Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 142 (GAU)

Monulal Satnami v. State of Assam

2001-05-24

I.A.ANSARI, R.S.MONGIA

body2001
I. A. ANSARI, J- This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order, dated 20.11.96, passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nagaon, in Sessions Case No. 81(N) of 1994, convicting the accused-appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentencing each of them to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and, in default, to undergo further R.I. for a period of one year. 2. The case of the prosecution, as unfolded at the trial, may, in brief, be stated as follows:- On 8.2.93 at about 8 a.m., deceased Moin Das Satnami along with Chandrama Satnami, Bhutia Satnami, Mulchand Satnami and Nagdas Satnami went to his own land to bring a mango tree, which had been felled some time back and lying there scattered into places. When deceased Moin Das and his associates were removing weeds and dirt from the said places of mango tree so as to shift the same to deceased Moin Das's house, accused Monulal Satnami (A1) and Bharat Satnami (A2), both of whom were Moin Das's neighbours, came there armed with dao, dagger, etc., keeping the same concealed under a Chadar (sheet) with which the accused had kept themselves covered. Without speaking a word, accused Monulal (A1) gave a blow with a dao on Moin Das's neck; accused Bharat (A2), then, gave a blow with a dagger on Moin Das's head. The persons present with Moin Das attempted to over-power the accused, but they could not do so, because both the accused threatened them with dagger and dao. The accused persons, then, left the place of occurrence. Injured Moin Das, with his neck almost severed, was carried to the courtyard of his house. On hearing hue and cry, Kamal Satnami, nephew-in-law of Moin Das, arrived there and he was reported about the occurrence. The Sarkari Gaonburah, Lakhi Bora, on being informed about the occurrence, also arrived there. When Moin Das was being carried to Jakhalabandha hospital, he succumbed to his injuries. On being asked by people, who had assembled there, Kamal Satnami went to Kaliabor Police Station and lodged a written ejahar (Exhibit-1) there. Treating the said ejahar as FIR, Kaliabor P.S. Case No. 19/93 under Section 447/302/34 IPC was registered against both the accused-appellants. During investigation, police held inquest over the dead body and prepared inquest report (Exhibit-3). The police also visited the place of occurrence. Treating the said ejahar as FIR, Kaliabor P.S. Case No. 19/93 under Section 447/302/34 IPC was registered against both the accused-appellants. During investigation, police held inquest over the dead body and prepared inquest report (Exhibit-3). The police also visited the place of occurrence. Post-mortem examination was performed on the said deadbody. The police also seized, vide seizure list (Exhibit-4), a 'mit da' from the possession of accused Monulal. On completion of investigation, police laid chargesheet under Section 447/ 302/34 IPC against both the accused. 3. Learned trial Court framed a charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. When the charge so framed was explained to the accused, both the accused pleaded not guilty thereto and claimed to be tried. 4. During the trial, prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses. The accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In their examination aforementioned, both the accused denied that they had assaulted and/or killed Moin Das. The defence too adduced evidence by examining one witness, namely, Buddeswar Tanti, the case of the defence being that Moin Das, accompanied by Chandrama, Bhutia, Nag Das and Mulchand entered into the land of accused Monulal and started cutting the mango tree with dao, axe, etc. and then accused Monulal tried to offer resistance, they attacked Monulal, but as Monulal darted away, a blow dealt with by dao fell on Moin Das leading to his death. As far as accused Bharat Satnami is concerned, his plea was that of alibi. 5. Upon conclusion of the trial, learned trial Court, on finding both the accused guilty of the charge, convicted them accordingly and passed sentence against them as hereinbefore mentioned. Hence, this appeal. 6. The moot question, which arises for consideration in the present appeal is this: Whether finding of guilt arrived at by the learned trial Court is justified in the face of the evidence on record and law relating thereto? 7. We have carefully perused the entire record including the impugned judgment and order. We have heard Mr K.K. Mahanta, learned counsel for the accused-appellants, and Mr P. Borah, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, who has appeared on behalf of the respondent. 8. In view of the case, which the prosecution has projected during the trial, and also the nature of the defence, which the accused-appellants have taken, we deem it appropriate to, first, take into consideration the medical evidence on record. 9. Public Prosecutor, who has appeared on behalf of the respondent. 