JUDGMENT D.P.S. CHOUDHARY, J.:-All the criminal appeals have been heard together as they arise out of common judgment dated 11th of October, 1993 passed by Shri Jaleshwar Ram, Additional Sessions Judge XII, Patna in Sessions Trial No. 411 of 1999 and this judgment shall govern all the appeals. Accused-appellants Pramod Kumar Singh, Mithila Sharan Singh and Kamesh alias Kamlesh Singh stand charged under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC') for committing murder of Surendra Singh. Accused appellants Dharm Deo Singh and Kamesh alias Kamlesh Singh are also charged under Section 302 IPC for committing murder of Ramji Singh. Accused-appellants Ajay Kumar alias Ajay Kumar Singh, Sunil Kumar Singh, Sheo Narayan Singh and Kamdeo Singh stand charged under section 302/149 IPC. Accused Kamesh alias Kamlesh Singh further stands charged under Section 307 IPC. He along with accused-appellant Pramod Singh, Dharm Deo Singh, Ajay Kumar Singh, Sunil Kumar Singh and Sheo Narayan Singh further stand charged under Section 27 of the Arms Act. All the accused persons, except Kamdeo Singh stand charged under Section 148 IPC and Kamdeo Singh stand charged under Section 147 IPC. 2. The case was registered on the fardbeyan of the informant, injured Arvind Kumar Singh recorded on 29.11.1990 in the Emergency Ward of P.M.C.H., Patna. He alleged that on this date at about 7.00 a.m. he along with his father Surendra Singh (deceased), cousin Ramji Singh (deceased), brother Anant Kumar alias Bablu, nephew Ranjit Kumar and Sarbjit Kumar alias Papu, Cousin brother Udai Kumar Singh and Suresh Kumar, all residents of village Bhusaula Danapur had gone to potato field at Sessam lar, situated in the east of their house at the distance of 400 to 500 yards for sowing potato. After some time accused Mithila Sharan Singh armed with Falsa, Pramod Singh armed with double barrel licensee gun with cartridges belt, Ajay Kumar armed with country made revolver in both hands, Dharm Deo Singh armed with country made rifle, Kamdeo Singh armed with lathi, Sunil Singh armed with country made revolver, Shiv Narain Singh armed with country made pistol and Kamlesh Singh armed with pistol, all residents of the same village, except accused Kamesh alias Kamlesh Singh who was resident of village Govindpur, P.S. Khusrupur, district Patna arrived there. Accused Kamesh alias Kamlesh Singh is Bhagina of accused Dharm Deo Singh. Accused Kamesh alias Kamlesh Singh is Bhagina of accused Dharm Deo Singh. All the accused persons started abusing the informant and his family members, which was protested by Surendra Singh and Ramji Singh (both deceased). Thereupon, accused Mithila Sharam Singh, Dharm Deo Singh and Kamdeo Singh ordered to fire and gun down them. Thereupon, accused Pramod Singh fired from his double barrel gun hitting Surendra Singh, who fell down and thereafter accused Mithila Sharan Singh gave Falsa blow to Surendra Singh. Ramji Singh Tried to rescue Surendra Singh, upon which accused Dharm Deo Singh ordered to shoot him and he himself fired his country made rifle hitting Ramji Singh who dropped on the ground. Thereafter, out of fear the informant and others started fleeing but all the accused persons chased them and also fired. Due to firing informant received injury upon his right Pakhura. The villagers rushed to watch the place of occurrence and saw them fleeing away. The villagers carried the injured on the Tempo to P.M.C.H. but on the way Ramji Singh succumbed to his injuries and after half an hour Surendra Singh also died. On the fardbeyan of informant, who was injured, the police registered the case bearing Phulwari P.S. Case No. 418 of 1990. The police after completing investigation submitted chargesheet under Sections 147, 148, 149, 324, 307 and 302/34 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act against all the eight accused persons on the basis of which cognizance of the offence was taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and after commitment the trial proceeded before the Sessions Court. The motive of the occurrence was land dispute. 3. The case of the defence is that they have been falsely implicated in this case because of enmity and land dispute and they have not committed the offence, as alleged. 4. The prosecution has examined 16 witnesses but no evidence was adduced on behalf of the defence. P.W. 1 (Ranjit Kumar) is a hearsay witness who is son of deceased Ramji Singh. On that day while he was returning home from his Nanihal and learnt about the occurrence and rushed to P.M.C.H. and found the dead body of his father lying and Surendra Singh was being treated but died soon thereafter. P.W. 1 (Ranjit Kumar) is a hearsay witness who is son of deceased Ramji Singh. On that day while he was returning home from his Nanihal and learnt about the occurrence and rushed to P.M.C.H. and found the dead body of his father lying and Surendra Singh was being treated but died soon thereafter. On the inquest of his father Ramji Singh, prepared by the police, he has put his signature along with Brijnandan Singh, which has been marked Exts. 1 and 1/1. P.W.2 (Namita Devi) daughter of deceased Ramji Singh, P.W. 3 (Indrawati Devi), wife of deceased Surendra Singh P.W. 4 (Sarbjit Kumar alisa Papu) son of deceased Ramji Singh, P.W. 5 (Suresh Kumar). P.W. 7 (Udai Kumar Singh), P.W. 9 (Anant Kumar alias Bablu) both sons of deceased Surendra Singh, P.W.10 (Arbind Kumar) son of deceased Surendra Singh, the informant and P.W. 12 (Narendra, Kumar Singh) have deposed as eye-witness. P.W.6 (Bidyavati Devi), wife deceased Ramji Singh, P.W. 8 (Minto Devi) daughter of deceased Ramji Singh have been tendered. P.W. 11 (Surendra Kumar Singh) is a Constable who has brought the material exhibit in the Court, including double barrel gun and cartridges which have been marked Exts. I to VII. P.W. 13 (Dr. Arbind Kumar Singh) and P.W. 16 (Dr. Rajesh Kumar Prasad) are the Doctors. P.W. 13 held the post-mortem of deceased Ramji Singh and Surendra Singh and has proved postmortem reports (Exts. 2 and 2/1). P.W. 16 examined the injured (informant) Arbind Kumar Singh and has proved his injury report (Ext. 8). P.W. 14 is village Chaukidar who has arrived