JUDGMENT : Syed Waiz Mian, J. 1. Heard Shri Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, Pankaj Kumar Shukla, Lalit Kumar Shukla, Ashutosh Singh and Jawahar Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Deepak Kumar Pandey, learned Amicus Curiae, Shri Anil Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the informant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. The aforementioned Criminal Appeal No. 6632 of 2019, Hakim vs. State, has been filed against the judgment and order dated 25.07.2019, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3 Mathura, in Session Trial No. 803 of 2013, State vs. Hakim Singh & Anr., arising Out of Case Crime No. 06 of 2013, under Sections-148, 302 read with 149 I.P.C., convicting the appellant U/s 148 I.P.C. and sentencing them three years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,000/-in case of default of payment of fine further three months additional imprisonment and U/s 302 read with 149 I.P.C. sentencing them life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 20,000/-and in case of default of payment of fine further one year additional imprisonment and all the sentences were runs concurrently. Criminal Appeal No. 5907 of 2019, Kishani vs. State of U.P., has been filed against the judgment and order dated 25.07.2019, passed by the Additional Session Judge, Court No. 3, Mathura, in S.T. No. 299 of 2013, State vs. Kishani & Ors, arising out of Case Crime No. 6 of 2013, under Sections-148, 302/149 I.P.C., Police Station-Refinary, District-Mathura, convicting the appellant under Section 148 I.P.C. and sentencing the appellant for three years rigorous imprisonment and imposed fine of Rs. 5,000/-and in default of payment the appellant shall undergo three months additional imprisonment, and under Section 302/149 I.P.C. sentencing the appellant for life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 20,000/-and in default of payment the appellant shall undergo one year additional imprisonment and all the sentences run concurrently. Criminal Appeal No. 6501 of 2019, Ajay Singh @ Ajju vs. State of U.P., has been filed against the judgment and order dated 25.07.2019, passed by the Additional Session Judge, Court No. 3, Mathura, in S.T. No. 299 of 2013 (leading case), State vs. Kishani & Ors, and S.T. No. 344 of 2014 (State vs. Hakim Singh & Anr.) convicting the appellant under Section 148 I.P.C. and sentencing the appellant for three years rigorous imprisonment and imposed fine of Rs. 5,000/-and in default of payment the appellant shall undergo three months additional imprisonment, and under Section 302/149 I.P.C. sentencing the appellant for life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 20,000/-and in default of payment the appellant shall undergo one year additional imprisonment and all the sentences run concurrently. Criminal Appeal No. 3104 of 2019, Lauki vs. State of U.P., has been filed against the judgment and order dated 25.07.2019 as well as 02.04.2021, passed by the Additional Session Judge, Court No. 3, Mathura, in S.T. No. 344 of 2014 (State vs. Hakim Singh & Anr.) convicting the appellant under Section 148 I.P.C. and sentencing the appellant for three years rigorous imprisonment and imposed fine of Rs. 5,000/-and in default of payment the appellant shall undergo three months additional imprisonment, and under Section 302/149 I.P.C. sentencing the appellant for life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 20,000/-and in default of payment the appellant shall undergo one year additional imprisonment and all the sentences run concurrently. Jail Appeal No. 151 of 2019, Hakim vs. State of U.P., has been filed against the judgment and order dated 25.07.2019 passed by the Additional Session Judge, Court No. 3, Mathura, in S.T. No. 344 of 2014 (State vs. Hakim Singh & Anr.) convicting the appellant under Section 148 I.P.C. and sentencing the appellant for three years rigorous imprisonment and imposed fine of Rs. 5,000/-and in default of payment the appellant shall undergo three months additional imprisonment, and under Section 302/149 I.P.C. sentencing the appellant for life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 20,000/-and in default of payment the appellant shall undergo one year additional imprisonment and all the sentences run concurrently. 3. All the above noted bail applications arise from a common judgment and order, accordingly are being heard and decided jointly. 