JUDGMENT : B.K. NARAYANA, J. 1. Heard Sri Kamal Krishna, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Ghanshyam Das, Sri R.K. Srivastava, learned Counsel for the appellants and Smt. Manju Thakur, learned A.G.A.-I assisted by Sri J.K. Upadhyay, learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants, Sanju Baghel (A-1) and Bhanwar Singh (A-2) against the judgment and order 28.7.2016 passed by Additional Session Judge, Court No. 5/Gangster Court, Mainpuri in Gangster Trial No. 296 of 2012 arising out of Case Crime No. 303 of 2003, Police Station-Kuraoli, District - Mainpuri, by which the appellants have been convicted and sentenced to death under section 302/34 I.P.C., seven years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in case of default in payment of fine, two months additional rigorous imprisonment under section 201 I.P.C., five years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 3,000/- each and in case of default in payment of fine, one month additional rigorous imprisonment each under section 506 I.P.C. and six years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 6,000/- and in case of default in payment of fine, two months additional rigorous imprisonment each under section 2/3 of U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. Reference made by the Additional Session Judge, Court No. 5/Gangster Court, Mainpuri to this Court for confirmation of death sentence passed by him against Sanju Baghel (A-1) and Bhanwar Singh (A-2) which was registered as Reference No. 09 of 2016 before this Court and connected with this appeal, is also being considered along with this appeal. 4. The facts of the case as unfolded from the perusal of the facts stated in the written report (Exhibit Ka-1), which was lodged by P.W. 2 informant Satya-pal, real brother of Surendra Singh (deceased) and as later testified by the three witnesses of fact, P.W. 1 Uma Shankar, P.W. 2 informant Satyapal and P.W. 3 Nawab Singh during the trial, are that about 4-5 months before the occurrence, informant's brother-Surendra Singh had gone to a village within the territorial limits of Police Station - Naseerpur with Sanju (A-1), son of Ram Shankar Baghel, where Sanju had misbehaved with a girl on account of which the family members of the girl had caught and beaten them severely. Surendra Singh somehow managed to escape from the clutches of the members of the girl's family and reached police station-Naseerpur. The police personnel informed his father, who came to the police station and took him back to his home. After sometime, Sanju also reached the police station and lodged a complaint that Surendra (deceased) had got him caught. Thereafter, the police caught Surendra and took him to Police Station-Naseerpur. Sanju (A-1) got Surendra Singh (deceased) falsely implicated in a case under the Arms Act and since then Sanju (A-1) had become inimical towards Surendra Singh. 5. On the date of the incident, informant's brother-Surendra had gone on bicycle of one Ramesh, son of Ram Prasad Baghel to Village-Kamalpur to meet Sukhveer-Pradhan of Village-Kamalpur. When P.W. 2 Satyapal and his uncle Chaturi son of Angad Singh were returning from Kamalpur, they met Surendra Singh (deceased) near village-Rajalpur and from there they proceeded towards their village on foot. After they had walked for about two kilometers ahead of Rajalpur towards the barren land of village-Vankata, then Sanju (A-1), Jabar Singh and Bhanwar Singh (A-2) armed with country-made pistols and sickle suddenly emerged from the bushes near Village-Vankata and at about 12 noon, they attacked the informant's brother-Surendra with sickle and severed his head from his body. When P.W. 2 informant Satya Pal and his uncle moved forward, they were threatened by the accused that in case they tried to intervene, they would shoot them also. Sanju (A-1) was armed with a country-made pistol and sickle while Jabar Singh was carrying country-made pistol and an axe and Bhamar Singh was armed with country-made pistol and sickle. Leaving the dead body under the custody of his uncle-Chaturi, P.W. 2 informant Satya Pal left the place of occurrence to lodge the written report of the incident at Police Station-Kurawali, District - Mainpuri, which was scribed by P.W. 1 Uma Shankar. 6. On the basis of the written report (Exhibit Ka-1), Case Crime No. 166 of 2003 was registered against the appellants and one Jabar Singh, under sections - 302, 201, 506 and 34 I.P.C. Check F.I.R. (Exhibit Ka-23) and the relevant G.D. entry (Exhibit Ka-24) time 16.30 hours dated 25.11.2013 were prepared by P.W. 7 Dinesh Singh, Head Moharrir. 