Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1703 (ALL)

BHURE v. STATE OF U. P.

2017-07-21

ARVIND KUMAR TRIPATHI, KRISHNA PRATAP SINGH

body2017
JUDGMENT : Krishna Pratap Singh, J. 1. Heard Sri G.C. Pant (Amicus Curiae) and Sri D.D. Dauholia, learned counsel for appellants-accused and Sri Chandra Jeet Yadav, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the judgment and order as well as record of the present case. 2. These two connected appeals are directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 25.01.1984 passed by IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Mainpuri, in Sessions Trial No. 108 of 1982 (State vs. Bhura and Others). 3. Appellant-accused Bhura in Criminal Appeal No. 407 of 1984 has been convicted under Section 148 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment. He has also been convicted under Section 307 read with Section 149 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment. He was further convicted under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. 4. Appellant-accused Ramesh in Criminal Appeal No. 375 of 1984 has been convicted under Section 148 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment. He has also been convicted under Section 307 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment. He was further convicted under Section 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. 5. Appellant-accused Raje in Criminal Appeal No. 407 of 1984 has been convicted under Section 148 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment. He has also been convicted under Section 307 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment. He was further convicted under Section 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. 6. Learned trial Court has further directed that all the aforesaid sentences of each of the appellants-accused shall run concurrently. 7. It is relevant to mention here that during the pendency of the appeal the appellant-accused Raje had died. Accordingly, vide order dated 13.07.2016 this Court has abated the appeal in respect of the appellant-accused Raje. 8. Now we are proceeding to consider the present appeals in respect of the appellants-accused Bhura and Ramesh only. 9. It is relevant to mention here that the trial Court after scanning the evidence and material available on record had acquitted the co-accused Babu and Laik Singh under Sections 147, 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C. It is stated before this Court that no appeal has been filed against the acquittal of the co-accused persons Babu and Laik Singh. 10. It is relevant to mention here that the trial Court after scanning the evidence and material available on record had acquitted the co-accused Babu and Laik Singh under Sections 147, 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C. It is stated before this Court that no appeal has been filed against the acquittal of the co-accused persons Babu and Laik Singh. 10. The first information report of the present case was lodged on 08.11.1981 at about 2:45 A.M. at Police Station Ounchha, District Mainpuri, under Sections 147, 148, 307 and 302 I.P.C. regarding an incident which is said to have been taken place in the intervening night of 7/8.11.1981 at about 10:00 P.M. in village Kunjal, Hamlet of Usnidha situated at a distance of six miles towards south from the police station. According to the prosecution story informant Hari Singh PW-1 is the resident of village Kunjal, Hamlet of Usnidha, Police Station Ounchha, District Mainpuri. Appellant-accused Laik Singh and his son appellant-accused Ramesh are resident of village Nagla Mani, District Mainpuri and rest of the appellants-accused are residents of village Usnidha, District Mainpuri. As per first information report Exhibit Ka-1 about 8 or 10 days prior to the incident animals of the appellants-accused had destroyed the crops of the deceased Rakshpal Singh and a maarpit between the appellants-accused and deceased Rakshpal Singh had taken place. Just two days before the incident appellants-accused Bhura had gone to the house of the informant Hari Singh PW-1 who is the father of the deceased Rakshpal Singh and had threatened to see him and his son deceased Rakshpal Singh. It has also been mentioned in the first information report that roof of the houses of informant, Hari Singh PW-1 and one Subedar Singh were adjacent to each other in the village Nagla Kunjal, Hamlet of Usnidha. At the time incident which is said to have taken place in the interventing night of 7/8.11.1981 at about 10:00 P.M. informant Hari Singh PW-1 was sleeping on the roof of his house and his son deceased Rakshpal Singh was sleeping in the