MAITHLI SHARAN, J. This bail ap peal is directed against the judgment of con viction and sentence dated 13-6-1980 for the offences under Sections 302 read with 34, I. P. C. and 323 with 34,i. P. C. passed by the Sessions Judge, Sitapur in Sessions Trial No. 120 of 1979 against the accused-appel lant Badlu and his three sons, namely, Tulsi, Ganga Ram and Hem Raj; these four ac cused- appellants have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the of fence uner Section 302 read with 34 and for a period of one year R. I. each for the offence under Section 323 read with 34,i. P. C. It is pertinent to note here that one of the con victed and sentenced four accused-appel lants, namely, Badlu has died during the pendency of this appeal, hence his appeal has abated. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, runs thus: One Bhagant had four sons, namely, Moti Lal, Badlu (accused), Raghubar and Jia Lal alias Jilal. Moti Lal had died about 35 years back while Bhagant died after the death of Moti Lal. The agricultural land measuring about 56 Bighas was in the name of Bhagant and his sons Raghubar, accused Badlu and complainant Jia Lal had posses sion over it. According to the prosecution Bhagant had got the land leased out in the name of Badlu. Further, the prosecution case is that there had been some dispute between these brothers, namely, accused Badlu, Raghubar and Jia Lal in respect of the consolidation of holding going on in regard of the agricultural land, and at the time of the incident in question the appeal was pending in the Court of Deputy Direc tor of Consolidation. 3. According to the prosecution, on the date of the incident, i. e. , 10-11-1977 at about 11 a. m. complainant Jia Lal (P. W. 1), his son Maiku and wife Ram Rati had gone to the field for sowing Gojai crop; Raghubar (deceased) and his daughter Smt. Ganga Dei (P. W. 6) had also gone to sow Gojai crop; the field of Raghubar was on the east ern side of the field of complainant Jia Lal; field of accused- appellant was also situated towards the east and south of the field of Jia Lai; complainant Jia Lal and Raghubar (deceased) were ploughing their field while Jia Lais wife and Smt. . Ganga Dei, daughter of deceased Raghubar were sowing the field, Jia Lais son Maiku was digging corners of the field. Meanwhile accused-appellant Badlu and his sons Tulsi, Ganga Ram and Mem Raj reached over there and challenged to deal with Jia Lal, Raghubar and others; they were armed with Kantas and Lathis; accused persons Tulsi and Hem Raj were armed with Kantas, while Badlu and Ganga Ram were armed with Lathis. All these four accused-appellants, after giving challenge to deal with Raghubar and others, started atatacking with their weapons upon Raghubar. Complainant Jia Lal (P. W. 1), Ganga Dei (P. W 6) and Maiku made hue and cry and rushed for help; then accused-appellant Badlu attacked Jia Lal (P. W. 1 ). with Lathi blow and caused injuries in his hand; Smt. Ganga Dei (P. W. 6) was attacked by accused- appellant Ganga Ram with Lathi and she also sustained injuries on her person. These victims raised alarm and then persons present near by, namely, Ram Bilas (P. W. 4), Rameshwar (P. W. 5), Mewa Lal, Chhedi Lal, Nokhey and others reached over there and they shouted, then the ac cused persons ran away and made good their escape. Raghubar had sustained multiple Kama and Lathi injuries and he succumbed to those injuries on the spot itself. 4. According to the prosecution the complainant, Jia Lal (P. W 1) went to the Police-Station alongwith Bhakher Chaukidar and one Ram Kishan and lodged the first information report (Ext. Ka 1) at 4. 30 p. m. , it was written by Head Constable Jwala Prasad. He sent the report to the Sta tion House Officer Gopal Singh (P. W. 9) through Constable Lallu Singh (P. W. 8 ). The Investigating Officer Gopal Singh (P. W. 9) reached the village Bhikhnapur and started the investigation in the case. He found that the deadbody of Raghubar was lying in the latters field. He prepared the inquest report (Ext. Ka-6) and sent the deadbody for post-mortem examination to the hospital. He also recorded the statement of the wit nesses and sent the injured Ganga Dei (P. W. 6) for her medical examination; the com plainant Jia Lal (P. W. 1) had already been sent for his medical examination. Their medical examinations were done. The autopsy on the deadbody of Raghubar was done by Dr. He also recorded the statement of the wit nesses and sent the injured Ganga Dei (P. W. 6) for her medical examination; the com plainant Jia Lal (P. W. 1) had already been sent for his medical examination. Their medical examinations were done. The autopsy on the deadbody of Raghubar was done by Dr. Gopalji Ojha (P. W. 2) who found nine injuries on his person, out of which eight were incised wounds and one was contusion. According to him the death of Raghubar was caused due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries. Post- mortem report is (Ext. Ka-2 ). The injuries on the persons of complainant Jia Lal (P. W. 1) and Ganga Dei (P. W 6) were found to have been caused by blunt object; they were simple in nature. The Investigat ing Officer had also seized and sealed the simple and bloodstained earth from the place of occurrence. He also prepared "site-plan (Ext. Ka-11 ). After completing inves tigation in the case the Investigating Of ficer, Gopal Singh (P. W. 9) submitted the charge-sheet in the Court. 