JUDGMENT : Subhash Chandra Sharma, J. 1. Heard Sri Abhishek Mayank learned counsel for the appellants in all the connected appeals, Sri Ronak Chaturvedi learned counsel for the first informant and Sri Patanjali Mishra learned A.G.A. for the State-respondents. 2. These appeals emanate from the judgment and order dated 30.09.2008 passed by the Additional Session Judge, Court No.5, Aligarh in S.T. No.934 of 2004 (State vs. Kaptan Singh and others) arising out of Crime No.122 of 2003, under Sections 148, 302/149 & 120-B I.P.C., Police Station Khair, District Aligarh whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced for a period of 18 months rigorous imprisonment under Section 148 I.P.C.; life imprisonment u/s 302 readwith section 149 I.P.C. with fine of Rs.5000/- for each of the appellants, and in default of payment of fine to undergo three months additional imprisonment. All the sentences are to run concurrently. 3. During the pendency of the appeal, appellant Om Prakash had died and the appeal on his behalf has been abated. 4. The prosecution case in brief is that informant Sanjeev Kumar S/o. Jugveer Singh, resident of Village Bisara, Police Station Khair, District Aligarh lodged an F.I.R. on 04.06.2003 at about 13:25 P.M. at the Police Station Khair, District Aligarh being brother of deceased Bablu and nephew of deceased Harveer Singh @ Munna. The written report was filed by him stating therein that on 18.03.2003 Manveer S/o. Om Prakash, resident of his village, was murdered wherein his brother Banti and father Jugveer Singh and other persons of the village were implicated falsely by the brother of the deceased Manveer namely Kaptan Singh. As a result his brother and father were lodged in jail. On 04.06.2003, the date was fixed for hearing of their bail applications in relation to which the informant, his brother Bablu @ Virendar Singh, his uncle Harveer Singh @ Munna, one Alchendra Singh and Subhash went to Aligarh to do pairvi of the case but hearing was adjourned. His uncle Harveer Singh @ Munna, brother Bablu @ Virendar Singh on one motorcycle and the informant, Alchendra Singh and Subhash on another motorcycle were returning to their village Bisara. Bablu and Harveer Singh were ahead of them and when they reached near Lavkush Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Andala, a Maruti Car bearing no. DL 2CB-2483 crossed the motorcycle of the informant. Bablu and Harveer Singh were ahead of them and when they reached near Lavkush Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Andala, a Maruti Car bearing no. DL 2CB-2483 crossed the motorcycle of the informant. They saw that it was being driven by Bhoora S/o. Nepal Singh R/o Bisara and wherein Kaptan Singh S/o. Om Prakash, Om Prakash S/o. Raghunath Singh, Tikam Singh S/o. Pratap Singh, Rajan @ Rajendra Singh S/o. Satyaveer residents of the same village and Rohtash S/o. Shanker Singh (son of phuphi of Kaptan Singh) resident of Sarua Ka Nagla Police Station Chandaus were sitting. After crossing the bike of the informant, they started firing indiscriminately at the brother and uncle of the informant namely Bablu and Harveer Singh who were on the motorcycle at the turning of Lavkush Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya at that time. Their motorcycle fell into the pit and both the deceased ran to escape but the accused persons came down from the car, surrounded them and killed both on the spot. The informant and other two persons witnessed the incident hiding there but could not gather courage to go ahead. The accused persons went away in the car while making fire creating terror on the spot. It was further stated that Hoshiyar Singh S/o. Raj Bahadur Singh, Suresh S/o. Roshan Singh and Habib Khan S/o. Naseer Khan residents of the village told him four days prior to the incident that Bhoora, Kaptan Singh, Om Prakash, Tikam Singh, Dharmwati, Buddha, Shyam Singh and Rajan @ Rajendra were collected at the house of village Pradhan Kaptan Singh where Rohtash was also present and they were talking that they would take revenge of the murder of Manveer Singh by killing at least two persons of informant side. The informant stated that he did not give much importance to the said information but now he realised that the murder of the brother and uncle of the informant was committed at about 12:45 P.M. by the abovenamed persons in execution of the conspiracy hatched by them. 5. On the basis of the written report scribed by Vinod Kumar, case was registered as Crime No.122 of 2003, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 120-B I.P.C. & under Section 2/3 Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act. The detail of the case was entered into the G.D. as report no.32 The investigation of the case was handed over to S.I. Lakhan Lal. 6. The detail of the case was entered into the G.D. as report no.32 The investigation of the case was handed over to S.I. Lakhan Lal. 6. The inquest of deceased Harveer Singh and Bablu @ Virender Singh was conducted by S.I. Rajendra Prasad Singh on the same day and the inquest reports were prepared by him along with other relevant papers required for the purposes of post-mortem. The dead bodies of both the deceased persons were sealed and handed over to Constable Harpal Singh and Home Guard Bhoori Singh who took them to Mortuary at District Hospital, Aligarh. 7. The post-mortem of both the deceased persons was conducted on 05.06.2003 at about 10:00 A.M. and 10:40 A.M.; respectively by Dr. S.K. Porwal who mentioned in the post-mortem reports that dead bodies were brought by Constable Harpal Singh and Home Guard Bhoori Singh in sealed state sent by S.H.O., Khair. The sample seal was compared and found correct. 8. The findings recorded in the post-mortem report of the deceased Bablu @ Virendra Singh are as under :- Aged about 30 years. The time of death about one day. External Examination Average built body, rigor mortis present in both upper extremities, eyes half closed, and clotted blood in both nostrils. Ante Mortem Injuries 1. Lacerated wound 2 cm x 1 cm x scalp deep in front of head 1 cm below hair line in mid line with scorching of hair and blackening and tattooing present over face and forehead. 2. Gun shot wound of entry 1 cm x 1 cm x cavity deep on the back of head 11 cm below right ear. Occipital bone fractured. One bullet recovered from cavity, scalp hair scattered. 