at the place of occurrence on the sound of firing and with the help of the villagers chased the culprits and caught hold of one of them, namely, Pramod. A double barrel gun and a bag containing cartridges were recovered with the help of Jamadar B.D. Giri from the possession of accused Pramod. The Seizure list prepared by B.D. Giri, has been proved by him and marked Ext. 3, over which he has also signed. P.W. 15 Vijendra Kumar Das is the I.O. who received the fardbeyan of the informant (Arvind Kumar Singh) from the Officer Incharge, Phulwari P.S. and on its basis registered the case. He has proved the fardbeyan (marked Ext. 4). On the basis of fardbeyan the formal FIR was drawn up by Mobarak Hussain, a writer in the police station (marked Ext. He has proved the fardbeyan (marked Ext. 4). On the basis of fardbeyan the formal FIR was drawn up by Mobarak Hussain, a writer in the police station (marked Ext. 5). During investigation he visited the place of occurrence, seized the bloodstained earth and several empty cartridges and prepared the seizure-list (Ext 3/1). He also prepared the inquest report of the two deceased (marked Exts. 6 and 6/1) and the injury report of the informant (Ext. 7). 5. The main contention raised on behalf of the all the appellants is that they do not dispute about the death of Ramji Singh and Surendra Singh but the death took place in different manner and at different places but due to previous enmity and land dispute they have been implicated in this case falsely. 6. The case of the prosecution of the alleged double murder and injury to the informant sought to be established by the evidence of seven eye-witnesses, including the informant, P.W. 10, P.W.2 Ramji Singh, P.W. 3 (Indrawati Devi) wife of deceased Surendra Singh, P.W. 4 (Sarbjit Kumar) son of deceased Ramji Singh, P.W. 5 (Suresh Kumar) and P.W. 7 (Udai Kumar Singh), both sons of Brijnandan Singh and P.W.9 (Anant Kumar) son of deceased Surendra Singh. Admittedly all the P.Ws. are family members of the deceased and no witnesses of the locality has been examined as eye-witness. The main contention of the appellants is that the alleged occurrence took place at about 7.00 a.m. and the place of occurrence is about 400-500 yards from the village. In the fardbeyan and in his statement informant (P.W.10) stated that several villagers had assembled at the place of occurrence on the sound of firing and thereafter the accused persons have fled away. Therefore, in all probabilities the occurrence must have been witnessed by local independent witnesses, but none of them has been examined as a prosecution witness. Some of the named witnesses of the locality such as Rajendra Sah, Brahamdeo Choudhary, Chhatu Lal Choudhary, Sushil Kahar and Devendra Singh have not been examined and only explanation given by P.W.10 in his evidence is that they have gone in collusion with the accused persons. Mere explanation or presentation of an application by the prosecution that certain witnesses have been won over is not conclusive evidence of such plea. Mere explanation or presentation of an application by the prosecution that certain witnesses have been won over is not conclusive evidence of such plea. In such cases the witnesses can be produced for cross-examination by the defence which would elicit correct fact. Their absence as a witness affect the truth of the prosecution case. In support of this contention the defence placed reliance on the decision reported in 1971 Cr. L.W. Journal page 1173, State of U.P. v. Jaggo Singh. 7. The learned A.P.P. submitted that in the same decision the Supreme Court has held that all witnesses of the prosecution need not be called but witnesses whose evidence is essential to the unfolding of the narrative must be called. It is also settled law that it is the prerogative of the prosecution to choose and examine the witnesses cited in the charge-sheet. In the instant case the informant and other P.Ws. have stated that accused persons are terror in the locality and due to their fear most of the villagers do not want to expose or to take risk and as such they did not turn up to depose in the Court. The learned A.P.P. also submitted that if the eye-witnesses examined by the prosecution are related to each other and with the deceased the only precaution that is laid down in the several decisions of the Apex Court is that their evidence should be examined with care and caution. In view of these submissions advanced on behalf of the parties we have to scrutinise their evidences with all precaution. 8. P.W.10 (informant) is an injured witness. He narrated the prosecution case in his examination-in-chief as mentioned in his fardbeyan. He stated that he along with both the deceased and the other family members named above had gone to the potato field at about 7.00 a.m. on the date of occurrence. He named all the accused persons and the arms in their possession who arrived at the place of occurrence and asked not to sow potato in the field. Some altercation took place, thereafter accused Mithila Sharan Singh, Dharmdeo Singh and Kamdeo Singh ordered to kill them by fire arms. Thereafter accused Pramod Kumar fired with double barrel gun which hit his father Surendra Singh who fell down. Accused Kamlesh Singh also fired which hit his father Surendra Singh. Accused Mithila Sharan Singh gave a farsa to Surendra Singh. Some altercation took place, thereafter accused Mithila Sharan Singh, Dharmdeo Singh and Kamdeo Singh ordered to kill them by fire arms. Thereafter accused Pramod Kumar fired with double barrel gun which hit his father Surendra Singh who fell down. Accused Kamlesh Singh also fired which hit his father Surendra Singh. Accused Mithila Sharan Singh gave a farsa to Surendra Singh. Deceased Ramji Singh tried to save Surendra Singh, thereupon accused Dharmdeo Singh ordered to shoot him and he himself fired which hit deceased Ramji Singh. The informant and other family members tried to flee away but they started firing and informant was hit on his right Pakhura fired by accused Kamlesh Singh. He was removed to P.M.C.H. along with the deceased. In cross-examination he stated that at the time of fleeing the accused persons were