JUDGMENT M.L. VISA, J.:-All these four appeals, directed against the same judgment and order dated 11.04.1997 passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur in Sessions Trial No. 99 of 1995, were heard together and are being dispose of by this common judgment. 2. All the appellants have been convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under Sections 302/34, Indian Penal Code. Appellant Chandra Shekhar Singh has been further convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years under Section 27, Arms Act and both the sentences passed against him have been ordered to run concurrently. 3. The case of prosecution, as stated in the fardbayan of informant Siya Ram Singh (P.W.7), in short, is that on 10.10.1994 at about 1 p.m., the informant alongwith his cousin Rajendra Singh, the then Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat Nayagaon, came to Nayaganj market, Rajendra Singh had some work at Vaishali Khestriya Gramin Bank and he, therefore, went to the aforesaid bank situate at first floor and informant remained down waiting for him. At about 2 p.m. when Rajendra Singh came down from the bank, a Jeep No. AMK 6620 came from the eastern side. Appellants Chandra Shekhar Singh, Keshava Singh, Raghu Singh and Gajendra Singh were in the jeep which was being driven by appellant Sushil Kumar. The moment Rajendra Singh, after coming down through the staircase of bank, came on the road, appellant Chandra Shekhar Singh, ordering to kill him, fired from a pistol which he was carrying a appellant Keshava Singh attacked Rajendra Singh with a sword cutting his right eye and nose. Rajendra Singh fell on the ground and, thereafter, appellant Raghu Singh with Farsa and appellant Gajendra Singh with Garasa assaulted him causing bleeding injuries on his face. Rajendra Singh died there. About the genesis of occurrence, informant, in his Fardbayan has stated that deceased was having some differences with one Gena Singh, father of appellant Chandra Shekhar Singh who was murdered in last April and the appellants, since then, were under the impression that in the murder of Gena Singh, the deceased had his hand and for this reason, the appellants committed the murder of Rajendra Singh. The Fardbayan of informant was recorded by Assistant Sub Inspector of Police Shri B.N. Singh (not examined) on 10.10.1994 at about 3.15 p.m. at Nayaganj Chowk in front of Rita Homoeo Hall. 4. The Fardbayan of informant was recorded by Assistant Sub Inspector of Police Shri B.N. Singh (not examined) on 10.10.1994 at about 3.15 p.m. at Nayaganj Chowk in front of Rita Homoeo Hall. 4. On the basis of Fardbayan of informant, a case under Sections 302/34, Indian Penal Code and Section 27, Arms Act was registered against all the five appellants and police, afte investigation, submitted chargesheet against them. The appellants were put on trial and after conclusion of trial, they were found guilty and were convicted and sentenced, as indicated above. 5. The case of appellants, as it appears from the evidence of witnesses produced on their behalf and from the trend of cross-examination of prosecution witnesses, is that the deceased was a man of ill-repute and he was murdered somewhere else and the appellants have been falsely implicated in this case on account of enmity. 6. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined nine witnesses. Siya Ram Singh (P.W.7) is the informant. Krishan Kumar Roy (P.W.5) is the doctor who had held autopsy on the dead body of decease assisted by Dr. V.S. Das (P.W.6) and Dr. Harendra Tiwary (not examined). Jagdish Kumar Singh (P.W.9) is a formal witness who has proved formal first information report in the pen of Assistant Sub Inspector of Police Yogendra Jha (Exhibit-4). Fardbayan of informant (Exhibit-5) and case diary (Exhibit-6) both in the pen of Assistant Sub Inspector of Police Baijnath Singh. Ram Swarath Singh (P.W.8) is the witness on inquest report prepared by police and has proved his signature (Exhibit-3/1) and signature of another witness Tribhuvan Prasad (Exhibit 3/2) on the inquest report. Sheonath Singh (P.W.1). Manoj Kumar (P.W.2), Amrendra Singh (P.W.3) and Bal Mukund Thakur (P.W.4) are said to be eye witnesses to the occurrence. 7. Dr. Krishna Kumar Roy (P.W.5) has said that on 10.10.1994, he conducted autopsy on the dead body of deceased Rajendra Singh assisted by Dr. V.S. Das (P.W.6) and Dr. Harendra Tiwary (not examined) and found the following ante mortem injuries:- (i) incised wound 3"x¼ x1" deep on left parietal region of head communicating to the brain cavity, oblique in direction, (ii) incised wound on front of face extending from the left orbital margin to right orbital margin 5"x1/2"x2-1/2" deep cutting nasal bone, orbital portion of frontal bone communicating to brain, transversed in direction. (iii) incised wound 4"x1/2"x1/2" deep on upper portion of nose cutting nasal bone and upper portion of maxila on both sides, (iv) incised wound 1"x1/2" bone deep on the right side of upper eye lid cutting