Judgment C.K.Prasad and Abhijit Sinha JJ. 1. All the three appeals arise out of the same judgment and as such they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Out of the five persons put on trial, the three appellants herein were found guilty of offence under Sec. 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life by judgment and order dated 24.6.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 2nd, Kaimur at Bhabua in Sessions Trial No. 179 Of 2001/1 of 2002. 3. The case of the prosecution according to the first information report, lodged by P.W. 9 Satyendra Kumar Singh, before the Sub-Inspector of Bhabua Police Station on 11.12.1999 at 7 P.M. at the field of deceased Sheo Prasad Singh at village Dujedihra, is that while he was returning alongwith P.W. 8 Sushila Singh on a motorcycle from village Karma after hiring a harvester and reached the road passing adjoining to village Dujedihra Siwan found the Commander jeep of Sheo Prasad Singh parked and from a distance of 50 yards saw him coming towards the road. At that time, his field was being ploughed by the tractor-driver and two labourers were also present. He saw the two appellants Om Prakash Pandey and Munna Choubey hidden in the barren land south to the place where the jeep was parked armed with countrymade pistol. After crossing the road the aforesaid two appellants ran towards Sheo Prasad Singh and fired one shot each at him. Sheo Prasad Singh got injured and fell down in his field. The aforesaid two appellants then went near him and again fired one shot each, which hit him. 4. In the meanwhile, according to the prosecution, the three accused persons armed with rifles and guns came running there, out of whom, he identified appellant Umakant Upadhayay armed with rifle, who fired at Sheo Prasad Singh while fallen on the ground and patted the other two appellants. According to the informant, the two unidentified accused declared Sheo Prasad Singh dead. Thereafter two other accused persons armed with countrymade pistols came near other accused persons and one of them shot at Sheo Prasad Singh. They also declared him dead. All the accused including the appellants, according to the informant, embraced each other and shook hand and left the place of occurrence. Thereafter two other accused persons armed with countrymade pistols came near other accused persons and one of them shot at Sheo Prasad Singh. They also declared him dead. All the accused including the appellants, according to the informant, embraced each other and shook hand and left the place of occurrence. According to the informant, occurrence had taken place as the brother of the appellant Om Prakash Pandey was murdered at Baba jee ke pokhra at village Akhlas and for that a false case was lodged by appellant Umakant Upadhayay. It has further been stated that deceased had also lodged a case against appellant Umakant Upadhayay in relation to the said murder. The other cause disclosed in the first information report for commission of the murder was that the deceased Sheo Prasad Singh was an active leader of the Rashtriya Janta Dal and a prospective candidate for the Vidhan Sabha in the ensuing election and on account of political rivalry he had been killed. In the first information report, the informant disclosed that Sushila Singh (P.W. 8), the tractor driver and the two labourers had seen the occurrence. 5. On the basis of the aforesaid information, Bhabua P.S. case No. 317 of 1999 was registered under Sec. 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act. Police after investigation submitted a charge sheet against the three appellants herein besides Jai Shankar @ Ghurlet Dubey and Guddu Dubey @ Pankaj Dubey (since acquitted) under Sec. 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act and they were ultimately committed to the Court of Sessions. After the charges were framed, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. Prosecution in support of its case had altogether examined seventeen witnesses, out of whom. P.W. 3 Tripurari Singh, P.W. 5 Radhey Singh and P.W. 7 Fenku Singh beside the informant Satyendra Kumar Singh (P.W. 9) claim to be the eye-witnesses to the occurrence. P.W. 1 Govind Singh, P.W. 2 Awadhesh Kumar Singh, P.W. 4 Ramji Singh, P.W. 6 Vishwa Mohan @ Chhotey and P.W. 16 Dr. Pramod Kumar Singh are hearsay witnesses, who had stated that on their arrival at the place of occurrence the eyewitnesses disclosed the names of the appellants. P.W. 8 Sushila Singh has been declared hostile. P.W. 10 Sardar Yadav, P.W. 12 Ram Sakhi Paswan. Pramod Kumar Singh are hearsay witnesses, who had stated that on their arrival at the place of occurrence the eyewitnesses disclosed the names of the appellants. P.W. 8 Sushila Singh has been declared hostile. P.W. 10 Sardar Yadav, P.W. 12 Ram Sakhi Paswan. P.W. 15 Ramakant Tiwari and P.W. 17 Ramdhani Ram are formal witnesses. P.W. 13 Ajit Kumar Rai is the Investigating Officer of the case, whereas P.W. 14 Dr. Kapildeo Sinha had conducted the autopsy on the dead body of the deceased. 