JUDGMENT : Arvind Kumar Tripathi, J. 1. The present criminal appeal No. 1833 of 1984 filed on behalf of the accused-appellants Sahdeo, Shatrughan Singh, Shiv Saran alias Munshi Dubey and Shiv Das and the connected criminal appeal No. 1939 of 1984 filed on behalf of the accused-appellant Phool Singh have been preferred against the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 5.7.1984 passed by IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehpur in Session Trial No. 123 of 1982 State Vs. Sahdeo and 4 Others, arising out of Case Crime No. 121 of 1981, P.S. Asothar, convicting and sentencing the accused-appellants Sahdeo, Shatrughan Singh and Shiv Saran, under Section 148 IPC for two years R.I., under Section 302/149 for life imprisonment and under Section 201 IPC for two years R.I. Accused-appellants Shiv Das and Phool Singh, under Section 147 IPC for one year R.I., under Section 302/149 IPC for life imprisonment and under Section 201 IPC for two years R.I. with the direction that all the sentences shall run concurrently. Hence, both the aforesaid appeals were heard and the same are being decided jointly by a common order. 2. During pendency of the appeal, accused-appellants Sahdeo and Shiv Das have died, hence, the appeal in respect of them stood abated vide order dated 25.10.2016. Now, the appeals have to be decided in respect of the accused-appellants Shatrughan Singh, Shiv Saran and Phool Singh. 3. Mr. Kamal Krishna, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Advocate appeared on behalf of the appellants. Mr. Mahendra Singh Yadav, learned AGA appeared on behalf of the State of U.P. and Mr. Sharad Kumar Srivastava, Advocate appeared on behalf of the complainant. 4. The prosecution story in brief is that the F.I.R. was lodged by Jagdamba Prasad S/o Brij Kishore, brother of the deceased Luxmi Kant. According to the F.I.R. version, the accused persons and the deceased Luxmi Kant are resident of village Ainjhi. It is alleged that three years before, deceased Luxmi Kant, accused Sahdeo and their companions had committed dacoity in village Budhramau in which Luxmi was discharged on account of non-identification whereas Sahdeo was challaned and his case was committed to the court of Sessions. Thereafter 6 or 7 months before the present incident, accused-appellants Sahdeo, Shatrughan Singh and Shiv Saran had again committed a dacoity in village Malhipur where they have committed a murder also. Thereafter 6 or 7 months before the present incident, accused-appellants Sahdeo, Shatrughan Singh and Shiv Saran had again committed a dacoity in village Malhipur where they have committed a murder also. They had asked Luxmi also to accompany in commission of dacoity but he had refused. Since Sahdeo and others were arrested in that dacoity, they suspected that Luxmi had informed their participation in commission of dacoity, and as such they were bearing enmity with him. 5. On 9.9.1981, Luxmi had gone to see his paddy crops towards his field to west of the village, along-with his brother Jagdamba Prasad (PW-1) and his sister Km. Bina (PW-2). At about 5.30 PM, they reached Shivriha field and were standing on one of the 'Mend'(demarcation line by soil) of the field. In the meantime, accused Sahdeo armed with axe, Shatrughan and Shiv Saran armed with Kanta, Shiv Das and Phool Singh both armed with lathi came suddenly from the side of the village and overpowered Luxmi and pushed him down in the field and began to beat. Jagdamba and Km. Bina were aghast and due to fear, they ran towards the village raising alarms. They saw all these accused persons dragging Luxmi towards south-west of the field. Alarm raised by them attracted Puttan, Krishna Pal and Babu Khan. They tried to rescue Luxmi Kant by chasing the accused persons, who left the dead body of deceased Luxmi in the field of Ram Narain and ran away towards the south-west. When they reached near the body of Luxmi, they found him dead. There was cut mark and injury on the neck of the deceased which was bleeding. On account of fear and night, Jagdamba Prasad did not go to the police station at that very time. Next day in the morning, he scribed a report (Ex. Ka-1) and lodged the same at P.S. Asothar at 7.30 AM on 10.9.1981 where a formal F.I.R. (Ex. Ka-3) was prepared by Ishwar Deo Singh, Head Constable who also mentioned above matter at G.D.No. 10, the copy of which is Ex. Ka-4. S.I. R.K.Shukla, the then S.O. Asothar, who after recording the statement of complainant, Deo Raj and Head Constable, proceeded to place of occurrence. After reaching there at 11.30 PM, he saw the dead body which was in the field of Ram Narain and prepared Panchayatnama (Ex. Ka-5). Ka-4. S.I. R.K.Shukla, the then S.O. Asothar, who after recording the statement of