Judgment P.N.Yadav, J. 1. All the three appeals referred to above arose out of one and the same judgment and order dated the 21st December, 2001 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, IV, Muzaffarpur in Sessions Trial No. 484/205 of 1998/ 1999 arising out of Paroo P.S. Case No. 209 of 1997 and hence they were heard together and are going to be disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The appellants sufferred conviction and sentence of life imprisonment u/s. 302 read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter to be referred to as the Code) and sentence of one year each u/s. 27 of the Arms Act. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 3. Binda Choudhary (P.W. 4) of village Khuntahi, Police Station Paroo, District Muzaffarpur alongwith his sons Rajeshwar Choudhary (deceased) and Raj Kishore Choudhary (P.W. 2) at about 9.30 A.M. on the 16th October, 1997 was on the eve of Deepawali festival cleaning his shop facing east and north run and managed in the name and style of Choudhary General Stores situated at Jafarpur market. Just then the appellant Tullu Singh (appellant in Cr. Appeal No. 98 of 2001), Ramnath Singh, Shailendra Singh (appellant in Cr. Appeal No. 55 of 2001), and Uma Singh of village Madan Chapra, Nidu Singh and Maheshwar Singh of village Kataru, Hari Pandey of village Phulwaria, Chunnu Singh of village Chhap, Mithilesh Singh and Kamlesh Singh (appellant in Cr. Appeal No. 81 of 2001) of village Khedalpura and one or two unknown miscreants aboard a Maruti Van and two Yamaha motorcycles arrived there. They were armed with country made rifles and guns. Getting off the vehicles Tullu Singh and Nidu Singh abused the deceased and ordered his elimination as he did not pay ransom to them. Soon thereafter the appellants Tullu Singh, Shailendra Singh and Kamlesh Singh resorted to indiscriminate firing from rifles and gun respectively in the shop from eastern side. Binda Choudhary (P.W. 4) and his younger son Raj Kishore Choudhary (P.W. 2) out of fear hid themselves under counter of the shop but Rajeshwar Choudhary (deceased) was hit by the shots as a result of which he sustained injuries, fell down outside the shop to the north of the shop whereafter some more bullets were again pumped into his body by the accused persons other than the appellants. He succumbed to the injuries on the spot. 4. The motive impelling the appellants and other accused to commit gruesome and cold blooded murder of the deceased was that about one and a half month ago the accused Tullu Singh on the eve of shradh ceremony of his father-in-law demanded of the deceased some goods and articles as rangdari tax but he did not oblige him and protested against his high handed and illegal act of forcing the businessman to give ransom to him although other shopkeepers fulfilled and satisfied his demand for ransom. Demand for payment of ransom was also made from the deceased 4-5 days prior to the date of incident but he again refused to make any payment for which he was threatened with dire consequences. The accused including the appellants got infuriated and enraged and they cherishing grudge and annoyance since then ultimately on the date quoted above put the incident leading to the commission of murder of the deceased to an end. 5. Binda Choudhary (P.W. 4) set the law in motion. He got his fardbeyan (Ext. 5) with these accusations recorded at 10.50 A.M. on the same day by Amarnath Prasad (P.W. 11), Sub Inspector of Police, Khuntahi Police Station in presence of Raj Kishore Choudhary (P.W. 2) and Om Prakash Choudhary (not examined) on the basis of which formal First Information Report (Ext. 6) was drawn up and the instant case registered. Immediately after recording the fardbeyan P.W. 11 took up investigation. He visited and inspected the place of occurrence. He found the deceased lying dead in a pool of blood close to his shop on its northern side. He prepared inquest report (Ext. 7) in presence of Vishwanath Sah (P.W. 6) and Rameshwar Prasad Rastogi (P.W. 5), who also put their signatures thereon. He caused the dead body of the deceased to be sent to mortuary with Awadhesh Kumar and Kaviraj Ojha (Sub Inspector of Police and Constable respectively). He seized blood and empty cartridges from the place of occurrence and prepared seizure list (Ext. 8), recorded statements of the witnesses, and collected postmortem examination report (Ext. 4). After completion of investigation the chargesheet was submitted and finally the trial commenced after commitment against the six accused persons including the appellants. 