4. Brief history of the prosecution unfolds that the informant Bacchu Singh, lodged a First Information Report, being Case Crime No. 5 of 2013, under Sections-147, 148, 149, and 302 I.P.C., at Police Station-Refinery, District-Mathura, on 06.01.2013 at 9.40 a.m. against the appellants/applicants-Hakim Singh S/o Girraj Singh, Lauki, Azad @ Ajju, Kishani, Ravi and Hakim Singh S/o Niranjan Singh. In the First Information Report it is alleged that on 06.01.2013, informant’s brother-Suresh Chandra, in the morning went to the village to attend nature’s call. Vikram s/o deceased Suresh Chandra and his father Lakkho, also followed him to attend nature’s call. In the First Information Report it is alleged that on 06.01.2013, informant’s brother-Suresh Chandra, in the morning went to the village to attend nature’s call. Vikram s/o deceased Suresh Chandra and his father Lakkho, also followed him to attend nature’s call. His son Suresh Chandra reached to the border line of the field, wherein mustered crop was standing, where all the accused were hiding and waiting for the deceased, suddenly came out of the crop field, and at around 8.30 a.m. they started indiscriminate firing with illegal fire arms, and they also assaulted the deceased with blow of Farsa and knives, and on their reaching, on the spot, all the accused fired in air and fled away from the spot of incident. 5. Informant and others, named above, reached on the spot and found that Suresh Chandra had succumbed to injuries. In the First Information Report it is also noted that the dead body of Suresh-deceased, was lying on the place of occurrence and informant came to Police Station to lodge the First Information Report. During investigation the Investigating Officer collected plain and blood stained soil and the same was sealed separately at the place of occurrence on the same day i.e. 06.01.2013 and also the investigating Officer collected three empty cartridges of .315 bore, and prepared exhibit Ka-11, in the presence of the witnesses. Inquest report, Pradarsh Ka-2, in the presence of witnesses (Panchan) was also got prepared to ascertain cause of death of the deceased. The dead body, along with police papers, was transmitted to Mortuary for conducting the autopsy on the dead body. 6. Dr. K.K. Gupta, on 06.01.2017 conducted the post mortem on body of the deceased and prepared autopsy report, Ka-7, accordingly. In autopsy report, there are as many as five injuries on the person of the deceased. Out of the injuries, injury nos. 1 and 2 were of fire arm shot, whereas, injury nos. 3 to 5 were found to have been allegedly caused by sharp edged weapons on the vital part of the body of the deceased. 7. In the opinion of Doctor-K.K.Gupta, the cause of death of the deceased was ante mortem injuries due to oozing of excessive blood from the body of the deceased. 8. The investigating Officer collected prima facie evidence under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and submitted charge sheet against all the named accused persons/ appellants. 7. In the opinion of Doctor-K.K.Gupta, the cause of death of the deceased was ante mortem injuries due to oozing of excessive blood from the body of the deceased. 8. The investigating Officer collected prima facie evidence under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and submitted charge sheet against all the named accused persons/ appellants. However, during investigation one of the accused/ appellant Kishni could be arrested, whereas the other accused/appellant/applicants, namely Hakim S/o late Girraj, Lauki, Hakim S/o Niranjan, Ajai @ Ajju and Ravi absconded and for ensuring their presence to record their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. the Investigating Officer got their properties attached and filed chalan against accused Hakim Singh and four others, during their absconding. 9. Under Sections 147, 148, 149 & 302 I.P.C. after receiving Challan against above accused/appellants/applicants and other relevant materials cognizance under Sections 190 (1) Cr.P.C. for aforementioned offences against all the accused/appellants/applicants, was taken and then the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate committed criminal case to the Court of District and Sessions Judge. 10. In the mean time, accused/appellant/applicants Hakim and four others surrendered before the Court and the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 7, Mathura, framed charges under Sections 147, 148, and 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C., vide orders dated 12.06.2014 and 04.01.2014. All the accused/appellant/applicants, on denial of their charges, commenced trial for aforesaid sections. 11. Prosecution produced informant-P.W.-1-Bacchu Singh son of Lakkho, P.W.-2 Vikram, S/o deceased as witnesses of fact, whereas, P.W.-3 to P.W.-7 are formal witnesses. 