Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1959 (ALL)

JAMADAR SINGH v. STATE

2017-08-24

BALA KRISHNA NARAYANA, SHAILENDRA KUMAR AGRAWAL

body2017
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri Apul Misra and Sri Gaurav Singh, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri A.N. Mulla, learned AGA for the State. 2. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants Jamadar Singh and Phool Singh against the judgment and order dated 21.03.1986 passed by Special/Addl. Sessions Judge, Pilibhit in S.T. No. 291 of 1984, State vs. Jamadar Singh and Another, by which both the appellants have been convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life u/s 302/34 I.P.C. 3. Record shows that the appellant no. 2, Phool Singh in this appeal has died and this appeal has been abated qua appellant no. 2, Phool Singh by this Court by order dated 13.12.2016. 4. Briefly stated, the facts of this case are that sons of deceased Anokhey Lal had purchased 11 bighas of agricultural land situated in village - Navadia Baljit from Hajari Singh and others and an application for mutation was filed. Accused-appellants, who belong to family of Hajari Singh, filed objection against mutation application, 14.08.1984 was the date fixed in the mutation case pending before the Tehsildar, Bisalpur, deceased Anokhey Lal and his son, informant Sri Krishna had gone to attend the court that day. The Presiding Officer was not present in Court and next date was fixed in the early hours of the court hours. The informant and his father Anokhey Lal returned to their house and thereafter, went to the said agricultural field for ploughing it. At that time, Meghnath and Onkar were also working in their nearby fields. At about 5:30 P.M. while deceased Anokhey Lal was ploughing his field, accused-appellant no. 1, Jamadar Singh armed with his licensed gun and accused-appellant no. 2 Phool Singh armed with a country-made pistol came out of their sugarcane field and ran towards Anokhey Lal. Both the accused-appellants fired shots at the deceased from their respective arms and Anokhey Lal upon being hit by the shot, fell on that spot and died. Accused-appellants also shot at P.W.1 informant Sri Krishna, but he saved himself by running inside the sugarcane field. P.W.2 Meghnath and Onkar appeared at the place of occurrence and challenged the accused-appellants, who later on fled away from the place of occurrence. Accused-appellants also shot at P.W.1 informant Sri Krishna, but he saved himself by running inside the sugarcane field. P.W.2 Meghnath and Onkar appeared at the place of occurrence and challenged the accused-appellants, who later on fled away from the place of occurrence. P.W.1 informant Sri Krishna got a written report scribed by Lala Ram and filed the same at the police station at 1935 hours and on the basis whereof a case was registered u/s 302 I.P.C. against the accused-appellants. 5. The investigation of the case was taken up by the Investigating Officer P.W.5 Jwala Prasad Sharma, who after recording the statement of the informant and completing other formalities of the investigation, proceeded to the village where the occurrence had taken place. The inquest on the dead body of the deceased Anokhey Lal could not be held that day due to insufficient light. The inquest was completed next morning on 15.08.1984 and the dead body was sealed and dispatched for postmortem. 6. The Investigating Officer, after completing the investigation, submitted charge-sheet against the two accused-appellants Jamadar Singh and Phool Singh u/s 304 I.P.C. before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pilibhit. Since the offence mentioned in the charge-sheet was triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pilibhit committed the case for trial of the accused-appellants to the Court of Sessions Judge, Pilibhit where it was registered as S.T. No. 291 of 1984, State vs. Jamadar Singh and Another and made over for trial to the Court of Special/Addl. Sessions Judge, Pilibhit, who on the basis of material collected during investigation and after hearing the prosecution as well as accused-appellants on the point of charge, framed charge u/s 302/34 I.P.C. against the accused-appellants. The accused-appellants abjured the charge and claimed trial. 7. The prosecution in order to prove its case and the charge framed against the accused-appellants examined as many as five witnesses of whom P.W.1 informant Sri Krishna and P.W.2 Meghnath were examined as witnesses of fact while P.W.3 Dr. P.K. Gupta, P.W.4 Constable Summer Singh and P.W.5 Jwala Prasad Sharma, the Investigating Officer of the case, were produced as formal witnesses. 8. Accused-appellants in their statements recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. pleaded not guilty and contended that they had been falsely implicated on the ground of enmity. They claimed their possession over the agricultural land and urged that the case relating to the land was pending since long. 9. 8. Accused-appellants in their statements recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. pleaded not guilty and contended that they had been falsely implicated on the ground of enmity. They claimed their possession over the agricultural land and urged that the case relating to the land was pending since long. 9. Learned Special/Addl. Sessions Judge, Pilibhit, after considering the submissions advanced before him by the learned counsel for the parties and scrutinizing the entire evidence on record, both oral as well as documentary, convicted both the accused-appellants u/s 302/34 I.P.C. and sentenced them to imprisonment for life. 10. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the F.I.R. in this case is ante-timed. No one had seen the occurrence and after the dead body of the deceased Anokhey Lal was discovered in the morning, a false F.I.R. was scribed by P.W.1 informant Sri Krishna, concocting a false prosecution story, implicating the accused-appellants due to previous enmity between them and the deceased on account of pendency of litigation between them before the Revenue Court in respect of the same agricultural land where the occurrence had taken place. He next submitted that there are inherent inconsistencies, discrepancies and contradictions in the statements of two eye-witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution during the trial which affect the core of the prosecution case, rendering it totally unreliable. The medical evidence on record does not corroborate the ocular version. Neither the recorded conviction of the appellant no. 1, Jamadar Singh nor the sentence of life imprisonment awarded to him can be sustained and is liable to be set-aside. 11. Per contra Sri A.N. Mulla, learned AGA appearing for the State submitted that the prosecution has fully succeeded in proving the time, place and manner of the incident as narrated in the F.I.R. as well as the identity of the perpetrators of the heinous crime. There is no material inconsistency between the medical evidence and the ocular version. Both the eye-witnesses examined by the prosecution have supported the prosecution story as spelt out in the F.I.R. on all material points and their evidence is not liable to be disbelieved on account of there being minor discrepancies in their evidence. The recorded conviction of the appellant is based upon cogent evidence and the sentence of life imprisonment awarded to accused-appellant no. 1, Jamadar Singh is supported by relevant considerations. The recorded conviction of the appellant is based upon cogent evidence and the sentence of life imprisonment awarded to accused-appellant no. 1, Jamadar Singh is supported by relevant considerations. This appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 12. We have heard the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties at great length and perused the entire lower court record. 13. The only question which arises for our consideration is that whether the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the accused-appellant no. 1, Jamadar Singh beyond all reasonable doubts or not and in order to ascertain the aforesaid issue, we now proceed to scrutinize the evidence on record. 14. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined four witnesses and filed affidavit of one P.W.4 Constable Summer Singh who took the dead body of the deceased along with the relevant documents for postmortem in a sealed state from the place of occurrence. 15. P.W.1 Sri Krishna and P.W.2 Meghnath are eye-witnesses of the occurrence and they supported the prosecution version by stating that accused-appellant no. 1, Jamadar Singh armed with a licensed gun and accused-appellant no. 2, Phool Singh armed with a country-made pistol came out of their sugarcane field and fired shots from their arms at victim Anokhey Lal, who got injured and died at the spot. Accused-appellants thereafter, fled away from the place of occurrence. According to them, the deceased was ploughing his field while he was assaulted in the aforesaid manner by the accused-appellants. P.W.1 has proved the written report as (Ext.Ka.1). 16. P.W.3 Dr. P.K. Gupta had conducted postmortem on the dead body of deceased Anokhey Lal at 4 P.M. on 14.08.1984 and prepared postmortem report (Ext.Ka.2). He noted the following ante-mortem injuries on the person of the deceased:- (a) Gun shot wound of entry with inverted margins of 6 cm X 5 cm X right side chest cavity deep x through and through to injury no. 2 and 3 on the left side neck lateral and anteriorly 3 cm above the medial end of left clericle. Direction left upward to right downwards. (b) Gun shot wound of exit with everted margins, 3 cm x 3 cm x through and through to injury no. 1 on the right shoulder anteriorly to upper part. 2 and 3 on the left side neck lateral and anteriorly 3 cm above the medial end of left clericle. Direction left upward to right downwards. (b) Gun shot wound of exit with everted margins, 3 cm x 3 cm x through and through to injury no. 1 on the right shoulder anteriorly to upper part. (c) Two gun shot wounds of exit with everted margins each of 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm x through and through to injury no. 1 on the back of right side chest 15 cm below the left shoulder joint in an area of 4 cm x 3 cm. (d) Abrasion 6 cm x 4 cm on the right thigh lower most part anterio-lateral aspect 3.5 cm above the right knee-joint. 17. Internal examination- Fourth, fifth and sixth ribs of right side were found fractured posteriorly. Right side pleura was lacerated and there was blood in the cavity. Upper and middle lobs of the right lung were also found lacerated. 18. P.W.3 Dr. P.K. Gupta recovered two large metallic pellets from the posterior wall of right side of chest. In his opinion, cause of death was shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries. According to him, the death had probably occurred at about 5:30 P.M. on 14.08.1984. Injury nos. 1, 2 and 3 were caused by fire-arm and injury no. 4 was caused by fraction. He also testified that there was only one gun shot wound of entry and other two were the exit wounds and therefore, injury nos. 1, 2 and 3 were caused by a single fire-arm shot. In his opinion, there could probably be a difference of six hours on either side with respect to the time of death of the deceased mentioned by him in the postmortem report. 