JUDGMENT Nagendra Rai J.- The three appellants, along with two other accused, namely, Ramawati Devi and Jamadar Singh, were put on trial before tile 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Siwan, in Sessions Trial No 186 of 1981/39 of 1993 for the offences under sections 302/149, 324, 302, 148 and 448 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘I.P.C.’) and 27 of the Arms Act. The trial court convicted the appellants under section 302/149 of the I.P.C. and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. It acquitted them of other charges levelled against them. It has acquitted two of the accused persons, namely, Ramawati Devi and Jamadar Singh of all the charges levelled against him. 2. The occurrence, out of which, this appeal arises, took place at about 3 A.M. in between the 6th and 7th of March, 1979 at village Nizampur, P.S. Siwan (Muffasil), District Siwan, in which three persons, namely Rajbanshi Singh, Rajendra Singh (both brothers) and Adalat Singh (their uncle) were murdered. 3. The prosecution version is that at about 2 A.M. in the night, deceased Rajendra Singh, Osear Singh informant (not examined), P.W.4 Chhotan Singh and P.W.5 Ram Nath Singh to the Osara of the deceased persons after seeking a dance. Osear and Hira Singh went to sleep at Kolhwari (a place where sugarcane is crushed) and Rajendra Singh went to sleep at the Osara of his house. Nanhu Singh and Chottan Singh were warming themselves with fire near the Osara of Rajendra Singh. At that point of time, accused Ramawati Devi was seen moving towards south from that place and she returned after some time. In the meantime, the appellants arrived at the Osara and the appellants, accused Sheojee Singh and one unknown person surrounded Nanhu Singh and others went in the Osara and killed Rajendra Singh and, thereafter, the accused persons came to the Kolhwari. In the Kolhwari, Osear Singh along with Heera Singh (P.W.3) was sleeping. Rajbanshi Singh was also sleeping there. At about 3 A.M., they woke up on the sound of gun-firing and identified in the torch light all the three appellants, namely, Chandrika Singh, Chandradeo Singh & Lal Babu Choubey, accused Mahadeo Singh, Jamadar Singh and Sheojee Singh. Heera Singh threw Sheojee Singh, who was armed with a pistol on the ground. Thereafter, one of the miscreants assaulted him with Juath (bamboo-stick). Heera Singh threw Sheojee Singh, who was armed with a pistol on the ground. Thereafter, one of the miscreants assaulted him with Juath (bamboo-stick). Jamadar Singh assaulted Osear Singh with Bhala, Mahadeo Singh fired at Rajbanshi Singh, as a result of which he fell down and died. In the meantime, Adalat Singh, deceased, came on hulla and appellant Lal Babu Choubey is alleged to have fired upon him from his Single barrel gun resulting into his death. They raised hulla and thereafter, the accused person fled away towards north. 4. The motive for the occurrence, as alleged in the F.I.R., was that appellant Chandrika Singh had got a case filed by acquitted accused Ramawati Devi against P.W.1 Vikrama Singh for killing buffalo by poisioning. Ramawati Devi suspected hand of deceased Rajbanshi Singh in the said happening. She was threatening Rajbanshi Singh of being killed since two months prior to the occurrence, but Rajbanshi Singh did not take the aforesaid threat seriously. Ramawati Devi got the crime committed with the help of the accused persons. 5. Osear Singh lodged the fardbeyan (Ext.2) at Siwan Muffasil Police Station at 8 A.M. on 7.3.1979, on the basis of which a formal F.I.R. (Ext.3) was drawn up. The Police, after investigation, submitted chargesheet against the accused persons. Two of the accused, namely, Mahadeo Singh and Sheojee Singh are alleged to have been murdered and, accordingly, five accused persons were put on trial which ended in conviction of the appellants and acquittal of others as stated above. 