Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1051 (PAT)

Satrughan Mahto v. State Of Bihar

2010-04-29

AKHILESH CHANDRA, DHARNIDHAR JHA

body2010
JUDGEMENT DHARNIDHAR JHA, J. 1. The solitary appellant of Criminal Appeal No.474 of 1988 was charged under Sections 148 and 302 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The four appellants of Criminal Appeal no.488 of 1988 were charged under Sections 148 and 302/149 IPC and 27 of the Arms Act for being tried on Sessions Trial No.41 of 1984. The learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Arrah held appellant Shatrughan Mahto guilty of committing the offences, he had been charged with and directed him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 148 of the IPC, rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for three years under Section 27 of the Arms Act. The four appellants of the other appeal were also found guilty of committing offences under Section 148, 302/149 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act and the same sentences were inflicted upon each of them under each of the Sections as was inflicted upon appellant Satrughan Mahto. These two appeals have been preferred by them against the above judgement rendered in Sessions Trial No.141 of 2003 on the 17th of August, 1988. 2. The informant Bindeshwari Singh (P.W.4) alleged in his fardbayan, Ext-3, that on 31.5.1983 at about 6.30 A.M., his son Ajay Singh was coming to his house from Pawna Bazar and when he had reached the road near the bridge in front of his house, all the appellants came on to the road. The appellant Bharat Mahto was armed with a DBBL licensed gun whereas the remaining appellants were armed with country made guns. The informant at that particular time was at the entrance of the gate of his house. It was alleged that appellant Indradeo Yadav remonstrated the other appellants to kill by saying that it was he (i.e., the deceased)who had got his brother killed in Sinha Mela. Satrughan Mahto, on the above remonstration fired at Ajay Singh, the son of the informant. He fell down there after being hit. The informant raised a hulla which attracted Bishwa Nath Singh (P.W.3) Lal Bahadur Singh (P.W.2) and Vijay Kumar Singh (P.W.1) who all came running and saw the occurrence. The appellants retreated from the place of occurrence making blank fires and disappeared into the lane from which they had emerged. He fell down there after being hit. The informant raised a hulla which attracted Bishwa Nath Singh (P.W.3) Lal Bahadur Singh (P.W.2) and Vijay Kumar Singh (P.W.1) who all came running and saw the occurrence. The appellants retreated from the place of occurrence making blank fires and disappeared into the lane from which they had emerged. The informant stated that he went near his son and found him soaked in blood but alive. The injured Ajay Kumar was picked up and the informant started for the hospital at Arrah and no sooner had he reached the hospital gate, than he found his son already dead. 3. On the basis of Ext-3, the FIR of the case, Ext-5 was drawn up and the investigation was started by P.W.6 S.I. Kailash Prasad who was the officer-in-charge of Sandesh police station and as per his evidence, he came to Arrah from Bhaiya Pawna at 2 A.M. and went into Arrah hospital. He found Vijay Kumar Singh(P.W.1)and the informant and his other relatives there. He received the fardbayan recorded by the A.S.I. Chandrakant Singh of Arrah town police station along with the inquest report, Ext-4 prepared by the said A.S.I.Chandrakant Singh. P.W.B, thereafter, recorded the statements of Bindeshwari Singh (P.W.4) the informant Bishwa Nath Singh (P.W.3), Lal Bahadur Singh (P.W.2) and Vijay Kumar Singh(P.W.1) in sadar hospital Arrah itself. 4. He came to Pawna and inspected the place of occurrence which was situated on the pitch road running between Pawna and Agiawn. The place of occurrence was in front of the house of P.W.1 Vijay Kumar Singh by the side of the road on the eastern side of it. It was at a distance of about 12 yards from the house of P.W.1 and to further east of the place of occurrence was the provision store of Sitaram Sah as also the shop of a drum- maker, namely, Abdul Rahim.To the west of the place of occurrence was situated the shop of Gaya Sah. The road was to the north and south of the place of occurrence, indicating that the road at that particular place was running from north to south. 5. P.W.6 found a barrel of a country made pistol as also an empty of an L.G. and copious blood at the place of occurrence. The road was to the north and south of the place of occurrence, indicating that the road at that particular place was running from north to south. 5. P.W.6 found a barrel of a country made pistol as also an empty of an L.G. and copious blood at the place of occurrence. Accordingly, those were seized by preparing seizure memo though there was no copy of the seizure memo in the case diary. He seized the DBBL gun of accused Bharat Mahto and received the postmortem examination report. 6. P.W.6 perused the records of Barhara P.S.Case no.16 of 13.4.1981 which was under Sections 307 and 324 of the IPC and 27 of the Arms Act and which had been registered at the statement of injured Rajdeo Yadav and after concluding the investigation sent up the accused for trial. 