Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 4057 (ALL)

MARGOOB v. STATE OF U. P.

2016-12-16

ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA I, BALA KRISHNA NARAYANA

body2016
JUDGMENT : (Judgment Delivered by Hon'ble B.K.Narayana, J.) Heard Sri Rajul Bhargava, Senior Advocate assisted by Miss Zia Naaz Zaidi learned counsel for the appellant, Sri A.N.Mulla, Sri Saghir Ahmad, Sri J.K.Upadhyay, Meena Kumari, learned AGA for the State, Smt. Manju Thakur and Sri Irfan Chaudhary, brief holder of the State. These three criminal appeals have been preferred by accused appellants Margoob son of Ayub (appellant in criminal appeal no. 4102 of 2007), Jauhar @ Bobby and Gauhar both sons of Margoob, Mahsoob son of Ayub (appellants in criminal appeal no. 4531 of 2007) and Gayub son of Ayub (appellant in criminal appeal no. 3901 of 2007) against the judgment and order dated 01.06.2007 passed by Additional Sessions Judge Court No.4, Muzaffarnagar in S.T. No. 1709 of 2003 (State Vs. Mahsoob and others ) under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and 120B IPC, P.S. Khatauli, District Muzaffarnagar connected with S.T. No. 1703 of 2003 ( State Vs. Gayub and others ), S.T. No. 1704 of 2003 ( State Vs. Jauhar @ Bobby), S.T. No. 1705 of 2003 ( State Vs. Gauhar), S.T. No. 1706 of 2003 ( State Vs. Mahsoob) and S.T. No. 1707 of 2003 ( State Vs. Margoob) under Section 25 Arms Act arising out of case crime nos. 446 of 2002, 447 of 2002, 448 of 2002, 449 of 2002, 439 of 2002 and 440 of 2002 under Sections 25A of the Arms Act, P.S. Khatauli, District Muzaffarnagar by which all the appellants were convicted and sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine three months additional imprisonment under Section 147 IPC, two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2000/- each and in default of payment of fine six months imprisonment under Section 148 IPC and imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 20,000/- each and in default of payment of fine additional three years imprisonment under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Briefly stated the facts of this case are that on the basis of written report Ext. Ka-12 given by late Ahmad Mukhtar to P.S. Khatauli on 17.12.2002 at about 10.00 a.m. case crime no. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Briefly stated the facts of this case are that on the basis of written report Ext. Ka-12 given by late Ahmad Mukhtar to P.S. Khatauli on 17.12.2002 at about 10.00 a.m. case crime no. 433 of 2002 under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 302 IPC was registered at P.S. Khatauli against the accused appellants Mahsoob, Gayub, Jauhar @ Bobby, Gauhar, Margoob and one Firoz. In the written report Ext.Ka-12 the complainant Ahmad Mukhtar had alleged that when his brothers Sajid Mukhtar and Hamid Mukhtar who were going to their workshop in Khatauli from their village Khedikuresh on 17.12.2002 at about 9.00 a.m. on a scooter followed by the complainant Ahmad Mukhtar on another scooter which was driven by him, reached Ramnagar tri-crossing, accused-appellants Mahsoob, Gayub and Margoob sons of Ayub, Gauhar son of Margoob and Jauhar @ Bobby son of Margoob and Firoz son of Gayub suddenly emerged from the adjacent sugarcane fields and committed the murder of Sajid Mukhtar and Hamid Mukhtar by firing at them from their countrymade pistols and guns which they were carrying in their hands after stopping their scooter and surrounding them from all sides, due to old enmity emanating from pending litigations between both the sides, both civil and criminal. The incident was witnessed by the complainant from a distance of about ten paces from behind. On hearing the hue and cry, Mohd. Tauseef, Shakeel Ahmad and Sharafat had also arrived at the place of occurrence and witnessed the same. In the written report of the incident Ext. Ka-12 it was also alleged that as a result of the firing at the place of occurrence, the farmers, labourers, children and women working in the nearby fields got panicky and ran away from their fields causing stampede. On the basis of the aforesaid written complaint Ext.Ka-12, Check FIR Ext.Ka-1 was prepared by PW-3 Gangasaran who also made the relevant G.D.entry vide Rapat No. 45 at about 21.10 hours on 17.12.2002, carbon copy whereof was brought on record as Ext.Ka-2. The investigation of case crime no. On the basis of the aforesaid written complaint Ext.Ka-12, Check FIR Ext.Ka-1 was prepared by PW-3 Gangasaran who also made the relevant G.D.entry vide Rapat No. 45 at about 21.10 hours on 17.12.2002, carbon copy whereof was brought on record as Ext.Ka-2. The investigation of case crime no. 433 of 2002 was entrusted to PW-6 B.K.Kashyap who after recording the check FIR and the G.D. entry in the C.D., recorded the statements of the complainant Ahmad Mukhtar, PW-3 Gangasaran scribe of the check FIR and Sri Irfan, Javed and Arshad who had accompanied the complainant to the police station and thereafter he reached the place of incident along with SSI Rishipal Singh, Constables Abdul Rehman, Om Prakash, Arvind Kumar and Home Guards Sompal and Krishanpal and conducted the inquest on the cadavers of deceased Sajid Mukhtar and Hamid Mukhtar. He also seized two empty cartridges of 315 bore and one bullet of 315 bore and four 'ticklies' of 12 bore and 68 pellets of 12 bore from the spot. He then got both the dead bodies sealed and handed over the same to Constables Arvind Kumar, Om Prakash and Home Guard Krishnpal for being taken to the hospital for conducting the post mortem. He prepared the inquest report of Hamid Mukhtar and other related documents, namely, paper no. 6/6 photo lash, paper no. 6/7 and 6/8 letters addressed to the CMO and RI and paper no. 6/10 challan lash. He also prepared the inquest report of Sajid Mukhtar and other related document, namely, paper no. 6/16 photo lash, paper no. 6/17 and 6/18 letters addressed to R.I. and CMO and paper no. 6/20 challan lash. All the aforesaid documents have been brought on record as Ext. Ka-23 to Ext.Ka-33. The recovery memo of two cash amounts of Rs. 5091 and Rs. 5095 recovered from the search of the clothes of the deceased Hamid Mukhtar and Sajid Mukhtar which they were wearing at the time of incident was prepared on the spot and which is on record as Ext.Ka-33. The currency notes recovered from the clothes of the deceased were handed over to the custody of the complainant. The investigating Officer also collected plain and blood stained earth separately and prepared recovery memo of the same Ext.Ka-34. The currency notes recovered from the clothes of the deceased were handed over to the custody of the complainant. The investigating Officer also collected plain and blood stained earth separately and prepared recovery memo of the same Ext.Ka-34. Thereafter he inspected the place of incident at the instance of complainant Ahmad Mukhtar and prepared the site plan, which is on record as Ext.Ka-36. He also seized one empty cartridge of 315 bore and three empty cartridges of 12 bore from the field of sugarcane near the place of incident. He then prepared the recovery memo of empty cartridges, pellets and bullets recovered from the place of incident as well as from the sugarcane field near the place of incident paper no. 7/2 which was marked as Ext.Ka-35. After inspecting the crime scene, the investigating officer claimed to have recorded the statements of Shakil Ahmad, Taufiq Ahmad and Sharafat, eye witnesses of the occurrence and the inquest witnesses on 23.12.2002. The accused appellant Mahsoob and Gauhar were arrested on the information of the police informer from the banks of Betoday canal at about 12.30 a.m. The search of accused-appellant Mahsoob resulted in recovery of one countrymade pistol of 12 bore and one live cartridge of 12 bore of red colour on which words 'Mehar