JUDGMENT B.K. JHA, J 1. These three appeals arise out of the common judgment of convictior and sentence passed on 19th August, 1987 by the Sessions Judge, Aurangabad under Sections 302/148/147 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act hence, all the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The appellants Amresh Kumar Singh, Sunder Kahar, Surendra Singh, Kapil Singh @ Kapildeo Singh and Ramswarup Singh have been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years under Section 148 I.P.C. The appellants, Ramshwar prasad Singh, Yamuna Singh and Hari Singh have been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 147 I.P.C. The appellants, Kapildeo Singh and Ramswarup Singh have further been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years under Section 27 of the Arms Act. The appellants, Kapildeo Singh and Ram Swarup Singh have again been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. All the sentences have been or dared to run concurrently. 3. The case of the prosecution as contained in the fardbeyan (Ext. no. 1, also marked as Court Ext. no. 2) of the informant Nagendra Singh, P.W.6 is that on 4.9.1980 at about 1.30 P.M., he alongwith his father, Ramanuj Singh was uprooting grass from his paddy field situated about 1/2 mile north form village Mahuari. There his brother, Madan Singh and cousin Bhawat Singh were also getting their shee buffalloes grazed on the pain running west to east. The buffaloes crossed the pain and went towards north on the find of village Shivanpur and started grazing there. Seeing this, his brother, Madan Singh went to bring back she buffaloes. In the mean time accused-appellants, Kapil Singh and Surendra Singh of village Shivanpur armed with lathi Came, abused Madan Singh and protested from getting she buffaloes grazed on the pind of their village Shivanpur and rushed to assault him. Madan Singh, the brother of the informant, raised alarm for help whereupon Ramanuj Singh, the father of the informant protested them. At this, the appellant, kapil Singh, uttered that he would kill one or two persons of village Rampur and turned his face towards village Shivanpur and raised hulla. The other appellant, Surendra Singh, also joined him in raising alarm. Madan Singh, the brother of the informant, raised alarm for help whereupon Ramanuj Singh, the father of the informant protested them. At this, the appellant, kapil Singh, uttered that he would kill one or two persons of village Rampur and turned his face towards village Shivanpur and raised hulla. The other appellant, Surendra Singh, also joined him in raising alarm. On their hulla, the accused-appellants, Rameshwar Prasad Singh, Satyadeo Prasad Singh, Dharamdeo Singh, Deonadan Singh, Yamuna Singh, hari Singh armed with lathi, Sunder Kahar, Amresh Kumar Singh, armed with big gun, Ramswarup Singh armed with a country made gun came there. Further case of the-prosecution is that the appellant, Surendra Singh also brought one small country made gun and handed over the same to the appellant, Kapil Singh. Besides, the above name daccused person some others of village Shivanpur came and assembled on the pind of village Shivanpur where the bufffaloes of the informant were grazing. Thereafter, Dharmadeo Singh and Satyadeo Singh armed with lathi crossed the pain, came in the field of the informant and began to talk with his father for compromise. In the mean time, Vijay Singh, Ramswarup Singh and Surendra Singh of Village Rampur, Badri Singh, Rangbahadur Singh, Biju Singh of village Simra, and others working in the nearby field came and tried to pacify the people of Shivanpur. The accused-appellant, Dharamdeo Singh and the father of the informant both together talked for compromise and agreed to avoid any sort of quarrelling. Then the father of the informant requested him to take back his associates. The cousin of the informant, Mahendra Singh also came and joined in the talk of compromise in between them. Then all of a sudden accused side raised slogans "Jai Maa Durga" and the appellants, Kapil Singh and Ramswarup Singh fired from their guns which hit his father and cousin brother, Mahendra Singh. Both of them fell down and than the accused-appellants took to their heels towards their village Shivanpur. The blood was oozing out from the body of both the injured, his father and cousin brother and they became unconscious. With the help of Vijay Singh, Ranglal Singh, Suresh Singh, Bakeskwar Thakur and Pravesh Sao of village Simra, both the injured were removed to Nabinagar State Dispensary. Doctor examined both the injured and declared his father dead. The blood was oozing