Judgment B.N.P.SINGH, J. 1. Altogether 17 number of accused persons were sought to be prosecuted in Mohania P. S. Case No. 125 of 1991 registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 324, 307, 302, 380 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sec. 27 of the Indian Arms Act, but as no charge-sheet was submitted against Shankar Pasi, his name was expunged by the Court of Commitment. As Suresh Pasi absconded during the pendency of the proceeding, he was declared absconder and evidences placed on the record do suggest that after said Suresh Pasi was apprehended, a separate proceeding bearing Sessions Trial No. 271/3 of 1996/99 was initiated against him which eventually culminated in acquittal of the accused. Of those who were sought to be put on trial, Sipahi Pasi too absconded and he too after his apprehension was put on trial in a separate proceeding bearing Sessions Trial No. 605/39 of 1992/1999 in which Sipahi Pasi suffered conviction under Sec. 302, I.P.C. and also Sec. 27 of the Indian Arms Act and while on the first count, he was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life, no separate sentence was awarded on the second count. Sessions Trial No. 605/251 of 1992 commenced against 14 numbers of accused persons including Satyanarain Pasi, Mahendra Pasi, Ram Ashiah Pasi, Sandhar Pasi, Babulal Pasi, Bijai Pasi, Ramlal Pasi, Kanta Pasi, Shree Pasi, Dwarika Pasi, Hridyal Pasi, Rajendra Pasi, Ram Ekbal Pasi and Dular Pasi and while Babulal Pasi, Sandhar Pasi and Bijai Pasi were acquitted of the charges, rest 11, who are the appellants in the two appeals, preferred before this Court, suffered conviction under Secs. 302/149 and 396, I.P.C. for which they were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life on both the counts. Though the appellants suffered conviction also under Sec. 27 of the Arms Act, no separate sentence was, however, awarded to them on this count. While Cr. Appeal No. 564 of 1994 was preferred by Kanta Pasi alone, Cr. Appeal No. 89 of 2000 was preferred by Sipahi Pasi and Cr. Appeal No. 540 of 1994 has been preferred by the rest. Since Sipahi Pasi, who was tried with the other appellants jumped bail before passing the judgment, separate judgment was delivered in his case and appeal preferred by him bearing Cr. Appeal No. 89 of 2000 has also been heard along with Cr. Appeal No. 540 of 1994 has been preferred by the rest. Since Sipahi Pasi, who was tried with the other appellants jumped bail before passing the judgment, separate judgment was delivered in his case and appeal preferred by him bearing Cr. Appeal No. 89 of 2000 has also been heard along with Cr. Appeal No. 540 of 1994 and Cr. Appeal No. 564 of 1994 and all these three appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. In the mid-day of 20/11/1991, the family of Jageshwar Chaubey suffered three casualties in which Ramakant Chaubey, Shanti Devi and Rajmuni Devi, having suffered fatal injuries on their persons, succumbed to them and it was Jageshwar Chaubey (P.W. 3), who having rendered his statement before the Police at about 18 hours on the same day, set the criminal law in motion. In his early statement which he rendered before the Police, he would state that while he was in the field, which situates at a distance of about 200 yards from his village Barka Sagra, he noticed his brother Ramakant Chaubey (deceased) coming from southern direction, and hardly he could reach the khalihan, that he noticed sound of firing. He, while concealing himself, rushed to the khalihan and concealed himself behind the bamboo clumps and could notice that about 30/35 persons holding rifles and guns with them, chased Ramakant Chaubey firing on him. The said Ramakant Chaubey having suffered injuries by fire-arms dropped to the ground. The miscreants thereafter gained their access in his house and gunned down also Shanti Devi, wife of deceased Ramakant Chaubey, who had predeceased her. They also removed house belongings from house and shortly after they trespassed in the house of Mukhlal Chaubey, his wife Rajmuni Devi too was shot dead by them. The said Jageshwar Chaubey claims to have identified Satya Narain Pasi, Ram Eekbal Pasi, Dular Pasi, Sri Pasi, Hridyal Pasi, Dwarika Pasi, Sipahi Pasi, Rajendra Pasi alias Matru Pasi, Mahendra Pasi, of village Barka Sagra, Suresh Pasi of village Samhauta, Ramlal Pasi, Kanta Pasi, Babulal Pasi of village Parserwa and brother-in-law of Satya Narain Pasi of village Tambari Sonhan, who had been usually visiting his village. He also claimed to have identified their associates with whose name he was not conversant. He also claimed to have identified their associates with whose name he was not conversant. Omnibus accusations were also attributed to the appellants about removal of house belongings from the houses of Shanti Devi and Rajmuni Devi, which included wearing apparels, ornaments and cash of value of Rs. 40,000.00 to 50,000.00 and also about they having decamped with the booty shouting slogan of Suresh Pasi. The motive assigned behind the gruesome killing of three persons was that a month preceding the incident, there had been a quarrel of Satyanarain Pasi, Ram Dular Pasi and Rak Ekbal Pasi with Ramakant Chaubey over a land which was recorded as khatiyani land in favour of Ramakant Chaubey on which the appellants wanted to put their cattle shed. As Ramakant Chaubey had resisted their design, they had threatened him to teach a good lesson and had gone in association of Suresh Pasi who was a dreaded criminal. Jageshwar Chaubey, the maker of fardbeyan, also suspected active participation of Ramashish Pasi, who happened to be his servant. It was alleged that since the time the appellants had gone in the company of Suresh Pasi, Ramakant Chaubey, for security of his life, was residing at Sewa Niketan, Barauli. It was alleged that on the day of incident Ramashish Pasi, on the pretext of ailment of son of Ramakant Chaubey, had brought him to village Barka Sagra and it is how in the process of reaching his house, he was shot dead by the miscreants. 