JUDGMENT : Om Prakash-VII, J. 1. Present Criminal Appeal has been preferred by accused Chander and Jogender against judgment and order dated 17.5.1984 passed by IIIrd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr in Session Trial No. 154 of 1984 (State of U.P. Vs. Chander and another), under Section 302/34 I.P.C., Police Station Kakore, District Bulandshahr, convicting and sentencing accused appellants for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC for life imprisonment. 2. Prosecution case, as mentioned in chik first information report (FIR) (Ext. Ka-1), are as follows : 3. Case of prosecution, as unfolded in the written report (Ext. Ka-1) and in statements of prosecution witnesses, is that in the intervening night of 14/15.12.1983 at about mid night deceased Vijai Pal and his mother Smt. Jai Dei (PW-1) were going to irrigate their field situated in the jungle of village Hirnoti from Government tube well. Smt Jai Dei was carrying a torch with her and when deceased Vijai Pal and his mother Smt. Jai Dei reached at the corner of field of Ved Ram Singh (PW-3) near bonga accused persons Chander and Jogender came from opposite direction. Accused Chander was carrying a country made pistol and Jogender was carrying a Pharsa. Both accused persons had old enmity with deceased Vijai Pal and as such they apprehended Vijai Pal. Smt. Jai Dei and Vijai Pal raised alarm. Thereupon accused Chander fired a shot at Vijai Pal by placing the country made pistol at his temple. Accused Jogender assaulted Vijai Pal with Pharsa. After sustaining injuries Vijai Pal fell down on the ground. Thereupon accused Jogender again fired a shot in the waist of deceased to ensure his death. Smt. Jai Dei recognized aforesaid accused persons in the moon lit night and in the flashes of torches. After committing the ghastly murder of Vijai Pal both accused escaped towards service road. On hearing gun shot and alarm, Satpal Singh, Pradhan of village and Ved Ram Singh, who were coming from the Railway Station Wair through service road, challenged the accused persons from the field of Har Sarup. Accused persons also threatened Sat Pal Singh and Ved Ram Singh and escaped towards east. Sat Pal Singh and Ved Ram Singh also saw and recognized accused persons in the moonlit night while fleeing away from the spot after committing murder of Vijai Pal. Accused persons also threatened Sat Pal Singh and Ved Ram Singh and escaped towards east. Sat Pal Singh and Ved Ram Singh also saw and recognized accused persons in the moonlit night while fleeing away from the spot after committing murder of Vijai Pal. Before three years of aforesaid occurrence an electric motor was taken away by some persons from the tube well of Ram Prasad (father of accused) and he lodged a report in connection of theft of said motor naming deceased Vijai Pal but police submitted Final Report in the said case and as such both accused persons had enmity against deceased Vijai Pal and they committed his murder in revenge. 4. On the basis of written report (Ext. Ka-1), chik FIR (Ext. Ka-2) was registered on 15.12.1983 at 8.50 P.M. against accused persons at crime no. 191 of 1983 under Section 302 IPC. On the basis of chik FIR G.D. entry was also made which is (Ext. Ka-3) on record. It also appears that Investigating Officer (hereinafter referred to as the 'I.O.') Naubat Lal, the then S.H.O. of Police Station concerned after fulfilling formalities and recording statement of Head Moharrir and informant P.W.-1 at the Police Station concerned proceeded to place of occurrence. After visiting place of occurrence and inspecting dead body of deceased inquest report (Ext. Ka-4) and relevant documents photo lash, report to C.M.O., report to R.I., challan nash (Ext. Ka-4 to Ext. Ka-8) were prepared by him. Dead body was kept in sealed cover and was dispatched for post mortem along with Constable Bhagwat Prasad and Chandrapal. He has also visited place of occurrence and prepared site plan (Ext. Ka-9) mentioning all details of place of occurrence. Investigating Officer has also taken torch used by informant, P.W.-1, at the time of occurrence and prepared memo (Ext. Ka-10) and handed over torch to witness concerned. “Tickley” and “Chharra” recovered from the place of occurrence near dead body of deceased were also taken into possession and keeping them in sealed boxes he also prepared memo (Ext. Ka-11). Memo prepared by Investigating Officer regarding blood stained and plain earth taken from the place of occurrence is Ext. Ka-12. Blood stained earth and plain earth were also kept in sealed boxes. Investigating Officer has also interrogated witnesses including the accused persons and after fulfilling entire formalities submitted charge sheet (Ext. Ka-13) against accused persons. 5. P.W.