Judgment N.N.Singh, J. 1. The three appeals preferred against the common judgment and judgment of conviction and order of sentience, dated 30th April, 1991, were heard together by a Division Bench and as the Hon ble Judges, constituting the Division Bench, recorded dissenting judgments, by the order of the Hon ble the Chief Justice, these appeals have been referred under Section 392 of the Criminal Procedure Code to this Bench for disposal. Appellants Binod Jha and Bauna Pasi of Cr. Appeal No. 217 of 1991, appellant Rajeshwar Singh of Cr. Appeal No. 219 of 1991 and appellants Balmeshwar Singh and Nago Singh of Cr. Appeal No. 220 of 1991 have been convicted under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment thereunder by the Additional Sessions Judge II, Barh, by order, dated 30th April, 1991, passed in Sessions Trial No. 88 of 1985. 2. As held in the case of Sajjan Singh V/s. State of M.P. AIR 1998 SC 2756 : 1999 (1) East Cr C 272 (SC), in case of such reference under Section 392 of the Criminal Procedure Code, this Court is required to examine whole of the case independently. 2(a). The case of prosecution, as disclosed in the fardbeyan (Exhibit 1) of informant, Amerika Singh (PW 5), recorded at 5.00 a.m. at Barh Hospital, was that in the night between 12th/ 13th of June, 1983, the informant was sleeping in his mill, along with his three sons, namely, Praduman Singh (deceased), Lallan Prasad Singh (PW 1) and Bhola Singh (PW 3). Further case of prosecution, was that the informant woke up at about 2.00 a.m. and went out to make water and he saw a he buffalo grazing his paddy crops whereupon he came and asked his son, Praduman, to drive the buffalo out of the field and thereupon Praduman went to chase away the buffalo. After some time, the informant heard a cry of his son "baboojee jan gaya" whereupon the informant and his two sons rushed towards that direction and reached near the parti field situated towards south-west of appellant Rajeshwar Singhs mill. The informant, Amerika Singh, and accused, Rajeshwar Singh, had their mills in village Hassanchak towards south extreme of the village and both mills were interturned by a paddy field belonging to the informant. The informant, Amerika Singh, and accused, Rajeshwar Singh, had their mills in village Hassanchak towards south extreme of the village and both mills were interturned by a paddy field belonging to the informant. The case of prosecution was that when the informant and his tow sons reached near the parti field, they saw 5-6 persons assaulting Praduman and while Nago Singh, Balmeshwar Singh, Bauna Pasi and Binod Jha were pressing Praduman, appellant Rajeshwar Singh was seen chopping off the neck of Praduman. The informant claimed that accused persons chased them also and, as such, the informant retreated and raised alarm whereupon Bindeshwar Singh (PW 6) and Mundar Ram (PW 2) and Kusheshwar Singh arrived there. It was also alleged that Krishna Singh and Ram Nandan Singh (both acquitted) were standing near the place of occurrence armed with guns. The informant claimed to have gone near his son, Praduman, and found his neck cut from the front, which was bleeding profusely, which the informant wrapped with a gamcha on his neck and took him to the Sub-divisional Hospital, Barh, on a Jeep. It was claimed that injured Praduman communicated the names of his assailants to the doctor and, thereafter, Praduman Singh succumbed to his injuries. The old enmity was said to be the motive for the occurrence. 3. At about 5.00 a.m., the Sub-Inspector of Police, Sampat Rai, PW 8, went to hospital and recorded the fardbeyan (Exhibit 1) of informant, Amerika Singh, and on that basis, Barh P.S. Case No. 214 of 1983 was registered against the appellants and the police, after due investigation, submitted charge-sheet against these appellants and Ramnandan Singh and Krishna Singh (acquitted by the trial Court) and after cognizance and commitment, the appellants were put on trial and were convicted, as aforesaid. 4. The defence, as gathered from suggestions, put to PWs the argument and the statement of the appellants Under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, was that they were falsely implicated in this case due to enmity and that deceased Praduman was himself a criminal and might have been killed by some one else. It was further claimed that due to enmity, those appellants were implicated. 5. The prosecution examined altogether ten witnesses in support of its case out of whom PW 4, Rajeshwar Prasad Yadav, was a formal witness, who proved fardbeyan (Exhibit 1). It was further claimed that due to enmity, those appellants were implicated. 