JUDGMENT : Prabhat Chandra Tripathi, J. We have heard Sri Jitendra Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Chandra Jeet Yadav, learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. This criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellants (1) Prem Pal (now dead), (2) Balbir and (3) Bankey Lal (now dead) against the judgment and order of the then Second Additional Sessions Judge, Aligarh dated 22.8.1984 in Sessions Trial No. 404 of 1983, arising out of Crime No. 209 of 1982, under Sections 147, 148, 302, 307 I.P.C., Police Station Chandaus, District Aligarh convicting and sentencing the accused persons-appellants Prem Pal, Balbir and Bankey Lal under Section 148 I.P.C. to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and all the three accused persons-appellants to undergo for life imprisonment under Section 302 readwith Section 149 I.P.C. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. During pendency of this appeal, the accused appellant no. 1 Prem Pal and appellant no. 3 Bankey Lal have died, hence their appeal stood abated. Since the appeal against the appellant no. 1 Prem Pal and appellant no. 3 Bankey Lal stood abated by order dated 06.09.2016, now the sole surviving appellant is the appellant no. 2 Balbir. 4. The written F.I.R. in Hindi Vernacular is enumerated as below: The applicant Kanhaiya Lal, son of Bhojraj, caste Brahmin, resident of Chhanhari, Police Station Sasni, District Aligarh moved a written First Information Report dated 5.9.1982 scribed by Kanchhi Singh, son of Phool Chandra, resident of Chhanhari, Police Station Sasni, District Aligarh, before the Inspector, Police Station Sasni, District Aligarh that Prem Pal brother-in-law (gainer) of Manik Chandra, resident of Ailampur, Police Station Chandaus, District Aligarh used to reside at the residence of cousin brother of the applicant Manik Chandra and Babu Lal since last one and half years. There was a litigation between the applicant and his cousin brother Manik Chandra for 45 bighas of land. In this litigation, Prem Pal and his father Om Prakash did pairvi from the side of Manik Chandra but since compromise took place between the applicant and his cousin brother Manik Chandra, this created ill-will to Prem Pal and his father Om Prakash. Meanwhile, Om Prakash managed to get the agreement of land executed by Manik Chandra and Babu Lal, both cousin brothers of the applicant by misrepresentation and deceitful means. Meanwhile, Om Prakash managed to get the agreement of land executed by Manik Chandra and Babu Lal, both cousin brothers of the applicant by misrepresentation and deceitful means. On this, a big litigation took place amongst Manik Chandra, Babu Lal and Om Prakash and his sons Prem Pal and Balbir. One week ago from the day of scribing of the First Information Report, Om Prakash and his sons Balbir and Prem Pal took away all the belongings of Manik Chandra from the village Chhanhari. Due to these reasons, Om Prakash and his family members bore enormous enmity. These persons had killed father of Manik Chandra but due to no evidence, no action could be taken against them. Inspite of this, Om Prakash had made 35 bighas of land of Kamal Prakash, minor son of Roshan Lal, in his name by deceitful means. Om Prakash has stated to Manik Chandra that he had spent Rs. 85,000/-for litigation and in the home of Manik Chandra, thus, Manik Chandra should execute sale deed in favour of Om Prakash. This was the enmity amongst them. In the intervening night, the applicant Manik Chandra, Mangal Sen, Sonpal, Babu Lal and mother of the applicant Rewati were sleeping in a thatched house and Verandah to the eastern side of their tube-well. Lantern was lit in the thatched house and it was a clear moon-lit night. At about mid night, Om Prakash, son of Shyam Lal wielding Pharsa, Prem Pal son of Om Prakash wielding Knife, Balbir son of Om Prakash wielding Spear (Bhala), Bankey Lal son of Shyam Lal wielding Axe accompanied by three other persons wielding country made pistol, lathi, danda and torch reached and caught hold of the cousin brother of the applicant Manik Chandra, Mangal Sen, Sonpal and Babu Lal and began assaulting with the weapons wielded by them. Due to this, the applicant, Babu Lal and mother of the applicant started weeping and shouting. At this, witnesses of their village