JUDGMENT Vishnudeo Narayan, J.-This appeal at the instance of the appellants stands directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 8.3.1996 and 11.3.1996 respectively passed in S.T. No. 356 of 1993 by Sri. R.P. Verma, Additional Sessions Judge, Gumla whereby and whereunder they were found guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 302/34 and 452/34 of the Indian Penal Code and they were convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and rigorous imprisonment for three years respectively. However, the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case has arisen on the basis of the fardbeyan (Ext. 3) of P.W. 1 Kartik Uraon, the father of Keshwar Oraon, the deceased of this case recorded by P.W. 10, A.S.I. Ram Vinod Singh of Sisai P.S. on 25.8.1992 at 11.45 hours at the house of the informant situate in village Dahudih Nawatoli P.S. Sisai District Gumla regarding the occurrence which is said to have taken place on that very day at 7.30 hours in the house of the informant situate in village Dahudih Nawatoli and a case was instituted by drawing of a formal FIR (Ext.4) on that very day at 17.30 hours. The formal FIR and fardbeyan have been received on 26.8.1992 in the Court empowered to take cognizance. 3. The prosecution case in brief, is that Keshwar Uraon, the son of the informant had gone for nature's call south of the village and he was returning to his house after the nature's call and when he was near the Tamarind tree in the vicinity of his house at 7.30 hours appellants Thungru Uraon with bow and arrow, Chuiyan Uraon @ Raj Keshwar Uraon with "Barchha" and axe, Bengo Kumari with axe and Baleshwar Uraon with sword attempted to surround Keshwar Uraon aforesaid with intention to assault him and he fled away from there and entered in his house and bolted the door of his house from inside. It is alleged that all the appellants came running to his house and they started pushing the door of the house as a result of which the latch of the house got unfastened and the door of the house became open and all the appellants entered inside the house and they committed murder of Keshwar Uraon as saulting him by axe, sword, "Barchha" and arrow. It is further alleged that P.W. 6 Basanti Devi, the widow of the deceased, P.W. 3 Raimuni Devi, the sister of the deceased beside him were present in the said house but out of fear they did not protest and the appellants have intimidated them to be done to death if they inform the police in respect thereof. The prosecution case further is that on 22.8.1992 appellant Bengo Kumari had assaulted the wife of this informant and on that day the deceased with his wife had gone to his father-in-Iaw's house and on his return from there the deceased had gone to the house of appellant Bengo Kumari and had made protest and due to this all the appellants in furtherance of their common intention have committed the murder of the deceased assaulting him by lethal weapons. 4. The appellants have pleaded not guilty to the charges levelled against them and they claim themselves to be innocent and to have committed no offence and they have been falsely implicated in this case and the deceased had a criminal antecedent figuring as accused in several cases of murder and loot and he was killed by some unknown persons and these appellants have been falsely implicated in this case due to enmity and on the day of the occurrence. Appellants Keshwar Uraon and Chuiyan Uraon were in the court for making pairvi in a case of murder in which Keshwar Uraon aforesaid had figured as an accused. 5. The prosecution has examined, in all, 10 witnesses to substantiate its case. P.W. 1 Kartik Uraon is the informant of this case and he is the father of the deceased as well as appellant Baleshwar Uraon P.W. 4 Jouri Devi and P.W. 3 Raimuni Devi are the wife and daughter respectively of the informant. P.W. 6 Basanti Devi is the widow of the deceased of this case. P.W. 2 Chullu Ram figures as a witness on the inquest report and also on the fardbeyan and seizure list and his signatures are Ext. 1/2, 1/1 and 1/3 respectively thereon. Ext. 1 is the signature of the informant on the fardbeyan (Ext. 3). P.W 8 Sita Muni Kumari and P.W 9 Ramesh Ram have been tendered in this case by the prosecution. P.W 7 Bilas Muni Kumari is the daughter of the informant and she does not claim to be an ocular witness in this case. Ext. 1 is the signature of the informant on the fardbeyan (Ext. 3). P.W 8 Sita Muni Kumari and P.W 9 Ramesh Ram have been tendered in this case by the prosecution. P.W 7 Bilas Muni Kumari is the daughter of the informant and she does not claim to be an ocular witness in this case. P.W 5 Dr. Mani Bhushan Prasad has conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased on 27.8.1992 at 7.00 hours and the postmortem report per his pen is Ext. 2. P.W 10 A.S.I. Ram Vinod Singh is the Investigating Officer in this case and he has proved fardbeyan (Ext. 3), the formal FIR (Ext. 4), inquest report (Ext. 5), the seizure list (Ext. 6), and sketch map (Ext.7), of the place of occurrence. No oral evidence has been brought on record on behalf -of the appellants. However, some