12. On closure of the evidence on behalf of the prosecution, statements of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. All the accused claimed themselves innocent and also explained that in the instant case they have been falsely roped in. 13. Accused Kishni and Hakim in their statements stated that due to enmity Bacchu and Vikram has given evidence against them and their false implication as a result of enmity with the informant and others. However, Ajai @ Ajju, in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has stated that he had no enmity with the deceased, as such there was no motive against him to commit such incident nor there was any plausible reason for his complicity in the crime and further stated that on the advice of some villagers, who want to sell his property, he has been falsely implicated in this matter. 14. 14. All the accused, except accused Ajai @ Ajju, in their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. had declined to adduce evidence in their defence on behalf of the co-accused. D.W.-1 Bhagwan Singh, has been examined. 15. On the conclusion of trial, against all the accused persons, after considering the entire evidence on record, learned Additional Sessions Judge found clinching evidence against all the accused/appellants under Sections-147, 148, 302, read with 149 I.P.C. and sentenced all the five accused/appellant as noted above. 16. It is clarified that co-accused Ravi on being found juvenile, on the date of alleged occurrence, was tried before the competent Court as his file was got separated by the Court concerned vide order dated 27.07.2013, from the file of aforesaid five accused, against whom the trial, before the learned trial Court, stood concluded. 17. All the aforesaid bail applications are taken together for their disposal by this common order. 18. On behalf of the accused/appellant/applicants it is submitted that during the pendency of their appeals, before the present Court, accused/appellant/applicants be released on bail because the judgment and order dated 25.07.2019 is not sustainable in the eyes of law due to its perversity and the same is also based on false assumptions and surmises and not in the right perspective, the evidence on record, has not been appreciated. 19. Learned counsel for the appellants also submits that First Information Report is anti time and having been lodged at the police Station after post mortem of the body of the deceased, as such, the alleged incident was not seen by the P.W.-1 Bacchu Singh and P.W.-2 Vikram Singh as they were present at the time of alleged occurrence of the incident; thus, FIR was lodged at Police Station after the autopsy of the dead body of the deceased had taken place. 20. In the opinion of P.W.-4, Dr. Gupta, the time of death of the deceased was found 1/3 day old. 21. Learned counsel for the accused/appellant/applicants have also taken us to Post Mortem Report, exhibit-Ka 7, and deposition of P.W.-4 Dr. 20. In the opinion of P.W.-4, Dr. Gupta, the time of death of the deceased was found 1/3 day old. 21. Learned counsel for the accused/appellant/applicants have also taken us to Post Mortem Report, exhibit-Ka 7, and deposition of P.W.-4 Dr. Gupta and it has been shown that only two fire arm shot injuries were found on the body, whereas, the case of prosecution is that all the accused/appellant/applicants had fired with their fire arm indiscriminately at the deceased; specific role to the accused/appellant/ applicants have also not been assigned; this also goes to show that P.W.-1-Bacchu Singh and P.W.-2 Vikram Singh, were not present at the place of occurrence. 22. It is also the contention of learned counsel for the accused/appellant/applicants that P.W.-4, Dr. Gupta, found only two fire arm injuries on the body of the deceased whereas P.W.-2 Vikram Singh has stated that three accused were having Tamancha and in the first information report it is alleged that all the accused had fired indiscriminately with their weapons at the deceased. As such, the allegations levelled in the First Information Report, depositions of P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 are motivated and not worthy of credit. 23. Out of the witnesses only P.W.-1, Bacchu and P.W.-2 Vikram Singh, who are brother and son of the deceased, respectively, it is urged that they being partisan and interested, have been examined and for want of corroboration of their testimonies by the independent impartial witness/ witnesses, the conviction and sentence of the accused/appellant/applicants is bad and not sustainable; moreover, not only their presence at the place of occurrence is doubtful but their testimonies are contradictory and inconsistent with each other, are not reliable, and, by placing reliance upon them (P.W.-1 and P.W.-2), learned lower Court has misled itself to err and the standard to prove the prosecution case, set by law, has not been met. 24. Next argument put forth on behalf of the accused/appellant/applicants is that they are detained in judicial custody and it is not certain how many years their pending appeals would see the light of the day. 25. Lastly, it is urged that the appellants are entitled to bail. 26. 