JUDGMENT : PRASHANT KUMAR, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.06.1985 passed by IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Kheri in Sessions Trial No. 161 of 1984, whereby and whereunder the appellants were convicted under Sections 148, 302 r/w 149 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life along with fine of Rs. 2,000/-each for the offence under Section 302 r/w 149 of the IPC. The appellants were further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 148 of the IPC. 2. It appears that initially the present appeal was filed by altogether six appellants. During pendency of the appeal, three appellants namely appellant no. 3 Bharat, appellant no. 5-Jaskaran and appellant no. 6 Ram Ghulam died. Thus, appeal filed by them stand abated. At present, the present appeal survives for appellant no. 1 (Ram Sagar), appellant no. 2 (Shambhu) and appellant no. 4 (Sri Krishna). 3. The case of prosecution, in short, as per the first information report is that on 19.10.1983, the informant-Raju (P.W.2) had accompanied Ram Ashray (the deceased) to Lakhimpur Kheri for doing Pairvi of the case of Maya Ram and Rajendra. It is further stated that on the same day in the afternoon, they were returning from Lakhimpur Kheri court to their village-Bajudiha on a bicycle. He further states that Babu Sheikh and Kamaruddin were also returning from Lakhimpur Kheri to village-Bajudiha. It is then stated that at about 04.00 PM when the informant and Ram Ashray reached near Masjid, situated in village Bajudiha, accused Ram Sagar armed with a single barrel gun, Shambhu armed with a small gun, Bharat, Ram Ghulam and Jaskaran each armed with Tamancha and Sri Krishna armed with lathi came out of Patawar, a type of straw, grown by the side of road in the field of appellant-Ram Sagar. It is stated that thereafter the aforesaid accused persons surrounded the deceased. However, deceased after leaving the bicycle started running in the paddy field in order to save his life. However, the accused persons chased and fired on the deceased, due to which he fell on the ground near the Masjid. It is stated that thereafter all the accused persons fired and assaulted the deceased and caused injuries on his person. However, deceased after leaving the bicycle started running in the paddy field in order to save his life. However, the accused persons chased and fired on the deceased, due to which he fell on the ground near the Masjid. It is stated that thereafter all the accused persons fired and assaulted the deceased and caused injuries on his person. It is stated that the informant and others, who gathered on the place of occurrence, raised alarm, thereafter accused persons fled away. It is stated that after retreat of the accused persons, when the informant and other witnesses went to the place of occurrence, they found that the deceased had already died. 4. It appears that thereafter the informant, who happens to be nephew (Bhanja) of the deceased took the bicycle of witness-Babu Sheikh and went to Lakhimpur Kheri and informed his maternal uncle-Ram Chandra Tiwari about the incident and got the written statement prepared. Thereafter, handed over the written report at Kotwali police station of Lakhimpur Kheri, on the basis of which case crime no. 603 of 1983 under Sections 147, 148, 149 & 302 of the IPC instituted. Initially the investigation was handed over to P.W. 8 (Ram Naresh Singh, Sub Inspector of Police), who along with other police personnel posted in the police station, came to the place of occurrence and prepared inquest report in the light of petromax. He has proved the inquest report, which was marked as Exhibit ka-7. He further stated that he had also prepared police papers such as photo laash, challan etc. (Exhibit ka 8-10) and after sealing the dead body, sent it for post-mortem examination. Thereafter, P.W. 8 had seized the blood-stained clothes of the deceased and prepared seizure list (Exhibit ka-12). He had also seized blood-stained earth from the place of occurrence and prepared seizure list (Exhibit ka-13). It appears that the Investigating Officer had also seized three empty cartridges of 12 bore. It appears that thereafter he recorded the statement of witnesses next day in the morning. Thereafter, the investigation was taken over by P.W. 6-Suresh Chandra Varshney, who after doing rest of the investigation submitted chargesheet against the appellant under Sections 147, 148, 302/149 of the IPC. It appears that thereafter he recorded the statement of witnesses next day in the morning. Thereafter, the investigation was taken over by P.W. 6-Suresh Chandra Varshney, who after doing rest of the investigation submitted chargesheet against the appellant under Sections 147, 148, 302/149 of the IPC. After taking cognizance, the concerned Magistrate committed the case to the court of Sessions, for trial as the offence under Section 302 of the IPC is exclusively triable by the court of Sessions. 