JUDGMENT : Umesh Kumar, J. 1. This appeal arises out of impugned judgment arid order dated 10.5.2005 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 4, Pilibhit in Sessions Trial No. 182 of 1994 convicting accused-appellants Babu son of Inayat, Ram Saran son of Narain and Ram Shankar son of Mewa Ram and sentencing them to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each and in default thereof to undergo two months further imprisonment. 2. In the present case, name of the deceased is Zakir Ali and the name of the injured is Chhadammibaksh, who is his father. 3. As per prosecution case, informant Hashmat Ali had contested election of Gram Pradhan successfully and his opponent Bulakiram lost on account of which latter and his party members were on inimical terms with the informant and his family members. About one and half month prior to the incident, Ram Chandra, Babu and others had fired at one Alauddin and others belonging to the party of the informant. On the date of incident, i.e., 19.4.1991, informant's elder brother Zakir Ah and his father Chhadammibaksh were unloading and heaping the lock of wheat at the fields of Fajaruddin. At about 5.30 p.m., accused Babu armed with 'kanta' (a fork like pointed weapon with a wooden handle), accused Ram Chandra, Ramsaran and Ram Shankar, all three armed with country made pistol, from the side of Bulaki Ram's verandah, passed through the informant's house hurling abuses and went to his deceased brother at the fields and exhorted that they would not spare him, fired shots at him from their respective country made pistols. On being hit the victim rushed towards east, all the four accused surrounded and killed him by opening fire and giving blows with 'kanta'. When the informant's father tried to rescue the victim, he was also given blows with 'kanta' which hit him on ear, he also got injured. On hearing firearm shots and alarm, the informant, his younger brother Sabir and one Saifulla son of Barku, resident of the same village, rushed to the place of occurrence, witnessed the occurrence, identified and exhorted the accused upon which the accused persons hurling abuses challenged them to fight and continued firing for approximately 15-20 minutes, which panicked and a ruckus followed. It was further reported by the informant that before committing the murder of his brother, all the four accused had planned the said plot with Inayat son of Buddha, Shamshad son of Nanhe, Majid son of Inayat and Lulaki Ram son of Mula, sitting in the verandah of Bulaki Ram. Bulaki Ram, Inayat, Shamshad and Majid have got murdered his brother. After committing murder, all the accused persons went to the verandah of Bulaki Ram. 4. After getting his written report (Ext. Ka-3) scribed by one Sartaj Baig, the informant presented it at the Police Station Bilsanda, District Pilibhit on 19.4.1991 alleging that due to fear, he could not come to the police station soon after the incident. On the basis of the written report, FIR (Ext. Ka-4) was registered as Case Crime No. 68 of 1991 on 20.4.1991 at about 1.30 a.m. under Sections 302, 307, 120-B I.P.C. against the accused-appellants and in this regard, an entry was recorded in the General Diary, xerox of which is Ext. Ka-4A. 5. After lodging the FIR, Station Officer H.S. Pawar (P.W. 11) took up the investigation of the case, proceeded to the place of occurrence. S.I. Rajaram under his supervision prepared panchayatnama and other documents. He proved panchayatnama as Ext. Ka-12, specimen seal as Ext. Ka-13, letter to Chief Medical Officer as Ext. Ka-14, letter to R.I. as Ext. Ka-15, challan lash as Ext. Ka-16 and photo lash as Ext. Ka-17. Thereafter, he recorded the statements of Sabir Ali and Saifulla. On pointing out of informant, he prepared site plan (Ext. Ka-18), recovered and sealed bloodstained as well as plain earth and marked seizure memo as Ext. Ka-19. In presence of witnesses, he recovered six 12 bore empty cartridges and two 315 bore empty cartridges and seizure memo thereof was marked as Ext. Ka-20, tikali was recovered, seizure memo thereof was marked as Ext. Ka-21 and also recovered the blood-stained shirt of Chhadammibaksh, marked the seizure memo as Ext. Ka-12. On 22.4.1991, on the information received from informer, he arrested accused Ram Saran and recovered a 12 bore country made pistol in working condition, two 12 bore live cartridges and marked the seizure memo as Ext. Ka-7. On the basis of it, a case as Case Crime No. 70 of 91 (Ext. Ka-5) under Section 25, Arms Act was registered against accused Ram Saran. 