8. In view of the case, which the prosecution has projected during the trial, and also the nature of the defence, which the accused-appellants have taken, we deem it appropriate to, first, take into consideration the medical evidence on record. 9. According to the evidence of PW-7 (Dr. D.K. Baruah), who admittedly, performed post-mortem examination on the deadbody of Moin Das, two incised wounds were found on the said deadbody, one of the wounds being on the left side of the neck cutting all the muscles and major blood vessels causing extensive ante-mortem haemorrhage and the other one also being an incised wound, which was bone deep over the left parietal area of the scalp fracture of the parietal bone. The fact that there were two injuries, as described hereinabove, on the deadbody of Moin Das has not been in dispute. 10. Keeping in view the above aspects of the admitted evidence on record, we, now, turn to the evidence of PW-2 (Chandrama Satnami), PW-3 (Mulchand Satnami) and PW-4 (Nagdas Satnami), all of whom have been examined as eyewitnesses to the alleged occurrence. 11. According to the evidence of PW-2, on the day of occurrence at about 8 a.m., he along with his father, Moin Das, Bhutia (not examined), Mulchand (PW-3) and Nag Das (PW-4) went to their 'Bari" (backyard of the house) to fetch a mango tree, which was lying, cut into pieces, on the ground and when he (PW-2) was clearing the tree along with his father, Moin Das, accused Monulal (A1) and Bharat (A2) came there. Monulal (A1) hacked his father on the neck, when his father was bending low and cleaning the mango tree, and, then, accused Bharat dealt a blow on his father with a dagger. The accused, then, brandished their daggers and apprehending that they might be attacked and as they had no arms with them, they left the place of occurrence and the accused fled away from the scene of crime. It is in the evidence of PW-2 that they went back to the place of occurrence and carried from there Moin Das to his courtyard. It is also in the evidence of PW-2 that a considerable portion of his father's neck stood severed and his father was speechless. It is in the evidence of PW-2 that they went back to the place of occurrence and carried from there Moin Das to his courtyard. It is also in the evidence of PW-2 that a considerable portion of his father's neck stood severed and his father was speechless. From the courtyard, his father was sent to Jakhalabandha PHC, but his father died on the way. It is also in the evidence of PW-2 that they sent Kamal Satnami (PW-1) to thana to inform the police about the occurrence. 12. In his cross-examination, PW-2 has clarified that he did not see, when accused Monual (A1) had dealt the first blow on Moin Das, but he did see Bharat (A2) assaulting his father on his head. 13. Broadly in tune with the evidence of PW-2, PW-3 has deposed that when he (PW-3) along with Moin Das, Bhutia, Chandrama (PW-2) and Nag Das (PW-4) was busy cleaning the said tree with their hands, accused Monulal (A1) came from behind and with a dagger, which accused Monulal (A1) had been carrying under his clothes, gave a blow on Moin Das's neck, while the latter was bending over the tree and immediately thereafter, accused Bharat (A2) gave a blow with Khukri on the back of Moin Das's head and on witnessing the same, when they tried to catch hold of the accused, both the accused threatened them with the weapons, which they were holding in their hands and feeling frightened, they left the place, because they were not carrying any arms and after the accused fled away from the place of occurrence, they carried injured Moin Das to his courtyard and their co-villagers, who has gathered there, were informed by them about the occurrence. Later on, injured Moin Das died on way to the hospital. 14. It is also in the evidence of PW-3 that when they moved forward to catch hold of accused Monulal (A1), accused Bharat (A1) arrived there armed with Khukri in his right hand and lathiin his left hand and before they could stop accused Bharat (A2), the latter hit Moin Das, who fell down on the ground. 15. In his cross-examinations, PW-3 has clarified that the tree, which they had gone to bring, was lying on Moin Das's land and they had been called to remove the tree, because it was lying at a low lying place. 16. 15. In his cross-examinations, PW-3 has clarified that the tree, which they had gone to bring, was lying on Moin Das's land and they had been called to remove the tree, because it was lying at a low lying place. 16. Lending support to the evidence of PW-2 and PW-3, PW-4 has deposed that on being called by Moin Das, he (PW-4) along with Mulchand (PW-3), Bhutia, Chandrama (PW-2) and Aditya (PW-4) went to shift the mango tree of deceased Moin Das and while Moin Das was cleaning the tree with his hands in order to shift the same, accused Monulal (A1), all of a sudden, appeared there and assaulted Moin on his neck with a dao and immediately thereafter, accused Manu's brother, accused Bharat (A2), arrived there armed with dao and lathi, the dao being a 'mit' dao (i.e., a pointed do) and with the said dao, accused Bharat dealt a blow on Moin Das's head and on witnessing the same, when they moved forward to catch hold of the two accused, both the accused brandised their weapons and.out of fear, he (PW-4) and his companions did not try to catch hold of the accused. 