firing at them from behind and while fleeing he used to see behind and in that process he had seen accused Kamlesh Singh firing at him which hit his right Pakhura. He stated that he does not remember whether in his fardbeyan he has named Kamlesh Singh whose firing hit him but stated that he had stated this fact to the Sub-Inspector of Police in the hospital. According to him, his wounds were examined by the Doctor and he was also X-rayed but the X-ray plate was not shown to him. He had pellet injury and the Doctor has not extracted the pellet from his arm which remained inside his arm. From the trend of cross-examination of this witness it appears that defence wants to show that the informant has not seen who has killed his father and uncle or who has fired at him. The suggestion given to this witness is that in the attack of the naxal people in the night both the deceased were shot at. He also received injury in the same process but subsequently after due deliberation he has implicated the accused persons because of previous enmity. The contention of the defence lawyer is that due to afterthought the name of accused Kamlesh Singh was added by the informant in the subsequent statement before the Investigating Officer but he has not named him in his fardbeyan. The contention of the defence lawyer is that due to afterthought the name of accused Kamlesh Singh was added by the informant in the subsequent statement before the Investigating Officer but he has not named him in his fardbeyan. The learned A.P.P. pointed out towards the evidence of the informant in paragraph 20 in which he has denied that within three years of the date of occurrence several persons of the locality, including Hari Narain Rai, Sudhir Rai, Jasbir Rai and Raj Kumar Rai were killed by the naxal people. The witness has categorically denied that there has been any killing at the hands of the Naxalites in the locality. 9. To appreciate the evidence of the informant (P.W.10) the evidence of the Doctor who examined him in the P.M.C.H., Patna, namely P.W.16 (Dr. Rajesh Kumar Prasad) requires a critical examination. He stated that on 29.11.1990 when he was posted as Surgeon in the Department of Surgery, P.M.C.H., Patna at about 11.30 a.m. he examined Arbind Kumar (informant) and found the following injuries on his person:- (i) Two circular charred wounds 2mm. in diameter over the right deleteral region. On X-ray there was opaque shadow 5 mm x 2mm incised wound around upper end of shaft of right funeuious. He opined that the injuries were caused within six hours and its nature was grievous caused by fire arm. He proved the injury reported prepared and signed by him (marked Ext. 8). He stated that the patient (informant) was sent by the police to the Hospital for examination and treatment but the injury report prepared by him was not taken back by the police. He further stated that the injury report is separately prepared only when the police sent the requisition for the same. In ordinary course the injuries and the treatment are mentioned in the bed-head ticket of the patient admitted in the hospital. According to him, he had not seen the X-ray plate of the patient. He explained that charring of the wound means blackening of the wound caused due to burning as a result of firing. He could not explain whether charring is possible if an injured is wearing a shirt or sweater at the time of injury. This fact can be explained by a ballistic expert only. He further stated that through his naked eye he did not perceive any bullet embedded in the wound. He could not explain whether charring is possible if an injured is wearing a shirt or sweater at the time of injury. This fact can be explained by a ballistic expert only. He further stated that through his naked eye he did not perceive any bullet embedded in the wound. The contention of the defence lawyer with regard to the evidence of the informant (P.W.10) is that the evidence of the doctor (P.W. 16) is not in consonance with his evidence because the charred wound was not possible if he was wearing a shirt or sweater. It was winter day and the occurrence took place at about 7.00 a.m. A person is supposed to wear clothes at that time. It was also not possible for the informant to see who has fired on him because he started fleeing along with other family members and accused persons have fired from behind. Therefore, the evidence of the informant leads to the conclusion that he has tried to implicate the accused persons and his evidence that he got injuries due to firing by accused Kamlesh Singh is not reliable; because neither he was in a position to see who has fired at him nor he has mentioned his name in his fardbeyan (Ext. 4) in which he has named all the accused persons and attributed their acts individually. No satisfactory explanation has been given by the informant for omitting his name in his fardbeyan. On a careful analysis of the evidence of the informant (P.W. 10) and his fardbeyan it is clear that he has not named accused Kamlesh Singh whose firing caused injury to him but it is mentioned that while he was fleeing away from the place of occurrence, the accused persons started firing and he received injury on his right shoulder. In his evidence he tried to explain that because of agony and pain at the time of recording fardbeyan, he missed to name accused Kamlesh Singh. On scrutiny of his evidence in entirety we do not find substance in this contention of the learned defence lawyer that he is an unreliable witness or he tried to implicate the accused persons. There is no vital contradiction in between fardbeyan and his evidence in the Court. The doctor (P.W. 16) corroborates his evidence that he had a fire arm injury on his right shoulder. There is no vital contradiction in between fardbeyan and his evidence in the Court. The doctor (P.W. 16) corroborates his evidence that he had a fire arm injury on his right shoulder. It was submitted on behalf of the appellants that it was a calculated move on the part of the prosecution not to lodge the FIR in the local Police Station because they apprehended that the local police may not connive with them. They lodged the FIR after due deliberation, thus