Judgment S.Hyder Shaukat Abidi, J. 1. Appellants Anil Singh alias Anil Kumar Singh and Ranjit Singh have preferred this appeal against their conviction under Sec. 302/34 of the Indian Pental Code and sentence of rigorous imprisonment of life awarded to them by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Saharsa in Sessions Trial No. 26 of 1984. 2. In brief, the prosecution case is that on 16-5-1383 at about 3.30 p.m. Deep Naratn Singh (P.W. 8). a peon in Balua Hat Middle School had left his school for marketing and as soon as he reached IS steps ahead of the school on the road of school, he saw accused Anil Singh and Ranjit Singh throwing down the deceased, Navin Singh. Ranjit Singh had over-powered Navin Singh while Anil Singh began to cut his neck (kanth) by chhura with the result, Navin Singh died on the spot. He got terrified and ran away. According to him, this occurrence was seen by Chaadreshwar Mahto (P.W. 1), Bircndra Singh (P.W. 3), Kulanand Singh (P.W. 2), Ranjit Singh s/o Damodar Singh (P.W. 4), Balwa, Kashi Pasi (both not examined). He had heard that at the toddy shop of Kashi Pasi son of Bhola Pasi there bad been an altercation between the victim and two appellants wherein the appellants had threatened him to kill. This informant after the occurrence,: went to the village and gave information to the people. From the village, while he was going to the police station, in the any, he learnt from a man on motor-cycle that the police and the B.D.O. were going to the place of occurrence. He, therefore, went to the place of occurrence where his fardbeyan (Ext. 7) wits recorded in the same evening at 7.30 by R.C. Singh (I.O.), P.W. 10, on the basis of which, the First information Report (Ext. 2) was registered on the same night at about 11 p. m. During the course of investigation, P.W .10 examined the witnesses, prepared the inquest report (Ext. 4) before the witnesses and also recovered blood-stained earth and prepared seizure memo (Ext. 5) and sent the dead-body for post-mortem examination to Madhepura hospital. After getting the post-mortem Report (Ext. 8) and on completing investigation, he submitted charge-sheet against the appellants. 3. The accused in defence, denied the prosecution case and alleged that they have been falsely implicated in this else on account of enmity. 5) and sent the dead-body for post-mortem examination to Madhepura hospital. After getting the post-mortem Report (Ext. 8) and on completing investigation, he submitted charge-sheet against the appellants. 3. The accused in defence, denied the prosecution case and alleged that they have been falsely implicated in this else on account of enmity. Two witnesses in defence have been examined. Indra Bhushan Prasad Singh, D.W. 1, a teacher of Ucha Vidyaiaya, Balua tried to prove the application (Ext. A) given, by the Headmaster of the school for which he has said that he had no knowledge about the correctness of the same. D.W. 2, Rajendra Prasad Singh, who was a Sarpanch of Charpan Gram Kutchehry, has tried to prove a Sanha. 4. The prosecution, in support of its case, has produced 11 witnesses. Chandreshwari Mahto, Kulanand Singh, Birendra Singh and Ranjit Singh, P.Ws. 1 to 4 have deposed as eye-witnesses. P.W. 5, Radha Mohan Singh is a witness for seizure of blood-stained earth and chapal and also inquest report P.W. 6 Ram Binai Singh, and P.W. 7. Nawal Kishore Singh have said about the lodging of the fardbeyan and that after the occurrence they had found the victim lying dead. P.W. 8 is Deep Narain Singh who has deposed as an eyewitness. P.W. 9, Dr. A.K. Mandal had conducted the post-mortem examination on 17-5-1983 and had submitted his report (Ext. 8). P.W. 10 is Ram Chandra Singh, the Investigating Officer of this case who had submitted the charge-sheet after completing the investigation. P.W. 11 Chandra Bhushai Jha is a witness on (sic) of blood-stained earth. 5. The learned trial court, after considering the entire material on record has convicted and sentenced the appellants as said above. 6. Learned Counsel for the appellants has assailed the judgment of the Arial court on various grounds, that it is not based on the material on record, that the witnesses examined, were not the eye-witnesses and they were only chance witnesses belonging to a different village. The witnesses of the locality have not been examined and have been purposely with (sic) held, there is delay in lodging of the report. The witnesses of the locality have not been examined and have been purposely with (sic) held, there is delay in lodging of the report. Motive for the occurrence has not been proved by the prosecution and so genesis of the occurrence has not been given, the documents brought on the record have not been proved according to law and if at aft, have been brought, they could not be looked into. To appreciate these contentions, the evidence will have to be scrutinized with care and caution. 