Judgment B.N.P.Singh, J. 1. On 26th February, 1994, village Isapur witnessed a bizarre incident, in which three innocent persons gossiping at the door of the house of Ram Kishun Lal (P.W.9) suffered fatal injuries on their persons and eventually succumbed to them. At the outset, we may briefly refer to the salient features of the prosecution case against the appellants centering round the incident in question. 2. It was alleged that on that fateful day, while Ram Kishun Lal (P.W.9) along with Sudhir Kumar (deceased), Satish Kumar and other villagers was gossiping at the door of his house, having accomplished payment of wages to the labourers, who were engaged by him, the appellants came along with Mathura Yadav and exploded bombs and also took recourse to firing. Accusation against Mathura Yadav and Ramdeo Yadav was that they too had taken recourse to firing. Explicit accusation attributed to Sidheshwar Yadav was about exploding bomb on Sudhir Kumar alias Santosh Kumar, while accusation against Maksudan Yadav was about exploding bomb on Bishundeo Yadav. Likewise, accusation against Amrik Yadav was about exploding bomb on Muneshwar Raut whose right hand was blown by explosion and shortly after he rushed to his house, he succumbed to the injuries sustained by him. It was alleged that the appellants and those accompanying them, retreated from the place of occurrence exploding bombs. The motive assigned behind the gruesome killing of three persons was that deceased Santosh Kumar was a witness in a case of murder instituted against Basudeo Yadav, father of Sidheshwar Yadav, Maksudan Yadav and Amrik Yadav.The narration made by the maker of fardbeyan and also the recitals made therein would show that Ram Kishun Lal, shortly after the incident, went to Kaser Police Station, and as there was none for redressal of his grievance, he approached the Police personnel posted at Satbahna Outpost and from there too he had to return frustrated and then he met the chowkidar of Satbahna Outpost who took him to dafadar and from there he went to Ariyari Police Station where his fardbeyan was recorded by the Police Officer, pursuant to which investigation commenced. The Police Officer entrusted with the onerous task of investigation, visited the place of occurrence, recorded statement of witnesses, effected seizure of offending articles from the place of occurrence, prepared inquest report over the dead bodies of the three deceased, sent the dead bodies to mortuary for post mortem examination, and on conclusion of investigation, laid charge sheet before the Court. In the eventual trial that commenced, the State examined altogether 13 witnesses, including family members of the deceased and also those who claimed to be ocular witnesses of the incident. The State, also examined three doctors, who held autopsy over the dead bodies of the three deceased, some witnesses tendered by the prosecution and also the Police Officer, who carried out invesigation of the incident. 3. The defence of the appellants was that of innocence and they pleaded at trial that since the deceased bore criminal antecedents, they sustained injuries on their persons due to explosion of bomb which was in the process of manufacturing. Some faint suggestions were given to the witnesses about impossibility of physical presence of Sidheshwar Yadav at the time of incident in village Isapur. The trial Court, however, having given its considered opinion, negativing the plea of innocence of the appellants, recorded finding of guilt against them under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life. Appellant Ramdeo Yadav suffered conviction also under section 27 of the Arms Act and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years with a direction that both the sentences shall run concurrently. Though the appellants were also prosecuted for a charge under section 120B of IPC, there being no good evidence about the appellants hatching criminal conspiracy for accomplishment of their design, the trial court acquitted them of the said charge. Likewise, though Maksudan Yadav, Amrik Yadav and Sidheshwar Yadav stood charged also under section 3/4 of the Explosive Substance Act, in absence of good evidence, that charge too was negatived by the trial court. Though charges were framed against one Mathura Yadav also under section 27 of the Arms Act, he having not participated in the trial due to absconsion, no finding was recorded against him. 4. Though charges were framed against one Mathura Yadav also under section 27 of the Arms Act, he having not participated in the trial due to absconsion, no finding was recorded against him. 4. Though various contentions were raised at Bar to assail the propriety of the findings recorded by the Court below, before we delve upon them, we wish to analyse the quality of evidence placed on the record for correct appreciation of them. Now adverting to the narrations made by Ram Kishun Lal (P.W.9), who was the maker of the fardbeyan, one may