Judgment R. N. LAL, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of Shri Kashi Nath Roy, 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur, in Sessions Trial No.236 of 1986 dated 23/07/1987 by which all the appellants were convicted u/S.302 read with S.149 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter to be referred as "the Code ") and Sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. They were also convicted for the offence u/S.364 of the Code and sentenced to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment. Shyam Sundar Mandal was further convicted u/S.201 of the Code and sentenced to under go 7 years rigorous imprisonment. All the rest appellants were further convicted u/S.201 of the Code and sentenced to undergo 3 years rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. On 21-4-1985 in between 8 p.m. to 6 a.m. (which was the first day of Baisakh Shukul Paksh) Yaddu Paswan, the Chaukidar (P.W. 17) was returning along with deceased Paddu Paswan and Bideshi Paswan, from village Majhaulia. Yaddu Paswan had been on patrolling duty in the village that night. As they reached the Purbi Bahiyar in village Gobindpur, Police Station, Nath Nagar, District Bhagalpur, the appellants encirculed them and started assaulting them. Informant Yaddu Paswan managed to escape at about 9 p.m. The other two persons Paddu Paswan and Bideshi Paswan were carried away by the appellants. The informant, Yaddu Paswan, informed the villagers and his family members. Some of them along with the informant went out in search of those two persons, Paddu and Bideshi. They searched for them but those two persons along with the appellants could not be located. In the morning also the villagers started searching for those two missing persons, namely, Paddu and Bideshi and came to the place in Purbi Bahiyar. At that place they found a blood stained towel (Ext. 1), a Chunauti (Chewing tobacco Dibiya) (Ext. VI) and 40 paise allegedly belonging to Paddu Paswan. There was a trail of blood also found by them. One iron Kanti and a pair of Hawai chappal, allegedly belonging to the appellants, are also found there. The next day, at about 8-30 a.m. i.e. on 224-85, Yaddu Paswan lodged a written report with the Police disclosing the cause of occurrence to be a goat theft case lodged against the appellants by Paddu and Bideshi for which they were under pressure for compromising the same with the appellants. The next day, at about 8-30 a.m. i.e. on 224-85, Yaddu Paswan lodged a written report with the Police disclosing the cause of occurrence to be a goat theft case lodged against the appellants by Paddu and Bideshi for which they were under pressure for compromising the same with the appellants. 3. The investigating officer (P.W.18) apprehended appellant Shyam Sundar Mandal on 24-4-85 who made some confessional statements. Appellant Shyam Sundar Mandal confessed that the bodies of Paddu and Bideshi had been kept concealed under the sands of river Andhri by them and he was taken by the Police to the said Andhri river and from its bed the bodies of both the persons i.e. Paddu and Bideshi were recovered in presence of the Block Development Officer (P.W. 16). A seizure list had been prepared in presence of the Block Development Officer (Ext.7). The investigating officer also seized all the material exhibits and prepared a seizure list. A Garassa (Ext. VII) had been recovered from a pucca well of Bidu Bhushan Pandey in Munnachak Bahivar on the confessional statement of appellant Shyam Sundar Mandal, and the investigating officer prepared a seizure list (Ext. 9/1). Further a spade (Ext. VIII) was recovered from the field of Sikandar Mandal in the same Bahiyar on the pointing out by Shyam Sundar Mandal, the appellant, and another seizure list (Ext. 9/5) was prepared for the same. Paddu was the local chaukidar and Bideshi was his uncle. According to the prosecution story, while the two deceased and the informant were going on patrolling duty they had seen the appellants taking toddy in village Nautolia situated on the eastern side of the village. The appellants had waited for their return. It was further said that the deceased and the informant belonged to Dusadh Toli in village Gobindpur, whereas, the appellants belonged to Mandal Toli of the same village and enmity was going on between the two groups from before. 4. The investigating officer had prepared inquest reports (Exts. 10 and 10/1) over the dead bodies and sent them for postmortem examination to Bhagalpur hospital where the doctor (P.W. 13) held autopsies on the bodies and prepared postmortem reports (Exts. 6 and 6/1) on 25-4-85 at about 10-30 a.m. The police after completing investigation submitted chargesheet against the appellants. The appellants were tried and convicted as given above. 