JUDGMENT : Om Prakash-VII, J. 1. This criminal appeal has been preferred by accused appellants against judgment and order dated 20/21.12.1983 passed by District & Sessions Judge, Ballia in Session Trial No. 196 of 1982 (State vs. Raj Nath and others) convicting and sentencing appellant Raj Nath for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC (simpliciter) to undergo imprisonment for life and accused appellants Basgit and Buddhan for the offence under Sections 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC to undergo imprisonment for life. 2. Facts of case, in nutshell, as unfolded by informant Smt. Rama Devi wife of Shyam Lal in the First Information Report (in short 'F.I.R.'), are that informant's husband were seven brothers. Younger brother Mahngu had a business of milk in Asam and another brother was having hotel business. Four years ago Raj Nath had taken Rs. 3600/-from informant's husband to purchase agricultural land but Raj Nath purchased agricultural land in the name of his son only. When this fact came into knowledge to deceased, an altercation took place between deceased and accused Raj Nath. Panchayat was convened and it was decided that out of Rs. 3600/-, Rs. 1700/- will be returned by Raj Nath but he did not do so, rather threatened to kill the informant's husband. In the night between 19/20.04.1982 at about 12:30 A.M. informant's husband was sleeping on a Chauki in varandah, adjacent to him her son Ashok on the same chauki and informant along with children on her cot were sleeping and a lantern was burning. On hearing sound of some foot steps, informant woke up and saw that accused-appellant Raj Nath accompanying Shiv Bachan, Basgit and Budhan, who were brother-in-law of Raj Nath, came there. Raj Nath opened fire with country made pistol upon her husband and other accused surrounding him were exhorting with the words “kill him so that money may be adjusted”. After hearing noise, informant's 'devar' Paspat and other villagers reached there and then accused ran away. Informant's husband received injuries in his thigh, which was caused by Raj Nath with country made pistol. 3. On the basis of written report (Ext. ka-1) scribed by one Ramesh, chik First Information Report (Ext. Ka-25) was registered at Police Station concerned on 20.08.1982 at 02:15 A.M. mentioning all details as had been disclosed in Ext. Ka-1. G.D. entry Ext. Ka-26 was also made at the same time. 4. 3. On the basis of written report (Ext. ka-1) scribed by one Ramesh, chik First Information Report (Ext. Ka-25) was registered at Police Station concerned on 20.08.1982 at 02:15 A.M. mentioning all details as had been disclosed in Ext. Ka-1. G.D. entry Ext. Ka-26 was also made at the same time. 4. Investigation of the matter was taken into hand by Sri Surya Bali Singh, who was posted as Station Officer of police station concerned. He recorded statement of Smt. Rama (informant) at police station concerned. Since Shyam Lal was unable to speak, his statement could not be recorded and he was sent to S.A.D., Hospital, Rasara for treatment. Dr. K.N. Pandey examined him at 02:30 A.M. on 20.04.1982 and found following injuries on his person in Ext. Ka-2 : “(i) Gun shot wound 4 c.m. X 3 c.m. X depth under observation (probing not done) over inner aspect of right thigh upper part 11 c.m. below inner boarder of right inguinal ligament. No tattooing or blackening present. Direction of wound inwards or upwards. Margin of wound lacerated and inverted. Free bleeding present. Advice X-ray (wound of entry). (ii) Three lacerated wounds 0.5 c.m. X 0.5 c.m., 0.5 c.m. X 0.5 c.m., 0.5 c.m. X 0.5 c.m. over root of right thigh upper part 1 c.m. below middle of right inguinal ligament. All were closed with each other (depth of wound not taken due to bleeding). Margin of wound lacerated and inverted. There was one bit swelling in an area of 6 c.m. X 5 c.m. around the wound. Free bleeding present. Advised X-ray (wound of exit). Patient condition was poor. Temperature subnormal. B.P. not recordable. Patient was conscious and responds to question some times. Injuries were kept under observation. Advised X-ray right thigh and abdomen caused by gun shot. Duration fresh.” 5. Doctor had prepared injury report as Ext. Ka-2. Shyam Lal died at 03:40 A.M. in the S.A.D. Hospital, Rasara. Information about death of deceased was sent to Station Officer Police station Rasara through a note (Ext.Ka-3). Consequently, case was converted into Section 302 IPC through entry in G.D., copy of which is Ext. Ka-27. 6. Investigating Officer proceeded to place of occurrence, inspected site and prepared site plan Ext. Ka-14; collected blood stained and plain earth (material Ext. V & VI) and prepared memo in this regard which is Ext. Ka-16. Consequently, case was converted into Section 302 IPC through entry in G.D., copy of which is Ext. Ka-27. 