MUKUL GOPAL MUKHERJI J. ( 1 ) THE two appellants impugn before us a conviction under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence of imprisonment for life passed by Sri D. N, Sen, Additional Sessions Judge, 10th Court, Alipore in Sessions Trial Case No. 1 (11)1 84. ( 2 ) A First Information Report was lodged at Bhangore Police Station at 8. 30 p. m. on 4th February 1982 by one Din Mohammad, the Manager of a brick field owned by the deceased Elem Bux Molla situated at Dhib Dhipa to the effect that on that day the deceased Elem Bux Molla came to the brick field as usual around 8 a. m. Supervised the work during the day and in the afternoon at about 5. 30 p. m. he proceeded towards Dhib Dhipa Bazar from his brick field to take tea and snacks. 5/10 minutes after he had left, the first informant heard the sound of three gun shots from Dhib Dhipa Bazar. He rushed to the place of occurrence which was on the Harwa Lauhati Road running east-west to the north of the brick field. He then heard the sound Inquilab Zindahad Lal Salam etc. He also found 5/6 persons running away along the kucha road towards north. Proceeding further he found his master Elem Bux Molla lying on the road in a pool of blood. He also found one sharp cutting injury on his neck. One Altu Molla, son of Nazibar Ali Molla was following his master from some distance. The said Altu Molla fled away out of fright. The police started investigation, visited the place of occurrence and held inquest over the dead body. Police seized two fired cartridges and one live cartridge under a seizure list. In the First Information Report however the appellants were not named. The assailants were described as unknown persons. The dead body was sent for post mortem examination on the day following. Post mortem was held by P. W. 10 Dr. Police seized two fired cartridges and one live cartridge under a seizure list. In the First Information Report however the appellants were not named. The assailants were described as unknown persons. The dead body was sent for post mortem examination on the day following. Post mortem was held by P. W. 10 Dr. M. K. Maitra who found two gun shot injuries on the person of the deceased, one of an entry measuring 4 x 3 oval shaped placed over the upper most part of the right chest 11/2 to the right of midline 4 above the level of the right heel and one exit wound on the right side of the back 11/2 x 1, situated 2 to the right medial of the back. The first gun shot injury was placed into the 5th inter costal space of the back of the left chest 11/2 left to the midline. He also found one transverse gaping incised wound measuring 21/2 x 1 situated in front and a little more on the left side of the lower part of the neck below the ponam adamin. According to the post mortem doctor, death was due to the effects of these injuries which were ante mortem and homicidal in nature. Police on completion of investigation issued charge sheet against the two appellants under Sections 302/34 I. P. C. and they were ultimately placed for trial before the Additional Sessions Judge as aforesaid. ( 3 ) IN the trial 14 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution and none on behalf of the defence. ( 4 ) THE two appellants pleaded not guilty to the charges framed against them. They denied their complicity over the murder of Elem Bux Molla and contended that they were falsely implicated at the behest of P. W. 2 Abu Bakkar Siddique a relation of the deceased because of their involvement in a previous trial over the murder of the deceaseds nephew Rabbani along with one Lisel Haque. ( 5 ) P. W. 2 Abu Bakkar heard about the murder of Elem Bux at Haroa Ferry Chat at 6/6. 30 p. m. and rushed to the place of occurrence and found the deceased lying in a pool of blood with his throat slit. He was a witness to the seizure of the cartridges seized by the police. ( 5 ) P. W. 2 Abu Bakkar heard about the murder of Elem Bux at Haroa Ferry Chat at 6/6. 30 p. m. and rushed to the place of occurrence and found the deceased lying in a pool of blood with his throat slit. He was a witness to the seizure of the cartridges seized by the police. It transpired that be was a relation of the deceased and he gave the information to the police that these was an attempt on the life of the deceased previously but he somehow escaped. His nephew Rabbani was killed. The present appellants figured as accused in that case along with Lisel Haque. P. W. 3 Altu Molla whose name was mentioned in the First Information Report was however, not described therein as an employee of the brick field under the deceased. However, he was examined by police on the day following the murder of the deceased. In Course of trial he gave out inter alia that his master went to have