6. The prosecution has examined nine witnesses in support of its case, out of whom P.W.1 Vikrama Singh, PW.2 Nandu Singh, P.W.3 Heera Singh and P.W.4 Chotan Singh are the alleged eve witnesses of the occurrence. P.W.5 Ram Nath Singh, brother of the deceased Rajendra Singh and Rajbanshi Singh was present at his Darwaja, but seeing the accused persons he fled away and as such he is not an eye witness of the actual occurrence. P.W.6 Anjoria Devi is the Widow of the deceased Adalat Singh and stole is a witness on the point that she woke up on the sound of gun firing and she along with her daughter-in-law Kalawati Devi (P.W8) and Gotani Nageshwari Devi (P.W. 7) came at the door and saw the appellants and the accused Mahadeo Singh wanted to snatch small child from the lap of her daughter-in-law Kalawati Devi. When Kalawati Devi disclosed that she was a girl and not a male, they left her. Thereafter, the accused persons entered into her house and she went into the Bathan. Thereafter, she was informed that her husband and others have been murdered. P.W.7 Nageshwari Devi is the mother of the two deceased Rajbanshi Singh and Rajendra Singh and she has been tendered. P.W.8 Kalawati Devi is the widow of deceased Rajendra Singh. She stated that at 3 A.M. she heard the sound of gun-firing. She noticed 8-9 persons having entered in her house, amongst whom she identified appellant Chandrika Singh, appellant Chandradeo Singh, acquitted accused Jamadar Singh and Mahadeo Singh. Mahadeo Singh was snatching child from her lap but she said that she was not a male and thereupon she was spared and, thereafter, she came to know that her husband and others have been murdered. 7. P.W.9 Dr. Shyam Balak Singh held post-mortem examination over the dead bodies of the three deceased on 7.3.1979 and had proved the post-mortem reports (Exts. 1 series). 8. Informant Osear Singh and the Investigating Officer have not been examined in this case. 9. The defence has examined four witnesses. D.W.1 is Yogendra Narayan Singh, who proved Attendance Register (Ext. 'A') to show that appellant Chandrika Singh was on duty at the relevant time and date of the occurrence as Sepahi (constable) in S.K.G. Sugar Mill, Siwan. D.W2 is Shankar Prasad, who has proved Ext. B, which explains the letters 'A, B and C' written over Register (Ext. A). DW. 3 is Satyanarayan Prasad, who is a Typist in the Civil Court and has proved his signature as Ext. C.D.W.4 is Ram Basawan Prasad, who has proved the signature of Osear Singh as Ext. X over an affidavit marked as Ext. D. 10. The trial court has not accepted the evidence of PW.5 Ram Nath Singh, P.W.6 Anjoria Devi and P.W. 8 Kalawati Devi and has relied upon the evidence of the Doctor and four eye witnesses and convicted the appellants as aforementioned. 11. The three deceased persons, namely, Rajbanshi Singh, Adalat Singh and Rajendra Singh are alleged to have been murdered by causing fire-arm in. juries. P.W.9 Dr. 11. The three deceased persons, namely, Rajbanshi Singh, Adalat Singh and Rajendra Singh are alleged to have been murdered by causing fire-arm in. juries. P.W.9 Dr. Shyam Balak Singh, who was posted at the relevant time as Civil Assistant Surgeon in Siwan Sadar Hospital, held autopsy over the dead body of the deceased on 7.3.1979 and found fire arm injuries on their persons and according to his opinion, the death was caused due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of the injuries caused by fire-arms. His evidence shows that the firing was made from a very close range. 12. Learned counsel for the appellants did not dispute the factum of death of the aforesaid three deceased caused by fire-arm injuries. Thus, from the evidence of the Doctor, it is clear that three persons were done to death by firearm injuries. 13. The next question for determination is as to whether the appellants along with others committed the murder of the aforesaid three persons or not? 14. As stated above, there are four eye witnesses to the occurrence and their evidence has to be scrutinised to find out as to whether the same is reliable or not. From the evidence on record, it appears that the acquitted accused Ramawati Devi had tiled a case against P.W.1 Vikrama Singh with regard to causing of death of her she-buffalo by poisoning. Ramdutt Sharma had filed a case against Harilal Singh. Said Harilal Singh is the husband of Ramawati Devi. P.W.4 Chotan Singh was a witness against said Harilal Singh. He was also a witness in a criminal case against appellant Lal Babu Choubey. P.W.2 Nanhu Singh is a ploughman of deceased Rajbanshi Singh. P.W.5 Ram Nath Singh is the brother of the two deceased Rajbanshi Singh and Rajendra Singh and nephew of deceased Adalat Singh. P.W.3 Heera Singh is neither related with the deceased persons nor is there any record to show that he was on inimical term with the accused persons from before. In the murder case of accused Mahadeo Singh, he is also arrayed as an accused along with other prosecution witnesses (P.Ws. 1, 2 and 4). 