5. After commitment, the case was transferred in the file of learned court below for trial. Thereafter, the learned court below framed charges against all the six accused persons under Section 148, 302 & 149 of the IPC and explained the same charges to them, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Thereafter, the prosecution had examined altogether ten witnesses namely P.W. 1 (Dr. P.C. Pandey), who held autopsy on the dead body of the deceased, P.W. 2 (Raju), P.W. 3 (Babu Sheikh), P.W. 4 (Sobran Lal), the three eye-witnesses of the occurrence, P.W. 5 (Subedar Khan), the constable, who lodged the first information report and made entry in the general diary, P.W. 6 (S.I. Suresh Chandra Varshney), who is IInd Investigating Officer, P.W. 7 (Salauddin Khan is a constable, who brought the dead body to hospital for post-mortem examination, P.W. 8 (S.I. Ram Naresh Singh), who is first Investigating Officer, P.W. 9 (Ram Chandra Verma), is a formal witness, who had brought the seized articles in the court and proved the same, P.W. 10 (Noor Mohammad) is a constable, who brought some of the seized articles to the Office of Chief Medical Officer Lakhimpur Kheri, for chemical examination. 6. After close of the case of prosecution, the statements of the above six accused persons recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which their defence is of total denial. 7. It appears that thereafter the defence had also examined three witnesses in support of its case. D.W. 1 (Ram Pal Sharma), the Deputy Jailor of District Jail, Lakhimpur Kheri had proved the extract of visitors’ register to show that P.W. 2 and the deceased never visited district jail for meeting Prisoner-Maya Ram. D.W. 2 (Virendra Kumar Gupta), the Sales Manager of Gun House, Lakhimpur, has been produced to prove that the single barrel licensee gun of appellant no. D.W. 2 (Virendra Kumar Gupta), the Sales Manager of Gun House, Lakhimpur, has been produced to prove that the single barrel licensee gun of appellant no. 1 was lying in the gun house on the date of occurrence. D.W. 3 (Kailash Narayan) is Ahalmad of the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lakhimpur Kheri, who has proved order passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lakhimpur Kheri, which was marked as Exhibit Kha-5. Apart from above oral evidence, the accused persons had also produced documentary evidence in support of their cases. 8. After considering the evidences adduced by the parties and also after hearing the counsel for the parties, learned trial court had convicted and sentenced all the accused persons including the appellant, as stated hereinabove by the impugned judgment against that the present appeal has been filed. 9. We have heard Sri Nagendra Mohan, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Umesh Verma, Additional Govt. Advocate on behalf of the State. 10. While assailing the impugned judgment, Sri Nagendra Mohan, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that in the instant case, the first information report is ante-timed, which is fatal for the case of prosecution. To substantiate the aforesaid point, he submits that in the inquest report, case crime number has not been mentioned. Even in the said inquest report, the nature of weapon, which was used for commission of crime had not been mentioned. It is further submitted that even the accused persons were not named in the inquest report. It is further submitted that though it is alleged by the prosecution that the first information report was lodged at 06.00 PM in the evening of 19.10.1983 but the same had reached in the Office of Circle Officer on 21.10.1983 and absolutely no explanation given by the Investigating Officer or P.W. 5 for delay in sending the first information report, which depicts that the first information report was lodged on the next date of occurrence, after due deliberation with a view to falsely implicate the appellants. It is submitted that the conduct of the informant for meeting an Advocate before lodging the first information report also creates a serious doubt on the case of prosecution. 11. It is further submitted that all the three eyewitnesses namely P.Ws. It is submitted that the conduct of the informant for meeting an Advocate before lodging the first information report also creates a serious doubt on the case of prosecution. 11. It is further submitted that all the three eyewitnesses namely P.Ws. 2, 3 & 4 had deposed that while the deceased was running towards the Masjid, the appellants fired on him but surprisingly the Doctor (P.W. 1), who conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of deceased, had not found any firearm injury on the back of deceased. Accordingly, it is submitted that P.Ws. 2, 3 & 4 are not a reliable witness. Hence, on the basis of their evidence, the conviction of these appellants cannot be sustained. 12. On the other hand, Sri Umesh Verma, learned Additional Government Advocate submits that in the instant case, the occurrence took place at 04.00 PM and the first information report was lodged at 06.00 PM. He submits that the distance of place of occurrence from that of police station is about ten kilometres. He further submits that the informant had firstly went to the house of his maternal uncle, a Practicing Advocate, who was residing in Lakhimpur Kheri for giving information of the occurrence. Thus, the aforesaid conduct of Informant in meeting with the above Advocate is quite natural, thus, the same has no bearing on the case of prosecution. He further submits that P.W. 5 had stated that after lodging the first information report, he made entry in the general diary vide G.D. No. 44 at 06.10 PM. The said GD has been proved in this case as Exhibit 