JUDGMENT Hon’ble Bharat Bhushan, J.—This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 16.12.1982 passed by Additional Sessions Judge VIII, Bareilly in Sessions Trial No. 130 of 1982 under Section 302 Indian Penal Code (in short, IPC), Police Station Nawabganj, District Bareilly arising out of Case crime No. 268 of 1981 whereby appellant/accused Bhanta alias Bhagwan Dass was convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment. 2. The facts briefly are that deceased Basant Lal lodged an oral First Information Report (in short, FIR) at Police Station Nawabganj, District Bareilly disclosing that appellant/accused Bhanta alias Bhagwan Dass son of Sri Narain had entered into his house without invitation infuriating the deceased who gave appellant substantial beating. Appellant obviously was unhappy with the deceased but he masked his true feelings and kept pretense of normal relationship. 3. On 19.12.1981 i.e. on the date of incident, deceased after completing work on Government farm, was coming back to his home but appellant Bhanta alias Bhagwan Dass met him at nearby farm and requested him to lift his patala lying close to a well. Deceased was thus inveigled by appellant/accused to accompany him towards a well situated towards western side of village Richola. Both deceased and appellant belonged to village Garen. On their way, at about 6:30pm suddenly appellant Bhanta alias Bhagwan Dass whipped out a gun from his clothes virtually indicating his intention to kill and shot the deceased on his chest from close range. The appellant opened second fire which hit the deceased on his neck. Deceased fell down on the floor and started shouting and clamouring for help. Some people who heard this noise of fire arm and cry for help of deceased, ran towards the place of occurrence. At this appellant Bhanta alias Bhagwan Dass shot at the deceased third time on his back and then, ran towards south. The witnesses who came from village Richola put the deceased on Charpai (cot) and took him to Police Station where he orally recorded his FIR and then his statement was also recorded. Police took the injured to Primary Health Center (in short, P.H.C.) Nawabganj, where he was examined by PW-1 Dr. K.N.Patni at 8:10pm. Deceased was medically examined and medical report (Ex. Ka-1) was prepared. All three fire arm injuries were noted during this examination. Police took the injured to Primary Health Center (in short, P.H.C.) Nawabganj, where he was examined by PW-1 Dr. K.N.Patni at 8:10pm. Deceased was medically examined and medical report (Ex. Ka-1) was prepared. All three fire arm injuries were noted during this examination. Doctor found the following injuries on the person of deceased Basant Lal : 1. Multiple gun shot wound in an area of 10cm. x 10 cm. front of neck and upper part of neck maximum 0.5 cm. x 0.3cm. x 1 cm. minimum 0.2 cm. x 0.2 cm. x 0.2 cm. one of them 1 cm. x 0.5 cm. x not probed, blackening present around at up to chin, advised X-ray. 2. Gun shot wound 4.5 cm. x 4 cm. x depth not probed left side on the chest 5.5 cm below left nipple wound of entry blackening present advised X-ray. 3. Multiple gun shot wound in an area 6 cm. x 6 cm. maximum 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm x 0.3 cm. to minimum 0.2 cm x 0.2 cm x 0.2 cm left back 13 cm. below infersecular angle of left scapula blackening present. advised X-Ray. 4. The condition of the deceased was bad and deteriorating further, therefore, Tehsildar Nawabganj, Sri Vishambhar Singh Yadav (PW-2) was called for recording dying declaration of deceased. PW-1 Dr. K.N.Patni certified that deceased was in a fit condition to record his statement. This dying declaration was recorded in presence of PW-1 Dr. K.N.Patni and Sri Vishambhar Singh Yadav, Tehsildar (PW-2). Deceased Basant Lal dictated his dying declaration which was recorded by PW-2 Vishambhar Singh Yadav, Tehsildar who also found deceased to be in fit condition to record his dying declaration on the same day i.e. on 19.12.1981 at about 8:40pm. This dying declaration is available on record as Ex.Ka-3. Thereafter, injured Basant Lal was shifted to District Hospital, Bareilly where this 20 years old boy succumbed to his injuries on 22.12.1981 at about 6:35 p.m. 5. The post-mortem was conducted on 23.12.1981 at about 2:30pm and following injuries were found on the person of deceased in the post-mortem examination : 1. Multiple abrasion (soft scab) small in size in an area of 7 cm. X 6 cm. on the front and lower part of chin 1 cm. below right angle of mouth extending downwards up to the upper part neck. 2. Multiple abrasion (soft scab) small in size in an area of 7 cm. X 6 cm. on the front and lower part of chin 1 cm. below right angle of mouth extending downwards up to the upper part neck. 2. Multiple gun shot wound in an area of 6 cm. X 5 cm. Chest cavity deep on the right side on front of chest starting from root of the neck up to the middle of clavicle to anterior end of the right cavity with tattooing present size of wound 0.4 cm. X 0.4 cm muscle deep shots recovered from the chest and sub cut and is (19) in number. 3. Two abrasion each 2 cm. X 1 cm. X 1.5 cm. X 1 cm. X 0.3 cm apart (soft scab) on the right side of chest in an area of 5 cm. X 3 cm 6 cm. Above the right nipple at 12’O clock position. 4. One abrasion soft scab 2 cm. X 1 cm. On left side of chest, 8 cm. above the nipple at 11 O’clock position. 