JUDGMENT : 1. Since all the aforementioned four appeals arise out of common judgment dated 10th April, 2013 passed in Sessions Case No. 35/2012, the same are heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. 2. By these criminal appeals filed under Section 374 Cr.P.C. the appellants seek to challenge the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10th April, 2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Kishangarhbas, District Alwar in Sessions Case No. 35/2012 whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:- Surendrapal: 1. Under Section 148 IPC: to undergo simple imprisonment for three years and to a pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default thereof, to further suffer simple imprisonment for one month; 2. Under Section 302 IPC:- to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. In default thereof to further suffer simple imprisonment for six months; 3. Under Section 307 IPC:- to undergo five years' simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default thereof, to further suffer simple imprisonment for three months; Jamna Kaur, Kaka @ Mahendra Singh, Kamlesh Kaur and Mohan Singh: 1. Under Section 148 IPC: to undergo simple imprisonment for three years and to a pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default thereof, to further suffer simple imprisonment for one month; 2. Under Section 302/149 IPC:- to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. In default thereof to further suffer simple imprisonment for six months; 3. Under Section 307/149 IPC:- to undergo five years' simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default thereof, to further suffer simple imprisonment for three months; All the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. 3. The facts of the case as summarised are that on 10th November, 2005, FIR No. 363/2005 (Ex. P. 2), under Sections 143, 307 and 302 IPC was registered at Police Station Tapukda, District Alwar on the basis of Parcha Bayan (Ex. P. 1) given by the injured Balvindra Singh (P.W. 1) while he was admitted in PHC Tapukada. 3. The facts of the case as summarised are that on 10th November, 2005, FIR No. 363/2005 (Ex. P. 2), under Sections 143, 307 and 302 IPC was registered at Police Station Tapukda, District Alwar on the basis of Parcha Bayan (Ex. P. 1) given by the injured Balvindra Singh (P.W. 1) while he was admitted in PHC Tapukada. In the parcha Bayan it was given out that "today on 10.11.2005 at about 4.00 in the evening, when I, along with my father was working in the field and Surendra Singh was irrigating the field, Surendra Pal, Mohan Singh, Kaka, Kamlesh and Jamna Kaur armed with gun, farsi and sword came there and attacked upon us. Surendra Singh fired a gun shot towards my father Surjan Singh due to which he died on the spot. I tried to save my father then Kaka fired a gun shot towards me and when I tried to run away, the bullet hit on my back. When my brother Surendra Singh tried to save me Mohan Singh opened fire upon him also. Many persons gathered there who intervened." As has been mentioned hereinabove, formal FIR No. 363/2005 was registered against five accused persons for offence Sections 143, 307 and 302 IPC and investigation commenced. During investigation, the police prepared the site plan of the place of occurrence, statements of the witnesses were recorded, empty cartridges were recovered. The dead body of the deceased Surjan Singh was subjected to post mortem, injured were got examined for their injuries, accused persons were arrested and on the basis of the information furnished by them under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, certain recoveries were made. After investigation the police submitted charge sheet against accused Surendra Pal, Smt. Jamna Kaur and Kumari Kamlesh and investigation under Section 178(3) was kept pending against the accused Kaka @ Mahendra Singh, Mohan Singh @ Moda and Gurdeep Singh. The case was committed to the trial court. 4. On the basis of the material and evidence collected by the investigation officer and after hearing both the sides, the learned trial court framed charges against accused appellant Surendra Pal for offence under Sections 148, 307 and 302 IPC and under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act whereas charge for offence under Sections 148, 307/149 and 302/149 IPC was framed against accused Jamna Kaur and Kamlesh. 5. During trial, learned Addl. 5. During trial, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor moved an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for taking cognizance against accused Kaka @ Mehendra Singh and Mohan Singh which was allowed by the trial court vide order dated 21.01.2009 and cognizance for offence under Sections 148, 307, 302/149 IPC was taken against them and thus, they also faced trial. 6. On 16.9.2009 charges under Sections 148, 307 and 302 IPC were framed against accused Kaka @ Mehendra Singh and Mohan Singh to which they denied and claimed to be tried. 7. To prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 19 witnesses and got 37 documents exhibited. 8. After completion of trial, statements of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded wherein they have stated that they have been falsely implicated in the case. In defence, the accused examined three witnesses and got 14 documents exhibited. 9. The learned trial court on conclusion of trial vide impugned judgment dated 10.4.2013 acquitted appellant Surendra Pal for offence under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act but convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned hereinabove. 10. Hence, the present appeal. 11. Before dealing with the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants, it would be appropriate to discuss the documentary as well as the oral evidence produced by the prosecution. 