Judgment S.H.S.ABIDI, J. 1. Appellant Mahabir Pd. Akela in Cr. Appeal No. 580/82, appellant Pappu Agrawal in Cr. Appeal No. 582/82, appellants Binay Singh and Balkesh Singh in Cr. Appeal No. 657/82 and appellants Bishwanath Sah and Jai Govind Koeri in Cr. Appeal No. 658/82 have been convicted under Ss.302/140, 302/34 and 302/120B of the I.P.C. and under each count they have been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life. Appellants Pappu Agrawal, Binay Singh and Balkesh Singh have further been convicted u/s.27 Arms Act and awarded seven years rigorous imprisonment each. Appellant Binay Singh has further been convicted under S.323 of the Indian Penal Code (shortly put as I.P.C.) and awarded one year rigorous imprisonment. Accused Akhileshwar Singh, Krishna Prasad Keshri and Rajendra Singh have been acquitted by the trial court. Another accused was absconding so his trial was separated vide order dt. 31st July, 1980, in S.R. 907/79 . (Trial 859/80). 2. Since all the four appeals have arisen from the same judgment they have been heard together and they are being disposed of by a common judgment. 3. The prosecution case, in short, is that in the night of 24/25th June, 1979 while the informant Kamta Tiwary (P.W.9) was sleeping in his baithaka in village Rajwaria Kalan, police station Nabinagar district Aurangabad, he heard the sound of firing at about 2.30 A.M. and thereafter he went to the darwaza of Sheokumar Tiwary (one of the deceased) where there was electric light. In the said light P.W. 9 saw four persons armed with gun and chhura standing outside the darwaza of Sheokumar Tiwary. In the verandah of Sheo Kumar Tiwary, the informant saw accused Govind Koeri and Bishwanath Sao killing Akhlesh Tiwary by means of Chhura by putting him down near the darwaza of the verandah. The informant in order to save Akhlesh Tiwary wanted to go to the verandah, but he was caught by some unknown persons. The informant entreated with folded hands to the four persons to allow him to go and also fell down on their feet and begged for the life of Akhlesh, but he was not allowed to go. In the meantime, he saw appellants Binay Singh, Akhileshwar Singh, Balkesh Singh and Pappu Agrawal coming out with guns from the room of Sheokumar Tiwary. The mother of Sheo Kumar Tiwary also came and she fell on Akhlesh Tiwary in order to save him. In the meantime, he saw appellants Binay Singh, Akhileshwar Singh, Balkesh Singh and Pappu Agrawal coming out with guns from the room of Sheokumar Tiwary. The mother of Sheo Kumar Tiwary also came and she fell on Akhlesh Tiwary in order to save him. Mithilesh Tiwary (P.W. 6) who was sleeping in the said verandah, woke up and sat down and he was assaulted by Binay Singh by the butt of the gun. Appellant Pappu Agrawal pointed his gun towards the informant, but the unknown persons caught hold of the informant and asked Pappu Agrawal not to kill him, as he was an old man. In the meantime Balkesh Singh asked his companions to leave the place saying that the order of Akelaji (appellant Mahabir Pd. Akela) had been complied with and the work had been done. The accused ran away towards the north-east. P.W. 9 found Akhlesh Tiwary lying in pool of blood in the verandah and Sheokumar Tiwary in the pool of blood on the cot in the room. He also found the broken portion of the country made gun lying in the verandah. 4. The motive for the offence is said to be that in the month of Feb. of the same year there was a marpit with appellant Mahabir Pd. Akela in which Sheokumar Tiwary and Akhilesh Tiwary were the accused and that Mahabir Pd. Akela had given out a threat that he would not go to Nabinagar market till Sheokumar Tiwary was killed. Other accused are friends of Mahabir Pd. Akela. It is also said that since the evening of 24-6-1979 Akhileshwar Singh (acquitted) was watching the movements of Sheokumar Tiwary with a view to get him murdered and at about 10 P.M. in the night Akhileshwar Singh had come to the door of Sheokumar Tiwary on the pretext of taking to him for connection for the electric boring. It is also the case of the prosecution that since then Akhileshwar Singh had become traceless from the village and so the murder of the deceased was the result of the conspiracy between the accused. 5. It is also the case of the prosecution that since then Akhileshwar Singh had become traceless from the village and so the murder of the deceased was the result of the conspiracy between the accused. 