Judgment B.K.Jha, J. 1. Since both these appeals are directed against the judgment dated 27.6.1997 and order dated 30.6.1997 passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Madhepura in Sessions Case No. 21 of 1993, therefore, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Appellants Shailendra Mahton, Sunder Mahton, Gopal Mahton, Yogendra Mahton and Sikendra Mahton of criminal appeal No. 292 of 1997 have been convicted under Secs. 147/323, Indian Penal Code (In short IPC) and were directed to execute a bond of Rs. 5,000.00 with two sureties of the like amount each for maintaining peace and good behaviour for a period of one year and appellant Shiv Nandan Mahton of criminal appeal No. 368 of 1997 has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprison-ment for life under Sec. 302, IPC and rigorous imprisonment for five years under Sec. 27, Arms Act. 3. The case of prosecution, in short, is that on 1.5.1991 at about 6 a.m. Umda Devi (PW 3), the mother of informant alongwith his cousin Pramila Kumari and three to four other women had gone to work in her bataidari field of Mung (blackgram) and jute crop. Some labourers of appellant Sunder Mahton were found passing through that field on which she raised protest that because of their crossing through the field, the crops of the field were being damaged and asked them to go through the road. There was exchange of hot words between her and labourers who went back in the village and thereafter, all the appellants with some others armed with lathi, bhala and country made firearms came there. Getting information of this by some village women, the informant Devnandan Mahto (PW. 6) alongwith his uncle Brahmdeo Mahto (PW 1) proceeded towards his field but in the way, his uncle returned back but he went to his field and on seeing him, appellant Sunder Mahton asked his companions to assault him on which he ran towards east side of his field. In the meantime, Panna Lal Mahto, father of informant alongwith Brahmdeo Mahto (PW 1), Feku Mahto (not examined), Abhinandan Prasad Yadav (PW 5) and one to two others came there. In the meantime, Panna Lal Mahto, father of informant alongwith Brahmdeo Mahto (PW 1), Feku Mahto (not examined), Abhinandan Prasad Yadav (PW 5) and one to two others came there. Appellant Sunder Mahto then asked his com-panions to assault father of informant on which the appellants surrounded him in the field of Baljit Mahto and assaulted him with lathis and appellant Shivnandan Mahton, by putting his pistol on belly, fired from it. In course of saving father of informant the uncle of informant also received injuries. On hearing the sound of firing, neighbouring villagers ran towards place of occurrence and all the appellants and their companions fled away. Informant then went near to his father and with the help of villagers brought him to the darwaza of villager Baljit Mahto and put his father on a cot and, thereafter, his father died. The informant, on the same day at about 1 p.m., went to police station and lodged the first information report (Exhibit-3). The police, after investigation, submitted charge-sheet against the appellants and against Jagdish Mahton, Raj Kumar Mahton, Bhutto Mahton and Lalo Mahton but they all four, after trial, were found not guilty and were acquitted. 4. The defence of appellants is that on the date of occurrence, appellant Shiv Nandan Mahton and Shailendra Mahton, both sons of appellant Sunder Mahton were working with some labourers in their field when the informant and his deceased father Panna Lal Mahto along-with others, namely, Ramdeo Mahton, Sagar Mahton, Satyanarayan Mahton, Mantun Mahton, Deo Brat Mahton, Mohan Mahton came there, armed with weapons and assaulted them with lathis and, thereafter, informant, saying that Shivnandan Mahton and Shailendra Mahton would not died with lathi, fired at Shivnandan Mahton from his country made pistol but in the meantime, deceased Panna Lal Mahto intervened and came between Shivnandan Mahton and informant and the shot fired by informant hit him and he died. Their further defence is that Shivnandan Mahton was taken to police station but his case was not accepted and he was brought to a doctor named R.N. Ghosh of Madhepura where he received treatment and, thereafter, he filed a complaint case in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate. Madhepura which was sent by Court to police for instituting a case in which police, after investigation, submitted charge-sheet. Two witnesses on behalf of the appellants were examined by trial Court. 5. Madhepura which was sent by Court to police for instituting a case in which police, after investigation, submitted charge-sheet. Two witnesses on behalf of the appellants were examined by trial Court. 