JUDGMENT : Joymalya Bagchi, J. 1. All the appeals are taken up together and are being disposed of analogously by this common judgment and order. 2. At the outset, I am informed that appellant no. 5, Bisweswar Biswas in CRA No. 818 of 2013 has expired. Hence, the said appeal has abated so far as the said appellant is concerned. 3. The appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 10.9.2013 and 11.9.2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Court, Krishnanagar, Nadia in Sessions Trial No. VIII(XI)10 corresponding to Sessions Case No. 42(7)10 convicting the appellants, namely, Lal Mohan Biswas, Shyamal Biswas @ Katu, Sudhamoy Biswas, Nil Kamal Biswas, Bisweswar Biswas, Basudeb Biswas, Nikhil Biswas, Kalopakhi Pramanick, Sunil Mondal and Badsha Mondal for commission of offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.) read with section 34 of the I.P.C. and sentencing them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life each and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- each, in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one year each. 4. Prosecution case, as alleged, against the appellants is to the effect that on the night of 26.6.2006 around 02.00 a.m. the deceased Uttam Sardar was sleeping with his wife, Saraswati Sardar (PW-1) and one Swapan Sardar in the courtyard of their house under Kotwali police station. At and around 02.00 a.m. Saraswati suddenly heard sounds of firing and woke up. She found that the accused persons had entered their house and were abusing her husband in filthy language. Thereafter, the miscreants shot at her husband and he fell down on the ground. Swapan Sardar tried to run away but they also shot at him. Swapan ran towards the land of Nepal Sardar. The said miscreants followed him and shot him down. She identified Lalu Biswas, Katu Biswas, Gour Mondal @ Buro, Sudhamoy Biswas of Rampur, Nilkamal of Pakurgachhi, Bisweswar Biswas of Chandpur, Basu Biswas, Naxalite of Poragachha, Siraj Mondal of Mathurapur among the miscreants. On the basis of written complaint of Saraswati Sardar (PW-1), Kotwali P.S. Case No. 183/06 dated 20.6.2006 under sections 302/34 of the I.P.C. and under sections 25/27 of the Arms Act was registered against the aforesaid accused persons and others. On the basis of written complaint of Saraswati Sardar (PW-1), Kotwali P.S. Case No. 183/06 dated 20.6.2006 under sections 302/34 of the I.P.C. and under sections 25/27 of the Arms Act was registered against the aforesaid accused persons and others. In conclusion of investigation in the instant case, charge-sheet was filed against seventeen accused persons under sections 302/34/120B of the I.P.C. Out of seventeen accused persons, accused Amalesh Biswas and Siraj Baidya absconded and the case was committed against the fifteen accused persons to the Court of Sessions and transferred to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Court, Krishnanagar, Nadia for trial and disposal. Charges were framed under sections 302/34/120B of the I.P.C. against the aforesaid accused persons. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In the course of trial, Gour Mondal absconded and the case was withdrawn against Sushil Biswas by the State. Accordingly, trial proceeded against thirteen accused persons including the appellants. 5. In the course of trial, prosecution examined twenty-three witnesses and exhibited a number of documents. The defence of the appellants was one of innocence and false implication. It was the specific defence of the appellants that unnamed persons had killed the victims as they were extorting money from cattle smugglers and had detained their cattle. By way of cross-examination the defence sought to probabilise their case. In conclusion of trial, the trial Judge by judgment and order dated 10.9.2013 and 11.9.2013 convicted and sentenced the appellants, as aforesaid. Other accused persons were, however, acquitted of the charges levelled against them. 6. Mr. Basu, learned senior advocate along with Mr. Mazumdar and Mr. Chakraborty appearing on the behalf of the appellants argued that the names of the appellant had not transpired at the earliest opportunity in the inquest reports prepared by the investigating officer (PW-18). He further submitted that PW-1 admitted in her cross-examination that the inquest was held prior to the recording of the F.I.R. and, therefore, the F.I.R. appears to be an ante-dated document. He also argued that the evidence of the