Judgment C.K.Prasad and Abhijit Sinha JJ. 1. All the three appeals arise out of the judgment dated 20th of December, 2001 and order dated 21st of December, 2001 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Hilsa, Nalanda in Sessions Trial No. 510 of 1992. By the said judgment and order, Bigendra Singh @ Birendra Singh (sole appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 87 of 2002) and Madhesh Singh @ Madesh Singh (sole appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 32 of 2002) have been held guilty of offence under Sections 148 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and life respectively. Tunuk Singh, Shailendra Singh, Narendra @ Nagendra Singh and Sita Ram Singh (since dead), appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 8 of 2002 have been held guilty of offence under Sections 147 and 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and life respectively. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. All the appeals were heard together and, as such, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. 3. Prosecution started on the basis of the statement given by P.W. 10 Surendra Singh before the Officer-lncharge of Khudaganj Police Station on 10.11.1990 at 9 A.M. at Khanwat Khanda at village Chandrabatai within Police Station Khudaganj in the district of Nalanda. According to the informant, while his father Baleshwar Singh was getting his land bearing Chakbandi plot nos. 29 and 354 ploughed by his ploughman Jagdish Mochi (P.W. 3) on 10.10.1990 at 8 A.M. for getting mustard and wheat crop sowed, Shyam Kishore Singh (since dead), appellants Tunuk Singh, Madhesh Singh, Bigendra Singh, Shailendra Singh, Narendra Singh and Sitaram Singh (since dead) beside Rajesh Singh armed with lathis, sickle and guns suddenly came there, caught hold of his father and dragged him towards west of the land. Informant further alleged that Shyam Kishore Singh exhorted all the accused persons to push down his father on the ground and cut him by means of sickle. According to him, Baleshwar Singh was thereafter taken to a barren land, 200 yards west of their land which had paddy field all around belonging to Bishundhari Choudhary, where he was held by all the appellants and appellants Bigendra Singh and Madhesh Singh cut his left leg. According to him, Baleshwar Singh was thereafter taken to a barren land, 200 yards west of their land which had paddy field all around belonging to Bishundhari Choudhary, where he was held by all the appellants and appellants Bigendra Singh and Madhesh Singh cut his left leg. According to the informant, while he was going to the field taking the refreshment of his father and the ploughman, he saw the incident from ridge. It has also been alleged that when the appellants saw him seeing the incident, they chased him and thereupon he fled towards the village. The ploughman when he saw that informants father had been apprehended, he fled away from there. According to him, after the appellants had fled away, he alongwith other witnesses went to the place of occurrence and found the leg of his father cut below the knee and on account of profuse bleeding he died. According to the informant, they were in peaceful possession of Chak plot nos. 29 and 354 since 1971 in which Rabbi crop was being sown and the incident had taken place on account of dispute over Chak plot no. 29. In the first information report, informant had disclosed the names of Rajendra Singh (P.W. 6), Ram Bali Prasad (P.W. 2) and Niranjan Prasad (P.W. 4) to be the witnesses to the occurrence. 4. On the basis of the aforesaid report, Khudaganj P.S. Case No. 57 of 1990 was registered under Sec.302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Police after investigation submitted a charge sheet against the appellants and ultimately they were committed to the Court of Sessions to face the trial, where appellants Bigendra Singh and Madhesh Singh were charged for committing the offence of rioting armed with sickle punishable under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code and further charged for committing the murder intentionally of Baleshwar Singh punishable under Sec.302 of the Indian Penal Code. Other appellants, namely, Tunuk Singh, Shailendra Singh, Narendra @ Nagendra Singh and Sita Ram Singh (since dead) were charged for the offence of rioting punishable under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code and also for causing the murder of Baleshwar Singh as members of unlawful assembly in prosecution of their common object punishable under Sec.302/149 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. Appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. Prosecution in support of its case had altogether examined twelve witnesses. 5. Appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. Prosecution in support of its case had altogether examined twelve witnesses. Out of whom, P.W. 2 Ram Bali Prasad, P.W. 4 Niranjan Prasad and informant P.W. 10 Surendra Singh claim to be the eye-witnesses to the occurrence. P.W. 1 Binod Kumar is a witness to the seizure, whereas P.W. 5 Rajo Prasad and P.W. 7 Raja Ram Prasad are formal witnesses, who had identified the writing of the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, who had recorded the fard beyan and the then Officer-lncharge of the Police Station, who had drawn the formal first information report. P.W. 3 Jagdish Mochi, P.W. 6 Rajendra Singh and P.W. 9 Chinta Devi are not the witnesses of actual assault but have been examined to corroborate the case of the prosecution. P.W. 11 Dr. Ganesh Shankar Prasad Singh had conducted the post-mortem examination of the dead body of Baleshwar Singh, whereas P.W. 12 Ramdas Yadav is the Investigating Officer of the case. 7. The defence of the appellants is of innocence and false implication and from the trend of their cross-examination their defence further appear to be that the deceased was a member of the Communist Party of India and its members had committed murder in which the deceased also participated and on account thereof he has been murdered by the rival group. Their defence further appear to be that Baleshwar Singh was murdered at the early hours of the day and nobody had seen the occurrence and on account of land dispute the appellants have been falsely implicated in the case. Appellant Madhesh Singh and Sita Ram Singh (since dead) besides aforesaid had pleaded alibi. According to Madhesh Singh, he was a time-keeper at Jehanabad bus stand and in fact performed his duty from 4 A.M. to 12 and thereafter till 8 P.M. on 10.11.1990. Since appellant Sita Ram Singh is dead, we do not consider it expedient to refer to his specific defence. In order to substantiate the plea of alibi, appellant Madhesh Singh had examined D.W.1 Ram Janam Sharma, an employee of the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, who had proved the certificate (Ext-B) in regard to the attendance of this appellant. 8. Before we refer to the evidence of the witnesses, we consider it expedient to narrate the relationship between the parties. Raghunandan Singh and Chemru Singh were full brothers. 8. Before we refer to the evidence of the witnesses, we consider it expedient to narrate the relationship between the parties. Raghunandan Singh and Chemru Singh were full brothers. Raghunandan Singh had two sons, namely, Chandeshwar Singh and Baleshwar Singh, whereas Chamru Singhs son is Harihar Singh. Baleshwar Singh is the deceased in the case. Baleshwar Singhs son Surendra Singh (P.W. 10) is the informant of the case, whereas son of Chandeshwar Singh, namely, Rajendra Singh (P.W. 6), his daughter-in-law Chinta Devi (P.W. 9) and their son Niranjan Prasad (P.W. 4) are the witnesses to the occurrence. Harihar Singh had four sons, namely, Shyam Kumar Singh, Tunuk Singh, Madhesh Singh and Sita Ram Singh besides the three sons of Madhesh Singh, namely, Bijendra Singh, Shailendra Singh and Narendra Singh are accused in the case. 9. For the purpose of appreciation of evidence, we deem it expedient first to refer to the evidence of those witnesses, who claim to be the eye-witnesses to the occurrence and first amongst them is P.W. 2 Ram Bali Prasad. He has stated in his evidence that on the date of occurrence at about 8 A.M. while he was going to see his crop and reached near Khanwawat Khanda he saw Baleshwar Singh getting his field ploughed by ploughman P.W. 3 Jagdish Mochi. He saw the appellants Tunuk Singh, Shailendra Singh, Nagendra Singh, Sita Ram Singh (since deceased) coming there with guns, appellant Bijendra Singh with sickle and accused Rajesh Singh with lathi. According to this witness, all the appellants dragged Baleshwar Singh to the west to the field of Bishundhari Choudhary, where all of them pushed him down and appellant Madhesh Singh and Bijendra Singh started cutting his left leg below the knee. Informant Surendra Singh (P.W. 10) raised alarm from near the southern side of the ridge, whereupon appellants started chasing him. The deceased Baleshwar Singh was found dead with his left leg cut below knee. In the cross-examination he has stated that Saryug Yadav is his brother, who had filed case against appellant Tunuk Singh and deceased Baleshwar Singh in which they were acquitted. In paragraph 9 of the cross-examination he had given the height and width of the southern ridge to be approximately 5 to 6 feet and 3 feet respectively. In the cross-examination he has stated that Saryug Yadav is his brother, who had filed case against appellant Tunuk Singh and deceased Baleshwar Singh in which they were acquitted. In paragraph 9 of the cross-examination he had given the height and width of the southern ridge to be approximately 5 to 6 feet and 3 feet respectively. According to him Rajendra Yadav was cutting his paddy crop at a distance of 50 yards from the place where deceased Baleshwar Singh was getting his land ploughed. He has admitted in paragraph 11 of the cross- examination that for the land which the deceased was getting ploughed, deceased and Shyam Kishore had a case before the Consolidation authority. In the cross-examination he asserted that the deceased in fact was lifted by the appellants from his field and then taken to the land belonging to Bishundhari Choudhary. He had admitted that the accused did not fire from the gun nor the deceased was assaulted by sickle on any part of the body but insisted that only the leg was cut. In paragraph 23 of the corss-examination he had stated that Choukidar Kameshwar Paswan and Dafadar Ramdeo Singh had gone to the Police Station to give information and came alongwith the police. 