Judgment R.N.Prasad, J. 1. These three appeals arise out of judgment and order dated 7.9.1993 passed by the 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur in S.T. No. 141/49 of 1985/88, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this judgment. 2. The appellants in three appeals have been convicted for the offence under Sections 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. Appellants have further been convicted for the offence under Sections 323/149 of the Indian Penal Code. However, no separate sentence has been awarded to them. Bhavesh Bhagat, Ram Baran Bhagat, Ram Chandra Bhagat, appellants in Cr. Appeal No. 403/93, Ram Udai Bhagat, appellant in Cri. Appeal No. 423/93 have further been convicted for the offence under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. However, no separate sentence has been awarded to them. 3. The case of the prosecution is that one Brijnandan Sah @ Gonu gave his fardbeyan on 11.12.1983 at about 11 a.m. at his house that his khalihan is in the southern side of the village. There is also a tiled Bangli. Paddy-bundles were kept in the khalihan for thrashing. In the south of the khalihan there was land of Ram Chandra Bhagat. He and his neighbour Ramdeo Bhagat were in the khalihan in the previous night to watch the harvested crop. He had kept his gun with him. At about 7 a.m. Ram Chandra Bhagat, Ram Baran Bhagat and Mahendra Bhagat came. They started throwing bundles of paddy. Ram Chandra Bhagat and Ram Baran Bhagat started cutting earth from their field and throwing the earth in his khalihan. He protested on which Ram Chandra Bhagat told that some portion of his land fell in his khalihan, due to the aforesaid reason there was altercation. Ram Chandra Bhagat called other accused persons on which Ram Sagar Bhagat, Laxman Bhagat, Bhavesh Bhagat with farsa, Saudagar Bhagat with bhala, Ram Ekbal Bhagat and Sushil Bhagat with lathi and Ram Udai Bhagat came. Ram Chandra Bhagat ordered to kill and he ran towards his Bangli in order tc take away his gun. He also ran to take his gun and he took his gun. All the accused persons surrounded him. Mahendra Bhagat and Ram Baran Bhagat caught him and Ram Chandra Bhagat snatched the gun from his hand. Ram Chandra Bhagat ordered to kill and he ran towards his Bangli in order tc take away his gun. He also ran to take his gun and he took his gun. All the accused persons surrounded him. Mahendra Bhagat and Ram Baran Bhagat caught him and Ram Chandra Bhagat snatched the gun from his hand. Ram Sagar Bhagat and Ram Udai Bhagat assaulted him with lathi Ram Ekbal Bhagat and Saudager Bhagat assaulted him with fists and elape. Ram Chandra Bhagat snatched Seiko wrist watch from his hand. Ram Baran Bhagat and Ram Udai Bhagat snatched his golden ring from his finger, Bhavesh Bhagat snatched Rs. 300/- from his pocket. His cousin Ram Sagar Shah came to save him. Mahendra Bhagat took out pistol from his pant and fired at Ram Sagar Shah, he sustained injuries on his abdomen and fell down. Accused persons took away 7-8 paddy bundles from his khalihan. He sent Ram Sagar Shah to Darbhanga for treatment. His condition was serious. Sita Ram Bhagat, Gauri Bhagat, Hira Sah, Ram Prakash Sah, Raman Babu Sah, Ramdeo Bhagat, Musa Rai, Biso Bhagat had witnessed the occurrence. His licensed gun was snatched and was taken away. 4. On the basis of aforesaid fardbeyan, Ext. 1, formal First Information Report, Ext. 4 was drawn, investigation was taken up and on completion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted. On receipt of charge-sheet in the Court, cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. The trial Court convicted the appellants as indicated above. 5. The defence of the appellants was that they were innocent and were falsely implicated in the case. There was some sort of quarrel between appellant Ram Chandra Bhagat and informant Brijnandan Sah for cutting the earth and throwing it over the ridge of khalihan. The informant Brijnandan Sah took the gun from his brother Suraj Sah and fired causing injury on the right hand of Ram Chandra Bhagat. Ram Sagar Sah asked the informant Brijnandan Sah why he was doing so and proceeded towards Ram Chandra Bhagat. Brijnandan Sah fired causing injury on the abdomen of Ram Sagar Sah, the deceased. He fell down and thereafter nephew of Ram Chandra Bhagat, namely, Ram Sagar Bhagat snatched the gun from the hand of Brijnandan Sah. Ram Sagar Sah asked the informant Brijnandan Sah why he was doing so and proceeded towards Ram Chandra Bhagat. Brijnandan Sah fired causing injury on the abdomen of Ram Sagar Sah, the deceased. He fell down and thereafter nephew of Ram Chandra Bhagat, namely, Ram Sagar Bhagat snatched the gun from the hand of Brijnandan Sah. In support of defence the fardbeyan of Ram Chandra Bhagat recorded on 11.12.1983 at 10.30 a.m. by the Inspector of Police of Singhwara PS, Ext. A, was brought on record. 