S. K. GUPTA, J. ( 1 ) THE present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kalna within the District of Burdwan in Sessions Trial No. 4 of 2000 whereby he convicted the accused persons under section 302/34 IPC and sentenced them to suffer imprisonment for life and also to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- each in default to suffer further imprisonment for six months. ( 2 ) IT appears from the lower Court Record that prosecution case is that on 10. 03. 1998 one Prabir Kumar Dey of village Pukushpur within P. S. Purbasthali submitted a written complaint to the O. C. concerned stating therein that on 09. 03. 1998 at about 8. 30/9 p. m. his neighbours Sadhan Ghosh, Madan Ghosh and Ashok Ghosh chased his brother Ganesh Dey with sharp weapons in their hands from the western side of their house. Sadhan and Madan had two sharp weapons in their hands and Ashok had a Bhojali and a bamboo stick in his right and left hand respectively. They chased Ganesh towards Harirjole and seeing that he followed them. Those persons caught hold of Ganesh Dey near Harirjole and they started assaulting Ganesh recklessly with the sharp weapons in their hands. As a result of that Ganesh fell on the ground with bleeding injuries on his person. The miscreants suddenly noticed the defacto complainant and as such they started chasing him. Out of fear, the defacto complainant fled away and he kept himself hidden elsewhere through out the night. On the next day i. e. on 10. 03. 98 at about 6 a. m. the defacto complainant returned back to his house and narrated the incident to his family members. Thereafter, being accompanied by his brothers, sisters as well as parents, the defacto complainant went to Harirjole field and reaching there they found that the dead body of Ganesh was lying there. They also found that Ganesh had bleeding injuries all over his body caused by sharp weapons. In the written complaint it has been stated that the deceased Ganesh Chandra Dey had an illicit affairs with the wife of Sadhan Ghosh. Due to that, there was an enimity in between Ganesh and Sadhan and on many occasions Sadhan threatened to murder Ganesh. In the written complaint it has been stated that the deceased Ganesh Chandra Dey had an illicit affairs with the wife of Sadhan Ghosh. Due to that, there was an enimity in between Ganesh and Sadhan and on many occasions Sadhan threatened to murder Ganesh. The defacto complainant believed that out of the said grudge that deceased was murdered by the accused persons. On the basis of the written complaint Purbasthali P. S. case No. 20/98 dated 10. 03. 1998 was started. The case was investigated and after completion of the investigation chargesheet was submitted against the accused persons. During trial charge under section 302/34 of the IPC was framed against the accused persons. Same was readover and explained to them who all pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. Prosecution in all has examined 11 witnesses to bring home the charge against the accused persons. Defence has not adduced any evidence. Defence case, as it has transpired from the trend of cross-examination as well as from the statements made by the accused persons under section 313 Cr. PC, is that of denial. ( 3 ) WE have already pointed out that it is the case of the prosecution that out of previous grudge the present accused persons caused the murder of the deceased Ganesh Chandra Dey. So it is the duty of the prosecution to prove this claim beyond any reasonable doubt against the accused persons. We have also mentioned that altogether 11 witnesses have been examined in connection with this case. So the statements as made by these witnesses are very much relevant for the purpose of coming to a decision so far as the present case is concerned. So we like to discuss the statements at the outset. ( 4 ) IT appears that the PW 1 is Prabir Kumar Dey. He is the defacto complainant himself. He in his evidence has stated that the deceased Ganesh Dey was his brother and he was murdered by the present accused persons namely Sadhan Ghosh, Ashok Ghosh and Madan Ghosh. He has stated that on 09. 03. 1998 at about 8. 30 p. m. he found that these three accused persons were chasing his brother Ganesh with sharp cutting weapons in their hands. He has stated that on 09. 03. 1998 at about 8. 30 p. m. he found that these three accused persons were chasing his brother Ganesh with sharp cutting weapons in their hands. As per his statements those persons caught hold of Ganesh near Harirjole field and there they assaulted Ganesh with sharp cutting weapons and as a result of that Ganesh died instantaneously on the spot. It is also the claim of PW 1 that as the accused persons saw him subsequently, so they also chased him by saying "dhar Salake". Out of fear, he fled away to save his life and took shelter in the shallow situated in the field. He has claimed that on the next morning he returned back home and narrated the incident to his family members and being accompanied by them they visited the spot and recovered the dead body of Ganesh. He has further claimed that thereafter he went to the P. S. and submitted the written complaint. This witness has been cross-examined by the defence at length. During cross-examination this witness has stated that he and his brother used to reside in the same house. He has also admitted that there are 140/150 families residing in the village and the accused persons are their close neighbours. He has further stated that there were four shops at the crossing of the road but at the same time he clarified that at the relevant point of time there was only one shop i. e. the shop of Biswambar. According to this witness, at the time of the incident his brother Ganesh and he himself raised an alarm. But no villagers came there as it was night. According to him during night the villagers generally do not attend the field for the purpose of cultivation. However, this witness could not say as to whether for the first time during deposition he was stating that he took shelter at the shallow room at Paglarmath. He has also claimed in cross-examination that there are houses far away from the said shallow room. In answer to the question put by the learned advocate for the defence, this witness pointed out that at the time of incident there was no locality near the Harirjole field. But at present there are some houses and those houses were built after the murder of the deceased. In answer to the question put by the learned advocate for the defence, this witness pointed out that at the time of incident there was no locality near the Harirjole field. But at present there are some houses and those houses were built after the murder of the deceased. This witness could not say as to whether the deceased tried to commit suicide prior to the incident. In fact he has denied the defence suggestion that the deceased tried to commit suicide as his love affair with Joytsna turned futile. This witness has categorically denied the defence suggestion that he did not see the incident, as alleged. He has also denied that he manufactured the FIR in collusion with his relatives against the accused persons out of enmity. ( 5 ) PW 2 is Ashok Das. He is a neighbour of the deceased. He in his evidence has stated that hearing the incident he had been to the spot and found that Ganesh was lying dead with bleeding injuries on his person. He has further deposed that on the date of incident at about 7 p. m. the accused persons were in search of Ganesh. He has further stated that on that day in the afternoon he left for his father-in-law's house at Udaychandrapur. On the next morning on his way back he came to the Kheya ghat around 6. 