JUDGMENT : Krishna Singh, J. This criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellants-accused Munni and others against the judgment and order dated 25.1.1989 passed by the Trial Court/Special Judge (E.C. Act), Budaun in Sessions Trial No. 154 of 1986 (State v. Munni Lal and others). 2. By means of impugned judgment and order, Trial Court has convicted the appellant-accused Munni for the offence under Section-148 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years. The Trial Court has further convicted aforesaid appellant-accused for the offence under Section-324 IPC and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 500 with default sentence of six months imprisonment. Trial Court has convicted the appellants-accused Ram Bahadur, Ram Mohan, Lala Ram, Jamuna, Mangli, Om Prakash, Omkar and Pooran for the offence under Section-147 IPC and sentence each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of one year. Trial Court has further convicted the aforesaid appellants-accused for the offence under Section-324 read with Section-149 IPC and sentenced each of them to pay a fine of Rs. 250/- with a default sentence of three months imprisonment. 3. Trial Court has directed that out of the fine realised Rs. 1,000/- shall be paid to injured Ram Lal. Trial Court has also directed that sentence awarded against the accused persons shall remain suspended for the time being and instead of sentencing at once by sending them to Jail to undergo imprisonment imposed on them, accused persons shall be released on probation for the period they have been sentenced, provided accused Munni shall furnishes personal bond of Rs. 5,000/- and one surety in the like amount, similarly other accused namely Ram Bahadur, Ram Mohan, Lala Ram, Jamuna, Mangli, Om Prakash, Omkar and Pooran shall furnishes a personal bond of Rs. 3,000/- and one surety in the like amount. The accused persons were further directed by the Trial Court to keep good behaviour for the aforesaid period and in case they are found involved in any illegal criminal act, they shall be called for to serve out the sentences imposed on them. 4. At the outset, it is relevant to mention here that during the pendency of this appeal appellant-accused No. 1, Munni, appellant No. 7 Om Prakash and appellant No. 9 Pooran have died. 4. At the outset, it is relevant to mention here that during the pendency of this appeal appellant-accused No. 1, Munni, appellant No. 7 Om Prakash and appellant No. 9 Pooran have died. Accordingly, vide order dated 8.5.2017 passed by this Court the appeal in respect of the aforesaid appellants-accused stood abated. 5. The case against the appellants-accused had arisen on the basis of oral complaint lodged by the complainant/injured Ram Lal on 7.7.1985 at about 6:25 P.M. at Police Station-Binawar. The facts mentioned therein are that on 7.7.1985 at about 12 o'clock daughters of accused Munni and Pahloo had wrangled with each other. Thereafter, at about 3.00 P.M. accused Munni, Rameshwar, Ram Bahadur, Ram Mohan, Lala Ram, Jamuna, Mangli, Om Prakash, Ram Prasad, Omkar and Pooran came to the Galiyara of complainant. At that time, complainant was standing beneath Pakar tree. Accused Rameshwar and Munni were armed with countrymade pistols, bhala and lathi. Accused persons throw challenge on Pahloo by shouting. Immediately, accused Munni fired with his country-made pistol at Pahloo, but the fire hit on complainant Ram Lal. However, Pahloo escaped unhurt. After hearing hue and cry witnesses Sia Ram, Ved Ram, Shyam Pal and Preetam also reached on the spot. 6. At about 6:25 P.M. the complainant Ram Pal went to the Police Station-Binawar, where he lodged an oral FIR Ext. Ka-1 of the incident which was taken down by the Constable Clerk Suresh Chandra Sharma PW-5. On the basis of oral FIR, chik FIR Ext-Ka-1/1 was prepared and Case Crime No. 264 of 1985 was registered against the appellants-accused under Section-147/148/149/307 IPC at Police Station-Binawar. 7. The case was committed to the court of Sessions, the court of Sessions/Trial Court after hearing the prosecution and defence and perusing the material available on record framed charges against the appellants-accused under Sections-147/148/149/307 of IPC. The charges so framed were read over and explained to the appellants-accused they pleaded not guilty and claim to be tried. Hence the prosecution was called upon to led evidence. 8. In support of charges, the prosecution has examined PW-1 Ram Lal injured and complainant, PW-2 Siya Ram, PW-3 Ved Ram, PW-4 Pahloo as witnesses of facts. PW-5 Suresh Chandra Sharma Constable Clerk and PW-6 Surender Lal Investigating Officer are formal witnesses. 9. After conclusion of the prosecution evidence, the appellants-accused were examined under Section-313 Cr. P.C. In their statement under Section- 313 Cr. PW-5 Suresh Chandra Sharma Constable Clerk and PW-6 Surender Lal Investigating Officer are formal witnesses. 