Judgment Bharat Prasad Sharma, J. 1. This is a case of reference under Sec. 366 of Chapter XXVII of the Code of Criminal Procedure for confirmation of death sentence awarded by the trial Court against two of the accused persons facing trial in S.T. No. 2 of 1995/233 of 1994 before the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jehanabad. There were altogether 15 persons facing trial in this case under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, i.e., Secs. 148, 149, 302, 436 and 120B, I.P.C. and also under Section 27 of the Arms Act. The learned trial Court, after considering the evidence on the record, come to the conclusion that the prosecution had not proved the case against three of the accused, namely, Ram Binay Singh, Bageshwari Sharma and Divya Kumar Madhu and, accordingly, they were acquitted of all the charges against them in this case. The other twelve accused persons were convicted by the learned trial Court under Secs. 148, 436, 303/149 and 120B, I.P.C. and also under Sec. 27, Arms Act. However, two of the convicts, namely, Manoj Singh and Hirdaya Singh were sentenced to death under Sec. 302, I.P.C. while other ten accused, namely, Chandra Behari Gautam, Nawal Kishore Gautam, Akhilesh Kumar Gautam, Bachu Singh, Suresh Singh, Upendra Singh, Subhas Singh, Mithilesh Sharma, Surendra Singh @ Surendra Sharma and Nageshwar Singh were sentenced to life imprisonment under Sec. 302/149, I.P.C. However, no separate sentence was awarded by the learned trial Court, so far as other offences are concerned of which the accused persons were held guilty and were convicted. 2. The first information report in this case was registered on 23rd of July 1994 at 7.00 a.m. on the basis of a fardbeyan recorded by S.I. Ramesh Kumar Sharma of Makhdumpur police station on 23rd July 1994 at 5.00 a.m. in the morning in the P.O. village. The occurrence in this case is said to have taken place at about 2.00 a.m. in the night between 22nd/ 23rd of July 1994 in village Amarpur within P.S. Makhdumpur in the district of Jehanabad. The P.O. village situates at a distance of about 4 kms to the north of the Police Station. The occurrence in this case is said to have taken place at about 2.00 a.m. in the night between 22nd/ 23rd of July 1994 in village Amarpur within P.S. Makhdumpur in the district of Jehanabad. The P.O. village situates at a distance of about 4 kms to the north of the Police Station. It appears that the informant Police Officer Ramesh Kumar Sharma (P.W. 7) received an information at about 4.30 a.m. in the early hours of 23rd of July 1994 through Chawkidar No. 5/8 Madaki Gope that there was fire set in the house of one Ganesh Singh of village Amarpur and the gun firing was going on. On getting this information, the said Police Officer Ramesh Kumar Sharma (P.W. 7) proceeded for village Amarpur and he reached there at about 5.00 a.m. and recorded the fardbeyan of Ganesh Singh, son of Dhaneshwar Singh at his own house. According to the F.I.R. the prosecution story is like this: 3. In the night, of 22nd of July 1994, the informant had slept on the upper floor of his house in open along with his family members, Other persons who were sleeping along with him were Nawlesh Singh, Sanjay Kumar, Dhanju Kumar, Ajay Kumar, Kedar Singh and Shiv Narayan Singh of his family and one Bholi Singh of village Damarua and also informants daughter Nilam Devi, grand daughter Manjusha (aged 8 years) and mother of Sanjay. At about 1.30 a.m. in the night, there was some drizzling and the female members came down to the ground floor of the house; whereas the male members went inside three separate rooms on the southern side of the upper floor of the house. In the western room facing north, Nawlesh Sharma, Sanjay Kumar, Ajay Kumar, Kedar Singh, Shiv Narayan Singh and Bholi Singh went to sleep. The informant himself occupied the middle room and in the room on the eastern side, his nephew Dhanju slept. The doors of all the rooms were closed from inside. About half an hour, thereafter, the informant heard sound of firing from northern side of the roof of his house and he got up. Thereafter, he heard continued firing and he also heard one person saying that Nawlesh should come out and surrender, as the person speaking was the Officer in-Charge of the Police Station. About half an hour, thereafter, the informant heard sound of firing from northern side of the roof of his house and he got up. Thereafter, he heard continued firing and he also heard one person saying that Nawlesh should come out and surrender, as the person speaking was the Officer in-Charge of the Police Station. The informant also further heard Nawlesh saying that if he was the Officer-in-Charge, he should go to the front door of the house. In the meanwhile, the informant also saw some fire-like substance and then he raised alarm that extremists had arrived and they were in Khanki dress but were not Police Men. However, Nawlesh said that he should not take law in his own hand as they might be Police men also. In the mean while, the culprits set fire to the room in which Nawlesh was sleeping along with others. The fire was set with the help of petrol bomb. The informant was witnessing everything through a hole in the door of the room in which he was sleeping and he identified altogether nineteen persons in the light of torch flashed by the extremists as also in the light produced by fire in the room. He named all those persons as Arbind Kumar, Hirdaya Singh @ Dhirendra Sharma, Manoj Kumar, Nellam Sharma, Mithilesh Sharma, Surendra Sharma, Raghwendra Sharma, Chandra Behari Gautam, Ram Binay Singh, Nawal Singh, Akhilesh Kumar, Bachu Singh, Subhas Singh, Ram Binay Singh Badkun Ramlesh, Suresh Sharma, Nageshwar Singh, Mani Singh and Upendra Singh. According to the informant, apart from these nineteen persons, there were 300-400 persons present in the mob and they were holding regular guns and rifles. After the fire was set to the door of the room in which Nawlesh was sleeping and the door was burnt, two of the accused, namely, Manoj Kumar and Arbind Kumar dragged one Bholi Singh from inside the room and they also took out Dhanju Kumar from the eastern room. They took both of them outside the house. In the entire process, about 300-400 rounds of firing were made and the entire locality was terrified. 4. They took both of them outside the house. In the entire process, about 300-400 rounds of firing were made and the entire locality was terrified. 4. According to the informant, about 20-25 days prior to the occurrence, accused Manoj Kumar had sold 1 1/2 bigha of land and he had received consideration amount of the sold land about 3-4 days prior to the occurrence and on this occasion, he was heard saying that he had sold the land for the purpose of making payment to the extremists for eliminating the family of the informant. According to the informant, they did not take this kind of utterance seriously but in the alleged night of occurrence, this incident took place and the plan of the accused was executed. It appears that five persons, who were inside the western room on the upper floor of the house of the informant, were burnt alive inside the room and the 6th man, namely, Bholi Singh was subsequently shot dead outside the house by the culprits. However, the nephew of the informant, namely, Dhanju escaped from the clutches of the extremists and he returned and told that Bholi Singh was shot dead in his presence by those persons. Accordingly, the F.I.R. was forwarded by the said Police Officer Ramesh Kumar Sharma (P.W. 7) to the Police Station for registration of a case and he proceeded with the investigation. He examined the place of occurrence, prepared inquest report of a dead body and also recorded the statement of some witnesses and thereafter returned to the P.S. It appears that subsequently, this Police Officer was suspended by the Superior Officer on account of dereliction of duty and another Police Officer was entrusted with the investigation of this case who completed the investigation and submitted charge-sheet against altogether sixteen persons in three instalments. Charges were separately framed against three sets of accused persons whose cases were separately committed one after another and finally the cases of all the sixteen accused were tagged together and the trial commenced. It appears that after the evidence had concluded and statements under Sec. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded, one of the accused, namely, Mani Singh died and, thus, ultimately only fifteen persons remained on trial when the judgment was pronounced. It appears that after the evidence had concluded and statements under Sec. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded, one of the accused, namely, Mani Singh died and, thus, ultimately only fifteen persons remained on trial when the judgment was pronounced. As it has been stated earlier, out of 15 accused persons, finally facing trial, 3 were acquitted by the trial Court while 12 persons were convicted and sentenced, as stated earlier. Since death sentence was awarded against 2 of the accused in this case, a reference to this Court has been make by the learned trial Court under Sec. 366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, On the other hand, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of the trial Court, 2 accused persons who were sentenced to death, filed Criminal Appeal No. 464 of 1997. In similar manner, Seven of the convicts preferred appeal which was numbered as Criminal Appeal No. 517 of 1997. Out of these seven appellants, one, namely, appellant No. 2 Nawal Kishore Gautam is since dead and the appeal against him has abated. So there are now only six appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 517 of 1997. Other two convicts, namely, Mithilesh Sharma and Surendra Singh @ Surendra Sharma filed a separate appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 528 of 1997 and one of the convicts, namely, Nageshwar Singh separately filed an appeal which has been registered as Criminal appeal No. 24 of 1998. All these four appeals have been heard along with Death Reference Case No. 6 of 1997. 