Judgment S. H. S. Abidl, J. 1. Umesh Mabto, Satyanarain Mahto, Jagdisb Mahto and Prabhu Hazam have been convicted under Sec.30,4 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short I. P, C) and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life. 2. The first information report has been lodged on 6-4-1979 at 1 A. M. at police-station Silli by Dipnarain Mahto (PW 1) cousin of the deceased basudeo Mahto where he had gone along with Bhuneshwar Mahto (not examined), Lobin Mahto (PW 2), Lal Mohan Hazam (PW 3), Hari Mahto (not examined) and village Chaukidar Hari Ram Kuwar. It has been said that the informants cousin Basudeo Mahto, resident of Jainagar had come to the village of informant, namely, Palasdih on 4-4-1979 for mehmant. On 5-4-1979 at about 4 P. M. the informant, Lobin Mahto (P. W.2), Sukdeo hajam (P. W.12) and the deceased cousin Basudeo Mahto had gone to Kitta to see Ramnaumi Mela at about 6 P. M. They all returned and were sitting in the adjoining bari of the house. The victim went to urinate towards south at a distance of about 15-16 steps from the place they were sitting. While urinating the four appellants residents of the same village Palasdih, came armed with phrasa and began to assault the cousin badly who died on the spot. Then the appellants ran away towards south. The dead body of his cousin was lying at the spot and he could not say as to why they have killed his cousin. 3. On the basis of the first information report investigation was started by Sunder Prasad (not examined as witness ). He went to the spot prepared inquest report and sent the dead body for post-mortem examination. After doing part of the investigation he handed it over to the second investigating officer (for short I. O.) Ramavtar Singh (P. W.9) who after completing the investigation submitted charge sheet against the appellants. 4. The accused, in defence, denied the prosecution case and alleged that they have been falsely implicated in this Case. No witness in defence has been examined. 5. The prosecution, in support of its case, has examined seventeen witnesses p. W.1 Dlip Narain Mahto (informant), Lobin Mahto (P. W.2)servant of the informant and P. W.12 Sukdeo Hajam are the three eye-witnesses. The accused, in defence, denied the prosecution case and alleged that they have been falsely implicated in this Case. No witness in defence has been examined. 5. The prosecution, in support of its case, has examined seventeen witnesses p. W.1 Dlip Narain Mahto (informant), Lobin Mahto (P. W.2)servant of the informant and P. W.12 Sukdeo Hajam are the three eye-witnesses. Lal mohan Hajam and Biteshwar Nath Mahto (P. Ws.3 and 4) came to the spot on hearing alarm and were told about the occurrence. P. W.5 Karuna devi mother of the informant, came out of the house and saw the accused running away. Bina Pani, Saraswati Kumari, Jageshwar Mahto,mukhiya (who was cross-examined), Bilaso and Hari Kumar (P. Ws.6, 7, 13, 15 and 17)are tendered witnesses. P. W.8 Mahendra Nath Mahto. brother of the informant, though not an eye-witness, had seen the accused running away. P. W.9 Ramavtar Singh the second I. O. has submitted charge sheet. P. W.10 bhudeo Chandra Mahto proved the signature on the seizure list on recovery of farsa P. W.11 Dr. R. S. Parasad had conducted the post-mortem examination on 6-4-1979 at 12 noon and had submitted post-mortem report (Ext.3) P. W.14 Malti Devi relation of the informant has also seen the accused running away. P. W.6 William Minz a constable has proved the first information report. Sunder Prasad the first I. O. has not appeared in court for his statement inspite of the case pending from 1983 to 1988 for statement of PWs and also court taking steps for his examination. 6. The learned trial court after considering the entire material on the record has convicted and sentenced the appellants as said above. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants has challenged the order of conviction on various grounds. He has also challenged the place of occurrence for which the I. O. has not been examined and moreover there are contradictions in the statement of witness. There was no motive or enmity to the appellants to commit the offence Even the inquest report has not been brought on the record nor witnesses have been examined to prove the same. Evidence of the eye-witnesses is at variance, specially, about the weapons. The medical evidence does not fit in with the oral evidence. No independent witness has been examined. The occurrence was in darkness and so the identity of the appellants is doubtful. Evidence of the eye-witnesses is at variance, specially, about the weapons. The medical evidence does not fit in with the oral evidence. No independent witness has been examined. The occurrence was in darkness and so the identity of the appellants is doubtful. To appreciate these contentions of the learned counsel for the appellants evidence will have to be scrutinised with care and caution, 8. In this case Dip Narain Mahto, Lobin Mahto and Sukdeo Hajam are eye-witnesses. Besides Lal Mohan Hajam, a neighbour of Biteshwar Nath mahto, who came on the spot and the relations of the informant Karuna devi, Mahendra Navh