Judgment 1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 28th Feb., 92, passed by the 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Darbhanga in S.T. No. 128/90-32/90, both the accused-appellants have been convicted under Section 302, IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. Accused appellant Upendra Prasad Singh has further been convicted under Section 324, IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. However, the sentence imposed against him are directed to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 29-10-89, at 11.15 a.m. the Officer-in-charge of Kusheshwar Asthan Police Station, Md. Anwar Sulaiman, PW-11 heard a rumour of murder at village Bargon. He made an entry in the Station Diary being 439, and went with the police party to the village. There at 11.45 a.m., on the same day, he recorded the statement of the informant Subhkala Devi, PW-9 the wife of the deceased, Surendra Singh. In her statement, she stated that at about 11 a.m. her husband was cutting earth with spade near the tube well situated opposite to her house in order to fill up the public path as it was the Deepawali day. The informant was standing on the southern end of her courtyard. Both the accused-appellants along with their father, Ram Pratap Singh came there and abused the deceased Surender Singh and asked as to why he was cutting the earth. The deceased, Surender Singh replied that as it was the Deepawali Day, he was levelling the public path. Thereafter, both the appellants caught hold of Surendra Singh and threw him on the ground. Ram Pratap Singh ordered to kill the deceased, and thereupon appellant Lalan Singh out the throat of the deceased with a chhure. Shubhkala Devi rushed to save her husband and fell down on his body to protect his life. Appellant Upendra Singh then gave a chhura blow in the abdomen of Surendra Singh out of which his intestine came out of his belly. Upendra Prasad Singh gave another blow by the side of his chest and while protecting her husband, Subhkala Devi also received injury on her left wrist from the dagger blow of appellant Upendra Prasad Singh. On Hulla, several persons arrived at the place of occurrence, including Sri Krishna Singh, PW-3, Pawan Kumar Singh, PW-2, Jibach Pd. Singh, PW-6, Devendra Prasad Singh, PW-1, Shanker Pd. On Hulla, several persons arrived at the place of occurrence, including Sri Krishna Singh, PW-3, Pawan Kumar Singh, PW-2, Jibach Pd. Singh, PW-6, Devendra Prasad Singh, PW-1, Shanker Pd. Singh PW-7 and others and they all saw the occurrence. Surendra Singh died on the spot. The informant alleged that her husband, who was an active member of Gram Panchayat, has brought a vote of no-confidence against appellant Lalan Singh, who was then acting as a Mukhia and there were serious differences between the parties resulting into this cold-blooded murder. On the basis of her fardbeyan, Kusheshwar Asthan P.S. case No. 90 dated 29-10-89 was registered. 3. During the trial, accused Ram Pratap Singh, who was on bail absconded and thereafter, his case was separated from the main record by order dated 4-6-91. 4. The defence is the denial of the involvement of the appellants in the murder of Surendra Singh. Their further case is that because of the previous enmity they have been falsely implicated and the deceased was murdered in a different manner by his enemies. 5. In order to substantiate its case the prosecution in all examined 15 witnesses, out of which PW-1, Devendra Prasad Singh, PW-2, Pawan Kumar Singh, PW-3, Sri Krishna Singh, PW-5, Raj Kumar Singh, PW-6, Jibech Frakash Singh, and the informant Subhkala Devi, PW-9 are the eye-witnesses of the occurrence. PW-4, Upendra Bihari Singh, PW-8, Karmendra Pd. Singh, PW-13, Udai Kumar Gupta, PW-14, Sudhanshu Bhushan Jha and PW-15 Revindra Singh are the formal witnesses, PW-10, Dr. V.C.S. Verma, conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased and PW-12 Dr. Hiralal Prasad examined the injured informant, Subhkala Devi Md.Anwar Sulaiman, PW-11 is the Investigating Officer. 6. The informant, PW-9 supported her statement made in the fardbeyan, (Ext. 3) and stated that on the instigation of accused Ram Pratap Singh, accused Upendra Prasad Singh and Lalan Singh gave chhura blow resulting the death of her husband. She had seen the occurrence from her Darwaza and when her husband fell down, she rushed to save his life and covered his body. But, appellant Upendra Prasad Singh continued to give chhura blow on her husband and she also received dagger blow inflicted by the appellant Upendra Prasad Singh. The doctor who examined her injury found one incised wound 1" x 1/3" x 1/4", which was just above her left wrist. But, appellant Upendra Prasad Singh continued to give chhura blow on her husband and she also received dagger blow inflicted by the appellant Upendra Prasad Singh. The doctor who examined her injury found one incised wound 1" x 1/3" x 1/4", which was just above her left wrist. The injury was simple in nature and appeared to have been caused by sharp-cutting weapon such as dagger. Thus, the informant, who is an eye-witness and injured is a very competent witness on the point of occurrence who has fully supported the prosecution case and no vital contradiction has been pointed out by the learned Counsel for the appellant in her cross-examination. 