Judgment P.N.Yadav, J. 1. Cr. Appeal bearing no. 519 of 1997 was preferred by Satyendra Ram, Mana Ram, Dhannu Ram @ Dhana Ram, Shri Bhagwan Ram and Nathuni Ram while Cr. Appeal No. 490 of 1997 was brought by Ramjee Ram, Jagdhari Ram, Girja Ram, Shivjee Ram, Dina Nath Ram, Vijay Ram, Brij Kishore Ram, Dhuri Ram and Sakal Ram. The appellant Satyendra Ram suffered conviction under sections 302, 307/149, 427, 452 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter to be referred to as the Code) and he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under section 302 and rigorous imprisonment for five years under section 307 read with section 149, no separate sentences having been awarded to him under sections 427, 452 and 148 of the Code. All other appellants were convicted under sections 302/149 and 307/149 and each of them was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and rigorous imprisonment for five years each respectively under sections 302 and 307 read with section 149 of the Code and though they were convicted under sections 427, 452 and 147 of the Code as well no separate sentence thereunder was inflicted on them. The appellant Mana Ram was further convicted under section 307 of the Code as well as under section 27 of the Arms Act and he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and rigorous imprisonment for two years respectively thereunder. The sentences awarded to the appellants were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The facts of the case may be set out in brief, which depicted a very sordid and intriguing story of love affairs between a young boy and a young girl of same village and community culminating in their marriage against knowledge and wishes of their parents and the same proving to be too costiy and dear inasmuch as the bride groom had to lose and sacrifice his father to the father and the brothers of the bride and some other members of their family. Amira Ram (P.W. 8), nineteen and a half year old son of the deceased and Kashmira Devi (P.W. 4), 19 year old daughter of the appellant Nathuni Ram attracted each other and they developed intimacy and ultimately they entered into wed lock. They left their parental house and started living and leading conjugal life at a different village away from their native place. They left their parental house and started living and leading conjugal life at a different village away from their native place. They lived there for about six months and thereafter they shifted to their native village and started living in the house of the deceased or for that matter the house of Amira Ram. The father and the brothers of the girl, Kashmira had all along been nourishing annoyance, anger and grudge against the family of Amira Ram and ultimately the deceased fell a prey to their wrath about one year after the young couple returned to their native village and started living as husband and wife. 3. Amira Ram (P.W. 8) was in the evening on 30.12.1994 returning home from his shop. When he arrived near the house of Nanhu Bin en route to his house at about 6.30 P.M. he saw a boy in the darkness and asked him as to who he was whereupon the appellant Satyendra Ram and his brother Upendra Ram all of a sudden appeared and started abusing him. Amira Ram then ran to his house. After a short while all the appellants having armed themselves with various lethal weapons went to his house and they started beating and damaging the tiles of the roof of the house and on protest being made by him the appellant Mana Ram opened fire from pistol he was having in his hand as a result of which Raj Kishore Ram (P.W. 3) and Nand Kishore Ram (P.W. 6) sustained gun shot injuries. The deceased Rajendra Ram after hearing sound of firing downed the shutter of his shop and left for his home. No sooner had he arrived near the house of Nanhu Bin then the appellants intercepted and caught hold of him whereafter the appellant Satyendra Ram inflicted repeated pasuli blows on him and he slit his neck after the appellants Mana Ram and Shri Bhagwan Ram caught his hands and the appellant Nathuni Ram dealt lathi blow on him as a result of which he sustained injuries and he succumbed to injuries instantaneously on the spot. The witnesses claimed to have identified the appellants in the light of lantern which was burning at the door as well as in the torch light flashed by Amira Ram. 4. The witnesses claimed to have identified the appellants in the light of lantern which was burning at the door as well as in the torch light flashed by Amira Ram. 4. Shrikant Upadhyaya (P.W. 9), Officer Incharge of Udwant Nagar Police Station on getting rumour regarding commission of murder rushed to the place of occurrence. He at about 8.20 P.M. on the same day recorded the fardbeyan of the informant Amira Ram (P.W. 8) at village Kasap which was the scene of incident on the basis of which the formal F.I.R. was drawn up and Udwant Nagar P.S. Case No. 191 of 1994 was registered against the appellants. Investigation was taken up by P.W. 9 Shrikant Upadhyaya. He after recording the fardbeyan of the informant prepared inquest report, inspected the place of occurrence, recorded the statements of witnesses and sent the dead body of the deceased for postmortem. He also prepared injury slips in respect of injuries found on the person of P.W. 3 Raj Kishore Ram and P.W. 6 Nand Kishore Ram and forwarded them to the hospital for their examination and treatment. After completion of investigation and receipt of postmortem examination report and injury reports P.W. 9 submitted the chargesheet against the appellants and finally the trial commenced after commitment. 