JUDGMENT : (Delivered by Hon'ble Alok Kumar Mukherjee, J.) 1. Criminal Appeal No. 1013 of 1983 has been filed by the accused appellants; Astafa, Sufian Ahmad, Abdul Rahman, Ubaidur Rahman, Rashiduddin @ Bhullan, Rahim and Anis Ahmad and Criminal Appeal No. 1015 of 1983 has been filed by the remaining accused- appellants Kadiruddin alias Kaddan, Sagiruddin alias Saggan and Haseen challenging the impugned judgment and order dated 22.04.1983 passed in Sessions Trial No. 184 of 1979 (State of U.P. v. Astafa and others); Crime No. 319 of 1978, Police Station Dhoomanganj, District Allahabad whereby the learned VI Additional Sessions Judge, Allahabad had convicted all the accused appellants under Sections 148 and 302 I.P.C. read with Section 149 I.P.C. and sentenced them with three years rigorous imprisonment and a term of imprisonment for life, respectively. Since both these appeals arise out of a common judgment and order dated 22.04.1983, both were connected and heard together. 2. It is relevant to mention that during the pendency of these criminal appeals accused-appellants Abdul Rahman, Rashiduddin @ Bhullan and Anis Ahmad have died in Criminal Appeal No. 1013 of 1983 and in Criminal Appeal No. 1015 of 1983, accused-appellants Kadiruddin alias Kaddan and Sagiruddin alias Saggan have died. Therefore, the appeals filed on their behalf stand abated vide order dated 16.02.2016 passed by coordinate Bench of this Court and these appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment only for the remaining surviving accused appellants Astafa, Sufian Ahmad, Ubaidur Rahman, Rahim and Haseen. 3. In brief, prosecution case is that the informant Abdul Moid @ Nanhe son of Abdul Rauf, village Mariyadeeh, P.S. Dhoomanganj, District Allahabad lodged an F.I.R. on 28.09.1978 at about 18:30 hours (6.30 P.M.) at Police Station Dhoomanganj, District Allahabad stating therein that the informant, deceased and other eye witnesses as well as the accused persons/appellants are the residents of the same village, which is a faction-ridden village and that all the accused persons/appellants are related to each other. Prior to this incident, a Criminal Case under section 107/116 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short "the Code") was pending between the accused persons on one side and the deceased Mohd. Ilyas alias Illa on the other side. During the pendency of the aforementioned case, it is alleged that the deceased Mohd. Illiyas @ Illa had fired on the appellants Astafa and his brother Nafees. Ilyas alias Illa on the other side. During the pendency of the aforementioned case, it is alleged that the deceased Mohd. Illiyas @ Illa had fired on the appellants Astafa and his brother Nafees. Consequently, a case for the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. was registered against the deceased and he was taken under custody. Subsequently, he was released on bail by the High Court only about 20 days before this incident. 4. In such a situation, the rivalry between both the groups was mounting and the appellants were getting infuriated. On the fateful evening of 28.09.1978 at about 5.30 P.M., when Abdul Moid @ Nanhey, son of Abdul Rauf (PW-1), his brother Hammad Ahmad @ Chhuttan (PW-4), Gayas, son of Mohd. Illiyas were operating the fodder cutting machine and Mohd. Illiyas (deceased) and Ziauddin son of Abdulla (PW-2) were sitting at a Chabutara in front of the house of Rashid, son of Abdul Rauf, in village Abadi and were talking to each other, the appellants Astafa and Sufiyan having DBBL guns, Abdul Rahman and Rashiduddin @ Bhullan having SBBL guns and Ubaidur Rahman, wielding a country made pistol, suddenly arrived at the scene from the north while the remaining five appellants Kadiruddin @ Kaddan, Sagiruddin @ Saggan and Haseen, holding rifles and appellants Abdul Rahim and Anees Ahmad having country made pistols reached there from the west and they surrounded the deceased Mohd. Illiyas alias Illa from both sides. 5. Thereafter, the appellants Rashiduddin @ Bhullan and Sagiruddin @ Saggan, exhorted the rest of the appellants to kill the deceased Mohd. Illiyas alias Illa; whereupon, Abdul Moid @ Nanhey (PW-1) apprehending the gravity of the situation, suggested to Mohd. Illiyas alias Illa to run away. Consequently, Mohd. Illiyas alias Illa ran towards the agricultural field but the appellants began to chase him. Mohd. Illiyas @ Illa then started running in a zig-zag manner towards the tube-well of Badalu in the east but the appellants/accused persons while chasing the deceased started firing at him. The witnesses Abdul Moid @ Nanhey (PW-1), Ziauddin (PW-2) and others present there also followed the appellants, raising an alarm. Meanwhile, the deceased Mohd. Illiyas alias Illa fell down in the field of Munnan, after which all the appellants fired at Mohd. Illiyas alias Illa and killed him on the spot, despite the hue and cry of the witnesses. The witnesses Abdul Moid @ Nanhey (PW-1), Ziauddin (PW-2) and others present there also followed the appellants, raising an alarm. Meanwhile, the deceased Mohd. Illiyas alias Illa fell down in the field of Munnan, after which all the appellants fired at Mohd. Illiyas alias Illa and killed him on the spot, despite the hue and cry of the witnesses. The witness Anwar son of Puddan (PW-3) of the same village, who was grazing his cattle nearby at the time of incident, also yelled and witnessed the said ruthless incident. 6. Subsequently, infuriated by the alarm raised by the witnesses, the appellants Rashiduddin @ Bhullan exhorted the accused persons/appellants to chase the witnesses with a view to kill them. During the firing by the appellants, which was done with a view to prevent the witnesses, from reaching towards them or helping the deceased, one of the shots from the remaining appellants hit the appellant Ubaidur Rahman and he got injured. The rest of the appellants, thereafter, by lifting the injured-appellant Ubaidur Rahman, managed to escape from the site and proceeded towards the south. On hearing the said hue and cry, other villagers also rushed to the spot where the body of the deceased was lying. 7. The informant Abdul Moin @ Nanhe (PW-1) dictated the written report, (Ext. Ka-1) to his brother Hammad Ahamad @ Chhuttan (PW.-4) and lodged the first information report (Ext.Ka-18) with the local police, P.S. Dhoomanganj, Allahabad at about 6.30 p.m. on the same day. On the said written report (Ext. Ka-1) the Head Muharrir Rama Shankar Pandey (PW 3) of the said police station lodged the said FIR, registered criminal case at Crime No. 319 for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 302 I.P.C. against all the aforementioned accused persons/appellants and entered the substance of the same at entry No. 45 of the G.D. (general diary) (Ext. Ka-19), arrival of the injured-appellant at entry no. 46 of the G.D. (Ext.Ka-20) and dispatch of the special report through entry no. 47 of the G.D., on the same night at 6.30 P.M., 6.50 P.M. and 7.10 P.M., respectively. 8. Meanwhile on getting the information of this incident of firing, the then police patrol party of the area, immediately rushed to the spot. 46 of the G.D. (Ext.Ka-20) and dispatch of the special report through entry no. 47 of the G.D., on the same night at 6.30 P.M., 6.50 P.M. and 7.10 P.M., respectively. 8. Meanwhile on getting the information of this incident of firing, the then police patrol party of the area, immediately rushed to the spot. The Head Constable Shyam Nath Mishra (PW-5) and constable Shiv Kumar were then deputed by the head of the police party to search for the accused persons/appellants and during the said search, they picked up Ubaidur Rahman appellant, when he was being taken away by the other appellants with a view to rescue him. He was then brought to the police station Dhoomanganj at 6.50 p.m. on the same day. Head of the said patrol party, Sri V.B. Singh, S.I. (P.W.-12), who was present on the spot, entrusted with the investigation, conducted the inquest proceedings/report (Ext. Ka-6) of the dead body of the deceased Mohd. Illiyas @ Illa from 8.30 to 10.30 p.m. on the same night and also executed other proceedings/papers (Ext. Ka-7 to Ext. Ka-12) expected in this regard as per law, prepared recovery memos (Ext. Ka- 13 to Ext. Ka- 15) of the material (Ext.-6 to Ext.-14) and sent the body of the deceased for postmortem. 9. Dr. M.D. Mishra, Medical Officer, Moti Lal Nehru Hospital, Allahabad (P.W.-10) conducted the autopsy at 2.00 p.m. on 29.09.1978 and prepared the postmortem report of the said corpse (Ext. Ka-3). After recording the statement of the witnesses and preparing the site plan (Ext. Ka-16), the Investigation Officer submitted the charge-sheet (Ext. Ka-17) after concluding the investigation against all the appellants/accused persons under the aforementioned offences on 21.11.1978. Challani reports dated 10.11.1977 and 31.05.1978 (Ext. Ka-22 and Ext. Ka-21), respectively were also filed by the prosecution. 10. The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad, vide order dated 02.06.1979, committed the case to the Court of Sessions for trial of all the appellants/accused persons. 11. The learned trial judge framed the charges against all the appellants for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C. The appellants/accused persons denied all the charges and claimed to be tried. 12. During the course of trial as many as 14 witnesses were either examined by the prosecution or their affidavits were filed, viz. 11. The learned trial judge framed the charges against all the appellants for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C. The appellants/accused persons denied all the charges and claimed to be tried. 12. During the course of trial as many as 14 witnesses were either examined by the prosecution or their affidavits were filed, viz. PW1 Abdul Moid, PW2 Ziauddin, PW3 Anwar Ahmad, PW4 Hammad Ahmad, PW5 Head Constable Shyam Nath Mishra, PW6 Affidavit of Constable 835 Ram Murti Singh, PW7 Affidavit of Constable 504 Nankoo Singh-Assistant Moharrir, PW8 Affidavit of Constable 579 Vijay Narain Dixit, PW9 Constable 291 Rama Kant Tiwari, PW10 Dr. M.D.Mishra, PW 11 Masiuddin, PW12 Vishwa Bhushan Singh, I.O., PW13 Head Constable 7 Rama Shankar Pandey, PW14 Affidavit of Constable 216 Radhey Shyam Chaudhary. 13. Thereafter, the statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. of the accused persons/appellants were recorded. In the said statements, the appellants after denying the entire incident, had contended that they had been falsely implicated in this case only due to enmity. Some of them also pleaded that the local police in collusion with the informant party had favoured them. The injured appellant Ubaidur Rahman, who was picked up by the police party from nearby the place of occurrence on the same night, has disclosed a different story which says that actually he was fired at and injured by the rival group of Banney and others and on the said firing the shots fired by the assailants had hit the deceased Mohd. Illiyas alias Illa also. The said appellant was also medically examined (injury report Ext. Kha-2) and operated for the said injury. It is brought on record, that one month before recording of the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he filed a complaint in the Court of the concerned Magistrate about the said occurrence alleging that the local police had favoured the informant side and did not listen to the accused side. 14. Similarly, one appellant Rashiduddin @ Bhullan has stated that on the date of the occurrence at about 3.00 or 4.00 p.m., he was in his office situated at Colonelganj, Allahabad. His son Sufian was present in his house. After recording the statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused persons/appellants were provided with an opportunity to file evidence in defence. Except for a certified copy of bail order dated 04.09.1979 (Ext. His son Sufian was present in his house. After recording the statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused persons/appellants were provided with an opportunity to file evidence in defence. Except for a certified copy of bail order dated 04.09.1979 (Ext. Kha-1) and a copy of the injury report of the appellant/ accused Ubaidur Rahman (Ext. Kha-2), whose genuineness had been admitted by the side of the prosecution, they neither filed any other documentary evidence nor adduced any oral evidence, especially in support of their alleged cross case (in the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. of the appellant Ubaidur Rahman) or the plea of alibi (putforth by the appellant Rashiduddin @ Bhullan in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.). 15. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, the learned trial judge found that there is sufficient evidence against all the accused persons/appellants for the offences under Sections 148 and 302 I.P.C. read with 149 I.P.C. Therefore, he convicted all the accused persons/appellants under the aforesaid offences and sentenced them accordingly, as enumerated above, by the impugned judgment and order. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order, these appeals have been preferred by the appellants. 16. As stated above, the appeals against the accused persons/appellants Abdul Rahman, Rashiduddin @ Bhullan, Anis Ahmad, Kadiruddin @ Kaddan and Sagiruddin @ Saggan who have died, stand abated. Therefore, this Court is only concerned with the surviving appellants Astafa, Sufian Ahmad, Ubaidur Rahman, Rahim and Haseen Ahmad. 17. Heard Sri Gajendra Pratap, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri S.P. Srivastava, Advocate, Sri Dilip Kumar, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Rajrshi Gupta, Sri B.P. Tiwari, learned counsel for appellants and Shri Kamal Krishna, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Muqeem Ahmad, learned counsel for the informant as well as Shri Rajiv Kumar Mishra, learned AGA for the State. 18. On behalf of the surviving appellants it has been argued that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the alleged motive of the case. Only highly inimical and interested/related witnesses having criminal history, whose presence on the place of occurrence is wholly doubtful, improbable and unnatural were examined. Similarly prosecution has failed to examine any independent witness of the locality. Due to enmity and village rivalry (party bandi) the entire prosecution story was cooked up by the rival group of the appellants with the connivance of the local police. Similarly prosecution has failed to examine any independent witness of the locality. Due to enmity and village rivalry (party bandi) the entire prosecution story was cooked up by the rival group of the appellants with the connivance of the local police. F.I.R. was ante-timed, genesis of the occurrence was entirely different. Actually the deceased having criminal antecedents died due to the incident in the cross case in which appellant Ubaidur Rahman got injured. Injury to the appellant/accused Ubaidur Rahman has not been properly explained by the prosecution. 19. Further, it is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that there is major contradiction in the ocular and medical evidence. The entire incident as alleged is not probable and is unnatural. Anwar Ahmad (PW3) is a chance witness and his testimony cannot be believed. They further contended that the doctor has not found any injury which would have been inflicted by a rifle, which itself shows the false implication of the appellants. Recovered bullets etc. have not been connected with the alleged rifles. The entire investigation is tainted as well as faulty; delayed recording of statement of the eye witnesses smacks of manipulation and appellants' names figured in the F.I.R. due to long standing enmity between the parties. Manipulation also has been effected in the inquest report. At the time when police reached the spot they did not find either the informant or the witnesses, which also cast doubt on the prosecution story. Prosecution has not examined Rashid, who was the most material witness, withholding of whom creates reasonable doubt on the prosecution story. 20. Refuting all the arguments advanced by the side of the appellants, the learned counsel for the informant and the learned AGA for the State have contended that in a faction-ridden village when two rival groups are involved in this type of criminal incident, generally other villagers do not come forward to adduce evidence. Therefore, the prosecution has examined the persons related to the deceased/rival party, whose presence cannot be doubted. However, the prosecution has also examined one independent witness Anwar Ahmad (PW3), who is a trustworthy witness. The statements of the other eye witnesses PW1, PW2, PW4, who are related to the deceased and alleged to be inimical witnesses, are in consonance with the statement of the independent witness Anwar Ahmad (PW3). 21. However, the prosecution has also examined one independent witness Anwar Ahmad (PW3), who is a trustworthy witness. The statements of the other eye witnesses PW1, PW2, PW4, who are related to the deceased and alleged to be inimical witnesses, are in consonance with the statement of the independent witness Anwar Ahmad (PW3). 21. They also submitted that the cross case, as alleged by the appellant Ubaidur Rahman was neither suggested to the witnesses during cross examination nor any oral or documentary evidence thereof has been adduced by the defence despite opportunity given to them. Even Ubaidur Rahman in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has not disclosed the details of the incident of the alleged cross case for reasons best known to him. In the said statement, in question no.14 with regard to the injury caused to him in the occurrence, as alleged by the prosecution, he has simply given an evasive denial. It is further contended that in this kind of incident of indiscriminate firing, it is impossible for the eye witnesses to prove as to whose gun- shot caused injury on which part of the body of the deceased. The alleged cross case is neither probable nor natural but appears to be an afterthought or a manufactured case, which ended in acquittal. No appeal has been preferred by the appellant Ubaidur Rahman or any other co-appellant against the said acquittal. Only one firearm injury was present on the body of the accused appellant Ubaidur Rahman and that, too has been duly explained by the prosecution. The previous enmity/motive has been stated from the very beginning in the FIR and proved by the witnesses, which the defence has also admitted. 22. They further argued that it is a day-light incident of murder, the unshaken testimony of trustworthy eye witnesses coupled with the medical evidence, site plan and other documents filed and proved by the prosecution, the incident and the charges framed against the accused persons/appellants have been duly proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. The FIR was prompt and proved by the witnesses and there is no material irregularity, error or omission in the investigation of this case, which was also promptly started. There is no material contradiction in the ocular and medical evidence in this case. The arguments advanced by the appellants contrary to it are misconceived. The FIR was prompt and proved by the witnesses and there is no material irregularity, error or omission in the investigation of this case, which was also promptly started. There is no material contradiction in the ocular and medical evidence in this case. The arguments advanced by the appellants contrary to it are misconceived. All the eye witnesses tried their level best to prove the motive as well as the date, time, place, the sequence of the entire incident and the involvement of all the firearms, which were used by the appellants. They also explained the injury caused to the appellant Ubaidur Rahman. The learned Additional Sessions Judge by a reasoned judgment and order has convicted and sentenced all the accused persons and there is no scope for interference by this appellate Court in the impugned judgment and order. 23. Before entering into the merit of the appeals, we would like to recall the observation made by the Apex Court in the case of Ishvarbhai Fuljibhai Patni Vs. State of Gujarat [1995 Supreme Court Cases (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. 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." 24. 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." 24. In the case of Lal Mandi, Appellant v. State of West Bengal, Respondent [1995 CRI.L.J.2659 (Supreme Court), 2659], the Apex Court in para-5 of the report has given caution to the High Court reminding it of 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. 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." 25. Hence 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. 26. Firstly, we would like to have a glance at the medical evidence, which is in the form of statement of Dr. M.D.Mishra (PW10) and postmortem report (Ext. Ka-3) as also the injury report (Ext. Kha-2) of the injured appellant Ubaidur Rahman. Though on behalf of the appellants murder of Illiyas @ Illa and the injury of the said appellant have not been disputed, even then as an Appellate Court we are duty-bound to examine whether any offence is committed and if so by whom. 27. Dr. M.D. Mishra (PW10) the then Medical Officer, Moti Lal Nehru Hospital, Allahabad has stated that at about 2.00 p.m. on 29.09.1978 he had conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of Mohd. Illiyas @ Illa aged about 35 years and had found the following ante-mortem injuries :- (1) Firearm wound 2?x2? x brain deep on the right side of the head just above the right ear. Margins lacerated and inverted. Blackening 1? around the wound present. (2) Firarm wound 2½? x 2½? x brain deep on the bridge of nose extending up to right eye. Margins lacerated and averted. Injury nos. 1 and 2 were interconnected. (3) Firearm wound 1?x1?x bone deep on the right side face, 2? outer to the right angle of mouth. Margins lacerated and inverted. Blackening 1? around the wound present. (4) Firearm wound 3? x 1½? x muscle on the top of right shoulder. Margins were lacerated and blackening 1? around the wound present. (5) Six firearm wounds, each 1/10? x 1/10? x muscle deep on the right side chest and shoulder in the area of 6?x6?, each wound is 2?- 3? apart from each other. Margins were lacerated and inverted. x 1½? x muscle on the top of right shoulder. Margins were lacerated and blackening 1? around the wound present. (5) Six firearm wounds, each 1/10? x 1/10? x muscle deep on the right side chest and shoulder in the area of 6?x6?, each wound is 2?- 3? apart from each other. Margins were lacerated and inverted. (6) Five firearm wounds in front of arm and shoulder each 1/10? x 1/10? flesh deep each 2?-3? apart from each other. Margins were lacerated and inverted. (7) Firearm wound 1-1/2? x 1-1/2?x cavity deep on the left side of abdomen, 5? above pubic sypmphysis. Margins were inverted and lacerated. 1? blackening found around this wound. Atop of it a piece of small intestine protruding out of wound. 