Judgment D.P.S.CHOUDHARY, J. 1. Both the appeals have been heard together, hence this judgment shall dispose of both the appeals. These appeals arise out of the judgment and order dated : 10-9-1986 passed by the 2nd Additional. Sessions Judge, Munger in Sessions Case No. 473 of 1982 arising out of Khagaria G.R. Case No. 678/81. All the six appellants have been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and each of them sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. The appellant Yogendra Choudhary has been further convicted under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code and remaining five appellants under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code and each of them have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. The appelant Ashok Choudhary has been further convicted under Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. However, their sentences are to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 11-8-1981 the informant Chandra Bhushan Choudhary PW-4 lodged a written report to the Officer Incharge of Khagaria Police Station alleging there in that on this day at about 4.00 p.m. when he was going to Khagaria Bazar from Mahsouri Thakurbari along with Mahanth Ramadhar Das (deceased), who has been recently installed as a Mahanth of the said Thakurbari after the death of late Makanth Bhagwat Das and when they reached near a Bargad tree the deceased was forcibly taken away by all the six accused (appellants) towards west. Is is said that accused Ashok Choudhary and Yogendra Choudhary alias Gholat Singh were armed with a country-made pistol and a lathi respectively, while accused Kailash Choudhary was carrying a bhala and remainng accused were armed with farsa. It is further alleged that after taking Mahanth Ramadhar Das near the house of one Dhuna Choudhary, they killed him by inflicting various injuries on him. It is alleged that accused Gholat Singh assaulted the deceased by giving two lathi blows on his back. Accused Siyaram Choudhary inflicted a farsa blow on his head upon which he fell down and accused Sadanand Choudhary also gave a farsa blow on his head and accused Shaligram Choudhary assaulted him by farsa on his neck (Kanpatti). Mahanth Ramadhar Das succumbed to his injuries on the spot and all the accused fled away leaving the dead body on the road. Mahanth Ramadhar Das succumbed to his injuries on the spot and all the accused fled away leaving the dead body on the road. It is further alleged by the informant that the occurrence was witnessed by several local persons, including Mahendra Rajak PW-1 Arjun Sah PW-2, Ganesh Mandal PW-3. The motive of the occurrence alleged is that during the life time of late Mahanth Bhagwan Das these accused have been taking undue benefits out of the landed property of the Thakurbari, but when the deceased became Mahanth he did not allow them to take this undue advantage, as a result of which accused-persons had animosity against the deceased. 3. On the basis of the written report (Ext. 1) which was written at the police station on the dictation of the informant by one Pradip Sharma, a formal FIR (Ext.2) was drawn up at 6.00 p.m. on the same day and the case was instituted against all the accused-persons. The Officer Incharge visited the place of occurrence on the same day and found the dead body on the spot. He prepared an inquest report (Ext.3) and seized some blood-stained earth from the place of ocurrence. He sent the dead body for its post-mortem examination to Khagaria Sadar Hospital, where Dr. Ramanand Kunwar PW-6 held the autopsy on 12-8-1981. After completing the investigation, the Investigating Officer PW-5 submitted charge-sheet against all the accused-persons besides accused Rameshwar Choudhary and Rabindra Choudhary but they were acquitted under Section 323 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 4. The case of the defence is that the accused-persons have been implicated because of enmity. From the trend of cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses, the defence case further emerges out that it was prosecution party which was taking undue advantage out of the property of Mahanth and they have killed him, who was objecting to them but because of enmity the informant has falsely implicated the accused-persons. 5. The prosecution in all examined 10 witnesses out of which PW-1 (Mahendra Rajak), PW-2 (Arjun Sah), PW-3 (Ganesh Mandal) and PW-4 the informant (Chandra Bhushan Choudhary) have deposed as eye-witnesses. PW-5 is the Investigating Officer and PW-6 is the Doctor. PW-7 (Subhash Mishra), PW-8 (Chandra Mohan Prasad), PW-9 (Jyotish Choudhary) and PW-10 (Bindeshwari Mahto) are formal witnesses, who proved Exts. 6 to 10/1 respectively. 6. PW-5 is the Investigating Officer and PW-6 is the Doctor. PW-7 (Subhash Mishra), PW-8 (Chandra Mohan Prasad), PW-9 (Jyotish Choudhary) and PW-10 (Bindeshwari Mahto) are formal witnesses, who proved Exts. 6 to 10/1 respectively. 6. On behalf of the defence Debo Choudhary has been examined as DW-1 on the point to falsify the assertion of PW-1 (Mahendra Rajak) that he was cultivating some land on batai of the former Mahanth. 