6. On the basis of the written report (Exhibit Ka-1), Case Crime No. 166 of 2003 was registered against the appellants and one Jabar Singh, under sections - 302, 201, 506 and 34 I.P.C. Check F.I.R. (Exhibit Ka-23) and the relevant G.D. entry (Exhibit Ka-24) time 16.30 hours dated 25.11.2013 were prepared by P.W. 7 Dinesh Singh, Head Moharrir. P.W. 6 Rajendra Singh Parmar, who was entrusted the investigation of the case, reached the place of occurrence and after recording the statements of witnesses present there, conducted inquest on the body of deceased-Surendra Singh on the same day at 16:30 hours. Inquest report (Exhibit Ka-2) was written by S.I.R.S. Verma on the dictation of P.W. 6 S.I. Rajendra Singh Parmar. P.W. 6 Rajendra Singh Parmar collected bloodstained and plain earth from the place of occurrence. The recovery memo of the aforesaid articles was written by S.I. R.S. Verma on the dictation of P.W. 6 Rajendra Singh Parmar, which was brought on record as (Exhibit Ka-5). He also seized the Atlas Gold cycle belonging to Ramesh from the place of occurrence, prepared its supurdiginama (Exhibit Ka-6) and signed the same and also obtained signatures of the witnesses thereon. Thereafter, he prepared the letter addressed to C.M.O., Mainpuri, photo nash, specimen seal and challan nash which were brought on record during the trial and proved as (Exhibits Ka-7, 8, 9, 10 respectively). He also prepared and proved the site plan of the place of occurrence (Exhibit Ka-11). He then dispatched the headless body of the deceased Surendra Singh for postmortem examination. 7. Post-mortem on the headless body of deceased Surendra Singh was conducted on 26.11.2003 at 3 p.m. by Dr. Kaushal Kishore, Medical Officer, District Hospital, Mainpuri who was examined as P.W. 5. He prepared and proved the post-mortem report of the headless dead body of Surendra Singh as (Exhibit Ka. 4). P.W. 4 Dr. U.C. Chaturvedi conducted post-mortem examination of head of deceased on 28.11.2003 and prepared its post-mortem report (Exhibit Ka-3). 8. P.W. 6 Rajendra Singh Parmar recovered the head of deceased-Surendra Singh on the pointing out of P.W. 3 Nawab Singh and prepared its recovery memo (Exhibit Ka-17). Thereafter, he conducted inquest on the deceased's head and prepared its inquest report (Exhibit Ka-12) and other connected documents, letter addressed to C.M.O. (Exhibit Ka-13), specimen seal (Exhibit Ka-14), photonash of deceased's head (Exhibit Ka-15), letter addressed to R.I. (Exhibit Ka-16). Thereafter, he conducted inquest on the deceased's head and prepared its inquest report (Exhibit Ka-12) and other connected documents, letter addressed to C.M.O. (Exhibit Ka-13), specimen seal (Exhibit Ka-14), photonash of deceased's head (Exhibit Ka-15), letter addressed to R.I. (Exhibit Ka-16). 9. He also recovered the bloodstained clothes of deceased Surendra Singh from the same place from where his head was recovered on the same day and prepared the recovery memo of the deceased's domes (Exhibit 17). He also inspected the place from where the deceased's head and blood-stained clothes were recovered and prepared its site plan (Exhibit Ka-18). On 5.12.2003, accused-appellants Sanju Baghel (A-1), Bhamar Singh (A-2) and Jabar Singh were arrested and on their pointing out, sickles and one axe were recovered. Recovery memo of the aforesaid weapons was prepared on the spot by the Investigating Officer which was brought on record as (Exhibit Ka-19). The site plan of the place from where the so-called crime weapons were recovered was also prepared and proved as (Exhibit Ka-22). Since, during the investigation, the Investigating Officer collected evidence which indicated that the accused-appellants were also engaged in carrying on antisocial activities, section 2/3 of U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 was also added to the F.I.R. after sickles and axe were recovered on their pointing out and gang chart was prepared and proved as (Exhibit Ka-20). 10. The clothes of the deceased, blood-stained and simple earth collected from the place of occurrence and the crime weapons recovered on the pointing out of the appellants were sent by the Investigating Officer to the forensic lab for chemical examination. The report of the forensic lab was brought on record as (Exhibit Ka-26). 11. The Investigating Officer, after completing the investigation filed charge-sheet against the accused-appellants, Sanju Baghel (A-1) and Bhanwar Singh (A-2) and one Jabar Singh before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mainpuri. Jabar Singh died during the trial. 12. The report of the forensic lab was brought on record as (Exhibit Ka-26). 11. The Investigating Officer, after completing the investigation filed charge-sheet against the accused-appellants, Sanju Baghel (A-1) and Bhanwar Singh (A-2) and one Jabar Singh before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mainpuri. Jabar Singh died during the trial. 12. Since, the offences mentioned in the chargesheet were triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mainpuri committed the case of the accused-appellants for trial to the Court of Sessions Judge, Mainpuri, where Case Crime No. 166 of 2003 was registered as Gangster Trial No. 296 of 2012 and made over for trial from there to the Court of Additional Session Judge, Court No. 5/Gangster Court, Mainpuri, who on the basis of the material on record and after hearing prosecution as well as the accused on the point of charge, framed charge under section 302/201/506/34 I.P.C. and section 2/3 of U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 against both the accused-appellants. The accused-appellants abjured the charges and claimed trial. 