out from the body of both the injured, his father and cousin brother and they became unconscious. With the help of Vijay Singh, Ranglal Singh, Suresh Singh, Bakeskwar Thakur and Pravesh Sao of village Simra, both the injured were removed to Nabinagar State Dispensary. Doctor examined both the injured and declared his father dead. Condition of his cousin brother was serious and he was not in a position to speak at that time. 4. The motive behind the occurrence has been alleged that one year ago the she buffaloes of Madan Singh had entered in the field of the appellant, Kapil Singh as a result of which Kapil Singh and Ramswarup Singh had quarreled with Madan Singh and threatened him to take revenge. 5. On the same day, i.e., 4.9.1980 at 7.30 P.M., the S.I., S.K. Kujur, the I.O. of this case (Court Witness No.1) recorded the fardbeyan of the informant, Nagendra Singh in the Government Hospital, Nabinagar (Ext. no.1 also marked as Court Ext. no. 2). The informant also put his signature thereon. On the basis of his fardbeyan, a case was instituted under Sections 324/307/302 I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act against 11 accused persons, all the 10 accused-appellants and one Denonandan Singh. A formal F.I.R (Ext. no.3 alos marked as Court Ext. no.3) was drawn up and the I.O./S.I. S.K. Kujur (C.W.1) took up the investigation. 6. On the same day, i.e. 4.9.1980 at 8.45 P.M., S.K. Kujur, the I.O. of this case (Court witness No.1) got the dying declaration of the injured Mahendra Singh, recorded by DR. Janardan Prasad Singh. Medical Officer Incharge of Nabinagar Government Hospital in presence of two witnesses (Court Ext. No.1). it was signed by him and the witness Lakeshwar Thakur (Court witness No.3) and the witness Raj nandan Singh (Court witness No.4) put his L.T.I. thereon. At 9 P.M. of the same day he prepared the inquest report of the deceased Ramanuj Singh, the father of the informant (Court Ext. No.4) and in the night of 5.9.1980 at 10 P.M. he prepared the inquest report of the deceased Mahendra Singh (Court Ext. No. 4/1). He obtained the post-mortem reports of both the deceased. Ramanuj Singh and Mahendra Singh (Ext. Nos. 2 and 2/1). 7. No.4) and in the night of 5.9.1980 at 10 P.M. he prepared the inquest report of the deceased Mahendra Singh (Court Ext. No. 4/1). He obtained the post-mortem reports of both the deceased. Ramanuj Singh and Mahendra Singh (Ext. Nos. 2 and 2/1). 7. On completion of investigation police chargesheeted all the ten accused-appellants for trial under Sections 147, 148, 149, 324, 307, 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The accused Denonandan Singh was not sent up for trial. Accordingly, the case of all the 10 accused-appellants was committed to the court of sessions and they were tried by the Sessions Judge. 8. The trial judge convicted and sentenced the appellants as indicated above. However, he acquitted the accused Satyadeo Prasad Singh and Dharamdeo Singh of the charges framed against them. Hence, these three appeals have been preferred by different sets of appellants. In Criminal Appeal No. 538 of 1987 the appellant is Kapil Singh @ Kapildeo Singh. In Criminal Appeal No. 493 of 1987 the appellant is Ramswarup singh. In Criminal Appeal No. 424 of 1987 the appellants are Amresh Kumar Singh, Surendra Singh, Sunder Kahar, Rameshwar Prasad Singh, Yamuna Singh and Hari Singh. 9. The defence of the appellants was a plea of innocence and false implication. The specific defence of the accused-appellant, Amresh kumar Singh was a plea of alibi. According to him he was a student of second year Arts of Sinha College, Aurangabad and on the relevant dated, i.e., 4.9.1980 he had attended the college and had not participated in the occurrence at all. 10. In the eventual trial 10 witnesses were examined by the prosecution and 5 by the defence. Four witnesses were examined as Court witnesses. In addition both sides brought on record a number of documentary evidence. 