ORDER : Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. 1. Heard Sri Anil Kumar Kushwaha, A.G.A., for State of U.P. and Sri Anand Swaroop Gautam, for the respondents. 2. State of U.P. has filed this appeal from the judgment of Additional Session's Judge, Court No. 3, Gorakhpur, dated 19.08.2003, passed in S.T. No. 571 of 1998, State vs. Gopal and others, [arising out of Case Crime No. 160 of 1998, under Section 147, 148, 149, 323, 307, 302, 504, 506 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the IPC)] and S.T. No. 143 of 1999 State vs. Bhola and another (arising out of Case Crime Nos. 162 and 163 of 1998 under Section 3/25 of Arms Act, 1959), P.S. Shahpur, district Gorakhpur, acquitting the respondents, from all the charges. 3. On the complaint (Ex-Ka-1) of Shalendra Kumar Tripathi (PW-1), FIR (Ex-Ka-15) of Case Crime No. 160 of 1998 was registered under Section 147, 148, 149, 307, 302 IPC at P.S. Shahpur, district Gorakhpur, on 23.03.1998 at 21:30 hours, by Head Moharrir Tulsi Ram (PW-8), against Uma, Bhola, Santosh, Gopal, Shalesh and some unknown accused. It has been stated in the FIR that today on 23.03.1998, the informant along with his brother-in-law Sri Vivek Kumar Pandey was returning towards his quarter, from Dharamshala, after purchasing vegetables. As soon as they reached at Bauliya colony, Durga Temple, they heard loud noise and it appeared that the quarrel was going on. At that time, Asgar came and informed them that Uma, Bhola, Santosh, Gopal, Shalesh, along with his other friends were abusing and assaulting the ladies and children of his family. He asked them to go and pacify them. In the meantime Ramesh Yadav, Ramesh Tiwari, Chunna Pal also came there from northern side, on scooter and motorcycle. They all proceeded towards the quarter of Asgar along with him at about 8:30 PM. In the meantime, Uma (Magahia dom), Bhola (dom), Santosh son of Bhola, Shalesh son of Gopal armed with gupti and pistol, Gopal and his other friends armed with hockey and danda, challenged them hurling abuses and exhorted to assault them and none of them would be escaped as they were helpers of Asgar. The accused chased them and opened fire upon his brother-in-law, Ramesh Yadav and Asgar. The accused chased them and opened fire upon his brother-in-law, Ramesh Yadav and Asgar. After receiving firearm injury, his brother-in-law tried to hide in a quarter in western side, where aforesaid persons reached and committed his murder, causing gunshot injury. Ramesh Yadav also received gunshot injury. Asgar also received injury. Hearing hue and cries, various persons came on spot and intervened in the matter, as a result of which, they could save their life. On the spot, dead body and motorcycle TVS Suzuki UP 51-1603 of his brother-in-law, scooter and Bullet motorcycle were lying. After lodging the report legal action be taken. 4. After registration of FIR, SHO Kapil Muni Singh (PW-7) started investigation. He copied the check FIR and G.D. entry in case diary. He recorded statement of Shalendra Kumar Tripathi the informant. He made spot inspection and prepared site-plan (Ex-Ka-10), on pointing out of informant. He received blood stained and plane floor from the place where dead body of Vivek Kumar Pandey was lying and prepared its recovery memo (Ex-Ka-11). He took into possession the motorcycles TVS Suzuki UP 51-1603, Bullet URX 7247 and scooter UMH 2242 and prepared its recovery memo. He recorded statements of the witnesses of recovery memos and Ramesh Tiwari. He visited Emergency Ward of District Hospital, Gorakhpur and tried to record statements of injured Asgar and Ramesh Yadav but they were not in position to give statement. On the basis of statements of the witnesses, he added Section 452, 504, 506 IPC in the case. On 24.03.1998, he recorded statement of Santosh Upadhyay and the injured Asgar and Ramesh Yadav. On 25.03.1998, he arrested Uma, Bhola and Ravi Shankar and recorded their statements. They confessed their guilt and became ready for recovery of the weapons used in commission of crime. On the pointing out of Uma Shankar, one pistol of 12 bore with one empty cartridge fasten in its barrel, on the pointing out of Bhola, one gupti and on the pointing out of Ravi Shankar one hockey were recovered. He got prepared recovery memo (Ex-Ka-12) of the weapons through SI R.K. Gautam. He sent the clothes of the deceased, blood stained and plane floor, pistol, empty cartridge and gupti for chemical examination through letter (Ex-Ka-13). He obtained injury reports of Asgar and Ramesh Yadav and copied it in case diary on 26.03.1998. He recorded statements of witnesses of the Inquest. He sent the clothes of the deceased, blood stained and plane floor, pistol, empty cartridge and gupti for chemical examination through letter (Ex-Ka-13). He obtained injury reports of Asgar and Ramesh Yadav and copied it in case diary on 26.03.1998. He recorded statements of witnesses of the Inquest. He recorded statement of Chunna Pal on 10.05.1998. He submitted charge sheet (Ex-Ka-14) against the accused, on which cognizance was taken. 