Judgment S.N.Jha and P.N.Yadav JJ. 1. There are six appellants in all in these two appeals. All of them have been convicted under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellants of Cr. Appeal No. 395/97, namely, Laddu Yadav and Abhinandan Yadav have also been separately convicted under Section 302 of the Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life. No separate sentence for the offence under Section 302/34 has been awarded to them in view of the sentences awarded for the offence under Section 302 of the Penal Code. For the offences under Section 302/34, the appellants of Cr. Appeal No. 258/97, namely, Kamleshwari Yadav, Satya Narain Yadav, Surendra Yadav and Vakil Yadav @ Nakul Yadav alone have been awarded sentence of life imprisonment. 2. The prosecution case may, briefly, be set out as follows. Jai Krishna Yadav of village Biri Rampal within Uda Kishanganj Police Station of Madhepura district took his meal at about 10 Oclock in the night of 13.3.96 and went to sleep in the Gohal. While he was lying on the Chouki at about 11 Oclock he saw some persons coming from the other side flashing torches. They went towards the machan where his eldest uncle Shiv Narain Yadav was sleeping. Jai Krishna Yadav too went near the Machan. He identified the appellants. They were variously armed with country made gun, rifle, Gadasa, Iron rod, Lathi etc. Four of them namely, Kamleshwari Yadav, Vakil Yadav, Staya Narain Yadav and Surendra Yadav caught hold of Shiv Narain Yadav while the remaining two namely, Laddu Yadav and Abhinandan Yadav fired from their rifle and country made gun respectively causing injuries to Shiv Narain Yadav on his forehead, near eye and ear and also on the wrist of left hand. The back portion of the head, in fact, was completely blown off and he instantaneously died on the Machan itself. 3. The above incident was narrated by Jai Krishna Yadav at 3.30 A.M. at the place of occurrence to Sub-Inspector of Police Mitrajeet Mehta of Uda Kishanganj Police Station who recorded the fardbeyan. In the fardbeyan Jai Krishna Yadav (hereinafter called the informant) stated that the occurrence was seen by Bindeshwari Yadav, Satya Narayan Yadav, Chhotelal Yadav and Ashok Kumar Yadav who came to the place of occurrence and identified the culprits fleeing from there. In the fardbeyan Jai Krishna Yadav (hereinafter called the informant) stated that the occurrence was seen by Bindeshwari Yadav, Satya Narayan Yadav, Chhotelal Yadav and Ashok Kumar Yadav who came to the place of occurrence and identified the culprits fleeing from there. He disclosed that the reason of the occurrence was that in the month of November 1995 accused persons had assaulted Dasrath Yadav, his father, by Gadasa for which a case was lodged which was pending. The accused persons wanted the case to be withdrawn and they tried to put pressure on the deceased for that purpose. The deceased refused to yield and out of annoyance was killed. 4. On the basis of said fardbeyan Uda Kishanganj P.S. Case No. 28/96 was registered against the appellants and the investigation commenced. After taking necessary steps, such as, holding inquest, sending the dead body for post mortem, examining witnesses under Section 161 Cr. P. C, S.l. Mitrajeet Mehta submitted chargesheet against the appellants thus putting them on trial. 5. At the trial the prosecution examined 11 witnesses to prove its case three out of whom namely, Dasrath Yadav, P.W.4, Chhota Lal Yadav, P.W.7 and Smt. Nirmala Devi, P.W. 9 were tendered. Five of them were examined as eye witnesses, namely, Satya Narain Yadav, P.W.1, Bindeshwari Yadav, P.W.2, Ashok Kumar Yadav, P.W. 3, Ganita Devi, P.W.8, and informant himself, P.W. 10. Gurudeo Mandal who claimed to have reached the place of occurrence after the culprits had left was examined as P.W.6. Dr. Anand Kumar Bhagat who held autopsy was examined as P.W.5 while the Investigating Officer, S.I.Mitrajeet Mehta was examined as P.W.11. 6. It may not be out of place to mention here that amongst the eye witnesses, while the informant was nephew of the deceased, P.W. 1 Satya Narain Yadav was son of the deceased, P.W. 2 Bindeshwari Yadav and P.W. 3 Ashok Kumar Yadav were also his nephews and P.W.8 Ganita Devi was wife of P.W. 1 Satya Narain Yadav and daughter-in-law of the deceased. Two out of three tendered witnesses were also close relative of the deceased being brothers, They happened to be father of the informant P.W.10 and P.W.3 Ashok Kumar Yadav respectively. 7. The defence" of the appellants is that Shiv Narain Yadav was killed by un known assailants in the night of occurrence and they have been falsely implicated on account of enmity. 