JUDGMENT : Pankaj Naqvi, J. This criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment/order dated 19.12.2003 passed by Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.4, Kanpur Nagar in S.T. No. 305/2002 (State Vs. Vibhash Kumar & others) under Section 302 IPC, convicting/sentencing the appellants under Section 302 IPC, to life with fine of Rs. 50,000/-each and a default sentence of 2 years each and under Section 25 of the Arms Act to 3 years each. 2. The case of the prosecution is as under: (i) Jagannath Prasad Pathak had 4 sons, Subodh Pathak (married to Madhuri), Santosh Pathak, Pramod Pathak and Vinod Pathak. Santosh Pathak had 2 sons Vibhash and Chanchal (Appellants 1 & 2). Subodh Pathak had 3 issues, out of whom Ashish Pathak (PW-2) was aged about 14 years and Priya Pathak (PW-3) around 6 years at the time of occurrence. PW-1/ the informant is the son-in-law of Subodh Pathak. (ii) The father-in-law of the informant, i.e, Subodh Pathak and his brother Pramod Pathak (unmarried/issueless) had partitioned the landed property amongst them, Pramod Pathak with the consent of Vinod Pathak transferred his share jointly in favour of Subodh Pathak and Santosh Pathak, Vibhash and Chanchal, started coercing the father-in-law/Subodh Pathak that he should transfer the share of Pramod Pathak in their favour to which neither Subodh Pathak nor Pramod Pathak were agreeable, which generated animosity. (iii) PW-1 visited the house of his father-in-law on 25.7.2001. Around 9:45 P.M, Vibhash and Chanchal and one Vinay Kumar Tiwari @ Monu Tiwari (brother-in-law of Vibhash), all armed with country made pistol entered the house of Subodh Pathak/father-in-law, hurling abuses and alleging as to how they could alienate the share of Pramod Pathak, that too without payments to accused persons. Subodh Pathak and Pramod Pathak attempted to flee fearing their lives but Vibhash, Chanchal and Vinay@ Monu fired indiscriminately at the doorstep, causing critical injuries to Subodh Pathak and Pramod Pathak. Madhuri ran to rescue the victims but all the 3 accused assaulted the lady with pistol butts, causing serious injuries. The occurrence was witnessed by PW-1, Madhuri, PW-2 and PW-3. PW-1 took all the 3 injured at night to Ursala Hospital, wherein Subodh and Pramod were declared brought dead and Madhuri was admitted for medical treatment. 3. PW-1 on above allegations, scribed a report (Exbt-Ka1). The occurrence was witnessed by PW-1, Madhuri, PW-2 and PW-3. PW-1 took all the 3 injured at night to Ursala Hospital, wherein Subodh and Pramod were declared brought dead and Madhuri was admitted for medical treatment. 3. PW-1 on above allegations, scribed a report (Exbt-Ka1). On the basis of this report, lodged by PW-1, F.I.R (Exbt Ka2) came to be registered against the appellants on 25.7.2001 at 23:45 under Section 302/307 IPC. 4. After lodging the report, condition of Madhuri is alleged to have deteriorated. She was taken to Regency Hospital same night itself. She gave a statement to the police on 26.7.2001 in the presence of PW-1 and his wife (not examined), Madhuri succumbed to the injuries at the hospital on 28.7.2001. With her, death, Section 307 IPC was struck off. 5. To establish the guilt, prosecution examined as many as 15 prosecution witnesses. The defence did not lead any evidence, but claimed false implication on account of enmity. 6. The trial court after considering the evidence on record, convicted the appellants as above. 7. Heard Shri Mangala Prasad Rai, learned counsel for appellants and Sri A.N. Mulla, the learned A.G.A. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants made following submissions: (1) Absence of motive. (2) F.I.R. is ante-timed. (3) Prosecution failed to establish place of occurrence. (4) No explanation of injury no.5 of Madhuri Pathak and that of injury no.1 of Subodh Pathak, renders doubtful the testimony of eye-witnesses. (5) Recovery of weapons is doubtful. (6) PW-1 is the real assailant, as he contracted love-marriage with the daughter of the deceased Subodh Pathak, relations between PW-1 and his in-laws were strained. 9. Sri Mulla, the learned A.G.A controverted the submissions by submitting that although in a case of direct evidence motive is of no consequence, yet motive is established. He submitted that eye-witness account including testimony of PW's-2 & 3, the child witnesses could not be shaken. He thus contended that once eye-witness account is credible, F.I.R, prompt, failure to mention time of lodging the FIR in the inquest is to be ignored as investigational lapse, and non-explanation of one injury of Madhuri out of 9 injuries and that of injury no.1 of Subodh Pathak out of 5 injuries would not render the prosecution account doubtful. He thus contended that once eye-witness account is credible, F.I.R, prompt, failure to mention time of lodging the FIR in the inquest is to be ignored as investigational lapse, and non-explanation of one injury of Madhuri out of 9 injuries and that of injury no.1 of Subodh Pathak out of 5 injuries would not render the prosecution account doubtful. He finally submitted that considering the entire evidence on record, it is the appellants, who carried out 3 murders of their immediate