7. The defence of the appellants was of complete denial of their participation in the alleged occurrence and they further pleaded that they had falsely been implicated because the father of P.W.1 Vijay Kumar Singh had been murdered by the accused persons and as such there was bad blood between the parties. It appears that the defence suggested that no one had really seen the killing of the deceased which had taken place not at 6.30 P.M. but at or around 8.30 P.M. on that particular date and had falsely implicated the appellants. 8. For the proof of the charges, seven witnesses were examined by the prosecution. P.W.1 Vijay Kumar Singh, P.W.2 Lai Bahadur Singh, P.W.3 Bishwa Nath Singh and the informant P.W.4 Bindeshwari Singh appears very closely related to each other as they are cousins among themselves. All of them have given eye witness account of the occurrence. P.W.5 Dr. Rabindra Nath Sahai was the doctor who held postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased and prepared the postmortem examination report, Ext-2. P.W.6 S.I. Kailash Prasad, as just pointed out, was the investigation officer of the case. P.W.7 Murat Ram was a witness of formal character who had proved the writings of two stations diary entries no.590 dated 31.5.1983 and 520 dated 1.6.1983 being in the hand of literate constable Birendra Singh and further stated that the two entries bore the signature also of P.W.6 Kailash Prasad. The two documents have been marked Ext-6 and 6/1. 9. The defence has examined two D.Ws. The two documents have been marked Ext-6 and 6/1. 9. The defence has examined two D.Ws. D.W.1 Ramchandra Paswan has proved the supervision note of the S.P., Bhojpur submitted in the present case and the same has been marked Ext-B. D.W.2 is Sheojee Yadav, Chaukidar and he has given evidence that no one had really seen the occurrence and the police camp which was located in the village of occurrence was informed by the family members of the informant and other witnesses that the deceased was shot at around 8.30 P.M. 10. On consideration of the evidence the impugned judgement was passed. 11. We have heard Sri Ramesh Singh, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants. He has mainly attacked the competence of the witnesses and their claim of seeing the occurrence. It was submitted that their evidence as to where they were standing when the occurrence took place is so contrary as to making it unsafe to record a finding that they were really present near the seen of occurrence to witness it. Sri Singh referred to us the relevant parts of the evidence of all the witnesses. It was next contended that in fact no one had seen the occurrence and all witnesses being related were interested on account of the previous enmity and appears coming together to depose falsely in support of the charges. It was contended that it was a busy road and there were many houses and other establishments of different persons of the village, but no one came forward to support the allegations that it were the appellants who had committed the offence. It was contended last that the deceased was killed by being surrounded and the distance from where the witnesses claimed seeing the occurrence makes it impossible for them to have really seen the occurrence. It was contended that the conviction of the appellants was wrongly and improperly recorded. It was contended further that the blood seized from the place of occurrence was not sent for chemical analysis and that creates a doubt about the place of occurrence. 12. It was contended that the conviction of the appellants was wrongly and improperly recorded. It was contended further that the blood seized from the place of occurrence was not sent for chemical analysis and that creates a doubt about the place of occurrence. 12. Replying to the above contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the informant, the learned A.P.P. Sushri Shashi Bala Verma, submitted that there was a clear motive in the appellants for killing the deceased as they suspected that the deceased had got the brother of the accused Indradeo Yadav killed in a particular Mela. It was contended that the competence of witnesses could not be doubted inasmuch as all the four witnesses have given eye witness account of the occurrence and they have given acceptable reasons for their presence near the place of occurrence. The manner of occurrence gets corroboration from the evidence of P.W.5 Dr. Rabindra Nath Sahay and the investigating officer (P.W.6) who found an empty cartridge as also the broken barrel of a country made gun besides finding copious blood at the seen of occurrence. These evidences clearly signify that the occurrence had taken place at the place where the prosecution alleges it to have taken place. It was contended by Susri Shashi Bala Verma that the judgement was passed on correct appreciation of evidence. 