Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 911 (ALL)

DINDAYAL @ MUNNA v. STATE OF U. P.

2017-03-31

ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA I, BALA KRISHNA NARAYANA

body2017
JUDGMENT : (Judgment Delivered by Hon'ble B.K.Narayana, J.) Heard Sri Chandra Prakash, Sri Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel for appellant nos.1 & 2, Sri Sameer Jain, learned counsel for appellant no.3, Sri J. K. Upadhyay and Kumari Meena, learned AGAs for the State. This criminal appeal has been filed by the appellants Dindayal alias Munna, Krishna Kumar and Chandra Prakash against the judgment and order dated 10.05.1988 passed by Special Judge/Additional Sessions Judge, Pilibhit in S.T. No. 144 of 1986 under Section 302/34 IPC connected with S.T.No. 145 of 1986 and S.T. No. 146 of 1986, both under Section 25 Arms Act by which all the appellants have been convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302/34 IPC, while appellants Dindayal and Krishna Kumar have been further convicted and sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment each under Section 25 Arms Act. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. The prosecution case in brief is that one Radhey Shyam PW-1 (complainant) son of Lalaram, R/o Khakra P.S. Kotwali Pilibhit gave a written report Ext.Ka-1 at P.S. Kotwali Plibhit on 01.02.1986 at about 12.00 noon alleging therein that on 01.02.1986 at about 11.30 a.m. accused-appellants had encircled the deceased Jagdish in his locality with the intention to kill Jagdish but he escaped. On noticing them complainant Radhey Shyam's niece Meera daughter of Ram Bharose raised cries for help on which complainant Radhey Shyam, his brother Ram Bharose, Munna Lal and Chhotey Lal came out from their respective houses and saw Jagdish running on the road towards Ayurvedic college, chased by the accused armed with knives. The accused intercepted Jagdish at a place on the road between Ayurvedic college and Dhunawali Masjid and exhorted to kill him and then started stabbing him with knives. By the time the complainant and the others could reach the place of occurrence and save Jagdish, the accused had already escaped in the nearby lane after inflicting knife injuries on the neck, chest and the face of Jagdish. As a result of the injuries sustained by Jagdish he fell on the road Ajay Singh son of Parmatma Singh r/o Khakra Pilibhit and Rambabu had also arrived at the place of occurrence and witnessed the incident. As a result of the injuries sustained by Jagdish he fell on the road Ajay Singh son of Parmatma Singh r/o Khakra Pilibhit and Rambabu had also arrived at the place of occurrence and witnessed the incident. His brother Jagdish was having a love affair with Ganga sister of accused Krishna Kumar- appellant no.2, accused Dindayal appellant no.1 and wife of Chandra Prakash appellant no.3, on account of which both the parties were sent to jail. Before the occurrence in question had taken place Jagdish had attempted suicide after Ganga was married to Chandra Prakash (A-3), and as a result a criminal case was registered against him. A few days before the incident Ganga had come to the parental home and due to the aforesaid reason Jagdish had been assaulted. On the basis of the written report Ext.Ka-1, case crime no. 36 of 1986 was registered against all the three accused Dindayal, Krishna Kumar and Chandra Prakash under Section 307 IPC. The check report Ext.Ka-13 and the relevant G.D. entry vide Rapat no. 14 12 noon dt. 01.02.1986 Ex.Ka-14 were prepared by PW-9 Ravindra Singh. After the registration of the FIR. S.I.- A.K.Dixit, S.I.-S.C.Srivastava and S.I.-Baburam Saroj PW-5 left the police station on motorcycles in search of the accused. The investigation of the case was entrusted to PW-8 S.I.-Udaiveer Singh. Accused Dindayal and Krishna Kumar were arrested on the same day by S.I. A.K.Dixit, S.I.-S.C.Srivastava and S.I. Baburam Saroj from a place about 60 paces from the mazaar of Mohd. Shah at Naktedane crossing while they were going somewhere on a bicycle, in the presence of Jai Singh and Chhotey Lal PW-6. On being apprehended one of the accused disclosed his name as Krishna Kumar while the other told that his name as Dindayal. Both the accused were arrested on the spot. The search of Krishna Kumar lead to recovery of one knife with blood stains while the search of the other accused Dindayal resulted in recovery of one blood stained knife (Churi). The shirt which was worn by Dindayal at the time of his arrest had blood stains on its sleeves and the back. All the aforesaid articles were seized and sealed on the spot and recovery memo Ext.Ka-3 was prepared. The seized articles and the accused were taken to P.S. Kotwali. Injured Jagdish died in the hospital at 11.55 a.m.. The shirt which was worn by Dindayal at the time of his arrest had blood stains on its sleeves and the back. All the aforesaid articles were seized and sealed on the spot and recovery memo Ext.Ka-3 was prepared. The seized articles and the accused were taken to P.S. Kotwali. Injured Jagdish died in the hospital at 11.55 a.m.. The information of the death of Jagdish which was sent to the police station was recorded vide Rapat No. 15 at 12.45 hours at 01.02.1986, carbon copy whereof has been brought on record as Ext. Ka-15. Thereafter the case was converted to one under Section 302 IPC. During the course of investigation S.I. Udaiveer Singh PW-8 recorded the statements of Head Mohrrir Rajendra Singh, Radhey Shyam, Rampal, Shesh Kumar, Km. Meera, Ram Bharose, Chhotey Lal, S.I. A.K.Dixit, S.I. S.C. Srivastava, witnesses, Shyam Babu and Ajay Singh and the inquest witnesses. The investigating officer also collected plain and blood stained earth from the place of occurrence and after inspecting the place of occurrence he prepared its site plan. He also prepared the site plan of the place from where the accused Dindayal and Krishna Kumar were arrested and crime weapons recovered from them Ext.Ka-6. The inquest on the dead body of the deceased was performed by S.I. Bheesham Pal PW-10 at the mortuary on 01.02.1986. He prepared the inquest report Ext.Ka-18 and other documents, namely, request made to C.M.O., challan lash, specimen of seal, photo lash and letter addressed to R.I. and thereafter dispatched the dead body of the deceased for post mortem through constable Jeeshan Khan and Budhsen PW-11 and PW-12. Post mortem on the dead body of the deceased was conducted on 02.02.1986 at 1.00 p.m. by PW-7-Dr. M.P.Singh. After completing the investigation PW-8, submitted charge sheet Ext. Ka-7 against all the three accused-appellants under Section 302 IPC and separate charge sheets were submitted by him under Section 25 Arms Act against accused Dindayal and Krishna Kumar on which the C.J.M., Ext. Ka-8 and Ka-9 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pilibhit, took cognizance and summoned the accused. Since the offence mentioned in the charge sheet was triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions, C.J.M., Pilibhit by his committal order dated 02.05.1986 committed the case for trial of the accused to the Court of Sessions, Pilibhit along with cases under Section 25 Arms Act. Ka-8 and Ka-9 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pilibhit, took cognizance and summoned the accused. Since the offence mentioned in the charge sheet was triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions, C.J.M., Pilibhit by his committal order dated 02.05.1986 committed the case for trial of the accused to the Court of Sessions, Pilibhit along with cases under Section 