7. P. W. 8 is the Informant, a peon in the middle school, who has said that on 16-5-1983 at 3.30 p. m., he had gone Bazar and when he reached about 13 steps from school and was on the road, then from a distance of about 10-15 hands, he saw the victim having been fellow down and Ranjit Singh was pressing him and Anil Singh was cutting his kanth. Several chhura blows ware given oh his neck and the victim died. This occurrence was seen by Chandeshwari, Kulanand Singh, Birendra Singh and Ranjit Singh (P.W. 1 to 4). After the assault, the accused persons nm away. A day earlier than the occurrence, there was a quarrel between the appellants and the victim in the toddy shop. After the occurrence, he went to the village and from there, he was going to the police station but in the way, he met a motor-cyclist who told him that the police and the B.D.O. were going to the place of occurrence and so, he went to the place of occurrence and gave his fardbeyan to the investigating Officer, who also examined the witnesses and inspected the place of occurrence. In cross-examination, he has said that he did not keep his family in the school as he used to go and come daily but he used to live in the school. He has got his own cultivation in the village which has been given on batai. The Headmaster used to live in the school and he (witness) used to bring his articles for food etc., from the market. After the occurrence he went to the village and gave information about the murder of Naviu Singh to the people in his village. He thought to go to inform the family members of. the deceased but he did not go. His brother is Ram Dinesh Singh with whom he. After the occurrence he went to the village and gave information about the murder of Naviu Singh to the people in his village. He thought to go to inform the family members of. the deceased but he did not go. His brother is Ram Dinesh Singh with whom he. has got no concern, though both the brothers live in the same Angan. He denied to have knowledge that he and his brother--Ram Dinesh Singh are accused in any case. Ranjit Singh is also peon (sic) in another School. When he first saw the victim, Ranjit Singh was sitting-on his waste, and Anil Singh was cutting his throat and he was crying., There were other persons present, witnessing the occurrence and out of fear, he left the place and could not say ,as where other witnesses had went away. He has said that he has got no prior acquaintance with Anil Singh nor had a visiting and talking terms. There was no dispose between him and Ranjit Singh who had been appointed as a peon after him. This witness who has been cross-examined at great length, has tried to say the same thing as he has said in the fardbeyan. 8. The next eye-witness is P.W. 1 Chandeshwari Mahto, a resident of village Teghra. He has said that at about 3.30 p.m. at the day of occurrence he was going to market for purchasing provisions and then he saw on the road in Balua Bazar that both Anil Singh and Ranjit Singh had thrown down Navin Singh and had overpowered him and accused Ranjit Singh was pressing the deceased and accused Anil Singh was giving chhura bellows on the kanth and then on the neck of the victim due to which the victim died. Then the accused persons ran away. People had gathered there but the accused had given out threat that if anybody will interfere, he will meet the same fate. He has admitted that there is a Bazar where there are several shops but the market is held on Sundays and Wednesdays. The accused persons are resident of village Shankarpur. 30-35 latbas away from Balua Bazar. There was toddy shop of Bhola Pasi. He does not take toddy. There was no medical shop adjoining the place of occurrence nor any kirana shop but sabzi shops are on both sides of the road. The accused persons are resident of village Shankarpur. 30-35 latbas away from Balua Bazar. There was toddy shop of Bhola Pasi. He does not take toddy. There was no medical shop adjoining the place of occurrence nor any kirana shop but sabzi shops are on both sides of the road. He did not know the people of Shankarpur. The people had closed their shops and also the people living nearby had closed their doors. Appellant was piercing chhura in throat of Navin Singh and he was giving the chhura blows on the victim. He has also admitted that Navin Singh lives at the distance of about 1 1/2 kms. from his house in a different Tola and he never visited his house, and he did not know if the deceased was accused in several cases or he was a renowned criminal. 9. P.W. 2, Kulanand Singh is also an eye-witness to the occurrence who had gone to Bazar for purchasing vegetables where he also saw Anil Singh and Ranjit Singh having felled down Navin Singh, Ranjit Singh was pressing him and Anil Singh was cutting his throat. Several people had assembled but Anil Singh had given threat that if any body will come to rescue, he would meet the same fate. The deceased was also known to him. He denied to have, knowledge of the deceased being involved in several cases. There were several shops around the place of occurrence. He has admitted that out of fear, he could not be anything and was seeing the scene silently. He has said that in the Bazar, there was a constable also but he could not say as to whether anybody told the constable about the occurrence or not. The Investigating Officer arrived in the evening. He denied the suggestions that he had got no litigation or enmity with the accused. 