12. So far as the medical evidence is concerned, as per the post mortem report (Ex. P. 17) of the deceased Surjan Singh, the following injuries were found on the body of the deceased which have been proved by Dr. Rakesh Soni (P.W. 11):- 1. Fire arm wound of entrance - 1/2 x 1/2 c.m. on Lt. Side chest, two and half below & 1" lateral to Lt. Nipple. Margin inverted, burned with 2-3 mm bruise color all around. Track of wound passes through skin, muscle, plurea and Lt. Lung. Middle part; slightly upward and medially. Where pallet is not recovered. Plural cavity full of blood (Haemo Thorea) with collapse of lung; 2. Fire arm wound of entrance - 3/4 x 1/2 c.m. - on Lt. Side chest 6" below & 2" lateral of vertical mammary line; margin inverted, Burned with 2-3 mm bruise color all around. Tack passes though skin, muscle and plurea with Lt. Lung. Lower part slightly upward, Backward and medially. Plural cavity full of blood with collapse of lungs. Pallet is not recovered. 3. Side chest 6" below & 2" lateral of vertical mammary line; margin inverted, Burned with 2-3 mm bruise color all around. Tack passes though skin, muscle and plurea with Lt. Lung. Lower part slightly upward, Backward and medially. Plural cavity full of blood with collapse of lungs. Pallet is not recovered. 3. Fire arm wound of entrance - 1/2 x 1/2 c.m. - on Lt. Side chest 7" below & 3" lateral of vertical mammary line; margin inverted, Burned with bruise color all around. Tack passes though skin, muscle and plurea & than with Lt. Lower lung. Slightly upward, Backward and medially. Plural cavity full of blood with collapse of lungs. Pallet is not recovered. 4. Fire arm wound of entrance - 3/4 x 1/2 c.m. - on Lt. lateral side of chest 5" below Axilla in mid axillary line with same features as above with track present in same direction as above and end in Lt. Lung middle part. Pallet not recovered. 5. Fire arm wound of entrance - 1/2 x 1/2 c.m. - on Lt. Arm upper 1/2 part 4" below upper end of shoulder laterally. Oval shape. Margin inverted and burned with bruise color all around. Track of mid passes through skin, muscle and end in Axilla Lt. On posterior lateral wall of Axilla as a exit wound with inverted margin 3/4 x 1/4 c.m. slit shape. 6. Fire arm wound of entrance - 1/2 x 1/2 c.m. - on Lt. Arm lower 1/2 part, 4-1/2" above elbow posterior reason with same features as above and track of wound passes through skin substances tissue and muscle & end as exit wound. 1/2 x 1/4 c.m. Slit shape; 5" above elbow, posterior medially 2" away & slightly upward from entrance wound. 7. Fire arm wound of entrance - 3/4 x 3/4 c.m. - on Lt. Forearm 2" below elbow reason posterolaterally. Track passes through skin, muscle slightly downwards medially & medially below sit where metal pallet 3/4 x 3/4 c.m. size present. 8. Fire arm wound of entrance - 1/2 x 1/2 c.m. - on Rt. Arm anteriorly middle part 5" below upper end of shoulder. Margine inverted, burned & bruised color 2-3 mm present all around. Track passes through skin, muscle end as exit wound. Rt. Arm posterolaterally at same level as entrance wound. Margin entered slit shape & 3/4 x 1/4 c.m. size 2-1/2" away. 9. Arm anteriorly middle part 5" below upper end of shoulder. Margine inverted, burned & bruised color 2-3 mm present all around. Track passes through skin, muscle end as exit wound. Rt. Arm posterolaterally at same level as entrance wound. Margin entered slit shape & 3/4 x 1/4 c.m. size 2-1/2" away. 9. Fire arm wound of entrance - 3/4 x 1/2 c.m. - on Rt. Forearm 1-1/2" below elbow anteriorly as same features as above & end as exit wound at same level as entrance wound on Rt. Forearm. Posterolaterally 2" away size 1/2 x 1/4 slit shape. 10. Fire arm wound of entrance - 3/4 x 1/2 c.m. - on Rt. Side upper chest 2" below middle part of clavicle. Feature same as above. Track passes through skin, muscle & apex of lung obliquely back part & downward & end as exit wound on Rt. arm upper 1/3 rd part posteriorly 4" below upper end of shoulder posteriorly. Margins entered slit shape. Size 1/2 x 1/2 c.m. 13. As per the opinion of the medical board all the injuries were ante-mortem in nature and the cause of death as opined by the Medical Board was hemorrhagic shock & respiratory failure as a result of firearm injury. 14. Dr. Phool Singh Chaudhary (P.W. 10) who, at the relevant time was posted at General Hospital, Alwar examined the injuries of injured Surender Singh and Balvinder Singh. He noted the following injuries on the person of injured Surender Singh vide injury report (Ex. P. 5) and on the person of injured Balvinder Singh vide injury report (Ex. P. 15) respectively:- 1. Punctured lacerated wound on Rt. Side abdomen in upper part 2 c.m. medially to mammary line of size 1 x 1 c.m.? Depth with clotted blood; 2. Punctured lacerated wound on Rt. Arm in 1/3rd on posterior aspect of size 1/2 x 1/2 c.m.? Depth with clotted blood; 3. Punctured lacerated wound on Rt. Arm in 1/3rd on posterior aspect of size 1/2 x 1/2? depth 5 c.m. lateral to injury No. 2 with clotted blood; 4. Punctured lacerated wound on Rt. Forearm in 1/3rd part of size 1/2 x 1/2 c.m.? depth with clotted blood (entry wound); 5. Punctured lacerated wound on Rt. Forearm. Anteriorly in middle 1/3rd of size 1/2 x 1/2? depth (wound of exit). 6. Bruise mark on abdomen post-lat. depth 5 c.m. lateral to injury No. 2 with clotted blood; 4. Punctured lacerated wound on Rt. Forearm in 1/3rd part of size 1/2 x 1/2 c.m.? depth with clotted blood (entry wound); 5. Punctured lacerated wound on Rt. Forearm. Anteriorly in middle 1/3rd of size 1/2 x 1/2? depth (wound of exit). 6. Bruise mark on abdomen post-lat. At posteriorly line in upper part of size 2 x 1-1/2 c.m. with blood clots. 15. As per the X-ray report (Ex. P. 6), no bony injury was seen. However, injury No. 4 was described as grievous in nature and rest of the injuries were simple in nature. 