Judgment P.K.Deb, J. 1. The four convict-appellants abovenamed preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 13th March, 1991, passed by Shri Surya Kant Mishra, 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj, in Sessions Trial No. 493 of 1988 whereby they have been convicted under Sections 302/307/394/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and also rigorous imprisonment for five years each under Sections 307/34 and 394/34 of the Indian Penal Code, but all the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. 2. The brief facts of the case is that in the night hours of 15-2-1988 at about 9.30 p.m. while the informant Mahendra Prasad Jaiswal and a minor servant Mahesh (aged about 11 years) along with the father Lakshman Prasad Jaiswal were sleeping in the Varandah over straws of their Rudua Line Hotel and after the closure of the Hotel then the four accused persons abovenamed came there in the mid night at about 12.30 a.m. and pulled out the quit from the body of the father of the informant i. e. Lakshman Prasad Jaiswal. When Lakshman Prasad Jaiswal tried to get up, accused-appellant No, 2 Rajendra Singh pointed a pistol which was in his hand near the left ear and shot at causing instant death of his father. He started profused bleeding. Then the accused persons took the informant and his younger brother Pramod Prasad Jaiswal inside a room of their house which was adjacent to the Hotel and asked them as to where they had kept their gun and pistol. The informant begged their lives and asked them to take away whatever they like from the house. The accused persons took away a sum of rupees three hundred in cash and one old Ricko watch but while leaving the place, accused-appellant No. 1 Suleman Singh who had also a pistol in his hand fired it near the ear of the informant with the intention to kill him but the informant triel to avoid the shot injury by raising his right hand, as a result of which, he sustained serious injuries in his right thumb. It is also alleged that he received pellet injuries in his neck and chest. It is also alleged that he received pellet injuries in his neck and chest. Accused-appellant Ram Briksha Singh, it is alleged, had also a single barrel gun in his hand and he struck barrel on the forehead of the informant which caused injury on his forehead. Seeing the accused persons being armed with weapons, minor servant Mahesh Singh fled away from the hotel and never returned. When the accused persons fled away, the informant and his brother raised alarm but no body came. In the early morning at about 5 a. m., some neighbouring persons, namely, Harihar Sao, Bali Sao and Suresh Sao (charge-sheeted witnesses) along with others came to the hotel whom the informant reported the occurrence. Police also arrived on receipt of the information from the Chaukidar whom the informant had informed earlier. In course of investigation, inquest was held over the deadbody of Lakshman Prasad Jaiswal. Two of the accused persons were arrested while the other two surrendered in the court after about two months and then charge-sheet was submitted before the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Daltonganj. 3. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions and then charges were framed under Sections 302/307/394/34 of the Indian Penal Code against all the four accused persons vide order dated 28-2-1990. When the same was read over and explained to the accused persons, they pleaded not guilty. The defence case is that they have been falsely implicated in the case at tne instance of the police. 4. For and on behalf of the prosecution, in total seven witnesses have been examined in the case. The Investigating Officer could not be examined even after the attempt to get him in the dock by writing a Demi Official letter to the Superintendent of Police by the Trial Judge. The minor servant also could not be examined as his whereabouts could not be found. The persons who had come to the place of occurrence in the early morning hours of the next date could not be examined as summons could not be served on them. 5. Out of seven witnesses examined as mentioned above, vital witnesses are PW 5 Pramod Kumar Prasad and PW 6 Mahendra Prasad Jaiswal (informant). Amongst other witnesses, PW 1 Dr. 5. Out of seven witnesses examined as mentioned above, vital witnesses are PW 5 Pramod Kumar Prasad and PW 6 Mahendra Prasad Jaiswal (informant). Amongst other witnesses, PW 1 Dr. Muneshwar Prasad Singh examined the informant Mahendra Prasad Jaiswal on 16-2-1988 and found the following injuries on his person : "(i) One lacerated wound 2 1/2 x 1" x skin deep over right thumb. There was a fracture of second phalanges of right thumb. There was also charring all over the wound. The nature of the injury was grievous caused by fire-arms. (ii) There were about 70 to 80 small pillets all over the upper part of both sides of chest. The size of the pillets was very small along with charring of the skin. (iii) There was a small scratch size 1" X \" X skin tender over the mid of the forehead. (iv) Slight swelling and tenderness over the upper part of the back of the chest." From the nature of the injuries it is clear that attempt was made on the life of the informant PW 6. PW 2 is another Doctor who held post-mortem over the deadbody of Lakshman Prasad Jaiswal and found the following injuries on his person : "(1) Fire-arm injury with wound of entry located just in