25 Arms Act. All the three cases were registered as S.T. No. 144 of 1986 (State Vs. Dindayal and others) under Sections 302/34 IPC, S.T. No. 145 of 1986 (State Vs. Dindayal) under Section 25 of the Arms Act and S.T.No. 146 of 1986 (State Vs. Krishna Kumar) under Section 25 Arms Act respectively from where all the three aforesaid sessions trials were made over to the court of Special Judge/Additional Sessions Judge, Pilibhit. On the basis of the material on record, the learned Additional Sessions Judge after hearing the accused on the point of charge framed charge against them under Sections 302/34 IPC. Separate charge was framed against appellants Dindayal and Krishna Kumar in S.T. No. 145 and 146 of 1986 under Section 25 Arms Act. All the three accused-appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution in order to prove its case against the accused-appellants produced as many as 12 witnesses of whom PW-1-complainant Radhey Shayam, PW-2-Meera, PW-3-Ram Bharose, PW-4 Ajay Singh who was also scribe of the FIR and PW-6 Chottey Lal were examined as witnesses of fact, PW-5-Baburam Saroj, PW-6-Chotey Lal, PW-7-Dr. M.P.Singh, PW-8-Udaiveer Singh, PW-9-Ravindra Singh, PW-10-Bhisham Lal, PW-11-Budhsen and PW-12-Jishan Khan were examined as formal witnesses. The accused-appellants in their examination under Section 313 IPC denied the prosecution case. The accused-appellant Dindayal further alleged that the entire proceedings taken against him were fabricated and all the witnesses of fact, who are related to the deceased had given false evidence against him. Appellant no.2 also alleged that the prosecution case was fabricated and the witnesses, who are closely related to the deceased had given false evidence against him and the police had falsely implicated him due to the altercation which had taken place between him and Jagdish. Accused-appellant no.3, Chandra Prakash appellant no.3 also stated that he had been falsely implicated in the present case. Accused-appellant no.3, Chandra Prakash appellant no.3 also stated that he had been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned trial judge after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and scrutinizing the evidence on record convicted all the accused-appellants under Section 304/34 IPC while accused-appellant no.1 Dindayal, appellant no.2 Krishna Kumar were further convicted under Section 25 Arms Act also and awarded the aforesaid sentences. Hence this appeal. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the FIR in this case is ante-timed. He next submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove by any reliable evidence that the incident had occurred at the place, time and manner as described in the FIR. He further submitted that the prosecution has totally failed to prove the motive suggested for committing the murder of the deceased by the accused-appellants by any reliable evidence as Ganga who was the best witness to depose on the point of motive was neither interrogated during investigation nor she was produced during the trial before the Court. The prosecution has further miserably failed to prove by any cogent evidence that the deceased had met Ganga on the date of occurrence few minutes before the occurrence and they were seen by the accused-appellants which precipated the incident. He next submitted that although no one had seen the occurrence, after the dead body of the deceased Jagdish was recovered, accused-appellants were falsely implicated by the complainant due to their previous enmity with the deceased arising out of an incident, which had taken place about an year before the occurrence. The medical evidence in this case does not corroborate the prosecution version vis-a-vis manner of assault and time of death of the deceased as spelt out in the FIR and later testified by the prosecution witness. The presence of all the three so called eye witnesses at the time and place of occurrence is wholly unnatural and no reliance can be placed on their testimonies for the purpose of convicting the appellants also for the simple reason that they are close relatives of the deceased and hence highly interested in seeing the appellants convicted for the murder of the deceased. Learned counsel for the appellants also submitted that both the independent witnesses PW-4 Ajay Singh and PW-6 Chottey Lal having been declared hostile after they failed to support the prosecution case, no reliance could have been placed by the trial judge on the evidence of remaining witnesses who as noted earlier were highly inimical towards the accused-appellants, for the purpose of convicting them. He lastly submitted that such being the state of evidence on record neither the recorded conviction of the accused-appellants nor the sentence awarded to them can be sustained and are liable to be set aside. Per contra Sri A.N.Mulla, learned AGA submitted that the incident had taken place in broad day light on 11.30 a.m. on 01.02.1986 on a busy road. The FIR of the incident was promptly lodged and accused were arrested on the same day and crime weapons recovered from their possession. The complainant PW-1-Radhy Shyam has in his evidence tendered before the trial court fully supported the prosecution case as spelt out in the FIR, which was further corroborated by the other two eye witnesses PW-2 and PW-3. The medical evidence on record fully corroborates the prosecution version vis-a-vis time, place and manner of assault and the identities of the preparators of the crime. There is nothing on record, which may even remotely indicate that the FIR in this case is ante-timed. The testimonies of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 are not liable to be discarded merely on the ground of their being close relatives of the deceased. The non-production of Ganga as a witness does not in any manner affect the veracity of the prosecution case. The finding of guilt recorded by the trial court is based upon cogent evidence and the sentence awarded to the accused-appellants is supported by relevant considerations and warrant no interference by this Court. This appeal lacks merit and is accordingly liable to be dismissed. We have very carefully considered the submissions made before us by the learned counsel for the parties and scanned the entire lower court record. Record shows that the accused appellants in this case were tried for having committed the murder of Jagdish (deceased), the real brother of complainant Radhey Shyam-PW-1 and PW-3 and uncle of PW-3 at about 11.30 a.m. on 01.02.1986 at a place on the main road near the temple of Gauri Shanker between Ayurvedic college and Dhunawali Masjid. Record shows that the accused appellants in this case were tried for having committed the murder of Jagdish (deceased), the real brother of complainant Radhey Shyam-PW-1 and PW-3 and uncle of PW-3 at about 11.30 a.m. on 01.02.1986 at a place on the main road near the temple of Gauri Shanker between Ayurvedic college and Dhunawali Masjid. The incident was witnessed by PW-1- complainant Radhey Shyam, his neice Meera-PW-2 duaghter of Ram Bharose, his brother Ram Bharose PW-3, Munna Lal, Chottey Lal, PW-6, Ajay Singh PW-4 and Shyam Babu. The written report of the incident was scribed on the dictation of PW-1 complainant Radhey Shyam by Ajay Singh PW-4 and lodged at P.S. Kotwali promptly on the same day at about 12.00 noon. Written Report Ext. Ka-1 reflects that the appellant before chasing Jagdish and stabbing him had first attempted to stab him in his own locality but he managed to escape from their clutches and started running