Ram Rahis and others vs State of U.P.

Vijay Kumar Verma, J.—Challenge in this appeal, preferred under section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short the Cr.P.C), is to the judgment and order dated 23.7.2004 passed by Sri Rajendra Singh, the then Additional Session Judge/Fast Track Court No. 5 Budaun, in S.T. No. 28 of 2004 and connected S.T. Nos. 29 of 2004 and 30 of 2004, whereby the appellants 1. Ram Rahis, 2. Ram Naresh, 3. Mahesh, 4. Raghunandan and 5. Rishipal (hereinafter referred to as ''the accused'') have been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each under section 147 and 148 of Indian Penal Code (in short ''the IPC''), rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/ each under section 307 read with section 149 IPC and imprisonment for life and to pay a fine Rs. 10,000/ each under section 302 read with section 149 IPC with default stipulations and the appellant Ram Rahis has been further convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/ with default stipulation under section 25 Arms Act. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

By the impugned judgment, the coaccused Prem Pal and Dhyan Pal have been acquitted of the offences under sections 147, 148, 307 and 302 both read with section 149 IPC and the appellantaccused Raghunandan also has been acquitted of the offence under section 25 Arms Act. No appeal against their acquittal has been preferred by the State of UP.

The incident resulting in the death of Gajvir and Ram Chandra and causing injuries to Ram Vitas, Ramesh and Ram Bhajan occurred on 7.7.2003 at about 7.30 p.m. in village Collectorganj, situated within the limits of Police Station Usawan, District Budaun. First information report regarding that incident was lodged by Ram Saran s/o Jagdish at P.S. Usawan on 7.7.2003 at 9.05 p.m. The case of the prosecution as appearing from the FIR Ext. Ka 10 and statements of the witnesses, in brief, is that Gajvir, uncle of the complainant Ram Saran, had lodged an FIR on 30.6.2003 against Ram Rahis, Rakesh and Balak Ram regarding the incident of quarrel, that had taken place between the children. Due to that FIR, these persons began to have enmity. It is alleged that when on 7.7.2003 at about 7.30 p.m., the complainant Ram Saran, his father Jagdish, uncle Gajvir, brother Ramesh along with Ram Vilas and Ram Chandra were sitting and standing outside their house, the accused Ram Rahis and Ram Naresh both sons of Jamadar having country made guns in their hands, Raghunandan s/o Lankush, Rishi Pal s/o Lakhan, Mahesh s/o Sri Ram armed with tamanchas and Dhyan Pal s/o Lankush and Prem Pal s/o Jait Ram having lathies in their hands came there and began to make indiscriminate firing by their respective weapons, due to which Gajvir, Ramesh, Ram Chandara and Ram Vilas sustained injuries. Ram Bhajan s/o Kanhai was passing through the rasta. He also sustained fire arm injury. The accused Dhyan Pal and Prem Pal wielded lathi blows. On hearing the sound of fires, people of mohalla came on the place of incident, who challenged the accused, on which they fled away.

The complainant Ram Saran himself scribed the written report Ext. Ka 1 and went to P.S. Usawan carrying the injured persons. On the basis of this written report, chik FIR Ext. Ka 10 was prepared by the then head moharrir Pooran Singh P.W.6, who registered a case on 7.7.2003 at 9.05 p.m. under section 147,148, 149, 323 and 307 IPC at Case Crime No. 88/2003 against the accised Ram Rahis, Mahesh, Ram Naresh, Reghunandan, Dhyan Pal, Prem Pal and Rishi Pal and made entry in G.D. vide Ext. Ka 11. Thereafter, letters Ext. Ka 12 to Ext. Ka 16 for the purpose of medical examination were prepared and injured persons were sent to Primary Health Centre Usawan, from where they were referred to District Hospital Budaun, where they were medically examined by Dr. A.K. Verma (P.W.5). The following injuries were found on the person of injured persons:

Injuries of Gajvir (examination on 8.7.2093 at 1.10 a.m.. Injury report Ext. Ka 2).