5. After trial, the Court below found appellant Shivnandan Mahton guilty under Sec. 302, IPC and Sec. 27, Arms Act and remaining appellants under Secs. 147 and 323, IPC and, accordingly, convicted and sentenced the appellants, as indicated above. 6. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined eight witnesses. Devnandan Mahto (PW 6) is the infor-mant. Brahmdeo Mahto (PW 1), Umda Devi (PW 3), Sagar Mahto (PW 4), Abhinandan Prasad Yadav (PW 5) are said to be eye-witnesses to the occurrence. Rajeshwar Prasad Yadav (PW 7) is the doctor who conducted autopsy on the dead body of deceased. Kamal Kishore Choudhary (PW 8) is the Investigating Officer. Satyanarayan Mahto (PW 2) is a tendered witness. 7. Rajeshwar Prasad Yadav (PW 7) has stated that on 2.5.1991, he was posted at Sadar Hospital, Madhepura when he held post-mortem examination on the dead body of deceased and found the following ante-mortem injuries: (1) abrasion 2" x 1 on the top of the head right side; (2) swelling above the right elbow on the outer side; (3) swelling below the left elbow on the outer side; (4) wound of entrance situated on the back of trunk just above the right iliac bone on right side of the vertebral column about 1" x 3/4" in diameter with charred margin directed forward and entered into the abdominal cavity; (5) wound of exit situated on the interior aspect of lower abdo-men on left side below the um-bilicus with everted margin about 3/4" x 1/2" in diameter entering into abdominal cavity. According to him, cause of death was shock and haemorrhage owing to injuries No. 4, 5 and 6 caused by firearms which normally was sufficient to cause death. About injuries No. 1, 2 and 3, he has said that these were caused by hard and blunt substance. He has proved the post-mortem examination report (Exhibit-1). His evidence establishes that death of deceased was homicidal. Now it has, to be seen what evidence has been led by prosecution against the appellants holding them responsible for the death of deceased. 8. He has proved the post-mortem examination report (Exhibit-1). His evidence establishes that death of deceased was homicidal. Now it has, to be seen what evidence has been led by prosecution against the appellants holding them responsible for the death of deceased. 8. Devnandan Mahto (PW 6), informant has said that on the day of occurrence, he received information by a woman of his village that appellants alongwith some others armed with firearms, lathi, arrows etc. had gone to assault his mother in her bataidari field where she had gone to work. On receipt of this information, he alongwith his uncle Brahmdeo Mahto proceeded towards the field but after crossing some distance, his uncle returned back but he went to his field where on seeing him, the appellants ran to assault him and he then ran away towards eastern side of his field and when his father came to know that he was being chased by the appellants he alongwith Abhinandan Yadav (PW 5), Brahmdeo Mahto (PW 1), Sagar Mahto (PW 4), Satyanandan Mahto (PW 2), Feku Mahto (not examined) came there and appellant Sunder Mahto then asked his other companions to assault his father whereupon his father was assaulted by appellants by lathi in the field of one Baljit and, thereafter, at the order of appellant Sunder Mahto, appellant Shivnandan Mahto fired at his father on the upper portion of his waist and his father, after receiving firearm injury fell down and, thereafter, Sunder Mahto gave three to four lathi blows to him. When Brahmdeo Mahto tried to rescue his father, he was also assaulted by the appellants and he also received three to four lathi blows. On huIla, when some labourers went towards the place of occurrence, the appellants fled away. He then went near his father and brought him to the darwaza of Baljit and put him on a cot where his father died. He, thereafter, brought dead body of his father to his house and went to police station to lodge the first information report. He then went near his father and brought him to the darwaza of Baljit and put him on a cot where his father died. He, thereafter, brought dead body of his father to his house and went to police station to lodge the first information report. In cross-examination, he has admitted that three to four days after the occurrence, he came to know that appellant Shivnandan Mahto had filed a counter case against him, his uncle and some others for an occurrence of the same date and time and in that case, charge-sheet had been submitted and the trial was pending before the Court of the Magi-strate but he has denied the suggestion that he had fired at Shivnandan and the shot hit his father killing him. 9. Brahmdeo Mahto (PW 1), the uncle of informant, Umda