Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 942 (PAT)

Gaibi Mandal v. State Of Bihar

2001-10-05

B.N.P.SINGH, R.N.PRASAD

body2001
Judgment B.N.P.Singh, J. 1. Land, which is a bounty of nature, is also source of livelihood for human beings. But many lives are lost due to hostility generated by the land disputes and the instant case is an illustration. To trace the genesis of incident, one finds from the evidences placed on record that about 1 and 1/2 months back, as both Gaibi Mandal and the deceased Suresh Mandal were aspirants for purchasing 4 and 1/2 bighas of land, there was a bidding between them and it was Suresh Mandal who had outbidden the former. Offended Gaibi Mandal, who lost the bid and failed to secure possession over the land, had been consistently putting pressure on the deceased, and also his father-in-law, in whose name the transactions were made to relinquish their claim over the land and as the deceased failed to oblige him, he had to pay the price by losing his life. 2. Shorn of details, the case with which the prosecution went for trial was that on 26th September, 1980 at about 8 a.m. while Suresh Mandal (deceased) was sitting on cot, at the door of his house, along with other family members, who were his father, brother, mother, wife and brothers wife, Gaibi Mandal, Ranjit Mandal, Panchamlal Mandal, Jageshwar Mandal, Mushahru Mandal and Narain Mandal came holding arms with them and shortly on their arrival, Ranjit Mandal pumped a bullet in the left side of chest of Suresh Mandal when he dropped dead. Pellets pierced through his abdomen causing the intestine coming out from the abdomen. The assailant and those who accompanied them, shortly took to their heels. It was alleged that after the villagers had collected at the place of incident, complicity of the assailant and his associates was disclosed to them. Apprehensive of removing the dead body by them, the family members kept guarding the dead body for the whole night, and since it was a rainy night, the worried father took recourse to Police only in the following morning, when his fardbeyan was recorded at the Police Station at 9.30 a.m. on 27th September, 1980. Apprehensive of removing the dead body by them, the family members kept guarding the dead body for the whole night, and since it was a rainy night, the worried father took recourse to Police only in the following morning, when his fardbeyan was recorded at the Police Station at 9.30 a.m. on 27th September, 1980. After the Police was set in motion, investigation commenced and in the process of collection of evidence during investigation, Police recorded statement of witnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, visited the place of occurrence, prepared inquest report over the dead body in presence of P.Ws. 2 and 15, namely, Rashik Lal Mandal and Tetar Mahto, respectively, seized incriminating objects, sent the dead body to mortuary for post mortem examination, took coercive steps for apprehension of the assailants and their associates and on conclusion of investigation, laid charge sheet before the Court and on committal to the Court of Session, the appellants were eventually put on trial. 3. In the eventual trial, prosecution examined 19 witnesses, obviously to bring home charges against the appellants and those examined by the prosecution include family members of the deceased, doctor, Police Officer, some formal witnesses and also those who claimed to be either ocular or hear-say witnesses of the incident. The defence too examined three witnesses to counter the allegations attributed to the appellants and also to bring some documents on record which are Exhibits A series, B, C and D. Contrary to the allegations made by the prosecution, Narayan Mandal. one of the appellants, as would appear from the evidences placed on record on his behalf, alleged that he had been claiming possession of the land in question on strength of deed, for which he allegedly secured a decree from the Court of Law. He claimed to have been cultivating the disputed land preceding the day of incident. 4. The appellants pleaded not guilty to the charges and pleaded their false implication. The trial Court, on appreciation of evidences placed on record while negativing contentions raised at Bar on behalf of the appellants, accepted the prosecution version, placing implicit reliance on testimony of witnesses and rendered verdict of guilt against Ranjit Mandal and Jageshwar Mandal under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code finding them guilty on that count and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life. Rest of the appellants too, having been found guilty under Section 302/34 IPC, were sentenced to same terms of imprisonment. 