Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2881 (ALL)

DALBIR SINGH v. STATE OF U. P.

2016-08-22

ALOK KUMAR MUKHERJEE, BHARAT BHUSHAN

body2016
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Alok Kumar Mukherjee, J.—Since both these appeals have been preferred against a common judgment and order dated 24.6.1983, passed by the VIII Additional Sessions Judge, Agra in S.T. No. 414 of 1982 (State v. Dalbir Singh and another) arising out of Crime No. 130 of 1982, P.S. Firozabad (North), District Agra, convicting the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentencing them to undergo imprisonment for life, both these appeals were connected and heard together. 2. It is relevant to mention that while hearing these appeals, it has been noticed by us that the sole accused-appellant Durab has died during pendency of Criminal Appeal No. 1492 of 1983 (Durab v. State of U.P.), therefore, his appeal stands abated vide order dated 21.1.2016 of Coordinate Bench of this Court, as such connected Criminal Appeal No. 1587 of 1983 (Dalbir Singh v. State of U.P.) is being disposed of by this judgement. 3. The appellant/accused Dalbir Singh has filed this appeal against the aforementioned judgement and order dated 24.6.1983 on the ground that the learned trial Court below has erred in believing the prosecution case and the evidence examined in support thereof. The conviction of the appellant is against the weight of evidence on record. 4. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 23.4.1982 at about 1.00 P.M. Gafoor Khan gave a written report at police station Firozabad (North), District Agra, stating therein that he belonged to village Virthua falling within the police circle Barnahal in district Mainpuri and was employed in the State Electricity Board, Firozabad as a security guard. The deceased Anwar Khan, too, was working as a labourer in that town in the Public Works Department. They had some enmity with one Shishu Pal and his brother Sonpal Singh, with whom a litigation regarding some landed property was going on. One Niranjan, who is alleged to be another assailant in this case, was related to Sonpal, being the son of his wife’s brother. Informant and the deceased were witnesses in two cases under Sections 399 and 402 of Indian Penal Code against Niranjan and one Brahma. Accused Durab also bore some enmity against the deceased. Accused Dalbir Singh is the son of Sonpal, mentioned above, against whom the informant and the deceased were litigating. 5. Informant and the deceased were witnesses in two cases under Sections 399 and 402 of Indian Penal Code against Niranjan and one Brahma. Accused Durab also bore some enmity against the deceased. Accused Dalbir Singh is the son of Sonpal, mentioned above, against whom the informant and the deceased were litigating. 5. On 23rd April, 1982 at about 8 or 9 in the morning one Munshi Khan (P.W.-2), another cousin of Gafoor Khan (P.W.-1) came to invite him to a marriage. He stayed with the informant for some time and then he alongwith Gafoor Khan proceeded towards P.W.D. Godown in mohalla Prem Nagar, P.S. Firozabad North, District Agra, for extending invitation to Anwar. When they reached near the said P.W.D. Godown at about 11.15 A.M., suddenly they saw that accused-appellant Durab and Niranjan were holding Anwar by his arm and the accussed-appellant Dalbir Singh was standing in front of Anwar Khan with a countrymade Pistol and before they could raise an alarm, Dalbir Singh fired at Anwar, who fell down dead on the stairs leading to the Chabutra in front of the said P.W.D. Godown. Thereafter, the assailants ran away towards the west. In the meantime, a number of persons gathered at the spot. Leaving Munshi Khan with the dead body of Anwar, Gafoor Khan went to the concerned police station where he handed over a written report (Ext.Ka-1), scribed by one Bashir Ahmad (P.W.-3) on his dictation. 6. Subsequently an FIR was registered as case Crime No. 130 of 1982 under Section 302 IPC, which was entered in the General Diary. Investigation was entrusted to the then Circle Officer. After concluding the investigation charge-sheet was submitted by him against the accused persons including the present appellant. Accused Niranjan absconded hence could not be arrested. After procuring the attendance of the present appellant, the case was committed to the Court of Session, where he was charged under Section 302 IPC. The accused-appellant denied the charge and pleaded not guilty. He further stated that he had been falsely implicated in this case due to enmity and claimed to be tried. 7. In order to prove the charge, besides other papers, prosecution has filed written report (Ext. Ka-1), inquest report (Ext.Ka-2), recovery memo of currency recovered from the body of the deceased (Ext. He further stated that he had been falsely implicated in this case due to enmity and claimed to be tried. 7. In order to prove the charge, besides other papers, prosecution has filed written report (Ext. Ka-1), inquest report (Ext.Ka-2), recovery memo of currency recovered from the body of the deceased (Ext. Ka-3), sketch of the dead body (Ext.Ka-4), challan of the dead body (Ext.Ka-5), recovery memo of blood stained and plain earth (Ext. Ka-6), site plan (Ext.Ka-7), reports of State Forensic Science Laboratory (Ext.Ka-8 and Ext.Ka-9), Charge-sheet (Ext.Ka-10), Post Mortem report of the deceased (Ext. Ka-11), paper sent by the doctor (Ext.Ka-12), chik FIR (Ext. Ka-13) and General Diary (G.D.) No. 28 dated 23.4.1982 (Ext.Ka-14) on record. 8. Prosecution also examined P.W.-1 complainant Gafoor Khan, P.W.-2 Munshi Khan, P.W.-3 Bashir Ahmad, P.W.-4 S. I. Narendra Kumar, I.O. P.W.-5 Dr. Vinay Kumar Yadav and P.W.-6 Constable Ram Dutt during oral evidence. 9. Statements of accused-appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded after closing of the prosecution evidence. No oral evidence was given in defence, only two certified copies of judgments and two copies of statements of the witnesses were filed. After hearing the arguments of the parties the learned trial Judge by the impugned judgement and orders convicted the present appellant alongwith another appellant since deceased and sentenced them as above. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order of the trial Court, this appeal has been preferred by the appellant Dalbir Singh. 10. We have heard Sri Rajarshi Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Rajeev Kumar Mishra, learned A.G.A, and carefully perused the evidence on record. 11. It has been argued on behalf of the appellant that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the alleged motive, the prosecution story as well as the charge framed against the appellant-accused beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution has also failed to examine independent witnesses, whose presence was natural at the scene of the crime rather, examined interested as well as inimical witnesses, whose presence at the site of the crime was wholly doubtful, unnatural and improbable as such they are not worthy of reliance. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that sudden arrival of the scribe of the written report (Ext.Ka-1) (on which admittedly there is no signature of the informant) at the place of occurrence is also doubtful. 12. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that sudden arrival of the scribe of the written report (Ext.Ka-1) (on which admittedly there is no signature of the informant) at the place of occurrence is also doubtful. 12. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that actually after the information of murder of the deceased Anwar, entire prosecution story was cooked up by the witnesses with the help of the local police. However, the learned counsel for the appellant has not disputed factum of murder of the deceased as well as the date, time and place of the incident in question but has contended that it appears from the evidence on record that the deceased Anwar was murdered by some unkown person/persons and the original written report which was filed against unknown person/persons, on which there was signature of the informant, was changed with a view to rope in the accused persons due to previous long standing enmity between the parties, and in place thereof the fabricated written report (Ext. Ka-1) was substituted with the help of the local police, which lacks the signature of the informant Gafoor Khan (PW-1). 13. It has also been contended that there is material inconsistency between the ocular and the medical evidence; the entire investigation in the case is faulty as well as against the rules and procedure prescribed by law. Prosecution has failed to prove as to what prompted the accused persons to commit this murder. Counsel for appellant has wondered that under what circumstances only all the related eye-witnesses (P.W.-1 and P.W.-2) were present at the same date, time and place to see this incident of murder. He has submitted that the entire prosecution story is concocted and presence of the eye-witnesses, as mentioned above, is highly doubtful, improbable and unnatural, therefore, the appellant accused is entitled to get benefit of doubt. 14. Refuting all the arguments advanced by the side of the appellant, Sri Rajeev Kumar Mishra, learned A.G.A. has submitted that mere absence of signature on the written report (Ext. Ka-1) is not sufficient to repel all the trustworthy oral and documentary evidence of the prosecution, which have corroborated the written report (Ext. Ka-1). He further argued that this is a day light incident of murder. Ka-1) is not sufficient to repel all the trustworthy oral and documentary evidence of the prosecution, which have corroborated the written report (Ext. Ka-1). He further argued that this is a day light incident of murder. The unshaken testimonies of the trustworthy eye-witnesses (P.W.-1 Gafoor Khan and P.W.-2 Munshi Khan) coupled with medical and other reliable prosecution evidence, cannot be brushed aside. Presence of the said eye-witnesses at the time and place of the incident has been proved by them and the reason for their presence is quite natural and probable. Also there is no material on record which creates doubt about their presence. 15. The learned AGA further contended that the previous enmity/motive has been stated in the FIR and proved by the witnesses, which the defence has also admitted, FIR was lodged promptly by the brother of the deceased. It is also submitted by the learned A.G.A. that the prosecution by placing cogent oral and documentary evidence has proved the incident in question and the charge framed against the appellant/accused, beyond reasonable doubt. All the witnesses are trust-worthy; their testimonies are natural and no material contradictions, embellishments or exaggerations are present in their testimonies, as such there is no substance in the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant. The contrdictions, as alleged by the learned counsel for the appellant, in the ocular and medical evidence are misconceived. The learned Sessions Judge has convicted the appellant/accused alongwith other co-accused (since deceased) by a reasoned judgement and order hence, there is no scope for interference by this Appellate Court in the impugned judgement and order. 16. Before entering into the merits of the appeal, we would like to recall the observation made by the Apex Court in the case of Ishvarbhai Fuljibhai Patni v. State of Gujarat, 1995 SCC (Crl) 222, whereby duties of the appellate Court have been outlined. Para-4 of the judgment reads as under: “4. Since, the High Court was dealing with the appeal in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, against conviction and sentence of life imprisonment, it was required to consider and discuss the evidence and deal with the arguments raised at the bar. Let alone, any discussion of the evidence, we do not find that the High Court even cared to notice the evidence led in the case. Let alone, any discussion of the evidence, we do not find that the High Court even cared to notice the evidence led in the case. None of the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant have been noticed, much less considered and discussed. The judgment is cryptic and we are at loss to understand as to what prevailed with the High Court to uphold the conviction and sentence of the appellant. On a plain requirement of justice, the High Court while dealing with a first appeal against conviction and sentence is expected to, howsoever briefly depending upon the facts of the case, consider and discuss the evidence and deal with the submissions raised at the bar. If it fails to do so, it apparently fails in the discharge of one of its essential jurisdiction under its appellate powers. In view of the infirmities pointed out by us, the judgment under appeal cannot be sustained.” 17. In the case of Lal Mandi, Appellant v. State of West Bengal, Respondent, 1995 CRI LJ 2659 (SC), the Apex Court in para-5 of the report has given the caution to the High Court reminding its duty in the matter of hearing of appeal against conviction. It would be gainful to reproduce the observation made in para-5 of the report, extracted below: “5. To say the least, the approach of the High Court is totally fallacious. In an appeal against conviction, the Appellate Court has the duty to itself appreciate the evidence on the record and if two views are possible on the appraisal of the evidence, the benefit of reasonable doubt has to be given to an accused. It is not correct to suggest that the “Appellate Court cannot legally interfere with” the order of conviction where the trial Court has found the evidence as reliable and that it cannot substitute the findings of the Sessions Judge by its own, if it arrives at a different conclusion on reassessment of the evidence. The observation made in Tota Singh’s case, which was an appeal against acquittal, have been misunderstood and mechanically applied. Though, the powers of an appellate Court, while dealing with an appeal against acquittal and an appeal against conviction are equally wide but the considerations which weigh with it while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal and in an appeal against conviction are distinct and separate. Though, the powers of an appellate Court, while dealing with an appeal against acquittal and an appeal against conviction are equally wide but the considerations which weigh with it while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal and in an appeal against conviction are distinct and separate. The presumption of innocence of accused which gets strengthened on his acquittal is not available on his conviction. An appellate Court may give every reasonable weight to the conclusions arrived at by the trial Court but it must be remembered that an appellate Court is duty bound, in the same way as the trial Court, to test the evidence extrinsically as well as intrinsically and to consider as thoroughly as the trial Court, all the circumstances available on the record so as to arrive at an independent finding regarding guilt or innocence of the convict. An Appellate Court fails in the discharge of one of its essential duties, if it fails to itself appreciate the evidence on the record and arrive at an independent finding based on the appraisal of such evidence.” 18. Therefore, it is the settled proposition of law that the High Court, while exercising appellate jurisdiction in criminal appeal, is expected to appraise the credibility of evidence available on record and to draw the inference on the basis of material available on record and has not to be guided by the finding of acquittal or conviction recorded by the learned Court below, bearing in mind the basic principle of criminal law regarding innocence of the accused. 