16. According to the injury report (Ex. P. 15), injured Balvinder Singh sustained one punctured lacerated wound in Rt. side chest posto-lateral in lower part of post axillary line of size 1 x 1 c.m. x Depth? with clotted blood. As per X-ray report (Ex. P. 16) no bony injury was seen. 17. Balvinder Singh (P.W. 1), who was lateron examined as (P.W. 4) stated in his examination-in-chief that the house of Surendra Pal is near his field. On 10.11.2005 at about 4.00 P.M. he along with his father Shri Surjan Singh and brother Surinder Singh was working in the field when Surender Pal, Mohan Singh, Kaka S/o. Thakar, Jamna Kaur and Kamlesh came there armed with guns and cartridges. Surendra Pal, Mohan Singh and Kaka Thakar were having guns and Jamna Kaur and Kamlesh were having bags containing cartridges. Surender Pal aiming at his father opened fire from the gun, the bullet of which hit his father due to which he fell down. As he tried to run away, a shot was fired at him by Kaka and the bullet hit him on his back. When his brother came to save his father, Mohan Singh fired a shot at him too. Due to the gun shot, his father died on the spot. Nobody had come from the village. Afterwards, police came there. Kamlesh and Jamna Kaur had cartridges, which they were handing over to the accused. He was examined for his injuries at Alwar. 18. In his cross examination, the witness stated that the police recorded his statement at about 6.00 P.M. on the same day. He does not remember the Khasra Number. He did not produce the documents regarding the land. Kamlesh and Jamna Kaur had cartridges, which they were handing over to the accused. He was examined for his injuries at Alwar. 18. In his cross examination, the witness stated that the police recorded his statement at about 6.00 P.M. on the same day. He does not remember the Khasra Number. He did not produce the documents regarding the land. It was disclosed to the police that Jamna Kaur and Kamlesh had some bags with them and they were taking out cartridges from and then handing over the same to the accused. However, he could not say as to why this fact was not mentioned by the police in his statement (Ex. D. 1). He has further stated that Surenderpal was not irrigating his own field and the disputed field does not belong to Surenderpal Singh rather the filed belongs to them. 19. Surinder Singh (P.W. 2), who was lateron examined as (P.W. 6) stated in his examination-in-chief that about 3-4 years ago at about 4.00 P.M., he along with his father and younger brother Balvinder Singh was irrigating the field. His younger brother Balvinder Singh was working in the field with the help of a Tractor when Surendra Pal, Mohan Singh and Mahender Singh came with guns in their hands along with Jamna Kaur and Kamlesh, who were having bags of cartridges in their hands. Surinder Pal fired at his father from the gun and when his younger brother Balvinder went to save his father, Mahender Singh fired upon him too, which hit on his back. When he went to save them, Mohan Singh fired upon him to and the bullets hit his right hand, shoulder and right side of his abdomen. He made a phone call to his brother at Jodhpur and his brother made a phone call to the police and the police reached the place of occurrence. His injuries were examined at the hospital. 20. In his cross examination this witness admitted that on the day of the occurrence, police did not record his statement but he had shown the place of occurrence to the police. Balvinder, his father and he were working in one field but at different places. He does not remember Khasra Numbers of the field. 20. In his cross examination this witness admitted that on the day of the occurrence, police did not record his statement but he had shown the place of occurrence to the police. Balvinder, his father and he were working in one field but at different places. He does not remember Khasra Numbers of the field. He has further admitted that he did not report the matter to the police but informed his brother over the telephone, who then reported the matter to the police. He did not disclose the names of the intervener as no person was present there. He has denied the suggestion that he did not see Surender Pal opening fire upon his father. The field where occurrence took place belonged to them. 21. Rajender Singh (P.W. 3) in his examination in chief stated that at about 5.30 P.M., he was at Jodhpur when he received a phone call from his brother Surender Singh who told him that his father was shot dead by Surender Pal while they were working in the fields. He immediately informed the police. 22. In his cross examination this witness stated that at the time of the occurrence he was not present at the place of occurrence but immediately informed the police over the phone that his father had been shot dead by some one. He denied the suggestions that they attacked Jamna Kaur for which they faced criminal case and that they wanted to take possession over the land of Surender Singh and beat him up for the same once and that 4-5 cases were going on against them in different courts. He also denied the suggestion that the occurrence took place between the brothers and by misusing his official position, he falsely implicated the accused. 23. Minder Singh (P.W. 7) in his examination in chief stated that the police prepared the site plan (Ex. P. 3) in his presence and recovered the blood stained soil, Baniyan, one half sleeve shirt and prepared the recovery memo (Ex. P. 4). From the place of occurrence the police also recovered two empty cartridges of 12-bore vide (Ex. P. 12). One twelve bore gun, one red colour bag containing 17 live cartridges from Surender Pal through (Ex. P. 13). In his cross examination this witness has stated that the field from where empty cartridges were recovered belongs to Surjan Singh. P. 4). From the place of occurrence the police also recovered two empty cartridges of 12-bore vide (Ex. P. 12). One twelve bore gun, one red colour bag containing 17 live cartridges from Surender Pal through (Ex. P. 13). In his cross examination this witness has stated that the field from where empty cartridges were recovered belongs to Surjan Singh. Live cartridges were recovered from Surendra Pal. 24. Balwant Singh (P.W. 8) stated that the articles mentioned in (Ex. P. 4) were recovered by the police in his presence. Two empty cartridges were also recovered in his presence. He has further proved recovery of the other articles. 