JUDGMENT Binodanand Singh & Phani Bhushan Prasad, JJ.-All these three appeals have been heard together with the consent of the parties since they arise out of a common judgment and are being disposed of by this judgment which will govern all the three appeals. In all there are four appellants, i.e., appellant Phoolwanti Devi alias Kulwanti Devi in Cr. Appeal No. 334 of 1984, appellant Jawabar Singh in Cr Appeal No. 429 of 1984 and appellants Ramji Singh & Bisu Singh in Cr. Appeal No. 432 of 1984. 2. All the appellants have been convicted under section 302, read with section 34, of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the Penal Code) and each of them have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life by judgment and order dated 17th May, 1984, passed by Shri Lala Radha Kumar Sinha, 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Saran at Chapra, in Sessions Trial No. 115 of 1982. 3. The prosecution case briefly stated, was that the deceased Geni Singh and one Had Bhajan Singh were distant Gotias and were residents of village Dharamchak, P. S. Dharampur in the district of Saran. Appellant Phoolwanti Devi is said to be the daughter of the aforesaid Hari Bhajan Singh, where as appellant Jawahar Singh is the Bhagina, i e., sister's son of Hari Bhajan Singh. Appellant Ramji Singh is said to be the son-in-law of the said Hali Bhajan Singh and appellant Bisu Singh is said to be the brother of appellant Ramji Singh (son-in-law of Hari Bhajan Singh). Appellant Jawahar Singh is resident of village Bhatha Naya Tola, P. S. Maker, dist. Saran, appellants Ramji Singh and Bisu Singh, who are brothers, are residents of village Bhatta, P. S. Maker, dist. Saran and appellant Phoolwanti Devi was married with one Rameshwar Singh of the same village, i.e., village Bhatta, P. S. Maker, dist. Saran. According to the prosecution on 24.10.1981 at 7.30 to 8 A. M. appellants Bisu Singh, Jawahar Singh and Ramji Singh had came at the Darwaja of the deceased Geni Singh and were sitting on the chauki At that very time Geni Singh came out of his house with a spade for cleaning his Darwaja. Saran. According to the prosecution on 24.10.1981 at 7.30 to 8 A. M. appellants Bisu Singh, Jawahar Singh and Ramji Singh had came at the Darwaja of the deceased Geni Singh and were sitting on the chauki At that very time Geni Singh came out of his house with a spade for cleaning his Darwaja. All the aforesaid appellants asked Geni Singh to listen as a result of which Geni Singh stopped there and at that time Geni Singh was caught by these three appellants by his arms and the appellants told him that there was some dispute regarding land. The deceased Geni Singh replied that the dispute should be settled. While altercation was going on between the deceased Geni Singh and the aforesaid three appellants, P.W. 3 Kalpato Devi, wife of the deceased Geni Singh, who is the informant of this case, came out of her house along with her Gotani, namely, the wife of the younger brother of the deceased, i.e., P. W. 2 Amala Devi and her daughter P. W. 1 Sheokumari. As soon as they, namely, P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 came out they saw that all the three appellants were assaulting the deceased by means of knives indiscriminately. In the meantime appellant Phoolwanti Devi alias Kulwanti Devi also came there. She also gave two Khurpi blows on the arm of the deceased and one khurpi blow on his head. When P. W. 3 Kalpato Devi, wife of the deceased Geni Singh, wanted to save her husband, the accused persons, namely, all the four appellants pushed her away. After assault Geni Singh fell down but the accused persons went on assaulting the deceased by means of knives. Neighbours did not come to rescue Geni Singh, though some of them were seeing the occurrence. After committing the assault, the accused persons went inside the house of Hari Bhajan Singh and appellant Bisu Singh changed his Pant and bushirt and thereafter all the three male appellants retreated on cycles. Geni Singh died at the spot. 4. P. W. 8 Kapildeo Kumar, who was then posted as the S. I. of Police at Dariyapur Police Station got information from one chaukidar Mohammad Hashid that he (chaukidar Md. Hashid, who has not been examined) had heard a rumour that Geni Singh of village Dharamchak has been murdered. Geni Singh died at the spot. 4. P. W. 8 Kapildeo Kumar, who was then posted as the S. I. of Police at Dariyapur Police Station got information from one chaukidar Mohammad Hashid that he (chaukidar Md. Hashid, who has not been examined) had heard a