5. 10 and 10/1) over the dead bodies and sent them for postmortem examination to Bhagalpur hospital where the doctor (P.W. 13) held autopsies on the bodies and prepared postmortem reports (Exts. 6 and 6/1) on 25-4-85 at about 10-30 a.m. The police after completing investigation submitted chargesheet against the appellants. The appellants were tried and convicted as given above. 5. The prosecution examined 18 prosecution witnesses to substantiate its story; of whom P.W. 17 Yaddu Paswan, is village chaukidar. He is informant and also an eye witness in the case. He had narrated story the names to the villagers immediately after escaping from the cluthes of the appellants in the night. PWs. 3, 5, 7, 9 and 1 4 were tendered for cross-examination. Besides, the doctor (P.W. 13), the block Development Officer (P.W 16) and investigating officer (P.W. 18), the other prosecution witnesses, who are villagers or relations of the deceased, stated that they had heard about the occurrence from P.W. 17, P.Ws 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 and 15 are the seizure list witnesses of the material exhibits recovered in their presence. P.W. 1 is son of deceased Bideshi Paswan. P.W. 4 had not been examined by the investigating officer earlier. P.W. 7 is widow of deceased Paddu Paswan but she was only tendered for cross-examination. P.W. 8 is a Nati (daughters son) of the deceased Paddu Paswan and P.W. 12 is nephew of Bideshi Paswan, the deceased, P.Ws. 10 and 15 are also witnesses of the inquest report prepared by the investigating officer. Thus, looking at the whole thing it is clear that P.W. 17 the sole eye witness of the assault on the deceased and the other prosecution witnesses given above heard the occurrence from him and various articles were seized in their presence. The enmity between the two groups in admitted as mentioned in the Fardbeyan (Ext. 11) itself. It is said that the appellants were pressing the deceased for withdrawing the goat theft case filed against some of the appellants. The appellants were known to the prosecution witnesses from before as said by P.W. 17 himself. 6. The enmity between the two groups in admitted as mentioned in the Fardbeyan (Ext. 11) itself. It is said that the appellants were pressing the deceased for withdrawing the goat theft case filed against some of the appellants. The appellants were known to the prosecution witnesses from before as said by P.W. 17 himself. 6. P.W. 17 Yaddu Paswan (informant) deposed in the court below that at about 7 p.m. he along with the two deceased persons had been on patrolling duty to Nautolia village and were returning at about 8-30 p.m. In the Bahiyar they were surrounded by all the appellants and they started assaulting them. Mahendra Mandal ordered all the three to be cut into pieces. They began assaulting the three but he himself sneaked out and came to the village and told the villagers including P.Ws. 15, 6, 9, 1, 12 and others about the assaults taking place on the two deceased persons. The villagers including P.Ws.2, 3 went towards the place of occurrence but none was found there. In the morning this witness again went there along with other villagers in search of those two persons but he found blood at the place of occurrence, one blood stained lungi, one tobacco Chunauti and 40 loose paise. Blood had fallen in the field. One iron Khanti and one Hawai chappal of the appellants were also there and they thought that the two deceased had been carried away. According to him the deceased persons had filed a goat theft case against some of the appellants and the said case was pending trial for which the appellants were pressurising them to withdraw the same. He along with P.W. 15 went to the place of occurrence where he gave his fardbeyan (Ext. 11). On the 24th April, appellant Shyam Sundar Mandal was caught by the Police. He confessed that the dead bodies were buried in the bed of the river Andhri. The Police and the witnesses were taken to the place in that river including Shyam Sundar Mandal and there the dead bodies of Paddu Paswan and Bideshi Paswan were recovered from the bed of that river in presence of the Block Development Officer and Bara Babu of the Police Station and the paper was prepared by the Block Development Officer regarding those two dead bodies (Ext. 7). 