JUDGMENT : Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi, J. Heard Ms. Tanisha Jahangir Monir, learned counsel for the appellant, and Ms. Archana Singh, learned AGA for the State. 2. This capital criminal case (appeal) has been preferred by the appellant Ranvir Singh against the judgment and order dated 20/21.7.2016 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court Nos. 4 Bulandshahr in S.T. Nos. 33 of 2009 (State v. Ranvir Singh and another) under Section 302/34 and 302/120 B IPC, P.S. Aurangabad, District Bulandshahr whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to penalty of death with a fine of Rs. 1 lac and in default of payment of fine rigorous imprisonment of 2 years. The appellant has also been convicted in S.T. Nos. 35 of 2009 under Section 25 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 50,000/- and in default of payment of the fine, he has been directed to undergo further rigorous imprisonment of one year. 3. The Additional Sessions Judge has also made a reference to this Court under Section 366 Cr.P.C. registered as reference Nos. 7 of 2016. The appeal and the reference have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. NARRATION OF FACTS 4. This is a case where Sukhveer and his entire family comprising 7 members namely Sukhveer Singh (D-1) his two sons Surya Pratap (D-2) and Abhishek (D-3), his two daughter-in-laws Mamata (D-4) and Lata (D-5 full term pregnant), his wife Suremvala (D-6) and grandson Cheekoo aged about two years (D-7) were exterminated in the night of 28/29.7.2008. Four persons were charge-sheeted namely Ranvir Singh, Manveer Singh alias Sanjeev Kumar (brothers of Sukhveer Singh), A S/o Ranvir Singh, and Smt. Devendri W/o of Ranvir Singh. During trial, A was declared juvenile and his file was separated whereas Manveer Singh alias Sanjeev Kumar and Smt. Devendri W/o Ranveer Singh have been acquitted of the charges of the offence of criminal conspiracy. 5. Brief facts of the case are that in the intervening night 0f 28/29.7.2009 at 3:20 a.m., information was received in the city control room from mobile Nos. 9410670741 of which entry is made to the effect that at village Barari the house of Sukhveer Singh (D-1) has been surrounded by miscreants and incessant firing is going on and some murders have also been committed. 9410670741 of which entry is made to the effect that at village Barari the house of Sukhveer Singh (D-1) has been surrounded by miscreants and incessant firing is going on and some murders have also been committed. On receiving this information the police team headed by SHO Balveer Singh (P.W.-9) reached the village by which time several persons had gathered at the house of Sukhveer Singh (D-1). The police team witnessed the scary scene. Six bodies with bullet injuries were strewn all over the house and the body of Sukhveer Singh (D-1) was lying at his tube well. 6. FIR of this case was lodged on the written report of Sanjeev Kumar S/o Shiv Charan Singh with the allegations that his brother Sukhveer Singh was sleeping at his tube-well situated at his agricultural field. His two sons Surya Pratap alias Rinku and Abhishek and their wives Mamata and Lata and the wife of Sukhveer Singh namely Suremvala and Chiku the son of Surya Pratap were sleeping inside their house. In the night at about 2 a.m., some unknown miscreants after scaling the boundary wall entered the house and started indiscriminate firing and done to death the wife of Sukhveer, both the sons of Sukhveer, their wives, and grandchild Cheeku. Hearing the sound of gunshots the villagers and family members challenged the miscreants but they did not allow anyone to move forward and the miscreants after committing murder of all the family members of Sukhveer Singh went away. Thereafter, the complainant and others went to the field of Sukhveer and saw that he was also done to death by slitting his neck. All the family members have been done to death by the miscreants and the bodies are lying on the spot. On the aforesaid written information, an FIR case crime Nos. 199 of 2008, under Section 302 IPC against unknown was registered. 7. S.I. Surendra Singh (P.W.-4) conducted the inquest on the dead body of Mamata (D-4) and prepared the required papers which are Ex. Ka.-6 to Ka.-12, he also conducted the inquest of the dead body of Cheekoo (D-7) and prepared the inquest and required papers marked as Ex.Ka.-12 to Ex.Ka.-17. 7. S.I. Surendra Singh (P.W.-4) conducted the inquest on the dead body of Mamata (D-4) and prepared the required papers which are Ex. Ka.-6 to Ka.-12, he also conducted the inquest of the dead body of Cheekoo (D-7) and prepared the inquest and required papers marked as Ex.Ka.-12 to Ex.Ka.-17. He also conducted the inquest on the dead body of Surya Pratap alias Tinku (D-2) and prepared the required papers marked as Ex.Ka-18 to Ka.-23.He also collected blood-stained and plain baan of the cot, part of bed sheets, and pillow covers underneath the dead bodies of Surya Pratap and Cheekoo. He also collected the blood-stained and plain earth below the dead bodies of Surya Pratap, Mamata, and Cheekoo. Six empty cartridges of 315 bore were also collected by him from the spot. S.I. Surendra Singh prepared its memo Ex. Ka.-24. S.I. Rajendra Prasad Sharma (P.W.-5) conducted the inquest on the dead body of Smt. Lata (D-5) and prepared the inquest report and the required papers Ex. Ka.-25 to Ka.-29. He also conducted the inquest on the dead body of Suremvala (D-6) and prepared the inquest report and the required papers as Ex. Ka.-30 to Ka.-34. He also collected pieces of the blood-stained and plain stairs and blood-stained and plain earth where the dead body of Smt. Lata was lying. Three empty cartridges 315 bore and two bullets were also collected from the stairs and a memo Ex. Ka-35 was prepared. S.I. Rajeev Kumar (P.W.-7) conducted the inquest on the dead body of Abhishek (D-3) and prepared the inquest report and the required papers, Ex. Ka.-39 to Ka.-42. One empty cartridge of 12 bores and one empty cartridge of 315 bores from the spot were also collected alongwith blood-stained and plain earth and prepared its memo Ex. Ka.-51. The inquest on the dead body of Sukhveer (D-1) was conducted by S.I. Suresh Chandra and the inquest report and required papers Ex. Ka.-53 to Ka.-57 were prepared. He also collected blood-stained and plain earth from the spot and prepared its memo Ex. Ka.-52. 8. During the investigation, one Krishnaveer Singh S/o Jagveer Sing (not examined) gave an application to S.O. Aurangabad which has been made part of the case diary. However, this written report could not be proved by the prosecution due to the death of Krishnaveer Singh. The Investigation officer also recorded the statement of Krishnaveer Singh. Ka.-52. 8. During the investigation, one Krishnaveer Singh S/o Jagveer Sing (not examined) gave an application to S.O. Aurangabad which has been made part of the case diary. However, this written report could not be proved by the prosecution due to the death of Krishnaveer Singh. The Investigation officer also recorded the statement of Krishnaveer Singh. The Investigating Officer prepared the site plans Ex.Ka.-50. The Investigating Officer Inspector Balveer Singh also recorded the statements of Pyare Singh, Jagveer Singh S/o Shiv Charan Singh the real brothers of Sukhveer Singh (D-1), and Amar Pal Singh S/o Jai Charan Singh. Their statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. were also got recorded by the Investigating Officer before the Magistrate. The witnesses Amar Pal Singh, Pyare Singh, and Jagveer Singh have also submitted affidavits to the SSP alongwith the application which have been made part of the case diary. 9. On 30.7.2008 at about 1:30 p.m. one of the accused Ranvir Singh was arrested by the police and on interrogation the accused confessed his crime and also disclosed that the country-made pistol and balkati (sharp edge weapon) used in the crime had been concealed by him and he can get it recovered. The police party alongwith accused Ranvir came to the paddy field of Ranvir. From the corner of the field under the Jamun tree, the accused removing the old beed, got recovered two country-made pistols of 315 bore and four live cartridges. Thereafter at his instance, one balkati and ladder used in the offence was also recovered from the house of the accused. Both the balkati and bamboo ladders were blood stained, the recovery memo Ex.Ka.-58 was prepared and the case crime Nos. 200 of 2008, under Section 25 of Arms Act was registered against accused Ranvir. After investigation, a charge-sheet under Section 302/34, 302/120B IPC Ex.Ka.-61 was filed against Ranvir Singh, Manveer Singh alias Sanjeev Kumar, A and Smt. Devendri W/o Ranvir Singh. 10. The investigation of crime Nos. 200 of 2008 under Section 25 of the Arms Act was conducted by S.I. Surendra Singh (P.W.-4). He recorded the statements of witnesses and prepared the site plan Ex. Ka-66, obtained prosecution sanction Ex. Ka.68 and submitted charge-sheet Ex. Ka.67 against Ranvir Singh. Both the sessions trials were committed to the Court of sessions being sessions trial Nos. 33 of 2009 and 35 of 2009. 11. He recorded the statements of witnesses and prepared the site plan Ex. Ka-66, obtained prosecution sanction Ex. Ka.68 and submitted charge-sheet Ex. Ka.67 against Ranvir Singh. Both the sessions trials were committed to the Court of sessions being sessions trial Nos. 33 of 2009 and 35 of 2009. 11. Charges under Sections 120B, 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and Section 25 Arms Act were framed against accused Ranvir Singh, while accused Devendra and Manveer @ Sanjeev were charged for the offense under Sections 120 I.P.C. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 12. The prosecution relied on the oral testimony of the following witnesses : i. Amar Pal Singh (P.W.-1) ii. Pyare Sing (P.W.-2) iii. Jagveer Singh (P.W.-3) iv. S.I. Surendra Singh (P.W.-4) v. S.I. Rajendra Prasad Sharma (P.W.-5) vi. Dr. Shivanath Singh (P.W.-6) vii. S.I. Rajeev Kumar Yadav (P.W.-7) viii. Dr. Y.P. Singhal (P.W.-8) ix. Inspector Balveer Singh (P.W.-9) x. S.I. Jagroshan (P.W.-10) xi. Constable Niranjan Prasad Sharma (P.W.-11) xii. Subrati (P.W.-12) The aforesaid witnesses have proved 72 prosecution papers as Ex. Ka-1 to Ex. Ka-72 and material exhibit 1 to 57. 13. The statements of accused Ranvir Singh, Manveer Singh alias Sanjeev Kumar and Smt. Devendri were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused denied the allegations made by the prosecution against them and submitted that they had been falsely implicated. The accused Ranvir Singh has also denied that he has made any disclosure statement and any recovery was made at his instance. The accused Ranvir Singh has also stated that the police were not investigating the case properly and under the pressure of the mob he pushed the police officer, due to this he has been falsely implicated. He is innocent. The accused Manveer Singh alias Sanjeev in his additional statement has stated that he lives separately from his other brothers and has no concern with them. He has lodged the FIR of this case and he has not entered into any criminal conspiracy. The accused Devendri has stated that she is innocent and has been falsely implicated. However, no evidence in defence has been produced by the accused. 14. The learned trial Court after hearing the counsels for both the parties, by the impugned judgment and order has held the accused Ranvir Singh guilty and sentenced him as above. The accused Devendri has stated that she is innocent and has been falsely implicated. However, no evidence in defence has been produced by the accused. 