JUDGMENT Hon’ble P.K.S. Baghel, J.—This appeal preferred by the five appellants is directed against the judgment and order dated 24th December, 1996 passed by the Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Hamirpur in Session Trial No. 89 of 1993, State v. Chandi @ Devkinandan and others, arising out of Case Crime No. 240 of 1992, whereby the appellants Chandi, Gulab, Ram Jeevan, Phool Singh and Baghraj have been found guilty for the offence under Sections 147, 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C. The appellants-Chandi, Gulab, Ram Jeevan and Phool Singh have been held guilty under Section 148 I.P.C. also. Accordingly, the appellants have been convicted under the said sections and all the appellants have been sentenced for one year rigorous imprisonment under Section 147 I.P.C. and for the life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. The respective four appellants have been sentenced for two years rigorous imprisonment under Section 148 I.P.C.. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently. The Court has acquitted the appellants-Chandi and Phool Singh under Section 25 of the Arms Act. 2. The prosecution case is that P.W.-1 Sheela submitted a written complaint at the Police Station Muskara, District Hamirpur on 19th November, 1992 at 10.00 p.m. regarding murder of her husband Karan. She named five persons as assailants. Giving the details of the incident it was stated therein that on 19th November, 1992 at about 10.00 a.m. in the morning her husband late Karan, her mother-in-law P.W.-3 Roop Rani, her brother-in-law P.W.-5 Ramesh and she were going to their field (Har) for harvesting. On their way when they reached in front of Ram Janki Temple, they found that the accused persons, namely, Chandi @ Devkinandan, resident of Auta, Gulab, Ram Jeevan and Phool Singh, residents of Bhaisay, all armed with guns, and Baghraj armed with Lathi were present there. When they saw Karan and his family, one of the accused Phool Singh exhorted the other accused persons to kill Karan. On his exhortation, all of them surrounded Karan and opened fire on him. Karan, husband of P.W.-1, was hit by the gunfire and he fell down on the platform (Chabutara) of Dibiya Dhobi. He succumbed to his injuries at the spot. Upon hearing the noise of gunfire, some of the residents of the village assembled on the spot, thereupon all the assailants fled away from the scene. Karan, husband of P.W.-1, was hit by the gunfire and he fell down on the platform (Chabutara) of Dibiya Dhobi. He succumbed to his injuries at the spot. Upon hearing the noise of gunfire, some of the residents of the village assembled on the spot, thereupon all the assailants fled away from the scene. In her complaint she has stated that there was an ongoing animosity between the parties in respect of the land dispute of her brother-in-law P.W.-5 Ramesh and accused Gulab and Ram Jeevan. On the basis of the said complaint a First Information Report (FIR) was registered as Case Crime No. 240 of 1992, under Sections 148, 149 and 302 I.P.C. at Police Station Muskara, District Hamirpur, and a chik FIR was prepared by P.W.-7 Ram Singh. 3. Consequent upon, an investigation was set in motion. The investigation was entrusted to P.W.-8 Devi Charan Tiwari. On the same day, the police reached on the spot and collected bloodstained earth and made a fard thereof (Exh. Ka-14). Two separate fards Exh.Ka-12 and Exh.Ka-13 were also prepared in respect of four cartridges found on the spot. One of the cartridges was bloodstained. The police also found a Farsa, which was clinched by the deceased in his left hand. The blood was found on the Phal of Farsa. 4. Inquest was undertaken on the body of the deceased. The rough site plan was prepared by the I.O. (P.W.-8) with the help of P.W.-1, P.W.-5 and other witnesses. 5. The dead body was sent for autopsy. P.W.-6 Dr. M. Rajpoot conducted the post-mortem and issued the post-mortem report, wherein he has mentioned that he found seven ante-mortem injuries on the body of the deceased. All the seven injuries were caused by gun shot. He has opined that the cause of death was shock due to injuries sustained by the deceased. The details of the ante-mortem injuries found on the body of the deceased is discussed in the later part of the judgement. 6. On 21st November, 1992 the Investigating Officer arrested two accused persons, namely, Chandi and Phool Singh in village Kharehi. At their instance, he recovered one S.B.B.L. gun 12 bore; two cartridges; one more 12 bore country made pistol and two cartridges. The fards were prepared in presence of the independent witnesses (Exh. Ka-1). 7. 6. On 21st November, 1992 the Investigating Officer arrested two accused persons, namely, Chandi and Phool Singh in village Kharehi. At their instance, he recovered one S.B.B.L. gun 12 bore; two cartridges; one more 12 bore country made pistol and two cartridges. The fards were prepared in presence of the independent witnesses (Exh. Ka-1). 7. After the investigation was completed, a charge-sheet was submitted on 22nd November, 1992 in the Court of the Magistrate, who committed the matter to the Court of Sessions for trial on 09th April, 1993. All the appellants were put on trial. On 28th September, 1994 Chandi, Gulab, Ram Jeevan, Phool Singh and Baghraj were charged by the learned Sessions Judge under Sections 147, 149 and 302 I.P.C.. Chandi, Gulab, Ram Jeevan and Phool Singh were charged under Section 148 I.P.C. also in addition to the charges mentioned above. 8. The prosecution in its support examined eight witnesses. P.W.-1 Sheela is wife of deceased Karan; P.W.-2 Surendra, whose name was mentioned in the written complaint/FIR as eye-witness, turned hostile; P.W.