7. PW-1 stated that at the time of occurrence, he was at his Darwaza and on Hulla he went near the hand-pump situated by the side of the house of the deceased Surendra Singh. He saw appellant Lalan Singh and Upendra Pd. Singh catching hold of the deceased and they threw him on the ground. Accused Ram Pratap Singh was asking them to kill the deceased. Thereupon, appellant Lalan Singh gave a dagger blow on the neck of the deceased. His wife Subhkala Devi, PW-9 tried to save him and fell down on his body, but in spite of that appellant Upendra Singh gave dagger blow son his stomach and chest. He also assaulted with the dagger causing injury to the informant. Surendra Singh died on the spot. He has named the other witnesses, mentioned above, who have arrived at the place of occurrence and saw the occurrence. According to him, the house of the appellant is situated by the side of the house of the deceased. In the cross-examination, he stated that his house is situated at a distance of 4-5 laggas from the place of occurrence and it available from his door where he was sitting at the time of the occurrence. PW-2 stated that at the time of the occurrence, he was cleaning his Ban (orchard) and from there he heard the Hulla and saw the occurrence. He has named both the appellants who gave dagger blows causing death of Surendra Singh and injury to the informant. According to him, Ram Pratap Singh and ordered both the appellants, who are his sons to kill Surendra Singh. He has named both the appellants who gave dagger blows causing death of Surendra Singh and injury to the informant. According to him, Ram Pratap Singh and ordered both the appellants, who are his sons to kill Surendra Singh. PW-3 stated that at the time of occurrence, he had gone to the shop of Bachcha Singh from where he heard the Hulla and saw the occurrence. He has named both the appellants who gave dagger blows to the deceased and caused injury to the informant. In the cross-examination, he stated that the shop of Bachcha Singh is situated at a distance of 32 yards from the hand-pump PW-6 stated that at the time of occurrence, he was going to Chimni Bhatta from his house and when he reached near the place of occurrence, he heard Ram Pratap Singh asking his two sons to kill Surendra Singh and on his order both the appellants gave several dagger blows to the deceased and also caused injury to the informant. Surendra Singh died at the spot. In the cross-examination, he stated that his house is situated at a distance of 200 yards from the house of the deceased Surendra Singh. He further stated that when he reached at the place of occurrence, he saw Surendra Singh being thrown on the ground by the appellants and his wife was covering his body. He further saw the appellants giving dagger blows to the deceased. There was pool of blood at the place of occurrence. He further stated that deceased Surendra Singh had received injuries on his neck and stomach. He admitted that most of the witnesses examined in the case, are the Gotias. PW-7, Shankar Prasad Singhs stated that at the time of the occurrence, he was returning from the temple and when he reached near the house of Ramaudar Singh, he saw accused Ram Pratap Singh giving order to his sons to kill Surendra Singh. He had been the deceased removing earth near the hand-pump and also saw both the appellants giving dagger blows to the deceased and causing injury to the informant. His house is situated at a distance of 30-35 laggas from the hand-pump, as stated by him in his cross-examination. 8. Besides the above eye-witnesses, who are all named in the FIR, PW-5 Raj Kumar Singh, son of the deceased has also been examined by the prosecution so an eye-witness. His house is situated at a distance of 30-35 laggas from the hand-pump, as stated by him in his cross-examination. 8. Besides the above eye-witnesses, who are all named in the FIR, PW-5 Raj Kumar Singh, son of the deceased has also been examined by the prosecution so an eye-witness. He stated that at the time of the occurrence, he was taking meal inside his house and on the cry of his mother, he came out of his house and found his father dead and mother injured. He saw appellants Lalan Singh and Upendra Prasad Singh fleeing away. He has also named accused Ram Pratap Singh, who was also fleeing away. On query, he stated that both the appellants were armed with dagger. 