front of left ear partly involving the pinna, size 1" X 31/4" with tatooing charring and and blackening of surrounding one inch area of skin and subcutaneous tissue. Five pieces of wat removed from skull cavity, which the doctor sealed and handed over to the accompanying Hauildar. (ii) Multiple bruises of the size varying from 6" X 1" to 3" X 1" over the back." The above injuries are definitely fatal and the Doctors also opined so. 6 P. Ws. 3, 4 and 7 are formal witness, PW 7 only proved the first information report (Ext. 5) and the fardbeyan of the informant PW 6 as Ext. 6. PWs 3 and 4 have proved their signatures on the inquest report and the seizure list of the blood stained earth and strows from the place of occurrence. The death of Lakshman Prasad Jaiswal due to the fatal injuries on his person caused by the fire-arm and the grievous injuries on the person of PW 6 Mahendra Prasad Jaiswal have not been denied in any way from the side of the defence. 7. The death of Lakshman Prasad Jaiswal due to the fatal injuries on his person caused by the fire-arm and the grievous injuries on the person of PW 6 Mahendra Prasad Jaiswal have not been denied in any way from the side of the defence. 7. The whole prosecution case is based on the evidence of the two eye witnesses, namely, PW 6, informant, and his younger brother PW 5 Pramod Kimar Prasad. Although PW 6 has been cross-examined at length from the side of the defence, but his evidence remained unimpechable and the same could not be dislodged in any way whatsoever. About the idenfication of the accused persons there is clear evidence of PW 6 that he know the accused persons from before as in a theft case as against these four accused persons, his father deceased Lakshman Prasad Jaiswal was made a witness and those accused persons in connection of that theft case were brought under handcuff to their hotel before his father and from that time he could know the accused persons both by name or by face. His further case is that he could recognise the accused persons in the light of a lantern which was burning at the place of occurrence being hung on a piller in the verandah of the hotel. His further case is that, that lantern was made to carry by the PW 5 while both of them were forcefully taken to their residential room in search of booties PW 5 has also identified the accused persons by face in the court room. His case is that he could identify the accused persons at the time of occurrence in the light of lantern but the names of individual accused whom he bad attributed the individual assaults were disclosed to him by his elder brother just after the occurrence. The first information reports story has been totally corroborated by PW 6 and the detailed particulars and specific attribution given by PW 6 against the individual accused persons had also been supported by PW 5 although he could not satisfy the trial Judge about the identification of the accused persons by name. 8. Mr. M. M. P. Sinha, Advocate appearing for the accused-appellants have assailed the impugned judgment on the following infirmities : (i) Non-examination of charge-sheet witnesses. (ii) Only partisan and interested witnesses have been examined. (iii) No test identification parade was held. 8. Mr. M. M. P. Sinha, Advocate appearing for the accused-appellants have assailed the impugned judgment on the following infirmities : (i) Non-examination of charge-sheet witnesses. (ii) Only partisan and interested witnesses have been examined. (iii) No test identification parade was held. (iv) No recovery of weapons from the accused persons. (v) No Forensic report regarding blood stained earth and strows. (vi) Non-appreciation of evidence in their proper perspective. 9. Regarding point No. (i), there is no infirmity. The witnesses who came to the place of occurrence on the next date in the morning hours are not the eye-witness of the occurrence, so their evidence is not very much relevant in the case. Moreover reasons have been given for their non-examination in the impugned judgment itself. About the infirmity as pointed out by the learned counsel in point No. (ii), there is no force in it. PWs 5 and 6 are the most natural witnesses of the occurrence. In the dead of night, there cannot be any other witness in the house except the family inmates, so their evidence cannot be turned down only as partisan and interested witnesses. Moreover, the evidence of PWs 5 and 6 could not be dislodged in any way although lengthy cross-examination was there. About point No. (iii) regarding test identification parade, there is no scope of test identification parade in the case as the accused persons had already been named in the first information report itself. There might be some necessity for the test identification parade for deciding the veracity of PW 5 who could know the accused persons by face alone, but he has explained as to how he could name them as being disclosed by his elder brother PW 6. About point No. (iv) regarding recovery of weapons from the accused persons does not have any bearing in this case. It is not the case that the accused persons were apprehends while fleeing from the place of occurrence and at that time they were found armed. Two accused persons were absconding and could surrender after two months of the occurrence. About the Forensic report, there is no evidence to the effect that the blood stained earth and straws were sent for chemical examination although seized