Judgment P.K.Deb, J. 1. The sole appllant in this case namely Bidhan Singh alias Arbind Kumar Singh was convicted under Section 302, IPC and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and also convicted under Section 27 of the Arms Act, but no separate sentence was passed by Sheo Kumar Prasad, the then 7th Addl. Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in S. T. No. 394/1988 arisen out of G. R. Case No. 1230/88 on 2-5-1990. The other two accused, namely, Murli Prasad Gupta and Rajan Kumar Singh, who have also been tried conjointly alongwith the abovenamed appellant have been acquitted on benefit of doubt while the appellant alone has been convicted and sentenced as mentioned above. 2. The prosecution story in brief is that on 4-5-1988, the informant PW-1, Shyam Sunder Jaiswal alongwith his friends, PW-2 Suresh Singh and PW-3 Gautam Kumar Gupta and deceased Pawan Kumar Agrawala came to Nirsa chowk Nirsa, in the district of Dhanbad to see off their other friends namely, Harjeet Singh, Sapan Bakshi and Amlendu Bhattacharya as they were going to Patna via Dhanbad. While they were waiting for the Treker to go to Dhanbad for catching train for Patna near Pandit shop then it is alleged that the accused-appellant, Bidhan Singh alias Arbind Kumar Singh alongwith other two accused, namely, Muruli Prasad Gupta and Ranjan Kumar Singh came there and charged Pawan Kumar Agrawala as to why he was changing his alliances from them and at this there was hot altercation between the two for which the informant and others had also intervened. After this the accused persons left the place towards Nehru Bazar and then the informant party, namely, PWs I, 2 and 3 and the deceased after seeing off Harjit Singh, Amlendux Bhattacharya and Sapan Bakhsi started returning on their scooter and Motor Bikas respectively, then these three accused persons came there from Nehru Bazar area at Nirsa Chowk and way laid informant party along with Pawan Kumar Agrawala as the conveyances of the informants party were going slowly due to bad road condition and accused-appellant, Bidhan Singh shot his fire arm namely, revolver from a close range to Pawan Kumar Agrawala as a result of which he fell down. The other three companions, namely, PWs-1,2 and 3 raised alarm and came near Pawan Kumar Agrawala, the injured. The other three companions, namely, PWs-1,2 and 3 raised alarm and came near Pawan Kumar Agrawala, the injured. As there was fire shot, the nearby shops started closing their shutters due to fear. The injured Pawan Kumar Agrawala was then taken to Das Clinic at Mython by stopping a private car (Ambassador car) but there at Das Clinic, the doctor only bandaged the injured to the portion and asked the informant party to take the injured to the Dhanbad Hospital. By the same car, the injured was taken to Dhanbad Hospital and admitted there. A message was received in telephone by the Officer-in-charge of Nirsa Police Station PW-10, P. K. Jha, to effect that there exchange of firing shots at Nirsa Chowk and by making Senha entry, he came to the place of occurrance i.e. the Nirsa chowk and therefrom the neighbouring people he could learn that the injured Pawan Kumar Agrawal was shot at and he had been taken to Dhanbad Hospital via Das Clinic. The Officer-in-charge tried to catch-hold the assailants but being failed as they were absconding he went straight to Dhanbad Hospital where PW-1, Shy am Sunder Jaiswal made a Fardbayan at about 11.15. p.m. giving all details of the prosecution case as mentioned above. The occurrence took place at about 9.15 p.m. at Nirsa Chowk. On the basis of the Fardbayan, an FIR was lodged at the Police Station and then the same was forwarded to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, which was received there on 6-5-1988. 3. After investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet against all the three accused persons under Section 302/34, IPC and on being committed to the Sessions, charge was framed against Bidhan Singh under Section 302, IPC while against the other two accused under Section 302/34, IPC. 4. Before the trial court, as many as 11 PWs have been examined for and ou behalf of the prosecution. Defence has adduced evidence of one witness, namely, DW 1, Dharamdeo Singh, who happens to be the father of the accused-appellant, Bidhan Singh. The defence case is that the prosecution story is only a concocted one and manufactured by PW-10, P. K. Jha, the Officer-in-charge of Nirsa Police Station, who bore grudge against the accused party. There were allegations by the father of this accused-appellant and grand mother of another accused towards the corruption against P. K. Jha. The defence case is that the prosecution story is only a concocted one and manufactured by PW-10, P. K. Jha, the Officer-in-charge of Nirsa Police Station, who bore grudge against the accused party. There were allegations by the father of this accused-appellant and grand mother of another accused towards the corruption against P. K. Jha. The defence has not stated anything about any animus against the prosecution witnesses. 5. After considering the evidence on record and also considering the defence case, the learned court below came to the finding that the prosecution could be able to prove beyond all reasonable doubt the charge under Section 302, IPC against the ac-cused-appellant-Bidhan Singh. The other two co-accused have been acquitted of the charges holding that no specific attribution were there against those two except that one of the co-accused had helped accused-appellant, Bidhan Singh in way laying the deceased Pawan Kumar Agrawala and that the other co-accused instigated one Bidhan Singh for killing Pawan Kumar Agrawala. It was held that the evidence against the other two co-accused persons were not clear and rather vague and as such they were granted benefit of doubt. 