6. The prosecution in support of its case examined 11 witnesses, out of whom PWs 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 & 9 claimed to be eye-witnesses to the occurrence. PW 5 is the informant and he also claimed to be eye-witness to the occurrence. PW 7 is the doctor who examined the informant, PW 5, PW 8 is also a doctor who held post-mortem over the dead body of Ram Sagar Sah. PW 10 is the Investigating Officer. PW 11 proved protest petition filed by Brijnandan Sah. 7. The defence also examined three witnesses. DW 1 Radha Devi wife of the deceased Ram Sagar Sah and DW 2 Santosh Kumar son of the deceased who supported the defence case. DW 3 proved the injury report of Ram Chandra Bhagat. 8. Salient feature of the case is that for the incident taken place on 11.12.1983 at about 7 a.m. two criminal cases were instituted, one on the fardbeyan of PW 5 Brijnandan Sah & Gonu, Ext. 1, for the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code etc. and other on the fardbeyan of appellant Ram Chandra Bhagat, Ext. A, for the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code etc. In the incident one Ram sagar Sah was killed. However, after investigation in both the cases charge- sheet was submitted for the offence under Section 302 and other allied sections of the Indian Penal Code for murder of Ram Sagar Sah. Both the cases were committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. The cases were tried separately. In the case initiated at the instance of appellant Ram Chandra Bhagat, informant Brijnandan Sah, his brother Suraj Sah and others were accused. The trial Court convicted the accused persons against which the convicts preferred Cr. Appeal bearing No. 115/91. Both the cases were committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. The cases were tried separately. In the case initiated at the instance of appellant Ram Chandra Bhagat, informant Brijnandan Sah, his brother Suraj Sah and others were accused. The trial Court convicted the accused persons against which the convicts preferred Cr. Appeal bearing No. 115/91. The appeal was allowed and the judgment and order of conviction and sentence were set aside vide judgment and order dated 27.4.1992 by a Division Bench of this Court, Ext. 8. The judgment of acquittal was challenged before the Apex Court in Cr. Appeal No. 552/92 and the same is pending for disposal. In the case initiated at the instance of Brijnandan Sah, appellant Ram Chandra Bhagat and others have been convicted by the trial Court, against which the convicts have preferred Cr. Appeals in hand which are being disposed of by this judgment and order. 9. It appears from the materials brought on the record by the prosecution and the defence i.e. Ext. 1, fardbeyan of informant Brijnandan Sah and Ext. A, fardbeyan of appellant Ram Chandra Bhagat that certain facts were admitted by both the parties i.e. land of appellant Ram Chandra Bhagat adjacent to the khalihan of informant Brijnandan Sah, the place of occurrence, the khalihan of informant Brijnandan Sah, trouble started for cutting of earth by the appellants from the field of Ram Chandra Bhagat and throwing earth in the khalihan of informant Brijnandan Sah, snatching of gun from the hand of informant Brijnandan Sah by the appellants. However, the dispute is with regard to participation of the appellants and committing murder of deceased Ram Sagar Sah by Mahendra Bhagat, the appellant, from his country made pistol. According to the prosecution Mahendra Bhagat fired causing death of Ram Sagar Sah, whereas according to the defence informant Brijnandan Sah fired causing death of Ram Sagar Sah. 10. It is well known rule of law that defence is not required to establish any case but to make out a probable case creating doubt in the prosecution version. In the light of the aforesaid maxim I proceed to examine the defence