Judgment M.L.Visa and B.K.Jha JJ. 1. Since both these appeals arise out of the same judgment and order dated 9.12.87 passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Arrah, in Sessions Trial No. 123/86 they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. Appellant Pappu Lal @ Manoj Kumar Srivastava of Cr. Appeal No. 649/87 has been convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, IPC) and appellant Lakhan Lal of Cr. Appeal No. 14/88 has been convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC. 2. Prosecution case, as disclosed in the fardbeyan (Ext. 4) of informant, Lakhan Choudhary (PW 3) recorded on 9.5.1985 at 10.25 hours at Buxar Sub-divisional Hospital by SI, Mundrika Singh (not examined), in short, is that on 9.5.1985 informant was in his house alongwith his wife Sumantar Devi (PW 2) and deceased son Surendra Choudhary and the door of his house was open. Appellant Pappu Lal alias Manoj Kumar Shrivastava armed with a dagger and appellant Lakhan Lal armed with a country made pistol entered the house of informant and demanded keys of boxes from deceased Surendra Choudhary and when deceased Surendra Choudhary refused to give keys of boxes appellant Lakhan Lal brandishing the pistol caught hold of him and appellant Pappu Lal inflicted chhura injury on his right chest as a result of which Surendra Choudhary after being injured fell down and both the appellants fled away. On hulla a number of persons from Mohalla reached there and saw the appellants fleeing away and son of informant was brought to hospital for treatment but he succumbed to injury there. This occurrence took place at 8.15 p.m. On the basis of fardbeyan of informant, formal FIR (Ext. 3) against both trie appellants under Sections 393 and 302, IPC was drawn. The police after investigation submitted charge- sheet against both the appellants under Sections 302 and 394, IPC. After commitment of the case to the Court of Session both the appellants were put on trial and charges under Sections 302 and 394, IPC were framed against both of them. After trial appellant Pappu Lal alias Manoj Kumar Shrivastava was found guilty under Section 302, IPC and appellant Lakhan Lal was found guilty under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC. After trial appellant Pappu Lal alias Manoj Kumar Shrivastava was found guilty under Section 302, IPC and appellant Lakhan Lal was found guilty under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC. Charge under Section 394, IPC was not established and therefore both the appellants were not convicted under this head. 3. The defence of appellants as it appears from the trend of cross examination of prosecution witnesses is complete denial of charges framed against them, and their false implication in this case. No witness has been examined on their behalf. 4. In order to prove its case the prosecution has examined six witnesses. Lakhan Choudhary (PW 3) is the informant. Malti Kumari (PW 1), wife of deceased and Sumantar Devi (PW 2), wife of informant and mother of deceased, are said to be eye-witnesses to the occurrence. Jageshwar Choudhary (PW 4) is a witness on inquest report prepared by police of the dead body of deceased and he has proved his signature (Ext. 1). R.P. Jaiswal (PW 5) is the doctor who held autopsy on the dead body of deceased. Tarkeshwar.Prasad is a formal witness who has proved formal FIR (Ext. 3) in the pen of Shri Rama Nand, the then Officer-in-Charge of Buxar Town Police Station, fardbeyan (Ext. 4) in the pen of Mundrika Singh, the then SI of Buxar Town P.S., the inquest report (Ext. 5) in the pen of Shri Ramanand and para 1 to 51 of case diary (Ext. 6) in the pen of Sri Mundrika Singh. 5. Dr. R.P. Jaiswal (PW 5) in his evidence has said that on 10.5.1985 when he was posted as Civil Assistant Surgeon at Buxar Sub-divisional Hospital, he held post mortem examination on the dead body of deceased Surendra Choudhary and found one stitched wound over the right supra clavicle region in the mid clavicular line. He has further said that after removal of stitch one incised wound 1" x 1/2 "x thorasic cavity deep (perforated, margin clear) was found over the right supra clavicle region in mid clavicular line and cloths of deceased were besmeared with blood. According to him, cause of death was due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of above injuries caused by sharp cutting weapon such as chhura and time elapsed since death was within 12 to 18 hours. He has proved his post mortem examination report which is marked (Ext. 2). According to him, cause of death was due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of above injuries caused by sharp cutting weapon such as chhura and time elapsed since death was within 12 to 18 hours. He has proved his post mortem examination report which is marked (Ext. 2). From his evidence it appears that death of deceased was homicidal resulted from the injury caused by sharp cutting penetrating substance which may be a dagger. 6. Lakhan Choudhary (PW 3), the informant, in his evidence, has said that on the day of occurrence he was in his house and his deceased son was also with him sitting on a chair and a tape recorder was playing when both the appellants came there and at that time there was light and appellant Lakhan Lal was armed with pistol and appellant Pappu Lal was armed with a dagger and appellant Lakhan Lal demanded key and when his son told that he had no key with him, appellant Lakhan Lal by brandishing pistol caught hold of him from behind and appellant Pappu Lal inflicted chhura injury on the right chest of his son and after receiving injury his son moved a bit towards stairs in south direction and fell down and both the appellants immediately ran away. He has further said that appellant Lakhan Lal took away tape recorder which was playing in the room and he took his son to hospital but his son died in the way. About the motive of occurrence he has said that two days prior to occurrence both the appellants had drunk toddy from his shop and on demand of price of toddy they did not pay and had slapped his deceased son and had given threatening that they would not allow him to live. He has further said that his statement was recorded in the hospital. He has further said that his statement was recorded in the hospital. Supporting his evidence Malti Kumari (PW 1), wife of deceased, has said that at the time of occurrence she was in her room along with her husband and in-laws and her husband was playing tape