13. The prosecution in order to prove its case against the accused-appellants examined as many as seven witnesses of whom P.W. 1 Uma Shankar, P.W. 2 informant Satya Pal, P.W. 3 Nawab Singh were examined as witnesses of facts while P.W. 4 Dr. U.C. Chaturvedi who had conducted postmortem of deceased's head P.W. 5 Dr. Kaushal Kishore, who had conducted post-mortem of the deceased's body, P.W. 6 Rajender Singh Parmar, the Investigating Officer of the case and P.W. 7 Dinesh Singh, Head Moharrir who had prepared the check F.I.R. (Exhibit Ka. 23) and relevant G.D. Entry (Exhibit Ka-24), were produced as formal witnesses. 14. The accused-appellants in there statements recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution case as false and alleged false implication due to previous enmity. They examined Chaturi Singh as D.W. 1 in whose vigil P.W. 2 informant Satya Pal had allegedly left the dead body of Surendra Singh after the occurrence had taken place and Munna Lal as D.W. 2 who claimed that the bloodstained and plain earth was collected by the Investigating Officer from the place of occurrence at about 4:00 p.m. in his presence as well as in the presence of 50-60 persons, who had arrived at the place of occurrence upon hearing the news of headless dead body lying near the village. 15. 15. Learned Additional Session Judge, Court No. 5/Gangster Court, Mainpuri after considering the submissions advanced before him by the learned Counsel for the parties and scrutinizing the evidence on record, both oral as well as documentary, convicted both the appellants and awarded aforesaid sentences to them. 16. Hence, this appeal. 17. Sri Kamal Krishna, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellants submitted that conviction of the appellants in this case is based upon the evidence of P.W. 2 informant Satya Pal, who in fact happens to be the real brother of the deceased and who on account of previous enmity had falsely implicated the appellants in the present case after some unknown persons had committed the murder of Surendra Singh. He further submitted that the irreconcilable discrepancies and glaring contradictions with regard to material facts mentioned in the F.I.R. lodged by P.W. 2 informant Satya Pal and those deposed by him in his examination-in-chief are sufficient to establish that he had not seen the occurrence and had given absolutely false evidence against the accused-appellants. He next submitted from the evidence of P.W. 3 Nawab Singh, it is established that he had reached the place of occurrence after receiving information of a headless dead body lying in the barren land of village-Vankata and when he reached there, the police had already arrived but they were not ready to take the body for post-mortem despite the request of the villagers. The police had reached the place of occurrence even before the lodging of the F.I.R. and P.W. 2 informant Satyapal was not present there. He next submitted that it is proved from the evidence of P.W. 1 Uma Shankar that the F.I.R. in this case was prepared after due deliberations and consultations with the police at the police station. He further submitted that there is no evidence showing that the so-called crime weapons were recovered at the pointing out of the accused-appellants, pursuant to the disclosure made by them to the police after their arrest. The report of the forensic lab indicating that blood was found on the crime weapons as well as on the clothes of the deceased, is of no help to the prosecution for the purpose of convicting the appellants. There is no evidence on record indicating that the appellants were the members of any gang or engaged in any antisocial activities. The report of the forensic lab indicating that blood was found on the crime weapons as well as on the clothes of the deceased, is of no help to the prosecution for the purpose of convicting the appellants. There is no evidence on record indicating that the appellants were the members of any gang or engaged in any antisocial activities. He further submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove that the incident had taken place at the place mentioned in the F.I.R. He lastly submitted that neither the recorded conviction of the appellants nor the death sentence awarded to them can be sustained and are liable to be set-aside. 