30 a. m. when he found that the wife of Sadhan Ghosh got down from the boat and thereafter he boarded the said boat. He has also claimed that at that time accused Sadhan Ghosh and Ashok Ghosh also boarded the same boat. He has also claimed that he asked as to why they murdered Ganesh. He has also stated in his evidence that he asked Sadhan as to why his wife was not murdered alone with Ganesh" At this Sadhan replied that his wife had no fault and he informed him that Ganesh was caught by them in the open field. In his cross-examination he admitted that accused Sadhan Ghosh was his brother-in-law by village courtesy. He has denied the defence suggestion that he was in enmity with the family members of Sadhan Ghosh as the goat of accused Sadhan damaged his crops. This witness has clearly denied the defence suggestion that out of grudge he deposed falsely against the accused persons. He has denied the defence suggestion that he was in enmity with the family members of Sadhan Ghosh as the goat of accused Sadhan damaged his crops. This witness has clearly denied the defence suggestion that out of grudge he deposed falsely against the accused persons. This witness has further denied that the accused persons were not in search of Ganesh on the date of incident at about 7 p. m. ( 6 ) PW 3 is Raj Kumar Halder. He is also a neighbour of the accused person as well as of the defacto complainant. According to him on the date of incident at about 7 p. m. there was a tension in front of the house of the Ganesh and hearing that he had been to that place. He has stated that reaching the said house he found Sadhan, Madan and Ashok were shouting and they were in search of Ganesh. On the next morning this witness came to know that Ganesh was lying dead at Harirjole field. In his cross-examination, this witness denied the defence suggestion that he did not find the accused persons shouting in front of the house of the defacto complainant on the date of incident. ( 7 ) PW 4 is Joydeb Das. He is a neighbour of the deceased. He wrote the written complaint as per instruction of Prabir Dey. He also was present at the time of the inquest and signed on the report. He noticed bleeding injuries inflicted by sharp cutting weapons on the body of Ganesh. According to him there was an enmity in between Ganesh and accused persons over the illicit relationship of Ganesh with the wife of Sadhan Ghosh. This witness has denied the defence suggestion that as he had a love affairs with Prabir's sister so he was deposing falsely against the accused persons at the instance of Prabir i. e. PW 1. ( 8 ) PW 5 is Ganesh Bag. He is a daily labourer and in his evidence he has claimed that on the date of incident at about 7 p. m. he was engaged in the house of the deceased's uncle. At that time he noticed that the accused persons being armed with sharp cutting weapons rushed to that place and they were shouting that they would murder Ganesh. At that time he noticed that the accused persons being armed with sharp cutting weapons rushed to that place and they were shouting that they would murder Ganesh. This witness has claimed that he caught hold of the weapon which was in the hand of accused Sadhan and pushed him back. Thereafter the accused persons left the place after threatening that they would murder Ganesh. This witness was cross-examined by the accused persons. In his cross-examination this witness could not mention the names of the persons who assembled in that evening in front of the house of Samir Dey. This witness denied the suggestion that there was no sharp cutting weapon in the hand of Sadhan Ghosh. He has also denied that the accused persons did not threaten that they would murder Ganesh. ( 9 ) PW 6 is Smt. Supriti Deb. She is the sister of the deceased Ganesh Dey. She has stated that on the date of incident in the evening, the accused persons came in front of their house and were searching for Ganesh and they were threatening that they would murder him. She has further stated that at that time they had sharp cutting weapons in their hands. She has also stated that Ganesh Bag, the day labourer of her uncle came to the place and he caught hold of the weapon which was there in the hands of Ganesh. According to her, on the next morning at about 6 a. m. she heard from her brother Prabir that Ganesh was murdered. Prabir told her and others that he saw the accused persons to murder Ganesh. In her cross-examination this witness has stated that on that day her brother Prabir left the house after taking lunch and informed them that he would go to Katwa for purchasing part of the pump machine in order to repair the same. According to her, on that night as Ganesh was found absent, so her family members searched for Ganesh in the house of the neighbours. But police was not informed on that night about the threatening given by the accused persons. Suggestions were given to this witness that whatever she stated in her examination chief were false. But this witness clearly denied those suggestions. But police was not informed on that night about the threatening given by the accused persons. Suggestions were given to this witness that whatever she stated in her examination chief were false. But this witness clearly denied those suggestions. She has also denied the suggestion of the accused persons that deceased Ganesh previously tried to commit suicide on his failure to develop love affairs with one Joytshna Biswas. ( 10 ) PW 7 is Doctor Chittaranjan Ghosh. He conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased Ganesh Dey. According to the Doctor he found huge number of injuries on the body of the deceased and all those injuries were caused by sharp cutting weapons. He as of the opinion that the death of the deceased was anti mortem and homicidal in nature. He was also of the opinion that those injuries could be caused by the weapons like Ramda etc. ( 11 ) PW 8 is Swapan Kumar Dey. He is the brother of the deceased Ganesh Dey. In his evidence he has also stated that on the date of incident in the evening the accused persons being armed with sharp cutting weapons were shouting in front of their house and they were in search of his brother Ganesh Dey. They were threatening that they would murder Ganesh if he was available. He has further stated that one of his labour Ganesh Bag caught hold of accused Sadhan and asked them to leave the place. The accused persons at that time left the place with the threatening that they would murder Ganesh Dey if he could be searched out. This witness has stated that on the next morning at about 6. 