Judgment R.N.Prasad, J. 1. All the four appeals have been filed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 25-3-1987 passed by 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Arrah in S.T. No. 196/84 whereby the appellants in Cr. A. Nos. 121/87, 139/87 and 143/87 have been convicted for the offence under Sections 302/149 of the IPC and have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. Appellant in Cr. A. No. 121/87 has further been convicted for the offence under Section 379 of the IPC and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years. Appellant in Cr. A. No. 139/87 has further been convicted for the offence under Section 302/114 of the IPC but no separate sentence has been awarded. Appellant in Cr. A. No.160/87 has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. 2. Fardbeyan of Shashi Shekhar Kumar Choudhary son of Ganpat Choudhary, the deceased, was recorded on 20-1-1984 at about 3.30 p.m. in which he stated that he, his father Ganpat Choudhary, the deceased, along with this villagers Sheoji Singh, Raj Kumar Singh of village Shital tola and Sheo Kumar Choudhary of village Karwa Bakri were returning after finishing the work in the Court. His father was going on foot with cycle ahead. He and other persons were behind him. When they reached on pitch road in front of Zila School, Arrah 7-8 persons variously armed with pistol and Pasuli surrounded his father. On the order of appellant Suraj Deo Singh appellant Hare Ram Singh fired on the back of head of his father. He fell down with cycle on the ground. Appellant Rash Bihari Singh, brother-in-law (sola) of appellant Hare Ram Singh removed the revolver of his father by cutting the belt. He took the licenced revolver and threw the leather case on the cycle. Appellant Sheo Narayan Sharma with a pistol was standing along with two others. He fired one round and threatened to kill if they proceeded ahead. On the other side there were two unknown persons with revolver who were also threatening due to which they could not go to his father. Thereafter, miscreants ran away. The motive of the occurrence was previous enmity with the appellants. His brother was killed by Hare Krishna Singh one of the sons of appellant Surajdeo Singh, Sheo Narayan Sharma and their associates. Thereafter, miscreants ran away. The motive of the occurrence was previous enmity with the appellants. His brother was killed by Hare Krishna Singh one of the sons of appellant Surajdeo Singh, Sheo Narayan Sharma and their associates. They were convicted and were serving the sentence. Appellant Sheo Narayan Sharma was released on parole only few days ago and Hare Krishna Singh was in jail. Hare Krishna Singh hatchedup plan to commit offence from the jail which was given effect by the appellants and others. 3. On the aforesaid fardbeyan, formal First Information Report was drawn on the same day i.e., 20-1-1984 at about 5 p.m. and investigation was taken up. During investigation the Investigating Officer inspected the place of occurrence, seized blood, empty cartridges, live cartridges, old cycle, Chappal and revolver case from the place of occurrence. He also examined the witnesses at the place of occurrence and after completion of investigation submitted charge-sheet against the appellants and one Hare Krishna Singh. On receipt of charge-sheet in the Court cognizance was taken and case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. Charge was framed against the appellants and Hare Krishna Singh but Hare Krishna Singh was discharged from the charges vide order dated 10-9-1985 passed by the High Court in Cr. Misc. No. 3532/85. However, the Trial Court convicted the appellants for the offence as indicated above. 4. The defence of the appellants was that the occurrence did not take place in the manners as alleged by the prosecution and they were falsely implicated in this case out of previous enmity. Ganpat Choudhary was killed by some unknown persons for money and revolver. No witness had seen the occurrence and the fardbeyan was not recorded at the time and place mentioned in the fardbeyan. Specific defence of Surajdeo Singh and Sheo Narayan Singh was that they were at Calcutta and Allahabad respectively on the alleged date and time of occurrence. 5. The prosecution in support of its case examined eight witnesses out of whom PWs-2, 3 and 6 are eye-witnesses to the occurrence. PW-5 is the Informant and eye-witness to the occurrence. PW-1 claimed to be eye-witness to the occurrence but he stated that he did not identify the miscreants, however their names were disclosed by Informant, PW-5, at the place of occurrence. PW-4 has been tendered. PW-5 is the Informant and eye-witness to the occurrence. PW-1 claimed to be eye-witness to the occurrence but he stated that he did not identify the miscreants, however their names were disclosed by Informant, PW-5, at the place of occurrence. PW-4 has been tendered. PW-7 is the Investigating Officer and PW-8 is Doctor who proved the post mortem report prepared by Dr. B. P. Singh who died during pendency of the trial. 