Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 718 (PAT)

Ram Kishore Sharma v. State Of Bihar

2000-05-12

R.N.PRASAD, S.N.PATHAK

body2000
Judgment R.N.Prasad, J. 1. The appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 26.3.1987 passed by 10th Addl. Sessions Judge, Patna in Sessions Trial No. 92 of 1983 whereby the appellants have been convicted for the offence under Sections 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. They have further been convicted for the offence under Sections 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Appellant No. 1, Ram Kishore Sharma, appellant No. 2, Ram Ashray Sharma, appellant No. 3, Kapil Singh, appellant No. 4, Sheoji Singh, appellant No. 5, Ram Nath Singh and appellant No. 6, Nunulal Singh, have further been convicted for the offences under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act, appellants No. 7, Ram Ashray Singh, appellant No. 8, Uman Singh, appellant No. 9, Pramod Singh, appellant No. 10, Ram Udhar Singh, appellant No. 11, Ram Uchit Singh, appellant No. 12, Ram Chandra Singh, appellant No. 13, Pramod Singh and appellant No. 14, Ram Chandra Singh, have further been convicted for the offence under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code. However, no sentences have been awarded for the offence under Sections 307/34, 148 and 147 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act. 2. The prosecution case as has been stated in the fardbeyan is that one Rajo Yadav gave his fardbeyan on 26.11.1976 at about 7 p.m. that at about 5.30 p.m. his son Bino @ Bindeshwari Yadav took Bhunja (fried corn) and left the house Soon thereafter, he heard sound of firing. He rushed towards road and found 30-35 persons variously armed with gun, lathi and bhala on a red tractor and 4-5 persons on horses moving from South to North. They were shouting Parshuram Nath Ki jai. His son Bino Yadav was sitting on the elevated end of the culvert on the road. Ramashish Singh @ Ram Ashray Sharma fired his gun on his son Bino Yadav. His son fell down in the ditch to the west of the culvert. They were shouting Parshuram Nath Ki jai. His son Bino Yadav was sitting on the elevated end of the culvert on the road. Ramashish Singh @ Ram Ashray Sharma fired his gun on his son Bino Yadav. His son fell down in the ditch to the west of the culvert. He identified Ram Baran Singh, Kapil Singh, Sheoji Singh, Ramnath, Nunulal with gun, Asho Singh, Uman Singh, Nago Singh, Fucher Singh, Pramod Singh, Bombom Singh, Sagar Singh, Ramadhar Singh, Sukhlal Singh, Ram Prasad Singh, Ram Chander Singh son of Dhoko Singh, Chunchun Singh, Ram Chander Singh son of Sarjug Singh, Bhushan Singh, Geeta Singh, Anandi Singh and Sarjug Singh. They were firing on the people of the village and were assaulting with lathi and bhala due to which several persons, namely, Krishnandan Yadav, Ram Gulam Yadav son of Kailash Yadav, Bhim Yadav, Ram gulam Yadav son of Lakhan Yadav, Bhutu @ Ram Bali Yadav, Ram Padarath Yadav and Ram Chander Yadav sustained injuries. The accused-persons while crossing the village also fired at Lakhan Yadav on the pitch road, who died then and there. He along with others lifted Bino Yadav from the ditch and kept the dead body on a cot. They could not identify ten unknown persons, but they could identify them by face. The occurrence was witnessed by Ramswaroop Yadav, wife of Hansraj Yadav, wife of Ramchander Yadav, Ram Lakhan Yadav, etc. They have committed the occurrence without any rhyme and reason. 3. On the aforesaid fardbeyan, Ext. 3, formal first information report was drawn and the investigation was taken up. On completion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted against twenty three persons, cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. However, during the pendency of the trial accused Sarjug Singh died and as such his trial stood abated and only 22 persons were put on trial. The trial Court acquitted eight persons and convicted fourteen persons for the offences as indicated above. All the fourteen persons preferred this appeal. However, during the pendency of the appeal, appellant No. 5, Ram Nath Singh, appellant No. 7, Ramashrey Singh @ Asho Singh, appellant No. 11, Ram Uchit Singh @ Sukhlal Singh, and appellant No. 12, Ram Chandra Singh son of Bhukhan Singh @ Dhoko died and as such their appeal stood abated. 4. All the fourteen persons preferred this appeal. However, during the pendency of the appeal, appellant No. 5, Ram Nath Singh, appellant No. 7, Ramashrey Singh @ Asho Singh, appellant No. 11, Ram Uchit Singh @ Sukhlal Singh, and appellant No. 12, Ram Chandra Singh son of Bhukhan Singh @ Dhoko died and as such their appeal stood abated. 4. The defence of the appellants was that no occurrence took place at the alleged place, time and in the manner as alleged by the prosecution. The prosecution party had gone to Tal area about 3-4 miles south of Hira Tola, the alleged place of occurrence for committing theft of green Rabi crops, they were shot by the mounted guard. The specific defence of the appellants, Ramashrey Sharma @ Ramashish Singh was that at the alleged time of occurrence he was at the Jalalpur State Dispensary for Vasectomy operation. 