Mrs.Prabha Sridevan, J: This appeal is filed by the accused 1 to 4 against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Tiruchirapalli in Sessions Case No.176 of 1989. Pending appeal, fourth accused died and hence the appeal filed by him abates. The other three appellants 1 to 3 will hereinafter be referred to as the 1st accused - A1, 2nd accused - A2 and 3rd accused A3 for the sake of convenience. In the aforesaid Sessions Case, six accused including A1, A2 and A3 were tried by the learned Sessions Judge for committing the murder of Velayutham, hereinafter referred to as the deceased (D) at 7.30 a.m. on 4.4.1988. Charge No.1 was framed against A1 to A6 under Sec.147, I.P.C., Charge No.2 was framed against A1 to A5 for the offence punishable under Sec.148, I.P.C. and Charge No.3 was framed against A1 to A5 under Sec.302 read with 34, I.P.C. for causing the death of Velayutham and sharing the common intention of causing his death. Charge No.4 was framed against A6 under Sec.302 read with 109, I.P.C. and Charge No.5 was framed against A1 under Sec.324, I.P.C. for causing injury to one Arumugam, P.W.3. The learned Sessions Judge, on considering the oral and documentary evidence, convicted A1 to A4 under Secs.147, 148 and 302 read with 34, I.P.C. However, he acquitted A5 and A6 finding that they are not guilty of the offences for which charges were framed against them. A1 was acquitted of the offence under Sec.324, I.P.C. Therefore, A1 to A4 were sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment for the offences under Sec.147, and Sec.148 each and with imprisonment for life for the offence under Sec.302, I.P.C. read with 34, sentences to run concurrently. Against this as stated above, this appeal has been filed. 2. The facts are as follows: The deceased is a resident of Kilikoodu Village. P.W.1 is his brother. P.W.2 is the relative of the deceased. (D) in short) A1 and A2 are brothers. A3 to A6 are friends of A1 and A2. A1 and A2 were cultivating tenants of 58 cents of land belonging to one Konar. The lands belonging to P.W.1 and ‘D’ were adjacent to this land. When Konar wanted to sell the land, he offered to sell the land first to A2. But A2 said that he did not have funds at that time. A1 and A2 were cultivating tenants of 58 cents of land belonging to one Konar. The lands belonging to P.W.1 and ‘D’ were adjacent to this land. When Konar wanted to sell the land, he offered to sell the land first to A2. But A2 said that he did not have funds at that time. Thereafter, the said Konar offered to sell the land to ‘D’ and P.W.1. ‘D’ and P.W.1 agreed to purchase the land, if A2 had no objection. Since A2 agreed for their purchase, ‘D’ and P.W.1 purchased the land. After purchase, when they began to cultivate the land, A1 said that since they had the tenancy rights, no one else should enter upon the land. Because of this, P.W.1 and ‘D’ could not cultivate the land. There was a Panchayat in which it was decided that A1 should hand over the land to ‘D’ and P.W.1 and compensation of Rs.3,000 should also be paid. A1 and A2 did not agree to this award of Panchayat. When ‘D’ offered to pay over and above Rs.4,000 that was also refused. There was another panchayat. Inspite of this, A1 and A2 continued to give trouble to the family of D and they constantly threatened to kill ‘D’. 3. Though the misunderstanding over the land happened some years before the date of occurrence, the ill-feelings continued to persist between the two groups. 4. The marriage of ‘D’ was fixed on 11.4.1988 and the invitations were printed. On 4.4.1988, P.W.1, ‘D’ and P.W.2 set off from their Village Kilikoodu at 7.00 a.m. to distribute the invitation cards. They boarded the DST Bus No.3. They got into the bus from the rear side and ‘D’ sat in the second seat on the left from the rear. P.W.1 and 2 were standing in the centre of the bus and along with them P.W.3 was also standing. At that time, just as the bus had started, A1 got into the bus with something wrapped in paper in his hand. Following him, A2 entered the bus with holding a small stick with metal wire. A3 also got into the bus with something wrapped in paper in his hand. A4, A5 and A6 all entered the bus along with A1 to A3 through the rear entrance. Just as the bus was passing the bridge at Vazhaikattai, there was a loud noise and commotion in the bus. A3 also got into the bus with something wrapped in paper in his hand. A4, A5 and A6 all entered the bus along with A1 to