JUDGMENT Vinit Kumar Mathur, J. - The instant appeals arise out of the common judgment dated 6/4/2012 and order dated 16/09/2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Sriganganagar in Sessions Case No.49/2009 (54/2009), therefore, the same are being heard and decided by this common judgment. 2. An FIR No. 91/2009 (Ex.P.2) was lodged at Police Station Lalgarh Jatan, District Sriganganagar on 23.04.2009. In furtherance whereof, five persons namely Dulla Singh @ Nirmal Singh (hereinafter referred to as 'Dulla Singh'), Shyoprakash @ Karm Singh @ Sukhdev Singh (hereinafter referred to as 'Shyoprakash'), Harnek Singh @ Laali, Ashok Kumar and Manjeet Singh(hereinafter referred to as 'Harnek Singh') were tried before the Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Sriganganagar in Sessions Case No. 49/2009 (54/2009). The trial culminated into the judgment dated 06/04/2012, whereby Harnek Singh, Ashok Kumar and Manjeet Singh were acquitted. Shyoprakash was convicted under Sections 302/34, 307/34, 324/34, 326/34, 341 IPC and Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act & was awarded death penalty with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months' simple imprisonment and Dulla Singh was awarded life imprisonment with a fine Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months' simple imprisonment. The appellants Shyoprakash and Dulla Singh preferred appeals before this Court, being D. B. Criminal Appeal No. 446/2012 (Shyoprakash @ Karm Singh @ Sukhdev Singh V/s State) and D. B. Criminal Appeal 727/2012 (Dulla Singh @ Nirmal Singh V/s State). 3. Since the accused Shyoprakash was awarded death penalty, therefore, the matter was referred to the High Court as per Section 366 of the Criminal Procedure Code for confirmation of the death sentence, which was registered as D.B. Murder Reference No.2/2012 (State V/s Shyoprakash ). These three matters were heard by the Division Bench of this Court and vide order dated 22/08/2013, while setting aside the death penalty awarded to Shyoprakash, the matter was remanded to the trial Court for passing a fresh order on the aspect of sentences in the following terms :- "After hearing the parties on the question of sentence, the learned Trial Judge referred to the fact that the accused No.2 Shyoprakash had been convicted in the past by the Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Sriganganagar in the judgment and order dated 03.07.2003 (in Sessions Case No.67/2002) for the offence under Sections 348, 449, 341, 364, 342, 302/149, 323 and 324 IPC; and was, inter alia, awarded the punishment of life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 IPC. The learned Judge also observed that the accused Shyoprakash was granted temporary suspension of execution of sentence by the order dated 06.02.2004 by this Court in the pending appeal (No.932/2003) but then, he did not surrender as required within time and then, standing warrant was ordered to be issued against him. The learned Judge further observed that this Court proceeded to dismiss the appeal to the extent it relate to this accused Shyoprakash. The learned Judge, therefore, found that there was no appeal of the accused Shyoprakash pending against the conviction in Sessions Case No.67/2002 and the judgment and order dated 03.07.2003 had acquired finality against him. The learned Judge, thereafter, observed that when the accused Shyoprakash had committed another offence of Section 302 IPC in the present case while being under sentence of life imprisonment, he was required to be dealt with under the mandatory provisions of Section 303 IPC and was, therefore, required to be awarded death penalty. With these considerations and observations, for the offence under Section 302 IPC, the learned Judge awarded the punishment of life imprisonment to the accused No.1 Dulla Singh and also imposed a fine of Rs.10,000/- on him, but awarded death penalty to the accused No.2 Shyoprakash and also imposed a fine of Rs.10,000/- on him. The learned Judge also awarded life imprisonment to these accused persons for the offence under Section 307 and in the alternative, for 307/34 IPC and further varying sentences for other offences, they were convicted for. For the death penalty having been awarded, the sentence has been submitted to this Court for confirmation per Section 366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and thereupon, Murder Reference No.2/2012 has been registered. The accused No.2 Dulla Singh has filed a regular appeal against the judgment and order dated 06.04.2012 being D.B. Cr. Appeal No.727/2012. The accused No.2 Shyoprakash has sent the jail appeal that has been registered as Appeal No.446/2012. The accused No.2 Dulla Singh has filed a regular appeal against the judgment and order dated 06.04.2012 being D.B. Cr. Appeal No.727/2012. The accused No.2 Shyoprakash has sent the jail appeal that has been registered as Appeal No.446/2012. Taking up this murder