5. The prosecution in support of its case examined nine witnesses out of whom PW 1, PW 2 and PW 3 are injured witnesses and they claimed to be eyewitnesses. PW 4 and PW 5 have claimed to be eye-witnesses to the occurrence. PW 6 is a doctor, who held post-mortem over the dead bodies of Bino @ Bindeshwari Yadav and Lakhan Yadav. PW 7 is also a doctor, who examined PW 1, PW 2 amd PW 3. PW 9 is also a doctor, who examined PW 3 and other injured persons. PW 8 is investigating officer. 6. The defence has also examined six witnesses. DW 1 is Ward Attendant of the State Dispensary, Jalalpur. DW 2 is an Advocate, who stated that he had seen the deceased on a bullock cart. DW 3 stated that he knew Ramashrey Sharma @ Ramashish Singh and proved letter written by him, Ext. C and C/1. DW 4 stated that Ramashrey Sharma @ Ramashish Singh was operated at State Dispensary, Jalalpur. DW 5 is a doctor, who stated that he operated Ram Ashray Sharma @ Ramashish Singh on 26.11.1976. DW 6 stated different name of appellant No. 2. 7. The occurrence is alleged to have taken place on 26.11.1976 at about 5.30 p.m. Fardbeyan, Ext. 3, was recorded at the spot on the same day at about 7 p.m. In the occurrence two persons, namely, Bino @ Bindeshwari Yadav and Lakhan Yadav were killed and many persons were injured. DW 6 stated different name of appellant No. 2. 7. The occurrence is alleged to have taken place on 26.11.1976 at about 5.30 p.m. Fardbeyan, Ext. 3, was recorded at the spot on the same day at about 7 p.m. In the occurrence two persons, namely, Bino @ Bindeshwari Yadav and Lakhan Yadav were killed and many persons were injured. The investigating officer, PW 8, took statement of the injured Ram Chandra Prasad, Ram Gulam Yadav, PW 3, and Ram Tali Yadav, PW 2 at the spot. He found injuries on their persons and sent them to Nazarat Hospital, Mokamah for treatment. He also found injury on the person of Krishnandan Yadav and Bhim Yadav and referred them for treatment to the Hospital. PW 7, the doctor, examined injured, PW 1, PW 2 and PW 3 on the same day on 26.11.1976 in between 7.45 p.m. to 8 p.m. and found injuries caused by fire arm. He opined that injuries were caused within 3 to 5 hours. PW 9 the other doctor also examined other injured persons and found injuries on their persons. The injury reports have been brought on the record and have been proved in the case as Ext. 2 series. The fardbeyan was recorded after one and half hours of the occurrence and soon after recording of the fardbeyan, the investigation was taken up and as such question of false implication and concoction of the case is ruled out. 8. There are five eye-witnesses to the occurrence, i.e., PW 1 to PW 5. PW 1, PW 2 and PW 3 are injured persons and are resident of the village of place of occurrence. PW 4 is also an eye-witness and is of the same village. PW 5 is informant. They have supported the prosecution case on material points. PW 5, the informant, in his evidence named all the accused-persons mentioned in the first information report including Sarjug Singh, who died during the pendency of the case. He deposed that on the day of occurrence at the time of sunset his son Bino @ Bindeshwari Yadav left the house after taking Bhunja (fried corn). Soon thereafter he heard sound of firing. He went to the place of occurrence and saw that his son was sitting at the western elevated portion of the bridge on the road. The said bridge is in the village. Soon thereafter he heard sound of firing. He went to the place of occurrence and saw that his son was sitting at the western elevated portion of the bridge on the road. The said bridge is in the village. Twenty to thirty persons were on the tractor and 3-4 persons were on the back of the horse. They were firing and proceeding towards north. Appellant, Ram Ashray Sharma @ Ramashish Singh fired on his son causing injury on his person and he fell down in the ditch. The miscreants proceeded and appellant Sheoji Singh fired causing death of Lakhan Yadav. PW 1, PW 2, PW 3, Bhim, Fucher, Krishnandan and Brahmadeo also sustained injuries in the same occurrence. After commission of crime, they went towards north. He along with others brought his son Bino from the ditch and kept on a cot. The police came at the spot and he gave his fardbeyan. Some of the witnesses have gone in favour of the appellants. In cross-examination, the witness stated that Sarjug Singh father of appellant Ramchandra Singh lodged a case against him in which PW 4, father of PW 3 and others were accused. Firing was made from the tractor while sitting. He did not say before the police that firing was made from the distance of 100 yards. He stated that firing was made from 8 to 10 steps. He had shown place of occurrence from where firing was made. The firing was made while the tractor was proceeding. Some persons came down from the tractor and again got on the tractor. Lakhan was shot dead on the flank of the road. About 20 persons came near the bridge after miscreants had run away. Suggestion was given to the witness that the occurrence took place in Tirmohani Khanda and from there the dead body was brought, which was denied by the witness. 