14. The learned trial Court after hearing the counsels for both the parties, by the impugned judgment and order has held the accused Ranvir Singh guilty and sentenced him as above. The learned trial Court acquitted the other co-accused namely Manveer Singh alias Sanjeev Kumar and Smt. Devendri from the charges leveled against them. AUTOPSY REPORTS 15. The post-mortem of Sukhveer Singh (D-1) was conducted at 12:45 p.m. The deceased was aged about 55 years and the body average built. Rigor mortis was present on the entire body. Following anti-mortem injuries were noticed : i. Lacerated wound 6cm x 1.5 cm x bone deep on left side head, 4 cm above left ear at 4 O'clock position, obliquely placed. Brain material coming out. ii. Lacerated wound 4 cm x 1 cm x bone deep on left side head, obliquely placed, 4 cm above injury Nos. 1. iii. Lacerated wound 6 cm x 1cm x muscle deep on the left ear, vertically placed. iv. Incised wound 12cm x 6 cm x bone deep in front of the neck in middle part, all vessels, trachea, skin cut. v. Incised wound 8cm x 1.5cm x muscle deep, in front of neck under the chin. In the internal examination, the brain and its membrane, both lungs, liver, spleen, and kidneys were pale. The parietal bone was fractured. The brain and its membrane were lacerated, in the stomach 100 ml fluid was present. Both the chambers of the heart were empty. The cause of death was due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries and the duration of death was about half a day. 16. The post-mortem of Lata (D-5) was conducted on 29.7.2008 at 2:00 p.m.. The age of the deceased was about 24 years, the body was average built, and rigor mortis was present. The following ante-mortem injuries were noticed : i. Fire-arm wound of entry on right side of the occipital region of the head, 3cm x 2cm x brain cavity deep, blackening and tattooing around the wound, 3cm away from the left ear at 3 O'clock position. ii. Fire-arm wound of exit on the right side of the interior part of the head, 3cm x 2.5 cm x communicating with injury Nos. 1. ii. Fire-arm wound of exit on the right side of the interior part of the head, 3cm x 2.5 cm x communicating with injury Nos. 1. On exploration occipital and parietal right sides fractured, membrane and brain were lacerated. iii. Fire-arm wound of entry 3cm x 2cm x chest cavity deep on the back of the chest, 7cm below the root of the neck, and 2cm away from the midline of the body. iv. Fire-arm wound of exit on front of chest, 4cm x 2.5cm x chest cavity deep at level of right nipple communicating to injury Nos. 3. v. Fire-arm wound of entry on the inner side to the knee joint, margin inverted, 2cm x 1cm x muscle deep, on exploration one metallic bullet recovered from soft tissues, 6cm below the knee joint. In internal examination brain, its mambrane, both lungs, liver, spleen, and kidneys were pale, 250 ml., semi-digested food was present in the stomach. The uterus was gravid having a full-term male fetus. In the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death was due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries and the duration of death was about half a day. 17. The post-mortem of Mamata (D-4) was conducted at 3:00 p.m. on 29.7.2008. The age of the deceased was about 24 years, the body was average built, and rigor mortis was all over the body. Following ante-mortem injuries were noticed : i. Fire-arm wound of entry, back on the chest at the inferior angle of left scapula bone, 3cm x 2cm x chest cavity deep, blackening tattooing around the wound, margins inverted, 3cm away from the midline of the body. ii. Fire-arm wound of exit on front of the chest, just on the side of sternum border at the left nipple, 3.5 cm x 1.8cm x communicating with injury Nos. 1, on exploration left lung and pleura lacerated and 1.5 ltrs blood in the chest cavity. iii. Fire-arm wound of entry on the front of the chest just outside the primary border at the level of the right nipple, 3cm x 1.5 cm x chest cavity deep, blackening tattooing around the margins, on exploration right lung lacerated and one metallic bullet recovered from right lung. iv. iii. Fire-arm wound of entry on the front of the chest just outside the primary border at the level of the right nipple, 3cm x 1.5 cm x chest cavity deep, blackening tattooing around the margins, on exploration right lung lacerated and one metallic bullet recovered from right lung. iv. Fire-arm wound of entry on the front of the chest (sternum bone) in the middle part, 2cm x 1.5 cm., Chest cavity deep margins inverted, on exploration one metallic bullet was recovered from the thoracic zone. In the internal examination, the brain and its membranes, both lungs, liver, spleen, and kidneys were pale, and 200 ml of semi-digested food was present in the stomach. The uterus was non-gravid. In the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death was due to shock and hemorrhage. The duration was about half a day. 18. Dr. Shivnath Singh (P.W.-6) has proved the aforesaid three post-mortem report as Ex. Ka-36 to Ka.38. The witness has further opined that the death of all three deceased may have occurred at about 2:00 a.m. in the night of 28/29.7.2008. 19. The post-mortem of Abhishek (D-3) was conducted at 12:50 p.m. The age of the deceased was about 25 years and the body was average built, rigor mortis was present. The following ante-mortem injuries were noticed : i. Gunshot wound of entry 3cm x 2cm x chest cavity deep on the left side of the chest, 10cm below left nipple at 6 O'Clock, margins inverted lacerated blackening and tattooing present. ii. Gunshot wound of the entry left side of face 4cm x 3cmx brain cavity deep just anterior to the left ear. Blackening and tattooing present. Margins inverted lacerated. Brain matter coming out. iii. Gunshot wound of exit 3cm x 2 cm x cranial cavity deep on right side of head 3cm above the right ear, margins lacerated and everted. In internal examination, both the temporal and base of the brain were broken, brain and its membranes were lacerated. The left lung and its membranes were lacerated, and two wad pieces and 9 pellets were recovered from the left lung. 100 gms of semi-digested material was in the stomach. The cause of death was due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries. The duration was about half a day. 20. The post-mortem of the Surem Vala (D-6) was conducted on 29.7.2008 at 1:20 p.m.. 100 gms of semi-digested material was in the stomach. The cause of death was due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries. The duration was about half a day. 20. The post-mortem of the Surem Vala (D-6) was conducted on 29.7.2008 at 1:20 p.m.. The age of the deceased was about 52 years, the body was averagely built, and rigor mortis was present. Following ante-mortem injuries were noticed : i. Gunshot wound of entry 2cm x 2cm x brain cavity deep on mid of forehead, 3cm above the nasal bridge, margin lacerated inverted. ii. Gunshot wound of exit 3cm x 3cm on the back of the head, 4cm above neck margins, everted, lacerated. iii. Abrasion 3cm x 2cm on the anterior aspect of the right knee. iv. Abrasion 2cm x 1cm on the anterior aspect of the left knee. v. Abrasion 3cm x 2cm on the right side of the head just lateral of the left eyebrow. vi. Traumatic swelling with fracture right wrist, lacerated wound 3cm x 2cm x bone deep. In the internal examination, the frontal occipital bone was fractured brain and its membranes were lacerated, 200 ml of semi-digested food material was present in the stomach. The cause of death was shock and hemorrhage and the duration was about half a day. 21. The post-mortem of the Cheekoo (D-7) was conducted on 29.7.2008 at about 2:10 p.m.. The age of the deceased was about two years, the body was average built. Rigormortis was present. Following ante-mortem injuries were noticed : i. Gunshot wound of entry 1cm x 1.5 cm x chest cavity deep in the right side, back of the chest, 3cm from the midline and 7cm below the root of neck, margins lacerated, inverted, blackening and tattooing present. ii. Gunshot wound of entry 2cm x 2 cm on right side back of the chest, 3 cm from the midline and 4cm below injury Nos. 1. Blackening and tattooing present, chest cavity deep. iii. Gunshot wound of exit, 3cm x 2cm x chest, cavity deep on the right side front of the chest, just above the right nipple. iv. Gunshot wound of exit, 3cm x 3cm chest cavity deep, margins lacerated everted, on the left nipple. In internal examination on the right side second and fourth and on the left side fourth and fifth ribs were broken. Both lungs and their membranes were lacerated. iv. Gunshot wound of exit, 3cm x 3cm chest cavity deep, margins lacerated everted, on the left nipple. In internal examination on the right side second and fourth and on the left side fourth and fifth ribs were broken. Both lungs and their membranes were lacerated. 150 ml of clotted blood was present in the chest cavity. 50 ml liquid was present in the stomach. The cause of death was shock and hemorrhage and the duration was about half a day. 22. The post-mortem of Surya Pratap (D-2) was conducted at 2:30 p.m. The age of the deceased was about 26 years, the body was average built, and rigor mortis was present. Following injuries were noticed on the body : i. Gunshot wound of entry, 3cm x 3cm on the left side of the face, on the left eye, margins inverted, lacerated, cranial cavity deep, blackening and tattooing present. ii. Gunshot wound of exit, 5cm x 4cm, cranial cavity deep on the top of head, 12 cm above left ear pinna and 15 cm above nasal bridge, margins lacerated everted. iii. Gunshot wound of entry 2cm x 2cm x chest cavity deep on the right side of the chest on level of the nipple, margins inverted, lacerated, blackening, tattooing present. iv. Gunshot wound of entry, 2cm x 1cm, right side of chest, chest cavity deep, 4cm below injury Nos. 4, margins inverted, blackening and tattooing present. In the internal examination, the frontal and parietal bones were fractured, second to fifth right side ribs were broken. Both lungs, membranes, and heart were lacerated. 75 ml of clotted blood was found in the chest cavity. 50 ml liquid was present in the stomach. The cause of death was shock and hemorrhage and the duration was about half a day. 23. Dr. Y.P. Singhal (P.W.-8) has proved the aforesaid post-mortem reports as Ex.Ka-45 to Ka.-48. PROSECUTION EVIDENCE 24. Amar Pal Singh P.W.-1 in his examination-in-chief has stated that on the night i.e. 28/29.7.2008, he had gone to ease himself and sat down in the field of Pyare Singh which is adjacent to the house of Sukhveer Singh (D-1). He heard the sound of indiscriminate firing and saw the light of the torch. PROSECUTION EVIDENCE 24. Amar Pal Singh P.W.-1 in his examination-in-chief has stated that on the night i.e. 28/29.7.2008, he had gone to ease himself and sat down in the field of Pyare Singh which is adjacent to the house of Sukhveer Singh (D-1). He heard the sound of indiscriminate firing and saw the light of the torch. It was 2-2:15 a.m. After some time the firing stopped, thereafter he saw Ranvir Singh and A coming out from the house of Sukhveer Singh, both of them were holding country-made pistols and torches. A bamboo ladder was on the right shoulder of Ranvir Singh and both of them went on the way which goes outside the village. The witness has further stated that he has also heard Ranvir saying to A that Sukhveer has been killed at the tube well and the rest have been killed at the house and no one is alive. The house of Ranvir is on the way which goes outside the village, and both of them entered the house. The witness came to his house thereafter with co-villagers he went to the house of Sukhveer Singh (D-1). When he went inside, he saw that all the family members of Sukhveer were lying dead. He became frightened and did not tell about the incident to anyone. On the next day i.e. 30.7.2008 Ranvir Singh was arrested. On 3rd day he directly went to the police station and narrated the entire incident to the S.O. 25. Pyare Singh (P.W.-2) in his examination-in-chief stated that they are five brothers, he is the eldest then Jagveer then Ranvir then Sukhveer and then Manveer, All the five brothers lives next to one another towards the west of the village. His house is in the east of Ranvir Singh. The house of Manveer is in the southeast and the house of Sukhveer is in the east. There was deep enmity between Ranvir and Sukhveer on account of the elopement of Pinki. The witness further stated that the incident occurred at 2 - 2:30 a.m. on the night of 28/29.7.2008, he was sleeping in the west of his ''hutment''. He woke up, to the gunshots and screams. The firing continued for 10-12 minutes towards the east of his house. The witness further stated that the incident occurred at 2 - 2:30 a.m. on the night of 28/29.7.2008, he was sleeping in the west of his ''hutment''. He woke up, to the gunshots and screams. The firing continued for 10-12 minutes towards the east of his house. After gunshots turned silent, he saw A standing at the door of the house of Sukhveer and Ranvir had gone towards east to fetch the ladder. Ranvir came back within a minute carrying a ladder. He identified Ranvir and A in the light of the torch. Both of them were alighting torches, both were holding country-made pistols and they went away towards the west. He saw both of them from a distance of five steps. They were saying that they had completed the task. The witness further stated that on 14.8.2008 he came to Bulandshahr and got an affidavit addressed to SSP prepared. He and his brother Jagveer have also given application with affidavit related to the incident to the SSP. The witness has identified his signatures on the affidavit and application which have been marked as Ex. Ka-1 to Ka-2. The witness has further stated that on 25.7.2011 he came to Bulandshahr to got recorded his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The witness has proved and identified his signatures on the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., which has been marked as Ex. Ka-3. The examination-in-chief was recorded on 26.9.2011. 