case. According to the defence, version Ram Sagar Sah was not killed by the appellant Mahendra Bhagat rather he was killed by Brijnandan Sah, the informant. In support of defence version the fardbeyan of appellant Ram Chandra Bhagat, Ext. In the light of the aforesaid maxim I proceed to examine the defence case. According to the defence, version Ram Sagar Sah was not killed by the appellant Mahendra Bhagat rather he was killed by Brijnandan Sah, the informant. In support of defence version the fardbeyan of appellant Ram Chandra Bhagat, Ext. A has been brought on record. Three DWs have also been examined in support of defence version. DW 1 is wife of the deceased. She is not eye-witness to the occurrence. She deposed that when she came at the place of occurrence she found her husband lying on the ground and there was fire arm injury on his person. He was taken to Darbhanga Medical College and hospital for treatment. He disclosed the name of informant Brijnandan Sah as his assailant in presence of Rama Sah, brother of the deceased. Police had arrived at the hospital before death of her husband but in her presence no statement of the deceased was recorded. She also did not lodge any case. DW 2 is son of the deceased. He claimed to be eye-witness to the occurrence. He deposed that he and his father both had gone to the place of occurrence when quarrel was going on between Ram Chandra Bhagat, the appellant and Brijnandan Sah, the informant. Brijnandan Sah fired causing injury to Ram Chandra Bhagat and thereafter Brijnandan Sah fired second shot which hit the deceased. He further deposed that his father, the deceased, had disclosed the name of Brijnandan Sah as his assailant. The police had also came before the death of his father. DW 3 is formal witness who proved injury report of appellant Ram Chandra Bhagat. However, it appears from the material on record that nothing has been brought on the record to show that any statement of the deceased was recorded indicating that Brijnandan Sah fired causing his death or DW 1 or DW 2 lodged any case with respect to the incident though DW 1 claimed to reach the place of occurrence soon after the occurrence and DW 2 was present at the place of occurrence from before. There is also nothing on the record to show that their statement was recorded at Darbhanga Medical College and Hospital, although they deposed that the police had come before the death of Ram sagar Sah, the deceased. Further- more, it appears from Ext. There is also nothing on the record to show that their statement was recorded at Darbhanga Medical College and Hospital, although they deposed that the police had come before the death of Ram sagar Sah, the deceased. Further- more, it appears from Ext. A that appellant Ram Chandra Bhagat had sustained injury in the incident at the hands of informant Brijnandan Sah but in Ext. A, the fardbeyan there is no mention about presence of Ram Sagar Sah, the deceased nor there is anything to show that how he sustained injuries. In Ext. A there is no mention about the presence of Mahendra Bhagat but DW 2 has deposed that Mahendra Bhagat was present at the place of occurrence. In fact there is nothing in Ext. A about the death of Ram Sagar Sah though the defence case is that he was shot at by informant Brijnandan Sah. In Ext. A it has been stated that when the informant, namely, Brijnandan Sah fired causing injury to Ram Chandra Bhagat, the gun was snatched from the hand of Brijnandan Sah by the appellants, the gun was also produced by appellant Mahendra Bhagat before the police and as such there was no occasion of second firing by Brijnandan Sah, the informant. Moreover, in Ext. A nothing has been stated about the presence of DW 2 or DW 1 at the time of occurrence or as witness to the occurrence. Further, more, the Investigating Officer, PW 10, went to the place of occurrence on the same day i.e. on 11.12.1983 at 11 a.m. He inspected the place of occurrence, recorded the statement of witnesses on the same day but no one came to say before him that deceased was shot at by informant Brijnandan Sah. It has been stated by PW 10 that he recorded the statement of the witnesses of the counter-case i.e. case instituted at the instance of Ram Chandra Bhagat on 16.12.1983, i.e. after 5 days of the occurrence. The reason for not giving statement before the police soon after the occurrence has not been brought