JUDGMENT S.S. Kulshrestha, J.
1. These all the appeals arise out of the common judgment and order dated 12.3.1980 passed by the Sessions Judge, Kanpur in ST. No. 71/79 whereby convicting Sri Ganesh Singh, Sri Shrawan Kumar, Sri Patai @ Krishna Kumar and Sri Brij Kishore (who are herein the appellants) for the offences under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentencing them to undergo imprisonment for life in the aforesaid offences.
2. It is said that the trial court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record. Merely on conjecture and surmises the guilt has been established against the appellants. Presence of the eyewitness at the time of the incident is said to be doubtful and because of past enmity the appellants have been roped into this case.
3. In order to appreciate the salient points raised by the learned Counsel for the appellants and to ascertain as to how far- the prosecution could be able to establish the complicity of the appellants in the aforesaid crime, a brief resume of the facts, as would appear from the written report, may be made. Sri Prithvi Pal Singh @ Chandra Prakash Singh (son of the deceased) lodged a report at Police Station Maharajpur, District Kanpur which is at a distance of about 2 Km from Village Rooma (the place of incident) on 29.7.1977 at 5.15 p.m. at crime No. 167/77 for the offences under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. It was reported by him that on 29.7.1977 he along with his father and one Sri Jagannath Dubey were coming back to his village from the court of Munsif Hawaii, Kanpur where his father Sri Vikramaditya Singh was in litigation with Sri Ganesh Singh and others. They caught Kanpur-Allahabad Passenger Train. This was also mentioned by him that Sri Jagannath Dubey who was accompanying his father was taking care of his agricultural land. At Rooma Halt Railway Station, they were accosted by Sri Shrawan Kumar, Sri Patai @ Krishna Kumar and Sri Brij Kishore, armed with country made pistols. Sri Ganesh Singh also got down from that train and made exhortation that it is the opportune time that Sri Vikramaditya Singh be eliminated. Appellants Sri Brij Kishore and Patai @ Krishna Kumar dragged his father beneath Peepal tree from the platform. Sri Shrawan Kumar and Sri Ganesh Singh put their country made pistols at the deceased and shot fire. He died instantaneously. On the hue and cry made by the informant and his other companions Sri Iqbal, Sri Mahendra Singh, Sri Ram Prasad Sharma and some other persons of Village Gangaganj came at the place of occurrence and witnessed the appellants running away from that place. This incident is said to have taken place at 4.00 p.m. Report (exhibit Ka 2) was registered at the police station by PW 8 Sri Ram Narain Singh and its reference was also made in the G.D. No. 30 at 5.15 p.m. (exhibit Ka 15). PW 2 Sri Prem Pratap Dixit, who was Constable Moharir at the concerned police station, stated that on the basis of written report (exhibit Ka 2) he had drawn the FIR under the instruction of Head Moharir Sri Ram Narain Singh. Special report was also sent, the reference of which finds place in the G.D. (exhibits Ka 16 and Ka 17). Investigation of this case was entrusted to S.I. Sri Girja Shankar Yadav, PW 6, who recorded the statements of Sri Prithvi Pal. Singh, Sri Jagannath Dubey, PW 3 and also went with them at the place of occurrence. He prepared inquest report (exhibit Ka 5) of the deceased and other documents such as photo dead body (exhibits Ka 6 to Ka 9) and site plan (exhibit Ka 10). After sealing the dead body in a cloth its Fard (exhibit Ka 17) was prepared. He also recovered three railway tickets bearing Nos. 77265, 77266 and 77267 (exhibits 1 to 3) from the pocket of the Kurta, which the deceased was wearing and its Fard (exhibit Ka 12 ) was prepared. From the place of occurrence three pallets were also found. They were also taken into custody by the investigating officer and its Fard (exhibit Ka 5) was also prepared by him. He thereafter recorded the statements of the witnesses namely Sri Mahesh Singh, Sri Vinod Kumar, Sri Ram Bahadur and Sri Ram Shankar. Appellant Sri Shrawan Kumar was also arrested by him. Dead body of the victim was sent for postmortem through Constable Sri Mohd. Ishaq, who had furnished his affidavit, which was also accepted by the trial court. Autopsy on the dead body of the victim was conducted by Dr. R.S. Pundrik, who noted following ante mortem injuries of the deceased Sri Vikramaditya Singh:
1. Gun shot wound 0.8 cm x 0.8 cm x cavity deep on left side chest wall 14 cm below left nipple, margins inverted and contused.
