JUDGMENT : 1. Present appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 30.08.1996 passed by Special/Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehpur convicting the appellants-Hari Shanker and Radhey Shyam under Section 148, 323/149 and 307/149 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “I.P.C.”) and sentencing the appellants to undergo six months’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 148 I.P.C., further six months’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 323/149 I.P.C. and two years’ rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.2000/-each under Section 307/149 I.P.C. in Session Trial No.85 of 1988 (State and others Vs. Hari Shanker and others), Police Station-Jahanabad, District-Fatehpur. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that Ram Kishore Uttam has given a Tahrirto S.O., Jahanabad on 29.11.1986 that at about 08:00 a.m. in Village-Lahuri Sarai, in front of northern gate of the factory of complainant; Hari Shanker and Radhey were raising construction of shop. One Pramod Kumar asked and prohibited not to do so. Annoyed of it, Hari Shanker, Radhey, Bhagween Deen, Raj Kumar and Bhikhari Neta, residents of Sarai Dharampur and some other outsiders armed with guns, pistols, lathi and danda attacked the family members of complainant with common intention. As a result of which, Vinod Kumar, Pramod Kumar, Bachchi Lal, Km. Shyam Shree, Km. Shyam Kali and Km. Manju Devi received injuries. On hearing the noise, the residents of the same village Gulab and Ram Kumar reached on spot and saw the incident. 3. On the basis of Tahrir, F.I.R. was lodged on the same date at about 09:30 a.m. under Crime No.254/86, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 I.P.C. with entry in G.D. 4. The investigation of occurrence was entrusted to Sub-Inspector-U.B. Singh. Injured persons were sent to primary health centre for medical examination. Investigating Officer prepared the spot map and after investigation he has submitted charge-sheet against Hari Shanker, Radhey Lal, Bhagwandeen, Raj Kumar. Bhikhari Neta was summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. 5. As documentary evidence prosecution filed Tahrir (Ex. Ka-1) which has been proved by witness PW-1. Apart from that, following papers have also been filed by prosecution whose genuineness has been admitted by learned counsel for accused persons and endorsed accordingly. Consequently, the papers were exhibited accordingly; Chik F.I.R. (Ex. Ka-2), Corban Copy of G.D. dated 29.11.1986 (Ex. Ka3), Site Plan ( Ex. Ka-4),Injury Report of Km. Shyam Shree (Ex. Ka-5), Injury report of Km. Shyam Kali (Ex. Ka-6),Injury Report of Km. Consequently, the papers were exhibited accordingly; Chik F.I.R. (Ex. Ka-2), Corban Copy of G.D. dated 29.11.1986 (Ex. Ka3), Site Plan ( Ex. Ka-4),Injury Report of Km. Shyam Shree (Ex. Ka-5), Injury report of Km. Shyam Kali (Ex. Ka-6),Injury Report of Km. Manju Devi (Ex. Ka-7), Injury Report of Bachchi Lal (Ex. Ka-8), Injury Report of Vinod Kumar (Ex. Ka-9), Injury Report of Pramod Kumar (Ex. Ka-10), Charge-sheet (Ex. Ka-11). 6. As oral evidence for prosecution witnesses Ram Kishor as PW-1, Bachchi Lal as PW-2 and Km. Shyam Shree deposed as PW-3, since learned counsel for the prosecution has admitted the genuineness of prosecution paper as mentioned above, the evidence of relative formal witness as were dispensed with by the court considering the endorsement of Counsel for defence. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the accused persons submitted PanchNirnay(Ex. Kha-1), Receipt of postal department dated 06.05.1986 (Ex. Kha-2), Extract of statement of Ram Kishore PW-1 (Ex. Kha-2 & 3), Extract of statement of Bachchi Lal (Ex. Kha-4 to 7)), Extract of statement of Shyam Shree (Ex. Kha-8 to 11). Apart from that with list 11 Kha/1, paper no.11 Kha/3 Certified Copy of F.I.R., Crime No. 254-A 11 Kha/4 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 349, 336 I.P.C. and Certified Copy of Injury Report of Rajeshwati , 11 Kha/5 (Ex. Kha-13), Certified Copy of Injury Report of Akhilesh Kumar, 11 Kha/A (Ex. Kha14), Certified Copy of Injury Report of Hari Shanker 11 Kha/9 (Ex. Kha15), Certified Copy of Injury Report of Shravan Kumar 11 Kha/11 (Ex. Kha-16), Certified Copy of Injury Report of Meera Devi, 11 Kha/13 (Ex. Kha-17), Certified Copy of Injury Report of Satish Kumar 11 Kha/15 (Ex. Kha-18), Certified Copy of Injury Report of Sheela Devi 11 Kha/17 (Ex. Kha-19), Certified Copy of Injury Report of Mohani Devi 11 Kha/19 (Ex. Kha-20) have been filed. 8. No oral evidence has been produced by accused persons. 9. Statement of accused persons Hari Shanker, Raj Kumar, Bhikhari Neta and Radhey Shyam was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein they have denied the prosecution version and evidence. Accused Hari Shanker has mentioned that when he was making construction in place of wooden shop to cemented shop and he and his family members were busy in its cleaning, Ram Kishor and Vinod etc. demolished his shop and beaten them brutally for which cross case against prosecution persons is pending. Accused Hari Shanker has mentioned that when he was making construction in place of wooden shop to cemented shop and he and his family members were busy in its cleaning, Ram Kishor and Vinod etc. demolished his shop and beaten them brutally for which cross case against prosecution persons is pending. Accused persons Raj Kumar and Radhey Shyam adopted the statement of accused Hari Shanker. Accused Bhikhari Neta has mentioned that his enmity is continuing with the family of complainant, he resides in another village. His eye-sight is weak. His age is 70 years and he has made accused in party bandi only. 10. Learned Sessions Judge after consideration of the facts and evidence of both the parties held guilty and convicted accused persons-Hari Shanker and Radhey Shyam under Sections 148, 307 /149 and 323/149 I.P.C. Learned court below acquitted to accused Raj Kumar from the charges under Sections 148, 307/149 and 323/149 I.P.C. extending benefit of doubt to him. 11. As during the proceeding of trial, accused persons Bhagwati Deen and Bhihari Neta were died, hence, the case stood abated against them. 12. Against the aforesaid conviction and sentences accused persons Hari Shanker and Radhey Shyam preferred the present appeal. 13. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 14. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that accused persons have falsely been implicated in the present case. In fact, the persons from complainant side started quarrelling and fighting when appellants were converting their wooden Gumti into cemented shop. Complainant side was aggressor. Appellants defended themselves in exercise of their right to private defence. Witnesses of prosecution are family members. No independent witness as named in F.I.R. has been examined by prosecution. The weapons have not been recovered. Role of accused persons has not been shown in F.I.R. Doctor who had examined the injuries of prosecution persons and Investigating Officer were the necessary witnesses, but they have not been produced by prosecution. Prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond any shadow of doubt against accused appellants. Out of 5 persons only the two persons have been convicted, hence the judgment and order of court below dated 30.08.1996 is liable to set aside. Appellants are liable to be acquitted and appeal is liable to be allowed. Prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond any shadow of doubt against accused appellants. Out of 5 persons only the two persons have been convicted, hence the judgment and order of court below dated 30.08.1996 is liable to set aside. Appellants are liable to be acquitted and appeal is liable to be allowed. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the appellants has referred case laws of Sahdev Prasad Shah Vs. State of Bihar 1999 Supreme (Patna) 615 and Ganesh Ram @ Ganesh Chamar Vs. State of Bihar 1989 Law Suit (Pat) 62 (D.B.) 15. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has submitted that F.I.R. is prompt. Prosecution witnesses are injured eye witnesses and are believable. There is no contradiction in their evidence on substantial points. If such witnesses are genuine and believable, then in that case it does not affect the prosecution case only on the ground that they are family members. If eye witnesses support the prosecution case, the conviction can be based on their evidence. There is no evidence from defence that complainant side were ever aggressor, rather appellants’ side used deadly weapons to attack complainant side. The injuries so indicated by appellants’ side are not proved. Learned counsel for the appellants in sub-ordinate court has admitted the genuineness of injury report of complainant side along with other prosecution papers. Therefore, the formal proof/evidence of concerning witnesses were dispensed with by the Court. In the light of admissible evidence of eye-witnesses if the recovery of weapons has not been done by Investigating Officer then in that case prosecution case does not suffer adversely. The F.I.R. is not an encyclopedia. Prosecution has proved his case beyond any doubt against appellants. Appellants have rightly been convicted and sentenced by the court, therefore, appeal is liable to be rejected. 16. As according to the F.I.R., occurrence had taken place on 29.11.1986 at about 8:00 a.m. and its F.I.R. was lodged on the same date at about 9:30 a.m. The distance of police station from the place of occurrence has been shown 5 Kms. Therefore, in absence of any evidence, it cannot be said that F.I.R. has been lodged with any inordinate delay. 17. Witness PW-1 is not eye witness but, he has carried injured persons to police station, Jahanabad and hospital for their medical examination. He has proved the Tahrir of F.I.R. also. Therefore, in absence of any evidence, it cannot be said that F.I.R. has been lodged with any inordinate delay. 17. Witness PW-1 is not eye witness but, he has carried injured persons to police station, Jahanabad and hospital for their medical examination. He has proved the Tahrir of F.I.R. also. The witness has been cross examined by learned counsel for the defence properly, but nowhere any such facts came into light that he did not carry the injured persons to police station and hospital. 18. Witnesses PW-2 and PW-3 have been produced by prosecution as eye-witnesses. Witness PW-2 as eye witness, who is injured in occurrence also has stated at Page-2 of his statement of evidence that at the time of occurrence, Bhagwan Deen was carrying lathi in his hand who blown lathi to his son Pramod. Hari Shanker and Radhey Shyam were having Tamanche (Country-made pistols) who fired on him and on Shyam Shree, Shyam Kali and Manju. Bhikhari Neta and Raj Kumar were carrying the guns in their hands who also fired by their firearms. There were 8-10 more persons on spot. Further, at page 8 of his statement, he has mentioned that all the 4 persons attacked with their firearms. 19. Witness PW-3 Km. Shyam Shree is also an injured eye witness. She has also narrated the facts at page-2 of his evidence that Hari Shanker and Radhey Shyam were carrying Tamanche, Bhikhari Neta and Raj Kumar were carrying guns in their hands and Bhagwan Deen with lathi. He has mentioned that all the 4 persons fired on them. Subsequently, she has narrated the role of appellant Hari Shanker that the fire blown by Hari Shanker, her right eye became injured by pellets of cartridge and she lost her right eye. There is no contradiction on this core point in between evidence of PW-2 and PW-3. 20. Injury report of PW-2 and PW-3 is on record as Ex. Ka-8 and Ex. Ka-5. The following injuries have been mentioned in Ex. There is no contradiction on this core point in between evidence of PW-2 and PW-3. 20. Injury report of PW-2 and PW-3 is on record as Ex. Ka-8 and Ex. Ka-5. The following injuries have been mentioned in Ex. Ka-8 (Bachchi Lal, PW-2):- Firearm wound of entry 1/4 c.m. x 1/4 c.m. x muscle deep/bone deep with fresh oozing in (a) back of (Lt) forearm at middle (b) back of (Lt) forearm just above wrist (c) (LTO) zygomatic region (d) front of (Rt) shoulder joint (e) (Rt) thigh lower part at back (f) (Rt) thigh lower part at front (g) (Lt) metatarsal region lateral aspect (h) (Lt) leg lower third lateral aspect (I) left leg lateral aspect at middle (j) (Lt) thigh lateral aspect at middle. Adv. X-ray AP/Lat view for (a) to (j) for presence/confirmation of pellets and extent thereof. 21. Injury Report of PW-3, Km. Shyam Shree (Ex. Ka-5), shows following injuries:- (i) Blackening of (Rt) eye with profuse conjunctival (Rt) haemorrhage having fresh blood clots with lacerated wound round shaped 1/8 c.m. x 1/8 c.m. in lower part of (Rt) side of eye ball. Advised X-ray AP/Lat. view. Injury u/o. (ii) Abrasion 1/4 c.m. x 1/4c.m. in (Rt) side of nose just below eye brow. (iii) Firearm wounds of entry with no exit wound having fresh bleeding with different depths each measuring 1/4c.m. x 1/4c.m. to 1/8c.m. x 1/8c.m. located at (a) (Lt) forearm. at back 3c.m. above wrist (b) mid of front of (Rt) forearm (c) frontal area of skull on left side of midline. Adv. X-ray AP/Lat view for confirmation/of presence of pellets and extent of injuries. Wounds are muscle to bone deep. 22. So far as the testimony of injured witness is concerned, it has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Surjit Singh @ Gurmit Singh Vs. State of Punjab 1993 SCC (Cri) 161 that:- "9.