JUDGMENT : B.K. Narayana, J. 1. Heard Sri G.S. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Ravindra Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Akhilesh Singh, learned G.A. assisted by Sri Saghir Ahmad, learned A.G.A. for the State, Sri Amit Kumar Singh and Sri N.D. Rai, learned counsel for the informant. 2. Death reference case no. 10 of 2012 has been connected with the criminal appeal which has been preferred by the appellants against the judgment and order dated 09.12.2014 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, SC & ST (PA) Act, Budaun in SST No. 39 of 2009, State Vs. Patanjali Bhardwaj & others, u/s 148, 302/149, 307/149 I.P.C. and 3 (2) (v) SC & ST (PA) Act, P.S. Alapur, District Budaun. 3. The factual scenario of the case as emerging out from the perusal of the facts stated in the written report of the occurrence (Ext.Ka.1) which was lodged by P.W.1 informant Madhav Ram at P.S. Alapur, District Budaun on 08.01.2005 at about 2:20 p.m. on the basis of which Case Crime No. 10 of 2005 u/s 147, 148, 149, 307 I.P.C. & 3 (2) (v) S.C. & S.T. (PA) Act was registered against the appellants as well as one Vikas Bhardwaj, who was declared absconder on 25.08.2014 and his trial namely S.S.T. No. 39A of 2009 was separated from that of other co-accused and those deposed by the two witnesses of fact, P.W.1 informant Madhav Ram and P.W.2 Omendra Pratap Singh before the trial court, is that 08.01.2005 was the date fixed for filing nominations by the candidates desirous of contesting elections for the office of Director of Cooperative Society, Block Myau. P.W.1 informant Madhav Ram along with his covillager Pyare Lal, son of Pransukh had gone to block office to file nomination of Pyare Lal but Patanjali Bhardwaj, son of Shyam Sundar, the then Block Pramukh, resident of Kasba, P.S. Alapur refused to issue nomination form to them. Therefore, he met the Secretary of his Gram Panchayat and obtained the backward caste certificate of Pyare Lal from him on which Block Pramukh started abusing him with the name of his caste and told him that no caste certificate shall be issued to him and then he slapped him and got him thrown out of the block office. Therefore, he met the Secretary of his Gram Panchayat and obtained the backward caste certificate of Pyare Lal from him on which Block Pramukh started abusing him with the name of his caste and told him that no caste certificate shall be issued to him and then he slapped him and got him thrown out of the block office. P.W.1 informant Madhav Ram then went to meet S.H.O of P.S. Alapur with P.W.2 Omendra Pratap Singh and Summer Singh (Vishanpuri) at about 2 p.m. At that time, both his sons, Pravendra Singh (injured) and Arvendra Singh (deceased) and his nephew, Ashok (deceased) had also joined him. They then went to the block office together and on noticing them, Patanjali Bhardwaj shot his son Arvendra Singh. Vikas Bhardwaj, son of Patanjali Bhardwaj shot his nephew, Ashok while Monu, son of Patanjali Bhardwaj fired at P.W.2 Omendra Pratap Singh and thereafter, simultaneously Cheenu, son of Patanjali Bhardwaj and Vashistha Bhardwaj, son of Shyam Sundar also opened fire causing firearm injuries to several persons including P.W.1 informant Madhav Ram. His son died on the spot. The injured P.W.2 Omendra Pratap Singh and his nephew, Ashok were taken to District Hospital for treatment. The accused apart from possessing licensed revolvers and guns also had illicit arms with them. 4. On the basis of the written report (Ext.Ka.1) given by P.W.1 informant Madhav Ram at P.S. Alapur, District Budaun, check F.I.R. (Ext.Ka.7) and the corresponding G.D. Entry vide rapat no. 24 at 2.20 hours on 08.01.2005, carbon copy whereof was brought on record and proved as (Ext.Ka.8) were prepared by P.W.5 Head Moharrir Niranjan Singh. 5. After the registration of the case, the then S.H.O. of P.S.Alapur reached the place of incident along with his police force and conducted inquest on the dead body of Arvendra on 08.01.2005 at about 15.30 hours, prepared the inquest report and other related documents. After completing the inquest, he got the dead body of Arvendra sealed and dispatched through Constable Tula Ram and Constable Pransukh to the District Hospital for conducting postmortem. The postmortem on the dead body of Arvendra was conducted by P.W.3 Dr. R.S. Yadav on 09.01.2005 at about 4 p.m. who also prepared his postmortem report (Ext.Ka.3). After completing the inquest, he got the dead body of Arvendra sealed and dispatched through Constable Tula Ram and Constable Pransukh to the District Hospital for conducting postmortem. The postmortem on the dead body of Arvendra was conducted by P.W.3 Dr. R.S. Yadav on 09.01.2005 at about 4 p.m. who also prepared his postmortem report (Ext.Ka.3). He noted following antemortem injuries on the body of Arvendra Singh : (1) Firearm wound of entry 4 cm x 4 cm on right side of chest, 4.0 cm below from right clavicle cavity deep, surrounded by multiple pellet marks of wound in an area of 10 cm x 10 cm. Blackening around the wound present. (2) Firearm wound of entry 2 cm x 2 cm on right side of chest, lateral side 4.0 cm below from injury no. 1, cavity deep. Blackening around the wound present. (3) Firearm wound of exit 1.5 cm x 1 cm on back of left chest, lateral side 10.0 cm below from inferior angle of left scapula, 9 cm lateral of midline. 6. According to P.W.3 Dr. R.S. Yadav, deceased Arvendra Singh had died due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of antemortem injuries. 7. Ashok, who had received gunshot injuries in the occurrence, also died on 09.01.2005 while undergoing treatment in District Hospital, Budaun. Information of his death was given by ward boy, Ramdas through a memo to P.S. Kotwali, Budaun on the basis of which P.W.6 S.I. Awadesh Singh was authorized to conduct the inquest on the body of deceased Ashok. P.W.6 Awadesh Singh conducted the inquest on the body of deceased Ashok on 09.01.2005 at 10.15 a.m. within the premises of District Hospital, Budaun and after completing the inquest at 11.30 a.m., prepared his inquest report and other related documents namely photo nash, specimen seal, challan nash, letter addressed to R.I., letter addressed to C.M.O and proved the same as (Ext.Ka.10, Ka.11, Ka.12, Ka.13, Ka.14 and Ka.15). Autopsy on the body of deceased Ashok was done by P.W.3 Dr. R.S. Yadav on 09.01.2005 at about 3 p.m. who also prepared his postmortem report (Ext.Ka.2). He noted following antemortem injuries on the body of deceased Ashok : (1) Firearm wound of entry 1 cm x 1 cm on back of left chest, 2.0 cm above from inferior angle of left scapula. Bleeding present from the wound. R.S. Yadav on 09.01.2005 at about 3 p.m. who also prepared his postmortem report (Ext.Ka.2). He noted following antemortem injuries on the body of deceased Ashok : (1) Firearm wound of entry 1 cm x 1 cm on back of left chest, 2.0 cm above from inferior angle of left scapula. Bleeding present from the wound. (2) Abrasion 3 cm x 2 cm on left elbow lateral side. (3) Abrasion 1 cm x 2 cm on back of left forearm, 3.0 cm below from back of left elbow. (4) Abrasion 3 cm x 1 cm on back of left forearm, 6.0 cm below from back of left elbow. (5) Abrasion 2 cm x 2 cm on right arm outside, 13.0 cm below from tip of right shoulder joint. (6) Abrasion 3 cm x 1 cm on back of right elbow. (7) Abrasion 2 cm x 1 cm on right forearm on back, 2.0 cm below from right elbow joint. (8) Firearm wound of exit 2 cm x 1 cm on back of right chest, 10.0 cm below from tip of right shoulder joint. (9) Intracath present on dorsum of right hand. 8. According to P.W.3 Dr. R.S. Yadav, the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage as a result of antemortem injury. 9. The investigation of this case was transferred to Superintendent of Police, CBC. I.D., Lucknow pursuant to the order passed by this Court and in compliance of the said order, Superintendent of Police, CBC. I.D., Lucknow ordered P.W.8 Ranvir Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police to investigate the matter. P.W.8 Ranvir Singh started his investigation on 08.12.2005. During the course of his investigation, he recorded the statements of the witnesses and inspected the place of occurrence and prepared the site plan at the behest of P.W.1 informant Madhav Ram, Pravendra Kumar and injured P.W.2 Omendra Pratap Singh. Upon his transfer, the investigation of the case was entrusted to R.N. Shukla, Deputy S.P., CBC. I.D., Bareilly Division who after completing the investigation, submitted charge-sheet against the appellants, Patanjali Bhardwaj (A1) and Vashishtha Bhardwaj (A2). Three accused in the case namely Vikas, Rahul and Varun had not been arrested till then. All three of them surrendered before the Court on 17.07.2007 then P.W.10 Shiv Ram Yadav, Deputy S.P., Gautam Buddh Nagar who had taken over the investigation of the case from R.N. Shukla, filed charge-sheet against the aforesaid accused appellants also. Three accused in the case namely Vikas, Rahul and Varun had not been arrested till then. All three of them surrendered before the Court on 17.07.2007 then P.W.10 Shiv Ram Yadav, Deputy S.P., Gautam Buddh Nagar who had taken over the investigation of the case from R.N. Shukla, filed charge-sheet against the aforesaid accused appellants also. 10. Since the offences mentioned in the charge-sheet were triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions, the accused-appellants were committed for trial to the Court of Sessions Judge, Budaun where their case was registered as SST No. 39 of 2009, State Vs. Patanjali Bhardwaj & others and made over from there to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, SC & ST (PA) Act, Budaun who on the basis of material collected during investigation and after hearing the prosecution as well as the accused on the point of charge, framed charge u/s 148, 302/149, 307/149 I.P.C. and 3 (2) (v) SC & ST (PA) Act against the appellants. The accused appellants abjured the charge and claimed trial. 11. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as 10 witnesses out of whom P.W.1 informant Madhav Ram, P.W.2 Omendra Pratap Singh, P.W.7 Vijendra Pal Singh and P.W.9 Hulasi Ram were examined as witnesses of fact while P.W.3 Dr. R.S. Yadav, P.W.4 Dr. R.K. Verma, P.W.5 Head Constable Niranjan Singh, P.W.6 S.I. Awadhesh Singh, B.D.O. Budaun, P.W.8 Ranvir Singh, Deputy S.P. and P.W.10 Shiv Ram Yadav, Deputy S.P., Gautam Buddh Nagar, were produced as formal witnesses. 12. The accused appellants in their statements recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution case as false. 13. Patanjali Bhardwaj (A1) in his statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. further stated that he was falsely implicated in the present case by P.W.1 informant Madhav Ram who was inimical towards him due to political rivalry and under political pressure. On the date of the incident, he was Pramukh of BlockMyau. He had been elected Pramukh after defeating Udayveer Singh whose candidature was supported by P.W.1 informant Madhav Ram and the injured P.W.2 Omendra Pratap Singh on account of which they had become inimical towards him. On the date of the incident, he was Pramukh of BlockMyau. He had been elected Pramukh after defeating Udayveer Singh whose candidature was supported by P.W.1 informant Madhav Ram and the injured P.W.2 Omendra Pratap Singh on account of which they had become inimical towards him. On the date of the incident, the informant along with his companions including the deceased despite the Moral Code of Conduct being in force, with common object had entered the precincts of the block office armed with lethal weapons and had fired at him and his brother Vashishtha Bhardwaj (A2). Since he and his brother were unarmed, they ran away from there to save their lives and hid themselves. In the firing done by the side of informant, Arvendra and Ashok had received gun shot injuries and died while P.W.2 Omendra Pratap Singh, Babloo and Chhotey had received gunshot injuries. The police had recovered firearms and cartridges from the place where the dead body of Arvendra Singh was lying. Report of the incident lodged by him contained correct facts. 14. Vashishtha Bhardwaj (A2) in his statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. reiterated the facts stated by Patanjali Bhardwaj (A1). 15. Rahul Bhardwaj (A3) in his statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. stated that on the date of the incident, he was not present at the place of occurrence and he had been falsely implicated by P.W.1 informant Madhav Ram due to political rivalry between him and his father. 16. Varun Bhardwaj (A4) in his statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. also denied his presence at the place of occurrence and alleged false implication due to political animosity. 17. The accused-appellants although did not examine any witness in defence but they filed documentary evidence in support of their defence, application 182 kha, copy of F.I.R. vide list 163 kha to 164 kha and vide list 170 kha to 170 kha/2, the charge sheet filed in the cross case and other documents. 18. Learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, SC & ST (PA) Act, Budaun after considering the submissions advanced before him by the learned counsel for the parties and scrutinizing the evidence on record, both oral as well as documentary, convicted all the appellants and awarded three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 18. Learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, SC & ST (PA) Act, Budaun after considering the submissions advanced before him by the learned counsel for the parties and scrutinizing the evidence on record, both oral as well as documentary, convicted all the appellants and awarded three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000/-each and in default of payment of fine, six months additional imprisonment each u/s 148 I.P.C., ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50,000/each and in default of payment in fine, one year additional rigorous imprisonment each u/s 307/149 I.P.C., simple imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 3,00,000/-each and in default of payment in fine, two years additional imprisonment each u/s 3 (2) (v) SC & ST (PA) Act. The trial court further convicted all the four appellants u/s 302/149 I.P.C. and awarded death penalty to Patanjali Bhardwaj (A1) and Vashishtha Bhardwaj (A2) (deceased) while Rahul Bhardwaj alias Monu (A3) and Varun Bhardwaj alias Cheenu (A4) were awarded rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 3,00,000/-each and in default of payment in fine, additional imprisonment of two years. 19. Hence, this appeal. 20. Sri G.S. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that from the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence on record, it is proved that three persons from side of the appellants had received injuries in the incident and the incident admittedly having taken place within the precincts of office of BlockMyau on the day when Patanjali Bhardwaj (A1) was Block Pramukh and as per the prosecution story itself, he along with his sons was present within the premises of the block office when P.W.1 informant Madhav Ram along with his sons, his nephew and his other companions who were armed, had entered the block office and started firing at the appellants. Live cartridges and double barrel gun were found lying near the dead body of Arvendra Singh which clearly indicates that the true genesis of the incident has been suppressed by the prosecution and the prosecution has not come with clean hands and the trial court erred in holding the appellants to be the aggressors. Live cartridges and double barrel gun were found lying near the dead body of Arvendra Singh which clearly indicates that the true genesis of the incident has been suppressed by the prosecution and the prosecution has not come with clean hands and the trial court erred in holding the appellants to be the aggressors. He next submitted that S.H.O. of P.S.Alapur who had conducted the initial investigation and reached the place of occurrence immediately after the occurrence, had recovered five empty cartridges of brass and four cartridges of unknown bore from different spots at the place of occurrence and a double barrel gun no. 21176 (S/H) Made in Betejeren with a live cartridge inserted in its barrel and a pouch containing eight live cartridges from the place where deceased Ashok had fallen on the ground after being hit by gunshot and one rifle no. AB 94488290F which was lying besides the place where dead body of Arvendra was lying along with a belt which was tied around his waist which contained eleven live cartridges and one cartridge which was inserted in the barrel of the rifle. Two empty cartridges were also recovered from the deceased Arvendra's possession and although recovery memos of the aforesaid articles were prepared by him but the same were neither exhibited nor proved by the prosecution during the trial which clearly indicates that the investigation in this case was not impartial and the material collected during the investigation by the first Investigating Officer which suggested that the incident had not taken place in the manner described in the F.I.R., was deliberately suppressed. He further submitted that both the witnesses of fact produced by the prosecution during the trial are highly interested witnesses who were admittedly political rivals of Patanjali Bhardwaj (A1) and seriously interested in getting him convicted falsely so that the local political arena was stripped of any opposition and the trial court clearly erred in law in convicting the appellants on the basis of their interested and untrustworthy testimony. He also submitted that there are glaring contradictions and material improvements in their testimony recorded before the trial court which go to the core of the prosecution story rendering it wholly unreliable. He also submitted that there are glaring contradictions and material improvements in their testimony recorded before the trial court which go to the core of the prosecution story rendering it wholly unreliable. He also submitted that the conviction of the appellants u/s 307 r/w 149 and 302 r/w 149 I.P.C. is wholly erroneous in view of the fact that the evidence on record does not even remotely suggest that the deceased had been attacked by the appellants in pursuance of a common object. The ingredients of the offence u/s 3 (2) (v) SC & ST (PA) Act having neither been recorded in the F.I.R. nor proved in the trial, the recorded conviction of the appellants under the aforesaid sections is also liable to be setaside. He further submitted that even if the entire prosecution case is deemed to be true for the sake of arguments, even then the imposition of death penalty on Patanjali Bhardwaj (A1) and Vashishtha Bhardwaj (A2) is wholly unwarranted and uncalled for. The death reference deserves to be dismissed. He lastly submitted that neither the recorded conviction of the appellants nor the sentences awarded to them by the learned trial Judge can be sustained and hence, the same are liable to be set a side. 21. Per contra Sri Saghir Ahmad, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State submitted that the charges framed against the appellants stand proved to the hilt from the evidence of P.W.1 informant Madhav Ram and P.W.2 Omendra Pratap Singh who have fully supported the prosecution case in their evidence on all material points. There are no contradictions in their statements which can be said to affect the core of the prosecution story so as to render it unreliable. The contradictions, if any, in their evidence are not so material so as to effect their credibility. There is no law that the evidence of relative or inimical witnesses cannot be relied upon despite the Court coming to the conclusion that such witnesses have given a correct and cogent description of the incident. The medical evidence on record fully corroborates the ocular version. The injuries received by the injured from the side of the informant have been fully explained by the two witnesses in their evidence and it is incorrect to allege that the prosecution has not approached the Court with clean hands and the true genesis of the occurrence has been suppressed. The medical evidence on record fully corroborates the ocular version. The injuries received by the injured from the side of the informant have been fully explained by the two witnesses in their evidence and it is incorrect to allege that the prosecution has not approached the Court with clean hands and the true genesis of the occurrence has been suppressed. This appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 22. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties present and perused the entire lower court record. 23. Apart from eight formal witnesses, the prosecution had examined P.W.1 informant Madhav Ram and P.W.2 Omendra Pratap Singh as eyewitnesses of the occurrence. Before scrutinizing the evidence of formal witnesses, we consider it proper to critically evaluate the oral evidence on record. 24. The english translation of the facts stated by P.W.1 informant Madhav Ram in his examination in chief in this regard is being reproduced here-in-below: “I was elected as Pradhan of my village in June, 2000 and was also holding office of District Treasurer of the association of Gram Pradhans and Block President of association of Block Myau. In March, 2001, the election to the office of Block Pramukh was held. The election was to be fought between Patanjali Bhardwaj (A1) and Udayveer Singh. At that time my son Pravendra Singh was a member of B.D.C. I and my son had supported Udayveer Singh in the election of Block Pramukh but Patanjali Bhardwaj (A1) had fraudulently succeeded in winning the election by four votes and ever since then Patanjali Bhardwaj (A1) had been harbouring animosity towards me and my family. Apart from that, huge quantity of wheat meant for distribution in the Gram Panchayats under the Jawahar Rojgar Yojana was misappropriated by Patanjali Bhardwaj (A1) on the strength of his henchmen. Consignment of wheat were forcibly lifted from the Gram Panchayats. In my capacity as the President of the association, I had filed several complaints against Patanjali Bhardwaj (A1) before District Magistrate as a result of which the District Magistrate had ordered distribution of wheat directly by the B.D.O. That apart, out of the huge amount which was allocated by the government for tree plantation, Rs. 5,000/was illegally misappropriated by Block Pramukh, Patanjali Bhardwaj (A1) but I being the Pradhan did not permit the Block Pramukh to draw any cut from the amount allocated for tree plantations. 5,000/was illegally misappropriated by Block Pramukh, Patanjali Bhardwaj (A1) but I being the Pradhan did not permit the Block Pramukh to draw any cut from the amount allocated for tree plantations. I belong to Scheduled Caste (jatava) and all the accused are Brahmins by caste. It is on account of the aforesaid reason that the aforesaid accused were inimical towards me and my family members and were after my life. 08.01.2005 was the date fixed for filing nominations for the office of Director of Cooperative Society. My Gram Panchayat is reserved for backward tribe (guzzar). From my Gram Panchayat, Sri Pyare Lal Guzzar was desirous to contest the elections. I was supporting Sri Pyare Lal Guzzar. On 08.01.2005, I went to BlockMyau with Pyare Lal and demanded nomination form from Prem Singh, Village Development Officer who was sitting on the counter on which Patanjali Bhardwaj (A1), who was already standing there, rebuked Prem Singh and instructed him not to issue any form and after abusing us, he got us chased out of the block premises. When we got out from the gate of the block, Pyare Lal said that he does not have the certificate of backward caste so please get my caste certificate prepared. Then, I took Pyare Lal to block and got the backward caste certificate prepared by Vijendra Pal Singh, Secretary on which Block Pramukh, Patanjali Bhardwaj (A1) slapped me and said “saale chamaar” you will not get any caste certificate. The caste certificate was in my hand. Patanjali Bhardwaj (A1) pushed us and got us thrown out of the block premises. I had kept the certificate in the pocket of my coat. Feeling greatly insulted on being slapped and abused, I and Pyare Lal went to the godown of P.W.2 Omendra Pratap Singh and narrated the entire episode to him. Then P.W.2 Omendra Pratap Singh called several officers on phone and talked to them and then he left the godown and came to block with us where S.H.O., Chandrapal Singh of P.S.Alapur was also present. P.W.2 Omendra Pratap Singh complained to the S.H.O. At that time, apart from P.W.2 Omendra Pratap Singh, my sons Pravendra and Arvendra and nephew Ashok Kumar, Pyare Lal and Summer Singh etc. were also present there. P.W.2 Omendra Pratap Singh complained to the S.H.O. At that time, apart from P.W.2 Omendra Pratap Singh, my sons Pravendra and Arvendra and nephew Ashok Kumar, Pyare Lal and Summer Singh etc. were also present there. At about 1:302: 00 p.m., we entered the block by walking through the gate unarmed but Patanjali Bhardwaj (A1) armed with rifle, his younger brother Vashishtha Bhardwaj (A2) armed with DBBL gun, his son Vikas Bhardwaj armed with mauser gun, his second son Monu armed with rifle and his third son Cheenu armed with single barrel gun, Dandpal Singh Yadav, S.H.O.Alapur and Aditya Prakash Yadav, S.H.O. Izratpur along with their force were already present there and on seeing us on the exhortation of Patanjali Bhardwaj (A1) to finish all of us, they started firing at us with the intention of causing our death. Patanjali Bhardwaj (A1) shot my son Arvendra in his chest who fell then and there on the ground and died on the spot. Vikas Bhardwaj shot my nephew Ashok while P.W.2 Omendra Pratap Singh was shot by Monu Bhardwaj. The firing resorted to by Cheenu and Vashishtha Bhardwaj (A2) caused injuries to several persons and we all fled from there to save our lives. Ashok died on the same day during treatment in District Hospital, Budaun. Outside the block gate, I have a shop in which, keeping in view my security and the operation of moral code of conduct, I had kept my licensed weapons. S.H.O. Alapur got the lock of my shop forcibly broken and removed one rifle, one DBBL and one revolver together with cartridges from there and with the intention of shielding Patanjali Bhardwaj (A1) and other accused, fired shots from the aforesaid weapons and thereafter threw them in the block premises and thereafter, a false report was lodged by him and his family members as a counterblast falsely stating therein that I and my son were arrested on the spot while other had succeeded in escaping. The incident was witnessed by me, Pyare Lal, Summer Singh, P.W.2 Omendra Pratap Singh, Arshad Ali, my son Pravendra and Puttu Lal and several other persons. S.H.O. Alapur and other police officers were under the pressure of Block Pramukh who was a member of Samajwadi Party. The incident was witnessed by me, Pyare Lal, Summer Singh, P.W.2 Omendra Pratap Singh, Arshad Ali, my son Pravendra and Puttu Lal and several other persons. S.H.O. Alapur and other police officers were under the pressure of Block Pramukh who was a member of Samajwadi Party. I had filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court with a prayer for tranferring the investigation of the case to C.B.C.I.D. to ensure fair investigation as I did not expect fair investigation of the matter by the local police although neither me nor any person from my side had caused any injury either to the accused or any other person but the accused concocted a false cross case against me and my family members by inflicting superficial injuries on the persons of their servants and got their injury reports fabricated. All the accused are known to me and the accused also know me that I belong to jatava caste. The written report of the incident was scribed on the same day by Raju alias Rajpal Singh, son of Ram Swaroop, resident of Officer Colony, Budaun on my dictation. He proved the written report of the incident paper no. 5 Ka as (Ext.Ka.1). During the investigation, I had given the photo copy of the caste certificate of Pyare Lal to the Investigating Officer.” 25. The english translation of examination-in-chief of P.W.2 Omendra Pratap Singh is being reproduced here-in-below: “I own several shops and godowns near Block Myau. In the mandi area of BlockMyau and in one of my shops, I have my office. I am the President of Rice Mill Association. On 08.01.2005 at about 10.30 a.m., I was sitting in my office. On that day, nomination papers were being filed by the delegates for election to the office of Director of Cooperative Society. While I was sitting in my office with several other persons, Sukhram and Pappu of Alapur and Puttu Lal of Nagaria came to my office and complained that the sitting Block Pramukh, Patanjali Bhardwaj (A1) was not allowing anyone other than those who were his supporters to file nominations. They told me that on the strength of his weapons, he was threatening everyone. After sometime, informant Madhav Ram and Pyare Lal accompanied with two or three persons also came to my office. They told me that on the strength of his weapons, he was threatening everyone. After sometime, informant Madhav Ram and Pyare Lal accompanied with two or three persons also came to my office. Madhav told me that Patanjali Bhardwaj (A1) had insulted him and prevented him from filing nomination papers and had chased him out of the block. I immediately talked to S.H.O. Alapur on phone and tried to inform him about it but the S.H.O. was not present at the police station. I therefore, rang S.D.M. Dataganj but could not contact him either. Lastly I spoke to Sri Omkar Singh, District