5. Altogether eight witnesses were examined by the prosecution in this case to bring home the charges against the accused persons facing trial and two defence witnesses were also examined and some documents were brought on the record. The defence case, according to the defence evidence is that these appellants along with some other accused persons, either acquitted or not charged, have been falsely implicated in this case on account of enmity between the family of the informant and the family of the accused persons. It has been stated that actually one of the deceased persons, namely, Nawlesh Sharma happened to be a veteran criminal. He was not a member of the family of the informant and he was also not related to him. It has been stated that actually one of the deceased persons, namely, Nawlesh Sharma happened to be a veteran criminal. He was not a member of the family of the informant and he was also not related to him. It is stated that this Nawlesh Sharma had killed a leader of a group of Naxalites and the extremists connected with that group were very much annoyed with him and were after his life. This Nawlesh, in order to escape the attack of his known enemies, naxalites, used to take shelter in the houses of others by way of strategy and in the fateful night, in stead of sleeping in his own house, he was sleeping in the house of the informant and the extremists who wanted to kill this Nawlesh, got this positive information that he was hiding in the house of the informant and, therefore, they attacked the house and they wanted to capture this Nawlesh Sharma, their target, and as he was hiding in the room and the room was closed from inside out of their anger and disgust, the extremists set fire to the room which resulted in the death of five persons by burning. It is further stated that so far as one deceased Bholi Singh is concerned, he was not present in the house, as alleged in the prosecution story and he was shot at outside the village, probably because he was he was trying to run away under suspicious circumstance or he challenged the culprits. It is further stated on behalf of defence that actually neither any of the culprits was seen or identified by the informant nor any of the family members of the informant could see or identify and of the culprits participating in the commission of this offence and witnesses falsely claimed identification of the appellants. It has also further been stated that so far as P.W. 1 Dhananjay Kumar @ Dhanju is concerned, he was not at all present in the P.O. house in the fateful night and he was at Bokaro where he was residing for pursuing his studies but after the occurrence took place, an intimation was sent to him and he came back to the village and he was set up as a witness in this case. It has also been further stated that P.W. 2 Nilam Devi is the married daughter of the informant (P.W. 5) and she was at her Sasural in the fateful night and has also not seen the occurrence, but she also subsequently arrived and was set up as an eye-witness to the occurrence. It is also further stated that P.W. 4 Balbanti Devi, wife of one of a deceased in this case late Shiv Narayan Singh, was also not present in the house and she did not see any occurrence nor did she identify any one, but she has been set up as an eye-witness to the occurrence and, thus, the entire edifice of the prosecution story has been constructed on false and fabricated evidence only in order to feed fad the grudge of the informant and his family against innocent accused persons. Several documents were also produced in support of some of the grounds taken on behalf of defence in this case. However, the learned trial Court, after examination of the entire material and evidence on the record and on consideration of the circumstances appearing in this case, refused to accept the defence story and after accepting the prosecution story, passed the order of conviction and sentenced the appellants, as stated above. 6. So far as awarding of death sentence on the accused is concerned, there is no doubt about it that if the charge of the prosecution is proved beyond doubt against those persons, they really deserve to be sentenced to death because this is a case in which five persons have been roasted alive inside the house and the deceased included child aged about 8 years only. For persons committing such heinous offence, death sentence is not unwarranted, but as the charge is very serious, the standard of proof has also to be similarly rigorous. 7. The main contention of the Counsel for the appellants in these appeals is that there are sufficient materials and circumstances on the record to show that the real culprits could not be seen or identified by any witness, including the informant and only innocent persons have been implicated in this case because of background of enmity. Therefore, it has been contended on behalf of appellants that the appellants deserve to be acquitted in this case and the conviction and sentence of the appellants are fit to be set aside. 8. Therefore, it has been contended on behalf of appellants that the appellants deserve to be acquitted in this case and the conviction and sentence of the appellants are fit to be set aside. 8. So far as the evidence adduced on behalf of prosecution to bring home charges against the accused persons is concerned, altogether eight witnesses have been examined in this case. Out of them, P.W. 6 Dr. Sanjay Jain had performed the P.M. Examination on the dead bodies of deceased persons. He also proved the P.M. reports of deceased Kedar Singh, Sanjay Kumar, Nawlesh Singh, Ajay Kumar, Shiv Narain Singh and Bholi Singh (Exts-3 to 3/5). So far the P.M. reports of Kedar Singh and four others (Exts. 3 to 2/4) are concerned, it appears from these reports, coupled with the evidence of Doctor (P.W. 6) that the deaths of these persons were caused due to burn injuries suffered by them and the burn injuries were caused by fire. However, so far as the P.M. report of Bholi Singh (Ext-3/5) is concerned, the Doctor found the following ante-mortem injuries on his person: (a) Lacerated wound near right ear 2" × bone deep which was the wound of entry. There was scorching of skin. (b) Lacerated wound near the right angle of mandible 1 1/2" x bone deep which was also a wound of entry with scorching of skin. (c) Lacerated wound at the back of skull 4" x 2" × bone deep which was the wound of exit. The doctor further held that the injury Nos. (a) & (b) were communicating with injury No. (c). All these three injuries have been described as caused with fire-arms. From the description of the injuries, it becomes clear that two shots were fired at the victim on his face from close range causing injury Nos. (a) & (b) on the front skull and both these bullets pierced through the head and found exit in injury No. (c) and it was on account of this fact that only one injury of exit was found in injury No. (c). When the I.O. examined the deceased and prepared his inquest report, he observed that the back portion of skull bone was found smashed. Apart from these injury Nos. (a), (b) & (c), the Doctor found two other injuries on the person of Bholi Singh, vide Ext-3/5. When the I.O. examined the deceased and prepared his inquest report, he observed that the back portion of skull bone was found smashed. Apart from these injury Nos. (a), (b) & (c), the Doctor found two other injuries on the person of Bholi Singh, vide Ext-3/5. These injuries were: (d) Lacerated wound on the back near 5th thorasic spine 4" × 1/8" x skin deep, and, (e) Lacerated wound on the right upper arm 1" × 1/8" × skin deep. In the opinion of the Doctor, injury Nos. (a), (b) and (c) were caused by fire-arms, but the Doctor has observed nothing regarding the cause of injury Nos. (d) and (e). In this connection, it is important to note that according to the prosecution story, this deceased Bholi Singh was also one of the persons present inside the western room on the upper floor of the house of the informant which was set on fire by the culprits and according to P.Ws. 1 and 5, this Bholi Singh was taken out of that room and was taken to some distance away from the P.O, house and there he was shot at. Therefore, it was urged on behalf of defence before the trial Court itself that the manner of occurrence, so far murder of Bholi Singh is concerned, becomes doubtful, because if Bholi Singh was inside the burning room and if he was taken out after the doors were burnt, then he should have sustained burn injuries and it should have been noted by the Doctor holding the P.M. Examination. In this connection, the learned trial Court has observed that the prosecution should have taken it from the Doctor whether the injury Nos. (d) and (e) were possible by fire for getting support regarding the manner of killing of Bholi Singh, according to the eye-witnesses, but the prosecution did not do it. The learned trial Court has further observed that on the other hand, the defence also did not put any categorical question on this point in the cross-examination of the doctor (P.W. 6). It has been rightly remarked by the trial Court that during the cross-examination of P.W. 6, it was asked from the witness whether he noted down the manner of causing injury Nos. (d) & (e) but he did not pick up courage to put the question whether these injuries were possible with fire or not. It has been rightly remarked by the trial Court that during the cross-examination of P.W. 6, it was asked from the witness whether he noted down the manner of causing injury Nos. (d) & (e) but he did not pick up courage to put the question whether these injuries were possible with fire or not. So far as the I.O. (P.W. 7) is concerned, he has stated in his evidence in Court that when he examined the dead body of Bholi Singh, deceased, he found some burn injuries on his person and he also noted this fact in the inquest report (Ext-6) but it appears that the Doctor failed to take note of burn injury and concentrated only on those injuries which were responsible for the death of the victim. Therefore, the learned trial Court has rightly concluded that the prosecution evidence on the point of manner of death of this victim Bholi Singh cannot be treated as falsified or incorrect even though the medical evidence has not supported it. In this connection, it is also significant to note that a plea was taken on behalf of defence that this Bholi Singh was never present in the room on the upper floor of the house of informant in course of the occurrence and, therefore, the prosecution story, so far the manner of occurrence relating to death of Bholi Singh is concerned, is not fit to be accepted, but it is also significant to note that the defence in course of cross-examination of the informant (P.W. 