6. He seized blood and empty cartridges from the place of occurrence and prepared seizure list (Ext. 8), recorded statements of the witnesses, and collected postmortem examination report (Ext. 4). After completion of investigation the chargesheet was submitted and finally the trial commenced after commitment against the six accused persons including the appellants. 6. Binod Choudhary (P.W. 1), Raj Kishore Choudhary (P.W. 2) and Sanjay Choudhary (not examined) were cited as eye witnesses in the First Information Report. 7. The charges under Ss. 302, 307 and 341 read with Sec. 34 of the Penal Code and Sec. 27 of the Arms Act were framed against the appellants Shailendra Singh and Kamlesh Singh and the accused Maheshwar Singh on the 4.10.1999 and the same charges were framed against the accused Uma Singh and Mithilesh Singh and the appellant Tullu Singh on the 11.04.2000. Examination of prosecution witnesses commenced with effect from the 17.08.2000. 8. The defence was of total denial and false implication out of sheer enmity and group rivalry at the instance of one Ramvichar Roy, a local member of Legislative Assembly and a Minister of State. The appellant Shailendra Singh also set up the plea of alibi according to which he was imparting training to the cadets at Bharat Scouts and Guide Training Camp Organised at Ramrati High School, Marwa, Samastipur during hours 9.00 A.M. to 4.00 P.M. with effect from 15.10.1997 to 21.10.1997 and thus he was not present at the time and place of occurrence. In order to prove his plea of alibi he examined four witnesses, namely, Ajay Kumar Choudhary (D.W. 1), Maheshwar Prasad Singh (D.W. 2), Jay Narayan Singh (D.W. 3) and Ashok Kumar Singh (D.W. 4), who were all formal witnesses and merely proved certain papers. 9. Taking the facts, circumstances and evidence brought on records into account the learned court below found and held the appellants guilty and convicted and sentenced them as stated above acquitting the accused Uma Singh, Mithilesh Singh and Maheshwar Singh vide the judgment and order impugned. The Trial Court did not record its findings on the charge u/s. 341 of the Code and the judgment is silent thereon. However, this omission is of no consequence and it would not introduce any infirmity in the judgment and as such no discussion need be made on this point. 10. The Trial Court did not record its findings on the charge u/s. 341 of the Code and the judgment is silent thereon. However, this omission is of no consequence and it would not introduce any infirmity in the judgment and as such no discussion need be made on this point. 10. Before I embark upon examination and analysis of the testimony of the witnesses on the envil of trustworthiness and reliability I would like to refer to the points raised on behalf of the appellants in order to attach vulnerability to the judgment rendered by the court below. 10. Before I embark upon examination and analysis of the testimony of the witnesses on the envil of trustworthiness and reliability I would like to refer to the points raised on behalf of the appellants in order to attach vulnerability to the judgment rendered by the court below. Assailing the judgment and order of conviction and sentence the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the appellants have contended that as per prosecution version laid in the First Information Report the deceased after sustaining injuries dropped dead in the shop but since his dead body was found outside the shop on its northern side the witnesses after getting legal mind made improvement and embellishment at trial by setting up a different case that the deceased after sustaining injury in his shop tried to flee away but he fell down outside the shop on its northern extremity where accused persons other than the appellants also opened fire upon his and he succumbed to the injuries there; that no blood and pellets were found in the shop nor was there any mark of violence on various goods and articles kept in the shop and all this would go to suggest that the incident did not occur in the manner and at the place of occurrence alleged by the prosecution; that identification of the appellants, too, is doubtful for, P.W. 1 and P.W. 4 did not identify Shailendra Singh and Kamlesh Singh respectively in the court; that almost all the eye witnesses were related to and interested in the deceased inasmuch as P.W. 2 Raj Kishore Choudhary and P.W. 3 Rameshwar Choudhary are the sons of the informant (P.W. 4) while P.W. 1 is his nephew; that P.W. 3 was not named in the First Information Report and Sanjay Choudhary named in the First Information Report was not examined by the prosecution; that a number of shops situated on both sides of the road in the vicinity of the place of occurrence but none of the shopkeepers who would have been independent witnesses was examined by the prosecution and that on the same set of evidence Nidu Singh was not sent up for trial and the accused Uma Singh, Mithilesh Singh and Maheshwar Singh were acquitted and hence the appellants too cannot be convicted and they deserve to be extended benefit of doubt. 