reference for consideration, a coordinate Bench expressed its shock and anguish in the order dated 27.07.2012 that the learned Sessions Judge has passed the order per Section 303 IPC while totally ignoring the mandate of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in several cases including that in Mithu Vs. State of Punjab, 1983 AIR(SC) 473 wherein the said provisions of Section 303 IPC were held unconstitutional. The Bench considered it proper to bring the fact to the notice of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice and passed the order as under: - "While adjudicating D.B. Cr. Murder Reference No.02/12 we noticed that the trial court by relying upon provisions of Section 303 Indian Penal Code awarded death sentence to accused Shyoprakash @ Karam Singh @ Sukhdev Singh. Necessary discussions made by the trial court in this regard reads as under: - While examining constitutionality of Section 303 Indian Penal Code providing mandatory imposition of death sentence on a lifeconvict undergoing life sentence Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mithu v. State of Punjab, 1983 AIR(SC) 473 ; Ranjit Singh v. Union Territory, 1983 CrLJ 1730 (SC) ] and Bhagwan v. State of U.P, 1984 AIR(SC) 1120 has already declared the provision aforesaid unconstitutional. Section 303 Indian Penal Code, thus, is no more exists and, therefore, no capital punishment mandatorily as per provisions of Section 303 Indian Penal Code could have been awarded. It is quite serious that the trial court in the instant matter settled death sentence on basis of a provision that is no more a part of statute book. It is always expected from a member of Higher Judicial Services to have knowledge of prevalent law and at least regarding authority to award death sentence. The manner in which the trial court in the instant matter has awarded death sentence is not only strange and shocking but also depicts inefficiency of the officer concerned. We deem it appropriate to direct the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court to bring this fact in knowledge of Hon'ble the Chief Justice by placing a copy of this order before His Lordship. We deem it appropriate to direct the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court to bring this fact in knowledge of Hon'ble the Chief Justice by placing a copy of this order before His Lordship. Let this reference alongwith other connected appeals be listed for hearing on 1st August, 2012." It may be observed at this juncture that the accused Shyoprakash appears to be involved in other cases too and 2 other appeals bearing No.932/2003 and 199/2005 have also been placed alongwith these matters on Board today. Perusal of the record of D.B. Cr. Appeal No.932/2003 makes out that it relates to judgment and order dated 03.07.2003 as passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Sriganganagar in Sessions Case No.67/2002 realting to FIR No.53/2002, Police Station Chunawad. In the said case, the present appellant Shyoprakash was tried alongwith other accused persons and the present appellant Shyoprakash and the accused Mahaveer Prasad were convicted in the said case, inter alia, for the offence under Section 302 IPC and were sentenced, inter alia, to life imprisonment. The present appellant Shyoprakash, who is the appellant No.2 in the said appeal availed of temporary bail under the order passed by the Court on 06.02.2004 in the said Appeal No.932/2003 but failed to surrender and his arrest could not be secured despite efforts. Ultimately, by an order dated 26.08.2008, this Court proceeded to dismiss the said appeal to the extent it related to this accused Shyoprakash. However, it is borne out that the accused Shyoprakash came to be arrested on 27.06.2009. Taking note of all the facts and circumstances of the case and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bani Singh, 1996 4 SCC 720 , a coordinate Bench has, by the order dated 27.11.2012, ordered restoration of the appeal in relation to the accused Shyoprakash while recalling the order dated 26.08.2008. In this manner, D.B. Cr. Appeal No.932/2003 now remains pending in relation to the accused Shyoprakash too. Irrespective of what has been noticed above, so far the impugned order dated 06.04.2012 is concerned, we are constrained to observe that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.2, Sriganganagar appears to have proceeded rather in a cursory manner and has failed to take note of the fundamental aspect of law that Section 303 IPC has since been declared unconstitutional by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Sessions Judge No.2, Sriganganagar appears to have proceeded rather in a cursory manner and has failed to take note of the fundamental aspect of law that Section 303 IPC has since been declared unconstitutional by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The matter related to awarding of nothing less than a death penalty and while doing so, it