19. Firstly, we would like to have a glance at the medical evidence, which is in the form of statement of Dr. Vinay Kumar Yadav P.W.5 and postmortem report Ext. Ka-11. Though on behalf of the defence death/murder of Anwar has not been disputed, we are duty bound to examine whether any offence was committed and if so, by whom. 20. Dr. Vinay Kumar Yadav P.W.5, in his statement has stated that he was posted as Medical Officer, S.N.M. Hospital, Firozabad on 24.4.1982. On that date at about 12.45 P.M. he conducted the post-mortem examination on the corpse of Anwar, whose age was about 48 years. There was single fire wound- 1 cm. X 1 Cm. X cavity deep on the upper and medial side of left nipple with blackening all around it on the dead body. This was an anti-mortem injury. On that date at about 12.45 P.M. he conducted the post-mortem examination on the corpse of Anwar, whose age was about 48 years. There was single fire wound- 1 cm. X 1 Cm. X cavity deep on the upper and medial side of left nipple with blackening all around it on the dead body. This was an anti-mortem injury. Underneath this injury, the left lung, the pleura, the membrane of the heart were punctured and the left 4th rib was broken. One metallic shot was found in the chest cavity which was full of blood. The abdomen had semi-digested food and the large intestine had faecal matters. According to the doctor this one fire wound was sufficient for causing the death of the deceased and the death had occured due to the shock and excessive bleeding caused by this injury. Further, according to this witness the death of Anwar had occurred about 24 hours before the post-mortem examination. He proved the postmortem report Ext. Ka-11. 21. We have gone through the deposition of Dr. Vinay Kumar Yadav, it appears that he was cross-examined only on two points, first, the direction and the seat of injury and as to whether the pistol was fired directly from the front of the deceased and the time of the death of the deceased. This witness replied to these questions saying that the direction of the seat of injury was from the bottom to above and the fire shot was inflicted from the left side and not from the front. He also admitted in cross-examination that tatooing and blackening was present in the wound, it means the fire arm shot was inflicted from a very close range, i.e., within 4 to 6 feet. He opined that the death of the deceased Anwar could have occured one day before the post mortem examination and only single fire arm wound found on the body of the deceased Anwar, was enough to cause death. He also opined that three hours variation is possible on either side regarding time of death of the deceased recorded by him and not more than that, which corroborates the incident in question and the entire ocular and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution. 22. Therefore, except for suggestion that the gun shot was inflicted from left side and not from the front, other facts stated by Dr. 22. Therefore, except for suggestion that the gun shot was inflicted from left side and not from the front, other facts stated by Dr. Vinay Kumar Yadav were not disputed on behalf of the appellant. The testimony of this witness remained unshaken and duly corroborated by the postmortem report Ext. Ka-11 and relying thereon in totality we hold that the above-mentioned ante mortem injury was inflicted upon Anwar on the date and time by a country made pistol, which resulted in his death. 23. Now, we deal with the ocular version of the occurrence. In this regard, we would like to refer to the statements of two eye-witnesses P.W.-1 Gafoor Khan and P.W.-2 Munshi Khan. 24. Corroborating his written report Ext.Ka-1 P.W.-1 Gafoor Khan has stated that old enmity was prevailing at the time of the incident between the appellants and the informant’s family. He also corroborated the date, time and place of occurrence in his statement. In his statement, he further narrated the prosecution story that in the morning, at about 8 a.m. or 9 a.m., on the date of the incident in question, one Munshi Khan (P.W.-2), another cousin of Gafoor Khan (P.W.-1) came to invite him in connection with marriage of his grandson. He also wanted to invite the brother of the witness (P.W.-1)/deceased Anwar Khan, so after staying for a while he (P.W.-1) alongwith Munshi Khan (P.W.-2) proceeded to invite Anwar (deceased), who at that time was working at a cement godown of P.W.D.. When they were nearing the godown they saw that the deceased was standing on a ‘Chabutra’ of the godown and two accused persons Niranjan and Durab were holding Anwar by his arms and accused appellant Dalbir Singh was standing in front of Anwar Khan with a country made pistol and before they could raise an alarm, Dalbir Singh fired upon Anwar which caused gun shot wound on the left side of his chest and he fell down dead on the stairs leading to the said chabutra. On raising alarm, accused persons fled away towards the west. Thereafter, several persons of the locality gathered on the spot. 25. P.W.-1 Gafoor Khan has also proved the written report Ext.Ka.-1. He stated that the scribe Bashir Ahmad arrived at the scene of occurrence and he had written the report Ext.Ka-1 on his dictation. Thereafter, he approached the police station and lodged the FIR. Thereafter, several persons of the locality gathered on the spot. 25. P.W.-1 Gafoor Khan has also proved the written report Ext.Ka.-1. He stated that the scribe Bashir Ahmad arrived at the scene of occurrence and he had written the report Ext.Ka-1 on his dictation. Thereafter, he approached the police station and lodged the FIR. The witness was cross-examined by the defence at length but in his entire cross-examination there appears to be no material contradiction, regarding the incident in question and the reason for his presence at the spot at the time of incident, which affect the root of the prosecution story. 26. Similarly, P.W.-2 Munshi Khan has supported the entire prosecution case in his statement by showing the reason for his presence at the spot alongwith Gafoor Khan (P.W.-1). According to this witness he had visited the informant’s place to invite him to the marriage of his grandson on the date of the occurrence. When he alongwith the informant Gafoor Khan went to invite the deceased and were about to reach the place of incident, they saw from a distance of about 10-15 steps that deceased Anwar was standing on the aforementioned ‘Chabutra’ and two accused persons Durab and Niranjan were holding Anwar by his arms. The accused appellant Dalbir Singh with a country made pistol fired a shot towards Anwar and on alarm raised by them, accused persons ran away towards the west, and the deceased Anwar fell down and died on the spot. Thereafter, persons of the locality came at the spot. Leaving him to watch the dead body the informant alongwith Bashir Ahmad (P.W.-3) went to lodge First Information Report. This witness has also been cross-examined at length but his statement is also unshaken on the material points of the incident, tallied with the testimony of Gafoor Khan (P.W.-1) as well as medical and other documents of the prosecution available on record. 27. P.W.-1 Gafoor Khan and P.W.-2 Munshi Khan are both ocular witnesses of the incident. They supported the entire prosecution case. They also deposed about the litigation which was going on between them and the appellant’s family. They also stated that Durab had illicit relations with the wife of Shubrati, one of the sons of the deceased Anwar. 27. P.W.-1 Gafoor Khan and P.W.-2 Munshi Khan are both ocular witnesses of the incident. They supported the entire prosecution case. They also deposed about the litigation which was going on between them and the appellant’s family. They also stated that Durab had illicit relations with the wife of Shubrati, one of the sons of the deceased Anwar. P.W.