3. Gun shot wound 5 cm x 4 cm x bone deep in outer part of right upper chest, blackening and tattooing in an area of 11 cm present on upper forearm. Right humerous bone fractured. Clotted blood present. 4. Gun shot wound of exit 1.5 cm x 1.5 cm x corelating to injury no.5, left side chest 11 cm away at 5 O'clock position with 3 cm, blackening and tattooing present. 5. Gun shot wound of exit 2 cm x 2 cm in right side chest, 3 cm below right nipple at 6 O'clock position. 6. 4. Gun shot wound of exit 1.5 cm x 1.5 cm x corelating to injury no.5, left side chest 11 cm away at 5 O'clock position with 3 cm, blackening and tattooing present. 5. Gun shot wound of exit 2 cm x 2 cm in right side chest, 3 cm below right nipple at 6 O'clock position. 6. Gun shot wound of entry 2 cm x 1 cm x left side back 2 cm lateral mid line, 7 cm at the spine with bleeding all around in an area of 3 cm. 7. Gun shot wound of exit 2.5 cm x 1 cm corelating to injury no.6. 8. Two gun shot wound of entry 2 cm apart in middle of sternum with blackening and tattooing in 4 cm area. 1 cm x 1 cm x bone deep sternum fractured. Other 1 cm x 1.5 cm x chest cavity deep underlying heart lacerated. One bullet recovered from the heart. 9. Lacerated wound 2 cm x 1 cm into skin deep over right knee. Internal Examination Scalp/Skull - occipital bone fractured, Membrane - lacerated, Brain - lacerated, Base - NAD, Vertebra - NAD, Spinal Cord - NAD. Clotted blood in ventricles and cortex present. One bullet recovered. Thorex Walls, ribs and cartilages - sternum fractured, Pleura - NAD, Larynx - NAD, Lungs - NAD, Pericardium - lacerated, Heart - lacerated and bullet recovered, Vessels - NAD Abdomen Walls, Peritoneum - lacerated, Cavity - blood mixed fluid present, Buccal Cavity - NAD, Teeth - 15/15, esophagus - NAD, Contents of stomach - small intestine and large intestine lacerated, gases and faecal matter present, blood in stomach cavity, Liver and Gallbladder - half full, Pancreas, Spleen and Kidney - NAD, Bladder - empty, Cause of death - coma, shock and hemorrhage. 9. The findings recorded in post-mortem report of the deceased Harveer Singh @ Munna are as under:- Age about 40 years, time of death about one day External Examination Average built body, rigor mortis present in both upper extremities, eyes closed, natural orifices - NAD Ante-Mortem Injuries 1. Lacerated wound 1 cm x 1 cm x through and through in left side head 1 cm behind outter end of left eyebrow. Margins irregular and inverted. Blackening and tattooing all around the wound in an area of 8 cm in face and scalp present and top of left shoulder corelating to injury no.2. 2. Lacerated wound 1 cm x 1 cm x through and through in left side head 1 cm behind outter end of left eyebrow. Margins irregular and inverted. Blackening and tattooing all around the wound in an area of 8 cm in face and scalp present and top of left shoulder corelating to injury no.2. 2. Lacerated wound 1.5 cm x 1.5 cm corelating to injury no.1 in back of left ear 3 cm behind margins everted. 3. Multiple abraded contusions in whole of the back in an area of 20 cm x 15 cm. 4. Abraded contusion 6 cm x 5 cm in outer part of elbow. 5. A bruise 4 cm x 3 cm in front of right knee. 6. Abrasion 2 cm x 2 cm in back of right leg. Internal Examination Scalp/skull - left frontal and right temporal and parietal bone fractured, Membranes - lacerated, Brain - lacerated, Base - NAD, Vertebra - NAD, Spinal Cord - not opened, Clotted Blood - in ventricles and cortex present under injuries Thorex Walls - NAD, Pleura - NAD, Larynx and trachea - NAD, Right and Left lungs - NAD, Pericardium - NAD, Heart - right full and left empty, Vessels - NAD Abdomen Walls Pericardium and Cavity - NAD, Buccal Cavity and Larynx - NAD, Teeth - 15/15, oesophagus - NAD, Contents of stomach - one ounce pasty material present, Small and Large intestine - gases and faecal matter present, Liver - NAD, Gallbladder - half full, Pancreas - NAD, Spleen - NAD, Kidney - NAD, Bladder - empty, Cause of death - Coma as a result of ante-mortem injury. 10. During the investigation blood stained soil, plain soil, one bullet motorcycle, 17 empty cartridges 315 bore, two bullets 315 bore were taken into possession and recovery memos were prepared by the investigating officer. After recording the statement of the informant and inspection of the place of occurrence site plan was prepared and statements of the witnesses conversant to the facts of the case were also recorded. On the basis of the material collected during the investigation prima facie case was found to be made out against the accused persons except Smt. Dharmwati Devi u/s 147, 148, 149, 302, 120-B I.P.C. and the charge-sheet was submitted before the court concerned. 11. On the basis of the material collected during the investigation prima facie case was found to be made out against the accused persons except Smt. Dharmwati Devi u/s 147, 148, 149, 302, 120-B I.P.C. and the charge-sheet was submitted before the court concerned. 11. Cognizance of the offences was taken by the learned C.J.M. who provided the copies of prosecution papers to the appellants in compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C. and committed the case to the court of session for trial. 12. Learned trial court framed the charges under Sections 148, 302 readwith Section 149 and 120-B I.P.C. on the basis of the material on record after giving opportunity of hearing to the appellants, charges were read over and explained to them. They pleaded not guilty, denied the charges and claimed for trial and consequently the case was fixed for prosecution evidence. 13. The prosecution examined PW-1 Alchendra Singh as witness of fact, PW-2 Vinod Kumar scribe of written report, PW-3 Constable Sarvesh Kumar who had prepared the chick F.I.R. on the basis of tehrir and entered the detail in the G.D., PW-4 Habib Khan witness relating to the criminal conspiracy, PW-5 S.I. Rajednra Prasad Singh who had prepared the inquest report and other relevant papers, PW-6 Dr. R.K. Porwal who conducted the post-mortem of the bodies of both the deceased and prepared the post-mortem reports, PW-7 S.I. Lakhan Lal who conducted investigation of the case, PW-8 S.I. Suresh Chandra Omhare who concluded the investigation of the case after PW-7 and submitted the charge-sheet. 