11. 11. The informant Binda Choudhary (P.W. 4) supported the prosecution case in its entirety. He stated that he alongwith his two sons Raj Kishore Choudhary (P.W. 2) and Rajeshwar Choudhary (deceased) was inside his shop and they were cleaning the same on the eve of Deepawali festival and just then a Maruti Van and two motorcycles arrived and stopped there, to the east of the shop and 10-12 miscreants all armed with rifles and guns got down from the vehicles. The three appellants and the accused Nidu Singh, Mithilesh Singh, Chunchun Singh, Hari Pandey, Uma Singh, Maheshwar Singh and Ramnath Singh were identified amongst the miscreants by P.W. 4. He added after getting off the vehicles Tullu Singh and Nidu Singh abused the deceased and ordered that he be done away with for his failure to supply their demand for ransom and soon all the three appellants resorted to indiscriminate firing on the deceased while he was sitting on a chair in his shop as a result of which he sustained injuries and tried to flee away out of the shop in a bid to save his life but he fell down outside the shop on its northern extremity whereafter other accused persons also pumped bullets in his body and the deceased died there. Identical is the evidence of P.W. 2. The evidence of P.W. 4 and P.W. 2 would reveal that the deceased first sustained injuries while he was sitting on a chair in the shop wherefrom he tried to flee away but fell down outside quite close to the shop. Both the witnesses, that is, P.W. 4 and P.W. 2 denied that their earlier stand was that the deceased died immediately after sustaining injuries inside the shop itself rather they asserted that he sustaining injuries in the shop started fleeing away but he fell down outside the shop on its northern extemity. Though the witnesses were cross examined at length nothing was elicited to impeach their veracity and credibility. 12. Though the witnesses were cross examined at length nothing was elicited to impeach their veracity and credibility. 12. P.W. 1 Binod Choudhary supporting the prosecution version stated that while he was taking tea in the tea shop of one Raghunath Sah the appellants and other accused persons arrived at the shop of the deceased and they resorted to indiscriminate firing as a result of which the deceased sustained injuries and he succumbed to the injuries so inflicted on him and after committing murder they fled away towards the south. He claimed to have identified Maheshwar Singh as Kamlesh Singh meaning thereby that he did not identify the appellant Kamlesh Singh in the court. In his cross examination, he stated that the shop of the deceased facing east and north situated on the western side of the road while the aforesaid tea shop facing west was located on the eastern side of the road and the tea shop and the shop of the deceased were intervened by three other shops. He also stated in his cross examination that the deceased sustained injuries while he was sitting on a chair in the shop and after he fell down outside the shop he was again pumped bullets. The witness said when the appellant and other accused persons started operations he and others present at the tea shop started hiding themselves inside the shop but the door of the tea shop was not closed and it remained opened and he concealing himself witnessed the incident leading to the commission of murder of the deceased. He is quite independent witness. Though in course of hearing he was said to be nephew of the informant, there is no material at all on records to show that he was really his nephew. 13. P.W. 3 Rajeshwar Choudhary, brother of the deceased was at about 9.30 A.M. on the date of incident taking tea at the aforesaid tea stall. He gave eye witness account of the occurrence exactly identical to that of P.W. 4 and P.W. 2. Both P.W. 1 and P.W. 3 Stated that they were frightened with indiscriminate firing resorted to by the accused persons including the appellants and they out of fear hid themselves inside the shop and they witnessed the incident leading to the death of the deceased keeping themselves concealed in the tea shop the door of which was opened. Both P.W. 1 and P.W. 3 Stated that they were frightened with indiscriminate firing resorted to by the accused persons including the appellants and they out of fear hid themselves inside the shop and they witnessed the incident leading to the death of the deceased keeping themselves concealed in the tea shop the door of which