-1 Gafoor Khan also stated that he had given an application to S.P., Mainpuri that he was being threatened by Shishu Pal Singh and Sonpal Singh, (uncle and father, respectively of appellant Dalbir Singh) and Niranjan accused because they wanted him not to appear as a witness against accused Niranjan and his associate Brahma in a criminal case. During cross-examination P.W.-1 Gafoor Khan was fair enough to admit that he had not signed the written report Ext.Ka-1, however, he admitted having got it written by Bashir Ahmad. Both the witnesses P.W.-1 Gafoor Khan and P.W.-2 Munshi Khan have proved the motive, date, time, place of occurrence, manner of assault, weapon used in the crime, reason for their presence at the spot, seat of injury, individual role of each accused person, long standing animus between the families of the informant and the accused persons and the manner of preparation of written report Ext.Ka.-1. There is no material contradiction in their statements which goes to the root of the prosecution case. They have proved that the place of occurrence is on the stairs leading to the chabutra of the Godown of PWD, situated in front of the house of Hub Lal in Mohalla Prem Nagar, P.S. Firozabad North, District Agra. P.W.-1 Gafoor Khan also admitted that Shishupal Singh, an uncle of Dalbir Singh had prosecuted the deceased, deceased’s son Shubrati and Shubrati’s wife in a theft case prior to the incident in question. On the suggestion of the defence that they were not present at the spot, both the witnesses have denied the same, therefore, on analyzing their evidence with due care and caution, as per the principle of law laid down for appreciation of evidence of related and inimical witnesses, we found that the unshaken testimonies of the ocular witnesses appear to be natural and their presence at the place of occurrence is established. They are trustworthy witnesses. 28. They are trustworthy witnesses. 28. We have also carefully examined all materials on record and believe that there was no occasion for P.W.-1 Gafoor Khan to falsely implicate the accused persons for the murder of his brother and let go the real cuprits. The ocular testimonies of P.W.-1 Gafoor Khan and P.W.-2 Munshi Khan are in consonance with the testimony of P.W.-5 Dr. Vinay Kumar Yadav and the postmortem report of the deceased (Ext.Ka-11) as well as inquest report (Ext.Ka-2) proved by the investigating officer Narendra Kumar (PW-4), which reinforces the prosecution story as well as corroborates the written report (Ext.Ka-1)/chic FIR (Ext.Ka-13). Minor discrepancies in the statements of eye- witnesses and the medical evidence are not enough to reject the testimony of direct ocular evidence. The presence of both the eye-witnesses near the place of occurrence is absolutely natural and established. Despite minor contradictions, their evidence is trustworthy, natural and conformity with normal human conduct. We have tested and scrutinized their testimonies on the touchstone of credibility and the priciples laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court for appreciation of evidence and we are of the view that both the eye-witnesses cannot be disbelieved merely because they are related to the deceased or that no other independent eye-witness was examined by the prosecution. Moreover, as stated by the investigating officer Narendra Kumar (PW-4), except for these two eye-witnesses no independent eye-witness of the occurrence was found during his investigation/spot inspection. 29. In his statement P.W.-3 Bashir Ahmad, who is the scribe of the written report (Ext.Ka-1) has admitted that he prepared the same on the dictation of the informant Gafoor Khan (P.W.-1). He admitted the relationship with Gafoor Khan and said that he reached the place of occurrence accidentally on hearing that a murder had taken place and after scribing the report (Ext.Ka-1) he left for Andhra Pradesh, as he is a truck driver. He also verified the report (Ext.Ka-1) and told that after writing the report he read out the same to Gafoor Khan. He admitted that he has written his name as writer on Ext.Ka-1. 30. P.W.-4 Narendra Kumar, Investigating Officer has also been examined by the prosecution. According to him, he reached the spot at about 1 p.m. or 1.30 p.m. and recorded the statements of the eye-witnesses of this incident. He admitted that he has written his name as writer on Ext.Ka-1. 30. P.W.-4 Narendra Kumar, Investigating Officer has also been examined by the prosecution. According to him, he reached the spot at about 1 p.m. or 1.30 p.m. and recorded the statements of the eye-witnesses of this incident. Then he inspected the corpse and prepared the inquest report (Ext.Ka-2) and the related police papers from (Ext.Ka-3 to Ext.Ka-5). Thereafter, he sent the dead body for postmortem examination in a sealed cover. He also proved that he took in his possession the blood stained earth and plain earth from the place of occurrence (Ext.Ka-6) and prepared a site plan (Ext.Ka-7) as well as sent the clothes found on the corpse for chemical examination. He further stated that after receiving the postmortem report, the chemical examiner’s report (Ext.Ka-8) and the serologist report (Ext.Ka-9), he filed the charge-sheet (Ext.Ka-10) against both the appellants (surviving and deceased) because accused Niranjan was absconding. He proved the charge-sheet (Ext.Ka-10). He had also been cross-examined but in his cross-examination he proved the entire investigation proceedings. He also stated that no independent eye-witness was available on the place of occurrence. No material contradiction has been shown in his statement which discredit the main prosecution case as a whole or lead to the inference of tainted investigation. 31. Lastly, the prosecution has examined P.W.-6 Ram Dutt, who proved chik report (Ext.Ka-13), prepared on the basis of the written report (Ext.Ka-1) and corresponding entry in the G.D. (Ext.Ka-14), as a secondary evidence stating that these documents were in the handwriting of Constable Prakash Chandra, who was working with him and with whose signatures he was familiar. 32. In this case, FIR was lodged promptly on the same day at 1.00 p.m. It contains the names of the accused persons, the motive (animus) for the crime, the weapon used in the incident, date, time and place of the occurrence, names of the witnesses who were present at the time of the incident, seat of injury and also the description of the incident. The statements of the ocular witnesses, P.W.-1 Gafoor Khan and P.W.-2 Munshi Khan, support the entire version written in the FIR. No material contradiction is found in the statements of the said witnesses and the description contained in the FIR, therefore, the FIR also corroborates the version of the prosecution story. 33. The statement of P.W.-5 Dr. The statements of the ocular witnesses, P.W.-1 Gafoor Khan and P.W.-2 Munshi Khan, support the entire version written in the FIR. No material contradiction is found in the statements of the said witnesses and the description contained in the FIR, therefore, the FIR also corroborates the version of the prosecution story. 33. The statement of P.W.-5 Dr. Vinay Kumar Yadav and the postmortem report (Ext.Ka-11) also establish the fact that the deceased died of only one fire shot injury, which hit the left side of his chest and his death was neither natural nor accidental. Even one metal shot was recovered in the chest cavity of the deceased. According to the doctor the said fire arm wound was sufficient for causing the death of the deceased. Similarly, all the police papers (Ext.Ka-3 to 5,6,8,9,10 and 12), site plan (Ext.Ka-7), inquest report (Ext.Ka-2) the ocular evidence of the eye-witnesses and the evidence of the Investigating Officer coupled with first information report (Ext.Ka-13) and the corresponding G.D. (Ext.Ka-14), leave no room for doubt that the death of the deceased was caused on the same place of occurrence, i.e., staircase leading to the Chabutra situated in front of the P.W.D. Godown, as per the prosecution story, wherefrom the corpse of the deceased Anwar was recovered by the police. 