JUDGMENT : B. Panigrahi, J. - This appeal is directed against the JUDGMENT passed by the learned Sessions Judge. Puri S.T. Case No. 276 of 1992 convicting the Appellants under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'I.P.C.') and sentencing them to undergo imprisonment for life. 2. The informant Ratnkar Pradhan (P.W. I) has dramatically presented the prosecution case as follows: The lands situated in Sabik plot No. 403 corresponding to Hal plot No. 549 measuring about 20 gunths belonged to the in formant. The Appellants along with their other associates encroached upon a portion of the said lands and put up fence about 20 days prior to the fateful incident. i.e. 29.6.1991. P.W. 1 reported the matter to the Village Committee whereupon the Village Committee on consent of both parties and depositing the requisite fees directed for deputation of an Amin (P.W. 17) for measurement of the lands. On such measurement it was however detected that the Appellants and their associates had encroached upon a portion of the land of P.W. 1 upto the wall of their house as indicated in the sketch map. The Appellants did not agree with the measurement undertaken by P.W. 17 therefore, they requested for 8 days more time for measuring the lands once again. Even after a lapse of 8 days when no measurement was made by the Appellants the matter was again brought to the notice of the Village Committee which agreed to take a decision in the near future. This incident was also informed at the police station on 23.6.1991. Somehow, once again the measurement of the lands took place on 28.6.1991. The local police had also cautioned the Appellants and their associates not to create any situation which would deteriorate law and order situation. On 29.6.191 at about 7.00 A.M. the Appellants and their associates teased and remonstrated the deceased Benudhar Pradhan brother of the informant whereupon the deceased lost his temper and brought out a Farsa to assault them. But on merely interception by the persons present there that incident could be subsided. 3. After a little while the deceased went to the disputed plot for showing paddy sects. At that juncture the Appellants and their associates came where being armed with Farsa and indiscriminately assaulted the deceased as a result of which the deceased fell down with grievous bleeding injuries and instantaneously died. 3. After a little while the deceased went to the disputed plot for showing paddy sects. At that juncture the Appellants and their associates came where being armed with Farsa and indiscriminately assaulted the deceased as a result of which the deceased fell down with grievous bleeding injuries and instantaneously died. P.W. 1 and other witnesses who were eventually present near the spot rushed to rescue the deceased but they too were assaulted by the other associate accused persons (since acquitted by means of deadly weapons such as 'tenta, bhali, farsa, sword and katari'. They also pelted stones at the witnesses as a result of which P.W. 3. Pravakar Pradhan and some others sustained injuries on their person. The deceased was shifted to the hospital, but by then he had already collapsed. P.W. 1 lodged an information at Gop Police Station which was reduced to writing and accordingly a case \vas registered by the I.O. (P.W. 19) and he swung into action immediately. During investigation P.W. 19 held inquest over the deadbody of deceased Benudhar Pradhan, visited the spot, got the injured persons medically examined on requisition, seized the blood-stained earth sample, earth, arranged to despatch the dead body for post-mortem examination, arrested the accused persons and after completion of investigation, placed charge-sheet against the Appellants and their associates. 4. The defence case in short was that on the date 61 occurrence the informant and the deceased' along with their associates being armed with farsa, katari and crow-bar cut a portion of the fence existing on the demarcating line between the lands of the Appellants and the informant and tried to put up a new fence which was opposed by the accused persons. At this P.W. 5, Prafulla Nari assaulted on the head of accused Kusa (since acquitted) by means of a lathi. He also assaulted on the head of accused Kusa Hhoi by means of a lathi and accused Harihar by means of a sword. During the course of incident accused Nabaghan also received some injuries on his abdomen and the fingers of accused Jlarihar and Nabaghan were cut. It is further alleged that some of the prosecution witnesses trespassed into the house of the accused persons and assaulted their family members, damaged the asbestos roof of their house and a trolley rickshaw. During the course of incident accused Nabaghan also received some injuries on his abdomen and the fingers of accused Jlarihar and Nabaghan were cut. It is further alleged that some of the prosecution witnesses trespassed into the house of the accused persons and assaulted their family members, damaged the asbestos roof of their house and a trolley rickshaw. Thereupon an information was lodged by one Krushna Bhoi before P.W. 19, the I.O., who reduced it to writing and treated as F.I.R. P.W. 19 had also submitted charge-sheet against some of the prosecution witnesses and Ors. in S.T. Case No. 67 of 1993. The Appellants further pleaded that deceased Benudhar Pradhan might have died in course of the same incident where they exercised their right of private defence of their persons as well as the property and according to the Appellants it was the informant's party who were aggressors, but not the Appellants. 