Judgment C.K.Prasad, J. 1. Both the appeals arise out of the same judgment and as such, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Bhagwan Singh (Appellant in Cr.Appeal No.338 of 2000) and Ratan Singh alias Ratnjay Singh (Appellant in Cr.Appeal No.402 of 2000), being aggrieved by the judgement dated 27th of June, 2000 passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Begusarai in Sessions Trial No.534 of 1995 holding the appellants guilty of offence under Sec.302/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sec.27 of the Arms Act and awarding them the sentence of life imprisonment and six years each respectively, have preferred these appeals. 3. Prosecution started on the basis of fardbeyan given by RW. 9 Ajay Kumar Singh on 3.5.1994 at 2 P.M. before the Sub Inspector of Police, according to which, on the same day at about 12 P.M., while discussing the house-hold affairs beneath a banyan tree north to his house along with co-villagers Sheonandan Singh (P.W. 1), Ramdeo Singh (RW. 3) and Mahendra Jha, his younger uncle Satyanand Singh (deceased) came there on a motor-cycle from Begusarai and started talking to them. Animals belonging to the informant as. also the deceased Satyanand Singh are kept there. The deceased took water provided from the house of the informant. In the meanwhile, appellant Ratan Singh came there and told Satya Nand Singh, the deceased that he is being called by his father Uma Shankar Singh, whereupon, Satya Nand Singh proceeded to meet his elder brother along with appellant Ratan Singh bare-footed. Informant became apprehensive as two months prior to that, altercation had taken place between them and hence, informant followed him. According to the informant, the moment his uncle Satya Nand Singh reached near his brother, Uma Shankar Singh alias Dayanand Singh, he exhorted his son as to what he is looking for, whereupon appellant Ratan Singh took out pistol from his waist and shot at Satya Nand Singh on his neck and then Vijay Kumar Singh, another son of Uma Shankar Singh who was also standing there, shot at Satya Nand Singh, whereupon he fell down and the informant started crying. According to the informant, thereafter appellant Bhagwan Singh shot at Satya Nand Singh from pistol, while fallen on the ground, he died at the spot. 4. According to the informant, thereafter appellant Bhagwan Singh shot at Satya Nand Singh from pistol, while fallen on the ground, he died at the spot. 4. According to the first information report, motive for the occurrence is the dispute in relation to the partition of property at Niraulipur Diara for which two months prior to the incident, a criminal case in Balia Police Station against Satya Nand Singh, deceased was lodged for the occurrence which has taken place there. On the basis of the aforesaid information, Barauni P.S.Case No.187 of 1994 was registered under Sec.302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The police, after investigation, submitted charge sheet and ultimately, they were committed to the court of Sessions to face the trial, where they were charged for committing the murder of Satya Nand Singh in furtherance of their common intention punishable under Sec.302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and also for possessing country made pistol with intention to use the same for unlawful purpose punishable under Sec.27 of the Arms Act. Uma Shankar Singh and Bijay Kumar Singh have been put on trial separately. It is relevant here to state that deceased Satya Nand Singh and Uma Shankar Singh are brothers whereas informant Ajay Kumar Singh is their nephew and appellant Ratan Singh is the son of Uma Shankar Singh. 5. Appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. Prosecution, in support of its case, had altogether examined 11 witnesses out of whom, P.W. 1 Sheonandan Singh, P.W. 2 Deochandra Singh alias Devendra Singh, P.W. 3 Ramdeo Singh, P.W. 8 Punit Mahto and P.W. 9 Ajay Kumar Singh claimed to be the eye witnesses to the occurrence. P.W. 9 Ajay Kumar Singh is the informant of the case also. P.W. 4 Arun Kumar Mahto, P.W. 5 Arbind Kumar and P.W. 6 Ram Pravesh Singh are formal witnesses and had proved the signatures of the Sub Inspector of Police who had drawn the first information report, the inquest report and witness to the inquest report respectively. P.W. 7 Aatish Kumar has been examined to corroborate the case of the prosecution, whereas P.W.10 Dr. Ashok Kumar Roy is the Medical Officer who had conducted the Post Mortem Examination of the deceased. P.W. 11 Bisheshwar Nath Pandey is the Investigating Officer of the case. 7. Appellants denied to have committed any offence and pleaded false implication. 8. P.W. 7 Aatish Kumar has been examined to corroborate the case of the prosecution, whereas P.W.10 Dr. Ashok Kumar Roy is the Medical Officer who had conducted the Post Mortem Examination of the deceased. P.W. 11 Bisheshwar Nath Pandey is the Investigating Officer of the case. 7. Appellants denied to have committed any offence and pleaded false implication. 