JUDGMENT Hon’ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I, J.—The aforesaid criminal appeals have been preferred by the above mentioned appellants against the judgment and order of conviction dated 26.9.2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Etawah in S.T. No. 20 of 2000-State of U.P. v. Ali Ahmad and others, under Section 302/34 I.P.C. arising out of case crime No. 337 of 1999, Police Station Kotwali, district Etawah whereby the appellants have been sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. coupled with fine of Rs. 5000/- each with default stipulation of one year additional R.I. to the concerned convict. 2. We have heard at length respective submissions of learned counsel for the appellants Shri S.V. Singh and learned A.G.As. Shri J.K. Upadhyaya as well as Ms. Manju Thakur and learned counsel for the complainant Ashwani Kumar Awasthi and perused the record. 3. The foundation of prosecution case is rooted in the First Information Report lodged by informant Mohd. Arif son of Israel resident of Chaukhar Kua, New Market, Police Station Kotwali district Etawah, wherein allegations of murder have been made against the aforesaid three appellants-Ali Ahmad, Zameel and Abdul Sattar to the extent that they killed his father by firing on him on 24.6.1999 at 8.30 a.m. in front of Nafees Hazi’s shop-National Road Lines Transport. In order to commit the offence, the appellants laid-in ambush behind two trucks in company with one more person, suddenly appeared on the scene and got scooter of informant’s father stopped, then Abdul Sattar kicked his scooter and exhorted to kill him; whereupon Ali Ahmad and Zameel by waving country made pistol in their hands caught informant’s father and (the assailants) pumped pellets on him by their weapons due to which the informant’s father fell down. Informant’s uncle Afzaal and his friend Chand who were also following his father, challenged the assailants, whereupon, the assailants also fired in the air and secured their escape. It is gathered from report that bone of contention (behind this murder) was construction of some shops in graveyard situated near overhead water tank adjoining bye pass road. One Abdul Sattar, resident of Katara Sahab Khan, was earlier Mutwalli (Manager) of this graveyard and after him, Master Bashiruddin was made Mutawalli of this graveyard. Bashiruddin, relative of first informant, used to come to the Saw mill of the applicant. In this graveyard, Ali Mohd. One Abdul Sattar, resident of Katara Sahab Khan, was earlier Mutwalli (Manager) of this graveyard and after him, Master Bashiruddin was made Mutawalli of this graveyard. Bashiruddin, relative of first informant, used to come to the Saw mill of the applicant. In this graveyard, Ali Mohd. son of Hussain Khan was constructing shop. He was being assisted by Zameel son of Bashirrddin and Abdul Sattar son of Alauddin. Construction of the shops in the graveyard came into knowledge of City Magistrate Etawah, who issued stay order on these shops. The appellants became apprehensive of this stay order and were under impression that it was obtained on account of persuasion made by the informant’s father with Bashiruddin, who managed issuance of such stay order. Yesterday, on 23.6.1999 at about 10.30 a.m. Ali Ahmad and his aforesaid two friends came to the saw mill of the informant and asked informant’s father that he got issued stay order against construction of shops, thus depriving them of their livelihood, now he (deceased-Israel) will have to bear the consequences for the same and they went away from there (saw mill). Today, i.e. on 24.6.1999, when the informant’s father Mohd. Israel was going to his saw mill from his house on scooter, he was being followed by informant’s uncle Afzaal and his friend Chand son of Banne Khan on motor cycle when the aforesaid offence of murder was committed at 8.30 a.m. 4. It has further been alleged that at the time of incident, the first informant had gone to the saw mill of Ramjan for arranging labourers, which place is near the place of occurrence. The informant heard sound of firing and rushed to the spot when he saw his father lying on road seeped with blood. Informant’s father while groaning told informant’s uncle and his friend (Chand) about the incident. Thereafter informant’s father was taken to hospital by Jeep where his father was declared dead. Blood oozing out from body of informant’s father stained clothes of first informant. The dead body was kept in the hospital. The appellants committed offence in broad day light and they openly fired in the air due to which peace of the area was disturbed, panic prevailed and stampede followed giving way to likelihood of breach of peace. It was prayed that report be lodged and action be taken. This written report is Ext. Ka. 1. 