AFTAB ALAM, J.:- The two appeals, one on behalf of three appellants and the other by a single appellant are directed against the same judgment and order of the trial court. All the four appellants are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 25,000/-under sections 302/34 of the Penal Code. On default in payment of fine they would further undergo imprisonment for two years. All of them are additionally convicted under section 27, Arms Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years on that score. The two sentences of imprisonment were directed by the trial court to run concurrently. 2. Facing the trial before the court below there were three other accused, apart from the four appellants. Those three were, however, acquitted on all charges and the appellants alone were convicted and sentenced as stated above. 3. Before proceeding to examine the prosecution case in some detail it will be useful to have a brief over-view of the matter. Bhitta Tola under Chausa police station in the district of Madhepura is a small village of twenty five to thirty houses. There is a Durga Asthan in the village where a Mela was held on the occasion of Durga Puja in the year, 1998. 3.1. At a little distance from Bhitta Tola is another village Manoharpur (according to the informant, PW 12 at a distance of about 5 KMs towards north east from Bhitta Tola and according to PW 9 at a distance of about one and half Kose i.e three miles towards east bending southwards). One of the deceased in the occurrence, namely, Kapildeo Sharma lived in Manoharpur. He was the Dafadar of beat/circle no. 3 under Chausa police station. It is said that he alongwith one of his colleagues, Chowkidar Bhudeo Sharma (the second person killed in the occurrence) had been actively campaigning against the criminals and criminal gangs operating within the police station and his efforts had contributed to the elimination or arrest of some of the criminals/gang leaders and recovery of a large amount of illegal arms and ammunition etc. He and Bhudeo Sharma were, therefore, being targeted by hardened criminals and criminal gangs of the area. 3.2. He and Bhudeo Sharma were, therefore, being targeted by hardened criminals and criminal gangs of the area. 3.2. He alongwith Bhudeo Sharma and five other Chowkidars was assigned the duty to maintain peace and order during the Mela at Bhitta Tola and he and the six Chowkidars were on duty there from 28.9.1998. At about eight in the evening of 30.9.1998 Kapildeo Sharma, Bhudeo Sharma and the other Chowkidars had assembled at the Darwaza (open space in front of the house) of Raksha Mandal for having their evening meal there. Raksha Mandal appears to be a prominent person of the village. He was the chief organizer of the Mela and he is one of the three accused acquitted by the trial court. It appears that since he was the chief organizer and sponsor of the Mela, as is the common practice in villages, he was also the host to the police personnel who were on duty in the Mela. While Kapildeo Sharma, Bhudeo Sharma and others were sitting at the Darwaza of Raksha Mandal waiting for the food to be served, the place was raided by twenty to twenty five accused fully armed with guns, rifles and other firearms. 3.3. The four appellants and two others were identified by the informant among the accused. They fired shots killing Kapildeo Sharma and Bhudeo Sharma on the spot. Another person, namely, Ramchandra Mandal Raman who was the brother of the son-in-law of Raksha Mandal was also sitting there. When firing started he tried to flee away but he too was brought down by one of the shots fired by the accused he too was, thus, killed apparently as a mistake. The raid by the criminals, thus, left three persons dead on the spot. 4. Coming now to the manner in which the occurrence was first described by the informant Mirtunjay Kumar, son of the deceased Kapildeo Sharma, I advert to his fard-e-bayan recorded by the S.I. of police of Chausa police station at the darwaza of Raksha Mandal on 30.9.1998 at 11 PM. The informant gave his statement in presence of his uncle Damodar Sharma (PW 7), the elder brother of Kapildeo Sharma. The informant gave his statement in presence of his uncle Damodar Sharma (PW 7), the elder brother of Kapildeo Sharma. The informant after stating about his father and the other Chowkidars being given the Mela duty from 28.9.1998 said that on 30.9.98 at about four in the evening he had gone to Bhitta Tola Durga Asthan for visiting the Mela. He went around the Mela alongwith