13. The competence of witnesses as regards their claim of being the witnesses to the occurrence was seriously challenged before us by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants. It is admitted that the father of Vijay Kumar Singh was killed by the appellant Indradeo Singh and others and there was some bad blood between the parties. Initially Vijay Kumar Singh(P.W.1)appears attempting to conceal his relationship with other witnesses as may appear from his evidence in cross-examination where he said that it was incorrect that his father Rambilash Singh was the brother of P.W.2 Lal Bahadur Singh, P.W.3 Bishwa Nath Singh and P.W.4 Bindeshwari Singh. He further appears stating that he did not know the names of the father of the above noted witnesses and denied the suggestion to that effect, but in the same paragraph 3 P.W.1 has stated that contiguous south of his house was the house of Lal Bahadur Singh (P.W.2) and just west to the house of Lal Bahadur Singh was situated the house of P.W.3 Bishwanath Singh. The house of informant Bindeshwari Singh was situated contiguous south of that of P.W.3. It was suggested to him that the four houses of the four witnesses were situated in one campus to which he replied that the houses of each of the witnesses were located in separate and indistinct compounds. The fact that P.W.1 is the family member of the other witnesses appears admitted by P.W.2 Lal Bahadur Singh. In his cross-examination in paragraph-2 he has stated that his father was two brothers and that P.W.1 Vijay Kumar Singh was the son of one of the brothers Srinath Singh. This fact further gets established by the evidence of P.W.3 Bishwa Nath Singh in paragraph-3. Thus, it is clearly indicated by the evidence available on record that Vijay Kumar Singh was making an incorrect statement about his relationship with other witnesses. But, that may not be sufficient to throw out his evidence because there is a tendency among the witnesses to make false statement under a wrong belief that if they admit being relatives of the deceased or other witnesses their evidence may be rejected. This is why that the courts have to approach the evidence of witnesses with quite care and caution so as to appreciating it correctly and thereby to separate the truth from falsehood. Besides, if the court finds that the claim of a witness being present at the place of occurrence was probable and as such acceptable, a false statement here or the other there, which may not affect the core prosecution story, could never be sufficient to render the evidence of a particular witness not fit to be acted upon. 14. The witnesses have claimed that they had seen the occurrence from a particular place. P.W.1 Vijay Kumar Singh has stated that when he was descending from "the first floor of his house by the stairs, he found that the appellants were there on the road fully armed with weapons as indicated in the FIR and at the remonstration of appellant Indradeo Yadav the occurrence took place in the alleged manner in which appellant Satrughan Mahto fired a shot from his country made pistol at Ajay Kumar Singh and injured him. P.W.2 has stated that he was standing at the gate of his compound which was by the side of the road and saw the occurrence. P.W.2 has stated that he was standing at the gate of his compound which was by the side of the road and saw the occurrence. P.W.2 has stated in paragraph-3 that the gate was situated west of the road at a distance of 7-8 steps away from the road and other witnesses like Bishwa Nath Singh (P.W.3), Bindeshwari Singh (P.W.4)were also standing at the gate and talking together. P.W.2 has stated that P.W.3 Bishwa Nath Singh and P.W.4 Bindehwari Singh were standing at the gate from before P.W.2 had reached there and that Bishwa Nath Singh and Bindeshwari Singh were his full brothers. This fect appears stated by P.W.3 Bishwa Nath Singh also who stated that he was standing at his gate and was talking to P.W.4 and P.W.2. In cross-examination paragraph-4, P.W.3 has stated that when he was at his gate Bindeshwari Singh (P.W.4) was also there for about half an hour and both of them were joined by P.W.2 Lal Bahadur Singh in 20-25 minutes. P.W.4 has stated in the FIR itself as also in his statement that he was standing at the gate of entry of his compound and he saw the occurrence. This witness appears cross-examined in paragraphs 4 and 5 of his evidence and according to him his house was situated west of the road and it appears that he was standing at the gate for about last half an hour and was talking to P.W.3 Bishwa Nath Singh. P.W.4 stated that P.W.2 Lal Bahadur Singh had reached there ahead of P.W.4. 15. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that Lal Bahadur Singh as per P.W.3 had reached after P.Ws.3 and 4 had assembled at the gate and were standing there and talking together but P.W.4 stated that Lal Bahadur Singh was already there, ahead of P.W.4. It was contended that on these varying stands of P.Ws.2, 3 and 4 as. when they reached at the partipular gate, may be of P.W.3 or P.W.4, their claim of being near the place of occurrence and thereafter seeing it must be rejected. This argument may appear important and quite weighty but when it is considered in the light of the human frailties then it could be appreciated properly. The occurrence was taking place on 31.5.1983 and the witnesses were being examined in the year 1986 thats, after more than three years. This argument may appear important and quite weighty but when it is considered in the light of the human frailties then it could be appreciated properly. The occurrence was taking place on 31.5.1983 and the witnesses were being examined in the year 1986 thats, after more than three years. In fact, the evidence of P.W.4 was concluded on 21.4.1987, i.e., almost after four years of the occurrence. The above details which could be very important