JUDGMENT : RAM SURAT RAM (MAURYA), J. 1. Heard Sri Anil Kumar Kushwaha, A.G.A., for State of U.P. and Sri Amitabh Patel, for the accused-respondents. 2. State of U.P. has filed this appeal from judgment of Xth Additional Session's Judge, Agra, dated 10.10.1983, passed in S.T. No. 63 of 1983, State v. Harish Chandra and others, [arising out of Case, Crime No. 354 of 1982, under Sections 302, 307 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the IPC), P.S. Rakabganj, district Agra], acquitting the accused-respondents. Harish Chandra (respondent-1) has died during pendency of the appeal and the appeal has been abated against him. 3. On the oral information of Heera Lal (PW-2), FIR (Ex.-Ka-1) of Case Crime No. 354 of 1982, was registered on 18.07.1982 at 21:45 hours, under Sections 302, 307 IPC, at P.S. Rakabganj, district Agra, against Harish. Chandra, Vijendra, Banshi and Satto, by Head Moharrir Badri Prasad (PW-9). It has been stated in the FIR that today on 18.07.1982 at about 9:15 p.m., the informant, his sons Fateh Chandra and Kanhaiya Lal were sitting in front of the house of Moti Lal. Kanhaiya Lal went to his house for drinking water. When he was returning after drinking water, then Harish Chandra and his sons Vijendra, Banshi and Satto began to assault bis son Kanhaiya. He and Fateh Chandra rushed to save Kanhaiya: That four accused namely Harish Chandra, armed with double edged weapon, Vijendra and Banshi, armed with knife and Satto, armed with iron rod began to assault them through their respective weapons. From the injuries caused by the accused, his son Kanhaiya died on the spot. His dead body was lying there. He and Fateh Chandra also received injuries. This incident was witnessed by Khema, Ramji Lal and many other persons, present on the spot. There was light of electricity on the spot. Due to old enmity relating to the house between the parties, murder of his son was done and they were assaulted. He had come for lodging the FIR. After lodging the FIR, legal action be taken. 4. After lodging the FIR, SI Munishwar Singh (PW-7) was handed over the copies of check FIR and G.D. Entry and was directed to reach the spot and conduct the Inquest of the deceased. SI Munishwar Singh (PW-7) came on the spot and selected Panches. He conducted Inquest (Ex.-Ka-7) at 11:30 p.m. on 19.07.1982. 4. After lodging the FIR, SI Munishwar Singh (PW-7) was handed over the copies of check FIR and G.D. Entry and was directed to reach the spot and conduct the Inquest of the deceased. SI Munishwar Singh (PW-7) came on the spot and selected Panches. He conducted Inquest (Ex.-Ka-7) at 11:30 p.m. on 19.07.1982. He prepared photo lash, challan lash, letters to the authorities (Ex.-Ka-8 to Ka-12) for conducting post-mortem of the dead body. He dispatched the dead body through the constables Karan Singh (PW-8) and Komal Prasad. Dr. A.K. Jain (PW-6) conducted autopsy of the deceased on 13.7.1982 at 3:30 p.m. and prepared Post-mortem Report (Ex.-Ka-6), in which following ante-mortem injuries were noted:- (i) Stabbed wound, 1" x 3/4" x chest cavity deep on the front of left side chest, 1-1/2" above left nipple. Margins are clean cut, vertically placed. (ii) Incised wound 1-1/2" x 4/10" x muscle deep on the back and outer aspect of left side chest, 7" below apex of past, axillary fold, margins are clean cut, transversely placed. (iii) Incised wound 5" x 1" x muscle deep on the left side back of chest, 3/4" behind Injury No. 2. Rest same as Injury No. 2. In the internal examination, 4th left side rib fractured, opposite Injury No. 1. Pleura cut on left side, opposite Injury No. 1. Right lung was pale and left lung was cut, middle third through and through. Pericardium was cut over left and right ventricle. Heart was cut, left ventricle through and through right ventricle and both chest cavities contained about 1 lbs. clotted and free blood. Oesophagus contained 4 ozs. semi digested food'. Stomach was filled with digested food materials. Small Intestine was filled with gas and faecal matter. Large intestine was normal and pale, weighing 2 lbs. 4 ozs. Gall Bladder was half full. Spleen was pale, weighing 4 ozs.. Both kidneys were pale, weighing 6 ozs. Bladder contained 4 ozs. clean urine. According to the Doctor, cause of death was "shock and hemorrhage, as a result of injuries described". 