6. Ka-7. On the basis of it, a case as Case Crime No. 70 of 91 (Ext. Ka-5) under Section 25, Arms Act was registered against accused Ram Saran. 6. After investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet (Ext. Ka-11) against all the accused persons under Sections 302, 307, 120, I.P.C. and also submitted a charge sheet (Ext. Ka-10) against accused Ram Saran under Section 25 of the Arms Act. 7. Learned Trial Court charged the accused persons under relevant sections of I.P.C. Accused-appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 8. In support of the prosecution version, the prosecution examined as many as eleven witnesses- P.W. 1 Dr. Ram Singar Verma, P.W. 2 Dr. Rajnish Kumar, P.W. 3 Hasmat Ali, P.W. 4 Chhadammibaksh, P.W. 5 Machal Singh Yadav, P.W. 6 Sabir Ali, P.W. 7 Suresh Pal Singh, P.W. 8 Virpal Singh, P.W. 9 Chhatrapal Singh, P.W. 10 Devendra Pandey, P.W. 11 Harsaran Singh Pawar. 9. After prosecution evidence, statements of the accused-appellants under Section 313, Cr. P. C. were recorded. They denied the occurrence. Accused Ram Chandra pleaded that he was not at the place of occurrence and he has been falsely implicated. In support thereof, he examined D.W. 1 Virendra Kumar Saxena, D.W. 2 Ram Chandra Lal, D.W. 3 Ravindra Singh and DW. 4 Ramprakash Bajpai. 10. By the impugned judgment, learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants Ram Shankar, Ram Saran and Babu as mentioned in aforesaid paragraph No. 1 of this Judgment. Further it acquitted Accused Inayat, Majid and Bulaki for want of sufficient evidence of conspiracy against them. Accused Ram Chandra was acquitted after considering the statement of D.W. 1 to D.W. 4 and his plea of alibi was accepted by the court below. Accused Ram Saran has also been acquitted of the offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act. Moreover, all the accused were acquitted under Section 307, I.P.C. 11. It is relevant to mention here that accused-Majid and Bulaki expired during trial and proceedings have already abated against them. 12. We enquired from the learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned A.G.A. as to whether any State appeal has been filed against the judgment impugned or not, they stated that no such appeal has been filed. 13. We have heard Sri. Satish Trivadi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri. Ajay Kumar Pandey & Sri. 12. We enquired from the learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned A.G.A. as to whether any State appeal has been filed against the judgment impugned or not, they stated that no such appeal has been filed. 13. We have heard Sri. Satish Trivadi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri. Ajay Kumar Pandey & Sri. Rahul Saxena, learned counsel's for the appellants and Sri. A.N. Mulla, the learned A.G.A. for the State. 14. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that trial court has not appreciated the evidence brought on record in the right perspective; trial court ignored the fact of delay in lodging the FIR; subsequently, during deposition in the court an attempt was made to somehow built up a story of delay but the same was not believable; medical evidence belies the ocular testimony that it is a case of two gun shots hitting the deceased and other blunt weapon injuries remain unexplained, story of the injured witness account is nothing but cooked up and fabricated; trial court did not attach the importance of the fact that the dead body at the time of the inquest was found at a third place, as such the place of occurrence becomes doubtful; further no blood was recovered from the scene or the alleged cot, investigation has been carved out in totally unfair manner and prosecution version is not supported by any independent witness. 15. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. submitted that enmity between the parties is admitted. Prosecution version is supported by the eye-witnesses, FIR cannot be termed as ante timed in the light of the evidence adduced by the eye-witnesses. Eye-witnesses have fully supported the prosecution case and prompt FIR of the case shows the truthfulness of the occurrence. 