9. PW 4 stated in his evidence that he went to the place of occurrence hearing sound of gun firing. He saw some persons on a tractor and some persons on the back of the horse out of whom he identified Sukhlal Singh (dead), Ram Baran Singh @ Kishori Singh, Ram Ashish Singh @ Ram Ashray Sharma, Ram Chander Singh son of Sarjug Singh, Ram Chander Singh son of Bhushan Singh (dead), Kapil Singh and Sheoji Singh. He saw some persons on a tractor and some persons on the back of the horse out of whom he identified Sukhlal Singh (dead), Ram Baran Singh @ Kishori Singh, Ram Ashish Singh @ Ram Ashray Sharma, Ram Chander Singh son of Sarjug Singh, Ram Chander Singh son of Bhushan Singh (dead), Kapil Singh and Sheoji Singh. Ram Ashish Singh, Ram Baran Singh and Sukhlal Singh were armed with gun. Bino, the deceased, was sitting on the elevated portion of the culvert. Culvert is on the road. The miscreants were firing from gun and running away. When he came at the place of occurrence he found Bino lying injured in the ditch. PW 5 and the villagers were there. When he proceeded towards south, he found Lakhan lying dead. He also found some persons injured. The police recorded his statement at the place of occurrence. The witness admitted in his cross-examination that Sarjug Singh had lodged a case of theft in which he, Rajo and others were accused. The witnesses are of Hiratola. The witness stated that he did not see firing. He did not say before the police that miscreants were firing from a distance of 100 yards. The attention of the witness was drawn to the statement made before the police that he had stated that the firing was made near the house of Lakhan which he replied that he did not remember. 10. PW 1 is one of the injured persons. He deposed that on hearing sound of firing, he went to the place of occurrence and saw some persons on a tractor and some persons on the back of the horses going towards north. He identified Kapil Singh, Sheoji Singh, Ram Nath Singh, Nunulal Singh, Ram Avtar Singh and Ram Chander Singh. He was that the miscreants were firing. His brother Ram Tali, PW 2, also sustained injury in the occurrence. He also sustained injuries caused by fire arm. In cross-examination the witness showed his ignorance about the case lodged by Ram Chander against him, his father and brother. Tirmohani Khanda is at a distance of about three miles. At the time of occurrence, the crops were being sown. On the day of occurrence Lakhan, the deceased, and others had not gone towards south to bring fodder. He did not say before the police that Lakhan and others had gone to bring fodder to Tirmohani. Tirmohani Khanda is at a distance of about three miles. At the time of occurrence, the crops were being sown. On the day of occurrence Lakhan, the deceased, and others had not gone towards south to bring fodder. He did not say before the police that Lakhan and others had gone to bring fodder to Tirmohani. In Tal area, crops are sown in the month of Kartik. Mounted police are deployed for protection of crops. He denied the suggestion that the persons were killed and injured in Tirmohani Khanda by the mounted police, while they were committing theft of crops. He stated that firing was made on the road causing injury to the deceased and the injured. 11. PW 2 is another injured witness. He was on the Bathan along with his brother Ram Padarath. They were feeding the cattle. On hearing sound of firing they went to the house of Lakhan and saw 30-35 persons on a tractor, and on the back of the horses who were armed with lathi, bhala and gun out of whom he identified appellants, Chunchun Singh, Ram Ashish Singh, Ram Baran Singh, Kapil Singh, Sheoji Singh, Asho Singh @ Ram Ashray Singh (dead), Pramod Singh and Uman Singh. He and his brother Ram Padarath also sustained injuries and Bino Lakhan were killed in the occurrence. They were treated by the Doctor. At the time of occurrence firing was being made indiscriminately. His statement was recorded at the spot. He along with PW 3 and PW 5 had gone to the police station. He denied the suggestion that his father was convicted for life. He had stated the name of Ram Ashray Singh @ Asho before the police. 12. PW 3 is another injured person. His father was killed in the occurrence. On hearing sound of firing he went to the place of occurrence. He saw 20-25 persons on a tractor and some persons on the back of the horse coming from south. They were firing. He identified two persons, namely, Ram Baran Singh and Ram Ashish Singh. They had gun and were firing. He sustained injury caused by fire arm. He ran away. Again when he went to the place of occurrence he found his father and Bino lying dead. They were firing. He identified two persons, namely, Ram Baran Singh and Ram Ashish Singh. They had gun and were firing. He sustained injury caused by fire arm. He ran away. Again when he went to the place of occurrence he found his father and Bino lying dead. Bino was lying dead in the ditch near the culvert and his father was lying dead in front of the house of Jivraj Yadav on the road. About ten persons sustained injury in the occurrence. In cross-examination, the witness stated that police came after about two hours of the occurrence. Chaukidar, Chano Yadav, had gone to the police station. He did not go to the police station out of fear. The witness denied the suggestion that he did not identify any of the miscreants. His house is in the east of the culvert at a distance of about 60 yards. He tied his injury with Gamchchi. He denied the suggestion that he deposed falsely. 