Judgment 1. These two appeals arose out of a common judgment dated 13.5.1996, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Bokaro in Sessions Trial No. 27 of 1993. Both have been heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment. 2. Both the appellants, namely, Mohan Kumar Sinha and Binod Kumar Pandey have been convicted under Sections 302/34 and 380/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Mohan Kumar Sinha has further been convicted under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code. Both of them have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code No separate sentence has been awarded under Sections 380/34 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. On 6-6-1992 at 6.30 a.m. Raj Bali Sharma (P.W. 9) Sub-Inspector of Police of Bokaro Steel City Police Station, recorded fardbeyan (Ext. 3) of Satya Prakash Mishra, P.W. 6 at 48, Co-operative Colony, Bokaro Steel City and a formal First Information Report, Ext. 9 was drawn, vide Bokaro Steel City Police Station Case No. 229 of 1992, under Sections 302/34, 380 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code against Mohan Kumar Sinha and Binod Kumar Pandey, the two appellants herein., 4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that one Ajit Kumar Sinha was residing with family in upper floor of the house of the informant as tenant. His family comprised of his wife, children and younger brother, Ranjit Kumar Sinha @ Munna. Ajit Kumar Sinha was running a small industry and had left for Hazaribagh with his wife and children ten days before the date of occurrence. Only his brother Ranjit Kumar Sinha @ Munna was living in the house. On 6-6-1992 at 5.00 a.m. the informant awoke on hearing sound of fall of some heavy thing upstairs. He rushed to the entrance door of the upper floor and found the door closed. He called Munna repeatedly to know what had happened but did not get any reply from him. He, therefore, came downstairs and after washing his mouth again went upstairs. This time he tried to open the door by pushing and pulling handle of the door. The door opened. He saw a man washing blood from his hands in a wash-basin. When he wanted to enter inside, two persons tried to block his way. He, therefore, came downstairs and after washing his mouth again went upstairs. This time he tried to open the door by pushing and pulling handle of the door. The door opened. He saw a man washing blood from his hands in a wash-basin. When he wanted to enter inside, two persons tried to block his way. He pushed them aside and entered inside the house and enquired from them about Munna and they told that he was in inner room. He went there and found Munna lying in pool of blood on the floor of the room. He immediately turned his head and saw both of them going down the stairs. He immediately shouted, came down and called his brother Vinay Prakash Mishra, P.W. 1 and others and chased both of them shouting murder murder. Near Sector 2-A turning they succeeded in catching one of them. Another man managed to escape taking advantage of the truck, which was standing near the turning. The man, who was caught, disclosed his name on enquiry as Mohan Kumar Sinha, son of Jagarnath Prasad of village Okani, District. Hazaribagh. He confessed his guilt and disclosed that on 4-6-1992 his co-villager. Binod Kumar Pandey told him that he had to collect his dues from Ranjit Kumar Sinha at 48, Co-operative Colony, Bokaro Steel City and asked him to remain present at Bus stand in the morning of 6-6-1992 to go with him. Accordingly, he came to Nayamore Bus stand in the night of 5-6-1992. There he took his meal and slept at Nayamore Bus stand in the night. On the next morning at 5.00 a.m. Binod Kumar Pandey met him at the Bus stand and asked him to follow him. On the way he told him that he has to kill Ranjit Kumar, for which he would get Rs. 2,000/- Both of them came to the house of Ranjit Kumar Sinha and pressed call bell. Ranjit opened the door, both of them entered inside and went in the bed room of Ranjit @ Munna, tied his neck with a read Dupatta, which was lying on a bed. Binod Kumar Pandey, asked him to press his legs and started cutting his neck with Astura Barbers knife. Ranjit started struggling for his life by moving his hands and legs. Due to struggle made by him, one of the legs of the bed broke. Binod Kumar Pandey, asked him to press his legs and started cutting his neck with Astura Barbers knife. Ranjit started struggling for his life by moving his hands and legs. Due to struggle made by him, one of the legs of the bed broke. Thereafter, somebody started beating the door. In the meantime, Binod Kumar Pandey took Rs. 10,000/- from a wooden Almirah kept in the room and gave the money to him. He also gave Astura to him. The man, who was beating the door, stopped beating the door and went down, but by the time they were thinking to escape, a man again came and started beating the door and this time the door opened. They tried to block his way but he pushed them and went inside. In the meantime, they came down and started running in bid to escape. 