Judgment D.P.S.CHAUDHARY, J. 1. This judgment shall govern and dispose of all the three appeals which had been heard analogous as they arise out of the same judgment and order. In Cr.Appeal No. 449, the appellants are Umesh Yadav and Munarik Yadav. In Cr. Appeal No, 458 of 1990, there are 12 appellants namely Ramdeo Yadav, Chotu Yadav, Rajjan Yadav. Bidesi Yadav, Ramashish Yadav, Chetram Yadav, Deepa Yadav, Bhagirath Yadav, Anil Yadav, Shridev Yadav, Krishna Yadav and Indradeo Yadav and in Cr. Appeal No. 469 of 1990 there is sole appellant Shyamdeo Yadav. 2. The 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Patna by his judgment and order dated 22nd September, 1990 in Sessions Trial No. 692 of 1986 has convicted accused-appellant Shyamdeo Yadav for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 148, IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced him to undergo R,I. for life under Section 302 of the IPC but no separate sentence was passed under Section 148 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The remaining 14 accused-appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 (2) read with Section 149 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for life. No separate sentence was passed against the appellant Ramdeo Yadav under Section 148 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. No separate sentence was passed against other 13 accused-persons under Section 147 of the IPC. Similarly, no separate sentence was passed-against accused Chotu Yadav, Ranjan Yadav and Anil Yadav who were found guilty and convicted under Sections 325/34 of the IPC. 3. The brief facts of the prosecution case is that Informant Nageshwar Prasad PW-9 was harvesting his paddy crop on 23-7-1985 situated in the north of his village Chairitar Police Station, Dhanarua, in the district Patna. His cousin brother Ganesh Prasad, PW-8 was ploughing his field. in Lasghari Khanda, north of the Informants field. His other cousin brother Ramdeo Prasad (deceased son of Kishuni Yadav), was uprooting the paddy seedlings and his son Raushan Lal was present there. At about 8 a.m. the Informant saw accused Binay Yadav and Shivdeo Yadav went to the field of Ganesh Prasad and chased him for assault who raised alarm and fled towards North. Informant, his uncle Ramdeo Yadav and his son Raushan Lal rushed to save the life of Ganesh Prasad. At about 8 a.m. the Informant saw accused Binay Yadav and Shivdeo Yadav went to the field of Ganesh Prasad and chased him for assault who raised alarm and fled towards North. Informant, his uncle Ramdeo Yadav and his son Raushan Lal rushed to save the life of Ganesh Prasad. In the meantime Ramdeo Yadav (son of Charittar Yadav), his brother Shyamdeo Yadav both carrying country-made rifle arrived there. Other named accused-persons armed with lathi also arrived there, as soon as the Informant, deceased Ramdeo Prasad and Raushan Lal reached in the field of Chanarik Yadav, accused Shyamdeo Yadav along with other accused-persons reached there and he ordered to kill them. It is further alleged thai Shyamdeo Yadav fired from his country made rifle which hit in the back of Ramdeo Prasad who fell down in the field. Accused Ramdeo Yadav also fired on the Informant and Raushan Lal but it did not hit them When Raushan Lal went to lift his injured father accused Chotu Yadav, Anil Yadav and Ranjan Yadav assaulted him with lathi The Informant out of fear fled towards the village Chandanchak and raised alarm on which witnesses Badri Yadav (PW-10), Dhanpat Yadav (PW-1), Lakhan Yadav (PW-4), Mohan Yadav (PW-6) and others arrived there and saw the occurrence. The accused-persons thereafter fled away. The Informant and other witnesses removed the injured Ramdeo Yadav and Raushan Lal to the field of Mundan Yadav but in the meantime injured Ramdeo Prasad died Raushan Lal was unconscious who was removed to the local hospital and thereafter referred to the PMCH. The reason for the occurrence is said to be quarrel over a land a week before the occurrence between the deceased Ramdeo Prasad and Munarik Yadav and for that occurrence it is alleged that all the accused-persons came armed with weapons and committed the murder of Ramdeo Prasad and assaulted Raushan Lal, son of deceased Ramdeo Prasad. 4. The FIR was recorded on 23-7-1985 at 12 p.m. and a case under Sections 302, 307 and other ancillary Sections of the IPC was registered at Dhanarua Police Station. After investigation the Police submitted charge-sheet against all the accused-persons and the case was tried in the Court below. 5. 4. The FIR was recorded on 23-7-1985 at 12 p.m. and a case under Sections 302, 307 and other ancillary Sections of the IPC was registered at Dhanarua Police Station. After investigation the Police submitted charge-sheet against all the accused-persons and the case was tried in the Court below. 