5) had categorically suggested that this deceased Bholi Singh was a man of criminal antecedents and he was given shelter by the informant in his house. In this background, the contention of the defence that the prosecution story is not acceptable so far as the manner of occurrence relating to murder of Bholi Singh is concerned, is not tenable. So far as the other deceased persons are concerned, the consistent evidence is that these five persons were sleeping inside the western room on the southern side of the upper floor of the house of the informant, when the mob attacked the house and, according to P.Ws. So far as the other deceased persons are concerned, the consistent evidence is that these five persons were sleeping inside the western room on the southern side of the upper floor of the house of the informant, when the mob attacked the house and, according to P.Ws. 1 and 5, the culprits set fire to the western room, when they failed to recover one of victims, namely, Navlesh Singh @ Navlesh Sharma and these five persons, namely, Navlesh Singh, Shiv Narayan Singh, Kedar Singh, Ajay Kumar and Sanjay Kumar were roasted alive. The medical report also corroborates the prosecution version regarding the manner of cause of their death. The evidence of this point is also corroborated by the inquest reports of other five deceased (Exts-6/ 1 to 6/5), in which it is clearly stated that the burn injuries were present on the dead bodies and the death was due to burn injuries. Similarly, it finds corroboration in the medical evidence also, as per the P.M. reports (Exts-3 to 3/4) and the evidence of P.W. 6 the Doctor from which it is clear that the aforesaid five persons had died of burn injuries. 9. Coming to the evidence on the point of occurrence, there are five witnesses and they are all the members of the same family, i.e., the family of the informant. P.W. 5, the informant Ganesh Singh has supported the prosecution story, as narrated in the F.I.R. (Ext-4), in this case. He has stated that in the alleged night of occurrence i.e., the night between 22nd and 23rd July 1994, the informant was sleeping in open on the upper floor of his house. According to him, the other persons who were sleeping there included deceased Nawlesh Singh, Sanjay, Ajay, Shiv Narayan Singh, Bhola Singh and Kedar Singh and also his nephew Dhanju (P.W. 1), his daughter Nilam (P.W. 2), his grand daughter Manjusha and the wife of his younger brother Narendra Sharma. At about 1.30 a.m. in the night, it started drizzling and whereas the female members came down to sleep in the house on the ground floor, the male members entered inside three rooms on the southern portion of the upper floor of the house. At about 1.30 a.m. in the night, it started drizzling and whereas the female members came down to sleep in the house on the ground floor, the male members entered inside three rooms on the southern portion of the upper floor of the house. According to him, all the six deceased persons slept inside the room on the western side and he alone entered the room in the middle and his nephew Dhanju (P.W. 1) occupied the eastern room. From the description of P.O., it appears that on the upper floor of the house, there were three rooms constructed on the southern side facing north and the northern side was open space. These persons closed the doors of three rooms from inside and slept. About half an hour thereafter, i.e., at about 2.00 a.m., the informant heard sound of two firings from the upper floor of the house on the northern side. He woke up on hearing the sound offering and thereafter, there was incessant firing. He further heard sound of a person who was calling Nawlesh and was ordering him to surrender, saying that he was the Officer-in-Charge of the P.S. He also further heard that Nawlesh replied that if he was Officer I/C of the P.S. he should come from the front door of the house. Thereafter, there was some spark and as he peeped through the hole of the room, he found that the said extremists set fire to the western room with petrol bomb, while peeping through the hole of the room, he identified some persons including the appellants and some others and he also found that there were 300-400 extremists present outside. According to him, out of these persons, Manoj and Hriday Singh (appellant of Cr. Appeal No. 464 of 1997) had rifles in their hands and the rest were holding D.B.B.L. guns. The witnesses further stated that after the room was set on fire, the western room was burnt and the door was completely burnt down. Thereupon, one of the occupants of that room, namely, deceased Bholi Singh was dragged by Manoj Singh (Appellant No. 1 in Cr. A. No. 464 of 1997) and one Arbind Singh. Dhanju (P.W. 1) was also dragged from inside the eastern room by Hriday Singh (appellant of Ar. Appeal No. 464 of 1997) and one Nalin Singh. Thereupon, one of the occupants of that room, namely, deceased Bholi Singh was dragged by Manoj Singh (Appellant No. 1 in Cr. A. No. 464 of 1997) and one Arbind Singh. Dhanju (P.W. 1) was also dragged from inside the eastern room by Hriday Singh (appellant of Ar. Appeal No. 464 of 1997) and one Nalin Singh. These two persons were taken outside the house by accused who fired hundreds of rounds which caused complete terror in the village. According to this informant (P.W. 5), five persons died of burn injuries due to setting fire of the western room on the upper floor of his house. They were Shiv Narayan Singh, Kedar Singh, Nawal Singh and two children, Sanjay and Ajay. Therefore, he further stated that Bholi Singh was also shot dead at a place on the western side of the village. It has further been stated by this witness that the cause of occurrence was that some time prior to this occurrence, accused Manoj, Hriday and Akhilesh had caused fire-arm injuries to deceased Nawlesh and the aunt of the informant was also injured in this incident. On account of this incident, there was enmity between the two parties. The witness also further stated that prior to this occurrence accused Manoj had collected some money by selling a piece of land and had spent the same for collecting extremists to commit this offence. He also stated that he learnt about the collection of extremists by accused Manoj (appellant No. 1 of Cr. A. No. 464 of 1997) as he was himself making utterances to this effect and was bragging that he will completely ruin the family of the informant. The informant further stated that after the incident, the Police Officer came and recorded his statement and thereafter he recorded his further statement and took possession of some articles from the P.O, by preparing seizure list. The Police Officer also prepared the inquest reports of the dead bodies and sent the same for P.M. Examination. He also further stated that he signed those inquest reports along with a family member Surendra Sharma who happens to be the brother of deceased Nawlesh. He also further stated that the Police had seized some Lukwaries from the P.O., while preparing the seizure lists. He also further stated that he signed those inquest reports along with a family member Surendra Sharma who happens to be the brother of deceased Nawlesh. He also further stated that the Police had seized some Lukwaries from the P.O., while preparing the seizure lists. He also identified the accused persons in the dock, including the appellants, as the persons whom he had identified in course of occurrence. 10. In his cross-examination, the witness has stated that deceased Nawlesh Singh did not reside with him and he had a separate house to the south of his house and in between his house and the house of deceased Nawlesh is the house of Arvind Singh. He has further stated that Nawlesh was his agnate, no aoubt, but he was separate from the family since the time of his grand-father and they had separate cultivation also. He has also further stated that deceased Nawlesh was accused in some cases also, which included a case of murder. He has also further admitted that one of his nephews, namely, Narendra Singh @ Dara Singh also happens to be accused in a case of Makhdumpur Police Station which was a case of assault and this witness was also accused in that case along with his nephew Narendra Singh @ Dara Singh. However, he denied the suggestion that deceased Nawlesh along with some family members of this informant happens to be accused in half dozen cases including the cases of murder and kidnapping. He, however, admitted that there was murder of one Rajendra Singh of village Laksambha in his village and this witness along with deceased Nawlesh was accused in that case. He also admitted that deceased Shiv Narayan was also an accused in this case. He denied knowledge that about a month and half, prior to the present occurrence, there was a double murder in village Chand situated at about 3 kms. away from his village. He also denied the knowledge, if the deceased Nawlesh was one of the accused in that case. He has further admitted that his cousin brother Shatrughan Singh is an Engineer at Bokaro and he was also accused with him in the aforesaid case of Makhdumpur P.S. He also further stated that a sister of Shatrughan Singh is married in village Chand. He has further admitted that his cousin brother Shatrughan Singh is an Engineer at Bokaro and he was also accused with him in the aforesaid case of Makhdumpur P.S. He also further stated that a sister of Shatrughan Singh is married in village Chand. He also denied the knowledge that the two persons who were murdered in village Chand, were enemies of the brother-in-law of Shatrughan Singh. In his further cross-examination, he also admitted that he was licence-holder of a rifle and Shiv Narayan Singh was also a licensee of gun. He further stated that his rifle was snatched by the extremists prior to this occurrence and the gun of Shiv Narayan Singh was stolen. According to him, his rifle was snatched by the extremist when he was returning from Patna after getting the same repaired. He further admitted that while he was returning from Patna, he was asked by his brother Ramashish Sharma to go in connection with marriage negotiation and he had kept his rifle at the place of a relation of his in village Daulatpur. According to him, he had kept his rifle in the family which happens to be Sasural of his brother Ramashish Singh and that Fekan Singh and Bindu Singh happen to be brother-in-law (Sala) of Ramashish. He further stated that when he returned from village Daulatpur