10. P.W. 4 Niranjan Prasad is another witness, who claims to have seen the incident. He happens to be the son of P.W. 6 Rajendra Singh and P.W. 9 Chinta Devi. According, to him, on the date and time of occurrence, while he was returning to his village, he heard alarm coming from the northern direction, whereupon he ran towards that direction and when reached near the barren land of Bishundeo Choudhary he saw that the appellants had caught hold of the deceased and appellants Madhesh Singh and Bijendra Singh were cutting the left leg of deceased Baleshwar Singh from below the knee. On hulla, P.W. 10 Surendra Singh came there but he was also chased away by the appellants. According to him, his father Rajendra Singh (P.W. 6), Ram Bali Prasad (P.W. 2), his mother Chinta Devi (P.W. 9) and grand-father and grand-mother came to the place of occurrence and had seen the incident. He had further deposed that appellants Shailendra Singh and Nagendra Singh were armed with guns, whereas appellants Madhesh Singh and Bijendra Singh were armed with sickle. He had further deposed that appellants Shailendra Singh and Nagendra Singh were armed with guns, whereas appellants Madhesh Singh and Bijendra Singh were armed with sickle. When the witnesses collected, appellants fled away from the place of occurrence. Thereafter he went near Baleshwar Singh but found him dead and his left leg below knee had been cut. According to him, the incident had taken place because of the land dispute between the deceased Baleshwar Singh and appellant Tunuk Singh. In the cross-examination he had admitted that civil litigation is going on between them and the appellants for land appertaining to Chak no. 29. According to him, the distance of the field where the ploughing was going on is 200 yards whereas the distance of the land of Bishundhari Choudhary from the said land is 300 yards. He had also stated that ripe paddy-crop was standing around the field of Bishundhari Choudhary but the plants had fallen down. He had stated that the Sub-Inspector of Police had come to the village on 10.11.1990 and his statement was recorded on 11.11.1990. 11. Another eye-witness to the occurrence is informant of the case Surendra Singh, who happens to be the son of the deceased and has been examined as prosecution witness no.10. According to him, on the date and time of incident, he was carrying refreshment for his father and the ploughmen and when he reached near Khanawat Khanda, he saw the appellants armed with lathi, guns and sickle. At that time, his father Baleshwar Singh was getting the field ploughed by his ploughman Jagdish Mochi (P.W. 3), when all the appellants caught hold of him took him to the west in the barren field of Bishundhari Choudhary where Shyam Kishore Singh asked the appellants to throw him down to the ground and cut him with sickle. At this appellants Madhesh Singh and Bijendra Singh cut his left leg below the knee. He claims to have seen the incident from near the ridge. He was also chased by the appellants and while he was fleeing away he sprained his leg. On a large number of persons collecting, appellants fled away and when he went near his father he found him dead and his leg was cut. He claims to have seen the incident from near the ridge. He was also chased by the appellants and while he was fleeing away he sprained his leg. On a large number of persons collecting, appellants fled away and when he went near his father he found him dead and his leg was cut. According to him, he had land dispute with the appellants since 1971 and wheat and mustard were being sown in respect of part of such land in dispute. 12. In paragraph 10 of the cross-examination, he had stated that he had not gone to the Police Station to give information nor had asked any of his family members or the eyewitnesses to go to the Police Station to give the report. According to him, while he was making preparation to take the dead body of his father to the Police Station, police arrived at the place of incident. He had denied the suggestion that in the previous night of the. occurrence his father was killed by unknown assailants in the depth of night and in the morning on hulla his dead body was found lying in the field whereupon he sent the Choukidar to give information to the Police. He had stated that as his mother Sumitra Devi died on 13.11.1996 she could not be examined in the case. He had also denied the suggestion that his father, deceased Baleshwar Singh, was a supporter of Communist Party of India and had participated on its behalf in murder and he has been murdered on account of the rivalry in the preceding night. He had stated that civil suit filed by him was dismissed by the Court of Munsif. In paragraph 40 of the cross-examination, he had claimed to have shown Chak