11. Out of the witnesses examined for the prosecution P.W.2 Badri Singh, P.W.5, Vijay Singh have been tendered for cross examination wherein they have deposed nothing material. P.W.8, Ram Lal Singh is a formal witness and has proved his signature on the inquest report of the deceased Ramanuj Singh (Ext. No. 1/1). PW.10, Sant Bilas Singh is also a formal witness and has proved the formal F.I.R., fardbeyan and inquest report which is in the pen and signature of witness, S.K. Kujur, I.O. (Court Witness No.1) (Ext. Nos. 3, 4 & 5 respectively). No. 1/1). PW.10, Sant Bilas Singh is also a formal witness and has proved the formal F.I.R., fardbeyan and inquest report which is in the pen and signature of witness, S.K. Kujur, I.O. (Court Witness No.1) (Ext. Nos. 3, 4 & 5 respectively). Court witness No.3, Lakeshwar Thakur, had gone to the State Dispensary, Nabinagar and from there to Aurangabad Hospital with the injured mahendra Singh. The injured Mahendra Singh was unconscious and he died on way to Aurangabar. His further evidence is that the Officer Incharge obtained his signature (this witness) Court Ext. No.5) on a paper without recording any statement in his presence. Court Witness No.4, Raj Nandan Singh had also gone to the State Dispensary, Nabinagar with the injured Mahendra Singh and put his L.T.I on a paper in the hospital. The injured Mahendra Singh was unconscious. 12. P.W.7 is Dr. Devendra Tripathi who conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of Mahendra Singh on 5.9.1980 at 2 P.M. and found the following injuries on his body: Rigor Mortis was present in both upper and lower Limbs. External Injuries found:-1. One lacerated wound 1/2" x 1'/2" x cavity deep with charred margin on lateral side of right chest well, interiorly. 2. A lacerated wound with charred margins 1/2" x 1/2" x cavity deep on right auxiliary region on right chest wall. 3. A lacerated wound with charged margins 1/4' x 1/4" x cavity deep on right illiac fossa. 4. A lacerated wound with charred margins 1/2" x 1/2' with inverted margin on left arm just below shoulder joint. It was wound of entrance. 5. A lacerated wound 1/4" x 1/4" posteriorly on left arm with the inverted margins communicating with injury on left arm. This was wound of exit. On dissection, multiple laceration of right lung; right plural cavity was full of blood. Third rib and eight rib was fractured. Peritoneal cavity contained blood. Liver was lacerated with small and large intestines at many places. Intestinal matters were in abdominal cavity. Stomach contained 4 oz. fund only. One pellet recovered from the body, sealed in a container and sent to the police station by the accompanying constable. All the injuries ware ante-mortem in nature and caused by fire arm. Death in his opinion was from shock, hemorrhage as well as respiratory embarrassment due to the above said injuries. Stomach contained 4 oz. fund only. One pellet recovered from the body, sealed in a container and sent to the police station by the accompanying constable. All the injuries ware ante-mortem in nature and caused by fire arm. Death in his opinion was from shock, hemorrhage as well as respiratory embarrassment due to the above said injuries. According to him time elapsed since death was about 4 hours of the postmortem examination. He proved the postmortem examination report (Ext. No.2). In cross examination he was unable to say as to whether the injuries were caused by one or more than one shots. He has further stated that close range firing within 10 feet would cause charred margin. 13. P.W.9 is Dr. Hanuman Ram who conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Ramanuj Singh on 5.9.1980 at 12.15 P.M. and found the following injuries on his body: 1. Rigor mortis was present on all limbs. Mouth was open. Both eyes were open. Fists were closed. 2. A perforating wound of 1/4" diameter wound of entry on right side near naval. It was lacerated in nature corresponding to wound of exit 1/2" diameter back of right chest wall which was also lacerated in nature. 3. On dissection, large intestine right side was found lacerated. The right tenth rib was also fractured. 4. A penetrating wound of 1/4" in diameter wound of entry on left side of neck, lacerated in nature, lateral to the neck muscle. On dissection, left scapula on medial border found fractured. One pellet was found lodged under skin of left scapula. Peritonial cavity was full of blood, and abdominal wall found lacerated. There was a hole at site of injury no. 1. In his opinion, death was due to above injuries caused by fire arm resulting in haemorrhage inside. According to him time elapsed since death was about 24 hours of the postmortem examination. He proved the postmortem report (Ext. no. 2/1). In cross examination he has stated that wound of injury and exit were almost in a straight line in injury near naval region. This witness was not sure as to whether the injury was caused by bullet or pellet. He did not find any burning sign. Firing must have been made from beyond 12 feet. The injuries must have been caused by different types of ammunitions and fire arms. 14. This witness was not sure as to whether the injury was caused by bullet or pellet. He did not find any burning sign. Firing must have been made from beyond 12 feet. The injuries must have been