5. On the basis of recovery memo (Ex-Ka-12) of the weapons, FIR (Ex-Ka-17) of Case Crime Nos. 162 and 163 of 1998 were registered under Section 3/4/25 of Arms Act, 1959 on 25.03.1998 at 19:50 hours at P.S. Shahpur, district Gorakhpur, against Uma @ Uma Shankar and Bhola, by Head Moharrir Tulsi Ram. SI Anil Kumar Singh (PW-9) investigated the matter. He prepared site-plan (Ex-Ka-18) of place of recovery. He recorded statements of the witnesses and on completion of investigation, he submitted charge sheets (Ex-Ka-19 and Ka-20), on which cognizance was taken. 6. Asgar Ali and Ramesh Yadav went to District Hospital Gorakhpur. In hospital, Dr. S.S. Parvez (PW-6) examined injuries of Ramesh Yadav on 23.03.1998 at 9:45 PM and prepared Injury Report (Ex-Ka-8). He examined Asgar on 23.03.1998 at 10:10 PM and prepared Injury Report (Ex-Ka-9). Injuries of Ramesh Yadav and Asgar are noted below:- Ramesh Yadav - (1) Incised wound 3 cm x 0.5 cm x scalp deep, vertical on the middle part of the left eye brow, bleeding present. (2) Lacerated wound 3 cm x 0.5 cm x scalp deep, on the outer aspect of left eyebrow, bleeding present. (3) Lacerated wound 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm x cartilage deep, on the middle of the nose, bleeding present, KUO (kept under observation), Advised X-Ray of Nose. (4) Lacerated wound 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm x muscle deep, 2 cm below the left eye, bleeding present. (5) Contused Trans swelling on the left side of face and forehead, in the area of 10 cm x 7 cm, KUO, Advised X-Ray of face. (6) Abrasion 5 cm x 2 cm on the left side back, lateral aspect. (7) Incised wound 1 cm x 0.5 cm x depth, KUO, on the left side back, middle part. (8) Incised wound 1 cm x 0.5 cm x depth, KUO, on the right side back, middle part. Both are KUO, advised X-Ray of the chest. (6) Abrasion 5 cm x 2 cm on the left side back, lateral aspect. (7) Incised wound 1 cm x 0.5 cm x depth, KUO, on the left side back, middle part. (8) Incised wound 1 cm x 0.5 cm x depth, KUO, on the right side back, middle part. Both are KUO, advised X-Ray of the chest. (9) Incised wound 1 cm x 0.3 cm on the left side of abdomen, depth KUO, Injury KUO, advised X-Ray. (10) Incised wound 0.5 cm x 0.3 cm x depth KUO, on the left side of chest, Injury KUO, advised X-Ray. (11) Incised wound 0.5 cm x 0.3 cm x depth KUO, on the right side of chest, Injury KUO, advised X-Ray. Opinion - All injuries were caused by blunt hard object and friction, except Injury No. 1, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11, which are caused by sharp edged and pointed object. Duration of all injuries are fresh. Nature of all injuries are almost KUO, advised X-Ray (1) Nose (2) Face, (3) Chest, (4) Abdomen in erect posture, except Injury No. 6, which is simple in nature. Patient is admitted, Police informed. Referred to Surgeon and Eye Surgeon for expect opinion please. Asgar Ali - (1) Lacerated wound 1 cm x 0.4 cm x scalp deep on his back of head, right side, blood oozing, 11 cm above and back of right ear, KUO (kept under observation), Advised X-Ray of skull. (2) Trans, swelling, tender, 5 cm x 4 cm on the left wrist joint, KUO, advised X-Ray of the left wrist with hand. (3) Abrasion 3 cm x 1.5 cm, just above the right knee joint. (4) Abrasion 5 cm x 0.25 cm on the middle part of he back, upper part. Opinion - All injuries were caused by blunt edged hard object and friction, simple in nature, except Injury No. 1 and 2, which are KUO, advised X-Ray. Duration fresh, admitted, police informed. 7. SI Ram Narain Pal (PW-5) conducted Inquest (Ex-Ka-3) of the dead body on 23.03.1998 between 22:00 to 23:15 hours. He prepared photo lash, police papers and letters to authorities (Ex-Ka-4 to Ka-7) for conducting postmortem of the deceased. He dispatched the dead body for postmortem through constables Jawahar Lal and Chhote Lal. Dr. Duration fresh, admitted, police informed. 