17. It is in the evidence of PW-4 that they (i.e. PW-4 and his companions) were not carrying any arms. It is also in the evidence of PW-4 that after the accused fled away, they brought injured Moin Das to his courtyard, where many people came and that Moin died on his way to Jakhalabandha hospital. 18. We have closely scrutinised the cross-examination of PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 at the hands of the defence and what we notice, on such scrutiny, in that the defence could not elicit any material from their cross-examination to show that what these witnesses had deposed depicting the two accused as assailants of Moin Das, when the latter, accompanied by PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4, was busy in cleaning the said mango tree, is unbelievable or unworthy of trust. 19. No doubt, some discrepancy exists in the evidence of the three eyewitnesses as to when the said tree had actually been cut, but this is not so material and significant that it can be taken to have shaken credibility of their evidence. There is also some discrepancy in the evidence of these three witnesses as regards the weapons, which the accused are said to have used. There is also some discrepancy in the evidence of these three witnesses as regards the weapons, which the accused are said to have used. PW-1 has not described any particular weapon in the hands of accused Monulal except stating that he had hacked his father on the neck. But as far as accused Bharat is concerned, PW-2 has stated that this accused assaulted Moin Das with a dagger on the back of latter's head. 20. As far as PW-3 is concerned, his evidence is that accused Monulal used a dagger for causing injury to Moin Das's neck and accused Bharat had used a Khukri for hitting on the back side of Moin Das's head. 21. Coming to the evidence of PW-4, we notice that accused Monulal, according to the witness, had used a dao for causing injury on Moin Das's neck and accused Bharat used a 'mit dao' for giving a blow on Moin Das's head. 22. It appears from the impugned judgment that a 'mit dao' was produced in the Court. Without entering into the question whether this mit dao was the weapon of offence, what needs to le noted is that according to the learned trial Judge, the shape and size of the 'mit dao' is exactly that of dagger or 'khukri' of big size. 23. Situated thus, when the accused had, suddenly, attacked Moin Das and left the place of occurrence immediately thereafter, it is quite possible for witnesses, howsoever truthful they may be, to make, in such tension-ridden and emotive moments, ad mistake between 'dao' and 'mit dao' or to confuse 'mit dao' with a large dagger or large khukri. Hence, this discrepancy too does not shake the credibility of the evidence of PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4, which, we find, is, otherwise largely consistent, natural and coherent. We, therefore, see no reason to disbelieve these three witnesses. 24. Coupled with the above, it is also worth noticing that the presence of PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 at the place of occurrence has not been disputed by the defence; rather, defence of the accused, as reflected from the suggestions offered to PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4, is that the prosecution's party too had gone to bring the mango tree being armed with dao, dagger and lathi. The use of the word 'too' clearly implies that according to the defence, prosecution witness too were armed. The use of the word 'too' clearly implies that according to the defence, prosecution witness too were armed. Underlying this allegation is the inherent admission of the defence that the accused were armed and that is why, defence suggested that the prosecution witnesses too had gone to bring the mango tree armed with dao, dagger and khukri. 25. It is also suggested to PW-2 that Moin Das had sustained injury from the weapons of his own associates when, being armed with dao and dagger, prosecution party had prevented the accused persons from taking away the mango tree. In this suggestion too, defence admitted presence of the accused persons at the scene of occurrence, through counter allegation of the defence was that the prosecution party had come to place of occurrence armed with weapons and had prevented the accused from taking away the mango tree. How Moin Das happened to sustain injury in the occurrence was, however, not clearly put to PW-2. 26. Similarly, when PW-3 was cross-examined, it was suggested even to this witness that he (PW-3) and his companions (i.e., Moin Das and others) too had gone to the place of occurrence armed with dao and axe to remove the tree, which belonged to accused Monulal, and when accused Monulal asked them not to remove the same, they attempted to assault accused Monulal. It was also suggested to this witness that it was deceased Moin Das, who had attempted to assault the accused persons when the latter asked him not to remove the tree. With the help of this suggestion too, defence admitted presence of the accused at the place of occurrence, but to this witness also, defence did not suggest as to how Moin Das camera be injured in the occurrence if he was the aggressor. 