Judgment O. N. Asthana, J. 1. These three criminal Appeals have been filed against the judgment and order of 1st additional Sessions Judge. Nalanda, dated 7th June 1985 in sessions trial No.61 of 1979/41 of 1983 (State of Bihar V/s. Dhuri Dusadh and six others, where the arial Judge held the accused-appellants dhuri Dusadh, Ahiyat @ Butu Mian, and Punjabi Dusadh guilty for the commission of offence of murder punishable under Sec.302, I. P. C. and held the other accused-appellants Indar Dusadh, mahendra Dusadh, Arjun Dusadh and anandi Dusadh guilty for the commission of offence of murder punishable under Sec.302 read with section 149, i. P. C. The Trial Judge awarded the sentence of life imprisonment to all these appellants. 2. 2. The prosecution case is that the informant Ram Kishun Chaudhary P. W.6 had a field situate in the south-west of the village, and on 8th November, 1978 this Ram Kishun Chaudhary P. W.6, his nephew Gariban Chaudhary P. W.1, and his son Jagdish Chaudhary (deceased)along with two young daughters Sunita and Sumitra arrived at the field and planted potato seedlings in that field, and in the evening at 5.15 P. M or about before the sunset they were coming back empty handed to their house, and the two young daughters had already moved ahead with the remaining selings, basket and Kudal to arrive at the house, son jagdish Chaudhary was a few steps ahead of this informant Ram Kishun chaudhary and his nephew Gariban chaudhary, and when they reached on the path passing through the Sahan in the east of the house of Sadashiv dusadh, the accused Ahiyat @ Butu, punjabi Dusadh and Indar Dusadh armed with chhuras along with other four accused Dhuri Dusadh, Mahendra dusadh, Arjun Dusadh and Anandi dusadh (unarmed) came out from the house of Sadashiv Dusadh and surrounded; this Informant Ram Kishun chaudhary and his nephew Gariban chaudhary managed and thus moved fifteen to twenty steps away to the west; and the son Jagdish Chaudhary was caught by all these accused appellants and was thrown on the ground; the accused Mahendra Dusadh, Arjun dusadh, Dhuri Dusadh and Anandi dusadh caught hold Jagdish and the accused Ahiyat @ Butu Mian and Punjabi dusadh gave chhura blow on the neck and face of Jagdish Chaudhary, and the accused Indar Dusadh gave chhura blow on the stomach and the lower part of the body of Jagdish Chaudhary; this informant and his nephew Gariban chaudhary raised alarm and Ram chandra Chaudhary, Ram Prit P. W.2, naresh Yadav P. W.3, Dhaula Devi P. W.4, anandi and several other persons reached there and they themselves saw this occurrence. 3. Within five to six minutes these accused persons committed the murder of Jagdish Chaudhary and finding the arrival of the villagemen these accused persons fled away towards south. The dead-body of Jagdish Chaudhary was brought in front of the Darwaja of this informant. 3. Within five to six minutes these accused persons committed the murder of Jagdish Chaudhary and finding the arrival of the villagemen these accused persons fled away towards south. The dead-body of Jagdish Chaudhary was brought in front of the Darwaja of this informant. The Informant along with one Gajo Yadav came to the area Police station, Asthawan situated eight miles away catching hold of a Truck outside his village and lodged the report relating this occurrence at the Police Station in presence of the Police Station Officer incharge Kashi Nath Thakur P. W.8. The first information report prepared on the statement of this informant at the Police station at 8 P. M. is exhibit-3. The case no.5 dated 8th November, 1978 was instituted, and Sri Kashi Nath Thakur left the Police Station at 9.30 P. M. and reached the place of occurrence at 11 p. M. to start the investigation in the case. The Investigation Officer found the dead-body of Jagdish Chaudhary kept in front of the Darwaja of the informant. The Investigation Officer prepared the inquest report-Exhibit-4 relating this dead-body and with a challan lash forwarded the dead-body for post-mortem examination. As adequate light was not there in the night the investigation Officer could not inspect the place where occurrence was committed. The investigation Officer visited the village next morning at 5 A. M. He inspected the site of the occurrence and found ample blood in the Sahan of the house of Sadashiv Dusadh. He collected the blood-stained mud and its seizure memo is Exhibit-5. The Investigation officer found that these accused persons were living in the house situate