complainant, Deo Raj and Head Constable, proceeded to place of occurrence. After reaching there at 11.30 PM, he saw the dead body which was in the field of Ram Narain and prepared Panchayatnama (Ex. Ka-5). He also prepared necessary papers for postmortem, photo nash, challan nash, report to C.M.O. Fatehpur (Ext. Ka-6 to 10) and sent the dead body to Headquarter through constable Yogendra Prasad and Chandrama Prasad. He also obtained the blood stained earth and plain earth from the field of Ram Narain vide fard (Ext. Ka-11) and thereafter came to the Shivriha field. He also found blood on the 'Mend' on the south-east corner of the field and taking the sample prepared fard. He also found Kurta of the deceased thrown in the field on the south-east corner and prepared a fard of the same also. After preparing site plan (Ex. Ka-14), he submitted charge-sheet (Ex. Ka-15) against the accused persons. It is also alleged that he made a search of the accused persons who were not available in the village and as such he submitted a report u/s 82-83 Cr.P.C. to initiate proceeding for attachment of the properties which was done by one Sub Inspector R.M.Yadav. Thereafter the accused have surrendered, then he completed the investigation and submitted charge-sheet. 6. The case of the accused persons was committed to the court of sessions by the then Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehpur on 29.3.1982. 7. Charges under Section 148, 302 and 201 IPC against accused Sahdeo, Shatrughan Singh and Shiv Saran and under Section 147, 302 and 201 IPC against accused Shiv Das and Phool Singh were framed to which all the accused persons pleaded not guilty and pleaded to be tried. 8. The prosecution to prove its case, examined as many as, four witnesses. PW-1 Jagdamba Prasad, informant and eye-witness who is brother of the deceased Luxmi Kant. PW-2 Km. Bina, eye-witness and sister of the deceased. PW-3 Dr. V.K.Tripathi who conducted post-mortem examination on body of the deceased. PW-4 Sub Inspector R.K.Shukla the then S.O. Asothar, the Investigating Officer. 9. 8. The prosecution to prove its case, examined as many as, four witnesses. PW-1 Jagdamba Prasad, informant and eye-witness who is brother of the deceased Luxmi Kant. PW-2 Km. Bina, eye-witness and sister of the deceased. PW-3 Dr. V.K.Tripathi who conducted post-mortem examination on body of the deceased. PW-4 Sub Inspector R.K.Shukla the then S.O. Asothar, the Investigating Officer. 9. After the prosecution closed its evidence, the statement of accused-appellants were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. who denied the charges and submitted that they were implicated due to grudge with the police and the witnesses gave statement due to influence and pressure of the police. 10. After considering the evidence available on record, the trial court held the appellants guilty and they were convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. Being aggrieved, both the criminal appeals have been preferred challenging the impugned judgment dated 5.7.1984. 11. Learned counsel for the appellants challenged the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence on the ground that the F.I.R. is belated and anti-time; that no one has seen the incident; that the place of assault was shown near the field of deceased Luxmi Kant at the place known as Shivriha, however, the dead body was found in the field of one Ram Narain; that no independent witnesses were examined to prove the prosecution story and only the interested and partisan witnesses were examined; that the manner of assault and use of weapons causing injuries were not corroborated and supported by the medical report; that both the witnesses PW-1 and 2 are chance witnesses and no reason was shown why they were present at the place of incident; that according to PW-1, he did not see blood in his field and on the passage, however, recovery of blood was shown from the place of occurrence by the I.O.; that there was motive against family member of Kuber who was killed and in that case, the deceased was accused; that the deceased might have taken meal (lunch) at about 1 O'clock but according to the post-mortem examination report, stomach and small intestine of the deceased were found empty though as per prosecution case, the incident has taken place at about 5.30 P.M. and there is no proper explanation regarding delay in filing the F.I.R. 12. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the incident took place at 5.30 P.M. on 9.9.1981 according to the prosecution case and eye-witnesses, however, the F.I.R. was not lodged on that date though the distance of police station was only about 7 km. and according to witnesses in village 20 arm licensees were there and witness Krishna Pal who was the witness of Panchayatnama also had a licensee gun so there was no ground that there was any threat or they were afraid of danger in going to the police station on the same day. The motive shown by the prosecution for committing murder is very weak because according to the prosecution case, deceased was shown to be one of companion for committing dacoity, however, since he could not be identified, hence, he was discharged and accused-appellant Sahdeo was challaned in that case. Again appellant Sahdeo wanted to commit dacoity but the deceased refused to accompany him. They went to commit dacoity, in which, they were caughthold and since then they were having grudge due to apprehension that information might have been given to the police by the deceased Luxmi Kant. In fact, there was enmity with the family of one Kuber Singh and he was accused in murder of father of PW-1 and deceased Luxmi Kant. He submitted that the deceased Luxmi Kant was killed by some unknown persons and only due to suspicion, appellants were implicated though no one has seen the incident. The allegation was that the appellants who were having axe, Kanta, lathi and assaulted with their weapons but no lathi injury was found. Even any injury caused by axe and Kanta was also doubtful. There was no reason to drag and shift the dead body at a different place. Place of the incident also could not be fixed because according to PW-1 himself, no blood was seen by him either in the field on the way and there was water in the field of paddy. Though I.O. has shown recovery of blood but no chemical examination report was obtained to show that any human blood was found as he himself become expert and felt that the blood was human blood found on the spot as well as on the cloth recovered from body of the deceased. According to PW-1 himself, the F.I.R. was lodged in the morning after consultation with one relative Deoraj. According to PW-1 himself, the F.I.R. was lodged in the morning after consultation with one relative Deoraj. He also submitted that Krishnapal, witness of the inquest report was also shown as eye-witness of the incident but no weapon of assault was mentioned in the panchayatnama. 13. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that there was incised wound two in number parallel to each-other and according to the Doctor the same might have been caused by knife if the deceased would have been caughthold. No Kanta and lathi injuries were found. The stomach was also found empty, hence, it appears that the incident might have taken place during the intervening night of 9/10th September 1981 and when the witnesses came to know that the dead body was lying in the field of Ram Narain then after consultation with the relative Deoraj and under pressure of the police when F.I.R. was lodged, the accused were named in the F.I.R. The prosecution purposely withheld the independent witnesses and only brother and sister of the deceased were examined as eye-witness, who were chance witness. Hence, in view of the fact, it is clear that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond doubt and as such the trial court has committed error in holding the appellants guilty and awarding the sentence vide impugned judgment under challenge. 14. Learned AGA and learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the prayer and arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants. Learned AGA submitted that PW-1 Jagdamba Prasad who is informant and his sister Km. Bina (PW-2), if went along with their brother deceased Luxmi Kant who had gone to see his paddy crops and field towards the west of the village, the same is not unnatural. When after taking a round of the paddy field they reached Shivriha field and they were standing on the 'Mend' of the field, the accused Sahdeo armed with axe, Shatrughan and Shiv Saran armed with Kanta, Shiv Das and Phool Singh both armed with lathi came suddenly from the side of the village and overpowered Luxmi and pushed him down in the field. They assaulted the deceased with their weapon, however, due to fear PW-1 and PW-2 ran towards village raising alarm then other witnesses reached there and saw the accused-appellants dragging the dead body to the filed of Ram Narain where the dead body was found. They assaulted the deceased with their weapon, however, due to fear PW-1 and PW-2 ran towards village raising alarm then other witnesses reached there and saw the accused-appellants dragging the dead body to the filed of Ram Narain where the dead body was found. The upper part of the body was found naked as Kurta was put off though the witnesses could not see the manner of assault or putting off Kurta of the deceased. The witnesses are natural, hence, their statement has not to be