JUDGMENT Hon’ble Pankaj Naqvi, J.—This criminal appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 22.4.1988, passed by the Sessions Judge, Farrukkhabad in S.T No. 542/1984 (State v. Brahamma Dhar and others), convicting/sentencing the appellants under Sections 148, 302/149, 307/149 IPC for life imprisonment and other ancillary sentences. PROSECUTION CASE 2. P.W.-1 on 12.2.1984 at about 2 p.m., was sitting on a cot at a platform outside his house alongwith his brother Shanti Saran (deceased) and Rajendra (P.W.-2), whereas Chandra Pal, Devidin, Jawahar were standing on the said platform; Saligram (P.W.-3) and Bhanu Pratap (deceased) were standing on platform outside their houses. All of a sudden, appellants Brahamma Dhar, Shiv Dhar, both sons of Madho Prasad, Ajay Kumar s/o Shiv Kumar, Shishir Chandra s/o Shiv Dhar and Narendra S/o Brahamma Dhar arrived at the scene from the northern direction, wherein Brahamma Dhar and Shiv Dhar were armed with a country-made pistol, Ajay Kumar with a licenced D.B.B.L gun belonging to his father/Shiv Kumar, Shishir Chandra and Narendra possessed a country-made pistol. All the 5 accused fired at the informant’s side exhorting that they be not spared, causing fire-arm injuries to Shanti Saran who fell on the spot, grandson Bhanu Pratap received fire-arm injuries who died at the spot, Rajendra and Chandra Pal also fell down after sustaining fire-arm injuries. P.W.-1 lay flat on the ground to save himself from indiscriminate firing but was eventually inflicted with a knife by Shishir Chandra on his head, causing serious injuries, who roll to fell down in a nearby drain and it was only upon arrival of co-villagers and upon their exhortation that the accused fled from the scene. P.W.-1 alleged animosity as the accused wanted to implicate him in a criminal case but as they failed to do so, they went after his life. 3. On above allegations, a written report dated 12.2.1984 (Ext. Ka-1) was submitted to the P.S. concerned, at a distance of 2 kms, which became a basis for lodging of an FIR (Ext. Ka-18) as Case Crime No. 21, under Sections 147/148/149/307/302 IPC at 15.10 hrs on the same day. 4. After investigation, charge-sheet came to be submitted against the appellants, case committed, charges framed against them under Sections 147/148/149/307/302 IPC, to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. During trial Shishir Chandra and Narendra expired, trial stood abated against them. 6. 4. After investigation, charge-sheet came to be submitted against the appellants, case committed, charges framed against them under Sections 147/148/149/307/302 IPC, to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. During trial Shishir Chandra and Narendra expired, trial stood abated against them. 6. To bring home the charges, prosecution examined the following witnesses: 7. P.W.-1/injured is also an informant. P.W.-2 is also an injured witness. P.W.-3 is the neighbour of P.W.-1, an independent witness. P.W.-4 is the doctor, who conducted the autopsy (Ext. Ka-3) on the body of Shanti Saran on 14.2.1984 at about 1.30 p.m. and also prepared radiological report (Ext. Ka-4) of injured Rajendra Kumar (P.W.-2). P.W.-5 is another medico who conducted the autopsy of Bhanu Pratap on 13.2.1984 (Ext. Ka-5). P.W.-6 is the S.I. who prepared the inquest of Bhanu Pratap (Ext. Ka-6), memo of clothes of the deceased under his signatures (Ext. Ka-7). P.W.-7 is the I.O. in whose presence the FIR was lodged on 12.2.1984. He on the same date recorded the statements of Jeet Bahadur Mishra (Head Moharrir) and Jaswant Singh (P.W. 1) and took in his possession wearing apparel of P.W.-1, prepared a memo (Ext. Ka-8), collected plain and blood-stained earth, prepared a memo under his signatures (Ext. Ka -9), also collected plain and blood-stained earth from the scene where Bhanu Pratap was slained, prepared a memo under his signatures (Ext. Ka-10). He claims to have inspected the site of occurrence on 13.2.1984, prepared a site plan as Ext. Ka- 13 and also recorded the statements of S.I. Ram Bahadur Singh and other witnesses on different dates. P.W. 8 is the 2nd officer at the P.S., who on 13.2.1984 carried out inquest of Shanti Saran as Ext. Ka-24. P.W. 9 is the doctor who examined Rajendra (P.W.-2). Chandra Pal (not examined) and Jawant Singh (P.W.-2) on 12.2.1984 between 04:40 to 5:00, prepared injury reports (Ext. Ka-30 to 32). DEFENCE CASE 8. Brahma Dhar claimed false implication on account of previous animosity. Ka-24. P.W. 9 is the doctor who examined Rajendra (P.W.