5. The police after investigation submitted charge-sheet against both of them. Cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions tor trial. 6. The defence version was complete denial of alleged occurrence. The alleged extra-judicial confession made by accused Mohan Kumar Sinha was also denied. Their further defence was that Binod Kumar Pandey was shown to the informant prior to his production for T.I. Parade and, therefore, his identification in T.I. Parade was meaningless. The motive alleged for the crime was also denied. They were falsely implicated in the case for the reasons best known to the prosecution. However, Mohan Kumar Sinha has admitted in his examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that he was arrested by the mob on the alleged date of occurrence at Sector 2-A turning. He claimed to have come to Bokaro to his brother inlaw, who was in C.I.S.F. and was living in quarter No. 1011, of Section 12-C. 7. The prosecution examined altogether 9 witnesses in support of its case. P.Ws. 1 to 5 are persons, who had chased the accused-persons and caught accused Mohan Kumar Sinha, who made confessional statement before them. P.W. 6 is the informant. P.W. 7 is the Magistrate, who had conducted T.I. Parade, wherein accused Binod Kumar Pandey was identified. P.W. 8 is the Doctor, who had conducted post-mortem examination on the dead-body of Ranjit Kumar Sinha @ Munna and P.W. 9 is the Investigation Officer of the case. 8. P.W. 6 is the informant. P.W. 7 is the Magistrate, who had conducted T.I. Parade, wherein accused Binod Kumar Pandey was identified. P.W. 8 is the Doctor, who had conducted post-mortem examination on the dead-body of Ranjit Kumar Sinha @ Munna and P.W. 9 is the Investigation Officer of the case. 8. P.W. 6, the informant was admittedly living in the ground floor on the house in which murder was committed in the early morning of 6-6-1992. He heard sound of fall of something upstairs. This attracted his attention and he went upstairs but first time no body opened the door. Second time he was able to open the door and saw two persons inside. One of them was washing blood from his hands in wash-basin. The informant enquired from them about the deceased and on their pointing out he went towards inner room and saw dead body of Ranjit Kumar Sinha @ Munna lying by the side of bed in pool of blood. In the meantime, both of them went down. The informant raised hulla, came down and chased them along with others. One of them was caught near Sector 2-A turning, who confessed his guilt. The other man, however, escaped. 9. The presence of informant in the early morning hours at the time of occurrence (sic) going up stairs on hearing sound is along a general and natural human conduct. On his hulla others also chased the accused-persons and one of them was caught. He identified the second man, who had escaped, in the T.I. Parade as the man, whom he had seen washing blood from hands in the washbasin as soon as on his efforts the main door opened. The bed in the inner room was found displaced and dead body was lying on the ground. So the sound heard by informant might have been of displacement of bed combined with the sound of falling of deceased form bed. In my opinion, the informant was an important, independent and reliable witness. 10. P.W. 1 was brother of the informant, who was living with him. On informants call, he had also chased the culprits with others and one of them was caught by him, who made confessional statements in his presence and Rs. 10,000/-in cash, one cartridge and a blood-stained barbers knife were recovered from possession of the culprit, who was caught. 