Judgment A.K.Prasad, J. 1. This Criminal appeal by the nine appellants is directed against the judgment and order dated 8-8-1989 passed by Sri. J.K. Prasad, VIth Additional Sessions Judge. Palamu. In S.T. No. 146 of 1988 whereby and whereunder he has convicted them under Sec. 302 read with Sec. 149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life on account of murder of Tapeshwar Singh and he further convicted them under Sec. 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years for causing disappearance of the evidence of murder. Both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case in brief as made out in the First Information Report (Exhibit 3), is as under: On 3-10-1987, around 7 p.m., Tapeshwar Singh the deceased elder brother of the informant. Dhaneshwar Singh (P.W.1) returned home after fishing from Jharna Nala and as soon as he kept the collected fish and came out in his courtyard all of a sudden the appellants, co-accused Satan Singh, Bachan Singh, Kharidan Singh and Indradeo Singh (who died during the pendency of the trial) came there, uttered to teach him lesson for fighting litigation, assaulted and forcibly took him towards Turidih Dam. At that time appellants Nanddeo Singh, Suresh Singh, Raman Singh and Indradeo Singh, since deceased were armed with Gandasa, whereas the other - accused were armed with Lathi. After some time the informant went to Turidih Dam and found copious blood marks and mark of dragging but being alone he could not track down the marks towards the jungle. Instead- he went to village Batat to inform about the alleged occurrence to Arjun Manjhi the Chowkidar, but could not meet him. Thereafter, he went to village Nimdih and narrated the incident to Rajmohan Singh the Mukhiya (P.W.7), and stayed over-night at his house. On the next morning the Mukhiya advised him to report the matter to the police station and assured him to search for the dead body of Tapeshwar Singh in the jungle. Accordingly. Dhaneshwar Singh accompanied by Ram Chandra Oraon his co-villager went to Latehar Police Station on 4-10-1987, and at about 8.30 a.m. lodged the First Information Report (Exhibit 3), on the basis of which the present case was instituted. Accordingly. Dhaneshwar Singh accompanied by Ram Chandra Oraon his co-villager went to Latehar Police Station on 4-10-1987, and at about 8.30 a.m. lodged the First Information Report (Exhibit 3), on the basis of which the present case was instituted. The motive alleged for the murder of the deceased by the accused persons is the old civil litigation pending in the Courts at Daltonganj and Ranchi between the parties and 20-10-1987 was the date fixed for evidence in the case at Ranchi Court. 3. In course of investigation, P.W. 9 (Benjamin Kindo), Police Officer, visited the spot and seized bloodstained earth from near Turidih Dam and an abandoned plastic shoe from nearby field under seizure list (Exhibit 4), some blood-stained earth from near Rewaiya Ahra, vide, Exhibit 4/2 and he effected recovery of the submerged dead body of deceased Tapeshwar Singh on 4-1 01987 at 12.30 p.m. from Rewaiya Ahra, which is at a distance of about 2 kms. to the West to Turidih Dam, with a big bolder tied around his body with his Lungi, and he seized the Lungi and the bolder as well as another plastic shoe on the spot (vide, Exhibit 4/2). He held inquest over the dead body of Tapeshwar Singh (Exhibit 5 is the inquest report), and sent the dead body to Sub-divisional Hospital, Latehar, for post-mortem examination and after completion of investigation chargesheet was laid in the Court against the accused persons. 4. The case was, ultimately, committed to the Court of Sessions by Sri A.D. Sharma, the then Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Latehar, vide, order dated 18-1-1988. 5. The main defence of the appellants during the trial was of their innocence and false implication due to previous enmity and legation. 6. At the trial, the prosecution examined 9 witnesses, out of whom P.W. 8 (Prabhu Sahai Gudia) is a formal witness. P.W. 9 (Dr. N.K. Mahto) held inquest over the dead body of Tapeshwar Singh. P.W. 1 (Dhaneshwar Singh) is the informant as well as the brother of the deceased. P.W. 2 Mango Devi, widow of the deceased. Panna Devi (P.W.3), mother of the deceased, P.W. 4 (Baleshwar Singh), another brother of the deceased and P.W. 6 (Jagat Singh), father of the deceased, claimed them selves as eyewitnesses to the occurrence P.W. 7 (Rajmohan Singh), Mukhiya. P.W. 2 Mango Devi, widow of the deceased. Panna Devi (P.W.3), mother of the deceased, P.W. 4 (Baleshwar Singh), another brother of the deceased and P.W. 6 (Jagat Singh), father of the deceased, claimed them selves as eyewitnesses to the occurrence P.W. 7 (Rajmohan Singh), Mukhiya. Nimdih Gram Panchayat, is the witness on the point that the informant had narrated the incident to him P.W. 9 (Benjamin Kindo) is the Investigating Officer. 