-2). Chandra Pal (not examined) and Jawant Singh (P.W.-2) on 12.2.1984 between 04:40 to 5:00, prepared injury reports (Ext. Ka-30 to 32). DEFENCE CASE 8. Brahma Dhar claimed false implication on account of previous animosity. He alleged that on 12.2.1984 at about 09 :00 a.m. while he was going to have his bath, Munshi Lal (D.W. 2) came running into his house alleging that Shanti Saran and others are chasing him and are after his life, he be provided shelter, upon which Brahma Dhar came out of the house, but before he could say anything, Jaswant (P.W. 1) and Shanti (deceased) caught hold of Brahmma Dhar, made him fell, to sit on his chest, started inflicting brick blows, prompting his son Narendra to come out of the house, who snatched a gun from Rajendra (P.W.-2) fired a shot at Shanti Saran which hit him, to be taken away by the informant side. He finally alleged that the deceased Bhanu Pratap died on account of fire-arm injuries, attributable to informant’s. 9. Shivdhar and Ajay Kumar denied their presence at the time of occurrence. 10. The defence examined three witnesses. D.W. 1, the doctor who examined the injuries of accused Brahma Dhar. D.W. 2/Munshi Lal to whom accused Brahmma Dhar provided shelter while he was allegedly chased by informant’s. D.W. 3 is the arms dealer who deposed that the fire-arm allegedly used by accused Ajay Kumar, is in the name of his father/Shiv Kumar Katiyar, was under his deposit for repairs at the time of occurrence. 11. The Trial Court after analyzing the evidence on record convicted/sentenced the appellants as above. 12. During appeal, appellants Shiv Dhar and Ajay Kumar expired, appeal stood abated against them. Thus, the appeal survives only against appellant Brahma Dhar. 13. On 31.7.2018, when the appeal was fixed for hearing, no one appeared on behalf of the appellants, leaving the Court with no other option but to appoint Mohd. Shamiuzzaman Khan as an Amicus. Subsequently, Sri Kamal Krishna, learned Senior Counsel intervened as a counsel for appellant. We permitted both of them to address the Court. 14. Heard Sri Kamal Krishna, learned Senior Counsel and Mohd. Shamiuzzaman Khan, learned Amicus for the appellant and Sri A.N. Mulla, the learned A.G.A. 15. Shamiuzzaman Khan as an Amicus. Subsequently, Sri Kamal Krishna, learned Senior Counsel intervened as a counsel for appellant. We permitted both of them to address the Court. 14. Heard Sri Kamal Krishna, learned Senior Counsel and Mohd. Shamiuzzaman Khan, learned Amicus for the appellant and Sri A.N. Mulla, the learned A.G.A. 15. The learned Senior Counsel alongwith the learned Amicus canvassed the following submissions : (i) There is evidence to indicate that the informant’s were aggressor, accused were well within their rights to exercise private defence. (ii) The prosecution failed to explain the injuries of accused Brahma Dhar, thus the prosecution is totally belied, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Lakshmi Singh and others v. State of Bihar, 1976 (4) SCC 394 . (iii) No reason has been ascribed by prosecution as to why the appellants would murder Bhanu Pratap as there was no enmity with him, coupled with the fact that neither his father was examined nor was any FIR lodged by him nor was he a witness to the inquest. (iv) Gun alleged to have been used by accused Ajay Kumar, belonged to his father Shiv Kumar which was with arms licensee (D.W-3) for repairs on the date of occurrence, probability of Ajay Kumar using the said gun is ruled out, thus witnesses are unreliable and untrustworthy. (v) Contradictory statements of P.W. 1 as to who caused him a knife injury, i.e. accused Shishir Chandra or anyone else, also brings the prosecution case under suspect. (vi) P.W.-3/Saligram could not have seen the occurrence from his platform, therefore, his testimony is untrustworthy and unreliable. 16. Learned A.G.A opposed the submissions primarily on the ground that there is evidence to indicate that it were the appellants who were aggressors, thus, no private defence is available to them. Alleged injuries to accused Brahma Dhar are doubtful in view of testimony of D.W. 1. Thus non-explanation of the same, would not throw out the prosecution case. Bhanu Pratap (deceased) according to D.W. 2 was the grandson of P.W. 1, thus non-registration of any FIR at his father’s instance or he being not a witness to his inquest, is immaterial, once prosecution case has been set forth in the FIR and inquest duly conducted. Thus non-explanation of the same, would not throw out the prosecution case. Bhanu Pratap (deceased) according to D.W. 2 was the grandson of P.W. 1, thus non-registration of any FIR at his father’s instance or he being not a witness to his inquest, is immaterial, once prosecution case has been set forth in the FIR and inquest duly conducted. Contradictions in the statement of P.W. 1 relating to author of his injuries is not so material so as to discard the prosecution case as knife injury has been inflicted on P.W. 1 which is not self-inflicted, prosecution established its case beyond a reasonable doubt through unshaken testimony of eye-witnesses, appeal is liable to be dismissed. 