relation witnesses, namely, PWs. 1, 2, 5 and 7 are not corroborated by the independent witnesses who had not supported the prosecution case. He also argued that the evidence of the relation witnesses, namely, PWs. 1, 2, 5 and 7 are not corroborated by the independent witnesses who had not supported the prosecution case. The motive of the crime as suggested by defence is probabilised by the evidence of Anil Mondal (PW-13) and Dulal Mondal (PW-14) and also by auction sale of cattle seized from the house of the deceased Uttam Sardar at the behest of the investigating officer (PW-21). He further argued that PWs. 2 and 5 cannot be said to be eye-witnesses of the incident and their evidence is highly unreliable. He also submitted that the cause of death of the victims had not been put to the appellants during their examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He relied on various authorities in support of his contentions. He accordingly prayed for acquittal of the appellants. 7. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor for the State with Mr. Maity argued that the genesis of the incident had been clearly narrated by the wife, Saraswati Sardar (PW-1) and the son, Chiranjit Sardar (PW-7) of the deceased Uttam Sardar. Their evidence is corroborated by PWs. 2 and 5. They have implicated the appellants as the assailants of the victims. F.I.R. was registered promptly after the incident prior to the preparation of inquest reports as would be evident from the statement of the investigating officer (PW-18) and therefore, false implication of the appellants in the alleged crime is wholly ruled out. Motive of the crime has also been established and the defence suggestion that the victims were killed by unknown persons over the issue of extortion of cattle smugglers is based on vague surmises and does inspire confidence. They accordingly prayed for dismissal of the case. 8. Let me consider the rival submissions in the light of the evidence on record. 9. PW-1, Saraswati Sardar, PW-2, Tapan Sardar, PW-5, Prabir Sardar and PW-7, Chiranjit Sardar are the relations of the victims, Uttam Sardar and Swapan Sardar. 10. PW-1, Saraswati Sardar is the wife of deceased Uttam Sardar and the de facto complainant in the instant case. She deposed that about 5-6 years ago at around 02.00 a.m. while she was sleeping with her husband, Uttam Sardar and brother-in-law, Swapan Sardar in the courtyard of their house at about 02.00 a.m. maoists came and assaulted her husband. 10. PW-1, Saraswati Sardar is the wife of deceased Uttam Sardar and the de facto complainant in the instant case. She deposed that about 5-6 years ago at around 02.00 a.m. while she was sleeping with her husband, Uttam Sardar and brother-in-law, Swapan Sardar in the courtyard of their house at about 02.00 a.m. maoists came and assaulted her husband. Her husband pleaded for his life and asked for help. She woke up and found Gour Hari, Bisweswar, Lalu, Katho, Nikhil, Basu, Sudha of Rampur, Kalopakhi of Rampur, Nilkamal of Pakurgacchi and Sushil Biswas of Bhimpur had surrounded her husband and the miscreants shot at him. She identified the said accused persons. Subsequently, she also identified Badshah of Adapota as one of the assailants. She further stated that the accused persons chased Swapan Sardar and shot at him. They ultimately killed him in the field of Nepal Sardar. Thereafter the accused persons left the spot. She could identify the accused persons in the moonlit night. The accused persons had torch lights with them. The field of Nepal Sardar is about 40 cubits away from her house and is visible from her courtyard. Her courtyard was not fenced and was situated by the side of the road. She lodged written complaint before the police, which was written by one boy from Fulbari as per her dictation. She put her signature on the written complaint (Exbt.1). Police visited their house and conducted inquest and she put her L.T.I. on the inquest report. She further deposed that her husband used to catch fish from Kalinga Beel which is 5 minutes’ walking distance from their residence and used to sell them. She stated that Swapan Sardar is her brother-in-law by village courtesy. The accused persons did not permit her husband to catch fish from the said beel. As a result a dispute arose and they killed her husband. Her husband was a C.P.I. (M) worker of the village. On the date of occurrence her son, Chiranjit Sardar (PW-7) was also sleeping in the open verandah. Her mother, Subharani