Judgment : AMARESHWAR SAHAY, J. ( 1 ) ALL the above-mentioned three criminal appeals arise out of the same impugned judgment dated 26/07/2005 passed by the Additional sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.-III, bokaro in Sessions Trial No. 154 of 1985 and, therefore, they were taken up and heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. ( 2 ) ALL these appellants alongwith one another ganga Narayan Mahto (since acquitted) were put on trial for the charges under sections 148, 307, 302,109/149 of the indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms act. By the impugned judgment the appellant Lal mohan Mahato and Haripad Mahato of Cr. Appeal No. 1039 of 2005 were convicted for the offence under Sections 148, 302/149 and 307/149 IPC and they were sentenced to undergo R. I. for a period of two years for the offence under Section 148 IPC and R. I. for life and fine of Rs. 10,000/- each for the offence under Section 302 /149 IPC and R. I. for eight years for the offence under Section 307/149 IPC and for the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act they were sentenced to undergo R. I. of a period of three years. The appellants Jitlal Mahato @ Jeetu mahato and Binod Kumar Mahato of Cr. Appeal no. 1066 of 2005 were convicted for the offence under Sections 148, 302/149 and 307/149 IPC and they were sentenced to undergo R. I. for two years for the offence under Section 148 IPC, R. I. for life for the offence under Section 302 /149 IPC and R. I. for a period of eight years for the offence under Section 307/149 IPC. So far as the appellant Nathan Mahato of cr. Appeal No. 1249 of 2005 is concerned, he was convicted for the offence under sections 148, 302 and 307/149 IPC and he was sentenced to undergo R. I. for a period of two years under Section 148 IPC, R. I. for life for the offence under Section 302 IPC and R. I. for a period of eight years for the offence under Section 307/149 IPC. The sixth accused Ganga Narayan mahato was however, acquitted by the trial court from all the charges. ( 3 ) INITIALLY on the basis of the information lodged by one Devnandan Mahato an fir was registered being Balidih P. S. Case no. The sixth accused Ganga Narayan mahato was however, acquitted by the trial court from all the charges. ( 3 ) INITIALLY on the basis of the information lodged by one Devnandan Mahato an fir was registered being Balidih P. S. Case no. 60/1984 wherein it was alleged that on that day at about 10. 00 a. m. the accused nathan Mahato came drunk and started abusing the brother and father of the informant devnandan Mahato. Meanwhile Jeetu mahato, Binod Kumar Mahato, Haripada mahato came there armed with Tangi and lathi and started assaulting the brother and father of the informant due to which the father of the informant sustained sharp cutting injury on his hand caused by Tangi blow. The FIR was registered under Section 324/323 IPC. One another FIR was registered on the basis of the information lodged by Dwarika ram Mahato, i. e. the father of Devnandan mahato on 22-7-2005 at 14. 15 hour wherein he alleged that on the same day at about 10. 00 a. m. some quarrel took place in between the son of the informant and the appellants and others on the other side in connection with a dispute regarding ownership of a water pipe and in course thereof some of the accused inflicted Tangi blow upon the informant. The information was given to the police with regard to the same occurrence. It is stated that after about half an hour haripada Mahato and Lal Mohan Mahato came there armed with gun and pistol and they challenged the informant party. The three sons of the informant namely, Ram pd. Mahato, Ram Kurnar Mahato and Dhiren mahato were standing there. Lal Mohan fired a shot from his firearm on the right thigh of ram Prasad Mahato and Nathan Mahato inflicted sword blow on the neck of Dhiren mahato. He also assaulted Ram Prasad. In the said incident Dhiren Mahato was killed. The cause of occurrence was said to be the old dispute between the parties. ( 4 ) ON the basis of this information Balidih p. S. Case No. 61/1984 was registered under sections 147, 148, 149, 324, 307 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. A counter case being Balidih P. S. Case no. 62/1984 was also lodged by Bala Devi, the wife of Teju Mahato under Section 307 ipc and other allied sections. ( 4 ) ON the basis of this information Balidih p. S. Case No. 61/1984 was registered under sections 147, 148, 149, 324, 307 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. A counter case being Balidih P. S. Case no. 62/1984 was also lodged by Bala Devi, the wife of Teju Mahato under Section 307 ipc and other allied sections. ( 5 ) THE genesis of the occurrence as it appears from the evidence on record is that on 22/07/1984 at about 9. 