was minimum expected of the learned Judge to have remained careful as regards application of law. Perusal of the order impugned makes out that without discussing any other aspect, the learned Judge awarded death penalty taking Section 303 IPC to be of mandatory application. It has not been the finding that such penalty was being considered appropriate by the learned Judge while taking it to be rarest of rare cases. The manner of sentencing in this matter by the learned Trial Judge having suffered from a fundamental error of approach, in our view, in order to secure ends of justice, it is necessary that such an order be set aside but at the same time, the matter be remitted to the learned Judge for hearing the parties again on the question of sentence and then, for passing appropriate order in accordance with law. In view of the above, the sentence passed in the impugned order dated 06.04.2012 is set aside and the question of awarding of appropriate sentence is remitted to the Trial Court for decision afresh in accordance with law. As a necessary consequence, the proceedings in Murder Reference No.2/2012 stand terminated. However, as observed, the question of passing of appropriate sentence shall be re-considered by the Trial Court. For the purpose of carrying out the requirements of this order, the respondent-State shall ensure presence of both the accused persons (i) Sheo Narayan @ Karm Singh @ Sukhdev Singh S/o Sheo Karan @ Dharma Singh and (ii) Dulla Singh @ Nirmal Singh S/o Gurnam Singh before the Trial Court on 13.09.2013. It shall be expected of the learned Trial Judge to hear the accused persons as also Public Prosecutor and, thereafter, pass appropriate order of punishment in accordance with law. In the interest of justice and in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, it is also considered appropriate and hence ordered that the order now to be passed by the learned Trial Court shall also form the subject matter of consideration of these appeals, i.e., Cr. In the interest of justice and in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, it is also considered appropriate and hence ordered that the order now to be passed by the learned Trial Court shall also form the subject matter of consideration of these appeals, i.e., Cr. Appeal No.446/2012 and 727/2012, which will remain pending and would be taken up for consideration after the order on the question of sentence is received from the Trial Court. It shall be expected of the Trial Court to pass requisite order at the earliest and in any case, within 15 days of the date of appearance fixed by this order and send the same immediately to this Court. The record be sent to the Trial Court immediately which will of course, be returned by the Trial Court after carrying out the requirements of this order. List these appeals in the first week of October 2013. Before parting, we may also observe that other appeals involving the very same accused Shiv Narayan @ Sheo Narayan have also been placed for consideration alongwith these appeals. However, the said matters relate to the different Sessions Cases and, therefore, the said appeals (Nos.932/2003 and 199/2005) be processed separately and be placed for hearing at their turn. In this regard, we may also observe that the office appears to have prepared a composite paper book in relation to Murder Reference No.2/2012 and Cr.Appeals Nos.932/2003, 199/2005, 446/2012 and 727/2012. As noticed, Appeals Nos.199/2005 and 932/2003 are related with different sessions cases. Hence, the part of the paper book concerning said two appeals may be segregated for appropriate proceedings. The learned Amicus Curiae has also returned the paper book for appropriate proceedings by the office. Needless to observe that we have not pronounced on the merits of any of the case either way, which shall remain the matter of consideration at the relevant stage." 4. The learned Amicus Curiae has also returned the paper book for appropriate proceedings by the office. Needless to observe that we have not pronounced on the merits of any of the case either way, which shall remain the matter of consideration at the relevant stage." 4. After the remand order passed by this Court, learned trial Court has passed a fresh order of sentence dated 16/09/2013 and accused-appellant Dulla Singh (In Appeal No.727/2012) and accused-appellant Shyoprakash (In Appeal No. 446/2012) were convicted under Sections 302, 307, 341, 324, 326 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act and were sentenced as under:- Offence Sentence Fine In default 302 in alternate 302/34 IPC Life Imprisonment 10,000/- 6 months' additional S.I. 307 in alternate 307/34 IPC Life Imprisonment 10,000/- 6 months' additional S.I. 324 in alternate 324/34 Three years' simple imprisonment 1,000/- 1 month additional S.I. 326 in alternate 326/34 Ten years simple imprisonment 2,000/- 3 months' additional S.I. 341 IPC One month simple imprisonment 500/- 7 days additional S.I. 27 Indian Arms Act Three years' simple imprisonment 1,000/- 2 months' additional S.I. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently except those in default of payment of fine. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently except those in default of payment of fine. 5. Vide order dated 12/03/2019 both the appellants Dulla Singh and Shyoprakash were produced before this Court and since they expressed inability to engage a defence counsel of their choice to argue their appeals, Shri B. P. Dadhich was appointed as Amicus Curiae to appear on behalf of the appellants. 6. The prosecution story emanates from the written report (Ex.P.1) filed by PW.1 Smt. Kulvinder Kaur to the Station House Officer, Police Station Lalgarh Jatan, District Sriganganagar on 23.04.2009 stating inter alia that she was a resident of Village Banwali @ Vanwali. In the morning, her brother Bagga Singh, resident of Village Shereka, Police Station Tibbi came to her place to meet her. At the same time, one Joga Singh, a friend of her husband who had come from Punjab to attend a Court hearing, was also present at her house. At around 7.30 p.m., her husband Kaka Singh and her brother Bagga Singh went to her uncle-in-law Balasingh's house to get water. She and Joga Singh were present at her house. She was standing at the gate. At around 7.30 p.m., her husband Kaka Singh and her brother Bagga Singh went to her uncle-in-law Balasingh's house to get water. She and Joga Singh were present at her house. She was standing at the gate. Joga Singh spoke to somebody on mobile and immediately thereafter, two persons came on a motorcycle and stopped in front of her house. They were around 30 years of age and were dressed in blue attire with blue turbans. They were having untied beard and were holding swords in their hands. While her husband and brother were coming from the house of her uncle-in-law after getting water, the two persons who came on motorcycle ran towards her husband and brother and inflicted indiscriminate sword blows on their head and on the other parts of their bodies. Her brother ran towards her house and husband Kaka Singh ran straight towards the lane. Out of the two Sardars, one intruded into their house to kill her brother. When she shouted and raised alarm, he went out and both of them pursued her husband. Her husband was assaulted by both these persons in front of the house of Munshi Ram Meghwal with the intention to kill him. Her husband fell on the ground and, thereafter, one person fired two bullets from the pistol which pierced the face of her husband Kaka Singh resulting into his death on the spot. On raising a hue and cry, the residents of the village gathered there and both the persons fled from the place of occurrence. Her brother Bagga Singh was profusely bleeding from the injuries sustained by sword blows on his neck. She further alleged in the report that both the Sardars had some old enmity with her husband and, therefore, her husband was killed by them. Her brother Bagga Singh was also inflicted injuries with an intention to kill him. A number of persons gathered on the spot whereafter both the assailants escaped on their motorcycle. She also deposed that she could identify both the assailants. She narrated the entire incident to the Sarpanch of the Village who in turn, informed the police on telephone. 7. Her brother Bagga Singh was also inflicted injuries with an intention to kill him. A number of persons gathered on the spot whereafter both the assailants escaped on their motorcycle. She also deposed that she could identify both the assailants. She narrated the entire incident to the Sarpanch of the Village who in turn, informed the police on telephone. 7. On this written report, the FIR (Ex.P.2) was registered and the police after investigation filed the charge-sheet against the appellants for the offences under Sections 341, 324, 326, 307, 302 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. 8. Learned trial Court framed, read over and explained the charges for the offences under Sections 341, 324, 326, 307, 302 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. to the appellants, who denied the charge and sought trial. 9. During the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 18 witnesses and documents from Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.87 were exhibited. 10. The accused-appellants were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and they were confronted with the evidence adduced against them during the course of the trial, which they denied and stated that both of them were innocent had been falsely implicated by the police in the case. They claimed not to have committed any offence. Nothing was recovered from them and the Police forcibly got their thumb impressions affixed and signatures marked on blank papers after assaulting them. 11. The learned trial Court, after hearing the arguments from both the sides, taking into consideration and appreciating the documentary evidence and the statements of witnesses, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant as above vide judgment and order of sentence dated 6/4/2012 & 16/09/2013. Hence these appeals. 12. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Amicus Curiae and the learned Public Prosecutor. Learned counsel for the appellant and learned Amicus Curiae vehemently and fervently submitted that in the present case, the appellants have falsely been implicated and they are not even remotely connected with the commission of offences in the case. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove the offences alleged against the appellants beyond all reasonable doubt. 13. The learned counsel submitted that the appellants although are the residents of same village of complainant, but, have not been named in the First Information Report. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove the offences alleged against the appellants beyond all reasonable doubt. 13. The learned counsel submitted that the appellants although are the residents of same village of complainant, but, have not been named in the First Information Report. He further submitted that it cannot be believed that PW.1 Smt. Kulvinder Kaur would not have recognized the appellants as they are the residents of the same village. Normally, it is presumed that if a person resides in the vicinity or belongs to the same village then he would be known to the other villagers. 14. They further submitted that there is serious doubt about the sanctity of identification parade which was carried out in the Jail after lapse of about four months. It cannot be ruled out that the faces of the appellants might have been shown to the witnesses in this significant interval. Therefore, the identification made by the prosecution witnesses of the present appellants should be discarded. 15. The learned counsel contended that PW.3 Rampal, an independent witness having a shop in the Village Vanwali @ Banwali which was very close to the place of incident, has not supported the prosecution story and thus has been declared hostile. Therefore the whole prosecution case is unreliable, there being no independent witness. They argued that even the recoveries are unreliable as the same have been effected after a period of about two months, much less, the recovery witnesses PW.12 Narayan Das and PW.13 Sukhdev Singh have been declared hostile. 16. They further contended that although their call details have been taken but the same have not been proved before the trial Court. Since the connectivity with the commission of offence has not been established by cogent evidence, the co-accused Harnek Singh, Ashok Kumar and Manjeet Singh who were also implicated by the aid of Section 120-B IPC have been acquitted by learned trial Court and, therefore, in not applying the same principles, learned trial Court fell in error while convicting the appellants in the present case. He, therefore, urged that learned trial Court committed an error while convicting the appellants for the offences alleged vide judgment dated 6/4/2012 and order dated 16/09/2013. 17. He, therefore, urged that learned trial Court committed an error while convicting the appellants for the offences alleged vide judgment dated 6/4/2012 and order dated 16/09/2013. 17. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently supported the judgment of the learned trial Court dated 6/4/2012 & order dated 16/09/2013 and stated that PW.1 Smt. Kulvinder Kaur, PW.2 Bagga Singh, PW.15 Prem Singh Dhanwal and PW.18 Salavat Khan have categorically deposed before learned trial Court about the involvement of the appellants beyond all reasonable doubt and the prosecution, therefore, had proved the offences alleged against the appellants beyond any shadows of doubt. 18. He contended that there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of eye-witnesses i.e. of PW.1 Smt. Kulvinder Kaur and PW.2 Bagga Singh. The presence of PW.1 Smt. Kulvinder Kaur and PW.2 Bagga Singh is quite natural being the wife and brotherin-law of the deceased. Further PW.2 Bagga Singh himself has sustained injuries in the incident. PW.15 Prem Singh Dhanwal in whose presence the identification parade of the appellants were undertaken had clearly stated that PW.1 Smt. Kulvinder Kaur and PW.2 Bagga Singh had identified the appellants during the course of identification parade when the two appellants were made to stand with other accused persons in the Jail. 19. He further submitted that the testimony of the eye-witnesses is very well corroborated by the medical evidence as the injuries described by PW.6 Dr. Surendra Mohan Batra very well tally with the statements of the two prosecution witnesses and, further, the cause of death is also shown to be the multiple injuries inflicted on the body of the deceased which was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The postmortem report (Ex.P.19) also mentioned the injuries suffered by the deceased which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The FSL report (Ex.P.71) also shows the presence of the blood Group-"B" on the two swords thus matching with the blood group of the deceased on the bloodstained clothes of the deceased sent for FSL. He, therefore, prayed that no interference is warranted in the judgment dated 6/4/2012 and order dated 16/9/2013 passed by the learned trial Court. 