http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 9  

PETITIONER: CHAND KHAN & ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

DATE OF JUDGMENT11/07/1995

BENCH: MUKHERJEE M.K. (J) BENCH: MUKHERJEE M.K. (J) ANAND, A.S. (J)

CITATION:  1995 AIR 2140            1995 SCC  (5) 448  JT 1995 (5)   329        1995 SCALE  (4)276

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:           THE 11TH DAY OF JULY, 1995 Present:           Hon’ble Dr.Justice A.S.Anand           Hon’ble Mr.Justice M.K.Mukherjee Mr.D.D.Thakur, Sr. Adv. Mr.Suman Kapoor, and Mr.Pankaj Kalra, Advs. with him for the appellants. Mr.Anis Ahmed Khan and Mr.A.S.Pundir, Advs. for the Respondent.                     J U D G M E N T The following Judgment of the Court was delivered:           IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA           CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION           CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 716 OF 1991 Chand Khan and anr.           Versus State of Uttar Pradesh                     J U D G M E N T M.K. MUKHERJEE. J.      Chand Khan  and Shabbu,  the two  appellants before us, and seven  others were  placed on trial before an Additional Sessions Judge  of Rampur  to answer  common  charges  under Sections 452,  302/149, 325/149,  324/149 and 323/149 of the Indian Penal  Code (‘IPC’  for short). Against five of them, including the two appellants, a charge under Section 148 IPC and against  the other  four a  charge under Section 147 IPC were also  framed. Besides,  a separate charge under Section 302 IPC was framed against appellant Shabbu. The trial ended in an  order of  acquittal recorded  in favour  of  all  the persons araigned.  Aggrieved  thereby  the  State  of  Uttar Pradesh preferred  an appeal which was partly allowed by the High Court  by  setting  aside  the  acquittal  of  the  two appellants and  three  others.  After  setting  aside  their acquittal the  High Court  convicted the  two appellants for the offence  under Section  302 IPC  as also  for the  other offences for  which they  were charged and sentenced them to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 9  

suffer imprisonment  for life  for the former conviction and for the  period already undergone for the other convictions. The other  three were  convicted of all the charges levelled against them  except the  one under  Section 302/149 IPC and sentenced to  imprisonment for the period already undergone. Assailing the  above order  of conviction  and sentence only the two  appellants have  filed this  appeal invoking  their statutory right under Section 379 Criminal Procedure Code.      Facts which  are not in dispute are that Shah Alam (the deceased), his  cousin Faheem  Khan  (P.W.6)  and  appellant Chand Khan  were carrying  on business  of Karchobi from two separate workshops  in Mohalla  Gher  Pipalwala  within  the police station  of Ganj. Aslam (P.W.7), a boy aged about 7/8 years, had  been working for the appellant Chand Khan in his business but a few days before the incident out of which the present appeal  arises he  left his  services and joined the set-up of  Faheem Khan.  On May  26, 1977 at or about 1 P.M. the two  appellants and  accused Ishtiaq  Khan went  to  the workshop of  Faheem Khan  and asked  him to release Aslam so that he  could work  with Chand Khan again. When Faheem Khan refused to  oblige they assaulted him. For that incident, he lodged a  complaint with  the  police  the  same  afternoon. However, according  to the  prosecution Shah Alam and Faheem Khan used  to carry  on their  above business jointly but as adequate accommodation was not available at one and the same place they  were maintaining two workshops, one in the house of one  Allah Rakha Khan and the other in the terrace of Md. Jama Khan.      The prosecution  version of the incident is that on the same night  (on May  26, 1977) the two appellants along with the other  accused persons went to the house of Shah Alam to teach him  a lesson  for the  report  his  business  partner Faheem Khan  had lodged  against some of them earlier in the afternoon for  assaulting him.  For  that  purpose  the  two appellants went  armed with  Knives and  the rest with other weapons including danda. Shah Alam was then sitting on a cot in the  open space  in front  of his house along with Irshad Khan, Babar  Khan and  Kaisher  (P.W.2).  Immediately  after entering the premises the accused persons started assaulting them. Chand  Khan gave two knife blows to Shah Alam and some others hit  Irshad Khan,  Babar Khan  and Kaisher  Khan with dandas. When  the victims  cried  aloud,  Keramat  Ali  Khan (P.W.1), father  of the  deceased Shah  Alam, who was inside the  house  came  out  and  some  people  from  the  mohalla including Kallan  Mian @  Mardan Mian (P.W.4) arrived there. In the  meantime some of the miscreants including Chand Khan entered into the house of Keramat and assaulted his daughter Sm. Naeema  Parveen (P.W.5)  and his sister-in-law Sm. Raees Begum. When  Sm. Naeema  Parveen found  that Chand  Khan was about to  beat her  mother she  picked up  a knife  used for cutting vegetables which was lying nearby and assaulted him. While coming out of the house Shabhu thrust his knife on the neck of  Shah Alam  felling him  down. All of them then fled away. Keramat Ali Khan arranged immediate hospitalisation of all the  injured including  Shah Alam,  whose condition  was precarious.  Before,   however,  any   treatment  could   be administered Shah  Alam died.  While in the hospital Keramat Ali Khan  got a  complaint written by Asmat Ali Khan (P.W.9) as per  his dictation  and forwarded  the same to the police station.      At the  hospital, Dr.  S.P. Pandey (P.W.3) examined Sm. Naeema Parveen  (P.W.5), Irshad  Khan, Babar Khan, Sm. Raees Begum and  Kaisher Khan  (P.W.2) and found injuries on their persons. P.W.5  had two  incised wounds  which, according to P.W.3, could  be caused  by sharp edged weapon and the other

