Judgment R.N.Prasad, J. 1. The appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 24.4.1987 passed by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur in Sessions Trial No. 115 of 1982 whereby the appellants have been convicted for the offence under Secs. 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. Appellants. Shiv Jatan Pandey and Ambika Pandey have further been convicted for the offence under Sec. 27 of the Aims Act and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years. 2. The prosecution case as has been stated in the fardheyan is that, one Tulsi Pandey gave his fardbeyan on 29.8.1980 at about 2.30 p.m. that on 28.8.1980 he along with Brahmanand Pandey, Baleshwar Pandey and his two sons, namely, Gajadhar Pandey and Siya Ram Pandey caught Dhuliyan train at Mirza Chauki railway station in the morning to go to Bhagalpur to attend a proceeding under Sec. 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure pending in the Court of the S.D.O., Bhagalpur. At Sarmari railway station known as Pirpainty railway station. Brahmeshwar Pandey also boarded the train. The proceeding was between the informant and his men on one side and all the appellants on the other side. The accused-persons also attended the Court of the S.D.O., Bhagalpur. At about 3 p.m., he along with his men proceeded by train to their village and got down at Mirza Chauki at about 5 p.m. The accused-persons also got down from the train and proceeded to their house. At about 6 p.m. when they reached near Chatur Bandh west of village Ram Nagar before sun set accused Shiv Jatan Pandey and Ambika Pandey with country-made pistol, Deo Sharan Pandey with Chura and Ram Sharan Pandey with Gupti came running and tried to assault Brahmanand Pandey. Brahmanand Pandey tried to run away to village Ram Nagar. Ambika fired from his pistol but it did not hit. Thereafter accused-persons chased him. He and his men also followed them to save Brahmanand. When Brahmanand Pandey reached the field of Imam Ali of village Ram Nagar Dadar, Shiv Jatan Pandey fired on his person which hit him due to which he fell down. Ambika Pandey also fired. Thereafter, Deo Saran Pandey and Ram Saran Pandey also assaulted with dagger and Gupti respectively. When he and his men tried to proceed to save him accused-persons threatened to kill. Ambika Pandey also fired. Thereafter, Deo Saran Pandey and Ram Saran Pandey also assaulted with dagger and Gupti respectively. When he and his men tried to proceed to save him accused-persons threatened to kill. However, they started raising alarm on which Ambika Pandey fired from pistol. However, it did not hit. He and his men concealed themselves in the sugar-cane field. When the accused-persons after committing offence ran away, they went near Brahmanand Pandey and found him dead with bleeding injury on his person. He went to his village and informed the villagers including Shiv 3hanker Pandey and Tej Narain Tiwary. They came at the place of occurrence. However, he and his men remained watching the dead body at the place of occurrence in the night, They could not inform the police in the night out of fear. The reason for committing the offence is litigation between the parties. 3. On the aforesaid fardbeyan, Ext. 6, formal First Information Report was drawn, investigation was taken up, after conclusion of the investigation charge-sheet was submitted and the case was committed to the Court of Session for trial. The trial Court convicted the appellants, as indicated above. 4. The defence of the appellants was that they were innocent and were falsely implicated in this case out of enmity. The prosecution in support of its case examined nine witnesses out of whom P.W. 1 arid P. W. 2 are eye-witnesses to the occurrence. P.W. 3 is informant and is also an eye-witness to the occurrence. P.W. 4, P.W. 5 and P.W. 9 are hearsay witnesses. P.W. 6 is a doctor, who held post-mortem over the dead body. P.W. 7 proved First Information Report. P.W. 8 has been tendered. 5. Two Court witnesses were examined. C.W. 1 is witness to the seizure of blood-stained earth and C.W. 2 is Investigation Officer. P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 are sons of P.W. 3, the informant. 6. There is no dispute with regard to enmity between the parties. Learned Counsel for the appellants, however, pointed out that since the witnesses are related to the deceased and are inimical, their evidence should be discarded. P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 are sons of P.W. 3, the informant. 6. There is no dispute with regard to enmity between the parties. Learned Counsel for the appellants, however, pointed out that since the witnesses are related to the deceased and are inimical, their evidence should be discarded. In this regard, it would not be out of place to mention herein that there is no rule of law that evidence of such witness should lie discarded outright rather it is well settled rule of law that evidence of such witness should be scrutinized with care and caution. Keeping in mind the well-settled rule of law, we proceed to examine the evidence of the witnesses keeping in mind the aforesaid rule of law. 7. P.W. 3 is informant. He stated in his evidence that proceeding under Section 107, Cr. P.C. was between the prosecution party and the appellants. The said proceeding was pending in the Court, of