M. M. LAL, J. This is an appeal against a judgment and order dated 20th September, 1978 passed by Sri U. D. Shukla, the then III Addl Sessions Judge, Varanasi by which he has convicted all the above named five appellants under Sections 302/149, I. P. C. . and has sentenced each of them to life imprisonment thereunder and has further convicted Atma Pandey, Keshav Pandey, Kshrna Pandey and Dasarath Pandey, appellants under Section 148, I. P. C. and has sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 years and has also convicted Sita Ram-appellant under Section 147, I. P. C. and has sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year thereunder. Both these sentences awarded in each of the appellants have been made to run concurrently. 2. Atma Pandey, Keshav Pandey, Dasarath Pandey, Sita Ram Pandey-appellants and Jai Ram Pandey- accused are real brothers. They are sons of late Sri Pratap Pandey. and Smt. Utma. Kshma Pandey is the son of Sita Ram Pandey-appellant. All of them are resident of village Gaura, P. S. Chaubeypur, district Varanasi. 3. Kedar Tiwari deceased and Badri Tewari informant are real brothers. Whereas Ram Shukul is the son of Kedar Tewari-deceased, Siya Ram is the son of Badri Tewari-informant. They are residents of an adjoining village named Kamauli, P. S. Chaubeypur district Varanasi. 4. One Ram Surat Lal had agricultural land with respect to which a liti gation was going on between said Ram Surat Lal on one hand and Smt. Utma, the mother of Atma Pandey, Keshav Pandey, Dasarath Pandey and Sita Rani Pandey, appellants, on the other before the Consolidation Authorities. During pendency of the said litigation Ram Surat Lal sold the said agricultural land on 20-10-1975 to Siya Ram son of Badri Tewari-informant and Ram Shukul son of Kedar Tewari. They had obtained possession over the said land. This was resented by the accused persons. 5. One day prior to the incident Kedar Tewari deceased had got the afore said field. , which had been purchased from Ram Surat Lai, ploughed. At that time an altercation took place between the accused persons and Kedar Tewari deceased and the accused persons advanced a threat to the latter that because he had taken possession over the aforesaid field, hence they would not now allow him to till his plot, situate in village Gaura. 6. At that time an altercation took place between the accused persons and Kedar Tewari deceased and the accused persons advanced a threat to the latter that because he had taken possession over the aforesaid field, hence they would not now allow him to till his plot, situate in village Gaura. 6. According to the case of the prosecution when on 14-7-1976 at about 7 a. m. deceased Kedar Tewari, along with his ploughman PW-2 Somaru and brother PW-1 Badri Tewari, next to his plot No. 202 situate in village Gaura to plough with the help of bullocks. Atma Pandey, Keshav Pandey, Kashma Pandey and Dasarath Pandey armed with lathis, Jai Ram Pandey armed with Gandasa and Sita Ram Pandey carrying a lathi reached there and started assaulting Kedar Tewari, as a result of which he sustained injuries and died at the spot. A hue and cry had been raised which attracted witnesses to the place of occurrence. The assailants then took to their heals. 7. Badri Tewari got a report of the incident written at the spot from his son Shiv Shankar. After half an hour he left for the P. S. Chaubeypur, situate at a distance of about seven miles, on his cycle and handed over the same there at 9. 10 a. m. and the case was registered. 8. In support of its case the prosecution examined PW-1 Badri Tewari informant, Somaru ploughman PW-2 and Shiv PVV-3, who gave an eye-witness on account of the incident. 9. The investigation of this case was nude by PW-5 Tarkeshwar Ojha, S. O. on 14-7-76 he reached at the place of occurrence to find the dead-body of Kedar Tewari lying in the field. He took the same in possession and prepared the inquest report. He then recorded the statements of Badri Tewari, Somaru and others. He inspected the place of occurrence and prepared the site plan thereof. On the next date he recorded the statements of Shiv (PW 3) and others. 10. The post mortem examination of the dead-body of Kedar Tewari was conducted by PW 4 Dr. M. Hafiz, the then M. O. S. S. P. G. Hospital, Varanasi at 3 p. m. on 15-7-76, He found the following ante mortem injuries on the dead-body of Kedar Tewari : 1. Lacerated wound 4 cmx2 cm X scalp deep on left side in head 9 cm above left ear in long. M. Hafiz, the then M. O. S. S. P. G. Hospital, Varanasi at 3 p. m. on 15-7-76, He found the following ante mortem injuries on the dead-body of Kedar Tewari : 1. Lacerated wound 4 cmx2 cm X scalp deep on left side in head 9 cm above left ear in long. 2. Stab wound 5 cm x 2 cm x chest cavity deep on left side of front of chest 2 cm adove left nipple. 