Judgment R.N.Prasad and B.N.Singh Neelam JJ. 1. The appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. He has further been convicted for the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years vide judgment and order dated 19.1.1994 passed by 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Begusarai in S.T. No. 152/ 7 of 1992. 2. One Raj Kumar Paswan, the informant, gave his fardbeyan on 16.10.1991 at about 5 A.M. before the Sub-Inspector of Police on the roof of the Dalan of one Sheo Chandra Singh that he was sleeping in the night on the roof of Dalan of Sheo Chandra Singh. His brother Laleshwar Paswan was also sleeping there. Some people of the village were also sleeping there. At about 3 A.M. he woke up on the sound of groaning. He flashed his torch and found his brother in pool of blood. He also saw Ajo Paswan with Garasa coming down from the roof. He raised alarm and also came down from the roof to catch hold of Ajo Paswan. Ajo Paswan went near his house and gave garasa blow to his brother Kamli Paswan who was sleeping there. Some people of the village followed him but he succeeded in running away towards east. He returned to the roof of Sheo Chandra Singh and found his brother Laleshwar Paswan dead. He saw injuries near the cheek, head and ear of his brother. He went near his injured brother Kamli Paswan and found bleeding injury on the cheek, head and ear. His father and people of the village took the injured to Begusarai for treatment. The motive of the occurrence was that about a month ago Ajo Paswan had assaulted his son Sanjay Paswan with fist and slaps and had also abused his mother. He and his brother had protested and had also scolded him. The father of Ajo Paswan had asked him to keep quiet at the time and to take revenge by killing some of them. On the roof of the house villagers Ram Lagan Paswan and Naresh Paswan were also sleeping. Udho Paswan was sleeping near his house. They had seen the occurrence. 3. On the aforesaid fardbeyan formal First Information Report was drawn, investigation was taken up and on completion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted. On the roof of the house villagers Ram Lagan Paswan and Naresh Paswan were also sleeping. Udho Paswan was sleeping near his house. They had seen the occurrence. 3. On the aforesaid fardbeyan formal First Information Report was drawn, investigation was taken up and on completion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted. On receipt of charge-sheet cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the court of sessions for trial. The trial court convicted the appellant as indicated above. 4. The defence of the appellant was that he was innocent and had falsely been implicated in this case. 5. The prosecution in support of its case has examined 12 witnesses, out of whom P.W. 9 is the informant and eye witness to the occurrence. P.Ws. 5 & 6 are also eye witnesses to the occurrence of commission of murder of Laleshwar Paswan. P.W. 1 is an eye witness to the occurrence which took place near the house of P.W. 8 Khantar Paswan. P.Ws. 3 & 4 have claimed that they had seen the appellant running away near the house of P.W. 8 Khantar Paswan. P.W. 2 claimed that soon before the occurrence the appellant met her and enquired about the deceased. P.W. 7 is daughter-in-law of P.W. 2 and supported her evidence. P.W. 8 claimed that he had seen the appellant running away. P.W. 10 is Doctor who held postmortem over the dead body and also examined the injured P.W. 4. P.W. 11 is the Investigating Officer who recorded the fardbeyan and also investigated the case. P.W. 12 is the second Investigating Officer. He only submitted charge-sheet. 6. In this case there are two places of occurrence, one on the roof of Dalan of Sheo Chandra Singh where Laleshwar Paswan was killed. The another place of occurrence is house of Khantar Paswan, P.W. 8 where Kamli Paswan was assaulted, P.Ws. 9, 5 & 6 are witnesses to the commission of murder. P.Ws. 1, 3, 4 & 8 are witnesses on the point of assault of Kamli Paswan. The first occurrence took place on the roof of the house of Sheo Chandra Singh. P.W. 9 in his evidence stated that he, P.Ws. 5, 6 and the deceased were sleeping on the roof of the Dalan of Sheo Chandra Singh. At about 3 A.M. he woke up on hearing sound of groaning. The first occurrence took place on the roof of the house of Sheo Chandra Singh. P.W. 9 in his evidence stated that he, P.Ws. 5, 6 and the deceased were sleeping on the roof of the Dalan of Sheo Chandra Singh. At about 3 A.M. he woke up on hearing sound of groaning. He flashed his torch and saw the appellant with Garasa coming down from the roof. He also came down from the roof and followed