-To be fair to the learned counsel for the appellant, we may mention that he ventured to argue that the evidence regarding the marrying of the crime bullet shells with the pistol recovered was not convincing, more so when the 303 pistol, the alleged crime weapon, was recovered from Gurmit Singh, co-accused. It is noteworthy that Gurmit Sing, co-accused, stands convicted under the Arms Act for being in possession of that pistol. It is noteworthy that Gurmit Sing, co-accused, stands convicted under the Arms Act for being in possession of that pistol. This aspect of the case cannot be a substitute to the eyewitness account or the plea taken by the appellant. Had the presence of the two witnesses, that is, Jaswinder kaur PW 5 and Taljit Singh PW 2 at the scene of the occurrence been doubted, the recovery of the weapon of offence and its connection with the empty shells recovered at the spot would have assumed some significance. When the two eyewitnesses are natural witnesses of the crime, one being the young wife who would normally be in the company of the husband at 10.30 p.m. on a summer night and the other the nephew of the deceased who had suffered grievous injuries in the occurrence and was thus a stamped witness, not much importance is to be attached to this aspect of the case. The venture is futile." (Emphasized) 23. So far as the evidentiary value of relative witness is concerned, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dharampal and others Vs. State of U.P. 2008 Cr.L.J. 1016. The relevant part of the judgment is reproduced as under:- "12. This takes us to the next question viz. whether the other lacunae pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants are fatal to the prosecution case . We agree that the High Court erred in relying on the evidence of PW4, who admittedly was declared a hostile witness. Nevertheless, we fell that in the fact of the other evidence of PW2 Dannu, PW3 Om Prakash who were corroborated in all material respects by PW7 Dr. R.P. Goyal and by PW9, Dr. U. Kanchan, the evidence of PW4, even if discharged, is inconsequential. The evidentiary value of a dying declaration and the principles underlying the imprtance of a dying declaration have already been discussed herein earlier. Simply because PW2 and PW3, in their crossexamination, have been shown to be related to the deceased does not mean that their testimony has to be rejected. It is well settled that evidence of a witness is not to be rejected merely because he happens to be a relative of the deceased. Simply because PW2 and PW3, in their crossexamination, have been shown to be related to the deceased does not mean that their testimony has to be rejected. It is well settled that evidence of a witness is not to be rejected merely because he happens to be a relative of the deceased. In State of Himanchal Pradesh V. Mast Ram [ (2004) 8 SCC 660 ], this Court observed as under:- "............The law on the point is well settled that the testimony of the relative witnesses cannot be disbelieved on the ground of relationship. The only main requirement is to examine their testimony with caution. Their testimony was thrown out at the threshold on the ground of animosity and relationship. This is not a requirement of law.............." In this view of the matter and this being the well-settled law, it is difficult for us to discard the evidence of the witnesses, as discussed hereinabove, only on the ground that they were related to the deceased, in the absence of any infirmity in the said evidence." (Emphasized) 24. On the same point, Hon'ble Supreme Court in case law Rizan and another Vs. State of Chatisgarh (Supra) it has been held that:- "6.- We shall first deal with the contention regarding interest of the witnesses for furthering prosecution version. Relationship is not a factor to affect credibility of a witness. It is more often than not that a relation would not conceal actual culprit and make allegations against an innocent person. Foundation has to be laid if plea of false implication is made. In such cases, the court has to adopt a careful approach and analyse evidence to find out whether it is cogent and credible." (Emphasized) 25. Injury reports of other persons from prosecution side are also on record, which are as follows:- Injury Report of Km. Manju Devi (Ex. Ka-7) 1. Firearm wound of entry 1/4c.m. x 1/4c.m. x muscle deep in (Lt) deltoid upper part at middle fresh oozing. Adv. X-ray AP/Lat. view for confirmation/presence of pellet, if any. 2. Injury as above in (Lt) side of chest 8 c.m. below mid point of (Lt) collar bone. Adv. X-ray AP/Lat. view for confirmation/presence of pellet if any. Injury report of Km. Shyam Kali (Ex. Adv. X-ray AP/Lat. view for confirmation/presence of pellet, if any. 2. Injury as above in (Lt) side of chest 8 c.m. below mid point of (Lt) collar bone. Adv. X-ray AP/Lat. view for confirmation/presence of pellet if any. Injury report of Km. Shyam Kali (Ex. Ka-6) Firearm wounds of entry 1/4c.m. x 1/4c.m. three in number each having fresh oozing muscle deep to bone deep circular round shaped located in (a) dorsam of base of (Lt) thumb (b) (Rt) leg medially at middle (c) (Lt) frontal prominance. Adv. X-ray AP/Lat view for confirmation/presence of pellets and extent of injuries. Injury report of Vinod Kumar (Ex. Ka-3) Multiple firearm wounds of entry each measuring 1/4cm. X 1/4cm. Appro. Muscle deep to bone deep scattered in back of (Lt) lower limb front of chest front of (Rt) thigh lower part (Rt) upper limb lower part fresh oozing. Adv. X-ray AP/Lat view for presence and confirmation of pellets if any. Apart from that, injury report of Pramod Kumar (Ex. Ka-10) shows that he is suffering from pain in left ear. 26. All the injured witnesses were examined on 29.11.1986 between 11:30 a.m. to 12.35 p.m. The injury reports of all the injured persons are also prompt. 27. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that although the appellants have admitted the genuineness of injury reports of injured persons for prosecution under Section 294 of Cr.P.C., but even then it was needed to examine doctor concerned who had examined the injured persons. In case, the doctor has not examined in above circumstances then in that case the injury report will not be treated as proved as it does not have the status of the substantial evidence. In support of his contention, he has submitted the case law of Ganesh Ram @ Ganesh Chamar (Supra) and relied on its para-22 which reads as under:- “22. Thus the injury report and the postmortem report are not substantive evidence. They are only notes which are prepared by the Doctor at the time of examination of the injured or the deceased. They become evidence only when the doctor is examined and cross-examined in court and says that he had examined the injuries of the injured or the deceased. Thus the injury report and the postmortem report are not substantive evidence. They are only notes which are prepared by the Doctor at the time of examination of the injured or the deceased. They become evidence only when the doctor is examined and cross-examined in court and says that he had examined the injuries of the injured or the deceased. His evidence will clearly given out the nature of injury and also the weapons used or the manner of assault and in the case of postmortem it will show the cause of death of the deceased. These are relevant things as corroborative piece of evidence to the oral evidence of the witnesses. But these evidence (injury report and post mortem report) can