JUDGMENT N. PANDEY & I.P. SINGH, JJ. 1. The above mentioned two appeals have been preferred on behalf of the appellants against a common judgment in Sessions Trial No. 184 of 1990 dated 30th June, 1992 by the 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Arrah, whereby and whereunder appellant, Gaya Kamkar, has been convicted under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and 7 years rigorous imprisonment under section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Appellant, Ram Kewal Kamkar, has, however, been acquitted for the charge under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, but convicted for the offence under section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years. The last appellant, Satrughan Kamkar, has of course been convicted under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. He has also been convicted under section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. This appellant has been further convicted for the offence under section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo rig010us imprisonment for 7 years. However, the sentences as awarded to all the appellants have been directed to run concurrently. 2. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that on 19th August, 1989 while the deceased, Uma Shankar Sharma, his family members, namely, Rama Shankar Sharma, Shiv Nath Sharma and Amir Chand Sharma were coming after cutting timber and reached near his house, appellants, Satrughan Kamkar and Gaya Kamkar arrived there being armed with country made pistol and Garasa. It is alleged that appellant Satrughan Kamkar immediately thereafter fired shot at Uma Shankar Sharma, whereupon he fell down on the ground after' received pillate Injuries. Thereafter appellant Gaya Kamkar also assaulted him with Garasa. The informant having seen the occurrence raised alarm whereupon appellant Satrughan Kamkar also fired at him, but somehow or the other he escaped. The informant thereafter raised Hulla on which certain persons of the locality came. But all the accused persons took away the dead body of Uma Shankar Sharma on the west of the village towards canal. 3. The informant having seen the occurrence raised alarm whereupon appellant Satrughan Kamkar also fired at him, but somehow or the other he escaped. The informant thereafter raised Hulla on which certain persons of the locality came. But all the accused persons took away the dead body of Uma Shankar Sharma on the west of the village towards canal. 3. The police having received Information about this occurrence from the Chaukidar arrived at the village and recorded fard-beyan of the informant (P.W.6) and thereafter took up investigation. The police also examined different witnesses and after due observance of necessary formalities, submitted charge sheet against the appellants. On receipt of the charge sheet, the Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance and committed the case to the court of session calling upon the accused persons to explain charge with regard to the alleged murder of Uma Shankar Sharma. 4. It appears from the record of the case as well as the impugned judgment that the prosecution examined altogether eight witnesses to support its case. P.W.1, Sheo Nath Sharma, P.W.2, Ram Nath Sharma, P.W.3, Amir Chand Sharma, P.W.4, Saraswati Devi and P.W.6, Deonath Sharma are the occular witnesses of the occurrence. They have fully supported the case of the prosecution as narrated in the First Information Report. P.W.5, Saraswati Devi, is the wife of the deceased. At the time of the occurrence she was in her house, but having heard the sound of gun shot, she came out and saw the accused persons dragging her husband. P.W. 7, Birendra Kumar Singh, is the doctor who had conducted the post mortem examination on the person of the deceased and found five Injuries as detailed below:– (i) Lacerated wound margin charred and blackened 6" x 3" on the front of the chest with fracture of both right and left mailary bone and frontal bone, nasal bone and mandible. (ii) Incised wound 3" x 4" bone deep on the front of left thumb-palm. (iii) Incised wound 2" x 1" bone deep on the front of the right palm near the base of right index finger. (iv) Circular black margin, charred skin, 2" diameter lacerated wound chest deep with fracture of 3rd, 4th and 5th rib of the right side of chest. This is the wound entrance. (iii) Incised wound 2" x 1" bone deep on the front of the right palm near the base of right index finger. (iv) Circular black margin, charred skin, 2" diameter lacerated wound chest deep with fracture of 3rd, 4th and 5th rib of the right side of chest. This is the wound entrance. (v) Circular lacerated wound 4-1/2" in diameter on the back of right side of chest with fracture of 3rd to 7th ribs of right side. This is the wound of exit. In the opinion of the doctor injury nos. (i) (iv) and (v) were sufficient to cause death. 5. P.W. 8 Ram Shankar Prasad is the Investigating Officer. He after recording the First Information Report had also examined prosecution witnesses and visited the place of occurrence. The Investigating Officer had also seized blood from the place, where Uma Shankar Sharma had received injuries on account of the gun firing. He also recovered the dead body on the next day and sent for post-mortem examination. 