family members for lust of property, culpability of PW-1 was no where made out. 10. The occurrence is said to have taken place on 25.07.2001 at around 09:45 PM, inside the house of the deceased / Subodh and at its doorstep. P.W. 1 the informant / son-in-law of the deceased Subodh Pathak, lodged a report at the PS concerned at a distance of 2.5 Kms same night at 11:45 PM. Questioning the F.I.R. as ante-timed it was submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that absence of case crime number and date of lodging of the report as 27.07.2001 in the inquest coupled with the statement of P.W. 4, who prepared a check report, admitting certain alterations in the date of lodging the F.I.R, strongly suggest that the F.I.R. was not in existence when the inquest (Ext. Ka-21 / 28) was carried out in respect of 2 male deceased on 26.07.2001. 11. The law with regard to evidentiary value of inquest has been recently reiterated by the Apex Court in the judgment of Tahseen Poonawalla v Union of India & others (2018) 6 SCC 72 . The Apex Court held that the purpose of holding an inquest is limited. The inquest does not constitute a substantive evidence. The report of inquest is primarily intended to ascertain the nature of the injuries and the apparent cause of death. 12. It is not the requirement of law, that inquest must contain an authentication from witness of fact examined in the Court. On the contrary, such witness may be baised. Independent witnesses are preferred for inquest. 13. Thus absence of disclosure of case crime number, name of the accused, nature of weapon etc. are of not any relevance as the purpose of the inquest is only to ascertain the cause of death. Further inquest is only a corroborative piece of evidence having no substantive value. 14. Independent witnesses are preferred for inquest. 13. Thus absence of disclosure of case crime number, name of the accused, nature of weapon etc. are of not any relevance as the purpose of the inquest is only to ascertain the cause of death. Further inquest is only a corroborative piece of evidence having no substantive value. 14. Disclosure of 26.07.2001 as the date of lodging of the F.I.R in the inquests (Ex Ka 21 and 28) is an investigational lapse for which the appellants cannot derive any benefit. 15. P.W. 4/the Head Constable admitted that due to oversight incorrect date of the lodging the date of the F.I.R, was inscribed in the original F.I.R. which was changed from 23.07.2001 to 25.07.2001 and that of change in date beneath his signatures from 26.07.2001 to 25.07.2001. 16. However, it could not be disputed by the learned counsel which is also borne out from the GD entry (Ext. Ka......) that the F.I.R. was lodged on 25.07.2001 at 11:45 PM. 17. It is well settled that investigational defaults do not ensure to the benefit of accused. 18. Thus the F.I.R. cannot be said to be ante-timed. 19. Motive in a case of direct evidence is ordinarily of no consequence. Motive alleged was that accused Vibhash and Chanchal who happen to be the siblings and nephews of the deceased bore animosity on account of transfer of one of their uncle's share (Pramod Pathak, the deceased) in favour of another deceased uncle (Subodh Pathak) and the subsequent sale of the said share by Suboth Pathak to an outsider. 20. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that motive, if any, was on the part of P.W. 1 as he being a son-in-law contracted a love marriage / inter-caste with the daughter of the deceased Subodh Pathak about one and a half year ago to the annoyance of the in-law's and with a view to usurp the property carried out the 3 murders. We are not impressed with this argument. First evidence indicates that P.W. 1 and his wife along with their children were in comfortable relationship with the deceased as P.W. 1 was on visiting terms at the house of his in-laws. Second no counter F.I.R was filed by the accused side. 21. Site plan (Ext. We are not impressed with this argument. First evidence indicates that P.W. 1 and his wife along with their children were in comfortable relationship with the deceased as P.W. 1 was on visiting terms at the house of his in-laws. Second no counter F.I.R was filed by the accused side. 21. Site plan (Ext. Ka-8) indicates that point X is the place from where the accused fired from their respective weapons at 2 victim, witnessed from Point 'C' and Point 'D' is the place where the deceased in an injured state attempted to flee but eventually fell down. Point D is right adjacent to the exit of the house of the deceased, i.e, at the doorstep, consistent with the case of prosecution. The distance between 'X' and 'D' is reported to be 11 steps. It is not the case of prosecution that the bodies were found at a considerable distance from the doorstep, so as to create any doubt as to the place of occurrence. 