5. The appellants committed offence in broad day light and they openly fired in the air due to which peace of the area was disturbed, panic prevailed and stampede followed giving way to likelihood of breach of peace. It was prayed that report be lodged and action be taken. This written report is Ext. Ka. 1. 5. The entry of contents of this First Information Report was taken in check FIR at 9.35 a.m. at Police Station Kotwali district Etawah at case crime No. 337 of 1999 under Section 302 I.P.C. Check FIR is Ext. Ka. 3 on record. On the basis of aforesaid entry made in the FIR, the case was registered against appellants at Rapat No. 22 in the G.D. on the same day and time which is Ext. Ka. 4 on record. Thereafter, the investigation followed and investigation was taken over by Harshvardhan P.W. 5 who conducted part of the investigation and prepared site plan of place of occurrence Exhibit Ka-5 and thereafter the investigation was handed over to S.S.I. Vikramjeet Singh P.W. 6 who also took various steps in completing the investigation. Certain relevant papers were prepared during the course of investigation a reference of these papers at this stage would be appropriate. 6. After investigation commenced, the Investigating officer got prepared the inquest report of deceased Modh. Israel and it was completed at 11.00 a.m. on 24.6.1994 which is Ext. Ka. 8 on record. In the opinion of inquest witnesses, it was suggested that the dead body of deceased be sent for post-mortem examination for ascertaining real cause of death. The dead body was sent for post-mortem examination. Relevant papers were also prepared, these papers are : Photo Nash Ext. Ka. 9, Challan of dead body Ext. Ka. 10, letter to the Chief Medical Officer is Ext. Ka. 11 and letter to R.I. Police Line Etawah is Ext. Ka. 12. Investigating Officer also prepared various memos during the course of investigations viz. memo of simple and blood stained soil from the place of occurrence is Ext. 6, memo of blood stained clothes of first informant dated 31.8.1999 is Ext. Ka. 2. It is further reflected from record that medical examination on the body of deceased was conducted at district Hospital Etawah on 24.6.1999 at 5 p.m. wherein following ante-mortem injuries were found on the body of the deceased: 1. 6, memo of blood stained clothes of first informant dated 31.8.1999 is Ext. Ka. 2. It is further reflected from record that medical examination on the body of deceased was conducted at district Hospital Etawah on 24.6.1999 at 5 p.m. wherein following ante-mortem injuries were found on the body of the deceased: 1. Gun shot wound injuries 1.5 cm x 2 cm Thoresic Cavity Deep right side of back 19 cm away from nipple. Blackenning and charring are present around wound in 3 cm area. 2. Gun shot wound of exit in front of chest left 3 cm below left nipple in 6.00 clock’s position. 3. Fire-arm wound measuring 5 cm x 2 cm under the skull deep 5 cm above right eye-brow lacerated. Blackening around wound is present in 1 cm area. 7. In the of opinion of doctor, the cause of death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem fire-arm injuries. Post-mortem examination report is Ext. Ka. 2-A on record. 8. During the course of investigation, various statements of witnesses were also recorded and after completing investigation, two separate charge-sheets were filed under Section 302/34 I.P.C. against the appellants. The charge-sheet against appellant Ali Ahmad and Zameel is Ext. Ka. 6 on record whereas the charge-sheet against Abdul Sattar is Ka. 7 on record. 9. Thereafter, the case of the appellants was committed to the Session Court from where it was made over for trial to the concerned Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2 Etawah who after hearing the appellants, charged them under Section 302/34 I.P.C. The charge was read over and explained to the accused who squarely denied the charge and claimed for trial. Thereafter, the prosecution was asked to adduce its testimony in support of aforesaid charge. 