twenty to thirty feet away from the house of Sadashiv Dusadh. The investigation Officer found that the beaten path was going through the Sahan of the house of Sadashiv Dusadh and it connected the field of the informant where the Informant sowed the potato seedlings in the afternoon. The investigation Officer found the house of the informant was sixty feet away from this sahan of Sadashiv Dusadh and house of one Kishundhari intervened. The investigation Officer found that stalks of maize etc. were stored on some parts of the Sahan and some blood drops were also there on that talk as well The investigation Officer recorded the statement of Naresh Yadav, Ram Prit, dhaula Devi, Sudamia Devi and others. 4. The investigation Officer found that stalks of maize etc. were stored on some parts of the Sahan and some blood drops were also there on that talk as well The investigation Officer recorded the statement of Naresh Yadav, Ram Prit, dhaula Devi, Sudamia Devi and others. 4. Relating the motive the prosecution alleged thai-there was a land dispute between one Sukhdeo Yadav and ghulami Mian, and Jagdish Chaudhary (deceased) was in the party of Sukhdeo yadav and the accused persons were in the party of Gulami Mian; the accused persons were pressurising Jagdish chaudhary to come over to their party and thus might settle the dispute; as jagdish Chaudhary did not change side, the accused-appellants form unlawful assembly and armed with chhuras arrived at the scene of the occurrence in the Sahan of the house of Sadashiv dusadli and committed the murder of jagdish Chaudhary. 5. The suggestion from the accused-appellants was that this Jagdish chaudhary was a vetrain criminal and he had been killed by some other per sons and these accused-appellants has been implicated falsely on this charge of murder due to previous enmity. 6. The prosecution has examined eight witnesses - Gariban Chaudhary, cousin brother of the deceased P. W.1, ram Prit Chaudhary P. W.2, Naresh yadav P. W.3, Dhaula Devi-sister-in-law of the informant P. W.4, Sudama Deviwife of the Informant, P. W.5, Ram kishun Chaudhary-Informant and father of the deceased, P. W.6, Dr. Vedvrat P. W.7 and Kashi Nath Thahar the Investigation Officer P. W.8. 7. The accused-appellants did not examine any documentary or eral evidence by way of defence. 8. Dr. Vedvrat, P. W.7 conducted the post-mortem on the dead body of jagdish Chaudhary at 11 A. M. on 9th november, 1978. This dead body was brought in the Hospital and was identified by the Constable Ramautar chaudhary and Chawkidars Sia Saran and Mahabir Paswan and Gariban chaudhary P. W.1 Dr. Vedvrat, P. W.7 found the following ante-mortem injuries: (i) One incised wound 5"x1"x3/4" just above in front of left ear cutting the zygomatic bone. (ii) Incised wound over left cheek cutting the whole thickness of cheek from left angle of mouth to left ear. (iii) Incised wound over lower lip cutting through and through up to 1". (iv) Incised wound cutting the neck up to the body of third cervical vertebra, carolid-arteries of both sides, trachee and oesophagus. (ii) Incised wound over left cheek cutting the whole thickness of cheek from left angle of mouth to left ear. (iii) Incised wound over lower lip cutting through and through up to 1". (iv) Incised wound cutting the neck up to the body of third cervical vertebra, carolid-arteries of both sides, trachee and oesophagus. (v) Piercing wound 1"x1/2"x5" over 2nd intercostal space on left side. (vi) Incised wounds 2"x1"x1" over upper part of abdomen on left side. (vii) Incised wounds over right palm and palmer surface of all the fingers. (viii) incised wound over left waist 6"x1/4x skin deep. 9. Dr. Vedvrat expressed his opinion that all these injuries found on the person were caused by sharp-cutting weapon, i. e. Chhura. The post-mortem report is Exhibit-2. Obviously these incised wounds on the upper part of the abdomen and on the neck besides other parts of the face were sufficient to cause death of Jagdish Chaudhary at the place of occurrence. 10. Sudama Devi, P. W.5 came from the house hearing the cries, and she saw all these accused persons there in the sahan round about injured son who was fallen down in the ground in the Sahan. In deposition she does not disclose if she -had seen the actual assaults being given by these accused persons on. . . . (sic ). 