7. The defence of the appellants is that no occurrence as alleged had taken place and it was on account of previous enmity that they have been falsely implicated in the case. From the trend of the cross-examination, their defence further appear to be that the deceased Sheo Prasad Singh was a big landlord and he alongwith his agnates possessed large areas of land at village Dujedihra and the extremist group operating in the district wanted to forcibly grab their land and it seems that the deceased was killed by said group. Besides the aforesaid, these appellants had taken the plea of alibi. According to the appellant Om Prakash Pandey, he is a homeophathic practitioner at Bhabua and registered with Bihar Board of Homeopathic Medicine and on the date of occurrence he was at hib clinic at Bhabua attending to his patients. In support of his plea of alibi, he had examined D.W. 3 Sushil Kumar, D.W. 4 Birendra Kumar Tiwari, D.W. 5 Mohan Sah, D.W. 6 Md. Saif Ali, D.W. 7 Samihyat AN and D.W. 8 Santosh Tiwary. According to appellant Munna Choubey, on the date of occurrence a Yagnya was being performed in the village and he was busy in his activity. The plea of appellant Umakant Upadhayay is that on 11.12.1999 he was working as teacher in Brilliant Study Circle and Computer Centre at Varanasi and hence it was impossible for him to commit the crime. In order to substantiate the same, he had brought on record the attendance register of the said Centre which shows that he had taken classes at the centre from 11.30 A.M. to 5.30 P.M. 8. The court below on appraisal of evidence found the plea of alibi oi the appellants unworthy of reliance and holding that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts convicted and sentenced the appellants as above. 9. The court below on appraisal of evidence found the plea of alibi oi the appellants unworthy of reliance and holding that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts convicted and sentenced the appellants as above. 9. At the outset, we shall refer to the evidence of the eye-witnesses. P.W. 3 Tripurari Singh is the tractor driver and according to him on the date of incident at 5 P.M. he was ploughing the field situated at the boundary of village Dujedihra of the deceased Sheo Prasad Singh by the tractor. At that time, two other persons, namely, Radhey Singh (P.W. 5) and Fenku Singh (P.W. 7) were sowing seeds. Sheo Prasad Singh, the Pramukh, came there on his jeep and parked the same near Kali Asthan and asked them to level the seed sown area. After giving those instructions while he was returning towards his jeep, two persons, namely, P.W. 8 Sushila Singh and informant P.W. 9 Satyendra Kumar Singh came on a motorcycle and parked the same near the jeep. At that time, the two appellants, namely, Om Prakash Pandey and Munna Choubey came running towards Sheo Prasad Singh and both of them fired at him. Sheo Prasad Singh ran towards them but fell down where the two appellants aforesaid came and fired at him. There the three persons, two armed with guns and one armed with rifle which included appellant Umakant Upadhayay, came and Umakant Upadhayay fired at the deceased. The two accused persons also came from the northeast direction and one of them, namely, Onkar Pandey (since acquitted) fired at the deceased. According to this witness when he and others tried to proceed towards the deceased, accused persons started firing and thereafter they fled towards the tractor and concealed themselves. The two labourers, namely, Rahdey Singh and Fenku Singh fled towards village Dujedihra. All the accused persons including the appellants shook hands and declaring Sheo Prasad Singh dead fled away from there. 10. Thereafter he alongwith other witnesses went near the place where Sheo Prasad Singh had fallen down and found him dead. He started weeping and became unconscious and regained his senses only after 2 to 2 1/2 hours. All the accused persons including the appellants shook hands and declaring Sheo Prasad Singh dead fled away from there. 10. Thereafter he alongwith other witnesses went near the place where Sheo Prasad Singh had fallen down and found him dead. He started weeping and became unconscious and regained his senses only after 2 to 2 1/2 hours. In the cross-examiriation, he has admitted that he had not gone to Solhan Police Station to give information nor he had asked the two labourers, namely, P.W. 5 Radhey Singh and P.W. 7 Fenku Singh to go to the Police Station to lodge the report. 11. He had denied the suggestion that the deceased had gone to jail in connection with the case which had taken place at Baba jee ka pokhra at village Akhlas. 12. In paragraph 24 of the cross-examination he has stated that the firing was resorted to from a distance of 10-12 yards and he was at a distance of 20-25 yards. He apprehended danger to his life and hid himself alongwith P.W. 5 Radhey Singh and P.W. 7 Fenku Singh. 