-5 Dr. Ka-11). Memo prepared by Investigating Officer regarding blood stained and plain earth taken from the place of occurrence is Ext. Ka-12. Blood stained earth and plain earth were also kept in sealed boxes. Investigating Officer has also interrogated witnesses including the accused persons and after fulfilling entire formalities submitted charge sheet (Ext. Ka-13) against accused persons. 5. P.W.-5 Dr. O. N. Pandey has conducted post mortem on the dead body of deceased on 16.12.1983 at 12 Noon. On general examination, deceased was found to be aged about 26 years. He was average body built. Probable time of death was 1-1/2 day old. Rigor mortis was present all over body. No evidence of decomposition was present on the body of deceased. Eyes closed. Mouth slightly open. Face was covered by soil. On examination of body, following ante mortem injuries were found : “1. Gun shot wound of entrance 1-1/2” x 1-1/2” cranial cavity deep on the right side of temple 2” lateral to right eye extending up to inner part of right external ear. Margins lacerated and inverted. Blackening and tattoing and scorching present (Temporal maxila and mandible) fractured on right side. 2. Incised wound 2” x 1” x muscle deep on the right side face just below injury no. 1. 3. Incised wound 1” x 1/2” x bone deep on the right side forehead just above and medial to injury no. 1 (frontal bone fractured). 4. Incised wound 4” x 1” x bone deep on the back of head right side 1-1/2” behind right ear (Occipital bone fractured). 5. Multiple gun shot wounds of entrance 2-1/2” x 1-3/4” x on the back mid line 8” below the root of neck. No blackening and tattooing present. Average size about 0.2” in diameter and 7th, 8th and 9th thoracic vertebra fractured. Spinal cord exposed and lacerated. 19 pallets recovered.” 6. On internal examination of the corpse, Dr. O. N. Pandey found scalp lacerated, frontal, temporal and occipital bone and skull fractured, membranes lacerated. Brain lacerated. 12 pallets were recovered from cranial cavity. Deceased died due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of aforesaid ante mortem injuries. 7. On completion of investigation and fulfilling entire formalities, charge sheet (Ext. Ka-13) was submitted against accused. Concerned Magistrate took cognizance and case being exclusively triable by Sessions Court was committed to Court of Sessions. 8. Brain lacerated. 12 pallets were recovered from cranial cavity. Deceased died due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of aforesaid ante mortem injuries. 7. On completion of investigation and fulfilling entire formalities, charge sheet (Ext. Ka-13) was submitted against accused. Concerned Magistrate took cognizance and case being exclusively triable by Sessions Court was committed to Court of Sessions. 8. Accused appeared and prosecution opened its case describing entire evidence collected during investigation and proposed to be adduced during trial. Trial Court also heard accused and framed charge for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC against accused persons to which they denied and claimed their trial pleading not guilty. 9. In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined five witnesses in total. Out of them P.W.-1 Jai Dei is informant and mother of deceased who claimed herself to be accompanying deceased for irrigating field from tube well concerned. P.W.-2 Om Prakash Tyagi is chik writer; P.W.-3 Ved Ram Singh is a chance witness, who reached on the spot after hearing hue and cry and had seen accused persons running away from place of occurrence armed with weapon assigned to them. P.W.-4, Naubat Lal, I.O., has investigated the matter and proved police papers. P.W.-5 Dr. O. N. Pandey, who has conducted autopsy on the dead body of deceased. From a perusal of record it also appears that an affidavit has been filed by Constable No. 538 Chandrapal, who carried dead body of deceased for post mortem. This document is tendered by prosecution and Trial Court admitting it kept on record. 10. After closer of prosecution evidence, statement of accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which accused appellant Jogendra has denied prosecution story and has stated that husband of the informant is hale and hearty and does agricultural work. He is not an old and sick person. Manner of incident stated by prosecution witnesses were also denied. As per accused, none of the witnesses were present on the spot nor have they seen accused committing present offence. Use of torch light and recovery memo prepared in this regard is also false. FIR was lodged on the basis of false facts. He has shown ignorance about preparation of inquest report, post mortem report and other police papers. He also stated that charge sheet was submitted on insufficient evidence. Witnesses have deposed before Court due to enmity. Use of torch light and recovery memo prepared in this regard is also false. FIR was lodged on the basis of false facts. He has shown ignorance about preparation of inquest report, post mortem report and other police papers. He also stated that charge sheet was submitted on insufficient evidence. Witnesses have deposed before Court due to enmity. It was specifically stated that he was falsely implicated in this case on the instigation of one Satyapal. Similar statement was also made by co-accused Chander. 