R.N. PRASAD & M.L. VISA, JJ. :- Both the appeals arise out of judgment and order dated 5-8-1986 passed by 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram in Sessions Trial No. 308 of 1983 whereby the appellants in both the appeals have been convicted for the offence under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and they have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. They have further been convicted for the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. 2. The prosecution case as emerges from the first information report is that one Lalan Prasad Singh gave his fardbeyan on 29-4-1983 at about 7.30 a.m. that yesterday at about 7 p.m. while he was near the Hanuman temple he learnt that his brother Sri Kishun Singh who had gone to Harijantoli to call labourers had been accousted by Banshidhar Chamar, who had a Kutta (small gun) in his hand. He ran towards east and saw that accused Banshidhar Chamar with a Kutta in his hand, Mukhiya Ahir, Kanta Chamar and Harihar Chamar with country made guns in their hands had surrounded his brother in front of the house of Moghal Chamar, Mukhiya Ahir and Banshidhar Chamar fired causing injury to his brother due to which he fell down. He raised hullah on which the accused persons ran away. His brother died due to the injuries. The motive of the occurrence was that his brother, the deceased, had reprimanded accused Banshidhar Chamar and Mukhiya Ahir for grazing his crops. The accused persons had formed a group and were in search of time to assault him. The occurrence was witnessed by Bahadur Singh, Saheb Dayal Singh, Mathura Singh and Raghu Nath Singh. 3. On the aforesaid fardbeyan , Ext. 4 first information report, Ext. 5 was drawn. Investigation was taken up. During the investigation inquest report was prepared. Blood stained earth was seized and seizure list, Ext. 7, was prepared. The dead body was sent for postmortem and after recording the statement of the witnesses and after completion of the investigation chargesheet was submitted against four persons. On receipt of the chargesheet in the Court cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. 4. 7, was prepared. The dead body was sent for postmortem and after recording the statement of the witnesses and after completion of the investigation chargesheet was submitted against four persons. On receipt of the chargesheet in the Court cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. 4. The trial Court recorded the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the statement of the accused persons under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. and after hearing convicted the appellants and sentenced them, as indicated above. 5. The defence of the appellants was that they were innocent and had falsely been implicated in this case out of enmity. 6. The prosecution in support of its case examined nine witnesses out of whom P.W.1 , P.W.2, P.W.4 and P.W5 are eye witnesses to the occurrence. P.W.6 is the informant and also an eye witness to the occurrence. P.W. 3 has been tendered. P.W 7 is the doctor, who held post-mortem over the dead body. P. W. 8 is a constable, who brought the blood stained earth and proved the station diary entry' P.W.9 is investigating officer. 7. The place of occurrence, manner of occurrence and time of occurrence are not in dispute in this case. However learned Counsel for the appellants contended that since the witnesses are related to the informant, their evidence be rejected. In this regard it would not be out of place to mention herein that P.W. 6, the informant has admitted in his evidence that the eye witnesses are related to him. There is no rule of law that the evidence of such witnesses be rejected outright rather need is that their evidence should be scrutinised with care and caution. Keeping in mind the well settled principle, we proceed to examine the evidence of the witnesses. 8. P.W. 6 is informant and an eye witness to the occurrence. The witness has deposed that the occurrence took place at the time of sun-set. There was no difficulty in identification at that time. He was going to his house and when he reached near the hut of Mangal Chamar he saw that his brother Sri Kishun Singh was surrounded by the accused persons. Banshidhar Chamar had a Kutta (small gun) and the rest had guns in their hands. There was no difficulty in identification at that time. He was going to his house and when he reached near the hut of Mangal Chamar he saw that his brother Sri Kishun Singh was surrounded by the accused persons. Banshidhar Chamar had a Kutta (small gun) and the rest had guns in their hands. Banshidhar fired from close range causing injury to his brother and thereafter Mukhiya fired which hit his brother on the left thigh. He fell down and died there. On alarm raised by him, Saheb Dayal Singh, P.W. 1, Bahadur Singh, P.W. 2, Mathura Singh, P.W. 4, and Raghunath Singh, P.W. 5 came there. He went to the Chaukidar but he was not available in the night. They watched the dead body in the night. In the morning while he was going to the police station, he saw the police coming on a jeep. He returned back to the place of occurrence and gave his fardbeyan in presence of P.W. 2, Bahadur Singh, and P.W. 4, Mathura Singh. He put his signature on the fardbeyan and the witnesses also put their signature. The motive of the occurrence was that cattle of Banshidhar and Mukhiya had grazed the sugar cane crops on which the deceased reprimanded them. The accused persons had formed a group. In cross-examination the witness has given the details of the occurrence and also disclosed the relationship with the witnesses. The witness also stated that many persons came at the place of occurrence. The witness was examined at length. It appears that he stood the test of cross-examination and the defence could not be able to elicit anything to disbelieve the testimony of the witness. 