2. Gun shot wound of entry 2 cm x 2 cm x 8 cm on left side neck, 7 cm below left ear. Margins contused and inverted, scorching, blackening and tattooing present in an area of 8 cm -Direction to the right and slightly down-wards.
3. Gun shot wound of entry in an area 4 cm x 4 cm x abdominal cavity deep on back (left side) 14 cm below interior angle of left scapula -Direction forwards out to the right. Scorching, blackening and tattooing present in an area of 9 cm x 6 cm.
4. Abrasion in an area of 4 cm x 3 cm on the right , side back 14 cm below interior angle of right scapula.
4. Thereafter the investigation was entrusted to Sri Ram Chitwan Dubey, PW 5 who after extensive investigation submitted charge sheet (exhibit Ka 4) against all the four accused. Apart from these formal witnesses prosecution examined Sri Prithvi Pal Singh (PW1), the son of the deceased and who lodged the report at the police station (exhibit Ka 3). It was stated by him that on 29.7.1977 he along with his father (deceased) and one Sri Jagannath Dubey, who is taking care of his agricultural land, went to attend the date in civil case in the court of Munsif Hawaii, Kanpur. His father was in civil litigation with his brother Sri Ganesh Singh (appellant) and also Sri Veer Pal Singh. Both are the real uncles of the informant. After attending the court's proceedings they all caught passenger train from Kanpur Railway Station for Chakeri Railway Station. Three tickets (exhibits 1 to 3) were purchased by his father. They got down from THE train at Rooma Halt Railway Station at about 4.30 p.m. Hardly they could walk for 2-3 paces, they saw Sri Shrawan Kumar, Sri Patai @ Krishna Kumar and Sri Brij Kishore armed with country made pistols. His uncle Sri Ganesh Singh also got down from another compartment of the train and exhorted that this is the opportune time, let the deceased be killed. Appellants Sri Patai @ Krishna Kumar and Sri Brij Kishore caught hold the victim and dragged him to a nearby place beneath Peepal tree. There the appellants Sri Ganesh Singh and Shrawan Singh shot fire at the deceased, who fell down. In the meantime Shrawan Kumar also made another fire inflicting injuries to the deceased. On screech of the witnesses Sri Iqbal (PW 4), Sri Mahendra Singh and Sri Ram Prasad Sharma came at the spot. In the meantime the train also moved. After seeing the witnesses the accused ran away. It was clarified by PW 1 Sri Prithvi Pal Singh that there was an old enmity in between him (one side) and his uncle Sri Ganesh Singh and Sri Veer Pal Singh (other side). About a year back fire was shot at him so as to kill him. It is also said that the dispute in the court of Munsif Hawaii, Kanpur was with regard to the cultivatory rights in respect of agricultural land.
