Judgment D.P.S.Choudhary, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 5th of September, 1986 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Arrah in Sessions Trial No. 9 of 1980 arising out of Shahpur P. S. Case No. 3 (1) of 1979 dated 5.12.1979. All the appellants have been convicted under Sections 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. Appellant, Narad Dubey is also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years under Section 27 of the Arms Act with a direction that sentences shall run concurrently. One of the accused Achhaibar Dubey was given benefit of doubt and acquitted by the Trial Court. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that the informant, Laxaminiya Devi (PW 6) in her fardbeyan (Ext. 2) alleged that in the night of 4/5.1.1979 she was sleeping along with her husband, Krishna Bihari Dusadh in narai at about 2.00 p.m. accused Narad Dubey armed with a gun and accused Kalaktar Dubey, Tarkeshwar Dubey (since dead) and Sheo Mangal Dubey along with two unknown persons entered inside her palani. Two of them caught hold of her and dragged into a room of her gotani Gulab Jharo Devi and closed it from outside. There was firing. Whereupon she raised alarm. Her bhaisur, Sheo Bihari Dusadh and his son, Sri Kant and Ram Pukar Dusadh, her Gotni Bidya Devi and her daughter-in-law,Bhagrashan Devi and other inmates of the house opened the door from outside. They all rushed inside the Marai. She saw her husband lying dead and blood was oozing out from his neck. She further stated that for about 8-10 years, there was a land dispute and cases were pending with the accused persons which was the motive of the occurrence. She alleged that she and her family members identified the accused persons in the torch-light flashed by the accused persons. A lantern was also burning in the Marai. She went to the Police Station situated at a distance of about 3 miles along with her Bhaisur, where on her statement first information report was drawn up (Ext. 2) ard the case was registered. 3. A lantern was also burning in the Marai. She went to the Police Station situated at a distance of about 3 miles along with her Bhaisur, where on her statement first information report was drawn up (Ext. 2) ard the case was registered. 3. The defence case, as emerges out from the suggestions given to the PWs, that the accused persons have been falsely implicated in this case Krishna Bihari Dusadh, died in a dacoity, and not in the manner, as alleged by the prosecution. 4. The prosecution in all examined 10 witnesses out of which PW 1 (Manohar Mahto), PW 4 (Tijiya Devi), PW 7 (Ram Pukar Dusadh) and PW 8 (Harinandan Paswan) a Chawkidar have been tendered by the prosecution for cross-examination. PW 2 (Sri Kant Ram), PW 3 (Gulabharo Devi) and PW 6 (Laxaminiya Devi) are the eye-witnesses. PW 9 is the Doctor who held the post-mortem on the dead body of Kishun Bihari and proved the post-mortem report (Ext. 1). The Investigating Officer has not been examined on behalf of the prosecution and PW 10 (Ram Krishna Sharma), a clerk, is a formal witness, has proved the first information report (Ext. 2), the case diary (Ext.3) and the and the inquest report (Ext. 4) PW 5 (Ramchandra Singh) is a witness on the inquest report. 5. The Doctor (PW 9) held the post-mortem on the dead body of Kishun Bihari Dusadh on 6.1.1979 and found the following ante-mortem injuries on his person : (1) Incised wound 1" x 1/4" x 1/2" in front of neck in the external notch. On further dissection, it was found that underlying muscle and subcutaneous tissues were injured. (2) About 50 pellets injuries spread all over the chest anteriorly. On further dissection, it was found that all the intercostal muscles were lacerated and perforated at several places. On further dissection, it was found that right lung and pleura were perforated at 14 places and 14 pellets were recovered from the lung tissues. Similarly, left lung and pleura were perforated at 12 places and 12 pellets were recovered from lung issue. On further examination, the pericardium and heart was found perforated at two places and two pellets were removed from the cardial muscles. The liver was perforated at two places in right side and two pellets were removed from it. The whole chest cavity was full of blood. On further examination, the pericardium and heart was found perforated at two places and two pellets were removed from the cardial muscles. The liver was perforated at two places in right side and two pellets were removed from it. The whole chest cavity was full of blood. The Doctor opined that the death was caused due to injury No. 2 leading to haemorrage and shock. The death was homicidal and injury No. 1 was caused by sharp-cutting weapon such as Chhura and injury No. 2 was caused by fire arm. The time of death was within 24 hours. He further opined that the injuries were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. In cross-examination, he stated that the stomach of the deceased contained semi-digested food suggesting that he might have taken meal one or two hours before his death. He further stated that injury No. 2 was caused due to firing not from a close range. 6. From the evidence of Sri Kant Ram (PW 2), it is clear that he had claimed to have seen and identified the accused persons and one of the accused, Narad Dubey was armed with a gun. He further claimed to have seen the accused persons entering inside the Marai. He named all the three appellants and also named one Tarkeshwar Dubey (since dead) among the accused persons. He heard the sound of firing from inside the Marai. When he entered inside the Marai, he found his uncle, Kishun Bihari Dusadh lying dead with injuries on his neck and chest. In cross-examination, he stated that there were several cases pending in between the accused persons and with the deceased and his family members. He further stated that in the light of the lantern, which was burning inside the Marai, and the torch-light flashed by the accused persons he identified them. From the trend of his cross-examination, it appears that the defence has tried to show that this witness was highly inimical to the accused persons and was speaking falsely. He admitted that his father had brought a case of arson against accused, Kalaktar Dubey and that case was dismissed and instead, a case under Section 