11. Accused in their defence have examined D.W.-1 Dayanand Kaushik, Tube well Operator, who has stated that on the date of incident Tube well concerned was remained closed. 12. Trial Court after hearing the parties and appreciating evidence vide impugned judgment and order finding guilty to accused convicted and sentenced them for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, as above, hence this appeal. 13. At the outset, it is clarified that during pendency of appeal appellant Chander has died and appeal in respect of appellant Chander has been abated on 28.9.2018. Thus there remains only appeal to be decided in respect of accused appellant no. 2 Jogendra. 14. We have heard Sri Chetan Chatterjee, learned Amicus Curiae for appellant and Sri Ratan Singh, learned A.G.A. for State at length. 15. Submission of learned Amicus Curiae appearing for appellant is that prosecution was not able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Torches said to have been used by witnesses at the time of occurrence have not been produced before Court which is violation of provision of Section 451 and 452 Cr.P.C. P.W.-1 Jai Dei was also not present on the spot at the time of occurrence. Incident is said to have taken place in the mid-night. It appears improbable and unbelievable that an old lady, whose husband was hale and hearty, would go to irrigate the field. P.W.-3 Ved Ram Singh is also a chance witness. He has not seen accused persons committing present offence. Their presence on the spot at the time of occurrence is also doubtful. Medical evidence does not support oral version. Prosecution was also not able to locate the field from its evidence which was to be irrigated. Path adopted by P.W.-3 is unnatural one as there was other short route to reach the village concerned. Their presence on the spot at the time of occurrence is also doubtful. Medical evidence does not support oral version. Prosecution was also not able to locate the field from its evidence which was to be irrigated. Path adopted by P.W.-3 is unnatural one as there was other short route to reach the village concerned. There was enmity between the witnesses and accused persons and due to which they have made false statement before Court against accused persons. Date, time and place of occurrence have also not been proved. FIR was also lodged belatedly but no plausible explanation has been given. Investigation is perfunctory which caused prejudice to accused in the matter. There is also improvement, contradiction and exaggeration on material points in prosecution evidence. P.W.-1 has stated that when incident was being committed by accused, she covered the body of deceased and due to which there were blood stains on her sari. Investigating Officer has not taken said clothes and this fact also makes the prosecution case and presence of P.W.-1 on the spot improbable. Referring to entire evidence, it was also argued that fatal injury is caused by accused appellant Chander (since died during trial), thus offence under Section 302 IPC is not attracted against appellant Jogendra and he could only be punished for the act assigned to him. Lastly, it was submitted that both prosecution witnesses i.e. P.W.-1 and P.W.-3 are interested and partisan witnesses, their testimony cannot be relied upon. Findings recorded by Trial Court in the impugned judgment are perverse and illegal. 16. Per contra, learned A.G.A. argued that deceased and P.W.-1 both were going to irrigate their field from the tube well in the night. It is not improbable that P.W.-1 was going to irrigate the field because village women used to go in the night also to do agricultural work. Thus on this score prosecution case cannot be disbelieved. Incident took place in the mid night. Informant is a lady. There was no proper conveyance to reach Police Station in the night, therefore, if FIR was lodged in the morning, prosecution case on this score cannot be doubted. Inquest report and other police papers prepared in this respect are also not suspicious documents but the same were prepared at the place of occurrence. Non taking of clothes of P.W.-1 is also not fatal to prosecution case. Inquest report and other police papers prepared in this respect are also not suspicious documents but the same were prepared at the place of occurrence. Non taking of clothes of P.W.-1 is also not fatal to prosecution case. When P.W.-3 was returning to his village he heard hue and cry of P.W.-1. He along with one Satyapal moved towards place of occurrence and on the way saw accused appellant armed with weapon assigned to them running away. They also extended threat to this witness. Medical evidence fully supports oral version. Prosecution was able to prove date and time of occurrence. P.W.