JUDGMENT : Ali Zamin, J. Heard Sri Braham Singh, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Ratan Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and perused the material available on record. 2. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 28.01.2004, passed in Session Trial No.709 of 1994, State of U.P. vs. Asghar and others, by which learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.13, Moradabad, has convicted and sentenced each of the appellants to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and Rs.1000/- fine u/s 452 IPC, in default of fine to undergo three months additional simple imprisonment and to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/-, u/s 302/34 IPC, in default of fine six months additional sentence. 3. In brief, prosecution case is that the house of informant Mohd. Ali is situated in the east at outer side of the village. In the intervening night of 26/27-6-1994 informant and his brother Arif were sleeping on the roof of his neighbour Komil Dhobi and his elder brother Farzand was sleeping on the roof above the door and his younger brothers Raees and Dhumi, mother, father, ladies and children were sleeping below in the courtyard. 4. All of sudden, near about at 02:30 A.M., on the scream of brother-Farzand all the aforesaid family members woke up. Informant, at once, flashed a torch towards the cot of Farzand and saw and identified very well near the cot of Farzand, his neighbour Guddu Bara and Asghar khan, sons of Afsar Khan, resident of village Syaundara and their relative Khurshid son of Munna, village and police station Shahbad, District Rampur. On his interruption Asgar Khan inflicted knife injury on the stomach of his brother-Farzand and Guddu Bara fired a shot by country made pistol although he tried much to save himself by wrapping a quilt. All brothers, ladies and children exhorted them but it was in vain. When the informant tried to go ahead then Khurshid by pointing a country-made pistol towards them fired with intention to kill them. On account of fear, informant and Arif hid themselves in the khandhar (ruins of building) of Munne Khan. Dhoomi also hid himself by crossing the wall towards west in the street. When the informant tried to go ahead then Khurshid by pointing a country-made pistol towards them fired with intention to kill them. On account of fear, informant and Arif hid themselves in the khandhar (ruins of building) of Munne Khan. Dhoomi also hid himself by crossing the wall towards west in the street. Raees also tried to run away but all the three assailants jumping from the roof surrounded him at the cot and wounded him by beating him with the barrel and handle of the country-made pistol and firing. All the three brothers being alarmed called for help but due to fear no one from the village came to their rescue. When the informant's wife Bano interrupted then Khurshid stating that she is talking too much kicked on her face even then she did not keep mum then Khurshid fired a shot at her. When all the assailants went away towards north side of his house only then the informant saw and found that his brother-Farzand and his wife-Bano had expired and the condition of Raees also has become critical. 5. The assailants were bearing enmity with the informant's family because his family was doing well in life by doing hard work. Accused were bent upon for altercation but informant's family used to avoid it. 6. Informant-Mohammad Ali got scribed report (Ex. Ka-1) by Abdul Aziz (DW-1) and handed it over to the police station Vilari, district Moradabad. On the basis of written report (Ex.Ka-1), Case Crime No.228 of 1994 under Sections 452,307 and 302 I.P.C. was registered under chik FIR (Ex.Ka-6) and investigation was handed over to the S.H.O., Dharam Singh Malik (PW-8). Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the informant-Mohammad Ali and injured-Raees Ahmad at the police station and thereafter proceeded to the place of incident along with S.S.I. Muneshwar Singh and other police personnel. He inspected the spot and prepared the spot map (Ex.Ka-17). He also took into his possession the torch from the informant and prepared its memo (Ex.Ka-2). On the instruction of the Investigating Officer inquest memo of the deceased-Farzand Ali (Ex.Ka-20) and relevant documents i.e. photo lash (Ex.ka-21), specimen seal (Ex.ka-22), proforma 33 (Ex.ka-23), inquest memo of the deceased-Smt. Bano Begum (Ex.ka-24), photo lash (Ex.ka-25), specimen seal (Ex.ka-26) and letter to C.M.O. (Ex.ka-27) were prepared and the dead-bodies of the deceased Farzand and Smt. Bano Begum were dispatched for autopsy. The injured-Raees Ahmad was sent to P.H.C. Moradabad for medical examination along with Homeguard-Bhure Singh Yadav. 