7. The defence" of the appellants is that Shiv Narain Yadav was killed by un known assailants in the night of occurrence and they have been falsely implicated on account of enmity. According to them, one of the appellants, Surendra Yadav had filed a case being Uda Kishanganj P.S. Case No. 162/95 on 26.11.95 against some members of the prosecution party who figure as prosecution witnesses in the instant case, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324 and 355 of the Penal Code alleging that his (Surendra Yadav) wife had gone to see the paddy field when Bindeshwari Yadav, P.W.2 in the instant case, threw her on the ground and attempted to commit rape. The act was protested by the relatives of Surendra Yadav However, the other side armed with lathi, Gadasa etc. assaulted him (Surendra Yadav). It is also said that appellant Abhinandan Yadav was a member of the Communist party and looked after the interests of the agricultural labourers. One Dinesh Jha, a landlord of the area, tried to oust the Harizans from the lands and Abhinandan. Yadav helped them. Members of the prosecution party of the present case are the henchmen of said Dinesh Jha and it is at his instance that that they (appellants) have been implicated in this case.The appellants, in fact, examined four witnesses in their defence, namely, D.W.1 Uttam Prasad Yadav, D.W.2 Achhay Lal paswan, D.W.3 Gonar Mandal @ Ganesh Mandal and D.W.4 Satish Prasad Singh. The first three deposed to the effect that Shiv Narain Yadav was killed by unknown assailants. They had been to the place of occurrence and were told about the murder the hands of some unknown. D.W.4, Satish Prasad Singh, proved certain written reports by Surendra Yadav to show previous enmity between the parties. 8. At the end of trial, the trial court convicted and sentenced the appellants in the manner indicated above. 9. The close relationship between the eye witnesses inter se and with the deceased was naturally one of the submissions of the learned advocate appearing amicu curiae for the appellant. She submitted that though there is no legal bar to elying on the evidence of relative witnesses, their evidence has to be scrutinised with due care and caution. As many as five witnesses claimed to have seen the occurrence but the claim of four of them namely, P.Ws. She submitted that though there is no legal bar to elying on the evidence of relative witnesses, their evidence has to be scrutinised with due care and caution. As many as five witnesses claimed to have seen the occurrence but the claim of four of them namely, P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 8 of seeing the occurrence appears to be highly doubtful inasmuch as on their own saying, they were sleeping inside the house and it is unlikely that after hearing the sound of gunfire they would come out and reach the place to see the commission of crime. It was submitted that after committing crime. the culprits do not remain present to be seen by witnesses. So far as P.W. 10, the informant, is concerned, it was submitted that though he claimed to have seen the crime from the very beginning from the Gohal, considering the distance between the Gohal and the Machan where the deceased was killed, it is unlikely that he would have identified the assailants in the darkness of night. Evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 8, as eye witness, being sketchy and unworthy of reliance, it would not be safe to maintain the conviction of the appellants on the sole testimony of the informant particularly in the absence of means of identification. 10. On behalf of the State it was submitted that the appellants had strong motive to kill the deceased. They wanted the case relating to assault on Dasrath Yadav to be withdrawn to which the deceased did not agree resulting in the occurrence. The case was lodged within 4 1/ 2 hours of the occurrence excluding the chance of any concoction. Perusal of the evidence of the eye witnesses would show that their account of occurrence was consistent not only inter se between themselves but also with their previous statement before the police inasmuch as the defence failed to elicit any contradiction, not even any material omission, in their cross-examination. Their evidence being consistent with the earliest version of the informant in the fardbeyan, there is no reason to disbelieve them and disturb the conviction of the appellants. It is submitted that even if it be assumed that P.Ws. Their evidence being consistent with the earliest version of the informant in the fardbeyan, there is no reason to disbelieve them and disturb the conviction of the appellants. It is submitted that even if it be assumed that P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 8 did not see the actual commission of the crime and they reached the place of occurrence after the culprits had left, there is nothing in the evidence of informant to create any doubt. The evidence of the informant being wholly unimpeachable, the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 8 may also be relied upon as corroborating the informants evidence. 