Judgment B. P. SHARMA, J. 1. Both these appeals have been filed against the judgment and order passed by 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Motihari in Sessions Trial No. 72/1991/91/1991. Altogether ten persons, who were standing trial in the aforesaid sessions case, have been convicted and sentenced todifferent terms of imprisonment by the learned Additional Sessions Judge by his judgment dated 29-2-1992 and the order dated 3-3-1992. It is significant to note that Cr. Appeal No. 160/92 was registered on the basis of a prisoner appeal filed on behalf of Sk. Zahirul Haque, one of the ten persons convicted by the trial Court, but prior to it Cr. Appeal No. 19/92 was already filed on behalf of all the ten convicts including the appellant of Cr. Appeal No. 160/92. By his order dated 29-2-1992 the learned lower Court convicted the appellants Akhilesh Prasad, Pradeep Prasad and Sk. Sanaullah of offence under S. 147, IPC and the other appellants Sk. Nasrullah, Sk. Zahirul Haque, Prahlad Rai, Hira Raut, Gopal Rai and Ganesh Prasad were convicted of offence under S. 148, IPC along with the appellant Nand Kishore Prasad. Further the appellant Nand Kishore Prasad has been convicted of offence under S. 27 of the Arms Act. All the appellants, however, have been convicted of offence under S. 302 read with S. 149, IPC. The appellants have been sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for life under S. 302 read with S. 149, IPC. The appellant Nand Kishore Prasad has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year under S. 148, IPC, and further R.I. for one year under S. 27 of the Arms Act. The appellant Akhilesh Prasad, Pradeep Prasad and Sk. Sanaullah have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months each under S. 147, IPC. The remaining appellants have also been sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year each under S. 148, IPC. The sentences have, however, been ordered to run concurrently. 2. It appears that on 17th of October, 1989 at about 5-15 p.m. S.I. Sheo Chandra Chaufhary of Chauradano P.S. received information regarding a murder having been committed near Sripur Canal. Accordingly, he made station diary entry and proceeded for the P.O. along with the police party. On arriving at the place of occurrence the police officer found the dead body of one Ramswarup Singh lying smeared with blood. He also found blood fallen there on the ground. Accordingly, he made station diary entry and proceeded for the P.O. along with the police party. On arriving at the place of occurrence the police officer found the dead body of one Ramswarup Singh lying smeared with blood. He also found blood fallen there on the ground. He then prepared inquest report (Ext. 5) in presence of the witnesses Surendra Chaudhary and Bishwanath Singh and proceeded to record the statement of the informant Bishwanath Singh in the Fard Beyan (Ext. 6). The informant stated in the Fard Beyan that on the same day he was returning from Chauradano Block to his home village Duhosuho within P.S. Chauradano in the District of East Champaran in the company of his brother Ramswarup Singh (deceased). This Ramswarup Singh happened to be the Up-Mukhiya of the Gram Panchayat concerned. They were proceeding towards their village on the pitch road known as Motihari Chauradano road. When at about 5 p.m. they reached near a brick kiln at a distance of about 50 years from Sripur Canal, he saw some persons standing on the road. Among them he identified Nand Kishore Prasad who was armed with gun and dagger; Akhilesh Prasad who was armed with iron rod; Ganesh Prasad being armed with iron hammer; Pradeep Prasad armed with iron rod; Sk. Nasrullah armed with dagger; Sk. Sanaulah armed with lathi; Sk. Zahirul Haque armed with dagger; Prahlad Rai armed with Bhala; Heera Raut armed with dagger, Gopal Rai armed with Kharia. They all belonged to village Duhosuho and Fatuha. As soon as the informant and his brother Ramswarup Singh (deceased) reached that place, all the abovenamed persons attacked them and they caught hold of Ramswarup Singh. Nand Kishore Prasad ordered to kill Ramswarup Singh saying that he was not joining Bihar Kishan Samiti and was opposed to their party. At this instigation all the accused persons started assaulting Ramswarup Singh with lathi, Chura, Kharia and the said Ramswarup Singh, the brother of the informant, sustained injuries and fell down. Thereupon Ganesh Prasad sat on his chest and started assaulting him with hammer on the chest. Further Akhileshwar Prasad put his feet on the neck of Ramswarup Singh and began to press it and also assaulted him with iron rod. Thereupon Ganesh Prasad sat on his chest and started