on the road towards the Ayurvedic college chased by the accused-appellant. On witnessing the accused armed with knives chasing the deceased, PW-2 Meera raised a cry for help which galvanized PW-1 Radhey Shyam and his brother Ram Bharose, Munna Lal and Chottey Lal, into action, who came out of their houses and on seeing the appellants chasing Jagdish went after them. However before they could intercept the accused appellants, they caught hold of Jagdish near a temple on the main road between Ayurvedic college and Dhunawali Masjid, and stabbed him repeatedly with their knives inflicting multiple knife injures on his chest, neck and face and then they escaped through the nearby lane. The motive for committing the aforesaid incident as set forth in the FIR is that about an year before the occurrence, a scuffle had taken place between the accused-appellants-Dindayal (A-1) and Krishna Kumar (A-2) and the deceased, when they had questioned the propriety of deceased having a love affair with their sister Ganga. Both the parties were arrested and sent to jail. Jagdish had even attempted to commit suicide after Ganga was married to Chandra Prakash appellant no.3, for which he was being prosecuted. Their enmity between the accused-appellants and the deceased sprang from the aforesaid love affair. We have already noted that the prosecution in order to prove the charge framed against the accused-appellants had examined as many as 12 witnesses including five eye witnesses. Their enmity between the accused-appellants and the deceased sprang from the aforesaid love affair. We have already noted that the prosecution in order to prove the charge framed against the accused-appellants had examined as many as 12 witnesses including five eye witnesses. The only question which arises for our consideration in this appeal is that whether the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the accused-appellants beyond all reasonable doubts or not? In order to decide the aforesaid issue we will have to analyze and scrutinize the oral as well as documentary evidence on record in the background of the facts of the case spelt out in the FIR. PW-1- Radhey Shyam (complainant) in his examination-in-chief has deposed that on the date of occurrence at about 11.30 a.m., while he was sitting in his house, he heard his niece Meera screaming that the accused appellants- Dindayal, Krishna Kumar and Chandra Prakash had rounded up her uncle Jagdish. On hearing her shrieks, he came out from his house along with his brother Ram Bharose, Munna Lal and Chottey Lal and on coming out from his house, he noticed his brother running on the road towards Ayurvedic College chased by the accused-appellants - Dindayal, Krishna Kumar and Chandra Prakash, armed with knives wherepon PW-1 and the other witnesses also went behind them. However before they could intercept the accused-appellants to save the deceased, accused-appellants caught hold of Jagdish near the temple and stabbed him with their knives. He identified the two knives which were produced during the trial as the same knives, which were recovered from the accused-appellants Dindayal and Krishna Kumar on their search made at the time of their arrest, and marked as material Ext. Ka-1 and Ka-2. He further deposed that Shyam Babu and Ajay Singh had also arrived at the place of occurrence on hearing the noise made by PW-1 and his brother and had seen the accused assaulting his brother Jagdish and escaping through lane in the east of the temple. He proved the written report of the incident Ext. Ka-1, which was scribed by PW-4 Ajay Singh on his dictation. He further deposed that he had given the written report of the occurrence Ext. Ka-1 at the police station to the Munshi present there. He proved the written report of the incident Ext. Ka-1, which was scribed by PW-4 Ajay Singh on his dictation. He further deposed that he had given the written report of the occurrence Ext. Ka-1 at the police station to the Munshi present there. By the time he reached the hospital where his brother Ram Bharose had taken Jagdish for treatment, Jagdish had already died. His brother- Jagdish (deceased) was having love affair with Ganga sister of Krishna Kumar and Dindayal, which was not approved by them. After Ganga was married to accused-appellant no.3 Chandra Prakash, Jagdish had attempted to commit suicide in the temple of Gauri Shankar, however, he was caught and prosecuted. An year before the incident a scuffle had taken place between Jagdish and Krishna Kumar, when he had objected to the love affair between the deceased and his sister Ganga, on account of which both were sent to jail. He also deposed that on the date of occurrence Ganga had come to her paternal home and accused appellant no.1 Dindayal and appellant no.2 Krishna Kumar had seen Ganga with deceased-Jagdish which was not taken very kindly by them and eventually lead to his murder on the same day by them and Chandra Prakash. Certain questions were put to PW-2 Meera by the court to test her understanding as on the date of the recording of her evidence PW-2 Meera was aged about 13 years and thereafter from the answers received from her, the court was of the view that she understood well and could distinguish between bad and good and that she was a girl of mature understanding. PW-2- Meera in her examination-in-chief deposed that she knew all the three accused appellants who were present at the court. On the date of the incident she had come out on her house at about 11.30 a.m. to ease herself and when she reached Gauri Shanker's temple, she saw her uncle Jagdish surrounded by the accused appellants, armed with knives and one of the accused had caught hold of the collar of the shirt which her uncle- Jagdish was wearing at that time but Jagdish managed to escape from their clutches and started running followed by the accused. On hearing her screams her uncle Radhey Shyam, father Ram Bharose, grand father Munna Lal and Chottey Lal arrived at there and on seeing the accused appellants chasing Jagdish they also went after them. PW-3-Ram Bharose in his examination-in-chief fully corroborated the facts stated by PW-1 in his examination-in-chief on all material points relating to the occurrence. PW-4-Ajay Singh in his examination-in-chief, however, denied having recognized the persons, who had stabbed the deceased - Jagdish as a huge crowd had already gathered at the crime scene before his arrival. He however admitted having scribed the written report of the incident Ext.Ka.-1 on the dictation of Radhey Shyam. He also failed to identify the crime weapons allegedly recovered from the accused-appellant no.1- Dindayal, which were produced before trial court as the same knives, which were recovered from the possession of the accused-appellants Dindayal and Krishna Kumar, at the time of their arrest although he admitted his signature on the recovery memos of the knives Ext. Ka-2 and Ext. Ka-3. PW-4 Ajay Singh was declared hostile on the request of the DGC (Criminal). The court permitted him to cross examine PW-4. PW-6-Chotey Lal, who was examined by the prosecution as eye witness of the occurrence also failed to support the prosecution case by deposing in his examination-in-chief that he had not seen the accused appellants stabbing the deceased and was declared hostile on the request of the DGC (Criminal), who was allowed to cross examine him with the permission of the Court. PW-5- S.I.