JUDGMENT : Vijay Kumar Vyas, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 4.8.2014 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ramganjmandi, District Kota in Sessions Case No. 36/2007, whereby appellants Vinod and Ghanshyam have been convicted for offence u/s. 148 and 302/149 IPC and sentenced as follows:- U/s. 148 IPC Three years' simple imprisonment with fine of Rs. 2,000/-; in default of payment thereof, to further undergo one month's additional simple imprisonment to each appellant. U/s. 302/149 IPC Life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5,000/-; in default of payment thereof, to further undergo two months' additional simple imprisonment to each appellant. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that on 6.9.2003 at about 12.30 PM, complainant Shivraj S/o. Shri Ram Narayan Meena, R/o Dhakiya, Police Station Chechat informed at Mortuary, Government Hospital, Ramganjmandi to SHO, Abdul Majid Khan (PW-23) that at about 9.00 AM when he was at his house and his elder brother Giriraj had gone to river for plantation, a girl child of the locality came and informed him that Phoolchand - Master, his father Uda Patel, Ghanshyam and cousins of Phoolchand - Narendra, Vinod and Chandu are beating your brother Giriraj with sword, knife, pistol (country made pistol) and incised weapons. Immediately, the informant rushed to his brother. He saw on the way, near house of Amarlal, Phoolchand Master was assaulting his brother with pistol. He had heard the sound of fire. His brother was lying on earth. Ghanshyam, Vinod and Chandu were giving blows with knife and sword. Narendra was giving blow with Gandasi. Meanwhile, brothers of informant - Jugraj and Dhanraj also reached there. They also saw the whole incident. Ghasi Meena and other villagers also reached the spot and saw the incident. Assuming that brother has died and on seeing that, other brothers have reached, the appellants fled away towards Rai Khera. Two years ago, Phoolchand-Master had committed rape with a lady, a relative of informant. Phoolchand doubted that Giriraj had given the information of rape. Phoolchand was absconding since then. He had threatened Giriraj that he would kill him. Since then, an enmity is going on between Giriraj and Phoolchand-Master. Due to this enmity - Phoolchand, Ghanshyam, Vinod, Narendra and Chandu, with common object of killing Giriraj, attacked him and injured him. Phoolchand doubted that Giriraj had given the information of rape. Phoolchand was absconding since then. He had threatened Giriraj that he would kill him. Since then, an enmity is going on between Giriraj and Phoolchand-Master. Due to this enmity - Phoolchand, Ghanshyam, Vinod, Narendra and Chandu, with common object of killing Giriraj, attacked him and injured him. Blood was coming out profusely from the injuries and in that condition, informant and others brought Giriraj at Government Hospital, Ramganjmandi, where doctor declared him dead. 3. Abdul Majid Khan (PW-23), SHO, Police Station Chechat took down this information on Parcha (Ex. P-3) and sent it to Police Station and started investigation. Prior to his reach, an inquest report was prepared by Ratan Singh Chundawat, ASI, P.S. Ramganjmandi, the same was handed over to Abdul Majid Khan. On the same day at about 3.30 PM, after reaching at Police Station Chechat, FIR No. 106/2003 was formally registered.! During investigation, site plan (Ex. P-4) and other necessary memos were prepared. Empty cartridges found at the site of crime, were seized vide memo (Ex. P-8) in presence of Narayan and Bherunlal (PW-4). Postmortem of the dead body was conducted by a Medical Board. Postmortem report is Ex. P-42. Blood smeared soil, control soil, blood of deceased were collected and sealed. Blood stained Baniyan and underwear of the deceased were also seized and sealed. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. Statements of witnesses Ghasi Lal, Mangi Lal, Ramesh and Bajrang Lal Bairwa were got recorded u/s. 164 Cr.P.C. as well. Photography was conducted. Accused Phoolchand, Ghanshyam Meena, Narendra, Vinod Meena, Chandu @ Chandira Prakash, Mukesh and Udailal were found to have committed the offence. Accused Phoolchand, Narendra Kumar, Chandu @ Chandra Prakash and Mukesh were arrested. Appellant Udailal was granted anticipatory bail by this Court. Accused Vinod and Ghanshyam could not be arrested. They were got declared absconders. Informations u/s. 