16. P.W. 1 Dr. Ram Singar Verma medically examined the injuries of Chhadammibaksh on 20.4.1991 at 6 a.m. and found following injuries on the person of this injured:- ^^1- QVk gqvk ?kko 2-5 lseh xq.kk 2-5 lsaeh xq.kk gMMh rd xgjk nkfgus dku o lj ds chp esa FkkA tek gqvk [kwu ekStwn FkkA 2- lj esa nnZ crk jgk Fkk exj ckgj ls dksbZ fn[kkbZ ugh ns jgh FkhA^^ P.W. 1 opined that injury No. 1 was simple in nature and appeared to have been caused by some blunt object. This witness proved his injury report as Ext. Ka-1. 17. P.W. 2 Dr. This witness proved his injury report as Ext. Ka-1. 17. P.W. 2 Dr. Rajnish Kumar conducted the postmortem on 20.4.1991 at 4 p.m. He found following ante-mortem injuries on the person of the deceased:- ^^okg~; ijh{k.k %& e`rd vPNh dn&dkBh dk FkkA rUn:Lr FkkA e`R;q ds ckn dh vdM+u Åij ds fgLls esa lekIr gksus dh voLFkk esa FkhA fupys Hkkx esa vdM+u ekStwn FkhA lM+u dk dksbZ fpUg ugha FkkA e`R;q iwoZ dh fuEu pksVsa 'ko ij ik;h FkhA%& 1- dVk gqvk ?kko 12 lsaeh xq.kk Ms<+ lsaeh xq.kk efLr"d rd xgjkA ck;ha vkDlhihVy o iSjkbVy gfM~M;kWa VwVh gqbZ FkhaA ck;sa dku dk Åijh fgLlk dVk gqvk FkkA ;g ?kko ck;sa dku ls 'kq: gksdj pqfV;ksa rd FkkA 2- dVk gqvk ?kko 15 lsaeh xq.kk 2 lsaeh xq.kk gM~Mh rd xgjkA xnZu ds Åijh o fiNys fgLls ijA 3- dVk gqvk ?kko 10 lsaeh xq.kk 3 lsaeh xq.kk gM~Mh rd xgjkA g~;wejl dk gsM dVk gqvk ck;sa iD[ks ¼LiSdqyj cksu½ ds lcls Åijh fgLls ijA 4- dVk gqvk ?kko 5 lsaeh xq.kk Ms<- lseh xq.kk gM~Mh rd xgjkA ck;kaW iD[kk dVk gqvkA pksV ua0 3 ls 3 lseh- uhps dh vksjA 5- cgqrk;r [kjksaps 1 lseh- xq.kk 0-2 lseh ls 3 lsaeh xq.kk 0-2 lsaeh ds vkdkj dh ihB ds fupys fgLls ij tks 18 lsaeh xq.kk 18 lsaeh {ks= esa FkhA 6- xksyh dk ?kko ftlds ekftZUl vUnj dh vksj eqMs gq, FksA ,d lsaeh xq.kk 1 lsaeh xq.kk Nkrh dh xqgk rd psLV dSfoVh Mhi nkfgus iD[ks ds chp ds fgLls ijA 7- xksyh dk ?kko 0-2 lsaeh xq.kk 0-2 lsaeh xq.kk [kky rd xgjk ¼fLdu Mhi½ ck;sa cktw ds chp o vUn:uh fgLls ijA 8- xksyh dk fudkl ?kko ftlds fdukjs ckgj dh rjQ eqMs- gq, Fks] 0-3 lsaeh xq.kk 0-3 lsaeh ck;sa cktw ds chp ds vUn:uh fgLls ij rFkk pksV la[;k 7 ls Ms<- lsa-eh- uhpsA 9- xksyh dk izos'k ?kko 1 lsaeh xq.kk 1 lsaeh xq.kk Nkrh xqgk rd lhus ij lkeus dh vksj ,fDl fQLVje ds fupys fgLls ij ftldh fn'kk Åij o ckgj dh vksj FkhA 10- xksyh dk izos'k ?kko 0-5 lsaeh xq.kk 0-5 lsaeh xq.kk ekal is'kh rd xgjk ckbZ tkW?k ds ckgjh o Åijh fgLls ijA 11- xksyh dk izos'k ?kko 0-5 lsaeh xq.kk 0-5 lsaeh xq.kk gM~Mh dk xgjk] ckbZ VkWx ds lkeus Åijh fgLls ij A 12- cgqrk;r esa xksyh ds ?kko tks rdjhcu 0-2 lsaeh xq.kk 0-2 lsaeh lkbt ds gSa ihB ij nkfguh vksj 17 lsaeh xq.kk 15 lsaeh ds {ks= esa FkhA 13- xksyh dk izos'k ?kko 0-5 lsaeh xq.kk 0-5 lsaeh- nkfguh dksguh ds ckgjh fgLls ijA vkUrfjd ijh{k.k%& e`rd dk nkfguk QsQMk QVk gqvk Fkk rFkk ftlesa ls ,d cMh o 10 NksVs NjsZ cjken fd, x,A Iy;wjk QVh gqbZ FkhA g`n; QVk gqvk Fkk ftlesa ls ,d NjkZ cjken fd;k x;k FkkA iSfjVksfu;e esa rdjhcu 500 lh-lh- [kwu ekStwn FkkA vkek'k; esa rdjhcu 100 xzke v/kipk [kkuk ekStwn FkkA ;d`r yhoj QVk gqvk Fkk ftlesa ls 15 NksVs NjsZ cjken fd, x,A fiRrk'k; vk/kk Hkjk gqvk FkkA^^ P.W. 2 opined that death of the deceased was due to injuries received on his person by shots and blows of 'kanta'. Injury Nos. 1 to 4 were appearing to have been caused by 'kanta'. Injury Nos. 6 to 13 were appearing to have been caused by firearm such as country made pistol. Death of the deceased was caused due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries. This witness proved postmortem report as Ext. Ka-2. 18. P.W. 3 Hashmat Ali, eye-witnesses, stated that on the date of occurrence, after harvesting wheat crop, his brother Zakir Ali and father Chhadammibaksh were heaping at the fields of Fajaruddin. It was around 5.00 in the evening. Accused Babu, Ramchandra, Ramsaran and Ramshankar passed through the front of the door of his house from the side of verandah of Bulaki. All the four accused, hurling abuses, went towards the field where informant's brother and father were heaping wheat and they exhorted to kill Zakir. Ramchandra, Ramsaran and Ramshankar fired at his brother Zakir with their respective country made pistols. When the deceased ran towards standing wheat crop near Dunlop (bullock cart with tyres) accused persons surrounded the victim and accused Ramchandra, Ramsaran and Ramshankar fired shots at and Babu gave blows with 'kanta' on the deceased. When Chhadammibaksh proceeded to rescue him, accused also gave blow on him with 'kanta' which hit near his right ear. This witness along with his younger brother Sabir and one Saifulla reached the place of occurrence and exhorted, the accused persons challenging them to fight opened fire to scare them. Thereafter, all the accused fled towards the verandah of Bulaki. Thereafter, he went to his brother and found that he succumbed to his injuries inflicted by kanta and firing shots. This witness further stated that prior to incident, he had seen Babu, Ramchand, Ramsaran, Ramshankar, Inayat, Shamshad, Majid and Bulaki discoursing with each other. 