Firearm wound of entry 0.2 cm x 0.2 cm x DNP on right forehead 4.5 cm above right eye brow. K.U.O.

Multiple firearm wound of entries in an area of 40 cm x 22 cm on front of chest and abdomen of size varying from 0.2 cm x 0.2 cm x DNP to 0.2 cm x 0.3 cm x DNP, bleeding present.

Multiple firearm wound of entries of size 0.2 cm x 0.2 cm x DNP to 0.3 cm x 0.3 cm x DNP on front of right forearm in area of 12 cm x 6 cm, K.U.O.

Single firearm wound of entry 0.2 cm x 0.2 cm x DNP on right thigh anteriorly just below inguinal legament K.U.O.

The injuries were fresh in duration and were caused by fire arms. Xray was advised.

Injuries of Ram Chandra (examination on 8.7.2093 at 1.30 a.m. Injury report Ext. Ka 3).

Two firearm wound of entries on left side anteriorly 5 cm apart of size 0.2 cm x 0.2 cm x DNP each 8 cm x 13 cm below left Nipple. KUO, bleeding present (left).

Single firearm wound of entry 0.2 cm x 0.2 cm x DNP left lower abdomen just above pubic testicle KUO.

Multiple firearm wound of entries on right thigh & right leg anteriorly, in area of 16 cm x 8 cm of size 0.2 cm x 0.2 cm to 0.2 cm x 0.3 cm x DNP bleeding present KUO.

Single firearm wound of entry 0.2 cm x 0.2 cm x DNP on left leg anteriorly 5 cm below knee KUO.

The injuries were fresh in duration and were caused by fire arms. Xray was advised.

Injuries of Ram Vilas (examination on 8.7.2003 at 1.35 a.m. Injury report Ext. Ka 4).

Single firearm wound of entry 0.2 cm x 0.2 cm x DNP on front of right thigh 9 cm below tip of shoulder, bleeding present; KUO.

Multiple injuries (four in No.) firearm wound of entries on right side abdomen in area of 13 cm x 6 cm of size 0.2 cm x 0.2 cm x DNP to 0.3 cm x 0.3 cm x DNP KUO.

Single firearm wound of entry 0.2 cm x 0.2 cm x DNP on front of right thigh 16 cm below iliac crest KUO.

The injuries were fresh in duration and were caused by fire arms. Xray was advised.

Injuries of Ramesh (examination on 8.7.2003 at 1.50 a.m., Injury report Ext. Ka 5).

Multiple firearm wound of entries on front of chest in area of 12 cm x 8 cm of size 0.2 cm x 0.2 cm x DNP to 0.2 cm x 0.3 cm x DNP, bleeding present KUO.

The injuries were fresh in duration and were caused by fire arms. Xray was advised.

Injuries of Ram Bhajan Lal examination on 8.7.2003 at 2.10 a.m. Injury report Ext. Ka 6).

Single firearm wound of entry 0.2 cm x 0.2 cm x DNP on sclera of right eye with right red eye. KUO.

The injuries were fresh in duration and were caused by fire arms. Xray was advised.

Injured Gajvir died in the hospital on 22.7.2003. On receiving the memo regarding his death, at P.S. Kotwali Budaun, HCP 102 Sri Niwash, Sharma (P.W.12) went to District Hospital Budaun and conducted inquest proceeding on the dead body, during which inquest report Ext. Ka 27 and connected papers photo lash, challan lash etc. (Ext. Ka 28 to 32) were prepared and thereafter, the dead body in sealed condition was sent through constable Mitan Lal and Home Guard Rajesh Kumar for postmortem examination, which was conducted by Dr. R.K. Agarwal P.W.7, on 23.7.2083 at 5.00 p.m. According to the postmortem report Ext. Ka 17, the following ante mortem injuries were found on the person of the deceased:

Healed scar wound on the right side forehead of size 0.2 cm x 0.2 cm, 4.5 cm on the right eye brow.