the orbital portion of the forntal bone. (v) incised would 1"x1/4"x1/2" on left maxila on left side, oblique in direction, (vi) incised owned 2”x1/2"x2" deep on the chin cutting skin, muscles and anterior portion of mandible, (vii) incised wound1/2"x1/4"x1" deep on front right side of. chin cutting skin, muscle and mandible near the alveolar margin, (viii) incise wound 1"x1/4"x1/2' deep in front of chin, oblique in direction cutting skin, lip and mandible anteriorly. According to him, death was due to shock and hemorrhage caused by aforesaid injuries and the aforesaid injuries, which were caused by sharp cutting weapon like Garasa, Farsa, Sword. He has proved the post mortem examination report which is marked (Exhibit 1) and he has also proved the signatures of Dr. Harendra Tiwary (Exhibit-2) and Dr. V.S. Das (Exhibit 2/1) on post mortem examination report. Dr. V.S. Das said that on 10.10.1994. he had assisted Dr. K.K. Roy (P.W.5) in conducting the post mortem examination on the dead body of deceased Rajendra Singh and Dr. K.K. Roy (P.W.5) prepared the post mortem examination report in his presence and he has further said that this report bears his signature as well as the signature of Dr. Harendra Tiwary. 8. From the evidence of aforesaid two witnesses, it is established that the death of deceased was homicidal and the cause of death was injuries inflicted on deceased by sharp cutting weapons. Now it has to be seen what evidence has been led by prosecution against the appellants in support of its case against them for committing the murder of deceased. 9. Siya Ram Singh (P.W.7) the informant, in his evidence, has said that or 10.10.1994 he alongwith deceased who was his cousin at about 1 p.m. came to Nayaganj Bank from their house and the Bank is situate at first floor of a building and deceased went to the Bank and he himself remained down. 9. Siya Ram Singh (P.W.7) the informant, in his evidence, has said that or 10.10.1994 he alongwith deceased who was his cousin at about 1 p.m. came to Nayaganj Bank from their house and the Bank is situate at first floor of a building and deceased went to the Bank and he himself remained down. At about 2 p.m. when the deceased came down through the staircase and had hardly moved forward by 2 to 4 steps, appellant Chandra Shekhar Singh fired from his pistol on deceased but he could not see whether the shot hit the deceased or not and appellant Chandra Shekhar Singh ordered to kill the deceased and the appellants Keshava Singh, Gajendra Singh and Raghu Singh were with them. Thereafter, appellant Keshava Singh assaulted the deceased with sword and deceased fell on the ground and the appellants Raghu Singh with Farsa and Gajendra Singh with Garasa assaulted him and as a result of the assault, deceased received all injuries on his face and he died on the spot. Appellant Sushil Kumar, who was the driver of the jeep, was also raising hulla of Maro-Maro. He has said that a vehicle had come from eastern side one to two minutes before the deceased came down from the bank and that vehicle was a jeep bearing registration No. AMK 6620 and all the, appellants had come on that jeep which was driven by appellant Sushil Kumar. He has said that his Farbayan was recorded by police on which he put his signature (Exhibit-3). 10. Sheonath Singh (P.W.1), Manoj Kumar (P.W.2), Amerndra Singh (P.W.3) and Bal Mukund Thakur (P.W.4), supporting the case of prosecution, have stated that appellant Chandra Shekhar Singh fired from his pistol at deceased but the shot did not hit the deceased and appellants Raghu Singh with Farsa, Keshava Singh with Sword and Gajendra Singh with Garasa assaulted the deceased and after assault they all, by boarding a jeep which was being driven by appellant Sushi Kumar, filed away. Sheonath Singh (P.W.1) has said that at the time of occurrence, he was in the medicine shop of Shambhu Choudhary where he had gone to purchase medicine and he saw that when deceased came down through the staircase of the Bank, he was assaulted by appellants named above. Sheonath Singh (P.W.1) has said that at the time of occurrence, he was in the medicine shop of Shambhu Choudhary where he had gone to purchase medicine and he saw that when deceased came down through the staircase of the Bank, he was assaulted by appellants named above. Manoj Kumar (P.W.2) has also said that at the time of occurrence, he was in the medicine shop of Shambhu Choudhary and at about 2 p.m. when the deceased came down from bank through staircase, he was assaulted by appellants. Amrendra Singh (P.W.3) has said that at the time of occurrence. he had gone to Nayaganj Chowk for purchasing medicine when the saw the occurrence. Bal Mukund Thakur (P.W.4) has said that on the day of occurrence at about 1.30-2 p.m., he alongwith deceased, had gone to bank and when deceased came down through staircase of bank and proceeded about two to four steps, he was assaulted by appellants. 