JUDGMENT : Mohammad Rafiq, J. These two appeals are directed against judgment dated 05.01.2017 passed by the Court of Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Cases), Kota (Rajasthan) in Sessions Case No. 32/2008, whereby learned trial court convicted both accused appellants Nand Kishore @ Nand Behari and Devi Shanker for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and also under section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. For offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, both the accused have been sentenced to suffer life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) each; in default of payment of fine, they were ordered to further undergo one years' simple imprisonment, and for offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, they have been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) each, in default of payment of fine, they were ordered to further undergo six months simple imprisonment. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Facts of the case are that on 10.03.2008 at 5:50 PM one Heeralal Meena (PW-1), R/o Bambuliya, submitted a written report at Police Station Itawa, District Kota, alleging therein that when his son Murlidhar, after irrigating his agriculture land, was returning to his home at about 4:45 PM on the same day, Devi Shanker, Prahlad, Satyanarain, Lalchand, all sons of Bherulal Dhakad, and Nandji S/o Badrilal Kudwal, with their two servants, all residents of village Gainta, who were armed with 'kulhari', 'dharia', 'gandasi' and other sharp edged weapons, met him in front of shop of Siddique. They came there with the common object to kill Murlidhar and started abusing him for the reason that he got their illegal water pump seized. Devi Shanker had 'kulhari', Prahlad had 'kutiya', Satyanarain and Lalchand had 'gandasis' in their hands. They along-with other persons started beating him and were exhorting each other that he should be killed. His son Murlidhar Meena succumbed to the injuries on the spot. Devi Shanker had 'kulhari', Prahlad had 'kutiya', Satyanarain and Lalchand had 'gandasis' in their hands. They along-with other persons started beating him and were exhorting each other that he should be killed. His son Murlidhar Meena succumbed to the injuries on the spot. Shambhu Dayal (PW-7) S/o Mangilal Meena, R/o Bambuliya Kalan, who at that time happened to be in village Gainta for buying engine parts, and Lekhraj S/o Motilal Meena (PW-4), R/o Bambuliya, who had also gone to village Gainta on motorcycle of Shambhu Dayal, have witnessed this incident. 3. The police, on the basis of aforesaid written report, registered a regular First Information Report No. 43/2008 for offence under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 302 IPC, and commenced investigation. After completion of investigation, the police filed charge-sheet against the accused-appellants. Charges were framed against the accused-appellants for aforesaid offences. They denied the charges and claimed to be tried. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined 38 witnesses and exhibited 58 documents. Though the defence did not produce any witness but exhibited seven documents. 4. During the course of trial, the prosecution filed an application under section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The trial court, vide order dated 02.03.2015, allowed the said application and issued process against accused Prahlad, Satyanarain, Lalchand requiring them to face trial. They approached this court by filing S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 1358/2015. This court, vide order dated 30.03.2015, stayed the proceedings considering that the accused were in jail since 10.03.2008 and that petition is still pending. The trial court proceeded with the matter and finally decided the same by impugned judgment by convicting and sentencing the accused-appellants in the manner indicated above. Hence this appeal. 5. Mr. A.K. Gupta, learned counsel for accused-appellant Devi Shanker in Criminal Appeal No. 49/2017, argued that accused-appellant Devi Shanker has been illegally convicted as the evidence produced by the prosecution does not prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Learned counsel referred to written report (Exhibit P-1) submitted at Police Station Itawa, District Kota, and argued that this report, which is shown to have been received by the Station House Officer at 5:50 PM on 10.03.2008, is apparently fabricated. Learned counsel referred to written report (Exhibit P-1) submitted at Police Station Itawa, District Kota, and argued that this report, which is shown to have been received by the Station House Officer at 5:50 PM on 10.03.2008, is apparently fabricated. Last five lines of the report marked 'I' to 'J', have been subsequently added only with a view to introducing three persons as eyewitnesses, namely, Shambhu Dayal, Lekhraj and Raghuveer, whereas actually they were not present at the place of occurrence. The FIR is shown to have been registered at 5:50 PM on 10.03.2008, whereas it has been sent to Ilaka Magistrate on 11.03.2008 at 2:00 PM through one constable Motiram, who has not been examined to prove the reasons for delay. The delay is evident from the fact that the FIR was sent to Ilaka Magistrate on 11.03.2010 at 2:00 PM with delay of one day. It is argued that Itawa is a very small town and distance between the police station and hospital, where written report was submitted to SHO, is quite negligible. Even Heeralal (PW-1), as per his own showing, is not an eyewitness. 6. Learned counsel argued that entire case of the prosecution hinges on sole testimony of Shambhu Dayal (PW-7) because other two eyewitnesses, namely, Lekhraj (PW-4) and Raghuveer (PW-5) having not supported the prosecution case, have been declared hostile. Statements of Shambhu Dayal Meena (PW-7), who claims to be an eyewitness of the occurrence, makes it clear that the story narrated by Heeralal in connection with lodging of FIR, is not genuine. Heeralal (PW-1) never reached the place of occurrence. What Heeralal has stated is that he was not present at the place of occurrence. He, at the relevant time, was in Village Bambuliya. His son Kunjbehari received the information about the incident on phone from village Gainta. Thereafter, he went to village Gainta with Kunjbehari on motorcycle, where they saw dead body of Murlidhar Meena lying near the shop of one Raju Nagar. He, at the relevant time, was in Village Bambuliya. His son Kunjbehari received the information about the incident on phone from village Gainta. Thereafter, he went to village Gainta with Kunjbehari on motorcycle, where they saw dead body of Murlidhar Meena lying near the shop of one Raju Nagar. Allegation made by this witness in the written report against accused-appellant is totally false and cannot be believed in the light of the statement of his son Kunjbehari (PW-6), recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., 1973 (Exhibit D-1) in particular portion marked 'A' to 'B' thereof, on 11.03.2008 with which he was confronted during his court statement, as in police statements he had stated that it is not known to him as to who murdered his brother. If on 11.03.2008 Kunjbehari was not aware as to who murdered his brother, there was no basis with Heeralal to make specific allegation against the accused-appellant and other named accused for committing murder of his son Murlidhar. Heeralal and Kunjbehari in any case could not have seen the assailants as both of them reached the place of occurrence much after the completion of the incident. This proves that the FIR was written in the light of police statement of Shambhu Dayal (Exhibit D-4) and the FIR is apparently ante timed. This explains why it was sent with delay to Ilaka Magistrate at 2:00 PM on the following day i.e. 11.03.2008. 