28. The autopsy report and the injuries on the dead body of the deceased Iliyas alias Illa reveals by Dr. M.D. Mishra, as under: (1) Skull bone broken into pieces and some part of the brain matter was protruding out. (2) Two card bound wading, two big pellets and five small pellets were found in the brain matter, which were removed and later on sealed by the aforesaid doctor. (3) Right jaw bone and right maxillary bone were broken. (4) Stomach and small intestine were empty while the large intestine contained faecal matter. (5) Peritoneum lacerated. (6) One card bound wading and seven small pellets were found in the abdomen, which were removed by the doctor. (7) Seven small pellets from the muscles of the chest and arms and seven small pellets from the abdomen were found and removed by the doctor from the body of the deceased. (8) Abdominal cavity contained 5% of coagulated and non-coagulated blood. 29. The doctor (P.W.10) opined that all the above-mentioned ante mortem injuries might be caused a day prior to the medical examination of the deceased, i.e., on the very day of the incident i.e. 28.09.1978 approximately between 5.00 P.M. to 5.30 P.M. He further opined that the spontaneous death of the deceased Mohd Ilyas alias Illa might be caused due to sudden shock and haemorrhage, resulting in the ante mortem injuries. In the cross-examination Dr. M.D. Mishra clarified that the aforesaid ante mortem injuries might be the result of four or five shots made by the firearms and not by rifles. In the cross-examination Dr. M.D. Mishra clarified that the aforesaid ante mortem injuries might be the result of four or five shots made by the firearms and not by rifles. He further stated in the same cross examination that there might a difference of six to seven hours on either side in the aforesaid time duration of the ante mortem injuries, as referred to in the autopsy report. 30. Similarly, while conducting the medical examination of injured accused Ubaidur Rahman, the Emergency Medical Officer (Akasmik Chikitsa Adhikari), S.R.N. Hospital, Allahabad on 28.09.1978 (the date of alleged incident) at about 7.30 P.M., found the following injuries on the person of the injured appellant Ubaidur Rahman and prepared the injury report (Ext. Kha-2), genuineness of which had been admitted by the prosecution under section 294 Cr. P.C.:- (1) One firearm wound (wound of entry), 1 cm x 1 cm x depth could not be ascertained present and to be proved by Surgeon, 1-1/2? below the xiphisternum in upper abdomen. Fresh bleeding present. No blackening and charring were present on the person of the injured. (2) One lacerated wound (wound of exit), wound 2 cm x 2 cm x depth could not be ascertained and to be proved by Surgeon in (right side) back ; 4½? below lower angle right scapula in the right side of the vertical column. Fresh bleeding present. No blackening and charring present. 31. From a perusal of the aforesaid injuries, it is quite clear that there is only one firearm wound on the person of the injured accused/appellant Ubaidur Rahman. 32. Non-rebuttal by the defence on the issue of alternative place and time of the alleged incident establishes that Mohd Ilyas alis Illa (deceased) and accused no. 4 Ubaidur Rahman (injured) received injuries at the same time on the same date on the alleged place of occurrence. 33. It is admitted by both the rival parties that there was enmity between them prior to the alleged incident and a criminal case was also instituted against Mohd Ilyas (now deceased) and others by the appellant's side in the lower court, wherein Mohd. Ilyas (now deceased) and other accused persons were released on bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 09.05.1983 (copy annexed as page no. 195 of the instant appeal). 34. Now we will deal with the ocular version of the occurrence. Ilyas (now deceased) and other accused persons were released on bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 09.05.1983 (copy annexed as page no. 195 of the instant appeal). 34. Now we will deal with the ocular version of the occurrence. In this regard on behalf of the prosecution, out of five direct ocular witnesses, four were examined. 35. We have scanned the testimony of all the witnesses available on record with due care and caution. From a bare perusal of the evidence of P.W.-1 Abdul Moid alias Nanhe, the informant, it is evident that he has corroborated the entire prosecution story narrated in his written report (Ext. Ka-1). Describing vividly the old-standing enmity between the rival parties, who are the residents of the same faction-ridden village and the recent fallout of the enmity between the appellant Sagiruddin alias Saggan and the deceased Mohd. Ilyas alias Illa, he also narrated in detail the inter-se relationships between all the ten appellants and his relationship with the deceased. He further stated that in the recent criminal case under Section 307 IPC between the said rival, when the deceased was granted bail about twenty days back from the date of the incident, it led to further rivalry between the two groups and the appellants, being enraged by it, resorted to this incident. Presence of the factional rivalry has already been admitted by the side of the appellants in their statements recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. 36. Corroborating the date, time and place of the occurrence in his statement, the informant narrated the prosecution story that his brother PW-4 Hammad Ahmad alias Chhottan and one Gayas were operating a fodder cutting machine at the time of the incident and the deceased along with PW-2 Ziauddin were sitting at a nearby Chabutara in front of the house of Rashid, when the appellants, wielding different types of firearms (described as shown in the FIR), reached the place of occurrence, in two groups, from the North and West and tried to surround the deceased from both the sides. Thereafter, the appellants Rashiduddin alias Bhullan and Sagiruddin alias Saggan exhorted the rest of the appellants to kill the deceased. 37. Then on apprehending the situation, PW 1 Abdul Moid told the deceased, Mohd. Thereafter, the appellants Rashiduddin alias Bhullan and Sagiruddin alias Saggan exhorted the rest of the appellants to kill the deceased. 37. Then on apprehending the situation, PW 1 Abdul Moid told the deceased, Mohd. Ilyas alias Illa to run; consequently he ran towards the East in the agricultural field, but the appellants did not stop there, they started chasing the deceased, who tried to defend himself by running left and right, in a zig-zag manner; but the appellants further chased him by firing stray shots at him. In such a situation, the informant along with other witnesses (PW-2 Ziauddin, PW-4 Hammad Ahmad and Gayas) also followed the appellants from behind, raising an alarm. While running for safety, the deceased fell in the field of one Munnan, whereupon all the appellants fired at the deceased, some of them (namely Anis, Raheem and Ubaidur Rahman) from a very close range and killed Mohd. Ilyas alias Illa on the spot. At the time of the alleged incident PW-3 Anwar of the same village, who was grazing his cattle nearby at the relevant time, had also witnessed the gruesome murder. 38. Informant PW-1 Abdul Moid further stated that even then the appellants did not stop and they got infuriated on raising of alarm by the aforesaid four witnesses (PW1 Abdul Moid, PW2 Ziauddin, PW4 Hammad Ahmad and one Gayas). Consequently, on the exhortation of Rashiduddin alias Bhullan, the rest of the appellants then started chasing the said witnesses with a view to prevent them from reaching near the deceased or towards the appellants and resorted to indiscriminate firing. In the course of the said firing, one of the shots hit the appellant Ubaidur Rahman and he got injured. Thereafter, the remaining appellants by lifting the said injured appellant, managed to escape from the spot by fleeing towards the South. On hearing the hue and cry and the gun shots, other villagers reached at the spot. Informant PW-1 Abdul Moid has also proved the written report (Ex. Ka-1) by stating that it was prepared on his dictation by his brother (PW-4 Hammad Ahmad alias Chhuttan) and he lodged the FIR at about 6.30 P.M. on the same day. He also identified the clothes of the deceased (Ext. 1 to 3) worn at the time of the incident. 39. Ka-1) by stating that it was prepared on his dictation by his brother (PW-4 Hammad Ahmad alias Chhuttan) and he lodged the FIR at about 6.30 P.M. on the same day. He also identified the clothes of the deceased (Ext. 1 to 3) worn at the time of the incident. 39. The defence cross examined PW1- Abdul Moid (informant) for several days but he stood intact to lengthy and searching cross examination. During the entire length of his cross-examination, he corroborated the complete prosecution story right from the long-standing enmity between the parties, inter-se relationships, alleged motive for the murder, specific role assigned to each of the appellants, their respective weapons, details of the scuffle, manner of assault to the injuries sustained by the deceased and by the injured-appellant Ubaidur Rahman, by giving cogent explanation of his injuries as well as the investigation proceedings conducted thereafter. In his entire cross-examination, there appears to be no material contradiction regarding the incident in question or the reason for his presence at the time of the incident, which affects the root of the prosecution story. 40. Similarly, other eye witnesses i.e. PW-2 Ziauddin, PW-3 Anwar Ahmad and PW-4 Hammad Ahmad alias Chhuttan also corroborated the prosecution story right from the long-standing enmity between the parties, motive for the crime upto preparation of the written report (Ext. Ka-1), respectively. Barring minor contradictions, there is no material contradiction, embellishment or exaggeration in their inter-se evidence of the aforesaid eye witnesses. Their presence at the spot and witnessing of the entire incident cannot be doubted and is very natural and probable. 41. It appears from the record that the appellants/defence tried to project a cross-case in the matter, but on bare perusal of the evidence on record, it appears that the defence had suggested this alleged cross-case only to the informant and did not dare to float the suggestion to other ocular witnesses (PW2, PW3 and PW4). In their statements recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C., only the accused appellant Udaibur Rahman had tried to place the theory of cross-case in a very subtle/casual manner and not even stated by the other appellants. In their statements recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C., only the accused appellant Udaibur Rahman had tried to place the theory of cross-case in a very subtle/casual manner and not even stated by the other appellants. Therefore, it appears that the theory of cross case and the injury on the body of the appellant Ubaidur Rahman alleged to be inflicted by Banney (son of the informant) and others, as alleged by the defence, is an after-thought, cooked up story half heartedly pursued by the defence. Neither was the said cross case theory clearly and effectively placed by them nor was any cogent evidence shown or furnished by them on record to prove the same. As such it appears that the said cross case was put forth by the defence only to wriggle out from the clutches of the prosecution in this case. 42. Further, the prosecution has examined P.W.5 - 112 Head Constable Shyam Nath Mishra, who was then posted at outpost Bamrauli, Police Station Dhoomanganj, District Allahabad. In his statement PW-5 has stated that on the day of the incident i.e. 28.09.1978, at about 5.45/6.00 P.M. after making entry of departure from the concerned police post, he along with Investigating Officer/ Incharge Police Outpost V.B. Singh, Constable Sudarshan Singh, Shiv Kumar and Ramakant Tiwari proceeded for patrolling duty and while reaching the Central Aviation Training Centre (in short "C.A.T.C") in the evening, they were informed by a child that shooting had taken place in Mariyadeeh, Ilyas had been murdered and that his dead body was lying near a culvert (Nala). 