5. The appellants did not enter into defence. However, from the trend of cross examination of the prosecution witnesses the defence set up by the appellants seemed to be that of total denial and false implication out of sheer enmity emanating from pendency of a case brought by the appellant Nathuni Ram against the deceased and P.Ws. 3, 6 and 8 in regard to abduction of his daughter Kashmira Devi (P.W. 4) and another case instituted by Nathuni Ram against the deceased and his son and others alleging therein that they had made an attempt on his life and also a proceeding under section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure between the parties. 6. In order to prove its case the prosecution examined P.W. 1 Dr.Triyugi Narayan Prasad, who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased, P.W. 2 Dr. Jitendra Prasad Singh who examined and treated injured P.W. 3 Raj Kishore Ram and P.W. 6 Nand Kishore Ram, P.W. 5 Sumitra Devi, wife of Raj Kishore Ram (P.W, 3), P.W. 7 Kabutri Devi, wife of the deceased besides P.Ws. Jitendra Prasad Singh who examined and treated injured P.W. 3 Raj Kishore Ram and P.W. 6 Nand Kishore Ram, P.W. 5 Sumitra Devi, wife of Raj Kishore Ram (P.W, 3), P.W. 7 Kabutri Devi, wife of the deceased besides P.Ws. 3, 4, 6, 8 and 9 referred to above. 7. The trial court after taking the facts, circumstances and evidence into account found and held the appellants guilty and it convicted and sentenced them as stated above vide the impugned judgment and order. 8. The appellants have assailed the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed against them by contending that the genesis of the occurrence remained un-proved inasmuch as objective findings made by the Investigating Officer (P.W. 9) did not support the factum of beating and reaking the tiles of the roof of the house or did the witnesses speak of such breakig and damaging of tiles to him and if this rst part of the prosecution story was not stablished the other part of the case rearding commission of murder of the deeased at the drain near the house of lanhu Bin cannot be believed and acepted; that the statements of the witnesses forming basis of conviction of the appellants were contradictory and discrepint; that all the eye witnesses and the leceased were related to and interested in each other and no conviction can be based on their un-corroborated testimony and that he incident leading to commission of murder of the deceased took place in dark night and none witnessed commission of crime and the appellants have been falsely implicated as the appellant Nathuni Ram had instituted a criminal case for abduction of his daughter Kashmira Devi by the informant and others. 9. 9. The informant Amira Ram supporting the prosecution case has stated that when at about 6-6 1/2 P.M. on 30.12.1994 he arrived near the house of Nanhu Bin he detecting presence of some one there flashed torch light and saw and identified the appellant Satyendra Ram and his brother Upendra Ram who started abusing him whereafter he took to heels and went to his house and after a short while the appellant Satyendra Ram and Mana Ram having pasuli and pistol respectively in their hands and all other appellants having armed themselves with lathi arrived at his house and they started beating and damaging the tiles of the house and on protest being made by him the appellant Mana Ram resorted to firing as a result of which P.W. 3 Raj Kishore Ram and P.W. 6 Nand Kishore Ram sustained gun shot injuries. He added that his father, the deceased Rajendra Ram hearing sound of firing rushed towards his house after downing the shutter of his shop but unfortunately he was intercepted and surrounded by the appellants near the house of Nanhu Bin, a little away from his own house and the appellants Mana Ram and Shri Bhagwan Ram caught hold of his hands and the appellant Nathuni Ram dealt lathi blows on him and the appellant Satyendra Ram inflicted repeated pasuli blows on him as a result of which his neck was slit and he sustained other injuries. P.W. 8 claimed to have identified the appellants in the torch light flashed by him as well as in the light of a lantern burning at his Darwaza. The witness also testified to his making fardbeyan, witnessing preparation of inquest report, transmission of the dead body of the deceased by the police to the mortuary for autopsy and examination and treatment of P.W. 3 and P.W. 6 in the hospital. 