6. Investigating Officer proceeded to place of occurrence, inspected site and prepared site plan Ext. Ka-14; collected blood stained and plain earth (material Ext. V & VI) and prepared memo in this regard which is Ext. Ka-16. Investigating Officer also found a blank cartridge material Ext. VII on the spot, he took the same into possession and prepared memo as Ext. Ka-17. Investigating Officer also inspected the lantern allegedly burning on the spot and prepared memo Ext. Ka-18. Blood stained clothes of deceased i.e. Gamchha (Ext.-II), underwear (Ext.-III), Lungi, (Ext.-IV) were also taken into custody by the Investigating Officer. There is recovery of country made pistol (Ext.-VIII) and four live cartridges from the accused-appellant Raj Nath which is clear from recovery memo Ext. Ka-19. He also interrogated other witnesses. After completing these investigation, he went to hospital. Prepared inquest report (Ext. Ka-6), challan nash Ext. Ka-7, photo nash Ext. Ka-8, sample seal Ext. Ka-9 and report for post mortem (Ext. Ka-10). He deputed constable Sri Kant Ojha to take dead body along with relevant papers for post-mortem. Investigating Officer arrested accused Raj Nath and Basgit at 07:00 P.M. on the same day. On the report of Investigating Officer cartridges recovered from the spot and the country made pistol recovered from the possession of accused Raj Nath were sent to Ballistic Expert. After examination, report (Ext. Ka-24) was sent back which was tendered by the prosecutor and same was made part of evidence by the trial court. 7. Post-mortem on the dead body of deceased was conducted on 20.04.1982 at 04:00 p.m. by Dr. A. Haleem. Autopsy report is Ext. Ka-4. As per post mortem report both lungs were congested. There was some digested food in stomach. Faecal matter was present in large intestine. There was also some digested food in upper part of small intestine. Lower part of intestine was empty. Fifteen pellets were recovered out of which four from intestines and rest in the cavity of intestines. Wadding cork in three pieces were also recovered from the injuries of deceased. Four pellets were found in the passage created by fire on the body of deceased. Margins of injuries were inverted and ecchymosed. Lower part of intestine was empty. Fifteen pellets were recovered out of which four from intestines and rest in the cavity of intestines. Wadding cork in three pieces were also recovered from the injuries of deceased. Four pellets were found in the passage created by fire on the body of deceased. Margins of injuries were inverted and ecchymosed. On examination, following ante-mortem injuries were found : “(i) Gun shot wound of entry 3 c.m. X 2 c.m. X 16 c.m. on the back of upper inner part of right thigh, 8 c.m. below root of right side scrotum going into peritoneal cavity of right side, perforating at 3-4 places of coop of small intestine with clotted blood around perforating points and omentum pieces. Bloody vessels (femoral artery) severed and punctured. Scorching and blackening and tattooing and synging present. Small pellets 15 in number recovered from different parts and depth out of which 4 pellets recovered from portions of injured lop of intestine embedded in intestine cavity. A wedding 3 pieces recovered from abdominal cavity right side and rest of pellets from muscle in the course of passage of thigh. The direction of passage was from below inner upper part of thigh into upwards into abdominal cavity right side through mid front inner side of upper part of right thigh into cavity. Margins inverted and ecchymoded.” 8. In the opinion of doctor, death was caused due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of fire arm injuries. 9. After completing investigation, charge-sheet (Ext. ka-20) against accused was filed. Concerned Magistrate took cognizance and case being exclusively triable by sessions court was committed to Court of sessions. 10. All accused appellants appeared and charge under Section 302 IPC was framed against accused Raj Nath and under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC against accused Basgit and Budhan. Charge was read over to accused but they denied the charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed their trial. 11. Trial proceeded and on behalf of prosecution, eight witnesses, namely, PW-1 Smt. Rama Devi (informant/eye account witness), PW-2 Ashok Kumar (eye account witness), PW-3 Dr. K.N. Pandey, PW-4 Dr. A. Haleem, PW-5 Surya Bali Singh, Investigating Officer, PW-6 Ram Asrey Pandey (Ballistic Expert), PW-7 Constable Shiv Bilash Singh, and PW-8 Constable Sayed Ashfaq Haider were examined. 