Sardar and her elder sister, Lakshmi Sardar were sleeping in the room. While they were crying for help some para-people had arrived at the spot. She narrated the incident of murder to them. Para- people took her husband and Swapan in a trolley to the hospital. The accused persons threatened her. Her mother, Subharani Sardar and her elder sister, Lakshmi Sardar were sleeping in the room. While they were crying for help some para-people had arrived at the spot. She narrated the incident of murder to them. Para- people took her husband and Swapan in a trolley to the hospital. The accused persons threatened her. She had lodged a general diary over the incident. In cross-examination, she stated that the victims had died before reaching the hospital and their dead bodies were kept in the courtyard side by side. Darogababu heard about the incident from her, examined the dead bodies and prepared the inquest and prepared the seizure list. Daroga sent the dead bodies for post-mortem and took her to police station where written complaint was written and she put her signature thereon. She stated police reached their house at 06.00 a.m. She denied that she did not mention the names of Kalopakhi and Badsha in the written complaint. 11. PW-7, Chiranjit Sardar is the son of deceased Uttam Sardar. He deposed that on 26.6.2006 around 01.30-02.00 a.m. his father, mother and deceased uncle (Swapan Sardar) were sleeping in the courtyard of their house. He was sleeping in the open verandah. Some people entered their compound. He woke up and found that his mother was crying and praying for mercy. At that time the accused persons caught hold his father and uncle, Swapan Sardar. Some of the accused persons caught hold of his mother by the hair and took her to another area. His uncle, Swapan was hit by a bullet while trying to run away and the miscreants chased him and shot him dead in the field of Nepal Sardar. His father was killed in the courtyard. Thereafter, the accused persons left the spot through the road on the back side of the house towards Kalinga River. He could identify Gour Hari, Bisweswar, Sudha, Kalopakhi, Sunil, Nilkamal, Lalu, Katu and Basu as the persons who assaulted his father and uncle as they were co-villagers. Police reached the place of occurrence and conducted inquest over the dead body of his father and prepared inquest report (Exbt.3/1). Para-people came to their house and he intimated them of the incident. In cross- examination, he stated that their house comprises of two rooms (one bed room and one kitchen). Dayal Sardar’s house comprises of one room and one kitchen. Para-people came to their house and he intimated them of the incident. In cross- examination, he stated that their house comprises of two rooms (one bed room and one kitchen). Dayal Sardar’s house comprises of one room and one kitchen. Dayal Sardar’s house is situated in the Northern side. On the Western side of their house the residence of his maternal uncle, Dinabandhu Sardar, is situated. He further stated that he did not state before police that his mother had pleaded for mercy when the accused persons were shooting. He did not state to police that some of the accused persons caught his mother and pulled her away to another area. 12. PW-2, Tapan Sardar is the brother of Swapan Sardar, the other victim in the instant case. He deposed that his house is at a distance of 50-60 feet from the residence of Uttam Sardar. On the fateful night when he was sleeping he heard the sound of firing and woke up and proceeded towards the house of Uttam. His brother Swapan Sardar was sleeping in the house of Uttam as they had very good relations with each other. While proceeding towards the house of Uttam Sardar he found that some persons had gathered near the field beside a banyan tree. It was possible for him to identify the accused persons as it was a moonlit night as well as from their torch lights. They were Sunil Mondal, Nikhil Biswas, Lal Mohan Biswas, Kathu Biswas and others. They were standing with fire arms. They left by the side of Uttam Sardar’s house towards Kalinga River. Thereafter, they hired a trolley rickshaw and took Uttam to hospital but he died before reaching hospital. Swapan Sardar was found dead, lying with bullet injuries in the field of Nepal Sardar. Uttam Sardar also had bullet injuries. At that time he could not identify who and why shot at Uttam and Swapan. He stated that Maoists prevented the village people from catching fish from Kalinga