Judgment MANOHAR LAL VISA, J. 1. All these three appeals, arising out of the same judgment and order dated 19.7.1989 passed by IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Gaya in Sessions Trial No. 539 of 1985/41 of 1985 convicting and sentencing all the twenty four appellants before us to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, further convicting and sentencing appellants, namely, Lakhan Singh, Janardan Singh, Ram Janam Singh (appellants of Criminal Appeal No. 393 of 1989), Dani Singh, Raghu Singh, Ram Charitar Singh, Chandar Singh (appellants of Criminal Appeal No. 361 of 1989) to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs. 3000/- each and again further convicting appellant Lakhan Singh to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 436, Indian Penal Code but ordering all the sentences to run concurrently and paying the amount of realised fine to informant by way of compensation, have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The case of prosecution, in short, is that on 6.7.1983, informant Ramu Yadav (PW 11), after easing out, was returning to his house at about 8 a.m. and his uncle Kishun Yadav at that time also was returning to his house from the northen direction and he was ten yards ahead of informant. When the informant and his uncle Kishun Yadav reached in lane near the house of Sadhu Kahar, the informant saw a number of persons variously armed with saif, garasa, bhala, guns etc. coming out from the dalan of Bhuneshwar Singh who all challenged Kishun Yadav and attacked on him. Appellant Lakhan Singh, who was carrying a bag, took out a bomb from his bag and hurled it on Kishun Yadav causing injury on his back and Kishun Yadav, after receiving injury, anyhow managed to enter the house of his cousin Pheku Yadav (PW 6). Following him, all the appellants alongwith Biro Singh, Pragash Singh and Ram Singh (all the three since dead) alongwith 15 to 20 others, variously armed with saif, bhala, garasa, guns, entered the house of Pheku Yadav. The informant also, following the appellants and their companions, entered the house of his uncle Pheku Yadav (PW 6). In the meantime, Gopi Yadav, father of informant, also reached there and, thereafter, Gopi Yadav and Kishun Yadav both climbed on the matkotha (box room) in order to save their lives. The informant also, following the appellants and their companions, entered the house of his uncle Pheku Yadav (PW 6). In the meantime, Gopi Yadav, father of informant, also reached there and, thereafter, Gopi Yadav and Kishun Yadav both climbed on the matkotha (box room) in order to save their lives. Appellants Lakhan Singh, Ram Charitar Singh, Ram Janam Singh, Chhotan Singh, Raghu Singh, Balindra Singh, Manoj Singh, Bhola Singh, Baban Singh, Nandu Singh, Yadav Singh and ten to fifteen unknown persons also, alongwith weapons, climbed from outside on the roof of house and other appellants remained in the courtyard and verandah of the house. The appellants, who had climbed on matkotha, started assaulting Kishun Yadav and Gopi Yadav with guns, bhala, saif etc. The appellants, who had gone on the roof of the house, uprooted the tiles and bamboo sticks of matkotha and appellant Lakhan Singh, after sprinkling kerosene oil on the roof, set fire and, thereafter, the appellants, who had climbed on matkotha, brought down Kishun Yadav and Gopi Yadav to the verandah where they, after piercing garasa, bhala, saif, killed them. Thereafter, appellant Raghu Singh, Janardan Singh, Ram Charitar Singh, Ram Janam Singh, Dani Singh, Chander Singh, Lakhan Singh alongwith co-accused Biro Singh carried the dead bodies on a cot towards eastern side of village and other appellants, after scrapping the blood fallen on the ground, put it in a nearby well alongwith straw and they also washed the blood drops from the wall of the house by water and mud and, thereafter, they also went following the dead bodies of Kishun Yadav and Gopi Yadav. After some time, the informant saw smoke and flames of fire rising from the side of eastern boundary of his village and the appellants burnt the dead bodies by remaining at the place of burning for two hours and, thereafter, they agajn came back to the houses of informant (PW 11) and Pheku Yadav (PW 6) and took away rice, wheat, gram, clothes, ornaments, pots etc. The occurrence was witnessed by female members of the family of informant including his mother, aunt, sister, wife of brother of Pheku Yadav (PW 6) and number of villagers. Old enmity, giving rise to number of cases between the prosecution party and appellants, is said to be motive of the occurrence. The occurrence was witnessed by female members of the family of informant including his mother, aunt, sister, wife of brother of Pheku Yadav (PW 6) and number of villagers. Old enmity, giving rise to number of cases between the prosecution party and appellants, is said to be motive of the occurrence. The fardbeyan of informant was recorded on the day of occurrence at 8.30 p.m. by Sub Inspector Uzair Alam (PW 13). The informant, in his fardbeyan stated that because appellants did not allow him to leave the house, therefore, he could not go to the Police Station. On the basis of fardbeyan of informant, a case under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 201, 436, 380, Indian Penal Code, Section 27. Arms Act and Sections 3, 4, 5, Explosive Substances Act against all the twenty four appellants alongwith Biro @ Birendra Singh, Pragash Singh and Ram Singh and fifteen to twenty unknown was registered and police, after investigation, submitted charge- sheet against the appellants and Biro @ Birendra, Pragash Singh and Ram Singh. Charges under Sections 302/149, 201 and 380, Indian Penal Code were framed against the appellants and Biro @ Birendra Singh, Pragash Singh and Ram Singh and after trial, the appellants were found guilty and were convicted and sentenced, as indicated above. Biro @ Birendra, Pragash Singh and Ram Singh were also convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code and Biro Singh @ Birendra was further convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3000/- but during the pendency of this appeal, all the aforesaid three persons died. 3. The case of appellants is that on the day of occurrence, appellant Nawal Singh and Indu Singh were not present in the village. Their further case is that prior to alleged occurrence, two persons, namely, Sodhi Singh and Arjun Singh were murdered and after their murder, both the deceased of the present case, namely, Kishun Yadav and Gopi Yadav left the village-Malti alongwith their families for other village and on the day of occurrence, they were not living in the village-Malti and they were not murdered there and appellants were falsely implicated in this case on account of enmity. Four witnesses on behalf of the appellants were examined by the trial Court. 