5. The prosecution examined altogether ten witnesses in support of its case out of whom PW 4, Rajeshwar Prasad Yadav, was a formal witness, who proved fardbeyan (Exhibit 1). PW 9 is Pawan Singh, another son of the informant, who is also a formal witness and PW 10 is the Sub-Inspector of Police, Yogendra Shukla, who produced the material, a pair of hawai chappal and blood-stained earth from malkhana. While informant, PW 5, Amerika Singh, and his two sons, PW 1, Lallan Singh, and PW 3, Bhola Singh, claimed to be eye-witnesses of the occurrence. PW 6, Bindeshwar Singh, and PW 2, Mundar Ram, are witnesses, who claimed to have reached the place of occurrence on hearing the alarm and to have seen Praduman Singh dead with injury in his neck. PW 7 is Dr. Digamber Jha, who treated injured, Praduman, and also held post-mortem examination, report of which is Exhibit 2. PW 8 is the Investigating Officer, the Sub Inspector of Police, Sampat Rai. No defence witness has examined. 6. PW 7, Dr. Digamber Jha, stated to have held post-mortem examination on the dead body of Praduman Singh and stated to have found one horizontal incised injury 6"x 2" x 1.1/2" over front of neck crossing the middle, over laryngeal prominence starting on left lateral side 1" below left angle of jaw and ending on the right side, half inch below right angle of jaw. On discection, PW 7 stated have found that both jugular and carotid blood vessels and both sterno mastoid muscles besides other tissues, whole laryngeal bone and anterior wall of oesophyagus were cut and tailing was present on the right side. PW 7 opined that the injury was ante-mortem caused by sharp-cutting weapon and the death was caused due to shock and severe haemorrhage. The post-mortem was held at 8.15 a.m. on 13.06.1983 and, according to PW 7, time elapsed since death was three to six hours before the post-mortem examination. The evidence of PW 7 clearly goes to establish that Praduman Singh died a homicidal death, as a result of injury on his neck, mentioned above. 7. The post-mortem was held at 8.15 a.m. on 13.06.1983 and, according to PW 7, time elapsed since death was three to six hours before the post-mortem examination. The evidence of PW 7 clearly goes to establish that Praduman Singh died a homicidal death, as a result of injury on his neck, mentioned above. 7. The learned trial Court has discussed the evidence of the informant, PW 5, Amerika Singh, in paragraph 11 of its judgment and has assigned cogent reasons for believing his testimony on the ground that he had fully supported his fardbeyan (Exhibit 1) and nothing has come out in his cross-examination to discredit him. In paragraph 5 of his evidence he had stated that the offence was committed by the appellants due to previous enmity. He had further stated to have wrapped a gamcha on the neck of Praduman obviously to check bleeding and this fact was supported by the doctor, PW 7, who stated that a gamcha was wrapped around the neck of the injured when he was brought to the hospital. PW 5 further stated that in the hospital, Praduman Singh demanded a paper by gesture and wrote the names of the assailants thereon. This has also been supported by other witnesses and the doctor, PW 7, who proved the writing of the deceased amounting to his written dying declaration (Exhibit 11) and he further stated to have made endorsement (Exhibit 7) therecn that it was written in his presence. I will discuss this point while discussing evidence of PW 7 on this point. The other two eye-witnesses were PW 1, Lallan Prasad Singh, and PW 3, Bhola Singh, both brothers of the deceased, claiming that they were also sleeping in mill, along with their father and brother, Praduman (deceased). The learned trial Court discussed their evidence in paragraph 12 of its judgment and held that their evidence fully corroborated the evidence of PW 5 and. the prosecution case, regarding commission of offence. They also supported the evidence of PW 5 that they identified the appellants in the light of torch flashed by PW 5. The Trial Court rightly held that nothing has come out in their cross-examination to disbelieve them. It was contended on behalf of the appellants that PWs 5, 3 and 1 were related witnesses and, as such, no much reliance can be placed on their testimony. The Trial Court rightly held that nothing has come out in their cross-examination to disbelieve them. It was contended on behalf of the appellants that PWs 5, 3 and 1 were related witnesses and, as such, no much reliance