10. P.W. 3, Birendra Singh has also said that, he had gone to Bazar for purchasing vegetables and seen the victim fallen and appellant Anil Singh was cutting his throat while Ranjit Singh was pressing him. The victim was his co-villager. He did not know if the victim was a sipahi. He had not gone to inform the family members of the victim and he straightway gone to his house and not informed anybody of the village. Bazar people had gone after closing their shops. The victim was his co-villager. He did not know if the victim was a sipahi. He had not gone to inform the family members of the victim and he straightway gone to his house and not informed anybody of the village. Bazar people had gone after closing their shops. He had seen the appellants giving 6-7 blows on the victim from the pointed site and appellant Ranjit Singh was pressing him by his waist. He was examined on the next day of-the occurrence. He. has said that, he had not said that the victim was involved in murder, case or any other case. The last witness is Ranjit Singh (P.W. 4) who too, like other witnesses, had gone-to market at; the same time. On the way from village, Bhotia, to his village Teghra, the place of occurrence is in the west. When he reached near the cycle repairing (shop of Tarni, he saw the victim having been brought down by the appellants. Ranjit Singh was pressing him Anil Singh was- cutting his throat by chhura. Navin Singh was crying and then he died. After that the appellants ran away. When they wanted to go to Navin Singh, he was given threat to meet the same fate as the deceased. He has dented that he was an accused in a dacoity case. He also said that he had gone to the said village Bhotia for obtaining papers in connection with his civil case. He has also admitted that while he was going to Balua Hat, he had met the informant who had told him that he was going to the police station. He denied that the deceased or the accused were criminal. 11. Besides these witnesses, P.W. 7, Nawal Kishore Singh of village Teghrs, the elder brother of the deceased, has said that he was at his house and in the evening when he returned, the informant told him about the murder of his brother and about 8 p.m., he went to the Balua Hat when he saw the police have arrived there. He went to Madhepura hospital where post mortem was done. He has said that he came to know about the murder of his brother from his wife. He has admitted that P.W. 6 Rambinay Singh is his uncle by village relationship. But he denied that Rambinay Singh and the deceased were. accused in any case. P.Ws. He went to Madhepura hospital where post mortem was done. He has said that he came to know about the murder of his brother from his wife. He has admitted that P.W. 6 Rambinay Singh is his uncle by village relationship. But he denied that Rambinay Singh and the deceased were. accused in any case. P.Ws. 5 and 6 are the formal witnesses seen earlier who had signed the seizure list, inquest report and the fardbeyan as witnesses. There is also the evidence of Dr. A.K. Mandal (P.W. 9) who had conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased on 17-5-1983 at about 11 a.m. and had found the following injuries on the person of the deceased Navin Singh which shows that the, victim had received ante mortem injuries, one incised penetrating wound "1 1/2" X 1 1/2" X 1/4" X 3 1/2" deep cutting in muscles of the back of the neck also cutting 3rd and the 4th curvical vertebra with injuries of spinal chord on the back of the neck. Spinal chord was completely cut at the level of 3rd and 4th curvical vertebra., (2) one sharp penetrating incised wound above the right clevicle 2" X 3" the right clavicle 2" X 1/2" deep passing downwards and posterlorly cutting skin muscle pleura and injuring upper lobe of right lungs and blood about 500 CC was in right pleural cavity, (3) four incised penetrating wounds (a) 1 1/2" x 1/4" X muscle deep (b) 1 1/2" X 1/3" X muscle deep (c) 1 1/2" x 1/4"x muscle deep (d) 1 1/2" x 1/4" X muscle deep below injury No. 1, (4) Ave incised penetrating wounds : (1) 1/2" x 1/2" X skin deep (ii) 1" x 1/4" X skin deep, (iii) 1 1/2" x 1/4" X muscle deep (iv) 2" X 1/2" X muscle deep (v) 1/2" X 1/4" X skin deep about injury No. 1, (5) three incised penetrating wound (i) (sic)" X 1/4" X skin deep (ii) 1/2" X skin deep, (iii) 1/2"X 1/4" X skin deep on the right side of injury No. 1 (6) three incised penetrating wounds: (1) 1 1/2" X 1/4" X skin deep (ii) 1/2" X 1/4" X muscle deep, (iii) 1" X 1/2" X skin deep in lateral side of in injury No. 1, (7) two incised penetrating wounds : (1) 1/2" X 1/4" X muscle deep (ii) 1/2" X 1/4" X skin deep on left scapular region, (8) Hematoma on the right side of the partial region. According to the doctor, death was due to shock and hemorrhage due to the above mentioned injuries, specially injury Nos. 1 and 2 which can be caused by chhura blows of sharp penetrating edge. The doctor has further stated that time elapsed since death was within 24 hours. He has proved the post-mortem report as Ext. 8. In cross-examination, he has stated that injury Nos. 1 and 2 and 8 were sufficient to cause death in due coarse. He has further clarified in cross-examination that injury No. 8 has not been specifically mentioned in his report but it included the above injuries also. He has further said that injury No. 1 is on the back of the neck. He has said that the front of the neck is called throat (kanth). He has further said that the throat is the front portion of the neck. 12. He has further said that injury No. 1 is on the back of the neck. He has said that the front of the neck is called throat (kanth). He has further said that the throat is the front portion of the neck. 12. P.W. 10, the Investigating Officer has said that he got a rumour about the murder and so he recorded the Sanha bearing No. 39 and he along with the B.D.O. and requisite number of police force, reached the spot and recorded the fardbeyan of Deep Narain Singh (P.W. 8). Before the witnessed, he prepared the inquest report, blood was found on the spot which was recovered and seized. He has also examined the witnesses on the same day as well as thereafter. The dead body was sent for post mortem examination. During the examination of the witnesses in the same evening, as well as next day, the market was in running condition. There were houses on both sides of the road and medical store toddy shop of Bhola Pasi and diesel shop of Ismail. Khan were there. He had also found the medical hall at a distance of 1/2 kms. from the place of occurrence. He went to the house of the accused but nothing incriminating was recovered. 