7. PW-1 (Mahendra Rajak) claims to have witnessed the occurrence in question while he was returning from Tinkona Behiyar after inspecting a field of that Behiyar. He was cultivating that field on batai. He stated that he saw accused Kailash and Ashok dragging the deceased Ramadhar Das. Accused Kailash was armed with Bhala and Ashok was armed with pistol. They took the deceased near a Bargad tree. He further stated that accused Siyaram, Sadanand Shaligram and Gholat Singh were also accompanying them. Gholat was armed with lathi and the remaining three with farsa. When they reached near the house of Dhuna Choudhary accused Gholat Singh, gave lathi blow on Ramadhar Das, accused Siyaram gave farsa blow from the blunt portion on the head of the deceased who fell down and thereafter accused Sadanand also gave a farsa blow on his head and accused Shaligram gave another farsa blow on his Kanpatti. Mahanth Ramadhar died on the spot due to his injuries. 8. PW-2 (Arjun Sah) stated that he is a student and resident of village Gauskati. At the time of occurrence, i.e. 4.00 p.m. on 11-8-1981 he was returning home from village Masaurhi after taking a book from Shyam Sundar Mahto of that village. When he reached near a Bargad tree he saw all the four accused-persons whom he named dragging Mahanth Ramadhar Das towards west. When he reached near the house of Dhuna Choudhry, he saw accused Gholat Singh assaulting Mahanth Ramadhar Das by means of lathi on his back, accused Siyaram gave a blow from the blunt portion of the farsa on his head. Sadanand Choudhary gave a farsa blow on his head. He further stated that accused Shaligram Choudhary give farsa on his head and accused Kailash Choudhary who was armed with Bhala was threatening others. Accused Ashok Choudhary armed with a pistol. He further stated that Chandra Bhushan Choudhary PW-4, Ganesh Mandal PW-3 and Mahendra Rajak PW-1 were present at the place of occurrence. He further stated that accused Shaligram Choudhary give farsa on his head and accused Kailash Choudhary who was armed with Bhala was threatening others. Accused Ashok Choudhary armed with a pistol. He further stated that Chandra Bhushan Choudhary PW-4, Ganesh Mandal PW-3 and Mahendra Rajak PW-1 were present at the place of occurrence. He further stated that Mahanth Ramandhar Das died on the spot due to his injuries. 9. PW-3 (Ganesh Mandal) stated that at the time of occurrence at about 4.00 p.m. he was returning his home village from Marar village. When he reached near the house of Dhuna Choudhary, he saw accused Kailash and Ashok dragging Mahanth Ramadhar Das towards west. Other accused were following them. He further stated that he saw accused Gholat Choudhary assaulting Mahanth Ramadhar Das by means of lathi on his back, accused Siyaram gave a blow from the blunt portion of his farsa on his head. Accused Sadanand gave farsa blow on his head causing bleeding injury. Accused Shaligram assaulted with farsa causing injury on his left ear. Mahanth Ramadhar Das fell on the ground and died. 10. PW-4 (Chandra Bhushan Choudhary), the informant stated that on 11-8-1981 at 4.00 p.m. he was going to Khagaria along with deceased Mahanth Ramadhar Das and when he reached near Bargad tree, found all the above named accused-persons armed with lathi, bhala, farsa and pistol. They surrounded Mahanth Ramadhar Das and dragged him towards west near the house of Nemo Choudhary. Accused Yogendra Choudhary hurled two lathi blows on his back, accused Siyaram Choudhary inflicted a farsa blow on his head by the blunt portion of its blade. Mahanth Ramadhar Das fell down. Thereafter, accused Sadanand Choudhary gave a farsa blow on his head and accused Shaligram Choudhary hit him on his head near one of the ears. The victim succumbed to his injuries. 11. Dr. Ramanand Kumar PW-6 held the autopsy on the dead body of the deceased on 12-8-1981 at Sadar Hospital, Khagaria and found the following ante-mortem injuries : (i) Lacerated wound on the back and right side of the scalp-3 cm. x 4 cm. x 4 cm. Brain substance was protruding through the wound: (ii) Incised wound on the mid-scalp 5 cm. x 2 cm. x 1 cm. (iii) Incised wound on the left Pinna of the ear. (iv) Bruise on the back of the body-6 cm. x 2 cm. x 4 cm. x 4 cm. Brain substance was protruding through the wound: (ii) Incised wound on the mid-scalp 5 cm. x 2 cm. x 1 cm. (iii) Incised wound on the left Pinna of the ear. (iv) Bruise on the back of the body-6 cm. x 2 cm. (v) Bruise on the back of bocy-4 cm. x 2 cm. On dissection injury No. (1) was found to be deep, damaging the skin, muscle and bone and brain substance badly. Occipital bone of right side was fractured. Membrane covering the brain substance was lacerated-Injury No. (ii) damaging the skin and a part of bone, viz. parietal bone. Pinna of the left ear was damaged by injury No. (iii) Injury No. (iv) and (v) were superficial. Lungs were pale. Heart was empty. Stomach was empty and contained about 2 oz. of digested particles with mucus. Liver, spleen and kidney were pale. In the opinion of the Doctor injury Nos. (ii) and (iii) were caused by a sharp weapon like farsa and injury Nos. (i), (iv) and (v) were caused by some hard and blunt substance. The Doctor further opined that cause of death was due to shock and haemorrhag due to the above injuries particularly injury No. (i). He further stated that the time elapsed since death between 12 to 24 hours. He further opined that injury No. (1) was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. The post-mortem report is Ext. 5. 