17. Appellant/Brahmadhar in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.gave a different picture as regards the nature of occurrence, which he sought to establish through DW-2. DW-2 alleged that on 12.2.1984 at 10 or 11:00 a.m. while he was at the Tubewell of one Mahesh, he saw Jaswant (PW-1) and Shanti (Deceased) sitting at their tubewell at a distance of 1 furlong who exhorted that DW-2 be assaulted, upon which DW-2 ran for his life by the side of Arahar fields to arrive at the house of appellant - Brahmadhar. D.W.-2 entered his house disclosing to Brahmadhar that he is being chased by above two persons and others who are after his life. No sooner Brahmadhar came out of the house, Shanti Saran (deceased) is alleged to have sat on his chest who assaulted him with bricks, accused Narendra son of Brahmadhar came out of the house, who in order to rescue his father fired a shot from a country made pistol, which hit Shanti Saran. During cross-examination, D.W. 2 admitted that he had no previous enmity with P.W. 1. He admitted that he is an asthmatic as a result of which he was running slowly, yet he was not nabbed by P.W.-1 and others coupled with the fact that even though accused Brahmadhar was taken by D.W. 2 to the police station for lodging a report but no report was lodged. On the contrary, Brahmadhar was taken into custody but no police report or complaint was made to higher authorities, makes D.W. 2 an absolutely unreliable witness so as to authenticate the version of occurrence as alleged by accused Brahma Dhar. On the contrary, Brahmadhar was taken into custody but no police report or complaint was made to higher authorities, makes D.W. 2 an absolutely unreliable witness so as to authenticate the version of occurrence as alleged by accused Brahma Dhar. Moreover, D.W. 2 did not allege as to how Bhanu Pratap died in this occurrence. We reject D.W.- 2 as wholly unsafe. Consequently informant’s cannot be said to be aggressor’s. 18. D.W.-1, the doctor at District Jail, Fatehgarh examined the following injuries of accused-appellant Brahmadhar on 13.2.1984 at 05 :10 p.m.: 1. Contusion 3 cm x 1 cm on right side of chest with swelling in an area of 13 cm x12 cm. Advised X-ray. 2. Abrasion 3 cm x 2 cm on outer part of left elbow joint. 3. Abrasion 4 cm x 0.5 cm on the back of left hand. 4. A lacerated wound 4 cm x 1 cm on the back of right index finger. Margins are irregular edges were not clear cut. Injury No. 1 was kept under observation and rest were simple caused by hard and blunt object. Duration was about one day. On X-ray examination, a fracture of middle of clavicle bone was found. 19. Injury report (Ext. Kha -1) was prepared under signatures of D.W. 1. He opined that the injuries could not have been caused on 12.2.1984 at 10:00 a.m. or 11:00 a.m.. He admitted that in the injury report there was no reference of any injury to the clavicle bone in injury No. 1. He also admitted that he had advised the injured for an X-ray of injury No. 1 but he himself had not seen the X-ray plate. He further opined on the basis of X-ray report (Ext. Kha-2) that the alleged fracture could be 2 to 10 days old. Moreover, he admitted in cross-examination that the injuries could have been caused on 12.2.1984 at 09:00 p.m.. 20. Thus, in view of above, there is strong probability that the alleged injuries to accused Brahmadhar were not caused to him at a time as alleged by prosecution i.e. on 12.2.1984 at 2:00 P.M, rather same appear to be manipulated. 21. Moreover, he admitted in cross-examination that the injuries could have been caused on 12.2.1984 at 09:00 p.m.. 20. Thus, in view of above, there is strong probability that the alleged injuries to accused Brahmadhar were not caused to him at a time as alleged by prosecution i.e. on 12.2.1984 at 2:00 P.M, rather same appear to be manipulated. 