3. After the prosecution was launched at behest of Jageshwar Chaubey, investigation commenced in course of which the Police Officer recorded statement of witnesses, visited the place of occurrence, noticed blood at the place of occurrence, took steps for apprehension of the miscreants, sent the dead body to mortuary for post mortem examination and on receipt of report, eventually laid charge sheet before the Court on conclusion of investigation. In the eventual trial that commenced, the State examined altogether 11 witnesses and those examined by the prosecution include Police Officer, doctor, some formal witnesses and also family members of the deceased including Jageshwar Chaubey, who was the maker of the fardbeyan. 4. The defence of the appellants before the Court below and also this Court had been two-fold. In the eventual trial that commenced, the State examined altogether 11 witnesses and those examined by the prosecution include Police Officer, doctor, some formal witnesses and also family members of the deceased including Jageshwar Chaubey, who was the maker of the fardbeyan. 4. The defence of the appellants before the Court below and also this Court had been two-fold. It was pleaded on their behalf that earlier they were bataidars of Jageshwar Chaubey and since they failed to oblige him, they had been falsely implicated in the occurrence. The other defence of the appellants was that village Barka Sagra was infested by extremists and after three family members of Jageshwar Chaubey were eliminated by them, having seized opportunity, the appellants have been falsely roped in the instant case. However, the trial Court on consideration of testimony of witnesses, some of whom also claimed to be ocular, negativing contentions raised on behalf of the appellants about their innocence, recorded verdict of guilt and sentenced them in the manner stated above. 5. Since narrations made by the prosecution witnesses had been fairly spelt out in the judgment of the Court below, a brief resume of their narrations is discussed for proper appreciation of the criticisms that have been made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants. One may find Jageshwar Chaubey (P.W. 3), who was the maker of fardbeyan, reiterating his early version about he having heard the sound of firing while he was in the field and Ramakant Chaubey coming from the southern direction on kachcha road. He stated to have concealed himself behind the bamboo clump and noticed 30/35 persons having shot dead Ramakant Chaubey, of whom he claimed to have identified Satya Narain Pasi, Ram Ekbal Pasi, Rajendra Pasi, Mahendra Pasi, Dular Pasi, Dwarika Pasi, Sri Pasi, Sipahi Pasi, Hridya Pasi, Ramashish Pasi, Suresh Pasi, Ramlal Pasi, Kanta Pasi, Baban Pasi and Bijay Pasi. The witness would state that while his brother was making abortive bid to escape, the assailants were chasing him and poured shower of bullets on him, pursuant to which his brother dropped dead. Pursuant to that, these persons with the aid of the ladder, gained their access in his house and not only committed theft of articles but also executed killing of Shanti Devi, wife of Ramakant Chaubey. They removed chain from her neck and also silver ornaments from her legs. Pursuant to that, these persons with the aid of the ladder, gained their access in his house and not only committed theft of articles but also executed killing of Shanti Devi, wife of Ramakant Chaubey. They removed chain from her neck and also silver ornaments from her legs. In quick succession, they also visited the house of Mukhlal Chaubey and executed killing of Rajmuni Devi, wife of the former. The motive behind the incident was reiterated as stated in his early statement. He noticed firearm wound on the chest, arms neck and also temporal region of his brother, whose eyes had protruded and the wounds were profusely bleeding. He stated to have noticed wounds in the abdominal region and back on the person of Shanti Devi and likewise, Rajmuni Devi too had wounds in her abdomen. The witness would state to have filed protest petition against unfairness of the investigating agency. The other witness examined by the State was Saroj Devi (P.W. 1) who happened to be the sister of deceased Rajmuni Devi.The witness would state that as her brother-in-law (husband of Rajmuni Devi) had been suffering from insanity, he had abandoned the house and it is how that she was usually visiting the house of her sister. The witness would state that on the day of incident, 20/25 perons came holding firearms and shot dead Rajmuni Devi, of whom she claimed to have identified Dular Pasi, Mahendra Pasi, Hridyal Pasi, and Ramashish Pasi. She stated to have been informed by Narendra Pandey and Santosh Chaubey that on Ramakant Chaubey, it was Suresh Pasi, who first fired shot followed by another shot by Dular Pasi Dwarika Pasi, Satya Narain Pasi, Sipahi Pasi and Matur Pasi. When she visited house of Shanti Devi, she found her dead. The miscreants had removed house belongings from the house, and broken boxes were in the courtyard. 