9. P.W. 1 is also an eye witness to the occurrence. He stated that the occurrence took place at the time of sun-set. He, Bahadur Singh, P.W. 2 and Mathura Singh, P.W. 4, were going to their field and when they reached near the house of Bhola Lohar they saw that Sri Kishun Singh was surrounded by the accused persons. Harihar and Kanta ordered to assault saying that he had abused them on which Banshidhar Chamar fired from the small gun and Mukhiya Ahir fired from his gun causing injury to the deceased, who fell down. On hullah raised by P.W.6, Lalan Singh, the accused persons ran away. When they went near Sri Kishun Singh they found him dead. Harihar and Kanta ordered to assault saying that he had abused them on which Banshidhar Chamar fired from the small gun and Mukhiya Ahir fired from his gun causing injury to the deceased, who fell down. On hullah raised by P.W.6, Lalan Singh, the accused persons ran away. When they went near Sri Kishun Singh they found him dead. A week ago the cattle of the accused persons had grazed the sugar cane crops of Sri Kishun Singh. Sri Kishun Singh reprimanded them due to which they were annoyed and had committed the occurrence. The police came at the place of occurrence on 29-4-1983. He prepared the inquest report in his presence and he signed the inquest report. In cross-examination the witness has given details of the place of occurrence and stated that they had no weapons in their hands. He admitted that Sri Kishun Singh was his uncle. The attention of the witness was also drawn to the statement made before the police. 10. P.W. 2 is also an eye witness to the occurrence. He stated that he, Saheb Dayal Singh, P.W.1, and Mathura Singh, P.W.4, were going to their field and when they reached near the house of Bhola Mistry, they saw that Sri Kishun Singh was surrounded by the accused persons. On the order of Kanta and Harihar Banshidhar fired from the small gun and Mukhiya Ahir fired from his gun causing injury to him due to which he fell down on the ground. When the accused persons ran away they went near Sri Kishun singh am found him dead. The Police came next day in the morning. He and Mathura Singh had signed the fardbeyan as witness. The police seized blood stained earth and prepared seizure list. He and Devi Dayal Singh had signed the seizure list. In cross-examination the witness has given details of the place of occurrence and stated that the occurrence took place at the time of sun-set. He stated-that his statement was recorded at 4.30 p.m. on the next day of the occurrence. He also stated that the occurrence took place at about 7.30 p.m. The witness has also admitted the relationship between the witnesses. However, he stated that the Sub-Inspector of Police had come at about 3-4 p.m. on the next day of the occurrence. He stated-that his statement was recorded at 4.30 p.m. on the next day of the occurrence. He also stated that the occurrence took place at about 7.30 p.m. The witness has also admitted the relationship between the witnesses. However, he stated that the Sub-Inspector of Police had come at about 3-4 p.m. on the next day of the occurrence. The witness was cross-examined at length and he stood the test of cross-examination except that the witness stated that the police had come next day at about 3-4 p.m. 11. P.W. 4 is also an eye .witness to the occurrence. He stated in his evidence that the occurrence took place at the time of sun-set. He was near the house of Bhola Sharma. He was going to see his field. Bahadur Singh and Saheb Dayal Singh were also with him. He saw that Sri Kishun singh was surrounded by the accused persons. Harihar Chamar and Kanta Chamar ordered to assault saying that about a week ago the deceased had abused them. Banshidhar Chamar thereafter fired from the small gun and Mukhiya Ahir fired from his gun causing injury to the deceased, who fell down on the ground. When the accused persons ran away they went near Sri Kishun Singh and found him dead. The Sub-Inspector of Police came next day at about 4 p.m. In cross-examination the witness stated that Chamar Toli is in the south of the village. There was no enmity between the parties. Chaukidar and Dafadar did not come at the place of occurrence. The house of Mukhiya Ahir is in the Yadav Toli. The attention of the witness was also drawn to the statement made before the police. However, it appears that the witness stood the test of cross-examination except that he stated that the police had come at 4 p.m. on the next day of the occurrence. 