26. His cross-examination was recorded on 5.12.2011 in which he did not support the prosecution version and stated that at the time of the incident, he was irrigating his field with Naresh. When the gunshots turned silent, he and Naresh came to the spot. There was total darkness and police were present, he had not seen any of the accused, and he told the police that he had not seen the incident. He has also stated that his earlier statement was under the pressure of the police and Government advocate. His statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., was also under the pressure of the police. The witness was declared hostile, on prayer of the prosecution. In cross-examination by the prosecution, the witness has stated that two months after the incident he left village Barari after selling the entire property and his house had turned into ruins. His statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., was also under the pressure of the police. The witness was declared hostile, on prayer of the prosecution. In cross-examination by the prosecution, the witness has stated that two months after the incident he left village Barari after selling the entire property and his house had turned into ruins. The witness was confronted with the statements under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. The witness has stated that he has not given these statements, he only put his signature on the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. under the fear of the police. The same fact has been stated about the affidavit given to SSP. However, the witness has admitted that after the death of Sukhveer Singh (D-1), his property was inherited by his mother. His son Madanpal has got executed the sale-deed of six bigha land from his mother. 27. Jagveer Singh (P.W.-3) has stated that they were five brothers. Pyare Singh, Jagveer Singh, Ranveer Singh, Sukhveer Singh and Manveer alias Sanjeev Kumar. The houses of all the five brothers are at one place. His house is on the northwest corner and the house of Ranveer is in front of it. In the south, the house of Pyare Singh is adjacent to the house of Ranveer and in the southeast, there are houses of Manveer and Sukhveer. There is a 20 ft' wide kharanja east-west between his house and the house of Ranveer. Earlier relations of all the brothers were cordial. But for some time the relations between Ranveer and Sukhveer were strained due to a dispute over boundary (med) and the elopement of Pinki the daughter of Ranveer. 28. The witness has further stated that the incident occurred on the night of 28/29.7.2008 at about 2:00 a.m. He was sleeping in his house. He woke up to the sound of gunshots. It came to his notice that the firing was taking place in the house of Sukhveer Singh (D-1). For 20 minutes, the firing continued and he could not come outside. He remained in his house as he had no arms. The witness has further stated that he saw two persons (Ranveer and A) in front of the house of Sukhveer. At that time, he was only suspicious. They were holding torches and they had alighted it. For 20 minutes, the firing continued and he could not come outside. He remained in his house as he had no arms. The witness has further stated that he saw two persons (Ranveer and A) in front of the house of Sukhveer. At that time, he was only suspicious. They were holding torches and they had alighted it. He became sure when both the accused themselves confessed at the police station that they have committed the murders. At the time of the incident, he was only suspicious and could not identify the accused. Both of them came towards his house. Ranveer removed the ladder from the corner of the house of Sukhveer Singh (D-1). Besides torches and ladders, they were also holding country-made pistols. When both of them came near his house he went back and at that time he identified both of them. He clearly heard both of them saying that the entire family of Sukhveer Singh (D-1) had been eliminated. Thereafter they went into their house. The witness has further stated that at the time of the incident, his brother Pyare was irrigating his field by tube well. 29. The witness has further stated that on 14.8.2008 he came to SSP Office Bulandshahr and got the affidavit and application prepared. The witness has identified his signatures on the application and affidavit (Ex. Ka-4) On 25.8.2008 he came to the Court where his statement was recorded before the Magistrate which is true and correct. The witness has identified his signature on it marked as (Ex.Ka-5). 30. In his cross-examination held on 28.1.2013 the witness has stated that he is hard of hearing and also had a weak vision and used spectacles. The house of Amar Pal, the witness of this case is at a distance of 800 meters to the east of the house of Sukhveer Singh (D-1) and there are several vacant places near his house. None of his brothers keep medicines. The witness has further stated about the topography and various dimensions. He has also stated that there are no stairs to reach the second floor of the house of Sukhveer Singh (D-1) and the ladder is used for the purpose. The witness has further stated that it is his notice that Amar Pal is a witness in 4-5 cases of Sections 302 & 307 IPC and loot. He has also stated that there are no stairs to reach the second floor of the house of Sukhveer Singh (D-1) and the ladder is used for the purpose. The witness has further stated that it is his notice that Amar Pal is a witness in 4-5 cases of Sections 302 & 307 IPC and loot. Amar Pal has deposed in the case of Yashveer Pradhan of Manohar Gari and Ranveer in the case under Section 302 and 307 IPC. Amar Pal has also lodged a false report under Section 307 IPC crime Nos. 136 of 2015 on 5.5.2012 against his son Subhash, Manoj, and Sharad son of his sister. The police have submitted a final report in it. Nanak Chand the son of Sheeshpal who has died, the tau of Amar Pal had also sold 2.5 bigha land to Dvendri wife of Ranveer. At that time Kiranpal, one son of Nanak Chand was minor. After Kiranpal attained majority Amar Pal has filed a civil suit for both the lands which are still pending. The witness has denied the presence of Amar Pal in the night of 28/29.7.2008 or on 29.7.2008 in the village. 31. On 4.6.2013 the witness again appeared in the Court for cross-examination and has stated that the house of Sukhveer Singh (D-1) where the murders were committed is not visible from his house. He came to know about the murders of the family members of Sukhveer after 20-30 minutes of the incident. The witness has further stated that he is not a witness of any of the inquest or memo. For the first time, he came to know about the involvement of Ranveer and his son in the incident, the next day at the police station. The witness has stated that if anything else has been mentioned in his statement then it is wrong. The witness has further stated that he has given the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. on tutoring of the police however, the witness has admitted that at the time of preparation of the affidavit, he has told that miscreants were extending life threats and he was so afraid that he did not tell anything to anyone. The witness has denied that at the time of the incident, he was not present in the village. 32. The witness has denied that at the time of the incident, he was not present in the village. 32. On 4.6.2013 during further cross-examination, the witness stated that the police came to the spot an hour after the incident. Sanjeev alias Manveer scribed the report on dictation at about 10:00 a.m., thereafter the witness said that he was not aware of the timing, and it was lodged in the morning. The witness has also stated that there are no stairs in the house of Sukhveer Singh (D-1) and without using a ladder, the second floor and third floor cannot be accessed. The witness stated that he is not certain whether the police had collected country-made pistols, cartridges, and balkati lying on the spot on the date of the incident but he had seen these things at the police station on the evening of 29.7.2008. The witness has also stated that his brother Ranveer had informed the police at Dial 100 number about the incident in the night. 33. The witness has also stated that hearing the gunshots, he has closed the door of his room. The firing continued for 20-25 minutes. It was total darkness. After 20 minutes, when the firing stopped, he came out of his house, a crowd was gathered there and they entered into the house of Sukhveer. The dead bodies of SuremVala and Lata were lying on the stairs. The dead body of Abhishek was lying towards the north of the two rooms on the first floor. The witness has stated that he came to give an affidavit. The affidavit was got typed by him and it was prepared in consultation with the police, relatives, and advocates. The witness has also stated that he knew that Peetam Singh had lodged a report under Section 323, 504, 324, 325, 307, 452 IPC at P.S. Aurangabad against Harcharan, Amit, Rinku, Tinku S/o Sukhveer Singh and Sukhveer Singh. After the death of Sukhveer, his property devolved on his mother Ram Kali. Ram Kali died on 26.11.2009 at the house of Madan Pal. Kusumlata the wife of Madan Pal had secretly got executed the sale-deed of six bigha land from Ram Kali on 21.11.2009. He has filed the original suit Nos. 15 of 2011 in the Court of Civil Judge Bulandshahr against Kusum Lata. There was no litigation between Ranveer and Sukhveer. Ram Kali died on 26.11.2009 at the house of Madan Pal. Kusumlata the wife of Madan Pal had secretly got executed the sale-deed of six bigha land from Ram Kali on 21.11.2009. He has filed the original suit Nos. 15 of 2011 in the Court of Civil Judge Bulandshahr against Kusum Lata. There was no litigation between Ranveer and Sukhveer. No report was lodged for the elopement of Pinki by Ranveer, only a missing report was lodged. The witness has also stated that police have interrogated about the incident but he has not given any statement. 34. The witness was re-examined on 7.12.2015. When confronted about the previous statements, the witness has stated that he had given the statement that two tin gates were fixed in his house. The witness has further admitted that at the time of the incident, these gates were not installed. The witness has also stated that he has enmity with Amar Pal. The witness has also admitted that he has given the statement that he saw two persons Ranveer and A in front of the house of Sukhveer. At that time it was only suspicion, they were holding torch and they had alighted the torch. The suspicion was confirmed on the next day when both confessed that they had committed murders. The witness has also admitted that he has given the affidavit to SSP and his statement was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate. He has given this statement voluntarily on the counseling of police and relatives. 35. Subrati (P.W.-12) is also another public witness. The witness has not corroborated the prosecution case. He has stated that Sukhveer Singh and six members of his family were done to death in the night seven years ago. Sukhveer Singh, Pyare Singh, Jagveer Singh, Ranvir Singh, and Manveer Singh are real brothers. Their houses are situated towards the west of the village at one place in a cluster. The tube well of Sukhveer Singh is situated in his agricultural field towards the west of his house. The witness has feigned ignorance about the fact that the daughter of Ranvir has eloped with someone. The witness has further stated that he is not on visiting terms with accused Sanjeev alias Manveer and Ranvir. The tube well of Sukhveer Singh is situated in his agricultural field towards the west of his house. The witness has feigned ignorance about the fact that the daughter of Ranvir has eloped with someone. The witness has further stated that he is not on visiting terms with accused Sanjeev alias Manveer and Ranvir. He has denied the prosecution case that in his presence Ranvir, his wife Devendri, Sanjeev alias Manveer, and Subhash son of Jagveer were conspiring to exterminate Sukhveer and his family. He has also denied that he has made any money transactions with Ranvir. He also disowned his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The witness has been declared hostile. 36. S.I. Jagroshan Singh (P.W.-10) is a witness of recovery alleged to be made at the instance of accused Ranvir, on the basis of his disclosure statement. The witness has stated that on 30.7.2008 he was accompanying S.O. Balveer Singh, when the police party reached village Barari, in search of the accused Ranvir, he was seen coming in front of his house, and he was arrested at 1:30 p.m.. On interrogation, he confessed his crime and further stated that he could got recovered the country-made pistol, balkati, and ladder used in the offence. The police party with Ranvir came to the paddy field of Ranvir. Two country-made pistols of 315 bore and 4 live cartridges were got recovered by the accused concealed in the beed under the tree situated in the field. The accused Ranvir also got recovered one blood-stained balkati and a bamboo ladder from his house. The country-made pistols, live cartridges, and balkati were sealed, and a memo Ex. Ka.58 was prepared. 37. The remaining witnesses are formal in nature. S.I. Surendra Singh P.W.-4 has conducted the inquest proceeding on the dead body of Mamata, (D-4) Cheekoo (D-7), and Surya Pratap (D-2) and has also prepared other related papers. The witness has proved the inquest report and other related papers for post-mortem as Exs. Ka.7 to Ka.27. The witness has also collected the blood-stained and plain baan of the cot, pieces of blood-stained and plain bedsheet, pillows and blood-stained and plain earth, six empty cartridges of 315 bore found on the spot and has prepared its memo Ex.Ka-24. 38. S.I. Surendra Singh (P.W.-4) is also the Investigating Officer of crime Nos. Ka.7 to Ka.27. The witness has also collected the blood-stained and plain baan of the cot, pieces of blood-stained and plain bedsheet, pillows and blood-stained and plain earth, six empty cartridges of 315 bore found on the spot and has prepared its memo Ex.Ka-24. 