-3 Roop Rani is mother of deceased Karan, she is also eye-witness; P.W.-4 Mangal Singh is said to be independent witness of recovery; P.W.-5 Ramesh is brother of deceased Karan, who is also an eye-witness and was scriber of the complaint (Tehrir); P.W.-6 Dr. M. Rajpoot is the Doctor, who conducted the post-mortem of the deceased; P.W.-7 Ram Singh is the Constable who had prepared chik FIR; and, P.W.-8 Devi Chandra Tiwari is the Investigating Officer. 9. After the evidence was led, all the accused persons were given opportunity under Section 313 Cr.P.C., whereunder they denied the charges levelled against them. 10. The trial Court after adverting to the evidences on the record vide impugned judgment and order found that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the charges against all the appellants and accordingly convicted and sentenced them for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 302 I.P.C., as mentioned above; except for the charges under Section 25 of the Arms Act against Chandi @ Devkinandan and Phool Singh and acquitted them under the said section as, in his opinion, the charge under Section 25 of the Arms Act was not established. 11. We have heard Sri Brijesh Sahai, learned counsel for the appellants, and Sri A.N. Mulla, learned A.G.A. at length, and perused the material on the record. 12. 11. We have heard Sri Brijesh Sahai, learned counsel for the appellants, and Sri A.N. Mulla, learned A.G.A. at length, and perused the material on the record. 12. Learned counsel for the appellants has made a valiant attempt to create a dent in the prosecution case by pointing out inconsistencies in the ocular evidence of P.W.-1, P.W.-3 and P.W.-5. It was sought to be argued that discrepancies create a serious doubt about the truthfulness of eye-witnesses, particularly the very presence of the P.W.-1, the wife of the deceased, at the scene when alleged incident occurred. He submitted that P.W.-1 Sheela is not the informant as the FIR was scribed by Ramesh, who has enmity with Chandi. Deceased Karan and his brother Ramesh are the accused in the murder of their uncle Swami, and Chandi was one of the prosecution witnesses in the said case. Hence, he has been falsely implicated by Ramesh due to the said enmity. It is submitted that Chandi has no motive for murder. He is a resident of the other village. His name has been mentioned in the FIR by Ramesh and not by Sheela, P.W.-1. It is submitted that P.W.-1 is not an eye-witness as she was at her home looking after her one year old son and four year old daughter. It was not possible that P.W.-1 will leave her one year old son to be looked after by her four year old daughter, who being only four year old was incapable to look after a one year child. It is stated that admittedly at their house there was no other male member as it was stated that mother of the deceased P.W.-3 Roop Rani was also in the party, which was going for harvesting. Sri Sahai has pointed out the contradiction in the statements of P.W.-1 and P.W.-3 regarding motive of the murder. According to him, both the witnesses have given different reason for the enmity, hence there was material contradiction in their statements. 13. Sri Sahai has laid immense emphasis on the contradictions of the prosecution case that the deceased and his family was going for harvesting at 10.00 a.m. and said that it is improbable having regard to the fact that in the post-mortem report the stomach of the deceased was found empty and faecal matter was found in the big intestine. 13. Sri Sahai has laid immense emphasis on the contradictions of the prosecution case that the deceased and his family was going for harvesting at 10.00 a.m. and said that it is improbable having regard to the fact that in the post-mortem report the stomach of the deceased was found empty and faecal matter was found in the big intestine. It is stated that from the statements of P.W.-1 and P.W.-3 it is clear that they had left their house for their field after having their breakfast (Kalewa), but in view of the fact that the stomach was found empty, the prosecution story that the incident occurred at 10.00 a.m. has been falsified. He further submitted that the deceased was found dead at the platform of Dibiya Dhobi, but the Investigating Officer has not cared to record the statement of Dibiya Dhobi under Section 161 Cr.P.C. On the basis of the aforesaid facts Sri Sahai submitted that in fact the murder of the deceased was committed in the wee-hours on 19th November, 1989 by some unknown persons. The appellants have been falsely implicated due to enmity. His aforesaid statement is based only on the premise that the stomach of the deceased was found empty. Sri Sahai further submitted that in the site plan the I.O. has not shown the places of the witnesses, which is a serious flaw and makes the prosecution case doubtful. Summing up his submissions, Sri Sahai submitted that due to lack of independent witnesses, only family members of the deceased were examined as witnesses and they being partisan witnesses cannot be relied upon. 14. Sri A.N. Mulla, learned A.G.A., submitted that the appellants have committed the offence in broad day-light in presence of the mother, wife and brother of the deceased. Sri Mulla has taken the Court to the deposition of P.W.-1 and P.W.-3 to buttress his submission that their evidence, the facts and the various contradictions pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant were not put to the witnesses during the cross-examination, hence these facts cannot be considered at this stage. He has invited the attention of the Court to the lengthy cross-examination of P.W.-1 and P.W.-3. He contended that enmity between the parties is admitted. He has invited the attention of the Court to the lengthy cross-examination of P.W.