Judgment B.K.Jha, J. 1. All these three appeals relate to the same occurrence and arise out of a common Judgment of conviction and sentence delivered on 5th May, 1995 by Shri Braj Kishore Pandey, 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Nalanda in S. Tr. No. 215/32 of 1994/94. Hence, all these three appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common Judgment. 2. The appellant, Mahendra Prasad, has been convicted under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. The appellants, Bilash Paswan and Binod Paswan, have been convicted under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. Appellants Mahendra Prasad and Binod Paswan have further been found guilty under section 27 of the Arms Act but have not been awarded separate sentence on this count. 3. The prosecution case as appearing in the fardbeyan (Ext. 4) of the informant Deosharan Prasad, P.W. 5 is that on 20.11.93 at about 5.30 P.M. while he was going towards Siyari Khanda to ease himself, he noticed his brother-in-law (Shala) Satrudhan Prasad going alongwith the appellants Mahendra Prasad @ Barahilji, Bilash Paswan and Binod Paswan. He further noticed that the appellant Mahendra Prasad @ Barahilji fired from his pistol on the right kanpatti of Satrudhan Prasad, as a result of which he fell down on the ground. In the meantime, appellant Bilash Paswan pressed him by his hands. Thereafter the appellant Binod Paswan fired from pistol on the right kanpatti of Satrudhan Prasad. Satrudhan Prasad died on the spot and thereafter all the three appellants made good escape in the southern direction. Further prosecution case is that after this incident the informant rushed towards his village Tekabigha raising alarm whereupon a number of villagers came at the spot and saw Satrudhan Prasad lying dead there. Further case of the prosecution is that on the same day at about 4 P.W. all the three appellants had taken Satrudhan Prasad from his house and they took wine in the cabin of Chandeshwar Mahto in village Tekabigha. The motive behind the occurrence has been alleged that Late Bhattu Mahto, uncle of the deceased, was issueless and he had given some more land, house and khalihan of his share to the deceased Satrudhan Prasad. The motive behind the occurrence has been alleged that Late Bhattu Mahto, uncle of the deceased, was issueless and he had given some more land, house and khalihan of his share to the deceased Satrudhan Prasad. The appellant Mahendra Prasad @ Barahilji being cousin brother of the deceased Satrudhan was therefore carrying grudge against him and so he committed his murder with the help of other two appellants. 4. On 21.11.93 at 3 A.M. J.B. Prasad, Officer Incharge of Tharthari Police Station (P.W. 7), recorded the fardbeyan (Ext. 4) of Deosharan Prasad P.W. 5 at Siyarikhandha of village Mehtarma. A formal F.I.R. (Ext. 7) was drawn at Chandi Police Station, District Nalanda and a case was instituted against the appellants under Section 302/34 of the I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act. 5. On completion of the investigation Jangbahadur Prasad, I.O. P.W. 7 submitted chargesheet and all the appellants were put on trial where seven witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. 6. The appellants pleaded innocence and false implication in this case but no witness was examined on their behalf. 7. After considering the entire evidence, the learned trial court accepted the prosecution case and convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned above. 8. The learned counsel for the appellants have contended that the appellants had no concern in the alleged murder of Satrudhan Prasad. The evidence on facts in that there was a cordial relationship in between deceased Satrudhan Prasad and appellants but still the appellants have been dragged falsely in this case. The learned counsel for the appellant Bhola Paswan further argued that P.W. 2 Kishori Yadav has not spelt out the name of this appellant in his evidence so the prosecution case is fit to be discarded. 9. On behalf of the State learned counsel submitted that there is no infirmity in the prosecution evidence and the court below rightly accepted the prosecution case for the conviction of the appellants. 10. From materials on record it appears that seven witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution. Out of them P.W. 5 Deo Sharan Prasad, informant, is the sole eye witness to the occurrence. His evidence is that at the relevant hour of the occurrence he noticed all the three appellants going alongwith the deceased Satrudhan Prasad. 