5. He further submits that in the inquest report, the Investigating Officer had mentioned the G.D. number, which goes to show that the first information report was lodged prior to preparation of inquest report. He further submits that in Exhibits ka 8 to 11, the Investigating Officer (P.W. 8) had mentioned the case crime number and handed over the said exhibits along with dead body for postmortem examination. This also shows that the inquest was prepared after lodging of the first information report. Thus, the contention of learned counsel for the appellants that the first information report was ante-timed, is not worth acceptable. It is further submitted that from perusal of the first information report, it does not appear as to when the same reached in the Office of Circle Officer. Thus, the contention of learned counsel for the appellants that the first information report was ante-timed, is not worth acceptable. It is further submitted that from perusal of the first information report, it does not appear as to when the same reached in the Office of Circle Officer. However, he submits that on the said first information report, the Circle Officer has passed an order for sending it to the court concerned on 21.10.1983. Under such circumstance, it cannot be presumed that the first information report reached in the Office of concerned Circle Officer on 21.10.1983. Thus, there is no delay in dispatching the first information report. Moreover, he submits that since the evidence of P.W. 2, 3 & 4 are clear, cogent, consistent and acceptable, therefore, even if there are some delay in dispatching the first information report, the same has no consequence on the case of prosecution. It is further submitted that there is no inconsistency in the ocular evidence and medical evidence. The Doctor (P.W. 1), who held autopsy in the cross-examination had categorically stated that in his opinion, the assailant of the deceased was in the back of deceased in left side and had caused injury nos. 3 & 4. The above statement of P.W. 1 goes to show that at least two injuries were caused on the deceased from his back side. Accordingly, Sri Verma submits that the above submission made by learned counsel for the appellants is liable to be rejected. It is further submitted that there is absolutely no illegality and/or irregularity in the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. Hence, the same requires no interference. 13. Having heard the submission, we have gone through the record of the case and carefully scrutinized the evidence adduced by the parties. 14. P.W. 1(Dr. P.C. Pandey) is the doctor, who held autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and found the following ante-mortem injuries:- “(1) Lacerated wound 5 cm X 1.5 cm X bone deep on the left side scalp, 10 cm behind the left ear; (2) Lacerated wound 3 cm X 1 cm X bone deep just anterior to the injury no. 1. Fracture of the left temporal bone and left side of occipital bone seen underneath the injury nos. 1. Fracture of the left temporal bone and left side of occipital bone seen underneath the injury nos. 1 & 2; (3) Gun shot wound of entry 7 cm X 3 cm X vertebral column deep on the left side neck, 5 cm below the lower part of the left ear. Margins inverted and irregular. Blackening present. All structures including nerves, artery, veins and muscles lacerated on left side neck. Clotted blood present in an around the wound. Seven gun shots recovered from the cervical vertebrae, 18 gun shots, two pieces of wadding and one cork recovered from the oropharynx and laringo phalanx and 13 cm gun shots recovered from the muscles of the left side neck; (4) Gun shot wound of entry and exit 11 cm X 5 cm X muscle deep between neck and left shoulder, blackening present on the posterior lateral side of the wound; (5) Multiple gun shot abrasion on the left side chest and abdomen in an area of 23 cm X 14 cm, 1 cm below the left nipple upto 7 cm above the left iliac crest, each measuring from 0.3 cm X 0.3 cm X scabed to 0.6 cm X 0.3 cm X scabed. On dissection no gun shot could be recovered.” 15. The doctor had stated that out of above five injuries, injury nos. 3, 4 & 5 were caused by firearm, whereas injury nos. 1 & 2 were caused by hard and blunt substance such as lathi. The doctor had also recovered 38 cartridges and two wadding piece, one piece of cork from the dead body. As per the Doctor, the deceased had died due to shock and hemorrhage caused by ante-mortem injuries. The doctor had further opined that it is possible that deceased might have died at 04.00 PM on 19.10.1983. 16. Thus, from perusal of the evidence of P.W. 1, it is clear that the deceased had died a homicidal death. Now the question arose for determination as to whether the appellants have any hand in the commission of present crime or not. This brings us to consider rest of the evidences available on the record. 17. As noticed above, P.Ws. 2, 3 & 4 have been produced by the prosecution as eye-witnesses of the occurrence. P.W. 2 is the nephew (Bhanja) of deceased. This brings us to consider rest of the evidences available on the record. 