-1 and P.W.-3. He contended that enmity between the parties is admitted. He further submitted that P.W.-1 in her statement has clearly stated that on her dictation Tehrir was scribed by Ramesh, his brother-in-law, who was 24 years old at that time. He further submitted that after the incident P.W.-1 went to the police station alone because P.W.-5 Ramesh was only surviving male member of the family, hence she thought it prudent not to risk his life. Moreover, no questions were asked in the cross-examination in this respect. He further submitted that the submission that since no food was found in the stomach, the prosecution case that the deceased was going for harvesting at 10.00 a.m. was false, is misconceived as no question was put to P.W.-1 or P.W.-3 regarding the fact whether the deceased has taken his breakfast or not. 15. We have considered the submissions of either side and perused the record. 16. The husband of P.W.-1 was shot dead in the broad day light at 10.00 a.m. The prosecution has led the evidence to establish that the incident had occurred in the presence of mother of the deceased P.W.-3 Roop Rani, his wife P.W.-1 Sheela and his younger brother P.W.-5 Ramesh. All the three witnesses are eye-witnesses, who were accompanying the deceased on their way to field for harvesting. 17. P.W.-2 Surendra has turned hostile. Since the trial Court has found that the charges of homicide against the appellants are established on the basis of statements of the eye-witnesses P.W.-1, P.W.-3 and P.W.-5, who are close family members of the deceased, we have carefully scrutinized the evidences of the aforesaid three eye-witnesses. 18. P.W.-1 Sheela is wife of deceased Karan. She has stated that she alongwith her husband, P.W.-3 mother-in-law and P.W.-5 brother-in-law were going to their field (Har) for harvesting of their crops of Jwar. When they reached near the house of Dibiya Dhobi, they saw Chandi, Gulab, Ram Jeevan, Phool Singh and Baghraj, all the accused persons, armed with gun except Baghraj, who was carrying Lathi. The accused persons, who were armed with gun, opened fire upon her husband, who was hit by bullets and he fell down near the house of Dibiya Dhobi. Having grievously injured, he died on the spot. The accused persons, who were armed with gun, opened fire upon her husband, who was hit by bullets and he fell down near the house of Dibiya Dhobi. Having grievously injured, he died on the spot. She came to her house and got the Tehrir prepared by P.W.-5 Ramesh. She has stated that he had written the complaint on her dictation and after writing the complaint he read over it to her. She has proved the Paper No. 5. 19. She has deposed that her father-in-law Mukundi was three brothers, two others were Hari Nath and Swami. Hari Nath was married with Maya, resident of Kusumiliya. She was issueless and she had bequethed her 18 bigha land to Ramesh. After the death of Maya, Har Nath remarried with Nauranga, from her he has two sons Gulab and Ram Jeevan, who are accused in this case. 20. A litigation regarding the said land between Ramesh and accused Gulab and Ram Jeevan is going on. Her husband Karan was doing pairavi in the said case. She further deposed that the third brother of her father-in-law Swami was murdered. In the said case her husband Karan and Ramesh are the accused. She has stated that Ramesh is about 15-16 years old and at the time of her marriage he was only 10 years old. She has denied the suggestion that she was not present on the spot at the time of commission of the offence. She has also denied the suggestion that the complaint/Tehrir was not prepared at her instance but P.W.-5 Ramesh has made the complaint independently and has impleaded some of the accused due to enmity. 21. P.W.-3 Roop Rani is mother of the deceased Karan. She has deposed that she was going to her Har alongwith her son, daughter in-law P.W.-1 and younger son P.W.-5 Ramesh for harvesting of the crop. When they reached near Ram Janki temple, all the five accused persons surrounded her deceased son. Phool Singh exhorted the other accused persons to fire upon her son. The other accused persons, namely, Chandi, Gulab, Phool Singh, who were armed with weapon, shot at his son. The deceased fell down on the platform in front of house of Dibiya Dhobi having grievously injured by gunshot. He succumbed to his injuries and died on the spot. She has also deposed regarding the land dispute. The other accused persons, namely, Chandi, Gulab, Phool Singh, who were armed with weapon, shot at his son. The deceased fell down on the platform in front of house of Dibiya Dhobi having grievously injured by gunshot. He succumbed to his injuries and died on the spot. She has also deposed regarding the land dispute. Recalling the incident she stated that after having breakfast they had left their house for their field. After the death of her son, she remained at the place of occurrence and P.W.-5 went to home for making complaint to the police. They had kept their sickles at their Har. She has denied the suggestion that Karan was killed when in the early morning he was going to answer the call of nature. She has given the details regarding animosity which was prevailing between the parties over the land dispute. She has reiterated the fact, which was stated by P.W.-1, that her husband was three brothers Mukundi, Swami and Har Nath. Maya was first wife of Har Nath, who had no issue and she had 18 bighas land. After her death the name of her son P.W.-5 Ramesh was mutated in the revenue records and he became owner of 18 bighas land of Maya. Har Nath had remarried with Nauranga and has two sons. Gulab and Ram Jeevan are sons of second wife Nauranga. Both are accused in this case. The third brother of her husband Swami was murdered. The trial of the said case is still pending. In the said case her deceased son Karan, Mukundi, P.W.