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 9  

four had  sustained contusions,  which could  be  caused  by blunt weapons. Chand Khan, who was also brought under arrest to the hospital in that very night as he had injuries on his person, was  also examined  by P.W.3. He found three incised wounds on  his person, all of which, according to him, could be caused  by a  sharp edged weapon. Besides, P.W.3 examined Faheem Khan  for injuries  which, he alleged, were sustained by him  in the  incident that  took  place  earlier  in  the afternoon. According to P.W.3 the two stab injuries he found on his  person were  likely to have been caused by a pointed weapon.      The post-mortem  examination on  the body  of Shah Alam was held  by Dr. O.N. Gupta on the following day (27.5.1977) He found the following external injuries on his person:- <SLS>      1. Incised punctured wound 5 cm. x 3 cm.      x chest  cavity deep on the base of left      side neck,  5 cm.  from the  left sterno      clavicular    joint    with    direction      downwards.      2. Abrasion  4 cm.  x 1 cm. on the right      side forehead  3  cm.  above  right  eye      brows.      3. Abrasion  3 cm. x 2 cm. on right side      forehead 3 cm. lateral to injury No. 1.      4. Abrasion  2 cm.  x 1cm.  on the  left      side scapular region back.      5. Incised  wound 2  cm. x  1 cm. x skin      deep on  the left  side  back  at  inner      angle of left scapula.      6. Incised punctured wound 3 cm. x 1 cm.      chest cavity  deep on  left side  back 4      cm. below injury No. 5. <SLE>      On internal  examination of the dead body he found that the sixth rit was cut under injury No. 6; the pleura was cut beneath the  injuries No.  1 and  6, the  left lung  was cut through and  through upper  lobe was  cut both  under injury No.1 and  6 and  the pericardium  and the  right side of the heart were cut by the injury No.1. Dr. Gupta opined that the death was  due to  shock and  haemorrhage as a result of the injuries to vital organs.      Shri V.P.  Singh (P.W.16) Station House Officer of Ganj Police Station  took up investigation of the case registered on the complaint of Keramat Ali Khan. Besides, interrogating him and  the injured  persons in  the hospital  on that very night, he inspected the place of occurrence, prepared a site plan and  seized some blood stained earth from near the gate of   the    complainant’s   house.   After   completion   of investigation he  submitted charge-sheet  against  the  nine accused persons.      The appellants  and the  other accused  persons pleaded not  guilty   and  asserted   that  they  had  been  falsely implicated. In  his statement recorded under Section 313 Dr. P.C.Chand Khan, however, admitted that earlier P.W.7 used to work at  his workshop  but P.W.6  weaned him  away. He  also admitted that  he had  gone to  the workshop  of Faheem Khan with Shabbu  and Ishtiad and asked him to hand over Aslam to him and that he had assaulted him. He however denied to have assaulted him  with a  knife. As  regards  the  incident  in question, his  version was  that on  that night  there was a festivity in  the house  of his  cousin Sajjan  and  Mahboob (since acquitted)  to which he was an invitee. As Rafiouddin of their  mohalla was  also invited in that function he went to his  house which was near the house of the complainant to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 9  