15. Thus, P.W. 1 Vikrama Singh, P.W.2 Heera Singh, P.W.4 Chotan Singh and P.W.5 Ram Nath Singh are either inimical or interested witnesses. In the murder case of accused Mahadeo Singh, he is also arrayed as an accused along with other prosecution witnesses (P.Ws. 1, 2 and 4). 15. Thus, P.W. 1 Vikrama Singh, P.W.2 Heera Singh, P.W.4 Chotan Singh and P.W.5 Ram Nath Singh are either inimical or interested witnesses. P.W. no.3 Heera Singh cannot be termed as inimical or interested witness only on the ground that subsequent to the institution of this case, he has been made an accused in the murder case of one of the accused. There is no law that the evidence of the interested or inimical witnesses is to be rejected only on the said ground. Their evidence has to be scrutinised with due care and caution to find out as to whether the same is acceptable in the light of other materials available on the record. 16. P.W. 1 Vikrama Singh has stated that in the night of the occurrence, he was sleeping at his Bathan, which is just east of the Kolhwari of deceased Rajbanshi Singh. On hearing the sound of deceased Rajbanshi Singh, he woke up and proceeded towards the Kolhwari of Rajbanshi Singh armed with a bhala. At that time, a Dhibri was burning in the Kolhwari. The accused persons were also flashing their torches. He found the appellants along with Mahadeo Singh, Jamadar Singh, Sheojee Singh and Ramawati Devi. P.W.3 Heera Singh and informant Osear Singh were also found there. Accused Jamadar Singh assaulted informant Osear Singh. Mahadeo Singh fired killing deceased Rajbanshi Singh. Appellant Lal Babu Chaubey fired killing deceased Adalat Singh. Mahadeo Singh ordered Lal Babu Chaubey to assault this witness also and thereupon Lal Babu Chaubey aimed his gun towards him, but he escaped by reason of falling in a ditch. Thereafter, the accused persons went towards the house of deceased Rajbanshi Singh. He also stated that the accused persons killed deceased Rajendra Singh and also assaulted Heera Singh and others. 17. It was submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the presence of P.W.1 Vikrama Singh at the place of occurrence was doubtful as according to the evidence of P. W.3 Heera Singh, this witness was warming himself with the fire at the Osara of Rajendra Singh, whereas this witness stated that at the time of occurrence, he was at the Darwaja. 18. 18. No doubt, P.W.3 Heera Singh has stated that when he, P.W.1 Vikrama Singh and others returned after seeing the dance, P.W.1 Vikrama Singh and P.W.4 Chotan Singh stayed at the Darwaja of deceased Rajendra Singh and were warming themselves with the fire and he went to sleep at the Kolhwari of deceased Rajbanshi Singh, but that does not mean that P.W.1 Vikrama Singh remained warming himself at the Darwaja of Rajendra Singh. Once P.W.3 left the Darwaja of Rajendra Singh and went to sleep at the Kolhwari of Rajbanshi Singh, then he is not supposed to know as to what happened at the Darwaja of Rajendra Singh. P.W. 1 Vikrama Singh, after warming himself, appears to have gone to his house to sleep and on hulla tie rushed to the place of occurrence from his house. Only on the basis of the aforesaid statement of P.W.3, the presence of P.W.1 cannot be doubted. P.W.1 has consistently stated in cross-examination also about the manner of occurrence and as a whole his evidence inspires confidence. 