14. After conclusion of the prosecution evidence the statements of appellants under Sections 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded wherein they negated the statements made by the witnesses before the court and stated that they had been falsely implicated on account of enmity and the witnesses made false statements. The appellant Bhoora Singh also stated that the case against the brother and father of informant was proved and they had been convicted and that he was not present on the place of occurrence. Prior to this incident, brother of Kaptan Singh namely Manveer Singh was murdered wherein Alchendra, Rajjo, Anees S/o. Habib Khan were accused and he was the witness of recovery of knife and that was the enmity for his false implication. Prior to this incident, brother of Kaptan Singh namely Manveer Singh was murdered wherein Alchendra, Rajjo, Anees S/o. Habib Khan were accused and he was the witness of recovery of knife and that was the enmity for his false implication. Appellant Rajan @ Rajendra also stated that Hoshiyar Singh brother of Alchendra Singh was an accused and convicted in the case under Section 307 I.P.C. wherein he was witness and on account of this enmity he was falsely implicated. Appellant Rohtash stated that he was falsely implicated on account of village party bandi as being cousin of Kaptan Singh and he was resident of another village. Appellants had produced Kunwar Pal Singh as DW-1 in defence. 15. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the judgment of the trial court is against the evidence available on record. It is bad in the eye of law being based on the testimony of interested witness related to the deceased who was not present on the spot and his testimony was full of contradictions. No independent witness had been examined though the occurrence took place at a public place. The prosecution had failed to establish the motive for committing the offence. There was no evidence of unlawful assembly and of common object. The appellants were named in the F.I.R. due to enmity but the trial court did not consider these facts while appreciating the evidence on record and illegally sentenced all the appellants. As the prosecution could not prove its case beyond reasonable doubt the appellants are entitled for acquittal and the appeals deserve to be allowed. 16. Learned A.G.A. opposed the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants and urged that in this case there was proved enmity between the parties relating to the murder of Manveer S/o. Kaptan Singh and the appellants, in revenge had planned the murder of the deceased persons who were making pairavi for bail of the accused persons Banti and Jugveer Singh who were in jail. The informant Sanjeev Kumar was also murdered later on and PW-1 Achlendra Singh who was an eye-witness of the incident had deposed about the incident. The testimony of PW-1 is wholly reliable and cannot be discarded only on the ground of he being relative of the deceased persons, as his presence on the spot could not be disputed. The informant Sanjeev Kumar was also murdered later on and PW-1 Achlendra Singh who was an eye-witness of the incident had deposed about the incident. The testimony of PW-1 is wholly reliable and cannot be discarded only on the ground of he being relative of the deceased persons, as his presence on the spot could not be disputed. The F.I.R. was lodged promptly without any delay which rules out the possibility of concoction. The place of occurrence and the death of deceased persons due to fire arm injury could not be disputed. There are no material contradictions in the testimony of PW-1 Achlendra Singh which would go to the very root of the case. His testimony is wholly reliable and conviction as recorded by the trial court is based on the evidence available on record, it cannot be said to be erroneous from any angle. The appeals being devoid of merit are liable to be dismissed. 17. From the statements and perusal of the record, the following questions emerge for consideration of this Court; as to whether there was motive to commit the murder of the deceased persons; witness being relative and interested is reliable and trustworthy; non-examination of independent witness would have adverse effect on the prosecution case; the contradictions in the statements of witness are material which make the testimony unreliable; further whether the appellants have been implicated falsely due to enmity. 18. Before we deal with the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellants, it would be convenient to take note of the witness account as adduced by the prosecution. 19. PW-1 Achlendra Singh, the informant had deposed that on 04.06.2003 he went to the District Court, Aligarh for doing pairavi for bail of Jugveer Singh and others. Sanjeev Kumar, Subhash, Bablu @ Virendra, Munna @ Harveer were also with him. On 18.03.2003 Manveer brother of Kaptan Singh, son of Om Prakash of his village was murdered. In the said murder case, Jugveer Singh, Banti, Manish and Rabbo were accused. Kaptan Singh was the village pradhan. On 04.06.2003, the hearing was adjourned so they were returning to their village. Munna @ Harveer and Bablu on one motorcycle and he, Sanjeev Kumar alongwith Subhash on other motorcycle were going towards the village. When they reached at the Indian Gas Plant, Munna @ Harveer and Bablu went ahead on the motorcycle. Sanjeev and Bablu were driving two motorcycles. On 04.06.2003, the hearing was adjourned so they were returning to their village. Munna @ Harveer and Bablu on one motorcycle and he, Sanjeev Kumar alongwith Subhash on other motorcycle were going towards the village. When they reached at the Indian Gas Plant, Munna @ Harveer and Bablu went ahead on the motorcycle. Sanjeev and Bablu were driving two motorcycles. When they reached near the Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Andala, Police Station Khair, one Maruti Car driven by one Bhoora Singh overtook his motorcycle wherein appellants Kaptan Singh, Om Prakash, Tikam Singh, Rajan @ Rajendra Singh R/o. Bisara and Rohtash Son of phuphi of Kaptan Singh R/o. Sarua were sitting. All those persons started firing at Munna and Bablu. As a result, their motorcycle fell on the side of the road in a pit. They tried to escape but were chased by the