5. According to P.W. 12 Chandradip Singh, A.S.I., he was taking tea at a tea shop in Nabi Nagar Bajar in the early hours of the morning and there he over-heard some unknown persons talking at about 5.45 A.M. about the murder of Sheokumar Tiwary and so he made a S. D. entry at about 6 A.M. and left for the place of occurrence. He reached the place of occurrence, and recorded the fard-beyan (Ext. 5) of P.W. 9 Kamta Tiwary there at about 6 A.M. and thereafter he started the investigation. He found the dead bodies inside the verandah and room and prepared inquest report (Ext. 1 and 1/1). He also seized 5 empty cartridges, one blood stained lungi, one blood stained toshak from the room of Sheokumar Tiwary. He also recovered one broken butt end of the country made gun, two empty cartridges, one iron bold of rifle from near the dead body of Akhlesh Tiwary in the verandah and prepared the seizure list (Exts. 2 and 2/1). He found blood in the said room where the dead body of Sheokumar Tiwary was lying and blood on the toshak and bed-sheet lying on the cot. Clothes of Sheokumar Tiwary were besmeared with blood. He also found splash of blood over the wall to the south of cot of Sheokumar Tiwary. He also found blood near the dead body of Akhlesh Tiwary. He recorded the statements of the witnesses and sent the dead bodies for post mortem examination and left for the police-station. He recorded the first information report (Ext. 6) on 25-6-1979 at 11.30 A.M. The first information report was despatched to the court of Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate on 25-6-1979 which reached the Court on 27-6-1979. After completion of the investigation the charge-sheet was submitted by P.W. 13 K. C. Dubey. The post mortem examinations on the dead bodies of Sheokumar Tiwary and Akhlesh Tiwary were conducted by Dr. B. Prasad on 25-6-1979 and the reports are Exts. 7 and 7/1. 6. The prosecution in support of its case examined 14 witnesses. After completion of the investigation the charge-sheet was submitted by P.W. 13 K. C. Dubey. The post mortem examinations on the dead bodies of Sheokumar Tiwary and Akhlesh Tiwary were conducted by Dr. B. Prasad on 25-6-1979 and the reports are Exts. 7 and 7/1. 6. The prosecution in support of its case examined 14 witnesses. Out of them P.W. 1 Saryu Tiwary a co-villager residing at a distance of 150 yards from the place of occurrence reached the spot on hearing the sound of gun fire where he was told about the occurrence by P.W. 6, but P.Ws. 6 and 9 denied to have said so to him, and so the court below has not relied upon his testimony. P.W. 2 is Achayabut Tiwary whose evidence has been tendered. P.W. 3 Anugrah Tiwary is a hearsay witness and his evidence has not been relied on by the trial court P.Ws. 4, 5, 6 and 10, namely, Mahenara Mishra, Anurudh Singh, Mithilesh Tiwary and Suresh Singh have deposed about the conspiracy which evidence has been disbelieved by the Court below. P.W. 7 Marachoo Kuer is an eyewitness and P.W.8 Ram Prasad Tiwary is a hearsay witness and both of them have not been relied on by the court below. Kamta Prasad Tiwary P.W. 9 is the informant. Dr. Ram Ashis Singh (P.W. 11) had medically examined Mithilesh Tiwary (P. W. 6) who had received the following injuries : - 1. "Swelling 2 x 2 on the dorsem of the left wrist. 2. Abrasion 2/4" x 1/4" x 1/6" on the middle portion of scalp." Chandra Dip Singh and K.C. Dubey (P.Ws. 12 and 13) are the investigating officer and the medical officer P.W. 14 is Dr. B. Prasad who had conducted the post mortem examination of the two deceased and found the following injuries : - Sheokumar Tiwary "1. Skull cut into two pieces by a vertical incision running from front to back. All bones of the skull were fractured into several pieces. Brain matter was lacerated and reduced to pulp. 2. Gun shot wound 3/4" diameter in front of chest mid way between two nipples. Sternum and two adjacent ribs of right side were fractured. Heart and right lung were ruptured with exudation of blood in right pleural cavity. No wound of exit was seen. Pellet was recovered. 3. Brain matter was lacerated and reduced to pulp. 2. Gun shot wound 3/4" diameter in front of chest mid way between two nipples. Sternum and two adjacent ribs of right side were fractured. Heart and right lung were ruptured with exudation of blood in right pleural cavity. No wound of exit was seen. Pellet was recovered. 3. Gun shot wound in front of right thigh in the middle causing compound fracture of right femur. Diameter of wound of entrance was similar to wound No. 2. 4. Gun shot wound of 3/4" diameter in front of right leg causing fracture of right tibia. Gun shot wounds had been fired from a rather close range. Akhlesh Tiwary 1. Neck severed from back and right side with three incised wounds measuring 6 long. Nearly three fourth of the circumference of the neck including spinal chord was severed. 2. Incised wound on the back on right side 2" x 1" x muscle deep. 3. Two incised wounds each measuring 3" x 11/2 x bone deep on right iliac crest. All wounds are antemortem, lacerated by sharp cutting weapon". 7. The accused in defence denied the prosecution case and alleged that they have been falsely implicated in this case. It was further said that there was enmity between the appellants and P.Ws. 12 to 13. Appellant Mahabir Pd. Akela had published a pamphlet against the police and so the police has falsely concocted a case against him. 8. The trial court after considering the entire evidence has convicted the appellants and acquitted three persons as said above. 9. In this case, the factum of murder of Sheokumar Tiwary and Akhlesh Tiwary in the night between 24/25 th June, 1979 in their house situated in village Rajwaria Kala has been well proved by the evidence of the witnesses including P.Ws. 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13 and 14. Even the witnesses, who reached after the occurrence, had found the persons dead on the spot. The inquest reports (Ext. 1 and 1/1) were prepared by P.W. 12 Chandradip Singh, A.S.I. and thereafter the dead bodies were sent for post mortem examination which was conducted by Dr. B. Prasad (P.W. 14) and the reports are Exts. 7 and 7/1. Even the witnesses, who reached after the occurrence, had found the persons dead on the spot. The inquest reports (Ext. 1 and 1/1) were prepared by P.W. 12 Chandradip Singh, A.S.I. and thereafter the dead bodies were sent for post mortem examination which was conducted by Dr. B. Prasad (P.W. 14) and the reports are Exts. 7 and 7/1. Further the investigating officer reached the spot and found the dead bodies in the verandah as well as in the southern room and also the blood at the place of occurrence, on the toshak and bed sheet lying on the cot and splash of blood on the wall. Thus the factum of death is well proved and that has not been challenged by the defence. 10. In this case, the prosecution has examined 14 witnesses. Out of them P.W. 2 has been tendered. P.Ws. 4, 5, 6, 8 and 10 have deposed about the conspiracy which evidence has been rejected by the court below. The evidence of P.Ws. 1, 3, 7 and 8, who arrived after the occurrence, does not appear to be reliable. P.W. 1 Saryug Tiwary says that he was at his house about 150 yards away from the place of occurrence and had reached the spot on hearing the gun fire and he was told by P.Ws. 6 and 9 about the occurrence. P.Ws. 6 and 9 in their evidence in court said that they had not said so to P.W. 1. Thus the evidence of P.W. 1 is not reliable. Similarly P.W.3 Anugrah Tiwary, who war also sleeping in his house and on hearing the gun fire, went to the spot where P.Ws. 6 and 9, according to him, told him about the occurrence, but P.Ws.6 and 9 in their evidence in Court said that they had not told to P.W. 3 about the occurrence and so the evidence of P.W. 3 also goes away. P.W. 7 is Merachoo Kuer the mother of Sheo Kumar Tiwary who was examined on 26-6-1979, though according to her, she had reached the spot after hearing the gun fire while she was in her house and when she reached, she saw Pappu Agrawal, Balkesh Singh and Binay Singh coming out of the room and that she was told by P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 about the matter. P.Ws. 1 and 3 denied to have said anything to her. 1, 2 and 3 about the matter. P.Ws. 1 and 3 denied to have said anything to her. Thus her evidence also does not inspire any confidence. It is possible that being the mother of Sheokumar Tiwary and hearing the gun fire she must have reached the spot and she might have seen the three appellants coming out from the room, but her statement that she was told by P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 is not supported by the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 3 and further she was examined on the next day of the occurrence so it will not be safe to rely upon her evidence. P.W. 8 Ram Prasad Tiwary was examined by the investigating officer on 26-6-1979. He said that he went to the spot. He is the father of deceased Akhlesh Tiwary and on hearing the gun fire he went to the spot and saw the accused running away and he was told by P.Ws. 6 and 9 about the occurrence. But P.Ws. 6 and 9 denied to have said anything to him. So his evidence also is not safe to be relied on. 11. P.W. 6 Mithilesh Tiwary is the younger brother of Akhlesh deceased and cousin of Sheokumar Tiwary. He is injured and he was medically examined by Dr. Ram Ashis Singh (P.W. 11). He says that he was sleeping in the northern portion of the verandah where Sheokumar Tiwary was sleeping. On hearing the gun firing he woke up and he saw appellant Binay Singh with gun and Balkesh and Pappu Agrawal both with Chhura coming out from the southern room. He was assaulted by Binay on the wrist of the left hand and also on the head by the butt end of the gun which injuries have been proved by the evidence of the said doctor (P.W. 11). So presence of this witness on the spot at the time of the occurrence is proved beyond reasonable doubt and his evidence is about coming out of the aforesaid three appellants from the room is also well proved. His evidence cannot be discarded simply because he is brother of both the deceased. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that P.W. 6 was recently married and it does not stand to reason as to why he would sleep in the verandah. His evidence cannot be discarded simply because he is brother of both the deceased. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that P.W. 6 was recently married and it does not stand to reason as to why he would sleep in the verandah. This argument of the learned counsel cannot stand, as this question has not been put to him. Had he been asked the said question, he would have given the best answer. It is only surmise that a man recently married would not sleep in the verandah. When he has said that he also had been sleeping in the verandah, his evidence cannot be discarded on that score. P.W. 9 is the informant and he is the uncle of the deceased Sheokumar Tiwary. He says that he was sleeping in his verandah and on hearing the gun fire he went to darwaza of Sheokumar Tiwary and saw the appellants Binay Singh, Balkesh Singh and Pappu Agrawal coming out from the southern room where his nephew Sheokumar was sleeping. The house of this witness was found by the investigating officer to be adjacent to the place of occurrence and so the possibility of his reaching the spot very promptly on hearing the gunfire cannot be ruled out. He has lodged the report and withstood the cross-examination. Not only that, the version given by the witnesses is corroborated by the medical evidence of P.W. 11, who has medically examined P.W. 6 Mithilesh Tiwary and found the injuries as mentioned by him. Similarly, two of the post mortem reports also corroborate their evidence. 12. This evidence of P.Ws. 6 and 9 is corroborated by the objective findings of the investigating officer, who had reached the spot and recorded the fard-beyan and had found both the deceased Sheokumar Tiwary and Akhlesh Tiwary lying murdered in the southern room as well as in the verandah, and P.W. 6 as injured. He had recovered blood, blood stained clothes, broken piece of butt end of a country made gun, empty cartridges and blood splash on the wall. Thus the evidence of P.Ws. 6 and 9 is corroborated by the objective findings and the medical evidence. 13. He had recovered blood, blood stained clothes, broken piece of butt end of a country made gun, empty cartridges and blood splash on the wall. Thus the evidence of P.Ws. 6 and 9 is corroborated by the objective findings and the medical evidence. 13. Learned counsel for the appellants has assailed the conviction on various grounds, namely, that the chaukidar, who had come to the spot and was sent for information to the police station, has not been examined and that the story of the investigating officer coming to know about the occurrence at the tea shop in the morning and non-making of enquiry by him in that regard from the persons concerned is also suspicious. Further the station diary entry has not been produced. It was further argued that the story of conspiracy having not been accepted, the whole case is liable to be discarded. Further it was argued that after the evidence of so many witnesses having been rejected, the evidence of P.Ws. 6 and 9 should have also been rejected. It was also argued that the first information report had reached the court with delay. Next, it was argued that there was no electric connection in the village and then how there could be an electric light. Lastly, it was argued that P.W. 12 the investigating officer has falsely implicated the accused, as there were cases against him filed by the appellants and it was only on the ground of enmity that the accused appellants have been falsely implicated in this case. 14. As regards the Chaukidar, it has been pointed out that P.W. 6 has said in para 26 that the chaukidar had come after about half an hour of the occurrence and he was told to inform at the police-station about the same and thereafter he came with P.W. 12 at about 8 A.M. Though there is such statement and there is non-examination of the Chaukidar by the prosecution, but there is nothing to show that the chaukidar had informed the police. The place of occurrence is about 10 kilometers from the police-station. The place of occurrence is about 10 kilometers from the police-station. The occurrence had taken place in the night and the time of occurrence was about 2.30 A.M. Even if the chaukidar had been informed and that he was asked to go yet there is nothing to show that actually he went and from evidence it appears that he had not gone to the police. Had it been so, the investigating officer would have said that he met the chaukidar. P.W. 12 stated that he got the information at the tea-shop from the people talking there regarding the occurrence and that he knew the deceased Sheokumar Tiwary from before and so he went to the police station, made G.D. entry No. 532 dt. 25-6-1979 and left for the place of occurrence. Had the chaukidar met P.W. 12 at the police-station it would not have been difficult for P.W. 12 to write in S. D. entry or to say that on getting information from the chaukidar he left for the place of occurrence. From the above, it appears that the chaukidar had not reached the police station and so G.D. entry was only in respect of having heard a rumour through unidentified persons, which shows to be the natural conduct of P.W. 12. As such non-examination of the chaukidar does not affect the case of the prosecution. If the chaukidar had gone to inform the police, the defence would have definitely examined the chaukidar who is supposed to be a neutral person and he would have said that he had informed the police. No doubt, S. D. entry No. 532 has not been produced, but mention of the same has been made in the statement of P.W. 12. So if G.D. entry had not been filed, it does not mean that there is no entry. P.W. 12 has categorically stated that the chaukidar had come to the place of occurrence after his reaching there. He flatly denied the suggestion that chaukidar had reached him at the police station and had given information. As such the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellants regarding non-examination of the chaukidar as well as non-production of G.D. entry have no adverse effect on the prosecution case and hence both the contentions fail. 15. He flatly denied the suggestion that chaukidar had reached him at the police station and had given information. As such the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellants regarding non-examination of the chaukidar as well as non-production of G.D. entry have no adverse effect on the prosecution case and hence both the contentions fail. 15. The next contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that since the evidence regarding conspiracy has failed, so the entire evidence of the prosecution should have been rejected as being without any force. The evidence of P.Ws. 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 shows that both the deceased were members of the communist party and that they had left the party in the year 1978 on account of some differences between the deceased and appellant Mahabir Prasad Akela. Even the accused in their statements under S.313 Cr. P.C. have accepted the deceased to be the members of the communist party including appellant Mahabir Pd. Akela, Appellant Pappu Agrawal has denied to be the member of the communist party. But it is apparent that relations between appellant Mahabir Pd. Akela and the deceased were strained which resulted in criminal case between them, as deposed by P.Ws. 8 and 9. Even some of the accused have also accepted about the strained relations and marpit between the deceased and some of the appellants, though benefit of admissions of the accused in their statement under S.313 Cr. P.C. cannot be taken by the prosecution. The fact is that P.Ws. 6 and 9 have clearly given out that the deceased were the members of the communist party and they had strained relations with some of the appellants who were members of the communist party. The court below has not relied upon some of the prosecution witnesses, but the evidence of P.W. 6 and 9 have not been rejected by it after scrutiny. We are left with the evidence of P.Ws. 6 and 9. A careful examination of their evidence shows that there is no evidence to show that appellant Mahabir Pd. Akela had been on the spot. Other appellants were on the spot, as said by P. Ws. 6 and 9 and the other evidence led by the prosecution. It has been said by the prosecution witnesses that the appellants had told among themselves that the order of Mahabir Prasad Akela had been complied with. Akela had been on the spot. Other appellants were on the spot, as said by P. Ws. 6 and 9 and the other evidence led by the prosecution. It has been said by the prosecution witnesses that the appellants had told among themselves that the order of Mahabir Prasad Akela had been complied with. There is no evidence, whatsoever, to show that the appellants had a meeting of mind where they decided to do away with the deceased. From the evidence of P.W. 6 it appears that at the time of departure it was given out that the orders of Mahabir Pd. Akela had been carried out, but that will not show conspiracy. So the evidence of conspiracy is lacking and the conviction of the appellants under S.120B I.P.C. is not made out. From the circumstances that the appellants and the deceased were members of the communist party and they came and killed the deceased, who were also members of the said party and that there were differences between the deceased and Mahabir Pd. Akela and lastly while retreating accused Balkeshwar Singh had given out that the orders of Mahabir Pd. Akela had been carried out, yet these circumstances cannot be stretched to the extent to say that there was conspiracy. For a conspiracy there should be a meeting of mind of the accused, though the presence of every accused for every act is not essential and the individual accused may perform their own parts without presence of other co-accused. In these circumstances, the conviction of the appellants under S.120B I.P.C. is liable to be set aside and the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants, that the story of conspiracy should not have been accepted, has force. 16. The next contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that as the evidence of other witnesses was rejected in respect of the conspiracy, the evidence of P.Ws. 6 and 9 should also be rejected. Presence of P.Ws. 6 and 9 at the spot cannot be disputed, as they are near relations of the deceased. P.W. 6 is the younger brother of the deceased Akhlesh Tiwary and cousin of Sheokumar Tiwary. He was also injured in the said occurrence. He was sleeping in the northern portion of the verandah where Sheokumar Tiwary was sleeping. Presence of P.Ws. 6 and 9 at the spot cannot be disputed, as they are near relations of the deceased. P.W. 6 is the younger brother of the deceased Akhlesh Tiwary and cousin of Sheokumar Tiwary. He was also injured in the said occurrence. He was sleeping in the northern portion of the verandah where Sheokumar Tiwary was sleeping. He is the last person to screen away the real offenders who had killed his two brothers. Similarly, P.W. 9 Kamta Tiwary, who is the uncle of Sheo Kumar Tiwary and whose house is quite adjacent to the place of occurrence, as is the objective finding of the investigating officer, his presence on the spot on hearing the sound of gun firing is most natural. He reached the spot and saw the appellants Pappu Agrawal, Binay Singh and Balkesh Singh coming out from the southern room where Sheokumar Tiwary was sleeping. From the fact that these two persons saw the aforesaid three appellants coming out from the room in which the deceased Sheokumar Tiwary was lying dead and there was gun fire and it was the dead at the night, there can be no other presumption than that it was the appellants who are responsible for the murder of the deceased Sheokumar Tiwary. Similarly, appellants Bishwanath Sah and Jai Govind Koeri were also seen by the aforesaid two witnesses assaulting deceased Akhlesh Tiwary in the verandah. In these circumstances, the evidence of the said two witnesses who were most natural and probable cannot be discarded and discarding of the evidence of other P.Ws. with regard to conspiracy will have no adverse effect upon the evidence of P.Ws. 6 and 9. So this argument of the learned counsel for the appellants about the evidence of P.Ws. 6 and 9 also fails. 17. It was also argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that the local police was not on good terms with the appellants and so they have been falsely implicated in this case. P.W. 12 has stated in his cross-examination that one Madan Pd. Gupta had instituted a case against him in Jan. 1979 in which the accused Rajendra Singh, Krishna Pd. (acquitted), Binay Singh, Balkesh Singh and Vishwanath Koeri were the witnesses. In para 14 of his statement P.W. 12 has denied that these accused persons have been implicated on account of enmity with him. Gupta had instituted a case against him in Jan. 1979 in which the accused Rajendra Singh, Krishna Pd. (acquitted), Binay Singh, Balkesh Singh and Vishwanath Koeri were the witnesses. In para 14 of his statement P.W. 12 has denied that these accused persons have been implicated on account of enmity with him. So this contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the prosecution was started at the instance of P.W. 12 has got no force. There is nothing to show that the report was under the influence of P.W. 12 or that the informant has got any animosity with the appellants. Nobody will falsely implicate a person in a case and specially in a murder case. This is also important in the circumstances that no direct enmity between Binay Sigh, Balkesh and Pappu Agrawal with deceased Sheokumar Tiwary has been pointed out. If there was no enmity between Sheokumar Tiwary and the said accused, then what was the reason for P.W. 9 to falsely implicate the appellants. Further there is no reason for P.W. 6 also to depose falsely against the appellants. Thus this contention that P.W.12 was instrumental in the false implication of the appellants also fails. 18. As regards the contention that as there was delay in sending the first information report to the court and so it creates doubt as to the truth of the case of the prosecution, it appears that the occurrence took place on 24/25th June, 1979 and the fard-beyan was recorded on 25-6-1979 at 8 A.M. and it was on that very day i.e. 25th June, 1979 that the special report was sent to the court by special messenger which reached the court on 27-6-1979. There is nothing to show that the papers were not despatched. If that papers reached the court on 27-6-1979,that cannot create any doubt. In the case of Sarwan Singh V/s. State of Punjab, AIR 1976 SC 2304 :(1976 Cri LJ 1757) it was observed : "Apart from this it is well settled that mere delay in despatch of the FIR is not a circumstance which can throw out the prosecution case in its entirety. In the case of Sarwan Singh V/s. State of Punjab, AIR 1976 SC 2304 :(1976 Cri LJ 1757) it was observed : "Apart from this it is well settled that mere delay in despatch of the FIR is not a circumstance which can throw out the prosecution case in its entirety. The matter was considered by this Court in Pala Singh V/s. State of Punjab AIR 1972 SC 2679 : (1973 Cri LJ 59) where this Court observed as follows : But when we find in this case that the FIR was actually recorded without delay and investigation started on the basis of that FIR and there is no other infirmity brought to our notice, then, however improper or objectionable the delayed receipt of the report by the Magistrate concerned, it cannot by itself justify the conclusion that the investigation was tainted and the prosecution insupportable." It is not the appellants case that they have been prejudiced by this delay. Later on in the case of Ishwar Singh V/s. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1976 SC 2423 : (1976 Cri LJ 1883) the Supreme Court observed at page 2425 (of AIR) : (at P. 1886 of Cri LJ) : "S.157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 as well as 1973 both require the, first information report to be sent "forthwith" to the Magistrate competent to take cognizance of the offence. No explanation is offered for this extraordinary delay in sending the report to the Magistrate. This is the circumstance which provides a legitimate basis for suspecting as Mr. Anthony suggested, that the first information report was recorded much later than the stated date and hour affording sufficient time to the prosecution to introduce improvements and embellishments and set up a distorted version of the occurrence. In this case the suspicion hardens into a definite possibility when one finds that the case made in the court differs at least in two very important particulars from that narrated in the FIR." In the case of State of Kerala V/s. Dasan 1986 Cri LJ 345 a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court considered this point also. In this case the suspicion hardens into a definite possibility when one finds that the case made in the court differs at least in two very important particulars from that narrated in the FIR." In the case of State of Kerala V/s. Dasan 1986 Cri LJ 345 a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court considered this point also. In that case the occurrence had taken place on 28-4-1981 at about 1.45 P. M. and the same day at about 4 P.M. the place of occurrence statement was given by P.W. 1 on the basis of which at about 6 P.M. a case was registered at the police station. The Magistrate said that he did not receive the report till 4-5-1981, although in the remand application dt. 3-5-1981 it has been specifically stated that the FIR had been sent to the court. At page 353 the court held : "It is, therefore, possible that the FIR was despatched earlier, but received by the court only on 4-5-1981. Whatever that be, the fact that the FIR was not received by the Court until 4-5-1981 does not unnecessarily indicate that it was a fabricated document. There is no evidence to suggest that any such fabrication had occurred." Later at the same page it was observed : "Where the FIR was lodged without delay, late receipt of the report by the Magistrate, in the absence of any other vitiating circumstances, will not make the lapse fatal. This is particularly so whether there is satisfactory explanation for the delay and there is no inconsistency in the basic aspects of the case as reported by the informant as spoken to by the witnesses; Ishwar Singh V/s. State of U.P. AIR 1976 SC 2423 : 1976 Cri LJ 1883, Pala Singh V/s. State of Punjab (1972) 2 SCC 640 : (1973 Cri LJ 59) ; and Sarwan Singh V/s. State of Punjab, (1976) 4 SCC 365 : 1976 Cri LJ 1757. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, there is a degree of presumption that the officers have acted conscientiously and honestly. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, there is a degree of presumption that the officers have acted conscientiously and honestly. Their evidence has to be assessed on its intrinsic worth and should not be discarded merely because they are interested in the success of their case; Sonelal V/s. State of U.P. AIR 1978 SC 1142 : 1978 Cri LJ 1122." The observations of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Pala Singh (supra) has also been reproduced in this decision. 19 In the instant case there is nothing to show that the case set up in the first information report is different from that said in the court. P.W. 12 had received the information about the murder committed in the night and he reached the spot early in the morning at about 8 A.M. at a distance of about ten kilometers and recorded the fard-beyan and started investigation. The same day at about 11:30 A.M. first information report (Ext. 6) was registered and the same day it was despatched to the court through special messenger as deposed by P.W. 12 but the same reached the court on 27-6-1979. So there is no delay in despatch of the first information report. If, at all, there is delay, that is in reaching the court. In this view of the matter it cannot be said that P.W. 12 or the witnesses had been indulging in embellishment or improvement in the case. There is a degree of presumption that the officer had acted conscientiously and honestly and this presumption has not been rebutted, though as pointed out that in a case against P.W. 12 filed by one Madan Pd. Gupta, the accused-appellants appellants of this case were witnesses for the prosecution, but that factor had not affected the intrinsic worth of the evidence of the witnesses examined by the prosecution or the interest of P.W. 12 in the success of the case. The witnesses have been one in line with the statements given in the FIR as well as in Court and there is no inconsistency whatsoever. In these