13. P.W.5 Radhey Singh is another eyewitness to the occurrence. According to him, on the date of incident he was sowing seeds in the field of the deceased Sheo Prasad Singh situated at the boundary of village Dujedihra alongwith P.W. 7 Fenku Singh. P.W. 3 Tripurari Singh was ploughing the field. Sheo Prasad Singh came on a jeep and asked them to return to the Chhawni, after sowing the seeds. Sheo Prasad Singh then proceeded towards his jeep, in the meanwhile Sushila Singh (P.W. 8) and Satyendra Kumar Singh (P,W. 9) came on a motorcycle, parked the same by the side of the jeep. While his master Sheo Prasad Singh was going towards the jeep, appellants Om Prakash Pandey and Munna Choubey came and fired from countrymade pistols at him. His master fell down at some distance and then they again fired. In the meanwhile three accused persons came from the southern direction, out of whom two were armed with guns and one with rifle, namely, appellant Umakant Upadhayay, who fired at his master. In the meanwhile two persons armed with countrymade pistols came from northern direction, out of whom this witness identified Onkar Pandey (since acquitted) and he shot at his master. In the meanwhile two persons armed with countrymade pistols came from northern direction, out of whom this witness identified Onkar Pandey (since acquitted) and he shot at his master. All the accused persons touched the body of the deceased and declared that he is dead. The witnesses raised the alarm but accused persons resorted to firing and at this he alongwith P.W.7 Fenku Singh fled towards the village and hid themselves. All the accused persons embraced and patted each other and fled towards the southern direction. 14. According to him, after the crowd had assembled, he came to the place of occurrence after two hours and found his master dead and P.W. 3 Tripurari Singh found lying there in an unconscious state. While he was near the dead body of the deceased, P.W. 1 Govind Singh, P.W. 4 Ramji Singh and P.W. 16 Dr. Pramod Kumar Singh, the son of the deceased, came and he disclosed the names of the assailants to them. 15. In paragraph 8 of the cross-examination, he had stated that the number of shots fired hit his master i.e. deceased. In the cross-examination he has admitted that the occurrence had taken place within the jurisdiction of Sonhan Police Station. He has reiterated that during the course of investigation he had disclosed that he came to the place of occurrence two hours after the incident and found P.W. 3 unconscious. He has admitted that he was engaged by Sheo Prasad Singh and 100 Mounds of various kinds of grains is given to him as wages. He has further admitted that the witnesses Sushila Singh (P.W. 8), Satyendra Kumar Singh (P.W. 9), Tripurari Singh (P.W. 3), Awadhesh Kumar Singh (P.W. 2), Vishwamohan @ Chhotey (P.W. 6) belong to his caste and the deceased also belong to that caste and crown of his community. In paragraph 10 of the cross-examination he has admitted that in relation to the incident which had taken place at Babajii ka pokhra the deceased was taken into custody. 16. P.W. 7 Fenku Singh is another eyewitness and has admitted that the deceased was his Master and he worked as his labourer. According to him. In paragraph 10 of the cross-examination he has admitted that in relation to the incident which had taken place at Babajii ka pokhra the deceased was taken into custody. 16. P.W. 7 Fenku Singh is another eyewitness and has admitted that the deceased was his Master and he worked as his labourer. According to him. on the date and time of incident, he alongwith P.W. 5 Radhey Singh was sowing seeds in the field of Sheo Prasad Singh, the Pramukh, situated at the boundary of village Dujedihra, when his Master came on a jeep from the Chhawni parked it near Kali Mai Asthan, and instructed them to return to the Chhawni, after sowing the seeds. He, thereafter left the place and in the meanwhile P.W. 8 Sushila Singh and P.W. 9 Satyendra Kumar Singh came on a motorcycle. Appellants Om Prakash Pandey and Munna Choubey came from the western direction armed with countrymade pistol and started chasing his Master, who ran towards north. The aforesaid two appellants fired at his Master, who ran for safety but fell down in the field at some distance. Thereafter the appellants aforesaid again fired at his Master. In the meanwhile, three accused persons, out of whom two were armed with guns and one with rifle, namely, Umakant Upadhayay came and he fired at his master from the rifle. Thereafter from north-east direction two persons which included Onkar Pandey (since acquitted) fired at his master and after touching his body declared him dead. On the alarm being raised, the accused persons resorted to firing and he alongwith Radhey Singh (P.W. 5) fled away towards village Dujedihra. After crowd had collected at the place of occurrence, according to this witness, he came there and found that the statement of P.W. 9 Satyendra Kumar Singh was being recorded and tractor driver Tripurari Singh (P.W. 3) was lying there in unconscious condition. According to him. P.W. 1 Govind Singh, P.W. 2 Awadhesh Kumar Singh, P.W. 4 Ramji Singh, P.W. 6 Bishwamohan @ Chhotey and P.W. 16 Dr. Pramod Kumar Singh were present there, to whom he disclosed about the incident and narrated the names of the assailants. In paragraph 31 of the cross-examination he had stated that shot was fired by two persons at the first instance and thereafter his master fled towards north and fell down in the field at a distance of 10-15 steps. 17. Pramod Kumar Singh were present there, to whom he disclosed about the incident and narrated the names of the assailants. In paragraph 31 of the cross-examination he had stated that shot was fired by two persons at the first instance and thereafter his master fled towards north and fell down in the field at a distance of 10-15 steps. 