15 a. m. Ram kumar Mahato (PW-2) brought a Rubber pipe and kept it in "kulhi". In the meantime nathan Mahato (the appellant in Cr. Appl. No. 1249/05) raised some dispute regarding the ownership of the said Pipe whereupon both the parties started quarreling. Handi Ram Mahato, Jeetu and Binod arrived there at that time. Handi Ram mahato brought a Tangi from his shop and handed over it to Nathan Mahato and Jeetu brought a Lathi. Thereafter they started brandishing Lathi and Tangi. Nathan mahato wanted to give Tangi blow on Ram kumar but the informants sons Dev Nandan and Dhiren and other co-villagers rescued ram Kumar and in that course informant sustained injury on the finger of his left hand. Thereafter, Dev Narayan went to lodge f. I. R. for this occurrence at about 11. 00 a. m. Therefore this was the first occurrence. Thereafter, after a lapse of about half an hour of the departure of Dev Nandan, another occurrence took place for which the present case being Balidih P. S. Case No. 61/1984 was instituted. The prosecution case in short as disclosed in Balidih P. S. Case No. 61/1984 is that, on 22-7-1984 at about 10. 00 a. m. the son of the informant namely Ram Kumar Mahato brought a rubber Pipe from the roof of his house and put in "kulhi" (narrow way between two houses ). In the meantime Nathan mahato asked him, where are you carrying this pipe it belongs to me, thereafter, exchange of hot words between both began. Nathan Mahato became furious with intent to assault. In the meantime Handi Ram, Jitu and Binod arrive there. Handi Ram and Jitu brought Tangi and Lathi from his shop. Handi ramhanded over Tangi to Nathan, thereafter they started to brandish Lathi and Tangi. Nathan Mahato became furious with intent to assault. In the meantime Handi Ram, Jitu and Binod arrive there. Handi Ram and Jitu brought Tangi and Lathi from his shop. Handi ramhanded over Tangi to Nathan, thereafter they started to brandish Lathi and Tangi. As soon as Nathan wanted to deal Tangi blow at Ram Kumar, informants sons Dev nandan Mahato and Dhiren Mahato and covillager churaman Mahato rushed to rescue him and in this act informant sustained cut injury on his left thumb, thereafter informants son Dev Nandan went to police station for lodging F. I. R. at 11. 00 a. m. (consequently Balidih p. S. Case No. 60/1984 was registered ). After half an hour since the departure of dev Nandan to police station, Lal Mohan mahato, armed with gun and Haripad mahato armed with country made pistol came and shouted where are you. came in front. In the meantime Nathan Mahato armed with sword, Teju armed with sword jitu armed with Tabli and Binod armed with lathi, arrived there. Handi Ram Mahato who was present in his shop, ordered to kill where at, after having climbed on the roof of the house, Lal Mohan Mahato opened fire with his gun towards Ram Prasad, which caused injury on the upper side of right thigh of Ram Prasad. Nathan dealt a sword blow at the right neck of Dhiren, as a result of which Dhiren sustained bleeding injury and fell down. Teju gave sword blow at Ram kumar causing injuries on his cheek, leg and head. Nathan gave sword blow to Ram prasad Which caused injury on lower side of his stomach. Hari Prasad fired his pistol but who sustained pistol shot injury, informant could not describe. Binod assaulted informant and Ram Prasad by means of lathi. Having heard the alarm, Gautam Mahato, ishwar Mahato, Sukhdeo Mahato and others arrived and saw the occurrence. After departure of accused persons, when informant saw the injured, he found Dhiren dead. He also found Ram Prasad and Ram Kumar badly injured. It is alleged that this occurrence was a result of old enmity as well as dispute arisen out of rubber pipe. It is further alleged that this occurrence was