3. Stab wound 3 cm x 1 cm x chest cavity deep 3 cm. below right nipple. 4. Abrasion 12 cm x 5 cm on dorsun of right hand palm. 5. Abrasion 8 cmx5 cm on dorsun of left palm. 6. Contusion 7 cm x 2 cm on left arm upper outer surface. 7. Stab wound 3 cm X 1cm chest cavity deep on left side of back 17 cm below scapula : cm away from midline and 24 cm above illiac crest. 8. Stab wound 4 cm x 2 cm X chest cavity deep 5 cm below right scapula 2 can away on right side of midline. 9. Stab wound 5 cm x 2 cm chest cavity deep 2 cm below injury No. 8. 11. On internal examination the doctor found a fracture between 5th and 6th ribs on the right side and a fracture between 3rd and 4th ribs on left side. There was puncture on right side back. Seventh rib was found broken. There was wound between 8th and 9th ribs. The right and left lungs had been punctured through and through. 12. in the opinion of the doctor the death of Kedar Tewari and taken place due to shock and haemorrhage. 13. The accused persons in their statements denied the case of the prose cution. They however, further stated that they were in possession over the aforesaid field which had been purchased by the sons of Kedar Tewari deceased and Badri Tewari informant from Ram Surat Lal, that whereas they had succeed in the Court of S. O. C. but had lost the case ex-parte before D. D. C. because at that time they were in jail. They also stated that Kedar Tewari had been killed in darkness and that he had many enemies. 14. Keshav Pandey-appellant stated that at the time of the incident he was on his duty in his office, situate at Chowka Ghat, Varanasi. They also stated that Kedar Tewari had been killed in darkness and that he had many enemies. 14. Keshav Pandey-appellant stated that at the time of the incident he was on his duty in his office, situate at Chowka Ghat, Varanasi. In support of Keshav Pandey produced three witnesses in defence. 15. Learned trial court gave the benefit of doubt to Jai Ram Pandey and acquitted him. However, with regard to the remaining accused persons the trial court found the case set up and the evidence produced by the prosecution as convincing and has accordingly convicted and sentenced them as aforesaid. Aggrieved by the same the said persons tiled this appeal. 16. During pendency of this appeal Dasrath Pandey had expired. There fore the appeal filed by him has abated. 17. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants, complainant and the State and have perused the record carefully. 18. Learned counsel for the appellants has urged before us that Kedar Tewari had many enemies and that there was no motive for the appellants to take his life. It is true that PW 1 Badri Tewari had admitted in his evidence that in murder case of Shivdhani Singh, Kedar Tewari and others were prosecuted which amply shows that the deceased had some other enemies as well. However, Badri Tewari informant, who was real brother of Kedar Tewari deceased, would have been last person not to name the real culprit but to falsely implicate the appellants in this case. Besides, it cannot be denied that the relations between Kedar Tewari deceased and the appellants were strained. 19. The prosecution has produced the sale-deed and other evidence to show that agricultural land belonging to Ram Surat Lal was purchased in the name of Siya Ram son of Badri Tewari informant and Ram Shukal son of Kedar Tewari deceased. It is admitted fact that litigation with regard to the said land was going on between Ram Surat Lal on one hand, and the appellants on the other before the Consolidation Authorities. During the pendency of the said litigation Ram Surat Lai had sold the said land. It is but natural that after the execution of the sale-deed in their favour, Kedar Tewari deceased and Badri Tewari informant would have been keen and would have taken steps to take possession over the said land. The appellants in their statements recorded under Section 313, Cr. It is but natural that after the execution of the sale-deed in their favour, Kedar Tewari deceased and Badri Tewari informant would have been keen and would have taken steps to take possession over the said land. The appellants in their statements recorded under Section 313, Cr. P. C. had stated that in fact they were in possession over the aforesaid land. Even after the occurrence of this incident, the litigation had continued before the Consolidation Authorities and it was only subsequently that the appeals filed by Smt. Utma firstly before the S. O. C. and then before the D. D. C, were dismissed. To revert to the discussion we are of the opinion that when the appellants were asserting their own claim over the aforesaid land, they would have been most unhappy on the purchasing of the said land by Kedar Tewari deceased and Badri Tewari informant in the names of their sons and trying to take possession over the same. There was thus sufficient motive for the appellants to commit this crime. Any-way, it will not be out of place to observe that it is a case of direct evidence where motive does not play an important role. All that has to be seen is whether the appellants had committed this crime or not. 20. This incident had taken place in broad day light. In normal course the witnesses would have been near about to see this incident. The witnesses examined by the prosecution have stated that this incident took place at seven in the morning. 