Beel and both Uttam and Swapn used to catch fish from the said Beel as they were leaders of C.P.I. (M). There was a dispute between maoists and the victims and as a result of which the victims were killed by them. The banyan tree is situated 20-30 feet away from the residence of Uttam Sardar and the said tree is visible therefrom. There was a dispute between maoists and the victims and as a result of which the victims were killed by them. The banyan tree is situated 20-30 feet away from the residence of Uttam Sardar and the said tree is visible therefrom. He could see from the said tree that some persons were guarding the house of Uttam Sardar but he failed to identify them. Police reached the place of occurrence and conducted inquest of the dead bodies of the victims and he signed on the inquest report (Exbt.2). 13. PW-5, Prabir Sardar is the brother of deceased Uttam Sardar. He deposed that he resided at Chandpur village. On 26.6.2006 at about 01.30-2.00 a.m. when he was sleeping he heard the sound of bullets coming from the side of Uttam Sardar’s house. He proceeded towards the house of Uttam. From a distance he was able to see that some people had surrounded Uttam and Swapan and were shooting at them. After firing the accused persons left the place and he rushed to the house of Uttam and found Uttam in almost moribund condition. Thereafter, he called a trolley to take Uttam to the hospital but Uttam died before reaching the hospital. Dead body of Swapan was recovered from the field of Nepal Sardar. As it was a moonlit night he could identify Basu, Sudha, Gour Hari, Bisweswar, Nilkamal and many other people. He signed on the inquest report (Exbt.3). He further stated that police seized blood-stained earth, plain earth and also empty bullet shell. He also put his signatures on the seizure lists (Exbt.4 and 5 respectively). He stated that Uttam and Swapan used to catch fish from Kalinga Beel and sell them in the market. Dispute had arisen between Maoists and Uttam over such issue. The victims were to be killed for such reason. In cross-examination, he stated that the distance between Chandpur village and Kotwali police station is about 14-15 kilometres. He intimated the police around 04.00- 04.30 a.m. by mobile phone and 40 minutes later police came to the place of occurrence. 14. PW-4, Dilip Sardar is a neighbour. He deposed that on 26.6.2006 at about 01.30-02.00 a.m. when he was sleeping in his house he heard the sound of screaming of para-people. He went towards the house of Uttam Sardar and found that Uttam had been murdered. He had bullet injuries. 14. PW-4, Dilip Sardar is a neighbour. He deposed that on 26.6.2006 at about 01.30-02.00 a.m. when he was sleeping in his house he heard the sound of screaming of para-people. He went towards the house of Uttam Sardar and found that Uttam had been murdered. He had bullet injuries. Wife of Uttam informed him the names of the assailants including Gour Hari Biswas and others. Dead body of Swapan Sardar was found in the field of Nepal Sardar. Police came to the place of occurrence and prepared the inquest report. He put his signature on the inquest report (Exbt.2/1). 15. PW-10, Pradip Man is the scribe of the F.I.R. He has proved the written complaint (Exbt.1/1). 16. PW-15, Dr. Pranab Roy was posted as Medical Officer at Nadia District Hospital, Krishnanagar, at the time of incident. He is the post-mortem doctor in the instant case. He deposed that on 26.6.2006 he conducted the post-mortem examination of the dead bodies of one Uttam Sardar and Swapan Sardar. They had died due to bullet injuries from fire arms. He proved the post-mortem report and his signatures thereon (Exbts.8 and 8/1). 17. PW-17, Rabin Bose was the trolley driver who carried the bodies of the victims from the place of occurrence to the morgue. 18. PW-18, S.I. Tuhin Biswas to PW-23, I.C. Dibyendu Biswas are the investigating officers in the instant case. 19. PW-18 deposed that he was posted at Kotwali police station as S.I. of Police on the relevant date. Upon registration of Kotwali P.S. Case No. 193/2006 dated 26.6.2006 he visited the place of occurrence and prepared the inquest on the dead bodies of Uttam Sardar and Swapan Sardar in the presence of local witnesses and prepared the reports (Exbt.2/3 and 3/2 respectively). He also prepared the sketch map with index (Exbt.10). He seized three empty cartridges of .303 near the body of Uttam Sardar and two empty cartridges of .38 near the dead body of Swapan