after the negotiation, he learnt that his rifle was snatched by the extremists in the previous night from the house of Fekan Singh and in course of that attack, Fekan Singh was killed along with his father and sister. He has denied the suggestion that another Sala of Ramashish, namely, Bindu Singh was still in jail in connection with a case and he was accused in several cases. He has also denied the suggestion that aforesaid Fekan Singh was a notorious criminal and most of his life was spent inside the jail. He also denied the suggestion that he along with his brother Shiv Narayan Singh, deceased, had gone with rifle to Fekan and Bindu for committing offences and the rifle was in possession of Bindu Singh. However, he further stated that gun of Shiv Narayan Singh was stolen regarding which there was a case and the accused persons of this case were made accused in that case. According to him, the case was filed about 5-6 years prior to this incident. However, he further stated that gun of Shiv Narayan Singh was stolen regarding which there was a case and the accused persons of this case were made accused in that case. According to him, the case was filed about 5-6 years prior to this incident. However, he also further stated that he did not file any separate case in connection with snatching of his rifle but he had given a written information to the Police Officer and had informed the S.P. also. When he was cross-examined regarding selling of land by Manoj Singh, he stated that, he learnt about it, but the sale-deed was never executed in his presence nor he had read the same. In his cross-examination, it was also put to him whether there was any murder in village Pandeya near his village and whether there was some person known as Shravan Kumar Sah in that village. He denied that deceased Nawlesh Singh was accused in a case of murder of Shravan Kumar Sah. He also denied the suggestion that Shravan Kumar Sah was murdered in Pandeya village and his murder was committed by deceased Nawlesh Singh who was accused in that case. He also denied the suggestion that said Shravan Kumar Sah was an area Commander of an Extremist Organization, party unit. In his further cross-examination, he has stated that in the alleged night of occurrence, altogether 300-400 persons had mounted over the roof of his house which included the accused persons and he saw that thereafter. According to him, there was other extremists present on the roof of the houses in the neighbourhood also. According to him, they had mounted over the roof with the help of a ladder of bamboo. He denied the suggestion that deceased Nawlesh Singh was in the hit-list of extremists and that the extremists were in search of Nawlesh Singh for a pretty long time. He also further stated that when the culprits started asking Nawlesh to open the door and come out, he was convicted that they would not let him off, but these culprits did not try to get open the door of the room and they also did not break open the door of the room occupied by Dhanju (P.W. 1). However, the door planks of the room occupied by Dhanju were removed from their hinges and the same had fallen down. However, the door planks of the room occupied by Dhanju were removed from their hinges and the same had fallen down. He has stated that he was peeping through the hole in the door planks of his room which was made for the purpose of chaining the door and it was at a height of about 2 1/2 × 3 cubit. He has also given the dimension of this hole as 2 1/1" × 2". 11. Another important eye-witness to the occurrence is P.W. 1 Dhananjay Kumar @ Dhanju Singh. According to him, he was also sleeping along with others and he had occupied the eastern room after drizzling and thereafter, the culprits arrived. He stated that after the western room was set on fire and Bholi Singh was caught by the culprits, he was also dragged from the room after the extremists removed the door planks of the room and then he was taken away and was given blows with butt of the gun and subsequently, after they killed Bholi Singh, he was released and he returned. He also claimed identification of accused persons, including the appellants. According to him, he identified the culprits in the light created by fire in the house and the torches lighted by culprits. 12. So far as P.W. 1 is concerned, the presence of this witness at the place of occurrence at the relevant time has been challenged on behalf of appellants and it has been extraneously argued that at the time of the alleged occurrence, he was not present in the village. It has been stated that it appears that this witness was residing at Bokaro at the relevant time. However, the witness has admitted that two members of his joint family, namely, Shatrughan Sharma and Ramashish Sharma lived at Bokaro with their family for several years past. He further admitted that Shatrughan Sharma washolding a high post as Engineer in Bokaro Steel Factory and he stated that he was a student of Class-IX at Makhdumpur High School and when he was deposing on 15th and 16th April, 1996, he was prosecuting his studies at Bokaro. He also stated that he was a student of Intermediate in City College, Bokaro. He also stated that he was a student of Intermediate in City College, Bokaro. Therefore, it was submitted that when the witness was a student of Class-IX at the alleged time of occurrence, i.e., in July 1994, he should have been a student of Class-X in 1995 and could pass the Secondary Examination in June 1996. As such, it has been submitted that he could not have been a student of Intermediate in April 1996. However, this submission does not appear to have much weight because even if it is so that the witness was a student of Class-IX, in 1994 and he was a student of Class-X in 1995, he was supposed to have passed the Secondary Board Examination in the month of March or April 1996 and may be that he was just admitted in the Intermediate class at the time of his deposing in Court. However, this argument was advanced in order to show that the witness at the time of occurrence was at Bokaro and after the occurrence took place, he came from Bokaro along with his other family members who were residing there on 24th July 1994 and, therefore, he could not have been present in the P.O. house in the alleged night of occurrence. It has also further been pointed out that in the inquest report of Bholi Singh (Ext-6), three witnesses are purported to have signed as witnesses and one of them is this P.W. 1. It is submitted that only two witnesses are required to be witnesses on the inquest report or seizure list, ordinarily, and whereas only two witnesses have signed other inquest reports, on the inquest report of Bholi Singh (Ext-3), there are signatures of three witness including P.W. 1 and the serial number of two persons are only given in the column for witnesses, it is also stated that both belonged to the particular village. Therefore, it was pointed out that it appears that subsequently on 24th July, 1994 when this witness arrived, his signature was obtained over and above the signature of two other witnesses on the inquest report (Ext-6) in order to create evidence to show that he was present in the village in the alleged night of occurrence. Therefore, it was pointed out that it appears that subsequently on 24th July, 1994 when this witness arrived, his signature was obtained over and above the signature of two other witnesses on the inquest report (Ext-6) in order to create evidence to show that he was present in the village in the alleged night of occurrence. The learned lower Court has refused to accept this contention and has rightly observed that the position where this witness has signed on the seizure-list (Ext-6) indicates that he was at serial No. 2 in Column of the witnesses. So, it cannot be said that he signed subsequently. Moreover, it has been stated that the inquest-report (Ext-6) was prepared on 23rd July 1994 by the Investigating Officer (P.W. 7). It has been made clear that on 24th July 1994, he was relieved of the charge of investigation of this case and, therefore, the I.O. (P.W. 7) could not have been in a position to have obtained signature of this witness on 24th July 1994 as alleged. Moreover, this is apparent that the fardbeyan in this case was recorded on 23rd July 1994 at 5.00 a.m. and soon thereafter the fardbeyan was forwarded to the Police Station for drawing a formal F.I.R. and registering a case and the formal F.I.R. was thereafter registered at the P.S. at 7.00 a.m. on the same day, i.e., on 23rd July 1994 by a different Police Officer. Therefore, the very fact that the name of this witness appears in the fardbeyan (Ext-4) indicates that the contention on behalf of appellants that the witness was not present in the alleged night of occurrence in the P.O. village or that he came to the P.O. village on 24th July 1994 and was set up as a witness is not fit to be accepted. 13 It was also pointed out by the Counsel for the appellants that one more circumstance can be taken into consideration to indicate that the witness was to present in the village till 23rd July 1994 and he was available only on, 24th July 1994 because his statement was recorded by the I.O. on 24th July, 1994 and not on 23rd July, 1994. In this connection, it has to be noted that the I.O. has stated that on 23rd July, 1994, he could record the statement of only one witness, i.e. P.W. 3 and the statement of rest of the witnesses could not be recorded by him and the same was recorded by the 2nd I.O. who took over charge on 24th July, 1994. The first I.O. (P.W. 7) had to do so may things on 23rd July, 1994 and the situation was also so tense that everything could not have been done in peaceful manner. It is significant to note that the I.O. (P.W. 7) stated that when he was going to prepare the inquest report of the dead bodies of other deceased than Bholi Singh, he was prevented by the villagers from doing so saying that they shall not allow the dead bodies to be taken away for P.M. Examination, unless the Chief Minister arrived. It is also significant to note that this P.W. 1 had lost a large number of his relations of his family who were done to death in ghastly manner and, therefore, he must have been suffering from initial shock at the time of preliminary investigation. So even if his statement was not recorded on 23rd July, 1994 and was recorded on 24th July, 1994, it does not mean that he was not present in the village on the alleged date of occurrence. 