7. Learned counsel argued that statement of Shambhu Dayal (PW-7), the sole eyewitness relied by learned trial court to convict the accused-appellant, even otherwise, does not inspire confidence. While he stated that he told names of assailants to Kunjbehari (PW-6), who along-with his father Heeralal (PW-1), reached the place of occurrence on motorcycle but he did not state that he also told such names to Heeralal. On the other hand, Kunj Behari (PW-6) in his police statement (Exhibit D-1) recorded on 11.03.2008, has stated that till that time he was not aware as to who murdered his brother. In cross-examination, Kunj Behari (PW-6) has stated that the police recorded his statement on the next day of the incident, although he reached the police station on the same day but by the time he reached the police station, the FIR had already been lodged. In cross-examination, Kunj Behari (PW-6) has stated that the police recorded his statement on the next day of the incident, although he reached the police station on the same day but by the time he reached the police station, the FIR had already been lodged. His statement in cross-examination where he told the names of assailants to Heeralal (PW-1) cannot be believed because he qualifies this statement by further stating that he did not give information to Heeralal as to which accused caused the injuries on which part of the deceased. Shambhu Dayal (PW-7) cannot be believed because his statement is full of contradictions and discrepancies. While he alleged that he was resident of village Babuliya and that he had gone to village Gainta for buying engine parts but in cross-examination he stated that in the site plan (Exhibit P-9) the shop of Hameed, who sells engine parts, is not indicated and only his house has been shown. He had merely gone to his shop but did not purchase any item. He has stated in examination-in-chief that he went to village Gainta on motorcycle but in cross-examination he stated that he went from his house to village Gainta on foot and there he took lift on the motorcycle but he was unable to name the person on whose motorcycle he took the lift or registration number of the motorcycle. This clearly shows that Shambhu Dayal Meena (PW-7), who has been shown as a chance witness, is in fact a planted witness and was not present at the place of occurrence. 8. Mr. A.K. Gupta, learned counsel, in this connection, referred to statement of the Investigating Officer Mrs. Uma Sharma (PW-35), who has stated that the police received the information about the incident on telephone from someone, which was entered in the 'rojnamcha' at Report No. 496 and further stated that name of assailants/murderer was not mentioned in that 'rojnamcha' report. Reference in this connection is made to copies of 'rojnamcha' report (Exhibit D-8). Mrs. Uma Sharma (PW-35), the investigating officer, in cross-examination, has also admitted that when she recorded statement of Kunj Behari (PW-6) under Section 161 Cr.P.C., 1973 (Exhibit D-1), from place 'A' to 'B' therein he did state that names of those who murdered his brother, was not known to him. Mrs. Mrs. Uma Sharma (PW-35), the investigating officer, in cross-examination, has also admitted that when she recorded statement of Kunj Behari (PW-6) under Section 161 Cr.P.C., 1973 (Exhibit D-1), from place 'A' to 'B' therein he did state that names of those who murdered his brother, was not known to him. Mrs. Uma Sharma (PW-35), the investigating officer, when confronted with the 'rojnamcha' report (Exhibit D-8), admitted that when the police was going towards the place of incident, two jeeps were coming from that direction and when they were intercepted, it was noted that dead body of Murlidhar Meena was lying in the first jeep and 4-5 other persons were sitting therein, and that 10-12 persons were sitting in the jeep behind that. On enquiry, they claimed to be the relatives of the deceased. Two constables were sent with them to the hospital. 9. Learned counsel submitted that while Heeralal has stated that when the police reached the place of occurrence, he along with Shambhu Dayal had already arrived there and took the dead body of Murlidhar to Police Station Itawa and thereafter to the hospital adjacent thereto. Kunjbehari (PW-6) has stated that he asked Devendra Sharma (PW-10) to fetch a jeep and thereafter Devendra brought a jeep at the place of incident and they took the dead body of Murlidhar in that jeep to hospital at Itawa, where he was declared brought dead. But Devendra (PW-10) has not supported the case of the prosecution and has been declared hostile. Kunjbehari (PW-6) in view of his police statement (Exhibit D-1), is apparently not speaking the truth. In the police statement recorded on 11.03.2008, he stated that till then he was not aware as to who murdered his brother, whereas in the statement before the court, he stated that Shambhu Dayal told him that accused Devi Shanker inflicted 'kulhari' blow on the neck of Murlidhar and Nand Behari also inflicted a 'kulhari' blow on his neck. Apparently, the appellants have been falsely implicated, particularly when this witness Kunj Behari (PW-6) has stated that there was no previous enmity between the parties and there was clearly no motive for the accused-appellant to commit murder of Murlidhar. It is submitted that according to Kunj Behari (PW-6), Dhannalal (PW-2) gave this information to him on his mobile phone. Apparently, the appellants have been falsely implicated, particularly when this witness Kunj Behari (PW-6) has stated that there was no previous enmity between the parties and there was clearly no motive for the accused-appellant to commit murder of Murlidhar. It is submitted that according to Kunj Behari (PW-6), Dhannalal (PW-2) gave this information to him on his mobile phone. Dhannalal, though appeared as PW-2 and proved the inquest report (Exhibit P-4), has not uttered a single word with regard to his having given information to Kunj Behari (PW-6) on mobile phone. 10. It is argued that Ram Prasad Meena (PW-8), brother-in-law of deceased, is also a planted witness because he was resident of village Ganesh Ganj and there could be no occasion for him to be present in village Gainta at the time of incident. He stated that on the way, while he was going from Anasar to Bambuliya, he had to stay in village Gainta at the petrol pump for getting tyre of thresher repaired, which got punctured on the fateful day at about 4:30 PM, and there, Brij Mohan S/o Madrilal, R/o Bambuliya, told him that his brother-in-law (loser) was being attacked in the market. He immediately rushed towards the village and Shambhu Nagar met him on the way, who on enquiry told him about the entire incident. When he proceeded further towards village Gainta, he noticed that 5-6 persons with sharp edged weapons, out of which two had 'kulhari' and others had 'dharia' and gandasi', which were smeared with blood, were coming from western side towards east. When he reached the place of incident, body of Murlidhar was lying soaked in blood. Shambhu Dayal (PW-7) was standing there. This witness has gone to the extent of saying that Shambhu Dayal (PW-7) told him that Devi Shanker, Lalchand, Prahlad, Satyanarain and Nandu @ Nandbehari have murdered Murlidhar. After sometime, Kunj Behari (PW-6) and Heeralal (PW-1) also came there. 11. It is argued that Mrs. Uma Sharma (PW-35), the Investigating Officer, has admitted it to be correct that till the time of entry of report No. 501 at 5:30 PM on 10.03.2008, it was not yet ascertained as to who were the accused, though it came to the light that members of 'thakur' community of village Gainta have murdered the member of 'Meena' community of village Bamboliya. This witness admitted that the building of police station and that of hospital were adjoining to each other. Naresh (PW-21), Mangi Lal (PW-22) and Balram (PW-23) have also not supported the prosecution case and thus declared hostile. The trial court therefore was not justified in relying on their part statement. Mahaveer (PW-14), though named both accused-appellants in the examination in chief. He stated that while Nand Behari was having 'kulhari', Devi Shanker had only 'lakdi' but in cross-examination, he stated that he did not see the accused causing injuries to the deceased and only saw them carrying the weapons. This witness has not been declared hostile by the prosecution and thus the prosecution would be bound by his statement. 12. Learned counsel submitted that Radhey Shayam (PW-13), who is attesting witness of recovery of 'kulhari' at the instance of accused Devi Shanker vide recovery memo (Exhibit P-16), has not fully supported the recovery because in cross-examination, he stated that the police had taken him to village Gainta in their jeep. The Investigating Officer first went to the house of Devi Shanker and thereafter to the house other accused. He inspected their houses and brought 'kulhari', and that other family members of Devi Shanker were not present there at that time. The Investigating Officer then came out of his house with 'kulhari' and told this witness that he has recovered 'kulhari' having blood stains, and then this witness signed the memo. In further cross-examination, he has denied having gone inside the house of the accused. 