7. SI Ram Narain Pal (PW-5) conducted Inquest (Ex-Ka-3) of the dead body on 23.03.1998 between 22:00 to 23:15 hours. He prepared photo lash, police papers and letters to authorities (Ex-Ka-4 to Ka-7) for conducting postmortem of the deceased. He dispatched the dead body for postmortem through constables Jawahar Lal and Chhote Lal. Dr. Shyam Lal Barnwal (PW-4) conducted autopsy of the dead body on 24.03.1998 at 4:00 PM and prepared postmortem report (Ex-Ka-2) in which following ante-mortem injuries were noted:- (i) Multiple lacerated wound, in an area of 14 cm x 12 cm, on the right side of abdomen, varying in size, 1.5 cm to 2 cm in length and 0.5 cm in width and muscle deep. (ii) Firearm wounds of entry, 1.5 cm x 1.5 cm x abdomen cavity deep, on right side abdomen, upper part, blackening present, margin inverted, underlying peritoneum, liver lacerated and one metallic cog shot recovered from abdomen cavity. (iii) Multiple incised wound in an area of 12 cm x 8 cm, on the left side of chest, varying in size 1.5 cm to 2 cm in length and 0.5 cm in width, muscle deep. (iv) Incised wound 3 cm x 0.5 cm x muscle deep on the right forearm, upper part. In the internal examination, peritoneum was lacerated. Abdomen cavity contained 2 liter blood. Stomach contained 3 ounce watery fluid. Small Intestine was empty and large intestine contained gases and fecal matter. Liver was lacerated. Urinary Bladder was empty. According to opinion of the Doctor, death was caused due to shock and hemorrhage, as a result of ante-mortem injuries. 8. On committal, the cases were registered as S.T. No. 571 of 1998 and S.T. No. 143 of 1999. Additional Session's Judge framed charges on 21.05.1999 in S.T. No. 571 of 1998 and on 13.08.1999 in S.T. No. 143 of 1999 against the accused. The accused pleaded "not guilty" and claimed for trial. In order to prove the charges, the prosecution examined Shalendra Kumar Tripathi (PW-1), the informant, Asgar Ali (PW-2), an injured witness, Ramesh Yadav (PW-3), an injured witness, Dr. Shyam Lal Barnwal (PW-4) to prove postmortem report, SI Ram Narain Pal (PW-5) to prove Inquest, Dr. The accused pleaded "not guilty" and claimed for trial. In order to prove the charges, the prosecution examined Shalendra Kumar Tripathi (PW-1), the informant, Asgar Ali (PW-2), an injured witness, Ramesh Yadav (PW-3), an injured witness, Dr. Shyam Lal Barnwal (PW-4) to prove postmortem report, SI Ram Narain Pal (PW-5) to prove Inquest, Dr. S.S. Parvez (PW-6) to prove Injury Reports of Ramesh Yadav and Asgar Ali, SHO Kapil Muni Singh (PW-7), Investigating Officer, Constable Moharrir Tulsi Ram (PW-8) to prove check FIR, SI Anil Kumar Singh (PW-9), Investigating Officer of the cases under Arms Act, 1959. 9. All the incriminatory materials and facts were put to the accused, under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They denied the evidence and materials and claimed false implication. Gopal stated that Vivek Kumar Pandey (the deceased) was doing money lending business. Asgar and Ramesh Yadav were his men and helpers. Vivek Kumar Pandey received injuries somewhere else, in different manner and they were falsely implicated in this case. 10. Additional Session's Judge, after hearing the parties, by the impugned judgment held that the motive of the incident was not proved. The genesis and origin of the dispute as set up by the prosecution was proved to be false. Presence of Shalendra Kumar Tripathi on the spot was doubtful. Oral testimonies were not corroborated with medical evidence. The place of incident was doubtful. The chemical examination report has not been produced in Court. SI Ram Narain Pal (PW-5), in Inquest (Ex-Ka-3), has mentioned that murder had been committed by causing gunshot injury. He in his statements has stated that none of the Panches informed him that he was an eye witness although Shalendra Kumar Tripathi was also Panch. From this fact it is proved that at the time of Inquest, FIR was not in existence, it was ant-timed and lodged after due deliberation. On these findings, he acquitted the respondents from all the charges. Hence, this appeal has been filed. 11. We have considered the arguments of counsel for the parties and examined the record. Section 39 of Arms Act, 1959 provides that no prosecution shall be instituted against any person in respect of any offence under Section 3 without the previous sanction of District Magistrate. The prosecution has not obtained sanction for prosecution of the accused from District Magistrate. 11. We have considered the arguments of counsel for the parties and examined the record. Section 39 of Arms Act, 1959 provides that no prosecution shall be instituted against any person in respect of any offence under Section 3 without the previous sanction of District Magistrate. The prosecution has not obtained sanction for prosecution of the accused from District Magistrate. Therefore, acquittal of Uma @ Uma Shankar under Section 3/25 of Arms Act, 1959 and Bhola under Section 4/25 of Arms Act, 1959, do not suffer from any illegality. 