17. P.W.9 Satyendra Kumar Singh is the informant of the case and claims to be an eye-witness to the occurrence. According to him, on the date and time of incident, he was returning from village Karma after hiring a harvester on a motorcycle alongwith P.W. 8 Sushila Singh and reached at Kalimai ka Chaura situated at the boundary of Dujedihra village, saw the jeep of Sheo Prasad Singh, the Pramukh. parked there. The lands of the Pramukh was being ploughed by P.W. 3 Tripurari Singh, the tractor-driver, and the labourers were sowing the seeds. While the Pramukh was coming towards the jeep, appellants Munna Choubey and Om Prakash Pandey came running towards him armed with countrymade pistols and seeing them Sheo Prasad Singh attempted to flee away but they fired at him. He ran for some distance but fell down in his field. Thereafter the aforesaid two appellants went near him and fired one shot each at him. At this point of time, three accused persons, one armed with gun and two with rifle which included appellant Umakant Upadhayay fired at Sheo Prasad Singh while he had fallen on the ground. Thereafter two accused persons came from north-east direction armed with countrymade pistol and one of them fired at the deceased again. They touched the body of the Pramukh and found him dead,, left the place of occurrence after shaking their hands. At that point of time the tractor driver of the deceased and the two labourers, namely, Tripurari Singh and Ramji Singh and Fenku Singh came there but the accused persons resorted to firing. At this P.W. 3 Tripurari Singh hid himself behind the tractor and the two labourers fled towards the village. Thereafter the informant alongwith tractor driver Tripurari Singh came near Sheo Prasad Singh and found him dead. Seeing this P.W. 3 Tripurari Singh became unconscious. He gave statement before the police leading to the registration of the case. He has also stated that at the place of occurrence he met various persons including Govind Singh (P.W.1). Thereafter the informant alongwith tractor driver Tripurari Singh came near Sheo Prasad Singh and found him dead. Seeing this P.W. 3 Tripurari Singh became unconscious. He gave statement before the police leading to the registration of the case. He has also stated that at the place of occurrence he met various persons including Govind Singh (P.W.1). According to this witness, two brothers of appellant Om Prakash Pandey and one person of village Akhlaspur were murdered at Babajee ke pokhra 6 to 7 years earlier and for that the deceased had lodged case against Umakant Upadhayay and others. He had also stated that appellant Umakant Upadhayay had also lodged case against the deceased and others and on account of that enmity the deceased has been killed. He denied to have any relationship between the deceased but claimed to have known him from 15 to 16 years from before. In the cross-examination he failed to disclose the owner of harvester hired. According to him, in the incident 9 to 10 rounds were fired within 10 to 12 minutes and claimed that three shots hit the deceased. According to this witness, one fire shot by each of the appellants hit the deceased. According to him, he stayed at the place of occurrence as the deceased was known from him. He denied the suggestion that the area insisted like terrorist. According to him, first firing was resorted to the deceased when he was at the distance of 15 to 20 yards. In the cross-examination he had stated that he had not disclosed to the police during the course of investigation that Tripurari Singh became unconscious seeing the dead body of his master. He had reiterated that he had disclosed the names of the assailants to P.W.1 Govind Singh and others. He showed his ignorance in regard to the jurisdiction of Sonhan Police Station over the place of occurrence. In paragraph 25 of the cross-examination he has stated that two shots hit the deceased at the first instance and after he had fallen down two shots also hit him. He had denied the suggestion that the extremist wanted to grab the land of the deceased and his agnates, the extremist had murdered him. 18. In paragraph 25 of the cross-examination he has stated that two shots hit the deceased at the first instance and after he had fallen down two shots also hit him. He had denied the suggestion that the extremist wanted to grab the land of the deceased and his agnates, the extremist had murdered him. 18. P.W. 1 Govind Singh does not claim to be an eye-witness to the occurrence but had deposed that when he arrived at the place of occurrence P.W. 8 Sushila Singh and P.W. 9 Satyendra Kumar Singh had disclosed to him names of Umakant Upadhayay. Munna Choubey and Om Prakash Pandey as the assailants. Similarly P.W.2 Awadhesh Kumar Singh also does not claim to be an eye-witness to the occurrence but had asserted that he saw the deceased lying dead in his field at the boundary of village Dujedihra where P.W. 5 Radhey Singh and P.W. 7 Fenku Singh disclosed to him the names of the appellants as assailants. P.W. 4 Ramji Singh P.W. 6 Vishwamohan @ Chhotey and P.W.16 Dr. Pramod Kumar Singh, who happen to be the son of the deceased, also do not claim to be the eyewitnesses to the occurrence but stated that when they arrived at the place of occurrence P.W. 5 Radhey Singh and P.W. 7 Fenku Singh disclosed the manner in which the incident had taken place as also the names of the assailants. P.W. 11 Jharkhandi Prasad Yadav, at the relevant time, was posted as the Sub-Inspector of Police and according to him on the instruction of P.W. 13 Ajit Kumar Rai, the Officer-lncharge