A3 through the rear entrance. Just as the bus was passing the bridge at Vazhaikattai, there was a loud noise and commotion in the bus. Hearing the noise, P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 rushed to the rear side of the bus. At that time, P.W.1 and P.W.2 saw A2 hooking the neck of ‘D’ with the stick with the metal wire which is M.O.1 round the neck and pulling ‘D’ backward. Thereafter, A1 cut ‘D’ on the left side of the neck with an Aruval, M.O.2 as one who cuts a goat. Immediately, ‘D’ fell down. Then, A3 cut ‘D’ in the same place in the neck with the small Aruval which is M.O.3. A4 stabbed ‘D’ in the stomach with the Pichuva, M.O.4. A5 cut ‘D’ on the left shoulder with a knife. A6 held the legs of ‘D’ so that he could not escape. When A1 started to cut ‘D’ again, P.W.3 prevented him, therefore, he got hurt in the hand. Thereafter, these men pushed ‘D’ from the bus on to the ground and ran away southward towards the channel along the river Kaveri. ‘D’ died on the spot. The bus was halted at the place of occurrence. So, P.W.1 got down from the bus, walked for a short distance and then took a bicycle and gave the complaint at Srirangam Police Station at 9.00 clock. The complaint is Ex.P1. The complaint was registered by the Sub Inspector of Police at Srirangam Police Station, who is P.W.12. On the basis of Ex.P1, P.W.12 registered the case in Crime No.592 of 1988. He prepared Express F.I.R. Ex.P13 is the copy of the printed F.I.R. He forwarded it to the Magistrate as well as to the higher authorities. The Inspector of Police at Uraiyur, P.W.14 received the phone call at 9.30 a.m. from Srirangam Police Station regarding the incident. He proceeded immediately to the spot of occurrence and from there, he took the F.I.R. from P.W.12 and proceeded with the investigation. He reached the scene of occurrence at about 10.00 a.m. He prepared the observation Mahazar Ex.P.2 attested by P.W.7 and two others. He prepared the rough sketch Ex.P15. He proceeded immediately to the spot of occurrence and from there, he took the F.I.R. from P.W.12 and proceeded with the investigation. He reached the scene of occurrence at about 10.00 a.m. He prepared the observation Mahazar Ex.P.2 attested by P.W.7 and two others. He prepared the rough sketch Ex.P15. From 11.00 a.m. till 1.30 p.m. he held the inquest over the dead body of ‘D’ in the presence of Panchayatars. Ex.P.16 is the inquest report. He then sent the deadbody for post mortem with the requisition, Ex.P.7 through P.W.10. At about 3.45 p.m., he took the sample blood stained earth from the spot of occurrence M.O.8, plain sample earth, M.O.9, and M.O.10, the cover of the Pichuva M.O.1 which is 2 1/2 ft. long stick with metal wire as well as M.O.11 a yellow bag containing invitation cards. The above M.Os. were seized under Ex.P.3 in the presence of witnesses. Thereafter, P.W.14 continued the investigation and examined the witnesses. He examined P.W.1 to P.W.6 on the same day. 5. P.W.9, Assistant Doctor at the Srirangam Government Hospital on receipt of Ex.P.7 conducted the autopsy on the body of ‘D’ at 2.10 p.m. On 4.4.1988 he found the following external injuries on the body. "1. An incised cut injury with inverted margin of skin about 6" x 4" extending from right sterno Mastoid Muscle to left sterno mastoid muscle in between the 1st Thyroid Cortilages and Supra sternal Natch of front of Neck. The skin which covering the wound of right side neck has 2 in flap with clean cut edges. The following structures were completely cut in front of Neck. 1. Right sterno mostoid Muscle right carotid Artery J. Veins 3. 2nd and 3rd ring of Thyroid cortilge. 4. Oesophagus 5. Left cartoid Artery vein. 6. Left sterno Mastoid Muscle 7. Sub clavian Artery of both side. 8. Spinal cord and spinal column at the level of C.4, C.5. Only posterior aspect of muscle of Neck and skin were attached to the head. (3) Incised stab injury 2 cm x 1 cm x 4 cm through which omentum protruded out over the right side upper abdomen 1" below right costol margin & 3" in front right mid axillary Region. On exploration it goes in ward and upward direction about 6 cm length and pierce the lower border of right lobe of liver about 1 x 1/2 x 1/2 cm. On exploration it goes in ward and upward direction about 6 cm length and pierce the lower border of right lobe of liver about 1 x 1/2 x 1/2 cm. 4. Incised stab injury 2 x 1 x 1 cm over the front of left shoulder (%) stab injury 1 x 1/2 x 1/2 over the middle abdomen 3" above the umblicus (6) Abrasion 2 x 2 cm over the lateral aspect right elbow". He issued the post mortem certificate Ex.P.8 with his opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of instantaneous death due to shock and haemorrhage due to injuries to vital organs 6 to 8 hours prior to post mortem. 