27. As far as PW-4 is concerned, suggestion offered to him by the defence was that this witness along with his companions had gone to take the tree, which belonged to accused persons, and when the accused asked them not to remove the same, they tried to assault the accused persons. How Moin Das came to be injured was, however, not explained by the defence, though even while cross-examining this witness, defence did not dispute the presence of both the accused at the place of occurrence. 28. How Moin Das came to be injured was, however, not explained by the defence, though even while cross-examining this witness, defence did not dispute the presence of both the accused at the place of occurrence. 28. What, thus, crystallizes from the above discussion is that the defence did not dispute presence of the accused at the place of occurrence, nor did they dispute that Mon Das sustained two incised wounds (as described hereinabove) in the occurrence, which involved Moin Das, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4, on the one hand, and the two accused-appellants, on the other hand. In the face of this admitted position, coupled with what has been discussed above, we find that PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 have remained unshaken on material aspects of their evidence given to the effect that accused Monulal (A1) had given a blow with a dao on Moin Das's neck, when Moin Das was busy, along with his companions, in cleaning the tree by bending low in order to shift the same to his house, and accused Bharat (A2) gave a blow immediately thereafter on the backside of Moin Das's head. 29. Let us, now, turn to the evidence of PW-1 (Kamal Satnami). According to this witness, on the day of occurrence, on hearing hue and cry from the house of Moin Das, he went there and found Moin Das lying in his courtyard with cut injury on his neck and he (PW-1) was told by Moin Das's family members that Monula"! and Bharat had assaulted Moin Das with 'mit dao' over cutting of a mango tree and, then, on being asked to inform the police, he went to thana and lodged there an ejahar (Exhibit-1), which he had got written from another man. PW-1 has clarified that except putting signatures, he does not know how to read and write. It is in the evidence of PW-1 that upon receipt of the ejahar, police came to the place of occurrence and he (PW-1) too was present when police arrived there. 30. PW-1 has clarified that except putting signatures, he does not know how to read and write. It is in the evidence of PW-1 that upon receipt of the ejahar, police came to the place of occurrence and he (PW-1) too was present when police arrived there. 30. At the time of hearing of this appeal, it has been pointed out to us by Mr Mahanta, learned counsel for the appellants, that the FIR (Exhibit-1) shows that the informant, namely, PW-1 had claimed that he had seen the occurrence with his own eyes, but from his own evidence and also from the evidence of the other witnesses, it is clear that PW-1 was not a witness to the occurrence. This shows, contends Mr Mahanta, that PW-1 had told lies in the FIR and such false-hood does not merely shake credibility of the prosecution's case, but that is also indicative of the fact that whole case of the prosecution is based on falsehood and manipulation of evidence. 31. It is, no doubt, true that the ejahar (Exhibit-1) lodged by PW-1 states that PW-1 had witnessed the occurrence in which accused Monulal and Bharat had assaulted Moin Das with a 'mit dao' on his neck, when Moin Das had gone to collect firewood from his land. Thus, it is true that the FIR shows that PW-1 claimed himself to be an eyewitness to the occurrence. In his cross-examination, however, his attention, it appears, was not drawn to fact that the FIR shows that he had claimed to be an eyewitness to the occurrence, though, in fact, he was not. Having not put to PW-1 the contents of the FIR, defence cannot, in our firm view, derive any benefit therefrom, particularly, when the clear evidence of PW-1, in his examination-in-chief, is that he can barely put his signature and that he does not know how to read or write. This apart, in his cross-examination, PW-1 has clearly stated that he had asked the scribe to mention in the ejahar that he had come to know about the occurrence from Chandrama and four others. 32. This apart, in his cross-examination, PW-1 has clearly stated that he had asked the scribe to mention in the ejahar that he had come to know about the occurrence from Chandrama and four others. 32. Coupled with the above, the mere fact that PW-1 described himself as an eyewitness in the ejahar, though in the evidence, he does not claim to have witnessed the occurrence, this discrepancy alone does not shake, much less vigorously, the foundation of the prosecution's case or the evidence of PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4, which have, otherwise, withstood the test of cross-examination. 