JUDGMENT Hon’ble Amar Saran, J.—We have heard Sri Satish Trivedi, Senior Advocate, appearing for the appellants and Sri Ram Milan Dwivedi, learned AGA for the State. 2. This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of the 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Banda, dated 12.4.1982, convicting all the seven appellants and sentencing them to imprisonment for life under Section 302, IPC read with Section 149, IPC and further convicting the appellants Girija Shankar, Shyam Sunder and Balla to one year’s RI under Section 148, IPC; appellants Shankar, Chhedi, Nathan and Vashistha to 6 months’ RI under Section 147, IPC and appellants Girija Shankar, Balla, Shyam Sunder, Shankar, Chhedi, Nathan and Vashistha, for a term of 5 years’ RI under Section 201, IPC. The sentences were to run concurrently. 3. The appellants Shyam Sunder and Nathan are reported to have died during the pendency of this appeal; therefore their appeals have abated by an earlier order dated 22.5.2007. 4. Another co-accused, Sudama, who was charged under Section 120B, IPC, was acquitted by the trial Court. 5. The prosecution allegations were that on 13.5.1978 at about 6.30 pm when the deceased Bhola Nath Dwivedi was returning to his house in village Mandor from village Mawai along with informant, Ghanshyam Pd. Tripathi, and was at a distance of about 15 to 20 paces from his house the appellants Girija Shankar, armed with a spear, Balla and Shyam Sunder armed with barchhas and Shankar and Chhedi armed with lathies, came from the northern and other lanes and khandhar (the ruins of a building) near his residence and assaulted the deceased. When Ghanshyam tried to save him, he was also belaboured with lathies. Then he ran away and raised an alarm, whereupon Bhola Nath’s wife, Smt. Bhagwati Devi, and son Munna @ Ravi Shankar, climbed on the roof and they also started raising an alarm. Then the appellant Shankar cried out that they should keep quiet otherwise they would also be murdered. A number of villagers witnessed the incident. The assailants after assaulting the deceased dragged him, then tied his body in a sheet and after hoisting it on a lathi carried it in the eastern direction towards Jamuna river. In this work of tying up and hoisting the dead body, Nathan and Vashistha also assisted. A number of villagers witnessed the incident. The assailants after assaulting the deceased dragged him, then tied his body in a sheet and after hoisting it on a lathi carried it in the eastern direction towards Jamuna river. In this work of tying up and hoisting the dead body, Nathan and Vashistha also assisted. Out of fear the informant kept himself hiding in his house but when the people built up his confidence, he submitted a written report at the police station on 14.5.1978 at 1.30 a.m. 6. On the basis of the aforesaid report, an FIR was loged in the presence of SHO, PS Mau, Sri Sukhlal Singh. Sri Hira Lal, Moharrir, PS Mau, prepared the chik FIR (Ext. Ka 2) and entered the case in the General Diary on 14.5.1978 at 1.30 a.m. (Ext. Ka 14). As the informant was injured, he was asked by Sukhlal Singh Sengar, the SHO, to wait at the police station so that he could be sent for medical examination the next morning. 7. Sukhlal Singh accompanied by Constable Deo Narain, Constable Ayodhya Singh (PW 5) and one person Prem Narain (PW 6) who had accompanied the informant to the police station, proceeded to the village of incident at about 2 A.M. They reached the village Mandor on 14.5.1978 at about 4 a.m. where they met the wife of the deceased Smt. Bhagwati Devi (PW 3) and his son Ravi Shankar (PW 2), who were crying bitterly. 8. After sunrise these persons took SHO Sukhlal Singh and Constable Ayodhya Singh to the place of incident and pointed out the spots where the accused had surrounded the deceased, where he was assaulted, the spot from where the witnesses had seen the incident, the points where he was dragged and the direction in which the appellants carried the dead body. Sukhlal Singh prepared the site-plan of the incident (Ext. Ka 16). He also noticed some blood on the spot. He collected the plain and blood-stained mud in two separate boxes and prepared the recovery memo (Ext. Ka 14). Following the trail of the blood, this police party and the witnesses reached the banks of the Jamuna river. There was a lot of blood and some sand had been thrown over the same. There SHO Sukhlal Singh again collected the plain and blood-stained mud in separate boxes and prepared the recovery memo (Ext. Ka 18). Ka 14). Following the trail of the blood, this police party and the witnesses reached the banks of the Jamuna river. There was a lot of blood and some sand had been thrown over the same. There SHO Sukhlal Singh again collected the plain and blood-stained mud in separate boxes and prepared the recovery memo (Ext. Ka 18). As the river was quite deep at that point, some fishermen, who were fishing nearby, were called and they threw a net in the river but they were unable to trace the dead body. These facts are narrated in the evidence of PW 5, Constable Ayodhya Singh, as the investigating officer, SHO Sukhlal Singh died before his evidence could be recorded in Court and Ayodhya Singh had accompanied him on his visit to the site and was familiar with his handwriting also. 9. The injured Ghanshyam Tripathi was sent for medical examination in the morning of 14.5.1978 along with Constable Satya Narain Dixit and he was medically examined by Dr. A.R. Hasnain (PW 4) at PHC, Mau, Banda, who prepared the injury report (Ext. Ka 13). The doctor found the following injuries on Ghanshyam Tripathi : (1) A contusion 5 cm x 5 cm on the back of left forearm about 5 cm above the wrist joint. Red in colour. (2) A contusion 5 cm x 5 cm on the back of left forearm just below the elbow joint. Red in colour. (3) An abraded contusion 3 cm x 3 cm on the back of left wrist on the lower end (prominence) of ulna bone. Red in colour. (4) A contusion 8 cm x 8 cm on dorsum of left hand. Red in colour. There is no clinical evidence of fracture of any underlying bone. The doctor noted that all the injuries had been caused by some blunt object and were simple in nature. 