occurred due to instigation of Ganga Narayan. After departure of accused persons, when informant saw the injured, he found Dhiren dead. He also found Ram Prasad and Ram Kumar badly injured. It is alleged that this occurrence was a result of old enmity as well as dispute arisen out of rubber pipe. It is further alleged that this occurrence was occurred due to instigation of Ganga Narayan. On the basis of the aforesaid fardbeyan balidih P. S. Case No. 61/1984 was registered , investigation was undertaken and after completion of investigation thereof, police submitted charge sheet against all of eight F. I. R. named accused persons. During trial Handi Ram Mahato, Teju Mahato died. Accordingly, their names were dropped, ( 6 ) IN the above occurrence, the deceased dhiren Mahato, who was inflicted sword blow by Nathan Mahato on his neck and as a result of which he fell down and died, received the following injuries as stated by the dr. B. Kumar (PW-3), who held post mortem examination of the dead body of the deceased :- (1) Incised wound 4" x 1/2" x cavity deep (depth and length is the same in parital bone injury but width is described below) on the left side of head and adjoining top of head in the middle. The left parital bone showed clean cut. The width of the cut at its middle is 1 / 10". The wound is obliquely placed. (2) Incised wound 4 " x " bone deep on the right side of neck. The wound is horizontally placed soft tissues (muscle artery veins) and 1 /3" of the body of fourth survical vertebra were found cut. (3) Abrasion " x 1 /32 on the back of left elbow. (4) Abrasion " x " on the anterior aspect of left; knee joint. According to the doctor the injury No. 2 was fatal in nature and the injured could survive hardly 5 to 10 minutes after receiving the said injury. ( 7 ) THE police after investigation submitted charge sheet. It appears that Sessions trial No. 123/1986 arose out of Balidih P. S. Case No. 60/1984 and Sessions Trial No. 154/1985 arose out of Balidih P. S. Case No. 61/1984. However, both the Sessions Trials were amalgamated and were tried together. ( 8 ) IN order to establish the charges as many as 18 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. However, both the Sessions Trials were amalgamated and were tried together. ( 8 ) IN order to establish the charges as many as 18 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. PW-1 Devnandan mahato is the informant of Balidih P. S. Case no. 60/1984. PW-2 Ram Kumar Mahto was one of the injured witness, who received injuries in course of the occurrence. PW-3 Dr. Binod Kumar is the Doctor, who held the post Mortem examination of the dead body of the deceased Dhiren Mahato. PW-4 Sita devi is the wife of Ram Kumar Mahato (PW-2 ). PW-5 Shanti Devi is the wife of devnandan Mahato. PW-6 Basanti Devi is the widow of the deceased Dhiren Mahato. PW-7 Gautam Mahato a co-villager is a hearsay witness. PW-8 Dwarika Ram Mahato is the informant of Balidih P. S. Case No. 61 / 1984. PWs- 9 and 10 are the doctors, who treated the injured persons. PW-11 Dhanu mahato is a co-villager. P. W-12 Bhuneshwar mahato is another co-villager, who has been declared hostile. PW-13 Bhoom Devi and pw-14 Ram Pd. Mahato are the injured witnesses. PWs-15 and 16 Inder Lal Mahato and Sukhdeo Mahato were declared hostile. PW-17 Anil Prasad Mahato is a formal witness and PW-18 Arun Kumar Sinha is the investigating Officer of Balidih P. S. Case No. 61/1984. On behalf of the defence also two witnesses namely DW-1 Nathan Mahato and DW-2 gopal Chandra Mahato were examined. ( 9 ) ON the basis of the evidence adduced by the prosecution and on consideration of the materials on record, the learned trial court convicted and sentenced all the appellants as already stated in earlier paragraphs. ( 10 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the F. I. R. of balidih P. S. Case No. 61/1984 cannot be treated as an F. I. R. within the meaning of section 154 Cr. P. C. and, therefore, the whole trial stood vitiated. According to him the initial information given to the police with regard to commission of a cognizable offence which was entered in the Station Diary entry No. 505 on 22-7-1984 should have been treated as first information report and not the subsequent information. P. C. and, therefore, the whole trial stood vitiated. According to him the initial information given to the police with regard to commission of a cognizable offence which was entered in the Station Diary entry No. 505 on 22-7-1984 should have been treated as first information report and not the subsequent information. It was further submitted in this regard that the Investigating officer (PW-18) has stated in his evidence that he received the information with regard to murder of Dhiren Mahato through mahesh Mishra, Hawaldar and then he reached the place of occurrence at 1. 