RAJESHWAR SINGH, J. The Sessions Court convicted five persons under Sec tion 302, I. P. C. read with Section 149, I. P. C. for the murder of Ram Das and it also convicted them under the same sections for the murder of Mool Chandra. In respect of each of these convictions they were sentenced to undergo imprison ment for life Two of them, namely, Uma hanker and Shitla Prasad were fur ther convicted under Section 147,i. P. C. and were awarded 1 years rigorous impri sonment. The remaining three Gaya Prasad, Kripa Snankar and Shyam Lal were convicted under Section 148, I. P. C. and they were ordered to undergo 3 years rigorous imprisonment. Further accused Uma Shanker was convicted under Section 379, I. P. C. and he was sentenced to 3 years rigorous imprisonment. All these sentences were made to run concurrently. All these five persons have filed this appeal. 2. The murdered persons Ram Das and Mool Chandra were brothers and they were residents of village Budh-Bazar. The appellants are Qaya Prasad father and his four Sons Kripa Shanker, Uma Shankar, Shitla Prasad and Shyam Lal. They are residents of nearby village Manglipur. The offence is said to have been committed in the background of previous enmity. There had been an election for the Pradhanship of the village. There was contest between one Jaggu Kisaan and appellant Gaya Prasad the sitting Podhari. The deceased Moal Chandra supported Jaggu Kishan, who woo the election. Since then appellant Gaya Prasad and his family members were harbouring ill will against the deceased Mool Chandra and his family members. J. I. c 3 Then (here was immediate motive for the occurrence. The deceased had their cultivation within the area of village Mangalipur and those fields were irrigated from a Government Tube-well. Appellant Gaya Prasad had been irrigating his filed for several days. Deceased Ram Das also wanted to irrigate his fields. In connection with this problem of irrigation and altercation took place between the deceased Ram Das and appellant Gaya Prasad one day in the evening. On the next day, that is 23rd January, 1977 complainant Vidya Sagar (P. W. 1) brother of the deceased, deceased Mool Chandra, deceased Ram Das and Mool Chandras son Arvind (P. W. 6.) went for irrigation to the Government Tube well. Electricity was not available at that time. So these people were waiting for the electricity. On the next day, that is 23rd January, 1977 complainant Vidya Sagar (P. W. 1) brother of the deceased, deceased Mool Chandra, deceased Ram Das and Mool Chandras son Arvind (P. W. 6.) went for irrigation to the Government Tube well. Electricity was not available at that time. So these people were waiting for the electricity. At that time Laiq Husain (P. W. 2) resident of another village also came these as he had also some fields there and wanted to irrigate the same. He had gun with him. After a short while at about 11. 00 a. m. the five appellants came there. Appellent Gaya Prasad the father and his to sons appellant Kripa Shanker and Shyam Lal were armed with guns. The other two sons of appellant Gaya Prasad namely, appellant Uma Shanker and Shit la Prasad had lathis. Appellant Gaya Prasad said that till his fields have been irrigated none else would be allowed to irrigate. The deceased Ram Das replied that appellant Gaya Prasad had been irrigating his fields for several days and on that day the deceased would irrigate his filed. This resulted in Iou1 altercation, on hearing which some other persons also came at the spot. Then Appellant Gaya Prasad exhorted his four sons that deceased Mool Chandra hid been harassing him since the last election and he (the appellant Gaya Prasad) had brought up the other appellants for this very day and they should kill Mool Chandra and Ram Das. Then appellants Kripa Shanker and Shyam Lal find their guns at Ram Das who fell down and died. Then the persons on the sue of deceased including the complainant started running assay to save themselves In this confusion, Laiq Hussam (P. W. 2) fell down in a nali and his gun fell on the ground. It was taken away by Uma Shankar and it is in this respect that there was a charge against him under Section 379, I. P. C. Mool Chandra went rum in towards east and the appellants chased him. After a short distance. Uma Shanker threw his lathi aiming it at Mool Chandra. This struck his legs and he could not run. Then appellant Shitla Prasad gave two or three lathi blows and appellants. Gaya Prasad, Kripa Shanker and Shyam Lal fired at Mool Chandra. After a short distance. Uma Shanker threw his lathi aiming it at Mool Chandra. This struck his legs and he could not run. Then appellant Shitla Prasad gave two or three lathi blows and appellants. Gaya Prasad, Kripa Shanker and Shyam Lal fired at Mool Chandra. On receividg injuries from lathi and guns Mool Chandra fell down in a khanti and died. Then the appellants made good their escape along-with the gun of Laiq Hussain (P. W. 2 ). After leaving the dead bodies to be looked after by Chaukidar and other family member, Vidya Sagar (P. W. 1) handed over a written report at the police station 3 miles away at 1. 05 p. m. 4. Dr. Yaspal (P. W. 3) conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of Ram Das at 11. 30 a. m. on 24-1-77. He found following ante-mortem injuries on the dead body of Ram Das :- 1. Firearm wound of entry 14 cm X 6 cm X cranial cavity deep, extending from the middle of the left side of the scalp, 50 cm above the root of the left ear and running transversely to the other side of the Scalp. The margins of the wound were lacerted. No scorching or blackening was present. 