10. Apart from PW 5, Constable Ayodhya Singh and PW 4, Dr. A.R. Hasnain, the formal witnesses, PW 6, Prem Narain, who is a cousin brother of the informant Ghanshyam Tripathi and who had accompanied the informant from the house of one Ghanshyam Pandey in Mau (where he was staying) to the police station Mau where the informant Ghanshyam Tripathi handed over the written report, has also been examined. A.R. Hasnain, the formal witnesses, PW 6, Prem Narain, who is a cousin brother of the informant Ghanshyam Tripathi and who had accompanied the informant from the house of one Ghanshyam Pandey in Mau (where he was staying) to the police station Mau where the informant Ghanshyam Tripathi handed over the written report, has also been examined. PW 6 Prem Narain also accompanied the investigating officer from the police station to village Mandor whilst Ghanshyam Tripathi stayed at the police station as he was to be medically examined the next morning. He was also a witness of the recovery of the blood-stained and plain earth from the place of the incident and the site-plan was also prepared before him. He also proceeded to Jamuna river bank along with the other witnesses following the drops of blood which led in that direction and in his presence plain and blood-stained earth was also collected from the Jamuna river bank. PW 7, Bhulai, the fisherman, turned hostile and refused to support the prosecution version that he was one of the fishermen who was asked to bring a net and try to fish out the body of the deceased from the Jamuna. 11. Three eye-witnesses, PW 1, Ghanshyam Prasad Tripathi, the sala of the deceased and injured informant of this case, PW 2, Ravi Shanker, the 10 or 11 year old son of the deceased, and PW 3, Smt. Bhagwati Devi, the wife of the deceased, have been examined in the case. 12. PW 1, Ghanshyam Prasad Tripathi has reiterated the version given in the FIR. He has stated that after his father’s death in his childhood, he started living with his cousin sister, Smt. Bhagwati Devi, the wife of the deceased. He used to stay and study in their village Mandor. He has given the topography of the houses of the parties and the place where the incident took place. He has further detailed the enmities of the appellants with the deceased and shown that they were of a common pedigree and described their pedigree. He has further mentioned that between Bhola Nath, the deceased, and the appellant Girija Shanker, there was a dispute over property. He states that Girija Shanker had got some land in his nanihal (maternal grandparents’ place) in village Sakoha, which he did not share with the others. He has further mentioned that between Bhola Nath, the deceased, and the appellant Girija Shanker, there was a dispute over property. He states that Girija Shanker had got some land in his nanihal (maternal grandparents’ place) in village Sakoha, which he did not share with the others. As a result when the deceased himself purchased some land, he also did not give shares to the others in the same. There was also some dispute over the family jewellery between the parties. Some jewellery, which were given by Girija Shanker’s father-in-law in his marriage were got distributed by the deceased, Bhola Nath. There was litigation over partition of the land between the deceased Bhola Nath, and the appellant Girija Shanker and his aunt in which the deceased was successful. Three years prior to his murder, Ram Mangal, a friend of the deceased Bhola Nath had been murdered. In this case Bhola Nath used to do pairvi for the informant. In that case the appellant of the present case Shyam Sunder and Balla were also accused. Balla’s father, Ram Sunder, was also a co-accused. They were awarded 2 years’ sentence. Bhola Nath’s nephew Sukh Narain used to reside with him in village Mandor and to look after his cultivation. He had been murdered 10 months prior to the murder of Bhola Nath. The report of the murder of Sukh Narain had been lodged by his brother Harsh Narain. In that case, Bhola Nath had filed an affidavit for opposing the prayer for bail of the accused Girija Shanker and Chhedi Lal who are appellants in the present case. Some other enmities have also been detailed and papers have been filed in proof of the same. The appellants Girija Shanker and Chhedi Lal had warned the deceased Bhola Nath not to do pairvi in the murder case of Sukh Narain and that they would murder him if he gave evidence, but prior to the date of his evidence he was murdered and only Harsh Narain gave evidence in that case and so the accused were acquitted. The appellants had surrounded the deceased Bhola Nath a number of times after the murder of Sukh Narain. Bhola Nath did