30 a. m. his brother Prabir returned home and informed that on the last night he found the accused persons to murder Ganesh at Harirjole math. Hearing that, the witness along with others went to the said field and found Ganesh was lying dead with several cut injuries on his person. He has also stated that on 22. 03. 98 police recovered one Ramda and one spear (ballam) from the heaps of straw at the south-western corner of the kitchen of the accused persons as shown by them and at that time he was present there. Police seized those weapons under seizure list. The accused persons cross-examined the witness in detail. He has also stated that on 22. 03. 98 police recovered one Ramda and one spear (ballam) from the heaps of straw at the south-western corner of the kitchen of the accused persons as shown by them and at that time he was present there. Police seized those weapons under seizure list. The accused persons cross-examined the witness in detail. In answer to a question this witness stated that on that night they searched for Ganesh in the locality. He has stated that he did not search for his brother Prabir as he was aware that he was in the field. From his evidence it appears that Paglamath is situated at a distance from the village. This witness denied the defence suggestion that the accused persons did not put their signature and LTI on the seizure list in his presence. He has further denied that no Ramda or spear were recovered by the police from the house of the accused persons. He has also denied the defence suggestion that there was no such trouble in front of their house in the evening at about 7 p. m. of the date of incident. ( 12 ) PW 9 is Samir Kumar Dey, who is the brother of the deceased Ganesh Dey. According to this witness, prior to the murder of the deceased Ganesh, the accused persons came in front of his Tantghar and raised hue and cry. At that time they were armed with sharp cutting weapons and they disclosed that they would murder his brother Ganesh. As he enquired about the reason, accused Sadhan tried to assault him with a sharp cutting weapon. At that time Ganesh Bag intervened and caught the ramda which was in the hand of accused Ganesh Ghosh. The accused persons thereafter left the place with the threatening that they would murder Ganesh whenever they would find him. On the next morning this witness came to know about the murder of Ganesh from his brother Prabir. He went to the spot and found that Ganesh was lying dead with injuries on his person. The accused persons were not present in the village as they fled away from that place. Subsequently on 22. 03. 98 police came to the village around 4 p. m. with accused Ashok and Sadhan. He went to the spot and found that Ganesh was lying dead with injuries on his person. The accused persons were not present in the village as they fled away from that place. Subsequently on 22. 03. 98 police came to the village around 4 p. m. with accused Ashok and Sadhan. This witness along with his brother Swapan Dey accompanied the police and went to the house of the accused persons where accused Sadhan Ghosh brought out one Ramda and accused Ashok Ghosh brought out one spear from the heaps of straw which was in the south-western corner of their kitchen. Police seized the said Ramda and spear under a seizure list and accused Sadhan signed in the seizure list while accused put his LTI. This witness was cross-examined by the defence. In his cross-examination he stated that they did not inform the police about the incident which took place in the evening of the date of the incident in front of their Tantghar. In his cross-examination this witness has claimed that his brother Prabir left the house on the date of incident for repairing the pump machine and at that time he informed the family members that he would not return home if the pump machine was not repaired by that night. He has claimed that due to that reason they did not enquire about Prabir on that night. It further appears from his cross-examination that one Ganesh Bag was engaged in cutting straw at the Eastern side of Tantghar when the accused persons came in front of their house and raised hue and cry. According to this witness at the relevant time there was no house or shop situated at Harirjole field. This witness clearly denied the suggestion of the defence that there was no such incident in the evening of 09. 03. 98 as claimed by him. He has also denied that Ganesh Bag did not catch hold of the hands of accused Sadhan and prevented him from assaulting this witness. He has also denied the defence suggestion that his brother Prabir did not inform the family members that the accused persons murdered Ganesh. He also denied the defence suggestion that no weapons recovered from the house of the accused persons. ( 13 ) PW 10 is SI Shri Ramendra Talukdar. He in his evidence has claimed that on 10. 03. He has also denied the defence suggestion that his brother Prabir did not inform the family members that the accused persons murdered Ganesh. He also denied the defence suggestion that no weapons recovered from the house of the accused persons. ( 13 ) PW 10 is SI Shri Ramendra Talukdar. He in his evidence has claimed that on 10. 03. 98 he was attached to the Purbasthali P. S. as the Officer-in-Charge. On that day he received the written complaint from one Prabir at about 12. 