Judgment R.J.Bahadur, J. 1. The three appellants were prosecuted in connection with an incident which took place on the 3rd September, 1965, at about 7 P.M. in village Ekrama, Police Station Ariari, in the district of Monghyr, in the house of the deceased, Rajendra Das, which resulted in his death. Appellant Mahendra Das has been convicted under Section 302 and the other two appellants have been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code., Each of the three appellants has been awarded a sentence of imprisonment for life. 2. Shital Das, Gajadhar Das, Khublal Das and Teka Das (P.W. 4) were brothers, Shital had two sons, Ambika Das (P.W. 2) and Mahabir Das. Ambikas son was Rajendra, who has been killed. Mahabirs wife is Ramrati, whose sons are Parmanand and Mahendra. They are appellants in this case. Ramchandra Das (P.W. 7) is son of Gajadhar Das and Deonandan (P.W. 3) is son of Khublal Das. Dakho (P.W. 1) is the wife of Teka Das (P.W. 4). 3. The prosecution case was that a few days before the date of occurrence, Saraswati, widow of Shital Das, executed a sale-deed in favour of Rajendra. This annoyed the appellants. In the evening of the 3rd. September, 1965, Ramrati came from Jamalpur along with accused Parmanand. As soon as they arrived in the Angan, there was exchange of hot words between Parmanand and Rajendra. This was in relation to the execution of the sale deed, referred to above. Parmanand was armed with a Saif. Exchange of hot words led to quarrel, in which there was scuffle between Parmanand and Rajendra. Ambika (P.W. 2), father of Rajendra intervened. He himself received slight injury, while attempting to separate them. While the scuffle was going on, Mahendra asked his mother, Ramrati, to bring a dagger from the house. Ramrati brought a dagger and handed it over to Mahendra. Mahendra pierced that dagger into the chest of Rajendra on the right side, as a result of which he fell down and subsequently died. Next morning, the first information report was lodged by Teka Das (P.W. 4) at Ariari Police station, which is at a distance of ten miles from the place of occurrence. A case was instituted and these appellants were put on trial. 4. The defence was that the accused persons were falsely implicated in this case. Next morning, the first information report was lodged by Teka Das (P.W. 4) at Ariari Police station, which is at a distance of ten miles from the place of occurrence. A case was instituted and these appellants were put on trial. 4. The defence was that the accused persons were falsely implicated in this case. On the alleged date of occurrence an altercation had taken place between Parmanand and Rajendra. Rajendra was armed with a Saif, and had struck Parmanand with it causing him an injury on the chin. Many persons were present in the Angan at that it might be possible that those persons assaulted Rajendra, 5. The trial court believed the prosecution story and convicted and sentenced the three appellants, as mentioned above. 6. The finding of the court below that there was an incident in which a dagger was pierced in the chest of Rajendra, which resulted in his death in the night of the 3rd September, 1965, has not been challenged. There is ample evidence in support of it. The evidence of the eyewitnesses to the occurrence gets support from the medical evidence. The Doctor found piercing injury in the chest of the deceased, which, in his opinion, was the cause of the death. 7. The question is, as to whether these appellants participated in the occurrence, as alleged by the prosecution. In this connection, the prosecution has examined two eyewitnesses to the occurrence. There were three witnesses named in the first information report, but, one of them, namely, Sarswati Devi, died and as such only two persons, namely, Dakho (P.W. 1) and Ambika (P.W. 2) have been examined as eyewitnesses "to the occurrence. Some other persons were also produced by the prosecution to give hearsay account of the incident, but they turned hostile and the Court below has rejected their statements and that was on good grounds. They made conflicting statements at the different stages of the prosecution. The findings of the court below are, therefore, based upon the testimony of these two eye-witnesses to the incident. Both these witnesses are residents of the same courtyard. They have consistently supported the prosecution case in full. Their evidence indicates that a lantern was burning in the house. The Sub Inspector of Police found the lantern when he had gone to the spot. Both these witnesses are residents of the same courtyard. They have consistently supported the prosecution case in full. Their evidence indicates that a lantern was burning in the house. The Sub Inspector of Police found the lantern when he had gone to the spot. It is said that in the light of that lantern they could notice the incident in detail. These appellants were known persons. They were of the same house and relations and as such there could not have been any difficulty in identifying these appellants. 8. Dakho (P.W. 1) is the grand aunt of Rajendra. She is equally related to the accused persons. There is no reason why she would be telling falsehood to implicate these appellants. Nothing has been suggested in this connection. In her cross-examination there is no suggestion of any enmity between this witness and the accused persons. She lives in the same courtyard. Her competency to speak on the point cannot be doubted. Her evidence is that after assault Rajendra moved a few steps and fell down at the Darwaza (meaning the passage). This is supported by what was found by the investigating officer. He found blood at the Darwaza. There was no blood in the Angan. It is argued that this lady is not a truthful witness inasmuch as in her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure she had said that Rajendra fell down in courtyard. That might have been a confused statement. For this discrepancy her evidence cannot be rejected. Her statement in court gets support from the findings by the investigating officer, as noted above. It has been argued that absence of blood in the courtyard falsifies her statement that assault took place in the courtyard. The Sub Inspector found blood at the place where he fell down. In the Angan, of course, where the assault is said to have taken place, there was no blood. There may be various reasons for this. Immediately Rajendra had moved a few steps away and, therefore, there was no occasion for falling of blood on the ground where the occurrence took place. Further, the blood might not have oozed out immediately. Therefore, this is no reason to reject her testimony. Again she has stated that after receiving the blow, Rajendra survived for about two hours in a state of consciousness. Further, the blood might not have oozed out immediately. Therefore, this is no reason to reject her testimony. Again she has stated that after receiving the blow, Rajendra survived for about two hours in a state of consciousness. The Doctors statement is that he could not have survived for more than half an hour. From this contradiction it is stated that this lady is telling a lie. She is an illiterate lady of a village and no mathematical calculation can be made on her idea of time. She has said that Rajendra could not speak anything so long as he survived. With reference to the statement in the first information report that the first informant learnt about the incident from Rajendra also it has been argued that this lady is not speaking the truth. The statement in the first information report is not a substantive piece of evidence. No attention to that statement was drawn in the cross-examination of the first informant himself. That being so, nothing can be argued on that basis. I do not see any reason to doubt the testimony of this lady. 9. The next eye-witness is Ambika (P.W. 2), the father of the deceased. His presence at the time of the occurrence cannot be doubted. He himself received a cut injury as found by the doctor. It is not possible to believe that having witnessed the incident, this witness would leave the real assailants of his son and falsely implicate these accused persons. No enmity has been suggested, under such circumstances, I do not see any reason to doubt the testimony of this witness as well. 10. Learned Counsel for the appellants has submitted that the place and time of the occurrence have been changed. There is no material in support of this. It is said that the place of occurrence has been changed, as there was no blood in the Angan. I have already dealt with this matter in the earlier part of this judgment. Further the prosecution case in this respect gets support from the statement, of the accused persons themselves recorded under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, I do not find any material from which it can be said that the place of occurrence has been changed. Further the prosecution case in this respect gets support from the statement, of the accused persons themselves recorded under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, I do not find any material from which it can be said that the place of occurrence has been changed. with regard to the time of the occurrence, it is said that P.W. 1 has stated that the deceased remained unconscious for two hours and that is not consistent with the medical evidence. The medical evidence is merely an opinion. Further, as noted above, the witness may not have the exact idea of time. On post, mortem examination semidigested food was found. It has been argued, on the basis of the statement of P.W. 2 to the effect that Rajendra had not taken meal that evening, that the occurrence had taken place at some other time and the time of the occurrence as given by the prosecution is not correct. The evidence of P.W. 2 shows that he had just returned from outside when the incident took place. Therefore, if he has stated that Rajendra did not take his meal, that can be confined only to the period during which he was there. He cannot be said to be a competent person to speak outside. So nothing can be built upon, his statement in that connection. There could be no sense in changing the time of occurrence. Therefore, have no reason to doubt the prosecution story regarding the time of the occurrence. 11. Learned Counsel has further submitted that there has been interpolation in the first information report that is to say, the latter portion of the first information report has been subsequently written, after the police visited the spot. It has been contended that this indicates the anxiety on the part of Teka Das, informant, to falsely implicate the accused and so his wife came forward as an eye-witness. There is no substance in this contention. If Teka Das had any intention to falsely implicate the accused, he himself could have claimed to be an eye-witness. This argument is based upon the existence of the signature of the first informant on the second page also of the first information report. There is no substance in this contention. If Teka Das had any intention to falsely implicate the accused, he himself could have claimed to be an eye-witness. This argument is based upon the existence of the signature of the first informant on the second page also of the first information report. This may be due to the fact that the first information report was continued to the other sheet and, "therefore, the signatures were obtained on the first as well as on the subsequent sheet. It is apparent from the first information report itself that it was not concluded on the first sheet. The general concluding statement regarding the report having been read over and explained to the first informant does not find place on the first sheet. It is only at the end of the report. Therefore there is no substance in the contention that there has been an interpolation in the first information report subsequently. 12. It has further been argued that the investigation is tainted, so much so that the police Sub Inspector did not examine some Muslim neighbours. There is nothing in the evidence to indicate that the investigating officer was in any way prejudiced against the accused persons. The incident having taken place inside the house of the deceased, the Muslims, who resided in the neighbourhood cannot be expected to have witnessed the incident. In such circumstances, if the investigating officer did not examine them, nothing can be made out of this. 13. On a consideration of the entire evidence and the circumstances of the case, I have absolutely no doubt that the prosecution story, as narrated, has been fully established by reliable evidence. 14. Now the question is as to what offence has been committed by these persons. So far as appellant Mahendra is concerned, he pierced a dagger in the chest of Rajendra. It was pierced with such a force that it want to the extent of six inches deep at shows that the intention of the assailant was to cause death or at least to cause such injury which in the ordinary course of nature would cause death. That being so, there cannot be any doubt that appellant Mahendra is guilty of an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 15. That being so, there cannot be any doubt that appellant Mahendra is guilty of an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 15. So far as appellant Parma-nand is concerned, he has been convicted of the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code. There is no evidence of any preplanning on the part of these accused persona to commit the murder. According to the evidence, Parmanand had come with a Saif. He had exchange of hot words and even scuffle with Rajendra, but still he did not strike him with the Saif. It was only when he was scuffling with Rajendra and holding him that Mahendra suddenly pierced his dagger into the chest of Rajendra. From this it cannot be inferred that Parmanand shared with Mahendra the common intention of killing Rajendra. Therefore in my opinion, Parmanand cannot be held guilty of an offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 16. So far appellant. Ramrati Devi is concerned, the only evidence against her is that on being asked by Mahendra, she brought out a dagger from her house and handed it over to him. It was with that dagger that Mahendra assaulted Rajendra. While asking the lady to bring out the dagger, Mahendra did not speak anything which could have indicated his intention to kill Rajendra. In that situation, if the lady brought out the. dagger, it will be too much to say that she had the intention in common with Mahendra to kill Rajendra. It may be that she was under the impression that by the dagger Mahendra would scare away Rajendra and his father. In absence of any expression of his intention by Mahendra, it is doubtful, whether this lady would be held guilty of sharing the common intention with appellant Mahendra. She is entitled to the benefit of doubt in this regard. 17. The result is that the orders of conviction and sentence passed against appellants Parmanand and Ramrati arc set aside and they are discharged of their bail bonds. The appeal of appellant Mahendra Das is dismissed and the orders of conviction and sentence passed against him are affirmed.