documents have been brought on record showing the criminal antecedent of Keshwar Uraon, the deceased of this case. Ext., A is a formal FIR and fardbeyan of Sisai P.S. Case No. 88 of 1988 under Sections 302/ 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code in which Keshwar Uraon, the deceased in this case figured as an accused, Ext. B is the chargesheet of the said case and Ext. C is the order-sheet dated 9.11.1995 of S.T. No. 47 of 1989 arising out of the said Sisai P.S. Case No. 88 of 1988. Ext. N1 is a formal FIR along with fardbeyan of Sisai P.S. Case NO.2 of 1988 under Sections 394 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code in which Keshwar Uraon aforesaid figured as an accused, Ext. B/1 is the charge-sheet of this case and Ext. C/1 is the order sheet of G.R. Case No. 16 of 1988 arising out of the said Sisai P.S. Case NO.2 of 1988 and Ext. D and D/1 are the charge framed against Keshwar Uraon as well as against other coaccused in the said case respectively. 6. In view of the oral and documentary evidence on record the learned court below came to the finding of the guilt of the appellants and accordingly convicted and sentenced them as stated above. 7. D and D/1 are the charge framed against Keshwar Uraon as well as against other coaccused in the said case respectively. 6. In view of the oral and documentary evidence on record the learned court below came to the finding of the guilt of the appellants and accordingly convicted and sentenced them as stated above. 7. Assailing the impugned judgment it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the learned court below did not consider the evidence on record in proper perspective and has committed a manifest error in coming to the finding of the guilt of the appellants and there is no iota of legal evidence on record at all even to implicate the appellants in this got up case and due to vendetta these appellants have been implicated in this case. It has also been contended that the deceased had criminal antecedent and he figured as accused in several heinous cases of murder and dacoity and there is every possibility that the deceased has been done to death by some unknown persons and due to enmity these appellants have been implicated in this case to wreak vengeance against them and in support of his contention Ext. A, Band C series read with the evidence appearing in paragraph 16 of the testimony of P. W. 10 have been referred to. It has further been submitted that P.Ws. 1, 3 and 4 cannot be said to be the ocular witnesses of the occurrence as they had gone to the field for uprooting paddy seedling and P. W 7 in her cross-examination has specifically stated in respect thereof and in this view of the matter the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 3 and 4 lacks credence. It has also been submitted that evidence of P.W 6 Basanti Devi is equally unreliable and is fit to be brushed aside in this case as she has depicted a different manner of the alleged occurrence in her evidence on oath which is inconsistent in materials particulars to the prosecution case as averred in the fardbeyan of P.W 1, the informant, and in this view of the matter P.W 6 Basanti Devi cannot be termed as an ocular witness of the occurrence. Elucidating further it has been submitted that even the evidence of P.W. 5 Dr. Elucidating further it has been submitted that even the evidence of P.W. 5 Dr. Mani Bhushan Prasad is inconsistent with the manner of assault as deposed by P.W. 6 Basanti Devi in view of the fact that no injury by arrow has been found on the person of the deceased and no arrow has been recovered by the investigating officer from the place of occurrence. It has also been contended that P.Ws. 1,3 and 4 have given a total go bye to the prosecution case regarding the participation of appellant Baleshwar Uraon in the alleged occur, rence and these witnesses were also not declared hostile in respect thereof by the prosecution for the reasons best known to it. It has further been contended that an information regarding the alleged occurrence was given by P.W. 6 Basanti Devi at the police station and the said earliest statement of Basanti Devi has not been brought on the record by the prosecution and in this view of the matter the fardbeyan (Ext.3) of P.W. 1, the informant, can not form the basis of this case and the earliest version of the occurrence has been deliberately suppressed by the prosecution. Further contention of learned counsel for the appellants is that there is material contradictions and inconsistencies in the evidence of P.Ws. 1,3 and 4 on the one hand and P.W. 6 on the other hand regarding the manner of occurrence which totally belie the warp and woof of the prosecution case and to crown all, no independent witness of the vicinity of the place of occurrence has taken oath in this case for the prosecution which is equally a circumstance of unimpeachable character to belie the prosecution case. Lastly it has been submitted that P.W. 10, A.S.I. Ram Vinod Singh was not competent to investigate this case as per Rule 12" of the Bihar Police Manual as there is nothing on the record to show that he has been specially empowered in respect thereof by the prescribed authority. In support of his contention reliance has been placed upon the ratio of the cases of Meharaj Singh and another vs. State of U.P. and others {1995 (1) East Cr. C 592 (SCn, Sabitri Devi and another vs. State of Bihar {1994(1) East Cr. C 516 (Pat) & Satya Narain Bhagat and another vs. State of Bihar { 1992(2) BLJ 215 }. C 592 (SCn, Sabitri Devi and another vs. State of Bihar {1994(1) East Cr. C 516 (Pat) & Satya Narain Bhagat and another vs. State of Bihar { 1992(2) BLJ 215 }. Thus the impugned judgment is unsustainable. 