a cup of tea at Dhib Dhipa Bazar and while he was on the Haroa Lauhati road following his master at a distance of 8/10 cubits, the incident took place His positive evidence is that 5-6 people were standing on the pitch road. Seeing the deceased Elem Bux Molia approaching them, three of them came forward. Amongst them the appellant Mujid asked Elem Bux as to whether he was his uncle Elem to which the deceased answered in the affirmative. Alil Molla then came forward and shot at the deceased. Elem slumped on the ground when two other shots followed in quick succession. He could not say as to who fired them. There after the miscreants shouted slogans Inquilab Zindahad Lal Selam etc. and escaped through a road leading to Boalghata to the north of the main road. He found Tasiruddin standing with a cycle at a distance. He was morally frightened and fled away. He found P. W. 1 Din Mohammad, Manager coming towards the pitch road from the brick field. This witness identified both the appellants in T. I. Parade as well as in Court. In cross-examination he admitted that in a statement to police he mentioned the names of both the appellants whom he had known by name and also knew their residence as would appear from his examination-in- chief. This witness identified both the appellants in T. I. Parade as well as in Court. In cross-examination he admitted that in a statement to police he mentioned the names of both the appellants whom he had known by name and also knew their residence as would appear from his examination-in- chief. He also deposed to the effect that P. W. 6 Tasiruddin was standing nearby with his cycle. He denied that before the police be did not make the statement to the effect that Alil Molla fired at Elem Bux Molla. He reiterated that Mujid was there at the time of occurrence. It therefore becomes evident from his testimony that except himself and Tasiruddin (P. W. 6) none was present over there. Tasiruddin, another witness who was examined by police as far back as on 29/11/1982 i. e. , more than nine months after the incident, testified to the effect that on the fateful evening he came upon the culvert in his own bicycle when he saw 4-5 people out of whom three came forward and one of them fired at Elem Bux Molla to which he slumped down on the ground. Two other shots followed thereafter. He pointed out Alil Molla to be the person who slit the deceased and Mujid Hazra to be the person who slit the throat of Elem Bux Molla with a knife. The miscreants shouted slogans Inquilab Zindahad and Lal Salam and thereafter escaped through road leading to Boalghata. He became terribly frightened. He saw P. W. 3 Altab Hossain standing on the southern side of the road. He saw him fleeing away and accordingly he also did run away. He saw the manager of the brick field coming. He could not brace himself upto wait and meet the manager of the brick field so as to report to him about the incident. The sky was cloudy and it was drizzling. This witness however is a dealer in green coco-nut. He sells his merchandise in Baranagar/dhineswar area. He knew the deceased from before to be the owner of the brick field at Dhib Dhipa. He was characterised by the defence as a chance witness and unworthy of credence. The other thing that did transpire from his evidence read in conjunction with the testimony of the Magistrate holding the TI. He sells his merchandise in Baranagar/dhineswar area. He knew the deceased from before to be the owner of the brick field at Dhib Dhipa. He was characterised by the defence as a chance witness and unworthy of credence. The other thing that did transpire from his evidence read in conjunction with the testimony of the Magistrate holding the TI. Parade was that he spoke about three bombs being blasted by the accused persons but if was belied by the testimony of other witnesses including the doctor who held the post mortem examination and the police officers who visited the scene of Occurrence. It transpired from the testimony of the Officer-in-charge, Bhangore Police Station (P. W. 12) that he examined four witnesses on 5-2-1982 in the early hours of morning and he examined another batch of six witnesses on that very day i. e. , on 5-2-1982. He tried to apprehend the accused on 6-2-1982 from different places but could not succeed. On 7-3-1982 he arrested Md. Alil Molla. On 5-4-84 C. I. D. West Bengal took over charge of the investigation. From his testimony it is evident that P. W. 1 accompanied him and came to the place where the dead body of Elem Bux was lying where the inquest was held. He however, admitted that he did not send cartridges for examination by any ballistic expert. In cross-examination he admitted that P. W. 3 did not specifically tell him that he saw 5 people