JUDGMENT : M.M. Punchhi, J. 1. These 3 appeals arise out of the same judgment and order of the High Court of Patna which, in turn, has affirmed the judgment and order of the Court of Session, whereby all the 8 appellants were convicted for offence under Section 302 read with Section 149 Indian Penal Code, whereunder they were awarded life sentence. 2. The occurrence took place at about 5.30 p.m. on 4-1-1980 on a road linking one village to another. The deceased in the earlier part of the day in the company of his wife, PW 5 and brother PW 8 had gone to Barh town for some errand as also to purchase certain household articles. When returning home, he had stopped at a wayside shop to take some tea. It is alleged by the prosecution that one of the accused, namely, Surjan Mahto, a co-villager, was also sitting at that shop taking tea. The latter left earlier heading towards the village but the deceased and his wife and brother proceeded somewhat later. When they were about half a mile away from their village, the deceased was surrounded by 14/15 persons emerging from the fields out of which 10 were known and named and the rest have remained unknown. The attack was opened by Surjan Mahto by using his pistol in firing at the deceased. It is alleged that the said fire hit the deceased at his buttock, upon which he fell on the ground. At that juncture 4-5 accused, as named in the evidence, got to sit on the body of the victim and on a suggestion of one of them, the head of the deceased was chopped off. His head was then wrapped in a cloth and taken away by the accused as a trophy. The bang of pistol-fire was heard by PW 1 who was working in her maize field close by. When she came at the spot the incident was over but she was told about it by PWs 5 and 8 and about the particulars of the assassins. PW 8 then ran to the village to give information to his household members, whereat PWs 2 and 3 were informed about the occurrence. Since the complainant side was from a weaker section from all standards, they were scared to approach the police station for recording the FIR. PW 8 then ran to the village to give information to his household members, whereat PWs 2 and 3 were informed about the occurrence. Since the complainant side was from a weaker section from all standards, they were scared to approach the police station for recording the FIR. All the same, secret information was received at the police station whereupon Sub-Inspector ? PW 9 came on foot from the police station to the spot, having had to walk 7 miles as no conveyance was available. Having arrived, he recorded the statement of PW 8 in which all the details of the occurrence were given. The inquest of the dead body was prepared by him. The dead body was despatched to the mortuary where it was subjected to autopsy at about 2 p.m. on 5-1-1980. Before that, the writing prepared at the spot was employed at the police station to prepare a formal FIR, a copy whereof was despatched to the Area Magistrate on which the Magistrate set his eyes on 10-1-1980. It is on these broad allegations that the 8 appellants before us and 2 others were put up for trial. One of the accused, namely, Karo Mahto died during the trial and the other Devendra Mahto was later dealt with separately by the High Court. Thus, the remaining 8 accused were convicted in the manner aforementioned and their conviction and sentence stand upheld by the High Court. 3. The first and the foremost question which has been canvassed by Mr. Sushil Kumar, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, is that there was discord between the ocular account and the medical evidence. To appreciate his argument, one needs to see the deposition of PW 4 ? Dr. Ramesh Chandra Jha who had performed the autopsy of the deceased. Besides, finding 2 sharp-cutting wounds on the right elbow and the left elbow, he found the head of the body chopped off. Besides the aforementioned 3 injuries, there was the fourth injury which is described as below: There was a penetrating wound by sharp-cutting weapon at mid-inguinal point 3? ? 1? which perforated the abdominal cavity and small intestine at ileocecal junction. Its exit was ½? ? ½? on right side of the back just above the ilcacrest. 4. It is maintained by the appellants that this injury could not have been caused by a firearm and, thus, the conflict. ? 1? which perforated the abdominal cavity and small intestine at ileocecal junction. Its exit was ½? ? ½? on right side of the back just above the ilcacrest. 4. It is maintained by the appellants that this injury could not have been caused by a firearm and, thus, the conflict. Therefore, it was contended that it would be right to urge that this was a blind murder and no one had seen the occurrence. It is noticeable that there was an exit wound being ½? ? ½? which meant that a projectile had entered the body of the deceased and had been observed to have caused its exit. Correspondingly, there had to be a wound of entry which apparently is not visible. Rather, we find that there was a penetrating wound by a sharp-cutting weapon of a particular dimension which perforated the abdominal cavity and small intestines at the ileocecal junction. The wound of entry was thus definitely there but its shape had been disfigured which did not fit in with the entry of a projectile fired from a firearm. As per the prosecution, this was the first injury which the deceased is said to have received whereafter when he lay flat on the ground, 4-5 accused, duly armed with weapons, got on him. That act of theirs could well have despoiled the outward shape and dimension of the injury, for it could well be that a sharp-pointed weapon may have landed on the wound of entry, reshaping it to be a penetrating wound. This was quite possible when about 14-15 persons were alleged to have participated in the crime. Each and every minute detail of the occurrence was not possible to be perceived or noticed by the prosecution witnesses. The eyewitnesses were certain that there had been a pistol fire on account of which the deceased had fallen on the ground. The alternate argument could well be that if it be treated not as a gunshot wound, the prosecution witness had only heard a shot and seen the simultaneous fall of the deceased, getting the impression that he had been hurt by a gunshot. But the truth could be otherwise. 