caused by different types of ammunitions and fire arms. 14. Thus, the post-mortem examination was held on the dead body of the deceased Ramanuj Singh on 5.9.1980 at 12.15 P.M. and on the dead body of the deceased Mahendra Singh on the same day at 2 P.M. the occurrence had taken place on 4.9.1980 at 1.30 P.M. Thus, the time elapsed between the death and post-mortem examination held was about 24 hours and according to Doctor it was within 24 hours. Thus, the medical evidence is in consonance with the prosecution case. 15. Now out of the remaining six prosecution witnesses, P.W.1 Madan Singh, P.W.3 Bhagwat Singh, P.W.4 Suresh Singh and P.W.6 Nagendra Singh, are the material witnesses to the occurrence. C.W. 1, Sandeep Kuamr Kujur, is the I.O. of this case and C.W.2, Madan Mohan Ojha, is the then S.D.P.O. of Aurangabad and has supervised this case. The evidence of P.W.6, Nagendra Singh, the informant is that about three years ago at about 1/1.30 P.M. he alongwith his father was uprooting the grass in his field. He brother, Madan Singh P.W.1 and cousin brother Bhagwat Singh, P.W.3 ware grazing their she buffaloes. Their buffalloes went on the pind of Siwanpur and started grazing grass. When his brother, Madan Singh, went to take back the she-buffaloes, the appellant, Kapil Singh and. Surendra Singh, irrigating their land there, abused and rushed to assault him. Madan Singh fled away from there whereupon he, (the informant) and his father protested them but of no effect. Both the appellants turned their faces towards their village Siwanpur and called their villagers. The appellant, Surendra Singh also ran towards the village-Siwanpur raising alarm. On their halla the accused, Satyadeo Singh, Rameshwar Singh, Dharmdeo Singh, DM Nandan Singh, Haari Singh and Yamuna Singh, with lathi arrived there. Sunder Kahar and Amersh Singh with big gun and Ram Swarup and Surendra with small country made gun came there, Surendra Singh handed over his gun to the appellant, Kapil Singh, and all of them assembled on the Siwana of Village-Siwanpur. Thereafter his father tried to pacify the situation but no positive result came out. Sunder Kahar and Amersh Singh with big gun and Ram Swarup and Surendra with small country made gun came there, Surendra Singh handed over his gun to the appellant, Kapil Singh, and all of them assembled on the Siwana of Village-Siwanpur. Thereafter his father tried to pacify the situation but no positive result came out. On the reverse the accused, Dharmdeo Singh indicated whereupon the appellants, Ramswarup Singh and Kapil Singh @ Kapildeo Singh, crossed the pain and came inside Rampur Siwana. Kapildeo Singh fired on his father by gun and Rameshwar Singh fired form his gun at Mahendra Singh. Both of them feel down injured and thereafter all the accused made good escape from there. He has further stated that at the time of quarreling, Vijay Singh, Suresh Singh, Mahendra Singh, Ramswarup Singh, Badri Singh and many toehrs had come at the place of occurrence. Thereafter both the injured were removed to Navi Nagar Hospital but his father died on the way and Mahendra Singh (injured) after giving his statement before the Doctor in the hospital died. The Officer-in-Charge of Navi Nagar Police Station came in the Navi Nagar Hospital, took down his statement and he put his signature thereon. The witnesses, Vijay Singh and Suresh Singh, also signed the fardbeyan (Ext.No.1). In cross-examination he has deposed that both of them open fire at one time. The officer-in-charge had seized the bloodstained earth from the place of occurrence. P.W.1, Madan Singh, is own brother of the informant who has fully supported the prosecution case and corroborated the evidence of the informant His evidence is that the appellant, Kapil Singh and Surendra Singh raised halla and called out their villagers to come with gun, lathi etc. The appellant, Surendra Singh, rushed towards his village-Siwanpur. Thereafter the accused, Dharmdeo Singh, Satyadeo Singh, Deo Nandan Singh, Ramshwar Singh, Hari Singh and Yamuna Singh with lathi, Amresh Singh, Sunder Khar and Ramswarup Singh with Bankuk and Surendra Singh with small gun came. Surendra Singh handed over his gun to Kapildeo Singh. Thereafter, Dharmdeo Singh and Satyadeo Singh crossed the Pain, came near and talked about compromise with his father. Thereafter, on the assurance of Satyadeo Singh and Dharmdeo Singh all of them went away. He has further stated that in the meantime his Co-villagers of Rampur had also come and joined the talk of compromise. Thereafter, Dharmdeo Singh and Satyadeo Singh crossed the Pain, came near and talked about compromise with his