J. Sangma, J. — These four Jadavs (Ganesh, Prodip, Prokash and Mohesh) brought this appeal from the judgment dated 28.9.92 of Sri IA Ansari, Sessions Judge, Karimganj, in Sessions Case No. 33 of 1990 convicting under section 302/34 IPC and sentencing each of them to RI for life. They are serving the sentence in jail. 2. At 12.15PM of 2.7.85 PW 2 (Bechan Jadav) lodged an FIR which, in short, was as follows : "At 6/6.30 AM of today, the 2nd Tuesday of July 1985, while my paternal uncle's sons - Rama Shankar Jadav and Uma Shankar Jadav were returning from their paddy field and reached near Maguracherra, the appellants and one son of Mohesh Jadav formed unlawful assembly and assaulted them with lathi, jatha etc. Killing Uma Siiankar at the spot and grievously injuring Rama Shankar who, with injuries, fled away from the place to save his life. After sending the injured Raina Shankar to Karimganj Civil Hospital I have now lodged this ejahar at the PS for faking necessary steps. Sd/- Bechan Jadav." 3. On this FIR Ratabari PS registered Case No. 158/85 on 2.7.85 under section 147/148/149/326/302 IPG against the appellants and another who was the son of Mohesh Jadav. Immediately after registration the IO (PW 10) came to the place of occurrence and prepared sketch map of the place of occurrence (Ext.7) and seized blood stained Banian from the wearing of Uma Shankar (deceased) by a seizure list, Ext. 2. On that day itself he examined PWs 1 and 2. Thereafter he examined PW 3 on 4.7.85 and PW 4 on i.7.85. Rama Shankar died in the hospital and ASI Ajit Kumar Dhar prepared inquest report (Ext. 3) on his dead body. After the occurrence all the named accused absconded from the village. Mohesh and Rajesh surrendered before the Court of CJM on 26.7.85. The IO arrested Pradip on 27.7.85 and on that day seized a ballam (spear) jetha, two lathis of baroa bamboo in presence of PW 9 (Rosamai Namasudra) by a seizure list, Ext. 5. It was noted in the seizure list that these weapons were seized on being produced by Pradip Jadav. He also seized one bamboo lathi and one talwar (sword) from the house of accused Mohesh by a seizure list, Ext.6 on 27.7.85. In this seizure list it was noted that the weapons were produced by Pradip. 5. It was noted in the seizure list that these weapons were seized on being produced by Pradip Jadav. He also seized one bamboo lathi and one talwar (sword) from the house of accused Mohesh by a seizure list, Ext.6 on 27.7.85. In this seizure list it was noted that the weapons were produced by Pradip. Thereafter Ganesh surrendered on 1.10.85 and at last Prakash also surrendered on 11.2:86. After completing investigation the IO submitted a charge sheet under "section 147/148/149/302 IPC against the four appellants and Rajesh Jadav. The CJM, Karimganj, committed the case on 21.7.90 to Sessions Court, Karimganj, for trial. 4. On 21.12.90 the learned Sessions Judge framed charge under section 149/302 IPC against the appellants and Rajesh Jadav. All the five accuseds pleaded not guilty to the charge. In the trial the prosecution examined 10 PWs out of whom PWs 3 and 4 were the eye witnesses; but they were declared hostile and cross examined by prosecution and the defence. PW 2 stated that he came after the occurrence he came and saw what happened. In cross examination of PW 2 the defence suggested that the ejahar was written by Jayanta Das, the President of Gaon Panchayat but the witness denied it. PW 5 \the son of Rama Shankar) stated that he also came after tho occurrence and saw Uma Shankar dead at the spot and saw Rama Shankar at Sridhar's house. In cross examination for accused Ganesh, Pradip and Prakash, a suggestion was made to him that on the date of occurrence a quarrel took place between Adher Sen and Rama Sharikar's party, which the witness denied. This witness also denied defence suggestion that he did not tell the daroga that assault was made by the appellants and that in Sridhar's house Rama Shankar was unable to speak. 5. Ganesh jadav made defence statement under section 313 CrPC. In short the statement was as follows : "In 19821 sold my 41/2 bigha cultivation land to Adher Sen. Later on there was a dispute for this land between Rama Shankar, Uma Shankar and Adher Sen. A scuffle ensued between them in which Uma Shankar died and Rama Shankar sustained injury. At that time Jayanta Das was President and I was Councillor of Gaon Panchayat. Later on there was a dispute for this land between Rama Shankar, Uma Shankar and Adher Sen. A scuffle ensued between them in which Uma Shankar died and Rama Shankar sustained injury. At that time Jayanta Das was President and I was Councillor of Gaon Panchayat. As Jayanta Das had political grudge against me, he got false ejabar lodged through PW 2 to harass us and PWs gave false evidence." The other appellants made statement under section 313 CrPC that they were innocent; the PWs gave false evidence against them. The appellants did not examine any witness for defence. 