5. Gun shot wound 4 cm. X 4 cm. X abdomen cavity deep on the left side of chest at 6 O’clock position. 7 cm below the left nipple shots directed on wards and have perfarted. Peritarium in the stomach wall with an aperture 2 cm. X 2 cm. Shots were found in the stomach wall and half digested food and galta piece tattooing and scratching present 43 shots were found in the stomach. 6. Gun shot wound 6 cm. X 6 cm. X muscle deep on the right side of back of chest 5 cm. From the mid line 25 cm. From the left shoulder with tattooing present. (20) shots recovered from the back. 7. Cut open mark 1 cm. X 1/4 cm. On the right leg inner side just above the malleolus (this injury was made for giving blood). 8. Abrasion 2 cm. X 0.5 cm. On the back of the left hand. 6. On 22.12.1981, a memo was sent from District hospital to Police authorities. One Sub-Inspector Pooran Lal Gupta (PW-9), then posted at Police Station Kotwali, Bareilly went to District Hospital, Bareilly, after receipt of information of the aforesaid memo and prepared inquest report. Thereafter, the corpse and relevant papers were handed over to Constable Shakil Ahmad (PW-4). 6. On 22.12.1981, a memo was sent from District hospital to Police authorities. One Sub-Inspector Pooran Lal Gupta (PW-9), then posted at Police Station Kotwali, Bareilly went to District Hospital, Bareilly, after receipt of information of the aforesaid memo and prepared inquest report. Thereafter, the corpse and relevant papers were handed over to Constable Shakil Ahmad (PW-4). This case was then converted from offence under Section 307 IPC to 302 IPC on 23.12.2981. The case was investigated and a charge-sheet filed against the appellant Bhanta alias Bhagwan Dass by PW-10 Vidhyadhar Pandey, Sub-Inspector. It is pertinent to point out that appellant-accused could not be arrested initially. The incident occurred on 19.12.1981. Police went to village on the same day. On 23.12.1981, the case was converted from under Section 307 IPC to 302 IPC through G.D. No. 36. Proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. were conducted and household goods of appellant Bhanta alias Bhagwan Dass were attached by S.I. Raj Singh on 29.12.1981. 7. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed against accused-appellant in the Court on 7.1.1982. Meanwhile, accused-appellant surrendered directly in the Court. Appellant-accused was charged under Section 302 IPC by the trial Court. He denied the charge and claimed to be tried. 8. During trial, testimonies of PW-1 Dr. K.N.Patni, the then Medical Officer, P.H.C. Nawabganj, PW-2 Sri Vishambhar Singh Yadav, the then Tehsildar Nawabganj, PW-3 Dr. Balbir Singh, the then Senior Medical Officer, District Hospital, Bareilly, PW-4 Constable Shakil Ahmad (link evidence), PW-5 Allan (eye-witness), PW-6 Abdul Hameed (eye-witness), PW-7 Ali Ahmad (eye-witness), PW-8 Prem Nath Misra (the then Head Constable Police Station Nawabganj), PW-9 Pooran Lal Gupta (the then Inspector Police Station Subhash Nagar) and PW-10 Vidhyadhar Pandey (the then Station Officer, Police Station Nawabganj) were recorded. The statement of appellant-accused was recorded under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, Cr.P.C.) wherein he denied all the allegations and claimed that he had been falsely implicated on account of his enmity with one Abdul Majeed. He did not give oral evidence in defence. However, he filed some documents; one was transfer certificate; and another was copy of an application given in a separate proceedings under Sections 107, 116 Cr.P.C. (State v. Ali Ahmad and others). 9. On conclusion of the trial, the Court found appellant guilty of the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment vide judgment and order dated 16.12.1982. 9. On conclusion of the trial, the Court found appellant guilty of the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment vide judgment and order dated 16.12.1982. This judgment is under challenge in this appeal. 10. We have heard Sri Harish Chandra Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Saghir Ahmad, Additional Government Advocate for the State. 11. Learned counsel for appellant has submitted that circumstances surrounding the dying declaration of deceased are suspicious. Dying declaration of the deceased was recorded at P.H.C. Nawabganj, when condition of the deceased was deteriorating therefore issuance of fitness certificate by the doctor creates anomalous situation. He also submitted that not a single witness was named as witness in the FIR. He also challenged the factum of recording of the FIR alleging that deceased had been shot three times yet instead of taking him to the hospital, witnesses first took him to Police Station where he not only recorded FIR but his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was also recorded by the Police. Subsequently, he was taken to P.H.C. and thereafter to the District Hospital where his dying declaration was reportedly recorded by the Tehsildar. Submission is that after receiving three fire-arm injuries, deceased could not have been in suitable condition to dictate FIR, give statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and afterwards record his dying declaration. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant has indicated that appellant Bhanta alias Bhagwan Dass has been falsely implicated primarily at the instance of one Abdul Majeed. He has submitted that all the witnesses are under the control of this Abdul Majeed. Learned counsel has indicated that there was a communal divide between Hindus and Muslims of the village and therefore, appellant has been falsely implicated in order to settle old score. 13. The attention of the Court was drawn towards the discrepancies enshrined in testimonies of witnesses of fact and other witnesses. Learned counsel claimed that medical evidence is not in consonance with the ocular testimonies and available evidence on record is insufficient to establish the place of occurrence. 14. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate has submitted that there is virtually no evidence to suggest that communal divide impelled the witnesses to falsely implicate the appellant. Learned counsel claimed that medical evidence is not in consonance with the ocular testimonies and available evidence on record is insufficient to establish the place of occurrence. 14. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate has submitted that there is virtually no evidence to suggest that communal divide impelled the witnesses to falsely implicate the appellant. He has also drawn attention of this Court towards the fact that contents of FIR, statement of deceased under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and dying declaration recorded by PW-2 Sri Vishambhar Singh Yadav are all in consonance with each other and medical evidence is consistent with the ocular evidence. 15. Learned counsel for the appellant has denounced the contents of FIR on the ground that not a single witness was named in the FIR recorded by the deceased. This argument is misconceived. It is necessary to take all the facts into consideration to evaluate the prosecution evidence. Prior to incident accused-appellant had entered uninvited into the house of deceased. Deceased did not specify the reason for conduct of accused-appellant. But a careful perusal of contents of FIR would reveal that deceased specifically mentioned that he had beaten the accused-appellant on account of his uninvited entry into his house. It is evident that deceased did not have a good opinion of the appellant. He had not invited appellant to his house yet appellant entered into his house resulting in his thrashing at the hands of deceased Basant Lal. The FIR itself indicates that while appellant resented this beating but maintained facade of normalcy. The appellant-accused was able to mask his true feelings and this contrived behavior on the part of appellant perhaps made the deceased to lower his guard when appellant invited deceased to accompany him to help him to lift his patala from a place located nearby a well. Finding the deceased alone at the place of occurrence, appellant took out his gun and shot him three times. After initial shot, deceased raised alarm. His cries for help and noise emitting from discharge of fire-arm brought the witnesses to place of occurrence. 16. The contents of FIR are precise and to the point. The deceased named the appellant, time of occurrence, place of occurrence and manner of attack. He specified that people from village Richola took him to the Police Station on Charpai (cot). The record and site-plan (Ex. 16. The contents of FIR are precise and to the point. The deceased named the appellant, time of occurrence, place of occurrence and manner of attack. He specified that people from village Richola took him to the Police Station on Charpai (cot). The record and site-plan (Ex. Ka-14) disclose that village Garen and Richola are adjacent to each other. The place of occurrence was closer to village Richola, therefore, presence of witnesses from village Richola is hardly surprising. All the three witnesses have specified that they were going to their sugar cane farms. They have specifically asserted that people from village Garen used to damage their sugar cane crop from time to time, therefore, they used to go their agricultural farm for its protection. PW-5 Allan and PW-6 Abdul Hameed have testified in a credible and trustworthy manner. The testimonies of both the witnesses are in consonance with each other and prosecution story. Both the witnesses namely, PW-5 Allan and PW-6 Abdul Hameed have testified that they reached at the place of occurrence immediately and witnessed third shot being fired by appellant Bhanta @ Bhagwan Dass. The FIR says that as soon deceased and appellant reached the place of occurrence, appellant Bhanta alias Bhagwan Dass stopped the deceased and fired first shot on his chest and then again fired second shot on the neck, as a result of which, the deceased fell down on floor with downward face. He started crying for help also. Whereupon several persons came from village Richola. At this juncture appellant Bhanta alias Bhagwan Dass fired third shot on the back of the deceased. The story given by deceased Basant Lal in his FIR finds support from the testimonies of PW-5 Allan and PW-6 Abdul Hameed. Both of them have stated that third shot was fired by appellant Bhanta alias Bhagwan Dass in their presence. There is no room for any confusion as it is pertinent to point out that another witness namely, PW-7 Ali Ahmad also arrived on the spot but he has not said anything about use of fire-arm. In fact, he did not notice the presence of accused Bhanta alias Bhagwan Dass. PW-7 Ali