sons' were inscribed in English. The search of accused-appellant Gauhar, it is alleged, yielded to recovery of one countrymade pistol of 12 bore and two red colour live cartridges of 12 bore on which also the words 'mehar sons' were inscribed in English. Recovery memo of the countrymade pistols and the live cartridges recovered from the accused-appellant Mahsoob and Gauhar was prepared on the spot and the same is on record as Ext.Ka-3. On the basis of the aforesaid recovery memo, case crime nos. 439 and 440 of 2002 under Section 25-A of Arms Act were registered against accused-appellants Gauhar and Mehsoob at P.S. Khatauli, District Muzaffarnagar on 23.12.2002 at 5.30 a.m.. Later on 28.12.2002 the accused-appellants Gayub, Marhoob, Jauhar @ Bobby and Firoz were also arrested on 28.12.2002 at about 8.10 p.m. by S.H.O. Bale Singh and his force from the bank of a canal in village Mohiddipur. Later on 28.12.2002 the accused-appellants Gayub, Marhoob, Jauhar @ Bobby and Firoz were also arrested on 28.12.2002 at about 8.10 p.m. by S.H.O. Bale Singh and his force from the bank of a canal in village Mohiddipur. The search of the accused Gayub, Marhoob, Jauhar @ Bobby and accused - appellant Firoz resulted in recovery of one single barrel 12 bore gun and four live cartridges of red colour of 12 bore from accused-appellant Gayub, one country made pistol of 315 bore from accused Margoob, one countrymade pistol of 315 bore and one live cartridge of the same bore from the accused appellant Jauhar @ Bobby and one country made pistol from Firoz. Recovery memo of arms and live cartridges recovered from the accused-appellants Gayub, Margoob, Jauhar @ Bobby and Firoz was prepared on the spot and is on the record of this case as Ext.Ka-5. On the basis of the recovery of illicit firearms and live cartridges from the accused-appellants Gayub, Margoob, Jauhar @ Bobby and Firoz, case crime nos. 446, 447, 448 and 449 of 2002 under Section 25 A of the Arms Act were registered against them on 28.12.2002 at 23.15 hours at P.S. Khatauli, District Muzaffarnagar. The post mortem of the dead bodies of the deceased Hamid Mukhtar and Sajid Mukhtar was conducted by Dr. Ashok Kumar Tyagi PW-5 at 8.00 p.m. and 9.00 p.m. respectively on 17.12.2002. He prepared their post mortem reports which are on record as Ext. Ka-21 and Ext.Ka-22. The post mortem report of the Hamid Mukhtar indicates following ante mortem injuries on his dead body:- (I) Gun shot wound of entry 2-1/2 cm x 2 cm x cavity over rt. Side face- 2 cm posterior to outer angle of rt.-eye margins inverted. Blackening & Tattooing around the wound present. (II) Gun shot wound of exit 3-1/2 cm x 1/1/2 cm.x communicating with injury no.1- just below left ear. Margins everted underlying maxella & mandible fracture (III) Gun shot wound of entry 1-1/2 cm. x 1 cm. X cavity over left side of chest in rt. 2Nd 1 cm x 3 cm lateral to midline margin inverted blackening and tattooing around the wound just. (IV) Gun shot wound of entry 3 cm. x 2 cm x communicating wound injury no.3- over rt. Infra scapular margin everted. x 1 cm. X cavity over left side of chest in rt. 2Nd 1 cm x 3 cm lateral to midline margin inverted blackening and tattooing around the wound just. (IV) Gun shot wound of entry 3 cm. x 2 cm x communicating wound injury no.3- over rt. Infra scapular margin everted. (V) Gun shot wound of entry 6 cm x 4 cm x bone over medial aspect of rt. wrist. Margins inverted. Blackening around the wound present. (VI) Gun shot wound of exit 8 cm x 5 cm x communicating under injury no.5 over lateral aspect of right wrist, margins everted. The cause of death is stated to be haemorrhage and shock as a result of ante mortem injuries. The post mortem of the deceased Sajid Mukhtar denotes following ante mortem injuries:- (I) Multiple small gun shot wound each about 3 mm x 3 mm x skin over cover 1/2 of face and adjoining part of neck. Blackening present. Two metallic shunts recovered from the wounds. (ii) Gun shot wound of entry 4 cm. x 1-1/2 cm x cavity over right side of chest- 3 cm medial to right nipple margins inverted underlying 5th ends fractured. Blackening preset. A yellow metallic bullet recovered from the rt. paraspinal muscles- 2-1/2 cm lateral to midline and 15 cm above aliac crest 8th and 9th rips fractured posteriorly. (iii) Multiple gun shot wound of various sizes 5 mm x 3 mm x skin to 1/2 cm x 1/2 cm x skin over upper 1/2 of left glucial region and adjoining part of back. Two metallic pallets recovered from the wounds. The cause of his death is also stated to be hemorrhage and shock as a result of ante mortem injuries. The investigation of case crime no. 433 of 2002 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 120B and 302 IPC was transferred to PW-4 Bale Singh on 18.12.2002 who after completing the same submitted charge sheet Ext.Ka-7 against all the accused under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and 120B IPC. Separate charge sheets were submitted against the accused-appellants under Section 25 Arms Act which are on record as Ext.Ka-40, 41, 44, 51 and 47. Since the offences mentioned against the accused-appellants in the charge sheet Ext.Ka-7 submitted in case crime no. Separate charge sheets were submitted against the accused-appellants under Section 25 Arms Act which are on record as Ext.Ka-40, 41, 44, 51 and 47. Since the offences mentioned against the accused-appellants in the charge sheet Ext.Ka-7 submitted in case crime no. 433 of 2002 were triable exclusively by the court of Sessions, CJM, Muzaffar Nagar committed the aforesaid case for the trial of the accused-appellants to the court of sessions along with the connected cases under section 25-A of the Arms Act. After committal the case arising out of case crime no. 433 of 2002 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and 120B IPC was registered as S.T. No. 1709 of 2003 while the cases arising from the FIRs lodged under Section 25 of the Arms Act were numbered as S.T. Nos. 1703, 1704, 1705, 1706 and 1707 of 2003. The aforesaid sessions trials were made over for the trial to the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Muzaffarnagar. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Muzaffarnagar after hearing the accused on the point of charge framed charge against all the accused-appellants Mahsoob, Margoob, Gayub, Jauhar @ Bobby and Gauhar under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and 120B IPC while against accused-appellant Gayub, additional charge under Section 120B IPC was also framed. Apart from the above charges separate charge under Section 25 of the Arms Act was framed against all the accused-appellants. The accused-appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution in order to prove the charges framed against the accused appellants examined as many as seven witnesses including PW-1 Shakil Ahmad and PW-2 Taufeeq Ahmad as eye witness of the incident and formal witnesses, PW-3 Gangasaran, PW-4 Bale Singh, PW-5 Dr. Ashok Kumar Tyagi, PW-6 B.L.Kashyat, PW-7 Chandra Pal Singh. The accused-appellants in their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. stated that the prosecution case was false and fabricated. The witnesses had given false evidence against them due to previous enmity between the families of the accused and the complainant. In his additional statement accused-appellant Gauhar denied that he was previously known to PW-1 Shakil and Taufeeq. Taufeeq was resident of Khatauli since 1985 and at the time of the incident he was living in Muzaffarnagar. Accused-appellant Jauhar @ Bobby pleaded that he resides in Meerut and is studying in Faiz-e-Aam Degree College, Meerut. In his additional statement accused-appellant Gauhar denied that he was previously known to PW-1 Shakil and Taufeeq. Taufeeq was resident of Khatauli since 1985 and at the time of the incident he was