25. Dr. Phool Singh Chaudhary (P.W. 10) stated that on 11.11.2005 he was posted at General Hospital, Alwar and on the request of SHO Tapukda, he examined injured Surender Singh who was admitted in surgical ward and found six injuries which were caused by a fire arm. He advised an X-ray to be done of all the injuries. The injury report (Ex. P. 5) as well as the X-ray report contain his signatures. As per the X-ray report, injury No. 4 was grievous in nature and rest of the injuries were simple in nature. On the same day, he also examined injured Balvinder Singh for his injuries and observed one injury on his person, which was simple in nature. 26. In his cross-examination, this witness stated that there was no blackening mark over the injuries sustained by Surender Singh. Police did not seek for his opinion regarding the nature of the injuries. It was not possible to give exact distance. 27. Dr. Rakesh Soni (P.W. 11), in his examination in chief stated that on 11.11.2005 he was posted as Medical Officer at CHC Bhiwadi and on the request of the police has examined the injured persons for their injuries. 28. Dr. Ravi Mathur (P.W. 14), deposed that on 11.11.2005 he was posted as Radiologist at General Hospital, Alwar. On the requisition sent by Dr. Phool Singh Chaudhary, he conducted X-ray of Surendra Singh and Balvindra Singh. The X-ray report of Surendra Singh is (Ex. P. 6). Fracture of right fore-arm was found in the X-ray report of Surendra Singh. The X-ray report of Balvinder Singh is (Ex. P. 16). No fracture was found in it. On the requisition sent by Dr. Phool Singh Chaudhary, he conducted X-ray of Surendra Singh and Balvindra Singh. The X-ray report of Surendra Singh is (Ex. P. 6). Fracture of right fore-arm was found in the X-ray report of Surendra Singh. The X-ray report of Balvinder Singh is (Ex. P. 16). No fracture was found in it. In his cross-examination, this witness has stated that it is not possible to state the nature of the weapon, by which fracture might have been caused. 29. Munshi Ram (P.W. 13) stated that on 10/11/2005, he was posted as Malkhana incharge in Police Station Tapukda. On 10/11/2005, SHO Rakesh Yadav handed over three sealed packets to him marked A, B and C another three sealed packets on 11/11/2005 yet another set of three sealed packets on 28/11/2005, in total nine packets were handed over to him in relation of which he had made entries in Malkhana register (Ex. P. 18). In his cross-examination, this witness stated that all the packets were sealed and he had not opened and seen them. 30. Krishan Kumar (P.W. 9) deposed that on 28/11/2005, he was posted as constable at Police Station Tapukda. On that day Murarilal class IV employee P.H.C., Tapukda presented two sealed packets marked A and B pertaining to deceased Surjan Singh, for carrying it to FSL. On the same day, constable Lakshman Singh obtained one glass bottle in sealed condition mark "A" from Medical Jurist, General Hospital, Alwar and presented it, in the Police Station. 31. Rakesh Kumar (P.W. 16) stated that on 10/11/2005, he was posted as SHO, Tapukda. At around 4:30 P.M., he received a telephonic message that a quarrel had taken place between two parties in village Mithiya Bas and on receiving the information, he immediately reached at the scene of occurrence along with ASI, Dharam Pal, Head Constable Hari Singh, Constable Bhagwan Singh and other constables. A number of people had gathered on the spot and one deceased and two injured persons were found there. The names of the injured were Balvindar Singh and Surendra Singh and name of the deceased was Surjan Singh. He left for hospital along with the injured and the deceased. The parcha bayan of Balvindra Singh was sent to the Police Station for registration of the case and at the instance of the injured Balvindar Singh, site plan (Ex. P. 3) was drawn. He left for hospital along with the injured and the deceased. The parcha bayan of Balvindra Singh was sent to the Police Station for registration of the case and at the instance of the injured Balvindar Singh, site plan (Ex. P. 3) was drawn. At a distance of about 40 feet from the scene of occurrence, two empty cartridges of twelve bore were recovered vide seizure memo (Ex. P. 12). One loaded gun of twelve bore and 17 fired cartridges were recovered from the accused Surendra Pal Singh vide recovery memo (Ex. P. 13). Accused Surendra Pal Singh, Smt. Jamna Kaur and Kumari Kamlesh were brought to Police Station and arrest memos (Ex. P. 7), (Ex. P. 8) and (Ex. P. 9) respectively were drawn. Panchayatnama (Ex. P. 24) was drawn and after conducting postmortem, the dead body was handed over to the son of the deceased named Rajendra Singh vide receipt (Ex. P. 25). During investigation, the statement of witnesses Rajendra Singh and Indro Bai were recorded. Blood smeared clothes of injured Balvindra Singh and Surendra Singh were seized vide seizure memo (Ex. P. 4). Samples of blood smeared soil and control soil were taken vide memo (Ex. P. 14). The pellets which were taken during the medical examination of the deceased Surjan Singh were taken into custody in glass bottle vide memo (Ex. P. 11) and seized articles were deposited in the Malkhana. The seized articles were sent to FSL through constable Dharam Pal Singh, the receipt of which is (Ex. P. 27) and (Ex. P. 28). As per the direction of Superintendent of Police, the case file was handed over to Govind Narain Purohit for further investigation. After the receipt of the case file, charge sheet was filed against accused Surendra Pal, Jamna Kaur and Kamlesh Kaur under Sections 302, 307, 147, 148 and 149 IPC and under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act and investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. was kept pending against accused Mahendra Singh, Mohan Singh and Gurudeep Singh. 