rumour that Geni Singh of village Dharamchak has been murdered. After receiving this information, P. W. 8 made entry in the Station Diary of Dariapur Police Station of that date, vide Entry No. 443 dated 24.10.1984, at 9.45 A. M. and left the police station for the verification of the aforesaid information. The aforesaid station diary entry has been marked as Ext. 2. He (P.W. 8) came to village Dharan chak at the place of occurrence at 10.30 A. M. on the same day and recorded the fardbeyan (Ext. 3) on the statement of P.W. 3 Kalpato Devi (the wife of the deceased Geni Singh). The Fardbeyan (Ext. 3) was recorded in presence of the witnesses, who also signed on the aforesaid fardbeyan (Ext. 3). On the basis of the aforesaid fardbeyan (Ext. 3) formal First Information Report (Ext. 6) was drawn up at Dariyapur Police Station and a case under section 302/34 of the Penal Code was instituted against these appellants and one Shankar Singh. P. W. 8 Kapildeo Kumar took up investigation of the case and after recording of the Fardbeyan (Ext. 3) he inspected the place of occurrence, which was Sahan, i.e., the courtyard in front of the house of the deceased Geni Singh. The dead body of Geni Singh was found at a distance of 14 cubits from the main Darwaja of the house. Sufficient quantity of blood like substance was found near and around the dead body. The village path was at a distance of 22 cubits. The house of Geni Singh was facing east and the place of occurrence was towards east of his Darwaja. It was situated at the eastern extrimity of the village. P. W. 8, the Investigating Officer, held inquest on the dead body of Geni Singh in presence of witnesses and prepared an inquest report, carbon copy of which has been marked as Ext. 4. He (P. W. 8) sent the dead body to Chapta Sadar Hospital for postmortem examination. It was situated at the eastern extrimity of the village. P. W. 8, the Investigating Officer, held inquest on the dead body of Geni Singh in presence of witnesses and prepared an inquest report, carbon copy of which has been marked as Ext. 4. He (P. W. 8) sent the dead body to Chapta Sadar Hospital for postmortem examination. P. W. 8 also seized earth containing blood like substance from the place of occurrence in presence of the witnesses and prepared 4 seizure list, which has been marked as Ext. 5. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer (P. W. 8) made search of the house of Hari Bhajan Singh and recovered one terrycot full bushirt containing blood like stains and one full-pant, which also contained some blood like stains. He seized them in presence of the witnesses and prepared seizure list which has been marked as Ext. 5/1. he full-pant and the bushirt were sent to the Chemical Examiner and Director of Forensic Science Laboratory by the Investigating Officer (P. W. 8) for examination and report. Thereafter he examined the witnesses. 5. P. W. 4 Dr. Rai Rameshwar Sahay, who at that time was posted at Sadar Hospital, Chapra, held postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased Geni Singh on 20.10.1981 at 10 : 30 A. M. and found the fol1owiAg antemortem injuries: (i) Incised wound 1½” X ½" x 1" on the right temporal region of head. (ii) Incised wound 1½ “ X ½” X ½" on the right eye brow. (iii) Two penetrating wounds ¾" X 1/2 each on the left side of back and back or neck respectively. (iv) Penetrating wound ¾ " X 1/3 " 1½” on the upper part of right shoulder joint. (v) Penetrating wound ¾” X 1/6 ” X ¾” on anterior fold of left axilla. (vi) Four penetrating wounds on the front side of chest lower part dimension being ½" X 1/3” X ¾” cutting the seventh right anterior costal cartilage, the next wound ½" x 1/3" X 2" cutting the lower part of sternum, next wound ½" x 1/3 " X 2½" cutting the 8th left rib anteriorly and penetrating through the left lung the next wound being 1" X ½" X 2½" on the anterior part of 9th right intercostal space cutting the rib and penetrating the lobe of liver. (vii) Penetrating wound 1" X ½" X 2½" just below umbilicus of abdomen and entering peritoneal cavity and perforating the intestine. (viii) Penetrating wound 1" X ½" X 3 ½" on left inter scapular region of thorax entering the pericardium and perforating the right chamber of heart. (ix) Incised wound 2" X ½" X ½" on the front of left forearm middle part. (x) Incised wound 1¾ " X ½" X ½" on the lower part of left forearm inner side entering the muscle. In the opinion of the doctor (P. W. 4), injury nos. i, ii, ix & x were caused by sharp cutting and the rest by sharp pointed weapon. Injury nos. vi, vii and viii were grievous in nature and the rest were simple. Time elpased since death was between 18 to 36 hours. In his opinion the death lad occurred due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of the injuries sustained by the decea8ed. Injury nos. i to viii might had been caused by big knife and injury nos. ix and x can be caused by "Khurpi". Injury nos. vi, vii & viii were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. The postmortem report has been marked as Ext. 1. 