13. It is manifest from the discussions of the evidence of the witnesses that PW 4 did not see firing but identified the accused persons. He found two persons dead and injury to others and supported the prosecution case on other material points. The rest of the witnesses i.e., PW 1, PW 2, PW 3 and PW 5 supported the prosecution case on the material points. Their evidence is consistent on the point of place of occurrence, time of occurrence and manner of occurrence. Learned counsel for the appellants also could not be able to point out any inconsistency in their evidence. 14. PW 8 is investigating officer. He deposed that he recorded the fardbeyan of PW 5 at the place of occurrence at about 7 p.m. in presence of the witnesses on which formal first information report was drawn. He found injuries on the person of PW 2 and PW 3 and recorded their statement at the spot and sent them to the hospital for treatment. He found dead body of Bino and Lakhan and prepared inquest reports in presence of the witnesses. He sent the dead bodies for post-mortem. He also found injury on other persons and recorded their statement and sent them to the hospital. He prepared injury reports, Ext. 9 series. He inspected the place of occurrence. He found dead body of Bino and Lakhan and prepared inquest reports in presence of the witnesses. He sent the dead bodies for post-mortem. He also found injury on other persons and recorded their statement and sent them to the hospital. He prepared injury reports, Ext. 9 series. He inspected the place of occurrence. The place of occurrence is at a distance of one ad half miles south from Mokama town on a pitch road. The road is north to south. There was a culvert and its elevated portion at its end is about two ft. high. On the western side, there is a ditch. In the ditch, he found blood at three places. He found projectile of a 303 cartridge width of the culvert is about ten steps where Bino Yadav is said to have been killed. The dead body of Bino was on a cot in front of the house of Yamuna Yadav and Hansraj Yadav situated on the west of the road. The distance of the culvert from there is forty steps. The dead body of Lakhan was found on the western flank of the road at a distance of 86 steps north from the culvert. At that place, the width of the road was six steps. He found copious blood-near the dead body of Lakhan. He seized blood-stained earth and projectile and prepared seizure list. To the east of the dead body of Bino Yadav he found bullock cart. He also found blood-stains on the bullock cart. The witnesses disclosed that firing was made from the distance of 100 yards. He recorded the statement of the witnesses and on completion of investigation submitted charge-sheet. In cross-examination, the witness stated the location of Tirmohani. He also stated that last year four cases of theft of crops were lodged. He further deposed that PW 1 had stated before him that on the day of occurrence the bullock-carts of the deceased, Ram Lakhan Yadav, and others had gone to Tirmohani to bring fodder. On hearing rumour, he entered Sanha and proceeded to the place of occurrence. The distance between Mokamah and Barh is about 28 kilometres. He did not find pillets at the place of occurrence. PW 2 did not name Asho @ Ram Ashray before him. PW 3 stated before him that he fell down after sustaining injury. On hearing rumour, he entered Sanha and proceeded to the place of occurrence. The distance between Mokamah and Barh is about 28 kilometres. He did not find pillets at the place of occurrence. PW 2 did not name Asho @ Ram Ashray before him. PW 3 stated before him that he fell down after sustaining injury. PW 4 stated before him that firing was made at the house of Lakhan. PW 5 did not state before him that firing was made from 8-10 steps. At the place of occurrence, the road is 2 ft. high from both flanks. It is, thus, evident from the evidence of the investigating officer also that he supported the prosecution case on the material points. 