Judgment N.P.SINGH, J. 1. The appellants and three others were tried on the charge, under Sec. 396 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of Ram Bilash Chaudhary. The trial court acquitted the other accused and convicted the appellants and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for life. 2. On 4-1-1982 at about 4.30 in the evening, the informant Rama Nand Chaudhary (PW3), his brother Ram Bilash Chaudhary and Kailash Chaudhary, PWI were harvesting their Urad crop (Kalai) at their Basa (hutment) (sic). Subodh Chaudhary PW2 whose Basa was near the Basa of the informant and Subash Chaudhary, PW4 was staying at the Basa of the PW2 in connection with the harvesting of his crop, were also there. When harvested Urad were kept in the bags and bags were finally stitched at that point of time, the appellants some of whom also had their Basa in the vicinity arrived there variously armed with fire arms and lathi and surrounded the Basa of the informant and they forcibly lifted the Urad bags. When Ram Bilash Chaudhary protested, appellant Anil Yadav shot at him from a country-made pistol, as a result he died on the spot. Appellant Bouku Sah shot at Subodh Chaudhary, PW2 and caused injury on his cheek and ear. Appellant Bouku Mandal assaulted Subhash Chaudhary, PW4 with lathi, appellant Mahendra Yadav assaulted informant Rama Nand Chaudhary with lathi. Appellant Kishun Yadav assaulted Kailash Chaudhary, PWI with butt of a gun. Appellant Bino Yadav, Bouku Sah and Chhathu Sah also assaulted them with butt of their respective gun and thereafter they took away five bags of Urad, worth Rs. 1,000.00 wrist watches, blankets, utensils and other articles. 3. On the next morning the informant Rama Nand Chaudhary, PW3 lodged first information report and police took up the investigation of the case. After the charge- sheet and cognizance, the case was committed. On transfer the case came up before Shri B. P. Verma, Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur for trial. The accused pleaded not guilty to the Charge and claimed to be tried. The evidence was that a dacoity was committed in the Basa of the informant in the night at about 10, but culprits could notbe identified due to darkness and the accused were roped in the case after due deliberation, due to caste rivalry prevailing in that area between the members of Yadav, Gangota and Bhumihat community. The evidence was that a dacoity was committed in the Basa of the informant in the night at about 10, but culprits could notbe identified due to darkness and the accused were roped in the case after due deliberation, due to caste rivalry prevailing in that area between the members of Yadav, Gangota and Bhumihat community. The accused also adduced evidence of 7 DWs in support of their defence. 4. The murder of the Ram Bilash Chaudhary and injuries caused to PWs 1 to 4 by the dacoits in course of committing dacoity in the farm house of the informant is not disputed rather it is admitted by the defence. The dispute is only with regard to time and manner of occurrence. 5. The point for consideration is whether the offence was committed by the appellants or by some body else. 6. Mr. T. K. Jha, Sr. Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants contended that there was inordinate delay of 24 hours in lodging the first information report in this case. The occurrence took place at 4.20 p.m. whereas first information report was lodged at 6.30 a.m. on the next day, when the distance of police station was only 9 k.m, from the P.O. Village. The informant Rama Nand Chaudhary, PW3 stated in his evidence that he proceeded for the Police Station al 8 p.m. but what prevented him in reaching the police station earlier has not been explained by the prosecution. The delay in lodging the first information report provides a legitimate basis for suspecting false implication of the appellants on account of caste rivalry prevailing in the area at that time. 7. Shri Lala Kailash Bihari, learned State counsel however contended that there was no delay in lodging the first information report in this case. There is plausible explanation for lodging the first information report on the next morning. The informant Rama Nand Chaudhary P.W. 3 in para 21 of his evidence has stated that he had to cross the river Ganga for going to the police station. It is common knowledge that boats are not plyed in the river during the night. The informant was stranded to cross the river on account of nonavailability of boat in the night. The informant reached the police station early in the morning and lodged the first information report. It is common knowledge that boats are not plyed in the river during the night. The informant was stranded to cross the river on account of nonavailability of boat in the night. The informant reached the police station early in the morning and lodged the first information report. The delay in lodging the first information report by and large stands explained by the evidence of informant, P.W. 3. The contention of Shri T. K. Jha that the prosecution has not given any explanation for lodging the first information report after a lapse of 24 hours of the occurrence is thus not tenable. 