Kanchhi Singh son of Phool Chandra, Damodar son of Phool Chandra, Chitrapal son of Roop Ram and Omvir son of Bhimsen and many other persons of the village reached. Upon reaching of the village folk, the assailants fled away towards northern side. The cousin brother of the applicant Manik Chandra and Mangal Sen succumbed to their injuries at the spot. Upon reaching of the village folk, the assailants fled away towards northern side. The cousin brother of the applicant Manik Chandra and Mangal Sen succumbed to their injuries at the spot. Sonpal, brother of the applicant also received grievous injuries and Babu Lal was also injured. Since Sonpal, brother of the applicant received grievous injuries, village people took him to hospital at Aligarh. The names and addresses of three persons who accompanied Om Prakash were not known. These three persons were very well seen and identified by the applicant, his family members and witnesses in the lantern light and in the moon-lit night. If they appear before the applicant and the witnesses, they could be identified. The injured Babu Lal had come alongwith applicant. Report may be lodged and legal action may be taken. 5. Upon the written information of the informant, the First Information Report was lodged in case Crime No. 209 of 1982 at Police Station Sasni, District Aligarh, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 324 I.P.C. against the named accused persons Om Prakash son of Shyam Lal, Prem Pal son of Om Prakash, Bankey Lal son of Shyam Lal, Balbir son of Om Prakash and also against three unknown persons. 6. 6. The prosecution has produced the following documentary evidence:- (1) Written F.I.R. (Exhibit Ka-1), (2) Fard memo and Supurdaginama (Exhibit Ka-2), (3) Injury report of Babu Lal (Exhibit Ka-3), (4) Postmortem report of Manik Chandra (Exhibit Ka-4), (5) Postmortem report of Mangal Sen (Exhibit Ka-5), (6) Site Plan (Exhibit Ka-6), (7) Fard memo of bloodstained cot strings, cot bar and cot leg (Exhibit Ka-7), (8) Fard memo of bloodstained cot strings, cot bar and cot leg (Exhibit Ka-8), (9) Fard memo of bloodstained earth of deceased Manik Chandra and plain earth (Exhibit Ka-9), (10) Fard memo of bloodstained earth of deceased Mangal Sen and plain earth (Exhibit Ka-10), (11) Fard memo of bloodstained Kurta of deceased Mangal Sen (Exhibit Ka-11), (12) Fard memo of one pair plastic shoes of the injured Sonpal (Exhibit Ka-12), (13) Fard memo of personal search of the accused persons Om Prakash son of Shyam Lal, Bankey Lal son of Shyam Lal, Balbir and Prem Pal both sons of Om Prakash, all resident of Police Station Chandaus (Exhibit Ka-13), (14) Panchayatnama of Mangal Sen (Exhibit Ka-14), (15) Specimen seal of the deceased Mangal Sen (Exhibit Ka-15), (16) Photo Nash of deceased Mangal Sen (Exhibit Ka-16), (17) Challan Nash of deceased Mangal Sen (Exhibit Ka-17), (18) Letter of S.S.P., Aligarh to C.M.O., Aligarh (Exhibit Ka-18), (19) Charge sheet submitted against accused persons Prem Pal, Balbir and Bankey Lal (Exhibit Ka-19), (20) Charge sheet submitted against accused person Om Prakash as an absconder (Exhibit Ka-20), (21) Chik F.I.R. (Exhibit Ka-21), (22) Copy of G.D. No. 14, Time 6.15 A.M. dated 5.9.1982, Police Station Sasni, District Aligarh (Exhibit Ka-22), (23) Injury report of Sonpal (Exhibit Ka-23), (24) Bed Head Ticket of patient Sonpal of Malkhan Singh Hospital, Aligarh (Exhibit Ka-24/1/4), (25) Postmortem report of Sonpal (Exhibit Ka-25), (26) Inquest report of Sonpal (Exhibit Ka-26), (27) Photo Nash of Sonpal (Exhibit Ka-27). 7. The prosecution has produced the following oral evidence:- PW-1 Kanhaiya Lal, PW-2 Kanchhi Singh, PW-3 Chitra Pal, PW-4 Sub Inspector D.P. Sirohi and PW-5 Dr. L.K. Shukla. The accused persons have produced six documentary evidence through list 14 Ka and 25 Ka. No oral evidence was produced by the accused persons in defence. 8. The learned counsel for the accused person-appellant no. 2 Balbir has advanced his arguments on the following points:- (a) The F.I.R. is ante-timed. L.K. Shukla. The accused persons have produced six documentary evidence through list 14 Ka and 25 Ka. No oral evidence was produced by the accused persons in defence. 