Judgment D.P.S.Choudhary, J. 1. Both the appeals have been heard analogous and are being disposed of by this common judgment as they arise out of the common judgment and order dated 18th day of September, 1991 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Dumka. There are three appellants namely, Kartik Mahto, Bhado Mahto and Shankar Mahto in Criminal Appeal No. 412 of 1991 and sole appellant Sukar Mahto in Criminal Appeal No. 436 of 1991. The learned trial Court has convicted appellant Sukar Mahto under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the I PC) and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. Appellant Kartik Mahto has been convicted under Sections 302/34 of the IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment. The appellant Bhado Mahto and Shankar Mahto have been convicted under Sec. 323 of the I.P.C. but instead of sentencing them to any imprisonment the Court has directed them to be released under the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act on furnishing bond of Rs. 2,000.00 with two sureties of the like amount and they have been further directed to keep peace and be of good behaviour for a period of one year There were nine accused facing trial in Sessions Case No. 437 of 1986 but only the above-named four accused-appellants were found guilty and convicted accordingly and the remaining five accused were acquitted of the charges framed against them. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 30-6-1986 at village Gopalpara Karmatar there was an altercation between the informant Sukhdeb Mahto (P.W. 9) and accused Raghu Mahto on account of dispute regarding flow of rain water from the house of the informant towards the adjacent Gali. In the meantime, all the remaining accused, nine in numbers reached there. The deceased Nathu Mahto, the cousin brother of the informant also happened to reach there in the Gali near the house of the informant. Nathu Mahto (deceased) supported the case of informant justifying the flow of the rain water from his house to the adjacent Gali. In course of altercation accused Raghu Mahto ordered to assault and accused Kartik Mahto caught hold of the hands of Nathu Mahto. Appellant Sukar Mahto gave one farsa blow at the head of Nathu Mahto, in consequence to which he fell down with bleeding injury on his head, thereafter remaining accused-persons assaulted Nathu Mahto with lathi. In course of altercation accused Raghu Mahto ordered to assault and accused Kartik Mahto caught hold of the hands of Nathu Mahto. Appellant Sukar Mahto gave one farsa blow at the head of Nathu Mahto, in consequence to which he fell down with bleeding injury on his head, thereafter remaining accused-persons assaulted Nathu Mahto with lathi. As a result of which he died on the spot. The two sons of deceased Nathu Mahto, namely, Teko Mahto and Dhaneshwar Mahto tried to intervene, upon which accused-appellant, Bhado Mahto gave one lathi blow on Teko Mahto hitting at his head and accused-appellant Shankar Mahto assaulted Dhaneshwar Mahto with lathi and appellant Sukar Mahto gave one farsa blow on Dhaneshwar Mahto causing injury at his palm. It is further case of the prosecution that accused-persons dragged the dead body of Nathu Mahto and brought it in front of the house of the informant and thereafter they fled away. The fardbeyan (Ext. 3) of Sukhdeb Mahto was recorded at the village on 30-6-1986 at 5.30 p.m. by S.I., Vijendra Narain Singh (P.W. 10) on the basis of which the formal F.I.R. was drawn up. The Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet against all the accused-persons except accused Satish Mahto, Andhi Mahto and Gendo Mahto. During trial, the prosecution filed petition to summon the above three accused-persons to face trial which was allowed by the trial Court vide order dated 19-9-1989. After appearance of these three accused-persons the trial Court amended the charge and all the nine accused-persons were tried under Sections 302/149 and other ancillary sections of the I.P.C. The case of the defence is denial of the occurrence and of false implication because of previous enmity. It is their further case that at the relevant time the informant and his men had breached the fencing of the field of accused Raghu Mahto, which caused inundation of his filed and when Raghu Mahto protested the informant and his men assaulted Sukar Mahto with an intention to kill him for which a case was lodged by Sukar Mahto. 