7). The various material exhibits like Khanti, chappal, Gamchha one piece of blood stained lungi and tobacco chunauti were also seized and were marked Exts. IV, III, I, V and VI respectively. He also signed the paper regarding seizure of the dead bodies prepared by the Block Development Officer. He denied about the recovery of dead bodies at the pointing out of Shyam Sundar Mandal on 22-4-85 only. He further said that he had no light when he and the deceased were caught by the appellants. The appellants were known to him from before. He had not been to the Police Station in the night. Shyam Sundar Mandal had been caught on 24-4-85 at about 9 or 10 a.m. The block Development Officer and the Police Officer had come on jeep and they had gone towards the river on foot. 7. This witness further stated that though he is a bit lame, but he can run. He had identified the two dead bodies before the Block Development Officer. The fingers of one leg of deceased Paddu Paswan and fingers of his one hand had been eaten up by animals. Other persons had also identified the dead bodies. Deceased Bideshi was informant in the goat theft case against some of the appellants. 8. The investigating officer (P.W. 18) stated that on 22-4-85 at about 9-30 a.m. P.W. 17 came to the Police Station and made his Beyan which was recorded by K. K. P. Singh in his presence and was signed by the informant (Ext. 8). He examined P.W. 15 also who had accompanied the informant and proceeded towards the place of occurrence. He seized blood stained earth, a khanti, a chunauti of the deceased and 40 loose paise. Blood had fallen hither and thither. The Basa of Kesho Mandal situated at the distance of 100 yards from there towards east. He had found trail marks of blood in the south east direction of the place of occurrence. He seized a pair of Hawai Chappal and blood stained Gamchha and prepared a seizure list in presence of P. Ws. 8 and 12 (Ext. 9). He recovered one blood stained Ganjee from the Basa of appellant Tarni mandal and prepared a seizure list in presence of witnesses (Ext. 2/1). He arrested appellant Shyam Sundar Mandal on 24-4-85. He seized a pair of Hawai Chappal and blood stained Gamchha and prepared a seizure list in presence of P. Ws. 8 and 12 (Ext. 9). He recovered one blood stained Ganjee from the Basa of appellant Tarni mandal and prepared a seizure list in presence of witnesses (Ext. 2/1). He arrested appellant Shyam Sundar Mandal on 24-4-85. He recovered a Garassa from the well of Bidu Bhushan Pandey at the pointing out of appellant Shyam Sundar Mandal from the well and seized it under a seizure list in presence of witnesses (Ext. 9/2). He went to the bed of Andhri river along with the Block Development Officer (P.W. 16) at the pointing out of appellant Shyam Sundar Mandal and recovered the dead bodies of Paddu Paswan (Chaukidar) and Bideshi and prepared seizure lists in presence of witnesses (Exts.9/3 and 9/4). He prepared inquests reports of those dead bodies (Exts. 10 and 10/1) and sent them for postmortem examination. He further recovered a Kundal from the field of Sikandar mandal at the pointing out of appellant Sihyam Sundar Mandal and seized it under a seizure list (Ext. 9/5). He recovered a blood stained red-green towel and prepared a seizure list (Ext.9/6). He had examined the informant on 2/4-4-85 though by mistake he wrote in the diary that he had examined him on 22-4-85. He proved the seizure of Garassa and Kudal and prepared seizure lists (Exts. VII and VIII). He did not prepare any sketch map of the place of occurrence. The dead bodies had been recovered at the pointing out of Shyam Sundar Mandal on 24-4-85 in presence of the Officer-in charge of the Police Station the B.D.O. He had searched for the dead bodies in the bed of the river a day earlier also but the dead bodies were recovered on 24-4-85 at a certain distance. The dead body of Paddu Paswan was partly eaten up by the animals. The recovery of the dead bodies had been made in presence of the Block Development Officer. A Ganjee had been recovered from the role of a wall which was sent to the Chemical Examiner as it had blood stains. 9. P.W. 13, the Doctor, who held postmortem examination on the dead bodies on 25-4-85 stated that he had found the following ante mortem injuries. Paddu Paswan. (i) Incised wound 2" x 1/3" x scalp deep on right temporal region. 