on the record. It has been stated by PW 10 that he recorded the statement of the witnesses of the counter-case i.e. case instituted at the instance of Ram Chandra Bhagat on 16.12.1983, i.e. after 5 days of the occurrence. The reason for not giving statement before the police soon after the occurrence has not been brought on the record. The trial Court has also stated that two injury reports of Ram Chandra Bhagat were brought on the record, one was of 9 a.m. and the other was of 10.30 p.m. First injury report speaks about blackening and tattooing marks, whereas, in the second injury report there is no mention of blackening and tattooing mark. Thus, it appears from the discussion made above that defence has not come with probable case to create doubt about the prosecution version. 11. It is well known rule of law that the prosecution cannot take advantage of the weakness of the defence rather it has to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubts. Thus, keeping in mind the aforesaid rule of law I proceed to examine the evidence brought on the record by the prosecution. PW 5 is the informant and eye-witness to the occurrence. His evidence is that in the morning of 11.12.1983 he was in his khalihan. In the khalihan there was one Bangli. He along with Ramdeo Bhagat slept in the khalihan in the previous night of the occurrence to watch the bundles of paddy kept in khalihan. At about 7 a.m. appellant Ram Chandra Bhagat, Ram Baran Bhagat and Mahendra Bhagat came. They started throwing paddy bundles from the khalihan. Appellant Ram Chandra Bhagat and Ram Baran Bhagat started cutting earth from their field and throwing it in the khalihan. He protested on which the appellants said that some land fell in his khalihan. Altercation took place for the same on which Ram Chandra Bhagat called other accused persons who came variously armed with lathi farsa and bhala. He gave order to kill him and he, Ram Baran Bhagat and Mahendra Bhagat ran towards Bangli in order to take possession of his gun. He also ran towards Bangli and took gun in his hand. However, appellant Ram Baran Bhagat and Mahendra Bhagat caught him and Ram Chandra Bhagat snatched gun from his hand. Appellant Ram Sagar Bhagat, Ram Uday Bhagat assaulted him with lathi. He also ran towards Bangli and took gun in his hand. However, appellant Ram Baran Bhagat and Mahendra Bhagat caught him and Ram Chandra Bhagat snatched gun from his hand. Appellant Ram Sagar Bhagat, Ram Uday Bhagat assaulted him with lathi. Appellants Ram Ekbal Bhagat and Saudagar Bhagat assaulted him with fists and slaps. Appellants Ram Baran Bhagat and Ram Uday Bhagat snatched golden ring from his finger. Appellant Bhabesh Bhagat took out Rs. 300/-from his pocket. His cousin Ram Sagar Sah came to save him then appellant Mahendra Bhagat took out pistol from his pocket and fired causing injury to Ram Sagar Sah. He fell down and became senseless. Accused persons ran away with paddy-bundles. He sent Ram sagar Sah to Darbhanga Hospital for treatment. He was brought to his house. On the next day he learnt that Ram Sagar Sah died in the hospital. The police came and recorded his fardbeyan, Ext. 1. Police sent him to Katra Hospital for treatment but he got himself examined at Muzaffarpur as in katra Hospital the Doctor always was not available. Appellant Ram Chandra Bhagat had also lodged a case against him, his brother Suraj Narayan and others in which he and others were convicted by the Sessions Court in ST 185/85. They preferred appeal before the High Court and the High Court acquitted them. However, the matter is pending before the Supreme Court. There was neither any enmity from before for the land nor any assault had taken place prior to the occurrence. The appellants assaulted him after snatching gun from his hand. No firing was made from his gun. Ram Sagar Sah, the deceased had come suo motu. When Ram Sagar Sah came he said why they were doing such things. Thereafter, appellant Mahendra Bhagat fired from his pistol causing injury. He had not seen injury on the person of appellant Ram Chandra Bhagat. He had called the chaukidar but he came to know that the chaukidar had already gone to the police station and as such he did not send any person to inform the police. The witness denied that there was any dispute for the land and due to the aforesaid reason he committed murder of Ram Sagar Sah. 12. PW 1 at the