-1 is natural and probable witness. Although P.W.-3 is a chance witness but his presence at the place of occurrence due to reason assigned by this witness is not improbable and unbelievable. Laches on the part of Investigating Officer occurred in the prosecution evidence are also not fatal to material points and same do not go to root of the case. Findings recorded by Trial Court are based on correct appreciation of fact and evidence. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and order. 17. We have considered rival submissions made by learned counsel for parties and have gone through entire record carefully. 18. First and foremost question in the present matter, as raised on behalf of appellant, is about existence of FIR at the time mentioned therein. It is true that FIR was lodged in the morning at about 8.15 A.M. P.W.-1 Jai Dei is mother of deceased. She claimed herself to be present at the place of occurrence when incident took place. It was mid night and place of incident is the rural area. P.W.-1 has clearly stated that there was no conveyance to reach Police Station concerned in the night itself and due to that reason she could not go to Police Station concerned immediately. Distance between Police Station and place of occurrence is 12 kms. Explanation offered by prosecution about delay occurred in lodging of FIR has not been impeached by defence. Nothing is on record to show that any sort of conveyance was available in the night itself to reach the Police Station concerned. If such was the position then explanation offered by prosecution about delay occurred in lodging of FIR cannot be disbelieved. Explanation offered by prosecution about delay occurred in lodging of FIR has not been impeached by defence. Nothing is on record to show that any sort of conveyance was available in the night itself to reach the Police Station concerned. If such was the position then explanation offered by prosecution about delay occurred in lodging of FIR cannot be disbelieved. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that prosecution has satisfactorily and properly explained delay occurred in lodging FIR. Finding of Trial Court on this issue need no interference. 19. Now we proceed to deal with the submission regarding motive. It is mentioned in the F.I.R. that both accused bore enmity with informant side. When P.W.-1 was examined before Court she admitted same sort of enmity and has stated that one report had been lodged by Ram Prasad (father of accused) about theft against deceased which was found false and due to this reason they bore enmity. If prosecution evidence about motive and enmity stated by P.W.-1 and mentioned in FIR are taken into consideration, it may be mentioned that enmity is double edged weapon which may be a reason to commit an offence and also may be a ground for false implication. It is also noteworthy that some time a very simple motive results in commission of crime because mind set of person to respond/react about a fact differs to each other. It is also pertinent to mention here that where there are eye account witnesses motive looses its significance but where prosecution has come up with specific motive, same must have been proved. If in the instant matter above propositions are taken into consideration, we are of the view that motive taken by prosecution at initial stage was supported by witnesses during trial. Thus prosecution was able to establish motive part against accused appellant. Finding of Trial Court on this issue is also based on correct appreciation of evidence. 20. As far as presence of P.W.-1 and P.W.-3 on the spot is concerned, prosecution case is that P.W.-1 along with deceased was going to irrigate field from tube well. Place of incident is chak road (Dara). P.W.-1 has stated that it was a moon lit night and she was also having a torch. D.W.-1 Dayanand Kaushik, Tube Well Operator has stated that tube well remained closed on the day of incident. Place of incident is chak road (Dara). P.W.-1 has stated that it was a moon lit night and she was also having a torch. D.W.-1 Dayanand Kaushik, Tube Well Operator has stated that tube well remained closed on the day of incident. No person approached him for taking water from the tube well. If statement of D.W.-1 is taken into consideration, nothing has come out to infer that tube-well concerned was not functional on the date of incident. 21. Prosecution case is also that deceased and P.W.-1 both were going to take water from tube-well. Submission of learned Amicus Curiae that P.W.-1 is a lady and her presence at the time and place of incident is not believable and probable. It may be mentioned that place of incident is rural area and incident took place in the month of December. Reason for which deceased and P.W.