9. P.W. 13, the Doctor, who held postmortem examination on the dead bodies on 25-4-85 stated that he had found the following ante mortem injuries. Paddu Paswan. (i) Incised wound 2" x 1/3" x scalp deep on right temporal region. (ii) Incised wound 2" x 1/3" x scalp deep on right parietal region. (iii ) Incised wound 1" x 1/3" x scalp deep on left temporal region. (iv) Incised wound 7" x 3" x bone deep on the back of neck to the left side of the neck cutting the posterior part 4 of neck and vertebras, muscles, vessels and food passage. On opening chest and abdomen he found Viscera-decomposing. Both chambers of heart empty, Bladder empty, stomach empty and brain liquifying. Opinion : - Injuries were anti-mortem caused by sharp cutting weapon such as injury Nos. 1 to 3 might have been caused by knife or fodder cutting garassa. injury No. 4 might have been caused by long aged sharp cutting weapon, may be garassa. 10. On the same day i.e. 25-4-85, P.W. 13 also conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of Bideshi Paswan and found as follows : - i) Lacerated wound 1"x 1/2" X scalp deep on right side forehead. ii) Lacerated wound 1/2" X 1/2" scalp deep on right side parietal rigion. iii) Bruise on neck on front and both sides of the neck. On dissection of neck tissues-extra vasation of blood in the surrounding tissues, trachea loose, hyoid cartilage-fractured. On dissection of neck and chest-visceras were decomposing and congested. Both chambers of heart contained liquid blood. Stomach and bladder empty. Brain congested and liquifying. Opinion. Injuries were antemortem caused by. Nos. 1 and 2 by hard blunt substance. Injury No. 3 was caused by pressure around neck. Injury Nos. 1 and 2 on Bideshi could be caused by pathi or blunt portion of Khanti. Injury No. 3 could be caused by hard object pressed on the neck. The doctor (P.W. 13) prepared two postmortem reports (Exts. 6 and 6/1). According to him haemorrhage, shock and asphyxia caused the death of Paddu Paswan. Asphyxia itself is sufficent to cause the death of a man. Fingers and part of the right thigh and toes of Paddus dead body were missing and the flesh of his thigh was also absent. 11. P.Ws. 10, 11 and 16 have supported P.Ws. 6 and 6/1). According to him haemorrhage, shock and asphyxia caused the death of Paddu Paswan. Asphyxia itself is sufficent to cause the death of a man. Fingers and part of the right thigh and toes of Paddus dead body were missing and the flesh of his thigh was also absent. 11. P.Ws. 10, 11 and 16 have supported P.Ws. 17 and 18 regarding the recovery of the two dead bodies from the bed of river Andhri at the pointing out by appellant Shyam Sundar Mandal in presence of the Police as well as the Block Development Officer (P.W. 16). The Block Development Officer had prepared lists of those dead bodies on 24-4-85. P.Ws. 1, 2, 6, 12 and 15 have stated that P.W. 17 had come to the village at about 9 p.m. and told them that they were assaulted by the appellants in the Bahiyar and the appellants were assaulting Paddu and Bideshi. They rushed to the place of occurrence but they did not find any of them. The various material exhibits like blood stained Gamchha, lungi, chunauti, 40 loose paise and the khanti had been recovered in their presence for which seizure lists had been prepared as stated by P.W. 1. A blood stained Ganjee had also been seized by the police. The chappal according to P.W. 3 belonged to appellant Mahendra Mandal. The blood stained Ganjee had been recovered from the Basa of Kesho Mandal. Appellant Shyam Sundar Mandal had taken the investigating officer, these witnesses and the block Development Officer to the place from where the two dead bodies were recovered and the Block Development Officer had prepared the papers thereof. The dead bodies were burried in the sand and some parts of leg and hand of one of the dead bodies had been eaten up by animals. 12. P.W. 16, the Block Development Officer, stated that on 24-4-85 while he was posted in Nath Nagar, he had been to the river Andhri at the information of the police and recovered two dead bodies both at a distance of 25 to 30 yards burried in sand. The dead bodies had been recovered at the pointing out of one man who was there along with the police. He was told that the dead bodies were of Paddu Paswan and Bideshi Paswan. The dead bodies had been recovered at the pointing out of one man who was there along with the police. He was told that the dead bodies were of Paddu Paswan and Bideshi Paswan. He had given certificate of recovery which was written by Sudhir Prasad, Assistant Sub Inspector of Police at his dictation vide Ext. 7. He did not know the dead persons from before. He had got it signed by the informant. 13. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that P.W. 17, the chaukidar, was the solitary eye witness of this occurrence and other P.Ws. namely, P.Ws. 2, 6, 10, 11, 12 and 15 are only hearsay witnesses. P.Ws. 