notice him reiterating his early version which he rendered before the Police to set the criminal law in motion, stating, inter alia, at trial, that while he along with Sudhir Kumar alias Santosh Kumar, Satish Kumar, Archana Devi, Bishundeo Yadav, Muneshwar Raut, and Ayodhya Yadav, was gossiping at the door of his house after making payment of wages to the labourers, he witnessed Maksudan Yadav, Amrik Yadav, Sidheshwar Yadav and Ramdeo Yadav coming from east direction, along with one other person, who had concealed his face, holding firearm, and shortly after their arrival, they began exploding bombs. The witness would explain the delay in launching the prosecution against the appellants. Ayodhya Yadav (P.W.1) would state in similar terms about Sudhir Kumar, Bishundeo Yadav, and Satish Kumar and others gossiping in front of the house of Sudhir Kumar, when appellants came exploding bomb, and the witness would make attribution against individual appellant for causing injuries to Sudhir Kumar, Bishundeo Yadav and Muneshwar Raut. To be specific, while accusation attributed to Sidheshwar Yadav was about exploding bomb on Sudhir Kumar, accusation against Maksudan Yadav and Amrik Yadav was for exploding bomb on Bishundeo Yadav and Muneshwar Raut, respectively. Now switching over to the statement of Archana Devi (P.W.2), we find the witness stating at trial that while family members and others were gossiping in front of their house, five persons emerged from the western lane and while one of them went in east direction holding rifle, the other took side in west direction holding fire arm. The witness would claim identification of Sidheshwa Yadav, Maksudan Yadav, Amrk Yadav and Ramdeo Yadav and one more person who had concealed his identity. The witness would claim identification of Sidheshwa Yadav, Maksudan Yadav, Amrk Yadav and Ramdeo Yadav and one more person who had concealed his identity. Exactly similar narration about the overt act assigned to individual appellant was made by P.W.9 also making Sidheshwar Yadav answerable for killing of Sudhir Kumar by explosion of bomb, and Maksudan Yadav and Amrik Yadav being authors of the episode of murder of Bishundeo Yadav and Muneshwar Raut, respectively. This witness, however, would commit error in identification of Ramdeo Yadav at trial. Ganesh Yadav (P.W.3) and Jago Yadav (P.W.8) were, however, tendered by the State, there being nothing material to merit consideration. The other witness examined by the State, Naresh Yadav (RW.4) would state at trial that while he was at a pumping set at a distance of about 40-45 feet from the house of Sudhir Kumar, he noticed Ramdeo Yadav, Sidheshwar Yadav, Maksudan Yadav and Amrik Yadav and one more person, concealing his identity, coming towards house of Ram Kishun Lal. About Ramdeo Yadav and also the person who had concealed his identity, the witness would state that they were firing from the arms which they held with them. He began to flee on hearing the sound of explosion and also the firing. Though the witness would claim to have concealed himself in the house of Kashi Raut from where he began to witness the incident, he would make candid statement for having not witnessed explosion of bombs. However, he would claim to have seen Sudhir Kumar, Bishundeo and Muneshwar Raut lying injured with serious injuries on their persons. About Muneshwar Raut, the witness further states that shortly after receipt of injuries, he rushed to his house but succumbed to them. About Sudhir Kumar, he stated that by explosion of bomb, the intestine had bulged out from the stomach. 5. Surjo Devi (RW.5) was another witness who would confine herself only about witnessing her husband injured and his body smeared with blood who eventually succumbed to the injuries. About Sudhir Kumar, he stated that by explosion of bomb, the intestine had bulged out from the stomach. 5. Surjo Devi (RW.5) was another witness who would confine herself only about witnessing her husband injured and his body smeared with blood who eventually succumbed to the injuries. Satish Kumar (P.W.6) was another witness who stated that on 26th February, 1994, when he was at door of his house along with his father Ram Kishun Lal, brother Sudhir Kumar, Bishnudeo Yadav, Muneshwar Raut, Ganesh Prasad and Ayodhya Yadav, who were gossiping, he noticed Sidheshwar Yadav, Maksudan Yadav, Amrik Yadav and Ramdeo Yadav and one more person coming from the western side who began to explode bomb. About Ramdeo Yadav and othe person, who had concealed his identity, the witness stated that they held guns with them. The witness would state also about the motive, as assigned by Ram Kishun Lal in his evidence. Dasrath Yadav (P.W.7) was greezing she-buffalo in his field when on hearing the sound of explosion of bomb, he shortly rushed to the place of occurrence. He stated to have noticed Sidheshwar Yadav, Maksudan Yadav, Amrk Yadav, Ramdeo Yadav and also a person who had concealed his identity, making good their escape. The