13. Learned counsel argued that Shambhu Dayal Meena (PW-7) has given different versions with regard to his presence in village Gainta. He was confronted with his supplementary statement given to police (Exhibit D-3) on 13.04.2008, where he stated that he went to village Gainta for treatment from a doctor of private hospital, namely, Dharti Hospital, but the doctor was not available in the hospital and then he went to his residence. But in the court statement he changed the purpose of his visit by stating that he had gone there to purchase hardware items and engine parts. This witness stated that about 5-6 shop owners were present at the place of incident, who could be the best eyewitnesses but none of them has been produced by the prosecution. But in the court statement he changed the purpose of his visit by stating that he had gone there to purchase hardware items and engine parts. This witness stated that about 5-6 shop owners were present at the place of incident, who could be the best eyewitnesses but none of them has been produced by the prosecution. The very fact that though he claimed to have gone to village Gainta for buying certain engine parts/hardware items but he did not purchase any such items, goes to show that in fact he is a planted witness. In his initial statement recorded by the police under section 161 Cr.P.C., 1973 on 11.03.2008 (Exhibit D-4), he stated that he, after purchasing the items from a shop situated at Surajpol Gate, was coming on foot, but when he was confronted with this part of statement, he denied having given such statement to the police and rather stated that he came on motorcycle. His statement does not inspire confidence because he stated that he was there in the police station during whole night but his statement was recorded by the police in the evening of next day. Learned counsel submitted that this witness has alleged that both accused-appellants Devi Shanker and Nand Behari one after another inflicted 'kulhari' blows at the same place viz., neck of the deceased, but Dr. Om Prakash Khandelwal (PW- 38) has categorically stated that there was only one injury on the neck of the deceased and denied the suggestion that two injuries were caused at the same place, which resulted into cutting of muscles. 14. Learned counsel argued that in cross-examination Mangi Lal (PW-12) has stated that he saw only one injury on the neck of Murlidhar and no other injury. In further cross-examination, he stated that after sometime Shambhu Dayal and Moolya also came at the place of occurrence. When confronted with his supplementary police statement (Exhibit P-23), this witness has stated therein that Nand Behari inflicted a 'kulhari' blow on the neck of the deceased. 15. In further cross-examination, he stated that after sometime Shambhu Dayal and Moolya also came at the place of occurrence. When confronted with his supplementary police statement (Exhibit P-23), this witness has stated therein that Nand Behari inflicted a 'kulhari' blow on the neck of the deceased. 15. It is argued that conviction of the accused-appellant for offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, only because the deceased happened to be belonging to Scheduled Tribe category, cannot at all be justified, particularly when none of the witnesses of the prosecution alleged that the deceased was subjected to beating only on caste considerations or that he was abused by the accused with reference to his birth in ST community. 16. Mr. A.K. Gupta, learned counsel, relying on judgment of the Supreme Court in Prabhu Babaji Navle v. State of Bombay - AIR 1956 SC 51 , argued that the FSL report has no value as it has not been shown as to how much blood was found on the recovered articles. The Supreme Court therein has held that it is the duty of the Chemical Examiner to indicate the number of blood stains found by him on each exhibit and the extent of each stain unless they are too minute or too numerous to be described in detail. It is therefore argued that mere fact that the memo of recovery and FSL report merely indicate that there were blood stains on the weapons and clothes of the accused, were not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused-appellants. 17. Mr. A.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the accused-appellant, argued that when the case of the prosecution is that accused sustained only one injury on the neck by 'kulhari' why the prosecution is relying on the recovery of two 'kulharis', has not been explained. Relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Prabhoo v. State of Uttar Pradesh - AIR 1963 SC 1113 , learned counsel argued that unless weapon and article is produced in the court and is shown to the accused, it cannot be relied to convict him. Relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Prabhoo v. State of Uttar Pradesh - AIR 1963 SC 1113 , learned counsel argued that unless weapon and article is produced in the court and is shown to the accused, it cannot be relied to convict him. Learned counsel relied on judgment of the Supreme Court in Subhash Chand v. State of Rajasthan - (2002) 1 SCC 702 , to argue that in absence of the blood group of accused being proved, the possibility of the blood on the clothes of the accused, being that of the accused himself cannot be ruled out. Mr. A.K. Gupta, learned counsel, has argued that conviction on the basis of mere recovery and motive cannot be sustained as they can merely provide corroboration to the evidence otherwise available on record. He also relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Narsinbhai Haribhai Prajapati v. Chhatarasinh and Others - AIR 1977 SC 1753 , and argued that when evidence of eyewitness is found totally unacceptable, presence of motive and recovery of blood stained clothes and dharias with the accused were wholly insufficient for sustaining charge of murder. 18. Alternative argument of learned counsel for the appellant is that when it was not possible to determine as to which accused was responsible for causing the fatal injury and allegation thereabout is against two accused, none of them can be held responsible for offence of culpable homicide amounting to murder and they can at the maximum be convicted for offence under Section 325 IPC. 19. Mr. 19. Mr. A.K. Gupta, learned counsel, in support of his arguments, has relied on judgments of the Supreme Court in Meharaj Singh (L/Nk.) v. State of U.P. - (1994) 5 SCC 188 , M.C. Ali and Another v. State of Kerala - JT 2010 (3) SC 626, Arjun Marik and Others v. State of Bihar - 1994 Supp (2) SCC 372, Marudanal Augusti v. State of Kerala - AIR 1980 SC 638 , Karunakaran v. State of Tamil Nadu - AIR 1976 SC 383 , Badri v. State of Rajasthan - AIR 1976 SC 560 , Shankarlal v. State of Rajasthan - AIR 2004 SC 3559 , Dasari Siva Prasad Reddy v. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. - AIR 2004 SC 4383 , Prabhu Babaji Navle v. State of Bombay - AIR 1956 SC 51 , and Narsinbhai Haribhai Prajapati v. Chhatrasinh and Others - 1977 Cri.L.J. 1144. 20. Mr. Suresh Sahni, learned counsel for accused-appellant Nand Kishore @ Nand Behari in Criminal Appeal No. 171/2017, in addition to adopting the argument of learned counsel Mr. A.K. Gupta, submitted that the FIR is ante timed because Kunj Behari gave his police statement (Exhibit D-1) on 11.03.2008, wherein he stated that he was unaware as to who murdered his brother and it is evident from own saying of Heeralal (PW-1) that it was Kunj Behari who received telephonic information about murder of his son Murlidhar and brought him to the place of occurrence. This shows that the FIR is ante timed and fabricated. Shambhu Dayal Meena (PW-7) cannot be believed to be an eyewitness of the incident as it has been elaborately argued that Shambhu Dayal Meena (PW-7) could not be present at the place of occurrence. In fact, as per the site plan (Exhibit P-9), the incident had taken place in a busy market place where there were number of shops were situated. The prosecution has only produced two shop owners, namely, Raju Nagar (PW-17) and Saddique (PW-34). Both of them have not supported the prosecution case and were declared hostile. 21. Learned counsel submitted that Mangi Lal (PW-12) rules out presence of Shambhu Dayal Meena (PW-7) at the place of occurrence. As per Mangi Lal (PW-22), he was sitting in the shop of Naresh when he heard the sound of someone crying for help. Both of them have not supported the prosecution case and were declared hostile. 21. Learned counsel submitted that Mangi Lal (PW-12) rules out presence of Shambhu Dayal Meena (PW-7) at the place of occurrence. As per Mangi Lal (PW-22), he was sitting in the shop of Naresh when he heard the sound of someone crying for help. He saw Nand Behari and Devi Shanker, who respectively had 'lakdi' and 'kulhari', running towards their house. He has alleged that Nand Behari had inflicted a 'kulhari' blow on Murlidhar, as a result of which he fell on the ground. Devi Shanker was also standing there. Golu S/o Sarpanch was also present there. Then someone telephoned Sarpanch and police reached on the place of occurrence and took the dead body of Murlidhar to Itawa. 