standing on the pitch road and that on seeing Elem Bux approaching, three of them came forward and Alil fired at Elem Bux. It was also not stated to him by P. W. 3 that Mujid slit the throat of Elem Bux. It however, transpired that he had been to village Shankarpur where P. W. 3 lived in connection with investigation of the case. P. W. 13 Dhirendra Nath Roy was the Sub-Inspector attached to the Detective Department who helped. Officer-in-charge, Bhangore police Station in matters of investigation. P. W. 14 Rakhal Chandra Bhowmick was the Sub-Inspector of the C. I. D. Headquarters who at the relevant time was attached to Alipore D. D. He searched for the accused. On 13/4/1982 he came to Baranagar and searched for accused Mujid but could not trace him. Officer-in-charge, Bhangore police Station in matters of investigation. P. W. 14 Rakhal Chandra Bhowmick was the Sub-Inspector of the C. I. D. Headquarters who at the relevant time was attached to Alipore D. D. He searched for the accused. On 13/4/1982 he came to Baranagar and searched for accused Mujid but could not trace him. On 1/9/1982 Mujid was arrested by the Officer-in-charge Bhangore Police Station and he forwarded him on 2/9/1982 before the learned Magistrate. He made two separate prayers of TI. Parade nor the two accused persons. P. W. 5 Sk. Abdul Mannan, a Magistrate held TI. Parade on 12-4-1983 in the court room of the Judicial Magistrate in which both P. W. 3 and P. W. 6 identified the suspect Mujid. P. W. 6 stated to the Magistrate that three bombs were hurled by the miscreants on their way of return after the occurrence. P. W. 11 Pranab Kumar Deb another Magistrate held TI. Parade in respect of suspect Alil Molla on 9-2. 1983 in his court room where both the witnesses P. W. 3 and P. W. 6 identified the suspect Alil Molla. P. W. 3 identified him as having been amongst the assailants of the deceased and P. W. 6 identified him to be the person shooting at the deceased. ( 6 ) DEFENCE has challenged the credibility of the alleged eye-witnesses P. W. 3 and P. W. 6. It was further contended that the medical evidence does not corroborate the account given by the so-called eye witnesses so as far as the story of actual murder by gun shot followed by a knife inflicted on the deceased by Mujid. The testimony as given by P. W. 3 however inspires our confidence. No doubt much can be said by the defence about P. W. 6 being a mere chance witness, about whose veracity there may be some scope of embellishment. However, it should be borne in mind that the prosecution examined him as a corroborating witness only to support the testimony of P. W. 3. It is indeed true that P. W. 1 Din Mohammad could not name the accused persons because he did not see the entire incident and by the time he came over the place of occurrence, he found P. W. 3 running away out of fright. It is indeed true that P. W. 1 Din Mohammad could not name the accused persons because he did not see the entire incident and by the time he came over the place of occurrence, he found P. W. 3 running away out of fright. It is indeed true that he did not characterise P. W. 3 Alil Molla Altu to be an employee of the brick field but that by itself does not taint his veracity with suspicion. P. W. 3 Altab has however, been examined on the day following the incident. There is much amount of force behind the submission of the prosecution that he could not be a tutored witness, since it was only natural and probable for him to run for his life rather than make a clean breast of all the evidentiary- details to P. W. 1 immediately after the incident. ( 7 ) MR. Balai Chandra Ray, the learned Advocate for the appellants submitted before us that P. W. 3 should not be taken as witness of truth in view of the fact that he did not disclose the names of the appellants to P. W. 1 whom he had an opportunity to meet at the place of occurrence immediately after the murder of Elem Bux Molla was perpetrated. It is indeed true that P. W. 3 ran for his life on being frightened at the suddenness and brutality of the incident which is manifestly evident enough from the FIR. as well. It has been laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision Rana Pratap and others v. State of Haryana, that the evidence of a witness in a murder trial cannot be discarded merely on the ground that he did not react in a particular manner. If murder is committed in a street, only passers-by will be witnesses. Their evidence cannot be brushed aside or viewed with suspicion on the ground that they are mere chance witnesses. The expression chance witness is borrowed from countries where every mans home is considered as castle and everyone must have an explanation for his presence elsewhere in any other mans castle. It is most