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 13 and 15 are also witnesses of the seizure of the various articles recovered during the course of investigation. P.W. 17 was a bit lame and could not have extricated himself. When caught by the appellants as told by him. So he has fabricated a false case due to the admitted enmity with deceased Bideshi Paswan who had filed a goat theft case against some of the appellants which was pending disposal. Learned counsel further submitted that P.W. 1 is son of deceased Bideshi, P.W. 8 is Nati of the deceased Paddu, P.W. 12 is the nephew of deceased Bideshi and the informant himself was the brother. Thus, the witnesses are all interested and partisan and should not be believed. No independent witness had deposed about the manner of occurrence; rather this case has been fabricated out of enmity. There was no toddi shop near the place of occurrence. The investigating officer wrongly wrote that he had examined Shyam Sundar Mandal on 24-4-85; rather he had examined him on 22-4-85 only. Though the investigating officer told the Court that it was a mistake and so he rectified it in his deposition in Court. It was a dark night and no means of identification had been carried by the villagers who had gone to the place of occurrence in search of those two persons who were being assaulted. None of these P.Ws. were armed P.W. 1 was examined for the first time in Court and was not examined by the investigating officer. The assailants were not named on the first day. It was further argued that P.W. 6 had been beaten by Police but this witness is only a seizure list witness. None of these P.Ws. were armed P.W. 1 was examined for the first time in Court and was not examined by the investigating officer. The assailants were not named on the first day. It was further argued that P.W. 6 had been beaten by Police but this witness is only a seizure list witness. It has already been stated above that the dead bodies were identified by several witnesses including P.Ws. 11 and 17. As per the postmortem reports (Exts. 6 and 6/1) there were 4 injuries on the dead body of Paddu and 3 on the dead body of Bideshi. The viscera was getting decomposed and this was not sent to the Chemical Analyst. The dead bodies were not found by the villagers on 22-4-85. P.Ws. 1, 2, 6, 12, 15 and 17 said that they had been to the place of occurrence but they had not seen each other; rather different prosecution witnesses had contradicted each other regarding the time of occurrence and recovery of articles. The blood stained Ganjee, lungi etc. were not sent to the chemical examiner which has hit the prosecution story hard and the testimony of these prosecution witnesses cannot be accepted at all. The entire evidence is only circumstantial except that of P.W.1 and hence, the testimony of the prosecution witnesses have got to be examined with greater care and caution. 14. Mr. Ram Chandra Jha, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the blood stained articles cannot be taken into evidence as there is no report of Chemical Analyst or Serologist available on record. The blood stained Ganjee was sent to the serologist for report but no report was produced by the prosecution in the Court below. The Articles recovered had no connection with the present occurrence and it cannot be said with certainty that those articles had any concern with the occurrence. The entire story is based on circumstantial evidence. Unless all the links the chain are not fully proved no conviction can be based thereon. The recovery of the dead bodies said to be made at the pointing out by Shyam Sundar Mandal only raises a suspicion and this cannot mean that he had taken part in the murder. Further, such discovery made by appellant Shyam Sundar Mandal, cannot be used against the non-maker co-appellants and the other appellants cannot suffer on that account. The recovery of the dead bodies said to be made at the pointing out by Shyam Sundar Mandal only raises a suspicion and this cannot mean that he had taken part in the murder. Further, such discovery made by appellant Shyam Sundar Mandal, cannot be used against the non-maker co-appellants and the other appellants cannot suffer on that account. He also submitted that since the enmity is admitted the testimony of the prosecution witnesses cannot be accepted. 