17. As noticed above, P.Ws. 2, 3 & 4 have been produced by the prosecution as eye-witnesses of the occurrence. P.W. 2 is the nephew (Bhanja) of deceased. He deposed that prior to the present occurrence, criminal case has been lodged against the accused-Ram Sagar, Shambhu and others under Section 307 of the IPC for causing injuries to one-Chote Lal. He further deposed that in the above case, the deceased was one of the witness. P.W. 2 had further stated that Maya Ram and Rajendra were in custody in connection with the murder case of one Sripal, the uncle of Ram Sagar. In the said murder case, the deceased Ram Ashray used to do pairvi on behalf of Maya Ram and Rajendra. He further stated that due to aforesaid reason, Ram Sagar and others had developed animosity with the deceased-Ram Ashray. He further stated that on 19.10.1983, the informant along with Ram Ashray had gone to Lakhimpur Kheri on a bicycle and in the afternoon, both were returning from Lakhimpur to Bajudiha. He further stated that when they reached near the Masjid, the accused-Ram Sagar armed with gun, Shambhu armed with a small gun, Bharat, Jaskaran and Ram Ghulam armed with Tamancha and Sri Krishna armed with lathi suddenly emerged from Patawar (type of straw), grown by the side of road in the field of Ram Sagar and had surrounded the deceased. Thereafter, he left the bicycle and ran towards the paddy field to protect himself. He further stated that thereafter the accused persons chased and fired on him as a result of which the deceased fell on the ground near the Masjid, thereafter, the accused persons fired and assaulted him. He further states that on hue and cry, the villagers also gathered at the place of occurrence. Looking to the villagers, the accused persons fled away. This witness had stated that after retreat of accused persons, he and other witnesses namely Babu Sheikh, Kamaruddin and Sobran went to the place of occurrence and found that the deceased had died due to injuries sustained by him. 18. P.W. 3-Babu Sheikh has deposed that on the date of occurrence, he along with Kamaruddin had gone to Lakhimpur, for purchasing some household articles. 18. P.W. 3-Babu Sheikh has deposed that on the date of occurrence, he along with Kamaruddin had gone to Lakhimpur, for purchasing some household articles. He further states that he was returning from Lakhimpur Kheri along with Kamaruddin on a bicycle and when he reached near the Masjid of village-Bajudiha, he met Ram Ashray and Raju (informant). He further stated that at that time itself, the accused persons came out of Patawar (type of straw) and surrounded the deceased. He further states that the deceased ran away but he was chased by the accused persons, who fired on him due to which he fell on the ground near Masjid and thereafter all the accused persons fired and assaulted him. He further states that when they raised alarm, the accused persons fled away. 19. P.W. 4-Sobran had deposed that he was also returning from Lakhimpur Kheri and was going to his village-Parsa. He further states that when he reached near the Masjid, he heard hue and cry and the sound of firing and saw that the appellants were chasing the deceased due to which the deceased fell on the eastern side of the Masjid and thereafter all the appellants fired upon him. One of the appellant namely Sri Krishna assaulted him with lathi. He further deposed that after retreat of accused persons, when he, Raju (the informant), Babu Sheikh, Kamaruddin and others went near the deceased, they found that the deceased had died due to the injuries sustained by him. 20. From perusal of cross-examination of these three witnesses, we find that they remained consistent with respect to the time, manner and place of occurrence. It is however contended by counsel for the appellant that the informant had not seen the occurrence as he was resident of village-Dhakhwa. It is further submitted that in fact, he was called after the occurrence for lodging the first information report. However, this witness, in his cross-examination has categorically stated that at the time of occurrence, he was residing in village-Bajudiha along with his maternal uncle-Ram Ashray (the deceased). This fact was also stated by P.W. 3, who is also a resident of village-Bajudiha, in his cross-examination. P.W. 3 has stated that Raju (P.W. 1) was residing in Bajudiha from the last one and half years. There is nothing on record on the basis of which the aforesaid two witnesses can be dis-believed. 21. This fact was also stated by P.W. 3, who is also a resident of village-Bajudiha, in his cross-examination. P.W. 3 has stated that Raju (P.W. 1) was residing in Bajudiha from the last one and half years. There is nothing on record on the basis of which the aforesaid two witnesses can be dis-believed. 21. It is submitted that P.W. 3 & 4 are chance witnesses and, therefore, their evidence cannot become the basis for conviction. It is well settled principles of law that if an occurrence took place on road, then the persons, who were passing through the road are the most natural witness and their evidence cannot be discarded merely by saying that they are chance witness. In the instant case, P.Ws. 3 & 4 had categorically stated that they have gone to Lakhimpur Kheri for purchasing some household items and when they were returning and came near the place of occurrence, they saw the occurrence. There is nothing on the record, on which their aforesaid testimony can be dis-believed. Thus, the contention of counsel for the appellants that the evidence of P.Ws. 3 & 4 cannot become the basis for conviction, because they are chance witness, is not worth acceptable. 