8. The learned counsel for the accused person-appellant no. 2 Balbir has advanced his arguments on the following points:- (a) The F.I.R. is ante-timed. (b) Presence of the witnesses at the scene of occurrence is doubtful. (c) The prosecution has not produced any independent witness. (d) The informant was known to the present accused-appellant. (e) The investigation is partisan, erroneous, baseless and site plan is a total mismatch. 9. PW-1 informant Kanhaiya Lal, on 8.2.1984, in his examination-in-chief has deposed that the incident took place one year five months ago. He was sleeping in the 'Usara' of his tube-well. His mother Rewati Devi was also sleeping near him in the same 'Usara'. Manik Chandra, Babu Lal, Mangal Sen and Sonpal were sleeping in the chowk (ahead) of 'Usara'. Everybody was sleeping on the separate cot. On hearing the shrieks of Sonpal, Manak Chandra and Mangal Sen, in the mid night he and his mother woke up. Both of them made noise. Lantern was lit in the 'Usara' where they were sleeping and it was moon-lit night. They saw that the accused persons Om Prakash, Prem Pal, Balbir, Bankey Lal and their three companions were assaulting Manak Chandra, Babu Lal, Mangal Sen and Sonpal. The accused person Om Prakash was armed with Pharsa, accused person Prem Pal was armed with Knife, accused person Balbir was armed with Spear (Bhala) and Bankey Lal was armed with Axe and amongst three other accused persons, one of them was armed with country made pistol, another was armed with lathi and third one was armed with lathi and torch. Upon the noise made by the applicant, the witnesses Kanchhi, Damodar, Chitrapal, Omvir and others came. They also made noise. Upon this, the accused persons and their companions fled away towards 'Gangai'. Due to fear, nobody followed them. When the accused persons left the place, the applicant and village folk went near the injured persons. There Manak Chandra and Mangal Sen were lying dead. Babu Lal was weeping. Due to injuries, Sonpal was lying unconscious. Thereafter, this witness summoned Kanchhi Singh and dictated the F.I.R. of the incident. This witness has proved the written F.I.R. as Exhibit Ka-1. When the accused persons left the place, the applicant and village folk went near the injured persons. There Manak Chandra and Mangal Sen were lying dead. Babu Lal was weeping. Due to injuries, Sonpal was lying unconscious. Thereafter, this witness summoned Kanchhi Singh and dictated the F.I.R. of the incident. This witness has proved the written F.I.R. as Exhibit Ka-1. Taking this report Exhibit Ka-1, he proceeded towards Police Station Sasni at about 5.00 A.M. in the morning. Alongwith him, Sahukar, Satyadeo and Babu Lal also went upon cycles. He handed over that report to 'Diwanji' at police station. In the examination-in-chief this witness has repeated the fact of agreement amongst the accused persons and Manak Chandra and Babu Lal deceased and genesis of the enmity due to this agreement of land. He also deposed that there was enmity between Manak Chandra (deceased) and the accused persons for that 45 bighas of land. 10. PW-2 Kanchhi Singh, scribe of the written F.I.R., on 8.2.1984, has deposed in his examination-in-chief that it was a night incident of one year and five months ago. He was sleeping at his tube-well which was situated at 35-40 paces on the western side. His younger brother Damodar was also sleeping with him. In the mid night, shrieks were heard from the side of tube-well of Kanhaiya Lal. It was moon-lit night. He and his younger brother went to tube-well of Kanhaiya Lal. There they saw that the accused persons Om Prakash (absconder), Prem Pal, Balbir, Bankey and their three other companions were assaulting Manak Chandra, Mangal Sen, Sonpal and Babu Ram. Om Prakash wielded Pharsa, Prem Pal wielded Knife, Balbir wielded Spear (Bhala) and Bankey wielded Axe and amongst the rest of three unknown companions, one wielded lathi, another wielded lathi and torch and third one wielded country made pistol. The witnesses Chitrapal and Omvir reached after them. The mother of Kanhaiya Lal was making noise. They were making noise in their 'Usara' where one lantern was lit. Upon the noise made by them, the accused persons fled away. Thereafter, they reached near the injured person. They saw that Manak Chandra and Mangal Sen had succumbed to their injuries. Due to injuries, Sonpal was lying unconscious on the cot. Babu Ram was weeping. They stayed there for one or two hours then came back. At about 12.30 A.M. Sonpal was sent to hospital on Tonga. Thereafter, they reached near the injured person. They saw that Manak Chandra and Mangal Sen had succumbed to their injuries. Due to injuries, Sonpal was lying unconscious on the cot. Babu Ram was weeping. They stayed there for one or two hours then came back. At about 12.30 A.M. Sonpal was sent to hospital on Tonga. 