21. Learned counsel for the appellant has urged before us that Kedar Tewari was murdered either at the time when he had gone to ease himself in the field or at any other time in the darkness, when nobody could see this crime being committed. We find no merit in the said argument. The Post-mortem examin ation of the dead-body of Kedar Tewari tends to support the evidence produced by the prosecution that this incident took place at about 7 a. m. 22. The post-mortem examination report of the dead-body of Kedar Tewari reveals that his stomach was empty. There was only muous in the large intestines and there was facial matters in the small intestines. This position shows that this incident had taken place some time after Kedar Tewari has answer ed the call of nature and had eased himself. The post-mortem examination report of the dead-body of Kedar Tewari reveals that his stomach was empty. There was only muous in the large intestines and there was facial matters in the small intestines. This position shows that this incident had taken place some time after Kedar Tewari has answer ed the call of nature and had eased himself. He was not murdered when he was in the process of answering the call of the nature because there was two ounces of urine in the bladder. This shows that this incident took place sometime after Kedar Tewari had answered the call of nature and had eased himself. The said medical evidence coupled with the fact that even the I. O. at the time of the local inspection on the date of the incident itself found the bullocks, yoke and "the plough at the place of occurrence, sufficiently shows that the incident had not taken place during darkness but had taken place at about seven in the morning when Kedar Tewari had gone to his field to get the same ploughed, as alleged by the prosecution. 23. Learned council for the appellants has taken us through the evidence and has argued that there was contradiction in the evidence produced by the prosecution regarding the fact as to whether after the incident the plough was separated from the bullocks or the bullocks remained present in the field along with plough. Learned counsel for the complainant on the other hand submitted before us that when the land is not being, tilled and the bullocks has to stand idle, then in order to avoid injury to the bullocks, the plough is kept on the bullocks by the wrong side. Any-way, whatever the position may be the discrepancy in the evidence produced by the prosecution as to whether at the time when the I. O. reached the place of occurrence, the plough was lying separate and at some dis tance from the bullocks is too minor to be attached any weight specially when the evidence in this case was recorded after an interval of more than 1 years. We are convinced that this incident did not take place in the darkness but had taken place at about 7 a. m. when Kedar Tewari deceased had corns to his field to get the same ploughed, i. e. , at a time when the incident could be seen by the witnesses. 24. P. W. 1 Badri Tewari is the real brother of Kedar Tewari deceased. P. W. 2 Somaru is the ploughman, who had gone with the bullocks to till the aforesaid plot No. 202, situate in village Gaura and belonging to Kedar Tewari deceased. Both of them have deposed that when they, alongwith Kedar Tewari deceased reached the place of occurrence and had tried the plough with the yoke and had made the bullocks ready to plough the field, all the aforesaid six assai ants, carrying the aforesaid weapons, reached there and started assaulting Kedar Tewari as a result of which he sustained injuries and died at the place of occur rence. Both of them have given consistent evidence and there is no contradiction between them with regard to any material detail of the incident. The evidence given by them inspires confidence, specially when both F. LR. and medical evidence lend support to them. 25. Both P. W. 1 Badri Tewari and P. W. 2 Somaru are natural witnesses, P. W. 2 Somaru was a ploughman and in a normal course would have accompanied the deceased to plough his field. P. W. 1 Badri Tewari was living with his brother Kedar Tewari. When a field has to be ploughed and prepared, it involved labour and, therefore, it was natural of Badri Tewari also accompanied his brother Kedar Tewari to the aforesaid field. Had Badri Tewari not been near about the place of occurrence, it would not have been possible for him to go to the police station, situate at a distance of seven miles, to handover the written report of the incident at about 9. 