was opened. There is nothing abnormal in their statement that though they had kept themselves confined in the tea shop they witnessed the occurrence taking place at the shop of the deceased. The location and frontage of the tea shop and the shop of the deceased was such that they could have seen the occurrence from the tea shop. Even if it is assumed that P.W. 1 and P.W. 3 did not see the bullets hitting the deceased, they heard sound of firing and they witnessed the accused including the appellants fleeing away from the scene of incident after the deceased was shot dead and subsequently they went to the place of occurrence and saw the deceased lying dead in a pool of blood outside his shop on its northern extremity. The evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 3 would atleast lend assurance to the ocular evidence of P.W. 4 and P.W. 2. 14. Rameshwar Prasad Rastogi (P.W. 5) was at the relevant point of time at his shop situated about 10 metres east of the shop of the deceased. He heard sound of firing and rushed to the place of occurrence but by that time the miscreants had retreated. He saw the deceased lying dead. He witnessed preparation of inquest report (Ext. 2) and he put his signature (Ext. 3) thereon. Though he did not name the accused his evidence would lend assurance to the prosecution case that the occurrence did take place at the shop of the deceased leading to his death. P.W. 6 Vishwanath Choudhary was another witness to inquest report. He put his signature (Ext. 3/a) thereon. His shop situated 8 jaribs away from the place of occurrence. Presence of P.W. 5 and P.W. 6 there was quite natural. P.W. 7 Shankar Choudhary and P.W. 8 Ram Pravesh Choudhary witnessed seizure of five empty cartridges of rifles and two empty cartridges of gun as well as blood stained earth from the place of occurrence and preparation of seizure list (Ext. 8). They put their signatures (Exts. Presence of P.W. 5 and P.W. 6 there was quite natural. P.W. 7 Shankar Choudhary and P.W. 8 Ram Pravesh Choudhary witnessed seizure of five empty cartridges of rifles and two empty cartridges of gun as well as blood stained earth from the place of occurrence and preparation of seizure list (Ext. 8). They put their signatures (Exts. 3/b and 3/c) on the seizure list. 15. P.W. 9 Umesh Prasad Choudhary stated he hearing sound of firing went to the scene of incident where he saw the deceased lying dead in a pool of blood. As he did not speak of the incident nor did be identify any of the accused though he had supported the prosecution version in its entirety in his statement u/s. 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure he was declared hostile by the prosecution. Even if his evidence is omitted there remains ample cogent and reliable evidence on the records to support the prosecution case. 16. Medical evidence is also in consonance with eye witness account of the occurrence leading to the commission of murder of the deceased. A Board of doctors comprising Dr. Mumtaz Ahmad (P.W. 10), Dr. M.N. Singh, both Assistant Professors and Dr. M.K. Srivastava, Professor, S.K. Medical College and Hospital, Muzaffarpur conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased. P.W. 10 stated that postmortem examination was held by the Board of doctors referred to above at about 12 noon on 17.10.1997. The doctors found the following ante-mortem injuries: (i) Multiple separate small round wounds of entry, diameter 7" from 3/4" on the tip of nose to frontal parietal region of the scalp. On dissection wounds were found to be bone deep partially piercing the outer table of frontal bone with blood clots present underneath the scalp. (ii) Wound of entry 1/4" diameter over the upper back of left side in the region of scapular spine with no blackening and tatooing. (iii) Exit wound of 2" diameter over the medial end of left clavicle on front side. On dissection injury no. (ii) was found to be communicating with a track which moves forward, upward and laterally with fracture of the left scapula lacerating the muscle axilliary vessels fracturing medial ends of left clavicle ending injury no. (iii). (iv) Wound of entry of 2" diameter over the left side of anterior abdominal wall about 3/4" above and lateral to umblicus. (ii) was found to be communicating with a track which moves forward, upward and laterally with fracture of the left scapula lacerating the muscle axilliary vessels fracturing medial ends of left clavicle ending injury no. (iii). (iv) Wound of entry of 2" diameter over the left side of anterior abdominal wall about 3/4" above and lateral to umblicus. Abraded collar was found present. (v) Exit wound of 4" diameter 1/ 2" above and lateral to injury no. (iv). On dissection