Judgment R.N.Prasad and Mridula Mishra JJ. 1. The appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 15.2.2001 passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Bettiah in Sessions Trial No. 168/ 99 whereby the appellants have been convicted for the offence u/s. 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine to undergo simple imprisonment for two years. They have further been convicted for the offence u/s. 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000.00 each, in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. They have also been convicted for the offence u/s. 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code but no separate sentence has been passed. 2. Lalita Devi is the informant in the case. She gave her Fardbayan on 27.12.98 at 10 A.M. in the Emergency Ward of M.J.K. Hospital, Bettiah before the Sub Inspector of Police of Muffasil Police Station Bettiah that yesterday i.e. 26.12.98 at about 4 P.M. she and her son Nityanand Mishra had gone to see their land. She saw that Krishna Mohan Mishra, Rabi Pratap Mishra, Ramesh Mishra, Birbhadra Mishra were cutting platform/ ridge/niv of the land of her share and amalgamating the same with their land. She and her son Nityanand Mishra protested at which there was altercation between them. Thereafter, the accused persons assaulted his son causing injuries on his head. He fell down. Thereafter all the accused persons pressed his chest with intention to kill him. He became unconscious. She tried to save him but she was also assaulted with lathi on her head. She fell down sustaining injuries and raised alarm on which Jamadar Mishra, Rajkumar Mishra, Ashok Mishra came and saved them. She and her son were taken to hospital. However, in the morning of 29.12.98 at about 5 A.M. her son died. She had also given her Fardbayan before the Sub Inspector of Police of Bettiah Town RS. on 26.12.98. No formal First information was drawn on her Fardbayan on 26.12.98 at 8 P.M. However, a formal F.I.R. was drawn on the basis of the Fardbayan recorded later i.e. on 27.12.98. Both the Fardbayan are on record and there is no material difference in them. on 26.12.98. No formal First information was drawn on her Fardbayan on 26.12.98 at 8 P.M. However, a formal F.I.R. was drawn on the basis of the Fardbayan recorded later i.e. on 27.12.98. Both the Fardbayan are on record and there is no material difference in them. Investigation was taken up and on completion of the investigation chargesheet was submitted against all the four accused persons. On receipt of the charge-sheet congnizance was taken and the case was committed to the court of session for trial. It is, however, made clear that Birbhadra Mishra was found to be juvenile and as such his case was separated. The trial court convicted the appellants, as indicated above. The defence of the appellants was that they were innocent and falsely implicated in the case. They denied the alleged occurrence and submitted that the prosecution party itself came to the place of occurrence to obstruct the appellants. A counter case was also lodged by Krishna Mohan Mishra with respect to the same occurrence. 3. The prosecution in support of its case examined seven witnesses, out of whom P.W. 1, P.W. 2, P.W. 3 claimed to be eye witnesses to the occurrence, P.W. 4 is the informant and she also claimed to be eye witness to the occurrence. P.W. 5 is the doctor, who held post mortem over the dead body. P.W. 6 is also a doctor, who examined P.W. 4. P.W. 7 is Investigating Officer. The defence has also examined one witness D.W. 1 who proved some documents to show that the land in dispute was of the appellants. The eye witnesses i.e. P.W. 1, P.W. 2, P.W. 3 and P.W. 4 are related to one another. Learned counsel for the appellants, however, contended that since they are related/interested witnesses, their evidence should be discarded. In this regard it is a well established rule of law that evidence of such witnesses is not required to be discarded outright rather it is required to be scrutinised with care and caution. Keeping in mind the well settled principle of law we proceed to examine the evidence of the witnesses. P.W. 4 is the informant and she is an injured witness. Her evidence is that on the relevant day at about 4 P.M. she and her son Nityanand Mishra, who was an advocate in Bettiah court, had gone to see their land. Keeping in mind the well settled principle of law we proceed to examine the evidence of the witnesses. P.W. 4 is the informant and she is an injured witness. Her evidence is that on the relevant day at about 4 P.M. she and her son Nityanand Mishra, who was an advocate in Bettiah court, had gone to see their land. She saw the appellants and one Birbhadra Mishra cutting ridge/ platform/niv of the land of her share and amalgamating the same with their land. Her son made protest on which there was altercation between them. The appellants assaulted him with lathi, farsa and Rama. Her son on sustaining injuries fell down. The appellants also pressed his chest. She tried to save him but she was also assaulted with lathi on her head. She became unconscious. She and her son were taken to M.J.K. Hospital, Bettiah for treatment. During treatment her Fardbayan was recorded. There was a panchayati for the disputed land but the appellants had not obeyed the decision of the panchayati. Her son was married before the occurrence and a female child aged one year was in the lap of his wife. In cross-examination the witness admitted the relationship and also reiterated with respect to the panchayati. She admitted that before the occurrence there was good relation with the appellants. The occurrence took place when her son made protest against cutting the ridge. The injuries were on the body of the deceased Nityanand Mishra. She and her son were taken to the police station but her statement was not recorded there and from there they were taken to the hospital at about 6 P.M. The Sub Inspector of Police recorded her statement in the hospital. Blood had fallen at the place of occurrence and also on the clothes. She denied that a counter case was filed against