3. The prosecution has examined 10 witnesses out of which P.W. 1 (Rukmani Devi), mother of the informant, Kamali Devi (P.W. 2) daughter-in-law of the deceased and wife of Sona Mahto (P.W. 3), Teko Mahto (P.W. 5| one of the son of the deceased, who is also an injured, P.W. 6 (Md. 3. The prosecution has examined 10 witnesses out of which P.W. 1 (Rukmani Devi), mother of the informant, Kamali Devi (P.W. 2) daughter-in-law of the deceased and wife of Sona Mahto (P.W. 3), Teko Mahto (P.W. 5| one of the son of the deceased, who is also an injured, P.W. 6 (Md. Rafiq), P.W. 7 (Dhaneshwar Mahto), another son of the deceased and the informant Sukhdeb Mahto (P.W. 9) are eye-witnesses. P.W. 4 (Dr. Arun Kumar Chakravorty) held the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Nathu Mahto at Sadar Hospital, Jamtara on 1-7-1986 and he found the following injuries: (i) Incised wound 3" x 1/2" x scalp deep at the middle of scalp at the junction of the two parietal and occipital bone. On dissection haemotoma 3" x 2" over frontal bone anteriorly and over right perietal anteriorly under scalp a huge haemotoma 4" x 3" over left perietal bone anteriorly under scalp and transverse depressed fracture of 6" in length over left perietal bone were found. In the opinion of the doctor (P.W. 4), the death of Nathu Mahto was due to head injury caused by fatal haemorrhage and shock. In his opinion, the weapon used was sharp-cutting such asfarsa and time elapsed since death was within 24 hours. He has proved the post-mortem report (Ext. 1).The evidence of the doctor and the post-mortem report show that Nathu Mahtos death was homicidal and he had one fatal blow on his head which caused his death. 4. The doctor (P.W. 4) also examined injured Dhaneshwar Mahto P.W. 7 on 4-7-1986 at 12.30 p.m. and found following injuries on his person: Old abrasion over left forearm standing up to left palm, old abrasion on right Scapular region, old abrasion on right leg at middle and old abrasion above left hipbone. All the injuries were simple in nature caused by hard and blunt substance, may be by lathi. He proved the injury report (Ext. 2/1). P.W. 4 stated that Dhaneshwar Mahto was admitted in Jamtara, hospital through Emergency on 4-7-1986. The Doctor (P.W. 4) has not found any sharp-cutting weapon (farsa) injury on the palm or hand of Dhaneshwar Mahto, All the four injuries of Dhaneshwar Mahto were abrasions, all simple in nature and caused by hard and blunt substance, such as lathi. 5. Dr. P.W. 4 stated that Dhaneshwar Mahto was admitted in Jamtara, hospital through Emergency on 4-7-1986. The Doctor (P.W. 4) has not found any sharp-cutting weapon (farsa) injury on the palm or hand of Dhaneshwar Mahto, All the four injuries of Dhaneshwar Mahto were abrasions, all simple in nature and caused by hard and blunt substance, such as lathi. 5. Dr. Shyam Kishore Jha (P.W. 8) claimed to have examined Teko Mahto (P.W. 5) at Sadar Hospital, Jamtaraon 1-7-1986 at 11.30 a.m. and found (i) lacerated wound at left parietal reason of the scalp, (ii) lacerated wound over right leg near heel, defuse swelling with tenderness at left ante-join and complain of bodyache. In this opinion, all the injuries were caused by hard and blunt substance and nature of injuries were simple except injury No. (iii) of which opinion was kept reserved. His injury report is Ext. 2/1. 6. Jitendra Prasad Singh is the Investigating Officer (P.W. 10) who had received telephonic information regarding an occurrence in the village and after Sanaha Entry No. 519 dated 30-6-1986 at 4,44 p.m. went to the place of occurrence at the village and recorded the fardbeyan of the informant (Ext. 3). He prepared the inquest (Ext. 5) on the dead body of Nathu Mahto. The Investigating Officer has described the place of occurrence as a Gali in the village which runs from south to north and becomes blind beyond house of accused Raghu Mahto towards north by a wall. The gali goes west ward from the place of occurrence in which the house of the deceased and the informant is situated. He found blood mark at the place of occurrence but it was diluted in the rain water. He arrested the appellant Sukar Mahto from his house in the night on 30-6-1986 and found some injuries on his person and forwarded him to Jamtara hospital for medical examination. He also found the injuries on the person of Dhaneshwar Mahto (P.W, 7) and Teko Mahto (P.W. 5) and forwarded both of them for medical examination. 7. He arrested the appellant Sukar Mahto from his house in the night on 30-6-1986 and found some injuries on his person and forwarded him to Jamtara hospital for medical examination. He also found the injuries on the person of Dhaneshwar Mahto (P.W, 7) and Teko Mahto (P.W. 5) and forwarded both of them for medical examination. 