father. Thereafter, on the assurance of Satyadeo Singh and Dharmdeo Singh all of them went away. He has further stated that in the meantime his Co-villagers of Rampur had also come and joined the talk of compromise. But in the meantime the appellant Ramswarup Singh fired which hit his cousin brother, Mahendra Singh and the appellant Kapil Singh fired which hit his father Ram Anuj Singh. Thereafter the accused made good escape from there. Both the injured were removed to Navi Nagar Hospital but on the way both of them met their end. He has further stated that seven days before this occurrence the accused side had threatened him for grazing their she-buffaloes. In his cross-examination at Para 27 he has stated that for the last one year a dispute was going on with the villagers of Siwanpur for grazing the she-buffaloes for which he had not put the law in motion. At Para 28 of his cross-examination, his evidence if that both of them fired from their fire arms from a distance of one step on both the deceased. PW.3 Bhagwat Singh is own brother of the deceased Mahendra Singh. His evidence is that at the relevant hours of occurrence while he was grazing his she buffaloes on the pain, he noticed that the she buffaloes of Madan Singh, P.W.1 Crossed the pain and went inside the Shivana of Shivanpur Village. P.W.1, Madan Singh went to bring back the she buffaloes whereupon the appellants, Surendra Singh and Kapil Singh abused and rushed tu assault him with lathi. Madan Sing raised alarm for help whereupon his deceased uncle Ramanuj Singh and consign brother Nagendra Singh, the informant protested them. At this both the appellants, Kapil Singh and Surendra Singh raised alarm and called out their villagers with lathi and the Bandook. The appellant, Surendra Singh, rushed towards his village Shivanpur. Thereafter, the accused, Hari Singh, Yamuna Singh, Dharmdeo Singh Devnandan Singh, Satyadeo Singh and Rameshwar Singh with lathi, Amresh Singh and Sunder Kahar with Bandook, Ramswarup Singh and Surendra Singh with small gun came there. Surendra Singh handed over his gun to the appellant Kapil Singh. Thereafter, Dharmdeo Singh and Satyadeo Singh came near his uncle Ramanuj Singh and talked about compromise. Surendra Singh handed over his gun to the appellant Kapil Singh. Thereafter, Dharmdeo Singh and Satyadeo Singh came near his uncle Ramanuj Singh and talked about compromise. In the mean time the persons working in the nearby fields also assembled there. He has further stated that thereafter on the indication of the accused Dharmdeo the appellant Kapil Singh and Ramswarup Singh opened fire from their guns upon his uncle Ramanuj Singh and brother Mahendra Singh respectively. Both of them feel down injured on the ground and became unconscious and they were removed to hospital. In cross examination at Para 28 he has stated that both that appellants Ramswarup Singh and Kapil Singh fired one shot from their respective guns. P.W.4, Suresh Singh is nephew of the deceased, Ramanuj Singh. His evidence is that at the time of occurrence whole he was uprooting grass in his field he noticed that the appellants Kapil Singh and Surendra Singh were chasing Madan Singh who In turn was raising alarm for help. Thereafter both the appellants, Kapil Singh and Surendra Singh raised Halla whereupon the villagers, accused Dharmdeo Singh, Yamuna Singh, Hari Singh, Satyadeo Singh, Rameshwar Singh, Sunder Kahar, Amresh Singh, Deo Nandan Singh and Ramswarup Singh came. Amresh Singh, Ramswarup Singh and Kapil Singh armed with gun and rest with lathi. The accused, Dharmdeo Singh and Satyadeo Singh crossed the pain and came near the deceased Ramanuj Singh and talked about compromise and both returned back. But in the mean time he heard a sound of firing but failed to identify the persons causing firing. He has further stated that firing hit both Ramanuj Singh and Mahendra Singh both were injured and removed to hospital for treatment. 16. The evidence of San deep Kumar Kujur, C.W.1, the I.O. of this case, is that on 4.9.1980 he was posted as Officer Incharge at Nabinagar P.S. On receipt of the information that the injured had been admitted in the hospital he made station diary and went their. There he found Mahendra Singh injured and not in a position to give any statement. He has further stated that he got the statement, so called dying declaration of Mahendra Singh recorded by Dr. Janardan Prasad Singh, the Medical Officer Incharge of the hospital. It was signed by him, Doctor and the witness Lakeshwar Thakur and the witness Rajnandan Singh put his L.T.I. thereon (Court Ext. No.1). He has further stated that he got the