11. We have gone through the evidence of the witnesses and perused the documents on record with the assistants of the counsel for the parties. Though as seen above, as many as five witnesses claimed to have seen the occurrence, the evidence of the informant P.W. 10, in our opinion, is sufficient to establish the appellants guilt. In his evidence the informant supported his fardbeyan version. He stated that while lying on Chouki after taking meal, at about 11 P.M. he saw some persons coming from the northern side. When they reached near the Machan where his eldest uncle, the deceased, was sleeping, he identified them being the appellants. Four of them, namely, Kamleshwari Yadav, Satya Narain Yadav, Surendra Yadav and Vakil Yadav caught hold of the deceased while Laddu Yadav and Abhinandan Yadav fired at him from their rifle and country made gun respectively. His uncle as a result of injuries instantaneously died on the spot. After committing the crime the culprits fled away in the eastern direction. The witness was examined at length but nothing could be elicited to create any doubt about the veracity of his version. It may be mentioned that his evidence is consistent not only with the fardbeyan version but also his further statement before the police under Section. 161 Cr. P.C. In cross-examination it was suggested to him that the appellants have been implicated because one of them namely, Abhinandan Yadav was spearheading a litigation under the Bihar Tenancy Act on behalf of the local Mushars with one Dinesh Jha. The suggestion no doubt was denied by the witness but even if it were true, it would, in our opinion, hardly make any difference. The suggestion no doubt was denied by the witness but even if it were true, it would, in our opinion, hardly make any difference. It may be that Abhinandan Yadav was fighting cases on behalf of the Mushars with Dinesh Jha, but that in no manner affects the veracity of the prosecution case. It should be kept in mind that a few months prior to the occurrence in November, 1995 P.W. 4 Dasrath Yadav was assaulted to the extent of permanent disability and as per the prosecution case, the appellants were exerting pressure on the. deceased, being the eldest of the five brothers, to withdraw the case or else face the consequences. The proximity of the case arising from the assault on Dasrath Yadav with the present case rather supports the prosecution version that the occurrence was the consequence of the refusal of the deceased to withdraw the case. In this view of the matter, the fact that Abhinandan Yadav was helping local Mushars in their litigation with Dinesh Jha, even if it be true, would be of no consequence. 12. The evidence of P.W. 10 stands amply corroborated by the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 8. It was submitted on behalf of the appellants that P.W.1 in his evidence admitted that when he reached the place of occurrence he saw the deceased lying dead on the Machan which, according to the counsel, suggests that he did not see the actual occurrence. Counsel also.submitted that there are discrepancies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses as to whether they came at the place of occurrence on hearing the sound of gunfire or the shouts of the informant. In either case it is difficult to comprehend that they would be able to reach the place in the nick of time and see the commission of crime themselves or see the appellants fleeing away. The trial court has gone into this aspect of the case and held that having regard to the contiguity of the house where the witnesses were sleeping, it was not improbable to reach the place where the deceased was killed and see the crime themselves.. in our opinion, even if the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 8 is held to be doubtful on the point of their seeing the actual occurrence, the fact that they reached there soon after the Crime cannot be doubted. in our opinion, even if the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 8 is held to be doubtful on the point of their seeing the actual occurrence, the fact that they reached there soon after the Crime cannot be doubted. To that extent their evidence must be field to have enough corroborative value, As indicated above evidence of P.W.10 informant, is sufficient for establishing the guill of the appellants, for, he was present near the place of occurrence from the very beginning before the assailants came there. He saw them coming there, committing the crime and making good their escape. We have considered the fact that the informant as indeed other witnesses were close relatives of the deceased and accordingly