20. We have considered the submissions made at the bar and gone through the record of the learned trial Court as well as the judgment and order dated 6/4/2012 and 16/09/2013 respectively. 21. He, therefore, prayed that no interference is warranted in the judgment dated 6/4/2012 and order dated 16/9/2013 passed by the learned trial Court. 20. We have considered the submissions made at the bar and gone through the record of the learned trial Court as well as the judgment and order dated 6/4/2012 and 16/09/2013 respectively. 21. Pw.1 Kulvinder Kaur stated that her brother Bagga Singh came to her house at around 10 a.m. in the morning from Shere Khan. On the same day, at around 4 p.m. Joga Singh who was known to her husband also came to their house. At around 7.30 p.m. when her husband and brother Bagga Singh went to the house of her uncle-in-law Balraj Singh for getting water, she and Joga Singh were standing at the gate. Joga Singh went aside and spoke to somebody on telephone. Two persons came on the motorcycle and stopped near the gate of their house. They were Nihangs wearing blue coloured clothes and blue coloured turbans with untied beard. While her husband and brother were returning from the house of Balraj Singh, these persons ran towards them with swords in their hands and attacked them. Her brother was inflicted injuries on his ear and neck while her husband was inflicted multiple injuries. Her brother rushed to her house in order to save himself while her husband went towards the opposite side in the lane. Her brother was followed by one of the assailants and the second person pursued her husband. When she shouted and raised a hue and cry, the person who was inside their house came out and followed her husband. Thereafter, both of them, inflicted injuries to her husband in front of the house of Munshi Ram Meghwal. One of the assailants fired a pistol at her husband who died instantaneously on the spot. Both the assailants (Nihangs) fled from the spot on the Suzuki Motorcycle. Thereafter, they approached the Sarpanch who accompanied with other villagers came on the spot. She identified the appellants present in the Court, as the assailants who killed her husband and stated that one of them fired a gunshot with a pistol. The Sarpanch informed the police who reached the spot after one hour. Four months after the said incident, she identified the appellants during the identification parade in the Central Jail in presence of Magistrate. The Sarpanch informed the police who reached the spot after one hour. Four months after the said incident, she identified the appellants during the identification parade in the Central Jail in presence of Magistrate. Nothing significant was elicited during the cross-examination of this witness so as to doubt the credibility or veracity of the deposition made by her in the examination-in-chief. 22. Pw.2 Bagga Singh who was an injured eye witness stated the incident almost on the same lines as narrated by PW.1 Smt. Kulvinder Kaur. 23. Pw.5 Bishambar Das is the Sarpanch of Village Banwali @ Vanwali. He stated that he was informed by PW.1 Kulvinder Kaur that her husband was killed by two persons of around 25-30 years of age. On getting this information, he went to the place of incidence and informed the police. 24. Pw.6 Dr. Surendra Mohan Batra who conducted the autopsy upon the dead body of the deceased, stated that there were total 17 injuries on the body of deceased Baljinder Singh @ Kaka Singh, out of which 08 were incised wounds of different dimensions and some of them being bone deep. The other injuries were crushed wounds and contusions. He further stated that he also examined Bagga Singh. There were 02 incised wounds sustained by Bagga Singh; one on the left side of the neck and another below the left ear. The injury No.2 was grievous in nature caused by sharp edged weapon. 25. Pw.15 Prem Singh Dhanwal who was Judicial Magistrate No.1 at that relevant time and in whose presence, the identification parade was held in the Central Jail Sriganganagar stated that the appellants were made to stand with other persons, PW.1 Smt. Kulvinder Kaur and PW.2 Bagga Singh correctly identified them in his presence. 