15. The doctor, PW 6, who held post-mortem over the dead body has stated in his evidence that he conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of Lakhan Yadav on 27.11.1976 at 7.30 a.m. and found injury caused by fire arm and also incised wound. He found charring and blackening mark over the injury. The incised injury found on the person may be caused by fall and sharp cutting substance. The said injury was superficial in nature. The time elapsed since death was 24 hours. He opined that cause of death was shock and haemorrhage due to the injury found on the person of the deceased. On the same day at about 7 a.m., he conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of Bino Yadav @ Bindeshwari Yadav. He found injury on the chest near mid-line which was wound of entry and mark of charring and blackening. He also found injury on the left side of the back of the deceased which was irregular and everted. This suggests that wound was caused from downward to upward. On dissection he found 5th rib of the left side of the chest fractured and injury on the right lung. The injuries were caused by gun shot. Time elapsed since death was 24 hours. Thus, it appears that the evidence of the doctor also supports time of occurrence and use of fire-arm in the occurrence. 16. Learned counsel for the appellants, however, submitted that evidence of the doctor, PW 6 falsifies the prosecution case as he found charring and blackening on the edge of the injury. Such injury is possible if the firing is made from close range. 16. Learned counsel for the appellants, however, submitted that evidence of the doctor, PW 6 falsifies the prosecution case as he found charring and blackening on the edge of the injury. Such injury is possible if the firing is made from close range. In support of his submission he pointed out the evidence of PW 5, who stated that firing was made from 8 to 10 steps. In this regard, it would be pertinent to mention herein that miscreants were coming from south and going towards north on a tractor and also on the back of the horse. They were proceeding and were firing from gun. PW 8, the investigating officer, stated in his evidence that near the culvert where Bino @ Bindeshwari Yadav was killed, width of the road was about ten steps and the place where Lakhan was killed it was about six steps. The tractor was going on the road and the miscreants were firing. Bino @ Bindeshwari Yadav was sitting on the northern elevated portion of the culvert. There is nothing in the evidence that tractor was going from eastern side of the road. Minute observation by the witnesses at the time of occurrence is not expected. The distance given by PW 5 is merely an estimated distance. It was not measured distance nor it is possible to give the exact distance of firing in the circumstances mentioned above. Moreover, the witnesses are rustic and it is not expected of them to give accurate distance of firing when the tractor was proceeding. Therefore, on consideration the prosecution case cannot be thrown out on the question raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. 17. Learned counsel for the appellants next pointed out on the strength of the evidence of the doctor, PW 6, that the injury found on the person of the deceased, Bino Yadav indicates that firing was made from downward to upward whereas allegation is that firing was made from the tractor while Bino @ Bindeshwari Yadav, the deceased, was sitting on the elevated portion of the culvert, in the circumstances the evidence of the doctor falsifies the prosecution case. In this regard, it would be pertinent to mention herein that the doctor did not give details of the injuries found on the deceased, Bino @ Bindeshwari Yadav. In this regard, it would be pertinent to mention herein that the doctor did not give details of the injuries found on the deceased, Bino @ Bindeshwari Yadav. He stated that on the mid-line of the chest he found wound of entry and on left side of the back he found wound of exit. Since the doctor has not given details as to on which specific portion the wound of exit was found, the evidence of the doctor to the extent that firing was made from downward to upward becomes meaningless. Therefore, on test, as discussed above, it is apparent that the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants has no substance. 18. Learned counsel for the appellants next pointed out that there was delay in receipt of the first information report. The first information report was placed before the S.D.J.M. on 28.11.1976 which suggests that no first information report was lodged at the time of occurrence and suggests concoction of the case. In this regard, it would not be out of place to mention herein that occurrence was alleged to have taken place on 26.11.1976 at 5.30 p.m. Fardbeyan was recorded at 7 p.m. at the place of occurrence. On 27.11.1976, first information report was sent to the Court by special messenger which was placed before the S.D.J.M. on 28.11.1976. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was delay in receipt of the first information report in the Court. Moreover, PW 8 after recording fardbeyan sent the same to the police station for drawing first information report and he himself started investigation. He took statement of the injured witnesses at the spot and prepared inquest report in presence of the witnesses. He also seized blood-stained earth, prepared seizure list and inspected the place of occurrence. In such a situation, the possibility of concoction of the prosecution case or to doubt or to say that fardbeyan was not recorded at the alleged time of occurrence is ruled out. Further more, it cannot be said that there was such delay in sending the first information report to the Court as to doubt the recording of fardbeyan at the alleged time of occurrence. 