5. The injured Fateh Chandra was taken to District Hospital, Agra, by the people of the locality where Dr. Gall Bladder was half full. Spleen was pale, weighing 4 ozs.. Both kidneys were pale, weighing 6 ozs. Bladder contained 4 ozs. clean urine. According to the Doctor, cause of death was "shock and hemorrhage, as a result of injuries described". 5. The injured Fateh Chandra was taken to District Hospital, Agra, by the people of the locality where Dr. S.P. Mishra (PW-3) conducted his medical examination on 18.07.1982 at 10:00 p.m. and prepared Injury Report (Ex.-Ka-2), in which following injuries were noted:- (i) Incised wound 4.5 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep on the left side face, 2 cm in front of left ear, obliquely vertical, margins are clean cut. Both angles are acute, fresh clotted blood which bleeds on touch, seen in the wound gap. (ii) Incised wound 9.5 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep, on the left side face, 3 cm inner to Injury No. 1. Rest as in Injury No. 1, obliquely vertical. (iii) Incised wound 1 cm x 0.5 cm x 0.3 cm on the left side face, just above left upper Up, obliquely vertical. Rest as Injury No. 1., (iv) Incised wound 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm x 0.3 cm on the left side of face, 0.5 cm inner to Injury No. 3. Rest as Injury No. 1. (v) Incised wound 5 cm x 2 cm x skin on the front of right arm, 14 cm above elbow transverse. Rest as Injury No. 1. (vi) Abrasion 5 cm x 0.5 cm on the front of right side chest, outer side, 11 cm below top of right shoulder. Red colour seen. (vii) Incised wound 11 cm x 4 cm x muscle deep on the left side chest outer side/transverse 6 cm below left axillary pit apex. Rest as Injury No. 1. (viii) Incised wound 4.5 cm x 0.8 cm x skin on the back of left side chest, 11 cm below back and top of shoulder, transversely. Rest as Injury No. 1. (ix) Incised wound 5 cm x 0.6 cm x skin on the back of left side chest, 8 cm below back root of neck, obliquely transverse. Rest as Injury No. 1. (x) Incised wound 20 cm x 2 cm x skin on the back of right side, 6 cm below back root of neck. Obliquely vertical. Rest as Injury No. 1. Rest as Injury No. 1. (x) Incised wound 20 cm x 2 cm x skin on the back of right side, 6 cm below back root of neck. Obliquely vertical. Rest as Injury No. 1. (xi) Incised wound 7 cm x 0.5 cm x skin on the back left side, 9 cm below scapula, transverse. Rest as Injury No. 1. (xii) Incised wound 2 cm x 0.5 cm x skin on the front of left side abdomen, 2.5 cm outer to Umbilical. 4 o'clock position. Transverse. Rest as Injury No. 1. Opinion:- All the injuries are simple, except Injury Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 7 which are under observation, advised X-Ray. Abrasions by friction. Rest by some sharp edged object. Duration fresh. Constable Sukhbir Singh took the injured Heera Lal to District Hospital, Agra, where Dr. S.E. Mishra (PW-3) conducted his medical examination on 18.07.1982 at 10:20 p.m. and prepared Injury Report (Ex.-Ka-3), in which following injuries were noted:- (i) Incised wound 29 cm x 3 cm x muscle deep on the back of right side chest, obliquely vertical, 3 cm below top of right shoulder. Margins are clean cut. Both angles are acute, fresh and clotted blood, which bleeds as touch. Seen in the wound gap. (ii) Multiple Incised wound 14 cm x 4 cm on the back of right side chest, 14 cm below back root of neck, smallest is 1.5 cm x 0.2 cm x skin to 4 cm x 0.3 cm x skin. They are all in parallel obliquely transverse lines. Rest as Injury No. 1. (iii) Incised wound 16 cm x 0.5 cm x muscle on the back right side obliquely vertical, 2.5 cm outer to Injury No. 1. Rest as Injury No. 1. (iv) Incised wound 15 cm x 0.8 cm x 0.3 cm, on the right side abdomen upper part 18 cm below axillary pit. Transverse. Rest as Injury No. 1. (v) Abrasion 3 cm x 0.2 cm, on the back of neck, 3.5 cm above back root of neck. Opinion: - All the injuries are simple, except Injury Nos. 1, 3 and 4, which are under observation. Advised X-Ray. Abrasion by friction. Rest by some sharp edged object. Duration Fresh. 6. After lodging FIR, SHO K.K. Sharma (PW-10) started investigation. He arrested the accused Harish Chandra from his. Opinion: - All the injuries are simple, except Injury Nos. 1, 3 and 4, which are under observation. Advised X-Ray. Abrasion by friction. Rest by some sharp edged object. Duration Fresh. 