43. PW5 further stated that soon thereafter they rushed to the place of occurrence and found the dead body of the deceased Ilyas, at a distance of about four furlongs from the place, where they got information of the firing. On the direction of the Sub-Inspector, he along with Constable Shiv Kumar started hunting for the accused persons. While searching in the East, they met the injured accused Ubaidur Rahman, within a distance of about one or one and half furlongs from the dead body, who was being lifted by three other persons. On seeing the police personnel, all the persons left the injured Ubaidur Rahman and fled away. The aforesaid police personnel then took the injured Ubaidur Rahman to the Police Station, which was about 2.45 kms from the place of occurrence. On seeing the police personnel, all the persons left the injured Ubaidur Rahman and fled away. The aforesaid police personnel then took the injured Ubaidur Rahman to the Police Station, which was about 2.45 kms from the place of occurrence. After, making the entries in the General Diary (in short "G.D.") and receiving a letter for injury report (chitthi majroobi), they took the injured to the hospital concerned, where he remained in their supervision. The witness was cross-examined at length but there appears to be no material contradiction or irregularity in his testimony which could shed any doubt over the prosecution story. This evidence has further fortified the entire ocular testimony adduced by the prosecution. 44. In addition to it, on behalf of the prosecution, evidence on affidavit of PW-6 Constable 835 Ram Murti Singh, PW-7 Constable 504 Nanhku Singh, PW- 8 Constable 579 Vijay Narayan Dixit, PW-9 Constable 291 Ramakant Tiwari, PW-11 Masiuddin, PW-14 Constable 216 Radhey Shyam Chaudhary etc., were filed to prove the 'link evidence' pertaining to transmitting the dead body of the deceased to the mortuary for post mortem, receiving and keeping in 'maalkhana' the recovered material from the place of occurrence as well as from the concerned hospital and sending and receiving from the chemical examiner, Agra etc. and the copies of the concerned G.D., but out of them, the defence has cross-examined only PW-9 Constable 291 Ramakant Tiwari and PW-11 Masiuddin (witnesses to the inquest proceedings). In their cross-examination, the said witnesses have reiterated the facts narrated in their respective affidavits and proved the concerned documents, which reveals that entire proceedings, with regard to the inquest, transmitting the corpse to the mortuary and thereafter up to the post mortem as well as G.D. dated 29.08.1976 report no. 29 at 12.10 P.M. (annexure no. 1 to the said affidavit of PW 14), were conducted according to the prescribed procedure in law. There is nothing in their respective statements and the record which may leave room for doubt in the prosecution story or propriety of the police and medical proceedings in this case. 45. The testimony of PW-10 Dr. S.D. Mishra and the post mortem examination report of the deceased (Ext. Ka-3) as well as the pellets of different sizes, wards etc., recovered from the body of the deceased (Ext.-4 and Ext.-5), which were sealed in two envelopes (Ext. Ka- 4 and Ext. 45. The testimony of PW-10 Dr. S.D. Mishra and the post mortem examination report of the deceased (Ext. Ka-3) as well as the pellets of different sizes, wards etc., recovered from the body of the deceased (Ext.-4 and Ext.-5), which were sealed in two envelopes (Ext. Ka- 4 and Ext. Ka- 5), also establish the fact that the deceased died due to multiple fire shot injuries, some of them from very close range and his death was neither natural nor accidental. Different sizes of multiple pellets and wards were recovered from the different parts of the dead body and multiple fractures were present on the head of the deceased, so much so that his brain matter was protruding out. According to the aforesaid doctor (PW-10), the firearm injuries were sufficient for causing death of the deceased, therefore, medical evidence also corroborates the prosecution story. 46. Similarly, all the police papers (Ext. Ka-1,2 and 6 to 22), site plan prepared by the Investigating Officer (Ext. Ka-16), inquest report (Exhibit Ka-6) and all the recovered material (Ext. 1 to 14), also support the prosecution case. P.W.-11 Masiuddin, who is the witness of inquest report (Ext. Ka-6) in this case, has stated that on 28.09.1978 at about 8.30 P.M., the dead body of Mohd Ilyas alias Illa was lying in the field of one Munnan of his village and the Investigating Officer (PW-12) inspected the corpse, prepared the Inquest report (Ext. Ka-6), in the presence of panch, i.e., he and other witnesses Ansar, Ilhaq Ghulam, Mohiuddin and Gulphul. He further stated that the aforesaid inquest proceedings were completed by the Investigating Officer in the night, at the place of the incident, till 10.30 P.M., and after preparation of the inquest report, the Investigating Officer had read it out to them and they put their signatures etc., after hearing the same. Thereafter, he handed over the corpse to the constables present there for carrying it for postmortem. The witness was cross-examined by the defence but there is nothing in his cross-examination, which may cast any doubt either in the prosecution story or the police proceedings in this case. 47. Further, P.W. 12 S.O. Vishwa Bhushan Singh, the then Police Outpost Incharge Bamrauli, Police Station Dhoomanganj, Allahabad who was the Investigating Officer in this case, has also been examined by the prosecution. 47. Further, P.W. 12 S.O. Vishwa Bhushan Singh, the then Police Outpost Incharge Bamrauli, Police Station Dhoomanganj, Allahabad who was the Investigating Officer in this case, has also been examined by the prosecution. In his testimony, he has narrated the entire police/investigation proceedings (in detail) that took place in this case. He also stated that while they were patrolling at the gate of C.A.T.C, they received information about this incident. Then he along with other police personnel and Head Constable Shyam Nath Mishra reached the spot and deployed some policemen of the party for tracing the accused persons. Meanwhile, one Constable Shriram Tiwari reached there along with relevant papers for entrusting him the investigation in this case. He, after making arrangement for patromex, initiated the inquest proceedings in presence of some of the persons gathered there. He proved the inquest report (Ext.Ka-6), sketch of the dead body, challan nash, sample seal, letters to the Chief Medical Officer and R.I. (Ext. Ka-7 and Ext. Ka-12), which were prepared by him at the spot. He also proved the proceedings pertaining to sealing of the dead body of the deceased and sending it for postmortem. 48. The Investigating Officer (P.W.-12) further stated that he recovered two empty cartridges, one bullet of rifle, 10 bullets of 12 bore gun from the spot and one bullet and 10 pellets beneath the head of the dead body. Even one chawwani coin in the moulded state was also recovered from the spot and for which he prepared the memo of recovery (Ext. Ka-13). He further proved the aforementioned materials (Ext. Ka-6 to 9) recovered at the spot and placed the same before the trial court. He also proved the memos of plain earth and blood stained earth (Ext.-10 and 11) taken by him along with recovery memo (Ext. Ka-14 and Ka-15). He further stated that he had recorded the statements of witnesses of inquest proceeding, informant, P.W. -1, Abdul Moid and P.W. 4 Hammad Ahmad alias Chhuttan on the same day and prepared the site plan on the pointing out of the informant. He proved the aforesaid site plan (Ext.Ka-16) and stated that the main place of the occurrence was out of the Abadi area of the village which was about 200 paces from the house of the Rashid, i.e., the place from where this incident began. He proved the aforesaid site plan (Ext.Ka-16) and stated that the main place of the occurrence was out of the Abadi area of the village which was about 200 paces from the house of the Rashid, i.e., the place from where this incident began. Also proved the transmission of special report on the day of the incident itself at 7.10 P.M. through constable Mitthulal at G.D. Report no. 47. 49. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer (P.W.-12) proved the remaining investigation proceedings and stated that he sent the recovered material for chemical examination before filing the charge sheet (Ext. Ka-17) against all the accused persons. He has also proved that the injured appellant Ubaidur Rahman, was apprehended near the place of occurrence by the police personnel deployed by him while he was being carried away by other appellants. According to him, neither any other ocular witness was available on the place of occurrence nor was found during the entire investigation. After careful scrutiny of his testimony, we noticed that the Investigating Officer had fairly stood to the stiff and lengthy cross examination of the defence. In his unshaken testimony no material contradiction appears which may discredit the investigation. Therefore, the evidence of direct ocular witnesses gets corroborated by his statement. 50. Lastly, the prosecution has examined P.W. 13 Head Constable No. 7 Ramashanker Pandey, the then Head Moharrir deputed at Police Station Dhoomanganj, Allahabad, who had prepared the Chik report and got it entered in the G.D. He proved the Chik report (Ext. Ka-18) and the said entry in the G.D., which is report no. 45 dated 28.09.1978 (Ext.Ka-19). After perusing the original G.D. he has also stated that a special report in this case was sent by him on the same day at about 19.10 hours through Constable No. 365 Mitthu Lal, the entry of which was at report no. 47 in the G.D. of the day. This witness further proved that on the date of incident at about 18.50 hours, the injured appellant Ubaidur Rahman was brought before him by Head Constable 112 Shyam Nath Mishra and Constable No. 1199 Shiv Kumar of Police Outpost Bamrauli, P.S. Dhoomanganj. He further proved that he had recorded the injuries present on the body of the said accused/appellant at report no. 46 of the said G.D., copy of which was prepared and filed by him on record as Exhibit Ka-20. He further proved that he had recorded the injuries present on the body of the said accused/appellant at report no. 46 of the said G.D., copy of which was prepared and filed by him on record as Exhibit Ka-20. During the cross-examination also, the witness has reiterated the aforesaid facts and documents and there appears to be no major contradiction that may arouse suspicion that the entire proceedings done by him or the record proved by him are ante timed, ante dated or fabricated by the police. 51. Perusal of the FIR (Ext.Ka-18) discloses that the FIR was promptly lodged by the informant (P.W.-1 Abdul Moid) on the date of incident, i.e., 28.09.1978 at about 18.30 hours. Distance between the place of occurrence and the Police Station, was 6 Kms. It contains the names of all the accused appellants along with the nature of weapons they individually wielded, the cause narrated in the FIR was old standing enmity between the parties/two factions of the village. The immediate motive for the crime, date, time, place and the genesis of the incident, names of the witnesses, who were present at the relevant time, explanation of the wounds found on the body of the accused appellant Ubaidur Rahman, use of fire arms by all the appellants while killing the deceased and entire incident of the prosecution, which were by and large corroborated by the testimony of all the four direct ocular witnesses (P.W.