of Bhabua Police Station he had prepared the Inquest report of the deceased in presence of the witnesses and had proved the same. He has furthel stated that he had gone to the place of occurrence by jeep. 19. P.W. 13 Ajit Kumar Rai, at the relevant time, was the Officer-lncharge of Bhabua Police Station and according to him on 11.12.1999 at 5 P.M. he received information about the murder of Sheo Prasad Singh near village Dujedihra and after recording the said information in the Station diary reached there at 6 P.M. According to him, a large crowd had collected at the place of occurrence and in order to maintain law and order information was given to the Bhabua Police Station. Thereafter he recorded the fard beyan given by P.W. 9 Satyendra Kumar Singh and after formal first information report, took up the investigation and got the Inquest report prepared by P.W. 11 Jharkhandi Prasad Yadav, the Sub-Inspector of Police. He had also extracted the blood-stained earth from the place of occurrence and prepared the seizure list in presence of P.W. 1 Govind Singh and P.W. 6 Vishwamohan @ Chhotey, During the course of investigation he found huge quantity of blood below the dead body. He sent the dead body to Bhab.ua Hospital for postmortem examination. In the crossexamination he has admitted that the place of occurrence falls within Sonhan outpost which is within the jurisdiction of Bhabua Police Station. He had denied the suggestion that Bhabua Police Station had no jurisdiction to investigate the case occurring within Sonhan Police Station. He had stated that none of the Police Officer of Sonhan Police Station had come at the place of occurrence. 20. P.W. 14 Dr. Kapildeo Sinha, at the relevant time, was posted as Deputy Superintendent at Sadar Hospital, Bhabua and on 12.12.1999 at 10.30 A.M. conducted autopsy on the dead body of Sheo Prasad Singh and found rigor mortis present in all the limbs. On external examination, he found following injuries on the person of the deceased : (i) One circular lacerated wound 1/ 2" in diameter, margin of the wound inverted, reddish in colour over the lateral aspect of right thigh in the middle with diffuse swelling of left thigh. (ii) Lacerated oval injury about 1" x 1/2" with charring surrounding the wound. Margin inverted reddish in colour over the frontal aspect of chest just lateral to sternum bone left side. (iii) Lacerated oval injury measuring about 2" x 1/2" x communicating to the wound of exit. Margin inverted, reddish in colour, charring of the wound found over chest. Lateral aspect 3" away from injury no. ii. (iv) Lacerated wound 3" x 1" x wound of entry communicating with injury no. ii over the back of chest left side. Margin of the wound everted, tear of muscles. (v) Lacerated wound 3" x 1/2" x wound of entry communicating with injury no. iii over back of chest right side. Margin of the wound everted, muscles lacerated. 21. We have heard Mr. ii over the back of chest left side. Margin of the wound everted, tear of muscles. (v) Lacerated wound 3" x 1/2" x wound of entry communicating with injury no. iii over back of chest right side. Margin of the wound everted, muscles lacerated. 21. We have heard Mr. Rana Pratap Singh, Senior Advocate on behalf of appellants Munna Choubey and Om Prakash Pandey, whereas the appellant Umakant Upadhayay is represented by Mr. K.N. Choubey, Senior Advocate. Mr. Lala Kailash Bihari Prasad. Additional Public Prosecutor, appears on behalf of the State. Mr. D.K. Sinha, Senior Advocate, appears on behalf of the informant. 22. Learned Counsels for the appellants contend that according to the first information report as also the eye-witnesses examined in support of the case had stated that deceased Sheo Prasad Singh had sustained six gun shots but the doctor during the postmortem examination had found only three wounds of entry on his person. In addition thereto. Mr. Choubey submits that even if it is assumed that four wounds of entry were found, those injuries are attributable to appellants Munna Choubey and Om Prakash Pandey. According to him, appellant Umakant Upadhayay is alleged to be the author of the fifth shot but in the absence of injury corresponding to that he deserves to be given the benefit of doubt. 23. Mr. Lala Kaiiash Bihari Prasad, however, contends that according to the prosecution, deceased was fired at six times but it is not the case of the prosecution that all shots hit him and, therefore, it cannot be said that the case of the prosecution has not been corroborated by the evidence of the doctor. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mithilesh Upadhayay vs. State of Bihar [AIR 1997 Supreme Court 2457] and our attention has been drawn to paragraph 6 of the judgment, which reads as follows : "Mr. Lalit, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, urged that the prosecutions claim that each of the three appellants fired at Ajit and that each of the shots hit him was pletely belied by the evidence of the doctor, who in postmortem examination found only two wounds of entry. Lalit, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, urged that the prosecutions claim that each of the three appellants fired at Ajit and that each of the shots hit him was pletely belied by the evidence of the doctor, who in postmortem examination found only two wounds of entry. From the impugned judgment we find that this contention was raised before the High Court and negatived with the following words : "The witnesses have witnessed the occurrence from some distance from the roof of the baithka and the house. They are consistent in their testimonies that the accused Narbdeshwar Tiwary, Mithilesh Upadhyaya and Dwarike Tiwary had fired from their respective weapons. The shots appear to have been fired in quick succession as such the witnesses could not have been in a position to state precisely which shot hit the deceased on a particular spot on his person. If a fire-arm is used and the shot does not hit the victim it may be on account of misfiring or erratic aim. The testimonies of the eye witnesses cannot be discarded merely because only two wounds of entry were found." 