JUDGMENT B.K. JHA, J. This appeal is directed against the order of conviction and sentence passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-VIth, Gaya on the June, 1987 under Sections 302/149 and 201 I.P.C. 2. The appellant Lotha @ Mukhia Paswan has been convicted arid sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302 of the I.P.C. The appellants Krit Paswan, Shiv Paswan and Zahar Rajwer have been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under Sections 302/149 of the I.P.C. All the four appellants have been further convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the sentences are ordered to run concurrently. 3. The prosecution case at the trial was that on 18.4.1982 the informant, Surendra Sharma, P.W.6, Ram Gati Singh, P.W.5 and deceased Sidhnath Singh, all of village Dhobi Sigha, P.S. Arwal, District Gaya were coming from village Balidad. At about 4.30 P.M. when they reached near village Rupsagar Sigha, all the four appellants along with the absconding accused Loha Rajwar suddenly appeared from a ridge armed with Pasuli and chased them. They overpowered Sidhnath Singh and started assaulting him. The proasecution party raised alarm which attracted the villagers and near by persons but in the mean time they cut the bead of Sidhnath Singh and managed to escape with the beheaded bead of the deceased Sidhnath Singh. Further prosecution case was that neither the informant nor the deceased had any animosity with any of the accused persons but still they committed the murder of Sidhnath Singh. 4. On the same day at about 8 P.M., the informant, Surendra Sharma, P.W.6 along with his co-villagers Ram Sakal Singh, Sita Sharan Singh, P.W.3, Nageshwar Singh, P.W.2, went to Arwal Police Station where the Officer Incharge U.H. Dubey recorded the statement of the informant. On the basis of his statement he drew up First Information Report (Ext.No.5) and the case was registered under Sections 147/148/149/302 of the Indian Penal Code against all the four appellants and absconding accused Lhor Rajwar. The police switched over to investigation and on completion of investigation charge-sheeted all the five accused persons for trial. As the accused Loha Rajwar was absconding, the case of all the four appellants was, committed to the court of Session. The police switched over to investigation and on completion of investigation charge-sheeted all the five accused persons for trial. As the accused Loha Rajwar was absconding, the case of all the four appellants was, committed to the court of Session. Subsequently, the accused Loha Rajwar was apprehended and his case was also separately committed, vide Sessions Trial No. 11/85 and was amalgamated with the case of present Sessions Trial 7/85/58/84 vide order dated 8.5.85. The trial proceeded against all the five accused. Later on the accused Loha Rajwar alias Surajdeo again jumped out of bail and could not be apprehended. Consequently, his trial was separated vide order dated 19.9.1986 and the trial proceeded only against the above named four appellants. 5. The defence of appellants was a plea of innocence and false implication in this case due to enmity. In the eventual trial the prosecution examined 8 witnesses and one witness as a court witness. On the other hand, the defence examined none. 6. The trial Judge after consideration of the evidence of the witnesses and other materials on the record convicted and sentenced all the four appellants as mentioned above. 7. I have heard Sri S.R.C. Pandey, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri B.N. Gupta, the learned A.P.P. for the State. I have also gone through the Judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VIth, Gaya as also the record of the case. 8.1t should be mentioned at the very out set that the murder of Sidhnath Singh is not challenged before us. The involvement of the appellants in the commission of murder is Sidhnath Singh has been challenged. 9. From the materials available on the record it appears that 8 witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution. They are Madho Singh, P.W.1, Nageshwar Singh, P.W.2, Sitasaran Singh, P.W.3, Ram Prasidh Singh, P.W.4, Ram Gati Singh, P.W.5, Surendra Sharma, P.W.6, the informant, Nawal Kishore Singh, P.W.7 and Nasimuddin, P.W.8, P.W.7, and P.W.8 are the formal witnesses and, proved the documents of the prosecution. Dr. Mithilesh Kumar Sharma was examined as Court witness (C.W.1). 10. Out of the witnesses examined by the prosecution P.W.6, Surendra Sharma and P.W.5, Ram Gati Singh are the eye witnesses to the occurrence. Dr. Mithilesh Kumar Sharma was examined as Court witness (C.W.1). 