7. The trial Court has considered the evidence of all abovenamed eye-witnesses in detail and relied upon their testimony From the evidence of the informant (P.W. 9) and his mother Rukmani Devi (P.W. 1) read together with the evidence of the Investigating Officer (P.W. 10) it is clear that the house of the deceased and the informant (P.W. 9) and also the house of appellant Raghu Mahto and Gobi Mahto are in closed vicinity to each other and situated near the place of occurrence. From the evidence of the informant and other eye-witnesses including P.Ws. 1 and 5 it appears that the rain water from the house of the informant flows towards east-west land and thereafter, it goes into the pond. According to the Investigating Officer (P.W. 10), this pond is situated about 50 yards south on the north-south Gali. It is consistent evidence of the P.Ws. and of the Investigating Officer, that it was raining heavily at the time of occurrence, which supports the genesis of the occurrence as alleged by the informant in the fardbeyan. However, the defence case is that rain water was flowing into the paddy field of accused Sukar Mahto, therefore, he protested, and thereupon, he was assaulted by the informant and his men. The case of the defence has been vehemently denied by P.Ws. 1, 5, 7 and the informant (P.W. 9). They stated that neither the fence of the field of Sukar Mahto was damaged nor the rain water from the house of the informant was inundating his field. According to them, the rain water was flowing to the nearby pond. However, P.W. 1 stated that field of Sukar Mahto is situated at 20 cubits downward from the house of Sukar Mahto, contiguous to the distance there was a fence around the field to protect it from the rain water, but in cross-examination she stated that rain water was not flowing in his field but it was going to the nearby pond. 8. 8. Accused Sukar Mahto in his statement under Sec. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure stated that at the relevant time he was giving bandh around his filed which was objected to by the prosecution party and they had assaulted him also. Sukar Mahto has injuries on his person is proved from the evidence of the Investigating Officer (P.W. 10) who found some injuries when he arrested him and also by Dr. Arun Kumar Chaturvedi (P.W. 4) who examined him on the same day. The injury report is Exhibit A. Sukar Mahto has instituted a case, for his injuries and D.W. 1 (Dhananjay Bhandari) has formally proved the fardbeyan of Sukar Mahto and the F.I.R. (Exts. A & B). The same Investigating Officer (P.W. 10) has also investigated the counter-case, instituted at the instance of Sukar Mahto and submitted the charge-sheet. He has not been examined on behalf of the defence though as stated above, defence has examined one witness only (D.W. 1) who is a formal witness. In the cross-examination of the Investigating Officer no specific question was put to him regarding the breach of the field of accused Sukar Mahto and its inundation with the water running from the house of the informant towards this filed. Therefore, non-examination of the material witness to prove the defence case and the defence case not suggested to the Investigating Officer when examined as P.W. 10 is a circumstance that defence case remains only a suggestion without any evidence to support it. Therefore, I come to the conclusion that the prosecution has been able to prove the genesis of the occurrence beyond all reasonable doubts. 9. Rukmani Devi (P.W. 1) stated that at the relevant time after hearing hulla, she came out her house and found the accused-persons present in the Gali. Accused Sukar Mahto was armed with farsa and others with lathi. She saw accused Raghu Mahto altercating with the informant regarding the flow of the rainwater. Deceased. Nathu Mahto arrived at the place of occurrence and tried to intervene but on the order of accused Raghu Mahto he was caught hold of by Kartik Mahto and Sukar Mahto gave one farsa blow on his head which proved fatal. He was also assaulted by other accused-persons when he fell down. Deceased. Nathu Mahto arrived at the place of occurrence and tried to intervene but on the order of accused Raghu Mahto he was caught hold of by Kartik Mahto and Sukar Mahto gave one farsa blow on his head which proved fatal. He was also assaulted by other accused-persons when he fell down. She stated that Sukar Mahto had assaulted Dhaneshwar Mahto with farsa causing injury on his left palm and Shankar Mahto assaulted Dhaneshwar Mahto with lathi and accused Bhado Mahto gave lathi blow on Teko Mahto at his