8. It is relevant here to state that besides two appellants in the aforesaid appeals, later on. Uma Shankar Singh alias Dayanand Singh and Bijay Kumar Singh were also charge sheeted and ultimately, put on trial in Sessions Trial No,409 of 2003. 9. This Court, by order dated 26.4.2004, directed for expeditious disposal of the trial and for listing of these appeals after the disposal of the aforesaid case. The aforesaid two accused persons, ultimately have been acquitted by judgement dated 8.11.2004 passed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge. Begusarai in Sessions Trial No.409 of 2003. 10. Before I appraise and analyse the evidence on record, it is relevant here to state that an application (I.A.No. 1073 of 2004) has been filed for taking as additional evidence the depositions of P.Ws. 1 to 10 examined in Sessions Trial No. 409 of 2003. 11. It is also relevant here to state that the witnesses in this case, namely, Sheonandan Singh, P.W. 1 Deochandra Singh, P.W. 2 Ramdeo Singh. P.W. 3 Arbind Kumar, P.W. 5 Ram Pravesh Singh, P.W. 6 Punit Mahto, P.W. 8 and Ajay Kumar Singh, P.W. 9 have been examined as RWs.5,6,4,9,10,7 and 8 respectively in Sessions Trial No.409 of 2003 and have not supported the case of the prosecution and declared hostile. 12. Mr. Akhileshwar Prasad Singh, appearing in support of the aforesaid application, contends that the depositions of the aforesaid witnesses have been recorded in the trial arising out of the same case and hence, those depositions shall have bearing in adjudicating the guilt or otherwise of the appellants in the present case and as such, these may be taken as additional evidence. In support of the submission, he has placed reliance on a judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Zahira Habibullah.H.Sheikh and another vs.State of Gujrat and others 2004(4) SCC 158 and our attention has been drawn to paragraph no. 49 of the said judgment which reads as follows. In support of the submission, he has placed reliance on a judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Zahira Habibullah.H.Sheikh and another vs.State of Gujrat and others 2004(4) SCC 158 and our attention has been drawn to paragraph no. 49 of the said judgment which reads as follows. "49.- There is no restriction in the wording of Sec.391 either as to the nature of the evidence or that it is to be taken for the prosecution only or that the provisions of the sections are only to be invoked when forma! proof for the prosecution is necessary. If the appellate court thinks that it is necessary in the interest of justice to take additional evidence, it shall do so. There is nothing in the provision limiting it to cases where there has been merely some formal defect. The matter is one of discretion of the appellate court. As re-iterated supra, the ends of justice are not satisfied only when the accused in a criminal case is acquitted. The community acting through the State and the Public Prosecutor is also entitled to justice. The cause of the community deserves equal treatment at the hands of the court in the discharge of its judicial functions." 13. Mr. Lala Kailash Bihari Prasad, Additional Public Prosecutor, however, appearing on behalf of the State in both the appeals, contends that the guilt or otherwise of the appellants has to be adjudicated on the basis of the evidence on record of the present case and not the depositions of the witnesses in another trial. He submits that there may be a situation in which two cases arising out of the same incident are tried separately and in the earlier case, witnesses do not support the case of the prosecution but in the case tried later, witnesses do support the case of the prosecution and hence, it shall be hazardous to admit additional evidence in such situation. 14. Having appreciated the rival submission, I do not find any substance in the submission of Mr. Singh and the authority relied on, is clearly distinguishable. Section 385 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, hereinafter referred to as the Code, provides for the procedure for hearing appeals which includes the power to send for the record and Sec.386 of the Code confers power on the appellate Court to peruse such record and then dismiss or allow the appeal. Section 385 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, hereinafter referred to as the Code, provides for the procedure for hearing appeals which includes the power to send for the record and Sec.386 of the Code confers power on the appellate Court to peruse such record and then dismiss or allow the appeal. Sec.391 of the Code is thus, in the nature of exception to Sec.386 of the Code. In my opinion, the necessity for additional evidence arises when the Court feels that some evidence which ought to have been before it, is not there or that some evidence has been left out erroneously, be brought in. There can not be a straight jacket formula or rule of universal application when alone it can be done. As observed earlier, the provisions under Section 391 of the Code is by way of an exception. The Court is to carefully consider the need for and desirability to accept additional evidence. 