15. Mr. G. P. Jaiswal, learned counsel for the State, submitted that as per P.Ws. 8 and 12 the blood stained Ganjee had been recovered from the Basa of Tarni Mandal. P.Ws. 8, 12 and 17 stated that the Havai chappal (Ext. III) was recovered from the house of Manhendra Mandal. The dead bodies had been recovered on 24-4-85 at the pointing out by Shyam Sundar Mandal from the bed of river Andhri as stated by several prosecution witnesses given above including P.W. 16, the Block Development Officer of Nathnagar, (Ext. 7). Hence this recovery statement is fully supported by P.Ws. I, 6, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17 and 18. The investigating officer had prepared inquest reports (Exts. 9/3 and 9/4) which are enough to show that Shyam Sundar Mandal. who had taken part in the assault of the two deceased persons in Purbi Bahiyar along with other appellants, knew where the dead bodies had been carried and kept concealed in the bed of river Andhri. P.W. 1 has already stated that the appellants were seen assaulting the deceased persons by him which he had told to other prosecution witnesses in his village as discussed above. The two dead bodies were recovered, of which, one was partly eaten up by animals as found by the doctor (P.W. 13) who held postmortem examinations (Exts. 6 and 6/1). In other words, appellant Shyam Sundar Mandal had full knowledge about the carrying of the two dead bodies from the place of assault to the place of concealment in the river bed. He had himself taken part in the assault. As such the prosecution has fully proved the story against Shyam Sundar Mandal. As regards the question of partisan or related witnesses Mr. He had himself taken part in the assault. As such the prosecution has fully proved the story against Shyam Sundar Mandal. As regards the question of partisan or related witnesses Mr. Jaiswal submitted that there is only a note of caution given to Court in a (sic) with greater care and caution; rather he stated that when there are two groups in a particular village divided on caste line, it may be difficult to get independent witnesses. But if the testimony of such witnesses stand the test of close scrutiny, they must be accepted. He further submitted that the chemical examiner only gives his report and it is only a piece of evidence and it is to be looked into in the light of other evidence available on record. If no such report be available the connected evidence cannot be discarded. Coming to the mistake committed by the investigating officer in recording the date of taking the statement of Shyam Sundar Mandal on 22-4-85 versus 24-4-85, the learned counsel submitted that it was minor mistake and such minor mistake or irregularity cannot spoil the prosecution case when the same was corrected himself by the investigating officer himself while deposing in Court. 16. Mr. Jha, learned counsel for the appellants relied on the case of Mandip Dusadh V/s. The State of Bihar, (1985 PLJR 849), to show that the blood stained articles including the Ganjee were not sent to the chemical examiner and hence they cannot be used against the appellants. In that case the blood stained Phasuli recovered from the house of one accused had not been sent for chemical examination. The Court felt difficulty in accepting that Phasuli contained human blood. But in the case of Raghunandan V/s. State of U. P., AIR 1974 SC 463 : 1974 Cri LJ 453, it was held that where blood was not sent for chemical examination, but the place of occurrence was established the non-examination of blood could not spoil the prosecution story. The enmity between the parties is admitted but it only cautions the Court to accept the prosecution evidence after closer scrutiny with care and caution. It does not lead to the position that the story is to be disbelieved. The enmity between the parties is admitted but it only cautions the Court to accept the prosecution evidence after closer scrutiny with care and caution. It does not lead to the position that the story is to be disbelieved. The dead bodies were recovered on the basis of the information supplied by Shyam Sundar Mandal in presence of several witnesses discussed above and in view of the fact that the recovery of those dead bodies was made on the information supplied by appellant Shyam Sundar Mandal. This leads to the inference that he had knowledge that the dead bodies had been carried from the place of occurrence to the river bed and concealed there under the sand. It is to be noted here that he was one of the assailants of the deceased at the place of occurrence as said by P.W. 1. 