In the car Surya Narain alias Vakil Shukla, Devi Shanker Dubey, Rakesh Kumar Pandey and Prem Shanker Dubey were sitting and Shesh Mani was driving the car.At about 3 p.m. when they reached at Trimuhani of Mirzapur road in township Gopiganj on G.T. road, accused Udai Bhan Singh, Tehsildar Singh, Akbal Bahadur alias Atkoti singh, Prem Singh, Dhunni Singh, Munni Singh, Daroga Singh, Rajeshwar Upadhyay, Pintoo Singh and two other persons who were armed with latest weapons started firing.On account of this, his brother-in-law Surya Narain alias Vakil Shukla, Devi Shanker Dubey and car driver Shesh Mani died on the spot.He and Prem Shanker Dubey who were sitting on the back seat of the car came out of the car and received injuries also.Licensed Rifle of Prem Shanker Dubey was left in the car, which was taken away by one of the assailants.The occurrence was witnessed by Shiv Prasad @ Dangar Tewari, Mukund Lal, Ram Dutt Mishra and other persons.Shopkeepers started running away after closing their shutters.It is further stated that there was enmity between Surya Narain alias Vakil Shukla and Udai Bhan Singh with regard to some contract work.The report was lodged at 3.45 p.m. by one Rakesh Kumar Pandey at police station Gopiganj and the distance of police station from the place of occurrence is one km. Uma Shanker Pandey, Head Constable prepared the chik F.I.R. (Ext. Ka-2) and entered it in the G.D. (Ext. Ka-3).S.I. Vidya Prakash Misra started investigation.He reached at the place of occurrence and recorded the statement of informant Rakesh Kumar Pandey.S.I. Rashid Ahmad prepared the inquest report of Surya Narain alias Vakil shukla, Devi Shanker Dubey and Shesh Mani on his dictation.Dead bodies were sent for the most mortem examinations.He prepared the site plan (Ext. Ka-25) and collected blood stained and plain earth from the place of occurrence, broken pieces of glass of car, a piece of Raxine, blood stained shoes, empty cartridges, one Rifle and 9 mm Pistol of deceased Surya Narain Shukla and prepared its recovery memos (Ext. Ka-26 to Ka-32).The dead bodies were sent for the post mortem examination through constables Devi Prasad Pandey and Prabhu Nath Yadav.Post mortem of the deceased Devi Shanker Dubey was conducted by Dr. Radhey Raman, Medical Officer, Maharaj Chet Singh Hospital, Gyanpur 4.4.1999 at about 11.55 p.m. He found following ante mortem injuries on the dead body of the deceased Devi Shanker Dubey:P.W. 5 Ram Dutt Misra stated that the place of occurrence is Gopiganj market on G.T. Road at Mirzapur Trimuha.He and Dangar Tewari reached there on the motor cycle of Mukund Lal.Tehsildar Singh was exhorting them.It is further stated that Ambassador car was going towards West in speed and collided with a Bus which was coming towards Varanasi.Rakesh Kumar Pandey and Prem Shanker Dube came out of the car and while coming out of the car they received some injuries.At about 2 - 2.15 p.m. he saw Shiv Prasad alias Dangar Tewari and stopped him.He had also taken a lift on the motorcycle and reached at the Trimuhani alongwith them.His statement was recorded by the investigating officer at 11.30 a.m. He had recorded his statement in his room.The house belongs to Adya Tewari who is elder brother of Dangar Tewari.He did not inform the police out post while coming back to his home.P.W. 6 Dr. A.K. Pandey is Medical Officer, Community Health Center Gopiganj.He examined Prem Shanker Dubey at 5.25 p.m. injuries of Prem Shanker Dubey which have already been mentioned in the earlier part of this judgment.P.W. 10 is S.I. Irshad Ali.On 4.4.1999 he was posted as s.I. police station Gopiganj.He reached at the place of occurrence alongwith Station House Officer.He prepared the inquest reports and handed over the dead bodies to constable Devi Prasad Pandey and Manoj Rai.Inquest report of Surya Narain alias Vakil Shukla (Ext. Ka-9).Photo lash (Ext. Ka-10), Form No. 13( Ext. Ka-11) and letters to R.I. and C.M.O. ( Ext. Ka-12 and Ka-13 ).He also prepared the inquest report of Devi Shanker Dubey ( Ext. Ka -14).Challan lash ( Ext.Ka-15), Photo lash ( Ext. Ka-16), report to R.I. ( Ext. Ka-17) and letter to C.M.O. for post mortem examination (Ext. Ka-18).On the same day he prepared the inquest of Shesh Mani Rai (Ext. Ka-19), letter to R.I. and C. M.O. Ext. Ka-20 and Ka-21), Photo Lash ( Ext. Ka-22), and Challan Lash ( Ext. Ka-23).In the cross examination he stated that dead bodies were kept on G.T. road.He stated that before starting the inquest report he had possessed the first information report.He stated that he prepared the inquest report of Shesh Mani Rai.P.W. 11 Constable Prabhu Nath Yadava stated that when he reached at the place of occurrence, Irshad Ahmad was preparing the inquest report.The dead bodies