15. Bearing in mind the aforesaid principle, when I examine the prayer of the appellants for taking additional evidence, I am of the opinion that it is not one of those cases in which additional evidence deserves to be taken.The attempt of the appellants is to bring on record the depositions of the witnesses examined in a different sessions case although arising out of the same incident in which they have been declared hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution. If the depositions of such witnesses are taken as additional evidence, the prosecution shall be prejudiced as it did not had the opportunity to test their evidence. I am of the opinion that allowing the depositions of the witnesses to be taken as additional evidence, shall cause great prejudice to the prosecution and hence, I am not inclined to admit those depositions as additional evidence. 16. Now, referring to the authority of the Supreme Court in the case of Zahira Habibullah. H. Shekh (supra), same is clearly distinguishable. In the said case, the Court permitted adducing additional evidence on the back-ground of the nature of additional evidence sought to be adduced and the perfunctory manner of the trial conducted on the basis of tainted investigation. Present is not one of such cases. 17. Now, I revert to the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution in support of its case. 18. Present is not one of such cases. 17. Now, I revert to the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution in support of its case. 18. P.W. 1 Sheonandan Singh has stated in his evidence that on the date of occurrence at about 12 noon, while he was sitting beneath a banyan tree north to the house of Ajay Kumar Singh, deceased Satya Narain Singh came on a motor-cycle and asked the informant Ajay Kumar Singh to provide him water. Ajay Kumar Singh gave him water and in the meanwhile, appellant Ratan Singh came and informed the deceased Satya Narain Singh that he is being called by his father. He happens to be the elder brother of said Satya Narain Singh. Satya Narain Singh went to meet his brother and was accompanied by the appellant Ratan Singh as also the informant Ajay Kumar Singh. According to this witness, he also followed them and when reached near the house of Uma Shankar Singh, father of appellant Ratan Singh, was sitting on a Machan and he exhorted as to what they are looking for, whereupon appellant Ratan Singh took out pistol and shot at his uncle Satya Narain Singh, causing injury on his neck. Another son of Uma Shankar Singh, namely, Bijay Kumar Singh also fired which caused injury to Satya Narain Singh and he feli down. Thereafter, appellant Bhagwan Singh shot at him and sustaining the injury Satya Narain Singh died at the spot. 19. P.W. 2 Deochandra Singh claims to be another eye witness to the occurrence. He has stated in his evidence that on the date of occurrence at about 12 noon, while he was coming from his house, he saw appellant Ratan Singh, deceased Satya Narain Singh, P.W. 1 Sheonandan Singh, P.W. 3 Ramdeo Singh and the informant Ajay Kumar Singh going towards the house of Uma Shankar Singh and he followed them. According to him, Uma Shankar Singh exhorted as to what they are looking for, whereupon, the appellant Ratan Singh shot at the deceased Satya Narain Singh followed by another shot by Bljay Kumar Singh. Satya Narain Singh, sustaining injury fell down and started tossing then appellant Bhagwan Singh shot at him. Satya Narain Singh died at the spot. 20. According to him, Uma Shankar Singh exhorted as to what they are looking for, whereupon, the appellant Ratan Singh shot at the deceased Satya Narain Singh followed by another shot by Bljay Kumar Singh. Satya Narain Singh, sustaining injury fell down and started tossing then appellant Bhagwan Singh shot at him. Satya Narain Singh died at the spot. 20. P.W. 3 Ramdeo Singh claims to be another eye witness to the occurrence and according to him, on the date and time of occurrence, he was sitting along with P.W. 1 Sheonandan Singh, Mahendra Singh and others, deceased Satya Narain Singh came on a motor-cycle and asked for water, whereupon informant gave him water. In the meanwhile, appellant Ratan Singh came and informed the deceased that he is being called by his father and thereafter the deceased went along with appellant Ratan Singh, followed by this witness. When the deceased reached near the boundary wall of Uma Shankar Singh, he exhorted to shot dead Satya Narain Singh, whereupon, the appellant Ratan Singh fired which caused injury on his neck. Thereafter, Bijay Kumar Singh fired at him which caused injury in the right temple. According to this witness, when the deceased sustained gun shot injury caused by Bhagawan Singh, he fell down and died. 21. P.W. 4 Arun Kumar Mahto is a formal witness and had proved the writing and signature of the Sub Inspector of Police who had drawn the first information report. 