6. The defence also examined seven witnesses in support of its case. DWs-1 and 3 have been examined to prove alibi of Sheo Narayan Sharma. DWs-2, 4 and 5 have been examined to prove the alibi of Surajdeo Singh. DW-6 has been examined to prove writing of Surajdeo Singh on vakalatnama and DW-7 has been examined to prove writing of Surajdeo Singh. 7. Salient feature of the case is that the occurrence took place on 20-1-1984 at about 3 p.m. Fardbeyan was recorded at 3.30 p.m. i.e., after half an hour of the occurrence and formal First Information Report was drawn at 5 p.m. i.e., two hours after the occurrence. The Investigating Officer, PW-7 stated in his evidence that he recorded the statement of witnesses i.e., PWs-1, 2, 3 and 6 at the place of occurrence and soon after the occurrence, Therefore, presence of witnesses cannot be doubted and concoction of the case and false implication of the appellants are also ruled out. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that PW-5 the Informant is son of the deceased PW-2 is Samdhi of the deceased. The deceased was Phupha (fathers sisters husband) of PW-6 (PW-3) was co-villager of the deceased and (PW-1) was caste man of the deceased, thus the witnesses were either relation or caste man of the deceased and were also inimical to the prosecution party and as such their evidence should have been discarded. In this regard it would not be out of place to mention herein that evidence of interested witnesses and inimical witnesses is not to be thrown out outright rather requirement of law is that evidence of such witnesses should be scrutinised with care and caution. Thus, we proceed to examine the evidence of witnesses in the light of aforesaid well settled rule of law. 9. PW-5 is son of the deceased. Thus, we proceed to examine the evidence of witnesses in the light of aforesaid well settled rule of law. 9. PW-5 is son of the deceased. He stated in his evidence that on the day of occurrence he had his father the deceased, had gone to Civil Court, Arrah. In the Court Sheoji Singh PW-3 and Raj Kumar Singh, PW-6 met them. At about 3 p.m. he, his father and PWs-3 and 6 were returning. When they came out from the gate of Civil Court, Sheo Kumar Choudhary, PW-2 met them. He also accompanied them. His father, the deceased with cycle was ahead of them. When they reached near the Bus Stand in front of Zila School, Arrah the appellants and others surrounded his father and on the order of appellant Surajdeo Singh, appellant Hare Ram Singh fired from behind which hit on the back of head of his father. He fell down with cycle. The brother-in-law of Hare Ram Singh namely, appellant Rash Bihari Singh took the licensed revolver of his father after cutting the belt with Pasuli and threw the revolver case there. They tried to proceed ahead but appellant Sheo Narayan Sharma fired and threatened to kill them. Thereafter, appellants and others ran away. Many people assembled at the place of occurrence and in the meantime the Police came, On the spot he gave his fardbeyan and signed it. His brother was kiled 6-7 years ago and since then his father was provided one security guard but he was absent for 6-7 days. In the case of murder of his brother Sheo Narayan Sharma was in jail. He came out of the jail 2-3 days ago on parole. In cross-examination the witness has given details of place of occurrence and also details of enmity. He has stated that he and his father had gone to Civil Court to enquire about a case and to consult the counsel. The witness was cross-examined at length and it appears that the witness stood the test of cross-examination. Learned counsel for the appellants also could hot be able to point out any such infirmity in the evidence of the witnesses as to disbelieve his evidence. 10. PWs-2, 3 and 6 are also eye-witnesses to the occurrence. PW-2 stated in his evidence that he had gone to Consolidation Office. Learned counsel for the appellants also could hot be able to point out any such infirmity in the evidence of the witnesses as to disbelieve his evidence. 