MEHTA,J. - (1.) The instant appeal under Section 374 (2) has been preferred by the appellants herein being aggrieved of the judgment dated 27.06.2014 passed by the learned Special Judge, Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Cases), Pratapgarh in Sessions Case No.7/2010, whereby the appellants herein were convicted and sentenced as below :- Name of the Offence for Sentence awarded accused which convicted appellant Nayyum Khan 302 IPC Imprisonment for life alongwith a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo six months' simple imprisonment. 3/25 of the Arms Simple imprisonment for two Act years alongwith a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo one month's simple imprisonment. Tauid Khan @ 302/34 IPC Imprisonment for life Tauhid Khan alongwith a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo six months' simple imprisonment. Brief facts relevant and essential for disposal of the appeal are noted hereinbelow. Shri Kanhaiya Lal (P.W.6) submitted an oral report (Ex.P/7) to Shri Abhay Sharma (P.W.21), Station House Officer, Police Station Pratapgarh on 16.12.2009 at 9.30 p.m. alleging inter alia that adjacent to his agricultural field named Juna Kua, the field of Sadulla Khan S/o Nehrulla Khan, resident of Dorana was located. A dispute was going on between him and Sadulla Khan for last 10-15 years owing to the right of way, due to which, both were on inimical terms. On the day of lodging of the FIR, in the evening at about 8 o'clock, the first informant, his father Ramchandra, Shankar Singh and his brother Badri Lal were warming themselves in front of fire, when a motorcycle came from Sadulla Khan's well towards the boundary wall of their field. The fire had been lit near the way. The motorcycle slowed down after coming close to them. They saw that the motorcycle was being driven by Tauhid S/o Sadulla Khan, whereas Nayyum S/o Sadulla Khan was sitting as a pillion rider. Nayyum fired a gunshot towards the complainant's brother Badri Lal with a pistol like weapon. The gunshot hit Badri Lal on his chest. Immediately after firing the gunshot, the assailants escaped towards Dorana. His brother fell down on receiving the gunshot injury and started bleeding profusely. The complainant and Shankar Singh lifted Badri Lal and boarded him on to the motorcycle for taking him to the Pratapnagar Hospital for treatment. They met the 108 ambulance near the village Kherot, in which Badri Lal was brought to Pratapgarh and was shown to the doctors, who informed that Badri Lal had passed away. The said report was forwarded to the police Station Arnod, with Constable Shri Ramswaroop where an FIR No.326/2009 was registered at 11.15 p.m. for the offences under Sections 302/34 IPC, Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and Section 3/25 of the Indian Arms Act. The investigation was assigned to Shri Abhay Sharma (P.W.21), SHO, Police Station Pratapgarh. The inquest memo was prepared. The dead body of Badri Lal was subjected to postmortem and thereafter, it was handed over to the family members for cremation. The Medical Jurist collected a bullet from inside the dead body and handed the same over to the Investigating Officer. The blood-stained clothes of the deceased were also taken into possession. The site inspection was conducted. The Investigating Officer saw an empty cartridge and blood spilt all around the place of occurrence. The cartridge as well as the blood-stained and control soil were seized. Tread- marks of motorcycle tyres were also seen at the place of occurrence, which too were lifted. The statements of various eye- witness were recorded. The motorcycle bearing Registration No.RJ-09-SB-933, suspected to have been used in the incident, was seized. The list of previous cases registered inter se between the parties was taken on record. The accused Nayyum Khan was arrested and in furtherance of the information provided by him to the Investigating Officer under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, a country-made pistol was recovered. The accused Tauid @ Tauhid Khan was also arrested. Sanction was sought to prosecute the accused Nayyum under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act and thereafter, charge-sheet came to be filed against both the accused persons for the offences under Section 302/34 IPC, Section 3(2) (v) of the SC/ST Act and additionally against the accused Nayyum Khan for the offence under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act. Investigation was kept pending qua the accused Munna Khan. Since the offence under Section 3 (2)(v) of the SC/ST Act was involved, the case was committed to the Court of Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Cases), Pratapgarh for trial. The trial court framed charges against the accused in the above terms. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 25 witnesses and exhibited 50 documents in support of its case. The accused upon being questioned under Section 313 CrPC, were confronted with the allegations appearing against them in the prosecution evidence, which they refuted and claimed that they were innocent. The complainant party had burnt their house, for which a criminal case was registered. Badri Lal was on enmical terms with numerous persons, including one Ratan Chamar. Badri Lal had also brought a woman in Nata, for which, a dispute was going on. One witness was examined and seven documents were exhibited in defence. After hearing the arguments advanced by the prosecution and the defence and upon appreciating the evidence available on record, the learned trial court proceeded to convict and sentence the appellants as above. Being aggrieved of their conviction and the sentence awarded to them by the trial court, the appellants have preferred the instant appeal under Section 374 (2) CrPC. The hearing of the appeal was commenced on 15.03.2019. Upon perusal of the record, this court realized that Shri Raghuveer Singh, who was posted as the Station House Officer, Police Station Arnod on the date of the incident, was the first police officer to reach at the place of occurrence. However, the said Shri Raghuveer Singh was neither cited as the prosecution witness nor was he examined in evidence. Thus, by an order dated 15.03.2019, while exercising powers under Section 391 CrPC Shri Raghuveer Singh was summoned to to record his evidence in the appeal. In furtherance of the said direction, the statement of Shri Raghuveer Singh was recorded by this court on 26.03.2019 as C.W.1. The witness categorically stated that he received the information of gunshots being fired in the village Dorana, on which, he reached the village in the police jeep alongwith police personnel. He came to know that a person named Badri Lal had been shot and had been taken to Pratapgarh District Hospital for treatment. A large number of persons had gathered and the atmosphere was charged. The witness informed the Superintendent of Police, Pratapgarh on phone, on which, he was asked to stay back in the village and look after the law and order situation. He was also told that another officer was being assigned the duty of investigating the murder of Badri Lal. He affirmed that he did not make any attempt of seeking a report etc. of the incident because the Superintendent of Police, Pratapgarh had informed him that another officer was being designated to investigate the case. Be that as it may. After the statement of the witness had been recorded, the matter was finally heard on 25.04.2019. Shri Dhirendra Singh, Advocate, representing the appellants, vehemently and fervently advanced the following submissions for assailing the impugned judgment and seeking acquittal of the appellants :- 1. That the entire prosecution case is false and fabricated. 2. That the first informant Kanhaiya Lal (P.W.6) was not sure about the identity of the assailants and he faltered on this aspect when he was cross-examined at the trial. 3. That the independent witness Shankar Singh (P.W.8) did not support the prosecution story and was declared hostile. After being declared hostile, he supported the defence version that the accused had been falsely implicated in this case for oblique motive. 4. That the evidence of the alleged eye-witnesses Kanhaiya Lal (P.W.6) and Ramchandra (P.W.7) is totally self-contradictory and both the witnesses have given statements, which are full of embellishments. 5. That both the witnesses admitted that the faces of the assailants were covered and hence, it would be virtually impossible for them to identify the accused in the dead of the night. 6. That there was no source of light at the place of the incident and the claim of the witness Kanhaiya Lal (P.W.6) and Ramchandra (P.W.7) that a bulb of 200 Watts was lit at the spot was a sheer exaggeration/improvement, which is falsified by the evidence of Pushpendra Singh Bundela (D.W.1), Assistant Engineer, Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Arnod, who stated that the electricity connection was severed. 7. That the cartridge recovered from the site did not match with the pistol recovered at the instance of the accused Nayyum Khan, when it was subjected to forensic examination. 8. That the tread-marks of the motorcycle collected from the place of occurrence did not match with the specimen tread-marks of the motorcycle suspected of being used in the incident. 9. That the evidence of Smt. Bhulki (P.W.10), wife of Kanhaiya Lal and Smt. Mangudi (P.W.11), wife of Ramchandra, completely destroys the prosecution case because these ladies, not only misidentified the accused, but also admitted that they gave a report to the SHO, Arnod and appended their thumb impressions thereupon. He urged that the prosecution is guilty of concealing the said report, which was a vital piece of evidence necessary for unfolding the truth. 