No. 29 and handed over the empty bags of wheat and mustard to the Investigating Officer. In the cross-examination, he had asserted that the land of Bishundhari Choudhary was at a distance of about 300 yards from the ridge and the occurrence was visible from there. He had also asserted in the cross-examination that he was near the ridge and saw the occurrence from there while hiding himself so that the appellants could not see him. In the cross-examination, he had asserted that the land of Bishundhari Choudhary was at a distance of about 300 yards from the ridge and the occurrence was visible from there. He had also asserted in the cross-examination that he was near the ridge and saw the occurrence from there while hiding himself so that the appellants could not see him. According to him at the first instance appellant Madhesh Singh started cutting the leg of his father but appellant Bijendra Singh asked him to leave and then he cut his left leg. He has admitted that none of the appellants had fired at him. He had asserted that copious blood was found at the place where his fathers dead body was lying. He denied the suggestion that appellant Madhesh Singh was at his place of duty on the date and time of occurrence. 13. Now we will consider the evidence of those witnesses, who have been examined to corroborate the case of the prosecution. P.W. 3 Jagdish Mochi is witness to the incident which had taken place before the murder and P.W. 6 Rajendra Singh and P.W. 9 Chinta Devi had seen the appellants fleeing away from the place of occurrence after the incident. 14. P.W. 3 Jagdish Mochi is the ploughman of the deceased and according to him on the date of incident he was ploughing the field of deceased Baleshwar Singh who was also present there. According to him, appellants Tunuk Singh, Shailendra Singh and Nagendra Singh besides Sita Ram Singh (since dead) came there armed with guns, whereas Shyam Kishore Singh and appellant Rajesh Singh with lathi and appellants Madhesh Singh and Bijendra Singh with sickle and all of them took the deceased Baleshwar Singh to the field of Bishundhari Choudhary where Shyam Kishore Singh exhorted to throw him down and cut him. Leaving the plough he fled away towards his house and on the way he saw Ram Bali Prasad (P.W. 2), Niranjan Prasad (P.W. 4) and Rajendra Singh (P.W. 6) coming there. He had also stated that near the ridge he found informant Surendra Singh going with refreshment for his father Blaeshwar Singh. He had also stated that Surendra Singh raised alarm and when he reached near his house he saw the wife and the daughter of the deceased coming but had no talk with them. He had also stated that near the ridge he found informant Surendra Singh going with refreshment for his father Blaeshwar Singh. He had also stated that Surendra Singh raised alarm and when he reached near his house he saw the wife and the daughter of the deceased coming but had no talk with them. In the cross-examination he has admitted that he had been a ploughman of the deceased Baleshwar Singh since past 15-16 years and was still working with the family. He had asserted that during the investigation he had named appellants Sita Ram Singh, Bijendra Singh, Shailendra Singh and Nagendra Singh before the Investigating Officer of the case. In paragraph 7 of the cross-examination he has admitted that later on he learnt that Baleshwar Singh had been murdered by cutting of his leg. He had denied the suggestion that the land which was being ploughed by him had always been in the possession of accused Shyam Kishore Singh. He had reiterated that no cutting mark was found on the body of deceased Baleshwar Singh and in fact he was pushed by the appellants. 15. According to P.W. 6 Rajendra Singh, while he was at his residence, on hearing hulla he went to Khanawat Khanda and saw appellants Madhesh Singh and Birendra Singh armed with sickle, accused Shyam Kishore Singh and Rajesh Singh armed with lathi, appellants Sita Ram Singh (Since dead), Nagendra Singh, Shailendra Singh and Tunuk Singh armed with guns fleeing towards the south. According to him, when he went to the barren land of Bishundhari Choudhary ne found Baleshwar Singh dead and his left leg was cut. He also found copious blood there and learnt that appellant Madhesh Singh and Birendra Singh had cut the leg of the deceased by sickle. In paragraph 6 of the cross-examination, he had stated that after hulla P.W. 4 Niranjan Prasad, P.W. 3 Jagdish Mochi and P.W. 10 Surendra Singh beside other persons had come there and he disclosed to them the names of the assailants. 16. P.W. 9 Chinta Devi is another witness, who has been examined to corroborate the case of the prosecution. According to her, on the date of incident while she was at her house, she heard hulla that Baleshwar Singh has been killed, whereupon she went towards the field and saw the appellants variously armed fleeing away from there. 