JUDGMENT : MOHAMMAD RAFIQ, J. 1. All these appeals, filed by accused-appellants namely; Lallu @ Rehamat, Hussain, Mehboob, Sharif, Bashir, Pappu @ Sharafat, Kamru @ Kamruddin and Muhar Khan, are directed against the judgment passed by the Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Alwar dated 12.02.2008, who convicted and sentenced them in the following manner: U/s.302/149 IPC- life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5000/- each, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one year rigorous imprisonment. U/s.148 IPC- three year rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo three months simple imprisonment. U/s.307/149 IPC- seven years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.2000/- each, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo nine months rigorous imprisonment. U/s.324/149 IPC- one year simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month simple imprisonment. U/s.323/149 IPC-three months simple imprisonment. 2. Accused-appellants Kamru @ Kamruddin and Muhar Khan have also been convicted for offence u/s.3/25 of Arms Act and sentenced to one year simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo six months simple imprisonment. 3. It has been ordered that all the sentence of accused-appellants shall run concurrently. 4. Skeletal facts giving rise to these appeals are that one Aasin Khan (PW1) submitted a written report (Ex.P1) to SHO Police Station Ramgarh, Alwar that at 8.45 PM on 16.10.2005 with regard to an incident, which happened on that day at around 6.20 PM. According to him, he and his brother Razzak, S/o Asram, Khurshid S/o Juhuru, Jaikam S/o Moj Khan, Islam S/o Moj Khan, Sapat and Aasin S/o Pantu Khan were offering prayers in the mosque. While they were returning thereafter towards their house, certain anti social elements encircled them at some distance. They were armed with guns and ‘farsis’. Their names were Lallu @ Rehmat S/o Bharpu, Bashir S/o Amriya, Pappu @ Sharafat S/o Lallu @ Rehmat, Sharif, Mehboob & Hussain Khan sons of Amriya Khan and Mohar Khan & Kamru sons of Jai Singh. The accused opened fire at the complainant and his brothers and started beating them by ‘farsis’. Lallu fired at Razzak, as a result of which he died on the spot. The accused opened fire at the complainant and his brothers and started beating them by ‘farsis’. Lallu fired at Razzak, as a result of which he died on the spot. Thereafter Bashir and Muhar Khan opened fire at Khurshid, who too instantly died on the spot. Rest of the accused caused injuries to the members of complaint party by opening fire and use of ‘farsis’. Jaikam sustained a firearm injury on his left thigh, Sapat Khan sustained injury on his hand and head by ‘farsi’, Islam and Aasin also sustained injuries of ‘farsis’ on their head. The SHO, Police Station Ramgarh on receipt of the aforesaid report, sent the same to the Police Station, which came to be registered as FIR No.281/2005 for offence u/s.147, 148, 149, 323, 341, 307 and 302 IPC. The postmortem of the dead body of Khurshid and Razzak was conducted vide postmortem report Ex.P33 and P34. Initially medical examination of Jaikam was also got conducted at Alwar, who thereafter was referred to Jaipur for further treatment. As per the injury report of Jaikam (Ex.P4), he sustained one firearm injury and as per the injury report of Aasin, Islam and Sapat Khan Ex.P2, P37 and P39 respectively, they sustained two injuries each, which were simple. Dr. Shyam Mohan Goyal (PW13) advised x-ray for the injury of Jaikam, which is evident from the injured report Ex.P4, but no xray report has been produced on record. As per Ex.P35, P35A, P36 and P36A produced by the prosecution, injured Jaikam Khan was operated at SMS Hospital, Jaipur and pellets were extracted from his left thigh by Dr. Rajendra Prasad Asat (PW10). On conclusion of the investigation, police filed charge sheet against accused appellants Muhar Khan and Kamruddin for offence under Sections 148, 323, 324, 307, 302 and 3/25 of the Arms Act and against accused-appellants Pappu @ Sharafat, Sharif, Mehboob and Hussain for offence under Sections 147, 323, 302, 307 IPC. In addition to them, the Court took cognizance against accused-appellants Bashir and Lallu for offence u/s.147, 148, 323, 324, 307 and 302 IPC. Charges against the accused-appellants were framed for the aforesaid offences, which they denied and claimed to be tried. The prosecution produced 17 witnesses and exhibited 58 documents. The learned trial court by the impugned judgment convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants in the manner indicated above. Hence these appeals. 5. Charges against the accused-appellants were framed for the aforesaid offences, which they denied and claimed to be tried. The prosecution produced 17 witnesses and exhibited 58 documents. The learned trial court by the impugned judgment convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants in the manner indicated above. Hence these appeals. 5. We have heard Shri Arvind Kumar Gupta for appellants in appeal nos.563/08, 211/08 and 458/08, Shri Hemant Gupta for appellants in appeal no.518/2008, Shri R.S. Raghav, learned Public Prosecutor and Shri Suresh Sahni for complainant. 6. Shri Arvind Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the accused-appellants Lallu @ Rehamat, Hussain, Mehboob, Sharif, Bashir and Pappu @ Sharafat has argued that the trial court has erred in law in relying on the testimony of Aasin (PW1), Jaikam Khan (PW2), Sapat (PW4) and Islam (PW11), the injured eye witnesses, who were closely related to the deceased and thereafter have not spoken the truth. Their tendency has been to implicate as many persons as possible. It is submitted that except the injury of Jaikam, remaining three witnesses have sustained two injuries, which are simple and superficial in nature. None of the injured including Jaikam, had pellet injuries, whereas the deceased died of pellet injuries caused by a country made 12 bore gun. Learned counsel submitted that Dr. Shyam Mohan Goyal (PW13), the Medical Officer-in-charge of the Primary Health Centre, Mubarikapur has stated that the police gave him requisition for medical examination of injured at 7.45 PM on 16.10.2005 and that he conducted the medical examination of Jaikam, Aasin, Islam and Sapat Khan. Learned counsel argued that the written report in the present case was submitted to the police at 8.45 PM, that means that the investigation had started even before the lodgement of the FIR. Even the Investigating Officer Ajay Yadav (PW16) admitted in the examination in chief that investigation had been started even before the lodgment of FIR. The prosecution, therefore, had ample opportunity to fabricate the case by implicating as many persons as accused as could be possible to synchronize with the medical evidence. The FIR was thus hit by Section 162 Cr.P.C. and could not be taken as the basis for investigation. The prosecution, therefore, had ample opportunity to fabricate the case by implicating as many persons as accused as could be possible to synchronize with the medical evidence. The FIR was thus hit by Section 162 Cr.P.C. and could not be taken as the basis for investigation. Learned counsel in support of his arguments has relied on judgment of the Supreme Court in Ravindra @ Ravi Bansi Gohar vs. State of Maharashtra- AIR 1998 SC 3031 , Ganesh Gagoi vs. State of Assam- AIR 2009 SC 2955 and division bench judgment of this Court in Satpal vs. State of Rajasthan-1992 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 76. 7. Learned counsel argued that Dr. Phool Singh (PW9), the medical jurist has categorically stated while giving his opinion on the basis of postmortem report of deceased Khurshid (Ex.P33) and Razzak (Ex.P34) that the density of the pellets was concentrated at one place in the body of both deceased, which indicates that the injury has been caused by only one firearm. This according to learned counsel means that only one person fired at both the deceased by one firearm. The prosecution has therefore falsely implicated large number of persons. Rajendra Kumar Asat (PW10) stated that there was fracture of left thigh bone of Jaikam Khan and, therefore, he was subjected to surgery and screws have to be used to fix his bone. The pellets were extracted from his body and were sealed and given to the medical jurist. However, Hansraj (PW15), Constable at Police Station Ramgarh, who was deputed to collect the same, has stated that he collected a sealed bottle containing pellets, which he submitted in the Police Station. There is thus mismatch in the statement of Rajendra Kumar Asat (PW10). 