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, given by the accused persons were recorded and at the instance of accused Chandu @ Chandra Prakash, a sword was recovered. A Gandasi was recovered at the instance of Narendra Kumar and a Chhura was recovered at the instance of accused Mukesh. The recovered articles were seized and sealed. Informations u/s. 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, given by the accused persons were recorded and at the instance of accused Chandu @ Chandra Prakash, a sword was recovered. A Gandasi was recovered at the instance of Narendra Kumar and a Chhura was recovered at the instance of accused Mukesh. The recovered articles were seized and sealed. After due investigation, a complete charge-sheet against appellants Chandu @ Chandra Prakash, Phoolchand, Narendra Kumar and two other - Udailal and Mukesh and incomplete charge-sheet u/s. 299 Cr.P.C. against accused Vinod and Ghanshyam was filed before the Judicial Magistrate, Ramganjmandi, who in turn, committed the case for trial to the Additional Sessions Judge, Ramganjmandi, wherefrom, the case was transferred to Additional Sessions Judge, Special Court, Women Atrocities & Dowry Act cases, Kota where the case was registered as Sessions Case No. 4/2006. Accused Phoolchand was charged of the offence u/s. 302 and 148 IPC. Rest of the appellants and Mukesh & Udailal were charged for the offence punishable u/s. 148 and 302/149 IPC. All of them denied the charges and claimed trial. In all, 38 witnesses were examined and 53 documents were exhibited by the prosecution. Accused were examined u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. Accused denied the evidence and stated that they have been wrongly implicated due to enmity. They have not committed any offence. Deceased Giriraj had enmity with all people of the area. In defence, Dinesh Kumar Rawal (DW-1) - Notary Public was examined and in all nine documents were exhibited. After hearing arguments of both the sides and considering the written arguments submitted from the side of accused, the learned trial court passed the judgment dated 24.1.2007, whereby, the learned trial court acquitted accused Udailal & Mukesh and convicted & sentenced Chandu @ Chandraprakash, Narendra and Phoolchand, as aforesaid. 4. Thereafter accused appellant Vinod Kumar was arrested on 2.9.2007 and a supplementary charge-sheet for the offence u/s. 147, 148, 149 and 302 IPC was submitted before Judicial Magistrate, Ramganjmandi, who, in turn, committed the case for trial to the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ramganjmandi, where the matter was registered as Sessions Case No. 36/2007. Thereafter, accused appellant Ghanshyam was arrested on 2.11.2011 and a supplementary charge-sheet against him was also submitted before the Judicial Magistrate, Ramganjmandi, who in turn, committed the case for trial to the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ramganjmandi. Thereafter, accused appellant Ghanshyam was arrested on 2.11.2011 and a supplementary charge-sheet against him was also submitted before the Judicial Magistrate, Ramganjmandi, who in turn, committed the case for trial to the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ramganjmandi. Whereupon, the case against Ghanshyam was tagged with that of the accused appellant Vinod Kumar and a joint trial was conducted. Both the appellants were charged for the offence u/s. 148 and 302/149 IPC. appellants denied the charges and claimed trial. Prosecution examined 27 witnesses and exhibited 42 documents. Accused appellants were examined u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. They stated that the prosecution evidence was wrong. In defence, no or all evidence was produced but seven documents were exhibited. After hearing arguments of both the parties, learned trial court convicted and sentenced both the appellants vide impugned judgment dated 4.8.2014 as aforesaid. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submit that FIR No. 106/2003 (Ex. P-3) lodged by Shivraj (PW-3) on 6.9.2003 at about 12.30 PM, is based upon the information given to him by Reena (PW-12). She has been declared hostile. Therefore, the basis of FIR comes to an end. The FIR was lodged after three hours of the alleged incident and a formal FIR has been registered at police station on 6.9.2003 at about 3.30 PM. Prior to registration of formal FIR, police started investigation and prepared Panchnama of dead body, memo of site inspection, etc. Dhanraj (PW-2), Shivraj (PW-3), Bali Bai (PW-7) Jugraj (PW-8) and Sanju Meena (PW-9), cannot be regarded as eye witnesses. Being close relatives of the deceased, they are interested witnesses as well. Their evidence suffers from infirmity and they have been contradicted on the material points with their police statements. 6. Shivraj (PW-3) has stated in cross examination that in FIR (Ex. P-3) it has not been mentioned that appellant Vinod assaulted with knife on back side of his brother. It does also not find place in the statement recorded u/s. 161 Cr.P.C. He has stated that it is wrong to say that on seeing him, the accused threatened them and fled away. This witness has improved his version from that he deposed before police u/s. 161 Cr.P.C. This witness cannot be said to be eye witness as he reached the spot after the alleged incident taken place. This witness has improved his version from that he deposed before police u/s. 161 Cr.P.C. This witness cannot be said to be eye witness as he reached the spot after the alleged incident taken place. Dhanraj (P-2) and Jugraj (PW-8), who are brothers of the deceased, have stated that they reached the spot after Shivraj (PW-3) and many other people assembled there. Sanju (PW-9) states in the examination in chief that when she reached the spot, she saw the accused persons having weapons of offence, whereas in cross examination she says it to be wrong that she did not see the accused beating the deceased. On the other hand, in the statement recorded by the trial court during trial of other 5 co-accused, she has admitted that she did not see the beating. Thus, Sanju (PW-9) is giving flickering statement. Bali Bai (PW-7), who is wife of the deceased has also stated before the trial court that when she reached along with Shivraj, many people had assembled there. When she reached, Phoolchand, Ghanshyam, Vinod, Narendra and Chandu were beating her husband Giriraj. Vinod was having knife and Ghanshyam having a country made pistol. All were giving beatings and fled away towards river. In cross examination, she admits that in her statement (Ex. D-3) u/s. 161 Cr.P.C., it has not been mentioned that she saw the beating. Ghasi Ram (PW-1) and Bajrang Bagri S/o. Shri Devi Lal (PW-14) have turned hostile. Thus, ' none of these witnesses can be said to be eye witnesses. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants further argued that Dhanraj (PW-2), Bali Bai (PW-7), Sanju (PW-9), Bajrang S/o. Shri Govind Lal (PW-15) and Smt. Santosh Bai (PW-19), being close relatives of the deceased, may be implicating the accused appellants falsely. The evidence of interested, relatives or partisan witnesses has to be scrutinized with caution and great care, to be tested in the light of probabilities, previous statements and surrounding circumstances. Evidence adduced by the said witnesses does not stand on the said parameters and thus they are not trustworthy, reliable and convincing. 8. Learned counsel for the accused appellants submit that no recovery of weapon of offence has been made at the instance of any of the appellants. It is argued that the empty cartridges, alleged to be recovered from the site of crime, were not sent for examination to the ballistic expert. 8. Learned counsel for the accused appellants submit that no recovery of weapon of offence has been made at the instance of any of the appellants. It is argued that the empty cartridges, alleged to be recovered from the site of crime, were not sent for examination to the ballistic expert. The case of two appellants cannot be distinguished from the case of co-accused Mukesh and Udai Lal, acquitted by the trial court. The present appellants should also be acquitted in the same manner as other two co-accused have been. Prosecution ought to prove a case beyond reasonable doubt. Prosecution story may be true but there is a long distance between "may be true" and "must be true". The distance is to be covered by leading legal, reliable and unimpeachable evidence. 9. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that prosecution story has been proved by trustworthy ocular evidence. Minor discrepancies, here and there, in the statements of witnesses, recorded in the court after considerable time, are natural phenomena. Though most of the eye witnesses are relatives and may be interested also, but merely on this ground the whole testimony of such witnesses cannot be thrown away. 10. Acquittal of two accused-|cannot be a ground or basis for claiming acquittal by other co-accused against whom cogent, credible and trustworthy evidence is available. 11. The incident took place at about 9.00A.M, police reached at hospital where the deceased was taken, at about 12.30 P.M. and recorded the information on Parcha Bayan. Formal FIR was registered at police station at about 3.30 P.M. Prior to formal registration of FIR, initiation of investigation by the Investigating Officer, ipso facto, cannot be said to be bad in the eye of law. If there is evidence so as to doubt any doctoring in the information report, only then delays, even trivial one, and initiation of investigation prior to formal registration of FIR, become important and relevant. 12. Inspite of non-recovery of weapon of offence, prosecution story is well proved from the testimony of eye witnesses. 13. Learned trial court has rightly believed that there was motive behind the murder. Accused appellant Phoolchand committed rape with a lady in the family of deceased Giriraj. Phoolchand doubted that Giriraj had informed the police. Since that occurrence, appellant accused was absconding. It is a brutal murder committed in a day light, in front and view of several villagers. 13. Learned trial court has rightly believed that there was motive behind the murder. Accused appellant Phoolchand committed rape with a lady in the family of deceased Giriraj. Phoolchand doubted that Giriraj had informed the police. Since that occurrence, appellant accused was absconding. It is a brutal murder committed in a day light, in front and view of several villagers. The witnesses have deposed the incident in the manner they perceived the same on reaching the site of the crime. Therefore, there is nothing on record so as to justify interference by this court with the findings of learned trial court. 14. We have considered the rival submissions made before us, gone through the whole material on record and perused the precedents referred herein. 15. It is a case mainly based on eye witnesses where the crime was committed in day light in a densely populated village. Though the eye witnesses are mostly relatives or otherwise interested persons in the deceased, it is well settled law that relatives and interested witnesses are to be examined more closely and their I evidence is to be scrutinized minutely and only thereafter trustworthy part of it, should be relied upon. 16. As per prosecution story, first information was given by Shivraj Meena (PW-3) on 6.9.2003 at about 12.30 PM to Abdul Majid Khan (PW-23), SHO, Police Station Chechat at Mortuary of Government Hospital, Ramganjmandi, which was recorded on Parcha Bayan (Ex. P-3). As per Ex. P-3, at about 9.00 AM, Shivraj (PW-3) was at his house and his elder brother Giriraj had gone to river for plantation, a girl child of the locality came and informed him that Phoolchand - Master, his father Uda Patel, Ghanshyam, and cousins of Phoolchand - Narendra, Vinod and Chandu are beating his brother Giriraj with sword, knife, country made pistol (Desi Katta) and incised weapon. Immediately, the witness rushed to his brother. On the way, near the house of Amarlal, he saw Phoolchand - Master assaulting his brother with pistol. He heard the sound of gun fire also. His brother was lying on the ground. Ghanshyam, Vinod and Chandu were giving blows with knife and sword. Narendra was giving blow with Gandasi. Meanwhile, brothers of informant - Jugraj and Dhanraj also reached there. They also saw the incident. Ghasi Meena and other villagers also reached at the spot and saw the incident. His brother was lying on the ground. Ghanshyam, Vinod and Chandu were giving blows with knife and