JUDGMENT : Umesh Kumar, J. 1. This criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 28.02.2004 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Chandausi, district Moradabad in S.T. No. 866 of 2002 (State v. Jag jeevan & others), by which, appellants were convicted and sentenced for life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default thereof, to undergo two months additional imprisonment. 2. Briefly stating, the prosecution case is that (P.W. 1) Sher Singh-informant lodged report stating that prior to the present incident dated 30.3.2002, due to certain criminal cases, he and his family members were having inimical relations with the accused-appellants; on the said date at 6.00 p.m., he, his brothers Pan Singh and Jai Singh went to their fields to cut (barseen) fodder grass; when they reached their field adjacent to their house, accused Kameshwar Yadav, Jag Jeevan, Sunder and Prem Pal, all armed with country made pistols arrived their, surrounded his brother-Jai Singh; fired at Jai Singh who received fire arm injuries. The informant and his brother Pan Singh were at some distance, hence they escaped unhurt; as they were empty handed, they failed to nab the accused persons; the event was witnessed by them, Kalyan (PW-2) and Vijay of their locality/village; on raising alarm, accused persons flaunting country made pistols ran towards west in the jungle; when they reached near his brother-Jai Singh, he lay dead. After getting the oral information about the incident, Head Constable Vinod Kumar Pandey, executed FIR (Ex. Ka-1), information was entered in the GD No. 17 at 20.55 p.m. on 30.3.2002. The Investigating Officer started investigation in the matter, conducted inquest (Ex. Ka-5), prepared relevant police papers i.e. photo lash, challan lash, letters to R.I. and C.M.O. and seal (Ex. Ka-6, 7, 8, 9 and 10). He also prepared recovery memo of blood-stained and plain earth and 3 empty cartridges, two empty cartridges of 12 bore and one empty cartridge of 315 bore (Ex. Ka-2 and 3). After completing necessary formalities, dead body was sent for post-mortem to the hospital, where (P.W. 5) Dr. Y.C. Gupta conducted postmortem examination of the deceased. He prepared autopsy report (Ex. Ka-5) and found following injuries on the body of deceased-Jai Singh; "1. Gunshot wound of entry 6 cm x 4 cm x neck deep on the left side neck just below left ear. There is blackening, charring, tattooing on around the wound. Y.C. Gupta conducted postmortem examination of the deceased. He prepared autopsy report (Ex. Ka-5) and found following injuries on the body of deceased-Jai Singh; "1. Gunshot wound of entry 6 cm x 4 cm x neck deep on the left side neck just below left ear. There is blackening, charring, tattooing on around the wound. Margin were inverted underneath the injury there is comminuted fracture of left mandible. Five small metallic pallets were removed from the different muscle of left side neck near injury No. 2. 2. Gunshot wound of exit 8 cm x 6 cm x in continuation of injury No. 1. Margins are lacerated. 3. Gunshot wound of entry 4 cm x 3 cm x skull deep on left side skull 7 cm above the left ear. There is blackening charring & tattooing all around the wound underneath the injury almost all brain material is missing. There is fracture of all skull wounds. Margins are inverted. 4. Gunshot wound of exit 10 cm x 8 cm x in continuation to injury No. 3 on right side of skull & forehead. Margin are inverted. 5. Gunshot wound of entry 4 cm x 4 cm x chest & abdomen deep on back & lower part of right side chest 8 cm below the lower angle of right scapula & 9 cm away from mid vertebral line. Margins are inverted underneath the injury right lung & liver badly damage. There was about one liter clotted blood in right side chest cavity 20 small metallic pellets with one cap were removed from liver and abdominal wall (post and anterior) and different parts of abdomen. Total 50 small metallic pellets one cap are removed and sealed". 3. During investigation, the Investigating Officer prepared site plan, recorded statements of witnesses and after completion of the investigation, submitted charge sheet against the accused persons (Ex. Ka-12 and Ex. Ka-13). 4. Charges against the accused persons were framed under Sections 302/34, IPC. They denied their guilt and claimed trial. 5. In support of prosecution version, the prosecution examined 9 witnesses. (P.W. 1) Sher Singh-informant, (P.W. 2) Kalyan Singh, (P.W. 3) Pan Singh, (P.W. 4) Shravan Kumar, (P.W. 5) Dr. Y.C. Gupta who conducted postmortem (Ex. Ka-4), (P.W. 6) Nanak Chandra, who conducted inquest of the body of deceased (Ex. Ka-5) and other relevant documents, (P.W. 7) Omkar Singh, S.H.O. who exhibited (Ex. Ka-11, Ex. (P.W. 1) Sher Singh-informant, (P.W. 2) Kalyan Singh, (P.W. 3) Pan Singh, (P.W. 4) Shravan Kumar, (P.W. 5) Dr. Y.C. Gupta who conducted postmortem (Ex. Ka-4), (P.W. 6) Nanak Chandra, who conducted inquest of the body of deceased (Ex. Ka-5) and other relevant documents, (P.W. 7) Omkar Singh, S.H.O. who exhibited (Ex. Ka-11, Ex. Ka-2 and Ex. Ka-3). (P.W. 8) Chandra Pal Singh proved charge sheets (Ex. Ka-12 and Ex. Ka-13). (P.W. 9) Lala Ram Sharma (Head Constable) who exhibited Check FIR and G.D. entry (Ex. Ka-1) and GD. No. 17. 