accused persons surrounded and shot dead on the spot. All the accused persons were equipped with fire arms. He, Sanjeev Kumar and Subhash witnessed the incident while hiding themselves. The accused persons were working as a gang for extracting money unlawfully. The occurrence took place at about 12:45 P.M. The F.I.R. was lodged by Sanjeev Kumar at the police station. It was further stated that 3-4 days prior to this incident, Suresh, Habib Khan, Hoshiyar, Bhoora, Kaptan Singh, Om Prakash, Tikam Singh, Rajan @ Rajendra Singh, Shriniwas, Buddha, Dharmwati and Rohtash were conspiring to take revenge of murder of Manveer by killing two persons on the informant side. These people in conspiracy committed murder of Munna and Bablu. Later on 02.03.2005, the informant Sanjeev Kumar was also murdered. This witness was subjected to gruelling cross-examination by the defence counsel but he could not be shaken and nothing was found in his deposition which weakens his testimony. PW1 has confirmed the fact of firing and murder committed by the appellants though, he categorically stated the fact of enmity relating to the murder of Manveer wherein his son Rabbo was also an accused and has been convicted. PW1 also admitted that in the said murder case, he was also an accused under Section 120-B I.P.C., but deceased Munna and Bablu were not accused persons in the murder case of Manveer. The impact of the admitted enmity will be discussed alongwith the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants at a later stage in this judgment. 20. PW1 also admitted that in the said murder case, he was also an accused under Section 120-B I.P.C., but deceased Munna and Bablu were not accused persons in the murder case of Manveer. The impact of the admitted enmity will be discussed alongwith the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants at a later stage in this judgment. 20. PW-2 Vinod Kumar had deposed that informant Sanjeev Kumar who was murdered on 02.03.2005 was his nephew. Munna, his real brother and Bablu real nephew were murdered on 04.06.2003. The written report of this incident was scribed by him on the dictation of Sanjeev Kumar. Whatever was dictated by Sanjeev Kumar he wrote the same and readover the contents thereof and then informant Sanjeev Kumar put his signature on it. PW2 proved paper no.6 Ka the report written in his hand writing and bearing the signature of informant Sanjeev Kumar as Ex Ka-1. This witness was also subjected to lengthy cross-examination but he asserted the fact that on the information given on telephone by Sanjeev Kumar about the murder at about 1 O'clock, he came to the police station by Marshal Jeep where he met to Sanjeev Kumar out of the gate of the police station and wrote the F.I.R./Tehrir. Afterwards he went back to his house to console the family members. Nothing adverse could be pointed out from the testimony of this witness. 21. PW-3 Constable Sarvesh Kumar deposed that on 04.06.2003 he was posted as Constable Clerk at the Police Station Khair. He prepared the check report no.77 on the basis of the written tehrir presented by informant Sanjeev Kumar and he entered the detail thereof in the report no.32 of the G.D. at 13:25 O'clock. He proved the check F.I.R. to be in his hand writing and signature as Ex Ka-2. He also proved the carbon copy of G.D. by comparing it with the original being in his hand writing and signature as Ex Ka-3. During the cross-examination, nothing adverse was found in his testimony. 22. PW-4 Habib Khan deposed that prior to this incident brother of Kaptan Singh namely Manveer was murdered. He also proved the carbon copy of G.D. by comparing it with the original being in his hand writing and signature as Ex Ka-3. During the cross-examination, nothing adverse was found in his testimony. 22. PW-4 Habib Khan deposed that prior to this incident brother of Kaptan Singh namely Manveer was murdered. He stated that four days prior to the present incident at about 6:30 P.M. while he was passing by the house of Kaptan Singh where on the terrace of Kaptan Singh other persons namely Hoshiyar Singh, Suresh, Kaptan Singh, Om Prakash, Tikam Singh, Dharmwati, Srinivas, Rohtash, Buddha, Bhoora, Rajan @ Rajendra Singh were talking, he heard Kaptan Singh saying that they would kill two persons instead of one murder by the informant side and every person there agreed to him and stated that they were with him and see that the work be done. He told about this conversation to deceased Munna, Bablu and informant Sanjeev Kumar but they did not pay attention and replied that they did not believe him. Later on, deceased Munna and Bablu were murdered. This witness was also subjected to gruelling cross-examination by the defence wherein it was disclosed that his son Anees was accused in the murder of Manveer and remained in jail for a period of 8-10 months. Prior to the incident, Kaptan Singh and others shot fires on Anees at the home for which a case under Section 307 I.P.C. was registered. The statement of this witness also disclosed the enmity with appellant Kaptan Singh and it will also be dealt with in the later part of this judgment with the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants. 23. PW-5 S.I. Rajendra Prasad Singh deposed that on 04.06.2003, he was posted as Sub-Inspector at the Police Station Khair. He went to conduct the inquest with Inspector Lakhan Lal and S.S.I. Baljit Singh. He conducted inquest, prepared the inquest report and other relevant papers and also sealed the dead body of the deceased persons and handed over to Constable Harpal and Home Guard Bhoori Singh to carry for the post-mortem. He proved the inquest report relating to deceased Bablu @ Virendra Singh being in his hand writing and signature as Ex Ka-4 and other papers as Ex Ka-5 to 9; the inquest of dead body of Munna @ Harveer Singh be as Ex Ka-11 to 15. He proved the inquest report relating to deceased Bablu @ Virendra Singh being in his hand writing and signature as Ex Ka-4 and other papers as Ex Ka-5 to 9; the inquest of dead body of Munna @ Harveer Singh be as Ex Ka-11 to 15. During cross-examination nothing adverse could be found in his testimony. 