7. Dr. V.N. Saxena (PW-7) conducted medical examination of injured Raees Ahmad on 27.06.1994 at 7:30 A.M. and prepared the report (Ex.Ka-15), according to which following injuries were found :- (i) lacerated wound 2.5 cm x 0.5 cm x skull deep on back of left side head 12 cm above Rt. ear fresh bleeding present kept under observation advised X-ray skull. (ii) lacerated wound 6.5 cm x 3.5 cm x bone deep in front of left upper arm 7 cm above left elbow fresh bleeding present kept under observation advised X-ray left upper ar1-17m. (iii) lacerated wound 4 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep on the front of left forearm 6 cm below right elbow fresh bleeding present kept under observation advised X-ray left forearm. (iv) firearm wound of entry 3 cm x 2 cm x muscle deep on the outer aspect of Rt. thigh 24 cm above on the right knee blackening and tattooing around the wound present kept under observation advised X-ray right thigh. (v) lacerated wound 1 cm x 0.5 cm x depth not probed over the front rims of Rt. thigh 30 cm above the right knee. No blackening and tattooing. Fresh bleeding present kept under observation advised X-ray Rt. thigh. (vi) traumatic swelling 5 cm x 3 cm on the right side chest kept under observation advised X-ray chest. All the i1-17njuries were kept under observation for cause of nature except injury no. (4) by firearm. Injury no.(6) was caused by blunt object duration fresh. 8. Dr. Madan Mohan (PW-5) conducted autopsy on the dead-body of the deceased-Farzand Ali and prepared report (Ex.ka-6), according to which following injuries were found on the body of the deceased :- (i) Gun shot wound of entry 4 cm x 2 cm x brain cavity deep on left side head about 5 cm above from left ear pinna skin 6 cm x 4 cm charred & tattooed & singing and gout present margin inverted lacerated. On opening there is fracture of both frontal bone (2 pieces). Both temporal bone & parietal bones. Recovered 2 wadding, (i) cap & (32) small metallic pellets from the brain cavity. Direction is downward & anteriorly. Brain is badly lacerated. On opening there is fracture of both frontal bone (2 pieces). Both temporal bone & parietal bones. Recovered 2 wadding, (i) cap & (32) small metallic pellets from the brain cavity. Direction is downward & anteriorly. Brain is badly lacerated. (ii) (4) Linear abrasion in an area 16 cm x 6 cm over the front of chest in middle & Rt. side of chest middle part. (iii) incised wound 8 cm x 3 cm x abdominal cavity deep on Rt. side abdomen about 9 cm between Rt. nipple at 5 O'clock position margin clean cut. A loop of small intestine is coming out of the wound. (iv) incised wound 4 cm x 2 cm x abdominal cavity deep on Rt. side abdomen about 1 cm lateral to injury no. (3) margin clean cut. According to his opinion cause of death is due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of anti-mortem injuries. 9. Dr. Madan Mohan (PW-5) also conducted autopsy on the dead-body of the deceased-Smt. Bano Begum and prepared the report (Ex.ka-7), according to which following injuries were found :- (i) gun shot wound of entry 2.5 cm x 1cm x chest cavity deep on left side back over scapula about 8 cm below left shoulder joint with charring and tattooing of surrounding skin area 19 cm x 13 cm margins inverted, lacerated. The direction is downward in wall and anteriorly & on opening there is laceration of pleura left lung upper lobe of the heart and Rt. vertical and diaphragm & left lobe of liver is lacerated. One metallic bullet recovered on the abdominal cavity. (ii) lacerated wound = cm x = cm on left side head about 9 cm above from upper ear. According to his opinion cause of death is due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of anti mortem injuries. 10. On receiving the death information of injured Raees Ahmad S.I. T.R. Kothari conducted inquest of the deceased Raees Ahmad and prepared inquest memo (Ex.ka-6). He also prepared relevant documents i.e. chalan lash, letter to R.I., letter to C.M.O, specimen seal and photo lash (Ex.ka-7 to 11) respectively and after sealing and stamping the dead body he handed over the same for postmortem to constables Hakam Singh and Kailash. 11. P.W.-10 Dr. He also prepared relevant documents i.e. chalan lash, letter to R.I., letter to C.M.O, specimen seal and photo lash (Ex.ka-7 to 11) respectively and after sealing and stamping the dead body he handed over the same for postmortem to constables Hakam Singh and Kailash. 11. P.W.-10 Dr. Kishore Kumar conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased-Raees Ahmad and prepared postmortem report (Ex.ka-28), according to which following injuries were found :- (i) stitched wound 3 cm x 3 cm stitched on the middle of head. (ii) stitched wound 7 cm x 7 cm stitched on the flexer aspect (Lt.) arm. (iii) stitched wound 5 cm x 5 cm stitched on the flexer aspect of left forearm. (iv) wound of entry 1 cm x 0.5 cm on the front of thigh through & through to injury no.