implicated the appellants due to enmity. The learned defence lawyer referred to paragraph No.9 of the evidence of P.W.10 who stated that he has not asked any person of his family members to lodge the information with nearest police station, Phulwarisharif. He admitted that in between his village and P.M.C.H., Patna, Phulwarisharif and Gardanibagh Police Stations lie but he did not inform any of these police stations. The natural inference would be that only after due deliberation with the family members, the informant recorded his fardbeyan. We have gone though his evidence and the fardbeyan, and do not find much substance in the above contentions. The informant stated that due to his injuries the foremost priority of his family members was to remove him to the Hospital at Patna for urgent medical help. This was the natural conduct of an injured's family members. The alleged occurrence took place at about 7.00 to 7.30 a.m. and his fardbeyan was recorded in the P.M.C.H., Patna at about 9.30 a.m. There is considerable distance in between his village and P.M.C.H., Patna. Therefore, there is no delay in recording the fardbeyan nor any inference can be drawn that it was lodged after due deliberation. There is nothing on record to show that informant had any deliberation with his family members before his fardbeyan was recorded. No other infirmity has been pointed out on behalf of the appellants with the evidence of the informant (P.W. 10). 10. The remaining eye-witnesses are P.Ws. 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9 and 12. P.W. 2 is daughter of deceased Ramji Singh who stated that in the morning, in her presence there was some altercation in between her father and accused Mithila Sharan Singh and others for cutting the ridge of potato field, for potato seedling and thereafter the alleged occurrence took place. 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9 and 12. P.W. 2 is daughter of deceased Ramji Singh who stated that in the morning, in her presence there was some altercation in between her father and accused Mithila Sharan Singh and others for cutting the ridge of potato field, for potato seedling and thereafter the alleged occurrence took place. She stated that accused Mithila Sharan Singh, Dharmdeo Singh, Kamdeo Singh and Kamlesh Singh ordered to fire and kill. Thereupon, accused Pramod Singh fired his gun hitting Surendra Singh who fell down and accused Kamlesh Singh also fired at him and then accused Mithila Sharan gave a Farsa blow on him. In the meantime Ramji Singh came to rescue Surendra Singh, upon which accused Dharmdeo Singh ordered to kill and he himself fired his country made rifle at Ramji Singh who fell down and died. She further stated that accused Kamlesh Singh had fired causing injury at the right shoulder of Arbind Kumar. In cross-examination she stated that the residential houses of both the parties are at two places in the same village. P.W. 3, wife of deceased Surendra Singh corroborated the evidence of informant (P.W.10) and P.W. 2. She also named accused Pramod Singh who fired his gun hitting deceased Surendra Singh and when he fell down accused Mithila Sharan Singh gave farsa blow, in the meantime deceased Ramji Singh tried to save Surendra Singh, upon which accused Dharmdeo Singh fired dropping him on the ground. She further stated that while the Informant and others were fleeing they were fired at, causing injury to the informant at his right shoulder. According to her the genesis of the occurrence was dispute and altercation between the parties at the time of seedling potato. She was cross examined in length but there is no vital contradiction in her evidence to discredit her testimony. P.W. 4 (Sarbjit Kumar alias Pappu) is son of deceased Ramji Singh. He was present at the time of occurrence along with his family members and stated that while they were seedling potato accused persons came variously armed with and protested. After altercation accused Mithila Sharan Singh, Dharmdeo Singh and Kamdeo Singh ordered to kill. Thereafter, accused Pramod Kumar fired which hit Surendra Singh. He also stated that Kamlesh Singh fired which hit Surendra Singh and Mithila Sharan Singh assaulted him by means of Farsa. After altercation accused Mithila Sharan Singh, Dharmdeo Singh and Kamdeo Singh ordered to kill. Thereafter, accused Pramod Kumar fired which hit Surendra Singh. He also stated that Kamlesh Singh fired which hit Surendra Singh and Mithila Sharan Singh assaulted him by means of Farsa. When they started fleeing out of fear, accused persons fired at them and Arbind Kumar (informant) was hit on his right shoulder due to firing by Kamlesh Singh. Both the deceased and injured informant were removed to P.M.C.H., Patna but Surendra Singh arid Ramji Singh died, and the informant was treated in the hospital. In cross-examination he stated that the patato filed of Surendra Singh and Rarnjit Singh is situated side by side and they were seedling potato in the field which is located at Sessam Tar. In cross-examination he stated that just after the occurrence they proceeded to P.M.C.H. along with two deceased and injured Arbind Kumar. They reached hospital at about 8.30 a.m. and after some time the fardbeyan of the informant was recorded by the local police. According to him, at the place of occurrence the blood had fallen down. 11. P.W. 5 (Suresh Kumar) who was student has named all the accused persons and the arms in their possession. According to him, Pramod Singh had fired at Surendra Singh and thereafter accused Kamlesh Singh also fired at him. Mithila Sharan Singh assaulted him by means of Farsa. Dharamdeo Singh fired at deceased Ramji Singh and when the informant and others were fleeing away for the place of occurrence they were fired at. The informant was injured due to firing by accused Kamlesh Singh. He accompanied the informant and the deceased to P.M.C.H. From a careful scrutiny of the evidence of PWs. 4 and 5 it is crystal clear that they are consistent on the material point and have named all the accused persons and their individual act in the killing of deceased Surenda Singh and Ramji Singh and causing injury to the informant (P.W. 10). We have found