him. The appellant went near his house and gave Garasa blow on Kamli Paswan. The people followed him but he succeeded in running away. The witness stated that a month prior to the occurrence there was incident of assault by the appellant to his son. The appellant also abused his mother and as such he was scolded by him and his brother. P.Ws. 5 & 6 also supported the evidence of P.W. 9 on all material points. They stated that they were sleeping on the roof of Dalan of Sheo Chandra Singh. They woke up on hearing alarm and saw the appellant coming down from the roof with Garasa in his hand. They also came down and tried to catch hold of him but he succeeded in running away. 7. The other witnesses are on the point of assault by the appellant to Kamli Paswan near the house of Khantar Paswan, P.W. 8. P.W. 1 had gone to see dance. He in his evidence stated that he returned and was spreading bed at the house of Khantar Paswan, P.W. 8. In the meantime the appellant came and gave Garasa blow to Kamli Paswan, P.W. 4. He stated that P.W. 3 was also sleeping there. He also learnt that the appellant had killed Laleshwar Paswan who was sleeping on the roof of Dalan of Sheo Chandra Singh. P.W. 4 the injured himself stated in his evidence that he was sleeping there and he was assaulted by appellant with Garasa. He saw him running away. Alarm was also raised that his brother Laleshwar Paswan was also killed by the appellant on the roof of Dalan of Sheo Chandra Singh. Similar is the evidence of P.Ws. 3 & 8. P.W. 3 supported the evidence of P.Ws. 1 & 4 on all material points and stated that he had seen the appellant running away. P.W. 8 was sleeping in his house. Similar is the evidence of P.Ws. 3 & 8. P.W. 3 supported the evidence of P.Ws. 1 & 4 on all material points and stated that he had seen the appellant running away. P.W. 8 was sleeping in his house. He also supported the prosecution case and stated that at the relevant time he had seen the appellant running away from the place of occurrence i.e. the place where Kamli Paswan was assaulted. 8. P.W. 2 is mother-in-law of P.W. 7. She stated in her evidence that she had come out from the house to urinate in the lane. The appellant met her and also enquired about Laleshwar Paswan. She disclosed that he was sleeping on the roof of Dalan of Sheo Chandra Singh. The witness further stated that shortly thereafter alarm was raised on the roof of Dalan of Sheo Chandra Singh that Ajo Paswan killed Lalo. She went there and found P.Ws. 9, 5 & 6. They disclosed that appellant killed Laleshwar Paswan. P.W. 7 was sleeping with her mother-in-law, P.W. 2. She in her evidence supported the evidence of P.W. 7. They also stated about the motive of the occurrence. 9. P. W. 10 is the Doctor who held postmortem over the dead body on 16.10.1991 at about 11.30 A.M. The Doctor found incised wound on the person of the deceased. He opined that death was due to the injuries found on the person of the deceased. Time elapsed since death was within 24 hours which fits in with the time of occurrence. The witness in cross-examination stated that on receipt of such type of injury the injured would not be able to speak and move. The Doctor also examined P.W. 4, the injured, on the same day at about 6 A.M. He found incised wound on the person of the injured which was grievous in nature. In cross-examination the witness stated that on receipt of such injury the injured can speak and move. P.W 11 is the Investigating Officer. He deposed that on receipt of information he went to the place of occurrence and recorded fardbeyan of P.W. 9 at about 5 A.M. He inspected the place of occurrence and found the dead body of Laleshwar Paswan on the roof of Dalan of Sheo Chandra Singh. He also found copious of blood near the dead body and seized the same in presence of witnesses. He also found copious of blood near the dead body and seized the same in presence of witnesses. He found the boundary wall through which the people used to go on the roof and come down from the roof. The witness stated that people can go there through the wall without any difficulty. He prepared inquest report in presence of witnesses and sent the dead body for postmortem. The witness also inspected the second place of occurrence i.e. house of Khantar Paswan, P.W. 8, and found blood near his house. He seized the same in presence of witnesses. The witness stated that distance between roof of Sheo Chandra Singh i.e. first place of occurrence and house of P.W 8 is about 50 yards. The witness also recorded the statement of witnesses and thereafter he handed over charge to P.W 12. P.W. 12 stated in his evidence that he only submitted charge-sheet. 