10. In turn, prosecution produced in all seven witnesses viz. Mohd. Arif is first informant and son of deceased. He is said to have arrived on the spot soon after the incident and took his father to the hospital. He has proved written report as Ext. Ka. 1. Dr. M.M. Arya P.W. 2 has conducted post-mortem examination on the body of the deceased and has proved the same as Ext. Ka. 2-A. Mohd. Afzaal P.W. 3 is the brother of the deceased and uncle of first informant and star eye-witness of the prosecution. He has described about the incident. He has proved written report as Ext. Ka. 1. Dr. M.M. Arya P.W. 2 has conducted post-mortem examination on the body of the deceased and has proved the same as Ext. Ka. 2-A. Mohd. Afzaal P.W. 3 is the brother of the deceased and uncle of first informant and star eye-witness of the prosecution. He has described about the incident. Head constable Sobaran Singh is P.W. 4 and he has proved entries made in the check First Information Report and relevant G.D. relating to the case are Ext. Ka. 3 and 4, respectively. Harshwardhan P.W. 5 is the first investigating officer who has detailed about various steps taken during the course of investigation. He prepared site plan and proved the same as Ext. Ka. 5. Besides, he also took steps for ensuring the arrest of the accused. S.S.I. Vikramjeet Singh P.W.6, the second Investigating Officer of the case took over the investigation of this case on 21.7.1999 and after completing formalities filed charge-sheets against aforesaid appellants Ext. Ka-6 and Ka-7, respectively. Constable Chiranji Lal P.W. 7 has proved preparation of inquest report and other relevant papers and has stated that inquest was prepared. by S.I. R.K. Pal, he was present at the time of preparation of the inquest report, he has identified his hand writing on this report., which is Ext. Ka-8. Relevant papers by the I.O. made for sending the dead body for post-mortem examination are Ext. Ka-9, 10, 11 and 12. 11. Thereafter evidence for prosecution was closed and the statement of the appellants was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein they claimed to have been falsely implicated in this case in consultation with Bashirruddin. The defence did not lead any evidence on its part. The trial Court after hearing both the sides, passed the impugned judgment and order of conviction dated 26.9.2006 in S.T. No. 20 of 2000-State of U.P. v. Ali Ahmad and others, under Section 302/34 I.P.C. arising out of case crime No. 337 of 1999, Police Station Kotwali, district Etawah and imposed upon them aforesaid sentence. 12. Consequently these appeals. 13. It has been vehemently claimed on behalf of the appellant by the learned counsel Shri S.V. Singh that in fact none of the so called prosecution witnesses of fact has seen the occurrence. There is no independent witness whose testimony could be relied on in this case. 12. Consequently these appeals. 13. It has been vehemently claimed on behalf of the appellant by the learned counsel Shri S.V. Singh that in fact none of the so called prosecution witnesses of fact has seen the occurrence. There is no independent witness whose testimony could be relied on in this case. All the witnesses of fact are either interested, partisan or close relatives of the deceased, so their testimony is wholly unreliable. It is surprising that these witnesses are not witnesses in inquest report. It has come in the statement of prosecution witnesses that when the injured was lying on the ground, he was taken to hospital. On way to hospital he told about the incident to the prosecution witnesses, particularly to first informant Mohd. Arif, and P.W. 3 Mohd. Afzaal that the accused persons caused injury to him. As per post-mortem report and testimony of doctor, it is worth consideration that when a person who has been hit so badly on his chest, his lungs are ruptured then he would not be in a position to spell even a single word, therefore, narration of the incident by the deceased when the incident took place, to his son and brother is after thought and result of deliberation and consultation which establishes fact that the story of assault caused by the appellants was tried to be improved. 14. Learned counsel claimed that entire prosecution case does not inspire confidence. The investigation is full of laches, testimony of witness is full of contradictions and no conviction can be made on it and trial Court overlooked these particular aspects and has erroneously recorded the finding of conviction. 