6. It appears that after completing investigation charge-sheet was submitted by the police against these appellants only showing appellant Phoolwanti Devi as absconder. Accused Shankar Singh was nut sent up for trial. After cognizance and commitment all the four appellants were put on trial. In the trial court all the appellants were charged under section 302/34 of the Penal Code for having committed the murder of Geni Singh by intentionally causing his death in furtherance of their common intention. In support of its case the prosecution produced nine witnesses in all. Out of whom P. W. 6 Sakaldeep Singh was tendered and therest were examined. All the appellants were examined under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, no witness on their behalf was examined. 7. The case of the defence was that these appellants were innocent and they had not committed the offence as alleged by prosecution. Their further case was that the deceased Geni Singh was the Sarpunch and had several enemies and was trading in Ganja. However, no witness on their behalf was examined. 7. The case of the defence was that these appellants were innocent and they had not committed the offence as alleged by prosecution. Their further case was that the deceased Geni Singh was the Sarpunch and had several enemies and was trading in Ganja. He might had been killed by some unidentified persons but the accused persons, namely, the appellants have been implicated in this case as Haribhajan Singh had filed a case against the informant (P. W. 3). At the conclusion of the trial the learned trial Court rejected the defence plea and accepted the prosecution version of the case. It accordingly came to the conclusion that the charge under section 302/34 of Penal Code levelled against the appellants had been established by the prosecution and it accordingly convicted and sentenced the appellants as stated above. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants have contended that the findings and conclusions of the learned trial Court that these appellants had committed the murder of Geni Singh arc not based on proper appreciation of evidence, besides the evidence led by the prosecution was neither sufficient nor reliable. In this connection it has been argued that the orders of conviction passed by the learned trial Court are based on testimony of the interested witnesses and no independent witness has come forward in this case to support the prosecution version of the occurrence. As already stated nine witnesses were produced by the prosecution. Out of whom, P.W. 1 Shiv Kumari, daughter of the deceased, P.W. 2 Amala Devi wife of the younger brother of the deceased, and P.W. 3 Kalpato Devi, wife of (he deceased, who is also the informant in this case, are the eye witnesses of the occurrence. P.W. 5 Ram Sewak Singh and P.W. 7 Ram Kumari Devi, wife of P.W. 5 Ram Sewak Singh, did not support the prosecution case in Court and were declared hostile by the prosecution. P.W.9 Suresh Prasad Singh is a formal witness, who has proved the formal First Information Report (Ext. 6). So far as the other witnesses are concerned, a reference has already been amde, No doubt the orders of conviction passed by the learned trial Court is based on the testimony of three eye witnesses, namely, P.Ws. P.W.9 Suresh Prasad Singh is a formal witness, who has proved the formal First Information Report (Ext. 6). So far as the other witnesses are concerned, a reference has already been amde, No doubt the orders of conviction passed by the learned trial Court is based on the testimony of three eye witnesses, namely, P.Ws. 1, 2 & 3, who are undoubtedly the close relations of the deceased and thus they cannot be said to be independent witnesses. But well settled principle of law is that in case of partisan witnesses their evidence should not be discarded outright but it has to b€ scanned carefully and cautiously. From the evidence of P. W. 3 Kalpato Devi, the informant, it would appear that although the neighbours were seeing the occurrence but they did not come forward to save the deceased Geni Singh from being killed. This shows that since the dispute was between the agnates, namely, Haribhajan Singh and Geni Singh the outsiders did not like to interfere and this may be one of the reason for independent witnesses not coming forward. In such situation in villages it is a matter of common experience that the persons do not like to involve themselves in a dispute of close relations. 