22. P.Ws.5 Arbind Kumar and P.W. 6 Ram Pravesh Singh are witnesses to the inquest report and have stated in their evidence that the Sub Inspector of Police had prepared the inquest report in their presence over which they had put their signatures (Exts.2 and 3). 23. P.W. 7 Aatish Kumar is the son of the deceased and according to him, while he was at Begusarai, he was informed by his mother that his father has been killed. On receiving the said information, he along with his mother came to the village and saw the dead body of his father near the house of his uncle Uma Shankar Singh and a lot of persons collected near the dead body. On inquiry, he was told that he was killed by appellants Ratan Singh, Bhagwan Singh, Bijay Kumar Singh and his uncle Uma Shankar Singh. On inquiry, he was told that he was killed by appellants Ratan Singh, Bhagwan Singh, Bijay Kumar Singh and his uncle Uma Shankar Singh. According to this witness, the deceased was threatened earlier through letter, which he had given to his mother. 24. P.W. 8 Pumit Mahto is another eye witness to the occurrence who has stated in his evidence that while he was at his darwaza, Ratan Singh (appellant) and Bijay Singh came with Satya Narain Singh near their house and on the exhortation of Uma Shankar Singh, Ratan Singh and Bijay Singh as also Bhagwan Singh shot at him. Thereafter, Ajay Kumar Singh, Mehendra Singh, Ramdeo Singh and Deochandra came. 25. P.W. 9 Ajay Kumar Singh is the nephew of the deceased as also informant of the case and claims to be an eye witness to the occurrence. He has stated in his evidence that on 3.7.1994 at 12 Noon while he alongwith other witnesses were sitting beneath a Banyan tree, Satyanand Singh, deceased came from Begusarai, sat there and asked for water. He brought water and gave to him, in the mean while appellant Ratan Singh came and informed that Satyanand Singh is being called by his father, Satyanand Singh went alongwith him. After they proceeded to 2 to 4 laggas he wondered as to why he was called, because two months prior to the incident altercation had taken place between them. Hence he alongwith other persons followed and when Satyanand Singh reached, Uma Shankar Singh exhorted as to what they are looking for, whereupon appellant Ratan Singh took out pistol and fired at Satyanand Singh which caused injury on his right temple. According to this witness, Vijay Singh, who was standing nearby also, fired which also caused injury and he fell down. Thereafter appellant Bhagwan Singh fired which caused injury on the neck. 26. According to this witness, when he raised alarm appellant Ratan Singh fired at him and he fled to Birpur Police Station and gave information and came to the Police Station alongwith the Sub-Inspector of Police. According to this witness, the dispute in respect of land had led to the incident. In his cross-examination he has stated that the mother of the appellant Ratan Singh had died while he was infant and he was looked after and fed by the mother of the deceased. According to this witness, the dispute in respect of land had led to the incident. In his cross-examination he has stated that the mother of the appellant Ratan Singh had died while he was infant and he was looked after and fed by the mother of the deceased. He has denied the suggestion that his statement was twice recorded, one at the Police Station and later on at the place of occurrence. In the cross-examination he has stated that he has disclosed the names of the deceased and the assailants at the Police Station. In the cross- examination he has further deposed that the wife of the deceased alongwith his younger son came to the village at about 2 P.M. 27. P.W. 10 Dr.Ashok Kumar Rai at the relevant time was posted as Civil Assistant Surgeon at Sadar Hospital, Begusarai and on 3,5.1994, he had conducted the postmortem examination and found the following ante- mortem injuries on his person : (i) Lacerated injury 1" x 3/4" with inverted margin and intra cranial cavity deep fracturing skull bone with charring of surrounding skin 2" x 1 1/2" found temporal area of right side skull, infront and above right ear. On dissection there is fracture of skull bone i.e. right temporal with blood and clots in intra cranial cavity and charring of basal part of brain and a buliet was lodged in medula of brain near margin, (ii) Lacerated injury 4 1/2" x 1" into skin deep on lower boarder of right side of mandible between angle of mandible and chin surrounding area of chin 3" x 2 1/2" charred, on dissection tissues are unaffected. (iii) Lacerated injuries 1"x1" on lower part of right side of neck going deep margin inverted, surrounding skin charred size 1/2" x 2". On dissection underlying tissues are bruised and lacerated with fracture of fifth survical vertebra and bullet is lodged in left side in the neck muscle i.e. level 5th and 6th survical vertebra. 