12. In FIR, no motive was given. Shalendra Kumar Tripathi (PW-1), in his statement, also did not give any motive. In cross-examination, he stated that at the time of incident, the deceased was doing money lender's business but he specifically denied that the deceased had engaged any person for collection of his money from his debtors. He stated that when he was returning with the deceased from Dharamshala after taking vegetables on the motorcycle of the deceased, then they heard loud noise of dispute, coming from the side of the house of Asgar Ali. Asgar came, running and informed that the accused were assaulting his family members. PW-1 has not given any motive for the accused to cause murder of Vivek Kumar Pandey. Statement of PW-1 that noise of the quarrel, which was happening at the house of Asgar Ali, was coming at 8:30 PM, is not corroborated by Asgar Ali and Ramesh Yadav (PWs-2 and 3). Asgar Ali (PW-2) has stated that the deceased had given money to Bhola. He went to the house of Bhola on 23.03.1998 at 4:00 PM for collecting that money, on the instructions of the deceased. When he demanded money of the deceased from Bhola, he began to hurl filthy abuses to him, which was intervened by some persons. On that day about 6:00 PM, Bhola, Santosh, Uma and others came to his house and began to hurl filthy abuses to his children. Thereafter, they caused the incident on the same day at 8:30 PM. Ramesh Yadav (PW-3) stated that the deceased had informed that he had given Rs. 1000/- to Bhola, which was not returned by him for two months. Therefore, he sent Asgar to the house of Bhola for collecting that money but his family members were abusing and searching him for assault. Ramesh Yadav (PW-3) stated that the deceased had informed that he had given Rs. 1000/- to Bhola, which was not returned by him for two months. Therefore, he sent Asgar to the house of Bhola for collecting that money but his family members were abusing and searching him for assault. In site-plan (Ex-Ka-10), in eastern side of crossing, the residence of the accused Bhola and Ravi Shankar were shown but residence of Asgar Ali was not shown in site plan. Their statements are not consistent in respect of motive and origin of the dispute. The accused Gopal, aged about 49 years, Bhola, aged about 47 years, Uma, aged about 36 years and Ravi Shankar, aged about 32 years are real brothers but they lived in different quarters as is proved from site-plan and from the statement of the witnesses. Bhola and Ravi Shankar were living in lane no. 107, while Uma and Gopal were living at different places. From their separate residence, it is proved that they were living separately. If Bhola had taken any money from Vivek Kumar Pandey, which was demanded from him by Asgar, then it does not appear probable that other brothers would also join the dispute and commit murder of Vivek Kumar Pandey. Thus apart from Bhola and Santosh, the other accused had no motive to commit the offence. 13. But, in cases of eye witness account, the motive has no importance. In the absence of the motive, evidence has to be scrutinized cautiously. Supreme Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra, (1973) 2 SCC 793 , held that proof of motive satisfies the judicial mind about the likelihood of the authorship but its absence only demands deeper forensic search and cannot undo the effect of evidence otherwise sufficient. Motives of men are often subjective, submerged and unamenable to easy proof that Courts have to go without clear evidence thereon if other clinching evidence exists. In the case on hand the enmity with Sita Ram being active and admitted, the pique against Hariba, his loyal dependent, is understandable. In Vijay Shankar v. State of Haryana, (2015) 12 SCC 644 , has held that in each and every case, it was not incumbent on the prosecution to prove the motive for the crime. In the case on hand the enmity with Sita Ram being active and admitted, the pique against Hariba, his loyal dependent, is understandable. In Vijay Shankar v. State of Haryana, (2015) 12 SCC 644 , has held that in each and every case, it was not incumbent on the prosecution to prove the motive for the crime. Often, motive is indicated to heighten the probability of the offence that the accused was impelled by that motive to commit the offence. Proof of motive only adds to the weight and value of evidence adduced by the prosecution. If the prosecution is able to prove its case on motive, it will be a corroborative piece of evidence. But even if the prosecution has not been able to prove its case on motive that will not be a ground to throw the prosecution case nor does it corrode the credibility of the prosecution case. Absence of proof of motive only demands careful scrutiny of evidence adduced by the prosecution. In the present case, absence of convincing evidence as to motive makes the court to be circumspect in the matter of assessment of evidence and this aspect was not kept in view by the High Court and the trial court. In Abdul Waheed v. State of U.P., (2016) 1 SCC 583 , has held that proof of motive of the accused towards the deceased heightens the possibility of the crime. Proof of motive adds weight and value to the evidence of the eyewitnesses. 