5. Now adverting to the evidences placed on record on behalf of the State, Horil Mandal, PW 14, is found to have been tendered by the State and there was nothing material in his evidence to merit consideration. Ramji Lal (PW 17) did not state in positive terms about execution of any deed of sale in his presence and beyond such denial, there was nothing in his evidence to merit consideration. Bankeshwar Yadav (PW 19) Constable No. 50. produced during trial, a cot (Exhibit 1) in the Court. The rest of the witnesses, barring. Investigating Officer and the doctor, can broadly be classified in two categories. Those who claimed to be ocular witnesses happened to be Bimla Devi, wife of the deceased (PW 4), Ramdulari Devi (PW 5), Jugali Devi, mother of the deceased (PW 6), Kalanand Yadav, brother of the deceased (PW 7) and Mohan Das, father of the deceased (PW 13). Those who did not claim to be ocular witnesses to the assault made on Suresh Mandal, yet claimed themselves familiar with the facts of the case, were Jafar Mandal (PW 1), Rasiklal Mandal (PW 2), Ganeshi Mandal (PW 3), Manraj Mandal (PW 12) and Tetar Mahto (PW 15). 6. Coming to the testimony of those who claimed to be eye witnesses, we find Mohan Das (PW 13) who was father of the deceased and also the person who set Police in motion in the following morning of the incident, reiterating his early version which he rendered before the Police about Gaibi Mandal, Ranjit Mandal, Panchlal Mandal, Jageshwar Mandal, Musharu Mandal and Narain Mandal, visiting house of Suresh Mandal at about 8 p.m. on 26th September, 1980, when Ranjit Mandal shot fire on Suresh Mandal with his pistol which he carried with him, causing piercing injury in the chest, and intestine coming out of the abdomen. His wife and also the wife of the deceased and Kalanand Mandal, who were at the door of the house, witnessed the incident. He stated to have disclosed complicity of the appellants to the villagers who rushed to his house shortly after the incident on hearing sound of gun firing. The family members kept guarding the dead body, being apprehensive of its removal by the appellants. He stated to have disclosed complicity of the appellants to the villagers who rushed to his house shortly after the incident on hearing sound of gun firing. The family members kept guarding the dead body, being apprehensive of its removal by the appellants. The witness would reiterate also about genesis of the incident, as about 1-1/4 months back, Suresh Mandal had outbidden Gaibi Mandal for purchase of 4 and 1/2 bighas of land for which Gabbi Mandal felt wounded and was insisting on his son to restore the land to him. About three or four months, preceding the incident, the appellants had visited the house of Suresh Mandal, cautioning him that in case he would not restore possession of the land, he too would not enjoy the usufruct of the land. Even on the day, preceding the incident, at about 6/7 p.m. the appellants had conspired in a meeting about the same subject of land dispute, pursuant to which Suresh Mandal was informed by Ganeshi Mandal (PW 3). 7. Bimla Devi, wife of the deceased (PW 4) was narrating before the Court that while her husband was sitting on a cot at the door of his house, the appellants came holding arms with them when Ranjit Mandal took recourse to firing with pistol and pumped bullet in the chest of her husband, which was followed by assault made by Jageshwar Mandal, who dealt chhura blow in the abdomen when intestine came out. Abortive attempts were made by the appellants even to remove the dead body. In similar terms, Ramdulari Devi (PW 5) would state that while she was at the door of her house, the appellants came holding weapons with them when Ranjit Yadav took recourse to firing causing fire arm injuries in the chest of her husbands brother which was followed by assault by Jageshwar Mandal who dealt blows with dagger when intestine came out of the abdomen. The appellants while retreating resorted to firing twice and also wanted to remove the dead body. Most. Jugali Devi, mother of the deceased (PW6), was at the well when the appellants came. Suresh Mandal was sitting on the cot in front of his shop when Ranjit having taken recourse to firing, caused firm arm injuries in the chest of Suresh Mandal which was followed by dagger blow by Jageshwar. Most. Jugali Devi, mother of the deceased (PW6), was at the well when the appellants came. Suresh Mandal was sitting on the cot in front of his shop when Ranjit having taken recourse to firing, caused firm arm injuries in the chest of Suresh Mandal which was followed by dagger blow by Jageshwar. The appellants while retreating, repeated firing twice and also made attempts to remove the dead body. Kalanand Mandal, the brother of the deceased, who is PW 7, was at the door of the house along with Suresh Mandal, wife of the deceased, and his wife, when appellants came and shortly after their arrival, Ranjit Yadav fired a shot causing injuries to Suresh Mandal which was followed by dagger blow by Jageshwar Mandal and while retreating they also repeated firing and wanted to remove even the dead body, but could not dare due to arrival of the villagers. About genesis of the incident, the witness would state that in the bid that took place for purchase of 4 and 1/2 bighas of land, the bid went in favour of his brother pursuant to which the land in question was purchased in the name of Kantlal Mandal and Horil Lal. 8. Adverting to the evidences of those who stated familiarity with the facts of the case, one would find Jafar Mandal (PW 1) stating about witnessessing the dead body of Suresh Mandal at his house due to firearm injury in his chest. About the character of the