10 a. m. on the same day. 26. Learned counsel for the appellants has urged before us that the F. I. R. in this case was ante-timed and was not lodged at 9. 10 a. m. on the same day. 26. Learned counsel for the appellants has urged before us that the F. I. R. in this case was ante-timed and was not lodged at 9. 10 a. m. , as alleged, support his submission he has referred to us the evidence of P. W. 2 Somaru, where he stated that after the incident and till the arrival of the Investigating Officer P. W. 1 Badri Tewari continuously remained present at the place of occurrence and on the basis of the same has submitted that P. W. 1 Badri Tewari never went to the Police Station. It may be observed that P. W. 2 Somaru is an illiterate person. He is a ploughman by profession. He gave evidence after more than 21 months, from the date of the incident. It was never inquired from him as to whether Badri Tewari had or had not or anyone else had gone to the Police Station to lodge the report of the incident. Usually we find that witnesses add embroidery to prosecution story, perhaps for the fear of being disbelieve But that is no ground to throw the case overboard, if true, in the main. If there is a ring of truth in the main, the case should not be rejected. In our opinion the evidence of P. W. 2 inspires confidence and is true in the main and the afore said discrepancy does not go so far as to warrant an inference that Badri Tewari P. W. 1 never went to the Police Station to lodge the report of the incident. In our opinion Somaru (P. W. 2) made the aforesaid statement either by way of loss of memory or by way of flourish or on account of fear for being disbelieved. We believe P. W. 1 Badri Tewari that he went to the Police Station to lodge the report of the aforesaid incident at the time stated by him. 27. Learned counsel for the appellants has further urged before us that had Badri Tewari (P. W. 1) been present at the place of occurrence then the appellants, who were equally aggrieved against him, would not have spared him and would have assaulted him. In our opinion the said argument is devoid of force. 27. Learned counsel for the appellants has further urged before us that had Badri Tewari (P. W. 1) been present at the place of occurrence then the appellants, who were equally aggrieved against him, would not have spared him and would have assaulted him. In our opinion the said argument is devoid of force. It has come on the record that when prior to this incident Kedar Tewari deceased had ploughed the field, which had been purchased from Ram Surat Lai, the appellants had advanced a threat that they would not now allow him to plough his own field situate in village Gaura. Therefore, we are of the opinion that when it was Kedar Tewari, and not Badri Tewari, who was in fact getting the said plot No. 202 of village Gaura ploughed, the appellants mounted an attack on him and not on Badri Tewari. P. W. 1 Badri Tewari was at some distance. He had raised a noise and according to him the assailants could not get opportunity to come towards him to attack because on his shouts witnesses had arrived at the place of occurrence. Therefore, the fact that P. W. J, Badri Tewari was not attacked, does not raise an inference that he was not present at the place of occurrence. 28. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued before us that P. W. 2 Somaru was not raising in the village but was a resident of Varanasi where admittedly his wife and children were staying. It appears that P. W. 2 Somaru is a poor man and with a view to make his both ends meet he stayed and worked in village. It is not unusual that in order to earn livelihood poor people remain away from their families. Otherwise, Somaru P. W. 2, who has got no enmity for the appellants would not have come forward to depose against them to get a/i of them falsely implicated in this case of murder P. W. 1 Somaru is an indepen dent witness. His name was mentioned in the F. LR. and the Investigating Officer had recorded his statement in the village on the same day. It would not have been possible had P. W. 2 Somaru been not staying in the village and had not been present there. We are, thus. His name was mentioned in the F. LR. and the Investigating Officer had recorded his statement in the village on the same day. It would not have been possible had P. W. 2 Somaru been not staying in the village and had not been present there. We are, thus. , satisfied that P. W. 2 Somaru was therein the village and had seen the incident. 