courtyard of the house and his youngest son Shishupal was sleeping on the middle roof of the house. All the appellants-accused along with three or more other persons after scaling over the wall of the house of Subedar Singh came on the roof of the house of Hari Singh PW-1 and abused him and exhorted "Sale Aaj Tujhe Aur Tere Ladke Ko Dekhna Hai". Hari Singh PW-1 raised alarm, on his raising alarm deceased Rakshpal Singh and his brother Bahra Dhan Singh came on the roof and stood over the 'Munder' of the roof of Subedar Singh and then immediately appellant-accused Bhura fired a shot with his gun at deceased Rakshpal Singh which hit him and he fell down there. Appellants-accused Ramesh and Raje (since died) in order to commit the murder of Hari Singh PW-1 fired a shot with their country made pistols at him which hit on the back of his head. Hearing the alarm Natthu Singh PW-2, Lochan Singh PW-3, Mahendra Singh, Khuman Singh and Mulayam Singh had arrived at the place of occurrence flashing their torches and seen the occurrence. After the incident all the appellants-accused fled away towards the south of the village. At the time of incident there was sufficient light of the moon and torches. After escape of the accused persons the witnesses came on the roof of the house of the Hari Singh PW-1, by then Rakshpal Singh was dead due to fire arm injuries caused to him at the time of incident. Informant Hari Singh PW-1 had also received fire arm injury in the incident and blood had fallen on the spot from his injuries. Thereafter informant Hari Singh PW-1 got a report Exhibit Ka-1 written by Mahendra Singh on the spot and after hearing it he had put his signature on it and immediately thereafter he was taken in bullock-cart to the police station Ounchha, District Mainpuri and in the same night he had lodged the report. Informant Hari Singh PW-1 was sent to District Hospital Mainpuri at about 4:30 A.M. on 08.11.1981 for medical examination. 11. Informant Hari Singh PW-1 was sent to District Hospital Mainpuri at about 4:30 A.M. on 08.11.1981 for medical examination. 11. After registration of case the then Station Officer police station Ounchha Omveer Singh PW-5 in whose presence the offence was registered commence the investigation into crime and recorded the statement of the informant Hari Singh PW-1 and Constable clerk Raghubir Dutt PW-7 at police station and went to the spot and took the dead body of Rakshpal Singh and inquest on the dead body of the deceased Rakshpal Singh was performed and inquest report is Exhibit Ka-3. Other relevant papers i.e. challan lash, photo lash, sample of seal, letter to R.I. and Letter to C.M.O. Exhibit Ka-4 to Exhibit Ka-7 were prepared and dead body was sent for postmortem examination through Constable No.7 Lala Ram and Constable No. 11 Yaad Ram. Spot inspection was also conducted by the Investigating Officer and site plan Exhibit Ka-8 was sketched. Blood stained earth and simple earth were collected and recovery memo Exhibit Ka-9 thereof was prepared. Two empty cartridges were also recovered from the spot and recovery memo Exhibit Ka-10 was prepared. Accused Laik Singh was arrested on the same day and in this regard memo Exhibit Ka-11 was prepared. Investigating Officer during the course of investigation arrested the accused persons and recorded the statement of witnesses. After completion of investigation charge-sheet Exhibit Ka-18 was prepared and forwarded against the appellants-accused. 12. Postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased Rakshpal Singh was performed by Doctor J.P. Gupta, PW-4 on 08.11.1981 at about 3:30 P.M. Dead body was brought to the Doctor by the Constable Lala Ram and Constable Yaad Ram who had identified the dead body. On his cadaver Doctor had noted the following ante-mortem injuries:- 1. Multiple gun shot wounds of enterance in an area of 30 Cm. x 18 Cm., 1.5 Cm. anterior to the lower end of the left ear over the left side of face, lower lip chin lower jaw, neck, chest (above the nipple) and left shoulder. Wounds were of varying in sizes from 0.2 Cm. x 0.2 Cm. to 1 Cm. x. 0.5 Cm. Few wounds over the chest were cavity deep. Rest for muslce deep, margins inverted and oval. 2. On dissection left carroted vessels were found lacerated. Haemotoma and underneath tissue were blood stained. No blackening and tattooing were present. Wounds were of varying in sizes from 0.2 Cm. x 0.2 Cm. to 1 Cm. x. 0.5 Cm. Few wounds over the chest were cavity deep. Rest for muslce deep, margins inverted and oval. 2. On dissection left carroted vessels were found lacerated. Haemotoma and underneath tissue were blood stained. No blackening and tattooing were present. Internal Examination:- Plura left side was lacerated. Left lung was lacerated ascending aorta was lacerated. Thorasic cavity contains blood about 6 ozs. Stomach contains semi digested food about 6 ozs. Small and large intestines were half empty containing semi digested food, facial matter and gases. Cause of death of deceased was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries. Postmortem examination report is Exhibit Ka-2. 