34. The ocular testimony of two witnesses, i.e., P.W.-1 Gafoor Khan and P.W.-2 Munshi Khan is natural, unshaken and trustworthy. It is true that they have admitted their inter-se relationship as also relationship with the deceased and also the enemity which exists between the deceased and the eye-witnesses (P.W.-1, P.W.-2) on one hand and the accused persons on the other hand prior to this incident, but their veracity cannot be doubted on this score alone. Only requirement is to adopt a careful approach before accepting their testimonies. The medical evidence corroborates ocular evidence and there is no material contradiction between the medical evidence and the ocular witnesses’ account. The incident occurred in broad daylight, therefore, possibility of any mistake in identification of the accused is out of question. In the light of the present facts and circumstances of the case, it is also not possible that the brother of the deceased/informant would spare the real assailants and implicate the accused persons to settle/for the sake of old enmity. 35. In the light of the present facts and circumstances of the case, it is also not possible that the brother of the deceased/informant would spare the real assailants and implicate the accused persons to settle/for the sake of old enmity. 35. On in depth analysis of the entire evidence of the prosecution with due care and caution, the possibility of false implication of the accused persons is entirely ruled out. 36. Now, we deal with the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the prosecution has failed to examine independent eye-witnesses and has examined the related, inimical witnesses, whose presence was doubtful at the scene of the crime. The position has now been settled that the witnesses of the family cannot be discarded merely because the witness is a relative or family member of the victim. In such a case, the Court has to adopt a careful approach in analyzing the evidence of such witnesses and if the testimony of the related witness is otherwise found credible, the accused can be convicted on the basis of the testimony of such related witness. The above ratio of law has been laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Shyam Babu v. State of U.P., AIR 2012 SC 3311 , Shyamal Ghosh v. State of WB, AIR 2012 SC 3539 , Dhari and others v. State of U.P., AIR 2013 SC 308 , Shanmugam and another v. State of TN, (2013) 12 SCC 765 and Nand Kumar v. State of Chhatishgarh, 2015 Cri LJ 381. 37. There is no doubt that the prosecution has not been able to produce any independent witness but the prosecution case cannot be doubted on this ground also. People are generally insensitive to come forward to give any statement in respect of any criminal offence. Unless it is inevitable, people normally keep away from the Court as they feel it to be distressing and stressful. Though this kind of human behaviour is indeed unfortunate, it is a normal phenomenon. We cannot ignore this handicap of the investigating agency (as per the admission of the investigating officer (PW-4) in his cross-examination) in discharging their duty. Unless it is inevitable, people normally keep away from the Court as they feel it to be distressing and stressful. Though this kind of human behaviour is indeed unfortunate, it is a normal phenomenon. We cannot ignore this handicap of the investigating agency (as per the admission of the investigating officer (PW-4) in his cross-examination) in discharging their duty. Therefore, we cannot derail the entire case on the mere ground of absence of independent witnesses as long as the evidence of the ocular witnesses, though related or inimical is trustworthy. 38. Next argument that has been advanced by the side of the appellant is that there is material contradiction in the medical and the ocular evidence. In this respect, learned counsel for the appellant has drawn the attention of the Court to the one line statement of the P.W.-4 Dr. Vinay Kumar Yadav in the cross-examination, in which he has opined that there is more possibility that the assailants had assaulted the deceased from the left side and not from the front. Said statement of Dr. Yadav cannot be read in isolation. It must be read in totality with his entire statement as well as the postmortem report Ext.Ka-11, which the doctor has proved in toto and from the perusal of the record shows that ocular witnesses also proved that the appellant had fired the shot from the front of the deceased at an arm’s length, i.e., very close range, standing on a low lying road when the deceased was apprehended by other two accused persons on the Chabutra, situated above the staircase, which hit the left side of the chest of the deceased, which, in fact, is in conformity with the medical evidence. 39. Witnesses cannot be expected to state facts with mathematical precision. It also depends upon the place and the distance from where they have observed the incident and have individually perceived it. If in this case, the place from where they had seen the occurrence is taken into consideration, their observation that the main assailant/appellant was standing in front of the deceased and fired his shot from there is absolutely correct. It also depends upon the place and the distance from where they have observed the incident and have individually perceived it. If in this case, the place from where they had seen the occurrence is taken into consideration, their observation that the main assailant/appellant was standing in front of the deceased and fired his shot from there is absolutely correct. The seat of injury, its direction, presence of tatooing and blackening in the wound, time of death and recovery of only one metallic shot from the chest cavity, which reflects the nature of fire arm used by the appellant, all corroborates the statement of the eye-witnesses, which in turn proves that there is no inconsistency in the ocular and medical evidence. Therefore, this argument has no force. 40. For the sake of discussion, if it is presumed that there is any variation even then as principle laid down by the Apex Court in Gajoo v. State of Utterakhand, 2012 (9) SCC 532 , that while appreciating the variation between the medical evidence and ocular evidence, primacy is given to the oral evidence of the witnesses. The Apex Court in the case of Sadhu Saran Singh v. State of U.P. and others, (2016) 4 SCC 357 , has reiterated the principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision of Darbara Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 476 , wherein the Court has held : “......So far as the question of inconsistency between the medical evidence and the ocular evidence is concerned, the law is well-settled that, unless the oral evidence available is totally irreconcilable with the medical evidence, the oral evidence would have primacy. In the event of contradictions between medical and ocular evidence, the ocular testimony of a witness will have greater evidentiary value vis -a -vis medical evidence and when medical evidence makes the oral testimony improbable, the same becomes a relevant factor in the process of evaluation of such evidence. It is only when the contradiction between the two is so extreme that the medical evidence completely rules out all possibilities of the ocular evidence being true at all, that the ocular evidence is liable to be disbelieved.” 41. It is only when the contradiction between the two is so extreme that the medical evidence completely rules out all possibilities of the ocular evidence being true at all, that the ocular evidence is liable to be disbelieved.” 