9. After conclusion of the prosecution evidence, the appellants-accused were examined under Section-313 Cr. P.C. In their statement under Section- 313 Cr. P.C. appellants-accused pleaded not guilty and denied their participation in the alleged crime. In defence copy of FIR Ext Kha-1 and carbon copy of GD Ext Kha-2 were filed on behalf of the appellants-accused. 10. I have heard learned cousnel for the appellants-accused as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the entire material on record. 11. Learned counsel for the appellants-accused has contended that appellants-accused are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case by the informant-Ram Lal on the instigation of Pahloo. Learned counsel for the appellants-accused has further contended that it is evident from the defence evidence that at the time of occurrence, appellant-accused Munni was preparing shedding chappar on his land and at that time Pahloo and others had assaulted him and Siya Ram fired on Munni but the fire shot incidentally hit on the complainant-Ram Lal. Learned counsel for the appellants has further contended that appellants-accused were not aggressor. Learned counsel for the appellants-accused has further contended that prosecution did not examine the doctor to prove the injury report of complainant-Ram Lal PW-1 and the injuries of the aforesaid witness was not legally proved. Learned counsel for the appellants-accused has further contended that impugned judgment and order passed by the trial court is against the law & facts of the case, therefore, the appeal against the impugned judgment and order is liable to be allowed. 12. Per contra, learned AGA has contended that from the prosecution evidence available on record, case of prosecution is proved beyond reasonable doubt against the appellants-accused. Learned AGA has further contended that impugned judgment and order passed by the trial court is based on proper appreciation of evidence available on record and findings recorded by the trial Court did not suffer from any infirmity and as such, this appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 13. Complainant Ram Lal PW-1 is the injured witness. He has stated in his statement on oath that he and accused persons are residents of Village-Mohamdi, Police Station-Binawar. On 7.7.1985 at about 12 o'clock daughters of accused Munni and Pahloo had wrangled with each other in the grove of Jaman. 13. Complainant Ram Lal PW-1 is the injured witness. He has stated in his statement on oath that he and accused persons are residents of Village-Mohamdi, Police Station-Binawar. On 7.7.1985 at about 12 o'clock daughters of accused Munni and Pahloo had wrangled with each other in the grove of Jaman. Thereafter, at about 3:00 P.M. accused Munnil, Rameshwar, Ram Bahadur , Ram Mohan, Lala Ram, Jamuna Mangli, Om Prakash, Ram Prasad, Omkar and Pooran came to his Galiyara. At that time he was standing beneath the pakar tree near the house of Nathoo. Accused Rameshwar and Munni were armed with guns while accused Ishwari and Ram Bahadur were armed with country made pistols and rest of them were having Ballams, Bhalla etc. Accused persons throw challenge on Pahloo by shouting "come out, today you would be finished". At that time, Pahloo was standing on chabutra of Ram Chander. Immediately, Munni fired with his gun at Pahloo but the fire hit on him. However, Pahloo escaped unhurt. Witnesses Sia Ram Shyam Lal, Preetam also reached on the spot and challenged the assailants who fled away from there. After incident on the same day he went to police station where he lodged an oral FIR Ext Ka-1 of the incident which was taken down by constable clerk Suresh Chandra Sharma on his dictation. Thereafter, he was sent to P.H.C. Binawar for medical examination where he was medically examined and his X-ray was also taken at District Hospital-Budaun. 14. PW-2 Siya Ram, PW-3 Ved Ram and PW-4 Pahloo are the witnesses of facts. In support of the prosecution story they have stated in their statement on oath all the facts of the case, which had been stated by the complainant/injured Ram Lal-PW 1. 15. PW-5 Constable Clerk Suresh Chandra Sharma is a formal witness. He has stated in his statement on oath that on 7.7.1985 at 6:25 P.M. on the basis of oral report lodged by the complainant Ram Lal a chik FIR Ext Ka- 1/1 was registered by him at Police Station-Binawar at Crime No. 264 of 1985 under Sections-147/148/149/307 IPC against the accused persons. Thereafter, he has made relevant entries in the General Diary. 16. PW-6 Sub-Inspector Surendra Lal is the Investigating Officer of this case. Thereafter, he has made relevant entries in the General Diary. 