Judgment SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J. 1. AII the five appellants in this appeal namely Naresh Bind, Pairu Bind, Chhotan Bind, Ramashish Bind and Lakhan Manjhi have been convicted for the offence under sec. 302 read with sec. 149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life by the impugned judgment dated 16th December, 1987 passed by 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Gaya in Sessions Trial No, 37/85/285/85. 2. On the Fardbeyan of Lallan Prasad (P.W. 7) recorded by Sub-Inspector of Police. B.S. Pandey (P.W. 8) on 25.1.1984 at 18.30 hours at Saho Bigha Gazar, police instituted Ghoshi P.S. Case No. 3/1984. According to Fardbeyan, the prosecution case, in brief, is that at about 3.45 P.M. on the date of occurrence i./e. 25.1.1984 the informant came to Saho Bigha Bazar looking for his father. When he reached near a Pipal tree near a turning then he saw that his father was at the shop of one Nizam Mian. At that time noise came from the north that Naxalites have arrived. On that informants father, Ganga Mahto (the deceased) rushed from the shop of Nizam Miyan into the shop of Pragash Sao. He was chased by the 13-14 miscreants out of whom the informant could identify ten persons. Among the ten persons he named all the five appellants who were allegedly having fire arms. When father of the informant entered the shop of Pragash Sao then Pairu Bind (appellant no. 2). Lallu Bind, Naresh Bind (Appellant no. 3) were seen firing at him. Thereafter firing was done towards the informant also. On this he raised hulla and ran towards his house. He saw the miscreants going from Saho Bigha Bazar towarss the Nahar (Canal) on the west. Thereafter he and some others went behind the miscreants. Then there was further firing from the side of the miscreants and they managed to escape. On coming back to the Bazar the informant found his father dead. Some co-villagers such as Sheo Sharan Yadav, Rameshwar Yadav, Kailu Yadav (P.W. 3) and one Harbansh Mahto from another village had also witnessed the occurrence. Later the informant learnt that the miscreants had come out of the house of one Brihaspat Bind and committed the offence. The reason for the occurrence was said to be refusal by the deceased to join the NaxaliteParty and recent murder of one Shankar Choudhary. 3. Later the informant learnt that the miscreants had come out of the house of one Brihaspat Bind and committed the offence. The reason for the occurrence was said to be refusal by the deceased to join the NaxaliteParty and recent murder of one Shankar Choudhary. 3. From the evidence of the Investigating Officer, Ballabh Sharan Pandey (P.W. 8) it appears that on 25.1.1984 at 5 P.M. in the evening Chaukidar, Babu Lal Paswan came to the police station and reported that he had heard a rumour that in Saho Bigha Bazar Naxalites have killed somebody. On that he recorded a Sanha and rushed to Saho Bigha Bazar at 5.28 P.M. He prepared the inquest report in respect of dead body of deceased Ganga Mahto infront of shop of Pragash Sao. At 6.30 P.M. he recorded the Fardbeyan of Lallan Prasad (P.W. 7) and on that basis formal F.I.R. was Instituted. The F.I.R., Fardbeyan and inquest repoirt (Exhibits 1, 2 and 3 respectively) have been proved by the investigating Officer. He has claimed to have seized blood-stained earth from the front of shop of Pradgash Sao and also some other articles such as mis-fired buiiet of 315 calibre, two spent bullets of 303 calibre, one rifle bullet and a mud-tile having blood marks. He sent the deadbody for post-mortem examination, collected the post-mortem report and after recording the evidence of witnesses submitted char gesheet. After cognizance and commitment to the court of sessions the appellants and two others namely Lallu Beldar @ Lallu Bind and Kedar Prasad Bind were put on trial. The appellants and the other co-accused pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed that they have been falsely implicated. By the impugned judgment the appellants were convicted and sentenced as noticed above whereas Lallu Beldar and Kedar Bind were acquitted of the charges by giving them benefit of doubt due to probability of their ali bi being correct. 4. In order to prove the charges prosecution examined altogether 9 witnesses P.W. 1, Sheo Yadav, P.W. 2 Rameshwar Yadav, P.W. 3 Kailu Yadav, P.W. 4, Tilak Yadav and P.W. 7 Lallan Prasad have deposed as eye witnesses of the alleged occurrence. P.W. 6, Nagina Yadav, a brother of the informant has been tendered for cross-examination. P.W. 8, Ballabh Sharan Pandey is a police official who investigated the offence as Investigating Officer. P.W. 9, Dr. P.W. 6, Nagina Yadav, a brother of the informant has been tendered for cross-examination. P.W. 8, Ballabh Sharan Pandey is a police official who investigated the offence as Investigating Officer. P.W. 9, Dr. Braj Ballabh Sahay had held autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and has proved the post-mortem report as Exhibit-5. 