4. Four witnesses on behalf of the appellants were examined by the trial Court. 4. In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined fifteen witnesses Ramu Yadav (PW 11) is the informant. Pheku Mahto (PW 6) is the uncle of informant in whose house both the deceased, as alleged, were murdered. Kishun Rajwar (PW 1), Lalo Mahto (PW 2), China Devi (PW 3) and Kamli Devi (PW 10) are said to be eye- witnesses to the occurrence. Jagdish Rajwanshi (PW 4), Kali Devi (PW 5), Dukhia Devi (PW 7), Surjee Devi (PW 8) and Sumitra Devi (PW 9) are tendered witnesses. Chandra Prasad Tiwari (PW 12) is a Police Officer who had taken charge of the investigation of the case from Uzair Alam (PW 13) and had submitted charge-sheet. Uzair Alam (PW 13) is the Investigating Officer. Nanku Prasad (PW 11A) is a seizure list witness in whose presence, the police had seized the remains of exploded bomb from a lane adjacent to the house of Shiv Nandan Kurmi and burnt tiles, a live bomb and blood-stained soil from the house of Pheku Mahto (PW 6) and in whose presence, the police had recovered straws from the well of Pheku Yadav (PW 6) and had seized burnt wood, tender bamboo and pieces of woods and bones from a place known as Hadsai pyne (a rivulet) and scattered grains from the house of Pheku Yadav (PW 6) and he put his left thumb-impression on the seizure list. Dr. Mithilesh Kumar Singh (PW 14) was a Professor and head of the Department of Forensic Medicine who had examined a broken piece of bone and multiple broken small charred brownish solid substance seized by police from the place where the dead bodies of both the deceased, as al leged, were burnt by appellants. 5. Ramu Yadav (PW 11), the informant, in his evidence, has said that on the day of occurrence at about 8 a.m. he, after easing out, was returning to his house and his uncle Kishun Yadav was also going to his house who was ahead of him and when he reached near the baithka of Bhuneshwar Singh, appellant Lakhan Singh hurled a bomb on his uncle Kishun Yadav and then Kishun Yadav ran towards the house of Pheku Mahto (PW 6). He, alongwith his father, mother, aunt and sister, also went to the house of his uncle Pheku Mahto and there his father and uncle Kishun went to northern kotha of Pheku Mahto and there other appellants also came. He has said that he identified all the appellants and appellants Chandar Singh, Janardan Singh, Chotan Singh, Raghu Singh, Dani Singh, Baijan Singh, Nawal Singh, Radhey Singh, Ram Janam Singh, Nandu Singh, Babun Singh, Balmiki Singh, Siya Ram Singh and Ratan Singh alongwith Ram Singh and Pragash were armed with garasa, appellants Indu Singh, Bhola Singh, Ram Charitar Singh, Manoj Singh, Ado Singh, Ram Bali Singh were armed with saif, appellants Lakhan Singh, Balindar Singh alongwith Biro Singh were armed with bombs and appellants Gaya Singh and Swarup Singh were armed with bhalas. In the same breath, he has corrected himself and has said that appellants Chandar Singh, Janardan Singh, Chhotan Singh, Raghu Singh, Dani Singh and Baijan Singh alongwith co- accused Pragash Singh and Ram Singh were armed with guns and appellants Nawal Singh, Radhey Singh, Ram Janam Singh, Nandu Singh, Babun Singh, Balmiki Singh, Siyaram Singh and Ratan Singh were armed with garasa which is correction to his statement given just before it that all these appellants were armed with garasa. He has further said that some of the appellants climbed on the roof, some entered inside the house and some remained at the darwaza of the house and appellants, who had climbed on the roof, were Lakhan Singh, Balindra Singh, Chhotan Singh, Raghu Singh, Ram Charitar Singh, Ram Janam Singh, Bhola Singh, Babun Singh, Nandu Singh and Ado Singh who all brought his father Gopi Yadav and his uncle Kishun Yadav in the osara of the house after setting fire to the roof of the house and they killed his father and uncle. He has further said that after killing his father and uncle, appellants Raghu Singh, Ram Charitar Singh, Ram Janam Singh, Chandar Singh, Janardan Singh, Dani Singh, Lakhan Singh alongwith Biro Singh took their dead bodies on a cot to Hadsai pyne and the remaining appellants, after cleaning the blood, threw it in the well of Pheku Mahto and they also joined their companions who had taken away the dead bodies. He has further added that he saw smoke and flames of fire towards Hadsari pyne and in this way, appellants burnt the dead bodies of his uncle and father and, thereafter, appellants came back and looted the articles from his house and from the house of Pheku Mahto. according to him, he could not go to Police Station because of fear of assault from appellants and appellants had already blocked the way and when at about 8 p.m., police came, his fardbeyan was recorded which was read over and explained to him on which he put his signature. About the motive of occurrence, he has said that because of enmity, appellants committed murder of his father and uncle. In cross-examination, he has admitted that except the appellants, his family does not have enmity with any body else and his house and house of his uncle was joint. 6. Kishun Rajwar (PW 1), Lalo Mahto (PW 2), China Devi (PW 3) and Kamli Devi (PW 10), have also supported the case of prosecution. Out of these witnesses, China Devi (PW 3) is the daughter of deceased Gopi Mahto and niece of deceased Kishun Mahto, Kamli Devi (PW 10) is the wife of brother of both the deceased whereas Kishun Raj war (PW 1) and Lalo Mahto (PW 2) are not related to the deceased persons. Out of these witnesses, China Devi (PW 3) is the daughter of deceased Gopi Mahto and niece of deceased Kishun Mahto, Kamli Devi (PW 10) is the wife of brother of both the deceased whereas Kishun Raj war (PW 1) and Lalo Mahto (PW 2) are not related to the deceased persons. Kishun Raj war (PW 1) has said that at the time of occurrence, he was in his village and after hearing the sound of explosion of bomb coming from the western side of village, he alongwith Triloki Manjhi and Jagdish Rajwar proceeded towards that place and he met Lalo Mahto (PW 2) in the way and, thereafter, they all four went towards the house of Pheku Mahto where he saw appellants Chandar Singh, Nawal Singh, Indu Singh, Dani Singh, Raghu Singh, Ram Charitar Singh, Ram Janam Singh, Lakhan Singh, Balindra Singh, Chhotan Singh, Manoj Singh, Nandu Singh, Bhola Singh, Babun Singh, Ado