11. PW-3 Chitrapal, on 9.2.1984, has deposed in his examination-in-chief that it was night incident of one year and five months ago. He was sleeping in his hut. His hut was at 30-35 paces away from tube-well of Kanhaiya Lal. At about 12 O'clock in the night, he heard shrieks and he ran towards tube-well of Kanhaiya Lal. There he stopped where Kanchhi Singh and Damodar were also present. Omvir also arrived behind him. They shouted and other persons from the village also arrived. It was moon-lit night. Lantern was lit in the 'Usara'. They saw the accused persons Om Prakash (absconder), Prem Pal, Balbir and Bankey Lal and their three companions assaulting Mangal Sen, Manak Chandra, Sonpal and Babu. Om Prakash wielded Pharsa, Balbir wielded Spear (Bhala), Prem Pal wielded Knife and Bankey wielded Axe. Out of three other companions of the accused persons, one wielded lathi, another wielded torch and lathi and third one wielded country made pistol. Before him, assault took place for about 2-3 minutes. Upon their noise, the accused persons and their companions fled away towards northern side. Thereafter, the witnesses reached near the injured person. There they saw that Mangal Sen and Manak Chandra were lying dead. Sonpal was lying unconscious. Lying on the cot, Babu Lal was crying due to his injuries. 12. PW-4 Sub Inspector D.P. Sirohi had commenced the investigation on 5.9.1982. He is the formal witness in whose presence the F.I.R. was also lodged. 13. PW-5 Dr. L.K. Shukla on 5.9.1982 was posted as Medical Officer at Malkhan Singh Hospital, Aligarh. On that date at about 2.05 A.M. he had examined Sonpal and noted the following injuries on his body:- (I) Lacerated wound 3/4” x 1/2” x depth not probed on left side neck 1½” below left Ear. Margin irregular. No blackening, tattooing or charring. X-ray advised neck and chest. (II) Lacerated wound 1” x 3/4” x depth not probed on left side neck 1” below Injury No. one. No blackening. X-ray advised for neck & chest. Margin irregular. No blackening, tattooing or charring. X-ray advised neck and chest. (II) Lacerated wound 1” x 3/4” x depth not probed on left side neck 1” below Injury No. one. No blackening. X-ray advised for neck & chest. General Condition low, Surgical Emphysema around the wound, front of neck & right side back of chest. Admitted. Kept U.O. LTI Cause to be ascertained after X-ray Fresh. Sd. (L.K. Shukla) 5.9.82 14. The argument of learned counsel for the accused-appellant that the F.I.R. is ante-timed may be discussed in the light of evidence on record. 15. The Chik F.I.R. (Exhibit Ka-21) reveals that the distance between the village Chhanhari and Police Station Sasni is 15 kilometers. The time of occurrence as mentioned in the Chik F.I.R. (Exhibit Ka-21) is 4/5.9.1982 at about mid night and time when the F.I.R. was lodged has been mentioned as 5.9.1982 time 6.15 A.M. in the morning. 16. PW-2 Kanchhi Singh in his examination-in-chief has deposed that Kanhaiya Lal summoned him at about 2.30-3.00 A.M. and dictated the F.I.R. (Exhibit Ka-1). Kanhaiya Lal did not say to write the report soon after the incident. Later on, he summoned him from the tube-well to scribe the report. After scribing the report at about three and quarter time, this witness again reached at his tube-well. 17. PW-4 Sub Inspector D.P. Sirohi, the Investigating Officer has also deposed in his cross examination that the F.I.R. (Exhibit Ka-21) was lodged in his presence. He has further deposed that special report is sent by Head Muharrir. He has also deposed that as far as he remembered that it would have been sent on the same day. Although, he has not seen the entry of General Diary in this regard. In fact, such type of entries are made in the General Diary which was not summoned by the defence. Thus, there is nothing on record which could substantiate that the F.I.R. (Exhibit Ka-1) and Chik F.I.R. (Exhibit Ka-21) were made ante-timed. 