14. The next witness is P.W. 2 Nilam Devi. She happens to be daughter of the informant and was married in village Narma. According to her, she was present as her fathers place in the alleged night of occurrence and she was sleeping on the roof of the house along with other family members and when at about 1.30 a.m. it started drizzling, she along with her aunt, meaning thereby wife of P.W. 3, came down-stairs and only the male members remained up-stairs and they occupied the different rooms on the roof of the house. She further stated that after some time, she heard sound of gun-firing and also saw light on the roof which was due to fire and in the light of the fire, she identified Arbind Singh, Hridaya Singh (appellant No. 2 of Cr. Appeal No. 464/97), Manoj Singh (appellant No. 1 of Cr. Appeal No.464/97), Raghbendra Singh, Nalin Singh, Nawal Singh, Akhilesh Kumar (appellant No. 2 of Cr. Appeal No. 464/97), Manoj Singh (appellant No. 1 of Cr. Appeal No.464/97), Raghbendra Singh, Nalin Singh, Nawal Singh, Akhilesh Kumar (appellant No. 2 of Cr. Appeal No. 517 of 1997), Mithilesh Singh (appellant No. 1 of Cr. Appeal No. 528 of 1997), Mani Singh, Bachchu Singh (appellant No. 3 of Cr. Appeal No. 517 of 1997, Nageshwar Singh (appellant of Cr. Appeal No. 24 of 1998, Ram Binay Singh, Barkun Singh. Surendra Singh, Upendra Singh (appellant No. 5 of Cr. Appeal No. 517 of 1997), Suresh Singh (appellant No. 4 of Cr. Appeal No. 517 of 1997), Chandra Bihari Gautam (appellant No. 1 of Cr. Appeal No. 517 of 1997) and Subhash Singh (appellant No. 6 of Cr. Appeal No. 517 of 1997). She had identified altogether 18 persons out of whom eleven were the appellants of this case. She also further stated that soon thereafter she saw her brother Dhanju (P.W. 1) being taken away by accused Manoj Singh and Nalin Singh and she also saw Bholi Singh (deceased) being taken out by the culprits. She also further stated when the firing stopped and the culprits ran away, she went upstairs and saw the dead bodies of Kedar Singh, Shiv Narayan Singh, Ajay Kumar and Sanjay Kumar her family members. However, she further stated that P.W. 1 Dhanju managed to return subsequently and she learnt that Bholi Singh was killed by the miscreants after being taken towards the west of the village. So far as this witness is concerned, the defence also challenged the presence of this witness in the alleged night of occurrence. According to the defence, this witness was at her Sasural in the alleged night of occurrence and she came to her parents place after hearing about the occurrence alleged and she has also been set up as a witness in this case and, therefore, she had no occasion or opportunity to see the occurrence and identify the accused persons. It appears that she has stated in her cross-examination that she was married and her husband lived away at Bombay in connection with job and, therefore, she was living at her fathers place. It is not unnatural that she was living at her fathers place and in the alleged night occurrence she was present in the P.O. house. It appears that she has stated in her cross-examination that she was married and her husband lived away at Bombay in connection with job and, therefore, she was living at her fathers place. It is not unnatural that she was living at her fathers place and in the alleged night occurrence she was present in the P.O. house. It is also significant to mention that her name has also been mentioned in the fardbeyan Ext-4 and in the statement of the informant (P.W. 5) himself. Therefore, there does not appear to be any reason to believe that she was not present in the P.O. House in the alleged night of occurrence and she came later and was set up as a witnesses. She has stated that she was sleeping inside the house along with her aunt, meaning thereby wife of P.W. 3, and when firing started, she got up along with her aunt and both, she herself and her aunt, remained seated in the house out of fear. In this connection, it has been submitted on behalf of appellants that if she was sitting still in the house when the occurrence was going on, she had no opportunity to witness the occurrence or see and identify the culprits. But it does not appear to be correct because even if it was so that she had no occasion to go upstairs at the time when the occurrence was taking place, she could have easily seen the culprits from the room when they came out of the house from the front door and in the circumstance, when the fire was blazzing on the upper floor of the house and there was sufficient light, she could have very easily identified the appellants who were well known to her. In this connection, it is also important to note that P.W. 1 has stated in his cross-examination that when he was being taken away by the accused persons, his sister (P.W. 2) clung to him and started urging and requesting the culprits not to take away her brother. Therefore, her presence in the P.O. house in the alleged night of occurrence, cannot be doubted. 15. The next witness is P.W. 3. He happen to be a family member of the informant and in the alleged night of occurrence, he was sleeping at his Dalan at some distance from the P.O. house. Therefore, her presence in the P.O. house in the alleged night of occurrence, cannot be doubted. 15. The next witness is P.W. 3. He happen to be a family member of the informant and in the alleged night of occurrence, he was sleeping at his Dalan at some distance from the P.O. house. According to him, whii he was sleeping, he heard sound of gun firing and as he wanted to get up to go towards the house, 7-8 persons standing in the lance by the side of the Dalan accosted and asked him to sit tight and he had no alternative but to remain sitting there. At that time, he identified some of the culprits, namely, Hridaya Singh, Manoj Singh, Subhash Singh and Nalin, Singh, However, he remained sitting in;the Dalan and while the other culprits went towards his house, meaning thereby the female apartment, some of them remained standing near him and did not allow him to move, but subsequently when these culprits started going away from the lane, he saw and identified Chandra Bihari Gautam, Nawal Singh, Akhilesh Kumar Gautam, Manoj Kumar, Hridaya Singh, Barkun Nageshwar Singh, Arbind Kumar, Raghvendra Sharma, Bachchu Singh, Ram Binay Singh, Suresh Sharma, Upendra Sharma, Subhash Singh, Manish Singh, Surendra Sharma and Mithilesh Singh. However, he also started that Hridaya Singh and Nalin Singh were taking away his son Dhanju (P.W. 1), and two accused, namely, Arbind and Nageshwar were taking Bholi Singh. He also stated that while being taken away, Dhanju, his son, was uttering that his father, Babu and Bhaiya were killed and he will also be killed. The witness also further stated that the miscreants later killed Bholi Singh, after taking him away and his son (P.W. 1) returned alive. Regarding this witness, it has been contended that he was not in a position to see and identify the culprits committing offence, because he was sleeping at Dalan and according to him, his house was visible from the place where he was sleeping. Regarding this witness, it has been contended that he was not in a position to see and identify the culprits committing offence, because he was sleeping at Dalan and according to him, his house was visible from the place where he was sleeping. There is no doubt about it that, the witness was sleeping in the Dalan about 30-40 yards away from the P.O. house but at the same time, it is also clearly stated by the witness that he had seen 7-8 persons standing near him in the lane by the side of Dalan when he woke up on hearing the sound of firing and subsequently, he saw the culprits going away from the same lane and, therefore, he had sufficient opportunity to see the culprits and identify those who were near him. It is clearly stated by almost all the witnesses in this case that altogether 300-400 persons were involved in this case and obviously the inmates of the house could not have identified those who were not known to them, though they happened to see them also and they identified and named only those persons who were known to them from before. The defence has tried to take out some contradictions from this witness, but the contradictions could not be taken from the I.O. (P.W. 7) and, therefore, the contradiction does not stand anywhere. This is a witness who has lost his father, his brother and two sons in this carnage and fortunately his son P.W. 1 Dhanju could survive from the clutches of the culprits. 16. The next witness is P.W. 4 Kalawati Devi, widow of late Shiv Narayan Singh, one of the deceased in this case and mother of P.W. 2. She has stated that she was sleeping in the room at the alleged time of occurrence and she stated that in the alleged night of occurrence the culprits arrived and set fire to a room in the house and four of her family members perished in the fire. The grand son Dhanju (P.W. 1) and one Bholi Singh were taken away but fortunately P.W. 1 returned alive. She also named some culprits whom she claimed to have seen. She was also inside a room in the Angan of the house and she had occasion to see the culprits when they came down after setting fire to the room upstairs and roasting five persons alone. She also named some culprits whom she claimed to have seen. She was also inside a room in the Angan of the house and she had occasion to see the culprits when they came down after setting fire to the room upstairs and roasting five persons alone. There does not appear to be any reason to discard her evidence. 17. P.W. 7 is the I.O. of the case. He has given a general description of the two places of occurrence, one being the house of the informant in which the western room on the upper floor of the house was found completely burnt and another was a piece of land at some distance from the P.O. house where the dead body of Bholi Singh was found lying and he prepared the inquest report over the dead body of Bholi Singh. However, he could not prepare inquest reports of other deceased persons at that time, as the villagers were strongly protesting and were demanding visit of the Chief Minister. He also made seizure of some articles at the P.O. and preparing seizure-list in presence of witnesses. According to him, he was relieved of the charge of investigation by the superior Officer on 24th July, 1994 and another person took over charge who completed the investigation and submitted charge-sheet. 