deceased, the witness would state that he was infamous and also a dacoit. He stated to have made inquiries from the family members of the deceased who did not disclose identity of the assailants. He too claimed in part of his evidence, to have noticed the appellants but they were strangers. Rashiklal Mandal (PW 2) stated to have rushed to the place of occurrence on hearing the sound of gun shot firing when he noticed Suresh Mandal dead at his house when his intestine had come out. He stated to have noticed firearm injuries in the left side of his chest. The identity of the assailants was disclosed to him by Mohan Das and also mother and wife of the deceased who emphatically stated to him that while Ranjit had fired shot at Suresh with pistol, the other appellants were in their company. He stated to have noticed firearm injuries in the left side of his chest. The identity of the assailants was disclosed to him by Mohan Das and also mother and wife of the deceased who emphatically stated to him that while Ranjit had fired shot at Suresh with pistol, the other appellants were in their company. When the assailants again came for taking the dead body with them, he too claimed their identification in the moon lit night. Ganeshi Mandal (PW 3) too rushed to the house of Suresh Mandal on the sound of gun shot firing when he noticed Suresh Mandal dead on the cot. The intestine had come out of the abdomen and blood was oozing out from the wounds. There were fire-arm injuries on the chest while abdomen was found torn with sharp edged weapon. The father of the deceased had been raising alarm that while Ranjit had fired shot with pistol. Jageshwar Mandal had dealt blows with dagger on his son. He also disclosed about the other appellants who were in the company of the assailants. The complicity of the appellants was also disclosed to him by the wife of the deceased, Bimla Devi, mother of the deceased, Kalanand Mandal and Ramdulari Devi about Ranjit Mandal having fired shot at Suresh Mandal with pistol and Jageshwar Mandal having dealt blows with dagger on him. The complicity of other appellants who accompanied the assailants was disclosed to him, and during his stay at the place of occurrence, the appellants came to remove the dead body but on alarm raised by them, they took to their heels. Manraj Mandal (PW 12) rushed to the house of Mohan Das on hearing sound of gun shot firing and he noticed the dead body of Suresh Mandal whose intestine had come out of the abdomen. Mohan Das. his wife, wife of the deceased, Kalanand and also his wife disclosed complicity of Ranjit who fired shot with pistol on Suresh Mandal while Jageshwar dealt blows with dagger on him. The complicity of other appellants was also disclosed to him by these family members of the deceased. Mohan Das. his wife, wife of the deceased, Kalanand and also his wife disclosed complicity of Ranjit who fired shot with pistol on Suresh Mandal while Jageshwar dealt blows with dagger on him. The complicity of other appellants was also disclosed to him by these family members of the deceased. Tetar Mahto (PW 15) rushed to the house of Suresh Mandal on hearing sound of gun firing when he noticed dead body of Suresh Mandal and it was the wife of the deceased who disclosed that while Ranjit Mandal had caused gun shot injuries, Jageshwar Mandal had dealt blows with chhura on her husband. Complicity of other appellants was also disclosed by the wife of the deceased. 9. Yet there are testimonies of other witnesses on the record which may merit consideration and they are Rajendra Singh (PW 8), Ram Baran Mandal (PW 9) Kantal (PW 10) and Munilal Singh (PW 18). Genesis of the case as has been discussed in the preceding pages, was fall out of the land diispute persisting between Narain Mandal and Suresh Mandal. While Narain Mandal had been claiming possession over the disputed land by virtue of bataidari, rival claims were put also by the deceased. The thrust of the prosecution case was that in a bid that took place for sale of 4 and 1/2 bighas of land, Suresh Mandal had outbidden Gaibi Mandal and managed to get the land purchased in favour of his father-in-law. Munilal Singh (PW 18) with the aid of his evidence, brought on record two deeds of sale (Exhibit 7 series) executed in favour of Kantlal Mandal and Horil Mandal by Bodh Narain Jha and Rudra Narain Jha. He stated to have identified the executants of the deeds. Rajendra Singh (PW 8) was a witness when Pancham Mandal visited house of Ram Baran Mandal for reprimanding Kantlal Mandal to restore possession of the disputed land to him which he had purchased on strength of Suresh Mandal, else he would not permit Suresh Mandal to survive on the earth. Ram Baran Mandal (PW 9), would state in similar terms about Pancham having visited his house in presence of Rajendra Singh for reprimanding Kantlal to restore possession of disputed land to him which he had purchased on strength of Suresh Mandal, else Suresh Mandal would not be permitted to survive on earth. Ram Baran Mandal (PW 9), would state in similar terms about Pancham having visited his house in presence of Rajendra Singh for reprimanding Kantlal to restore possession of disputed land to him which he had purchased on strength