13. Informant Hari Singh PW-1 was medically examined by Doctor S.C. Dubey PW-6 who was posted as Emergency Medical Officer at District Hospital Mainpuri on 08.111.1981. On 08.11.1981 at 7:00 A.M. Doctor had found following injuries on the body of the informant Hari Singh PW-1:- I. Multiple firearm wound of entrance in area of 33 Cm. x 15 Cm. over above part of back of chest, back of neck, back of skull varying in size from 0.5 cm. x 0.5 Cm. to 0.8 Cm. x 0.8 Cm. x skin deep. Some pellets are palpabling and some are not pulpabling. Some pellets are of oval shape. Some are rounded. No mark of blackening, tattooing or scorching present. Bleeding present, advised X-ray. Injury report is Exhibit Ka-19. II. Abrasions 4 Cm. x 3 Cm. on the back of left elbow, soft scab in present. 14. In the opinion of Doctor injuries of the informant Hari Singh PW-1 were simple in nature and caused by blunt object except injury no. 1 which was kept under observation advised X-Ray, caused by fire arm weapon duration about ½ day. 15. On the strength submitted charge-sheet appellants-accused were summoned. Since the disclosed offence was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court. Learned IIIrd Additional Munsif Magistrate Mainpuri committed the case to the Court of Sessions where it was registered as Sessions Trial no. 108 of 1982 (State vs. Bhura & Others). The aforesaid session trial was transferred to the Court of IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Mainpuri for trial. 16. Since the disclosed offence was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court. Learned IIIrd Additional Munsif Magistrate Mainpuri committed the case to the Court of Sessions where it was registered as Sessions Trial no. 108 of 1982 (State vs. Bhura & Others). The aforesaid session trial was transferred to the Court of IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Mainpuri for trial. 16. The Sessions Judge charged the appellants-accused with offences under Sections 147, 148, 307 read with Section 149 and 302 I.P.C. read with Section 149 I.P.C. on 19.03.1982 and 15.03.1983. Charges read over and explained to the appellants-accused. Appellants-accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried and consequently sessions trial procedure was restored to establish the guilt of the appellants-accused. 17. In order to prove its case the prosecution has examined informant Hari Singh PW-1, Natthu Singh PW-2 and Lochan Singh PW-3 as witnesses of fact. Doctor J.P. Gupta PW-4 who had conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased Rakshpal Singh. Investigating Officer Omveer Singh PW-5 who had conducted the investigation and submitted the charge-sheet against the appellants-accused, Doctor S.C. Dubey PW-6 who had examined the injuries of the informant Hari Singh PW-1 and Constable No. 287 Raghubir Dutt PW-7 who had prepared the chik FIR and G.D. entry are the formal witnesses. 18. After closure of evidence statement of the appellants-accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. In his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the common defence of the appellants-accused was that of denial and false implication due to enmity. Appellants-accused did not lead any oral or documentary evidence in defence. After appreciating the evidence on record the trial Court convicted the appellants-accused as above. Hence instant appeal. 19. Learned counsel for the appellants-accused has submitted that the appellants-accused are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case due to enmity. It was also submitted that common object was missing in respect of the present appellants-accused. There are contradictions in the version stated by the informant Hari Singh PW-1, Natthu Singh PW-2 and Lochan Singh PW-3 in the first information report and their statements in Court. It was also submitted that common object was missing in respect of the present appellants-accused. There are contradictions in the version stated by the informant Hari Singh PW-1, Natthu Singh PW-2 and Lochan Singh PW-3 in the first information report and their statements in Court. It was further submitted that evidences of the alleged crime do not connect with the appellants-accused as no weapon of crime was recovered by the police