24. PW-6 Dr. S.K. Porwal deposed that on 05.06.2003 he was posted at the District Hospital, Aligarh and conducted post-mortem of the dead body of deceased Bablu @ Virendra aged about 30 years S/o. Jugveer Singh R/o. Bisara, Police Station Khair at 10:00 A.M. He proved the contents of the post-mortem report as prepared by him in his hand writing and signature as Ex Ka-16. He also opined that the death of the deceased was caused by shock and hemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries one day prior to the post-mortem and that the death was possible at about 12:45 P.M. on 04.06.2003. He further stated that on 10:40 A.M., on the same day, he conducted the post-mortem of the dead body of Munna @ Harveer Singh and also proved the contents of the post-mortem report as prepared by him in his hand writing and signature as Ex Ka-17. The cause of death was stated as a result of ante-mortem injuries at about 12:45 P.M. on 04.06.2003. This witness was also subjected to gruelling cross-examination but nothing adverse was found in his deposition. 25. PW-7 Inspector Lakhan Lal deposed that on 04.06.2003 he was posted as the Officer In-charge at the Police Station Khair and in his presence at about 13:25 P.M. F.I.R. of this case was lodged on the basis of written report Ex Ka-1 presented by informant Sanjeev Kumar and the investigation of the case was handed over to him. He went to the place of occurrence where he recorded the statement of informant Sanjeev Kumar and other witnesses. He also inspected the place of occurrence as narrated by the informant and witnesses and prepared the site plan in his hand writing and signature which he proved as Ex Ka-18. He got the inquest prepared and sent the dead bodies for the post-mortem. On the place of occurrence one Bullet Motorcycle was found and Memo relating thereto was prepared which was proved as Ex Ka-13. He got the inquest prepared and sent the dead bodies for the post-mortem. On the place of occurrence one Bullet Motorcycle was found and Memo relating thereto was prepared which was proved as Ex Ka-13. From the spot, 17 empty cartridges 315 bore and two bullets 315 bore were taken into possession, Memo of which was prepared and proved as Ex Ka-20. Blood stained and plain earth was also taken and sealed for sample and Memo was prepared which he proved as Ex Ka-21. Thereafter, PW-7 tried to arrest the accused persons but they had absconded. PW-7 was transferred and the investigation was handed over to S.S.I. Baljit Singh. This witness was also subjected to lengthy cross-examination by the defence counsel. 26. PW-8 S.I. Suresh Chandra Omhare stated that on 31.03.2004 he was posted in the office of S.I.S., I.G. Zone, Kanpur and the investigation of this case was handed over to him by the order of I.G., Zone Kanpur. He recorded the statements of witnesses conversant to the facts of the case and after concluding the investigation submitted the charge-sheet which he proved as Ex Ka-23 being in his hand writing. This witness was also subjected to lengthy cross-examination by the defence counsel. 27. The informant Sanjeev Kumar was murdered on 02.03.2005, before he could be examined. 28. PW-1 Alchendra Singh is the sole witness of fact who was produced as eye witness of the occurrence. PW-2 Vinod Kumar was not an eye-witness but only scribe of the written report given by the informant Sanjeev Kumar. Likewise PW-4 Habib Khan was also not an eye-witness of the occurrence but he had only narrated overhearing the conspiracy hatched by the appellants for committing murder of the deceased persons but the charge of conspiracy under Section 120-B I.P.C. was not found to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, the appellants were acquitted of the charges under Section 120-B I.P.C. No appeal against the acquittal under the said offence is before us. The testimony of this witness (PW-4), thus, is of no use. 29. Now reliability and veracity of the testimony of the sole witness PW-1 Alchendra Singh is to be tested before this Court in the context of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants. 30. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that PW-1 is an interested witness and is inimical to the appellants. 29. Now reliability and veracity of the testimony of the sole witness PW-1 Alchendra Singh is to be tested before this Court in the context of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants. 30. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that PW-1 is an interested witness and is inimical to the appellants. He as such is not a reliable witness. No doubt Rabbo Singh S/o Alchendra Singh (PW-1) was an accused in the case of murder of Manveer Singh wherein brother of informant, Banti and his father Jugveer Singh were also accused persons. Manveer was related to appellants. On the date of the incident, PW-1 Alchendra Singh and informant Sanjeev Kumar along with the deceased went to the District Court, Aligarh for doing pairavi for bail of accused persons namely Banti and Jugveer Singh. Further PW-1 also admitted in his cross-examination that in the murder case of Manveer, his son was also convicted and enlarged on bail and he was also an accused in that case for the offence under Section 120-B I.P.C. PW1 further admitted that his son contested the election of Village pradhani against Kaptan Singh and Jugveer & Sanjeev were on their side. A case was registered under Section 307 I.P.C. against Hoshiyar brother of PW-1 Alchendra Singh. All these facts clearly indicate that there was adequate evidence of enmity between PW-1 Alchendra Singh and the family of the appellants. The PW1, thus, clearly falls in the category of an interested witness but merely on the ground of being an interested witness, his evidence cannot be disbelieved outrightly unless it can be discerned from the record that his testimony as a whole deserves to be rejected being untrustworthy. There is an excuse to save the real culprits and to implicate the appellants falsely which is lacking. 