-1 to P.W.-4), have been properly narrated in the FIR and on the said prompt FIR, the investigation was also initiated instantaneously. There is no major contradiction between the testimony of direct ocular witnesses and the descriptions contained in the FIR. Therefore, (Ext. Ka-18) also corroborates the version of the prosecution story and it is in the light of the prompt lodging of the FIR in the present case that the version of the eye-witnesses' account supporting the prosecution case as revealed in the FIR has been appreciated. 52. As discussed above out of four direct ocular witnesses, P.W. 3 Anwar does not appear to be a member of any faction or party of the village. Neither is he related to the informant's side nor has any animosity been shown or proved against any of the accused-appellants. His statement is in consonance with the other eyewitnesses (P.W. 1, 2 and 4) of the fact. Neither is he related to the informant's side nor has any animosity been shown or proved against any of the accused-appellants. His statement is in consonance with the other eyewitnesses (P.W. 1, 2 and 4) of the fact. The presence of all these witnesses at the relevant time of the incident, appears to be most probable and also established by the prosecution beyond doubt. All the witnesses are natural and their testimony is unshaken and full of credence. 53. It is true that some of the witnesses have fairly conceded their inter-se relationship with the deceased as well as prevailing old enmity between the appellants and them, being the group members of the deceased Mohd. Ilyas alias Illa, but on this score alone their veracity cannot be doubted. The requirement as per law is only to be cautious before accepting their testimony. The entire prosecution documents, including those prepared by the police, as well as their testimony, medical evidence, post mortem examination report, all the material exhibits along with the injury report of one of the accused-appellant Ubaidur Rahman, corroborates the direct ocular testimony of the prosecution witnesses. There is no material contradiction between the medical evidence and the ocular testimony also. 54. The incident occurred in the day light, in the month of September, caused by the persons residing in the same village; therefore, the possibility of any mistake in identification of the accused persons is out of question. Further, in the light of the present facts and circumstances of the case, it is also not possible that the informant, a relative of the deceased and other eyewitnesses would spare the real culprits and implicate the appellants to settle their score in the name of old enmity or group rivalry. The defence not only failed to place the specific cross-case, as alleged by the accused Ubaidur Rahman, but was also unable to show that the injury inflicted on the body of the accused Ubaidur Rahman, who was examined by the concerned doctor on the same date and time as mentioned in the prosecution story, was actually inflicted by the gun-shot of his rival group of Banney and others; whereas the aforementioned witnesses also satisfactorily explained the injury found on the body of the said accused-appellant. Therefore, after analysis of the entire evidence on record by us, with due care and caution, the possibility of false implication of the appellants is entirely ruled out. 55. Now we deal with the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants. 56. Initiating the argument, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the FIR (Ext. Ka-18) was ante dated/ante timed. In this connection, it was argued that though the prosecution had alleged that the FIR was promptly recorded, the date written below the signature of the Circle Officer on the original FIR and other evidence on record, i.e., some cutting and use of other ink in inquest report (Ext. Ka-6) as well as non-mentioning of G.D. number and date in the first line of this report, overwriting of date in the copy of G.D. No. 45 (allegedly mentioning of Jilda Panchayatnama at the bottom), all the papers related to the postmortem examination, which was conducted at about 1.00 to 1.30 P.M. the very next day, and in this case special report also reached very late, establish the fact that actually the FIR was not promptly lodged and therefore, what is stated in the FIR could not be taken as gospel truth. 57. We are not inclined to accept the above argument. To establish the factum of prompt FIR as well as promptness in the movement of police machinery in this case, the prosecution has not only examined the informant, Abdul Moid (P.W.-1) but also testified PW 5 head constable 112 C.P. Shyam Nath Mishra, PW9 constable 291 Ramakant Tiwari, P.W. 13 Head Constable No. 7 Ramashanker Pandey, the then Head Moharrir and filed affidavit of P.W.-14 Constable 216 Radhey Shyam Chaudhary annexing the copy of G.D. Report No. 29 at 12.10 p.m. dated 29.09.1978 and proved, the prosecution papers pertaining to it (Ex.Ka 18 and Ka-19 and Ka-20). All these evidence of the prosecution coupled with the testimony of P.W.-12 Investigating Officer V.B. Singh and the witness before whom inquest report was prepared, P.W.-11 Masiuddin amply proves the version of the prosecution that the FIR was promptly lodged and the police machinery also acted very promptly in this case. Further, the injury report of the injured accused-appellant Ubaidur Rahman (Ext. Kha-2) along with G.D., pertaining to it (Ext. Further, the injury report of the injured accused-appellant Ubaidur Rahman (Ext. Kha-2) along with G.D., pertaining to it (Ext. Ka-20) also confirms that the FIR was lodged very promptly and the concerned police patrolling party of Outpost Bamrauli reached the spot after getting information from other sources before receiving official information and papers at the spot. In view of the above, there is no force in the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants. 58. There is no doubt that in the instant case the concerned Circle Officer had not acted promptly to send the special report, as envisaged in 157 Cr.P.C., but in our opinion, reaching of the special report to the concerned Magistrate is not the only parameter to find out as to whether an FIR in a case was promptly recorded or not. There are some other external checks which may get well established and lend support to the prosecution case of prompt recording of the FIR. As discussed above, in the present case, some of them are clearly established. One such check was entries in the aforementioned G.Ds., sending of the copy of the FIR along with the dead body for postmortem and its reference in the inquest report (Ex. Ka-6) and second, the injury report (Ex. Kha-2) of accused appellant Ubaidur Rahman and its corresponding GD (Ex. Ka-20), the inquest report (Ex. Ka-6), and other police papers pertaining to the inquest proceedings (Ex. Ka-7 to Ka-12) prepared at the place of occurrence by the Investigating Officer (Ex. Ka-6) on the very date of the incident itself, which were proved by the concerned witnesses. The said copy of the FIR was annexed with the inquest report (Ex. Ka-6) and also made part of the post- mortem examination report (Ex.Ka-3). 59. Hence, in the light of above mentioned plethora of clinching evidence in the instant case, we find that all the above checks and balances confirm not only the promptness of lodging of the FIR but further suggest that the police machinery was also set in motion very quickly in this case. 59. Hence, in the light of above mentioned plethora of clinching evidence in the instant case, we find that all the above checks and balances confirm not only the promptness of lodging of the FIR but further suggest that the police machinery was also set in motion very quickly in this case. Therefore, it is not possible for us to go with the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the FIR was ante timed or ante dated, rather we are in agreement with the findings arrived at by the trial court that in this case the FIR was promptly lodged and after getting information of the murder from other source, police machinery instantaneously set in motion too, which reflects the first hand action as to what had actually happened on the spot and those responsible for the offence in question, as held by the Supreme Court in the decision of Girish Yadav and others Vs. State M.P. AIR 1996 SC 3098 . Further the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Suija Ram [1995 Cri. L.J. 4161] has observed that FIR, which was promptly lodged and which contained detailed outline of the prosecution case clearly corroborates ocular witness's account. Therefore, the prompt lodging of the FIR and setting of the police machinery in motion on the spot in the present case also corroborate the direct ocular testimony of the witnesses (PW-1 to PW-4) named in the FIR, which cannot be brushed aside. 60. Moreover, 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 Vs. State of Orissa (2016) 4 SCC 371 . Our view gets fortified by the observation made by the Apex Court in the case of Susanta Das Vs. 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 06.04.1996 was so very vital to doubt the case of the prosecution. We fully concur with the said view expressed by the Division Bench." 61. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that P.W.-1 Abdul Moid is the real brother-in-law of the deceased, P.W. 2 Ziauddin is the real brother of the deceased, P.W.-3 Anwar Ahmad is the nephew of P.W.-1 and P.W.-4 Hammad Ahmad, the scribe of the written report, is the younger brother of P.W.-1, therefore, in the light of the above close relationship it is crystal clear that all the aforesaid witnesses are related, interested/partisan witnesses. Their very presence at the place and time of the alleged occurrence is highly improbable and unnatural, hence their testimony cannot be relied upon. Further the aforesaid prosecution witnesses having their own record of criminal history, it is also questionable as to why so many witnesses, (above mentioned) who were allegedly present at the place of occurrence, let go the appellants scot free. According to the learned counsel PW1 Abdul Moid, in his statement, for the first time, has stated that when the deceased was weltering, accused persons Anees, Rahim and Ubaidur Rahman shot at him from a distance of 2 to 2½ pace, but he did not mention this fact either in the written report or to the Investigating Officer during investigation. In his cross examination this witness has admitted that in many of the murder cases, he alongwith the deceased were co-accused. In his cross examination this witness has admitted that in many of the murder cases, he alongwith the deceased were co-accused. Present appellant Anees and father of accused Astafa were also their associates in one of the murder cases. PW1 further admitted that he is the real brother-in-law (behnoi) of the deceased and due to an accident he became partially handicapped. 62. Further, the learned counsel for the appellants next submitted that the prosecution had failed to examine independent eye witnesses and specially one 'Rashid' of the village, in front of whose house, the incident was alleged to have begun and it had instead examined the related, inimical/partisan witnesses, whose presence was doubtful on the spot of the crime and that PW-3 Anwar was actually a 'chance witness'. 