21. The Apex Court in Laxmi Singh (Supra) after referring to the decision of the Apex Court in State of Gujarat v. Bai Fatima, 1975 Cr LJ 1079, culled out the following three contingencies in the event of failure of prosecution to explain the injuries to the accused : (1) That the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and the origin of the occurrence and has thus not presented the true version: (2) That the witnesses who have denied the presence of the injuries on the person of the accused are lying on a most material point and therefore their evidence is unreliable; (3) That in case there is a defence version which explains the injuries on the person of the accused it is rendered probable so as to throw doubt on the prosecution case. 22. The Apex Court further added that there may be cases where non-explanation of the injuries by the prosecution may not affect the prosecution case. This principle would obviously apply to cases where the injuries sustained by the accused are minor and superficial or where the evidence is so clear and cogent, so independent and disinterested, so probable, consistent and credit-worthy, that it far outweighs the effect of the omission on the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries. 23. The resultant scenario which emerges from aforesaid legal position is that non-explanation of the defence injury by prosecution ipso facto would not be detrimental for prosecution provided defence injuries are trivial or the evidence emerging is so unambiguous and creditworthy that it overrides the effect of omission on the part of prosecution to explain the defence injuries. 24. The present is a case where injuries of accused Brahma Dhar is under grave suspect as the X-ray plate of the alleged clavicle injury was not on record, and D.W. 1 who was called to prove the injury of accused Brahmadhar had neither seen the X-ray plate nor the X-ray report was prepared by him. 24. The present is a case where injuries of accused Brahma Dhar is under grave suspect as the X-ray plate of the alleged clavicle injury was not on record, and D.W. 1 who was called to prove the injury of accused Brahmadhar had neither seen the X-ray plate nor the X-ray report was prepared by him. We have already discussed the alleged injuries of accused Brahmadhar examined by D.W. 1 and find the same to be manipulated and the defence version highly improbable. Thus non-explanation of injury of accused Brahma Dhar would not vitiate the entire prosecution case if it is otherwise established beyond reasonable doubt. 25. P.W. 1 is the informant and an injured who deposed that he was a sitting Pradhan for the past 4 years, who saw the occurrence while he was sitting at a platform in front of his house alongwith Shanti Saran (deceased) and Rajendra (P.W. 2) while Saligram (P.W. 3) was standing over a platform in front of his house, while Bhanu Pratap (deceased) was standing on a platform in front of his house. According to him all the 5 accused variously armed descended from the northern side, out of whom Brahmadhar fired a shot at his grandson Bhanu Pratap from a distance of 4-5 steps, who fell and died at the spot, accused Shiv Dhar fired a shot at Chandrapal (not examined) and Rajendra (P.W. 2), accused Ajay Kumar fired a shot at Shanti Saran who fell down and succumbed to the injuries in the hospital, accused Narendra fired a shot which missed the target as P.W. 1 bent down from a cot to lie at the floor so as to roll down to a nearby nala (drain), accused Shishir Chandra took out a knife from his pocket inflicted a knife injury at him (P.W. 1). 26. 26. We have perused the statement of P.W. 1 and find that there is no contradiction as regards the role of accused Shishir Chandra who inflicted knife injury at P.W.-1, as at Page 40 of the paper book, he stated that after he fell down from Charpai (cot) he rolled down to a nearby nala (drain) whereupon accused Shishir Chandra inflicted a knife injury on his back whereas in cross-examination he stated that while he was lying under the cot he was not inflicted a knife injury by accused Shishir Chandra, which means he was inflicted knife injury by accused Shishir Chandra when he was near the drain (nala). Thus, no contradiction as regards the role of accused Shishir Chandra is noticed in the testimony of P.W. 1. P.W. 1 is a safe witness to be relied upon. 27. P.W. 2 is also an injured witness, who stated that while he was sitting with P.W. 1 and Shanti Saran on the cot lying at the platform of P.W. 1, accused persons came from northern direction. He stated that he and Chandrapal sustained injuries due to fire-arm shot of accused Shiva Dhar, further he supported the entire prosecution case with assigned role to accused persons. P.W. 3 is an independent witness who too has supported the case of prosecution. Nothing could be elicited from the cross-examination of P.W. 2 and 3 which could dent their credibility. 