10. PWs-2, 3 and 6 are also eye-witnesses to the occurrence. PW-2 stated in his evidence that he had gone to Consolidation Office. The Informant, his father and the witnesses, namely, PWs-3 and 6 met him at the eastern gate of the Civil Court. PW-3 stated in his evidence that he, the Informant and his father and PW-6 were going together from the Court PW-6 stated that he had gone to Court for doing pairvi in his case. After doing pairvi he, the Informant, his father and PWs-2 and 3 returning from the Court together. They stated in their evidence that Ganpat Choudhary the father of the Informant was going ahead and they were behind him. When they reached near Zila School compound 7-8 persons surrounded Ganpat Choudhary. On the order of appellant Surajdeo Singh, appellant Hare Ram Singh fired from behind which hit on the back of the head of Ganpat Choudhary, the deceased, who fell down with his cycle on the ground. Appellant Rash Bihari Singh took the licensed revolver of the deceased after cutting the belt with Pdsuli. Appellant Sheo Narayan Sharma fired from pistol and threatened to kill if they proceeded ahead. Thereafter, miscreants ran away. The Police came immediately at the place of occurrence. Ganpat Choudhary, the deceased, had enmity with the appellants from before. Their statement was recorded at the spot. The witnesses in their cross-examination have given details of the place of occurrence and testified their evidence inchief. PW-2 stated in his cross-examination that paper with regard to delivery of possession was published in the Consolidation Office and as such he had gone for correction in the Consolidation record. He stated that several people of his village had gone there. He did not dare to catch hold of the miscreants. At the time of occurrence people were there. He knew appellant Rash Bihari Singh from before. He used to go to the house of the deceased and had occasion to see appellant Rash Bihari Singh. Other witnesses were also cross-examined at length and they stood the test of cross-examination. Their evidence on the material point is consistent to each other except few discrepancies which are minor in nature. He knew appellant Rash Bihari Singh from before. He used to go to the house of the deceased and had occasion to see appellant Rash Bihari Singh. Other witnesses were also cross-examined at length and they stood the test of cross-examination. Their evidence on the material point is consistent to each other except few discrepancies which are minor in nature. Learned counsel for the appellants could not be above to point out any cogent infirmity in their evidences to descredit the evidence of witnesses. 11. PW-1 is said to be castemen of the deceased. He was at Bus Stand which was close to the place of occurence. He had gone to Bus Stand as his maternal uncle was going. He stated in his evidence that he had seen occurrence but could not identify the miscreants. The. witness has, however, given description of the mis-creants in his evidence. The name of appellants was disclosed by PW-5, the Informant, at the spot soon after the occurrence. He was cross-examined at length and he stood the test of cross-examination. 12. The Investigating Officer, PW-7, stated in his evidence that on his direction the fardbeyan of the Informant was recorded by B. K. Pandey, Sub-Inspector of Police. Fardbeyan was read over to the Informant and the Informant signed the fardbeyan. The witnesses present them also signed the fardbeyan. He sent the fardbeyan to the Police Station and started investigantion of the case. He inspected the dead body and prepared inquest report. He found 18.32 bore revolver live cartridges in the pocket of the shirt of the deceased which were seized and prepared seizure list. He found blood, two empty cartridges, revolver case and cycle at the place of occurrence. He seized the articles and prepared seizure list. He inspected the place of occurrence and has given vivid picture of the place of occurrence. The place of occurrence is public road near Zila School, Arrah. Near the dead body he found blood. The cycle and revolver case were at a distance of 10 feet from the dead body. He also found belt of revolver on the person of the deceased. At a distance of 12 feet from the place of occurrence he also found slipper. Thereafter, he recorded the statement of witnesses at the place of occurrence. The cycle and revolver case were at a distance of 10 feet from the dead body. He also found belt of revolver on the person of the deceased. At a distance of 12 feet from the place of occurrence he also found slipper. Thereafter, he recorded the statement of witnesses at the place of occurrence. In cross-examination the witness stated that PW-4 stated before him that he had gone to Bus Stand as his Samdhi had to go by Bus. PW-2 stated before him that 7-8 persons surrounded the deceased. PW-6 stated before him that the miscreants ran away but he did not state before him that miscreants ran away towards Ramna Maidan. Money was not recovered from the possession of the deceased. No plea of alibi was taken by the appellants before him nor any petition was filed. The witness was cross-examined at length but it appears that he stood the test of cross-examination. 