63. We have carefully gone through the testimony of the witnesses, i.e., P.W. 1 to PW 4 and found that their evidence has well stood the test of cross-examination. They have fairly proved that all the ten appellants are involved in the gruesome murder of Mohd Ilyas alias Illa. Any of them cannot be treated as 'chance witness'. Their names had already figured in the FIR (Ex.Ka-18). In fact, the version narrated in the FIR is fully corroborated by the statements of the witnesses. The eye witnesses' account clearly shows that the appellants, who were armed with different nature of firearms, i.e., rifles, double and single barrel guns and country made pistols had inflicted multiple firearm injuries on the body of the deceased, which are in consonance with the medical evidence. Therefore, the evidence placed by the eye witnesses P.W.1 to P.W. 4 are full of credence and liable to be relied upon. 64. The principle of law enunciated in catena of decisions by the Apex Court is well settled on this score, which states that the witnesses of the family of the deceased or the informant, member of rival group, inimical or partisan witnesses cannot be discarded merely because they are the relatives or family members of the deceased. In such a case, the Court has to adopt a careful approach in analyzing the evidence of such witnesses and if the said evidence is found otherwise credible, the accused can be convicted on the basis of the testimony of such related, inimical and partisan witnesses. In such a case, the Court has to adopt a careful approach in analyzing the evidence of such witnesses and if the said evidence is found otherwise credible, the accused can be convicted on the basis of the testimony of such related, inimical and partisan witnesses. The above ratio of law has been laid down by Apex Court in the cases of State of U.P. Vs. Jagdeo and others 2003 AIR SC 660, Shyam Babu Vs. State of U.P. [ AIR 2012 SC 3311 ], Shyamal Ghosh Vs. State of WB [ AIR 2012 SC 3539 ], Dhari & others Vs. State of U.P. [ AIR 2013 SC 308 ], Shanmugam and another Vs. State of TN [ (2013) 12 SCC 765 ] and Nand Kumar Vs. State of Chhatishgarh [2015 Cri. L.J. 381]. 65. Further the Supreme Court in a similar matter, as the case in hand, in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Ram Swarup and others AIR 1988 SC 1028 has observed as follows: "Interested evidence is not necessarily false evidence. In a small village like the one under consideration where people are divided on caste basis, the prosecution may not be able to get any neutral witness. Even if there is any such neutral witness, he will be reluctant to come forward to give testimony to support one or the other side. Therefore, merely because the eye-witnesses are associated with one faction or the other, their evidence should not be discarded. It should, no doubt be subjected to careful scrutiny and accepted with caution. We may also point out that law does not lay down different standard of appreciation of evidence when the prosecution witnesses and the accused are of different caste. The principles are the same as in other cases. 66. Hence the principles that have been stated above in a number of decisions are to the effect that evidence of interested witness can be relied upon if it is found to be trustworthy and credible. Needless to say, a testimony, if after careful scrutiny is found as unreliable and improbable or suspicious ought to be rejected. That apart, when a witness has a motive or makes false implication, the Court before relying upon his testimony should seek corroboration in regard to material particulars. In the instant case, the witnesses who have deposed against the accused persons are inimical as well as close relatives. That apart, when a witness has a motive or makes false implication, the Court before relying upon his testimony should seek corroboration in regard to material particulars. In the instant case, the witnesses who have deposed against the accused persons are inimical as well as close relatives. Their presence at the scene of occurrence cannot be doubted, their version is consistent, thoroughly corroborated inter-se as well as by the entire police and medical evidence available on record, on material particulars and nothing has been elicited in their cross-examination to shake their testimony. There are some minor or trivial discrepancies, but they do not create a dent in their evidence warranting to treat the same as improbable or untrustworthy. 67. Illumined by the above principles of law laid down by the Apex Court and overall critical appraisal of the entire evidence on record, after due care and caution, we are of the definite opinion that the participation of all the appellants in the alleged incident is proved by the consistent cogent testimony of all the ocular witnesses present at the spot. It further establishes the fact that all the appellants, wielding fire arms, formed an unlawful assembly with a common object and strong motive to kill Mohd Ilyas alias Illa opened indiscriminate firing at the deceased. Though it is true that P.W.-1, Abdul Moid alias Nanhey, P.W.-2 Ziauddin and P.W.-4 Hammad Ahmad alias Chhotan are the close relatives of Mohd. Ilyas on one hand, it is also true that P.W.-3 Anwar Ahmad, resident of the same village, gave consistent and independent testimony, which corroborates with the statements of the aforesaid witnesses (PW1, PW2 and PW4), who are said to be partisan witnesses. Admittedly, there was groupism and conflict in the village but it is also evident from the record that P.W. 4 Anwar Ahmad and his father Puddan, were never a party to any of the rival groups. Thus, for the sake of argument, he can be taken as a test witness and his testimony can be checked and balanced with the other three ocular witnesses, who were consistent all along in their respective testimony. Therefore, the testimony of all the aforesaid four witnesses can be relied upon in toto. Thus, for the sake of argument, he can be taken as a test witness and his testimony can be checked and balanced with the other three ocular witnesses, who were consistent all along in their respective testimony. Therefore, the testimony of all the aforesaid four witnesses can be relied upon in toto. The testimony of P.W.-1 Abdul Moid, P.W. 2 Ziauddin and P.W.-4 Hammad Ahmad alias Chhottan cannot be rejected on the mere ground that there were criminal records against them and they are inimical, related or partisan witnesses. Therefore, the arguments contrary to it are against the ratio of law and hence, unacceptable. 68. Much emphasis has been laid by the learned counsel for the appellants that the witness Anwar (P.W.-3) is a 'chance witness' and his testimony cannot be relied upon. We do not agree because his presence on the spot and witnessing the incident are quite probable and proved by the prosecution with cogent evidence. His name was mentioned not only in the written report/FIR but also figured during the investigation and in the evidence of other eye witnesses (P.W.-1, P.W. 2 and P.W.-4). His statement was quite natural and trustworthy. There is nothing unnatural in it. The Apex Court in the case of Vikram Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab [ (2010) 3 SCC 56 ] based on the decision in Rana Pratap and others Vs. State of Haryana [ 1983 (3) SCC 327 ] and Thangaiya Vs. State of Tamil Nadu [ (2005) 9 SCC 650 ] has observed about the meaning of the expression 'Chance Witness'. The relevant portion of Rana Pratap's case (supra) is quoted herein below: "3. There were three eyewitnesses. One was the brother of the deceased and the other two were a milk vendor of a neighbouring village, who was carrying milk to the dairy and a vegetable and fruit hawker, who was pushing his laden cart along the road. The learned Sessions Judge and the learned Counsel described both the independent witnesses as "chance witnesses" implying thereby that their evidence was suspicious and their presence at the scene doubtful. We do not understand the expression "chance witnesses". Murders are not committed with previous notice to witnesses, soliciting their presence. If murder is committed in a dwelling house, the inmates of the house are natural witnesses. If murder is committed in a brothel, prostitutes and paramours are natural witnesses. We do not understand the expression "chance witnesses". Murders are not committed with previous notice to witnesses, soliciting their presence. If murder is committed in a dwelling house, the inmates of the house are natural witnesses. If murder is committed in a brothel, prostitutes and paramours are natural witnesses. If murder is committed on a street, only passersby will be witnesses. Their evidence cannot be brushed aside or viewed with suspicion on the ground that they are mere "chance witnesses". The expression "chance witnesses" is borrowed from countries where every man's home is considered his castle and every one must have an explanation for his presence elsewhere or in another man's castle. It is a most unsuitable expression in a country whose people are less formal and more casual. To discard the evidence of street hawkers and street vendors on the ground that they are "chance witnesses", even where murder is committed in a street, is to abandon good sense and take too shallow a view of the evidence." Applying the above broad principles to the facts of the present case, we find that the presence of PW3 Anwar was natural at the place he professed to be present and he cannot, therefore, be dubbed as 'chance witness'. 69. There is no doubt that the prosecution was unable to examine any independent witness, especially from this faction-ridden village, but the prosecution case cannot be doubted merely on the said account. People are generally reluctant to come forward to give any statement in respect of any criminal offence unless it is inevitable. People often keep away from the court/s, as they consider it to be both distressing and stressful, though this kind of human behaviour is indeed unfortunate, but it is a normal phenomenon. We cannot ignore this handicap of the investigating agency. Further, the Investigating Officer (P.W.-12) in his cross-examination has categorically stated in this case that neither any other eye witness was available on the spot nor was found during the entire investigation. Therefore, we cannot derail the entire prosecution case on the mere ground of absence of independent witness, as long as evidence of direct ocular witnesses', though related, inimical or partisan, is trustworthy. 70. Therefore, we cannot derail the entire prosecution case on the mere ground of absence of independent witness, as long as evidence of direct ocular witnesses', though related, inimical or partisan, is trustworthy. 70. Now, with regard to the argument of non-examination of alleged material witness 'Rashid' is concerned, the law on this point is very clear that non-examination of a material witness is not a mathematical formula for discarding the weight of the testimony available on record, however natural, trustworthy and convincing it may be. It is settled law that non-examination of an eye-witness (Rashid, as alleged by the defence), cannot be pressed into service like the ritualistic formula for discarding the prosecution case with a single stroke of pen. The Court can convict the accused on the statement of solitary eye witness, even if he is related to the deceased or partisan, therefore, non-examination of an independent witness would not be fatal to the case of the prosecution. The above ratio of law has been laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of Kripal Singh v. State of Haryana [ AIR 2013 SC 286 ], Sandeep v. State of U.P. [ (2012) 6 SCC 107 ] and Mano Dutt and another v. State of U.P. [2012 (77) ACC 209 (SC)]. Therefore, we cannot derail the entire case of the prosecution on the ground of absence of the testimony of alleged independent witness 'Rashid', admittedly of the same faction-ridden village or any other independent witness of the locality, because the testimony of direct ocular witnesses are available, though partisan/interested, inimical and related, are trustworthy. In this regard reliance may be placed on the decisions of the Apex Court enunciated in the cases of Dalip Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab [ AIR 1953 SC 364 1SCR 145], Chavda Jivanji Chelaji and others v. State of Gujarat [2001 Cri LJ 3299], Girish Yadav and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh [ AIR 1996 SC 3098 ] and Bhagwan Singh and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh [ AIR 2002 SC 1621 ]. 