5. PW 3 Sri Jagannath Dubey, who was accompanying the deceased on that fateful day and was said to be taking care of his agricultural land, was also examined by the prosecution. It was stated by him that there was litigation in the court of Munsif Hawaii, Kanpur with Sri Ganesh Singh (one of the accused). On each date he used to be taken by the deceased to Kanpur It was about 4.00 p.m. when he, the son of the deceased and deceased got down from the passenger train at Rooma Halt Railway Station, there at a little distance he saw Sri Brij Kishore, Sri Patni @ Krishna Kumar and Sri Shrawan Kumar at the platform having country made pistols. Sri Ganesh Singh (brother of the deceased) also came at that place and exhorted that Sri Vikramaditya Singh be killed. On it Sri Patai @ Krishna Kumar and Sri Brij Kishore caught hold Sri Vikramditya Singh and dragged him beneath the Peepal tree, which was at the nearby place, where Sri Shrawan Kumar and Sri Ganesh Singh shot fire from their country made pistols. It was also stated by the him that on his raising of alarm witnesses namely Sri Mahendra Singh, Iqbal Singh and Sri Ram Prasad Sharma turned up at the place of incidence. PW 4 Sri Iqbal, who is said to be an eyewitness of this incident, was also examined by the prosecution. He made categorical narration of the incident and told that he was also facing trial (Raja Singh v. Iqbal Singh) in the court of Special Magistrate, Kanpur. After attending the court's proceedings on that date he reached at Kanpur Railway Station and caught the passenger train. He got down at Rooma Halt Railway Station at about 4.00 p.m. He was accompanied by Sri Mahendra Singh and Sri Ram Prasad Sharma. He could also notice Sri Brij Kishore, Sri Patai @ Krishna Kumar and Sri Shrawan Kumar, having country made pistols standing at the platform. Soon thereafter he heard the alarm made by Sri Prithvi Pal Singh, PW 1. Witness further stated that he had seen both Sri Brij Kishore and Sri Patai @ Krishna Kumar catching hold the deceased. He was taken by them beneath the Peepal tree which was near to the railway cabin and Sri Shrawan Kumar and Sri Ganesh Singh shot fire at the deceased. After sustaining firearm injuries Sri Vikramaditya Singh died at the spot instantaneously. Dr. R.S. Pundrik also proved the postmortem report (exhibit Ka 14) and made it clear that the cause of death was due to shock and hemorrhage at the result of ante mortem injuries suffered by the victim.
6. It is a specific case of the prosecution that Sri Ganesh Singh (appellant) was highly inimical. Even in the past he is said to have shot fire at the complainant for which he is facing trial under Section 307 IPC. In the statement of PW 1 Sri Prithvi Pal Singh it has also been made clear that Sri Gahesh Singh made exhortation that it is the proper time when Sri Vikramaditya Singh be killed. PW 1 Sri Prithvi Pal Singh also in his statement made it clear that his both the uncles namely Sri Ganesh Singh and Sri Veer Bal Singh were highly hostile to him. They have earlier made an attempt to kill him and civil and criminal proceedings are also pending against them. Civil and criminal litigations are said to be the motive for committing crime. It, therefore, becomes relevant as was observed by the Apes Court in the case of Suresh Chandra Bahri v. State of Bihar that:
Sometimes motive plays an important role and becomes a compelling force to commit a crime and therefore motive behind the crime is a relevant factor for which evidence may be adduced. A motive is something which prompts a person to form an opinion or intention to do certain illegal act or even a legal act but with illegal means with a view to achieve that intention. In a case where there is clear proof of motive for the commission of the crime it affords added support to the finding of the Court that the accused was guilty for the offence charged with. But the absence of proof of motive does not render the evidence bearing on the guilt of the accused nonetheless untrustworthy or unreliable because most often it is only the perpetrator of the crime alone who knows as to what circumstances prompted him to a certain course of action leading to the commission of the crime.
Here the clear motive of committing the offence by Sri Ganesh Singh has been assigned and it also lends additional support to strengthen the possibility of commission of the offence by the person accused. Reliance may also be placed in the case of Sardul Singh v. State of Haryana . However, it was urged by the learned Counsel for the appellants that parties were admittedly inimical and so there could also be equal motive to the informant (PW 1) to have lodged false report. In this regard it may be mentioned that enmity is a double-weapon. While it can be a cause for false implication, it can also be the basis for committing crime. In this backdrop the evidence adduced by the parties are to be carefully scrutinized and if the evidence of the prosecution is found acceptable, the accused cannot take the plea that it should not be accepted upon because of the equal motive to the prosecution witnesses.
