JUDGMENT : P.K. Mohanty, J. - This is an appeal against the order of conviction under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence thereunder passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur. 2. The short facts of the prosecution case are that there was group rivalry and enmity between the two fractions of village Sidhanai. One group was led by one Kasinath Bisoi and the accused persons belong to the other fraction. It is stated that the accused persons were almost boycotted by the villagers. Criminal proceedings had continued between the parties for several years. In the year 1976 Radhasyam Patra, the son of the deceased murdered one Tumbeswar Bisoi, son of Udhab Bisoi and brother of accused Bhajaram Bisoi. In the year 1984 when Radhasyam Patra was attending a feast at the house of Bhuban Bisoi, accused Bhajaram Bisoi assaulted him. Bhajaram Bisoi and Radhasyam Patra were arrested. On 18.4.1991 Rajendra Patra son of the deceased chased Bhajaram Bisoi near Aska Bus Stand to assault him. On 20.4.1991 Rajendra Patra was waiting to assault Bhajaram Bisoi on his way to village Jagabandhu and when it was noticed by Bhajaram he ran away. The incidents of 18th and 20th April, 1991 were reported at Aska Police Station, which have been entered in the Station Diary Entry Nos. 503, 518 and 520. On 21.4.1991, accused Krushna Bisoi cautioned deceased to take care of his son Rajendra and there was altercations and assault by Krushna to the deceased. 3. On 21.4.1991 at about 9 p.m. when Hari Patra was sleeping after his dinner on the verandah of his 'basaghar' (granary), close to his residential house, his grand-son also came and slept along with him. It is stated that some time thereafter his wife Gurubari came after finishing the household works and after massaging legs of her husband she also slept there. The accused persons along with one Sania Bisoi came shouting, first at the residential house of the deceased and noticing the house under lock, rebuked the deceased in obscene language and came to the 'basaghar'. Accused Krushna was armed with an axe, Ramesh with a big axe, Bhajaram with a sword and accused Kalia was armed with a 'thenga'. The accused persons along with one Sania Bisoi came shouting, first at the residential house of the deceased and noticing the house under lock, rebuked the deceased in obscene language and came to the 'basaghar'. Accused Krushna was armed with an axe, Ramesh with a big axe, Bhajaram with a sword and accused Kalia was armed with a 'thenga'. First accused Krushna pointed to the other accused where the deceased was sleeping and directed his follower to kill him and he First dealt a blow with the axe to the right leg followed by the blow of sword given by accused Bhajaram on the forehand and then accused Ramesh gave an axe blow to the head of the deceased and Kalia gave a "thenga' blow on the chest. On the protest of Gurubari she was assaulted by Krushna with the blunt side of the axe on her buttock and Prafulla was threatened not to intervene. After the above blows Krushna gave out that the deceased has already expired and directed his followers to leave the spot and they all together left the spot. 4. It is the prosecution case that immediately after the incidents Gurubari narrated the same before Kasinath Bisoi. But before that, one Prahallad Swain had intimated Kasinath Bisoi about the assault on the deceased by Krushna and others. Kasinath along with Gadadhar Padhi, Ulla Bisoi and Dandapani Swain went to the first floor of his house to see the incident. The house of the accused Bhajaram Bisoi was to the back of his house and he could see Krushna Swain armed with a 'tangia' while Bhajram, Kalia and Ramesh were also there. Accused Krushna was giving out that his twelve years 'Tapasya' (effort) have beer fulfilled on that day and that he has murdered the deceased. Hearing this, Kasinath got panic and got down from the first floor and by that time Gurubari reached near his house and reported that her husband has been murdered by Krushna Swain with an axe accompanied by Bhsyaram, Kalia and Ramesh Bisoi. Kasinath Bisoi came to the house of Gurubari and found the deceased was severely injured at his head, hand, leg and was lying in pool of blood being dead. Kasinath Bisoi came to the house of Gurubari and found the deceased was severely injured at his head, hand, leg and was lying in pool of blood being dead. Due to fear of the accused persons, Kasinath could not dare to come during the night to the Aska Police Station which was about 12 kilometers away and in the early morning of 22.4.1991 at about 4 A.M. he came to the Aska Police Station and lodged the oral report, which was reduced to writing. A case under Sections 302/34 I.P.C. was registered and investigation was taken up. The I.O. visited the spot, seized bloodstained earth and sample earth, One tangia from the house of accused Ramesh Bisoi, one lungi and one