as regards the competence of the witnesses and their claim of seeing the occurrence, may at the same time, could be matters which could fade away from human memory or which could get jumbled up while being reproduced after such lapse of time. Besides, one must remember that the capabilities of witnesses, besides varying from witness to witness, is also deeply affected by the very circumstance and environment of a court room. Rural people, like, the three witnesses were standing up in the witness box and were being subjected to searching gaze of the onlookers present in the court room which was being presided over by a robed authority whose very presence often unnerves even highly constituted persons. That gets worsened when the witness faces an advocate who throws at him searching questions. Some questions, very often, are thrown at the witnesses simply to unnerve or irritate them with a view to upsetting them and the balance of their minds and thereby getting contrary evidence on record. 16. What I find from the evidence on record is that the four witnesses were sons of two brothers, namely, Deosharan Singh and Shivnath Singh and they had their houses located side by side and the whole location was west of the road which was going to Ara from the place of occurrence- village. It could not be a situation that the houses could not have their gates approaching the road running in front of each of them. They must have left such spaces while partitioning the homestead as to having quite convenient approaches to the road and there might be a probability that their gates were located in such a way as to be side by side to each other so that they have an easy access to the main road running in front of their houses. This appears more a probability when we read the evidence of each of the witnesses. This appears more a probability when we read the evidence of each of the witnesses. P.W.2 had given the location of his gate in paragraph-3. The defence did not take the location of the gates of other witnesses. P.W.3 has stated that the place where Ajay Kumar Singh was shot and injured was away by 7-8 yards from the gate on which P.W.3 was standing. This evidence in paragraph-4, of P.W.3 further indicates that the gate was situated 7-8 yards west of the road. RW.4, the informant was cross-examined in paragraphs 4 and 5 of his evidence. In paragraph-4 he stated that his house was located west of the road and in paragraph-5 he stated that he was standing at the gate of his house and was talking to P.W.3 Bishwa Nath Singh who was already there with P.W.2 Lal Bahadur Singh. P.W.4 has further stated that there was no particular reason for him or others to be present at the gate at the time of occurrence and it was merely a co-incidence. The defence did not put any question to P.W.4 as to what was the distance between the place of occurrence and the gate where he was standing but his evidence in paragraph-5 in consonance with the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 gives a picture as if the gates of the houses of the witnesses were located very closely and there could be the probability for each of them remaining there in the manner as claimed by them. I do not find any reason, much less any weighty reason, to hold that the witnesses were not present at the places as claimed by them. 17. Topographical location of the place of occurrence has also been stated by P.W.6, S.I. Kailash Prasad. His evidence in paragraph-2 indicates that the pitch road which was going from Pawna to Agiaon was the place of occurrence and the house of P.W.1 Vijay Kumar Singh was situated just by the side of it and the place was towards east of that particular house. Thus, from the conspectus of evidence of witnesses, I find that their competence by virtue of their presence appears established. 18. Thus, from the conspectus of evidence of witnesses, I find that their competence by virtue of their presence appears established. 18. During the course of argument, the competence of P.W.1 Vijay Kumar Singh was challenged by the learned counsel for the appellants by submitting that he was descending from the stairs and as such he could not have seen the occurrence as stairs are generally enclosed by walls. We cannot presume anything in that behalf. P.W.1 has stated that he was descending from the first floor of the house by stairs and he was seeing that in front of it, the occurrence was taking place on the road. It may appear from the evidence of P.W.1 in paragrapgh-3 that he had two establishments, one was a separate establishment for the ladies of the house. As such, while describing the location of the houses of the witnesses he has stated that house of P.W.2 Lal Bahadur Singh was contiguous south of his house meant for women. The defence does not appear attempting to put any question as to what was the use of that particular house from which he was descending by stairs. The stair was in open or was enclosed does not appear indicated by the evidence available on record. There is nothing brought in the cross-examination of any of the witnesses that the house of Vijay Kumar Singh did not have stairs and that the place of occurrence could not be seen from any part of it. Moreover, the evidence of P.W.1 does not indicate that it was an improvement made by him for making himself a competent witness. He also appears having seen the occurrence and appears a competent witness. 