13. As regards these eye-witnesses, learned Counsel for the appellants urged that they are the chance witnesses and there was no market date and also there was no time for the witnesses to make purchase and so, these witnesses could not have been present there. As to this contention, these P.Ws. 1 to 3 and 8 have said that they had gone to market for making purchases and P.W. 4 says that he was passing through the market, Definitely, they are not the residents of the same locality and are residents of different village Teghra but they have given out some reasons for their presence at the spot at the time of the occurrence. It has come in the evidence that place of occurrence is a market and a chance witness has .got reasons to be, present at the spot and simply because they, are chance witnesses, their evidence cannot be discarded when there is a market and people will go there for making purchase when ever it suits them. No hard and fast rule for making purchase can be laid down. No hard and fast rule for making purchase can be laid down. It all depends upon the exigency of the situation and the need of the hour and also the convenience of the people to make purchase. In the case of Rana Pratap and Ors. V/s. State of Haryana -- , the Supreme Court at page 682 (para 3) has observed as follows: We do not understand the expression chance witness. Murders are not committed with previous notice to the witness, soliciting their presence. If murder is committed in dwelling house, the inmates of the house are natural witnesses. If the murder is committed in brothel, prostitutes and paramours are natural witnesses. If murder is committed in a street only passersby will be witnesses, their evidence cannot be brushed aside or viewed with suspicion on the ground that they are mete chance witnesses, the expression chance witnesses is borrowed from the countries where every mans home is considered castles and everyone must have a explanation for his presence elsewhere or in another mans castle. It is a most unsuitable expression in a country whose people are less formet and more casual, To discard the evidence of street hawkers and street vendors on the ground that they are chance witnesses, even where murder is committed in a street, is to abandons good sense and take too shallow view of the evidence. In the case of Bahal Singh V/s. State of Haryana -- , at page 2036 (para 10) it has been observed as follows: As to the presence of P.Ws. 4 and Sat the time and place of occurrence the trial Court entertained grave doubts, if by concidence or change a person happens to be at the place of occurrence at the time of its taking place, he is called a cause witness. And if such a person happens to be a relative or friend of the victim or inimically disposed towards the accused then his being a chance witness is viewed with suspicion. Such a piece of evidence is not necessarily in creditable or unbelievable but does respire caution and close scrutiny. In the ease of State of U.P. V/s. Anil Singh -- , the Supreme Court has held at page 2003 (para 22) as follows: The reason given by the High Court for disbelieving the evidence of Chhotey Lal P.W. 2 is fanciful. In the ease of State of U.P. V/s. Anil Singh -- , the Supreme Court has held at page 2003 (para 22) as follows: The reason given by the High Court for disbelieving the evidence of Chhotey Lal P.W. 2 is fanciful. P.W. 2 is a resident of the village Astiya. Village is at a distance of 2 miles from Pukhrayan town. It will be seen from his evidence that he along with Baijnath and Manuwa Maharaj all residents of the same village had gone to the town for their requirements. P.W. 2 wanted from iron nails, Manuwa required vegetables and Baijnath had to purchase iron rods. After purchasing the respective goods, they proceeded towards their village. When they reached the Tehsil, they came across 3-4-5 days who told them that there was Bal Mela and cultural programme in the Normal School. It was only for them to stay on to see the cultural programme. They came, to their grain dealer. They kept their articles at his place and after some time they started towards the Normal School at about 7.30 or 7.45 p. m. When they were approaching the Khaojanchi Hotel, they saw the accused assaulting K.K. The evidence of P.W. 2 receives corroboration from P.W. 1. He figures as an eye-witness in the F.I.R., he cannot, therefore, be categorized as a chance witness. In these circumstance, the witnesses who have been found to be having no enmity with the accused and they were residents of the same village as the decreased have got no an(sic)mous to falsely implicate the appellants. As such, their evidence cannot be brushed aside by calling them as a chance witnesses when they have given out reasons for their presence on the spot which, "under the circumstances of the case, does not appear to be improbable. 