Judgment B. N. Agrawal, O. N. Asthana, J. 1. All the appellants have been convicted by the trial court under Section 302/149 of the Penal Code and each one of them has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. Appellant Nos.1, 2 and 3 have been further convicted under Sections 324 and 325/149 of the Penal Code and each one of them has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and three years, respectively under the aforesaid sections. They have been also convicted under Sec.148 of the Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years. Appellant Nos.4,5 and 6 have been further convicted under sections 323 and 325/149 of the Penal code and each one of them has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and three years, respectively, under the aforesaid two sections. They have been further convicted under Sec.148 of the Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years. Appellant Nos.7 and 8 have been convicted under Sections 324/149 and 147 of the Penal Code and each one of them has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years on each count. All the sentences awarded against the appellants, however, have been directed to run concurrently. 2. Prosecution case, in short, is that on 27-12-1974 at the time of sunrise, when Amol Yadav, the informant (P. W.6) was returning from his Bahiar after attending the call of nature he found that his uncle Banshi Mahto was levelling land of his field, which was in the Bahiar and at that time Sarwan Pujhar (P. W.3) and Nari Pujhar (P. W.4)were cutting earth in the contiguous field. The informant (P. W.6) also saw the eight appellants along with one shiva Mahto (since deceased) coming from the village side. Seeing the accused persons coming the informant raised hulla, whereupon the witnesses, namely, jaleshwar Yadav (P. W.7), Nejo Pd. Yadav (P. W.5), Darogi Mahto, Kaleshwar Yadav and Chhotan Yadav came there running. The accused persons were armed with deadly weapons and they surrounded Banshi Mahto. Appellants daulat Mahto, Dindayal Mahto and kartik Mahto, who were armed with bhala, assaulted Banshi on his left arm and right leg, as a result of which Banshi fell down on the ground. Yadav (P. W.5), Darogi Mahto, Kaleshwar Yadav and Chhotan Yadav came there running. The accused persons were armed with deadly weapons and they surrounded Banshi Mahto. Appellants daulat Mahto, Dindayal Mahto and kartik Mahto, who were armed with bhala, assaulted Banshi on his left arm and right leg, as a result of which Banshi fell down on the ground. Thereafter accused Tipan Mahto, Jhari Mahto and badri Mahto, who were having Tangi with them, assaulted Banshi on his head. Other accused persons, namely, masudi Mahto, Saryug Mahto and Shiv mahto (since deceased), who were armed with lathi, assaulted Banshi mahto, as a result of which his right leg was fractured. Thereafter the accused persons dragged Banshi Mahto towards the Nala and fled away, Thereafter the injured, Banshi Mahto, was carried to the hospital via Katoria Police Station by. the informant another prosecution witnesses, where on the basis of the statement of Amole Yadav (P. W.6) first information report was lodged on the same day at 10-30 a. m. and injured Banshi Mahto was referred to the hospital, but when the first information report was being recorded, information was received from the hospital that said banshi succumbed to the injuries. Motive for the occurrence alleged in the first information report is stated to be land dispute between the parties. 3. The police after registering the case took up investigation and on completion thereof submitted charge-sheet. Upon receipt of chargesheet, the learned Magistrate took cognizance and committed all the nine accused persons to the court of sessions to face trial, but during trial accused Shiva Mahto died. 4. Defence of the accused persons is that they are innocent, have been falsely implicated in the case in hand and no occurrence as alleged had taken place. 5. During trial, the prosecution examined 13 witnesses in all, out of whom p. Ws.1, 2, 8, 9 and 11 have been tendered for cross-examination P. W.6 is the informant himself, whereas P. Ws.3, 4,5 and 7 and other eye-witnesses of the occurrence. P. W.10 is a formal wit-ness. in whose presence blood-stained earth was seized by the Investigating Officer from the place of occurrence. P. W.12 is the doctor, who held post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased. P. W.13 is a formal witness, who has proved the case diary in view of the fact that the investigating Officer died. P. W.10 is a formal wit-ness. in whose presence blood-stained earth was seized by the Investigating Officer from the place of occurrence. P. W.12 is the doctor, who held post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased. P. W.13 is a formal witness, who has proved the case diary in view of the fact that the investigating Officer died. Upon conclusion of trial the court below convicted the appellants as stated above. Hence this appeal. 