6. Another witness was Daya Shankar Chaubey (P.W. 2) who stated to have noticed 20/25 persons coming out from the house of Sipahi Pasi, and among them he claimed to have identified Satya Narain Pasi, Dwarika Pasi, Dular Pasi, Sipahi Pasi, Ram Ekbal Pasi, Sripasi, Hridya Pasi, Ramashish Pasi, Suresh Pasi, Ramlal Pasi, Kanta Pasi and Shandhar Pasi. 6. Another witness was Daya Shankar Chaubey (P.W. 2) who stated to have noticed 20/25 persons coming out from the house of Sipahi Pasi, and among them he claimed to have identified Satya Narain Pasi, Dwarika Pasi, Dular Pasi, Sipahi Pasi, Ram Ekbal Pasi, Sripasi, Hridya Pasi, Ramashish Pasi, Suresh Pasi, Ramlal Pasi, Kanta Pasi and Shandhar Pasi. It was Suresh Pasi who first fired shot on Ramakant Chaubey and when he wanted to escape, shots were followed by Dular Pasi, Satya Naraian Pasi, Ram Ekbal Pasi, Rajendra Pasi and Ramashish Pasi, pursuant to which Ramakant Chaubey dropped dead. The miscreants took to their heels thereafter and entered his house where Shanti Devi was shot dead and her house belongings were also removed. The miscreants thereafter visited house of Mukhlal Chaubey where Rajmuni Devi was shot dead. The witness would state to have signed the inquest report prepared by the Police.The other witness, who claimed to be ocular, was Santosh Chaubey (P.W. 5) as the witness would state that while he was thrashing paddy in the khalihan in the company of Nagendra Pandey (P.W. 6), he noticed 25/30 persons coming out from the house of Sipahi Pasi holding arms with them and among them, he claimed to have identified Suresh Pasi, Satya Narain Pasi, Ram Ekbal Pasi, Rajendra Pasi, Mahendra Pasi, Dular Pasi, Dwarika Pasi, Sipahi Pasi, Hridya Pasi, Ramashish Pasi, Ramlal Pasi, Kanta Pasi and Bijay Pasi besides others, about whom he claimed to identify them by face. In company of these miscreants, were also some persons of village Patserwa, who were usually visiting his village. The witness would state that while Ramakant Chaubey was coming from southern direction and reached khalihan, he was shot dead by all these 25/30 persons, who came out from the house of Sipahi Pasi. The miscreants also fired shots on Ramakant Chaubey, after he had dropped on the ground. The witness would state that shortly after the miscreants had left the place, he along with Nagendra Pandey, went to their house and confined themselves in the room having closed the door. The witness would state that the miscreants visited house of Shanti Devi and from her house, he heard her screamings and also sound of firing. The witness would state that shortly after the miscreants had left the place, he along with Nagendra Pandey, went to their house and confined themselves in the room having closed the door. The witness would state that the miscreants visited house of Shanti Devi and from her house, he heard her screamings and also sound of firing. The miscreants also visited house of Rajmuni Devi who happened to be her mother in search of son of Muklal Chaubey and thereafter, Satya Narain Pasi, Ram Ekbal Pasi, Rajendra Pasi, Mahendra Pasi, Dular Pasi, Dwarika Pasi, Shri Pasi, Hnidyal Pasi, Ramashish Pasi, Sipahi Pasi, Ramlal Pasi, Kanta Pas, Babban Pasi and Vijay Pasi, shot dead his mother Rajmuni Devi who dropped dead in the courtyard. They also shot dead Shanti Devi. The witness would state to have come to know that the miscreants had also removed ornaments of value of Rs. 50,000.00 from house of Shanti Devi. 7. The last witness who claimed to be the ocular witness to the killing of the deceased was Nagendra Pandey (P.W. 6), who would state that while he along with Santosh Chaubey was thrashing paddy in the khalihan, he noticed 25/30 persons holding arms coming from the house of Sipahi Pasi and among them, he claimed to have identified Suresh Pasi , Satya Narain Pasi , Gulab (Dular Pasi ), Dwarika Pasi, Sri Pasi , Ram Ekbal Pasi , Mehendra Pasi, Rajendra Pasi, Hridyal Pasi, Ramshish Pasi, Sipahi Pasi and some persons of the village Patserwa, who shot dead Ramakant Chaubey. It was Suresh Pasi, who fired first shot on him and when he wanted to flee, shots were fired by Satya Narain Pasi, Dular Pasi , Ram Ekbal Pasi, Mahendra Pasi, Dwarika Pasi, Sri Pasi, Ramashish Pasi, Sheodayal Pasi and Sipahi Pasi also who chased him and shot at him, pursuant to which, Ramakant Chaubey dropped dead. The witness would state that having seen the killing of Ramakant Chaubey, he left the place. The witness would further state that the miscreants gained their entry in the house of Shanti Devi with the help of a ladder and shot her dead and also removed house belongings of value of Rs. 40,000.00 to 50,000.00 . The witness would claim to have witnessed the killing of Shanti Devi from a hole in the wall of the house. 