not use to leave the village alone but he was always accompanied by Sukh Narain. The appellants had surrounded the deceased Bhola Nath a number of times after the murder of Sukh Narain. Bhola Nath did not use to leave the village alone but he was always accompanied by Sukh Narain. After the murder of Sukh Narain, either Ghanshyam Pandey, who was another nephew of Bhola Nath or the informant Ghanshyam Prasad Tripathi always used to accompany Bhola Nath whenever he went out. Six or seven days prior to his murder, Bhola Nath had gone to Jayantipur in district Allahabad in connection with the marriage of his nephew. His elder son, Ravi Shanker, PW 2, had accompanied him. On 13.5.1978 Ravi Shanker @ Munna had come to village Mandor and asked PW 1, Ghanshyam Tripathi to go to Mawai Kala to the house of Jawahar Lal Pandey, a cousin brother of Bhola Nath where the deceased had arrived from Jyantipur and to fetch him. Mawai Kala was about one and half miles from village Mandor. The informant had thereafter proceeded to village Mawai Kala to bring the deceased. When they reached the village Mandor, at about 6 or 6.30 pm at the tri-junction (tiraha) near the ruined house of Nadir Khan, the appellants, Shanker armed with lathi and Balla armed with barchha emerged from the southern side. The appellants Girija Shanker and Shyam Sunder came out from the khandhar, each carrying a spear and the appellant Chhedi Lal emerged from the western road carrying a lathi and they began assaulting the deceased who thereupon fell down. Bhola Nath tried to defend himself and raised a cry. The place of incident was hardly 10 to 20 paces from the house of the deceased. Ravi Shanker @ Munna, PW 2, and Bhagwati Devi, PW 3, the wife of the deceased, were shouting from their roof that the miscreants were beating Bhola Nath and he should be saved. Even after Bhola Nath had fallen down, the appellants continued assaulting him. The informant was also beaten by Shanker and Chhedi with lathis. He tried to protect himself with a lathi, but when the lathi fell down, he tried to protect himself with his arms. Then he ran and hid in Bhola Nath’s khandhar. After assaulting Bhola Nath, Girija Shanker dragged him by his feet to the doorsteps of Munna Khan. The appellants Shyam Sunder, Chhedi and Shanker were also present. He tried to protect himself with a lathi, but when the lathi fell down, he tried to protect himself with his arms. Then he ran and hid in Bhola Nath’s khandhar. After assaulting Bhola Nath, Girija Shanker dragged him by his feet to the doorsteps of Munna Khan. The appellants Shyam Sunder, Chhedi and Shanker were also present. At Munna Khan’s doorstep the appellants Vashistha and Nathhan (who is now dead) arrived carrying lathis. Then seven accused persons tied up Bhola Nath’s body with a sheet, strung it on a lathi and proceeded in the northern direction for about 100 paces. Then they turned eastward and went in the direction of Jamuna river. After that the informant came out of khandhar and hid in the house of the deceased. After a while some persons such as Ballu Singh, Srirama, Ram Kripal and Pawan Kumar arrived there but they refused to accompany the informant to the police station as they feared danger to their own lives. Sriram called Dharam Das, the brother-in-law (behnoi) of the deceased and Dharam Pal from village Chhuari. After that the informant wrote out the report (Ext. Ka 11) in the house of the deceased and appended his signature to it. They left for the house of Ghanshyam Pandey, the nephew of the deceased in Mau to give information about this incident. There the informant met his cousin brother, Prem Narain, and made them to read out the FIR that he had written. On their suggestions he added his father’s name against his name in the F.I.R. He then went to the police station Mau and handed over the report at about 1.30 a.m. The chik was prepared by the head constable (Ext. Ka 12). The SO asked him to wait in the police station to get himself medically examined the next morning. The place, where Bhola Nath, the deceased, had been murdered, had drops of blood and marks of dragging. On the way also, there were droplets of blood. In the night itself, the investigation officer proceeded for the place of incident with the informant’s younger brother, Prem Narain. 13. PW 2, Ravi Shanker @ Munna, the son of the deceased, who was about 10 or 11 years in age at the time of incident, was examined in Court on 22.10.1981 when he was about 14 years in age. In the night itself, the investigation officer proceeded for the place of incident with the informant’s younger brother, Prem Narain. 