by the Investigating Officer. The importance of such report is very much there when there is dispute regarding the place of occurrence. Here it is not disputed. About the Forensic report, there is no evidence to the effect that the blood stained earth and straws were sent for chemical examination although seized by the Investigating Officer. The importance of such report is very much there when there is dispute regarding the place of occurrence. Here it is not disputed. It has been pointed out by Mr. Sinba that in the second line of the evidence of PW 6 he mentioned that they were sleeping in the room of a hotel but after reading the evidence as a whole, it is found that this mentioning of room was either by mistake or wrongly recorded as in the subsequent part of the evidence, it was made clear by PW 6 that the occurrence took place in the verandah of the Line Hotel. There is also not an iota of cross-examination on the point of place of occurrence. Regarding appreciation of evidence, learned Advocate for the accused-appellants has referred to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Balaka Singh and others V/s. State of Punjab, AIR 1975 SC 1962 and his submission is that inquest report in the case has not been proved and as such there is scope for inference to the effect that omission of the names of the accused person in the inquest report suggested of concoction of the prosecution case, but the facts of the case as stated above is any way fitting with the present case. 10. Mr. S. N. Rajgarhia, learned counsel for the respondent has rightly mentioned that though printed form in the inquest report no where specifies any column regarding disclosure of names of the assailants, in the reported case some names of the accused persons were included in the inquest report. It was made before that first information report was lodged in presence of the informant and some disclosure of the names by the informant was mentioned in the inquest report but omissions of some names of the assailants were there. So inference was drawn that these omitted names were included afterwards by concoction but the present case is totally different. Here the fardbeyan (Ext. 6) was made just after reaching of the police and then the inquest was held and in the fardbeyan the disclosure of the names of the accused persons are there with even specific attributions to them. 11. Here the fardbeyan (Ext. 6) was made just after reaching of the police and then the inquest was held and in the fardbeyan the disclosure of the names of the accused persons are there with even specific attributions to them. 11. On referring the same reported case, Mr. Sinha tried to impress upon us that truth and false when being intermingled and grains cannot be separated from chaff then some accused persons cannot be convicted and some cannot be acquitted on the same set of evidence, but this is not the case here. Here there is clear case of prosecution giving specific attribution to the individual accused persons. It has further been argued from the side of the accused-appellants that the means of recognition i. e. lantern has not been produced before the trial Judge which creates doubt about the means of recognition, but it appears that such submission is only an after thought one. There was not a single line in the cross-examination of the witnesses, namely, PWs 5 and 6 to the effect that there was no light and that they could not recognise the assailants. When recognition has not been challenged much and when there is overwhelming evidence from the side of the vital witnesses, then non- production of means of recognition cannot have any bearing. Although it has not been argued from of the accused-appellants regarding the charge under Section 394/34 of the Indian Penal Code it is found that the evidence of PW 6 being corroborated by PW 5 that the cash amount of Rs 300 and a Ricko watch were taken away in course of robbery by the accused persons. This evidence has also not been challenged in cross-examination of the witnesses from the side of the defence. So the learned court below was right in holding this charge also to be proved beyond all reasonable doubt. 12. Defence version that the accused persons have been falsely implicated by the police could not in any way probablised whatsoever. This was only a plea for pleas sake made by Mr. Sinha in course of argument before us. 13. For the reasons stated above, it is found that the prosecution case could be established beyond all reasonable doubts against all the four accused persons and the impugned Judgment of conviction and the order of sentence is proper and justified. 14. This was only a plea for pleas sake made by Mr. Sinha in course of argument before us. 13. For the reasons stated above, it is found that the prosecution case could be established beyond all reasonable doubts against all the four accused persons and the impugned Judgment of conviction and the order of sentence is proper and justified. 14. In the result, this appeal is dismissed and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj, is hereby upheld and confirmed. Appellants No. 1, 3 and 4 had been granted bail by this Court at the time of admission of appeal vide order dated 15-5-1991. Their bail bonds are hereby cancelled and they should surrender before the court below within one month to serve the sentence otherwise coercive processes should be issued against them. G.B.Patnaik, J. 15 I agree.