6. Out of the 11 witnesses, the star witnesses are the three eyewitnesses, namely, PW-1, Shyam Sunder Jaiswal, PW-2, Suresh Singh and PW-3, Gautam Sen Gupta, who were the companions of the deceased at the time of occurrence since before the occurrence. PW-7, Harjit Singh and PW-8 Sapan Bakhsi, PW-9, Amlendu Bhattacharya proved the formal part of the occurrence i.e. regarding altercation between the deceased and the accused-appellant prior to the occurrence in front of the shop of Pandit near Nirsa Chowk when they were waiting for getting a traker to go to Dhanbad for catching train to Patna. PW-5, Bablu Bhagat, was a witness, who was at the spot at the time of occurrence. PW-4, Hari Ram Agrawala and PW-6, Ashok Das have got business at Nirsa Chok. They have also supported the prosecution case as narrated by PWs-1 to 3, PW-10, P. K. Jha was the then Officer-in-charge of Nirsa Chowk Police Station. He recorded the Fardbeyan and also investigated the case. PW-11, R. S. Prasad is a Professor of Medicine at Dhanbad Hospital, who held post-mortem over the deadbody of Pawan Kumar Agrawal, who died in a latter part of the night on 4-5-1988. He recorded the Fardbeyan and also investigated the case. PW-11, R. S. Prasad is a Professor of Medicine at Dhanbad Hospital, who held post-mortem over the deadbody of Pawan Kumar Agrawal, who died in a latter part of the night on 4-5-1988. He found the following external injuries on the person of the deceased : "1" diameter circular punctured wound with tattooed margin seen on right lower flunk of abdomen just above anterior superior iliae spice. The wound is of ante-mortem nature. On dissection lower surface of lever is ruptured. Right kidney is ruptured through and through. 2nd lumba vertebra is pierced through and through and bullet is lodged on left side of 2nd lumba vertebra. Abdominal cavity contained 1 litre blood. Stomach 1/2 full inch fluid and partly food matter. The bullet was preserved in a sealed container and handed over to Constable." The injuries found on the person of the deceased corroborates the prosecution case and the oral evidence to the effect that Pawan Kumar Agrawal, the deceased received gun shot injury from a close range. The three star witnesses in the case are PWs 1, 2 and 3. They have given vivid description about the whole occurrence right from the beginning upto the death of Pawan Rumar Agrawala at Dhanbad Hospital. They remained all along with the injured and as such they are the most natural witnesses and hence their evidence has been rightly relied on by the learned Sessions Judge in holding the conviction against the accused-appellant. The presence of these three witnesses at the scene of the occurrence could be very well found when the I. O. found three conveyances i.e. Motor-cycles and scooters at the scene of the occurrence (four in numbers) left by these witnesses and the deceased. Objections have been raised from the side of the learned counsel for the appellant, to the effect that such evidence of the I. O. does not get any corroboration about the finding of the conveyance at the scene of the occurrence. Those have not been seized by him. I. O. has given an explanation to this non-seizure by saying that as those conveyances were not the incrimination articles directly connected with the crime, he did not feel it necessary to seize those motor bikes and scooters. Those have not been seized by him. I. O. has given an explanation to this non-seizure by saying that as those conveyances were not the incrimination articles directly connected with the crime, he did not feel it necessary to seize those motor bikes and scooters. Such sort of explanation might not be very convincing and I. O. ought to have been seized those to prove the conclusive presence of the deceased and the eyewitness, PWs 1 to 3 at the scene of occurrence but only for non-seizure, his whole evidence cannot be thrown out, when the evidence of I. O. has been corroborated by all the witnesses to the occurrence. 7. Objection has further been raised to the effect that I. O. failed to examine anybody from the Das Clinic where the injured was first taken after the occurrence. It is true that the I. O. ought to have taken some evidence of the doctor or the Pharmacist, who was present at the Das Clinic, who gave only first aid to the deceased when he was brought there by PWs 1 to 3, but that non-examination of anybody from Das Clinic also does not cut the prosecution case at the root, rather non-bringing of any evidence of anyone from Das Clinic does not in any way (sic) vitiate/affect the prosecution case. The I. O., witnesses and the neighbouring persons at the place of occurrence had all deposed to the effect that the injured was taken first to Das Clinic and then to Dhanbad Hospital and naturally the I.O. was much concerned about the condition of the injured and as to know how the occurrence took place, he went straight to Dhanbad Hospital from the place of occurrence and took Fardbayan from PW 1. 8. The counsel for the appellant has stated that they have not raised any objection about the veracity of the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 in the trial court as there was no animosity, with them but their whole grievance is with regard to the concoction of the story by the I. O. of the case, namely, P. K. Jha. When eye-witnesses had stood the cross-examination of the defence well and when there is no vital contradictions in the evidence of these three witnesses then the learned court below was right in believing them for the purpose of conviction of the accused-appellant. 