38. S.I. Surendra Singh (P.W.-4) is also the Investigating Officer of crime Nos. 200 of 2008 under Section 25 of Arms Act, he has stated about the various steps taken during the investigation and has proved the site plan, the charge-sheet, and the prosecution sanction as Ex.Ka66 & Ka-68. He has also proved the chik report, the report of the record keeper with regard to the destruction of original GD, and a copy of GD in the handwriting of constable Mangal Sen as Ex. Ka.68 to Ka.70. 39. S.I. Rajendra Prasad Sharma (P.W.-5) has conducted the inquest on the dead body of Smt. Lata (D-5) and Smt. Surem Vala (D-6). The witness has proved the inquest report and other related papers for post-mortem as Ex.Ka-25 to ka.34. He has also collected the blood-stained piece of floor and three empty cartridges of 315 bore and two bullets from the site and prepared its memo Ex.Ka-35. The witness has also proved the material Ex.Ka-8 to Ka.20. 40. S.I. Rajeev Kumar Yadav (P.W.-7) has conducted the inquest on the dead body of Abhishek (D-3) and has proved the inquest report and other related papers for post-mortem as Ex. Ka.40 to Ka.44. 41. Constable Niranjan Prasad Sharma (P.W.-11) has prepared the Chik FIR and GD entry of the case and has proved the documents as Ex. Ka.61 to Ka.65. 42. S.I. Balveer Singh (P.W-9) is the Investigating Officer. This witness has stated that on 28.7.2008 he was posted as SHO P.S. Aurangabad. On the night of 28/29.7.2008 at about 2:30 a.m. a message was received from the city control room that some miscreants had encircled the house of Sukhveer Singh at village Barari and the firing was going on. Some persons have been murdered. This message was conveyed to him by Constable Keshav Dev. He alongwith S.I. Jagroshan, SI. Surendra Singh, S.I. Rajeev Kumar, S.I. Suresh Chandra, Constable Kuldeep and Constable Kapil Kumar came at village Barari. At the house of Sukhveer, people were present. The scene there was horrifying. Some persons have been murdered. This message was conveyed to him by Constable Keshav Dev. He alongwith S.I. Jagroshan, SI. Surendra Singh, S.I. Rajeev Kumar, S.I. Suresh Chandra, Constable Kuldeep and Constable Kapil Kumar came at village Barari. At the house of Sukhveer, people were present. The scene there was horrifying. Inside the house of Sukhveer, the dead bodies of two women were lying on the stairs of the second floor, one dead body was lying on the ground floor, dead body of a woman and one child were lying on the cot. They were shot dead. Thereafter he came to the tube well of Sukhveer where the dead body of Sukhveer was lying on the ground in the paddy field near the tube well. The murder was committed with a sharp-edge weapon. The higher authorities were informed about the incident. Some police officers were deployed to search the accused but no accused could be traced at that time. After making a search for the accused, he again came back to the spot where S.I. Veer Singh, Constable Begraj Singh, and Constable Vijay Singh were present with the inquest register. He received the Chik FIR and a copy of the case diary, recorded the statement of complainant Sanjeev Kumar. Meanwhile, the higher authorities with extra force and field unit vehicles also came to the spot. The relatives of the deceased and the dog squad also came there. The higher authorities of the police made an inspection of the house of Sukhveer as well as the tube well. They also interrogated the villagers who in a sotto voice disclosed that if Ranvir and his son were interrogated then the correct facts about the incident could be revealed because the families of Ranvir and Sukhveer are on inimical terms. With complainant Sanjeev Kumar, he came to the other place of incident, the tube well of Sukhveer, and made an inspection of it and directed his subordinate to conduct the inquest proceeding of the dead body of Sukhveer. He came back to the house of Sukhveer with complainant Sanjeev Kumar, made the inspection of the place of occurrence there and prepared the site plan. The witness has proved both the site plans as Ex.ka.49 and Ka.50. He came back to the house of Sukhveer with complainant Sanjeev Kumar, made the inspection of the place of occurrence there and prepared the site plan. The witness has proved both the site plans as Ex.ka.49 and Ka.50. The witness has further stated that he also directed S.I. Suresh Chandra, S.I. Rajeev Kumar, S.I. Rajendra Prasad Sharma and S.I Surendra Singh to conduct the inquest proceeding on the dead bodies. The empty cartridges, the blood-stained and plain earth were also taken from the place of occurrence and its memos were prepared. The witness has proved the memos prepared by S.I. Rajveev Kumar and S.I. Suresh Chandra as Ex. Ka.51 and Ka.52. He has also proved the inquest report of Sukhveer and related papers in the handwriting of S.I. Suresh Chandra as Ex.Ka-53 to Ka.57. The witness has further stated that on 30.7.2008 he recorded the statements of Jagveer Singh, Pyare Singh, and Subhash Chandra. On the same day, one Krishnaveer gave a written report about the incident, the entry of which was made in the GD Nos. 14 at 8:45 a.m. and he included this written report in his investigation. He recorded the statement of Krishnaveer. 43. The witness has further stated that on 30.7.2008, he arrested the accused Ranvir at about 1:30 p.m.. He recorded his statement. The accused Ranvir confessed his crime and stated that he could got recovered the country-made pistol, balkati (sharp edge weapon), and bamboo ladder used in the commission of the offence. On his disclosure statement, he went with Ranvir at the place indicated by him. He tried to procure the public witnesses but none became ready. The accused Ranvir came to his paddy field and got recovered two country-made pistols of 315 bore and four empty cartridges under the jamun tree after removing beed. He also got recovered one balkati and one bamboo ladder from his house. The country-made pistols, the empty cartridges, and balkati were sealed separately and a recovery memo was prepared. The witness has proved it as Ex. Ka-58. Thereafter he came to the police station and got the case under Section 25 of the Arms Act registered against the accused Ranvir. 44. The witness has further stated that on 31.7.2008 he recorded the statements of witnesses Subhash and Subrati who implicated Manveer and Devendri. Section 120B IPC was added, on the basis of their statements. Ka-58. Thereafter he came to the police station and got the case under Section 25 of the Arms Act registered against the accused Ranvir. 44. The witness has further stated that on 31.7.2008 he recorded the statements of witnesses Subhash and Subrati who implicated Manveer and Devendri. Section 120B IPC was added, on the basis of their statements. On 1.8.2008 Manveer and Devendri were arrested, they also confessed their crimes. On the same day, A was also arrested. His statement was recorded. He also confessed his crime and stated that he could got recovered the country-made pistols and blood-stained clothes. On the basis of the disclosure statement, he came to the place indicated by him, the paddy and sugarcane field of Manveer. The blood-stained clothes worn by him and his father contained in a black bag were recovered. Two country-made pistols were also recovered from the bag. This recovery was made at 7:20 a.m. One empty cartridge was found in each barrel of the country-made pistols. The country-made pistols and the empty cartridges were sealed separately and a memo was prepared. He also prepared the site plan of the place of recovery and has proved it as Ex. Ka.60. 45. The witness further stated that on 10.7.2008 he filed an application in the Court for the Narco Test of A and Ranvir. On 16.8.2008 the affidavits of Pyare Singh and Jagveer Singh the brother of the deceased through SSP in support of the statement under Section161 Cr.P.C. were received by him. He made it part of the case diary. He recorded further statements of Pyare Singh and Jagveer Singh on 17.8.2008 in which they corroborated their earlier statements and averments made in the affidavits. On 25.8.2008 he moved an application before the Court for recording the statements of witnesses Amar Pal, Pyare Singh, and Jagveer under Section 164 Cr.P.C., and on his application, the statements were recorded. On 3.9.2008 the Court granted permission for the Narco Test of Ranvir and A. On 30.9.2008 he sent the case property for forensic examination to the forensic science laboratory, Agra. On 21.10.2008 the accused Ranvir and A were taken to Delhi for a polygraphy test where their Narco Test was conducted at Central Forensic Science Lab. On 22.10.2008 and 23.10.2008 he recorded the statement of formal witnesses of Panchayatnama. He also recorded the statements of the recovery memo. On 21.10.2008 the accused Ranvir and A were taken to Delhi for a polygraphy test where their Narco Test was conducted at Central Forensic Science Lab. On 22.10.2008 and 23.10.2008 he recorded the statement of formal witnesses of Panchayatnama. He also recorded the statements of the recovery memo. On 26.10.2008 after completing the investigation, submitted the charge-sheet. The witness has proved it as Ex. Ka.61. The witness has also proved the FSL reports Ex. Ka.62 and Ka.63. The witness has also proved the material Exhibits 21 to 57. The witness further stated that till the conclusion of the investigation, the polygraphy test report was not received by him. However the record reveals that the accused has refused to undergo the narco test. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT 46. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that there is no sufficient evidence against the appellant-accused. The two eye-witnesses Pyare Singh (P.W.-2) and Jagveer Singh (P.W.-3) have not supported the prosecution case. In cross-examination, Pyare Singh (P.W.-2) has turned hostile. He has stated that the police officers had browbeaten and compelled him to give a statement against the appellant-accused who had scuffled with the police officer during the investigation. The police officials have threatened to implicate him as well if he refused to give a statement against the accused-appellant. It is also contended that a similar statement regarding false implication has been given by co-accused Manveer, in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The other eye-witness Jagveer Singh (P.W.-3) although has not been declared hostile, in his cross-examination the witness has not supported the prosecution case. He has stated that he is not an eye-witness. There was no line of site from his house to the crime scene and his eyesight was also very weak. He has also stated that he had given the statement against the appellant after being tutored by the police. He has also stated that the appellant was singled out by the police on the very first day when they went to lodge a report and were separated from the company of others. The witness has also stated that the country-made pistols, cartridges, and balkati (sharp edge weapon) were taken by the police from the place of the incident. He has also stated that it was the appellant who had made a phone call to the police after which the police reached the spot. The witness has also stated that the country-made pistols, cartridges, and balkati (sharp edge weapon) were taken by the police from the place of the incident. He has also stated that it was the appellant who had made a phone call to the police after which the police reached the spot. The prosecution case does not find support from the statements of Pyare Sing (P.W.-2) and Jagveer Singh (P.W.-3) the so-called eye-witnesses. The learned counsel further contended that the evidence of a hostile witness cannot be treated as washed off the record. The prosecution, as well as the defence, may use the evidence of a hostile witness in so far as it is in their favour. Learned counsel placed reliance on the case law of Satpal v. Dehli Administration, (1976) 1 SCC 727 . 47. Learned counsel also contended that the examination and cross-examination must relate to relevant facts but the cross-examination need not be confined to the facts which the witness justified in his examination-in-chief so the statement of cross-examination of these two witnesses cannot be ignored. The learned counsel on the point placed reliance on the following two case laws I. Sanjay v. State of Maharashtra Criminal Writ Petition Nos. 1764 of 2019 dated 13.1.2020. II. Inder Sain v. CBI, 2018 SCC Online P& H 4604. 48. It is next contended that another eye-witness Amar Pal Singh (P.W.-1) is a chance witness as well as a pocket witness of the police. His house is far away from the place of occurrence. He has told his presence near the place of occurrence to attend the call of nature, as he was suffering from dysentery. His oral statement is full of contradictions and discrepancies. He stated that he wanted to take medicine for his ailment from one of the brothers of the deceased. This fact has been contradicted by P.W.-2 & P.W.-3 as they have denied that they deal in medicines or give treatment. He has admitted that his statement was recorded by the police after three days of the incident. His presence at the place of the incident was also disputed by Jagveer Singh (P.W.-3) and Subrati (P.W.