Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 3267 (ALL)

RAJ BAHADUR SINGH v. STATE OF U. P.

2016-09-23

ALOK KUMAR MUKHERJEE, BHARAT BHUSHAN

body2016
Hon'ble Bharat Bhushan,J. Hon'ble Alok Kumar Mukherjee,J. (Per Hon. Bharat Bhushan, J) 1. Sole surviving appellant Surendra Singh has assailed the impugned judgment and order dated 31.5.1983 passed in Sessions Trial No. 90 of 1982 (State Vs Surendra Singh and three others) by 4th Addl. Sessions Judge, Varanasi whereby the appellants Surendra Singh, Raj Bahadur Singh @ Raju, Gajendra Narain Singh @ Gajju and Vikrama Singh @ Vikramaditya Singh were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (in short IPC) and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. 2. This appeal was initially filed by four appellants but appellants Raj Bahadur Singh @ Raju, Gajendra Narain Singh @ Gajju and Vikrama Singh @ Vikramaditya Singh have died during the pendency of the present appeal and hence their appeal stand abated vide order dated 2.11.2015. This court is now concerned only with the appeal of surviving appellant Surendra Singh. 3. The facts giving rise to this appeal are that on 15.9.1981 at about 8 a.m. the deceased Ram Nayan Singh was sitting at a tea stall situated at bus stand of Village Rajwari with Lal Bahadur Singh (P.W.-2) and Keshav Singh (P.W-4). Suddenly, accused persons namely Late Raj Bahadur Singh @ Raju, Late Gajendra Narain Singh @ Gajju and Late Vikrama Singh @ Vikramaditya Singh and the surviving appellant Surendra Singh arrived there. All of them were armed with firearm weapons. Late Vikrama Singh @ Vikramaditya Singh, father of remaining three accused urged his sons to assassinate deceased Ram Nayan Singh. First, accused late Raj Bahadur Singh fired a shot upon the deceased Ram Nayan Singh. Deceased tried to escape towards a hut located behind the tea stall whereupon the appellant Surendra Singh and his companions Late Raj Bahadur Singh @ Raju and Late Gajendrda Narain Singh @ Gajju opened fire on Ram Nayan Singh who sustained injuries on his back. Informant Ramji Singh (P.W.-1), Banshidhar and several other persons arrived on the spot on observing the pandemonium at the place of occurrence. They claimed to have witnessed the incident along with P.W.-2 Lal Bahadur Singh and P.W.-4 Keshav Singh. These witnesses tried to catch the assailants but they boarded the scooter and Bullet motorcycle and fled towards northern side. Informant found his brother dead and thereafter went to the police station (in short P.S.) to lodge the First Information Report (in short the FIR) immediately. 4. These witnesses tried to catch the assailants but they boarded the scooter and Bullet motorcycle and fled towards northern side. Informant found his brother dead and thereafter went to the police station (in short P.S.) to lodge the First Information Report (in short the FIR) immediately. 4. The FIR (Ex-Ka-1) was lodged at 9.15 a.m. i.e. within seventy-five minutes of the incident at P.S. Chaubeypur, District Varanasi, which was six miles away from the Village Rajwari. A chick report (Ex-Ka-3) was also carved out. Relevant entries were made in the General Diary, extract of which is available on record as (Ex-Ka-4). Investigation was entrusted to Sri Faiyaz Ahmad (P.W.-6), the then Station House Officer, P.S. Chaubeypur. Inquest report was prepared and autopsy performed. The investigating Officer (I.O.) recovered live cartridge of 315 bore from the place of occurrence and samples of blood stained and plain earth were taken from the spot. Statements of witnesses were recorded by the I.O., thereafter a charge sheet (Ex-Ka-12) was submitted against four accused persons namely Late Raj Bahadur Singh @ Raju, Late Gajendra Narain Singh @ Gajju and Late Vikrama Singh @ Vikramaditya Singh and surviving appellant Surendra Singh. 5. Trial Judge framed charges against all the accused persons under Sections 302/34 IPC. Accused persons denied the allegations levelled against them and claimed to be tried. During course of trial, depositions of P.W.-1 Ramji Singh (informant), P.W.-2 Lal Bahadur Singh (eye witness), P.W-3 Laxmi Shanker Pandey (eye witness), P.W-4 Keshav Singh (eye witness), P.W.-5 Dr. Virendra Kumar Verma (conducted postmortem) and P.W.-6 Faiyaz Ahmad (Investigating Officer) were recorded. Statements of all accused persons were also recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein they again denied all the allegations and claimed false implication due to previous enmity. Accused persons also produced four witnesses in their defence namely D.W.-1 Prahlad, D.W.-2 Sudhendra Kumar Bhattacharya, D.W-3 Ravindra Prasad Singh, P.W-4 Rajendra Rai. Trial Judge found sufficient evidence to convict the accused persons under Sections 302/34 IPC and accordingly sentenced them to life imprisonment vide judgment and order dated 31.5.1983. It is this judgment which is under challenge before this court. 