9. When eye-witnesses had stood the cross-examination of the defence well and when there is no vital contradictions in the evidence of these three witnesses then the learned court below was right in believing them for the purpose of conviction of the accused-appellant. 9. On independent scrutiny of the evidence of these three witnesses, I find that they have given a vivid description of the accurrence giving ail details. Moreover, FIR was lodged in the case without losing any time whatsoever and in the FIR itself, detail description was given about the whole occurrence and that story has not been deviated an inch during the course of trial, by the witnesses. About the motive of the accused-appellant, there is no definite evidence from the side of the prosecution, but from the nature of evidence and the circumstances proved in the case, it could be very well understood that the accused-appellant, Bidhan Singh was having grudge against the deceased Pawan Kumar Agrawala for some reason or other and just prior to the occurrence he had hot alteration with the deceased and hence the motive can be accordingly inferred of having grudge of the accused-appellant against the deceased. Moreover, when there is overwhelming occular evidence regarding the occurrence, there is little scope to disbelieve them for lack of any motive being pressed from the side of the prosecution. Moreover, the earlier part of the occurrence has been corroborated by PWs 7, 8 and 9. They had also given a vivid description about the earlier part of the occurrence and there is no contradiction in their evidence too. 10. Learned court below has discarded the evidence of PW 5 on the ground alone that he was not named in the FIR. Non-naming in the FIR does not make any difference in the present circumstances of the case as because the informant or the companions of the deceased were so much busy with the injured and the occurrence itself, they might not have seen as to who were others nearby the scene of the occurrence to eye-witness the same. I find that the evidence of PW 5 Bablu Bhagat has wrongly been rejected by the learned court below. He is an independent witness and supported the prosecution case in toto. I find that the evidence of PW 5 Bablu Bhagat has wrongly been rejected by the learned court below. He is an independent witness and supported the prosecution case in toto. The evidence of PW 4 and PW 6, who have got nearby shops have also supported the prosecution case as alleged by the prosecution, by pointing out the place of occurrence and the way the occurrence took place. Thus, it could be found on independent scrutiny of evidence of all the prosecution witnesses that the prosecution could be able to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that it was accused-appellant, Bidhan Singh, who had shot revolver causing death of Pawan Kumar Agrawal. 11. It has been submitted on behalf of the accused-appellant that no much reliance could be put on the PWs 1 to 3 as they are the partisan witnesses. How they have been termed as partisan witnesses cannot be understood. It is true that they were the companions of the deceased at the time of occurrence. By that alone, they cannot be said to be partisan witnesses. They might be friends, but defence has not put any stress to the fact that these PWs 1 to 3 have got any animus against the accused-appellant. They being the natural witnesses, there is nothing to disbelieve them. Medical evidence has totally and entirely corroborated the occulat evidence. 12. It has further been argued that when there is similar allegation against all the three accused persons and when other two accused persons could be acquitted on benefit of doubt, then the present accused-appellant is also entitled so as the same set of evidence have been brought and allegation of the same nature against all the three accused-appellants. In this connection, learned counsel for the appellant has referred to AIR 1975 SC 1962 . But facts of that case are totally different from the present one. It is true that there is allegation that the other two accused persons were also companions of this accused-appellant and they also helped in causing death of Pawan Kumar Agrawal by the accused-appellant, Bidhan Singh. But, there had been no specific attribution of assault against the other two accused persons. They were also unarmed. It is true that there is allegation that the other two accused persons were also companions of this accused-appellant and they also helped in causing death of Pawan Kumar Agrawal by the accused-appellant, Bidhan Singh. But, there had been no specific attribution of assault against the other two accused persons. They were also unarmed. Against one of them, there is allegation that he helped in way laying the deceased by catching-hold of his motorcycle and against other there is evidence to the effect that he instigated the accused-appellant for causing death of Pawan Kumar Agrawal. Learned court below acquitted them on the ground that they have not been given any specific attribution and as such their acquittal on benefit of doubt cannot help this accused-appellant against whom there is specific allegation of firing revolver, causing death of Pawan Kumar Agrawal. Here the question of finding of grains from chaft is not necessary as was observed in the abovementioned Supreme Court cases (supra). Moreover, even if it is found that the acquittal of the other two accused persons are not proper then also the present accused-appellant cannot get any benefit for their acquittal. 