Judgment Prasun Kumar Deb, J. 1. Both the abovenamed accused-appellants have been tried jointly and convicted under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code by Shri Gopi Nath Chandra, the then Sessions Judge, Dhanbad, Camp-Chas, in Sessions Case No. 113 of 1987 by judgment and order dated 19-2-1990 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. 2. The occurrence tools place on 23-11-1986 at about 4.30 p.m. at Matkamtola, Police Station Balidih within the district of Dhanbad. One Sunil Chandra Mandal was ghastly murdered. He was originally a resident of West Bengal, but at the relevant time was settled at Ritudih having a win a shop there at Matkamtola. On the date of occurrence, it has been alleged from the side of the prosecution that in front of Ramjee Saos shop, a quarrel ensued between the accused appellants Soma Munda, Manual Kachhayap and another unknown person with one Singhara Singh, Sunil Mandal, the deceased intervened and at this the accused-appellants along with the other by the way enraged and gave threats to Sunil Mandal. After giving threats they left towards the house of accused, appellant Soma Munda and Sunil Mandal also left for the river side, but within ten minutes, the accused-appellants along with unknown person came to the spot with a Jhola in the shoulder of Soma Munda. They chased Sunil Mandal again towards Ramjee Saos shop and Mangal Kachhayap started assaulting him by means of knife while Soma Munda hurried a bomb from his jhola. The first bomb was burst on the side by wall then a second bomb was hurried, splinters of which caused more injuries on the person of Sunil Mandal. There was hue and cry and the people of neighbourhood started reaching the place of occurrence and the accused-appellants and the unkown person fled away from the place. A about 6 p. m Ashok Mandal, nephew of the deceased Sunil Mandal wen to the police station and gave a fardbeyan giving vivid description about the whole occurrence including the names of the appellants. A first information report was registered on the basis of that fardbeyan which has been marked as Ext. 3 in the case. The police came to the spot held inquest over the dead body, seized blood stained earth from the place of occurrence and some splin ters of the bomb. A first information report was registered on the basis of that fardbeyan which has been marked as Ext. 3 in the case. The police came to the spot held inquest over the dead body, seized blood stained earth from the place of occurrence and some splin ters of the bomb. Accused appellant Rajesh Kachhayap alias Mangal Kachhayap was arrested on i 1-12-1986 and Soma Munder surrendered on 24-3-1988. After investigation, charge sheet was submitted against both the accused persons under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. On being committed to the court of sessions, charge was framed vide order datec 22-1-1987 against both the accused persons under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code for causing murder of Sunil Mandal in furtherance of their common intention. When the charge was read over and explainted to the accused persons, they pleaded not guilty, 3. The defence case is of the total denial and it has been stated or their behalf that they have been falsely implicated in the case out of enmity It was further alleged that Sunil Munda was running an illegal wine shop anc he might have been killed out of the rivalry between the persons who wen doing business of illicit liquor. 4. On behalf of the prosecution, as many as nine witnesses have beer examined. Out of them PW 7 Ashok Mandal is a star witness who happens to be the nephew of the deceased PW 1 John Soron is a School Teacher whe came to the place of occurrence just after the occurrence and saw the accused persons fleeing away from the place of occurrence. PW 5 Madhusudan Singh had also supported the prosecution case but he has not identified the accused persons. Other witnesses are not of much importance except that of PW 8 Dr. Vinoda Kumar who held post-mortem over the dead body of Sunil Mandal. PW 9 is the Investigating Officer of the case. 5. The learned court below after scrutinising the evidence on record ralied on the testimony of the sole eye-witness Ashok Mandal and recorded the judgment of conviction and order of sentence as mentioned above. 6. Vinoda Kumar who held post-mortem over the dead body of Sunil Mandal. PW 9 is the Investigating Officer of the case. 5. The learned court below after scrutinising the evidence on record ralied on the testimony of the sole eye-witness Ashok Mandal and recorded the judgment of conviction and order of sentence as mentioned above. 6. The impugned judgment has been assailed on the following grounds : (i) No conviction should have been arrived at on the basis of the evidence of Ashok Mandal who happens to be a partisan witness and that his eye-witness of the occurrence in doubtful. (ii) The place of occurrence differs from the fardbeyan and the deposition made before the Trial Judge. (iii) The evidence of PW 1 John Soren and PW 5 Madhusudan Singh had not come in aid to support the prosecution story and as such their evidence should have been totally discarded. (iv) Noil-examination of Singhara Singh with whom the alleged quarrel started has not been examined and has non-examination is fatal to the prosecution case. (v) The other two witnesses named as the persons arriving at the place of occurrence just after the occurrence, namely, Robi Gope and Parbati has also not been examined and as such non-examination shatters the prosecution story. 