JUDGMENT Dipak Misra, J. 1. Legality of conviction for commission of offences punishable under Section 148, 302 and 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the IPC) and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for two years on first count and life imprisonment on each count for the rest two offences imposed in Sessions Trial No. 79/88 by the learned Sessions Judge, Raigarh is the subject-matter of challenge in these batch of appeals by the five appellant who were found guilty by the learned trial Judge and sentenced as aforesaid. 2. Accusations which laid to the trial and conviction of the accused persons essentially are as follows :- Deceased Sukhram alognwith his wife Nahrinbai was residing in a hut situate in a close proximity to a canal in the village Barapali. His main source of livelihood was agriculture. His grown-up sons with their families were residing separately in village Barapali. On 31.3.88 at aboput 9 p. m. the accused persons came armed with axes and 'lathis' and entered inside the hut of the deceased, dragged him outside, and assaulted him. The wife of the deceased attempted to obstruct them but her efforts became an exercise in futility as the accused persons tried to assault her for which she had to run away from the place of occurrence to save her life. As the allegations proceed she informed Janardan, her immediate nieghbour. Janardan alongwith another reached the hut of the deceased and found Sukhram lying dead outside the hut. Later on the sons of the deceased, namely, Deshiram, Rajaram and Balram arrived at the spot. Their mother told them about the assault by the accused persons. Dashiram reported the matter under Ex. P-1 to the concerned Officer-in-Charge of the Police Station. After the criminal auction was set in motion the police arrived at the spot, did 'panchnama' of the dead body and got the postmortem conducted. In course of investigation investigating agency seized certain weapons and blood stained earth from the spot. The deceased persons were apprehended on 1.4.88. While in police custory they also led to discovery of the certain weapons used in the occurrence; their clothes were seized by the investigating officer and sent for forensic examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory of Sagar. On completing other formalities charge-sheet was placed before the competent court which in turn committed the matter to the Court of Sessions, Raigarh. 3. On completing other formalities charge-sheet was placed before the competent court which in turn committed the matter to the Court of Sessions, Raigarh. 3. The plea of the defence was one of complete denial and false implication. 4. In furtherance of its case the prosecution examined 10 witnesses. PW-1, Deshiram, is the son of the deceased who had lodged the FIR, PW-2, Nahrinbai is the wife of the deceased, P-3 Janardan who had arrived at the spot after being called by the wife of the deceased; PW-4 is Rajaram the son of the deceased; PW-5 is Jarmansai, P. Ws. 5, 6, 7 & 8 are formal witnesses; PW-9 is J. D. Singh who conducted the investigation and PW-10 in Dr. K. D. Dubey, who had conducted the autopsy. A part the oral evidence number of documents were marked as exhibits on behalf of prosecution. The defence chose not to adduce any evidence. 5. Learned trial Judge, on consideration of oral and documentary evidence on record came to hold that the death of the deceased was homicidal; the accused persons had assaulted the deceased who succumbed to the injuries because of the grievous assault; the prosecution had proved the guilt of the accused to the hilt; and there was no reason to discredit the testimony of the wife who was the eye-witness to the occurrence. Being of this view the learned Sessions Judge found the accused persons guilty of the offences and sentenced them as has been indicated hereinbefore. 6. Challenging the aforesaid conclusions Smt. Sarita Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the learned trial Judge has fallen into error by relying on the testimony of the wife of the deceased, the sole eye-witness, though her testimony is replote with inaccuracies, irreconcilable discrepancies and incurable contradictions. She has further highlighted that the said witness could not have identified the accused persons in a drak night and her conduct in not raising the alram when her husband was assaulted speaks eloquently to attract impeachability to her version. It is her submission that the conduct of PW-2 is not free from doubt and on close scrutiny of the meterials on record it become perceivable that she came forward with a version which has no semblance of truth. It is her submission that the conduct of PW-2 is not free from doubt and on close scrutiny of the meterials on record it become perceivable that she came forward with a version which has no semblance of truth. Learned counsel has also canvassed that the evidence with regard to assault does riot get corroboration form the medical evidence and, therefore, the whole prosecution story