41. However, in this case, there is no variation between the medical evidence and the ocular evidence, and once they are conjointly read, it does not falsify either the statement of the witnesses or the postmortem report. In fact, both of them must be read as complimentary to each other. Even if for the sake of argument it is assumed that there is some variation, still, it would be too immaterial and inconsequential to give any benefit to the accused. 42. Learned counsel for the appellant has also argued that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the alleged motive (animus). We are not inclined to accept this argument. The prosecution from the very begining of the case, i.e., written report Ext.Ka-1/FIR Ext.Ka-13 till the oral evidence, has categorically proved the existence of previous strong enmity between the family of informant and the accused persons. Enmity is a double-edged weapon. In this case, the entire evidence on record indicates that due to the said enmity the accused persons had assaulted the deceased. There is no iota of evidence which points towards the false implication of the accused persons due to the said enmity, as alleged by the appellant. 43. It has also been argued on behalf of the appellant that there is no clinching evidence which prompted all the three accused persons to make up their mind to do this coherent act of murder in question with a common intention. This argument is misconceived. The entire evidence on record shows that appellant Dalbir Singh and Durab (since deceased) are of the same village and absconding accused Niranjan is the relative of appellant Dalbir Singh. It further shows that they all had strong animus against the deceased and his family which is also proved by their collective presence on the spot, collective participation as well as individual role in committing the ghastly crime. However, crime is not a logical act; it is an aberration of the mind. Ordinarily it cannot be logically established for which reason crime was committed, mostly it can only be presumed. 44. However, crime is not a logical act; it is an aberration of the mind. Ordinarily it cannot be logically established for which reason crime was committed, mostly it can only be presumed. 44. Moreover, from the statements of P.W.-1 Gafoor Khan and P.W.-2 Munshi Khan coupled with the written report Ext.Ka-1, the motive alleged by the prosecution stands proved. The Court is not required to see whether the motive was adequate or inadequate, trival or substantial because it is a subjective thing which lies in the mind and heart of the accused persons. Therefore, we would like to conclude on this point by saying that the prosecution with the help of the aforementioned witnesses have proved the motive of the crime in detail, part of which is alleged in the FIR also as well as all the ingredients which constitute the common intention of the accused persons to murder the deceased Anwar in the present case, beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, in the light of the above discussion, it can be safely held that the accused appellant had strong motive to commit the offence against the informant party. 45. It has also been argued on behalf of the appellant that admittedly there is no signature of the informant on the written report (Ext.Ka-1) whereas P.W.-3 Bashir Ahmad, Scribe has stated that it was signed by the informant, which creates doubt that probably the actual written report, which was filed against unknown persons was changed by the present written report (Ext.Ka-1), by the aid and advice of the local police, with a view to implicate accused persons due to previous enmity. In our opinion, the suspicion cannot take the place of proof. The statements of P.W.-1 Gafoor Khan, P.W.-3 Bashir Ahmad scribe, P.W.-2 Munshi Khan and also P.W.-6 Constable Ram Dutt coupled with first information report (Ext.Ka-13) as well as copy of G.D. No. 28 dated 23.4.1982 (Ext.Ka-14) unerringly prove that the written report (Ext.Ka-1) is the same which was filed only once in the police station concerned, on the basis of which FIR (Ext.Ka-13) of this case was lodged. 46. Moreover, mere absence of signature of the traumatised informant (whose brother was murdered before him) over written report (Ext.Ka-1) would not affect the sanctity of the written report as well as FIR. Section 154 Cr.P.C. provides that FIR can be lodged orally as well. 46. Moreover, mere absence of signature of the traumatised informant (whose brother was murdered before him) over written report (Ext.Ka-1) would not affect the sanctity of the written report as well as FIR. Section 154 Cr.P.C. provides that FIR can be lodged orally as well. In this case, the scribe (P.W.-3) has proved on oath that he had prepared the written report (Ext.Ka-1) on the spot on the dictation of the informant and had written his name as a writer. Further, the FIR was lodged without any inordinate delay. The statement of the scribe in this regard is a matter of his own observation and memory. Neverthless, P.W.-1 Gafoor Khan has admitted its content and has also stated that it is the same report which he had dictated to Bashir Ahmad (PW-3), therefore, there is no scope of any doubt on this score. 47. Learned counsel for the appellant has further pointed out that there was delay in sending copy of the first information report to the Magistrate, as reflected from an endorsement made on the first information report that it was sent to the concerned Magistrate few days after the occurrence, therefore, the FIR should be looked into with suspicion. We are not inclined to agree with this argument. The occurrence had taken place at about 11.30 a.m. The distance between the place of occurrence and the police station concerned was 3 Kms. Hence, the FIR was lodged promptly on the same day at about 1.00 p.m. Similarly, investigation in the case was also started promptly, inquest report (Ext.Ka-2) and other police papers (Ext.Ka-3 to 6) were quickly prepared and the body was sent for postmortem. Therefore, in view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the FIR was ante timed or can treated with suspicion. 48. The genuineness of the FIR is also proved by another glaring circumstance. Scribe PW-3 himself had left for Andhra Pradesh in the same night on the date of the occurrence with a consignment of bangles in his truck. Further, a report of cognizable offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act was also lodged on the same day at 2.15 p.m. as reflected from the perusal of the copy of G.D. No. 28 (Ext.Ka-14). Further, a report of cognizable offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act was also lodged on the same day at 2.15 p.m. as reflected from the perusal of the copy of G.D. No. 28 (Ext.Ka-14). The copy of the FIR (chik) was annexed with the inquest report Ext.Ka-2 in which crime number is mentioned and also sent to the doctor with the request for postmortem examination. In view of the above, in this case, there was no chance of tampering, antedating, antetiming or replacing the original FIR by a fabricated one and also there is no material on record to show or suggest that the FIR was tampered with or it was fabricated at a later date or time by antedating or antetiming. The evidence on record unerringly prove that the written report Ext.Ka-1/FIR Ext.Ka.-13 was in existence on the date and time shown in the official records. 49. Mere delay in sending copy of the FIR to the Magistrate/Special report or placing the same before the Magistrate for signing by him is not so very vital so as to doubt the case of the prosecution or to treat the document with suspicion in view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances of the case. Our view gets fortified by the observation made by the Apex Court in the case of Susanta Das v. State of Orissa, (2016) 4 SCC 371 . The relevant portion of the said decision is quoted herein below : “In so far as the alleged delay in forwarding the FIR to the Magistrate, we find that the High Court was conscious of the said fact and has made a specific reference to the said fact in paragraph 24 of the impugned judgment wherein, it ultimately held that there was no material on record to show or suggest that the FIR was tampered or it was fabricated at a later date by antedating it or the delay in sending the FIR by P.W.