19. In his cross-examination, P.W. 3 admitted the fact that the accused were having inimical terms with him as he won in the election in 1988. He and his two other brothers were falsely implicated by Bulaki, Ramchandra, Shamshad and others in murder case of one Raisuddin and they were convicted in that case. Further prior to the murder of his brother, he had got lodged a report against Ramchand, Shamshad and Ramsaran in which one Alauddin was informant. He and his two other brothers were falsely implicated by Bulaki, Ramchandra, Shamshad and others in murder case of one Raisuddin and they were convicted in that case. Further prior to the murder of his brother, he had got lodged a report against Ramchand, Shamshad and Ramsaran in which one Alauddin was informant. On hearing hurl of abuses, he and his brother rushed towards the place of occurrence raising alarm that the accused were going to murder his brother, save him. When he exhorted, the accused began to hit the deceased with their respective weapons and when he tried to proceed towards the accused, they opened fire at him thus he retreated and continued to raise alarm standing at a distance of about 100 paces away from the deceased. His father was trying to save his brother. At the time, the accused had opened fire at him, his father was near the deceased. His father was standing near Dunlop catching hold accused Babu. Remaining three accused Ramchandra, Ramsaran and Ramshanker were firing shots at the deceased. After being hit by shots, the deceased rushed near the Dunlop. The incident last for 5-7 minutes. When the accused fled from the place of occurrence, he reached near his father. This witness further stated in cross-examination that he reached on foot at Talgaon at about 11.30 p.m. called out Sartaj Baig and halted at his residence. There he called Raes Baig, Kaushal and others. He divulged the incident with them. Written report was scribed by Sartaj Baig in lantern light and thereafter he went to the police station. 20. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the FIR was lodged after deliberations, hence, the prosecution case cannot be held to be reliable. 21. It is relevant to mention here that First Information Report is a step to set the criminal law in action. Any person aware of the commission of the cognizable offence may give information to the police and may set the criminal law in action. Such information is to be given to the officer-in-charge of the police station having jurisdiction to investigate the offence. It is well settled that FIR is not a substantive piece of evidence, that is to say, it is not evidence of fact which is mentioned, however, it is important as conveying the earliest information regarding the occurrence, hence, the same cannot be doubted. It is well settled that FIR is not a substantive piece of evidence, that is to say, it is not evidence of fact which is mentioned, however, it is important as conveying the earliest information regarding the occurrence, hence, the same cannot be doubted. It can be used to corroborate the information or to contradict the same. 22. RW. 4 is Chhadammibaksh, who is an injured and eye witness of the occurrence. He stated that on the day of occurrence, he and his son Zakir (deceased) were heaping wheat crop in the field of one Fajaruddin. At about 5.15 p.m., accused Babu, Ramchand, Ramsaran and Ramshankar came on the place of occurrence. Babu was armed with 'kanta' and other three accused were armed with country made pistols. Accused persons had come from the side of verandah of Bulaki and told Zakir that they will eliminate him. Surrounding the deceased, the accused persons opened fire at him. His son ran towards the standing wheat crop of Fajaruddin but accused again surrounded him and Babu gave him blow with 