10. P.W. 3 Raj Kishore Ram and P.W. 6 Nand Kishore Ram were injured eye witnesses to the occurrence and as such their evidence assumed important significance. They have consistently stated that in the evening at about 6-6 1/2 P.M. on the fateful day they were washing their legs at the well situated by the side of the Darwaza where a lantern was burning. They have consistently stated that in the evening at about 6-6 1/2 P.M. on the fateful day they were washing their legs at the well situated by the side of the Darwaza where a lantern was burning. They in the light of burning lantern as well as in the torch light flashed by the informant witnessed arrival of the appellants with various weapons in their hands. Both P.W. 3 and P.W. 6 stated that the appellants Mana Ram and Satyendra Ram were armed with pistol and pasuli respectively while other appellants were having lathi in their hands. It is in their evidence that the appellants started beating and breaking the tiles of the house and on protest being made by them and other inmates of their house the appellant Mana Ram resorted to firing and two shots so fired by him hit P.W. 3 and one shot fired by him caused gun shot injury to P.W. 6. The witnesses added that just then the deceased heating sound of firing closed his shop and left for his house, however, he was unfortunately intercepted and apprehended by the appellants near the house of Nanhu Bin whereafter the appellants Mana Ram and Shri Bhagwan Ram caught hold of his hands and the appellant Nathuni Ram dealt lathi blows on him while the appellant Satyendra Ram showered pasuli blows on him as a result of which he sustained injuries and his neck was slit and he died instantaneously on the spot. 11. Though P.Ws. 4, 5 and 7 deposed as eye witnesses to the incident leading to infliction of gun shot injuries by the appellant Mana Ram on P.Ws. 3 and 6 and interception of the deceased by all the appellants, catching hold of his hands by the appellants Mana Ram and Shri Bhagwan Ram and infliction of lathi blows and pasuli blows on him by the appellant Nathuni Ram and Satyendra Ram respectively, they in view of the statement of P.W. 4 in her cross examination that when she along with P.Ws. 5 and 7 and Pana Pati Devi came out of her house she saw P.Ws. 3 and 6 lying injured and the deceased lying dead and the statement of P.W. 3 that the women inmates of the house (P.Ws. 5 and 7 and Pana Pati Devi came out of her house she saw P.Ws. 3 and 6 lying injured and the deceased lying dead and the statement of P.W. 3 that the women inmates of the house (P.Ws. 4, 5, 7 and Pana Pati Devi) had out of fear hid themselves in the house, though the door of the house remained opened, cannot be said to be full-fledged eye witnesses. However, their statements would constitute a strong piece of circumstantial evidence pointing to the probability of the prosecution case. As P.Ws. 4, 5 and 7 are not being accepted as eye witnesses to the occurrence their evidence with contradiction or inconsistency cropping therein need not be discussed at length. 12. The criticism levelled against the evidence of P.Ws. 3, 6 and 8 is that their statements are contradictory and discrepant and no reliance can be placed thereon. It has been pointed out that P.Ws. 3, 6 and 8 asserted in their statements in their examination-in-chief as well as in their cross examination that the appellants coming to their house started beating and damaging the tiles of the roof of the hosue and on protest being made by them they abused them and the appellant Mana Ram resorted to firing and out of three shots fired by him two hit P.W. 3 and one hit P.W. 6 and after hearing sound of firing the deceased pulled down the shutter of his shop and left for home and when he reached near the house of Nanhu Bin he was intercepted by all the appellants whereafter Mana Ram and Shri Bhagwan Ram caught hold of his hands and Nathuni Ram assaulted him with lathi and Satyendra Ram dealt pasuli blows on him cutting his neck and causing other injuries on his person as a result of which he died and they identified all the appellants in the light of lantern and torch and the occurrence was witnessed by them as well as by P.Ws. 4, 5 and 7, however, no such statements were made by them during investigation as would be evident from the evidence of the Investigating Officer (P.W. 9). It is true that P.W. 9 denied such statements having been made by the aforesaid witnesses before him. The statement of the investigating Officer contradicting P.Ws. 4, 5 and 7, however, no such statements were made by them during investigation as would be evident from the evidence of the Investigating Officer (P.W. 9). It is true that P.W. 9 denied such statements having been made by the aforesaid witnesses before him. The statement of the investigating Officer contradicting P.Ws. 3, 6 and 8 if accepted would certainly knell the death blow to the entire prosecution case. The point for consideration is whether the statement of the eye witnesses or that of the Investigating Officer is true, worthy of credence and acceptable. Though, the settled principle of law is that what the witnesses say in the court is substantive piece of evidence and not the statements of the witnesses recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C, due weightage and consideration is required to be given to the statements of the witnesses recorded by Investigating Officer contradicting their evidence provided that investigation was carried out fairly and properly without any bias in favour of or against any of the parties to the proceeding. In the case at hand the informant (P.W. 8) had been apprehensive of the conduct and bias of the Investigating Officer against him and in favour of the appellants from the very beginning inasmuch as he had filed protest petition against him. P.Ws. 3, 6 and 8 were the most important and competent eye witnesses. P.Ws. 3 and 6 were injured eye witnesses. P.W. 8 got his fardbeyan recorded giving therein full details of the manner in which the incident took place soon after the occurrence. These witnesses must not have omitted to narrate these basic and material facts before the Investigation Officer. It is the Investigating Officer (P.W. 9) who seemed to be indifferent to the prosecution and he was so callous that he did not deliberately record the statements of the witnesses properly and correctly for the reasons best known to him. Under the circumstance, the statements of P.Ws. 3, 6 and 8 made by them in the court have got to be accepted as true and genuine account of the occurrence witnessed by them and they cannot be discarded on the basis of deliberate omission thereof in the case diary committed by the Investigating Officer. 