were handed over to constable Manoj Rai and Devi shanker Pandey.He was there for security alongwith constable Rajendra Prasad.P.W. 12 Daya Shanker Misra was transfered on 11.4.1999 as S.H.O. Gopiganj from police station Aurai.The first investigating officer submitted charge sheet on 10.4.1999 and he had to arrest the accused persons.He did not record the statement of any of the witnesses.He did not file any supplementary charge sheet.P.W. 13 is Vidya Prakash Misra.On 4.4.1999 he was posted as S.H.O. police station Gopiganj.He started the investigation of the case.He recorded the statement of complainant Rakesh Kumar Pandey.On his dictation S.I. Irshad Ali prepared the inquest report of Surya Narain Shukla alias vakil shukla, Devi Shanker Dubey and Shesh Mani Rai.After the preparation of inquest repot dead bodies were sealed and handed over to constable Devi Prasad Pandey, Manoj Rai, constable Punnu Lal Yadava and constable Rajendra Prasad.He also recorded the statement of Prem Shanker Dubey.He also recorded the statement of photographer who had taken the photograph of the place of occurrence.On 6.4.1999 he recorded the Statement of Pawan Singh.Thereafter he recorded the statement of Prabhakar Khadhar and Vinod Kumar Dubey.He recorded the statement of the scribe of the report Head Moharrir, Uma Shanker Pandey.He recorded the statement of Sunil Dubey and Munni Pandey.On 8.4.1999 he recorded the statement of Ram Murat Upadhyay and searched for the accused.On 9.4.1999 he received information on R.T. set that Jajjey Singh and other two accused alongwith looted Rifle and cartridges were arrested.He also arrested Tehsildar Singh.He recorded the statement of S.H.O. Vindhyachal, Sharda Bux Singh, S.H.O. Mahihau, Shri Devendra Kumar Singh.He recorded the statement of Laljee Singh.P.W. 13 was recalled and re examined on 16.2.2004 and he stated that the envelope which was opened in court contained only three 12 bore cartridges.He further stated that on inspection of the car he found 8 bullet marks on chasis, 8 on tank, 10 on rear bumper, 12 on Dickey, one on rear class, and one on the bonnet.He stated that on 4.4.1999 the eye witnesses did not give any statement regarding the occurrence.The complainant had confirmed lodging of the first information report.On 18.3.2004 he was recalled and he stated that he got the photography of the place of occurrence and he had mentioned the same in his case diary.One sealed packet was opened in the court which contained one tikli, two empty cartridges of 12 bore, one of 9 mm and one of 30 mm, Rifle and two bullets (Ext. Ka- 28 to Ka-34).In the cross examination he stated that the packet which contained (Ext. Ka-28 to Ka-34 ) had a broken seal but the box which contained the cartridges had a proper seal.P.W. 15 is Sharda Bux Singh.He stated that in the month of April, 1999 he was posted as S.H.O. Vindhyachal.P.W. 16 is Dhananjay Misra, S.H.O. Aurai, Sant Ravidas Nagar, Bhadohi.He stated that from 8.5.1999 to 21.5.2001 he was posted as S.H.O. Gopiganj.If the statements of eye witnesses were not recorded same day, no adverse inference can be drawn that the F.I.R. was not in existence at the time of preparation of inquest reports.The statement of the complainant was recorded prior to preparation of inquest reports.If he was present at the place of occurrence after the murder of his close relative and he did not go for his medical examination.There is nothing to doubt about his presence at the alleged time of occurrence.JUDGMENT Imtiyaz Murtaza, J.In these seven appeals the factual matrix relates to the same incident and the judgment impugned being the same, they are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.I.P.C. for six months R.I. and fine of Rs. 1000.00 in default of payment of fine 15 days further R.I. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.On the place of occurrence an Ambassador car was going from east to west, Vakil Shukla, Devi Shanker were sitting on the front seat and Shesh Mani Rai was the driver of the car.On the back seat Rakesh Kumar Pandey and Devi Shanker Dubey were sitting.Udai Bhan Singh alias Doctor Singh, Sandeep Singh alias Pintoo Singh, Sanjay Singh, brother-in-law of Doctor Singh and his two friends Sanjay Singh and Santosh Singh, Ashok Singh, Rajeshwar Upadhyay, Suresh Kumar alias Jajjey Singh, Shri Krishna Singh alias Daroga Singh, Chhuni Singh, Munni Singh, Prem Singh and Atkati Singh were chasing the car and firing with their weapons.They were armed with Rifle, Gun, Pistol and Carbine.Rifle of Prem Shanker Dubey was left in the car.Thereafter all the accused surrounded the car and started indiscriminate firing and they kept on firing till Vakil Shukla, Devi Shanker Dubey and Shesh Mani died.One of them