of Suresh Mandal, else Suresh Mandal would not be permitted to survive on earth. Kantlal Mandal (PW 10) father-in- law of the deceased would state in positive terms about purchase of 4 and 1/2 bighas of land in his name and also in the name of his brother from Rudra Narain Jha and Bodh Narain Jha by virtue of execution of three deeds of sale, for which there had been bidding between his son-in-law and Gaibi Mandal, but as the bid was in favour of his son-in-law, the transaction went in his favour. Pursuant to purchase of land, Panchamlal Mandal and Gaibi Mandal had been visiting his residence to put pressure on him to restore possession of the land to them for which he was not agreeable. He stated to have learnt subsequently from Rajendra Singh and Ram Baran Mandal that Panchamlal Mandal having visited house of Ram Baran Mandal, had threatened that in case the land was not restored to them by Kalalnand Mandal, Suresh Mandal would be liquidated, and in fact his son-in-law was eventually killed. When he visited house of his son-in-law pursuant to his death, he came to know complicity of the assailants who had executed killing of Suresh Mandal. He stated that the land in question was yet in his possession. 10. Raj Nandan Singh (PW 16), Sub Inspector of Police stated to have recorded fardbeyan of Mohan Das at the Police Station and sent it to Kishunganj Police Station for drawal of first information report. He stated to have taken up investigation of the case, recorded statement of witnesses, visited Laxmipur where place of occurrence situates, prepared inquest report in presence of Tetar Mahto and Rasiklal, visited place of occurrence which was darwaza of the house of Suresh Mandal. He noticed cot on which bed was smeared with blood. The grocery shop of the deceased was there at a distance of three steps and the well was at a distance of six steps. He noticed cot on which bed was smeared with blood. The grocery shop of the deceased was there at a distance of three steps and the well was at a distance of six steps. At verandah, he noticed an oven on which in an iron pot, he stated to have noticed fried fish, Adjacent to the cot, he noticed empty shells of cartridge which was seized by him. 11. Dr. A.Z. Mallik (PW 11) stated to have carried out autopsy over the dead body of Suraj Mandal. Following injuries which were ante-mortem, in nature were noticed on his person: "(1) Incised wound 10" x 3" x abdominal cavitity and chest wall deep on right side of the chest and abdomen placed longitudinally extending from below right nipple to the right side abdomen 2" lateral to the middle line of the abdomen. The wound was superficial on the chest, but deep below in the abdominal cavity. (2) One penetrating firearm wound on the upper part of the left chest with circular 1/3" diameter wound with clean and punched out apperture. The margin was contused. There was charring of the skin about 3" diameter around the apperture and chest cavity deep. On dissection of injury No. 1, there was cutting of large gut (transverse colon) about 3" and injury to the massentry Blood about 200 c.c. was present in the peritonial cavity." On dissection of injury No. 2, the penetrating wound passed upwards and slightly medially penetrating the chest wall and injuring the lung (left side) and blood vessel. Huge quantity of blood about 500 to 600 c.c. present in the left chest cavity. No bullet or pellet found in the chest cavity. Cause of death in the opinion of the doctor was shock and hemorrhage due to above injures. While injury No. 1 was possible by sharp cutting weapon, injury No. 2, by fire arm. The doctor, however, made it clear that though the name of deceased was written as Suresh Mandal in the inquest report, by mistake it was written as Suraj Mandal in the post mortem report. This is all the evidence that has been adduced on behalf of the State to bring home charges against the appellants. The doctor, however, made it clear that though the name of deceased was written as Suresh Mandal in the inquest report, by mistake it was written as Suraj Mandal in the post mortem report. This is all the evidence that has been adduced on behalf of the State to bring home charges against the appellants. 12 Lots of criticisms were sought to be made by the learned counsel for the appellants obviously to assail the findings recorded by the trial Court and it is sought to be urged that though the witnesses were making parrot-like narrations in Court about Jageshwar Mandal having dealt dagger blow on Suresh Mandal, such accusations against Jageshwar Mandal was conspicuously wanting in the early version of Mohan Das which he rendered before the Police, and in quick succession it is sought to be urged that as the accusations attributed to Jageshwar Mandal had not transpired in the version of Mohan Das at the earliest opportunity available to the prosecution, the credibility of witnesses on this score stood shaken and would deserve rejection. Learned counsel would urge that disclosure of name or identity of the assailant, if known by a person who figures as an eye witness, is one of the most material fact and such a finding cannot be equated with narration of graphic details, and reliance on this score was