8. Shri Jha further contended that in the first information report it is admitted that there was cordial relation between the appellants and members of the prosecution party. Therefore, there could be no motive for the appellants to commit the offence. It may be mentioned in this connection that it is well settled that motive is not a sine qua non for the success of prosecution case so long other evidence remains convincing and is not open to reasonable doubt. Reference may be made to the case of Krishna Pillai V/s. State of Kerala reported in 1981 Cri LJ 743. The motive in this case is however obvious. It is admitted that there was caste rivalry between the community of the appellants and the prosecution party. Therefore, the probability of committing the crime on account of caste feelings which was so prevalent in the area during the time of occurrence, cannot be ruled out. 9. As regards the non-examination of Ram Charitar Chaudhary and Phulkit Chaudhary who came to the P.O. on hulla, P.W. 1 Kailash in para 8 of his evidence has stated that Ram Charitar Chaudhary was accused in a criminal case and he was absconding and for that reason he did not appear in the court to depose. 10. The informant Rama Nand Chaudhary, P.W. 3 in para 15 of his evidence has also stated that Pulkit Chaudhary and Ram Charitar Chaudhary were gained over by the accused persons. Thus there is a plausible explanation for non-examination of the witnesses who came to the place of occurrence on hulla. Therefore, no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution for non-examination of some of the prosecution witnesses. 11. Shri Jha further conteded that prosecution has failed to establish the place of occurrence in the case. Thus there is a plausible explanation for non-examination of the witnesses who came to the place of occurrence on hulla. Therefore, no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution for non-examination of some of the prosecution witnesses. 11. Shri Jha further conteded that prosecution has failed to establish the place of occurrence in the case. The prosecution case is that the occurrence took place on verandah where the deceased was sitting, whereas, the blood marks were found inside the Basa by the Investigating Officer, P.W. 5 The evidence of P.W. 5 falsifies the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 4 that the occurrence, took place on the Verandah. The contention of Shri Jha in this regard does not appear to be correct. The informant P.W. 3 in para 33 has deposed that the deceased was sitting on the Verandah of the Basa when he was shot dead. P.W. 1 Kailash brother of the deceased has also deposed that at that time of occurrence the deceased was sitting on a bed of grass on the southern side of Verandah of the Basa. P.Ws. 2 and 4 further corroborate the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 3 that the occurrence took place on the Verandah of Basa. The Investigating Officer, P.W. 5 had also found blood on the bed of grass on the southern side of the Verandah and not inside the room. There is no discrepancy in the evidence of Investigating Officer, P.W. 5 and P.Ws. 1 to 4. It is clearly established from their evidence that the. occurrence took place on the Verandah of Basa. 12. It was next contended by Shri Jha that all the four material witnesses, P. Ws. 1 to 4 are related and interested witnesses. P. Ws. 1 and 3 are the brothers of the deceased, and P.Ws. 2 and 4 are also interested witnesses. No independent witness has come to support the prosecution case. 13. In this case occurrence took place in a lonely place where no other person had the occasion to go and see the occurrence. Nothing has been elicited by the defence in cross-examination of the P.Ws that any independent person was present at the P.O. at the time of occurrence. Therefore, examination of other witness by the prosecution in support of the prosecution was not expedient in this case. P.Ws. 1 to 4 had sustained injuries at the hands of the appellants. Nothing has been elicited by the defence in cross-examination of the P.Ws that any independent person was present at the P.O. at the time of occurrence. Therefore, examination of other witness by the prosecution in support of the prosecution was not expedient in this case. P.Ws. 1 to 4 had sustained injuries at the hands of the appellants. They are the most natural and competent witnesses. The evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 4 are consistent on the point of occurrence. They have stood the test of cross-examination and there is nothing in their evidence to discredit their testimony. Their evidence cannot be rejected simply on the ground that they are related and interested witnesses. In this connection, reference may be made to the case of Balwant Singh V/s. State of Haryana reported in AIR 1972 SC 860 (1972 Cri LJ 645). 