12. 11. Trial proceeded and on behalf of prosecution, eight witnesses, namely, PW-1 Smt. Rama Devi (informant/eye account witness), PW-2 Ashok Kumar (eye account witness), PW-3 Dr. K.N. Pandey, PW-4 Dr. A. Haleem, PW-5 Surya Bali Singh, Investigating Officer, PW-6 Ram Asrey Pandey (Ballistic Expert), PW-7 Constable Shiv Bilash Singh, and PW-8 Constable Sayed Ashfaq Haider were examined. 12. After closure of prosecution evidence, statement of accused appellants under Section 313 CrPC was recorded in which they denied prosecution case and stated that they have been falsely implicated in this case due to enmity. Accused Raj Nath stated that he was present at Padladih District Bhoj Pur Bihar on the day of incident at in-laws house of Budhan to attend marriage ceremony. It is also stated that Raj Nath's sister was married with cousin brother of deceased wife. She was ousted from her in laws house. Thereafter she was married with cousin of accused Buddhan. There was marriage of Buddhan's daughter in the night of incident. Accused Basgit also claimed alibi. 13. In defence accused led evidence and examined Hari Prasad Tiwari as DW-1. 14. Trial court has found that prosecution has fully succeeded in bringing home the charges against accused appellants beyond reasonable doubt and convicted and sentenced accused appellants, as mentioned above. Hence this appeal. 15. We have heard Shri Shivanand Pandey, learned counsel appearing for appellant no.1 and as amicus curiae for appellant nos. 2 and 3 and Sri Ratan Singh, learned A.G.A. appearing for State at length. 16. It was submitted by learned counsel for appellants that prosecution was not able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Incident is said to have taken place in night hour. Neither the witnesses were present at the place of occurrence nor they saw the incident. Contradictions and variations on material points have come in prosecution evidence which are fatal to prosecution case. It was next contended that medical evidence does not support oral version. Admitted case of prosecution is that deceased was sleeping on a cot (chauki) and in that situation from the place where accused-appellants are said to be present, injuries found on the body of deceased could not be caused. Learned counsel for appellants referred to statement of PW-4 Dr. A. Haleem to substantiate this plea. Motive assigned in the matter has also not been proved. Time of preparation of recovery memo has not been mentioned therein. Learned counsel for appellants referred to statement of PW-4 Dr. A. Haleem to substantiate this plea. Motive assigned in the matter has also not been proved. Time of preparation of recovery memo has not been mentioned therein. Dead body was received belatedly after receiving the papers at mortuary but no explanation has been offered in this respect. F.I.R. was ante-timed and delayed document but no plausible explanation has been given. PW-1 himself has admitted that accused-appellant no. 1 Raj Nath was not seen in village in day hour. Offence under Section 302 I.P.C. is not attracted. There is contradictory statement on the point whether deceased after receiving injuries became unconscious or he was in conscious condition. Since material witness Mahngu was not examined, statements of PW-1 and PW-2 are not supported by independent witness. Place of occurrence is also not established. Recoveries are false. At this juncture, learned counsel for appellants also referred to statements of PW-1 and PW-2 and argued that F.S.L. report does not support prosecution evidence. PW-2 was not aware about identity of accused person. No test identification parade has been arranged. It was next argued that statement made by PW-2 before Court is tutored statement. PW-1 and PW-2 both are also interested witnesses. Accused-appellant Raj Nath was present in a function at different village. Findings recorded by trial court in the impugned judgment and order are perverse and illegal warranting interference by this Court. 17. Per-contra, learned A.G.A. appearing for State argued that PW-1 and PW-2 both were sleeping at the place of occurrence. When accused-appellants came at the place of occurrence, PW-2 after hearing cry of his mother woke-up. He has made categorical statement before court supporting the prosecution case. Testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 is also consistent and clear on material points. Non examination of other witnesses cited in F.I.R. itself is not sufficient to disown the testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 who are natural witnesses. They cannot be termed as interested witness. Date, time and place of occurrence have been proved by prosecution witnesses. Medical evidence fully supports oral version. Deceased died during treatment in hospital. Delay occurred in lodging F.I.R. has been properly and satisfactorily explained. Findings recorded by trial court in the impugned judgment and order are based on correct appreciation of facts, evidence and law which need no interference by this Court. 