M. C. JAIN, J. The murder of one Jhandu Singh resident of village Sikandarabad, Police Station Usehat, District Budaun is the subject matter of the present appeal. The five appellants, namely, Rameshwar, Shyam Pal, Jamadar, Ram Kishan and Onkar were tried in Sessions Trial No. 488 of 1982 before Additional Sessions Judge, Budaun, who convicted all of them under Section 148 IPC and 302 read with Section 149 IPC by judgment dated 26th April, 1985. Shyam Pal and Jamadar are real brothers and again Ram Kishan and Onkar are real brothers. All of them are said to be the associates of Rameshwar, being thick with him. Each of them has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 148 IPC and life imprisonment under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC. Aggrieved, they have preferred this appeal. 2. The incident took place on 3rd August 1982 at about 6. 45 a. m. near the grove of Jatavs in village Sikandarabad, P. S. Usehat, District Budaun. The report was lodged by an eye-witness Suresh Pal Singh PW-1 at the concerned Police Station the same day at 2. 10 a. m. The distance of place of occurrence from the Police Station was 18 kms. The deceased was the maternal uncle of Suresh Pal Singh PW-1, who resided with him, assisting him in his cultivation. On the fateful day at about 6. 45 a. m. , the deceased was going to his field being followed by his daughter Gayatri Devi and informant Suresh Pal Singh PW-1. When all of them reached in the south of the village near the grove of Jatavs, the appellants appeared all of sudden from the foliage of bushes. Rameshwar and Ram Kishan were armed with Kantas, whereas, the remaining three had lathis. Shyam Pal exhorted and instantaneously all of them pounced upon Jhandu Singh with their weapons and started assaulting him. Jhandu Singh raised cries and Gayatri Devi and Suresh Pal Singh PW-1 also shouted, attracting Om Pal PW-2 and Raksh Pal PW-3 working in the field of one of them (Om Pal ). challenged, the appellants made their escape good. Shyam Pal exhorted and instantaneously all of them pounced upon Jhandu Singh with their weapons and started assaulting him. Jhandu Singh raised cries and Gayatri Devi and Suresh Pal Singh PW-1 also shouted, attracting Om Pal PW-2 and Raksh Pal PW-3 working in the field of one of them (Om Pal ). challenged, the appellants made their escape good. Jhandu Singh was placed on a cot and brought to the Police Station Usehat where Suresh Pal Singh PW-1 lodged the FIR which was taken down, inter alia, under Section 307 IPC Jhandu Singh was being taken from the Police Station to Budaun but he succumbed to his injuries in the way. 3. Previous background has also come on record through the evidence of the prosecution that Kamta - brother of the appellant Ram Kishan was injured in an earlier incident for which Jhandu Singh deceased was prosecuted under Section 307 IPC. The FIR of that case had been lodged by the appellant Rameshwar. Jhandu Singh was convicted and a fine of Rs. 500/- was imposed on him but this fine was also set aside by the High Court. This apart, Rameshwar appellant and Jhandu Singh deceased were also locked in proceedings under Section 107 Cr. P. C. earlier to this occurrence. There was yet another streak of bad blood between the two sides that Rameshwar appellant and Lakhan Singh had contested the election of Gaon Pradhan and the deceased Jhandu Singh had supported Lakhan Singh. However, Lakhan Singh was trounced and Rameshwar was elected as Pradhan. This backdrop of enmity was allegedly responsible for the murder of Jhandu Singh in this incident. 4. The police entered into investigation. Consequent upon the death of Jhandu Singh, post-mortem over his dead-body was conducted by Dr. R. B. Abhai PW-6 on 4th August, 1982 at 11. 55 a. m. He was about 40 years of age and about one day had passed since he died. The following ante-mortem injuries were found on his person. (1) Lacerated wound 2 cm. x 1/2 cm. x 1/4 cm on right side forehead, 2 cm. above lateral end of eyebrow. (2) Contused swelling 4 cm. x 4 cm. on left side forehead, just above eyebrow. (3) Lacerated wound 2 cm. x 1 cm x bone deep on anterior side of head, 8 cm from nasal. (4) Incised wound 7 cm. x 1 cm. x 1/2 cm. x 1/4 cm on right side forehead, 2 cm. above lateral end of eyebrow. (2) Contused swelling 4 cm. x 4 cm. on left side forehead, just above eyebrow. (3) Lacerated wound 2 cm. x 1 cm x bone deep on anterior side of head, 8 cm from nasal. (4) Incised wound 7 cm. x 1 cm. x bone deep on posterior side of head, 10 cm. behind Injury No. 3. (5) Incised wound 4 cm. x 1 cm x bone deep on left side head, 2 cm. left to Injury No. 4. (6) Incised wound 6 cm. x 1 cm x bone deep on left side head, 4 cm. behind left ear. (7) Incised wound 4 cm x 1 cm x bone deep on left side head, 1 cm. behind Injury No. 6. (8) Lacerated wound 4 1/2 x 1 cm x bone deep on right side head, 9 cm. above right ear. The cause of death was head injury. 