10. Out of the witnesses examined by the prosecution P.W.6, Surendra Sharma and P.W.5, Ram Gati Singh are the eye witnesses to the occurrence. The evidence of Surendra Sharma, P.W.6, the informant is that on 18.4.1982 he along with Ram Gati Singh, P.W.S and the deceased Sidhnath Singh was returning to the native village Dhobi Sigha from village Balidad. At about 4.30 P.M. when they reached near Primary School of village Rupsagar Bigha, all the four appellants along with the absuconding accused Loha Rajwar arned Pasuli suddenly appeared from a big ridge and chased them. They overpowered Sidhnath Singh, pinned him down on the ground and the appellant Lotha @ Mukhia Paswan cut the head of Sidhnath Singh by Pasuli. AT that time rest appellants along with the absconding accused Loha Rajwar were catching hold of the deceased. The appellant Lotha @ Mukhia Paswan carried away his beheaded head along with others. On halla the witness Madho Singh, P.W.1, Nageshwar Singh, P.W.2, Sitasharan Singh, P.W.3, and others arrived and then they went to the police station and lodged F.I.R. He has proved his signature on F.I.R. (Ext.no.2). His further evidence is that there was some dispute in between the accused persons and Ram Gati Singh, P.W.5 regarding payment of wages. In cross examination at para 4 his evidence is that two days before the occurrence the appellant Loha Rajwar had brought a criminal case against him and others under Sections 147, 148 and 323 I.P.C. The other eye witness Ram Gati Singh, P.W.5 was also accompanying the informant Surendra Sharma, P.W.6 and the deceased Sidhnath Singh at the alleged time of occurrence. He has stated that on the alleged date of occurrence 18.4.1982 at about 4.30 P.M. when they reached near Primary School of Rupsagar Bigha, all the four appellants along with the absconding accused Loha Rajwar armed with Pasuli suddenly appeared from a big ridge and chased them. They caught hold of Sidhnath Singh and started assaulting him with Pasuli. Thereafter they threw him on the ground and the appellant Lotha @ Mukhia Paswan cut the head of Sidhnath Singh took his beheaded head in his hand and all of them managed to escape from there. They caught hold of Sidhnath Singh and started assaulting him with Pasuli. Thereafter they threw him on the ground and the appellant Lotha @ Mukhia Paswan cut the head of Sidhnath Singh took his beheaded head in his hand and all of them managed to escape from there. He has further stated that on their alarm Ram Prasich Singh, P.W.4, Nageshwar Singh, P.W.2, Madho Singh, P.W.1, Sitasharan Singh, P.W.3 arrived there and witnessed the occurrence. In cross examination at para 6 he has stated that the appellant Lotha @ Mukhia Paswan had launched a criminal case against him and others before the occurrence of this case. He has further stated in his cross examination that he had fold the assembled persons about the commission of murder of Sidhnath Singh at the hands of the appellants by cutting his head with Pasuil. 11. P. W.1, Madho Singh, P.W. 2, Nageshwar Singh, P.W. 3, Sitasharan Singh and P.W.4, Ram Prasidh Singh are not the eye witnesses to the actual occurrence but their evidence lends hand to the prosecution case. Their evidence is that on the day of occurrence on 18.4.1982 at about 4 P.M. on halla when they arrived near the alleged Primary School they noticed all the four appellants along with the accused Loha Rajwar escaping with Pasuli in their hands and a human head in the hand of the appellant Lotha @ Mukhia Paswan. They found the headless dead body of the deceased Sidhnath Singh in the field of one Bilash. P.W.1, Madho Singh has further stated that on halla the witness Sitasharan Singh, Nageshwar Singh and Ram Prasidh Singh had also arrived at the P.O. The Officer In-charge visited the P.O. in the very night of occurrence, seized the blood stained earth and prepared seizure list. He put his signature on the seizure list (Ext. no.1). The Officer In-charge also prepared inquest report of the headless body of Sidhnath Singh (Ext.No.4) and was signed by him (Ext. 1/Ka). P.W. 2, Nageshwar Singh has further stated that on his arrival at the P.O. the informant, Surendra Sharma, P.W.6. had told him about the commission of murder of Sidnath Singh by cutting his head. He had also seen the headless body of deceased Sidhnath Singh. 1/Ka). P.W. 2, Nageshwar Singh has further stated that on his arrival at the P.O. the informant, Surendra Sharma, P.W.6. had told him about the commission of murder of Sidnath Singh by cutting his head. He had also seen the headless body of deceased Sidhnath Singh. In cross Examination he has stated that two days before the occurrence of this case the the appellant Lotha @ Mukhia Paswan had brought a criminal case against him and others. His further evidence is that among the assembled persons at the P.O. he had noticed the witnesses Madho Singh, P.W.1, Nageshwar Singh, P.W.2, Ram Gati Singh, P.W. 5. He has proved his signature on the seizure list of blood stained earth (Ext.1/Kha). 12. Dr. Mithilesh Kumar Sharma is the C.W.1 who conducted the postmortem examination on the head of the deceased. His evidence is that on 19.4.1982 while he was• posted at Jehanabad Hospital on the same day at about 12 noon he conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of Sidhnath Singh and found the following injuries:- 1. Incised wound 7" x 5' X neck out and head chopped of. The structure cut from front to behind, trachia, usufegus, all veins of neck, all nerves of the neck were cut from sixth C.V. The head was completely missing. 2. Incised wound 3" x 1" x bond deep at the left index finger. 3. Incised wound 2" x ½” mussle deep on the left elbow. 4. Fracture of the bone at the right humorous. 5. Incised wound 1 ½ x ½” mussle deep on the right shoulder. 6. Incised would 1" x 1/4" on the right shoulder. 7. Incised wound 3/4" x ½ " on the left chest. According to him all the aforesaid injuries were an postmortem in nature caused by sharp cutting weapons such as Pasuli. The death took place due to the cutting of the neck and the injury was sufficient to cause immediate death. According to him death took place within 20 hours p or to the postmortem examination. He proved the postmortem r report (Ext.3). 