13. Under the circumstance, the statements of P.Ws. 3, 6 and 8 made by them in the court have got to be accepted as true and genuine account of the occurrence witnessed by them and they cannot be discarded on the basis of deliberate omission thereof in the case diary committed by the Investigating Officer. 13. Admittedly, P.W. 8 Amira Ram, the informant is the son of the deceased and P.W. 4 Kashmira Devi, P.W. 5 Sumitra Devi and P.W. 7 Kabutri Devi are wives of P.W. 8, P.W. 3 and the deceased respectively. It has been vehemently contended that all the material witnesses and the deceased are related to and interested in each other and no conviction can be based on their testimony without corroboration by some independent witness. There is no merit and force in the contention and the same must be discarded outright. The settled principle of law is that the evidence of witnesses closely related to and interested in the victim is required to be scrutinised carefully and if on a close and careful scrutiny their evidence is found to be wholly reliable conviction can very well be based thereon without corroboration. The test prescribed by the law stands satisfied by the facts and circumstances attending to the case at hand. Here the evidence of the eye witnesses considered together with medical evidence to be discussed later on and the promptitude with which the fardbeyan of the informant (P.W. 8) was recorded within two hours of commission of crime, the distance being 4 K.M. from the place of occurrence to the Police Station has on close and careful scrutiny been found to be above board and wholly reliable and the same cannot be rejected merely because the witnesses and the deceased are related to and interested in each other. 14. Dr. Triyugi Narain Prasad (P.W. 1) conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased at about 8.40 A.M. on 31.12.1994. He found the following antemortem injuries on the person of the deceased : (i) One big incised wound on upper part of neck of dimension of 6" x 4" x cervical bone deep trachea cut oesophagus cut, major arteries, veins, nerves, muscle both sides cut and retracted. Blood clot was present. (ii) One incised wound on tip of scalp 6" x 1" x 1/4" scalp deep. Blood clot was present. (ii) One incised wound on tip of scalp 6" x 1" x 1/4" scalp deep. (iii) Two incised wounds on right temporal region of scalp 1" x 1/4" x muscle deep. (iv) One incised wound on right side of forehead size 1 1/4" x 1/4" x muscle deep. (v) One incised wound on right eye brow size 3/4" x 1/4" x muscle deep. (vi) One swelling injury on dorsum of left hand size 4" x 2" with fracture of fifth metacarpal bone. On dissection and opening of skull brain matter and lungs were found pale, heart chamber empty and trachea and oesophagus containing blood. Stomach contained about 4 ounces of semi digested food materials. Urine bladder contained 60 ml of urine. In the opinion of the doctor, the time elapsed since death was 6 to 24 hours and the cause of the death was shock and haemorrhage due to the aforesaid incised injuries caused by sharp cutting weapon such as Pasuli. According to the doctor, injury no. (i) was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. 15. P.W. 2 Dr. Jitendra Prasad Singh examined P.W. 3 Raj Kishore Ram at about 11.30 P.M. on 30.12.1994. He found on his person (i) multiple punctured wounds on right thigh medial and anterior aspect in an area of 6" x 8" with bleeding, the size of each wound being 1/8" x 1/8" x muscle deep, (ii) Multiple punctured wounds over left leg above and below knee in an area of 14" x 3", the size of each wound being 1/8" x 1/8", (iii) Multiple punctured wound over right leg above ankle and (iv) Two lacerated wounds over right hand. In the opinion of the doctor, the injuries were caused by fire arm. He also examined P.W. 6 Nand Kishore Ram at about 11.25 P.M. on the same day and he found on his person a pea sized lacerated wound over left leg 3" below knee joint with bleeding of dimension of 1/8" x 1/8" x muscle deep. The injury was in the opinion of the doctor caused by fire arm. 16. Medical evidence is thus obviously consistent with eye witness account of the manner in which the deceased was inflicted fatal Pasuli blows and lathi blow by the appellant Satyendra Ram and Nathuni Ram respectively and P.Ws. The injury was in the opinion of the doctor caused by fire arm. 16. Medical evidence is thus obviously consistent with eye witness account of the manner in which the deceased was inflicted fatal Pasuli blows and lathi blow by the appellant Satyendra Ram and Nathuni Ram respectively and P.Ws. 3 and 6 were shot at by the appellant Mana Ram as a result of which they sustained fire arm injuries. The evidence of the eye witnesses (P.Ws. 3, 6 and 8) in regard to the time and place of occurrence and the manner in which the incident leading to commission of murder of the deceased and infliction of gun shot injuries on P.Ws. 3 and 6 in an attempt to kill them stood well corroborated by medical evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2. The evidence of the eye witnesses considered together with medical evidence of the doctors (P.Ws. 1 and 2) abundantly established that the incident took place at about 6.30 P.M. in which P.W. 3 and P.W. 6 were inflicted gun shot injuries and the deceased was inflicted fatal injuries with Pasuli. 