13. PW 2, Ravi Shanker @ Munna, the son of the deceased, who was about 10 or 11 years in age at the time of incident, was examined in Court on 22.10.1981 when he was about 14 years in age. The presiding officer examined him for his intellectual and moral capacity and found him fit to depose under Section 118 of the Evidence Act. Ravi Shanker deposed that the deceased Bhola Nath Dwivedi was his father and Smt. Bhagwati Devi is his mother. Five to seven days before 11.5.1978 he had accompanied his father to go to Jayantipur in connection with the marriage of Keshav, the son of his bua (father’s sister), Smt. Sumitra. On 13.5.1978 his father and this witness left village Jayantipur. They reached Mawai Kala at about 12 or 1 in the afternoon where they stopped at the place of Jawahar Lal. As his father feared danger to his life, he sent this witness to call his mama (wife’s brother) Ghanshyam Tripathi, PW 1, to accompany him to village Mandor which was about one and a half km from village Mawai at about 4 pm. He therefore sent his mama Ghanshyam Tripathi to fetch his father and when they were returning at about 6 to 6.30 pm, he was playing on the roof. His father was carrying a lathi. When they reached near the khandhar of Nadir Khan, he heard the cries of his mama that they were being beaten. He then saw the five accused persons—Girija Shanker armed with a spear, Balla and Shyam Sunder armed with barchhas, Shanker and Chhedi armed with lathis belabouring his father. His father was also shouting. As a result of the beating, his father fell down and his lathi also fell from his hands nearby. Even after falling down, he was being assaulted by the appellants. His Mama Ghanshyam was also assaulted by Chhedi and Shanker with lathis and Ghanshyam also tried to defend himself with his lathi. On receiving injuries Ghanshyam ran away from there. On the cries of his mama and father, his mother also reached the roof and she also started raising cries. A number of villagers had gathered but none intervened. His Mama Ghanshyam was also assaulted by Chhedi and Shanker with lathis and Ghanshyam also tried to defend himself with his lathi. On receiving injuries Ghanshyam ran away from there. On the cries of his mama and father, his mother also reached the roof and she also started raising cries. A number of villagers had gathered but none intervened. After that, the accused Girija Shanker and Balla caught hold of his father’s legs and dragged him to the front of the house of Munna Khan. There the accused Vashistha and Nathhan arrived. The accused Girija Shanker, Balla, Shyam Sunder, Nathhan, Vashistha, Chhedi and Shanker tied his father’s body in a sheet. At that time his father’s legs and hands were not moving and his neck had drooped down. They carried the body 30 to 40 paces in the northern direction and then turned to east and proceeded towards the Jamuna river. After the murder of his father, this witness and his family members stayed for a few days in village Mandor but as the accused did not allow him to cultivate their land, they started living in village Garhwa 4 miles away where they purchased 15 bighas of land. There were blood marks where his father had fallen down and where he was dragged after being assaulted and there were also blood marks on the way. 14. PW 3, Smt. Bhagwati Devi, is the wife of the deceased Bhola Nath. She had deposed that the deceased was a lecturer in a college in Mau. Five to seven days before his murder, the deceased had gone to village Jayantipur along with his son for a marriage. On the date of the incident at about 4 pm Ravi Shanker had come home and asked his mother to send Ghanshyam mama to fetch his father from village Mawai from the house of Jawahar Lal. She sent her brother Ghanshyam who carried a lathi to Mawai while she stayed at home. Ravi Shanker and other young children went to the roof to play. At about 6 or 6.30 pm she heard the cries of Ravi Shanker that the assailants were killing his father. Then she also rushed to the roof over the well where the children were playing. From the roof over the well, she saw the appellants Girija Shanker, Balla, Shyam Sunder Shankar and Chhedi assaulting her husband. At about 6 or 6.30 pm she heard the cries of Ravi Shanker that the assailants were killing his father. Then she also rushed to the roof over the well where the children were playing. From the roof over the well, she saw the appellants Girija Shanker, Balla, Shyam Sunder Shankar and Chhedi assaulting her husband. Balla and Shyam Sunder were armed with barchhas, and Girija Shanker was armed with spear, and Chhedi and Shanker were plying lathis. Bhola Nath was carrying a lathi which fell from his hands when he was assaulted. Ghanshyam was also carrying a lathi. He was assaulted by Shanker and Chhedi with lathis. When Ghanshyam’s lathi fell down, he fled from the spot. The accused were assaulting her husband at Nadir Khan’s tiraha (tri-junction). Nathhan and Vashistha also arrived there. As a result of the assault, her husband fell down. The assailants continued to beat him even after he had fallen down and his hands and legs had stopped moving. Thereafter the appellants Girija Shanker and Balla dragged her husband’s corpse by the legs to the doorstep of Munna Khan. There they tied up the corpse in a sheet and hoisted it on a lathi and after going for some time in the northern direction they turned eastwards towards the Jamuna river. She knew and recognized the accused very well even from before the incident. A number of villagers were standing there but none came forward to help her husband. Out of fear none from her village was ready to depose in the case. After the accused had carried away her husband’s corpse she went to the spot. Blood was lying there and there were dragging marks and droplets of blood on the way. Ghanshyam was her cousin maternal brother whose father had died when he was 4 or 5 years old. Since then he was living with her. Now out of fear of the accused, she had left village Mandor and was living in village Garhwa across the Jamuna river. Now she had let out her land in village Mandor but the bataidars were not tilling the same and the land was lying fallow. 