7. The defence, on the other hand has examined two witnesses, namely. D.W. 1 (Tapeshwar Singh) and D.W. 2 (Khokhan Singh). Further, the defence has tendered certified copy of the order dated 18-1-1986 passed in Land Ceiling Appeal No. XV /31 of 8384, between the parties by the Additional Collector. Palamu at Daltonganj (Exhibit A). 8. The learned Sessions Judge disbelieved the testimony of P.W.6. But on consideration of other evidence and materials on record and relying mainly on the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 4 convicted the appellants under Secs. 302/149 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to the terms of imprisonment thereunder, as stated above. But he acquitted the co-accused Satan Singh. Bachan Singh. Kharidan Singh by giving benefit of doubt on account of the fact that Mango Devi (P.W. 2), the widow of the deceased did not implicate them in her evidence. 9. Mr. P. S. Dayal, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants has assailed the impugned judgment mainly on the ground that P.Ws. 1 to 4 are related to the deceased and are interested witnesses and in absence of independent corroboration no reliance can be placed on their testimony; that the medical evidence does not fit in with the prosecution case about the time of death of the deceased; that the number of the injuries found on the person of the deceased were far less than the number of accused persons, which renders the prosecution version unacceptable and there is statement of P.W. 7 (Rajmohan Singh) that the informant had disclosed the name of Indradeo Singh alone as the assailant of the deceased and this excludes the involvement of the appellants in the incident. 10. Mr. K.K. Jhunjhunwala, learned A. P. P. for the State, on the other hand, has supported the impugned judgment. 11. At the out-set an out-line of the topography may be stated. 10. Mr. K.K. Jhunjhunwala, learned A. P. P. for the State, on the other hand, has supported the impugned judgment. 11. At the out-set an out-line of the topography may be stated. The house of the deceased is at Kudag, tola Fulwaria Tand, within the Police Station-Latehar. The distance between Fulwaria Tand and Latehar police Station is 10 kms. The house of the deceased faces North and there is an open courtyard in front of it. It has come in the evidence of P.W. 9 (Investigating Officer) that Turidih Dam is 50 yards to the North of the courtyard of the deceased and Kudag Basti is 1 k. m. off the Turidih- Dam towards East, whereas Rewaiya Ahra is at a distance of about 2 kms. to the West of Turidih Dam and Rewaiya Basti is about 1 km. away from Rewaiya Ahra in the North. It is in the evidence of P.W.2 that the houses of P.Ws. 1 and 4 are at a short distance from her house intervened by the houses of the accused and there is the house of one Etwa Bhuiya in the vicinity. According to her, there is no other house within the radius of 1-1/2 or 2 kms; Thus, her Tola is sparsely populated. 12. P.W. 9 (Benjamin Kindo), the Investigating Officer, has testified to the effect that on. 4-10-1987, around 10 a.m., he commenced inspection of spot, seized blood-stained earth from Turidih embankment as well as Rewaiya Ahra (vide. Exhibits 4 to 4/1) and the dead body of Tapeshwar Singh with wounds was recovered from the water of the Ahra on 4-10-1987, around 12.30 p.m. P.W.7, a witness on the seizure lists as well as inquest report corroborates the testimony of P.W. 9 on this point. There is evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 4 that assault on the deceased had taken place at Turidih Dam whereafter his dead body was recovered from Rewaiya Ahra the next day. The presence of blood near Turidih Dam shows that the part of occurrence of assault had taken place near Turidih Dam. It has been elicited in cross-examination of P.W. 9 that bloodstained earth seized by him from near Turidih Dam and Rewaiya Ahra were sent by him for chemical examination, but the report has not been received. The presence of blood near Turidih Dam shows that the part of occurrence of assault had taken place near Turidih Dam. It has been elicited in cross-examination of P.W. 9 that bloodstained earth seized by him from near Turidih Dam and Rewaiya Ahra were sent by him for chemical examination, but the report has not been received. The absence of report of chemical examiner in the circumstances of the case, is no ground to doubt the scene bf occurrence. It is not the defence version that the