17. The contention that the doctor found about 4 ounces of semi digested food materials in the stomach of the deceased but as the incident took place at about 6.30 P.M. and the deceased was not expected to have taken meal so early and in that view of the matter the findings of the doctor creates doubt in the prosecution version is non meritous and the same cannot be accepted. The probability of the deceased eating some food stuff 2 or 3 hours prior to the occurrence cannot be ruled out. Similarly the contention that P.Ws. 3 and 6 stated that they were shot at from a distance of 2-3 cubits but the doctor did not find charring or blackening around their injuries and this inconsistency in the evidence of eye witnesses and that of the Doctor rendered the case suspicious is also devoid of merit and force. The witnesses were illiterate. They cannot be expected to have made narration regarding the distance with mathematical precision, It is also possible that they gave exaggerated version that they were shot at from a close range to make the allegation against their assailants appear to be more serious. 18. The witnesses were illiterate. They cannot be expected to have made narration regarding the distance with mathematical precision, It is also possible that they gave exaggerated version that they were shot at from a close range to make the allegation against their assailants appear to be more serious. 18. Shrikant Upadhaya, Investigating Officer (P.W. 9) stated that he after hearing rumour in regard to the incident leading to commission of an offence of murder rushed to the place of occurrence where he recorded the fardbeyan of the informant (P.W. 8) at about 8.20 P.M. and he himself took up investigation, he saw the dead body of the deceased, prepared inquest report and caused the dead body to be sent to mortuary for postmortem examination, inspected the place of occurrence and recorded the statements of witnesses. The place of occurrence comprised the house of the deceased, sahan land contiguous to the house and a piece of land situated in the vicinity of the house of Nanhu Bin where the deceased was found by P.W. 9 to be lying dead. P.W. 9 found profused bleeding and blood fallen at the place of occurrence. In his cross examination, P.W. 9 said that to the west of the house of the informant situated a well. According to him he did not find mark of violence or trampling along the drain running from the house of the informant to the vicinity of the house of Nanhu Bin nor did he find damaged or broken tiles of the roof of the house of the informant or black mark on the wall of his door caused by burning of the lantern nor were the lantern and the torch shown to him nor did he find blood near the well referred to above. The investigating Officer as a matter of fact did not make probe on these lines and he admitted whatever was put in his mouth by the cross examining lawyer and he made such statements even though there was no mention thereof in the case diary. Faulty investigation, however, cannot be itself lead to total demolition of the prosecution case if it can otherwise stand ignoring the fallacy. The prosecution version in the present case is established on the basis of trustworthy testimony of the eye witnesses. 19. Beating and damaging of tiles took place in the house of the informant. P.Ws. Faulty investigation, however, cannot be itself lead to total demolition of the prosecution case if it can otherwise stand ignoring the fallacy. The prosecution version in the present case is established on the basis of trustworthy testimony of the eye witnesses. 19. Beating and damaging of tiles took place in the house of the informant. P.Ws. 3 and 6 were shot at the well situated at the Sahan land in front of the house. The deceased was intercepted, caught hold of and inflicted fatal blows a little away from the house of Nanhu Bin. The house of the informant, Sahan land in front of his Darwaza and the house of Nanhu Bin seemed to be situated quite contiguous to each other. The Investigating Officer did not measure and mention the distance between the house of the informant and the house of Nanhu Bin. It has come in the evidence of P.W. 7 who is a rustic and illiterate woman coming from remote corner of the countryside that the distance between the house of the informant and place where the deceased was done away is about 2 bighas. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor on that basis calculated the distance to be about 200 yards. Though mathematical precision must be lacking even in the calculation made by the Additional Public Prosecutor, the estimation of distance made by the rustic and illiterate P.W. 7 was still more doubtful and hypothetical and on the basis of her testimony in this regard it cannot be said that the distance between the house of the informant and that of Nanhu Bin was about 2 bighas or 200 yards. Even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that the distance between the two houses referred to above was 200 yards that alone cannot instill suspicion in the prosecution case. In view of direct, cogent and reliable evidence adduced by the prosecution the distance between the house of the informant and the house of Nanhu Bin cannot lead the court to hold that the place of occurrence was not proved and the deceased was not caught hold of and killed by the appellants near the house of Nanhu Bin. 20. In view of direct, cogent and reliable evidence adduced by the prosecution the distance between the house of the informant and the house of Nanhu Bin cannot lead the court to hold that the place of occurrence was not proved and the deceased was not caught hold of and killed by the appellants near the house of Nanhu Bin. 20. It has been contended that the incident took place at about 6-6 1/2 P.M. on the 30th December when it must be dark and in view of statement of the investigating Officer that no lantern and torch were produced before him presumption would be that there was no source of iight at the place of occurrence and hence witnesses could not have identified the appellants. There is no substance in this contention as well. The witnesses claimed to have identified the appellants in the light of burning lantern and torch light flashed by the informant. It is also in their evidence that the lantern, the torch and the wall where burning lantern was hung were shown to the investigating Officer. It was for the Investigating Officer to seize the lantern and the torch and to make a mention thereof in the case diary. Besides, the appellants and the prosecution witnesses were co-villagers and they were quite conversant and familiar with each other. The appellants on protest made by P.Ws. 3, 6 and 8 abused them and they must have been identified by the witnesses also by their voice, dialogue, gesture and posture. Under the circumstances, identification of the appellants by the witnesses cannot be doubted. 21. It has further been contended that it was the informant who took away Kashmira (P.W. 4), daughter of Nathuni Ram and married her and he had been having her as his wife for the last one and a half years and no such incident was expected to have been put to an end after lapse of such a long period of time and moreover the informant and not his father ought to have been made target for being eliminated by the appellants. The contention cannot be accepted. The contention cannot be accepted. The appellants might have thought to eliminate the deceased as he was father and guardian of the informant Amira Ram and he remained silent spectator of abduction of the daughter of the appellant Nathuni Ram by his son Amira Ram and their ultimate marriage or they might have also thought that marriage between Amira Ram and Kashmira was a fait accompli and killing the former would make the latter widow. It is very difficult to read the mind of the appellants as to why they killed the deceased and not Amira Ram. In the face of direct evidence on commission of murder of the deceased conviction of the appellants cannot be set aside on the basis of the aforesaid contention based on conjectures and surmises that the appellants in all probability would have killed the informant and not his father, the deceased. 22. Motive becomes irrelevant and it has no important role to play when there is direct evidence to establish commission of an offence. In the present case, there is direct and cogent evidence of eye witnesses corroborated by medical evidence on the point of commission of crime. So no motive is required to be proved. However, according to the prosecution there was strong motive Impelling the appellants to commit the crime and the alleged motive has been proved inasmuch as all the witnesses including Kashmira Devi (P.W. 4) and the informant Amira Ram (P.W. 8) have stated that Kashmira (P.W. 4), daughter of Nathuni Ram was abducted by the informant Amira Ram (P.W. 8) and ultimately they entered into wedlock which was not liked and relished by the appellants and they had been nourishing anger, annoyance and grudge ever since abduction of P.W.4 by P.W. 8 and their marriage and their anger and annoyance ultimately motivated and impelled the appellants to commit the crime within one year of return of the couple to their native village after their exile of six months. The motive attributed behind the commission of offence leading to murder of the deceased and infliction of gun shot injuries on P.Ws. 3 and 6 by the appellants stood well proved. 23. As per evidence of P.W. 3 Choukidar Bhuneshwar Ram had arrived at the scene of occurrence and he was made acquainted with all the details of the incident. The motive attributed behind the commission of offence leading to murder of the deceased and infliction of gun shot injuries on P.Ws. 3 and 6 by the appellants stood well proved. 23. As per evidence of P.W. 3 Choukidar Bhuneshwar Ram had arrived at the scene of occurrence and he was made acquainted with all the details of the incident. The contention raised on behalf of the appellants is that the said Choukidaror Nanhu Bin or Panapati Devi or any other independent villager was not examined by the prosecution and their non examination instilled serious doubt in the case. It is nowhere in the evidence of the witnesses that the said Choukidar or Nanhu Bin or any other villager had seen the occurrence and as such they were not material witnesses and their non examination is of no consequence. Moreover, it is a matter of common experience that independent villagers are generally not ready and willing to come forward to give evidence for fear that giving evidence may invite the wrath of the assailants and they may be exposed to serious risks. 