her and her son for the same occurrence. She admitted that in the year, 1982 there was litigation with the appellants with respect to consolidation. P.W. 1 is also an eye witness to the occurrence. His evidence is that at the relevant time he was in his field. On hearing alarm he went to the place of occurrence and saw the appellants armed with Farsa, lathi etc. They were assaulting Nityanand Mishra, P.W. 4 tried to save him but she was also assaulted. Nityanand became unconscious and the accused persons ran away. His evidence is that at the relevant time he was in his field. On hearing alarm he went to the place of occurrence and saw the appellants armed with Farsa, lathi etc. They were assaulting Nityanand Mishra, P.W. 4 tried to save him but she was also assaulted. Nityanand became unconscious and the accused persons ran away. The appellants were cutting the ridge of the land which was protested by Nityanand and for the said reason he was assaulted. Nityanand was taken to the police station on a truck. The Officer-in-charge of the police station asked them to take him to the hospital and as such he was taken to hospital for treatment where he died during treatment. In cross-examination the witness admitted the relationship between the witnesses and the deceased. The witness stated that the area of the disputed land is 1 1/2-2 katha. The land is gairmajrua and no party has any papers with respect to the said land. Both the parties were claiming the land. The witness gave details of the place of occurrence and found the sign of cutting the ridge. The witness admitted that the appellants had also lodged a case with respect to the same occurrence to save themselves. The witness also stated that he had seen Nityanand lying on the ground unconscious. He was taken to hospital at about 6 P.M. Appellant Krishna Mohan Mishra was also admitted in the hospital. The police had taken the statement of the informant and also the statement of appellant Krishna Mohan Mishra. He denied the suggestion that he being relation of the deceased had deposed falsely. P.W. 2 is also a witness to the occurrence. At the relevant time he was at his house. On hearing alarm he went to the place of occurrence and saw the appellants assaulting the deceased with weapons in their hands. Blood was oozing out from his head injury and he was lying on the ground. The appellants pressed his chest with intention to kill him. When P.W. 4 tried to save her son she was also assaulted by the appellants. She sustained injuries on her head and became unconscious. She was also taken to hospital. However, in the morning on 27.12.98 Nityanand Mishra died. There was a panchayati with respect to land in dispute. However, the appellants were cutting the ridge. When P.W. 4 tried to save her son she was also assaulted by the appellants. She sustained injuries on her head and became unconscious. She was also taken to hospital. However, in the morning on 27.12.98 Nityanand Mishra died. There was a panchayati with respect to land in dispute. However, the appellants were cutting the ridge. In cross-examination the witness also admitted the realtionship between the witnesses and the deceased and also stated that the area of the land in dispute is 1 1/2-2 katha. The land was gairmajrua. The appellants had land adjacent to the disputed land. A panchayati was held two days ago. The pushti of the land in dispute was 3 laggi long and its height was upto waist. The ridge/platform was old. For the said land there was no dispute earlier. The appellants and the prosecution party both had land adjacent to the land in dispute. He saw the assault on the deceased and also P.W. 4 The witness also stated that he also tried to save them but he was also given lathi blow. The police came in the morning of the next day of the occurrence. Blood had fallen on the ground. The police had prepared seizure list at the place of occurrence itself. The witness denied that being relation of the deceased he had falsely deposed. P.W. 3 is another eye witness to the occurrence. At the relevant time he was in his land. On hearing alarm he went to the place of occurrence. He saw the appellants cutting the ridge. Nityanand Mishra protested. On protest the appellants assaulted him and he fell down. P.W. 4 came to save him but she was also assaulted. They were taken to Bettiah hospital for treatment. However, Nityanand died in the hospital during treatment. In cross-examination the witness admitted the relationship between the witness and the deceased and also stated about the panchayati with respect to the land in Dispute, however no document was prepared. On assault, the deceased and his mother both fell down near the place of occurrence. Blood had fallen at the place of occurrence and on the clothes. P.W. 5 is the doctor, who held post mortem over the dead body on 27.12.98 at 12.20 P.M. He found ante mortem stitched wound on the scalp and the cheek. On assault, the deceased and his mother both fell down near the place of occurrence. Blood had fallen at the place of occurrence and on the clothes. P.W. 5 is the doctor, who held post mortem over the dead body on 27.12.98 at 12.20 P.M. He found ante mortem stitched wound on the scalp and the cheek. On dissection he found blood, blood clot and fracture of both the parietal bones of the skull. The cause of death was shock and haemorrhage due to the injuries found on the person of the deceased, time elapsed since death was within 34 hours. P.W. 6 is also a doctor, who examined P.W. 4 on 26.12.98 at 6.45 P.M. He found two lacerated wounds on parietal region and one swelling on right parietal region of scalp. The injuries were simple in nature caused by hard blunt substance. On the same day he examined appellant Krishna Mohan Mishra and found two injuries, one was lacerated and the other was swelling. The injuries were simple in nature. P.W. 7 is Investigating officer. He was Officer-in-charge of the police station. His evidence is that he recorded the Fardbayan of P.W. 4 at 1 A.M. on 27.12.98 in M.J.K. Hospital, Bettiah. He received O.D. slip from the hospital at about 8.30 A.M. He proved Fardbayan, Ext. 4, formal F.I.R. Ext. 5, and also admitted that her earlier Fardbayan was recorded by Sub Inspector of Police of Bettiah Town Police Station on 26.12.98. He prepared inquest report, Ext. 6, in presence of the witnesses. He inspected the place of occurrence and found marks of cutting of the platform/ridge and has given a vivid picture of the place of occurrence. The witness stated that he recorded the statements of P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 on 27.12.98 at the place of occurrence. He arrested appellant Krishna Mohan Mishra on 27.12.98 in the hospital itself. He stated with respect to the state merits given by the witnesses before him but it appears from the record that no attention of the eye witnesses was drawn to the statements given before the police. 