22. Learned counsel argued that initial statement of witness Mangi Lal under Section 161 Cr.P.C., 1973 (Exhibit D-5) was recorded by the first investigating officer on 15.03.2008 but his supplementary statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., 1973 (Exhibit P-23) was recorded on 26.04.2008. Second investigating officer has not been purposely produced by the prosecution, which has deprived the defence an opportunity to ask him as to why he recorded the supplementary statement of Mangi Lal (PW-12). Mangi Lal (PW-12), in his statement, has admitted that deceased was his classmate as also friend and therefore he was an interested witness. Mrs. Uma Sharma (PW-35), second investigating officer, has excluded the presence of Mangi Lal (PW-12) as an eyewitness because as per her conclusion, stated in cross-examination, he reached the place of occurrence after the incident was over. The first investigating officer of the case was Ram Kalyan Meena (PW- 36), the Assistant Sub Inspector, but in a situation when offence of Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, was added, the investigation was immediately changed and the same was entrusted to Mrs. Uma Sharma (PW-35), the Deputy Superintendent of Police. Despite being asked, Ram Kalyan Meena (PW-36) failed to explain the interpolation in the written report (Exhibit P-1), whereby three persons were introduced as eyewitness. He did not deny the suggestion that unknown persons had informed on telephone about the incident. Bhawani Shanker (PW-16) was the present Sarpanch of the village and has stated that it was he who informed the police on telephone. He did not deny the suggestion that unknown persons had informed on telephone about the incident. Bhawani Shanker (PW-16) was the present Sarpanch of the village and has stated that it was he who informed the police on telephone. The investigating officer thus failed to discharge responsibility in not disclosing names of the persons, who informed about the incident. Bhawani Shanker (PW-16) has categorically stated that he did not see the accused-appellants committing the murder of the deceased. 23. It is argued that Shambhu Dayal Meena (PW-7) is a planted witness in the garb of chance witness. What were the chances which made his presence there, have not been satisfactorily explained. He could not stand scrutiny of cross-examination by the defence. Learned counsel submitted that recovery of axe and clothes at the instance of accused-appellant Devi Shanker, is false and fabricated. While the F.I.R. was registered at 5:50 PM on 10.03.2008, the site plan (Exhibit P-9) was prepared on 11.03.2008. As per police statement of Kunj Behari recorded on 11.03.2008 under section 161 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 (Exhibit D-1) by Ram Kalyan Meena (PW-36), the first investigating officer, in which he stated that he was not aware till then as to who murdered his brother. The FIR thus was apparently recorded at 5:50 PM and was apparently ante timed. The site plan (Exhibit P-9) was prepared on 11.03.2008 at 12:00 noon, which is even before lodgment of the FIR. Learned counsel submitted that recovery of axe and clothes at the instance of accused-appellant Devi Shanker, is false and fabricated. The investigation in the present case had thus started even before lodgment of the FIR and therefore is hit by section 162 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 whereas the site plan (Exhibit P-9) was prepared on 11.03.2008. The recovery is thus false and fabricated. 24. It is argued that the prosecution has come out with a case of direct evidence by producing three eyewitnesses, two of them have not supported the prosecution case. Only one eyewitness Shambhu Dayal Meena (PW-7) has supported the prosecution, whose testimony the trial court has relied to convict the accused-appellants. Since on scrutiny his testimony is not found to be reliable, the conviction of the accused-appellants cannot be sustained only on the basis of mere recovery, which can only provide corroboration to direct evidence. Only one eyewitness Shambhu Dayal Meena (PW-7) has supported the prosecution, whose testimony the trial court has relied to convict the accused-appellants. Since on scrutiny his testimony is not found to be reliable, the conviction of the accused-appellants cannot be sustained only on the basis of mere recovery, which can only provide corroboration to direct evidence. In absence of substantive evidence, conviction of the accused-appellants cannot be upheld only on the basis of corroborative evidence. 25. Learned counsel argued that memo of recovery of axe (Exhibit P-16) from accused Devi Shanker has been shown to have been prepared at Police Station Itawa at 12:30 PM on 13.03.2008, and that Bhairu Singh (PW-9) and Radhey Shyam (PW-13) have been shown to be the attesting witnesses. Mrs. Uma Sharma (PW-35), the investigating officer, was confronted from part 'G' to 'H' of recovery memo (Exhibit P-16) indicating that it was shown prepared at police station, her explanation was that it happened because of slip of pen whereas actual fact is that such recovery was made from the house of accused Devi Shanker. The investigating officer was guilty of giving false evidence and was thus liable to be prosecuted for offence under Section 193 of the I.P.C. Recovery of clothes of accused Devi Shanker was made vide Exhibit P-17 from his house in village Gainta on 13.03.2008 at 1:15 PM. Recovery of one axe at the instance of accused Nand Behari @ Nand Ji @ Nand Kishore was made vide Exhibit P-18 from his house on 14.03.2008 at 9:30 AM in village Gainta. Recovery of clothes of accused Nand Behari @ Nand Ji @ Nand Kishore was made vide Exhibit P-19 from his house on 14.03.2008 at 10:30 AM from village Gainta. Bhairu Singh (PW-9) and Radhey Shyam (PW-13) have categorically stated that at the time of recovery, the police went inside the house of accused, which shows that they did not witness the recovery themselves. Mrs. Uma Sharma (PW-35), the investigating officer, in cross-examination, stated that attesting witnesses came to village Gainta on their own, whereas Radhey Shyam (PW-13) has stated that the police personnel came to him and took him in their jeep in which, apart from the Deputy Superintendent of Police, there were about 2-4 other police constables. They arrived at village Gainta. Mrs. Uma Sharma (PW-35), the investigating officer, in cross-examination, stated that attesting witnesses came to village Gainta on their own, whereas Radhey Shyam (PW-13) has stated that the police personnel came to him and took him in their jeep in which, apart from the Deputy Superintendent of Police, there were about 2-4 other police constables. They arrived at village Gainta. Requirement of section 100(4) of the Cr.P.C., 1973 is that two responsible persons, who are independent and inhabitants of the locality, should be associated with the recovery. Mrs. Uma Sharma (PW-35), the investigating officer, has failed to explain this and has admitted in cross examination that no witness from village Gainta was associated with recovery of articles and stated that attesting witnesses were not summoned by her but they came to village Gainta on their own from village Bambuliya because distance between two villages is hardly about 3-4 kilometers. Bhairu Ram (PW-9) has stated that he signed the recovery memos Exhibit P-16, Exhibit P-17 and Exhibit P-18, but in later part of statement he further stated that he signed only one document, which means that all other documents were forged by the Investigating Officer at the Police Station and thus she is liable to be prosecuted for offence under Sections 193 and 194 of the I.P.C., which is a grave offence. 26. Mr. Suresh Sahni, learned counsel, relied on judgment of the Supreme Court in Chandran v. State of Tamil Nadu - (1978) 4 SCC 90 , wherein it was held that recovery of blood stained clothes at the instance of the accused was a fabricated one as the appellant was not a lunatic to keep these incriminatory articles in his house after the murder. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Vijay Kumar v. State of Rajasthan - (2014) 3 SCC 412 , wherein it was held that mere recovery of certain incriminatory articles at the instance of the accused is not sufficient by itself to form basis of conviction. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Vijay Kumar v. State of Rajasthan - (2014) 3 SCC 412 , wherein it was held that mere recovery of certain incriminatory articles at the instance of the accused is not sufficient by itself to form basis of conviction. The Supreme Court in Dhan Raj alias Dhand v. State of Haryana - (2014) 6 SCC 745 , held that even in case where the recovery from the accused stands corroborated by other witness, it is not enough by itself to implicate the accused for the reason that it does not appear rational that any accused would keep such incriminatory items with them in their house connecting themselves to a crime. Learned counsel therefore argued that recovery of axe vide recovery memo (Exhibit P-18) pursuant to so-called information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act furnished by appellant Nand Kishore @ Nand Behari vide Exhibit P-42 lost its significance in every sense, particularly because the axe was hidden close to 'babool' trees, whereas the recovery has actually been shown from the house of the accused. It speaks volume of the conduct of the Investigating Officer, who has fabricated the false evidence to secure the conviction of the appellant. 