5. The case of the defence as emerges out from the tread of cross-examination and the statement under Section 313 of the Cr PC is that they are innocent and implicated in this case because of previous enmity. The occurrence did not take place in the manner alleged and at the place and time of the occurrence. Their further defence is that they had enmity with one Bachchu Yadav who happened to be uncle of the Informant and at his instance this false case has been instituted against them. 6. The prosecution has examined 11 witnesses out of which Dhanpat Yadav, PW-1, Lala Yadav, PW-2, Raushan Yadav, PW-5 (injured), Mohan Prasad, PW-7, Ganesh Prasad, PW-8 and Nageshwar Prasad, PW-9 are eye-witnesses. Chandrika Yadav PW-3, Lakhan Yadav, PW-4 and Badri Yadav PW-10 have been tendered. Ramji Prasad PW-6 is a witness on the inquest. Bhubneshwar Singh PW-13 is the Investigating Officer and Chandresh Prasad PW-14 is another Police Officer/who simply submitted charge-sheet in the case. Dr. Ajit Kumar Verma PW-12 examined the injuries on the person of Raushan Lal and another Dr. Ram Krishna Prasad Singh PW-11 held the post-mortem on the dead body of Ramdeo Yadav. No witness has been examined on behalf of the defence. 7. Dr. Ram Krishna Prasad Singh PW-11 held the autopsy on deceased Ramdeo Prasad on 24-7-1985 at 10.30 a.m. and found the following ante-mortem injuries : (1) entry wound of size 1/2" diameter on the back of left side of chest placed in intercostal space in posterior exillary line. The margins of the wound were lacerated and inverted. There were no evidence of signs blackening or tattooing around wound. The chest wall, the left lung in its lower aspect and the heart on the left side and below were pierced through. In the opinion of the doctor death of Ramdeo Yadav was caused due to fire-arm injury. He also extracted one pellet from the wound which was handed over to the Police in a sealed cover. The chest wall, the left lung in its lower aspect and the heart on the left side and below were pierced through. In the opinion of the doctor death of Ramdeo Yadav was caused due to fire-arm injury. He also extracted one pellet from the wound which was handed over to the Police in a sealed cover. The doctor has found only one fire-arm injury caused by rifle which shows that deceased Ramdeo Yadav had only one fire-arm injury caused by rifle and the time of injury has been estimated at about 36 hours. 8. Dr. Ajit Kumar Verma PW-12 examined Raushan Lal on 23-7-1985 and found following injuries : (1) Grievous hurt caused by hard and blunt weapon abrasion 2" x 1/2" over clavicular region, (ii) lacerated wound vertex 1 x 1/2" x 1/4" caused fey hard and blunt object, nature simple. (iii)Abrasion right forearm posterior aspect 1" x 1" nature simple caused by hard and blunt substance, age of injury within 12 hours. In the opinion of the doctor, out of three injuries one was grievous and other two were simple caused by hard and blunt substance such as lathi. The doctor has further stated that the injured was referred to the PMCH. 9. The evidence of Investigating Officer PW-13 shows that he found trampling mark in the mori (paddy) field of Chanarik Yadav. He found the copious blood at the bharaon of Munmun Yadav where the body of Ram Deo Yadav was kept from the field of Chanarik Yadav which is the place of occurrence. Investigating Officer found trail of blood from this field to the place where the dead body was kept at bharaon. There was also mark of blood in that field of mori (paddy) of Chanarik Yadav. This field is situated at fifty yards east of village Chandanchak bearing Plot No. 164 area 4 Kathas. There was about six inch deep water in the paddy seeding field of Chanarik Yadav. The Investigating Officer found trampling mark in space of about 10-12 in the said field bharaon is at a distance of about 30 yards from this field. Investigating Officer found the bundles of paddy uprooted in the field of Ramdeo Yadav suggest ing that deceased Ramdeo Yadav was uprooting paddy seedings in the said field as is the case of prosecution. Investigating Officer found the bundles of paddy uprooted in the field of Ramdeo Yadav suggest ing that deceased Ramdeo Yadav was uprooting paddy seedings in the said field as is the case of prosecution. According to Investigating Officer Plot No. 67 area 5 Katha in the Lasghari Khanda situated at a distance of about 200 yards from the place of occurrence was belonging to Ganesh Prasad. He found plough and the pallu kept in the said field of Ganesh Prasad and mark of fresh ploughing in the field suggesting that Ganesh Prasad was ploughing his field at the time of occurrence as is the case of the prosecution. 