President of Congress party on phone and narrated the entire episode to him who assured me that he would immediately talk to S.S.P. and D.M. and communicate them about the occurrence. After sometime Sri Omkar Singh informed him on phone that he had talked to D.M. and S.S.P. and they would arrange requisite police force and ensure that nomination papers are filed peacefully. We were then informed that S.H.O. Alapur was present in the block. On receiving the aforesaid information, I along with all the complainants, left my godown for the block to lodge a complaint before S.H.O. Alapur. At about 1:45 p.m., I along with all the complainants reached the gate of BlockMyau. When we reached the gate of the block, none of us were armed on account of moral code of conduct being in force. As soon as we crossed the gate, I saw that Patanjali Bhardwaj (A1) armed with rifle, his brother Vashishtha Bhardwaj (A2) armed with DBBL, his son Vikas Bhardwaj armed with mauser gun, his sons, Monu armed with rifle and Cheenu armed with single barrel gun were present within the precincts of the block office along with Chandrapal Singh, S.O. Alapur and Aditya Yadav, S.O. Hazratpur along with their force. While I was going to complain to the police, Patanjali Bhardwaj (A1) exhorted his companions to finish all of us and fired at Arvendra with his rifle. His shot hit him on his chest. Arvendra fell on the ground as soon as he was shot. Patanjali's sons and his brother also started firing at us with the intention of causing our deaths. One shot hit Ashok while I received a bullet injury on my right shoulder and Arshad, resident of Kakraal also received gunshot injuries. His shot hit him on his chest. Arvendra fell on the ground as soon as he was shot. Patanjali's sons and his brother also started firing at us with the intention of causing our deaths. One shot hit Ashok while I received a bullet injury on my right shoulder and Arshad, resident of Kakraal also received gunshot injuries. As a result of the firearm injuries received by us in the firing, we fell on the ground. We were taken to different hospitals in Budaun for treatment by the people present there. Arvendra had died on the spot while Ashok expired in the hospital during treatment later on the same day. I got myself discharged from the District Hospital and got myself admitted to Saran Hospital for better treatment. Later Patanjali Bhardwaj (A1), after inflicting superficial firearm injuries on his servants Babloo and Chhotey lodged a false F.I.R. against me and my brothers and several other persons. Thereafter, my mother and my wife filed an application for transferring the investigation of the case from civil police to C.B.C.I.D. Then the local leaders under the pressure of regional party, succeeded in prevailing upon the administration to retransfer the investigation of the case from C.B.C.I.D. to local police on which I filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court and the Hon'ble High Court passed an order for investigation of the matter by C.B.C.I.D. All the accused were known to me previously.” 26. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the facts stated by P.W.1 informant Madhav Ram and P.W.2 Omendra Pratap Singh in their cross-examinations to which our attention has been drawn by him and to which we shall refer as and when the context so requires, reflect glaring discrepancies in the manner of incident as narrated by the two witnesses of fact in their evidence tendered before the trial court vis-a-vis the recitals contained in the F.I.R. which indicate that it was the informant's side which was the aggressor that had started firing at the appellants, causing injuries to their servants although they managed to save themselves by hiding inside the rooms of the Block Office and the informant's side itself caused injuries to his own people as a result of the indiscriminate firing resorted to by them in which one Arvendra died on the spot while another Ashok succumbed to his injuries in the hospital. 27. 27. P.W.7 Vijendra Pal Singh in his statement recorded before the trial court deposed that he was posted in BlockMyau in November, 2002. He was appointed as Panchayat Development Officer in May, 2003 and remained posted as such there till April, 2005. During his posting at villageKora Gujjar, he had to visit every village of his area. On 05.01.2005, he had gone to villageKora Gujjar under his area. Pyare Lal Gujjar had met him on that date and had asked him to give his caste certificate to him. Pyare Lal belonged to “guzzar” caste which was a backward caste. He told him that his caste certificate was ready. Pyare Lal went away promising to return soon but he did not return till evening and when he did not return till evening, P.W.7 Vijendra Pal Singh also went back to his house. After preparing the caste certificate of Pyare Lal, he had signed the same after putting his seal and mentioning the date thereon. On 08.01.2005, he was assigned the duty of A.R.O. in BlockMyau, which was the date fixed for filing of nomination papers for the office of Director of Cooperative Society. While he was on his seat, Master Madhav Ram and Pyare Lal came to him. Madhav Ram who was the sitting Pradhan of villageKora Gujjar asked him to give the caste certificate of Pyare Lal to him on which he gave it to Master Madhav Ram. At that point of time, the then Block Pramukh, Patanjali Bhardwaj (A1) came and enquired from him about the paper given by him to Madhav Ram on which he told him that he had given him the caste certificate of Pyare Lal on which Block Pramukh abused Madhav Ram and tried to snatch the caste certificate from him which was followed by his manhandling and physically assaulting them. Madhav Ram was thrown out of the block premises. He proved the caste certificate of Pyare Lal which he had prepared on 05.01.2005 as (Ext.Ka.16). He also deposed that Block Pramukh abused Madhav with the name of his caste. 28. P.W.9 Hulasi Ram in his examination-in-chief deposed that the incident had taken place about 89 years before the date on which his statement was recorded. On that date, nomination papers were being filed for the election for the office of Director of Cooperative Society. He also deposed that Block Pramukh abused Madhav with the name of his caste. 28. P.W.9 Hulasi Ram in his examination-in-chief deposed that the incident had taken place about 89 years before the date on which his statement was recorded. On that date, nomination papers were being filed for the election for the office of Director of Cooperative Society. He had gone to the block along with several other villagers. On reaching the block at 2:30 a.m., he learnt that a few moments before, Patanjali Bhardwaj (A1), his sons and his brother had resorted to firing in which Arvendra, Ashok and several other persons had received firearm injuries. He had also learnt that P.W.2 Omendra Pratap Singh had received gunshot wounds. When he reached the place of incident, he saw that the dead body of Pappu alias Arvendra was lying inside the gate of the Block Office and Ashok was lying in an injured state nearby. Ashok was taken to the hospital by the police. He also died later in the hospital. The inquest report of deceased Pappu alias Arvendra was filled up by him and other inquest witnesses namely Ved Ram, Jai Singh, Gyan Singh and Tika Ram. After the inquest proceedings were completed, the dead body was sealed before him. Neither any belt with live cartridges nor any gun or cartridges were recovered either from the body of deceased Arvendra or from the place where Ashok had died. The police officer had not recovered any gun or cartridge from the spot. 29. P.W.3 Dr. R.S. Yadav had conducted the postmortem on the dead body of Ashok on 09.01.2005 at about 3 p.m. According to him, the deceased had died due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of antemortem injuries. He further deposed that on the same day at about 4 p.m., he had conducted autopsy on the dead body of Arvendra Singh who was aged about 26 years. P.W.3 Dr. R.S. Yadav proved the postmortem reports of deceased Ashok and Arvendra Singh as (Ext.Ka. 2 and 3) respectively. 30. P.W.4 Dr. He further deposed that on the same day at about 4 p.m., he had conducted autopsy on the dead body of Arvendra Singh who was aged about 26 years. P.W.3 Dr. R.S. Yadav proved the postmortem reports of deceased Ashok and Arvendra Singh as (Ext.Ka. 2 and 3) respectively. 30. P.W.4 Dr. R.K. Verma, in his evidence tendered before the trial court deposed that he was posted as C.M.O. On 08.01.2005 in District Hospital, Budaun at about 3:10 p.m., he had examined the injuries of injured Omendra Pratap Singh and noted following injury on his person : Firearm wound of entry 3 x 1 cm, depth whereof could not be proved, on the front of right shoulder. 31. He also deposed that on his advice, the injury of Omendra Pratap Singh was xrayed. He proved the injury report, supplementary report and xray report of injured Omendra Pratap Singh as (Ext.Ka. 4, 5 and 6) respectively. 32. P.W.5 Head Constable Niranjan Singh, who was posted as Head Moharrir at P.S. Alapur on 08.01.2005 proved the check F.I.R. and the carbon copy of the corresponding G.D. Entry vide rapat no. 24, time 14.20 hours as (Ext.Ka. 7 and 8) respectively. He proved the certified copy of the G.D. entry issued by Police Office, Budaun as (Ext.Ka. 10) as the original G.D. had been destroyed. 33. P.W.6 S.I. Awadhesh Singh deposed that on 09.01.2005, he was posted at P.S. Kotwali as H.C.P. On that day, pursuant to the memo received by him from District Hospital, Budaun, he had conducted inquest on the body of deceased Ashok in the mortuary of the District Hospital and prepared his inquest report and other related documents namely photo lash, specimen seal, challan lash, letter addressed to C.M.O and letter addressed to R.I. and proved the aforesaid documents as (Ext.Ka. 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15) respectively. 