192/211, IPC was instituted against his father in which he was convicted. He also admitted that his grand-father had instituted a case under Section 145, Cr PC against the accused persons. He admitted that his father had brought a case of arson against accused, Kalaktar Dubey and that case was dismissed and instead, a case under Section 192/211, IPC was instituted against his father in which he was convicted. He also admitted that his grand-father had instituted a case under Section 145, Cr PC against the accused persons. His testimony was further sought to be assailed on the ground that there was no source of light enabling the identification of the accused persons. A suggestion was given to this witness that on the date of occurrence, there was a dacoity in the house of the deceased in which he was killed but because of previous enmity, the accused persons have been implicated.He admitted that out of the accused persons, who were not of his village, he identified only Achhaiwar Mishra. 7. PW 3 (Gulab Jharo Devi), younger brothers wife of the deceased stated that she was sleeping in the adjacent room. The accused persons brought her Gotani, Laxaminiya Devi (PW 6) dragging from her room and pushed her inside her room and the door was closed from outside. She heard the sound of gun firing. Her another "Bhaisur" came and opened the door of the room. She along with her Gotani, Laxaminiya Devi went inside the Palani and saw Krishna Bihari lying dead with a injury on neck and chest. Blood was coming out. Her Gotani told her about the identification of four accused persons, namely, Kalaktar Dubey, Narad Dubey, Sheo Mangal Dubey and Tarkeshwar Dubey. From the trend of cross-examination, it appears that defence has tried to assail her testimony on the ground of enmity as well as on incompetency. Her attention was drawn to her statement before the police, wherein she did not state that her Gotani had given out the names of four accused persons. The suggestion given to her in cross-examination is with an attempt to show that she could not have seen the occurrence as she was inside her room at the time of alleged occurrence. 8. Another important witness is the informant Laxaminiya Devi (PW 6). She stated that while she was sleeping in the Palani along with her husband accused, Narad Dubey awoke her and she was forcibly dragged and pushed inside a room and it was closed from outside by the accused persons. She heard the sound of gun fire and raised alarm. 8. Another important witness is the informant Laxaminiya Devi (PW 6). She stated that while she was sleeping in the Palani along with her husband accused, Narad Dubey awoke her and she was forcibly dragged and pushed inside a room and it was closed from outside by the accused persons. She heard the sound of gun fire and raised alarm. The other family members rushed there and opened the door. She along with her Gotani and other family members went inside the Palani and found her husband lying dead with bleeding injury on the chest. She identified the accused persons in the torchlight flashed by them and also in the light of lantern burning inside the Palani. She named all the four accused persons. She had not identified accused, Achhaibar Mishra. The defence tried to assail her evidence in the cross-examination on the ground that she is inimical to the accused persons and several litigations were pending between them She admitted about the land disputed and criminal cases pending between the parties. It was also suggested to her in cross- examination that she is not an eye-witness on the point of attack on her husband and she falsely implicated the accused persons because of enmity. It was also suggested to her that there was no means of identification because no lantern was burning inside the Palani. The defence has brought on record Exts. A and B to show that cause were brought against accused persons by the deceased and his family members and there was previous enmity. Ext. A shows that Sheo Bihari Ram was prosecuted and convicted for filing a false case against accused, Kalaktar Dubey, Ext. B shows that there was a proceeding under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure between Sheo Bihar Ram and accused, Kalaktar Dubey. 9. The learned appellants lawyer assailed the conviction of the appellants on the ground that due to previous enmity in between the parties they have been falsely implicated. Krishna Bihari Dusadh was killed in course of dacoity which took place in his house on the alleged date of occurrence and he got gun-shot injury. But after due deliberation the informant implicate the appellants. In support of this contention the learned lawyer relied on the evidence of PWs 5 and 8 to have admitted that they heard that dacoity took place in the house of the deceased. But after due deliberation the informant implicate the appellants. In support of this contention the learned lawyer relied on the evidence of PWs 5 and 8 to have admitted that they heard that dacoity took place in the house of the deceased. It was further urged by the learned appellants lawyer that source of identification is not disclosed in the first information report and for the first time, it has been introduced in the evidence of the informant (PW 6). The further contention of the learned appellants lawyer is that the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution are admittedly family members and no independent witness of the locality turned up to support the factum of occurrence. In view of the previous enmity between the parties the evidence of the interested witness should not be relied upon in absence of corroboration by the evidence of independent witness. It was further urged on behalf of the appellants that the informant (PW 6) stated that some of the accused were tying galmochha over their faces, as such, it was not palatable to reason as to why the appellants who were known to the family members of the deceased from before would not have taken precaution for covering up their faces. It was also urged on behalf of the appellants that in the first information report, Laxaminiya Devi (PW 6) has not stated that she disclosed the names of accused persons either to her Gotani or to any family members. For the first time she stated the fact in the Court. 