has to be discredited. She has also built-up an argument that there is total absence of evidence in regard to motive and therefore the accused persons should not have been found guilty for the alleged offences. Mr. P. D. Gupta, learned Government Advocate, countering the aforesaid submissions, has urged that the wife of the deceased has graphically described the incident and in absence of any material to indicate that she has no axe to grind against the accused persons, there is no justification to discard her testimony, in view of the fact, a wife ordinarily does not have the propensity to rope in persons not connected with the assault of her husband leaving the real a(sic)ants to get away scot free. Learned counsel for the State has also submitted that the oral testimony of the witness has gained ample corroboration from the medical evidence and the plea that there is no corresponding injury is untenable. 7. To appreciate the rival submissions raised at the Bar, we have carefully perused the impugned judgment and scrutinised the oral and documentary evidence on record with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. We find from the evidence of PW-10, Dr. K. D. Dubey that he had found number of injuries on the body of the deceased and the injuries had been caused within 24 hours from the time of examination. Under Ex. P-5 he has clearly mentioned the death was homicidal in nature and the deceased had died because of injuries on the vital parts of the body, namely, brain, heart, lung and liver. He has also deposed that the injuries could have been caused by means of the axe and 'lathi'. He had opined so after examining the weapons used for assault and his opinion finds place under Exhibits P-27 to P35. He has also deposed that the injuries could have been caused by means of the axe and 'lathi'. He had opined so after examining the weapons used for assault and his opinion finds place under Exhibits P-27 to P35. On the scrutiny of the medical evidence there remains no doubt in our mind that the death was homicidal in nature and the injuries, which are mentioned, could have been caused by the weapons which have been stated to have been used. 8. The question that falls for determination is whether the prosecution has proved the involvement of the accused persons in the crime in question. The sole eye-witness to the occurrences is the wife of the deceased. PW-2, Smt. Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellants was seriously criticized the version of this witness on the ground that her conduct runs countrary to normed human nature and for some reasons or the other she has roped in the present accused persons. Her first ground of assailment is that there was not enough light in the room or outside in which she could identify the accused persons. On careful scanning of the evidence of this Star witness we notice that she has deposed that at about 9 p. m. her husband was sleeping in the hut and she, in order to save her from cold, was warming herself from the fire-pot. At that juncture the accused persons entered inside. As stated by her accused Sonsai and Karamsai were armed with axes and other three accused persons were armed with 'lathis'. The accused persons dragged her husband Sukhram and took him outside and assaulted. All her protest went in vain. In fact, they chased her for which she had to rush for her life. She informed about the incident to Janardan, PW-3. Thereafter, Janardan alongwith Jadvan came to the spot and found Sukhram dead. The sons of the deceased arrived thereafter, and the matter was reported to the Police. Submission of Smt. Tiwari is that there is no evidence that the hut was lighted, and in absence of light the wife of the deceased could not have idenitified the accused persons. On a perusal of the evidence of the said witness we find that the accused persons were quite well-known to the family of the deceased. There is evidence that the coal was burning in the room and there was some light. On a perusal of the evidence of the said witness we find that the accused persons were quite well-known to the family of the deceased. There is evidence that the coal was burning in the room and there was some light. Except the suggestion that there was darkness outside there is no suggestion that the said witness could not have identified the accused nor there is any suggestion that there was no such of darkness in the room that even a known face could not have been identified. In a similar situation the Apex Court in the case of Krishnan and another Vs. State of Kerala 1996 Cr. P. C. 4444, held as follows:- So for as the contention of the insufficient light is concerned, we may indicate that in an open field on a cloudless starry night, there was no difficulty in identifying a known person from a close distance. That apart, it should be kept in mind that there was no difficulty in identifying the victim by the assailants because of existence of some light with which identification was possible. PW-1 being close relation of both the