can be placed on their testimony. The trial Court has discussed this point in paragraph 12 of its judgment. Simply because a witness is related, his evidence cannot be thrown out. In this connection, reliance can be placed on decision report at (1995) Supp. (3) SCC 665, Puran Singh V/s. State of Punjab, where, it was held that "merely because the witnesses are relations of the deceased, their evidence does not become suspect. It only puts the Court on its guard to scrutinize their evidence carefully." Here in this case the testimony of informant, PW 5, and his two sons, PWs 1 and 3, were carefully scrutinized which fully supported the prosecution case. Moreover, in this case there are two independent witnesses also like PWs 2 and 6. 8. The learned trial Court discussed the evidence of PW 2, Mundar Ram, and of PW 6, Bindeshwar Prasad Singh, in paragraph 13 of its judgment. PW 2, Mundar Ram, stated that this house was at a distance of about 200 yards from the place of occurrence and that on hearing the alarm of Praduman Singh, he rushed to the place of occurrence situated in west of mill of appellant Rajeshwar Singh and stated to have seen all these five appellants running away towards east and south and he further stated to have seen Rajeshwar Singh having a hasuli, which was blood-stained and he saw Praduman Singh lying with his neck cut. He stated that before his arrival, Amerika Singh, (PW 50, Lallan Prasad Singh (PW 1), Bhola Singh, (PW 3), Kusheshwar Singh, Ramjee Singh (both not examined) and Bindeshwar Singh, (PW 6), had reached there. In his cross-examination, he stated that his house was at a distance of 15 to 20 yards from the mill of appellant Rajeshwar Singh. He was cross examined at length but nothing has come out in his cross-examination to discredit him. In his cross-examination, he stated that his house was at a distance of 15 to 20 yards from the mill of appellant Rajeshwar Singh. He was cross examined at length but nothing has come out in his cross-examination to discredit him. Similar is the evidence of PW 6, Bindeshwar Singh, who also claimed to have reached at the place of occurrence on hearing the alarm raised by Praduman Singh and to have seen in the light of his torch all these five appellants running away and neck of Praduman cut. He further stated that Amerika Singh, Bhola Singh and Lallan Singh had reached before him and that Praduman was rushed to hospital. He has also fully stood the lengthy cross-examination. 9. Besides the testimony of three eye-witnesses and two independent witnesses, who reached soon after the occurrence in this case, a written note of the deceased (Exhibit 11) has been produced. PW 7, Dr. Digamber Jha, stated that the deceased was brought to Barh Hospital for treatment at about 3.00 a.m. in conscious state of mind and that he demanded a paper through gesture from him and that on his direction his Assistant gave him a paper, in which injured, Praduman Singh, wrote some names, which PW 7 verified and made endorsement over that paper with his signature (Exhibit 7). Earlier photostat copy was produced and subsequently original paper containing the note of the deceased and certificate of PW 7 was shown to PW 7, which he identified. PW 7 stated that Praduman Singh was unable to speak at that time due to injury of his vocal part. He further stated that the original note written by Praduman Singh was sealed by him in an envelope and he further proved address on that envelope (Exhibit 3) over which he had put his initial signature on the front and back. He stated that, that sealed envelope was forwarded to police station with an official forwarding letter (Exhibit 8) kept in another envelope on which address was written (Exhibit 4). In his cross-examination, he stated that patient generally with that type of injury cannot remain in proper state of mind, if not taken proper care. He stated that, that sealed envelope was forwarded to police station with an official forwarding letter (Exhibit 8) kept in another envelope on which address was written (Exhibit 4). In his cross-examination, he stated that patient generally with that type of injury cannot remain in proper state of mind, if not taken proper care. Perusal of that note (Exhibit 11), in the margin of which is endorsement made by doctor (PW 7), which has been marked as Exhibit 7, go to show that names of all these five appellants were mentioned therein and Praduman Singh, the deceased, had signed below it giving the date 13.06.1983. This paper, as per evidence of PW 7, was sent to Barh Police Station on the same date and, as