8. In contra it has been submitted by the learned A.P.P. that the testimony of P.W 6 Basanti Devi, widow of the deceased, is trustworthy and she is an eyewitness of the occurrence in question and she has deposed that appellant Baleshwar Uraon gave a blow on the neck of the deceased by sword and other appellants assaulted the deceased by tangi and arrow and her evidence is inconformity with the medical evidence and further the objective findings of the investigating officer regarding the place of occurrence equally corroborate her testimony and in this view of the matter there is no illegality in the finding of guilt recorded by the court below in the impugned judgment. It has also been submitted that P.Ws. 1, 3 and 4 have reasons not to support the prosecution case so far the participation of appellant Baleshwar Uraon in the occurrence is concerned because of the fact that the said Baleshwar Uraon is none else but the son of the informant and in this view of the matter, it cannot be said that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses regarding the occurrence is inconsistent in material particulars. It has further been contended that it transpired from the evidence of P.W 10, A.S.1. that he was the only officer posted at the police station at the relevant time when the rumour regarding the occurrence was received at the police station and PW 1 ° has categorically stated in his evidence that he has recorded S.D. Entry No. 358 regarding the said information and pro- ceeded to the place of occurrence and P. W1 0 was competent and has jurisdiction to investigate this case and thus there is no illegality in the impugned judgment on that score. 9. There is no denying the fact that Keshwar Uraon was done to death on 25.8.1992 at 7.30 hours in his house situate in village Dahudih Nawatoli within Sisai . Police Station, District Gumla and his dead body was found inside his house where the inquest report (Ext. 5) was prepared by P.W 10, A.S.I. Ram Vinod Singh who is the investigating officer of this case. Police Station, District Gumla and his dead body was found inside his house where the inquest report (Ext. 5) was prepared by P.W 10, A.S.I. Ram Vinod Singh who is the investigating officer of this case. The inquest report reveals the existence of injury on the neck, chest and abdomen on the dead body of the deceased. P.W 5 Dr. Mani Bhushan Prasad has deposed to have conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased on 27.8.1992 at 7.00 hours and he has found the following injuries on the person of the deceased:- (i) incised wound over anterior aspect of neck with cutting of trachea, oesophagus, major blood vessels of both sides of the neck and trisection of spinal chord and servicle fifth vertebrae, the size of which is 6" x 3" x 4"; (ii) incised wound over xiphisternal region size 5" x 2" x 1" and; (iii) piercing wound over right side of chest on anterior aspect one inch below right nipple with piercing of right pleura and lung, the size of which is 1" X Y2" X 3", The medical witness has further deposed that injury nos. 1 and 3 aforesaid were grievous in nature and sufficient to cause death in the normal circumstances and injury nos. 1 and 2 have been caused by sharp weapon and injury no. 3 has been caused by piercing instrument. The medical witness has also deposed that injury no. 2 is simple in nature. The medical witness has -further deposed that death has been caused by haemorrhage and shock as a result of the said injuries and the time elapsed since death is within 48 hours. P. W. 10, the investigating officer, has deposed that at about 10.00 hours on 25.8.1992 he heard a rumour about the murder of a person in village Dahudih Nawatoli and he recorded the said information in the station diary and the said entry bears S.D.E. No. 358 and he came there at 11.15 hours where it transpired that the son of the informant has been done to death and he went to the house of the informant and has recorded his fardbeyan (Ext. 3) and thereafter prepared the inquest report of the dead body. 3) and thereafter prepared the inquest report of the dead body. It is relevant to mention here that this witness in his evidence has not deposed that an information regarding the occurrence in question has been given by P.W. 6 at the police station itself and on that information he had come to the place of occurrence. Therefore, the evidence of P.W. 1 in paragraph 2 that the police had come to the place of occurrence on the information given by P.W. 6 lacks credence and in this view of the matter it cannot be said that the fardbeyan (Ext. 