18. Per contra Sri J.K. Upadhyay, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State submitted that the evidence on record, both oral as well as documentary, unequivocally points out that the deceased Surendra Singh was done to death by the accused-appellants. The discrepancies vis-a-vis. the facts stated in the F.I.R. and those deposed by P.W. 2 informant Satya Pal are not so material so as to render the prosecution story untrustworthy or unreliable. There are no material contradictions or discrepancies in the evidence of P.W. 2 Satyapal. He further submitted that the evidence of P.W. 2 Satyapal indicating at the appellants complicity finds full corroboration from the recoveries made during investigation. He further submitted that the learned trial Judge did not commit any illegality or legal infirmity in convicting the appellants on the basis of the testimony of P.W. 2 Satyapal after finding him to be wholly a reliable and trustworthy witness. There is no law or rule which provides that a conviction cannot be recorded on the basis of the evidence of a witness, who is related to the deceased. The omission on the part of the prosecution to examine Chaturi who was nominated as an eye-witness in the F.I.R., is not in any manner detrimental to the prosecution case. The prosecution has fully succeeded in proving by leading cogent evidence that the incident had taken place at the time, place and manner as narrated in the F.I.R. and that the appellants were the perpetrators of the crime. This appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 19. We have very carefully considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties before us and perused the entire lower Court record with utmost caution. 20. This appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 19. We have very carefully considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties before us and perused the entire lower Court record with utmost caution. 20. The only question which arises for our consideration in this appeal is that whether the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the accused-appellants beyond all reasonable doubts or not? 21. Before proceeding to evaluate the evidence of the three witnesses of fact, we propose to first have a glance at the evidence of the formal witnesses. 22. Dr. U.C. Chaturvedi who had conducted post-mortem on the head of the deceased on 28.11.2003 at 3:30 p.m. and prepared his post-mortem report was examined as P.W. 4 during the trial. He noted following ante-mortem injuries on the deceased body:-- (1) Neck severed from the body. Wound 14 c.m. x 12 c.m. x bone deep, and cut at the level of fifth bone of neck. Trachea and Esophagus including blood vessels were incised. (2) Incised wound 7 c.m. x 2 c.m. x bone deep to the left of the chin. (3) Lacerated wound 6 c.m. x 0.6 c.m. to the right side of face in the middle of right eye and ear. Contusion mark 3 c.m. x 6 c.m. on left side of face above the eyebrow. (4) Incised wound 5 c.m. x 1 c.m. x bone deep near the root of the right ear. (5) Incised wound 2 c.m. x 0.5 c.m. through and through on right ear. (6) Incised wound 4 c.m. x 1.2 c.m. x muscle deep 2 c.m. far from right ear. (7) Incised wound 4 c.m. x 1 c.m. x 0.5 c.m. muscle deep triangular on right jaw. (8) Two incised wounds 3 c.m. x 0.5 c.m. and 4 c.m. x 1 c.m. on left side of head, 6 c.m. above the left ear. (9) Incised wound 3 c.m. x 1 c.m. to the left side on outer side of eyebrow. 23. He further deposed that the deceased had died as a result of shock and hemorrhage due to ante-mortem injuries and his death had taken place about three days before the date on which the postmortem was conducted on the body. He proved the postmortem of head of the deceased as (Exhibit Ka-3). 24. Dr. 23. He further deposed that the deceased had died as a result of shock and hemorrhage due to ante-mortem injuries and his death had taken place about three days before the date on which the postmortem was conducted on the body. He proved the postmortem of head of the deceased as (Exhibit Ka-3). 24. Dr. Kaushal Kishore, who had performed autopsy on the headless dead body of Surendra Singh on 26.11.2003 at 3:00 deposed that the deceased was near about 21 years. His head was severed. He noted following ante-mortem injuries on his dead body. (1) Through and through cut wound from neck 14 c.m. x 12 c.m. x cut wound of 5. All the stitching clear cut. Margin clear cut. (2) Four incised wound on rt. palms and fingers, 5 c.m. x 1 c.m. x muscle deep to 1 c.m. x 0.5 c.m. x skin deep. (3) 4 c.m. x 1 c.m. x muscle deep incised wound on left palm. (4) Three incised wound 1 c.m. x 0.5 c.m. x skin deep on back side of index and middle fingers. (5) Contusion 5 c.m. x 3 c.m. on top of rt. shoulder. (6) Multiple contusion on rt. side back in an area of 18 c.m. below the scapular inf. angle size varying 7 c.m. x 2 c.m. to 2 c.m. x 2 c.m. (7) Two abrasions on front of left knee & thigh of size 3 c.m. x 3 c.m. (8) Abrasion contusion 4 c.m. x 2 c.m. on rt. thigh 6 c.m. above rt. knee. 25. He further deposed that he had found one underwear, one black thread and one kalawa on the deceased's body which he had handed over in a sealed state to the police constable. According to him, the deceased had died about one day before his post-mortem examination, cause of death of deceased according to him was shock and haemorrhage due to injury inflicted on him by a sharp-edged weapon. He proved the post-mortem report of the deceased headless body as (Exhibit Ka-4). 