disbelieved because they are related to the deceased Luxmi Kant. From perusal of the statement of Doctor and post-mortem report, it is clear that the injuries might have been caused by axe and Kanta and that depends on the manner of assault and position of the deceased. Merely because the witnesses/Panch did not mention the name of the weapon or name of the accused in the panchayatnama, prosecution story has not to be disbelieved. It cannot be presumed that the F.I.R. was belated because due to fear witnesses did not preferred to go during night period to lodge the F.I.R. as the distance of the police station was 7 km. from the place of incident. When his relative Deoraj came in the morning the matter was informed to him and thereafter, the F.I.R. was lodged, hence, it cannot be said that it was lodged due to pressure of the police or consultation and direction of relative Deoraj. Further there was no reason why Deoraj will advise to falsely implicate to the accused-appellants. There was motive for committing murder. Due to negligence of the I.O., not to get the expert opinion and not to place the same before the court, the prosecution story has not to be disbelieved. The prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and as such the present appeal is liable to be dismissed. 15. We heard the learned counsel for the parties and the judgment was reserved on 6.1.2017. Considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. According to the prosecution story, PW-1 Jagdamba Prasad along with his sister Km. Bina who was aged about 10-11 years, at the time of incident, accompanied deceased Luxmi Kant, when he went to see his paddy crop and field. Considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. According to the prosecution story, PW-1 Jagdamba Prasad along with his sister Km. Bina who was aged about 10-11 years, at the time of incident, accompanied deceased Luxmi Kant, when he went to see his paddy crop and field. When they reached Shivriha field and were standing on Mend of the field, in the meantime, accused-appellant Sahdeo armed with axe, Shatrughan and Shiv Saran armed with Kanta, Shiv Das and Phool Singh armed with lathi suddenly came over there from the side of the village. The appellants overpowered deceased Luxmi Kant, pushed him down in the field and started assaulting him. Seeing the incident, due to fear, PW-1 and 2 ran towards the village, raising alarm and the other villagers reached there. They saw all the accused-appellants after assaulting Luxmi Kant, lifted him and dragged towards south-west of the field. According to statement of PW-1, accused-appellants Sahdeo and Shiv Das caughthold legs of the deceased and accused-appellants Shatrughan and Shiv Saran caughthold hands of the deceased and Phool Singh was also accompanying them. Subsequently, the witnesses chased them, hence, they left the dead body in the field of one Ram Narain. Subsequently, when they reached near the body of Luxmi Kant, they found him dead and upper portion of the body was found naked. They also saw injury on the neck of the deceased and also saw bleeding from the injuries. There were also injuries on the other part of the body. At the time of incident, PW-1 Jagdamba, brother of the deceased was aged about 16 years and his sister Km. Bina was aged about 10 years, hence, according to them due to fear in the night informant PW-1 did not go to the police station for lodging the F.I.R. He send information to Deoraj, one relative and when he came then the F.I.R. was lodged in the morning at 7.30 AM on 10.9.1982 by PW-1. Though the other witnesses, namely, Puttan, Krishnapal and Babu Khan were not examined by the prosecution and only informant Jagdamba Prasad who is brother of the deceased, was examined as PW-1 and Km. Bina who is sister of the deceased, was examined as PW-2. It is well settled that it is not number of witnesses but quality of witnesses is required to prove the prosecution case. Bina who is sister of the deceased, was examined as PW-2. It is well settled that it is not number of witnesses but quality of witnesses is required to prove the prosecution case. Further, it is also well settled that the statement of interested witnesses/relatives/family members of the deceased, has not to be disbelieved merely on the ground that they are close to the deceased. The only requirement is that their statements have to be scrutinized and considered carefully and cautiously. 