18. Medical evidence fully supports oral version. Deceased died during treatment in hospital. Delay occurred in lodging F.I.R. has been properly and satisfactorily explained. Findings recorded by trial court in the impugned judgment and order are based on correct appreciation of facts, evidence and law which need no interference by this Court. 18. We have considered rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have gone through entire record carefully. 19. A perusal of the record reveals that in this matter offence took place in the intervening night of 19/20.4.1982 at 12:30 hours. F.I.R. was lodged under Section 307 I.P.C. on 20.4.1982 at 2:50 A.M.. Distance between place of occurrence and police station was five miles. Informant is wife of deceased. When she was examined before court on oath she stated that just after incident, she took deceased in injured condition to Rasra and written report was prepared by Ramesh, thereafter she went to police station and lodged F.I.R.. Concerned police immediately in the night itself sent the injured (deceased) to hospital for treatment. If facts and circumstances in which F.I.R. came into existence are taken into consideration in light of statement of prosecution witnesses, it is evident that F.I.R. was lodged in the matter for the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. only. This fact itself shows that before admitting the deceased in Hospital, F.I.R. was lodged. Thus, it cannot be said that F.I.R. is ante-timed document. Time consumed in reaching Rasara and preparing written report and thereafter going to police station if taken into consideration, it can also not be held that F.I.R. is an ante-timed document. Aforesaid facts itself show that F.I.R. came into existence at the time mentioned therein as distance between place of occurrence and police station was only 5 miles. Thus, submission raised by learned counsel for appellants on this issue is not acceptable. F.I.R. was also not lodged in the matter after thought, as initially it was lodged for the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. only. Hence, on close scrutiny of entire prosecution evidence in this regard, we are of the view that finding recorded by trial court on this issue is in accordance with law and is based on correct appreciation of facts and evidence. 20. Hence, on close scrutiny of entire prosecution evidence in this regard, we are of the view that finding recorded by trial court on this issue is in accordance with law and is based on correct appreciation of facts and evidence. 20. As far as motive is concerned, it has been mentioned in F.I.R. itself that deceased had given Rs.3,600/- to accused-appellant Raj Nath, who is brother of deceased, to purchase certain piece of land. Accused-appellant Raj Nath purchased land only for himself i.e. in the name of his son. Name of deceased was not entered into the sale deed. When this fact came into knowledge of deceased, a Panchayat was convened and accused-appellant Raj Nath was directed by Panchayat to return an amount of Rs. 1700/-. It may be mentioned here that appellant nos. 2 and 3 are brother-in-law of appellant no. 1 Raj Nath. Prosecution case is that due to this reason, present incident was committed by all appellants. If statement of PW-1 is analyzed to check the facts mentioned in written report on the point of motive, it is evident that PW-1 has supported the facts mentioned in F.I.R.. Accused-appellant Raj Nath purchased land in the name of his son only. Convening of Panchayat on this issue was also supported by this witness. A lengthy cross-examination has been made by defence to this witness but nothing adverse emerged in her cross-examination to disbelieve the motive assigned in the matter. Thus, on close scrutiny of entire prosecution evidence, we are also of the view that prosecution has proved motive assigned in the matter against accused-appellants to commit present offence. Submission of learned counsel for appellants that it appears improbable and unbelievable that a person will commit murder of his real brother on account of a simple motive is not acceptable. In this regard, it is pertinent to mention that some time offences are committed on the ground of simple motive itself. In the present matter also motive taken by prosecution appears to be simple in nature but