-1 were going to take water from tube-well concerned is not unnatural. Village women used to go for agricultural work in the day and night hours. It is true that husband of PW-1 was alive at the time of occurrence but on this ground testimony of PW-1 on material points cannot be doubted. There may be so many reasons for PW-1 to go along with deceased in the night for irrigating field and it is not an unnatural conduct. It has also come that there was moon light and P.W.-1 was also carrying torch but this fact is not unnatural. In the night hour torch is used for agricultural work and on this count prosecution case cannot be disbelieved. 22. P.W.-1 has categorically and clearly stated the manner of incident. What step was taken by her at the time of incident has also been stated by her consistently and clearly in the statement made before Court on oath. There is no inconsistency in the facts mentioned in FIR and stated by P.W.-1 before Court on material points. Findings recorded by Trial Court about presence of P.W.-1 at the time and place of occurrence in no way can be termed to be illegal or perverse rather it is based on correct appreciation of fact and evidence. 23. So far as presence of P.W.-3 at the time of occurrence is concerned, prosecution case is that P.W.-3 and one Satyapal were coming to their village after getting off the train. 23. So far as presence of P.W.-3 at the time of occurrence is concerned, prosecution case is that P.W.-3 and one Satyapal were coming to their village after getting off the train. When they were on service road they heard hue and cry of P.W.-1, they immediately proceeded towards place of occurrence and on the way accused persons armed with weapons assigned to them were seen by these witnesses. Witnesses also asked reason about their running away but accused persons ran away threatening them with dire consequences. When P.W.-3 and one Satyapal reached the spot they saw dead body of deceased. Although P.W.-3 is a chance witness but his presence on the spot just after incident is not doubtful. He has categorically stated before Court the reason that he was returning after getting off the train. Nothing has come out in his cross examination to disbelieve testimony of P.W.-3 on this point. Merely on this basis that there was enmity between Satyapal and father of accused, testimony of P.W.-3 can also not be disbelieved. Thus on close scrutiny of entire evidence, we are of the view that P.W.-1 and P.W.-3 are natural and probable witnesses. Prosecution has satisfactorily explained reason for their presence on the spot at the time of occurrence. 24. Now the question remains as to whether testimony of P.W.-1 and P.W.-3 finds support with medical evidence. 25. Prosecution case is that initially accused Chander, (since died), opened fire upon deceased and thereafter present accused appellant made “pharsa” blows. Lastly accused appellant Chander again opened fire upon deceased. If oral version of P.W.-1, who is sole witness of the manner of incident, is compared with the facts mentioned in FIR as well as stated by P.W.-5 Dr. O.N. Pandey, fire arm injuries were found on the body of deceased which could come with two fires. There are three incised wounds which could also come with the use of “pharsa”. This fact has also been supported by P.W.-5 in his statement. It is pertinent to mention that it is not possible for a witness to recollect minute details of every movement of incident about the manner of committing the offence. Thus, if there is some variation about the manner of incident in the statement of P.W.-1 and the medical evidence, it cannot be held that incident did not take place in the manner stated by P.W.-1. Thus, if there is some variation about the manner of incident in the statement of P.W.-1 and the medical evidence, it cannot be held that incident did not take place in the manner stated by P.W.-1. In the instant matter, medical evidence fully supports oral version. Time of incident is also established from statement of P.W.-5. Deceased died at the time mentioned in chik FIR due to injuries caused by accused side in the manner as stated by P.W.-1. 26. In this matter, prosecution was also able to prove place of occurrence. “Tikli” and “Charra” have been recovered from the place of occurrence. Inquest report was also prepared there. If there is some laches on part of Investigating Officer, as has been elicited by appellant side, same do not affect testimony of ocular version i.e. P.W.-1 as well as medical evidence. It is noteworthy that some shortcomings are bound to occur in every criminal trial and no criminal case is free from such discrepancies. 