24. Having appreciated the rival submission, we do not find any substance in the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellants. According to the first information report, appellants Munna Choubey and Om Prakash Pandey fired once and the deceased sustained injury. From that it cannot be said that two shots fired by the aforesaid appellants in fact hit the deceased. Thereafter according to the first information report, the aforesaid two appellants fired one shot each and that had hit the deceased. P.W. 3 Tripurari Singh, P.W. 5 Radhey Singh, P.W. 7 Fenku Singh and P.W. 9 Satyendra Kumar Singh, who are eye-witnesses to the occurrence, have clearly stated that at the first instance Munna Choubey and Om Prakash Pandey fired two shots which caused injury and thereafter they again went near the deceased and fired again. Thereafter according to those witnesses, Umakant Upadhayay came and fired. Neither in the first information report nor the witnesses examined in support of the case of the prosecution have stated that ail the shots fired by these appellants in fact hit the deceased. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the case of the prosecution has not been supported by the doctor, who had conducted the postmortem examination. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the case of the prosecution has not been supported by the doctor, who had conducted the postmortem examination. Reading the evidence of P.W. 14 Dr. Kapildeo Sinha, who had conducted the postmortem examination and the postmortem report, it is evident that four wounds of entry were found on the person of the deceased and that supports the case of the prosecution. 25. Learned Counsels for the appellants then contends that informant is a chance witness and in fact had not seen the occurrence and on account of previous enmity between the deceased and the appellants the latter has been falsely implicated in the case. According to them, had the informant seen the occurrence he ought to have given the names of the tractor driver and the two labourers who claim to be the eye-witnesses to the occurrence. They also point out that informant is in no way concerned with the deceased and in the face of the two labourers and the tractor driver of the deceased being present, there was no occasion for the informant to lodge the first information report. 26. We do not find any substance in this submission of the learned Counsel. True it is that he is not the resident of the place where the occurrence had taken place but he had explained the circumstances under which he was passing through the road adjoining the place of occurrence. He has described the manner in which the occurrence had taken place and has clearly stated about ploughing of the field by the tractor and the two labourers sowing the seeds. The informant is not a resident of the village where the occurrence had taken place and not acquainted with the family of the deceased and in such circumstances non-disclosure of names of the labourers and the tractor-driver is quite natural. Hence we are of the opinion that mere failure on part of the informant to disclose the names of the aforesaid witnesses itself shall not be sufficient enough to hold that in fact he was not an eye-witness to the occurrence and has been planted to give the first information report. 27. Hence we are of the opinion that mere failure on part of the informant to disclose the names of the aforesaid witnesses itself shall not be sufficient enough to hold that in fact he was not an eye-witness to the occurrence and has been planted to give the first information report. 27. As regards the grievance of the appellants that the two labourers andthe tractor driver ought to have given the first information report, we are of the opinion that the same in no way advances the case of the appellants. The witnesses have stated that after Sheo Prasad Singh was shot dead, they raised alarm and appellants fired at them and in order to save their lives P.W. 5 Radhey Singh and P.W. 7 Fenku Singh had fled towards the village and returned to the place of occurrence only when the crowd had collected and the police arrived. There is sufficient evidence on record that P.W. 3 Tripurari Singh became unconscious seeing the dead body of his master. In that view of the matter, the aforesaid three witnesses not lodging the first information report itself is not sufficient to discard the claim of the informant to be an eye-witness to the occurrence. In any view of the matter, we are of the opinion that even if a large number of persons are eye-witnesses to the occurrence and some of them may be close to the deceased, itself shall not prohibit any other person to lodge the first information report. In fact a person not associated with the deceased gives more credence. 