witness would, however, state to have noticed injuries on the person of Sudhir Kumar, Bishundeo Yadav and Muneshwar Yadav at the door of the house of Ram Kishun Lal. About Ramdeo the witness states that he held gun with him. 6. Shri Badri Nath Singh (P.W.12) was the Investigating Officer, who stated to have recorded fardbeyan of Ram Kishun Lal on the 27th February, 1994, pursuant to which first information report was drawn up and investigation commenced. He stated to have prepared inquest report over the dead bodies of the deceased and noticed reminiscences of explosion of bomb and pieces of human flesh at the place of occurrence. The Police Officer stated to have noticed blood stains on the walls, adjacent to Chabutra, and also here and there, around the place of occurrence. The Police Officer states also about securing sanction for prosecution of the appellants, from District Magistrate under the Explosive Substance Act, and having laid charge sheet before the Court, on conclusion of investigation. 7. Dr. The Police Officer stated to have noticed blood stains on the walls, adjacent to Chabutra, and also here and there, around the place of occurrence. The Police Officer states also about securing sanction for prosecution of the appellants, from District Magistrate under the Explosive Substance Act, and having laid charge sheet before the Court, on conclusion of investigation. 7. Dr. Arjun Prasad Singh (P.W.10) stated to have held autopsy over the dead body of Muneshwar Raut and noticed extensive lacerated wounds which were three in numbers caused by explosive substance. There was also one lacerated wound with wounds of entry and exit, caused by fire arms, and death of the deceased in opinion of the doctor was due to shock and haemorrhage caused by these injuries. Dr. Wahabuddin (P.W.11) was another doctor who held autopsy over the dead body of Bishundeo Yadav and he states to have noticed abrasions, and extensive lacerated wounds on body of the deceased caused by explosive substance. Another doctor was Sri Hari Narayan Mandal (P.W.13) who held autopsy over the dead body of Sudhir Kumar and the doctor states to have noticed lacerated wounds and multiple blackening over the body of the deceased caused by explosive substance. All the injuries noticed on the person of the three deceased, in opinion of the doctor, were anti mortem in nature, and cause of death was shock and haemorrhage produced by these injuries. This is all the evidence that has been adduced on behalf of the State. 8. Now adverting to the criticisms that is sought to be made by the learned counsel for the appellants, appointed to appear as amicus curiae for the appellants, it was contended that even though the eye witnesses state about they gossiping with the deceased in close proximity of each of them, it was most unlikely that they would not receive even scratches over their person from the splinters of the explosion of bomb. The answer to this criticism can be well found in the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2, and 6 who would make coherent statement that only the deceased were sitting on the chabutra where the explosion of bomb took place and about others, these witnesses would state that they were sitting at a distance of about 10-20 feet near the door of the house, and if evidence of these witnesses are accepted, in all fairness, they were not expected to suffer injuries by splinters of the explosion of the bomb. The other contention raised at Bar on behalf of the appellants was that though offending articles were shown to have been seized by the Investigating Officer, which were also reminiscences of bomb, since there has been no finding of the chemical examiner, about the seized substance to be the expfosive substance, the entire edifice of the prosecution case would fall to the ground. However, this argument too was devoid of merit for the simple reason that apart from the fact that the appellants did not suffer conviction under section 3/4 of the Explosive Substance Act, there was positive finding of the doctor about three persons having suffered fatal injuries from explosive substance. In view of Exhibit D, it is urged that since the custody of Mathura Yadav in jail improbabilises his physical presence at the place of occurrence, on this analogy too, the prosecution of other appellants was quite erroneous and also fallacious. Learned counsel would urge that if tenor of fardbeyan of Ram Kishun Lal was to be given credence, Ramu Yadav only was suggested to be ocular witness to the incident, but that Ramu too was spared by the State as he was not examined at trial and in quick succession, it is urged that those who were examined at trial include Archana Devi (P.W.2) and Ayodhya Yadav (P.W.1), whose presence at the place of occurrence at the material time of incident was not stated by the maker of the fardbeyan which he rendered before the Police. While commenting on credibility of Archana Devi (RW.2), it is urged that in view of