14. In site-plan, house of Bhola was shown at Bauila Railway colony as 107-L and Ravi Shankar as 107-D, in same lane. Scooter of Ramesh Yadav was shown at 'F', which is in east of house of Bhola and west of the house of Ravi Shankar. Bullet motorcycle of Ramesh Tiwari was shown at place 'E' which little west to the house of Bhola and Suzuki motorcycle of Vivek Kumar Pandey was shown at place 'D', which is in west of 'E'. These vehicles were in same lane. The dead body of Vivek Kumar Pandey was found at place 'B', which was verandah of Ram Kripal Rai, Quarter No. 99-E, in west of the crossing in same lane. Asgar Ali (PW-2) in his statements has given his address as 103-E' Bauliya colony, which was in south after one lane. These vehicles were in same lane. The dead body of Vivek Kumar Pandey was found at place 'B', which was verandah of Ram Kripal Rai, Quarter No. 99-E, in west of the crossing in same lane. Asgar Ali (PW-2) in his statements has given his address as 103-E' Bauliya colony, which was in south after one lane. From the site-plan as well as statements of the witnesses, it appears that the deceased Vivek Kumar Pandey along with Asgar, Ramesh Yadav, Ramesh Tiwari and Chunna Pal came to the house of Bhola where the dispute was started, due to which the present incident had occurred. The party of the deceased were aggressor. But the accused did not take any plea of right of private defence to justify to cause fire arm injury or repeated blow of sharp edge weapon as such no benefit can be given to them. 15. In order to prove the prosecution case, the prosecution examined Shalendra Kumar Tripathi, Asgar Ali and Ramesh Yadav as the witnesses of the fact. Trial Court found that presence of Shalendra Kumar Tripathi as the place of occurrence was doubtful. Presence of Shalendra Kumar Tripathi (PW-1) on the spot at the time of incident, is doubtful for following reasons:- (i) In FIR and in his statement, Shalendra Kumar Tripathi (PW-1) has stated that when he and Vivek Kumar Pandey reached at Durga temple, Bauliya colony on 23.03.1998 at 8:30 PM, he heard loud noise of quarrel. But Asgar Ali (PW-2) has stated that quarrel had taken place on 23.03.1998 at 6:00 PM. (ii) In FIR and in his statement, Shalendra Kumar Tripathi (PW-1) has stated that they were going to pacify the dispute towards the quarter of Asgar Ali, but Vivek and Ramesh Tiwari and Ramesh Yadav were going towards the quarter of Bhola as their motorcycles of were lying near the house of Bhola. (iii) In his statement, Shalendra Kumar Tripathi (PW-1) has stated that when they had turned in the lane of Asgar, the accused attacked upon them but according to the site plan and other witnesses, incident had taken place in the lane of Bhola, while lane of Asgar was in south after one lane to that lane. (iii) In his statement, Shalendra Kumar Tripathi (PW-1) has stated that when they had turned in the lane of Asgar, the accused attacked upon them but according to the site plan and other witnesses, incident had taken place in the lane of Bhola, while lane of Asgar was in south after one lane to that lane. (iv) In FIR and in his statement, Shalendra Kumar Tripathi (PW-1) has stated that Vivek Kumar Pandey received one firearm injury on his chest and thereafter, he run away towards west and entered in a room. The accused broke open the door of that room and made another fire upon him. Dr. Shyam Lal Barnwal (PW-4) found only one firearm injury on the body of the deceased, in postmortem report. In Inquest (Ex-Ka-3) and in site-plan (Ex-Ka-10), the dead body was found in open verandah of Ram Kripal Rai. (v) In FIR and in his statement, Shalendra Kumar Tripathi (PW-1) has stated that Vivek Kumar Pandey and he were returning after purchasing vegetables. In cross-examination, he stated that on the spot, the bag of vegetables was left from his hand the vegetables were spread on the spot but SHO Kapil Muni Singh (PW-7) did not find any vegetable on the spot. (vi) In his