32. In cross examination, it has been stated that Police Station is about 8-9 Kilometers from the place of incident, the contact number of phone from which information was received to him, is not known. Parcha Bayan was recorded by ASI Dharam Pal Singh which was recorded by ASI Dharam Pal and it was recorded by him before this witness reached the spot. Parcha Bayan was recorded by ASI Dharam Pal Singh which was recorded by ASI Dharam Pal and it was recorded by him before this witness reached the spot. After the registration of the case, he reached the spot at around 07:00 P.M. The site plan was drawn next day. The field shown at the point No. 7 of site plan (Ex. P. 3) is of accused Surendra Pal in which at point No. A1 crop of mustered has been shown to be ploughed by tractor, however, the tractor was not seized. A number of people were present at the site of incident but no one was prepared to be witness. Two empty cartridges were seized from the place of incident in the presence of accused persons. At the time of seizure memo (Ex. P. 13). Smt. Jamna Kaur and Kamlesh Kaur were present at the spot but their presence is neither mentioned in the seizure memo nor their signatures were taken. Surendra Pal was not arrested at the spot but was brought to the Police Station and after interrogation, he was arrested. There is no mention of any fire arm in the Parcha Bayan. Only Parcha Bayan of injured Balvindra Singh was recorded because the condition of another injured was serious. During his tenure the investigation was pending under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. and he had no information thereafter. The particulars of the persons, who came to the rescue of the injured, were not mentioned in the Parcha Bayan. In his interrogation, it has come out that there was a dispute in respect of a piece of land between the parties. 33. D.W. 1 Mohan Singh deposed that on 10/11/2005 when fight took place, he had gone to Tapukda. His family had a fight with the complainant party, report regarding the same was lodged by him against the accused persons on 01/07/2005, which came to be registered as FIR No. 184/2005, (Ex. D. 8) (Ex. D. 9) is the charge sheet filed in that case. In that fight injuries were sustained by Kamlesh and Jamna and Usha. 34. Kamlesh Kaur (D.W. 2) deposed that on day of incident, she was had gone to work in her field and was not present at the scene of occurrence and she has been falsely implicated in the case. D. 9) is the charge sheet filed in that case. In that fight injuries were sustained by Kamlesh and Jamna and Usha. 34. Kamlesh Kaur (D.W. 2) deposed that on day of incident, she was had gone to work in her field and was not present at the scene of occurrence and she has been falsely implicated in the case. In her cross-examination, she has admitted that she had gone to do manual labour in the village which is about 10-15 minute away from the scene of occurrence. 35. Jamna Kaur (D.W. 3) deposed that on the day of incident, she had gone at Tijara Tehsil to attend the court hearing in respect of the land dispute. In her cross-examination, she stated that her village is about 15-16 kilometers from Tijara and it takes about an hour to reach Tijara and back. However, no document was produced as proof that she went to attend the court on the said day. 36. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that there was a delay in lodging the FIR. The incident occurred at 04:00 P.M. but the report was lodged on the basis of Parcha Bayan at 06:00 P.M. in the evening and the delay, thus, render the entire prosecution story doubtful. 37. The argument advanced is not tenable. The incident occurred at 04:00 P.M. and Balvindra Singh gave his Parcha Bayan at P.H.C. Tapukda at 06:00 P.M. and thus, within a period of two hours, action was taken and it cannot be said that the delay occasioned in the registration of FIR. 38. It is submitted that all the witnesses produced in the case are closely related to the deceased and thus, they are interested witnesses. No independent witness has been produced. Though, in the Parcha Bayan, it has been stated that number of persons had gathered at the place of occurrence and intervened, no such witness has been produced and therefore, it is not safe to convict the appellants on the basis of evidence of interested witnesses. 39. In support of his argument, learned counsels for the appellants have placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Harnand Ram & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan 2008 (6) WLC (Raj.) 740. 40. 39. In support of his argument, learned counsels for the appellants have placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Harnand Ram & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan 2008 (6) WLC (Raj.) 740. 40. On the other hand, learned counsels appearing for the complainant party has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Jodhan vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 2015 AIR SCW 3589. 41. We are not convinced with the argument advanced by the learned counsels. 42. In Ismail Vs. Momin, AIR 1941 PC 11 , it was held that even the testimony of chance witness may be acted upon. It was further held that though the chance witness is not necessarily a false witness, it is proverbially rash to act upon such evidence. In the case of a chance witness, if that witness gives sufficient reasons for his presence, that evidence can be accepted. 