S.D.O., Bhagalpur. On the day of occurrence, the parties had to appear in the said proceeding before the S.D.O., Bhagalpur. He and his men had gone by train. The appellants also had gone to Bhagalpur. Both the parties attended the proceeding in the Court of S.D.O., Bhagalpur. At about 3 p.m. he along with Brahmanand Pandey and his two sons, namely, Gajadhar Pandey and Siaram pandey caught Danapur East Passenger train and got down at Mirzachauki railway station. While they were taking tea the appellants were proceeding to their village. After talcing tea. they also proceeded to their house and when they reached near the Gbatur Baiidh situated in the west of village Ram Nagar, the appellants, Shiv Jatan Pandey and Ambika Pandey with Pistol, Deo Saran Pandey with dagger and Ram Saran Pandey with Gupti came running and they tried to assault Brahmanand Pandey. Brahmanand Pandey out of fear fled towards village Ram Nagar Dadar raising alarm. Appellant, Ambika Pandey, tired one shot but it did not hit Brahmanand Pandey. They chased Brahmanand Pandey. He and his men also followed them raising alarm with a view to save Brahmanand Pandey. As soon as Brahmanand Pandey reached the field of Imam Ali, appellant, Shiv Jatan Pandey fired twice causing injuries on the person of Brahmandn Pandey due to which he fell down. Thereafter, appellant Ambika Pandey ordered to kill. They chased Brahmanand Pandey. He and his men also followed them raising alarm with a view to save Brahmanand Pandey. As soon as Brahmanand Pandey reached the field of Imam Ali, appellant, Shiv Jatan Pandey fired twice causing injuries on the person of Brahmandn Pandey due to which he fell down. Thereafter, appellant Ambika Pandey ordered to kill. Appellants, Deo Saran Pandey and Ram Saran Pandey also gave dagger and Gupti blow on the person of Brahmanand Pandey. He, P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 tried to save him but appellant Ambika Pandey fired on them. However, it did not hit them he and his men concealed themselves out of fear in the sugar-cane field. When the appellants ran away, they went near Brahmanand Pandey and found him dead. The occurrence took place while sun was setting. He and his men went to the. village and disclosed about the occurrence to the villagers including Tej Narain Tiwary, P.W. 5 and Shiv Shanker Pandey, P.W. 9. They came near the dead body. However, he and his men were watching the dead body in the night and did not inform the police, in the night, out of fear. In the morning Chaukidar was sent to inform the police. The police came at about 2 p.m. and recorded his fardbeyan. The prosecution also filed some documents i.e. certified copy of the order-sheet of Misc. Case No. 470/80 under Sec. 107 of the Cr.P.C. to show that the proceeding was between the prosecution party and the appellants, certified copy of the attendance filed by the prosecution party, Ext 8 and certified copy of the attendance filed by the appellants, Ext. 8/A to show that both the parties attended the proceeding in the Court of S.D.O. Bhagalpur. 8. P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 also supported the prosecution case on all material points. They have stated in their evidence that they had gone to Bhagalpur to appear in a proceeding under Sec. 107 of the Cr.P.C. The proceeding was between the prosecution party and the appellants. Both the parties appeared in the said proceeding. They also returned by train to their village and they got down from the train in the evening at about 5 p.m. The appellants were proceeding ahead and after some time they also proceeded to their village. Both the parties appeared in the said proceeding. They also returned by train to their village and they got down from the train in the evening at about 5 p.m. The appellants were proceeding ahead and after some time they also proceeded to their village. On way appellants, Shiv Jatan Pandey and Ambika Pandey with country-made pistol, Deo Saran Pandey with dagger and Ram Saran Pandey with Gupti came running and tried to assault Brahmanand Pandey. He tried to run away but Ambika fired which did not hit him. However, subsequently, Shiv Jatan Pandey fired twice causing injury on the person of the deceased. They also stated that Ambika Pandey also fired on Brahmanand Pandey after he fell down causing injury on his person. 9. P.Ws. 4, 5 and 9 are hearsay witnesses. They have stated in their evidence that the informant came in the village and informed about the occurrence and also disclosed the name of the appellants, who committed murder of Brahmanand Pandey. Therefore, it appears that soon after the occurrence they got information about the commission of the crime at the. hands of the appellants. This also supports the evidence of the eye-witnesses. 10. Learned Counsel for the appellants, however, pointed out that only one fire-arm injury was found. Therefore, evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 should be discarded. In this regard, it would be pertinent to mention herein that at the time of occurrence minute observation is not possible. Even if the witnesses stated that Ambika Pandey also fired causing injury, it would not be fatal to the prosecution because of the fact that doctor has found fire-arm injury, on the person of the deceased. The said piece of evidence may be taken as development, which is general tendency of the witnesses. Moreover, after lapse of time such type of discrepancy is possible. Thus, from the discussion of the evidence, it is evident that the evidence of the eye-witnesses is consistent on all material points. 