napkin from the house of accused Kalia having stains with blood and searched the house of the accused persons, but they were absconding. The I.O. sent the dead-body for post mortem examination, seized the wearing apparels of the deceased, seized two blood-stained swords from the homestead land of Madhab Swain, sent injured Gurubari for examination and obtained her injury report. He made query to the medical officer, who conducted the inquest over the dead-body. The weapon offence and the wearing apparels were sent for chemical examination which disclosed that the weapon of the offence like 'thenga' and kati' were having stains of human blood. After completion of the investigation charge-sheet was submitted against the accused persons including Sania Bisoi. The prosecution has examined 9 witnesses. 5. The plea of the accused persons is one of denial and in the accused statement a plea of a alibi has been taken by accused Bhajaram. According to him, since last 16 years he is staying at Jhadabandh and has never gone to Sidhanai during these sixteen Tears. Accused Ramesh has specifically stated that the complainant Kasinath Bisoi misappropriated the village fund and therefore he as ousted by the villagers from the management and therefore the case has been foisted against all of them. 6. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge on consideration of the materials on record and the evidence adduced by the prosecution has returned a verdict of guilt against the accused persons and has sentenced the accused persons to undergo life imprisonment. 7. 6. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge on consideration of the materials on record and the evidence adduced by the prosecution has returned a verdict of guilt against the accused persons and has sentenced the accused persons to undergo life imprisonment. 7. The main plank of the argument of the learned counsel or the appellants is that the F.I.R. lodged by P.W.6 does not disclose about the weapon of offence held by the accused persons, inasmuch as excepting the names of Krushna Swain and Senia no other names have been specifically mentioned and therefore the learned trial Court ought to have considered this aspect of the case in reaching at his conclusion and that having not been done the entire judgment is vitiated. It is further submitted that the other independent witnesses like Mangulu, Ananda having not been examined by the prosecution, an adverse inference should have been drawn against the prosecution case. It is submitted that P.W.2 in his cross-examination having stated that he has not told about the incident before Kasinath or before the arrival of the appellant, the learned trial Court could not have observed that P.W.2 has narrated the incident to Kasinath, P.W.6 who is the informant. P.Ws.3 and 4 have not stated before the I.O. about the burning of the electric bulb in the wall of Hadu Sahu, neighbour of the deceased, through which the accused persons were alleged to have been seen and identified. The presence of P.Ws.1 and 2 on the verandah where the incident took place having not been stated the evidence of these witnesses ought not to have been relied on. The learned counsel further submits that in view of the evidence of the I.O. that there was sprouting of blood which touched up to a height of 7' of the wall and also there was a pool of blood and foot prints of persons who are likely to be there and in view of the evidence of the doctor that if person will be nearby they will also have sprouting of blood in their wearing apparels and no blood having been found on the garments of P.Ws.1 and 2 who are said to be present during the occurrence, the learned trial Court ought to have doubted the evidence of these witnesses and discarded the same. It is submitted that from the station Diary entry No. 518 of 21.4.91 it should have been found that Bhajaram was not present at village Sidhanai and was residing in village Jhadabandh for last 15/16 years and in view of the statement of P.W. 1 that accused Bhajaram is residing at village Jhadabandh, the learned trial Court was to believe the plea of alibi of accused Bhajaram. The learned counsel emphatically submits that the receipt of the F.I.R. in Court after a weak of the occurrence is a good ground for the learned trial Court to doubt the genesis of the F.I.R. and as such the learned trial Court ought to have disbelieved the prosecution case on that count alone. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the admitted enmity between the appellants and P.Ws. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 the evidence of prosecution witnesses ought to have been scrutinised with utmost area and caution. 