19. P.W.2 Nanhu Singh is bullock-cart-driver of the deceased persons and his evidence is that at about 2 A.M., P.W. 5 Ram Nath Singh called him to feed the cattle of his employer Rajbanshl Singh so that the sugarcane loaded on the bullock-cart might be sent to the mill. He came at about 2 A.M. and was feeding the cattle, at the Darwaja of deceased Rajbanshi Singh. In the meantime, deceased Rajendra Singh, informant Osear Singh. P.W.4 Chotan Singh and P.W.3 Heera Singh and others after seeing the dance. Informant Osear Singh and P.W.3 Heera Singh slept In the Kolhwari of deceased Rajbanshi Singh and deceased Rajendra Singh slept on the Osara of his house. P.W.4 Chotan Singh and this witness sat near the fire-place and were warming themselves. At about 3 A.M., one lady came from east and went towards south and he identified her to be Ramawati Devi. These appellants, along with accused Sheojee Singh, Mahadeo Singh and Jamadar Singh followed her. Appellants Lal Babu Chaubey, Chandradeo Singh and accused Mahadeo Singh were armed with guns, accused Sheoji Singh was armed with pistol and appellants Chandrika Singh and accused Jamadar Singh were armed with Bhala. Accused Mahadeo Singh went to the Osara and killed deceased Rajendra Singh by firing. Appellants Lal Babu Chaubey, Chandradeo Singh and accused Mahadeo Singh were armed with guns, accused Sheoji Singh was armed with pistol and appellants Chandrika Singh and accused Jamadar Singh were armed with Bhala. Accused Mahadeo Singh went to the Osara and killed deceased Rajendra Singh by firing. Thereafter, the accused persons came in the Kolhwari and accused Sheoji Singh killed deceased Rajbanshi Singh by firing pistol and appellant Lal Babu Chaubey killed deceased Adalat Singh by firing gun. They also caused Injuries to informant Osear Singh and Pundeo. According to this witness, the motive for the occurrence was that appellant Chandrika Singh was cultivating the land of Mathia of Sadhu Baba on Batai, situated in the village. He was not sharing the crops with the Mahanth of the math and, therefore, the Mahanth transferred 2 1/2 bighas of land to deceased Rajbanshi Singh. 20. The evidence of this witness was condemned by tile learned counsel for the appellants on the ground that he is an employee at the deceased. This apart, his conduct showed that he was not present as he did not raise hulla at the time of occurrence and he claims to be a witness of the occurrence having taken place at Kolhwari of deceased Rajbanshi Singh, whereas, from the F.I.R., it appears that he had claimed to have seen the murder of deceased Rajendra Singh, which had taken place at the Darwaja. He also submitted that in view of the evidence of P.W.5 Ram Nath Singh, brother of deceased Rajbanshi Singh and Rajendra Singh, that the cartman Mangru was present at the time of occurrence. His presence at the place of occurrence was doubtful. 21. No doubt, the first informant Osear Singh has not been examined. The first informant, generally, can be used to corroborate and contradict the maker but it is also a relevant fact under Section 11 of the Evidence Act and any fact mentioned or any omission in the first information report is a relevant fact to judge the veracity of the prosecution case. It is clearly stated in the F.I.R., which was lodged six to seven hours of the occurrence, that at the Darwaja of deceased Rajendra Singh, P.W.2 Nanhu Singh was feeding the cattle and he stated with regard to the murder of deceased Rajendra Singh. It is clearly stated in the F.I.R., which was lodged six to seven hours of the occurrence, that at the Darwaja of deceased Rajendra Singh, P.W.2 Nanhu Singh was feeding the cattle and he stated with regard to the murder of deceased Rajendra Singh. P.W.3 Heera Singh and P.W.4 Chotan Singh, who had come after seeing the dance first at the Darwaja have also stated that when they came, P.W.2 Nanhu Singh was present and he was feeding the cattle and warming himself with the fire. In view of the earliest statement having been made in the F.I.R. about the presence of P W.2 Nanhu Singh, at the Darwala and the evidence of P.Ws. 3 and 4, the presence of this witness cannot be doubted only on the basis of the aforesaid statement at PW5 Ram Nath Singh, which appears to be a mistake in describing tile name at the cartman. 