6. First I would consider the medical evidence in this case. The doctor, p. W.12, who held post-mortem examination on the dead body of tbe deceased, Banshi Mahto, on 23-12-1974 at 1.00 p. m. , found the following injuries on his person: " (a) Lacerated wounds 4 x 3/4"x scalp deep on right side head, scalp deep on front hairy line of scalp, 1 1/4"x1/2"x scalp deed on middle of head, (b) Lacerated wound 3/4"x1/3"x skin deep on lower part of right arm, (c) Lacerated wound 1/2" x1/6" x skin deep on right hand with dislocation of index finger at proximal phalange, (d) Incised injuries 1"x1/4"x skin deep, 11/4"x1/3"x muscle deep, 1"x1/3"x1/2" - all on tower part of left arm, (e) Ecchymosis 3" x Ton left hand, (f) Compound fracture of both bones of right leg at its lower part. " According to the doctor (P. W.12), injury No. (a), referred to above could have been caused by back portion of tangi. The aforesaid injuries could have been caused by three Tangi blows as would appear from the dimension of the injuries and three persons are said to have inflicted tangi blows on head of the deceased. The doctor (P. W.12) has further opined that injury No. (d) could have been caused by bhala and from the dimension of the injuries, it would appear that the same could have been caused by three bhala blows, which is consistent with the prosecution case. The doctor has opined that the other injuries could have been caused by lathi. Injury No. (f), which could have been caused by lathi, was a fracture injury of both bones of right leg at its lower part. According to the doctor (P. W.12) death was caused within 24 hours from the time of post-mortem examination. In the opinion of the doctor, death was caused as a result of shock and haemorrhage resulting from the injuries. According to the doctor (P. W.12) death was caused within 24 hours from the time of post-mortem examination. In the opinion of the doctor, death was caused as a result of shock and haemorrhage resulting from the injuries. The medical evidence, referred to above, fits in with the prosecution case disclosed in the first information report. 7 The objective finding of the Investigating officer also supports the prosecution case as from the case diary, which has been exhibited in this case as ext.9, it would appear that the investigation officer inspected the place of occurrence and found signs of cutting of earth. He also found copious blood at the place of occurrence, and sign of dragging of Banshi from the field of occurrence towards the Nala. He also found trampling mark at the place of occurrence. The objective finding of the investigating officer proves the place of occurrence disclosed by the prosecution and supports the prosecution case. 8. Now I proceed to consider ocular version of the occurrence disclosed by the prosecution witnesses in this case. Five persons including the informant (P. W.6) claim to have witnessed the occurrence and they are p. Ws.3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. P. Ws.3 and 4 claim that they are working as labourers in the contiguous field of the deceased when the occurrence is said to have taken place. These persons were natural and probable witnesses. They have supported the prosecution case and stated that accused Daulat Mahto, Dinu Mahto and kartik Mahto assaulted the deceased with bhala on his left forearm and right leg and when he fell down accused tipan Mahto, Jhari Mahto and Badri mahto assaulted him with Tangi on his head. They have also stated that accused masudi Mahto, Saryug Mahto and Shiva mahto (since deceased) assaulted Ban-shi Mahto with lathi, as a result of which his leg was fractured. These two persons have stated that the occurrence was witnessed by them and P. Ws.5, 6 and 7 as well besides other villagers also. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that father of these two witnesses died on the date of occurrence itself as such, it was not expected from them to remain present in the field at the time of occurrence. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that father of these two witnesses died on the date of occurrence itself as such, it was not expected from them to remain present in the field at the time of occurrence. No evidence has been adduced to show that the father of these witnesses had died on the day of occurrence and also before the time of the occurrence. These two witnesses have been named in the first information report itself, which was lodged without any loss of time. Their names have been disclosed by other witnesses also. These witnesses carried the injured Banshi Mahto, to the hospital via the police station and they carried his dead body to Banka for post-mortem examination as directed by the investigating officer. Further it has been stated that these witnesses have been examined by Investigating officer after two days of the occurrence on 29-12-74. These two witnesses stated that they returned from Banka on 28th December and thereafter they were examined by the police on 29th December, 1974, therefore, it cannot be said that there was delay in their examination, more so, they have been named as eye-witnesses in the first information report. I do not find any ground to reject the evidence of these two witnesses. 