29. Learned counsel for the appellants has also urged before us that the medical evidence was at variance with the version given by the prosecution. He has submitted that whereas according to the evidence produced by the prosecution it was gandasa, a sharp edged weapon, which was struck at the head of Kedar Tewari, the medical evidence on the other hand shows that Kedar Tewari had no sustained any incised wounds on the head but instead had suffered a lacera ted wound 4 x 2 cm x scalp deep on the left side of his head. The submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants is that such a lacerated wound could be caused by a lathi blow nod not by gandasa". Learned counsel for the State on the other hand has urged before us that when the weapons were being plied. Kedar Tewari besides suffering a blow by gandasa, may have sustained a lathi blow as well at the same place of his hand. He has further submitted that otherwise too if the gandasa is struck in a slanted manner even then the aforesaid lacerated wound could be suffered. In our view the eye witness account given by the witnesses can be discarded only if the medical evidence completely rules out their version. This is not the case here. Dr. M. A. Hafiz (P. W.) 4 has stated in his evidence, and otherwise too it is a possible, that had the gandasa been blunt, the aforesaid lacerated wound on the head could be sustained. 30. Learned counsel for the appellants has referred to us the evidence of P. W. 1 Badri Tewari, who stated that gandasa had been struck on the head and that it had to be pulled and on the basis of the same has argued that had the same been true then Kedar Tewari would not have suffered injury on Ms head which was only scalp deep. In our view while giving the aforesaid version P. W. I, Badri Tewari simply played on his imagination. It is difficult to imagine that when his brother was being assaulted by a number of persons with different weapons, P. W. 1 Badri Tewari would have watched with precision as to how gandasa had struck. Anyway, by way of abundant caution the learned trial court gave benefit of doubt to. Jai Ram Pandey who was armed with a gandasa and acquitted him but that does not make the case of the prosecution false. 31. The prosecution in this case further examined Shiv (P. W. 3), a ricksha-puller. He deposed that when at the time of the incident he was coming from his place to purchase cloth and passed through the place of occurrence, he found the aforesaid six persons beating and causing injuries to Kedar Tewari. His evidence is quite consistent with regard to the incident. 32. Learned counsel for the appellants has urged before us that P. W. 3 Shiv was purely a chance witness. In our opinion the mere fact that a witness happens to be a chance witness does not mean that his evidence has to be discard ed. All is required is that his evidence should be scratchiest carefully. As already observed the evidence given by this witness regarding the incident is quite consistent and can be relied upon. 33. Learned counsel for the appellants has urged before us that P. W. 3 Shiv was also not residing in the village. This argument is devoid of force because we find at one place of the evidence of this witness that the defence itself made a suggestion to him that he was keeping his ricksha at the place of Kedar Tewari deceased. 34. Learned counsel for the appellants has also urged before us that it was not probable that this witness would have set out at about seven in this morning to purchase cloth. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand has sub mitted that with the labourers and ricksha-pullers, etc , it is common to make purchases either quite early in the morning, i. e. , before going for their work or late in the evening when they return from their work. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand has sub mitted that with the labourers and ricksha-pullers, etc , it is common to make purchases either quite early in the morning, i. e. , before going for their work or late in the evening when they return from their work. We find force in this argument and therefore, find nothing unusual if this witness was going to make purchase at about seven in the morning in the village where there is no law for bidding the shopkeepers to open their shops at any prescribed time. 35. The next point which has been raised by the learned counsel for the ap pellants is that the prosecution in this case had falsely implicated all the adult mem bers of the family and that in any case it was difficult to believe that an old man like Sita Ram Pandey, who was aged about 80 years, and a person like Dasrath Pandey, who was affected by paralysis, would have joined the other assailants, who were already sufficient in number, to commit this crime. It is true that Sita Ram was quite old and also that the left hand of Dasrath Pandey was affected by paralysis from the last many years