34. P.W.8 S.I. Ranvir Singh deposed that on 08.01.2005, he was posted as Additional Magistrate, C.B.C.I.D. Bareilly. The investigation of the case was entrusted to him pursuant to the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court by Superintendent of Police, C.B.C.I.D. Lucknow vide his communication dated 08.01.2005. 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15) respectively. 34. P.W.8 S.I. Ranvir Singh deposed that on 08.01.2005, he was posted as Additional Magistrate, C.B.C.I.D. Bareilly. The investigation of the case was entrusted to him pursuant to the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court by Superintendent of Police, C.B.C.I.D. Lucknow vide his communication dated 08.01.2005. He in his evidence tendered before the trial court narrated the various steps taken by him during the course of investigation including the inspection of the place of incident done by him, preparation of the site plan ((Ext.Ka.17) and obtaining the details of five licensed arms of Patanjali Bhardwaj (A1) from the office of Additional S.P., Budaun and criminal history of all the five accused from P.S.Alapur. He also deposed that with the permission of District Magistrate, Pilibhit dated 03.07.2006, he had inspected the firearms of the accused deposited in safe custody of the licensed arms dealer Raj Kumar Gun House, Visalpur, DistrictPilibhit on 11.07.2006 and had prepared the recovery memo of the copy of safe custody register, telephone diary and receipt book and proved the same as (Ext.Ka.18). Before he could complete the investigation, he was transferred to District Auraiya. 35. P.W.10 Shiv Ram Yadav, Deputy S.P., C.B.C.I.D. Bareilly who had taken over the investigation of the case from P.W.8 Ranvir Singh, Deputy S.P. upon his transfer to Auraiya, deposed that after completing the investigation, he had filed charge-sheet against the accused appellants, Patanjali Bhardwaj (A1) and Vashishtha Bhardwaj (A2). He proved the charge-sheet filed against them as (Ext.Ka.20). The charge-sheet filed by him against the accused Vikas, Rahul alias Golu and Varun alias Neetu after the accused had surrendered before the Court on 17.07.2007, was proved by him as (Ext.Ka.21). 36. The cross version of this case namely, S.S.T. No. 41 of 2009 and 40 of 2009, which arises out of Case Crime No. 10A of 2005 u/s 148, 307/149 I.P.C. & Section 3 (2) 5 S.C./S.T. (P.A.) Act was registered on the basis of the F.I.R. lodged by Block Pramukh, Patanjali Bhardwaj (A1). According to the prosecution story as spelt out in the F.I.R. of the cross case (Ext.Ka.1) on 08.01.2005 at about 1 p.m., the informant had gone to the block head office along with some other persons in connection with the election for the office of Director of Cooperative Society. According to the prosecution story as spelt out in the F.I.R. of the cross case (Ext.Ka.1) on 08.01.2005 at about 1 p.m., the informant had gone to the block head office along with some other persons in connection with the election for the office of Director of Cooperative Society. He was accompanied with his servants, Babloo, s/o Kalyan and Chhotey s/o Ajuddi, residents of Alapur. Suddenly, P.W.2 Omendra Pratap Singh, Ravindra Singh, both sons of Brajmohan Singh, residents of Myau, Pravendra, Arvendra, both sons of P.W.1 Madhav Ram and P.W.1 Madhav Ram and Ashok, residents of Kora Gujjar, accompanied by 8-10 persons armed with rifles and guns, came and after surrounding them, they shouted that they would not allow the informant Patanjali Bhardwaj (A1) to contest the election and with the object of causing his death, they started firing at him. The informant Patanjali Bhardwaj (A1) along with his brother Vashishtha Bhardwaj (A2) ran inside the room of Block Office to save their lives. In the firing which ensued, both the servants of informant, Babloo and Chhotey were injured and in the cross firing done by the informant's side, Arvendra and Ashok died and Omendra Pratap Singh had received injuries. The incident was witnessed by Subedar, Ram Singh and Sneh. The injured were sent to the hospital and the F.I.R. of the incident was lodged by the informant. The brother of accused Omendra Pratap Singh had contested the election for the office of Block Pramukh and ever since then, he had been receiving information that he was after his life. 37. Upon perusal of the evidence on record, both oral as well as documentary, the place and time of occurrence stands admitted to the parties. It is also not disputed that there is a cross case. According to the prosecution, in this case, in the incident, two persons had lost their lives while one person had received injuries. The authors of the injuries received by the injured according to the prosecution case are the appellants while according to Patanjali Bhardwaj, the informant of the cross-case, two persons from his side i.e. the servants of the informant had received injuries. Thus, there are counter allegations of one against other of being the aggressor. 38. The authors of the injuries received by the injured according to the prosecution case are the appellants while according to Patanjali Bhardwaj, the informant of the cross-case, two persons from his side i.e. the servants of the informant had received injuries. Thus, there are counter allegations of one against other of being the aggressor. 38. From the reading of the examination-in-chief of P.W.1 Madhav Ram, we find that he has materially supported the prosecution case as spelt out by him in the F.I.R. 39. As regards the motive, P.W.1 Madhav Ram in his examination-in-chief on page 18, 19 and 20, has narrated the various instances of rivalry between the informant's side and the appellant's side which fully establishes the motive for the accused-appellants to commit the offences with which they have been charged. 40. As far as P.W.2 Omendra Pratap Singh is concerned, who had received injuries in the occurrence, his evidence on the point of Patanjali Bhardwaj (A1) not allowing anyone else accept his supporters to file nomination for the election for the office of Director of Cooperative Society, is hearsay. He, however is the witness of the incident which had taken place within the premises of the Block headquarters of Alapur at 2 p.m. and he has fully corroborated the evidence of P.W.1 Madhav Ram on all material points pertaining to the incident namely the time, place, manner of assault, weapons used and the identity of the perpetrators of the crime. 41. Upon a conjoint reading of the evidence of P.W.1 Madhav Ram, P.W.2 Omendra Pratap Singh and P.W.9 Hulasi Ram, it transpires that the occurrence which had taken place on 08.01.2005 within the precincts of the Block Headquarters, Alapur can be divided into two parts. The first part of the occurrence comprises of the incident which had taken place when P.W.1 Madhav Ram and Pyare Lal had gone to the Block Headquarter, Alapur for obtaining Pyare Lal's backward caste certificate from the Secretary of Gram Panchayat on 08.01.2005 and were allegedly abused by Block Pramukh, Patanjali Bhardwaj (A1) by the name of their caste and who had further told them that caste certificate shall not be given to him and had thereafter, slapped P.W.1 Madhav Ram and got him thrown out of the block premises. The second part of the incident took place at about 2 p.m. when P.W.1 informant Madhav Ram came back to the block headquarter with P.W.2 Omendra Pratap Singh, his sons Pravendra Singh and Arvendra Singh and nephew Ashok in which Patanjali Bhardwaj (A1) shot dead informant's son, Arvendra, Vikas Bhardwaj, son of Patanjali Bhardwaj (A1) shot his nephew, Ashok while Monu, son of Patanjali Bhardwaj fired at P.W.2 Omendra Pratap Singh and several other persons received injuries from the gunshots fired by Vashishtha Bhardwaj (A2). 42. Sri G.S. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that it is proved from the evidence collected by the first Investigating Officer who had reached the place of occurrence immediately after the incident had taken place that the claim of the informant's side that he and his companions were unarmed when they had entered the premises of Block Headquarter, Alapur, is false to the hilt. He invited our attention to three memos on page 8, 9 and 10 of the paper book. The first memo pertains to recovery of plain and bloodstained earth collected by the Investigating Officer from the place where the dead body of Arvendra was found lying on the ground which contains a recital that a belt was tied around his waist with eleven live cartridges, one rifle No. AB 94488290F and two empty cartridges which were found lying close to the dead body of Arvendra. The second memo relates to recovery of five empty cartridges of brass and four cartridges of unknown bore from the place of occurrence while the third memo was prepared by the Investigating Officer with regard to recovery of a DBBL gun, in one of its barrel, an empty cartridge was stuck and a pouch containing 8 live cartridges from the place where the deceased Ashok had fallen on the ground after being hit by a gunshot and from where plain and bloodstained earth were collected by the Investigating Officer. By relying upon the aforesaid recovery memos, Sri G.S. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the prosecution deliberately did not exhibit the aforesaid documents as in case the aforesaid documents were exhibited, the same would have exposed the hollowness of the prosecution's claim that P.W.1 informant Madhav Ram and his companions were unarmed at the time of the incident and it was the accused-appellants who had fired at them unprovoked. 43. 43. However, we do not find any substance in the aforesaid submission of Sri G.S. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the appellants for the simple reason that P.W.1 Madhav Ram has, in his examination-in-chief on page 21 of the paper book, given a foolproof explanation for the alleged recovery of the licensed rifle beside the dead body of Arvendra Singh together with a belt containing 11 live cartridges, two empty cartridges, a DBBL gun, one empty cartridge and a pouch containing 8 live cartridges from the spot where the deceased Ashok had fallen after receiving gunshot injuries by deposing that outside the gate of the Block Office on the road, he had a shop in which due to security reasons and due to the fact that moral code of conduct was in force, he had kept his licensed arms. S.H.O. Alapur after getting the lock of his shop broken open, had taken out one rifle, one DBBL and one revolver along with live cartridges and with the object of shielding the accused, he kept the aforesaid arms and ammunition near the dead body of Arvendra and at the place of occurrence where injured Ashok had fallen after receiving firearm injuries. Thereafter, he had lodged a false F.I.R. implicating him and his son Pravendra showing therein that they had been arrested on the spot and giving an opportunity for the accused to run away from the place of incident. 44. We have very carefully gone through the cross-examination of P.W.1 Madhav Ram done by the defence counsel on the aforesaid point but we do not find that the defence has been able to extract anything out of him which may indicate that the evidence of P.W.1 Madhav Ram on the aforesaid aspect of the matter is false. It is true that P.W.1 Madhav Ram had not stated the aforesaid facts in his F.I.R. but he has furnished a satisfactory explanation for the aforesaid omission in his cross-examination on page 44 of the paper book by deposing that the fact that the lock of his shop had been broken open and the weapons kept there removed and scattered all over the place of occurrence, came to his knowledge when he had returned from the police station after lodging the F.I.R. of the occurrence. 45. 45. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that no reliance can be placed upon the evidence of P.W.1 informant Madhav Ram on the aforesaid aspect of the matter for the reason that the aforesaid facts neither find mention in the F.I.R. of the incident nor in the statement of P.W.1 informant Madhav Ram recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. and it was for the first time he stated the aforesaid facts before the Court which clearly indicates that the entire version of the prosecution that after the incident, the doors of the informant’s shop was broken open and the arms and ammunition lying there were removed by the police and scattered near the place of occurrence, is clearly an afterthought. We do not find any merit in the aforesaid submission for the simple reason that P.W.1 informant Madhav Ram on page 45 of the paper book in his cross-examination has categorically deposed that he had not disclosed the aforesaid facts to P.W.8 Ranvir Singh, the Investigating Officer as he had not interrogated him on the aforesaid aspect of the matter. He denied the suggestion given to him that the fact deposed by him that the police had removed the weapons belonging to his children from his shop and after firing from the same, the police had planted the same at the place of incident was an afterthought. He further denied the suggestion that the weapons were not removed from his shop. 46. The evidence of P.W.1 Madhav Ram on this point finds full corroboration from the facts deposed by P.W.9 Hulasi Ram who had reached the place of occurrence immediately after the incident on page 94 of the paper book in his examination-in-chief where he has categorically deposed that on reaching the place of occurrence, he found the dead body of Pappu alias Arvendra lying inside the gate of the Block Office and near him Ashok was also lying on the ground in an injured state. He was taken to the hospital by the police personnel for treatment where he had died later. The inquest on the dead body of deceased Arvendra was held in the presence of the inquest witnesses which included him. The dead body was sealed in his presence. He was taken to the hospital by the police personnel for treatment where he had died later. The inquest on the dead body of deceased Arvendra was held in the presence of the inquest witnesses which included him. The dead body was sealed in his presence. He had neither seen any belt tied around the waist of Arvendra nor any belt with live cartridges or any gun was lying near the deceased or the injured Ashok. The police inspector had not recovered any cartridge or any gun from the spot. There is no cross-examination of P.W.9 Hulasi Ram by the defence on the aforesaid point. 47. Now coming to the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants that investigation in this case was tainted as material collected by the first Investigating Officer who had arrived at the place of occurrence immediately after the occurrence which indicated that informant, his companions, the two deceased and one injured were armed, was deliberately suppressed by the prosecution with the object of protecting the informant's side is concerned, the same is without any merit for the reason that in case there was any material collected by the first Investigating Officer of the case which supported the defence, the appellants could have got the same proved by examining the first Investigating officer as a defence witness which they failed to do. We have very carefully scanned the record and we have not found any material which may even remotely suggest that the matter was not investigated fairly. 48. The postmortem report of deceased Ashok and deceased Arvendra Singh (Ext.Ka.2 and 3) respectively and the injury report and supplementary report of P.W.2 Omendra Pratap Singh (Ext.Ka. 4 and 5) fully corroborate the prosecution story that both Arvendra and Ashok had died as a result of gunshot wounds received by them in the occurrence while gunshot injury was also found on the person of P.W.2 Omendra Pratap Singh. Both the witnesses of fact deposed in unison that the author of firearm wound received by Arvendra was Patanjali Bhardwaj (A1) while author of those sustained by Ashok was his son Vikas Bhardwaj and the injuries received by injured P.W.2 Omendra Pratap Singh and other injured were attributed to Monu and Vashishtha Bhardwaj (A2). Both the witnesses of fact deposed in unison that the author of firearm wound received by Arvendra was Patanjali Bhardwaj (A1) while author of those sustained by Ashok was his son Vikas Bhardwaj and the injuries received by injured P.W.2 Omendra Pratap Singh and other injured were attributed to Monu and Vashishtha Bhardwaj (A2). The evidence of the two witnesses of fact examined during the trial on the point of specific roles assigned to the four appellants is throughout consistent and clinching. We do not find any reason to disbelieve them. 49. The presence of P.W.2 Omendra Pratap Singh who is an injured witness at the place of incident has not been challenged by the prosecution. The said witness has been subjected to extensive cross-examination. However, the defence has not been able to elicit any material contradiction in his statement. We do not find any reason to disbelieve his testimony. 50. Now, coming to the improvements and discrepancies in the evidence of P.W.1 informant Madhav Ram and P.W.2 Omendra Pratap Singh as highlighted by the learned counsel for the appellants, we are of the considered view that the contradictions pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants in the evidence of P.W.1 Madhav Ram are not so material so as to affect the core of the prosecution story rendering it unbelievable. 51. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that P.W.1 Madhav Ram in his examination-in-chief has stated that the appellants had abused him with the name of his caste several times between 2001 to 2005. Whenever he went to attend the meetings of the block committee, Patanjali Bhardwaj (A1) used to address him in unsavoury language. However, the aforesaid fact does not find mention either in the F.I.R. or in his statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. which facts stood admitted to P.W.1 Madhav Ram in his cross-examination on page 25 of the paper book. Whenever he went to attend the meetings of the block committee, Patanjali Bhardwaj (A1) used to address him in unsavoury language. However, the aforesaid fact does not find mention either in the F.I.R. or in his statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. which facts stood admitted to P.W.1 Madhav Ram in his cross-examination on page 25 of the paper book. Learned counsel for the appellants further invited our attention to the discrepancy in the evidence of P.W.1 Madhav Ram with regard to the time at which P.W.1 Madhav Ram had come to Block Office along with Pyare Lal on 08.01.2005 on pages 28 and 29 of the paper book (cross-examination of P.W.1 Madhav Ram) in which upon being contradicted with his statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. in which he had failed to disclose the time at which he had first come to block office with Pyare Lal on 08.01.2005, he deposed that he had told P.W.8 Ranvir Singh, the first Investigating Officer of the case that he had come to the block office for the first time at 12 noon and in case the aforesaid fact was not mentioned by the Investigating Officer of the case in his statement then it is possible that he may not have enquired from him about the time at which he had come to the block office for the first time on 08.01.2005. However, on page 29 of the paper book P.W.1 Madhav Ram categorically denied the suggestion given to him that he had come to the block office with Pyare Lal on 08.01.2005 for the first time at about 10 a.m. and reiterated that he had come to the block office on 08.1.2005 at 12 noon. 52. Learned counsel for the appellants has further invited our attention to the examination-in-chief of P.W.1 Madhav Ram on page 21 of the paper book in which he had for the first time deposed that S.H.O. of P.S. Alapur and other police officers were under the pressure of Block Pramukh, Patanjali Bhardwaj (A1) who was a member of the ruling Samajwadi Party and had considerable influence in the area; he had moved the High Court for fair investigation of the matter for transferring the investigation from the local police on which he had no faith to CBC. I.D. However, on being contradicted with his statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. which contained no such recital, he stated that he had no explanation for the omission on the part of P.W.8 Ranvir Singh, the Investigating Officer to record the aforesaid fact in his statement. On being further cross-examined as to why he had not stated the aforesaid fact in the F.I.R., he stated that he was in a state of shock as his two sons had died and in the F.I.R., he merely narrated the facts relating to the incident. 