27. It is settled legal proposition that while appreciating evidence of a witness, minor discrepancies on trivial matters, which do not affect the core of prosecution's case, may not prompt the court to reject the evidence in its entirety. Irrelevant details which do not in any way corrode the credibility of a witness cannot be labelled as omissions or contradictions. Difference in some minor details, which does not otherwise affect the core of prosecution case, even if present, wound not itself prompt the court to reject the evidence on minor variations and discrepancies. After exercising care and caution and sifting through the evidence to separate truth from untruth, exaggeration and improvements, the court comes to a conclusion as to whether residuary evidence is sufficient to convict the accused the same can be relied upon. Thus, an undue importance should not be attached to omissions, contradictions and discrepancies which do not go to the heart of the matter and shake the basic version of prosecution witness. As the mental capabilities of a human being cannot be expected to be attuned to absorb all details, minor discrepancies are bound to occur in the statements of witnesses. (See State of Rajasthan Vs. Smt. Kalki and another, (1981)2 SCC 752 ; State of U. P. Vs. M. K. Anthony (1985) 1 SCC 505 ; State of Rajasthan Vs. Om Prakash (2007) 12 SCC 381 ; State Vs. (See State of Rajasthan Vs. Smt. Kalki and another, (1981)2 SCC 752 ; State of U. P. Vs. M. K. Anthony (1985) 1 SCC 505 ; State of Rajasthan Vs. Om Prakash (2007) 12 SCC 381 ; State Vs. Saravanan (2008) 17 SCC 587 ; Prithu Vs. State of H.P. (2009) 11 SCC 588 and Brahm Swaroop and another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2011)6 SCC 288 . 28. On close scrutiny of entire evidence, we are of the view that on the ground of improvement, variation, embellishment and exaggeration in the statement of fact witnesses and laches on part of Investigating Officer, prosecution case in the present matter cannot be disbelieved as date, time and place of occurrence is fully established by prosecution evidence beyond reasonable doubt. 29. Non production of torches and other material seized by the Investigating Officer during trial itself is also not sufficient to doubt the testimony of PW-1, PW-3 and other evidence, especially, when recovery of materials (torches) during investigation and preparation of recovery memo have been proved by prosecution from its evidence. 30. If the field to be irrigated was not made clear by prosecution then also statements of PW-1, PW-3 and PW-4 on material points, which also finds support from medical evidence, are not liable to be discarded. When date, time and place of occurrence are proved, non taking of clothes of PW-1 worn by her at the time of incident is not fatal to prosecution case. Enmity between deceased and accused and also between one Satyapal and accused does not affect the credibility of testimony of PW.-1 and PW-3, especially when the same is supported from medical evidence. 31. As regards submission regarding interestedness of witnessess is concerned, it is also settled proposition of law that related is not equivalent to 'interested'. A witness may be called 'interested' only when he/she derives some benefit from the result of litigation or in seeing an accused person punished. A witness who is natural one and is the only possible witness in the circumstances of a case cannot be said to be interested. It is also settled that merely because witnesses are closely related to deceased victims, their testimony cannot be discarded. A witness who is natural one and is the only possible witness in the circumstances of a case cannot be said to be interested. It is also settled that merely because witnesses are closely related to deceased victims, their testimony cannot be discarded. Relationship with one of the parties is not a factor that affects credibility of a witness, more so, a relation would not conceal the actual culprit and make allegations against an innocent person. However, in such cases, Court has to adopt a careful approach and analyse the evidence to find that whether it is cogent and credible evidence. (Vide : Dalip Singh Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1953 SC 364 ; Masalti Vs. State of U. P. AIR 1965 SC 202 ; Lehna Vs. State of Haryana (2002) 3 SCC 76 ; Rizan Vs. State of Chhattisgarh (2003) 2 SCC 661 ; Brahm Swaroop (Supra); State of Rajasthan (Supra); Ganga Bhawani Vs. Raya Pati Venkat Reddy (2013) 15 SCC 298 ; Bhagaloo Lodh Vs. State of U. P. (2011) 13 SCC 206 ; Dohari Vs. Stae of U. P. (2012) 10 SCC 256 and Sachchey Lal Tiwari Vs. State of U. P. (2004) 11 SCC 410 . 32. If in the light of aforesaid propositions of law, plea of accused is analysed with the evidence available on record, it is clear that presence of PW-1 on the spot at the time of occurrence has been established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Reason on account of which PW-3 was returning from railway station is also believable, therefore, PW-1 and PW-3 both cannot be termed to be interested or partisan witnesses. Mere relation with the deceased does not place PW-1 as partisan witness. Both are natural and probable witnesses. There is no chance of false implication of accused-appellant in the present matter. 