6. The statements of accused under Section 313, Cr.P.C. were recorded. They denied the prosecution case and stated that they have been involved in the matter due to enmity. No witness has been examined during trial from the side of accused-appellants. 7. We have heard Sri Saghir Ahmad, learned Amicus for appellant Nos. 1 and 4, Sri Harish Chandra Tiwari and Sri Bharat Singh for appellant Nos. 2 and 3 and Sri A.N. Mulla, learned AGA for the State. 8. Learned Amicus and learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that first information report itself is doubtful, has been prepared after due consultation; witnesses of fact are unreliable; there is no proper appreciation of evidence by learned Trial Judge, thus, the impugned judgment and order is liable to be set aside. 9. Sri A.N. Mulla, learned AGA vehemently opposed the submissions and argued that the observations in respect to the appreciation made by the learned Trial Judge is according to law which needs no interference by this Court. 10. (P.W. 1) Sher Singh-informant is the brother of deceased-Jai Singh. He stated that at the time of occurrence, he along with his brother Jai Singh and Pan Singh were working at the fields, at about 6.00 p.m., accused Kameshwar, Jag Jeevan, Sunder and Prem Pal, all armed with country made pistols came out from the bush of nagfani standing in the fields of Mewa Ram and they all started firing at his brother Jai Singh which hit his brother. He supported prosecution case that on hearing noise, Kalayan Singh (PW-2) Vijay and others reached the spot. They chased the assailants, but they fled away towards west in the jungle. When they reached near his brother-Jai Singh he was found dead. Leaving family members near the dead body, he along with his father went to police station for lodging the report. They chased the assailants, but they fled away towards west in the jungle. When they reached near his brother-Jai Singh he was found dead. Leaving family members near the dead body, he along with his father went to police station for lodging the report. He stated that in the murder case of Mahabir, accused persons threatened them not to give evidence and due to that enmity, accused murdered his brother-Jai Singh. He orally reported the matter at the police station to Head Constable who reduced it in writing (Ex. Ka. 1) then after reading the same, put his thumb impression over the same. In cross-examination, he admitted that they were having inimical relations with the accused persons because prior to the incident, accused had lodged first information report against him and his family members regarding mischief by fire in the flour mill. He also stated that all the four accused were having country made pistols but accused Sunder did not fire. Only accused Jag Jeevan, Kameshwar and Prem Pal fired at Jai Singh. He in cross-examination, stated that when he reached the police station, inquest of the dead body of Jai Singh was conducted at the police station and it was sent for postmortem to Moradabad. When he returned after the post-mortem, he came to know that report is written. Copy of FIR was provided to him, next morning. On above assertion of the witness, learned Counsel for the appellants argued that this witness stated that inquest was conducted at the police station. The entire proceedings are against law and this witness cannot be treated as reliable. It is very relevant to note that this witness is rustic and illiterate villager. He is not even capable to write a word. In this context, his statement should be independently scrutinized and for that relevant documents available on record prepared during inquest have to be visualized. Inquest (Ex. Ka-5) clearly shows that incident took place on 30.3.2002 at 6.00 p.m., oral report was given to the police station at 8.55 p.m., within 2-3 hours of the incident, inquest conducted at 10.00 p.m.. In the inquest, it is specifically mentioned that the dead body was lying on the mend of barseen field near kacchi nalli towards northern side, also affirmed from the site plan (Ex. Ka. 11). In the inquest, it is specifically mentioned that the dead body was lying on the mend of barseen field near kacchi nalli towards northern side, also affirmed from the site plan (Ex. Ka. 11). Under the circumstances, explained above, statement of this witness that inquest was conducted at the police station cannot be accepted and it can only be inferred that the statement given by the witness in this regard is nothing but ignorance. In cross-examination, he stated about the mode, manner and time of occurrence, wherein he deposed that Jag Jeevan fired from east, Sunder from the west, Kameshwar from the north and Prem Pal from the south. Subsequently, he corrected himself and stated that Sunder Singh did not fire. During arguments, it has been contended that this witness admitted that fact a criminal trial was in process against him and his brother, so he lodged this report against Prem Pal and others, whereas in the original statement, initially the word 'galat' (wrong) was written, but subsequently by cutting/over lapping, the word 'sahi' (correct) has been incorporated, which could be ascertained from bare perusal of original statement. Moreover, the cutting/over lapping does not contain initial/signature of the Presiding Officer. It is in the suggestion portion of the witness. Thus, the reply creates doubt and the complex question put to an illiterate rustic village witness and such minor inconsistency does not make any material difference in the truthfulness of the witness. This witness, no doubt is an illiterate rustic villager, even though his statement is very natural. His presence on the spot cannot be doubted. 