16. In the present case, according to PW-1 and 2, they went along with the deceased to see their paddy field, they had taken a round of the field and when they reached Shivriha field, they were standing on 'Mend' of the field. All of sudden, accused-appellants reached there and attacked with their respective weapons. The detail of mode of assault and how many blows were given could not be witnessed by PW-1 and 2 as due to fear they ran away from the spot. Considering the age of PW-1 and 2 at the time of incident, this conduct was natural and visiting their agricultural field by the family members, is also not unnatural in the villages. There is no evidence that they were not present, on the date of incident, in the village. Normally those persons who are not close or connected with the deceased, avoid to appear as witness, against any co-villager or any criminal. On the other hand, if the incident was witnessed by the family members, they dare to depose before the court against the actual person who assaulted. Unless there is a strong reason to believe false implication, their statement has not to be considered doubtful merely because they are family members or relatives of the deceased. In the present case, PW-1 and 2 cannot be said to be a chance witness as visiting the field is a natural conduct. Further there was no reason of false implication of the appellants leaving the actual culprits because according to arguments raised on behalf of the appellants, the strong motive was against the family of Kuber Singh who committed murder of father of PW-1 and 2 and in murder of father of Kuber, deceased Luxmi Kant was accused. Had the family members of Kuber been involved, there was no reason to spare them. Had the family members of Kuber been involved, there was no reason to spare them. Even in the cross-examination of PW-1 and 2, there are no such contradictions and discrepancies which goes to the root of the case, to disbelieve the prosecution story barring some minor contradictions which are natural. At the time of statement, PW-1 was aged about 19 years and PW-2 was aged about 14 years. The discrepancy shown by counsel for the appellants was that according to PW-1, ^^eSus vius [ksr esa [kwu ugha ns[kk, jkLrs esa Hkh [kwu ugha ns[kkA [ksrksa esa /kku dh Qly Fkh vkSj ikuh Hkjk FkkA tgka yk'k feyh ogka [kwu FkkA^^ . It is clear from the statement of PW-1 and 2 that when the accused-appellants reached there and suddenly they pulled Luxmi down and started assaulting him, both the witnesses ran away and subsequently when appellants left the dead body of their brother Luxmi Kant in the field of Ram Narain, they went to that place where dead body was lying. When in the morning police came there when the F.I.R. was lodged only then they went to the place of occurrence to show the same to the police. Hence, if PW-1 did not see blood on the way or in the paddy field, filled with water, this statement did not appear to be unnatural, however, when police reached there, according to the I.O., he found blood at the place of occurrence which was collected by the I.O. but since there is no report of any expert regarding the same, that was not found reliable. Where the dead body was lying, the blood was seen there, hence, merely on this ground, it cannot be said that there was such discrepancy which would damage the prosecution case. This was also stated by him that Kurta of the deceased had already been recovered which was seen by the villagers so the statement of PW-1 that Kurta was not recovered before him and he did not see blood stain on that Kurta, is not unnatural. Since they ran away when appellants started assaulting and where they stopped, the place of occurrence was not visible, they could not see when Kurta was put off by the appellants, hence, on this ground also, their statement has not to be disbelieved. Even on the spot, damaged paddy was found and shown to the police. Since they ran away when appellants started assaulting and where they stopped, the place of occurrence was not visible, they could not see when Kurta was put off by the appellants, hence, on this ground also, their statement has not to be disbelieved. Even on the spot, damaged paddy was found and shown to the police. There was no reason to implicate, appellants under pressure of the police and spare the real culprits. 17. According to Dr. V.K.Tripathi who conducted post-mortem examination and was examined as PW-3, the death might have taken place on 9.9.1981 at about 5.30 PM, however, in cross-examination, he replied that there might be difference of 10-12 hours so merely on this ground the prosecution story has not to be disbelieved. The incised wound two in number parallel to each-other transversely oblique situated on the antero lateral side of right side neck, upper part measuring 2 1/2" x 1 x cervical vertebrae deep and 1 1/2" x 1/2" x cervical vertebrae deep underneath trachea, muscles large vessels cut. Hence, when he was overpowered by five persons who were armed with Kanta and axe though there was no suggestion whether such injuries could