7. PW 7 Ashok Maadal has supported the prosecution story in all material particulars. He gave the vivid description about the whole occurrence. According to him, he was in the wine shop of the deceased at the time of occurrence and from a distance of about 20 yards from the place of occurrence. It has been streneously argued that when the darkness was falling on at the time of occurrence, it was not possible for this witness to identify the assailants in the darkness. On this point, there was cross-examination of this witness and it was found that these assilants were living in the vicinity and they were known to the witnesses from before, so in such hours of the day or say in the toy light, it may not be highly impossible to identify a person who was known from before. Moreover, the incident occurred covering some time. 8. Firstly there was a quarrel between the accused-appellants and unknown person with Singhara Singh. Moreover, the incident occurred covering some time. 8. Firstly there was a quarrel between the accused-appellants and unknown person with Singhara Singh. Then Sunil Mandal, the deceased intervened and the accused-appellants left the place and Sunil Mandal also went towards river side, but after some time, Suml Mandal was chased and then he was assaulted by the accused-appellants. So a person, who was witnessing the situation from the very beginning cannot be said to be improbable that he would not be able to recognise the assailants who were again known to him since before. Ha has further stated that as bombs were being hurried he was scared and, as such, he did not try to intervene in the assault. He has also given vividly as to who first assaulted with what and his evidence in the trial court is consistent as to what he had stated in the fardbeyan. Moreover, in the fardbeyan itself there was vivid description by Ashok Mandal posing himself to be an eye-witness of the occurrence. The reporting was made without loosing any time, within about one and half hours while the police station is about 3 to 4 Kilometers away from the place of occurrence. After independent scrutiny of his evidence I find that he is a truthful witness. It is true that he is a partisan witness being a nephew of the deceased, but for that reason alone, his evidence should not be totally discarded unless it can be shown that he had falsely implicated the accused-appellants for enmity or otherwise, but although enmity was alleged, nothing could be brought from the side of the defence and in the occurrence also, Sunil Mandal only intervened in the quarrel between the accused-appellants and one Singhara Singh and for that reason, he was assaulted to death that too with bombs and stab injuries. 9. The learned defence counsel has referred to various rulings : 1974 BBCJ 168 (Supreme Court), 1978 Cr LJ 177 (SC), AIR 1973 Supreme Court 165, AIR 1993 SC 1462 , AIR 1993 SC 2634 and 1987 PLJR 734 on the issue that conviction should not be based on the sole eye-witness who happens to be a partisan witness if the same is not corroborated either by circumstances or by other eye-witnesses. 10. 10. In this case, although there was anther eye-witness to the occurrence PW 2 Baijnath Birua but he had to be declared hostile when he did not support his statement made under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Investigating Agency, so the evidence of that eye-witness rightly discarded bv the learned court below. But there is a evidence of PW 1 John Soren who although did not see the actual assault but he had seen the accused persons fleeing away from the place of occurrence just after the occurrence while he was proceeding to the place of occurrence on hearing the bomb explosion. His evidence have thoroughly been scrutinised and observations have been made regarding his evidence in paragraph 10 of the impugned judgment. I fully endorse the views expressed by the learned Sessions Judge in respect of the evidence of this witness. So there is some corroboration of the evidence of PW 7 not only regarding the occurrence dates but regarding the involvement of the assailants with the crime. There is also evidence of PW 5 Madhusudan Singh. According to the prosecution, he was also an eye witness to the occurrence, but during the course of his evidence before the trial court, he supported the occurrence but has not indentiSed the accused appellants. According to him, before the occurrence, he along with the deceased Sunil Mandal spent some time in taking liquor and boiled eggs and then two persons called out Sunil Mandal and then the occurrence took place and he saw the dead body of Sunil Mandal lying infront of the shop of Ramjee Sao. His evidence gets corroboration from the medical evidence when it is found on authpsy that there was smell of alcohal on the digested food on the belly of the deceased. So his evidence also to a great extent supports the prosecution story vis-a-vis the evidence of PW ? and PW 1. Moreover the relations evidence cannot be discarded only because of his relationship with the injured or the deceased rather law requires that the evidence of such partisan witness or relation should be closely scrutinised and to find out grains from chaff when such witnesses have the tendency to exaggerate. 11. In the present case, this PW 7 did not try to exaggerate an inch. 11. In the present case, this PW 7 did not try to exaggerate an inch. If because of the enmity he was to implicate his enemies for the murder of his uncle, he could have named all his enemies for the purpose but he has named only the abovenamend two accused appellants and an unknown person who were involved in causing the death of Sunil Mandal. This shows his veracity. Moreover, there was no scope of the embroidery or embellishment as the occurrence was reported with all detailed particulars without losing any time by Ashok Mandal within one and half hour of the occurrence before the police and his evidence in the trial court corroborates the story made by him in the fardbeyan (Ext. 3). On independent scrutiny also, I find that this PW 7 is a truthful witness. 