placed on a decision of the Apex Court reported in the case of K. Ashokan and others V/s. State of Kerala, 1998 3 SCC 570 . However, we find that the facts of the case cited at Bar were quite distinguishable from the facts of the instant case, as in the former, the name and identity of the miscreant who was known to the informant, was conspicuously wanting in the first information report. Contrary to that, name of Jageshwar Mandal is found very much stated in the first information report and it is the role that has been assigned to him by the witnesses at trial was wanting in fardbeyan of Mohan Das. Reliance was also placed by the learned counsel for the appellants on another decision of the Apex Court reported in the case of Devinder V/s. State of Haryana 1997 SCC (Cri) 570. Reliance was also placed by the learned counsel for the appellants on another decision of the Apex Court reported in the case of Devinder V/s. State of Haryana 1997 SCC (Cri) 570. However, we find that facts of this case are also poles apart from the case in hand, as in the former, complicity of all the appellants had been transpiring for the first time in the medico-legal report which the doctor sent to the Police after examining the injured with full address and occupation of the assailant and also as to how the injuries were caused. Complicity of the assailant was suggested by the defence at the instance of two persons who had accompanied the injured when all particulars about assailants had been rendered by the injured, and in this backdrop observations were made by the Apex Court that it can legitimately be inferred that at the earliest available opportunity, the name of the appellant was not disclosed. There is no gainsaying the fact that this is not the case so far complicity of Jageshwar Mandal was concerned, as his name had transpired not only in the first information report but even overtact attributed to him had transpired in further statement of Mohan Das which he rendered before the Police and it was not a case when his complicity had been disclosed at behest of some others. Then reliance is also placed on a decision of the Apex Court reported in the case of Raju Alias Rajendra V/s. State of Maharashtra, (1998) 1 SCC 169 : 1998 (1) East Cr C 52 (SC). In that case too, there was omission of the names of the appellants in the first information report and in that view of the matter, observations were made by the Apex Court that for non-mention of the name of the appellants in the first information report, even though they were known to the first informant from before, evidence of first informant would not come in aid of the prosecution to prove his complicity. At the cost of repetition it has to be stated that the name of Jageshwar was never wanting in the first information report. 13. At the cost of repetition it has to be stated that the name of Jageshwar was never wanting in the first information report. 13. True it is that though the name of Jageshwar Mandal had well transpired at the earliest opportunity when Mohan Das rendered his statement before the Police at 9.30 a.m. on 27th September, 1980 he was not suggested to be the assailant, as only accusation attributed to him was that he too was in the company of Ranjit Mandal and others. Six persons are suggested to have visited house of Suresh Mandal on the fateful night and it is not unlikely that the panic stricken father who was in pain and agony, on seeing killing of his son, might have missed to note the blows dealt by Jagehswar Mandal. 14. Yet there are certain aspects of the matter which deserve consideration. Shortly after the Police was set in motion at 9.30 hours on 27th September, 1980, the inquest over the dead body of Suresh Mandal was prepared by the Police Officer at 2 p.m. on that day, and the recitals made therein are galore to testify presence of injuries caused by both firearms and sharp edged weapon on the person of the deceased. Contentions were raised that complicity of Jageshwar Mandal as assailant was introduced in the testimony of witnesses only after inquest was held over the dead body of the deceased, suggesting injuries caused by sharp edged weapon and only to suit the recitals made in the inquest report, complicity of Jageshwar Mandal as assailant dealing blows with chhura on the deceased, was introduced in the statement of the witnesses. However, this fact cannot be lost sight of that preceding preparation of the inquest report at 2 p.m. on 27.9.1980, further statement of Mohand Das had already been recorded by the Police at Binariganj Police Station shortly after recording the fardbeyan, in which explicit attributions were made against Jageshwar Mandal for having dealt chhura blows on the deceased, and in view of these discussions, contentions raised at Bar on this score has to be rejected. 15. 