrk{kj cukdj vLirky dh eksgj yxkbZ FkhA ds'ko ds 'ko ls lEcfU/kr layXud iapk;rukek nks odZ izn'kZ d&4 QkeZ ua0 33 izn'kZ d&5 udy fpd ,Q0vkbZ0vkj0 izn'kZ d & 6 pkyku uk'k izn'kZ d&7 uD'kk uk'k izn'kZ d&8 fpB~Bh ,0ih0vks0 izn'kZ d&9 fpB~Bh nks fdrk ,e0vks0 dohZ izn'kZ d&10] d&11 ckcw yky ds 'ko ds layXud iapk;rukek nks odZ izn'kZ d&12 QkeZ ua0 33 izn'kZ d&13 pkyku uk'k izn'kZ d&15] QksVks uk'k izn'kZ d&16 nks fdrk fpB~Bh ,e0vks0 vkbZ@lh dohZ izn'kZ d&17] d&18 fpB~Bh ,0ih0vks0 izn'kZ d&19 gSA nksuksa e`rdksa dh e`R;q fnukad 04-07-1983 dks 5&1@2 'kke gksuk lEHko gSa vkSj nksuksa e`rdksa dh pksVs rRdky e`R;q ds fy;s i;kZIr FkhA** 23. We see no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW-2 Dr. P.N. Dwivedi. The oral evidence of Dr. P.N. Dwivedi fully supports the prosecution version. 24. The medical evidence of Dr. P.N. Dwivedi, who conducted autopsy, found that the death of Keshav and Baboo Lal had taken place due to ante-mortem injuries caused by gun shot. The pellets were also found in the corpses of both the deceased persons while conducting their postmortem. 25. PW-4 Inspector S.K. Malik, the Investigating Officer of the case has also supported the prosecution version and has proved the prosecution papers. 26. No cogent reason could be pointed out by the learned counsel for the accused-appellant for false implication of the accused-appellant Daddul @ Dadulli under the influence of the local police. It is most improbable that in such type of ghastly crimes where brother and father of the informant have been murdered, any would falsely implicate an innocent person and spare the real culprits. 27. The manner, mode and method of crime reveals that Raja (now dead) who was also mentioned as co-accused in the charge sheet, had a criminal history of 25 heinous criminal cases registered against him whereas the present accused-appellant Daddul @ Dadulli has criminal history of two criminal cases of heinous crime including the present one. To unleash the reign of terror in the local area, so that nobody could muster courage to raise his head against the accused persons who are mentioned in the written F.I.R. (Exhibit Ka-1), this barbaric crime has been committed in a daredevil fashion. 28. It is pertinent to mention here that the charge sheet was filed against Raja @ Raja Lal and Daddul @ Dadulli as absconder(s) in this criminal case. 29. The main motive behind this diabolical (wicked) crime was to avenge the insult caused by the deceased Keshav to co-accused Raja (now dead). The main bone of the contention was construction of road by one person mentioned as 'Shukla' in the F.I.R., who was prohibited to conduct the construction of road by the co-accused Raja. The deceased Keshav helped 'Shukla' for construction of that road. Raja and other co-accused took it as a challenge to defy their authority. This was the paramount cause to take revenge by the accused persons. 30. This is a case of direct evidence where the accused persons were named in the F.I.R. 31. The deceased Keshav helped 'Shukla' for construction of that road. Raja and other co-accused took it as a challenge to defy their authority. This was the paramount cause to take revenge by the accused persons. 30. This is a case of direct evidence where the accused persons were named in the F.I.R. 31. We are of the view, the mere fact that PW-1 Brij Mohan and his cousin brother PW-3 Surajbhan are the members of the same family-tree and cousin brothers, due to this, they are interested witnesses being relatives ; is not a reason to discard their evidence, if there evidence is trustworthy. Mere mechanical rejection of their evidence would invariably lead to the failure of justice. 32. Sri Rajeev Gupta, learned A.G.A. has placed reliance on a decision in the case of Ramesh Harijan v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2012) 5 SCC 777 in support of his arguments. Mere mechanical rejection of their evidence would invariably lead to the failure of justice. 32. Sri Rajeev Gupta, learned A.G.A. has placed reliance on a decision in the case of Ramesh Harijan v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2012) 5 SCC 777 in support of his arguments. In the above cited case, it has been held that : - “C. Criminal Trial - Appreciation of Evidence - Contradictions, inconsistencies, exaggerations or embellishments - Duty of courts - Reiterated - Held, it is duty of court to unravel the truth under all circumstances - Undue importance not to be given to minor discrepancies which do not shake basic version of prosecution case - Entire evidence must be evaluated by excluding exaggerated version as witnesses keep adding embellishments to their testimony - If a witness is otherwise trustworthy, then his evidence should not be disbelieved - If major portion is found to be deficient and residue is sufficient to establish guilt of accused, then courts must separate grain from chaff - It has to be appraised in each case as to what extent evidence is admissible - If courts consider some portion of evidence as insufficient or unworthy, it does not mean as a matter of law that entire evidence must be disregarded in all respects” “E. Criminal Trial - Appreciation of Evidence - Credibility of witness - Maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus - Inapplicability and effect of, if applied - Principles reiterated - Held, maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus has no application in India and a witness cannot be branded as a liar - Falsity of witness or material particular at some portion would not ruin testimony from beginning to end - If that maxim is applied then in all the cases it is to be feared that administration of criminal justice would come to a dead stop” “G. Criminal Trial - Proof - Proof beyond reasonable doubt - Meaning of, and duty of court while applying principle of reasonable doubt - Reiterated - Held, reasonable doubt is not an imaginary trivial or merely possible doubt - It is a fair doubt based upon reason and common sense - Doctrine of benefit of doubt particularly in every case must not nurture fanciful doubts or lingering suspicion, thus destroying social defence- Courts must give paramount importance to ensure that miscarriage of justice is avoided. 33. 33. In the case of Kathi Bharat Vajsur and another v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2012 SC 2163 , it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that when medical evidence was in consonance with principal part of oral/ocular evidence there supporting prosecution story. Then, there was no question of ruling out ocular evidence merely on ground that there were some inconsistencies or contradictions in oral evidence - When an eyewitness behaved in a manner that perhaps would be unusual, it was not for prosecution or Court to go into question as to why he reacted in such a manner - There was no fixed pattern of reaction of an eyewitness to a crime - When faced with what was termed as 'an unusual reaction' of an eyewitness, Court must only examine whether prosecution story was in anyway affected by such reaction - If answer was in negative, then such reaction was irrelevant - Unusual behaviour of injured eyewitness, would not in anyway, aid Appellants to punch a hole on to prosecution story. 34. No other points have been raised before us by the learned counsel for the accused-appellant. 35. In the light of the above discussions, we find that this criminal appeal is liable to be dismissed on merits. ORDER (i) This criminal appeal is dismissed on merits. (ii) The accused-appellant Daddul @ Dadulli was enlarged on bail, his bail and bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged. (iii) The accused-appellant Daddul @ Dadulli shall be taken into custody to serve out the sentences awarded to him. Let the entire record of this case be sent back forthwith to the Court of the Sessions Judge, Civil and Sessions Court, District Chitrakoot for necessary compliance. Appeal Dismissed.