Multiple healed scar wound with same scab present or same wound on the front of chest in an area of 26 cm x 12 cm, size varying from 0.2 cm x 0.2 cm 0.2 cm x 0.3 cm.

Stitched wound of size 12 cm long on the right paramediam area, with part of small intestine out of the abdomen by surgical wound. On dissection of the abdomen, abdominal cavity was full of pus about 500 ml, intestine were adhered to each other.

Multiple seabed scar wound on the right forearm of size varying from 0.2 cm x 0.2 cm, 0.2 cm x 0.3 cm in an area of 12 cm x 6 cm.

Healed scar on the right thigh outer part of size 0.2 cm x 0.2 cm.

According to Dr. Agarwal death of the deceased was caused due to shock & septicaemia as a result of ante mortem injuries.

The injured Ram Chandra also died in the hospital on 21.7.2003. His death memo was also sent to Police Station Kotwali Budaun, on which S.I. Yadvendra Singh (P.W. 13) went to District Hospital Budaun, and conducted inquest proceeding on the dead body, during which, inquest report Ext. Ka 33 and connected papers Ext. Ka 34 to Ext. Ka 38 were prepared and thereafter, the dead body in sealed condition was sent through constable Jai Krishna and Home Guard Prem Pal for postmortem examination, which was conducted by Dr. M.P. Gangwar (P.W.9) on 21.7.2003 at 5.00 p.m. According to the postmortem report Ext. Ka 23, the following ante mortem injuries were found on the person of the deceased:

Two healed scab detached wound on left side chest 5 cm apart size of each healed wound 0.2 cm x 0.2 cm and 13 cm below nipple.

Single healed scab detached wound on left lower abdomen, just above pelvic gardle in iliac fossa region size 0.2 cm x 0.2 cm.

Multiple healed wound on outer aspect of right thigh size varying from 0.2 cm x 0.2 cm to 0.2 cm x 0.3 cm.

Single healed wound 0.2 cm x 0.2 cm on ant. aspect of left leg, 5 cm below knee joint.

Operation scar with stiching scar present in the abdominal area vertical placed para umblically.

Two abdominal opening present one for color right side of abdomen and one for drainage left side abdomen.

Healed wound on internal aspect of left middle finger 1 cm x 0.3 cm over skin of both elbow.

On dissection of abdomen and chest cavity, one small bullet was recovered from the chest muscle and one small bullet was recovered from the upper left side abdominal cavity and two small bullets were recovered from the right thigh muscle. Abdominal cavity was full of pus like liquid.

According to Dr. Gangwar, the death of the deceased was caused due to shock as a result of septicemia.

The Xray of the injured Ram Bhajan Lal, Ram Vilas and Ramesh were taken in the supervision of Dr. T.N. Sharma P.W.8, who after seeing Xray plates prepared Xray reports Ext. Ka 18 to Ext. Ka 22.

Dr. R.C. Sharma (P.W. 11) was posted as Eye Specialist in District Hospital Budaun. He examined the eyes of injured Ram Bhajan Lal on 8.7.2003 and prepared medical report Ext. Ka 16. According to Dr. Sharma, the injury in the eye of Ram Bhajan Lal was possible, to be caused on 7.7.2003 at about 7.30 p.m. by some fire arm. The injury has been described as grievous.

Investigation of the case of Crime No. 88/2003 was entrusted to S.I. Shiv Kumar Singh P.W.17. He recorded the statements of witnesses Ram Saran, Gajvir, Ram Chandra, Ram Vilas, Ramesh and Ram Bhajan on 7.7.2003 and after making spot inspection, prepared site plan Ext. Ka 41. Search of the accused persons was also made by him. When the case was converted under section 302 IPC, the investigation was taken up in his hands by S.O. Radhey shyam Nidar P.W.10. During investigation, the accused Ram Rahis and Raghunandan were taken on police custody remand and at the instance of accused Ram Rahis, one country made gun 12 bore and two live cartridges and at the instance of accused Raghunandan, one country made tamancha 12 bore were recovered from their houses on 5.8.2003 in presence of H.C.P. R.K. Singh P.W.15 and constable O.P. Yadav P.W.16. The recovered articles were sealed on the spot and recovery memo Ext. Ka 24 was got prepared by H.C.P. R.K. Singh. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet Ext. Ka 25 in Case Crime No. 88/03 was submitted against all the seven accused.