Sardar and seized them under seizure list. He also seized blood-stained earth, plain earth, one empty cartridge of .22 and one black plastic button with black rubber band. He proved the seizure lists which were marked as Exbt.4/2 and 5/2 respectively. He interrogated witnesses at the place of occurrence and recorded their statements. He sent the dead bodies to morgue for post-mortem examination. He interrogated the de facto complainant and recorded her statement. He proved the seizure lists which were marked as Exbt.4/2 and 5/2 respectively. He interrogated witnesses at the place of occurrence and recorded their statements. He sent the dead bodies to morgue for post-mortem examination. He interrogated the de facto complainant and recorded her statement. He took steps to apprehend the accused persons. On that relevant evening he seized one bullet-head from the dead body of Uttam Sardar which was collected by doctor during postmortem examination. He seized the wearing apparels of Uttam Sardar and Swapan Sardar and the post-mortem blood of the deceased’s under seizure list (Exbt.11). He apprehended some accused persons. In cross-examination, he stated that he did not take the signatures of Nepal Sardar and Dayal Sardar from whose land the articles were seized. He denied that he conducted the investigation in a perfunctory manner. He sent the seized articles for forensic examination. He arrived at the place of occurrence at about 04.00 a.m. remained there till 12.05 p.m. During that time he interrogated the de facto complainant and recorded her statement. 20. Thereafter, PW-19, Inspector Sunil Kr. Guha, PW-20, S.I. Arun Chakraborty, PW-21, Inspector Nemai Biswas and PW-22, Inspector Chandan Banerjee conducted investigation in this case PW-22 filed charge-sheet in the instant case. 21. PW-23 conducted further investigation and submitted supplementary charge-sheet. 22. PWs. 3, 6, 8, 13 and 14 are local witnesses. They, however, were declined hostile and were cross-examined. PWs. 13 and 14 stated that the victims extorted cattle smugglers. There was enmity between the victims and the said cattle dealers over such issue. Victim Uttam Sardar had detained a number of cattles of the cattle smugglers. 23. From the aforesaid evidence on record it appears that the victims Uttam Sardar and Swapan Sardar had died due to bullet injuries on the fateful night, that is, 26.6.2006 around 01.30-2.00 a.m. Evidence of the prosecution witnesses including the hostile witnesses show that Uttam Sardar was found with bullet injuries in the courtyard and the body of Swapan Sardar with similar injuries was recovered from field of Nepal Sardar. PW-18 (investigating officer) stated that he came to the place of occurrence at 04.00 a.m. and found the dead body of Uttam Sardar was lying in the courtyard and that of Swapan Sardar was lying in the field of Nepal Sardar. Empty bullet cartridges were also seized from the place of occurrence. PW-18 (investigating officer) stated that he came to the place of occurrence at 04.00 a.m. and found the dead body of Uttam Sardar was lying in the courtyard and that of Swapan Sardar was lying in the field of Nepal Sardar. Empty bullet cartridges were also seized from the place of occurrence. PW-15, postmortem doctor also deposed that the victim had died due to bullet injuries. Hence, I am of the opinion that the victims, namely, Uttam Sardar and Swapan Sardar died due to bullet injuries on the fateful night at the place of occurrence as proposed by the prosecution. 24. It has been seriously contended that the appellants had not committed the murder of the victims, on the other hand, it was suggested that the victims had enmity with cattle smugglers in the area as they were extorting money from them. Hence, they were killed by unknown persons. Senior Advocate drew my attention to the evidence of PWs. 13, 14 and 21 in support of such contention. I have examined the evidence of the said witnesses from that angle. PWs. 13 and 14 stated that there was dispute between the victims and cattle smugglers as the victims extorted money from them. PW-13 also claimed that some cattle were detained by the victims prior to the incident. Attention had also been drawn to the evidence of PW-21 that he had applied before the Magistrate for auctioning a cow which was in custody of the police. On the other hand, eye-witnesses in the instant case, that is, wife and son of the victim Uttam Sardar, unequivocally stated that there was dispute between