11. From the close scrutiny of above evidence, it appears that there are no material discrepancy or contradiction in the testimony of this witness. Minor discrepancy, if any, is natural and normal because minor contradiction or exaggeration are always expected, but that never corrodes the credibility of the prosecution case. For appreciation of the testimony of rustic/illiterate villager, it is impossible for an illiterate villager or rustic lady to state with precision the chain of events as such witnesses do not have sense of accuracy of time etc. expecting hyper technical calculation regarding date, time and events. The court should keep in mind the rural background and the scenario in which the incident had happened and should not appreciate the evidence from rational angle on technical ground. expecting hyper technical calculation regarding date, time and events. The court should keep in mind the rural background and the scenario in which the incident had happened and should not appreciate the evidence from rational angle on technical ground. (see State of U.P. v. Chhotey Lal), AIR 2011 SC 697 , Dimple Gupta (minor) v. Rajiv Gupta, AIR 2008 SC 239 , and Boya Gangamma v. State of A.P., AIR 1976 SC 1541 . 12. (P.W. 2) Kalyan Singh is a witness named in the FIR, but before the Court, he stated that he did not see the occurrence. He got information about the incident in the evening at 6.30 p.m. while he was in Mela that Jai Singh has been murdered. After getting this information, he came to the spot and saw the dead body which was lying in the barseen field of Sher Singh. He stated that Jai Singh was having injuries on his head which was bleeding. Other villagers informed him that Jai Singh has been murdered by accused-Jag Jeevan, Kameshwar, Sunder Singh and Prem Pal. Though, this witness denied that he had seen the occurrence and the Investigating Officer has not recorded his statement under Section 161, Cr.P.C., but the fact that he got information at 6.30 p.m. on the date of occurrence is there. He saw the dead body lying on the spot and he also saw the head injuries of deceased-Jai Singh, this clearly supports the persecution version in respect of the time of occurrence, place of incident and head injuries on the body of deceased-Jai Singh. 13. (P.W. 3) Paan Singh brother of deceased, is an eye-witness of the occurrence. He supported the prosecution case and stated that his brother Jai Singh was in the field of barseen just adjacent to his house about 10-12 steps towards western side of abadi. Deceased-Jai Singh was near barha (nali), as explained by witness himself that 'barha' means Kacchi nali and they were about ten steps towards north. He stated that accused Jag Jeevan, Kameshwar, Prem Pal and Sunder having country made pistols in their hands came there all surrounded the deceased and fired at him. He received one fire arm injury on head, due to which, brain material came out. The other fire arm shot hit him on the back. After receiving injuries, he fell down from face side (munh ke bal) and died there. He received one fire arm injury on head, due to which, brain material came out. The other fire arm shot hit him on the back. After receiving injuries, he fell down from face side (munh ke bal) and died there. This witness himself, his father and brother Sher Singh went to the police station and lodged FIR verbally. He stated that he and his brother Sher Singh, thereafter, returned. His father came along with police on the spot. The police sealed dead body, collected empty cartridges, blood-stained and plain earth, prepared relevant police papers. Inquest was conducted and then the dead body was carried to the police station by police personnel. His father and Sher Singh also accompanied them and his statement was also recorded at the police station. The evidence of this witness clearly establishes that the inquest was conducted at the spot and thereafter, police took away the dead body to the police station for sending it to the hospital for post mortem. As deposed by (P.W. 1) Sher Singh, this witness has also admitted the enmity with the accused and has also admitted that cases have been lodged against them by accused persons and thus, there is strong motive. This witness stated that at the time of occurrence, natural day light was available and it was not dark. He stated that Jai Singh-deceased received three fire arm injuries. The statement of this witness is corroborated by medical evidence. Though, this witness is a relative, yet he has fully supported the prosecution case. He is totally reliable and trustworthy. 