11. The day of occurrence was one of the days of festivity of Chhath and dhaula Devi, P. W.4, young lady (wife of the brother of Sudama Devi) came to the house of Sudama Devi to perform the Puja of Chhath. As soon she heard the cries she rushed out oi the house and she came in the Sahan of Sadashiv dusadh. Dhaula Devi P. W.4 has stated on oath that all these seven accused-appellants were there in the Sahan and were surrounding and holding Jagdish chaudhary and the accused-appellants ahiyat @ Butu, Indar Dusadh, and Panjabi dusadh attacked Jagdish Chaudhary with their Chhuras and killed him. There is nothing in the cross-examination of these witness to discredit her testimony. Naresh Yadav P. W.3 stated on oath that he was returning from the nearby Bansh Bigha Bazar after making the purchase, and hearing the cries from the distance of sixty steps he rushed to the place of occurrence and arrived in the Sahan of Sadashiv Dusadh. There is nothing in the cross-examination of these witness to discredit her testimony. Naresh Yadav P. W.3 stated on oath that he was returning from the nearby Bansh Bigha Bazar after making the purchase, and hearing the cries from the distance of sixty steps he rushed to the place of occurrence and arrived in the Sahan of Sadashiv Dusadh. He saw that the accused Mahendra, Arjun, dhuri and Anandi were holding Jagdish and the other accused Ahiyat, Panjabi and Indar made assaults with their chhuras on Jagdish Chaudhary and jagdish Chaudhary fell dead on the ground in the Sahan. This witness left the place of occurrence to arrive at his house. Next morning he gave his statement relating this occurrence to the Investigation officer. Advocate for the appellants pointed out that the witness naresh Yadav P. W.3 admitted that a case of looting the Bus was registered earlier against him, and the testimony of such a witness should be discredited. This criminal case against Naresh Yadav p. W.3 alone is not sufficient to discredit his testimony. The examination of his statement shows that he was present at the place of occurrence and he saw the occurrence, and his testimony is reliable. 12. Gariban Chaudhary P. W.1, the cousin brother of the deceased and Ram kishun Chaudhary P. W.6, father of the deceased were coming from the field behind his son Jagdish Chaudhary. Both these witnesses Ram Kishun Chaudhary and Gariban Chaudhary P. W.6 and P. W.1 have stated on oath that how all these seven accused persons came out. together from the house of Sadashiv dusadh and accused Ahiyat, Panjabi and Indar were holding Chhuras in their hands and how all these seven accused persons surrounded him and they managed to go a few steps away towards the west and the son Jagdish Chaudhary was surrounded by these accused-appellants and the accused Mahendra, Arjun dhuri and Anandi caught hold Jagdish chaudhary and the accused Ahiyat, Panjabi and Indar gave Chhura blow on the neck, face, stomach and lower part of the body of Jagdish Chaudhary killing him at the spot there in the Sahan. The examination of their depositions show that both these witnesses were there near the place of occurrence and they themselves saw this occurrence how these accused-appellants committed the murder of Jagdish Chaudhary. 13. The examination of their depositions show that both these witnesses were there near the place of occurrence and they themselves saw this occurrence how these accused-appellants committed the murder of Jagdish Chaudhary. 13. Ram Prit Chaudhary P. W.2 is the son Of the Informant Ram Kishun chaudhary. This witness came out from the house and rushed to the Sahan of sadashiv Dusadh hearing the cries for help. This witness stated on oath that he saw that accused Mahendra, Arjun, dhuri and Anandi were holding his brother Jagdish and the other three accused Ahiyat, Panjabi and Indar made assaults with Chhura on his brother jagdish Chaudhary, who fell dead in the sahan. Advocate for the appellants pointed out that this witness stated that the accused cut the head, and this was not the fact. This statement cut the head connotes that the accused made attack on the neck. Further learned advocate has pointed out that this witness on the examination on oath has said that three accused made indiscriminate assaults and it creates doubt that this witness Ram Prit Chaudhary was present at the place of occurrence. This word indiscriminate assault has been used by the witness in common parlance in his statement. The post-mortem report shows that there were as many as eight incised wounds on different parts of the body of the deceased. Obviously several assaults were made by these three accused-appellants who were holding knives (Chhuras ). Further the advocate for the appellants pointed out that this witness Ram Prit Chaudhary p. W.2 was also an accused in Bus looting case and his deposition be discredited. This criminal case is not enough in itself to discredit the testimony of this witness Ram Prit chaudhary. His statement read as a whole shows that this witness Ram Prit Chaudhary saw this occurrence with his own eyes. 14. Learned Advocate for the accused-appellants pointed out that Ram kishun Chaudhary P. W.6 and Dhaula devi P. W.4 had not given the statement to the Investigation Officer specifying which particular accused made assaults on which particular part of the body of jagdish Chaudhary. It seems that the investigation Officer did not interrogate these witnesses in detail during the investigation and that is why the details of individual assaults do not find place in the statements of these prosecution witnesses recorded under Sec.161, Cr. P. C. 15. It seems that the investigation Officer did not interrogate these witnesses in detail during the investigation and that is why the details of individual assaults do not find place in the statements of these prosecution witnesses recorded under Sec.161, Cr. P. C. 15. Advocate for the appellants raised the contentions that the first information report was not signed by the witness at the Police Station and thus it is a wrongful document; that no trample mark were found at the place of occurrence and it is doubtful if occurrence took place in the Sahan of Sadashiv dusadh; that the prosecution case shows that three accused persons were holding Chhuras and if Ram Kishun chaudhary and Gariban Chaudhary were already there behind Jagdish chaudhary at a few steps, it was natural for them to rush ahead and to save jagdish Chaudhary from the assaults; and that the independent witnesses have not been examined by the prosecution, and thus the prosecution case has not been established beyond doubt. 16. The police Station was eight miles away. The informant could get a truck to go to the Police Station. He reached there at 8 P. M. His statement was recorded at the Police Station relating the occurrence and the first information report on his statement became the basis for the investigation Ram kishun Chaudhary P. W.6 has proved the first information report making deposition on oath. There is no requirement in law that the signatures of the informant should always be identified by a witness on the first information report. The accused persons have not brought on record any such circumstance as to show that the first information report in this case was not lodged at the Police Station or was a belated document prepared at a later stage cooking up a false prosecution case against these accused-appellants. 17. The Investigation Officer found ample blood in the Sahan of the house of Sadashiv Dusadh, where beaten path way passes. The prosecution witnesses have stated on oath that this occurrence of murder of Jagdish Chaudhary took place in the Sahan of Sadashiv Dushad. The place of occurrence is established fully, and this murder of Jagdish chaudhary took place in the Sahan of the house of Sadar hiv Dusadh, and there is nothing to doubt the place of occurrence. The prosecution witnesses have stated on oath that this occurrence of murder of Jagdish Chaudhary took place in the Sahan of Sadashiv Dushad. The place of occurrence is established fully, and this murder of Jagdish chaudhary took place in the Sahan of the house of Sadar hiv Dusadh, and there is nothing to doubt the place of occurrence. Though sunlight was there, sunset had started, Ram Kishun Chaudhary and Gariban Chaudhary would not have dared to come forward to save Jagdish chaudhary apprehending that these accused-appellants might possess small fire-arms. The mere fact that they did not rush to save Jagdish Chaudhary from the assaults is no ground enough to reject the depositions of Ram Kishun chaudhary and Gariban Chaudhary (because they did not dare to come forward to save Jagdish Chaudhary ). 