took away the Rifle of Prem Shanker Dube and all the accused persons were raising the slogan Har Har Mahadeo and they ran away in Maruti Car, Sumo etc and on one motor cycle towards Orai.The occurrence was witnessed by him and Shiv Prasad alias Dangar Singh, Mukund Lal and Rakesh Pandey.In the cross examination he stated that on the date of occurrence he had gone to Vindhyachal for 'Darshan' in the morning.He did not know where Mukund Lal and Dangar Tewari had gone.He left Vindhyachal at about 11 - 11.30 a.m. He did not know whether Vindhyachal temple closes in the noon or not.After worshiping he left for Gopiganj in a Tempo.He reached at cheelh turn in a Tempo which is at a distance of 10 - 12 km. from Vindhyachal.He remained at Cheelh turn for about an hour.He prepared the site plan on the pointing out of the complainant and the persons present ( Ext. Ka-25).He prepared the recovery memos of plain and blood stained earth, pieces of broken glass of the car, a piece of Raxine from the seat of the car, blood stained shoes, empty cartridge, one licensee Rifle of Surya Narain Shukla, one pistol 9 mm of Surya Narain Shukla (Ext. Ka-26 to Ka-32.).He recorded the statements of inquest witnesses Dangar alias Adya Prasad Tewari, Jata Shanker, Ramesh Kumar Pandey, Mukund Lal and witnesses of recovery memo, Ramjee Shukla, Pradeep Kumar Shukla, Irshad Ahmad and Jan Mohammad.On 5.4.1999 he recorded the statement of Santosh Kumar Singh, Anoop Kumar, Lallan Singh and Shri Balkeshwar Nath.He filed the charge sheet against the accused persons (Ext. Ka-36).On 4.4.1999 he had recorded the statement of inquest witnesses.1999 at the instance of the complainant he recorded the statements as of eye witnesses.Suresh Kumar Singh alias Jajjey Singh claimed for his identification under Section 54-A Cr.P.C. The application was opposed by the prosecution and the same was rejected.Thereafter by the order of the High Court dated 15.6.1999 the case was again transferred to C.B.C.I.D.. On 8.10.1999 Rakesh Kumar Pandey had informed that his uncle-in-law that some verbal altercation regard to P.W.D. contracts.He recorded the statement of the accused and witnesses and the police officers who conducted the investigation.He filed the charge sheet (Ext.Ka-38).He arrested Ashok Kumar Singh alias Babloo Singh and Suresh Kumar Singh son of Shambhu Singh.The factory made Rifle No. AB 973648 alongwith magazine containing four live cartridges were recovered from the possession of Ashok Kumar Singh (Ext. Ka-12).From the possession of Suresh Kumar Singh one U.S. 30 carbine alongwith magazine containing 9 live cartridges (Ext.Ka-13) and cartridges (Ext. Ka-14 to Ka-22) were recovered.Case under Section 25 Arms Act and 41/411 I.P.C. was registered as case crime No. 126/127 of 1999 against them.On 13.5.1999 he started investigation of the case.The earlier investigating officer had already submitted the charge sheet.He had received the ballistic expert's report on 25.5.1999 and recovered Rifle from the possession of the accused.Thereafter, the case was transferred to C.B.C.I.D.P.W. 17 Devendra Kumar Singh, is the Incharge, S.O. District Sonbhadra.He stated that in the year 1999 he was posted as S.H.O. Marihau.He arrested Ashok Kumar Singh alias Babloo Singh alongwith the Rifle and he also arrested Suresh Kumar Singh and recovered one Carbine US 30 alongwith magazine.P.W. 18 Jagdish Chand Shukla is constable at police station Gopiganj.He stated that on 13.10.1998 he was posted as constable Moharrir at police station Gopiganj.The defence had examined D.W. 1 Pankaj Kumar Dwivedi.He is president of Vindhyachal Panda Samaj, Vindhyachal.The temple is looked after by this Vinchyachal Panda Samaj and Vindhyachal Vikas Parishad.The temple is opened at 4 a.m. for 'Shringar' and it take about one hour and at this time the temple remain closed for 'darshan'.The doors of the temple open at 5 a.m. for the worship.Thereafter the doors are closed at 12 O'clock for the 'Shringar" etc. Again the temple is opened for worship at 1.30 p.m. During this period nobody is allowed to enter into the temple.During the days of Navratri, the doors close at 12 O'clock and open at 1 p.m. for 9 days only.In the cross examination he stated that the President of Vindhyachal Panda Samaj is appointed for two years.Anil Kumar Dubey remained President for 14 years.The rules which are prepared by the Panda Samaj are given to the district Magistrate and approved by him also.There are two doors for the worship in the temple.S.P. who recorded the same gave evidence about the same.The investigating officer had recorded his statement on 4.4.1999 as a witness of inquest report but if the first information report was available then why his 161 Cr.P.C. statement was not recorded