16. P.W. 9 Chinta Devi is another witness, who has been examined to corroborate the case of the prosecution. According to her, on the date of incident while she was at her house, she heard hulla that Baleshwar Singh has been killed, whereupon she went towards the field and saw the appellants variously armed fleeing away from there. According to her, some of them were armed with lathi and some with guns and appellant Shailendra Singh had sickle in his hand. According to her, she went to the field and found Baleshwar Singh dead and his left leg was cut and copious blood present there. She has admitted that her father-in-law Chandeshwar Singh and the deceased Baleshwar Singh are own brothers. In paragraph 10 of the cross-examination she had stated that when she heard alarm that Baleshwar Singh has been killed, his two sons, younger daughter-in-law and wife were in the house besides her husband and children. According to her, the wife of the deceased and other persons reached at the place of occurrence together. She had denied the suggestion that the deceased was killed early in the morning by unknown assailants and when his dead body was seen in the morning, alarm was raised and the appellants have been falsely implicated in the case. 17. P.W.11 Dr. Ganesh Shankar Prasad Singh, at the relevant time, was posted as Medical Officer at Sadar Hospital, Bihar Sharif and on 10.11.1990 at 4.10 P.M. he conducted the postmortem examination of the dead body of Baleshwar Singh. He found rigor mortis present in all four limbs and neck of the deceased. He found following ante-mortem injuries on his person : One incised wound 1" below left knee joint and 6" x 2 1/2" x bone deep incircling from lateral side of joint, popliteus fossa to medial side of joint. Upper part of tibia cut in full thickness. Knee joint separated from medial side. Vessels and nerves of popliteus cut. 18. In the opinion of the doctor, death had occurred within 12 hours from the time of examination due to shock and haemorrhage, as a result of injuries found on the person of the deceased. According to him, the injuries have been caused by sharp cutting weapon like sickle (Fasuli). 19. P.W. 12 Ramdas Yadav is the Investigating Officer of the case. According to him, the injuries have been caused by sharp cutting weapon like sickle (Fasuli). 19. P.W. 12 Ramdas Yadav is the Investigating Officer of the case. He had stated that the fard beyan of P.W. 10 Surendra Singh was recorded by Sub-Inspector of Police Bhola Singh which contains his signature. During investigation he saw the dead body of deceased Baleshwar Singh at the place of occurrence, prepared the Inquest report, which was written by Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police Kanhaiya Singh and proved the fard beyan as also Inquest report. He had seized blood stained earth from the place of occurrence, recorded the statement of the witnesses and submitted the charge sheet. He had specifically stated that chak no. 354 and chak no. 29 are adjoining lands. In paragraph 13 of the cross-examinatioji he had stated that P.W. 3 Jagdish Mochi had not specifically stated that Sita Ram Singh, appellants Shailendra Singh and Nagendra Singh were armed with gun. He had also not separately stated that appellants Madhesh Singh and Bigendra Singh were armed with sickle. 20. D.W. 1 Ram Janam Sharma was, at the relevant time, an employee of the State Road Transport Corporation posted at Jehanabad and had proved the attendance register. He has stated that at page 4 column 3 at Serial no. 10 the presence of appellant Madhesh Prasad has been shown on 10.11.1990. He had also stated that attendance-register bears the signature of this appellant. He had specifically stated that the certificate was given only on the basis of the entry in the attendance register. 21. The learned Judge on appraisal of evidence came to the conclusion that prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt and accordingly convicted and sentenced the appellants as above. 22. Mr. Kanhaiya Prasad Singh, Senior Advocate, appears on behalf of the appellants in all these appeals, whereas State is represented by Mr. Lala Kailash Bihari Prasad, Additional Public Prosecutor. Informant is represented by Mr. Arun Kumar Arun. 23. Mr. Singh contends that according to the prosecution itself, four of the accused persons were armed with guns whereas two each were armed with sickle and lathi and hence there was no occasion for them to drag the deceased in another field and kill him and that too by sickle. He points out that nothing prevented them from using the fire arm to kill the deceased. He points out that nothing prevented them from using the fire arm to kill the deceased. In this connection, our attention has been drawn to the evidence of the prosecution witnesses particularly evidence of P.W.2 Ram Bali Prasad, in paragraph 19 of his cross-examination, where he has clearly stated that nobody used the gun. 24. Mr. Prasad contends that merely the fact that the appellants did not use the guns by itself does not create any doubt to the case of the prosecution. 25. Having considered the rival submission, we do not find any substance in the submission of Mr. Singh. Why the appellants did not use guns and chose to use sickle to commit the crime cannot be explained by the prosecution. In case the evidence of the witnesses are trust-worthy and the case of the prosecution is believed that the appellants had used sickle, its case cannot be thrown out only on the ground that the appellants did not use guns to achieve their object. 