22. P.W.2 in the court has claimed to have seen the murder of Rajendra Singh in the Osara as well as the murder of Rajbanshi Singh and Adalat Singh in the Kolhwari. So far as his claim of having witnessed the murder of Rajendra Singh in the Osara is concerned, as stated above, it was mentioned in the F.I.R. that he had seen the murder of Rajendra Singh. He has consistently stated about the murder of Rajendra Singh and there is no reason to discredit his evidence on the point of murder of Rajendra Singh. So far as his claim to having witnessed the murder of other two deceased, namely, Rajbanshi Singh and Adalat Singh is concerned, the same appears to be an exaggeration on his part. The evidence on the record shows that the Osara and the Kolhwar are at two places. There is no evidence to show that the Kolhwar was visible from the place where he was witnessing the happening at the Osara. In the earliest F.I.R., there is no mention of the fact that he has claimed to have witnessed the murder of other two deceased Rajbanshi Singh and Adalat Singh, which took place in the Kolhwar. The evidence of P.W.3 Heera Singh also shows that soon after the occurrence, this witness claimed himself to be a witness of the murder of deceased Rajendra Singh only. He never claimed to have seen the murder of other two deceased. The evidence of P.W.3 Heera Singh also shows that soon after the occurrence, this witness claimed himself to be a witness of the murder of deceased Rajendra Singh only. He never claimed to have seen the murder of other two deceased. Thus, the evidence at P.W.2 with regard to murder of two deceased persons, namely Rajbanshi Singh and Adalat Singh is not acceptable and his eVidence is acceptable only regarding the murder of deceased Rajendra Singh. 23. P.W.3 Heera Singh has stated that he along with deceased Rajendra Singn, informant Osear Singh, P.W.1 Vikarama Singh and PW.4 Chotan Singh returned to the village at 2 A.M. after seeing dance. P.W.2 Nanhu Singh was seen feeding cattle in the Bathan of deceased Rajbanshi Singh. P. W.1 Vikrama Singh. P.W.4 Chotan Singh and deceased Rajendra Singh started warming themselves with the tire and he and Informant Osear Singh went to Kolhwar at Rajbanshi Singh to sleep. Deceased Rajendra Singh slept in the Dalan. At about 3 A.M. he heard the sound of Rajbanshi Singh and noticed that there was a scuffle between the acquitted accused Jamadar Singh and deceased Rajbanshi Singh. He and Osear Singh rushed there and identified the accused persons, including the appellants. Accused Mahadeo Singh, appellant Lal Babu Chaubey and appellant Chandradeo Singh were armed with gun. Sheojee Singh was armed with a pistol, accused Jamadar Singh and appellant Chandrika Singh were armed with Bhala and accused Ramawati Devi was empty handed. He had a scuffle with accused Sheojee Singh and he threw Sheojee Singh on the ground and, thereafter, some one assaulted him on his back with Juath (bamboo-stick) and accused Jamadar Singh assaulted Osear Singh with Bhala. Thereafter, accused Mahadeo Singh fired killing deceased Rajbanshi Singh and when Adalat Singh came to save Rajbanshi Singh, appellant Lal Babu Chaubey fired causing his death. Thereafter, he went to the Darwaja/Bathan where he found deceased Rajendra Singh lying dead. P.W.2 Nanhu Singh was also present there and he disclosed that the accused persons committed the murder of Rajendra Singh. This witness has stated that the night was moonlit night and in that light, he had seen the occurrence, there is nothing on the record to show that this witness has animus against the appellants. P.W.2 Nanhu Singh was also present there and he disclosed that the accused persons committed the murder of Rajendra Singh. This witness has stated that the night was moonlit night and in that light, he had seen the occurrence, there is nothing on the record to show that this witness has animus against the appellants. There was a scuffle between this witness and accused Sheojee Singh and as such he had enough time to identify the appellants and his evidence is, thus, consistent on the point of murder of deceased Rajbanshi Singh and Adalat Singh. 