6. As stated earlier, this court is now concerned only with the appeal of sole surviving appellant Surendra Singh. 7. Trial Judge found sufficient evidence to convict the accused persons under Sections 302/34 IPC and accordingly sentenced them to life imprisonment vide judgment and order dated 31.5.1983. It is this judgment which is under challenge before this court. 6. As stated earlier, this court is now concerned only with the appeal of sole surviving appellant Surendra Singh. 7. Heard Sri Prem Shanker, Advocate holding brief for Sri Lok Nath Shukla, Advocate learned counsel for the surviving appellant and Mr K. C. Pandey, learned AGA for the State. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that there are significant discrepancies between the original prosecution story reflected in the FIR and the eye witness account recorded during the course of trial. He has drawn the attention of the court that no bullet was found embedded on 'Neem tree' as said by the witnesses. He has also claimed that the ocular evidence is inconsistent with the medical evidence. He has further argued that narration of events by the prosecution witnesses is not able to account for the bullet injuries sustained by the deceased Ram Nayan Singh on his thigh. He has denounced the claim of motive saying that the motive has not been established by the prosecution at all during the course of trial. 9. It is further submitted that use of guns was never mentioned in the FIR though injury report discloses wounds were caused by pellets. It is further argued that the story of prosecution is not able to account for four firearms wounds on the back of deceased. The recovery of only one live cartridge at the place of occurrence is not consistent with the story of indiscriminate firing. 10. Per contra learned counsel for the State has argued that as many as four eye witnesses have supported the prosecution story. The testimony of these witnesses is without any blemish. He has submitted that minor discrepancies are not sufficient to discard the testimony of eye witnesses. He has further argued that the testimony of all eye witnesses is natural, trustworthy and consistent with the normal human conduct. 11. Prosecution story was first narrated in the FIR. The FIR says that the deceased Ram Nayan Singh was sitting in a tea stall situated at Bus stand of Village Rajwari of P.S. Chaubeypur, District Varanasi. Accused persons, including surviving appellant Surendra came there and shot dead the deceased Ram Nayan Singh. 11. Prosecution story was first narrated in the FIR. The FIR says that the deceased Ram Nayan Singh was sitting in a tea stall situated at Bus stand of Village Rajwari of P.S. Chaubeypur, District Varanasi. Accused persons, including surviving appellant Surendra came there and shot dead the deceased Ram Nayan Singh. Details of the incident are enshrined in the FIR. 12. P.W.-1 Ramji has testified that deceased Ram Nayan Singh, the elder brother of P.W.-1 Ramji Singh (informant) was Deputy Sarpanch of Nyaya Panchayat, Village Rajwari at the time of incident. It is stated that Late Vikrama Singh @ Vikramaditya Singh and the appellant Surendra Singh were both employed by the police department. They had acquired licenses for rifle, shot gun and revolver and had a close affinity with the Station House Officer Faiyaz Ahmad, (P.W.-6) the Investigating Officer of this case. P.W.-1 Ramji Singh has also stated that both family had antagonistic relationship with each other and this animosity resulted in various litigation between the two parties. 13. P.W-1 Ramji has stated that on the date of occurrence Late accused Gajendra Narain Singh @ Gajju and deceased Ram Nayan Singh had some quarrel with each other and deceased Ram Nayan Singh slapped Late appellant Gajendra Narain Singh @ Gajju during this imbroglio. The appellant Gajendra Narain Singh threatened to take revenge and left the place. This incident occurred right in the morning of the dreadful day. A bus stand exists in Village Rajwari and near that busstand there were tea stalls and meat shops around both sides of the road. House of Laxmi Shanker Pandey, P.W.-3 is also located at 10-15 paces away from the road near bus stand Rajwari. P.W-1 has clarified that he too was sipping tea at the shop of one Rahmal Madhav located on western side of the road at Rajwari bus stand. His slain brother Ram Nayan Singh was sitting on the tea stall of one Raja Ram. Lal Bahadur Singh (P.W.-2) and Keshav Singh (P.W.-4) were also sitting with him at a stone bench. Prior to this incident, deceased Ram Nayan Singh had had altercation with accused Late Gajendra Narain Singh @ Gajju and threat was extended by accused Gajendra Narain Singh @ Gajju. Lal Bahadur Singh (P.W.-2) and Keshav Singh (P.W.