5. Charges for the offence under Sec tions 302 read with 34,i. P. C. and 323 read with 34,i. P. C. were framed against the ac cused persons. They were read over and explained to them; they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. According to them they had been falsely implicated due to en mity. 6. To prove its case the prosecution examined nine witnesses, out of whom three witnesses, namely, Jwala Prasad- (P. W. 7), Lallu Singh (P. W 8) and Gopal Singh (P. W. 9) are police witnesses, the last witness Gopal Singh (P. W. 9) is the Investigating Officer. Dr. A. K. Srivastava (P. W. 3) ex amined the injured complainant Jia Lal while Gopal Ji Ojha (P. W. 2) had conducted the autopsy on the deadbody of Raghubar. The rest of the witnesses, namely, Jia Lal (P. W. 1), the complainant, Smt. Ganga Dei (P. W. 6), the daughter of deceased Raghubar, Ram Bilas (P. W. 4) and Ramesh-war (P. W. 5) are the eye-witnesses, the letter two reached the spot on hearing the alarm raised by Jia Lal, Smt. Ganga Dei and others. Thus, these four witnesses are the eye-witnesses and naturally they are impor tant ones. Thus, these four witnesses are the eye-witnesses and naturally they are impor tant ones. Learned Sessions Judge, on the basis of the evidence adduced from the side of the prosecution, came to the conclusion that the prosecution had been successful in bringing horn the guilt of the accused per sons, they had been charged with, and, thus, he convicted and sentenced them as aforesaid. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge accused persons have preferred this appeal. As already ob served above, the accused-appellant Badlu had died and hence his appeal has abated. 7. We have heared Sri J. S. Tbmar (amicus curiae) and the Government Advo cate at length. The main thrust of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the accused persons had been falsely implicated due to enmity and that there had occurred material contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses which were ig nored by the learned Sessions Judge, and hence the judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge could not be sustained. We are afraid, on the basis of material available on record which would be discussed hereafter, we are unable to agree with the argument of the learned counsel. 8. Jia Lal (P. W. 1), the complainant has unfolded the incident in question and has deposed that at the opportune time he was in his field while his brother deceased Raghubar was in his field by the side of formers field. According to him accused Eersons were closely related to him, being is family members, as accused- appellant Badlu was his own real brother. Accused-appellants reached over there and shouted that they would now deal with them. Ac cused Badlu and Ganga Ram were having Lathis in their hands while accused Tulsi and Ram Raj had Kanta with them. All the four accused persons attacked Raghubar and when complainant Jia Lal (P. W. 1) and Raghubars daughter Smt. Ganga Dei (P. W. 6) rushed to save him they were also attack ed by Lathis as a consequence of which they also sustained injuries on their person. On their making hue and cry and snouting for help some persons present in their fields reached over there and saw accused persons hitting Raghubar. On these persons shout ing the accused-appellants fled away. On their making hue and cry and snouting for help some persons present in their fields reached over there and saw accused persons hitting Raghubar. On these persons shout ing the accused-appellants fled away. Raghubar was severely injured that he suc cumbed to the injuries and died on the spot itself in his field. Smt. Ganga Dei (P. W. 6), daughter of deceased Raghubar deposed likewise. The evidence of Jia Lal (RW 1) and Ganga Dei (P. W. 6) is so clinching on material particulars that there remains no doubt to disbelieve them. Smt. Ganga Dei is the real daughter of the deceased Raghubar id naturally she could not be expected to ipare real culprit and implicate her in nocent uncle accused Badlu and her three cousin brothers, namely, accused Tulsi, Ganga Ram and Hem Raj who are sons of Badlu. Though Smt. Ganga Dei (P. W. 6) is, married daughter of deceased Raghubar, yet her presence on the spot could not be said to be surprising because she had come to her father s house. The learned counsel for the appellants has argued that Smt. Ganga Dei was a chance witness and her presence at the