22. Now coming to the next contention raised by counsel for the appellant that the first information report is ante-dated because case crime number has not been mentioned in the inquest report, is also unacceptable. A three Judge Bench of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Radha Mohan Singh alias Lal Saheb and Ors. vs. State of U.P. [(2006)1 SCC (Cri) 661] has made certain observation at Para 15 of the judgment, which are as follows:- “………….Thus, it is well settled by a catena of decisions of this Court that the purpose of holding an inquest is very limited, viz., to ascertain as to whether a person has committed suicide or has been killed by another or by an animal or by machinery or by an accident or has died under circumstances raising a reasonable suspicion that some other person has committed an offence. There is absolutely no requirement in law of mentioning the details of the FIR, names of the accused or the names of the eye-witnesses or the gist of their statement nor it is required to be signed by any eyewitness. There is absolutely no requirement in law of mentioning the details of the FIR, names of the accused or the names of the eye-witnesses or the gist of their statement nor it is required to be signed by any eyewitness. In Meharaj Singh vs. State of U.P. [ (1994) 5 SCC 188 ] the language used by the legislature in Section 174 Cr.P.C. was not taken note of nor the earlier decisions of this Court were referred to and some sweeping observations have been made which are not supported by the statutory provision. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the observations made in paras 11 and 12 of the reports do not represent the correct statement of law and they are hereby overruled. The challenge laid to the prosecution case by Shri Jain on the basis of the alleged infirmity or omission in the inquest report has, therefore, no substance and cannot be accepted.” 23. In the inquest report, the Investigating Officer had mentioned that on the basis of report of Raju (P.W. 1), the case has been instituted regarding the death of deceased-Ram Ashray and the said first information report was entered in the general diary at Entry No. 44 at 06.10 PM on 19.10.1983. P.W. 5, who lodged the first information report had categorically stated that after lodging the first information report, he made entry in the general diary vide entry No. 44 at 06.10 PM. It is not disputed that the inquest report has not been prepared on the date and time mentioned in the inquest report. In that view of the matter, the mentioning of Entry No. 44 in the general diary goes to show that the first information report was lodged prior to preparation of inquest report. Moreover, P.W. 8 had categorically stated that he had mentioned case crime on Exhibit ka 8-11 and sent those documents along with dead body to the hospital, for post-mortem examination. It is worth mentioning that it is mentioned in the inquest report that the dead body was sent for post mortem examination at 09.30 PM on 19.10.1983. This fact has been stated by P.W. 7 in his examination in chief and there is nothing in his cross-examination on the basis of which the said statement can be dis-believed. It is worth mentioning that it is mentioned in the inquest report that the dead body was sent for post mortem examination at 09.30 PM on 19.10.1983. This fact has been stated by P.W. 7 in his examination in chief and there is nothing in his cross-examination on the basis of which the said statement can be dis-believed. This circumstance also shows that before preparation of inquest report, the first information report has already been lodged in the police station. Under such circumstance, the contention of learned counsel for the appellants that the first information report was ante-timed, is not worth acceptable. 24. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that there is inordinate delay in dispatching the first information report from police station to the office of concerned Circle Officer. It is submitted that as per the statement of P.W. 5, the first information report has been lodged at 06.00 PM on 19.10.1983. It is submitted that an endorsement made by the concerned Circle Officer on the F.I.R. that the same had reached in his office on 21.10.1983. There is absolutely no explanation as to why such delay has been caused. It is submitted that it has come in the evidence of P.W. 2 that before lodging the first information report, he went to the house of an Advocate, which goes to show that the appellants were falsely implicated in this case, with due deliberation. In that circumstance, the delay in dispatching of the first information report cast a serious doubt in the case of prosecution. In view of the aforesaid submission, we have carefully examined the materials available on the record. 