11. The doctor, P.W. 6, who held post-mortem over the dead body on 30.8.1980 at about 3 p.m. He found ten injuries on the person of the deceased out of which one was fire-arm injury and the rest were incised. The doctor has opined that time elapsed since death was 36 to 48 hours. 11. The doctor, P.W. 6, who held post-mortem over the dead body on 30.8.1980 at about 3 p.m. He found ten injuries on the person of the deceased out of which one was fire-arm injury and the rest were incised. The doctor has opined that time elapsed since death was 36 to 48 hours. Cause of death has been described as haemorrhage and shock due to the injuries found on the person. He also extracted 13 pellets from the body of Brahmanand Pandey. Therefore, it appears that the doctors evidence also supports oral evidence of the witnesses and the time of occurrence. 12. The Investigating Officer was examined as Court witness, C.W. 2. He deposed that he went to the place of occurrence and recorded fardbeyan of P.W. 3. and prepared inquest report. He found one umbrella lying under the dead body and blood stains at the place of occurrence. He seized umbrella and blood-stained earth and prepared seizure list. He examined witnesses and thereafter submitted charge-sheet in the case. Therefore, it is manifest that ocular evidence has also been supported by the donor and by the finding of the Investigating Officer. 13. Thus, on consideration it is evident that though the witnesses art relation of the deceased and inimical to the appellants but their evidence is consistent on all material points and nothing could be pointed out to discard the evidence of the witnesses. We, therefore, find that their evidence is trustworthy. 14. Learned Counsel, however, pointed out that there is great delay in lodging the First Information Report. The occurrence took place on 28.8.1980 at about 6.30 p.m. fardbeyan was recorded on 29.8.1980 at about 2.30 p.m. and no explanation has been given by the prosecution. In this regard it has to be considered that the occurrence took place in the evening in Bahiyar of village Ram Nagar, which is a lonely place. The trauma in his family members can be visualized in such a situation. Moreover, it has come in evidence that out of fear they did not inform the police in the night. In the First Information Report, the distance between place of occurrence and the police station has been described to be 18 kms. The trauma in his family members can be visualized in such a situation. Moreover, it has come in evidence that out of fear they did not inform the police in the night. In the First Information Report, the distance between place of occurrence and the police station has been described to be 18 kms. However, P.W, 1 and P.W. 2 described it to be 12 kms, It has come that Chaukidar was asked in the morning to go to the police station to inform about the occurrence and the police reached at about 2 p.m. at the place of occurrence and recorded fardbeyan at 2.30 p.m. of the informant. In such a situation, in our view, there is no inordinate delay in giving information to the police. 15. Learned Counsel for the appellants next pointed out that Chaukidar has not been examined in this case and as such adverse inference should be drawn. It is a fact that Chaukidar has not been examined. However, it has come in evidence that name of the Chaukidar was not known to the witnesses. Moreover, Chaukidar was not eye-witness to the occurrence. The eye-witnesses to the occurrence are P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 and they were natural witnesses as they were returning to their village together. The place of occurrence is lonely place and we have already held that the evidence of the eye-witnesses is trustworthy. Therefore, in our opinion, non-examination of Chaukidar is not fatal to the prosecution. 16. Lastly, learned Counsel for the appellants contended that in fact the case has been concocted at the instance of P.W. 4. P.W. 4 is also relation of the deceased, he had gone to Bhagalpur to attend the proceeding. He, however, remained there and the informant and others returned to their village. P.W. 4 has categorically stated that he got information on 29.8.1980 at Bhagalpur about the occurrence and then he came to the place of occurrence. It has been pointed out by the learned Counsel for the appellants that when he returned the dead body was at the place of occurrence which indicates that the case has been concocted at the instance of P.W. 4. However, nothing cogent has been brought on the record to arrive at such conclusion. Even suggestion was not given to the witness to the aforesaid effect. However, nothing cogent has been brought on the record to arrive at such conclusion. Even suggestion was not given to the witness to the aforesaid effect. Therefore, the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants is without any basis. 17. Thus, on consideration as discussed above, we find no merit m this appeal Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. The bail-bonds of the appellants are cancelled. They are directed to surrender before the trial Court to serve the remaining period of sentence.