19. As regards the evidence coming from interested and related witnesses it is true that P.W.1 has stated in paragraph-4 that the accused persons had killed his father. The same fact appears admitted by P.W.4 Bindeshwari Singh, the informant of the case. In his cross-examination in paragraph-5 he stated that he did not have any enmity with the accused persons in spite of the fact that they had been accused in a case instituted for the murder of Srinath Singh. It may be pointed out that Srinath Singh is the father of Vijay Kumar Singh. There was no enmity recorded except the above murder case between the parties. It may be pointed out that Srinath Singh is the father of Vijay Kumar Singh. There was no enmity recorded except the above murder case between the parties. The informant had stated that he did not have any enmity with any of the appellants. In spite of that I have approached the evidence of the witnesses carefully so as to finding out any good reasons which may indicate that their evidence may not be trustworthy. I find that the witnesses have given consistent evidence on all aspects of the matter. While being cross-examined, P.W.3 was the only witness whose attention has been drawn to some statements he made in court in paragraph-7, but those statements related particularly to the claim of the witnesses as regards the claim of standing up on the gate or gates and seeing the occurrence from there. Except that no material fact was introduced by the cross-examination of the witnesses which could create a situation of improbability or such contradictions as could render the evidence of each of the witnesses unacceptable. They appear replying to the questions in cross-examination properly and their conduct appears consistent. The occurrence was taking place in a very short while as may appear from the evidence of RW.3 and others and they did not appear having any time to react before Ajay Kumar Singh was shot and injured. 20. It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the distance between Pawna (P.O.village) and Arrah was about 10 kilometers as was stated by P.W.2 Lal Bahadur Singh in paragraph-5 of his evidence but the deceased reached Arrah after more than one and half hours. It was contended that this delay was occasioned not for any reason but for the only reason that the occurrence had indeed taken place at about 8 P.M. or just thereafter. While considering the present contention, I have considered the circumstances of the case. It is not denied that after being hit by gun shot Ajay Kumar Singh did not die instantaneously. He was still alive and as such attempt was made for bringing him to Arrah for treatment. This is evidently clear right from the stage of the fardbeyan till the witnesses were examined in court. P.W.2 has stated that the injured was shifted to Arrah by a jeep(P.W.2 para-5). He was still alive and as such attempt was made for bringing him to Arrah for treatment. This is evidently clear right from the stage of the fardbeyan till the witnesses were examined in court. P.W.2 has stated that the injured was shifted to Arrah by a jeep(P.W.2 para-5). P.W.4, the informant has also stated in paragraph-2 that his son was brought to Arrah by a jeep. The time which could be taken in travelling a distance depends on many factors. Besides, it is no ones case that a jeep was already standing at the place of occurrence and the injured was picked up and put up in that jeep and rushed to hospital. If the defence was anxious to advance the above argument, it was expected of it to have brought necessary facts on record of the case by cross-examination of the witnesses indicating that there was no time lost in arranging for a vehicle and other matters so as to bringing the deceased to Arrah. The son of P.W.4 and relative of other witnesses had been shot and injured. It must have created a situation of confusion and panic there and it would have been very difficult for the witnesses, specially the family members of P.W.4, to recollect themselves and thereafter to take steps for arranging for a jeep and rushing the injured to hospital. At any rate, there is no evidence on record that there was a jeep available in the village itself which indicates that a jeep must have been searched for and arrangements had been made thereafter for bringing the deceased to Arrah. I do not have any doubt that the family members must have taken all necessary steps in quite hurry, but the situation which had arisen must have taken quite some time. The witness P.W.2 has stated that they had reached Arrah at about 8 P.M. and the deceased was found dead and the officer-in-charge of Sandesh police station P.W.6 came there and recorded the fardbeyan of P.W.4. 21. In the above context, the learned counsel for the appellants attempted to convince us that in fact the occurrence had taken place at 8.30 P.M. and that was also reported to the police. 