2. All the bones of the scalp (both temporal, both parietal, frontal and occiptional bones) were broken into many pieces. Brain matter was coming out of the gapping wound. One wadding piece was recovered from the surface of the brain and 30 small state were recovered from the brain matter and sticking to skull bone. 5. The age of the deceased was 36 years and one day had passed after his death, la the stomach 8 Oz. Semi digested food was found. The small in testines were filled only with gas and in the large intestines there was gas and faecal matter. The cause of death was shook and hemorrhage as a result of ante mortem injuries. 30 small pellets and wads were removed from the wound. 6. The same Doctor conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of Mool Chandra at 1 Oclock on the same day. According to him the age of the deceased was 40 years and his death occurred about a day before. Following ante mortem injuries were noticed on his dead body :- 1. Lacerated wound 6 cm x0. 6. The same Doctor conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of Mool Chandra at 1 Oclock on the same day. According to him the age of the deceased was 40 years and his death occurred about a day before. Following ante mortem injuries were noticed on his dead body :- 1. Lacerated wound 6 cm x0. 5 cm x bone deep on the top of the scalp 14. 5 cm from the route of the right ear. 2. Lacerated wound 2 cm, X 0. 2 cm x muscle deep on the top of the scalp 8 cm, to the left of injury No. 1 and 12 cm. above the root of the left ear, 3. Fire arm wound of entry 3 cm on the left temporal region 4 cm. in front of the middle of the left ear. (No blackening or scorching was present around the wound ). 4. Incised wound 3 cm. x 0. 5 X bone deep on the right side of the face 3 cm. out side the outer angle of the right eye. 5. Incised wound 2 cm. x 1 cm. x muscle deep on the right half of the neck just below the middle of right mandible. 6. Fire arm wound of entry 4 in number-each measuring 0. 4 cm X 0 4 cm, circular in shape with inverted margins in an area of 9 cm x 6 cm. on the back of right shoulder upper part, communicating through and through with wounds of exit. 1. Four Fire arm wounds of exit-2 on the top of the shoulder and 2 on the middle part of the right side of the neck in area of 11 cm X 8 cm. Each wound is 0. 75 cm. X 0. 5 cm. X muscle deep (communi cating with the wounds of entry ). 8. Fire arm wound of entry 2. 5 cm. x 25 cm. on the back of the left arm 5 cm. above the top of the elbow. It was sums what circular in shape with inverted margins and it was communicating through and through with the wound of exit-7 cm. X 4 cm. on the front of the left arm 6 cm. above the bond of the elbow. The margins were lacerated and averted. 39 small shots were recovered from this wound. 9. Lacerated wound 5. 5 cm. x 4 cm. X 4 cm. on the front of the left arm 6 cm. above the bond of the elbow. The margins were lacerated and averted. 39 small shots were recovered from this wound. 9. Lacerated wound 5. 5 cm. x 4 cm. x muscle deep on the right palm outer half. 10. Lacerated wound 5 cm. x 3 cm. x bone deep and piercing the tissues through and through between the left thumb and left index finger. 11. Contusion 12 cm. X 12 cm. on the back of the fright thigh-just below the right buttock-running transversely. 12. Abrasion 4 cm. X 0. 5 on the middle of the front right leg. 7. On internal examination he found a big holes in the left temporal bone Three wade and 121 sisal pellets were recovered from the brain matter. 7 Oz. of semi-digested food was found in the stomach. The small intestines were filled with gas, and the large intestines were filled with gas and faecal matter. The death was caused by shock and hemorrhage. 8. Injuries of both the persons were sufficient in the ordinary course to cause death 9. On the basis of written report handed over by the complainant. Head Mohair Hasan Mohammad (P. W. 4 ) prepared chick F. I. R. and made an entry in the General Diary. Investigation was assigned to. S. I. , P. L. Arya (P. W. 7) who was present at the police station. At the police station itself, the investiga ting officer recorded the statement of complainant Vidya Sagar (P. W. 1 ). He reached the place of occurrence at about 2. 00 or 2. 30 p. m. There he made in quest and took blood from to spot. Besides the other usual investigation he pre pared site plan of the place of occurrence and examined an other eye-witness Arvind Kumar (P. W. 6 ). A search was made for the accused but they were not avail able. Then in the evening he came back to the police station, Search for the accused made on 24-1-77 and on 27-1-77 proved futile and he gave an application for taking proceedings under Sections 82/83, Cr. P. C. He executed the orders under the aforesaid provisions on 30-1-77 but the accused could not be found. In the meantime on 28-1-77 he also went to the village of Laiq Hussain (P. W. 2) and recorded his statements. P. C. He executed the orders under the aforesaid provisions on 30-1-77 but the accused could not be found. In the meantime on 28-1-77 he also went to the village of Laiq Hussain (P. W. 2) and recorded his statements. Finally, he came to know that the accused had surrendered in another district and he submitted charge-sheet after taking their statements. 