9. P. W. 5 Ram Sewak Singh is named as an eye witness in the First Information Report but in Court neither he (P.W. 5) nor P.W. 7 Ram Kumari Devi, who is his wife, supported the case of the prosecution, but from the evidence of P. W. 8, the Investigating Officer, it would appear that these witnesses have resiled from their earlier statement made before the police. So the whole case rests upon the testimony of P. W. 1 Shiv Kumari, the daughter of the deceased, P. W. 2 Amala Devi, the wife of the younger brother of the deceased, and P. W. 3 Kalpato Devi, wife of the deceased. It has to be seen whether these witnesses are competent to say about the occurrence and are expected to be present at the scene of occurrence when the assault on Geni Singh took place. 10. From the evidence of P. W. 8, the Investigating Officer, it would appear that the dead body was found in the courtyard, i.e., Sahan at a distance of 14 cubits from the Dalwaja. 10. From the evidence of P. W. 8, the Investigating Officer, it would appear that the dead body was found in the courtyard, i.e., Sahan at a distance of 14 cubits from the Dalwaja. Besides sufficient quantity of blood like substance was also found near the dead body. This clearly establishes that the murder of Geni Singh was committed just in front of the Darwaja as alleged by the prosecution. According to the prosecution case, i.e., the evidence of P. Ws. 1, 2 & 3, there was an altercation between the deceased and the three appellants, namely, Jawahar Singh, Ramji Singh and Bisu Singh, which attracted the attention of P. W. 3 Kalpato Devi, the wife of the deceased, who was inside her Angan, and after hearing some hulla at his Darwaja she came out along with her daughter (P. W. 1) and her Gotani, namely, P. W. 2 Amala Devi, the wife of the younger brother of the deceased. Therefore, their presence in the circumstances as stated above appears to be quite natural. In such circumstance, it is expected that the female members of the house after hearing hulla, especially when husband of the informant Kalpato Devi (P. W. 3) had gone out of the Angan to the Darwaja, would come out, out of curiosity, and they could see the entire occurrence. So there does not appear any improbability 'in their presence at the place of occurrence. On the other hand their presence at the place of occurrence is quite probable and natural. In the circumstances of this case the inmates of the house of the deceased will be the most competent persons to narrate about the occurrence. P. Ws. 1 and 2 have fully supported P. W. 3 on all the points. These witnesses have been cross-examined at length, but nothing has been brought in their cross-examination to discredit their testimony. At this stage it may be pointed out that P. W. 2 Amala Devi is named in the First Information Report. The defence while cross-examining P. W. 3 Kalpato Devi has tried to show that P. W. 2 Amala Devi has been described as Asharfi Devi in, the Fardbeyan but when the Investigating Officer was asked about the name of Asharfi Devi he (P. W. 8) has clearly stated that P. W. 3 Kalpato Devi, the informant, had not named Asharfi Devi. From the perusal of the Fardbeyan (Ext. 3) it is clear that she has been described as Amla Devi, wife of Ram Ekbal Singh, and she has also been described as Gotani. So in this circumstance, there cannot be any confusion in this regard that P. W. 2 Amala Devi has been cited as a witness in the First Information Report. Of course the name of Shiv Kumari (P. W. 1) does not find place in the First Information Report, but simply because her name is not in the First Information Report her testimony cannot be discarded on this ground alone because she being the daughter of the deceased it is expected that in the circumstance of this case when her father is being assaulted and killed at the Darwaja she is also expected to come out and see the occurrence. In this circumstance omission of the Dame of P. W. 1 Shiv Kumari in the Fardbeyan does not appear to be of any consequence. 