18. Ram Kishun Chaudhary P. W.6 has deposed on oath that Gajo Yadav, pitambar, Bedami Devi and other naresh Yadav went to the group of the accused-persons, and the accused persons had threatened him as well not to go to the Court to make deposition. This witness also stated that the other witnesses radhey Yadav and Pitambar Yadav were dead. 19. The other witnesses who could be there was Sadashiv and Sarju. The investigation Officer Kashi Nath thakur P. W.8 stated that he did not interrogate Sadashiv and Sarju. The investigation Officer also stated that he did not make specific inspection of the potato field of Ram Kishun Chaudhary. The Investigation Officer stated that he did not demand the blood-stained clothes of the persons who took jagdish Chaudhary from the place of occurrence to the door of the house of ram Kishun Chaudhary. All these are the lapses on the part of the Investigation officer which simply give the impression that the Investigation Officer did not make the investigation in the case in details and rather the investigation was perfunctory but there is nothing to suggest that this Investigation officer in any way connived with the informant. 20. The deposition of the prosecution witnesses Naresh Yadav P. W.3 and dhaula Devi P. W.4 are the depositions of the independent witnesses and they are fully trustworthy witnesses. Ram kishun Chaudhary, father of the deceased, Gariban Chaudhary, cousin brother of the deceased were there and they saw the occurrence with their own eyes how the accused-appellants caught hold and assaulted Jagdish Chaudhary killing him at the spot. Ram kishun Chaudhary, father of the deceased, Gariban Chaudhary, cousin brother of the deceased were there and they saw the occurrence with their own eyes how the accused-appellants caught hold and assaulted Jagdish Chaudhary killing him at the spot. Ram Prit chaudhary P. W.2 is also a natural and probable witness. Hearing the cries of his father and cousin, he also rushed out his house and happened to see how the accused-appellants committed the murder of Jagdish Chaudhary in the Sahan of the house of Sadashiv Dusadh. 21. Ram Kishun Chaudhary P. W.6 stated on oath how these accused- appellants were siding with Ghulami Mian and this son Jagdish Chaudhary was siding with Sukhdeo Yadav in their land dispute, and as Jagdish Chaudhary did not like to go in the side of Ghulami mian these accused persons had the grudge with Jagdish Chaudhary and thus they committed his murder. The depositions of Ram Prit Chaudhary P. W.2, sudami Devi P. W.5 in their statements in cross-examination go to show that there was party feeling and grouping (Party Banana) amongst the people in the village. 22. I find that the prosecution witnesses have established beyond doubt that all these seven accused-appellants ahiyat, Butu Mian, Panjabi Dusadh, indar Dusadh, Mahendra Dusadh, arjun Dusadh, Anandi Dusadh and dhuri Dusadh formed unlawful assembly with the common object to commit murder of Jagdish Chaudhary and they caught hold Jagdish Chaudhary in the Sahan of me house of sadashiv Dusadh and the accused-appellants ahiyat @ Butu Mian, Panjabi dusadh and Inder Dusadh made fatal assaults with their Chhura and committed the murder of Jagdish Chaudhary. 23. I hold all these seven accused-appellants Dhuri Dusadh, Ahiyat @ butu Mian, Panjabi Dusadh, Inder dusadh, Mahendra Dusadh, Aqun dusadh and Ajiandi Dusadh are guilty for forming unlawful assembly with the object of commission of murder of Jagdish chaudhary and in pursuance of their common object they committed the murder of Jagdish Chaudhary. All these accused-appellants Dhuri dusadh, Ahiyat @ Butu Mian, Panjabi dusadh, Inder Dusadh, Mahendra dusadh, Arjun Dusadh and Anandi dusadh are held guilty for the offence of commission of murder punishable under Sec.302 read with Section 149 I. P. C. These accused-appellants shall undergoing the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life. 24. All these accused-appellants Dhuri dusadh, Ahiyat @ Butu Mian, Panjabi dusadh, Inder Dusadh, Mahendra dusadh, Arjun Dusadh and Anandi dusadh are held guilty for the offence of commission of murder punishable under Sec.302 read with Section 149 I. P. C. These accused-appellants shall undergoing the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life. 24. The appeal is dismissed with the modification in guilt of the accused dhuri Dusadh, Ahiyat @ Butu Mian and Panjabi Dusadh that under Section 302, I. P. C. will be substituted as under section 302 read with Sec.149, i. P. C. , accordingly the judgment and order of the trial court stand affirmed. 25. All these accused-appellants are on bail from this Court, their bail bonds stand cancelled. The trial court shall be taking all these accused-appellants into custody issuing warrant of arrest and shall lodge them in jail to undergo the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life. A copy of the judgment be sent to the court-below for necessary compliance. Appeal Dismissed.