be used only to contradict or corroborate the doctor. The injuries of the victim may be noticed and observed even by a layman, but this layman cannot give the opinion about the cause of death, which is given by the doctor after examination of the dead body, as an expert. Further if a man receives injuries and then dies immediately thereafter, inference may be drawn that these injuries may be the cause of death. But such inference is not sufficient for purposes of conviction for murder. A doctor alone can give the opinion that the victim died as a result of injuries or that the injuries were such that the assailant must have known that it was likely to cause death. Section 32 of the Evidence Act provides exception to the general rule about the injury report or the postmortem report. Similarly Section 294 Cr.P.C. though provides for no formal proof of certain documents, but it cannot take the place of the direct evidence of the doctor. It refers to only that document which can be needed in evidence and the postmortem report or the injury report cannot be read in evidence unless the doctor is examined, subject to exceptions provided under Section 32 of the Evidence Act. The Court will have to consider the other evidence on the record if any help, at all, is available, which may show the injuries, but that cannot become substitute for the injury report or the postmortem report in the absence of the examination of the doctor barring the case covered by Section 32 of the Evidence Act. The Court will have to consider the other evidence on the record if any help, at all, is available, which may show the injuries, but that cannot become substitute for the injury report or the postmortem report in the absence of the examination of the doctor barring the case covered by Section 32 of the Evidence Act. If, at all, doctor is not easily available or quite easily available as he has gone abroad or is not likely to come within reasonable time and that there will be delay in the disposal of the case causing harassment to the accused, then the postmortem report may be brought on the record not by a clerk but it should be brought through some person having technical knowledge of medical science and jurisprudence or through some doctor who may be able to answer the questions put by the prosecution as well as the defence in respect of the writings of the doctor of postmortem or injury report. But this is all subject to the Evidence Act or the code of Civil Procedure.” 28. In reply, learned A.G.A. has submitted that if the accused persons have admitted and did not dispute the genuineness of prosecution paper including injury report of injured persons from prosecution side then in that case it is not needed call concerning formal witnesses for their evidence. 29. In this regard, the provisions of Section 294 of Cr.P.C. are reproduced hereinunder:- “294. No formal proof of certain documents.--(1) Where any document is filed before any Court by the prosecution or the accused, the particulars of every such document shall be included in a list and the prosecution or the accused, as the case may be, or the pleader for the prosecution or the accused, if any, shall be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of each such document. (2) The list of documents shall be in such form as may be prescribed by the State Government. (3) Where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document may be read in evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code without proof of the signature of the person to whom it purports to be signed. Provided that the Court may, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved.” (Emphasized) 30. (3) Where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document may be read in evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code without proof of the signature of the person to whom it purports to be signed. Provided that the Court may, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved.” (Emphasized) 30. Accordingly under sub-clause (3) of Section 294 Cr.P.C. if the genuineness of any documentary evidence is not disputed by either side such document may be read in any enquiry trial or other proceedings without formal proof of signature of witness concerned. 31. On the above point of argument, it has been held by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Akhtar and others Vs. State of Uttaranchal SCC (Cri) 1590 of 2007 that:- “9. Another post mortem examination report, genuineness of which has also been admitted by the defence, discloses that autopsy was conducted on the dead body of Asgar on 14.05.1987 at about 10.00 AM by Dr. A.K. Lumba. In the opinion of the Medical Officer, both Shakil and Asgar died on account of shock and haemorrhage resulting due to ante mortem injuries. 10. The medical report with respect to the injuries caused to two eyewitnesses, namely Jamil Ahmad and Mobin, genuineness of which has also been admitted by the defence counsel, discloses that on Page 7 of 14 13.05.1987 at about 12.15 p.m., injuries were found on the body of Jamil Ahmad (PW-2) by the Medical Officer who examined the injured at L.D. Bhatt Civil Hospital, Kashipur. In the opinion of the Medical Officer the injuries were fresh and simple in nature, caused by sharp edged weapon. The same Medical Officer also examined PW-3, Mobin and opined that four injuries were caused by some hard blunt object and two injuries were caused by a fire arm and all the injuries were fresh in duration. 11. Admittedly, there is no dispute as far as the genuineness of the injury reports, post mortem reports and also the genuineness of the Ballistic Expert's report is concerned. As defence has already admitted the same no useful purpose would be served to discuss those reports again.” (Emphasized) 32. On the same point, Full Bench of this Court in case of Siddiq and Ors. Vs. State 1981 AWC (80) has given the finding that:- “9. As defence has already admitted the same no useful purpose would be served to discuss those reports again.” (Emphasized) 32. On the same point, Full Bench of this Court in case of Siddiq and Ors. Vs. State 1981 AWC (80) has given the finding that:- “9. An injury report filed by the prosecution is obviously a document as defined in Section 29 I.P.C. Before the Cr. P.C. 1973 came into force an injury report could not be read in evidence as it was only a writing of the doctor made at the time of the examination of the injuries of the injured person. It contained his observations regarding the nature, dimension and location of the injuries and also his opinion regarding their duration and the instrument with which they were caused. The doctor who prepared the injury report was required to enter the witness box during the inquiry or trial to prove the injuries of the injured person. He could refresh his memory under Section 159 Evidence Act by referring to the injury report prepared by him and the injury report was proved by him under Section 67 Evidence Act and it corroborated his deposition in Court under Section 157 Evidence Act. Under sub-section (3) of Section 294 Cr. P.C. an injury report filed by the prosecution under subsection 294 Cr. P.C. may be read as substantive evidence in place of the deposition of the doctor who prepared it if its genuineness is not disputed by the ??? accused. If its genuineness is disputed then the doctor who examined the injured person must appear in the witness box to prove his injuries and also to prove the injury report and in such a case the statement of the doctor would he the substantive evidence and the injury report may be used to corroborate or discredit his testimony. 