16. PW-6 Sub-Inspector Surendra Lal is the Investigating Officer of this case. He has stated in his statement on oath that during investigation he has recorded the statement of complainant, injured Ram Lal and other prosecution witnesses under Section-161 Cr. P.C. and prepared site plan Ext Ka-3, He has also stated that after completing the investigation he has submitted the charge-sheet No. 94/1985 Ext Ka-4 against the appellants-accused under Sections- 147/148/149/307 IPC. 17. It is evident from the prosecution evidence available on record that on 7.7.1985 at about 3 p.m. in village Mohamdi, appellant-accused Munni (since deceased) along with other appellants-accused formed unlawful assembly and at that time, they were armed with deadly weapons and in prosecution of the common object thereof, appellant-accused Munni fired with his gun on Pahloo which incidentally did not hit on him and hit on complainant Ram Lal and caused injuries to him. 18. In the case of Abdul Sayeed v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2010) 10 Supreme Court Cases 259, Hon'ble Apex Court had held as under:- "Where witness to occurrence was himself injured in the incident, testimony of such witness is generally considered to be very reliable, as he is a witness that comes with an inbuilt guarantee of his presence at the scene of crime and is unlikely to spare his actual assailant(s) in order to falsely implicate someone." 19. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that testimony of the complainant-Ram Lal PW-1 has to be seen with great care and caution. It is important to mention here that complainant-Ram Lal PW-1 is an independent and injured witness, he was put to lengthy cross-examination by defence but nothing could be elicited by way of cross-examination so as to create doubt about his presence at the place of occurrence. 20. Appellants-accused are named in the FIR. It is evident from the evidence available on record that complainant-Ram Lal, PW-1 has received injuries by fire arm and he lodged the FIR promptly on the same day at about 6:25 p.m. at Police Station Binawar. Testimony of complainant Ram Lal, PW-1 has been well supported by other witnesses namely Siya Ram PW-2, Ved Ram PW-3 and Pahloo PW-4. There is complete consistency and coherence in the examination-in-chief and cross-examination of the aforesaid prosecution witnesses. Testimony of complainant Ram Lal, PW-1 has been well supported by other witnesses namely Siya Ram PW-2, Ved Ram PW-3 and Pahloo PW-4. There is complete consistency and coherence in the examination-in-chief and cross-examination of the aforesaid prosecution witnesses. The name, time, date and place on which the offences was committed and by whom the offence was committed has been revealed in the FIR lodged by the complainant Ram Lal PW-1 and the same find corroboration from the testimony of the aforesaid prosecution witnesses which is in coherence with the story set up in the FIR. In view of the above facts and circumstances, there appears no justification to disbelieve the statements of the aforesaid prosecution witnesses. 21. In the case of State of Rajasthan v. Smt. Kalki and another (1981) 2 SCC 752 , Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:- "In the deposition of witnesses there are always normal discrepancies due to normal errors of observation, loss of memory, mental disposition of the witnesses and the like. Unless, therefore, the discrepancies are "material discrepancies" so as to create a reasonable doubt about the credibility of the witnesses, the Court will not discard the evidence of the witnesses". 22. In the case of Mritunjoy Biswas v. Pranab alias Kuti Biswas and another (2013) CRI. L.J. 4212, Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:- "It is well settled in law that the minor discrepancies are not to be given undue emphasis and the evidence is to be considered from the point of view of trustworthiness. The test is whether the same inspires confidence in the mind of the Court. If the evidence is incredible and cannot be accepted by the test of prudence, then it may create a dent in the prosecution version. If an omission or discrepancy goes to the root of the matter and ushers in incongruities, the defence can take advantage of such inconsistencies. It needs no special emphasis to state that every omission cannot take place of a material omission and, therefore, minor contradictions, inconsistencies or insignificant embellishments do not affect the core of the prosecution case and should not be taken to be a ground to reject the prosecution evidence. The omission should create a serious doubt about the truthfulness or creditworthiness of a witness. It is only the serious contradictions and omissions which materially affect prosecution case but not every contradiction or omission." 23. The omission should create a serious doubt about the truthfulness or creditworthiness of a witness. It is only the serious contradictions and omissions which materially affect prosecution case but not every contradiction or omission." 