19. P.W.5 Jwala Prasad Sharma who was posted as Second Officer, P.S. - Bisalpur on 14.08.1984 was entrusted with the investigation of the case and in his evidence tendered during the trial, he disclosed the various steps taken by him during the investigation. He proved the check F.I.R. as (Ext.Ka.3) and copy of G.D. Report relating to the case as (Ext.Ka.4) and further deposed that he recorded the statements of P.W.1 informant Sri Krishna and Head Moharrir at the police station and then proceeded to the place of occurrence with relevant papers. He proved the check F.I.R. as (Ext.Ka.3) and copy of G.D. Report relating to the case as (Ext.Ka.4) and further deposed that he recorded the statements of P.W.1 informant Sri Krishna and Head Moharrir at the police station and then proceeded to the place of occurrence with relevant papers. On reaching the place of occurrence, he seized the dead body of the deceased but could not hold the inquest due to night hours. In the morning of 15.08.1984, he held inquest of the dead body of the deceased and prepared inquest report (Ext.Ka.5), challan report (Ext.Ka.6), diagram of the dead-body (Ext.Ka.7), sample of the seal (Ext.Ka.8), letter to C.M.O., Pilibhit (Ext.Ka.9) and letter to the R.I. Pilibhit (Ext.Ka.10). After the preparation of inquest and other relevant documents, the dead body was sealed and dispatched for postmortem through P.W.4 Constable Summer Singh and Constable Malkhan Singh. He also prepared the site-plan of the occurrence (Ext.Ka.11) and seized empty cartridges from the place of occurrence vide memo (Ext.Ka.12). Samples of the plain and blood-stained earth were taken vide memo (Ext.Ka.13). He also seized plough and yoke and delivered it to Babu Ram vide memo (Ext.Ka.14). Statements of other witnesses including P.W.2 Meghnath and Onkar were recorded on 15.08.1984. On 02.10.1984, the licensed gun of accused-appellant no. 1, Jamadar Singh was taken in custody from Ram Gun House, Bisalpur vide memo (Ext.Ka.15). On 03.10.1984, the said gun, empty cartridge, sample of plain and blood-stained earth were sent by him to Forensic Lab for obtaining the opinion of the Forensic Expert. He submitted charge-sheet (Ext.Ka.16) against accused on 03.10.1984. He denied the suggestion that the investigation of the case has not been done in right manner. 20. The accused-appellants did not adduce any evidence in defence. 21. There cannot be any doubt that the death of Anokhey Lal was homicidal and whosoever caused his death intended to commit his murder. The factum of murder is, therefore, beyond doubt. On the facts of the case, the first point to be considered is whether the occurrence took place at the place and time alleged by the prosecution and then to consider whether there is sufficient and reliable evidence to prove that the murder was committed by these accused-appellants. 22. The factum of murder is, therefore, beyond doubt. On the facts of the case, the first point to be considered is whether the occurrence took place at the place and time alleged by the prosecution and then to consider whether there is sufficient and reliable evidence to prove that the murder was committed by these accused-appellants. 22. Both the eye-witnesses P.W.1 informant Sri Krishna and P.W.2 Meghnath have deposed that the murder of deceased Anokhey Lal took place in the agricultural plot of the deceased. The evidence of these witnesses is corroborated by the statement of P.W.5. Jwala Prasad Sharma, the Investigating Officer who had found blood at the place where the dead body of the deceased was lying in the said agricultural plot. He even took sample of the plain and blood-stained earth vide memo (Ext.Ka.13). Three empty cartridges of 12 bore were also recovered by him vide memo (Ext.Ka.12) from the place of occurrence. According to the prosecution, the deceased along with his son P.W.1 informant Sri Krishna had gone to the agricultural plot to have it ploughed and the Investigating Officer also seized plough and yoke and gave those articles to the custody of Babu Ram, another son of the deceased vide memo (Ext.Ka.14). The evidence on record is, thus, sufficient in that regard. It will not be out of place to mention that the defence also did not dispute the place of the occurrence and consequently, no alternative place of the occurrence has been suggesed. It is also not conceivable that the murder of the deceased was committed somewhere else and the dead body of the deceased was planted in the agricultural plot of the deceased. 23. If the murder had been committed in the agricultural plot of the deceased, the time of the occurrence given by the prosecution becomes highly natural and probable. The date of hearing in mutation case was fixed on 14.08.1984 and it was probable that in the evening, the deceased along with his son Sri Krishna had gone to the agricultural plot for ploughing it. In the face of this specific circumstance, the evidence of P.W.1 Sri Krishna and P.W.2 Meghnath that the murder was committed at about 5:30 P.M. on 14.08.1984 appears reliable and cannot be assailed. P.W.3 Dr. In the face of this specific circumstance, the evidence of P.W.1 Sri Krishna and P.W.2 Meghnath that the murder was committed at about 5:30 P.M. on 14.08.1984 appears reliable and cannot be assailed. P.W.3 Dr. P.K. Gupta, who has performed postmortem on the dead body of deceased Anokhey Lal, has opined that the death of the deceased had probably occurred at about 5-5:30 P.M. on 14.08.1984 and this aspect of the matter also fully supports the above evidence of the eye-witnesses. The defence has also not suggested any other time of the murder of the deceased and merely because P.W.3 Dr. P.K. Gupta gave out probability of difference of six hours on either side of the duration of the death of the deceased, it cannot be assumed that the murder was committed at some other time. 24. In short, it can be safely held that the murder of Anokhey Lal was committed in the agricultural plot of the deceased in village - Navadia-Baljit at about 5:30 P.M. on 14.08.1984 in the presence of these witnesses. 