(5). (v) stitched wound 3 cm x 3 cm stitched at the lateral aspect of Rt. thigh as outer side of right thigh. Injury nos.2 and 4 were communicated to each other on opening of the brain and blood was found. According to his opinion cause of death is due to head injury. 12. Investigating Officer, after completing the investigation, submitted charge-sheet (Ex.Ka-18), under Sections 452,307,302/34 I.P.C and 27 Arms Act against the accused persons before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moradabad, who committed the accused for trial to the Court of Session, where Case Crime No.228 of 1994 was registered as Session Trial No.709/94 State of U.P. vs. Asghar and others, wherefrom, it was transferred to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.13, Moradabad, who framed the charge against the accused persons, under Sections 452,307,302/34 I.P.C and 27 Arms Act. The accused-appellants denied the charge and claimed for trial. 13. Prosecution, to prove its case, has produced ten witnesses. PW-1 Mohammad Ali-informant and eye witness. PW-2 S.I. T.R. Kothari prepared the inquest memo. PW-3 Constable Virendra Kumar is a formal witness. PW-4 Dhoomi is a witness of fact. PW-5 Dr. Madan Mohan conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased-Farzand Ali and Smt. Bano Begum. PW-6 Arif is a witness of fact. PW-7 Dr. V.N. Saxena conducted medical examination of the injured-Raees Ahmad. PW-8 Dharam Singh is Investigating Officer. PW-9 Veer Pal Singh, scribe of chik & G.D. and PW-10 Dr. Kishor Kumar, conducted postmortem of deceased Raees. 14. Madan Mohan conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased-Farzand Ali and Smt. Bano Begum. PW-6 Arif is a witness of fact. PW-7 Dr. V.N. Saxena conducted medical examination of the injured-Raees Ahmad. PW-8 Dharam Singh is Investigating Officer. PW-9 Veer Pal Singh, scribe of chik & G.D. and PW-10 Dr. Kishor Kumar, conducted postmortem of deceased Raees. 14. The accused-appellants were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C in which they stated that they have been implicated falsely in the case. In defence accused persons have produced Abdul Aziz (DW-1) scribe of the written report (Ex.Ka-1). 15. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.13, Moradabad, after hearing the learned Additional District Government Counsel (Criminal), learned counsel for the accused-appellants and perusing the material available on record, passed the impugned judgment and order. Hence, the instant appeal. 16. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that there is no motive for the appellants to commit the offence. He also submits that PW-4 Dhoomi, who is brother of the deceased Farzand and Raees, has stated that he does labour work residing in village Ravana and take care of livelihood of his wife and children, so he cannot be an eye-witness of the incident. He further submits that according to PW-1 Mohammad Ali,4-5 fires were made while PW-4 Dhoomi has stated that near about 20-25 fires were made. Thus, there is a contradiction in the statement of the prosecution witnesses regarding the fires made at the time of incident, which creates doubt in the prosecution case. He also submits that the scribe of the written report Abdul Aziz has stated that he had written the report Ext.Ka-1 at 9:00 A.M. in police station Vilari on dictation of daroga and not on dictation of informant P.W.1 Mohammad Ali and before him thumb impression of no one was obtained on the written report by the S.I. Hence, written report is not proved and creates doubt on the prosecution case. Lastly, he submits that PW-4 Dhoomi has stated that miscreants were threatening them not to come near otherwise they will be killed and he has also stated that it is not that miscreants took away ornaments snatching the same from the ladies. If accused appellants were known to the witness then in place of stating miscreants he should have taken the name of the accused appellants. Actually, the incident was not caused by the appellants. If accused appellants were known to the witness then in place of stating miscreants he should have taken the name of the accused appellants. Actually, the incident was not caused by the appellants. It was an incident of loot and due to enmity, the accused appellants have been implicated falsely in the case. From the evidence produced by the prosecution, charges are not proved so the judgment and order is liable to set aside and the accused appellants are entitled to be acquitted. 17. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. for the State submits that from the place of incidence, concerned police station is at a distance of 10 kilometers and regarding the incident of 26/27-6-1994, at about 02:30 a.m., prompt FIR naming the accused appellants has been lodged on 27.06.1994, at 5:05 a.m. By fire, stabbing by knife and beating by handle and barrel of country-made pistol incident has been caused by the appellants which has been witnessed by the informant PW-1 Mohammad Ali, PW-4 Dhoomi and PW-6 Arif in the light of torch. During investigation, the torch was taken into possession by the Investigating Officer, a memo was prepared and returned the same to the informant which was produced before the court by the informant-Mohammad Ali. In the injury report and postmortem report firearm and knife injuries have been found to the deceased persons which corroborate the ocular version. It is the prosecution case that accused appellants were bearing enmity on account of progress of the family of informant, accused appellants have admitted enmity in their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The evidence of PW-1 Mohammad Ali, PW-4 Dhoomi and PW-6 Arif are consistent as well as corroborated by the medical evidence. Charges against the accused appellants were proved fully from the evidences adduced by the prosecution and the trial court has rightly convicted and sentenced the accused appellants in which no interference is required by the Court and appeal is liable to be dismissed. 18. At the out set, it would be pertinent to consider whether written report Ext.Ka-1 was written on dictation of informant P.W.1 Mohammad Ali or on dictation of daroga, as stated by D.W.1 Abdul Aziz. Informant P.W.1 Mohammad Ali in his examination-in-chief has stated that he got scribed the report by Abdul Aziz and Abdul Aziz wrote what he had dictated to him. Informant P.W.1 Mohammad Ali in his examination-in-chief has stated that he got scribed the report by Abdul Aziz and Abdul Aziz wrote what he had dictated to him. Thereafter, he read over the report to him and on hearing he put his thumb impression on it. He proved the written report as Ext.Ka-1. Defence has not put any question in this regard from P.W.1 Mohammad Ali. Thus, statement of P.W.1 Mohammad Ali regarding scribing the written report by Abdul Aziz is uncontroverted and there is no reason not to believe on it. On the other hand D.W.1 Abdul Aziz has stated that Ext.Ka-1 on the record is in his hand writing. He scribed this document at 9:00 A.M. at P.S. Vilari on the dictation of darogaji. P.W.9 H.C. Veer Pal Singh has stated that on 27.06.1994, he was posted at police station Vilari as Head Moharrir and he had prepared chik F.I.R. Ext.Ka-16 and G.D. Ext.Ka-19 in his hand writing and signature. He has denied in cross-examination that the report which he states to scribe was not scribed at the time and it was scribed anti time. As per chik F.I.R. Ext.Ka-16, it was scribed on 27.06.1994 at 5:05 A.M. From cross-examination of P.W.9 Veer Pal Singh by defence, nothing has been elicited, so that any adverse inference about scribing of F.I.R. and G.D. at 5.05 A.M. on 27.06.1994 can be drawn. In cross-examination P.W.1 Mohammad Ali has stated that he reached to the police station in the night at 3:30 to 4:00 A.M., when he reached the police station at that time there was some darkness. He has also stated that he proceeded to the police station from the house at about 3:00 A.M. Mohammad Ali is a rustic witness. 19. In State of U.P. vs. Krishna Master and others, (2010) 12 SCC 324 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that "the basic principle of appreciation of evidence of a rustic witness who is not educated and comes from a poor strata of society is that the evidence of such a witness should be appreciated as a whole. The rustic witness as compared to an educated witness is not expected to remember every small detail of the incident and the manner in which the incident had happened more particularly when his evidence is recorded after a lapse of time. The rustic witness as compared to an educated witness is not expected to remember every small detail of the incident and the manner in which the incident had happened more particularly when his evidence is recorded after a lapse of time. Further, a witness is bound to face shock of the untimely death of his near relatives. Therefore, the court must keep in mind all these relevant factors while appreciating evidence of a rustic witness." 