12 PW-5 Ramlakhan Lal (I.O.) stated that on 11-8-1981 informant Chandra Bhushan Choudhary came to police station and gave a written report (Ext.1), on the basis of which a formal FIR (Ext.2) was drawn up and the case was instituted. He recorded the statement of the informant at the police station and visited the place of occurrence on the same day at 6.50 p.m. According to him, the place of occurrence is a Kachcha pond of village Masaurhi which goes towards east from west. He found blood mark on the road near a well and dead body of the deceased was lying there. A bunglow and Bargad tree were situated near the place of occurrence. He found the blood on the earth in the large quantity. He found several injuries on the deceased. One of the ears was cut. He found blood mark on the road near a well and dead body of the deceased was lying there. A bunglow and Bargad tree were situated near the place of occurrence. He found the blood on the earth in the large quantity. He found several injuries on the deceased. One of the ears was cut. He prepared inqust report in presence of witnesses, Pradeep Sharma and Sushant Kumar Jha PW-3, seized the blood-stained earth and prepared the seizure list (Ext. 4) and thereafter sent the dead body for post-mortem examination. He did not find any weapon at the place of occurrence. 13. The appellants-lawyer submitted that the above evidence of PWs. are not reliable because neither they are consistent nor the witnesses are independent. They do not belong to the locality and they are chance-witnesses. The learned A.P.P. submitted that PW-1 (Mahendra Rajak), PW-3 (Ganesh Mandal) and PW-4 (Chandra Bhushan Choudhary) are witness of the same village. Therefore, they are not chance-witness and their presence at the place of occurrence is natural. The learned A.P.P. submitted that PW-2 (Arjun Sah) is resident of adjoining village Gaurasaki but his presence at the place of occurrence is very natural because he stated that at the relevant time he was returning from the house of his friend, resident of this village, where he had gone to borrrow a book. He saw the occurrence when he reached near the Bargad tree. In the entire cross-examination of this witness, it is not shown that he is inmical to the accused-persons. We have carefully examined the testimony of these four witnesses and find that ther is no reason to disbelieve them. From the evidence of PW-2 (Arjun Sah), it appears that his house lies at a distance of only 2-3 rassi or 200 yards from the house of PW-1 (Mahendra Rajak). We do not find substance in this contention of the appellants lawyer that all the four eye-witnesses are interested witnesses. The defence suggestion is that the informant and the witnesses had greedy eyes on the properties of Thakurbari of the deceased Mahanth Ramadhar Das which was not liked by him hence they committed his murder. PW-1 (Mahendra Rajak), PW-2 (Arjun Sah) and PW-3 (Ganesh Mandal) are of different castes than that of the deceased. The informant (Chandra Bhushan Choudhary) and deceased Mahanth Ramadhar Das are of the same caste. PW-1 (Mahendra Rajak), PW-2 (Arjun Sah) and PW-3 (Ganesh Mandal) are of different castes than that of the deceased. The informant (Chandra Bhushan Choudhary) and deceased Mahanth Ramadhar Das are of the same caste. We do not find substance in this contention of the learned appellants lawyer that PW-1 (Mahendra Rajak) admitted in his cross-examination that one Sukhdeq Mandal had instituted a case of theft and assault against him and Ganesh Mandal PW-3 hence they belong to one group and have a common interest. Only on the ground that these two witnesses were accused in a criminal case is no reason to disbelieve their evidence. We have cautiously examined the evidence of these PWs and come to the conclusion that their evidence are consistent on the point of assault to the deceased. The ocular evidence of PWs 1 to 4 rearding various injuries inflicted by the accused to the deceased is fully supported and corroboratd by the medical evidence of Doctor Ramanand Kumar PW-6. The deceased besides a lacerated wound on the back and right side of the scalp as also had two incised wound, one on the mid scalp and other one on the left pinna of the ear, besides two bruises. The learned appellants lawyer assailed the evidence of PW-1 (Mahendra Rajak), PW-2 (Arjun Sah), PW-3 (Ganesh Mandal) and PW-4 (Chandra Bhushan Choudhary) on the ground that they are not consistent with the earliest version on the point of assault as made in the FIR. In the FIR, it is stated that accused Siyaram Choudhary and Sadanand Choudhary dealt with farsa blow on the head of the deceased but in