26. Mr. Singh, then contends that according to the prosecution witnesses themselves, the ploughing and sowing were going on from three days before the occurrence and there being no immediate cause to commit the murder, the prosecution story deserves to be rejected on this ground alone. 27. We do not have the slightest hesitation in rejecting this submission of Mr. Singh. True it is that the prosecution witnesses have deposed that ploughing and sowing were going on from three days earlier. In case the appellants had chosen that day to commit the murder the prosecution story cannot be rejected on the ground that they did not commit the crime earlier. 28. Mr. Singh, then submits that from the evidence of P.W. 6 Rajendra Singh and P.W. 9 Chinta Devi, the claim made by P.W. 4 Niranjan Prasad and P.W. 10 Surendra Singh to be eye-witnesses to the occurrence are falsified. In this connection our attention has been drawn to the evidence of P.W. 6 Rajendra Singh in paragraph 6 of his cross-examination, wherein he had stated that after he raised alarm P.W. 4 Niranjan Prasad, P.W. 3 Jagdish Mochi and P.W. 10 Surendra Singh besides other persons reached there and he disclosed to them the names of the assailants who had fled away from there. Our attention has also been drawn to the evidence of P.W.9 Chinta Devi in paragraph 10 of her cross-examination where she had stated that when she heard the news of murder of Baleshwar Singh, his two sons, younger daughter-in-law and her husband and children were in the house. 29. Mr. Prasad, however, contends that these minor contradiction in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses do not go to the root of the matter and in case the evidence of P.W. 3 Jagdish Mochi, P.W. 4 Niranjan Prasad, P.W. 6 Rajendra Singh and P.W. 10 Surendra Singh are otherwise fit to be believed, their evidence cannot be discarded only on the ground of the aforesaid minor contradictions. 30. We find substance in the submission of Mr. Prasad. All the prosecution witnesses have clearly stated that Jagdish Mochi, who was a ploughman of the deceased, was ploughing the field. P.W. 4 Niranjan Prasad and P.W. 10 Surendra Singh claim to be the eye-witnesses to the occurrence. It is worth mentioning that neither P.W. 6 Rajendra Singh nor P.W. 9 Chinta Devi claim to be the eyewitnesses to the occurrence but had come to the place of occurrence after the incident had taken place and seen these appellants fleeing away from there. Hence we are of the opinion that the case of the prosecution is not fit to be discarded on the basis of the aforesaid minor contradiction. 31. Mr. Singh, then submits that the conduct of the informant Surendra Singh (P.W. 10) in not asking his relatives or the eyewitnesses to inform the police clearly goes to show that in fact he did not know about the occurrence at all and his claim to have seen the occurrence taking place is false. 32. Mr. Prasad points out that the occurrence had taken place at about 8 A.M. and the police had reached the village and recorded the statement of the informant at 9 A.M. and as such conduct of the informant in not asking anybody to go to the Police Station and inform about the incident cannot be looked upon with suspicion. In fact he has drawn our attention to the evidence of the informant, wherein he has clearly stated that while he was making preparation to take the dead body to the Police Station, police came. 33. In fact he has drawn our attention to the evidence of the informant, wherein he has clearly stated that while he was making preparation to take the dead body to the Police Station, police came. 33. We do not find the conduct of the informant P.W. 10 Surendra Singh in not asking his family members or for that matter the eye-witnesses to inform the police to be any way suspicious, so as to discard his evidence. As rightly pointed out by Mr. Prasad, occurrence had taken place at 8 Oclock and the police had come to the village at 9 Oclock and recorded the statement of the informant. Hence the case of the prosecution is not fit to be discarded on this ground urged by Mr. Singh. 34. Mr. Singh draws our attention to the evidence of the Investigating Officer P.W. 12 in paragraph 5 of .the cross-examination, wherein he has stated that he received information about tension in the village and entered the same in the station-diary at 8.05 A.M. on 10.11.1990. He points out that distance of the place of occurrence from the Police Station is 10 kilometers and further it has come in the evidence of the Investigating Officer that three furlong of the distance has to be covered on foot. According to the Investigating Officer, he reached the village and recorded the statement of the informant at 9 A.M. and thus travelled this distance within an hour. He submits that it is impossible for the Investigating Officer to travel this distance within such a short time and it seems that first information report is ante-timed. 