14. (P.W. 4) Shravan Kumar is a witness of inquest. He stated that Jai Singh expired due to fire arm injuries caused by accused persons. The dead body was sealed before him for post-mortem. The police collected bloodstained and plain earth from the spot. Though, he denied that no recovery was made, still he stated that police Inspector obtained his signature on a diary. This witness has exhibited (Ex. Ka-2). He also denied that no blank cartridges were recovered from the place of occurrence, but has accepted that his signature is available on recovery memo (Ex. Ka-3). He further denied that no statement was recorded by the I.O. nor any blank cartridge or country made pistol was recovered from the spot. The Investigating Officer of the case obtained his signature on two blank papers. Ka-3). He further denied that no statement was recorded by the I.O. nor any blank cartridge or country made pistol was recovered from the spot. The Investigating Officer of the case obtained his signature on two blank papers. He heard from villagers that Jai Singh died due to fire arm injuries, but he did not know who fired. He specifically admitted that inquest was conducted before him. 15. (P.W. 5) Dr. Y.C. Gupta in his statement, stated that gun shot injuries caused to deceased was from more than 3 feet. He could not explain that from which angel, fire was shot. He stated that injuries on the body of the deceased might be caused by three shots. He could say that these injuries might be caused by country made pistol or by gun and this could be ascertained only by the ballistic expert. The statement of this witness strengthens the statements of eye witnesses. 16. (P.W. 6), S.I. Nanak Chandra stated that on 30.3.2002, he conducted inquest on the body of Jai Singh at village Balkaranpur. He proved inquest (Ex-Ka-5) and stated that at the time of inquest, deceased was having 4-5 injuries. First information report of the incident was lodged prior to the inquest. Though, there is a thumb impression, but it is not descried, whose thumb impression it was? In cross examination, he stated that inquest was conducted by him in the jungle of village Balkaranpur and not at the police station. 17. (P.W. 7), Om Singh, SHO stated that he prepared site plan, collected blood-stained and plain earth, empty cartridges in presence of Shravan Singh and Samam Singh. He recorded statement of accused. He deposed that deceased-Jai Singh was not a history sheeter, but he was a man of criminal nature. Nothing adverse to the prosecution case is available in his statement. 18. (P.W. 8) S.S.I. Chandra Pal Singh submitted charge sheets (Exs. Ka-12 and 13) after completion of investigation of the case against the accused persons lodged. 19. (P.W. 9) Head Constable Lala Sharma has proved check FIR on oral information given by Sher Singh. He prepared check FER No. 20 of Case Crime No. 157 of 2002 under Section 302, IPC against the accused persons for causing murder of Jai Singh. Ka-12 and 13) after completion of investigation of the case against the accused persons lodged. 19. (P.W. 9) Head Constable Lala Sharma has proved check FIR on oral information given by Sher Singh. He prepared check FER No. 20 of Case Crime No. 157 of 2002 under Section 302, IPC against the accused persons for causing murder of Jai Singh. He stated that he did not include or exclude even a single word and on the original FIR, he obtained thumb impression of Sher Singh. This check FIR is in his hand writing (Ex. Ka-1) which was entered as G.D. entry No. 17 on 30.3.2002 at 20.55 hours (Ex. Ka-14). He stated that at the time of scribing the report FIR, the SHO was not available at the police station, but later he got signature of the SHO over the same. The FIR contained thumb impression, but no description is there but in view of the statement of P.W. 8 that it was dictated by Sher Singh, he obtained his thumb impression over the same, he never included or excluded any word that the FIR is dictated by Sher Singh and thumb impression on the said FIR is of Sher Singh and none else. 20. Although, no materials recovered from the spot were placed before the Court, nor the report of F.S.L., this is nothing but a fault committed by the Investigating Officer and these shortcomings cannot rule out the truthfulness of the prosecution case. Mere irregularity or omission on the part of I.O. on these aspects does not cast any cloud over the prosecution case, as the Investigating Officer is not obliged to anticipate all possible defenses and investigate in that angle. In any event, omission on the part of I.O. cannot go against the prosecution. Interest of justice demands that such acts or omission of the I.O. should not be taken in favour of accused or otherwise, it would amount to placing premium upon such omissions, as has been held in V.K. Mishra v. State of Uttarakhand, (2015) 9 SCC 588 : ( AIR 2015 SC 3043 ). 21. Considering the entire evidence as it is, we are of the view that the trial court was justified in convicting the accused appellants under Section 302/34, IPC. The conviction and sentence awarded by learned Trial Judge is affirmed. The appeal has no merit and is liable to be dismissed. 21. Considering the entire evidence as it is, we are of the view that the trial court was justified in convicting the accused appellants under Section 302/34, IPC. The conviction and sentence awarded by learned Trial Judge is affirmed. The appeal has no merit and is liable to be dismissed. 22. The appeal is accordingly, dismissed. The accused-appellants are in jail. The office is directed to transmit the Trial Court's record for compliance of the judgment, in accordance with law. Compliance report be submitted within a month. 23. We appreciate the assistance rendered by Amicus Sri Saghir Ahmad, who argued this appeal on behalf of appellant Nos. 1 and 4. He shall be paid a sum of Rs. 15,000/- (Rs. Fifteen thousand only) towards remuneration.