9. The trial Court has dealt with the evidence of his witness, in Paragraph 15 of its judgment and has come to the conclusion that this witness who was merely 9-10 years of age at the time of the occurrence appears to be a tutored one. This witness in Paragraph 6 of his cross-examination stated that his mother has asked him to narrate all those things in the Court which she had told him. This witness was not named in the FIR. On these grounds, the trial court has discarded his testimony. 10. The doctor, PW-10 Dr. V.C.S. Verma, who held post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased has found the following ante-mortem injuries on his person : (1) Incised wound 6-1/2" x 2" x 1- 2/3" informant of neck directed from side to side downwards towards upper portion of left shoulder. The weapon, after cutting the skin in front of the neck (in the middle portion) had cut the under lying tissues trachea and larynx and the superficial vessels of left side of the neck including the external jugular vein. The weapon, after cutting the skin in front of the neck (in the middle portion) had cut the under lying tissues trachea and larynx and the superficial vessels of left side of the neck including the external jugular vein. Extensive infiltration of blood was found in the affective area : (2) Incised wound 4" x 1-1/2" x 1/2" on left of the chest directed from side to side and continuous with a graze wound at the end, the intercoastal muscles were found cut in the underlying area with infilteration of blood; (3) Incised wound 2" x 1/4" x 1/4" directed from side to side on left of the chest situated 1" below injury No. (2) stated above : (4) Incised wound 9" x 4" leading to abdominal cavity in the upper portion of the abdomen and directed from left to right side. Loops of intestine were found protruding out of the wound-gap. The liver and 9th and 10th ribs of both sides were found cut along with adjacent muscles and parts of omentum in the same. There was extensive infilteration of blood in and around the wound. (5) Several smaller abrasions verying in size from 1" x 2" x 1/2" to 1 1/2" x 1/2" situated on the bridge of none, forehead, tip of the left shoulder and inner aspect of right knee. (6) Graze wound 4" x 1/4" directed from above downwards on left side of the back. According to the doctor injury Nos. (1), (2), (3), (4) and (6) stated above were causad by some sharp-cutting weapon. The doctor, PW-10, accepted the suggestion of the P.P. that those injuries might have been caused by (Chhura) dagger. The doctor opined that injuries numbered (5) were caused by some hard and blunt objects. The doctor further opined that injuries Nos. (1), (2) and (4) were grievous, dangerous to life and were sufficient to cause death. Injury No.(3), (5) and (6) were simple in nature individually. The cause of the death of Surender Singh, according to the doctor, was shock and haemorrhage caused by the above injuries. According to the doctor, Surrender Singh had died 24 to 48 hours prior to the time of the post-mortem examination. 11. From the evidence of the doctor, and the post-mortem report, it is crystal clear that Surender Singh had died due to shock and haemorrhage caused by the above injuries. According to the doctor, Surrender Singh had died 24 to 48 hours prior to the time of the post-mortem examination. 11. From the evidence of the doctor, and the post-mortem report, it is crystal clear that Surender Singh had died due to shock and haemorrhage caused by the above injuries. The evidence of the doctor fully corroborates the evidence of the above-discussed eye-witnesses, who all have stated that both the appellants gave dagger blows to the deceased. As stated above PW-12 has examined the injury on the person of the informant which was also caused by sharp-cutting weapon, such as dagger. His evidence also corroborates the evidence of the above-discussed witnesses. The eye-witnesses have also given reasonable and probable explanation of their presence at the place of occurrence and no time of the occurrence and there is no reason to disbelieve them. 12. The Investigating Officer, PW-11, who visited the place of occurrence on the same day at 11.45 a.m. stated that the fardbeyan of PW-9 was attested by PWs 4 and 8 in his presence. He prepared the inquest report of the dead body of Surender Singh (Ext. 4) in presence of PWs 4 and 8. He recovered blood-stained Sari Blouze and Petticoat of the informant and prepared seizure list (Ext. 5) in presence of the above witnesses. He also seized-blood-stained earth from near the tube-well and prepared seizure list, (Ext. 6). According to him the place of occurrence was 5-6 feet west of the tube-well. The house of the informant was situated towards cast from there. The I.O. also found some earth cut towards