accompany him.  There, on  hearing his  voice, Shah Alam and Kaisher Khan  came out with knives accompanied by Babar Khan and Irshad Khan and started beating him. When he cried aloud Shabbu (appellant),  Sharif  and  Salim  who  were  standing nearby and talking among themselves arrived there. When Shah Alam and  his companions  attempted to  assault  Shabbu  and others, they  in their defence assaulted them. As the ladies of the  house had  come out  then they  also sustained minor injuries. Appellant  Shabbu, in  his statement under Section 313 Dr.P.C.  admitted the  assault on  Faheem Khan  in  that afternoon but  denied  his  presence  at  the  time  of  the incident in question.      To prove  its case  the  prosecution  examined  sixteen witnesses but  no witness  was examined  on  behalf  of  the defence. On  consideration of the evidence adduced the trial Court held that the prosecution case was unworthy of credit. On appeal  the learned  Judges of  the High  Court found the evidence  of   the  four   eye-witnesses  examined   by  the prosecution, namely,  P.Ws. 1, 2, 4 and 5 convincing and the reasons given  by the trial Court for disbelieving them and, for that matter, discarding the case of the prosecution were perverse.      It was  urgeo on  behalf of  the appellants that as the trial Court  gave  detailed  reasons  for  disbelieving  the evidence of the prosecution witnesses the High Court was not justified in  interfering with  the  same  even  if  another reasonably possible  view of  the evidence  in favour of the prosecution might be taken. Having heard the learned counsel at length and seen the judgments of the learned Courts below in the  light of  the evidence  on record,  we find that the High Court  committed no  error or  injustice in interfering with the  order of  acquittal for  it has  noticed  all  the salient features of the case    in the judgment of the trial Court, discussed  them well  and disapproved them for cogent and justified reasons. We are in complete agreement with the High Court that the judgment of trial Court was perverse and deserved to be set aside.      In the  context of the respective cases of the parties, it could  not be - nor was it - disputed that an incident of assault took place in the night of May 26, 1977 in or around the residential  premises of Keramat Ali Khan (P.W.1) in the backdrop of  an earlier  incident in  the afternoon in which Faheem Khan  (P.W.6) was  injured. It  was also not disputed that in  the incident  in question  Shah Alam  met with  his death while  some  others  including  appellant  Chand  Khan sustained injuries. In that view of the matter the principal question that  fell for  determination  before  the  learned Courts  below   was  whether   it  took   place  within  the residential premises  of P.W.1  and in the manner as alleged by the  prosecution or  in the  lane outside  his  house  as claimed  by  the  defence.  To  prove  its  version  of  the incident, the  prosecution relied, needless to say, upon the evidence of the four eye-witnesses referred to earlier while the  defence  relied  upon  the  statement  of  the  accused including the  appellant Chand  Khan made  under Section 313 Dr.P.C. and the circumstances appearing on record.      In negativing  the prosecution  version the trial Court first held,  for reasons  given, that  the assault on Faheem Khan in  the afternoon  by Chand  Khan could not be a motive for committing  the murder  of Shah  Alam and  that no other motive was  ascribed by  the prosecution. Even if we proceed on the  basis that  the  prosecution  failed  to  prove  the genesis or  motive and  that the  above finding of the trial Court in  this regard  is unexceptionable  still  then  this appeal cannot  succeed on  that score for proof of motive is