living in Muzaffarnagar. Accused-appellant Jauhar @ Bobby pleaded that he resides in Meerut and is studying in Faiz-e-Aam Degree College, Meerut. In his written statement accused-appellant Mahsoob stated that his real nephew Shariq son of Mahsoob was murdered on 14.11.2001 and in the FIR of the incident which was lodged by him, he had arrayed complainant Hamid Mukhtar deceased Sajid Mukhtar and his sons Asad and Muzzammil and Muddassir sons of Hamid Mukhtar as accused. In the sessions trial arising from the aforesaid FIR, accused Muzammil and Muddassir were eventually convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life. He further stated that his nephew Danish had lodged another FIR against Muddassir and Asad sons of deceased Hamid Mukhtar and deceased Sajid Mukhtar and one Shams Javed r/o of Khatauli and his son Amir real brother-in-law (Behnoi) of complainant Ahmad Mukhtar regarding, an incident in which the aforesaid accused had fired at his son Talaha and had caused firearm injuries to him and he was a witness against the accused in both the aforesaid cases. Mahsoob in his written statement also alleged that there was civil litigation pending between him and the complainant with regard to the dispute over the office of Mutwalli of Waqf Maszid of village Khedikuresh and due to the aforesaid reasons complainant harbored animosity towards him and had falsely implicated him in the present case. The accused appellant Gayub reiterated the facts stated by accused Mahsoob in his written statement. He also examined Abdul Hafiz and Jalaluddin as DW-1 and DW-2 for proving his plea of alibi set up by him in defense as accused Firoz was adjudged to be juvenile in conflict with law his trial was separated from that of the other accused in this case. The accused-appellants also brought on record documentary evidence comprising of FIRs from which S.T. No. 160 of 2004 (State Vs. Muzammil and others) under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and 506 IPC and S.T. No. 160 of 2004, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and 506 IPC (State Vs. Muzammil) arose, certified copy of the judgment passed in the aforesaid case and FIR of S.T. No. 819 of 2003 ( State Vs. Muzammil and others) under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and 506 IPC and S.T. No. 160 of 2004, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and 506 IPC (State Vs. Muzammil) arose, certified copy of the judgment passed in the aforesaid case and FIR of S.T. No. 819 of 2003 ( State Vs. Amir and others) under Section 307 IPC, true copy of FIR of case crime no. 244 of 2001 under Sections 323, 307, 504 IPC registered at P.S. Khatauli and notice dated 03.01.2002. Accused-appellant also brought on record, the certified copy of the check FIR of case no. 284/9 of 2002 (Hamid Vs. Shariq) under Section 307 IPC, P.S. Khatauli and certified copy of the final report submitted in the aforesaid case. From the side of the complainant, death certificate dated 10.08.2004 of one Zafar, father-in-law of PW-2, Taufeeq certifying that the aforesaid Zafar had died on 03.08.2004 was brought on record whereas another death certificate of same Zafar dated 31.01.2007 certifying that the aforesaid Zafar had expired on 25.01.2001 was filed by the accused side. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.4, Muzaffarnagar after considering the respective submissions advanced before him by the learned counsel for the parties and scrutinizing the evidence on record, both oral as well as documentary convicted all the accused-appellants under Sections 147, 148 and 302/149 IPC and awarded them the aforesaid sentences. The accused-appellants were acquitted of the charge under Section 25 of the Arms Act while accused-appellant Gayub was acquitted of the additional charge framed against him under Section 120B IPC. Hence this appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the FIR in this case is ante timed and the same was scribed after due deliberations and consultations. Learned counsel for the appellant next submitted that the conviction of the appellants on the basis of the testimony of PW-1 Shakeel Ahmad and PW-2 Taufeeq Ahmad close relatives of the deceased who were highly interested in seeing that the accused appellant were convicted for having committed the murder of Sajid Mukhtar and Hamid Mukhtar due to old enmity between the families of the complainant side and the accused cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. He further submitted that PW-1 Shakil Ahmad has been cited as a regular witness on behalf of the complainant side in all criminal cases registered against different family members of the accused side including case crime no. 284/7 of 2002 ( Hamid Vs. Shariq) under Section 307 IPC. As far as PW-2 Taufeeq Ahmad is concerned he is admittedly brother-in-law (Saala) of the deceased Sajid Mukhtar. Both the witnesses are chance witness residents of different villages and their presence at the place of the occurrence is highly unnatural. He also submitted that the investigating officer of the case neither found the scooter which the deceased were allegedly riding at the time of the assault at the place of occurrence nor he seized the same. The aforesaid is a clinching factor which indicates that neither the prosecution story as spelt out in the FIR is true nor any of the so called eye witnesses had witnessed the crime and they had given false evidence against the accused-appellants on account of their being close relatives of the complainant, due to previous enmity between the families of the complainant and the accused. The omission on the part of the Investigating Officer to dispatch the plain and blood stained earth seized from the place of occurrence empty cartridges, pellets and bullets recovered from the place of occurrence and nearby sugarcane field and the weapons and live cartridges allegedly seized from the possession of the accused appellants at the time of their arrest and the bullet recovered from the dead body of Sajid Mukhtar to the ballistic expert for seeking his opinion whether the firearm wounds found on the dead bodies of the deceased could have been caused by the shots fired from the weapons recovered from the possession of accused-appellants and whether the bullet recovered from the deceased and the bullets, pellets and empty cartridges recovered from the place of incident were fired from the same, is an act of deliberation calculated to prejudice the accused-appellants. The failure of the prosecution to examine any independent witness for proving that the murder of the deceased was committed by the accused appellant including one Sharafat who was nominated as eye witness in the FIR is another serious omission on the part of the prosecution which creates a doubt about the veracity of the prosecution story as narrated in the FIR. Such being the state of evidence, recorded conviction of the appellants and the sentences awarded to them by the trial court cannot be sustained and are liable to be set aside. Per contra Sri Saghir Ahmad, learned AGA appearing for the State submitted that the prosecution case stands proved to the hilt from the testimony of the witnesses of fact examined by the prosecution during the trial which stands further corroborated from the medical evidence on record. There is no law which mandates that the evidence of close relatives cannot be made basis for convicting an accused despite the same being found to be trustworthy and reliable after a threadbare scrutiny. Both the witnesses have given plausible explanation for their being present at the time and place of occurrence and it is incorrect to plead that their presence at the place of occurrence at the time of incident is highly unnatural. The FIR of the incident was lodged promptly giving no room to the prosecution to either manipulate or consult with a view to implicate the accused-appellants falsely in this case. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the accused-appellants that the FIR in this case is ante timed is totally misconceived. He lastly submitted that conviction of the accused appellant recorded by the trial court is based upon cogent evidence and the sentence awarded to them is supported by relevant considerations. The impugned judgment and order do not suffer from any illegality, infirmity or perversity requiring any interference by this Court. This appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. We have very carefully considered the submissions advanced before us by the learned counsel for the parties and scanned the entire trial court record. Record shows that in the present case accused-appellants were tried for having committed murder of deceased Hamid Mukhtar and Sajid Mukhtar, real brothers of Ahmad Mukhtar, complainant, on 17.12.2002 at about 10.00 a.m. near Ramnagar tri-crossing and awarded the aforesaid sentences. The only question which arises for our consideration in this case is that whether the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the accused-appellants beyond all reasonable doubts or not. The only question which arises for our consideration in this case is that whether the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the accused-appellants beyond all reasonable doubts or not. The first ground on which the learned counsel for the appellants has assailed recorded conviction of the accused-appellant is that the FIR lodged by the complainant Ahmad Mukhtar who was murdered before the trial had commenced could not have been lodged by Ahmad Mukhtar (complainant) within an hour of the alleged incident because PW-6 B.L.Kashyap, the first investigating officer has categorically stated in his examination in chief on page 107 of the paper book that after registration of the case crime no. 433 of 2002 on the basis of the written report of the incident dated 17.12.2002 Ext. Ka-12 given by the complainant Ahmad Mukhtar at the police station Khatauli, the investigation of this case was entrusted to him and he had forthwith proceeded to record the statements of the complainant and the persons who had accompanied him to the police station, namely, Sri Irfan, Javed and Arshad. Advancing his submission in this regard further learned counsel for the appellant has invited our attention to various extracts of the cross-examination of PW-1 and PW-2 on page nos. 65 and 70 of the paper book. On page 65 of the paper book PW-1 has stated that he knew Arshad, Advocate and Javed. On the same page he has further stated that when PW-1 reached the place of incident, he saw neither Arshad nor Javed were present there. The aforesaid Javed is the real brother-in-law (Behnoi) of Ahmad Mukhar. Ahmad Mukhtar had waited at the place of incident for about 5-7 minutes, then he had left for P.S. Khatauli. On the same page he has further stated that when PW-1 reached the place of incident, he saw neither Arshad nor Javed were present there. The aforesaid Javed is the real brother-in-law (Behnoi) of Ahmad Mukhar. Ahmad Mukhtar had waited at the place of incident for about 5-7 minutes, then he had left for P.S. Khatauli. P.W.-2 on page 72 of the paper book has stated that Irfan and Shams Javed real brother-in-law of Ahmad Mukhtar had reached the place of occurrence about 5 or 7 minutes before the arrival of the police at the place of occurrence Learned counsel for the appellant next submitted that upon conjoint reading of the aforesaid extracts of cross-examination of PW-1 and PW-2 and the examination in chief of PW-6 and the cross examination of PW-1 and PW-2, it transpires that complainant Ahmad Mukhtar had not gone to the police station alone immediately after the occurrence but he had left the place of incident to lodge the FIR after about one hour of the incident when his brother-in-law Shams Javed and Arshad, Advocate brother in law of his brother-in-law and Irfan had reached there from village Jansath in District Muzaffarnagar which is at a distance of about 10 kms. from the place of incident, on coming to know about the double murder and then they had proceeded to the police station for lodging the FIR and before the FIR was lodged, the police on coming to know about the incident from some other source had arrived at the place of occurrence, as the presence of Arshad, Javed at the police station Khatauli at the time of lodging of FIR by Ahmad Mukhtar is fully proved from the facts stated by PW-6 B.L.Kashyap in his examination in chief therefore the FIR could not have been lodged at the time indicated in the check FIR i.e. at 10.00 a.m. on 17.12.2002 as it was not possible for Arshad and Shams Javed to reach the place of incident within 5 or 10 minutes of the occurrence considering the distance between the two places. Learned counsel for the appellant has also submitted that it is proved from the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 that Arshad, Javed and Irfan had reached the place of incident before the arrival of the police and obviously, the written report of the incident was thereafter drafted after due deliberation and consultation implicating the accused-appellants falsely and given to police station Khatauli and much after 10.00 A.M. registered ante timed. Learned counsel for the appellants has also invited our attention to statements of Arshad and Javed recorded by the the Investigating Officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 17.12.2002 wherein they had stated that they were present at Jansath, District Muzaffarnagar which is at a distance of about 10 kms. from the place of occurrence at 9.15 a.m. and on receiving the information of murder of Sajid Mukhtar and Hamid Mukhtar they had reached the crime scene and then they had gone with Ahmad Mukhtar to lodge the FIR. Section 162 Cr.P.C. bars use of statements recorded by the police officer except for the limited purpose of contradictions of such witness. The statement made by witness before police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. can be used only for the purpose of contradicting such witness on what he has stated at the trial as laid down in the proviso to Section 162(1) Cr.P.C.. The statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. recorded during the investigation are not substantive piece of evidence but can be used primarily for the limited purpose;(i) of contradicting such witness by an accused under Section 145, Evidence Act. Arshad and Javed were not examined as witnesses. We stand fortified in our view by the legal proposition propounded by the Apex Court in the Case of V.K.Mishra and another Vs. State of Uttarakhand and another reported in (2015) 9 Supreme Court Cases 588. In support of his argument that the FIR in this case is ante timed, he has also submitted that the prosecution has failed to establish that the special report was sent promptly to the C.J.M. as mandated by Section 157 Cr.P.C., and in fact it is established from the facts stated by PW-3 in his evidence on page 93 of the paper book that the concerned magistrate had seen and signed the Ext. Ka-1 check F.I.R. on 24.12.2002 while the signature of the Circle Officer on the FIR is undated. Ka-1 check F.I.R. on 24.12.2002 while the signature of the Circle Officer on the FIR is undated. We are afraid that the aforesaid submission made by learned counsel for the appellant in support of his contention that the FIR in this case is ante timed by relying upon the material referred to herein above is without any merit. The incident in this case had taken place on 17.12.2002 at 9.00 a.m. at Ramnagar tri-crossing which is at a distance of about four kms. from P.S. Khatauli. The fact that the written report of the incident was given by complainant Ahmad