15. In their statements under Section 313, Cr.P.C., the appellants have denied the incident and have stated that they have been falsely implicated due to enmity. They did not lead any evidence in defence. 16. Now she had let out her land in village Mandor but the bataidars were not tilling the same and the land was lying fallow. 15. In their statements under Section 313, Cr.P.C., the appellants have denied the incident and have stated that they have been falsely implicated due to enmity. They did not lead any evidence in defence. 16. On 24.3.1980 the learned trial Judge inspected the place of incident in the presence of learned counsel for the defence and the State. It was noted in the inspection note that in front of the house of the informant on the northern side the houses of the accused were located. Over the house of the informant, the roof projected over a pucca well overlooking a wide lane which had embankments on three sides. From this extended roof, it is said, the woman and the child witness (PWs 3 and 2) saw the incident. In the east of the informant’s house there were houses of 2 to 4 Harijans which opened in the direction of the informant’s house, but the time of inspection being an afternoon, all the doors of the houses were shut and no one was present. There was a maidan (field) to the north of the place of incident and there was no other abadi there. The Yamuna river was said to be one mile away from this house. There are two kachcha houses on the east of the place of incident but they had become khandhars and were in a dilapidated condition. 17. It was submitted by Sri Satish Trivedi, learned counsel for the appellants that only interested witnesses—PW 2, Ravi Shanker, 11 years old son of the deceased, PW 1 Ghanshyam Prasad Tripathi, brother-in-law (sala) of the deceased and PW 3 Smt. Bhagwati Devi, the wife of the deceased—have been produced and no other independent witness from the village has been examined, even though it was mentioned in the FIR and in the evidence that other persons had gathered at the place of incident which took place in the abadi and that the evidence of these three witnesses was not of that high quality that it could be implicitly accepted without corroboration from any independent person. But in the situation that prevails in the villages today, independent witnesses are notoriously reluctant to come forward and depose in any incident that they might have witnessed as they do not want to be embroiled in any criminal or even a civil dispute between the parties and are not prepared to depose in the Court about any incident that may have taken place before their eyes. 18. It has been aptly held in this connection in the case of Appabhai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1988 SC 696 (paras 11 and 12) running as under : "11. In the light of these principles, we may now consider the first contention urged by the learned counsel for the appellants. The contention relates to the failure of the prosecution to examine independent witnesses. The High Court has examined this contention but did not find any infirmity in the investigation. It is no doubt true that the prosecution has not been able to produce any independent witness to the incident that took place at the bus stand. There must have been several of such witnesses. But the prosecution case cannot be thrown out or doubted on that ground alone. Experience reminds us that civilized people are generally insensitive when a crime is committed even in their presence. They withdraw both from the victim and the vigilante. They keep themselves away from the Court unless it is inevitable. They think that crime like a civil dispute is between two individuals or parties and they should not involve themselves. This kind of apathy of the general public is indeed unfortunate, but it is there everywhere whether—in village life, towns or cities. One cannot ignore this handicap with which the investigating agency has to discharge its duties. The Court, therefore, instead of doubting the prosecution case for want of independent witness must consider the broad spectrum of the prosecution version and then search for the nugget of truth with due regard to probability, if any, suggested by the accused. The Court, however, must bear in mind that witnesses to a serious crime may not react in a normal manner. Nor do they react uniformly. The horror stricken witnesses at a dastardly crime or an act of egregious nature may react differently. Their course of conduct may not be of ordinary type in the normal circumstances. The Court, however, must bear in mind that witnesses to a serious crime may not react in a normal manner. Nor do they react uniformly. The horror stricken witnesses at a dastardly crime or an act of egregious nature may react differently. Their course of conduct may not be of ordinary type in the normal circumstances. The Court, therefore, cannot reject their evidence merely because they have behaved or reacted in an unusual manner. In Rana Pratap v. State of Haryana, (1983) 3 SCC 327 : ( AIR 1983 SC 680 ) O. Chinnappa Reddy, J. speaking for this Court succinctly set out what might be the behaviour of different persons witnessing the same incident. The learned Judge observed : "Every person who witnesses a murder reacts in his own way. Some are stunned, become speechless and stand rooted to the spot. Some become hysteric and start wailing. Some start shouting for help. Others run away to keep themselves as far