Singh and Janardan Singh alongwith Ram Singh and 10 to 12 other persons and the appellants were variously armed with guns, garasa, saif, bhala and appellants, after entering the house of Pheku Mahto (PW 6) were searching for Kishun Mahto and, thereafter by bringing Gopi Mahto and Kishun Mahto from the house to the osara of Pheku Mahto (PW 6), killed them by deadly weapons and, thereafter appellants Dani Singh, Raghu Singh, Ram Charitar Singh, Ram Janam Singh, Chandar Singh, Lakhan Singh and Janardan Singh alongwith Biro Singh took the dead bodies of both the deceased on a cot towards Hadsai pyne situate towards north of village and other appellants also followed them and the appellants, after pouring kerosene oil on the dead bodies, burnt both the dead bodies and they put the bones, dead bodies, burnt soil etc. in the water of pyne. He has further said that thereafter appellants came back and took away grains, ornaments, etc. from the houses of Pheku Mahto and Kishun Mahto. In cross-examination, he has admitted that in a murder case lodged for the murder of Kameshwar, he, alongwith both the deceased and members of families of both deceased, was accused. in the water of pyne. He has further said that thereafter appellants came back and took away grains, ornaments, etc. from the houses of Pheku Mahto and Kishun Mahto. In cross-examination, he has admitted that in a murder case lodged for the murder of Kameshwar, he, alongwith both the deceased and members of families of both deceased, was accused. He has denied the suggestion of defence that in the year, 1980 both the deceased alongwith their families, after leaving village-Malti, had gone to village-Bahuara where they had settled and on the day of occurrence, both the deceased were not present in the village and appellants have been falsely implicated in this case. Lalo Mahto (PW 2), supporting the evidence of PW 1, has said that on the day of occurrence, after hearing the sound of explosion of three to four bombs, he alongwith PWs 1 and 4 and Triloki Bhuiyan {not examined) and Panchu Manjhi (not examined), when went near the house of Pheku Mahto (PW 6), he saw the appellants Dani Singh, Raghu Singh, Chandar Singh, Janardan Singh and Chhotan Singh, armed with guns, appellants Ram Charitar, Ado Singh, Bhola Singh, Manoj Singh and Indu Singh armed with Saif, appellants Ram Janam Singh, Babun Singh, Nandu Singh, Nawal Singh, armed with garasa, and appellants Lakhan Singh and Balindra Singh, armed with guns alongwith 30 to 40 other persons who were going inside and coming out of the house of Pheku Mahto (PW 6) and they uprooted the tiled roof of the house of Pheku Mahto and they, thereafter, brought Kishun Mahto and Gopi Mahto in the verandah of the house of Pheku Mahto where they murdered them by assaulting them. He has also added that appellants Raghu Singh, Ram Charitar Singh, Ram Janam Singh, Dani Singh, Chandar Singh, Janardan Singh and Lakhan Singh alongwith Biro Singh took away the dead bodies of both the deceased on a cot towards the eastern side of the village and he also went there and saw that the appellants took the dead bodies of both the deceased at Hadsai pyne where they, after sprinkling kerosene oil, burnt both the dead bodies and, thereafter, appellant Dani Singh threw the remains of the dead bodies and burnt soil in the water of Hadsai pyne. He has further said that the appellants again came back to the house of Pheku Mahto (PW 6) and they took away grains, ornaments etc. from there as well as from the house of Kishun Mahto. In cross-examination, he has admitted that he was an accused alongwith both the deceased in a case lodged for the murder of Kameshwar Singh and, Soudhi Singh and in the case lodged for the murder of Kameshwar Singh, one Sidho Singh was informant and in the case lodged for the murder of Saudhi Singh, Lakhan Singh was informant and appellants are family members of Sidho Singh and Lakhan Singh. In para 10 of his cross-examination, he has admitted that prior to occurrence of the present case, he had filed a case against the appellants for the theft of a diesel machine in which appellant Lakhan Singh was acquitted but other appellants are facing the trial. He has denied the suggestion of defence that on the day of occurrence, he was not present in the village, both the deceased much prior to occurrence had left the village-Malti and were living somewhere else and he has deposed falsely against the appellants. China Devi (PW 3), daughter of deceased, Gopi Mahto and niece of deceased Kishun Mahto, has said that at the time of occurrence she, alongwith her parents and aunt, was in the house when they all heard sound of bomb explosion and when she came out of her house, she saw her uncle Kishun coming running and appellants also chasing him, reached there and his uncle then entered the house of Benu Dada whose alias name is Pheku (PW 6) and, thereafter, she and her other family members also went there running and half an hour thereafter, appellants, variously armed with guns, garasa, bomb, bhala, came there. About the names of appellants, whom she identified, she, in her evidence, has named all the appellants except appellant Bali Singh and Manoj Singh. She has said that her father and uncle, on seeing the appellants, went on the matkotha and the appellants also followed them there by climbing on the tiled roof and they uprooted the tiled roof and brought her father and uncle, by dragging them, in the verandah where they assaulted them with garasa, bhala, saif etc. She has said that her father and uncle, on seeing the appellants, went on the matkotha and the appellants also followed them there by climbing on the tiled roof and they uprooted the tiled roof and brought her father and uncle, by dragging them, in the verandah where they assaulted them with garasa, bhala, saif etc. and his father and uncle both died on account of that assault and, thereafter, appellants Raghu Singh, Charitar Singh, Ram Janam Singh, Lakhan Singh, Dani Singh, Chandar Singh and Ado Singh alongwith Biro Singh took away both the dead bodies on a cot to Hadsai pyne towards north and remaining appellants collected the blood which had fallen there and threw it in the well of Pheku Mahto (PW 6) and, thereafter, followed their companions who had carried the dead bodies of both the deceased and at Hadsai pyne, appellants burnt the dead bodies of her father and uncle and, thereafter, they again came and took away the articles from her house and from the house of Pheku Mahto (PW 6), Kamli Devi (PW 10), wife of brother of both the deceased, has said that at the time of occurrence she and her other