18. As far as the argument of the learned counsel for the accused-appellant regarding presence of the witnesses at the scene of occurrence is doubtful is concerned, it will also be discussed at evidence available on the record. 19. PW-1 informant Kanhaiya Lal has deposed in his cross-examination that it was the month of 'Bhadon' but it was not raining on that night. 19. PW-1 informant Kanhaiya Lal has deposed in his cross-examination that it was the month of 'Bhadon' but it was not raining on that night. Lantern was hanging upon a Peg in the 'Usara'. The height of 'Usara' was six feet. His wife and children resided in another house in the same village. On that night, no one was with his children. They were sleeping alone. He used to sleep daily in the 'Usara'. He did not sleep in home. His mother also slept near him. 20. PW-2 Kanchhi Singh has deposed in his cross-examination that the place from where they saw the incident, the distance of cots of the deceased persons were at 8-10 paces. This witness has deposed in his cross-examination that Sonpal was not speaking. He was sent to Malkhan Singh Hospital, Aligarh where he died after eight days. This witness deposed in his cross-examination that he witnessed the incident from the south-west corner of 'Usara' at tube-well of Kanhaiya. The distance between the tube-well of this witness and the place of incident was 25-26 paces. 21. PW-3 Chitrapal has deposed in his cross-examination that when he reached near Mangal Sen, he saw him lying on the ground. When he reached near Manak Chandra, he was also lying on the ground. Sonpal was also lying on the ground. He has also affirmed the presence of the witnesses Kanchhi Singh and Damodar. 22. PW-2 Kanchhi Singh in his cross-examination has deposed that faces of all the accused persons were open. They had tied clothes on their heads. 23. PW-3 Chitrapal in his examination-in-chief has stated that the assailants had tied clothes on their heads. None of them had tied clothes on their faces. All the four named accused persons had tied clothes in this fashion. 24. The alleged incident took place in the mid night of 4/5.9.1982. 25. In the month of September of Gregorian Calendar, corresponding to Hindi month of 'Bhadon' the lantern, which was left in the lit condition, is not unusual phenomenon. Moreover, it was rainy season when menace of reptiles and insects was prevalent. In such type of rainy season, one does not know when the climate will abruptly change and it will start raining. To deal with such exigency, lantern has to be kept in ready condition. Village life is totally different from urban life. Moreover, it was rainy season when menace of reptiles and insects was prevalent. In such type of rainy season, one does not know when the climate will abruptly change and it will start raining. To deal with such exigency, lantern has to be kept in ready condition. Village life is totally different from urban life. Moreover, the time of the alleged incident relates as back as to the year 1982, which is more than 34 years ago from now. In those days, mostly rural areas were not electrified. In the rural areas, it was a common practice that men and aged women folk used to sleep at some common place e.g. thatched mud house near some orchard or near some tube-well. The men felt shy to sleep with women folk inside the rooms of their residences. Thus, the presence of the witnesses at the scene of occurrence is totally natural. 26. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants has also further drawn our attention towards the argument that the prosecution has not produced any independent witness and the informant was known to the present accused appellant. 27. The main bone of the contention was 45 bighas of agricultural land for which a long drawn litigation took place between the informant Kanhaiya Lal and his cousin brother Manik Chandra in which Prem Pal, brother-in-law (gainer) of Manik Chandra and father of Prem Pal namely Om Prakash did 'Pairvi' from the side of Manik Chandra. During course of time, compromise took place between the informant Kanhaiya Lal and his cousin brother Manik Chandra. Since the accused persons Om Prakash and his son Prem Pal did 'Pairvi' from the side of Manik Chandra and compromise took place between Manik Chandra and informant Kanhaiya Lal, it annoyed the accused persons Om Prakash and his son Prem Pal which culminated into this ghastly crime. Manik Chandra was murdered and his brother Babu Lal was injured. Mangal Sen (deceased) cousin brother of informant Kanhaiya Lal was also murdered. In other words, Sonpal, real brother of Kanhaiya Lal, Mangal Sen and Manik Chandra both cousin brothers of informant Kanhaiya Lal were murdered and Babu Lal cousin brother of informant was injured. 