10. From materials on record it appears that seven witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution. Out of them P.W. 5 Deo Sharan Prasad, informant, is the sole eye witness to the occurrence. His evidence is that at the relevant hour of the occurrence he noticed all the three appellants going alongwith the deceased Satrudhan Prasad. The appellant Mahendra Prasad took out his pistol from his pocket and fired on the right kanpatti of the deceased Satrudhan Prasad and he fell down on the ground. Then the appellant Bilash Paswan pressed him by his hands and Binod Paswan fired second shot on the right kanpatti of Satrudhan Prasad. Thereafter all of them managed to escape towards southern direction. He rushed towards his village raising halla whereupon Sheo Nandan Prasad, P.W. 1, Kishori Yadav, P.W. 2, Birendra Prasad, P.W. 3, and many others collected at the spot and saw the dead body of Satrudhan Prasad. The signs of two firing shots were visible on his right kanpatti. He has further deposed that then he went to Tharthari P.S. but Officer Incharge was not available there. He took a constable there and went to Koilbigha where tamasha was going on but there also Officer Incharge was not available. He returned back to Tharthari P.S. and by that time the Officer Incharge was present at the P.S. He alongwith the Officer Incharge came to Tekabigha Siyari Khandha (P.O.). There his statement was recorded by the Officer Incharge. There he gave his fardbeyan (Ext. 4) before the Officer Incharge and put his signature (Ext. 2) thereon. He voluntarily supported the motive for the commission of the murder of Satrudhan Prasad at the hands of the appellants. In his cross examination he has stated that when he alongwith others arrived at the P.O. the blood was oozing out from the injury of Satrudhan Prasad. He has further stated that Sheonandan Prasad P.W. 1 and Birendra Prasad P.W. 3 are his own brothers. In his cross examination he has stated that when he alongwith others arrived at the P.O. the blood was oozing out from the injury of Satrudhan Prasad. He has further stated that Sheonandan Prasad P.W. 1 and Birendra Prasad P.W. 3 are his own brothers. His further evidence is that he alongwith the Officer Incharge had proceeded from Tharthari P.S. at about 2 P.M. and arrived at the place of occurrence at about 3 P.M. The evidence of P.W. 1 Sheo Nandan Prasad and P.W. 3 Birendra Prasad, both own brothers of the informant, is that at the time of the occurrence while they alongwith others were sitting in their dalan they heard sound of firing twice and soon thereafter their own brother Deo Sharan, the informant, raising alarm came and informed about the commission of murder of Satrudhan Prasad at the hands of the appellants. On this information they alongwith others went to Siyari Khandha and saw dead body of Satrudhan Prasad lying there. Nothing material has come in the cross examination of P.W. 1, P.W. 3 (Birendra Prasad) in his cross-examination has stated that in the very night of the occurrence at about 3 A.M. the police had come and recorded this statement. Police also examined Sheo Nandan Prasad P.W. 1, Kishori Yadav P.W. 2 and wife of the deceased, Parvati Devi, P.W. 4, at the spot. 11. P.W. 2 Kishori Yadav is chowkidar of Halka No. 14. His evidence is that on the date of the occurrence at about 4 P.M. while he was coming to his house Tekabigha from the police station he noticed all of the appellants Mahendra Paswan and Binod Paswan alongwith the deceased Satrudhan Prasad sitting near the cabin of Chandeshwar Mahto. The appellant Binod Paswan and Mahendra Paswan were taking wine there. He has further stated that after taking meal while he proceeded towards Rukhi, Nawada from his house, he heard the sound of firing twice and came back to his village. He heard from Deo Sharan Prasad, informant, about the commission of murder of Satrudhan Prasad by the appellants Mahendra, Bilash and Binod. Then he alongwith Deo Sharan Prasad, Birendra Prasad and Sheo Nandan Prasad went to the place of occurrence Siyari Khandha and saw the dead body of Satrudhan Prasad having two fire arm injuries on his right temple lying there. Blood was oozing out. Then he alongwith Deo Sharan Prasad, Birendra Prasad and Sheo Nandan Prasad went to the place of occurrence Siyari Khandha and saw the dead body of Satrudhan Prasad having two fire arm injuries on his right temple lying there. Blood was oozing out. In his cross examination he has deposed that in the very night of the occurrence at about 3 A.M. Deo Sharan Prasad lodged an F.I.R. and the Officer Incharge examined him and the wife of the deceased. He has further stated that he had seen the appellant Mahendra Prasad and Binod Paswan alongwith the deceased near the cabin. 