11. Among the six witnesses examined on behalf of the appellants Shambhu Choudhary (D.W.1), in his evidence, has said that his house is situate near the Gramin Bank but he does not own any medicine shop. He has further said that on the day of occurrence at about 11-12 o'clock in the day he heard the news of murder of deceased and had seen the dead body of deceased on a pitch road about 50-60 yards west from the bank and at that time, he did not find any person belonging to village Nayagaon near the dead body. He has further said that he did not see informant, P.Ws.1, 2 and 3 there and one hour, after deceased was injured his family members and some other persons from village Nayagaon came there. He has said that appellants were not seen by him on the day of occurrence in Nayaganj Bazar and appellants have been wrongly named for committing the murder of deceased. In cross-examination, he has admitted that he is unemployed and remains at the shop of his uncle but he has not made it clear that where this shop is situate. In his examination-in-chief, he has said that in the house in which he resides his two uncles have also their shares. He has further admitted that on the hulla of murder of deceased. In his examination-in-chief, he has said that in the house in which he resides his two uncles have also their shares. He has further admitted that on the hulla of murder of deceased. a crowd had assembled there but he cannot say the names of persons who were in the crowd and he did not see the murder of decease. Lallan Prasad Singh (D.W.2) has said that he has got his dispensary named as J.P. Clinic adjacent west to staircase leading to Gramin Bank. About deceased, he has said that he was murdered at a place which is at a distance of 60 to 70 yards west from his shop and sometime after the murder of decease, there was hulla and on hearing hulla he had gone there where he found some shopkeepers of Nayaganj Bazar assembled there who told him that some criminals, after committing murder of deceased, fled away towards north. He has said that at that time, the family members of deceased and villagers of Nayagaon were not there and they came one hour after that. About appellants, he has said that they have been falsely implicated in this case on account of enmity and on the day of occurrence, he had not seen the appellants in the market. In cross-examination, he has admitted that neither he saw the murder of deceased nor the persons who fled away after committing murder and he had gone near the dead body of deceased twenty minutes after his murder where he found 40 to 50 persons already assembled but no body from them told him that be had seen the murder and he does not know the name of anyone of them. Suresh Sah (P.W.3) has said that Nayagaon Kshetriya Gramin Bank is situate in the first floor of his house and there are number of shops near the bank. He has further said that two years ago in between 11 a.m.-12 noon. he heard the news of murder of deceased and at that time, he was in Rita Homoeo Dispensary" and on hearing hulla, he went there running and found the dead body of deceased. He has said that alongwith him a number of persons had gone to that place and at that time no body form village Nayagaon was present there and persons from village Nayagaon came to the place of occurrence about 1-1-1/2 hours after the occurrence. He has said that alongwith him a number of persons had gone to that place and at that time no body form village Nayagaon was present there and persons from village Nayagaon came to the place of occurrence about 1-1-1/2 hours after the occurrence. About appellants, he has said that he had not seen them on that day in Nayaganj Bazar and they have been falsely implicated. In cross-examination, he has said that neither he saw murder of deceased not he persons who fled away from the place after committing the murder of deceased and he went to the place of occurrence ten minutes after the occurrence had taken place and he found that about 50 to 60 persons had already assembled there before his going but he does not know name of anyone of them. He has further said that the appellants have been falsely implicated in this case. Ram Babu Roy (D.W.4) has said that he owns a tea shop at Nayaganj Chowk and on hearing hulla that deceased had been killed, he went to the place of occurrence but he did not find anybody from Nayagaon village and he remained there for about one hour and in between this period, no body came from Nayagaon village. He has further said that at the place of occurrence, he came to know that somebody, after firing at deceased, had fled away on the motorcycle and he had not seen appellants on that day in Nayaganj Bazar. In cross-examination, he has admitted that neither he is an eye witness to the murder of deceased nor he saw the assailant of deceased and he does not know the name of the persons who told him that assailant, after firing at deceased, had fled away on motorcycle. He has further admitted that at the place of occurrence about one hundred persons had assembled but he does not know the name of anyone of