6. After lodging FIR, SHO K.K. Sharma (PW-10) started investigation. He arrested the accused Harish Chandra from his. house on 18.07.1982 at 10:15 p.m. He recovered double edged weapon from the cot, beneath the bed sheet, lying in the room of the accused, in presence of the witnesses Rameshwar Singh, Lakhan Singh and Murari Lal, which was blood stained. He prepared recovery memo (Ex.-Ka-4) of double edged weapon. He took into possession plain and blood-stained earth from the place of occurrence and prepared it recovery memo (Ex.-Ka-5). He recorded statements of the injured witnesses Heera Lal and Fateh Chandra on 18.07.1982 in hospital. On 19.07.1982, he inspected the spot and prepared site-plan (Ex.-Ka-16). On 19.07.1982, he obtained blood-stained clothes of the injured. He sent double edged weapon, blood-stained clothes of the injured, blood-stained and plain earth for chemical examination and obtained report (Ex.-Ka-17) of chemical examiner and (Ex.-Ka-18) of serologist. Thereafter, he submitted charge sheet (Ex.-Ka-19) against the respondents, on which, cognizance was taken. 7. On committal, the case was registered as S.T. No. 63 of 1983 State v. Harish Chandra and others. Additional Session's Judge framed charges against the accused on 13.04.1983. The accused pleaded "not guilty" and claimed trial. In order to prove the charges, the prosecution examined Fateh Chandra (PW-1), the injured witness, Heera Lal (PW-2), the informant, Dr. S.P. Mishra (PW-3) to prove Injury Reports (Ex.-Ka-2 and Ka-3), Murari Lal (PW-4), Babu Lal (PW-5), the eye-witnesses, Dr. A.K. Shukla (PW-6) to prove Post-mortem Report (Ex.-Ka-6), SI Munishwar Singh (PW-7) to prove Inquest (Ex.-Ka-7), Constable Karan Singh (PW-8), who carried the dead body for post-mortem, HM Badri Prasad (PW-9) to prove check FIR, SHO K.K. Sharma (PW-10) Investigating Officer, and Constable Rameshwar Singh (PW-11) to prove recovery of double edged weapon (Ex.-Ka-4). 8. All the incriminatory materials and evidence were put to the accused under Section 313, Cr.P.C. They denied the facts and evidence and stated that they were falsely implicated. Harish Chandra stated that the deceased, his father and brother had assaulted him. In baniyan, his blood was soaked as he was injured. His sons had gone to Mathura for parikrama and were riot present at the house. Harish Chandra stated that the deceased, his father and brother had assaulted him. In baniyan, his blood was soaked as he was injured. His sons had gone to Mathura for parikrama and were riot present at the house. When the deceased, his father and brother were assaulting him, he came on the road. The people, who were returning from procession of Ambedkar Jayanti, saved him. Those peoples assaulted the deceased, his father and brother. Darogaji caught him from his house and got him seated at the police station for two hours and thereafter he was locked up. The other accused took plea of alibi and stated that they had gone to Mathura for parikrama and were not present at the house. 9. After hearing the parties, Additional Session's Judge, by the impugned judgment, found that the recovery of double edged weapon was not made on the pointing out of Harish Chandra, rather it was recovered from the house of the informant. There is no public witness of the recovery of baniyan of Harish Chandra. It is admitted to Murari Lai (PW-4) and Inspector K.K. Sharma (PW-10) that on the date of incident there was a meeting at Ambedkar Park and the peoples were coming through the road, where the incident had occurred. It is admitted to Heera Lal (PW-2) that he and his nephew Ashok Kumar were owner of house No. 23/200 and house No. 23/201 belonged to Harish Chandra. No litigation was ever instituted between the informant and the accused. Thus motive was not proved. Looking to the injuries of Heera Lal (PW-2), it was not possible for him to go the police station and lodge FIR. In Inquest, the name of informant was not mentioned. Special report was sent to the Magistrate on 19.07.1982 at 12:00 in noon, which proved that the FIR was ante-timed. The witnesses named in FIR have not been produced. The place of occurrence is not proved. On these findings, he acquitted the accused. Hence, this appeal has been filed. 10. We have considered the arguments of counsel for the parties and examined the record. In the present case, in order to prove the charges, the prosecution examined four witnesses namely Fateh Chandra, Heera Lal, Murari Lal and Babu Lal (PWs-1, 2, 4 and 5). On these findings, he acquitted the accused. Hence, this appeal has been filed. 