their evidence consistent on all the material points with other eyewitnesses as discussed above. P.W. 7 (Udai Kumar) has named accused Pamod Kumar and Kamlesh Singh who fired at deceased Surendra Singh and Mithila Sharan Singh assaulted him by means of Farsa. Ramji Singh tried to save Surendra Singh but he was fired at by accused Dharamdeo Singh. P.W. 7 (Udai Kumar) has named accused Pamod Kumar and Kamlesh Singh who fired at deceased Surendra Singh and Mithila Sharan Singh assaulted him by means of Farsa. Ramji Singh tried to save Surendra Singh but he was fired at by accused Dharamdeo Singh. All the accused had also fired when he along with other family members tried to escape from the place of occurrence and Arvind Kumar was hit on his right shoulder due to firing by Kamlesh Singh. He further stated that he heard hulla after the occurrence that accused Pramod Kumar has been apprehended in village Andaj Koli. 12. P.W. 9 (An ant Kumar alias Babloo) son of deceased Surendra Singh has corroborated the evidence of above named eye witnesses and named accused Mithila Sharan Singh, Dharamdeo Singh and Kamdeo Singh who ordered to kill. Thereupon, accused Pramod Kumar and Kamlesh Singh fired at Surendra Singh and Mithila Sharan Singh assaulted him by means of Farsa causing injury in his stomach. When Ramji Singh tried to rescue Surendra Singh he was fired at by accused Dharamdeo Singh. He had also accompanied the injured and the deceased to the hospital. He has fully corroborated the evidence of his brother Arbind Kumar (informant) on all material points and we have not noticed any vital or significant contradiction in his cross-examination to discredit his testimony. Another important eye-witness is P.W.12 (Narendra Singh) who has corroborated the evidence of other P.Ws. on all the material points and named the abovenamed accused persons who had fired on both the deceased and accused Mithila Sharan Singh assaulted Surendra Singh by means of Farsa. According to him, the informant was injured due to firing by accused Kamlesh Singh. He is a witness on the FIR and proved his signature (Ext. 1/5). P.W. 6 (Bidyawati Devi) wife of deceased Ramji Singh and P.W. 8 (Mintu Devi), daughter of deceased Ramji Singh have been tendered by the prosecution for cross-examination. P.W.11 (Surendra Kumar Singh) is a Constable of Phulwarisharif Police Station who has brought the material exhibits in the Court, including the double barrel gun, two empty cartridges of 3.5 bore, 1/2 bore and six 3.15 bore empty cartridges of rifle, which have been marked Material Exhibits I to VI respectively. P.W. 14 (Md. Firdos Alam) is a Mahal Chaukidar of Bhasuala Halka Danpur. P.W. 14 (Md. Firdos Alam) is a Mahal Chaukidar of Bhasuala Halka Danpur. He stated that on 29.11.1990 at about 7.00 to 7.30 a.m. he heard the sound of firing and rushed there. He saw accused Pramod Singh fleeing away whom he chased and at village Andaj Koli he apprehended him. Several local people assembled there. B.D. Giri, A.S.I. of Police also arrived there. From the possession of accused Pramod Singh a double barrel gun and black belt containing cartridges were recovered. He identified the said gun and the black belt containing the cartridges in the Court. The A.S.I. of Police prepared the seizure-list in his presence, over which he along with other two independent witnesses have signed (marked Ext. 3), he identified accused Pramod Singh in the dock. 13. P.W. 13 (Dr. Arbind Kumar Singh) held the post-mortem on the two deceased, namely, Surendra Singh and Ramji Singh on 29.11.1990 in the P.M.C.H., Patna in between 2.30 p.m. and 3.30 p.m. The Doctor has found the following ante-mortem injuries on the deceased Ramji Singh aged about 50 years:- (i) One penetrating wound 1.½' x 1.½' placed on right back of chest close to posterior axillary line at the level of 4th thoracic vertebra depth of the wound cavity deep, margin blackened. (ii) One penetrating wound 1" x 1" size x cavity deep seen on posterior right axillary line near fifth space margin blackened and cavity deep. (iii) Multiple small ¼" size penetrating wound skin deep only seen in and around both the above mentioned wounds in an area of 6" x 5" covering right back of chest and flank. (2) On dissection chest cavity full of blood, right long pierced through at so many places, few pellets (4) embedded In lung tissue and muscle taken out, kept in a glass vial properly labelled and sealed and handed over to the constable concerned with instruction to hand it over to the I.O. Immediately All the visceras were pale, heart empty, stomach contained yellowish fluid, bladder empty. (3) Time elapsed since death was six to 24 hours approximately. (4) Cause of death was haemorrhage and shock due to lung injury. (5) Nature of weapon used was fire arm such as rifle. (6) These injuries were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. (7) The P.M. report was prepared by him and in his signature. It was marked Ext. (4) Cause of death was haemorrhage and shock due to lung injury. (5) Nature of weapon used was fire arm such as rifle. (6) These injuries were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. (7) The P.M. report was prepared by him and in his signature. It was marked Ext. 2 14. On the same day at about 2.30 p.m., he also held post-mortem examination on the dead body of Surendra Singh, aged about 45 years and found the following antemortem injuries on his person:- (i) One penetrating wound 2" x 2" on front of left abdomen 3" above and lateral to umblicus margin lacerated and blackened, wound abdominal cavity deep (wound of entry). (ii) Multiple small punctured wound of ¼" diameter skin to muscle deep seen scattered on 8" x 5.