3) of the informant is a subsequent statement regarding the occurrence in question. Even P.W. 6 in her evidence has not whispered regarding the fact that prior to the recording of the fardbeyan of the informant she had gone to the police station and had informed the police regarding the occurrence in question. Therefore, the fardbeyan (Ext. 3) does not suffer from any infirmity being the basis of the prosecution case and it cannot be said that it is a subsequent statement P.W. 10 has further deposed that he has inspected the place of occurrence which is the khaperposh house of the informant made of earth and the said house is north to south in length and there are verandahs in the south and west of this house and there are doors in both the verandahs and there is also a verandah in the eastern side of the house which is in a dilapidated condition and the temarind tree in question is in the south west corner 30 yards away from the said house. The investigating officer has further deposed in paragraph 9 of his evidence that he found the latch of the southern door broken and also found bloodstain marks from the said door continuously to the place where the dead body of the deceased was lying and there was also bloodstains on the utensils kept there. This witness has further deposed that he found the thatched roof of the said house uprooted at three places. This witness has further deposed to have prepared the sketch map (Ext. 7) of the place of occurrence. This witness has further deposed that he found the thatched roof of the said house uprooted at three places. This witness has further deposed to have prepared the sketch map (Ext. 7) of the place of occurrence. The sketch map also reveals the fact that the dead body was found lying in the southern verandah of the house near the door and there was blood stains from the western door continuously to the place where the dead body was lying. The sketch map further reveals that the said tamarind tree is in the south-west corner from the said house. P.W. 10 has further deposed that when he has received the rumour regarding the murder taking place in village Dahudih Nawatoli, the office incharge of the said police station was not present and he had gone somewhere on duty. and thus he proceeded to the place of occurrence along with a constable to verify the correctness of that information. He has also deposed that no permission of Superintendent of Police is required to Assistant Sub Inspector of Police or Sub Inspector of Police for instituting a case and to investigate the same and the investigation conducted by him cannot be said to be illegal and beyond his jurisdiction. Rule 12 of the Police Manual envisages that in special circumstances, as Assistant Sub-Inspector conducts investigation also but for this, Superintendent confers powers by district orders in respect thereof. Rule 158 of the Police Manual also envisages that no officer of rank lower than a S.I. in uniform shall be employed in the investigation of cases. In this case there is no document on record that P.W. 10 who is an Assistant Sub Inspector of Police conducting investigation in this case has been specially empowered by the superintendent of police by an order made in respect thereof and on this ground much has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellants. In this connection it is relevant to refer Section 2(0) of the Cr. In this connection it is relevant to refer Section 2(0) of the Cr. P.C., 1973 (hereinafter referred as the Code) which mandates that officer incharge of a police station "includes" when the officer incharge of the police station is absent from the station house or unable from illness or other reasons to perform his duties, the police officer present in the station house who is next in rank to such officer and is above the rank of constable or, when the State Government so directs, any other police officers so present. Rule 88(b) of the Police Manual is equally relevant which envisages that when the officer incharge or the junior Sub-Inspector are absent or ill, the senior Assistant Sur, Inspector is competent under Section 2(0) of the Code to assume the charge of the station and to exercise the functions of an officer incharge and sub-Clause (c) further provides that when a station officer or his junior is present, Assistant Sub-Inspector shall in no circumstance, go to the spot for investigation of a case and .shall comply with sections 154, 156, 157, 165 and 166 of the Code. Here in this case P. W. 10, the investigation officer has categorically deposed that when he has received the rumaul' regarding the commission of murder in village Oahudih Nawatoli, the officer incharge was not present there and he had gone somewhere on duty and there was no senior police officer in rank to him present in the police station as they stand transferred. In view of this evidence P.W. 10 shall be deemed to be the officer-incharge of that police station as per Section 2(0) of the Code empowered to investigate the case. The fardbeyan (Ext. 3) further reveals the fact that in the absence of the officer incharge of the police station he has instituted this case and has suo motu taken charge of its investigation. It is the well settled proposition of law that any irregularity or even an illegality during investigation ought not to be treated as a ground to reject the prosecution case. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of this case, institution of the case regarding the occurrence in question and its investigation by P.W. 10 Ram Vinod Singh who is an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police does not suffer from any irregularity or, what to say, any illegality. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of this case, institution of the case regarding the occurrence in question and its investigation by P.W. 10 Ram Vinod Singh who is an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police does not suffer from any irregularity or, what to say, any illegality. Thus there is no substance in the contention of learned counsel for the appellants in respect thereof. 10. In view of the objective findings of the medical witness and the investigating officer referred to above, the evidence on record has to be scanned and scrutinized. But before doing so it has to be born in mind the criminal antecedent of the deceased vis-a-vis the genesis of the occurrence as disclosed in the fardbeyan (Ext. 3). Admittedly the deceased had figured as an accused in Sisai PS. Case No. 88 of 1988 under Section 302 read with Section 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code in which he stands chargesheeted along with other persons and besides that he also figured as accused in Sisai P.S. Case No. 2 of 1988 under Sections 394 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code and in this case also he stands chargesheeted and Ext. A, B, C and D series evidence the said fact conclusively. Besides that P.W. 10 in paragraph 16 of his evidence has also testified the fact that there were several processes under Sections 88 and 83 of the Code pending -for execution against the deceased in a case under Sections 302 and 392 of the Indian Penal Code besides 4 or 5 other cases. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the deceased has been done to death by some unknown persons due to his criminal antecedent and these appellants have been falsely implicated in this case as a result of vendetta due to scuffle having taken place on 22.8.1992 in which P.W. 4 was assaulted by appellants Bengo Kumari in the paddy field. I will record a finding regarding the correctness or otherwise of the submission later on at the appropriate place after discussing the evidence of ocular witnesses in question. As regards the genesis of the occurrence there is the testimony of P.Ws. 1, 4 and 6. I will record a finding regarding the correctness or otherwise of the submission later on at the appropriate place after discussing the evidence of ocular witnesses in question. As regards the genesis of the occurrence there is the testimony of P.Ws. 1, 4 and 6. There is averment in the fardbeyan that on 22.8.1992 P.W. 4 Jouri Devi, the wife of the informant was assaulted by appellant Bengo Kumari and on that day the deceased with his widow has gone to his father-in-law's house and the deceased got the information in respect thereof when he returned from there on 24.8.1992 and he had protested to appellant Bengo Kumari at her house and due to that appellants Bengo Kumari, Chuiyan Uraon and Thugra Uraon in consort with appellant Baleshwar Uraon have committed the murder of the deceased inflicting injuries by lethal weapons. It is relevant to mention here that appellant Bengo Kumari is the full sister of appellant Chuiyan Uraon and appellant Thugru Uraon is a co-villager of appellant Chuiyan Uraon and appellant Baleshwar Uraon is the full brother of the deceased. P.W. 4 has deposed that prior to the occurrence she had gone to the filed for sowing paddy and when she did not find the field fit for sowing, she protested and at this appellant Bengo Kumari felled her in the said field and on that day the deceased had gone to his father-in-law's house and when he returned from there she narrated the incident to him and due to this the appellants have committed the murder of the deceased. P.W. 1, the informant has deposed that prior to the occurrence his wife Jouri Devi had gone to work in the paddy field where there were a scuffle between her and appellants Bengo Kumari and on that day the deceased with his widow has gone to his father-in-law's house and on his return he got the information regarding the said scuffle and he went to the house of the appellant Bengo Kumari to protest as to why has she assaulted his mother. He has further deposed that due to this appellants have committed the murder of the deceased. P.W. 1 has further deposed that he has not seen the said scuffle rather he learnt about the same on that very day but he did not get it solved in the Panchayat. He has further deposed that due to this appellants have committed the murder of the deceased. P.W. 1 has further deposed that he has not seen the said scuffle rather he learnt about the same on that very day but he did not get it solved in the Panchayat. P.W. 6 has deposed in paragraph 3 of her evidence that