20. The incident has occurred on 26/27.06.1994, his statement has been recorded on 27.07.1999 near about after lapse of five years. Considering him to be a rustic witness, his statement has been recorded on 27.7.1999 i.e. after a lapse of five years of the incident. His statement regarding reaching police station at 3:30 to 4:00 A.M. for lodging first information report, in view of the observation of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. vs. Krishna Master and others, (2010) 12 SCC 324 (supra), corroborates the timing of F.I.R. and G.D. prepared at 5:05 A.M. on 27.06.1994. Thus, with regard to registration of F.I.R. at 5:05 A.M. on 27.06.1994, prosecution evidence of P.W.1 Mohammad Ali and P.W.9 Head Moharrir Veer Pal Singh is consistent, corroborative and reliable. In view of the above, the statement of D.W.1 Abdul Aziz does not appear convincing that he had scribed the written report Ext.Ka.1 at 9:00 A.M. in police station Vilari on dictation of daroga. Accordingly, we find no substance in the contention of learned counsel for the appellant in this regard. 21. In Ex.ka-1 proved by informant PW-1 Mohammad Ali, it is mentioned that in the intervening night of 26/27-6-1994, informant's younger brothers Raees and Dhoomi, mother, father, ladies and children were sleeping in the courtyard. As per FIR (Ex.Ka-16), proved by PW-9 HC Veer Pal Singh, distance of the police station concerned from the place of incident is 10 kilometers. The incident has taken place at 02:30 a.m. in the intervening night of 26/27-6-1994 and in the incident Farzand Ali and Smt. Bano Begam have died at the spot while Raees Ahmad became injured. Information of the incident was given to the police station on 27.06.1994 at 05:05 a.m. which in the facts and circumstances appears prompt one, without consultation and deliberation. Information of the incident was given to the police station on 27.06.1994 at 05:05 a.m. which in the facts and circumstances appears prompt one, without consultation and deliberation. The lodging of first information report has been supported by the informant PW-1 Mohammad Ali, PW-6 Arif and PW-9 HC Veer Pal Singh through their testimony and nothing has been elicited from their cross-examination by the defence so that regarding giving it by informant PW-1 Mohammad Ali at the police station and its date and time any adverse inference can be drawn. 22. Considering the fact that FIR (Ex.Ka-16) has been lodged promptly and in the FIR it is mentioned that PW-4 Dhoomi was sleeping in the courtyard along with other family members, informant PW-1 Mohammad Ali and PW-6 Arif have supported the FIR version through their testimony, therefore, presence of PW-4 Dhoomi, at the time of incident, cannot be doubted on the basis of his statement that he does labour work in village Ravana and takes care of livelihood of his wife and children. Accordingly, we do not find substance in the contention of learned counsel for the appellants in this regard. 23. As per FIR and testimony of informant PW-1 Mohammad Ali, it appears that four shots were fired by the accused appellants. PW-4 Dhoomi in his cross-examination has stated that the miscreants were present in his house for about half an hour he did not count that how many shots were fired. He further stated that near about 20-25 shots were fired. The incident has taken place on 26/27-6-1994 and his statement was recorded near about after six years on 28.11.2000. The witness is also a rustic witness. 24. In the incident, witness-Dhoomi's brother Farzand and sister-in-law Smt. Bano Begam (bhabi) have died and his other brother Raees Ahmad became injured. Witness-Dhoomi, who is a rustic witness, his statement was recorded after a lapse of six years of the incident in which prior to the statement "near about 20-25 fires were made" he has stated that he did not count how many shots were fired. Considering his whole statement as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Considering his whole statement as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Krishna Master and others (supra), in our opinion, on the basis of statement of PW-1 Mohammad Ali that 4-5 shots were fired and according to statement of PW-4 Dhoomi that near about 20-25 shots were fired that too qualified by statement that he did not count how many shots were fired, prosecution case cannot be doubted. Accordingly, we do not find substance in the contention of learned counsel for the appellants that there is contradiction in the prosecution witness regarding number of shots fired, which creates doubt in the prosecution case. 25. PW-4 Dhoomi in his cross-examination has stated that miscreants were threatening not to come here otherwise he will be killed. He has further stated that it is not that the miscreants took away the ornaments by snatching from the ladies. In the examination-in-chief, the witness has specifically stated that he heard scream of his brother Farzand near about 02:00 a.m. to 02:30 a.m. and on the scream of