14. As regards the contention about non-examination of the persons of the locality, no doubt, it has come in the evidence that there were houses and shops nearby and there is a market place. But it has also come in evidence that persons, wanted to interfere, were given out threat by Anil Singh that if they rate referred, they would meet the same fata. The appellants are resident of 1/2kms. from the market. But it has also come in evidence that persons, wanted to interfere, were given out threat by Anil Singh that if they rate referred, they would meet the same fata. The appellants are resident of 1/2kms. from the market. The appellants had felled down Navin Singh and given Chbura injuries and killed him in the full view of the persons who would in such a situation be the last persons to get themselves involved when threat has also been given. When the appellants are such a daring persons who will be got involved himself in such an affair and give evidence STd thereafter invite risk to their lives. In the case of Bahal Singh V/s. State of Haryana "(supra), the Supreme Court has further observed at page 2036 (para 11): There are houses of persons around the scene of occurrence. The occurrence is said to have taken place at about sun-set time. There must have been present independent persons from the village to watch the occurrence if it did take place in the manner alleged. But there was no such witness coming forward. The High Court remarked that some persons came immediately after the occurrence. But none of them was examined to say whether any of the three eye-witnesses was present at the scene of occurrence nor any of them told the person who arrived there the name of the respondents as being the assailant of the deceased. In the case of State of U.P. V/s. Lalla Singh and Ors. -- , the page 372 (para 9) It has been observed as follows : "It is a common ground that villagers are usually (sic) to get themselves involved in an occurrence especially where the accused are desperadoes." In the case of Appobhal and Anr. V/s. State of Gujarat AIR 1988 SC 696 , the Supreme Court, at page 699 (Para 11 and 12) has observed as follows: It is no doubt true that the prosecution has not been able to produce any independent witness to the incident that took place at the bus stand. There must have been several of such pretence. But the prosecution case cannot be thrown out or doubted on that ground alone. Experience reminds us that civilized, people are generally insensitive when a crime is committed even in their presence. They withdraw both from this victim and the vigilance. They keep themselves away . There must have been several of such pretence. But the prosecution case cannot be thrown out or doubted on that ground alone. Experience reminds us that civilized, people are generally insensitive when a crime is committed even in their presence. They withdraw both from this victim and the vigilance. They keep themselves away . from Court unless it is inevitable. They think that crime like civil dispute is between two individuals or parties and they should not involve themselves. This kind of apathy of the general public is indeed unfortunate, but it is there everywhere whether in village life, towns or cities. One cannot ignore the handicap with which the investigating agency has to discharge its duties. The court, therefore, instead of doubting the prosecution case for want of independent witness must consider the broad spectrum of the prosecution version and then search for nugget of truth with due regard to public, if any, suggested by the accused." "There may be some of, the reactions. There may be still more. Even a man prowess go become pusillanimous by witnessing a serious crime. In this case, the court below, in our opinion, have taken the circumstances of all those aspects and rightly did not insist upon the evidence from other independent witnesses. The prosecution case cannot be doubted or discarded for not examining the strangers at bus stand who might have also witnessed the crime. In the case of State of U.P. V/s. Anil Singh, (supra), the Supreme Court, at page 2001 (para 13) has observed as fallows: Of late this Court has been receiving a large number of appeals against acquittals and in the great majority of cases, the prosecution version is rejected either for want of corroboration by independent witnesses or for some falsehood stated or embroidery added by the witnesses. In spine case, the entire prosecution is doubted for not examining all witnesses. We have recently pointed out the indifferent attitude of the public in the investigation of the crimes. The public are generally reluctant to come forward to depose before the Court. It is, therefore, not correct to reject the prosecution version only on the ground that all witnesses to the occurrence have not been examined. Nor it is proper to reject the case for want of corroboration by independent witnesses if the case made out is otherwise true and acceptable. 15. It is, therefore, not correct to reject the prosecution version only on the ground that all witnesses to the occurrence have not been examined. Nor it is proper to reject the case for want of corroboration by independent witnesses if the case made out is otherwise true and acceptable. 