family members were in the house of deceased, Kishun Mahto and they came out of the house after hearing the sound of explosion of bomb and she saw Kishun Mahto coming running followed by deceased Gopi Mahto and they both by running went on the matkotha of Pheku Mahto (PW 6) and she also went there where appellants, carrying arms, came, about the appellants, she has named all the appellants in her evidence and has said that some appellants went on the matkotha and some on the tiled roof of the house and appellants, after assaulting both the deceased, brought them to the verandah where they killed them and, thereafter, some appellants took away dead bodies of both the deceased by putting on a cot and some appellants washed the blood from the place of occurrence and threw it in the well of Pheku Mahto (PW 6) and appellant Lakhan Singh set fire to the roof of the house of Pheku Mahto (PW 6} by lighting fire with match box. She has further said that appellants took away the dead bodies of both the deceased to Hadsai pyne from where she saw smokes and flames of fire and the appellants, who washed the blood, also went to Hadsai pyne and, thereafter, the appellants again came back and looted the articles from the houses of Pheku Mahto (PW 6) and deceased Kishun Mahto. 7. Pheku Mahto (PW 6) is said to be a witness, in whose house, the murder of both the deceased was committed. He has said that he is cousin of both the deceased and on the day of occurrence, he was in his house and when he heard sound of explosion of three bombs and when he came out of his house, he found both the deceased and their family members came there for entering his house and they entered his house and both the deceased went to the matkotha and appellants and their companions, who were fifty in number, variously armed with saif, bhala, garasa, reached his house. He has named all the appellants and has said that at the time of occurrence, he identified all of them. He has further said that some of appellants went on the roof of his house, some on matkotha and some inside the house and appellant Lakhan Singh set fire to the roof of matkotha and appellants brought both the deceased to his verandah where they committed their murder after assaulting them and some appellants took away the dead bodies on a cot towards eastern side of village. He has named the appellants who took away the dead bodies of both the deceased as Raghu Singh, Ram Charitar Singh, Ram Janam Singh, Dani Singh, Chandar Singh, Lakhan Singh, Janardan Singh and Biro Singh, who is dead now. He has also said that some appellants washed the blood by straw and put it in a well and they also followed their companions who had carried the dead bodies of both the deceased to Hadsai pyne and he saw burning of the dead bodies and smokes and flames of fire and appellants, thereafter, came back to his house and took away articles from his house as well as from the houses of both the deceased persons. In cross-examination, he has admitted that prior to this case, he had filed a criminal case against appellant Lakhan Singh and others but he does not remember that whether both the deceased were witnesses on his behalf. 8. As already stated, on behalf of the appellants, four witnesses have been examined. Prabhunath Prasad (DW 1) is a Head Master of Adarsh High School, Pharpardiha and he has said that appellant Nawal Kishore Singh was school teacher in his school and from 5.7.1983 to 7.7.1983, he was present in school from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. He has proved attendance of appellant Lakhan Singh on the attendance book for all the aforesaid three dates which is marked Exhibit-A and has also proved the signature of Uzair Alam Ansari (Exhibit-B), the Investigating Officer of this case, on this register. Shri Sitaram Sharma (DW 4) has proved signature of Md. Zubair (Exhibit-B/1), District Superintendent of Education on this register. In cross-examination, DW 1 admitted that he had not put his signature on the attendance register after verifying the attendance and on 11.7.1983, he came to know that appellant Nawal Singh is an accused in this case and, thereafter, he issued a certificate showing presence of appellant Nawal Singh in his school from 5.7.1983 to 7.7.1983. Similarly, DW 4, in his cross- examination, has said that Md. Zubair had not put" his signature in his presence and he had never seen him. Shyama Prasad (DW 2), a Head Clerk has proved proceeding of a meeting in the pen of Circle Inspector Umeshwar Prasad and bearing the signature of Circle Officer Shivnarain Ram. It is marked Exhibit-C. He has also proved signature of appellant Indradeo Singh (Exhibit-D) on this proceeding and has said that appellant Indradeo Singh was panchayat Sevak and has proved a certificate (Exhibit-E) issued by Ex-Head Clerk which is in the handwriting of Ex- Head Clerk Jainandan Singh and bearing the signature of Anchal Adhikari. In cross-examination, he has admitted that he joined the Sardal Anchal as Head Clerk on 16.6.1984 and before that he was posted in the Court of Sub-divisional Officer. Nawadah and the meeting proceeding of which he has proved, was not held in his presence and he does not have personal knowledge of the correctness of the facts mentioned in the certificate (Exhibit- E). Nawadah and the meeting proceeding of which he has proved, was not held in his presence and he does not have personal knowledge of the correctness of the facts mentioned in the certificate (Exhibit- E). By examining these witnesses, the defence wanted to prove that on the day of occurrence, appellants Nawal Singh and Indradeo Singh were not present in the village where the occurrence is said to have taken place. This plea of alibi of the aforesaid two appellants was considered by the Court below in detail and after assigning reasons, the Court below has not accepted this plea of alibi About the reasoning for not accepting this plea, the Court below, in its judgment, has observed that so far the entries in attendance register showing the presence of appellant Nawal Singh in school from 5.7.1983 to 7.7.1983 are concerned, different inks have been used at different places and the ink by which the timing was shown, differs from ink used in putting signatures and no reliance can be placed on the plea of alibi of appellant Nawal Singh on the basis of such entries in the attendance register. About appellant Indradeo Singh, Court below has assigned the reason that the authors of Exhibits-C and E have not been examined and merely on formal proof of these documents, the alibi of co-accused Indradeo Singh cannot be accepted. In rejecting the plea of alibi, the Court below has also taken note of the fact that there is overwhelming evidence against them of their taking part in the occurrence. We fully agree with the reasonings given by Court below in rejecting the plea of alibi of these appellants. 