injury no. (iv) was found to be communicating with track which was muscle deep ending in injuiry no. (vi). (vi) Wound of entry 3" diameter over the right lateral aspect of abdomen in the region of 11 th rib with few separate entry wounds near the margin of the main wound with no blackening and tatooing. On dissection injury no. (vi) was found to be communicating with a track which moved upward, forward and medially, right kidney and liver were lacerated and abdomen was found filled with blood and blood clots. (vii) Entry wound of diameter of 1/ 2" over back of left and 1/2" above the medial epicondyle. (viii) Exit would 3" x 2" over cubital region of left upper limb. On dissection injury no. (vii) was found communicating with a track which moved forward, laterially and downward ending in injury no. (viii). 17. The doctors recovered pellets and wad from kidney liver and scalp which were kept in a container, sealed and handed over to the constable. In the opinion of the board of doctors cause of death was shock and haemorrhage resulting from the aforesaid firearm injuries to the vital organs. The injuries were said to be sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature and the time elapsed since death was said to be within 24 to 30 hours. P.W. 10 proved postmortem examination report (Ext. 4) which bears signature of all the three doctors referred to above. The medical evidence and post-mortem examination report lend assurance and support to the prosecution version regarding the time and the manner of occurrence as well as the weapons used in the commission of murder of the deceased. The doctor (P.W. 10) was cross examined at length but nothing was elicited to discredit his testimony. 18. The medical evidence and post-mortem examination report lend assurance and support to the prosecution version regarding the time and the manner of occurrence as well as the weapons used in the commission of murder of the deceased. The doctor (P.W. 10) was cross examined at length but nothing was elicited to discredit his testimony. 18. Amarnath Prasad (P.W. 11) after getting information that a man was killed at village Jafarpur Khuntahi rushed to the place of occurrence and recorded there the fard beyan (Ext. 5) of the informant (P.W. 4) at 10.50 A.M. on 16.10.1997 on the basis of which the formal First Information Report (Ext. 6) was drawn up and the case was registered. He saw the dead body of the deceased lying outside his shop on its northern extremity. He prepared inquest report (Ext. 7). He seized blood stained earth, empty cartridges from the place of occurrence and prepared the seizure list (Ext. 8) in presence of witnesses. He inspected the place of occurrence and gave a vivid description of the same. It was the shop of the informant having an area of 15 x 10. It was facing east and north. 19. A few words on the genesis of the occurrence and the motive impelling the appellants and their associates to eliminate the deceased. It was averred in the Fardbeyan that about one and a half month ago the appellant Tullu Singh went to the shop of the deceased and demanded of him certain goods and articles without payment as rangdari tax on the eve of Shradh ceremony of his father-in-law but he did not oblige him rather he protested against his high handed and illegal act, though, other shopkeepers supplied his demand for ransom. It is in the evidence of ocular witnesses that Tullu Singh and Nidu Singh uttered that he did not give ransom and as such he be killed and soon bullets were pumped in the body of the deceased and at the time of departure, too, the accused spoke it was the result of non payment of rangdari tax. P.W. 3 stated that the accused had been in the habit of demanding rangdari tax for about one and a half years and the accused Uma Singh prior to the occurrence used to ask the deceased to make payment of ransom and a few days before the occurrence also demand for ransom was made. P.W. 3 stated that the accused had been in the habit of demanding rangdari tax for about one and a half years and the accused Uma Singh prior to the occurrence used to ask the deceased to make payment of ransom and a few days before the occurrence also demand for ransom was made. P.W. 4 said that four days prior to the incident Shailendra Singh had demanded rangdari tax from the deceased and as he was not obliged be threatened the deceased with dire consequences. The accused persons including the appellants seemed to be the members of a gang indulged in nefarious activity of exterting the members of the business community and in that view of the matter the statements of the witnesses that sometime ransom was demanded by Tullu Singh and sometime by the either accused such as Shailendra Singh or Nidu Singh would introduce no infirmity in the prosecution case. Motive is irrelevant and it loses its relevance and importance when there is direct evidence of eye witnesses on the commissioin of crime. In the case at hand, there is direct cogent and credible evidence on the commission of murder of the deceased by the appellants in furtherance of common intention of them all and the motive alleged in the First Information Report also stands proved by the evidence referred to above. 