same has been proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution from its evidence. Findings recorded by trial court on this issue need no interference. It is settled position of law that where there are eye account witnesses, motive loses its significance. In the present matter also motive taken by prosecution appears to be simple in nature but same has been proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution from its evidence. Findings recorded by trial court on this issue need no interference. It is settled position of law that where there are eye account witnesses, motive loses its significance. Therefore, in the present matter presence of eye account witnesses at the time and place of occurrence in light of prosecution evidence has to be scrutinized carefully and cautiously. 21. Now we come to the submission about presence of PW-1 and PW-2 on the spot. 22. In the instant matter, it is clear that F.I.R. was lodged by wife of deceased. PW-2 is son of deceased, who was minor at the time of incident and was sleeping on the same cot on which deceased was sleeping in fateful night. Incident took place at 12:30 A.M. in the intervening night of 19/20.4.1982. Prosecution case is also that deceased was temporarily residing in Assam and was running there a grocery shop. He had come along with his family members to attend function of Mahngu's daughter. Motive assigned in the matter has been proved by prosecution from its evidence beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, it is to be seen whether on account of contradictions in statements of PW-1 and PW-2 regarding exact position of sleeping of deceased, exact position of cot on which deceased and witnesses were sleeping and position of accused at the time of incident, presence of PW-1 and PW-2 could be doubted on the spot at the time of occurrence. If statements of PW-1 and PW-2 are minutely analyzed in consonance with submission raised by learned counsel for appellants, these facts that deceased, PW-1 and PW-2 were sleeping in varandah of his house in the night of 19/20.4.1982, PW-2 was sleeping on same cot (chauki) on which deceased was sleeping, PW-1 was sleeping on another cot in same varandah, lantern was also burning in varandah and appellant Raj Nath armed with country made pistol came there and opened fire upon deceased, are consistent and clear. There is no contradiction in their statement on these points. Statement of PW-1 and PW-2 is also that after seeing accused-appellants, PW-1 woke-up and made alarm then immediately PW-2 also woke-up and jumped from his cot to the cot of his mother PW-1. There is no contradiction in their statement on these points. Statement of PW-1 and PW-2 is also that after seeing accused-appellants, PW-1 woke-up and made alarm then immediately PW-2 also woke-up and jumped from his cot to the cot of his mother PW-1. Hearing hue and cry of witnesses, accused ran away from place of occurrence after causing fire arm injuries to deceased. A lengthy cross-examination has been made by defence from PW-1 but nothing came out to disbelieve statement of PW-1 on material points. PW-1 has also specifically denied the plea taken by accused-appellant Raj Nath that he was not present on the date, time and place of occurrence but was present in marriage ceremony of daughter of his brother-in-law. If the plea of alibi taken by accused-appellant Raj Nath is compared with statement of DW-1 Hari Prasad Tiwari, it is also evident that statement made by DW-1 regarding alibi of accused-appellant Raj Nath is not believable. Statement of DW-1 if considered then also it cannot be held that presence of Raj Nath at the time of occurrence at that place was improbable. Thus, on close scrutiny of entire evidence, presence of PW-1 at the place of occurrence when incident took place is not doubtful. Suggestion of defence has also not been substantiated by any cogent evidence. PW-1 was sleeping in the same varandah at the time of occurrence. She has seen the entire episode happened in the matter. 