-Baburam Saroj proved the arrest of accused-appellants Dindayal, Krishna Kumar and Chandra Prakash on 01.02.1986 at about 1.00 p.m. and recovery of one blood stained knife from each of the two accused. PW-7-Dr. M. P. Singh, who had conducted the post mortem of the dead body of the deceased was examined as PW-7. He proved the post mortem report of the deceased Ext. Ka-4. Post mortem report of the deceased indicates that PW-7 had noted following ante mortem injuries on his dead body:- 1. Incised wound 2 cm X 0.5 cm X muscle deep on upper lip below nostrils. 2. Incised wound 2 cm X 0.5 cm X cavity deep on right cheek, 3 cm from angle of mount. 3. Incised wound 1.5 cm X 0.5 cm X muscle deep on right angle of mouth. 4. Incised wound 2 cm X 0.5 cm X muscle deep on upper lip below nostrils. 2. Incised wound 2 cm X 0.5 cm X cavity deep on right cheek, 3 cm from angle of mount. 3. Incised wound 1.5 cm X 0.5 cm X muscle deep on right angle of mouth. 4. Incised wound 3 cm X 0.5 cm X muscle deep on left side neck, 7 cm below left ear with caroted vessels cut. 5. Incised wound 1.5 cm X 0.5 cm X cavity deep on right side chest, just below clevicle directed posteriorily. 6. Incised wound 2.5 cm X 1.00 cm X cavity deep in front of chest on sternum directed posteriorily in right side. 7. Incised wound 2.5 cm X 1.00 cm X cavity deep, in its left chest, directed inner side 10 cm below left nipple, at 4.0 clock position. 8. Incised wound 2 cm X 1.00 cm X cavity deep, on left side abdomen, just above iliac crest, directed medially. 9. Incised wound 2 cm X 1.00 cm X bone deep, on left iliac bone. 10. Abrasion 1 cm X 0.1 cm on upper part of the abdomen. 11. Incised wound 2 cm X 1 cm X muscle deep on left arm, outer upper part. 12. Incised wound 4 cm X 1 cm X muscle deep on left arm, posteriorily six cm above left elbow. 13. Incised wound 2 cm X 1 cm X muscle deep on left arm, outer side, 7 cm above left elbow. 14. Incised wound 1.5 cm X 0.1 cm X skin deep, on left forearm, 1 cm above left wrist. 15. Incised wound 1.5 cm X 0.2 cm X muscle deep, on left thumb at base. 16. Incised wound 1.5 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep on back of neck lower part. 17. Incised wound 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm x muscle deep on back of neck 1 cm below injury no. 16. 18. Incised wound 2.5 cm x 1 cm x cavity deep on right side back of chest 6 cm from mid line. 19. Incised wound 3 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep on back of chest in mid line in middle portion. 20. Incised wound 2 cm x 1 cm x cavity deep on right side abdomen, inter side directed medially inner side. 19. Incised wound 3 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep on back of chest in mid line in middle portion. 20. Incised wound 2 cm x 1 cm x cavity deep on right side abdomen, inter side directed medially inner side. Plura was cut, both lungs was also cut, large arteries blood vessels on the left side of the neck was cut, blood was found in the parietonial cavity, according to PW-7, the deceased had died as a result of haemorrhage and shock due to ante mortem injuries found on his dead body. He also deposed that it was possible that the deceased had died between 11.30 a.m. and 1.00 p.m. PW-8-Udaiveer Singh Investigating Officer on this case in his evidence tendered before the trial court proved the various steps taken by him during the investigation. He proved the site plan of the place of occurrence Ext.Ka-5 and the site plan of the place of arrest of appellant no.1 Dindayal and appellant no.2 Krishna Kumar, recovery memo of knife and churi from them Ext.Ka-6, charge sheets Ext.Ka-7, Ext.Ka-8 and Ext. Ka-9 submitted by him in the case under Section 302 IPC and the two cases under Section 25 Arms Act against accused-appellants Dindayal and Krishna Kumar. He also proved the recovery memo of blood stained and plain earth Ext. Ka-10 and the statements of witnesses of Chottey Lal and Ajay Singh recorded by him during the investigation in which they had supported the prosecution case as Ext.Ka-11 and Ext.Ka-12. In his cross examination, he admitted that he had not recorded the statement of Ganga as he could not contact her during investigation. PW-9-Ravindra Singh, who was posted at P.S. Kotwali Pilibhit on 01.02.1986 proved the check FIR Ext.Ka-13, which was prepared by him on the basis of the written report of the incident Ext.Ka-1 and the relevant G.D.entry made by him vide Rapat No.14 on 01.02.1986 at about 12.00 p.m. Ext.Ka-14 after comparing it with the original G.D. He also proved the paper no. 12/2 information received by him from the Sadar hospital on 01.02.1986 at about 12.45 p.m. about the death of Jagdish and recorded the same in the G.D., where after the case was converted to one under Section 302 IPC. The carbon copy of the G.D. entry paper no. 12/2 proved by him as Ext. Ka-15. 12/2 information received by him from the Sadar hospital on 01.02.1986 at about 12.45 p.m. about the death of Jagdish and recorded the same in the G.D., where after the case was converted to one under Section 302 IPC. The carbon copy of the G.D. entry paper no. 12/2 proved by him as Ext. Ka-15. PW-10-S.I. Bhisham Lal, who had conducted the inquest on the cadaver of the dead body of the deceased-Jagdish and prepared other documents was examined as PW-4. He proved the inquest report Ext.Ka-18, letter addressed to CMO Ext.Ka-19, challan lash Ext.Ka-20, specimen seal Ext.Ka-21, sketch of the dead body Ext.Ka-22 and letter addressed to R.I. Ext.Ka-23. We no proceed to examine the merit of the grounds on which the appellant's counsel has assailed the impugned judgment and order in the light of the evidence adduced by the prosecution during the trial to which we have already referred herein before. The first ground on which the learned counsel for the appellant has challenged the appellant's conviction is that the FIR in this case is ante-timed. In this regard, he has invited our attention to the distance between the place of incident and the police station, which is about 1/2 km. and submitted that it was humanly impossible for PW-1 complainant Radhey Shyam to get the written report of the occurrence scribed by PW-4 Ajay Singh and lodged at police Station within 1/2 hour of the occurrence and it is apparent that the report of the incident was lodged much after the time mentioned in the check FIR and in the G.D.. In this regard it would be interesting to note that the PW-1 Radhey Shyam complainant has categorically denied the suggestion given to him in his cross examination by the defense counsel on page 35 of the paper book that the written report of the incident was lodged in consultation with the police after a lapse of considerable delay from the time of occurrence. On the same page PW-1-Radhey Shyam in his cross examination has further deposed that after the crime had been committed he had requested PW-4-Ajay Singh to scribe the report of the incident and on his dictation, the written report Ext.Ka-1 was scribed by Ajay Singh PW-4 by a dot pen and thereafter he had gone to the police station. It had taken him about 10-15 minutes to reach the police station. It had taken him about 10-15 minutes to reach the police station. Although PW-1 Radhey Shyam was subjected to a grueling cross-examination by the defense counsel but he could elicit anything from him which may create a doubt in our mind regarding the correctness of the time at which, the FIR of the occurrence was lodged by PW-1-Radhey Shyam at P.S. Kotwali. Moreover PW-9-Ravindra Singh, who was posted as Head Moharrir in P.S. Pilibhit on 01.02.1986 has deposed before the trial court that he had prepared the check FIR on the basis of the written report and had made relevant G.D. entry vide Rapat no. 14 at about 