statement, so called dying declaration of Mahendra Singh recorded by Dr. Janardan Prasad Singh, the Medical Officer Incharge of the hospital. It was signed by him, Doctor and the witness Lakeshwar Thakur and the witness Rajnandan Singh put his L.T.I. thereon (Court Ext. No.1). Thereafter he prepared injury report of both the injured and recorded the fardbeyan of the informant, Nagendra Singh and was signed by him (Court Ext. No.2). On the basis of the fardbeyan a formal F.I.R. was drawn up and was signed by him (Court Ext. No.3). Thereafter he prepared two inquest reports of both the deceased which were signed by the witnesses (Court Ext. NO.4 and 4/1). He prepared a challan and despatched the dead bodies for postmortem examination. He recorded the statement of witnesses and visited the P.O. He has further deposed that on visiting the P.O. he found the place of occurrence pain/drain running from east to west at the Shivana of Shivanpur village in which water was flowing. At the time of inspection of the P.O. it was raining so no sign of blood was found at the P.O. on complication of the investigation he submitted the chargesheet. In cross examination he has stated that the Nabinagar police station is situated at the distance of 11 miles from the place of occurrence and had visited on the following day at 7 A.M. In cross examination at Para 27 he has deposed that the witnesses, Suresh Singh. P.W.4 had not stated before him about the hearing of sound of firing. Court witness No.2, Madan Mohan Ojha is the then S.D.P.O., Aurangabad. He has further stated that he had visited the P.O., recorded the statement of the informant, Bhagwat Singh, P.W.3, Madan Singh, P.W.1, Vikram Singh, Ramrup Singh. Raghupat Singh and Badri Singh. 17. On the other hand, the defence has examined 5 witnesses. Out of them D.W.1, Ram Bilas Rabidas. D.W.2, Bharat Ram, D.W.3, Satyadeo Prasad Singh, the accused, are the witnesses on the point of alibi of the accused Satyadeo Prasad Singh. The accused Satyadeo Prasad Singh has already been acquitted of the charges framed against him, so their evidence is not required to be referred. D.W.4, Birendra Singh and D.W.5, Vijayanand Pandey have stated that in the year 1980 they were the students of Sinha College, Aurangabad. The accused Satyadeo Prasad Singh has already been acquitted of the charges framed against him, so their evidence is not required to be referred. D.W.4, Birendra Singh and D.W.5, Vijayanand Pandey have stated that in the year 1980 they were the students of Sinha College, Aurangabad. On the relevant date, i.e., 4.9.1980, the appellant, Amresh Kumar singh had attended the college but no documentary evidence has been adduced to substantiate this plea of alibi of the appellant. Amresh Kumar Singh and the court below has rightly disbelieved his defence of alibi. 18. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that no independent witnesses present at the place and time of occurrence have been examined by the prosecution, so the evidence of the related and interested eye witness cannot be believed. Admittedly in the present case, the independent witnesses, namely, Vijay Singh, P.W.5, Ramswarup Singh, Surendra Singh, P.W.4, Badri Singh, PW.2, Rang Bahadur Singh and Biju Singh had arrived at the P.O. and out of them the prosecution has not examined Ramswarup Singh, Rang Bahadur Singh and Biju Singh nor has furnished nay explanation for their non examination. The witnesses, Madan Singh. P.W.1, Bhagwat Singh, P.W.3 and Nagendra Singh, P.W.6, The informant are related to each 0 her and to both the deceased persons. It will not be out of place to mention here that in the present changed crimeful society the related witnesses are the only possible witnesses who can give correct and vivid account of the occurrence. It has been held by the Apex Court in the case of Arjun Marik and others Vs. State of Bihar reported in 1994 Supp (2) S.C.C. Page 372 that mere relationship of the witness cannot be the sole basis to discard the evidence it otherwise found to be believable and trust worthy. It has further been held by the Apex Court in the case of Ram Bilash Yadav and others ... Appellants Vs. State of Bihar ...Respondent reported in AIR SCW 2002 Part II Page 93 : 2002(1) PLJR (SC) 107 that "It is true that the prosecution witnesses are related to each other but since they gave a consistent version regarding the origin of the incidents it is not possible to cast any doubt as to how the incident happened. 