occurrence had taken place at some other place. It is established beyond doubt by the prosecution that the deceased was assaulted near Turidih Dam and thereafter his dead body was recovered from Rewaiya Ahra. 13. It has next to be considered whether the death of the deceased was homicidal. P.W. 5 (Dr. Narendra Kumar Mishra) has testified to the effect that on 4-10-1987 at 5 p.m. he conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of Tapeshwar Singh and found following ante-mortem wounds: (i) Incised wound 4" x 2" scalp deep on right parietal bone; (ii) incised wound 1" x 2" x scalp deep on left parietal bone; (iii) Lacerated wound 2" x 1/2" x scalp deep on upper part of occipital bone; (iv) Abrasion 8" x 6" on left side of abdomen; (v) Incised wound 1" x cutting the upper part of right auricle into two parts; (vi) Incised wound 1" x 1/2" x scalp deep on posterior part of right parietal bone; (vii) Lacerated wound 1" x 1/2" scalp deep on right side of occipital bone." He has further stated that on opening the skull blood clots under the membrane were found on cerebral cortex. He has opined that the cause of death was due to haemorrhage and shock due to head injury which was sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. He had stated that the time elapsed since the death was 48 hours of the post-mortem examination. He has proved the post-mortem report (Exhibit 2) in his pen. The evidence of the doctor establishes beyond doubt that the death of the deceased was homicidal. He had stated that the time elapsed since the death was 48 hours of the post-mortem examination. He has proved the post-mortem report (Exhibit 2) in his pen. The evidence of the doctor establishes beyond doubt that the death of the deceased was homicidal. 14 Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the doctor (P.W. 5) has stated that the time elapsed since the death of the deceased was 48 hours of the post-mortem examination which was held on 4-10-1987 at 5 p. m., and this rules out the prosecution case that the occurrence had taken place in the evening of 3rd of October. 1987. The medical science is not yet so perfect as to determine the exact time of death and it is not possible for a doctor to say with mathematical perfection about the time of death. In the post-mortem report (Exhibit 2) the doctor (P.W. 5) has recorded that the time elapsed since the death was "within 48 hours" of the postmortem examination. It is evident that due to inadvertence the doctor stated that the time lapsed since the death was "48 hours" instead of "within 48 hours", The expression "within 48 hours" would cover the happening on 3rd of October. 1987. It has further been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants that P.W. 7 has stated in his crossexamination that in the night of 2-10-1987 the informant had visited his house and narrated the incident to him. On this premise he urged that the occurrence if any took place on 2-10-1987 and not on 3-10-1987. It is suffice to say that P.W. 7 stated in his chief-examination itself that he does not remember whether on 2-10-1987 or 3-10-1987 the informant met and narrated the incident to him. I do not find any merit in the above contention of the learned counsel for the appellants. Hence, it fails. 15. It is admitted that there is previous enmity and land dispute between the parties. 16. Let us now examine the prosecution evidence regarding involvement of the appellants in the murder of the deceased. As already stated the evidence of P.W. 6 (Jagat Singh) has been disbelieved by the trial Court on the point of occurrence. The prosecution case hinges on direct evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 4. Admittedly, they are closely related to the deceased and are interested witnesses. As already stated the evidence of P.W. 6 (Jagat Singh) has been disbelieved by the trial Court on the point of occurrence. The prosecution case hinges on direct evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 4. Admittedly, they are closely related to the deceased and are interested witnesses. Mere relationship is no ground by itself to discard their evidence. But rule of prudence requires that their evidence has to be scrutinised with little care and caution. Now one may discuss the evidence on the point of occurrence. P.W.1 (Dhaneshwar Singh), the informant as well as the brother of the deceased stated in his chief-examination that on the fateful evening he was at the house of the deceased Tapeshwar Singh where the appellants. Indradeo Singh (since deceased) and co-accused Satan Singh. Bachan Singh and Kharidan Singh came to the courtyard of the deceased started to assault him with Lathi, they uttered