'kanta' and remaining accused opened fire at him. When he tried to save the deceased, Babu gave blow with 'kanta' near his ears on right temporal, the deceased succumbed to his injuries received from blows of 'kanta' and firing of shots. Hashmat Ali, Sabir and Saifulla reached the place of occurrence and when these persons exhorted, the accused challenged that if they do not fear for their lives, they may fight with them. All the accused fled towards verandah of Bulaki. His son accompanied him to Talgaon, went to Bilsanda and lodged the report. Thereafter, his injuries were examined in Bilsanda. This witness was not cross-examined by the defence till he was alive and, unfortunately, this witness expired during the trial and his statement could not be tested at touchstone of cross-examination. 23. P.W. 5 A.S.I. Machal Singh Yadav is formal witness who has proved chick FIR and G.D. Entry of the case. 24. Another eye-witness Sabir Ali (P.W. 6) has been examined after nine years of occurrence. He supported the prosecution version and stated that on the day of occurrence at about half past five in the evening, accused persons, namely, Ramchandra, Babu, Ramshankar and Ramsaran came from the side of house of one Bulaki. Babu was armed with 'kanta' and other three accused were armed with country made pistols. He supported the prosecution version and stated that on the day of occurrence at about half past five in the evening, accused persons, namely, Ramchandra, Babu, Ramshankar and Ramsaran came from the side of house of one Bulaki. Babu was armed with 'kanta' and other three accused were armed with country made pistols. His deceased brother Zakir was heaping wheat crop at the fields nearby. The deceased was accompanied with a labourer. All the four accused passed through the house of this witness hurling abuses and exhorted that they would eliminate Zakir. Accused persons opened fire at Zakir and, on being hit by shots, Zakir rushed. When Zakir reached the field of wheat crop, accused persons surrounded him. Babu gave blows with 'kanta' and three other co-accused opened fire with their country made pistols and all of them killed his brother Zakir before him. When his father Chhadammibaksh tried to rescue the deceased, Babu gave blows with 'kanta' which hit him on his ear. After the incident, accused went towards the house of Bulaki. This witness also stated that this incident took place as his deceased brother had won the election, Bulakiram lost and it was the reason of the animosity of the accused. Bulaki, Inayat, Majid and Shamshad hatched conspiracy for committing the murder. 25. In cross-examination, P.W. 6 further stated that Raes, brother of accused Shamshad, was murdered in which he was a convict. He was falsely implicated in the said case by Ram Chandra etc. On account of that murder, there had been animosity between his family and Bulakiram's family for 5-6 years. He further stated that as soon as accused reached, they opened fire of the deceased. Thereafter, Babu gave blows with 'kanta'. He was behind the accused. After being hit, the deceased fell on the ground, his father having been injured, sat on the ground. After committing murder, the accused persons fled from the place of occurrence. In Dharnidhar v. State of U.P., 2010 (6) SCJ 662 : (2010 AIR SCW 5685), the Apex Court held that when witnesses are examined in the court after a considerable lapse of time, it is neither unnatural nor unexpected that there can be some minor variations in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. 26. In Dharnidhar v. State of U.P., 2010 (6) SCJ 662 : (2010 AIR SCW 5685), the Apex Court held that when witnesses are examined in the court after a considerable lapse of time, it is neither unnatural nor unexpected that there can be some minor variations in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. 26. P.W. 7 Constable Suresh Pal Singh is witness of recovery of one country made pistol and two cartridges from the possession of accused Ram Saran. P.W. 8 S.I. Virpal Singh proved the site plan of the said recovery (Ext. Ka-8), permission letter of D.M. (Ext. Ka-9) and charge sheet under Section 25 of the Arms Act (Ext. Ka-10). P.W. 9 Chhattrapal Singh has also supported the version of said recovery. 27. P.W. 10 Devendra Pandey, S.H.O. proved the charge sheet of the case as Ext. Ka-11. 