be caused by weapons assigned to the appellants, then such injuries might be caused by weapons assigned to them. The Doctor did not say that those injuries could not be caused by axe and Kanta. Another incised wound was 1" x 1/4" x skin deep on the right antero lateral aspect of the lower part of neck. Apart from that two abrasions were found, one on whole of the back and the other on the ulna side of left wrist of size 1" x 1/2". According to opinion of the Doctor, the death was caused due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of injuries and the injuries were in normal course sufficient to cause death. The stomach and small intestine were found empty and opinion of the Doctor was that the deceased might have taken meal in between 6-8 hours. Deceased was aged about 22 years young and even if he has taken meal at 12-1 O'clock and stomach was found empty then it cannot be said that the medical report is against the evidence and the same is not supported with the prosecution story. 18. Deceased was aged about 22 years young and even if he has taken meal at 12-1 O'clock and stomach was found empty then it cannot be said that the medical report is against the evidence and the same is not supported with the prosecution story. 18. There was negligence on part of the I.O., it appears that there was no sincere effort for recovery of weapons of assault as well as he did not tried to get opinion of the expert with regard to the blood recovered from the spot and on Kurta. Since he found that it was human blood, hence, he did not feel necessary to get expert opinion and due to such conduct and negligence of the I.O., the ocular evidence has not to be disbelieved if otherwise the same is reliable, intact and trustworthy. There are no contradictions in the statement of PW-1 and 2. As far as, Krishnapal who was not examined, is concerned, he was also collateral of the deceased. Hence, it will not make any difference if he was not examined or he did not prefer to appear. 19. The argument was also that the dead body was lying in the field of one Ram Narain and purposely the place of occurrence was changed from the field of Ram Narain to the field of the deceased because no one has seen the incident and presence of PW-1 and 2 were shown at the place of incident. It was also argued that there was no reason to drag the body and shift the same from the place of occurrence to the field of Ram Narain. According to statement of witnesses after assault and causing grievous injury, it appears that when he died the accused-appellants tried to carry the dead body with the intention to dispose of the same to wash out the evidence but since both the children PW-1 and 2 raised alarm and other persons rushed and chased the appellants hence they fled away leaving the body, in the field of Ram Narain. There was no occasion or reason to shift the place of occurrence. Their involvement and assault could have been in the field of Ram Narain, had the occurrence been taken place in the field of Ram Narain. There was no occasion or reason to shift the place of occurrence. Their involvement and assault could have been in the field of Ram Narain, had the occurrence been taken place in the field of Ram Narain. As far as shifting of the dead body is concerned what was the intention and thinking of the appellants, could not be explained by the prosecution why the dead body was taken away from the place of occurrence after the deceased Luxmi Kant was killed. 20. Hence, in view of the fact, neither there is any delay in lodging of the F.I.R. nor the same is anti-time because lodging of the F.I.R., in the next morning, i.e., 10.9.1981 at 7.30 AM, was not only proved by PW-1 but the same was also proved by the Constable and the I.O. 21. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is clear that the prosecution has succeeded to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, hence, the trial court rightly held the appellants guilty of committing murder of the deceased Luxmi Kant, brother of PW-1 and 2. In view of the fact, the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial court, is hereby affirmed. 22. Accordingly, both the above-noted appeals, being devoid of merits, are hereby dismissed. 23. The appellants are on bail. The bail-bonds and sureties of accused-appellants Shatrughan Singh, Shiv Saran and Phool Singh are hereby cancelled and discharged. Let them be taken into the custody forthwith. The trial court concerned and the Superintendent of Police concerned will take appropriate steps for compliance of the order. After compliance of the order, the report has to be submitted to this Court to keep the same on record. 24. Office to communicate this order forthwith to the court concerned for compliance.