26. P.W. 6 Rajendra Singh Parmar, the Investigating Officer of the case stated before the trial Court that he was posted as S.H.O. of P.S. Kuraoli on 25.11.2003. On the same day, investigation of Case Crime No. 303 of 2003, under sections 302, 201, 506, 34 I.P.C. and 2/3 U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 was assumed by him. P.W. 6 Rajendra Singh Parmar, the Investigating Officer of the case stated before the trial Court that he was posted as S.H.O. of P.S. Kuraoli on 25.11.2003. On the same day, investigation of Case Crime No. 303 of 2003, under sections 302, 201, 506, 34 I.P.C. and 2/3 U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 was assumed by him. He went to the place of incident with P.W. 2 informant Satyapal and held inquest on the headless body of deceased Surendra Singh. Inquest report was written by S.I. R.S. Verma on his dictation. He proved the recovery memo of plain and blood stained earth (Exhibit Ka-5), recovery memo of atlas cycle belonging to Ramesh and its supurdiginama (Exhibit Ka-6), letter addressed to C.M.O. Mainpuri for conducting post-mortem of the headless body of the deceased (Exhibit Ka-7), photo nash (Exhibit Ka-8), specimen seal (Exhibit Ka-9), and challan nash (Exhibit Ka-10). He also proved the site plan of the place of occurrence (Exhibit Ka-11), inquest report of the deceased's head (Exhibit Ka-12), letter addressed to C.M.O. for conducting post-mortem of deceased's head (Exhibit Ka-13), specimen seal (Exhibit Ka-14), photo nash of deceased's head (Exhibit Ka-15), letter addressed to R.I. (Exhibit Ka-16), recovery memo of plain and blood-stained earth from the place of recovery of deceased's head (Exhibit Ka-17), site plan of the place from where the head was recovered (Exhibit Ka-18), recovery memo of two sickles and one axe (Exhibit Ka-19) and gang chart (Exhibit Ka-20). He also proved the charge-sheet filed by him in the case against the accused after completing the investigation as (Exhibit Ka-21) and the site plan of the place of recovery of crime weapons (Exhibit Ka-22). Case properties comprising of axe, handle-less sickle, containers in which plain and blood stained earth was kept and clothes were exhibited during the trial as (material Exhibits 1 to 6) and proved by P.W. 6 S.I. Rajendra Singh Parmar. 27. P.W. 7 S.I. Dinesh Singh deposed that he was posted as constable clerk at P.S. Kuraoli on 25.11.2003. On that date, he had received the written report from P.W. 2 informant Satyapal on the basis of which he had prepared the chik F.I.R. (Exhibit Ka-23) and recorded the gist of the F.I.R. in the G.D. vide Rapat No. 24 at 16:30 hours on 25.11.2003. Carbon copy whereof was produced during the trial and marked as (Exhibit Ka-24). On that date, he had received the written report from P.W. 2 informant Satyapal on the basis of which he had prepared the chik F.I.R. (Exhibit Ka-23) and recorded the gist of the F.I.R. in the G.D. vide Rapat No. 24 at 16:30 hours on 25.11.2003. Carbon copy whereof was produced during the trial and marked as (Exhibit Ka-24). He further deposed that the original G.D. had been destroyed, certificate whereof was brought on record and proved by him as (Exhibit Ka-25). The report of the forensic lab was brought on record as (Exhibit Ka-26). 28. Thus from the perusal of the evidence of formal witnesses examined by the prosecution during the trial, it transpires that the deceased had died on 25.11.2003 at about 3:00 p.m. as a result of the cut injury inflicted on him by a sharp-edged weapon. 29. Inquest on his body was conducted on the same day at 4:30 p.m. and the inquest report of the deceased (Exhibit Ka-2) indicates that except for an underwear, no other cloth was found on the body of the deceased. Post-mortem on the headless body of the deceased was conducted on 26.11.2003 at about 3:00 p.m. by P.W. 5 Dr. Kaushal Kishore who had also prepared the post-mortem report of the deceased (Exhibit Ka-4) and according to him the deceased had died about one day before the postmortem examination of his dead body due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of cut injury inflicted by sharp-edged weapon. 30. The head of the deceased and the clothes which he was wearing at the time of the occurrence were recovered on 28.11.2003 and post-mortem on the head of the deceased was conducted on 28.11.2003 at 3:30 p.m. by P.W. 4 Dr. U.C. Chaturvedi. The time of death opined by P.W. 4. Dr. U.C. Chaturvedi coincided with the time of the deceased's death mentioned in the F.I.R. It is also proved from the evidence of P.W. 5 Dr. Kaushal Kishore, who had conducted postmortem on the headless body of the deceased that only one underwear, one black thread and kalawa were found on the body of the deceased by him meaning thereby that no other cloth was found on his body. 31. The prosecution had examined P.W. 1 Uma Shanker, P.W. 2 informant Satyapal and P.W. 3 Nawab Singh as witnesses of fact. 31. The prosecution had examined P.W. 1 Uma Shanker, P.W. 2 informant Satyapal and P.W. 3 Nawab Singh as witnesses of fact. P.W. 1 Uma Shanker is the scribe of the F.I.R. He deposed that he had written the written report of the incident on the dictation