8. Now coming to the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants with regard to the non-disclosure of the weapon of offence held by the accused persons and non-mention of some of the names of the assailants in the F.I.R., it is to be noted that the informant, P.W.6 is a neighbour of the deceased as well as some of the accused persons. In the F.I.R. the informant- P.W. 6 has stated that on Sunday at about 9 p.m. soon after he finished his dinner, Prahalad Swain informed him that Hari Patra has been killed by Krushna Swain and at that point of time Gadadhar Padhi, Ulla Bisoi and Dandapani Swain were present in his house. All of them went to the first floor of his house and saw Sania Bisoi, Krushna Swain each holding a tangia. Bhajaram Bisoi, Kalia Bisoi and Ramesh Bisoi were also present and of them Krushna Swain and Sania Bisoi raising their tangia were giving out that their 12 years 'Tapasya' has become success. Thereafter they returned to the aforesaid front side of the house and at that time Gurubari Patra, widow of the deceased, Hari Patra came and reported that her husband has been killed. On being questioned, she told Krushna Swain and Sania Bisoi assaulted her husband in tangia and with them were Bhajaram Bisoi, Kalia Bisoi and Ramesh Bisoi. Thereafter they returned to the aforesaid front side of the house and at that time Gurubari Patra, widow of the deceased, Hari Patra came and reported that her husband has been killed. On being questioned, she told Krushna Swain and Sania Bisoi assaulted her husband in tangia and with them were Bhajaram Bisoi, Kalia Bisoi and Ramesh Bisoi. In his deposition in Court this witness P.W.6, however, has stated that he found in front of the house of accused Bhajaram 4 accused persons and one Sania were present and out of them accused Krushna was armed with a tangia, accused Bhajaram with Kati, accused Ramesh with big axe and accused Kalia with Thenga and all of em told that they will kill Hari Patra. This detail was not nar-ated by this P.W.6 in the F.I.R.. It is settled principle of law that the F.I.R. need not contain every minute detail nor it is a ncyclopaedia of a prosecution version. However, this witness has stated that accused Krushna Swain and Sania Bisoi were armed with weapons and others were also present without narrating the details of the arms held by them. This witness P.W.6 is not an eye witness to the occurrence. He moved to the first floor of his house along with other witnesses on being reported of the occurrence and saw the accused persons present whereafter the widow of the deceased reported in details the incident. The Apex Court in Darshan Singh and others v. State of Punjab and Jogendra Singh and others v. State of Punjab. AIR 1983 B.C. 554 held, that the fact that the names of some accused are not mentioned in the F.I.R. is a circumstance which the prosecution has to explain, though no rule of law stipulates that an accused whose name is not mentioned in the F.I.R. is entitled to an acquittal. In that case the informant was on eye witness to the occurrence itself and in that circumstance it was held that non-mentioning of the names should be viewed with suspicion but that is no ground of an acquittal of the accused whose name has not been mentioned in the F.I.R.. In that view of the matter, the submission of the learned counsel is of no substance. 9. In that view of the matter, the submission of the learned counsel is of no substance. 9. Coming to the next question as to the non-examination of the independent witnesses like Mangul Behera and Ananda Padhi for which the learned counsel for the appellant invites the attention of the Court to draw an adverse inference it is to be noted that as many as 28 independent witnesses were examined in this case including Gandu, Mangulu and Anand by the I.O. But the prosecution did not choose to examine them. Prosecution is not bound to examine each and every witness cited in the charge-sheet. The prosecution is to prove its case through the available witnesses who, according to the prosecution, are reliable. The Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court consistently have held that the prosecution is not bound to examine all the witnesses. The learned trial Judge has also considered this aspect with reference to some reported judgments and has held that in the facts and circumstances of the case non-examination of these witnesses would not cause any prejudice to the accused. It has also been observed that the accused persons were boycotted by the villagers and not a single witness is available for them and in that view of the matter, multiplying the number of witnesses to prove the prosecution story is not required under law. The prosecution is to prove its case by the quality of its evidence and not by the quantity thereof. 10. In that view of the matter, we see no reason to differ from the findings recorded by the trial Court on proper appreciation of evidence on record. The appeal is without any substance and hence dismissed. The order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Judge is confirmed. P.C. Naik, J. - I agree. Final Result : Dismissed