4. However, on consideration as discussed above, it is evident that the evidence of the eye witnesses is consistent on meterial points i.e. place of occurrence, the genesis of occurrence and the manner of occurrence. 4. However, on consideration as discussed above, it is evident that the evidence of the eye witnesses is consistent on meterial points i.e. place of occurrence, the genesis of occurrence and the manner of occurrence. The attention of the witnesses were not drawn to the statements made before the police but the Investigating officer P.W. 4 in cross-examination stated with respect to the statements made by the witnesses before him. Since no attention of the witnesses was drawn, such evidence of the Investigating officer cannot be taken into consideration. Moreover, the evidence of the eye witnesses is also corroborated by the evidence of P.Ws. 5 and 6, the doctors, who held post mortem and treated P.W. 4, respectively. The specific case of the prosecution is that Nityanand Mishra was assaulted by the appellants and one more by Birebhadra Mishra whose case has been separated since he was found to be juvenile. They also assaulted P.W. 4. The doctors had found injuries on the person of the deceased as well as of P.W. 4. Furthermore, the evidence of the Investigating officer also corroborates the evidence of the eye witnesses with respect to the place of occurrence. Thus, though the witnesses are related to one another, there is nothing in their evidence to show that they have falsely deposed and, as such, we find no reason to discard their evidence. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants, however, submitted that it has been admitted by the witnesses that the deceased and P.W. 4 were taken to the police station before taking to the hospital but there is nothing on the record to show that her fard bayan was recorded at the police station. The submission, no doubt, appears to be interesting but it has no leg to stand in view of the evidence of P.W. 1, who has categorically stated that the informant and the deceased were taken to the Bettiah police station but the Officer-in-charge asked him to take them to the hospital for treatment. It has also been stated by P.W. 4 that she had gone to the police station but her fardbayan was not recorded there on the day of occurrence at 8 P.M. her fard bayan was recorded in the hospital by the Sub Inspector of Police of Bettiah town police station. It has also been stated by P.W. 4 that she had gone to the police station but her fardbayan was not recorded there on the day of occurrence at 8 P.M. her fard bayan was recorded in the hospital by the Sub Inspector of Police of Bettiah town police station. Subsequently, the police in jurisdiction also recorded her Fardbayan next day of the occurrence at 10 A.M. in the hospital. Both the Fardbayans are on the record. However, the formal F.I.R. was drawn on the basis of the Fardbayan recorded the next day of the occurrence. After going through both the Fardbayans it appears that both are similar and there is no material inconsistency. Thus, in the circumstances, in our view, the submission of the counsel for the appellants has no substance at all. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants next contended that the medical evidence does not corroborate the prosecution case. In support of his submission he pointed out that only two injuries were found on the person of the deceased but the evidence on record shows that all the appellants assaulted the deceased. In this regard it would not be out of place to mention that if such type of offence is committed it is not possible that witnesses will speak with mathematical accuracy. Moreover, in such a situation the mental condition of the persons present at the site of the occurrence may be visualised. Therefore, such discrepancy cannot affect the prosecution case. Moreover, it is evident that the witnesses have deposed that all the appellants participated in assault. Therefore, all are liable for punishment u/s. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial court has also convicted them for the offence u/s. 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Furthermore, three njuries were found on the person of P.W. 4. The evidence has come that the appellants had assaulted her when she was trying to save her son. Therefore, it is evident that the prosecution has established its case u/s. 307 I.P.C. also against the appellants. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants lastly contended that a counter case was filed by Krishna Mohan Mishra and injuries were also found on his person. It is evident from the materials on record that injuries found on the person of the appellant Krishna Mohan Mishra were simple in nature. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants lastly contended that a counter case was filed by Krishna Mohan Mishra and injuries were also found on his person. It is evident from the materials on record that injuries found on the person of the appellant Krishna Mohan Mishra were simple in nature. It is well established rule of law that non-explanation of such type of injuries by the prosecution on the appellant is immaterial and it will not affect the prosecution case. 8. Thus, on consideration as discussed, we find no merit in the appeal. it is accordingly dismissed.