31. On the issue of appreciation of evidence of interested witnesses, Dalip Singh Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1953 SC 364 , is one of the celebrated cases. It was held therein:- "A witness is normally to be considered independent unless he or she springs from sources which are likely to be tainted and that usually means unless the witness has cause, such as enmity against the accused, to wish to implicate him falsely. Ordinarily, a close relative would be the last to screen the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person. Ordinarily, a close relative would be the last to screen the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person. It is true, when feelings run high and there is personal cause for enmity, that there is a tendency to drag in an innocent person against whom a witness has a grudge along with the guilty, but foundation must be laid for such a criticism and the mere fact of relationship far from being a foundation is often a sure guarantee of truth." 32. Similarly, in Piara Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1977 SC 2274 , the Supreme Court held : "It is well settled that the evidence of interested or inimical witnesses is to be scrutinised with care but cannot be rejected merely on the ground of being a partisan evidence. If on a perusal of the evidence the Court is satisfied that the evidence is creditworthy there is no bar in the Court relying on the said evidence." 33. In Hari Obula Reddy and Ors. Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh, (1981) 3 SCC 675 , a three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court observed : ".. it is well settled that interested evidence is not necessarily unreliable evidence. Even partisanship by itself is not a valid ground for discrediting or rejecting sworn testimony. Nor can it be laid down as an invariable rule that interested evidence can never form the basis of conviction unless corroborated to a material extent in material particulars by independent evidence. All that is necessary is that the evidence of interested witnesses should be subjected to careful scrutiny and accepted with caution. If on such scrutiny, the interested testimony is found to be intrinsically reliable or inherently probable, it may, by itself, be sufficient, in the circumstances of the particular case, to base a conviction thereon." 34. Again, in Ramashish Rai Vs. Jagdish Singh, (2005) 10 SCC 498 , the following observations were made by the Supreme Court : "The requirement of law is that the testimony of inimical witnesses has to be considered with caution. If otherwise the witnesses are true and reliable their testimony cannot be thrown out on the threshold by branding them as inimical witnesses. By now, it is well-settled principle of law that enmity is a double-edged sword. It can be a ground for false implication. It also can be a ground for assault. If otherwise the witnesses are true and reliable their testimony cannot be thrown out on the threshold by branding them as inimical witnesses. By now, it is well-settled principle of law that enmity is a double-edged sword. It can be a ground for false implication. It also can be a ground for assault. Therefore, a duty is cast upon the court to examine the testimony of inimical witnesses with due caution and diligence." 35. The learned counsel for the appellants has also urged that in absence of testimony of an independent witnesses, the prosecution story is liable to be discarded. We are not impressed with this submission in the light of the observations made by this Court in Darya Singh Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1965 SC 328 , wherein it was observed : "It is well-known that in villages where murders are committed as a result of factions existing in the village or in consequence of family feuds, independent villagers are generally reluctant to give evidence because they are afraid that giving evidence might invite the wrath of the assailants and might expose them to very serious risks. It is quite true that it is the duty of a citizen to assist the prosecution by giving evidence and helping the administration of criminal law to bring the offender to book, but it would be wholly unrealistic to suggest that if the prosecution is not able to bring independent witnesses to the Court because they are afraid to give evidence, that itself should be treated as an infirmity in the prosecution case so as to justify the defence contention that the evidence actually adduced should be disbelieved on that ground alone without examining its merits." 36. Similarly, in Raghubir Singh Vs. State of U.P., (1972) 3 SCC 79 , it was held that the prosecution is not bound to produce all the witnesses who are said to have seen the occurrence. Material witnesses considered necessary by the prosecution for unfolding the prosecution story alone need be produced without unnecessary and redundant multiplication of witnesses. In this connection, general reluctance of an average villager to appear as a witness and get himself involved in cases of rival village factions when tempers on both sides are running high, has to be borne in mind. 37. Further, in Appabhai and Anr. Vs. In this connection, general reluctance of an average villager to appear as a witness and get himself involved in cases of rival village factions when tempers on both sides are running high, has to be borne in mind. 37. Further, in Appabhai and Anr. Vs. State of Gujarat, 1988 Supp (1) SCC 241, the Supreme Court has observed : "Experience reminds us that civilized people are generally insensitive when a crime is committed even in their presence. They withdraw both from the victim and the vigilante. They keep themselves away from the Court unless it is inevitable. They think that crime like civil dispute is between two individuals or parties and they should not involve themselves. This kind of apathy of the general public is indeed unfortunate, but it is there everywhere whether in village life, towns or cities. One cannot ignore this handicap with which the investigating agency has to discharge its duties. The Court, therefore, instead of doubting the prosecution case for want of independent witness must consider the broad spectrum of the prosecution version and then search for the nugget of truth with due regard to probability, if any, suggested by the accused." 