and blood stained earth and blood on the clothes of the deceased Rakshpal Singh and injured Hari Singh PW-1 could not be ascertained. It was also submitted that the incident took place in the night of 7/8.11.1981 at 10:00 P.M. but the first information report was lodged in the same night at 2:45 A.M. Thus there was delay in lodging the first information report and the same was not properly explained. It was further submitted that the place of occurrence is also not established from the prosecution evidence. It was also submitted that in the first information report it is not mentioned that the informant Hari Singh PW-1 has also received fire arm injuries in the said incident. There are major contradictions in the statements of the said eye witnesses on the point of time and manner of incident. Referring to the contradictions and omissions occurred in the statements of the eye witnesses Natthu Singh PW-2 and Lochan Singh PW-3, it was also submitted that these two witnesses are not eye account witnesses and they were procured later on only to falsely implicate the appellants-accused in the present case and the entire prosecution story is improbable and unreliable. Lastly it was submitted that the prosecution witnesses were interested and inimical. 20. Learned A.G.A. has submitted that there was no delay in lodging the first information report. It was further submitted that Natthu Singh PW-2 and Lochan Singh PW-3 were the resident of same village and locality. Medical evidence fully and completely supports the prosecution case. There was no conflict between the oral and medical evidence. Informant injured Hari Singh PW-1 was present on spot at the time of incident but non mentioning of his injuries in the first information report will not place him in the category of unreliable witnesses. Medical evidence fully and completely supports the prosecution case. There was no conflict between the oral and medical evidence. Informant injured Hari Singh PW-1 was present on spot at the time of incident but non mentioning of his injuries in the first information report will not place him in the category of unreliable witnesses. It was also submitted that contradiction, omissions and improvement were of minor nature and do not go to the root of the prosecution case and the same may be ignored. Lastly it was submitted that the findings of the trial Court was based on the reliable evidence available on record. Therefore both the appeals lacks merit and liable to be dismissed. 21. We have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment of the trial Court as well as the record of the trial Court. 22. The first point which is to be considered in the present case is the delay in lodging the first information report. The incident is alleged to have taken place in the intervening night of 7/8.11.1981 at about 10:00 P.M. and the first information report of this case has been lodged in the same night at about 2:45 A.M. i.e. after 4 hours and 45 minutes of the incident. According to the chik FIR Exhibit Ka-20 the distance of the village from the police station was six miles. In the said incident the son of the informant Hari Singh PW-1 was murdered and he had also received fire arm injuries. Informant Hari Singh PW-1 has deposed that after incident he had gone to the police station by bullock-cart for lodging FIR. During this period informant must have made some arrangements to proceed to the police station in the night. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that there is no delay in lodging the first information report. Therefore in the present case prompt FIR has been lodged and specific role of firing by gun on deceased Rakshpal Singh has been assigned to the appellants-accused Bhura. 23. Informant Hari Singh PW-1 is the father of the deceased Rakshpal Singh. Informant has given detailed description of the incident and has assigned the role of firing to the appellants-accused. Therefore in the present case prompt FIR has been lodged and specific role of firing by gun on deceased Rakshpal Singh has been assigned to the appellants-accused Bhura. 