6. The learned Sessions Judge framed the following questions for determination? (1) Whether the 5 accused formed unlawful assembly at 6/7 AM of 2.7.85 at Wangirbond and whether, in furtherance of common object, they had caused the death of Uma Shankar on the spot? (2) Whether they assaulted also Uma Shankar and caused him such injury as were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death? (3) Whether the 5 accused committed the offence under section 302/149 IPC ? 7. In a lengthy judgment the learned Sessions Judge, Karimganj made full discussion of the evidence. From the evidence of PW 6 (Dr. Biswajit Deshmukh) who performed post mortem on the dead body of Uma Shankar Jadav he found that the victim instantaneously died of the injury sustained. From the evidence of PW 7 (Dr. Kalyan Chakraborty) who performed post mortem on the dead body of Rama Shankar on 15.7.85, he found that this victim also died due to multiple injury which were caused by sharp, pointed and blunt weapon. From the evidence of PWs 3 and 4 he found that Rama Shankar, Uma Shankar, Sri Prasad and PW 3 and 4 went frcin Sri Prasad's house and saw the servant of Ganesh who was ploughing but stopped the ploughing on the asking of Rama Shankar. Then he found that as they (Uma Shankar, Rama Rhankar, Sri Prasad and PWs 3 and 4) were returning home and reached Guru Charan's land, the appellants came with weapons and Prakash hit PW 3 with lathi on his left thigh; so they (PWs 3, 4 and Sri Prasad) fled from there to save them from further assault., but later they came back to the place of occurrence and saw Uma Shankar dead with injuries on the spot. Knowing that injured Rama Shankar fl?d to Srid; ar's house, PWs 3 and 4 went there and saw Rama Shankar who fold them that the appellants had assaulted him and Uma Shankar. From the evidence of PW 2 (Bechan Jadav) he found that on hearing hue and cry he went to the, place ofoccuirence and found Uma Shankar dead with injuries and that he also heard Rama Shankar telling in Sridhar's house that the appellants had assaulted him and Uma Shankar. He found that materials against Rajesh were not sufficient to convict and, as such, acquitted him of the charge. He rejected the lone expla­nation offered by Ganesh Jadav in the statement under section 313 CrPC that Uma Shankar died and Rama Shankar sustained injury in that field by righting with Adhar Sen and that out of political grudge Jayanta Das, the President of Gaon Panchayat managed to give false FIR through PW 2 against the appellants just to harass them. Thus he convicted and sentenced the appell­ants as stated. 8. Since there was no statement in the FIR (Ext. 1) that Rama Shankar told in Sridhar Misra's house that appellants had assaulted him and Uma Shankar, Mr. AM Mazumdar, learned counsel for the appellants, has assai­led that this part of the story was the outcome of prosecution's afterthought to improve the case in order to obtain conviction. He submitted that the learned Sessions Judge committed grave error in convicting the appellants on the evidence of PWs 2, 3 and 4. To refute this contention Mrs. K. Deka, learned PP, stated that this PWgave evidence on facts which the defence could not break in cross examination. On this plank she strongly supported the conviction of the appellants under section 302/34 IPC. 9. There is no dispute that the occurrence took place at 6/6.30 AM of 2.7.85 near Maguracherra of village Wangirbond. The FIR was lodged by PW 2 at 12.15 PM of that day at Ratabari PS which was at a distance of 12 Kms from Wangirbond. The 1O examined PWs 1 and 2 on 2.7.85 itself, examined PW 3 on 4.7.85 and PW 4 on.5.7.85. He could not arrest any of the accused though named in the FIR because all of them had absconded that day from the village. The 1O examined PWs 1 and 2 on 2.7.85 itself, examined PW 3 on 4.7.85 and PW 4 on.5.7.85. He could not arrest any of the accused though named in the FIR because all of them had absconded that day from the village. The order sheet and record of CJM's Court show that it was only on 26.7.85 the two accused Mohesh and Rajesh surrenered before the Court of CJM. The IO arrested Pradip on 27.7.85. Ganesh surrendered on 1.10.85 and lastly Prakash surrendered on 11.2.86. 