15. Placing reliance on decisions of Apex Court reported in the cases of State of Rajasthan V/s. Teja Singh, 2001 AIR SCW 737 : 2001 (1) East Cr C 224 (SC) and Kantoo Mishra V/s. State of Bihar, 2001 AIR SCW 857 in the matter of delay in lodging FIR contention is raised at Bar on behalf of the appellants was that embellishments were introduced in the version of the prosecution, over the early version of Mohan Das, wherein Jageshwar Mandal was not suggested to be assailant, as a fall out of the delay, in not only lodging the first information report, but also in transmitting the same to the office of the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The learned counsel would urge that even though the occurrence took place at 8 p.m. on 26.9.1980, it was not before 9.30 a.m. on 27.9.1980 that fardbeyan of Mohan Das was recorded by the Police and from the endorsement made by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate on the body of the first information report, it would appear that it was not before 30th September, 1980 that first information report reached his office and in the backdrop of belated transmission of the first information report to the office of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, the learned counsel would urge that embellishments were introduced in the version of the prosecution so as to introduce complicity of Jageshwar Mandal as an assailant. The contention raised at Bar on this score too has to be dismissed for the reason that distance of the Police Station from Laxmipur Lal Chand Chaitola where the occurrence took place, was 13 Kms and as Mohan Das was stating in his evidence, it was a rainy night and due to muddy path and also for fear of removal of dead body by the appellants, he kept the dead body guarding for the whole night and it was only in the following morning that he visited the Police Station to take recourse to the Police authority, in view of narrations made by Mohan Das in not taking recourse to Police station in the night itself, it has to be held that the first information report was lodged with the Police with all promptness and within shortest time, regard being had to the distance of the Police Station which was to be negotiated to reach the Police Station, and once it is accepted that the first information report was lodged by the Police with all promptness, and investigation commenced shortly, the delayed receipt of the first information report in the office of the Chief Judicial Magistrate would not make the first information report a tainted document and we may profitably place reliance on a decision of the Apex Court of the land reported in Madru Singh and others V/s. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1997 SC 3527 in which observations were made that when evidence of the witness lodging first information report very emphatically is that she. saw the entire incident and she herself went to the Police Station along with the dead body and lodged first information report on the same day, the mere fact that copy of the first information report was received by the concerned Magistrate after 3 days of the incident would not lead to the conclusion that the first information report was ante dated. Though reliance was also placed by the learned counsel for the appellants on a number of decisions including those reported in the cases of State of Rajasthan V/s. Rajendra Singh, AIR 1998 SC 2554 : 1998 (2) East Cr C 884 (SC), Amar Singh and others V/s. State of Punjab, (1987) 1 SCC 679 and Nachhettar Singh and others V/s. The State of Punjab, AIR 1976 SC 951 but these cases cited at Bar are not with identical facts as the case in hand, as in those cases, in view of there being inconsistency between the testimony of eye witnesses and finding recorded by the doctor, the prosecution case was considered to be untrue. Contrary to that, it would seem from the evidences placed on record that in conformity to the testimony of eye witnesses about Suresh Mandal sustaining gun shot injuries as also injury caused by sharp edged weapon, the doctor has stated to have noticed corresponding injuries on the person of the deceased. 16. Though learned counsel for the appellants would urge that such vital omission in the first information report cannot be brushed aside, it has to be reiterated that though the first information report does not constitute substantive evidence, it was an important document conveying the earliest information about the broad feature of the occurrence and tested on this anvil, the omission of role attributed to Jageshwar Mandal in the first information report, would not constitute infirmity in the prosecution case. 17. The credibility of witnesses was also sought to be impeached in view of evidence of PW 4 about the mode of assault, and it is urged that though the witness was narrating before the Court about assailant having caused gun shot injury on Suresh Mandal in the posture of sitting of the latter, the finding recorded by doctor was quite reverse as he stated to have noticed that injury No. 2, which was penetrating wound, had passed upwards and slightly medially penetrating the chest wall and injuring the lung and blood vessel. The witnesses had been narrating in most coherent terms that Suresh Mandal sustained injury on his person both by fire arm and sharp edged weapon in sitting posture on cot. The witnesses had been narrating in most coherent terms that Suresh Mandal sustained injury on his person both by fire arm and sharp edged weapon in sitting posture on cot. Though the finding recorded by the doctor was quite reverse, testimony of the direct witnesses about mode of assault cannot be overruled as it is in sitting posture that penetrating wound is expected to pass downwards. Our views are fortified by the finding recorded by the doctor in case of injury No. 1 caused by sharp cutting weapon. Injury caused by a dagger in the opinion of the doctor was 10" long extending from below the right nipple to the abdomen 2" lateral to the middle line of the abdomen. The injury was superficial in chest but had gone deep below in the abdominal cavity and, if the findings recorded by the doctor is accepted, that would necessarily lead to the conclusion that this injury was possible only when the victim was in sitting posture and the assailant was standing. 