On the basis of recovery memo Ext. Ka 24, cases under section 25 Arms Act were registered at P.S. Usawan on 5.8.2003 at Case Crime No. 101/03 and 102/03 against the accused Ram Rahis and Raghunandan respectively, vide chik FIR Ext. Ka 39, which was prepared by constableclerk Prakash Chandra P.W.14. Investigation of this case was entrusted to S.I. Shiv Kumar Singh P.W. 17, who prepared site plan Ext. Ka 44 regarding recovery of the country made gun and cartridges from the house of accused Ram Rahir Site plan Ext. Ka 47 was also prepared by him regarding the recovery of country made tamancha from the house of Raghunandan. He also obtained prosecution sanction Ext. Ka 45 from the District Magistrate Budaun and after investigation, submitted chargesheet Ext. Ka 46 under section 25 Arms Act against accused Ram Rahis. After obtaining prosecution sanction Ext. Ka 48 from the District Magistrate Budaun and completion of investigation, chargesheet Ext. Ka 49 under section 25 Arms Act was submitted against the accused Raghunandan.

On the cases being committed to the Court of Session for trial, all the seven accused were charged under section 147, 148, 302 and 307 both read with section 149 IPC. The accused Ram Rahis and Raghunandan were separately charged under section 25 Arms Act. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

The prosecution in order to prove its case examined 18 witnesses in all. P.W.1 Ram Saran is the complainant and eyewitness of the incident. He has proved his written report Ext. Ka 1. P.W. 2 Ram Bhajan, P.W.3 Ramesh and P.W. 4 Ram Vilas are injured. Rest are formal witnesses, who have proved various papers as mentioned above. P.W. 18 constable Sripal Singh has proved copy of G.D. No. 32 dated 5.8.2003 Ext. Ka 50 regarding registration of the case under section 25 Arms Act by recognizing the hand writing and signature of head constable Pooran Singh.

In their statements recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C, the accusedappellants denying the prosecution allegations have stated that due to enmity, they have been falsely implicated in this case.

The accused have not led any evidence in their defence.

The learned Trial Court after considering entire evidence on record acquitted the accused Dhyan Pal and Prem Pal of all the charges and further acquitted the appellantaccused Raghunandan of the charge under section 25 Arms Act, but convicted and sentenced the appellantsaccused as mentioned in para one above. Hence this appeal.

We have heard Sri I.K. Chaturvedi, amicus curiae and Sri G.S. Hajela, Advocate, appearing for the appellantsaccused, Sri R.K. Singh, learned AGA for the State and perused the impugned judgment and entire evidence on record carefully.