place of incident was doubtful because her name does not find place in the F. I. R. (Ext. Ka- 4 ). We are afraid, only on this count her presence could not be doubted because, firstly, the first information report is not encyclopaedia of the whole of the prosecu tion story and, secondly, complainant Jia Lals (P. W. 1) statment could not be brushed aside. Besides, the evidence of the other two independent witnesses, namely, Ram Bilas (P. W 4) and Rameshwar (P. W. 5) also indi cates the presence of Smt. Ganga Dei (P. W. 6) at the place of occurrence at the oppor tune time. 9. Ram Bilas (P. W. 4) has deposed that he, at the opportune time, was present in his field at a distance of about 80 paces when he heard the shouting voice of accused-appel lant Badlu in challenging words that he would finish all. the troubles that very day. P. W. 4 further deposed that accused persons Badlu, lulsi, Hem Raj and Ganga Ram were attacking Raghubar; accused Hem Raj and Tulsi were hitting by Kanta while accused Ganga Ram and Badlu were hitting by Lathis. the troubles that very day. P. W. 4 further deposed that accused persons Badlu, lulsi, Hem Raj and Ganga Ram were attacking Raghubar; accused Hem Raj and Tulsi were hitting by Kanta while accused Ganga Ram and Badlu were hitting by Lathis. He had also seen Smt. Ganga Dei (P. W. 6) and Jia Lal (P. W. 1) and latters wife Smt. Ram Rati and his son Maiku there on the field and they had rushed to save Raghubar. He has also specifically deposed that Ganga Ram and Badlu accused persons had caused Lathi injuries on the persons of Jia Lal (P. W. 1) and Ganga Dei (P. W. 6 ). He further deposed that Rameshwar (P. W. 5) and Nokhey had also reached and when they all shouted accused persons fled away. Similarly, Rameshwar (P. W 5) has also deposed that at the opportune time he was sowing his field which he had taken on Batai, and when he heard the noise he reached over there and saw that the accused persons, namely, Tulsi, Hem Raj, Ganga Ram and Badlu were attacking Raghubar. Tulsi and Hem Raj were hitting by Kanta while Badlu and Ganga Ram were hitting by Lathi. He also deposed that Ram Bilas (P. W. 1) and Chhedi Lal also reached over there. He further deposed that when Jia Lal (P. W. 1) and Smt. Ganga Dei (P. W. 6) rushed to save Raghubar, they were attacked by Lathis by the accused persons. When all these per sons shouted, then the accused persons fled away. In the cross-examination of these in dependent eye-witnesses, namely, Ram Bilas (P. W. 4) and Rameshwar (P. W. 5) noth ing could be elicited which could have indi cated some falsity in their deposition. The minor discrepancies occurring here and there certainly, could not be said to destroy and shatter the fine fabric of the eye-wit nesses account given by complainant Jia Lal (P. W 1) and Smt. Ganga Dei (P. W 6) who are directly related with blood with deceased and also with accused persons, as well as eye- witnesses account given by the independent witnesses, namely, Ram Bilas (P. W. 4) and Rameshwar (P. W. 5 ). 10. The incident in question is alleged to have occurred at 11 a. m. while the first information report was lodged at 4. 10. The incident in question is alleged to have occurred at 11 a. m. while the first information report was lodged at 4. 30 p. m. the same day at the Police-Station Sandhana situated at a distance of about 13 miles, thus, it is also a prompt report, lodged by none other than Jia Lal (P. W. 1), the brother of deceased Raghubar and the accused Badlu. Therefore, this report also lends corroboration to the prosecution evidence discussed above. Though, as observed above, the name of Smt. Ganga Dei does not find place in the F. I. R. (Ext. Ka 1), yet her presence is clearly lurking in the statements of Jia Lal (P. W. 1) and independent witnesses, Ram Bilas (P. W. 4) and Rameshwar (P. W. 5 ). Be sides, she was also injured by the accused persons with Lathis, hence she was also got medically examined and genuiness of her medical report (Ext. Ka-14) has already been admitted from the side of the accused persons, meaning thereby that her presence could not be doubted. 11. The medical evidence comprising of post-mortem report (Ext. Ka-2) showing as many as eight incised wounds on the per son of deceased Raghubar also goes to sup port the eye-witness account given by Jia Lal (P. W. 1), Smt. Ganga Dei (P. W. 6) and inde pendent witnesses, namely, Ram Bilas (P. W. 4) and Rameshwar (P. W 5 ). The injury report (Ext. Ka-3) of the complainant Jia Lal (P. W. 1) further goes to lend support to the prosecution case that he was also attack ed and injured by the accused persons with Lathi blows. 12. Consequently, in view of the above discussion we are of the opinioin that the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge does not call for any interference. Therefore, this appeal is dismissed and the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge is upheld. Appeal dismissed. .