unsuitable expression in a country whose people are less formal and more casual. The expression chance witness is borrowed from countries where every mans home is considered as castle and everyone must have an explanation for his presence elsewhere in any other mans castle. It is most unsuitable expression in a country whose people are less formal and more casual. To discard the evidence of such witness who are mere passers by on the ground that they are change witnesses even where murder is committed, is to abandon good sense and take shallow view of the evidence. It was further given out in the said judgment that every person who witnesses a murder reacts in his own way. Some are stunned, some become speechless and some stand rooted to the spot. Some become hysteric and start wailing. Some start shouting for help. Those others who run away to keep themselves as far removed from the spot as possible are not necessarily incredible. Yet others rush to the rescue of the victim even going to the extent of counter attacking the assailants. Everyone reacts in his own special way. There is no set of rule of natural reaction. To discard the evidence of witnesses on the ground that they did not react in a particular manner is to appreciate the evidence in a wholly unrealistic and unimaginative way. ( 8 ) IN the facts and circumstances of the present case just because P. W. 3 did not immediately come and report the incident as viewed by him giving out details of the incident to P. W. 1 is itself no ground for making himself a witness of untruth. ( 9 ) MR. Ray also contended that the part played by accused Alil and accused Mujid was not specifically given out in the statement of P. W. 3 to the Investigating Officer recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is true that P. W. 12 gave out inter alia that P. W. 3 did not specifically give out to him that P. W. 3 found 5 people standing on the pitch road and that on seeing Elem Bux, three of them came forward and Alil fired at Elem Bux and that P. W. 3 did not also mention to P. W. 12 (the Investigating Officer) that Mujid slit the throat of Elem Bux. ( 10 ) WE have seen for ourselves the statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in so far as P. W. 3 is concerned and we do not find that P. W. 12 was justified in answering the question in the manner he did and his statement as recorded in course of testimony does not clearly depict the actual state of affairs. That apart, even if there was an apparent contradiction that could have been proved by the defence in accordance with law, drawing the attention of a particular witness to the nature of contradiction when he himself denied in course of his testimony that it was not a fact that he did not tell the police that Alil Molla fired at them Bux and Mujid slit his throat. He also denied the suggestion put to him by the defence lawyer that he did not tell that he saw 5 people standing on the pitch road and seeing Elem Bux approaching, three people out of four and Alil Molla fired at Elem Bux. ( 11 ) IT was further argued by Mr. Ray that identification at the TI. Parade by P. W. 3 of two known accused persons was a fierce, particularly when such TI. Parade was held in a court room and the accused persons were already in jail. We are ourselves of the opinion that TI. Parade was a mere un-necessary formality resorted to by the investigating machinery since both the accused persons were named specifically in course of his statement to police under Section 161 by P. W. 3. That a part we do not find that P. W. 3 had any enmity which might have prompted him to implicate the two appellants out of malice or for any other oblique reason. Mr. Ray contended further that no reliance should be placed on the testimony of P. W. 6. There is sufficient force behind the said submission. He was examined by police as already indicated earlier on 29/11/1982 after the arrest of the two appellants Alil and Mujid on 7/3/1982 and 1/9/1982 respectively. Mr. Ray contended further that no reliance should be placed on the testimony of P. W. 6. There is sufficient force behind the said submission. He was examined by police as already indicated earlier on 29/11/1982 after the arrest of the two appellants Alil and Mujid on 7/3/1982 and 1/9/1982 respectively. P. W. 6 gave out inter alia in course of his testimony that he disclosed the names of the appellants to the eldest son of the deceased i. e. , to P. W. 4 Abu Taher Molla but Abu Taher was merely tendered by the prosecution and he did not come forth to corroborate the testimony of P. W. 6 on this point. That apart P. W. 6 himself was examined by the police on the very self same day on which P. W. 6 was examined. There was no plausible explanation for the delay in