Devi (PW 3), mother of informant, Sagar Mahto (PW 4) and Abhinandan Mahto (PW 5), claiming themselves to be eyewitnesses, have said that appellant Shivnandan Mahto fired on deceased and other appellants assaulted him with lathi. Brahmdeo Mahto (PW 1) has said that when he tried to save the deceased, he was also assaulted by appellants with lathi. They all have said that the occurrence took place in the field of one Baljit. It is true that Kamal Kishore Choudhary (PW 8) who is Investigating Officer of this case, in para 4 of his evidence, has admitted that he did not find any mark of blood at the place of occurrence but at the same time, he has said that he found the soil of place of occurrence trampled. The death of deceased by firearm is not denied by appellants who have also admitted that the deceased died of firearm injury but according to them, the shot was fired by informant who had fired at Shivnandan Mahto but the deceased, in order to save Shivnandan Mahto, came forward and the shot fired by informant hit him. In this view of the matter, the mere fact that Investigating Officer did not find any blood mark at the place of occurrence does not make any difference. In this view of the matter, the mere fact that Investigating Officer did not find any blood mark at the place of occurrence does not make any difference. Here, I may point out that according to appellants, the place of occurrence was their field whereas the case of prosecution is that the place of occurrence was the field of Baljit but then both these places are adjoining to each other which has been admitted by appellant Shivnandan Mahto himself who was examined as DW 1 and who has deposed in para 5 of his evidence that there is only a ridge between his field and the field of Baljit. The Court below, taking into consideration the evidence of Abhinandan Prasad Yadav (PW 5), in para 6 of his cross-examination, that his statement was recorded by police on the date of occurrence at about 9-10 a.m., has observed that his credibility is highly questionable because the first infor-mation report of the case was lodged on the date of occurrence at 1 p.m. so the recording of his statement at 9-10 a.m. does not arise and besides this, he is facing criminal trial under Sec. 302, IPC and he has named some appellants in casual manner leaving the names of some others. I further find that there are some minor contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses such as PW 1 Brahmdeo Mahto, the uncle of informant, has first stated that on receiving information that appellants were assaulting the mother of informant, he alongwith informant, went to the place of occurrence and deceased was also with him but as per evidence of informant, this witness, after receipt of information from a woman of village that appellants had assembled at the place of occurrence for assaulting the mother of informant, first proceeded to place of occurrence with him but after some distance, he turned back and, thereafter, he came to the place of occurrence alongwith deceased and others, the Investigating Officer, in para 10 of his evidence, has stated that Umdadevi (PW 3) from her field, the Investigating Officer has further stated that the informant had not stated before him that when his father fell down, he was assaulted by appellant Shanker Mahto with lathi etc. but then these contradictions are not major contra-dictions because the deceased on the day of occurrence died of injury caused by firearm has been admitted by appellants themselves. 10. The appellants have examined two witnesses in this case. Shivnandan Mahto (DW 1) is the appellant himself and, Dr. Rabindra Nath Ghosh (DW 2) is a doctor who had examined Shivnandan Mahto and Shailendra Mahto. Shivnan-dan Mahto (DW 1), in his evidence, has said that on 1.5.1991 at about 9 a.m., he alongwith his brother Shailendra Mahto and some labourers was working in his field, when informant and his father and mother came there armed with lathi and bhala and informant himself was armed with a pistol and he and his brother Shailendra Mahto were assaulted with lathi by informant and his companions and, thereafter, informant said that the assault by lathi would not be sufficient and saying this fact fired on him but in the meantime, father of informant, in order to save him, came in between him and informant and the shot fired by informant hit the father of informant who died there. He has further said that villagers took him to police station but his case was not accepted there and then he went to Dr. R.N. Ghosh of Madhepura where he received treatment and, thereafter, he filed a case in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate which was sent by police for instituting a case and for investigation in which, after investi-gation, police has submitted charge-sheet and trial of that case is pending. He has proved his complaint petition (Exhibit-A). 