10. We have considered the arguments of counsel for the parties and examined the record. In the present case, in order to prove the charges, the prosecution examined four witnesses namely Fateh Chandra, Heera Lal, Murari Lal and Babu Lal (PWs-1, 2, 4 and 5). Fateh Chandra (PW-1) stated that 18.07.1982 at about 9:15 p.m., he, his father Heera Lai and Kanhaiya Lai were sitting in front of the house of Moti Lal. They, had eaten the food and due to heat, they were sitting there to take air. Kanhaiya Lal went to his house for drinking water, from the chabutara of Moti Lal, which was at a distance of 58 paces from there. When his brother Kanhaiya Lal returned after drinking water, then all the four accused, namely Harish Chandra, Vijendra, Banshi and Satto, present in the court, were sitting at bridge of the drain. They began to assault Kanhaiya through kicks and fists. Kanhaiya Lai shouted that they were assaulting him and called him to save him. Then he and his father Heera Lal rushed to save. Kanhaiya, then the accused assaulted them also. They were assaulted by double edged weapon, knife and chhuri Harish Chandra was armed with double edged weapon, Vijendra and Banshi were armed with knife and Satto was armed with iron, rod. On the shouts of his brother, the witnesses Ramji Lal, Khem Chandra, Babu Lai, Murari, Chandra Sen and Chandra Bhan had also come on the spot and told to stop assaulting. Then the accused Harish Chandra warned that if any body would interfere, he would also be assaulted. The accused threw his' brother Kanhaiyain drain after killing him. Thereafter, the accused went towards their house. Houses of Soberan, Makkhan Lal and Vishambhar were lying there, where electric bulbs were lightening. He brought out the dead body of his brother from drain and his father went to police station for lodging FIR. The residents of the locality took him to the hospital situated at the back of police station. He had an enmity with accused in respect of dispute relating to the house. The accused have constructed their house on rasta, which was objected by them. Then they had warned that they would shoot him and said to open another rasta breaking his stair case. He had an enmity with accused in respect of dispute relating to the house. The accused have constructed their house on rasta, which was objected by them. Then they had warned that they would shoot him and said to open another rasta breaking his stair case. He called a panchayat of the resident of the locality but they did riot talk. Thereafter they gave applications to Collector and SSP. Although there was long cross-examination of the witness, but no question was put in respect of manner of assault and participation of the named accused in the incident. 11. Heera Lal (PW-2) stated that 18.07.1982 at about 7:00 p.m., he, his sons Kanhaiya Lal and Fateh Chandra were sitting on the chabutara of Moti Lal. Kanhaiya Lal went to his house for drinking water and after drinking water, he was returning. Then at about 9:15 p.m., the accused Harish Chandra, Vijendra, Banshi and Satto besieged him at bridge of the drain. Kanhaiya shouted and called uncle and brother to save him. Then, he and Fateh Chandra rushed to save Kanhaiya. Then Harish Chandra exhorted to kill them also. Then Harish Chandra, who was armed with double edged weapon, Brijendra was armed with knife, Banshi were armed with knife and Satto was armed with iron rod, assaulted them. He received knife injuries. Fateh Chandra also received knife injuries. Kanhaiya was assaulted through knife and chhuri. After assaulting Kanhaiya, the accused threw him in the drain and fled away. He and Fateh Chandra brought out Kanhaiya from the drain and kept him at his house. On the spot Babu Lal, Chandra Bhan, Murari and others had also come and saw the incident. On the spot there was electricity light. Due to enmity of the house, they assaulted them. He immediately went to police, station and lodged FIR there. Whatever was stated by him was written in the FIR. The accused had threaten them 1-1/2 month prior to the incident. He had given an application of it to City Magistrate, putting his thumb impression on it. The application was received by the clerk of City