assaulting him with hammer on the chest. Further Akhileshwar Prasad put his feet on the neck of Ramswarup Singh and began to press it and also assaulted him with iron rod. According to the informant, Pradeep Prasad and Nasrullah assaulted the victim with rod and dagger and the remaining accused persons also assaulted the victim with the weapons in their hand. As a result of the assault Ramswarup Singh died on the spot. Further, according to the informant, Nand Kishore Prasad pointed a gun towards the informant and asked him to keep quite and the informant out of fear kept mum. However, Bindeshwari Singh, Surendra Singh and Yogendra Singh of village Duhosuho and Sheoji Singh of village Khairwa who were passing through the road, arrived in the meanwhile and the culprits fled away. Thereafter the Police Officer arrived and, as stated above, recorded the Fard Beyan of this informantand took investigation. The Police Officer challaned the dead body for Postmortem Examination and recorded the statements of the witnesses, after inspecting the P.O. On further completion of the investigation he submitted charge sheet in this case on which cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. The trial commenced before the 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge, who framed charges against the accused persons and proceeded with the trial and after some witnesses were examined, the case was transferred to the Court of 4th Addl. Sessions Judge before whom the trial concluded and the abovementioned judgment and order were passed. It appears that in course of trial altogether eight witnesses were examined by the prosecution to prove the charges against the accused persons standing trial. Three defence witnesses have also been examined. 3. From the defence evidence the defence case appears to be that the appellants have been falsely implicated in this case out of enmity. It is stated that actually the said deceased Ramswarup Singh was killed in the forenoon of the alleged date of occurrence, i.e. 17-10-1989, by some unknown criminals and subsequently when the family members and the relations of the victim learnt about his murder, they arrived at the P.O. and after due consultation they falsely implicated the appellants in this case. 4. 4. It is obvious that in the FIR four persons were named as witnesses, who are said to have arrived at the P.O. at the alleged time of occurrence. They were Bindeshwari Singh (P.W. 2), Yogendra Singh (P.W. 3), Surendra Singh (P.W. 4) and Shiv Pujan Singh (not examined). All these three witnesses, i.e. P.Ws. 2, 3 and 4, have supported the prosecution story as narrated by the informant (P.W. 5) himself, P.W. 1 is a formal witness. He is Imtiyaz Ahmad, who has proved the formal FIR (Ext. 1). P.W. 6 Dr. Tarkeshwar Upadhyay had performed the Postmortem Examination over the dead body of the deceased Ramswarup Singh on 18-10-1989 while he was posted at Motihari State Dispensary as Medical Officer. He is Imtiyaz Ahmad, who has proved the formal FIR (Ext. 1). P.W. 6 Dr. Tarkeshwar Upadhyay had performed the Postmortem Examination over the dead body of the deceased Ramswarup Singh on 18-10-1989 while he was posted at Motihari State Dispensary as Medical Officer. On 18-10-1989 at about 2 p.m. he held the Postmortem Examination and he found the following injuries on the person of the deceased :(i) Bruise on the right arm extending to forearm 12" x 5".(ii) Swelling on the upper most part of right forearm extending to the elbow 5" x 4".(iii) Abrasion at the base of middle finger of the right hand 1" x 1/4".(iv) Bruise on the left forearm 6" x 4".(v) Swelling on the lower most part of left forearm extending to the wrist 5" x 4".(vi) Lacerated wound on the anterior aspect of lower part of the left forearm 2" x 2" x 1/2".(vii) Incised wound on the anterior aspect of the little finger of left hand 1" x 3/4" x 1/4".(viii) Incised wound on the antilateral aspect of the middle finger of the left hand 1" x 1/4" x 1/4".(ix) Incised wound on the anterior surface left palm 4" x 1/3" x 1/3".(x) Abrasion on the lateral part of right thigh 4" x 2".(xi) Abrasion on the lateral part of the right thigh 1" x 1/4".(xii) Abrasion on the lateral part of the right thigh 2" x 1/4".(xiii) Swelling on the lower most part of right leg near the ankle 5" x 4".(xiv) Incised wound on the lateral aspect of right leg 1" x 1/4" x 1/3".(xv) Swelling on the dorsum of right foot 4" x 3".(xvi) Incised wound on the lateral border of right foot 4" x 2" x 1".(xvii) Incised wound on the middle part of left foot 2" x 1/3" x 2".