35. Mr. Prasad points out that nothing has been suggested to the Investigating Officer in this regard. He submits that a distance of 10 kilometers can very well be covered in one hour. 36. We do not find any substance in the submission of Mr. Singh. The distance between the place of occurrence and the Police Station is 10 kilometers and we cannot assume that such a distance cannot be covered in one hour in the absence of any material to the contrary. 37. Mr. 36. We do not find any substance in the submission of Mr. Singh. The distance between the place of occurrence and the Police Station is 10 kilometers and we cannot assume that such a distance cannot be covered in one hour in the absence of any material to the contrary. 37. Mr. Singh, submits that according to the prosecution, the Choukidar and the Dafadar had gone to the Police Station and in fact came alongwith them and from that it has to be assumed that they must have given information to the police about the occurrence but this important information has been withheld from the Court. He points out that the whole attempt of the prosecution in concealing that information is to withhold the truth from the Court. 38. We do not find any substance in the submission of Mr. Singh. The Investigating Officer had clearly stated that it received information about tension in the village and after entering the same in the station diary proceeded to the village. In such circumstance it cannot be said that the Choukidar and the Dafadar had given the details of the occurrence, which the prosecution had not brought on record. 39. Mr. Singh, submits that the dafadar and the Choukidar have not been examined and hence adverse inference be drawn. We do not have the slightest hesitation in rejecting this submission of Mr. Singh. It is nobodys case that the Dafadar and the Choukidar were in fact the eye-witnesses to the occurrence. It is trite that the case of the prosecution does not depend upon the number of the witnesses examined but its quality. Dafadar and Choukidar were not the eye-witnesses to the occurrence, hence no adverse inference can be drawn for their non-examination. 40. To put the record straight, Mr. Singh had also contended that the appellants had chosen a non-vital part of the body to achieve their object and had their intention been to kill, nothing prevented them to cause injury on the vital part of the body. 41. We do not find any substance in this submission of the learned Counsel. It is well settled that it is not within the knowledge of the prosecution as to what is lodged in the mind of the assailants. May be the appellants in order to achieve their object chose to cut the leg of the deceased. 41. We do not find any substance in this submission of the learned Counsel. It is well settled that it is not within the knowledge of the prosecution as to what is lodged in the mind of the assailants. May be the appellants in order to achieve their object chose to cut the leg of the deceased. We are of the opinion that the prosecution story cannot be doubted only on the ground that the appellants did not chose the vital part of the body to commit the murder. 42. Mr. Singh, submits that the informant happens to be the son of the deceased but had not made any attempt to save his father, which is absolutely unnatural and this creates serious doubt to the case of the prosecution. In this connection our attention has been drawn to the evidence of P.W. 10 Surendra Singh in paragraph 44 of his cross-examination wherein he has stated that at the time when his father was being killed he did not go to the field of Bishundhari Choudhary. 43. We do not find any substance in the submission of Mr. Singh. According to the prosecution appellants were variously armed and in fact chased the informant and in this background the conduct of the informant in not attempting to save his father cannot be said to be unnatural. 44. Mr. Singh, submits that according to the informant P.W. 10 Surendra Singh, he had seen the occurrence from ridge at a distance of 300 yards which claim is too tall to be given credence by a Court of law. He also points out that the claim made by the informant to be an eye-witness to the occurrence is falsfiled from his own admission that he had concealed himself behind the ridge. 45. We do not find any substance in the submission of Mr. Singh. P.W. 10 Surendra Singh had specifically stated that while concealing him near the ridge, he had seen the occurrence. In paragraph 44 of the cross-examination he had stated that he was at the top of the ridge and not at the bottom and was seeing the occurrence from there. In our opinion, this witness stand that he had seen the occurrence concealing himself near the ridge cannot be construed to mean that he closed his eyes and had not seen the occurrence. 46. Mr. In our opinion, this witness stand that he had seen the occurrence concealing himself near the ridge cannot be construed to mean that he closed his eyes and had not seen the occurrence. 