their evidence in the Court they have changed the story to suit with the injuries found by the Doctor, and stated that they gave the blows by the reversed side (blunt portion) of the farsa. From the evidence of the Investigating Officer PW-5, it is clear that the witnesses including the informant have not stated for the first time in Court that accused gave blow from the blunt side of the Farsa, but such statement was made by them before him (I.O.) also. The FIR is gist of the occurrence and necessarily it does not require to give all the details of the occurrence in the fardbeyan or the written report (Ext. 1). The FIR is gist of the occurrence and necessarily it does not require to give all the details of the occurrence in the fardbeyan or the written report (Ext. 1). Mere mention of the fact that accused gave farsa blow on the deceased and subsequently in their evidence in the Court, they gave details as to how the farsa was used is a consistency in the evidence and no ground to come to the conclusion that they have changed their evidence from their early statement made in the FIR in order to suit the injury found by the Doctor. There is consistent evidence that the deceased was assaulted by means of farsa and which caused his death. Therefore, it is immaterial that farsa was used from the blunt portion or from the sharp portion. The deceased had bruises on the back side of the body which supports the evidence of PWs that the deceased was dragged to a considerable distance and then done to death by the accused-persons. We do not find much substance in this contention of the learned appellants-lawyer that since the appellants used blunt portion of the farsa while assaulting the deceased, they had no intention to kill, as such, their case shall come under the purview of Section 304 clause (II) of the Indian Penal Code and not under Section 302 or 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The manner of assault by the farsa and the injuries found on the deceased supported by the ocular evidence, leads to the conclusion that the deceased was assaulted with an intention to kill him. The Apex Court in a case law reported in 1974 SCC (Cr) page 462 has observed that it is always advisable to test the evidence of the witnesses on the angle of objective circumstances in the case. In this case all the eye-witnesses referred to above had asserted that accused Siyaram Choudhary, accused Sadanand Choudhary gave Farsa blow on the head of the deceased, while accused Shaligram Choudhary inflicted farsa blow on his ears causing cut injuries. We have tested the evidence of the witnesses on the objective circumstances and come to the conclusion that they are consistent on the point of inflicting farsa blow on the deceased and also lathi blow resulting into his death. Thus, their testimony fully support the prosecution case. 14. We have tested the evidence of the witnesses on the objective circumstances and come to the conclusion that they are consistent on the point of inflicting farsa blow on the deceased and also lathi blow resulting into his death. Thus, their testimony fully support the prosecution case. 14. The learned appellants lawyer further argued that the accused could have no motive to commit the murder of Mahanth, rather it was the informant side who was more interested in getting rid of the Mahanth in order to grab his property. The informant in. his evidence stated that during the life time of Mahanth Bhagwat Das (the Mahanth before the deceased) accused were cultivating some lands of the Thakurbari on batai but when Ramadhar Das became the Mahanth he took back those lands which caused annoyance to the accused-persons which was the motive to commit murder of the Mahanth. About 5-6 months earlier to his death the accused had threatened him. In this connection, the prosecution had relied on two exhibits (Exts. 7 and 9) which are informatory petitions filed by deceased Ramdhar Das before the A.C.J.M., Khagaria. In Ext. 7 there was allegation by the deceased that after the death of Mahanth Bhagwat Das (his Guru) on 11-6-1981 all the accused had asked him (deceased) to leave the village and had also threatened him with dire consequences. Ext.7 shows that accused and their men were trying to forcibly grab the properties of the Thakurbari. In Ext. 9 there are similar allegations made by the deceased stating that accused and their men had been contemplating to forcibly get some documents executed in their favour regarding the properties of the Thakurwari and for that they are threatening the deceased regularly. In our opinion, these exhibits are significant to show that accused had earlier thereatened the deceased and they had animosity with him. Therefore, there was strong motive on the part of the accused to commit the murder of Mahanth. In his evidence. PW-1 the informant (Chandra Bhushan Choudhary) stated that deceased became Mahanth of the Thakurbari about a year before the said occurrence. Ext. 6 is a Bahalinama executed by Mahanth Bhagwat Das in favour of Mahanth Ramadhar Das (deceased) appointing the latter as Mahanth of the Thakurbari on 