33. Thus, on close scrutiny of prosecution evidence, we are also of the view that present appellant has caused injuries to deceased with the use of “pharsa”. P.W.-5 doctor concerned has clearly opined that deceased died due to result of ante mortem injuries. Injuries caused by “pharsa” were also found on the body of deceased. Common intention of accused appellant itself is clear from the act committed by him at the place of occurrence. P.W.-5 doctor concerned has clearly opined that deceased died due to result of ante mortem injuries. Injuries caused by “pharsa” were also found on the body of deceased. Common intention of accused appellant itself is clear from the act committed by him at the place of occurrence. Thus findings recorded by Trial Court about guilt of accused appellant under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC is also based on correct appreciation of fact, evidence and law and no interference is required. 34. So far as sentence is concerned, it is always a difficult task requiring balancing of various considerations. Question of awarding sentence is a matter of discretion to be exercised on consideration of circumstances aggravating and mitigating in the individual cases. 35. It is settled legal position that appropriate sentence should be awarded after giving due consideration to the facts and circumstances of each case, nature of offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed. It is obligation of court to constantly remind itself that right of victim on certain occasions person aggrieved as well as society at large can be victims, never be marginalised. The measure of punishment should be proportionate to gravity of offence. Object of sentencing should be to protect society and to deter the criminal in achieving avowed object of law. Further, it is expected that courts would operate the sentencing system so as to impose such sentence which reflects conscience of society and sentencing process has to be stern where it should be. The court will be failing in its duty if appropriate punishment is not awarded for a crime which has been committed not only against individual victim but also against society to which criminal and victim belong. Punishment to be awarded for a crime must not be irrelevant but it should conform to and be consistent with the atrocity and brutality which the crime has been perpetrated, enormity of crime warranting public abhorrence and it should 'respond to the society's cry for justice against the criminal'. [Vide : (Sumer Singh vs. Surajbhan Singh and others, (2014) 7 SCC 323 , Sham Sunder vs. Puran, (1990) 4 SCC 731 , M.P. v. Saleem, (2005) 5 SCC 554 , Ravji v. State of Rajasthan, (1996) 2 SCC 175 ]. 36. [Vide : (Sumer Singh vs. Surajbhan Singh and others, (2014) 7 SCC 323 , Sham Sunder vs. Puran, (1990) 4 SCC 731 , M.P. v. Saleem, (2005) 5 SCC 554 , Ravji v. State of Rajasthan, (1996) 2 SCC 175 ]. 36. In view of above propositions of law, the paramount principle that should be the guiding laser beam is that punishment should be proportionate to gravity of offence. 37. Hence, applying the principles laid down by Apex Court in the aforesaid judgments and having regard to the totality of facts and circumstances of case, nature of offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed, we find that punishment imposed upon accused appellant by the Trial Court in the impugned judgment and order is not excessive or exorbitant. 38. Thus, taking into account the entire facts and circumstances of the case and considering the evidence available on record, we are of the opinion that prosecution has been able to establish the guilt of accused appellant Jogendra beyond reasonable doubt. Conviction and sentence of accused appellant Jogender under Section 302/34 IPC is liable to be upheld and impugned judgment and order is liable to be affirmed. Criminal Appeal is liable to be dismissed. 39. Accordingly present Criminal Appeal is dismissed. Conviction and sentence imposed upon accused appellant Jogendra vide impugned judgment and order is affirmed. Accused-appellant is in jail. He will serve out remaining sentence imposed upon him by the trial court vide impugned judgment and order. 40. Copy of this judgment along with lower court record be sent back forthwith to the Sessions Judge, Bulandshahar for compliance. A copy of this order be also sent to appellant through concerned Jail Superintendent. Compliance reports be also sent by all concerned to this Court. 41. Sri Chetan Chatterjee, learned Amicus Curiae has assisted the Court very diligently. We provide that he shall be paid counsel's fee as Rs. 10,000/-. State Government is directed to ensure payment of aforesaid fee through Additional Legal Remembrancer posted in the office of Advocate General at Allahabad to Sri Chetan Chatterjee, Amicus Curiae without any delay and in any case within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.