sword. Narendra was giving blow with Gandasi. Meanwhile, brothers of informant - Jugraj and Dhanraj also reached there. They also saw the incident. Ghasi Meena and other villagers also reached at the spot and saw the incident. Assuming that Giriraj has died and on seeing that, other 11 brothers have arrived there, the appellants fled away towards Rai Kheda. The injuries were profusely bleeding. So immediately, Giriraj was brought to the Government Hospital, Ramganjmandi, where doctor declared him dead. 17. Dr. Babu Lal Dhyvana (PW-24) was a member of the Medical Board, who conducted postmortem of the deceased at about 12.15 PM on 6.9.2003. He states that on examination of the dead body, ten injuries were found. Postmortem report (Ex. P-42) was prepared. Details of the injuries have been mentioned in supplementary list (Ex. P-42A). In the opinion of the Medical Board the cause of death was shock due to excessive haemorrhage because of gun shot wound at neck and other associate injuries. All the injuries were ante-mortem and death was caused six hours prior to the postmortem. 18. Thus, Dr. Babu Lal Dhyvana (PW-24) and postmortem report (Ex. P-42) corroborates prosecution story that Giriraj was assaulted by fire arm incised & blunt weapon and killed. As per postmortem report (Ex. P-42), opinion of the Medical Board is that the cause of death of Giriraj was shock due to excessive haemorrhage because of gun shot wound at neck and other associate injuries. 19. Abdul Majid Khan (PW-23), SHO, Police Station Chechat stated that after reaching Mortuary, Ramganjmandi and recording Parcha Bayan (Ex. P-3), he started investigation and obtained the inquest report prepared by Ratan Singh, Sub-Inspector of P.S. Ramganjmandi and thereafter requested the Medical Officer to conduct postmortem. Photography of the dead body was get done. Memo of dead body (Ex. P-2) was prepared. After postmortem, dead body was handed over to Shivraj vide memo (Ex. P-5). Blood stained underwear and Baniyan of the deceased were seized and sealed vide seizure memo (Ex. P-6). Thereafter, he went to village Dhakiya and inspected the site of crime in presence of witnesses Narain, Bheru Lal (PW-4) and complainant Shivraj. Memo of site inspection is Ex. P-4. Photography of site of crime was get-done vide memo (Ex. P-9). P-5). Blood stained underwear and Baniyan of the deceased were seized and sealed vide seizure memo (Ex. P-6). Thereafter, he went to village Dhakiya and inspected the site of crime in presence of witnesses Narain, Bheru Lal (PW-4) and complainant Shivraj. Memo of site inspection is Ex. P-4. Photography of site of crime was get-done vide memo (Ex. P-9). Blood smeared soil, control soil and blood of deceased were collected and sealed vide memo (Ex. P-7). A live 9 mm cartridge, three empty cartridges, another empty cartridges of 315 bore found at the site of crime were also collected and sealed vide memo (Ex. P-8). Thereafter, he returned to the Police Station Chechat and formal FIR No. 106/2003 (Ex. P-23) was registered by him, Bheru Lal (PW-4) has corroborated the statement of Abdul Majid Khan (PW-23). Rajendra Kumar (PW-22) stated that he had taken photographs Ex. P-34 to Ex. P-41 of deceased Giriraj. Hariprakash (PW-21) stated that on 6.9.2003 on the request of police Chechat, he had taken photographs of the site of the crime. Photographs are Ex. P-26 to Ex. P-30. As per Chalked FIR (Ex. P-23), first information of the offence was formally registered at Sr. No. 106/2003 on 6.9.2003 at 3.30 PM. 20. After perusing the above evidence, it is crystal clear that no delay was committed in taking prompt action, on receiving the information about crime given by Shivraj vide Ex. P-3. Time taken in completing all necessary proceedings at Hospital and site of crime is explicit from the statement of Abdul Majid Khan (PW-23). So delay in registering the formal FIR has been explained. Moreover, we do not find any contradiction between formal FIR (Ex. P-23) and Parcha Bayan (Ex. P-3), which is, in fact, the real first information of crime. 