½ area on front of right and left abdomen covering the midline. (iii) Multiple small punctured wound of ¼" diameter skin to muscle deep seen scattered on left front and lateral side of leg 3" x 2" area, then right wrist back and thumb back and also on right back of shoulder 2" x 2" area. (2) On dissection the projectile of injury No. (i) pierced through the intestine small and large at four places and left kidney also. Abdominal cavity full of blood and clots, 3" pieces of wads, one plastic object and few pellets (6) taken out from intestine, kidney and abdominal cavity, kept in a: glass vial property labelled and sealed and handed over to the constable concerned with instruction to hand it over to the I.O. immediately. (3) All the visceras were pale. Heart empty, stomach contained black fluid bladder empty. (4) Time elapsed since death was six to twenty four hours approximately. (5) Cause of death was internal haemorrhage and shock due to abdominal injury. (6) Nature of weapon used was fire arm, may be gun. (7) These injuries were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The post-mortem report (Ext.2/1) is written and signed by him. The post-mortem reports (Exts. 2 and 2/1) and the evidence of the Doctor corroborated the prosecution case that deceased Surendra Singh and Ramji Singh died due to fire-arm injuries and time elapsed since death was in between 6 to 24 hours approximately. The post-mortem report (Ext.2/1) is written and signed by him. The post-mortem reports (Exts. 2 and 2/1) and the evidence of the Doctor corroborated the prosecution case that deceased Surendra Singh and Ramji Singh died due to fire-arm injuries and time elapsed since death was in between 6 to 24 hours approximately. The alleged occurrence took place on the same day, i.e. 29.11.1990 in between 7.00 a.m. and 7.30 a.m. This finding of the Doctor further corroborates the ocular evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution as discussed above in detail. 15. P.W. 15 (Vijendra Kumar Das), Sub-Inspector of Police is the Investigating Officer. He stated that on 29.11.1990 while he was posted as Officer in-charge Phulwari Police Station he received fardbeyan (Ext. 4) of the informant (P.W. 10), drawn up by the A.S.I. Chandrika Choudhary of Phulwari P.S. and on that basis he registered the case (Phulwari PS. Case No. 418/90). He has proved the formal FIR drawn on the basis of the fardbeyan (Ext. 5). As Investigating Officer he visited the place of occurrence as shown to him by P.W. 12 (Narendra Singh). He found the place of occurrence as the potato seedling field belonging to deceased Surendra Singh and Ramji Singh situated at a distance of 200 yards in the east of village Bhusaula, Danapur. He found some of the filed having potato seedling and rest were Parati land. In the adjacent south of the place of occurrence he found Saraso filed of Raja Singh. In adjacent north of that Saraso field was Parati land of accused Mithila Sharan Singh and the east-southern portion of this filed he found the Ari demolished to the extent of 10 steps x one and half steps. The north-south Ari was found to be cut. There was also a barsim grass field in the west and orchard of mango and seesam was situated 15 yards from this place. At a distance of about 200 yards from this place the house of the informant and of the accused persons were situated. The Investigating Officer stated that he found the bloodstains at the distance of about 30/35 yards in the south-west of the demolished ridge which was the field of Ramji Singh. He further found 2-3 empty cartridges of double barrel gun and many round shaped wads scattered near around that place. The Investigating Officer stated that he found the bloodstains at the distance of about 30/35 yards in the south-west of the demolished ridge which was the field of Ramji Singh. He further found 2-3 empty cartridges of double barrel gun and many round shaped wads scattered near around that place. In the West he noticed the field of potato seedling and in its east there was field of Jwala Singh. He found the trampling marks in these fields. He seized the blood-stained soil, empty cartridges, wads in presence of he witnesses and prepared the seizure-list (Ext. 3/1). He stated that inquest report of the dead-bodies were prepared by A.S.I. who also prepared the injury slip of the injuries found on the person of informant Arbind Kumar (Ext. 7). He received the seizure-list from B.D. Giri, A.S.I. of Police in respect of the Licensee gun of accused Pramod Singh together with cartridges and a black bag. He received the post-mortem reports of deceased Ramji Singh and Surendra Singh along with two sealed glass vials from the P.M.C.H., Patna. He sent the seized double barrel gun to the Sergeant Major for his report, which he received. He could not receive the injury report of informant Arbind Kumar from the P.M.C.H. After completing investigation he submitted the charge-sheet. The Investigating Officer has been cross-examined at length on behalf of the appellants and from a careful scrutiny of his evidence it appears that he has on all material points corroborated the ocular evidence of the P.Ws. with regard to the place of occurrence and we do not find much substance in this contention of the appellants that there is discrepancies in the prosecution case and the evidence of the Investigating Officer with regard to the place of occurrence. The Investigating Officer has categorically stated that the place of occurrence is the potato seedling field of Ramji Singh and Surendra Singh. At this place he also found blood-stained soil and empty cartridges and the wads. There was also trampling mark in the field. All these objective findings of the Investigating Officer is consistent with the evidence of the P.Ws. and the prosecution case. 16. At this place he also found blood-stained soil and empty cartridges and the wads. There was also trampling mark in the field. All these objective findings of the Investigating Officer is consistent with the evidence of the P.Ws. and the prosecution case. 16. The learned defence lawyer submitted that the prosecution has placed reliance on the seizure-list (Ext.3) which is in respect of the gun and bag alleged to have been recovered from the possession of appellant Pramod Kumar, but it is not mentioned in it that it has been recovered from his possession but indicates the place from where articles were found. Thus on its basis it cannot be said that P.W. 14 (the Chowkidar) has recovered these articles while appellant Pramod Kumar was fleeing away from the place of occurrence. We have carefully examined the seizure-list (Ext. 3) which bears the signature of witnesses