38. Another reason for which the learned counsel for the appellants insists to disbelieve the prosecution story is that there are improvements and exaggerations in the testimony of PW 1. We find it difficult to agree with this argument in light of the judgment in the case Leela Ram Vs. State of Haryana, (1999) 9 SCC 525 , wherein it was observed : "It is indeed necessary to note that one hardly comes across a witness whose evidence does not contain some exaggeration or embellishment - sometimes there could even be a deliberate attempt to offer embellishment and sometimes in their over anxiety they may give a slightly exaggerated account. The court can sift the chaff from the grain and find out the truth from the testimony of the witnesses. Total repulsion of the evidence is unnecessary. The evidence is to be considered from the point of view of trustworthiness. If this element is satisfied, it ought to inspire confidence in the mind of the court to accept the stated evidence though not however in the absence of the same." 39. Similarly, in Subal Ghorai and Ors. Vs. Total repulsion of the evidence is unnecessary. The evidence is to be considered from the point of view of trustworthiness. If this element is satisfied, it ought to inspire confidence in the mind of the court to accept the stated evidence though not however in the absence of the same." 39. Similarly, in Subal Ghorai and Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal, (2013) 4 SCC 607 , the Supreme Court stated as follows : "Experience shows that witnesses do exaggerate and this Court has taken note of such exaggeration made by the witnesses and held that on account of embellishments, evidence of witnesses need not be discarded if it is corroborated on material aspects by the other evidence on record." 40. It is also argued that there are discrepancies and contradictions in the testimony of PW-1 which do not inspire confidence. It is well settled in law that minor discrepancies are not to be given undue emphasis and the evidence is to be considered from the point of view of trustworthiness. The test is whether the same inspires confidence in the mind of the Court. If the evidence is incredible and cannot be accepted by the test of prudence, then it may create a dent in the prosecution version. If an omission or discrepancy goes to the root of the matter and ushers in incongruities, the defence can take advantage of such inconsistencies. It needs no special emphasis to state that every omission cannot take place of a material omission and, therefore, minor contradictions, inconsistencies or insignificant embellishments do not affect the core of the prosecution case and should not be taken to be a ground to reject the prosecution evidence. The omission should create a serious doubt about the truthfulness or creditworthiness of a witness. It is only the serious contradictions and omissions which materially affect the case of the prosecution but not every contradiction or omission. (See Rammi @ Rameshwar Vs. State of M.P., (1999) 8 SCC 649 ; Leela Ram (dead) through Duli Chand Vs. State of Haryana and Another, (1999) 9 SCC 525 ; Bihari Nath Goswami Vs. Shiv Kumar Singh & Ors., (2004) 9 SCC 186 ; Vijay @ Chinee Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2010) 8 SCC 191 ; Sampath Kumar Vs. Inspector of Police, Krishnagiri, (2012) 4 SCC 124 ; Shyamal Ghosh Vs. State of Haryana and Another, (1999) 9 SCC 525 ; Bihari Nath Goswami Vs. Shiv Kumar Singh & Ors., (2004) 9 SCC 186 ; Vijay @ Chinee Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2010) 8 SCC 191 ; Sampath Kumar Vs. Inspector of Police, Krishnagiri, (2012) 4 SCC 124 ; Shyamal Ghosh Vs. State of West Bengal, (2012) 7 SCC 646 and Mritunjoy Biswas Vs. Pranab @ Kuti Biswas and Anr., (2013) 12 SCC 796 ). 41. Learned counsel for the appellants also submitted that there was no motive to commit murder of the deceased persons, however, the learned trial court held that there was sufficient motive with the accused persons to commit the murder of the deceased persons. Admittedly, there was enmity between the appellants and the deceased. As disclosed in the F.I.R. by the informant Sanjeev Kumar that the murder of Manveer S/o. Om Prakash was committed on 18.03.2003 wherein brother of informant namely Banti and his father Jugveer Singh were implicated who were in jail. The hearing of their bail was fixed on 04.06.2003 and the deceased persons and the informant all went to the court for doing pairavi of the bail case. While coming back from the Court on the way, the incident took place and the appellants committed murder of the deceased Bablu @ Virender Singh and Munna @ Harveer, both son and brother of accused Jugveer Singh. This infers the deep rooted motive in the minds of the appellants to commit the murder of the deceased persons who belonged to the family of accused Jugveer Singh in the murder case of Manveer S/o. Om Prakash one of the appellants. In this way, there was strong motive to take revenge for murder of Manveer Singh. Further it is settled legal proposition that even if there is absence of motive, it is of no consequence and it becomes insignificant when direct evidence establishes the crime. In case there is direct trustworthy evidence of witness as to the commission of offence, motive looses its significance and if genesis of the occurrence is not proved, the ocular testimony of the witnesses to the occurrence can not be discarded. In the present case, however, motive due to enmity of the parties is fully established from the material on record. 42. It was further contended that the F.I.R. was lodged ante-time. In the present case, however, motive due to enmity of the parties is fully established from the material on record. 42. It was further contended that the F.I.R. was lodged ante-time. It is to be noted that occurrence took place at 12:45 P.M. and F.I.R. was lodged on 13:25 P.M. i.e. 40 minutes after the occurrence. The place of the occurrence was turn of Lavkush Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalay, Andala 9 kms. from the Police Station Khair. PW-1 stated that when the incident took place, Sanjeev Kumar lodged the F.I.R. at the police station. Further stated that after the accused persons went away he and Sanjeev Kumar went to the police station and Vinod also came there from the village. They went to the police station straightway by motorcycle and it took 20-25 minutes time to reach there. They did not go to their village which was situated 11 kms. away from the police station. Keeping in view the incident and the distance between the place of occurrence and police station, taking of 20-25 minutes time in reaching there is natural. F.I.R. was lodged on the basis of written report given by the informant at the