23. Informant Hari Singh PW-1 is the father of the deceased Rakshpal Singh. Informant has given detailed description of the incident and has assigned the role of firing to the appellants-accused. He has deposed that on 07.11.1981 in night at about 10:00 P.M. he was sleeping on the northern roof of his house and his son deceased Rakshpal Singh was sleeping in the courtyard of house. His youngest son Shishupal was sleeping on the roof which was middle of his house. He further deposed that the appellants-accused namely Bhura, Raje (since died), Laik Singh, Ramesh and Babu along with 3 or 4 other persons had come over his roof from the side of the house of Subedar. The roof of his house is adjacent to the roof of the Subedar Singh's house. Appellants-accused abused him and exhorted him to call his son (Rakshpal Singh), they would see them and they would go after killing them. On exhortation of appellants-accused he had raised hue and cry. On his hue and cry Rakshpal Singh had come over the roof and had stood on the 'Munder' of the Subedar Singh. At the same time, the appellant-accused Bhura fired at Rakshpal Singh with his gun which hit Rakshpal Singh and he fell down there. He has further deposed that thereafter the appellants-accused Raje (since died) and Ramesh had fired at him with their country made pistols with the intention of causing his death. At the time of firing he had slightly turned when the shots were fired by the appellants-accused Ramesh, Raje (since died). Fire shots by the appellants-accused Ramesh and Raje (since died) had hit him on the back of his head. Witnesses Natthu Singh PW-2, Mahendra, Khuman Singh, Mulayam Singh and Lochan Singh PW-3 had arrived on the spot hearing of his hue and cry and they were flashing their torches. Thereafter the appellants-accused fled away towards south of the village. He has also deposed that he as well as the witnesses had seen the incident in the light of torches as well as moon light and they recognized the appellants-accused. Thereafter the appellants-accused fled away towards south of the village. He has also deposed that he as well as the witnesses had seen the incident in the light of torches as well as moon light and they recognized the appellants-accused. He has also deposed that about 8 or 10 days prior to the incident the Buffaloes of the appellants-accused had entered in his field and a 'marpeet' between deceased Rakshpal Singh and them had taken place. Just two days before the incident appellants-accused Bhura had gone to his house and threatened to see him and his son deceased Rakshpal Singh. 24. Natthu Singh PW-2 has also supported the prosecution case and given similar statements. He deposed that at the time of incident he had arrived on the spot after hearing the hue and cry of Hari Singh PW-1. In the light of torch he had seen the incident and recognized the appellants-accused. Appellants-accused were present on the roof of Hari Singh PW-1 and appellant-accused Bhura had fired a shot with his gun at Rakshpal Singh from a distance of 6 or 7 steps at the time of incident who was standing on the southern 'Munder' of the roof of Subedar. He has further deposed that the appellants-accused Ramesh and Raje (since died) had also fired with their country made pistols on Hari Singh PW-1 who had received injury on his neck. 25. Lochan Singh PW-3 has also deposed that at the time of incident he was present at his house. After hearing cry of Hari Singh PW-1 he has immediately reached at the 'Chabutra' of Kaptan Singh which was situated at a distance of 10 or 15 paces from the house of Hari Singh PW-1. He had seen that 8 or 9 miscreants were present on the roof of the house of Subedar Singh. On the hue and cry of Hari Singh PW-1, Rakshpal Singh had also reached on the roof from the staircase and shouted that he had come there, when the appellants-accused shot a fire at him with his gun. Receiving gun shot injuries Rakshpal Singh had fallen down there. Appellants-accused Raje (since died) and Ramesh had also fired with their country made pistols at Hari Singh PW-1 with the intention of causing his death. The shots fired by the appellants-accused Ramesh and Raje (since died) had hit Hari Singh PW-1. Receiving gun shot injuries Rakshpal Singh had fallen down there. Appellants-accused Raje (since died) and Ramesh had also fired with their country made pistols at Hari Singh PW-1 with the intention of causing his death. The shots fired by the appellants-accused Ramesh and Raje (since died) had hit Hari Singh PW-1. He has further deposed that when the appellants-accused fled away from the spot he had gone on the roof of Subedar and had seen that Rakshpal Singh was lying dead and Hari Singh PW-1 had received injuries on back side of his neck. Aforesaid witnesses of fact have gone a lengthy cross-examination by the defence but nothing material in their cross-examination could be elicited which makes their evidence unreliable and untrustworthy. 