JUDGMENT Imtiyaz Murtaza, J.
1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 3.8.2000 passed by IV Additional Sessions Judge, Pilibhit in S.T.No. 812 of 1996 and 813 of 1996 whereby the appellants have been convicted under Sections 302/149 I.P.C. and 302/120B, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each and under Section 148 I.P.C. to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Appellant No. 3 Chheda Lal had been further convicted under Section 404 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs. 3000/- and under Section 25 of Arms Act to undergo sentence for one year.
2. According to the report of C.J.M. appellant No. 4 Budhsen died on 23.10.2004 and the appeal of Budhsen has already been abated vide order dated 1.8.2005.
3. The brief fact of the case as mentioned in the report lodged by Rajendra Singh is that his niece Sarla was married with Rajesh Singh s/o Inspector Singh r/o village Mathudadi. The mother-in-law of Sarla, Smt. Ram Moorti had illicit relations with one Ram Nath s/o Mangol Teli. The husband of Sarla had objected and also made complaint. He alongwith Inspector Singh s/o Malikhan Singh, nephew Devendra Singh came to village Mathudadi to advise Ram Moorti. In the meantime she had informed her lover Ram Nath about this matter. Ram Nath alongwith his brother Data Ram, Chheda Lal, Budh Sen, nephew Prem Pal and Natthu Lal armed with Banka and Kanta were searching for them. At about 5 p.m. when they were returning after eating watermelon from the "Palage" of Rajesh Singh and reached at the culvert near the house of Ram Nath suddenly all the accused persons surrounded and started assaulting them. Devendra Singh after receiving injuries fell on the ground and his rifle also fell there. He screamed and ran away. He saw that his niece Sarla and Har Pal Singh were coming alongwith several other villagers to save them. In the meantime his brother Inspector Singh and son-in-law Rajesh Singh died on the spot. Devendra Singh jumped into the river in an injured condition and was chased by Data Ram and Prem Pal and they killed him in the river by assaulting with their respective weapons. The accused took away his licensed rifle and belt of cartridges. He reached at the police station and lodged the report on 16.5.96 at 6.45 p.m. The distance of the police station from the place of occurrence is 7 km. Ajaz Mohammad Khan, Head Moharrir prepared the chik F.I.R. and entered in the G.D. The Chik report is Ex.Ka.2 & G.D. entry is Ex Ka.3.
4. After the registration of the case Sub-inspector Brijendra Singh alongwith Sub-inspector J.P.Nathani and other constables reached at the place of occurrence. The dead bodies of Rajesh Singh and Inspector Singh were recovered on 16.5.96. On 17.5.96 he prepared the inquest memo of the dead bodies of Rajesh Singh, Inspector Singh and Devendra Singh. The dead body of Devendra Singh was taken out form the river Dewaha. He also prepared relevant papers for the post mortem examination, which are Exts.ka. 9 to 26.
5. The initial investigation was conducted by Brijendra Singh, who died about two months prior to recording of his evidence. He recorded the statements of Rajendra Singh, Smt. Sarla Devision 16.5.96. He also prepared the site plan on 17.5.96, which is Ex.Ka. 27. He also prepared the recovery memo of blood stained and plain earth and other articles of Inspector Singh and Devendra Singh and prepared the recovery memo, which is Ex.Ka.28. He prepared the recovery memos of blood stained and plain earth, which are , Exts.15,16,17 & 18. On 19.5.96 Chheda Lal and Data Ram were arrested. From the possession of Chheda Lal one rifle No. AB-95/3508 of 12 bore and license No. 450 was recovered and recovery memo was prepared, which is Ex.Ka.29. A case No. under Section 25/27 Arms Act was registered against Chheda Lal and chik F.I.R. is Ex.Ka.30 and G.D. entry is Ex.Ka.31. The case under Arms Act was investigated by Sub-inspector S.K. Singh. He prepared the site plan, which is Ex.Ka.32 and after obtaining the sanction from the District Magistrate, charge sheet under Section 25 of Arms Act was submitted. The sanction order is Ex.Ka. 33 and charge sheet is Ex.Ka.34.