24. P.W.4 Chotan Singh has stated that after seeing the dance, he along with other persons came. P.W. 3 Heera Singh and informant Osear Singh went to Kolhwar and deceased Rajendra Singh went to sleep at this Osara. He as well as P. W.2 Nanhu Singh and PW.5 Ram Nath Singh remained there warming themselves with fire. At about 3 A.M., the acquitted accused Ramawati Devi came there and proceeded towards south and, thereafter, she again returned back. In the meantime, these appellants and other accused persons also came there. Accused Mahadeo Singh, Sheojee Singh and appellant Lal Babu Chaubey were armed with gun, accused Jamadar Singh and appellant Chandrika Singh were armed with Bhala and appellant Chandradeo Singh was armed with pistol. Mahadeo Singh fired at deceased Rajbanshi Singh causing his death and appellant Lal Babu Chaubey fired killing deceased Adalat Singh. Rajendra Singh was also murdered. Accused Jamadar Singh also assaulted informant Osear Singh with bhala. According to this witness, the motive for the occurrence was dispute with regard to the property of the Math. Appellant Chandrika Singh and accused Mahadeo Singh were cultivating land of the Math on Batai, but they were not sharing the crops with the Mahanth. The Mahanth had transferred some land of the Math to deceased Rajbanshi Singh, which caused annoyance to appellant Chandrika Singh. From the cross-examination of this witness, it appears that his claim of having seen the occurrence of murder is not acceptable. As stated above, this witness is on inimical term. He has stated that when he saw the accused persons, he was frightened and fled towards the village. He went to the Choukidar. After he left the place, he heard the sound of firing. After some time, the Choukidar and villagers came by raising hulla and 'MARO-MARO' (assault). As stated above, this witness is on inimical term. He has stated that when he saw the accused persons, he was frightened and fled towards the village. He went to the Choukidar. After he left the place, he heard the sound of firing. After some time, the Choukidar and villagers came by raising hulla and 'MARO-MARO' (assault). By that time, the accused persons had fled away. He heard sound of 4-5 firings. After coming to the place of occurrence, he found three persons to be lying dead. Thus, it appears that at the moment the accused arrived, he fled away and returned to the place of occurrence after retreat of the appellants and other accused persons. Thus, he is not an eye witness of the actual murder but his evidence that he was present at the Dalan of Rajendra Singh and saw the appellants and other accused persons is acceptable. 25. P.W.5 Ram Nath Singh is the brother of deceased Rajbanshi Singh and Rajendra Singh and nephew of deceased Adalat Singh. He has claimed that he was also present at the Darwaja and warming himself with fire along with P.W.4 Chotan Singh and others. He noticed all the accused persons, including the appellants having come there. He identified them in the torch-light. Thereafter, he fled away and when he returned back, he found three of his family members having been murdered. The evidence of this witness has been rejected by the trial court on the ground that when the accused persons had come to commit the murder, they would not expose their identities and as such claim of identification by this witness of the accused person is not credible. 26. In my view, the ground given by the trial court is nearer to absurdity. It is not necessary that when known accused persons commit offence, they in all cases conceal their identities. If this ground is accepted, then the evidence of all the eye witnesses has to be rejected. This witness is the brother of the two deceased and nephew of one deceased. He has been examined soon after the occurrence by the investigating Officer. If really he wanted to falsely implicate the appellants, he should have claimed to have witnessed the occurrence of murder, but he has only claimed that after seeing the appellants and other accused persons at his Darwaja, he fled away. He has been examined soon after the occurrence by the investigating Officer. If really he wanted to falsely implicate the appellants, he should have claimed to have witnessed the occurrence of murder, but he has only claimed that after seeing the appellants and other accused persons at his