13. Further submission has been made by referring 1978 Cr LJ 177, to the eflect that when there was scope of getting independent witnesses, the prosecution story on the basis of partisan witnesses, should not be relied upon for conviction. But that case also not fit with in the present facts and circumstances of the case. 14. Here the independent witnesses have been examined and PWs 1 to 3 and 7 to 9 have supported the prosecution case, cannot be stated to be partisan witnesses alone. Even besides them also, there is independent witnesses also examined in the case, namely, PWs 4, 5 and 6, out of whom PW 5 had totally corroborated the prosecution case. 15. Next submission is with regard to the non-examination of the driver of the private car by which the iniured was brought to Dhanbad Hospital via Das Clinic. His non-examination is of no importance in the case. The occurrence took place at Nirsa Chowk and the injured was brought to Dhanbad Hospital admittedly where he breathed his last. 15. Next submission is with regard to the non-examination of the driver of the private car by which the iniured was brought to Dhanbad Hospital via Das Clinic. His non-examination is of no importance in the case. The occurrence took place at Nirsa Chowk and the injured was brought to Dhanbad Hospital admittedly where he breathed his last. The driver of Ambassador Car was not an eye-witness to the occurrence as is evident from PWs 1 to 3 as they stated that after the occurrence took place and the accused person fled away then they waited for a conveyance for taking the injured for treatment when that Ambassador car came and they get it stopped and then injured was carried from the placs of occurrence to Dhanbad Hospital via Das Clinic on that Ambassador car. There is no denial to the effect that the injured was not taken to Dhanbad Hospital. In such circumstances, non-examination of the driver of the Ambassador car does not effect the prosecution case in any way whatsoever. 16. Last objection has been raised from the side of the appellant to the effect that the delay in forwarding the FIR to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad goes to support the defence version that it was the I. O., P. K. Jha, who had concocted the story and for such embellishment, he only delayed in sending the FIR to the court. The occurrence took place at about 9-15 p.m. at Nirsa Chowk. The Fardbayan was recorded at 11-15 p.m. and then after the death of deceased, some part of investigation was done. The I. O. also searched for the assailants and then coming to the police station, he had drawn the formal FIR and then forwarded it through special messenger to thecourt at Dhanbad. The Special messenger might have reached on 5-5-1988 itself, but it might be that the same was put up before the C. J. M. only on the next day. But those matters have not been asked or brought in evidence or the I. O. was never asked to explain the matter and as such only on assumptions and presumptions, the delay cannot be held to be fatal to the prosecution case. But those matters have not been asked or brought in evidence or the I. O. was never asked to explain the matter and as such only on assumptions and presumptions, the delay cannot be held to be fatal to the prosecution case. Moreover, the delay in the cass is not much and when overwhelming evidence is there about the prosecution case, then there is no scope of inference or infirmity due to delay in forwarding the FIR to the court. 17. At the fag end of argument, the learned counsel for the appellant has a gued that the learned court below did not properly scrutinise the defence case and the evidence of DW 1. The defence version is that the father of the accused-appellant lodged a case in the year 1986 before the Nirsa Police Station for the offence of theft but the Officer-in-charge did not take any action on his FIR and as such he made a complaint against the Officer-in-charge before the S. D. O. Dhanbad and an office copy of such complaint has been proved. But, it could not be proved by any cogent evidence that at the relevant time, this PW 10, A. K. Jha was the Officer-in-charge of the Police Station. Moreover, even if, this PW 10, P. K. Jha was the Officer-in-charge, it is not known whether any action has ben brought against the Officer-in-charge by S. D. O. on receipt of complaint from the father of the accused-appellant. It is also not known whether this P. K. Jha has got any knowledge of any complain being filed by the DW 1. Not a single question has been asked from the side of the defence to PW 10, although he was cross-examined at length from the side of the defence before the trial Court. So this sort of alleged remote animus cannot be believed when there is overwhelming evidence against the accused-appellant. So rightly, the learned Sessions Judge has rejected the defence version. 18. I go to the extent that even if the allegation raised against the defence is true then also unless it could be found/proved that the accused-appellant had been falsely implicated by some other evidence, then it cannot be believed that such a case of murder can be embellished in such a way. 18. I go to the extent that even if the allegation raised against the defence is true then also unless it could be found/proved that the accused-appellant had been falsely implicated by some other evidence, then it cannot be believed that such a case of murder can be embellished in such a way. Rather the truthfull witnesses are there from the side of the prosecution, who inspired confidence and as such the defence version is only an attempt as an after thought to get rid of the charge against him. 19. In the result, this appeal is rejected. The impugned order of judgment and sentence are hereby upheld and confirmed. The period of detention undergone by the accused-appellant shall be set off from the award of sentence.