7. It was urged by the learned Counsel for the appellants that the entire case has been fabricated against the appellants. There was no occasion for them to have killed the deceased. Nobody had witnessed the incident and because of the civil litigation they have falsely been roped into this case. Had there been any such animosity which might culminate into the murder of one or the other, accused Sri Ganesh Singh should have chosen the village itself where the victim was residing and not to have designed his killing at the railway station. In that regard the presence of the witness is also said to be doubtful for the reason that the report (exhibit Ka 8) was sent by the Assistant Station Master on that very day at 4.20 p.m. to G.R.P./C.M.E. communicating that one passenger who got down from 2 KA Passenger was shot dead at Rooma Cabin. Arrangement of the disposal of the dead body was also sought. It is said that there is no reference of the name of the passenger. Had there been any one present to have witnessed the incident, in particular his son and other attendant, they might have disclosed to the Assistant Station Master at least with regard to the name of the passenger so killed. Emphasis has also been laid that the report of this incident was lodged at P.S. Maharajpur, which is at a distance of 2 km from the Room Halt Station on that very day at 5.15. p.m. The report (exhibit Ka 2) was also referred. It is said to be so neatly and perfectly drawn without any cutting or overwriting, all in sequence and also mentioning in the end that "LOGO KO TAKAKAR AAYA HOO" (some of the persons left to take ,care of the dead body) which would itself show that it was drawn with deliberation and got dictated at the police station. Mere fact that the informant, who lost his father, could not possibly gather enough courage to write the report so neatly and promptly covering all the aspects would not be the ground to challenge his presence at the spot. From the prosecution evidence it is clear that number of persons were attracted at the scene of occurrence. If the report was written with the assistance of some of those persons, including eyewitness of the incident, would not render the FIR version to be wholly imaginary and made up only for falsely implicating the accused due to enmity. Further it may also be mentioned that FIR is not the substantive piece of evidence and can only be used to corroborate the statement of the maker under Section 157 of the Evidence Act (the Act) or to contradict it under Section 145 of the Act or to impeach his credit. In the given circumstances the pictorial effect of the FIR would not itself show the non-presence of the informant at the place of accordance. On the other hand it is significant to mention that the FIR was made promptly with all necessary details, its importance cannot be minimized. It shall be construed to be giving of the prompt information of the alleged criminal activity, to record the circumstance before there is time for them to be embellished or forgotten. It may also be mentioned that neat and detailed report (exhibit Ka 2) would not detract the testimony of the eyewitnesses, which would be required to be assessed on its own merit. Reliance may also be placed in the case of Somappa Vamanappa Madar Shankarappa Ravanappa Kaddi v. State of Mysore .
8. It is further argued that the inquest report (exhibit Ka 1), which was drawn on that very day from 7.15 p.m. to 8.15 p.m. would itself show that PW1 Sri Prithvi Pal Singh and other so called eyewitness were not in the know of the killers otherwise there could be no occasion for them not to have referred their names to the police so that its reference could be made in the inquest report itself at the earliest possible time. Reliance has also been placed by the learned Counsel for the appellants in the case of Suresh Rai and Ors. v. State of Bihar 2000 Crl. L.J. 3457, wherein it was held that when the witnesses of the inquest were also the eyewitnesses, their not referring the names of the assailants while describing the cause of death, would itself create doubt with regard to the presence of the witnesses. In this regard it may be mentioned that PW 1 Sri Prithvi Pal Singh is the witness of the inquest report. In the written report (exhibit Ka 2), which was lodged by him at the police station, necessary details leading to this dastardly incident have been given in that regard. After registration of that report police proceeded at the spot for making investigation as would also be decipherable from the statement of PW 6 Sri Girja Shankar Yadav, Investigating Officer. Reference of the FIR registered at the police station at 5.15 p.m. on that very day has also been given in the inquest report. So if the police officer drawing this inquest report in his wisdom instead mentioning the names of the assailants preferred to mention the registration of the FIR at the police station at 5.15 p.m. would be sufficient not to create the doubt with regard to the presence of the eyewitness. In this regard it may also be mentioned that the object of drawing of the inquest report is merely to ascertain whether a person has died under suspicious circumstances or unnatural death, and if so, what is the apparent cause of death. The question regarding the details as to how the deceased was assaulted or who assaulted him or under what circumstances he has been assaulted appears to be foreign to the ambit of the proceedings under Section 174 of the Act.