28. The accused persons Om Prakash (absconder) and Bankey Lal were real brothers whereas the accused persons Prem Pal and Balbir both were sons of Om Prakash and were also real brothers. 29. 28. The accused persons Om Prakash (absconder) and Bankey Lal were real brothers whereas the accused persons Prem Pal and Balbir both were sons of Om Prakash and were also real brothers. 29. Much emphasis was laid regarding main motive of the alleged crime. Since the agreement alleged to be achieved by deceitful means by the accused persons Om Prakash and his son Prem Pal could not fruitify; out of frustration with greed to grab the 45 bighas of agricultural land, the accused persons wreck vengeance resulting into the murder of Manik Chandra, Mangal Sen and Sonpal. The injured Babu Lal was relative of the accused person Prem Pal. By virtue of this relationship with the accused and subsequent compromise which took place with Smt. Kailashi wife of accused Prem Pal, this witness was not produced. 30. The last argument of the learned counsel for the accused appellant regarding investigation is discussed in the light of evidence on record. 31. In the site plan Exhibit Ka-6, Point 'A' is the place where the deceased Manik Chandra was sleeping. Point 'B' is the place where the injured Babu Lal was sleeping. Point 'C' is the place where Mangal Sen was sleeping. Point 'D' is the place where the injured Sonpal was sleeping. Point 'E' is the place where Smt. Rewati Devi was sleeping. Point 'F' is the place where informant Kanhaiya Lal was sleeping. Point 'G' is the place where the dead body of Manik Chandra was lying. Point 'H' is the place where the dead body of Mangal Sen was lying. Point 'Y' is the place where the lantern was hanging on the Peg in the 'Usara'. Point 'J' is the place from where the witnesses had seen the accused persons assaulting the deceased and from there they also identified the accused persons. 32. The paramount point in Sessions Trial is that the learned counsel for the defence had admitted the genuineness and dispensed with the formal proof of the following documents:- (a) Injury report of Babu Lal (b) Postmortem report of Manik Chandra (c) Postmortem report of Mangal Sen (d) Postmortem report of Sonpal (e) Inquest report of deceased Sonpal. 33. Ante-mortem injuries upon the dead body of Manik Chandra reveal four injuries on the neck and one injury on the right side of chest. 33. Ante-mortem injuries upon the dead body of Manik Chandra reveal four injuries on the neck and one injury on the right side of chest. In order to save his life, Manik Chandra (deceased) would have rushed from Point 'A' where he was sleeping, to Point 'G' where his dead body was found. Although, no scale of measurement has been indicated in the site plan but the distance between Point 'G' and Point 'H' has been mentioned 8 paces. This distance between Point 'A' and Point 'G' might be between 12-16 paces. This distance is also not very much which would not have a trail of blood on the spot fathoming and assessing the nature and site of injury mentioned upon the body of Manik Chandra (deceased) in the 'Head' of Ante-mortem injuries in the postmortem of Manik Chandra (Exhibit Ka-4). 34. This logic also applies in the case of Mangal Sen (deceased). The Postmortem report of Mangal Sen (Exhibit Ka-5) shows that upon the dead body of Mangal Sen, two ante-mortem injuries have been mentioned. (1) Stabbed wound on the chest cavity deep over the left side of chest and (2) Stabbed wound over the left side of scapular lower part and cavity deep. (measurements are not relevant). In the site plan (Exhibit Ka-6), Point 'C' is shown as the place where the deceased Mangal Sen was sleeping. Point 'H' is the place where the dead body of Mangal Sen was lying. Applying the same measurement of scale as in the case of Manik Chandra, the distance between the Point 'C' and Point 'H' may be 4-6 paces. Obviously, if no trail of blood was found in between the Point 'C' and Point 'H', it is quite natural. 