JUDGMENT I.P. SINGH, J.-Criminal appeal nos. 294 and 341 of 2001 have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. All the appellants, namely, Brijnandan Prasad alias Birju (in Cr. Appeal No. 341 of 2001). Baso Prasad, Sahdeo Prasad, Arjun Prasad and Mantu Prasad (in Cr. Appeal No. 294 of 2001) have been convicted under sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life with a fine of Rs. 5000/- each and in case of default of payment of fine appellants have been further sentenced to undergo two years simple imprisonment. Appellants have also been convicted under section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year. However, all the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. The prosecution case in short, is that on 13.12.1999 in the morning at about 6.30 while the brother of the informant Sheonandan Prasad was milking the buffalo and other family members including the wife of informant and nephew Sunil Prasad were brushing their teeth at the roof of the house, all the appellants Baso Prasad, Shahdeo Prasad, Arjun Prasad, Mantu Prasad and Brajnandan Prasad came over the roof of their house armed with rifles etc. and started brick-batting and abusing the brother of the informant Shivnandan Prasads saying that they have burnt the heap of straw. It is further stated that when Shivnandan Prasad in way to save himself went over the roof of his house, all the five appellants started firing in which one of the bullets, so fired by them, hit Shivnandan Prasad on his chest as a result of which he fell over the roof and seeing this the informant raised alarm and when he reached near his brother, he found him dead. On the basis of fard beyan, Ext-1 the formal F.I.R. (Chandi P.S. Case No. 373 of 1999). Ext-3 was instituted in the police station for the offence under sections 302/34 of the I.P.C. as also under section 27 of the Arms Act. After investigation charge sheet was submitted and accordingly cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the court of sessions for trial. Ultimately, trial concluded with the result as indicated above. 4. The prosecution, in support of its case, altogether examined eleven witnesses including the informant. After investigation charge sheet was submitted and accordingly cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the court of sessions for trial. Ultimately, trial concluded with the result as indicated above. 4. The prosecution, in support of its case, altogether examined eleven witnesses including the informant. P.W.1 is Sunil Kumar, P.W.2 is Kapil Prasad, P.W 3 is Janardan Kumar, P.W.4 is Satrughan Prasad, P.W 5 is Chandrakanti Devi, P.W. 6 is Sunil Kumar, son of Shivnandan Prasad, the deceased, P.W. 7 is Krishnadeo Prasad, the informant, P.W. 8 is Mahapati Devi, wife of the deceased Sheonandan Prasad, P.W. 9 is Sri Prabhat Keshaw. C.A.S., Sadar Hospital, Biharsharif who conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased, P.W. 10 is Kumar Devendra Singh, the then officer-in-charge of Chandi P.S. and I.O. of the case and PW 11 is Jai Prakash, another officer-in-charge of Chandi P.S. who also done a part of the investigation and submitted charge sheet. 5. On the factum of occurrence, the prosecution examined five witnesses including the informant. The informant P.W.7 in his statement has supported the version as stated in his fard beyan. According to him, on the date of occurrence, at about 6 A.M. in the morning when he was at his roof, his brother, the deceased was milking the buffalo. In the meantime, all the five aforesaid appellants started abusing his brother Sheonandan Prasad from their roof saying that they (the appellants) will kill him because he burnt the heap of paddy straw. According to him, when appellants started brick-batting into the courtyard and over the roof of the house, his brother went over his roof to abstain them from doing so, but all the appellants started firing in course of which the bullet fired by appellant Birju Prasad @ Brijnandan Prasad hit his brother on the chest who subsequently fell down and succumbed to the injury. It is further stated by the informant that in the year 1996, appellants had stolen the electric pole of the Electricity Board and due to which they were caught and later on punished by the village committee in which the deceased was also one of the members and due to that enmity, appellants were nursing grudges and used to threaten the deceased of the dire consequences. Apart from this incident, appellants had also assaulted the deceased- brother of the informant in the year 1998 for which Chandi P.S. Case No. 46 of 1998 had been registered which is pending before the court below. Other witnesses i.e. PWs. 5 and 6, who are family members of the informant were also present on the roof when the occurrence took place and they have also fully supported the case of the prosecution. 6. PW.4 Satrughan Prasad has stated that he had gone to the house of the deceased in the early morning when the occurrence took place and as such he is also an eye witness to the occurrence. Acc0ording to him, in the morning at about 6 A.M. when he reached the house of the deceased, he was milking the buffalo and in the meantime appellants started brick batting and abusing the deceased saying that he had burnt the heap of paddy straw and they will teach him the lesson. P.W. 4 has also stated that he had gone there along with one Sheonandan and another villager Sheoji alias Shiv Kumar who also witnessed the occurrence, P.W.4 has further stated that gun shot fire caused by appellant Brijnandan Prasad hit on the chest of Sheonandan Prasad, and he fell over the roof and died. He has further stated that between one and a half hours these appellants also murdered Bhuwan Prasad. 