B.K. Sharma, J. - (1.) This is a Government appeal against the order dated 22.9.1976 passed by Sri Y.P.Singh, the then IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Agra, in Sessions Trial No. 189 of 1974, under Sections 302, 307/149, 147, 148 and 325/149 Indian Penal Code whereby he found the accused-respondents to be not guilty for the said offences and acquitted them of the same. The deceased in this case was Dharm Singh. Dharm Singh had a brother Ram Singh. Bahadur Singh is the son of Deceased Dharam Singh. Bahadur Singh has two sons Mahendra Singh Devendra Singh, allof whom were injured in this occurrence. Mahendra Singh was the informant and commplainant P.W.3). Accused-respondents Gayani and Aidal are real brothers inter se being sons of Girwar. Bhanwar Singh and Soran, accused-respondents, are real brothers inter se being sons of Bhogi Ram. Narain and Betal, accused-respondents are sons of Pitamber. The prosecution story as disclosed in the statement of Mahendra Singh, complainant (PW.3) at the trial was that there was an old enmity between the complainant's family and the accused party that a litigation had taken place about hand in which the complainant side had succeeded, that a theft had taken place at the house of his grand-father Ram Singh, the first information report about which was lodged against Gyani and Bhanwar Singh, Accused respondents, that a litigation had also taken place between the parties in consolidation courts, where also the complainant side had won that on 27.8.1972 at about 12.30 P.M. in broad-day light he (complainant Mahendra Singh) went to the well of the village for taking bath, that Bhanwar Singh, accused-respondent, also came to take bath at the well, that there was only one Ghiri (Pully) at the well, that on his drawing water from the well Bhanwar Singh, accused-respondent, started hurling abuses on him, that Bhawan Singh, accused respondent asserted that he would draw water from the well first, that he (Mahendra Singh complainant) stated that he (Bhanwar Singh, accused respondent) may draw water from the well subsequently, that thereupon Bhanwar Singh, accused respondent, started hurling abuses on him (Mahendra Singh complainant), that he (complainant Mahendra Singh) drew water from the well and went to his own house, that at that time Bhanwar Singh, accused respondent, went away saying MAIN APNE AADMI LAKER TUJHE ABHI THEEK KARA DOONGA", that after some time Narain, Betal, Gyani, Adal, Soran, Bhanwar Singh, Sujan, Gyasi, Nathi and Ishwari, accused-respondents, came at his (complainant's) door and started burling abuses on him (Mahendra Singh complainant), that at that time Ishwari, accused-respondent, was carrying a gun, while the other accused-respondents were carrying Lathis, that when he (Mahendra Singh complainant) called upon Gyani, accused-respondent, not to do so, Gyani, accused-respondent said "IS SAALE KO AAJ THEEK KAR DO", that the accused persons started beating him (complainant) with lathis, due to which he received injuries, that on an alram raised by him, his brother Devendra Singh (injured), his father Bahadur Singh (injured) and his grand-father Dharm Singh (deceased) came there, that thereupon they also were beaten by the accused-respondents; that near his house there was the house of Nathi, that Ishwari, accused-respondent, climbed over the roof of the house of Nathi with Sidhi and from that roof Ishwari, accused-respondent, fired with his gun, which struck on the head of his (complainant) grand-father Dharm Singh (deceased) and a pellet also struck the complainant's father Bahadur Singh (injured) who was standing at a distance of about 7-8 feet from Dharm Singh (deceased), that on the fire having been made the persons of the complainant side shifted here and there, that Dharm Singh (deceased) fell down on the spot, that Bhanu Pratap Singh, Chhote Lal Tyagi, Balbir and Ram Sewak witnesses came to the spot and saw the occurrence. The first information report was scribed by Bhanu Pratap Singh (PW8) at the dictation of Mahendra Singh complainant (PW3), which is Ex. K-10. Mehendra Singh complainant went to police Station Shamshabad taking the written first information report and Dharm Singh deceased in his injured condition, accompanied by Bhanu Pratap Singh (PW 8), Balbir Singh (P.W.7) and Devendra Singh injured with him and lodged the first information report at the police station Shamshabad at 17.30 hrs. on the basis of the said first information report a chik report (Ex. Ka-2) was prepared by Head Mohirrir Radhey Lal Gautam (P.W.2) and an entry was also made by him in the G.D. at serial no. 12 at 5.30 P.M. (whose copy was Ext. Ka-3) after the case was registered under Sections 148, 149, 307, 323 Indian Penal Code against the accused respondents. From the police station Dharam Singh (deceased) in his injured condition, complainant Mahendra Singh (injured P.W.3) and Devendra Singh (injured) were sent to Emergency Department of the District Hospital, Agra. Dharam Singh (deceased), in his injured condition, was medically examined by the Medical Officer, S.N. Hospital, Agra on 27.8.72 at 6.30 p.m. His general condition was very poor. He was unconscious pupils-right eye perforated, left eye perforated, left eye dilated and fixed. He was bleeding from ears, nose and mouth. The Doctor found the following injuries on the body of injured Dharam Singh: "Multiple pellet wounds over the forehead, face, nose, Rt. parietal and left parietal regions of head and right eye. The distance between the pellet wounds ranged from 1/2" to 2". There was no charring or tattooing. The right eye was perforated with bleeding and vitreous oozing out. Haematoma over the Rt. parietal region 1/2" and another haemoatoma over the Lt. parietal region 2"/2" in size. Haematoma over the upper eye-lid Rt. side." In the opinion of the Doctor, duration of the injury was fresh, the injury was caused by fire arm and the nature of injury was grievous. The injured was admitted to the Hospital and he died in the Hospital. After his death intimation about his death was received at the police station by radiogram on 28.8.72 at 1.45 P.M. on the basis of which the case was converted to under Section 148, 149, 302, 323 Indian Penal Code. The entry in the G.D. about the death of Dharm Singh (deceased is at serial No. 10 in the G.D.) made by constable clerk Shiv Ram Singh (copy of G.D. entry is Ext. Ka-4). Sri Mahendra Singh, complainant (injured was medically examined at S.N. Hospital, Agra the same day by the Medical Officer at 6.30 P.M. He found the following injuries on his person: (1) A sharp cut wound 2 cm / 3 cm. over the bridge of nose, depth 3 mm. (2) An abrasion over the Rt. anterior superior illiac spine 1" 1/2". (3) Contusion over the Rt. upper arm on lat. aspect about 3" below the acromion process size 2-3/4". (4) Abrasion over the Rt. mid inter-scapular region extending from Rt. inferior angle of scapula to the spine of 14. Size 41/2". (5) Contusion over the Lt. sapra scapular region 31/2" in size. (6) Contusion over the posterior aspect of Rt. forearm in