40,000.00 to 50,000.00 . The witness would claim to have witnessed the killing of Shanti Devi from a hole in the wall of the house. The miscreants thereafter came to his house in search of son of Mukhlal Chaubey and shot dead his sister Rajmuni Devi. When he went to the house of Shanti Devi, he stated to have found her dead. 8. Two Police Officers were shown to have contributed to the investigation and they are Sunil Kumar (P.W. 7) and Ashok Kumar Singh (P.W. 8) and the former stated to have laid down only charge sheet before the Court. Ashok Kumar Singh (P.W. 8) stated to have rushed to village Barka Sagra on receipt of information of killing of three persons in the village. He stated to have recorded fardbeyan of Jageshwar Chaubey, visited the place of occurrence, prepared inquest report over the dead bodies of Ramakant Chaubey, Shanti Devi and Rajmuni Devi and visited the places of occurrence, which were three in numbers.The first place of occurrence, the witness would state, was kachcha road which goes from Sagra to Kewali and there is khalihan of Ramakant Chaubey and others, and west to this kachcha road, he noticed the dead body of Ramakant Chaubey where he noticed copius blood. East to this place of occurrence, there is bamboo clump at a distance of 30 yards. The other place of occurrence was the house of Ramakant Chaubey where he noticed the dead body of Shanti Devi in the courtyard of the house where there was copius blood on the earth.The broken boxes were noticed scattered in the Court yard. The third place of occurrence was the house of Rajmuni Devi where he stated to have noticed her dead body in the courtyard of the house and there too he noticed copius blood. The Police officer stated to have visited the house of the appellants for their apprehension and found the flags of political party, namely Indian Peoples Front (IFP) which suggested that they were associated with extremists organisation. However, no empty shells of cartridges were found at the place of occurrence. 9. The Police officer stated to have visited the house of the appellants for their apprehension and found the flags of political party, namely Indian Peoples Front (IFP) which suggested that they were associated with extremists organisation. However, no empty shells of cartridges were found at the place of occurrence. 9. The doctor who held autopsy over the dead bodies of the deceased, stated to have noticed following injuries which were ante mortem in nature on the person of Rajmuni Devi :- (i) Lacerated wound with blackened and inverted margin 1" diameter deep to chest cavity, on the back on right side in upper part, a wound entrance. (ii) Lacerated wound with inverted margin, 3" diameter into chest cavity in the right side of chest, near extreme, it was wound of exit. (iii) Lacerated wound with blackened and inverted margin 1" diameter x deep to abdomen cavity on the back near the left side of waist, wound of entrance. (iv) Lacerated wound with inverted margin about 3" diameter x deep on abdominal cavity in the left side through which intestinal part was coming out and it was wound of exist. The doctor stated to have noticed right lungs lacerated, intestine lacerated and punctured at many places, and large intestine lacerated. These injuries in the estimation of the doctor were caused by gun shots and death was due to excessive haemorrhage and shock due to above injuries. On the same day, the doctor stated to have held autopsy over the dead body of Ramakant Chaubey and noticed following external injuries on his person :- (i) Blackened lacerated wound with inverted margin on the left side on the scalp 2" behind the left ear x deep to scalp cavity, the wound of entrance. (ii) Lacerated wound 4"x2"x cavity in the right side of the neck, wound of exit. (iii) Blackened lacerated wound 1-1/2" diameter with inverted margin on the left side of temple x deep to skull cavity, wound of entrance. (iv) Lacerated wound 3" x 2" to right eye socket and fracture of left temporal parietal bone, wound of exit. (v) Blackened lacerated wound 11/2" diameter with inverted margin x deep and bone, in the middle side of right arm, which was wound of entrance. (vi) Lacerated wound 3" diameter with inverted margin on the lateral side of right arm, wound of exit. (v) Blackened lacerated wound 11/2" diameter with inverted margin x deep and bone, in the middle side of right arm, which was wound of entrance. (vi) Lacerated wound 3" diameter with inverted margin on the lateral side of right arm, wound of exit. (vii) The 6th blackened lacerated wound 1/8th inch diameter on the right side of the chest. On dissection, skull bones, temporal, ziagomatic parietal bone were fractured into pieces in left side. Eye socket of right eye was fractured into pieces, brain matter thrown out of skull cavity. These injuries in the estimation of the doctor were caused by gun shot and death was due to excessive haemorrhage and shock due to above injuries. On the same day, the doctor stated to have held autopsy over the dead body of Shanti Devi and noticed following external injuries on the dead body of the deceased which were ante mortem in nature :- (i) blackened lacerated wound 11/2" with inverted margin in the left side of the abdomen through which perietomian lacerated intestine came out, wound of entrance. (ii) Lacerated wound 21/2" diamter x deep to abdomen with inverted margin in the right side of back near the scapular angle, wound of exit. On dissection spleen, liver, stomach and intestine were found ruptured and lacerated and fracture of 9th and 10th ribs on the left side. The above injuries were caused by gun shots and death was due to haemorrhage and shock due to above injuries. Since other witnesses are formal in nature, discussion of which has been made in the judgment of the Court below, that is not being discussed here. 10 Manifold contentions were raised at Bar on behalf of the appellants about the alleged infirmities have crept in the prosecution version, which have made the credibility of the witnesses suspect. It is urged that those who were examined at trial were only relations of the deceased entirely to the exclusion of those who could have been