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 9  

not essential  for success  of a prosecution case where - as in the  instant case - the ocular testimony in support of it is convincing  and reliable.  Indeed, as  our discussion  to follow will  show the  findings recorded  by the trial Court for discarding  the evidence  of the  four eye witnesses are based either  on presumption,  surmise and  conjecture or on undue and  unjustified reliance  upon minor  and  immaterial contradictions.      In  dealing  with  the  evidence  of  the  four  eye  - witnesses the  trial Court first observed that having regard to the  incident that  took place  in that afternoon. Faheem Khan and  Shah Alam  could only be the targets of the attack of the accused persons and not others, namely, Kaisher Khan, Babar Khan  and Irshad  Khan as  testified by  them. It next observed that if their evidence that Shah Alam and the above three  persons   were  sitting  together  in  front  of  the complainant’s house  and were talking to each other when the accused arrived  there was  to be believed, the latter could have caught  hold of Shah Alam from out of those persons and put him to death in no time and then gone back. After making the above observations the trial Court held: <SLS>           "It may  be that the members of the      complainant’s house  might have come-out      at their  door on  hearing the noise and      alarm of  this incident  and  that  they      might  be  rebuking  and  even  accusing      these    accused-persons     on    their      assaulting Shah Alam etc". <SLE>      The trial  Court also  disbelieved the prosecution case as to  the manner  in which the accused persons entered into the house  of the  complainant and  beat the  female members and, in explaining away the injuries found on the persons of Sm. Naeema Parveen and Sm. Raees Begum, observed: <SLS>           "........and truth  of  the  matter      appears to  be that  Sm. Naeema  Parveen      and  Sm.   Raees  Begum  had  accidently      sustained   their   injuries   in   this      incident when  they had  entered in  the      arena of  the fight  for defending  Shah      Alam  etc.   from  the  assault  of  the      accused." <SLE>      The High  Court brushed  aside the  first of  the above quoted findings  of  the  trial  Court  with  the  following comments: <SLS>           "The observation  of the Additional      Sessions Judge  that  the  accused  were      likely to  single out  Shah Alam  and to      assault him  alone in  Shah Alam, Irshad      Khan, Babar  Khan and  Kaiser  Khan  had      been  found   sitting  on   the  cot  is      misconceived and  devoid  of  sense  for      Babar Khan  the brother of Shah Alam and      Kaisher Khan  and Irshad  Khan who  were      his close  relatives could not have been      silent soectators. It is for this reason      that they  had  all  sustained  injuries      around the cot." <SLE>      As regards  the other  finding the  High Court observed that in  view of the nature of the injuries sustained by Sm.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 9  

Naeema Parveen and Sm. Raees Begum and in the absence of any suggestion put  forward by  the defence  that those injuries were caused  accidentally the  criticism of  the trial Court was perverse.      On a  close analysis  of the materials on record we are of the  opinion that  the High  Court was fully justified in making the  above comments. That Kaisher Khan (P.W.2), Babar Khan and  Irshad Khan  were present  at the material time as testified by  the four  eye witnesses  was admitted  by  the defence. It  was also  admitted that  besides Shah  Alam the above three  persons as  well as  lady members  of the house sustained injuries.  However, according  to them,  they  had beaten Shah Alam and other male members in exercise of their right of  private defence  and the  ladies sustained  simple injuries as  they had  then come out of the house. The trial Court therefore  was not  at all  justified in  disbelieving even the  presence of  Irshad Khan,  Babar Khan  and Kaisher Khan at  the spot.      Then again, keeping in view the fact that the  injuries sustained  by Sm. Naeema Parveen could be caused by  a sharp  edged weapon  only and  it being not the case of  the defence that they had with them any such weapon the finding  of the  trial Court that Sm. Naeema Parveen and Sm. Raees  Begum had  accidentally sustained  their injuries must be said to be based on conjecture only.      Another reason  which weighed  with the  trial Court in disbelieving  the  prosecution  case  was  that  there  were discrepancies in  evidence as  to the  details and manner of assault. While detailing those discrepancies the trial Court observed: <SLS>           "According   to   the   complainant      Keramat Ali Khan that cot was lying just      in front  of the  main door of his house      at a  distance of only 2 to 3 steps from      the door  and the entire beating outside      his house  had taken place near that cot      and the  last fatal  blow of  the chhuri      was also  inflicted by Shabbu accused on      Shah Alam  at only 2 or 3 steps in front      of his  main door.  On the  other  hand,      according to  Sm. Naeema  Parveen,  that      cot was  lying at  6 or 7 steps in front      of the main door of the house. According      to P.W.  Kaisher Khan,  to whom that cot      belonged, the  cot was lying by the side      of his chapper, i.e., towards the north-      west  of  the  complainant’s  door  and,      according to  him it was lying at 6 or 7      steps from  that door  towards the  left      side.  According  to  P.W.  Mardan  Mian      alias Kallan  Mian also,  that  cot  was      lying at 7 or 8 steps towards the north-      west from  the complainant’s  door. P.W.      Keraman  Ali   Khan,  at  first,  stated      before me  that the  accused-persons had      beaten Shah  Alam etc,  towards the east      of the  cot. Then  he stated in the next      breath that some of them were beating on      one side,  while the others were beating      on the other side of the cot. Further on      he stated  that the victims were roaming      around that cot, while being beaten, and      the samething  has been  stated by  some      other witnesses." <SLE>