of P.W. 2 informant Satyapal on 25.11.2003 in the police station at about 1:00 p.m. He proved the written report of the incident as (Exhibit Ka-1). In his cross-examination, he further deposed that he was studying' in Class-XI on the date on which he had scribed the written report. He had met P.W. 2 informant Satyapal, Munna Lal, Chaturi and others at the police station. Munna Lal and Chaturi were illiterate persons. When he was scribing the written report in the police station, Daroga Ji and Diwan Ji were present near him. Daroga Ji had told the manner in which the written report was to be drafted. He further deposed that neither he had any information about the incident nor he had seen anything. The accused were residents of his village and apart from the present case they were neither accused in any other case nor they were members of any gang. 32. P.W. 3 Nawab Singh deposed in his examination-in-chief that the murder of Surendra Singh Baghel s/o. Shiv Dayal of his village was committed on 25.11.2003 by severing his head from his body. On receiving the aforesaid information, he along with the other villagers had gone to Vankata village where he had identified the headless dead body lying there as that of Surendra Singh. At that time, the deceased was wearing only a yellow colored underwear. The inquest report was prepared in his presence by the Investigating Officer and he had signed the same. Atlas cycle which had been borrowed from Ramesh by the deceased was lying near his dead body. In cross-examination, he deposed that Surendra was his real nephew. When he had left his house, he was wearing a pant and t-shirt. He had recognized the headless body as that of the deceased. Vankata was at a distance of about one kilometer from the place where the dead body was lying. He received the information about a headless body lying while he was sitting in front of his house on that day. He did not remember the name of the person who had informed him. Vankata was at a distance of about one kilometer from the place where the dead body was lying. He received the information about a headless body lying while he was sitting in front of his house on that day. He did not remember the name of the person who had informed him. The dead body was virtually naked with only an underwear on it which was of yellow colour. Deceased's head had been severed but no other injury was noticed by him on his body. He further stated in his cross-examination that the inquest report was prepared at about 5:00 p.m. The evidence of P.W. 1 Uma Shanker, scribe of the F.I.R. thus clearly proves that the F.I.R. of the incident was written in the police station on the dictation of P.W. 2 informant Satyapal after due consultations and discussions with the police personnel present in the police station and not at the place of incident as deposed by P.W. 2 Satyapal and hence it would not be safe to rely on the prosecution story as spelt out therein. 33. The evidence of P.W. 3 Nawab Singh indicates that although Surendra Singh was his nephew, he had reached the place where the headless dead body of Surendra Singh was lying on receiving information from the villagers and not from P.W. 2 informant Satyapal. His evidence further indicates that neither P.W. 2 informant Satyapal nor Chaturi were present at the place where the deceased's dead body was lying when P.W. 3 Nawab Singh had reached there. 34. Now coming to the evidence of P.W. 2 Satyapal Singh, we find that the admissibility of his evidence has been criticized by the learned Counsel for the appellants on two grounds inter alia that he is a relative of the deceased and hence falls under the category of an interested witnesses and secondly he not being a wholly reliable witness, no reliance can be placed on his testimony for the purpose of confirming the recorded conviction of the appellants without seeking corroboration from evidence of other independent witness. 35. 35. Regarding evidentiary value of testimony of the interested or relatives witnesses, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mano Dutt and another v. State of U.P. 2012 (77) ACC 209, has observed in paragraph No. 19 referring to the case of Namdeo v. State of Maharashtra 2007 (58) ACC 414 (52) : 2007 (54) AIC 162 , that this Court drew a clear distinction between a chance witness and a natural witness. Both these witnesses have to be relied upon subject to their evidence being trustworthy and admissible in accordance with law. 36. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Wa-man and others v. State of Maharashtra 2011 Crl. L.J. 4827 : 2012 (76) ACC 603 (SC), has observed in paragraph No. 9 which reads as follows: "In Balraje @ Trimbak v. State of Maharashtra 2010 (70) ACC 12 (SC) : 2010 (90) AIC 32 , this Court held that mere fact that the witnesses were related to the deceased cannot be a ground to discard their evidence. It was further held that when the eyewitnesses are stated to be interested and inimically disposed towards the accused, it has to be noted that it would not be proper to conclude that they would shield the real culprit and rope in innocent persons. The truth or otherwise of the evidence has to be weighed pragmatically and the Court would be required to analyse the evidence of related witnesses and those witnesses who are inimically disposed toward the accused. After saying so, this Court held that if after careful analysis and scrutiny of their evidence, the version given by the witnesses appears to be clear, cogent and credible, there is no reason to discard the same." It has been further observed in Waman (supra) that relationship cannot be a factor to affect the credibility of a witness. The evidence of a witness cannot be discarded solely on the ground of his relationship with the victim of the offence. The plea relating to relatives' evidence remains without any substance in case the evidence has credence and it can be relied upon. In such a case the defence has to lay foundation if plea of false implication is made and the Court has to analyse evidence of related witnesses carefully to find out whether it is cogent and credible. The plea relating to relatives' evidence remains without any substance in case the evidence has credence and it can be relied upon. In such a case the defence has to lay foundation if plea of false implication is made and the Court has to analyse evidence of related witnesses carefully to find out whether it is cogent and credible. The same view has been reiterated in State of U.P. v. Naresh and others 2011 (75) ACC 215 (SC) : 2011 (106) AIC 76 (SC). 37. Thus, after going through the aforesaid authorities, the legal position which emerges is that there is no rule which provides that a conviction cannot be recorded on the basis of the evidence of a solitary witness or a witness who is related to the deceased. The only safeguard which is required to be observed is that the evidence of such a witness should be scrutinized with utmost caution and if the Court comes to the conclusion that such witness has given a correct and cogent version of the incident, then his evidence is not liable to be discarded merely on the ground of his being a relative of the deceased. 38. As regards a conviction based on the evidence of a solitary witness, settled law is that the Court is required to appraise and scrutinize his evidence with the object of verifying the veracity of facts stated by such witness. In case, the Court finds that the solitary witness is wholly reliable, in that case the Court is not required to seek corroboration from any other evidence or circumstance for the purpose of recording the conviction. But in case the Court finds such a witness to be partially reliable in that case, the Court shall look for corroboration. 39. P.W. 2 informant Satyapal Singh, we find that although he in his examination-in-chief he has supported the prosecution case with regard to the motive, time, place, manner of assault and the identity of the perpetrators of the crime as spelt out in the F.I.R. and proved the written report of the incident (Exhibit Ka-1), but we do not find any mention in his statement that the accused-appellants after severing the head of Surendra Singh from his body had removed his clothes and fled with the deceased's clothes and head. 40. 40. The omission on his part to state either in the written report of the incident or in his statement recorded during the trial that the deceased after committing the murder of the deceased had not only severed his head but had also removed all his clothes except the underwear which he was wearing at the time of the incident and fled with the deceased's head and his clothes although, from the recitals contained in the inquest report and the facts deposed by P.W. 3 Nawab Singh before the Court, it was fully proved that at the time when inquest was conducted, the deceased was wearing only an underwear, belies the claim of P.W. 2 Satyapal of being the eye-witness of the incident. No explanation is coming forth from the side of the prosecution how and when the deceased was stripped of his clothes. P.W. 2 Satyapal does not appear to be a reliable witness at all. We do not consider it safe to maintain the conviction of the appellants recorded by the trial Court on the basis of the uncorroborated evidence of sole eye-witness P.W. 2 Informant Satyapal. 41. The fact deposed by P.W. 3 Nawab Singh in his evidence that apart from an underwear, no other cloth on his body when his dead body was found lying in Vankata, is also a very strong circumstance which conclusively gives rise to an inference that P.W. 2 Satyapal had not witnessed the occurrence. If he had seen the occurrence then there is no reason why he would not have stated the aforesaid fact in the F.I.R. as also in his evidence. 42. The next question which arises for our consideration is that whether the presence of human blood on the sickles and the axe as evincing from the report of the forensic expert Exhibit Ka-26 is sufficient to link the appellants with the crime in question. 