independent witnesses. Taking this criticism to be logical, on this score alone, testimony of entire prosecution witnesses cannot be thrown over board, as the safeguard that has to be applied is that in case truth is found mingled with falsehood, it is the duty of the Court to separate grain from the chaff and for application of these safeguards greater care and caution is be taken by the Court. The other contentions raised at Bar was that the positive finding recorded by the doctor runs counter to the ocular testimony of the prosecution witnesses and on this score the credibility of the prosecution case has considerably eroded. The belated action of the State in launching the prosecution after lapse of more than five hours of the incident was also taken to be a ground to suspect the bona fide of the prosecution case. In quick succession, arguments were sought to be made that since it would appear from the tenor of the evidence of none else but Jageshwar Chaubey (P.W. 3) that village Chowkidar had already informed the Police about the incident, the fardbeyan of Jageshwar Chaubey recorded by the Police cannot be treated to be early version of the prosecution being hit by Sec. 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 11. Though the argument looks quite alluring but merits rejection for the simple reason that cryptic message having been received by the Police even that being the early version of the prosecution, cannot assume the character of the first information report, as the first information report must contain, necessary particulars about time and date of the incident, place of occurrence, names of accused persons, and nature of offence, and merely because some information, even if it had been given by the village chowkidar to the Police, that cannot be said to be the first information report only because it was first in point of time. In quick succession,it is urged that even though the first information report is shown to have been despatched to the Chief Judicial Magistrate through Special Messenger, it was not before 22nd Nov. 1991, after lapse of about two days that it was received by the Chief Judicial Magistrate and that leaves many questions unanswered about concoction and manipulation introduced in the early version of the prosecution. This is no longer res integra that having been crystallised through catena of decisions of the Court that once investigation had commenced shortly on receipt of the information about the incident, delayed receipt of the first information report by the Chief Judicial Magistrate would not introduce any serious infirmity in the prosecution version. There being no presence of empty shells of cartridges or there being no seizure of blood stained earth were also taken to be a ground to criticise bona fide of the prosecution version. There being no presence of empty shells of cartridges or there being no seizure of blood stained earth were also taken to be a ground to criticise bona fide of the prosecution version. Enmity persisting between the parties with regard to two decimals of land and also the appellants claiming bataidar of the land of deceased Ramakant Chaubey and the plea of alibi taken by Ramlal and Kanta Pasi were also highlighted at Bar to suspect the credibility of the prosecution case and also participation of these two appellants in commission of offence for which two defence witnesses also were examined by the appellants. While commenting upon the credibility of the witnesses and also about their probable presence at the place of occurrence, it is stated at Bar that since none of them hail from village Barka Sagra,, assertions made by them to be in village Barka Sagra for some reason or other, would not probabilities their presence in village Barka Sagra at the material time of incident and even if they are found to be present, they must be considered to be chance witnesses. The coherent statements made by the witnesses, omnibus accusation attributed to the appellants and the medical finding being not in tune with them was also highlighted at Bar. 12. Though witnesses attributed accusations against a number of appellants suggesting them to be the assailants, there was omnibus accusation against some of them and also that the witnesses were subjected to lengthy cross examination by the counsel for the defence, marshalling of their evidence may lead us to proper conclusion. Admittedly, Saroj Devi (P.W. 1) did not claim to be the ocular witness to the killing either of Shanti Devi or Ramakant Chaubey, she was not witness to removal of house belongings either from the house of Shanti Devi or Rajmuni Devi. Yet she claimed to have identified Ramdular Pasi, Mahendra Pasi, Hridya Pasi and Ramashish Pasi who shot dead her sister Rajmuni Devi who died of injuries in the chest. Yet she claimed to have identified Ramdular Pasi, Mahendra Pasi, Hridya Pasi and Ramashish Pasi who shot dead her sister Rajmuni Devi who died of injuries in the chest. The assertion made by this witness about identification of some of these appellants was impeached by the defence at trial, drawing her attention of her early version which she rendered before the Police and evidence of the Investigating Officer notwithstanding reiteration of the assertions made by the witnesses, would negate her assertion about identification of any of the appellants except that of Ramashish Pasi, and in that view of the matter, she can be considered to be the ocular witness to the killing of Rajmuni Devi only by Ramashish Pasi. Daya