10. That the claim of the eye-witnesses that they were warming themselves in front of fire at a place, which was a passage, is falsified by the admissions appearing in their cross-examination, wherein they conceded that there was no passage, where they were sitting. Thus, as per Shri Dhirendra Singh, the entire prosecution case is shrouded under a cloak of falsehood and the accused deserve to be acquitted by extending them the benefit of doubt. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the appellants' counsel. He urged that the fact that the accused bore animus against the complainant party is writ large on the face of the record and is virtually admitted in the Section 313 CrPC statements of the accused, who themselves alleged that the complainant party had set fire to their house some time ago. Learned Public Prosecutor urged that the list of the criminal cases registered inter se between the accused party and the complainant party forms a part of the record as Ex.P/45 and can be considered relevant to the facts in issue because the same is a public document, which establishes beyond all manner of doubt the animosity existing between the parties. He further contended that the eye-witnesses, i.e. the first informant Kanhaiya Lal (P.W.6) and his father Ramchandra (P.W.7) had given cogent and clinching evidence establishing the fact that the place of the incident was lit by a bulb and that the glow of the fire was also giving sufficient illumination. The appellants herein came around on a motorcycle. Their faces were covered by a muffler only upto their ears and thus, the witnesses, who were their neighbours and with whom, they were embroiled in long-standing and multiple criminal litigation, were definitely in position to identify the accused. He further urged that the incident took place at about 8.00 p.m. acting per by the human conduct, the witnesses immediately tried to rush Shri Badri Lal to the Pratapgarh Hospital so that his life could be saved. The SHO, Police Station Pratapgarh, was authorized to deal with the case, reached the hospital and recorded the oral statement of Kanhaiya Lal (Ex.P/6) at the hospital at 9.30 p.m. and this statement was treated to be the FIR of the case. The names of the accused appellants are set out in the report in very clear terms. The accused appellants are brothers and since the parties are neighbours and are embroiled in criminal cases with each other, manifestly, there could not have been any difficulty for them to identify them even if the light had been faint. He drew the court's attention to the site inspection plan (Ex.P/2) prepared by the Investigating Officer on 17.12.2009, wherein the presence of a track nearby the place, where the deceased and the witnesses were sitting, is distinctly marked. The site plan also mentions the presence of a light bulb tied to a tree near the place, where the witnesses and the deceased were sitting and warming themselves and thus, as per him, identification of the accused by Kanhaiya Lal and Ramchandra cannot be doubted. He urged that the minor contradictions pointed out by defence counsel in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses tend to appear in the natural course, when a truthful witness steps into the witness box for giving evidence. He further urged that admission appearing in the cross-examination of the two ladies, namely, Smt. Bhulki (P.W.10) and Smt. Mangudi (P.W.11), that the SHO, Police Station Arnod took their report in the night time has to be overlooked and ignored because both the witnesses are illiterate ladies and must have been confused by the prolonged and cumbersome cross-examination made from them. He further submitted that in view of the categoric facts discerned in the statement of Shri Raghuveer Singh (C.W.1), manifestly, there was no occasion for the witness to have taken report form the ladies because the investigation had already been assigned by the Superintendent of Police, Pratapgarh to a local police officer and this fact had been communicated to the SHO, Police Station Arnod. He further submitted that the non-matching of the motorcycle tread-marks and the weapon, when subjected to scientific analysis at the Forensic Science Laboratory, is inconsequential because these reports can only be used to provide corroboration to the substantive evidence. He contended that if substantive evidence of the eye-witnesses is convincing, it would require no corroboration whatsoever. As per the learned Public Prosecutor, substantive evidence in the form of testimony of Kanhaiya Lal (P.W.6) and Ramchandra (P.W.7) provides convincing proof about complicity of the accused in the offence and thus, their testimony does not require any corroboration whatsoever in the form of FSL Reports etc. He further submitted that the evidence of these witnesses is corroborated in material particulars by the medical evidence as deposed by the doctor Dr. O.P. Dayama (P.W.17) and the postmortem report (Ex.P/19). He, thus, craved dismissal of the appeal by affirming the judgment rendered by the trial court. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at bar, gone through the impugned judgment and minutely and threadbare re-appreciated the evidence available on record. The prosecution case emanates from the oral report (Ex.P./7) submitted by Kanhaiya Lal (P.W.6) to the SHO, Police Station Pratapgarh Shri Abhay Sharma (P.W.21). The fervent contention of Shri Dhirendra Singh, learned defence counsel was that the prosecution did not lead evidence to prove animosity between the accused party and the complainant party. If this assertion is considered, manifestly, the complainant would not have any reason or motive so as to falsely implicate the accused appellants for the murder of Badri Lal. However, factually the said contention of Mr. Dhirendra Singh is meritless for the simple reason that not only have the two material witnesses Kanhaiya Lal (P.W.6) and Ramchandra (P.W.7) spoken about the inimical relations existing inter se between the parties but even the accused, in their statements under Section 313 CrPC have admitted this fact while stating that the complainant party had set fire to the house of Merulla Khan earlier. The list of the criminal cases registered inter se between the parties was exhibited on record as Ex.P/45. A bare perusal of the list shows that from the year 1998 onwards till the year 2009, the parties have been embroiled in no less than 7 criminal cases, including the one at hand. In view of the fact that the parties, who are immediate neighbours and were daggers-drawn with each other for the last about 10 years, there would be no difficulty for the eye-witnesses to identify the accused even if place of incident was dimly illuminated. The FIR was promptly lodged within a period of one and half hours from the incident and in this FIR, the appellants herein were named as the assailants, who came around on a motorcycle from towards the field of their father Sadulla Khan, slowed the motorcycle near the place, where the complainant party and Shankar Lal were warming themselves in front of a fire. The appellant Nayyum took out a firearem and triggered the same hitting Badri Lal on the chest. There is no discrepancy or embellishment whatsoever in this report. Learned defence counsel tried to draw much water from certain deviations appearing in the examination-in-chief and cross-examination of the witnesses Kanhaiya Lal (P.W.6) and Ramchandra (P.W.7). The relevant parts of the examination-in-chief and the cross- examination, on which the fate of the case hinges is extracted in vernacular for ready reference :- ...[VARNACULAR TEXT UMITTED]...From these extracts of the statements of two material witnesses, it becomes clear as day light that they have given clinching, cogent and unimpeachable evidence, which is sufficient to satisfy the court that they were sitting nearby the dirt track while warming themselves before a fire on the fateful night at 8.00 p.m. The accused had deep-rooted enmity with the complainant party and a large number of criminal cases had been registered inter se between the families and thus, indisputably, they were well known to each other. The two assailants came to the place of occurrence on their motorcycle. Their heads were covered in mufflers, but still their faces were distinctly visible as a light bulb was lit nearby and the fire was giving a gloco. Tauhid Khan was driving the motorcycle and Nayyum Khan was sitting as pillion rider. Nayyum fired the gunshot at Badri Lal, which proved instantaneously fatal. The trivial contradictions appearing in the cross-examination made from the witnesses in no manner affects the evidentiary worth of their testimony. The contention of Shri Dhirendra Singh, learned defence counsel, that there is no passage where the witnesses were sitting is totally untenable because the existence of a dirt track passing nearby the place of occurrence is distinctly marked in the site inspection plan (Ex.P/2) prepared on the very next day of the incident. During the cross-examination of Kanhaiya Lal, the defence, gave a suggestion to the witness that there is common way between the fields of Miyanmed Khan and the accused. Thus, the fervent submission of Shri Dhirendra Singh that there was no passage or track nearby the place, where the complainant party was sitting when the gunshots was fired, is devoid of substance. The fervent contention of Shri Dhirendra Singh based on the statements of Smt. Bhulki (P.W.10) and Smt. Mangudi (P.W.11) is that the FIR (Ex.P/43) is the second report of the matter because an earlier report had already been submitted to Shri Raghuveer Singh, SHO, Police Station Arnod, is untenable when we consider the statement of Shri Raghuveer Singh