relevant time was going to his field PW 2 was returning after attending the call of nature. The witness denied that there was any dispute for the land and due to the aforesaid reason he committed murder of Ram Sagar Sah. 12. PW 1 at the relevant time was going to his field PW 2 was returning after attending the call of nature. When they reached near the place of occurrence they saw Ram Chandra Bhagat, Ram Baran Bhagat and Mahendra Bhagat were throwing bundles of paddy from the khalihan and also throwing earth in the khalihan. The informant protested on which Ram Chandra Bhagat called other accused persons who came variously armed. Appellant Ram Chandra Bhagat ordered to kill Ram Chandra Bhagat proceeded towards Bangli to take possession of the gun of the informant. However, the informant took gun in his hand. Ram Baran Bhagat and Mahendra Bhagat caught his waist and Ram Chandra Bhagat snatched the gun from him. The appellants assaulted the informant, PW 5 and also snatched wrist watch, golden ring and money. Cousin of PW 5, Ram Sagar Sah came to save but appellant Mahendra Bhagat fired from the country made pistol causing injury to Ram Sagar Sah. Thereafter, the appellants ran away with the gun of the informant, PW 5. In cross-examination the witnesses stated about the place of occurrence and the manner of occurrence. No firing was made from the gun of the informant nor they had seen any injury on the person of appellant Ram Chandra Bhagat. The witnesses were cross-examined at length but nothing could be elicited to doubt the evidence of the witnesses. 13. PW 3 at the relevant time was returning after attending the call of nature he is brother of PW 4 who was sleeping in the khalihan in the previous night along with the informant. They claimed to have seen the occurrence and deposed that at the relevant time Ram Chandra Bhagat, Ram Baran Bhagat and Mahendra Bhagat were throwing bundles of paddy and cutting earth and throwing earth in the khalihan of informant, PW 5. PW 5 protested on which there was altercation Ram Chandra Bhagat called other persons who came variously armed. Ram Chandra Bhagat ordered to kill and he and other accused persons ran towards Bangli in order to take gun, however, the informant took his gun from the Bangli. Accused persons caught the informant, PW 5 and Ram Chandra Bhagat snatched away the gun from his hand. Ram Chandra Bhagat ordered to kill and he and other accused persons ran towards Bangli in order to take gun, however, the informant took his gun from the Bangli. Accused persons caught the informant, PW 5 and Ram Chandra Bhagat snatched away the gun from his hand. Appellants assaulted PW 5 and also snatched wrist watch, golden ring and money from him. Ram Sagar Sah the deceased came to save the informant on which appellant Mahendra Bhagat fired from country made pistol causing injury on his abdomen. Thereafter, the appellants ran away with the gun of the informant. At the relevant time no family members of the deceased had reached at the place of occurrence. Ram Chandra Bhagat was not assaulted nor they had seen any injury on his person. The witnesses were cross- examined at length but nothing could be taken out on the material point to doubt their testimony. 14. PW 6 at the relevant time was going too his Held. When he reached near the place of occurrence he saw that the appellants were assaulting the informant, PW 5. Appellant Ram Chandra Bhagat had gun in his hand. Cousin of PW 5 Ram Sagar Sah came to save him but Mahendra Bhagat fired from pistol causing injury on the stomach of the deceased. The appellants thereafter ran away with the gun of informant, PW 5. In cross-examination the witness denied any enmity with the appellants and stated that he had seen the appellants assaulting PW 5 and when Ram Sagar Sah came, Mahendra Bhagat fired at him. His statement was recorded by the police. However, the defence could not be able to take out any thing to doubt his evidence. 