Shankar Chaubey (P.W. 2) would claim identification of Sri Pasi, Haridya Pasi, Ramashish Pasi, Ramlal Pasi and Kanta Pasi among the appellants who came out from the house of Siphai Pasi holding arms with them, and shot dead Ramakant Chaubey. Though Santosh Chaubey (P.W. 5) and Nagendra Pandey (P.W. 6) would claim to have witnessed Jageshwar Chaubey in the field, who was the maker of the fardbeyan, witnessing the occurrence , P.W. 2 would state to have not seen Jageshwar Chaubey at about 1 pm. and before the occurrence. The deceased Ramakant Chaubey, as was stated by the witnesses, had come to village from Baruali at about 1 pm. The witness would state to have seen Jageshwar Chaubey only at 6 pm. and on this score credibility of this witness has been questioned by the appellants which betrays natural conduct on part of the witness about not informing Jageshwar Chaubey for about five hours about the incident. The witness would further state that when the assailant came within his vision, he fled towards north and went to village Shabajipur at about 2 pm. and this conduct too, it is urged, was contrary to natural conduct of person suggesting him to be not present at the place of occurrence. That apart, though the witness would make emphatic assertion about witnessing the incident, the I.O. would negate his assertion about his claim to be an ocular witness of the incident, as the witness, before the Police during investigation, stated to have learnt about incident while he was in village Shahbajipur, this makes exclusion of his claim to be the ocular witness of the incident. Though P.W. 3 would claim identification of Satya Narain Pasi, Ram Ekbal Pasi, Rajendra Pasi, Mahandera Pasi Dwarka Pasi, , Dular Pasi, Sri Pasi, Siphai Pasi, Hridya Pasi, Ramashish Pasi, Ramlal Pasi and Kanta Pasi among the appellants, who were also suggested to be the assailants of Ramakant Chaubey, giving chase to the latter, the witness was emphatic in his assertion only about Ram Dular Pasi, Satya Narain Pasi and Ram Ekbal Pasi. If he is to be considered credible, first shot was fired by Ramdular Pasi in the chest of Ramkant Chaubey which was followed by successive shots by Satyanarain Pasi and Ram Ekbal Pasi, and accusations attributed to the rest were quite omnibus in character. Though this witness also claimed to have witnessed the killing of Shanti Devi, where the miscreants also committed theft of house belongings and also to the killing of Rajmuni Devi, the possibility of witnessing the killing of Shanti Devi and Rajmuni Devi and witnessing other happening about commission of theft in their houses seems to be extremely remote in view of own assertions made by the witness about witnessing the killing of Ramakant Chaubey while he had concealed himself behind the bambo clumps. 13. Now coming to the evidence of Santosh Chaubey (P.W. 5), he claimed identification of Suresh Pasi, Satyanarain Pasi, Ram Ekbal Pasi, Rajendra Pasi, Mahendra Pasi, Dular Pasi, Dwarika Pasi, Siphai Pasi, Hridya Pasi, Ramashish Pasi, Ramlal Pasi, and Kanta Pasi among the appellants who shot dead Ramkant Chaubey. It expressly corroborates evidence of P.W. 3, only in respect of Ramdular Pasi, Ram Ekbal Pasi, Satya Narain Pasi among the assailants of Ramakant Chaubey who fired successive shots on the deceased. He would suggest these appellants, as discussed above, also to be the assailants of his mother Rajmuni Devi. Assertion made by this witness about complicity of these appellants were sought to be impeached by the counsel for the defence at trial drawing his attention to his early version rendered before the Police and notwithstanding reiteration of his assertion, the Police Officer would negate his assertion about these persons to be the assailants of his mother Rajmuni Devi. 14. Assertion made by this witness about complicity of these appellants were sought to be impeached by the counsel for the defence at trial drawing his attention to his early version rendered before the Police and notwithstanding reiteration of his assertion, the Police Officer would negate his assertion about these persons to be the assailants of his mother Rajmuni Devi. 14. Next witness under consideration is Nagendra Pandey (P.W. 6) who would suggest Satya Narain Pasi, Dular Pasi (wrongly written as Gulab), Dwarika Pasi, Shri Pasi, Ram Ekbal Pasi, Mahendra Pasi, Rajendra Pasi, Hriday Pasi, Siphai Pasi, and Ramashish Pasi to be the assailant of Ramakant Chaubey. The witness was, however, emphatic only about Suresh Pasi, who gave first shot on him followed by successive shots by Satya Narain Pasi, Dular Pasi, Ram Ekbal Pasi, Mahendra Pasi, Dwarika Pasi, Sri Pasi, Ramashish Pasi, Sheo Dayal Pasi and Sipahi Pasi, who shot him dead. His evidence too would corrborate only in respect of Ramdular Pasi, Satya Narain Pasi and Ram Ekbal Pasi as that of P.Ws. 3 and 5 suggesting them expressly to be the assailants of Ramakant Chaubey. 