6. On the pointing out of the accused Data Ram one blood stained half pant and on the pointing out of Ram Nath one belt was recovered. The recovery memo is Ex.Ka.36. Budh Sen and Prem Pal were arrested on 23.5.96 and on the pointing out of Budh Sen blood stained Banka was recovered. On the pointing out of Prem Pa! blood stained Kanta and on the pointing out of Natthu Lal blood stained Kanta was recovered. P.W. 7 Sub-inspector R.K. Singh started the investigation of the case after the transfer of S.O. Bijendra Singh. lie recorded the statements of inquest witnesses. He sent the recovefed articles to the Chemical Examiner for the chemical analysis and submitted charge sheet on 2.6.96, which is Ex.Ka. 38. The report of Scientific Laboratory is Ex.Ka.39.
7. The post mortem on the dead body of Rajesh was conducted on 17.5,96 at 5,00 p.m. by Dr. R. H. Gokhale who noted the following ante mortem injuries:-
1. Incised wound 10 cm x 7 cm on the front of neck, above the Adam's apple wind pipe and food pipe cut through and through just above thyroid cartilage i.e. Adam's apple.
2. Incised wound 9 cm x 2 cm on the back of head.
3. Incised wound 9 cm x 2.5 cm on the front of right hand, bone deep all metacarpal cut.
4. Incised wound 8 cm x 6 cm on the back of left forearm, 6 cm above wrist. Both, bones cut. Hand is partially amputated.
5. Multiple abrasions 2 cm x 1 cm on the back of left forearm.
6. Oval shaped lacerated wound 12 cm x 7 cm just below right ankle. The foot is (right) lying amputated.
7. Incised wound 5 cm x 2 cm x muscle deep on the front of right forearm.
The doctor opined the cause of death as asphyxia due to ante mortem injury on the front of neck cutting the wind pipe.
8. The post mortem on the dead body of Inspector Singh was conducted on 17.5.96 at 4.00 p.m. by Dr. R.H.Gokhale who noted the following ante mortem injuries:-
1. Incised wound 17 cm on the middle of head bone deep underlying frontal bone fractured. Brain matter coming out.
2. Incised wound 20 cm x 3 cm on right side of face and neck. Under lying mandible fractured.
3. Abrasion 2 cm x 1 cm on the front of right knee.
The doctor opined the cause of death due to coma as a result of ante mortem injury.
9. The post mortem on the dead body of Devendra Singh was conducted on 17.5.96 at 4.30 p.m. by Dr. R.H.Gokhale who noted the following ante mortem injuries:-
1. Incised wound "C" shaped 17 cm x 3 cm x bone deep on left temple, lying 2 cm above left ear underlying temporal bone broken. Brain matter coming out.
2. Incised wound 5 cm on left side of forehead 4 cm above eye brow.
3. Incised wound 4 cm x .5 cm just right to injury No. 2.
4. Incised wound 7 cm x 2 cm x bone deep 1 cm above injury No. 2.
5. Incised wound 3 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep 2 cm above injury No. 4.
6. Incised wound 3 cm x 1 cm x bone deep lying 1 cm behind injury No. 5
7. Incised wound 4 cm x 1.5 cm on the back of head "C" shaped.
8. Abrasion 2 cm x 1 cm on nose.
9. Incised wound 1 cm x .5 cm on upper lip.
10.Lacerated wound 6 cm x 2 cm on the base of right thumb which partially amputated.
11.Multiple abrasion 2 cm x 1 cm on the back of right forearm.
12.Incised wound 5 cm x 2 cm on back of right elbow, bone deep underlying ulna bone broken.
13. Incised wound 7 cm x 3 cm on back of left forearm.
14.Lacerated wound 11 cm x 3 cm in lower part of back of left forearm.
15.Multiple abrasions 1 cm x 1 cm on back of left forearm.
10. The doctor opined the cause of death due to coma as a result of ante mortem head injury.
11. After the submission of the charge sheet the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. The Session Judge framed charges against the accused under Sections 148 and 302/149 I.P.C. and Chheda Lal was further charged under Sections 25 Arms Act and 404 I.P.C. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined seven witnesses in all.
12. P.W. 1, Rajendra Singh, P.W. 2, Sarla Devi, P.W. 3 Ajaz Mohd. Khan, P.W. 4, Dr. R.H. Gokhale, P.W. 5, Manvir Singh, Sub-inspector, P.W. 6, J.P.Nathani, Sub-inspector, P.W. 7, R.K. Singh, Station House Officer and Chheda Lal as court witness.