15. Per contra, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the complainant in reply to the aforesaid arguments submitted that the testimony on record is true, worthy of credit, and is inspiring confidence. P.W. 3 Mohd. Afzaal is natural witness of fact of occurrence and was present on the spot, he is most natural witness of incident which was also witnessed by the first informant P.W. 1 and he was told by his father as to who opened fire on him. In this regard, clothes of first informant which bore blood stains oozing out from his father’s body corroborates the presence of first informant at the relevant point of time on the spot. 16. In this regard, clothes of first informant which bore blood stains oozing out from his father’s body corroborates the presence of first informant at the relevant point of time on the spot. 16. There is no material contradiction in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses of fact P.W.1 and P.W.3. There is no laches in the investigation. The investigation is fair and upto the mark. Lodging of First Information Report is also prompt. The incident occurred in broad day light in the month of June at 8.30 a.m. and lastly it has been summed up that merely because the witnesses are close relatives of the deceased that by itself would not render their testimony wholly unreliable unless it is shown that these witnesses are highly inimical and biased to ensure conviction of the appellants and nothing such has surfaced against aforesaid witnesses that they are either biased or acting with malafidy intention to ensure conviction of the appellants. Prosecution witnesses of fact being natural witnesses, their testimony is to be believed as the same is clinching and inspiring confidence. Why these witnesses will spare the real culprits and falsely involve the appellants has also not been brought before this Court by the appellants. 17. The moot point involved for consideration in these appeals revolves around fact whether the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the appellants, beyond any reasonable doubt or not? 18. The very beginning of the incident has its seed, in the First Information Report which imputes the very motive for commission of the offence by the appellants. Precisely, First Information Report indicates that appellant-Ali Ahmad was constructing some shop in the graveyard and he was being aided by other appellants Zameel and Abdul Sattar. The City Magistrate, Etawah, passed some stay order on this construction which was interpreted by the appellants to be handy work and out come of mischief of first informant’s father who intrigued with Bashiruddin in getting the stay order issued against such construction. The appellants being apprehensive of such mischievous activities on the part of informant’s father and Bashiruddin came to the saw mill of first informant at 10.30 a.m. on 23.6.1999 and admonished informant’s father that he got the construction stopped, thus, deprived them of their livelihood and now he would have to face consequences for his act. The appellants being apprehensive of such mischievous activities on the part of informant’s father and Bashiruddin came to the saw mill of first informant at 10.30 a.m. on 23.6.1999 and admonished informant’s father that he got the construction stopped, thus, deprived them of their livelihood and now he would have to face consequences for his act. On the next following day on 24.6.1999 the first informant’s father was going to saw mill on scooter from his house, being followed by informant’s uncle Afzaal and his friend Chand on motor cycle at some distance, in the meanwhile, when the deceased reached infront of Nafis Haji’s National Road Lines Transport, then the appellant who laid in ambush behind two trucks, appeared on the scene around 8.30 a.m., being accompanied by one unknown person, got the scooter of informant’s father stopped. Abdul Sattar gave kick blow to the scooter and exhorted, Ali Ahmad, Zameel and one unknown person to kill him lest he should be saved whereupon, Ali Ahmad and Zameel waived country made pistol pumped bullets on the informant’ father due to which he fell down on the ground. In the meanwhile, informant’s uncle and friend of informant’s uncle, challenged them, whereupon, they opened fire in the air and ensured their escape good. 19. In this case, eye-witness account evidence of the incident has come forth from the uncle of first informant who has been examined as P.W. 3. As per testimony of P.W.3 Mohd. Afzaal, it is reflected from his cross-examination Page 33 of the paper book, wherein, in the last paragraph of his testimony, he has stated that after the fire shot, which hit the deceased, his nephew arrived on the spot within a minute. Meaning thereby that the incident of shooting was not witnessed by P.W. 1 though he arrived in a short while on the spot and saw his father lying on the ground in pool of blood. Therefore, the testimony of P.W. 3 under the circumstances may be relevant for consideration of meritorial aspect of the incident. Although testimony of P.W.1, in so far as it relates to other aspects viz; motive and ancillary issues, will be helpful for arriving at just