his late father and since there was a dance programme in the evening, he decided to stay there for the night. At about quarter to eight Raksha Mandal who was the main organizer of the Meta, came (to them) and told his father that the food was ready and asked him to go and have the meal. Thus requested, his father Kapildeo Shama, Chowkidar Bhudeo Sharma and Chowkidar Chandra Badan Paswan (PW 2) proceeded from the Meta to his house and the informant also went along with them. At the Darwaza of Raksha Mandal tube lights were on; tube lights were fixed right from his house upto the Meta site, making the entire area very bright and lighted. At the Darwaza of Raksha Mandal some chairs and chowkies (wooden cots) were laid out. His father Kapildeo Sharma and Chowkidar Chandra Badan Paswan (PW 2) sat down on two chairs facing towards east. Chowkidar Bhudeo Sharma lay down on a chowki lying on one side. By the side of that Chowki the brother of the son-in-law of Raksha Mandal sat down on a chair. Having thus got everyone settled Raksha Manlal went to his house for getting the food served. At that time it was about eight in the evening and the other Chowkidars were also coming there by and by. As soon as Raksha Mandal went to his house, there appeared twenty to twenty five criminals in the lane towards his house in the north. They were all armed with rifles and guns etc. Their faces were plainly visible in the bright light and among them the informant was able to identify one Baudha Mandal, Rajo Mandal (the sole appellant in Cr. Appeal No. 327 of 2001), Kailash Mandal, Sanjay Mandal, Rajesh Manlal and Dilip Mandal (the last three being appellants no. 3, 1, an 2 respectively in Cr. Appeal No. 309 of 2001). Their faces were plainly visible in the bright light and among them the informant was able to identify one Baudha Mandal, Rajo Mandal (the sole appellant in Cr. Appeal No. 327 of 2001), Kailash Mandal, Sanjay Mandal, Rajesh Manlal and Dilip Mandal (the last three being appellants no. 3, 1, an 2 respectively in Cr. Appeal No. 309 of 2001). He was unable to identify the other accused but stated that he had seen their faces clearly in the bright light. Baudha Mandal fired a short from his rifle. The shot hit his father on the chest and he fell down from the chair. All the accused then surrounded them from all sides. At this point Chowkidar Chandra Badan Paswan (PW 2) swiftly moved to a dark corner, pulling him alongwith him. They hid there and witnessed the entire occurrence from that spot. Out of fright, Bhudeo Sharma crawled down under the cot. But Rajo Mandal fired at him from point blank range. Kailash Mandal again fired at his father. Sanjay Mandal, Rajesh Mandal and Dilip Mandal also fired shots at his father and Chowkidar Bhudeo Sharma. The rest of the accused also made indiscriminate firing. In the meanwhile one of the family (members) of Raksha Mandal (meaning, Ramchandra Mandal 'Raman', the brother of his son-in-law) tried to flee away. But he was also hit by a shot and fell down. The criminals stayed there for about five minutes. The informant went on to say that apart from those identified by him the faces of the other accused were also clearly seen by him and by Chandra Badan Chowkidar and the other Chowkidars on duty there and on seeing again they would be able to recognize them. After the criminals left, the informant and Chandra Badan Chowkidar rushed to the spot. Other Chowkidars also came there. They found that his father and Chowkidar Bhudeo Sharma were already dead and blood was freely flowing from their bodies. The family member of Raksha Mandal was still alive. He was put on a cot but at that moment he too died. 5. In the end of the fard-e-bayan the informant expanded on the reason for the murder of his father and Bhudeo Sharma. He stated that the two were close associates and they had been instrument in getting a number of criminals apprehended. He was put on a cot but at that moment he too died. 5. In the end of the fard-e-bayan the informant expanded on the reason for the murder of his father and Bhudeo Sharma. He stated that the two were close associates and they had been instrument in getting a number of criminals apprehended. He gave four illustrative cases in which some gang leader and notorious criminals were either eliminated in police encounter or were arrested with the help of his father and Bhudeo Sharma. He also referred to a case where a raid was made and large amount of arms and ammunition was recovered from some criminals. The activities of the two in the discharge of their duty had made them the target of the criminals of the area. In the end he reiterated that the accused persons named by him, alongwith other un-named accused, had killed his father and Chowkidar Bhudeo Sharma. The fard-e-bayan was read out to him and on finding it correctly recorded he put his signature on it. His uncle Damodar Sharma also put his signature as a witness. 