20. The contention put forward on behalf of the appellants that the initial case set up by the prosecution was that the miscreants started firing in the shop from the eastern side and the deceased after sustaining injuries fell down in the shop and died but as his dead body was found outside the shop quite close to it on its northern side, the witnesses after getting legal mind made improvement and embellishment in the case and stated that the deceased sustaining injury in the shop while be was sitting on a chair tried to flee away, however, he fell down outside on the northern extremity of the shop is devoid of merit and force and the same cannot be accepted. The victim even after sustaining injuries could be in a state to make a violent and un-controlled movement and in such condition he might have gone outside the shop and fell down there. The victim even after sustaining injuries could be in a state to make a violent and un-controlled movement and in such condition he might have gone outside the shop and fell down there. The averment made in the First Information Report that the deceased after being hit by the bullets in the shop fell down and died cannot be interpreted to mean that he dropped dead in the shop itself. The accused persons who were bent upon killing the deceased can well be expected to have deployed themselves on both sides of the shop-east and north so that the deceased might not escape. There is nothing abnormal in the ocular evidence to the effect that after the deceased fell outside his shop some of the accused again fired upon him. Non recital of attempt made by the deceased to flee away from the shop or his falling outside the shop in state of violent and un-controlled movements in the First Information Report is of no consequence. The First Information Report is not the encyclopedia containing all minute details. In the facts and circumstances, no improvement or embellishment can be said to have been made by the witnesses at trial rendering the prosecution case doubtful. 21. It is true that the Investigating Officer (P.W. 11) stated that he found no blood and marks of violence on various goods and articles kept in the shop. That would indicate that he did not properly and minutely see and observe whether there was blood fallen on the floor inside the shop and whether goods and articles or wall were hit by the bullets and he contended himself with findings of blood and empty cartridges outside the shop. Negligence on the part of the Investigating Officer to make proper observation to find marks of violence or pellets or blood inside the shop cannot be allowed to be interpreted to give rise to an inference that the presecution case is doubtful. Irregular or defective investigation intentionally or inadvertently made by the Investigating Officer cannot be a ground for acquittal. 22. It has been submitted that P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 are the sons of P.W. 4 and brother of the deceased while P.W. 1 is the nephew of P.W. 4 and thus all the prosecution witnesses are related to and interested in the deceased. 22. It has been submitted that P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 are the sons of P.W. 4 and brother of the deceased while P.W. 1 is the nephew of P.W. 4 and thus all the prosecution witnesses are related to and interested in the deceased. The settled principle of law is that evidence of eye witnesses closely related to the victim is required to be closely scrutinised and corroboration for acceptance of such evidence is not necessary and conviction can be based on evidence of relatives and interested witnesses even without corroboration if on close scrutiny it is found to be worthy of credence and reliable. It is not likely that the witness related to and interested in the victim would deliberately omit to name the real assailant and substitute in his place the name of the enemy of the family out of malice. The desire to punish the victims assailant would be so powerful and intense in his mind that he would name the real assailant and would not substitute in his place the enemy of the family. The eye witnesses in the instant case were not inimical to the appellants. The murder of the deceased