28. P.W. 9 is the doctor who examined the injuries of P.W. 1/Jaswant Singh, P.W. 2/Rajendra Kumar and Chandrapal as under: Jaswant Singh: 1. Incised wound 2 cm x 0.8 cm x left tissue deep on right side post occipital region below occipital prominence cause by sharp edged object. 2. Abrasion 1 cm x 1 cm on left side chin. 3. Abrasion 1 cm x 1 cm on left side infra mandibular region. 4. Abrasion 1 cm x 1 cm on left sterno clavicular joint. 5. Abraded contusion 4 cm x 1 cm on right interscapular region. 6. Abraded contusion 4 cm x 1 cm on post axillary fold. 7. Abrasion in an area of 4 cm x 2 cm in front of right knee joint. 8. Abrasion in an area of 4 cm x 2 cm on front of left knee joint. Injury Nos. 2, 3, 4, 7 & 8 caused by friction against hard objection. Injury Nos. 7. Abrasion in an area of 4 cm x 2 cm in front of right knee joint. 8. Abrasion in an area of 4 cm x 2 cm on front of left knee joint. Injury Nos. 2, 3, 4, 7 & 8 caused by friction against hard objection. Injury Nos. 5 & 6 caused by blunt objection. Duration fresh. Rajendra Kumar: 1. Wound of entry 1 cm x 1 cm on right parietal occipitol region, directed interiorly and outer ends. Charring around wound present. 2. Wound of exit 1 cm x 1 cm, 4 cm anterior to injury No. 1. Both injuries were caused by fire-arm. Injury kept under observation. Advised X-ray- skull. Duration fresh. Chandra Pal: 1. Wound of entry 2.5 cm x 2 cm bone of left elbow directed downwards and outwards, muscle deep, charring on wound was present. 2. Wound of exit 1 cm x 0.8 cm, 2 cm adjacent from injury non.1. Both wounds contiguous to each other and caused by fire-arm. Duration fresh. 29. All the injuries of the three injured were reported to be fresh. Injuries of all the three injured were compatible with the use of incriminating weapons i.e. knife and fire-arms. 30. P.W. 4 is the doctor who conducted the autopsy (Ext. Ka-3) of the deceased Shanti Saran on 14.2.1984 at District Hospital at 01:30 p.m. with the following ante-mortem injuries: Gun shot wound of entry on back of right shoulder at junction of chest, size 3 cm x 2 ½ cm x chest cavity deep. Blackening was present around wound. Direction obliquely downward to front. On internal examination, the doctor concerned found that 2nd, 3rd and 4th ribs on right side were fractured. Pleura and lungs were found lacerated. Clotted blood was present in right side chest cavity about 2 ltrs. Contents contained semidigested food. Intestines contained gases and pasty faecal matters. P.W. 4 opined that the injury could be an outcome of fire-arm shot fired on 12.2.1984 at 02:00 p.m.. He also opined that this injury was caused from the backside of deceased from a distance of about 6 feet. 31. P.W. 4 also conducted the radiological examination of the injured Rajendra (P.W. 2) on 13.2.1984 and is also the author of radiological report (Ext. Ka-4) indicating the presence of a radio opaque shadow on the right side. 32. P.W. 5 is the doctor who conducted the autopsy (Ext. 31. P.W. 4 also conducted the radiological examination of the injured Rajendra (P.W. 2) on 13.2.1984 and is also the author of radiological report (Ext. Ka-4) indicating the presence of a radio opaque shadow on the right side. 32. P.W. 5 is the doctor who conducted the autopsy (Ext. Ka-5) of the deceased Bhanu Pratap on 13.2.1984 at 2 p.m. with the following injuries (external and internal both): 1.Gun shot wound of entry .5 cm x .5 cm x clavical cavity deep on left side, forehead just above left eyebrow. Direction front to back, circulation shot. 2. Gun shot wound of entry .7 cm x .5 cm x muscle deep left side of neck. Direction front to back. 3. Two gun shot wounds of entry 2 cm on middle part of body - sternum (chest), each measuring .3 cm x 3 cm x chest cavity, deep oval in shape .5 cm x 0.3 cm x chest cavity deep. Direction front to back. Sternum fractured. 4. Gun shot wound of entry .5 cm x .5 cm x bone deep on middle part of left arm. Medial side of bone of left arm was fractured. 5. Abrasion 1 cm x .5 cm on middle forehead. On internal examination, the doctor concerned found that frantal and parietal bone of last side of skull were fractured. Membranes were found lacerated. Brain, Pleura, lungs, pericardium and heart were lacerated. Intestines contained gases and faecal matters. Chest cavity contained clotted blood one litre. 