10. We now reappreciate the evidence of PWs 2, 3 and 4 to decide the. fate of this appeal. According to prosecution, PW 3 Urna Shankar Gour and and PW 4 Dadu Goala were eye witnesses but the prosecution declared them, hostile because they did not speak full facts of the occurrence. These two PWs stated before the IO and at the trial before Sessions Court that from Sri Prasad's house they with Sri Prasad, Uma Shankar and Rama Shankar, (the two deceased) went to the field of Rama Shankar and saw the servant of Ganesh ploughing but he stopped on Rama Shankar's asking. They stated, that thereafter they, with Rama Shankar, Uma Shankar, and Sri Prasad were, coming back home but on reaching Guru Charan's land at Maguracherra, the appellants came armed with weapon like lathi, spear and dao and Prakash hit PW 3 with lathi on left thigh. So, they (PWs 3, 4 and Sri Prasad) fled;, but sometime after they came back to that place and saw Uma Shankar dead, with hacked injury on the head and they saw injured Rama Shankar in Sridhar Misra's house where Rama Shankar told them that the appellants: had assaulted him and Uma Shankar. la cross examination the defence did not question them on these facts. PW 2, who gave the FIR, stated that on hearing hue and cry he came to Maguracherra and saw Uma Shankar dead with injury; and in Sridhar's house he also saw injured Rama Shankar and heard him saying that the appellants had assaulted him and Uma Shankar. In cross examination the defence did not question him also on these facts He stated in cross examination that the fight took place in the cherra and he got the ejahar (Ext. 1) written by a mohari at the PS. In cross examination the defence did not question him also on these facts He stated in cross examination that the fight took place in the cherra and he got the ejahar (Ext. 1) written by a mohari at the PS. Prosecution could not examine Sri Prasad because he died before the case came to trial stage. PW.5 (Gitesh Prasad) is the son of deceased Uma Shankar. He stated that PWs 3 and 4 came to his house and told about the occurrence and that on coming to the place of occurrence he saw Uma Shankar dead with injury and that at Sridhar Misra's house he saw also his injured father Rama Shankar who told him that the appellants had assaulted him and Uma Shankar. la cross examination he denied the defence suggestion that he did not tell daroga about the hearing from his father that the appellants had assaulted him and Uma Shankar. He denied also the suggestion that his father was unable to speak after he had reached Sridhar Misra's house. This shows that the defence did not challenge his coming to that place after the occurrence and seeing his father in the house of Sridhar Misra. The learned Sessions Judge did not consider his evidence only because the IO subseque­ntly deposed that the witness had told him that he went to Nabia at 6 AM. 11. Section 138/155 of the Evidence Act require that examination and cross examination must relate to relevant facts, so if in cross examination the. defence does not challenge the relevant facts which the prosecution witnesses have stated in examination-in-chief the Court may take it as acceptance of the truth of this part. (See Chunilal vs. HF Insurance Co., AIR 1958 Punjab 440 and Babulal vs. Caltex, AIR 1967 Calcutta 205). On our own also we think that on relevant fact we should accept the relevant part of the evidence if the defence, in cross examination, does not challenge it. We, therefore, hold that occurrence took place near Maguracherra of Wangirbond after PWs 3 and 4 left the place due to assault on PW 3 by Prakash, but soon they came back to the place to see and saw what happened to Uma Shankap-and Rama Shankar in the interregnum. That was the reason why PWs 3 and 4 did not see the assault on Uma Shankar and Rama Shankar. That was the reason why PWs 3 and 4 did not see the assault on Uma Shankar and Rama Shankar. This has been corroborated by the dying declaration made by Rama Shankar before PWs 2, 3, 4 and 5 in the house of Sridhar Misra. We are unable to accept the defence offered by Ganesh Jadav at the stage of statement under section 313 CrPC that Uma Shankar and Rama Shankar were assaulted by Adhar Sen and it was Sri Jayanta Das, the President of Oaon Panchayat, who wrote the FIR for PW 2 by implicating the appellants as accused in place of Adher Sen out of political grudge against him. There is no evidence that Jayanta had grudge against Ganesh. Regard being had to human conduct and instinct we do not think that even assuming that he had grudge and he wrote the FIR for PW 2 he would have falsely implicated innocent persons by giving up the real culprit, for a mere grudge. 12. Section 154 CrPC does not require an FIR in cognizable case to contain detailed facts. It is in investigation and at the trial that those facts may come so if the defence fails in cross examination to challenge the relevant facts which are brought in examination-in-chief, the Court has the discretion to accept that part of the evidence. We are, therefore, unable to accept the contention that the prosecution improved the case by an afterthought after the FIR. 13. In the result we see not merit in this appeal which therefore fails and is dismissed.