18. Absence of finding of the seriologist about the blood collected from the place of occurrence by the Police, being origin of human blood was also taken to be a ground to assail the bona fide of the prosecution. Contentions were raised that though witnesses were narrating before the Court that 3-4 days preceding the incident, appellants had visited house of the deceased, asked him to restore possession of the land to them and also on the day of incident a meeting was allegedly convened by the appellants to chalk out their future plan in the matter of land dispute persisting between the parties. It goes against the human conduct that even when the family members of the deceased were apprehensive of the nefarious design of the appellants, no authority shall be informed. The answer to this contention raised at Bar can be found in the testimony of PW 4 who stated in most uncertain terms that they did not report the matter to any authority, as they, had not anticipated that the appellant would take recourse to such action as that of killing of her husband. Failure of investigating agency to seize blood for chemical examination by the seriologist was matter of petty detail which did not befog the real issue. Failure of investigating agency to seize blood for chemical examination by the seriologist was matter of petty detail which did not befog the real issue. Yet another argument canvassed at Bar was that though houses of Shambhu Mandal, Bhagwat Mandal, Suresh Mandal son of Ramdas Mandal, Mahesh Mandal, Kailash Mandal, Dukhi Mandal, Jafar Mandal, Shikhan Mandal, Tengar Mandal, Prasadi Mandal, Bhola Sao and Lalo Sao lie in the vicinity of the place of the occurrence, these witnesses, who could have been independent were not examined at trial. The incident happened in the night and it is alleged that shortly after appellants came to the house of Suresh Mandal, they fired shots, caused injuries by sharp edged weapon and retired from the place of occurrence and there was no occasion for the villagers to witness the assault at odd hours of night, and that apart, some witnesses who rushed to the place of occurrence had been narrating in positive terms about having witnessed injuries on the person of Suresh Mandal and some of them also witnessed the assailants, when while on retreating after accomplishing their object, they made abortive attempts to take the dead body with them. Likewise, non-examination of Chaukidar and also Mukhiya, who are suggested to have been informed about complicity of the appellants, would not constitute any infirmity in the prosecution case. Learned counsel would draw our attention to the findings recorded by the doctor who stated to have noticed 6 ozs. of semi digested rice in the abdomen of the deceased, which in the opinion of the doctor was possible only when the deceased died after 2-4 hours of taking meal. It is urged that evidence of the family members of the deceased was reverse to the findings recorded by the doctor, as they were stating before the Court that the deceased had not taken night meal. However, digestion of food, and power of digestion, would depend on variety of factors including nature of food and also the habit and that apart, PW 5 would state in evidence that usually they used to take their evening meal after sunset. The Investigating Officer had noticed only fried fish on the oven and a conclusion can reasonably be drawn, which, of course, would run contrary to the assertions made by the witnesses that the deceased had already taken meal in the evening. 19. The Investigating Officer had noticed only fried fish on the oven and a conclusion can reasonably be drawn, which, of course, would run contrary to the assertions made by the witnesses that the deceased had already taken meal in the evening. 19. With the findings of the I.O., it is sought to be urged at Bar that the deceased was nefarious with trail of bad antecedents as he figured as an accused in number of cases and it was not unlikely that he was killed during some incident, and on this score our attention was drawn to the evidences of Jafar Mandal (PW 1) and Manraj Mandal (PW 12). The latter in his evidence would state that time without numbers, Suresh Mandal had disputes with his associates owing to distribution of share of booty. However, the assertion made by this witness, as has been stated by him, was based on information received from others. In view of evidence of clinching nature by ocular witnesses and also findings recorded by the doctor, it is admitted that the deceased died a homicidal death. Barring PW 1 who stated that night of the incident was a pitched dark all the witnesses were stating that it was a moonlit night when the appellants were identified by them. Some of them stated about identification of the appellants also in flash of torch light, since the appellants hail from common village, their identification cannot be possibly questioned. 