55 p. m. and found the dead body of the deceased lying there. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the appellants the investigation had already started. In that view of the matter, the fardbeyan of PW-8 recorded at 14. 15 hour could not have been treated as F. I. R. because it was a subsequent statement, therefore the same was hit by section 162 Cr. P. C. In support of his submissions he has relied on a decision of Patna High Court in the case of Deo Pujan Thakur and Another v. State of Bihar, reported in 2005 Cri. L. J. 1263. ( 11 ) IT is further submitted that since the station Diary Entry No. 505 dated 22/07/1984 was not produced by the prosecution therefore adverse inference should be drawn against it. It was next contended that the conviction of the appellants for the offence under Sections 302/149ipc or Section 307/ 149 IPC was bad in law since the prosecution failed to establish the fact that all the accused persons were having common object to commit the murder of Dhiren Mahato or to commit the offence of attempt to murder by assaulting Ram Kumar Mahato and ram Prasad Mahato, i. e. PW-2 and PW-14 respectively. It was next contended that the prosecution failed to establish the injuries received by Nathan Mahato, i. e. the appellant in Cr. Appeal No. 1249/2005. PW-18 the Investigating Officer in his evidence has clearly admitted that Nathan Mahato was laying in the injured condition in the Bari of poru Mahto and was not in a position to speak even. It was next contended that the prosecution failed to establish the injuries received by Nathan Mahato, i. e. the appellant in Cr. Appeal No. 1249/2005. PW-18 the Investigating Officer in his evidence has clearly admitted that Nathan Mahato was laying in the injured condition in the Bari of poru Mahto and was not in a position to speak even. Lastly, it was submitted that there was vital contradictions in the evidence of PWs which rendered their evidences unreliable and, therefore, on the basis of such unreliable evidence, the appellants could not have been convicted and sentenced by the trial Court. ( 12 ) PW-1 is the brother of the deceased and he clalmed to be a witness of the first occurrence only. He was not present at the time of second occurrence. PW-2 Ram kumar Mahato who is the brother of PW-1 is a injured witness. This witness has given a vivid description of the occurrence and he has fully supported the case of the prosecution. His evidence that he received injuries in course of the alleged occurrence has been supported by the medical evidence. ( 13 ) PWS- 4, 5 and 6 are the eye-witnesses to the occurrence. The occurrence has taken place in front of their house. Some contradictions and exaggeration have been pointed out on behalf of the defence in the evidence of these PWs. ( 14 ) THE learned trial Court has discussed the evidence of each and every P. Ws. in the impugned judgment in great detail, therefore, the statements of the P. Ws. , which have already been discussed by the trial Court is not being repeated herein again. Suffice is to say that on a close scrutiny of their evidence i find that there is no doubt that some discrepancies are there in the evidence of the p. Ws. but the same does not affect their evidence on the main incident. These witnesses are rustic villagers and therefore it is but natural that there may be some discrepancy here and there in their evidence but on the whole I find their evidence to be truthful and natural. The infirmities, as pointed out, are minor in nature and it does not affect the prosecution case. The evidence of these witnesses cannot be brushed aside only because they were related to each other therefore, they were interested witnesses. The infirmities, as pointed out, are minor