the west of the tube-well and spread on the common path towards the south of the tube-well. He also found blood at the place from where the earth was cut. He found that the house of the accused was situated at a distance of about 20 yards from the tube-well. He had found the dead body of Surender Singh lying towards south of his house in an uncovered Varandah and there were blood stains nearby the body. He arrested the accused-persons on the same day from their house at about 3.45 p.m. He prepared the injury report of the informant (Ext. 7) and sent her for medical examination. He had found the dead body of Surender Singh lying towards south of his house in an uncovered Varandah and there were blood stains nearby the body. He arrested the accused-persons on the same day from their house at about 3.45 p.m. He prepared the injury report of the informant (Ext. 7) and sent her for medical examination. Thus, the objective findings of the I.O. that he found blood near the dead body, some earth cut towards west of the tube-well and spread over the common path towards sought of the tube-well, fully corroborates the prosecution story and the ocular evidence of the witnesses discussed above. 13. The prosecution has examined PWs 13 and 14, the clerks in the office of the District Panchayat Officer, Darbhanga and in the office of the S.D.O. Sadar, Darbhanga, who have stated that due to adoption of vote of no-confidenced by the members of the Executive Committee of Gram Panchayat, Bargaon, against the acting Mukhia, appellant, Lalan Singh, the District Panchayat Officer, Darbhanga had asked the B.D.O. to get elected an acting Mukhia from amongst the members of the Executive Committee for the execution of the Jawahar Rozgar Yogna. Ext. 8/1 is the reminder letter from the District Panchayt Officer to the B.D.O. to execute the instruction given in the earlier letter Ext. 8. This supports the motive of the prosecution as alleged in the fardbeyan that the deceased who was the member of the Executive Committee of the Gram Panchayat had moved a vote of no-confidence against the acting Mukhia, the appellant, Lalan Singh, which was the bone of enmity in between the parties. Ext. 9 is the resolution passed unanimously in the meeting of the members of the Executive Committee of Gram Panchayat Bargaon, under the Presidentship of the deceased, Surender Singh on 2-7-89 mentioning several acts of omission and commission against Lalan Singh, who was the acting Mukhia of the Panchayat. The prosecution has also adduced evidence to show that Lakhan Singh, the father of the deceased Surrender Singh, attempted to commit murder of accused Ram Pratap Singh, father of both the appellants and in that attempt his left hand was cut in the year 1965. The deceased and his family members were made accused in that case, but they were acquitted. The deceased and his family members were made accused in that case, but they were acquitted. These evidence, both oral and documentary read together would show that both the parties were inimical to each other from a long time and this was the motive of the murder of deceased Surender Singh. 14. It was submitted on behalf of the appellants that the PWs have admitted that there were several houses belonging to different caste in the vicinity of the place of occurrence and the I.O. has also named some persons whose houses are in the same locality. Therefore, the prosecution should have examined the independent and uninterested witnesses. But, none of them have come to support the prosecution case. On the other hand, the witnesses examined are of one family and inimical to the accused-appellants. We have carefully analysed the evidence of the eye-witnesses discussed above and found that none of them have stated that the occurrence was seen by some other persons of the locality also. Neither in the fardbeyan nor in the evidence of any person of the locality has been named who has been the occurrence. Therefore, there is no substance in this contention of the appellants that examination of the other independent witnesses of the locality was essential in the case. Non-examination of the so-called independent witnesses is not a ground to throw out or doubt the testimony of the PWs, if otherwise they are consistent and reliable it has been held in catina of decisions of the Supreme Court and also of this Court that people are generally insensitive, and when a crime is committed even in their presence, they withdraw both from the victim and the vigilants. They keep themselves away from the Court for many reasons unless it is inevitable. It has come in the evidence that the village was divided in groups due to caste politics and under such circumstances. It is natural that most of the people will try to remain neutral and will not like to be cited as a witness. Therefore, we do not find much substance in the above contention of the appellants lawyer. 