23. As far as presence of PW-2 on the spot at the time of occurrence is concerned, he was aged about twelve and half years when his statement was recorded before court on 10.11.1982. Incident is of 19/20.4.1982. Trial court before recording statement of PW-2 Ashok Kumar had put questions to this witness to test his competency to understand the questions and to give rational answers and found him competent to give rational answers. If statements made by PW-2 in examination-in-chief and crossexamination are minutely analyzed, this witness has clearly and consistently supported prosecution case on material points. Only variation in his statement is about exact location and position of cot of PW-1. Nature of questions put to PW-2 and answers given by him reveals that he is not a tutored witness. If statements made by PW-2 in examination-in-chief and crossexamination are minutely analyzed, this witness has clearly and consistently supported prosecution case on material points. Only variation in his statement is about exact location and position of cot of PW-1. Nature of questions put to PW-2 and answers given by him reveals that he is not a tutored witness. If there is variation in his testimony about exact position of standing of accused and location of cot, testimony of this witness on material point regarding involvement of accused-appellant Raj Nath cannot be disbelieved. Accused-appellant Raj Nath had caused fire arm injuries before this witness. It may be mentioned that it is always not possible for a witness to re-collect every minute detail happened at the time of occurrence and to give minute to minute details of act done by accused. In the circumstances, PW-1 and PW-2 are natural and probable witnesses. They had come alongwith deceased at their house to attend a function. 24. So far as relation of PW-1 and PW-2 with deceased and their being interestedness is concerned, it is 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. 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. 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 ]. 25. If in the light of aforesaid propositions of law, plea of accused is analysed with the evidence available on record, it is clear that PW-1 and PW-2 cannot be termed to be interested or partisan witnesses. Mere relation with the deceased does not place them in the category of partisan witness. Both are natural and probable witnesses. Incident took place in their house in night hours. They were sleeping at the time of occurrence at the same place. There is no chance of false implication, especially, of accused-appellant No.1 Raj Nath, who is brother of deceased. Facts and circumstances of case also reveals that witnesses would have easily recognized the accused. Thus, finding recorded by trial court about their presence at the place of occurrence is based on correct appreciation of evidence and need no interference by this Court. 26. So far as medical evidence is concerned, referring to post mortem report learned counsel for appellants argued that PW-1 and PW-2 both have stated that deceased was sleeping on cot (chauki), therefore, in that position injuries found on the body of deceased could not be caused by accused standing near that cot. At this juncture, learned counsel for appellants has also referred to cross-examination of PW-4. In the instant matter, perusal of medical evidence reveals that injuries are over inner aspect of right thigh upper part 11 cm below inner boarder of right inguinal ligament and over root of right thigh upper part 1 c.m. below middle of right inguinal ligament. Dimension of injury no. 1 is inwards and upwards. If medical evidence is compared with oral version of PW-1 and PW-2, one thing is very much clear that injuries were caused upon body of deceased with fire arm when he was sleeping. Prosecution case is that having seen accused persons, PW-1 initially made alarm consequently PW-2 also woke up and jumped from cot of deceased to cot of his mother. Prosecution case is that having seen accused persons, PW-1 initially made alarm consequently PW-2 also woke up and jumped from cot of deceased to cot of his mother. If this was position, certainly deceased would have also woke-up and would have also reacted. In that situation what was exact position of body of deceased could not be recollected by witnesses during trial. There may be variation on this point in their statements but prosecution evidence to this extent that fire upon deceased was made by accused Raj Nath at the time mentioned in the F.I.R. is clear and consistent. Post mortem report also reveals that injuries found on the body of deceased could be caused in the manner and style stated by prosecution witnesses. It might be possible that deceased would have been trying to stand up or his legs were in bending situation and in that situation, if fire was made from leg side upon body of deceased, injuries found on his body could come. Answer given by PW-4 about manner of causing of injury is based on speculation. Since statements of PW-1 and PW-2 are consistent and clear that accused-appellant Raj Nath opened fire upon deceased which hit him and he sustained injuries, it is established that injuries found on the body of deceased could come in the manner stated by prosecution witnesses. On close scrutiny of entire prosecution evidence, it cannot be said that medical evidence is contrary to oral version, rather it supports prosecution case. Finding recorded by trial court on this point is also based on correct appreciation of evidence and does not require interference. 