10. On scrutinising the evidence of the eye-witnesses, it is crystal clear that PW-1 Dhanpat Yadav and Lala Yadav PW-2 have supported the prosecution case and have named all the appellants and stated that they had chased the Informant and others and on the order of appellant Munarik Yadav for firing otherwise; they (Informant and others) would enter in the village Chanda Chak, appellant Shyamdeo Yadav fired his rifle which hit Ramdeo Yadav who fell down. They further stated that appellant Ramdeo also fired on Raushan Lal and Nageshwar but it did not hit them. According to them when Raushan Lal tried to lift his injured father (Ramdeo Yadav) appellant Chotu Yadav, Rajjan Yadav and Anil Yadav assaulted him with lathi as a result he became unconscious. They stated that this occurrence took place in the field of Chanarik Yadav. Thereafter, both the injured were taken to bharaon where Ramdeo Yadav was found dead and Raushan Lal was taken to the hospital for treatment. They have also staled about the motive of the occurrence which was a dispute over a land which took place about a week before the occurrence. These witnesses were examined by the Investigating Officer on the same day. The evidence of another eye-witness Mohan Prasad PW-7 is also to the same effect who stated that he heard the cry of Ganesh Yadav from the field of Lasghari Khanda and saw appellants Shivdeo Yadav and Bijay Yadav chase him. Thereafter other accused variously armed also came out of the village and started chasing the prosecution party including the deceased Ramdeo Yadav and injured Raushan Lal. According to him on the order of appellant Munarik Yadav to kill, Shyamdeo Yadav fired his rifle causing death of Ramdeo Yadav. Thereafter other accused variously armed also came out of the village and started chasing the prosecution party including the deceased Ramdeo Yadav and injured Raushan Lal. According to him on the order of appellant Munarik Yadav to kill, Shyamdeo Yadav fired his rifle causing death of Ramdeo Yadav. He also named three accused-appellant named above who assaulted Raushan Lal with lathi. Ganesh Prasad PW-8 is another eye-witness who was being chased by appellant Shivdeo and Bijay and on his cry when the Informant and deceased Ramdeo Yadav and injured Raushan Lal and others came to help him, all the appellants chased them and Shyamdeo fired at deceased Ramdeo Yadav and other accused assaulted Raushan Lal with lathi Ramdeo Yadav died on the spot due to fire-arm injury. As stated above PW-9 Nageshwar Prasad is the Informant and an eye-witness. He has named all the appellants and stated that on the cry of Ganesh Prasad when he along with others went to rescue him all the appellants chased them and Shyamdeo Yadav fired at Ramdeo Yadav causing his death and Raushan Lal was assaulted by means of lathi who became unconscious and was removed to hospital. 11. Raushan Lal PW-5 is the star witness of this case and he was injured in course of the occurrence. He was assaulted by lathi by the appellant Chotu Yadav, Ranjan Yadav and Anil Yadav while he was trying to lift his father from the ground. His father Ramdeo Yadav got fire-arm injuries from the rifle of Shyamdeo Yadav. According to him the occurrence took place in the field of Chanarik Yadav. He stated that after receiving the lathi blow he became unconscious and regained his consciousness in the Patna Medical College and Hospital where his statement was recorded by the Police. From the evidences of the eye-witnesses discussed above, it is clear that they are consistent on the identification of all the appellants and appellant Shyamdeo Yadav firing at deceased Ramdeo Yadav and appellant Chotu Yadav, Ranjan and Anil injuring Raushan Lal with lathi. From their evidence it is clear that all the appellants had fromed an unlawful assembly and participated in the occurrence along with appellant Shyamdeo Yadav and as such they shared the common object of murder of Ramdeo Yadav and causing injury to Raushan Lal. From their evidence it is clear that all the appellants had fromed an unlawful assembly and participated in the occurrence along with appellant Shyamdeo Yadav and as such they shared the common object of murder of Ramdeo Yadav and causing injury to Raushan Lal. The enmity alleged on behalf of the prosecution is almost admitted as the defence has suggested to the witnesses that there was enmity going on between accused side and the Informant Nageshwar and others on another side. It has also come from their evidence that appellant Munarik Yadav had quarrelled with the deceased on the question of land near their house before a week of the occurrence. So there was motive for the alleged occurrence. 