the victims and the appellants over the issue of catching fish in Kalinga beel, situated in the village and for this reason the victims had been killed by them. PWs. 1 and 7 are the relations of the victim Uttam and resided with him. Hence, they are the most probable witnesses as to the circumstances leading to the ghastly incident. On the other hand, there is nothing to connect the version of the villagers (PWs. 13 and 14) that the appellants had inimical relation with cattle dealers with the alleged incident. There is nothing in the evidence of PW-21 that the cattle prayed for auction belonged to local cattle dealers who had bad relations with the victims. On the other hand, there is nothing to connect the version of the villagers (PWs. 13 and 14) that the appellants had inimical relation with cattle dealers with the alleged incident. There is nothing in the evidence of PW-21 that the cattle prayed for auction belonged to local cattle dealers who had bad relations with the victims. Thus, the defence suggestion that the victims were killed by unknown people over inimical relation with cattle dealers has no legs to stand. On the other hand, it appears that the prosecution has been able to establish the motive for commission of offence in the instant case. 25. It has been argued that cause of death of the victims was not put to the appellants during their examinations under section 313 of Cr.P.C. It appears from the trend of cross examination of the prosecution witnesses that the defence had accepted that the victims had died due to gunshot injuries. Hence, the failure to put such circumstance to the appellants during their examinations under section 313 of Cr.P.C. though an irregularity, has not caused prejudice to the appellants nor had occasioned failure of justice vitiating the entire trial in the instant case. Santosh vs. State, (2010) 9 SCC 747 (para-92) and Paramjeet Singh vs. State of Uttarakhand, (2010) 10 SCC 439 (para-24 and 30). 26. The most important issue, however, is who were the persons who attacked the victims on the fateful night and murdered them. Prosecution in this regard has primarily relied upon the eye-witnesses, namely, PWs. 1 and 7, that is the wife and son of the victim Uttam Sardar. Their evidence is supported by PW-2, brother of Swapan Sardar who rushed to the place of occurrence hearing sounds of bullet and found some of the appellants standing near the banyan tree with firearms. PW-5, brother of the victims also came to the place of occurrence on hearing screams and saw some of the appellants firing at the victims. However, reading PWs. evidence as a whole it appears that he is a post-occurrence witness and the trial Court rightly chose to discard his evidence as unreliable. Evidence of the relation witnesses have been corroborated by PW-4 who stated that PW-1 narrated the names of the assailants immediately after the incident. 27. However, reading PWs. evidence as a whole it appears that he is a post-occurrence witness and the trial Court rightly chose to discard his evidence as unreliable. Evidence of the relation witnesses have been corroborated by PW-4 who stated that PW-1 narrated the names of the assailants immediately after the incident. 27. Relying on the evidence of PW-1 it has been argued by the learned senior advocate for the appellants that the inquest reports were prepared prior to the preparation of F.I.R. and the names of the appellants do not transpire in the said reports. I am unable to accept such contention. Evidence of PW-18, investigating officer, categorically states that he reached the place of occurrence at 04.00 a.m. and thereafter he interrogated PW-1. It appears from the record that the F.I.R. was registered around 05.15 a.m. Subsequently, at and around 06.30 a.m. the inquest reports were prepared. I have examined the inquest reports and I find that the police case number has been recorded in the said reports. PW-5 has corroborated the version of PW-18 that he telephoned the police station around 04.00 a.m. and the police arrived shortly thereafter. One cannot ignore the factthat wife of the victim Uttam Sardar is a rustic and illiterate lady. She had also suffered a severe shock in witnessing murder of her husband. Hence, there is every likelihood on her part to make mistake with regard to the chronology in recording of F.I.R. and the preparation of inquest reports in the instant case. However, in view of the evidence of PW-18, investigating officer with regard to the