15. PW 9 is another eye-witness to the occurrence. At the relevant time was returning from his field and when he reached near the place of occurrence he saw Ram Chandra Bhagat, Ram Baran Bhagat and Mahendra Bhagat throwing paddy-bundles from the khalihan. Ram Chandra Bhagat, Ram Baran Bhagat were also cutting earth from their field and throwing it in the khalihan. Informant PW 5, protested on which Ram Chandra Bhagat called other appellants who came variously armed. Appellant Ram Chandra Bhagat ordered to kill and he himself proceeded towards Bengali in order to take possession of the gun of the informant. However, informant, PW 5, took gun in his hand. Informant PW 5, protested on which Ram Chandra Bhagat called other appellants who came variously armed. Appellant Ram Chandra Bhagat ordered to kill and he himself proceeded towards Bengali in order to take possession of the gun of the informant. However, informant, PW 5, took gun in his hand. Appellant Mahendra Bhagat and Ram Baran Bhagat caught him and Ram Chandra Bhagat snatched the gun. Ram Sagar Sah the deceased came and asked them not to quarrel on which appellant Mahendra Bhagat fired from his pistol causing injury on his abdomen. Thereafter, the appellants ran away with gun of the informant, PW 5. In cross-examination the witness had admitted that he is brother of PW 2. He gave description of the place of occurrence. However, he stated the that gun was licensed gun of the informant the informant did not fire from the gun nor he had seen any injury on the person of appellant Ram Chandra Bhagat. No one of the family of the deceased had come at the time of occurrence. The witness was cross-examination at length but nothing could be elicited to doubt his evidence. 16. From the discussion of oral evidence brought on the record by the prosecution it is evident that their evidence is consistent on material points. There is no contradiction on the material points. They have given consistent evidence and vivid picture of the place of occurrence. Learned counsel for the appellants also could not be able to show any infirmity in their evidence to doubt their evidence. 17. PW 7 is doctor who examined the informant, PW 5. He found six injuries on the person of informant, PW 5. Injuries were caused by hard blunt substance such as fists and slaps and lathi. The injuries were simple in nature and he proved the injury report as Ext. 2. PW 8 is also a Doctor who held post- mortem over the dead body of the deceased on 12.12.1983 at 11.30 a.m. He found incised stiched wound 7" x 1" on the abdomen of the deceased. The other soft tissues were also found stiched in layers. He also found another stiched wound 3" long left of the first wound. On opening abdominal cavity it was found full of blood and blood clots. Left Kidney and spleen were found ruptured containing several pillets. The other soft tissues were also found stiched in layers. He also found another stiched wound 3" long left of the first wound. On opening abdominal cavity it was found full of blood and blood clots. Left Kidney and spleen were found ruptured containing several pillets. The pillets were extracted and were sent in separate sealed cover the witness stated that original wound was modified by surgical interference. Presence of pillets and injuries in spleen and kidnay were dangerous for life and injuries were caused by fire arm. Death was due to shock and haemorrhage caused by injuries found on the person of the deceased. The age of injury was within 6 to 12 hours from the time of post-mortem examination. He proved post-mortem report as Ext. 3. 18. PW 10 is the Investigating Officer. The witness deposed that Parmeshwar Paswan, the chaukidar gave information that in village Lakhanpur some occurrence of assault had taken place in the khalihan of informant, PW 5. On the basis of information he made station diary entry No. 160 dated 11.12.1983 and proceeded to the place of occurrence. He recorded fardbeyan of PW 5, Ext. 1, and on the basis of which First Information Report Ext. 4, was drawn. He took up investigation of the case. He recorded restatement of the informant, prepared injury memo of the injury found on the person of the informant. He sent the informant for treatment. He inspected the place of occurrence and has given vivid picture of the place of occurrence. He found Bangli in which one Chauki was found. He found marks of cutting of earth in the southern boundary of khalihan. He recorded the statement of witnesses at the spot. On 12.12.1983 he learnt that Ram Sagar Sah died in the hospital. He obtained post-mortem report. He also obtained material exhibits, blood stained dhoti, ganji etc. He received fardbeyan of Ram Chandra Bhagat, Ext. A and on the basis of which First Information Report, Ext. B, was drawn. He received receipt regarding