them. Ram Babu Sah (P.W. 5) has said that he owns a cloth shop at Nayaganj Bazar which is towards west of Gramin Bank and the murder of deceased was committed at a place about one hundred yards towards west of the shop and he alongwith 5 to 7 other shopkeepers had gone to the place of occurrence but he did not find anybody from Nayagaon village there. In cross-examination. In cross-examination. He has said that he is not an eye witness to the occurrence. Ramnandan Choudhary (D.W.6) has said that he owns a betel shop towards south of bank and deceased was known to him who was Mukhiya of Nayagaon Gram Panchayat and murder of deceased took place at a place situate towards more than 50 yards west from his shop and he had gone to that place but he did not see any body there form Nayagaon village. In cross-examination, he has said that he is not an eye witness of the murder of deceased and on hulla he came to know that deceased had been murdered. He has further said that he had seen the dead body of deceased with injuries on his head. 12. From the evidence of defence witnesses, we do not got any material which can help in deciding the issue under consideration because all these witnesses had gone to the place where the dead body of deceased was lying after occurrence and they are not eye witnesses to the occurrence, as admitted by themselves. Their evidence that they did not see the appellants on the day of occurrence in Nayagang Bazar also does not help the case of appellants for proving their innocence because, as stated earlier, they had gone to place of occurrence after the occurrence had already taken place and the case of prosecution is that after occurrence, the appellants fled away on a jeep. On the other hand, we find that the evidence of defence witnesses supports the case of prosecution to the extent that the murder of deceased was committed in Nayaganj Bazar. 13. Some documents have been brought on record on behalf of the appellants which are marked Exhibits-A, A/1, A/2, B, C, C/1, C/2, D, E, E/1, E/2, F and G Exhibits-A, A1 and A2 are certified copies of ordersheets of the Court of Sub Divisional Magistrate-Uditnagar in respect of Case N. G.R. No. 30 of 1958 showing acceptance of final form submitted declaring the case of insufficient evidence, copy of final report of Case No. G.R. 1030 of 1958 submitted by police showing case false and copy of first information report of Case No. G.R. 1030 of 1958 respectively. From these documents, it appears that one Munshi Singh had filed a criminal case against a number of persons including Gena Singh, father of Chandra Shekhar Singh. From these documents, it appears that one Munshi Singh had filed a criminal case against a number of persons including Gena Singh, father of Chandra Shekhar Singh. According to appellants, deceased in a descendant of Munshi Singh who had enmity with father of appellant Chandra Shekhar Singh but the defence has nowhere brought anything on record to show that deceased was related to Munshi Singh. Exhibit-B is the certified copy of judgment passed by Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur in Sessions Trial No. 130 of 1996 acquitting Gena Singh and others in a criminal case lodged on the basis of statement of Badlu Singh who subsequently succumbed to injuries which were alleged to have bean caused by accused persons of this case and this Badlu Singh, according to appellants, was uncle of Amrendra Singh (P.W.3). We find that Amrendra Singh (P.W.3) denied the suggestion of defence that his grandfather had three sons. According to this witness, his grandfather had only two sons one was his deceased father Rakat Singh and other Khublal Singh and none of them was known as Badlu Singh. He has also denied that for the murder of his uncle Badlu. Sessions Trial No. 130 of 1986 had commenced against Gena Singh and others in which all accused persons were acquitted. According to him murder of his uncle had ever taken place. Exhibit-C is copy of plaint of Title Suit No. 22 of 1991 filed by sons of Munshi Singh against Gena Singh and others. According to appellants, Amrendra Singh (P.W.3) was witness in this case on behalf of the plaintiffs but Amrendra Singh (P.W.3), in his evidence, has denied the fact that he was a witness on behalf of the plaintiffs in that in that case and Exhibit-C does not show that he was a witness in that case on behalf of the plaintiffs. Exhibits-C/1 and C/2 are copies of complaint petition and formal first information report drawn on the basis of the complaint petition filed by one Suresh Singh against Jaddu Singh, father of Manoj Kumar (P.W.2) and brother and wife of Jaddu Singh. Exhibits-C/1 and C/2 are copies of complaint petition and formal first information report drawn on the basis of the complaint petition filed by one Suresh Singh against Jaddu Singh, father of Manoj Kumar (P.W.2) and brother and wife of Jaddu Singh. According to appellants, Gena Singh, father of appellant Chandra Shekhar Singh was a witness on behalf of complainant in that