same day.We have carefully examined the above submissions.The testimony of P.W. 2 Uma Shanker Pandey shows that he had registered the first information report at case crime No. 177 of 1999 Ext. Ka-2).He had also prepared the G.D. No. 34 at 3.45 p.m. on 4.4.1999 ( Ext. Ka-3).Special report was dispatched through constable Udhao Singh.He copied the chik report and reached at the place of occurrence and recorded the statement of complainant and S.I. Rasheed Ahmad, prepared the inquest reports of Surya Narain Shukla alias Vakil Shukla, Devi Shanker Dubey and Shesh Mani Rai, on his dictation.On the same day he prepared the site plan, recorded the statements of witnesses prepared recovery memos of plain and blood stained earth, Raxine of the car etc.The eye witnesses are mentioned in his statement.Prior to reaching at the place of occurrence Chik F.I.R. was with the Investigating Officer.There is overwhelming evidence to prove that the F.I.R. was registered at the alleged time.There is direct testimony of P.W. 1 Shiv Prasad alias Dangar Tewari to prove that informant (Rakesh Kumar Pandey) had prepared the first information report 40 steps away from the place of occurrence and at that time thousand of persons had collected near the dead body.The G.D. Ext. Ka-3 shows that informant and P.W. 4 had come to the police station and their injuries are also mentioned in the G.D. The enclosures which were sent alongwith the inquest report shows that chik was also sent alongwith the inquest report.The testimony of P.W. 9 Devi Prasad Pandey shows that he had escorted the dead body to the mortuary for the post mortem examination.He stated that dead bodies were handed over to him at 6.30 or 7 p.m. and he was given a copy of the F.I.R. and other papers for the post mortem.His testimony remained unchallenged.The first information report shows the seal and signature of the doctor who had received the papers alongwith the dead bodies for the post mortem examination.One more important circumstance is that the post mortem examinations was conducted same nigh on the direction of the District Magistrate.In our view the first information report is registered at the alleged time and it is promptly lodged.The occurrence took place at 3 p.m. and written report is lodged at 3.45 p.m. The distance of the police station from the place of occurrence is one km. It is significant to mention that criminal courts attach great importance to the prompt lodging of the report because the same substantially eliminate the possibility of embellishments and concoction creeping in the prosecution story.The other submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that according to the prosecution case first information report was registered at 3.45 p.m. and both the injured, namely, Rakesh Kumar Pandey and P.W. 4 Prem Shanker Dubey were sent for medical examination through constable Nathuni Lal but there is long gap between the medical examination of P.W. 4 Prem Shanker Dubey and complainant Rakesh Kumar Pandey.P.W. 6 Dr. A.K. Pandey had examined Prem Shanker Dubey on 4.4.1999 at 5.25 p.m. whereas Rakesh Kumar Pandey, complainant was examined by P.W. 7 Dr. L.S. Mishra at 8.15 p.m. both the injured were brought to the P.H.C. by constable Nathuni Lal who has not been examined in the case.The counsel for the appellant submits that this delay is due to the fact that the informant did not receive any injury in the occurrence and he was called after the occurrence and thereafter his injuries were manufactured and Dr. L.S. Misra was not on duty on the said date and he was deliberately called to examine the complainant and manufactured his injuries.The injury report suggests that injuries of P.W. 4 Prem Shanker Dubey were bleeding therefore, he immediately went for medical examination.The presence of informant is proved at the time of occurrence.He had signed all the inquest reports as an inquest witness.His statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded by the investigating officer.P.W. 13 V.P. Misra prior to preparation of inquest reports.The dead bodies were dispatched at 6.30 - 7 p.m. Thereafter informant was medically examined by the doctor.There cannot be any doubt that his injuries are manufactured by the doctor and he was not present at the time of occurrence.This submission has no force and is rejected.Another submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that if the F.I.R. was in existence at the alleged time and the names of the eye witnesses were known to the investigating officer then why the statement of eye witnesses was recorded next day.It is further submitted that the investigating officer had recorded the statement of P.W. 1 Shiv Prasad alias Dangar Tewari as a witness of inquest and