Regarding the incident, which occurred on 7.7.2003 at about 7.30 p.m. in village Collectorganj, the prosecution has examined four witnesses including the injured Ram Bhajan P.W.2, Ramesh P.W.3, Ram Vilas P.W.4. Ram Saran P.W.1, is the first informant, who had lodged the FIR of this case at P.S. Usawan on 7.7.2003 at 9.05 p.m. In his statement, he has stated that some days before the incident, there was quarrel between the children, report of which was lodged by Gajvir against Ram Rahis and others. It is further stated by the witness that due to enmity of that incident, on fateful evening the accused Ram Rahis and Ram Naresh having guns in their hands, Raghunandan, Mahesh and Rishipal armed with tamanchas and Prem Pal and Dhyan Pal having lathles came on his house and all of a sudden, they began to make indiscriminate firing, due to which Gajvir, Ram Chandra, Ram Vilas, Ramesh and Ram Bhajan sustained injuries. It is further stated by the witness that after aforesaid incident, he himself scribed the written report Ext. Ka 1 and went to P.S. Usawan carrying the injured persons and lodged FIR there and thereafter, the injured persons were sent to Primary Health Centre Usawan, from where they were referred to District Hospital Budaun, where they were medically examined. The statement of this witness has been corroborated by P.W.3 Ramesh and P.W.4 Ram Vilas in their statements. They both are injured and hence their presence on the place of incident is not doubtful. They also have stated that on the fateful day, the accused Ram Rahis and Ram Naresh having guns, Mahesh, Raghunandan and Rishipal armed with tamanchas and Dhyan Pal and Prem Pal having lathies came in front of their house at about 7.30 p.m. and made in discriminate firing due to which they as well as Gajvir, Ram Chandra and Ram Bhajan sustained injuries. It is further stated by these witnesses that on hearing the sound of fires, when people from neighbour and mohallah came at the place of incident and challenged the accused, they fled away. Lengthy crossexamination has been made from the aforesaid witnesses on behalf of the accused persons, but nothing material could be elicited from them in their crossexamination. We have carefully gone through the statements of these witnesses and we are of the considered view that the testimony of these witnesses is worthy of reliance and on the basis of their testimony, it is fully established beyond reasonable doubt that the accused Ram Rahis, Ram Naresh, Mahesh, Raghunandan and Rishi Pal, had made indiscriminate firing from their respective weapons on the alleged date, time and place and by their firing, five persons namely Gajvir, Ram Chandra, Ram Vilas, Ramesh and Ram Bhajan had sustained injuries, out of which Gajvir and Ram Chandra died in District Hospital Budaun. The learned trial judge has properly appreciated the evidence led by the prosecution and right conclusion has been drawn by him.

Although P.W.2 Ram Bhajan was also injured in the aforesaid incident, but he has not fully supported the prosecution case and he has been declared hostile on the point of identifying the accused in the Court. However, from the statement of this witness also, this fact is borne out that incident of firing had taken place at about 7.30 p.m. in which he also had sustained injuries.

The oral evidence led by the prosecution finds corroboration from the medical evidence on record. All the five injured named above, were medically examined in District Hospital Budaun. We have mentioned above the injuries which were found on the person of these injured. They were examined by Dr. A.K. Verma P.W.5, who has opined that injuries of the injured were possible to be caused on 7.7.2003 at about 7.30 p.m. by fire arms like gun and tamanchas. Regarding the injuries of Gajvir and Ram Chandra, it is also opined by Dr. Verma that their injuries were sufficient to cause the death. In this way, the medical evidence on record is fully corroborating the oral evidence.

The main contention of the learned Counsel for the appellantsaccused was that the offence under section 302 IPC is not be made out and the case would not travel beyond section 304 Part II. In this regard, it was submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellants that intention to cause death is lacking in this case, because the firing was made from the distance of about 75 paces, as is evident from the site plan Ext. Ka 41. The contention of the learned Counsel was that had the intention of the accused was to cause the death of injured persons, they would not have fired from such a long distance. Reliance has been placed on the cases of Bhupendra Singh and others v. State of U.P., 1991 (28) ACC 181 (SC) = 1991 SCC (Cri.) 571 and Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab 1996 (33) ACC 119 (SC) = 1996 Cri.LJ 1139 .

The learned AGA on the other hand contended that injuries of both the deceased in ordinary course were sufficient to cause death, hence offence under section 302 IPC is made out and this case is covered by third clause of section 300 IPC.