10. To prove their case the prosecution examined seven witnesses in all and the appellant did not produce any evidence Out of the seven witnesses of the prosecution Vidya Sagar complainant (P. W 1) Laiq Hassan (P. W. 2) and Arvind Kumar (P. W. 6) are eye-witnesses of the occurrence. Dr. Yashpal (P. W. 3) conducted post-mortem examination]. Head Mohair Hassan Moham mad (P. W. 3) prepared chick F. I. R and S. I. . P. L. Arya (P. W. 7) investigated the case. The remaining witness Ayodhya Prasad (P. W. 5) is a constable who took dead body for post-mortem examination. 11. The facts of the prosecution case depends on the reliability of three eye-witnesses, complainant Vidya Sagar (P. W. 1) Laiq Hussain (P. W. 2) and Arvind kumar (P. W. 6 ). The complainant Vidya Sagar (P. W. 1) has deposed on the point of motive as well. Besides this all the three witnesses have given a consistent version of the occurrence as given earlier in this judgment. In this statement there is no material dis crepancy which may raise slightest doubt regarding their reliability. The F. I. R. in this case is prompt. It was lodged at a distance of 3 miles within 2 hours of the occurrence, in a case where two persons had died and the complain ant also went to his residence to inform the family members and prepared a written report. The statement of the complaint, an eye-wines, was recorded at the police station itself. The statement of Arvind Kumar (P. W. 6) another eye-witness was recorded on the same day in the village. Nothing can be in ferred against the prosecution from the fact that his statement was not recorded at the police station. The Investigating Officer says that he wanted to reach the spot at the earliest and so his statement was not recorded at the police station. Laiq (P. W. 2) the 3rd eye-witness was resident of another village. Nothing can be in ferred against the prosecution from the fact that his statement was not recorded at the police station. The Investigating Officer says that he wanted to reach the spot at the earliest and so his statement was not recorded at the police station. Laiq (P. W. 2) the 3rd eye-witness was resident of another village. So his statement was recorded after 4 or 5 days In the meantime, this witness had also gone out as disclosed by him. The name of this witness as well as other witnesses are mentioned in the F. 1. R. So he has not been introduced as an after thought. Complainant Vidya Sagar (P. W. 1) and Arvind Kumar (P. W. 6) are no doubt interested but their interest can only be to impaled the correct person. When two persons have been killed and there are injuries of gun shots and lathis. There does not appear any doubt regarding five person being the assailants. The occurrence was during the day when the assailant could be seen without difficulty. The medical evidence supports the prosecution version regard ing time of occurrence and it also supports prosecution version regarding use of firearms and lathis. Semi digested food was found in the stomach of the deceased. This is also consistent with the lime of occurrence. The blood was recovered from the spot by the Investigating Officer. Of Course, Laiq Hussain (P. W. 2) may also be said to be interested as his gun was snatched away but there is no reason as to why he should mention a wrong person as the one who snatched the gun. In fact, he wanted to remain aloof as much that he did not even go to lodge the report. So Laiq (P. W. 2) does not appear to have such interest. So as to invent a false story. Taking all these circum stances into consideration, it appears that all the three eye-witnesses are reliable and the learned trial Court was perfectly right in placing reliance on the version given by these witnesses. 12. Only one material criticism could be leveled against this evidence and this criticism is two the prosecution witnesses have not mentioned any weapon with the assailants that could cause incised wound, but on the dead body of Mool Chandra two incised wounds which are injuries Nos. 4 and 5 mentioned earlier were found. 12. Only one material criticism could be leveled against this evidence and this criticism is two the prosecution witnesses have not mentioned any weapon with the assailants that could cause incised wound, but on the dead body of Mool Chandra two incised wounds which are injuries Nos. 4 and 5 mentioned earlier were found. From this, the learned counsel for the appellant wants us to infer that these witnesses were not at all present at the spot and they did not see the occurrence. It is correct that in the F. I. R no weapon capable of causing incised wounds has been mentioned, but the witnesses do not make any attempt to improve the version even after the post-mortem report becomes available. In their statements they do not want to introduce any weapon to meet the situation. This shows the reliability of witness and their reluctance to give false statement. It does not affect their reliability. It is in the evidence and it was also mentioned in the F. I. R. that Mool Chandra fell down in a khanti. It has come in the evidence that this Khanti was 7 feet long almost of the same width and about two and a half feet deep. When Mool Chandra fell down in this Khanti there could be some such edges or sharp articles in it that these injurers could be suffered. On account of this the witnesses who appear to be otherwise reliable, should not be disbelieved. This is not argument in a circle as commented upon by the learned counsel for the appellant. 