33. Drawing our attention to the evidence of PW-1 given to the effect that he had seen Gaonburah, Lakhi Prasad Bora, (i.e. PW-5) at Moin Das's courtyard and that before his own arrival at the thana, PW-5 had lodged information at the thana, Mr Mahanta has pointed out that before the ejahar (Exhibit-1) was lodged, information had already been given to the Police about the occurrence by Lakhi Bora (PW-5), but the information, which Lakhi Bora had so given, has not been brought on record. This shows, submits Mr Mahanta, that the prosecution has suppressed the original FIR and has substituted the same with a manufactured one lodged subsequently by PW-1. 34. Before expressing any view on the above submissions of Mr Mahanta, it is apposite to refer to, and deal with, the evidence of PW-5 (Lakhi Prasad Bora). According to this witness's evidence on the day of occurrence, at about 8.30 a.m., on being informed by Dharam Satnami that the two accused persons had killed Moin Das, while the latter had gone to bring a mango tree, he came to the house of Moin Das along with others and found Moin lying in his courtyard in a dying state. PW-5 has also deposed that he sent Kamal Satnami (PW-1) to inform the thana and gave directions to take the dying man to the hospital and accordingly, Moin Das was taken to the hospital, but he died. It is in the evidence of PW-5 that he lives at a distance of about 1 km. from the house of Moin Das. It is also in the evidence of PW-5 that the thana is at a distance of about 3 kms. It is in the evidence of PW-5 that he lives at a distance of about 1 km. from the house of Moin Das. It is also in the evidence of PW-5 that the thana is at a distance of about 3 kms. from the place of occurrence and while he was going on the bicycle and had covered a distance of about 1 k.m., he met the police and, then, he accompanied the police to the place of occurrence. 35. While appreciating the above evidence of PW-5, it needs to be borne in mind that PW-5 is a Sarkari Gaonburah and he is an independent witness. This apart, there is nothing in the evidence on recwd that he is a partisan witness and/or that he is enimical to the accused or ' frte"dly with the prosecution witnesses. On a close scrutiny of the evidence of PW-5, we find that his evidence gives no indication at all that he had gone to the thana or lodged any ejahar there or at any other place before PW-1 gave information about the occurrence to the police by means of his ejahar (Exhibit-1). 36. In the absence of any cross-exaittinatioa on the above aspects of the evidence of PW-5 and without having even a semblance of indication from the evidence of PW-5 that he had gone to the police station, mere assertion of PW-1 that before he had lodged the ejahar at the thana, PW-5 had already informed the police about the occurrence at the thana, can be given no importance at all, particularly, because even PW-1 is silent as to how he came to learn that PW-5 had lodged information at the thana. There is absolutely no cross-examination of PW-1 on these aspects of the evidence. It is, thus, not clear as to whether what PW-1 deposed was based on his knowledge or his impression. There is absolutely no cross-examination of PW-1 on these aspects of the evidence. It is, thus, not clear as to whether what PW-1 deposed was based on his knowledge or his impression. Hence, it can, by no means, be assumed that before lodging of ejahar by PW-1, PW-5 had already informed the police about the occurrence and/or that the police has suppressed the ejahar, particularly, when as already indicated above, there is no cross-examination of PW-5 to show that he had gone to the thana or informed the police at the thana about the occurrence before PW-1 reached there, nor is there any cross-examination of the Investigating Office (PW-6) to show that PW-5 had come to the thana and/or had informed the police about the occurrence before the police received the ejahar (Exhibit-1). 37. What crystllizes from the above discussion is that the evidence of PWs, 2, 3 and 4 are simple, natural, coherent, consistent and unshaken in material particulars. Their evidence, therefore, inspires great confidence. Far from weakening the case of the prosecution and/ or reducing the value of the evidence of PW-2, 3 and 4, the evidence of PW-1 and 5 clothe the evidence of all the eyewitnesses with greater reliability inasmuch as the evidence given by PW-1 reveals that promptly after the occurrence, on hearing hue and cry from the house of the deceased, when PW-1 went there, he was told by Chandrama (PW-2) and others that accused Monulal and Bharat had assaulted Moin. This part of the evidence of PW-1 stands fully corroborated by the evidence of PW-2 inasmuch as PW-2 has deposed, in no uncertain words, that after telling PW-1 about the occurrence, PW-1 was sent by them to the thana to lodge information about the occurrence. Since PW-1 is, admittedly, nephew-in-law of deceased Moin Das, there is no reason for his brother-in-law (PW-2) to falsely inform PW-1 that Monulal and Bharat had injured Moin. 38. The distance between the place of occurrence and the thana, according to the evidence of PW-5, is about 3 kms. The occurrence, undisputedly, took place at about 8/8.30 a.m. and the FIR was lodged at 9 a.m. giving names of both the accused as assailants. Prompt lodging of the FIR with the names of the accused mentioned therein exclude possibility of the accused having been falsely implicated and/or the occurrence having been falsely described. The occurrence, undisputedly, took place at about 8/8.30 a.m. and the FIR was lodged at 9 a.m. giving names of both the accused as assailants. Prompt lodging of the FIR with the names of the accused mentioned therein exclude possibility of the accused having been falsely implicated and/or the occurrence having been falsely described. Prompt lodging of the FIR also excludes the possibility of concoction and manipulation by the prosecution witnesses in describing the occurrence. 