per evidence of PW 8, the investigating officer, the same was received by him on that very day from Barh Police Station at about 12.30 p.m. after his return from the place of occurrence. This may be pointed out that the registration of the case was made in Barn Police Station, but the place of occurrence fell in Athmalgola police Station and the Investigating Officer of the case is Sub-Inspector of Police of Athmalgola Station. This is to point out that there was no delay in receipt of this paper by the Investigating Officer from Barh Police Station where, it was sent indicating that there was no chance of implication in and manufacturing of the note written by the injured before his death. True, it is that the deceased was not in a position to make any oral-dying declaration, the evidence of PW 7 and PW 5 is quite clear that the deceased demanded a paper through gesture and he wrote the names of these appellants. Nothing more was written on that paper, but it was not expected even that the injured in that condition would go to write a self-contained note describing the appellants as his assailants.It is not expected that deceased in that state would implicate the appellants falsely. The note (Exhibit 11), certified by doctor, PW 7, go to corroborate the evidence of eye-witnesses, PWs 5, 3, 1 and of two independent witnesses, PWs 2 and 6. It has come in evidence that the parties were on litigating terms and that is the motive for the occurrence. The note (Exhibit 11), certified by doctor, PW 7, go to corroborate the evidence of eye-witnesses, PWs 5, 3, 1 and of two independent witnesses, PWs 2 and 6. It has come in evidence that the parties were on litigating terms and that is the motive for the occurrence. The evidence of witnesses, PWs 1, 3, 5, 2 and 6, are quite consistent supporting the prosecution case. 10. In course of argument, Shri Yogesh Chandra Verma, learned Counsel for the appellants, contended that the murder was not pre-planned and, as such, presence of all the appellants there was not expected. The learned trial Court has rejected this contention on the ground that the evidence of eyewitnesses, PWs 1, 3 and 5 and that of independent witnesses, PW 2 and 6, go to show that the offence was committed by these appellants. I agree with the finding of the trial Court that in view of the unimpeachable evidence of aforesaid witnesses, the prosecution case cannot be disbelieved only on the ground that the offence did not appear to be pre-planned. It has come in evidence that the mill of appellant Rajeshwar Singh was situated on the other side of the paddy field and from there the deceased could be watched and attacked. The other point raised by Shri Verma was that source of identification, that is, torch-light was not mentioned in the first information report. True, it is that it was not so mentioned in the first information report, but one can realise the condition of a father whose son had died within an hour where the fardbeyan was recorded and it was not expected that each and every detail should have been given in the fardbeyan. Moreover, fardbeyan is not expected to contain every minutest detail and it is not a case where at the evidence stage this plea was taken rather the witnesses claimed before the Investigating Officer that PW 5 was having a torch in the light of which the appellants were identified. Moreover, fardbeyan is not expected to contain every minutest detail and it is not a case where at the evidence stage this plea was taken rather the witnesses claimed before the Investigating Officer that PW 5 was having a torch in the light of which the appellants were identified. It further appears from the evidence of PW 8, the Investigating Officer, and the seizure list of torch (Exhibit 10) that the torch was produced by PW 5 before the Investigating Officer which was seized, simply because, it was not produced from malkhana due to non-posting of any in-charge, as stated by PW 8 in paragraph 5 of his evidence, prosecution evidence on this point cannot be disbelieved. 