police station. PW-3 Constable Sarvesh Kumar who was constable clerk posted at the police station on 04.06.2003 clearly asserted that he lodged the F.I.R. on the basis of the written report given by Sanjeev Kumar and entered its detail in G.D. as report no.32 at 13:25 O'clock. He also proved the F.I.R. and G.D. Though suggestions regarding the lodging of the F.I.R. ante-time was given to him but it was negated by the witness. After lodging the F.I.R., S.H.O. Lakhan Lal and S.I. Rejendra Prasad Singh went to the place of the occurrence for conducting the inquest and investigated the matter. He reached on the spot and started inquest of deceased persons at 14:30 P.M. in the presence of the witnesses who signed on the inquest report. There is entry of crime number on the inquest report and also other relevant papers prepared at that time. S.I. Rajendra Prasad Singh and Inspector Lakhan Lal also made similar statement about the time of lodging of the F.I.R. There appears no infirmity in this regard. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the F.I.R. was ante-time, thus, can not be sustained. 43. S.I. Rajendra Prasad Singh and Inspector Lakhan Lal also made similar statement about the time of lodging of the F.I.R. There appears no infirmity in this regard. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the F.I.R. was ante-time, thus, can not be sustained. 43. The place of occurrence was said to be near the pit besides the road at Lavkush Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Andala. The dead bodies were found lying there as indicated in the inquest. The bullet motorcycle on which deceased persons were riding was also found lying at the aforesaid place. The blood stained and plain earth was collected from the same place of occurrence and the F.S.L. report on record proves that both match in properties. The investigating officer found 17 empty cartridges 315 bore and 2 bullets 315 bore on the spot, took them in possession and prepared the Memo. He has also proved the Memo during the examination before the court. The site plan prepared by the investigating officer also corroborates the place of occurrence. All these pieces of evidence establish the place of occurrence to be near the pit besides the Lavkush Uchchtar Madhyamik Vidyalay, Andala. PW-1 has also deposed the same place being the place of occurrence. In this way, the place of occurrence is established from the evidence led by the prosecution. 44. Undisputably, the death of deceased Bablu @ Virendra Singh and Munna @ Harveer was caused as a result of ante-mortem fire arm injuries. PW-1 Alchendra Singh had clearly stated that appellants made fire at the deceased persons and they were done to death on the spot. In the post-mortem reports Ex Ka-16 & 17, the ante-mortem firearm injuries were found on the person of both the deceased. Two bullets were recovered from the dead body of deceased Bablu and they were sent to F.S.L. for examination, those bullets were found to be blood stained having been fired through cartridges of 315 bore. During the inquest proceedings, fire arm injuries were seen on the dead bodies. PW-6 Dr. Two bullets were recovered from the dead body of deceased Bablu and they were sent to F.S.L. for examination, those bullets were found to be blood stained having been fired through cartridges of 315 bore. During the inquest proceedings, fire arm injuries were seen on the dead bodies. PW-6 Dr. S.K. Porwal, who conducted the post-mortem and prepared the post-mortem reports, had opined that the injuries were found on the person of the deceased caused by fire arm and a bullet was recovered from the heart and another from the head of the deceased caused about one day prior to the date of the post mortem, i.e. on 04.06.2003 at about 12:45 P.M. PW-1 Alchendra Singh who is eye-witness of the incident also stated the same about the manner and the cause of the death of the deceased persons. In this way, the death of both the deceased persons was proved to have been caused on 04.06.2003 at about 12:45 P.M. by fire arm injuries. 45. To sum up, we do not find any major contradiction either in the evidence of the PW-1 or any conflict in the medical or occular evidence as deposed by PW-1 which would tilt the balance in favour of the opponents. The minor improvements, embelishments etc, apart from being for yield of human faculties are insignificant and ought to be ignored since the evidence of the witnesses otherwise overwhelmingly corroborate each other in material particulars. The testimony of PW-1 gets support from medical as well as other evidence on record. The method, time and manner of causing the death, the weapon used, the place of occurrence and promptness in lodging the F.I.R., and the motive, all these factors corroborate the testimony as deposed by the occular witness Alchendra Singh. His presence on the spot cannot be said to be doubtful. As a result, the evidence as deposed by PW-1 Alchendra Singh is wholly reliable and trustworthy. 46. Finally, having regard to the evidence on record, we are of the opinion that the trial court has correctly analyzed the material on record in the factual as well as legal perspective while arriving at its conclusion. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Aligarh requires no interference and is hereby affirmed. The appeals filed by the appellants being devoid of merit are liable to be dismissed. 47. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Aligarh requires no interference and is hereby affirmed. The appeals filed by the appellants being devoid of merit are liable to be dismissed. 47. All the appeals are accordingly, dismissed. 48. The appellant Teekam Singh is on bail. The court concerned is directed to take the appellant namely Teekam Singh in custody forthwith and send him to jail to serve out the remaining sentence. 49. The appellants Kaptan Singh, Bhoora Singh @ Nepal Singh and Rohtash Singh are in jail. 50. The appellant Rajan @ Rajendra has been released on 15.02.2020 from jail on remission of his sentence in pursuance of the Government Order dated 11.02.2020. 51. The office is directed to transmit back the lower court record alongwith a certified copy of this judgment for information and necessary compliance. 52. Certify this judgment to the court below immediately for necessary action.