(xviii) Swelling on the dorsom of left foot 2" x 1".According to the doctor on dissection he found upper extremities fracture in right radius bone in the upper part, fracture of left radius and ulna bones in the lower part. Further he found fracture of right tibia bone in the lower part, fracture of three right metacarpal bones from medial to lateral. No injury was, however, detected in the lungs, heart, liver, kidney and spleen. However, both chambers of heart were found empty and stomach contains four ozes of fluid and urinary bladder empty. Further he found fracture of right tibia bone in the lower part, fracture of three right metacarpal bones from medial to lateral. No injury was, however, detected in the lungs, heart, liver, kidney and spleen. However, both chambers of heart were found empty and stomach contains four ozes of fluid and urinary bladder empty. In the opinion of the doctor, injury Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15 and 18 were caused by some hard blunt substances; such as lathi, iron rod or Hathora. Injury Nos. 7, 8, 9, 14, 16 and 17 were caused with some sharp cutting weapon; such as Chura, Daias and Bhala etc. thecause of death in the opinion of the doctor was due to the abovementioned injuries leading to haemorrhage and shock resulting into his death. In the opinion of the doctor the time elapsed since death was about 48 hours which according to him runs from 6 hours to 48 hours. The postmortem report is Ext. 3. 5. P.W. 7 Sheochandra Chaudhary happens to be the I.O. of the case and P.W. 8 Rajendra Prasad is a formal witness, who has proved some entry in G. K. Register and in connection with the entries regarding Chauradano P.S. Case No. 66/89, Chauradano P.S. Case No. 67/89 and Chauradano P.S. Case No. 69/89. 6. So far as the Investigating Officer (P.W. 7) is concerned, he has stated that on getting information about the murder of the deceased in this case, he went to the P.O. and when he found the dead body lying there smeared with blood, he prepared the inquest report in presence of the witnesses and thereafter he recorded the Fard Beyan of the informant Bishwanath Singh at 6-30 p.m. After recording the Fard Beyan he recorded the further statement of the informant and then he inspected the P.O. P.O. according to him was at a distance of about 50 years from the Canal on the main road and it was on the Eastern side of the road. The pitch road was about 12 wide and on both sides there were flanks of 6 each. He also found huge quantity of blood lying on the ground there and he also found three pieces of bricks with blood (sic) and he seized the same. The pitch road was about 12 wide and on both sides there were flanks of 6 each. He also found huge quantity of blood lying on the ground there and he also found three pieces of bricks with blood (sic) and he seized the same. He also found injury on the back side of the neck of the deceased and at some distance from this place there was an old brick kiln which was closed. There was a hut also present near the P.O. which was thatched and which was empty. There was hut near the P.O. at a distance of about 50 yards from the pitch road. It belonged to one Islam Mian who ran cycle repairing business there and the P.O. was a lonely place otherwise. The village was far away from this place. He seized some blood stained earth also from the P.O. and prepared the seizure list (Ext. 7) in presence of the witnesses. Thereafter, at the P.O. itself he recorded the statements of the witnesses. Bindeshwari Singh (P.W. 2), Surendra Singh (P.W. 4), Yogendra Singh (P.W. 3) and Shivji Singh (not examined). Subsequently after completing the formalities and completing the investigation he submitted charge sheet in the case. 7. It is obvious from the medical evidence as well as objective evidence collected by the I.O. (P.W. 7) that occurrence had taken place at the alleged P.O. on the alleged date of occurrence in which the deceased Ramswarup Singh was killed in a brutal manner. The number of injuries go to show that the assailants were bent upon to kill the victim and they continued to assault him till he was dead. The presence of the injuries on both the hands of the victim indicates that he was desperately trying to save himself from the blows inflicted on him and while trying to ward of the blows, he sustained several injuries on both the hands. The upper portion of the body was not seriously injured only on account of this fact, but on the lower limbs on the legs several injuries were inflicted. The upper portion of the body was not seriously injured only on account of this fact, but on the lower limbs on the legs several injuries were inflicted. It is true that the injuries as found by the doctor during Postmortem Examination were not serious in itself and it was difficult to say as to which injury was responsible for the death of the victim, but the cumulative effect of so many injuries with profuse bleeding resulted in the death of the victim. So, the prosecution story is substantiated by the medical evidence as well as objective evidence collected by the I.O. (P.W. 7). 