5. The alternate argument could well be that if it be treated not as a gunshot wound, the prosecution witness had only heard a shot and seen the simultaneous fall of the deceased, getting the impression that he had been hurt by a gunshot. But the truth could be otherwise. 5. The prosecution version has also been suspected as untrue by the defence on the ground that the secret information received at the police station was to the effect that the Kurmis of the named village had killed another by means of firearm and other weapons. From this it is sought to be urged that the Investigating Officer had a preconceived notion that the deceased had been fired at and persistent as he was in his view, the prosecution witnesses have toed his line. It has also been urged that there was no effort by the eyewitnesses to lodge the FIR and it was falsely shown to have been recorded at the spot itself in order to strengthen the prosecution case. The argument is far-fetched. There is no reason to disbelieve PW 9. From the nature of the injury and the perceptions of PWs 5 and 8, we come to the conclusion that the courts below were right in treating the said injury to be a pistol shot injury even when one of the ends of the wound stood despoiled by superimposition by another blow. 6. That the complainant side belong to the weaker strata of the society, is beyond dispute. The accused were statedly belonging to a higher class being landlords. The complainant side were mere labourers and the only crime the deceased had committed was that sometime before the occurrence, the deceased had laid claim to increase of wages for working in the fields of the landlords. Thus, he had raised a class cause for men of his kind and the resistance came from the men in opposition. Hence, multiplication of numbers. 7. With regard to the delay in the special report being seen by the Magistrate, it is to be noticed that the post-mortem examination had been conducted by Dr. Ramesh Chandra Jha at 2 p.m. on 5-1-1980 and necessarily before that the inquest had been completed and despatched to the Magistrate. It is true that 5 days intervened before he had a look at it. Ramesh Chandra Jha at 2 p.m. on 5-1-1980 and necessarily before that the inquest had been completed and despatched to the Magistrate. It is true that 5 days intervened before he had a look at it. These facts have not been concealed by the prosecution but what happened in between, nobody had been able to tell, which had gone unchallenged. The High Court has considered these facts to be speaking for themselves and has taken the view that there was no delay in the despatch of the special report, especially when the foundation of the case stood laid well before the post-mortem examination was completed. We see no infirmity in the view taken by the High Court in this regard. 8. It has then been contended on behalf of Mohan Mahto, Fulkishun Mahto, Nilu Mahto and Shyam Bihari Mahto, appellants, that no overt act has been assigned to them during the course of the occurrence. When it comes to overt acts, as disclosed in the FIR, it turns out to be that while the rest of the accused had been ascribed certain overt acts, these four had not been assigned any specific role except to the effect that they were present when the occurrence took place. At the trial, however, PW 5 has stated that they too had participated in keeping at bay the PWs and putting them to terror. Be that as it may, even if the version as disclosed in the FIR is believed, their presence at the spot could not have been doubted as the dispute between the parties was polarised and class-based. The presence of these 4 appellants could thus not be doubted on the statements of PWs 5 and 8, as corroborated by the evidence of PW 1 to whom the details of the occurrence were told, there and then on her arrival. Likewise is available the corroborative evidence of PWs 2 and 3 who were told about the occurrence by PW 8 on arrival at the village. 9. Lastly, it was contended that the prosecution case as a whole should be discarded as the prosecution witnesses could not have identified the assailants who were in a sizeable number. It has been urged that there was a conscious effort by the prosecution to pre-time the occurrence so as to avoid the comment that the crime was committed in darkness. Lastly, it was contended that the prosecution case as a whole should be discarded as the prosecution witnesses could not have identified the assailants who were in a sizeable number. It has been urged that there was a conscious effort by the prosecution to pre-time the occurrence so as to avoid the comment that the crime was committed in darkness. The PWs have said that the occurrence took place at about 5.30 p.m. and that it was dark. There could never have been total darkness so as to make identification impossible. It is to be highlighted that all the accused persons belonged to the same village as that of the complainants. It was thus not difficult for familiar people to identify each other even in the twilight. The occurrence is, thus, proved to have taken place at the time suggested by PWs 5 and 8, corroborated as it is from the evidence of PW 1 who claims to have been working in her fields at the time when she heard the gunshot. She was not expected to have been working in the fields when it was pitch dark. Therefore, we are of the view that PWs 5 and 8 were capable of identifying the assailants. 10. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the considered view that the conviction of the appellants was well-based which would require no interference. 11. Accordingly, these appeals fail and are hereby dismissed.