we have scrutinised his evidence with due care and caution but we are unable to discern any discrepancy to shake our confidence in him. The Gohal where the witness was lying was situate quite near the Machan where the deceased was sleeping and he identified the appellants from a distance of 2-3 laggies no sooner than they approached the Machan, It was submitted that the claim of P.W.10 to have raised nulla cannot be believed, for in that event the appellants would not have left a potential witness. We find this submission to be without significance. Even if the shouting part of the evidence of P.W.10 is discarded, there is nothing to create doubt about his seeing the appellants. He claimed to have identified them in the light of torch and considering the previous enmity and the fact that they are residents of same place and inimical to each other, the possibility of their identifying in the torch light cannot be doubted. 13. The evidence of P.W. 10 finds sufficient corroboration from the medical evidence as well. P.W. 5, Dr. Anand Kumar Bhagat who held autopsy on the dead body found the following injuries (i) Lacerated wound conical in shape superficially over palmier aspect of the wrist left side, size of wound medically 1/3" x 1/3" x 1/2" increased upto 2 1/2" x 2" x 1/2" laterally. Charring was present in the injury. (ii) Lacerated wound of about 5" x 2"x 1 1/2" over occipital temporal region including upper part of the neck. Charring was present in the injury. Vessels and nerves were seen torn. Margin inverted. Charring was present in the injury. (ii) Lacerated wound of about 5" x 2"x 1 1/2" over occipital temporal region including upper part of the neck. Charring was present in the injury. Vessels and nerves were seen torn. Margin inverted. (iii) Lacerated wound of 7" x 2 1/2" x 1 1/2" over posterolateral aspect of occipital cervicle area right side. Vessels and nerves were seen torn. Injury no. iii is corresponding to injury no. (ii). The margin of wound was everted. (iv) Lacerated wound of about 1" x 1/2" over forehead. Internal examination : On opening abdomen stomach pale containing about 400 grams of semi digested food. Intestine, Liver, Spleen,. Kidneys were pale. On opening chest, lungs and heart were pale. On opening skull subcutaneous haemotoma nearly 50 c. c. of blood just inside the ivth wound Brain pale. In my opinion the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage due to above injuries which were caused by fire arms. Time elapsed since death was nearly 24 hours. This post mortem examination report has been written by me and it bears my signature. From perusal of the injuries it is manifest that three shots were fired on the deceased, two of them described as injury nos. (i) and (ii) from close range as they caused charring mark near the injuries. The nature and location of the injuries is in conformity with the evidence of P.W.10, according to whom, Laddu Yadav and Abhinandan Yadav had fired shots from their rifle and country made gun-two shots apparently from close range while the third one on the forehead from some distance. 14. The fact that the information was lodged within 4 1/2 hours of the occurrence even though it was night time, is also significant; clearly there was no delay in lodging the case ruling out the chances of concoction. From the evidence of the Investigating Officer it appears that the witnesses were examined on the very next day and they not only supported the fardbeyan version of the informant but reiterated the same in course of evidence at the stage of trial. No contradiction whatsoever was pointed out in course of their deposition which suggests that they gave consistent account of the occurrence both before the police and the Court. 15. No contradiction whatsoever was pointed out in course of their deposition which suggests that they gave consistent account of the occurrence both before the police and the Court. 15. In the above premises, we have no hesitation in holding, in agreement with the trial court, that prosecution has succeeded in proving its case against the appellants beyond all reasonable doubts and the appellants conviction and sentence does not warrant interference by this Court. 16. In the result, the appeals are dismissed. While LadduYadav and Abhinandan Yadav are in custody, appellants Kamleshwari Yadav, Satya Narain Yadav, Surendra Yadav and Vakil Yadav @ Nakul Yadav are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled and they are directed to surrender and serve the sentences. It they do not surrender within four weeks, the trial court will take coercive steps to secure their arrest in accordance with law. 17. Let copy of first and the last page of this judgment be handed over to Ms. Soni Srivastava to facilitate payment of fees by the Patna High Court Legal Aid Committee.