15. As seen earlier, the witnesses of the locality have not been examined because threat had been given to them. They are shopkeepers and also residents of the Bazar. They have seen such ghastly murder committed by the appellants and so, they would be the last person to get themselves involved in such a matter. They had closed their shops and ran away. Thus, non-examination of such, witnesses will have no effect especially when the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 4 and 8 is there who claim to have seen the occurrence and which evidence, on scrutiny, does not suffer from any infirmity or illegally and when their evidence has to be believed then to insist upon the examination of other witnesses of other locality will be to discard such reliable evidence on flimsy grounds. The Supreme Court, in the case of Pal Singh and Ors. V/s. State of U.P. AIR 1979 SC 1126, has observed at page 1110 (para 2) as follows: Even if the High Court may not have been wholly correct on this aspect of the matter, the fact remains that after the High Court had believed the eye-witnesses Nos. 1 and 2, and having found that their testimony was absolutely creditworthy add truthful, it could not have rejected the prosecution case merely because some of the eye-witnesses mentioned in the F.I.R., were not examined. In such cases, the question which has to be determined, is not whether the absence of the examination of the independent witnesses would vitiate the prosecution case by itself but that evidence actually produced is reliance or not. Once the Court gives a finding of fact that the evidence led by the prosecution is reliable and trustworthy, the infirmities arising out of non-examination of witnesses will not be sufficient to put the prosecution within Court". Once the Court gives a finding of fact that the evidence led by the prosecution is reliable and trustworthy, the infirmities arising out of non-examination of witnesses will not be sufficient to put the prosecution within Court". As said by the Supreme Court in the case of Anwaruddin V/s. Shakoor 1990 Cr LJ 1269 at page 1273 (para 8) as follows: It is also settled law that the evidence of the witnesses to the occurrence cannot be thrown merely because they are interested and partisan witnesses. All that much demands is that their evidence should be scrutinized with care and caution to safeguard the formal temptation to falsely implicate the others. On this touchstone, the evidence of these eye-witnesses of scrutiny has not suffered from any infirmity in respect of the fact that they are of the same village but nothing has come out to show that they have got axe to grind. The defence has tried to show suggestion that they are not only residents of the village of the deceased but the informant is inimical, two witnesses, in defence, have been examined, D.W. 1 is a teacher in the Uch Vidyalaya who has said that his Headmaster had sent him to produce an application (Ext. A) in the court about which he says that it is in the writing of appellant Ranjit Singh. He has said that he had joined the school on 8-8-1969 and said that Ext. A was not written in his presence and that its carbon copy which the Headmaster of the school had given to him, to produce in the court. Though, he has denied the suggestion of the prosecution that it was a fabricated document. He had to admit that he could not say about the correctness of the contents of Ext. A. As such, Ext. A, cannot be relied on and that his evidence is also not reliable. It also appears that it does not bear the signature of the then Headmaster. Neither the Headmaster has been produced nor Ranjit Singh has said that it was an application given by him. As such, no reliance can be placed on this application as well as the statement of D.W. 1. Similarly, D.W. 2, Rajendra Prasad Singh, the Sarpanch of Charpam Gram Kutchchry has produced Ext. Neither the Headmaster has been produced nor Ranjit Singh has said that it was an application given by him. As such, no reliance can be placed on this application as well as the statement of D.W. 1. Similarly, D.W. 2, Rajendra Prasad Singh, the Sarpanch of Charpam Gram Kutchchry has produced Ext. B, a certified copy of the Sanha to the Gram Panchayat whose original copy is said to have been lost in the flood of 1988. The application is said to. have been written by Umesh Prasad Singh who has not been examined. This copy is also not fully desipherable, The Sanha Register has also not been produced, as such, this paper cannot be relied on. As regards the other exhibits about the proceedings under Sec. 107, Cr. PC and the order-sheet of P.S. Case No. 212/75 and also the compromise petition in the said case are not at all giving out that the witness had been inimical to the accused-appellants. Even Ext. G-1 in respect of the case under Sec. 396 of the Indian Penal Code, does not relate to the witnesses. Therefore, it cannot be aid that the witnesses are inimical or have got motive to falsely implicate the appellants in this case whatever they bad seen, they have given out in court. 