9. It is further contended that in the relevant column of the inquest report some of the articles such as golden ring and Rs. 90/- which were recovered from the dead body of the deceased were referred but the prosecution is also banking upon the recovery of three railway tickets so as to show the presence of the witnesses. This would itself be doubtful when no such recovery of tickets finds place in the inquest report. In this regard it may be mentioned that the investigating officer prepared seizure memo with regard to the three tickets recovered from the deceased. Drawing of separate Fard/document during preparation of inquest report would be admissible in evidence. Such a seizure of the tickets, the reference of which does not find place in the inquest report, cannot be questioned, more particularly when the recovery of those tickets has also been proved by the prosecution witnesses in their statements. Similarly even if there was any irregularity/illegality in the preparation of the inquest report with regard to recovery of those tickets that is of no significance (see State of Rajasthan v. Kishore and State of Karnataka v. K. Yarappa Reddy .
10. Further the submission was also made that even from the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the presence of the eyewitnesses so examined is not established. It is said that PW 1 Sri Prithvi Pal Singh in his cross-examination stated that he did not contact the Station Master nor to the G.R.P. officials with regard to the said incident. Even no railway employee came at the spot. In that background it is said that there was already a communication from Assistant Station Master to the G.R.P. at 4.20 p.m. and that would mean that some of the railway employees could reach at the place of occurrence. This witness has, however, made it clear that he was not acquainted with any of the railway employees. Further nobody asked him with regard to the name of the deceased. PW 3 Sri Jagannath Dubey, who was also accompanying the deceased from Kanpur, gave a vivid description about the incident and in his cross examination it was also made clear by him that some of the railway employees came at the place of occurrence but they were not known to him. Some of the railway employees did verify from Sri Prithvi Pal Singh about the deceased and that was told by him. PW 3 Sri Iqbal Singh has also in his statement made it clear that when the deceased was being dragged by the accused, he heard alarm made by Sri Prithvi Pal Singh. He noticed the fires being shot by the accused Sri Shrawan Kumar and Sri Ganesh Singh. He was hardly at a distance of 30-35 yards. Soon thereafter more than 50 persons gathered at the place of occurrence. He was not aware whether the railway employees also came at that place or not. On the basis of such evidence presence of the witnesses cannot be ruled out.
11. It is further argued that the prosecution version does not find corroboration from the medical report. In that regard reference has been made that according to the FIR two fires were shot by Sri Shrawan Kumar and Sri Ganesh Singh whereas the doctor conducting the postmortem noticed three entry wounds. Subsequently improvement was desired to be brought by the prosecution in the statement of the eyewitnesses so as to explain the third firearm wound. It is also said that non-mentioning of this third fire shot in the FIR would itself show the non-presence of these witnesses. Suffice it to mention that in the report lodged at the police station only allegations about the fire shots by Sri Shrawan Kumar and Sri Ganesh Singh have been made. It is not giving the numbers of fires. But PW 1 Sri Prithvi Pal Singh in his statement made it clear that after sustaining injuries from the fires shot by Sri Ganesh Singh and Shrawan Kumar the deceased fell down. Thereafter accused Sri Shrawan Kumar also fired another shot and the deceased died instantaneously. PW 3 Sri Jagannath Dubey has also stated about the third fire made by Sri Shrawan Kumar at the neck of the deceased. Identical is the position of Sri Iqbal Singh, PW 4. It is not a deficiency in between the FIR version and the statements of the witnesses. Report is not confined to the number of fire shots. It says that both the accused Sri Shrawan Kumar and Sri Ganesh Singh shot fire by placing their weapons at the body of the deceased. Further the deceased when fell down again a third fire was made. Non-mentioning of the third fire in the FIR would not be the material omission. On the basis of such deficiencies the presence of these witnesses cannot be ruled out. However, from the side of the prosecution it is also said that variation in the written report and eyewitness account would render the evidence of the eyewitness unbelievable. Reliance has also been placed in the cases of Leela Ram (D) through Duli Chand v. State of Haryana and Anr. , wherein it was held that:
Be it noted that the High Court is within its jurisdiction being the first appellate Court to re-appraise the evidence, but the discrepancies found in the ocular account of two witnesses unless they are so vital, cannot affect the credibility of the evidence of the witnesses. There is bound to be some discrepancies between the narrations of different witnesses when they speak on details, and unless the contradictions are of a material dimension, the same should not be used to jettison the evidence in its entirety. Incidentally, corroboration of evidence with mathematical niceties cannot be expected in criminal cases. Minor embellishment, there may be, but variations by reason therefor should not render the evidence of eye-witnesses unbelievable. Trivial discrepancies ought not to obliterate an otherwise acceptable evidence. In this context, reference may be made to the decision of this Court in the State of UP. v. M. K. Anthony . In paragraph 10 of the report, this Court observed:
While appreciating the evidence of a witness, the approach must be whether the evidence of the witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Once that impression is formed, it is undoubtedly necessary for the Court to scrutinise the evidence more particularly keeping in view the deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in the evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the evidence given by the witness and whether the earlier evaluation of the evidence is shaken as to render it unworthy of belief. Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the case, hypertechnical approach by taking sentences torn out of context here or there from the evidence, attaching importance to some technical error committed by the investigating officer not going to the root of the matter would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole. If the Court before whom the witness gives evidence had the opportunity to form the opinion about the general tenor of evidence given by the witness, the appellate Court which had not this benefit will have to attach due weight to the appreciation of evidence by the trial Court and unless there are reasons weighty and formidable it would not be proper to reject the evidence on the ground of minor variations or infirmities in the matter of trivial details. Even honest and truthful witnesses may differ in some details unrelated to the main incident because power of observation, retention and reproduction differ with individuals.
Identical view was also enunciated by the Apex Court in the cases of Rammi alias Rameshwar v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Bhura alias Sajjan Kumar v. State of Madhya Pradesh
12. It was further submitted on behalf of the appellants that independent witnesses were not examined by the prosecution and the prosecution witnesses cannot be relied upon. PW 1 Sri Prithvi Pal Singh is the son of the deceased and he was also inimical with the accused Sri Ganesh Singh. His testimony is also not worth credence. So is also the position of PW 3 Sri Jagannath Dubey. He is also interested witness as is said to be residing with the deceased and PW 4 Sri Iqbal Singh is also closely related to the deceased. These witnesses have given the detailed account of the incident. They accompanied to the deceased to Kanpur to attend the proceedings of a civil case in Kanpur Courts. They all were coming back by 2 KA Passenger. They got down at Rooma Halt Station. The report was also registered promptly at the police station. Merely because they are relative and interested witnesses their testimonies cannot be rejected on that ground. Relationship is not a factor to affect the credibility of a witness. It is more often than not that a relation would not spare actual culprit and make allegations against an innocent person. PW1 Sri Prithvi Pal Singh was inimical with Sri Ganesh Singh and so the analysis of the evidence of these witnesses was made carefully, These witnesses inspire confidence. Their testimonies also find corroboration from FIR and medical report. In this regard it may also be mentioned that deep precautions were taken for scrutinizing their presence and the testimony of eyewitnesses cannot be discarded on the ground that they are related or interested witnesses. It shall be useful to refer the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of Dalip Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab . The above decision has also been followed in the cases of Guli Chand and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan , and Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras . Again in the case of Masalti v. State of U.P. Apex Court observed:
... it would be unreasonable to contend that evidence given by witnesses should be discarded only on the ground that it is evidence of partisan or interested witnesses. Often enough, where factions prevail in villagers and murders are committed as a result of enmity between such factions, criminal Courts have to deal with evidence of a partisan type. The mechanical rejection of such evidence on the sole ground that it is partisan would invariably lead to failure of justice. No hard and fast rule can be laid down as to how much evidence should be appreciated. Judicial approach has to be cautious in dealing with such evidence; but the plea that such evidence should be rejected because it is partisan cannot be accepted as correct.