25. It has been held that the murder of the deceased was committed in the agricultural plot at about 5:30 P.M. on 14.08.1984. The possession of the deceased and his sons over the agricultural plot purchased from Hajari Singh is amply proved from the evidence of P.W.1 Sri Krishna and the other eye-witness P.W.2 Meghnath, who also owns land adjacent to the plot of the deceased which is recorded in the name of his uncle Dinanath, the co-tenant of the land. This plot has also been shown by the Investigating Officer in the site plan (Ext.Ka.11). There is nothing material in the cross-examination of these witnesses which may render their testimony on the point of the possession of the deceased over the agricultural plot which once belonged to Hajari Singh and others doubtful or untrustworthy. 26. Since, the murder was committed in the agricultural plot of the deceased, P.W.1 informant Sri Krishna is most natural and probable witness of the occurrence. He had accompanied his father-deceased Anokhey Lal to the agricultural plot with plough etc. for ploughing the field. As submitted by the learned AGA, it was quite natural for P.W.1 to accompany his father to the agricultural plot. He had accompanied his father-deceased Anokhey Lal to the agricultural plot with plough etc. for ploughing the field. As submitted by the learned AGA, it was quite natural for P.W.1 to accompany his father to the agricultural plot. P.W.1 has given a definite and cogent version of the occurrence by stating that as soon as his father started ploughing the land, the two accused-appellants namely accused-appellant no. 1, Jamadar Singh and accused-appellant no. 2, Phool Singh armed with licensed gun and country-made pistol respectively emerged out of their sugarcane field and after entering into the plot of the deceased, uttered some words and fired shots from their respective arms at the victim Anokhey Lal. Anokhey Lal got hit by fire-arm shots, fell on the plot and died instantaneously. Accused-appellant no. 1, Jamadar Singh also aimed his gun towards P.W.1, who took to his heels and saved himself by hiding in the nearby sugarcane field. 27. Learned counsel for the appellants sought to discredit the testimony of P.W.1 by pointing to some infirmities in his evidence and also by submitting that he being a close relative of the deceased, had a reason to depose falsely in support of the prosecution version. It may be pointed out at the outset that ordinarily a close relative would be last person to protect the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person. However, the evidence of such a witness should be subjected to careful scrutiny and accepted with care and caution. The discrepancy pointed out in his evidence is not so material so as to shake his basic version pertaining to the occurrence. The reason is that there is no substance in the argument that his evidence is in conflict with the number of shots which hit the deceased and the medical evidence of the Medical Officer, who performed autopsy on the dead body. There is not doubt that 3 to 4 shots were fired by the two accused-appellants. P.W.1 informant Sri Krishna has also stated that his father was hit by first shot and fell down on the ground. According to P.W.1 informant Sri Krishna, accused-appellant no. 1, Jamadar Singh was ahead of other accused-appellant and had probably fired the first shot at the victim. P.W.1 informant Sri Krishna has also stated that his father was hit by first shot and fell down on the ground. According to P.W.1 informant Sri Krishna, accused-appellant no. 1, Jamadar Singh was ahead of other accused-appellant and had probably fired the first shot at the victim. The evidence of P.W.1 on this point is fully corroborated by the evidence of another eye-witness P.W.2 Meghnath, who stated that the first shot was fired by the accused-appellant no. 1, Jamadar Singh and it had hit the victim Anokhey Lal. The evidence of P.W.2 does not indicate that any other shot fired had also hit the victim and in answer given by him to a question in cross-examination, he stated that he could not tell as to which part of the body had been hit by second shot. The victim amply lend credence to the evidence of P.W.1 that only one shot of the fire-arm which was fired by accused-appellant no. 1, Jamadar Singh had hit him. This was the reason that the doctor opined that the fire-arm injuries noted by him on the dead body of Anokhey Lal were caused by one shot and out of three injuries, one was entry wound while other two were the exit wounds. 28. Pointing out to the relative position of the assailants and the assailed as given by P.W.1 informant Sri Krishna, it was argued that it was not possible for the victim to have received the shot on the chest near the neck while ploughing the field from north to south. The assailants, according to P.W.1, were in the north-west of the victim. It may be pointed out that P.W.1 has clearly stated that before firing the shots, the accused-appellants had uttered some words which could not be deciphered by P.W.1 and it is probable that the victim, on hearing the voice of the assailants had turned towards them and at that very moment, he got hit by the shot fired by accused-appellant no. 1, Jamadar Singh from his fire-arm. In this way, there cannot be said to be any infirmity in the evidence of the witness on this point. 29. According to P.W.5 Jwala Prasad Sharma, the Investigating Officer of the case, the field was not found ploughed by him at the time of the inspection of the place of occurrence. 1, Jamadar Singh from his fire-arm. In this way, there cannot be said to be any infirmity in the evidence of the witness on this point. 29. According to P.W.5 Jwala Prasad Sharma, the Investigating Officer of the case, the field was not found ploughed by him at the time of the inspection of the place of occurrence. P.W.1 informant Sri Krishna has stated that as soon as his father had started ploughing the field, the two accused-appellants had appeared from the sugarcane field with their respective arms and the murderous assault was made soon after their appearance at that site. The evidence clearly indicates that probably the land of the plot had not been ploughed by the time the assault had been made and consequently, we are not inclined to accept the argument that the evidence of P.W.1 is contradicted by the Investigating Officer. Reference in this regard may also be made here to the statement of P.W.2 Meghnath, who has stated that one 'haria' had been ploughed before the actual occurrence of the assault. We do not find any cogent reason to accept the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that there are material contradictions on this point in the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2. Consequently, the evidence of P.W.1 as well as P.W.2 cannot be condemned on this point by making reference to the evidence of the Investigating Officer. 30. Criticism on the conduct of P.W.1 Sri Krishna was also made to suggest that he would not have left the place of the occurrence soon after the murder of his father and that his conduct indicates that he was not present at the place of the occurrence. It has come in the evidence of P.W.1 that after leaving the eye-witnesses P.W.2 Meghnath and Onkar at the place of occurrence for guarding his father's dead body, he himself had left for his home. After the murder, P.W.1 had rightly felt urgency of reporting the matter to the police and there is nothing unusual in his conduct in leaving the place of occurrence soon after the occurrence. The conduct of P.W.1, therefore, has no bearing on his credibility. 31. After the murder, P.W.1 had rightly felt urgency of reporting the matter to the police and there is nothing unusual in his conduct in leaving the place of occurrence soon after the occurrence. The conduct of P.W.1, therefore, has no bearing on his credibility. 31. According to P.W.1, he had accompanied the Investigating Officer from the police station after lodging the F.I.R. while moving in a jeep and further that the Investigating Officer stayed at his house during the night and also that the next morning, the dead body was dispatched in a tractor-trolley arranged by him at about 9 or 10 A.M. The evidence of P.W.5 Jwala Prasad Sharma, the Investigating Officer is that he had left the police station for the village, where the occurrence had taken place, on his bicycle, that he did not stay during the night at the house of the informant and that the dead body was dispatched in a bullock-cart at about 7:30 A.M. next day after completion of the formalities of the inquest. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants, there are apparent contradictions on this point in the evidence of the two witnesses but in our view, the discrepancies are minor and appear to have crept in the statement of P.W.1 informant Sri Krishna on account of some confusion and therefore, these do not go to the root of the matter and shake the basic version of the witness. Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down guidelines for appreciation of evidence of the witness in Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai vs. State of Gujarat, 1983 Cr.L.R. (SC) 396 and laid stress that much importance cannot be attached to minor discrepancies and for various reasons put forward by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. One of the reasons given as guidelines is that: "(7) A witness, though wholly truthful, is liable to be overawed by the Court atmosphere and the piercing cross-examination made by counsel and out of nervousness mix up facts, get confused regarding sequence of events, or fill up details from imagination on the spur of the moment. The sub-conscious mind of the witness sometimes so operates on account of the fear of looking foolish or being disbelieved though the witness is giving a truthful and honest account of the occurrence witnessed by him. Perhaps it is a sort of a psychological defence mechanism activated on the spur of the moment." 32. The sub-conscious mind of the witness sometimes so operates on account of the fear of looking foolish or being disbelieved though the witness is giving a truthful and honest account of the occurrence witnessed by him. Perhaps it is a sort of a psychological defence mechanism activated on the spur of the moment." 32. In State of Rajasthan vs. Smt. Kalki, 1981 (18) ACC 235 (SC), it was held that in the depositions of witnesses, there are always normal discrepancies however, honest and truthful they may be. These discrepancies are due to normal errors of observation, normal errors of memory, due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of the occurrence and the like material discrepancies are those which are not normal and not expected of a normal person. 33. In Chand Khan vs. State of U.P. 1995 (32) ACC 685 (SC), it was observed that minor discrepancies in evidence of eye-witnesses who have given convincing and reliable evidence with regard to details and manner of assault will not affect their evidentiary value. 34. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gosu Jairami Reddy and Another vs. State of A.P. 2011 (75) ACC 518 (SC), has observed that it is not always easy for any eye-witness to a ghastly murder to register precise number of injuries that were inflicted by assailants and part of the body on which the same were inflicted. A murderous assault is often a heart-rending spectacle in which even a witness wholly unconnected to the assailant or the victim may also get a feeling of revulsion at the gory sight involving merciless killing of a human being in cold blood. To expect from a witness who has gone through such a nightmarish experience, meticulous narration of who hit whom at what precise part of the body causing what kind of injury and leading to what kind of fractures or flow of how much blood, is to expect too much. Courts need to be realistic in their expectation from witnesses and go by what would be reasonable based on ordinary human conduct with ordinary human frailties of memory and power to register events and their details. Courts need to be realistic in their expectation from witnesses and go by what would be reasonable based on ordinary human conduct with ordinary human frailties of memory and power to register events and their details. A witness who is terrorized by the brutality of the attack cannot be disbelieved only because in his description of who hit the deceased on what part of the body there is some mix up or confusion. It is the totality of the evidence on record and its credibility that would eventually determine whether the prosecution has proved the charge against the accused. 35. Similar reasons hold good in the case of P.W.1 because the Investigating Officer of the case being a second officer of the police station and P.W.1 being conscious of the police officer's post and the facility of conveyance etc. available to the officer, must have given the above statement for fear of looking foolish or disbelieved although he was truthful regarding the actual occurrence of the case in which his father had been murdered before his own eyes. Likewise thinking that he was obliged to arrange for mode of conveyance to dispatch the dead body from the place of occurrence, he must have out of foolishness or in a spur of moment claimed that the dead body was dispatched by a tractor-trolley arranged by him and that it was followed by the jeep of the police officer. For these reasons and keeping in view the guidelines given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we are not inclined to attach undue importance to the above discrepancies in the evidence of the witness. More so when the evidence of the witness is in general agreement as to the material circumstance relating to the actual occurrence of the crime. The presence of the witness having been found to be natural and probable at the place of the occurrence, we find no cogent reason to disbelieve the evidence of the witness. 36. In short, the evidence of P.W.1 is reliable and it is held that the murder of Anokhey Lal took place at the place of occurrence before him and the accused-appellants were duly recognized and identified by him at that very time. 37. 36. In short, the evidence of P.W.1 is reliable and it is held that the murder of Anokhey Lal took place at the place of occurrence before him and the accused-appellants were duly recognized and identified by him at that very time. 37. As mentioned earlier, P.W.2 has got his plot adjacent to the plot in which the murder has been committed and his presence in his field is also proved by the evidence of P.W.1. This witness was scrapping grass when the occurrence took place and saw two accused-appellants armed with their respective weapons firing shots at the victim Anokhey Lal. The evidence of P.W.2 is definite on the point that accused-appellant no. 1, Jamadar Singh has fired first shot and it had hit victim Anokhey Lal, who later on fell on the ground. P.W.2 has also described the distance between the assailants and the assailed and it was according to him about 10-12 paces. This aspect of the matter finds support from the evidence of P.W.3 Dr. P.K. Gupta, who performed the postmortem on the dead body of the deceased and did not find blackening, scorching and tattooing at the site of the gun shot wound. The distance described by P.W.2 also explains that there could not have been much dispersal of the pellets and the medical evidence of the case is not in conflict with the direct evidence of the witnesses of the case. The Investigating Officer has mentioned the length and width of the plot in terms of paces in the site-plan (Ext.Ka.11) and it was wrongly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants that the shot was fired from a distance of about 86 paces. The distance relates to length of the plot and in the face of the direct reliable evidence of P.W.2, it makes little difference that the actual distance of the assailants and assailed has not been mentioned or exhibited in the site plan. 38. P.W.2 was also questioned in the cross-examination to disclose the place where P.W.1 was standing at the time of the murderous assault on the victim. He replied that P.W.1 was standing at the periphery of the sugarcane plot of Lala Ram and this reply is in conformity with the deposition of P.W.1 himself on the aforesaid point. 38. P.W.2 was also questioned in the cross-examination to disclose the place where P.W.1 was standing at the time of the murderous assault on the victim. He replied that P.W.1 was standing at the periphery of the sugarcane plot of Lala Ram and this reply is in conformity with the deposition of P.W.1 himself on the aforesaid point. The relative position of the assailants and the assailed have also been rightly described by him and there is no need to make repetition here as to how the victim had received gun shot wound on the front side near the neck. 39. The evidence of P.w.2 also clearly explains the presence of the injury of one fire-arm shot and it cannot be said that he had not witnessed the occurrence and came to depose falsely on account of relationship with the victim. 40. P.W.2 is a nephew of the victim and the reason of accepting his evidence is also similar to that of other eye-witness P.W.1. The evidence being definite and cogent, it cannot be said that the witness had seen the real culprit and deposed falsely against these accused-appellants. 41. Learned counsel for the appellants drew our attention to the evidence of P.W.5 Jwala Prasad Sharma, the Investigating Officer who stated that the statements of eye-witnesses were recorded by him at about 3-4 P.M. and that these witnesses including P.W.2 Meghnath had left the place of occurrence at about 4 P.M. P.W.2 Meghnath has, however, stated that he met the Investigating Officer soon after the dead body was sealed and he had a talk with him and he pointed out relevant spots to the Investigating Officer. P.W.2 was not questioned to disclose the time of his meeting with the Investigating Officer or also the time of his giving statement to the Investigating Officer and therefore, it cannot be said that there is contradiction in the statement of P.W.2 and the Investigating Officer and no unfavourable inference can be drawn against his credibility. P.W.2 was not questioned to disclose the time of his meeting with the Investigating Officer or also the time of his giving statement to the Investigating Officer and therefore, it cannot be said that there is contradiction in the statement of P.W.2 and the Investigating Officer and no unfavourable inference can be drawn against his credibility. The witness has strongly denied the suggestion that he had not seen the occurrence and in our view, there is nothing material in his cross-examination which may in any way create suspicion about his credibility and therefore, we come to the conclusion that P.W.2 is truthful witness and he has given the correct version of the occurrence in which the victim Anokhey Lal was fired at by the two accused-appellants and was actually got hit by the first fire-arm shot by accused-appellant no. 1, Jamadar Singh and died at the spot thereof. 42. The F.I.R. in this case has also been challenged as ante-timed. F.I.R. of the case was lodged at the police station at 7:35 P.M. on the day of the occurrence. The distance between the police station and the place of occurrence is 9 Km. The occurrence took place at about 5:30 A.M. and considering the distance between the two places, it is evident that the F.I.R. was lodged within a reasonable time and it is difficult to believe that a false story was concocted in such a short time before filing the report. In other words, the F.I.R. of the case also corroborates with evidence of the prosecution mentioned above. It will not be out of place to mention here again that the medical evidence adduced in the case also supports the version of the witnesses and there is nothing to indicate that the F.I.R. was filed after deliberation and concoction. 43. Learned counsel for the appellants has levelled strong criticism of the investigation of the case and the conduct of the P.W.5 Jwala Prasad Sharma, the Investigating Officer to bring home his point of view that the investigation being unfair and tainted, creates suspicion in the prosecution version and that recorded conviction of the accused-appellants on the basis of such tainted investigation cannot be maintained. 44. Discrepancies in the statements of the Investigating Officer and P.W.1 have been pointed out earlier and there is no need to make repetition here with relation to the evidence of the Investigating Officer. 44. Discrepancies in the statements of the Investigating Officer and P.W.1 have been pointed out earlier and there is no need to make repetition here with relation to the evidence of the Investigating Officer. Whatever may be the contradictions, the same are minor and have no bearing on the credibility of the Investigating Officer also. 45. In the inquest report (Ext.Ka.5), the Investigating Officer has mentioned the distance between the village of occurrence and the police station as 12 Km. The distance of the place of the occurrence from police station has, however, been mentioned as 9 Km. in the check F.I.R. (Ext.Ka.3). Pointing out to this discrepancy, learned counsel for the appellants claimed that probably the F.I.R. was not in existence when the Investigating Officer reached the spot to hold inquest on the dead body of the deceased and the F.I.R. was therefore, filed with a concocted version. 46. However, in the instant case, it appears that the Investigating Officer has mentioned the distance of 12 Km. between the village Navadia-Baljit and the police station and whereas said distance has been mentioned as 9 Km. in the check F.I.R. (Ext.Ka.3). There is no other infirmity in the papers relating to the inquest and it appears that the Investigating Officer had written the distance of 12 Km. as per his own personal knowledge without ascertaining the distance mentioned in the F.I.R. which had been with him at that time. The crime number etc. and other particulars of the case have been duly mentioned in the documents of the inquest and there is neither alteration nor addition in any of the documents of the inquest and consequently, it cannot be accepted that the F.I.R. came into existence later on. 47. The Investigating Officer had reached the place of occurrence at 22:30 hours on 14.08.1984 and due to night hours could not hold inquest on the dead body. He took various steps towards the investigation next morning. His statement is to the effect that after holding inquest on the dead body and doing other formalities of the investigation, he recorded statements of P.W.2 Meghnath and Onkar at about 3-4 P.M. and made search of the accused-appellants