Magistrate. Another application of different incident was given to SSP Agra, through post. He was medically examined. He remained admitted in the hospital. Darogaji had taken his under bear and hand kerchief in possession. He had given an application of it to City Magistrate, putting his thumb impression on it. The application was received by the clerk of City Magistrate. Another application of different incident was given to SSP Agra, through post. He was medically examined. He remained admitted in the hospital. Darogaji had taken his under bear and hand kerchief in possession. This witness was also not cross-examined in respect of manner of assault and participation of the named accused in the incident. 12. Murari Lai (PW-4) stated that 18.07.1982, at about 9:15 p.m., he was at the well situated by the side of drain. Lakhan Singh and Chandra Bhan Singh were also there. He - heard shouts coming from bridge of the drain. He saw from the well that Kanhaiya Lal was coming from his house. When he reached at the bridge, the accused, namely Harish Chandra, Vijendra, Banshi and Satto, present in the court, caught him and began to assault him. Kanhaiya shouted, then Heera Lal and Fateh Chandra came there. Then Harish Chandra brought out a double edged weapon and caused injuries to Heera Lal. Vijendra and Banshi were armed with knife and Satto was armed with iron rod. The accused assaulted Kanhaiya Lai and Fateh Chandra. Then the accused threw Kanhaiya in drain. Thereafter, the accused went towards their house. They went on the spot, the accused threatened them that if any one would interfere then he would face same consequences. Sadgilal, Khema, Babu Lai and Chandra Sen had also come on the spot. Heera Lai and Fateh Chandra brought out Kanhaiya from the drain. Kanhaiya had died by that time. Heera Lai went to the police station. Fateh Chandra was taken to hospital in a riksha by two-three persons. The police came on the spot after about one hour. Darogaji took him to the house of Harish Chandra. Lakhan Singh Chandra Bhan and Chandra Sen also went there. Darogaji searched the house of Harish Chandra in their presence Harish Chandra was lying below his cot. He was arrested there. On search, double edged weapon was found on the cot below bed sheet, of which recovery memo (Exhibit-1) was prepared. Darogaji also took blood-stained and plain earth and prepared it recovery memo (Ex.-Ka-5). This witness was also not cross-examined in respect of maimer of assault and participation of the named accused in the incident. 13. He was arrested there. On search, double edged weapon was found on the cot below bed sheet, of which recovery memo (Exhibit-1) was prepared. Darogaji also took blood-stained and plain earth and prepared it recovery memo (Ex.-Ka-5). This witness was also not cross-examined in respect of maimer of assault and participation of the named accused in the incident. 13. Babu Lal (PW-5) has stated that on 18.07.1982 at about 9:15 p.m., he, was sitting at his house. Kanhaiya Lal was coming from his house. When he reached at the bridge of the drain, Harish Chandra, Vijendra, Banshi and Satto assaulted Kanhaiya, Heera Lai and Fateh Chandra. Harish Chandra was armed with double edged weapon, Banshi and Vijendra were armed with knife and Satto was armed with iron rod. After killing Kanhaiya, he was thrown in drain. Murari Lal, Chandra Sen, Ramji Lal, Khem Chandra and others came on the spot. When they tried to save them, then Harish Chandra warned that you would also be suffer with same consequences, which was done to Kanahaiya. After assaulting, the accused went towards their house. At the houses of Soberan and Makkhan Lal, bulbs were lighting there. Heera Lai and Fateh Chandra brought out the dead body of Kanhaiya from drain. His house situate at a distance of 5-6 paces. This witness was also not cross-examined inrespect of manner of assault and participation of the named accused in the incident. 