39. As far as PW-5 is concerned, his evidence too immensely helps the prosecution inasmuch as though he may not be an eyewitness to the occurrence, he was promptly informed that accused Monulal and Bharat had injured Moin Das. Moreover, according to the evidence of PW-5, both the accused were found at their respective houses after arrival of the police and they were accordingly arrested. At no stage, any information was lodged by the defence with PW-5, as Gaonburah, or the police that the occurrence took place not because of the fault of the accused, but because of the fault of Moin Das and his companions. 40. It is also interesting to note that being a Gaonburah, PW-5 is an independent and respectable witness. But nothing has been elicited from him by the defence to show that the land, where the mango tree was lying, either belonged to, or had been in possession of, the accused. 41. Situtated thus, we have no option but to hold that the evidence on record clearly proves that the occurrence took place at the land of Moin Das. The two accused injured Moin Das leading to his death and the defence had no positive case to offer explaining the injuries found on the person of Moin Das. 42. It has been submitted by Mr Mahanta that the FIR does not disclose names of the witnesses, who had seen the occurrence and if the prosecution's case were true, the FIR, submits Mr Mahanta, would have reflected the names of PW-2, 3 and 4 as witnesses to the occurrence. Complete absence of the names of the these witnesses in the FIR is, contends Mr Mahanta, ample proof of the fact that the entire FIR was lodged by making concocted allegations. Complete absence of the names of the these witnesses in the FIR is, contends Mr Mahanta, ample proof of the fact that the entire FIR was lodged by making concocted allegations. Mr Mahanta has further submitted that according to the evidence on record, it was accused Manual, who had allegedly given blow with some sharp cutting weapon on Moin Das's neck and accused Bharat had given a blow on the back side of Moin Das's head, but the FIR merely mentions that the accused had given a cut blow on the neck of Moin Das. The FIR is, thus, points out Mr Mahanta, completely silent as to what role accused Bharat had played in the occurrence. This fact too shows, submits Mr Mahanta, that the present FIR was based on falsehood. 43. While dealing with the above submissions of Mr Mahanta, one has to bear in mind that the consistent view of the judicial Courts has been that the FIR is not really an encyclopedia of the entire case of the prosecution and it need not, therefore, include each and every detail of the occurrence. It is also settled position of law that mere omission to mention names of witnesses in the FIR does not shake the foundation of the prosecution's case. We must bear in mind that an FIR merely puts the machinery of law into motion and for this purpose, disclosure of bare minimum facts to the police is more than adequate. We are tempted to quote herein below some pertinent observations, in this regard, of the Apex Court in the case of Baldev Singh-Vs-State of Punjab ( AIR 1996 SC 372 ), which run as follows: "We are of the view that the plea of the appellants' counsel fails to reckon the proper value to be attached to the FIR, the customary or essential details to be mentioned therein and the use that can be made of it. There are innumerable decisions of this Court on the subject - Ram Kumar-Vs-State of M.P. ( AIR 1975 SC 1026 , Bishan Das-Vs-State of Punjab ( AIR 1975 SC 573 , Podda Narayan-Vs-State of A.P. AIR 1975 SC 1252 , Gurnam Kaur-Vs-Bakshish Singh, ( AIR 1981 SC 631 , State of Haryana-Vs-Sher Singh ( AIR 1981 SC 1021 , State of U.P.-Vs-Ballabh Das ( AIR 1985 SC 1384 ), Jagtar Singh-Vs-State of Punjab ( AIR 1988 SC 628 ) and Baldev Singh-Vs-State of Punjab, (1990) 4 SCC 692 AIR 1991 SC 31 ). Stated briefly the FIR is not a substantive piece of evidence, it is only relevant in judging the veracity of prosecution case and the value to be attached to it depends on the facts of each case. Only the essential or broad picture need be stated in the FIR and all minute details need not be mentioned therein. It is not a verbatim summary of the prosecution case. It need not contain details of the occurrence as if it were "encyclopedia" of occurrence. It may not be even necessary to catalogue the over acts therein. Non mentioning of some facts or vague reference to some others are not fatal." (Emphasis is supplied by us) 44. In the case at hand, the FIR was obviously lodged by a close relative of the deceased at a time, when the informant would be in highly agitated state of mind. In a situation like this, the mere fact that the precise role played by each of the two accused in the occurrence has not been delineated in the FIR cannot really make the Court to look at the FIR or the evidence of the eyewitnesses with suspicion and doubt. We, therefore, find no force in the above submissions of Mr Mahanta and see no reason to disbelieve the evidence adduced by the prosecution merely because of informant's failure to mention in the FIR names of all the eyewitnesses and of the precise role, which each of the two accused had played. 