5. The prosecution case as narrated by the informant (P.W. 7), a son of the deceased has been supported in all material particulars, particularly in respect of the place of occurrence, manner of occurrence and the time of occurrence by the remaining eye witnesses i.e. P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 4, So far as naming the individual appellant is concerned, it is clear that P.W. 1, Sheo Yadav, and P.W. 4 Tilak Yadav had not named Ramashish Bind, appellant no. 4 before the Investigating Officer in their statements under sec. 161 Cr.P.C. So far as other four appellants are concerned they have been named by all the five eye witnesses in court as well as in course of investigation. From the evidence of witnesses particularly, from their cross-examination it is clear that prior to the present occurrence one Shanker Choudhary was killed in another occurrence and according to the witnesses he was killed in course of dacoity in the house of one Subhan Mian. It appears that on account of death of Shankar Choudhary a case of murder was lodged in which deceased Ganga Yadav along with his son, Nagina Yadav (P.W. 6) was made an accused. P.W. 1 Sheo Yadav has frankly admitted that his son is also an accused in the said case relating to killing of Shankar Choudhary, P.W. 4, Tilak Yadav has also frankly admitted that he is an accused in that case. It has been taken in cross-examination of P.W. 4 that co-accused Lallu Bind and Kedar Bind who have been acquitted by the judgment under appeal were cited as witnesses from the prosecution relating to alleged murder of Shankar Choudhary. It has been suggested that because of killing of Shankar Choudhary, a caste rivalry between Pasis and Yadavs grew up in the concerned area and therefore the witnesses are inmical towards the accused persons. 6. The law is well settled in respect of witnesses who are shown to be inimical or interested. The court must apply caution to find out whether they are reliable or not. 6. The law is well settled in respect of witnesses who are shown to be inimical or interested. The court must apply caution to find out whether they are reliable or not. In the present case theprosecution version is supported by four eye witnesses and out of them PWs. 2 and 3 have nothing to do with the case relating to alleged murder of Shankar Choudhary. Even the suggestion that on account of killing of Shankar Choudhary there developed caste rivalry between Yadavs and Pasis in the area, is difficult to be appreciated and accepted when some of the witnesses have denied such suggestion. The evidence of the so called inimical witnesses P.W. 1 and P.W. 4 is on similar lines as that of other three eye witnesses and there is nothing in their cross-examination to warrant the rejection of their testimony as eye witnesses. 7. The medical evidence brought on record by the doctor (P.W. 9) shows that as many as 15 external injuries were found on the body of the deceased out of which only four appear to be by blunt object. On account of a submission that prosecution case should be disbelieved because there is no allegation of assault by any blunt weapon, we went through the details of injury nos. IV, XI, XII and XV and found those injuries to be simple in nature which were possible on account of fall after receiving fire arm injuries. The medical evidence on a close scrutiny supports the prosecution case. 8. The Investigating Officer, P.W. 8 has described the place of occurrence in detail and the seizurelists prepared by him show beyond any doubt that the occurrence took place at the shop of Pragash Sao. An attempt was made on behalf of the appellants to show that according to witnesses the occurrence took place while the deceased was out-side the shop but according to the Investigating Officer blood and many other articles were found even inside the shop which indicates that the occurrence had taken place inside the shop. On a careful perusal of evidence of witnesses it is found that they are consistent that an assault commenced as soon as the deceased rushed and entered the shop of Pragash Sao. From the evidence of Investigating Officer the aforesaid claim of witnesses is fully supported. On a careful perusal of evidence of witnesses it is found that they are consistent that an assault commenced as soon as the deceased rushed and entered the shop of Pragash Sao. From the evidence of Investigating Officer the aforesaid claim of witnesses is fully supported. The dead body was clearly taken out from the shop and kept out-side as was clear from the mark of dragging found by the I.O. The objective findings of the 1.0. do not contradict the ocular evidence regarding the place and manner of occurrence. 9. On behalf oif appellants it was submitted that the appellants were admittedly known to the witnesses and therefore it is not accepted that they would participate in such an occurrence during day hours without concealing their faces and since two co-accused have been given benefit of doubt by the trial court on account of plea of alibi hence the claim of the witnesses having identified the appellants should also be treated as doubtful. It was further submitted that on behalf of appellant no. 1, Naresh Bind a plea of ali bi was takend and D.W. 1, Jagdish Prasad, a compounder in Epidemic Diseases Hospital, Chand Chaura, Gaya, proved certain documents to show that this appellant was admitted as an indoor patient in that hospital from 18.1.1984 to 28.1.1984 for the treatment of tetanus. 10. So far as the submission of improbability is concerned, it is not safe to dis-believe the eye witnesses on the hypothesis of alleged improbability of known persons participating in an offence during day time without concealing their faces. A number of offences take place during day time in which known persons commit offences without caring for consequences. Such behaviour is more prominent in case of members of organised groups which the people in the rural areas know and describe as Naxalities. It has rightly been submitted on behalf of the State that some times such groups purposely commit daredevil acts in broad-day light to create supremacy and strike terror among the hearts of general public. So far as ali bi of Naresh Bind is concerned, the reasons for not accepting the same have been discussed in paragraph-40 of the judgment under appeal with which we are in agreement. The over writing or cuttings on the relevant exhibits A and A/1 have been admitted by D.W. 1. So far as ali bi of Naresh Bind is concerned, the reasons for not accepting the same have been discussed in paragraph-40 of the judgment under