Judgment R.N.Prasad, J. 1. The appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 31-3-1987 passed by 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Deoghar in S.T. No. 249/40 of 1982/84 whereby the appellants have been convicted for the offence under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. They have further been convicted for the offences under Sections 302/149 and 147 of the Indian Penal Code but no separate sentence has been awarded. 2. The prosecution case is that one Chote Lal Murmu gave his statement at the Police Station on 3-6-1981 at about 1 p.m. that in the morning at about 9 a.m. he along with Bansi Lal Murmu was ploughing the land in question situated in Mohalidih Bahiar in village Ghardhaha for sowing paddy seed. Shyam Murmu and Rameshwar Murmu were picking up pebbles and grass in the said field. Sukhodi Murmu was sitting on the ridge of the field. After ploughing the land they were sowing paddy seeds. At about 9 a.m. 12-13 persons came variously armed with sabbal and lathi, out of whom he identified Babujan Tadu, Badan Tadu, Sushil Besra, Srinand Tudu, Bisheshwar Tudu, Budhan Besra, Sahdeo Besra, Subodhi Murmu, Sukhi Murmu and Sakaro Murmu. They protested ploughing the field and sowing seedling. Sukhodi Murmu asked them that the land belonged to her and she had right to plough and sow paddy seeds. Thereafter, Badan Tudu assaulted Sukhodi Murmu with Sabbal and rest of the miscreants assaulted with lathi. He along with other labourers tried to save Sukhodi Murmu then they were also assaulted by them. Sukhodi Murmu died at the spot after half an hour. In the meantime Kali Charan Das, Baleshwar Murmu, Parmeshwar Murmu and Gandhi Marandi came there. The motive of the occurrence was the land dispute and the litigation. 3. On the aforesaid statement formal First Information Report was drawn, investigation was taken up and on completion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted, cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the court of sessions for trial. The trial court convicted the appellants for the offences as indicated above. 4. The defence of the appellants was that no occurrence took place in the manner as alleged by the prosecution. The trial court convicted the appellants for the offences as indicated above. 4. The defence of the appellants was that no occurrence took place in the manner as alleged by the prosecution. The occurrence took place while appellant Badan Tudu and others were sowing seeds in the land in question Shyam Murmu and others came armed with Sabbal and lathi and assaulted Badan TuTu and his cousin Sushil Besra at the relevant time. 5. The prosecution in support of its case examined 8 witnesses, out of whom P.W. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 are witnesses to the occurrence. P.W. 4, son of the deceased, reached after the occurrence, P.W. 6 proved First Information Report P.W. 7 is Doctor who held post-mortem over the dead body P.W. 8 effected delivery of possession over the land in question in favour of the deceased. 6. The defence also examined 7 witnesses. D.W. 1 and 2 have proved rent receipts, Ext. A series. D.W. 3 stated that rent is realised by Panchayat Sewak. D.W. 4 stated that in the village Ghoradih Santhals and Mohalis reside. D.W. 5 proved First Information Report of the counter-case, Ext. B, D.W. 6 is Doctor who examined Badan Tudu, Babujan Tudu and Sushil Besra. D.W. 7 stated that accused-persons cultivated the land in question. 7. The dispute was for land is not in dispute. Title suit was pending between the parties and the suit was decreed in favour of Sukhodi Murmu, the deceased. P.W. 8 is Nazir. He stated in his evidence that he effected delivery of possession over the land in question on 25-5-1980 and report to the aforesaid effect was also submitted. The date of occurrence is 3-6-1981 at 9 a.m. Fardbeyan in the counter-case, Ext. B was given on 4-6-1981 stating therein that on 3-6-1981 at about 9 a.m. the occurrence took place at the alleged place of occurrence. Learned counsel for the appellants pointed out that no occurrence took place as alleged by the prosecution. According to the defence when the appellants were sowing seeds some of the members of the prosecution party came and assaulted three persons and as such a case was lodged on 4-6-1981. According to the prosecution case the prosecution party were ploughing and sowing paddy seed. Accused persons came and assaulted and killed Sukhodi Murmu. According to the defence when the appellants were sowing seeds some of the members of the prosecution party came and assaulted three persons and as such a case was lodged on 4-6-1981. According to the prosecution case the prosecution party were ploughing and sowing paddy seed. Accused persons came and assaulted and killed Sukhodi Murmu. However, it is evident from the prosecution as well as defence case that there is no dispute with regard to time of occurrence and place of occurrence. The only dispute is that who was sowing the seeds. However, the appellants have not disputed the delivery of possession in favour of the deceased on 25-5-1980 nor disputed the place of occurrence and time of occurrence. Moreover, in the counter-case, Ext. B, nothing has been mentioned about the death of Sukhodi Murmu. Similarly in the fardbeyan of the present case there is no mention about the assault on the appellants. However, it is evident from the evidence of D.W. 6 that injuries found on the person of the appellants were simple in nature. In such a situation it is well established rule of law that it is not necessary for the prosecution to explain as to how the appellants received simple injuries. Moreover, fardbeyan of the counter-case was lodged on 4-6-1981 a day after the occurrence whereas p esent case has been lodged on the same day at about 1 p.m. and the occurrence according to the prosecution and the defence took place on 3-6-1981 