circumstances, specially, the fact that P.Ws. 6 and 9 have no animosity with the accused or that they were not under the influence of the police, the prosecution evidence has been found reliable. The witnesses have been one in line with the statements given in the FIR as well as in Court and there is no inconsistency whatsoever. In these circumstances, specially, the fact that P.Ws. 6 and 9 have no animosity with the accused or that they were not under the influence of the police, the prosecution evidence has been found reliable. So this lapse on the part of the special messenger to reach the court in time when he was sent on the same day of the recording of the FIR, will not be fatal to the case of the prosecution and it cannot be said that there was delay for ulterior motive, may be for embellishment or improvement or for some other purpose. Hence the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants about delay in sending the report to the court has no force. 20. It was also argued that there was no electric light on the spot as there was no official meter and connection. But it has come in the evidence that there was unauthorised connection taken, which possibility cannot be ruled out. P.W. 12 the first investigating officer has said in paras 6 and 16 of his statement that he found electric bulb at the place of occurrence, though he did not find any switch and meter there. P.W. 13 another investigating officer has also stated in para 11 of his statement that he did not find any meter on the spot. P.W. 6 has said that there was switch. It has been stated by P.W. 3 that the electricity was being consumed by the villagers in unauthorised manner and by not taking regular electric connection. P.W. 13 found unauthorised electric connection in the house of the deceased Sheokumar Tiwary. P.W. 12 had also found bulb of 100 watt at the place of occurrence and P.W. 13 found electric line at the place of occurrence and also a wooden pole in which electric connection was there. Further P.W. 13 has said that he had reported to the Electricity Department about this unauthorised electric connection. In this view of the matter the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that there was no electric light on the spot is also meritless. 21. Further P.W. 13 has said that he had reported to the Electricity Department about this unauthorised electric connection. In this view of the matter the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that there was no electric light on the spot is also meritless. 21. It was further argued that appellants Pappu Agrawal, Binay Singh and Balkesh Singh had no animosity with the deceased and there is no reason for them to commit the offence. Moreover, there were other enemies of the deceased who might have their hand in the murders. The motive is hidden in the heart of the accused who commits murder and it is difficult for the prosecution to give it out. Moreover, it becomes of no value when there is direct testimony of the eye-witnesses giving out the occurrence. In this case P.Ws. 6 and 9 are the related witnesses of the deceased whose presence on the spot is most natural and probable and whose depositions had withstood the test of cross-examination. They are consistent about the role of the appellants in the killing of the two deceased. Therefore, it cannot be said that the accused had got no motive and so they could not kill the deceased or that the deceased might have been killed by some other persons. 22. The evidence of P.Ws. 6 and 9 is corroborated by the medical evidence i.e. the post-mortem report and the injuries report referred to by those witnesses in their evidence. The same finds place in the inquest report which was the first noting made by P. W. 12. Thus the case of the prosecution about the murder of the two deceased is proved against the appellants. Killing of Sheokumar Tiwary by Pappu Agrawal, Binay Singh and Balkesh Singh is also proved. Similarly killing of Akhlesh Tiwary by Bishwanath Sah and Jai Gobind Koeri by chhura has also been proved. Thus these appellants are liable to be convicted under S.302/34, I.P.C. 23. In the result, no offence under S.120B I.P.C. is made out against the appellants and they are acquitted of the charge under S.120B and so Cr. Appeal No. 580/1982 of appellant Mahabir Prasad Akela is allowed. He is also acquitted of the charge under S.302/34, I.P.C. as appellant Mallabir Pd. Akela was not found on the spot nor any role has been assigned to him. Appeal No. 580/1982 of appellant Mahabir Prasad Akela is allowed. He is also acquitted of the charge under S.302/34, I.P.C. as appellant Mallabir Pd. Akela was not found on the spot nor any role has been assigned to him. But the convictions of other appellants under S.302/34, 302/149 and also conviction of appellants Pappu Agrawal, Binay Singh and Balkesh under S.27, Arms Act and Binay Singh u/s. 323 made by the court below, are affirmed. Criminal Appeals Nos. 582, 657 and 658 of 1982 are dismissed. Since the appellants are on bail, their bail bonds are cancelled. R.N.THAKUR, J. 24 I agree.