28. In his opinion death had occurred on account of shock and haemorrhage due to the injuries sustained by the deceased. He further opined that injuries have been caused by fire arm and the time elapsed between the death and the examination is 6 to 24 hours. 29. 28. In his opinion death had occurred on account of shock and haemorrhage due to the injuries sustained by the deceased. He further opined that injuries have been caused by fire arm and the time elapsed between the death and the examination is 6 to 24 hours. 29. P.W. 11 Bisheshwar Nath Pandey, at the relevant time was posted as the Officer- in-charge of Birpur Police Station and he has stated in his evidence that on 3.5.1994 Ajay Kumar Singh, the informant, came and informed him that his uncle Satyanand Singh has been murdered by his another uncle Uma Shankar Singh, Vijay Singh, appellants Ratan Singh and Bhagwan Singh. He entered the said information in the station diary and proceeded to the place of occurrence and reached the village at 2 P.M., where he recorded the fard beyan of the informant which was read over to him and on being satisfied informant signed it. According to him, he sent fe fardbeyai to the Barauni Police Station.where a formal first information report was recorded by Sub-Inspector of Police of the said Police Station under Sec.302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act. He identified the writing and signature of the said Inspector of Police and had proved the same. He had also prepared the Inquest report and proved his writing and signature on that. During the course of investigation he had recorded the statement of the witnesses, visited the place of occurrence and found blood-stained earth at the place of occurrence, extracted the same and prepared the seizure memo. 30. In the cross-examination he denied the suggestion that the boundary was not broken on the southern side. He had admitted that the blood-stained earth was not sent for chemical examination nor he had prepared the sketch map of the place of occurrence. He had also admitted that empty cartridges were not found at the place of occurrence. In the cross-examination he had also stated that P.W. 3 Ramdeo Singh during the course of investigation had not stated that Vijay Singh fired at the deceased on his right temple but he stated that he shot at neck. He had also admitted that empty cartridges were not found at the place of occurrence. In the cross-examination he had also stated that P.W. 3 Ramdeo Singh during the course of investigation had not stated that Vijay Singh fired at the deceased on his right temple but he stated that he shot at neck. He had further stated that during the course of investigation this witness had not stated that the shot fired by appellant Ratan Singh caused injury to the deceased on the right temple, but had stated that same hit the right side of the neck. 31. The trial court on appreciation of evidence came to the conclusion that the evidence of the eye-witnesses are trust worthy and is corroborated by the evidence of the doctor, who had conducted the postmortem examination and also finds support from the evidence of the Investigating Officer. Accordingly it came to the conclusion that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt and convicted and sentenced the appellants as above. 32. Mr. Rana Pratap Singh, Senior Advocate, appears on behalf of the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.402 of 2000, whereas the appellant of Criminal Appeal No.338 of 2000 is represented by Mr.Akhileshwar Prasad Singh. 33. Main submissions have been made by Mr.Rana Pratap Singh on behalf of the appellant, which has been adopted by Mr.Akhileshwar Prasad Singh. Mr.Singh contends that in the absence of immediate cause or provocation for committing the crime, it has to be assumed that in fact the prosecution is not disclosing the truth. He submits that crime is committed as a consequence of some cause or provocation but no such cause or provocation exists in the case. 34. True it is that immediate cause for committing the crime has not been disclosed but it cannot be said that for commission of crime immediate cause is necessary. It has come in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that there was dispute between the deceased and Uma Shankar Singh in regard to land. Hence I am not inclined to reject the case of the prosecution on this ground. 35. Mr.Singh draws my attention to the first information report and contends that Sanjeev Singh and Dhananjay Prasad Singh, although, have been named as eye-witnesses to the occurrence in that but they have not been examined in the case. Hence I am not inclined to reject the case of the prosecution on this ground. 