6. P.W.14 continued the investigation on the next day 5.4.1988 at 7.15 a.m. when he seized M.O.6, blood stained shirt, M.O.7, the Dhoti under Ex.P.4 Mahazar from P.W.2 in front of witnesses. On the same day at 7.45 a.m. P.W.1 produced the M.O.4, blood stained dhoti and M.O.5 blood stained brown colour Polyster shirt seized under Mahazar Ex.P.5 in front of witness. On the same day at 10.30, near Vazhaikattai bridge, P.W.12 seized M.O.2 Aruval and M.O.3 Aruval in the presence of witnesses under Ex.P.6. On the same day, he recorded the statement of P.W.7 and three other witnesses. He re-examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and recorded their statements. On 8.4.1988 he recorded the Statements of one Ramasamy and P.W.10. From 13.4.1988 to 28.4 1988, he examined others including P.W.8 and P.W.9, P.W.13 and recorded their statement. P.W.14, thereafter forwarded all the M.Os. to the Court with a requisition to forward the same for necessary Chemical Examination. He also seized M.O.14, through P.W.10 the Constable, the half sleeve shirt, M.O.3, blood stained white Banyan, M.O.15, arose colour underwear, M.O.12, blood stained polyster dhoti the clothes of the deceased after post mortem and the wire which was twisted round the deceased neck, M.O.16 under Form-95. This is Ex.P.17. 7. Meanwhile, on 11.4.1988, A1 to A4 had surrendered before the Ariyalur Judicial Magistrate. After receiving the Post Mortem Certificate Ex.P.8 and the Chemical Analysis Report Ex.P.11 and the Serologist Report Ex.P.12, P.W.14 filed the Charge Sheet on 28.4.1988 against the accused under Secs.147, 148, 324 and 302 read with 34, I.P.C. A5 who was also absconding was produced before the Court after the Charge Sheet was filed. After receiving the Post Mortem Certificate Ex.P.8 and the Chemical Analysis Report Ex.P.11 and the Serologist Report Ex.P.12, P.W.14 filed the Charge Sheet on 28.4.1988 against the accused under Secs.147, 148, 324 and 302 read with 34, I.P.C. A5 who was also absconding was produced before the Court after the Charge Sheet was filed. The learned Judicial Magistrate on receipt of the Charge Sheet committed the case to the learned District and Sessions Judge, Tiruchirapalli. 8. The prosecution examined 14 witnesses, filed 17 exhibits and produced 16 M.Os. to prove their case. The accused when questioned under Sec.313, Crl.P.C. pleaded innocence. 9. P.Ws.1 and 2 are the eye witnesses. P.W.3 turned hostile. P.W.4 is the bus driver who was driving the bus in which the occurrence happened. P.W.5 is the brother of the deceased who speaks about the motive viz., enmity which the accused has towards the deceased. P.W.6 is also related to the deceased and speaks of the motive. 10. Mr.Sankara Subbu, learned counsel for the accused submitted that the prosecution had not proved the case satisfactorily, since material facts were not mentioned in the F.I.R. There were discrepancies between the F.I.R. and evidence of P.W.1. For instance the injuries sustained by P.W.3 are not referred to in the F.I.R. While P.W.1 if evidence had referred to A6 alone holding the feet of the deceased, in the F.I.R., it is stated as two others were holding the feet of the deceased. Thus, according to the learned counsel for the accused there were crucial discrepancies which weaken the case of the prosecution. According to him, there were also contradictions between the eyewitnesses regarding the overt acts. He also submitted that if there was a common intention to attack a person, it is more natural for each assailant to attack at the same time but the manner in which the prosecution witnesses described the occurrence as if each assailant took his turn one after another is unnatural and therefore it is doubtful very much whether the eye witnesses had really witnessed the occurrence. Learned counsel for the accused also submitted that the motive was not clearly established since the dispute regarding the land had occurred several years ago and there was no proximity between the motive and the occurrence. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the accused, the chain between the motive and the occurrence is very weak. Learned counsel for the accused also submitted that the motive was not clearly established since the dispute regarding the land had occurred several years ago and there was no proximity between the motive and the occurrence. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the accused, the chain between the motive and the occurrence is very weak. He also contended that when the trial court disbelieved the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 with regard to A5 and A6., the same reasoning should be applied to the other accused as well. Learned counsel also pointed out that the overt act attributed to A3 viz., a cut in the front of the neck cannot be correlated to any injury referred to in the Post Mortem Certificate. He also submitted that the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 should not be accepted for the reason that they are interested witnesses being related to the deceased and the non-examination of Thiruvengadam, whose statement was recorded by P.W.14 during the course of investigation and who would have been an independent witness, is a very suspicious factor. Learned counsel also pointed out that the constable who carried the F.I.R. was not examined and when the police station and the court are in the same compound, there was no reason why the F.I.R. which was sent by P.W.12 should have been received by the Magistrate only at 4.45 p.m. Learned counsel drew attention to the fact that while printed F.I.R. has the signature of the Magistrate with the time of receipt and date, in Ex.P.1, no time has been mentioned. This, according to him vitiated the prosecution case. He referred to the decision reported in Karunakaran Jabamani Nadar, In re: (1974) L.W. (Crl.) 190, in which, the Division Bench of this Court stressed the importance of documents being despatched without delay by the investigating officer to the Magistrate and that on receipt of the said documents, the Magistrate should initial the same. Learned Division Bench held that his would be a Judicial safeguard against subsequent fabrication of such documents in grave crimes. Certain documents of special importance were listed by the Division Bench in respect of which, it was insisted the aforesaid guidelines should be followed. The original complaint and the printed F.I.R. are among the documents so listed. Learned Division Bench held that his would be a Judicial safeguard against subsequent fabrication of such documents in grave crimes. Certain documents of special importance were listed by the Division Bench in respect of which, it was insisted the aforesaid guidelines should be followed. The original complaint and the printed F.I.R. are among the documents so listed. The decision reported in R.Shanmugam for Mr.V.Ratna Mudaliar v. The Public Prosecutor No.2 on behalf of the State, (1975) L.W. (Crl.) 82 also follows the aforesaid decision in stressing the necessity for despatch without delay of documents by investigating officer to Judicial Magistrate. 11. Learned counsel for accused also pointed out several reasons why the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 cannot be believed. According to him, there was a wide discrepancy regarding the seat which the ‘D’ occupied as soon as he got into the bus. When the Lower Court put the question to P.W.1, he had replied that ‘D’ sat on left side of the front row. Whereas, in his chief, he has stated that he sat in the rear. Similarly, regarding handing over of the bus tickets to prove that they have travelled in the bus, there is again a discrepancy in the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2. As regards blood stained shirts, P.W.14 had deposed that the blood stained clothes were not seized, while P.W.1 stated that he did not remember that. All these, submitted the learned counsel weaken the prosecution case, in addition to the fact that P.W.1 and P.W.2 were the interested witnesses. For this, he relied on the judgment reported in Suresh Raj & others v. State of Bihar, (2000(2) Crimes 137 (S.C.), where the Supreme Court set aside the conviction on the ground that the entire investigation was tainted and the appellants have been implicated on the collective mischief and informant because of enmity between the witnesses and the accused. For all these reasons, learned counsel for the accused would seek acquittal of the accused. 12. Learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand vehemently denied that there was any weakness in the prosecution case. According to him, the so called delay alleged by the counsel for the accused was not a delay at all since the occurrence had happened at 7.30 a.m. F.I.R. was lodged at 9.00 a.m. and investigation started immediately. Therefore, there was no delay vitally affecting the prosecution case. According to him, the so called delay alleged by the counsel for the accused was not a delay at all since the occurrence had happened at 7.30 a.m. F.I.R. was lodged at 9.00 a.m. and investigation started immediately. Therefore, there was no delay vitally affecting the prosecution case. He relied on the decision reported in The State of Karnataka v. Moin Patel and others, A.I.R. 1996 S.C. 3041, where the Supreme Court at para.16 had held that where the F.I.R. was promptly lodged and the investigation started promptly on the basis of the F.I.R. the mere delay in dispatch of the F.I.R. and for that matter the receipt thereof by the Magistrate - would not make the prosecution case doubtful. Therefore, according to the learned Public Prosecutor, there is no delay in this case affecting the genuineness of the prosecution case and therefore, the non-examination of the constable, who carried the F.I.R. is also not material. Learned Public Prosecutor also relied on the decision reported in Surjit Singh v. State of Punjab, (1999) Crl.L.J. 3485 to support his case that when there is nothing to show P.W.1 and P.W.2 are not reliable and when the presence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 has also been established the veracity of their evidence should not be doubted. 13. He submitted that when eye witnesses are believed and their evidence is cogent and unshaken, no further evidence is necessary. He also submitted that minor discrepancies between the F.I.R. and the evidence of P.W.1 are also not material and to the argument that if A5 and A6 can be acquitted, A1 to A4 should also be acquitted, learned Public Prosecutor would submit that it is because F.I.R. did not mention the names of A5 and A6, the lower Court gave them the benefit of doubt. Therefore, for all these reasons, the learned Public Prosecutor would submit that the judgment of the Lower Court should be confirmed. 14. There can be no doubt that the death of the deceased occurred on account of a homicidal act. The evidence of P.W.4 who is the bus driver also establishes that the occurrence happened on the date and at the time and in the place as deposed by P.W.1 and P.W.2. 14. There can be no doubt that the death of the deceased occurred on account of a homicidal act. The evidence of P.W.4 who is the bus driver also establishes that the occurrence happened on the date and at the time and in the place as deposed by P.W.1 and P.W.2. P.W.5 and P.W.6 who are the motive witnesses clearly speak about the dispute regarding the land and further P.W.6 also speaks of a recent incident which occurred to three months prior to the date of occurrence while A2 was teasing some women and the deceased had warned him that if he persisted in doing so, he would report to the police which elicited the threat from A2 that he would finish ‘D’ off. There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.6. So the charge that the dispute was too distant in time and there was no proximate motive is not correct. It is clear that there has been an ongoing dispute between the deceased and the accused. 15. Now, we come to the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2. Apart from minor variations, both these witnesses speak of themselves and the deceased entering the bus through the rear entrance and the deceased sitting in the second seat of the left side in the rear. The answer to the Court’s question pointed out by the learned counsel for the accused whether P.W.1 says that the deceased sat in the front left side is not really a material one, when we see that even in the complaint, Ex.P.1, he has clearly said that all the three entered the bus through the rear entrance and the deceased sat immediately in the second seat on the left. It is also the case of both the eye witnesses that because there was a crowd, both of them stood in the centre. While the bus was nearing the bridge, there was a loud commotion inside the bus, which made the two witnesses rush to the rear through the crowd. Their evidence is almost identical with regard to their description of each of the accused as they entered the bus; A1 holding something in his hand