35. No cogent reason could be pointed out by the learned counsel for the accused-appellant for false implication of the accused-appellant under the influence of the local police. It is most improbable that in such type of ghastly crimes, anybody would falsely implicate the innocent persons and spare the real culprits. 36. In the case of Sone Lal and others Vs. The State of U.P., AIR 1978 SC 1142 , it has been held that:- “16. Another circumstance relied upon by the Sessions Judge was that there was no reliable evidence to show the presence of light in the house which may have enabled the witnesses to identify the assailants. 36. In the case of Sone Lal and others Vs. The State of U.P., AIR 1978 SC 1142 , it has been held that:- “16. Another circumstance relied upon by the Sessions Judge was that there was no reliable evidence to show the presence of light in the house which may have enabled the witnesses to identify the assailants. The learned Sessions Judge disbelieved the story of the prosecution that a lantern and a chimney were burning in the house and the accused and also the witnesses who arrived at the scene had electric torches which they flashed off and on. On a careful consideration of the evidence led by the prosecution on this point we find ourselves in complete agreement with the High Court that the reasons given by the Sessions Judge are wholly unacceptable and are based on speculative and queer grounds. The Sessions Judge seems to have overlooked the fact that the F.I.R. which in the circumstances was lodged at the earliest possible opportunity clearly mentions the presence of the lantern which was hanging from the roof of the house. The accused persons were known to the witnesses from before and it was not difficult for the witnesses to have identified the accused in the light of the lantern.” 37. In the case of Om Prakash and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1983 SC 431 , it has been held that:- “16. The learned Counsel for the appellants next submitted that the lantern material Exh. III has not been put to or identified by P.W. 2 as the one which was burning in the eastern kotha at the time of the occurrence. Here again it is unfortunate that the learned Public Prosecutor has not got the lantern identified by P.W. 2. But the Sub-Inspector of Police P.W. 11 who had seized that lantern has stated in his evidence that it was found hanging on a peg on the eastern wall of the eastern kotha of the house of the deceased and P.W. 2 and that it was in working condition. The presence of the lantern in the eastern kotha at the time of the occurrence as well as of moon light at the time of the occurrence has been mentioned in the first information report Exh. The presence of the lantern in the eastern kotha at the time of the occurrence as well as of moon light at the time of the occurrence has been mentioned in the first information report Exh. Ka-1 by P.W. 1 who is a brother of the deceased Mauji Lal and a resident of the same village and could be naturally expected to have gone into the house of the deceased soon after the culprits left the place. P.W. 2 has stated in her evidence that it was moon-lit night and the lantern was burning in the eastern kotha where it had been hung on a peg fixed at a height of 6” from the ground on the eastern wall and that when she heard the sound of some persons in the courtyard she got up immediately and raised the wick of the lantern which was until then giving dim light. She has stated in her cross-examination that the lantern used to be hung daily on the same peg, that there was no blackness on the wall near the peg and that she had scratched it off about 8 days prior to the date of her examination in the Court.” 38. In the case of State of U.P. Vs. Sukhpal Singh and others, AIR 2009 SC 1729 , it has been held that:- “5. Aidal Singh in his dying declaration specifically named Sukhpal Singh as assailant who had fired at him and Hiralal named Sukhpal, Harpal and Ajanti whom he had identified and who had fired shots at him. He also stated that there were 10/15 persons armed with double barrel guns. They had given beatings. In the instant case, according to the prosecution version, two persons namely Hira Lal and Aidal Singh were killed and Chandan Giri, PW3 and Smt. Longshree PW5 wife of Hira Lal were injured. The accused persons were recognized in the light of lantern and moonlight. The accused persons were otherwise known to the witnesses.” 