26. Learned counsel for the appellants-accused has submitted that Hari Singh PW-1 is father of deceased Rakshpal Singh who is an interested witness. Natthu Singh PW-2 and Lochan Singh PW-3 are inimical and interested witnesses, hence their evidence cannot be relied upon. But we do not find any substance in this submission. In catena of decisions Hon'ble Apex Court and of this Court have observed that there is no law which prescribes that evidence of a related witness or interested witness or inimical witness has to be discarded on this basis alone. It is admitted fact that informant Hari Singh PW-1 is father of deceased Rakshpal Singh who had also received fire arm injuries in the incident. Testimony of the injured witness is entitled to a great weight. Presence of such witness at the time and place cannot be doubted. It is not likely that he would spare the real assailant and implicate innocent persons merely due to enmity. Very cogent and convincing ground would be required to discard the evidence of such witness. This is, however, subject to the requirement that there must be evidence to show that the witness received the injury in the same occurrence. The evidence available on record is that Hari Singh PW-1 had received injuries in the same occurrence. His testimony is corroborated by the evidence of Natthu Singh PW-2 and Lochan Singh PW-3 and also with medical evidence. The evidence available on record is that Hari Singh PW-1 had received injuries in the same occurrence. His testimony is corroborated by the evidence of Natthu Singh PW-2 and Lochan Singh PW-3 and also with medical evidence. Hari Singh PW-1, Natthu Singh PW-2 and Lochan Singh PW-3 have stated about the details of the occurrence in which one person namely Rakshpal Singh was killed by fire a shot by the appellant-accused Bhura, while Hari Singh PW-1 was injured by the fire shots by the appellants-accused Ramesh and Raje (since died). Natthu Singh PW-2 and Lochan Singh PW-3 are the resident of same village and locality, their presence at the place of occurrence is not doubtful. Both have depicted an eye to eye picture of what transpired in the fateful night. They had recognized the appellants-accused in the light of torches and moon light. By any evidence defence could not show that their defence is probable. The case of the defence is not probable that they have been falsely implicated in this case merely on the basis of enmity. Therefore evidence of the aforesaid witnesses of the prosecution cannot be discarded on the ground that they are either interested or inimical witnesses. They are found to be credible and reliable. Relationship would not a factor to effect the credibility of prosecution witnesses. It is more often than not that a relation would not conceal actual assailants and make allegations against innocent persons. In the case of Bhagwan Das vs. State of Rajasthan (1974) 4 SCC 781 Hon'ble Apex Court has observed in para-11 of the judgment that "It is also difficult to believe that chunki would spare the real assailant and falsely mention the name of the accused as the person who was responsible for the injuries caused to her and the three deceased persons. Chunki, it may be stated has not been shown to have any animus against the accused." In the view of aforesaid pronouncement we are of the view that submission of learned counsel for the appellants-accused has no force. 27. Learned counsel for the appellants-accused has also submitted that the dead body of the deceased Rakshpal Singh was found on the roof of the house of one Subedar where he was shot dead, but Subedar has not been examined and non-examination of Subedar gives rise to an adverse inference against the prosecution cases. 27. Learned counsel for the appellants-accused has also submitted that the dead body of the deceased Rakshpal Singh was found on the roof of the house of one Subedar where he was shot dead, but Subedar has not been examined and non-examination of Subedar gives rise to an adverse inference against the prosecution cases. But in our considered opinion non-examination of Subedar would not adversely affect the case of the prosecution as it is choice of the prosecution that which witness has to be examined. Law is settled on the point that it is quality of evidence and not the quantity of evidence that has to be looked into. There is no law which requires that a particular number of the witness must be examined to prove a particular fact. Law insists on the quality of evidence rather on the quantity of evidence. Even if evidence of only one witness is found to be wholly reliable then conviction can be based on the solitary testimony of that one witness and non-examination of other witnesses would not adversely affect the case of the prosecution. In the case of Nand Kumar vs. State of Chhattisgarh (2015) 1 Supreme Court Cases 776 Hon'ble Apex Court has held in para-31 and 32 as under:- "Para 31- We are also not impressed by the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants when he contended that one eyewitness, Kariya was not examined and hence it has weakened the case of the prosecution. Para 32- The law does not say that the prosecution must examine all the eyewitnesses cited by the prosecution. When the evidence of two eyewitnesses, PWs 1 and 3 was found worthy of acceptance to prove the case then it was not necessary for the prosecution to examine any more eyewitnesses. It is for the prosecution to decide as to how many and who should be examined as their witnesses for proving their case. Therefore, we find no merit in this submission." 