his statement was not recorded as an eye witness.He was available on the same day.It is further submitted that P. W. 1 Shiv Prasad alias Dangar Tewari stated that he told about the occurrence to the investigating officer but P.W. 13 V.P. Mishra states that he did not disclose about the occurrence same day.If the first information report was available and his name finds place as an eye witness then his statement should have been recorded by the investigating officer.We have considered the submission of the counsel.In the instant case the occurrence took place on a busy G.T. Road at 3 p.m. and the report of the occurrence was lodged at 3.45 p.m. Thereafter the investigating officer had copied the chik, recorded the statement of informant, thereafter he prepared the inquest proceeding of three dead bodies.He also recorded the statements of inquest witnesses.There was also urgency in the post mortem which was conducted same night on the direction of the District Magistrate and the statements of these witnesses have been recorded next day.It is not disputed that prior to the preparation of inquest reports, statement of informant was recorded, Chik F.I.R. was also available with the investigating officer which was also dispatched as an enclosure No. 2 with the inquest report for the post mortem alongwith the dead bodies.There is no force in this submission that only on account of delay in recording of 161 Cr.P.C. statement on the next day it can be said that the F.I.R. was not in existence and P.W. 4 Prem Shanker Dubey and P.W. 5 Ram Dutt Mishra were not eye witnesses.We reject this submission of learned counsel for the appellants.The F.I.R. was registered at the alleged time chithi mazroobi of the informant and injured P.W. 4 Prem Shanker Dube was prepared and chik and F.I.R. was handed over to the investigating officer who had recorded 161 Cr.P.C. statement of informant Rakesh Kumar Pandey and completed the inquest reports of the dead bodies and other formalities with regard to investigation.There is no such delay in recording of 161 Cr.P.C. statement to caste any doubt that these witnesses are got up witnesses.Next submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that P.W. 1 Shiv Prasad alias Dangar Tewari and P.W. 5 Ram Dutt Mishra are chance and partisan witnesses and their testimonies should be rejected.There can be no doubt that P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 can be said to be chance witnesses.Their residences are a furlong or two away from the scene of occurrence.The story of P.W. 1 that he closed the shop earlier than usual is difficult to believe because he does not assign any reason for so doing.The allegation that respondent Chander Mohan's complaint was first in point of time but was registered later cannot be lightly brushed aside.It is also surprising that P.W. 1 preferred to write down the complaint on the spot rather than run down 100 paces to the police station to inform the police.P.W. 1 was asked to explain this conduct and he stated that he preferred to write down the complaint "as I had doubt that the police will not pay any heed and will not take down the report correctly.There was no reason for P.W. 1 to entertain such a doubt.He does not say that he had any such experience in the past.Both the deceased had a criminal record and were history sheeters.Several complaints were pending against Ram Shanker.He must be having many enemies.The defence case is that some of their common enemies got together and killed them and P.W. 1 was not present but who came later filed the report on the basis of the morning incident.Be that as it may, the fact, remains that the genesis of the crime is suppressed and no witness from the locality whose presence would be natural is examined which creates a doubt regarding the truth of the prosecution version.As to the presence of P.Ws. 4 and 5 at the time and place of occurrence the trial court entertained grave doubts.If by coincidence or chance a person happens to be at the place of occurrence at the time it is taking place, he is called a chance witness.And if such a person happens to be a relative or friend of the victim or inimically disposed towards the accused then his being a chance witness is viewed with suspicion.Such a piece of evidence is not necessarily incredible or unbelievable but does required cautious and close scrutiny.In the instant case, P.W.s 4 and 5 were agnatic relations of the deceased, one of them a close one.The reason given by them for being at the place of occurrence did not appear to be true to the trial court.There was not any compelling or sufficient reason for the High Court to differ from the evaluation of the evidence of the two chance witnesses.It may well be as remarked