accused, there was no difficulty for the PW-1 to identify them. The accused were also knwon to the other witness for which he could also identify them. We would hesten to add that a villager is accustomed to seeing things in a different atmosphere that the urban people. A villager may be able to see certain things in the light-shed by the lantern and his visibility is not diminished. In that regard we may refer to a decision rendered in the case of Machhi Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab A. I. R. 1983 S.C. 957, wherein their Lordships expressed thus :- The villagers living in villages where electricity has not reahced as yet, get accustomed to seeing things in the light-shed by the lantern. Their eyesinght gets conditioned and becomes accustomed to the situation. Their powers of seeing are therefore, not diminished by the circumstance that the incident is witnessed in the light shed by the lantern and electric light. Recently reiterating the same view their Lordship of the Apex Court in the case of Kalika Tiwari and others Vs. Their eyesinght gets conditioned and becomes accustomed to the situation. Their powers of seeing are therefore, not diminished by the circumstance that the incident is witnessed in the light shed by the lantern and electric light. Recently reiterating the same view their Lordship of the Apex Court in the case of Kalika Tiwari and others Vs. Uma Shankar Ral arid others A. I. R. 1997 S. C. 2186, observed as follows:- The visibility capacity of urban people who are acclimatized to Fluorescent lights of incandescent lamps is not the standard to be applied to villagers whose optical potency is attuned to country-made lamps. Their visibility is conditioned to such lights and hence it would be quite possible for them to identify men and matters in such light. Applying the aforesaid parameters and fining that the hut being small and there being some light in it and the accused persons being well-known to the witness, we are not impressed by the submission of Smt. Tiwari that the wife of the deceased could not have identified the accused persons. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants has urged with vehemence that the conduct of this witness belies her testimony and it is against the dictates of wisdom to rely on her. To buttress her submission she has taken us through certain parts of the evidence of this witness to emphasize that she has not raised alram when the assault had taken place; she had sought help from Janardan but not form his sons who have their houses nearby; and she was not assaulted by the accused persons and allowed to leave the place. Learned counsel has also highlighted that the said witness had admitted that she had never asked the wife and children of the accused persons the reason of their assault on her husband. Though the scrutiny and scanning of the evidence by the learned counsel appears quite attractive but in effect, does not penstrate into the core of the testimony of the said witness. Her hot raising alram cannot be taken exception to as the presence of the accused persons in her humble hut was quite menacing. The reaction of every individual to a situation is different. Some shout, some raised alarm, some faint, some loose the power of speech and some get overwhlemed and loose their reasoning power and yet some gather coverage and rotaliate. To each is his own. The reaction of every individual to a situation is different. Some shout, some raised alarm, some faint, some loose the power of speech and some get overwhlemed and loose their reasoning power and yet some gather coverage and rotaliate. To each is his own. As a feable, helpness and old lady she protected but her attempt to save her husband became exercise in otiosity. That apart, immediately she rushed to the hosue of Janardan as his house situates in close proximity and her seeking help from Janardan and not from her sons who were at a distance compared to that of Janardan cannot be regarded as a factor to discredit her otherwise unimpeachable testimony. The further ground of attack is that she has stated in her evidence that while she ran towards the house of Janardan, the five accused persons chased him but could not reach her which makes her version ex-facie unbelievable. It is to be borne in mind that the target to the accused persons was Sukhram and once they had seen the wife of the deceased at a safe distance there was no reason to chase her further. In any case, such a statement, in our opinion does not effect the heart of her testimony. On a perusal of her testimony we find that the same cannot be branded as untrustworthy of credence. She has stood embedded in spite of searching cross-examination by the defense. We are inclined to hold that her evidence is free from material omissions and contradictions and, in fact, is consistent. Learned counsel for the appellants has laboured hard to convince us that the evidence of the sole witness should be discarded as there is exhibition of enthusiasm to rope in the present appellants. To