-3 or the delay in placing it before SDJM by the Sub Inspector of Police or the delay in signing the FIR by SDJM on 6.4.1996 was so very vital to doubt the case of the prosecution. We fully concur with the said view expressed by the Division Bench.” 50. We fully concur with the said view expressed by the Division Bench.” 50. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that P.W.-3 Bashir Ahmad (scribe) has stated that he left for Andhra Pradesh in the night of the occurrence and came back after fifteen days. Whereas the Investigating Officer (P.W.-4) Narendra Kumar has stated that he had recorded the statement of the scribe (PW-3) on 26.4.1982, which shows the designed, perfunctory and faulty investigation in this case. It is also contended that there has been inordinate delay in recording the statement of Munshi Khan (PW-2) by the Investigating Officer, because as per the Investigating Officer (PW-4) he was examined on 23.4.1982 in the hospital whereas on the date of occurrence he was available on the spot and was keeping watch over the dead body of Anwar when the I.O. visited the spot for investigation. It has further been pointed out that the Investigating Officer did not record the statement of the local persons who were present on the spot or residing in the vicinity, as such the entire investigation is tainted and biased. We do not find any force in this argument also. The scribe (PW-3) in his statement has clarified that he had returned from Kalpi in District Jalaun next day to Firozabad in order to obtain some document regarding his consignment, left inadvertently at Firozabad, therefore, it is possible that he was examined by the Investigating Officer during his brief stay at Firozabad. 51. From the perusal of the statement of Investigating Officer (PW-4) and the police papers, it is evident that the inquest proceedings were initiated on the date of occurrence at 2.00 p.m. Inquest report Ext.Ka-2 also corroborates the credibility of the prosecution proceedings as well as the prosecution story. In his cross-examination the Investigating Officer P.W.-4 has stated that except P.W.-1 Gafoor Khan and P.W.-2 Munshi Khan, he did not find other eye- witness of the occurrence. Mere delay in recording evidence or not getting independent witnesses or other minor omission or commission of the Investigating Officer (P.W.-4) during investigation would not adversely affect either the root of the prosecution story or discredit the otherwise credible direct evidence of the eye-witnesses. 52. Defective investigation and lapses on the part of the Investigating Officer would not necessarily be fatal for the prosecution, in case reliable and cogent direct evidence is available. 52. Defective investigation and lapses on the part of the Investigating Officer would not necessarily be fatal for the prosecution, in case reliable and cogent direct evidence is available. The law on this point of defective investigation has been considered by the Supreme Court time and again and it has been categorically laid down by the Supreme Court that any minor fault, irregularity, defect or deficiency in investigation would not be a ground for rejection of the direct and trustworthy ocular testimonies. The only requirement is use of extra caution in evaluation of such evidence. For the fault of the investigator alone, the perpetrators of such a ghastly crime cannot be allowed to go scot-free. A defective investigation cannot be fatal to prosecution where ocular testimony if found credible and cogent and had a ring of truth in it as held in cases of Gulzari Lal v. State of Haryana, (2016) 4 SCC 583 , State of Karnataka v. Suvarnamma, (2015) 1 SCC 323 , Hema v. State, 2013 (81) ACC 1 (SC) (Three Judge Bench) and C. Muniappan v. State of TN, 2010 (6) SCJ 822 , Amar Singh v. Balwinder Singh and others, 2003 Cri LJ 1282, Allarakha K. Mansuri v. State of Gujarat, (2002) 3 SCC 57 , Prithvi v. Mamraj and others, ( 2004(13) SCC 279 , State of U.P. v. Jagdeo and others, (2003) 1 SCC 456 , Dharmendrasinh alias Mansing Ratansinh v. State of Gujrat, (2002) 4 SCC 679 . 53. In the case of C. Muniappan v. State of TN, 2010 (6) SCJ 822 , the Apex Court has made following observation in this regard : “The law on this issue is well-settled that the defect in the investigation by itself cannot be a ground for acquittal. If primacy is given to such designed or negligent investigations or to the omissions or lapses by perfunctory investigation, the faith and confidence of the people in the criminal justice administration would be eroded. Where there has been negligence on the part of the investigating agency or omissions, etc. If primacy is given to such designed or negligent investigations or to the omissions or lapses by perfunctory investigation, the faith and confidence of the people in the criminal justice administration would be eroded. Where there has been negligence on the part of the investigating agency or omissions, etc. which resulted in defective investigation, there is a legal obligation on the part of the Court to examine the prosecution evidence de hors such lapses, carefully, to find out whether the said evidence is reliable or not and to what extent it is reliable and as to whether such lapses affected the object of finding out the truth. Therefore, the investigation is not the solitary area for judicial scrutiny in a criminal trial. The conclusion of the trial in the case cannot be allowed to depend solely on the probity of investigation.” 54. The Apex Court in Amar Singh v. Balwinder Singh and others, 2003 Cri LJ 1282, has held that every failure or omission of Investigating Officer cannot render prosecution case doubtful or unworthy of belief. The Hon’ble Patna High Court in its judgement Bishundeo Poddar and others v. State of Bihar, 2003 Cri LJ 1558, has held: “Be that as it may, the fate of the case does not depend on what the Investigating Officer or the prosecutor ought to have done and the evidence ought to have been led. The fate depends on the evidence which is on record.” 55. The learned counsel for the appellant has further contended that detailed motive and the manner of occurrence as stated by the eye-witnesses (P.W.-1 Gafoor Khan and P.W.-2 Munshi Khan) have not been mentioned in the FIR. It has only been stated in the FIR that some prior enemity was there and all the three accused persons/assailants had run away after firing at the deceased Anwar Khan and one of the assailants Dalbir Singh was carrying a pistol, but at the time of recording of evidence in the Court the eye-witnesses (P.W.-1 and P.W.-2) have placed their improved version by stating the detailed description of motive (animus) against the individual accused persons and further that two of the assailants Niranjan and Durab were holding Anwar (deceased) by his arms from either side and third assailant/appellant Dalbir Singh with a country made pistol had fired at Anwar from the front. It is also argued that this improvement is neither natural nor probable because it might have caused injury to the assailants who were holding the deceased by the hand. Our attention has further been drawn to the description of the dead body (Panchayatnama) Ext.Ka-2 where it was found that the face of the dead body was downward towards the ground and both his hands were under his thigh. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, Anwar would not have fallen in this way had his arms were caught hold of by two assailants as alleged. In our opinion, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is misconceived. FIR is not to be treated as encyclopedia, in which each and every detail of the occurrence should have been written. Our above view is fortified by the observation made by the Apex Court in the case of V.K. Mishra and another v. State of Uttarakhand and another, (2015) 9 SCC 588 . The relevant part of para-13 is quoted herein below : “13. FIR is not meant to be an encyclopaedia nor is it expected to contain all the details of the prosecution case. It may be sufficient if the broad facts of the prosecution case are stated in the FIR. . . . . . . . . . Unless there are indications of fabrication, prosecution version cannot be doubted merely on the ground that FIR does not contain the details.” 56. In the statement before the Court the eye-witnesses have given the entire manner of occurrence as well as assault. The entire record shows that the appellant Dalbir Singh had fired on the deceased from a very close range, i.e., from an arms length. There was tatooing and blackening present around the wound; one metalic shot was recovered from the chest cavity of the deceased, which reflects the nature of fire arm used by the appellant/main assailant, therefore, it cannot be presumed that the shot fired by the appellant Dalbir Singh could have injured Durab and Niranjan, who were holding the hands of the deceased. Even though the hands of the deceased were caught by the assailants at the time, shot was fired, the dead body of the deceased would have fallen on the staircase in the same posture, which was found during the inquest proceeding. There appears to be no material anomaly. Even though the hands of the deceased were caught by the assailants at the time, shot was fired, the dead body of the deceased would have fallen on the staircase in the same posture, which was found during the inquest proceeding. There appears to be no material anomaly. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant in this regard is not acceptable. eye-witnesses P.W.-1 Gafoor Khan and P.W.-2 Munshi Khan have vividly described the entire incident in their statement, which are in consonance with the medical as well as other documents of the prosecution. Therefore, their credible testimonies cannot be discarded on this ground alone. 57. It has also been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that there is no clear motive for the appellant to commit this ghastly crime. We have considered this argument and in our opinion, when there is direct convincing evidence of occurrence existence of motive may or may not be proved by the prosecution. However, in this case admittedly there was some sort of bad blood between the deceased’s family and the accused persons, which was proved by the prosecution with cogent evidence. Even the accused persons have admitted the enmity with the deceased family in their statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Therefore, it cannot be argued that the appellant or the accused persons did not have cogent motive to commit the crime in this case. Sometimes crimes are committed for insignificant motives or for no motive at all. In the case of the appellant Dalbir Singh there is evidence on record to show the strong motive. He is the main assailant. 58. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention towards some discrepancies and contradictions as well as improvements in the statement of the eye-witnesses as well as the scribe (PW-1 to PW-3) but in our opinion the slight discrepancies, contradictions, improvements and inconsistencies in the statement of the witnesses as well as in the prosecution case would not make their testimony unacceptable. This kind of shortcoming is always there in a criminal case. It is not possible to reject entire credible testimonies of eye-witnesses, on this ground alone because the type of discrepancies, contradictions, improvements and inconsistencies shown by the learned counsel for the appellant in their testimonies do not go to the root of the prosecution case to make it unworthy of credence. 59. It is not possible to reject entire credible testimonies of eye-witnesses, on this ground alone because the type of discrepancies, contradictions, improvements and inconsistencies shown by the learned counsel for the appellant in their testimonies do not go to the root of the prosecution case to make it unworthy of credence. 59. It has also been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that both the eye-witnesses are ‘chance witnesses’, their presence on the spot at the time of said incident is quite unnatural and improbable. We do not endorse this argument. The presence of both the eye-witnesses near the spot at the time of the incident is proved by the prosecution with cogent evidence, starting from written report(Ext.Ka-1)/FIR (Ext.Ka-13), during investigation and till the evidence recorded on oath before the Court. Their conduct was natural and both their presence near the spot at the time of the incident and reason for their presence as well as their witnessing the incident are proved beyond doubt. There is nothing unnatural in it. The Supreme Court in the case of Vikram Singh and others v. State of Punjab, (2010) 3 SCC 561, based on the decision in Rana Pratap and others v. State of Haryana, 1983 (3) SCC 327 and Thangaiya v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2005) 9 SCC 650 , has observed about the word ‘chance witness’. The relevant portion of para-8 is as follows : “8. . . . . . . . . The expression ‘chance witness’ is borrowed from countries where every man’s home is considered his castle and everyone must have an explanation for his presence elsewhere or in another man’s castle. It is quite unsuitable an expression in a country where people are less formal and more casual, at any rate in the matter explaining their presence.” 60. After careful examination of material on record and in view of the direct evidence of crime against the present appellant by the ocular testimony rendered by the highly credible prosecution witnesses, whose presence on the spot has been established, which inturn is in consonance with the medical and other prosecution evidence/documents available on record, we are of the opinion that prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt and has been able to bring home the guilt of the accused appellant by credible and trustworthy evidence. Therefore, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly believed the prosecution story and also rightly recorded the finding of guilt against the present appellant. Hence we do not find any ground to differ from the finding of guilt recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The judgement and order dated 24.6.1983 passed by the VIII Additional Sessions Judge, Agra in S.T. No. 414 of 1982 (State v. Dalbir Singh and another) arising out of Crime No. 130 of 1982, P.S. Firozabad (North), District Agra does not require any interference. 61. In view of the above, the appeal preferred by the surviving appellant Dalbir Singh lacks merit and it is, accordingly, dismissed. The conviction and sentence awarded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge against the accused appellant Dalbir Singh are confirmed. The accused/appellant Dalbir Singh is directed to serve out the remaining part of the sentence awarded by the learned trial Court in the impugned judgement. Surviving accused appellant Dalbir Singh is on bail. He shall surrender before the trial Court for serving out the sentence within 15 days from the date of this judgement, failing which trial Court shall ensure his arrest and shall send him to jail for serving out the remaining sentence in accordance with law. 62. The copy of the judgement and entire record be transmitted back to the concerned trial Court through Sessions Judge, Agra for compliance within ten days. The concerned Court will thereafter report the compliance to this Court within a month.