Mukhtar to PW-3 Gangasaran, Constable Mohrrir, P.S. Khatauli, District Muzaffarnagar on 17.12.2002 at about 10.00.am. on the basis of which check FIR Ext.Ka-1 was prepared and relevant G.D. entry was made by him vide rapat no. 45 stands proved from the evidence of PW-3 Gangasaran. It is true that PW-6 in his examination in chief has referred to the presence of Irfan, Javed and Arshad also at the police station along with Ahmad Mukhtar at the time of the registration of the case but this fact in itself is not sufficient to persuade us to infer that Irfan, Javed and Arshad had accompanied the complainant Ahmad Mukhtar to the police station from the place of incident. We have very carefully gone through the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2 on the aforesaid aspect but we do not find anything therein which may even remotely suggest that Ahmad Mukhtar had left for P.S. Khatauli with Irfan, Javed and Arshad from the place of incident after they had reached the place of incident from Jansath in Muzaffarnagar on being informed about the double murder. It is equally true that although both PW-1 and PW-2 have in their statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. stated that out of the large number of persons who had gathered at the place of incident three or four persons had accompanied Ahmad Mukhtar to the police station but both the witnesses have in their evidence stated in unison in their evidence that complainant Ahmad Mukhtar had left for the police station alone within few minutes of the occurrence. Upon being confronted that their statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. during the investigation in which they had stated that complainant Ahmad Mukhtar had left for the police station from the place of occurrence along with three or four persons, they denied having given any such statement to the investigating officer although investigating officer of this case PW-6 B.L.Kashyap on page 113 of the paper book in his cross examination has deposed that witnesses Shakeel and Taufeeq in their statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. had stated that Ahmad Mukhtar had taken three or four persons along with him to the police station. Even if we presume for the sake of argument that PW-1 and PW-2 did not speak the truth before the Court as the aforesaid aspect of the matter, when they deposed that the complainant Ahmad Mukhtar had gone to the police station for lodging the FIR all alone, and actually, three or four persons had accompanied him to the police station complainant Ahmad Mukhtar, there is no evidence on record indicating that the persons who had accompanied Ahmad Mukhar to the police station were Irfan, Javed and Arshad. There is nothing abnormal about the complainant reaching police station Khatauli which was at a distance of about four kms. from the place of occurrence by his scooter after the incident had taken place at 9.00 a.m., before 10.00 a.m. and lodging the FIR.. So far as the delay in sending special report to the concerned magistrate and the Circle Officer is concerned, we do not find anything on the record which may indicate that the special report was not forwarded to the concerned authority promptly, the signing of the FIR by the concerned magistrate on 24.12.2002 and non mention of the date by the Circle Officer of the date which he had signed the check FIR, in our opinion is not sufficient for us to infer that the special report was not send as per the mandate of Section 157 Cr.P.C.. More over the Apex Court in the case of Balram Singh Vs. More over the Apex Court in the case of Balram Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in 2008(11) SCC 286 has in paragraph 10 of the aforesaid judgment has observed as hereunder:- "At any rate, while considering the complaint of the appellants in regard to the delay in the FIR reaching the Jurisdictional Magistrate, we will have to also bear in mind the creditworthiness of the ocular evidence adduced by the prosecution and if we find that such ocular evidence is worthy of acceptance, the element of delay in registering a complaint or sending the same to the Jurisdictional Magistrate by itself would not in any manner weaken the prosecution case In Sarvesh Narain Shukla vs. Daroga Singh reported in 2007(13) SCC 360 , the Apex Court held that delay in forwarding the special report to the Magistrate could not raise a suspicion that FIR had been written later and was ante-timed. Suspicion of manipulation of the documents prepared during the initial investigation would not dislodge the documentary and oral evidence on spontaneity of the lodging of the FIR." Thus keeping in view the legal principle propounded by the Apex Court in the cases of Balram Singh (supra) that the delay in sending the special report to the jurisdictional magistrate by itself would not in any manner weaken the prosecution case if the ocular evidence adduced by the prosecution is worthy of acceptance, we shall return our decision on this ground of challenge to the accused appellants' conviction after assessing and evaluating the oral evidence on record. The next ground on which the learned counsel for the appellants has assailed the impugned judgment and order is that learned trial judge committed a manifest error of law in recording the conviction of the accused appellant on the basis of the testimony of PW-1 Shakil Ahmad and PW-2 Taufeeq Ahmad who are both close relatives of the complainant and who had given false evidence against the appellants due to previous enmity emanating from the pendency of several criminal and civil litigation between both the sides. It has also been submitted that both the eye witnesses produced by the prosecution during the trial fall in the category of highly interested and chance witnesses whose presence at the time and place of the occurrence was highly unnatural. It has also been submitted that both the eye witnesses produced by the prosecution during the trial fall in the category of highly interested and chance witnesses whose presence at the time and place of the occurrence was highly unnatural. Before proceeding to evaluate the testimony of the two eye witnesses for ascertaining whether the same is reliable and inspires confidence, we consider it proper to first deal with the legal objection raised by the learned counsel for the appellant before us regarding the admissibility of the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 against the accused-appellants for the purpose of proving the charges framed against them on the ground of their being close relatives of the deceased and complainant and hence highly interested in seeing the accused-appellant convicted for the charge of murder of the deceased where presence at the place of occurrence is highly unnatural. The Apex Court on the point of interested witnesses has in State of U.P. Vs. Jagdeo, (2000) Cr.L.J., 844 SC observed that only on the ground of interested or related witnesses, their evidence cannot be discarded. In Mst. Dalbir Kaur Vs. State of Punjab reported in 1976 Cr.L.J. 418 SC following observations were made:- "(i) Interested witness:- Relatives who are natural witnesses are not interested witnesses and their testimony can be relied upon. The term 'interested' postulates that the person concerned must have some direct interest in seeing that the accused is somehow or the other is convicted either because he had some animus with the accused or for some other reason. In the reported case the incident took place at mid night inside the house, the only natural witnesses who could be present to see the assault were the persons present in the house at that time. No outsider can be expected to have come at that time because the attack was sudden. Moreover a close relative who is a very natural witness cannot be regarded as an interested witness. (ii) .... (iii) witness who gives details with absolute accuracy is trustworthy. 