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 9  

The  discrepancies  pointed  out  by  the  trial  Court  are patently of  minor character  and cannot  detract  from  the evidentiary value  of the eye-witnesses. The High Court was, therefore, fully  justified in  ignoring those discrepancies while dealing with the evidence of the four eye-witnesses.      The next  reason  canvassed  by  the  trial  Court  for disbelieving the  prosecution case  was that the evidence of P.Ws. Kaisher  Khan (P.W.2)  and Mardan  Mian  (P.W.4)  only established that  some of  the accused persons had assaulted Shah Alam  and not all. Having recorded the above finding it was imperative  for the  trial Court to consider the case of the individual  accused on  their respective  merits in  the light of other evidence on record and not to outright reject the evidence  of the two witnesses in its entirely for it is trite that  the principle  Single in uno. Falsus in omnibus" does not  apply to criminal trials and it is the duty of the Court to disengage the truth from falsenood.      The judgment of the trial Court is replete with similar such findings  which the High Court has rightly not accepted as correct.  However, to  avoid prolixity  we  refrain  from detailing or  discussing all  of them  and refer only to the concluding one to highlight the absurd and perverse approach of the  trial  Court  in  dispensing  criminal  justice.  It reads:- <SLS>           "It is  quite  probable  that  Shah      Alam etc.  miont be  bearing grudge  and      ill-will  against  Chand  Khan  etc.  On      account of  the noon  incident  of  that      day, in  which the  accused Chand  Khan,      Ishtiaq   Khan   and   Shabbu   had   an      altercation with  P.W. Raheem  Khan  and      had then  beaten him; and it may be that      Shah Alam etc. might have caught-hold of      Chand Khan  accused when  he had gone to      the house  of Rafiquddin for calling him      and that  they might have taken him from      there  in  front  of  the  complainant’s      house and  might have assaulted him with      churis. Then,  it is also quite probable      that the accused Sharif Khan, Salim Khan      and Shabbu  might have  arrived  on  the      spot on  hearing  the  alarm  raised  by      Chand khan  accused and  that Shah  Alam      etc. might  have tried  to assault  them      also  and   thereupon  they  might  have      assaulted Shah Alam etc. with dandas and      chhuri in defence of Chand Khan accused,      as also in their own selfdefence. It has      come  in  evidence  that  the  house  of      Shabbu accused is situated quite near to      the road  crossing and that the house of      Salim Khan  accused is  also situated in      the  same  locality.  So,  it  is  quite      possible that  the accused Shabbu, Salim      Khan and Chand Khan might be standing at      the road  crossing  near  the  house  of      Shabbu accused  and might  be talking to      each-other at  that time  and that  they      might have  reached the  sput on hearing      the alarm raised by Chand Khan accused."           (emphasis supplied) <SLE>      By frequent  recourse to  and reliance  upon the  words "might be"  and "might have" in the above quoted passage the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 9  