6. The fard-e-bayan was incorporated in the formal F.I.R., that is, shown to have been drawn up on 1.10.1998 at ten in the morning. It is, thus, to be seen that the informant had named six persons among the criminals raiding the place of occurrence. Baudha Mandal among them, who is alleged to have fired the first shot hitting Kapildeo Sharma, was later killed in an encounter with the police. Another accused Kailash Mandal remained absconding and was not apprehended till the present trial was over. This left the four appellants named by the informant in the fard-e-bayan in course of investigation, however, the police also made three other persons as accused in the case, including one Gajadhar Mandal and Raksha Mandal at whose Darwaza the massacre took place. The police was also able to obtain from them confessional statements' that were brought on record as Exts. 8 and 9. The witnesses examined before the court, however, did not say a word about the complicity of the three other accused and further, the trial court found that the confessional statements were not worth reliance because the confessional statement of Gajadhar Mandal was recorded at the police station by the I.O. himself and though the confessional statement of Raksha Mandal was recorded by the Block Dev. Officer, that too was made at the police station and at that time the I.O. was also present there. 7. It was in those circumstances that the four appellants, who were named by the informant in the fard-e-bayan itself, were convicted and sentenced by the trial court as noted above. 8. In support of its case the prosecution examined as many as fifteen witnesses. The first witness is the doctor who held post mortem on the bodies of the three deceased. PWs 2 to 8 are the chowkidars who were in the team of the Dafadar Kapildeo Sharma for Mela duty and who according to the F.I.R. were the eye witnesses of the occurrence alongwith the informant. It is unfortunate to see that each of them changed their earlier statements made before the police and had to be declared hostile before the trial court the other remaining witness is the informant who was examined as PW 12. He remained loyal to the prosecution case upto the end. 9. Damodar Sharma in whose presence the fard-e-bayan was recorded and who too signed it was examined as PW 7. Mithilesh Sharma, the eldest son of the deceased Kapildeo Sharma was examined as PW-10. They were admittedly not the witnesses of the occurrence and they could only have a supportive role for the prosecution. But before the trial court they made evident that they had gone over to the other side. Rekha Devi, PW 10 was the wife of the deceased Bhudeo Sharma. She too was not an eye witness of the occurrence but she too changed sides and consequently had to be declared hostile before the trial court. 10. Most. Kaushalya Devi (PW 8) is the widow of the deceased Kapildeo Sharma and Smt. Nirmala Devi (PW 11) is his daughter-in-law, being the wife of PW 9 Mithilesh Sharma. These two women were admittedly at their house in a different village at the time of the occurrence but still their depositions are of significance for 11. PW 14 was the Officer Incharge of Chausa Police station at the material time. The case was instituted by him and he largely made the investigations. PW 13 is another police officer who got the charge of the case after PW 14 was transferred and he submitted charge sheet against the accused. PW 14 was the Officer Incharge of Chausa Police station at the material time. The case was instituted by him and he largely made the investigations. PW 13 is another police officer who got the charge of the case after PW 14 was transferred and he submitted charge sheet against the accused. PW 15 is a formal witness who was examined to formally prove the case diary and the supplementary case diary. 