9. Kishun Deo Prasad (DW 3) has proved a formal First Information Report (Exhibit-F) and fardbeyan (Exhibit-G). These formal First Information Report and fardbeyan both are of Atri Police Station Case No. 41 of 1982 which was lodged by deceased Kishun Mahto against some of the appellants of this case and others under Sections 144, 379, 380 and 427 of Indian Penal Code for an occurrence of 14.5.1982 alleging against the named accused persons that they, after damaging his house, took away his articles and he further alleged that the intention of accused persons was to oust him and his family members from the house and since last ten months, he was not living in his village. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has argued that in view of Exhibit-G, which is the fardbeyan of deceased Kishun Mahto recorded on 14.5.1982 in which he had clearly stated that ten months prior to this date, he was not living in his village, the case of prosecution cannot be relied upon that on the day of occurrence, he was present in his village. We are quite unable to agree with this submission for two reasons. Admittedly, the aforesaid fardbeyan of deceased, Kishun Mahto was recorded on 14.5.1982 and the date of occurrence of the present case is 6.7,1983 that is more than a year from 14.5.1982. If Kishun Mahto, at the time of recording of his fardbeyan on 14.5.1982, was not living in his village, it does not mean that he never returned back thereafter to his village and on the day of occurrence of the present case, he was not living in the village of occurrence particularly in absence of any evidence brought on record to this effect. The second reason is that, by producing only the fardbeyan (Exhibit-F) of Kishun Mahto, it cannot be held that whatever he stated in his fardbeyan (Exhibit-F) was true because a fardbeyan is not a substantive piece of evidence. The prosecution witnesses have clearly stated that on the day of occurrence, deceased Kishun Mahto was very much present in the village where the occurrence is said to have taken place. The appellants have not brought any evidence on record except the aforesaid fardbeyan (Exhibit-G) of deceased Kishun Mahto to show that at the time of occurrence, Kishun Mahto was living somewhere else and not in the village of occurrence. 10. It has been argued on behalf of the appellants that the evidence of Uzair Alam (PW 13), the Investigating Officer of this case, does not support the case of prosecution and it gives a complete different picture of the manner of occurrence. According to learned counsel for the appellants, the Investigating Officer, in his evidence, has stated that he found some remains such as burnt rope with smell of sulphur, burnt papers giving smell of explosive sub- stance etc. on the outer side of western wall in the house of Shiv Nandan Kurmi and he seized these articles and prepared seizure list (Exhibit-2). on the outer side of western wall in the house of Shiv Nandan Kurmi and he seized these articles and prepared seizure list (Exhibit-2). About the house of Pheku Yadav (PW 6), according to the learned counsel for the appellants, the Investigating Officer has stated that he found remains of. exploded bomb with a tin container with smell of explosives in the centre of eastern room of matkotha and he also found remains of exploded bomb in the courtyard of the house of Pheku Mahto and a live bomb kept by the side of the wall of the enterance room. It has been argued that it is nowhere the case of prosecution that there was any explosion of bomb in the house of Pheku Mahto (PW 6) because none of the prosecution witnesses has stated like this. The learned counsel for the appellants has argued that in view of the aforesaid objective finding of Investigating Officer, a different picture of occurrence emerges suggesting that both the deceased were engaged in preparation of bombs in the matkotha of Pheku Mahto and in that process, a bomb exploded causing death of both the deceased and burning of the roof of matkotha and remains of exploded bomb fell in the verandah of the house of Pheku Mahto (PW 6). The learned counsel for the appellants has further argued that after explosion of bomb which resulted in the death of both the deceased, Pheku Mahto (PW 6) and members of the families of both the deceased, in order to cover up the matter, got the evidence of explosion of bomb disappeared by washing the blood stains and throwing the same in the well and they burnt the dead bodies of both the deceased so that they may not be roped in any criminal case for manufacturing explosives. It is true that none of the prosecution witnesses has stated that there was any explosion of bomb inside the house of Pheku Mahto (PW 6) but then most of them have clearly stated that after hearing the sound of explosion of bomb, they went towards the house of Pheku Mahto where they saw the appellants who committed the murder of both the deceased and, thereafter, took their bodies to Hadsai pyne where they burnt the dead bodies. The appellants for the first time, during this appeal, are taking the plea that both the deceased were engaged in manufacturing bomb in the house of Pheku Mahto (PW 6), where on account of explosion of bomb, they died. No suggestion to this effect was given to any prosecution witness. The learned counsel for the appellants has advanced his arguments that it is for the prosecution to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts and appellants may take different pleas and it is not incumbent upon them to explain the manner and circumstances in which the occurrence took place but then if the evidence on record suggests possibility of a different manner of occurrence other than put forward by prosecution, the appellants are entitled to get benefit of such situation and the evidence of Investigating Officer who found remains of explosion of bomb in the house of Pheku Mahto (PW 6) and neither Pheku Mahto (PW 6), who is said to be present in his house at the time of occurrence nor other eye- witnesses to the occurrence are coming forward to say that appellants exploded any bomb in the house which clearly suggests that both the deceased were engaged in manufacturing bomb at the time of occurrence. We are quite unable to agree with this submission advanced on behalf of the appellants. Had explosion taken place in the house