8. From the prosecution story, it becomes clear that the informant (P.W. 5) was accompanying his brother deceased Ramswarup Singh while they were returning from Chauradano by road. According to the informant, there were two different bicycles and after the assault and murder of the victim both the bicycles were handed over to some witnesses who took them to the village. It also appears from the evidence of the informant (P.W. 5) that he was mute spectator to the brutal killing of his brother because of his fear and he was at the gun point of one of the assailants. However, it also appears that four other persons including P.Ws. 2, 3 and 4 have arrived in the meanwhile and had also seen the occurrence. It further appears that some persons went to the Police Station and informed the Police Officer (P.W. 7) that such an incident had taken place and accordingly, station diary entry was made. In this connection, it was submitted both before the trial Court and before this Court that as the information regarding the killing of the victim was lodged in the Police Station by someone, that should have been recorded in the form of FIR and inthat case the Fard-Beyan of the informant lost its sanctity as it is hit by S. 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, but the learned trial Court has also refused to accept this argument and has rightly observed that the information in the Police Station was not complete in all respect as required under S. 154, Cr. P.C. and therefore, rightly a Sanha entry was made in the Police Station and the FIR was drawn up. Therefore, the question of the present Fard Beyan being hit by S. 162, Cr. P.C. does not arise. P.C. and therefore, rightly a Sanha entry was made in the Police Station and the FIR was drawn up. Therefore, the question of the present Fard Beyan being hit by S. 162, Cr. P.C. does not arise. The finding is correct and there cannot be any dispute about it. 9. So far as the witnesses on the point of occurrence is concerned, P.W. 5 the informant himself has fully supported the prosecution story in Court as narrated by him in his Fard Beyan (Ext. 6). He has stated that P.Ws. 2, 3 and 4 along with one Shivji Singh had arrived in the meanwhile while the occurrence was taking place and they had also seen the occurrence. P.W. 2 Bindeshwari Singh is also a co-villager of the informant and he stated that he was also returning from Chauradano market behind the informant and his brother Ramswarup Singh (deceased) and he saw the said Ramswarup Singh being attacked and assaulted by the accused persons. He also gave the details of manner of assault and also stated that the appellant Bishwanath Singh had threatened the informant at the point of gun and so he was silent. He also further stated that P.W. 4 Surendra Singh, P.W. 3 Yogendra Singh and Shivji Singh were also present there. He further stated that he fled away out of fear, but he had identified the assailants. He has admitted in his cross-examination that he also happens to be a cousin brother of the informant and the deceased, but he has stood the test of cross-examination by asserting that he had seen the occurrence when he was returning from the market. P.W. 3 Yogendra Singh also stated that while he was returning from the market, at the alleged P.O. he saw the appellants present and they surrounded and attacked Ramswarup Singh and assaulted him with different kinds of weapons. He also stated that Surendra Singh (P.W. 4) was also accompanying him at that time. He is also a co-villager of the informant and is an agnate of the informant. P.W. 4 Surendra Singh is also a co-villager of the informant and he has also supported the statements of P.Ws. He also stated that Surendra Singh (P.W. 4) was also accompanying him at that time. He is also a co-villager of the informant and is an agnate of the informant. P.W. 4 Surendra Singh is also a co-villager of the informant and he has also supported the statements of P.Ws. 2 and 3 by saying that while he was returning from the market in the company of P.W. 3 he saw the deceased being attacked by the appellants and he also gave the details of the assault and he also stated that Nano Kishore Prasad was covering the informant Biswanath Singh at the point of gun. He has also stood the test of cross-examination. So it is obvious that altogether four witnesses have supported the prosecution story regarding the manner of occurrence in detail and excepting for some minor contradictions and discrepancies there is no major contradiction or discrepancy in their evidence. The learned trial Court, therefore, on the basis of evidence of these witnesses has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable manners of doubt. 