removed from the spot as possible. Yet others rush to the rescue of the victim, even going to the extent of counter-attacking the assailants. Every one reacts in his own special way. There is no set rule of natural reaction. To discard the evidence of a witness on the ground that he did not react in any particular manner is to appreciate evidence in a wholly unrealistic and unimaginative way.” There may be some of the reactions. There may be still more. Even a man prowess may become pusillanimous by witnessing a serious crime. In this case, the Courts below, in our opinion, have taken into consideration of all those aspects and rightly did not insist upon the evidence from other independent witnesses. The prosecution case cannot be doubted or discarded for not examining strangers at the bus stand who might have also witnessed the crime. We, therefore, reject the first contention urged for the appellants." (Emphasis ours). 19. It is also to be seen that the incident in this case took place in the abadi of the village near the houses of the parties in the summer at about 6.30 p.m. on 13.5.78. Some khandhars and houses belonging to various persons including the appellants, informant and the deceased, have been shown in the site-plan and mentioned in the evidence of the witnesses. Some khandhars and houses belonging to various persons including the appellants, informant and the deceased, have been shown in the site-plan and mentioned in the evidence of the witnesses. Although Sri Satish Trivedi himself has drawn our attention to an inspection note of the place of incident conducted by the presiding officer of the trial Court along with the learned counsel for the parties on 25.3.1980, this note itself seems to suggest that the place of incident was at the outskirts of the village, where there were not many houses except the houses of a few Harijans only. So no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution on the ground that no independent witnesses have been produced. 20. Learned counsel for the appellants has doubted the credibility of the child witness, PW 2 Ravi Shanker, the son of the deceased, and the reason and circumstances for his presence at the spot. However, in our view, the child witness who was examined for his fitness for testifying in Court by the presiding officer under Section 118, Evidence Act has given a very natural and believable version of the incident when he deposed in Court at the age of 14 years on 22.10.1981 and he was about 11 years in age at the time of incident. The contention of Sri Trivedi that it was not probable that this child witness would have been dispatched from village Mawai to his home village Mandor to send Ghanshyam Prasad Tripathi, PW 1, sala of the deceased, to fetch him from the village Mawai, cannot be accepted. At about 6 to 6.30 pm he was playing on the roof which projected over his house up the well and when his father along with Ghanshyam Tripathi arrived at the tri-junction near the ruins of Nadir Khan, he heard the cries of his mama (maternal uncle) that they were being attacked. Then he saw the accused persons, as described above, assaulting the deceased and the injured, initially trying to ward off the blows with their lathis but who were eventually overpowered by the accused persons, who were armed with lathis, spears and barchhas. His father, Bhola Nath, fell at the spot but Ghanshyam was able to make good his escape. Then he saw the accused persons, as described above, assaulting the deceased and the injured, initially trying to ward off the blows with their lathis but who were eventually overpowered by the accused persons, who were armed with lathis, spears and barchhas. His father, Bhola Nath, fell at the spot but Ghanshyam was able to make good his escape. On the cries of the deceased and the injured as well as the cries by this witness, his mother had also arrived at the roof and had witnessed the incident. He also described the manner in which the accused Girija Shanker and Balla had dragged the deceased to the front of the house of Munna Khan and then carried him away and then along with the other accused tied his body to a sheet and carried it away in the northern direction, and after 30 to 40 paces, eastward in the direction of the Yamuna river. This is a highly natural version of the incident which was corroborated by PW 1, Ghanshyam Tripathi and PW 3 Smt. Bhagwati Devi. 21. Learned AGA has also rightly pointed out in this connection that there was considerable threat to the life of the deceased and there was bitter litigation between the parties over land and distribution of jewellery as they were pattidars (collaterals) with common ancestors. Three years prior to the murder of Bhola Nath, his friend Ram Mangal had been murdered. In that case, in which the accused were the present appellants Shyam Sunder and Balla, the deceased Bhola Nath used to do pairvi for the informant. Bhola Nath’s nephew, Sukh Narain used to look after the land of Bhola Nath and he also accompanied him everywhere. He (Sukh Narain) had been murdered 10 months prior to the present incident and a report had been lodged by Harsh Narain (Sukh Narain’s brother) against the appellants Girija Shanker and Chhedi Lal. Bhola Nath had filed an affidavit opposing the prayer for bail in that case, and Girija Shanker and Chhedi Lal were warning Bhola Nath not to do pairvi in the murder case of Sukh Narain otherwise he would be