Mahto and Malti Devi, who came after the occurrence and said that they has been the accused running away. Besides, them are the tendered witnesses, out of whom only one Jageshwar Mahto has been crossexamined. P. W.1 Dip Narain Mahto has said that occurrence took place on 5-4-1979 (Wednesday) at about 7.30 to 8 P. M. in the bari of his house. The victim was his cousin who bad come a day earlier than the occurrence to the village of the informant for Mehmani. On the day of occurrence he along with Lobin Mahto and Sukdeo Hajam had gone to see the Ramnaumi fair and on return at about 6 P. M. they were sitting in the bari of the house. It was at 7 to 8 P. M. the victim went to 15-16 steps south in the Barl from where he was visible to the witnesses. The appellants came with farsa from the north and began to assault him (the victim ). It was moonlight night (Chandani rat ). The victim fell down on getting injury. All the four accused ran away. The victim got injury on the right temple and on the left hand. He died on the spot and then be (informant) went to the police-station the same nigbt and lodged the report. In cross examination he said that there was a dispute about land with the appellants from before. He could not say if Jagdish Prasad had filed a criminal case against Keshwar Mahto and Bindeshwar Mahto in which they were convicted. In 1979 Keshwar mahto had filed a case of mar-pit against the accused in which they were acquitted. Besides that there was proceeding under Sec.107 Cr. P. C. and he could not say as to what happened in that case. In 1979 Keshwar mahto had filed a case of mar-pit against the accused in which they were acquitted. Besides that there was proceeding under Sec.107 Cr. P. C. and he could not say as to what happened in that case. The informants party had filed a theft case against the accused in which they were not convicted. Proceeding under Sec.145 Cr. P. C. was pending between the appellants and the informants party. But there was no dispute or grudge between the appellants and victim who had not deposed against the accused in any case. In the Barl of the informant, being 10 to 12 decimals, vegitabla was grown but the same was not surrounded and is adjacent to his house. There are mangoes and other trees and Kachhu crops are shown there. He had seen the accused in the Ramnaumi fair at about 4 P. M. and had no talk) with them. The appellants had got pharsa iu the mela where the informant and others had also gone but without any weapon. Ho had seen the accuied also returning. The bouse of the appellants are adjacent to the house of the informant. While returning he did not see the accusad entering in the house, as they were behind him. When he returned from the mela lights were burnt. In the family people were there. Light was burnt by father and mother, They took some meal and victim also took some food. Rice and Dal were taken. Debari was burnt. But at the place of occurrence there was no lantern or Debari. He bad seen all the four appellants plying farsa and not seen them bringing lathi In farsa lathi was fixed. Before police he said that Umesh Mahto had lathi, Jagdish, Satya Narain and prabhu Hajam bad farsas and used it upon Basudeo (victim ). The victim did not cry on getting the farsa injury nor did the informant and others there raised alarm, when the victim was assaulted. The informant and others reached there but did not chase the accused. Three persons assaulted the victim. Umesh caused lathi blow from behind. On getting lathi blow the victim was standing and he did not fail. Umesh bad given one lathi on the right shoulder Farsa blow was given by Prabhu Mahto on the left hand upon which the victim fell down and then Prabhu did not assault. Three persons assaulted the victim. Umesh caused lathi blow from behind. On getting lathi blow the victim was standing and he did not fail. Umesh bad given one lathi on the right shoulder Farsa blow was given by Prabhu Mahto on the left hand upon which the victim fell down and then Prabhu did not assault. Upon falling Satya Narain assaulted him by farsa which he used for two times. He did net forbid them from assaulting. After assault the accused ran away towards south with their weapons. The victim was not lifted acd not taken inside the house. From the village of the informant village Gcrari was at about 1 1/2 kose where Choukidar Hart Ram Kuwar was informed aad the name of the accused was given out. After the occurrence Lala Hajam came but none came from the village. Police-Station is about 10 to 1 i kose away from the place of occurrence. The F. I. R. was lodged at about 1 A M. on the same night. The Eight of the occurrence was bright. He could not say if his statement was recorded under Sec.107 C,r. P. C. It was not correct that while returning froth the mela there was exchange of abuses with the appellants. When he went to the police-station there was none to look after dead body. 9. P. W.2 Robin Mahto is another eye-witness who has also said that he had gone in the Bari along with Dip Narain Mahto, Sukdeo Mahto and Basudeo Mahto and they were sitting in the Angan of the Bari. At about 8 p. m. Basudeo Mahto went to urinate at 14-15 steps away