27. Per contra, Mr. Sudesh Saini, learned Public Prosecutor, opposed the appeal and supported the judgment passed by learned trial court. He refuted the allegation that Shambhu Dayal (PW-7) has been produced only with a view to creating evidence. In fact, he was present at the scene of occurrence on 10.03.2008 and that he has not been planted as a witness only with a view to falsely implicate the accused-appellant. Learned Public Prosecutor refuted the fact that the FIR has been ante timed and that the names of the accused have been wrongly mentioned and name of the witness has been added by interpolation. Mere fact that the FIR was sent to the 'Ilaka' Magistrate on the next date at 2:00 PM cannot be a reason to believe that the FIR was ante timed. It is denied that Rule 31 of the General Criminal Rules has been violated. Learned Public Prosecutor argued that even if some of the witnesses have not supported the prosecution case and turned hostile. Their testimony being consistent with their original version, inspires confidence. It is denied that Rule 31 of the General Criminal Rules has been violated. Learned Public Prosecutor argued that even if some of the witnesses have not supported the prosecution case and turned hostile. Their testimony being consistent with their original version, inspires confidence. Besides, the eyewitness Shambhu Dayal (PW-7) has categorically stated about the role of the accused. Learned Public Prosecutor in this connection referred to statement of Shambhu Dayal (PW-7) and submitted that whatever he stated is quite natural. Nathu Lal (PW-33) has stated that Murlidhar Meena came to his shop for shaving of the beard, where after he left the shop. This witness stated that he himself went to the market for buying the vegetables and when he came back after about 15-20 minutes, he saw Murlidhar dead. The defence has subjected Shambhu Dayal (PW-7) to enormous cross-examination but failed to shake his confidence. Statements of Heera Lal (PW-1), Kunj Behari (PW-6) and Ram Prasad (PW-8), if read together, clearly show that Shambhu Dayal (PW-7) was naturally present at the place of occurrence, because he visited village Gainta from village Bamboliya for buying engine parts and thereafter when he was returning back, he met Murlidhar at Surajpole Gate, where they had discussed the plan to go to the village on the motorcycle. Mangi Lal (PW-12), Mahaveer (PW-13) and Naresh (PW-21) also corroborated this statement of Shambhu Dayal (PW-7) and there is no reason to disbelieve him. Shambhu Dayal (PW-7) was subjected to intense cross-examination which runs in as many as nine pages. Kunj Behari (PW-6) also corroborated that on receiving information about the incident, he along-with Heeralal (PW-1) went to the place of occurrence, where Shambhu Dayal (PW-7) met him. Ram Prasad (PW-8) has stated that Shambhu Dayal (PW-7) was present near the dead body of Murlidhar. The defence has not been able to shake the testimony of these witnesses. Shambhu Dayal (PW-7) was the best evidence of the incident. He is neither chance witness nor a planted witness. 28. Learned Public Prosecutor relied on judgment of the Supreme Court in Vikram Singh and Others v. State of Punjab - (2010) 3 SCC 56 and Rana Pratap and Others v. State of Haryana - (1983) 3 SCC 327 . 29. Shambhu Dayal (PW-7) was the best evidence of the incident. He is neither chance witness nor a planted witness. 28. Learned Public Prosecutor relied on judgment of the Supreme Court in Vikram Singh and Others v. State of Punjab - (2010) 3 SCC 56 and Rana Pratap and Others v. State of Haryana - (1983) 3 SCC 327 . 29. Relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sheikh Juman and Others v. State of Bihar - 2017 (3) SCALE 161 , learned Public Prosecutor argued that evidence of any witness cannot be rejected merely on the ground that interested witnesses admittedly had enmity with the persons implicated in the case. The purpose of recording of the evidence, in any case, shall always be to unearth the truth of the case. Learned Public Prosecutor also relied on judgment of the Supreme Court in Nagappan v. State by Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu - (2013) 4 JCC 2555, wherein it was held that where the evidence of "interested witnesses" is consistent and duly corroborated by medical evidence, it is not possible to discard the same merely on the ground that they were interested witnesses and the relationship is not a factor to affect credibility of a witness. Learned Public Prosecutor relied on judgment of the Supreme Court in Motilal and Another v. State of Rajasthan - 2009 (8 ) SCR 303, and held that the statutory requirement that the report has to be sent forthwith itself shows the urgency attached to the sending of the report. In a given case it is open to the prosecution to indicate reasons for the delayed dispatch or delayed receipt. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Md. Jamiluddin Nasir v. State of West Bengal - (2014) 7 SCC 443 , wherein the Supreme Court relied on its earlier judgments in Ram Singh v. State of Rajasthan - (2012) 12 SCC 339 , and held that non-production of the weapon used in the attack is neither fatal to the prosecution case nor any adverse can be drawn. Jamiluddin Nasir v. State of West Bengal - (2014) 7 SCC 443 , wherein the Supreme Court relied on its earlier judgments in Ram Singh v. State of Rajasthan - (2012) 12 SCC 339 , and held that non-production of the weapon used in the attack is neither fatal to the prosecution case nor any adverse can be drawn. Learned Public Prosecutor also relied on the judgment of the Madras High Court in Natarajan v. Union Territory of Pondicherry - Criminal Appeal No. 655/1998 decided on 03.02.2003, wherein it was held that even some of the words used in the "confession" are to be eschewed from the purview of Section 27 of the Evidence Act, the other portion of the wordings in Exhibit P-9 would clearly indicate that he made a statement to P.W.21 that if he is taken, he would show the places where the jewelleries, rice pounder and the blood stained clothes were kept and also the shop where the jewel was pledged. Learned Public Prosecutor also relied on judgment of the Supreme Court in Attar Singh v. State of Maharashtra - (2013) 11 SCC 719 , wherein their Lordships held that if the evidence of a hostile witness is corroborated by other evidence, there is no legal bar to convict the accused. Lastly, learned Public Prosecutor relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mritunjoy Biswas v. Pranab @ Kuti Biswas and another - (2013) 12 SCC 796 , wherein their Lordships held that minor discrepancies are not to be given undue emphasis and the evidence is to be considered from the point of view of trustworthiness. 30. We have given our thoughtful consideration to rival submissions and minutely scanned the evidence available on record. 31. Adverting first of all to the argument of learned counsel for the appellants challenging the conviction of the appellants for offence under section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, this court is inclined to agree with the submission of learned counsel for the accused-appellants. While going through the whole of the paper book and studying each statement carefully, this court does not find any such allegation therein by any witness that the complainant party/deceased was subjected to beating only because of their caste or caste consideration. While going through the whole of the paper book and studying each statement carefully, this court does not find any such allegation therein by any witness that the complainant party/deceased was subjected to beating only because of their caste or caste consideration. In the circumstances, merely because complainant/deceased belonged to Scheduled Tribe community would not be a reason to straightway hold them guilty for offence under section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 32. We do not find any utter ness in the statements of any of the prosecution witnesses that the deceased was subjected to beating only because he was a member of Scheduled Tribe community. The Supreme Court in Ram Das and Others v. State of Maharashtra - (2007) 2 SCC 170 has categorically held that mere fact that victim happens to belong to Scheduled Caste does not attract the provisions of the