appeal with which we are in agreement. The over writing or cuttings on the relevant exhibits A and A/1 have been admitted by D.W. 1. The I.O. has stated that in the relevant register the address of the patient Naresh Bind was not mentioned. We further find force in the submission on behalf of the State that according to the exhibits Naresh Bind was discharged on 28.1.1984 but there is no material to show that on 25.1.1984 he was through out confined in the said hospital without any opportunity to participate in the occurrence or that he was in such state of illness that he could not have moved out of the hospital. For such reasons we find no merit in the plea of ali bi of appellant no. 1, Naresh Bind. A submission was also advanced by learned counsel for the appellants that large number of persons have been falsely implicated in this case so as to make the number of miscreants five or more only to attract the ingredients of offence under sec. 149 of the I.P.C. The earliest version of the occurrence in the fardbeyan shows the number of miscreants to be 10 named and 3-4 unknown. Participation of large number of persons in the offence is established by the evidence of eye witnesses noticed above who have supported the prosecution case in material particulars and even the large number of injuries on the body of the deceased support the prosecution case that a number of persons had assaulted the deceased by firing. Hence, aforesaid plea is also not found acceptable. 11. Lastly, it was submitted that the occurrence was reported to the police by a chaukidar and the I.O. has admitted that a Sanha was recorded on the basis of such report by the Chaukidar bui the said Sanha has not been brought on record by the prosecution. Hence, aforesaid plea is also not found acceptable. 11. Lastly, it was submitted that the occurrence was reported to the police by a chaukidar and the I.O. has admitted that a Sanha was recorded on the basis of such report by the Chaukidar bui the said Sanha has not been brought on record by the prosecution. It has been submitted that said Sanha should have been treated as F.I.R. and the present Fardbeyan should be rejected as hit by Sec. 162 of the Cr.P.C. As noticed earlier the Investigating Officer (P.W. 8) has clearly deposed that the Chaukidr, Babulal Paswan came to the police station and reported that he had heard a rumour that in Saho Bigha Bazar extremists had fired and killed somebody. A rumour, without the material details reported by a person who did not claim to be an eye witness in the facts of the case could not have been treated as F.I.R. and the I.O. righly recorded such a rumour in the Station Diary. Such Station Diary entry based on rumour without the material particulars cannot be treated as earliest version of the occurrence from a reliable source fit to be given the status of a first information report. A careful perusal of Section 154 of the Cr.P.C. discloses that only an information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence if given orally is required to be reduced to writing by an officer-in-charge of the police station and such information is required to be signed by the person giving the information and thereafter substance of the information is to be entered in a prescribed book. Each and every rumour cannot be treated as information for the purpose of Sec. 154 of the Cr.P.C. and it will depend upon the source as well as the contents of the information as to whether it deserves to be treated as an information of a cognizable case requiring reduction in writings and signature by the person giving the information or whether it requires verification and some enquiry whether any witness of the occurrence is available to give material details and authentic account of the occurrence. However, such discretion in the officer incharge as to what kind of information should be treated as information warranting entry as per sec. 154 of the Cr.P.C. must be exercised fairly to advance the cause of justice. It on mere rumour F.I.Rs. However, such discretion in the officer incharge as to what kind of information should be treated as information warranting entry as per sec. 154 of the Cr.P.C. must be exercised fairly to advance the cause of justice. It on mere rumour F.I.Rs. are required to be registered in each and every case then unnecessarily thousands of cases may have to be registered requiring useless formal investigation. Hence, in case of rumour the Officer-lncharge of the police station has j the discretion to first verify the correctness and obtain necessary information only from reliable sources such as an eye witness if such witness is available. Sub-section (3) of Section .154 shows that if a person is aggrieved by a refusal on the part of officer incharge of a police station to record the information in the manner required by Sec. 154(1) then he may send the substance of such information in writing and by post to the Superintendent of Police concerned who in his turn may treat it as an information of a cognizable offence if satisfied. In view of aforesaid provisions of law in Sec. 154 of the Cr.P.C, we find no illegality in the act of the Officer Incharge in not treating the rumour reported by the Chaukidar as first information report of a cognizable offence. Hence, we find no merit even in the last submission advanced on behalf of the appellants. 12. Having given anxious consideration to all the facts and circumstances, we find no legal or factual infirmity in the conviction and sentence of the appellants as awarded by the trial court. We find no merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. Since the appellants are on bail, hence their bail bonds are cancelled. They are directed to be taken into custody so that they may serve out the remaining sentences in accordance with law.