43. In the case of Harnand Ram (supra), the Division Bench of this Court has held as under:- Chance witness: may be acted upon Evidence of Kith and Kin of deceased may be relied upon Evidence of close relatives of deceased is not liable to be rejected on the ground of interested witnesses Evidence of interested witness cannot be discarded merely on ground that he is interested; Fact of relationship would add to value of his evidence because he would be interested in getting the real culprit, rather than innocent persons, punished; Law does not insist on plurality of evidence; 44. In Jodhan (supra), their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that evidence of close relatives of the deceased who suffered injuries in the occurrence can be accepted and minor or trivial discrepancies therein are not sufficient to treat the same as improbable or untrustworthy. It was further held that special status in law is conferred on the injured witness. His testimony is to be relied upon in absence of major contradictions. 45. Thus, we are of the view that evidence of interested witnesses cannot be discarded merely on the count that they are interested witnesses but the Court has to take it with great circumspection. The Court has the responsibility to sift the grain from the chaff. His testimony is to be relied upon in absence of major contradictions. 45. Thus, we are of the view that evidence of interested witnesses cannot be discarded merely on the count that they are interested witnesses but the Court has to take it with great circumspection. The Court has the responsibility to sift the grain from the chaff. In the case at hand Balvindra Singh and Surendra Singh though sons of the deceased are also injured witnesses who too got injured in the scuffle and, therefore, their presence at the spot is stamped. We cannot ignore the fact that an injured witness would not leave the real culprit and falsely implicate another in a case. An injured witness, no matter, how much interested he is, would never let the real culprit go scout free and implicate some innocent person since he has himself sustained injuries in the incident and thus, the evidence of interested witnesses, too can be relied upon, if it inspires confidence. 46. In the case on hand, the eye-witnesses examined by the prosecution have been clear and consistent while describing the sequence of events that had taken place on the day of occurrence. No material discrepancy or contradiction is there in their statements. They clearly identified the accused as being the persons who had fired shots from the guns that they were carrying with them. Their testimony could not be discredited in any manner in spite of elaborate cross-examination. Thus, conviction can be based on their testimony. We also find support from the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Singh vs. State of Rajasthan, (2012) 12 SCC 339 . 47. Another argument advanced before us is that there is no evidence to the effect that how the SHO, Police Station, Tapukda reached the hospital and that the statements of witnesses are full of exaggeration. We are not in agreement to the argument laid before us. Rakesh Kumar (P.W. 16) who, at the relevant time, was posted as SHO, Tapukda has stated in categorical terms that he received the telephonic information about the incident at 04:00 P.M., in pursuance whereof, he proceeded to the spot, where he found the deceased and the injured persons. The deceased and injured persons were sent to the hospital along with ASI, Dharam Pal and he also reached the hospital thereafter. The deceased and injured persons were sent to the hospital along with ASI, Dharam Pal and he also reached the hospital thereafter. Another argument placed before us is that there is no recovery of fire arms from the accused which cast doubt in the prosecution story. We are not convinced with this argument. As per the statement of (P.W. 16) Rakesh Kumar, twelve bore loaded gun along with 17 live cartridges has been recovered from accused Surendra Pal no fire arms were recovered from the possession of Mohan Singh and Mahender Singh @ Kaka and direct evidence of injured eye witness who suffered gun shot injury is available on record, which stands corroborated with the medical evidence and thus, the arguments placed before us has no substance. 48. The issue of non-seizure of weapon and all empty cartridges has been considered by the Supreme Court in Ram Singh (supra) and observed as under:- "8. Furthermore, according to the learned counsel, in the present case, the alleged weapon of offence had not been seized/recovered and though four shots, according to the prosecution witnesses, were fired in the course of the incident, only one empty cartridge was recovered from the spot by P.W. 20, the Investigating Officer. It is therefore urged that in the above fact situation it cannot be said that the defence version lacks authenticity and that the prosecution has established its case beyond all reasonable doubt so as to warrant the conviction of the accused. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has pointed out that P.W. 7, Satyanarayan, P.W. 22 Bachibai and P.W. 23 Hariram are the eye witnesses to the occurrence. The evidence of the aforesaid witnesses clearly brings out the details of the incident and the sequence of events that had taken place. From the testimony of the aforesaid witnesses it is clear that it is the accused-appellant, Ram Singh, who was armed with a .12 bore double barrel gun had fired first at Surajmal causing injuries on him and, thereafter, had fired twice at the deceased Rooplal, first on the chest and, thereafter, in the stomach. According to the aforesaid witnesses accused Ram Singh had fired a fourth shot in the air. The three eye-witnesses are clear and consistent in narrating the aforesaid facts and nothing has been elucidated in their cross-examination to discredit their statements. 10. According to the aforesaid witnesses accused Ram Singh had fired a fourth shot in the air. The three eye-witnesses are clear and consistent in narrating the aforesaid facts and nothing has been elucidated in their cross-examination to discredit their statements. 