14. So far as the motive of the incident is concerned, Fateh Chandra (PW-1) stated that the accused had constructed their house on rasta, which was objected by them. Then they had warned that they would shoot him and said to open another rasta breaking his stair case. He called a panchayat of the resident of the locality but they did not talk. Thereafter they gave applications to Collector and SSR In cross-examination, he stated that in his house, there was only one room and there was 2-1/2 feet wide rasta in front of it. Neither any notice was given nor any suit was instituted on the house by them. The applications, which were brought on record did not contain signatures of any one. Heera Lal (PW-2) stated that the accused had threatened them 1-1/2 month prior to the incident. He gave an application to City Magistrate, putting his thumb impression on it. The application was received by the clerk of City Magistrate. The applications, which were brought on record did not contain signatures of any one. Heera Lal (PW-2) stated that the accused had threatened them 1-1/2 month prior to the incident. He gave an application to City Magistrate, putting his thumb impression on it. The application was received by the clerk of City Magistrate. Another application of different incident was given to SSP Agra, tiirough post. In cross-examination, he stated that his house was numbered as House No. 23/200 and house of Harish Chandra was numbered as House No. 23/201. Both these houses are situated in same plot. He also admitted that no suit was contested between him and the accused nor any dispute had taken place between them. The dispute with him had taken place with Ashok, in which Harish Chandra used to do pairavee. From these statements, dispute in relation to rasta of the house of accused, was proved. In any case, motive has no importance in the cases based on eye-witness account. In this case two injured and two eye witnesses were produced. Trial Court disbelieved the statements of these witnesses on the point motive on the ground that the copies of the applications brought on record did not contain signature of any persons nor it were exhibited. Normally the copies of the application sent to administrative officers, kept for personal use did not contain signature. Fateh Chandra (PW-1) has specifically proved filing of the application brought on record, even then if it were not exhibited then it was merely inadvertent error of the court. 15. Supreme Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra (1973) 2 SCC 793 : ( AIR 1973 SC 2622 ), has 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. 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 : ( AIR 2015 SC 3686 ), 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 : (2015 AIR SCW 5423), 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 eye-witnesses. 16. The place of incident as given by the witnesses Fateh Chandra, Heera Lal, Murari Lal and Babu Lal was the bridge on drain at mohalla Teela Shekh, Mannu Nala, Kazi Pada, police station Rakabganj, Agra City. Inspector K.K. Sharma (PW-10) recovered blood-stained earth and plain earth from the place, in presence of witnesses Murari Lal (PW-4) and Lakhan Singh and prepared Recovery Memo (Ex.-Ka-5). He did spot inspection on 19.07.1982 and prepared site-plan (Ex.-Ka-16). According to Harish Chandra also the incident had occurred at that place. It is at a distance of 44 paces from the house of the deceased and accused at a distance of 58 paces, from the house of Moti Lal. He did spot inspection on 19.07.1982 and prepared site-plan (Ex.-Ka-16). According to Harish Chandra also the incident had occurred at that place. It is at a distance of 44 paces from the house of the deceased and accused at a distance of 58 paces, from the house of Moti Lal. From these evidence place of incident was proved. Trial Court held that Murari Lal (PW-4) has admitted that his signatures were obtained on 2-3 papers at the police station. As such these papers might be blank papers, which were utilized for preparing Recovery Memo (Ex.-Ka-5)'. Murari Lal (PW-4) has not stated that his signatures were obtained on blank papers. He.further found that Fateh Chandra (PW-1) has admitted that by the side of drain, bricks were paved as such recovery of blood-stained and plain earth from this place was not possible. By the side of drain, layer of earth is always collected. Findings of Trial Court in this respect was based upon misinterpretation of the evidence on record. 17. According to the FIR, the incident took place at 9:15 p.m. FIR was lodged at 21:45 PM, on the oral information of Heera Lal (PW-2). Trial Court held the FIR as ante-timed for the reason that Heera Lal (PW-2) has admitted that after admitting at the hospital, he had become unconscious. From his statements, it was not possible for him to go alone to police station for lodging FIR. Special report as required under Section 157, Cr.P.C. was send to the Magistrate on 19.07.1982, In inquest (Ex.