head. She has further stated that accused-persons had dragged the deceased near the house of the informant. Kamali Devi (P.W. 2) stated that she arrived at the place of occurrence from her house on hulla and saw the entire occurrence. She has corroborated the evidence P.W. 1. in entirety. Sona Mahto (P.W. 3) was present in his house at the relevant time and on hulla he came out and saw the occurrence. He has given detail description of the occurrence which is consistent with the above-mentioned evidences of P.Ws. 1 and 2. He claimed to have stated before the Investigating Officer that at the relevant time he was present in his house and on hulla he came out and saw the occurrence. He has named all the appellants and attributed their act of giving farsa and lathi blow to the deceased and other injured. Teko Mahto (P.W. 5) is an injured witness. He narrated the entire occurrence that Sukar Mahto had assaulted his father (deceased) Nathu Mahto with farsa on his head and other accused assaulted him with lathi. He further stated that when he tired to rescue his father, accused Bhado Mahto assaulted him with lathi causing injury on his head and his brother Dhaneshwar was assaulted by Sukar Mahto with farsa causing injury in his palm. He was also assaulted by Shankar Mahto with lathi. He was examined by the Investigating Officer, and no vital contradiction has been pointed out in his cross-examination. He has not been confronted in the cross-examination that he has not received injury in course of the alleged occurrence. As such, he being an injured witness, is very competent and his evidence is consistent with the above-mentioned eye-witnesses. 10. Md. He was examined by the Investigating Officer, and no vital contradiction has been pointed out in his cross-examination. He has not been confronted in the cross-examination that he has not received injury in course of the alleged occurrence. As such, he being an injured witness, is very competent and his evidence is consistent with the above-mentioned eye-witnesses. 10. Md. Rafique (P.W. 6) who is also an eye-witness, stated that at the relevant time he was angling at the pond situated near the place of occurrence and on hulla he went there and saw the entire occurrence including Sukar Mahto giving fatal blow on the head of. the deceased. He has also named other accused who assaulted Nathu Mahto and his two sons Teko Mahto and Dhaneshwar Mahto. The learned appellants lawyer pointed out that this witness has stated that Sukar Mahto also assaulted Teko Mahto with farsa which is altogether a new case which discredit the testimony of the witness. Besides, he has not stated that Sukar Mahto gave farsa blow on Dhaneshwar Mahto nor he has named accused Bhado Mahto, Satish Mahto and Gendo Mahto. The Investigating Officer (P.W. 10) stated that this witness has not named Satish Mahto, Gendo Mahto and Andhi Mahto before him nor named Sukar Mahto alleging that he assaulted Teko Mahto with farsa or Sukar Mahto assaulted Dhaneshwar Mahto. The learned appellants lawyer submitted that this witness is co-accused in the counter-case and considering his contradiction in his evidence as pointed out above, his credibility as an eyewitness is doubtful. I have carefully analysed his evidence. According to the Investigating Officer, the pond is very near to the place of occurrence. The witness has stated that at the time of occurrence he was at the pond and on hulla he came at the place of occurrence. Therefore, his presence near the place of occurrence at the relevant time is not doubtful. Some contradictions in his evidence are no reason to discard his entire evidence. Considering this also that he was co-accused in the counter-case along with the prosecution party, his evidence is to be scrutinised cautiously. After carefully examining his evidence, I am of the view that he has not made material contradiction in his evidence. As such, there is no reason no disbelieve his evidence altogether. 11. Considering this also that he was co-accused in the counter-case along with the prosecution party, his evidence is to be scrutinised cautiously. After carefully examining his evidence, I am of the view that he has not made material contradiction in his evidence. As such, there is no reason no disbelieve his evidence altogether. 