18. It is pertinent to note here that this I.O. has been negligent in conducting the Investigation to some extent and probably this was the reason why he was only removed from the charge of investigation of this case, rather he was placed under suspension for some period. The defence led much imphasis on a loop-hole of the prosecution by pointing out that the informant (P.W. 5) stated in his evidence that he was witnessing the incident from inside the middle room on the upper floor of the house, as he could not come out because of fear of life. He stated that he was witnessing the incident through a hole in the door plank. He stated that he was witnessing the incident through a hole in the door plank. He has stated that the hole in the door plank was quite sufficient to look outside and it was meant for chaning the door, but the I.O. (P.W. 7) did not care to note down the presence of hole in the door plank which is a serious fault on the part of the I.O. On account of the fact that the I.O. did not take note of the hole in the door plank of the middle room of the upper floor of the P.O. house, the defence started challenging the statement of the informant (P.W. 5) that he witnessed the incident from inside the middle room on the upper portion of his house. But there does not appear to be any reason to disbelieve his evidence only because the Investigating Officer committed a mistake and was negligent in noting down the presence of hole in the door plank through which he is said to have witnessed the occurrence. 19. It has been contended on behalf of appellants that in this case, there is no independent witness available to support the prosecution story and all the witnesses who have come forward to support the prosecution story are highly interested persons and the family members of the informant. In this regard, it is suffice to say that if there is chance of presence of independent witness to the occurrence or if there is evidence that any independent witness was present as eye-witness to the occurrence and if the prosecution withholds the witness and only interested witnesses are examined, then the prosecution story has to be viewed with suspicion. But if neither there is chance of presence of any independent witness to the occurrence nor there is evidence to show that any independent witness was present at the time of occurrence, merely because the family members came forward to support the prosecution story, they cannot be disbelieved and their evidence cannot be discarded only on this ground. In the present case, the situation is that 300-400 culprits armed with various kinds of fire-arms and lethal weapons attacked the house of the informant at earthly hour of the night at about 2.00 a.m. and started making incessant firing. In the present case, the situation is that 300-400 culprits armed with various kinds of fire-arms and lethal weapons attacked the house of the informant at earthly hour of the night at about 2.00 a.m. and started making incessant firing. So it does not appear to be natural and does not appeal to common sense that any person having house in the neighborhood will peep through the windows even. The atmosphere is such in which there is complete reign of terror and there is no chance of any person trying to witness the incident. Moreover, many of the accused persons of this case also belong to same village and their family members any sympathizers were not supposed to come forward to support the prosecution story. Since the incident had taken place in such a circumstance, it was but natural that only inmates of the house could have been in a position to witness the incident. It has been consistently stated by all the witnesses that almost all the family members of the informant, excepting for P.Ws. 3 & 4, were sleeping on the roof of the house, as it was summer season and sleeping in open is usually pleasant in this season and it has also consistently been stated that after it started drizzling at about 1.30 a.m., two lady members, i.e., P.W. 2 and wife of P.W. 3 came down to sleep inside a room on the lower floor of the house and the male members of the family along with Bholi Singh and Navlesh Sharma went to sleep inside the three rooms on the southern side of the upper floor of the house. From the descriptions of the P.O, it appears that the northern portion of the upper floor is open and there are three rooms on the southern side. It is stated that P.W. 1 Dhanju had occupied the eastern room, the informant (P.W. 4) had occupied the middle room and the six persons (all deceased) were occupying the western room. It appears from the evidence of the I.O. that he had picked up and seized two ladders prepared with balboos which were used by the culprits for getting upon upper floor of the house. It appears from the evidence of the I.O. that he had picked up and seized two ladders prepared with balboos which were used by the culprits for getting upon upper floor of the house. According to the informant and the witnesses, there were altogether 300-400 persons who attacked the house and they first asked Nawlesh to open the door of the room and on his refusal, they set fire to the western room with petrol bomb. It appears that when the P.O. inspected the P.O., the western room was found completely destroyed and gutted. However, according to the prosecution story, after the door was burnt, one of the persons occupying the western room, namely, Bholi Singh who had suffered some burn injuries was dragged by the culprits and the culprits removed the door planks of the eastern room and caught hold of P.W. 1 Dhanju and took them away and at some distance from the P.O., they shot dead Bholi Singh but they spared P.W. 1 Dhanju who returned alive. It was such an atmosphere in which there was no likelihood of any person coming out to see the occurrence and, therefore, the prosecution has to rely on only those witnesses who were supposed to be present in the house. 20. Regarding presence of Bholi Singh and Nawlesh Sharma in the P.O. house at the alleged time of occurrence, it is contended that it is doubtful because they were outsiders. It is true that so far as this Bholi Singh is concerned, he was stranger to the family, but so far deceased Nawlesh Sharma is concerned, he was a close neighbour of the appellants and it has come in evidence that on the alleged date of occurrence, i.e. 22th July, 1994, there was festival of beginning of transplantation and there was a festival in the family which was attended by these two persons and it was just a chance that they slept on the upper floor of the house. In villages, the persons who are known to the family, are generally not shunned away and are allowed to occupy a portion of the house, when necessary, and it appears that these two persons, other than the family members of the informant, were allowed to sleep on the upper floor of the house along with family members, though two female members were also sleeping on the upper floor. There does not appear to be anything unnatural in it and the prosecution story cannot be reviewed with suspicion, on this account. 21. It is also important to note that it was suggested to the informant (P.W. 5) during his cross-examination that he had given shelter to deceased Bholi Singh a stranger in his house, as he was himself a criminal and he was suspecting some danger to his life. Similarly, another deceased Nawlesh Sharma was also a person of Criminal antecedent and he was taking shelter in the house of the informant in the alleged night of occurrence. It is, therefore, clear that challenging the presence of these two deceased persons in the house of the informant in the alleged night of occurrence appears to be absurd and incongruous because the very fact that Nawlesh Sharma was burnt alive inside the western room is in itself a proof of the fact that he was present in the P.O. house in the alleged night of occurrence and the suggestion of the defunct that Bholi Singh was given shelter in his house negatives the contention that Bholi Singh was not present in the house in the alleged night of occurrence. 22. It is also contended on behalf of appellants that actually it had so happened that there was a case earlier when deceased Nawlesh Sharma Had attacked and caused injury to a person, namely, Shravan Kumar Sah of village Nasaratpur within P.S. Makhdumpur regarding which Makhdumpur P.S. Case No. 173 of 1991 was registered and charge-sheet was also submitted in that case against this Navlesh Sharma. Relevant document, charge-sheet of the case, is Ext-C/1. It was submitted on behalf of appellants that this Shravan Kumar Sah happened to be an area Commander of party unit, and extremist Organization and as Nawlesh had attacked this area Commander, the party was craving for his blood. Therefore, it has been contended that it was the handiwork of the extremists that they attacked the house of the informant with positive knowledge that Nawlesh was hiding in his house and their sole intention was to commit murder of Nawlesh Sharma and because he did not open the door on their asking, they set fire to the room and incidently, other persons were also burnt. It has also further been pointed out that there were some other cases also in which the deceased Nawlesh was accused. It has also further been pointed out that there were some other cases also in which the deceased Nawlesh was accused. The charge-sheet in this connection is Ext-C/2. It is also submitted that as Nawlesh had incurred the displeasure of the extremists Organization, the extremists raided the house of the informant and the incident took place, but the appellants in this case who had enmity with the family of the informant from before were falsely implicated. So far as the contention that Nawlesh had caused injury to an area Commander of Extremist Organization is concerned, there is no material to establish the same; though it appears that Nawlesh was accused in a case filed by Shrawan Kumar Sah and even if it is so that some extremists were intending to kill Nawlesh, there is possibility that the appellants and other accused persons of this case came in contact with those extremists to feed fad their grudge against the family of the informant and extremists decided to lend support to them for some consideration and they also might have participated in the commission of the occurrence, as they also might have some reasons to do so. There is no doubt about it that the extremists were involved in the commission of the offence, but it does not mean that only the extremists were there. The possibility is that the appellants along with other accused persons took the help of extremists to eliminate the family of the informant on account of enmity between the two parties. In this regard certain documents have also been filed to show that they were on inimical terms and enmity has also not been denied. Now since enmity cuts both ways, if there is possibility that innocent persons are implicated because of enmity, it is also true that such offences are committed only because of enmity, because otherwise there was no reason for committing murders of several persons of the family of the informant. Had it been a case of dacoity and the family members were killed, the matter would have been different. This was a case in which sole intention of the marauders was to commit murder of some persons, including Nawlesh Sharma and Bholi Singh who had some criminal antecedents. Had it been a case of dacoity and the family members were killed, the matter would have been different. This was a case in which sole intention of the marauders was to commit murder of some persons, including Nawlesh Sharma and Bholi Singh who had some criminal antecedents. It has been held by the apex Court from time to time that if a close family member happens to be a witness to an occurrence relating to murder, there is little probability of the family members implicating innocent persons and letting off the real culprits. 