28. Learned Counsels for the appellants then contend that according to the prosecution, the informant was returning after hiring the harvester but he had failed to disclose the name of owner of the harvester and the number thereof. They also point out that the informant had not given the plot number and other details of the land where the occurrence had taken place and this renders the evidence unworthy of reliance. 29. We do not find any substance in this submission of the learned Counsel. Neither the number of the harvester nor the plot where the occurrence had taken place were an issue. The informant was returning after hiring a harvester and hence his incapacity to remember the registration number of the harvester and the owner thereof in no way creates any doubt to the prosecution case. 30. Neither the number of the harvester nor the plot where the occurrence had taken place were an issue. The informant was returning after hiring a harvester and hence his incapacity to remember the registration number of the harvester and the owner thereof in no way creates any doubt to the prosecution case. 30. It has also been contended that the place of occurrence falls within the jurisdiction of Sonhan outpost but the case has been investigated by the Officer-Incharge of Bhabhua Police Station. There is over whelming evidence on record to show that village Dujedihra where the occurrence had taken place falls within the territory of Sonhan outpost. It is also equally true that the case was investigated by the Officer-lncharge of Bhabua Police Station, but this in our opinion in no way affects the credibility of the prosecution case. The Investigating Officer of the case has clearly stated that Sonhan is outpost whereas Bhabua is the Police Station. He had also stated that he investigated a large number of cases which had occurred within Sonhan outpost. In our opinion, merely the fact that the place of occurrence falls within Sonhan outpost within Bhabua Police Station itself shall not oust the jurisdiction of the Bhabua Police Station to investigate the case. 31. Learned Counsels contend that the distance of Sonhan outpost from the place of occurrence is about 4 to 5 kilometers which would be evident from the evidence of the investigating Officer but none had gone to inform the Sonhan outpost which creates doubt to the case of the prosecution. 32. We do not find any substance in this submission of the learned Counsel. The deceased was a Pramukh and the news of his murder must have spread like a wild-fire. P.W. 13. Ajit Kumar Rai, the Officer-lncharge of the Police Station, has stated in his evidence that at 5.20 P.M. i.e. within half an hour of incident he received the information about the death and after making the entry in the station diary proceeded to the place of occurrence. The place of occurrence is situated at a distance of 6 kilometers. He reached the place of occurrence and recorded the fard beyan of the informant at 7 P.M. P.W. 5 Radhey Singh and P.W. 7 Fenku Singh had fled towards the village to save them. The place of occurrence is situated at a distance of 6 kilometers. He reached the place of occurrence and recorded the fard beyan of the informant at 7 P.M. P.W. 5 Radhey Singh and P.W. 7 Fenku Singh had fled towards the village to save them. P.W. 3 Tripurari Singh after seeing the dead body of his Master had fainted. The Officer-lncharge of the.Bhabua Police Station having reached the place of occurrence soon after the incident, there was no occasion for any other person to go to the Sonhan outpost and lodge the report. We are not inclined to discard the case of the prosecution on the ground aforesaid. 33. Learned Counsels for the appellants contend that according to the prosecution, the motive for the occurrence was that deceased was an accused in case of murder of two of the brothers of Om Prakash Pandey but that has not been proved and, as such, the case of the prosecution deserves to be rejected. 34. Mr. Prasad, however, contends that in fact there is overwhelming evidence on record to show that deceased was an accused in the case of murder of two brothers of the appellant Om Prakash Pandey and that motive had led to his death. In any view of the matter, he contends that in face of the over-whelming evidence showing appellants complicity in the crime the motive takes a back seat. 35. We are entirely in agreement with the submissions of Mr. Prasad. There is over whelming evidence on record that the deceased was an accused in the case of murder of two of the brothers of the appellant Om Prakash Pandey. In fact appellant Om Prakash Pandey in his statement under Sec. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had stated that two of his brothers were murdered by the prosecution side. P.W. 3 Tripurari Singh. P.W. 5 Radhey Singh and P.W. 9 Satyendra Kumar Singh have stated in their evidence that two of the brothers of Om Prakash Pandey and another person were killed at Baba jee ke Dera at village Akhlaspur in which the deceased had gone to Jail in the case lodged by Umakant Upadhayay. They have also stated that the deceased had also lodged report in connection with those murders in which Umakant Upadhayay also figured as an accused. They have also stated that the deceased had also lodged report in connection with those murders in which Umakant Upadhayay also figured as an accused. Thus, in our opinion, the prosecution has been able to prove the motive of the occurrence. 