Act apart from that there is no evidence to prove any offence under the said Act. The Supreme Court, therefore, set aside the conviction of the appellant therein recorded for that offence. In the present case also, the prosecution witnesses, who have been relied by the learned trial court to convict the accused-appellants, did not make any allegation whatsoever that the deceased was subjected to beating for the reason of his belonging to Scheduled Tribe. In fact, the facts prove that the deceased and the accused party already had a dispute. We are, therefore, not inclined to sustain the conviction of the accused-appellants for the offence punishable under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 33. Now comes the question whether only eyewitness Shambhu Dayal (PW-7), who has been relied by the learned trial court to convict the accused-appellant, is not an eyewitness but is a planted witness. It may be stated that Shambhu Dayal (PW-7) has stated that he visited village Gainta from his village Bambuliya on 10.03.2008 at about 4:30 PM on motorcycle in connection with purchase of bolt of doors and also engine parts. When he was returning, his friend Murlidhar, who was coming from the shop of Nathu Nai met him in front of Surajpole gate. Nathu Nai has been examined as PW-33, who too admitted that Murlidhar had come to his shop for shaving. Nathu Nai (PW-33) is a barber. When he was returning, his friend Murlidhar, who was coming from the shop of Nathu Nai met him in front of Surajpole gate. Nathu Nai has been examined as PW-33, who too admitted that Murlidhar had come to his shop for shaving. Nathu Nai (PW-33) is a barber. He further stated that after the shave of Murlidhar, this witness also left the shop and went to market for buying vegetables and it took about 15-20 minutes. By the time he returned, Murlidhar was lying dead. Nathu Nai (PW-33) has thus corroborated the presence of Shambhu Dayal Meena (PW-7) on the place of occurrence because if Murlidhar had not told him that he had gone to the shop of Nathu Nai, how could he come to know that Murlidhar went to his shop to get his shave cleaned. 34. Testimony of Shambhu Dayal (PW-7) cannot be ignored styling him as a chance witness. As held by the Supreme Court in the judgment relied by learned Public Prosecutor. Statement of prosecution witnesses cannot be brushed aside or viewed with suspicion on the ground that they are mere 'chance witnesses'. The expression "chance witnesses" is borrowed from countries where every man's home is considered his castle and every one must have an explanation for his presence elsewhere or in another man's castle. It is a most unsuitable expression in a country whose people are less formal and more casual. 35. Heera Lal (PW-1) has also proved that when he reached the place of occurrence Shambhu Dayal (PW-7) met him there and informed about the incident, which is what he has mentioned in the written report/FIR. Kunj Behari (PW-6) has also proved the fact that Shambhu Dayal (PW-7) met him on the place of occurrence and informed him about the incident. Heera Lal (PW-1) and Kunj Behari (PW-6), both, on this aspect have stood their grounds and remained firm in the cross-examination. Ram Prasad (PW-8) has also proved presence of Shambhu Dayal (PW-7) at the time of incident. Even this witness has remained unshaken in his cross-examination. Devendra @ Bhaya (PW-10) has also proved presence of Shambhu Dayal at the place of occurrence because he too stated that he saw Murlidhar near the shop of barber at about 5:00-5:30 PM. Ram Prasad (PW-8) has also proved presence of Shambhu Dayal (PW-7) at the time of incident. Even this witness has remained unshaken in his cross-examination. Devendra @ Bhaya (PW-10) has also proved presence of Shambhu Dayal at the place of occurrence because he too stated that he saw Murlidhar near the shop of barber at about 5:00-5:30 PM. Though this witness has turned hostile on other aspects as to the allegations against the accused and about the overt act attributed to them but he has proved his own presence as also presence of Shambhu Dayal at the place of occurrence because he has partly supported the case of the prosecution when he stated that he along-with Shambhu Dayal took him to Itawa in his jeep. Lekh Raj Meena (PW-4), who too was produced by the prosecution as eyewitness, has turned hostile and has not supported the case of the prosecution. 36. Moreover, Raghuveer Meena (PW-5) has stated that he received a telephonic call on his mobile phone from Devendra, who told that Murlidhar has been murdered at Gainta and he went to the hospital and saw his dead body. In cross-examination, Raghuveer Meena (PW-5) has stated that Devendra, after completion of 'ramayan paath' at Anasar, had organized a religious feast. Murlidhar had also gone there to attend that programme on his own motorcycle. He left the place 10-15 minutes after Murlidhar went from there. Even this witness has not supported the case of the prosecution as to the overt act of the accused appellant and has been declared hostile. As far as sequence of the events that Murlidhar came to the place of occurrence from the programme organized by Devendra, where ultimately his dead body was found, is proved by witness Raghuvver Meena (PW-5). Lekh Raj (PW-4) too has stated that Murlidhar, Raghuveer and Devendra attended the programme on that day. They stayed there till evening. Murlidhar left the place for village Gainta on his own motorcycle. He too left for the yard 15-20 minutes thereafter on his motorcycle. But by the time he reached the place, Murlidhar was already dead. 37. Mangi Lal (PW-12) is also resident of village Gainta. Even though he has been declared hostile, yet he has partly supported the case of the prosecution. He too left for the yard 15-20 minutes thereafter on his motorcycle. But by the time he reached the place, Murlidhar was already dead. 37. Mangi Lal (PW-12) is also resident of village Gainta. Even though he has been declared hostile, yet he has partly supported the case of the prosecution. He has stated that while he was sitting at the shop of Naresh in village Gainta, he heard the sound of somebody crying for help. When he looked in that direction, he saw Nand Behari coming ahead and Devi Shankar was behind him. One of them had 'lakdi' and another had 'kulhari' in their hands. Both ran towards their house. Thereafter he stated that Nand Behari had 'kulhari', by which he caused injuries to Murlidhar, as a result of which he fell on the ground. Devi Shankar was watching him doing so while standing near the turn of the road. Then information was given to Sarpanch of the village on telephone. The dead body of Murlidhar was taken in a jeep to Itawa. Murlidhar was his classmate. This witness has partly supported the case of the prosecution so far as the allegation against Nand Behari is concerned, but has deviated from the original version given to the police vide Exhibit P-23 in regard to allegation against Nand Behari. In cross-examination he too has stated that Shambhu Dayal (PW-7) of village Bamboliya was also present at the place of occurrence. Shambhu Dayal (PW-7) has been subjected to intensive cross-examination. He has stated that the incident went on for about 2-3 minutes. The second blow was caused soon after the first blow. Though he has stated that the first blow by 'kulhari' caused by Devi Shankar was very forceful and second blow of 'kulhari' by Nand Behari was caused at the same place, as a result of which the muscle of the area between two injuries got removed, which gave the impression as if it was only one injury. When he was confronted with the police statement (Exhibit D-4) where he did not allege that second blow was inflicted by Nandji on the same place at the neck, what he stated is that he did not say so because police did not ask him this question specifically. When he was confronted with the police statement (Exhibit D-4) where he did not allege that second blow was inflicted by Nandji on the same place at the neck, what he stated is that he did not say so because police did not ask him this question specifically. But then he stated that the gap between the two injuries was only half inch and it was therefore that muscle of that area got removed. The face of the deceased was towards southern side but while he received the first blow his face turned towards northern side and the face of Nand Behari, who inflicted second blow, was towards southern side, facing the deceased. 