12 hours on 01.02.1986. Both the documents, the check FIR and relevant G.D. entry were proved by him as Ext.Ka-13 and Ext.Ka-14. He also proved that on 01.02.1986, he had received the memorandum from Sadar hospital at about 12.45 p.m. containing the information regarding the death of the deceased whereupon the case was converted to one under Section 302 IPC from Section 307 IPC and the relevant G.D. entry was also made by him. He proved the carbon copy of the aforesaid G.D. entry Ext.Ka-15. No suggestion was given by the defense counsel to PW-9 to the effect that the FIR was not registered at the time recorded in the G.D. and in the check FIR. Thus the evidence of PW-9 Ravindra Singh on the point of the FIR of the case having been registered on 01.02.1986 at about 12.00 noon has remained unchallenged. We cannot doubt the correctness of the time of the registration of the FIR on the ground that the scribe of the FIR PW-4 has turned hostile. A perusal of examination-in-chief of PW-4 Ajay Singh clearly indicates that he has admitted having scribed the FIR of the written report of the incident on the dictation of the PW-1 Radhey Shyam. We do not find any force in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant and the FIR in this case is ante timed. The second ground on which learned counsel for the appellants has assailed the appellant's conviction is that the prosecution has failed to prove by any cogent evidence that the incident had taken place at the place mentioned in the FIR. The second ground on which learned counsel for the appellants has assailed the appellant's conviction is that the prosecution has failed to prove by any cogent evidence that the incident had taken place at the place mentioned in the FIR. As regards the place of occurrence, it is proved from the evidence of PW-1, and PW-3 that the deceased was stabbed by the accused-appellant after chasing him from his locality at a place on the road near a temple between Dhunawali Masjid and Ayurvedic college. Even PW-4 and PW-6, who had supported the prosecution case in their statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. but who denied on being produced before the trial court having seen the accused-appellants stabbing the deceased had corroborated the evidence of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 regarding the place of occurrence, by deposing that they had seen the deceased lying with knife injuries at the place mentioned in the FIR. The investigating officer of this case PW-8-S.I.-Udaiveer Singh has deposed in his cross examination on page-17 of the paper book that he had noticed blood at the place of occurrence on the main road, which went to Kutchery via Ayurvedic college and he had collected blood from the place of occurrence. He had also inspected the place of occurrence and prepared the site plan Ext. Ka-3, in which the place where deceased was stabbed by the accused-appellant has been denoted by letter 'X' which is on the main road near temple Gauri Shanker between Ayurvedic college and Dhunawali Masjid. Thus upon a careful scrutiny of the evidence of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3, PW-4, PW-5, PW-6 and PW-9 and the site plan of the occurrence, Ext.Ka-3 we find that the prosecution has fully succeeded in proving that the occurrence had taken place at the place mentioned in the FIR. The third ground on which the appellant's counsel has castigated the prosecution story is that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove by any reliable evidence that the occurrence had taken place at the time mentioned in the FIR. The third ground on which the appellant's counsel has castigated the prosecution story is that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove by any reliable evidence that the occurrence had taken place at the time mentioned in the FIR. As regards the challenge of the appellants' counsel to the correctness of the time of occurrence mentioned in the FIR is concerned, we have noted that the time of occurrence mentioned in the FIR is 11.30 a.m. Both the eye witnesses have deposed in unison that the accused-appellants had assaulted the deceased with knives at about 11.30 a.m. Their evidence on the point of time of incident stands corroborated from the testimonies of Ajay Singh PW-4 and Chottey Lal PW-6. The time of incident as mentioned in the FIR finds further corroboration from the testimony of PW-7 Dr. M.P.Singh, who had conducted the post mortem on the cadaver of the deceased on 02.02.1986 a about 1.00 p.m. and prepared his post mortem report Ext.Ka-4. The possible time of death of the deceased as mentioned in the Ex.Ka-4 is about one day before. Considering the fact that the post mortem on the dead body of the deceased was conducted on 02.02.1986 at about 1.00 p.m., the probable time of the death of the deceased comes to about 1.00 p.m. on 01.02.1986 and if the admissible margin of error of two hours on both sides is taken into consideration the probable time of the death of the deceased calculated on the basis of medical evidence on record tallies with the time of death spelt out in the FIR. Moreover PW-6 on page 66 of the paper book has in his examination-in-chief categorically deposed that it was possible that the deceased had died on 01.02.1986 at about between 11.30 a.m. and 12.00 noon. It is noteworthy that the probable time of the death of the deceased suggested by PW-7 in his examination-in-chief has not been challenged by the defense counsel during the trial by the cross examining him on the aforesaid aspect of the matter. It is noteworthy that the probable time of the death of the deceased suggested by PW-7 in his examination-in-chief has not been challenged by the defense counsel during the trial by the cross examining him on the aforesaid aspect of the matter. Thus upon careful analysis of the oral as well as medical evidence on record on the point of time of death of deceased, we hold that the deceased had died at about 11.30 a.m. on 01.02.1986, as claimed by the prosecution and there is no merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the accused-appellants that the time of death/incident mentioned in the FIR is incorrect. The fourth ground on which the learned counsel for the appellant has challenged the appellant's conviction is that although in the FIR, it is alleged that the deceased was assaulted by the accused with a knife and churi and both the so called crime weapons were recovered from accused-appellants Dindayal and Krishna Kumar respectively but the post mortem report of the deceased does not indicate any injury, which can be attributed to churi and this material inconsistency between the ocular version and the medical evidence on record leads to only one conclusion that none of the so called eye witnesses had actually witnessed the occurrence and the prosecution has totally failed to prove by any reliable evidence that the assault had taken place in the manner set forth in the FIR. In this regard learned counsel for the appellant has invited our attention to the post mortem report of the deceased and the testimony of PW-7 Dr. M.P.Singh, who had conducted the post mortem on the deceased's dead body. The post mortem report of the deceased Ext.Ka-4 indicates as many as twenty ante mortem injuries. Except injury no.10, which has been described as abrasion on the upper back of the abdomen rest of the injuries are incised wounds of different dimensions. M.P.Singh, who had conducted the post mortem on the deceased's dead body. The post mortem report of the deceased Ext.Ka-4 indicates as many as twenty ante mortem injuries. Except injury no.10, which has been described as abrasion on the upper back of the abdomen rest of the injuries are incised wounds of different dimensions. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that if the prosecution case and the evidence of the witnesses of fact examined on behalf of the prosecution during the trial that the deceased was stabbed by the accused-appellants with a knife and churi is to be believed then in that case punctured wounds or penetrated punctured wounds ought to have been present on the dead body of the deceased but the post mortem report of the deceased does not indicate presence of punctured or penetrating punctured wounds on the dead body as such it is apparent that the prosecution witnesses of fact had not spoken the truth before the trial court and the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the incident had taken place in the manner described in the FIR. The aforesaid ground of challenge by the appellant's counsel to the appellants' conviction in our opinion is also without any force. PW-7 on page-66 of his cross examination has clearly deposed after examining the material Ext.Ka-1(knife) and material Ext. Ka-2 (churi) that although there is difference between knife and a churi but both are pointed weapons and in case victim is assaulted with both the aforesaid weapons then penetrating wounds would be caused. He further deposed that while conducting the post mortem, he noted penetrating incised wounds but did not find any penetrating punctured wounds and in case injuries are caused by a weapon having sharp edges on both sides and by sharp edge on one side, in both the contingencies incised wounds would be caused. Thus in view of the evidence of PW-7, the absence of punctured wounds on the dead body of the deceased is not sufficient to doubt the prosecution version vis-a-vis the manner of assault. Thus in view of the evidence of PW-7, the absence of punctured wounds on the dead body of the deceased is not sufficient to doubt the prosecution version vis-a-vis the manner of assault. The fifth ground on which the learned counsel for the appellants has castigated the appellant's conviction is that prosecution has totally failed to prove the motive suggested in the FIR for the accused-appellants to commit the murder of the deceased as Ganga daughter of Shiv Mohan and sister of appellant no.1 Dindayal, appellant no.2 Krishna Kumar and wife of appellant no.3 Chandra Prakashwith whom the deceased was allegedly having love affair and both were seen together on the date of the occurrence, which eventually lead to gruesome murder of the deceased by the accused-appellants, was neither interrogated during the investigation nor she was produced during the trial. The prosecution having withheld the most material witnesses on the point of motive, the court below ought to have drawn an adverse inference against the prosecution. The omission on the part of the trial court to draw an adverse inference against the prosecution for the aforesaid omission has also vitiated the appellant's conviction. It is true that Ganga was neither interrogated during the investigation nor she was produced by the prosecution during the trial but the aforesaid omission in our opinion, is not of such magnitude so as to persuade us to disbelieve the testimony of the prosecution witnesses on the point of motive. It has come in the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 that a scuffle had taken place between the deceased and appellant no.2 Dindayal about an year before the incident when appellant no.2 had objected to the deceased's love affair with their sister and both the parties were challaned and sent to jail. It has also come in evidence that deceased had attempted to commit suicide after Ganga was married to appellant no.3 Chandra Prakash for which he was being prosecuted and on the date of the occurrence Ganga had come to her paternal home and she was seen in the company of the deceased by appellants Dindayal and Krishna Kumar. It has also come in evidence that deceased had attempted to commit suicide after Ganga was married to appellant no.3 Chandra Prakash for which he was being prosecuted and on the date of the occurrence Ganga had come to her paternal home and she was seen in the company of the deceased by appellants Dindayal and Krishna Kumar. It is true that PW-1 in his cross examination on page 30 has admitted that he had not himself seen Jagdish (deceased) and Ganga together on the date of the occurrence but, notwithstanding the aforesaid piece of his testimony it is fully established from the evidence of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 that there was previous enmity between deceased Jagdish and the appellant nos. 1 and 2 due to his having a love affair with their sister Ganga, which was not approved by them at all and the occurrence was a fall out of the aforesaid enmity. More over the existing enmity between the deceased and the appellants no. 1 and 2 can also be inferred from the reply given by appellant no.2 Krishna Kumar to the fourth question put to him during his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that he had been challaned by the police because of his quarrel with Jagdish. Even if, we assume for the sake of arguments that the prosecution has not been able to prove the motive in this case, the same would not adversely effect the prosecution case, in view of the settled legal position, that motive loose its relevancy once the court comes to the conclusion that the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the accused from the testimony of eye witnesses. The last ground on which the learned counsel for the appellant has challenged the appellants' conviction is that although the prosecution had examined as many as five witnesses of fact but the two independent witnesses, namely, Ajay Singh, PW-4 and Chottey Lal, PW-6 were declared hostile after they failed to support the prosecution case vis-a-vis the identity of the accused-appellants, who had assaulted the deceased, the remaining three witnesses being real brothers and the niece of the deceased and hence not only inimical towards the accused but also highly interested in seeing the accused-appellants convicted for the murder of the deceased Jagdish. Thus the conviction of the appellants recorded by the trial court on the basis of the evidence PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 is perse illegal. On the point of interested witnesses the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. Vs. Jagdeo 2003, Cr.L.J. 844 SC observed that only on the ground of interested or related witnesses, their evidence cannot be discarded. In Mst Dalbir Kaur Vs. State of Punjab reported in 1976 Cr.L.J. 418 SC following observations were made: Interested witness:- Relatives who are natural witnesses are not interested witnesses and their testimony can be relied upon. (i)The term 'interested' postulates that the person concerned must have some direct interest in seeing that the accused is somehow or the other is convicted either because he had some animus with the accused or the some other reason. In the reported case the incident took place at mid night inside the house, the only natural witnesses who could be present to see the assault were the persons present in the house at that time. No outsider can be expected to have come at that time because the attack was sudden. Moreover a close relative who is very natural witness cannot be regarded as an interested witness. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Waman and others v. State of Maharashtra 2011 Crl. LJ 4827 has observed in paragraph No. 9 which reads as follows : "In Balraje @ Trimbak v. State of Maharashtra 2010 (70) ACC 12 (SC) = 2010 (90) AIC 32. this Court held that mere fact that the witnesses were related to the deceased cannot be a ground to discard their evidence. It was further held that when the eye witnesses are stated to be interested and inimically disposed towards the accused, it has to be noted that it would not be proper to conclude that they would shield the real culprit and rope in innocent persons. The truth or otherwise of the evidence has to be weighed pragmatically and the Court would be required to analyse the evidence of related witnesses and those witnesses who are inimically disposed toward the accused. After saying so, this Court held that if after careful analysis and scrutiny of their evidence, the version given by the witnesses appears to be clear, cogent and credible, there is no reason to discard the same. After saying so, this Court held that if after careful analysis and scrutiny of their evidence, the version given by the witnesses appears to be clear, cogent and credible, there is no reason to discard the same. It has been further observed in Waman (supra) that relationship cannot be a factor to affect the credibility of a witness. The evidence of a witness cannot be discarded solely on the ground of his relationship with the victim of the offence. The plea relating to relatives' evidence remains without any substance in case the evidence has credence and it can be relied upon. In such a case the defence has to lay foundation if plea of false implication is made and the Court has to analyse evidence of related witnesses carefully to find out whether it is cogent and credible. The same view has been reiterated in State of U.P. v. Naresh and others." Thus the principle, which is culled out after a careful reading of the aforesaid authorities on the issue is that the witnesses are related to the deceased cannot be a ground to discard their evidence. The truth or otherwise of the evidence has to be weighed pragmatically and the court would be required to analyse the evidence of related witnesses and those witnesses who are inimically disposed towards the accused with utmost caution to find out whether it is cogent or credible. If after careful analysis and scrutiny of their evidence, the version given by the witnesses appears to be clear, cogent and credible, there is no reason to discard the same. We now proceed to scrutinize and analyse the oral evidence on record on the touch stone of the aforesaid principle. As already noted the prosecution in order to bring home its charge against accused-appellants had examined as many as five eye-witnesses, namely, PW-1 complainant Radhey Shyam, PW-2 Meera, PW-3 Ram Bharose, PW-4 Ajay Singh, PW-6 Chottey Lal. Of whom PW-1 and PW-3 are real brother of the deceased while Pw-2 Meera daughter of the Ram Bharose is the niece of the deceased. It is noteworthy that both independent witnesses PW-4 Ajay Singh scribe the FIR as well as an eye witness of the occurrence and PW-6 Chottey Lal another eye witness had failed to support the prosecution case in their examination-in-chief and were declared hostile. It is noteworthy that both independent witnesses PW-4 Ajay Singh scribe the FIR as well as an eye witness of the occurrence and PW-6 Chottey Lal another eye witness had failed to support the prosecution case in their examination-in-chief and were declared hostile. PW-4 Ajay Singh deposed that although he had seen the some persons stabbing the deceased on the road between Ayurvedic College and Dhunawali road but he could not recognize the assailants as a huge crowd had gathered there. PW-6 Chottey Lal on the other hand in his examination-in- chief stated that while he was taking his buffaloes for grazing, he had seen the deceased lying at the place of occurrence. He, however, denied having seen the accused-appellants assaulting the deceased. It is settled law that even if a witness is declared hostile, such part of his evidence which lends support to the prosecution version can be relied upon. Although PW-4 Ajay Singh and PW-6 Chottey Lal in their examination-in-chief recorded before the trial court have denied having seeing the accused-appellants assaulting the deceased but their evidence fully corroborates the time and place of incident mentioned in the FIR. PW-1 complainant Radhey Shyam has in his examination-in-chief fully supported the prosecution case on all material points pertaining to time, place and manner of assault and the identity of the accused. PW-3 Ram Bharose has fully corroborated the facts deposed by PW-1 complainant Radhey Shyam in his evidence on all material points. The evidence of PW-2 Meera who is the niece of the deceased is clinching and consistent on the point of her having seen the deceased rounded up by the accused who were armed with knives holding the deceased by his shirt's collar in her locality and the deceased running towards the Ayurvedic medical college after escaping from their clutches chased by the accused-appellants and her raising cries for help on hearing which PW-1 complainant, Ram Bharose and other witnesses came out of their houses and on seeing the deceased chased by the accused-appellants who were carrying knives with them they also went after them. The credibility and truthfulness of the evidence of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 has been challenged by the learned counsel for the appellant on the ground that the presence of all three witnesses of fact at the place of occurrence at the time of the incident is highly unnatural and the whole prosecution story as spelt out in the FIR and later testified by the prosecution witnesses of fact is totally false and concocted. In fact no one had seen the occurrence and after the deceased's dead body was recovered, the written report of the occurrence was got scribed by PW-1 by PW-4 Ajay Singh after due deliberations, consultations and on the advise of the police falsely implicating the applicants in the present case. He has also submitted that there was no occasion for PW-1 and PW-3 who earned their livelihood by plying rickshaw and working as labourer to be present in their house on the date of the occurrence as at the time when they had allegedly heard the scream of PW-2 Meera, they should have actually been away from their home earning their livelihood. The presence of PW-2 at the point from where she had witnessed the first attempt on the life of the deceased by the accused-appellants also does not appear to be natural on the ground that the reason given by her for her presence near the place of occurrence that she had came out from her house to ease herself at 11.30 a.m. does not appeal to a prudent mind as normally the girls and women folk in rural India go out to answer the call of nature either in the early hours of the morning or after sun set in the evening unless suffering from some stomach ailments and in the present case there is no such evidence on record indicating that on the date of the occurrence PW-2 was suffering from any stomach ailments which compelled her to come out from her house to answer the call of nature at 11.30 a.m.. Learned counsel for the appellants has tried to shake the credibility of PW-2 Meera by submitting that she is a tutored witness. In this regard he has invited our attention to her examination in chief on page 39 of the paper book on which she had deposed twice that Jagdish ki bhatiji screamed. Learned counsel