23. Learned counsel for the appellants-accused has challenged the evidence of prosecution witnesses of facts on the ground that their statements are contradictory in nature, therefore, reliance cannot be placed upon their testimony, I found only minor contradictions in their statements which do not affect the case of the prosecution case. Therefore, minor contradictions cannot be taken to be a ground to reject the evidence of the aforesaid prosecution witnesses. 24. It is evident from the evidence, available on record, that at the time of occurrence, appellant-accused Munni along with other accused persons had gone near the house of Pahloo. This fact has been admitted by Munni in his evidence during cross-examination in cross Sessions Trial No. 235 of 1986. He has also admitted in his statement that his house falls at the distance of about 200-250 steps whereas the house of Pahloo was at the distance of about 10-20 paces. Therefore, under these circumstances, there was every possibility and occasion for appellants-accused to have gone after forming unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons to the house of Pahloo and throw challenge on him to face consequences for teaching him a lesson for a quarrel which had taken place few hours earlier between the daughters of Pahloo and that of Munni accused, it cannot be accepted that since Munni was preparing for shedding chappar on his land and at that time, Pahloo and others had assaulted him. Had this been true then the Investigating Officer should have mentioned the place where the said preparation for shedding chappar was being done by the Munni. There was also no occasion for Munni and others to have gone at the place of occurrence except that they had gone to the house of Pahloo to teach him a lesson for the quarrel which had taken place between the daughters of Munni and Pahloo. 25. In view of the prosecution evidence available on record, I am of the opinion that defence version/evidence appears to be absurd that it was Siya Ram who had fired on appellant-accused Munni but the fire incidentally hit on complainant Ram Lal. 25. In view of the prosecution evidence available on record, I am of the opinion that defence version/evidence appears to be absurd that it was Siya Ram who had fired on appellant-accused Munni but the fire incidentally hit on complainant Ram Lal. Had there been any truth in this version then complainant injured Ram lal PW- 1 may have also lodged the FIR against Siya Ram and may have not left him free and falsely implicate the accused persons in the crime simply on the alleged instigation of Pahloo. Considering the entire facts and circumstances and evidence available on record, I am of the opinion that appellants-accused were aggressor and had used much force. 26. It is true that prosecution did not examine the Dr. V.N. Sahai to prove the injury report of complainant-Ram Lal PW-1. In my opinion, non-examination of the doctor is not fatal to the prosecution case because injured Ram Lal PW-1 and other witnesses of facts were put to lengthy cross-examination by the defence., thereafter, the appellants-accused were examined under Section 313 Cr. P.C., 1973 and an opportunity of defence were given to them. It was not the defence of the appellants-accused that complainant Ram Lal did not receive firearm injuries at the time of occurrence. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that non-examination of the doctor is fatal to the prosecution case and non-examination of the doctor has led any prejudice to the appellants-accused. 27. In catena of decisions, Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the trial court after going through the entire evidence must form an opinion about the credibility of the witnesses and the Appellate Court in normal course would not be justified in reviewing the same again without justifiable reasons. 28. On the basis of discussions made above and after considering and critically apprising the evidence available on record, I am of the view that findings of conviction recorded by the trial Court are well substantiated from the evidence available on record. The trial Court has appreciated the evidence in the right perspective, I don't find any justification to interfere with the findings of conviction recorded by the trial Court. The findings of conviction recorded against the appellants-accused are being maintained and affirmed, no interference is required in the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial court. 29. The trial Court has appreciated the evidence in the right perspective, I don't find any justification to interfere with the findings of conviction recorded by the trial Court. The findings of conviction recorded against the appellants-accused are being maintained and affirmed, no interference is required in the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial court. 29. The appeal is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. 30. Let a copy of this judgment and order along with the original record be transmitted to the learned court below for information and necessary compliance.