38. The police recovered an axe, the weapon of offence, at the instance of accused Devi Shankar vide recovery memo Exhibit P- 16, pursuant to his information given under Section 27 of the Evidence Act vide Exhibit P-39. The police has also recovered the clothes of accused Devi Shankar, which he was wearing at the time of incident vide recovery memo Exhibit P-17, pursuant to his information given under Section 27 of the Evidence Act vide Exhibit P-40. Similarly, the police has recovered another axe at the instance of accused Nand Behari vide recovery memo Exhibit P-18, pursuant to his information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act vide Exhibit P-42. The police has also recovered the clothes of accused Nand Behari i.e. pants and shirt, which he was wearing at the time of incident, vide recovery memo Exhibit P-19, pursuant to his information given under Section 27 of the Evidence Act vide Exhibit P-41. One T-Shirt, one banyan and one pant of deceased Murlidhar were recovered vide seizure memo Exhibit P-10. All these articles seized vide Exhibit P-10 were sent to the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Kota, vide Exhibit P-5. The report dated 21.06.2008 received from the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Kota Range, is Exhibit P-55, and another report dated 11.09.2008 received from the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Kota Range, is Exhibit P-56. T-shirt, banyan, jeans (pant), which were at serial No. 1, 2 and 3, were sealed in packet 'A', the T-shirt and banyan were found having human blood of 'B' group, whereas Jeans (pant) was also having human blood but the report was inconclusive regarding its group. T-shirt, banyan, jeans (pant), which were at serial No. 1, 2 and 3, were sealed in packet 'A', the T-shirt and banyan were found having human blood of 'B' group, whereas Jeans (pant) was also having human blood but the report was inconclusive regarding its group. The axe recovered at the instance of Devi Shankar was sealed in packet 'D' and, shirt & pant of Devi Shankar were also sealed in packet 'E', which were respectively marked as articles 6, 7 and 8 and they were also found positive for the presence of human blood of 'B' group. Similarly, 'kulhari' recovered at the instance of accused Nand Behari @ Nandi was sealed in packet 'F' and his pant & shirt in packet 'G' and respectively marked as articles 9, 10 and 11, which also tested positive for presence of human blood of 'B' group. Two packets marked as Exhibit 4 and Exhibit 5 were sent to FSL. Exhibit-4 was the sample of blood smeared soil and Exhibit-5 was the sample of control soil. The report of FSL with regard thereto is Exhibit P-56 and the result of examination is that the soil in Exhibits 4 and 5 are similar. 39. Dr. Om Prakash Khandelwal (PW-38) has proved the postmortem report (Exhibit P-58), according to which the deceased sustained total eight injuries, all of which were incised wounds of varied nature. Injury No. 1 was 4" long and 1" deep but its width was 1". Even though, the doctor in cross-examination has stated that it was the only injury No. 1 which was there on the neck of the deceased and that apart from it, there were other injuries of different sizes. Considering the total number of injuries being nine incised wound, the evidence of the prosecution having otherwise proved the use of two 'kulhari' as weapon of offence and presence of human blood of 'B' group, which was also the blood group of deceased, has amply proved that two weapons were used to cause such injuries regardless of the fact that there was only injury No. 1 found on the neck. As per the postmortem report (Exhibit P-58) the cause of death was hemorrhagic shock due to incised wound in neck. The active role of two accused by use of axe in causing multiple number of injuries to deceased is proved beyond reasonable doubt. As per the postmortem report (Exhibit P-58) the cause of death was hemorrhagic shock due to incised wound in neck. The active role of two accused by use of axe in causing multiple number of injuries to deceased is proved beyond reasonable doubt. Learned trial court has, in our considered view, rightly convicted the accused-appellants by holding that even if other eyewitnesses have turned hostile, the statement of single witness Shambhu Dayal (PW-7) has proved that both the accused had common intention to commit murder of deceased and therefore their conviction with the aid of Section 34 of the IPC is therefore perfectly justified. Conviction of the appellants can be recorded on the testimony of single eyewitness Shambhu Dayal (PW-7), which inspires confidence. The said witness is reliable and has stood embedded in his version and remained unshaken. He has vividly deposed about the genesis of occurrence, the participation and involvement of the accused persons in the crime and the injuries inflicted on the deceased. Learned trial court has, in our considered view, rightly convicted the accused-appellants by holding that even if other eyewitnesses have turned hostile, the statement of single witness Shambhu Dayal (PW-7) has proved that both the accused had common intention to commit murder of deceased and therefore their conviction with the aid of Section 34 of the IPC is therefore perfectly justified. 40. Mahaveer (PW-14) has also partly supported the case of the prosecution. What he stated is that he was taking tea on the shop of Naresh in the market. Nand Behari and Devi Shankar came there. Both subjected one person to beating. Name of the victim was not known to him. Nand Behari had 'kulhari' and Devi Shankar had 'lakdi' in their hands. This witness has thus supported the case of the prosecution in respect of accused Nand Behari and has proved the role of both the accused, although in respect of one of them his allegation is somehow diluted. 41. Naresh (PW-21) is the owner of the tea stall, where Mahaveer (PW-14) was sitting and taking tea. He too stated that he saw Murlidhar buying 'vimal gutka' and coming from the shop of Ramesh situated opposite to him. When Nand Behari saw Murlidhar coming from the shop of Ramesh, he rushed after him with 'kulhari'. 41. Naresh (PW-21) is the owner of the tea stall, where Mahaveer (PW-14) was sitting and taking tea. He too stated that he saw Murlidhar buying 'vimal gutka' and coming from the shop of Ramesh situated opposite to him. When Nand Behari saw Murlidhar coming from the shop of Ramesh, he rushed after him with 'kulhari'. He inflicted a 'kulhari' blow on the neck of Murlidhar, as a result of which he fell on the ground and thereafter he inflicted injuries on his person. This witness has also proved the role and presence of both the accused in the crime. When confronted with the police statement (Exhibit P-27), wherein he alleged that Devi Shankar inflicted injuries to deceased by 'lakdi', this witness denied having been given any such statement. 42. Balram (PW-23) has also partly supported the case of the prosecution and therefore declared hostile. He has stated that he came from the yard and halted at the tea stall of Kishan Gopal. At that time, he saw Murlidhar Meena buying 'vimal gukta' from the shop of Ramesh Pareta and thereafter Murlidhar went towards bank. Immediately thereafter, accused Nand Behari rushed towards Murlidhar and inflicted a 'kulhari' blow on his neck, as a result of which Murlidhar fell down and thereafter Nand Behari also inflicted 8-10 blows by 'kulhari'. In cross-examination, this witness was confronted with his police statement Exhibit P-30. This witness has denied having been instructed by the police to state that Devi Shankar also inflicted blows of 'lakdi' to Murlidhar. 43. Badri Lal (PW-27), who having not supported the case of the prosecution has been declared hostile, has a floor mill near the place of occurrence. When confronted with his police statement (Exhibit P-34) where he alleged that he saw Devi Shankar with 'lakdki' and Nand Behari with 'kulhari' running towards his shop, this witness admitted having given that statement to police, but additionally added that he was so frightened that he closed down his shop and went to his home. In further cross-examination he admitted that when he came out of his floor mill, he saw Nand Behari and Devi Shankar running from there. All other people present there were so frightened that they also ran away from there. Raju (PW-17), Hari Shankar (PW-24), Narendra (PW-25) and Altaf (PW-26) have too turned hostile. In further cross-examination he admitted that when he came out of his floor mill, he saw Nand Behari and Devi Shankar running from there. All other people present there were so frightened that they also ran away from there. Raju (PW-17), Hari Shankar (PW-24), Narendra (PW-25) and Altaf (PW-26) have too turned hostile. Nathu Nai (PW-23) has, however, stated that he was running a barber shop in the market where the incident took place. Murlidhar had come to his shop to get his beard shaved and thereafter he left the shop. This witness also went to purchase the vegetables and came back after 15-20 minutes and saw Murlidhar lying dead. This witness is quite significant because he has proved that Murlidhar came to his shop for getting his shave cleaned. 