15. It has come in the evidence that the village was divided in groups due to caste politics and under such circumstances. It is natural that most of the people will try to remain neutral and will not like to be cited as a witness. Therefore, we do not find much substance in the above contention of the appellants lawyer. 15. It was argued on behalf of the appellants that although they were arrested from their house on the same day at 3.30 p.m. nothing incriminating like dagger was recovered from the house and there is no evidence that they had concealed their blood-stained clothes or the dagger allegedly used in the commission of the crime. This is not a bona fide conduct of an accused. On the other hand, such a conduct is expected from an innocent person. This shows that the accused-appellants have been falsely implicated in this case. Learned AjP.P. submitted that accused-appellants Lalaln Singh was the Mukhia of the Panchayat having political background and therefore, it was not easy for the appellants to flee away from their house and to conceal themselves for the fear of being arrested. On the other hand in order to show their innocence, they remained in their house. The occurrence took place at about 11 a.m. and they were arrested at 3.30 p.m. Thus, they had enough time and opportunity to dratroy or conceal the dagger with which the murder was committed and their clothings. In our opinion, there is substance in the contention of the learned A.P.P. and this does not prove the innocence of the appellants. When there is otherwise consistent evidence showing their involvement in the crime. 16. Learned Counsel for the appellants relying upon the testimony of the Doctor, PW-10 who held the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased, tried to discard the testimony of the eye-witnesses including PWs 1, 2, 3, 6 and 9. It was submitted that in the fardbeyan (Ext.3) it is alleged that accused-appellant. Lalan Singh cut the throat of deceased Surendra Singh and accused-appellant, Upendra Prasad Singh gave chhura blows one in the abdomen and another on the chest of the deceased. The informant, Subhkala Devi, in her attempt to save her husband received an incised wound on the wrist of her left hand. Lalan Singh cut the throat of deceased Surendra Singh and accused-appellant, Upendra Prasad Singh gave chhura blows one in the abdomen and another on the chest of the deceased. The informant, Subhkala Devi, in her attempt to save her husband received an incised wound on the wrist of her left hand. The ante-mortem injuries, namely, injuries 1, 2 and 4 found on the dead body of the deceased resemble with the descriptive of the injuries given in Ext. 3. One incised wound found by PW-12, Dr. Hira Lal Prasad, on the person of the informant (PW-9) appears to be the result of the chhura blow given by accused-appellant, Upendra Pd. Singh, when she tried to overt the blow aimed at the deceased, Surendra Singh. Learned appellants lawyer submitted that PWs 1, 2, 6 and 7 have stated that three chhura blows were given on the deceased jointly by both the appellants. But PW-3 stated that the 3rd chhura blow was given by accused-appellant, Upendra Pd. Singh and thereafter, the fourth blow was given. PW-9 stated that accused-appellant Upender Pd.Singh gave 4-5 chhura blows on the person of her husband. But contrary to these evidence the doctor, PW-10, found five ante-mortem injuries and several ante-mortem abrasions on the dead body of the deceased and for which there is no explanation from the evidence of the PWs Learned A.P.P. submitted that from the evidence of the Doctor, PW-10, and the post-mortem report, Ext. 2, it would appear that there is no vital contradictions in the testimony of the above mentioned eye-witnesses. The witnesses are rustic villagers and in the stress and strain of cross-examination they might have exaggerated the number of blows, but in substance, the witnesses meant that several dagger blows were given to the deceased by both the appellants. It is immaterial whether it was three dagger blows or more in number. The circumstances prevailing at the place of occurrence makes one nervous and it was not possible to count the blows given by the appellants on the deceased, when it was more than one in number. Injury No. 1, as mentioned by the Doctor, which was an incised wound in front of the neck must have been caused by appellant Lalan Singh in the manner narrated in the fardbeyan and in the evidence of the PWs. Injury No. 1, as mentioned by the Doctor, which was an incised wound in front of the neck must have been caused by appellant Lalan Singh in the manner narrated in the fardbeyan and in the evidence of the PWs. Injury No. 4, which was an incised wound lending to abdominal cavity in the upper portion