53. In our opinion, the contradictions and the improvements in the evidence of P.W.1 Madhav Ram to which our attention has been invited by the learned counsel for the appellants are not so material so as to persuade us to disbelieve his evidence tendered by him with regard to the time, place and manner of assault and the identity of the perpetrators of the crime. On the aforesaid four aspects of the matter, his evidence is throughout consistent and clinching and we do not find any reason to disbelieve him. Moreover, his evidence further finds full corroboration from the evidence of injured witness P.W.2 Omendra Pratap Singh. The medical evidence on record also fully corroborates the prosecution story. 54. In State of Rajasthan Vs. Smt. Kalki reported in 1981 (18) ACC 235 (SC), it was held that in the depositions of witnesses, there are always normal discrepancies however, honest and truthful they may be. These discrepancies are due to normal errors of observation, normal errors of memory, due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of the occurrence and the like material discrepancies are those which are not normal and not expected of a normal person. 55. The admissibility of the evidence of P.W.1 Madhav Ram and P.W.2 Omendra Pratap Singh who is an injured witness, has also been assailed by the learned counsel for the appellants on the ground that since P.W.1 Madhav Ram is the father of Arvendra (deceased) and uncle of Ashok (deceased) and P.W.2 Omendra Pratap Singh is a political rival of the appellants, they fall in the category of interested witnesses and hence, no reliance can be placed on their testimony for the purpose of recording the conviction of the appellants. We do not find any force in the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the appellants. The issue whether the evidence of interested witness is liable to be discarded only on the ground of his being a relative of a deceased is no longer res integra but stands settled by a catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court. 56. On the point of interested witnesses, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Jagdeo reported in 2003 Cri LJ 844 (SC) observed that only on the ground of interested or related witnesses, their evidence cannot be discarded. Most of the times eyewitnesses happen to be family members or close associates because unless a crime is committed near a public place, strangers are not likely to be present at the time of occurrence. 57. In Mst. Dalbir Kaur v. State of Punjab reported in 1976 Cr LJ 418 (SC), following observations were made : Interested witness: Relatives who are natural witnesses are not interested witnesses and their testimony can be relied upon. The term 'interested' postulates that the person concerned must have some direct interest in seeing that the accused is somehow or the other is convicted either because he had some animus with the accused or for some other reason. In the reported case the incident took place at mid night inside the house, the only natural witnesses who could be present to see the assault were the persons present in the house at that time. No outsider can be expected to have come at that time because the attack was sudden. Moreover a close relative who is a very natural witness cannot be regarded as an interested witness. 58. Regarding evidentiary value of testimony of the interested or relatives witnesses, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mano Dutt and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2012 (77) ACC 209, has observed in paragraph no. 19 referring to the case of Namdeo Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2007 (58) ACC 414 (52) = 2007 (54) AIC 162 , that this Court drew a clear distinction between a chance witness and a natural witness. Both these witnesses have to be relied upon subject to their evidence being trustworthy and admissible in accordance with law. 59. In Chand Khan Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2007 (58) ACC 414 (52) = 2007 (54) AIC 162 , that this Court drew a clear distinction between a chance witness and a natural witness. Both these witnesses have to be relied upon subject to their evidence being trustworthy and admissible in accordance with law. 59. In Chand Khan Vs. State of U.P., reported in 1995 ACC 685 (SC), it was observed that minor discrepancies in evidence of eyewitnesses who have given convincing and reliable evidence with regard to details and manner of assault will not affect their evidentiary value. Absence or insufficiency of motive is immaterial if the incident is proved by evidence of eye witnesses. 60. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Waman and others Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2011 Crl. L.J. 4827 has observed in paragraph no. 9 which reads as follows: "In Balraje @ Trimbak Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2010 (70) ACC 12 (SC) = 2010 (90) AIC 32 , this Court held that mere fact that the witnesses were related to the deceased cannot be a ground to discard their evidence. It was further held that when the eyewitnesses are stated to be interested and inimically disposed towards the accused, it has to be noted that it would not be proper to conclude that they would shield the real culprit and rope in innocent persons. The truth or otherwise of the evidence has to be weighed pragmatically and the court would be required to analyse the evidence of related witnesses and those witnesses who are inimically disposed toward the accused. After saying so, this Court held that if after careful analysis and scrutiny of their evidence, the version given by the witnesses appears to be clear, cogent and credible, there is no reason to discard the same." 61. It has been further observed in Waman (supra) that relationship cannot be a factor to affect the credibility of a witness. The evidence of a witness cannot be discarded solely on the ground of his relationship with the victim of the offence. The plea relating to relatives' evidence remains without any substance in case the evidence has credence and it can be relied upon. The evidence of a witness cannot be discarded solely on the ground of his relationship with the victim of the offence. The plea relating to relatives' evidence remains without any substance in case the evidence has credence and it can be relied upon. In such a case the defence has to lay foundation if plea of false implication is made and the court has to analyse evidence of related witnesses carefully to find out whether it is cogent and credible. The same view has been reiterated in State of U.P. Vs. Naresh and others reported in 2011 (75) ACC 215 (SC) = 2011 (106) AIC 76 (SC). 62. The law is very settled about the value of the testimony of the injured witness. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mano Dutt and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2012 (77) ACC 209 (SC) in paragraph 23 has recently observed as follows: "In our view, non-examination of Nankoo, to which the accused raised the objection, would not materially affect the case of the prosecution. Normally, an injured witness would enjoy greater credibility because he is the sufferer himself and thus, there will be no occasion for such a person to state an incorrect version of the occurrence, or to involve anybody falsely and in the bargain, protect the real culprit. We need not discuss more elaborately the weightage that should be attached by the Court to the testimony of an injured witness. In fact, this aspect of criminal jurisprudence is no more res integra, as has been consistently stated by this Court in uniform language. We may merely refer to the case of Abdul Sayeed v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2010 (71) ACC 555 (SC) = 2010 (96) AIC 129 , where this Court held as under: "28. The question of the weight to be attached to the evidence of a witness that was himself injured in the course of the occurrence has been extensively discussed by this Court. Where a witness to the occurrence has himself been injured in the incident, the testimony of such a witness is generally considered to be very reliable, as he is a witness that comes with a builtin guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and is unlikely to spare his actual assailant(s) in order to falsely implicate someone. Where a witness to the occurrence has himself been injured in the incident, the testimony of such a witness is generally considered to be very reliable, as he is a witness that comes with a builtin guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and is unlikely to spare his actual assailant(s) in order to falsely implicate someone. "Convincing evidence is required to discredit an injured witness." [Vide Ramlagan Singh v. State of Bihar, Malkhan Singh v. State of U.P., Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab, Appabhai v. State of Gujarat, Bonkya v. State of Maharashtra, Bhag Singh, Mohar v. State of U.P. (SCC p. 606bc), Dinesh Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, Vishnu v. State of Rajasthan, Annareddy Sambasiva Reddy v. State of A.P. and Balraje v. State of Maharashtra.] 