13. It is next argued that the independent witnesses such as railway employees, other passengers who got down at that railway station, and cabin man were not examined and so it would create doubt in the prosecution version. Reliance has also been placed in the case of Jang Singh and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan 2002 SCC (Crl.) 1027. In that case there was the sole testimony of the prosecution witness. Here PW 4 Sri Iqbal Singh himself was one of the passengers who also got down at that railway station. He has supported to the prosecution version. His presence cannot be doubted merely on the ground that he is distantly related witness. Further in order to assert their presence, PW 1 Sri Prithvi Pal Singh and PW 3 Sri Jagannath Dubey have stated that they have gone along with the deceased to Kanpur Civil Court for attending court's proceedings. It was also clarified by them that the deceased was having a case there in the Civil Court, Kanpur. Sri Jagannath Dubey, PW 3 had also made it clear that even in the past he was taken by the deceased along with him. The purpose of taking these witnesses by the deceased has also been assigned by both the witnesses in their statements. PW 1 Sri Prithvi Pal Singh also made it clear in his statement that he and Sri Jagannath Dubey were accompanying the deceased for his safety. Much emphasis has been laid that in the statement of PW 1 it had come that they were unarmed though the deceased had the licensed gun. The witnesses were also not having even any Danda and so for what type of protection they had gone with the deceased. However, from the side of the prosecution/complainant it was clarified that there was the dispute and difference in between brothers (Sri Ganesh Singh and the deceased). There could be no reason to anticipate that Sri Ganesh Singh was feeling enmity to the extent that he would kill his own brother. The witnesses were not expecting such an extreme step from the side of Sri Ganesh Singh and there was no reason for the witnesses to have roamed all around with the weapon. Further they were going to the courts and it could not be possible for them to enter in the court premises with the weapon. Such non-possession of the weapon would not create doubt in the prosecution version but would otherwise reflect that the accused had taken undue advantage by opening fires on an unarmed person.
14. Further from the side of other accused Sri Patai @ Krishna Kumar and Sri Brij Kishore arguments were made that they had not opened fire at the deceased and so their complicity cannot be ascertained in the aforesaid incident. Suffice it to mention that in the statements of the prosecution witnesses it has come that the moment the deceased got down from the train he was caught hold by Sri Shrawan Kumar, Sri Patai @ Krishna Kumar and Sri Brij Kishore. They all were armed with Kattas. They dragged the deceased to north near to the Peepal tree. So the participation of the accused Sri Patai @ Krishna Kumar and Sri Brij Kishore is decipherable. Their actual presence with the weapon and dragging of the deceased to north would mean nothing else but participation i.e. irrebuttable presumption raised by Section 114 of the Act and case under Section 34 IPC. Reliance may also be placed in the case of Mathurala Adi Reddy v. State of Hyderabad . Further the common intention for participating in the incident can also be inferred from the facts of this case. All the accused were armed with deadly weapons. They were together and on the exhortation of Sri Ganesh Singh to kill the deceased, two of them opened fire. Thereafter all the four left the place together. This all would show their common intention.
15. In view of the aforesaid discussion we do not find any justified and justifiable ground to interfere with the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial court. The appeals are, therefore, dismissed. The conviction and sentence passed by the Sessions Judge are affirmed. The accused are hereby directed to surrender before the trial court. We also direct the Sessions Judge concerned to take prompt steps to put the accused back in jail to undergo the sentence imposed on them.