case, Manoj Kumar (P.W.2) has denied any knowledge of filing of any case by Suresh Singh against his father, uncle and mother and Exhibits-C/1 and C/2 does not show that Gena Singh was a witness on behalf of complainant-informant. Exhibit-D is the copy of an informatory petition filed by Gena Singh against Munshi Singh. Exhibits-E, E/1 and E/2 are formal first information report. fardbayan of Gena Singh and Chargesheet respectively of a case lodged by Gena Singh against Narendra Singh, son of Munshi Singh, Manoj Singh and Satya Narain Singh, both sons of Shri Prasad Singh. The appellants have not made it clear that by these documents what they want to show because, as stated earlier, this case was lodged by Gena Singh, father of appellant Chandra Shekhar Singh against Manoj Singh, Narendra Singh and Satya Narain Singh and nothing has been brought on record to show that informant is in any way related to these persons. Exhibit-F is the copy of a chargesheet of a case filed by on Tribhuvan Singh against Lal babu Singh, Ganesh Bhagat and Ramashish Singh. According to appellants, deceased was a witness on behalf of prosecution in this case and he had got this case, which was false, filed by Tribhuvan Singh for the allegation of kidnapping of his son and accused Lal Babu Singh had given threatening to deceased that he will not spare him. A suggestion to this effect was given to informant who denied the suggestion. Exhibit-G is formal first information report and Fardbayan of Gena Singh of a criminal case lodged against the deceased and others including Munshi Singh. 14. From the documents brought on record by defence, we find that only Exhibit-G, which is the copy of Fardbayan of Gena Singh, shows that Gena Singh had filed a criminal case under Sections 144, 307 and 447, Indian Penal Code and Section 27, Arms Act against the deceased and some others. 14. From the documents brought on record by defence, we find that only Exhibit-G, which is the copy of Fardbayan of Gena Singh, shows that Gena Singh had filed a criminal case under Sections 144, 307 and 447, Indian Penal Code and Section 27, Arms Act against the deceased and some others. P.Ws.1, 2, and informant have admitted that Gena Singh was murdered and P.W.1 has said that his murder took place about seven months before the occurrence. Except Exhibit-G and the admission of Manoj Kumar (P.W.2) that in a proceeding under Section 107, Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellant Chandra Shekhar Singh, on the one hand, and deceased and he on the other hand, were parties, there is nothing on the record to show any enmity between the appellants with informant and other witnesses. The informant, in his Fardbayan, has described himself as cousin of deceased. Amrendra Singh (P.W.3), in his evidence, has said that grandfather of deceased and grandfather of informant were two different persons and they were Pattidars (agnates) to each other. This statement shows that informant is not the own cousin of deceased and, therefore, enmity between Gena Singh, father of appellant Chandra Shekhar Singh and deceased was not a matter of direct concern for informant which could have prompted him to falsely implicate the appellants in this case. 15. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that all injuries found on the dead body of deceased were on his face and the case of prosecution is that deceased was assaulted by different sharp edged weapons and after assault by appellant Keshava Singh By Sword, he fell down and, thereafter, he was assaulted by appellants Raghu Singh and Gajendra Singh with Farsa and Garasa respectively and in this view of the matter, he could not have received all injuries only on his face. We are unable to accept this submission because when the appellants had come prepared to commit the murder of deceased and with that intention, they inflicted all the injuries with sharp weapons on deceased on his face, which is the upper part of his body, it does not appear to be unusual. On the contrary, it shows the determination of appellants not to keep any chance of survival of deceased and they inflicted all injuries on his face. On the contrary, it shows the determination of appellants not to keep any chance of survival of deceased and they inflicted all injuries on his face. The learned counsel for the appellants has further argued that the post mortem examination report shows that at the time of autopsy, both eyes of deceased were found absent and Dr. Krishna Kumar Roy (P.W.5) who held autopsy and Dr. V.S. Das (P.W.6) who helped Dr. Krishna Kumar Roy in conducting the post mortem examination on the dead body both, in their cross-examination, have admitted that both eyes of deceased were absent. According to learned counsel for the appellants, the fact that all the injuries on the deceased was found on his face and absence of his both eyes show that deceased was murdered somewhere else by some persons not known and not in the manner by the appellants as alleged by the prosecution. It is