12. The doctor (PW 1) proved the post mortem reports of the three persons killed in the occurrence, namely, (i) Dafadar Kapildeo Sharma, (ii) Chowkidar Bhudeo Sharma and (iii) Ramchandra Mandal Raman which were marked as Exts. 1, 1/1 and 1/2 respectively. According to the doctor he found the following ante mortem injuries on the person of Dafadar Kapildeo Sharma.” “(i) Lacerated wound of 1/2" x 1/4" right back of ear with burn inverted margin going deep inside the scalp-this is wound of entry. "(ii) Lacerated wound 1 1/2" x 2" on left side of scalp above ear with everted margin-wound of exit. "On opening the skull and scalp both injury nos. (i) and (ii) are intercommunicating fracture of skull bone in pieces on both lateral side of scalp with laceration of brain matter." "(iii) Lacerated wound 2 1/2" x 1/2" on left infra clavicular region of chest effecting only superficial part of chest wall. "(iv) Lacerated wound 2" x 1" on the medical lateral part of forearm effecting only superficial part of skin with burn margin." He gave his opinion that death was caused due to shock and haemorrhage resulting from the above fire-arm injuries. On the person of Bhudeo Sharma he found the following ante mortem injuri. "(i) Lacerated wound 1/2" x 1/4" above left ear with inverted margin and burnt skin around going deep inside the skull wound of entry. "(ii) Lacerated wound 2" x 1/2" right back of skull with everted margin going deep inside the scalp-wound of exit. "On opening of scalp and skull both injury nos. (i) and (ii) above noted are inter-communicating with each other. There is multiple fracture of bone of both side of scalp with laceration of brain matter and haematoma inside the skull. "(iii) Lacerated wound 1/2" x 1/4" left front of chest near axillae with inverted margin burnt skin around going deep inside the chest cavity-wound of entry. (i) and (ii) above noted are inter-communicating with each other. There is multiple fracture of bone of both side of scalp with laceration of brain matter and haematoma inside the skull. "(iii) Lacerated wound 1/2" x 1/4" left front of chest near axillae with inverted margin burnt skin around going deep inside the chest cavity-wound of entry. "(iv) Lacerated wound 2 1/2" x 1" on right back lower part of chest with everted margin-wound of exit. "On opening the chest both injury nos. (iii) and (iv) are inter-communicating each other with haematoma of both side of lungs with about 2 1/2 lit of blood present in the chest cavity. On the person of Ramchandra Mandal Raman he found the following ante-mortem injuries: "(i) Lacerated wound 1/2" x 1/4" burn inverted margin on the right lateral lower part of abdomen on back going deep inside the abdominal cavity-wound of entry. "(ii) Lacerated wound 2 1/2" X 1" on mid lower part of abdomen with everted margin intestine building out of abdominal cavity. "On opening abdomen injury nos. (i) and (ii) are inter-communicating each other with laceration of intestine and other viscera of abdominal cavity. There is about two litres of blood present in the abdominal cavity." The doctor gave his opinion that the cause of his death was shock and haemorrhage resulting from the above fire-arm injuries. 13. The I.O. (PW 14) in his deposition before the court stated that he found the dead bodies of Dafadar Kapildeo Sharma, Chowkidar Bhudeo Sharma and Ramchandra Mandal Raman lying at the Darwaza of Raksha Mandal. Their bodies were blood smeared and there were signs of gun shot injuries on their persons. He found a large amount of blood at the spot and he also found a number of empty cartridges which he seized under a seizure list (Part of Ext. 10). He also found some chairs and some chowkies at the place of occurrence. 14. The medical evidence coupled with the objective findings of the I.O. at the P.O. plainly establish that the three persons were killed by gun-shots at the Darwaza of Raksha Mandal as stated by the prosecution. 15. Now, in order to examine the role of the four appellants one has to refer to the ocular evidence. 14. The medical evidence coupled with the objective findings of the I.O. at the P.O. plainly establish that the three persons were killed by gun-shots at the Darwaza of Raksha Mandal as stated by the prosecution. 15. Now, in order to examine the role of the four appellants one has to refer to the ocular evidence. In that regard it is already noted that the five chowkidars, PWs 2 to 6 who were the eye witnesses alongwith the informant appear to be turncoats. They stated before the trial court that they were unable to identify anyone or that they were at the Meta site and were not present at the spot when it was raided by the criminals. Even Chandra Badan Paswan (PW 2) who according to the F.I.R. was sitting on the chair next to the deceased Kapildeo Sharma and who, when the shooting began ducked into a dark corner, dragging the informant alongwith him, stated in the court that he was unable to identify anyone among the accused. 