24. The facts, circumstances and evidence available on records abundantly established that the appellants broke and damaged the tiles of the house of the informant, the appellant Mana Ram shot at P.Ws, 3 and 4 as a result of which they sustained gun shot injuries and all the appellants intercepted the deceased and the appellants Mana Ram and Shri Bhagwan Ram caught hold of his hands, the appellants Nathuni Ram assaulted him with lathi and the appellant Satyendra Ram dealt repeated Pasuli blows on him as a result of which he sustained injuries and he succumbed to injuries so inflicted on him instantaneously on the spot. 25. The defence version that the incident took place in the darkness of night and it went un-seen and the appellants have been falsely implicated out of sheer enmity emanating from the fact that prior to the date of the incident the appellant Nathuni Ram had brought a case against the informant and others regarding abduction of his daughter and there had also been a proceeding under Section 107 Cr.P.C. between the parties is not tenable and acceptable. The informant (P.W. 8) expressed his ingnorance about institution of criminal case against him and others by Nathuni Ram in regard to abduction of his daughter Kashmira Devi, though, P.W. 3 admitted institution of such a case. However, P.W. 8 in reply to query in course of his cross examination stated that the appellant Nathuni Ram had brought a case by way of counter blast to the present case to make out a defence. Under such circumstance, the defence ought to have produced certain document showing lodging of case by the appellant Nathuni Ram in regard to abduction of his daughter and pendency of the proceeding under section 107 Cr.P.C. However, the fact remains that the informant (P.W. 8) and the appellants including Nathuni Ram were residents of the same village and P.W. 8 took away Kashmira, daughter of Nathuni Ram and he married her and he had been keeping her as his wife. Naturally the appellants including Nathuni Ram who all come of one and the same family were aggrieved. All this considered together with institution of a case by Nathuni Ram against the informant and others as well as the proceeding going on between the parties as per statements of P.W. 3 must give rise to an inference that both parties had been on inimical terms. But the crux of the matter is that enmity is a double edged weapon which cuts both ways. It is just possible that on account of animosity given rise to by abduction of P.W. 4 Kashmira and her marriage with P.W. 8 against the wishes of the appellants including Nathuni Ram, father of the said girl, Kashmira they decided to do away with the deceased. 26. However, the point for consideration hotly debated in course of argument is whether all the appellants are liable under sections 302/149 and 307/149 of the Code. 26. However, the point for consideration hotly debated in course of argument is whether all the appellants are liable under sections 302/149 and 307/149 of the Code. The learned counsel has contended that there is nothing on the records to show that the common object of the un-lawful assembly consisting of the appellants was to commit murder of the deceased and to make an attempt to kill P.W. 3 and P.W. 6 or the members of the un-lawful assembly that is the appellants had knowledge that such offences were likely to be committed in prosecution of common object and hence they cannot be convicted under section 302 and 307 with the aid of section 149 of the Code and they shall be liable only for individual acts committed by them. The Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State resisted the contention put forward on behalf of the appellants by submitting that all the appellants having armed themselves with various lethal weapons went to the house of the informant, damaged the tiles of the roof of the house and one of them shot at and caused gun shot injuries to P.W. 3 and P.W. 6 and thereafter they running to the deceased caught hold of him and one of them inflicted repeated Pasuli blows on him as a result of which he sustained injuries and he died instantaneously on the spot and thereafter they all retreated in one and the same direction and not in different directions and all these facts and circumstances are eloquent of each and every appellant having knowledge of offences likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object and hence all the appellants are liable under sections 302 and 307 read with section 149 of the Code. 27. Section 149 of the Code deals with vicarious liability of the members of an un-lawful assembly for act done in prosecution of the common object of that assembly or for such offence as the members of the un-lawful assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object. If an un-lawful assembly is formed with the common object of committing an offence and if that offence is committed in prosecution of the object, all the members of the assembly will be vicariously liable for that offence even if one or more but not at all committed the offence. If an un-lawful assembly is formed with the common object of committing an offence and if that offence is committed in prosecution