17. Appellant Shyam Sundar Mandal had made the discovery statement but no such statement was made by any other appellants whatsoever. Thus. the discovery statement cannot be used against the non maker co-appellants and it can be used only against the maker i.e. appellant Shyam Sundar Mandal and he only can be fastened with the knowledge of concealment of the dead bodies. To make the discovery incriminating it was to be shown that the concealment was made within his knowledge or consent as he disclosed the fact to the investigating officer on interrogation. The dead bodies had been recovered in presence of several persons as pointed out by Shyam Sundar Mandal including the Block Development officer (P.W. 16) and the investigating officer (P.W.17). It can safely be said that this discovery amply proves his knowledge as the place of discovery was several kilometers away from the place of assault. Since he had taken part in the assault itself resulting into the deaths of Paddu and Bideshi, this appellant Shyam Sundar Mandal cannot escape the charge under Sec. 302 of the Code. The statements made under Secs. 24 and 27 of the Indian Evidence Act ought to be voluntary and clear. Since he had taken part in the assault itself resulting into the deaths of Paddu and Bideshi, this appellant Shyam Sundar Mandal cannot escape the charge under Sec. 302 of the Code. The statements made under Secs. 24 and 27 of the Indian Evidence Act ought to be voluntary and clear. Sec. 27 of the Indian Evidence Act reads as follows : - " HOW MUCH OF INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM ACCUSED MAY BE PROVED- Provided that when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved." It is true that any statement of the appellant regarding this discovery will not be admissible but the statement leading to the recovery of the dead bodies will not be hit by the mischief of Sec. 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. This finds support from the case of Mohan Lal V/s. Ajit Singh, AIR 1978 SC 1183 : 1978 Cri LJ 1107. There is no rule that partisan witnesses should not be believed or their testimony should not be accepted as they are either related or interested in the informant. In the case of State of U. P. V/s. Ram Swarup, AIR 1988 SC 1028 , it has been held as follows "...........In a small village where people are divided on caste basis, the prosecution may not be able to get any neutral witnesses. Even if there is any such neutral witness, he will be reluctant to come forward to give testimony to support one or the other side. Therefore, merely because the eye-witnesses are associated with one faction or the other their evidence should not be discarded. It should, no doubt, be subjected to careful scrutiny and accepted with caution...." In the instant case the prosecution witnesses are Paswans and the appellants are Mandals. I am unable to agree that since the Paswans have proved the prosecution story their testimony should not be accepted, more so in the light of the above decision given by the Supreme Court. 18 The investigating officer has accepted some error regarding the date of examination of appellant Shyam Sundar Mandal. He said in Court that he had examined him on 24-4-85 and not on 22-4-85. 18 The investigating officer has accepted some error regarding the date of examination of appellant Shyam Sundar Mandal. He said in Court that he had examined him on 24-4-85 and not on 22-4-85. It is the settled law that unless the investigating officer misuses his position or acts dishonestly such a minor mistake or irregularity would not spoil the prosecution story. 19. Looking at all the facts discussed above. I am of the view that the evidence is very scanty and the links of chain regarding the offence committed by other appellants (except appellant Shyam Sundar Mandal) are not complete only suspicion cannot take the place of the position of truth or an established fact. The interestedness of the prosecution witnesses when examined closely against these appellants (except appellant Shyam Sundar Mandal) shows that these appellants have been falsely roped in to take vengeance on them. The enmity between the parties is already admitted because of the pending goat theft case. As such I am of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove its story against all the appellants, except appellant Shyam Sundar Mandal. 20. I find that the prosecution has proved its story against appellant Shyam Sundar Mandal reasonably and well and his taking part in the murder of Paddu Paswan and Bideshi Paswan is well proved. Thus, the appeal as against appellant Shyam Sundar Mandal is hereby dismissed. As regards the rest of the appellants the prosecution has failed to prove its story and hence, they are not held guilty as found by the learned Court below. Their conviction are accordingly set aside and they are set at liberty, if not wanted in any other case. Their bail bonds, if any, stand cancelled. Thus the appeal is partly allowed. Order accordingly.