12. The learned trial Court after considering the evidence of eye-witnesses in detail, has come to the conclusion that there is consistent evidence of the witnesses that appellant accused after forming unlawful assembly committed the offence as alleged including murder of deceased Ramdeo Prasad at the hand of Shyamdeo Yadav and injury to Raushan Lal, the deceased son at the hands of appellant Chotu Yadav, Ranjan Yadav and Anil Yadav. The trial Court has also come to the conclusion that the ocular evidence have been corroborated from the evidence of two doctors PWs 11 and 12 who had found Ramdeo Yadav died due to fire-arm injury and Raushan Lal had as many as three injuries including one grievous hurt besides lacerated wound and abrasion. The evidence of the doctor PW-11 corroborates the evidences of eye-witnesses that deceased Ramdeo Yadav had one firearm injury caused b rifle which supports the prosecution case. Similarly, PW-12 supports the evidence of eye-witnesses that above named three appellants assaulted Raushan Lal causing three injuries on his person. The trial Court has also come to the finding that the objective finding of the Investigating Officer at the place of occurrence further corroborates the evidences of eye-witnesses. The Investigating Officer has found the place of occurrence the mori field of Chanarik Yadav where Ramdeo Yadav was hit by the rifle at the hand of appellant Shyamdeo Yadav and Raushan Lal was injured at the hands of the other appellants. The witnesses have stated that injured Ramdeo Yadav was brought to bharaon from the field after he received injuries where he died. The witnesses have stated that injured Ramdeo Yadav was brought to bharaon from the field after he received injuries where he died. The Investigating Officer found copious blood at the bharaon of Munmun Yadav which is consistent with the evidence of the eye-witnesses. His other objective finding that trail of blood was found from the field of Chanarik Yadav to the bharaon of Munmun Yadav and there was also blood mark on the paddy seedling in the field of Chanarik Yadav fully corroborates the ocular evidence of the eye-witnesses. We have carefully analysed the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the evidence of two doctors and the Investigating Officer discussed above and we do not find any vital contradiction in their evidence to discredit the prosecution case. The eye-witnesses were cross-examined in length but defence has failed to demolish their credibility. The minor contradictions in their testimony as stated above were natural which are bound to occur with a lapse of time and when the witnesses are of the village, most of them illiterate. 13. The appellants-lawyer submitted that to constitute an offence that a criminal act has been done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, it must be proved that each member committed some specific overt act. Mere presence of some of the accused without committing overt act will not prove that they all had common intention to commit the said criminal act. Criminal act must be attributed to every individual and it cannot be gathered from the act of other members. In support of the contention the learned lawyer relied on the case law reported in Chandrappa V/s. The State of Madras, 1998 SCC (Cr.) page 698. In reply to the above contention the learned A.P.P. submitted that the appellants in furtherance of common intention of all have introduced, as an essential part of the Section, the element of common intention is prescribing the condition under which each might be criminally liable when there are several factors. Common intention is an intention to commit the crime actually committed and each accused-persons can be convicted of that crime, only if he has participated in that with common intention. In support of this the learned A.P.P. relied on the leading case of Birendra Kumar Ghosh V/s. The Emperor, 1924 (52) IA-40. Common intention is an intention to commit the crime actually committed and each accused-persons can be convicted of that crime, only if he has participated in that with common intention. In support of this the learned A.P.P. relied on the leading case of Birendra Kumar Ghosh V/s. The Emperor, 1924 (52) IA-40. The learned A.P.P. further submitted that Privi Council has held that it must be shown the criminal act complained against was done by one of the accused-persons in furtherance of common intention of all, if this is shown, then liability for the crime may be imposed on any one of the person in the same manner as if the act were done by him alone. Common intention within the meaning of Section implies a pre-arranged plan and to convict the accused of an offence applying the Section, it should be proved that the criminal act was done in concert pursuant to the prearranged plan. It is difficult, if not impossible to procure direct evidence proved the intention of an individual, in most cases it has to be inferred from his act or conduct or other relevant circumstances of the case. In this case an inference could be gathered by the manner in which the accused arrived at the scene and mounted attack, and the cause of death by one of them, the acts done by others to assist this act causing the death or injuries, the concerted conduct subsequent to the commission of the offence would help in determining the