Having given our thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions, we are not impressed with aforesaid submission made by learned Counsel for the appellants. It has come in the testimony of P.W.1 Ram Saran that when firing was made on the injured, the assailants were at a distance of about six paces. Injured witness Ramesh (P.W.3) also has stated that firing from northern side was made from the distance of about 10 paces and from western side from the distance of about 2025 paces. The accused persons by making indiscriminate firing on the injured and deceased with country made pistols and guns, certainly intended to cause injuries to them and since the injuries sustained by the deceased were in ordinary course sufficient to cause the death, hence in our view, the case is squarely covered by third clause of section 300 IPC, which reads thus:

300 Murder Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or

Secondly............

Thirdly If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or

Fourthly..............

Illustration ''C to section 300 IPC is also relevant in this regard, which is as under:

(c) A intentionally gives Z a swordcut or club wound sufficient to cause the death of a man in the ordinary course of nature. Z dies in consequence. Here, A is guilty of murder, although he may not have intended to cause Z''s death. According to Dr. A.K. Verma P.W.5, who had medically examined the deceased Gajvir on 8.7.2003 at 1.10 a.m., his injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course to cause death. In like manner he has stated that injuries of Ram Chandra were also sufficient to cause death. No crossexamination has been made from this witness on this point. Therefore, keeping in view third clause as well as illustration (C) to section 300 IPC, and having regard to the nature of injuries caused to the deceased by the appellants accused, we are of the considered view that the learned Trial Court has rightly convicted the appellantsaccused under section 302 with the aid of section 149 IPC, because having formed unlawful assembly duly armed with guns and tamanchas, the appellantsaccused without any excuse made indiscriminate firing on the injured persons thereby causing such injuries to deceased Gajvir and Ram Chandra, which were sufficient to cause the death. According to the postmortem report Ext. Ka 17 and Ext. Ka 23, the injured Gajvir and Ram Chandra died as a result shock and septicemia caused by ante mortem fire arm injuries, which were found on their person at the time of postmortem examination. Therefore, there is no scope to make any interference in the finding of conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Trial Court. Both the rulings, reliance on which has been placed by learned Counsel for the appellants, are distinguishable on facts.

It was further submitted by learned Counsel for the appellantsaccused that on the fateful evening abduction of the son of Saitan Singh was made by unknown miscreants and in rescuing his son, firing was made by those miscreants at some other place, due to which the injured persons had sustained injuries and thereafter, due to enmity of earlier incident, the appellantsaccused have falsely been roped into this case. This submission is wholly misconceived and has got no force. As we have mentioned above, on the basis of the testimony of the witnesses Ram Saran, Ramesh and Ram Vilas, this fact is fully established beyond reasonable doubt that the appellantsaccused on the fateful evening had made indiscriminate firing, thereby causing injuries to the deceased and injured. The incident had occurred on 7.7.2003 at about 7.00 or 7.30 p.m. In the early days of the month of July, there remains sufficient light. Therefore, there was no question of mistaken identity. There is nothing on record to show that on the fateful evening, effort was made by the miscreants to abduct the son of Saitan Singh and any firing was made in rescuing the abductee boy. Although the accused Mahesh in his statement recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. has stated that the miscreants had carried the son of Saitan Singh and encounter had taken place from those miscreants, in which the deceased and injured had sustained injuries, but the appellantsaccused have not led any evidence to substantiate this plea. On the other hand, on the basis of reliable evidence of the witnesses Ram Saran, Ramesh and Ram Vilas, it is fully proved beyond reasonable doubt that on the fateful evening the accuseappellants had caused injuries to the deceased and injured by making indiscriminate firing from country made pistols and guns. Therefore, the defence plea deserves to be ignored, being devoid of any merit.