19. Further more, it cannot be said that there was such delay in sending the first information report to the Court as to doubt the recording of fardbeyan at the alleged time of occurrence. 19. Learned counsel for the appellants further contended that the investigating officer PW 8 found bullock cart to east of the dead body containing stain of blood which indicates that the occurrence took place in Tirmohani Khanda and not at the alleged place of occurrence. In this regard, it would be pertinent to mention herein that suggestion was given to PW 1 that the occurrence took place at Tirmohani Khanda, which he denied. The witness has stated the deputation of mounted police in Tal area for protection of Rabi crops. The specific defence of the appellants was that occurrence took place in Tirmohani Khanda while the prosecution party had gone to commit theft of crops. It has been stated by the witnesses that at the relevant time the crops were being sown. Therefore, commission of theft of crops is ruled out as at the relevant time crops were being sown. Furthermore, Bino @ Bindeshwari Yadav was fired on the elevated portion of the culvert and fell down on the western side in the ditch on receipt of the injury and died. The dead body was brought from the ditch and kept on a cot. PW 8 found the dead body of Bino @ Bindeshwari Yadav at a distance of 40 steps west from the culvert on a cot. A bullock cart was in the east of the dead body. Therefore, the blood may have fallen on the bullock cart while the dead body was being taken and kept on a cot in front of the house of Jamuna and Hansraj Yadav. mere stray evidence of the investigating officer, i.e., finding of stain of blood does not indicate that occurrence did not take place at the alleged place of occurrence. Moreover, the dead body of Lakhan was found on the road about 86 steps north from the culvert where investigating officer found copious blood. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants does not appear to be acceptable. 20. It was pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants that no reason has been assigned for committing offence. Therefore, commission of crime by the appellants is not probable. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants does not appear to be acceptable. 20. It was pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants that no reason has been assigned for committing offence. Therefore, commission of crime by the appellants is not probable. The motive of committing crime is not at all relevant in the criminal case. Moreover, in this case no reason has been assigned for commission of offence by the prosecution. Therefore, not assigning any reason for commission of offence is not of much importance specially, in circumstances, when the evidence of the eye-witnesses is consistent on the material points which has been corroborated by the findings of the investigating officer, the evidence of the doctor, PW 6, who held post-mortem examination on the dead bodies and the evidence of PW 7 and PW 9, who examined the injured witnesses. 21. The trial Court acquitted the accused persons, who has been identified by one witness and convicted the accused persons, who were identified by atleast two witnesses. Appellants, Kishori Singh @ Ram Baran Singh, Ram Ashray Sharma @ Ramashish Singh, Kapil Singh and Sheoji Singh have been identified by four witnesses and rest of the appellants have been identified by two witnesses. Learned counsel for the appellants on the strength of a decision in the case of State of U.P. V/s. Dan Singh and another, 1997 3 SCC 747 , submitted that the appellants were identified by two witnesses and hence they deserve acquittal. In the above mentioned case the allegation was that 70-80 persons participated in the commission of crime. It has been held in the above mentioned case that "We feel that even though very large number of members of unlawful assembly had taken part in the attack of Doms, it would be safe if only those of the respondents should be held to be the members of the unlawful assembly, who have been specifically identified by at least four eye-witnesses." 22. In the case in hand, the allegation is that only 25-30 persons participated in the occurrence, therefore, it cannot be said that very large number of persons participated in the commission of crime. Moreover, the eye-witnesses categorically stated about participation of the appellants in the alleged occurrence. Thus, the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants is of no help. 23. Moreover, the eye-witnesses categorically stated about participation of the appellants in the alleged occurrence. Thus, the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants is of no help. 23. Thus, on consideration as discussed above, we find no merit in the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Bail-bonds of the appellants are hereby cancelled and the appellants are directed to surrender before the trial Court to serve the remaining period of sentence. S.N.Pathak, J. 24 I agree.