14. As regards the participation of the appellants in the commission of alleged offence is concerned, the evidence of informant Rama Nand Chaudhary, P.W. 3 is that when crop was harvested and kept in the bags and bags were stitched the appellants along- with others variously armed with lathi and fire arms came at. his Basa and surrounded his Basa. At that time his brother Ram Bilash was sitting on the bed of grass on the Verandah, Kailash P.W. 1, Subodh, P.W. 2 and Subhash P.W. 4 were also there. When miscreants started lifting the urad bags, Ram Bilash protested upon which appellant Anil Yadav fired at Ram Bilash on his forehead and he fell down and died. Appellant Mahendra Yadav assaulted him with lathi on his righthand, shoulder and fore arm. Appellant Kishun Yadav, Bino Yadav, Chhathu Sah assaulted his brother Kailash Chaudhary, P.W. 1 with the butt of a gun. Appellant Bouku Sah fired and caused fire arm injuries to Subodh, P.W. 2. Appellant Bouku Mandal assaulted Subhash P. W. 4 with lathi. The first information report, Ext. 1 and Kailash Chaudhary, P.W. 1, Subodh P.W. 2 and Subhash P.W. 4 corroborate the evidence of the informant, P.W. 3. P.Ws. 1, 2 and 4 had also sustained injuries along with the deceased at the time of occurrence. Therefore, they are most competent witnesses. They have been cross-examined at length but nothing has been elicited by the defence to discredit their testimony. 15. P.W. 6 Dr. M. K. Jha had examined the injured P.Ws. P.Ws. 1, 2 and 4 had also sustained injuries along with the deceased at the time of occurrence. Therefore, they are most competent witnesses. They have been cross-examined at length but nothing has been elicited by the defence to discredit their testimony. 15. P.W. 6 Dr. M. K. Jha had examined the injured P.Ws. 1 to 4 and has proved the injury reports Ext 5 to 5/3. P.W. 7 Dr. Om Prakash has held the autopsy on the dead body of the deceased Ram Bilash Chaudhary and has proved the post mortem examination report, Ext. 6. The murder of the deceased Ram Bilash Chaudhary and injury caused to P.Ws. 1 to 4 in course of dacoity committed in the Basa of the informant is not denied by the defence. 16. The defence has also adduced evidence of 7 DWs out of whom DWs. 1, 2, 4 and 5 have deposed that the alleged occurrence took place in the night. P.Ws. 3 and 6 are formal witnesses. D.W. 7 has deposed on the caste rivalry between the members of Bhumihar, Yadav and Gangota community at the time of occurrence. During the investigation some of D.Ws were examined by the Investigating Officer but they never disclosed to the Investigating Officer that the occurrence had taken placed in the night. Therefore, no reliance can be, placed on their testimony. 17. So far appellants Wokil Mandal, Ram Swaroop Yadav and Ram Bilash Yadav are concerned, no specific overt act is attributed to them. They were even not armed with any weapon. They are simply said to be present along with the mob. Their presence as a member of mob without any weapon does not appear to be convicting. They deserve the benefit of doubt. The conviction and sentence of the appellants Wokil Mandal, Ram Swaroop Yadav and Ram Bilash Yadav are accordingly set aside and they are acquitted and exonerated from the liability of their bail bonds. 18. As regards the remaining appellants namely Anil Yadav, Kishun Yadav, Bino Yadav, Mahendra Yadav, Bouku Mandal, Bouku Sah and Chhathu Sah are concerned, their active participation in the commission of the alleged offence is amply proved by the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 4. The conviction and sentence of these appellants are hereby affirmed. Their bail bonds are hereby cancelled. They are directed to surrender before the court below to serve out the sentence. 1, 2, 3 and 4. The conviction and sentence of these appellants are hereby affirmed. Their bail bonds are hereby cancelled. They are directed to surrender before the court below to serve out the sentence. 19. The judgment of the trial modified as indicated above and in the result, the appeal is allowed in part. 20. B. N. SINHA, J. :- I agree. Order accordingly.