16. This leaves the informant Mirtunjay Sharma (PW 12) as the only eye witness of the occurrence but before referring to his evidence it would be profitable to see the statements of Most. Kaushalya Devi (PW 8), the widow of Kapildeo Sharma, Smt. Nirmala Devi (PW 11), his daughter-in-law and Mithilesh Sharma (PW 9), his son. Admittedly, none of them is an eye witness of the occurrence and it is also noted above that PW 9 was declared hostile. He nevertheless made some statements in course of cross examination that fully tally with the statement of his mother (PW 8) on the point how the family members of Dafadar Kapildeo Sharma came to learn about his death and how they went to the police station. The evidences of his mother (PW 8) and his wife (PW 9) provide a very relevant and significant background to the occurrence. 17. PW 8 at the out set stated before the court that since about ten days prior to the occurrence her husband used to tell her that Rajesh Mandal and Dilip Mandal had joined the group of Awadhesh Mandal and as a result his murder was imminent. He used to say this to her when he went to his house. On this point she is corroborated by her daughter-in-law (PW 11). He used to say this to her when he went to his house. On this point she is corroborated by her daughter-in-law (PW 11). In para 2 of her deposition PW 11 stated that her father-in-law Kapildeo Sharma frequently used to tell her mother-in-law that Dilip Mandal and Rajesh Mandal were after him and he did not know when they would succeed in killing him and it was for that reason that his father-in-law used to go around in the company of other Chowkidars. 18. As regards the events on 30.9.1998, the day on which the occurrence took place in the evening, from the evidences of PWs 8 and 9 it appears that at about eight in the morning Kaushalya Devi alongwith her husband deceased Kapildeo Sharma and one or two other family members had gone to the Durga Mela and had returned to her house by twelve after offering Prasad and doing Puja there (PW 8, paras 5 and 15 and PW 9, para 18). At three in the afternoon deceased Chowkidar Bhudeo Sharma came to their house and her husband went alongwith him for the Mela. Kaushalya Devi stated that she advised her husband not to go but he went nevertheless. Saying this she broke down and wept before the trial court. (PW 8, paras 4 and 6). His son Mirtunjay (PW 12) also went with him. At about eight in the evening her son Mirtunjay Sharma (informant PW 12) came crying and informed that his father was killed (PW 8, paras 7 and 8, PW 9, para 19). Then Mirtunjay Sharma alongwith Chandra Sadan (PW 2), Deo Narain (PW 3), Naresh and some others including her Bhaisur Damodar (PW 7) went to the police station (PW 8, para 8). 19. Mirtunjay Sharma (PW 12) in his deposition describe the occurrence in graphic detail. His statement before the court is perfectly consistent with his earlier statement (fard-e-bayan) made before the police and there appears to be hardly any deviation, much less any contradiction, between the two. He was subjected to a lengthy and protracted cross-examination spread over more than one date but the defence was not able to elicit from him anything that might cast any doubt on his testimony. He was subjected to a lengthy and protracted cross-examination spread over more than one date but the defence was not able to elicit from him anything that might cast any doubt on his testimony. His eye witness account of the occurrence finds sufficient corroboration from the depositions of his mother and sister-in-law, and unwittingly from his brother (PW 9) who apparently intended to support the defence instead of the prosecution. 20. Mr. Prakash Narain Pandey, Senior Advocate with decades of experience in criminal matters and a keen eye to separate what is of significance from what is not was precise in his submissions. He picked up four points for assailing the prosecution case. He first submitted that the F.I.R. had reached the court after inordinate delay. Mr. Pandey pointed out that he fard-e-bayan was shown to have been recorded at 11 PM on 30.9.98 and the F.I.R. was drawn up at ten in the morning of 1.10.1998 but it had reached the court of the C.J.M. on 3.10.1998. Learned counsel submitted that the inordinate delay in sending the F.I.R. to the court had remained completely unexplained by the prosecution and this, according to him, was a fatal lacuna in the prosecution case. 21. Learned counsel next submitted that there were three versions of the manner in which the fard-e-bayan as recorded. According to PW 9 (paras 20 and 21) he learnt that his father was killed by the criminals from his brother, Chandra Badan Chowkidar and others went to Chabjsa police station where they reached at 9.15 in the night. His brother told Daroga Jee about the occurrence. Chandra Badan Chowkidar also gave his statement. Daroga Jee recorded the statement of both of them and his brother put his signature on the recorded statement. According to the informant (PW 12, paras 46 to 49) they reached the police station at about ten in the night. There he told the Officer Incharge about the occurrence but his statement was not recorded there at that time. The policy party came to the place of occurrence and there his statement was recorded as fard-e-bayan. However, according to the I.O. (PW 14, para 36) he came to learn about the occurrence only on hearing a rumour at 9 PM. while he was at the police station the Dafadar and the Chowkidar on duty at Bhitha Tola were killed by gun shots. However, according to the I.O. (PW 14, para 36) he came to learn about the occurrence only on hearing a rumour at 9 PM. while he was at the police station the Dafadar and the Chowkidar on duty at Bhitha Tola were killed by gun shots. On hearing this he proceeded from the police station with an armed-force and came to the place of occurrence where he met the informant and recorded his fard-e-bayan. 22. Mr. Pandey submitted that these three different versions with regard to the manner in which the fard-e-bayan was recorded coupled with the inordinate delay in the F.I.R. reaching the court made the entire prosecution story liable to be viewed with the greatest suspicion as no reliance should be placed on the F.I.R. and the names of the accused mentioned in it. 23. Mr. Pandey thirdly submitted that taking into consideration everything the conviction of the appellants hinged on the solitary testimony of the informant (PW 12). In this regard learned counsel submitted that though Section 134 of the Evidence Act removed the bar against conviction of an accused on the basis of the single testimony of a witness, the courts including the Apex Court had always greatly cautioned against convicting someone on the single testimony' of a witness, specially in a serious case like murder. In support of his submission he relied on two Supreme Court decisions in V. Thevar Vs. State of Madras AIR 1957 SC 614 and Anil Phukan Vs. State of Assam 1993 S.C.C. (Cri.) 810. 24. Learned counsel also pointed out that by the time the informant came to depose in court, he was appointed as Chowkidar and suggested that it was the lure of employment that motivated him to depose falsely. He further submitted that PW 12 was clearly not a reliable witness since there was some discrepancy in his description of the occurrence and the findings of the I.O. He pointed out that according to the witness his father was sitting on the chair when he was hit on chest by the shot fired by Baudha and he fell down from it. The I.O., however, found that the body of the deceased was lying on its side. He did not find any blood on the chair nor was the chair up-turned. The chair was in fact at some distance from the body of the deceased. 25. The I.O., however, found that the body of the deceased was lying on its side. He did not find any blood on the chair nor was the chair up-turned. The chair was in fact at some distance from the body of the deceased. 25. Taking up the-submissions of Mr. Pandey one by one, it is true that though the F.I.R. was drawn up on 1.10.1998 it was seen by the C.J.M. on 3.10.1998. It is also true that PW 14 does not offer any explanation in that regard. (See Daras 60, 61 and 62 of his deposition). It also cannot be denied that three witnesses (PW 9, PW 12, and PW 14) have given three different versions of the manner in which the farde-bayan was recorded. But I feel that the whole matter can be easily explained. I must say here that with regard to the manner in which the fard-e-bayan was recorded I believe that the correct position is disclosed in the evidence of the informant (PW 12). To me it appears perfectly natural that on going to the police station he would narrate the entire occurrence to the officer present there. It is equally understandable that on getting the information the Officer Incharge would rush to the place of occurrence and would not like to waste any time in formally recording the