-5 Ramesh and one Vinod are accused. She has stated that due to the said enmity the accused persons have killed her son Karan. She was subjected to long cross-examination. 22. P.W.-5 Ramesh is also an eye-witness. He is younger brother of deceased Karan. He has also stated that all the four members of the family i.e. deceased Karan, his mother P.W.-3 Roop Rani, his sister-in-law P.W.-1 Sheela and he were going to Har and when they reached near Ram Janki Temple, Gulab, Chandi, Ram Jeevan, Phool Singh, Baghraj, who were armed with gun and Lathi, opened fire on his brother. He has also stated that Phool Singh has exhorted the others to kill his brother Karan. He has also stated that Phool Singh has exhorted the others to kill his brother Karan. After his brother was grievously injured by gun shot injuries, he fell on the platform in front of the house of Dibiya Dhobi. He stated that at the time of death of his brother he was carrying a Farsa. He has also attributed enmity due to the land dispute between the parties. He has stated that after writing the Tehrir he had read it over to P.W.-1 Sheela and thereafter she had put her thumb impression. He has proved Exh.-A-2 in the Court. He further stated that Tehrir was taken by P.W.-1 to police station alone and he remained near the corpus of his brother. In his cross-examination he has stated that when the accused persons were firing on his brother, for his safety he ran to the house of Sripat and locked the door. P.W.-6 Dr. M. Rajpoot is the doctor, who had conducted the post-mortem. In his deposition he has stated that the deceased had received following ante-mortem injuries: (i) Fire-arm injury of 11 x 7 cm. towards inside on the left arm which was muscle deep. (ii) Fire-arm injury 8 x 2 ½ cm. on the left side of the chest, blackening was present. (iii) Fire-arm injury exit wound of 2 x 1 cm. in the middle of the chest near xiphi sternam bone. (iv) Fire-arm exit wound of 1 x 1 cm. on the right side of the chest and 4 cm. below the right nipple. (v) Fire-arm injury, lacerated wound of 5 x 2 cm. above the left knee. (vi) Fire-arm injury, entry wound of 8 x 3 cm. on left below jaw and the bone of jaw is broken. (vii) Fire-arm injury, exist wound of 10 x 6 cm. right side of the lower jaw and both the bones of jaw were fractured. 23. In the internal examination, blood was found in the pleural cavity. Upper part of left lung was fond to be ruptured. Similarly, upper and middle parts of the right lung was also ruptured. Diaphragm, heart and large vessels were ruptured. Three pieces of the bullet were extracted in the area near right side nipple, fourth piece of bullet was found from the fourth ribs. All the four pieces of the bullet were sealed. Similarly, upper and middle parts of the right lung was also ruptured. Diaphragm, heart and large vessels were ruptured. Three pieces of the bullet were extracted in the area near right side nipple, fourth piece of bullet was found from the fourth ribs. All the four pieces of the bullet were sealed. He had also found that stomach and small intestine were empty and the faecal matter was present in the big intestine. The doctor has proved the post-mortem report, which was issued by him (Exh. Ka-3). 24. In the opinion of the Doctor, the cause of death was due to the injuries received from the fire-arm and in his opinion, time of death was on 19th November, 1992 around 10.00 a.m. in the morning. He has also proved the bullets. 25. P.W.-7 is the Constable Ram Singh, who had prepared the chik FIR at the police station. He has proved it. 26. P.W.-8 Devi Charan Tiwari, S.I., is the Investigating Officer. He has stated that when he reached the spot, he found four cartridge cases, which were sealed by him. He has proved the Fard prepared by him (Exh.Ka-12). He has stated that he also found a Farsa with Lathi of the deceased, which was also sealed and exhibited as Ka-13. He has stated that the weapons used in the commission of the offence were recovered at the behest of Chandi, appellant No. 1, and Phool Singh, appellant No. 4, and both the guns were recovered from the shrubbery near Chiraiya Dol Nala. He has stated that the investigation of Case Crime Nos. 242 and 243 of 1992 under Section 25-A Arms Act was conducted by Sri M.K. Dubey, S.O. and he had prepared the rough site plan in his presence. He has proved his signature. He has denied the suggestion of ante-timing of the FIR. He has also explained that no statement of Dibiya Dhobi could be recorded because all the persons, who were living in the house, had left the house and had locked the door. He has denied the suggestion that Ramesh has a criminal history. 27. P.W.-1 is the first informant and she is wife of the deceased also. The incident has taken place at around 10.00 a.m. before noon and the FIR has been lodged on the same day at 10.00 p.m.. He has denied the suggestion that Ramesh has a criminal history. 27. P.W.-1 is the first informant and she is wife of the deceased also. The incident has taken place at around 10.00 a.m. before noon and the FIR has been lodged on the same day at 10.00 p.m.. From the statements of P.W.-1, P.W.-3 and P.W.