10. However, it was submitted on behalf of the appellants that so far as the opinion of the doctor regarding time of death is concerned, it creates doubt about the correctness of the prosecution story. In this connection, it has been submitted that the occurrence is said to have taken place at 5 p.m. on 17-10-1989; whereas the Postmortem Examination was held on 18-10-1989 at 2 p.m, i. e. within 24 hours, but the doctor in his opinion has stated that the death was within 48 hours from the time of Postmortem Examination. Therefore, it has been submitted that actually the medical evidence does not support the prosecution story that the occurrence took place at 5 p.m. on 17-10-1989. In this regard some evidence has been led on behalf of the defence to indicate that at 11-00 a.m. on the alleged date of occurrence there was a rumour that Ramaswarup Singh had been killed and then the villagers went to the place of occurrence and subsequently a case was registered and the prosecution story was concocted. It is, however, clear that the doctor in his opinion while giving the time elapsed since death as 48 hours has stated that it means between 6 to 48 hours. It is, however, clear that the doctor in his opinion while giving the time elapsed since death as 48 hours has stated that it means between 6 to 48 hours. The usual practice to describe the period is as 6 hours, 12 hours, 14 hours, 36 hours and 48 hours etc., but in that manner the time of death has not been described by the doctor. But at the same time he has stated that the period covers 6 to 48 hours and from the present case it appears that the Postmortem Examination was held after about 21 hours from the time of death or time of occurrence. Therefore, it cannot be said that the medical evidence contradicts the prosecution story. 11. However, it has been contended onbehalf of the appellants that a very strong circumstance appears from a document Ext. E proved by D.W. 1. It has been stated by D.W. 1 that after the commission of the murder of Ramswarup Singh, the villagers had taken out a procession on 18-10-1989 and had submitted a memorandum to the Collector of the District. It was pointed out that in the memorandum which was submitted on 18-10-1989 the names of the assailants were not mentioned and therefore, it is submitted that it shows that the FIR in this case has been antedated and fabricated. It has been submitted that if the names of the assailants were known to the processionists submitting the memorandum they should have mentioned the same in the memorandum (Ext. E), but it has not been done. Therefore, it has been submitted that till the memorandum was submitted on 18-10-1989 the names of the assailants were not known to the villagers and it appears that at a subsequent stage the story has been fabricated and the appellants have been falsely implicated out of enmity. In this connection also the learned trial Court has rightly observed that the main grievance of the processionists in this case was that inspite of the fact that the culprits were named in the FIR they were not being arrested by the police. Therefore, they wanted the District administration to take steps and assure that the culprits shall be arrested and brought to book. Therefore, they wanted the District administration to take steps and assure that the culprits shall be arrested and brought to book. Therefore, it has been observed by the trial court that there was no necessity of the names of the assailants being mentioned in this memorandum because it was not at all required. The finding of the learned lower Court appears to be correct and there does not appear to be any fault in the observation and finding in this regard. 