his brother, informant-Mohammad Ali flashed the torch towards the cot of his brother Farzand and he identified very well in the light of torch Asgar, Guddu Bara and Khursheed near the cot of Farzand and in cross-examination too he has described the circumstances regarding the incident. His statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has not been confronted with regard to being made first time in the court. Apart from it, it is the tact of counsel putting question to a witness and reply given by the witness is recorded accordingly. Thus, mere use of the word miscreants in the cross-examination, in place of name of assailants by PW-4 Dhoomi, the prosecution case cannot be doubted. Accordingly, we also find no force in the contention of learned counsel for the appellants that it was an incident of loot and due to enmity they have been implicated falsely in the case. 26. According to the FIR, on interruption of informant, accused Guddu Bara fired upon Farzand by country-made pistol and when informant and others exhorted the accused appellants then accused Khursheed pointing country-made pistol fired at them with intention to kill and they also by jumping from the roof surrounded Raees on the cot and caused injuries to him by firing and beating by handle and barrel of the country-made pistol. On interruption of wife of the informant, accused Khursheed also fired at his wife Bano Begam. 27. We have gone through the whole evidence of PW-1 Mohammad Ali and find that on the point of sleeping of informant Mohammad Ali in the night of 26/27-06-1994 along with brother Arif on the roof of Komil Dhobi, brother Farzand on the roof of his house at the door, brothers Raees and Dhoomi, mother, father, ladies and children in the courtyard, waking up on hearing scream of brother Farzand at about 02:30 a.m. in the night, flashing torch light by him towards the cot of Farzand and identifying his neighbour Guddu Bara, Asgar Khan and their relative Khursheed near the cot of Farzand, on his interruption inflicting knife injury by Asgar Khan in his stomach and firing shot by Guddu Bara hitting on his head, on exhortation by them firing shot at them by Khursheed and due to fear hiding himself and Arif in the ruined building of Bhure Khan and Dhoomi in the street crossing the wall, surrounding Raees on the cot jumping from the roof, and causing him injuries by firing, handle and barrel of the country-made pistol, on interruption of Smt. Bano kicking on her face by Khursheed even then on making noise firing shot at her by Khursheed and after going accused finding brother Farzand and Smt. Bano Begum dead and condition of Raees being critical is intact, credible, consistent and reliable. 28. We have also gone through the statements of PW-4 Dhoomi and PW-6 Arif and find that on material point like sleeping of Mohammad Ali and Arif on the roof of Komil Dhobi, Farzand on the roof of house at the door, Arif, Raees, mother, father, ladies and children in the courtyard, hearing scream of Farzand at 2:00 to 02:30 a.m., flashing light of torch by Mohammad Ali towards the cot of Farzand and identifying Asgar, Guddu Bara and Khursheed standing nearby the cot of Farzand, on interruption of Mohammad Ali inflicting knife injury in the stomach of Farzand by Asgar and firearm injury by Guddu Bara, causing injury to Raees by firing, handle and barrel of country-made pistol, firearm injury to Smt. Bano by Guddu, thus, evidences of PW-1 Mohammad Ali, PW-4 Dhoomi and PW-6 Arif are consistent, corroborated to each other, convincing and reliable. 29. 29. In Rajesh Govind Jagesha vs. State of Maharashtra, (1999) 8 SCC 428 , Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that motive in criminal case based upon ocular testimony of witnesses is not at all relevant, in Rajagopal vs. Muthupandi alias Thavakkalai and others, (2017) 11 SCC 120 , Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that motive is not crucial if there is direct evidence and in Banna Reddy and others vs. State of Karnataka, (2018) 5 SCC 790 , Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that motive becomes irrelevant in the presence of direct evidences. 30. The instant case is based on direct evidence as discussed above, we have found the evidences of PW-1 Mohammad Ali, PW-4 Dhoomi and PW-6 Arif consistent, corroborated to each other, convincing and reliable, so, in view of the opinion of Hon'ble Supreme Court, in view of the above mentioned cases, motive is not relevant in the instant case. Apart from it, in the written report (Ex.ka-1), it is mentioned that the accused appellants were bearing enmity on account of progress of the informant's family and they were bent upon for altercation. Informant used to avoid the altercation but they never relented before the accused appellants. This fact has been corroborated by the testimony of the informant PW-1 Mohammad Ali, PW-4 Dhoomi and PW-6 Arif, so, also we do not find substance in the contention of learned counsel for the accused appellants that there was no motive for them to commit the offence. 