-12) as they have stated that he was in another village on the date of the incident. The explanation for his presence on the spot is not satisfactory. His presence at the place of the incident was also disputed by Jagveer Singh (P.W.-3) and Subrati (P.W.-12) as they have stated that he was in another village on the date of the incident. The explanation for his presence on the spot is not satisfactory. From his statement, it can be adduced that he has a history as a pocket witness of police and he is unemployed. So his testimony is not trustworthy. The learned trial Court has wrongly placed reliance on his testimony as well as the testimony of Pyare Singh (P.W.-2) Jagveer (P.W.-3). Being a chance witness, his oral statement is unreliable. Learned counsel cited the following case laws in support of her arguments : I. Jarnail Singh v. The State of Punjab, (2009) 9 SCC 719 , II. Amar Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2020 SCC Online SC 826. 49. It is next contended that the prosecution has failed to bring unclinching ocular testimony and motive and thus failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. Learned counsel placed reliance on Criminal Appeal Nos. 3067 of 2013 Uma Ram alias Om Prakash v. State of U.P. date of decision 10.7.2018. 50. It is also contended that Subarti (P.W.-12) i.e. the other public witness has not supported the prosecution case. He stated that a false statement had been recorded by the police indicating him as a witness to some conspiracy between the appellant and other co-accused. He has also disputed the recovery and stated that when he went to the house of the deceased, he found a ladder and a country-made pistol on the first floor of the house and a balkati next to the body of Sukhveer. This witness has also supported the statement of the accused that the appellant has been falsely implicated as he was engaged in a scuffle with the police after the incident tearing the clothes of circle officer Vipul Dwivedi. This witness has supported the original version of the FIR, according to which the entire family was done to death by unknown assailants. Learned counsel also contended that the incident had occurred in the dead hours of the night in the darkness and no one had seen the incident. Even the so-called eye-witnesses Amar Pal (P.W.1) Pyare Singh (P.W.2) and Jagveer (P.W.-3) had not stated that they had seen anyone firing at the deceased. Learned counsel also contended that the incident had occurred in the dead hours of the night in the darkness and no one had seen the incident. Even the so-called eye-witnesses Amar Pal (P.W.1) Pyare Singh (P.W.2) and Jagveer (P.W.-3) had not stated that they had seen anyone firing at the deceased. Their testimony is limited to witnessing an event after the incident. 51. It is also contended that the alleged recovery of two country-made pistols and four live cartridges, one balkati, and one bamboo ladder at the instance of appellant-accused Ranveer is false and planted which is established from the statement of the prosecution witnesses itself. They have stated that these articles were already lying at the scene of occurrence. There is no independent public witness of this recovery. The recovery of country-made pistols and live cartridges are from open place. So this evidence is also wholly unreliable. In support of arguments, the learned counsel placed reliance on the following case laws : I. Ishwar Tudu v. State of West Bengal, 2019 Cri. LJ 3358 II. Bijendra Alias Mandar v. State of Haryana, CRLA 2438 of 2010 dated 8.11.2021. 52. It is also contended that the report of the dog squad has not been placed on the record which indicates that no clue was found. If the appellant was involved in the incident, the report of the dog squad should have implicated him, not bringing the same on record, draw adverse inference against the prosecution. In this regard, learned counsel placed reliance on the following case laws : I. Jaikam Khan v. State of U.P., 2021 SCC Online SC 1256 II. Gulab and another v. State of U.P. Criminal Appeal Nos. 2410 of 1985 53. It is further contended that the alleged recovery of blood-stained clothes of the appellant also does not corroborate the prosecution story as no blood has been found on the clothes. Balkati and brick-containing blood stains have not been examined for fingerprints. The bullets recovered from the bodies of the deceased have also not been examined. 54. Lastly it is contended that parameters of circumstantial evidence for the purpose of determining the guilt of the accused have been laid down in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 . The bullets recovered from the bodies of the deceased have also not been examined. 54. Lastly it is contended that parameters of circumstantial evidence for the purpose of determining the guilt of the accused have been laid down in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 . The Apex Court has held as under : ''Reaffirmed the panchsheel test of circumstantial evidence which is based Page 245-354 on five core principles: (1) Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a Court can convict and the mental distance between 'may be' and 'must be' is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions. (2) The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say. they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty, (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency. (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability, the act must have been done by the accused.'' SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE STATE 55. Per-contra the learned AGA contended that all three eye-witnesses Amar Pal Singh (P.W.-1), Pyare Singh (P.W.-2), and Jagveer Singh (P.W.-3) are residents of the same village. The houses of Pyare Singh and Jagveer Singh are adjacently located to the house of Sukhveer Singh where the incident of murder of six family members of Sukhveer Singh had occurred. Several rounds of firing have taken place, inviting the attention of the whole village which is evident from the averments of the FIR. All three eye-witnesses, in their examination-in-chief, have fully corroborated the prosecution version and the involvement of the appellant-accused in the incident is fully established from it. Pyare Singh (P.W.-2) and Jagveer Singh (P.W.-3) being the real brother of the appellant-accused, in their cross-examination have not supported the prosecution version just to save him from the gallows. Although they have corroborated their statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and Section 164 Cr.P.C. in which they have clearly implicated the appellant-accused. Pyare Singh (P.W.-2) and Jagveer Singh (P.W.-3) being the real brother of the appellant-accused, in their cross-examination have not supported the prosecution version just to save him from the gallows. Although they have corroborated their statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and Section 164 Cr.P.C. in which they have clearly implicated the appellant-accused. They have stated that they had seen the appellant-accused coming from the house of Sukhveer and holding country-made pistols and a ladder just after the firing stopped and going to his house. Their statements of examination-in-chief, cannot be ignored merely because they have stated otherwise in their cross-examination. Their presence on the spot is natural. Amarpal Singh (P.W.-1) is also an eye-witness. He is not a pocket witness as alleged by the defence. He is a witness to the other cases which are related to him. The incident was so horrifying that no one dared to come forward and only when the accused were arrested, did the witness come forward to depose because of this his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has been recorded after three days. 56. It is further contended that two country-made pistols 315 bore and four live cartridges and one balkati used in the commission of the offence have been recovered on the basis of a disclosure statement made by the appellant. The Forensic Lab Report further confirms that the empty cartridges found at the scene of occurrence have been fired from the country-made pistols recovered at the instance of the appellant-accused. So this evidence also supports the prosecution case. The trial Court has already acquitted the co-accused Manveer and Devendri as the lone witness of conspiracy Subrati has turned hostile while the case of the appellant-accused is on a different footing, he has actually participated in the commission of the crime and has been seen by the eye-witnesses. 57. It is also contended that the motive of the incident has also been proved by the prosecution evidence. The relationship between the family of Sukhveer Singh (deceased) and Ranveer Sing (appellant accused) was sour. This fact has been consistently stated by all the public witnesses. There is no serious infirmity or contradictions in their statements. They have not supported the prosecution case in their cross-examination due to ulterior motives. So the trial Court has rightly rejected their testimony of cross-examination and placed reliance on their examination in chief. This fact has been consistently stated by all the public witnesses. There is no serious infirmity or contradictions in their statements. They have not supported the prosecution case in their cross-examination due to ulterior motives. So the trial Court has rightly rejected their testimony of cross-examination and placed reliance on their examination in chief. The learned trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence on record and has rightly placed reliance on the statements of eye-witnesses. The offence has been committed with the intention of eliminating the entire family of Sukhveer Singh. This motive can be attributed to the appellant only. There is no illegality or infirmity in the finding of guilt returned by the trial Court. The sentence awarded is also proportionate as the incident is horrifying in which the entire family of seven members including a two-year-old child has been exterminated. ANALYSIS 58. In all twelve witnesses have been examined by the prosecution to prove its case, out of which four witnesses are public witnesses. It is pertinent to mention that the FIR of this case was registered on written information of Sanjeev Kumar alias Manveer S/o Shiv Charan Singh the real brother of Sukhveer Singh (D-1). During the course of the investigation, it was found that complainant Sanjeev Kumar alias Manveer Singh was also involved in a criminal conspiracy to commit the murders, therefore he was also implicated and a charge-sheet has been submitted against him. So the First Information Report dated 29.7.2008 is not proved. a. Evidence Of Criminal Conspiracy 59. Subrati (P.W.-12) was examined by the prosecution to prove criminal conspiracy hatched by the accused persons namely Ranveer Singh, his son A, his wife Devendri, and Manveer Singh alias Sanjeev, the other brother of Sukhveer Singh (D-1). According to the prosecution in the presence of the witnesses Subrati and Subhash, the accused persons were talking about the plan to eliminate Sukhveer Singh and his family. The witness Subrati (P.W.-12) has not supported the prosecution case in this respect and has turned hostile. The other witness Subhash has not been examined by the prosecution. The learned trial Court did not rely upon this part of the prosecution evidence and has acquitted the co-accused Manveer alias Sanjeev and Devendri from the charges of criminal conspiracy. b. Ocular Evidence 60. Pyare Singh (P.W.-2) and Jagveer Singh (P.W.-3) in their examination in chief have supported the prosecution case. The learned trial Court did not rely upon this part of the prosecution evidence and has acquitted the co-accused Manveer alias Sanjeev and Devendri from the charges of criminal conspiracy. b. Ocular Evidence 60. Pyare Singh (P.W.-2) and Jagveer Singh (P.W.-3) in their examination in chief have supported the prosecution case. They have stated that on the fateful night at about 2:00 a.m., they woke up to the sound of firing but due to fear and safety, they could not come out from their houses. When the firing stopped they came out and then they saw the appellant-accused Ranveer and his son coming out from the house of Sukhveer (D-1). They identified them in the light of the torch. Both accused had country-made pistols in their hands. The witness Jagveer Singh (P.W.-3) also stated that both came near his house then he properly identified them. Both the witnesses have also stated that they heard them, saying that they have finished Sukhveer and his entire family. They have also corroborated their previous statements recorded under Section 161 & 164 Cr.P.C. From the evidence on record, it is fully established that the houses of Pyare Singh and Jagveer Singh, as well as the houses of other brothers Ranvir (accused) and Manveer (co-accused), are near the place of occurrence i.e. the house of Sukhveer Singh (D-1). 61. Pyare Singh (P.W.-2) is the real brother of the deceased. His house is adjacent to the house of the deceased Sukhveer Singh. So he is a natural witness. However Pyare Singh (P.W.