13. Post-mortem of dead body was held by Dr. B. P. Singh but he died during pendency of the trial and as such Dr. B. Ram, PW-8 has been examined to prove the post-mortem report, Ext. 6. It appears from Ext. 6 that the Doctor has found firearm injury on the back of head of the deceased which is consistent with the case Of the prosecution. Post-mortem was held on 20-1-1984 at about 5 p.m. and the Doctor opined that time elapsed since death was three hours. On dissection metalic substance was also extracted from the injury. 14. Thus, on consideration, as discussed above the evidence of witnesses it is manifest that oral evidence of the witnesses is consistant to each other on the material point, such as their presence at the place of occurrence at the relevant time, the manner of occurrence and the place of occurrence. Moreover, it is the case of the prosecution as well as of the defence that they were inimical to each other. Enmity cuts both ways. A man can be falsely implicated out of enmity and a man can commit offence out of enmity. The objective finding of the Investigating Officer, PW-7, at the place of occurrence also supports the prosecution case on the material points. The post-mortem report also corroborates the weapon used by the appellants in commission of the crime and time of occurrence. A man can be falsely implicated out of enmity and a man can commit offence out of enmity. The objective finding of the Investigating Officer, PW-7, at the place of occurrence also supports the prosecution case on the material points. The post-mortem report also corroborates the weapon used by the appellants in commission of the crime and time of occurrence. Learned counsel for the appellants could not be able to point out any such infirmity as to disbelieve their evidence. Thus, we are of the view that though the witnesses are related, castemen and inimical to the appellants but their evidence is trustworthy. 15. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that medical evidence falsified the prosecution case as the post-mortem report does not show that blackening and charring were found on the wound of the deceased. In this regard it would be out of place to mention that except PW-2 all the witnesses stated in their evidence that firing was made from behind which hit on the back of the head of the deceased. No distance has been given by the witnesses. PW-2 no doubt has stated that firing was made from close range but due to such discrepancy in the evidence of one witness the prosecution case cannot be thrown out. It is evident from the post-mortem report that bullet hit on the back of the head of the deceased. If it is not fired from close range then there is no chance of blackening and charring, on the wound. However, in the post-mortem report, Ext. 6, itself it has been stated that injury was caused by firearm. Thus, in such a situation in our view the contention of learned counsel for the appellants has no substance. 16. Learned counsel for the appellants further contended that gencsis of the occurrence has not been proved as one of the accused Hare Krishna Singh, against whom the allegation of conspiracy was made, has been discharged. In this connection it is necessary to mention herein that Hare Krishna Singh was in jail at the relevant time. In the First Information Report it has been stated that he planned from the jail and got the occurrence committed. Hare Krishna Singh was also charge-sheeted and charge was also framed which was challenged before this Court and this Court quashed the charge framed against Hare Krishna Singh. In the First Information Report it has been stated that he planned from the jail and got the occurrence committed. Hare Krishna Singh was also charge-sheeted and charge was also framed which was challenged before this Court and this Court quashed the charge framed against Hare Krishna Singh. It is well established rule of law that merely because one of the accused persons was discharged or acquitted the same cannot be a ground to say that the genesis of the occurrence has not been proved. We have considered the evidence of witnesses with great care and caution and have found the evidence of witnesses trust worthy. In such a situation the contention of learned counsel for the appellants cannot be held to be correct. 17. Learned counsel for the appellants further contended that no independent witnesses have been examined though it has come in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that several persons assembled there or many persons were moving on the road. The Investigating Officer has also stated that road was busy. However, no one of them has been examined in this case on behalf of the prosecution. In the case of Appabhai and Anr. V/s. State of Gujarat, AIR 1988, SC 696 : 1988 East Cr C 288 (SC), it has been held that : "Due to non-examination of independent witness prosecution case cannot be thrown out or doubted on that ground alone. Civilized people are generally insensitive when a crime is committed even in their presence. They withdraw both from the victim and the vigilante. They keep themselves away from the Court unless it is inevitable. They think that crime like civil dispute is between two individuals or parties and they should not involve themselves. This kind of apathy of the general public is indeed unfortunate, but it is there everywhere whether in village life, towns or cities." Thus, in view of the decision of the Apex Court we find no merit in the contention of learned counsel for the appellants. 