5. The learned Sessions Judge tried both cases and disposed them of by passing separate judgments. It appears, the other case (S.T. No. 67/93) against some of the prosecution witnesses ended in acquittal and there has been no appeal preferred by the State. However, by the impugned judgment the learned Sessions.Judge convicted the Appellants as aforesaid and acquitted the other accused persons who were associated with the Appellants. 6. To prove the case against the Appellants prosecution had examined 19 witnesses of whom P.Ws. 1, 3, 6 and 8 were closely related to the deceased whereas P.Ws. 2, 4 and 7 were independent witnesses. All the aforesaid witnesses claimed to have seen the incident and presented a graphic picture in course of hearing. P.W. 12 was the Medical Officer, who examined P.W. 3 and proved the injury report of Prafulla Nari, who was one of the accused and said to have been examined by Dr. Ladumani Misra, who was already dead. P.W. 13 was the Medical Officer, who conducted post-mortem examination over the dead body of deceased Benudhar Pradhan. P.W. 14 was the A.S.I. who conducted seizure of some incriminating materials. P.W. 15 was another A.S.I. who issued requisitions for medical examination of the injured persons. P.W. 16 was the Secretary of the Village Committee at whose instance the disputed lands were measured and demarcated by P.W. 17, the Amin. P.Ws. 18 and 19 were the Investigating Officers in this case. 7. P.W. 15 was another A.S.I. who issued requisitions for medical examination of the injured persons. P.W. 16 was the Secretary of the Village Committee at whose instance the disputed lands were measured and demarcated by P.W. 17, the Amin. P.Ws. 18 and 19 were the Investigating Officers in this case. 7. The defence has examined two witnesses, D.Ws. 1 and 2, who were Medical Officers and proved the injury report in respect of the injuries sustained by accused Nabaghan. 8. In an incident where there is a case and a counter case, it is sine qua non for the Court to determine as to which of the parties were the aggressors. It is also obligatory on the court to consider the genesis of the prosecution story. Each case has to be determined independent of the evidence placed on record. It would never mean that the evidence of one case will be treated as the evidence in the other. 9. Some uncontroversial facts be narrated here. P.W. 1 has owned 20 gunths of land in Sabik plot No. 403 corresponding to Hal Plot No. 549. The Appellants and their associates had forcibly encroched upon a portion of the said land of the informant as a sequel to which the matter was referred to the Village Committee whereupon measurement was directed to be carried out by P.W. 17 and on measurement it was found that the informant's land was encroached upon by the Appellants upto the wall of their house. Even when the Village Committee directed the Appellants to remove the encroachment, but they became callous, rather they pleaded for remeasurement of the land. In the meanwhile the local police was approached and on 28.6.1991 the land in question was re-measured which tallied with the previous measurement. On 29.6.1991 while the deceased Benudhar Pradhan was undertaking agricultural operation in the land in question, all on a sudden the Appellants and their associates attacked the deceased resulting in his death. From the evidence of the I.O. (P.W. 19) it has, however, appeared that the homestead land belonging to the Appellants was adjacent to the Government land, but, it was one feet above the level of the Government land. He also found erection of a new fence which was put up by removing the old fence after cutting 8 to 10 old trees by encroaching an area of 10' x 30'. He also found erection of a new fence which was put up by removing the old fence after cutting 8 to 10 old trees by encroaching an area of 10' x 30'. The I.O. had taken the assistance of an Amin to draw a sketch map, vide Ext. 13. 10. P.W. 16 was the Secretary of Chhadeigaon Gramya Committee. From his evidence is has transpired that in case of any dispute between the two villagers referred to the Village Committee then it is duty of the Village Committee to resolve and sort out the difference between them. In this case the matter was taken up and an Amin (P.W. 17) was deputed. A Resolution was transcribed vide Ext. 10 containing the signatures of both parties. At the first blush, the defence took an objection that since the I.O. did not seize the Resolution Book, therefore, it was quite likely that it could have been manufactured later on. But such objection appears to have no substance inasmuch as both parties have signed on the Resolution Book. On a combined reading of the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 16, 17 and 19 it has been firmly established that the Appellants and their associates (since acquitted) had removed the fence by encroaching a portion of the land belonging to the informant. Non-seizure of the Resolution Book shall not, however, obliterate the evidentiary value of the witnesses as wall as the Resolution Book. It is truck that P.W. 16 has admitted to be an agnetic relation of P.W. 1. but the mere fact that he was a relation of the informant would not efface his evidence to the ground particularly when the Appellants had signed on the Resolution Book. 11. Now turning to the evidence of P.W. 1 on the main question it is seen that the deceased had gone to the disputed land for sowing paddy. At this juncture all the Appellants came in a body being armed with Farsa and inficted murderous blows on different parts of the body of the deceased. Appellant Hari Bhoi dealt a Farsa blow on the backside head of the deceased whereas Appellants Kusa Bhoi