8. Learned counsel argued that Aasin Khan (PW1) has stated that though he did not see any used cartridge at the place of incident, but one round was lifted by the police, whereas the Investigating Officer Ajay Yadav (PW16) has stated that neither any bullet, nor pellet nor round was recovered from the place of incident. Learned counsel submitted that in view of the statement of PW1, an adverse inference should be drawn against the prosecution and it should be presumed by virtue of Section 114 of the Evidence Act that the round that was recovered from the place of incident was not deliberately produced. 9. Learned counsel submitted that in view of the statement of PW1, an adverse inference should be drawn against the prosecution and it should be presumed by virtue of Section 114 of the Evidence Act that the round that was recovered from the place of incident was not deliberately produced. 9. Learned counsel submitted that Jaikam Khan (PW2) himself does not say in his statement that he was subjected to surgery at Jaipur and pellets were extracted from his body. It has not been proved by the prosecution that the documents Ex.P35, 35A, 36 and 36A show that Jaikam Khan, whose treatment has been made, is, in fact, the injured Jaikam Khan S/o Moj Khan as in these documents, neither name of his father, nor age, nor even the address of Jaikam Khan has been given and, therefore, his identity cannot be taken to have been proved. No document has been produced to show that Jaikam Khan was referred from Government Hospital, Alwar to SMS Hospital, Jaipur. Besides, there are material contradictions and improvements in his statement. While in the police statement (Ex.D2) he stated that gun was fired from the residence of Lallu, but in the Court statement he has stated that it was fired from his shop. There is however considerable distance between the two. 10. Learned counsel argued that the injuries sustained by Aasin (PW1) are simple in nature. As would be evident from his injury report (Ex.P2), he had swelling at two places, both of which are simple by blunt weapon. That means he did not have any external injury. Similarly, Islam as per his injury report (Ex.P37) sustained only two injuries with respect to which he was advised x-ray, but none of them was found to have resulted in fracture. These injuries cannot be said to be caused by ‘farsis’. Had a ‘farsi’ been actually used, the injury would have certainly result in fracture. Sapat Khan sustained only two simple injuries by blunt weapon in respect of both of which, he was advised x-ray, but none of them resulted in fracture. In fact, the injury report (Ex.P39) of Sapat Khan was as per the prosecution prepared at 12.30 pm on 19.10.2005, but Sapat Khan in Court statement has stated that his medical examination was conducted three days after the incident. In fact, the injury report (Ex.P39) of Sapat Khan was as per the prosecution prepared at 12.30 pm on 19.10.2005, but Sapat Khan in Court statement has stated that his medical examination was conducted three days after the incident. Learned counsel therefore submitted that MLR of Sapat Khan is not examined, however a forged MLR (Ex.P39) has been produced. It is submitted that Omkar Singh (PW12), the Assistant Sub Inspector has stated that SHO left the place of incident at 6.00 PM and returned back at 9.30 PM, whereas Ajay Yadav (PW16), who was also Investigating Officer has stated that he received the information on phone at 6.45 PM and immediately started for the place of incident and returned back to the Police Station at 7.15 PM. Thus the statement of these two witnesses are contradictory to each other. 11. Shri Arvind Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the accused-appellants further submitted that the police in the present case have recorded statement of the important witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. with enormous delay. The statement of informant Aasin Khan (Ex.D1) was recorded belatedly on 22.10.2005 i.e. six days after the incident. Similarly, the statement of Jaikam Khan (Ex.D2) was recorded on 4.11.2005 i.e. eighteen days after the incident. Similarly, statement of Islam Khan (Ex.D5) was recorded on 26.10.2005 after ten days of the incident. The Investigating Officer Ajay Yadav (PW16) has in cross examination stated that he visited the witnesses, but the witnesses did not give any statement on the pretext that the death had taken place in their family, but later they gave statement as per their will, which was duly recorded. The earliest of the four statements was recorded on 22.10.2005. Learned counsel argued that prosecution has withheld genesis of the incident and has not produced independent witnesses. In fact, Aasin Khan (PW1) has not stated that Jaikam was with them and they were returning from the mosque after offering prayers, which would mean that Jaikam has not received the pellet injuries in the present case. Besides, this witness has also stated that there were about 20-25 persons, who were offering prayer in the mosque. Jahur Khan (PW3) and Sapat (PW4) have stated that there were about 25 persons, who were offering prayers at the mosque. Ajay Yadav (PW16), SHO has stated the mosque was about 100 meters from the place of incident. Besides, this witness has also stated that there were about 20-25 persons, who were offering prayer in the mosque. Jahur Khan (PW3) and Sapat (PW4) have stated that there were about 25 persons, who were offering prayers at the mosque. Ajay Yadav (PW16), SHO has stated the mosque was about 100 meters from the place of incident. He stated that his investigation proved that about 50-60 persons offered the prayers in the mosque on that day. Even then, he could not give any satisfactory explanation why no independent prosecution witness was examined. If all the villagers, who offered the prayers in the mosque were going towards their house together, why the police has not examined a single independent-witness has not been explained. An adverse inference therefore ought to be drawn against the prosecution that had they produced independent witnesses, they would have deposed against them. 12. Learned counsel referred to the site plan (Ex.P3) and argued that as per the prosecution witnesses, the deceased and injured were coming from mosque situated on the western side and moving towards the eastern side when they were fired at. Razzak sustained firearm injury at place ‘x’, Jaikam sustained firearm injury at place ‘x1’ and Khurshid received firearm injury at place ‘x2’. The house of Lallu is indicated at place ‘6’ in the site plan, the open space lying adjacent to his house is indicated at place ‘7’ and shop of Lallu are indicated at place ‘9’. While in the written report/FIR, the informant did not indicate the specific place from where the fire was opened, but in the statement given to the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the initial stand of the prosecution witnesses Aasin, Jaikam and Islam was that accused attacked them from the house of Lallu, but Aasin and Jaikam changed their version in the Court and have stated that the accused opened fire at the deceased and the complainant party from the shop, thus reducing the distance between the place from where the fire was opened and the place from where the accused were present. It is submitted that as per the postmortem reports Ex.P33 and P34, both the deceased Khurshid and Razzak had sustained injuries on the left side of their chest, which, if they were moving from the western side towards eastern side was impossible. It is submitted that as per the postmortem reports Ex.P33 and P34, both the deceased Khurshid and Razzak had sustained injuries on the left side of their