common intention of all. 14. From the submissions made on behalf of the parties, we are of the view that common intention within the meaning of the Section implies a prearranged plan and the inference could be gathered by the manner in which the accused arrived on the scene and mounted attacks. In other words, the totality of the circumstances must be taken into consideration in arriving at the conclusion whether the accused had common intention to commit the offence with which they could be convicted. Actual assault and involvement therein would undoubtedly be of a central importance. But culpable liability might arise and be indicated with certain assurance becuase of preceding, intervening as well as succeeding conduct of the person-accused of an offence and claimed to be involved therein. Actual assault and involvement therein would undoubtedly be of a central importance. But culpable liability might arise and be indicated with certain assurance becuase of preceding, intervening as well as succeeding conduct of the person-accused of an offence and claimed to be involved therein. The common intention enacted a role of co-extensive culpability when offence is committed with common intention by more than one accused. Such co-extensive culpability would be indicated by reason of real participation, some overt act, active presence, pre-plan and preparation and eventual participation therein as well as immediate conduct after the commission of the offence. From the evidence discussed above we have found that there is consistent and unimpeachable evidence of the eye-witnesses corroborated by the evidence of Investigating Officer and doctors that when one Ganesh Prasad PW-8 was ploughing the field in the Lasghari Khanda and deceased Ramdeo and his son Raushan Lal were uprooting the paddy seedlings in their field by the side of other field and Informant Nageshwar Prasad was cutting his garma paddy crop in his nearby field, appellant Bijay and Shivdeo Yadav went to the field of Ganesh Prasad and chased him for assault. When Ganesh Prasad fled away for fear of being assaulted and raised alarm then deceased Ramdeo Yadav, his sons Raushan Lal and Nageshwar Prasad reached there to save him, soon thereafter all the accused-appellants named above arrived there variously armed with including accused-appellant Shyamdeo Yadav and Ramdeo Yadav carrying rifle and others armed with lathi and they chased them. Their evidence is also consistent on the point that deceased, his son and Informant ran towards village Chanda Chak and when reached near the field of Chanarik Yadav, appellant Munarik Yadav ordered for firing at which accused Shyamdeo fired from his rifle hitting deceased Ramdeo Yadav and accused Ram Deo Yadav fired his rifle aiming at Raushan Lal and Informant Nageshwar but it did not hit them. Thereafter, appellant Choutu, Ranjan and Anil assaulted Raushan Lalwith lathi causing him several injuries. When villagers arrived at the place of occurrence all the appellants fled away. Unimpeachable evidenced of the eye-witnesses proved beyond doubt that all appellants participated in the occurrence and they arrived at the place of occurrence with common intention. Since there was enmity between them from before, therefore, they had common intention to take revenge of the old enmity. 15. When villagers arrived at the place of occurrence all the appellants fled away. Unimpeachable evidenced of the eye-witnesses proved beyond doubt that all appellants participated in the occurrence and they arrived at the place of occurrence with common intention. Since there was enmity between them from before, therefore, they had common intention to take revenge of the old enmity. 15. The learned A.P.P. further submitted that some of the appellants have been charged under Section 34 of the IPC and from the evidence discussed above this charge is proved beyond doubt and the trial Court has come to the conclusion that the appellants charged under Section 34 of the IPC had common intention which is gathered both from their conduct and immediate act at the place of occurrence. The learned A.P.P. submitted that the accused-persons have been further charged under Section 302 of the IPC read with Section 149, IPC for being members of unlawful assembly the common object of which was commission of murder of Ramdeo Prasad and also causing bodily injury to Raushan Lal and in furtherance of the common object of all the members one of the accused Shyamdeo Yadav had fired at the deceased. Every member of an unlawful assembly is guilty for the offence under Section 149, IPC if an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly or such as the member of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosectuion of that object. Every person who, at the time of committing that offence, is a member of the same assembly and as such guilty of that offence. This Section