admission made by the witnesses, about she having concealed herself behind the doors, there was remote possibility of this witness to be an ocular witness. While commenting on credibility of Archana Devi (RW.2), it is urged that in view of admission made by the witnesses, about she having concealed herself behind the doors, there was remote possibility of this witness to be an ocular witness. Though this argument ex facie appears to be meritorious but it is dispelled from the narration made by Archana Devi (RW.2) herself who states to have witnessed the incident at short intervals even when she had closed the doors. Next, it is urged that those who were examined at trial were only family members of the deceased or only those who were interested in the affairs of the prosecution, entirely to the exclusion of those who could have been independent witnesses. Reasons for non-examination of Ramu Yadav who was suggested to be ocular witness can be well found in the testimony of Dasrath Yadav (P.W.7) as the witness would state that he was suffering from asthma and was incapable to speak and walk and that apart, all those who claimed to be ocular witnesses were not the family members of Ram Kishun Lal, as we find that Ayodhya Yadav (P.W.1) was not among them, and that apart, once witnesses are found to be credible, mere relationship either with the informant or the deceased would not introduce any legalinfirmity in the prosecution version, to doubt reliability of such witness. Though First Information Report was a safeguard against exaggeration made by both prosecution and defence, it was not the last word of the prosecution and omission of name of Archana Devi (P.W.2) among eye witnesses in the First Information Report was not of such significance which would render prosecution case unworthy of credence. 9. Other contentions raised at Bar on behalf of the appellants was that though the occurrence took place at about 4.30 p.m. on 26th February, 1994, it was not before 3.30 p.m. on the 27th February, 1994, that the fardbeyan of Ram Kishun Lal was recorded by P.W.12, and in view of there being delay of about 21 hours, it is urged that possibility of embellishment and concoction in the prosecution version cannot be ruled out. As has been stated, apart from the fact, that the Police Station lies at a distance of about 30 Kms from village Isapur, very good and sound reasonings have been assigned by Ram Kishun Lal, maker of the fardbeyan for alleged delay, and in that view of the matter, the prosecution cannot be saddled to have acted belatedly in launching prosecution against the appellants. While commenting on credibility of the witnesses, our attention has been drawn to the evidence of Ayodhya Yadav (P.W.1) who would state that he had instituted a case against the appellants in the year 1987 and on these premises it is urged that the witness was inimical to the appellants. Similar criticism was attributed to Naresh Yadav (P.W.4) also who states that his father had prosecuted the appellants earlier. The credibility of Dasrath Yadav (P.W.7) was also impeached on the ground that his brother had instituted a criminal case against Ayodhya Yadav (P.W.1). From the tenor of evidence of those who admitted some sort of enmity between the parties preceding the incident, it would appear that these criminal cases were launched as early as in the year 1987 in which the appellants had secured acquittal from the Court and it was not expected that the witness would bear animus or grudge even after lapse of such a considerable period. About motive assigned behind the gruesome killing of three persons, it is strongly urged on behalf of the appellants that taking the same to be true on face value, as it was a stale matter, it was most unlikely that the appellant being actuated with animus, after efflux of long period, would commit offence in elimination of Sudhir Kumar, the son of the informant. About two other deceased, it is urged that they were neither witnesses in the earlier proceeding nor they had any animus, and hence, it was not expected of the appellants that they would be killer of two innocent persons for no good reasons. 10. The trial court had principally relied on credibility of four witnesses who were Ayodhya Yadav (P.W.1), Archna Devi (P.W.2), Satish Kumar (P.W.6) and Ram Kishun Lal (P.W.9). 