28. P.W. 11, SO, H.S. Pawar is the Investigating Officer, who investigated the case. No material discrepancy has been pointed out or found in the statement of the witnesses of fact, i.e., P.Ws. 3, 4 & 6. A statement of one of the witnesses may not be taken out of context to abjure the guilt on the part of the accused persons when the case of the prosecution is based on the evidence of eye-witnesses. Merely because embellishments in the prosecution case has taken place does not mean to discard the entire prosecution case. 29. It is very important to note that P.W. 3 has been examined after eight years of the incident, the other two eye-witnesses examined after nine years of incident. Hence, minor contradictions are always expected in their assertions and in fact that goes to support the truthfulness of the eye-witnesses. 30. Accused Inayat, Shamshad, Majid, Bulaki were implicated alleging that they had conspired for commission of this offence. In that respect, no evidence was adduced before trial Judge and for want of sufficient evidence, the said accused have been acquitted. In support of his plea of alibi, accused Ram Chandra examined four witnesses Virendra Kumar Saxena (D.W. 1), Ram Chandra Lal (D.W. 2), Ravindra Singh (D.W. 3) and Ramprakash Bajpai (D.W. 4) and relying on their statement and material placed on record, the trial Judge acquitted him. All these facts cannot establish that entire prosecution version is not based on reliable evidence. No State appeal has been preferred against the impugned order. 31. All these facts cannot establish that entire prosecution version is not based on reliable evidence. No State appeal has been preferred against the impugned order. 31. The principle 'Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus' is not applicable in India. It is merely a rule of caution. Thus even if a major portion of evidence is found to be deficient, in case residue is sufficient to prove the guilt of an accused, notwithstanding acquittal of number of other co-accused persons, his conviction can be maintained. The court has to separate grain from the chaff and appraise each case as to what extent the evidence is acceptable. If separation cannot be done, evidence has to be rejected in toto. A witness may be speaking untruth in some respect and it has to be appraised in each case as to what extent the evidence is worthy of acceptance and merely because in some respects the Court considers the same to be insufficient for placing reliance on the testimony of a witness, it does not necessarily follow as a matter of law that it must be disregarded in all respects. Falsity of particular material witness on a material particular would not ruin it from the beginning to the end. The aforesaid dictum is not a sound rule for the reason that one hardly comes across a witness whose evidence does not contain a grain untruth or at any rate exaggeration, embroideries or embellishment as held in State of Karnataka v. Suvarnamma (2015) 1 SCC 323 : (2014 AIR SCW 6338); Babu v. State of T.N. (2013) 8 SCC 60 : (2013 AIR SCW 3963); and Rajendra Singh v. State of Uttaranchal, (2013) 4 SCC 713 : (2013 AIR SCW 3252). 32. It is well settled that an unnatural death may be under three circumstances, i.e., suicidal, accidental or homicidal. No doubt evidence available on record shows that it is neither a suicidal nor accidental death but homicidal. Now, it is to be established that, who committed homicide. Evidence available on record directly indicates that deceased Zakir was fired at by accused Ram Saran, Ram Shanker and assaulted with kanta by accused Babu. 33. Taking the cumulative effect of the evidence, we are of the view that the Trial Judge was justified in convicting the appellant. Now, it is to be established that, who committed homicide. Evidence available on record directly indicates that deceased Zakir was fired at by accused Ram Saran, Ram Shanker and assaulted with kanta by accused Babu. 33. Taking the cumulative effect of the evidence, we are of the view that the Trial Judge was justified in convicting the appellant. Thus, the judgment and order impugned passed Sessions Trial No. 182 of 1994 convicting accused-appellants Babu son of Inayat, Ram Saran son of Narain and Ram Shankar son of Mewa Ram is affirmed. 34. The appeal has no substance and same is, accordingly, dismissed. 35. 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.