by the High Court that the respondent was also their collateral but they appeared to be partisan witnesses on the side of the prosecution and hence their testimony was viewed with suspicion by the trial judge.We find from the judgment of the Sessions Court that P.W. 2 admitted that there are two rival factions and he filed an application against the accused in the year 1976 for binding over them and consequently proceedings were launched against the accused and that there were certain other instances which would show that P.W. 2 was inimical towards the accused.Further, there is some force in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that P.W. 2 appears to be a chance witness.He deposed that he went to this particular field which is away from his house to answer the call of nature.On his being a chance witness it is necessary have a closer scrutiny of his evidence.Coming to the medical evidence of P.W. 2 is to the effect that all the other four accused dealt blows with sticks.It is pointed out in number of cases by this court when the case rests on the sole testimony of the single witness, the same should be wholly reliable.We find in the instant case that P.W. 2 is not only an interested witness but the version given by him is highly doubtful apart from the fact he being a chance witness.If we do so then we notice that on the date of incident he had gone to a village Upli for some work.From there he came back by bus at about 11 'O clock.He then allegedly went to the village to meet Ram Rakh where he was told by his wife that the latter had gone to the field.It is the prosecution case itself that the distance between the field of Ram Rakh and the village is about 4-5 miles and P.W. 6 covered that distance on foot and when he reached near the field of Ram Rakh he heard a quarrel and when he went towards the place of quarrel he saw the appellant attack the deceased with an axe.It is his further case that when he reached near the deceased the appellant ran away.It is at this point of time he states that he got scared and he took a different route than the one he took on the way and reached the village at about 4 or 4.15 p.m. It is his case that when he went to the house of Ram Rakh he could not find him therefore he came near the village square where he met P.W. 2 Khyali Ram.From the above evidence of P.W. 6 it is apparent that though there were persons available on his way back, he did not inform anybody about the incident.Even when he reached the village and met Ram Rakh's wife he did not inform her about the incident and it is for the first time he informs about this incident to P.W. 2 at the village square at about 4.15 p.m. Contrary to what he stated in the examination-in-chief that he saw only one assault on the deceased, in the cross examination he stated that he saw the appellant attack the deceased twice and both the injuries were caused in his presence.The prosecution has not found how P.W. 14 came to know of the incident.In this background if we appreciate the evidence of P.W. 6 we notice the fact that he is purely a chance witness whose presence at the place of the incident is highly doubtful.His conduct too seems to be unnatural in not informing anyone else in the village until he met Khyali Ram at the village square.Though the distance is about 30 miles from the place of incident, the complainant had the facility of using the tractors available in the village and they did use the same for travelling to the police station.In such circumstances this unexplained long delay also creates a doubt in our mind as to the genuineness of the prosecution case.The judgment and order of conviction of the two courts below are set aside.The appellant is acquitted of the charge framed against him.In the present case the evidence of P.W.1 shows that on 4.4.1999 he was coming from Vindhyachal and when he reached at the Trisection of G.T. Road Gopiganj he heard some shots.Me was accompanied by Mukund Lal and Ram Dutt Mishra.5 ram Dutt Mishra also stated that he was returning from Vindhyachal and on his way back home he met Shiv Prasad alias Dangar Tewari and he had taken lift on his motorcycle and he reached at the Trisection alongwith them.The occurrence took place on the G.T. Road.The testimonies of both the witnesses show that they had probablise their presence at the alleged place of occurrence.It is further submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that both the witnesses are partisan.It is suggested that both of them are deposing falsely only at the instance of Vijay Mishra M.L.As There is nothing on record to suggest that Vijay Mishra was instrumental in procuring these witnesses apart from the vague suggestion there is nothing on record to hold that