9. P. W.5, Nejo Prasad Yadav, who is having his house close by the place of occurrence stated that after seeing the accused persons, the informant (P. W.6)raised alarm. This witness went there and claims to have seen the occurrence. he has supported the prosecution case in all material particulars. This witness has been named in the first information report as an eye-witness to the occurrence. After the accused person fled away this witness had gone to the hospital via police station along with the informant (P. W.6), injured Banshi and other prosecution witnesses. This witness had also gone to Banka and after he came back, he was examined by the police on 29-12-1974. Comment about this witness is that he is inimical to the accused persons, as, according to the admission of this witness, his father had filed a case against some of the accused persons. This witness appears to be a straightforward person and he has not suppressed the fact that his father did file a case against the accused persons. Comment about this witness is that he is inimical to the accused persons, as, according to the admission of this witness, his father had filed a case against some of the accused persons. This witness appears to be a straightforward person and he has not suppressed the fact that his father did file a case against the accused persons. Merely because father of this witness had filed a case against the accused persons, his statement cannot be disbelieved inasmuch as he has been named in the first information report he carried the injured to the hospital and his statement is consistent with the first information report and evidence of other witnesses, therefore, I do not find any reason to disbelieve this witness. 10. P. W.6 is Amole Yadav, who is informant of this case. His statement that when he was coming back to his house after attending the call of nature, he had seen the occurrence is probable and natural. This witness has supported the prosecution case in all material particulars. His evidence is consistent with the evidence of other witnesses and the same is corroborated by the medical evidence as well as objective finding of the Investigating officer, therefore, I do not find any ground to reject his testimony. 11. Last witness on this question is jaleshwar Yadav (P. W.7 ). Though he is son of the deceased but on this ground it is not possible to reject his evidence as the witness has stated that he was going from his house to his field when he witnessed the occurrence and at that time he found that the accused persons were assaulting his father. The evidence of this witness is consistent with the prosecution case disclosed in the first information report and the evidence of other witnesses. Presence of this witness at the place of occurrence has been admitted by other prosecution witnesses, therefore, I do not find any reason to disbelieve the evidence of this witness. 12. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants pointed out that according to the prosecution case, several other persons are said to have arrived at the place of occurrence, but, for the reasons best known to the prosecution, none of them has been examined. 12. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants pointed out that according to the prosecution case, several other persons are said to have arrived at the place of occurrence, but, for the reasons best known to the prosecution, none of them has been examined. It was said that the witnesses, namely, Baleshwar Yadav, Ghogha yadav and Darogi Yadav, who were named as eye- witnesses of the occurrence in the first information report, were not examined. It has been also pointed out that P. W.6 disclosed names of witnesses, such as, Kaleshwar Yadav and Dhaneshwar Yadav and prosecution witnesses named Teepan Pujari as eyewitness to the occurrence. In this connection it may be stated that P. W.6 stated that Teepan Pujari, Masudan yadav, Darogi Yadav, Dhaneshwar yadav and Kaleshwar Yadav were gained over. It is true that in spite of the fact that a witness is gained over, it was the duty of the prosecution to tender him for his cross- examination. In my view, since the prosecution case disclosed in the first information report has been supported by objective finding the Investigating Officer, the medical report and ocular version of the occurrence deposed to by P. Ws.3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 examination of other witnesses will not affect prosecution case in any manner. 13. In view of the foregoing discussions, i am of the view that the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case beyond reasonable doubts and the trial court has not committed any error in convicting the appellants. 14. In the result, the appeal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. Bail bonds of the appellants, who were granted bail by this court at the time of admission of the appeal, are hereby cancelled. Appeal Dismissed.