-Ka-7), the name of the informant was not mentioned. Trial Court has illegally ignored to consider Injury Report (Ex.-Ka-3) of Heera Lal (PW-2), in which he had received 4 incised wound of muscle deed and one abrasion. Looking to the injuries of Heera Lal, it was not impossible for him to go on foot for lodging FIR to the police station, which was at a distance of less than one KM. In inquest (Ex.-Ka-7), Case. Crime number has been mentioned. Due to negligence, the name of the informant was not mentioned. SI Munishwar Singh (PW-7) has stated that while departing from police station for the Inquest, he had obtained copies of FIR and G.D. Entry. In inquest (Ex.-Ka-7), Case. Crime number has been mentioned. Due to negligence, the name of the informant was not mentioned. SI Munishwar Singh (PW-7) has stated that while departing from police station for the Inquest, he had obtained copies of FIR and G.D. Entry. So far as sending special report to the Magistrate is concerned, a three Judges Bench of Supreme Court in Madru Singh v. State of M.P. (1997) 11 SCC 506 : ( AIR 1997 SC 3527 ), has held that it is no doubt true that the copy of the FIR was received by the Magistrate concerned on 10.8.1984 but that by itself could not be a circumstance to hold that, the FIR was ante-dated and was in fact not lodged on 7.8.1984. Similar view has been taken in Sunil Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, (2005) 9 SCC 283 : ( AIR 2005 SC 1096 ). 18. So far as recovery of double edged weapon is concerned, SHO K.K. Sharma (PW-10) stated that he had arrested Harish Chandra from his house on 18.07.1982 at 10:15 PM. He recovered double edged weapon (Ex.-Ka-4) from the cot, beneath the bed sheet, lying in the room of the accused, in presence of the witnesses Rameshwar Singh, Lakhan Singh and Murari Lal, which was blood-stained. This recovery is not admissible under Section 27 of Evidence Act, 1872 as it was not recovered on disclosure statement of the accused rather it was found during search by SHO K.K. Sharma (PW-10). However, it is evidence, relevant to corroborate the statements of witnesses, who have stated that Harish Chandra was armed with double edged weapon and caused injuries from it. It is immaterial as to whether it was recovered from the house of the accused or from the house of informant and his collateral Ashok Kumar, who was found, living in the room from where recovery was done. In serelogical report (Ex.-Ka-1, 8) human blood was fount on this double edged weapon. Harish. Chandra has stated that he was assaulted by the informant and his sons. In his baniyan, his blood was soaked as he was injured. But there is nothing on record to prove that Harish Chandra had any injury on his body from where the blood were oozed. 19. Harish. Chandra has stated that he was assaulted by the informant and his sons. In his baniyan, his blood was soaked as he was injured. But there is nothing on record to prove that Harish Chandra had any injury on his body from where the blood were oozed. 19. So far as source of light at the place of incident is concerned, In the FIR it has been stated that on the spot there was electricity light. In site plan, electricity poles on which the bulbs were lightening, were shown. Fateh Chandra (PW-1) and Babu Lai (PW-5) have stated that the houses of Soberan, Makkhan Lai and Vishambhar were lying there, where electric bulbs were lightening. From these evidence, source of light was fully proved. The accused and the deceased/injured were family members. There could be no mistake, in recognizing the accused by the witnesses. 