deposit of gun. Ext. D. He took charge of the gun and sent it for examination. He went to Laheriasrai Hospital and recorded the statement of Mahaseth, Om Prakash and others on 16.12.1983. He obtained report of examination of gun, Ext. F. He also recorded restatement of appellant Ram Chandra Bhagat, informant in the counter case. He received receipt regarding deposit of gun. Ext. D. He took charge of the gun and sent it for examination. He went to Laheriasrai Hospital and recorded the statement of Mahaseth, Om Prakash and others on 16.12.1983. He obtained report of examination of gun, Ext. F. He also recorded restatement of appellant Ram Chandra Bhagat, informant in the counter case. He also recorded the statement of DWs 1, 2 and others in Katra PS Case No. 92/83 instituted at the instance of appellant Ram Chandra Bhagat. However, he stated that he did not find blood stain mark, empty cartridges at the place of occurrence. However, he stated that he recorded the statement of PW 1 on 12.12.1983. He did not state before him that appellant Mahendra Bhagat was cutting earth. He recorded the statement of PW 2 on 11.12.1983 itself. PW 6 had stated before him that he had reached the place of occurrence and had seen the occurrence he claimed to identify the accused persons. He gave details of the occurrence. 19. From the evidence of Doctor as well as Investigating Officer, as discussed above, it is obvious that their evidence supports the prosecution case and evidence of eye-witnesses on material points i.e. with respect to the place of occurrence and time of occurrence. 20. Learned counsel for the appellants, however, contended that conviction of the appellants except Mahendra Bhagat under Sections 302/ 149 of the Indian Penal Code is bad in law as there is nothing on the record to show that they had common object to kill Ram Sagar Sah and with the aforesaid object they participated in commission of the offence. In this regard it would be pertinent to mention herein that to attract Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code it is not necessary that each person must commit any overtact. His presence along with other persons who committed offence is sufficient to attract Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code unless it is established by material on record that such person was not at all member of the mob. In the instant case it has been alleged in the First Information Report itself that Ram Chandra Bhagat, Ram Baran Bhagat and Mahendra Bhagat were present at the place of occurrence. In the instant case it has been alleged in the First Information Report itself that Ram Chandra Bhagat, Ram Baran Bhagat and Mahendra Bhagat were present at the place of occurrence. There was altercation between aforesaid appellants and informant, PW 5 with regard to cutting of earth and throwing it in the khalihan of the informant. Appellant Ram Chandra Bhagat called other appellants who came variously armed with lathi, bhala and farsa. They assaulted with fists, slaps, lathi and snatched wrist watch, golden ring and money from the pocket of the informant, PW 5. The said allegation has been reiterated by the eye-witnesses in their evidence. Therefore, the act done by the appellants is established by cogent evidence. The object can be gathered from the acts done by the persons and the common object may develop at the spot. In the instant case it appears from the evidence and surrounding circumstances that common object developed at the spot and in furtherence of common object murder was committed. Thus, it cannot be said that they had no common object to commit murder. In such a case there is no need that each person must assault the deceased with his weapon in his hand. Thus, on consideration, as discussed above, I find no merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants. 21. Learned counsel for the appellants next contended that injury found on the person of the appellant Ram Chandra Bhagat was not explained by the prosecution and as such prosecution case cannot be accepted. In this regard it would not be out of place to mention herein that the court has already come to the conclusion that the defence could not be able to make out a probable case to create doubt in the prosecution case. Moreover, it appears that the defence itself is suffering from the same vice as it could not explain the death of Ram Sagar Sah which