10. Learned State Counsel has also submitted that the defence version is inherently incredible as the tractor in which the accused persons were traveling, which was subsequently impounded, belonged to one Prembai and not to the accused party. If that is so, according to learned counsel the starting point of the defence version that they had gone to the temple to seek divine blessings on the occasion of the purchase of a new tractor, has been proved to be incorrect. It is also pointed out by the learned State counsel that the defence version does not find support from any independent witness though many such persons were reportedly present at the time of the incident. The failure of the prosecution to recover the weapon of assault or all the four empty cartridges from the place of occurrence, according to learned State counsel, is not fatal to the prosecution case. 11. We have considered the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties. We have also perused the evidence of P.W. 7, 22 and 23 as well as D.W. 1 and D.W. 2. On such consideration we find that the eye witnesses examined by the prosecution i.e. P.Ws. 7, 22 and 23 have been clear and consistent while describing the sequence of events that had taken place on the day of the occurrence. There is no material discrepancy or contradiction in the statement of the said witness who had clearly identified the accused-appellant Ram Singh as being the person who had fired four shots from the .12 bore barrel gun that he was carrying with him. The eye witnesses have also been categorical in stating that the accused-appellant had first fired at Surajmal (P.W. 17) and thereafter he had fired twice at the deceased Rooplal hitting him on the chest and the stomach. The fourth shot, according to the eye witnesses, was fired in the air. The elaborate cross-examination of the eye-witnesses on behalf of the accused has failed to discredit their testimony in any manner whatsoever. All the aforesaid witnesses have also categorically denied the defence version which was put to them in their cross-examination." 49. The fourth shot, according to the eye witnesses, was fired in the air. The elaborate cross-examination of the eye-witnesses on behalf of the accused has failed to discredit their testimony in any manner whatsoever. All the aforesaid witnesses have also categorically denied the defence version which was put to them in their cross-examination." 49. It is also submitted by the learned counsels for the appellants that as per the case of prosecution, the Parcha Bayan (Ex. P. 1) was recorded by Dharampal ASI but he was not examined by the prosecution and thus, the Parcha Bayan cannot be said to have been proved; 50. We are not impressed with the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants. So far as non-examination of Shri Dharampal, ASI, who recorded the parcha bayan (Ex. P. 1) is concerned, counsel for the appellants has not been able to show that what prejudice has been caused to the appellants due to non-examination of Shri Dharampal, when Balvinder Singh (P.W. 1) and Rakesh Kumar (P.W. 16) have proved the same. 51. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants to the effect that the place of occurrence is the field of the accused party and thus they cannot be termed as aggressor. From a bare perusal of FIR No. 184/2005 (Ex. D. 8) it reveals that as per the case of the accused party, the members of the complainant party allegedly gave beating to the ladies of the accused party at 11.00 A.M. whereas the present occurrence has taken place at 4.00 P.M. This fact clearly goes to show that the members of the accused party had a grudge against the members of the complainant party and thus, this possibility cannot be ruled out that in the grudge to give a lesson to the members of the complainant party, they opened attack upon them. 52. In the light of the evidence produced by the prosecution and available on record, which has been discussed hereinabove, we also do not find any substance in the argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellants that due to previous enmity the accused appellants have been implicated falsely in the case. 53. 52. In the light of the evidence produced by the prosecution and available on record, which has been discussed hereinabove, we also do not find any substance in the argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellants that due to previous enmity the accused appellants have been implicated falsely in the case. 53. So far as recovery of gun is concerned, Rakesh Kumar (P.W. 16), Investigating Officer of the case in his statement stated that 12 bore loaded gun along with 17 live cartridges was recovered from accused Surendra Pal on the day of occurrence itself i.e. 10.11.2005 vide recovery memo (Ex. P. 13) in the presence of two motbirs Minder Singh (P.W. 7) and Banta Singh @ Balwant Singh (P.W. 8). As per the arrest memo (Ex. P. 7), accused appellant Surendra Pal was arrested on the same day. Although there is time gap of about two hours in drawing the arrest memo Ex. P. 7 and the recovery memo of the gun (Ex. P. 13) but in view of the evidence produced by the prosecution, we are of the view that the appellants can avail no benefit of the same as the learned counsel for the appellants have not satisfied us as to what prejudice has been caused to the appellants. 54. The issue regarding any irregularity or even an illegality during investigation has been considered by the Apex Court in case of Leela Ram (D) through Duli Chand vs. State of Haryana, AIR 1999 SC 3717 . In paragraph 8, their Lordships have observed as under:- "8. Before however, proceeding with the matter on two counts as above, it would be convenient to note another aspect of the matter, namely, the observations pertaining to the investigation by the investigating Agency. It is now a well settled principle that any irregularity or even an illegality during investigation ought not to be treated as a ground to reject the prosecution case and we need not dilate on the issue excepting referring a decision of this Court {Vide State of Rajasthan vs. Kishore, AIR 1996 SC 3035 : (1996) AIR SCW 1392 : 1996 Cri LJ 2003}." 