15 hours. On the basis of the said written complaint he started the present case and endorsed the same to SI, Manik Chandra Dutta for investigation. ( 14 ) PW 11 is SI, Manik Chandra Dutta. He is the Investigating Officer of this case. He has claimed that during investigation he visited the P. O. , prepared the sketch map and recorded the statements of the witnesses. He also prepared the inquest report in presence of the witnesses. He sent the dead body of the victim Ganesh Chandra Dey to the S. D. Hospital, Kalna for post mortem examination. This witness has claimed that he recovered the offending weapons i. e. Ramda and Ballam pursuant to the statements made by accused Sadhan and Ashok. He has claimed that he seized those weapons under a seizure list. It appears from his statement that accused Madan Ghosh surrendered subsequently. In his cross-examination he admitted that the defacto complainant did not show the place where he took shelter in the night on the date of incident. He has stated that there were some shops situated at some distance from the P. O. This witness clearly denied the defence suggestion that he did not recover the offending weapons being led by the accused persons. In fact he has denied the suggestion that no such weapons were recovered by him. ( 15 ) THE learned Court below discussed the evidence on record in his judgment and thereafter he was of the opinion that the prosecution was able to prove the case against the accused persons beyond any doubt and as such he convicted and sentenced them accordingly. The point that is to be considered, so far as the present appeal is concerned, is whether the learned Court below was justified in holding the accused persons guilty of the offence charged with. The point that is to be considered, so far as the present appeal is concerned, is whether the learned Court below was justified in holding the accused persons guilty of the offence charged with. ( 16 ) WE have already pointed out that in order to establish the case, prosecution in all has examined 11 witnesses. We have discussed the statements as made by these witnesses before hand. From the evidence on record it appears that in this case there is only one eye witness viz. PW 1 Prabir Kumar Dey, the brother of the deceased. He in his evidence has categorically claimed that on 09. 03. 98 at about 8. 30 p. m. when he was returning to his home from his field at that time he saw the accused persons armed with sharp cutting weapons were chasing his brother Ganesh Dey. He has further claimed that he found that the accused persons caught hold of Ganesh Dey in the Harirjole field and assaulted him severely with the sharp cutting weapons which were in their hands, causing his death. He has further deposed to the effect that the accused persons, as soon as they saw him, chased him and as such in order to save his life he fled away. This witness has claimed that he took shelter in his shallow room which was situated in the field, in that night. He has clearly claimed that through out the night he stayed in that shallow room and in the morning at about 6 a. m. he returned back to his house and narrated the incident to his family members. According to this witness, thereafter he took his family members to the field where all of them found that Ganesh was lying dead with injuries on his person. This witness has claimed that thereafter he went to the P. S. and lodged the FIR. The story as made out in the FIR has been clearly corroborated by this witness in his evidence. His claim that he informed his family members about the incident on the next day in the early morning, has been clearly corroborated by the evidence of the PW 2 Ashok Das, PW 6 Supriti Deb, PW 8 Swapan Kumar Dey and PW 9 Samir Kumar Dey. All of them clearly stated that in the morning PW 1 Prabir Kumar Dey informed them that on 09. 03. All of them clearly stated that in the morning PW 1 Prabir Kumar Dey informed them that on 09. 03. 98 at about 8. 30 p. m. these accused persons caused the death of the deceased Ganesh Dey in the field by way of assaulting him with sharp cutting weapons. The statement as given by this PW 1 Prabir Kumar Dey in this respect regarding the murder of the deceased Ganesh Dey by the accused persons, have been put to test by way of cross-examination. But this witness withstood the cross-examination well and we find nothing to disbelieve his statement. Learned advocate for the appellants argued that it is unbelievable that on night this PW 1 remained in the shallow room instead of rushing back to his own house for reporting the incident. But if we look into the evidence of this PW 1, then it will appear that he clearly stated that when he saw the ghastly incident he became very much afraid and in order to save his life he took shelter in the shallow room when he was also chased by the accused persons. We find nothing unusual in the conduct of this witness. It must be remembered that the incident took place in the night at about 8. 30 p. m. and in a village field. We can safely presume that it would not be possible for this PW 1 to call the villagers at that time in order to protect himself. As such it is most natural that he would take step for concealing himself in a safer place throughout the night in order to save his life. It has transpired from the evidence on record that there were practically no houses near the place of occurrence. The witnesses have claimed that at present i. e. at the time of deposition some houses have been established at that place but during relevant time there was practically no house near the P. O. In absence of any contrary evidence in this respect we are not in a position to disbelieve this statement of the witnesses. Learned advocate for the appellant argued that the PW 1 should not be believed as in fact he is a mere chance witness. But we have already pointed out that this witness clearly stated that he saw the incident with his own eyes. Learned advocate for the appellant argued that the PW 1 should not be believed as in fact he is a mere chance witness. But we have already pointed out that this witness clearly stated that he saw the incident with his own eyes. Merely because, all on a sudden during his return through the field, he saw the incident and for that reason the statement of this witness should not be discarded as a chance witness. Whatever may be the description of this witness, it cannot be denied that for all practical purposes it should be remembered that it is he who saw the incident of murder. Learned advocate for the appellants argued that the post incident conduct of this witness is very much peculiar and is against the normal human conduct. According to him it is unbelievable that after seeing the incident he would prefer to remain confined in the shallow room instead of reporting the matter to his family members. But human conduct is a vast thing and there cannot be a model code of conduct for all persons to be followed after seeing an incident. One person may react in a particular way after seeing the incident of murder while another person may react in a different way. As because a person has reacted in a different way deviating from the normal course, it cannot be said that for that reason the statement as made by that person should be disbelieved. What is important for the purpose of this case is, whether the conduct as shown by this PW 1 is trustworthy and believable or not. Unless it is shown that the reaction of the PW 1 