Darwaja, he fled away. The appellants were known to him and as such after seeing them if he left the place apprehending danger to his life, the said conduct cannot be said to be unbelievable to discard his evidence. Thus, the evidence on the record shows that P.W.2 Nanhu Singh and P.W.4 Chotan Singh have witnessed the murder of deceased Rajendra Singh at his Darwaja and P.W.1 Vikrama Singh and P.W. 3 Heera Singh have witnessed the murder of deceased Rajbanshi Singh and Adalat Singh at the Kolhwar; Claims of P.W.2 Nanhu Singh and P.W.4 Chotan Singh of having witnessed the murder of other two deceased are not acceptable on the ground as mentioned above. P.W.5 Ram Nath Singh had also seen the appellants arriving at his Darwaja and thereafter, he fled away. 27. P.W.6 Anjoria Devi is the widow of deceased Adalat Singh and P.W.8 Kalawati Devi is the widow of the deceased Rajendra Singh. They have also claimed that they woke up on hearing sound of gun-fire and at that time the appellants and others came to their house armed with deadly weapons. Amongst them, P.W.6 Anjoria Devi identified appellant Chandrika Singh, appellant Chandradeo Singh, accused Mahadeo Singh and acquitted accused Jamadar Singh and P.W.8 identified appellants Chandrika Singh, Chandradeo Singh, acquitted accused Jamadar Singh and Mahadeo Singh. Mahadeo Singh wanted to snatch the child from the lap of P.W.3 Kalawati Devi, but when she told that she was a female child, Mahadeo Singh left her. Later on, they came to know that accused persons had committed murder of three persons. The trial court has rejected their evidence primarily on the ground that the version given by P.W.6 Anjoria Devi and P.W.8 Kalawati Devi did not find mention in the earliest version i.e. in the F.I.R. In the F.I.R., it is not mentioned that after committing the murder, accused persons, including the appellants had gone to the house of the deceased and wanted to kill the child, who was in the lap of P.W.8. This vital omission in the F.I.R. is a relevant fact and as such the trial court rightly did not rely on the evidence of P.Ws. 6 and 8 and their evidence is not being taken into consideration in this case. 28. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove motive and as such the entire case is to be thrown out. 29. It is not incumbent upon the prosecution to prove the motive. The motive is pointed out by the prosecution to highten the probability that the offence was committed by the accused persons as a result of the alleged motive. Unless the culprits make an utterance prior to the occurrence or at the time of occurrence suggesting the motive, it is difficult to know the motive or reason; which impelled or forced the accused to commit the crime. The motive is generally shrouded in mystery. Only culprits know as to what moved them to adopt a certain course of action. Thus, proof or non-proof of motive is not a primary consideration in deciding a case based on oral testimony. The role of motive in a case of direct evidence is secondary or insignificant if oral testimony is found to be consistent and acceptable to prove the offence alleged against the culprits. 30. In this case, the earliest motive alleged for committing the crime was that the acquitted accused Ramawati Devi was under an impression that her she-buffalo was poisoned to death by P.W.1 Vikrama Singh at the instance of deceased Rajbanshi Singh, with regard to which she had filed a case. In the court, the prosecution has alleged two motives to commit the crime. P.W.2 Nanhu Singh, P.W.4 Chotan Singh and P.W.5 Ram Nath Singh have clearly stated that appellant Chandrika Singh was cultivating the land of the Math on the batai but he did not share crops with the Mahanth Gaya Das, as a result of which the Mahanth transferred some of the land of the Math with deceased Rajbanshi Singh, which caused annoyance to appellant Chandrika Singh. P.W.5 Ram Nath Singh had also stated that apart from the said motive, acquitted accused Ramawati Devi was having a grudge that her she-buffalo was done to death by poisoning by P.W.1 Vikrama Singh at the instance of deceased Rajbanshi Singh. P.W.5 Ram Nath Singh had also stated that apart from the