-2) when stood up for cross-examination after a gap of about two months and a half, turned hostile. In the examination-in-chief, the witness has stated that at the time of occurrence, he was sleeping inside his house, he woke up to the sound of firing. He has also stated that the firing continued for 10 to 12 minutes in the east of his house. While in the cross-examination, the witness stated that he heard the sound of firing at about 2:00 a.m. and at that time he was irrigating his field with Naresh which is situated about 2-3 furlong. When the firing stopped, he and Naresh came to the place of occurrence. It was total darkness. The police were present and a large crowd had also gathered there. He has disclosed to the police that he has not seen the incident. When the firing stopped, he and Naresh came to the place of occurrence. It was total darkness. The police were present and a large crowd had also gathered there. He has disclosed to the police that he has not seen the incident. This statement in the cross-examination is not trustworthy because the police reached the place of occurrence after more than an hour. There was no chance that just after the firing stopped and the witness came to the spot, the police personnel could be present there. This witness in his cross-examination has also admitted that he did not go to the tube well of Sukhveer as he came to the place of occurrence from another way, whereas he has admitted that the tubewell of Sukhveer (D-1) was on the way and when he went to irrigate the field he passed through the tube well. This is also very unnatural conduct. It is fully established that the cross-examination of the witness was recorded after a considerable gap. Being the real brother of the appellant-accused, the witness appears to have changed his version to save the accused. His statement in the cross-examination is wholly unreliable and liable to be discarded. The true facts which emerge from his examination-in-chief can be segregated from the incompatible statements made in the cross-examination. As stated above, this witness has corroborated his previous statements recorded under Section 161 & 164 Cr.P.C. To meet out this eventuality in his cross-examination, the witness has stated that all his earlier statements i.e. the statements recorded under Section 161 & 164 Cr.P.C. and examination-in-chief were under the pressure and intimidation of the police/public prosecutor. The witness has not made any complaint either to the Court or any other authority regarding pressure or intimidation. The order-sheet also reveals that the examination-in-chief of the witness was recorded on 26.9.2011 but the cross-examination was deferred on the adjournment application of the accused and the Court fixed 10.10.2011 for cross-examination. On the date fixed adjournment application was again moved from the defence side which was allowed and the cross-examination was deferred. Thereafter 24.10.2011, 31.10.2011, 14.11.2011 & 28.11.2011 was fixed for cross-examination, where proceedings got adjourned for other reasons. When on 5.12.2011 the witness stood up for cross-examination, he turned hostile. 62. After the examination-in-chief of the witness concludes, it is expected that cross-examination will follow either on the same day or immediately thereafter. Thereafter 24.10.2011, 31.10.2011, 14.11.2011 & 28.11.2011 was fixed for cross-examination, where proceedings got adjourned for other reasons. When on 5.12.2011 the witness stood up for cross-examination, he turned hostile. 62. After the examination-in-chief of the witness concludes, it is expected that cross-examination will follow either on the same day or immediately thereafter. Deferring the cross-examination successively, on flimsy pretext, for long periods has been viewed negatively as it provides opportunity to the accused to influence the witness, as appears to be the case in this case. Filing of successive applications for adjournment and ultimately succeeding in securing hostility of the witness, ought not be allowed to succeed when the cumulative weight of the evidence on record indicates that persistent case of witness in supporting the prosecution case was consistent, otherwise, and the version of the witness in the cross-examination otherwise appears to be improbable and contrary to the weight of evidence on record. We are thus inclined to rely upon the testimony of P.W.-2 made in the examination-in-chief while ignoring his version in the cross-examination. 63. The law is also settled that the evidence of a hostile witness cannot be rejected outrightly. Both parties are entitled to rely on such part of the evidence which assists their case. The evidence of a hostile witness remains admissible and is available for the Court to rely on the dependable part thereof as sound acceptable and duly corroborated by other reliable evidence, available on record. Whether the testimony of a hostile witness subject to scrutiny, may be relied on or nullified, would depend on the circumstances of each case. The aforesaid legal position has been laid down in a number of cases. In Satpal v. Dehli Administration (Supra) relied on by the appellant the same principle of law has been laid down. 64. Jagveer Singh (P.W.-3) is also the real brother of the appellant-accused Ranveer. He is also a natural witness as his house is also adjacent to the house of Sukhveer Singh (D-1). From his testimony, it is fully established that at the time of occurrence, he was sleeping inside his house. He woke up to the sound of firing. He has also stated that the firing continued for 20 to 30 minutes. So it is quite natural that when the firing was going on in the house of his brother he would have tried to know as to what was happening. He woke up to the sound of firing. He has also stated that the firing continued for 20 to 30 minutes. So it is quite natural that when the firing was going on in the house of his brother he would have tried to know as to what was happening. It is true that in his cross-examination the witness has stated that he came to know about the murders of family members of Sukhveer after 20 to 30 minutes and he has not stated any facts regarding the incident to any person. He came to know about the involvement of Ranveer and his son for the first time on the next day at P.S. Aurangabad. He has also stated that he had given the statement before the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. on tutoring of police but at the same time, he has also admitted that in his affidavit he has stated that the assailants were threatening with death to anyone who came in between. He has denied the defence suggestion that he was not present in the village Barari on the night of the incident. He has further admitted that he with his brother Pyare Singh came to Bulandshahr to submit an affidavit. Although the witness has not been declared hostile by the prosecution but from his cross-examination it appears that he has not supported the prosecution's version of being an eye-witness. He has been re-examined by the prosecution in which he has categorically admitted that he has given the statement that Ranveer and A met him in front of the house of Sukhveer. They were holding torches, at that time he was suspecting them, and this suspicion was confirmed when they themselves confessed at the police station that they have committed the murders. It is also evident from the order-sheet that the examination-in-chief of the witness was recorded on 21.5.2012 and his cross-examination concluded on 5.6.2013 after more than a year. Number of dates after considerable gaps were fixed and on several dates, cross-examination was deferred on adjournments moved by the accused. The witness has supported the prosecution case in his examination-in-chief but due to long drawn proceeding of cross-examination, the witness could not stand firm. The manner in which the trial Court has conducted the proceeding of recording the cross-examination of witnesses in such a heinous offence is not appreciable. The witness has supported the prosecution case in his examination-in-chief but due to long drawn proceeding of cross-examination, the witness could not stand firm. The manner in which the trial Court has conducted the proceeding of recording the cross-examination of witnesses in such a heinous offence is not appreciable. Cross-examination of such an important witness has been dragged for more than a year and frequent adjournments have been granted without recording any reason. Long dates have also been fixed while adjourning the cross-examination. The practice adopted by the trial Court is against the settled legal norms. 65. In Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab, Criminal Appeal Nos. 554 of 2012, the Apex Court has deprecated the practice of piecemeal examination of the witness. Paras 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 are quoted below : 1. If one is asked a question, what afflicts the legally requisite criminal trial in its conceptual eventuality in this country the two reasons that may earn the status of phenomenal signification are, first, procrastination of trial due to non-availability of witnesses when the trial is in progress and second, unwarranted adjournments sought by the counsel conducting the trial by the trial Courts, despite a statutory command under Section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) and series of pronouncements by this Court. What was a malady at one time, with the efflux of time, has metamorphosed into malignancy. What was a mere disturbance once has become a disorder, a diseased one, at present. 2. The instant case frescoes and depicts a scenario that exemplifies how due to the passivity of the learned trial Judge, a witness, despite having stood embedded absolutely firmly in his examination-in-chief, has audaciously and, in a way, obnoxiously, thrown all the values to the wind, and paved the path of tergiversation. It would not be a hyperbole to say that it is a maladroit and ingeniously designed attempt to strangulate and crucify the fundamental purpose of the trial, that is, to arrive at the truth on the basis of evidence on record. The redeeming feature is, despite the malevolent and injurious assault, the cause of justice has survived, for there is, in the ultimate eventuate, a conviction which is under assail in this appeal, by special leave. 3. The redeeming feature is, despite the malevolent and injurious assault, the cause of justice has survived, for there is, in the ultimate eventuate, a conviction which is under assail in this appeal, by special leave. 3. The narration of the sad chronology shocks the judicial conscience and gravitates the mind to pose a question, is it justified for any conscientious trial Judge to ignore the statutory command, not recognize ''the felt necessities of time'' and remain impervious to the cry of the collective asking for justice or give an indecent and uncalled for burial to the conception of trial, totally ostracizing the concept that a civilized and orderly society thrives on rule of law which includes ''fair trial'' for the accused as well as the prosecution. 4. In the aforesaid context, we may recapitulate a passage from Gurnaib Singh v. State of Punjab. ''... We are compelled to proceed to reiterate the law and express our anguish pertaining to the manner in which the trial was conducted as it depicts a very disturbing scenario. As is demonstrable from the record, the trial was conducted in an extremely haphazard and piecemeal manner. Adjournments were granted on a mere asking. The cross-examination of the witnesses was deferred without recording any special reason and dates were given after a long gap. The mandate of the law and the views expressed by this Court from time to time appears to have been totally kept at bay. The learned trial Judge, as is perceptible, seems to have ostracised from his memory that a criminal trial has its own gravity and sanctity. In this regard, we may refer with profit to the pronouncement in Talab Haji Hussain v. Madhukar Purshottam Mondkar, wherein it has been stated that an accused person by his conduct cannot put a fair trial into jeopardy, for it is the primary and paramount duty of the criminal Courts to ensure that the risk to fair trial is removed and trials are allowed to proceed smoothly without any interruption or obstruction.'' 5. Be it noted, in the said case, the following passage from Swaran Singh v. State of Punjab, was reproduced. ''It has become more or less a fashion to have a criminal case adjourned again and again till the witness tires and gives up. Be it noted, in the said case, the following passage from Swaran Singh v. State of Punjab, was reproduced. ''It has become more or less a fashion to have a criminal case adjourned again and again till the witness tires and gives up. It is the game of unscrupulous lawyers to get adjournments for one excuse or the other till a witness is won over or is tired. Not only is a witness threatened, he is abducted, he is maimed, he is done away with, or even bribed. There is no protection for him. In adjourning the matter without any valid cause a Court unwittingly becomes a party to the miscarriage of justice.'' 