71. Next argument which has been advanced from the side of the appellants is that there are material contradictions in the medical and ocular evidence. In this respect, learned counsel for the appellant has drawn the attention of the Court towards the evidence of P.W. 10 Dr. 71. Next argument which has been advanced from the side of the appellants is that there are material contradictions in the medical and ocular evidence. In this respect, learned counsel for the appellant has drawn the attention of the Court towards the evidence of P.W. 10 Dr. M.D. Mishra, who in his cross-examination has opined that there is apparently no injury on the body of the deceased inflicted by the rifle shot and the injuries found on the body of the deceased were inflicted only by 4 or 5 shots. On the basis of this evidence, the learned counsel has contended that presence of three appellants, who were assigned with the rifles, is doubtful and resultantly, therefore, the entire prosecution case appears to be cooked up just to implicate the appellants due to village rivalry and enmity. 72. In our view, the said opinion of Dr. Mishra cannot be read in isolation. It must be read in totality, i.e., with his entire statement as well as the post-mortem report (Ex. Ka-3), proved by him. Moreover, he is not a ballistic expert. Further, perusal of the record clearly manifests that direct ocular witnesses have also proved through their respective unshaken statements, in so many words, that all the appellants had wielded different nature of fire arms and all had fired, though they had seen the occurrence from some distance when the body of the deceased was lying in a pit. The Investigating Officer had found bullet from the place of occurrence, beneath the broken head and peeled out brain matter of the deceased. It is, therefore, not possible for us to accept the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that the medical evidence is not corroborating with the ocular evidence vis-a-vis the prosecution version, regarding inflicting of injuries on the deceased by rifle, wielded by three of the appellants. 73. In fact, the entire evidence of Dr. M.D. Mishra, P.W. 10 and the post mortem report (Ex.Ka-3) prepared by him, are in conformity with the testimony of the direct ocular witnesses as well as inquest report (Ex.Ka-6). 73. In fact, the entire evidence of Dr. M.D. Mishra, P.W. 10 and the post mortem report (Ex.Ka-3) prepared by him, are in conformity with the testimony of the direct ocular witnesses as well as inquest report (Ex.Ka-6). If in this case, the place from where the ocular witnesses had started chasing the assailants/appellants and seen the occurrence is taken into consideration, their observation that all the appellants were armed with specific nature of firearms and fired few shots at the deceased, while he was running in a zig-zag manner to save his life and again at the time when he fell down in a pit, seems to be absolutely truthful and in consonance with the FIR. The seat of injuries, number, size and nature of the injuries, presence of blackening in some of the wound, recovery of bullet and pellets from the place of occurrence and also from the body of the deceased and beneath his broken head, reflects the nature of firearms used in the commission of the crime by the appellants and the time of death of the victim. All these factors corroborate the statements of the eye witnesses which prove that there is no inconsistency in the ocular and medical evidence. Therefore, this argument has no force. 74. If for the sake of discussion it is presumed that there is any variation, even then, as laid down by the Apex Court in Gajoo Vs. State of Uttrakhand [ 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. Further, the Apex Court in the case of Sadhu Saran Singh Vs. 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 Vs. 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. 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." 75. However, in this case, there is no such variation between the medical evidence and the ocular evidence, and once they are conjointly read, they do not falsify either the statements of the witnesses or the medical evidence in the instant case. In fact both of them must be read as complementary to each other. Therefore, the presence of the said three appellants, assigned with their respective weapons (rifles), at the place of occurrence and their participation in the commission of the crime, is proved beyond all reasonable doubt by the prosecution. 76. Learned counsel for the appellants relying upon section 174 Cr.P.C., next contended that in the inquest report (Ex.Ka-6) some of the entries were made by different ink and there were cuttings/overwriting at various places, which reflects that the entire police proceeding, lodging of the FIR, preparing of the inquest report etc., were ante dated and ante timed, just to implicate the other group of the village in this ghastly crime. As discussed above, we have found inquest report proved by two witnesses; one is an independent village person (PW-11 Masiuddin) and the other police personnel including Investigating Officer (PW5, PW9 and PW12), who also corroborated the same version, which clearly establishes that the police of the concerned outpost while patrolling nearby, received information of the firing as well as murder and immediately rushed to the said spot and started hunting for the assailants and also nabbed one of them in the vicinity of the spot. All this appears to have happened simultaneously at the time of lodging of the FIR. Thereafter, entrustment of the investigation was done to one of the Officers of the patrolling party (PW12 Investigating Officer). Therefore, the genuineness and time of preparation of the inquest report and the bona-fide nature of the Investigating Officer as well as the promptness of the effectiveness of the investigation proceedings cannot be doubted. 77. As we have already discussed, all the facts and circumstances of the instant case, in the light of the external checks are well established on record and it cannot be said that promptly lodging of the FIR would remain doubtful or copy of the same was not sent promptly from the Police Station concerned, after completing all the legal formalities to the Magistrate concerned. Hence, it is fortified that there was no breach either of Section 157 or of section 174 Cr.P.C. 78. The Apex Court in the case of Ravi alias Ravichandran v. State [2007 (Cri) LJ 2740] has observed that purpose of preparing the inquest report is only to notice as to whether the murder committed was homicidal in nature or not and for making a note in regard to identification marks of the accused. 79. Further, the Supreme Court in the case of Amar Singh v. Balwinder Singh and others [ AIR 2003 SC 1164 ] has observed that the purpose of holding inquest is opined in Section 174 Cr.P.C. The police officer is required to record the cause of death, describing the wounds as may be found on the body and also the general nature of weapon or instrument by which they appear to have been inflicted. It further observed that this section does not contemplate that the manner in which the incident took place should be mentioned. However, its total probative value has been discussed in the case of Pandurang Tukiya & Bhillia v. State of Hyderabad [AIR 1955 SC 2016] that except section 145 of the Evidence Act, admissibility of inquest report is not questionable. At the most inquest witness could have been confronted with its help. Therefore, the above contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is misconceived. 80. In the present case it appears that perhaps at the time of initiation of preparation of the inquest report, the G.D was not available to the Investigating Officer. At the most inquest witness could have been confronted with its help. Therefore, the above contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is misconceived. 80. In the present case it appears that perhaps at the time of initiation of preparation of the inquest report, the G.D was not available to the Investigating Officer. Therefore, mere omission to fill report no, time and date of the G.D. concerned at the top of the second page of the inquest report (Ex. Ka-6) and alleged cutting/overwriting on one or two places in the said inquest report cannot make the inquest proceedings and the inquest report (Ex.Ka-6) doubtful. Moreover, it is proved by the Investigating Officer (P.W.-12) that the said inquest report was prepared in the light of "patromex"; hence some omission, cutting or overwriting could have been inevitable. Thus, there is no scope for any doubt on the inquest report (Ex. Ka-6), FIR (Ex.Ka-18) and other police papers placed on record in this case by the prosecution. Thus, the arguments placed by learned counsel of the appellants in this regard, have no force. 81. Further, in the instant case, it was found that the FIR was promptly lodged after the incident by the witness/informant i.e. P.W. 1 Abdul Moid and even before the completion of lodging of the FIR, the police machinery swung into action after hearing the murder of the deceased, reached the spot of occurrence and initiated the investigation, immediately thereafter. Thus, raising eyebrows on the date and timing of the lodging of the FIR is not justified and we find that the contents of the FIR reflect the first-hand account of what had actually happened on the spot and who were responsible for the offence in question. Hence, arguments contrary to this raised by the learned counsel for the appellants fall flat. 82. It is next contended from the side of the appellants that the Investigating Officer (PW12) has caused deliberate delay in recording the statements of the two ocular witnesses (PW2 and PW3) under section 161 Cr.P.C., resulting in serious prejudice to the defence /appellants but we do not find any substance in this argument. 82. It is next contended from the side of the appellants that the Investigating Officer (PW12) has caused deliberate delay in recording the statements of the two ocular witnesses (PW2 and PW3) under section 161 Cr.P.C., resulting in serious prejudice to the defence /appellants but we do not find any substance in this argument. Perusal of the evidence on record shows that in the instant case before recording the statements of the aforesaid two witnesses, the statements of prime witnesses i.e., P.W.-1 Abdul Moid (complainant) were recorded on the very day of the incident, i.e., 28.09.1978 and P.W.-4, Hammad Ahmad on the next day of the incident i.e. 29.09.1978. Investigating Officer (P.W.-12) has testified that he had tried to contact the remaining two ocular witnesses of the incident for recording their respective statements on time and it could only be recorded on 06.11.1978. Since the main version in the form of statements of P.W.