The appellant Ram Rahis has been convicted under section 25 Arms Act also. Regarding his conviction on this count, it was submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellants that conviction of the appellant Ram Rahis merely on the basis of testimony of police personnel is bad in law, because the testimony of police personnel does not find corroboration from any independent public witness. We are not impressed with this argument. The testimony of the witnesses S.I. Radheyshyam Nidar, P.W.10, H.C.P. Ram Kumar Singh P.W.15 and constable O.P. Yadav P.W.16 is worthy of credence. Nothing material could be elicited from these witnesses in their crossexamination made on behalf of appellantsaccused by their counsel. Hence the testimony of these witnesses cannot be discarded, merely on the ground that no public witness was joined at the time of search of the house of accused Ram Rahis. It has come in the testimony of S.I. Radhey shyam Nidar, that effort was made to join the village people at the time of search of the house of accused Ram Rahis, but no person became ready to be the witness of search. On the basis of reliable testimony of these witnesses, this fact is fully established that at the instance accused Ram Rahis, one country made gun and two live 12 bore cartridges were recovered in his house inside the bhusha. Therefore, in our view, the learned Trial Court has not committed any illegality in convicting the appellantaccused Ram Rahis under section 25 Arms Act.

It was also submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellants that according to the witnesses Ram Saran, Ramesh and Ram Vilas, the accused Dhyan Pal and Prem Pal also had participated in the incident and they also are said to have wielded lathies, but no injury of lathi was found on the person of deceased and injured and hence on this ground, the testimony of the witnesses cannot be said to be wholly reliable. We are not impressed this argument also. It is true that the lathi injuries were not found on the person of deceased and injured and on this ground, the learned Trial Court also has extended the benefit of doubt to the accused Dhyan Pal and Prem Pal, who have been acquitted of all the charges, but in our considered view, on this ground, the reliable testimony of the injured witnesses Ramesh and Ram Vilas as well as first informant Ram Saran cannot be brushed aside. The principle of falsusinuno, falsusinomnibus, is not applicable in India, as has been held by Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Major Singh and another v. State of Punjab. 2006 (56) ACC 1000 In para 15 at page 1003, the Hon''ble Apex Court has held as under:

"It is well settled that the principle of falsus in uno falsus in omnibus is not an acceptable principle. It is well known fact that in our country very often the prosecution implicates not only real assailants but also implicates innocent persons so as to spread the net wide. The Court can always discriminate and find out that who were the real assailants and who were not".

This Court also has held in the case of Prithvi Nath Pandey and others v. State of U.P., 1999 Cri. L.J. 3623 that maxim Falsusinuno. Falsusinomnibus, is neither a sound rule of law nor a rule of practice. Therefore, merely due to acquittal of the accused Dhyan Pal and Prem Pal by the learned Trial Court, the entire case of the prosecution and evidence of the witnesses Ram Saran, Ramesh and Ram Vilas cannot be discarded, because so far as the complicity of the appellantsaccused in the alleged incident is concerned, the testimony of these witnesses inspires confidence and their testimony is worthy of the credence.

Next submission made by learned Counsel, for the appellants was that the motive as alleged by the prosecution is very weak and story of making indiscriminate firing by the appellantsaccused due to minor incident of quarrel between the children, is not worth reliable. Suffice is to mention in this regard that there is direct evidence of the witnesses Ram Saran, Ramesh and Ram Vilas to establish the complicity of the appellants accused in the aforesaid incident, hence weakness of the motive is not material, because it is well settled principle of law that where there is direct evidence to prove the guilt of the accused and the evidence led by prosecution to prove its case is worthy of reliance, then weakness or absence of motive looses significance. In the case of Thaman Kumar v. State of Union Territory of Chandigarh, 2003 (47) ACC 7 (SC) = 2003 (7) AIC 297 = (2003) 6 SCC 380 = AIR 2003 SC 3975. the Hon''ble Apex Court has observed as under

"There is no such principle or rule of law that where the prosecution fails to prove the motive for commission of the crime, it must necessarily result in acquittal of the accused. Where the ocular evidence is found to be trust worthy and reliable and finds corroboration from the medical evidence, a finding of guilt can safely be recorded even if the motive for the commission of the crime has not been proved".