28. In the case of Chacko alias Aniyan Kunju and Others vs. State of Kerala (2004) 12 Supreme Court Cases 269 Hon'ble Apex Court has held that- "it is not important that how many witnesses have been examined by the prosecution but what is the nature and quality of evidence on which it relies is more important. In the case of Chacko alias Aniyan Kunju and Others vs. State of Kerala (2004) 12 Supreme Court Cases 269 Hon'ble Apex Court has held that- "it is not important that how many witnesses have been examined by the prosecution but what is the nature and quality of evidence on which it relies is more important. The evidence of a single witness may sustain a sentence of death whereas a host of vulnerable witnesses may fail to support a simple charge of hurt." In the present case we have seen that the testimonies of Hari Singh PW-1, Natthu Singh PW-2 and Lochan Singh PW-3 have been supported with medical evidence of the Doctors who had examined the deceased Rakshpal Singh and injured Hari Singh PW-1. Therefore, we hold that testimonies of the aforesaid prosecution witnesses are fully reliable and there has no improvement made. 29. Learned counsel for the appellants-accused has also submitted that informant Hari Singh PW-1 had received fire arm injuries in the incident but this fact has not been mentioned in the first information report though he has stated that he has received fire arm injuries. This was very important fact. If Hari Singh PW-1 had received injuries in the same incident, he would have to mention this fact in the first information report. Hence this part of the prosecution story is not proved and learned trial Court has erred in not appreciating this fact properly. 30. It is true that Hari Singh PW-1 had also received injuries is not mentioned in the first information report. It can be said that there is inconsistency with the statement given by Hari Singh PW-1 in the first information report and the statement given in the Court, but we do not find this fact to be fatal to the prosecution case. In paragraph 10 of his cross-examination he has stated that his son was killed in the incident and he has also received fire arm injuries. In such circumstances and situation one cannot expect the informant to dictate the scriber of the first information report about every detail of the incident with accuracy. It is noteworthy that the injuries of Hari Singh PW-1 are mentioned in G.D. Exhibit Ka-21. The first information report of the case was lodged promptly. His evidence is supported with medical evidence also. It is noteworthy that the injuries of Hari Singh PW-1 are mentioned in G.D. Exhibit Ka-21. The first information report of the case was lodged promptly. His evidence is supported with medical evidence also. According to the medical report Exhibit Ka-19 - multiple fire arm wound of entrance in area of 33 Cm. x 15 Cm. over above part of back of chest, back of neck, back of skull varying incised from 0.5 Cm. x 0.5 Cm. to .08 Cm. x skin deep. Some pellets are palpabling and some are not palpabling. Some pellets of oval shape and some are round. No mark of blackening, tattooing or scorching present. Bleeding present. Injury no. 2 is abrasions 4 Cm. x 3 Cm. on the back of left elbow, soft scab is present. Doctor has opined that injury no. 1 was caused by fire arm weapon, duration about ½ day. Hon'ble Apex Court has held in number of cases that testimony of an injured eye witness has to be given much credence. More so, the first information report, as is well known, is not an encyclopedia of the entire case. In the present case broad features of the case had been mentioned as to the manner in which incident took place and who had shot dead the deceased Rakshpal Singh and who had caused injuries to Hari Singh PW-1 by firing with country made pistols. So, if there is some omissions in matter of details, that, by itself, may not be sufficient to rebut the prosecution case. Injuries of Hari Singh PW-1 cannot be said to be self-inflicted or superficial in nature. Therefore, non mention of the injuries of the informant Hari Singh PW-1 in first information