12. P.W. 4 Parvati Devi, the wife of the deceased, has stated that on the concluding day of Chhath (Paran) all the appellants Mahendra Paswan, Bilash Paswan and Binod Paswan at about 3/3.30 P.M. had taken away her husband Satrudhan Prasad from his house but he did not return. She learnt about the commission of his murder by the appellants with firearm. In cross- examination she has stated that she alongwith the villagers went to the place of occurrence and saw the dead body of her husband lying there. The blood was oozing out from fire arm injury. She has further stated that in the night of the occurrence at about 3 A.M. police had come, visited the place of occurrence and recorded her statement. 13. P.W. 6, the Doctor Mahendra Prasad Singh, who held the post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased. His evidence is that on 21.11.93 while he was posted at Biharsharif Sadar Hospital as Medical Officer same day at 11 A.M., he held post mortem examination on the dead body of Satrudhan Prasad and found the following ante mortem injuries on his person. He also found Rigor mortis present in all the four limbs. (i) Lacerated wound with black and inverted margin over scalp on the occipital region of skull 1 x 1/2" lateral to midline right side of 1x3/4" cavity deep (wound of entry). (ii) Lacerated wound with black and inverted margin over scalp on the occipital region of right side 1" posterior to mastoid process of size 1x1/4" x 1" x cavity deep (wound of enrtry). On dissection of the wounds he had found blood and bloodstained clots underneath the margin tissue and scalp. He had also found occipital bone of skull right side fractured. On dissection of the wounds he had found blood and bloodstained clots underneath the margin tissue and scalp. He had also found occipital bone of skull right side fractured. It also appears that three number of foreign body like bullets were recovered on dissection of skull. 14. In his opinion the death occurred owing to shock and haemorrhage as a result of above noted injury of brain caused by fire arm. Those injuries were sufficient to cause death. The time elapse since death was found 24 hours. He has proved the P.M. report (Ext. 3). In cross-examination he has stated that he did not find any injury on the temple or any charring injury. He has stated that three foreign body materials resembling bullet (2) were recovered from the body of the deceased, out of which one of the bullets was into two pieces. 15. P.W. 7, Jang Bahadur Prasad, then Officer Incharge of Tharthari P.S. is the I.O. of this case. His evidence is that on 20.11.93 while he was at the police station he heard about the murder of a person in Siyari Khandha and on receipt of this information he alongwith S.I. Indramani Singh and constable Suresh Chandra feft for the place of occurrence. He came to Mahterma Siyari Khandha. He recorded the statement of the informant, Deo Sharan Prasad (Ext. 4). He again took down the statement of the informant and examined the witnesses Sheo Nandan Prasad (P.W. 1), Parvati Devi (P.W. 4), Birendra Prasad (P.W. 3), Kishori Yadav (Chowkidar P.W. 2) and Rajeshwar Paswan. He inspected the P.O. and saw the body of the deceased and had found the blood on the place of the occurrence. He also noticed the injuries on his right temple with blood oozing out. He prepared the inquest report at the spot and signed by the witnesses Sheo Nandan Prasad and Bachchu Prasad (Ext. 5). He also seized the blood-stained earth and prepared seizure list (Ext. 6). The dead body was sent to the Sadar Hospital Biharsharif for post mortem examination. On the basis of the statement of the informant a formal F.I.R. was drawn and the case was instituted against the appellants. He also proved the formal F.I.R. (Ext. 7). 5). He also seized the blood-stained earth and prepared seizure list (Ext. 6). The dead body was sent to the Sadar Hospital Biharsharif for post mortem examination. On the basis of the statement of the informant a formal F.I.R. was drawn and the case was instituted against the appellants. He also proved the formal F.I.R. (Ext. 7). He switched over to investigation of the case in course of which he obtained the post mortem report and the cartridges kept in sealed phial extracted from the dead body of the deceased. On completion of investigation he chargesheeted all the appellants for trial. In cross examination his evidence is that in a fateful night of the occurrence while he was on patrolling duty he heard about the occurrence of murder and had met the informant on the spot. His further evidence is that he seized the blood which was not sent to the expert for chemical examination. 