11. Dhaneshwar Mahto (P.W. 7), son of the deceased is another injured, hence he is competent to depose on the point of occurrence. At the time of occurrence, he was inside the house and on hulla, he came out and saw the entire occurrence. His evidence is fully consistent with the above discussed evidences of the eye-witnesses. He stated that Sukar Mahto gave farsa blow on the head of Nathu Mahto and when he fell down he was assaulted by the remaining accused-persons with lathi. When he went to rescue his father he was assaulted by farsa by Sukar Mahto aiming at his head which he warded off by raising his hand and thereby injuring his left palm. He was also assaulted by Shankar Mahto with lathi on his back. He further stated that his brother Teko Mahto was assaulted by Bhado Mahto with lathi causing injury on his head. The Investigating Officer (P.W. 10) attention was drawn towards his previous statement made before him and I have not find any vital contradiction in between his earlier statement and the evidence in the Court. 12. I have carefully examined the evidence of the informant (P.W. 9). He narrated the entire occurrence as made out in the fardbeyan and his case is consistent on all the material point with other eye-witnesses. He has named Sukar Mahto who gave farsa blow on the head of Nathu Mahto and has also named other accused who gave lathi blow to Nathu Mahto and caused injury to Teko Mahto and Dhaneshwar Mahto. From the evidence of the Investigating Officer (P.W. 10), it appears that he has not named some of the accused including Satish Mahto, Andhi Mahto and Gendo Mahto before him. This point has been considered by the trial Court in length and benefit of doubt has been given to them. 13. It was submitted on behalf of the appellant that from the prosecution evidence including that of the Investigating Officer and the evidence of the doctor referred to above and from the injury report of Sukar Mahto (Ext. This point has been considered by the trial Court in length and benefit of doubt has been given to them. 13. It was submitted on behalf of the appellant that from the prosecution evidence including that of the Investigating Officer and the evidence of the doctor referred to above and from the injury report of Sukar Mahto (Ext. A) of is clear that he had injuries on his person and he had instituted a counter-case of the same occurrence. The Investigating Officer has found injuries on his person at the earliest moment when he was arrested on the same day,, but none of the P.Ws. have admitted about his injuries, rather they had tried to conceal this fact. The non-explanation of the juries sustained by accused Sukar Mahto, discredits the testimony of the prosecution witness. The prosecution was bound to explain the injuries found on the person of accused Sukar Mahto. This shows that it has not come with the clean hand. The prosecution case thus becomes doubtful and its benefit should go to the appellants. In several decision of the Supreme Court, it has been held that if the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution are believed by the Court in proof of the fault of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, the question of obligation of the prosecution to explain injuries sustained by the accused will not arise ( -- Hare Krishna Singh V/s. State of Bihar relied upon. The Supreme Court in its decision reported in A.I.R. 1988 S.C. page 1988 Anil Singh V/s. State of Uttar Pradesh has stated that if some part of the evidence of the witnesses not found true it does not follow that entire evidence should be disbelieved. The onerous duty of the Court is to separate the chaff from the grain. Learned A.P.P., has submitted that it has not come in the evidence that appellant Sukar Mahto had received injuries at the same time, same place and in transaction of the same occurrence. If these facts have not been proved, the prosecution is not bound to explain the injuries on the person of the accused. 14. Learned A.P.P., has submitted that it has not come in the evidence that appellant Sukar Mahto had received injuries at the same time, same place and in transaction of the same occurrence. If these facts have not been proved, the prosecution is not bound to explain the injuries on the person of the accused. 14. I have, analysed the injuries found by P.W. 4 on appellant Sukar Mahto, who had (i) lacerated wound 3" x 112" x scalp deep over left parietal bone at his posterior aspect (ii) penetrating injury 1 /2" x 1/4" x muscle deep over medial aspect of the right leg at its middle with grievous swelling on right leg and (compound fracture of right tissues). In the opinion of the doctor injury No. (i) was simple and No. (ii) was grievous. Injury No. (i) was caused by hard blunt substance but it was not possible by blunt side of sword. Injury No. (ii) was caused by hard and blunt substance but it could not have been caused by sharp cutting substance or by any pointed substance. There is no suggestion in the evidence of P.Ws, that Sukar Mahto had received above injuries in the same transaction and at the hand of the prosecution party neither any evidence has been adduced on behalf of the defence though defence has entered into the evidence. Considering these facts, non-explanation of the injuries on the person of Sukar Mahto by the prosecution has not damaged the prosecution case. The prosecution witnesses discussed above, including the two injured, have proved the prosecution case and the guilt of the appellants beyond all reasonable doubts. 