35. Mr.Singh draws my attention to the first information report and contends that Sanjeev Singh and Dhananjay Prasad Singh, although, have been named as eye-witnesses to the occurrence in that but they have not been examined in the case. He points out that Sanjeev Singh is none other than the brother of the informant, whereas Dhananjay Prasad Singh is the son of the deceased. According to him, they being closely related to the deceased and the informant and being eyewitnesses to the occurrence ought to have been examined, being material witnesses and their non-examination clearly goes to show that the prosecution intended not to bring the true facts before the Court. 36. Mr. Lala Kailash Bihari Prasad, Additional Public Prosecutor, however, appearing on behalf of the State submits that merely non-examination of the two witnesses named in the first information report itself shall* not create any doubt regarding the truthfulness of the case of the prosecution. 37. Having considered the submission, do not find any substance in the submission of Mr.Singh. In my opinion witnesses essential to the unfolding of the narrative on which the case of the prosecution is based must be examined by the prosecution. However, that does not mean that everyone who has witnessed the occurrence, whatever their number be, must be examined as a witness. The truthfulness or otherwise of the case of the prosecution is to be judged on the basis of the evidence on record and not what the witnesses, if examined would have deposed. The prosecution in the present case has examined altogether five eye-witnesses and merely on the ground that the aforesaid two witnesses have not been examined same will not lead to an inference that the prosecution case is not correct. Reference in this connection can be made to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Amar Singh vs. Balwinder Singh & ors. [2003(2) PLJR 10] in which it has been held as follows "17 The prosecution having examined three eye-witnesses, in our opinion, there was no necessity of multiplying the number of witnesses and no adverse inference could be drawn against the prosecution merely on the ground that Kashmira Singh or Pritam Singh were not examined. [2003(2) PLJR 10] in which it has been held as follows "17 The prosecution having examined three eye-witnesses, in our opinion, there was no necessity of multiplying the number of witnesses and no adverse inference could be drawn against the prosecution merely on the ground that Kashmira Singh or Pritam Singh were not examined. If the incident had not taken place as suggested by the prosecution but had happened in a different manner, there was no impediment in the way of the accused-respondents to examine the aforesaid persons as defence witnesses, but they did not choose to do so." 38. Mr.Singh then submits that same set of witnesses, subsequently in the trial of other accused persons, did not claim to be the eyewitnesses to the occurrence and in the background thereof it shall.be unsafe to rely on their evidence. This submission of Mr.Singh is absolutely misconceived. 39. It is well settled that truthfulness or otherwise of the case of the prosecution shall depend upon the evidence on the record of that case and not the evidence in any other case. Hence the truthfulness of the witnesses in this case cannot be judged on the basis of what these witnesses have stated in the trial of others. 40. Mr.Singh draws our attention to the evidence of P.W. 9 Ajay Kumar Singh, the informant of the case, to paragraph 1 of his examination-in-chief where he has stated that after the incident he rushed to the Police Station, gave information to the police and came alongwith the Sub-Inspector of Police at the place of incident as also his statement in paragraph 5 of his cross-examination where he has stated that he has disclosed the name of the assailants at the Police Station. He submits that, in fact, this is the earliest information given to the police about the occurrence and same ought to have been treated as a first information report but the same has not been brought on record with the obvious object of concealing the truth. 41. I do not find any substance in the submission of the learned Counsel. He submits that, in fact, this is the earliest information given to the police about the occurrence and same ought to have been treated as a first information report but the same has not been brought on record with the obvious object of concealing the truth. 