from the place of sitting when the appellants came armed with lathi and farsa Umesh mahto bad lathi fixed farsa and assaulted the victim from the lathi side. The rest of the accused assaulted the victim by farsas. Basudeo Mahto had come two days earlier than the occurrence and they had gone to see the ramnaumi fair and they returned at about sun-set and sat in the Bari of biso. There wes moonlit light on the night of occurrence. He had also gone to the police-station with the informant. He was servant of the informant and so stayed in the night. He said that Lal Mohan and Sukdeo are not related to him. There wes moonlit light on the night of occurrence. He had also gone to the police-station with the informant. He was servant of the informant and so stayed in the night. He said that Lal Mohan and Sukdeo are not related to him. Had Charan and Girdhar are not brothers but have got village relationship He and Sukdeo had cut wheat crop of Biso upto 4 p. m. and had brought the same to the house. After cutting the crop he had not taken meal on the day of occurrence. After cutting they bad thought to see the mela and so they had gone at 4.30 P. M. After return from the mela they were sitting in the house of the informant. He and others had seen the accused going in the mela. From the place of dip Narain, Jhanda was taken out. But he had not seen if Jhanda was taken out from the place of Dip Narain on that day, though village Jhanda bad gone to Mela, He and Dip Narain had not gone with Jhanda. He had seen the accused in Mela with Jhanda. After return he and others returned to Barsa, Bari and Angan are one where they were sitting. He had not said to the I. O that there was farsa fixed with lathi with Umesh Mahto. Blood had fallen where mar-pit had token place. After mar-pit alarm was raised. The villagers did come although there were 2 to 4 houses adjoining. In village Paraidih no body was informed. There was moonlit night when they returned. He could not say if there was any dispute between Dip narain and the accused. He had good terms with Basudeo and he could not say if there was bad terms between the victim (Basudeo) and the accused. While holding the farsa Umesh assaulted the victim. There were two injuries on the neck and also injury on the right temple. Father and mother of dip Narain did not go there. They were inside the house and they came on alarm. Father of Dip Narain did not enquire as to who had Killed Basudeo mahto. 10. Sukdeo Hajam (P. W.12) is the third eye-witness. There were two injuries on the neck and also injury on the right temple. Father and mother of dip Narain did not go there. They were inside the house and they came on alarm. Father of Dip Narain did not enquire as to who had Killed Basudeo mahto. 10. Sukdeo Hajam (P. W.12) is the third eye-witness. He too has said that he returned from Mela at about 6 P. M. along with the informant and p. W.2 and the deceased and they were sitting in the Angan at about 7 P. M. Then the victim Basudeo went to urinate towards south. The appellants came with farsa and began to astault him. He did not go to the bouse of dip Narain Mahto. He went to the dead body of Basudeo with bis family members. The accused after assaulting ran away towards west and the victim died. He law injuries on the person cf the victim and blood also. Umesh Mahto had farsa-lathi and rest had farsa. In cross-examination he said that he could not say that his father was accused in the case of Oobind hajam and that Umesh Mahto was witness in the said case against his father. There was no quarrel or dispute between the victim and the appellants to his knowledge. He had also gone to cut the wheat crops cf Bindeshwar and had brought it. Lal Mohan is his brother who had deposed in the case and he it labour and does not do batai cultivation. Dip Narain and Lobin Mahto are witness in this case and they had gone to cut the wheat. It was not correct that Umesh bad grown the wheat and hed abused and asked them not to cut the wheat crop. There was no quarrel in the Mela, No food was taken. There was no house cf Basudeo hut the house was of his Mama bindeshwar Mahto. Mar-pit took place in the Bari which was not surrounded. In middle of Angan is the Bari where mar-pit took place. Bari is 15-16 yards away from the house. It was not correct that on account of the mango and banana trees there was darkness in the bari. The occurrence was of about 7.30 to 8 P. M. In the Ramnaumi fair lathis, swords and weapons are played. He had not taken Jhanda and so Hari Charan. Bari is 15-16 yards away from the house. It was not correct that on account of the mango and banana trees there was darkness in the bari. The occurrence was of about 7.30 to 8 P. M. In the Ramnaumi fair lathis, swords and weapons are played. He had not taken Jhanda and so Hari Charan. It was not correct that he had gone there with the weapons and they were plying the same. It was not correct that they were drunk and they bad quarrel with the Jhanda party and there was use of sword. It was not correct that he bad gone to sasural and returned after 4-5 days cf the occurrence. Satya Narain is a student of B. Com. at Ranchi. 