-4) were also sitting with him at a stone bench. Prior to this incident, deceased Ram Nayan Singh had had altercation with accused Late Gajendra Narain Singh @ Gajju and threat was extended by accused Gajendra Narain Singh @ Gajju. It is stated that within 15 minutes of that episode appellants Late Vikrama Singh @ Vikramaditya Singh and his three sons namely Late Raj Bahadur Singh @ Raju, Gajendra Narain Singh @ Gajju and surviving appellant Surendra Singh arrived at the bus stand. All of them were armed with firearm weapons. The appellant Vikrama Singh @ Vikramaditya Singh was armed with revolver, who urged his sons to kill Ram Nayan Singh upon which appellant Raj Bahadur Singh fired a shot at deceased Ram Nayan Singh at his chest but he somehow escaped and started running towards the hut nearby. Then accused persons Late Raj Bahadur Singh @ Raju, Late Gajendra Narain Singh @ Gajju and Surendra Singh opened fire at deceased Ram Narayan Singh. He sustained firearm injuries and fell down near the hut of Raja Ram adjacent to Raja Ram's tea stall. 14. This witness has narrated the whole story in a trustworthy manner. There are some minor discrepancies but appraisal of his evidence would reveal that the core of his testimony is intact despite searching cross examination. This witness has also expressed his disappointment with the conduct of Station House Officer, (P.W.-6) Faiyaz Ahmad who investigated this case. He has stated that a complaint was made on behalf of his family to Superintendent of Police (rural). He has also disclosed that accused persons were released on bail because the case diary was not sent to the court by the I.O. Faiyaz Ahmad, insinuating that accused persons were let off merely on their personal bond because of deliberate help provided to the accused persons by the Investigating Officer. Investigating Officer has also shown the existence of 'Mahua' tree in the site plan (Ex-Ka-9) while there was no Mahua Tree at the place of occurrence and they had referred only to Neem Tree wherein some shots were reportedly got embedded on its trunk. It is pertinent to point that during the course of testimony, I.O. (P.W.-6) has conceded that he had mistakenly shown a 'Mahua' tree in the site plan (Ex-Ka-9). It is pertinent to point that during the course of testimony, I.O. (P.W.-6) has conceded that he had mistakenly shown a 'Mahua' tree in the site plan (Ex-Ka-9). He has also admitted that only Neem tree existed at the place of occurrence. The evidence given by Ramji Singh is natural, trustworthy and consistent with the natural human conduct. The narration of events by him during the course of trial shows that he was present at the place of occurrence at the time of incident. 15. Similarly, P.W.-2 Lal Bahadur Singh and P.W.-3 Laxmi Shanker Pandey and P.W.-4 Keshav Singh have also supported the prosecution version. Prosecution evidence demonstrates that all of them were present at the time of occurrence. 16. P.W-2. Lal Bahadur Singh and P.W-4 Keshav Singh were infact sitting with the deceased Ram Nayan Singh at the tea stall of Raja Ram right at the time of incident. These witnesses have also disclosed the preceding incident wherein the deceased Ram Nayan Singh had slapped the appellant Late Gajendra Narain Singh @ Gajju. The main incident took place within 15-20 minutes after the earlier incident. Both these witnesses have also stated that the appellant Vikrama Singh @ Vikramaditya Singh had instigated his sons Surendra Singh, Gajendra Narain Singh @ Gajju and Raj Bahadur Singh @ Raju and all of them opened fire upon the deceased Ram Nayan Singh barring Vikrama Singh @ Vikramaditya Singh though he too was armed with revolver. The FIR is said to have been prepared within 15 minutes after the occurrence. Firearm weapons were mentioned in this FIR though shot gun was not specifically mentioned. 17. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the FIR does not disclose the previous incident occurred just 15 minutes prior to the main events wherein some brawl took place between the accused Gajendra Narain Singh @ Gajju and deceased Ram Nayan Singh. He has also argued that the FIR claims that the first firearm shot was fired at the chest of the deceased but later on prosecution resiled from this stand as no firearm injury was found on the chest. 