the middle, 31/2" 1/2" with diffuse swelling around. (7) Contusion over the Lt. buttock 2"/ 1/2" in size. (8) Abrasion over the left knee on medial aspect 1/4"/1/4" in size. In the opinion of the Doctor these injuries were fresh and that injury No.1 was caused by a sharp edged weapon and the rest of the injuries were caused by blunt weapons, and that the nature of the injuries was simple (injury report is Ext. Ka-13). Medico Legal rEgister containing the injuries is on record. Devendra Singh injured was medically examined the same day by the Medical Officer, S.N. Hospital, Agra. He found the following injuries on his person : (1) A lacerated wound over the Lt. parietal region 1/2" in size, scalp deep. (2) A lacerated wound over the junction of medical and middle third of the clavicle 1/2"/1/4" in size, skin deep. (3) a contusion over the Rt. scapula extending from acromion process to the base of spine of scapula 6"/1/2" in size. (4) A contusion in the Rt. supra scapula region 3"/1/2" in size. (5) Contusion over the post chest wall on Rt. side over the Rt. 8th and 9th ribs, 2" Rt. to mid line size 1"/11/2". (6) A contusion over the Lt. lumber region on post, aspect 51/2" in size. (7) A contusion over the lt. scapula in the middle 2"/1" in size. In the opinion of the Doctor these injuries were fresh and were caused by blunt object, and that nature of these injuries was simple (injuries report is Ext. Ka-14). Bahadur Singh injured (P.W.4) was also medically examined by Medical Officer of District Hospital, Agra on 28.7.92 at 6 A.M. He found the following injuries on his person. Bahadur Singh injured was brought to the District Hospital by Constable Nar Singh of P.S. Shamshabad, Agra. The Doctor found the following injuries on his person:- (1) Lacerated wound 11/2" x 1/4" x scalp deep on top of skull. (Advised X-Ray). (2) G.S. wound 1" x 1/10" with abstrased contusion (reddish) 1/2" x 1" with swelling 1 11/2" x 1" around the upper and middle part of right side of chest 1" below right clavicld. Advised X-Ray. (3) Contusion (Reddish) 2" x 1" on middle, third of right thigh. (4) Lacerated wound 1/4" x ⅛" x skin on upper part of right leg back aspects. In the opinion of the Doctor, all these injuries were simple, except injuries nos. 1 and 2, which were kept under observation, for which X-ray was advised. The injuries were caused by blunt object (injury no. 2 by fire-arm). In the opinion of the Doctor, duration of the injuries was about a day old. (Injury report was Ex. Ka-6). X-ray report in respect of Bahadur Singh injured showed that there was no evidence of fracture there in the injury in the skull, there was evidence of a metallic Radio opaque shadow (pellet) over the Rt. upper part of chest near lateral chest wall. There was also surgical emphysena on the Rt. side of chest (above the claviculo axilliary border) (X-ray report was Ex. Ka-11). Dharam Singh, accused-injured died in S.N. Hospital on 28.8.72 at 9.45 P.M. and the intimation about it was received by radiogram at 1.45 P.M., on the basis of which the case was converted into Sections 302, 307/149 and 325/149 Indian Penal Code and entry about it was made in G.D. at serial 10 at 1.45 P.M. (copy of which was Ex. Ka-4). The investigation of this case was started by S.O. Jagpal Singh in normal course, but he colluded with the accused persons and was not proceeding against them and got a fictitious report made in the name of one Rajendra. The injured informant-complainant therefore, filed a complaint on 29.9.92 (Ex. Ka-5) before the A.D.M. (J). He gave a notice to the I.O. through Sri Jagdish Prasad Advocate, Collectorate Court on 23.12.72 (Ex. Ka-7). The Magistrate recorded the evidence under Sections 200 and 202 Criminal Procedure Code and then directed summons to go to accused respondents and then he committed the accused respondents to the Court of Sessions (S.T.No. 189 1974). After committal the accused respondents were charged by the Court of Sessions. In the session court accused respondent Ishwari was charged under Section 148 Indian Penal Code. He was further charged under Section 302 Indian Penal Code simpliciter for committing the murder of Dharm Singh. He was further charged under section 307/149 Indian Penal Code for having injured Bahadur Singh in prosecution of the common object of the unlawful assembly. He was further charged for the offence under Section 325/149 Indian Penal Code for having caused grievous hurt to Devendra Singh and Mahendra Singh in prosecution of the common object of unlawful assembly. Remaining accused respondents Gyani, Aidal, Bhanwar Singh, Soran, Narain, Betal, Sujan Singh, Nathi and Gwasi were charged for the offence under Section 147 Indian Penal Code, they were further charged for the offence under Section 302/149 Indian Penal Code for committing murder of Dharam Singh along with accused respondent Ishwari. They were further charged for the offence under Section 3/7/149 Indian Penal Code in respect of the injuries inflicted on the body Bahadur Singh injured. In respect of Causing of grievous hurt to Devendra Singh they were further charged under Section 325/149 Indian Penal Code. The accused-respondents pleaded not guilty of the charged and claimed to be tried. Post-mortem examination on the body of Dharm Singh (deceased) was performed by Dr. Rama Kant Sharma, Medical Officer, District Hospital, Agra at the mortuary on 29.8.72 at 10 A.M. His observations were as follows:- "Probable age - 60 years. Died on 28.8.72 at 9.45 A.M." External examination reveals, average built body, rigor-mortis was present on lower extremities and was absent of upper portion. The Doctor found the following antemortem injuries on the body of Dharam Singh deceased:- (I) Multiple gun shot wounds each 1/10" x 1/10" x skin and scalp deep an area of 10" x 9" over the frontal region and upper half of face from nose above right side. Out of the wounds four gun shot wounds are skull deep, two gun shot wounds of entry were 1/10" x 1/10" on right side of forehead, one gun shot wound of entry 1/10" x 1/10" on middle of forehead and one gun shot wound of entry over left side of forehead. No blackening or tattooing was seen scorching was seen over gun shot wound. Direction of the gun shot wounds was downwards. (II) Swelling in size 5" x 4" over the left side of face from ear to lower Jaw. Twelve pellets recovered from frontal region of scalp. Heamatoma was present over frontal region. There was Heamatoma present on let tamporal region in the skull bone. There pellets were removed over the membranes right side of forehead and middle of the forehead. One pellet was removed from brain which had entered the membranes. Clotted blood was present on the right side of brain. In the opinion of Doctor, the death was due to coma as result of gun shot injuries (brain). At the trial the prosecution examined Dr. Rama Kant Sharma (P.W.1), S.J. Radhey Lal Gautam (P.W.2), Mahendra Singh (P.W. 3), Bahadur Siangh (P.W.4) Dr. A.P. Jain (P.W.5), Jagdish Prasad Tyagi (P.W.8). Out of these prosecution witnesses, Dr. Rama Kant Sharma (P.W.1) was the autopsy surgeon, S.I. Radhey Lal Gautam (P.W.2) was the Head Moharrior, who prepared the check report, and made G.D. entry about the conversion of the case consequent upon the death of the deceased Dharam Singh. Dr. A.P. Jain (P.W.5) examined the injuries of Bahadur Singh injured. The formal proof of the injury reports about the other injured was dispensed wity. Ocular testimony about the occurrence, has been given by Mahendra Singh (P.W.3) (injured informant complainant. Bahadur Singh, injured (P.W.4), Balvir Singh (P.W.7) and Bhanu Pratap Singh (P.W.8). Rest of the evidence was formal. The accused-respondents did not lead any oral evidence and the documentary evidence filed by them did not relate to the date of occurrence. The Sessions Judge held that the prosecution had not come with clean hand and rejected the prosecution case. He further held that the veracity of the defence version cannot be completely eliminated. He, therefore, gave the benefit of doubt to the accused-respondents and acquitted them on all the charges. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The learned Additional Government Advocate has claimed that the appraisal of evidence made by the trial court is manifestly unreasonable and perverse and there are glaring infirmities in the judgement of the trial court resulting into gross miscarriage of justice and that so this court has full jurisdiction to interfere with the order of acquittal. The defence counsel has on the other hand supported the judgement of the Sessions Judge and argued that this court should be slow in interfering with the acquittal by the trial court before whom the witnesses were examined and that even if two views be possible on the evidence the finding of acquittal given by the Sessions Judge ought not be disturbed. Reliance was placed on the authorities K. Ramchandra Reddy and another v. The Public Prosecutor, 1976 Criminal Appeal Reporter 278 (SC) ; and Edige Sanjanna and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1976 Cri. A.R 7 (SC) . It is true that in an appeal against an order of acquittal this Court should not interfere as a matter of course but should give proper weight and consideration to such matters as : (1) the view of the trial judge as to the credibility of the witnesses; (2) the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, a presumption certainly not weakened by the fact that he has been acquitted at his trial; (3) the right of the accused to the benefit of any real and reasonable doubt; and (4) the slowness of an appellate court in disturbing a finding of fact arrived by a judge, who had the advantage of seeing the witnesses; (5) the High Court should also take into account the reasons given by the Court below in support of its order of acquittal and must express its reasons in the judgement which lead it to hold that the acquittal is not justified; (6) further if two conclusions can be based upon the evidence on record, the High Court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court. It would follow as a corollary from that, that if the view taken by the trial court in acquitting the accused is not unreasonable, the occasion for the reversal of that view could not arise. However, subject to these considerations, the High Court has full power to review at large the evidence on which the order of acquittal was founded and to reach the conclusion that upon the evidence the order of acquittal should be reversed as laid down in the authority S. Madhavan Nair v. State of Kerala, A.I.R. 1974 SC page 1857 . This authority was quoted with approval in the authority Edige Sanjanna and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh (Supra) relied by the learned defence counsel. So the law is that if the view on the evidence taken by the trial court was manifestly erroneous, unreasonable and utterly unsustainable the interference of this Court is warranted. In other words, if it is found that the appreciation of evidence made by the trial Judge is lop-sided and perfunctory and the conclusion reached by him on the evidence on record appears to be an impossible one or is an unreasonable one, this Court can certainly interfere with the order of acquittal. The appreciation of evidence is required to be done on the broad probabilities of a case and the evidence of the witnesses cannot be thrown away because of a few discrepancies here and there or some immaterial omission of because their version is exaggerated. If the story is probable in the sense that it is coming in natural flow and it finds support from the surrounding circumstances it cannot be suggested that the story must be photographically accurate and should stand the test of word to word and in measurement inch to inch. Ocular testimony has been given by the informant Mahendra Singh (P.W.3), Bahadur Singh (P.W.4), Balbir Singh (P.W.7) and Bhanu Pratap Singh (P.W.8). The informant-complainant Mahendra Singh is himself an injured in the occurrence and so his presence on the scene of occurrence cannot be doubted. Bahadur Singh (P.W.4) is also an injured in the occurrence and so his presence also on the spot cannot be doubted. It may be that his name was not mentioned in the F.I.R. that he was not taken to the police station or to the Hospital straightaway and his medical examination was not made on the same day but on the next day in the morning but no such suggestion was made to him by the defence that he was not present on the spot or that his injuries were manipulated or were received at same other time in some other occurrence. Bhanu Pratap Singh (P.W.8) is an Advocate. He lives in Lohamandi, Agra but his testimony is that he belongs to the village of occurrence and that his father and brother live in the village and that he keeps on visiting the village. It has not been challenged. He testified that on the date of occurrence he had gone to his village in the morning; that Chote Lal Tyagi had also gone with him. Bahadur Singh (P.W.4) has testified at page 3 of his evidence; "CHHOTE LAL TYAGI VAKEEL HAI AUR SHRI BHANU PRATAP EK JUNIOR VAKEEL HAI..." US DIN ITWAR KI CHHUTTI MEN DONO GAON AYE THE." It was not suggested to him that the date of occurrence was not Sunday. So the visit of a junior lawyer from the head quarter where he lived to his village house on a Sunday in the morning would be quite natural and probable regard being had to the common course. He is the scribe of the F.I.R. He even accompanied the informant complainant to the police station. His presence is recorded in the G.D. entry about the registration of the case at the police station at 7.30 P.M. on the date of occurrence 27.8.72. Bahadur Singh (P.W.4) testified at page 3 of his evidence that he and Bhanu Pratap Singh (P.W.8) did not live in the same house but lived in houses facing each others (that is their houses were in immediate vicinity of each other). So if he visited the village on the date of occurrence in the ordinary course he was a natural witness of the occurrence. Balbir Singh (P.W.7) was not a resident of the village of occurrence but he testified that he was