36. Learned Counsels for the appellants contend that because of the previous enmity they have been falsely implicated in the case. As is well settled, enmity is a double edged weapon which furnishes cause for commission of the crime and at the same time gives cause for false implication. Hence on this ground alone, the case of the prosecution is not fit to be rejected. 37. Learned Counsels for the appellants contend that although the informant is alleged to have come on a motorcycle, but the motorcycle was not found at the place of occurrence. They also submit that the Investigating officer had not enquired as to whether P.W. 3 Tripurari Singh possessed licence. These arguments have been noted only to be rejected. Neither the motorcycle in fact was in any way connected with the crime nor the entitlement of P.W. 3 Tripurari Singh to drive the tractor was an issue. Therefore, the Investigating Officer not finding the motorcycle at the place of occurrence and not inquiring about the driving licence of P.W. 3 Triuprari Singh in any way affects the case of the prosecution. 38. Learned Counsel for the appellants submit that all the witnesses belong to one caste and that is sufficient to discard their evidence. This submission has also been noted only for the purpose of being rejected. Merely on the ground that the witnesses belong to one caste shall not be sufficient to discard the case of the prosecution. 39. As stated earlier, these appellants had pleaded alibi. Learned Counsel for the appellants contend that appellant Om Prakash Pandey was a Homeopathic practitioner and was attending to his patients at Bhabua on the date and time of occurrence and, as such, his presence at the place of occurrence is completely ruled out. According to appellant Umakant Upadhayay, he was working as teacher in Brilliant Study Circle and Computer Centre and took classes from 11.30 A.M. to 5.30 P.M. on 11.12.1999 at Varanasi and thus his presence at the place of occurrence is completely ruled out. 40. Mr. According to appellant Umakant Upadhayay, he was working as teacher in Brilliant Study Circle and Computer Centre and took classes from 11.30 A.M. to 5.30 P.M. on 11.12.1999 at Varanasi and thus his presence at the place of occurrence is completely ruled out. 40. Mr. Prasad submits that the plea of alibi has to be proved by the appellants and they are required to prove that with absolute certainty. He points out that on the ipse dixit of the witnesses the plea of alibi is not fit to be accepted. 41. We find substance in this submission of Mr. Prasad. The evidence on record does not with certainty excludes the presence of the appellants at the place of occurrence and, as such, the plea of alibi deserves to be rejected. P.W. 3 Tripurari Singh, P.W. 5 Radhey Singh and P.W. 7 Fenku Singh are natural witnesses to the occurrence. They are the tractor driver and labourers of the deceased and, as such, their presence at the place of occurrence is but natural. The first information report has been given by a totally uninterested person. The occurrence had taken place at 5 P.M. and the fard beyan was given at 7 P.M. at the place of occurrence. The first information report was received by the Court on the very next day on 12.12.1999. The eye-witnesses have consistently supported the case of the prosecution and minor contradication here and there is of no consequence. These broad probabilities give credence to the case of the prosecution. Not only this, P.W. 1 Govind Singh, P.W. 2 Awadhesh Kumar Singh, P.W. 4 Ramji Singh, P.W. 6 Vishwamohan @ Chhotey and P.W. 16 Dr. Pramod Kumar Singh, when arrived at the place of occurrence, the eye-witnesses to the occurrence had disclosed the names of the appellants. They have clearly stated in their evidence that the manner of occurrence and the names of the appellants were disclosed to them. P.W. 5 Radhey Singh, P.W. 7 Fenku Singh and P.W. 9 Satyendra Kumar Singh have also stated that when the aforesaid witnesses came to the place of occurrence, they disclosed to them the manner of occurrence and the names of the appellants. Thus the evidence of P.W. 1 Govind Singh, P.W. 2 Awadhesh Kumar Singh, P.W. 4 Ramji Singh, P.W. 6 Vishwamohan @ Chhotey and P.W. 16 Dr. Thus the evidence of P.W. 1 Govind Singh, P.W. 2 Awadhesh Kumar Singh, P.W. 4 Ramji Singh, P.W. 6 Vishwamohan @ Chhotey and P.W. 16 Dr. Pramod Kumar Singh lend support to the case of the prosecution. The case as unfolded by the eye-witnesses get support from the evidence of P.W. 14 Dr. Kapildeo Sinha, who had found gun shot injuries on the person of the deceased. Same also find support from the objective finding of P.W. 13 Ajit Kumar Rai, Officer-Incharge of the Police Station, who had found huge quantity of blood where the dead body was lying. 42. From the discussion aforesaid, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt and the learned Judge rightly convicted and sentenced the appellants as above. 43. We do not find any merit in all these appeals and they are dismissed accordingly.