is so improbable or so uninconceivable from any human being pitted in such a situation, it will be unfair to discard the reaction of this witness as unnatural. To our mind, there is no doubt that the conduct of this PW 1, after he saw the incident, is not at all unnatural. As such we fully agree with the views expressed by the learned Court below that there is nothing to disbelieve the statement of this witness in this respect. ( 17 ) LEARNED advocate for the appellants argued that it will be most unsafe as well as unfair to rely on the sole testimony of a person in order to convict the accused persons for the offence of murder. ( 17 ) LEARNED advocate for the appellants argued that it will be most unsafe as well as unfair to rely on the sole testimony of a person in order to convict the accused persons for the offence of murder. But there is no such rule that a person cannot be convicted on the basis of a statement made by a sole eye witness. What is important is that the Court should weigh the statement of the particular eye witness in order to come to a decision is to whether his statement is fit to be relied upon or not. It is the accepted principle of law that the evidence has to be weighed and not counted. A Court can act on the testimony of a single witness, even though uncorroborated. If the evidence of the sole eye witness is credible, then it will outweigh the testimony of a number of other witnesses. What is relevant is whether the evidence of the sole eye witness is worthy of acceptance or not. Court should not ask for corroboration as a matter of rule except in cases where the nature of testimony of the single eye witness itself requires as a rule of prudence that corroboration should be insisted upon. Here, in the given circumstances, we find that there is no necessity of further corroboration so far as the evidence of the PW 1 is concerned in respect of the actual incident. We have already pointed out that the incident took place at 8. 30 p. m. in the night in a village field. Naturally we cannot expect that there will be corroboration of the statement made by this PW 1 to the effect that actually he saw the accused persons causing the murder of his brother Ganesh Dey. ( 18 ) THAT apart, if we look into the prosecution case then it well appear that a case has been made out to the effect that on the date of incident at about 7 p. m. this accused persons being armed with weapons violently demonstrated in front of the house of the deceased. At that time, the deceased was not present there and during altercation the accused persons tried to assault the brother of the deceased. At that time, the deceased was not present there and during altercation the accused persons tried to assault the brother of the deceased. From the evidence on record it has transpired that there is a trouble going on in between the two families over the alleged illicit relationship in between the deceased and the wife of accused Sadhan Ghosh. Prosecution has tried to project this as the motive behind the murder. Whatever may be the reason for the murder, it appears that the prosecution has been able to prove that there was an incident in front of the house of the deceased on the date of the incident at about 7 p. m. The claim of the prosecution in this respect finds support from the evidence of PW 2 Ashok Das. PW 3 Raj Kumar Halder. PW 5 Ganesh Bag, PW 6 Supriti Deb, PW 8 Swapan Kumar Dey and PW 9 Samir Kumar Dey. All these witnesses categorically stated that on that evening the accused persons assembled in front of the house of the deceased and they were in search of him and were threatening that they would murder him. The evidence of the PW 9 Samir Kumar Dey and that of PW 5 Ganesh Bag is very much relevant for proving this point. PW 9 has stated that on that evening the accused persons came in front of their house and were threatening that they would murder Ganesh. As he enquired the reason there of, accused Sadhan tried to assault him with Ramda and at that time the PW 5 Ganesh Bag caught hold of accused Sadhan and as such he could not assault the PW 9. The claim of the PW 9 in this respect finds clear support from the evidence of PW 5 Ganesh Bag. He in his evidence has stated that on that evening he was cutting straw in the house of the uncle of Ganesh and at that time the accused persons came there and created trouble. He has clearly stated that he caught hold of accused Sadhan and sent back the accused persons. He had also stated that the accused persons threatened that they would murder Ganesh whenever he would be available. He has clearly stated that he caught hold of accused Sadhan and sent back the accused persons. He had also stated that the accused persons threatened that they would murder Ganesh whenever he would be available. So we find sufficient evidence on behalf of the prosecution to prove that prior to the incident of murder, the accused persons assembled in front of the house of the defacto complainant and at that time also they disclosed their intention to cause the murder of the deceased. This fact certainly gives a clear support to the prosecution case. ( 19 ) LEARNED advocate for the appellants argued that according to the prosecution the alleged incident took place in the night at about 8. 30 p. m. in a village field. He drew our attention to the fact that the PW 1 the only eye witness, claimed that he saw the incident from a distance. As such he argued, that it was not possible for this PW 1 to identify the accused persons during the night standing from a long distance. But we are not at all impressed by this argument. It is undisputed that the accused persons are the close neighbours of the PW 1 and his family members. It will not be difficult for the PW 1 to identify the accused persons from a distance even if it is 8. 