-5 it emerges that all the members of the family of the deceased were going for harvesting of crop of Jwar in their field, they had left their house after having breakfast and all of them were moving in a group. They have stated that near the house of Dibiya Dhobi they saw the accused persons Chandi @ Devkinandan (appellant No. 1), resident of Auta, who was armed with gun; Gulab, Ram Jeevan and Phool Singh (appellant Nos. 2, 3 and 4 respectively), who were armed with guns, and Baghraj, who is resident of Nauranga, Police Station Majhgawan, armed with Lathi. When deceased Karan Singh, who was moving ahead of them, reached near the house of Dibiya Dhobi, at the exhortation of Phool Singh to kill Karan, the accused persons surrounded deceased Karan and opened fire. Karan was grievously injured and after moving some paces he fell down on the platform in front of house of Dibiya Dhobi. Karan was carrying a Farsa in his right hand, which remained with the dead body when police and other local residents reached the spot. After firing shot at Karan, the assailants fled away from the place of occurrence. P.W.-5, younger brother of Karan, ran to save his life and entered the house of one Sripat and locked it from inside. P.W.-1, wife of the deceased, and P.W.-3, mother of the deceased, saw the entire incident from a close quarter. They were subjected to long cross-examination, but nothing adverse has been extracted from their statements regarding presence of the witnesses on the spot. A close analysis of the statements of P.W.-1 and P.W.-3 would reveal that both are illiterate ladies and there is no material discrepancy or inconsistency in their statements. They have corroborated the prosecution case and their statements inspire confidence. Both the witnesses are trustworthy. 28. A close analysis of the statements of P.W.-1 and P.W.-3 would reveal that both are illiterate ladies and there is no material discrepancy or inconsistency in their statements. They have corroborated the prosecution case and their statements inspire confidence. Both the witnesses are trustworthy. 28. Learned counsel for the appellants has raised serious doubt regarding the presence of P.W.-1 on the ground that she had left her one year old son in the company of her four year old daughter and there was no major family member at the house. In her statement P.W.-1 has clearly stated that she had left her one year old son to be looked after by her four year daughter. 29. It is a trite that human behaviour in certain conditions cannot be expected to behave in similar way. A lady, who belongs to marginal section of the society, thought it prudent to leave her son at the house while she was going to do harvesting in the field. In the winter season she might have thought prudent to leave the boy at the home rather to expose him in cold in the field. The Supreme Court in the cases of Dilawar Singh and others v. State of Haryana, (2015) 1 SCC 737 , Mukesh and another v. State (NCT of Delhi) and others, (2017) 6 SCC 1 and Vasanta Sampat Dupare v. State of Maharashtra, (2017) 6 SCC 631 , has dealt with issue of human behaviour in different circumstances. 30. Learned counsel for the appellants could not point out any discrepancy in the deposition of P.W.-1. In her cross-examination she has denied the suggestion that she was at home to look after her one year old son. The evidence indicates that P.W.-1 had also gone to the police station alone. She had dictated the contents of the Tehrir to P.W.-5 Ramesh, who is her brother-in-law and at that time he was hardly 18 years’ old. 31. All the three eye-witnesses have stated the same fact regarding motive of murder. Father of the deceased Mukundi was three brothers, namely, Mukundi, Swami and Har Nath. It appears that first wife of Har Nath, namely, Maya was issueless and Har Nath had remarried with Nauranga, from whom she had two sons, namely, Gulab and Ram Jeevan. After the death of first wife Maya, her 18 bighas land was transferred to Ramesh, who sold the said property. It appears that first wife of Har Nath, namely, Maya was issueless and Har Nath had remarried with Nauranga, from whom she had two sons, namely, Gulab and Ram Jeevan. After the death of first wife Maya, her 18 bighas land was transferred to Ramesh, who sold the said property. It appears that there was a civil litigation pending in respect of the said land between Ramesh and two appellants—Gulab and Ram Jeevan, who are sons of Har Nath from the second marriage. From the statements of the eye-witnesses P.W.-1, P.W.-3 and P.W.-5 it also emerges that deceased Karan was doing pairavi of the civil litigation. 32. Sri Sahai has laid much emphasis on the issue of motive. According to him, P.W.-5 Ramesh has falsely implicated the appellants as there was deep rooted enmity. He has taken us to the deposition of some of the witnesses to buttress his submission. 33. We are not impressed with his submission regarding motive. It is apt to note here that enmity is a double-edged sword. Recently, the Supreme Court in the case of Yogesh Singh v. Mahabeer Singh and others, (2017) 11 SCC 195 , has quoted with approval its earlier judgment in Ramashish Rai v. Jagdish Singh, (2005) 10 SCC 498 . Paragraph-27 of the judgment reads as under: “27. Again, in Ramashish Rai v. Jagdish Singh, (2005) 10 SCC 498 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 1611, the following observations were made by this Court: (SCC p. 501, para 7) “7. ... The requirement of law is that the testimony of inimical witnesses has to be considered with caution. If otherwise the witnesses are true and reliable their testimony cannot be thrown out on the threshold by branding them as inimical witnesses. By now, it is well-settled principle of law that enmity is a double-edged sword. It can be a ground for false implication. It also can be a ground for assault. Therefore, a duty is cast upon the Court to examine the testimony of inimical witnesses with due caution and diligence.” 