26. Pw.18 Salawant Khan is the Police Officer who investigated the matter. During the course of investigation, he recorded statements of witnesses, collected samples, prepared memos in accordance with the provisions of law. 27. Postmortem report of deceased Baljinder Singh @ Kaka Singh is Ex.P.19 wherein the cause of death was opined to be the injuries sustained by the deceased. Postmortem report clearly mentions as many as 17 injuries sustained by him to be of different dimensions and including those in nature of incised wounds. Ex.P.20 is the injury report of Bagga Singh which shows two injuries in the nature of incised wounds. Postmortem report clearly mentions as many as 17 injuries sustained by him to be of different dimensions and including those in nature of incised wounds. Ex.P.20 is the injury report of Bagga Singh which shows two injuries in the nature of incised wounds. Ex.P.71 is the FSL report, which shows the presence of the blood Group 'B' on the two swords to be matching with the blood group of the deceased on the bloodstained clothes of the deceased sent for FSL. 28. The above detailed examination and discussions reveal that the two eye witnesses i.e. PW.1 Smt. Kulvinder Kaur and PW.2 Bagga Singh, injured, have categorically deposed in their testimony that the appellants came to their house armed with swords and assaulted the deceased Baljinder Singh and PW.2 Bagga Singh. PW.2 Bagga Singh escaped from the place of incident and hid inside the house of PW.1 Smt. Kulvinder Kaur whereas Baljinder Singh ran towards the other side of lane to save himself, but the appellants followed them. When the deceased reached in front of the house of Munshi Ram Meghwal, he was brutally assaulted and killed by the assailants who used sharp weapons as well as a fire arm in the assault. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW.1 Kulvinder Kaur and PW.2 Bagga Singh. Minor deviations here and there would not vitiate their testimony as the same is getting complete corroboration from the medical evidence as the injuries stated to have been sustained by the deceased and the injured Bagga Singh gets fortified by the statement of PW.6 Dr. Surendra Mohan Batra, the postmortem report (Ex.P.19) and the injury report of Bagga Singh (Ex.P.20). Since the statements of the eye witnesses are worth credence and reliable, the minor deviations pointed by learned counsel for the appellants are of no vital significance. 29. Surendra Mohan Batra, the postmortem report (Ex.P.19) and the injury report of Bagga Singh (Ex.P.20). Since the statements of the eye witnesses are worth credence and reliable, the minor deviations pointed by learned counsel for the appellants are of no vital significance. 29. Declaration of PW.3 Rampal as hostile will not make the testimony of PW.1 Kulvinder Kaur and PW.2 Bagga Singh unreliable and on the same footing, declaration of PW.12 Narayan Das and PW.13 Sukhdev Singh as hostile will also not change the result as the ocular evidence in the shape of statements of PW.1 Kulvinder Kaur and PW.2 Bagga Singh has been held absolutely reliable by us in the above mentioned paras and, therefore, the conviction of appellants cannot be questioned merely because PW.3 Rampal, PW.13 Narayan Das and PW.13 Sukhdev Singh had not supported the prosecution. 30. The argument that the identification parade was held after a delay of four months is of no help to the appellants as nothing has been brought on record which shows that eye witnesses were aware of their names beforehand or that the appellants had been shown to the witnesses before conducting the parade. PW.15 Prem Singh Dhanwal stated that PW.1 Kulvinder Kaur and PW.2 Bagga Singh recognized and correctly identified the appellants from persons mixed during the course of identification parade held in his presence. Therefore, merely the fact that the identification parade was held after a lapse of four months will not be a shortcoming in the present case. 31. We are also not impressed by the argument that although the call details were taken but the same have not been proved. As per para 41 of the impugned judgment dated 06/04/2012, three persons, namely, Harnek Singh, Ashok Kumar and Manjeet Singh Sikligar had been acquitted by the learned trial Court on the ground that their complicity in crime could not be established and, therefore, the learned trial Court rightly acquitted them from the charge of Section 302 IPC read with Section 120-B IPC. The appellants herein cannot take benefit of the same as in the present case, their role is established and their involvement is conclusively proved by the ocular evidence and other testimonies during the course of trial. 32. In the wake of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the appeals and the same are, accordingly, dismissed. The appellants herein cannot take benefit of the same as in the present case, their role is established and their involvement is conclusively proved by the ocular evidence and other testimonies during the course of trial. 32. In the wake of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the appeals and the same are, accordingly, dismissed. The judgments dated 06/04/2012 & 16/09/2013 passed by trial Court are upheld. The record of the trial court be returned forthwith.