30 p. m. in the night. That apart, it has transpired from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that the said night was a moonlit night. Naturally it would not be impossible for the PW 1 to identify the accused persons at the time of the incident. To our mind, there is nothing to disbelieve this statement of the PW 1. ( 20 ) LEARNED advocate for the appellants further argued that the PW 1 Prabir Dey stated in his evidence that he took shelter in the shallow room on that night. But this fact has not been mentioned in the FIR. He also pointed out that the alleged incident as stated by these PWs which took place at about 7 p. m. , on the date of incident, was also not mentioned in the FIR. But this fact has not been mentioned in the FIR. He also pointed out that the alleged incident as stated by these PWs which took place at about 7 p. m. , on the date of incident, was also not mentioned in the FIR. We have gone through the written complaint and in fact it will appear from the said written complaint that there was no mention in it about taking shelter by the PW 1 in the shallow room or about the incident which took place on that night at about 7 p. m. in front of the house of the defacto complainant. But if we give a close look in the written complaint then it will appear that it has been stated therein that the PW1 kept himself hidden elsewhere in the field. Simply because he has not mentioned about the shallow room, for that reason the statement as given by the PW 1 in his evidence cannot be disbelieved. Similarly it cannot be said that as in the written complaint there is no mention about the incident which took place at about 7 p. m. on the date of incident, so the said statement must be considered to be a fabricated one. It is now well settled that the FIR is not a substantive piece of evidence. An FIR is relevant in judging the veracity of the prosecution case and the value to be attached to it, depends on the fact of each case. It is required that only the essential or broad picture of the case should be stated in the FIR and it is not required that all minute details are to be mentioned therein. Non mentioning of some facts or vague reference to some other facts are not fatal for a prosecution case. The Court is to get itself satisfied about the genuineness of the prosecution case and statement as made in the FIR is to be considered accordingly. We have already discussed that there is nothing to disbelieve the prosecution case about the incident which took place at about 7 p. m. in front of the house of the PW 1. We have also discussed earlier that there is no reason to disbelieve the statement of the PW 1 regarding his taking shelter in the shallow room of the field. We have also discussed earlier that there is no reason to disbelieve the statement of the PW 1 regarding his taking shelter in the shallow room of the field. In view of the clear evidence on this point, we are of the opinion that those claims of the prosecution cannot be discarded simply because that those facts were not mention in the written complaint. ( 21 ) LEARNED advocate for the appellants argued that there is delay of 17 hours in lodging the FIR and as such he argued that as this delay has not been sufficiently explained, so there remains a clear doubt regarding the genuineness of the prosecution case and the accused persons should get the benefit out of it. It appears from the record that the incident took place on 09. 03. 98 at about 8. 30/9 p. m. The FIR was lodged on 10. 03. 98 at 12-15 hours. In order to explain the delay, the prosecution has claimed that after the incident accused persons chased the PW 1 and out of fear he has to take shelter in the shallow room, situated in the field and stayed there through out the night. He has also claimed that on the next morning at about 6 a. m. he returned back to his house and narrated the incident to his family members. It is the further case of the prosecution that the PW 1 has taken the family members to the field thereafter and at that time they found that Ganesh Dey was lying dead in the field with bleeding injuries on his person. The PW 1 has claimed that thereafter he had been to the P. S. and lodged the FIR. We have already discussed that there is nothing unusual in the conduct of the PW 1 and the claim, as made by him in this respect, has been ably corroborated by the statements of the other witnesses. So, we find nothing unnatural in the delay of about 17 hours in lodging the written complaint in the P. S. As such, it cannot be said under any stretch of imagination that due to this delay, the prosecution case should be disbelieved and the accused persons should be given the benefit of doubt. So, we find nothing unnatural in the delay of about 17 hours in lodging the written complaint in the P. S. As such, it cannot be said under any stretch of imagination that due to this delay, the prosecution case should be disbelieved and the accused persons should be given the benefit of doubt. ( 22 ) LEARNED advocate for the appellants further argued that there is clear doubt in this case regarding the weapon used for murdering the deceased Ganesh Dey. In order to justify his submission, the learned advocate drew our attention to the written complaint as it appears in the paper book. In the paper book it has been mentioned that in the written complaint, the PW 1 stated that accused Sadhan and Madan had two sharp file hooks in their hands and Ashok had a Bhojali and a bamboo stick in his hands. In this connection he drew our attention to the evidence of the PW 7 Doctor Chhitaranjan Ghosh. It appears that this PW 7 has stated in his evidence that he conducted the post mortem examination of the dead body of the deceased and found large number of injuries on the body of the deceased. According to this Doctor those injuries were homicide in nature and could have been caused by sharp cutting weapons like ramda etc. He has given the description of all those injuries. According to the learned advocate for the appellants the nature of injuries would have been different had it been caused by sharp file hooks which were allegedly in the hands of the accused persons. For this, he drew attention to the written complaint as it appears in the paper book. It appears that in the paper book, the written complaint was translated from Bengali to English and it has been mentioned therein that the accused persons had sharp file hooks as well as bamboo stick in their hands. Instead of relying on the translated version of the written complaint, as it appears in the paper book, we preferred to peruse the original written complaint. It appears that the said written complaint was written in Bengali language. It has been clearly mentioned in the written complaint that accused Sadhan and Madan had two sharp cutting Daw in their hands "duti Dharalo da Chhilo". It appears that the said written complaint was written in Bengali language. It has been clearly mentioned in the written complaint that accused Sadhan and Madan had two sharp cutting Daw in their hands "duti Dharalo da Chhilo". So the description of the weapons in the written complaint is completely different with the translated version of the written complaint as it appears in the paper book. Naturally it has misled the learned advocate for the appellants to make argument on that point. There is a paper book section in this High Court which is being supervised by different Officers including the Registrar. It is really unfortunate that such type of mistakes could take place in the paper book and thereby misleading the learned advocate as well as this Court. The Registrar General of this High Court should take appropriate departmental step in this respect for fixing up the