conclusion and the same will be discussed at relevant point of time. 20. Therefore, the testimony of P.W. 3 under the circumstances may be relevant for consideration of meritorial aspect of the incident. Although testimony of P.W.1, in so far as it relates to other aspects viz; motive and ancillary issues, will be helpful for arriving at just conclusion and the same will be discussed at relevant point of time. 20. It may also be observed that P.W. 3 in his examination in chief as noted on Paged 28 of the paper book has stated that after the incident, his nephew Mohd. Arif had arrived on the spot. As per description contained in the First Information Report, the incident has been narrated by Mohd. Afzaal P.W. 3. He has stated in examination in chief that he owned a saw mill and his brother-deceased Israel- also owned saw mill in front of Pani Ki Tanki at Bye-pass circular road. On 24.6.1999, he in company with his friend-Chand- were going to saw mill on his motor-cycle. It was around 8.30 a.m. when he reached Nafees Hazi’s National Road Lines Transport, he saw his brother Israel driving scooter at some distance ahead of him. In the meanwhile Abdul Sattar who was lying in ambush behind trucks appeared on the scene and gave kick blow to his scooter and exhorted “Goli Mar Do” whereupon Ali Ahmad and Zameel fired on him. One more unknown person was also accompanying them. This fire was shot by using country made pistol, which injured his brother. They challenged the assailants, whereupon they made their escape good after firing shots in the air. Thereafter, his nephew Mohd. Arif arrived on the spot, then this witness with the help of his nephew took injured Mohd. Israel in a Jeep to the hospital and on way to hospital deceased Israel told his nephew Mohd. Arif that Zameel and Ali Ahmad had fired on him after Abdul Sattar gave kick blow to his scooter after stopping it. 21. This witness P.W. 3 has also stated in his examination in chief that his brother remained alive upto and till they reached Kazi Petrol Pump thereafter he died. On reaching hospital, doctor declared his brother dead. He has been cross-examined by the appellants on the point of occurrence. 21. This witness P.W. 3 has also stated in his examination in chief that his brother remained alive upto and till they reached Kazi Petrol Pump thereafter he died. On reaching hospital, doctor declared his brother dead. He has been cross-examined by the appellants on the point of occurrence. He has stated that after the shot hit the deceased Israel, he was unable to stand up and at that point of time, this witness was about 20-25 paces away from him. He has stated that at the relevant point of time, his brother was proceeding a little ahead of him on scooter. He has further stated that investigating officer recorded his statement the very same day on which the incident took place. 22. It has been specifically asked from this witness - P.W.3, as to what was identity of unknown culprit whereupon he said that he cannot recollect his memory about the same. He has been confronted with specific question whether deceased Israel has been shot dead by Abdul Sattar, Ali Ahmad and Zameel and whether any such statement was ever given by him to any investigating Officer, whereupon he answered “Yes”, he told about this to Darogaji. He has stated that Darogaji had prepared site plan on his own. He has also identified the place of occurrence near Tarkol Road, where blood dropped on the ground. This witness has further stated on interrogation regarding fact, as to what was the position (physical) of deceased when he was hit by shot, whereupon he replied that at the relevant point of time, Israel was prostrate with mouth down ward. This witness also demonstrated (by making gesture in trial Court) that one leg (of deceased) was entangled in scooter, whereas, the other was extended (astride). 23. This particular piece of testimony by itself is self explanatory of fact of presence of this witness on the spot; thus he witnessed the incident. He has been asked question about distance from which shot was fired whereupon the distance has been disclosed by this witness as 2-3 feet. He has also stated in his testimony that after the shot hit the deceased, he was not rendered unconscious. The deceased was taken care of by this witness, his nephew and the another person Chand. He has been asked question about distance from which shot was fired whereupon the distance has been disclosed by this witness as 2-3 feet. He has also stated in his testimony that after the shot hit the deceased, he was not rendered unconscious. The deceased was taken care of by this witness, his nephew and the another person Chand. He has stated that his nephew had just arrived on the spot within a minute (of the incident) some persons also arrived at the spot. 24. In the wake of aforesaid testimony it is obvious that the description of incident as narrated in the examination-in-chief stands corroborated in his cross-examination. There is nothing adverse or anomalous in his testimony on point of occurrence and his presence on the spot. His testimony on the whole can be rated to be worthy of credit, consistent and inspiring confidence. 