45. It is trite that the prosecution has to prove its case on the basis of its own evidence and that the guilt of the accused has to be proved beyond all reasonable doubt. 45. It is trite that the prosecution has to prove its case on the basis of its own evidence and that the guilt of the accused has to be proved beyond all reasonable doubt. It is also true that even if the burden of proof shifts to the accused or the accused takes the plea of self defence or right of private defence, the plea need not be proved beyond all reasonable doubt and that defence an probablise its case not only by adducing evidence but also from the evidence adduced by the prosecution. 46. In the case at hand, the accused have examined D.W.I (Buddeswar Tanti) as a witness to prove their case. The evidence of this witness is, therefore, important. According to the evidence of this witness, accused Moriulal had taken some money as loan from him and on the day of occurrence at about 8.30 a.m., when he came to Monulal's house, he found Moin Das (since deceased), Chandrama, Bhutia, Nag Das and Mulchand cutting a felled tree with dao, axe and khukri and when Monulal offered resistance, all the said five persons, led by Moin Das, gheraoed Monulal and a fight took place. DW-1 has also deposed that he saw Monulal darting, when someone dealt a blow on him, but the said blow landed on Moin Das's body. 47. Curiously enough, DW-1 deposes that he does not know who had dealt the said low, but Moin Das fell down on the ground and, then, Lalchand and Dharam arrived there. 48. Before adverting to the veracity of the occurrence, which DW-1 has described, it is necessary to ascertain the credibility of this witness. According to this witness's evidence, the reason for his coming to the house of Monulal was a loan of Rs.500/- which Monulal had taken for giving him 5 munds paddy, but till date, he received only 2 munds' of paddy. The evidence of this witness was recorded on 17.8.96. The occurrence had taken place on 8.2.93 i.e., even after three years, he had not received 3 munds' of paddy. 49. What is, however, of utmost importance to note is that this witness did not, admittedly, report the occurrence to anyone and he did not wait for the police or the Gaonburah to arrive at the scene of occurrence. The occurrence had taken place on 8.2.93 i.e., even after three years, he had not received 3 munds' of paddy. 49. What is, however, of utmost importance to note is that this witness did not, admittedly, report the occurrence to anyone and he did not wait for the police or the Gaonburah to arrive at the scene of occurrence. Situated thus, there is, to our mind, great force in the suggestion offered to this witness by the prosecution that since he (DW-1) had not seen the occurrence, he did not tell anyone including the police about the occurrence. 50. The impression that DW-1 is not at all a reliable evidence gains strength from the fact that though he claims that accused Monual had been surrounded by five persons, who were all armed with dao, khukri and axe, yet the blow which was allegedly given by someone belonging to the group of Moin Das, did not hit him (accused Monulal) and fell on Moin Das causing injury to him. This witnesse's evidence does not explain as to how two incised wounds, one on the neck and the other on the left parietal region, were caused to deceased Moin Das. It is unbelievable that two blows, both aimed at Monulal (who was allegedly the only target) fell on Moin Das, one of his neck and the other on his left parietal region, and Monulal (who was alone) still escaped unhurt, particularly, when there is no assertion in the evidence of DW-1 that Monulal had fled away from the place of occurrence on being gheraoed. 51. For what has been discussed above, we find that evidence of DW-1 can be given no credence at all and must be rejected completely as unworthy of trust. 52. While depicting the occurrence, DW-1 has been, we find, careful enough to say that accused Bharat was not present at the place of occurrence, when the occurrence had taken place. 