responsibility as well to take necessary step so that this type of mistake should not occur in future. Let the extract of this paragraph be sent to the learned Registrar General of this Court for his information and taking necessary action. ( 23 ) BE that as it may, it appears from the written complaint that the accused persons had ramda, Bhojali, Ballam and Bamboo in their hands. The injuries as it appears in the post mortem report certainly could have been caused by this ramda as well as by the Bhojali. We fully agree with the view of the learned Court below that by bamboo stick the defacto complainant wanted to mean a spear (ballam), the sharp cutting portion of which is generally fixed on a bamboo stick. So the injuries as it was found on the body of the deceased certainly match the weapons which have been mentioned in the written complaint. We find nothing unusual in this respect. As such we do not accept the argument of the learned advocate for the appellants. ( 24 ) LEARNED advocate for the appellants further argued that it is the claim of the prosecution that the ramda and the spear (Ballam) were recovered by the police on being led and identified by the accused persons. According to him the evidence regarding the recovery of the weapons is far from satisfactory. He has claimed that there is practically no independent witness regarding this seizure. According to him the evidence regarding the recovery of the weapons is far from satisfactory. He has claimed that there is practically no independent witness regarding this seizure. But if we look into the evidence of the PW 11 M. C. Dey, who is the Investigating Officer of this case, then it will appear that he categorically claimed that those weapons were recovered at the instance of the accused persons. The evidence of the Investigating Officer has been corroborated by the PW 9 S. Dey, who in his evidence clearly supported the claim of the Investigating Officer that those weapons were recovered on being pointed out by the accused persons. Simply because there is no independent witness in respect of the said seizure, it cannot be said that the statements as made by the Investigating Officer and the PW 9 Shri S. Dey should be disbelieved. It is our common experience that now a days both in urban and rural areas, the witnesses are very much reluctant to come forward to help the police in the course of investigation particularly when both the parties are residents of the same village. The present day situation in the country is responsible for this attitude. As such, it is difficult for an Investigating Officer to secure independent witness while investigating a case in which both the parties are residents of a same village. The Investigating Officer is himself an independent person and it is expected that he would investigate the case impartially. There is nothing on record to show that the Investigating Officer was enimical to the interest of the accused persons and for that reason he falsely fabricated this case against them. It is unbelievable that the Investigating Officer would create false evidence against the accused persons unnecessarily in order to involve them in this case. Of course it would have been better for the prosecution case if the FSL Report could be proved in connection with this case. But it appears from the record that the said report was not available although steps in that respect was taken on behalf of the prosecution. Of course it would have been better for the prosecution case if the FSL Report could be proved in connection with this case. But it appears from the record that the said report was not available although steps in that respect was taken on behalf of the prosecution. As we find that the prosecution has been able to prove that the offending weapons were seized by the Investigating Officer at the instance of the accused persons, to our mind it would not be appropriate to give the prosecution case a go-by due to the non-availability of the FSL Report. ( 25 ) LEARNED advocate for the appellants argued that the independent witnesses were not examined by the prosecution and for that reason there is a room for doubt regarding the genuineness of the prosecution case. But it appears that in this case there is practically only one eye witness and he has been examined as the PW 1. We have already pointed out that the incident took place at about 8. 30/9 p. m. in the village field. Naturally it is not expected that some independent persons would be available at the time of the incident. It has transpired from the evidence on record there were, at the material time no houses near the P. O. At the time of deposition, the witnesses have stated that some houses have been constructed in the meantime. But they have categorically claimed that at the material time there was no house near the P. O. In absence of any contrary evidence in this respect, we find no reason to disbelieve this claim of the prosecution witnesses. Naturally, we are of the opinion that the prosecution case does not suffer from any infirmity due to the alleged non-examination of independent witnesses. We have already discussed that the prosecution has adduced the evidence of some of the independent witnesses who saw the incident which took place at 7 p. m. on the date of the incident. From this, it is clear that the prosecution has been able to examine all the material witnesses that were available so far as the present case is concerned. It is immaterial whether the prosecution has examined all the chargesheeted witnesses or not. The choice in this respect lies with the prosecution. From this, it is clear that the prosecution has been able to examine all the material witnesses that were available so far as the present case is concerned. It is immaterial whether the prosecution has examined all the chargesheeted witnesses or not. The choice in this respect lies with the prosecution. If the prosecution thinks that its case will be proved by examining the 11 witnesses out of the 21 chargesheeted witnesses, then it cannot be said that due to the non-examination of those 10 witnesses it should be considered that there is a cloud regarding the claim of the prosecution case. It is not incumbent on the prosecution to examine each and every witness so as to multiply witnesses. As such, we reject this argument of the learned advocate for the appellants. ( 26 ) IT appears from the record that the incident took place on 09. 03. 98 and the FIR was lodged on the next day i. e. on 10. 03. 98. In the FIR, the names of the accused persons were clearly mentioned. But if we look into the lower Court Record then it will appear that accused Sadhan and Ashok were arrested and produced before the Court on 20. 03. 98. Accused Madan Ghosh surrendered on 07. 04. 