11. Dr. R.N. Ghosh (DW 2) has said that on 3.5.1991 at 9.20 a.m., he examined Shivnandan Mahto and found following injuries on him : (1) lacerated wound on left middle frontal region of scalp 3 cm. x 1/2 cm x 1/4 cm.; (2) swelling with echomosis on left shoulder 4 cm. x 2 cm.; (3) swelling with echomosis on back of neck 3 cm. x 2 cm. (4) swelling with echomosis on upper outer side of right arm 4 cm. x 2 cm.; (5) echomosis on dorsal of right hand 2 cm. x 2 cm.; (6) echomosis on dorsal of left hand 2 cm. x 2 cm.; and (7) swelling with echomosis on middle back of left hemi thorax. x 2 cm. (4) swelling with echomosis on upper outer side of right arm 4 cm. x 2 cm.; (5) echomosis on dorsal of right hand 2 cm. x 2 cm.; (6) echomosis on dorsal of left hand 2 cm. x 2 cm.; and (7) swelling with echomosis on middle back of left hemi thorax. About the injuries, he has said that all injuries were simple in nature except injury No. (1) for which X-ray was advised which was received on the same day at 4.40 p.m. which disclosed fracture on middle front of sculp suggesting the injury grievous in nature and all injuries were caused by hard and blunt substance and age of injuries was within forty-eight hours. 12. Has further said that on the same day, he examined appellant Shailendra Mahto and found the following injuries on his person: (1) lacerated wound on middle parietal region of scalp 3 cm. x 2 cm.; (2) swelling with echomosis on left temporal region 3 cm. x 2 cm.; (3) swelling with echomosis on upper back of right hemi thorax 8 cm. x 2 cm.; (4) swelling with echomosis on upper outer side of right arm 4 cm. x 2 cm; (5) swelling with echomosis on middle outer side of left arm 4 cm. x 2 cm.; (6) swelling with echomosis on middle of left forearm 4 cm. x 2 cm.; (7) swelling with echomosis on the dorsal of left little finger 1 cm. x 2 cm.; and (8) echomosis on middle abdomen below umbilicus. 13. About the aforesaid injuries, he has said that all injuries were simple in nature caused by hard and blunt substance and age of injuries was more than forty eight hours. He has proved the injury reports which are marked Exhibits-B and B/1. 14. From the evidence of aforesaid defence witnesses, I find that date of receiving injuries by appellants Shivnandan Mahton and Shailendra Mahton is said to be 1.5.1991 but their medical examination was held on 3.5.1991. Shivnandan Mahton (DW 1), in his evidence, has said that after occurrence, he was taken to police station where his case was not accepted by police and, thereafter, he was taken to doctor at Madhepura where he received treatment. He has not stated that why he went to doctor two days after the occurrence. It is also not explained that when he had received injuries on 1. He has not stated that why he went to doctor two days after the occurrence. It is also not explained that when he had received injuries on 1. 5.1991 why he was taken to doctor on 3.5.1991 and not before than. The Court below has rightly rejected the plea of defence that it was informant who, aiming at appellant Shivnandan Mahton, fired from his firearm but the shot hit his father taking into consideration the two circumstances, namely, going to doctor on 3.5.1991 and filing of complaint on 4.5.1991. Since the aforesaid circum-stances make the version of defence that on the day of occurrence, they were assaulted by informant and his men quite doubtful, therefore, I find no force in the argument advanced on behalf of the appellants that the prosecution has failed to explain the injuries sustained by appellants which were obligatory upon it. 15. The learned counsel for the appellants has also argued that the post-mortem examination report does not tally with the version of prosecution witnesses about the manner in which deceased received firearm injuries. As discussed above, the appellants have not challenged the fact that the deceased died of injuries caused by firearm. I therefore, find no force in the aforesaid argument advanced on behalf of the appellant. 16. Considering the evidence and materials on record, I find that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts against all the appellants. The judgment and order of Court below does not require any interference by this Court. 17. In the result, both these appeals stand dismissed and judgment and order of Court below is hereby confirmed. The order dated 23.7.1997 staying the operation of the order directing other appellants to execute the bond is hereby vacated and they are directed to execute the bond, as ordered by the trial Court. M.L.Visa, J. 18 I agree.