21. In the above context, the learned counsel for the appellants attempted to convince us that in fact the occurrence had taken place at 8.30 P.M. and that was also reported to the police. The informant had admitted the change in the time of occurrence, it was contended, and this fact was admitted by him during his questioning by the Superintendent of Police which is exhibited by Ext-B, the supervision note which was tendered in evidence by D.W.1. P.W.4 was cross-examined on the above point in paragraph-7 of his evidence in which it was suggested to him that he had stated before the S.P. that he had wrongly given the time of occurrence as 6.30 P.M. in place of 8 P.M. This fact could have been corroborated only when the S.P. had been brought into the witness box to depose on the above fact. He was not examined. Instead, D.W.1 tendered his supervision note Ext-B in evidence by stating that the same was typed in his presence by the stenographer of the S.P. named Jamil Ahmad and the document bears the signature of the then S.P., Sri Neyaz Ahmad. I have great reservations in placing reliance upon evidence of D.W.1., firstly, because the supervision note is a confidential note and it is not supposed to be typed by any employee of the office of the S.P. in presence of the ordinary person who was the law clerk of the P.Ps. office in Bhojpur. Secondly, the maker of the document Sri Neyaz Ahmad has not been examined. In spite of the above, the person Jamil Ahmad has also not been examined. It appears from the cross-examination of D.W.1 that it could not be said with certainty that it was typed by Jamil Ahmad as it did not bear his signature or any mark which could indicate that it was indeed typed by Jamil Ahmad. This document Ext-B as such appears not fit to be admitted in evidence. Moreover, the fact that P.W.4 had made a particular statement to the S.P. was a statement previously made by him before an authority who was competent to record it and as such the fact could have been proved after the cross-examination of P.W.4 to his previous statement to the above effect and also by producing Sri Neyaz Ahmad, the then S.P.Arrah and eliciting from him that indeed P.W.4 made such statement before him. 22. 22. Besides the above evidence, D.W.2 Chaukidar Sheo Ji Yadav has stated that when he and the A.S.I. of police camp came after the patrolling duty to the camp at about 8.30 P.M. he heard two shots being fired. Thereafter, the witnesses brought injured Ajay Kumar Singh on a jeep. A.S.I. Paras Ram enquired from them and they said that Ajay Kumar Singh has been shot and injured whereafter D.W.2 was sent by A.S.I. Paras Ram to Sandesh police station for giving the information about the incident and he reached at about 10 P.M. and narrated the fact to the officer-in-charge of Sandesh police station. What appears attempted to be done by the defence by examining D.W.2 was to show that the occurrence might have taken place at around 8.30 P.M., because he had heard the sound of two shots being fired. But, on going through the evidence of the witness in his cross-examination, what appears is that the witness could very well have seen the occurrence while it was taking place as the distance between the place of occurrence and the base of the police camp was only 10 yards (D.W.2 para-4). The further evidence in the same paragraph may indicate that the witness had really seen the occurrence also as he has replied to a question than he did not attempt to arrest the culprits and further that when the shots were fired no one from the base camp was there. As regards the time of occurrence being 8.30 P.M., which evidence has been given by implication by D.W.2, the same stands contradicted by his own evidence in the same paragraph-4 in which he had stated that he had pointed out to the officer-in-charge of Sandesh police station that the firing had taken place at 8.30 P.M., but in the same line he contradicted himself by saying in Bhojpuri that what he stated to the officer-in-charge was only that a murder had been committed in the village. Thus, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants on the time of occurrence appears completely unsupportable by the evidence on record. Thus, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants on the time of occurrence appears completely unsupportable by the evidence on record. This appears more so when it was suggested at least to one witness P.W.2 in paragraph-5 that the witnesses had pointed out the time of occurrence to the A.S.I. of the police camp which was located in the village itself and that was entered by him in a particular register. The best evidence should have been to examine the A.S.I. who appears asking about the incidence as per the evidence of D.W.2 and who appears making the entry in a register. At least the register could have been produced so as to indicating as to what was the real time of occurrence. The defence does not appear making any effort of bringing the relevant evidence on record so as to get its stand vindicated. 23. It was also contended in the above contention that the witnesses have admitted the existence of a police post in the village. The injured was transferred to Arrah, but no information was given at the police post, where an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police with some force was posted. The injured was brought to Arrah, but no report was lodged there too and, lastly, the Officer-in-Charge of Sandesh had to come who was handed over the fardbeyan at Arrah hospital. It was contended that all this appears done to purchase time so as to justifying the time of occurrence. 