there had been a scuffle between appellant Bengo Kumari and her mother-in-law (P.W. 4) and appellant Bengo Kumari had assaulted her. She has further deposed that her husband the deceased, protested to Bengo Kumari and due to that the appellants have committed the murder of the deceased. She has deposed in paragraph 10 of her evidence that on that day when the scuffle had taken place, she was not present there but she had gone with her husband to the house of appellant Bengo Kumari to make protest in respect thereof. Thus on the question of genesis of occurrence there is the solitary testimony of P.W. 4 as an ocular witness. P.Ws. 1 and 6 are the hearsay witnesses in respect thereof but P.W. 6 is a competent witness in respect of the fact that on return the deceased had made protest to appellant Bengo Kumari in respect thereof. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of this case, there appears no reason to disbelieve the testimony of P.W. 4 read with the evidence of P.W. 6 regarding the genesis of occurrence in question. Therefore, the evidence on record materially substantiates the genesis of the occurrence as averred in the fardbeyan. 11. According to the averments made in the fardbeyan P.W. 1 the informant, P.W. 6 Basanti Devi, the widow of the deceased and P.W. 3 Raimuni Devi, the sister of the deceased were present in the house in which the occurrence in question is said to have taken place. P.W. 1 has deposed that appellants Thungru Uraon, Chuiyan Uraon and Bengo Kumari surrounded the deceased when he was about 20' away from his house while returning from the nature's call and they were armed with bow and arrow, Barchha and axe respectively and the deceased fled away from there and took shelter in his house and closed the door of the said house from inside. He has further deposed that the aforesaid three appellants broke open the door and trespassed into the house and thereafter they closed the door of the house and they committed the murder of the deceased and fled away. P.W. 1 does not name appellant Baleshwar Uraon as a participant in the commission of murder of the deceased. In paragraph 5 of his cross-examination, he has deposed that he had gone to the field to work in the morning on the day of the occurrence and the said field is at a distance of one Km. from his house where he was uprooting paddy seedlings and there he had worked for two hours and thereafter he returned to his house where he remained and thereafter he has further deposed that he had gone to the paddy field alone for uprooting the paddy seedlings. To a court question, he has deposed that he had uprooted paddy seedlings till 9 or 10 hours on that day. The occurrence of this case as per the fardbeyan is said to have taken place at 7.30 hours and this witness has worked in the paddy field on that day till 9 or 10 hours and in this view of his evidence, the presence of P.W. 1 at the place of occurrence appears doubtful having the occasion to see the occurrence in question. P.W. 3 Raimuni Devi has deposed that at the time of the occurrence she was cleaning the utensils in front of the house and on hearing the alarms she saw appellants Thungru Uraon, Chuiyan Uraon and Bengo Kumari chasing the deceased and the deceased entered into his house and closed the door of the house from inside. She has deposed that all the aforesaid appellants were armed with sword but in the next breath she has deposed that appellants Chuiyan Uraon, Thungru Uraon and Bengo Kumari were armed with axe, bow and arrow and axe respectively. It is relevant to mention here that this witness is self-inconsistent regarding the weapons in possession of the appellants aforesaid. She has further deposed that these three appellants entered into the said house and committed the murder of the deceased and during the occurrence they have closed the door from inside. This witness in her evidence has neither named appellant Beleshwar Uraon as a participant in the occurrence in question nor identified him in the dock. She has further deposed that these three appellants entered into the said house and committed the murder of the deceased and during the occurrence they have closed the door from inside. This witness in her evidence has neither named appellant Beleshwar Uraon as a participant in the occurrence in question nor identified him in the dock. To a court question she has deposed in paragraph 4 of her evidence that she identifies appellant Baleshwar Uraon as her full brother who had gone to rescue the deceased and the police has falsely implicated him in the said case. In paragraph 6 of her evidence she has deposed that her younger sister and her mother were in the vicinity of the said house. P.W 4 Jouri Devi, the wife of the informant had corroborated the testimony of P.W 3. P.W 4 has also not stated the name of appellant Baleshwar Uraon as a participant in the occurrence and also refused to identify him in the dock. In paragraph 5 of her cross-examination she has deposed that the informant had gone to uproot paddy seedlings in the paddy field and she along with P.W 3 has also gone to uproot paddy seedlings before the sunrise and again to a court