a client of Bhanu Pratap Singh, advocate (P.W.8) and was taking to him (Bhanu Pratap Singh) and that when Shorgul was heard they came out on the door of the house and saw the occurrence. His visit to the advocate on a Sunday at his native village should also be quite probable. He too accompanied the informant to the police station. The ocular testimony of the informant Mahendra Singh and the other eye-witnesses is corroborated by the injury report and the postmortem of Dharam Singh deceased. As per prosecution evidence Ishwari accused had fired from the roof of Natthi and injured the deceased Dharam Singh in his head. Dharm Singh and all others were on the ground. The direction of the injuries of the deceased was expected to be downwards and it was so found by the autopsy surgeon. He also found scorching in the wound. The ocular evidence was further corroborated from the injury report of the informant, injury report of Devendra Singh injured and injury report of Bahadur Singh injured (P.W.4). There is no allegation that the injuries of all these persons were self-inflicted or self-sustained. The testimony of the informant complainant Mahendra Singh is also corroborated by F.I.R. lodged by him at the police station at 17.20 hours the distance being 5 miles. The occurrence took place soon after 12.30 P.M. Mahendra Singh informant (P.W.3) has testified at page 3 of his evidence; "..PHIR MAIN REPORT KO LEKAR WA DHARM SINGH KO CHARPAI PAR LEKAR THANA SHAHSHABAD GAYA. MERE SATH BHANU PRATAP SINGH, BALBIR WA DEVENDRA BHI THANE GAYE THE." He has testified in his cross examination at page 8 that they started for the police station at about 1 or 1.30 P.M. and reached at the police station at 4 or 5 P.M. because it was raining and they had gone slowly. There is no suggestion to him that they had gone by some other conveyance or that it was not raining. Here I may mention that the G.D. entry about the registration of the case (Ex. Ka-3) contains a clear reference that the injured has been brought on a cot, "... MAIN CHARPAI JISPAR So, the first information report was lodged with reasonable promptitude. It is a broad day light occurrence. The time and place of occurrence has not been disputed by the defence. Therefore, there was no scope for not identifying the assailants by these witnesses. The prosecution had set out two 'motives' for the occurrence. One long range and the other an immediate one. The informant-complainant Mahendra Singh (P.W.3) had testified that Dhram Singh deceased was his grant-father that, that they had an old enmity with the accused persons and a litigation had taken place about agricultural land with them, in which they (the complainant side) had succeeded and further that a theft had taken place in the house of his grand-father Ram Singh i.e. brother of Dharm Singh deceased, about which a report was lodged against Gyani and Bhanwar Singh accused-respondents and further that a litigation had also taken place between the two sides in consolidation, in which also the complainant side had won. There was no challenge from the side of defence to these facts. So, the accused-respondents were bound to have a perpetual grouse against the family of the complainant side. Nothing revolves on the nominal denial of enmity by the accused-respondents Betal, Bhanwar Singh, Gyani, Ishwari, Sujan, Soran, Gyasi, Narain, Aidal and Nathi accused in their statements under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code in reply to the question regarding enmity. Then comes the immediate motive. The prosecution has set out an immediate motive. It has come in the testimony of Mahendra Singh, informant-complainant (P.W.3) that on the date of occurrence 27.8.72 at 12.30 P.m. he went to the well of his village for bathing, where Bhanwar Singh accused-respondent was also bathing; that at the well there was only one Ghirri (pulley); that on his pulling water through the pulley Bhanwar Singh accused respondent started abusing him and when he was pulling water through the pulley, Bhanwar Singh accused respondent said "PAHILE MAIN KHEECHUNGA", that thereupon he replied "TUM MERA BAD KHEECH LENAT, whereupon Bhanwar Singh accused respondent started hurling abuses; that after drawing water he Mahendra Singh informant went to his house and Bhanwar Singh accused respondents also went away saying "MAIN APNE ADMI LAKAR TUJHE ABHI THEEK KARA DUNGA". The occurrence took place soon after that at the door of informant-complainant Mahendra Singh (P.W.3). The prosecution has thus set out the genesis of the occurrence, which was quite natural and probable. The learned Sessions Judge has rejected the evidence about this genesis on flimsy grounds. He has referred to the statement of Mahendra Singh (P.W.3) at page 5 of his judgement his testimony was that when he went to the well and when he put his bucket in the well Bhanwar Singh accused appellant did not say anything but when he had drawn the bucket to half the distance that Bhanwar Singh accused appellant said that he will like to 'draw water first'. The learned Sessions Judge at page 5 of his judgement observed that it is very unusual that a person will try to plunge his own bucket when the other man was half way; that if he was actually on the look out to insult Mahendra Singh, he would have started the altercation from the very beginning. It is very difficult to follow this reasoning particularly when there was a background of long standing enmity between these two families. The prosecution is not required to explain as to why Bhanwar Singh accused did not interpose his claim to draw water first from the very beginning and why he started the altercation when the bucket of Mahendra Singh informant was half way. If one has made up his mind to pick up a quarrel, he can do so at any moment on the least pretext. The learned Sessions Judge has found it much improbable that Bhanwar Singh accused would have gone with so many persons to attack Mahendra Singh informant at this house when Mahendra Singh had returned to his house without taking his bath and when Bhanwar Singh accused respondent had already insulted Mahendra Singh informant and Mahendra Singh informant had not retaliated. Here I may mention that the defence had not set out any alternative genesis of the occurrence (To this point of defence version, I will advert at a later stage). The learned Sessions Judge was then critical on the point that on returning from the well Mahendra Singh informant did not tell at this house that there had been an altercation with Bhanwar Singh accused at the well and when did not tell to any members of his family about the altercation at the well with accused Bhanwar Singh when the accused respondents had come to his house and started abusing them. He found this omission by Mahendra Singh informant strange. In my view Mahendra Singh informant might have taken the incident at the well to be a trifle and might have ignored the threat given by Bhanwar Singh accused to him while departing from the well. Further, when the accused respondents had formed an unlawful assembly and