18. Admittedly, deceased Ram Nayan Singh died on account of firearm wounds caused by rifle and shot guns in the morning of date of incident. This fact is supported by the evidence of Dr. V. K. Verma, P.W-5 who conduced the postmortem on the cadaver. Testimony of Dr. 18. Admittedly, deceased Ram Nayan Singh died on account of firearm wounds caused by rifle and shot guns in the morning of date of incident. This fact is supported by the evidence of Dr. V. K. Verma, P.W-5 who conduced the postmortem on the cadaver. Testimony of Dr. V. K. Verma as well as the postmortem report would disclose that the deceased died almost instantaneously in the wake of incident. The deceased received rifle wound on his neck. Six firearm shots of entry on the right side of the neck and exit wound from the left side of the neck resulting in several injuries in trachea, esophagus and damage to the blood vessels. Four firearm wounds of entry were found on the back and several wounds of firearm shots were found on the thigh. A tin piece was also found embedded on the wound of thigh. 19. Learned Trial Judge has concluded that the deceased fell down on the rough ground and if there was a tin piece lying on the earth, it would naturally get embedded on the person of the deceased and that merely presence of tin piece would not create any inconsistency between the oral testimony and medical reports. We have no reason to disagree with the conclusion of the trial judge. 20. Four eye witnesses have deposed before the trial court in a natural and trustworthy manner and narrated the entire incident before the trial court. There is absolutely no reason for them to spare real culprits and to falsely implicate the appellants. Incident occurred in broad daylight. The FIR was lodged within 75 minutes. It is therefore, evident that informant and witnesses did not get any opportunity to concoct the prosecution story or the evidence. Inquest report (Ex-Ka-5) also discloses that corpse of deceased was found on the place of occurrence which also gets support from the sample of blood stained earth taken by the Investigating Officer and analyzed chemically by the forensic lab. There is no dispute about the place of occurrence. We concur with the conclusion of the trial Judge that had the corpse of deceased been transferred from another place to bus stand Rajwari they would have found at least some witnesses to disclose it. There is no dispute about the place of occurrence. We concur with the conclusion of the trial Judge that had the corpse of deceased been transferred from another place to bus stand Rajwari they would have found at least some witnesses to disclose it. It has also come in evidence that Ram Nayan Singh was sitting on a stone bench facing north and as soon as the accused persons opened fire, deceased turned towards west and took few steps towards south and then ran towards hut of tea vendor Raja Ram located towards eastern side. Therefore, Ram Nayan Singh took steps in ante-clock wise manner and this action of deceased Ram Nayan Singh would account for the injuries on the neck as well as on the back because turning in this ante-clock wise fashion would ultimately expose the neck and back of the deceased towards the accused persons who were firing upon the deceased, unmindful of his physical position. We also concur with the conclusion of the trial Judge that the firearm assault was made upon the deceased at the tea shop of Raja Ram and that the deceased took few steps after receiving the injuries, then fell down and expired. We also believe that the place of occurrence has been established by the trustworthy evidence. 21. Learned counsel for the appellant has also argued that the time of death is uncertain because some undigested food was present in the stomach of deceased while fecal matter was also found in the intestine. This argument did not impress the trial judge and has no impact on us as well. The testimony of Dr. V. K. Verma (P.W.-5) has established that only one ounce of digested food was found in the intestine. Fecal matter was also available. The doctor has clarified that the deceased might have eased prior to the incident but failed to evacuate completely or it is also possible that he might have not gone to toilet at all. Evidence suggests that the deceased had returned rather late from a party after taking meals. He came back after midnight, therefore, it is not surprising that little digested food was found in the intestine meaning thereby that almost all digested food had passed into intestine by the time assault was made on deceased. 22. Evidence suggests that the deceased had returned rather late from a party after taking meals. He came back after midnight, therefore, it is not surprising that little digested food was found in the intestine meaning thereby that almost all digested food had passed into intestine by the time assault was made on deceased. 22. The postmortem report has also blown the arguments regarding inconsistency between the medical report and the time of occurrence. Medical reports and the testimony of P.W.-5 Dr. V. K. Verma reveal that the firearm wounds of entry was found on the right side of the back of neck and two firearm wounds of exit were also found on the left side of the neck. Both injuries are corresponding. Four firearm wounds of entry were found on right side at the back and four firearm wounds of entry have been shown on the right upper outer thigh. The nature of injuries and nature of wounds are consistent both with rifle as well as shot gun injuries. Report of doctor indicates two big shots were found in the abdomen cavity which is consistent with suggestion of wounds created by shot gun. The thigh injuries were also caused by shot gun, therefore, use of rifle and shot gun has been amply demonstrated by the prosecution evidence especially the postmortem report and the testimony of the doctor V. K. Verma, P.W.-5. 23. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the FIR (Ex-Ka-1) does not mention use of shot gun and it contains assertion only about rifle and revolver. Therefore, he argued that there is significant inconsistency in the contents of the FIR and the testimony of the witnesses. He has reiterated his argument that the FIR does not contain the details of previous incident, alleged to have occurred 15 minutes prior to the main attack wherein deceased had slapped Late Gajendra Narain Singh @ Gajju (accused). 24. We are afraid that that this attempt to treat the FIR as an encyclopedia is not justified. The FIR was lodged by Ramji Singh (P.W.-1) who had witnessed the incident from a particular place. Most of the ordinary citizen are not even aware of the differences between the shot gun and rifle. The evidence suggests that the incident occurred for merely less than half minute. This disclosure has been made in paragraph no. The FIR was lodged by Ramji Singh (P.W.-1) who had witnessed the incident from a particular place. Most of the ordinary citizen are not even aware of the differences between the shot gun and rifle. The evidence suggests that the incident occurred for merely less than half minute. This disclosure has been made in paragraph no. 25 of the testimony of P.W-1 Ramji Singh meaning thereby that there was no occasion for the witnesses to carefully note the intricacies and complexities of various firearm weapons. The witnesses have also testified that all accused persons immediately left on motorcycle and scooter in the aftermath of the assault. Daring attack was made in broad-day light in presence of several persons. This incident could have frozen anyone. Mental status of person present on the spot could only be guessed. Some of the witnesses present near the deceased might have been fear-stricken and in such a scenario it is unreasonable to seek precise narration from ordinary Village- folks. We are convinced that the FIR need not contain minute details as it is generally recorded under circumstances of haste. It is not necessary that all details given in the sworn testimony in court by informant be given first in the FIR. Entire knowledge of informant is not required to be reflected in the FIR. If we carefully examine all the material on record, it would reveal that the FIR contains all relevant material and further witnesses have testified in a natural, credible and trustworthy manner. 25. The Apex court in Panduranj Chandrakant Mhatre and others, (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 413 has also held that the FIR has a limited value during criminal trial and it merely sets the criminal law in motion. The FIR is not expected to encyclopedia of events. So long, the FIR discloses the commission of cognizable offence and its details, it is sufficient for the purposes of criminal trial. In the present case, the FIR was lodged 75 minutes of the incident containing all major facts regarding the offence. In our opinion failure to mention use of shot gun in FIR is not fatal to the prosecution case. 26. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the witnesses produced by the prosecution are either related to deceased or his family or had antagonistic relationship with the accused. Therefore, their evidence should not be trusted. 27. In our opinion failure to mention use of shot gun in FIR is not fatal to the prosecution case. 26. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the witnesses produced by the prosecution are either related to deceased or his family or had antagonistic relationship with the accused. Therefore, their evidence should not be trusted. 27. We are not impressed by this arguments. Incident of murder usually does not take place amongst friends. Ordinarily, inimical terms or previous litigation or fights of various kind usually result in murder etc. In the instant case, both factors are present. Parties were certainly not on friendly terms. This fact is admitted to both the parties. In addition to that a previous incident took place 15 minutes prior to the main occurrence wherein the deceased slapped accused Gajendra Narain Singh @ Gajju and that perhaps was the immediate motivation for accused to retaliate in the heat of moment. Several eye witnesses have supported the occurrence and their evidence cannot be rejected merely on the ground of friendly relationship with the deceased. 