16. It is clearly evident from the above discussions that the prosecution rests on the testimony of four witnesses, P.W. 1 Sheo Nandan Prasad. P.W. 2 Kishori Yadav, P.W. 3 Birendra Prasad, P.W. 4 Parvati Devi, P.W. 5 Deo Sharan Prasad (informant). As regards the actual commission of offence, Deo Sharan Prasad, the informant (P.W. 5) is the sole eye witness to the incident. He has clearly averred that at the relevant hour of occurrence while deceased Satrudhan Prasad was going alongwith all the three appellants Mahendra Prasad took out pistol from his pocket and fired on the right temple. Satrudhan Prasad fell down on the ground and the appellant Bilash Paswan pressed him by his hands. The appellant Binod Paswan then fired from his pistol on his right kanpatti. Satrudhan Prasad died at the spot and the appellants after committing murder made good escape from there. P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 had also heard the sound of firing and soon thereafter they received information from the informant Deo Sharan Prasad (P.W. 5) about the commission of murder of Satrudhan Prasad by the appellants with firearm, they rushed to the P.O. and noticed the dead body of Satrudhan Prasad lying there with firearm injury on the right kanpatti. They had also seen the blood oozing out from the injury and fallen on the ground. They had also seen the blood oozing out from the injury and fallen on the ground. P.W. 4 Parvati Devi, the wife of the deceased, has stated that just before the occurrence at about 3.30 P.M. all the three appellants had taken away her husband Satrudhan Prasad from his house but he did not return. She heard about his murder by the appellants and went to the P.O. and noticed the dead body of her husband lying there. These witnesses were subjected to cross examination at length but nothing could be elicited by the defence to discredited them. The I.O., Jang Bahadur Prasad (P.W. 7) visited the place of occurrence on the following day at about 3 A.M. recorded the statement of the informant and other witnesses, inspected the dead body of the deceased, prepared inquest report and sent the dead body for post mortem examination. Medical evidence of Doctor, P.W. 6 Mahendra Prasad Singh, reflects that the deceased died as a result of reflection of the above injuries. Post mortem examination was held on 21.11.93 at 11 A.M. and the occurrence had taken place on 20.11.93 at about 5.30 P.M. The time elapsed between the death and postmortem examination held was about 17 hours and according to the Doctor it was within 24 hours. Thus, opinion of the doctor is in consonance to the prosecution case. 17. Thus, in view of the above discussions it is clear that lame plea of false implication has been taken by the appellants. By and large the prosecution evidence brings a picture of well planned murder of Satrudhan Prasad by all the three appellants and has proved the charges against the appellants beyond all reasonable doubt. 18. Learned counsel for the appellant, Bilash Paswan, specifically argued that P.W. 2, Kishori Yadav has not named this appellant in his evidence so his complicity in commission of the murder of Satrudhan Prasad becomes doubful. 19. Learned counsel for the appellants cited decisions of Arun Marik and others V/s. State of Bihar, 1994 Supp (2) S.C.C. 372. In that case the finding was that it is settled law that the only circumstance of last seen will not complete the chain of circumstances to record the finding that it is consistent only with hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and, therefore, no conviction on that basis alone can be founded. 20. In that case the finding was that it is settled law that the only circumstance of last seen will not complete the chain of circumstances to record the finding that it is consistent only with hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and, therefore, no conviction on that basis alone can be founded. 20. The facts in the aforesaid decision would speak for itself and the distinction from the facts of this case based on direct testimony. The said decision is not of any help to appellants. 21. The evidence of P.W. 2, Kishori Yadav merely corroborative to the testimony of P.W. 5 (informant), Deo Sharan Yadav who is the eye witness to the occurrence. 22. Thus, I am of the view that the evidence and circumstances discussed above beyond establish all reasonable doubts the guilt of the appellants. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial court requires no interference. 23. In the result, all these three appeals fail. The order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellants is affirmed. The bail bonds of appellants no. 1. Bilash Paswan and 2, Binod Paswan, who were on bail, are hereby cancelled. Both the appellants are directed to surrender before the court below to serve out the remaining period of sentence. Narayan Roy, J. 24 I agree.