13. P.W. 1 Rajendra Singh deposed that about one year and seven months back he had gone to village Madhudadi alongwith Inspector Singh and Yogendra Singh. Inspector Singh was his real brother and Devendra Singh was his real nephew. The daughter of Inspector Singh was married with Rajesh Singh of village Madhudadi. Smt. Ram Murti is mother of Rajesh Singh and the name of his father is Siptar Singh. Harpal Singh is brother-in-law of Siptar Singh and he was resident of Ghazipur. Harpal Singh also reached Madhudadi after their reaching. They had gone there to advise Smt. Ram Murti to desist from her illicit relations with Ram Nath. The husband of Ram Murti was not present in the house. He works in Malaria Department at Veesalpur. At about 3 p.m. he reached at the "Palage" of Rajesh Singh alongwith Inspector Singh, Devendra Singh and Rajesh Singh. They were returning after eating watermelon from there. As they reached near the culvert Ram Nath, Budh Sen, Chheda Lal, Data Ram, Prem Pal, Natthu Lal came. Data Ram armed with Kanta, Prem Pal armed with kanta, Natthu Lal armed with Banka, Ram Nath armed with Banka and Prem Pal armed with Banka and Budh Sen armed with Banka attacked them. Inspector Singh, Devendra Singh and Rajesh Singh received injuries. Inspector Singh suffered Banka injuries on the head. He fell down and died on the spot. The rifle of Devendra Singh fell on the ground alongwith belt of cartridges. He ran towards western side and chased by Prem Pal and Data Ram. Devendra Singh jumped into Deowaha river. Rajesh Singh also received injuries and fell near the house of Data Ram and died. All the accused went away towards western side. The occurrence was witnessed by Sarla and Harpal Singh. Devendra Singh drowned in the river and his dead body could not be found. He scribed the report and lodged at the police station, which is Ex.Ka.1. The dead body of Devendra Singh was recovered next day. He further deposed that he had two relations with Ram Murti. She was 'Samdhan' as well as sister. Laxman Singh was father of Ram Murti, who was cousin of his father. He further deposed that Smt. Ram Murti had got this occurrence done. She had sent accused to attack on Siptar Singh, Devendra Singh and Rajesh Singh. Sarla and Harpal had told him that Ram Murti had called them to kill.
14. P.W. 2 Sarla Devi is the wife of Rajesh Singh deceased. She was married about seven years prior to his murder. Inspector Singh was his father-in-law, who works in Malaria Department at Bisalpur. The name of his father is also Inspector She deposed that on the date of occurrence her father Inspector Singh, brother Devendra Singh, uncle Rajendra Singh and maternal uncle Harpal Singh had come to her house. They came to advise her mother-in-law, who had illicit relations with Ram Nath. She had called them to advise her. She alongwith her husband had also advised her. Rajesh Singh, Devendra Singh, Rajendra Singh and her father Inspector Singh had gone to 'Pahlage' for eating watermelon. Ram Murti Devi had asked Ram Nath to kill all the four persons. She had disclosed this to Harpal Singh. She alongwith Harpal Singh were going to tell her father, brother, uncle and husband about this matter and when they reached near the culvert, Ram Nath armed with Banka, Budh Sen armed with Banka, Chheda Lal armed with Banka, Natthu Lal armed with kanta, Prem Pal armed with kanta and Data Ram armed with kanta attacked her brother, father and husband. All the three received injuries. Rifle of Devendra Singh fell on the ground. He was chased by Chheda Lal, Ram Nath, Budh Sen and caused him injuries and he fell near the house of Data Ram. Her father fell near the culvert. Data Ram and Prem Pal Singh had followed Devendra Singh and caused injuries, who jumped in Deowha river and also killed there. Chheda Lal took away the rifle and belt of cartridges.
15. P.W. 3, Ajaz Mohd. Khan was posted as Head Moharir at P.S. Sungarhi, district Pilibhit on 16.5.96. He stated that on 16.5.1996 he had registered the case crime No. 166 of 196 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 404 I.P.C. On the basis of report ext. ka 1 lodged by Rajendra Singh. He had also prepared the chick F.I.R. Ext. Ka 2 and entered in G.D. No. 41 at 6.45 p.m. which is Ext. Ka 3.
16. P.W. 4 Dr. R.H.Gokhale had conducted the autopsy on the dead bodies. We have already mentioned ante mortem injuries of the deceased in the earlier part of the judgment.