12. It has further been contended on behalf of the Appellants that the Fard Beyan according to the prosecution story was drawn up at 6-30 p.m. on 17-10-1989 and the case was registered thereafter on the same day, but the FIR was received in Court quite late, i.e. on 20th of October, 1989. In this connection it has been submitted that if the FIR was drawn up on 17-10-1989 why was it not received in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate concerned either on 18th or 19th. It is true that there has been some delay in the FIR reaching the competent Magistrate as required under the law, but merely because the FIR was received late in Court it cannot be inferred that the FIR is antedated, because according to the informant (P.W. 7) after making station diary entry on the alleged date of occurrence the I.O. had proceeded for the P.O. and after preparing the inquest report he had recorded the Fard Beyan of the informant which was sent to the police station for registering the case and the dead body was sent for Postmortem Examination and the Postmortem Examination was also held on the following day, i.e. of 18-10-1989, and the Police Officer had proceeded with the investigation forthwith. Therefore, the question of FIR being antedated does not arise and such presumption cannot arise. There are several decisions on this point in which it has been held that it depends on the entire circumstances and merely because there was delay in despatch and receipt of the FIR the prosecution story cannot be necessarily thrown away as held by their Lordships in the case of Rajdeo Paswan V/s. State of Bihar, reported in 1993 (2) PLJR (Pat) 581. There is no presumption that because of delay in receipt of the FIR the prosecution story should be thrown away. There is no presumption that because of delay in receipt of the FIR the prosecution story should be thrown away. It was also further held in the case of Shiv Narain Gope V/s. State of Bihar, reported in 1994 (1) PLJR (Pat) 270, that the delay in sending the FIR to the Magistrate is not necessarily fatal and cannot be a ground for throwing out the prosecution story in its entirety and the investigation cannot be said to be tainted on this ground and it has further been observed in this connection that while delay in despatch of the FIR by the police to a Magistrate is a serious defect in the prosecution case or not depends on the facts of each case. The issue has been discussed on several occasions by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the cases of Pala Singh V/s. State of Punjab, reported in AIR 1972 SC 2679 : (1973 Cri LJ 59) Sarwan Singh V/s. State of Punjab, reported in AIR 1976 SC 2304 : (1976 Cri LJ 1757), State of U.P. V/s. Gokaran reported in AIR 1985 SC 131 : (1985 Cri LJ 511), Paresh Kalyan Das Bhavsar V/s. Sadiq Yakub Bhai Jamadar reported in AIR 1993 SC 1544 : (1993 Cri LJ 1857), State of Karnataka V/s. Moin Patel, reported in AIR 1996 SC 3041 and Shiv Ram V/s. State of U.P. reported in (1998) 1 SCC 149 : (1998 Cri LJ 76) and it has also been discussed in the case of Suraj Mahto V/s. State of Bihar, reported in 1998 SCC (Cr.) 886. Since in the present case the I.O. (P.W. 7) has clearly stated that after receiving information and making station diary entry on 17-10-1989 he proceeded for the PC andarrived there and he found the dead body lying and prepared an inquest report and then recorded the Fard Beyan of the informant at 6-30 p.m. and proceeded with the investigation. It does not appear to be proper to conclude that there has been some manipulation in drawing up the FIR in this case. Therefore, the contention of the appellants on this point cannot be accepted. 13. It does not appear to be proper to conclude that there has been some manipulation in drawing up the FIR in this case. Therefore, the contention of the appellants on this point cannot be accepted. 13. It has also further been submitted on behalf of the appellants that in the present case the prosecution story has not been supported by any independent witnesses and if the witnesses appearing as eye-witnesses to the occurrence are interested and therefore, their evidence cannot be relied upon and should be disbelieved. In this connection, it can be said that the examination of the independent witnesses in a case is a rule of prudence, but it cannot be rule of law which depends on whether the independent witnesses were present and had seen the occurrence, but they are not supporting the prosecution story or that they are withheld by the prosecution. If it is that many independent witnesses are said to have witnessed the occurrence and are not brought to Court to have witnessed the occurrence and are not brought to Court to support the prosecution story then inference can necessarily be drawn, but if the possibility of the independent witnesses being present and witnessing the occurrence is ruled out, non-examination of the independent witnesses as such cannot be a ground to disbelieve the prosecution story. In this case, from the evidence of the I.O. (P.W. 7) it becomes clear that the P.O. was a lonely place on road and the villagers were not supposed to come that place. Therefore, at the relevant time the presence of witnesses at the P.O. was not expected. It is just a matter of chance that the informant was accompanying his brother and the other three witnesses, namely, P.Ws. 2, 3 and 