10. The trial court had principally relied on credibility of four witnesses who were Ayodhya Yadav (P.W.1), Archna Devi (P.W.2), Satish Kumar (P.W.6) and Ram Kishun Lal (P.W.9). Apart from the fact that these four witnesses stated at trial, with sustained consistencies about spree of killing of three persons by these appellants, there is evidence of other witnesses too which lends assurance to the prosecution allegation and they are of supporting nature, and we have noticed, the evidence of Naresh Yadav (RW.4) who stated to have found all three persons bearing injuries on their persons who eventually succumbed to them. The witness states to have noticed fleeing of the appellants from the place of occurrence. Surjit Devi (P.W.5) was, however, confined to the injuries on her husband alone who having received injuries on his person, succumbed to them in her house. She noticed her husband smeared with blood. Dasrath Yadav (P.W.7) noticed bomb injuries on all the three deceased and also noticed appellants making good their escape. Evidence of Satish Kumar (P.W.6), who was ocular witness, did not suggest element of any animus on part of these witnesses with the appellants or would suffer any infirmity for exclusion of his evidence from consideration. Apart from the testimony of these witnesses, who were either ocular or of supporting nature, we have noticed the findings recorded by the doctor, who stated to have found corresponding injuries on the person of the deceased. There has been objective finding of the Investigating Officer about the presence of blood stains and also splinters of bomb at the place of occurrence, and merely because there has been no finding of the chemical examiner, the good and positive evidence on the record cannot be excluded from consideration and through catena of decisions, it has been crystallised that for faulty investigation by the Police Officer, fault cannot be found with the prosecution and it shall not be a casualty. However, certain disturbing features that we have noticed in the prosecution case need to be stated with brevity. However, certain disturbing features that we have noticed in the prosecution case need to be stated with brevity. Though Ayodhya Yadav (P.W.1) would make explicit accusation against individual appellant for causing explosion of bombs on the deceased, the attention drawn by the defence and also the evidence of the Police Officer would show that the witnesses had not made statement before the Police, making explicit accusation against the appellant, rather the witnesses stated before the Police, about appellants having exploded bombs indiscriminately on the deceased. No such evidence of mitigating nature was placed on the record for exclusion of evidence of this witness which would completely rule out his claim to be ocular. Now, coming to the testimony of Archana Devi (P.W.2), admittedly this witness committed error in identification of Ramdeo Yadav but her evidence about rest three appellants was quite clinching. About Satish Kumar (P.W. 6), the attention of the witness was drawn by the defence, and also the evidence of the Police Officer would show that this witness stated about overt act attributed to only Sidheshwar Yadav, he having not made parallel statement before the Police about complicity of others attributing them, among those who exploded bomb on the individual deceased. The narration made by Ram Kishun Lal (P.W.9) was quite parallel to the statement which he rendered before the Police. As for motive, appellants had strong motive to eliminate Sudhir Kumar, as he along with his father had appeared as witnesses against appellants in a case of murder in which Baso Yadav, father of three appellants, along with appellant Ramdeo Yadav had suffered conviction and was sentenced to life. 11. Now on marshalling these facts, we have noticed that against appellant Ramdeo Yadav, there has been evidence of P.Ws. 1, 4, 6 and 7, and against rest of the appellants, we have noticed evidence of other witnesses. Since more than one witness in case of each of the appellant had made similar attributions to them about explosion of bomb, which gets assurance from the findings of the doctor, we consider the prosecution evidence credible and see no good reason to discard their evidences. 12. Since more than one witness in case of each of the appellant had made similar attributions to them about explosion of bomb, which gets assurance from the findings of the doctor, we consider the prosecution evidence credible and see no good reason to discard their evidences. 12. Having analysed the prosecution evidences in proper perspective and also the attending circumstances of the case and also contentions raised at Bar, we find that the finding was recorded by the trial court on proper appreciation of evidences placed on the record which did not require interference and in that view of the matter, Cr.Appeal No. 157 of 1997 filed by appellant Ramdeo Yadav and Cr. Appeal No. 177 of 1997 filed by appellants Maksudan Yadav, Amrik Yadav and Sidheshwar Yadav being meritless are dismissed. Appellant Ramdeo Yadav is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled and the trial court shall take all coercive steps for his apprehension to consign him to custody to serve out the sentence awarded to him. Both the appeals are accordingly dismissed. Shri Anil Kumar Singh, Advocate, appointed as amicus curiae in Cr. Appeal No. 157 of 1997 and Shri Lala Kailash Bihari Prasad, Advocate, appointed as amicus curiae in Cr.Appeal No. 177 of 1997, shall receive their remuneration from Patna High Court Legal Aid Committee. P.K.Sinha, J. 13 I agree.