question she has said that they had gone to the paddy field at about 7.00 hours on that day. Her evidence is further to the effect that the said Paddy field is at a distance of one mile from her house and it takes one hour to reach there and she uprooted the paddy seedlings for a period of 2 to 3 hours i.e. till the time of taking meal and thereafter she returned to her house and she found her two younger daughters sweeping the courtyard and throwing cow-dung. Her evidence is further to the effect that appellant Baleshwar Uraon has gone for ploughing and she met him in the evening. P.W. 4 contradicts the testimony of P.W. 3 regarding her presence at the place of occurrence cleaning the utensils and also in respect of appellant Baleshwar Uraon rescuing the deceased in course of the occurrence. In view of her evidence her presence as well as the presence of P.W. 3 at the place of occurrence at the relevant time is totally ruled out having any occasion to witness the occurrence. In view of her evidence her presence as well as the presence of P.W. 3 at the place of occurrence at the relevant time is totally ruled out having any occasion to witness the occurrence. It is pertinent to refer here that P.W. 7, Bilas Muni Kumari, the daughter of the informant has depose,d that she had gone to the paddy field for uprooting the paddy seedlings at 6.00 hours on the day of the occurrence along with her father, the informant, her mother (P.W. 4) and her two sisters namely, Raimuni Devi (P.W. 3) and Sita Muni Kumari. She has further deposed that they have returned to their house at about 10.00 hours and found Keshwar Uraon having done to death. In view of the evidence referred to above, presence of P.Ws. 1, 3 and 4 at the place of occurrence at the relevant time is totally ruled out and they cannot be termed as ocular witnesses of commission of murder of the deceasnd in the manner as alleged and they cannot be said to have any occasion to witness the occurrence. It further transpires from her evidence that P.W. 6 Basanti Devi, the widow of the deceased was not with them for uprooting the paddy seedlings in the paddy field and it appears that she was at the place of occurrence at the relevant time. P.W. 6 Basanti Devi has deposed that at about 7.30 hours on the day of the occurrence she was near the Tamarind tree and she sawall the four appellants chasing the deceased who had gone for nature's call. She has further deposed that appellants Baleshwar Uraon, Thungru Uraon, Chuiyan Uraon and Bengo Kumari were armed with sword, bow and arrow, "Barchha' and axe respectively. Her evidence is further to the effect that the deceased entered into his house and closed the door from inside and all the appellants aforesaid came to the house of the deceased and started breaking the door of the house and becoming unsuccessful in their attempt in respect thereof they climbed over the thatched roof and they uprooted the thatched roof at three places and shot arrows at the deceased. She has further deposed that the deceased was raising alarms requesting them not to assault and she saw them shooting two or three arrows from the thatched roof and thereafter appellant Baleshwar Uraon threw chilly powder on the deceased. She has further deposed that the deceased was raising alarms requesting them not to assault and she saw them shooting two or three arrows from the thatched roof and thereafter appellant Baleshwar Uraon threw chilly powder on the deceased. She has specifically deposed that thereafter the appellants broke the door of the house and appellant Baleshwar Uraon gave a blow on the neck of the deceased and all the entreaties made by the appellants went in vain and appellants Baleshwar Uraon also intimidated her to be done to death and also gave a blow by the back of the axe on her and appellant Ben go Kumari gave a blow by lathi on her person. In paragraph 7 of her cross-examination she has specifically deposed that appellants Baleshwar Uraon and Chuiyan Uraon had climbed over the thatched roof and remaining two appellants were standing in the courtyard in front of the door. In paragraph 9 of her crossexamination, she has deposed that she had also entered inside the house when the appellants had trespassed into the house after breaking open the door. It is true that there is some embellishment in her evidence regarding the assault perpetrated on her by appellants Baleshwar Uraon and Bengo Kumari in view of the fact that there is no corroborative evidence in respect thereof regarding the existence of any injuries on her person but her ocular testimony regarding the commission of murder by the appellants cannot be brushed aside on that score alone. Furthermore, appellant Baleshwar Uraon, who is the full brother of the deceased, has inflicted injury on the neck of the deceased by sword but the motive or probable reason for appellant Baleshwar Uraon participating in the occurrence in the commission of murder of the deceased is conspicuously silent inth!3 evidence of this witness and the same stands shrouded in mystery. It also appears queer enough as to why appellant Baleshwar Uraon shall participate in the commission of murder of his