assembled at the door of his house armed with a gun and Lathis, he had hardly any time to tell the members of his house as to what had happened at the well. The learned Sessions Judge has stated at page 5 of the judgement that when Mahendra Singh came out (from his house) he saw that Ishwari (accused) had a gun and others were standing with Lathis and spears and commented that still he did not try to go back inside his house and close the door. He repeated the point at 6 of his judgement stating that still after having seen all these accused and seeing Ishwari climbing the roof with a gun he did not turn back and close the door of his house and concluded that the entire conduct of Mahendra Singh was abnormal. About it, it is enough to say that these were not good ground to reject his evidence. No two persons react to the same set of circumstances in the same manner. Moreover, it is evident from his (Mahendra Singh informants) evidence that he did not take the threat given at the well by Bhanwar Singh accused respondent seriously and did not anticipate any trouble at the door of his house soon after and that was why he and his family members were taken unawares and that was why they did not try go inside their house to close the doors and that is why Bahadur Singh injured and Ram Singh brother of Dharm Singh deceased could not bring their own licensed guns and use them. Sometimes persons who have weapons at their house are not able to reach at the same and use them. In fact, even those who have their weapons with them are sometimes not able to use their weapons in an occurrence, which they did not anticipate. Here I may mention that the Sessions Judge has made a wrong statement, one at page 5 and twice at page 10 of his judgement that as per prosecution case the assailants were armed with spears as well. Actually, there is no such evidence led and no allegation from the prosecution side. The learned Sessions Judge has also drawn an adverse inference from the fact that Bhanu Pratap Singh (P.W.8) who was a Khandani brother of the informant, did not take out his own gun at the time of the occurrence. Bhanu Pratap Singh might have his own reasons for not taking out his own weapon in defence of the complainant party. In my view no adverse inference could legitimately be drawn from the failure of Bahadur Singh (P.W.4),Ram Singh and Bhanu Pratap Singh (P.W.8) to take out and use their licensed guns in the occurrence. The learned Sessions Judge has also drawn an adverse inference against Mahendra Singh informant by reason of the fact that he claimed that all the accused-respondent have beaten him, his brother and father for about half an hour, whereas the injuries on the persons of these three men were not so numerous. About it, it is enough to say that it is very common that some of the villagers and witnesses exaggerate in describing the facts of an occurrence. The beating might have not taken place for about half an hour but it was very much there and it did take same time. I have already noted about that in the occurrence Mahendra Singh informant his father Bahadur Singh and his brother Devendra Singh had received numerous blunt injuries on their bodies. The learned Sessions Judge was not justified in rejecting the prosecution evidence because of an exaggeration made in the evidence of a prosecution witness. The Supreme Court authority Om Prakash v. State, 1994 (3) ACC 460 (SC) may be referred in this regard. The Court is required to took to the substance and not to be led away b y petty exaggerations here and there. The learned Sessions Judge has also criticised the statement of Mahendra Singh, informant-complainant that when the accused were beating them Ishwari accused fired. In the original judgement of the learned Sessions Judge, the words on the subject are available at page in the 4th line,"....He further states that when the accused were beaten then Ishwari fired..." Mahendra Singh informant never said that the accused were beaten by the prosecution side and then Ishwari fired. He only testified to the beating given to the complainant party by the accused and said that when the other accused were beating them Ishwari accused fired. The state of this witness on the point is available at page 6 of his evidence in the original record in the following words : "...JAB BAKI NAU MULAZIMAN MAR RAHE THE TABHI ISHWARI NE FIRE KIYA...." The learned Sessions Judge has observed:" I do not think it was sensible for Ishwari to fire the shot when the accused were busy in beating Mahendra Singh etc. because in that case there was every chance of injuring his own companion..." About this observation, it is enough to say that Ishwari accused-respondent had fired from the roof of Natthi which was in the vicinity of the house of the complainant party and that there was nothing in the evidence to indicate that beating was being done by other accused persons just in front of the house of Natthi so as to expose them to fire of Ishwari accused. Bahadur Singh (P.W.4) stated at page 6 of his statement: "JAB ISHWARI NE GOLI CHALAI TO BAKI MULZIMAN HAMSE ATH DAS KADAM DOOR HAT GAYE THE...." Bahadur Singh further stated at page 6 of his evidence that when the accused persons had completed beating them and went towards their houses then Ishwari fired. The discrepancy may be there but such discrepancies are bound to come in the statement of every truthful witness. I may mention here even at the cost of repetition that complainant Mahendra Singh and witness Bahadur Singh were both injured in the same occurrence and that the occurrence was a broad day light occurrence. The faculty of observations, retention and of re-production of the details of an occurrence differs from individual to individual. One's memory however, retentive it be, goes on failing with the lapse of time and in view of all this, it is abundantly clear that discrepancies are bound to occur in the statement of the witnesses for one or more of the reasons mentioned. Therefore, minor inconsistencies and contradictions have to be ignored and overlooked. In this regard a Division Bench authority of this Court, Raj Kumar and others v. State, 1994 (31) ACC 481 may be seen. In the present case the learned Sessions Judge has been led away by immaterial considerations. The learned Sessions Judge has rejected the testimony of Balbir Singh (P.W.4). He has stated that this witness for all purposes is a chance witness; that there was absolutely no occasion for him to be present in the village on that day and at that time and that he is no that day and at that time and that he is not a resident of this village but is a client of Bhanu Pratap Singh who is a lawyer. He further observed that the witness stated that he was going to visit a relation but since Bhanu Pratap Singh's village fell in the way, he went to him to take some advice about the case which was pending; that be did not even go to the village of his relation's place on that day and that he did not say as to what particular advice was so urgent that be broke his journey so much so that he gave up