done to death. The relevant documents and FIRs have been filed in this case by the prosecution in support of these enmities, and the earlier litigations between the parties. The relevant documents and FIRs have been filed in this case by the prosecution in support of these enmities, and the earlier litigations between the parties. After the murder of Sukh Narain, either Ghanshyam Pandey, who was another nephew of Bhola Nath or Ghanshyam Tripathi always accompanied Bhola Nath wherever he went. In these circumstances, we think that there was nothing unnatural in the act of Bhola Nath sending his 11 years old son, Ravi Shanker, from the village Mawai to village Mandor 1 ½ kms away to send Ghanshyam Tripathi to accompany him to Mandor, and there was no need for mentioning this sequel of events about the child being sent from Mawai to Mandor and then seeing the incident from the top of the roof over the well whose roof abutted the roof of the residential house of the deceased, if the sequel of events of the incident had not transpired in that manner. 22. The criticism raised by Sri Trivedi regarding the presence of PW 3, Smt. Bhagwati Devi, wife of the deceased, that it was impossible that she would not intervene and hurl herself on the deceased at the time of incident also has no legs to stand. In the present case where the deceased was being assaulted by five persons with lathis, barchhas and spears, even male witnesses, much less a woman, are unlikely to enter the fray and try to save a person, even if the said person is their kith and kin. Moreover, as mentioned in Appa Bhai’s case cited above the witnesses react in different manners when confronted with such situations and there is no fixed manner in which every witness should react in an incident. A very brave person may jump into the fight, who is fearless to his life and it is more likely that most of the persons would not intervene. As the incident took place right in front of the house of PW 3, Smt. Bhagwati Devi and a lot of hue and cry was being raised, there is nothing unnatural that she witnessed the same from the top of the roof which was a projection from the roof of their house and there is no ground to doubt the veracity of the testimony of this witness. The collection of blood from that spot (point ‘A’ on the site-plan, which was on the tri-junction near the house of Munna Khan) also shows that the incident took place there and that the same was clearly visible from the point where PW 3 and PW 2 had seen the incident. 23. It was next urged by Sri Trivedi that there is no reasonable explanation why the FIR was lodged on 14.5.1978 at 1.30 a.m. in the night if the incident took place on 13.5.1978 at 6.30 pm as PS Mau was only 1½ miles away. We think that there is no inordinate delay in the lodging of the report of this incident after such a brutal crime in which the accused persons even rolled the body of the deceased in a sheet and hoisted it on a lathi and carried it away in a daredevil manner in the presence of the villagers, who did not dare to intervene, towards Yamuna river after assaulting the injured informant Ghanshyam Tripathi, along with the deceased. The village persons Ballu Singh, Ram Kripal and Pawan Kumar were not agreeable to accompany the informant to the police station and the informant proceeded to the police station, only after Shriram called his brother-in-law (behnoi) Dharam Das and Dharam Das’s brother, Dharampal, from village Chhurari who accompanied the informant to Mau for lodging the report. This adequately explains the delay, if any, in lodging of the report. It is also not very material that all these details and explanation for the delay were not mentioned in the FIR which is not expected to be an encyclopedia. 24. Moreover, it cannot be denied that the informant, Ghanshyam Prasad Tripathi is an injured witness. The fact that the injuries received by him were simple, is no ground to think that he had fabricated his injuries when he was medically examined the next morning i.e. on 14.5.1978 at 8 am by Dr. A.R. Hasnain at PHC Mau and the learned AGA rightly pointed out that the nature of the injuries sustained on his arms and wrists etc. is fully consistent with his version that first he tried to fight and protect himself with his lathi and arms, but when the assailant party got the better of him and knocked down his lathi he fled away from the spot. is fully consistent with his version that first he tried to fight and protect himself with his lathi and arms, but when the assailant party got the better of him and knocked down his lathi he fled away from the spot. As there were eye-witnesses of the incident which took place right near the house of the parties, there is no substance in the above submission of the learned counsel for the appellants nor there was any need for this witness to get his injuries manufactured only to show himself as a witness of the incident. The doctor had also opined that the injuries were not manufactured although he stated that if a very brave person wants to get such injuries inflicted, on him, it is not impossible to get such injuries inflicted but normally such injuries are not self-inflicted. The reason for his presence at the spot that he was accompanying the deceased was natural and as we have mentioned earlier, the versions of all the three eye-witnesses are consistent about the circumstances in which he was accompanying the deceased. 