98. From the forwarding report of the Investigating Officer, it appears that he has stated in it that the accused persons fled from the village after the incident. The conduct of the accused persons in this respect is far from satisfactory and it has also strengthened the prosecution case. Learned advocate for the appellants drew our attention to the decisions reported in AIR 2003 Supreme Court at page 762 in order to show that conviction of an accused solely based on the testimony of some eye witness is not proper. We have considered the said decision and it appears to us that the fact of the said case is completely different from the fact of the present case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in many cases has been pleased to observe that the conviction of an accused can be made on the basis of a sole eyewitness. So far as the present case is concerned, we have already pointed out that there is nothing to disbelieve the statement as made by the PW 1, sole eye witness of this case. So far as the present case is concerned, we have already pointed out that there is nothing to disbelieve the statement as made by the PW 1, sole eye witness of this case. We have also pointed out that the other circumstances that has been brought to our notice by the prosecution have sufficiently corroborated the statement as made by the PW 1. And as such, we are of the opinion that the evidence of the PW 1 trustworthy and should be believed. So the decision as referred by the learned advocate for the defence, is of no help, so far as the present case is concerned. Learned advocate for the appellants further cited a decision reported in AIR 2002 Supreme Court at page 2707 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court is pleased to point out that there is a discrepancy in the statement of the witnesses regarding the weapons used in commission of the offence and for that reason it should be held that the prosecution evidence is not reliable. We have perused the said decision. It appears that the fact of the said case is not similar with the fact of the present case. Learned advocate particularly cited this decision being his argument on the point that in the FIR the weapon used was mentioned as file hook and bamboo stick. He also argued that in the post mortem report there is no mention that the injuries as were caused on the body of the deceased were by file hooks and bamboo stick. But we have already pointed out that the learned advocate particularly was misled by the wrong translation of the written complaint in the paper book. The fact remains that the weapons, as alleged to have been used by the accused persons, corroborates the injuries that were noticed by the Doctor on the dead body of the deceased. So this decision is of no help for the defence. ( 27 ) THE learned advocate for the appellants further cited a decision reported in AIR 2002 Supreme Court at page 1320 wherein it has been held that it is expected that the prosecution in order to prove its case should examine independent witness and in absence of any reasonable explanation for that, the prosecution case should be looked with suspicion. But so far as the present case is concerned, we have already discussed that there is only one eye witness i. e. PW 1. He has been examined by the prosecution in this case. From the prosecution case it can definitely be said that there was no possibility of availability of any further eye witness as because the incident took place in the night and in a village field. We have already discussed this point. More over regarding the post and pre incident of this case, the prosecution has adduced evidence of some of the independent witnesses. True it is that most of the witnesses are the relations of the deceased. But at the same time we find that some independent witnesses have been examined to prove the incident which took place at 7 p. m. on that night. So it cannot be said that the prosecution totally did not examine the available independent witnesses. In the decision cited above it has been clearly mentioned "it is not that multiplicity of witnesses would improve the situation neither we ought to be understood to hold that corroboration from independent witnesses stands out to be a mandatory requirement- witnesses though be interested can be relied upon provided however the evidence available on record is trustworthy and creates a confidence in the mind of the Court that the scrutiny entails only pointing out of commission of an offence by the accused persons and that scrutiny in totality leads to an inevitable conclusion of the guilt of the accused. " Thus, the decision as cited by the learned advocate for the appellants does not in any way help the defence. ( 28 ) THEREFORE, from the discussion made above and having regard to the totality of the facts, circumstances and evidence on record we have got no doubt in our mind to hold that the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the accused persons beyond any shadow of doubt. The witnesses, as examined in this case appear to us to be trustworthy and created a confidence in our mind regarding the commission of the offence by the accused persons. After reasonable scrutiny as discussed above, we are of opinion that the said scrutiny in totality leads us to the inevitable conclusion that the accused persons are certainly quality of the offence charged with. After reasonable scrutiny as discussed above, we are of opinion that the said scrutiny in totality leads us to the inevitable conclusion that the accused persons are certainly quality of the offence charged with. We have got no hesitation to hold that the learned Court below was perfectly justified in holding that the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention caused the death of the deceased Ganesh Chandra Dey and as such we are of opinion that the learned Court below was perfectly justified in holding the accused persons guilty for the offence under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. We find no reason whatsoever to interfere with the finding of the learned Court below in convicting and sentencing the accused persons as per law. In the result the appeal fails. The order of conviction as passed by the learned Court below against the accused persons stands confirmed. The accused persons, if on bail, are directed to surrender before the learned Court below at once to serve out the sentence. Send a copy of this judgment along with the LCR to the learned Court below at once. Send also the extract of the copy of this judgment of the relevant portion as discussed in the body of this judgment, to the learned Registrar General of this High Court for his information and taking appropriate action in this respect. N. A. Chowdhury, J.- I agree. Appeal fails.