25. We have been persuaded, by learned counsel for appellants, to act on assumption that this witness is close relative of the deceased and he is in fact brother of the deceased, therefore, his testimony is testimony of interested and biased witness and should not be normally believed, but on the other hand, we have specific reason not act upon such proposed hypothesis in view of the fact that merely because witness is a relative of victim of an offence will not by itself throw away the prosecution case in the face of consistent testimony of a witness of fact. No such piece of testimony or circumstance appears upon scrutiny which may give rise to fact that PW-3 being relative of deceased-Israel- is interested in conviction of the appellants. In this context legal dictum is settled that unless it is shown that the witness is directly interested in having conviction secured his being relative of victim alone will not be suffice to render his testimony wholly unreliable. In this way, relative who happens to be natural witness cannot altogether be regarded as an interested witness. There is nothing on record which may point out that this witness was having any grudge against the appellants or was mala fide towards them. That way, he cannot be said to be interested witness and he has no grudge or bias for seeking conviction of the appellant. Therefore, the contention that the testimony of Mohd. There is nothing on record which may point out that this witness was having any grudge against the appellants or was mala fide towards them. That way, he cannot be said to be interested witness and he has no grudge or bias for seeking conviction of the appellant. Therefore, the contention that the testimony of Mohd. Afzaal P.W. 3, is tainted for he being relative of the deceased is altogether rejected. Similar observations based on similar principles have been laid down by Hon. Apex Court in the case of Gurjit Singh Alias Gora and another v. State of Haryana, (2015)2 SCC (Cri 624 (Criminal Appeal No. 519 of 2010). 26. Now It would be relevant appropriate to switch over to the ante-mortem injuries found on the body of the deceased. The post-mortem report is Ext. Ka. 2A which has been proved by Dr. M.M. Arya P.W. 2. Three ante-mortem injuries were noted on examination upon the body of the deceased which are as follows: 1. Gun shot wound of entry of size 1.5 cm x 2 cm Thoresic Cavity Deep right side of back 19 cm away from nipple. Blackening and charring are present around wound in 3 cm area. 2. Gun shot wound of exit presence in front of chest left 3 cm below left nipple in 6.00 clock’s position measuring 3cm x 1.5 cm. 3. Fire-arm wound measuring 5 cm x 2 cm x skull deep 5 cm above right eye-brow lacerated. Blackening around wound is present in 1 cm area. 27. The very nature of the injuries so caused, in the opinion of the doctor could have been caused around 8.30 a.m. on 24.6.,1999 by fire-arm. This specific piece of testimony regarding injury being caused at that point of time has not been challenged even in the least by the appellants. In cross-examination of P.W. 2, this much has come that heart and lungs were lacerated and due to this excessive bleeding was possible and death may be caused instantly. 28. Contention has been raised to the ambit that theory of deceased telling his son (first informant-P.W. 1) about the incident being caused by the appellants cannot be sustained in view of the aforesaid condition of deceased’s body at the time of assault. 