55. Thus, we find no substance in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants that on the ground of irregularity or illegality in the investigation, the entire case of the prosecution is liable to be thrown out. 56. Thus, we find no substance in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants that on the ground of irregularity or illegality in the investigation, the entire case of the prosecution is liable to be thrown out. 56. (P.W. 1) Balvinder Singh has stated in his Parcha Bayan (Ex. P. 1) that accused persons armed with gun, farsi, swords etc. came at the spot and Surendra Pal fired a gun shot at his father Surjan Singh. From the postmortem report, it is proved that Surjan Singh died due to fire arm injury. One twelve bore gun and cartridges have been recovered at the spot which has been duly proved by the Investigating Officer (P.W. 16) Rakesh Kumar. He also found empty shell of cartridges at the spot, which were collected and sent to FSL. Accused person also caused fire arm injuries to Balvindra Singh and Surendra Singh which is duly proved by their injury report (Ex. P. 5) and (Ex. P. 15) respectively. 57. From the evidence on record, it can be safely inferred that fire arm injuries were caused to the deceased as well as injured eye witnesses, Balvindra Singh and Surendra Singh. The use of fire arm in the incident and empty cartridges being found at the spot, recovery of gun and live cartridges from Surendra Pal Singh commutatively makes us to believe that the intention of the accused was to cause death and nothing short of it, but from the prosecution evidence discussed hereinabove, the presence of the two ladies namely Kamlesh and Jamna Kaur is not proved beyond doubt at the place of occurrence. The allegation against the accused Ku. Kamlesh and Jamna Kaur that they were having begs of cartridges and were supplying live cartridges to the other accused persons, is not mentioned either in the Parcha Bayan or in the Police statements of the injured eye witnesses Balvindar Singh and Surendra Singh. Either in the Parcha Bayan or in the police statement, no overt act of accused Smt. Kamlesh and Jamna Kaur has been mentioned and in the court statement their role has been specified by the prosecution witnesses. Either in the Parcha Bayan or in the police statement, no overt act of accused Smt. Kamlesh and Jamna Kaur has been mentioned and in the court statement their role has been specified by the prosecution witnesses. To us, the implication of Smt. Kamlesh and Jamna Kaur is a blemish and they have been implicated in the case only to inflate the number of accused persons, and thus, taking holistic view of the matter, accused Smt. Kamlesh and Jamna Kaur are entitled for the benefit of doubt. Whereas it has been proved that the remaining accused have committed the offence in furtherance of common intention of all. 58. As a result of above discussion, we allow DB Criminal Appeal No. 265/2013, filed by appellants Smt. Jamna Kaur and Smt. Kamlesh Kaur and set aside the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence qua these appellants. Both the accused Smt. Kamlesh and Jamna Kaur are acquitted of offence under Sections 148, 302/149 and 307/149 IPC. Both the appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds are discharged and they need not to surrender. 59. But keeping, in view the provisions of Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellants, namely, Smt. Jamna Kaur and Smt. Kamlesh Kaur are directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) and a surety bond in the like amount each, before the trial court. The bonds, so furnished shall be effected for a period of six-months. The bonds shall contain an undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the judgment or on grant of leave, the appellants, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon'ble Apex Court. 60. However, we modify the conviction and sentence of remaining accused namely; Surender Pal, Kaka @ Mahender Singh and Mohan Singh. Appellant Surendra Pal is acquitted of the charge U/s. 148 IPC but his conviction and sentence for the offence U/s. 302 IPC are maintained. However, his conviction U/s. 307 IPC is converted into one U/s. 307/34 IPC. Accused appellants Kaka @ Mahender Singh and Mohan Singh are acquitted of the charge under Section 148 IPC and instead of Sections 302/149 and 307/149 IPC, we convict them for the offence under Sections 302/34 and 307 of IPC. However, his conviction U/s. 307 IPC is converted into one U/s. 307/34 IPC. Accused appellants Kaka @ Mahender Singh and Mohan Singh are acquitted of the charge under Section 148 IPC and instead of Sections 302/149 and 307/149 IPC, we convict them for the offence under Sections 302/34 and 307 of IPC. Accused appellants Kaka @ Mahendra Singh and Mohan Singh, whose sentence was suspended vide order dated 24.10.2013 by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in DB Criminal Misc. Bail (Suspension of Sentence) Application Nos. 748/2013 and 824/2013 respectively, are directed to surrender themselves before the trial court within a month to serve the sentence awarded to them. In case, they fail to surrender themselves before the trial court, the trial court shall ensure their arrest and that they serve out the sentence of imprisonment. 61. DB Criminal Appeal No. 621/2013 preferred by appellant Surender Pal, DB Criminal Appeal No. 322/2013 filed by appellant Mohan Singh and DB Criminal Appeal No. 381/2013 instituted by appellant Kaka @ Mahender Singh are disposed of as indicated hereinabove.