trial Court,  instead of finding out which of the contending versions was  correct and  acceptable, gave out a version of its  own   relying  solely   on  presumption,   surmise  and conjecture. The  trial Court  would have  been, on  a proper discussion and aporaisal of the evidence, fully justified to hold that  the prosecution case was unreliable and record an order of  acquittal in  favour of accused without going into the question  as to  whether the  defence case was true, for burden of  proof was upon the prosecution. Equally justified the trial  Court would  have been in recording such an order if it found the defence case probable. But it was not at all justified to  make out a third case entering into the domain of speculation.  The High  Court was,  therefore,  right  in basing its  decision on  a fresh and proper appraisal of the evidence leaving  aside the  obstinate findings of the trial Court. Having  gone through  the record  we do  not find any reason to differ from the decision so arrived at by the High Court.      Mr. Thakur, learned counsel for the appellants, however submitted that  even if  it was  held that the reasons which weighed with  the trial  Court in  recording  the  order  of acquittal were faulty and unsustainable still then the order of acquittal  was liable  to be  upheld for  the evidence on record did not Justify the impugned Judgment rendered by the High Court.  To bring  home his  contention Mr. Thakur urged that the  incident that took place in the afternoon in which Faheem Khan  was assaulted  by Chand  Khan might have been a motive for  the former  to assault  the latter and not vice- versa. In  that  context,  Mr.  Thakur  urged,  the  defence version of  the incident  in question was more probable than that of  the prosecution. This contention of Mr. Thakur need not be  gone into  for we  have earlier observed, and at the risk of repetition may again point out, that as the evidence on record clearly proves that the incident took place in the manner alleged by the prosecution absence or insufficency of motive is  immaterial. Mr.  Thakur next  submitted that  the evidence of  the prosecution  withesses so far as it related to the  assault on  Sm. Naeema Praveen and Chand Khan inside the house  was patently false; firstly. because no blood was found inside  the house  and secondly  because no  knife was produced by  Sm. Naeema  Praveen much  less  seized  by  the Investigation Officer. In support of this contention he drew our attention  to the  evidence of the Investigation Officer (PW 16) wherein he stated that neither he had seen nor shown the vegetable  cutting knife  used by Sm. Naeema Praveen and that he had found blood at the place which was about 8 steps from the northern main door outside the house of Keramat Ali and nowhere  else. We  are not impressed by any of the above contentions.      There is  no evidence  on record to show that there was profuse bleeding  from the  injuries sustained  by  the  two ladies and  Chand Khan  for blood  to trickle  down  to  the floor. On the contrary, the find of blood near the threshold of P.W.1’s  house fits  in with  the evidence  of  the  eye- witnesses and the nature of injuries sustained by Shah Alam. From the  evidence of  Sm. Naeema Praveen (PW 5) we get that when the  accused persons  started beating  the  members  of their family  inside their premises, she her mother and aunt (Raees Begum)  started shouting and cursing them. Then, when they found Chand Khan was approaching them they went inside. There Ishtiaq Khan gave two chhuri blows on the left side of her face  and Sharik  Khan gave  two danda blows to her aunt Raees Begum. When she found Chand Khan was about to beat her mother, she  struck him  with a vegetable cutting knife. The above evidence of P.W.5 stands substantially corroborated by

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 9  

the other  three eye-witnesses  referred  to  earlier.  Then again the  nature of  injuries as  found by  the doctor upon her, Sm.  Raees Begum  and  Chand  Khan  fits  in  with  her testimony. In  our opinion  the best  corroborative piece of evidence is  furnished by  the F.I.R.  which was  lodged  by Keramat Ali  (P.W.1) on  the basis  of what  he  heard  from P.W.5. In  the F.I.R.,  which was lodged within two hours of the incident,  the substratum of the entire prosecution case finds place  including a  statement that during the incident Sm. Naeema  Praveen had,  in defending herself, given a blow to one  of the  accused with  a vegetable  cutting knife. In view of  the above  statement recorded  in the  F.I.R.,  the Investigation Officer  (P.W.16) ought to have taken steps to seize the  knife even if P.W. 5 had not produced it for, one of the  essential requisites  of a  proper investigation  is collection of  evidence relating  to the  commission of  the offence and that necessarily includes, in a case of assault, seizure of  the weapon  of  offence,  but  then  failure  to collect evidence  and failure  to produce evidence collected during  investigation  at  the  trial  carry  two  different connotations and consequences. While, the former may entitle the Court  to hold  the investigation  to be  perfunctory or tainted affecting the entire trial in case of the latter the Court may legitimately draw a presumption in accordance with Section 114(g)  of the  Evidence Act.  As the case presented before us comes under the first category of failures we have to find  out whether  we will be justified in discarding the prosecution  case   solely  for   the  remissness   of   the Investigating Officer  in seizing  the knife. The consistent and reliable  evidence of the eye witnesses coupled with the nature of  injuries sustained by some of them and Chand Khan and the  fact that  in the F.I.R. it has clearly been stated that one of the miscreants had been assaulted by a vegetable cutting knife  do not  persuade us to answer the question in the affirmative. Mr. Thakur lastly submitted that the entire prosecution story  was improbable for if really the incident had happened  in the  manner  alleged  by  it,  the  persons present in  P.W.1’s house  would have sustained more serious injuries. We  do not  find any  substance in this contention for it is evident that Shah Alam was the main target and the assault on  others was  carried out to thwart any resistance from those present in the courtyard.      As all the points raised by Mr. Thakur fail and as on a conspectus of  the entire  evidence we  are fully  satisfied that the  conclusions drawn  by the High Court, particularly regarding the roles played by the two appellants in the riot and the  murder of Shah Alam are unexceptionable, we dismiss the appeal.  The appellants,  who are  on  bail,  shall  now surrender to their bail bonds to serve out the sentences.