12. P.W. 5 is also an eye witness to the occurrence and supported the prosecution case and also corroborated the evidence of the eye witnesses. The witness has categorically stated that Banshidhar Chamar and Mukhiya Ahir fired on the deceased causing injury on the person of the deceased due to which he fell down and died. The witness was cross-examined at length but nothing cogent was elicited to disbelieve his evidence. He stated in his evidence that the occurrence took place at the time of sun-set. The witness was cross-examined at length but nothing cogent was elicited to disbelieve his evidence. He stated in his evidence that the occurrence took place at the time of sun-set. His house is at a distance of hundred yards east of the occurrence. He was also watching the dead body at the place of occurrence in the night. The witness stated that the police had come at about 8-9 p.m. on the next day of the occurrence and recorded the fardbeyan of the informant Lalan Singh. However, the witness stated that the occurrence took place at about 7.30 p.m. 13. From the discussions of the eye witnesses it is manifest that the evidence of the eye witnesses is consistent on the material point i.e. the manner of occurrence, taking part by the accused persons, firing by Banshidhar Chamar and Mukhiya Ahir on the deceased at the place of occurrence. They were cross-examined at length but nothing cogent was elicited to disbelieve their evidence. Thus, in our view, the evidence of the eye witnesses is worthy of reliance and the same cannot be rejected merely on the ground that they were related to the informant. 14. The oral evidence is also corroborated by the evidence of the doctor. P. W. 7, who held post-mortem over the dead body. The doctor stated that he held post-mortem over the dead body on 2-4-1983 at 4.45 p.m. and found five injuries on the person of the deceased. The injuries were caused by fire arm. The death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of injuries on the person of the deceased. Injuries were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. He opined that time elapsed since death was within 22 hours which fits in with the prosecution case. The finding at the place of occurrence by the investigating officer, P.W. 9, also corroborates the oral evidence of the eye wit lesses as he found blood near the dead body and seized blood stained earth and prepared seizure list, Ext. 7. 15. Learned Counsel for the appellant, however, contended that the first information report has been ante dated as it was received in the Court on 7-5-1983. P.W. 2 and P.W. 4 stated that the police came at about 3-4 p.m. on the next day of the occurrence. 7. 15. Learned Counsel for the appellant, however, contended that the first information report has been ante dated as it was received in the Court on 7-5-1983. P.W. 2 and P.W. 4 stated that the police came at about 3-4 p.m. on the next day of the occurrence. In this regard it is pertinent to mention herein that merely delay in receipt of the first information report in the Court is not sufficient to hold that the first information report has been ante dated. In the case of State of U.P. v. Gokaran and others, A.I.R. 1985 SC 131, it has been held by the apex Court that where the steps in the investigation by way of drawing inquest report and other panchnamas started soon which could only follow the handing over of F.I.R., the delayed receipt of special report by District Magistrate would not enable the Court to club the investigation as tainted one nor could F.I.R. be regarded as ante-timed and ante-dated. 16. In the instant case, occurrence took place on 28-4-1983 at about 7 p.m. and the fardbeyan was recorded at the spot by the police on 29-4-1983 at 7.30 a.m. The investigating officer, P. W. 9, stated in his evidence that on 29-4-1983 at about 5 a.m. he got information that in village Bhitri Bandh one person was killed. On the same day Sanha Entry No. 410 dated 29-4-1983 was recorded and he proceeded to village Bhitri Bandh. He reached the place of occurrence at 7.30 a.m. and recorded the fardbeyan of the informant, P.W. 6. He sent the fardbeyan for drawing F.I.R. to the police station. He inspected the place of occurrence and has given vivid picture of the place of occurrence. After recording the fardbeyan he prepared inquest report, Ext. 6, in presence of the witnesses who put their signature on it, seized blood stained earth in presence of the witnesses and prepared seizure list, Ext. 7, and the witnesses put their signature on it. Blood stained earth was produced in the Court which was marked as material Ext. 1 The informant showed grazed sugar cane field. He sent the dead body for post-mortem. 