15. As for the assailants of Rajmuni Devi, as has been indicated above, we have the evidence of Saroj Devi (P.W. 1) suggesting Ramashish Pasi to be the assailant of her sister. We may now switch over to the evidence of Santosh Chaubey (P.W. 5) who can be considered to be the ocular witness also for the killing of his mother, he having escaped to his house after witnessing killing of Ramakant Chaubey. Though this witness claimed Satya Narain Pasi, Ram Ekbal Pasi, Rajendra Pasi, Mahendra Pasi, Dular Pasi, Dwarka Pasi, Shri Pasi, Hridayal Pasi, Ramashish Pasi, Sipahi Pasi, Ramlal Pasi, and Kanta Pasi among the appellants to be the assailants of his mother Rajmuni Devi, assertions made by this witness was challenged by the defence at trial drawing his attention to his early version rendered before the Police and the Police Officer would negate his assertion about complicity of others except Ramashish Pasi, to be the assailant of Rajmuni Devi. The other witness to the killing of Rajmuni Devi was Nagendra Pandey (P.W. 6). The other witness to the killing of Rajmuni Devi was Nagendra Pandey (P.W. 6). Apart from being ocular wintess to the killing of Ramakant Chaubey, since he too stated to have escaped to his house on witnessing the killing of Ramakant Chaubey, possibility of his witnessing the killing of his sister Rajmuni Devi appears to be probable. Though this witness too would claim identification of Satya Narain Pasi, Suresh Pasi, Dular Pasi (wrongly recorded as Gulab), Dwarika Pasi, Shri Pasi, Ram Ekbal Pasi, Rajendra Pasi Hridyal Pasi, Sipahi Pasi and Ramashish Pasi also as assailant of his sister Rajmuni Devi, it corroborates only the complicity of Ramashish Pasi as that of P.Ws. 1 and 5 suggesting him to be the assailant of Rajmuni Devi. 16. The positive findings recorded by the doctor cannot be lost sight, of, as in case of Ramakant Chaubey, the doctor stated to have noticed fire arm injuries on the deceased against which there had been sustained consistencies of the witnesses about the complicity of three appellants, namely, Ram Dular Pasi, Satya Narain Pasi and Ram Ekbal Pasi and as the assailants were suggested to have fired shots 15/20 times, which might be exaggeration, it is not unlikely that Ramakant Chaubey would suffer four fire arm wounds on his person at the hands of three assailants and in this backdrop, we consider the medical evidence to be in conformity with the ocular testimony of the witnesses. As for Rajmuni Devi the other deceased, the doctor stated to have noticed two fire arm wounds on her person for which with sustained consistencies, there has been evidence of P.Ws. 1, 5 and 6, suggesting Ramashish Pasi to be the assailant of Rajmuni Devi and in her case too, in view of number of shots fired by the assailants, it is not unlikely that Rajmuni would suffer two fire arm wounds on her person at the hands of one assailant, namely, Ramashish Pasi. In case of Rajmuni Devi, as the doctor says, shots were fired by the assailant from a distance of 10-20 feet and almost same has been the evidence of ocular witnesses also. In case of Ramakant Chaubey, the doctors finding is that shots were fired on him from a distance of 3/4/5 ft. and on this score too there has been similar evidence of the ocular witnesses. In case of Ramakant Chaubey, the doctors finding is that shots were fired on him from a distance of 3/4/5 ft. and on this score too there has been similar evidence of the ocular witnesses. Since the witnesses would state that Shanti Devi was alone in her house along with her son, when she was shot dead, neither P.W.1 Saroj Devi, nor Daya Shankar Chaubey (P.W. 2), nor Jageshwar Chaubey (P.W. 3), nor Santosh Chaubey (P.W. 5) nor Nagendra Pandey (P.W. 6) , who were in the field, could have occasion to witness the killing of Shanti Devi. 17. As for accusations about commission of theft in the house of Rajmuni Devi and Shanti Devi, admittedly , Saroj Devi was not a witness to the removal of the house-belongings from either of the two houses. As far Daya Shankar Chaubey (P.W. 2) , he was the hear-say witness before the Police about removal of the house-belongings from these houses. Though omnibus accusations were attributed to all the appellants about commission of theft in the house of Shanti Devi in the early version of Jageshwar Chaubey, who was the maker of the fardbeyan, at trial, he would make explicit narration about removal of ornaments from the person of Shanti Devi. Attention of this witness had been drawn by the defence at trial to his early version and such assertions are admittedly wanting before the Police. P.W. 5 admitted to have not witnessed removal of house-belongings from either of two houses. Since P.Ws. 5 and 6 stated to be inside the house, they cannot be a probable witness to the killing of Shanti Devi or removal of house-belongings from her house. P.W.1 would admit in clear terms that no theft was committed from the house of Rajmuni Devi and that apart, the Police Officer too would admit in most clear terms that no list of stolen articles was ever furnished even during investigation by the informant or his family members. There has been no accusation about recovery of any part of booty from the house of any of the appellants and on these premises accusation about commission of theft, appears to have been attributed against the appellants only to attract the mischief of Sec. 396, IPC which has not been substantiated by cogent evidence at trial. 18. Even at the cost of repetition , we wish to reiterate that since P.Ws. 18. Even at the cost of repetition , we wish to reiterate that since P.Ws. 3, 5, and 6 were in the field, khalihan at the material time of incident when Ramakant Chaubey was coming from southern direction, they appear to be probable witnesses to his killing by the assailants. Likewise, since Saroj Devi was inside the house along with P.Ws. 5 and 6 at the material time of incident, they were most probable witness to the killing of Rajmuni Devi. Some of these witnesses would state at trial that since after partition of the landed property, shares were allotted to them in village Barkasagra, they had been usually visiting the village, and it does not appear to be unusual. Since Mukhlal Chaubey, husband of Rajmuni Devi, was suggested to have suffered insanity and abandoned the house, it does not look unusual if Saroj Devi (P.W. 1) stated to be in the house of her sister to look after her affairs. 