The following observations have been made in the case of State of H.P. v. Jeet Singh, 1999 (38) ACC 550 (SC) = (1999) 4 SCC 370 = AIR 1999 SC 1293 by the Hon''ble Apex Court:

"No doubt it is a sound principle to remember that every criminal act was done with a motive but its corollary is not that no criminal offence would have been committed if the prosecution has failed to prove the precise motive of the accused to commit it. When the prosecution succeeded in showing the possibility of some ire for the accused towards the victim, the inability to further put on record the manner in which such ire would have swelled up in the mind of the offender to such a degree as to impel him to commit the offence cannot be construed as a fatal weakness of the prosecution. It is almost an impossibility for the prosecution to unravel the full dimension of the mental disposition of an offender towards the person whom he offended".

Therefore, having regards to the aforesaid observations made by Hon''ble Apex Court, no benefit on the ground of weakness of motive can be extended to the appellantsaccused.

It was also submitted by learned Counsel for the appellants that no pellets or tiklies were found lying at the place of occurrence, due to which the incident on the alleged place becomes doubtful. It was also submitted in this regard that no blood was found on the place of incident and this also makes the place of occurrence doubtful. We are not at all impressed with this argument. It has come in the testimony of the witnesses that after hearing the sound of fires, the people from neighbour and mohallah had assembled at the place of incident. It has also come in the testimony of the witnesses that after the incident, the injured were immediately shifted from the place of incident and they were carried to PHC Usawan. Therefore, if the investigating officer did not notice any pellet or blood on or near the place of incident, then on this ground the place of incident is not rendered doubtful, because on the basis of reliable testimony of the witnesses, it is established beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased and injured persons had sustained injuries in front of their house due to the firing made by the appellants accused.

It was also submitted by learned Counsel for the appellants that the witnesses Ram Saran, Ramesh and Ram Vilas are closely related to the deceased and hence conviction of the appellantsaccused on the basis of their testimony is bad in law. It was also submitted in this regard that although independent persons are said to have reached on the place of incident on hearing the sound of fires, but the prosecution has not examined any independent witness and hence, it is not safe to place implicit reliance on the testimony of the witnesses Ram Saran, Ramesh and Ram Vilas, whose testimony also is not wholly reliable for the reason that they have implicated the accused Dhyan Pal and Prem Pal also, whereas the complicity of these accused has been disbelieved by the Trial Court also. We are not impressed with this submission also. The witnesses Ramesh and Ram Bhajan are injured and hence their presence at the place of incident is not doubtful. The testimony of these witnesses is worthy of reliance. Therefore, their testimony cannot be discarded, merely on the ground that they are closely related to the deceased. In our considered view, testimony of these witnesses cannot be discarded due to nonexamination of independent witnesses also. The Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Krishna Mochi v. State of Bihar 2002 (45) ACC 1 (SC) = 2002. SCC (Cri) 1220 has made the following observations:

"It is a matter of common experience that in recent times there has been a sharp decline of ethical values in public life even in developed countries much less a developing one, like ours, where the ratio of decline is higher. Even in ordinary cases, witnesses are not inclined to depose or their evidence is not found to be credible by Courts for manifold reasons. One of the reasons may be that they do not have courage to depose against an accused because of threats to their life, more so when the offenders are habitual criminals or highups in the Government or close to powers, which may be political, economic or other powers including muscle power."

Therefore, conviction of the appellantsaccused cannot be said to be illegal due to nonexamination of independent witnesses.

No other point worth mentioning was urged by the learned Counsel for the parties.

For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, there is no scope to make any interference by this Court in the impugned judgment, as the learned Trial Court properly appreciating the evidence on record has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellantsaccused.

Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. Conviction and sentence of the appellantsaccused namely 1. Ram Rahis 2. Ram Naresh 3. Mahesh 4. Raghunandan and 5. Rishipal awarded by the Trial Court is affirmed. The appellants are undergoing sentence in jail. They shall be kept there to serve out the remaining sentence.

The office is directed to return Trial Court record expeditiously along with a copy of this judgment for necessary action.