24. Next argument put forth on behalf of the accused/appellant/applicants is that they are detained in judicial custody and it is not certain how many years their pending appeals would see the light of the day. 25. Lastly, it is urged that the appellants are entitled to bail. 26. Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposes the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the accused/appellant/applicants and submits that P.W.-1 Bacchu Singh lodged the First Information Report, Exhibit Ka-1, at Police Station promptly and it is not essential for the First Information Report to be an encyclopedia; the allegations of the First Information Report are substantiated by the cogent evidence on record. He also submits that the First Information Report is not anti time and the contention pertaining to rigor mortis is not tenable as the rigor mortis varies from person to person. Moreover, he submits that these are only hyper technical arguments and hold no water. 27. Learned A.G.A. also contradicts the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/applicants by saying that in the village it is normal practice that in the morning as per their convenience villagers go, to attend nature’s call and even few persons together attend nature’s call but, it does not mean that they excrete together at one place. 28. Learned A.G.A. also refutes the contention of learned counsel for appellants regarding the medical evidence that P.W.4, Dr. K.K. Gupta, had found half of the bladder filled hence the deceased before his death might have eaten some eatable. He further drew our attention to the evidence of P.W.-4, Dr. K.K. Gupta, wherein he deposed that it is not a hard and fast rule that the bladder of the deceased, if found half, be assumed that deceased had eaten some eatable just before his death. 29. Learned A.G.A. further states there is no major inconsistencies so as to shift the place of occurrence as depicted in the site plan by the investigating officer and corroborated in oral account of witnesses P.W.-1-Bacchu Singh and P.W.-2 Vikram Singh. He submits there is just a minor variance of few feets and therefore, merely on such basis the place of occurrence does not shift. Eventually, he argues that bail applications be rejected. 30. We have perused carefully the material placed on record and also heard learned counsel and learned A.G.A., for both the parties. 31. He submits there is just a minor variance of few feets and therefore, merely on such basis the place of occurrence does not shift. Eventually, he argues that bail applications be rejected. 30. We have perused carefully the material placed on record and also heard learned counsel and learned A.G.A., for both the parties. 31. The First Information Report, exhibit-Ka-1, was lodged, by the informant Bacchu Singh, at the concerned Police Station on 06.01.2013 at 9.40 a.m.; the distance from alleged place of occurrence to concerned police station is noted in the First Information Report Chik, Exhibit-Ka 8, as six kilometers, whereas, P.W.-2, Dr. K.K. Gupta, states in his testimony that the post mortem over the body of the deceased was conducted on 06.01.2013 at 4.10 p.m. 32. P.W.-4, Dr. K.K. Gupta, has also noted in the autopsy report Pradarsh-7Ka, the proximate time of death of deceased was 1/3 day, meaning eight hours before the time of autopsy. As such, as per Dr. K.K. Gupta, time of death of deceased approximately is fixed at 8.10 a.m., whereas, in the First Information Report P.W.-1 Bacchu Singh has stated the time of occurrence around 8.30 a.m. P.W.-1, Bacchu Singh and P.W.-2 Vikram Singh, have not been cross examined on the point whether at the time of their alleged presence on the spot they had worn wrist watch, nor these witnesses have disclosed that at the time of occurrence any one of them was wearing wrist watch. Considering the material on record we are of the opinion that time of death 8.30 a.m. was approximately noted in the First Information Report, Pradarsh Ka1. 33. As there is just a difference of a few minutes about the proximate time of death of the deceased in the alleged First Information Report, Pradarsh-Ka-1 and in oral accounts of two witnesses (P.W.-1 and P.W.-2) and also in the deposition of P.W.-4, therefore, we do not find that the First Information Report is ante time. 34. From perusal of the testimonies of P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 it is found that their evidence is trustworthy and also their presence in the circumstances of the case was natural at the place of occurrence. Mere non production of Lakkho, does not dismantle prosecution case. 35. 34. From perusal of the testimonies of P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 it is found that their evidence is trustworthy and also their presence in the circumstances of the case was natural at the place of occurrence. Mere non production of Lakkho, does not dismantle prosecution case. 35. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Hari Obula Reddy v. State of A.P., (1981) 3 SCC 675 & Jalpat Rai v. State of Haryana, (2011) 14 SCC 208 , the law is settled that the testimony of an interested witness is not necessarily unreliable and there is no invariable rule that interested evidence can never form the basis of conviction unless corroborated to a material extent in material particulars by independent evidence. What is required is that testimony of such a witness should be subjected to careful scrutiny. If, on such scrutiny, the testimony is found to be intrinsically reliable or inherently probable, it may, in the facts and circumstances of a case, form the basis of conviction. 36. Thus the contention of the learned counsel that the evidence adduced by P.W.-1 Bacchu Singh and P.W.-2 Vikram Singh, be thrown out is not tenable. 37. Hon’ble Apex Court in so many cases has reiterated the legal settled position that the testimony of a relative unless proved otherwise cannot be discarded or disbelieved merely on the basis of relation, as such their depositions cannot be treated as unreliable. 38. As far as the contention on behalf of the appellants regarding rigor mortis is concerned, we are of the view that the incident is said to have occurred on 06.01.2013 and the month of January, in north India, is of acute cold and further the deceased at the time of his unnatural death was about 40 years. Generally rigor mortis in the dead body of such an aged person, in the first week of January, starts after three hours after death and process takes about nine hours to complete and its cycle is repeated in a period of further nine hours to end. Recycle to complete the rigor mortis takes further nine hours. 39. Perusal of Post Mortem Report shows that column at serial no. 6A is blank and in this connection P.W.-4 Dr. K.K. Gupta has not been put to cross examination. 40. Recycle to complete the rigor mortis takes further nine hours. 39. Perusal of Post Mortem Report shows that column at serial no. 6A is blank and in this connection P.W.-4 Dr. K.K. Gupta has not been put to cross examination. 40. Hon’ble Apex Court has also consistently laid down in plethora of cases that from a witness of fact it is not expected to remember nitty-gritty of alleged incident, it is not necessary to assign specific weapon of offence to each accused and to remember number of shots and blows. 41. From the perusal of the record, it is evident that the allegations of the First Information Report find support not only from the testimonies of eye witnesses P.W.-1 Bacchu Singh and P.W.-2 Vikram Singh but also from the medical evidence and other depositions of the formal witnesses. 42. It is also pertinent to say that as far as question of process of autopsy on the body of the deceased is concerned, it is a scientific examination to ascertain cause of death of the deceased but the question regarding the probable time of death in the autopsy report, is merely an opinion of the Doctor, which falls within the ambit of Section 45 of the Evidence Act. 43. P.W.-4, Dr. K.K. Gupta, has himself stated in his statement that the exact time of the death cannot be fixed in the post mortem report; time of death 1/3 day is proximate one. Likewise, time of alleged incident in the First Information Report is proximate, because the word ‘Lagbhag’ (about) has been noted in the First Information Report. 44. Learned trial Court has given its verdict with regard to conviction and sentence in view of the material on record and at this stage, we do not find the impugned judgment and order is based on surmises or false assumptions and the learned trial Court does not appear to have erred in appreciation of evidence on record. 45. With regard to final disposal of appeal it is submitted that it will take time, we find this submission as inconsequential because the instant appeals on behalf of the appellants/applicants having been filed in the year, 2019, considering the backlog of the appeals in this Court, it is true that the disposal of present appeals would take time but merely because of above factor, the appellant/ applicants cannot be granted bail. 46. 46. Having due regard to the aforementioned discussion, prosecution evidence and manner in which the alleged incident has occurred, accused/appellant/applicants have failed to persuade us to disagree with the trial Court judgment and order that it is perverse and suffers from illegalities in the findings arrived at by the learned trial court. Thus, we do not find the accused/appellant/ applicants entitled to obtain bail, as such, all the aforesaid bail applications, as well as, Jail Appeal No. 151 of 2019, are liable to be rejected and is accordingly rejected. Order on Appeal Office to prepare Paper book, if not prepared. List this appeal on its turn.