said motive, acquitted accused Ramawati Devi was having a grudge that her she-buffalo was done to death by poisoning by P.W.1 Vikrama Singh at the instance of deceased Rajbanshi Singh. The witnesses have been cross- examined on the point of motive and they have stood the test of cross-examination. Thus, the prosecution in this case has proved the motive for the occurrence. The trial court, in my view, wrongly held that the prosecution has not proved the motive. Even if the motive is not taken to have been proved as stated above, that cannot be a ground to discredit the oral testimony of the witnesses only on the ground of the prosecution having not proved the motive. 31. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that the occurrence admittedly took place during night and there was no means of identification. As such, the claim of the witnesses of having identified the appellants has to be rejected. 32. I am unable to agree with the submission advanced on behalf of the appellants. The evidence of P. W.1 Vikrama Singh and P.W.3 Heera Singh shows that at the time of occurrence a Dhibri was burning at the Kalhwar of deceased Rajbanshi Singh. Their evidence as well as the evidence of PW.2 Nanhu Singh shows that the accused persons were also flashing their torches and the Identification was made in the light of the Dhibri and torches flashed by the accused persons. Thus, there was enough means of identification of the appellants. This apart, all the appellants were known to the prosecution witnesses. Their evidence shows that there was scuffle between some of the witnesses with some accused persons. They were at the place of occurrence for some time. In such a situation, the witnesses could identify the appellants even in absence of any light. In rural areas, the witnesses are accustomed identify the persons by gait etc. even in absence of a light. Thus, the said submission advanced on behalf of the appellants does not carry any weight. 33. In such a situation, the witnesses could identify the appellants even in absence of any light. In rural areas, the witnesses are accustomed identify the persons by gait etc. even in absence of a light. Thus, the said submission advanced on behalf of the appellants does not carry any weight. 33. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that the story introduced by the prosecution for the first time in the court that deceased Rajendra Singh and other witnesses came at about 2 A.M. after seeing a dance and, thereafter, some remained at the Darwaja of Rajendra Singh and some went to the Kolhwar of Rajbanshi Singh does not find mention in the F.I.R. and as such the claim of the witnesses being present at the places of occurrence is to be rejected. 34. The first information report is not an encyclopaedia in the sense that it should contain all the details with regard to an occurrence. It is lodged with a view to put the criminal law in motion. No doubt, omission of important fact in the F.I.R. is a relevant fact under section 11 of the Evidence Act, but that does not mean that it should contain minute detail. The return of the witnesses after seeing a dance is not such an important fact with regard to an occurrence in question that it should have been mentioned in the F.I.R. The omission of this fact in the earliest version cannot be said to be a serious omission affecting the prosecution case or affecting the credibility of the witnesses. 35. Thus, none of the grounds urged by the learned counsel for the appellants create a doubt about the oral testimony of the witnesses. Their evidence inspires confidence and shows that these appellants along with others committed the murder of the three deceased. The trial court has rightly convicted them and there is no ground to interfere with the judgment and order of conviction. 36. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Appellants Chandrika Singh and Chandradeo Singh are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled and they are directed to serve out the remainder of their sentence. Appellant Lal Babu Chaubey is in jail and as such he is also directed to serve out the remainder of this sentence. R. N. Prasad, J. - I agree.