19. State of Bihar ...Respondent reported in AIR SCW 2002 Part II Page 93 : 2002(1) PLJR (SC) 107 that "It is true that the prosecution witnesses are related to each other but since they gave a consistent version regarding the origin of the incidents it is not possible to cast any doubt as to how the incident happened. 19. The evidence of the eye witnesses to the occurrence P.W.1, Madan Singh, P.W.3, Bhagwat Singh and P.W.6, Nagendra Singh, the informant , is consistent that the appellants, Kapil Singh and Surendra Singh raised alarm and called out their villagers and thereafter, Rameshwar Singh, Satyadeo Prasad Singh, Dharamdeo Singh, Deonandan Singh, Yamuna Singh, Hari Singh with lathi, Sunder Kahar and Amresh Kumar Singh with big gun, Ramswarup Singh with country made pistol and Surendra Singh with one small country made pistol came. The appellant, Surendra Singh handed over his country made pistol to Kapil Singh. Thereafter, Kapil Singh and Ramswarup Singh opened fire from their" guns on Mahendra Singh and Ramanuj Singh respectively. Both received fire arm injuries and ultimately died. They have been crossed examined at length but have not been shaken in their cross examination. The ocular evidence finds blood from medical evidence of P.W.7 Dr. Devendra Tripathi and P.W.8, Dr. Hanuman Ram. According to them the death of both the deceased was due to the fire arm injuries. 20. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that there was inordinate delay of six days in sending the F.I.R. by the police to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad and the prosecution has not explained this delay. The F.I.R. was sent on 5.9.1980 through Special Messenger and was received by the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 10.9.1980. In this connection, learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance on the case of Jang Singh and Others Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2001 (9) Supreme Court Cases 704 wherein it has been held that "delay of three days in sending the F.I.R. to the Magistrate without explanation given in respect of the said delay was found to be fatal" I would like to refer the case of State of U.P. …. Appellant Vs. Gokaran and Others ... State of Rajasthan reported in 2001 (9) Supreme Court Cases 704 wherein it has been held that "delay of three days in sending the F.I.R. to the Magistrate without explanation given in respect of the said delay was found to be fatal" I would like to refer the case of State of U.P. …. Appellant Vs. Gokaran and Others ... Respondents reported in AIR 1985 Supreme Court 131 wherein the Apex Court has held that 'where the steps in investigation by way of drawing inquest report and other panchnamas started soon which could only follow the handing over of FI.R., the delayed receipt of special report by the District Magistrate would not enable the court to dub the investigation as tainted one nor could F.I.R. be recorded as ante-dated." In this case, the fardbeyan and F.I.R. was drawn up on 4.9.1980. Soon thereafter the police switched over to investigation, prepared inquest report, despatched the dead bodies for postmortem examination, visited the P.O. and recorded the statement of the witnesses, so the delayed receipt of the F.I.R. in the court cannot be construed as ante-timed or antedated. 21. Learned counsel for the appellants again submitted that on inspection of P.O. by the Investigating Officer no blood was found by him at the alleged place of occurrence. I.O., C.W.1, Sandeep Kuamr Kujur, has clearly stated at Para 8 of his evidence that P.O. was a pain/drain situated at the Sivana of Shivanpur village. On the day of inspection it was raining and the water was flowing in the pain, the place of occurrence, so no blood was found by him. 22. Thus, the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts against all the appellants that Kapil Singh and Ramswarup Singh have committed the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act. Amresh Kumar Singh, Sunder Kahr, Surendra Singh, Kapil Singh alias Kapildeo Singh and Ramswarup Singh have committed the offence under Section 148 I.P.C. Rameshwar Singh, Yamuna Singh and hari Singh have committed the offence under Section 147 I.P.C. The Judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial judge requires no interference. 23. In the result all these three appeals fail. The order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Judge against the appellants is affirmed. 23. In the result all these three appeals fail. The order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Judge against the appellants is affirmed. Their bail bonds are cancelled and the appellants are directed to surrender before the court below to serve out the remaining period of sentence. I agree.