dealt another Farsa blow on the head of the deceased and Appellant Manu Bhoi dealt a Farsa blow on the lower part of the left leg. Appellant Hari Bhoi dealt a Farsa blow on the backside head of the deceased whereas Appellants Kusa Bhoi dealt another Farsa blow on the head of the deceased and Appellant Manu Bhoi dealt a Farsa blow on the lower part of the left leg. Once again Appellant Hari Bhoi indicted a second blow on the left arm by means of the same weapon 'Farsa'. Due to the assault the deceased received severe bleeding injuries and sank down on the ground. At that time P.W. 1 who was going on the embankment of the river hard by at a distance of 80 feet rushed to the spot. Similarly. P.Ws. 2 and 4 reached the spot who too were proceeding on the embankment of the river. P.W. 1 raised on outcry on hearing which P.Ws. 3, 5 and 7 came to the spot and they also witnessed the occurrence. Seeing the prosecution witnesses, the other accused persons advanced forward with different lethal weapons and pelted stones at them resulting in injuries on P.Ws. 3 and 5, 11 is unnecessary to go into such detail since the other accused persons were acquitted of the charges and there has been no appeal by the State. 12. Mr. Nayak, Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants critically placed the evidence of P.W. 1 by stating that since P.W. 1 and his brother owned a tractor and maintained two Halias (firm servants) it is unrealistic to assume that the deceased went to the field with a gunny bag full of paddy seeds. It was also commented upon that as per the evidence of I.O. the land was fallow. Therefore, there was no occasion for the deceased to proceed to the disputed land with paddy seeds. The incident had taken place in the month of June when the agricultural operation usually starts. The I.O. might not have noticed about ploughing of the land for which the evidence of P.W. 1 would not render it untrustworthy. It is true that P.Ws. 1 and 3 were brothers of the deceased whereas P.W. Section 6 and 8 were the cousins of P.Ws. 1 and 3. 13. Now a question arises for our consideration whether the intrinsic value of their testimony creates doubt about the authenticity of the prosecution story. It is true that P.Ws. 1 and 3 were brothers of the deceased whereas P.W. Section 6 and 8 were the cousins of P.Ws. 1 and 3. 13. Now a question arises for our consideration whether the intrinsic value of their testimony creates doubt about the authenticity of the prosecution story. In this case we find that the F.I.R. was lodged within hours of the incident leaving no chance to make embroidery or improvement to the prosecution story. P.W. 3 was one of the injured, therefore, his presence at the spot can hardly be disputed. In this case we strongly rely on a judgment of the SC reported in AIR 2002 SCW 4338 in the case of G. Laxmana and Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh wherein it has been held: The High Court has mainly relied upon the testimony of P.Ws. 1 and 3 and had found their evidence to be reliable and convincing. We have noticed that the testimony of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 is fully corroborated by the testimony of P.Ws. 4, 5 and 11, though the High Court has not discussed their evidence. Since the High Court found the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 to be sufficient to prove the case of the prosecution, it did not consider it necessary to discuss the evidence of the other eye witnesses. With the assistance of counsel appearing for the parties we have gone through the evidence on record, but we find no reason to take a view different from the view taken by the High Court. P.Ws. 2 and 3 are injured witnesses. P.W. 1 is the first informant who lodged the report immediately after the occurrence. There was no scope for fabricating a false case having regard to promptitude with which the First Information Report was lodged. The witnesses are natural witnesses as they all belong to the same family and were working together in the same field. The accused had a strong motive for the commission of the offence because it is not disputed that accused No. 13 and Ors. were being tried for the murder of the father and two uncles of P.W. 1. The witnesses are natural witnesses as they all belong to the same family and were working together in the same field. The accused had a strong motive for the commission of the offence because it is not disputed that accused No. 13 and Ors. were being tried for the murder of the father and two uncles of P.W. 1. The case of the prosecution is that they were pressuring the members of the prosecution party to settle the dispute out of Court while the prosecution witnesses were not willing to do so having regard to the fact that three of their family members had been murdered. That apart, independent witnesses had been examined by the prosecution who too support the version of P.Ws. 1, 3, 6 and 8 to bring home the charge against the Appellants. The Appellants have taken an inexorable plea that even though Sridhar Pradhan was going on the embankment of the river along with P.W. 1, he has not been examined. We find there is hardly any merit in this submission. There -is no necessity to proliferate the evidence which the prosecution had otherwise proved by placing credible, clinching and trustworthy evidence. In this case we wish to rely on a recent judgment of the SC reported in Shamsher Singh @ Shera Vs. State of Haryana, wherein it has been held that non-examination of a witness was not fatal when his brother was examined. It is not necessary that in all cases all the witnesses present at the time of occurrence should be examined, that too on the same point. Mere non-examination of one of the eye witnesses to speak on the same point does not impair the prosecution case when the eye witnesses examined fully support the prosecution case. It is within the realm of appreciation of evidence since the trial Court has accepted the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in support of its case therefore, had Sridhar Pradhan been examined he would have also tesified to the same effect as that of the other prosecution witnesses. 