5. On conclusion of investigation, a charge-sheet was laid against the appellants whose defence was of denial. 6. In all, seven witnesses were examined by the prosecution including the Doctor conducting the post- mortem over the dead- body of the deceased, Investigating Officer and other formal witnesses. Eye- witnesses of the incident were Suresh Pal Singh PW-1, Om Pal PW-2 and Raksh Pal PW-3. 7. None turned up from the side of appellants at the hearing of the appeal, who are on bail and are represented on record by Sri Tej Pal, Advocate. We have heard learned A. G. A. Sri A. K. Dwivedi from the side of the State and have examined the record of the case carefully. The appeal is being decided on merits, dealing with herein below the relevant aspects having important bearing. 8. The incident took place on 3-8-1982 at about 7 a. m. and the FIR was lodged the same day at 2. 10 p. m. by eye-witness Suresh Pal Singh PW-1. The distance of the Police Station from the place of occurrence was 18 kms and having regard to it, there was no delay in the lodging of the FIR. Thus, no time gap intervened for any concoction or deliberation. The lodging of the FIR without loss of time furnishes valuable corroboration to the prosecution evidence adduced at the trial. 9. The distance of the Police Station from the place of occurrence was 18 kms and having regard to it, there was no delay in the lodging of the FIR. Thus, no time gap intervened for any concoction or deliberation. The lodging of the FIR without loss of time furnishes valuable corroboration to the prosecution evidence adduced at the trial. 9. It being a case of direct eye-witness account, the motive is not at all important. Even then, the prosecution has truthfully brought on record the previous background and a mention was made in the FIR of old enmity and litigation. It has come through the testimony of the informant Suresh Pal Singh PW-1, who was accompanying the deceased at the relevant time that Jhandu Singh deceased had been prosecuted for attempting the murder of Kamta, brother of Ram Kishan by shooting and Rameshwar appellant was informant of the case. On conviction, Jhandu Singh was sentenced to a fine of Rs. 500/- but the same was set aside by the High Court. Rameshwar appellant and Jhandu Singh deceased also litigated under Section 107 Cr. P. C. It also came to be revealed by him that Rameshwar appellant and one Lakhan Singh had contested the election of Pradhanship and Jhandu Singh deceased had supported Lakhan Singh in that election. It is thus clear that there was long string of unpleasant incidents between the two sides, resulting in bad blood. The prosecution could not be expected to do anything better than bringing on record the previous background savouring enmity between the two sides. Indeed, the prosecution cannot be expected to furnish a proof as to how the mind of the culprits worked in a particular background and circumstances. It may be stated at the risk of repetition that direct evidence of eye-witnesses being available in the case, the motive pales into insignificance also. 10. It is further to be noted that the ocular testimony is in conformity with medical evidence. Two of the appellants, namely, Rameshwar and Ram Kishan had wielded Kantas (sharp edged weapons) while the remaining three namely, Shyam Pal, Jamadar and Onkar assaulted the deceased with lathis. The perusal of the post-mortem report shows that the deceased received eight ante-mortem injuries out of which four were incised wounds, three lacerated wounds and one contused swelling. Most of the injuries had been inflicted on vital parts - head and forehead. The perusal of the post-mortem report shows that the deceased received eight ante-mortem injuries out of which four were incised wounds, three lacerated wounds and one contused swelling. Most of the injuries had been inflicted on vital parts - head and forehead. On internal examination, left side of parietal and occipital bones were found to be fractured. Membranes were fractured and there was laceration of brain with haematoma on the left side. Obviously, these injuries were capable of being caused by the weapons proved to have been wielded by the appellants as discussed above. 11. The injuries were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature as deposed by Dr. R. B. Abhai PW-6 who conducted autopsy on the dead-body of the deceased and they could have been sustained at about the time alleged by the prosecution. 