was committed on account of non payment of ransom. Presence of P.Ws. 2 and 4 alongwith the deceased in the shop for the purpose of cleaning the same on the eve of Deepawali was quite natural and probable. Nothing was elicited in their cross examination to demolish their veracity. P.W. 3 witnessing the occurrence from the tea stall referred to above too cannot be said to be improbable. He also stood the test of cross examination. His evidence cannot be rejected merely because his name did not figure in the First Information Report. The names of all the witnesses need not necessarily be cited in the First Information Report. P.W. 1 was independent witness. There is nothing on the records to show that he is nephew of P.W. 4. Cogent, credible and trustworthy evidence of a witness cannot be rejected merely because he is related to the deceased or injured. 23. No doubt several shops situated on both sides of the road near the scene of the incident. There is no material to show that all the shops were opened and the proprietors of those shops or their employees were present in the shops at the time of occurrence. 23. No doubt several shops situated on both sides of the road near the scene of the incident. There is no material to show that all the shops were opened and the proprietors of those shops or their employees were present in the shops at the time of occurrence. Besides it is well known that in villages where murders are committed as a result of factions existing in the village or inconsequence of family feuds independent villager are generally reluctant to give evidence for, they are afraid that giving evidence might invite the wrath of the assailant and might expose them to serious risk. In the instant case, the entire business community of the Jafarpur where the occurrence took place was frightened with and apprehensive of the accused including the appellants and out of fear the shopkeepers other than the deceased carrying on their business there had already obliged them by supplying their illegal demand for ransom but the deceased alone protested and defied their command inviting their wrath. Hence non-examination of shopkeepers or Sanjay Choudhary named in the First Information Report cannot instil suspicion in the prosecution version. 24. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants referred to certain minor inconsistencies in ocular evidence. Minor inconsistencies or contradictions are bound to occur in the evidence of eye witnesses for, hardly one comes across a witness whose evidence does not contain a grain of un-truth or at any rate exaggeration or embellishment. In most of the cases the witnesses when asked about the details venture to give some answer not necessarily true or relevant for fear that their evidence may not be accepted in respect of the main incident which they have witnessed but that is not to say that their evidence on salient fetures of the case after cautious scrutiny cannot be accepted. However, if inconsistencies or discrepancies arising in the evidence adversely affect the core or edifice of the prosecution case such evidence cannot be accepted. In the instant case whatever minor inconsistencies are there in the ocular evidence they are of no consequences and the same cannot be said to have gone to the root of the prosecution case and the same must be ignored. 25. In the instant case whatever minor inconsistencies are there in the ocular evidence they are of no consequences and the same cannot be said to have gone to the root of the prosecution case and the same must be ignored. 25. The contentiion that on the same set of evidence Uma Singh, Mithilesh Singh and Maheshwar Singh were acquitted and that would mean that according to Trial Court the evidence on records was not trustworthy and reliable and hence the apellants too cannot be convicted and they also deserve to be given benefit of doubt has got no merit and substance. Rejection of a part of evidence of a witness would not render his entire evidence doubtful and unworthy of a credence. Acquittal of some of the accused in a case would not make the prosecution case as against the other accused doubtful. While considering propriety of conviction of the appellants the evidence against Uma Singh, Mithilesh Singh and Maheshwar Singh and their acquittal cannot be looked into and that cannot pave the ground for acquittal of the appellants by extending benefit of doubt to them. Acquittal of the aforesaid three accused cannot stand in the way of conviction of the appellants. 26. It is also to be kept in view that the First Information Report was lodged within an hour or so of the incident. Investigation was taken up by P.W. 11 then and there after recording the fard beyan of the informant. There was no occasion or opportunity available to the informant or other witnesses to make connection and embellishment. 