34. When we apply the aforesaid principle, we find that there is ocular evidence of the eye-witnesses, hence issue of motive pales into insignificance. In the present case, deceased Karan was killed in the presence of his family members—mother, wife and younger brother. When we apply the aforesaid principle, we find that there is ocular evidence of the eye-witnesses, hence issue of motive pales into insignificance. In the present case, deceased Karan was killed in the presence of his family members—mother, wife and younger brother. The careful scrutiny of statements of all the three witnesses indicates that there is no material contradiction in their depositions. They have also not only recognised the appellants, who are residents of the same village and nearby villages, but their names have been mentioned in the FIR also. We see absolutely no reason to discard the evidence of three eye-witnesses, whose presence on the scene cannot be doubted. 35. Insofar as the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that the incident had taken place at 10.00 a.m. in the morning but there are only family members who have given the evidence is concerned, we do not find any force in the said submission. The experience shows that the villagers are reluctant to give evidence in such cases where litigation between the parties is pending for quite long years, so they do not want to be identified with one of the groups. 36. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is that all the witnesses are family members, thus they are interested witnesses. It is a trite that if the Court finds that the deposition of an eye-witness inspires confidence and is found truthful, it cannot be discarded only on the ground that the witness was relative of the deceased. If the Court is satisfied that his statement is fully corroborated and supported by the testimonies of other witnesses, the Court can rely on such witnesses. 37. The Supreme Court in the case of Piara Singh and others v. State of Punjab, (1977) 4 SCC 452 , has sounded a note of caution that a testimony of family member can be considered independent unless it is shown that his statement is tainted and he has enmity against the accused to wish to implicate him falsely. The Court has also observed in a series of cases that ordinarily a close relative would not spare the real culprit and falsely implicate innocent persons. The Court has also observed in a series of cases that ordinarily a close relative would not spare the real culprit and falsely implicate innocent persons. The Supreme Court in the case of Hari Obula Reddy and others v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, (1981) 3 SCC 675 , has held that even partisanship by itself is not a valid ground for discrediting or rejecting sworn testimony. The only caution is that the evidence of such witnesses should be subjected to careful scrutiny and accepted with caution. Similar view has been taken by the Supreme Court in Anil Rai v. State of Bihar, (2001) 7 SCC 318 , Raju alias Balachandran and others v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2012) 12 SCC 701 , Jodhan v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2015) 11 SCC 52 , Mritunjoy Biswas v. Pranab alias Kuti Biswas and another, (2013) 12 SCC 796 . 38. Sri Sahai has vehemently urged that post-mortem report of the deceased shows that his stomach was found empty and faecal matter was found in the big intestine. The said fact, according to him, indicates that the prosecution case that the family after having breakfast moved to their field for harvesting is incorrect. He submits that the deceased was murdered in the wee hours while he was going for answering the call of nature and the appellants have been implicated due to enmity. 39. We find it difficult to accept the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the appellants. It is a trite law that no one can reach on a definite conclusion only on the basis of the contents of food found in the stomach and in the intestine. The contents in the stomach cannot determine with precision the time of death. The hour of digestibility may vary due to various factors. Modi in his Medical Jurisprudence has expressed his opinion that a mixed diet of animal and vegetable foods, normally taken by Europeans, takes usually 4 to 5 hours for complete digestion. On the contrary, a vegetable diet containing mostly fiber and farinaceous food, which is taken by Indians, is digested in 6 to 7 hours. 40. The Supreme Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade and another v. State of Maharashtra, (1973) 2 SCC 793 , has considered in detail how to consider the evidence on the basis of “digestive” testimony in the light of the scientific attitude through medical science. 40. The Supreme Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade and another v. State of Maharashtra, (1973) 2 SCC 793 , has considered in detail how to consider the evidence on the basis of “digestive” testimony in the light of the scientific attitude through medical science. In this context, the Court has also considered Modi’s Medical Jurisprudence. Relevant part of paragraph-11 of the judgment reads as under: “11. ...Indeed, the learned author cautiously adds that the stomachic contents cannot determine with precision the time of death “inasmuch as the power of digestibility may remain in abeyance for a long time in states of profound shock and coma”. He also states “it must also be remembered that the process of digestion in normal healthy persons may continue for a time after death”. The learned Judges reminded themselves of the imponderables pointed out by Modi which makes the ‘digestive’ testimony inconclusive and, therefore, insufficient to contradict positive evidence, if any, about the time of death. To impute exactitude to a medical statement oblivious to the variables noticed by experts and changes in dietary habits is to be unfair to the science. We are not prepared to run the judicial risk of staking the whole verdict on nebulous medical observations.....” 