53. In view of the fact that we find the evidence of DW-1 unworthy of trust, we see no reason to give any credence to his evidence that accused Bharat was not present at the place of occurrence, when the occurrence had taken place. More so, because, while cross-examining the prosecution witnesses, defence made no attempt at all to show that accused Bharat was not present at the scene of occurrence. More so, because, while cross-examining the prosecution witnesses, defence made no attempt at all to show that accused Bharat was not present at the scene of occurrence. Thus, the belated plea of alibi, unsupported by any cogent and trustworthy evidence, can be given no credence at all. 54. Coupled with the above, while PW-2 was being cross-examined by the defence, it was suggested to him that Moin had sustained injuries from the weapons of his own companions, when his companions, armed with dao and dagger, prevented the accused persons from taking away the mango tree. This suggestion is entirely contrary to the evidence given by DW-1 or the suggestions offered to PWs-3 and 4 inasmuch as, according to the evidence of DW-1 and also suggestions offered to PW-3 and PW-4, the occurrence took place not because the accused were prevented from taking away the tree, but because Moin Das's party wanted to forcibly take away the mango tree. How Moin Das got injured and with whose weapon he got injured, suggestions offered to not only PW-2 but also to PW-3 and PW-4 do not explain. The fact, however, remains that the suggestion so offered to PW-2 was an admission by the defence that both the accused were present at the place of occurrence. 55. It is clear from the above discussion of the evidence on record that the case of defence is not a case of complete denial, but it is a case, where defence has really no consistent version of the occurrence to offer. Since the defence fails miserably to probablise the defence that it had initially taken that Moin died as a result of exercise of right of private defence; and/or, as per defence evidence, accidentally, we have no option but to rely on the consistent evidence of the three eyewitnesses produced by the prosecution. 56. Since the defence fails miserably to probablise the defence that it had initially taken that Moin died as a result of exercise of right of private defence; and/or, as per defence evidence, accidentally, we have no option but to rely on the consistent evidence of the three eyewitnesses produced by the prosecution. 56. We have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that the evidence on record proves beyond all reasonable doubt that accused Monulal (A1) gave a blow with a sharp edged weapon on the neck of Moin Das, which was dealt with such a great force that it had cut all the major blood vessels of the neck and that accused Bharat (A2) too had given a blow with a dao on the backside of Moin Das's head with such a force that it had not only caused bone deep incised wound to the left parietal region but even caused fracture of the left parietal bone. 57. Every person is presumed to know the consequences of his or her act. In the case at hand, both the accused appeared at the place of occurrence with deadly weapons and both of them assaulted Moin Das. Weapons used by the accused, parts of the body, which the accused had selected for giving the blows, and the force with which the blows were dealt with, all go to show that the accused intended nothing less than Moin Das's death and they did, eventually, succeed in their within any of the exceptions to Section 300 IPC. We, therefore, see no reason to differ from the view adopted by the learned trial Court that the accused had committed offence of murder punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. We also considered the quantum of punishments that the accused-appellants have been directed to suffer. We see no reason to interfere even with the sentence passed against the accused-appellants. 58. It is, therefore, clear that there was a prior meeting of mind between the two accused and that is why, both of them appeared at the place of occurrence armed with weapons and assaulted Moin Das as described hereinabove. 59. We see no reason to interfere even with the sentence passed against the accused-appellants. 58. It is, therefore, clear that there was a prior meeting of mind between the two accused and that is why, both of them appeared at the place of occurrence armed with weapons and assaulted Moin Das as described hereinabove. 59. In the present case, the act of the accused persons causing injury over the neck almost serving the same and the act of giving blow on the back of Moin Das's head, which, in itself, was, according to the medical evidence on record, sufficient to cause death eloquently speak that the intention of the accused was to cause Moin Das's death. The present case, therefore, comes within the purview of Section 302 IPC. 60. The defence failed to bring its case With any of the exceptions to Section 300 IPC. We, therefore, see no reason to differ from the view adopted by the learned trial Court that the accused had committed offence of murder punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. We also considered the quantum of punishment that the accused-appellants have been directed to suffer. We see no reason to interfere even with the sentence passed against the accused-appellantas 61. In the result and for the reasons discussed above, this appeal fails. The impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed against the accused-appellants are upheld and maintained. 62. Send back the case record with a copy of this judgment and order to the Court below.