steps taken in the investigation which is supported by the contemporaneous entries in the inquest reports, I have no doubt in my mind that the F.I.R. was registered prior to the preparation of the inquest reports in the instant case. Therefore, absence of names of the appellants in the inquest reports does not cause a dent to the prosecution case. 28. Authorities relied on by the appellants in this regard are factually distinguishable. It is nobody’s case that in the reports, namely, Mobarak Sk. Therefore, absence of names of the appellants in the inquest reports does not cause a dent to the prosecution case. 28. Authorities relied on by the appellants in this regard are factually distinguishable. It is nobody’s case that in the reports, namely, Mobarak Sk. @ Mobarak Hossain vs. State of West Bengal, (2011) 1 C.Cr.LR (Cal) 687 and Fanil Das and Others vs. State of West Bengal, 2014 (3) CLJ (Cal) 111, this Court had held as an inflexible rule of law that the prosecution case ought to be disbelieved if the names of accused persons do not transpire in the inquest reports. 29. On the other hand, it is trite law that the purpose of holding inquest is to note the cause of death. The said document merely records the cause of death, that is, whether it is suicidal, homicidal or an accidental and the absence of names of assailants in case of homicidal death do not ordinarily affect the veracity of the prosecution case. Surendra Pal and Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, (2010) 9 SCC 399 and Guiram Mondal vs. State of W.B. (2013) 15 SCC 284 . 30. Unlike the cited authorities the F.I.R. in the instant case was registered prior to the inquest reports prepared by the police officer and the names of most of the appellants have appeared therein. Hence, the aforesaid authorities are of little help to the appellants. 31. It has been contended that some of the appellants have not been named in the first information report. It has also been contended that PWs. 1 and 7 have also not named all the appellants in their deposition in Court. Evidence of PW-2 has been criticized on the score that he is not an eye-witness to the incident. 32. Evidence of PW-1 and 7 have also been criticized on the ground that they are riddled with embellishments and exaggerations. Hence, their evidence ought to be discarded as a whole. Reliance has been placed on Krishnegowda and Others vs. State of Karnataka, (2017) 13 SCC 98 . In the said report the Apex Court disbelieved the evidence of eye-witnesses on the factual score and recorded an order of acquittal. I have analysed the evidence of PW-1 and 7 in great details. Both the witnesses were sleeping near the victims in the night when the incident occurred. In the said report the Apex Court disbelieved the evidence of eye-witnesses on the factual score and recorded an order of acquittal. I have analysed the evidence of PW-1 and 7 in great details. Both the witnesses were sleeping near the victims in the night when the incident occurred. They are most natural witnesses who clearly identified the appellants as the assailants of the victims. There may be some contradictions and/or variations in their evidence. It is settled law that if the evidence of prosecution witnesses are reliable in material particulars minor exaggerations in their versions ought not to be a ground to reject their evidence. Almost a century ago, the Privy Council while discussing the impact of embellishments on the reliability of witnesses in cases originating from India held that: “.......in Indian litigation it is not safe to assume that a case must be a false case if some of the evidence in support of it appears to be doubtful or is clearly untrue. There is on some occasions a tendency amongst litigants in India, as elsewhere, to back up a good case by false or exaggerated evidence…” Bankim Bihari Maiti vs. Shrimati Matangini Dase, AIR 1919 PC 157 . 33. This view was quoted with approval by the Apex Court and applied to criminal cases in State of U.P. vs. Anil Singh, 1988 (Supp) SCC 686. 34. It is axiomatic that in India the principle ‘Falsus in Uno’ is not ‘Falsus in Omnibus’ is inapplicable while appreciating evidence. On the contrary, it is the duty of the Court to separate the grain from the chaff and appreciate the evidence of witnesses as a whole in the factual matrix of a case. Hence, keeping in mind the aforesaid prudent principles which have crystalized through time into rule of law, I have no hesitation to hold that the evidence of the PWs. 1 and 7, the most natural witnesses in this case have a ring of truth and it would be a miscarriage of justice to throw out their evidence in entirety due to minor embellishments or improvements during deposition. 