at 9 a.m. at the alleged place of occurrence. Therefore, the contention of learned counsel for the appellants in such a situation has got no substance at all. 8. Now adverting to the evidence with regard io assault as alleged by the prosecution it is pertinent to mention herein that P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 5 are eye witnesses to the occurrence. P.W. 1 is Chotelal Murmu. He supported the prosecution case in his evidence. He stated in his evidence that he along with P.Ws. 2, 3 and 5 were ploughing field and sowing paddy seeds. The deceased Sukhodi stated that it was her land and she had right to plough and sow seeds on which the appellants assaulted her. However, he stated that he was also assaulted by the appellants. In cross-examination the witness stated that till the assault was going on no body came at the place of occurrence. The deceased Sukhodi stated that it was her land and she had right to plough and sow seeds on which the appellants assaulted her. However, he stated that he was also assaulted by the appellants. In cross-examination the witness stated that till the assault was going on no body came at the place of occurrence. Similar is the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 5. They have also supported the prosecution case with regard o assault by the appellants at the alleged time and place of occurrence. They have also stated that they were also assaulted by the appellants and were examined by the Doctor P.W. 2 further stated that nobody came till they were being assaulted. P.W. 3, however, named the appellants but in cross-examination he stated that when he reached the place of occurrence he found Sukhodi lying in the field. He cannot say as to who assaulted her. However, the witness stated that he was also assaulted. P.W. 5 has also supported the prosecution case in detail. He stated that while he alongwith other labourers was ploughing and sowing seed the appellants came and assaulted Sukhodi and he and other labourers were also assaulted by the appellants. Therefore, it is evident that on the material points i.e. assault on Sukhodi, time of occurrence, place of occurrence, evidence of the prosecution witnesses is consistent. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants, however, contended that in the First Information Report it has been stated that Kalicharan Das, Baleshwar Murmu, Parmeshwar Murmu, Gandhi Marandi came at the place of occurrence but none of them has been examined. In support of his submission he also drew our attention to the evidence of PWs. 1, 2 and 3 who have stated that till the assault no body came at the place of occurrence. The submission of learned counsel for the appellants, no doubt, is attractive but has got no substance in view of the fact that in the First Information Report itself it has been stated that they came at the place of occurrence and he informed them about the occurrence. The witnesses stated in their evidence that no witness came till the assault was going on. The witnesses stated in their evidence that no witness came till the assault was going on. Therefore, non-examination of those persons cannot be said to be fatal to the prosecution case because of the fact that witnesses who have been examined are the labourers and were ploughing the field and were sowing paddy seeds. They have categorically supported the prosecution case and as such the appellants cannot take advantage of their non- examination as they were not witnesses to the occurrence. Therefore, in such a situation, non-examination of the witnesses named in the First Inlormation Report does not affect the prosecution case. 10. Leaned counsel tor the appellants further pointed out that witnesses have stated in their evidence that they had also been assaulted by the appellants causing injury on their person and were also examined by the Doctor but injury report has not been brought on the record. In this regard it would not be out of place to mention that in the First Information Report itself it has been stated that Sukhodi Murmu was assaulted causing her death and the labourers were also assaulted. The witness also supported the allegation made in the First Information Report. They have categorically stated that they were assaulted and they were examined by the Doctor. Therefore, there is nothing inconsistant in the evidence of witnesses. In such a situation non-examination of the Doctor or not bringing the injury report, in our view, is not at all fatal to the prosecution. 11. Leaned counsel for the appellants further pointed out that the Investigating Officer has not been examined in this case and as such the case of defence has been prejudiced. Submission of learned counsel has got no force at all in view of the fact that no attention of the witness has been drawn on any material point. It appears that attention of a few witnesses has been drawn on flimsy matters- which are not at all material for decision in the case. Further more in view of the admitted position that occurrence took place at the alleged time and place of occurrence, non-examination of the Investigating Officer, in our view, is not at all fatal to the prosecution. Moreover, learned counsel could not be able to show as to how defence case has been prejudiced for non-examination of the Investigating Officer. 12. Further more in view of the admitted position that occurrence took place at the alleged time and place of occurrence, non-examination of the Investigating Officer, in our view, is not at all fatal to the prosecution. Moreover, learned counsel could not be able to show as to how defence case has been prejudiced for non-examination of the Investigating Officer. 12. Thus on consideration, we find no merit in this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. The appellants, who are on bail, are directed to surrender before the trial court to serve the remaining period of sentence