true that informant, in his evidence has admitted that after the death of deceased, both eyes were present on the body but then Ram Swarath Singh (P.W. 8), who is a witness to the inquest report and has proved his signatured (Exhibit-3) and signature of Tribhuvan Prasad (Exhibit-3/1) and who, in his cross-examination, has said that he is maternal uncle of deceased, in his evidence, has said that both the eyes of deceased were not visible in the eye sockets which were found completely crushed. In the Fardbayan, the informant has stated that when appellant Keshava Singh inflicted sword injury on deceased that injury caused deep wound cutting both the eyes and nose of the deceased. Sheonath Singh (P.W. 1) has also said that appellant Raghu Singh inflicted Farsa injury on the deceased that cut the mouth, nose, eyes and lip. The informant, in his evidence, has said that deceased received all injuries on his face. The evidence of Dr. Krishna Kumar Roy (P.W. 5) who held autopsy on the dead body of deceased, shows that seven incised wound, all on face of which length of some injuries was 3", 4" and 5" were found and those had cut upper portion of nose, nasal bone and injury No. (iii) was on upper eye lid cutting the orbital portion of the frontal bone. In this view of the matter, if both the eyes of deceased were affected by the wounds inflicted by sharp edged weapon which were seven in number all on the face, the absence of eyes, at the time of post mortem examination, is not unatural and for this reason, it cannot be said that the manner of occurrence was different than as alleged by the prosecution. It has been further argued that post mortem examination report further shows that rigor mortis in all four limbs was found and it further shows that post mortem examination was held on 10,10.1994 at about 7 p.m. whereas the occurrence is said to have taken place at about 2 p.m. on the same day. According to learned counsel for the appellants, general stiffening of the muscles takes place after 10 to 12 hours although in some cases the period may be longer. In support of this submission, reference to page No. 207 of Medical Jurisprudence by R.M. Jhala and V.B. Raju, 4th Edition has been placed. We find that in the same reference on page 208, it is stated that as a result of exposure and cold, the body may stiffen thus giving appearance of rigor mortis. As alleged, the occurrence took place on 10.10.1994. It is generally a season of cold in the area where the place of occurrence is situate and according to case of prosecution, the occurrence took place in market suggesting that the body, after occurrence, remained exposed to cole. In such circumstance, if the body was found stiffen giving the appearance of rigor mortis, it cannot be said that the occurrence did not take place at the time of occurrence as alleged by prosecution. Moreover, Dr. Krishna Kumar Roy (P.W.5), who held autopsy, has ho where, in his evidence, stated that rigor mortis was found and it is only the post mortem examination report where the fact of presence of rigor mortis is stated. 16. It has been argued on behalf of the appellants that Dr. Moreover, Dr. Krishna Kumar Roy (P.W.5), who held autopsy, has ho where, in his evidence, stated that rigor mortis was found and it is only the post mortem examination report where the fact of presence of rigor mortis is stated. 16. It has been argued on behalf of the appellants that Dr. Krishna Kumar Roy (PW.5), in his evidence, has said that at the time of post mortem examination, it was found that stomach contained about six ounces of semi-digested food material and the informant, in his evidence, has said that the deceased had taken food at about 10-11 a.m. and if the time of occurrence, as alleged by prosecution, is taken into consideration, the food, taken by deceased, at about 10-11 a.m. must have been completely digested by the time when occurrence is said to have taken place but the presence of semi-digested food material in the stomach of deceased indicates that death of deceased must have occurred earlier than the time alleged by prosecution. In paragraph-6 of evidence of informant, we find that it is true that informant has given time of taking food as 10-11 a.m. but this was not for deceased but for himself which is clear from his Subsequent sentence where he has stated that e cc not say whether deceased had taken meal or not. So this argument, advances on behalf of the appellants, is without any substance. 17. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that no bank staff has come forward to prove presence of deceased in bank on, the day of alleged occurrence. He has further argued that no one from the family or deceased is a witness' in this case. So far the question of non-examination of bank any staff is concerned: that relates only for proving the presence, of deceased in the market where the bank is situate on the day of occurrence. It is not the case of prosecution that occurrence was witnessed by bank staff also and so far the presence of deceased, in the market on the day of occurrence is concerned, the same has been supported by the evidence of defence witnesses, as stated earlier. About the non-examination of any member of the' family of deceased the case of presecution is that the murder of deceased was committed in Nayaganj market where he had gone with informant. About the non-examination of any member of the' family of deceased the case of presecution is that the murder of deceased was committed in Nayaganj market where he had gone with informant. None of the family members of deceased is said to be an eye witness to the occurrence. P.Ss.3, 4 and informant have said that after the occurrence, the members of the family of deceased had come to the place of occurrence. About the wife, of deceased, informant, in para-28 of his evidence, has said that she had not come to they place of occurrence and she was sent back by others but he does not know whey she was sent back. D.Ws.1 and 2 have also said that members of the family of deceased had come to place of occurrence about 1-1-1/2 hours after the occurrence. Ram Swarath Singh P.W 8, who had gone to Nayaganj Bazar at about 3p.m. on the day of occurrence and had seen the dead body of deceased and in whose presence, the inquest report was prepared, is the maternal uncle of deceased. In view of all these facts, we do not find that non-, examination of family members of deceased; who were not eye witnesses to the occurrence, has affected the case of prosecution in any way. It has also been argued that prosecution witnesses have admitted that near the place of occurrence, there is a number of shops and at the time of occurrence most of the shops were open but not a single shopkeeper has been examined by prosecution is this Case. The occurrence is said to have taken place in the market and if no shopkeeper has claimed to have seen the occurrence and identified the appellants, it will not be a ground on the basis of which alone, the evidence of other prosecution witnesses claiming themselves to be eye-witnesses can be, disbelieved. The learned counsel, for the appellants has submitted that no fired cat ridge was found at the place of occurrence. The Investigating Officer has not been examined in this case. In our opinion, he would have been the best person to say whether any .attempt by him was made to trace out the catridge. The learned counsel, for the appellants has submitted that no fired cat ridge was found at the place of occurrence. The Investigating Officer has not been examined in this case. In our opinion, he would have been the best person to say whether any .attempt by him was made to trace out the catridge. Besides this the occurrence is said to have taken place in day time on the road of a market through which besides public, different type of vehicles pass and in such circumstance if, after occurrence, catridge was not found by the time, the Investigating Officer reached and inspected the place of occurrence, it will not lead' to disbelieve the case of prosecution. Moreover, in this case, it is alleged that deceased was assaulted by sharp edged weapons by three appellants resulting injuries on his face which has been supported by medical evidence. 8. About appellant -Sushil Kumar, it has been argued that prosecution has not alleged any overt act against him, and although informant, in his evidence, has said that he was also raising hulla of Maro-Maro but in the Fardbayan of informant, it is not alleged that this appellants was also raising hulla of Maro-Maro and it is the subsequent development in the evidence of informant. The case of prosecution, as disclosed in the Fardbeyan, is that all the appellants came on a jeep, which was being driven by appellant Sushil Kumar, and after occurrence, all the appellants fled away on this jeep, P.Ws.1, 2, 3 and 4 have said that after occurrence, the appellants boarded a jeep, which ,was being driven by appellant Sushil Kumar and fled away Informant has said that the appellants came on a jeep No, AMK 6620 and after occurrence they, by boarding in that jeep, fled away and jeep was being driven by appellant Sushli Kumar. The appellants are said to have been armed with pistol, sword, Farsa and Garasa. At least, farsa, Grasa and sword are not such type of weapons which can be concealed while carrying by any person travelling in a vehicle. The appellants, armed with deadly weapons, came on a jeep and the moment they saw the deceased attacked on him and after committing the murder of deceased, boarded the same jeep and fled away and appellant Sushil Kumar is said to be the driver of the jeep. The appellants, armed with deadly weapons, came on a jeep and the moment they saw the deceased attacked on him and after committing the murder of deceased, boarded the same jeep and fled away and appellant Sushil Kumar is said to be the driver of the jeep. These circumstances clearly show that all the appellants had common intention to commit the murder of deceased and appellant Sushil Kumar cannot deny his sharing the common intention with other appellants in prosecution of which the deceased was murdered. 