chest, which, if they were moving from the western side towards eastern side was impossible. Even in that case, they could have sustained the firearm injury only on the right side of the chest. Similarly, the injury report of Jaikam (Ex.P4) indicates that he sustained a punctured wound 0.2 x 0.4 cm at the left of thigh on anterior aspect near grain region. Learned counsel argued that in the first place, size of the punctured wound does not prove that he sustained any pellet injury, which is why Hansraj (PW15) stated that he deposited the pellet with the Police Station in sealed cover after collecting from SMS Hospital does not match with the statement of Dr. Rajendra Prasad Asat (PW10). Secondly, it was impossible if the accused were fired at either from the shop of Lallu or the house, both of which were located on the right hand side of the deceased and injured when they were moving towards the eastern side, then injured Jaikam Khan could not have received the injury on the anterior side of the thigh near grain region, which is possible only if somebody had fired at him from the left side i.e. southern side facing him. Learned counsel at this stage also referred to the recovery memo of the deceased Razzak (Ex.P7), which indicates that pellets entered from the left side of the shirt and the recovery memo of deceased Khurshid (Ex.P8), which also indicates that the pellets entered from the left side of the shirt. With the help of this, learned counsel argued that the genesis of the incident has been withheld by the prosecution and a false story has been set up to implicate as many accused as possible. The ‘pajama’ of the Jaikam has not been produced and, therefore, an adverse inference be drawn against the prosecution by virtue of Section 115 of the Evidence Act that had the same been produced, it would have also gone against the prosecution. 13. The ‘pajama’ of the Jaikam has not been produced and, therefore, an adverse inference be drawn against the prosecution by virtue of Section 115 of the Evidence Act that had the same been produced, it would have also gone against the prosecution. 13. Learned counsel submitted that while no recovery has been shown at the instance of Basir Khan, the recovery of one ‘lathi’ each at the instance of Pappu (Ex.P13) & Sharif Khan (Ex.P15), recovery of ‘farsi’ at the instance of Mehboob vide memo Ex.P14 and recovery of ‘farsi’ at the instance of Hussain Khan vide Ex.P16 does not connect the accused with the crime because none of them were sent to FSL to prove the presence of blood on them. Similarly, recovery of 12 bore country made ‘katta’ at the instance of Muhar Khan vide recovery memo Ex.P11 also cannot be read against him because the Hanif (PW5) has stated that it was the wife of Muhar Khan, who gave the gun to the police. Similarly, recovery of 12 bore country made gun vide Ex.P12 at the instance of Kamru @ Kamruddin also does not furnish any evidence against him. Learned counsel submitted that the FSL report (Ex.P54) merely proves the pallet recovered from the body of deceased Razzak and Khurshid having blood stains of human origin. The FSL report (Ex.P55) merely proves that two guns recovered at the instance of accused were serviceable firearm. Since no ballistic expert was examined, there was no evidence before the learned trial court whether these guns were used for opening fire at the deceased. Learned counsel in support of his arguments relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mohinder Singh vs. the State- AIR 1953 SC 415 , Santa Singh vs. State of Punjab- AIR 1956 SC 526 and Brijpal Singh vs. State of M.P.- AIR 2003 SC 2460 . 14. Shri Hemant Gupta, learned counsel for the appearing for the accused-appellants Kamru @ Kamruddin and Muhar Khan in appeal no.518/2008 has submitted that both the accused-appellants have been convicted with the aid of Section 149 IPC. Muhar Khan and Kamruddin are implicated for the single wound on the person of deceased Khurshid. Lallu and Bashir have been implicated for injury on deceased Razzak by the witnesses when they appeared before the Court. It is argued that the important witnesses viz. Muhar Khan and Kamruddin are implicated for the single wound on the person of deceased Khurshid. Lallu and Bashir have been implicated for injury on deceased Razzak by the witnesses when they appeared before the Court. It is argued that the important witnesses viz. Mauj Khan, Amin Khan, Deenu, Samsuddin, Ahamad, Nasaru, Najruddin, Rahaman Khan, Isak Khan, Asgar, Iqbal and Nawal Khan have not been examined by the prosecution and therefore an adverse inference should be drawn against the prosecution as had these witnesses have been produced, they would have deposed against the prosecution. 15. Learned counsel referred to the findings recorded by the learned trial court in paras 32 to 37 of the impugned judgment where the finding has been recorded on the basis of statement of Dr. Phool Singh (PW9) that deceased Razzak and Khurshid have sustained the firearm injuries only by one common firearm. Learned counsel also referred to statement of Hanif (PW5) and submitted that this witness has categorically stated that “katta” was produced by wife of Kamruddin from his house, which would mean that this recovery can be attributed to Kamruddin. The learned trial court even though has noted this fact in para 39 of the judgment, yet has illegally read that recovery against the accused. It has on the basis of statement of Nafe Singh (PW7), the H.C. Armorer of the Police concluded that these weapons were used in the incident, whereas the FSL report stated that “katta” and the pistol were service weapons of the firearm, but no definite opinion as to the duration of their last use has been produced. Learned counsel submitted that in the facts like this, Section 149 has wrongly been invoked. Learned counsel relying on the judgments of Supreme Court in Pulukuri Kottaya & Ors. vs. Emperor-AIR 1947 Privy Council 67, Amit Singh Bhikam Singh Thakur vs. State of Maharashtra- (2007) 2 SCC 310 and-Mani vs. State of Tamil Nadu- AIR 2008 SC 1021 and argued that recovery of crime object/weapon of offence on the basis of information rightly given by the accused merely provides a link in the chain of circumstances, but it seldom the foundation of the prosecution case. 16. 16. Shri R.S. Raghav, learned Public Prosecutor for the State and Shri Suresh Sahni, learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the appeals and argued that that Ajay Yadav (PW16), Investigating Officer was hand in glove with the accused as a result of that various irregularities and illegalities qua the preparation of record were deliberately committed by him in order to screen the offenders. The learned trial court vide judgment dated 12.02.2008 had adequately commented adversely upon the contaminated conduct of this delinquent officer but also visited with the scathing observations that as stated by the eye witnesses Jaikam (PW2), Sapat (PW4) and Islam (PW11), that on information, the investigating officer Ajay Yadav (PW16) had reached the hospital and dead body of Khurshid and Razzak was taken by the injured to the hospital at Ramgarh hospital and that the investigating officer did not take the dead body by his private vehicle to the hospital. The Investigating Officer against all the canons of professional propriety, law and justice in his cross-examination on 05.05.2007 gave a clean chit qua the culpability of accused Bhashir and Lallu by saying that he did not find that Lallu and Bashir were involved in the case and that they caused firearm to Razzak and Khurshid. 17. Shri Suresh Sahni, learned counsel for the complainant argued that it is the settled proposition of law in terms of section 7 of Evidence Act that the site plan shall be independently prepared by the Investigating Officer and whatever he sees from his own eyes and whatever is perceived by him independently shall be the basis of site plan. The I.O. taking advantage of the rustic status of the witnesses prepared the site plan in a manner which suits the case of the defense and delayed recording of the statement of witnesses’ and deliberately admitted in cross-examination in order to screen the offenders that the witnesses did not turn up for recording of statements despite repeated reminders. The admission in the cross examination that this witness did not call the witnesses to record their statement, but he again and again went to them, but the witnesses due to death in their home, did not turn up to record their statement reflects beyond any shred of doubt that Ajay (PW6), I.O. collided with the accused. The admission in the cross examination that this witness did not call the witnesses to record their statement, but he again and again went to them, but the witnesses due to death in their home, did not turn up to record their statement reflects beyond any shred of doubt that Ajay (PW6), I.O. collided with the accused. He did not issue any notice in terms of section 160 Cr.P.C. to establish the fact that the witnesses despite being asked for recording of statements were not coming intentionally. 18. Learned counsel argued that Dr. Phool Singh (PW9) who performed the autopsy on the person of the deceased, namely, Khurshid and Razak, admitted in his cross-examination that the injuries to both the deceased could be the result of single fire. Dr. Phool Singh (PW9) was not any ballistic expert and opinion regarding the nature of the fire arm was quite alien to his expertise but the witness connived with the accused in a clandestine manner to extend uncalled for favour upon the accused which otherwise is an offence under the law. 19. Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the gravity of the offence speaks in volumes that not only two persons died but the four persons also received injuries at the hands of the accused and Islam (PW11) received the injuries and was referred to SMS Hospital, Jaipur and after surgery on his thigh, a bullet was extracted and in this context, PW10 has proved the admission cum-discharge ticket, bed head ticket and the surgical note vide Ex.P35, P35A, and P36. The defence has raised a very strange argument that Dr. Rajendra Prasad Sat (PW10) has not identified as to who was injured Islam (PW11). The defence had made spectacle of itself qua the aforesaid argument, for it is complete and conclusive mandate of Section 59 of the Evidence Act that a fact for which documentary evidence exists cannot be proved through the oral evidence. The documentary evidence qua treatment of Islam (PW11) was available by way of Ex.P35, P35A and P36 and the same was duly proved by Dr. Rajendra Prasad (PW10) is consonance with the law stated, hereinbefore. The defence did not put any question in cross-examination of Dr. Rajendra Prasad (PW10) and to the injured Islam (PW11) qua the contents of Ex.P35, P35A and P36. 20. Rajendra Prasad (PW10) is consonance with the law stated, hereinbefore. The defence did not put any question in cross-examination of Dr. Rajendra Prasad (PW10) and to the injured Islam (PW11) qua the contents of Ex.P35, P35A and P36. 20. Shri Suresh Sahni argued that the accused Lallu and Bashir have taken the plea of alibi is terms of section 11 of Evidence Act but no evidence was led by them and no suggestion was given to the witnesses in cross-examination. It is argued that the firearms recovered from the accused Muhar Khan, Kamsu @ Kamsuddin were sent to the FSL and the FSL report (Ex.P54) has given the positive report qua their serviceability and the recent use of those exhibits. The FSL report is admissible in terms of Section 293 Cr.P.C. The defense could not muster the courage to put any question qua the authenticity of the seizure and the FSL report. Learned counsel argued that it is the settled proposition of law that witnesses are the eyes and ears of the justice and the injured witnesses have stated explicitly and unambiguously that the accused formed the unlawful assembly and shared the common object to commit the crime. The little variance in the testimonies of these rustic witnesses is of no significance and does not extend any help to the defense. It is also settled proposition of law that when ocular evidence is cogent, credible and trustworthy, minor variance, if any, shall not be of any consequence for it cannot be expected from the prosecution to prove its case by mathematical precision or enumerate as to how many units would constitute the proof of reasonable doubt; the doubt moves on subjective element in the evaluation of degree of probability and quantum of proof. In this connection, he relied on the judgments of Supreme Court in Krishnan & Anr. vs. State (Represented by Inspector of Police)- (2003) 7 SCC and State of U.P. V/s Krishna Gopal-(1988) 4 SCC 302. 21. Learned counsel for the complainant further argued that it is also the settled law that no particular number of witnesses shall be required to prove any fact. Section 134 of the Evidence Act is very specific on this issue. The argument of the defense that the independent persons of the locality were not examined is devoid of law and logic. Learned counsel for the complainant further argued that it is also the settled law that no particular number of witnesses shall be required to prove any fact. Section 134 of the Evidence Act is very specific on this issue. The argument of the defense that the independent persons of the locality were not examined is devoid of law and logic. Reliance in this connection is made to the judgments of the Supreme Court in State of M. P. V/s. Dharkole- (2004) 13 SCC 308 and Marathi V/s. State of U.P.- AIR 1965 SC 202 . 22. Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that there is long line of uninterrupted Judicial pronouncements having the force of Article 141 of the Constitution of India that the injury on the injured witness is the stamp of his presence in the incident; the evidence of injured witnesses is entitled to greater weight and his testimony is to be considered beyond reproach. Firm, cogent and convincing ground is required to discard the evidence of injured witness. It is to be kept in mind that the evidentiary value of an injured witness carries great weight. In this connection reference is made to the judgment of Supreme Court in Mukesh & Anr. vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors.- (2017) 6 SCC 1 . It is therefore prayed that the appeal preferred by the accused deserves to be dismissed. The astounding conduct of the Dr. Phool Singh (PW9) and Ajay Yadav (PW16) further merits that in order to contain the menace of motivated tainted, perfunctory investigation and deviation from the professional propriety by the expert witnesses, some drastic measures should be initiated against them, together with the penal and other consequences as per the ratio laid down in Dayal Singh V/s. State of Uttaranchal, supra lest the fountain of justice is polluted by such unscrupulous and erring public servants, anymore. 23. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 24. The first version that the complainant Aasin Khan gave to the police as contained in the written report (Ex.P1) was that Lallu opened fire at Razzak, whereas Bashir Khan and Muhar Khan opened fired at Khurshid and thereafter other accused opened fire and caused injuries by ‘farsis’. 24. The first version that the complainant Aasin Khan gave to the police as contained in the written report (Ex.P1) was that Lallu opened fire at Razzak, whereas Bashir Khan and Muhar Khan opened fired at Khurshid and thereafter other accused opened fire and caused injuries by ‘farsis’. The informant Aasin (PW1) in his statement before the Court has alleged that Lallu opened fire at Razzak and thereafter Bashir also opened fire at Razzak. Muhar Khan opened fire at Khurshid and Kamruddin also opened fire at Khurshid and then Hussain opened fire by ‘katta’ at Jaikam. Thereafter, Pappu also inflicted a blow of ‘farsi’ on the face of Islam, thus he alleged that Lallu and Muhar Khan inflicted injuries by firearm on Razzak and Khurshid, who lied dead on the ground. It is thereafter that Aasin Khan while appearing in court as PW1 has made residuary allegation on Mehboob and Pappu of causing injuries to Islam by ‘farsi’. The injury report of Islam (Ex.P37) shows two injuries by sharp edged weapon. His first injury was in the size of 8 cm x 0.5 cm bone deep being incised wound on the midline of the skull at parietal region. Second injury was in the size of 4 x 0.5 x 0.5 cm, the incise wound at below 2 cm of left eye. No doubt these two injuries did not result in fracture, but nevertheless they proves that they were caused by sharp edged weapon and on a vital part. But such version of Aasin (PW1) has come about only in the Court because neither in written report he made any such allegations specifically against accused Mehboob and Pappu, nor could he give any explanation therefor why he did not state so in the written report. Not only in the written report, he could not explain this improvements over his previous version given to the police in statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. (Ex.D1) where though he has assigned ‘farsi’ as a weapon to Mehboob on allegation of causing injury to Islam, but has assigned ‘lathi’ in the hands of Pappu on allegation of causing injury to himself. 25. 25. As far as Khurshid is concerned, the allegation originally made by him in the police statement was against both Muhar Khan and Bashir and in the court statement again he has made such allegation against Bashir and Muhar Khan that both opened fire at Khurshid, but deceased has sustained only one firearm injury. As far as firearm injury sustained by Jaikam is concerned, an omnibus allegation was made against accused in the written report that they opened fire and caused injuries to members of complainant party in which Jaikam had sustained a firearm injury on the left thigh, but in the Court Aasin Khan has alleged that it was the fire opened by Hussain Khan by ‘katta’ that hit the Jaikam. In the police statement that was belatedly recorded on 22.10.2005, the informant has again cared to allege that apart from fire opened by Lallu, Bashir also fired at deceased Razzak and that Muhar Khan fired at Khurshid. In cross examination Aasin Khan (PW1) has admitted that the incident took place on C.C. Road in front of the house of Lallu Khan, where a ‘chabutara’ (platform) was located and there was house of Bhagat Singh, Sarpanch behind of house of Lallu. Height of the ‘chaburata’ was abound 5 feet. The height of the shop of Lallu from the C.C. road was about 1 feet, but in later part of the cross examination, he denied the suggestion that deceased Khurshid Khan has been fired at from behind and has stated that accused fired at deceased from front side. In cross examination when confronted with his police report, he could not explain as to why he did not mention therein that two persons opened fire at Razzak. All that he stated is that though he mentioned this in the written report, but why police has not stated so, he could not explain. This could be an omission on the part of the person who has scribed the written report. When a suggestion was given to him, he admitted that police recorded his statement 5-6 days after the incident. When confronted with police statement that why he did not mention in the written report that Pappu and Sharif inflicted ‘lathi’ blow on his shoulders and hands, he has stated that he mentioned that fact, but could not explain why it was not mentioned therein by the police. When confronted with police statement that why he did not mention in the written report that Pappu and Sharif inflicted ‘lathi’ blow on his shoulders and hands, he has stated that he mentioned that fact, but could not explain why it was not mentioned therein by the police. In cross examination, this witness has also stated that when they were coming from the side of mosque, the accused met them on the way from the front side and the incident took place at that stage. 26. Injured Jaikam Khan himself appeared as PW2. What he has stated is that when they were coming from the side of mosque and going towards their house, Lallu, Bashir, Muhar Khan, Kamruddin, Pappu @ Sharafat, Hussain Khan and Sharif met them in front of the shop of Lallu. They were armed with guns and ‘farsis’ and one of them had a ‘lathi’. These people encircled them. Lallu opened fire at Razzak, then Bashir also opened fire at Razzak and thereafter Muhar Khan fired at Khurshid and thereafter Kamruddin also fired at Khurshid. Hussain Khan opened fire at him (Jaikam Khan), which hit his left thigh. Memboob inflicted a ‘farsi’ blow on the head of Islam. Pappu also inflicted a ‘farsi’ blow on the temple of Islam. Pappu also inflicted a ‘farsi’ blow on the neck of Razzak. Memboob also inflicted a ‘farsi’ blow on the neck of Khurshid. In examination in chief, this witness has stated that he was initially taken to hospital at Ramgarh for treatment and then referred to hospital at Alwar for treatment and thereafter referred to SMS Hospital, Jaipur where he was operated upon. In cross examination, this witness has stated that he was not unconscious when he was taken to Hospital at Alwar and Hospital at Jaipur. The police did not approach him at either of the places and therefore his statement was recorded belatedly on 4.11.2005. In cross examination, he further stated that shop of Lallu faced the direction in which the sun rises and denied the suggestion that his shop was facing west. The accused Lallu had fired at the complainant party from the C.C. Road. He did not fire from the ‘chabutara’ of his shop, but why did police not mention this in his police statement (Ex.D2), he could not explain. The accused Lallu had fired at the complainant party from the C.C. Road. He did not fire from the ‘chabutara’ of his shop, but why did police not mention this in his police statement (Ex.D2), he could not explain. In further cross examination, this witness has stated that though the shop of Lallu was facing east, but one of its walls was towards C.C. road. There was space behind his shop, adjacent to which was a lane leading to the house of Charan Das. The complainant party was fired at from the side of that lane, which terminates on the C.C. Road. The house of Mauj Khan was on the other side of the road. Razzak and Khurshid were ahead of him when he (this witness) sustained firearm injury and Aasin was behind him. He sustained firearm injury from front side. The width of C.C. road was about 10-12 feet. When confronted with police statement (Ex.D2), he stated that he disclosed to the police that Mehboob inflicted a ‘farsi’ blow on the head of Islam, but he could not explain why it was not mentioned in the police statement. When he was further confronted with police statement as to why he did not allege therein that Mehboob also inflicted a ‘farsi’ blow on Khurshid and Pappu inflicted a ‘farsi’ blow on Islam, he stated that though he mentioned this fact to the police, but why it was not mentioned therein, he could not explain. Obviously, this witness Jaikam (PW2) has made improvements upon his original version as far as role of Pappu and Mehboob is concerned. 27. Jahur Khan (PW3) is also an eye witness, who has stated that Lallu opened fire at Razzak. Thereafter, Bashir also opened fire at Razzak. Muhar Khan fired at Khurshid and then Kamruddin also fired at Khurshid. Both died on the spot. Thereafter, Hussain Khan opened fire at Jaikam, which he sustained on his left thigh. Memboob Khan has inflicted a ‘farsi’ blow on head of Islam. Thereafter, Pappu inflicted a ‘farsi’ blow on the face of Islam. Sharif inflicted ‘lathi’ blow on the person of Sapat Khan and Aasin. They were saying that let no one of the complainant party be left in a position to give statement in the Court. Memboob Khan has inflicted a ‘farsi’ blow on head of Islam. Thereafter, Pappu inflicted a ‘farsi’ blow on the face of Islam. Sharif inflicted ‘lathi’ blow on the person of Sapat Khan and Aasin. They were saying that let no one of the complainant party be left in a position to give statement in the Court. In cross examination, this witness has admitted that in the morning of the day of incident, Kayyum, Idu and others had subjected Mauj Khan to beating. He denied the suggestion that Lallu was not present amongst other accused. He denied having given any statement to the police that when the accused chased them, they ran towards the shop of Lallu. He stated that the fire was opened in front of the shop of Lallu. Khurshid sustained firearm injury from the front side and not from behind. 28. Sapat (PW4) is yet another eye witness. He has alleged that accused encircled them in front of shop of Lallu. Lallu opened fire at Razzak and Bashir also opened fire at Razzak. The firearm injury was caused to Khurshid by Muhar Khan and thereafter Kamruddin also fired at Khurshid. Hussain also fired at Jaikam. Mehboob inflicted ‘farsi’ blow on Islam. Pappu inflicted a ‘farsi’ blow on the cheek of Mehboob. Mehboob then inflicted a ‘lathi’ blow on the hand of Aasin. At this stage, when we contrast the statement of this witness with that of Aasin (PW1), there again it is found that while in earlier part he has alleged that Memboob and Pappu inflicted a ‘farsi’ blow to Islam on the head and face and thereafter Pappu inflicted a ‘farsi’ blow on Razzak and Mehboob inflicted a ‘farsi’ blow on Khurshid while they lay on the ground. Then he has stated that Pappu inflicted a ‘lathi’ blow at his shoulders and Sharif inflicted a ‘lathi’ blow on his hand and both of them have inflicted ‘lathi’ blows on Sapat. In this manner, this witness has attributed two weapons to Pappu namely; ‘farsi’ as well as ‘lathi’. Then he has stated that Pappu inflicted a ‘lathi’ blow at his shoulders and Sharif inflicted a ‘lathi’ blow on his hand and both of them have inflicted ‘lathi’ blows on Sapat. In this manner, this witness has attributed two weapons to Pappu namely; ‘farsi’ as well as ‘lathi’. Similarly, Sapat (PW4) has also in the earlier part of the statement alleged that Pappu inflicted ‘farsi’ blow on the face of Mehboob and thereafter alleged that Mehboob inflicted a ‘farsi’ blow on the head of Islam then in the next sentence he has stated that Memboob has inflicted a ‘lathi’ blow on the hands of Aasin and thereafter Pappu inflicted a ‘lathi’ blow on his (this witness) back. Then Sharif has also inflicted an injury to him, but in the next sentence he has stated that Pappu has inflicted a ‘farsi’ blow on the neck of Khurshid, while he was lying on the ground and Mehboob inflicted a ‘farsi’ blow on the neck of Razzak. 29. Islam (PW11), another injured witness has also alleged that Lallu opened fire at Razzak and thereafter Bashir also opened fire at Razzak. He then alleged that Muhar Khan and Kamruddin both have opened fire at Khurshid. Then he alleged that Hussain Khan opened fire at Jaikam, which he sustained on his leg. Mehboob inflicted a ‘farsi’ blow on his own head and Pappu inflicted a ‘farsi’ blow on his face. Thereafter, Sharif inflicted a ‘lathi’ blow on Aasin and Sapat. This witness in cross examination stated that when they reached the shop of Lallu, accused opened fire at them from front side. He denied the suggestion that the incident did not happen in front of shop of Lallu and it happened near the house of Lallu. The house of Lallu was about 50-60 feet away from his shop. He denied the suggestion that Khurshid was fired at from behind. In fact, the firearm injury was caused in the chest of Khurshid from the front side and firearm injury was also caused in the chest of Razzak from front side. They were facing east side when then sustained injuries. Even Jaikam also sustained the injuries while he was facing east side. 30. In fact, the firearm injury was caused in the chest of Khurshid from the front side and firearm injury was also caused in the chest of Razzak from front side. They were facing east side when then sustained injuries. Even Jaikam also sustained the injuries while he was facing east side. 30. In view of the allegations of all the eye witnesses that after Mehboob had inflicted ‘farsi’ blow on the head of Islam and Pappu had inflicted ‘farsi’ blow on his face, Pappu again inflicted a ‘farsi’ blow on Razzak and Mehboob inflicted ‘farsi’ blow on Khurshid, who lay dead on the ground, we have to see the postmortem report of Khurshid. The postmortem report of Khurshid (Ex.P33) indicates that he sustained a punctured lacerated wound on chest at left side upper 2 cm below nipple, 4 cm left to lateral border of stermur med. upto midaxillary line on left side and 10th rib at lower part. Total number of wounds were found to be 22 in the size of ½ x ½ cm upto ¼ x ¼ cm. The postmortem report does not indicate any incise wound on the body of deceased. In fact, Jaikam has stated that Pappu inflicted a ‘farsi’ blow on the neck of Razzak and Mehboob inflicted a ‘farsi’ blow on the neck of Khurshid. While there is corroboration for such alleged injury from the postmortem report of Khurshid (Ex.P33), but their does exist an incise wound in the postmortem report of Razzak (Ex.P34) on right side at mandilik of size 4 x 1 x ¼ cm. The Supreme Court in Masanti & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh- AIR 1965 SC 202 has observed that there is no doubt that when a criminal Court has to appreciate evidence given by witnesses who are partisan or interested, it has to be very careful in weighing such evidence. But it would be unreasonable to contend that evidence given by witnesses should be discarded only on this ground. 31. It is true that under the Evidence Act trustworthy evidence given by a single witness would be enough to convict an accused person, whereas evidence given by half a dozen witnesses, which is not trustworthy, would not be enough to sustain the conviction. 31. It is true that under the Evidence Act trustworthy evidence given by a single witness would be enough to convict an accused person, whereas evidence given by half a dozen witnesses, which is not trustworthy, would not be enough to sustain the conviction. But where a criminal court has to deal with evidence pertaining to the commission of an offence involving a large number of offenders and a large number of victims, it is usual to adopt the test that the conviction could be sustained only if it is supported by two or three or more witnesses who give a consistent account of the incident. In a sense, the test may be described as mechanical; but cannot be treated as irrational or unreasonable. It is, no doubt true, the quality of the evidence that matters and not the number of witnesses who gave evidence, but, sometimes it is useful to adopt a mechanical test. In the present case, the evidence of some of the prosecution witnesses is consistent on certain aspects though it is not so on certain other aspects. No doubt, the Investigating Officer in the present case had been extremely negligent, in that, he recorded the statement of prosecution witnesses quite belatedly, secured arrest of the accused quite late and therefore consequential recoveries of the weapons were also delayed and recovery of some of weapons used in the crime may not have been made. And the learned trial court rather in its elaborate discussion has reprimanded such conduct of the Investigating Officer, but has observed that the statement of eye witnesses cannot be discarded and cannot be described as untrue only because investigation conducted by the Investigating Officer is defective on certain aspects. Even then, when we apply this test in the present case, it becomes obvious that as far as Lallu is concerned, recovery of weapon has not been made at his instance, but the prosecution case against him is throughout consistent, at the stage of first information true, during statement of witnesses recorded by the police and even in the Court statement. But at the same time, it has to be noted that though deceased Razzak has sustained only one firearm injury, the prosecution witnesses have named Bashir as an additional accused along with Lallu, who also opened fire at deceased Razzak. But at the same time, it has to be noted that though deceased Razzak has sustained only one firearm injury, the prosecution witnesses have named Bashir as an additional accused along with Lallu, who also opened fire at deceased Razzak. In the written report, however, Bashir was tagged with Muhar Khan and the allegation on both of them of opening fire at Khurshid, but no weapon has been recovered at his instance. The prosecution witnesses sought to improve upon their case at the stage of recording of statement by the police and thereafter in the Court by alleging that Bashir, as also Lallu, opened fire at deceased, but neither any second firearm injury has been received by deceased Razzak, nor any weapon of offence has been recovered at the instance of Bashir. Notwithstanding the fact that Bashir has been named by some of the prosecution witnesses, his role and active participation in the crime has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt inasmuch as, he to that extent, becomes entitled to benefit of doubt. 