creates a specific and definite offence. The vicarious liability of the members of the unlawful assembly will extend only to the acts done in pursuance of the common object of the unlawful assembly or such offence as the members of the unlawful assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object. Both these essential ingredients of the Sections are proved in this case from the evidence as discussed above in detail. An accused under this Section cannot put forward the offence committed in prosecution of the common object of the unlawful assembly or such as the members of the assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object. An accused under this Section cannot put forward the offence committed in prosecution of the common object of the unlawful assembly or such as the members of the assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object. Everyone must be taken to have intended the probable and natural results of the combination of the acts in which he joined. In support of the above contention, learned A.P.P. relied on the case law reported in Masalchi and Ors. V/s. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1965 SC at page 202. In the instant case, all ingredients laid down under this Section and in the above leading case fully supports the charge under Section 149, IPC against the appellants. The appellants had assembled at one place. They were armed with rifle, lathi, etc. chased the deceased, Informant and others, one of them called upon others to kill otherwise they will hide themselves in the village and thereafter there was firing from one of the members resulting into the death of Ramdeo Prasad and others and some of them assaulted his son Raushan Lal when he tried to lift his injured father from the ground. 16. After analysing the evidence as discussed above and considering the submissions of the parties, we are in full agreement with the submission of the learned A.P.P. and come to the finding that the appellants are guilty for the offence with rope under Section 149, IPC. 17. The learned appellant lawyer submitted that witnesses examined in the case are all interested, related to each other, the occurrence took place in the village but no independent witness has come forward to support the prosecution case. No reliance should be placed on the testimony of the evidence of the interested witnesses. In support of the contention, the learned appellant lawyer relied on the case law reported in AIR 1984 SC page 1622. The learned A.P.P. submitted that in several cases the apex Court has held that term interested witnesses is now-a-days a misnomer. It is common sight these days that people are shy to be cited as witnesses because of many reasons such as group politics in the village or harassment in attending the Courts or even threat at the hands of the accused. It is common sight these days that people are shy to be cited as witnesses because of many reasons such as group politics in the village or harassment in attending the Courts or even threat at the hands of the accused. Therefore, the apex Court has laid down principle that if the so-called interested witnesses are consistent in their evidence and they had not been assailed in the cross-examination on the material points, their evidence must be taken into consideration and be relied upon. We have stated above that there are several eye-witnesses in the case including PWs 5, 7, 8 and 9. We have scrutinised their evidence in detail and have come to the conclusion that they are very consistent on the point of occurrence and identification of the accused-persons and the overt act committed by some of the accused which resulted into death of Ramdeo Prasad and injury to Raushan Lal. We have also come to the conclusion as discussed above that their evidence have been fully corroborated on all material point by the objective finding of the two doctors PWs 11 and 12 and two Investigating Officers PWs 13 and 14. Therefore, it is not safe to discredit the evidence of above eye-witnesses only on the ground that they are related to each other. 18. The appellant lawyer submitted that from the prosecution case and the evidence of the eye-witnesses as discussed above, deceased Ramdeo Prasad, his son Raushan Lal PW-5 and the Informant Nageshwar Prasad PW-9 were fleeing when they were chased by the accused-appellant from behind. Under such circumstances, it was not possible for these witnesses to identify who also fired at the deceased Ramdeo Prasad or who assaulted injured Raushan Lal. It was not possible for them to look behind when they were being chased and they were fleeing to save their lives. In reply the learned A.P.P. submitted that there is not much substance in the above contention of the learned appellant lawyer. The occurrence took place in the open field and the appellants were known to the witnesses from before. It is natural conduct