Rajendra Pandit and Sakaldip Choudhary. It was prepared on a blank paper and not on the printed form. P.W. 14 stated that he had taken out the gun and cartridges with bag from the custody of appellant Pramod Kumar Singh and then handed over the same to the A.S.I. of Police, who failed to mention the fact that it was recovered from the possession of Pramod Kumar but only mentioned the place where it was handed over to him. It may be a lacuna on the part of the A.S.I. of Police in not giving the detail while writing Ext. 3. It has come in the evidence of P.W. 14 that village Andapukuli was Nanihal of appellant Pramod Kumar Singh. It was submitted by the learned A.P.P. that after the occurrence this accused along with his arms fled towards his Nanihal which was very near to the place of occurrence village. This fact has not been denied on behalf of the appellant Pramod Kumar Singh that recovered gun and bag etc. did not belong to him. Therefore, we do not find much substance in the above contention of the learned appellants' lawyer that the recovery was not made from the possession of this appellant. On the other hand the evidence discussed above proved beyond doubt about this recovery from the possession of appellant Pramod Kumar Singh. 17. It was contended on behalf of the appellants that post-mortem report of deceased Surendra Singh (Ext. On the other hand the evidence discussed above proved beyond doubt about this recovery from the possession of appellant Pramod Kumar Singh. 17. It was contended on behalf of the appellants that post-mortem report of deceased Surendra Singh (Ext. 2/1) does not mention about the injury caused by means of Falsa, as such, the allegation attributed against appellant Mithila Sharan Singh is falsified. We have carefully scrutinised the evidence of the eye-witnesses on this point, including P.Ws. 2 to 5, 7, 9, 10 and 12 alongwith the post-mortem reports (Ext. 2/1). This point has been elaborately considered by the trial Court in paragraph 19 of the judgment. There is consistent evidence of the eye witnesses that appellant Mithila Shanan Singh gave Falsa blow on the deceased Surendra Singh when he fell down on the ground after receipt of the gun-shot injury caused by appellant Pramod Kumar Singh. Some of the eyewitnesses have stated that accused Mithila Sharan Singh caused penetrating wound (Bhouka) by means of Falsa. The Doctor has mentioned in his report that deceased Surendra Singh had one penetrating wound 2" x 2" on front of left abdomen 3" above and lateral of umbilicus margin lacerated and blackened wound, abdominal cavity deep. The Doctor also found the wound of entry of firearm. The two other wounds found by the Doctor are multiple small punctured wounds and the 3rd injury was covering an area of 3" x 2". From the evidence of the Doctor and the post-mortem reports, injury Nos. (ii) and (iii) indicate that they were caused by cartridges of a gun. The contention of the learned A.P.P. is that the gun prepared by the pipes in the village may also fire a cartridge. Even the pistol and revolver so prepared locally used pellets as cartridges. The injury No. (i) which is the opening space of 2" x 2" on tender part of the body, i.e. abdomen does not appear to be caused by bullet rather it indicates that it may have been caused by sharp-cutting pointed weapon such as Falsa. The Doctor has recorded one plastic object and six pellets which confirms that Surendra Singh had fire-arm injuries. The eye-witnesses stated that after Pramod Singh had fired gun at deceased Surendra Singh, 3poel\ant Kamlesh Singh also fired on him and when he fell down accused Mithila Sharan Singh penetrated his Falsa in his abdomen. The Doctor has recorded one plastic object and six pellets which confirms that Surendra Singh had fire-arm injuries. The eye-witnesses stated that after Pramod Singh had fired gun at deceased Surendra Singh, 3poel\ant Kamlesh Singh also fired on him and when he fell down accused Mithila Sharan Singh penetrated his Falsa in his abdomen. In a catena of decisions the Apex Court has held that where there is conflict of medical evidence with the direct evidence, tile testimony and opinion evidence of the Medical Officer cannot be relied upon in preference to the direct evidence of the eyewitnesses. The consistency of the eyewitnesses on the point of firing at deceased Ramji Singh is in consonance of the postmortem and the evidence of the doctor. Therefore, there is no valid and cogent reason to disbelieve the evidence of above referred eye-witnesses if there is some inconsistency in the evidence of the Doctor and the post-mortem reports with regard to deceased Surendra Singh. 18. It was argued on behalf of the appellants that no occurrence took place at the alleged time and place but the FIR has been lodged after due deliberation to implicate the accused persons. The deceased might have been murdered in the night by the naxals of the areas. In the past there has been some murders at the hands of the Naxals. Some names have been suggested to the informant in his cross-examination that they were murdered by the naxal people before this occurrence. We have discussed in detail the evidence of the informant (P.W.10) who has denied all such suggestions of the defence lawyer and categorically stated that no such person was murdered in the area by the Naxal people within three years before the occurrence. The prosecution case is that the alleged occurrence book place at the time and place as mentioned in the FIR finds corroboration from the evidence of the Investigating Officer (P. W. 15) who had reached at the place of occurrence at the instance of P.W.12 at about 9.30 a.m. on the same day and prepared the seizure-list of Blood-stained soil and cartridges etc. found at that place. The gun and cartridges were recovered from appellant Pramod Kumar Singh at about 11.30 a.m. as per the seizure-list (Ext.3). found at that place. The gun and cartridges were recovered from appellant Pramod Kumar Singh at about 11.30 a.m. as per the seizure-list (Ext.3). The Investigating Officer has stated in his evidence that when he was at the place of occurrence he came to know that injured Surendra Singh and Ramji