32. Coming now to deceased Khurshid, the case which the informant originally set up in the written report was that Bashir and Muhar Khan opened fire at him, but the witnesses having had the advantage of delay in recording of their statement and evaluating the case viz-a-viz medical evidence, sought to improve upon their version by implicating Muhar Khan and also Kamruddin as those who opened fire at deceased. Curiously, recovery of 12 bore country made gun (‘katta’) has been made at the instance of Muhar Khan vide Ex.P11 and from Kamruddin vide Ex.P12 respectively, however no ballistic expert has been produced in this case and the report of FSL produced on record suggests that both the guns were serviceable guns. The FSL report (Ex.P55) states that while one 12-bore country made S.B.B.L. gun from packet ‘E’ (which was recovered at the instance of Muhar Khan) and 12 bore country made pistol from packet ‘F’ (which was recovered at the instance of accused Kamruddin) are serviceable firearms. However, one 12 bore country made pistol from packet ‘F’, (which was recovered at the instance of Kamruddin) had the tendency of misfire the ammunition. However, the opinion of expert of the FSL was that the examination of the barrels residues indicate that two submitted firearms had been fired. However, one 12 bore country made pistol from packet ‘F’, (which was recovered at the instance of Kamruddin) had the tendency of misfire the ammunition. However, the opinion of expert of the FSL was that the examination of the barrels residues indicate that two submitted firearms had been fired. However, the definite time of their last fire could not be ascertained. Thirty five lead pellets from packet ‘A’ extracted from the body of deceased Razzak and four lead pellets from packet ‘A’ extracted from the body of Khurshid are normally used in 12-bore ammunition and these appear to have been fired from the submitted firearm. It was further opined that the calibre of submitted one locally made damaged softnose brass jacketted bullet (B/a) from packet ‘C’ appear to be 8 mm/.315 and it has been fired from country made firearm. 33. While therefore the evidence with regard to role attributed to Muhar Khan is concerned is consistent, but as far as Kamruddin is concerned, the prosecution witnesses have sought to include his name along with Muhar Khan as those, who opened fire at deceased Khurshid, whereas as per the postmortem report of Khurshid (Ex.P33), Khurshid sustained only one firearm injury. Apart from this, the FSL report (Ex.P55) has not given any definite opinion that 35 lead pellets extracted from the body of Razzak and four lead pellets extracted from the body of Khurshid were fired from the submitted firearm. All what has been opined is that they were normally used in 12-bore ammunition and appeared to have been fired from the submitted firearm, which is a neutral statement. Aside of all that, the evidence of expert of the FSL is also that 12 bore country made pistol from packet ‘F’, which was recovered at the instance of Kamruddin, also had the tendency to misfire the ammunition. The role of accused Kamruddin thus cannot be held to have been proved in the alleged crime by the required standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt, thus entitling him as well to the benefit of doubt. The role of accused Kamruddin thus cannot be held to have been proved in the alleged crime by the required standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt, thus entitling him as well to the benefit of doubt. This however cannot be said of Hussain because though no weapon has been recovered at his instance and no specific overt act has been attributed to him for causing injuries on the thigh of Jaikam, but not only Jaikam, but all other witnesses are consistent in alleging that it was Hussain, who opened fire at injured Jaikam, which hit his left thigh. It is no doubt true that the statement of prosecution witnesses were recorded late in which they named Hussain as the one whose fire hit the injured Jaikam on his left thigh, but at the same time, it has to be appreciated that Hussain was named in the FIR and that after making specific allegations against Lallu, Bashir and Muhar Khan, it was alleged in the FIR that the other accused opened fire and caused injury to the members of the complainant party by use of ‘farsi’ as a result of which Jaikam sustained firearm injury on his left thigh, Sapat Khan sustained injuries on his hand and head by ‘farsi’ and Islam and Hussain sustained injuries on head by ‘farsi’. 34. Coming now to the evidence as to the role of the other accused, we find that as far as allegations against the presence of Mehboob and Pappu and the role attributed to them are concerned, the statement of prosecution witnesses is quite consistent because not only they were named in the written report, but there is also corroboration as to their role in that the prosecution witness Aasin (PW1) has stated that Mehboob inflicted a ‘farsi’ blow on the head of Islam and Pappu inflicted a ‘farsi’ blow on his face. Similarly, Jaikam has also alleged that Mehboob inflicted a ‘farsi’ blow on the head of Islam and Pappu inflicted a ‘farsi’ blow on the temple. Jahur Khan (PW3) and Sapat (PW4) have stated that Mehboob inflicted a ‘farsi’ blow on the head of Islam and Pappu inflicted a ‘farsi’ blow on his face. Islam (PW11) himself has corroborated this fact by saying that Mehboob inflicted a ‘farsi’ blow on his head and Pappu inflicted another ‘farsi’ blow on his face immediately below the eye. Jahur Khan (PW3) and Sapat (PW4) have stated that Mehboob inflicted a ‘farsi’ blow on the head of Islam and Pappu inflicted a ‘farsi’ blow on his face. Islam (PW11) himself has corroborated this fact by saying that Mehboob inflicted a ‘farsi’ blow on his head and Pappu inflicted another ‘farsi’ blow on his face immediately below the eye. Apart from this, though the allegation against Mehboob of causing injury by fire has not been medically corroborated, but their does exist medical corroboration as to the injuries alleged to have been caused by Pappu to Razzak while he laid on the ground by using ‘farsi’ inasmuch as the postmortem report of Razzak (Ex.P34) does prove that he sustained incised wound on right side at Mandilik of size 4 x 1 x ¼ cm. As far as Sharif s/o Amariya is concerned, the evidence of prosecution witnesses against him stands on shaky grounds and is not quite consistent. Aasin (PW1) has named Pappu and Sharif as those who caused injury not only to himself but also to Sharafat, Jaikam Khan has named Pappu and Sharif of causing injuries by ‘lathi’. Jahur Khan has alleged that only Sharif inflicted ‘lathi’ blow on Sapat and Aasin. Sapat (PW4) himself however has alleged that Pappu inflicted a ‘lathi’ blow on his back and thereafter Sharif inflicted another blow, but his injury report Ex.P2 only shows that there were two swellings on his left arm though no external injury was visible and in the x-ray examination, he was not found to have sustained any fracture. Similarly, injury report of Sapat Khan (Ex.P39) also indicates the complain of pain on lateral aspect of left forearm lumber region though there was no external injury. However, as far as injury report of Islam (Ex.P37) is concerned though his injury may not have resulted in fracture, but looking to the size and location of the injury, they appeared to have been caused by ‘farsi’ namely; the first injury is caused by sharp edged weapon which is in the size of 8 cm x 0.5 cm being an incised wound on the midline of skull at parietal region. The second injury is in the size of 4 x 0.5 x 0.5 cm incised wound at left side of the face 2 cm below the left eye. The second injury is in the size of 4 x 0.5 x 0.5 cm incised wound at left side of the face 2 cm below the left eye. As regards recovery of weapon of offence from the accused-appellants Mehboob and Pappu, apart from other evidence, though ‘farsi’ vide Ex.P14 has been recovered at the instance of Mehboob, but ‘lathi’ has been shown recovered at the instance of Pappu @ Sharafat Vide Ex.P13. In view of the consistent statement of prosecution witnesses, which finds corroboration from medical evidence, merely because the accused was arrested late and ‘lathi’ is shown to have been recovered at the instance of these accused would not be a reason to completely discard the statement of eye witnesses. 