31. As per Ex.Ka-1 and witnesses PW-1 Mohammad Ali, PW-4 Dhoomi and PW-6 Arif incident was witnessed in the flash light of torch. The torch was also taken into possession. Recovery memo of the torch (Ex.ka-2) was prepared and proved by Investigating Officer-Dharam Pal Singh (P.W-8) as well as PW-1 Mohammad Ali. All the witnesses of fact i.e. PW-1 Mohammad Ali, PW-4 Dhoomi and PW-6 Arif have deposed that in the flash light of torch they have very well identified the accused, namely, Asgar Khan, Guddu Bara Khan and Khursheed. 32. PW-8 Dharam Singh has proved spot map (Ex.Ka-17), in which place-A has been shown which is on the roof at the door where the dead body of the deceased Farzand Ali was found lying, at place-B in the courtyard, dead body of Smt. Bano Begum was found and at place-C in the courtyard sleeping of deceased Raees has been shown. PW-8 Dharam Singh has proved spot map (Ex.Ka-17), in which place-A has been shown which is on the roof at the door where the dead body of the deceased Farzand Ali was found lying, at place-B in the courtyard, dead body of Smt. Bano Begum was found and at place-C in the courtyard sleeping of deceased Raees has been shown. P.W-8 Dharam Singh has stated that he had instructed S.I. Muneshwar Singh to conduct inquest memo of deceased Farzand Ali and Smt. Bano Begum. He has also stated that blood stained and plain earth related to deceased Farzand and Smt. Bano Begum and injured Raees were taken into possession by S.I. Muneshwar Singh and three separate memos were prepared by him. According to the Ex.Ka-3 blood stained and plain earth relating to deceased Farzand Ali in presence of witnesses were taken into possession from the roof of the house at the door and as per Ex-Ka-4 & 5, blood stained and plain earth related to injured Raees and deceased Smt. Bano Begum were taken from the courtyard which corroborate the prosecution version that at the time of incident deceased Farzand Ali was sleeping on the roof of the house at the door and deceased Raees and Smt. Bano begum were in the courtyard of the house. 33. According to PW-7 Dr. V.N. Saxena, who has proved the injury report of Raees as Ex.Ka-15, one incised wound, three lacerated wounds, one firearm wound and one traumatic swelling were found on the person of Raees, at the time of examination, on 27.06.1994 at 07:30 a.m. According to him, the injuries were possible at 02:30 a.m. in the night of 26/27-06-1994 by firearm, handle and barrel of the country-made pistol. PW-5 Dr. Madan Mohan has conducted postmortem of deceased Farzand Ali and Smt. Bano Begum, prepared postmortem report Ex.Ka-6 & 7, respectively, and proved it, according to which, one firearm injury, two incised wounds and an abrasion injury were found on the person of Farzand. A firearm injury and a lacerated wound on the person of Smt. Bano Begum were found, in his opinion, firearm injury to Smt. Bano begum and firearm and knife injury to Farzand are possible. He has also opined that the injuries are possible at 02:30 a.m. in the night of 26/27-06-1994. A firearm injury and a lacerated wound on the person of Smt. Bano Begum were found, in his opinion, firearm injury to Smt. Bano begum and firearm and knife injury to Farzand are possible. He has also opined that the injuries are possible at 02:30 a.m. in the night of 26/27-06-1994. Injury report of Raees and postmortem reports of Farzand and Smt. Bano Begum corroborate prosecution version regarding manner of assault and time of incident. Thus, ocular version is also corroborated by the medical report. 34. Considering the evidence led by the prosecution and above discussion, we do not find substance in the contention of learned counsel for the appellants that it was an incident of loot and due to enmity accused appellants have been implicated falsely in the case. 35. Thus, upon a whole consideration of the facts of the case, attending circumstances and the evidence on record, we do not find that the learned trial Judge committed any illegality or infirmity in convicting and sentencing the appellants for the offence punishable under Sections 452 and 302/34 IPC and awarding sentence of imprisonment for life to them. 36. This appeal lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. 37. The appellants are on bail. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moradabad, is directed to take them into custody and send them to jail for serving out their remaining sentence.