19. Lastly, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has drawn our attention towards some contradictions which, according to him, cast a shadow of doubts on the case of prosecution. According to him, in fardbayan, the informant has stated that after firing from pistol by appellant Chandra Shekhar Singh, it was appellant Keshava Singh who first inflicted sword bellow on deceased and when deceased fell down, appellant Raghu Singh with Farsa and, thereafter, appellant Gajendra Singh with Garasa assaulted the deceased but P.W.1 in his evidence, has said that after firing from pistol by appellant Chandra Shekhar Singh it was appellant Raghu Singh who firs assaulted the deceased with Farsa and thereafter, the other two appellants also assaulted him. From the evidence of prosecution witnesses, we find that P.Ws.3, 4 and informant have supported the case of prosecution, as made out in Fardbayan and have stated that after opening fire from his pistol by Chandra Shekhar Singh, it was appellant Keshava Singh who first attacked the deceased with sword whereas P.W.2 has simply stated that deceased was assaulted by appellants Keshava Singh, Raghu Singh and Gajendra Singh with sword, Farsa and Garasa. So we find that it is only P.W.1 who, in giving the sequence of inflicting injuries on deceased, has said that first appellants Raghu Singh assaulted the deceased. P.W.1 was examined on 02.10.1996 that is about more than one year after the occurrence. The appellants assaulted the deceased one after another almost at the same time. So in such type of situation, we .cannot consider it a major contradiction where P.W.1 has said that first appellant Raghu Singh assaulted the deceased with Farsa. So far the allegation against appellants Raghu Singh, being armed with Farsa is concerned, the same bas been fully supported by all the prosecution witnesses claiming themselves to be eye witnesses. So in such type of situation, we .cannot consider it a major contradiction where P.W.1 has said that first appellant Raghu Singh assaulted the deceased with Farsa. So far the allegation against appellants Raghu Singh, being armed with Farsa is concerned, the same bas been fully supported by all the prosecution witnesses claiming themselves to be eye witnesses. It has further been argued that P.Ws.1, 2, 3, in their evidence, have. said that they were examined on the day of occurrence itself but the case diary (Exhibit-6) shows that they were examined on second day and prosecution witnesses and informant have introduced a new story that when appellants Chandra Shekhar Singh fired from his pistol, the deceased tried to run away but the, fardbayan is silent on the point that after opening fire with his pistol by Chandra Shekhar Singh the deceased tried to run away. It has also been argued that P.W.4 has stated that he had come to Nayaganj market alongwith-deceased and he had met the deceased when deceased was coming to market and he was on bicycle and the deceased was also on a bicycle whereas informant has said that eand deceased both were come to market by foot. About P.Ws.1 and 2, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants hat both had, in their evidence, stated that on the day of occurrence, they had gone to the medicine shop of Shambhu Chaudhary form where they saw the occurrence but P.W.1 has clearly stated that when he saw the occurrence from that medicine shop at that time, no other customer witnessing the occurrence was present there. About this particular submission, we find what P.W.2, in para-2 of his cross-examination, has said that When he was at medicine shop, there were one or two other customers there and similarly P.W.1 also in his earlier part of evidence has stated that when he went to purchase medicine he did not pay attention to see whether other customers were there or not. In our opinion, the submissions on behalf of appellants on the aforesaid points are regarding minor discrepancies in the evidence of prosecution witnesses which is quite natural particularly when they were examined after a considerable period of time from the date of occurrence but in view of over whelming evidence against the appellants, these contradiction carry no effect to throwaway the entire case of prosecution. 20. Considering the entire evidence on record, we find that prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts against all the appellants of the four appeals. In the result, all the four appeals are dismissed and the judgment and order of Court below convicting and sentencing the appellants is hereby confirmed. Except appellant Gajendra Singh, since the remaining four appellants, namely, Sushil Kumar, Chandra Shekhar Singh, Keshava Singh and Raghu Singh are on bail, therefore, their bail bonds are cancelled any they are directed to surrender before the Court below to serve out the remaining period of their sentences passed against them.