examining P. W. 6. That apart as is evident from the testimony of TI. Magistrate P. W. 5, while he was standing be saw the suspect Mujid Ali Hazra to stab the victim with a knife. P. W. 6 also stated to P. W. 5 that three bombs were hurled and the miscreants thereafter, left the place of occurrence. ( 12 ) IT is indeed true that the prosecution did not examine any ballistic expert and as pointed out by the learned trial Judge, if the prosecution would have done so, the expert opinion might have tilted the issue on that point either way. But the trial court was satisfied on assessment of the evidence that the testimony of P. W. 3 does not run counter to the medical evidence of P. W. 10 regarding the nature of injuries causing the instantaneous death of Elem Bux Molla which he sustained in the hands of the two appellants as testified to by P. W. 3. ( 13 ) IT was further argued on behalf of the defence that according to the FIR. the deceased came to his brick field at about 8 a. m. and after the whole day work, around 5 p. m. he went to take tea and snacks. As is evident from the post mortem doctors finding, the deceased took his food 1 to 3 hours before his death. the deceased came to his brick field at about 8 a. m. and after the whole day work, around 5 p. m. he went to take tea and snacks. As is evident from the post mortem doctors finding, the deceased took his food 1 to 3 hours before his death. There is not much discrepancy on the point, because the deceased might have taken his food in the brick field itself and there was no evidence to the contrary. The very fact that he went to the brick field at out 8 a. m. and he went to take tea around 5 p. m. does not rule out the possibility of his taking mid-day meal about 2 to 3 hours before 5 p. m. The prosecution however could not examine any Tea Stall Vendor or tea stall holder to corroborate the story that the deceased had actually gone to take tea and snacks at Dhib Dhipa market. When there is testimony of P. W. 1 and P. W. 3 which are both clear and cogent enough to indicate, that before the deceased Elem Bux reached the tea stall, he was murdered by the two appellants on the way, we do not find that nonexamination of the tea stall vendor or the tea stall holder would make the prosecution story incredible. ( 14 ) WE have given our anxious consideration to the fact as to whether it would be safe to uphold the conviction on the testimony of a single eye witness P. W. 3 who directly implicates both the appellants. We find on an assessment of the evidence of this witness i. e. P. W. 3 that he is a trustworthy and reliable witness. It is because of his presence at the spot of the crime he could testify about the complicity of both the appellants and the trial court also found him to a trustworthy and reliable witness because his name transpired in the FIR. which was lodged at the earliest opportunity and above all, he contacted to the police without any loss of time on the day following the date of incident when the police examined him under Section 161 Cr. P. C. Just because it drizzled and it was an evening of February, it does not follow that P. W. 3 could not identify persons who were known to him earlier. P. C. Just because it drizzled and it was an evening of February, it does not follow that P. W. 3 could not identify persons who were known to him earlier. ( 15 ) ON assessment of the entire evidence as adduced by the prosecution and is indicated above, we think that the guilt of both the accused for committing the murder of the deceased Elem Bux is proved beyond reasonable doubt and the defence has not been able to satisfy us that the presence and participation of either of the appellants may be assailed in any manner whatsoever. ( 16 ) IT transpired in evidence, especially from the testimony of P. W. 2, that there was an earlier attempt on the life of Elem Bux. He somehow escaped that time and his nephew Robbani was, however, murdered. P. W. 2 was a witness to the earlier case against Lizel Haque who was an accused in that case. The two appellants stood trial in that case too on the allegation that they participated in the murder committed in that case. Hence we cannot rule out altogether the absence of any motive for the crime. But as indicated by the Supreme Court in Krishna Pillai Sree Kumar v. State of Kerala it is not a sine qua non for the success of the prosecution that the motive must be proved. So long as the other evidence remains convincing and is not open to a reasonable doubt, a conviction may well be based on it. ( 17 ) THE appeal is therefore, liable to be dismissed and we order accordingly. The order of conviction and sentence against both the appellants under Sections 302/34 I. P. C. stands affirmed. Appeal dismissed.