6. In this regard, it is also fruitful to refer to the authority in State of U.P. v. Shambu Nath Singh, wherein this Court deprecating the practice of a Sessions Court adjourning a case in spite of the presence of the witnesses willing to be examined fully, opined thus: ''9. We make it abundantly clear that if a witness is present in Court he must be examined on that day. The Court must know that most of the witnesses could attend the Court only at a heavy cost to them, after keeping aside their own avocations. Certainly, they incur suffering and loss of income. The meager amount of bhatta (allowance) that a witness may be paid by the Court is generally a poor solace for the financial loss incurred by him. It is a sad plight in the trial Courts that witnesses who are called through summons or other processes stand at the doorstep from morning till evening only to be told at the end of the day that the case is adjourned to another day. This primitive practice must be reformed by the presiding officers of the trial Courts and it can be reformed by everyone provided the presiding officer concerned has a commitment towards duty.'' 66. As analyzed above, it is clear from the material on record that initially both witnesses have supported the prosecution case. They have categorically stated that they saw the appellant-accused holding country-made pistols in his hands coming out from the house of D-1. They identified him in the light of the torch. They also saw him going inside his house thereafter. The cross-examination was deferred on the adjournment sought by the accused. They have categorically stated that they saw the appellant-accused holding country-made pistols in his hands coming out from the house of D-1. They identified him in the light of the torch. They also saw him going inside his house thereafter. The cross-examination was deferred on the adjournment sought by the accused. The cross-examination of Pyare Singh PW-2 was recorded after a gap of two months and a half while the cross-examination of Jagveer Singh (PW-3) was recorded over a period of more than a year, with several adjournments. Pyare Singh (PW-2) turned hostile and resiled from his examination-in-chief. Jagveer Singh (PW-3) could not stand firm in his cross-examination and made statements adverse to the prosecution about the ocular version of the incident. However, their deposition of cross-examination itself shows that it is totally false and the witnesses are resiling from their previous statements for other reasons. False statements can be segregated from the true. So their statements of cross-examination do not affect the veracity of their deposition which supports the prosecution and it can be safely relied on. 67. The third witness Amar Pal Singh (P.W.-1) has also supported the prosecution case. The witness stated that at the time of occurrence, he had come to ease himself, in the field of Pyare Singh which is situated near the place of occurrence. This witness has also stated that when he was easing himself, he heard the sound of firing and also saw the light of the torch. After some time he saw Ranveer Singh and A coming out from the house of Sukhveer Singh and both were holding country-made pistols in their hands and also holding torches, they went on the way which goes out of the village. They were talking that they had killed Sukhveer Singh at his tube well and remaining members of the family in their house, they went inside their house. The witness has been cross-examined at length by the defence regarding the topography near his house and the place of occurrence and also about the occurrence but there is no serious discrepancy or material contradiction which makes his testimony unreliable. 68. From the evidence on record, it is established that several rounds of firing have taken place, several empty cartridges and bullets have been found from the spot while bullets and pellets have also been found from the dead bodies. 68. From the evidence on record, it is established that several rounds of firing have taken place, several empty cartridges and bullets have been found from the spot while bullets and pellets have also been found from the dead bodies. The prosecution witnesses Pyare Singh (P.W.-2) and Sukhveer Singh (P.W.-3) have also stated that the firing took place for 10 to 20 minutes. According to testimony of Amar Pal Singh (P.W.-1), his house is situated about 250 meters from the house of Sukhveer Singh (D-1). Although Jagveer Singh P.W.-3 has told this distance to be about 800 meters. However, it is not disputed that Amar Pal Singh (P.W.-1) is a resident of the same village. Considering the aforesaid circumstances the entire evidence and material available on record, the ocular testimony of Amar Pal Singh (P.W.-1) cannot be discarded merely on the ground that his house is located at a distance from the place of occurrence. 69. There is no such rule of law that a chance witness cannot be believed. The testimony of a witness cannot be discarded merely on the grounds of his being a chance witness. What is required is to make close scrutiny of the probability and reason for a chance witness being present on the spot and if on the touchstone of such a close scrutiny, the chance witness is otherwise found reliable and trustworthy his testimony cannot be rejected merely on the ground that he is a chance witness. The same principle of law has also been laid down by the Apex Court in Jarnail Singh v. The State of Punjab, (2009) 9 SCC 719 relied on by the side of the appellant-accused. 70. It is correct that all the above three witnesses are not eye-witnesses of the incident of firing which has occurred inside the house but they have heard the sound of firing and have seen the appellant accused coming out from the house of the deceased holding country made pistols just after the firing stopped, the appellant accused going on the way and entering his house, in the same transaction. So the oral testimony of the witnesses is admissible under Section 6 of the Evidence Act and can be relied. c. Evidence of Recovery U/S 27 of The Evidence Act. 71. So the oral testimony of the witnesses is admissible under Section 6 of the Evidence Act and can be relied. c. Evidence of Recovery U/S 27 of The Evidence Act. 71. The prosecution has also relied on the evidence of recovery of a country-made pistol, balkati, and ladder used in the commission of the offence on the disclosure statement made by accused Ranveer. Inspector Balveer Singh (P.W.-9) has stated that on 30.7.2018 at about 1:30 p.m. the accused Ranveer was arrested he was interrogated and his statement was recorded. The accused Ranveer confessing his crime also offered to get the country-made pistol, bamboo ladder, etc., used in the commission of the offence, recovered. On this, he with accompanying police force came to the place indicated by accused Ranveer. On the way attempt was made to take public witnesses but no one became ready for it. Thereafter the accused Ranvir came to his paddy field and from the beed kept under the jamun tree, two country-made pistols 315 bore and four cartridges, and from the gallery of his house, one balkati and one bamboo ladder got recovered. The country-made pistols, cartridges, and balkati were sealed separately and a memo was prepared. It was signed by the witness and accompanying police personnel. The signatures of the accused were also got on it. The witness has proved the recovery memo as Ex. Ka-58. Another witness S.I. Jagroshan Singh (P.W.-10) has also been produced in support. This witness has also stated that on 30.7.2008 he was accompanying S.O. Balveer Singh and reached village Barari from where the accused Ranvir was arrested near his house. He was interrogated. He confessed his crime. He disclosed that he could get recovered the country-made pistols, balkati, and ladder used in the offence. On this, at his indication, all came to the paddy field of Ranvir and accused Ranvir got recovered two country-made pistols of 315 bore, and four live cartridges 315 bores from the beed under the jamun tree. He also got recovered one blood-stained balkati and one bamboo ladder from the gallery of his house. The recovered country-made pistols, cartridges, and balkati were sealed separately and the memo was prepared. The witness has proved his signature on the recovery memo. 72. There is no independent public witness of this recovery. Both the witnesses are police personnel and members of the police party that arrested the accused Ranvir. The recovered country-made pistols, cartridges, and balkati were sealed separately and the memo was prepared. The witness has proved his signature on the recovery memo. 72. There is no independent public witness of this recovery. Both the witnesses are police personnel and members of the police party that arrested the accused Ranvir. From the cross-examination of S.I. Jagroshan (P.W.-10), it is clear that he has failed to answer the material particulars. He has also given evasive replies, he has failed to disclose the place where the recovery memo was prepared and the case property was sealed. He has admitted that the houses of witnesses Jagveer and Pyare are adjacent to the place of recovery and has also stated that no one from the public came during the entire proceeding while they stayed there for about two hours. This is also established from the evidence on record that the place of recovery of country-made pistols and live cartridges is an open field. Inspector Balvir Singh (P.W.-9) in his cross-examination has admitted that he has not prepared any disclosure statement of accused Ranvir and neither took any signature. He has also admitted that the place of recovery is adjacent to the public way. So considering the aforesaid facts and analysing the material on record, we do not find this prosecution evidence to be reliable. The trial Court has committed an error in relying on this piece of evidence. d. Forensic/Ballistic Evidence 73. The empty cartridges of 315 bore and 12 bores and piece of bricks recovered from the place of occurrence and other articles found from the dead bodies of the deceased persons, the two country-made pistols 315 bores and four live cartridges of 315 bore, balkati alleged to be recovered at the instance of the accused Ranvir, the two country-made pistols, two empty cartridges of 315 bore found in its barrel and clothes of the accused persons kept in a bag and recovered at the instance of co-accused A have been sent for forensic examination. The report of the forensic science laboratory is Ex. Ka. 62 and Ka-63. According to report Ex.Ka-62 no blood stains were found on the clothes alleged to be recovered at the instance of A kept in a black colour bag. No blood stain was also found on the piece of brick recovered from the spot. The report of the forensic science laboratory is Ex. Ka. 62 and Ka-63. According to report Ex.Ka-62 no blood stains were found on the clothes alleged to be recovered at the instance of A kept in a black colour bag. No blood stain was also found on the piece of brick recovered from the spot. However, human blood has been found on balkati, one danda of the ladder, and the clothes of the deceased. According to forensic laboratory report Ex. Ka-63 one of the empty cartridges found from the spot was found to be fired from a country-made pistol of 315 bore recovered at the instance of accused Ranvir but the report does not confirm that the wad and the bullets recovered from the dead bodies during post-mortem examination was actually fired from the country-made pistol recovered at the instance of accused Ranvir Singh. As per the analysis of recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, the recovery of country-made pistols at the instance of accused Ranveer Singh (D-1) has been disbelieved. So this piece of evidence also does not support the prosecution's version. The trial Court has committed an error in relying upon this evidence. e. Motive 74. According to the prosecution, there was deep enmity between the families of Sukhveer (deceased) and Ranveer (appellant-accused). Earlier to the incident, Pinki the daughter of the appellant-accused, Ranveer had eloped and the appellant-accused and his family suspected the hands of Sukhveer (D-1) in it. There was also a dispute regarding the boundary (med) of the agriculture field. Pyare Singh (P.W.-2) and Jagveer Singh (P.W.-3) the real brothers of the Sukhveer Singh (D-1) have corroborated the prosecution case in this respect. Pyare Singh (P.W.-2) has stated that Pinki the daughter of Ranveer had eloped and due to this there was deep enmity between Ranveer and Sukhveer (D-1). Jagveer Singh (P.W.-3) has also stated that for some time, the relationship between Sukhveer and Ranveer was strained and there was enmity between them due to the elopement of Pinki the daughter of Ranveer, and the dispute of med. The motive attributed to the appellant is that the above reasons prompted the appellant to wipe out the entire family of D-1 to eliminate even his future generation. 75. These witnesses have been cross-examined on this aspect by the defence. The motive attributed to the appellant is that the above reasons prompted the appellant to wipe out the entire family of D-1 to eliminate even his future generation. 75. These witnesses have been cross-examined on this aspect by the defence. They have only stated that no report was lodged by Ranveer in respect of the elopement of his daughter, however, a missing report was lodged by him. It is also stated that no case in the Court was pending between them with regard to land disputes. Pyare Singh (P.W.