in nature and it does not affect the prosecution case. The evidence of these witnesses cannot be brushed aside only because they were related to each other therefore, they were interested witnesses. However, from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, I find that so far as against Binod Kumar Mahto, i. e. the appellant in Cr. Appeal No. 1066/2005 is concerned, there is no evidence on the record so as to come to the finding that this appellant also shared the common object to kill the deceased. In fact, there is no allegation that he assaulted the deceased in any manner. Therefore, in my view, his conviction with the aid of Section 149 I. P. C. was not legal and valid. The evidence of the eyewitnesses are fully corroborated by the medical evidence. Therefore, there is no scope to disbelieve the specific and direct evidence of the eyewitnesses coupled with the evidence of the Doctors and the Investigating Officer. The natural conclusion is that all the appellants except appellant Binod Kumar mahato being annoyed by the quarrel with respect to the rubber pipe at 10. 00 a. m. between the parties, i. e. the first occurrence for which Balidih p. S. Case No. 60/1984 was lodged and then after a lapse of about two hours they arrived again at the place of occurrence duly armed with gun, sword and lathi etc. and committed the murder of Dhiren Mahato and also caused murderous attack on the injured persons. ( 15 ) FROM the evidence of the prosecution it is established beyond all reasonable doubts that in the said alleged occurrence dhiren Mahato was killed and three persons sustained injuries at the hands of the appellants. Dhiren Mahato sustained sharp cutting injury, which was sufficient to cause his death whereas Ram Prasad Mahato received gun shot injury, Ram Kumar Mahato received one incised wound and one lacerated wound, whereas the appellant Nathan mahato received two injuries, which were simple in nature. The evidence of the prosecution clearly goes to show and establish the fact that all the appellants except the appellant Binod Kumar Mahato, committed the offence in furtherance of common object after having made preparation to commit the crime. The evidence of the prosecution clearly goes to show and establish the fact that all the appellants except the appellant Binod Kumar Mahato, committed the offence in furtherance of common object after having made preparation to commit the crime. ( 16 ) SO far as the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants regarding the f. I. R. of the case that it was hit by Section 162 Cr. P. C. is concerned the same cannot be accepted because it has been settled by the Supreme Court that a cryptic report of the occurrence cannot be treated as F. I. R. Reference in this regard may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sk. Ishaque v. State of Bihar reported in (1995) 3 SCC 392 : (1995 AIR SCW 2001 ). Non production of the Station Diary entry by the prosecution also did not affect the prosecution case since it was a cryptic report without having any detail of the occurrence. ( 17 ) IN this view of the matter, the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants that the FIR of Balidih P. S. Case no. 61/1984 was hit by Section 162 Cr. P. C. and, therefore, the whole trial is vitiated, cannot be accepted and hence, is rejected. ( 18 ) IN view of my discussions and findings above, It is held that the prosecution has been able to establish the charges against all the appellants except the appellant binod Kumar Mahato in Cr. Appeal No. 1066/2005 and, therefore, the learned trial court committed no error in convicting and sentencing the appellants for the offence committed by them. 18a. Accordingly, by affirming the conviction and sentence, passed by the learned trial Court in Sessions Trial No. 154/1985 against all the appellants except appellant binod Kumar Mahato in Cr. Appeal No. 1066/ 2005, all the above three appeals are hereby dismissed. ( 19 ) SO far as appellant Binod Kumar mahato, appellant No. 2 in Cr. Appeal No. 1066/2005 is concerned, his appeal is allowed and his conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court is hereby set aside and he is directed to be set at liberty if not wanted in any other case. Order accordingly. --- *** --- .