25. From perusal of first information report, we find that the date and time of dispatching has not been mentioned on it nor it has been mentioned that as to when it reached in the office of Circle Officer concerned. However, on the lower margin of the first information report, there is an order of concerned Circle Officer dated 21.10.1983, whereby he ordered for sending the first information report to the court concerned. Thus, only on the basis of said order, it cannot be presumed that the first information report had reached in the office of concerned Circle Officer on 21.10.1983 and not before that date. 26. Thus, only on the basis of said order, it cannot be presumed that the first information report had reached in the office of concerned Circle Officer on 21.10.1983 and not before that date. 26. It has been held by a three Judge Bench of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Balram Singh and Ors. vs. State of Punjab [ (2003) 11 SCC 286 ], that the complaint of the appellants in regard to the delay in the F.I.R. reaching the Jurisdictional Magistrate, we will have to also bear in mind the creditworthiness of the ocular evidence adduced by the prosecution and if we find that such ocular evidence is worthy of acceptance, the element of delay in registering a complaint or sending the same to the Jurisdictional Magistrate by itself would not in any manner weaken the prosecution case. 27. As noticed above, in the instant case, the ocular version of P.Ws. 2, 3 & 4 are consistent and acceptable with regard to the place, manner and time of occurrence and the defence had not elicited anything in the cross examination of these witness on the basis of which their evidence can be discarded. Thus, we find that even if there is some delay in dispatching the first information report in the office of concerned Circle Officer, the same had no bearing on the case of prosecution. 28. So far the conduct of informant in going to the house of Advocate at Lakhimpur Kheri before lodging the first information report, we find no abnormality in it. It is worth mentioning that P.W. 2 had stated that after reaching Lakhimpur Kheri, he went to the house of his maternal uncle namely Ram Chandra Tiwari, (according to the defence, Ram Chandra Tiwari is an Advocate) and informed him about the occurrence and got the first information report prepared. The above conduct of the informant appears to be normal, because deceased was also maternal uncle of P.W. 2, therefore, it is natural for P.W. 2 to give information to Ram Chandra Tiwari about the incident. Since the first information report has been lodged at 06.00 PM i.e. just after two hours of occurrence, we do not find that the informant had any opportunity to develop the case after meeding with Ram Chandra Tiwari. Accordingly, we reject the aforesaid submission made by learned counsel for the appellants. 29. Since the first information report has been lodged at 06.00 PM i.e. just after two hours of occurrence, we do not find that the informant had any opportunity to develop the case after meeding with Ram Chandra Tiwari. Accordingly, we reject the aforesaid submission made by learned counsel for the appellants. 29. It has also been submitted that the evidence of eye-witness is inconsistent with the medical evidence. Thus, in view of the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Mani Ram and Ors. vs. State of U.P. reported in 1994 SCC (Cri) 1242, the evidence of so called eye-witness is liable to be discarded and their evidence cannot become the basis for conviction. 30. It is true that in the aforesaid judgment, Hon’ble the Supreme Court has held that if it is found that the deceased was running and appellant were chasing him, then some injury must have been caused to the deceased on his back, but the doctor had not found any gun-shot injury on his back or anywhere behind the shoulder, then, it is not safe to convict the accused on the basis of evidence of such witness. 31. However, in the facts of this case, the aforesaid law laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the Mani Ram’s case (supra) has no application. The doctor (P.W. 1) in his cross-examination has clearly stated that in his opinion when injury nos. 3 & 4 were caused to the deceased, the assailants were in the back of deceased in his left side. The aforesaid opinion of the doctor remain unchallenged. Under such circumstance, the aforesaid contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant is not acceptable. 32. In view of the statement of P.W. 2, 3 & 4 that all the appellants had caused injuries to the deceased by firing and assaulting him and the statement of P.W. 1 (the Doctor) that the deceased died due to ante-mortem injuries, we have no hesitation in holding that the appellants had committed murder of deceased-Ram Ashray. Thus, we find no illegality and/or irregularity in the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence by the learned trial court. 33. In result, this appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. 34. It appears that appellant nos. 1, 2 & 4 namely Ram Sagar, Shambhu and Sri Krishna are on bail, thus, their bail bonds are cancelled. Thus, we find no illegality and/or irregularity in the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence by the learned trial court. 33. In result, this appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. 34. It appears that appellant nos. 1, 2 & 4 namely Ram Sagar, Shambhu and Sri Krishna are on bail, thus, their bail bonds are cancelled. They are directed to surrender in the court below to serve out the sentence. The court below is also directed to take all coercive steps for arrest of the appellants. 35. Lower court record along with the judgment be sent to the court concerned forthwith, to ensure compliance.