for a person while fleeing to save his life to look behind so as to assess how the accused-persons are chasing and what is the distance between them. The occurrence took place in the open field and the appellants were known to the witnesses from before. It is natural conduct for a person while fleeing to save his life to look behind so as to assess how the accused-persons are chasing and what is the distance between them. In the field even a slight glance by turning the head in the process of running will be enough to identify the known person who is chasing him from behind at a close distance. In support of this contention, the learned A.P.P. relied on the decision of the apex Court reported in Ram Padarath Singh V/s. State of Bihar, AIR 1988 SC 2606. After considering the submissions of both the parties, I do not find much force in the contention of the learned appellant lawyer. The learned A.P.P. has rightly submitted that it is natural conduct of a person to look behind to assess how far the chasers are behind them. In the open field, even a glance by turning the head in the process of fleeing is enough to identify the known person. 19. The learned appellant lawyer further submitted that the FIR was not received in the Court of the CJM at the earlies which is a mandatory provision under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The FIR was drawn up on 23-6-1985 at In noon. It was received by the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 25-7-1985. It was sent to the Court of the CJM on the same date by special messanger as mentioned in the FIR. The learned A.P.P. submitted that there is no delay in the receipt of the FIR. The delay of one day only is but natural and in ordinary course such delays occur because from the Police Station the FIR is received in the G.R.Office and it is numbered in the G.R.Register and thereafter it is brought before the Chief Judicial Magistrate for his signature. In reply, the learned A.P.P. submitted that no motive has been attributed on behalf of the defence in the alleged delay in receiving the FIR in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate. In the cross-examination of the Informant or the Investigating Officer there is no such suggestion that there was any motive either in manipulation in the date of FIR or in its sending to the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate. In the cross-examination of the Informant or the Investigating Officer there is no such suggestion that there was any motive either in manipulation in the date of FIR or in its sending to the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The other relevant documents related with the occurrence including the murder of Ramdeo Prasad, inquest report, seizure list, etc. were prepared by the Investigating Officer on the same day at the place of occurrence, therefore, there is no occasion to draw an adverse inference in receipt of the FIR by the Chief Judicial Magistrate one day after the occurrence. In several cases, apex Court has held that if by other evidence it is proved that FIR was drawn up earlier there is no consequence for its receiving by the Magistrate after delay such as 2-3 days. In support of the above contention, learned A.P.P. relied on the case law reported in AIR 1998 SC page 1215. 20. After scrutinizing the evidence of the witnesses discussed above and considering the submission of both the sides, we find that the finding recorded by the learned trial Court are correct. There is no valid and cogent reason to interfere with the finding of the trial Court by which the appellants have been found guilty and convicted in the manner as indicated above. In the result, we do not find any merit in these appeals which are accordingly dismissed and the judgment and order of the trial Court is hereby confirmed. Except appellant Shyamdeo Yadav all the remaining appellants were on bail. They are directed to surrender before the trial Court to serve remaining period of sentence imposed against them. Their bail-bonds are herely cancelled. From the case record it appears that appellant Shyamdeo Yadav was granted provisional bail for three months by this Court vide order dated 20-8-1992. It further appears from the record that till 22-1-1993 he has not surrendered in the Court below, therefore, the Court directed the trial Court to take all suitable actions to apprehend the appellant without any delay if he has not surrendered as yet. It is not clear from the case record whether appellant Shyamdeo Yadav thereafter surrendered and is in custody. It is not clear from the case record whether appellant Shyamdeo Yadav thereafter surrendered and is in custody. The trial Court will look into the matter and if he is still at large, all coercive steps must be taken for his arrest so that he must serve the remaining period of sentence imposed against him. S.K.KATRIAR, J. 21 I agree.