17. P.W. 5 is Sub-inspector Manvir Singh. He was posteed as S.I. at P.S. Sungarhi district Pilibhit on 24.5.1996. Accused Budh Singh, Prem Pal, Nathhoo Lal were at the police station in connecionn with case crime No. 166 of 1996. They had confessed their crime and expressed their willingness for recovery of the weapons. They were taken out of the police station and witnesses Sher Singh son of Babu Singh and Sher Singh son of Malkhan Singh were associated as witnesses of the recovery. On the pointing out of Budh Singh a Banka was recovered from a sugar cane field of Ramesh Pandit. Prem Pal accused also got recovered one Kanta. Nathoo Lal got recovered a Kanta. All these weapons were blood staned. The recovery memo was prepared which is Ext. Ka.-7 He had identified the weapons in court which were recovered on the pointing out of the accused persons.
18. P.W. 6 is S.I. J.P. Naithani He was posted at P.S. Sungarhi from November, 1975 to October, 1988. He had identified writing of Brijendra Singh who died about two months back. He alongwith S.I. Brijendra Singh reached at the place of occurrence and had prepared the inquest memo of deceased. The dead body of Devendra Singh was taken out on 17.5.1996 from the river Devaha. After the inquest proceedings all the dead bodies were sealed, sample seal was prepared, Naksha Nash, Challan Lash, letter to C.M.O. were prepared. The inquest memo of Rajesh Ext. Ka-9, sample seal is Ext. Ka-10. Letter to C.M.O. is Ext. Ka-11, possession of clothes is Ext. Ka-12, Challan Nash Ext. Ka-13 and Photo Nash is Ext. Ka-14. Inquest memo of Brijednra Ext. Ka-15, sample seal is Ext Ka-16, letter for taking possession of clothes is Ext. Ka-17, challan nash is Ext Ka-18, letter to C.M.O. is Ext. Ka-19, photo nash is Ext. Ka-20. Inaquest memo of Inspector Singh, sample seat is Ext. Ka-22, letter to C.M.O. is Ext. Ka-23, Naksha Lash is Ext. Ka-24, challan Lash is Ext. Ka-25, letter for taking possession of clothes is Ext. Ka-26. On 16.5.1996 Brijendra Singh had recorded the statement of Rajendra Singh and Smt. Sarla Devi. On 17.5.1996 he had prepared the site plan which is Ka-27. He had also collected blood stained and plain earth, one Danda was recovered from the place of occurrence and shoes of Devendra Singh and Inspector Singh were taken into possession and recovery memo was prepared, which is Ext. Ka-28. Recovery memo of blood stained and plain earth are Ext. Ka-15, 16, 18. On 19.5.1996 accused Chheda Lal Ram Math and Data Ram were arrested, one Rifle of 315 bore number NAB 42/3508 was recovered from the possession of Chheda Lal and a license of Rifle of Ravindra Singh was recovered from his pocket and its recovery memo is Ext Ka-29. A case crime No. 169 of 1996 under Sections 25/27 Arms Act was registered against Chheda Lal. F.I.R. was prepared by constable Sura) Pal Singh, Ext. Ka-30. The report is entered in the G.D.A copy of the G.D. is Ext. Ka-31. This case was investigated by S.I. Satyaveer Singh. He had prepared the site plan, Ext. Ka-32 and after the investigation he had obtained sanction for the prosecution of the District Magistrate on 5.6.1996 which is Ext. Ka-33. He had submitted the charge sheet against Chheda Lal on 5.6.1996, which is Ext. Ka-34. On 19.5.1996 statement of accused Chheda Lal, Ram Nath and Data Ram were recorded by Brijendra Singh S.O. and blood stained shirt of Ram Nath was also recovered and its recovery memo is Ext. ka-35. All the accused had confessed their crime and Chheda Lal had also deposed that he had thrown his Kanta in Devaha river and there was no chance of its recovery. Ram Nath and Data Ram were brought to the village Dandi and Jai Vir Singh and Prahlad Singh were associated as witnesses of recovery. Data Ram got recovered one blood stained Banka from a bush and Ram Nath also got recovered one Banka and its recovery memo was prepared which is Ext. Ka-36. Budh Sen, Prem Pal and Nathoo Lal were arrested on 23.5.1996, their statements were recorded by Brijendra Singh. Budh Sen confessed to have committed this crime and stated that he had thrown the Banka in the sugar cane field of Ramesh Pandit. Prem Pal had also confessed his crime and stated that he had concealed the Kanta in the Sugar Cane field of Ramesh Pandit. Nathoo Lal had also admitted to have committed the crime and stated that had concealed the Kanta in the sugar cane field of Ramesh Pandit. All the accused were brought Mathhoo Dandi and two witnesses were associated for the recovery and on their pointing out the weapons of the crime were recovered.