4, were returning behind them from the market and they happened to see the occurrence. It is true that the witnesses examined in this case are closely related or agnates of the deceased and the informant, but on this amount only their evidence cannot be discarded. It is significant to note in this regard that if there is factionalism in the village, some persons who are supporters of the other factions are not supposed to come forward and not supposed to support the prosecution story. It is significant to note in this regard that if there is factionalism in the village, some persons who are supporters of the other factions are not supposed to come forward and not supposed to support the prosecution story. On the other hand, the persons who had some nearness to the victim or the effective party they are natural witnesses who are likely to come forward to support the prosecution story. It has been observed by the trial Court in this connection that the very genesis and the cause of occurrence is said to be the fact that the assailants in this case were the members of a party known as Kishan Sangharsh Samiti and they were at annoyance with the deceased because he was an influential person being Up Mukhiya and was opposed to the organisation of the accused persons. It appears that by committing the murder, the persons who were members of Kishan Sangharsh Samiti wanted to send a message to the other persons to succumb to their demand of their joining hands with them. In such a circumstance those persons of the village who were either members of the Kishan Sangharsh Samiti or who were being under fear of the organization were not supposed to come forward to support the prosecution story, but certainly the persons who had got any affiliation with the victim could support the prosecution story and they have supported it. There is no major discrepancy in the evidence of the witnesses as observed above and therefore, merely because so called independent witness has not been examined their evidence cannot be disbelieved and discarded. On the other hand, the evidence of D.Ws. do not carry any weight because D.W. 1 happens to be the brother of one of the appellants and D.W. 1 has proved the memorandum which has already been discussed and D.W. 2 has also just given a story which has no basis and foundation. In our view, therefore, the view taken by the learned trial Court in this regard appears to be correct and does not require any interference. 14. However, it has been submitted that the individual injuries were not sufficient to cause death and therefore, the individual cannot be held liable for committing the murder of the deceased. But this argument does not have any force. 14. However, it has been submitted that the individual injuries were not sufficient to cause death and therefore, the individual cannot be held liable for committing the murder of the deceased. But this argument does not have any force. If several persons are assaulting the victim, it is not necessary that the death of the victim must be attributed to a particular injury of a particular accused. The death in the present case appears to be cumulative effect of the injuries sustained by the victim deceased and the effect of the injury, as opined by the doctor (P.W. 6), is that there was profuse bleeding leading to shock and haemorrhageresulting in death. It is also obvious that all the accused persons in this case were lying in wait for the victim to return from the market to attack and kill him and there cannot be any doubt about it that they had a common object to commit this murder. Therefore, they have been rightly held liable for conviction for causing the death of the victim in this case with common object of unlawful assembly of which they were the members. The learned trial Court has rightly convicted some of the accused persons under S. 147, IPC as they were not holding dangerous weapons and others who were holding dangerous weapons have also rightly been convicted under S. 148, IPC. The accused who was holding a fire-arm has also rightly been convicted under S. 27 of the Arms Act.Therefore, taking into view the entire circumstance appearing in the case there does not appear to be any reason to interfere with the findings of the trial Court. Accordingly, we hold that there is no merit in these appeals and the appeals are dismissed. The judgment and order of the trial Court are hereby upheld. 15. It appears that all the appellants were on bail by this Court during the pendency of these appeals. The trial Court is, accordingly, directed to take steps for their arrest and remand to jail custody for serving out the remaining part of their sentences.Appeals dismissed.