recorded and the door of the room in which they were sitting was open and both the appellants who were known to her from before came there and at that time electric bulb was lighting in the room and appellant Lakhan Lal was armed with pistol and appellant Pappu Lal was carrying a dagger and thereafter appellant Lakhan on the point of pistol demanded the keys of boxes and on the reply of her husband that he had no key with him, appellant Lakhan Lal caught hold the arm of her husband and appellant Pappu Lal inflicted dagger blow on the right side of chest of her husband and after receiving injury her husband went near the stairs and sat there and both the appellants taking the tape- recorder fled away. She has also stated about the motive of occurrence that two days prior to occurrence at toddy shop some altercation had taken place between her husband and appellants because appellants after consuming toddy had not paid the price. She has further stated that her husband received injuries resulting into his death. Sumantar Devi (PW 2), mother of deceased, has said that at the time of occurrence she was in her house along with her deceased son, her husband and daughter inlaw and her son was sitting on a chair and was playing tape recorder when appellants Lakhan and Pappu entered her house. Appellant Lakhan was armed with pistol and appellant Pappu was armed with a dagger. Appellant Lakhan Lal demanded key of boxes from her son and when her son replied that he had no key with him the appellant Lakhan Lal caught hold of deceased and appellant Pappu Lal inflicted dagger blow on the chest of deceased. She has said that at that time electric bulb was lighting in the light of which she had identified the appellants. She has said that at that time electric bulb was lighting in the light of which she had identified the appellants. About the motive of occurrence she has also said that appellants had not paid the price of toddy and on this account altercation had taken place between the appellants on one side and her husband and son on the other side and appellants had given threatening which she came to know from her husband. The evidence of informant, his wife and wife of deceased fully supports the case of prosecution. 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants have drawn our attention towards cross examination of PW 5, the doctor, who had conducted autopsy on the dead body of deceased, where he has said that in case of any injury to any internal organ, the outer injury should not be stitched unless the internal organs are inspected and treated and in this case he found that internal organ had not been treated. It has further been argued that because this witness has clearly stated that while conducting post mortem examination over the dead body of deceased he found one stitched wound over right supra clavicle region in the mid clavicular line but there is no evidence on record that who had stitched the wound. It is true that in this case prosecution has not adduced any medical evidence in order to show that when, where and by whom the wound of deceased was stitched but the Court below has also taken note of it and has observed that "it appears that some quack just stitched the skin to prevent flow of blood before the deceased was taken to hospital". It is true that there is no evidence adduced in this case that deceased was. taken to any doctor before he was taken to hospital and that doctor had stitched his wound but then evidence of PW 5 is very clear that after removal of stitch he found one incised wound 1" x l/2"x thorasic cavity deep which was perforated and with clear margin over the right supra clavicle region in the mid of clavicular line and this injury was caused by sharp cutting penetrating weapon which may be a dagger and this was the cause of death. This evidence coupled with the evidence of informant, his wife, and wife of deceased leaves no room for any doubt that deceased died of injury inflicted on him by a dagger. Learned counsel for the appellants drawing our attention towards the evidence of Malti Kumari (PW 1), wife of deceased, where she has stated that she is house wife and except the members of her family she does not know other person of Buxar have argued that this statement falsifies her earlier statement that appellants were known to her. We are unable to accept this argument because in her cross examination she has stated that she is house wife and therefore she does not know other persons of Buxar but that does not mean that she was not knowing appellants also who admittedly belong to her locality. Besides this, she is not the only witness who has said about the identification of appellants at the time of occurrence. Informant and his wife are other two witnesses who had also identified the appellants entering their house. It has further been argued on behalf of appellants that witnesses have said that while leaving the place of occurrence appellants took tape recorder but this fact is not mentioned in the fardbeyan of informant. The Court below has also taken note of this fact and on this ground charge under Section 394, IPC against both the appellants was not found established. So far the factum of inflicting injury on deceased by the appellant Pappu Lal by dagger is concerned the evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 3 is consistent that after deceased was caught hold of by appellant Lakhan Lal he was inflicted dagger injury by appellant Pappu Lal. 8. Considering the entire evidence on record we find that the prosecution witnesses who have claimed themselves as eye- witnesses to occurrence are quite natural witnesses because they are members of a family in the residential house of which occurrence is said to have taken place. We find that prosecution has. proved its case against both the appellants for committing the murder of deceased beyond all reasonable doubts and the judgment and order of the Court below convicting and sentencing the appellants does not require any interference. 9. In the result, both the appeals are dismissed. The judgment and order of the Court below convicting and sentencing the appellants is hereby confirmed. 9. In the result, both the appeals are dismissed. The judgment and order of the Court below convicting and sentencing the appellants is hereby confirmed. Since both the appellants are on bail, their bail bonds are cancelled and they are directed to surrender before the Court below to serve out the remainder of their sentences.