35. At this stage, we may observe that apart from the statement of Jaikam that it was he who was taken to hospital at Jaipur and was subjected to surgery where plate and the screws were applied for fixation of his fractured thigh bone, his bed head ticket (Ex.P36) indicates not only the date of admission, but of discharge with his own name as also the name of his father Moj Khan and address. The argument that the identity of accused with respect to which documents of SMS Hospital, Jaipur Ex.P35, 35A, 36 and 36A could not be fixed, is therefore liable to be rejected. 36. In view of above discussion and analysis of the evidence, we are not inclined to totally reject the evidence of the prosecution witnesses despite some discrepancy in the investigation and also not inclined to agree with the agreement that the prosecution witnesses have changed the location of the incident as their testimony is fairly consistent as to the place of incident and manner in which the incident took place. 37. The argument of learned counsel for the appellants that since the medical jurist Dr. Rajendra Prasad Asat (PW10) has stated that only one accused could cause one firearm injury to the deceased cannot be countenanced because what PW10 said in answer to a leading question in cross examination that this firearm injury could be caused by one person, all that he meant was that one person could sustain injury by one firearm because the density of the pellets was suggesting only one firearm injury. The statement of medical jurist to that extent does not show that he intended to indicate the injuries of two different deceased by only one person and that too by same firearm. Although he has made a statement that the position of both the deceased was identical and that both did not sustain any fracture in the ribs when the pellets entered the lungs and the heart, but it cannot be deduced from his such statement that he meant to convey that the firearm injuries sustained by both the deceased was caused by only one person by one firearm. 38. The medical opinion given by Dr. Phool Singh (PW9) cannot be accepted as medical opinion prevail over the ocular evidence, which is credible and inspires confidence. The argument of the defence that the non-examination of ballistic expert has dented the case of prosecution deserves to be rejected because the enormous direct evidence completely and pin-pointedly proves the culpability of the accused. The Supreme Court in Dayal Singh V/s. State of Uttaranchal- (2012) 8 SCC 263 came heavily upon the Public Servants, who collude or connive with the accused in order to screen them from their culpability and deliberately resort to either defective or motivated investigation. Similarly, the conduct of the expert witnesses who departs from the professional propriety deserves to be condemned and should also entail consequence. 39. The Supreme Court in Prem Sagar Manocha vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- (2016) 4 SCC 571 while considering the aspect of expert opinion vis-a-vbis testimony of facts observed that the opinion of expert being based on his knowledge may be subject to change on coming across any authentic material subsequently. Opinion of expert witness is different from testimony of witness of fact. It is the duty of the expert to render his opinion along with reason and relevant material. It would be then for Court to see correctness of opinion and reach its conclusion accordingly. The Supreme Court in Dayal Singh, supra has also held that expert opinion should be well authored and convincing and a duly proved report of expert and that it has its evidentiary value but it is not binding on the Court. The Court should analyse it in conjunction with the other evidence on record and then form its final opinion as to whether such report is worthy of reliance or not. The Court should analyse it in conjunction with the other evidence on record and then form its final opinion as to whether such report is worthy of reliance or not. In the present case, even if the interpretation placed by learned counsel for the defence on the relevant part of the statement made by medical jurist Dr. Rajendra Prasad (PW10) in his cross examination was to be accepted that the injury sustained by two injured appeared to have been caused by only one person by one firearm, such an opinion of the expert was liable to be overlooked in the face of overwhelming evidence on eye witnesses count otherwise available on record. 40.The Supreme Court in Dayal Singh & Ors., supra while commenting on the acts of omission and commission on part of investigating officer and medical officer has observed as under: “Dereliction of duty or carelessness is an abuse of discretion under a definite law and misconduct is a violation of indefinite law. Misconduct is a forbidden act whereas dereliction of duty is the forbidden quality of an act and is necessarily indefinite. One is a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, with least element of discretion, while the other is primarily an abuse of discretion. The ambit of these expressions had to be construed with reference to the subject matter and the context where the term occurs, regard being given to the scope of the statute and the public purpose it seeks to serve. The police service is a disciplined service and it requires maintenance of strict discipline. The consequences of these defaults should normally be attributable to negligence. Police officers and doctors, by their profession, are required to maintain duty decorum of high standards. The standards of investigation and the prestige of the profession are dependent upon the action of such specialized persons.” 41. In view of above discussion, accused-appellants Kamruddin, Bashir and Sharif are entitled to benefit of doubt and consequential acquittal. The appeals filed on behalf of accused-appellants Kamru @ Kamruddin, Bashir and Sharif are allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and sentence qua them is set aside. They are set at liberty forthwith if not required to be detained in connection with any other case. The appeals filed on behalf of accused-appellants Kamru @ Kamruddin, Bashir and Sharif are allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and sentence qua them is set aside. They are set at liberty forthwith if not required to be detained in connection with any other case. The appeals filed on behalf of accused-appellants Lallu @ Rehamat, Hussain, Mehboob, Pappu @ Sharafat and Muhar Khan are, however, dismissed and their conviction and sentence is maintained. 42. Keeping, however, in view the provisions of Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, appellants Kamru @ Kamruddin, Bashir and Sharif are directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- each, and a surety bond in the like amount, before the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court, which shall be effective for a period of six months, undertaking that in the event of Special Leave Petition being filed against this judgment or on grant of leave, the appellants aforesaid, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Supreme Court. 43. While closing this judgment, we deem it appropriate to forward a copy of this judgment to Director General of Police for initiating appropriate disciplinary action against the erring Investigating Officer, who, in this matter, conducted the investigation in a highly negligent and lackadaisical manner. 44. Office to place a copy of this judgment is each connected file.