for the appellants has tried to shake the credibility of PW-2 Meera by submitting that she is a tutored witness. In this regard he has invited our attention to her examination in chief on page 39 of the paper book on which she had deposed twice that Jagdish ki bhatiji screamed. The Court on taking note of the fact that PW-2 Meera while deposing had on two occasions stated that niece of Jagdish screamed instead of deposing in first person sought clarification from her on which she clarified that she had screamed. Thus considering the age of PW-2 at the time of the recording of her evidence and the clarification given by her we are not inclined to hold her to be a tutored witness as we find her evidence to be clinching and consistent throughout. It has also been pointed out by the learned counsel for the accused-appellants that it was impossible either for PW-1 or PW-3 to hear the shrieks of PW-2 from their house as the distance between the place from where PW-2 was screaming and the house of P W-1 and PW-2 is about 100 paces which comes to about 250 ft. Upon a cautious appraisal of the evidence of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3, we do not find that their evidence is liable to be discarded merely on the ground of their being close relatives of the deceased as after a thread bare scrutiny and a careful examination of their evidence the version given by them appears to us to be cogent and credible. As far as the appellant's counsel challenge to their presence at the place of occurrence at the time of incident being highly unnatural is concerned, the same is also without any merit. PW-1 on page -31 of the paper book in his cross examination has given a thoroughly plausible explanation for his presence in his house on the date of and at the time of the occurrence by deposing that although he was earning is livelihood in February 1986 by plying a rickshaw, a couple of days before the occurrence he had fallen ill and hence he was not plying rickshaw on the date of the incident and was present in his house resting. As far as PW-3 Ram Bharose is concerned, no suggestion was put to him by the defense counsel that he was not present in his house on the date of the occurrence. He has clearly denied the suggestion given to him by the defense, in his cross examination on page-47 of the paper book that the occurrence had not taken place in his presence and he was giving false evidence due to enmity. Upon examining learned counsel for the appellants challenge to the truthfulness of the claim of PW-2 Meera regarding her presence at the point near the place of occurrence, we find that she has categorically deposed that when on the date of the occurrence she was going to ease herself at about 11.30 a.m. she saw her uncle Jagdish rounded up by accused-appellants who were armed with knives and holding him by his shirt's collar and when he escaped from their clutches, they started chasing him on which she started shouting and on hearing the noise made by her, her father Ram Bharose, uncle Radhey Shyam grand father, Munna Lal and Chottey Lal came out from their houses and went after the accused. In her cross examination on page 40 of the paper book, PW-2 has stated that her house does not have a toilet. Thus we do not find any reason to doubt the presence of PW-2 Meera on the point from where she had witnessed the first attempt on the life of the deceased in her own locality, the deceased escaping from the grip of the accused-appellants and running towards Ayurvedic college followed by the appellants on which she screamed and her scream attracted the attention of her father, uncle, grand father and other witnesses who had come out of their houses on hearing her screams and who on seeing the deceased chased by the appellant who were armed went after them. We also do not find anything unusual about the shrieks of PW-2 being heard by PW-1 and PW-3 in their house which was at a distance of about 250 ft. from the place of its origin. All the prosecution witnesses were subjected to long drawn and grueling cross examination by the defense counsel but he failed to elicit anything out of them which may persuade us to doubt the veracity and truthfulness of prosecution version. from the place of its origin. All the prosecution witnesses were subjected to long drawn and grueling cross examination by the defense counsel but he failed to elicit anything out of them which may persuade us to doubt the veracity and truthfulness of prosecution version. It is true that there are some minor discrepancies in their testimonies but the same are normal. These discrepancies are due to normal errors of observations due to lapse of time, due to shock and horror at the time of occurrence. Their testimonies do not suffer from any abnormal or material discrepancy. Thus upon a wholesome analysis and careful evaluation of the evidence on record, both oral as well as documentary, we do not find that the trial court committed any error or illegality in convicting the appellants for having committed the murder of the deceased. The occurrence had taken place in broad day light at about 11.30 a.m. on 01.02.1986. The FIR of the incident was lodged promptly by PW-1 within 1/2 an hour of the occurrence at 12.00 noon. Soon after the registration of the FIR, PW-5 S.I.-Baburam Saroj, S.I.- A.K.Dixit and S.I. S.C.Srivastava had departed from the police station on motorcycles in search of the accused and arrested the accused-appellants no.1 Dindayal and appellant no.2 Krishna Kumar on the same day at about 1.00 a.m. and recovered the crime weapons from them. The prosecution has successfully proved by cogent evidence that the accused-appellants had a very strong motive to commit the murder of Jagdish. We have collated the ocular testimony with the medical evidence and found that there is no discrepancy of any kind or contravention in between the two. We do not find any reason to discard the testimony of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 on the ground of their being interested witnesses as after cautiously analyzing their evidence, we have found their evidence to be cogent and credible. The veracity of the prosecution case cannot be doubted on the ground of two out of the five eye witnesses produced during the trial having failed to support the prosecution case and declared hostile as the prosecution case stands fully proved from the unimpeachable and clinching testimony of remaining eye witnesses and the other evidence on record. The veracity of the prosecution case cannot be doubted on the ground of two out of the five eye witnesses produced during the trial having failed to support the prosecution case and declared hostile as the prosecution case stands fully proved from the unimpeachable and clinching testimony of remaining eye witnesses and the other evidence on record. We do not find any reason to interfere either with the recorded conviction of the appellants or the sentence of imprisonment for life awarded to them by the court below. This appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. Since all the three appellants are on bail, their bail bonds and surety bonds are cancelled. They are directed to surrender before the trial court. If they fail to surrender, the trial court shall pass an order to arrest the appellants and send them to jail for serving out the remaining part of the sentence awarded by the trial court by means of the impugned judgment and order dated 10.05.1988. Let a copy of this judgment be served to the trial court for intimation. There shall however be no order as to costs.