Ahmad has specifically stated that he was present in mosque on account of arrangement of ‘Chahallum’. In fact, he did not notice the presence of accused Bhanta alias Bhagwan Dass. PW-7 Ali Ahmad has specifically stated that he was present in mosque on account of arrangement of ‘Chahallum’. He heard the noise and went to place of occurrence alongwith Lala Ram, Purshottam, and Abdul Majeed and found that deceased Basant Lal, was lying injured. PW-5 Allan and PW-6 Abdul Hameed were also present and they informed PW-7 Ali Ahmad that Bhanta had used fire arm upon Basant Lal. It would indicate that only two persons namely, PW-5 Allan and PW-6 Abdul Hameed are claiming to be eye-witnesses. Both of them witnessed discharge of third shot which reinforces the story given by Basant Lal deceased in FIR as well as in his dying declaration. There is absolutely no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW-5 Allan and PW-6 Abdul Hameed. In fact, even the evidence of PW-7 Ali Ahmad is very pertinent and provide support to the prosecution story as he had reached at the place of occurrence immediately in the aftermath of incident. Information communicated to him by PW-5 Allan and PW-6 Abdul Hameed is not only relevant but admissible as well. The information given by them is part of same transaction. 17. What is status of FIR lodged by Basant Lal ? Fact of the matter is that this FIR too must be treated as dying declaration. The incident occurred at 6:00pm on 19.12.1981. During course of incident, witnesses arrived immediately afterwards and deceased was put on Charpai (cot) and taken to Police Station. Chik report Ex. Ka-5 discloses that Police Station was at least one mile from the place of occurrence. Incident occurred in the year 1981 when connectivity between rural areas of Uttar Pradesh was virtually non-existent and vehicles were not easily available. This was before Maruti era. The FIR itself indicates that deceased was taken on charpai (cot) to Police Station, meaning thereby the people took him to Police Station on foot. There is no mention of use of any vehicle in the entire evidence. PW-8 Head Constable Prem Nath Misra has testified that injured Basant Lal (later on deceased) was brought to the Police Station on charpai (cot) at about 7:30pm and report was recorded on the oral dictation of injured Basant Lal. There is no mention of use of any vehicle in the entire evidence. PW-8 Head Constable Prem Nath Misra has testified that injured Basant Lal (later on deceased) was brought to the Police Station on charpai (cot) at about 7:30pm and report was recorded on the oral dictation of injured Basant Lal. This witness has reinforced prosecution story by saying that injured was brought to the Police Station by PW-7 Ali Ahmad, Abdul Majeed, Purshottam Dass, Sadhu Ram, Kunwar Sen and Lalaram. Now this oral narration of story by injured to the PW-8 Constable Prem Nath Misra for the purposes of FIR is nothing but dying declaration of the deceased. After making this statement for the purposes of recording of FIR, deceased Basant Lal succumbed to his injuries on 22.12.1981 at about 6:35pm. Therefore, this statement can be treated as dying declaration and is admissible under Section 32(1) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short, Evidence Act). In this regard, paragraph-5 of judgment of Apex Court in Munnu Raja and another v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1976 SC 2199 , is relevant and is reproduced below : “5. In regard to these dying declarations, the judgment of the Sessions Court suffers from a patent infirmity in that it wholly overlooks the earliest of these dying declarations, which was made by the deceased soon after the incident in the house of one Barjor Singh. The second statement which has been treated by the High Court as a dying declaration is Ex. P-14, being the First Information Report which was lodged by the deceased at the police station. The learned Sessions Judge probably assumed that since the statement was recorded as a First Information Report, it could not be treated as a dying declaration. In this assumption, he was clearly in error. After making the statement before the police, Bahadur Singh succumbed to his injuries and therefore the statement can be treated as a dying declaration and is admissible under Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act. The maker of the statement is dead and the statement relates to the cause of his death.” 18. This clearly indicates that within 60-90 minutes of incident, the deceased himself narrated the story to the Police which was reduced as FIR and this was done in presence of several persons. There is absolutely no reason to disbelieve this narration by the deceased. 19. This clearly indicates that within 60-90 minutes of incident, the deceased himself narrated the story to the Police which was reduced as FIR and this was done in presence of several persons. There is absolutely no reason to disbelieve this narration by the deceased. 