44. Bheru Singh (PW-9) and Radhey Shyam (PW-13) are the attesting witnesses of seizure/recovery memo of one 'kulhari' at the instance of accused Devi Shankar. Though there are minor discrepancies in their statements but both have substantially supported the recovery at the instance of the accused-appellants. Mere fact that Bheru Singh (PW-9) was cross-examined where he stated that at the time of recovery the police went inside the house and there was a lot of crowed and he was also part of the crowed, and that the Deputy Superintendent of Police along-with Devi Shankar went inside his house and brought the 'kulhari', which was recovered. The recovery of weapon of offence thus cannot be completely discarded especially when they recovered the axe and the clothes, which are found to contain human blood of 'B' group, which was also the blood group of deceased. While the incident had taken place on 10.03.2008, recovery of axe and clothes from both the accused was made on 13.03.2008 and 14.03.2008 within a very short time, therefore minor discrepancies in the statements of attesting witnesses can be discarded. The judgments, relied on by learned counsel for the accused-appellants to the effect that the accused cannot be expected to keep the blood stained weapons in their house for a long time after the incident, are distinguishable on facts and cannot be relied on to acquit the accused. 45. The judgments, relied on by learned counsel for the accused-appellants to the effect that the accused cannot be expected to keep the blood stained weapons in their house for a long time after the incident, are distinguishable on facts and cannot be relied on to acquit the accused. 45. Despite several eyewitnesses having not supported the case of the prosecution, the trial court, in our considered view, was perfectly justified in convicting the accused-appellant while relying on the testimony of sole eyewitness Shambhu Dayal (PW-7), whose presence at the place of occurrence has been proved by many such witnesses who have not fully supported the case of the prosecution. Besides, Heera Lal (PW-1), who reached the place of occurrence, has too stated that Shambhu Dayal (PW-7) met him and narrated the entire story. Kunj Behari (PW-6) has also stated that when he reached the place of occurrence after receiving information from Dhannalal on mobile, Shambhu Dayal and Ram Prasad met him on the place of occurrence and Shambhu Dayal narrated him the story with regard to role of both the accused. Here it may be significant to note that only Shambhu Dayal claims to be the eyewitness and not Ram Prasad, and this witness Kunj Behari has stated what Shambhu Dayal has narrated him about the incident and the role of the accused. Ram Prasad too has been examined as PW-8 but he too does not claim to be an eyewitness and categorically stated that when he was getting the punctured tyre of thresher repaired, Brij Mohan R/o Bambuliya informed him that his brother-in-law was being beaten by the accused and he rushed towards the market. All that he has stated is that Shambhu Dayal met him there, who, on enquiry, told him about the incident. When they went towards the place of occurrence, accused were seen there with weapons in their hands. Here although he appears to have somewhat exaggerated by stating that apart from two accused with 'kulhari', others were also having 'dharia' and 'gandasi' and then he has named Nand Kishore, Devi Shankar, Lalchand, Prahlad and Satyanarain as other accused. But applying the rule of separating the grain from the chaff, the statement of this witness can be relied for evidence of the presence of accused and their running from the place of occurrence. 46. But applying the rule of separating the grain from the chaff, the statement of this witness can be relied for evidence of the presence of accused and their running from the place of occurrence. 46. The Supreme Court has time and again held that conviction of the accused can be sustained even on the basis of solitary eyewitness inspiring confidence subject to fulfilment of principles of criminal jurisprudence and finding corroboration from other available evidence. In the present case, the statement of Shambhu Dayal (PW-7) inspires confidence inasmuch as it finds corroboration from the testimony of several other witnesses, some of whom may not have even supported or may have partly supported the case of the prosecution and also the weapon of offence and the clothes of the deceased, which were found to have contained the human blood of same group 'B', which was also the blood group of the deceased. Reliance in this connection can be placed on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab - (2009) 3 SCC 391 and Ramesh Krishna Madhusudan Nayar v. State of Maharashtra - (2008) 14 SCC 491 . 47. The Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Suvarnamma and Another - (2015) 1 SCC 323 has held that while appreciating the evidence of a witness, the approach must be whether the evidence of the witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Once that impression is formed, it is undoubtedly necessary for the court to scrutinise the evidence more particularly keeping in view the deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in the evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the evidence given by the witness and whether the earlier evaluation of the evidence is shaken as to render it unworthy of belief. Minor discrepancies of trivial matters not touching the core of the case, hyper technical approach by taking sentences torn out of context here or there from the evidence, attaching importance to some technical error committed by the investigating officer not going to the root of the matter would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole. Minor discrepancies of trivial matters not touching the core of the case, hyper technical approach by taking sentences torn out of context here or there from the evidence, attaching importance to some technical error committed by the investigating officer not going to the root of the matter would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole. Their Lordships further held that even if a major portion of the evidence is found to be deficient, in case residue is sufficient to prove guilt of an accused, notwithstanding acquittal of a number of other co-accused persons, his conviction can be maintained. It is the duty of the court to separate the grain from the chaff. Where chaff can be separated from the grain, it would be open to the court to convict an accused notwithstanding the fact that evidence has been found to be deficient to prove guilt of other accused persons. 48. It is trite law that minor discrepancies in the statement of prosecution witnesses ought not be blown out of proportion. Evidence has to be considered from the standpoint of trustworthiness. The test is whether the same inspires confidence in the mind of the court. If the evidence is incredible and cannot be accepted by the test of prudence, then it may create a dent in the prosecution version. Minor contradictions, inconsistencies or insignificant embellishments do not affect the core of the prosecution case and should not be taken to be a ground to reject the prosecution evidence. 49. The Supreme Court in Namdeo v. State of Maharashtra - (2007) 14 SCC 150 , held that our legal system does not insist on plurality of witnesses. Neither the Legislature nor the judiciary mandates that there must be particular number of witnesses to record an order of conviction against the accused. Our legal system has always laid emphasis on value, weight and quality of evidence rather than on quantity, multiplicity or plurality of witnesses. It is, therefore, open to a competent court to fully and completely rely on a solitary witness and record conviction. Conversely, it may acquit the accused in spite of testimony of several witnesses if it is not satisfied about the quality of evidence. The bald contention that no conviction can be recorded in case of a solitary eye witness, therefore, has no force and must be negatived. 50. Conversely, it may acquit the accused in spite of testimony of several witnesses if it is not satisfied about the quality of evidence. The bald contention that no conviction can be recorded in case of a solitary eye witness, therefore, has no force and must be negatived. 50. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the appeals are partly allowed. The conviction and sentence of accused-appellants, namely, Nand Kishore @ Nand Bihari and Devi Shanker, for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC is upheld. Their conviction and sentence for offence under section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, is set aside and they are acquitted of the said charge.