6. No body appears on behalf of the appellants, Gaya Kamkar and Ram Kewal Kamkar. Mr. Surendra Kumar Singh, No.3, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, Satrughan Kamkar raised various questions to attack the findings recorded by the trial court. He contended that the fard-beyan (Ext.3) in this case should not have been treated as F.I.R. as required under section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Because it would reveal from the record that the Chaukidar of the Village had already informed the Officer Incharge at the police station about the incident in the village. The police also on receipt of such information recorded the Sanha entry and proceeded to the village Therefore the submission is that statement of the informant, which was recorded by the police in the village, should not be treated as F.I.R. Because in law the earliest version to the police about the occurrence will have to be treated as F.I.R. 7. In our view, there can not be any dispute about the legal proposition as formulated by Mr. Singh. But it is welt known that a vague and cryptic information to the police regarding incident cannot be treated as F.I.R. Because unless clear facts constituting a cognizable offence are brought to the notice of police, it cannot be called as F.I.R. 8. Singh. But it is welt known that a vague and cryptic information to the police regarding incident cannot be treated as F.I.R. Because unless clear facts constituting a cognizable offence are brought to the notice of police, it cannot be called as F.I.R. 8. It was next contended that all the witnesses examined in this case are related, therefore, no conviction should have been based on the basis of their statements. Because such witnesses are always expected to be partisaned and interested. In our view, having regard to the background of the present case simply because witnesses are related, the case of murder' as alleged by prosecution can not be doubted. Because the occurrence in this case had taken place near the house of the informant. It has also come in evidence that most of the witnesses were coming with the deceased at the' time of the occurrence after taking wood. Therefore, their presence at the time of occurrence can not be doubted. In our view, for want of certain independent witnesses the findings recorded by the trial court can not be interfered. 9. Mr. Singh next contended that though in this case the police had seized blood stained earth from the place of occurrence, but the same was not sent to the Forensic laboratory for chemical examination. Therefore, failure on the part of the prosecution to show whether the blood stained earth contained human blood, it would not be proper for the court to hold that Uma Shankar Sharma sustained injuries at the place, where the prosecution indicate. 10. Though it was necessary for the Investigating-Officer to send blood stained earth for examination, but in view of the various decisions of the Apex Court, simply due to such omission on the part of the Investigating Officer, entire prosecution story can not be doubted, particularly where there are several eye witnesses of the occurrence. 11. Mr. Singh next contended that in any view of the matter appellant, Gaya Kamkar is aged about 75-76 years and the occurrence in this case had taken place as back as in the year 1989. Therefore, it would not be proper in the interest of justice to convict him at this stage. 12. Learned counsel appearing for the informant and the State have drawn our attention towards various statements of the eye witnesses to support the findings recorded by the trial court. Therefore, it would not be proper in the interest of justice to convict him at this stage. 12. Learned counsel appearing for the informant and the State have drawn our attention towards various statements of the eye witnesses to support the findings recorded by the trial court. It was also pointed out that nature of injuries sustained by the deceased have fully been supported by the doctor in his post-mortem report. Therefore, such a corroboration by the doctor, in fact establishes the truthfulness of the witnesses. 13. Therefore for the reasons stated above and on going through the impugned judgment and evidence of the witnesses, in our view, the court below was quite justified while convicting the appellants for the alleged murder. No other material whatsoever has been brought before us on the basis of which the testimony of the eye witnesses can be doubted. 14. True it is that appellant Gaya Kamkar is old man aged 76 years, but unless and until his conviction as recorded under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code is set aside, no relief can be granted. Therefore taking into consideration entire facts and circumstances of the case, we find no merit in these appeals and. accordingly, they are dismissed. Appellants, namely, Gaya Kamkar and Ram Kewal Kamkar, who are on bail shall be arrested forthwith and their bail bonds are cancelled.