19. Not only that when injured Basant Lal was sent to P.H.C. Nawabganj for medical attention, his formal dying declaration was also recorded by PW-2 Vishambhar Singh Yadav, Tehsildar in presence of Dr. K.N.Patni, the then Medical Officer, P.H.C. Nawabganj. He has testified that after examining the condition of injured Basant Lal, he found that he was in fit condition to give his statement. The Presiding Officer of revenue Court, Tehsildar (PW-2) Sri Vishambhar Singh Yadav was called and again a formal dying declaration was recorded at 8:40pm i.e. within 2 ½ hours of the incident. This independent revenue Officer has testified as PW-2. He has stated that he obtained medical opinion from Dr. K.N.Patni regarding competence of injured Basant Lal to give statement and thereafter, his statement was recorded. Both PW-1 Dr. K.N.Patni and PW-2 Vishambhar Singh Yadav have testified that Basant Lal was in fit condition to depose and his statement was recorded in presence of both persons. This formal dying declaration is available on record as Ex-Ka-3 wherein same story has been given by Basant Lal. He reiterated that appellant Bhanta @ Bhagwan Dass had a fight with injured Basant Lal few days prior to the incident because appellant had entered into this house of injured and that late Basant Lal had given him beating on account of this uninvited entry into his house. He also reiterated that accused on the pretext of seeking help in lifting Patala took him to a lonely place near the well and then shot him. This statement was given on the same day, in fact, within less-than few hours of incident. In this statement again Basant Lal clearly revealed that he had been shot three times by the appellant-accused. 20. Learned counsel for the appellant has denounced the FIR (Ex.Ka-5) and dying declaration (Ex.Ka-3) on the ground that names of witnesses are missing from them. We are afraid that this argument is misconceived. The circumstances surrounding the lodging of the FIR and dying declaration must be kept in mind. Basant Lal was shot three times without any previous warning. 20. Learned counsel for the appellant has denounced the FIR (Ex.Ka-5) and dying declaration (Ex.Ka-3) on the ground that names of witnesses are missing from them. We are afraid that this argument is misconceived. The circumstances surrounding the lodging of the FIR and dying declaration must be kept in mind. Basant Lal was shot three times without any previous warning. He had accompanied the assailant for rendering assistance and suddenly the person seeking assistance turned around and took out a gun and shot him. This obviously shocked him. He was also grievously injured. The incident occurred in fleeting moments. The injured was taken on Charpai (cot) to the Police Station. He must have been in severe physical pain at that point of time yet he mentioned the fact that some people from village Richola took him to Police Station. The FIR was quickly recorded despite three fire arm injuries on the person of deceased. The best available person narrated the story but to treat FIR as encyclopedia is neither legal nor required. Full Bench of this Court in Gopal Singh v. State of U.P., 1999 CR LJ 2501 (FB), has held that FIR should not be treated as encyclopedia. There is no no legal requirement that each fact should be mentioned in it. Fact of the matter is that evidenciary value of FIR is limited. It is not treated as substantive evidence. 21. The Apex Court in State of Rajasthan v. Ani alias Hanif, AIR 1997(SC) 1023, has held that not naming the witnesses in the FIR is not necessarily fatal to the prosecution and that accused cannot be acquitted merely on the ground that witnesses were not named in the FIR. 22. It is pertinent to point-out that there was no occasion for prosecution to concoct the story. The incident occurred at 6:30pm, FIR was lodged around 7:30pm and dying declaration recorded around 8:40pm despite the fact that Police Station was located one mile from the place of occurrence and injured had been taken to the Police Station on Charpai (cot) at the time when connectivity between rural areas of Uttar Pradesh was virtually non-existent. Therefore, it is apparent that non-naming of witnesses is not fatal to the prosecution. There is no reason to disbelieve the dying declaration of deceased Basant Lal. Therefore, it is apparent that non-naming of witnesses is not fatal to the prosecution. There is no reason to disbelieve the dying declaration of deceased Basant Lal. It is inconceivable that injured would falsely implicate the innocent and let off the real culprit immediately in the aftermath of the incident specially in view of the fact that he had narrated the same story in presence of several persons three times within three hours. First to record FIR (PW-8 Prem Nath Misra), then narrated the story to Police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and finally to Tehsildar (PW-2) in presence of Dr. K.N.Patni (PW-1). It is also relevant to point-out that there is no rule of law which says that dying declaration cannot be acted upon without corroboration. If dying declaration is trustworthy and without blemish, the accused can be convicted solely on its basis. 23. As far as present appellant-accused is concerned, there is overwhelming evidence to demonstrate and establish the veracity of prosecution story. PW-5 Allan has specifically testified against the appellant. He has claimed that he had witnessed Bhanta @ Bhagwan Dass discharging third shot on deceased Basant Lal. Same story has been given by PW-6 Abdul Hameed. There is no reason to disbelieve his testimony. Defence has made attempt to create doubt regarding these testimonies on the ground that there was Hindu-Muslims divide in the area and these communal differences have resulted in the false implication of appellant. No satisfactory evidence in this regard is available on record. In any case, there is no law which says that testimonies of interested witnesses cannot be accepted. The testimonies of PW-5 Allan and PW-6 Abdul Hameed are absolutely transparent and natural. 