38. Regarding evidentiary value of testimony of the interested or relatives witnesses, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mano Dutt and another Vs. State of U.P. 2012 (77) ACC 209, has observed in paragraph no.19 referring to the case of Namdeo Vs. State of Maharashtra (2007) 14 SCC 150 that this Court drew a clear distinction between a chance witness and a natural witness. State of U.P. 2012 (77) ACC 209, has observed in paragraph no.19 referring to the case of Namdeo Vs. State of Maharashtra (2007) 14 SCC 150 that this Court drew a clear distinction between a chance witness and a natural witness. Both these witnesses have to be relied upon subject to their evidence being trustworthy and admissible in accordance with law. 40. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Waman and others Vs. State of Maharashtra 2011 Crl.L.J. 4827 has observed in paragraph no.9 which reads as follows: "In Balraje @ Trimbak Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2010) 6 SCC 673 ; (2010 AIR SCW 3707), this Court held that mere fact that the witnesses were related to the deceased cannot be a ground to discard their evidence. It was further held that when the eye-witnesses are stated to be interested and inimically disposed towards the accused, it has to be noted that it would not be proper to conclude that they would shield the real culprit and rope in innocent persons. The truth or otherwise of the evidence has to be weighed pragmatically and the court would be required to analyse the evidence of related witnesses and those witnesses who are inimically disposed toward the accused. After saying so, this Court held that if after careful analysis and scrutiny of their evidence, the version given by the witnesses appears to be clear, cogent and credible, there is no reason to discard the same." 41. It has been further observed in Waman (supra) that relationship cannot be a factor to affect the credibility of a witness. The evidence of a witness cannot be discarded solely on the ground of his relationship with the victim of the offence. The plea relating to relatives' evidence remains without any substance in case the evidence has credence and it can be relied upon. In such a case the defence has to lay foundation if plea of false implication is made and the court has to analyse evidence of related witnesses carefully to find out whether it is cogent and credible. The same view has been reiterated in State of U.P. Vs. Naresh and others (2011) 4 SCC 324 ." As far as the chance witnesses are concerned Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mano Dutt and another Vs. The same view has been reiterated in State of U.P. Vs. Naresh and others (2011) 4 SCC 324 ." As far as the chance witnesses are concerned Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mano Dutt and another Vs. State of U.P. 2012 (77) ACC 209, has observed in paragraph 19 that although the clear distinction is drawn between the chance witness and natural witness have to be relied upon subject to their evidence being trustworthy and admissible in accordance with law. Thus the principle which is culled out on a careful reading of the aforesaid authorities is that mere fact that the witnesses are related to the deceased cannot be a ground to discard their evidence and if after careful analysis and scrutiny of their evidence, the version given by the witnesses appears to be clear, cogent and credible and their evidence is trustworthy and admissible in accordance with law and there is no reason to discard the same. We now proceed to asses and evaluate the oral testimony of two witnesses of fact PW-1 Shakil Ahmad and PW-2 Taufeeq who have been produced by the prosecution to prove the charge of double murder of Hamid Mukhtar and Sajid Mukhtar by the accused-appellants. PW-1 in his examination-in-chief has deposed on oath that while he was going from his village Khedikuresh to Khatauli on a cycle at about 9.00 a.m., when he reached Ramnagar tri-crossing, he saw Sajid Mukhtar and Hamid Mukhtar residents of the same village coming on a scooter and who after meeting him overtook him. They were followed by the complainant Ahmad Mukhtar on another scooter. As soon as Sajid Mukhtar and Hamid Mukhar crossed the Ramnagar crossing, all the accused, six in numbers Mahsoob, Gayub, Margoob, Gauhar, Jauhar @ Bobby and Firoz of whom Gayub was carrying a gun in his hand while other accused were armed with countrymade pistols emerged from a nearby sugarcane field and stopped the scooter of Sajid Mukhtar and Hamid Mukhtar and started firing at them. The complainant Ahmad Mukhtar and Taufeeq who were behind Sajid Mukhtar and Hamid Mukhtar raised cries for help on which the accused escaped into nearby fields threatening the complainant and the witnesses PW-1 and PW-2 with dire consequences. Then they examined Hamid Mukhtar and Sajid Mukhtar and found that both of them had died on the spot. The complainant Ahmad Mukhtar and Taufeeq who were behind Sajid Mukhtar and Hamid Mukhtar raised cries for help on which the accused escaped into nearby fields threatening the complainant and the witnesses PW-1 and PW-2 with dire consequences. Then they examined Hamid Mukhtar and Sajid Mukhtar and found that both of them had died on the spot. While he and Taufeeq stayed back at the place of incident, Ahmad Mukhtar went to the police station to lodge the FIR. Thus PW-1 in his examination-in-chief has fully supported the prosecution case as spelt out in the written report of the incident Ext.Ka-12 which was scribed by the complainant late Ahmad Mukhtar. PW-2 also in his examination-in-chief has fully corroborated the testimony of PW-1 on all material points. As regards his presence at the place of incident at the time of occurrence PW-2 has stated in his cross examination that on the date of incident he was going to Khatauli from his house for purchasing fodder and other house hold articles. As far as PW-2 Taufeeq is concerned his presence at the place of occurrence has been challenged by the learned counsel for the appellants on the ground that Taufeeq was not a resident of village Mohaddipur and on the date of the occurrence he was residing in village Budhana and he had been introduced by the prosecution to give false evidence against the accused-appellants. In order to prove that PW-2 Taufeeq had shifted to the paternal home of his wife in village Budhana after the death of his father-in-law on 25.01.2001 for managing his properties as he had no other issue, the defence had filed a death certificate of Zafar issued by Registrar Death and Birth, Nagar Panchayat, Budhana in October 2007 certifying that Zafar had died on 25.01.2001. Controverting the claim of the defense regarding the date of death of Zafar the prosecution had also brought on record another death certificate of Zafar issued in the year 2004 by the same officer denoting the date of his death as 03.08.2004. The author of the two death certificates has not been produced. Both the death certificates appear to be unreliable. So we are now left with the evidence of Taufeeq alone for ascertaining the fact that whether on the date of incident he was residing in village Mohaddipur or in village Budhana. The author of the two death certificates has not been produced. Both the death certificates appear to be unreliable. So we are now left with the evidence of Taufeeq alone for ascertaining the fact that whether on the date of incident he was residing in village Mohaddipur or in village Budhana. P.W.