11. Ocular testimony of the three eye witnesses finds full support from the medical evidence as well as the objective findings of the Investigating Officer. According to the evidence of the eye witnesses, namely, P. Ws. 1, 2 and 3 the occurrence took place at the Darwaja and as already stated the dead body and blood like substance were found at the Darwaja which supports the prosecution version of the occurrence as disclosed by the aforesaid witnesses. Besides, the medical evidence fully supports the version of assault given out by the aforesaid eye witnesses The injuries found by the doctor have already been quoted above and from the same it would appear that the injury nos. i, ix & x found on the deceased were incised wounds. In the opinion of the doctor injury nos. viii & ix were possible by Khurpi but in our opinion injury no. (i) which was an incised wound, was also possible by Khurpi. The prosecution allegation is that appellant Phoolwanti Devi had dealt blows by means of Khurpi on the arm and on the head of the deceased at the time of occurrence. The doctor who held postmortem examination, i. e., P. W. 4 found incised wounds and injury no. ix found by the doctor at the time of postmortem examination on the dead body was on the left forearm and injury no. The doctor who held postmortem examination, i. e., P. W. 4 found incised wounds and injury no. ix found by the doctor at the time of postmortem examination on the dead body was on the left forearm and injury no. (x) as well on the laft forearm. Thus two injuries were found on the forearm of the deceased, whereas one incised wound. i. e., injury no. (i) was found on the right temperal region of head. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants have contended that there is some discrepancy regarding the injuries caused by 'Khurpi' which have been attributed to appellant Phoolwanti Devi. In Court the informant Kalpato Devi (P. W. 3) has stated that appellant Phoolwanti dealt two Khurpi blows on the arm of the deceased and one Khurpi blow on his head, whereas in the fardbeyan it has been stated that Phoolwanti Devi (appellant) dealt Khurpi blows which hit on the left arm. In the Fardbeyan there is no mention that any Khurpi blow was given on the head. So according to the learned counsel for the appellants the informant Kalpato Devi (P. W. 3) has tried to develope the manner of assault in court and on this ground it is contended that the evidence of the informant (P.W. 3) and other witnesses, namely, P. Ws. 1 and 2 should be rejected. We are unable to agree with the above contention of the learned counsel for the appellants since it is well known that the First Information Report is not the beginning and end of the prosecution case In the First Information Report the gist of the occurrence, i.e., the material points are expected to be there. Full details are seldom found in the First Information Report and in our view if any First Information Report contains all the details it will be considered to be laboured one and may create suspicion regarding the correctness of the version contained therein. So the omission of the fact of assault by Khurpi on the head of the deceased by appellant Phoolwanti Devi does not appear to be of any consequence in the circumstance of the case, since the informant (P. W. 3) has been supported on this point by P. Ws. 1 and 2 besides the finding of the doctor (P. W. 4). 12. 1 and 2 besides the finding of the doctor (P. W. 4). 12. Regarding assault made by other appellants by means of knives, the doctor has found several penetrating injuries on the dead body of Geni Singh which fully establishes the prosecution version of the occurrence, so far as the assault by the male appellants are concerned. Thus from the ocular testimony of the witnesses, namely, P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 also from the medical evidence, i.e., the evidence of Dr. Ray Rameshwar Sahay (P.W. 4), who held the postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased Geni Singh, and from the objective findings of the Investigating Officer (P. W. 8), the prosecution allegations and the charge based thereon levelled against the appellants are fully established. 