7. P.W. 9, Dr. Prabhat Keshaw who conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased Sheonandan Prasad on 13.12.1999 at Sadar Hospital, Biharsharif at about 3 P.M. He found following ante mortem injuries on the person of the deceased. Rigour mortis present in all four limbs. (i) One lacerated wound on occipital region on scalp 1 1/2" x 1" x scalp deep size. (ii) One lacerated wound on right side of chest at the length of second intercoastal space 1 1/2" lateral to the external margin 2" x 1" x cavity deep size, margin of wound charred and inverted, wound of entry. (iii) Third rib fractured. (iv) One lacerated wound on left side of back at bare area, just below the lower border of scapula 1 1/2" x 1" x cavity deep size, margin of wound everted, wound of exit. (iii) Third rib fractured. (iv) One lacerated wound on left side of back at bare area, just below the lower border of scapula 1 1/2" x 1" x cavity deep size, margin of wound everted, wound of exit. On dissection, scalp, brain and brain matter in tact, right lung perforated, left lung in tact, arch of aorata in tact contents 3-4 ounces of undigested food materials, liver, splin, both kidneys in tact, gasses ficle matters present in small and large intestine respectively. The bladder was half full. Time elapse since death within 24 hours. In the opinion of the doctor, death occurred due to shock and haemorrhage caused by above noted fire arm injuries. He has also stated that those injuries are possible by rifle and are sufficient for death. The doctor has also proved the post mortem report, Ext-4. 8. P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 are not eye witnesses to the occurrence because they are the hearsay witnesses, but they have corroborated the factum of occurrence by stating that the appellants having arms in their hands were going towards the east after firing. 9. P.W.10 is the Investigating Officer of the case. He has done initial investigation and has recorded the fard beyan and registered formal First Information Report and inspected the place of occurrence, i.e. the roof of the house. He has given full description of the place of occurrence. He has also prepared inquest report He found brick bats on the roof and in courtyard also which was thrown from northern side which support the story of prosecution. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the case is based on the testimony of interested and related witnesses. The P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 who were independent witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution. It has further been submitted that testimony of the witness P.W. 4 should not be relied upon since his purpose of going to the place of occurrence is doubtful because he has stated in his deposition that he had gone to the house of the informant for getting Tractor on hire. But it has come in the evidence of P.W. 7 that they were not plying the Tractor on hire. But it has come in the evidence of P.W. 7 that they were not plying the Tractor on hire. As such, there was no occasion as to why P.W. 4 had gone to the place of occurrence such early at about 6.30 in the morning in winter season (as the occurrence is of 30th December, 1999) when village people usually remain in their beds. Learned counsel for the appellants has also submitted that there is also chances of false implication of the appellants because of previous admitted enmity between the parties which is apparent from deposition of the informant, P.W. 7. 11. So far submission of learned counsel for the appellants that witnesses are interested and related and no independent eye witness has been examined by the prosecution is concerned, the case of the prosecution cannot be discarded only on this score. In this case, occurrence took place in the morning of winter season, so many villagers are not expected to see the occurrence. But P.W. 4 is an independent witness who has supported the case of the prosecution. Though defence has tried to show that his presence was doubtful, but he is not related to informant why he would falsely implicate the appellants. P.Ws. 5, 6 and 7 are competent witnesses because they were on the roof of the house and they had seen the occurrence and they have consistently supported the case of the prosecution. There is no contradiction in their testimonies so as to discard the prosecution case. So far enmity between the parties is concerned, the informant had no personal enmity so as to falsely implicate the appellants. That apart, the prosecution version has also been supported by P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3. As per their depositions, they heard the sound of firing and when they proceeded towards the village they saw the appellants fleeing away with fire arms in their hands. The first information was given soon after the occurrence. The occurrence took place in the morning in presence of P.Ws, 5, 6 and 7 and it was witnessed by P.W. 4 as well. 12. As such, we do not find that prosecution case suffers from any infirmity and testimonies of the witnesses are reliable. The first information was given soon after the occurrence. The occurrence took place in the morning in presence of P.Ws, 5, 6 and 7 and it was witnessed by P.W. 4 as well. 12. As such, we do not find that prosecution case suffers from any infirmity and testimonies of the witnesses are reliable. It also appears that the occurrence was pre planned and all the five appellants had come at the place of occurrence with common intention to commit murder of the brother of the informant. The court below on appreciation of evidence so adduced, has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellants for offences punishable under sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code as also 27 of the Arms Act. 13. Accordingly, conviction and sentence, passed by the court below against all the five appellants are hereby upheld and in result both appeals are accordingly dismissed.