thereafter, in the evening. He took various steps towards the investigation next morning. His statement is to the effect that after holding inquest on the dead body and doing other formalities of the investigation, he recorded statements of P.W.2 Meghnath and Onkar at about 3-4 P.M. and made search of the accused-appellants thereafter, in the evening. There is nothing unusual about deferring the investigation formalities for the next day due to darkness and we are not inclined to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that no investigation took place in the night as no F.I.R. was in existence by that time and also the identity of the accused-appellants was not known till then. After holding inquest and inspecting the place of occurrence, statements of the witnesses were recorded and therefore, there had been no undue delay in recording the statements of the eye-witnesses of the occurrence. 48. The Investigating Officer had not marked the place where the accused-appellants were stationed at the time of firing shots and where the informant and other witnesses were standing at the place of occurrence in the site plan (Ext.Ka.11) although he had marked material and relevant places where the dead body was found lying, the blood was found split on the field, the place where the plough and yoke were found placed in the field and also the spot from where the empty cartridges were recovered and consequently, it cannot be said that there had been serious discrepancies in the conduct of the investigation of the case. It also makes no difference if P.W.2 Meghnath claimed that he had shown some other places to the Investigating Officer at the time of preparation of the site plan. Further, it emerges out from the statement of P.W.5 Jwala Prasad Sharma, the Investigating Officer that he had not mentioned the time of arrival at the place of occurrence and time of inspection of the site in the case diary and this aspect of the matter also shows serious infirmity in the investigation of the case. In this connection, the learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Subhash and Another vs. State of U.P. 1976 SCC (Cri.) 483 to support the contention that such type of lapses in the investigation are fatal to the prosecution case. In this connection, the learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Subhash and Another vs. State of U.P. 1976 SCC (Cri.) 483 to support the contention that such type of lapses in the investigation are fatal to the prosecution case. Taking into account the overall picture of the case, the evidence of P.W.5 Jwala Prasad Sharma, the Investigating Officer and the various steps taken by him towards investigation of the case, we are of the view that the discrepancies pointed out are neither serious nor material to raise any suspicion in the prosecution version. There is nothing to indicate that the Investigating Officer had changed the natural course of the events of the occurrence and prepared any false documents. No alteration or addition in any of the documents prepared by him has been found and therefore, even if there has been some infirmities, these were solely the result of negligence on the part of the Investigating Officer and not on account of any improvement or embellishment on the part of the prosecution witnesses and therefore, the principle laid down in the reported decision can neither safely be applied to the facts of the case nor it can be held that the investigation conducted in this case was either tainted or unfair. 49. The evidence of P.W.1 informant Sri Krishna about the purchase of the land from Hajari Singh and others has remained un-rebutted and he was not even challenged by the defence during his cross-examination. The two accused-appellants have admitted litigation with the deceased regarding mutation of the names in respect of the land of Hajari Singh purchased by the informant and his brother. The accused-appellants are connected with the family of Hajari Singh and have been resisting the move of the informant for getting his name mutated in the records relating to the land. The accused-appellants although have alleged their possession over the disputed land but the evidence of the prosecution adduced in the case as mentioned above is sufficient to prove possession of the informant party. On account of possession of the informant and his father and also by reason of litigation in respect of the land, the accused-appellants were highly perturbed and on seeing the informant and his father working in the plot made up their mind to commit the heinous crime. On account of possession of the informant and his father and also by reason of litigation in respect of the land, the accused-appellants were highly perturbed and on seeing the informant and his father working in the plot made up their mind to commit the heinous crime. The evidence and circumstances of the case, thus, amply prove the motive for commission of the crime. There is not even a remotest possibility of false implication of the accused-appellants in this case. 50. Thus, upon a holistic view of the facts and circumstances of the case and a threadbare scrutiny and a careful analysis of the facts on record, both oral as well as documentary, we have come to the conclusion that the learned Trial Judge did not commit any error or illegality in convicting the accused-appellant no. 1, Jamadar Singh u/s 302 I.P.C. and sentencing him to imprisonment for life. 51. This appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. 52. The accused-appellant no. 1, Jamadar Singh is on bail. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pilibhit shall ensure that he is forthwith taken into custody and sent to jail for serving out the remaining part of his sentence.