22. PW-1 is an eye witness and son of the deceased his presence was challenged that he was a chance witness. The law relating to a testimony of a chance witness has been settled by the Apex Court in Sachchey Lal Tiwari Vs. State of U.P, (2004) 11 SCC 410 . Relevant extracts are quoted hereinbelow:- “Coming to the plea of the accused that PW-2 was 'chance witness' who has not explained how he happened to be at the alleged place of occurrence it has to be noted that the said witness was independent witness. There was not even a suggestion to the witness that he had any animosity towards any of the accused. In a murder trial by describing an independent witness as 'chance witness' it cannot be implied thereby that his evidence is suspicious and his presence at the scene doubtful. Murders are not committed with previous notice to witnesses; soliciting their presence. If murder is committed in a dwelling house, the inmates of the house are natural witnesses. If murder is committed in a street, only passersby will be witnesses. Their evidence cannot be brushed aside or viewed with suspicion on the ground that they are mere 'chance witnesses'. The expression 'chance witness' is borrowed from countries where every man's home is considered his castle and everyone must have an explanation for his presence elsewhere or in another man's castle. Their evidence cannot be brushed aside or viewed with suspicion on the ground that they are mere 'chance witnesses'. The expression 'chance witness' is borrowed from countries where every man's home is considered his castle and everyone must have an explanation for his presence elsewhere or in another man's castle. It is quite unsuitable an expression in a country where people are less formal and more casual, at any rate in the matter explaining their presence.” 23. PW-1 had contracted an inter-caste marriage with the daughter of the deceased. Nowhere in the evidence of any witness, any hostility between PW-1 and his in-laws is discernible. Thus PW-1 cannot be called a chance witness as he had every reason to be in the house of in-laws with whom he was sharing a cordial relationship. PW-1 gave a graphic description as regards the sequence of the fatal assault attributable to the appellants in the house of in-laws on 25.7.2001 at around 9.45 PM causing serious injuries to Subodh Pathak and Pramod Pathak, who while attempting to rescue themselves fell at their doorstep. Madhuri w/o Subodh, was on the first floor. After hearing the scuffle. She came down to rescue her husband and brother-in-law but she too was inflicted with severe butt injuries. During cross-examination PW-1 only faltered as to the form of marriage as to whether it was as per Arya Samaji rites or Sanatan Dharm but his marriage was performed at an Arya Samaj Mandir. All this does not dent his credibility as a witness to the occurrence. He was candid enough to admit that after 6-7 months of the occurrence he had been staying with his wife and children which suggests that the contention of appellants that PW-1 is a murderer is falsehood. We on the contrary find that the relations between the informant side and the deceased was extremely cordial as entire family was living together. 24. PW-2, son of the deceased Subodh, also an eye-witness, was aged about 13 years. The trial court found him of possessing the capacity to depose. He too maintained the same version as narrated by PW-1 relating to the sequence of assault, the identity of assailants and the weapons used in causing critical injuries to all the 3 deceased. Despite his lengthy cross-examination he could not be shaken in his testimony to raise even a semblance of doubt. 25. He too maintained the same version as narrated by PW-1 relating to the sequence of assault, the identity of assailants and the weapons used in causing critical injuries to all the 3 deceased. Despite his lengthy cross-examination he could not be shaken in his testimony to raise even a semblance of doubt. 25. PW-3 is another child witness, daughter of the deceased Subodh was aged 5 years. She saw the appellants Vinay Tiwari @ Monu caused firearm injuries at Daddu (Pramod Pathak) and appellants Vibhash and Chanchal of causing firearm injuries at her father (Subodh Pathak), as a result of which both the victims fell down, whereas appellants Vibhash and Chanchal inflicted butt, knife and leg blows at her mother, who too fell down. She too could not be shaken during cross-examination. 26. There is nothing on record that PW-2 / 3 were tutored. 27. PW-5 is the doctor, who conducted the autopsy of the deceased Madhuri Pathak on 29.7.2001 at around 12 noon, indicating the following ante-mortem injuries: (1) Stiched wound one cm long with two stick present left side forehead, one cm above left eyebrow. (2) Lacerated wound 1 cm X 1/2 cm X muscledeep right after part of chest 9 cm above right neck. (3) Stiched wound 1 cm long 1 stich present lateral side, right side chest 11 cm below axilla. (4) Stiched wound 2 cm long with two stich present lateral side, right side chest 8 cm below injury no.3. (5) Cut wound 1 cm X 1/2 cm muscle deep, 3 cm above anterior on femur bone right side. (6) Lacerated wound 1 cm X 1/2 X muscledeep left side lower part of abdomen. (7) Lacerated wound 1 cm X 1 cm X muscledeep of mid spine. (8) Stiched wound 3 cm below xiphisternum 18 cm long with 17 stiches. (9) Contused swelling 5 cm X 4 cm above right ear. 28. It was submitted by the learned counsel for appellants that in the injury report of deceased Madhuri there were only 6 injuries but in the autopsy, there are 9 injuries. It was further submitted that injury no.5 of deceased is not explained by the prosecution, which defects in the prosecution case. 29. We are not convinced with this submission. 