Judgment Ram Naresh Thakur and S.H.S.Abidi JJ. 1. Both these appellants have been convicted under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and each of them has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. Appellant Ram Kumar Ishar has been further convicted under sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code but no separate sentence has been awarded to him under this count. 2. There is a High School in village Hari Prasad, police station Jandaha within the district of Vaishali, which is popularly called Hari Prasad Janta High School. P.W. 1 Ramyad Jha was the Headmaster of that school in the year 1980. The deceased Brajnandan Prasad Sinha was a clerk of the said High School. The informant Ajit Kumar Sinha (P.W. 7), (wrongly written as Anjani Kumar Sinha in paragraph 2 of the judgment) is the son of the aforesaid Brajnandan Prasad Sinha, the deceased: and on 10th September, 1980, he was a student of that social. The deceased and P.W. 7 were residents be village Kumaiya and both of them used to attend the school from their house. On that fateful day, i.e. 10th September, 1980, at about 10.15 a.m. the informant (P.W. 7) along with his deceased father left their house for the school. While they were coming to the school, these two appellants came out of a maize field. Appellant Sanjeeb Kumar caught hold of the deceased from the back and appellant Ram Kumar Ishar assaulted him (the deceased) with garasa. Sanjeeb was armed with a dagger and Ram Kumar was armed with a garasa which is generally used for cutting grass. All this happened when they were about 250 yards south of the school. Sanjeeb Kumar felt the deceased down in the field and also assaulted him with chhura. Ram Kumar also assaulted the deceased on the neck. The informant raised alarm. Both the appellants threatened the informant to kill him on which he ran towards the school. The appellants chased the informant but when they found persons coming, they tied away. Some of the students and others who came on hulla, chased the appellants and they succeeded in apprehending appellant Sanjeeb Kumar who was brought to the school. Appellant Ram Kumar, however, succeeded to escape away. The deceased was taken to the school with the help of the Headmaster (P.W. 1) and others. Some of the students and others who came on hulla, chased the appellants and they succeeded in apprehending appellant Sanjeeb Kumar who was brought to the school. Appellant Ram Kumar, however, succeeded to escape away. The deceased was taken to the school with the help of the Headmaster (P.W. 1) and others. A homeopath doctor was called there who advised them to take the deceased, who was alive at that time, to Samastipur hospital. A jeep was arranged and the deceased was taken on the jeep for Samastipur but on the way he succumbed. Thereafter the dead body was again brought back to the school. Soon thereafter, the Sub-Inspector of Police (P.W. 9), who was at that time posted at Jandaha police station as Junior Sub-Inspector, came to the place of occurrence on the basis of some information. He (P.W. 9) reached the school at 12.30 p.m. Large number of people had gathered there. He also found a jeep bearing number WEP-5665 in which the dead body was lying. He recorded the statement of P.W. 7, which is Exhibit 4, on the basis of which a formal first Information Report was registered and a case was instituted. He took up the investigation of the case. He also took charge of appellant Sanjeeb Kumar. 3. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted and ultimately those two appellants were put on trial where nine witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution to prove the charges. The appellants denied the allegation. Four witness were also examined on their behalf. D.W. 1 had brought a register from Hajipur hospital D.W. 2 is a pleader Commissioner who had measured the distance of the school from the place of occurrence; D.W. 3 is a warden of Hajipur jail and he had brought the admission register; and D.W. 4 is a Civil Surgeon posted at Hajipur during the relevant period and he proved some entries of the jail. On a consideration of the entire evidence and materials on the record, the learned court below convicted and sentenced the appellants as staled above. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants bas strenuously argued "that the trying Court failed to appreciate the evidence properly and, therefore, according to him, it came to a wrong conclusion. On a consideration of the entire evidence and materials on the record, the learned court below convicted and sentenced the appellants as staled above. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants bas strenuously argued "that the trying Court failed to appreciate the evidence properly and, therefore, according to him, it came to a wrong conclusion. He bas challenged the conviction of the appellant on the following grounds: (i) The prosecution has failed to prove the actual place of occurrence; (ii) The prosecution has also suppressed the actual time of occurrence; (iii) The trial court did not take Into consideration that no trial of blood was found in between the place of occurrence and the school where the deceased was taken at the first instance; (iv) Clothes of other witnesses who are alleged to have carried the deceased from the place of occurrence to the school did not contain any blood mark; (v) The medical evidence does not support the prosecution witnesses as regards the assault is concerned; (vi) P.Ws. 1 and 4 could not have seen the occurrence as alleged; (vii) No witnesses has come to say that he caught Sanjeeb Kumar verma while running; (viii) Why the dead body was brought back to the school when it was being taken to the hospital; and lastly, it has been argued that the prosecution has failed to prove the genesis of the case. 5 The fact that the deceased died of violent attack has not been disputed at all even before this court. Besides the oral evidence of the witnesses, there is the medical evidence of P. W. 8 to show that the deceased died of injuries, which he had received. P.W. 8 was the Civil Assistant Surgeon attached to Hajipur Sadar hospital on the date of occurrence. He conducted the post-mortem examination on the body of the deceased on 11th September. Besides the oral evidence of the witnesses, there is the medical evidence of P. W. 8 to show that the deceased died of injuries, which he had received. P.W. 8 was the Civil Assistant Surgeon attached to Hajipur Sadar hospital on the date of occurrence. He conducted the post-mortem examination on the body of the deceased on 11th September. 1980 at 9.30 a m. and found the following ante-mortem injuries on his person: (1) Incised wound 6" x ½ X 1/2 on the left side neck: on upper part 1/2 below the angle of mandible; (2) Incised wound III x 1/4 X 1/2 on right side of chest on the lateral side in second inter costal space; (3) Incised wound 1 1/4 x 1/4 x 1/2 on the right side of chest on the lateral side in the third Inter costal space; (4) Incised wound ¾ x 1/4 x 1/2 on the right side of chest on the lateral side in the fourth inter costal space." Injuries Nos. 2, 3 and 4 were lying obliquely on the right side of chest and time elapsed since death was within twenty-four hours. According to him the injuries were caused by sharp cutting weapon. The doctor has further said that a garasa which is used for cutting fodder is a sharp cutting weapon. In the opinion of P.W. 8 death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of injury No. 1 which was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Thus, we find sufficient evidence to hold that the deceased died of injuries received by him. 6 Now the question remains to be considered as to how the deceased received those injuries? Out of nine witnesses examined in this case, P.Ws. 1, 4, 6 and 7 had deposed as eye-witnesses of the occurrence. P.W. 2 is a formal witness and P.W. 3 has been examined to say about the motive for the occurrence. P.W. 5 saw these appellants running away. P.W. 8 is the doctor, who as said above, conducted the post-mortem examination and P.W. 9 is the investigating officer. After going through the entire evidence carefully and cautiously, we find that there is consistent evidence that the deceased was assaulted in the maize field just by the side of the foot-path leading to the school. P.W. 8 is the doctor, who as said above, conducted the post-mortem examination and P.W. 9 is the investigating officer. After going through the entire evidence carefully and cautiously, we find that there is consistent evidence that the deceased was assaulted in the maize field just by the side of the foot-path leading to the school. The objective findings of the investigating officer clearly lend support to the statement of the aforesaid eye-witnesses on the point. P.W. 9 found the place of occurrence to be a field which contained maize, rahar and urad plants. This field situates in village Hari Prasad. He also found a footpath running by the side of, this field from village Kumaiya to Hari Prasad Janta High School. Just at a distance of two cubits from the foot-path he found the place of occurrence in the maize, rahar and urad field, where the standing cops and the earth were trampled. He also found sufficient quantity of blood there. The southern and northern ridges of this field lay at a distance of 29 steps and 18 steps respectively from the place of occurrence and in between these places the soil and the plants were also found trampled. Sufficient blood was also found in between these places. In this connection learned counsel appearing for the appellants has drawn our attention towards the statement made by the investigating officer where he has said that on the day of occurrence at about 11.20 a.m. he received an information at the police station that there has been some dagger blows in the school, and on the basis of this information he came to school. Of course, P.W. 9 has said that he received an information that there had been some incident in the school which brought him to the school but on this statement alone it cannot be said that the occurrence took place within the premises of the school. From the evidence it would appear that the place where the deceased was assaulted is not far off from the school rather it is within 250 yards. In between the field where the deceased was assaulted and the school the lands were Parti. After the incident the deceased was taken to the school. In circumstances, there is nothing abnormal when P.W. 9 has said that he received an information that some incident had taken place in the school. In between the field where the deceased was assaulted and the school the lands were Parti. After the incident the deceased was taken to the school. In circumstances, there is nothing abnormal when P.W. 9 has said that he received an information that some incident had taken place in the school. Moreover it has to be borne in mind that the deceased was nobody else than the clerk of the school. Therefore on that statement alone it cannot be said that the deceased was assaulted somewhere else. At no other place blood was found to suggest that the occurrence took place there. The occurrence is alleged to have taken place at about 10.45 a.m. during day time and no body has come forward to say that the deceased was assaulted somewhere else. Therefore, we find and hold that the occurrence took place at the place as said by the prosecution. 7. As regards the time of occurrence is concerned, we do not find anything on the record to doubt about it. It has come in evidence that the working hour of the school used to commence from 11 a.m. It has further come in evidence that the deceased used to attend the school from his house. From the postmortem report it would appear that some semi digested, food was found in the stomach of the deceased. This also corroborates the prosecution story that after taking his meal he was going to attend the school. Consistently the witnesses have said that the occurrence took place at the time as alleged by the prosecution. The Headmaster (P.W. 1) was also coming to the school he saw this occurrence. P.W. 4 has said that when he came near the school he heard hulla and saw the occurrence. P.W. 5 is also a teacher in another school. When he was teaching in the school, he heard hulla and saw these two appellants running away. He also gives the time of occurrence as 10.45 a.m. We do not find any material whatsoever to come to the conclusion that the occurrence took place at a different time. Therefore, we find that the occurrence took place at the time as alleged by the prosecution. 8. As regards the argument that the medical evidence does not support the statement of eye witnesses on the point of assault, we do not find any force in this submission as well. Therefore, we find that the occurrence took place at the time as alleged by the prosecution. 8. As regards the argument that the medical evidence does not support the statement of eye witnesses on the point of assault, we do not find any force in this submission as well. As indicated above. P.W. 8 found four incised injuries on the person of the deceased and injury No.1 was 6 x 1/2 X 2" on the right side of the neck on the upper part. There is convincing evidence that appellant Ram Kumar Ishar gave garasa blow on the neck of the deceased. This fits in with the medical evidence. We do not find anything to come to the conclusion that the medical evidence does not support the oral evidence on the point of assault. Some omissions or exaggeration cannot cut at the root of the case. Naturally witnesses saw the occurrence from different place and from different distance. Therefore it is but natural that all witnesses cannot be consistent in all detail on the point of assault. As said above there is nothing to create doubt in respect of the statement of the witnesses on the point of assault. 9. At this stage it may be stated here that it has come in evidence that the students and teachers of the school chased the appellant when they were running away and appellant Sanjeeb Kumar was apprehended by the chasers and he was brought to the school. When P.W. 9 came he found him in the school and took him in his custody. The investigating officer (P.W. 9) has said that he found blood stains on the person of Sanjeeb Kumar. Of course he was cross-examined on this point and in paragraph 12 he has said that in the diary he had not written that he found drops of blood on the person of Sanjeeb Kumar but he volunteered to say that it was mentioned in the diary that he found bloodstains. Of course he did not mention in the diary about the part of the body on which he found the blood stains but the fact remains that blood stains were found on his person. The presence of blood stains on the person of appellant Sanjeeb Kumar lends great support to the prosecution evidence. Of course he did not mention in the diary about the part of the body on which he found the blood stains but the fact remains that blood stains were found on his person. The presence of blood stains on the person of appellant Sanjeeb Kumar lends great support to the prosecution evidence. P.W. 5 Baidyanath Rai, who is a teacher of a convent school came on hulla and saw these two appellants running away. He also took part in the chase. He has further said that Sanjeeb Kumar was arrested and after arrest he was brought to the High School. According to this witness as well there were blood-stains on his person at that time. He has been subjected to cross-examination but nothing has been elicited in cross- examination to discredit him. Nothing has also been shown to indicate that he had any animosity with the appellants. All these facts clearly establish the prosecution version of the case as regards the manner of occurrence is concerned. 10. Appellant Sanjeeb Kumar was put a question in his statement under sec. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the trying court, "Sahadat hai ki aapko ghatna asthal ke paas he chahet kar pakra gaya tha" and his answer was "Jee Nahi". Then on further question he said. "Mujhe mere ghar se pakar kar School laya gaya tha aur wahan se daroga ke hawale kiya gaya tha". Though four witnesses were examined by the defence, yet nobody has said a word that this appellant was arrested at his house. There does not appear to be any reason as to why he would have been arrested at his house. No doubt. in a criminal trial the burden does not lie on the accused to explain anything but a question in such a case arises as to where and how he was arrested. The prosecution evidence is that he was arrested when he was running away after committing the offence and to discredit that evidence there is no material on the record to come to a different conclusion that he was arrested at his house. It has been argued that no witness has been examined on behalf of the prosecution to say that he arrested the appellant Sanjeeb Kumar nor is there any evidence to indicate as to who arrested this appellant. It has been argued that no witness has been examined on behalf of the prosecution to say that he arrested the appellant Sanjeeb Kumar nor is there any evidence to indicate as to who arrested this appellant. There is consistent evidence that at the time of occurrence on hearing hulla, students and teachers came on whose sight the appellants took to their heels and they chased them. Naturally in such circumstances it is very difficult to say as to who actually arrested him. The occurrence took place near the school where large number of students come to read. Therefore it was the mob of students who chased and succeeded in apprehending this appellant. Therefore. we find and hold that appellant Sanjeeb Kumar was arrested when he was running away after committing the offence. 11. Much has been argued by learned counsel for the appellants that genesis of the present case has not been proved. We find that actually there is no genesis in the present case. Genesis and motive are two different things. Genesis generally relates about the origin of the incident while motive is said to be one of the causes to commit the crime. In the present case a motive has been alleged and that cannot be said to be the genesis. P.W. 7 the informant has said that two days before this occurrence Chandramani Prasad (P.W. 3) was called by these two appellants and he was assaulted. The deceased and the Headmaster (P.W. 1) had protested and had informed about this incident to the father of appellant Ram Kumar Ishar. Chandramani (P.W. 3) has supported this fact. The Headmaster (P.W. 1) has also corroborated this fact. Thus the incident about which P.W. 7 has stated and which has also been corroborated by P. Ws. 1 and 3 can be termed as a motive or a cause for the present occurrence. It is very difficult in every criminal case to say about the motive of the accused persons for which they commit the Crime. Motive can be inferred from the actions of the accused persons which they do at the time of occurrence or which they have done before the occurrence. It is very difficult in every criminal case to say about the motive of the accused persons for which they commit the Crime. Motive can be inferred from the actions of the accused persons which they do at the time of occurrence or which they have done before the occurrence. In the present case also P.W. 3 and other witnesses have spoken about the incident which took place about two days before this occurrence and from that it is said that that was the cause for the appellants to commit the present crime. The real cause can be stated by the accused themselves. However the prosecution has said that something had happened two days before which had enraged these appellants to commit the crime. Even a letter has been produced by P.W. 3 but unfortunately that letter has not been proved and exhibited in the ease and it has only been marked X for identification. But the witnesses have said that some incidents had taken place about two days before the occurrence and P.W. 1 and the deceased had protested to the father of appellant Ram Kumar Ishar. Therefore, it cannot be said that the motive alleged on behalf of the prosecution has not been proved. Moreover even if it is said that the motive is not proved that cannot tell upon the prosecution case because there is consistent evidence that when the deceased was coming to the school along with his son these appellants who were in the maize field pounced upon him and assaulted him with the weapons which they had in their hands. As stated earlier one of the appellants. Sanjeeb Kumar was arrested while running away. All these facts taken together clearly prove the prosecution version about the occurrence. Nothing has been shown to us as to why these appellants would have been falsely implicated in this case. 12. Out of the eye-witnesses, P.W. 1 is the Headmaster, P.W. 4 is another teacher of the school and P.W. 6 is yet another teacher of the same school. Why the two teachers (P.Ws. 4 and 6) would come to depose falsely against these two appellants. Of course, something had been suggested against P.W. 1 the Headmaster, but that has remained only a suggestion. Why the two teachers (P.Ws. 4 and 6) would come to depose falsely against these two appellants. Of course, something had been suggested against P.W. 1 the Headmaster, but that has remained only a suggestion. After a careful scrutiny of the evidence of the eye-witnesses, we find that their evidence is quite consistent and reliable which is also corroborated by other circumstantial evidence. The Fard-beyan in this case lodged without loosing any time discloses a true narration of facts in regard to the present occurrence. 13. Lastly, learned counsel for the appellants argued on the point as to why the dead-body was brought back to the school and it was not taken to the police station. The victim was a clerk of the school. While he was being taken to the hospital, he was found to be dead on the way. If in that situation the dead body was brought back to the school, there is nothing abnormal about it. There is no evidence that it was brought back from Samastipur, rather there is evidence that just on the way it was detected that the victim had succumbed. Therefore the dead-body was brought to the school where he was an employee. On that ground no suspicion whatsoever can be raised against the prosecution. 14. The evidence of the defence witnesses does not tell upon the prosecution case in any way inasmuch as it is of formal nature. The report of D.W. 2 (Exhibit-A) rather supports the prosecution case because he also found footpath near the place of occurrence. According to this report the school is at a distance of 692 fees from the place of occurrence which fits in with the prosecution case. 15. It has also been argued as to why blood was not found in the school premises when, according to the prosecution case itself, the victim was brought to the school premises after the occurrence. True it is that the investigating officer did not find any blood in the school premises but the reasons cannot be far off. The occurrence took place in the field and from there the injured was brought to the school by the teachers and students. They must have been conscious of the fact that blood was allowed to flow to take the life of the injured. Being educated persons they might have taken precaution to see that blood does not flow out. The occurrence took place in the field and from there the injured was brought to the school by the teachers and students. They must have been conscious of the fact that blood was allowed to flow to take the life of the injured. Being educated persons they might have taken precaution to see that blood does not flow out. Therefore, even on that ground no adverse inference can be drawn. 16. In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal. It is, accordingly, dismissed. The appellants, who are on bail, are directed to surrender to undergo the imprisonment. If they fail to surrender, the trying court will take all legal steps to see that they appear or they are apprehended to undergo the imprisonment.