20. Harish Chandra has stated that the deceased, his father and brother had assaulted him. In baniyan, his blood was soaked as he was injured. His sons had gone to Mathura for parikrama and were not present at the house. When the deceased, his father and brother were assaulting him, he came on the road. The people, who were returning from procession of Ambedkar Jayanti, saved him. Those peoples assaulted the deceased, his father and brother. Thus incident has been admitted. He gave different origin of dispute. But he had failed to prove this fact, from any independent evidence on record. There is no evidence to prove the injuries on the body of Harish Chandra. Trial Court has relied his statement only on the ground that Murari Lai had admitted that on the date of incident, there was a procession at Ambedakar Park and the peoples were coming through the road, where incident had occurred. The witnesses, whose names were mentioned in the FIR were not produced. Reason assigned by the Trial Court is not a sound reason. It was highly probable for general public to commit murder of one person and brutally assault two persons, in a dispute between the family members, particularly when Harish Chandra did not sustain any visible injury. FIR was lodged on oral statement of an injured person as such names of some witnesses were mentioned and names of others were not mentioned as such presence of Murari Lai and Babu Lai (P.Ws. FIR was lodged on oral statement of an injured person as such names of some witnesses were mentioned and names of others were not mentioned as such presence of Murari Lai and Babu Lai (P.Ws. 4 and 5) cannot be doubted on its basis. In any case, statements of injured witnesses could not be ignored. 21. Merely because, SHO K.K. Sharma (PW-10) was not present at the time of lodging FIR, on the police station, investigation done by him would not become doubtful. After lodging FIR, he was immediately informed about it. SI Munishwar Singh was asked to proceed for the spot for Inquest. In the meantime, SHO K.K. Sharma (PW-10) also reached on the spot and started investigation. 22. The charges against Harish Chandra, Brijendra and Banshi were proved from the statements of Fateh Chandra, Heera Lal, Murari: Lai and Babu Lal (PWs-1, 2, 4 and 5). Although there was small contradictions be tween the injured witnesses Fateh Chandra, Heera Lal on one side and eye witness Murari Lai, who has stated Harish Chandra had caused, injury to Heera Lal from double edged weapon but looking to the facts that this was a night incident and the witnesses were at a distance of 15 paces, this contradiction does not cre-ate any doubt to disbelieve injured witnesses. In Postmortem Report (Ex.-Ka-6), on the body of Kanhaiya (deceased), one stabbed wound and two incised wounds were found. Margin of all the injuries were clean cut. From which it was proved that he received injuries from double edged weapon. Heera Lal (PW-2) has stated that he and Fateh Chandra received knife injuries. From the aforesaid evidence, charges against Harish Chandra, Brijendra arid Banshi were proved beyond reasonable doubts. However, neither on the body of the deceased nor on the body of two injured any injuries of iron road was found. Santo was assigned the role of causing injuries through iron rod. From the aforesaid evidence participation of Santo was not proved. 23. A three Judge Bench of Supreme Court in Jadunath Singh v. State of U.P. (1971) 3 SCC 577 : ( AIR 1972 SC 116 ), 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 : (AIR 2007 SC (Supp) 111), 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. (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 : ( AIR 2017 SC 2459 ). 24. In view of aforesaid discussions, the appeal is partly allowed. The appeal against Harish Chandra has been abated due to his death during pendency of the appeal. Brijendra and Banshi (respondents-2 and 3) are convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 324, IPC. Brijendra and Banshi (respondents-2 and 3) are sentenced for life imprisonment under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC and fine of Rs. The appeal against Harish Chandra has been abated due to his death during pendency of the appeal. Brijendra and Banshi (respondents-2 and 3) are convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 324, IPC. Brijendra and Banshi (respondents-2 and 3) are sentenced for life imprisonment under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC and fine of Rs. 5000/- each and they are sentenced for three years imprisonment under Section 324, IPC. Both the sentences will run concurrently. Satto (respondent-4) is acquitted from the charges. Fine shall be deposited within three months from today. In case of default, one month's additional imprisonment shall be gone. Copy of the order will be sent to concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate, who shall take Brijendra and Bansi (respondents-2 and 3) in custody and sent them to jail for serving sentence.