-1 and P.W.-4 were recorded within 48 hours of the incident and a bonafide attempt to get the statements of the rest of the two ocular witnesses (PW2 and PW3) recorded were made by the Investigating Officer (P.W.-12), we find that neither there was any deliberate delay or malafide intention on the part of the Investigating Officer concerned (P.W.-12) nor did this bonafide delay alone cause any prejudice to the defence/appellants as alleged by them. 83. Defective investigation and lapses on the part of the Investigating Officer would not necessarily be fatal to the prosecution, in case reliable and cogent direct ocular evidence is available. The law on this point of defective investigation has been considered by the Supreme Court time and again and it has categorically laid down that any minor fault, irregularity, defect or deficiency in investigation would not be a ground for rejection of the direct and trustworthy ocular testimony. 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 is found credible and cogent and has a ring of truth in it as held in cases of Gulzari Lal Vs. State of Haryana (2016) 4 SCC 583 , State of Karnataka Vs. Suvarnamma, (2015) 1 SCC 323 , Hema Vs. A defective investigation cannot be fatal to prosecution where ocular testimony is found credible and cogent and has a ring of truth in it as held in cases of Gulzari Lal Vs. State of Haryana (2016) 4 SCC 583 , State of Karnataka Vs. Suvarnamma, (2015) 1 SCC 323 , Hema Vs. State, 2013 (81) ACC 1 (SC) (Three Judge Bench) and C. Muniappan Vs. State of TN, 2010 (6) SCJ 822 , Amar Singh Vs. Balwinder Singh and others 2003 Cri. L.J. 1282, Allarakha K. Mansuri Vs. State of Gujarat (2002) 3 SCC 57 , Prithvi Vs. Mamraj and others ( 2004(13) SCC 279 , State of U.P. Vs. Jagdeo and others (2003) 1 SCC 456 and Dharmendrasinh alias Mansing Ratansinh Vs. State of Gujrat (2002) 4 SCC 679 . 84. In the case of C. Muniappan Vs. State of TN 2010 (6) SCJ 822 , the Apex Court has made the 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. 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." 85. The Apex Court in Amar Singh Vs. Balwinder Singh and others, 2003 Cri. L.J. 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 judgment Bishundeo Poddar and others Vs. The Apex Court in Amar Singh Vs. Balwinder Singh and others, 2003 Cri. L.J. 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 judgment Bishundeo Poddar and others Vs. State of Bihar, 2003 Cri.L.J. 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." 86. In this context, it would be pertinent to mention that a criminal trial is not like a fairy tale wherein one is free to give flight to one's imagination and fantasy. It concerns itself with the question as to whether the accused arraigned at the trial are guilty of the crime with which they are charged. Crime is an event in real life and is the product of interplay of different human emotions. In arriving at the conclusion about the guilt of the accused charged with the commission of a crime, the court has to judge the evidence by the yardstick of probabilities, its intrinsic worth and the animus of witnesses. Every case in the final analysis would have to depend upon its own facts. Although the benefit of every reasonable doubt should be given to the accused, the courts should not at the same time reject evidence which is ex-facie trustworthy on grounds which are fanciful or in the nature of conjectures. 87. Therefore, after careful examination of entire evidence on record, we are of the firm opinion that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing very strong motive for the commission of the crime by the accused appellants. The rivalry between two groups, one led by Mohd Ilyas alias Illa and the other by Sagiruddin alias Saggan is well established and criminal cases under sections 107/117 Cr.P.C. that were pending between the aforesaid two groups, are admitted. It is also admitted by the defence that deceased Mohd. Ilyas alias Illa tried a murder attempt on accused no. 7 Sagiruddin alias Saggan and a criminal case for the offence under section 307 IPC was pending against Mohd. Ilyas alias Illa (now dead) at the relevant time. It is also admitted by the defence that deceased Mohd. Ilyas alias Illa tried a murder attempt on accused no. 7 Sagiruddin alias Saggan and a criminal case for the offence under section 307 IPC was pending against Mohd. Ilyas alias Illa (now dead) at the relevant time. It is also an admitted fact that Mohd Ilyas alias Illa (deceased) tried to shoot at accused no. 1, Astafa and his brother Nafees and his bail application was rejected by the Session Court, but ultimately he was bailed out in that case by this Court just 20 days before the incident. As the remaining accused persons are co-related with accused Sagiruddin alias Saggan and Astafa, therefore, after the release of Mohd Ilyas alias Illa on bail to settle an old score with the deceased, there was a common motive of all the accused persons, being members of the same group, to eliminate Mohd. Ilyas alias Illa by all means. The prompt FIR of the incident lodged by the informant in the police station concerned at an appropriate time corroborates the entire case of the prosecution and establishes confidence in the prosecution story. 88. Further, from the above scrutiny of the evidence on record as well as facts and circumstances of the case in hand, it is crystal clear that the common object of the appellants to eliminate the deceased has also been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt because the common object, as contemplated by Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, does not require prior concert or meeting of minds before the attack. Generally no direct evidence is available regarding the existence of common object which, in each case, has to be ascertained from the attending facts and circumstances. When a concerted attack is made on the victim by a large number of persons armed with deadly weapons, it is often difficult to determine the actual part played by each offender and easy to hold that such persons who attacked the victim had the common object for an offence which was known to be likely committed in prosecution of such an object. It is true that a mere innocent person, in an assembly of persons or being a by-stander does not make such person a member of an unlawful assembly, but where the persons forming the assembly are shown to be having identical interest in pursuance of which some of them come armed and others though not armed they would, under the normal circumstances, be deemed to be the members of the 'unlawful assembly'. In this case the accused persons have been proved to be on inimical terms with the deceased/informant-party. The enmity between the parties had been aggravated on account of litigation with respect to the village rivalry and pending criminal cases. Accused persons who came on the spot are shown to have been armed with deadly weapons. The facts and circumstances of the case unequivocally prove the existence of the common object of such persons forming the 'unlawful assembly' who had come on the spot and attacked the deceased, against whom they had strong animus as well as immediate motive, in consequence of which one precious life was lost, (as per the principle of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Bhagwan Singh and others Vs. State of M.P. 2002 (4) SCC 85 ). 89. In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, available materials on record and consistent statements of all the witnesses, we are of the definite opinion that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt. All the named accused persons-appellants, armed with deadly weapons, formed unlawful assembly, with a common motive and objective, not only participated in the crime but also killed Mohd Ilyas alias Ila. 90. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgment of M.C. Ali and another v. State of Kerala [JT 2010 (3) SC 626], wherein there was a religious dispute and on the annihilation of the accused party, the deceased and his family members were attacked. Graphic details of the incident were not produced before the court. Identification of the accused persons was difficult in the said case. There was much delay in recording the statements of the witnesses. Injuries of the deceased remained unexplained, whereas in the instant case, there was established animosity between the rival parties. There was no delay in recording the statements of main ocular witnesses P.W. 1 and P.W.-2. Identification of the accused persons was difficult in the said case. There was much delay in recording the statements of the witnesses. Injuries of the deceased remained unexplained, whereas in the instant case, there was established animosity between the rival parties. There was no delay in recording the statements of main ocular witnesses P.W. 1 and P.W.-2. It is well established that on the exhortation of some of the accused persons-appellants, the deceased was chased, attacked and eliminated by all the appellants. Graphic details have been established, therefore, the principle laid down in the case of M.C. Ali (Supra) does not apply in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, instead the principles of law laid down in the decision of State of U.P. Vs. Ram Swarup (supra), as discussed above, does apply in the case in hand. 91. In the instant case, the witnesses, as the trial court has also found, are reliable and have stood embedded in their version and remained unshaken and therefore, we have no reason to differ. They (PW1 to PW4) have vividly deposed about the genesis of occurrence, the participation and involvement of all the appellants in the crime, nature of weapons assigned to each of them and the injuries inflicted on the deceased by them only and none other. Hence, on this score, the case of the prosecution cannot be thrown overboard. Thus, we are constrained to reject all the submissions canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellants. 92. In the ultimate conclusion, we hold that laying emphasis on the minor discrepancies and omissions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses who are natural witnesses to the occurrence and lending credence to the irrelevant aspects and recording the acquittal can, by no stretch of imagination, be regarded as a plausible or possible view in this case and, therefore, we are of the convinced opinion that the trial court is justified in convicting and sentencing the appellants. 93. In view of the aforesaid discussion, both the criminal appeals fail and are accordingly dismissed. The judgment and order dated 22.04.1983, passed by the then VI Additional Sessions Judge, Allahabad in Sessions Trial No. 184 of 1979 (State versus Astafa and others) arising out of Case crime no. 93. In view of the aforesaid discussion, both the criminal appeals fail and are accordingly dismissed. The judgment and order dated 22.04.1983, passed by the then VI Additional Sessions Judge, Allahabad in Sessions Trial No. 184 of 1979 (State versus Astafa and others) arising out of Case crime no. 319 of 1978, Police Station Dhoomanganj, District Allahabad, whereby surviving appellants namely, Astafa, Sufian Ahmad, Rahim, Ubaidur Rahman and Haseen were convicted under sections 148 IPC and 302 IPC read with 149 IPC stands affirmed. The trial court is directed to get the appellants arrested and lodge them in jail to serve out the remaining period of sentence. 94. Let this judgment be certified to the court concerned through the Sessions Judge, Allahabad within two weeks for compliance. Thereafter the concerned court shall report compliance within 30 days.