the idea of visiting his relations for which purpose he had initially started from his own village. It is true that the evidence or chance witnesses is proverbially false but not necessarily so. His testimony ought not to have been rejected simply because he was not a natural witness of the occurrence. Only his evidence was to be read with caution to ascertain whether he was really present on the spot at the time of the occurrence and whether he was in a position to see the occurrence and whether there was anything improbable in this evidence, which may justify its rejection. The visit of a client to the house of a lawyer on a Sunday (the date of occurrence was a Sunday) is not anything strange or unusual. It is a normal thing that the client often visit their lawyers at their houses to seek an advice. There is also nothing strange in this witness in not proceeding further and not going to his relation for which he had originally stated. He could have even stated that he had come to visit the advocate to seek an advice. Further, his name appears in the F.I.R. as an eye witness. He had also accompanied the complainant and other injured persons to the police station. His name also appears in the G.D. entry about the registration of the case. Moreover, nothing revolves in this case on (rejection of) his testimony. As even if his testimony is rejected, there is evidence of other injured witnesses to corroborate the prosecution version. Therefore, it is immaterial if the learned Sessions Judge had entertained some doubt as to whether this witness knew the accused persons from before the occurrence as there was an enmity between the said Advocate Bhanu Pratap Singh and the accused-respondents of this case. The learned Sessions Judge has also observed in his judgement that this witness was under influence of Bhanu Pratap Singh, Advocate, PW 8. He has also rejected the evidence of Bhanu Pratap Singh P.W.8 who has given eye-witness account of the occurrence, stating that various circumstances of making reports or complaints against him and his other family members were suggested but he admitted only one case. In the case of an inimical witness, his testimony has to be scrutinised with caution and then it may be accepted or rejected, but there is no rule that the testimony of an inimical witness must be taken to be false and would always be discarded even if there is good evidence of injured eye-witnesses of a broad day light occurrence as has been done by the learned Sessions Judge. The fact that he was the scribe of the F.I.R. does not militate against his evidence. He was a khandani brother of the informant and so he may be called an interested witness but there was nothing unnatural in his scribing the F.I.R. of throwing of the bricks that he and other injured of the prosecution side received injures. There is a mention about only one fire-arm injury of the deceased and it was suggested specifically that it was caused by the fire made by the informant complainant Mahendra Singh (P.W.3). It is also significant that no different time or date or place of occurrence was suggested to this witness. In other words, the defence suggestions to this witness fixed the date, time and place of occurrence and also fixed the participants in the occurrence and thereby gave ample corroboration to the prosecution story and evidence. I have already noted above that the informant-complainant was himself an injured witness and so his presence on the spot cannot be doubted. I have also already noted above that it was a broad day light occurrence. I may also mention here about the cross examination of Bahadur Singh (P.W.4). He was also injured in the occurrence. Deceased Dharm Singh was his father and grant father of Mahendra Singh injured. His cross examination about the defence version has come at page 7 and 8 of his evidence. It was elicited from him that an altercation had taken place between Mahendra Singh informant-complainant and Smt. Dhanwanti on 26.8.1972 on grazing of a cow. It is also significant that Mehendra Singh informant-complainant (P.W.3) was not suggested in his cross-examination that on 27.8.72 Smt. Dhandwanti started heating him and that he had pushed her, thereupon, she had fallan down. It was further suggested to this witness (Bahadur Singh P.W.4) at pages 7 and 8 of his evidence that on 27.8.72 the cattle again entered the Bajara-field of Preetam and on this an altercation took place and that on the well Mahendra Singh informant-complainant came and stated hurling dirty abused and after it Dharm Singh, Ram Singh, Devendra Singh, Surendra Singh and others came there and snatched away the cattle and started hurling abuses and after Gali-Galauj bricks were thrown from both sides whereupon he (Bahadur Singh P.W.4) and Ram Singh fired with guns and that he (Bahadur Singh P.W.4) fired from the Chabutara of Gopi and Natthi; that Mahendra Singh (informant-complainant) also fired from that place and his fire struck Dharm Singh deceased who was returning from the well towards his house and that when Dharm Singh received fire-arm injury, he was in front of the house of Jhinguria. He refuted all these suggestions. It is significant to note that in the said suggestions the name of Ram Singh (brother of Dharm Singh deceased) had also come along with the persons who had fired from the side of the prosecution though it is not stated that his fire struck any body. It is also significant that this witness was suggested a spot where Dharm Singh deceased received his fire arm injury. He was further suggested by the defence in his cross examination at page 8 that he (Bahadur Singh P.W.4), Mahendra Singh (P.W.3) and Devendra Singh received injuries by those bricks which were thrown from both sides in the occurrence. In his cross examination also there was no suggestion made about any alibi of any of the accused-respondents. This witness Bahadur Singh (P.W.4) was suggested that the pellet fired from his gun struck the wall of house of Bhanwar Singh accused-respondent. He was also suggested that he had fired a gun shot after coming rate near the well. Such a suggestion was not made to Mahendra Singh informant (P.W.3). Mahendra Singh informant was also not suggested that the fire-arm injury was received by Dharm Singh deceased in front of the house of Jhinguria. Informant-complainant Mahendra Singh (P.W.3) was also not suggested in his cross examination that the pellets of fire by Bahadur Singh's gun struck the wall of house of Bhanwar Singh accused-respondent. Balbir Singh (P.W.