19. P.W. 7 is S.I. R.K. Singh, he was the second investigating officer. He had investigated the case from 9.9.1996 after the transferof S.O. Shri Brijendra Singh. He had recorded the statements of the witnesses of recovery and inquest memo. He had sent the clothes of the deceased and weapons and shirt of Ram Nath and a Danda for the chemical examination to the Scientific Laboratory. He had submitted the charge sheet against the accused on 2.7.1996 which is Ext. Ka-38 and report of Joint Director of Scientific Laboratory is Ext. Ka-39.
20. The Sessions Judge had also examined the accused Chheda Lal as C.W. 1. He deposed that earlier his family members had engaged Shri Mahesh Kumar Saxena Advocate as his Counsel. He had also requested for 30 days time for engaging Shri Mahesh Kumar Saxena on his behalf. He also stated that Budh Sen, Data Ram and Nath are his rother and Prem Pal and Nathoo Lal are his nephew. His statement has no value either for the prosecution or for the defence.
21. The case of the accused was of denial and false implication.
22. The Sessions Judge considering the evidence on record convicted the appellants, as aforesaid.
23. We have heard learned Counsel for the appellants and the learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the entire record.
24. The Counsel for the apellant has challenged the findings of the trial court on various grounds.
25. The first submission of the Counsel for the appellant is that no independent witness is produced by the prosecution in support of its case. P.W. 1 Rajendra Singh is real brother of deceased Inspector Singh and Devendra Singh is his nephew and P.W. 2 Smt. Sarla is the wife of deceased Rajesh Singh and daughter of deceased Inspector Singh and real sister of deceased Devendra Singh. It is further contended that the Sessions Judge should not have relied upon their testimony without any independent corroboration. We have considered this submission of the Counsel for the appellants and in our opinion there is no substance in this submission. No doubt that both the eye witnesses are relatives but this will be no ground to disbelieve their testimony, if otherwise, inspires confidence. The law on the point is well settled that the testimony of relative witnesses cannot be disbelieved on the ground of relationship. The only requirement is to examine their testimony with caution. Both the witnesses were subjected to lengthy cross-examination but nothing could be elicited to doubt the credibility of their testimony.
26. The next submission of the Counsel for the appellant is that the motive of the crime is not proved in this case. It is submitted that according to the prosecution case the informant and other deceased had gone to advise Smt. Ram Murti to desist from her illicit relation with Ram Nath. Smt. Ram Murti was also prosecuted in this case with the aid of Section 120B I.P.C. but she was acquitted, therefore, the prosecution failed to prove the motive of the crime. As regard the motive of the offence there is no such principle or rule that where the prosecution fails to prove the motive for commission of the crime, it must necessarily result in acquittal of the accused. It is settled position of law that where the occular evidence is found to be trustworthy 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. If the incident in question as projected by the prosecution is to be accepted then the presence or absence of a motive itself will not make the prosecution case weak. In a case which turns on direct evidence the motive element does not play such an important role as to cast any doubt on the credibility of the prosecution witnesses.
27. The other submission of learned Counsel for the appellants is that the alleged recovery of weapon is inadmissible in evidence because recovery memo shows that the weapons were recovered on the joint statement of all the accused. The testimony of P.W. 6 J.P. Naithani and the recovery memo Ext. Ka. 36 shows that Data Ram, Ram Nath and Chheda Lal were arrested on 19.5.1996 and all the three had separately got recovered the weapons. Assuming that the recoveries are on the basis of joint statement, even then it is admissible in evidence. The Apex Court in the case of State (N.C.T. of Delhi) V. Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru reported in J.T. 2005(7) S.C. 1 observed as under:
Before parting with the discussion on the subject of confessions under Section 27, we may briefly refer to the legal position as regards joint disclosures. This point assumes relevance in the context of such disclosures made by the first two accused viz. Afzal and Shaukat. The admissibility of information said to have been furnished by both of them leading to the discovery of the hideouts of the deceased terrorists and the recovery of a laptop computer, a mobile phone and cash of Rs. 10 lacs from the truck in which they were found at Srinagar is in issue. Learned senior Counsel Mr. Shanti Bhushan and Mr. Sushil Kumar appearing for the accused contend, as was contended before the High Court, that the disclosure and pointing out attributed to both cannot fall within the Ken of Section 27, whereas it is the contention of Mr. Gopal Subramanium that there is no taboo against the admission of such information as incriminating evidence against both the informants/accused. Some of the High Courts have taken the view that the wording "a person " excludes the applicability of the Section to more than one person. But, that is too narrow a view to be taken. Joint disclosures to be more accurate, simultaneous disclosures, per se, are not inadmissible under Section 27. 'A person accused' need not necessarily be a single person, but it could be plurality of accused. It seems to us that the real reason for not acting upon the joint disclosures by taking resort to Section 27 is the inherent difficulty in placing reliance on such information supposed to have emerged from the mouths of two or more accused at a time. Infact, joint or simultaneous disclosure is a myth, because two or more accused persons would not have uttered informatory words in a chorus. At best, one person would have made the statement orally and the other person would have stated so substantially in similar terms a few seconds or minutes later, or the second person would have given unequivocal nod to what has been said by the first person. Or, two persons in custody may be interrogated separately and simultaneously and both of them may furnish similar information leading to the discovery of fact. Or, in rare cases, both the accused may reduce the information into writing and hand over the written notes to the police officer at the same time. We do not think that puch disclosures by two or more persons in police custody go out of the purview of Section 27 altogether. If information is given one after the other without any break-almost simultaneously, and if such information is followed up by pointing out the material thing by both of them, we find no good reason to eschew such evidence from the regime of Section 27.