of the abdomen and directed to the left side must be the result of the first dagger blow given by appellant Upendra Pd.Singh. The informant stated that after this dagger blow, she fell down on the body of her husband to save his life. Thereafter, it is alleged that appellant Upendra Pd. Singh gave second chhura blow towards the left chest of the deceased, which appears to have caused injury No. 2, ie. the incised wound on the left of the chest. Under these circumstances, it was not possible for the informant or any of the witnesses to see. whether appellant Upendra Pd. Singh gave one chhura blow or repeated it causing two injuries on the chest and abdomen. In substance, the evidence of the PWs shows that appellant Upendra Pd.Singh had given repeated chhura blows on the deceased it has also come in the evidence that both the appellants threw the deceased on the ground and kept their respective legs on his body. This was likely to cause abrasions near the nose and forehead and also the shoulder of the deceased. Thus, there is no substance in the contention of the learned appellants lawyer that the PWs have not seen the appellants giving dagger blows to the deceased. 17. learned appellants lawyer contended that as per the evidence of the I.O. and the PWs 4, 8 and 11, the dead body was found lying in the open Verandah of his house. The inquest report also shows that when the I.O. visited the place of occurrence, he also found the dead body lying in the Verandah. On the other hand, as per the prosecution case, the deceased was killed near the tube-well. There is no explanation as to how the dead body was lying at the Verandah. It has come in the evidence of the informant that after the accused-persons fled away, she with the help of others dragged the dead body of her husband from near the tube-well to the Verandah. There is no explanation as to how the dead body was lying at the Verandah. It has come in the evidence of the informant that after the accused-persons fled away, she with the help of others dragged the dead body of her husband from near the tube-well to the Verandah. As per the evidence of the I.O. the Verandah is situated by the side of the tube-well. The I.O. had found blood stains near the tube-well and also at the Verandas. There is consistent evidence of the eye-witnesses that Surender Singh was killed near the tube-well by the appellants. Therefore, there is no substance and force in the above contention of the learned lawyer of the appellants. 18. In the last, the learned lawyer for the appellants has pointed out some contradictions and omissions in the testimony of the PWs more particularly, when they tried to conceal theft relationship with one Chandrashekhar Singh. It was urged that the PWs are not speaking truth and hence they should not be believed. Learned A.P.P. submitted that the contradictions and omissions pointed out by the appellants lawyer are so minor that they do not have any bearing on the vital facts of the case. There is a tendency amongst the witnesses to back up a good case by false of exaggerated version. It has been held in several decisions that on such minor contradictions it is not safe to assume that the case must be false, even if some of the evidence in support of it appears to be doubtful or untrue Bank in Chanier V/s. Matagini, AIR 1919 Privy Council 157). Learned A.P.P. submitted that if the evidence of the PWs. otherwise appears to be truthful and consistent on the material points, the main case should not be rejected. It is the duty of the Court to call out the nuggets of truth from the evidence unless there is reason to believe that the inconsistencies and falsehood are so glaring as utterly to destroy the confidence in the witnesses. 19. In the light of these submissions, we find that the alleged omissions and contradictions in the evidence of the PWs 1, 2, 3, 6, 7 and 9 are of no significance to discard their testimony. 19. In the light of these submissions, we find that the alleged omissions and contradictions in the evidence of the PWs 1, 2, 3, 6, 7 and 9 are of no significance to discard their testimony. From their evidence, it is proved beyond all reasonable doubt that under the orders of accused Ram Pratap Singh, accused-appellants, Lalan Singh and Upendra Prasad Singh gave chhura blows to the deceased and thereby committed his murder on the spot and they also gave caused injury to the informant, while she was trying to save her husband. We, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the learned trial Court, who after scrutinising the evidence in detail has found the appellants guilty and accordingly convicted and sentenced them as mentioned above. 20. In the result, this appeal fails and the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed against the accused-appellants is hereby upheld and confirmed.