28. In any case, the evidence of witnesses cannot be discarded merely on the ground that they are related or interested. There is no rule of law, which requires rejection of testimony of related witnesses. 29. In Ram Gopal Vs State of Rajasthan (1998) 6 SCC 441 , Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that if witnesses are related to deceased, that is no reasonable ground to discard the testimony of otherwise reliable witnesses. Similarly, in Chapho @ Jakeal Vs Kerala (1998) 6 SCC 602 also, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that in the event independent witnesses are available and yet not produced even then this is not a reasonable ground to discard the testimony of otherwise trustworthy witnesses. Similarly in Pandurang Chandrakant Mhatre and others Vs State of Maharashtra (supra) has held that the dominant question to be considered is whether the witnesses, despite being interested, have spoken the truth and are creditworthy. Once it is found by the court, subsequent to analysis of such evidence that there is no reason to disbelieve such witnesses then the mere fact that the witnesses are interested, is not enough to reject the prosecution case on this ground alone. 30. Once it is found by the court, subsequent to analysis of such evidence that there is no reason to disbelieve such witnesses then the mere fact that the witnesses are interested, is not enough to reject the prosecution case on this ground alone. 30. Hon'ble Supreme Court in common judgment of Hardev Singh Vs Harbhej Singh and others/Suba Singh and others 1997 SCC (cri), has been held that the evidence of close relations cannot be rejected merely on the ground that they happened to be relatives. However, evidence of such witnesses should be scrutinized carefully. If the court is convinced that evidence of such witnesses is sufficient to establish the guilt of accused then the fact of interestedness alone cannot be a ground for rejecting the evidence of prosecution witnesses. 31. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhupendra Singh and others Vs State of UP (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 275, has held that merely because eye witnesses are family members, their evidence cannot per se be discarded. When there is allegations of interestedness, the same has to be established. Mere statement that being relatives of deceased they are likely to falsely implicate accused, cannot be a ground to discard the evidence, which is otherwise cogent and credible. 32. In the present case, bald argument has been raised that the witnesses are related to deceased but that by itself is not evidence of lie. It is the duty of the party claiming partiality to establish the allegations of partisanship. There is no material on record to support the allegations that the informant and the witnesses have allowed the real culprits to go scot-free and falsely implicated the appellants merely on some vague claim of previous enmity. 33. Learned counsel has further raised argument regarding the failure of Investigating Officer to conduct prompt and efficient investigation. This argument need to be examined in the backdrop of allegations of prosecution that I.O. deliberately tried to derail the investigation. Prosecution side has been alleging the bias of Investigating Officer in favour of accused person. It is also argued that the FIR does not contain reference of shot gun. It is stressed on behalf of appellant that the witnesses did not mention this fact even in their statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. These allegations cannot be given undue weights in the backdrop of specific allegations levelled by prosecution against the Investigating Officer right from beginning. It is also argued that the FIR does not contain reference of shot gun. It is stressed on behalf of appellant that the witnesses did not mention this fact even in their statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. These allegations cannot be given undue weights in the backdrop of specific allegations levelled by prosecution against the Investigating Officer right from beginning. Investigating Officer himself has admitted that he wrongly showed Mahua tree in the site plan when there was no Mahua tree on the spot at all. As stated earlier, he did not send relevant record to the court, enabling appellants to secure bail on personal bond. Several other laches have also been pointed out. In any case, faulty investigation by itself cannot be a ground for acquittal of accused. Fact of the matter is that the FIR was lodged promptly. Investigation started early but the complainant did not have any control over the investigating machinery. Argument that the shot gun was not mentioned in the FIR would not effect the prosecution case adversely. 