10. In Jagdeo Singh v. State [1979 Cr. L.J. 236.] a Division Bench of this Court held "it was not permissible to exhibit the postmortem report under Section 294 Cr. P.C. and even if it was done the report could not be used as substantive piece of evidence until and unless the doctor concerned was examined in Court. Documents that Section 294 Cr. P.C. contemplates reading in evidence upon admission about genuineness by the opposite party are only such documents which when formally proved Speak for themselves. P.C. and even if it was done the report could not be used as substantive piece of evidence until and unless the doctor concerned was examined in Court. Documents that Section 294 Cr. P.C. contemplates reading in evidence upon admission about genuineness by the opposite party are only such documents which when formally proved Speak for themselves. It does not refer to any document, which even if exhibited cannot be read in evidence as substantive evidence". With great respect, we are unable to agree with the view taken by this Court in the above-mentioned case. As mentioned earlier, there is no restriction placed on documents in sub-section (1) of Section 294 Cr. P.C. and it applies to all documents filed by the prosecution or the accused. If the genuineness of any document filed by the prosecution or the accused under sub-section (1) of Section 294 Cr. P.C. is not disputed by the opposite party sub-section (3) of Section 294 Cr. P.C. is applicable and it may be read as substantive evidence. It is true that prior to the coming into force of the Cr. P.C. 1973 the post-mortem report after it was proved was not substantive evidence but only corroborated the statement of the doctor made in Court and even now if the genuineness of the post-mortem report is disputed by the accused, the doctor must be examined to prove the injuries found on the body of the deceased and also the post-mortem report and the post-mortem report may only be used to corroborate or discredit his testimony which is the substantive evidence. This, however, cannot lead to the conclusion that the post-mortem report cannot be read as substantive evidence under sub-section (3) of Section 294 Cr. P.C. if its genuineness is not disputed by the accused. As already mentioned, the very object of enacting Section 294 Cr. P.C. would be defeated if the signature and the correctness of the contents of the post-mortem report are still required to be proved by the doctor concerned even if its genuineness is not disputed by the accused. Section 294 Cr. P.C. is clear and unambiguous. It is only when the genuineness of the post-mortem report filed by the prosecution is not disputed by the accused that sub-section (3) of Section 294 Cr. Section 294 Cr. P.C. is clear and unambiguous. It is only when the genuineness of the post-mortem report filed by the prosecution is not disputed by the accused that sub-section (3) of Section 294 Cr. P.C. is applicable and the post-mortem report may be read as substantive evidence and the signature and the correctness of its contents need not be proved by the doctor concerned. We are, therefore, clearly of the opinion that if the genuineness of the post-mortem report filed by the prosecution under sub-section (1) of Section 294 Cr. P.C. is not disputed by the accused, it may be read as substantive evidence under sub-section (3) of Section 294 Cr. P.C. 11. In Ganpat Raoji Suryavanshi v. State of Maharashtra [1980 Cr. L.J. 853.] it was also held that the post-mortem report even if admitted to be genuine by the accused cannot be read as substantive evidence under Section 294 Cr. P.C. For the reasons already given we are, with great respect, unable to agree with the view taken in that case.” (Emphasized) 33. A Division Bench of Patna High Court has given the same verdict in case law of Madan Shah Vs. State of Bihar 1997 S.C.C. Online Patna 543. “13. In this regard it would be useful to notice that at the time when the Public Prosecutor filed the post-mortem report with a petition to mark the same as Exhibit, Sri Ravindra Prasad Srivastawa, the defence counsel, admitted the genuineness of the document. Therefore, having regard to the provisions of Section 294 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the post mortem report was marked at Ext. 6 by the court below. As per sub-section (3) of Section 294 of the Code of Criminal Procedure where the genuineness of such document is not disputed, it may be read in evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceedings under the Code. That apart having regard to the law laid down by this Court in the case of Dasrath Mandal v. The State of Bihar, 1993 (1) P.L.J.R. 737 , if the prosecution or the accused does not dispute the genuineness of such document, filed under Sub-Section (1) of Section 294 of the Code, it amounts to an admission that the entire document is true and correct. Reference in this regard can also be made to a Full Bench decision of Allahabad High Court in the case of Saddiq v. State (1981 Cri. L.J. 379). 14. It has to bear in mind that Section 294 of the Code has been introduced by the Legislatures with a view to avoid unnecessary delay in disposal of the criminal cases. An accused has every right to doubt the genuineness of such document at the time when it is filed. Because undisputedly unless such a document is admitted by the parties no value can be attached with regard to its genuineness. Reference in this regard can also be made to a Full Bench decision of Bombay High Court in the case of Shaikh Farid Hussain Sab v. The State of Maharashtra (1983 Cri. L.J. 487). Therefore, the facts of this case being quite different, appellants can not get any benefit of the ratio laid down in the case as reported in 1994 (1) P.L.J.R. 488 (supra). Because in the present case genuineness of the document was already admitted by the defence at the time when it was brought on the record.” (Emphasized) 34. A similar view has been taken by another Division Bench of Patna High Court in case law of Shanker Shah and others Vs. State of Bihar 2007 Cr.L.J. 355. “26. From a plain reading of S. 294 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is evident that when particulars of a document is included in a list and when accused is called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of such document and in case it is not disputed same can be read in evidence in trial without proof of the signature of the person to whom it purports to be signed. However, the Court may in its discretion, require such signature to be proved. 