16. As regards the medical evidence, the evidence of these witnesses is also corroborated by the medical evidence. The injuries that are said to have been received by the victim, which has been mentioned above, show that a number of injuries have been given to the victim. The injuries are by sharp cutting weapon. The neck had so many injuries. The appellants counsel has tried to give out that the witnesses have said about kanth and gardan. The victim had been felled down and Ranjit Singh was pressing him and Anil Singh was cutting his neck by giving chhura blows which the victim was resisting and also crying. Then the injuries are found on the neck, The witnesses were seeing from some distance not so closely and as such, if there is mention about kanth and neck, it does not make any difference and that will not make the evidence discrepant, In the case of Zahoor and Anr. Then the injuries are found on the neck, The witnesses were seeing from some distance not so closely and as such, if there is mention about kanth and neck, it does not make any difference and that will not make the evidence discrepant, In the case of Zahoor and Anr. V/s. State of U.P. -- , it has been observed by the Supreme Court as follows: It can, therefore, be seen that it is clearly mentioned that the deceased died due to strangulation by pressing the lathi on the throat. If the eye-witnesses have not really witnessed this incident they could not have imagined about the cause of death by merely looking at the external injuries. The Doctor who conducted the post-mortem found that the thyroid, cartilage and. larynx were fractured because of strangulation. The Doctor also corroborated this version namely that the asphyxia was caused due to strangulation by putting a blunt lathi and pressing the same on the throat. Therefore, to far this part of occurrence, is concerned it can by no stretch of imagination, be said that it is a fabricated one; Unless the witnesses were present and witnessing the occurrence they could not have imagined and mention the same in the earliest report. We, therefore, do not find any merit in this submission namely, that the earliest report is fabricated once. 17. In these circumstances, then the medical evidence wholly corroborates the version given by the witnesses, that chhura assault had been given on the neck and kanth and injuries more than one in number have been found, it goes to show that the injuries have been in the manner alleged. The doctor has said that in his opinion, the death was caused due to shock and hemorrhage and due to injuries mentioned above, especially injury No. 1 and 2. These injuries can be caused by chhura blows and sharp cutting or penetrating edge. Injuries Nos. 1, 2 and 8 were sufficient to cause death in due course. Injury No. 1 is on the back of the neck. He pointed out by putting his hand on the back of his neck. This part of the neck is called throat which is front portion of the neck, In these circumstances, the medical evidence completely corroborates the evidence of the eye-witnesses. Injury No. 1 is on the back of the neck. He pointed out by putting his hand on the back of his neck. This part of the neck is called throat which is front portion of the neck, In these circumstances, the medical evidence completely corroborates the evidence of the eye-witnesses. In the case of Vakula Bhushan alias (sic)Krishnan V/s. State of Tamil Nadu -- , it has been observed at page 239 (para 9) as follows: In the instant case, the High Court has appraised the evidence of P.W. 1 and accepted the same as it was cogent and trustworthy considering the facts and circumstances of the case. Furthermore, the evidence of P.W. 1 was corroborated by the medical evidence. In such circumstances in our considered opinion, this contention is devoid of any merit. 18. As regards the delay in lodging the first information report, it appears that the occurrence is of 3.30 p. m. and top Fardbeyan was recorded at 7.30 in the same evening at the place of occurrence by the Investigating Officer who had reached the spot on getting rumour for which he made a Sanha entry. The informant has said that after seeing this ghastly murder, he went to his village, Informed the people and then he was on his way to police station to lodge the report when he was told by a motor-cyclist that the Officer-in-Charge along with the B.D.O. was reaching the place of occurrence so, he went there and got recorded his Fardbeyan. In the latest decision, in the case of Tara Singh and Ors. V/s. State of Punjab -- , it has been observed at page 65 (Para 4) as follows: It is well-settled that the delay in giving the F.I.R. by itself cannot be a ground to doubt the prosecution case. Knowing the Indian conditions as they are, we cannot expect these villagers to rush to the police station immediately after the occurrence. Human nature as it is, the kith and kin who have witnessed the occurrence, cannot be expected to act mechanically that all the promptitude in giving report to the police. At times being grief-sticken because of the calamity it may not immediately occur to them that they should give a report. After all it is natural in these circumstances for them to take, some time to go to the police station forgiving report. At times being grief-sticken because of the calamity it may not immediately occur to them that they should give a report. After all it is natural in these circumstances for them to take, some time to go to the police station forgiving report. Of course, the Supreme Court as well as the High Courts have pointed out that in cases arising out of a acute factions there is a tendency to implicate persons belonging to opposite faction falsely. In order to avert the danger of convicting such innocent persons, the courts are cautioned to scrutinize the evidence of such interested witness with greater care and caution and separate grain from the chaff after subjecting the evidence to a dower scrutiny and in doing, so, contents of the F.I.R. also will have to be scrutinized carefully. However, unless there are indications of fabrication, the court cannot reject the prosecution version as given -in the FIR, and are substantiated by the evidence merely on the ground of delay. These are all matters for appreciation and much depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. In the instant case, there are three eye-witnesses. They have consistently deposed that the two appellants inflicted injuries on the neck with kripans, the medical evidence amply supports the same. In these circumstances, we are unable to agree with the learned Counsel that the entire case should be thrown out on the same ground that there was some delay in the F. I. R. reaching the local Magistrate. As such, there is no delay in making the report and there was no such inordinate delay which can be said that the same is reliable and trustworthy which has been supported by the medical evidence. 