but that does not mean that the would not have joined me other appellants, who were their own kith and kin to commit this crime and for which they had equal motive. It may be observed that the assailants had gone to mount an attack on Kedar Tewari, who was accompanied by a ploughman, i. e. , P. W. 2 Somaru, and his brother P. W. 1 Badri Tewari. The abadi was close-by and on hue and cry, which could be expected, witnesses could rush to the spot. Then, the assailants were not carrying deadly weapons like lire arms. They were only near and dear ones who can give com pany to others to commit such crimes. Had Dasrath Pandey and Sita Ram Pandey no accompanied the other assailants, their number would have remained only four, who would have been insufficient to create terror against their adver saries. It is a matter of common knowledge that sometime persons gather and go in numbers so as to create a terror to ensure that no one conies forward to challenge them. It is a matter of common knowledge that sometime persons gather and go in numbers so as to create a terror to ensure that no one conies forward to challenge them. Therefore we find no merit in the submission that merely because Sita Rain Pandey was an old and the left hand of Dasrath Pandey was affected from paralysis, they would not have gone along with other accused to commit this crime. 36. In the learned counsel for the appellants took us through the evidence given by D. W. 1 Balwant Singh, D. W. 2 Samar Chakarwarti and D. W. 3 Ram Janam Ram and on the basis of the same has argued that on the date of the incident Keshav Pandey-appellant was present in his office and was working there. We have gone through the said evidence. These witnesses have mainly given their evidence on the basis of the office record. The attendance register is the anchor-sheet of the defence, which shows that Keshav Pandey was marked present in the attendance register for 14th July, 1976 It is stated that in those days the office used to function from 7 a. m. We have perused this so called attendance register. It is not in fact a register at all. It is a copy book which has been used for marking the attendance as also for other purposes. The attendance in the said copy book has been marked in the reverse order that is to say if the attendance for the month of July 76 has been marked on pages 138-139, the attendance for the subsequent month, i. e. , August 1976, has been marked on pages 136-137. There are many cuttings, etc. , in this register. The very look of this copy book and maintenance thereof does not inspire confidence. Besides, it is a matter of com mon knowledge that officials many times do not come to and attend the office by scheduled time. Many times they are late. There is no provision in this copy book where it may be shown as to whether any particular official was late by any time. Besides, it is a matter of com mon knowledge that officials many times do not come to and attend the office by scheduled time. Many times they are late. There is no provision in this copy book where it may be shown as to whether any particular official was late by any time. The only manner of making the attendance is by writing the alphabet p and the absence by alphabet a. The manner of said making would not show that any particular official had come to the office on any parti cular date by the time fixed and that lie was not late. Learned Sessions Judge has referred to many discrepancies in the so called attendance register and evidence produced by the defence and we are in agreement with the learned trial court and are of the opinion that the evidence produced by the defence does not establish that at the time of the incident Keshav Pandey was attending his official duties and was not present at the place of occurrence, which was not very far off. 37. In view of the discussions made above, and for the reasons staled, we are of the opinion that the prosecution had succeeded to make out its case against the appellants beyond any reasonable doubt. 38. Accordingly, this appeal filed by Keshav Pandey, Kahama Pandey and Sita Rani Pandey is dismissed. The conviction of Keshav Pandey and Kahama Pandey under Sections 302/149, I. P. C. . and 145, I. P. C. and their sen tences to 1 years R. 1. and imprisonment for life respectively thereunder are upheld. 39. The conviction of Sita Ram Pandey, appellant, under Sections 147 and 302/149, I. P. C. and his sentence to one years R. I. and life imprisonment respectively thereunder are upheld. 40. All of them are on bail. They shall be taken into custody forthwith so that they may serve out the sentences of imprisonment imposed on them. 41. The appeal filed by Dasrath Pandey and Atma Pandey on account of their deaths stand abated as per orders already passed in this appeal on 7-3-19&9 and 13-3-1989 respectively. Order accordingly. .