elaborate, she has stressed on the alleged identification of the appellants in absence of light, the naming of the accused persons in the FIR and mention of names of other persons and to her sons to establish that there creates a grave doubt. While appreciating the submission of Smt. Tiwari we observe that there is no suggestion in the cross-examination nor any plea has been taken by any of the accused persons to allege any kind of motive on the part of Nahrinbai to implicate the accused persons. While appreciating the submission of Smt. Tiwari we observe that there is no suggestion in the cross-examination nor any plea has been taken by any of the accused persons to allege any kind of motive on the part of Nahrinbai to implicate the accused persons. On the contrary, we find that she is a rustic lady and watching her demeanour the learned trial Judge has placed reliance on her. We have already held that her version is consistent. There is no justification on her part to get the present appellants punished. She being a wife, it is expected that she would try her level best to book the real culprits to face the charge and not implicate strangers for nothing. In course of hearing, Smt. Tiwari submtted that possibly there was a third angle to the relationship and Janardan is the third pillar and, therefore, after causing death of the deceased they implicted the five accused persons. The submission (sic) be noted to be rejected as there is total lack of foundation for preponem(sic) of such a theory. 10. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants has contended that the prosecution has not brought any evidence to establish the existence of intention on the part of the accused persons to eliminate the deceased. It is well settled that when the evidence of the witnesses are clear and cogent and prove the prosecution came to the hilt, question of active or intention is immaterial. In this regard we may refer to the decision rendered in the case of Molu Vs. State of Haryana A. I. R. 1976 S. C. 2489, wherein, it has been held as follows:- It is well settled that where the direct evidence regarding the assault is worthy of credence and can be believed, the question of motive becomes more or less academic. Sometimes the motive is clear and can be proved and sometimes however, the motive is shrouded in the mystery and it is very difficult to locate the same. If however the evidence of eye-witnesses is creditworthy and is believed by the Court which has placed implicit reliance on them, the question whether there is any motive or not becomes wholly irrelevant. Applying the aofresaid principle once we find that there is direct evidence against the accused persons the absence of motive does not affect the prosecution case. 11. If however the evidence of eye-witnesses is creditworthy and is believed by the Court which has placed implicit reliance on them, the question whether there is any motive or not becomes wholly irrelevant. Applying the aofresaid principle once we find that there is direct evidence against the accused persons the absence of motive does not affect the prosecution case. 11. It has also been contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the material on record do not attract the offence under Section 149 of IPC and the learned trial Judge has erroneously convicted all the accused persons by attracting Section 149 of IPC. We notice from the evidence on record that there was assault by all the accused persons and that is why, they have been convicted under Section 302 IPC. That apart, we do not find any illegality in the judgment of the learned trial Judge in finding the accused persons guilty under Section 149 IPC. On scrutiny of evidence on record it is absolutely apparent that the accused persons were aware of the fact that the assembly was unlawful and was likely to commit that act which they had conducted, their object was common while they composed the assembly. There was community of object and keeping the same object in view they have acted as an assembly to achieve the said object. Their conduct, the surroundings, arms carried by them and their ultimate translation of their objects speak eloquently attracting the ingredients of Section 149 of IPC. 12. It is next contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that there is total absence of corroboration by the medical evidence and there is no corresponding injuries as alleged in the oral testimony. As a matter of fact, we find that the deceased was assaulted indiscriminately and when the injuries are many it cannot be said there is no corroboration by indication of corresponding injuries to the assault. 13. In view of our preceding analysis, we do not find any deficiency in the analysis of the learned trial Judge and there is no impasse in giving the stamp of approval of this Court to the same. 14. In the result, the appeals, being devoid of merit, are hereby dismissed and the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed by the Court below are upheld. Appeal dismissed