19. As, regards the contention that the notice in the case has not been proved and so, the genesis of the occurrence has not been given out, for the reasons that some time earlier there was a quarrel between the appellants and the victim at toddy shop and no evidence has been brought on that score. As to this contention, the informant has given out that there was some altercation between the appellants and the victim and the appellants had given out threat to kill him. Simply because no person from today shop, has been produced, it cannot be said that the motive has not been proved. As to this contention, the informant has given out that there was some altercation between the appellants and the victim and the appellants had given out threat to kill him. Simply because no person from today shop, has been produced, it cannot be said that the motive has not been proved. Motive is of secondary nature and does not assume importance in case where direct evidence to the occurrence is the (sic) is essential and of an importance in cases especially of circumstantial evidence. Though the prosecution when alleges a motive, should prove out the same which has been done by P.W. 1, But simply because the persons from today shop, .has not been examined or the shopkeepers have not been examined will have no effect. In the case of Molu and Ors. V/s. State of Haryana -- , at page 2505 (Para 11), it has been observed as follows: It is well-settled that where the direct evidence regarding the assault is worthy of credence and can tie believed, the question of motive becomes more or less academic. Sometimes the motive is clear and can be proved and sometimes, however, the motive is shrounded in mystery and it is very difficult to locate the same. If, however, the evidence of the eye witnesses is creditworthy and is believed by the Court which has placed implicit reliance of them, the question whether there is any motive or not, becomes wholly irrelevant. In the case of State of Haryana V/s. Sher Singh -- , the Supreme Court, at page 1023 (Para 6) has observed as follows: The prosecution is not bound to prove motive of any offence in the criminal case, inasmuch as, motive is known only to the perpetrator of the crime and may not be known to others. If the motive is proved by the prosecution, the Court has to consider it and see whether it is adequate. In the instant case the motive proved apparently inadequate, although it might be possible. In the case of Fnquira V/s. State of U.P. -- , it was said at page 916 (Para 4) as follows: The fact that the appellants motive was too flimsy is no reply to the unshaken testimony of creditable and natural eye-witness who had no motive whatsoever to implicate the appellant falsely. 20. In the case of Fnquira V/s. State of U.P. -- , it was said at page 916 (Para 4) as follows: The fact that the appellants motive was too flimsy is no reply to the unshaken testimony of creditable and natural eye-witness who had no motive whatsoever to implicate the appellant falsely. 20. In these circumstances, for motive, the -prosecution has given out that threat had been given by the appellants to the victim at the toddy shop, when this motive has been proved by the prosecution and it cannot be said that there is any failure on this score. The manner of occurrence also shows that the appellants have fulfilled the motive and they have done him to death on the public place in broad day light in the presence of the witnesses or even persons who might have been present and are not ready to depose or they might have not seen. By the suggestions put to the witnesses, it appears that the victim was sought to be made out a criminal. Even if he was a criminal, it was not within the right of the appellants to have murdered him by chhura in this callous manner on the public road. Thus, considering the entire material on record, it appears that the prosecution has been able to make out its case and the court below was perfectly justified it correct in convicting and sentencing both the appellants. Since the appellant, Ranjit Singh was catching hold the victim till the final and Anil Singh was giving him chhura blows, it goes to show that both of them had shared the object of killing the victim and as such, Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code has been rightly applied. 21. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and also after considering the entire material on record, it has been found that this appeal has got no force and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed and the order of conviction and sentence passed against both the appellants is hereby confirmed. As such both the appellants are in jail, remaining period of their sentence will be served by them. 22. Shashank Kumar Singh, J. I agree.