of Pheku Mahto (PW 6) when both the deceased were engaged in his matkotha in preparing bombs and in that process, there was explosion of bomb causing death of both the deceased and, thereafter, Pheku Mahto (PW 6) and members of the families of the deceased, in order to screen themselves from the punishment of offence, got the evidence disappeared by cleaning the blood and throwing it in the well, how they missed to remove the remains of exploded bombs from the matkotha, verandah and how they forgot to remove a live bomb kept by the side of the wall of the entrance. The evidence of Investigating Officer is not only on the point that he found remains of exploded bombs in the matkotha and in the verandah of the house of Pheku Mahto (PW 6) but he has also stated that he found the thatched roof of matkotha burnt and uprooted and the tiles of roof of the house broken which suggested that it was trampled by some persons on account of their climbing on it. If the argument of learned counsel for the appellants that, because of explosion of bomb in the process of manufacturing by deceased, the tiled roof of matkotha was burnt, is accepted still then remains the breakage of tiles of the roof of the house which, according to Investigating Officer, appeared to him on account of climbing of some persons on it and it supports the evidence of Pheku Mahto (PW 6) that some of the appellants climbed on the roof of his house, some went on the roof of matkotha and some entered in his house. Besides this, Investigating Officer found wheat and Tisi grains scattered in the house which he seized (Exhibits-2/3). He also got the soil dug at Hadsai pyne and when he picked up some soil, he found kerosene smell in it and he also recovered piece of flesh and a bone and some burnt wood from the pyne which he also seized (Exhibits-2/4). The piece of bone was examined by Dr. Mithilesh Kumar Sinha, a Professor who, at the relevant time, was posted in Forensic Medicine Department and who, in his evidence, has stated that the bone which was sent to him in sealed packet, on examination, was found to be human bone of left ulna but it was difficult to say from this single small piece of bone whether it was of male or female. He has proved his report which is marked Exhibit-5. 11. He has proved his report which is marked Exhibit-5. 11. The learned counsel for the appellants has next argued that information of occurrence was first given by one Rajendra Mahto and from his fardbeyan, it would have been evident that appellants had no hand in the death of both the deceased and his fardbeyan supported the case of appellants to a great extent that both deceased died on account of bomb when they were engaged in manufacturing bomb but unfortunately their prayer for additional evidence in this case by examining this Rajendra Mahto and some police officials including who recorded the fardbeyan, who carried the fardbeyan from Police Station to place of occurrence and handed over the same to Investigating Officer and witnesses on his fardbeyan, was rejected by this Court and they moved the Apex Court against that order but did not succeed. He has further argued that in para-19 of his evidence, the Investigating Officer has stated that he had received the fardbeyan of Rajendra Mahto through Tunnu chaukidar. It is true that the Investigating Officer has admitted the receipt of aforesaid fardbeyan but then at the same time, he, in his evidence, has clearly stated that Rajendra Mahto did not come to him during the investigation, he did not get any information about Rajendra Mahto from witnesses and he had deputed Ram Kishun Paswan for search of Rajendra Mahto but he was not found. It is not the case of appellants that Rajendra Mahto was an eye-witness who had seen both the deceased preparing the bombs and in that process, any bomb exploded which resulted in the death of both the deceased. The prayer of appellants for taking additional evidence by calling Rajendra Mahto and some other witnesses was considered by this Court in details and was rejected. We, therefore, do not consider it necessary to again discuss the same point. 12. The prayer of appellants for taking additional evidence by calling Rajendra Mahto and some other witnesses was considered by this Court in details and was rejected. We, therefore, do not consider it necessary to again discuss the same point. 12. The learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the informant, in his fardbeyan, has stated that when his uncle Kishun Yadav reached a lane adjacent to the house of Sadhu Kahar, the appellants attacked on him and appellant Lakhan Singh threw a bomb on him causing injury on his back and at that time, informant was returning after easing out and in his evidence also, informant has said the same but in para-7 of his cross- examination, he has said that when his uncle Kishun Mahto was going towards his house at that time, he was easing and remained as such for five minutes and at that time, he had heard the sound of explosion of one bomb. It is true that aforesaid discrepancy is there in the evidence of informant. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has sub- mitted that the aforesaid contradiction is quite minor contradiction and besides this, informant was examined as a witness on 24.11.1987 when his age was estimated by the Court below as twenty years meaning thereby that at the time of getting his fardbeyan recorded, informant was a boy aged about sixteen years and in this view of the matter, the aforesaid contradiction is quite minor contradiction and only on this basis, the entire case of prosecution cannot be thrown out. We fully agree with this submission of learned Additional Public Prosecutor. The learned counsel for the appellants has further argued that informant, in his cross-examination, has admitted that he had seen bomb injuries on Kishun Mahto and firearm injuries on his father whereas specific case of the prosecution is that both the deceased were brought to the verandah of Pheku Mahto where they were assaulted by the appellants and no eye-witness has stated that in inflicting injuries on deceased, bomb or firearm was used. All eye-witnesses to the occurrence have consistently stated that at the time of occurrence, appellants were armed with guns, bombs, garasa, saif, bhala, etc. and they all have said that appellants brought both the deceased from matkotha to verandah of Pheku Mahto (PW 6) where they killed them by using their weapons. All eye-witnesses to the occurrence have consistently stated that at the time of occurrence, appellants were armed with guns, bombs, garasa, saif, bhala, etc. and