11. Besides these three eye-witnesses, P. W.3 Lai Mohan Hajam is a neighbour who reached the place of occurrence from his house on hearing alarm. He went there and saw the victim injured and dead and in the injuries on his persons were of sharp weapons. He met Dip Narain, Sukdeo and no other persons of the village. Oo enquiry he had been given out that four accused had assaulted the victim by farsa and lathi at about 7 to 8 P. M. In cross-examination he has said that in between his house and that of informant is only one house of Chhote Mahto. He did not know if his father was accused in a case under Sec.302 I. P. C, and accused in the case of murder of grand-mother of Prabhu Hajam. He did not know if sundari Devi mother of Prabhu Hajam and his father has deposed against his (P. W.3) father. He was examined at the police-station in the night of occurrence when he bad gone there. Thereafter again be was examined at the place of occurrence. Sukdeo Hajam is his real brother. Lobin Mahto is not his cousin. The dead body was in the bari of Bijay Nandan Mahto. Then said in the Angan of Bindeshwar which is adjacent to the Bari of Bijoy nandan. Near the place of occurrence there are houses of others. On alarm he reached there and so later on came the Mukhiya and Chaukidar and 2 to 4 persons. None of the village Parasdih came on alarm. The mother of Bindeshwar came later weeping. Dip Narain told him (P. W.3)about the names of the assailants. Near the place of occurrence there are houses of others. On alarm he reached there and so later on came the Mukhiya and Chaukidar and 2 to 4 persons. None of the village Parasdih came on alarm. The mother of Bindeshwar came later weeping. Dip Narain told him (P. W.3)about the names of the assailants. He gave the names of three persons before the police. He denied that be was deposing against the appellants on account of the enmity. 12. P. W.4 Biteshwar Mahto father of the informant Dip Narain mahto, has said that the deceased was his maternal nephew resident of village Jainagar, police-station Silli and a day earlier than the occurrence he had come to his place. On the Ramnaumi day at about 4 P. M. he along with Lobin Mahto, Sukhdeo Hajam ond Dip Narain (P. Ws.2, 12 and 1)had gone to see the mela and then he returned 6 to 7 P. M. whereafter they were sitting in the south of the house in the bari and he (P. W.4) was inside the house. He, his mother Karuna Devi and his wife, daughter and niece were inside the house. About 7.30 P. M. he and others heard alarm from the place where the victim and others were sitting. He went there. Dip narain did not say anything to him. But later on he said that Dip Narain told him that four accused assaulted Basudeo whom he found injured. He had seen those accused with farsa and lathi running away towards south-west. In cross-examination he said that dead body was in bis bari, then said that in the bari of Vijaynandan. He said that in his house there is Angan. From the Angan of the house bari is not visible. Kesbav Mahto is his elder brother. He admitted that 145 proceeding was going on between him and appellants umesh and Satya Narain Mahto ; not in respect of the ancestral land but for the purchased land. Around the Angan is the house. He was not aware if his elder son Dip Narain had filed a case a day earlier against jagdish and his brother. He did not know if be was convicted under section 426, I. P. C. which is said to have been filed by the father of Jagdish. The alarm was louder saying that Basudeo had been killed. He was not aware if his elder son Dip Narain had filed a case a day earlier against jagdish and his brother. He did not know if be was convicted under section 426, I. P. C. which is said to have been filed by the father of Jagdish. The alarm was louder saying that Basudeo had been killed. So he went to the place of occurrrenc. When the police came he told the police that the accused ran towards south-west with farsa. Lathi was not in any ones hand and that when he reached he found Lobin Mabto, Dip Narain and sukdeo there. The victim had come to see the ailing brother of the witness and there was no enmity between the victim and the accused. 13. P. W.5 Karuna Devi grand-mother of the informant and mother of P. W.4 has said that the victim was Nati being son of her daughter and had come a day earlier and had gone to Kita for seeing Ramnaumi fair along with Lobin, Sukdeo and Dip Narain at about 4 P. M. After return at about 6 P. M. they were sitting in the Angan outside the house. At about 8 P. M. Dip Narain raised alarm saying that Basudeo was being assaulted by four appellants and so the and ethers came out of the house and saw the accused and also found Basudeo lying injured and dead. She had got dispute with satyanarain in respect of fields which has been lost by them and so they were aggrieved. In cross-examination she has said that she has appeared on behalf of her son Kesho in a case under Sec.107, Cr. P. C. She bad seen the victim and others going to mela She saw them after the return infront of her bari and bari of Mahto. When an alarm was raised, she was cooking food. She came out on the alarm of Dip Narain. She did not find the four accused where the victim