12. Time and place of the incident as also the manner of assault and the respective weapons used by the appellants came to be mentioned in the FIR and thereafter proved by trustworthy evidence of three witnesses. The names of Om Pal Singh PW-2 and Raksh Pal PW-3 were also mentioned as eye-witnesses in the FIR lodged by an eye-witness Suresh Pal Singh PW-1. Suresh Pal Singh PW-1 used to live with his maternal uncle Jhandu Singh for the last about three years cultivating land with him. He and Jhandu Singh were going for the paddy seedling in their field when the incident took place. They were going for such job for the last two days as stated by him in his testimony before the Court. Therefore, it could be possible for the appellants to commit this crime after watching the routine and movements of Jhandu Singh. The incident took place in the month of August, much after the sunrise at about 6. 45 a. m. The factum that they had come out of the bushes is an indicator that the crime was committed with planning and pre-meditation. They concealed themselves with weapons in foliage of bushes on the way used by the deceased to go to his field for work. Om Pal PW-2 and Raksh Pal PW-3, both eye-witnesses have given plausible explanation for their presence. Om Pal PW-2 was tending the crop of jwar in his field when he heard the shouts and reached the spot nearby nala. Raksh Pal PW-3 was also with him. Om Pal PW-2 and Raksh Pal PW-3, both eye-witnesses have given plausible explanation for their presence. Om Pal PW-2 was tending the crop of jwar in his field when he heard the shouts and reached the spot nearby nala. Raksh Pal PW-3 was also with him. Both of them witnessed the assault and have correctly described the weapons of the appellants. Om Pal PW-2 clearly stated that his field was only at a distance of 150 paces from the rainy nala. Jhandu Singh had fallen down after receiving injuries only at a distance of 8-10 paces from the rainy nala, on the ridge of the field of Ram Swaroop. It is noted from the perusal of the site plan that the field of Ram Swaroop was on the northern side of the rainy nala. 13. No doubt, Om Pal PW-2 admitted that his father Kehar Singh was phufera brother of Jhandu Singh. He also admitted that his brother Antu Singh was also accused with Jhandu Singh in the case of Section 307 IPC referred to above. His brother Antu Singh was also an accused in another case of 307 IPC whereof Kishan Lal (cousin brother of appellant Rameshwar) was the complainant. He also disclosed that the sister of his wife had been married to the brother of Raksh Pal PW-3. But we are of the view that such relationship and antecedents do not permit the throwing away of the testimony of these witnesses who withstood the test of cross- examination firmly and nothing could come out to shake the central core of their assertion in respect of the prosecution version. It is common knowledge that village life is faction- ridden and the involvement of one or the other in the incidents like those revealed by Om Pal PW-2 is not unusual. One has also to be cautious about the fact that wholly independent witnesses are seldom available or are otherwise not inclined to come forth, lest they may invite trouble for themselves in future. Therefore, the distant relationship of the three eye-witnesses inter se cannot be a ground to discard their testimony. There is no reason to suppose the false implication of the appellants at the instance of the eye-witnesses. It would also be illogical to think that the witnesses would screen the real culprits and substitute the appellants for them. 14. Therefore, the distant relationship of the three eye-witnesses inter se cannot be a ground to discard their testimony. There is no reason to suppose the false implication of the appellants at the instance of the eye-witnesses. It would also be illogical to think that the witnesses would screen the real culprits and substitute the appellants for them. 14. On carefully wading through the evidence on record with attending circumstances and after giving our anxious consideration to all the relevant aspects, we are in judgment that the trial Court was perfectly justified in believing the prosecution case and the evidence against the appellants. They had formed an unlawful assembly armed dangerously and committed the murder of unarmed Jhandu Singh without any justification whatsoever. They have rightly been convicted and sentenced under Sections 148 and 302 read with Section 149 IPC. Life imprisonment awarded under Section 302 IPC read with Section 149 IPC is lesser of the two alternative punishments provided for the said offence and the sentence of one years rigorous imprisonment to each of them under Section 148 IPC also does not call for any interference. 15. Resultantly, the appeal has no merit and is hereby dismissed. The appellants are on bail. Chief Judicial Magistrate Budaun shall cause them to be arrested and sent to jail to serve out their sentences. He shall report compliance within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Appeal dismissed. .