13. Following observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Babu Lodhi and others v. State of U. P. , (1987) 2 SCC 352 may be quoted :- "mr. Kohli argued that Smt Kosi could not have witnessed the occu rrence because she bed not been able to explain how contusions and abrasions came to be found on the dead body of Ram Nath and Bhagwandas. This argument overlooks the fact, that when three persons be set themselves on a victim and attack him in quick succession it will not be possible for a witness standing at a distance to saw where each cut or stab fell on the body and whether the blade or that the handle caused one or the other of the injuries. This argument overlooks the fact, that when three persons be set themselves on a victim and attack him in quick succession it will not be possible for a witness standing at a distance to saw where each cut or stab fell on the body and whether the blade or that the handle caused one or the other of the injuries. It is quite likely that the handle of the axe also came in contact with the body of the victim and likewise the spears also had been used now and then as a lathi to inflict blows. " In the case before us also guns and lathis were being used, the witnesses were fleeing for their life, they were shocked due to the murder of their two brothers, ail of a sudden, so they could not see whether there was any sharp article in the Khanti or some lathi had some thing sharp. The Investigating Officer was told specifically that lathi and gun shoths were used ; so probably it did not strike him that he should examine the Khanti at that very time for some sharp article and probably examination of the Khanti subsequently might have not done much good. 14. No doubt we have sometimes cases, where on account of some unex plained injuries we may disbelieve the prosecution witnesses; but this is only one of the reasons when prosecution witnesses are found of doubtful veracity on account of some other reasons as well. In Omkar Nath Singh v. State of U. P. , (1975) 3 SCC 276 it was said that "each case presents its own features. " There fore, for appearing evidence and coming to conclusion on facts there cannot of be any invariable rule. 15. In the case Hare Krishan Singh v. State of Bihar, (1988) 2 SCC 95 . Injuries on the person of accused- assailants were not explained by the prosecution. The Supreme Court made following observations : "if the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution are believed by the, Court in proof of the guilt of the accused beyond any reasonable doubt the question of the obligation of the prosecution to explain the injuries sustained by the accused will not arise. The Supreme Court made following observations : "if the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution are believed by the, Court in proof of the guilt of the accused beyond any reasonable doubt the question of the obligation of the prosecution to explain the injuries sustained by the accused will not arise. When the prosecution comes with a definite case that the offence has been committed by the accused and proves its case beyond any reasonable doubt, it becomes hardly necessary for the prosecution to again explain how and in what circumstances injuries have been infected on the person of the accused. " 16. We may draw analogy from the above observations and say that when the witnesses are believed by us in proof of guilt of the appellants and it is found proved that they committed the murder, the case of the prosecution can not be thrown out on the ground that two injuries of the deceased have not been explained inasmuch as the article by which they have been caused has not been described. 17. The other arguments submitted by the learned counsel for the appel lant are that wads were found in the dead bodies, so they have not been fired from the distance alleged by the prosecution, Mool Chandra deceased could not have received injuries while injuries while lying on the back on the ground at suggested by one witness, the weapons are not mentioned in the inquest report and independent witnesses have not been examined. 18. There is no material discrepancy regarding distances, which may merely be a difference of two or three paces and none in such difficult circums tances, if he is truthful, can be expected to give exact distance of the fire. It is also in the statement of two eye-witnesses that injuries were suffered by Mool Chandra before he actually fell down and no body while fleeing for his life could see in face the gun shots whether a particular shot strikes the deceased when he had fallen down on account of other injuries or he fell down when gun shot had struck him. When weapons are mentioned in the F. l. R, their omission from the inquest report will not prove falsity of the prosecution case. When weapons are mentioned in the F. l. R, their omission from the inquest report will not prove falsity of the prosecution case. As regard the other witnesses who have not been produced, the complainant has said in his statement that some other witnesses do not want to depose on account of fear of the appellants. It is very correct these days that unconcerned persons do not want to involve themselves when there is question of giving evidence against persons who can commit murders. So none of these arguments of the appellants carry any weight. 19. The result is that the prosecution case appears to be fully proved and this appeal has no force. 20. The appeal is dismissed. The conviction and sentence of the appel lants are up-held. They are on bail Their bail bonds are cancelled. They shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve-out the sentence. The Court below shall report compliance within 6 weeks. Appeal dismissed. .