24. PW-7 Ali Ahmad had also reached the place of occurrence immediately in aftermath of incident. While he had not witnessed the actual incident but his evidence has established the ancillary circumstances which in turn prove the prosecution story and demonstrate credibility and trustworthiness of other witnesses. It is pertinent to point-out that PW-7 Ali Ahmad has clearly stated that injured Bhanta alias Bhagwan Dass was in conscious state. About 30-40 people had accompanied injured Bhanta to the Police Station. According to PW-7 Ali Ahmad, injured Basant Lal (deceased) recorded FIR in his presence. It clearly indicates that injured Basant Lal himself narrated story to the Police which was transcribed into FIR. 25. About 30-40 people had accompanied injured Bhanta to the Police Station. According to PW-7 Ali Ahmad, injured Basant Lal (deceased) recorded FIR in his presence. It clearly indicates that injured Basant Lal himself narrated story to the Police which was transcribed into FIR. 25. Learned counsel for the appellant has claimed that medical report is not in consonance with the ocular evidence and therefore, both should be discarded. We are afraid, this argument is also misconceived. It must be understood that comparison of medical evidence and ocular testimony cannot be done mechanically. Before acquitting accused on so called incompatibilities between medical evidence and ocular evidence, the Court must come to the conclusion that they substantially and adversely affect the veracity of the prosecution story. Apex Court in “Vitthal Pundalik Zende v. State Maharashtra, 2009 (2) ACR 1497 (SC)” held that minor discrepancies between ocular testimonies and medical evidence would not result in rejecting the evidence of injured witness. In G.S.Walia v. State of Punjab and others, (1998) 5 SCC 150 , it was held that comparison of medical evidence with ocular evidence should not be done in a mechanical fashion. In the said case, some injuries were caused by some sharp edge weapon yet in oral evidence there was no mention of such weapon yet the Apex Court refused to reject oral testimony. In “Ajay Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 2000 (SC) 3538 ”, location of second injury in post-mortem report was described at different place in oral testimony but still oral testimony was not rejected by Apex Court on this stated inconsistency. 26. In “State of Uttar Pradesh v. Premi and others, 2003 CR LJ 1554”, doctor testified that edges of injuries were soft but according to prosecution injuries were caused by butt of revolver but the Apex Court rejected this minor discrepancy and affirmed the sentence upon the accused persons. In “Anwar and others v. State of Haryana, 1997 ACC (310) 492”, Apex Court has held that minor discrepancies between medical evidence and oral testimony are not sufficient to reject otherwise credible and satisfactory oral testimony. 27. In the present case, testimony of PW-5 Allan and PW-6 Abdul Hameed are highly credible. The testimony of PW-7 Ali Ahmad who reached at the place of occurrence immediately in the aftermath of the incident is also very useful to demonstrate credibility of the prosecution story. 27. In the present case, testimony of PW-5 Allan and PW-6 Abdul Hameed are highly credible. The testimony of PW-7 Ali Ahmad who reached at the place of occurrence immediately in the aftermath of the incident is also very useful to demonstrate credibility of the prosecution story. This ocular evidence also demonstrate that dying declaration recorded in the form of FIR and in the form of statement given to Tehsildar are trustworthy. 28. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that PW-1 Dr. K.N.Patni found three injuries on the person of deceased while autopsy indicated several injuries on the person of deceased. This, according to him is fatal to prosecution. We do not subscribe to this view. Dr. K.N.Patni examined the deceased at 8:00pm on the date of incident and found three gun shot wounds only. They were found to be freshly caused. Basant Lal died on 22.12.1981. The autopsy was conducted on his body on 23.12.1981. During post-mortem examination, PW-3 Dr. Balveer Singh, the then Senior Medical Officer found as many as eight injuries on the body of deceased. Learned counsel for the appellant has stressed that there is no explanation of this discrepancy. We are afraid, this argument is misconceived. The autopsy report also talks about three shots found on the person of deceased. But the doctor also found few abrasions on the body of deceased. One injury i.e. injury No. 7 itself has been explained in the report. This injury was man made for transfusion of blood to deceased. Other injuries are minor abrasions. It is pertinent to note that deceased had fallen on the floor after first two shots itself with face downwards and then he was put on Charpai (cot) and was taken to Police Station. The testimony of PW-8 Head Constable Prem Nath Misra discloses that initially Charpai (cot) was placed outside his room at the Police Station and thereafter, Charpai (cot) was