is evident from Ext. A, fardbeyan of appellant Ram Chandra Bhagat specially when the place of occurrence and the time of occurrence have been admitted by the defence. Moreover, it appears that the defence itself is suffering from the same vice as it could not explain the death of Ram Sagar Sah which is evident from Ext. A, fardbeyan of appellant Ram Chandra Bhagat specially when the place of occurrence and the time of occurrence have been admitted by the defence. Moreover, the law has already been settled by the Apex Court in the case of Rrjendra Singh and others v. State of Bihar, 2000 (2) PLJR 205 (SC) wherein it has been held that if the prosecution witnesses are found to be trustworthy the prosecution is not obliged to explain each injury on the person of the accused even though injuries might have been caused in course of occurrence. The same view has been reiterated in the case of Takhaji Hiraji v. Thakore Kubersing Chamansing, 2001 (3) PLJR 52 wherein it has been held that it cannot be held as a matter of right that when other accused sustained injury in the same occurrence the prosecution is obliged to explain injury and on its failure prosecution case should be disbelieved. In the instant case the injury report of Ram Chandra Bhagat has been brought on record as Ext. G wherefrom it appears that injury was found on the hand and opinion was reserved with regard to nature of injury and nothing has been brought on the record that injury found on the person of appellant Ram Chandra Bhagat was found to be grievous in nature. Moreover, from the discussion of evidence of the witnesses of the prosecution the Court has come to a conclusion that their evidence is trust worthy and defence could not be able to indicate anything to doubt their testimony. Thus I find no substance in the submission of learned counsel for the appellants. 22. Learned counsel for the appellants next contended that there was delay in lodging the First Information Report and as such the evidence of the prosecution witnesses must be discarded. The occurrence is alleged to have taken place on 11.12.1983 at 7 a.m. fardbeyan of the informant was recorded at 11 a.m. PW 5 the informant in the case, has stated in his evidence that he had called the chaukidar but he learnt that chaukidar had already gone to the police station and as such he did not send another person to the police station. PW 10 the Investigating Officer has also stated in his evidence that he received information with regard to assault from the chaukidar and on the basis of which he entered station diary entry and proceeded to the place of occurrence and recorded the fardbeyan at 11 a.m. Thus it appears that there was no delay in giving information to the police or lodging First Information Report. 23. Learned counsel for the appellants next contended that the gun in question was sent for examination and report, Ext. F was submitted that gun was recently used and as such prosecution case is not worthy of reliance. In this regard it would not be out of place to mention here in that the prosecution case is that when the informant took the gun from the Bangli the appellant caught hold of the informant and snatched the gun. The witness has stated categorically that the gun was not used by the informant. The defence has taken plea that the informant had used the gun causing injury to the deceased but it appears from Ext. A that when the informant, PW 5, is said to have fired causing injury on the hand of appellant Ram Chandra Bhagat the gun was snatched away by the appellants and they ran away with the gun. The admitted position is that the gun was also produced by the appellants. Therefore, it cannot be ruled out that after snatching of the gun by the appellants they were in possession of the gun and after running away they used the gun to create evidence that firing was made from the said gun. On consideration as discussed above, I find no substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants. 24. Thus, on consideration, as discussed above, I find that the prosecution has been able to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubts and there is no merit in any of the appeals. Accordingly, all the three appeals are dismissed. The appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled. They are directed to surrender before the Court below to serve the remaining period of sentence.