35. 1 and 7, the most natural witnesses in this case have a ring of truth and it would be a miscarriage of justice to throw out their evidence in entirety due to minor embellishments or improvements during deposition. 35. In this factual backdrop, for a better appreciation of the complicity of the appellants, I have analysed the evidence on record qua the role of the appellants in the following tabular chart:- S. No. Name of the Appellants F.I.R. PW-1 (Eyewitness) PW-7 (Eyewitness) PW-2 (Post-occurrence witness) PW-5 (Not Believed by Trial Court) 1. Lal Mohan Biswas @ Lalu Biswas √ √ √ √ 2. Shyamal Biswas @ Katu Biswas √ √ √ √ 3. Sudhamoy Biswas √ √ √ √ 4. Nil Kamal Biswas √ √ √ 5. Basudeb Biswas √ √ √ √ 6. Nikhil Biswas √ √ 7. Kalopakhi Pramanick √ √ 8. Sunil Mondal √ √ 9. Badsha Mondal √ (v stands for identification of the appellant) 36. From the aforesaid chart it appears that the appellants, namely, Lal Mohan Biswas @ Lalu Biswas, Shyamal Biswas @ Katu Biswas, Sudhamoy Biswas, Nil Kamal Biswas and Basudeb Biswas were named not only in the F.I.R. but also in the deposition of the eye-witnesses, PWs. 1 and 7 as the assailants of the victims. Appellant, Kalo Pakhi Pramanik though not named in the F.I.R. has been named by both the eye-witnesses in Court as one of the assailants. Appellant, Sunil Mondal has not only been identified by PW-7 as one of the assailants of his father but also by PW-2 as one of the miscreants who were standing under a banyan tree near the place of occurrence with firearms immediately after the occurrence. Appellant, Nikhil Biswas has been identified for the first time by PW-1 in Court and such identification by the witness appears to be an afterthought as he was not named by her in the F.I.R. Hence, I am unwilling to accept the identification of the appellant, Nikhil Biswas by PW-1 in Court. The other eyewitness, PW-7 has not identified Nikhil Biswas. Under such circumstance, I consider it unsafe to come to a finding that Nikhil Biswas was one of the miscreants who fired at the victims only on the evidence of PW-2, a post-occurrence witness. Hence, I am inclined to extend the benefit of doubt to Nikhil Biswas. The other eyewitness, PW-7 has not identified Nikhil Biswas. Under such circumstance, I consider it unsafe to come to a finding that Nikhil Biswas was one of the miscreants who fired at the victims only on the evidence of PW-2, a post-occurrence witness. Hence, I am inclined to extend the benefit of doubt to Nikhil Biswas. Similarly, I am of the opinion that the benefit of doubt may be extended to appellant, Badsha Mondal as his name has not been stated by any of the witnesses apart from PW-1 which also appears to be an embellishment as the said witness did not name Badsha in the F.I.R. recorded by her immediately after the incident. 37. Hence, I am inclined to uphold the conviction and sentence of the appellants, namely, Lal Mohan Biswas, Shyamal Biswas @ Katu, Sudhamoy Biswas, Nil Kamal Biswas, Basudeb Biswas, Kalopakhi Pramanick and Sunil Mondal. 38. I extend the benefit of doubt to appellants, Badsha Mondal and Nikhil Biswas and acquit them of the charges levelled against them. 39. In view of the aforesaid discussion, Criminal Appeal No. 861 of 2013 is allowed, Criminal Appeal No. 818 of 2013 is party allowed so far as the appellant, Nikhil Biswas is concerned and the other appeals are dismissed. 40. The bail bonds of the appellants, namely, Lal Mohan Biswas, Shyamal Biswas @ Katu, Sudhamoy Biswas, Nil Kamal Biswas, Basudeb Biswas, Kalopakhi Pramanick and Sunil Mondal are cancelled and they are directed to surrender forthwith and serve out the sentence failing which the trial Court shall issue appropriate processes to execute their sentences in accordance with law. 41. Appellants, Badsha Mondal and Nikhil Biswas shall be discharged from their bail bonds after six months in terms section 437A Cr.P.C. 42. The period of detention suffered by the appellants during investigation, enquiry and trial shall be set off from the substantive sentence imposed upon them in terms of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 43. A copy of the judgment along with L.C.R. be sent down to the trial Court at once for necessary action. I agree – Ravi Krishan Kapur, J.