of the object, all the members of the assembly will be vicariously liable for that offence even if one or more but not at all committed the offence. Again if an offence is committed by a member of an unlawful assembly and that offence is one which the members of the un-lawful assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object, every member who had that knowledge will be guilty of the offence so committed. However, the members of un-lawful assembly may have a community of object up to certain point beyond which they may differ in their object and the knowledge possessed by each member of what is likely to be committed in prosecution of their common object may vary according to the information he had as well as according to the extent to which he shares the community of object and consequently the effect of section 149 of the Code may be different on different members of the same unlawful assembly vide Jahiruddin V/s. Queen Empress, I.L.R. 22 Calcutta 306. 28. In view of the ratio decidendi of the case referred to above a conviction for a minor offence may be recorded with the aid of section 149 of the Code against the members of an un-lawful assembly, even if it is established that a major and serious offence like that of murder or an attempt to commit murder was committed by one or more members of such assembly. It has been laid down in the case of Shambhu Nath Singh and others V/s. State of Bihar A.I.R. 1960 Supreme Court, 725 "By section 149 the vicarious liability of the members for offence committed in prosecution of the common object or for offences which were known to be likely to be committed by the members of the un-lawful assembly is declared. The offence of murder being in its nature an aggravated form of the offence of grievous hurt we are unable to hold that because no offender was proved to have caused grievous hurt to the victims, the conviction of accused numbers 2 to 8 and 14 for an offence under section 326 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code is illegal." 29. In the case at hand all the appel lants comprising the un-!awful assembly entering into the house started beating and damaging the tiles and soon thereafter the appellant Mana Ram opened fire causing gun shot injuries to P.W. 3 and P.W. 6 followed by infliction of lathi blow by the appellant Nathuni Ram and fatal blows by the appellant Satyendra Ram on the deceased after he was caught hold of by his hands by the appellants Mana Ram and Shri Bhagwan Ram. The appellants Mana Ram, Shri Bhagwan Ram and Nathuni Ram committed specific overt act and they facilitated infliction of fatal injuries by the appellant Satyendra Ram on the deceased and they obviously shared the common intention with the appellant Satyendra Ram to kill the deceased and so the appellant Satyendra Ram is obviously liable under section 302 and the appellants Nathuni Ram, Mana Ram and Shri Bhagwan Ram are liable under section 302 read with section 149 of the Code. Hence conviction and sentence of the appellant Satyendra Ram under section 302 and 148 of the Code and appellants Nathuni Ram, Mana Ram and Shri Bhagwan Ram under sections 302/149 of the Code are maintained. Conviction and sentence of the appellant Mana Ram under sections 307 and 148 of the Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act also coes not warrant interference by this Court. The appellant Satyendra Ram having armed himself with a deadly weapon played the most vital role in the whole episode and so his conviction and sentence under sections 307/149 of the Code is also upheld. The appellants other than Satyendra Ram, Mana Ram, Nathuni Ram and Shri Bhagwan Ram are held to have common object of causing grievous hurt but death of the deceased was caused by one of the members of the un-lawful assembly while an attempt on life of P.W. 3 and P.W. 6 was made by one another member of the assembly and there is no material to show that they had knowledge that the object of the assembly was to commit murder of the deceased and P.Ws. 3 and 6 and hence they cannot be said to be responsible for causing the death of the deceased and making an attempt to kill P.W. 3 and P.W. 6 and, therefore, convictions of the appellants other than Satyendra Ram, Mana Ram, Nathuni Ram and Shri Bhagwan Ram under sections 302 and 307 read with Section 149 of the Code are altered to one under section 326 read with section 149 of the Code and they are sentenced to undergo imprisonment for period already undergone by them. All the appellants are also liable under sections 427 and 452 of the Code and they have been rightly convicted thereunder. Conviction of the appellants other than the appellants Satyendra Ram and Mana Ram under section 147 of the Code is also confirmed. 30. The appellant Satyendra Ram is already in jail custody. The bail bonds of the appellants Mana Ram, Nathuni Ram and Shri Bhagwan Ram are cancelled. They are directed to surrender in the court below within four weeks to serve out sentences awarded to them failing which the court below shall take coercive steps for procuring their surrender. The appellants Ramjee Ram, Jagdhari Ram, Girija Ram, Sheojee Ram, Dinanath Ram, Vijay Ram, Brij Kishore Ram, Dhuri Ram, Sakal Ram and Dhanu Ram @ Dhana Ram are discharged from the liability of their respective bail bonds. 31. With the aforesaid modifications in convictions and sentences, both the appeals are dismissed. S.N.Jha, J. 32 I agree.