taken in his room, where deceased narrated the story and then he was taken to P.H.C. and from P.H.C. the injured was taken to District Hospital, Bareilly. The Charpai (cot) in the rural areas is made of the material which is very rough. The use of this Charpai (cot) for considerable period especially in transporting an injured person for more than a mile may itself caused minor abrasions. The post-mortem report, in fact, reinforces the prosecution story. The Charpai (cot) in the rural areas is made of the material which is very rough. The use of this Charpai (cot) for considerable period especially in transporting an injured person for more than a mile may itself caused minor abrasions. The post-mortem report, in fact, reinforces the prosecution story. All gun shot injuries described in the post-mortem report are absolutely consistent with the story given by the deceased Basant Lal in FIR and dying declaration. They are also consistent with the testimonies of PW-5 Allan and PW-6 Abdul Hameed. We are afraid that we cannot accept the contention of learned counsel for the appellant in this regard. 29. Learned counsel for the appellant has also argued that there are discrepancies in the prosecution evidence and these discrepancies adversely affect the credibility of prosecution witnesses. The counsel would argue that request of appellant to seek assistance of deceased in lifting Patala, and deceased’s acceptance of this request is incongruous in view of previous physical scuffle between them. We are afraid this kind of analysis would take us in realm of conjectures. May deceased was deceived by the pretense of appellant or may be he never expected accused to behave in this dare-devil manner. This Court cannot waste time in discussing empty probabilities when specific and trustworthy eye-witness account is available. Similarly, argument regarding discrepancies is not sustainable for simple reason that whatever discrepancies have been pointed-out by learned counsel for the appellant are very minor and do not at all affect the core of prosecution story. The testimony of any witness is not appraised in isolation. The evidence of witnesses has to be evaluated in the backdrop of their educational, social and economical condition. The incident occurred on 19.12.1981. The testimony of PW-5 Allan and PW-6 Abdul Hameed was recorded in the months of November and December, 1982 i.e. after almost one year. Full cross-examination was not conducted at the same time and yet the narration of incident by these witnesses is highly credible and trustworthy. Minor discrepancies, in fact, never adversely affect the prosecution story. It depends on nature and circumstances of such discrepancies. If witnesses are trustworthy, there are bound to be some minor discrepancies because power of perception of each person is different. Unless such discrepancies adversely affect the core of prosecution story, they cannot be given undue weightage. Minor discrepancies, in fact, never adversely affect the prosecution story. It depends on nature and circumstances of such discrepancies. If witnesses are trustworthy, there are bound to be some minor discrepancies because power of perception of each person is different. Unless such discrepancies adversely affect the core of prosecution story, they cannot be given undue weightage. We believe that Court cannot acquit the accused on account of minor and insignificant discrepancies. (see Meharban Singh and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1997 CR LJ (SC) 766). In State of Karnataka v. Suvarnamma and another, (2015) 1 SCC 323 , the Apex Court has held that principle “Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus” has no applicability in India, hence if the case of prosecution story and evidence is intact then Courts can convict the accused despite minor discrepancies. 30. Learned counsel for the appellant has also stressed that deceased was first taken to Police Station which indicates that people accompanying the deceased were more interested in implicating the appellant rather than his treatment and therefore, testimonies of eye-witnesses should not be taken into consideration. We are afraid, this argument of learned counsel for the appellant is also not sustainable for the simple reason that the witnesses were not questioned on this score. The people of the village Richola first took him to Police Station and later to P.H.C. Basant Lal was conscious yet he dependent upon others. May be it is possible that Police Station came first. Police Station and P.H.C. are both located in Nawabganj. If defense was interested in using this argument, then it was incumbent upon them to seek information in this regard from the witnesses. They should have given opportunity to explain the circumstances. PW-5 Allan, PW-6 Abdul Hameed and PW-7 Ali Ahmad have not been asked this question at all. They have not been given opportunity to explain the circumstances in which they reached first at Police Station and then P.H.C. In any case, we cannot ignore this fact that FIR was lodged and medical attention provided to the injured within two hours of the incident. 31. Learned counsel for the appellant has stressed that place of occurrence is uncertain and prosecution evidence has not been been able to clearly identify the place where incident occurred. We are afraid, this argument is also not sustainable. 31. Learned counsel for the appellant has stressed that place of occurrence is uncertain and prosecution evidence has not been been able to clearly identify the place where incident occurred. We are afraid, this argument is also not sustainable. The oral testimonies of PW-5 Allan, PW-6 Abdul Hameed and PW-7 Ali Ahmad have clearly established the place of occurrence. The site plan Ex. Ka. 14 also reinforces their contention. Site plan has further disclosed that village Garen from where accused-appellant and deceased hail is adjacent to village Richola from where witnesses arrived. In fact, place of occurrence actually lies in village Richola, therefore, presence of people of village Richola at the place of occurrence is hardly surprising. This place has further been clarified by testimony of PW-10 Vidhyadhar Pandey, Investigating Officer. 32. We have carefully examined all the material on record. The available evidence demonstrates that deceased Basant Lal was shot three times by appellant Bhanta alias Bhagwan Dass. The FIR, statement of victim under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and formal dying declaration recorded by Tehsildar are in consonance with each other and they can be treated as dying declaration under Section 32(1) of Evidence Act. The sole appellant can be convicted on the basis of these statements alone. However, testimony of PW-5 Allan, PW-6 Abdul Hameed and PW-7 Ali Ahmad have clearly established the guilt of appellant. The medical evidence is consistent with the ocular testimonies of eye-witnesses. The report of forensic laboratory also reinforces the prosecution evidence. It is pertinent to point-out that conduct of appellant subsequent to this incident can also be taken into consideration. The incident occurred on 19.12.1981. Police tried to arrest appellant-accused on 19.12.1981 itself but appellant-accused escaped. He disappeared from his residence on 19.12.1981. On 23.12.1981 again a raid was conducted but accused-appellant was not available at his residence. The proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. were conducted. The immovable property of the appellant was attached on 29.11.1981. In fact, he was declared fugitive. He did surrender in the Court later on but initially he made himself unavailable for a considerable time and did not allow Police to question him during course of investigation despite attachment of his property. This absconding in such a manner and for such a long period is a relevant consideration. In fact, he was declared fugitive. He did surrender in the Court later on but initially he made himself unavailable for a considerable time and did not allow Police to question him during course of investigation despite attachment of his property. This absconding in such a manner and for such a long period is a relevant consideration. It is true that absconding by itself may not be a positive circumstance consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt of the accused because it is not unknown that even innocent persons may run away for fear of being falsely involved in criminal cases, but in the present case, in view of the circumstances which we have discussed in this judgment and which have been established by the prosecution, it is clear that absconding of the accused also establish the guilt of accused. Apex Court in the case of Rabindra Kumar Pal @ Dara Singh v. Republic of India, (2011) 2 SCC 490 , held as under : “88. The other circumstance urged by the prosecution was that A-3 absconded soon after the incident and avoided arrest and this abscondence being a conduct under Section 8 of the Evidence Act, 1872 should be taken into consideration alongwith other evidence to prove his guilt. The fact remains that he was not available for quite some time till he was arrested which fact has not been disputed by the defence counsel. We are satisfied that before accepting the contents of the two letters and the evidence of PW 23, the trial Judge afforded him the required opportunity and followed the procedure which was rightly accepted by the High Court.” 33. Considering all facts and circumstances of the case, it is evident that prosecution has been able to bring home guilt of accused-appellant by trustworthy and unimpeachable evidence. Learned trial judge has marshalled the facts and evidence adroitly. Sufficient evidence has been placed to establish the guilt of the appellant. 34. In view of the aforementioned discussion, we are of the view that the appeal lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed and impugned judgment and order dated 16.12.1982 of the trial Court is affirmed. Appellant, who is on bail, is directed to surrender immediately. His bail is cancelled and sureties discharged. 34. In view of the aforementioned discussion, we are of the view that the appeal lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed and impugned judgment and order dated 16.12.1982 of the trial Court is affirmed. Appellant, who is on bail, is directed to surrender immediately. His bail is cancelled and sureties discharged. Trial Court is also directed to get him arrested and send him to jail to serve out the sentence awarded by trial Court and affirmed by this judgment. 35. Office will certify this order to the Court concerned within 15 days. Trial Court thereafter communicate compliance of this judgment within 15 days thereafter.