46. Mr. Singh has drawn our attention to the suggestion made to the prosecution witnesses that in fact the occurrence had taken place in the night and in the face of admitted enmity, possibility of the appellants being falsely implicated in the case cannot be ruled out. As is well settled, enmity is a double edged sword which may occasion false implication but at the same time furnishes cause for the commission of the crime also. In our opinion, on account of enmity the contention of the appellants that they have been falsely implicated in the case is not fit to be accepted. 47. Mr. Singh submits that according to the prosecution, the appellants chased the informant and hence there was no reason to spare him. We do not find any substance in the submission of the learned Counsel. When the informant was being chased by the appellants, he fled away from there and escaped the assault. Otherwise also simply because the informant was not assaulted by the appellants, the prosecution story cannot be doubted on that account alone. 48. Mr. Singh submits that according to the informant, empty bags of mustard and wheat-seeds were handed over to the Investigating Officer, but the Investigating Officer had denied that and this creates doubt to the case of the prosecution. We do not have the slightest hesitation in rejecting this submission of Mr. Singh. Mere non-production of the bags does not in any way affect the credibility of the case of the prosecution. So is the statement of the Investigating Officer when he said that he did not see seeds being sown in the field. 49. Occurrence had taken place at 8 A.M. and the report of the occurrence was given at 9 A.M. This prompt reporting of the incident to the police lends support to the case of the prosecution. Not only this P.W. 2 Ram Bali Prasad, P.W. 4 Niranjan Prasad and P.W. 6 Rajendra Singh have been named in the first information report and this gives assurance to their claim of being eye-witnesses to the occurrence. Not only this P.W. 2 Ram Bali Prasad, P.W. 4 Niranjan Prasad and P.W. 6 Rajendra Singh have been named in the first information report and this gives assurance to their claim of being eye-witnesses to the occurrence. P.W. 2 Ram Bali Prasad, P.W. 4 Niranjan Prasad and P.W. 10 Surendra Singh are consistent in their evidence that while the deceased was getting the field ploughed by his ploughman Jagdish Mochi, all the appellants came, lifted him, took him to the field of Bishundhari Choudhary where his leg was cut by Bigendra Singh and Madhesh Singh. P.W. 3 Jagdish Mochi, although had not seen the actual assault, but had clearly stated that he was ploughing the field in presence of the deceased when the appellants came variously armed and lifted him. P.W. 6 Rajendra Singh and P.W. 9 Chinta Devi had arrived at the place of occurrence immediately after the incident and had seen the appellants fleeing away from there. Thus the case as unfolded by the eye-witnesses have been corroborated by the evidence of P.W. 3 Jagdish Mochi, P.W. 6 Rajendra Singh and P.W. 9 Chinta Devi. Same is also corroborated by the evidence of P.W. 11 Dr. Gauri Shankar Prasad Singh, who during the course of autopsy found injuries as disclosed by the eye-witnesses. The objective finding of the Investigating Officer Ramdas Yadav also lends support to the case of the prosecution. 50. As stated earlier one of the pleas of appellant Madhesh Singh is the plea of alibi. D.W. 1 Ram Janam Sharma, an employee of the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, has proved the attendance register and from that it appears that he signed the attendance register on 10.11.1990 and his duty hours was from 4 Oclock to 12 Oclock. It is well settled that the plea of alibi has to be proved by the accused who pleads it and for that he has to establish that his presence at the place of occurrence at the time when the incident had taken place is a physical impossibility. This has to be proved with absolute certainty. It is well settled that the plea of alibi has to be proved by the accused who pleads it and for that he has to establish that his presence at the place of occurrence at the time when the incident had taken place is a physical impossibility. This has to be proved with absolute certainty. We are of the opinion that merely signing the attendance register itself does not rule out the possibility of this appellant being present at the place of occurrence with certainty, in the face of the evidence of all the eye-witrfesses and the witnesses, who have been examined to corroborate the case of the prosecution that in fact this appellant had a role in commission of crime. In the face of it, we are not inclined to accept the plea of a/to/of this appellant. 51. From the discussions aforesaid, it is evident that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt and the learned Judge did not commit any error in convicting the appellants. 52. In the result, we do not find any merit in all these appeals and they are dismissed accordingly. Appellants Tunuk Singh, Shailendra Singh, Narendra @ Nagendra Singh and Madhesh Singh @ Madesh Singh are on bail. Their respective bail bonds are cancelled and they are directed to surrender in the Court below and serve out the sentence.