23. It also appears that during investigation, some miscreants were caught and were also placed on the T.I. Parade by Police in order to ascertain whether those miscreants were involved in the commission of this offence or not, but unfortunately the witnesses did not turn up for identification and the identification could not take place. It is obvious that in the locality where the present occurrence took place, there is good deal of extremists activities and people are generally afraid of stating against those elements fearing their elimination. In such a circumstance, if a witness refused to participate in the T.I. Parade to identify a person who was supposed to be extremist, it does not mean that those persons were innocent and, therefore, the witnesses did not participate, because it is obvious that the witnesses had no courage to face them in the T.I. Parade. Therefore, those extremists elements have not been brought to book by the law enforcing machinery, but if the present appellants were participating in the commission of the offence, only because some culprits could not be challenged, they cannot be treated as innocent, if otherwise the case is proved against them. 24. Learned Counsel for the appellants has raised some pertinent points in this case. It has been submitted that in this case, there has been manipulation and manoeuvring in registering the case. It has been pointed out that though information regarding the occurrence was received in the P.S. much prior to the recording of the fardbeyan which is the basis of the F.I.R. no F.I.R. was drawn up, as required under Sec. 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It has been pointed out that though information regarding the occurrence was received in the P.S. much prior to the recording of the fardbeyan which is the basis of the F.I.R. no F.I.R. was drawn up, as required under Sec. 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It has also further been submitted that the F.I.R. in this case which was registered on 13.7.1994, was sent to the Magistrate concerned, i.e., the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jehanabad on 24.7.1994 and the delay in forwarding the F.I.R. has not been explained in evidence of I.O. (P.W. 7). It has also further been submitted that there has been delay in recording the statements of witnesses and, therefore, it has been contended that the entire circumstances creates serious doubt about the genuineness of the F.I.R. in this case. In this regard, it can be considered that all kinds of information received in the Police Station cannot be treated as F.I.R. There are certain rules regarding it. In a case which has been referred Devendra V/s. State of Haryana 1997 SCC (Cri) 570, it was observed by their Lordships that though the F.I.R. was recorded at 2.40 p.m. on 22.7.1986, it was received on the next day at about 10.00 a.m. and on the basis of the facts and the circumstances appearing in the case, it was held by their Lordships that the circumstances indicated that the F.I.R. was ante dated and it was recorded subsequently after the victim had died. But this is not the situation in the present case, because the F.I.R. was registered on the basis of the fardbeyan recorded on 23rd July, 1994 on the same day in the Police Station by a different Police Officer than the I.O. (P.W. 7), as indicated above. However, the F.I.R. was sent to the Court of Chief. Judicial Magistrate on 24th July, 1994, though it was a Sunday. It is true that the F.I.R. could not be sent to Court on 23rd July, 1994 when it was registered and in spite of the fact that the police Station concerned is not far away from the Headquarters and is connected by both road and rail. But so far as the explanation in this regard is concerned, the I.O. (P.W. 7) could not have explained this delay, because he was in the P.O. village on that day proceeding with the investigation. But so far as the explanation in this regard is concerned, the I.O. (P.W. 7) could not have explained this delay, because he was in the P.O. village on that day proceeding with the investigation. It was such a serious nature of case that the I.O. was very much pre-occupied with this case in different steps being taken in connection with the investigation and it also appears from the evidence of P.W. 7, the I.O., that the superior Police Officials and also the District Magistrate had arrived in the village be cause it was a case of very serious nature. Therefore, so far as the I.O. (P.W. 7) is concerned, he was not in a position to explain this delay and the delay in sending the F.I.R. is not such which by itself can create serious doubt about the genuineness of the F.I.R. 25. So far as the drawing of the F.I.R. is concerned, it was observed by their Lordships in the case of Pravesh Kalyandas Bhaskar V/s. Sadiq Yakubbhai -- , that: Though there was some delay in sending the F.I.R. to the Magistrate, it is not a ground to doubt the genuineness of the report, if there is no other infirmity in this regard. 26. In the case of Arjun Marik and Ors. V/s. State of Bihar 1994 BBCJ SC 116, it was found that the F.I.R. was not recorded on the information received at the Police Station but subsequently at the place of occurrence and the F.I.R. was despatched to the Magistrate on the 3rd day. Therefore, the provision of Section 157, Cr.P.C. was not complied but in the present case, the F.I.R. was promptly drawn up on 23rd July, 1994 and it was also despatched to the Court concerned on the very next day and in the meanwhile, the I.O. proceeded with the investigation and had prepared the inquest report of the dead body of Bholi Singh and had also prepared some seizure lists and recorded further statement of P.W. 5 (the informant) and also the statement of P.W. 3. So far as the statements of other witnesses are concerned it is submitted that P.W. 7 stated in his evidence that as the family members of the informant were weeping and wailing on account of death of four members of the family, it was not possible for him to record the statements of all the witnesses which was recorded on the following day, i.e. 24th July, 1994 by another I.O. who took charge from him. It has also been stated by the I.O. (P.W. 7) that he could not prepare inquest report of five dead bodies than Bholi Singh, because the villagers were not allowing him to examine the dead bodies and to send the same for P.M. Examination, as they were demanding visit of the Chief Minister to the P.O. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was inordinate delay in sending the F.I.R. and there is no reason to see that the F.I.R. was not promptly and correctly drawn up. So far as the registering of the case on the basis of information received in the P.S. is concerned, in fact, under Sec. 154, Cr.P.C. any information regarding cognizable offence is to be treated as F.I.R. and a case has to be registered, but under certain circumstances, it is not possible. It was held by their Lordships in the case Binay Kumar Singh V/s. State of Bihar (1997) 1 SCC 283 : Under Sec. 154 of the Code, the information must unmistakably relate to the commission of a cognizable offence and it shall be reduced to writing (if given orally) and shall be signed by its maker. The next requirement is that the substance thereof shall be entered in a book kept in the Police Station in such form as the State Government has prescribed. First information report has to be prepared and it shall be forwarded to the Magistrate who is empowered to take cognizance of such offence upon such report. The officer-in-charge of a Police Station is not obliged to prepare F.I.R. on any nebulous information received from some body who does not disclose any authentic knowledge about commission of the cognizable offence. It is open to the Officer-in-Charge to collect more information containing details about the occurrence, if available so that he can consider whether a cognizable offence has been committed warranting investigation thereto. 27. It is open to the Officer-in-Charge to collect more information containing details about the occurrence, if available so that he can consider whether a cognizable offence has been committed warranting investigation thereto. 