13.1t is clearly evident from he above discussion that the prosecution rests on the diret testimony of P.W.5, Ram Gati Singh and P. W. 6. Surendra Sharma Coupled with corroborating testimoney of P.Ws.1, 2, 3 and 4. According to him death took place within 20 hours p or to the postmortem examination. He proved the postmortem r report (Ext.3). 13.1t is clearly evident from he above discussion that the prosecution rests on the diret testimony of P.W.5, Ram Gati Singh and P. W. 6. Surendra Sharma Coupled with corroborating testimoney of P.Ws.1, 2, 3 and 4. P.W.6, Surendra Sharma and P.W.S, Ram Gati Singh have clearly stated that at the alleged time of occurrence they along with the deceased Sidhnath Singh were going to the native village Dhobi Bigha from village Balidad . At the alleged time of occurrence when they reached near the Primary School of village Rupsagar Bigha. all the four appellants along with the abscording accused Loha Rajwar armed with Pasuli suddenly appeared from a ridge and chased them. They overpowered the deceased Sidhnath Singh and his head was cut by the appellan Lotha @ Mukhia Paswan. The appellant Lotha @ Mukhia Paswan took his head in his hand and all of them managed to escape. Their halla attractd the witnesses P.Ws. 1. 2. 3 and 4 besides others. They arrived at the P.O. and learnt about the occurrence from them. They had also spotted out all the four appellants along with the absconding accused Loha Rajwar excaping with Pasuli and beheaded head in the hand of Lotha @ Mukhia Paswan. These witnesses were cross examined at length but nothing could be extracted from their mouths to discredit their evidence. It further appears that the occurrence took place at about 4.30 P.M. on 18.4.1982 and the F.I.R. was lodged at 8 P.M. The P.S. being at the distance of 6 milles from the place of occurrence there was no delay in lodging the F.I.R. 14. From the material evidence of Dr. Mithilesh Kumar Sharma (C.W.1) it appears that Sidhnath Singh died due to cutting of the neck. The postmortem examination was held on 19.4.1982 at 12 noon and the occurrence took place on 1'8.4.1982 thus, the time elapsed between the death and postmortem examination held was about 19 and half hours and according to Doctor it was within 20 hours. Thus, the opinion of the Doctor is consistant with the prosecution case. 15. The learned counsel for the appellants urged that appellants had no concern in the commission of murder of Sidhnath Singh. Thus, the opinion of the Doctor is consistant with the prosecution case. 15. The learned counsel for the appellants urged that appellants had no concern in the commission of murder of Sidhnath Singh. The consistent evidence on facts is that there was a dispute in between the accused persons and Ram Gati Singh, P.W.5 for payment of wages so the appellants have been falsely inplicated in the case. The learned counsel for the appellants further contended that there is no specific averment in the F.I.R. as to who cut the neek of the deceased Sidhnath Singh. Later on it was developed at trial that the appellant Lotha @ Mukhia Paswan cut his neck by Pasuli. This story is after thought and on both the counts the appellants deserve benefit of doubt and acquittal in this case. 16. It is well established that it is neither customary nor necessary to mention every minutes details in the F.I.R. P.W.6. Surendra Sharma, the informant and P.W.5, Ram Gati Singh must have been extremely perturbed because the deceased Sidhnath Singh had been suddenly attacked by the appellants, his neck was cut and his beheaded head was carried away by them. It is in that state of mental agony that the informant was not able to give the further details in the F.I.R. including the cutting of neck of Sidhnath Singh by the appellant Lotha @ Mukhia Paswan for which the prosecution case cannot be discarded. Further, it has also come in the evidence that the appellant, Lotha @ Mukhia Paswan had launched a criminal case against the informant and the witnesses two days before the occurrence but that too is not sufficient to discredit testimony of prosecution witnesses on the ground only for this criminal case the informant would have impleded the appellants in a false case of murder. Thus, in view of the above discussion it is clear that the plea of false implication has been advanced by the appellants by and large the prosecution evidence brings the picture of well planned murder of Sidhnath Jingh and has proved the charges against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. The Judgment and order of the conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Judge requires no interference by this Court. 17. In the result this appeal is dismissed and the order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellants is upheld. The Judgment and order of the conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Judge requires no interference by this Court. 17. In the result this appeal is dismissed and the order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellants is upheld. The bail bonds of the appellants are hereby cancelled. All the appellants are hereby directed to surrender before the court below to serve out the remaining period of sentence.