-2 was cross examined by the defence counsel on the aforesaid aspect of the matter at great length. PW-2 in his cross examination admitted that his father-in-law Zafar who was a resident of village Budhana had died on 03.08.2004 and not in 2001 whereafter he had shifted to village Budhana to look after his property. We have very carefully scanned his entire testimony and we do not find any reason to disbelieve the claim of PW-2 that on the date of death of the incident he was not residing in village Budhana. It is relevant to note that PW-2 Taufeeq in his examination-in-chief has categorically stated that his sister Hazara was married to Sajid Mukhtar r/o village Khedikuresh, he had further deposed that a day before the date of incident he had received telephonic information about his sister being ill and on the date of incident, he was going to village Khedikuresh to inquire about the welfare of his sister along with one Sharafat. He then proceeded to give the correct and complete description of the incident as spelt out in the FIR. Both the witnesses were cross examined at great length by the defence counsel but they have not been able to elicit anything from them which may create a doubt about the veracity of the facts stated by them in their evidence. Although both the witnesses of fact produced by the prosecution for the charge against the accused appellant are chance witness but the explanations given by them for their presence at the time and place of occurrence appear to be plausible and their testimony despite their being chance witnesses appears to be unimpeachable and reliable. Both the witnesses have given details of the occurrence with absolute accuracy. It is noteworthy that the defence counsel had tried to impeach the credibility of the PW-1 and PW-2 by contradicting them with the facts which were mentioned in their previous statements made to police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. which were conspicuous by their absence in their evidence tendered during the trial. It is noteworthy that the defence counsel had tried to impeach the credibility of the PW-1 and PW-2 by contradicting them with the facts which were mentioned in their previous statements made to police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. which were conspicuous by their absence in their evidence tendered during the trial. The defense counsel contradicted PW-1 and PW-2 with the following parts of their previous statements:- (i) that the scooter on which Sajid Mukhar and Hamid Mukhtar were going was stopped by the accused after surrounding the same. (ii) both PW-1 and PW-2 in their statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. had stated that out of several persons who had arrived at the place of incident after the firing three or four persons had accompanied Ahmad Mukhtar to the police station for lodging the FIR of the occurrence. (iii) labourers, women and children working in the nearby fields got panicky after the firing and ran away from their field causing stampede. Both PW-1 and PW-2 categorically denied having made the aforesaid statements to the investigating officer who had interrogated them and expressed their ignorance about the reason why the investigating officer had mentioned the aforesaid facts in their previous statements. PW-6 in his cross-examination reiterated that both PW-1 and PW-2 in their statements made to him under Section 161 Cr.P.C. had categorically stated the aforesaid facts. Even if we assume that PW-1 and PW-2 have omitted to state certain facts in their testimony recorded before the trial court, the omissions and the contradictions which were part of their previous statements made to the police pointed out in their testimonies, in our opinion are of trivial nature which do not affect the core of the prosecution case rendering it unreliable and we do not find any reason to disbelieve the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2. Now coming to the third ground on which the learned counsel for the appellants has castigated the impugned judgment and order is that the ocular testimony in this case is not in harmony with the medical evidence on record, we find after going through the statements of PW-1 and PW-2, the two eye witnesses of the incident examined by the prosecution during the trial, post mortem reports of the deceased Ext. Ka-21 and Ext.Ka-22 and the statement of PW-5 Dr. Ka-21 and Ext.Ka-22 and the statement of PW-5 Dr. Ashok Kumar Tyagi who had conducted the post mortem of the cadavers of the deceased, that the same is without any substance. Both the eye witnesses PW-1 Shakil Ahmad and PW-2 Taufeeq Ahmad have in their examination-in-chief uniformly deposed in their examination-in-chief that on the date of the incident they had seen Hamid Mukhtar & Sajid Mukhtar coming from their village on a scooter followed by the complainant Ahmad Mukhtar on another scooter at about 9.00 a.m. and as soon as Sajid Mukhtar and Hamid Mukhtar crossed the Ramnagar tri-crossing accused-appellants Margoob, Mahsoob, Gayub, Gauhar, Jauhar @ Bobby and Firoz, of whom Gayub was armed with a gun and the other accused were carrying countrymade pistols in their hands, emerged from a sugarcane field in the south and immediately after stopping the scooter of Hamid Mukhtar and Sajid Mukhtar started firing at them inflicting firearm wounds on them which caused their instantaneous death. The post mortem reports of the deceased Hamid Mukhtar Ext.Ka-21 and Sajid Mukhtar Ext.Ka-22 show that Hamid Mukhtar had received three gun shot wounds of entry and two exit wounds of gun shot wound while deceased Sajid Mukhtar Ext.Ka-22 had sustained three gun shot wounds. According to PW-5 both Sajid Mukhtar and Hamid Mukhtar had died due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of ante mortem injuries. The post mortem reports of Sajid Mukhtar and Hamid Mukhtar Ext.Ka21 and Ext.Ka-22 were duly proved by Dr. Ashok Kumar Tyagi who had conducted the post mortem on the dead bodies of the deceased and prepared their post mortem reports, who was examined as PW-5 during the trial. In his examination-in-chief on pages 102 and 104 of the paper book he has categorically deposed that it was possible that deceased Sajid Mukhtar and Hamid Mukhtar had died on 17.02.2002 at about 9.00 a.m.. Despite subjecting him to a grueling cross examination the defence counsel could not extract anything from him which may even remotely indicate that the medical evidence on record did not corroborate the ocular version. Thus the ocular evidence tendered by the prosecution during the trial having been found by us to be credit worthy and reliable, mere delay in sending the special report to the concerned magistrate will not render the FIR of this case ante-timed or weaken the prosecution case. Thus the ocular evidence tendered by the prosecution during the trial having been found by us to be credit worthy and reliable, mere delay in sending the special report to the concerned magistrate will not render the FIR of this case ante-timed or weaken the prosecution case. We do not find any merit in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that the FIR in this case is ante timed as argued by the learned counsel for the accused appellant while addressing us on the first ground of challenge to the impugned judgment and order, that the FIR in this case is ante timed. We now proceed to examine the fourth ground on which the learned counsel for the appellants has assailed the conviction of the accused appellants that the trial judge has committed a patent error of law in disbelieving the plea of alibi set up by accused-appellants Mahsoom and Gayub in defence. In this regard we find that on behalf of the accused appellant Mahsoob and Gayub it was argued that on the date of incident they were present in their clinic and they had treated two patients Abdul Hafiz and Jalaluddin. Both Abdul Hafiz and Jalaluddin were produced by accused-appellants Mahsoob and Gayub to prove their plea of alibi. DW-1 Abdul Hafiz and DW-2 Jalaluddin in their examination in chief deposed that they had gone