41. Keeping in view the aforesaid position of law, now the testimonies of P.W.-1 and P.W.-3 need to be appreciated. Mother of the deceased P.W.-3 in her deposition has stated that they had taken their Kalewa (breakfast) in the early morning. The incident had taken place at 10.00 a.m. The question with regard to timing of their breakfast was not put either to P.W.-1 or P.W.-3, who were in better position to explain this fact. P.W.-1 in her cross-examination has stated that on the date of incident she had woken up at the time of Kalewa. Normally, in the villages the people wake up early in the morning, therefore, from their statement it is clear that they had taken their breakfast early in the morning and the incident has taken place at 10.00 a.m. The Supreme Court in the case of Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade (supra) has also observed that in healthy person the process of digestion continues for some time even after death. In the present case, the incident took place and death has occurred at 10.00 a.m. on 19th November, 1992, whereas the body was received at 11.45 a.m. on 20th November, 1992 and the post-mortem started at 04.00 p.m. on the same day i.e. 20th November, 1992. Thus, we do not find any substance in the submission of learned counsel for the appellants Sri Sahai that the fact that stomach was found empty, was sufficient to discard the statement of eye-witnesses on this ground. 42. With regard to the submission of Sri Sahai that there is inconsistency in the statements of P.W.-1 and P.W.-3 in respect of motive, we find that there is no material contradiction in their statements. Both the witnesses have stated that there was a land dispute in respect of 18 bighas land of Maya and two appellants, namely, Gulab and Ram Jeevan are sons of second wife of late Har Nath. The same fact has been mentioned by P.W.-3 and P.W.-5 also. We have considered the said submission and after going through their evidence, we are satisfied that inconsistency, if any, is of minor nature and no undue emphasis can be given to the minor discrepancies as pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants. It is a trite that if the evidence is trustworthy and the discrepancies do not go to the root of the matter, then it cannot affect the core of the prosecution case and it cannot be taken to be a ground to reject the prosecution evidence. The discrepancy, which materially affects the case of the prosecution, can only make a dent in the prosecution case. In our view, when there are three eye-witnesses of the occurrence of the incident, the fact regarding motive is not very material. 43. We cannot lose sight of the fact that all the three witnesses come from rural background. While appreciating their evidence we have to keep in our mind that P.W.-3 is aged about 80 years old and she is an illiterate and rustic villager. Similarly, P.W.-1, wife of the deceased, is also an illiterate lady. 44. The Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Rai v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2014) 5 SCC 713 , has observed that when there is eye-witness account, which is found to be trustworthy, the absence of motive is irrelevant. Similarly, P.W.-1, wife of the deceased, is also an illiterate lady. 44. The Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Rai v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2014) 5 SCC 713 , has observed that when there is eye-witness account, which is found to be trustworthy, the absence of motive is irrelevant. The relevant part of the judgment being paragraph-11 reads thus: “11. ... In any case, the prosecution has examined PW-4 Bijula Devi, who is an eye-witness. When there is eye-witness account on record, the absence of motive pales into insignificance. It was submitted that if it is held that there is strong motive, then, there must be corroboration to PW 4’s evidence to rule out false implication. In this case evidence of PW 1 and PW 2 and other attendant circumstances provide corroboration to PW 4’s evidence.” 45. As regards the submission of learned counsel for the appellants that the prosecution case that deceased was also going for harvesting is false for the reason that he was not carrying sickle, we find that P.W.-3 in her testimony has stated that they had kept sickles at the farm a day before the occurrence of the incident. We do not find any reason to disbelieve her statement, when, as noticed earlier, her testimony is unvarnished truth. 46. Learned counsel for the appellants has feebly argued regarding delay in the FIR. The incident had taken place on 19th November, 1992. Distance of police station from the spot is 9 Kms. After the incident P.W.-1 went to her home, where at her instance P.W.-5 Ramesh had prepared the Tehrir, thereafter she went alone to the police station, which is about 9 Kms. from her village. The evidence shows that she had gone alone to the police station as she did not want to risk the life of Ramesh, P.W.-5, who was only surviving male member of the family. 47. P.W.-8 Devi Charan Tiwari, who was I.O. in the case, in his statement has deposed that on 19th November, 1992 in his presence the case was registered and thereafter the I.O. had proceeded to the place of incident, where the inquest was conducted in the presence of independent witnesses and the body was sent for post-mortem. 47. P.W.