wrapped in paper; A2 holding a stick with metal ring; A3 holding in his hand some thing wrapped in paper and the fact that A4 to A6 got into the bus along with the other accused. The description of the overt acts is also identically spoken to by the eye witnesses viz., A2 pulling ‘D’s neck with the metal ring attached to the stick and A1 cutting ‘D’s neck on the left side with Aruval. Both of them also speak identically of the manner in which the neck is cut, they describe it as This corresponds to the first injury which speaks of a near total cut described in Ex.P.8 Post Mortem Certificate. The fact the post mortem certificate refers to the skin covering the wound or the right side neck shows that the cut should have been from the left, as spoken by the eye witnesses. Next the two witnesses referred to the cut by A3 with small Aruval on the same place as done by A1. The description of this overt act by A3 is also identical in the evidence of both the eye witnesses and P.W.9, the post mortem doctor has stated in cross examination that the cut in he neck should have happened by one stroke or by a continuously cutting with the simple stroke, or by cutting in the same place repeatedly. Therefore, this would explain the overt act of A3. As regards the overt act of A4, both the witnesses speak of A4 stabbing the deceased with M.O.4 Pichuva in the stomach. This corresponds to the third injury in the post mortem certificate. The evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 are also identical with reference to the acts of A5 and A6 but that need not be dealt with here, since they have been acquitted and no appeal against acquittal was preferred by the State. From the above, we can see that both P.W.1 and P.W.2 have spoken about the occurrence clearly and cogently and evidence of one corroborates the other. There are no marked discrepancies which would make us suspect the testimony of either of the two. As held by Supreme Court in Surjit Singh v. State of Punjab, (1999) Crl.L.J. 3485 nothing has been brought about in cross examination which would create any doubt regarding the veracity of the evidence and there is also no reason to doubt the presence of the eye witnesses at the place of occurrence. No doubt, in that case there was no enmity. No doubt, in that case there was no enmity. In this case though there is some bad blood between the two groups the fact remains, that their evidence has not been dislodged in cross examination. The statement that all of them viz., P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 and the deceased went together to distribute the wedding invitations, is extremely believable and there is the M.O.11 series which is the yellow bag containing the wedding invitations. Therefore, all of them were together, on the date, at the time and at the place of occurrence. 16. As regards the delay in receipt of F.I.R. by the Magistrate and the failure to note down the time, we are of the opinion that the delay is really not material. The occurrence had happened at 7.30 a.m. and P.W.1 had got out of the bus, walked for a distance and taken the cycle and given the complaint at 9.00 a.m. Nothing has been elicited in cross examination regarding the delay on the part of this witness in lodging the complaint. At 10.00 a.m. the investigation had commenced, P.W.14, the Investigating Officer having received the phone call at 9.30 a.m. regarding the occurrence. It is true that the Magistrate has not noted down the time of receipt of the complaint. But we have seen the original records. The Magistrate has signed and affixed the date on receipt of Ex.P.1 but he has noted down the time of receipt of the printed F.I.R., Ex.P.13. It is not possible to say at what time, he received Ex.P.1. There may have been a delay or there may not. But the failure to note the time does not really vitiate the prosecution case and the decision relied on by the learned Public Prosecutor in The State of Karnataka v. Moin Patel and others, A.I.R. 1996 S.C. 3041 squarely applies to the case. Where the Supreme Court has held that: “if in a given case it is found that F.I.R. was recorded without delay and the investigation started on that F.I.R. then however improper or objectionable the delayed receipt of the report by the Magistrate concerned, it cannot by itself justify the conclusion that the investigation was tainted and the prosecution unsupportable”. Where the Supreme Court has held that: “if in a given case