27. In the case of Madru Singh V/s. State of M.P. -- , it was held by their Lordships that mere fact that copy of the F.I.R. was received by the concerned Magistrate, three days later after the incident, it does not lead to a conclusion that the F.I.R. was not lodged on the same day after the incident or the F.I.R. was ante dated. It all depends on the peculiar circumstances of the case. 28. It is, therefore, clear that merely because the F.I.R. was not drawn up on the information given by the village Chawkidar at the police Station earlier in the morning of 23rd July, 1994, does not create doubt about the genuineness and authenticity of the F.I.R. in this case, In this circumstance, even if there was some delay in forwarding the F.I.R., to the Magistrate concerned it does not lead to the conclusion that the F.I.R. was not genuine. In this case, the I.O. proceeded with the recording of the F.I.R. and further statement of the informant as also the statements of another witness, P.W. 3. He also prepared the inquest report of the dead body of Bholi Singh (Ext-6) and he also prepared several seizure lists. Therefore, so far the genuineness and authenticity of the F.I.R. is concerned, there cannot be any doubt about it. 29. It appears to be quite clear from the evidences discussed above that the evidence has been consistently led regarding the manner of occurrence. If the evidence on the record is consistent, even if the witnesses are not in large number or are some how interested witnesses, it does not render the evidence untrustworthy, It has already been observed earlier that the presence of independent witnesses in this case is ruled out in view of the peculiar circumstances in which the occurrence took place and, therefore, merely because the witnesses coming forward to support the prosecution story are family members of the informant, their evidence cannot be discarded only on this account, if there is nothing to show that they are not stating the truth. It was accordingly held by their Lordships in the case Ballam Singh V/s. State of Haryana -- , that if the testimony of eye-witnesses is consistent and no discrepancy is brought out to affect the veracity and authenticity is found in prosecution story, the conviction must be sustained. Accordingly, therefore, the prosecution story in this case has been proved beyond all reasonable doubts and there is no scope for coming to any other conclusion than that the appellants were involved in the commission of this serious kind of offence relating to murder of six persons, five of whom were roasted alive. Therefore, there does not appear to be any reason to interfere with the findings of the trial Court in this case and the conviction of the appellants is accordingly upheld. 30. coming to the death sentence awarded against two of the appellants of Cr. Appeal No. 464 of 1997, it has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellants Mr. Braj Kishore Prasad, Senior Advocate, that from the evidence on the record it appears that there is neither any separate charge of committing murder under Sec. 302, I.P.C. against two aforesaid appellants, nor there is any evidence to this effect that they had any special role to play in commission of the offence. It has been submitted that the learned trial Court has awarded death sentence against these two appellants only on the ground that it has been stated by the informant in the F.I.R. as well as in his evidence as P.W. 5 that accused Manoj Singh had sold 10 Kathas of land to procure money for making payment to the extremists to eliminate his family and he had gathered it from the utterances made by the accused, but actually there is nothing on the record to support this fact and it has also been submitted in their statement under Sec. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this specific circumstance has not been taken from these two appellants and, therefore, the circumstances cannot be used against them. This is settled principle of law and there is no dispute about it. Mr. This is settled principle of law and there is no dispute about it. Mr. Braj Kishore Prasad, learned Senior Advocate, also further pointed out that so far as the special role of these two appellants is concerned, it was stated by P.W. 2 Nilam Kumari that one of these appellants, namely, Manoj was taking away her brother, namely, Dhanju (P.W 1) with the help of Nalin, but she has not stated anything about specific role of another appellant, namely, Hridaya Singh. Similarly, it is pointed out that P.W. 3 has also stated in his evidence that he saw that his son Dhanju (P.W 1) was taken by Hridaya Singh and Nalin, while deceased Bholi Singh was being taken away be Arbind and Nageshwar. However, P.W. 4 does not speak about specific role of these appellants. On the other hand, P.W. 5 stated that one of these appellants, namely, Manoj was taking away Bholi Singh the help of Arbind whereas his nephew Bholi Singh (P.W. 1) was taken away by appellant Hridaya and Nalin. Therefore, there is also contradiction in the matter of allegation regarding taking away of two persons, one of whom was later shot dead and it was also pointed out that there is no evidence at all even in the statement of P.W. 1 as to who actually shot dead Bholi. Therefore, it cannot be said that these two appellants, i.e., appellants of Cr. Appeal No. 464 of 1997 had placed any special role in the Commission of this Offence, though the offence was very serious in nature. It has, therefore, been submitted that considering the well-settled principle that death sentence can be awarded only in rarest of rare cases, there is no justification of awarding death sentence to these two appellants of Cr. Appeal No. 464 of 1997. This principle was laid down by their Lordships in the case Bachan Singh V/s. State of Punjab -- . Their Lordships further laid down certain guidelines for awarding death sentence to the convicts in the case Machhi Singh V/s. State of Punjab A.I.R. 1983 SC 8957. The present case also does not come within the guidelines laid down by the apex Court. Their Lordships further laid down certain guidelines for awarding death sentence to the convicts in the case Machhi Singh V/s. State of Punjab A.I.R. 1983 SC 8957. The present case also does not come within the guidelines laid down by the apex Court. It is also significant to note that their Lordships of the Supreme Court have made observations in this regard concerning awarding of death sentence in the different judgments, including in the cases Jagmohan Lal V/s. State of U.P. -- , Shiv Mohan Singh V/s. State of Delhi A.I.R. 1997 SC 959, ShashiNayar V/s. Union of India 1992 SCC (Cr.) 240 and Shankar V/s. State of T.N. -- , in which it was observed by their Lordships: Awarding of death sentence or life imprisonment depends upon particular circumstance of each case and relevancy of particular role played by individual accused and quality of incriminating evidence for weighing a criminating and aggravating circumstance plays great role in deciding the sentence. Similarly, in the case Jasubha Bharat Singh V/s. State of Gujarat (1994) 4 SCC 353 , it has been observed by their Lordships Sec. 354(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 makes it obligatory in cases of conviction for offences punishable with death or with imprisonment for life to assign reason in support of the sentence awarded to the convicts and further ordains that in case the Judge awards death penalty, special reason for such sentence shall be stated in the judgment. It was further observed by their Lordship The Judge is under a legal obligation to explain the choice of the sentence, the Legislature in its supreme wisdom thought that in some rare cases for "special reason to be recorded it will be necessary to impose the extreme penalty of death to deter others and to protect the society and in a given case, even the sovereignty and security of the State of the country. In this regard, their Lordships further observed, It, however, left the choice of sentence to the Judiciary with the rider that the Court may impose the extreme punishment of death for special reasons. The sentencing Court has, therefore, to approach the question seriously and make an endeavour to see that all the question of sentence are brought on record. In this regard, their Lordships further observed, It, however, left the choice of sentence to the Judiciary with the rider that the Court may impose the extreme punishment of death for special reasons. The sentencing Court has, therefore, to approach the question seriously and make an endeavour to see that all the question of sentence are brought on record. It is only after giving due weight to the mitigating as well as the aggravating circumstances that it must proceed to impose the appropriate sentence. In the recent case, Raja Ram Yadav and Ors. V/s. State of Bihar -- , it has been held by their Lordships, After keeping in mind the relevant considerations for awarding extreme penalty of death and also on considering the fact that in the instant case, the sole eye-witness did not tell, according to P.W. 1, the name of four appellants, we feel that although the murders have been committed in a premediated and collected manner, with extreme cruelty and brutality, for which normally the sentence of death will be wholly justified, in the special facts of the case it will not be proper to award extreme sentence of death on the appellants. 31. The case of present appellants of Cr. Appeal No. 464 of 1997 is on a better footing, because there is no specific charge under Sec. 302, I.P.C. against them nor there is any particular evidence regarding their specific role played in the commission of this offence; though it has been said at the very outset, the offence is very heinous and ghastly as murder of six persons has been committed. It is therefore, clear that the case of the two appellants of Cr. Appeal No. 464 of 1997 cannot be distinguished from the case of other appellants in this case. In this view of the matter, the death sentence awarded by the trial Court against the two appellants of Cr. Appeal No. 464 of 1997 does not appear to be justified. 32. Accordingly, the death sentence awarded to these two appellants is commuted and they are sentenced to undergo R.I. for life. The sentences awarded against other appellants are upheld. 33. Accordingly, the death reference in Death Reference Case No. 6 of 1997 is disposed of and so far as Cr. Appeal No. 464 of 1997 is concerned, the same is dismissed with modifications in the sentence, as stated above. The sentences awarded against other appellants are upheld. 33. Accordingly, the death reference in Death Reference Case No. 6 of 1997 is disposed of and so far as Cr. Appeal No. 464 of 1997 is concerned, the same is dismissed with modifications in the sentence, as stated above. The other three appeals, i.e., Cr. Appeal No. 517 of 1997, Cr. Appeal No. 528 of 1997 and Cr. Appeal No. 24 of 1998 are hereby dismissed and the judgment and order of the trial Court are hereby confirmed as against the appellants of these three appeals. The reference, accordingly, stands disposed of. Ram Nandan Prasad, J. 34 I agree.