they all have said that appellants brought both the deceased from matkotha to verandah of Pheku Mahto (PW 6) where they killed them by using their weapons. A mob of about fifty persons had entered in the house of Pheku Mahto (PW 6) and members of mob were variously armed with deadly weapons and bomb. In this view of the matter, it is very difficult for any witness to say that which accused used which weapon. Besides this, the evidence of PWs 1 and 2, who are not related to deceased persons, show that after hearing the sound of explosion of bomb, they went towards the house of Pheku Mahto where they saw the occurrence. It is true that PWs 3, 6 and 10 and informant (PW 11) had seen both the deceased entering the house of Pheku Mahto (PW 6) and they followed them and.they have not said that any explosion of bomb was made in the house of Pheku Mahto (PW 6) but in such a situation of chaso, if they have not stated about the explosion of bomb in the house, it cannot be said that they are not trustworthy and their evidence is not reliable at all. 13. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that China Devi (PW 3), daughter of deceased Gopi Yadav in para 7 of her cross-examination, has given the size of matkotha by saying that it is about 7 to 8 feet long and about 4 to 5 feet wide and in view of this fact, it was not possible for the appellants and their companions, as alleged, who were about forty to fifty in number, to go on the matkotha and the case of explosion of bomb by them there, is not probable because there was every possibility of themselves getting injured by such explosion. It is not the case of prosecution that all the appellants and their companions went to this matkotha. On the other hand, the case of prosecution is that some of the appellants went to this matkotha and some remained in the courtyard of the house. It is not the case of prosecution that all the appellants and their companions went to this matkotha. On the other hand, the case of prosecution is that some of the appellants went to this matkotha and some remained in the courtyard of the house. If the appellants, by throwing bomb at matkotha, took the risk of getting injuries, it was entirely their discretion and in view of the positive evidence of prosecution witnesses, it cannot be held that some of the appellants had not gone to this matkotha. It has further been argued that Kishun Raj war (PW 1), in para 4 of his evidence, has stated that son of deceased Kishun Mahto and deceased Gopi Mahto are cultivating land in the village and this statement falsifies the case of prosecution that Gopi Mahto was murdered by the appellants because this statement suggests that Gopi Mahto is still alive. We are unable to agree with this argument because this witness, in reply to a suggestion that prior to occurrence, both the deceased alongwith Desai Mahto had fled away by leaving their village, lands in the village. It is nowhere the case of the appellants that deceased Gopi Mahto is still (PW 3), the daughter of Gopi Mahto, Pheku Mahto (PW 6), cousin of Gopi Mahto, Kamli Devi, wife of the brother of Gopi Mahto and informant, son of Gopi Mahto who have clearly stated that Gopi Mahto and Kishun Mahto were murdered by the appellants. 14. Arguments on behalf of the appellants have been advanced that all prosecution witnesses claiming to be eye-witness to the occurrence are either closely related to deceased persons or inimical against them and the persons residing in the vicinity have not been examined and in this view of the matter, conviction of appellants cannot be upheld. The learned counsel for the appellants has cited a decision in the case of Ram Ashrit and others V/s. State of Bihar, AIR 1981 SC 942 . In this case, it has not been held that conviction cannot be based on the evidence of witnesses who are either related to deceased persons or otherwise related to the prosecution. The learned counsel for the appellants has cited a decision in the case of Ram Ashrit and others V/s. State of Bihar, AIR 1981 SC 942 . In this case, it has not been held that conviction cannot be based on the evidence of witnesses who are either related to deceased persons or otherwise related to the prosecution. According to this decision, the evidence of such witnesses requires test of close and severe scrutiny and considering the surrounding circumstances of the case, it was found that substratum of the story that there was a dacoity or forcible theft of wheat grains stood improbabilised and the conviction of appellants was set aside. In the present case, no doubt PWs 3,6, 10 and 11 are related to both the deceased persons and PWs 1 and 2 were accused alongwith both the deceased in a criminal case but then, admittedly, PWs 1 and 2 are not related to both the deceased persons and in the evidence of all these witnesses, we do not find anything which makes the case of prosecution improbable. The further argument on behalf of the appellants is that no information of occurrence to police was given immediately after the occurrence and the occurrence is said to have taken place at about 8 a.m. on 6.7.1983 but the fardbeyan of informant was recorded on the same day at about 8 p.m. and in between this time, no step was taken to give information to police. The learned counsel for the appellants, relying upon a decision in the case of Rameshwar Ram and others V/s. State of Bihar, 1996 (2) PLJR 117 : 1996 (2) East Cr C 553 (SC), has argued that in view of the aforesaid fact, the case of prosecution cannot be held free of doubts and appellants are entitled at least for benefit of reasonable doubt. In the aforesaid case, considering the various facts such as there was no specific evidence that any of the appellants had inflicted any fatal injury on the deceased, the witnesses examined were lady witnesses and no male member of the house was examined although according to the case of prosecution, male members were present in the house etc. the appellants were given benefit of doubt. the appellants were given benefit of doubt. In the present case, besides female members, the male members of families of both the deceased have also been examined and the informant in his fardbeyan has explained the reason for not going to Police Station by stating that after occurrence, he was not allowed to come out from his house by appellants. Therefore, we find that the facts of the present case are quite different from the facts of the case relied on by learned counsel for the appellants. The next argument on behalf of the appellants is that there was delay in sending first information report to the concerned Magistrate. According to appellants, the formal first information report shows that it was sent to Magistrate from Police station on 7.7.1983 and it further shows that it was received by the concerned Magistrate on 8.7.1983. Relying on a decision in the case of Ishwar Singh V/s. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1976 SC 2423 , he has argued that delay in sending first information report to a Magistrate is a strong circumstance for suspecting that it was recorded after giving sufficient time to prosecution to introduce improvement and embellishment. In the aforesaid case, which has been relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants, we find that the case of prosecution was not disbelieved only on the ground of delay in sending the first information report to the Magistrate but taking into consideration also the fact that the case made out in Court on two very important particulars differed from the narration made in the first information report and considering this fact coupled with the fact of delay in sending the first information report to Magistrate and also considering other facts, the appellants were acquitted. In the present case,we do not find that there is any major contradiction between the facts mentioned in fardbeyan and stated by prosecution witnesses in Court. 15. Considering the entire evidence on record, we find that the prosecution witnesses have fully supported the case of prosecution and we find no reason to disbelieve them. It is true that PWs 1 and 2 have omitted the names of some appellants in their evidence and PW 3 has also omitted the names of two appellants in her evidence but so far PWs 6, 10 and 11 are concerned, they all have named all the appellants. It is true that PWs 1 and 2 have omitted the names of some appellants in their evidence and PW 3 has also omitted the names of two appellants in her evidence but so far PWs 6, 10 and 11 are concerned, they all have named all the appellants. Shri Bhagya Narain Gupta, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, relying upon a decision in the case of Nagappa Fakirappa Goudar and others V/s. State of Karnataka, AIR 1994 SC 953 : 1994 (1) East Cr C 242 (SC), has submitted that only on account of a witness omitting names of some of the accused persons and failure of witnesses to describe"part played by each accused in detail, will not affect the case of prosecution. Besides this decision, which is fully applicable to the facts of the present case, as stated above, PWs 6, 10 and 11 have named all the appellants in their evidence. 16. Considering the entire evidence on record, we find that prosecution has successfully proved its case against all the appellants. It is true that in this case, dead bodies of both the deceased were not found but the prosecution has proved that after committing murder of both the deceased, appellants immediately took away the bodies to Hadsai pyne where they burnt the bodies and in this view of the matter, there was no question of recovery of dead bodies and the prosecution, by adducing evidence on record, has established the corpus delicti. 17. From the judgment of Court below, we find that appellant Lakhan Singh has been convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 436, Indian Penal Code also besides his conviction and sentences under Section 302 read with Section 34 and 201, Indian Penal Code. We further find that when charge under Section 436, Indian Penal Code was framed against him, at that time, appellants Indu Singh @ Indradeo Singh, Nawal Singh @ Nawal Kishore Singh and Ram Singh (since dead) were not facing trial because charge-sheet was not submitted against them but subsequently they were summoned under Section 319 of Code of Criminal Procedure for facing trial and fresh charges were framed against all the appellants but this time charge under Section 436, Indian Penal Code was not framed against appellant Lakhan Singh but still he has been convicted and sentenced under Section. On this point, the Court below, in its judgment, has observed that its predecessor, by order dated 30.3.1987, had expunged the charges framed earlier but there is no provision of expunging the charges once framed and although on 26.5.1987, when fresh charges were framed, no charge under Section 436, Indian Penal Code was framed against appellant Lakhan Singh but then charge framed earlier in this head on 27.2.1986 remained intact and order dated 30.3.1987 by which the earlier charges were expunged, cannot be looked into because this order is not in accordance with law. We find it difficult to accept this reasoning of the Court below. After summoning more persons for facing trial alongwith some accused already on record from before when fresh charges were framed, the question of making continue any charges framed earlier does not arise particularly when the earlier charges, by specific order, were expunged. After summoning some persons to face trial alongwith others already on record from before, the proceedings are required to be commenced afresh and entire proceedings have to be commenced from the beginning of the trial and there has to be a de novo trial. In taking this view, we are supported by the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Shashikant Singh V/s. Tarekeshwar Singh and another, reported in 2002 (3) PLJR (SC) 21 : 2002 (2) East Cr C 258 (SC). We, therefore, find that the conviction of appellant Lakhan Singh under Section 436, Indian Penal Code without framing charge is not in accordance with law and is not proper and cannot be upheld. We, therefore, set aside the conviction and sentence of appellant Lakhan Singh under Section 436, Indian Penal Code but so far his conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code and Section 201, Indian Penal Code and conviction and sentence of remaining appellants under these two heads is concerned that is upheld because we do not find any ground for interfering with the findings of the Court below and the judgment and order of Court below on this point is hereby confirmed. 18. In the result, with the aforesaid modification in criminal appeal No. 393 of 1989, all the appeals are dismissed. 18. In the result, with the aforesaid modification in criminal appeal No. 393 of 1989, all the appeals are dismissed. Since, except appellant Lakhan Singh, all the appellants are on bail, therefore, their bail bonds stand cancelled and they are directed to surrender before the Court below immediately to serve out the sentences passed against them. BAL KRISHNA JHA, J. 19 I agree. Appeals dismissed except Crl. App. 393/89 with modifications.