27. Initially, in this matter F.I.R. was lodged for the offence under Section 307 I.P.C.. Deceased was hospitalized in S.A.D., Hospital, Rasara, where he died. During trial, case was converted into offence under Section 302 I.P.C. Omission on part of Investigating Officer in taking lantern and contradiction in statement of prosecution witnesses about recovery of cartridge from place of occurrence as also variation in statements of PW-1 and PW-2 regarding place of cot and position of deceased at the time of occurrence are not material and same do not go to the root of prosecution case. It may also be mentioned that PW-1 and PW-2 are natural and probable witnesses and their presence at the place of occurrence is not doubtful. It may also be mentioned that PW-1 and PW-2 are natural and probable witnesses and their presence at the place of occurrence is not doubtful. Although they are close relative of deceased yet their testimony on material point i.e. causing of fire arm injury by accused-appellant no.1 upon deceased is not unbelievable, especially, when their statement is supported by medical evidence. Deceased was taken to hospital in injured condition in the night itself and F.I.R. was lodged initially for the offence under Section 307 I.P.C.. Since accused-appellant no. 1 Raj Nath is real brother of deceased, there is no chance for his false implication as has been discussed here-in-above. Motive to commit present offence has also been proved by prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Plea of alibi taken by accused-appellant no.1 is not believable, place of occurrence is the house of deceased, thus, we are of the view that contradictions, omissions, laches etc. elucidated by defence are not fatal to prosecution case. 28. At this juncture settled legal position of law on the point may be quoted, which are as follows: “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. 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 V. Om Prakash (2007) 12 SCC 381 ; State V. Saravanan (2008) 17 SCC 587 ; Prithu V. State of H.P. (2009) 11 SCC 588 and Brahm Swaroop and another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2011)6 SCC 288 .” 29. Now we come to role of accused-appellants. 30. In F.I.R. role of firing is attributed to accused-appellant no.1 Raj Nath. Rest appellants were said to be surrounding the cot of deceased at the time of incident but no active role has been assigned to them. Similar is the position in statements of PW-1 and PW-2. Testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 is consistent, cogent and clear on the point that accused-appellant no. 1 Raj Nath opened fire upon deceased which hit him. Thus, involvement of accused-appellant no. 1 Raj Nath and causing fire arm injuries to deceased on the date, time and place of occurrence have been fully established by prosecution from its evidence beyond reasonable doubt. 31. So far as role of accused-appellant nos. 2 and 3, who are resident of State of Bihar, is concerned, except to accompanying accused-appellant no.1 Raj Nath and surrounding the cot of deceased at the time of incident, no other role has been assigned to them. Motive assigned in the present matter is also not against accused-appellant nos. 2 and 3. It is also evident from statement of PW-1 and PW-2 that neither accused-appellant nos. 2 and 3 were armed with any weapon nor they have caused injuries to deceased. If entire prosecution evidence in respect of role assigned to accused-appellant nos. 2 and 3 is minutely scrutinized, we are of the view that involvement of accused-appellant nos. 2 and 3 on the basis of prosecution evidence adduced in the matter appears doubtful. Ingredients of provisions of Section 34 I.P.C. are not available. Prosecution was not able to prove any sort of prior meeting of mind of all accused. Thus, applying rule of caution, when accused-appellant nos. 2 and 3 on the basis of prosecution evidence adduced in the matter appears doubtful. Ingredients of provisions of Section 34 I.P.C. are not available. Prosecution was not able to prove any sort of prior meeting of mind of all accused. Thus, applying rule of caution, when accused-appellant nos. 2 and 3 have not played any active role, we are also of the view that findings recorded by trial court about involvement of accused-appellant nos. 2 and 3 in commission of present offence is not based on correct appreciation of facts and evidence and need interference by this Court. So far as involvement of accused appellant no. 1 Raj Nath is concerned, finding recorded by the trial court is based on correct appreciation of evidence and need no interference by this Court. 