these witnesses are deposing against the appellants on account of the influence of Vijay Mishra.Even it is not suggested to the witnesses that Vijai Misra was present at the place of occurrence or at the police station.The evidence of a. witness who is alleged to be a partisan or chance witness cannot be rejected solely on that ground and the law requires only a closer scrutiny of his testimony.We have carefully examined the testimonies of the witnesses The evidence of P.W. 1 Shiv Prasad alias Dangar Tewari shows that on 4.4.199 at about 3 p.m. he was present on the Trimuhani of G.T. road.He was coming from Vindhyachal alongwith Mukund Lal and P.W. 5 Ram Dutt Mishra on a motorcycle.His evidence shows that accused persons were armed with Gun, Rifles, 30 Carbine and Pistols and were firing at Ambassador car of Vakil Shukla, deceased.Shesh Marti deceased was driving the car and it collided with a roadway bus coming from Allahabad.Tehsildar Singh had exhorted to kill and the assailants came near the car and started firing.Rakesh Kumar Pandey and Prem Shanker Dubey were sitting on the back seat of the car.They came out of the car leaving the Rifle of Prem Shanker Dubey in the car which was taken away by Suresh Kumar Singh alias Jajjey Singh.They killed Vakil Shukla, Devi Shanker Dubey and Shesh Mani Rai inside the car.Thereafter they ran away in their Sumo and other vehicles.The motive as alleged is that there was some disputp with regard to contract work and Vakil Shukla shad also contested election of Zila Panchayat against Akbal Bahadur alias Atkoti Singh.The Rifle and Pistol of Vakil Shukla was left in the car.The first information report was lodged by Rakesh Kumar Pandey at 3.45 p.m. He identified the report which was written by Rakesh Kumar Pandey.The investigating officer had prepared the inquest reports of the deceased and he had also signed the same.His statement was recorded on the next day of the occurrence.We have carefully examined the evidence of this witness and in our opinion it is reliable and credible.His testimony is corroborated by the post mortem examination and also by the testimony of the investigating officer which clearly indicates that the deceased were done to death inside the car.The investigating officer had collected blood stained Raxine, shoes, broken pieces of car, empty cartridges and one Rifle and pistol of 9 mm of Surya Narain Shukla and prepared its recovery memo (Ext. Ka-26 to Ka-32).There is no dispute about the identity of the assailants as the occurrence took place in broad day light.The statement of this witness also shows that complainant Rakesh Kumar Pandey and Prem Shanker Dubey had received injuries while they were coming out of the car.G.D. entry Ext. Ka-3) shows that complainant Rakesh Kumar Pandey and Prem Shanker Dubey had received injuries and P.W. 2 Uma Shanker Pandey had prepared the 'chithi majroobi' and P.W. 7 Dr. L.S. Misra had medically examined Rakesh Kumar Pandey on 4.4.1994 at 8 15 p.m. and P.W. 6 Dr. A.K. Pandey had medically examined Prem Shanker Dubey on 4.4.1999 at 5.25 p.m. The counsel for the appellants submits that he is close associate of Vakil Shukla and he was also involved in a case of Arms Act alongwith him and he had started doing pairvi of this case after the death of informant.His testimony should be rejected on this ground.He did not avoid any uncomfortable question.He was subjected to extensive cross examination but nothing substantial could be extracted there from which could render either his presence at the place of incident or credibility suspect.His evidence shows that he has fully mentioned the essential features of the prosecution including time and place and of the incident, name of the assailants, names of the victims, manner of assault, name of the informant and motive for the murder.We have no hesitation after careful scrutiny of the evidence to place implicit reliance on his testimony.Another eye witness P.W. 5 is Ram Dutt Misra, His evidence, shows that on the date of occurrence at about 3 p.m. he was coming alongwith P.W. 1 Dangar Tewari from Vindhyachal.He stated that in the Ambassador Car of Vakil Shukla, Devi Shanker Dubey was sitting on the front seat and Shesh Mani Rai was driving the car.Rakesh Kumar Pandey and Prem Shanker Dubey were sitting on the back seat.The appellants were chasing the car and firing with Rifle, Gun, Pistol and Carbine.Tehsildar Singh was giving exhortation to kill them.The Ambassador Car collided with a Bus which was going towards Varanasi.After the accident Kakesh Kumar Pandey and Prem Shanker Dubey came out of the Car and while! they were coming out of the car they received some minor injury.The Rifle of Prem Shanker Dubey left in the car.Thereafter accused had surrounded