Singh have been removed to P.M.C.H., then he sent a wireless message to A.S.I. Chandrika Choudhary of Phulwari P.S. to proceed P.M.C.H. to record the fardbeyan of the case. P.W. 12 has stated that after showing the place of occurrence to the Investigating Officer and after preparation of seizure list by him at about 10.00 a.m. he went to the P.M.C.H. where his statement was recorded by the police in the hospital itself. The fardbeyan of the informant was recorded by A.S.I., Phulwari P.S. in his presence in the P.M.C.H. Therefore, there is not much substance in this contention of the learned appellants' lawyer that the alleged occurrence took place at different place and time and fardbeyan is ante-timed. There are conclusive and reliable evidence both of eye-witnesses and the objective finding of the Investigating Officer leading to the conclusion that the alleged occurrence took place at about 7.00 a.m. on this date at the place mentioned in fardbeyan and the informant recorded his fardbeyan in the P.M.C.H. at about 9.30 a.m. The informant is an injured witness. He was examined by the Doctor in the P.M.C.H., therefore, his credibility is not to be doubted nor there is any evidence on record to suggest that he has not received the injury at the time and place as per his fardbeyan. Therefore, the prosecution has been able to adduce cogent, consistent and reliable evidence with regard to time and place of occurrence. 19. As mentioned above, the eyewitnesses are family members of the deceased. The contention of the learned appellants' lawyer is that since they are family members hence interested witness. No independent witness has corroborated their testimony, as such they should not be relied upon. This point has' been elaborately discussed by the trial Court in paragraph 23 of the judgment. It is settled law that on the ground that witnesses and family members, in all cases, it cannot be said that they are interested and partisam. The fact of each case has to be considered separately and the natural and normal witnesses available at the time of occurrence. It is settled law that on the ground that witnesses and family members, in all cases, it cannot be said that they are interested and partisam. The fact of each case has to be considered separately and the natural and normal witnesses available at the time of occurrence. From the objective finding of the Investigating Officer read with the evidence of the eyewitness, there is no discrepancy with regard to the place of occurrence. The Investigating officer has found demolished ridge at that place, some part of the field with potato seedling and also blood-stained in the nearby field of the deceased. It has come in the evidence of the witnesses that after the firing on the deceased they ran at some distance and the witnesses also fled away out of fear. In such circumstances it is expected that the victims after receiving injuries must have moved to some distance before they fell down on the ground. Therefore, finding of the bloodstained earth in the nearly field of the deceased is but natural and consistent with the prosecution case. The relative witnesses in most of the cases are material witnesses when their presence at the place of occurrence is natural. They are most competent witness in this case. They stated that they had gone to the field for seedling potato, which has been corroborated by the objective finding of the Investigating Officer. Therefore, a relative witness is not always interested witness. It is true that some of the P.Ws. have named other witnesses of the locality who had seen the occurrences but not examined by the prosecution. The appellants-accused are also agent of the deceased and they live in the same village. The alleged occurrence took place because of land dispute and family feud. As such, it is not expected that other persons of the same village would interfere with the family affairs of one party ignoring the others. The village people avoid taking risk in such family feud and their tendency is to remain neutral. The fact and circumstances of the case show that P.Ws. who have deposed as eye-witnesses, are most competent and natural witnesses in this case and only because they are family members of the deceased, their testimony should not be discarded altogether. The death of Surendra Singh and Ramji Singh and the injury of the informant is not in dispute. The fact and circumstances of the case show that P.Ws. who have deposed as eye-witnesses, are most competent and natural witnesses in this case and only because they are family members of the deceased, their testimony should not be discarded altogether. The death of Surendra Singh and Ramji Singh and the injury of the informant is not in dispute. The only contention of the defence is that the occurrence took place at different place, time and manner but after scrutinising the evidence of the eye-witnesses, the Investigating Officer and the Doctors read together, we are of the view that the prosecution has been able to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the alleged occurrence took place at the time, place and manner as per the prosecution case. We have not find any material discrepancies in the evidence of the P.Ws., including the informant and the eye-witnesses. The minor discrepancies are normal and they do not touch the root of the case. The evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution discussed above prove beyond doubt that accused persons named above after forming unlawful assembly variously armed with deadly weapons had assembled at the place of occurrence and some of them fired causing death of Surendra Singh and Ramji Singh and also caused injury to the informant. 20. Accordingly, we find and hold that the prosecution has been able to prove the charges levelled against the accused appellants beyond all reasonable doubt and it does not require any interference. 21. In the result, all the six appeals are dismissed and the judgment and order of the Court below is hereby confirmed. All the eight appellants, who are on bail are directed to surrender before the trial Court to serve out their remaining period of sentences. P.K. DEB, J.:-I agree.