25. We also do not find any substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants as to why this witness (PW 2) did not come back to the village along with the police after he had lodged the report, as brother-in-law of the deceased, Prem Narain, who had accompanied the injured Ghanshyam Prasad, the informant, to the police station Mau, returned back to the village with the police. It is to be seen that Ravi Shanker and Ghanshyam Prasad stayed in the police station to get himself medically examined the next morning which was conducted the next morning, as pointed out above. 26. It is to be seen that Ravi Shanker and Ghanshyam Prasad stayed in the police station to get himself medically examined the next morning which was conducted the next morning, as pointed out above. 26. As regards one other issue raised by the learned counsel for the appellants that the body of the deceased was never found and that only some disintegrated blood had been collected from the Yamuna bank, and there was no confirmation that the deceased was thrown after his murder in the river Yamuna, it is to be seen that in a catena of authorities (vide Anant Chintaman Lagu v. State of Bombay, AIR 1960 SC 500 ; Raghav Prapanna Tripathi v. State of U.P., AIR 1963 SC 74 et al) it has been held that simply because the body of the deceased had not been recovered after an incident, it cannot be held that in the absence of “corpus delicti” no crime has been committed, if there is evidence circumstantial or direct for establishing that the crime has been committed. In the present incident, there is direct evidence of eye-witnesses that the incident took place in front of the house of the parties, so it is not very material if there is any shortcoming in the proof of the body being thrown in the Yamuna river or being disposed of at that point. That fact alone cannot detract from the eye-witness account of the incident, or give rise to a finding that the deceased had not been murdered in the incident. 27. One little point raised by the learned counsel for the appellants was that the father’s name of the informant was inscribed later in the FIR in a different ink. It has been rightly explained by learned AGA that after the informant carried the report to the house of Ghanshyam Pandey, the cousin brother of the deceased Bhola Nath, in Mau, he showed the report to him and on his suggestion the informant added his father’s name. From this addition of his own father’s name, it cannot be inferred that the names of the accused were interpolated later on after consultation and tutoring. 28. Likewise nothing turns on the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that there was no good reason for Smt. Bhagwati Devi and others not to search for the dead body after the accused persons had carried it away. 28. Likewise nothing turns on the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that there was no good reason for Smt. Bhagwati Devi and others not to search for the dead body after the accused persons had carried it away. The circumstances in which the crime had been committed and the bold and dastardly manner in which the dead body had been carried away in front of the villagers, it is too much to expect from Smt. Bhagwati Devi and others (who were not even willing to accompany the informant to go to the police station to lodge the report) to have followed the accused who were carrying away the dead body hoisted on a lathi. In fact, learned AGA has rightly pointed out that the terror of the accused was so great that Smt. Bhagwati Devi, PW 3 and Ghanshyam Tripathi, PW 1, had even started living in another village Garhwa across Yamuna river in Allahabad district where they had to purchase land after the murder and the land of the deceased in the village Mandaur had to be left fallow and uncultivated. 29. We find substance in only one submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that so far as the appellants Vashistha and Nathhan are concerned (Nathan has already died and his appeal has already abated), both in the FIR as well as in the evidence of the witnesses their participation at the time of assault on the deceased and the injured is not shown and they are said to have participated only in carrying away the dead body of the deceased from the place of crime for the purpose of making his body disappear for concealment of the crime. 30. For all these reasons, we uphold the order and conviction of the appellants as described above on Shanker, Kalla, Giriraj Shanker, and Chhedi, as awarded by the trial Court. They are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled and they shall be taken into custody to serve out their sentences. 31. So far as the appellant, Vashistha, is concerned, his conviction and sentence under Sections 302/149 and 147, IPC is set aside and his conviction under Section 201, IPC only, as awarded by the trial Court, is upheld. He is on bail. His bail bond is cancelled and he shall be taken into custody to serve out his sentence. 31. So far as the appellant, Vashistha, is concerned, his conviction and sentence under Sections 302/149 and 147, IPC is set aside and his conviction under Section 201, IPC only, as awarded by the trial Court, is upheld. He is on bail. His bail bond is cancelled and he shall be taken into custody to serve out his sentence. The Office is directed to forward this order to the C.J.M. Banda within two weeks for compliance. ————