to clinic of Mahsoob and Gayub on 17.02.2002 for treatment. It is interesting to note that neither any register of patients maintained at the clinic of Mahsoob and Gayub nor the prescriptions issued by them to DW-1 and DW-2 were produced. More over no such plea of alibi was set up accused-appellants Mahsoob and Gayub in their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.. In the absence of any documentary evidence on record which could have proved that Mahsoob and Gayub were actually running a clinic in their village and they had treated DW-1 and DW-2 on the date of the incident, we find it difficult to accept their plea of alibi set up by them in defense. The two eye witnesses examined appear to be got up witnesses whose testimony does not inspire any confidence. Much emphasis has been laid by the learned counsel for the appellant on the perfunctory manner in which the investigation in this case was done by the investigating officer. The two eye witnesses examined appear to be got up witnesses whose testimony does not inspire any confidence. Much emphasis has been laid by the learned counsel for the appellant on the perfunctory manner in which the investigation in this case was done by the investigating officer. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that Investigating Officer in this case while conducting the investigation has not been merely negligent but had conducted the investigation in a dishonest manner. The empty cartridges, pallets, ticklies seized from the place of the occurrence and the nearby sugarcane field, the firearms recovered from the search of the accused appellants at the time of their arrest and the bullet recovered from the deceased's body were not sent by him to the ballistic expert for obtaining his opinion whether the seized empty cartridge and the pallets and bullets and the bullets recovered from the dead body of the deceased Sajid Mukhtar could have been fired from the firearms allegedly recovered from the accused-appellants at the time of their arrest. The failure of the investigating officer to recover and seize the scooter which the deceased were allegedly riding at the time of the occurrence before they were shot dead by the accused appellant indicate that the effort was made by the investigating officer to suppress the true genesis of the prosecution case. Lack of any effort made by the investigating officer to trace out the missing scooter is an instance of the lackadaisical manner in which he had wrapped up the investigation of this case. After giving serious consideration to the submissions placed before us by the learned counsel for the accused-appellants, we find ourselves in complete disagreement with his contention. Reason being that there is substantial difference between a negligent investigation and dishonest investigation. The investigating officer may not be diligent enough to perform his duties well. He may be casual in his approach and may not have acted with requisite alacrity and may not be a competent police officer. However, the aforesaid factors would result in a low quality investigation but the same is always distinguishable from a case where the police indulges itself in overt acts and foul dishonesty and deliberately does things with ulterior motive and oblique purpose. However, the aforesaid factors would result in a low quality investigation but the same is always distinguishable from a case where the police indulges itself in overt acts and foul dishonesty and deliberately does things with ulterior motive and oblique purpose. In the instance case, learned counsel for the accused-appellants has failed to cite even a single instance of any act or omission on the part of the investigating officer which may persuade us to accept that the same was deliberate or calculated to prejudice the accused-appellants. As far as the disappearance of the scooter from the place of occurrence is concerned it has come in the evidence of PW-6 that someone had taken it away from the crime scene and parked it near a culvert. PW-6 B.K.Kashyap in his cross examination on page 112 of paper book has deposed that although during the investigation he had not found any scooter on the place of occurrence but during the course of investigation complainant Ahmad Mukhtar had informed him that after the incident someone had removed the scooter from the place of occurrence and had taken it to village Khatauli and parked it near kiosk near the railway crossing. The failure on the part of the investigating officer to recover and seize the scooter of the deceased and to send bullets, empty cartridge, pellets recovered from the place of incident and the sugarcane field where the place of incident firearms, recovered from the possession of the accused appellants at the time of their arrest and the pellets recovered from the dead body of the deceased Sajid Mukhtar and Hamid Mukhtar to the ballistic expert can be termed as acts of negligence which indicate that he had not been diligent enough to perform his duties well. The veracity of the entire prosecution case cannot be doubted on account of the aforesaid omission on the part of the investigating officer which in our opinion does not materially affect the credibility of the prosecution case which we have already noted has been proved to the hilt from the testimony of the two eye witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution. Thus upon a wholesome appraisal and analysis of the entire evidence on record, we find that both the witnesses of fact examined produced by the prosecution during the trial have given accurate details of the incident in their testimonies. Thus upon a wholesome appraisal and analysis of the entire evidence on record, we find that both the witnesses of fact examined produced by the prosecution during the trial have given accurate details of the incident in their testimonies. They have fully corroborated the prosecution case as spelt out in the FIR. It is true that there are minor contradictions in their evidence but the same in our opinion do not corrode their credibility in view of the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of Braham Swaroop and another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2011) 6 SCC 288 :- "It is a settled legal proposition that while appreciating the evidence of a witness, minor discrepancies on trivial matters, which do not affect the core of the prosecution's case, may not prompt the Court to reject the evidence in its entirety. "Irrelevant details which do not in any way corrode the credibility of a witness cannot be labelled as omissions or contradictions." Difference in some minor detail, which does not otherwise affect the core of the prosecution case, even if present, would not itself prompt the court to reject the evidence on minor variations and discrepancies. After exercising care and caution and sifting through the evidence to separate truth from untruth, exaggeration and improvements, the court comes to a conclusion as to whether the residuary evidence is sufficient to convict the accused. Thus, an undue importance should not be attached to omissions, contradictions and discrepancies which do not go to the heart of the matter and shake the basic version of the prosecution witness. As the mental capabilities of a human being cannot be expected to be attuned to absorb all the details, minor discrepancies are bound to occur in the statements of witnesses." In view of the foregoing discussion, we find that the recorded conviction of the accused-appellants and the sentences awarded to them by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.4, Muzaffarnagar do not suffer from any illegality, infirmity or perversity requiring any interference by this Court. These appeals lack merit and are accordingly dismissed. There shall however be no order as to costs.