27. Here in the present case, the signature of the doctor, who conducted the postmortem examination, had been proved by the compounder P.W. 7 Ram Chandra Tiwari and he had stated in his evidence that the said post-mortem report was prepared in his presence and he identified the signature of its author. The said post-mortem report has been filed by the prosecution with the list of documents and the endorsement made by the learned Judge show that the appellants admitted that without objection. The said post-mortem report has been filed by the prosecution with the list of documents and the endorsement made by the learned Judge show that the appellants admitted that without objection. The endorsement of the learned Judge in the list of documents clearly goes to establish that the genuineness of the postmortem report was not disputed and, as such, same was fit to be read in evidence in trial in view of the clear language of S. 294 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.” (Emphasized) 35. Law has been framed for providing justice to victims. It cannot be placed as a tool in the hands of legal experts. It will not be proper to apply the principle in every case that doctor must be called for evidence even in the cases, where accused persons have admitted and not disputed the genuineness of injury report. If during the course of evidence before trial court, learned counsel for defence does not dispute the genuineness of medical/injury report of injured persons and endorse on paper that formal proof is dispensed with, accordingly court concerned dispensed with evidence of concerning formal witnesses, then in that case if during the course of argument accused persons take plea that, no matter he has not disputed the genuineness of document and endorsed about dispensation of formal proof of witness concerned, even then if the concerning witness has not been summoned and has not been given evidence/proof regarding the signature and contents of document then in that case it may cause injustice to accused persons. This argument is not acceptable in the light of provisions of Section 294 Cr.P.C. In above circumstances, if such documents will not be read in evidence, it may cause miscarriage of justice. In sub-clause (3) of Section 294 Cr.P.C., the word ‘may’ has been used by legislature, therefore, considering the above legal position, the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellants has no force. The injury reports of prosecution persons (Ex. Ka-5 to Ex. Ka-10) are liable to be believed as substantive evidence of prosecution which corroborates the oral evidence of injured eye witnesses PW-2 and PW-3. 36. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that role of all the accused persons has not been shown in F.I.R. Therefore, evidence of prosecution witness is not believable as they are afterthoughts and taught by legal experts. 37. 36. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that role of all the accused persons has not been shown in F.I.R. Therefore, evidence of prosecution witness is not believable as they are afterthoughts and taught by legal experts. 37. So far as the argument on this point is concerned, it can be said that F.I.R. is not an encyclopedia of the details of crime. It is not necessary that it should set out minute details of occurrence. After the occurrence, the mind of informant does not remain in peace. Rather, it reflects in flutter or panic in condition, therefore, minute details of occurrence may omit. If the fact narrated in F.I.R. indicates that a crime has been committed and facts mentioned in F.I.R. are in consonance with facts reflected from evidence on record then in that case accused may not take the plea that there is no detailed description in F.I.R., what is needed, facts mentioned in F.I.R. be not in contradiction in evidence regarding factum of occurrence and role of accused substantially. It has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pandurang Chandrakant Mhatre and others Vs. State of Maharashtra (2010) 1 S.C.C. 413 that:- “38. It is fairly well settled that first information report is not a substantive piece of evidence and it can be used only to discredit the testimony of the maker thereof and it cannot be utilised for contradicting or discrediting the testimony of other witnesses. In other words, the first information report cannot be used with regard to the testimony of other witnesses who depose in respect of incident. It is equally well settled that the earliest information in regard to commission of a cognizable offence is to be treated as the first information report. It sets the criminal law in motion and the investigation commences on that basis. Although first information report is not expected to be encyclopaedia of events, but an information to the police to be "first information report" under Section 154(1) must contain some essential and relevant details of the incident. A cryptic information about commission of a cognizable offence irrespective of the nature and details of such information may not be treated as first information report.” (emphasized) 38. A cryptic information about commission of a cognizable offence irrespective of the nature and details of such information may not be treated as first information report.” (emphasized) 38. In present case, the informant has mentioned that accused persons Hari Shanker, Radhey, Bhagwan Deen, Raj Kumar and Bhikhari Neta and other outsider were carrying guns, tamanche and lathi-dande who attacked family members of informant. Resultantly, family members-Vinod Kumar, Pramod Kumar, Bachchi Lal, Km. Shyam Shree, Km. Shyam Kali and Km. Manju Devi received injuries. Since, the informant has narrated the occurrence with role of accused persons with weapons, then in that case, it cannot be said the said F.I.R. is not believable. Hence, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellants has no force. 39. The F.I.R. has the motive of occurrence also that before occurrence accused persons Hari Shanker and Radhey were raising construction of shop and injured Pramod Kumar asked them not to do so. Eye witness PW-2 in his evidence at page-2 has stated that accused persons were raising construction of shop which is in front of northern gate of his factory. This fact has also been narrated in his evidence at page-4 and at page-7. Witness PW-3 has also narrated the fact in his evidence at page-1 that accused persons Hari Shanker and Radhey Shyam were raising construction adjacent to northern gate of the factory. There is no contradiction on the point of genesis of occurrence in prosecution witness. This fact is also supported by the statement of appellant-Hari Shanker. In reply of question no.8 in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Appellant-Radhey Shyam has adopted the statement of appellant-Hari Shnaker in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that “We had constructed Pakki (cemented) shop, in place of existing wooden shop and we were moisturising the same, Ram Kishore and Vinod Kumar demolished the shop and beaten them, resultantly accused persons received injuries; for which cross case is pending.” Although, where there is ocular evidence, motive is not necessary to be proved by prosecution yet the above evidence proves the motive of accused persons. 