statement, Shalendra Kumar Tripathi (PW-1) has stated that he knew Shailesh son of Gopal. Prior to the incident, he had talks with Bhola and Santosh. He did not know any persons of the house of Uma, Bhola and Santosh. But in FIR, the names of 5 accused have been disclosed and name of Shailesh was not disclosed and he was noted as "son of Gopal". In FIR names of the accused have been given as Uma, Bhola, Santosh, Gopal, son of Gopal and some unnamed persons. In statement, Shalendra Kumar Tripathi (PW-1) has stated that Santosh, Shalesh armed with pistol, Bhola, armed with gupti and Gopal, armed with hockey chased them and attacked upon them. He did not take the names of Uma, Ravi Shankar and unnamed accused. In cross-examination, he stated that he did not know any person of that lane as he was residing in the house of his relation. He did not take the names of Uma, Ravi Shankar and unnamed accused. In cross-examination, he stated that he did not know any person of that lane as he was residing in the house of his relation. (vii) Shalendra Kumar Tripathi (PW-1) has stated that when they turned in lane of Bhola, Vivek was ahead on his Suzuki motorcycle, Bullet motorcycle was behind it and the scooter was behind to it but in site-plan Suzuki motorcycle of Vivek was behind to the other two vehicles. (viii) In the FIR, Gopal was shown as armed with danda but in the statement, Shalendra Kumar Tripathi (PW-1) stated that Gopal was armed with hockey. (ix) Shalendra Kumar Tripathi (PW-1) stated that his statement was recorded at the police station by darogaji but SHO Kapil Muni Singh (PW-7) stated that he had received information of the incident of RT set and he directly reached at the spot, where he recorded statement of the informant. (x) Shalendra Kumar Tripathi (PW-1) stated that Asgar and Ramesh Yadav both received one firearm injury but Dr. S.S. Parvez (PW-6) stated that Asgar and Ramesh Yadav did not receive firearm injury. (xi) Shalendra Kumar Tripathi (PW-1), in his cross-examination, stated that as soon as they reached at 25-30 paces in east-west way, firing were started upon him. As per FIR, three accused were armed with pistol. But no injury was caused to Shalendra Kumar Tripathi. 16. Other evidence on record are the statements of Asgar Ali (PW-2) and Ramesh Yadav (PW-3), who claim to be the injured witnesses. It may be mentioned that Asgar Ali (PW-2) and Ramesh Yadav (PW-3) did not go to the police station nor they were sent through the police for medical examination rather they directly went to the hospital, where Dr. S.S. Parvez (PW-6) examined Ramesh Yadav on 23.03.1998 at 9:45 PM and prepared Injury Report (Ex-Ka-8). On the body of Ramesh Yadav, total 11 injuries were found out of which, according to the doctor, Injuries Nos. 1, 7, 8, 9, 11 were caused from gupti, Injuries No. 2, 3, 4 and 5 were caused from hockey/danda and Injury no. 6 was abrasion. Asgar was examined on 23.03.1998 at 10:10 PM and his Injury Report (Ex-Ka-9) was prepared. 1, 7, 8, 9, 11 were caused from gupti, Injuries No. 2, 3, 4 and 5 were caused from hockey/danda and Injury no. 6 was abrasion. Asgar was examined on 23.03.1998 at 10:10 PM and his Injury Report (Ex-Ka-9) was prepared. On the body of Asgar Ali total 4 injuries were found out of which Injury No. 1 was lacerated wound, Injury No. 2 was traumatic swelling and Injuries Nos. 3 and 4 were abrasions and these injuries were caused by hard and blunt object. Their injuries were not grievous in nature. 17. Asgar Ali (PW-2) stated that on he had sit on Bullet motorcycle of Ramesh Tiwari, brother-in-law of Vivek was not his motorcycle and Chunna Pal was on the scooter of Ramesh Yadav. As soon as they reached at the turn after Durga temple, Shalesh armed with pistol, Santosh armed with pistol, Bhola armed with gupti, Ravi Shankar armed with hockey and Gopal armed with danda chased them, in order to assault and told that they were helpers of Asgar. Kill them, nobody would be spared. All of them started firing with pistol. They fled away, leaving the vehicles there. He and Ramesh Yadav were besieged. They began assaulting from hockey and danda. Ramesh Tiwari, Chunna Pal and Shalendra hide and saved themselves. Vivek also received injury, who, in order to save his life, hide in the house of some person. The accused chased him, leaving him and Ramesh Yadav and shot him in the house, where he had hidden, due to which he died. In cross-examination, he stated that as soon as they were entering the lane of Bhola, Bhola and others came, while running, from western side and all of a sudden started firing. First fire hit Vivek and he fell down. Firing was done on Vivek from a