10. From consideration and discussion made above this much is obvious that the evidence of prosecution witnesses is consistent on all material points i.e. with respect to commission of murder of Laleshwar Paswan and assault to Kamli Paswan, P.W. 4, place of occurrence, i.e. roof of Sheo Chandra Singh where Laleshwar Paswan was murdered and the house of Khantar Paswan where Kamli Paswan, P.W 4 was assaulted, the time of occurrence. The oral testimony has been corroborated by the objective findings by the Investigating Officer, P.W 11 at the place of occurrence. The Doctor, P.W. 10 has also corroborated the ocular evidence of the witnesses as he has found incised wound on the person of the deceased as well as the injured, P.W. 4. The attention of the witness was drawn to the statement made before the police but surprisingly those questions could not be put to the Investigating Officer and as such the fence cannot take an advantage of it as it is not substantive evidence. 11. In the First Information Report itself the motive of the occurrence has been stated that there was incident of assault to the son of the informant and abuse to his mother by the appellant for which there was scuffle and the informant and his brother had scolded the appellant. The father of the appellant asked the appellant to keep quiet and take revenge by committing double murder. The said motive has been stated by almost all the witnesses i.e. P.Ws. The father of the appellant asked the appellant to keep quiet and take revenge by committing double murder. The said motive has been stated by almost all the witnesses i.e. P.Ws. 2, 4, 5, 7, 8 & 9. Therefore, it is evident that the prosecution has also been able to prove the motive of occurrence although motive is not always very material in criminal case. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant, however, pointed out that there is no eye-witness that appellant was seen assaulting the deceased and as such conviction of the appellant is bad in law. It is true no witness has stated that he had seen the appellant assaulting the deceased but the circumstances which have come on the record i.e. soon before the occurrence appellant met P.W. 2, enquired about the deceased and P.W. 2 disclosed that he was sleeping on the roof of Sheo Chandra Singh. Shortly thereafter she heard alarm and went to the roof of the Dalan of Sheo Chandra Singh and learnt from P.Ws. 9, 5, & 6 that the appellant assaulted the deceased. The other circumstances are that when P.Ws. 9, 5 & 6 woke up on hearing groaning sound, P.W. 9 flashed his torch and found the appellant coming down from the roof with Garasa in his hand. P.W. 9 claimed that he followed him. The appellant was running away and went near the house of Khantar Paswan and gave Garasa blow to Kamli Paswan, P.W. 4. This part of the occurrence has also been supported by P.Ws. 1, 3, 4 & 8. Therefore, it is evident that chain of circumstances has been established by the prosecution and this chain excludes all possible hypotheses of innocence of the appellant, rather, it leads to only conclusion that appellant is responsible for committing offence. Therefore, we are of the view that the prosecution has been able to establish its case excluding all other possible hypotheses that appellant is innocent. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant next pointed out that the occurrence is alleged to have taken place in the night and there was no means of identification and as such appellant has falsely been implicated. In this regard it would be pertinent to mention herein that the appellant and the witnesses were resident of the same village and were known fully to each other. P.Ws. In this regard it would be pertinent to mention herein that the appellant and the witnesses were resident of the same village and were known fully to each other. P.Ws. 9, 5 & 6 were sleeping on the roof where the deceased was sleeping. In the night there would be no difficulty in identifying known person. More-over, P.W. 9 has stated in his evidence that he woke up and flashed his torch and saw the appellant coming down from the roof with Garasa in his hand. P.W. 1 also stated in his evidence that night was dark but light was there. P.W. 5 stated in his evidence that there was Hanuman temple which was under construction and one electric bulb was burning. The temple was near the place of occurrence. Therefore, it cannot be said that light was not there. In such a situation, the identification of known person cannot be said to be impossible. Thus on consideration, in our view, the submission has got no force at all. 14. Thus on consideration, as discussed above, we find no merit in this Appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.