39. In the case of Vishwa Nath Vs. State of U.P., 2000 (2) ACR 1709 , it has been held that:- “20. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the occurrence took place in the night and there was no source of light and light of lantern was subsequently introduced. The accused persons were otherwise known to the witnesses.” 39. In the case of Vishwa Nath Vs. State of U.P., 2000 (2) ACR 1709 , it has been held that:- “20. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the occurrence took place in the night and there was no source of light and light of lantern was subsequently introduced. It is mentioned in the F.I.R. that there was a lighted lantern on the shop of Ahsan Khan and night of occurrence was also moon lit. The evidence of Suresh Chandra (P.W. 4) shows that when he came to the shop of Ahsan Khan, it was open and some persons were sitting there. If the shop was open, the presence of lantern light in the shop is natural as it was not expected from Ahsan Khan to run his shop in darkness. Suresh Chandra as well as Jagdish (P.W. 6) also stated that night of occurrence was moon lit. This fact was not challenged by the appellant. No doubt, Ramesh (P.W. 5), the other injured and real brother of Suresh Chandra (P.W. 4) and Jagdish (P.W. 6) had stated that there was fog at the time of occurrence. But neither prosecution nor the defence has set up this fact. Even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that lighted lantern, kept at the shop of Ahsan Khan (P.W. 10), was not sufficient to spread light on the spot, the night of occurrence was moon lit and the appellant and other accused were none else, but the family members of prosecution witnesses. Therefore, appellant and other accused could be recognised by prosecution witnesses even in dim light. It has also come in the evidence of Suresh Chandra (P.W. 4) and Jagdish (P.W. 6) that prior the occurrence, altercations had taken place. The prosecution witnesses, who were closely related with appellant and other accused, were in a position to recognise them even by their voice. Moreover, Brij Raj (P.W. 7) had recognised each and every person who allegedly came to his house and nature of injuries sustained by deceased, injured and others. He has also not disclosed any source of light. The prosecution witnesses, who were closely related with appellant and other accused, were in a position to recognise them even by their voice. Moreover, Brij Raj (P.W. 7) had recognised each and every person who allegedly came to his house and nature of injuries sustained by deceased, injured and others. He has also not disclosed any source of light. If he was in a position to recognise Suresh, Ramesh, Jagdish, Smt. Maharani Devi and Megh Nath without aid of any artificial light, why the prosecution witnesses Suresh Chandra (P.W. 4) and Jagdish (P.W. 6) were not in a position to recognise appellant and other accused. This shows that there was no paucity of light for recognising the appellant and other accused.” 40. No other points have been raised before us by the learned counsel for the accused-appellant. 41. In the light of the above discussions, we find that this criminal appeal is liable to be dismissed on merits. ORDER (i) This criminal appeal is dismissed on merits. (ii) The conviction and sentence awarded to the accused person appellant no. 2 Balbir son of Om Prakash by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Aligarh is affirmed. (iii) The accused-appellant no. 2 Balbir son of Om Prakash is on bail. His bail and bail bonds are hereby cancelled and his sureties are discharged. He shall surrender before the learned Sessions Judge, Civil and Sessions Court, Aligarh to serve out the sentence awarded to him. (iv) The learned Sessions Judge, Civil and Sessions Court, Aligarh is directed to procure the attendance of the appellant no. 2 Balbir and send him to jail for serving out the sentence. 42. Let the entire original record of this case be sent back forthwith to the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Civil and Sessions Court, District Aligarh for necessary compliance.