32. As regards sentence awarded to appellant Raj Nath vide impugned judgment and order is concerned, 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 further settled that punishment should be proportionate to gravity of offence. 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, the enormity of crime warranting public abhorrence and it should 'respond to the society's cry for justice against the criminal. Hence, applying the aforesaid principles and having regard to the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, nature of offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed, we find that punishment imposed upon accused-appellant no.1 Raj Nath by the trial court in the impugned judgment and order is not excessive or exorbitant and no question arises to interfere in the matter on point of punishment imposed upon the appellant no.1 Raj Nath as he been convicted and sentenced by trial court for the offence under Section 302 IPC to undergo imprisonment for life, which is minimum sentence for the said offence. 33. Thus, taking into account the entire facts and circumstances of the case and considering the evidence available on record, we are of the view that prosecution has not been able to establish the guilt of accused appellants Basgit and Buddhan beyond reasonable doubt. 33. Thus, taking into account the entire facts and circumstances of the case and considering the evidence available on record, we are of the view that prosecution has not been able to establish the guilt of accused appellants Basgit and Buddhan beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the Court is inclined to grant benefit of doubt to accused appellants Basgit and Buddhan on the ground of rule of caution. However, prosecution is able to prove guilt of accused appellant no.1 Raj Nath and trial court has rightly convicted and sentenced him vide impugned judgment and order. 34. In view of above discussions, we are of the opinion that prosecution has failed to establish guilt of accused appellants Basgit and Buddhan under Section 302/34 IPC beyond reasonable doubt and to the satisfaction of judicial conscience of court. But prosecution has established guilt of accused appellant no. 1 Raj Nath under Section 302 IPC and trial court has rightly convicted and sentenced him. So, impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 20/21.12.1983, which has been sought to be assailed, call for and deserves, interference. The criminal appeal is liable to be allowed in part. 35. Accordingly, criminal appeal is allowed in part. Judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 20/21.12.1983 passed by trial court is hereby set aside in respect of accused appellants Basgit and Buddhan. Accused appellants Basgit and Buddhan are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 302/34 IPC. They are acquitted of all charges framed against them. They are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged. However, Conviction and sentence of accused appellant no.1 Raj Nath under Section 302 IPC is upheld and impugned judgment and order dated 20/21.12.1983 is affirmed against him. He is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged from liabilities. He is directed to surrender before Court concerned immediately for serving-out remaining sentence. 36. Keeping in view provisions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C., appellants No. 2 and 3 namely Basgit and Buddhan are directed to forthwith furnish each a personal bond of the sum of Rs. He is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged from liabilities. He is directed to surrender before Court concerned immediately for serving-out remaining sentence. 36. Keeping in view provisions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C., appellants No. 2 and 3 namely Basgit and Buddhan are directed to forthwith furnish each a personal bond of the sum of Rs. fifty thousand and two reliable Sureties each in the like amount before Trial Court, which shall be effective for a period of six months, along with an undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the instant judgment or for grant of leave, appellant Nos 2 and 3 on receipt of notice thereof shall appear before Hon'ble Supreme Court. 37. Let a copy of this judgment along with lower court record be sent to the Sessions Judge, Ballia for compliance and a compliance report be also sent. 38. Shri Shivanand Pandey, 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 Shri Shivanand Pandey, amicus curiae without any delay and in any case within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.