33. P.W. 5 deposed that injuries No. 1 to 4 were a result of a fire-arm shot which was sufficient to cause death and was further opining that the deceased, died around 24 hours ago and the injuries could have been caused on 12.2.1984 at about 02:00 p.m.. 34. Considering the nature of ante-mortem injuries to both the deceased, we find that the same fit into the oral account of use of incriminating weapons, i.e., fire-arms in the hands of accused. 35. D.W. 3 is the licensed armed dealer who claimed that the alleged fire-arm which was alleged to have been used by accused - Ajay Kumar belonged to his father (Shiv Kumar) and the same was in deposit before him from30.1.1984 till its recovery by the I.O./P.W. 7 from his possession on 16.4.1984 whereas the occurrence took place on 12.2.1984. 36. D.W. 3 is the licensed armed dealer who claimed that the alleged fire-arm which was alleged to have been used by accused - Ajay Kumar belonged to his father (Shiv Kumar) and the same was in deposit before him from30.1.1984 till its recovery by the I.O./P.W. 7 from his possession on 16.4.1984 whereas the occurrence took place on 12.2.1984. 36. On close scrutiny of the evidence, we do not find any suggestion from the defence that accused- Ajay Kumar could not have used the gun belonging to his father on the date of occurrence, as the same was in custody of D.W. 3. Moreover, D.W. 3 was also stating that no intimation is given to the P.S. concerned when fire-arms are deposited for repairs. Thus in the above background probability of D.W. 3 being set up to create an alibi of accused Ajay Kumar coupled with the fact that there was neither any cross-examination on this aspect nor any suggestion offered to the prosecution that in view of deposit of gun belonging to the father of accused - Ajay Kumar on the date of occurrence, he could not have used the same, renders his testimony as vulnerable. 37. Non-examination of father of Bhanu Pratap or for that matter non-registration of a separate FIR by him or absence of his participation in inquest, is of no consequence, once D.W. 2 conceded that the deceased Bhanu Pratap is the grandson of P.W. 1. Merely because P.W. 1 could not give the specific lineage as he was distant relative of Bhanu Pratap would not have any impact, once D.W. 2 conceded to his relationship with P.W. 1. Thus, the contention of the appellants that they had no motive to kill Bhanu Pratap deserves to be rejected. 38. Site Plan (Ext. Ka-13) indicates the presence of Saligram/P.W. 3, an independent witness, who claims to have witnessed the entire occurrence from Point SR (a platform in front of his house) of the site plan, occurred at point “B” where Bhanu Pratap died, Point “C” where Chandra Pal got injured, Point “SS” where fire-arm hit Shanti Saran, Point “JS” where P.W.-1 was inflicted with knife and Point “O” under which the cot is lying on the platform of P.W.-1 where P.W.-1, 2 and Shanti Saran were sitting. During trial the learned Sessions Judge himself conducted the spot inspection and found the place where P.W. 3 is reported to be present at the time of occurrence i.e. at 02:00 p.m., all the places were clearly visible to him as the distance was only of few steps. We do not find any perversity in the approach adopted by the learned Judge in coming to above conclusion. 39. We on above evidence find the prosecution witnesses wholly reliable and do not find the occurrence to have taken place in the manner alleged by defence i.e. more than 5 persons from the informant side coming to the house of appellant Brahmadhar to assault D.W. 2/Munshi Lal wherein two persons i.e. Bhanu Pratap and Shanti Saran died and three got injured on the informant side. On the contrary occurrence as alleged by the prosecution is not only highly probable but has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. 40. No perversity could be demonstrated in the judgment impugned. 41. The appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 42. The appeal is dismissed. The appellant/Brahamma Dhar is on bail. His bail stands cancelled. He shall forthwith surrender before the Court concerned to serve out the remainder sentence. Office is directed to forthwith communicate this order to the Court concerned. Compliance report be submitted to this Court within two months. The Court records appreciation for services rendered by Mohd. Shamiuzzaman Khan, the learned Amicus and directs the Registrar General to tender him Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) as fee.