JUDGMENT: D.P. Singh, J.-AII the three appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 9.7.2002 passed by Shri S.C. Singh, Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Sessions Trial No. 454 of 2001, whereby and whereunder the appellants have been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for life. 2. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that in the evening of 16.8.2000 at about 6 p.m. the informant Mumtaz Khan sister of the deceased Noor Khan was getting a Chouki loaded on the Tractor belonging to her brother in his house situated in village Daladali. One Nayeem Ansari was loading the 'Chouki' on the Tractor at that time, all of sudden 4-5 persons of village Daladali came there and started assaulting Nayeem Ansari without any reason. When the informant objected why the guests was being assaulted, those persons named in the FIR started assaulting her brother Noor Khan. The informant. wife of the deceased and others tried to intervene who were also assaulted. She further named these appellants alongwith one Baldeo Munda to have assaulted the deceased with lathi in front of the house causing his instantaneous death. They further threatened the house inmates that that will come in large number and put the house in fire. The son of the deceased Sezar Khan fired upon the attackers to save themselves. 3. As further stated within no time 60-70 persons from the village arrived there armed with deadly weapons and started ransacking the house. According to her version the son of the deceased to save the life of the house inmates further fired nine rounds from the gun present in the house. In the meantime police arrived and saved the informants and other house inmates from further assault. 4. The police recorded the statement of the informant and registered Ratu P.S. Case No. 84 of 2000 under various sections including Sections 302, 307, 427 I.P.C. against three appellants and one Baldeo Munda. The police prepared inquest report of the dead body of Noor Khan and recorded the statement of the witnesses to finally submit charge-sheet against above named three appellants. The appellants were charged for the offences under Sections 148,302/149, 307/149, 427/149 I.P.C. to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be innocent. The police prepared inquest report of the dead body of Noor Khan and recorded the statement of the witnesses to finally submit charge-sheet against above named three appellants. The appellants were charged for the offences under Sections 148,302/149, 307/149, 427/149 I.P.C. to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be innocent. They have further asserted that they were passing through the road situated near the house of the deceased which was objected by him. Thereafter the son of the deceased started firing on them, which resulted in a mob attack on the house leading to his death. Therefore the appellants though named in the FIR and charge-sheeted were innocent. However the learned trial court after considering the evidence brought on record by the prosecution found and held all the three appellants guilty under Section 302/149 I.P.C. while acquitting them from other charges. The learned trial court, accordingly, sentenced them to serve R.I. for life. 5. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellants on the grounds that the learned trial court failed to appreciate the circumstances in which the occurrence took place. Senior counsel Sri B.M. Tripathy further pointed out that the FIR was lodged after three hours and the same was forwarded to the Court of CJM after two days. Therefore the unexplained delay in lodging the FIR as well as forwarding it to the Court of CJM creates a reasonable doubt on the prosecution case. It is further asserted that the facts available before the trial court did not inspire confidence upon the prosecution witnesses who are highly interested and related to each other. 6. The learned counsel further stressed before us that in spite of the recovery of three dead bodies near the place of occurrence showing that the informant's family was aggressor has not been considered by the trial court. In this context our attention was drawn toward~ the admission of the witnesses as well as the I.O. that the firearm used by the sor of the deceased alongwith empty cartridges and live cartridge was seized which goes to prove that the defence version is more probable than the prosecution version. Senior counsel Sri B.M. Tripathy further pointed out that for the same occurrence the son of the deceased Sezar Khan has been found and held guilty by the learned ACJM, Ranchi in G.R. Case No. 1767 of 2000 relying on the defence version. Senior counsel Sri B.M. Tripathy further pointed out that for the same occurrence the son of the deceased Sezar Khan has been found and held guilty by the learned ACJM, Ranchi in G.R. Case No. 1767 of 2000 relying on the defence version. As such the learned trial court relying upon the interested witnesses, who deliberately suppressed the truths has resulted in injustice. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellants under Section 302/149 I.P.C. deserves to be set aside and appellants acquitted of the charges. 7. In this context an I.A. No. 1615 of 2008 was. filed on 29.7.2008 that the case records of this case which may prove the defence version be called for under Section 391 Cr.P.C. and admit the same as additional evidence on behalf of the defence. We have heard both sides on the prayer which had been filed at belated stage as the order was passed in February 2003 and this appeal has been taken up on request of the appellants' counsel for early disposal. Furthermore the copy of the order in G.R. Case No. 1767 of 2000 dated 15.2.2003 which has been appended with this I.A. No. 1615 of 2008 as Annexure-1 can be looked into without calling for the records as the order is judicial order passed by ACJM, Ranchi, disposing of the matter before it finally. Accordingly, I.A. No. 1615 of 2008 stands disposed of. 8. The learned APP vehemently oppose and stressed that the witnesses though related were probable witnesses of the occurrence who have supported the prosecution version. According to the learned APP Sri Sekhar Sinha, the prosecution could prove beyond all reasonable doubts that the appellants alongwith many unknown persons have attacked the house of the deceased and caused his death. In this context, our attention was drawn towards the statement of P.Ws. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and P.W. 8 Dr. B.P. Ranjan who examined P.W. 1. The learned APP further criticized the defence version asserting that the appellants have not come before the trial court asserting that they were attacked by the son of the" deceased rather D.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 have been produced as tutored witnesses. According to him these witnesses have admitted that there was continuing dispute between the deceased and the relations of the defence witnesses. They have come to support the prosecution case of G.R. Case No. 1767 of 2000. 1, 2 and 3 have been produced as tutored witnesses. According to him these witnesses have admitted that there was continuing dispute between the deceased and the relations of the defence witnesses. They have come to support the prosecution case of G.R. Case No. 1767 of 2000. Therefore the conviction of the appellants deserves to be maintained. 9. We have gone through the materials on record to appreciate the contentions raised on behalf of the appellants. It is apparent from the facts on record that in the evening of 16.8.2000 an occurrence took place in which the brother of the informant Noor Khan met homicidal death having been assaulted by a number of persons of village Daladali with lathi. The dead body was recovered by the police at 6.30 p.m. and sent to post mortem report. Dr. A.K. Choudhary P.W. 9 has found and held that the deceased died because of assault by hard and blunt substance on his head. P.Ws. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 have consistently supported the prosecution case that all of a sudden these appellants alongwith Baldev Munda arrived at the place of occurrence and started assaulting Nayeem Ansari P.W. 2, brother-in-law of the deceased. According to P.W. 5 the incident took place when they were trying to get the Chouki loaded on the tractor. The defence version is that the manner of occurrence was otherwise. According to the defence version when villagers were passing through nearby road of the house of the deceased, the prosecution party objected on which altercation took place. According to them further the son of the deceased came out with gun and fired upon them resulting in death of one person, namely, Baldeo Munda. Thereafter the villagers came in large number and assaulted the deceased who succumbed to his injuries. The defence has further asserted that during this period also Sezar Khan son of the deceased fired upon the villagers resulting in two more death. In this context, the photocopy of the order passed by the learned ACJM, Ranchi in G. R. Case No. 1767 of 2000 has been brought on record by filing I.A. No. 1615 of 2008. 10. Even if the contention of the defence is accepted, the prosecution version that Noor Khan was assaulted by the appellants as well as other villagers cannot be thrown out. The identification of these three appellants by P.Ws. 10. Even if the contention of the defence is accepted, the prosecution version that Noor Khan was assaulted by the appellants as well as other villagers cannot be thrown out. The identification of these three appellants by P.Ws. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 remained intact. They have specifically named these appellants alongwith Baldeo Munda to have assaulted the deceased with lathi. The witnesses could not be discredited regarding the identification of these appellants and the Baldeo Munda as assailants. In defence version nothing has been brought on record why these three appellants were named by the witnesses. 11. In the manner of occurrence brought before the trial court a mob has assembled at the house of the deceased has to be accepted. This mob consisting the present appellants having arrived at the place of occurrence caused the death of Noar Khan for whatever reasons cannot be justified just because firing has been made by the son of the deceased Sezar Khan on the mob. The informant has tried to explain the firing in her first version before the police at 6.30 p.m. on 16.8.2000. She has further tried to refine it during the trial but we are not concerned with the statement regarding the firing made by Sezar Khan. The trial of the appellants was held upon specific allegation that they assaulted the deceased. The death of the deceased has been proved beyond doubts as a result of injuries on his head with hard and blunt substance. P.Ws. 1 to 5 consistently asserted before the trial court and named them specifically that these three appellants have assaulted the deceased. We do not find any reason to disbelieve the consistent version of these five witnesses who were probable witnesses of the occurrence taking place in the house of the deceased. 