&) and Bhanu Pratap Singh (P.W.8) were also not suggested any defence version of the occurrence in their cross examination. They were only suggested that they had not seen the occurrence. In this statement under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code Betal Singh accused denied the enmity with the complainant party and denied the occurrence. In reply to the last question No. 15 he stated "NATTHI WA RAM SINGH KE PURANE MAKAN SE MAHENDRA NE BANDOOK CHALAEE THI JISASE DHARM SINGH KE CHHARRE LAGE." He did not say anything further. It is significant that he did not say about any occurrence with Smt. Dhanwanti on the date of occurrence. He also did not say about trespass of the cattle into the field of Preetam and any altercation. He also did not say that the cattle were snatched away by Dharm Singh, Ram Singh, Devendra Singh and Surendra Singh. He also did not say that the brick-bats were thrown from both sides or even from any side. He also did not say that any fire was made by Ram Singh or that any fire was made by Bahadur Singh (P.W.4). He confined his statement only to the fire allegedly made by informant-complainant Mahendra Singh (P.W.3). Bhanwar Singh, Gyani Ram, Ishwari, Sujan Singh, Soran Singh, Gyasi Ram, Narain Singh, Aidal Singh and Natthi Lal, accused-respondents, also in their statements under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code, denied the enmity and made denial to other questions also and in reply to the last question No. 15 all these accused gave the same stereo typed reply as given by Betal Singh accused respondent and neither anything more nor less. It will be seen that none of the accused-respondent claimed their absence from the scene of the occurrence and none of them claimed that they had inflicted any injury on any person on the prosecution side and they also did not claim that any brick-bats were thrown by any side at the spot. So there was no question of the alleged brick-bats" being found on the spot by the Investigating Officer. It was no doubt suggested to Bahadur Singh (P.W.4) that a case of fire by Mahendra Singh striking Dharm Singh (deceased) was pending and it was elicited from the informant that a cross case was pending. However, the accused-respondents carefully avoided placing their cross F.I.R. on record even though they filed numerous non-cognizable reports of different dates prior to the date of occurrence. This omission to place on record the cross F.I.R. must be held deliberate. It may be mentioned here that the prosecution has examined the then head Moharrir Radhey Lal Gautam (P.W.2) to prove the check report and the G.D. entry about the registration, of the prosecution case and so there was every opportunity for the defence to prove the cross F.I.R. and the G.D. entry about it. In the state of prosecution evidence and this state of defence there was absolutely no justification for the learned sessions Judge to discard that the prosecution had not come with clean hands and that a fair amount of doubt about the prosecution story being correct is there and that the veracity of defence version was naot such which can be completely eliminated and a fair amount of doubt remains that it is quite probable that the shot might have been fired by Mahendra Singh himself which accidentally hit Dharm Singh. All the more, it was unfair for the learned Sessions Judge to have concluded after making the above observations that under the able advice of the lawyer, who was readily available and had also family ties, the prosecution story was chalked out and the blame was shifted on these accused. Before making the said observations he also observed at page 12 of his judgement with continued at page 13 that there is no sanctity at all which can be attached to the F.I.R. in this case because Sri B.P. Singh is a practising lawyer and his advice was available to the complainant from the very out set. There is no justification for making this criticism. Firstly, the evidence goes to show that the learned Sessions Judge was unfair in observing that Bhanu Pratap Singh (P.W.8) was not present in the village on the date of occurrence and secondly it is also unfair to think that in case the F.I.R. has been scribed by an advocate it must be a false or concocted or twisted one being based on the legal advice. The instrinsic merit of the F.I.R. is to be considered in the light of surrounding circumstances. I may mention here that Bhanu Pratap Singh has stated in para 1 of his evidence that he is practising since 1969. The occurrence related to 27.8.1972. It means that he had been practising for just 3 or 4 years on the date of the occurrence and was not a seasoned senior lawyer who could be expected to weight the pros and cons of every allegation to be made and the other circumstances to be narrated in the F.I.R. The learned Sessions Judge has himself found an omission in the F.I.R. that it did not mention about Bahadur Singh being hit by a stray pellet. This omission naturally goes to indicate that the F.I.R. was not scribed after deliberation but in the ordinary course making narration of broad facts of the case, so much so that the injury of Bahadur Singh (P.W.4) was left out therein. We have noted earlier that the fact that Bahadur Singh received injury at the time and the place of the occurrence is a stark fact, which the defence does not challenge. That being so, there could be no reason to make a deliberate omission of his name in the F.I.R. The learned Sessions Judge has observed at page 12-13 of his judgement about this omission in the F.I.R.". Whether it was an inadvertent omission or deliberate, one can never say but normally speaking it could not have been possible that Bahadur Singh could have concealed his being hit by a pellet or the informant did not know that Bahadur Singh had also been injured by a pellet." This reasoning also is difficult to accept. It could not have been a deliberate omission. there was no occasion for Bahadur Singh injured to conceal his being hit by a pellet and since the informant was himself an injured in the occurrence and it was himself an injured in the occurrence and it was he who took the deceased in his injured condition to the police station. It could not be said that he did not know that Bahadur Singh had also been injured by a pellet. There must have been hurry, which was natural in taking the deceased in his injured condition to the police station so that from there he could be taken to the hospital for treatment. The only inference from the circumstances is that it was this hurry and also the fact that injuries of Bahadur Singh were very insignificant as compared to the injuries of the deceased Dharm Singh (who was alive at that time) which led to the said omission. For the same reason Bahadur Singh injured was not taken to the police station the same day. The complainant in his statement has stated at page 8 that he did not take Bahadur Singh injured with them because his condition was bad. This could not have meant that the injuries of Bahadur Singh were serious. It only goes to show that Bahadur Singh had become nervous or otherwise was not in a position to accompany to the police station. We have noted earlier that the deceased was carried to the police station on a cot. So there was absolutely no justification for discarding the prosecution F.I.R. of this case. The learned Sessions Judge while concluding the judgement has observed that he did not mean to say that the prosecution version is definitely false but it is evident that the prosecution has not come with clean hands and a fair amount of doubt about its story being