20. There had been evidence of not only ocular witnesses but also those who flocked to the place of occurrence shortly after the incident and some of them, as has been stated, also claimed identification of the assailants during their retreat from the house of Suresh Mandal. Though attention of all the witnesses including that of Mohan Das (PW 13) was drawn by the defence towards their early version rendered before the Police to impeach their credibility, but we find that these are not on material particulars of the case to detract the probative value of testimony of the witnesses. Rasiklal Mandal (PW 2) stated to have known complicity of the appellants from family members including the wife of the deceased. His attention was drawn by the defence that before the Police he had not stated that incident was disclosed to him by the wife of the deceased. Rasiklal Mandal (PW 2) stated to have known complicity of the appellants from family members including the wife of the deceased. His attention was drawn by the defence that before the Police he had not stated that incident was disclosed to him by the wife of the deceased. Be that as it may, narrations made by the witness about other family members of the deceased, including Mohan Das and wife of the deceased narrating the incident to him was however, not challenged. 21. As for motive, the learned counsel wound urge that it appears to be most trivial which too had not been established by cogent evidences of the witnesses. Tracing the genesis of incident, reprimand made by the appellants on two occasions firstly, after 3-4 days preceding the incident, and secondly on the day of incident itself, has close proximity with the incident that happened on 26th September, 1980, and for that there is evidence of PW 8 Rajendra Singh who stated that on 26th September, 1980 when he was at the house of Ram Baran Mandal (PW 9), Panchamlal asked Ram Baran to convey Kant Lal to restore possession of the disputed land to them else Suresh Mandal would not survive on the earth and evidence of Rajendra Singh (PW 8) finds complete assurance and corroboration from the evidence of Ram Baran Mandal (PW 9) who would make assertion in similar terms. Then there is evidence of Kant Lal Mandal (PW 10) who stated before the Court that pursuant to purchase of land, Panchalal Mandal and Gaibi Mandal used to come to him to ask for restoration of the land to them. Subsequently, he stated to have come to know from Rajendra Singh and Ram Baran Mandal that Panchalal had asked Ram Baran Mandal to convey to him for restoration of the land, else he would lose his son-in-law. Manraj Mandal (PW 12) too stated to have learnt that four days preceding the day of the incident, the appellants had reprimanded the deceased to restore possession of the land to them else the consequence would be bad for him. Yet there is evidence of Tetar Mahto (PW 15) that 3-4 days preceding the day of incident, the appellants had cautioned the deceased to restore possession of land to them, else he would not enjoy the fruit. Yet there is evidence of Tetar Mahto (PW 15) that 3-4 days preceding the day of incident, the appellants had cautioned the deceased to restore possession of land to them, else he would not enjoy the fruit. Among the appellants, Ranjit happened to be the son of Panchalal Mandal while appellant Jageshwar Mandal was cousin brother of the former Gaibi Mandal, Narain Mandal and Mushar Mandal are from different families. The evidences placed on record would suggest that in the bid that took place, Suresh Mandal had out-bidden Gaibi Mandal for purchase of land in the name of his father-in-law and that offended Gaiby Mandal who having conspired with other appellants hatched a conspiracy to eliminate the deceased and eventually executed killing of Suresh Mandal on the day of incident. Reprimand of Suresh Mandal on two occasions by the appellants and holding of meeting in the evening of day of the incident would go a long way to suggest that the deceased was killed pursuant to pre-determination and conspiracy hatched by the appellants. May it be a good motive or not for killing of Suresh Mandal, once there are direct and good evidences, motive remains only a matter of academic interest. 22. Having given our anxious and deepest consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case and also the evidences placed on record, we find that the findings recorded by the trial Court was based on meticulous appreciation of evidences placed on record which did not require interference. There being no merit, both the appeals are dismissed. Bail bonds of the appellants are cancelled and they are directed to surrender. Trial Court is also directed to take all coercive steps to take them into custody to serve the sentence. Both the appeals are accordingly disposed of by this common judgment.