died. Before her reaching Binapani and Saraswati were there and none else. The victim was lying on the Aal between her bari and bari of Mahto. Leaving the dead body she went to village Loti. In the way there were karha and nala She had gone alone and told all to the Chaukidar and then came back with Chaukidar and Mukhiya of Oradih. The victim was lying on the Aal between her bari and bari of Mahto. Leaving the dead body she went to village Loti. In the way there were karha and nala She had gone alone and told all to the Chaukidar and then came back with Chaukidar and Mukhiya of Oradih. No information was given to Mukhiya and Surpanch of the village. The police came and took away the dead body next day. She had not seen the accused killing but had seen them running towards west, 14. P W.8 Mahendra Nath Mahto son of Bindeshwan Mahto lays that on the Ramnaumi day the victim along with Lobin and Dip Narain had gone to see the mela whereafter they returned. He also returned earlier than them and after return they were sitting in the bari. On alarm be went there and saw the four appellants running away. Sukdeo told him that the appellants were running away after assaulting, He found the victim fallen with injuries. In cross-examination he has said that he was examined by the police on the night of the occurrence. He has said to the police that Dip narain came running and said that appellants were assaulting Basudeo. He had not seen them sitting in the Angan. The victim was his cousin (Phupherabhai ). There was no dispute between the victim and the appellants. 15. P. W.13 Yogeshwar Mahto had been tendered but he has been cross-examined. He has said that he was Mukhiya and had seen the dead body at the time of occurrence in the house of Bindeshwar father of the informant. The mother of Bindeshwari had come to call him. He had seen the dead body being taken by the police. The door of Bindeshwari is east facing and his bari is east-southward. From his house the distance of bari is 200 yards. 16. This is the entire prosecution case, besides the medical evidence of the doctor. As regards the place of occurrence the learned counsel for the appellants had tried to say that the first information report mentions bari in the east of the house and 15-16 steps south of the bari was the place where the victim was urinating and assaulted. P. W.1 has said that the dead body was not taken inside the house and was at the place of occurrence. P. W.1 has said that the dead body was not taken inside the house and was at the place of occurrence. P. W.3 has said that the dead body was in the barl of Bijoyanand and then said in the bari of Bindeshwari which is adjacent to the bari of Bijoyanand. P. W.4 bad also said that dead body was in the bari of Bijyonand and in his house there is Angan. As to this contention, no doubt, the bari has been said to be the place of occurrence. The witnesses have made variations about the bari, angan and between bari of informant and Bijoyananda. But all these witnesses are one in raying that the victim was in the bari and the bari said by all the witnesses is said to be outside the house in an open area. Adjoining to the barl of informant is bari of Bijoyananda and on the Aal of bari of the informant Bijoyananda the dead body had been found. These minor variations do not make the place of occurrence doubtful or the witnesses in this respect do not contradict each other. In this case the I. O. has not been examined. No doubt for fixing the place of occurrence besides the evidence of the witnesses the objective finding of the I. O. becomes a corroborative evidence. But there being no contradictions between the evidence of the witnesses though minor variations are there and which are bound to be in the case of natural and probable witnesses. As such the place of occurrence cannot be said to be different one as given out by the witnesses. 17. As to the contention that the appellants had got no motive to commit the offence, the witnesses have been uniform in saying that the victim had got no enmity with the appellants. The suggestions and the statements of the witnesses are showing that there was enmity betwsan the appellants and the informants party. But how the accused persons Killed Basudeo is a matter for them to say because motive is hidden in the heart of the accused. But it is also a fact that the victim Basudeo was the bhogina (maternal nephew) of the Biteshwar (P. W.4) In view of the direct evidence of the eyewitnesses motive is of secondary importance. But how the accused persons Killed Basudeo is a matter for them to say because motive is hidden in the heart of the accused. But it is also a fact that the victim Basudeo was the bhogina (maternal nephew) of the Biteshwar (P. W.4) In view of the direct evidence of the eyewitnesses motive is of secondary importance. Even if the victim was Killed under mistaken identity of the informant, the offence of Killing will not be mitigated. 