12. P.W. 1 Salem Khan wife of the deceased in her cross-examination asserted that the dead body of her husband was lying in front of the Kitchen when police arrived after half an hour of the occurrence. She further asserted that though her son was arrested by the police alongwith the licensee double barrel gun, she did not know how the dead body of Baldeo Munda, Budhua Munda and Jatru Munda was found by the police. She further asserted that though her son was arrested by the police alongwith the licensee double barrel gun, she did not know how the dead body of Baldeo Munda, Budhua Munda and Jatru Munda was found by the police. She has denied the suggestion by the defence that the road passing in front of their house was a public passage and an occurrence took place when her husband resisted the movement of villagers on that road. The defence version resulting in G.R. Case No. 1767 of 2000 was denied by her. The defence has suggested to her in para 32 that villagers assembled after the objection raised by her husband and they assaulted him resulting in his death. Similarly P.W. 2 Nayeem Ansari (brother-in-law of the deceased), P.W. 3 Irion Khan (daughter of the deceased), P.W. 4 Adrain Kujur (Sister-in-law of the deceased) and P.W. 5 Mumtaz Khan (Informant as well as sister of the deceased) have supported the prosecution case in details. They have been cross-examined at length by the defence suggesting minute details regarding the occurrence in which Noar Khan died. However it does not make much difference regarding the occurrence which took place admittedly in the evening of 16.8.2000 resulting in death of the said Noor Khan. These three appellants have been named specifically by these five witnesses to have assaulted the deceased. P.W. 2 has specifically named these appellants vide para 22 of the cross examination. All these witnesses have denied any knowledge about the occurrence and firing done by the son of the deceased upon the assailants which is the subject matter of order dated 15.2.2003 in G.R Case No. 1767 of 2000. However this does not make them unworthy of the reliance regarding the incident in which Noar Khan lost his life. 13. The identity of the appellants is not disputed as they were of the same village. The witnesses specifically named them having asserted that they knew them from before. The appellants claiming that dispute regarding land was going on between the prosecution party and the defence party. P.W. 5 the informant has explained her presence at the time of the occurrence and gave details in which manner occurrence started and' assault took place till the police arrived at the place of occurrence. She has named these appellants alongwith Baldeo Munda specifically to have assaulted the deceased vide para 7 of her chief. P.W. 5 the informant has explained her presence at the time of the occurrence and gave details in which manner occurrence started and' assault took place till the police arrived at the place of occurrence. She has named these appellants alongwith Baldeo Munda specifically to have assaulted the deceased vide para 7 of her chief. During cross-examination she has supported in para 9 that when mob assembled alongwith arms they got inside the house. She further admitted that earlier police cases were lodged by the deceased against the appellants. However it has come on record vide para 47 of her cross-examination that the village Bazar used to be held adjacent to the boundary' of the house of the deceased. 14. P.Ws. 6 and 7 are witness on inquest report on the dead body of Noor Khan. The post mortem report Ext.-4 proved by P.W. 9 shows that the death was caused due to head injuries. P.W. 8 has supported the prosecution version regarding the injuries on P.W. 1. P.W. 10, I.O. of the case, has recorded the statements of informant and other witnesses just after the occurrence and prepared inquest report has supported the prosecution at length. During cross-examination this witness has admitted that at 6.30 p.m. he received information regarding the occurrence. He has described the place of occurrence. The learned counsel for the appellants criticized his evidence that he has not prepared the seizure list of the blood stained soil and nor described what was found on the place of occurrence like the Chouki, Tractor etc. His attention has been brought regarding the contradictions suggested to P.W. 1 which has been denied by him in para 23. However the minor contradictions brought to the attention to this witness does not make much difference to the facts proved that Noor Khan died in the evening of 16.8.2000 after being assaulted by these three appellants in his house. P.W. 11 has partly investigated the case and submitted charge-sheet against the appellants. 15. As against this D.W. 1, D.W. 2 and D.W. 3 have come to support the defence version that it was Noor Khan who objected the passage of villagers on the road passing in front of his house. These three defence witnesses have asserted that firstly Sezar Khan fired upon the villagers resulting in death of Baldeo Munda after which this occurrence has taken place. These three defence witnesses have asserted that firstly Sezar Khan fired upon the villagers resulting in death of Baldeo Munda after which this occurrence has taken place. As such, we find that the occurrence asserted by the prosecution that the appellants alongwith other villagers has attacked the house of the deceased resulting in his death stands corroborated by their evidence also. 16. Having considered the facts and circumstances stated above, we find that the prosecution in the present case has been able to prove beyond all reasonable doubts that an occurrences took place In the evening of 16.8.2000 in which Noor Khan died. The appellants have been specifically named to have assaulted the deceased during this occurrence. The trial court has considered all these aspects at length in paras 18 and 19 of the impugned judgment. Thus defence version of the occurrence cannot be a ground to disbelieve the prosecution case. Case and counter case always goes to prove that there was some occurrence. Unless the defence has brought on record that the prosecution case was unworthy of reliance no benefit could result from such defence version that counter case being truthful, the prosecution case would be discredited. 17. Having considered all the facts and circumstances discussed above, we find and hold that the prosecution in the present case has been able to prove beyond all reasonable doubts the manner in which these appellants participated in causing the death of Noar Khan. Accordingly the present appeal is found without merit and stands dismissed. The impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court against the appellants is hereby confirmed. Amareshwar Sahay, J.-I agree