14. The evidence of P.W. 1 embodied in the judgment has unmistakably established that it was Hari. Kusa and Manu who had assaulted the deceased. It is true that the prosecution should explain the injuries on the accused. In this case such injuries had been explained and the trial Court held that the Appellants were the aggressors. 14. The evidence of P.W. 1 embodied in the judgment has unmistakably established that it was Hari. Kusa and Manu who had assaulted the deceased. It is true that the prosecution should explain the injuries on the accused. In this case such injuries had been explained and the trial Court held that the Appellants were the aggressors. Some of the prosecution witnesses have already been acquitted of the charges. Nowhere it is stated that the prosecution witnesses and the deceased were armed with any weapon. Therefore, the plea of right of private defence which is a lame excuse has been rightly disbelieved by the trial Court. 15. From the testimony of P.W. 3 we have also come across that his version not only supports but also lends assurance to the evidence of P.W. 1. P.Ws. 4, 5 and 8 had seen the Appellants running away after assaulting the deceased from their evidence it is clear that a part of the incident had taken place near the Samadhi. Appellant Hari gave a farsa blow on the middle portion of the head of the deceased as a result of which blood gushed out from the head. Simultaneously Appellant Manu dealt a similar blow on the left side head of the deceased. Following such assault Appellant Hari again inflicted a Farsa blow on the left arm of the deceased. It is commented upon by the defence that if we examine the evidence of P.W. 3, it is revealed that he having heard an alarm raised by deceased "Marigali, Marigali" he rushed from the embankment to the spot. Therefore, it was unlikely on his part to witness the occurrence, but we find there is little substance in the aforesaid submission. The embankment is almost on the flank of the disputed land. Minor discrepancies or inconsistencies even if placed by the Appellants are not sufficient to upset the trial Court's finding. On a close scrutiny of the evidence as a whole, it is not at all possible to throw out the prosecution case as either false or unreliable. Some variations, embroidery or improvement may sometimes be made by the prosecution witnesses in order to give a booster to the prosecution case. On a close scrutiny of the evidence as a whole, it is not at all possible to throw out the prosecution case as either false or unreliable. Some variations, embroidery or improvement may sometimes be made by the prosecution witnesses in order to give a booster to the prosecution case. Much comment has been made on the evidence of P.W. 1 that he did not specifically state the weapon of offence, such as Farsa, before the I.O., but all that he has stated is that the three Appellants had assaulted the deceased by deadly weapons. Therefore, this omission cannot be treated to be a major contradiction to throw out the main of the prosecution story. On a combined reading of the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 8, it would unequivocally establish that the Appellants were the assailants of the deceased. It is true that no attempt was made by the I.O. for effecting seizure of the gunny bag with paddy seeds. But such non-seizure would not improbabilise the prosecution story which has been sufficiently proved through the testimony of the prosecution witnesess. 16. According to the evidence of I.O. blood patches were collected from near the Samadhi at point 'A' of the sketch map so also near the fence. It is quite likely that the Appellants in the process of chasing might have assaulted the deceased near the Samadhi. From the evidence of P.W. 13, who conducted post-mortem examination over the deadbody of the deceased, it is found that there was a fissure fracture on the left side of skull corresponding to injury No. 1 which was a chop wound on the left occipital region of the scalp of 5" x 1" deep. He also noticed one lacerated wound on the left leg and stab wound on the left arm. The Appellants wanted to make out a capital that since there has been inconsistency between the medical evidence and the ocular evidence, therefore, probative value of the testimony of the ocular,witnesses must be rejected. But such submission advanced by the Appellants is summarily rejected. 17. On a careful cogitation of the facts and circumstances of the case and on a closer examination of the evidence we cannot belt hold that the appeal has no merit. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence passed against the Appellants under Sections 302/34. I.P.C. are hereby confirmed. 18. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. 17. On a careful cogitation of the facts and circumstances of the case and on a closer examination of the evidence we cannot belt hold that the appeal has no merit. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence passed against the Appellants under Sections 302/34. I.P.C. are hereby confirmed. 18. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed