Judgment B.K.Jha, J. 1. These three appeals arise out of the judgment and order dated 23rd February, 1998, passed by the then learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Gaya in Sessions Trial No. 25 of 1997/106 of 1997, so they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The appellants, Anil Singh, Ramadhar Singh and Jai Ram Singh, have been convicted and sentenced to RI. for life under Sec. 302 of the IPC and 5 years under Sec. 27 of the Arms Act. The appellants Sachitta Singh, Vidya Singh, Kali Singh and Mangal Singh, have been convicted and sentenced to RI. for life under Secs. 302/149 of the IPC. The appellants Vidya Singh and Sachitta Singh have further been convicted and sentenced to RI for two years under Sec. 27 of the Arms Act. The sentences awarded to the appellants. Anil Singh, Ramadhar Singh, Jai Ram Singh, Vidya Singh and Sachitta Singh, however, have been ordered to run concurrently. 3. On 15.8.1996, the informant, Suresh Singh, PW 9, lodged FIR alleging inter alia that on the same day he along with his brothers, Dani Singh. Mukhdeb Singh, PW 8 and labourer. Rajendra Manjhi, PW 1 were making ridges in his field for the transplantation of paddy crops. Kundan Kumar, his bhagina, came there with their break-fasts. At about 11 a.m. a tractor came from south and stopped at a distance of about 500 yards from the field. After a shortwhile he saw 5 to 6 persons coming from the village towards the field whereupon the tractor came on the disputed land of the plot No. 990. Khata No. 89, measuring an area On 2 acre 88 decimals. The accused-appellant. Anil Singh. with licencee gun in his hand alongwith 2/3 unknown persons came down from the tractor. In the mean time 5 to 6 persons coming from the village also arrived in the field. They were the accused- appellants, Mangal Singh. Kali Singh. Sachitta Singh. Vidya Singh. Jai Ram Singh arid Ramadhar Singh, Out of them, Jai Ram Singh and Ramadhar Singh had licencee guns. Sachitta Singh had countrymade rifle and Vidya Singh had countryrnade pistol. It was 12 noon at that time. The informant has further alleged that all the accusedappellants talked together and started ploughing the field with tractor. Thereafter, the informant and his brothers proceeded towards tractor for preventing from ploughing the land. Sachitta Singh had countrymade rifle and Vidya Singh had countryrnade pistol. It was 12 noon at that time. The informant has further alleged that all the accusedappellants talked together and started ploughing the field with tractor. Thereafter, the informant and his brothers proceeded towards tractor for preventing from ploughing the land. They objected them from ploughing the field because of pendency of a case in the Court in respect of the said land. This resulted in the exchange of hot words in between both sides whereupon the accused-appellants. Mangal Singh and Kali Singh, ordered to kill the informant and others. On their order, the accused-appellants. Anil Singh, Jai Ram Singh and Ramadhar Singh started firing indiscriminately from their guns which caused gun shot injuries to Kundan Singh, the bhagina and Dani Singh, the brother of the informant. Then the informant and his brother Mukhdeo Singh fled towards East but the accused-appellants. Sachitta Singh and Vidya Singh chased them firing from their fire arms. The informant and his brother Mukhdeo Singh, however, escaped unhurt and got themselves conceal into the bed of Aahar. The sound of firing attracted the villagers and on seeing the villagers coming towards field the accused-appellants fled towards West. On arrival of the villagers the informant alongwith his brother came out from the bed of Aahar and found his brother Dani Singh lying dead in the field of Dr. Umesh Singh. The injured Kundan Singh was alive but was lying uncons-cious on the ground. Kundan Singh was removed to hospital for treatment. The informant has further alleged that there was a proceeding under Sec. 144. Cr PC in between the parties in respect of the aforesaid disputed land in which the SDM. Gaya observed the proceeding beyond his jurisdiction. Then under the order of DM. Gaya the informants brother, Satya Narain Singh, filed a Bataidari Case No. 1/96 before the Anchal Adhikari. Manpur and the Same is pending for enquiry and disposal. 4. On the same day at 2 p.m. SI. Ajay Kumar, of Buniyadganj Police Station Gaya, the I.O. of this case, recorded the fardbeyan of the informant. Suresh Singh, PW 9 near the dead body of his brother, Dani Singh at Kullon Chhotki Bandh situated in the south of the village. On the basis of his fardbeyan (Ext. No. 4) a formal FIR (Ext. Ajay Kumar, of Buniyadganj Police Station Gaya, the I.O. of this case, recorded the fardbeyan of the informant. Suresh Singh, PW 9 near the dead body of his brother, Dani Singh at Kullon Chhotki Bandh situated in the south of the village. On the basis of his fardbeyan (Ext. No. 4) a formal FIR (Ext. No. 5) was drawn up and a case was registered under Sections 302/149/147/148 of the IPC and Sec. 27 of the Arms Act against all the abovenamed 7 accusedappellants. On completion of the investigation all of them were chargesheeted for trial which ultimately ended in their conviction and sentence as indicated above. 5. The defence of the appellants is that they are quite innocent and have been falsely dragged in this case due to land dispute in between the parties. Their further defence as appeared from the trend of cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses is that the land of the disputed plot belonged to them and prosecution party had no concern with it. In fact, on the alleged date and time of occurrence the prosecution party variously armed attacked them, fired indiscriminately which accidentally hit Dani Singh and Kundan Singh and proved fatal. They also assaulted the accused-appellant. Jai Ram Singh. The defence has not examined any witness. The defence only brought on records some documentary evidence (Ext. Nos. A to A/3). Ext. No. A is certified copy of ordersheet of Case No. 74/97, Ext. No. A/1 is certified copy of ordersheet of Case No. 2660/95, Ext. No. A/2 is certified copy of order sheet of Bataidari Case No. 1/96-97 and Ext. No. A/3 is certified copy of ordersheet of Case No. 2139/96. 6. On the other hand, the prosecution examined altogether 14 witnesses in support of its case. Out of them PW 3. Ram Briksh Singh, PW 5. Surendra Singh and PW 10. Kameshwar Singh. were tendered for cross-examination by the prosecution but nothing material could be elicited in their crossexamination by the defence. PW 12 is Dr. Mithilesh Kumar Sinha who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased. Dani Singh and Kundan Singh. PW 13 is Dr. Binod Prasad who examined the injuries of Kundan Singh in A.N.M.M.C. Hospital, Gaya and PW 14, Ajay Kumar, is the I.0. of this case. PW 1 Rajendra Manjhi. PW 12, Ram Balak Manjhi, PW 4, Devendra Singh. Mithilesh Kumar Sinha who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased. Dani Singh and Kundan Singh. PW 13 is Dr. Binod Prasad who examined the injuries of Kundan Singh in A.N.M.M.C. Hospital, Gaya and PW 14, Ajay Kumar, is the I.0. of this case. PW 1 Rajendra Manjhi. PW 12, Ram Balak Manjhi, PW 4, Devendra Singh. PW 6 Yugal Singh, PW 7 Rajeshwar Singh, PW 8 Mukhdeo Singh and PW 9. Suresh Singh, the informant and PW 11. Satya Narayan Singh are the material witnesses on the point of occurrence. On their relationship it has come that PW 11. Rajendra Manjhi is the son-in-law of Laxman Manjhi, the own brother of Ram Balak Manjhi, PW 2, PW 4, Devendra Singh, is the nephew of PW 7, Rajeshwar Singh, PW 8, Mukhdeo Singh PW9. Suresh Singh the informant and PW 11, Satya Narayan Singh are the own brothers. Thus, there is admitted relationship in between these witnesses. 7. The genealogical table placed in the judgment impugned reflects that Raksha Singh and Namedhari Singh were own brothers. All the accused-appellants except Vidya Singh and Sachitta Singh are the descendants of Raksha Singh whereas the informant, deceased Dani Singh and his some witnesses are the branches of Namedhari Singh. Thus. both sides are close pattidars. 8. The evidence on record further reflects that both parties are on inimical terms from before on account of dispute with regard to the land of khata No. 89, plot No. 990, measuring an area of 2.88 acres. There was a proceeding under Sec. 144. CrPC. (Ext Nos. A/1 and A/2) and Bataidari case bearing No. 1/96-97 with respect to the aforesaid land in between Satya Narayan Singh. PW 11 and the accused-appellant. Mangal Singh in which the disputed land was found in possession of the accusedappellants. The informant side claimed to be pattidar of the disputed land whereas the accusedappellant side claimed to be its owner on the basis of purchase from bona fide vendor by virtue of registered sale deed in the year 1995. Thus, there is admitted enmity in between the parties and the inimical road has not ended as yet in between them. 8. On behalf of the appellants it was contended that the evidence of the alleged eye-witnesses is totally unre-liable. These witnesses bore an enmity against the accused-appellants, so they have been falsely implicated in the present crime. Thus, there is admitted enmity in between the parties and the inimical road has not ended as yet in between them. 8. On behalf of the appellants it was contended that the evidence of the alleged eye-witnesses is totally unre-liable. These witnesses bore an enmity against the accused-appellants, so they have been falsely implicated in the present crime. The trial Court failed to consider it and wrongly relied upon the evidence of such witnesses. 9. It was again urged that the partisan and inimical evidence of the alleged eye witness is replete with discrepancies and contradictions. The trial Court did not consider them and wrongly acted upon their evidence for the conviction of the accused appellants. In this context reliance has been placed on the case of State of U.P. V/s. Shankar, wherein it has been held that In this country it is rare to come across the testimony of a witness which does not have a fringe or an embroidery of untruth although his evidence may be true in the main. It is the function of the Court to separate the grain from the chaff and accept what appears to be true and reject the rest. It is only where the testimony of a witness is tainted to the core, the falsehood and the truth being inextricably intertwined, that the Court should discard his evidence in toto. Further reliance has been placed on the case of Dharam Singh and others V/s. State of Punjab, wherein it has been observed that the version in the FIR in which details were given must have been a result of consultations among the interested persons after coming to know the nature of injuries. That apart, there are many improbabilities in the said version. Contradictions and omissions in deposition are the same. Narrations and sequence of events are meticulously in the same order. Therefore it is not safe to place reliance on the evidence of witnesses. 10. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the informant contended that the testimony of the eyewitnesses if convincing and consistent cannot be discarded because of relationship in between the deceased and the eye-witnesses or some dispute between the accused and deceased or witnesses. In this connection, a reliance has been placed on a case of Ram Lakhan and others V/s. State of U.P.3. In this case. In this connection, a reliance has been placed on a case of Ram Lakhan and others V/s. State of U.P.3. In this case. it has been held that the evidence of close relatives of deceased is not liable to be rejected on the ground of witness being interested witnesses. What is necessary is that the Court should scrutinize evidence of such witnesses carefully. 11. In the present case the crime is established from the evidence of the prosecution and it has also not been denied by the defence but denial is only the participation of the accused-appellants in the commission of the alleged crime. Their specified defence is that they have been falsely implicated in this case by the prosecution side due to previous enmity in between the parties. 12. Now, I propose of scrutinize the evidence on record for consideration whether the prosecution evidence is trustworthy and acceptable piece of evidence. 13. PW 12 is Dr. Mithilesh Kumar Sinha who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased Dani Singh and Kundan Kumar Singh. His evidence is that while he was posted as Professor Head of Department F.M. A.N.M.M.C. Gaya on 16.8.1996 at 10.1.5 a.m. he conducted autopsy on the dead body of Dani Singh and found the following ante-mortem injuries: (i) Multiple pea shape size wound of entry 4 mm. x skin deep located over front of right chest and front of right shoulder. Margins of wound inverted floor having dark colour blood clot. On dissection of chest few pillets were found imbaded in soft tissues under the skin which was preserved and was sent in sealed packet through constable. (ii) There was presence of one swelling 1 1/2" x 1" approxi-mately over frontotemporal region of scalp. On dissection of part underlying tissues of scalp was grossly effused with dark blood clots. There was depressed fracture of right temporal and right part of frontal bone. There was extra and subdural haematoma over right front part of brain which were dark colour. Brain and menineglo grossly congested. There was presence of dark blood clots over mouth the nostryl. 14. According to him all the injuries were ante mortem in nature. Injury No. (i) was simple in nature caused by fire arm and injury No. (ii) was grievous in nature caused by hard and blunt substance such as butt of gun. Brain and menineglo grossly congested. There was presence of dark blood clots over mouth the nostryl. 14. According to him all the injuries were ante mortem in nature. Injury No. (i) was simple in nature caused by fire arm and injury No. (ii) was grievous in nature caused by hard and blunt substance such as butt of gun. In his opinion the death was caused due to shock, coma and haemorrhage mainly due to injury No. (ii) and the time elapsed since death and post-mortem examination held was within 18 to 24 hours. He proved the post-mortem report (Ext. No. 2) 15. On the same day at 11 a.m. he conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of Kundan Kumar Singh and found the following injuries on his person: 16. There was presence of bandage around abdominal wall and waist. On removal of bandage, antemortem injury was detected. (i) There was left para-remedial linear incised stitched wound 6" x abdominal cavity deep (may be by surgeon during operation). On removal of stitches, peritomium was filled with dark blood clots. Intestines were found stitched at places which were found congested. (ii) There was presence of oblique incised wound over left illiac fosa of 1" x 1/2" x abdominal cavity deep. A portion of coil of intestine was found protruding through the opening. It was found congested. (iii) There was one oval wound 3/4" x 1/2" abdominal cavity deep in left hypochondrial region of abdomen. Through abdominal opening one corrogated rubber sheet was passed into abdominal cavity, which might be by surgeon, for drainage of abdominal contents. According to him all the injuries were ante-morem in nature. He did not give any opinion regarding nature of the injuries on the person of the deceased. Kundan Kumar Singh because of the interference of his injuries by other attending Doctors. In his opinion the death was caused due to shock and haemorrhage and the time elapsed since death and post-mortem examination held was within 12 to 18 hours. He proved the post-mortem report (Ext. No. 2/1) 17 In cross-examination he has stated that the injury No. (i) of the deceased Dani Singh was superficial in nature and was not involved in his death. All the pellets were found embedded in his skin and no vital organ was involved. Injury No. (ii) of Dani Singh was possible by fall on any hard substance. No. 2/1) 17 In cross-examination he has stated that the injury No. (i) of the deceased Dani Singh was superficial in nature and was not involved in his death. All the pellets were found embedded in his skin and no vital organ was involved. Injury No. (ii) of Dani Singh was possible by fall on any hard substance. He has further stated that he did not find any pellets or bullets in the dead body of Kundan Singh. The injury No. (ii) on Kundan Kumar Singh was possible by bhala. He did not find evidence of any obvious fire arm injury on the dead body of the deceased Kundan Kumar Singh. 18. PW 13 is Dr. Binod Prasad who treated an operated Kundan Kumar Singh in the A.N.MM.C.H. Gaya. His evidence is that on 15-8-1996 while he was posted as Assistant Professor in A.N.M.M.C.H. Surgeory Department, Gaya on the same day at 3 p.m. Kundan Singh was admitted in the Casualty Depart-ment. He was immediately taken to Operation Threatre and was operated upon. He found the following injuries on his person: 19. Patient had extensive lace-ration of left coastal margin with multiple pellets mark, multiple ribs fracture, wad of ammunition was taken out from the wound, wound was bleeding extensively. Patient was anaesthetized by Dr. D.K. Mishra, Assistant Professor of Anae-sthesia and was operated upon by Prof. M.L. Agrawal assisted by me. Abdomen was opened by left paramedian ilcision. Peritonial cavity was full of blood. Extensive laceration of transverse colon, zezumum and the pelvic colon meseltry of small intestine having large haemo-toma. Whole gut was found devitalised. No injury to liver, spleen, stomach was found. Large number of pellets were taken out from peritonium cavity and handed over to sister incharge, causality department. Large chunk of zezumum resected and anastomosed. Colon repaired and pelvic colon exteriorised. Abdomen was closed with drain. During last phase of operation respiration and heart stopped and could not be revived. 20. According to him the injuries were within six hours, grievous in nature caused by fire arm. He proved the injury report (Ext. No. 3). The injury report was sent to the Court alongwith the forwar-ding report of Rana Chandra Ketu Narayan Singh, Superintendent, A.N.M.M.C.H. Gaya under his signature (Ext. No. 1/5). 20. According to him the injuries were within six hours, grievous in nature caused by fire arm. He proved the injury report (Ext. No. 3). The injury report was sent to the Court alongwith the forwar-ding report of Rana Chandra Ketu Narayan Singh, Superintendent, A.N.M.M.C.H. Gaya under his signature (Ext. No. 1/5). In cross-examination his evidence is that the injury was written on 2.12.1996 on the basis of the findings of operation and treatment of Kundan Kumar Singh mentioned in the Bed Head Ticket. He failed to say the distance from which the fire arm was fired. He has further stated that wad and pellets were sealed and then handed over. Pellets were found in the peritonial cavity of different places. 21. Thus it appears that the post mortem examination of the dead body of the deceased Dani Singh was held on 16.8.1996 at about 10.15 a.m. and the occurrence had taken place on 15.8.1996. Thus, the time elapsed between the death and post-mortem examination held was about 23 hours. According to Doctor. PW 12. Mithilesh Kumar Sinha. it was within 24 hours. As regards Kundan Kumar Singh, he was admitted in the causality department of A.N.M.M.C. Hospital. Gaya on 15.8.1996. On the same day at 3 p.m; he was treated and operated upon by Dr. Binod Prasad. PW 13, but he died. The Doctor found his injuries within six hours. grievous in nature caused by firm arms. The occurrence had taken place on 15.8.1996 at 11 a.m.. so the time elapsed between his treatment/operation and the occurrence taking place was about 4 hours and according to Doctor it was within six hours. Thus, the medical evidence is inconformity with the prosecution case. 22. As stated above, PW 1, Rajendra Manjhi, PW 2, Ram Balak Manjhi, PW 4, Devendra Singh. PW 6, Yugal Singh, PW 7. Rajeshwar Singh, PW 8, Mukhdeo Singh, PW 9, Suresh Singh, the informant and PW 11, Satya Narayan Singh, are the material witnesses on the factum of the prosecution case. 23. The evidence of PW 9, Suresh Singh, the informant. is that on the alleged date and time of occurrence while he alongwith Dani Singh (deceased), Mukhdeo Singh, PW 8 and Rajendra Manjhi. PW 1, were working in his field, his Bhagina, Kundan Kumar Singh came there with their breakfast. 23. The evidence of PW 9, Suresh Singh, the informant. is that on the alleged date and time of occurrence while he alongwith Dani Singh (deceased), Mukhdeo Singh, PW 8 and Rajendra Manjhi. PW 1, were working in his field, his Bhagina, Kundan Kumar Singh came there with their breakfast. In the mean time a tractor came from south and stopped in the south-east from their working field. The accused-appellant. Anil Singh with a gun in his hand and tractor driver came down from the tractor. After a shortwhile the accused-appellants, Ramadhar Singh and Jairam Singh with guns, Sachitta Singh with rifle, Vidya Singh with Pistol, Kali Singh and Mangal Singh unarmed also came there and on their arrival the tractor started ploughing the field. Thereafter he along with others objected them from ploughing the field. On their protest the accused-appellants, Mangal Sing and Kali Singh abused and ordered to finish them. On their order the accused-appellants, Jai Ram Singh. Ramadhar Singh and Anil Singh stepped forward towards them whereupon he alongwith others went in the field of Umesh Singh but Rajendra Manjhi remained in the working field. The accused-appellant. Anil Singh, fired at Kundan Kumar Singh and he fell down injured on the ground. The accused appellants. Jai Ram Singh and Ramadhar Singh fired at Dani Singh and he also fell down injured on the ground. The accusedappellants. Sachitta Singh and Vidya Singh chased him and others but they fled and got themselves concealed in the bed of Aahar. On the arrival of Satya Narayan Singh. PW 11, Briksha Singh, PW 3, Yugal Singh, PW 6, Rajeshwar Singh. PW 7 and Kameshwar Singh, PW 10, the accused-appellants made good escape from there. Then he alongwith others went in the field of Umesh Singh and found Dani Singh dead and Kundan Singh groaning there. Kundan Singh was removed to hospital for treatment where he died. Police came, recorded his fardbeyan and he put his signature thereon (Ext. No. 1/1). He has further stated that the inquest report of the dead body of Dani Singh was prepared and he put his signature thereon (Ext. No. 1/2). In cross-examination he has stated that the field in which he was working and the field in which the tractor was ploughing was adjacent to each other. No. 1/1). He has further stated that the inquest report of the dead body of Dani Singh was prepared and he put his signature thereon (Ext. No. 1/2). In cross-examination he has stated that the field in which he was working and the field in which the tractor was ploughing was adjacent to each other. He has further stated that the tractor had come on the land of plot No. 990 Khata No. 89 having an area of 2 acre 88 decimals in which there were 10-12 sub-plots. He has admitted that there was Bataidari case and a proceeding under Sec. 107. Cr PC. in between the both sides in respect of the land of plot No. 990. At para 17 his evidence is that the land lord of plot No. 990 is Ali Haider and he is his Bataidar for the last 30-40 years and its produce is shared to him. He has admitted to have stated before the police that 1 and 2 minutes after the arrival of the tractor on the land of plot No. 990 the accused-appellants. Kali Singh, Mangal Singh, Ramadhar Singh, Vidya Singh, Jai Ram Singh and Sachitta Sigh came there. At para 27 he has admitted to have stated before the police that Jai Ram Singh and Ramadhar Singh fired a fatal shots at Dani Singh and the accused appellant. Anil Singh fired at Kundan Singh. He has denied the suggestion that he alongwith others variously armed had gone to plough the land of plot No. 990 and on protest by the accused-appellants. Kali Singh, and Mangal Singh, they fired which accidentally hit Dani Singh and Kundan Kumar Singh passing with fire arms by the side of the accused-appellants and they died. 24. PW 8. Mukhdeo Singh is the own brother of the informant, Suresh Singh, PW 9, the deceased, Dani Singh and maternal uncle of the deceased Kundan Kumar Singh. On the alleged date and time of occurrence he alongwith Suresh Singh, Dani Singh and Rajendra Manjhi, PW 1 was also working in his field. He has fully supported the case of the prosecution and corroborated the evidence of the informant. Suresh Singh. PW 9 on all material points. In cross-examination he has stated that the tractor started ploughing the land in respect of which a proceeding under Sec. 107. He has fully supported the case of the prosecution and corroborated the evidence of the informant. Suresh Singh. PW 9 on all material points. In cross-examination he has stated that the tractor started ploughing the land in respect of which a proceeding under Sec. 107. Cr PC was initiated two days prior to the occurrence in between the parties and the same is pending for its disposal. He has further stated that he is not the owner of the alleged P.O land rather Ali Haider Khan is the landlord. He is his Bataidar of that land for the last 40 years and its 1/2 produce is shared by him. There had been unobjected sowing of the seeds of the paddy crops in the P.O. land by them two months prior to the occurrence. He has admitted to have stated before the police that the accused-appellant. Anil Singh had fired a shot at Kundan Singh and the accused-appellants. Jai Ram Singh and Ramadhar Singh fired at Dani Singh. 25. The evidence of Rajendra Manjhi, PW 1 is that at the relevant hour of occurrence he alongwith the deceased Dani Singh. Suresh Singh, the informant and Mukhan Singh alias Mukhdeo Singh were making ridges in the field. Kundan Singh came there with their breakfast. When the tractor started ploughing the land of Satan Singh. PW 11, the informant. Suresh Singh, the deceased Dani Singh and Mukhdeo Singh. PW 8 objected whereupon the accused-appellants. Mangal Singh and Kali Singh abused and ordered to finish them. Then Suresh Singh, Dani Singh, Mukhan Singh and Kundan Singh stepped away and went in the field of Dr. Umesh Singh. The accused-appellants Ramadhar Singh, Jairam Singh and Anil Singh firing from their fire arms reached there and the firing of the accusedappellant Anil Singh hit Kundan Singh and he fell down injured on the ground. The filing of Jai Ram Singh and Ramadhar Singh hit Dani Singh. The accused-appellants Vidya Singh and Sachitta Singh chased Mukhan Singh and Suresh Singh but they fled away towards Aahar. On the arrival of the villagers Satan Singh, PW 11. Yugal Singh, PW 6 and others, the accused-appellants made good escape from there. Dani Singh was found lying dead and Kundan Singh was alive at that time. He was removed to hospital for treatment but he died there. On the arrival of the villagers Satan Singh, PW 11. Yugal Singh, PW 6 and others, the accused-appellants made good escape from there. Dani Singh was found lying dead and Kundan Singh was alive at that time. He was removed to hospital for treatment but he died there. In cross-examination he has admitted to have stated before the police that the firing of the accused-appellant Anil Singh hit Kundan Singh and the firing of the accused-appellants. Jai Ram Singh and Ramadhar Singh hit Dani Singh. 26. The evidence of PW 2, Ram Balak Manjhi, is that at the alleged time he was ploughing the land and Surendra Singh PW 5 and his brother Devendra Singh PW 4 were also present there. Rajendra Manjhi. PW 1, Suresh Singh, the informant PW 9 Mukhan Singh PW 8 and the deceased Dani Singh and Kundan Singh were working in the field of Satan Singh PW 11. The accused-appellant, Anil Singh with bandook came on a tractor and stopped in the south of the field of Satan Singh. PW 11. Thereafter the other accused-appellants Kali Singh, Mangal Singh unarmed, Ramadhar Singh and Jai Ram Singh with guns Sachitta Singh with pistol and Vidya Singh with rifle also came there and the tractor started ploughing the land of Satan Singh, PW 11. Dani Singh, Suresh Singh and Mukhan Singh protested them from ploughing whereupon the accused-appellant, Kali Singh exhorted to kill them. Then the accused-appellants, Anil Singh, Ramadhar Singh and Jai Ram Singh fired indiscriminately which hit Dani Singh and Kundan Singh. Both of them fell down injured in the field of Dr. Umesh Singh and after the arrival of Satan Singh, PW 11, Yugal Singh, PW 6 and Ram Briksh Singh, PW 3, the accused persons fled away from there. Dani Singh died at the spot and Kundan Singh was alive. He was removed to hospital for treatment in course of which he died. 27. PW 4, Devendra Singh. was ploughing his land at that time and his brother, Surendra Singh PW 5 and witness, Ram Balak Manjhi PW 2, were also present there. 28. He has supported the case of the prosecution and corroborated the evidence of other eyewitnesses to the occurrence in toto. In cross-examination he has stated that Namdhari Singh was his great grand father. Hari Singh and Bhagwat Singh were his two sons. 28. He has supported the case of the prosecution and corroborated the evidence of other eyewitnesses to the occurrence in toto. In cross-examination he has stated that Namdhari Singh was his great grand father. Hari Singh and Bhagwat Singh were his two sons. Nagina Singh, Baleshwar Singh, Rajeshwar Singh and Kamesh Singh, are four sons of Bhagwat Singh. He is the son of Nagina Singh having two brothers Surendra and Gajendra. Satan Singh. PW 11, Mukhdeo Singh; PW 8, Dani Singh (the deceased) and Suresh Singh, the informant. PW 9 are the sons of Hari Singh and Satan Singh has got six sons. He has further stated that Kundan Singh was first taken to the clinic of Dr. Umesh but he was not treated there. Then he was taken to Pilgrim Hospital and from there to Magadh Medical College. At about 10 p.m. Kundan Singh died in the Magadh Medical College. 29. PW 6. Yugal Singh and PW 7 Rajeshwar Singh arrived at the place of occurrence on hearing the sound of firing. They found Dani Singh lying dead and Kundan Singh injured on the ground but he was alive. Kundan Singh was removed to the hospital but he died there. They identified the accusedappellants, Anil Singh, Ramadhar Singh, Jai Ram Singh with bandook, Sachitta Singh with rifle, Vidya Singh with pistol. Kali Singh and Mangal Singh unarmed fleeing away from the place of occurrence. PW 6. Yugal Singh, has further stated that Raksha Singh and Namedhari Singh were own brothers and the accused-appellants are the descendants of Raksha Singh, PW 7. Rajeshwar Singh has further stated that he learnt about the occurrence from the informant. Suresh Singh, PW 9 and Mukhdeo Singh, PW 8. 30. PW 11, Satya Narayan Singh, on hearing the sound of firing also arrived in the field of Dr. Umesh Singh and found Dani Singh lying dead and Kundan Singh lying injured. Kundan Singh was alive and was groaning. He identified the accused-appellants, Anil Singh, Jai Ran Singh, Ramadhar Singh with bandook, Sachitta Singh with rifle, Vidya Singh with Pistol and Kali Singh and Mangal Singh unarmed fleeing toward south-west from there. He learnt about the occurrence from his brothers. Mukhan Singh PW 8 and Suresh Singh. PW9, the informant. Police came and prepared inquest report of the dead body of Dani Singh. He put his signature on the report (Ext. No. 1/3). He learnt about the occurrence from his brothers. Mukhan Singh PW 8 and Suresh Singh. PW9, the informant. Police came and prepared inquest report of the dead body of Dani Singh. He put his signature on the report (Ext. No. 1/3). Kundan Singh died in the Medical Hospital and inquest report was also prepared of his dead body and he signed (Ext. No. 1/4). He has further stated that one year prior to the occurrence there was a proceeding under Secs. 144 and 107 of the Cr PC in respect of the land of plot No. 990. In cross-examination he has stated that he learnt about the purchase of land of plot No. 990 measuring 2 acres 88 decimals by four relations of the accused-appellant Mangal Singh from Mamma Khatoon and Abbas Haider in the year 1995 or 1996. He has further stated that Mamma Khatoon and Abbas Haider were the parties in the proceeding of 144, Cr PC initiated by him in which the accused- appellant, Mangal Singh also later on intervened and was made party, the owner of the land of plot No. 990 was Syed Abdul Barkat and in the year 1947 he deserted India and went to Pakistan. The land of this plot is in his under cultivating possession since the time of his father as Bataidar and its produce is being shared by Ali Haider. On the order of S.D.O., Sadar, Gaya in 144, Cr PC proceeding he brought Bataidari case and under the order of DM the matter was sent to the Circle Officer for enquiry and report. 31. PW 14, Ajay Kumar, is the I.O. of this case. His evidence is that on 15.8.1996 at Kullondh Chhotki Bandh of village Sondhi, Police Station Buniyad-ganj. District Gaya he recorded the Fardbeyan of the informant, Suresh Singh, PW 9 (Ext. No. 4) and forwarded the same to the police station for the institution of a case. On the basis of his fardbeyan a formal FIR (Ext. No. 5) was drawn up and a case was registered against all the seven accused-appellants under Secs. 147/148/149/302 of the Indian Penal Code and Sec. 27 of the Arms Act. He recorded the further statements of the informant, visited the P.O. found the dead body of Dani Singh in the field of Umesh Singh and prepared the inquest report (Ext. No. 6). 147/148/149/302 of the Indian Penal Code and Sec. 27 of the Arms Act. He recorded the further statements of the informant, visited the P.O. found the dead body of Dani Singh in the field of Umesh Singh and prepared the inquest report (Ext. No. 6). The witnesses, Satya Narayan Singh, PW 11 and Suresh Singh, put their signatures on the inquest report. He found the reddish water near the dead body of the deceased Dani Singh. He recorded the statements of the witnesses, Satya Narayan Singh, PW 11, Mukhdeo Singh, PW 8, Rajeshwar Singh, PW 7, Yugal Singh, PW 6, Surendra Singh, PW 5, Ram Balak Manjhi, PW 2, Kameshwar Singh, PW 10 and Ram Briksh Singh, PW 3. He searched the empty cartridges but could not be found because of muddy water. He arrested the accused-appellant Vidya Singh recovered a licenced gun from the house of the accused-appellant, Mangal Singh and prepared a seizure list (Ext. No. 7) which was signed by the witnesses. He has further stated that he came to the police station with the dead body of Dani Singh and found the accused-appellants. Sachittanand Singh and Jai Ram Singh arrested with some injuries on their persons. He sent the dead body of the deceased, Dani Singh for post-mortem examination. He learnt about the death of Kundan Singh and came to the Medical Hospital. He obtained the inquest report of the deceased Kundan Singh (Ext. No. 6/1) and recorded the statements of the witness, Devendra Singh, PW 4 in the hospital. He sent the seized licenced gun to the Sergent Major for test alongwith his letter (Ext. No. 8) and obtained his report. (Ext. No. 9). He has further stated that he searched the house of the accused-appellant, Ramadhar Singh in course of which his father Suryadeo Singh produced his gun. He proved the production report (Ext. No. 10). He sent the seized gun to the Sergent Major for test through his letter (Ext. No. 8/l) and obtained his report (Ext. No. 9/1). He received post-mortem report and the sealed container with two pellets (Ext. No. 1) recovered from the dead body of the deceased Dani Singh. He also obtained the sealed container with a pellet recovered from the dead body of the deceased, Kundan Singh (Material Ext. No. 1/1). No. 8/l) and obtained his report (Ext. No. 9/1). He received post-mortem report and the sealed container with two pellets (Ext. No. 1) recovered from the dead body of the deceased Dani Singh. He also obtained the sealed container with a pellet recovered from the dead body of the deceased, Kundan Singh (Material Ext. No. 1/1). He has further stated that he has reported to the S.P. against Jamrati Ansari, the then ASI posted at the police station (Ext. No. 8/2). In cross-examination his evidence is that earlier also he had been in the P.O. village in connection with the land dispute of plot No. 990 khata No. 89 having an area of 2 acres 88 decimals in between the both sides. He has further stated that he found Balti and Spade in the field near the P.O. land but did not seize them. He also visited the land of the informant situated near the P.O. land. The blood stained earth could not be seized because of muddy water. His further evidence is that on 16.8.1996 at about 2.15 p.m. he received hearsay information about the apprehension of the breach in between the parties due to land dispute in village Sondhi. The attention of this witness was drawn towards the statements of the witnesses made before him during investigation. The witness, Rajendra Manjhi, PW 1, had not stated before him that the firing of Anil Singh hit Kundan Singh and that of Jai Ram Singh and Ramadhar Singh, hit Dani Singh. The witness Devendra Singh, PW 4 had not stated before him that on the order of the accused-appellants Kali Singh and Mangal Singh, the accused-appellants, Ramadhar Singh Anil Singh and Jai Ram Singh fired. The firing of the accusedappellant. Anil Singh hit Kundan Singh and that of the accused-appellants. Jai Ram Singh and Ramadhar Singh hit Dani Singh. He had not stated before him that the accused-appellant, Anil Singh, assaulted Dani Singh with a butt portion of gun. The witness, Rajeshwar Singh, PW 7, had not stated before him that he came to know about the occurrence from Mukhdeo Singh and Suresh Singh. The witness Mukhdeo Singh. PW 8, had not stated before him that the firing of the accused-appellant Anil Singh, hit Kundan Singh and that of Jai Ram Singh and Ramadhar Singh hit Dani Singh. The witness, Rajeshwar Singh, PW 7, had not stated before him that he came to know about the occurrence from Mukhdeo Singh and Suresh Singh. The witness Mukhdeo Singh. PW 8, had not stated before him that the firing of the accused-appellant Anil Singh, hit Kundan Singh and that of Jai Ram Singh and Ramadhar Singh hit Dani Singh. PW 11, Satya Narayan Singh, had not stated before him that he learnt about the occurrence from his brothers. 32. Thus, it is evident from the above discussion that the incident has taken place on 15.8.1996 at 12 noon and the FIR was lodged very promptly on the same day at 2 p.m. The incident was described in details with names of the accused-appellants and their specific roles played by them. When the prosecution party objected the accused-appellants from ploughing the disputed land of the plot No. 990 Khata No. 89 measuring an area of 2 acres 88 decimals the accused-appellants Mangal Singh and Kali Singh exhorted to finish them. On their order the accused-appellants, Anil Singh, Jai Ram Singh and Ramadhar Singh resorted to indiscriminate firing. The members of the prosecution side stepped away and went in the field of Umesh Singh. The firing of the accused-appellants. Anil Singh, hit Kundan Singh and he fell down injured on the ground. The firing of the accused-appellants. Jai Ram Singh and Ramadhar Singh, hit Dani Singh and he fell down dead. The injured Kundan Singh was removed to hospital for treatment where he died. The I.O. PW 14. Ajay Kumar, on visit of the P.O. found the dead body of the deceased. Dani Singh lying in the field of Umesh Singh. He could not search out the cartridges or seize the blood stained earth because of muddy water but he found the water near the dead body of the deceased Dani Singh, reddish. PW 12. Dr. Mithilesh Kumar Sinha, who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased, Dani Singh, found altogether-2 injuries on his person. The injury No. 1 was simple in nature caused by firearm and injury No. 2 was grievous in nature caused by hard and blunt substance such as butt portion of gun. In his opinion the death was caused due to shock and haemorrhage mainly due to injury No. 2. He also conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased. The injury No. 1 was simple in nature caused by firearm and injury No. 2 was grievous in nature caused by hard and blunt substance such as butt portion of gun. In his opinion the death was caused due to shock and haemorrhage mainly due to injury No. 2. He also conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased. Kundan Singh and found altogether three injuries. He did not give any opinion regarding the nature of his injuries because of the interference of his injuries by other attending Doctors. The evidence of Dr. Binod Prasad. PW 13 indicates that on 15.8.1996 at 3 p.m. Kundan Kumar Singh was admitted in the causality department of A.N.M.M.C.H. Gaya and was operated upon by Prof. M.L. Agrawal and was assisted by him. All the injuries were found within six hours, grievous in nature caused by firearm. The prosecution has failed to examine Dr. M.L. Agrawal to prove the nature of the injuries found on the person of the deceased Kundan Singh. but only his report. Ext. No. 1/5 has been brought on record. 33. On behalf of the appellants, it was urged that the medical evidence adduced by the prosecution is wholly inconsistent with the ocular evidence of the eye-witness, so the trial Court ought to have rejected the ocular evidence. According to him the death of Dani Singh was due to injury No. 2, caused by hard and blunt substance but as per the prosecution case no one was armed with any hard and blunt object. Further, the prosecution has intentionally withheld the evidence of Dr. M.L. Agrawal who operated the injured Kundan Kumar Singh so the cause of his death could not be brought on record. 34. I do not find any merit in the this contention. PW 4. Devendra Singh, at para 23 has admitted to have stated before the police that the accused-appellant Anil Singh had assaulted Dani Singh with butt portion of gun but he had not stated to before the I.O., PW 14. Ajay Kumar (Para 32). It must be pointed out here that the statement of a witness in the Court is substantive piece of evidence and can safely be acted upon it. Further, PW 13, Dr. Binod Prasad, who assisted in the operation of Kundan Kumar Singh found all injuries on his person within six hours grievous in nature caused by fire arms. It must be pointed out here that the statement of a witness in the Court is substantive piece of evidence and can safely be acted upon it. Further, PW 13, Dr. Binod Prasad, who assisted in the operation of Kundan Kumar Singh found all injuries on his person within six hours grievous in nature caused by fire arms. Thus, the medical evidence is consistent with the ocular evidence. It may be mentioned here that some discrepancies and contradictions are bound to occur in the evidence of the eye-witnesses examined at length. The present case is not exception of it. No major or vital contradictions has been pointed out to shake the root of the prosecution version and disbelieve the alleged eye-witnesses to the occurrence. 35. The learned counsel for the appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 102 of 1998 contended that no overt act has been alleged against the appellants. Mangal Singh. Kali Singh. Sachitta Singh and Vidya Singh so the trial Court wrongly convicted them under Sec. 302. IPC. with the aid of Sec. 149 of the IPC. In this connection reliance has been placed on the case of Satbir V/s. Surat Singh and others, wherein it has been held that two accused though present cannot be said with certainty to have shared the common intention to commit murder. They are entitled to benefit of reasonable doubt. 36. It appears that the cited case is not applicable to the present case because the facts of both the cases are not similar. In the referred case two accused were given benefit of doubt because their names did not appear in the FIR. In the present case, all these four appellants are the named accused in the FIR. They with firearms alongwith others appeared at the place of occurrence and formed an unlawful assembly. The appellants Mangal Singh and Kali Singh exhorted others to finish the members of the prosecution side. These appellants continued as its member till the unlawful common object of the unlawful assembly for committing the murder of Dani Singh and Kundan Singh developed at the spot and consummated by the appellants, Anil Singh, Jai Ram Singh and Ramadhar Singh. Thus these appellants shared the common object of unlawful assembly. 37. Thus I find and hold that the prosecution has been able to substantiate the charges against all the accused-appellants beyond all reasonable doubts. Thus these appellants shared the common object of unlawful assembly. 37. Thus I find and hold that the prosecution has been able to substantiate the charges against all the accused-appellants beyond all reasonable doubts. The order of conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Judge requires no interference by this Court. 38. In the result, there is no merit in all these three appeals and they are accordingly dismissed. The appellant. Ramadhar Singh. is in custody. So he will serve out the sentence imposed upon him. The remaining six appellants. namely Mangal Singh, Kali Singh, Sachitta Singh @ Sachitta Nand Singh, Vidya Singh @ Vidya Nand Singh, Jai Ram Singh and Anil Singh, are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled with a direction to surrender in the court below to serve out the sentence imposed upon them. A.K.Sinha, J. 39 I agree.