21. It is undisputed that Shivraj (PW-3), Jugraj Meena (PW-8) and Dhanraj (PW-2) are brothers of the deceased. Sanju Meena (PW-9) and Bali Bai (PW-7) are sister and wife, respectively, of the deceased. Obviously, they are interested & relatives witnesses. But on perusal of memo of site inspection (Ex. P-4), it reveals that the distance of their houses from site of crime is hardly 87 foot steps. Learned trial court has rightly believed that immediate presence of these witnesses at the site of crime cannot be doubted. 22. Shivraj (PW-3) has stated that on informing by a girl child, he rushed. P-4), it reveals that the distance of their houses from site of crime is hardly 87 foot steps. Learned trial court has rightly believed that immediate presence of these witnesses at the site of crime cannot be doubted. 22. Shivraj (PW-3) has stated that on informing by a girl child, he rushed. Near the house of Amarlal, Phoolchand assaulted with gun shot by pistol on ear cartilage of his brother Giriraj. Ghanshyam with country made pistol, Narendra with Gandasi, Chandu with sword, Vinod with knife and Mukesh with Chhura assaulted. Udai Lal was standing there holding a gun. All of them were beating. When the witness and other reached, they were threatened not to come forward, else they would meet the same fate. Brother Dhanraj, followed by Jugraj, Bhabhi and sister Sanju also rushed. Villagers Nanhe Khan, Madan Lal, Maula Bhai, Ghasi and others were standing there. After beating his brother, accused fled away with weapons towards Rai Kheda. 23. Dhanraj (PW-2) has stated that when he saw his brother Shivraj running, he followed him. He corroborates all mother details rendered by Shivraj (PW-3). In cross examination, he states that Vinod inflicted 4-5 injuries of knife He had stated this fact to police but why the same has not been recorded by police in statement (Ex. D-1), he cannot say. 24. Jugraj (PW-8), the other brother of the deceased has also narrated the incident corroborating the statement of Shivraj (PW-3). Contrary to others statement, he states that Ghanshyam was having knife instead country made pistol. In cross examination, he states it to be wrong that when he reached the spot the fighting was over. When he was confronted with his earlier statement (Ex. D-4) which he deposed before the court during trial against co-accused, then he states that "A to B" part of Ex. D-4 was stated by him. Nevertheless he reiterates that fighting was not over when he reached the spot. Sanju (PW-9) has also corroborated the statement of Shivraj (PW-3) in her examination in chief but in cross examination, when a suggestion was given that when she reached the spot, accused had fled away, she states it to be wrong. When she was confronted with her earlier statement (Ex. Sanju (PW-9) has also corroborated the statement of Shivraj (PW-3) in her examination in chief but in cross examination, when a suggestion was given that when she reached the spot, accused had fled away, she states it to be wrong. When she was confronted with her earlier statement (Ex. D-5) which she deposed before the court during trial of other co-accused, she accepts that "A to B" and "C to D" part of it, are true and such statement was given by her. Bali Bai (PW-7) has also deposed similar statement. These witnesses are relatives of the deceased. Their statements in the instant trial have been recorded after about 8 years of the occurrence. Certain improvement and exaggeration in the statements of interested witnesses, recorded after a passage of about 8 years, cannot be ruled out. 25. Ghanshyam (PW-10), Bajrang S/o. Devi Lal (PW-14), Bajrang S/o. Shri Govind Lal (PW-15), Mangi Lal (PW-16) and Maula Bhai (PW-17) have also been examined as eye witnesses. Out of them, Ghanshyam (PW-10) has supported the prosecution in his examination in chief but his presence has not been mentioned in FIR (Ex. P-3). His presence has also not been corroborated by other witnesses. Therefore, learned trial court has rightly disbelieved him to be eye witness. So far as Bajrang Bagri S/o. Shri Devi Lal (PW-14), Bajrang S/o. Shir Govind Lal (PW-15) and Mangi Lal (PW-16) are concerned, all of them have turned hostile and they are not stating anything about the incident, whereas Maula Bhai (PW-17) is an independent witness who lives in neighbourhood. He has fully corroborated prosecution story. He states that he saw Giriraj Sarpanch, coming from river side, reaching near house of Amarlal, then Phoolchand, Vinod, Ghanshyam