40. It has been argued by learned counsel for the appellants that the alleged guns, tamanche, lathi have not been recovered, therefore, the case of the prosecution is not believable . 41. Injury report of injured persons-Km. Shyam Shree, Km. Shyam Kali, Km. Manju Devi, Bachchi Lal and Vinod Kumar (Ex. 40. It has been argued by learned counsel for the appellants that the alleged guns, tamanche, lathi have not been recovered, therefore, the case of the prosecution is not believable . 41. Injury report of injured persons-Km. Shyam Shree, Km. Shyam Kali, Km. Manju Devi, Bachchi Lal and Vinod Kumar (Ex. Ka-5 to Ex. Ka-9) indicates that they have received the injury of firearm whereas, injury report of Pramod Kumar has made complainant of pain with the opinion of doctor that it has been caused by blunt weapon (which might be injury of lathi). The genuineness of above medical reports/injury reports have not been disputed by accused persons. It was duty of I.O. to recover the incriminating articles. If, I.O. has failed to recover the weapons used may or may not be with intention to provide benefit to accused persons, then in that case prosecution case will not be affected adversely. The injuries of above persons have been narrated in the oral evidences of prosecution witnesses PW-1 to PW-3. 42. In the case of State of Punjab Vs. Hakam Singh, Appeal (Crl.) 130 of 2000 decided on 31.08.2005, it has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court that:- “The High Court has disbelieved her testimony on the grounds i.e. on the manner of firing and recovery of the guns, non seizure of blood stained clothes but these short-comings hardly impeach her testimony In order to impeach her testimony technical questions were asked to her which was not the correct approach for discarding her testimony. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the High Court has committed an error in discarding the testimony of this witness on technical grounds de hors the factual statement given by her. Learned counsel for the respondent has also tried to make out that the defence version is more probable. The defence version was that in fact Bhola Singh who was coming for bus stop was first attacked by the prosecution party and in retaliation the accused persons went there and that the prosecution could not explain the second injury to the deceased Bhola Singh. We do not think that the defence version improbablises the prosecution story. It is just an afterthought theory put up by the defence to improbablise the prosecution story. But the facts as mentioned above articularly the testimony of P.Ws. 3 & 4 sufficiently lend support to the prosecution story. We do not think that the defence version improbablises the prosecution story. It is just an afterthought theory put up by the defence to improbablise the prosecution story. But the facts as mentioned above articularly the testimony of P.Ws. 3 & 4 sufficiently lend support to the prosecution story. It was also pointed out by learned counsel for the respondent that no fire arms were recovered and no seizure has been made of empties. It would have been better if this was done and it would have corroborated the prosecution story. Seizure of the fire arms and recovering the empties and sending them for examination by the Ballistic expert would have only corroborated the prosecution case but by not sending them to the Ballistic expert in the present case is not fatal in view of the categorical testimony of P.W. 3 about the whole incident.” (Emphasized) 43. Learned counsel for the appellants has further stated that in spite of the F.I.R. version, evidence of PW-1 to PW-3, the three accused persons have not been convicted. Therefore, appellants are also liable to get benefit. 44. On this point, the arguments of learned counsel for the appellants is not believable as misconceived. It reveals from record that accused Bhagwan Deen and Bhikhari Neta were died during the pendency of trial. Therefore, the trial has been abated against them. Eye witness PW-2 has stated in his statement at page-6 that at the time of occurrence accused Raj Kumar was standing in the guise of shop. This witness, PW-2 is injured and has been found as a reliable witness. Therefore, learned lower court has given the benefit of doubt to accused Raj Kumar which has not been challenged by prosecution, whereas the roll of appellants regarding causing injuries to prosecution persons are proved by injured eye witnesses of prosecution which is corroborated by documentary evidence of prosecution. Therefore, on the point of not convicting three accused persons, argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellants has no force. 45. So far as the injuries of accused persons are concerned, the injury reports of Rajeshwati, Akhilesh, Hari Shanker, Shravan Kumar, Meera Devi, Satish, Sheela, Smt. Mohani Devi, although has been exhibited as Ex. Kha-13 to Ex. Kha-20, but they have not been proved by any witness from accused side. 45. So far as the injuries of accused persons are concerned, the injury reports of Rajeshwati, Akhilesh, Hari Shanker, Shravan Kumar, Meera Devi, Satish, Sheela, Smt. Mohani Devi, although has been exhibited as Ex. Kha-13 to Ex. Kha-20, but they have not been proved by any witness from accused side. Even the said injuries of so-called injured persons from accused side has not specifically been mentioned by them in their statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. It has been informed by learned A.G.A. that the cross case which was lodged by present appellant-Hari Shanker as Case Crime No.254-A under Section 147, 148, 149, 307 and 336 has been decided by the Court concerned with acquittal of all the accused persons. The order of acquittal has not been challenged by appellants, therefore, they cannot take plea that there was any sudden or free fighting and complainant side was aggressor, in which, persons from accused side received injuries and appellants have not acted with any overact. 46. It has also been mentioned by learned counsel for the appellants in his argument that there are two persons named in F.I.R. as independent witnesses, but prosecution failed to produce them in evidence. In absence of evidence of any independent witness, conviction cannot be based only on the ground of interested witnesses of fact that is of evidence of PW-1 to PW-3. 