15. The learned appellants lawyer submitted that P.Ws. 1, 2, 3, 5, 7 and 9 are the family members and close relations of the deceased, hence they are interested witnesses, hence they should not be relied upon. Though P.W. 6 is not a family member, but he is co-accused in the counter-case. Hence, he is also an interested witness. It is true that all the P.Ws. except P.W. 6 are of the same family but we have already discussed above that their evidence are consistent and their presence at the place of occurrence is natural and two of them are injured. There is nothing in the cross-examination to show that their presence at the place of occurrence was doubtful. It is true that all the P.Ws. except P.W. 6 are of the same family but we have already discussed above that their evidence are consistent and their presence at the place of occurrence is natural and two of them are injured. There is nothing in the cross-examination to show that their presence at the place of occurrence was doubtful. We have mentioned above that there is some vital contradiction in the evidence of P.W. 3 but those contradictions were n s. The State of Uttar Pradesh, it has been held that witnesses have tendency to exaggerate an event when describing it in their evidence before a Court and as such some embellishment are bound to take place. While scrutinising their evidence if some part is found not truthful or inconsistent, is no reason to disbelieve their entire evidence nor their credibility is to be doubted. Their evidences are to be scrutinised as a whole and if in substratum the evidence of the witnesses are consistent on the material point of the prosecution case, they should not be discredited. We have already stated that in substance and in detail the evidence of P.Ws. who are eye-witnesses, including two injured, are very consistent and minor contradiction as pointed out above is not ground to disbelieve them. We have already found that ocular evidence of these P.Ws. is fully corroborated by the objective findings both by the Doctors and the Investigating Officer. The non-examination of so-called local and independent witnesses is not a lacuna on the part of the prosecution case. It is a common tendency among the local witnesses to remain neutral and to avoid the proceedings of the Court. They do not want to be cited as a witness for one reason or another, more so when the occurrence takes place in the village, and they avoid to be branded as a party of a particular group. Therefore, the concept of independent witness is a misnomer these days and it is no ground to disbelieve the prosecution case and its witnesses even if they are interested and coming from the same family. 16. Therefore, the concept of independent witness is a misnomer these days and it is no ground to disbelieve the prosecution case and its witnesses even if they are interested and coming from the same family. 16. I have analysed the evidence, facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made on behalf of the parties carefully and do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the learned trial Court who has found guilty to the appellants and convicted them in the manner indicated above. 17. In the result, both the appeals are dismissed and the judgment and the order of the trial Court is hereby confirmed. It appears from the record that Sukar Mahto has not been enlarged on bail and he is in custody. Appellant Kartik Mahto was enlarged on bail by the order of this Court dated 10-10-1991. He is directed to surrender in the Court below to serve out the remaining period of sentence and his bail-bonds which must been filed on his behalf in pursuance of the bail order, stand cancelled. The prayer made on behalf of the appellant Bhado Mahto and Shankar Mahto who were released on probation bond of Rs. 2,000.00 with two sureties of the like amount, was not stayed by this Court. Hence, the trial Court will examine the matter and will proceed accordingly. M.L.Visa, J. 18 I agree.