14-7-1980. In his evidence. PW-1 the informant (Chandra Bhushan Choudhary) stated that deceased became Mahanth of the Thakurbari about a year before the said occurrence. Ext. 6 is a Bahalinama executed by Mahanth Bhagwat Das in favour of Mahanth Ramadhar Das (deceased) appointing the latter as Mahanth of the Thakurbari on 14-7-1980. This document and the evidence of the informant show that the deceased was appointed Mahanth of the Thakurbari about 8 months prior to his murder. The learned appellants lawyer contended that from Ext. C/1 which is certified copy of the order dated 30-9-1997 passed in Case No. 7/77-78 by the learned D.C.L.R., Khagaria in a Batai case, it appears that the informant party had filed that batai case against the appellant Shaligram Choudhary and others and it was decided in appellants favour. This indicates that appellant Shaligram himself gave lands to others on batai. as such, there was no question for him to take batai land of Thakurbari. The learned appellants lawyer also relied on the evidence of DW-1 (Debo Choudhary) in support of this contention and stated that this witness asserted that Mahendra Rajak was never his bataidar. We do not find much substance in this contention of the learned appellants lawyer. It is possible that appellant Shaligram Choudhary might have given some land on batai to others, but it does not lead to the conclusion that all other appellants had no greedy eyes on the lands of the Thakurwari nor they intended to cultivate the land on batai for which the deceased was not agreeable. 15. The learned appellants lawyer futher argued that from the evidence of the Investigating Officer, Ram Lakhan Lal, PW-5, the inquest and post-mortem reports (Exts. 3 and 5) show that deceased was wearing ganji and teri-cotton Kurta and Janghiya. The Investigating Officer admitted in his evidence that no lower garment, except Jangiya was found on the deceased. Therfore, deceased was going along with the informant to Khagaria is unbelievable, because he was not supposed to go Khagaria wearing only a Janghiya as under garment when he was wearing a Kurta. This shows that he was murdered in the Thakurbari, therafter, the prosecution party threw his dead body on the road. We do not find much substance in this contention of the learned appellants lawyer. This shows that he was murdered in the Thakurbari, therafter, the prosecution party threw his dead body on the road. We do not find much substance in this contention of the learned appellants lawyer. It is consistent case of the prosecution and also supported by the evidence of the PWs that deceased was dragged to a considerable distance, thereafter he was murdered by the accused-persons, It is possible that in this process his lower garment such as lungi might have fell down on the road. At the time of preparing inquest report, the Investigating Officer did not find any such garment on his person. The Investigating Officer stated that he did not find any blood mark in the Thakurbari. Therefore, there is no force in this contention of the learned appellants lawyer. Besides this argument is based on the presumption. The Investigating Officer has found large quantity of blood where the dead body was recovered. Therefore, it suggests that the murder took place at this place and at no other place. 16. The learned appellants lawyer argued that genuineness of the FIR (Ext. 1) is doubtful. Ext. 1 is the written report. According to the informant Chandra Bhushan Choudhary (PW-4) it was not written in his handwriting. He admitted in his cross-examination that he is a Matriculate. Ext. 1 bears the signature of one Pradip Sharma as scribe of this report. The informant has not given any satisfactory explanation as to why it was written by some one on his dictation at the police station. He could not identify the person who wrote it. Pradip Sharma has not been examined as a witness and there is no explanation for his non-examination. The Investigating Officer, Ram Lakhan Lal (PW-5) in para 8 stated that one Pradip Sharma, son of Ramphal Sharma, had written this report in his presence in the police station at the dictation of the informant. There is no reason to disbelieve this evidence of PW-5, only because the informant has failed to give identity of the scribe or he being not examined as a witness. 17. There is no reason to disbelieve this evidence of PW-5, only because the informant has failed to give identity of the scribe or he being not examined as a witness. 17. We have carefully analysed the evidence on the record, as discussed above, and after giving our anxious consideration on the elaborate argument advanced by both the parties, we come to the conclusion that there is no reason to mterefere with the finding arrived at by the learned trial Court while convicting and sentencing the appellants for the offences they have been charged for. 18. In the result, there is no merit in these appelas and accordingly they are dismissed. The appellants who are on bail, are directed to surrender before the trial Court to serve the remaining period of their sentence. N.N.Singh, J. 19 I agree.