7, and the witnesses put their signature on it. Blood stained earth was produced in the Court which was marked as material Ext. 1 The informant showed grazed sugar cane field. He sent the dead body for post-mortem. He also recorded the statement of the witnesses, namely, Saheb Dayal Singh, P.W. 1, Bahadur Singh, P.W.2, Mathura Singh, P.W.4 and Raghunath Singh, P.W.5 on the spot and returned to the police station from the place of occurrence at about 6 p.m. He also requested for process under Section 82/83 of the Cr. P.C. on 3-5-1983. The Deputy Superintendent of Police also supervised the case on 5-5-1983. Therefore, it is evident that soon after recording the fardbeyan of the informant, P.W. 6, investigation was taken up. It is not the complaint of the Counsel for the appellants that investigation was tainted one rather the complaint is that the F.I.R. has been ante-dated. It is true F.I.R. was received on 7-5-1983 but merely receipt of the complaint after great delay, in our view, is not sufficient to hold that the F.I.R. has been ante-dated in view of the fact that soon after recording of the Fardbeyan investigation was taken up which has been discussed above. The apex Court also held the merely delay in receipt of the first information report in the Court is not sufficient to hold that the F.I.R. has been antedated if the investigation was taken up soon after recording of the fardbeyan. Learned Counsel for the appellants in support of his contention pointed out that Bahadur Singh, P.W.2 and Mathura Singh P.W. 4, who are witnesses to the F.I.R. have stated in their evidence that the police had come at about 3-4 p.m. on the next day of the occurrence, which supports his contention. It would not be out of place to mention herein that the witnesses in their examination-in chief have supported the prosecution case. P.W.2 stated in his evidence that his statement was recorded at 3 p.m. However, he stated that the police had come at about 3-4 p.m. on the next day of the occurrence. Similar is the evidence of P.W. 4. It appears that those witnesses are rustic and there is chance of such discrepancy although they have supported the prosecution case into with regard to manner of assault to the deceased at the place of occurrence. Similar is the evidence of P.W. 4. It appears that those witnesses are rustic and there is chance of such discrepancy although they have supported the prosecution case into with regard to manner of assault to the deceased at the place of occurrence. The discrepancies pointed out by the learned Counsel for the appellants, in our view would not affect the prosecution case in the circumstances as mentioned above. Thus on consideration we are not inclined to accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants. 17. Learned Counsel for the appellants next contended that no motive has been alleged in the first information report against Kanta and Harihar Chamar and as such there was no occasion for committing offence by them. It is pertinent to mention herein that the motive in such cases does not play any vital role. It has already been discussed that the eye witnesses have supported the prosecution case. In the F.I.R. no motive has been alleged against these appellants but during the trial the witnesses have stated that the cattle of the accused persons had grazed the sugar cane crops of the deceased, Sri Kishun Singh. In such a situation, it cannot be said that the prosecution has failed to discharge its obligation. Thus, even if it is taken that no motive has been proved in the case against the appellants it would not affect the prosecution case as the evidence of the witnesses is consistent with regard to manner of occurrence, place of occurrence and time of occurrence which was corroborated by the doctor and the finding of the investigating officer. 18. Learned Counsel for the appellants next contended that the appellants had no intention to commit such offence. There is no evidence on the record to show that there was meeting of the mind between the accused persons. In support of his contention he relied upon a decision in the case of Brij Lala Pd. Sinha v. State of Bihar, 1998(3) PLJR 41 (SC) wherein the apex Court had held that existence of a common intention must be a necessary inference from the established circumstances. Common intention can develop at the spur of the moment. In the instant case, the evidence of the eye witnesses is that they saw Sri Kishun Singh, the deceased, surrounded by the appellants. Common intention can develop at the spur of the moment. In the instant case, the evidence of the eye witnesses is that they saw Sri Kishun Singh, the deceased, surrounded by the appellants. Appellant Banshidhar Chamar had a small gun in his hand and the rest of the appellants had guns in their hands. Accused Banshidhar Chamar and Mukhiya Ahir fired causing death of Sri Kishun Singh. Intention is not a thing which can be seen rather it can be gathered from the acts done by the accused persons. From the materials on record it is evident that all the four accused persons surrounded the deceased with fire arm causing death of Sri Kishun Singh. In such a situation, the intention can be gathered from the acts done by the accused persons. If at all they had no intention to kill there was no occasion for them to surround the deceased with fire arm and as such we find no substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants. 19. Thus, on consideration, as discussed above, we find no merit in the appeals. Accordingly, both the appeals are dismissed. The appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled and they are directed to surrender before the trial Court to serve the remaining period of sentence.