the car and started indiscriminate firing as a result of which Vakil Shukla Devi shanker Dubey and Shesh Mani Rai died.One of the accused took away the Rifle of Prem Shanker Dubey and all the accused persons were raising slogan Har Har Mahadeo and thereafter they ran away in their Muruti, Sumo, Motorcycle and on other vehicles towards Aural.His statement was also recorded by the investigating officer.He was also subjected to extensive cross examination but nothing substantial could be extracted there from.In our opinion he has fully explained his presence on the spot and there is nothing to suspect his credibility.He has no rancor or ill will against the appellants and in our opinion in the absence of the same he would not falsely implicated the accused.The court should be slow to act on the testimony of such a witness and normally, it should look for corroboration to his evidence.In the light of the above, we have carefully examined his testimony.He admitted that on the alleged date of occurrence he was sitting on the back seat of the car and he had a licensee Rifle alongwith him.He had admitted that when the car stopped he came out of the car and while doing so he received some injuries also.He does not remember whether his injuries were medically examined or not.He does not remember that Rakesh Kumar Pandey was also sitting with him.The testimony shows that he was present in the car alongwith his Rifle.His presence at the police station at the time of lodging of the report is mentioned in G.D. ( Ext. Ka-3) and he was medically examined by P.W. 6 Dr. A.K. Pandey who had examined him on 4.4.1999 at 5.25 p.m. and found two lacerated wounds.His testimony corroborates the version given by the two other eye witnesses.Both the witnesses have stated that Prem Shanker Dubey was sitting on the back seat and while he was coming out of the car he received injuries and his licensee Rifle was left in the car which was taken away by one of the accused.Thus the eye witness account of the case is fully supported by the investigation and the medical evidence on record.The post mortem reports of the deceased persons clearly indicate that all of them had received fire arm injuries from a close range and the place of occurrence is inside the car which is supported by the recoveries (Ext. Ka-26 to Ka-32).The investigating officer has also found dent in the car due to indiscriminate firing by the accused persons and he also made recovery of empty shells.The serologist report also confirms the presence of human blood on the Raxine.Learned counsel for the appellants challenged the findings of the trial court on the ground that participation of 14 persons is doubtful as the medical evidence does not corroborate this part of the evidence that assailants were 14 in number and they have indiscriminately fired.The case of the prosecution is that all the witnesses had witnessed that the assailants were chasing the car and were also firing at the car.The occurrence took place on a busy G.T. road.It is also mentioned that all the accused were firing.Large number of firing is corroborated by the twenty eight pellet marks mentioned by the investigating officer on the ear and it is also mentioned that only some of the pellets could be recovered.It is also noteworthy that the deceased and witnesses who were accompanying them were also armed.In view of this it cannot be said that large number of persons had not participated in the occurrence and this submission has no force.Learned counsel for the appellants had also submitted that one of the appellant Suresh Singh alias Jajjey Singh had moved an application for identification which was rejected on 11.6.1999 by the Magistrate, Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that Suresh Singly alias Jajjdy Singh, were not known to the witnesses prior to the occurrence, therefore, he moved an application for his identification.P.W. 5 did not mention anything about the theft of the Rifle, therefore, he was acquitted of this charge.The State has also not filed any appeal against their acquittal.Tehsildar Singh has been acquitted by the Sessions Judge also on the ground that his role was only of exhortation and there was some contradictions with regard to his place from where he has exhorted and the actual time of his exhortation.In view of this the names of Pintoo Singh alias Sandeep Singh Daroga Singh alias Shri Krishna Singh, Chhunni Singh alias Mata Prasad Singh and Prem Singh alias Prem Bahadur Singh have been disclosed by P.W. 1 Shiv Prasad alias Dangar Tewari for the first time in the court and as such absolute reliance cannot be placed on his statement.

Cited provisions: Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 308 in The Indian Penal Code