42. The next question which arises for our consideration is that whether the presence of human blood on the sickles and the axe as evincing from the report of the forensic expert Exhibit Ka-26 is sufficient to link the appellants with the crime in question. In order to bring the recovery of sickles and axe within the ambit of section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, it was incumbent upon the prosecution to have proved and exhibited the so called disclosure statements made by the appellants before the investigating officer after their arrest and unless the recovery of crime weapons are brought within the scope of section 27 of the Evidence Act, the presence of human blood on the aforesaid weapons would not be of any help for the prosecution to establish the guilt of the appellants. In this case, the prosecution did not bring on record and prove the disclosure statements allegedly made by the appellants before the investigating officer of the case after their arrest and hence, it cannot be held that the discovery of sickles and axe was made on the pointing out of the appellants pursuant to their disclosure statements made before the investigating officer after their arrest. 43. There is yet another very relevant aspect of the matter which renders the prosecution story extremely doubtful. In the F.I.R. and also in the statement of P.W. 2 Satyapal, it is mentioned that apart from P.W. 2 Satyapal, one Chaturi real uncle of the deceased had also witnessed the incident. The F.I.R. contains a clear recital that after the incident had taken place, P.W. 2 Satyapal had left for the police station leaving the body of the deceased under the vigil of his uncle Chaturi. However, neither Chaturi was produced as a prosecution witness during the trial nor P.W. 3 Nawab Singh had stated in his evidence about the presence of Chaturi at the place of the occurrence when he had reached there on coming to know about a headless body lying near the village. It is not the case of the prosecution that Chaturi had been won over by the accused. It is not the case of the prosecution that Chaturi had been won over by the accused. Chaturi, however was examined as D.W. 1 and he in his examination-in-chief at the first instance had categorically deposed that he and his nephew Satyapal had reached the place of occurrence two or three hours after the occurrence had taken place near Vankata which did not have any village nearby. But thereafter he admitted having stated before the Investigating Officer that the incident had taken place in his presence. He having given two contradictory versions in his examination-in-chief, he appears to us be a wholly unreliable and vacillating witness, who is not to be trusted at all. 44. We also hold that the F.I.R. in this case was written at the police station in the manner suggested by the police personnel present there and not at the place of incident as deposed by P.W. 2 Satyapal, apparently after due deliberations and consultations and the possibility of the prosecution version narrated therein being concocted with the object of falsely implicating the appellants, cannot be ruled out. The credibility of the F.I.R. in this case itself stands completely shattered and it would not be safe and proper to confirm the recorded conviction of the appellants on the basis of the prosecution story spelt out therein. We have already recorded herein above that P.W. 2 Satyapal is not a reliable witness at all what to say a wholly reliable or partially reliable in view of the material contradictions between the facts stated by him in the F.I.R. and those in his evidence recorded at the trial on one side and those stated by P.W. 3 Nawab Singh in his evidence and the recitals contained in the inquest report to which we have already referred to in detail. We are not inclined to accept the prosecution claim that P.W. 2 Satyapal had witnessed the occurrence. There is also no evidence on record warranting the conviction of the appellants recorded by the trial Court under section 2/3 of U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. 45. Thus upon a wholesome consideration of the facts of the case, attending circumstances and the evidence on record, we do not find that the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the appellants beyond all reasonable doubts and the appellants are entitled to benefit of doubt. 46. 45. Thus upon a wholesome consideration of the facts of the case, attending circumstances and the evidence on record, we do not find that the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the appellants beyond all reasonable doubts and the appellants are entitled to benefit of doubt. 46. Accordingly, this appeal succeeds and is allowed. Reference No. 09 of 2016 is also rejected. 47. The appellants are acquitted of all the charges framed against them by extending the benefit of doubt to them. The Reference No. 09 of 2016 is rejected. The appellants are in jail. They shall be released forthwith unless they are wanted in some other case subject to their complying with the provisions of section 437-A of Cr.P.C. 48. There shall however, be no order as to costs.