recorded by us while exercising powers under Section 391 CrPC. It cannot be disputed that considering to the prior enmity existing between the parties, the incident had imminent possibility of turning communal and thus, no fault can be founded in the step taken by the Superintendent of Police, Pratapgarh while assigning the investigation of the matter to Shri Abhay Sharma, SHO Police Station Pratapgarh, whereas the SHO, Police Station Arnod was asked to control and monitor the law and order situation in the village. Shri Raghuveer Singh has explained in detail, the steps he took after reaching the village Dorana and regarding the pertinent communication made to him by the Superintendent of Police, Pratapgarh that FIR of the case had been received at Pratapgarh General Hospital and that the investigation was being assigned to another police officer. After receiving this communication from the Superintendent of Police Pratapgarh, manifestly, Shri Raghuveer Singh would not have been in a position either, to receive any FIR or to conduct investigation into the matter. The two ladies [Smt. Bhulki (P.W.10) and Smt. Mangudi (P.W.11)] while stating that they submitted a report to the police officer on the night of the incident and that their statements were recorded and thumb impressions were taken on papers on the very same night have to be understood as something spoken in sheer over-enthusiasm/ ignorance. The ladies hail from a weaker section of the society and are illiterate and thus, these exaggerations/embellishments appearing in their statements can be overlooked considering the surrounding circumstances, which we have noted above. Thus, this court has no hesitation in holding that the contention of Shri Dhirendra Singh, Advocate, that Shri Raghuveer Singh, SHO, Police Station Arnod received a report of the incident from the two ladies while he was at the village Dorana on the night of the incident, is not tenable and rather there was no occasion for Shri Raghuveer Singh to have taken any such report. These trivial infirmities having been brushed aside, in all probability, the two ladies must have been engaged in their household chores and hence, they would have become aware of the gunshot being fired upon hearing the sound thereof. Manifestly, the menfolk of the family would have told them about the assailants' identity and therefore, these ladies also portrayed themselves to be the eye- witnesses of the complete incident. In this background, even if the statements of the two women Smt. Bhulki (P.W.10) and Smt. Mangudi (P.W.11) are eschewed from consideration, the prosecution case is well- established on the wholesome and unwavering testimony of Kanhaiyalal (P.W.6) and Ramchandra (P.W.7). As has been discussed above, the evidence of these two witnesses does not suffer from any kind of infirmity, shortcoming or material contradictions. As the eye-witnesses have given cogent and clinching evidence regarding participation of the accused in the incident, the non-matching of the cartridge recovered at the spot with the firearm recovered at the instance of the accused Nayyum becomes insignificant. Law is well-settled that if evidence of the eye-witnesses is convincing and trustworthy, the same would not require corroboration in the form of recoveries etc. Thus, we have no hesitation in holding that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused appellants by leading clinching, cogent, convincing and trustworthy evidence of eye-witnesses Kanhaiyalal (P.W.6) and Ramchandra (P.W.7), which establishes beyond all manner of doubt that the accused Nayyum Khan and Tauhid Khan, who were having long-standing enmity with the complainant party, came down to the scene of occurrence on a motorcycle, which was being driven by Tauhid Khan. Nayyum Khan, who was sitting as a pillion rider, fired a gunshot, which hit the deceased Badri Lal on the chest and proved fatal. The facts narrated above amply establish that the two accused had reached the place of occurrence with a common object to kill the members of the complainant party and that in furtherance of this common object, Tauhid Khan drove both the accused to the scene of occurrence, whereafter Nayyum Khan fired a gunshot, which proved fatal to Badri Lal. It is our firm conclusion that the trial court appreciated the evidence available on record in an absolutely just and apropos manner while recording conviction of the accused appellants by the impugned judgment dated 27.06.2014, which does not suffer from any illegality, infirmity or shortcoming whatsoever warranting interference in this appeal. Hence, the impugned judgment dated 27.06.2014 passed by the learned Special Judge, Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Cases), Pratapgarh in Sessions Case No.7/2010 is affirmed. The appeal fails and is dismissed, as being devoid of merit. The record be returned to the trial court. ;