10. P.W. 1 was brother of the informant, who was living with him. On informants call, he had also chased the culprits with others and one of them was caught by him, who made confessional statements in his presence and Rs. 10,000/-in cash, one cartridge and a blood-stained barbers knife were recovered from possession of the culprit, who was caught. He is also an independent witness and had no motive to falsely implicate the accused-persons in the case. 11. P.W. 2 was an employee of the deceased. He had identified accused Binod Kumar Pandey with another person, while he was coming down through the stairs and the witness was going upstairs to meet the deceased. The witness asked him "Kya Binodji Kyon Bhage Ja Rahe Hain" but he did not answer and proceeded fastly. Binod was known to him from before as co-villager of his employer. In the meantime, the landlord, (P.W. 6) raised alarm "Pakro - Pakro Ranjit Kumar Ka Murder Karke Bhaga }a Raha Hai" and then all the persons chased them and one of them was caught by P.W. 1 who disclosed his name as Mohan Kumar Sinha of village Okani (Hazaribagh) and made confessional statement in his presence and the aforesaid articles were recovered from him. 12. It was submitted that P.W. 6 in his fardbeyan (Ext. 3) did not disclose presence of P.W. 2 in the staircase when the accused-persons came down nor it was stated by him in his deposition in Court. The trial Court found that statements of all the witnesses including P.W. 2 was recorded by Investigating Officer (P.W. 9) on 7-6-1992 itself and so there was no chance of introduction of this witness for a particular purpose at a later stage. In my opinion, evidence of P.W. 2 cannot be discarded because the informant did not mention about him in his fardbeyan and deposition in Court. 13. P.W. 3 was a resident of Co-operative Colony. He was on morning walk and had chased the accused-per sons along with informant, who was shouting murder - murder. One of the culprits was caught in his presence and two bundles of currency notes of Rs. 50/, one cartridge and one Astura were recovered from his possession. The said accused confessed his guilt and narrated the entire story of the occurrence. 14. P.W. 4 was also a resident of the said colony. One of the culprits was caught in his presence and two bundles of currency notes of Rs. 50/, one cartridge and one Astura were recovered from his possession. The said accused confessed his guilt and narrated the entire story of the occurrence. 14. P.W. 4 was also a resident of the said colony. In course of morning walk, he saw two persons being chased by informant and others and raising alarm, he also joined them. One of the accused was apprehended and confessed his guilt in his presence. He came on the place of occurrence and saw the dead-body on the ground. Wooden almirah of the room was open and mattren on the cot was scattered. There is nothing to doubt this witness. 15. P.W. 5 was also a morning walker and had joined chasing the accused-persons along with others. He corroborated the statements of others on chase, arrest, recovery and extra-judicial confession of the culprit, Mohan Kumar Sinha. 16. According to deposition of P.Ws. 1 to 6, I find corroboration in respect of the confessional statement of accused Mohan Kumar Sinha that both culprits were co-villagers of the deceased. On the plan of co-accused Binod Kumar Pandey, both of them came to the house of the deceased in the early morning of 6-6-1992 and killed him. Rs. 10,000/- was taken from the wooden almirah of the room, wherein Ranjit Kumar Sinha @ Munna was killed and was recovered from him, when he was caught on chase by the informant and others. The blood-stained barbers knife, which was used in killing was also recovered from his possession along with a cartridge and handed over to the police. 17. The informant or any body else had not seen the accused-persons taking Rs. 10,000/- from the deceaseds almirah. Accused Mohan Kumar Sinha himself stated that the said amount, which was recovered from his possession was taken out from wooden almirah of the deceased by co-accused Binod and was handed over to him. 18. There is nothing to discard the testimony of the aforesaid independent witnesses who had neither any enmity nor bias nor any motive for attributing untruthful statements to the accused. Their evidence as to whatever happened in their presence and was seen and extrajudicial confession made by accused Mohan Kumar Sinha in their presence are worth acceptable. 18. There is nothing to discard the testimony of the aforesaid independent witnesses who had neither any enmity nor bias nor any motive for attributing untruthful statements to the accused. Their evidence as to whatever happened in their presence and was seen and extrajudicial confession made by accused Mohan Kumar Sinha in their presence are worth acceptable. Accused Binod Kumar Pandey was not only named as co-accused by Mohan but he was also identified by the informant (P.W. 6) as the person, whom he had seen washing blood from his hands in the wash basin, immediately after the occurrence, as soon as the door opened on his (P.W. 6) effort. 