-8 Devi Charan Tiwari, who was I.O. in the case, in his statement has deposed that on 19th November, 1992 in his presence the case was registered and thereafter the I.O. had proceeded to the place of incident, where the inquest was conducted in the presence of independent witnesses and the body was sent for post-mortem. The body was carried by Constables Shankar Singh and Balram Singh and Sub-Inspector Raghuvir Singh and Constable Ramesh Chandra were sent for arrest of Gulab, Ram Jeevan and Phool Singh. We have perused the copy of the FIR, inquest report and have also perused the statement of I.O.. We do not find any substance in the submission of learned counsel for the appellants that the FIR was ante-time. 48. Moreover, no irregularity has been pointed out in the preparation of the inquest report. The legal position with regard to value, object and use of the First Information Report is too well-settled to reiterate. One of the objects of the FIR is to set the criminal law in motion and the need of the investigating authorities to obtain information regarding the alleged criminal incident. It also helps them to take suitable steps for tracing and arresting culprits. It is a trite that the First Information Report does not constitute substantive evidence, however, it can be used as previous statement for the purpose of either corroborating its maker or for contradicting the first informant under Section 145 of the Evidence Act. At the same time it cannot be used for the purpose of corroborating or contradicting other witnesses. 49. From the perusal of the statement of P.W.-1 we are satisfied that having regard to the distance from the place of occurrence to the police station and other factors that a widow, whose husband was killed, had travelled 9 Kms. to police station for registering the FIR, there was no unreasonable delay in filing the FIR. She has also amply proved that the contents of the FIR were recorded by the younger brother of the deceased P.W.-5 Ramesh and he had read over the contents thereof to her and having satisfied that it was a correct version recorded by P.W.-5, she put her thumb impression on the complaint. 50. We have carefully gone through the findings recorded by the trial Court. 50. We have carefully gone through the findings recorded by the trial Court. The trial Court, in our view, has correctly appreciated the ocular evidences particularly the evidence of P.W.-1, P.W.-3 and P.W.-5. The trial Court has found that P.W.-1 has put her thumb impression on the Tehrir in the police station and has rejected the submission that P.W.-1 was not the first informant but P.W.-5 was the author of the Tehrir and has falsely implicated the appellants due to enmity. The said submission has been rejected by the trial Court also on the cogent grounds. The trial Court has elaborately considered the issue of enmity between the parties and rejected the said submission. However, we have dealt with in detail in the preceding paragraphs the submission of learned counsel for the appellants with regard to enmity and found that when there are eye-witnesses of the incident which inspire confidence, the issue of motive is not very relevant. 51. As regards the submission of Sri Sahai that P.W.-5 is not an eye-witness as he ran away from the place of occurrence and hid himself in the house of Sripat and closed the door, we find that from a perusal of his statement it is evident that he was at the place of occurrence alongwith other family members and when gunshot fired by the appellants hit deceased Karan and he fell down at the platform of Dibiya Dhobi, only then he took to his heels to save his life and took shelter in the house of one Sripat. The site plan clearly shows that the house of Sripat is not very far away from the place of occurrence. It was quite possible that when the accused persons armed with different weapons fired at the deceased, who received serious injuries and fell down, it was a normal human behaviour that Ramesh, who was a young boy at that time aged about 24 years, ran away from the scene to save his life. 52. It needs no emphasis that human behaviour cannot be predicted in the similar way. It cannot be expected that every human being will react in the same way. In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Devendra Singh, (2004) 10 SCC 616 , the Supreme Court has observed that human behaviour varies from person to person and it also depends upon the facts and circumstances of each given case. It cannot be expected that every human being will react in the same way. In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Devendra Singh, (2004) 10 SCC 616 , the Supreme Court has observed that human behaviour varies from person to person and it also depends upon the facts and circumstances of each given case. It can never be predicted how a person would react and behave in a particular situation. The Court has observed that some persons are stunned, become speechless and stand rooted to the spot. Some become hysteric and start wailing; some start shouting for help and there is yet another category, who run away to keep themselves as far removed from the spot as possible. There are some people who rush to the rescue of the victim, even going to the extent of counterattacking the assailants. Keeping in the mind the aforesaid principle, in the present case we find that P.W.-5 after having seen the incident ran away to save his life. Thus, on this ground his statement cannot be discarded. 53. After careful consideration of all the evidences: oral and documentary, and for the reasons recorded above, we find that the findings of the trial Court cannot be faulted. 54. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The appellants are on bail. They are directed to surrender before the Court concerned and to serve out the remaining sentence. 55. Let the lower Court records and a certified copy of this order be sent to the concerned Court below for ensuring compliance of the order.