10. The learned APP, submitted that the suggestion given on behalf of the defence that on the date of occurrence, dacoity took place in the house of the deceased has been denied by PW 3 (Gulab Jharo Devi) and the informant (PW 6). The evidence of PW 5 is based on hearsay, hence should not be considered in absence of corroboration by the maker of the statement. PW 8 (Hari Nandan Paswan) is village chawkidar. If an offence of dacoity took place in the village it was his duty to report about the occurrence to the nearby police station but there is no such report of dacoity in the police station. Hence, the evidence of PW 8 is not reliable. PW 8 (Hari Nandan Paswan) is village chawkidar. If an offence of dacoity took place in the village it was his duty to report about the occurrence to the nearby police station but there is no such report of dacoity in the police station. Hence, the evidence of PW 8 is not reliable. Moreover, bags of fertilisers and other articles were found in the hut (marai) after the occurrence which dispense the story of commission of dacoity. The learned APP submitted that enmity between the parties was the motive of the murder of Krishna Bihari Dusadh. There is consistent evidence on the point of identification of the appellants. From the evidence of PW 2 (Sri Kant Ram) and PW 3 (Gulab Jharo Devi) and PW 6 (Laxaminiya Devi), it is clear that they are consistent on the point of identification of the appellants among the accused and their evidences are also consistent on the source of identification. These days the originals have become disparate and in most of the cases they do not cover their faces even if known to the parties. Therefore, on this ground the evidence of eye-witnesses should not be disbelieved. If, there was sufficient light for the accused persons to identify their target of murder, they de-succeeded in the commission of the murder them why not the family members of the deceased could identify the appellants. The learned APP submitted that the occurrence took place in the night. Neighbours houses are situated at some distance. There was sound of firing. In such circumstances, it is natural that a person would avoid to go at the place of occurrence, therefore, the presence of outsider was not possible. Besides, if the family members evidences are reliable no corroboration by independent witnesses are required much less in such cases where the occurrence took place in the night and inside the Palani of the deceased. The learned APP submitted that since the Investigating Officer was dead, hence, he was not examined but the case diary has been brought on record. There is consistency in the evidence of PWs on the point of identification and any minor contradiction in their cross-examination is but natural which shows that they were not tutored witnesses. The learned APP submitted that since the Investigating Officer was dead, hence, he was not examined but the case diary has been brought on record. There is consistency in the evidence of PWs on the point of identification and any minor contradiction in their cross-examination is but natural which shows that they were not tutored witnesses. Therefore, the prosecution evidences lead to irresistible conclusion that the deceased was killed in the manner as alleged by the prosecution and the identification of the appellant is trustworthy and reliable. 11. We have carefully analysed the evidences adduced on behalf of the prosecution and bestowed our anxious consideration to the elaborate argument advanced by both the parties and come to the conclusion that the evidences of PW 2 (Sri Kant Ram), PW 3 (Gulab Jharo Devi) and PW 6 (Laxaminiya Devi) on the point of identification of the appellants is consistent and reliable. There is no infirmity in their evidences. They are family members and the alleged occurrence took place in the manner in which their presence at the place of occurrence and identification of the accused persons by them was but natural. In most of the cases, independent witnesses are reluctant to come to Court to depose against the accused. It is only the interested witness of the family members who are coming before the Court and on that ground if their evidences are to be rejected then no case will be proved before the Court of law. The Apex Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Amit Singh, AIR 1998 SC, p. 1998, has pointed out about the indifferent attitude of the public in the investigation of the crime. The Apex Court has also pointed out that the public are generally reluctant to come forward to depose before the Court. It is, therefore, not correct to reject the prosecution version only on the ground of non-examination of independent witnesses, if the case made out is otherwise true and acceptable. 12. There is no reason to disbelieve the source of identification as mentioned by PW 6 (Laxaminiya Devi) in her evidence. If the appellants could identify in this source of light their target of attack, there was no reason for the family members of the deceased not to identify the appellants who were known to them from before. 12. There is no reason to disbelieve the source of identification as mentioned by PW 6 (Laxaminiya Devi) in her evidence. If the appellants could identify in this source of light their target of attack, there was no reason for the family members of the deceased not to identify the appellants who were known to them from before. If the source of identification is not mentioned in the first information report, it is no reason to disbelieve the evidences of PWs on this point. It is not always essential to give all the details in the first information report. The information had at the earliest mentioned about the source of identification when examined by the Investigating Officer which we find in the case diary (Ext. 3). From the post-mortem report (Ext. 1) and the evidence of the doctor (PW 9), it is clear that deceased had a gun-shot injury and incised wound in front of the neck. It corroborates the ocular evidence of the eye-witnesses mentioned above. We, therefore, come to the conclusion that there is no valid reason to interfere with the finding of the learned Court below by which the appellants have been convicted. 13. In the result, there is no merit in the appeal and it is accordingly dismissed. The appellants who are on bail will surrender before the Court below to serve their remaining period of sentences. N.N.Singh, J. 14 I agree.