28. It was submitted by the learned counsel for appellants that in the injury report of deceased Madhuri there were only 6 injuries but in the autopsy, there are 9 injuries. It was further submitted that injury no.5 of deceased is not explained by the prosecution, which defects in the prosecution case. 29. We are not convinced with this submission. It is true that there is difference in number of injuries in injury report Ext Ka 44 and the autopsy (Exbt-), but this difference does not throw any doubt on trustworthiness of the prosecution witnesses. PW-1 stated that appellants inflicted butt and leg blows at deceased Madhuri, while PW-3 specifically stated along with above weapons, knife was also used at the deceased Madhuri. 30. Once PW-3 introduced knife in the hands of appellants, injury no.5 inflicted at the deceased Madhuri could be attributed to it. Thus the contention that injury no.5 of the said deceased is unexplained, stands rejected. 31. PW-6 is the doctor, who performed the autopsy of the deceased Subodh Pathak on 27.7.2001 at around 1:20 P.M, with following ante-mortem injuries: (1) Multiple fire-arm wound of entry in an area of 40 cm X 11 cm on left side of chest and left side of abdomen in size of 1 cm X 1 cm X chest and abdomen cavity deep. Charring present around the wounds. Margines inverted. (2) Firearm wound of entry 1 cm X 1 cm muscle deep on outer side of left upper arm, 9 cm below top of shoulder (3) Lacerated wound 2 X 1 cm on right side of head, 7 cm above right ear. (4) Firearm wound of exit 2 cm X 2 cm on left side of right chest 8 cm below axilla. Margines everted. (5) Wound of exit 1.5 cm X 2 cm X chest cavity deep, 2 cm below injury no.4. Margines everted, as communicative of injury no.1. 32. A challenge was made in respect of injury no.1 to the deceased Subodh Pathak that considering the area of dispersal of entry wound, same could not be caused by firearm shot rather the same was attributable to a bomb-blast. 33. Margines everted, as communicative of injury no.1. 32. A challenge was made in respect of injury no.1 to the deceased Subodh Pathak that considering the area of dispersal of entry wound, same could not be caused by firearm shot rather the same was attributable to a bomb-blast. 33. Modi-A Textbook of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology (XXIV Edition), while dealing with the distance of the firearm at page-540 to 541 opined that the scattering of shot depends upon the choke of the gun, the charge of the powder and the distance of the gun from the body, the dispersion of pellets should however be studied with the gun and similar ammunition in question. 34. Country made handguns with short barrel give unusually high dispersion-data. 35. The prosecution has alleged the use of a country made pistol, which is alleged to have caused injury no.1 to the deceased Subodh Pathak, which is capable of producing an unusually high dispersal area as indicated above. PW-6 stated that only a ballistic expert can give a definite opinion as regards the cause of injury no.1, merely because in cross-examination the said doctor did not rule out the possibility of a blast injury qua injury no.1, the defence cannot take any advantage when 4 out of 5 injuries are compatible with the oral account. Considering the pattern and the nature of injury no.5, it is evident that the same was the exit wound of injury no.1. Moreover, in the absence of any cross-examination that injury no.5 was not the exit wound of injury no.1, we in view of above have no option, but to hold otherwise. 36. The recovery of the incriminating weapon was challenged on the ground that the same was never produced before the trial court. PW-8 is the I.O, concerned in whose presence the incriminating weapons (Exbt-Ka18) at the pointing out of accused Vibhas, Chanchal hidden in the bushes of babool tree and a weapon (Exbt-Ka17) from the house of accused Vinay @ Monu. It appears that before the trial court that initially a wrong bundle of the recovered weapon was opened but when the mistake was noticed and the correct bundle of the incriminating weapons (Exbt-Ka17 & 18) was produced and proved by PW-8 on 30.9.2003. Thus recovery cannot be faulted. 37. It appears that before the trial court that initially a wrong bundle of the recovered weapon was opened but when the mistake was noticed and the correct bundle of the incriminating weapons (Exbt-Ka17 & 18) was produced and proved by PW-8 on 30.9.2003. Thus recovery cannot be faulted. 37. We after scanning the entire evidence on record are of the view that PW-1, 2 and 3 are wholly reliable eye-witnesses, who have established the homicidal death of the 3 deceased in the manner alleged by the prosecution corroborated by medical evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. 38. Appeal is bereft of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 39. The appeal is dismissed. 40. Let a copy of this judgment along with record be sent to the learned Sessions Judge, concerned for ensuring compliance under the intimation to this Court.