28. Contention has been raised to the ambit that theory of deceased telling his son (first informant-P.W. 1) about the incident being caused by the appellants cannot be sustained in view of the aforesaid condition of deceased’s body at the time of assault. The contention does not hold good in view of the fact discussed above that the testimony of P.W. 3 has been found to be natural, consistent, clinching and inspiring confidence and he was present on the spot and has described every detail of the incident. This portion of the testimony that the deceased told his son about the incident as to who caused it, has got no relevance even if the same is excluded from the record because eye-witness account of incident as given by P.W. 3 Mohd. Afzaal after careful scrutiny by us is found to be genuine one and the same cannot be brushed aside. May be, that some sort of the improvement was sought to be brought in, in the testimony of witnesses would not thwart prosecution case under the facts and circumstances of the case already proved. The incident has been consistently proved by the testimony of P.W. 3 Mohd. Afzaal. Testimony of P.W. 2 Dr. M.M. Arya corroborates ocular testimony of eye-witness. P.W. 5 Harshvardhan Nagaich has also proved preparation of site plan. He has stated in his testimony that he prepared site plan on the spot in the presence of first informant P.W. 1 and eye-witness Mohd. Afzaal P.W. 3. He has proved site plan Ext. Ka. 5. He has also prepared memo of simple and blood stained soil taken from the spot and has proved the same. Obviously, all these things give certainty to place of occurrence. In this view of the matter, the fact that first informant handed over his blood stained clothes to the subsequent Investigating Officer Vikramjeet Singh P.W. 6 on 31.8.1999 will not make any dent in the prosecution case. Constable Chiranji Lal P.W.7 has proved certain papers of the prosecution. One of them is inquest report Ext. Ka. 8. Perusal of inquest report reflects that this inquest report is genuine, innocuous and it contains all the relevant details say case crime number, sections under which the case has been registered etc. It also contains description that inquest report was completed around 11.00 a.m. on 24.6.1999. One of them is inquest report Ext. Ka. 8. Perusal of inquest report reflects that this inquest report is genuine, innocuous and it contains all the relevant details say case crime number, sections under which the case has been registered etc. It also contains description that inquest report was completed around 11.00 a.m. on 24.6.1999. There is no whisper from the prosecution witnesses nor the same is gathered from attendant circumstances that in this case First Information Report was ante timed. Therefore, entire prosecution case is coherently established. In the statement of all the accused persons recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. they have stated that the entire prosecution case has been fastened upon them at the instance of and in consultation with Bashirruddin. In this way, it is beyond our comprehension as to why the prosecution witnesses and particularly P.W. 3 and 1 will be keenly interested in sparing the real culprit and instead naming the present appellants as accused. No such testimony or circumstance exist to act on such suggestion or supposition. 29. We are conscious of legal position that it is the quality of testimony of a witness that gets primacy and not quantity. Testimony of solitary witness (PW-3) in this case after cautious appraisal of facts and circumstances of this case is found to be based on solid rock of consistency, thus intensifying its creditworthiness and proving unambiguously the occurrence, which aspect renders his testimony clinching and wholly reliable. We may conclude that testimony of PW-3 Mohd. Afzaal carries ample weight. 30. In this view of the matter, we have every reason for holding that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellants. We have also gone through the judgment and order of conviction dated 26.9.2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Etawah in S.T. No. 20 of 2000-State of U.P. v. Ali Ahmad and others, under Section 302/34 I.P.C. arising out of case crime No. 337 of 1999, Police Station Kotwali, district Etawah, and we concur with the finding of fact which is based on material on record and is justified. We uphold finding of conviction in appeals. Consequently, all the aforesaid appeals being devoid of merit are dismissed. 31. In this case, the appellants Ali Ahmad and Zameel are in jail, whereas, appellant Abdul Sattar is on bail. We uphold finding of conviction in appeals. Consequently, all the aforesaid appeals being devoid of merit are dismissed. 31. In this case, the appellants Ali Ahmad and Zameel are in jail, whereas, appellant Abdul Sattar is on bail. His bail bond is cancelled and sureties are discharged. He shall be taken into custody forthwith. Appellants Ali Ahmad, Zameel and Abdul Sattar shall serve out their respective remaining sentence imposed upon them by the trial Court. 32. Let a copy of this judgment/order be certified to the Court concerned for necessary information and follow up action.