F.I.R. etc. The Officer Incharge while deposing in court was perhaps trying to cover up, what he believed, might be considered a lapse on his part. But while examining this issue it cannot be over-looked that in India both the investigation of a crime and the maintenance of law and order are equally the responsibility and duty of the police force. In this case a large group of criminals raided the village where people were celebrating Durga Puja and were enjoying the Mela. The criminals gunned down three persons, including two policemen on duty there. The situation had clearly the potential to take a turn for the worse and there was every possibility of further similar massacre by criminals or retaliatory violence on caste lines or otherwise by the villagers. In those circumstances it would be almost instinctive for the police to rush to the place of occurrence to first control the law and order situation and simultaneously to start investigation of the case. In those circumstances it would be almost instinctive for the police to rush to the place of occurrence to first control the law and order situation and simultaneously to start investigation of the case. Hence, if the Officer Incharge did not record the F.I.R. at the police station and instead proceeded to the place of occurrence where he recorded the Fard-e-bayan and began the investigation of the case, one cannot attach any blame to him. 26. The same circumstances would also explain the delay in the F.I.R. reaching the court. Here it may also be mentioned that October 2 every year is the national holiday being the birthday of the father of the nation. Moreover, it is well settled that delay in the F.I.R. reaching the court may not be a ground for throwing out the prosecution case as long as the delay may be explained and the prosecution evidence is otherwise reliable and trustworthy. (See Munshi Prasad Vs. State of Bihar, AIR 2001 SC 3031 [:2001(4) PLJR (SC) 185] and (2002)4 S.C.C. 76 ]. In this case I am of the opinion that both the tests are satisfied. 27. Coming now to the next point with regard to the conviction on the testimony of a solitary witness. In this case it is seen that initially there were six eye witnesses but five of them changed over to the side of the defence leaving the informant as the sole eye witness. We have read the entire testimony of PW 12 several times and we are satisfied that he is perfectly consistent and a reliable witness. His deposition also fits into the larger picture and is corroborated by the evidences of the wife and the daughter-in-law of the slain Dafadar. I find no substance in the insinuation that it was the lure of employment that made the informant to depose falsely. Dafadar Kapildeo Sharma was killed while he was on duty. Hence, the informant (or any of his siblings) would have got appointment on compassionate grounds as a matter of legally enforceable right and for that there was no need for him to falsely name persons as killers of his father. I have, therefore, no hesitation in accepting the testimony of PW 12 as the basis for the conviction of the appellants. I have, therefore, no hesitation in accepting the testimony of PW 12 as the basis for the conviction of the appellants. I also see no discrepancy in the description of the occurrence by PW 4 and the objective findings recorded by the I.O. In fact I find, as it is observed earlier in the judgment, that the objective findings of the I.O. only confirm the eye witness account of the informant. 28. Thus after giving a careful consideration to the materials on record and the submissions of Mr. Pandey made on behalf of the appellants I am fully satisfied that the conviction of the appellants is justly and properly arrived by the trial court and its judgment and order warrants no interference by this court in appeal. 29. I, thus, find no merit in these two appeals. These appeals are accordingly dismissed. 30. Before parting with the records of the case, we would like to express our deep indignation over the manner in which the five police Chowkidars have conducted themselves in this case and we think that the Supdt. of Police, Madhepura would be failing in his duty if he does not examine the conduct of the chowkidars in betraying their murdered colleagues and changing over to the side of the defence. The Supdt. of Police should examine their conduct and their past service record and should take appropriate action against them. Let this last portion of the judgment be sent to the Supdt. of Police, Madhepura for appropriate action.