11. The learned Additional Public Prosecution placed reliance on decision of the case of Daroga Yadav V/s. State of Bihar, reported at 1996 (1) PLJR 91 : 1996 (1) East Cr C 453 (paragraph 8), where, it was held that "non-mentioning and non-production of means of identification would not disprove the case of prosecution when the witnesses evidence is consistent and testimony shows that torch-light was available." He further stated that consistent evidence of PW 5 at pages 40 and 41 that of PW 1 at page 6, that of PW 3 at page 28 are quite consistent that in the torch-light flashed by PW 5 the appellants were identified. Moreover, PW 6 claimed to have his own torch in the light of which he identified the appellants. In a case reported at 1997 (2) PLJR 58 (SC) (Bhola Yadav and others V/s. State of Bihar), where the torch was not seized by the Investigating Officer, it was held that "non- seizure of such a torch cannot be considered a lapse on the part of the Investigating Officer, much less a ground for impairment of the testi-mony of the eye-witnesses concerned." Here in this case, as discussed above, the torch was seized by the Investigating Officer and was not simply produced before the trial Court due to non-availability of malkhana incharge. 12. Another point raised on behalf of the appellants was that the blood-stained earth, seized by the Investigating Officer, PW 8, through Exhibit 9, was not sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical examination. 12. Another point raised on behalf of the appellants was that the blood-stained earth, seized by the Investigating Officer, PW 8, through Exhibit 9, was not sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical examination. The learned trial Court discussed this point in paragraph 19 of its judgment and held that the prosecution should not be allowed to suffer for the failure on the part of the Investigating Officer. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor placed reliance on decision of the case of State of U.P. V/s. Harbans Sahai and others, reported at 1998 (2) East Cr C 191 (SC), where, it was held that "omission to send blood-stained earth collected from place of occurrence for chemical examination has not vitiated the investigation to any extent." 13. It was also submitted that story of buffalo grazing was introduced and the prosecution case was developed from stage to stage. Regarding development of the case, it was submitted that in the fardheyan simply this was mentioned that Praduman Singh had disclosed the names of accused persons in hospital before the doctor, but subsequently story of writing of names of appellants was introduced. I do not find any merit in this contention that this is development in the case. The injury that was on the person of Praduman clearly justified that he was not in a position to speak, the word disclosed does not mean oral disclosure only. In that situation, in which Praduman was, his written disclosure was the only way of disclosure and, in this view of the matter, this cannot be treated as development. 14. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor rightly pointed out that in this case there was prompt reporting of the incident. The occurrence took place at only about 2.00 p.m. The injured was taken to Barh Hospital at a distance of about 10 kms. before 3.00 a.m. and Praduman scribed the names of the appellants obviously as his assailants in his note (Exhibit 11) at about 3.00 a.m. and soon after his death the fardheyan of PW 5 was recorded at 5.00 a.m. in the hospital itself. before 3.00 a.m. and Praduman scribed the names of the appellants obviously as his assailants in his note (Exhibit 11) at about 3.00 a.m. and soon after his death the fardheyan of PW 5 was recorded at 5.00 a.m. in the hospital itself. Note (Exhibit 11) written by the injured, who subsequently died, with endorsement (Exhibit 7) of the doctor was received in the Barh Police Station on the same day and was received by the Investigating Officer by 12.30 p.m. These all go to show that all actions were taken so promptly and that there was no possibility of any false implication. Moreover,evidence of eye-witnesses, PWs. 5,1 and 3 and that of two independent witnesses, PWs 2 and 6, were quite consistent supporting the prosecution case against the appellants. 15. After giving my anxious consideration to the facts and circumstances of case and considering the judgment of the trial Court and from critical analysis of the material on record, I find and hold no merit in this appeal. 16. In the result, all these three appeals, that is, Criminal Appeal Nos. 217,219 and 220 of 1991, are dismissed. The bail bonds of the appellants, except of appellant Rajeshwar Singh, who is in custody, are cancelled and the other four appellants of Criminal Appeal Nos. 217 and 220 of 1991 are directed to surrender before the trial Court forthwith to serve out their sentence and the trial Court is also directed to take all steps for their arrest. Appellant Rajeshwar Singh of Criminal Appeal No. 219 of 1991, who is in custody, would serve out remaining part of his sentence.