report is not fatal to the prosecution case. 31. Learned counsel for the appellants-accused has also submitted that weapons used in commission of crime were not recovered. There is no report of Forensic Science Laboratory (F.S.L.). Torches of the witnesses were taken in possession after 8 or 10 days of the incident for which prosecution has not given any plausible explanation. It was submitted that these laches on the part of the investigation are fatal to the prosecution case. 32. There is no report of Forensic Science Laboratory (F.S.L.). Torches of the witnesses were taken in possession after 8 or 10 days of the incident for which prosecution has not given any plausible explanation. It was submitted that these laches on the part of the investigation are fatal to the prosecution case. 32. A perusal of record s\hows that there is no report of F.S.L. The blood stained and plain earth taken from the spot have not been sent for chemical examination, weapons used in commission of crime were also not recovered, so it can be said that there is laches on the part of the Investigating Officer, but this fact does not make the eye witnesses Hari Singh PW-1, Natthu Singh PW-2 and Lochan Singh PW-3 as untrustworthy and unreliable. Therefore contentions raised by learned counsel for the appellants-accused on these issues are also not material. 33. Referring the statement paragraph-8 of Hari Singh PW-1 learned counsel for the appellants-accused has submitted that in the first information report of the case incident is said to have taken place at 10:00 P.M. and death of the deceased Rakshpal Singh is said to have taken place on the spot. The deceased had taken food in same night at about 8 or 8 ½ hours. Thereafter he deposed that he does not know that when the deceased had taken food. It was further submitted that according to the Doctor J.P. Gupta PW-4 the death of the deceased may also be possible at 12 hours in the intervening night of 7/8.11.1981. Learned counsel for the appellants-accused has also submitted that deceased was done to death not at 10:00 P.M. but any time and any where in the night. Thus on this ground it was submitted that the prosecution has not been able to establish the time of occurrence. It was further submitted that according to the statement of Doctor J.P. Gupta PW-4 stomach of the deceased contained semi digested food about 6 ozs. 34. According to the statement of Doctor J.P. Gupta PW-4 at the time of postmortem examination 6 ozs. semi digested food was found in the stomach of the deceased. It shows that deceased had taken food at about 8 or 8 ½ hours in night. Villagers are not expected to have correct estimate of time. It is not possible for them to have scientific sense of time. semi digested food was found in the stomach of the deceased. It shows that deceased had taken food at about 8 or 8 ½ hours in night. Villagers are not expected to have correct estimate of time. It is not possible for them to have scientific sense of time. Doctor J.P. Gupta PW-4 has stated that deceased could have met his death at about 10:00 P.M. night of 07.11.1981. In cross-examination he has stated that the death of the deceased may also be possible at about 12 hours in the intervening night of 07/8.11.1981. In examination in chief he has stated that duration of death of the deceased about ¾ day, hence the prosecution case is that incident took place at 10:00 P.M. in the intervening night of 07/8.11.1981 is held consistent with the medical evidence. 35. On the basis of foregoing discussions, we are of the view that prosecution has been able to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. The appellant-accused Bhura had caused the death of the deceased Rakshpal Singh firing by gun and appellants-accused Ramesh and Raje (since died) had caused injuries to the informant Hari Singh PW-1 by firing with country made pistols on the date, time and place mentioned in first information report and also in the manner alleged by the prosecution. We do not find any illegality, infirmity or perversity in the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court. 36. Consequently, both the appeals being bereft of any merit are hereby dismissed. The conviction and sentence of appellants-accused Bhura and Ramesh are affirmed. Since both the appellants-accused are on bail, their bail bonds are cancelled. The learned trial Court concerned is directed to get the aforesaid appellants-accused arrested and sent them to jail to serve out the sentences awarded to them. 37. The record of the trial Court along with the copy of the judgment be sent to the Court concerned for immediate compliance. Compliance report be also submitted to this Court.