correct has been created and extended the benefit of doubt to all the accused. How the doubt of benefit to which an accused is entitled in every criminal case is a doubt which is reasonable regard being had to the totality of the circumstances of the case and the probabilities and not the doubt of a vacillating mind. The learned Sessions Judge without any basis has come to the conclusion that probably the gun shot may have been fired by Mahendra Singh (informant) himself which hit Dharm Singh (deceased). There was absolutely no basis for drawing the inference that Mahendra Singh informant was armed with a fire arm and he had used it. In fact the medical report about the injuries of the deceased and the antemortem injuries recorded in the postmortem report practically ruled out the possibility of his (deceased's) injuries having been the result of a fire which accidently hit him. The injuries of the deceased have been deliberately inflicted by fire arm and there was no justification to reject the ocular testimony produced by the prosecution. Even if the learned Sessions Judge had rejected the testimony of Balbir Singh (P.W.7) and Bhanu Pratap Singh (P.W.8) there was the testimony of the informant Mahendra Singh (P.W.3), who himself was an injured, and also the testimony of Bahadur Singh (P.W.4), who was also an injured in the occurrence for rejection of which there was no justification at all. In view of the above discussion, the judgement of acquittal passed by the trial court cannot be allowed to stand for a moment. The prosecution has succeeded in establishing the guilt against all the accused-respondents. It was Ishwari accused-respondent who climbed the roof and fired at the deceased Dharm Singh causing his death. It will be thus a case falling under clause firstly of Section 300 Indian Penal Code. If the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death. In any case the case will fall under clause thirdly of Section 300 Indian Penal Code." If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death." We have noted the antemortem injuries of the deceased Dharm Singh, which were on vital part head. It cannot be doubted that there was an intention to inflict the injuries which have been actually inflicted on the body of the deceased. it cannot be said that his injuries were accidental or intentional or that some other kind of injuries were intended. The antemortem injuries of the deceased was on vital part of his body and were undoubtedly sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. So in any case all the ingredients of clause thirdly of Section 300 Indian Penal Code3 are fully established. So the offence under Section 300 simplicitor Indian Penal Code is established beyond doubt against Ishwari accused. From the evidence on record it is equally established that all the accused-respondents formed an unlawful assembly, the common object of which was to commit murder of Dharm Singh deceased. Bahadur Singh injured, Devendra Singh Injured and Mahendra Singh injured. So the offence under Section 148 Indian Penal Code and the offence under Section 307/149 Indian Penal Code in respect of injuries of Bahadur Singh injured are also made out against Ishwari accused. In respect of the injuries of Devendra Singh injured and injuries of Mahendra Singh injured the charge was framed under Section 325/149 Indian Penan Code. But the medical reports indicate that their injuries were only simple in nature. So Ishwari accused respondent could be held guilty only for the offence under Section 323/149 Indian Penal Code in this regard. In regard to remaining accused respondents, namely Gyani, Aidal, Bhanwar Singh, Soran, Narain, Betal, Sujan, Natthi and Gyasi, the offences under Sections 147 Indian Penal Code and 302/149 Indian Penal Code are also established. The offence under Section 307/149 Indian Penal Code against these remaining accused respondents is also established for the injuries caused to Bahadur Singh injured. In regard to the injuries caused to Devendra Singh, injured, and Mahendra Singh, injured, the offence under Section 323/149 Indian Penal Code as against the said remaining accused respondents is also established. Now coming to sentence for the offence under Section 302 simplicitor Indian Penal Code in respect of Ishwari accused respondent the normal sentence of life imprisonment would be adequate. The same would be the position in respect of offence under Section 302/149 Indian Penal Code in respect of the remaining accused respondents. For the offence under Section 307/149 Indian Penal Code in respect of each accused respondents the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of 4 years each would be adequate. For the offence under Section 148 Indian Penal Code in respect of Ishwari accused respondent a sentence of rigorous imprisonment of 2 years would be sufficient. For the offence under Section 147 Indian Penal Code in respect of all the remaining accused respondents the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of one year would be sufficient. For the offence under Section 323/149 Indian Penal Code in respect of each accused respondent a sentence of rigorous imprisonment of six months each would be adequate. All the sentences ought to run concurrently. ORDER The Government appeal is accordingly allowed. The judgement and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Agra in Sessions Trial No. A-189 of 1974, State v. Ishwari and others, dated 22.9.1976 acquitting all the accused respondents is set aside. Accused Ishwari is convicted of the offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code simplicitor and is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. He is further convicted for the offence under section 307/149 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of four years. He is further convicted of the offence under section 148 Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of two years. He is also convicted for the offence under Section 323/149 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of six months. Accused Gyani, Aidal, Bhanwar Singh, Soran, Narain, Betal, Sujan, Natthi and Gyasi are convicted of the offence under section 302/149 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life each. They are further convicted of the offence under Section 307/149 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of four years each. They are further convicted of the offence under Section 147 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year each. They are also convicted of the offence under Section 323/149 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of six months each. All the sentences in case of each accused respondent shall run concurrently. Let all the accused respondents be taken into custody forthwith and sent to the District Jail concerned to serve out their sentences in accordance with law. Let a copy of this Judgement be certified to the sessions Judge concerned for information and compliance. The compliance report be submitted to this Court within a fortnight from today.;