to teach him a lesson for fighting litigations and forcibly took him to the field of accused-appellant (Nanddeo Singh), and then to Turidih Dam. He has further stated that from distance he saw the accused assaulting the deceased with Lathi Gandasa at Turidih Dam and the accused persons thereafter had taken the deceased towards West. He has further stated that when afterwards he went to Turidih Dam he found blood stains on the ground. He has further deposed that in the night on the day of occurrence he went to village-Nindi and narrated the incident to Rajmohan Singh (Mukhiya) P.W. 7 and on his advice the next morning he went to Latehar Police Station and lodged the First Information Report (Exhibit 3). It has come in his cross-examination that one Lathi blow was dealt to the deceased in his courtyard by the accused and while forcibly taking away the deceased. 5 or 6 accused were catching hold of him and some were going ahead or behind him. According to him the brutal assault on the deceased took place at Turidih Dam. A comment has been made that he has not named the assailant/assailants of the deceased. The accused in a group all of a sudden, had raided the courtyard and taken away the deceased. In such a situation a witness may be perplexed and stunned and might not have been able to observe the particular accused who had struck the deceased with Lathi in the courtyard. Further. The accused in a group all of a sudden, had raided the courtyard and taken away the deceased. In such a situation a witness may be perplexed and stunned and might not have been able to observe the particular accused who had struck the deceased with Lathi in the courtyard. Further. P.W.1 witnessed the assault on the deceased at Turidih Dam from distance and it is quite natural that he could not identify the actual assailants of the deceased at the Turidih Dam. It is true that P.W. 1 has omitted to describe the weapon wielded by individual accused in his evidence. But it is not of much significance, because he has not attributed specific act of assault to the accused. P.W. 1 in spite of cross-examination quite consistent in his evidence that accused - appellants were in the group of miscreants who had forcibly taken away the deceased from the courtyard to Turidih Dam where he was severely assaulted. P.W. 7 (Rajmohan Singh), the Mukhiya has corroborated the testimony of P.W. 1 to the extent that on the day of occurrence itself he had narrated the incident. This lends assurance to the evidence of P.W. 1 that he had witnessed the occurrence testified to by him. The First Information Report (Exhibit 3), in substance corroborates the testimony of P.W.1. 1 7. P. W. 2 (Mango Devi) the widow of the deceased, has testified to the effect in examination-in-chief that on the fateful Saturday appellants and the coaccused Indradeo Singh (since deceased) armed with Lathi and Gandasa arrived in her courtyard and they assaulted and took away her husband towards Turidih Dam and the family members of the accused had confined her in her house by closing the Tali. At this juncture, it maybe pointed out that the Investigating Officer (P.W. 9) deposed that P.W. 2 did not state before him that the family members of the accused persons had confined her in her house by closing the Tati. However, this minor contradiction does not affect the core of her evidence that her husband was forcibly taken away by the accused persons. P.W. 2 has further stated that the appellants-Nanddeo Singh, Suresh Singh, Raman Singh and coaccused Indradeo Singh wielded Gandasa, whereas the other appellants were armed with Lathi. She has further stated that when she went near the dam accompanied by the P.Ws. P.W. 2 has further stated that the appellants-Nanddeo Singh, Suresh Singh, Raman Singh and coaccused Indradeo Singh wielded Gandasa, whereas the other appellants were armed with Lathi. She has further stated that when she went near the dam accompanied by the P.Ws. 1 and 4, she witnessed the accused persons assaulting her husband and she returned to her house. It has come in her cross examination that she was with her husband in the courtyard at the relevant point of time and her husband had received one Lathi blow in the courtyard and all the accused had caught hold of the deceased and forcibly took him away by pushing him from two sides. She admits in her crossexamination that she did not see that accused taking her husband to Turidih Dam and that she had returned from the way to Turidih Dam. She has made exaggeration that she had witnessed the assault on her husband at Turidih Dam. Her evidence regarding actual assault on the deceased at Turidih Dam is not acceptable. But her testimony to the effect-that