41. I do not find any substance in the submission of the learned Counsel. The Investigating Officer of the case Visheshwar Nath Pandey (P.W.11) in his cross- examination has clearly stated that on the basis of the information given at the Police Station he did not register the case but proceeded to the place of occurrence to verify the facts and when reached at the village recorded the fard beyan of the informant. It is well settled that cryptic information in regard to an incident will not necessarily lead to the registration of the case. Here the Investigating Officer had clearly stated that he did not register the case on the basis of the information given to him at the Police Station but proceeded to verify the truth and in such circumstance it cannot be said that prosecution has not brought on record the said information to conceal the real truth. 42. Mr.Singh, contends that from the evidence of the informant (P.W. 9) it is evident that after appellant Ratan Singhs mother died he was looked after and fed by the mother of the deceased and hence it is unlikely that he would murder her son. 43. I do not have the slightest hesitation in rejecting this submission of Mr.Singh. There are cases and cases in which benefactors have been subjected to crime by the beneficiaries. All the eye-witnesses examined in the case have clearly stated that appellant Ratan Singh shot at the deceased causing injury to him and in the face of the same it is difficult to presume that he had not committed the crime because he was looked after and fed by the mother of the deceased after the death of his mother. 44. Mr.Singh contends that according to the prosecution itself land dispute existed between the deceased and Uma Shankar Singh and in face of it, deceased responding to the call of Uma Shankar Singh is absolutely unnatural. 45. I do not find any substance in the submission of the learned Counsel. 44. Mr.Singh contends that according to the prosecution itself land dispute existed between the deceased and Uma Shankar Singh and in face of it, deceased responding to the call of Uma Shankar Singh is absolutely unnatural. 45. I do not find any substance in the submission of the learned Counsel. Undisputedly Uma Shankar Singh is the full brother of the deceased and a brother responding to the call of the elder brother in the absence of any incident soon before it, in my opinion, cannot be said to be unnatural. All the eye-witnesses to the occurrence have clearly stated that appellant Ratan Singh came and informed to the deceased that he is being called by Uma Shankar Singh and he responded to that and went to the house of Uma Shankar Singh. The evidence of those witnesses are consistent and their evidence cannot be discarded only on the assumption that deceased would not had responded to the call in the face of the enmity between them. 46. Mr.Singh lastly contends that it is unlikely that assailants would choose their own house for commission of the crime. He points out that according to the prosecution itself the deceased was called by Uma Shankar Singh at his house and on his exhortation appellant Ratan Singh first shot at him and lastly appellant Bhagwan Singh. This according to Mr.Singh is absolutely unnatural. 47. I do not find any substance in the submission of the learned Counsel. Witnesses have consistently stated that in fact the deceased was called by Uma Shankar Singh and on his exhortation the appellants fired at him causing his death. In the face of it the case of the prosecution cannot be doubted on the supposition that the assailants would not had chosen their own house to commit the crime. 48. P.W. 1 Shivnandan Singh, P.W. 2 Deo Chandra Singh a Devendra Singh, P.W. 3 Ramdeo Singh, P.W. 8 Punit Mahto and P.W. 9 Ajay Kumar Singh are natural eye-witnesses to the occurrence. 48. P.W. 1 Shivnandan Singh, P.W. 2 Deo Chandra Singh a Devendra Singh, P.W. 3 Ramdeo Singh, P.W. 8 Punit Mahto and P.W. 9 Ajay Kumar Singh are natural eye-witnesses to the occurrence. They have consistently stated that when the deceased came and met the witnesses beneath the Banyan tree, appellant Ratan Singh came and informed the deceased that he has been called by his father, the brother of the deceased, to which he responded and when he reached there Uma Shankar Singh exhorted, whereupon appellant Ratan Singh took out pistol from his waist shot at the deceased which caused injury to him and after he fell down, appellant Bhagwan Singh also fired causing injury, leading to his death. The evidence of all these witnesses are consistent in all material particulars and is corroborated by the evidence of P.W.10 Dr.Ashok Kumar Rai, the doctor conducting the postmortem examination, who had found fire arm injuries on his person. The presence of blood-stained earth at the place of occurrence by the Investigating Officer also lends support to the case of the prosecution. I am of the opinion that the evidence of all these witnesses are trust worthy. Accordingly, I conclude that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. 49. In the result, I do not find any merit in both the appeals and are dismissed accordingly. Appellant Ratan Singh @ Ratnjay Singh is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled and he is directed to surrender to serve the remainder of the sentence.