it is found that F.I.R. was recorded without delay and the investigation started on that F.I.R. then however improper or objectionable the delayed receipt of the report by the Magistrate concerned, it cannot by itself justify the conclusion that the investigation was tainted and the prosecution unsupportable”. Evidence of P.W.1 is that he gave the complaint at 9.00 a.m. he got information regarding the occurrence and he commenced investigation at 10.00 a.m., P.W.2 has also said that he stayed at the scene of occurrence and P.W.1 went to give the complaint. Even in the cross examination, P.W.1 has stated that he gave the complaint at 9.00 a.m. and the police came to the scene of occurrence by 10.00 a.m. 17. Considering all these, we are of the opinion that there is no warrant for rejecting Ex.P.1 as fabricated merely because the Magistrate has not mentioned the time. Nothing has been elicited in cross examination from P.W.1 to show that the complaint was not given at the time when it is stated to have been given. 18. As regards the other discrepancies pointed out in the F.I.R. the decision relied on by the Public Prosecutor reported in State of U.P. v. Nahar Singh (dead) and others, (1998) S.C.C. (Crl.) 850 comes to the aid of the prosecution. The Supreme Court has held that non-mention of meticulous particulars and details in the F.I.R. is no reason to disbelieve the case or to reject the prosecution case: In the decision reported in Jaswant Singh v. State of Haryana, A.I.R. 2000 S.C. 1833 Supreme Court has held that when enmity provided motive for commission of crime and evidence of prosecution was consistent, corroborative and credible that would be sufficient to prove the involvement of the accused in the crime. The Supreme Court has held as follows: “An incident where a number of persons assaulted three persons at one and the same time with different weapons, some time with different weapons, some contradictions as to why assaulted who and with what weapon are not unlikely and such contradiction could not be made a ground to reject the evidence of eyewitness, if if was otherwise reliable”. 19. In this case, the discrepancy between the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 is not very vital. 19. In this case, the discrepancy between the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 is not very vital. It is reported in Krishnegowda and others v. State of Karnataka, (2000) S.C.C. (Crl.) 174 which was a case of group rivalry and accused persons came together in large number and assaulted the deceased and the P.Ws. belonging to the opposite group, the Supreme Court held that witnesses have given a consistent account of the incident and the role played by the individual accused. In that particular case, the injured eye witnesses have consistently assigned a specific role to a particular accused and this aspect has been properly considered by the learned Sessions Judge. In this case also, both the eye witnesses have given identical evidence with regard to the manner in which each accused entered the bus and the weapons held by them in their hands and the blows met out by the accused. There is no reason to disregard their evidence merely on the ground that one is the brother of the deceased and other is a friend. When there are two witnesses to establish the prosecution case, there is no necessity for the prosecution to examine any other witness. It is not the quantity but the quality that counts. It is also relevant to point out that all the accused, barring A5, surrendered before the Court. They have not stated anything in their statement as to where they were at the time of occurrence nor they have said that they were not in the bus at the time of occurrence. 20. As stated earlier, the occurrence has been spoken to by P. W.4, the bus conductor, the motive has been spoken to by P.W.5 and P.W.6, and the eye witnesses have clearly, cogently spoken about the occurrence, the manner in which they have deposed regarding the overt acts are corroborated by the injuries in the post mortem Certificate. The evidence also established the offence under Secs.147 and 148, I.P.C. and the Court below has rightly found the accused guilty. 21. For the above said reasons, all the contentions raised by the learned counsel on behalf of the accused have to be rejected. Therefore, the Criminal Appeal fails and the same is dismissed and the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge is confirmed.