18 Learned counsel for the appellants further contended that Ganpat Choudhary was killed not in the manner as alleged by the prosecution. However, learned counsel could not be able to substantiate his contention. The fardbeyan was recorded after half an hour of the occurrence. The statement of the witnesses was recorded at the place of occurrence soon after the occurrence. 18 Learned counsel for the appellants further contended that Ganpat Choudhary was killed not in the manner as alleged by the prosecution. However, learned counsel could not be able to substantiate his contention. The fardbeyan was recorded after half an hour of the occurrence. The statement of the witnesses was recorded at the place of occurrence soon after the occurrence. The Investigating Officer found empty cartridges, blood, cycle, revolver case and other incriminating articles at the place of occurrence which supports the manner and place of occurrence and as such we find no merit in the contention. 19. Learned counsel for the appellants next contended that appellant, Rash Bihari Singh, is sala of Hare Ram Singh. He is a resident of different village. After arrest he filed an application before the Court that he may be put on T.I. Parade. The Court allowed the prayer but no T.I. Parade was held and as such appellant, Rash Bihari Singh, deserves acquittal. In this regard it would not be out of place to mention herein that fardbeyan was recorded after half an hour of the occurrence and the Informant named appellant, Rash Bihari Singh, and others. PW-2 stated in his evidence that he is Samdhi of the deceased. He used to go to his village and he had occasion to see the appellants there. Other witnesses have also claimed to identify the appellants except PW-1, who claimed that he had seen the occurrence but he did not identify the culprits. He stated that he learnt the name of the appellants from Informant, PW-5 soon after the occurrence. Therefore, it is evident that the witnesses had occasion to see appellant, Rash Bihari Singh, and he was named by the witnesses. In such a situation, putting the person on T.I.Parade has no meaning. 20. Learned counsel for the appellants lastly contended that appellants Sheo Narayan Sharma and Surajdeo Singh were not present at the relevant time of occurrence. Appellant Sheo Narayan Sharma was at Allahabad and appellant Surajdeo Singh was at Calcutta. In support of plea of alibi of Sheo Narayan Sharma DWs-1 and 3 stated that on the relevant date of occurrence he was at Allahabad. Similarly with regard to plea of alibi of Surajdeo Singh DWs-2, 4 and 5 stated that he was in Calcutta. Except DW-5 witnesses are related to the appellants DW-5 is Spl. Superintendent of Police (CID) West Bengal. Similarly with regard to plea of alibi of Surajdeo Singh DWs-2, 4 and 5 stated that he was in Calcutta. Except DW-5 witnesses are related to the appellants DW-5 is Spl. Superintendent of Police (CID) West Bengal. He stated in his evidence that he had met him on 20-1-1984 for job. Appellant Surajdeo Singh is retired person. However, DW-5 stated that he did not remember that after and before the occurrence how many times the appellant has met him. Moreover, no such plea of alibi was taken by the appellants during investigation PW-7 the Investigating Officer has categorically stated in his evidence that neither appellants took plea of alibi nor filed any petition before him. Therefore, it is evident that for the first time in the Court the witnesses have come to say that appellant Sheo Narayan Sharma was at Allahabad and appellant Surajdeo Singh was in Calcutta. Such evidence cannot be relied upon as if they were not present they could have taken plea during investigation and the Investigating Officer could have ascertained truth of plea of alibi Therefore, on consideration as discussed above, we find no merit in the plea of alibi of appellants Sheo Narayan Sharma and Surajdeo Singh. No other point was raised. 21. Thus, on consideration, as discussed above, we find no merit in these appeals. Accordingly all the four appeals are dismissed. Bail bonds of the appellants are hereby cancelled. They are directed to surrender before the Trial Court to serve remaining period of sentence.