19. Enmity with regard to two decimals of lands between Satya Narain Pasi and Ram Ekbal Pasi on one side and Ramakant Chaubey on the other side was almost admitted. But on that score alone ocular account given by the eye-witness about incident, cannot be considered to be a gospel truth. Since some of the accused were acquitted by the Court below, that too cannot be a ground to militate against the bona fide of the prosecution version against the rest persons who are the appellants. Some of the witnesses would state that while they were working in the khalihan, there was none in the adjacent field to witness the incident and hence scope of others witnessing the incident, in that view of the matter appears to be remote and that apart, though the witnesses are kith and kin of the deceased, we have taken all precaution and applied all the safeguards to separate the grains from the chaff. It is not unlikely that in the backdrop of enmity, large number of persons were sought to be arrayed as accused without there being good evidence about their complicity. It is not unlikely that in the backdrop of enmity, large number of persons were sought to be arrayed as accused without there being good evidence about their complicity. Though motive in case of direct and clear evidence was a matter of only academic interest, the prosecution had established even good motive behind the gruesome killing of three persons of a family.There being no evidence on the record about seizure of empty shells of cartridges or blood-stained earth from the place of occurrence, that too was not a vital factor to affect the broad feature of the prosecution case and that apart, the Investigating Officer had noticed copius blood at all the three places of occurrence. There has been good and consistent evidence also about the places of occurrence, as there is very clinching evidence that while Ramakant Chaubey was shot dead at the khalihan near his house, Shanti Devi and Rajmuni Devi were shot dead in their own houses. There has been no evidence which can be considered to be contrary to the prosecution version. The Police Station is situated at a distance of 10 Kms from the place of occurrence and recording of fardbeyan by the Police after lapse of five hours would not saddle the prosecution to have acted belatedly. There has been evidence that after Ramakant Chaubey was threatened to be taught a good lesson on his refusal to permit some of the appellants to construct their cattle-shed on his land, which was recorded in khatiyan, he left the village and was residing with Bhola Tiwary in Sewa Niketan, Barauli and it was only on receipt of message about ailment of his son that he dared to come to his village which proved to be a waterloo for him. 20. Having analysed the prosecution evidence, we have noticed that there has been evidences of Jageshwar Chaubey (P.W. 3), Santosh Chaubey (P.W. 5) and Nagendra Pandey (P.W. 6) with sustained consistencies suggesting Satya Narain Pasi, Ram Dular Pasi, and Ram Ekbal Pasi, to be the assailants of Ramakant Chaubey for inflicting injuries on him. Similar was the case about assailants of Rajmuni Devi for which there has been evidence of Saroj Devi(P.W. 1), Santosh Chaubey (P.W. 5) and Nagendra Pandey (P.W. 6) suggesting Ramashish Pasi to be her assailant. Similar was the case about assailants of Rajmuni Devi for which there has been evidence of Saroj Devi(P.W. 1), Santosh Chaubey (P.W. 5) and Nagendra Pandey (P.W. 6) suggesting Ramashish Pasi to be her assailant. These three witnesses had made parallel statements even before the Police suggesting Ramashish Pasi alone to be the assailant of Rajmuni Devi. Though appellants Rajendra Pasi, Mahendra Pasi, Dwarika Devi, Sri Pasi, Sipahi Pasi, Hridyal Pasi, Ramlal Pasi and Kanta Pasi were also shown to have fired shots at Ramakant Chaubey and Rajmuni Devi but it is not unlikely that the aim was lost and they missed their target. However, these eight appellants had come out from the house of Sipahi Pasi holding fire arms with them, pursuant to which shots were fired by them and they too had shared the common object and were vicariously liable which brings their cases within the ambit of Sec. 302/149, IPC. 21. Having bestowed our anxious and deepest considerations to the evidences placed on the record and also the contentions raised at Bar, the conviction of appellants Dular Pasi, Satya Narain Pasi, Ram Ekbal Pasi and Ramashish Pasi is converted under Sec. 302, IPC simpliciter from their conviction under Sec. 302/149, IPC and they are sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life. Findings of guilt and sentence recorded by the Court below against appellants Rajendra Pasi, Mahendra Pasi, Dwarika Pasi, Sri Pasi, Sipahi Pasi, Hridyal Pasi, Ramlal Pasi and Kanta Pasi under Sec. 302/149, IPC are upheld. Findings recorded by the Court below finding the appellants guilty under Sec. 27 of the Indian Arms Act are also confirmed. Bail bonds of appellants Mahendra Pasi and Shri Pasi are cancelled and the trial Court is directed to take all coercive steps to take them into custody forthwith to serve out the sentence. All these appeals are accordingly dismissed. 22. R. N. PRASAD, J. :- I agree. Appeal dismissed.