27. The appellant Shailendra Singh also set up the plea of alibi. It was stated that at the relevant point of time he was not present at the place of occurrence inasmuch as he was at the time of occurrence engaged in imparting training of scouts and guide to the cadets at High School, Merwa, Samastipur. In order to prove the plea of alibi he examined four witnesses who merely proved certain documents. One of the documents is certificate (Ext. A/1) issued by the Headmaster of the school referred to above. It was purported to have been brought on records to show that Shailendra Singh was on the date of occurrence engaged in imparting training at the aforesaid school. In the case at hand the chargesheet was submitted in January, 1998. One of the documents is certificate (Ext. A/1) issued by the Headmaster of the school referred to above. It was purported to have been brought on records to show that Shailendra Singh was on the date of occurrence engaged in imparting training at the aforesaid school. In the case at hand the chargesheet was submitted in January, 1998. The father of the appellant Shailendra Singh made an application (Ext. D) setting up his plea of alibi on 3.3.1998. The Investigating Officer submitted report (Ext. C) thereon on 13.3.1998. The certificate (Ext. A/1) was issued by the Headmaster on 25.10.1997. The case was registered on 16.10.1997. The appellant Shailendra Singh surrendered to the court on 28.10.1997 and prayed for bail but he did not set up the plea of alibi at that time. The Investigating Officer could not contact the Headmaster who issue the certificate referred to above as he was not available. The appellant Shailendra Singh ought to have examined the Headmaster, who though transferred from that school was alive but he did not examine him. Under such circumstances, the contents of the certificate (Ext. A/1) which seems to be forged, fabricated and antedated document cannot be looked into and considered. Besides the statement of the appellant Shailendra Singh recorded u/s. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure too is silent on his plea of alibi. He did not say there that at the time of occurrence be was at Merwa School in the district of Samastipur to impart training of scouts and guide. The settled principle of law is that the alibi being a weak type of defence generally viewed with suspicion must be set up at the earliest available opportunity and it must be proved with absolute certainty so as to completely exclude the possibility of the presence of the person concerned, that is, the accused, at the time and place of occurrence. Obviously, in the present case the appellant miserably failed to prove his alibi. 28. P.W. 1 claimed to have identified all the three appellants, but in the dock he did not identify the appellant Kamlesh Singh. Similarly, P.W. 4 did not identify Shailendra Singh, P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 identified all the three appellants. Obviously, in the present case the appellant miserably failed to prove his alibi. 28. P.W. 1 claimed to have identified all the three appellants, but in the dock he did not identify the appellant Kamlesh Singh. Similarly, P.W. 4 did not identify Shailendra Singh, P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 identified all the three appellants. On account of non-identification of the appellant Kamlesh Singh and Shailendra Singh in the dock by the two witnesses referred to above the evidence and claim of P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 to have identified all the three appellants cannot be thrown over board. As observed above, the accused persons including the appellants were members of a gang of extortionists and they approached the deceased and demanded of him ransom on several occasions prior to the incident and as such the witnesses were well known to and familiar and conversant with them and they must have no difficulty in identifying them at the time and place of occurrence and again in the court. 29. The facts, circumstances and evidence discussed and the observations made in the preceding paragraphs did bring home the charge levelled against the appellants and they were rightly convicted and sentenced by the court below. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence warrants no inference by this Court and the same is, accordingly, maintained and confirmed. 30. All the three appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. The appellants are already in jail custody. They shall serve out the remainder of sentence. Mridula Mishra, J. 31 I agree.