19. It was argued on behalf of appellant, Binod Kumar Pandey that he was already shown to the witnesses at the time of his remand at Hazaribagh and hence his identification in T.I. Parade after a long lapse of time was meaningless. The Investigating Officer (P.W. 9) in his deposition stated that he brought Binod Kumar Pandey from Hazaribagh to Chas Sub-Jail on 21-7-1992 and T.I. Parade was conducted immediately thereafter on 24-7-1992. Therefore, T.I. Parade cannot be said to be doubtful. 20. Accused Mohan Kumar Sinha in his examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure stated that he had come to Bokaro Steel City to see his ailing sister. His brother-in-law was in C.R.P.F. and was living in Qr. No. 1101, Sector 12/C. While going to catch bus, he saw many persons assembled near Sector 2-A turning. One man asked him is native place. As soon as he disclosed that he was from Hazaribagh, he shouted "this is the culprit" and thereafter he was caught and assaulted there. However, any body including his brother-in-law, if any, living at Bokaro Steel City, was not examined to support it. 21. The doctor, P.W. 8 in post-mortem examination (Ext. 6) conducted on the dead-body of Ranjit Kumar Sinha @ Munna found ligature mark around the neck and incised wounds on the neck palm and thumb of the deceased. The confessional statement of accused Mohan Kumar Sinha narrating manner of occurrence finds support from the said medical evidence. 22. No doubt, extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence and it is to be proved just like any other fact and the value thereof depends upon the veracity of the witnesses to whom it is made. The confessional statement of accused Mohan Kumar Sinha narrating manner of occurrence finds support from the said medical evidence. 22. No doubt, extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence and it is to be proved just like any other fact and the value thereof depends upon the veracity of the witnesses to whom it is made. However, it is not necessary that the actual words used by the accused must be given by the witnesses and it is for the Court to decide on the acceptability of the evidence having regard to the credibility of the witnesses. In this regard, reference may be made to a recent decision of the apex Court in Kanta v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1998) 6 SCC 108 . 23. It is well settled that if the evidence about extra-judicial confession comes from the mouth of witnesses, which appear to be unbiased, not even remotely inimical to the accused, and in respect of whom nothing is brought out which may tend to indicate that he may have a motive for attributing an untruthful statement to the accused, the extra-judicial confession can be accepted and can be the basis of conviction. In this regard, reference may be made to a decision of apex Court in State of U.P. v. M.K. Anthony, AIR 1985 SC 48 : 1985 East Cr C 66 (SC). 24. In the present case, words spoken to by P.Ws. 1 to 6 are clear, unambiguous and unmistakably convey that both the accused-persons were the perpetrators of the crime. Minor inconsistency, if any, on trivial matters not touching the core of the case in the testimony of those witnesses. In our opinion, was insignificant. Evidence of those witnesses read as a whole indicates a ring of truth. The trial Court before whom the witnesses gave evidence had the opportunity to form opinion about the general tenor of evidence given by them and it was found that there was no material to discard the testimony of those independent witnesses. In our opinion, was insignificant. Evidence of those witnesses read as a whole indicates a ring of truth. The trial Court before whom the witnesses gave evidence had the opportunity to form opinion about the general tenor of evidence given by them and it was found that there was no material to discard the testimony of those independent witnesses. This Court which did not have this benefit shall have to attach due weight to the appreciation of evidence by the trial Court, unless there were reasons weighty and formidable, it is not proper to reject their evidence on the ground of minor variations or infirmities in the matter of trivial details of the confessional statement of accused Mohan Kumar Sinha, because power of observation, retention and re- production differs with each individual. 25. After having carefully gone through entire evidence on record, we find that prosecution has been able to conclusively prove the charges levelled against both the appellants. The appellants have been rightly convicted on different counts by the trial Court. 26. We, therefore, find no merit in these two appeals. Both the appeals are dismissed and convictions and sentence passed against the appellants by the trial Court are affirmed.