47. So far as the above argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellants, in concern, it has no force as witnesses PW-2 and PW-3 are injured eye witnesses. Their testimony is supported by medical evidence i.e. injury reports Ex. Ka-5 and Ka-10. There is no discrepancy in the oral evidence. According to law, if eye witnesses who received injury in the course of occurrence, if their evidences are not contradictory and is believable, it will not be necessary in every cases to produce independent witnesses. Quality of witness is needed not quantity. In paragraph-16 of case law of Hardev Singh and others Vs. Harbhej Singh and others 1996 (94) Crimes 216 (S.C.) Hon’ble Apex Court has held that : 16. Coming to the finding as regards the non-examination of independent eye witnesses who saw the incident in question we must hasten to add that it is completely erroneous and unmerited. In paragraph-16 of case law of Hardev Singh and others Vs. Harbhej Singh and others 1996 (94) Crimes 216 (S.C.) Hon’ble Apex Court has held that : 16. Coming to the finding as regards the non-examination of independent eye witnesses who saw the incident in question we must hasten to add that it is completely erroneous and unmerited. The prosecution has examined Hardev Singh (P.W. 2) and an injured witness Suba Singh (P.W. 3), although some other villagers did come at the place of incident but in our opinion merely because other independent witnesses were not examined could not be a ground to discredit the evidence of these two eye witnesses. This Court time and again has emphasised that the evidence of close relations who testified the facts relating to the occurrence be not rejected merely on the ground that they happened to be the relatives. All that this Court has ruled is that the evidence of such witnesses be scrutinised very carefully. We have very carefully gone through the evidence of Hardev Singh (P.W. 2) and Suba Singh (P.W. 3) who were consistent in their evidence as regards the details of assault caused by the respondents (accused). Both the witnesses have given minute details in regard to the weapons used by each of the accused and the manner in which they have assaulted Harbhajan Singh in front of the house of Chanan Singh. They also stated that A-1 fired from his gun at Harbhajan Singh causing him bleeding injuries. They further stated that the second shot fired by A-1 missed the target. It is true that the medical evidence does indicate two gun shot injuries. In the facts and circumstances of the case non explanation of the gun shot injury No.6 by these two eye witnesses would neither dilute their evidence nor their presence could be doubted. It is the positive case of both the witnesses that Harbhajan Singh had come to the house of Chanan Singh to help him in the construction work. There is nothing in their evidence which can persuade us to disbelieve the story narrated as regards the assault on Harbhajan Singh. It is the positive case of both the witnesses that Harbhajan Singh had come to the house of Chanan Singh to help him in the construction work. There is nothing in their evidence which can persuade us to disbelieve the story narrated as regards the assault on Harbhajan Singh. Coming to the assault on Baldev Singh caused by the respondents (accused), Hardev Singh (P.W. 2) and Suba Singh (P.W. 3) had stated that Baldev Singh, on noticing that the respondents (accused) were coming towards him, left the driver's seat and went to the trolley to escape himself from the probably attack by the accused. Harbhej Singh (A-1) gave a lalkara and thereupon Amrik Singh (A-3) climbed up the trolley and chopped off the leg of Baldev Singh with gandasa. Gurmej Singh (A-4) also climbed up the trolley and gave 2-3 blows on his left arm from the sharp side of gandasa. Mohan Singh (A-5) also gave a gandasa blow from the sharp side on his chest. After inflicting injuries to Baldev Singh the accused fled away. Both these witnesses were searchingly cross-examined by the defence but there is hardly any material brought on record to discredit their evidence. The evidence of both these witnesses in our considered view unmistakably proves that the respondents (accused) who were the members of the unlawful assembly having a common object to cause the murders of Harbhajan Singh and Baldev Singh did cause such bodily injuries to them as a result thereof they met with homicidal deaths. (Emphasized) 48. Lastly, learned counsel for the appellants has argued that accused persons are of more than 65 years of age and occurrence has taken place approximately 33 years back. Therefore, a lenient view be taken and appellants should be acquitted. 49. Offence of appellants has been proved by prosecution. Km. Shyam Shree, Km. Shyam Kali, Km. Manju Devi, Bachchi Lal and Vinod Kumar have received firearms injuries in day light. Prosecution has succeeded to prove the charges against appellants without any shadow of doubt. No legal ground has been placed before this Court to set aside the conviction. Learned Sessions Court has convicted and sentenced to appellants-Hari Shanker and Radhey Shyam for six months’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 148, six months’ rigorous imprisonment under Sections 323, 149 I.P.C. and two years’ rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. No legal ground has been placed before this Court to set aside the conviction. Learned Sessions Court has convicted and sentenced to appellants-Hari Shanker and Radhey Shyam for six months’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 148, six months’ rigorous imprisonment under Sections 323, 149 I.P.C. and two years’ rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 2,000/-each under Section 307/149 of I.P.C. In default of non-payment of find, they have been awarded rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. Learned court below has also directed that if fine amount is paid, half of the shall be paid to Km. Shyam Shree who lost her eye in the occurrence. It has also been admitted that all the sentences shall run concurrently, therefore, the sentence awarded by learned lower court is not too harsh. 50. It has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Rizan and others Vs. State of Chattisgarh (Supra), if sentences imposed do not in any way appear to be harsh, merely because the occurrence took place sometime back, same cannot be a factor to reduce the sentences. 51. Considering the facts, circumstances and arguments advanced by both the sides and citations produced in support of the arguments, no illegality or infirmity is found in the judgment of court below. Appellants have rightly been convicted and sentenced. Appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 52. The appellant-Hari Shanker and Radhey Shyam will surrender before court, concerned forthwith, failing which the court will issue non-bailable warrant against them. In compliance, if accused-Hari Shanker and Radhey Shyam appear or brought before the court, concerned they shall be sent to jail by warrant for their sentences as awarded by trial court. 53. Let the copy of the judgment be sent to court concerned forthwith for compliance. 54. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 55. No order as to costs.