12. In respect of the place of occurrence and its identity thereof, there is vehement argument from the side of the learned counsel for the appellants that as per the fardbeyan, the occurrence took place by the river side while during the course of trial, it was shifted to infront of the shop of Ramjee Sao. There is proper explanation by PW 7 in his evidence before the trial court. According to him, the deceased after altercation proceeded towards river side but on the way he was caught on chase and brought in front of the shop of Ramjee Sao where he was assaulted and made to death. The learned lower court has rightly held that there is no discrepancy regarding the place of occurrence. As per the evidence of PW 9, the Investigating Officer and the other witnesses, the occurrence took place in front of the shop of Ramjee Sao. The blood stained earth and the splinters of the bomb were seized from that place and although the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory was not proved formally in the case but the same can be used for the purpose of ascertaining the place of occurrence when the earth was found to be stained by human blood and the splinters were of bombs. The evidence of the witness has further been corroborated by the Medical evidence, PW 8, who held autopsy over the dead body on the next day and found following injuries oa the person of the deceased : (i) Bomb blast lacerated wound of 5" diameter x bone deep seen on the occipital region of head. Head hairs at the margin of the East CrC 1996 (2) -76 wound were partly burnt,Margin showed blackening and at place sulpher powder (as yellowish) is sticking. (ii) Dermo epidermal burn is seen in an area of 4"X3" on the anterior aspect of left shoulder. (iii) Stab wound 1" X 1/4" X cavity deep situated at a place 1" below the nipple line and 2" right to the mid line. (iv) Stab wound 1/2" X 1/5" x muscle deep on the upper part of right side of abdomen. (v) Stab wound 3/4" X 1/4" X cavity deep 2 1/2" before the xiphysternum and 1" right of the middle. (vi) 6 stab wounds around amblicuous size varrying from 1/2" X 1/5"X muscle deep to 1" X 1/4" X cavity deep seen. (vii) Stab wound 3/4" X 1/4" X cavity deep 1" above the left iliac crest. The end of the stab wound was ragged and other and was acute. On dissection, both sides of the chambers of the heart were empty. 1" X i/10" X full thickness cut wound was seen on the fifth right costal cartilage under injury No. (iii). Under this injury lower lobs of right lung, diaphragm and liver showed stab wounds. Lopps of small intestine and lorge intestine showed multiple punctured wounds. Stomach was half full with semi digested rice, Dal which emitted strong smell of alcohol. Urinary bladder empty. Skull-multiple fractures of the occipital and right temporal bone was seen. Brain and meninges were lacerated by the broken pieces of fractured bones. All the internal organs were pale." 13 Thus, from the above, it is clear that the death was caused due to stab injuries and splinters of bomb corroborating the evidence of PW 7 being supported by PWs 1 and 5. 14. Brain and meninges were lacerated by the broken pieces of fractured bones. All the internal organs were pale." 13 Thus, from the above, it is clear that the death was caused due to stab injuries and splinters of bomb corroborating the evidence of PW 7 being supported by PWs 1 and 5. 14. The ground No. (iii) as raised by the accused-appellants has been answered in the above discussions and it can be held from the above discussions that although the evidence of John Soren and Madhusudan Singh had not specifically supported the prosecution case in its enrirety but their evidence gives support to the prosecution case as mentioned above. 15. About ground No. (iv), Singhara Singh was not made a charge sheet witness in the case and as such he has not been examined before the Trial Judge. There is explanation from the side of PW 9, the Investigating Officer to the effect that he did not feel examining Singhara Singh as quarrel between him and the accused appellants was in the earlier part of the occurrence and that all had dispersed from the place of quarrel and only after ten to twelve minutes thereaf ters, the occurrence took place when the accused- appellants being armed with weapons chased and attacked the deceased and there is no evidence to the effect that this Singhara Singh was at the place of occurrence or its nearby when the actual assault took place. So non- examination of Singhara Singh has not put any doubt on the veracity of the prosecution case. 16. About the 5th ground regarding non-examination of Rabi and Parbati I feel that their examination would have been proper in the case but their non-examination cannot prove fatal to the prosecution case. In the trial court, it has not been stated that Rabi and Parbati had seen occurrence from the very beginning, rather they came to the place of occurrence first after the bomb was exploded and by that time, the assault had already been taken place, so their non-examination cannot be said to have suffered the prosecution case. 17. In the trial court, it has not been stated that Rabi and Parbati had seen occurrence from the very beginning, rather they came to the place of occurrence first after the bomb was exploded and by that time, the assault had already been taken place, so their non-examination cannot be said to have suffered the prosecution case. 17. From the discussions made above, I come to the definite finding on independent scrutiny of the materials on record and the evidence adduced from the side of the prosecution that the prosecution could be able to prove the guilt of the accused persons ropping with common intention as contemplated under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 18. In the result, this appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment of conviction and the order of sentence is hereby upheld and confirmed. The period of detention in hazat shall be set off from the award of sentence.