29. While deciding this issue, a similar view was taken in Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab, where this Court reiterated the special evidentiary status accorded to the testimony of an injured accused and relying on its earlier judgments held as under: (SCC pp. 72627, paras 2829) "28. Darshan Singh (PW 4) was an injured witness. He had been examined by the doctor. His testimony could not be brushed aside lightly. He had given full details of the incident as he was present at the time when the assailants reached the tubewell. In Shivalingappa Kallayanappa v. State of Karnataka, this Court has held that the deposition of the injured witness should be relied upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies, for the reason that his presence on the scene stands established in case it is proved that he suffered the injury during the said incident. 29. In State of U.P. v. Kishan Chand, a similar view has been reiterated observing that the testimony of a stamped witness has its own relevance and efficacy. The fact that the witness sustained injuries at the time and place of occurrence, lends support to his testimony that he was present during the occurrence. In case the injured witness is subjected to lengthy cross-examination and nothing can be elicited to discard his testimony, it should be relied upon (vide Krishan v. State of Haryana). Thus, we are of the considered opinion that evidence of Darshan Singh (PW 4) has rightly been relied upon by the courts below." 30. In case the injured witness is subjected to lengthy cross-examination and nothing can be elicited to discard his testimony, it should be relied upon (vide Krishan v. State of Haryana). Thus, we are of the considered opinion that evidence of Darshan Singh (PW 4) has rightly been relied upon by the courts below." 30. The law on the point can be summarised to the effect that the testimony of the injured witness is accorded a special status in law. This is as a consequence of the fact that the injury to the witness is an inbuilt guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and because the witness will not want to let his actual assailant go unpunished merely to falsely implicate a third party for the commission of the offence. Thus, the deposition of the injured witness should be relied upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies therein." 63. Since after a careful analysis and scrutiny of the evidence of P.W.1 informant Madhav Ram and P.W.2 Omendra Pratap Singh, we have already found that the version given by them appears to be clear, cogent and credible. So we do not find any reason to discard their evidence on the grounds urged by the learned counsel for the appellants and keeping in view the settled law on the two points. 64. According to the claim of the accused appellants setup by them in their cross version that they had not fired at P.W.1 informant Madhav Ram, his sons Pravendra Singh and Arvendra Singh, nephew Ashok and injured P.W.2 Omendra Pratap Singh and it was the informant’s side which was the aggressor as in the indiscriminate firing done by them which was aimed at the accused-appellants, 4-5 persons received injuries including the deceased Arvendra Singh and Ashok, injured Pravendra Singh and Omendra Pratap Singh. Two servants of the accused-appellants, Babloo and Chhotey and one Arshad Ali who were present at the place of occurrence, also received injuries. However, the cross version does not inspire any confidence. Both P.W.1 informant Madhav Ram and P.W.2 Omendra Pratap Singh have categorically stated in their cross-examination that at the time of the occurrence, they were neither armed nor any shots were fired by them. However, the cross version does not inspire any confidence. Both P.W.1 informant Madhav Ram and P.W.2 Omendra Pratap Singh have categorically stated in their cross-examination that at the time of the occurrence, they were neither armed nor any shots were fired by them. Their consistent case is that the appellants were the aggressors who had started firing at the informant and his companions as soon as they had entered the gate of the block office. The injuries allegedly received by their two servants Babloo and Chhotey are on the non-vital parts of their bodies. It is very strange that while two of the aggressors lost their lives and two others received injuries, no one from the side of the accused appellants suffered any injury on any vital parts of their bodies. We have already taken note of the fact that from the side of the prosecution while two persons Arvendra Singh and Ashok had lost their lives, Arvendra had received two gunshot wounds of entry on his chest and one gunshot wound of exit, deceased Ashok had received one gunshot wound on the left side of his chest and that apart injured P.W.2 Omendra Pratap Singh had received one gunshot wound on his shoulder whereas on the contrary, from the side of the accused, neither anyone died nor received any life threatening injury. The appellants claim that their two servants Babloo and Chhotey received gunshot injuries but their injuries are on their non-vital parts. The number of injuries received by the prosecution side clearly indicate that the appellants Patanjali Bhardwaj (A1), Vashishtha Bhardwaj (A2), Rahul Bhardwaj and Varun Bhardwaj were the aggressors and they had caused firearm injuries to the deceased and the injured. The version given by the appellants that although the informant, his sons, nephew and his other companions had fired at them with rifles, revolvers and guns after surrounding them but while two persons from the side of the informant, Arvendra and Ashok died while P.W.2 Omendra Pratap Singh received gunshot injuries while all the accused appellants managed to save their lives, appears to be wholly unbelievable and childish. As regards the three persons who had allegedly received injuries in the incident, from the side of the appellants, Arshad Ali does not appear to be connected with the dispute between the informant and the accused side. As regards the three persons who had allegedly received injuries in the incident, from the side of the appellants, Arshad Ali does not appear to be connected with the dispute between the informant and the accused side. The injuries which have been received by them are pellet injuries and are on their non-vital parts with no blackening. 65. Thus, in view of the foregoing discussion, we do not find any hesitation in holding that the prosecution has succeeded in proving all the charges framed against the accused appellants beyond all reasonable doubts. Learned counsel for the appellants has failed to demonstrate that the learned trial Judge committed any illegality or legal infirmity in convicting the appellants u/s 148, 302/149, 307/149 I.P.C. and 3 (2) (v) SC & ST (PA) Act. 66. We, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere with the recorded conviction of the appellants. 67. Accordingly, the conviction of all the appellants recorded by the trial court u/s 148, 302/149, 307/149 I.P.C. and 3 (2) (v) SC & ST (PA) Act and the sentences awarded to Rahul Bhardwaj alias Monu (A3) and Varun Bhardwaj alias Cheenu (A4) are hereby affirmed. 68. Now we proceed to examine the propriety of sentence imposed by the trial court on Patanjali Bhardwaj (A1). For the conviction of Patanjali Bhardwaj (A1) and Vashishtha Bhardwaj (A2) (deceased) u/s 302/149 I.P.C., the trial court has awarded death sentence to them. Vashishtha Bhardwaj (A2) had died during the pendency of the appeal and this appeal qua Vashishtha Bhardwaj (A2) was dismissed as abated by us by order dated 24.08.2018. 69. There is no quarrel with the settled legal position that death sentence should be awarded in rarest of rare cases and the courts should follow the guidelines as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the following cases : (a) In Bachan Singh; (1980) 2 SCC 684 (b) In Sunil Dutt Sharma Vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi); (2014) 4 SCC 375 70. The trial court while awarding the death sentence to Patanjali Bhardwaj (A1) had taken note of the fact that he is a hardened criminal. State (Government of NCT of Delhi); (2014) 4 SCC 375 70. The trial court while awarding the death sentence to Patanjali Bhardwaj (A1) had taken note of the fact that he is a hardened criminal. He had been awarded life sentence by the judgment and order dated 05.08.2010 passed in Special Session Trial No. 53 of 1994 arising out of Case Crime No. 448/92, P.S.Alapur on his conviction u/s 364 I.P.C. Apart from the aforesaid, he on the date of the passing of the impugned judgment and order by the trial court, was also accused in Case Crime No. 2287/2013 u/s 323, 504 I.P.C., Case Crime No. 1260/2013 u/s 60 of the Excise Act. 71. Thus, from the material available on the record, it is apparent that Patanjali Bhardwaj (A1) has criminal antecedents. 72. Patanjali Bhardwaj (A1) who has been awarded death sentence is presently aged about 73 years, as is evident from his age mentioned in his statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. Thus, considering the fact that Patanjali Bhardwaj (A1) is presently aged about 73 years and is in the twilight of his life, we are of the view that the death penalty awarded to him be converted to imprisonment for life. 73. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 9.12.2014 is modified to the extent that the death penalty awarded to Patanjali Bhardwaj (A1) u/s 302/149 I.P.C. is converted to imprisonment for the whole of the remaining natural life of Patanjali Bhardwaj (A1), subject however to the condition that the prisoner would be eligible to any commutation and remissions that may be granted by the Hon'ble President and the Hon'ble Governor under Articles 72 and 161 of the Constitution of India or of the State Government under Section 433A of the Code of Criminal Procedure for good and sufficient reasons. 74. The reference no. 10 of 2012 for confirming the death sentence is rejected.