34. The Full Bench of this Court in Gopal and Etc Vs State of UP, 1999 Cr. L. J 2501 has already established the following principle:- "At the very outset, we want to say that it is very easy to find fault with anything. Even accurate computers are prone to commit faults and mistakes. Not only this, human mind cannot be read. Sometimes it works in the direction that it becomes adamant to help one party and tries its level best to spoil the case. It is well known, at least by the police officers, who investigate the case, also know that they should take prompt action and should immediately record the statement of the witnesses. They should not make cuttings and over-writings etc. in the police papers so as to create suspicion about the sanctity of the papers. They should fairly prepare the inquest report and police papers and should write the case diary with accuracy and correctly. These propositions of law and facts cannot be doubted. But if the police officers deliberately sleep over the matter, try to spoil the case and do not record the evidence of the witnesses immediately, the poor dead persons who have been killed cannot come out to say why you are spoiling the case. These propositions of law and facts cannot be doubted. But if the police officers deliberately sleep over the matter, try to spoil the case and do not record the evidence of the witnesses immediately, the poor dead persons who have been killed cannot come out to say why you are spoiling the case. The bereaved family and the witnesses have only to remain silent spectators to what the police officers do. If they intervene, a judicial notice of the fact can be taken that they are humiliated, even beaten and implicated in false cases. Fear of police atrocities keeps them mum. They are also ignorant of the fact that what shall be the effect of delay and discrepancy. Therefore, also, they have nothing to intervene with the investigation. In our view, investigation of the case, if faulty, even mischievous or collusive should not be a ground to reject the ocular testimony of the informant who lodged the F.I.R. promptly. If the FIR is recorded soon or is recorded after four or five hours, why should the prosecution or the persons who have died 'suffer'. Each and every case has to be decided on its intrinsic evidence. If the eye-witnesses are believable the mere weakness of the investigation should not be a ground to reject their testimonies." 35. Apex Court in its judgment Bishundeo Poddar and others Vs The State of Bihar, 2003 Crl. L. J. 1558 has held thus:- "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 evidence ought to have been filed. The fate depends on the evidence which is on record." 36. Similarly, the Apex Court in its judgment of Amar Singh Vs Balwinder Singh, 2003 Crl. L.J. 1282 has held that every failure or omission of Investigating Officer cannot render prosecution case doubtful or unworthy of belief. 37. We may disapprove the lackadaisical attitude of the Investigating Officer but that by itself is not sufficient to warrant acquittal of the appellant. 38. Appellant has also raised plea of alibi on behalf of appellant Late Vikrama Singh @ Vikramaditya Singh and Raj Bahadur Singh @ Raju. Both these appellants have died and therefore we are not concerned with their appeal. No useful purpose would be served by analyzing this plea. 38. Appellant has also raised plea of alibi on behalf of appellant Late Vikrama Singh @ Vikramaditya Singh and Raj Bahadur Singh @ Raju. Both these appellants have died and therefore we are not concerned with their appeal. No useful purpose would be served by analyzing this plea. Suffice is to say that we are in agreement with the finding of the trial court on this score also whereby he has rejected completely the plea of alibi of both late Vikrama Singh @ Vikramaditya Singh and Late Raj Bahadur Singh @ Raju. 39. We have perused the record. Trial Judge has appraised the evidence adroitly. There is nothing on record to show that the conclusions drawn by the trial Judge are not sustainable. 40. In the result, we find that the appellants have rightly been found guilty of offence under Section 302/34 IPC. We, therefore, affirm the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants. The appeal is hereby dismissed. The surviving appellant Surender Singh, if on bail is hereby directed to surrender before the Trial Court within 30 days from the date of this order to serve out the remaining sentence failing which the Trial Court would take steps in accordance with law for bringing him into custody and sending him to serve out the sentence. Let a copy of the order be certified within ten days to the trial court for compliance within 15 days. Trial Court shall report compliance of this judgment within 15 days thereafter.