28. The Counsel for the appellants further contended that the investigation of the case is tainted there are cuttings and over writing in the inquest memo. We, have considered the submission of the Counsel for the appellant. The cuttings and overwriting in the inquest memos are immaterial. The first information report was already in existence. The investigation had already commenced after the registration of the report. G.D. entry contains all the details of the first information report. Any error or mistake on the part of the investigating agency is not sufficient to discredit the otherwise reliable eye witness account.
29. It is further contended that there is conflict in between the direct evidence and the post mortem report. According tb the prosecution deceased Devendra Singh's dead body was recovered from the river and the post mortem report does not indicate any sign to show that the dead body remained lying in the water for the whole night. We have considered the submission and also perused the evidence on the record. In the first information report it was mentioned that Data Ram and Prem pal had murdered Devendra Singh in Devaha River. It was no where mentioned that his dead body remained lying in the water. Infact, his dead body was not found at the time of the lodging of the report. It was recovered next morning. It is not known whether he died in the water or he fell in the water after his death. The post mortem report shows that his hands and neck were smeared with mud. The Doctor was not asked any question to explain whether the, dead body remained in water or not. Infact no question was put to the doctor on this aspect of the matter when he was in the witness box, but the fact that mud was found in the hands and neck of the deceased shows that his body remained very close to the water.
30. We are of the opinion that post mortem report fully corroborates the eye witness account about the injury which according to the doctor could be caused by the weapons which are recovered at the instance of the accused. The post mortem report also corroborates the time of the occurrence as alleged by the prosecution.
31. The eye witness account is furnished by P.W. 1 Rajendra Singh and P.W. 2 Smt. Sarla Devi. They have fully supported the prosecution case. They had described the origin of the occurrence and individual role of the accused persons. The testimony of the eye witnesses is also corroborated by the post mortem reports. The recovered weapons were shown to the doctor and he had stated that all the injuries of the deceased could be caused by these weapons. The post mortem indicates that all the deceased had received several incised wound. The report is promptly lodged at the police station. The prompt lodging of the report is proved by the testimony of Head Moharrir Ejaj Mohd. Khan, P.W. 3 who had proved the chik F.I.R. Ext. Ka-2 and G.D. entry Ext. Ka-3. The prompt lodging of the report eliminates the possibility of embellishments. The eye witness account is also corroborated by the investigation. The investigating officer had collected the blood stained earth from the place of occurrence. Weapons of assault were recovered under Section 27 of the Evidence Act on the pointing out of the accused. The Rifle alongwith the license of Devendra Singh was recovered from Chheda Lal which was taken away by him according to the allegations of the report and prosecution witnesses. The serologist report also corroborates the prosecution case. The report (Ext. Ka-39) shows that human blood was found in item No. 1 to 20, which include weapons of assault recovered on the pointing out of the accused.
32. Thus, in our opinion the prosecution has proved its case beyond any reasonable doubt and the Sessions Judge has rightly convicted the appellants, as aforesaid. We also concur with the findings recorded by the Sessions Judge.
33. In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed. The appellants, Ram Nath Data Ram, Chheda Lal, Prem Pal and Nathulal are in jail. They shall be kept there to serve out the sentences awarded by the trial court and affirmed by us.
34. Office is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the C.J.M. Pilibhit within two weeks.