distance of 5-6 paces. His face was towards west at the time, when firing was done upon him, which caused injury to him. This shot hit at his chest. Thereafter, no firing was done upon him. In the lane, where firing was done, only one fire was done. He also received pilot injury of that fire on his head. He did not receive knife or gupti injury. Uncountable danda injuries were caused to him, which were resisting by him through his hand. Ramesh Yadav also fell at the place where he was fallen. In the lane, where firing was done, only one fire was done. He also received pilot injury of that fire on his head. He did not receive knife or gupti injury. Uncountable danda injuries were caused to him, which were resisting by him through his hand. Ramesh Yadav also fell at the place where he was fallen. He could not say that how many lathi/ hockey injuries were caused to Ramesh Yadav. He had heard the sound of second fire which was done inside the house. He did not see what had happened with Vivek inside the house. He did not go to see Vivek. 18. Ramesh Yadav (PW-3) stated that as soon as they reached at 10 paces after turn of Durga temple, they heard sound to kill them as they had come in rescue of Asgar. Uma, Shalesh and Santosh armed with pistol, Bhola armed with gupti, Gopal armed with hockey and Ravi Shankar armed with danda and others were armed with lathi attacked upon them. Shalesh, Santosh and Uma fired upon them from their pistols in order to kill them. All of them chased to kill them. They fled away, to save their life. He, Vivek and Asgar were besieged. He received gunshot injury on his back. On besieging, they began assaulting from gupti, danda and lathi. Vivek fled away towards west in order to save his life, then the accused chased him. Vivek hide in the house of Sharmaji. But the accused push the door and entered inside the house and committed his murder by shooting from pistol. When the accused fired and assaulted, besieging them, then Vivek received gunshot injury in front side and injuries of gupti, lathi, danda. He and Asgar received grievous injuries. In cross-examination, he stated that at the time of attack, several fire was done upon them. Two-three fires were done upon him, then he run away towards west. These fires caused injuries on his back. As three persons were firing upon him from back side as such he could not see as to whose fire hit him. But he received three firearm injuries. One fire hit Asgar. Three-four fires were done on Vivek. Inside the house 3-4 fires were made. He admitted that he did not know the family members of Uma, Bhola, Satosh, Gopal, Shalesh and Ravi Shankar. But he received three firearm injuries. One fire hit Asgar. Three-four fires were done on Vivek. Inside the house 3-4 fires were made. He admitted that he did not know the family members of Uma, Bhola, Satosh, Gopal, Shalesh and Ravi Shankar. At the time of incident, he had no talk with any of the accused. He did not know that Gopal had how many sons. 19. PW-2 and 3 have stated that when they turned in lane of Bhola, Vivek was ahead on his Suzuki motorcycle, Bullet motorcycle was behind it and the scooter was behind to it but in site-plan Suzuki motorcycle of Vivek was behind to the other two vehicles. There was material contradictions in the statements of PW-2 and 3, in respect of number of the accused and number of firing. According to Asgar Ali (PW-2) Shalesh and Santosh armed with pistol, Bhola armed with gupti, Ravi Shankar armed with hockey and Gopal armed with danda attacked upon them. But Ramesh Yadav (PW-3) stated that Uma, Shalesh and Santosh armed with pistol, Bhola armed with gupti, Gopal armed with hockey and Ravi Shankar armed with danda and others were armed with lathi attacked upon them. Asgar Ali (PW-2) stated that only two firing were done on the spot but according to Ramesh Yadav (PW-3) more than six-seven firing were done. According to PW-3, many unnamed accused armed with lathi also attacked upon them. He admitted that he had no talks with family members of the accused, then all of a sudden in a night incident, how he had named so many accused. Apart from Bhola and Santosh, no other accused had any motive but all brothers of Bhola and his nephew Shalesh were implicated. 