and 4-5 others fire a gun shot towards him. Ghanshyam was having a Chhoti Bandook (small gun), Vinod was having knife, others were having Gandasi, knife, etc. Giriraj troubled down on head injury and on all part of his body. Family members of the Giriraj had come up there. In cross examination, he has said that he heard a sound of gun fire. He had tried to intervene but he and others present there, were threatened not to come forward, else they would also be gunned down. Giriraj troubled down on head injury and on all part of his body. Family members of the Giriraj had come up there. In cross examination, he has said that he heard a sound of gun fire. He had tried to intervene but he and others present there, were threatened not to come forward, else they would also be gunned down. This witness has corroborated that in the family of Sarpanch Sahab (deceased Giriraj), Shivraj, Jugraj, Dhanraj, Bali Bai, Sanju Bai and daughter of Sarpanch Sahab had come there and on their arrival, this witness left the place. The witness has been thoroughly cross examined by defence side but nothing has come up to shatter his testimony. We are of the firm view that the trial court has rightly believed testimony of this witness. Ghasi Ram (PW-1), Ramesh (PW-11) and Reena (PW-12) have also been examined as eye witnesses but they have turned hostile. 26. Upon close scrutiny of the evidence, we find that out of several witnesses examined by the prosecution as eye witnesses, Shivraj (PW-3),Jug Raj (PW-8) and Dhanaraj (PW-33) are fully corroborating prosecution story that appellant Ghanshyam fired a -gun shot on Giriraj and also Vinod stabbed him knife on back side. All other accused also inflicted injuries with pistol, sword, Gandasi and Chhura and consequently Giriraj succumbed to the injuries. 27. Dhanraj (PW-2), Shivraj (PW-3), Bali Bai (PW-7), Jugraj (PW-8), Sanju (PW-9) and Maula Bhai (PW-17), all of them have stated that a report about committing rape with a lady in the family of complainant party was registered against the co-accused Phoolchand. Phoolchand was in the impression that the report was registered at the instance of deceased Giriraj. Earlier, he had threatened Giriraj and due to this enmity, accused appellants and other co-accused killed the deceased. Accused appellants have also admitted existence of enmity in their statement given on examination u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. We do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the trial court about the motive being well proved by the prosecution. 28. Earlier, he had threatened Giriraj and due to this enmity, accused appellants and other co-accused killed the deceased. Accused appellants have also admitted existence of enmity in their statement given on examination u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. We do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the trial court about the motive being well proved by the prosecution. 28. It is undisputed that no recovery of any kind of weapon of crime has been made in this case at the instance of accused appellants but looking to the period after the incident, when accused appellants were arrested i.e. after about 8 years, it cannot be expected that proof by way of recoveries of weapon of crime could be adduced. 29. As the eye witnesses stated that they themselves had seen accused appellant Ghanshyam firing the gun shot on the body of deceased Giriraj and accused appellant Vinod stabbing with knife on back side of the body of deceased, postmortem report (Ex. P-42 and Ex. P-42-A) and statement of Dr. Babu Lal Dhyvana (PW-24) corroborates that gun shot injuries and incised wounds were found ante-mortem on the dead body of Giriraj and opinion of the Medical Board is that cause of death of Giriraj is shock due to excessive haemorrhage because of gun shot wound at neck and other associate injuries. Thus, the charges against the appellants are well proved by the trustworthy and credible evidence. 30. In the result we do not find any force in the appeal presented by appellants Vinod and Ghanshyam and it is hereby dismissed. The conviction and sentence passed against them by the trial court are upheld. Accused appellants are in jail, they are to serve out the remaining sentence.