18. It has also been said that medical evidence does not fit in with the oral testimony. The informant has given out that the appellants were armed with farsa, though the witnesses have been saying that there was farsa with lathi and the same bad been used The victim is said to have been found by the doctor to have received eight injuries. Injury Nos. I, 2, 3 and 4 were incised wounds whereas injury Nos.5 to 8 were abraisons. About injury No.1 the doctor has said that the same has been caused by sword looking to the siza of the injury. About injury Nos.5 to 8 it has been said that they might have been caused by fall. No doubt, in the case of Hallu V/s. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1974 SC 1936 , it has been said that when a witness says that an axe or spear has been used there is no warrant for supposing that what witness means that the blunt size was used. If that is an implication then it is the duty of the prosecution to prove it. Except the informant all the witnesses are one in saying that farsa and lathi with farsa had been used. For that reason it cannot be said that the farsa had been used and lathi with farsa had not been used. The doctor in cross-examination has given out about injury Nos 5 to 8 that they have been caused by fall. About injury Nos.1 and 2 looking to the size it may be said that the same might have been caused by sword but in what way the farsa has been used cannot be said. As such the medical evidence cannot override the evidence of the witnesses who have seen the accused armed with farsa and using the same. In this respect the evidence of the witnesses cannot be discarded. 19. As such the medical evidence cannot override the evidence of the witnesses who have seen the accused armed with farsa and using the same. In this respect the evidence of the witnesses cannot be discarded. 19. It has also been contended that inquest report his not been brought on the record and if it would have been brought on record that could have been of value to show that wherefrom dead body bad been recovered. No doubt, inquest report has not been brought fon the record but that is not evidence and when the evidence of the witnesses appears to be uniform then its not bringing on the record has got no affect. 20. As regards non-examination of the I. O. it appears from the order sheet that inspite of the best effort by the prosecution as well as by the court, the I. O has not turned up. This is a sorry state of affairs, The order sheets from 1-3-1983 till 18-4-1988 gives out long sorry tale of adjournments and merits on various dates on account of non-examination of the I. O. This is also a case which should be taken consideration by the Director General of Police for suitable action against the first Investigating Officer, Non-appearance of the Investigation Officer in these circumstances cannot be appreciated, though it has not been established that any appreciable prejudice has been caused to the accused. But it goes without saying that if the first i. O. Surendra Prasad would have been examined he would have also given out about his objective findings, though the place of occurrence has been proved otherwise by the cogent and reliable evidence of the witnesses. Ramavtarsingh (P. W.9) the second I. O, has been examined. He could have given out about the place of occurrence if there had been anything contrary. He would have given out the place of occurrence after seeing the case diary in which there has been mention about the objective finding of the I. O. The defence has not put any question to him, although, opportunity was provided to them by his examination. 21. It has also been said that the witnesses examined are relations and no outsider has been examined. As to this contention, the eye-witnesses are p. Ws 1, 2 and 12 and the other inmates of the house who came on hearing the alarm. 21. It has also been said that the witnesses examined are relations and no outsider has been examined. As to this contention, the eye-witnesses are p. Ws 1, 2 and 12 and the other inmates of the house who came on hearing the alarm. When an occurrence takes place inside the house naturally the inmates of the house or person nearby are the natural witness. Simply because the inmates of the house are relations or inimical their evidence cannot be discarded or brushed aside. It is to be scrutinised with oarc and caution and if there is nothing to disbelieve the same, then should be accepted. P W.1 is the informant himself. Lobin Mahto is said to be the servant. Sukdeo Hajam is not the servant. Besides the ladies of the house and father of the informant, Lal Mohan Hajam a neighbour of the informant has been produced by the prosecution who had reached the spot on hearing the alarm and there was an immediate disclosure to him about the occurrence and the names of the accused. Nothing has come out to show that Lal Mohan hajam was deposing against the appellants on account of any enmity. 22. Thus, considering the entire matter on the record it appears that the prosecution has been able to make out its case against the appellants and there is nothing to doubt the same. The conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court against the appellants appears to be well-founded on the basis of the material on the record. As such the order of conviction of the appellants is upheld and this appeal ia dismissed. Amir Das, J.-I agree. Appeal Dismissed.