-2) in his cross-examination has also stated that Sukhveer Singh (D-1) was involved in a dispute with Jatavs of the village but no report was lodged in this respect. Jagveer Sing (P.W.-3) has also stated that it is in his knowledge that before the incident one Preetam Singh has lodged a report under Section 323, 504, 324, 325, 307 and 452 IPC against Rinku (D-2), Tinku (D-3) S/o Sukhveer Singh, Sukhveer Singh (D-1) and some other persons at P.S. Aurangabad. These statement only shows that there was some dispute between the deceased and his sons with co-villager. These statements in cross-examination do not nullify the oral evidence of these witnesses with regard to the motive of the incident against the appellant accused. 76. The evidence and material, available on record clearly establish that the offence has been committed with the intention to exterminate Sukhveer Singh (D-1) with his entire family and not just to harm Sukhveer Singh (D-1) and his two sons D-2 & D-3. The authors of the crime were fully aware of the topography of the place and the interiors of the house of Sukhveer Singh (D-1), the number of persons present in the house, the fact that Sukhveer Singh (D-1) is sleeping at his tube well. The assailants first committed the murder of Sukhveer Singh (D-1) at his tube well by using sharp edge weapon, so that no one could be alarmed. Thereafter they came to the house of Sukhveer Singh (D-1) and to ensure that no one should escape used fire-arms, killing the remaining six family members including a pregnant lady and a two-year-old child. In the backdrop of facts, circumstances and evidence on record, the motive is attributed only to the appellant and no one else and it is a strong circumstance against the appellant accused. The prosecution evidence in this respect is clinching and trustworthy. In the backdrop of facts, circumstances and evidence on record, the motive is attributed only to the appellant and no one else and it is a strong circumstance against the appellant accused. The prosecution evidence in this respect is clinching and trustworthy. Considering the facts, circumstances and the nature of the evidence, the motive is significant. CONCLUSION 77. The part of the ocular testimony of Pyare Singh (PW-2) and Jagveer Singh (PW-3), that supports the prosecution case, is reliable and trustworthy. The contradictory statements have been made with an ulterior motive to save their real brother, the appellant, from the gallows. The portion of their oral testimony that corroborates the prosecution case can be segregated from the unreliable statements made in their testimony and can be considered as credible evidence. It is settled law that the Court should separate the grain from the chaff while appreciating the oral testimony. These witnesses are not only neighbours but also the real brothers of the deceased. It is entirely natural for them to be curious to know what is happening in their brother's nearby residence upon hearing the sounds of gunshots in the odd hours of the night. Considering the circumstances, where multiple rounds of firing occurred over a span of ten to twenty minutes, it is expected that both witnesses would have witnessed the incident. Furthermore, the material on record indicates that due to prolonged cross-examination with significant intervals, their testimony may have been influenced by the defence. The oral testimony of Amar Pal Singh PW-1 is also reliable, as there are no significant contradictions or serious discrepancies that would render his testimony untrustworthy. The prosecution has successfully established the motive, and it is evident from the manner in which the incidents occurred and the intent behind the offense that only the appellant, and no one else, committed the crime. 78. In the case of Jayantilal Verma v. The State of M.P., (2020) SCC Online SC 944, in which a married woman was found dead in her matrimonial home, the Apex Court upheld the conviction of her husband even though a large number of witnesses had turned hostile. 78. In the case of Jayantilal Verma v. The State of M.P., (2020) SCC Online SC 944, in which a married woman was found dead in her matrimonial home, the Apex Court upheld the conviction of her husband even though a large number of witnesses had turned hostile. The Apex Court made the following observations : ''That is not an unusual event in the long drawn out trials in our country and in the absence of any witness protection regime of substance, one has to examine whatever is the evidence which is capable of being considered, and then come to a finding whether it would suffice to convict the accused.'' 79. In view of the above, the trial Court has rightly placed reliance on the statements of Amar Pal Singh PW-1, Pyare Singh PW-2, and Jagveer Singh PW-3. The finding of guilt for offense under Section 302/34 IPC rendered by the trial Court is just and proper. There is no illegality or infirmity in it. From the prosecution evidence, the charge under Section 302/34 IPC stands proved beyond reasonable doubt, against the appellant. However, the finding of guilt returned by the trial Court for offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act based on the evidence of recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act is not sustainable. 80. Now comes the question of the quantum of punishment. The trial Court has imposed the death penalty for the offence under Section 302 IPC, categorizing it as one of the rarest of the rare cases. While there is no doubt that the offence has been committed in a gruesome manner, with the intention of exterminating the entire family and ending the future generation of real brother (D-1), several aggravating factors weigh against the appellant. Six individuals, including a pregnant woman and an infant, met their tragic end through indiscriminate firing in their home while the head of the family was slaughtered at his tubewell, all while they slept during the night. These circumstances are undeniably severe. 81. Mitigating factors to consider are that about fifteen years have elapsed since the incident. Appellant-accused is under incarceration since then. The age of the appellant-accused as mentioned in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC, in the year 2015, was around 69-70 years. So at present, the appellant-accused is over 75 years of age. These circumstances are undeniably severe. 81. Mitigating factors to consider are that about fifteen years have elapsed since the incident. Appellant-accused is under incarceration since then. The age of the appellant-accused as mentioned in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC, in the year 2015, was around 69-70 years. So at present, the appellant-accused is over 75 years of age. Considering all the aforementioned facts and circumstances, imposing the death penalty at this point of time will not be just. It will be proper to modify the sentence to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rupees two lacs. In the event of default in the payment of the fine, three years of rigorous imprisonment shall be imposed. 82. The appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the appellant-accused for offence under Section 302/34 IPC is maintained. However, the sentence is modified from the death penalty to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rupees two Lacs, in default of payment of the fine three-years rigorous imprisonment. The conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act are set aside. The reference is decided accordingly. SPECIAL COMMENTS 83. Before parting with the judgment we are constrained to express our pain and anguish regarding the handling of such a heinous offence by the concerned police authorities and the trial Court. This case serves as a glaring example of a poor and botched investigation, inadequate supervision and also a haphazard and piecemeal manner of trial. 84. In this case, the police authorities arrived at the scene about an hour, after the incident. A dog squad was also called. With promptness, the inquest proceedings and post-mortem examination were conducted. However, after the initial actions and perhaps after the cremation of the deceased, it was all left to the investigating officer to proceed as per his wishes. The investigating officer conducted the investigation in an ordinary, routine, and seemingly casual manner with a whimsical attitude. In the initial investigation, he proceeded with the story that the appellant and his son with his two friends, have executed the crime. These facts are mentioned in the statement of the appellant-accused recorded by the investigating officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C. There is a clear statement that the co-accused, the son of the appellant brought along his two friends, and all four were responsible for the offence. These facts are mentioned in the statement of the appellant-accused recorded by the investigating officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C. There is a clear statement that the co-accused, the son of the appellant brought along his two friends, and all four were responsible for the offence. However, the investigating officer in a whimsical manner altered this narrative at his wishes and convenience while recording the statement of the co-accused, the appellant's son. In this statement, it was mentioned that only the appellant and his son were involved, denying the involvement of the two associates of the Appellant's son in the commission of the offence, confining the investigation for the actual commission of the offence in respect of the appellant and his son, without confronting them on the point. However, the investigating officer implicated two other persons, the first informant and the wife of the appellant developing a theory of conspiracy on the basis of improbable evidence which fell flat in the Court. It also appears that the investigating officer has not made diligent efforts to collect other potentially critical evidence. One empty 12-bore cartridge was also found at the scene of the crime yet the recovery made by the investigating officer consisted of only 315-bore country-made pistols. No police custody remand was obtained for any of the accused. 85. These critical lapses in the investigation have gone unnoticed by the supervisory authority i.e. the Circle Officer (Police), suggesting a lackadaisical approach on his part. 86. The malaise of the administration of the criminal justice system lies in the fact that the concerned police authorities approach such serious crimes solely from a law and order perspective. When a heinous offence occurs, higher police and administrative authorities looks in action and remain in action for some period but as soon as the dust settles down, they go back to their slumber as if nothing has happened. They don't ensure whether the matter is investigated properly, all possible evidence is collected which may stand the scrutiny of the law, the witnesses are provided adequate security so that they may depose in the Court without any fear and all the witnesses are produced at the earliest opportunity. 87. In general, it has been observed that, in dealing such offences, the concern of the police is limited to making the arrest and thereafter filing a charge-sheet on half-baked evidence. 87. In general, it has been observed that, in dealing such offences, the concern of the police is limited to making the arrest and thereafter filing a charge-sheet on half-baked evidence. The supervising authority also deals with the investigation casually, often failing to apply due diligence and only putting signatures without even mentioning dates. After the submission of the charge-sheet, no one bothers to monitor the Court proceedings to ensure the timely and secure attendance of key witnesses, resulting in inordinate delay and lingering of the trial, leaving witnesses vulnerable. 88. It has also been observed that in general the public prosecutors come to the Court ill-prepared limiting themselves to the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., without reviewing thoroughly the entire case material available in the case diary causing serious lapses. They are not even aware of the exact status of the witness and what documents are on record, that a particular witness has to prove. Material documents are left unproven, resulting in recalling the witness and additional opportunities for the defense to cross-examine, ultimately prejudicing the prosecution's case. 89. The trial Court also fails in its duty of fair and speedy trial in accordance with the law by granting frequent adjournments upon mere request, even when the deposition of the witness has started. 90. It is essential for all involved to address these issues. Additionally, it is crucial to recognize that the investigation phase is pivotal in the administration of criminal justice. However, it falls in the hands of inept officers who lack proper legal knowledge resulting in a botched investigation. Investigation is also the last thing on their list of priorities. To ensure a fair and proper investigation it is necessary that the investigating agency must be a separate entity equipped with officers who are able, qualified and have expertise in this field.