brother in consort with the other appellants but at the same time, there is no tangible reasons to disbelieve the ocular testimony of P.W. 6 in respect thereof. This witness is the widow of the deceased and she was present there throughout during the commission of murder of her husband, the deceased and there is no apparent reason for her to falsely implicate appellant Baleshwar Uraon in this case. This witness is the widow of the deceased and she was present there throughout during the commission of murder of her husband, the deceased and there is no apparent reason for her to falsely implicate appellant Baleshwar Uraon in this case. There is nothing on the record to show that there is any semblance of enmity, ill motive, grudge or vendetta for this witness to falsely implicate appellant Baleshwar Uraon in this case and as such I find ring of truth in the evidence of this witness. Her solitary testimony in support of the prosecution case does not suffer from any vital infirmity so as to discard her testimony and the learned court below has rightly placed reliance upon her testimony and I see no reason to disagree with the finding of the learned court below in respect thereof. In the facts and circumstances of this case and in view of the evidence of P.W. 6 the defence version that some unknown persons have committed the murder of the deceased due to his criminal antecedent does not hold good and is equally not improbable and natural in the facts and circumstances of this case. I have already held above that the genesis of the occurrence stands substantiated by legal evidence on the record and all the three appellants in consort with appellant Baleshwar Uraon had committed the murder of the deceased. The objective finding of the medical witness corroborates the manner of assault as deposed by P.W. 6 and further the testimony of P.W. 6 is also in strict conformity with the objective findings of the investigating officer regarding the place of occurrence. P.W. 6 has stood the test of cross-examination in material particulars and nothing has been elicited therein to discredit her testimony. The learned court below has properly scanned and scrutinized the evidence on record in proper perspective and has rightly come to the finding of the guilt of the appellants and I see no reason to disagree with the finding of the guilt of the appellants recorded by the learned court below. Viewed thus there is no illegality in the impugned judgment requiring an interference therein. Viewed thus there is no illegality in the impugned judgment requiring an interference therein. The ratios of the case of Satya Narain Bhagat and another (supra) and Sabitri Devi and another (supra) are of no help to the appellants in the facts and circumstances of this case as P.W. 6 has no animus at all to falsely implicate the appellants in this case. Similarly the ratio of the case of Meharaj Singh and another (supra) is equally of no help to the appellants in this case as it cannot be said that the murder of the deceased is a blind murder and P.W. 6 has no occasion to witness the occurrence. P.W. 6 though undoubtedly is deeply interested in the prosecution case but that by itself cannot be a ground to discard her testimony on careful and cautious scrutiny of her evidence. I see credence in her testimony. The non examination of any other witness of the village in support of the prosecution case has equally no relevancy in this case in view of the fact that the house of the deceased is situated surrounded by the house of the other three appellants and there is no house of any other person. P.W. 10, the investigating officer in paragraph 18 of his evidence has categorically stated that other houses in the village are situated at a distance of 500 yards from the house of the deceased, therefore, the non examination of any other witnesses of the village in support of the prosecution case cannot be viewed as a lacunae in view of the topography of the house of the deceased. The non examination of the bloodstains earth seized from the place of occurrence also cannot be said to be a lacunae to belie the prosecution case. It is the well settled proposition of law that any irregularity or even an illegality during investigation ought not to be treated as a ground to reject the prosecution case and in this connection the ratio of the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Kishore (A.I.R. 1996 S.C. 3035) is referred to. I, therefore, see no substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants. 12. There is no merit in this appeal and it fails. The impugned judgment is hereby affirmed. The appeal is dismissed. I, therefore, see no substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants. 12. There is no merit in this appeal and it fails. The impugned judgment is hereby affirmed. The appeal is dismissed. The bail bonds of all the appellants are hereby cancelled and they are directed to surrender before the learned court below to serve out the sentence failing which, the learned court below shall take all coercive steps in accordance with law to apprehend the appellants for serving out the sentence. M. Y. Eqbal, J.-I agree.