20. According to medical evidence, the deceased Vivek Kumar Pandey received one gunshot injury while Asgar Ali and Ramesh Yadav, the remaining injured did not receive any gun shot injury. Showing pistol in the hands of Uma and Shalesh and their participation in the incident appears to be exaggeration. Many unnamed accused assaulted with lathi as such participation of Ravi Shankar and Gopal are also doubtful and appears to be exaggeration. Uma, Ravi Shankar, Gopal and Shalesh are entitled for benefits of doubts. Showing pistol in the hands of Uma and Shalesh and their participation in the incident appears to be exaggeration. Many unnamed accused assaulted with lathi as such participation of Ravi Shankar and Gopal are also doubtful and appears to be exaggeration. Uma, Ravi Shankar, Gopal and Shalesh are entitled for benefits of doubts. However participation of Bhola, armed with gupti and Santosh armed with pistol and some unnamed accused armed with lathi and causing injuries to Vivek Kumar Pandey (the deceased) Asgar Ali (PW-2) and Ramesh Yadav (PW-3) is proved. Although statements of PW-2 and 3 are partly false but Supreme Court in Shakila Abdul Gafar Khan v. Vasant Raghunath Dhoble, (2003) 7 SCC 749 , has held that it is the duty of the court to separate the grain from the chaff. Falsity of a particular material witness or a material particular would not ruin it from the beginning to end. The maxim "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" has no application in India and the witnesses cannot be branded as liars. The maxim "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" has not received general acceptance nor has this maxim come to occupy the status of rule of law. It is merely a rule of caution. All that it amounts to is that in such cases testimony may be disregarded, and not that it must be disregarded. The doctrine merely involves the question of weight of evidence which a court may apply in a given set of circumstances, but it is not what may be called "a mandatory rule of evidence". 21. A three-Judge Bench of Supreme Court in Jadunath Singh v. State of U.P., (1971) 3 SCC 577 , has held in an appeal against acquittal, the High Court has full power to review at large all the evidence and to reach the conclusion that upon that evidence the order of acquittal should be reversed. In Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 , Supreme Court culled out the general principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal. The said principles are enumerated below: "(1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. The said principles are enumerated below: "(1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. (2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law. (3) Various expressions, such as, "substantial and compelling reasons", "good and sufficient grounds", "very strong circumstances", "distorted conclusions", "glaring mistakes", etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of "flourishes of language" to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion. (4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. (5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court." These principles have been approved by a three Judge Bench in Pawan Kumar v. State of H.P., (2017) 7 SCC 780 . 22. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the appeal is partly allowed. Acquittal of Bhola, son of Ram Saran and Santosh, son of Bhola in S.T. No. 571 of 1999 (State Vs. Gopal and others) [arising out of Case Crime No. 160 of 1998, under Sections 148, 302/149, 307/149, 323/149, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Shahpur, Distt. Gorakhpur] is set aside and they are convicted under Section 302, 324 read with Section 34 IPC. Bhola and Santosh are sentenced for life imprisonment, under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and three years imprisonment under Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC. All the sentences will run concurrently. Gorakhpur] is set aside and they are convicted under Section 302, 324 read with Section 34 IPC. Bhola and Santosh are sentenced for life imprisonment, under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and three years imprisonment under Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC. All the sentences will run concurrently. Bhola and Santosh be taken into custody and sent to jail to serve the sentence as awarded by this court. Acquittal of Bhola and Uma in S.T. No. 143 of 1999 (State Vs. Bhola and others) [arising out of Case Crime No. 162 and 163 of 1998, under Section 3/25 of Arms Act, 1959, P.S. Shahpur, Distt. Gorakhpur] is upheld. Acquittal of Uma, Ravi Shankar, Gopal and Shalesh in S.T. No. 571 of 1999 (State Vs. Gopal and others) [arising out of Case Crime No. 160 of 1998, under Sections 148, 302/149, 307/149, 323/149, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Shahpur, Distt. Gorakhpur] is upheld. Copy of this judgment shall be communicated to the Court concerned for its compliance. Lower Court Record may also be returned.