13. The other glaring a5pect of the case is that according to the prosecution case as well as the defence case there was enmity, if any, between Haribhajan Singh and Geni Singh (deceased) but Haribhajan Singh has not been made an accused in the present case. This shows that there was no attempt on the part of the informant (P. W. 3) or the prosecution witnesses to falsely implicate any person, otherwise Haribhajan Singh would not have been left out by the informant (P. W. 3) while lodging the case. It has also come in evidence that Haribhajan Singh has sons as well but they have also not been made an accused. There is no material on the record to indicate that there was enmity between the three male appellants and the informant as also other eye witnesses of this case. So far as appellant Phoolwanti Devi is concerned, regarding her also it appears quite improbable that the informant herself being a lady will falsely implicate another lady, i.e., the daughter of Haribhajan Singh, namely, appellant Phoohvanti Devi. So in these circumstances the chance of false implication absolutely stands ruled out. No doubt one Shankar Singh of the same village to which the deceased belong was also named as an accused in the First Information Report, but since he was not sent up for trial by the police on this ground the testimony of the eye witnesses supported by the other circumstances cannot be discarded. No doubt one Shankar Singh of the same village to which the deceased belong was also named as an accused in the First Information Report, but since he was not sent up for trial by the police on this ground the testimony of the eye witnesses supported by the other circumstances cannot be discarded. Thus the findings and the conclusions of the trial court that the prosecution had been able to prove its case and the charge under section 302/34 of the Penal Code against the appellants had been established are fully justified. 14. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants have contended that the judgment and orders of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court are vitiated in account of the fact that the provisions of secti0n 235 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have not been complied with by the learned trial Court. i.e., the appellants went not heard at the time of awarding sentence to them after conviction on the question of sentence. According to the learned counsel appearing for the appellants provisions contained in Section 235 of the Code are mandatory one, which must be complied with Sub-section (2) of section 235 of the Code no doubt provides that if the accused is convicted, the Judge shall, unless he proceeds in accordance with the provisions of section 360, of the Cr.P.C. hear the accused on the question of sentence and then pass sentence on him according to law. The learned trial Court has given its own reasoning for not hearing the accused on the question of sentence in the judgment itself. It has stated that as the minimum punishment prescribed for offence under section 302 of the Penal Code is imprisonment for life, the trial Court proposed to award this sentence and so there was no need for hearing the defence on the point of sentence and the learned trial Court accordil1gly awarded the appellants minimum sentence prescribed under the law for an offence under section 302 of the Penal Code, i. e., imprisonment for life. The above observation of the learned trial Court is based on sound reasoning. The above observation of the learned trial Court is based on sound reasoning. Idea, behind enacting section (2) of section 235 of the Code appears to be that accused had to be heard on the question of sentence so that he may place before the Court the circumstances on the basis of which the last punishment provided under the Jaw should be awarded to him and the prosecution also can get an opportunity to submit before the Court and make out a case that the accused deserves the maximum penalty provided under tile law. In this case since the minimum sentence has been awarded to the accused persons as provided under the law, no prejudice has been caused to the accused appellants and they cannot make any grievance. It would have been the stage who could have made a grievance against awarding lesser punishment to the appellants but the State has not made any grievance in this regard. In the case of Nepal Singh & others vs. State of Hariyana (AIR 1977 Supreme Court 1066) it has been held by the Supreme Court that if the sentence is of imprisonment for life for an offence under section 302 of the Penal Code, which is the minimum sentence that could be passed under section 302 of the Penal Code it is not necessary to remit the case to the Court below. 15. We therefore find no substance in the above contention of the learned counsel for the appellants and upheld the judgment and orders of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court against all the appellants. 16. In the result we do not find any merit in these three appeals which are accordingly dismissed.