the appellants and co-accused-Indradeo Singh had forcibly taken away the deceased from the courtyard cannot be disbelieved. She being the wife of the deceased was expected to be at her house. Her presence in the courtyard at the time of the occurrence cannot be doubted. She is natural and competent witness about the part of the occurrence which took place in her courtyard. P.W.3 (Panwa Devi), the mother of the deceased has stated in her chief-examination that on Saturday evening, around sun-set, she was at home and when the deceased came out in his courtyard after keeping fish, there was hulla and she witnessed the appellants, Indradeo Singh and other three accused assaulting and forcibly taking him towards Turidih Dam and when after wards she went there accompanied by P.Ws. 1 and 2, she did not find the deceased, but there were blood marks and she returned home crying. She has emphatically stated in her cross-examination that she had seen the accused persons in the courtyard. It is true that the Investigating Officer (P.W. 9) has proved her earlier statement that subsequently she learnt that the accused persons had murdered her son by taking him towards Turidih Dam. It may be mentioned that she is not an eyewitnesses to the actual assault on the deceased at Turidih Dam. It is true that the Investigating Officer (P.W. 9) has proved her earlier statement that subsequently she learnt that the accused persons had murdered her son by taking him towards Turidih Dam. It may be mentioned that she is not an eyewitnesses to the actual assault on the deceased at Turidih Dam. Hence, the above contradiction is not vital to discredit her testimony on the point that the deceased was forcibly taken away by the accused persons, including the appellants from the courtyard. She has asserted in her evidence that she had named all the accused persons before the Police which has been denied by the Investigating Officer (P.W. 9). On verification from the case diary, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly held that there is no contradiction in this regard and it is actually the faulty manner of writing the diary. P.Ws. 1 and 2 have supported her presence at the house/courtyard at the time of the occurrence. She is a natural witness to the occurrence of forcible taking away of the deceased by the accused. 17. P.W. 4 (Baleshwar Singh) has deposed that after the sun-set on the fateful evening, on hulla he went towards the house of the deceased, which is at a short distance from his house and on way accused-Suresh Singh and Raman Singh armed with Gandasa restrained him wherefrom he saw the other appellants assaulting and taking away the deceased from his courtyard and appellants Suresh Singh and Raman Singh joined them and at Turidih Dam the deceased was assaulted with Lathi and Gandasa and, thereafter, they took him towards the West. It has come in his cross-examination that the accused simply pulled and took away the deceased from his courtyard. He has stated that the could not say as to who and with what weapons had assaulted the deceased at Turidih Dam. He has explained that the accused persons had surrounded the deceased at the time of assault at Turidih Dam and that he saw this incident from a distance. It was not possible for a witness in the situation to identify the actual assailants of the deceased at Turidih Dam or to give the number of blows dealt to the deceased. He has explained that the accused persons had surrounded the deceased at the time of assault at Turidih Dam and that he saw this incident from a distance. It was not possible for a witness in the situation to identify the actual assailants of the deceased at Turidih Dam or to give the number of blows dealt to the deceased. P.W. 4 lives in the neighbourhood of the deceased and it was quite probable that on hulla he went near his house and witnessed the occurrence of taking away the deceased forcibly from his courtyard. 18. The substance of the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 4 is that after use of some force the deceased was taken away by the accused persons from his courtyard towards Turidih Dam where he was brutally assaulted. The finding of blood marks at Turidih Dam by the Investigation Officer lends assurance to their evidence that the deceased was brutally assaulted at Turidih Dam. The evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 shows that only one Lathi blow was dealt to the deceased in the Angan (courtyard). There may be some minor discrepancies and contradictions regarding minor details of incident in the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 4, but that does not destroy the broad features of their evidence that the appellants were amongst those who had forcibly taken away the deceased from his courtyard towards Turidih Dam. It is most difficult to believe that P.Ws. 1 to 4, particularly P.Ws. 2 and 3, being the close relatives of the deceased would spare the real culprits and falsely implicate the innocent persons. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of P.Ws. 1 to 4 on the participation of the appellants in the occurrence. 19. P.W. 7 (Rajmohan Singh) has stated in his evidence that P.W. 1 (Dhaneshwar Singh) had disclosed the name of Indradeo Singh (since deceased) alone and none else as the murderer of the deceased. On this premise, it has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that Indradeo Singh was the sole culprit involved in the murder of the deceased. P.W.7 has asserted in his cross-examination that he had stated before the police that P. W. 1 had disclosed to him that Indradeo Singh had killed the deceased, but the Investigating Officer (P.W. 9) has stated that P.W. 7 in Court. He is not an eyewitness to the alleged occurrence. P.W.7 has asserted in his cross-examination that he had stated before the police that P. W. 1 had disclosed to him that Indradeo Singh had killed the deceased, but the Investigating Officer (P.W. 9) has stated that P.W. 7 in Court. He is not an eyewitness to the alleged occurrence. Hence, this part of his evidence is to be discarded. 20. There was land dispute and litigation between the parties. Hence, there was strong motive for the murder of the deceased by the appellants as well. The record does not suggest that the deceased had enmity with anyone else than the accused. One may recapitulate here that while forcibly taking away the deceased utterance was made by the members of the unlawful assembly that he is to be taught a lesson for fighting litigation with them. The object of the unlawful assembly of which the appellants were members was to cause death of the deceased. They were also armed. There is strong circumstance that on the next day of the incident the dead body of the deceased with injuries was recovered from Rewaiya Ahra. The nature of the injuries found on the person of the deceased and the condition in which the dead body had been submerged in the water indicate that group of miscreants had murdered him. It is not the version of the P. Ws. 1 to 4 that all the accused had, assaulted the deceased with their respective weapons. It is quite probable that some of the culprits had assaulted the deceased with their weapons, after he had been forcibly taken away to Turidih Dam. Hence, in the circumstances the presence of less number of injuries than the number of accused persons is of no consequence to warrant the rejection of the prosecution case. 21. D.W. 1 (Tapeshwar Singh) and D.W. 2 (Bhukhan Singh.) residents of different villages and related to some of the accused have stated that a day before the occurrence the deceased had torn and burnt the dress of his wife and there was quarrel between him and his brother (Dhaneshwa Singh). P.W. 1. No such defence was suggested to the P.Ws. The evidence of D.Ws. 1 and 2 is the result of afterthought and has been rightly rejected by the trial Court. 22. It was urged by the learned counsel for the appellants that the co-accused (Satan Singh. P.W. 1. No such defence was suggested to the P.Ws. The evidence of D.Ws. 1 and 2 is the result of afterthought and has been rightly rejected by the trial Court. 22. It was urged by the learned counsel for the appellants that the co-accused (Satan Singh. Bachan Singh and Kharidan Singh) were acquitted by the trial Court and the appellants deserve to be acquitted on this ground. The co-accused (Satan Singh. Bachan Singh and Kharidan Singh) were not specifically named by Mango Devi (P.W. 2) in her evidence and so they were given benefit of doubt by the trial Court. But the appellants have been specifically named and identified by P.W. 2 in Court amongst the culprits involved in the incident. They have also been named by P.Ws. 1, 3 and 4 in their evidence. Hence, the contention of the appellants counsel is without merit and it fails. 23. For the discussions made above. I agree with the findings of the trial Court and the conviction and sentence of the appellants under Secs. 302/149 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code is confirmed. 24. In the result, this appeal is dismissed. The appellants except Suresh Singh, Raman Singh and Nanddeo Singh, who are already in jail are directed to surrender to their bails to serve out the period of sentence imposed by the trial Court failing which the trial Court shall take all coercive steps for securing their apprehension. R.A.Sharma, J. 25 I agree.