24. It is not denied that there was a police post stationed at the village with an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police. But, it does not appear from the evidence on record that it was notified as an out post which could receive information an investigate cases. The concept of first information report is that it could either be oral or in writing and made to the officer-in-charge of the police station; disclosing the commission of a cognizance offence by some one known or unknown. There is nothing on record that the police post was designated as an out post and the officer as its officer-in-charge. Besides, the family members of the injured must have been occupied with the only concern that the injured should reach the hospital fast, so that he could be saved. There is nothing on record that the police post was designated as an out post and the officer as its officer-in-charge. Besides, the family members of the injured must have been occupied with the only concern that the injured should reach the hospital fast, so that he could be saved. Arrah being the headquarters of one of the oldest districts of the State of Bihar is supposed to have those facilities with competent doctors to handle the case. In addition to above, as soon as it was detected that the injured was no more, the fardbeyan of P.W.4 was recorded without any loss of time by an officer of Arrah police station. I, as such, find the argument of no substance. 25. As regards the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that no independent person or even the lady family members of the house of the deceased was examined, I find that the evidence on record does not indicate that besides the witnesses, any one had also seen the occurrence. There are certain houses located near the place of occurrence as has been told by P.W.1 and as per the evidence of P.W.6, who also found a few shops on the western and eastern sides of the road. No one has said that the shopkeepers or any one was sitting there at that particular time. I still assume that at 6.30 P.M. in the evening of the month of May, each shop must be doing business. As such, there could be some persons who could be around the place of occurrence, but as may appear from the evidence on record and the statement of P.W.2 in paragraph-5 there had been a couple of murders or so in the village and that could in itself be a sufficient indicator of the fact that the village must be deeply faction ridden. In such a situation it could not be expected that a person would come out to support the occurrence. More so, when the division is on caste line or on the lines of social status as per caste. The case appears one of that class in which some castes were pitted against some other castes, and as such it could not be a normal expectation in the above background that the villagers will come out openly to support the prosecution story. 26. The case appears one of that class in which some castes were pitted against some other castes, and as such it could not be a normal expectation in the above background that the villagers will come out openly to support the prosecution story. 26. So far the non-examination of the lady family members of the deceased is concerned, P.W.1 has stated in paragraph-7 that the lady members of the family of the deceased had come to the place of occurrence after the occurrence and before the injured and others were to start for Arrah. It is further indicated in the same paragraph of P.W.7 that no lady had been questioned or examined by the police during investigation. This appears indicated amply by the evidence of the witnesses that if the occurrence had taken place no lady of the families of any of the witnesses was there to witness the occurrence. P.W.3 also says that only the mother of Ajay Kumar Singh came to the place of occurrence after the occurrence(P.W.3 para-5).Thus, it was not incumbent upon the prosecution to examine any female member of the deceased. 27. The evidence of P.W.5 Dr. Rabindra Nath Sahay indicates that the deceased had a solitary lacerated punctured wound measuring 3/4"x3/4"x viscera deep on the left side of lower part of back of thorax. On dissection P.W.5 found the posterior part of the peroteneum ruptured in the size of 1"x1". Grater omentum was also found ruptured in the size of 1"x1". Besides, the kidney was found lacerated. The left side of spleen was injured and a part of it was lacerated. Wad was found in the greater omentum. Four pellets of pea-size were found in the left side of the anterior abdominal wall in the left epigastric region. In the opinion of the doctor the injury was caused by fire arm and the death had occurred on account of haemorrhage and shock. The injury was found sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. 28. It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the doctor has opined that the shot could have been fired from a distance of two to four feet as may appear from paragraph-6 of his evidence but no charring or scorching was found by P.W.5 around the wound. 28. It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the doctor has opined that the shot could have been fired from a distance of two to four feet as may appear from paragraph-6 of his evidence but no charring or scorching was found by P.W.5 around the wound. I also share the opinion of the doctor that the shot could have been fired from a closer range as the doctor found the wad very much lodged inside the wound which was retrieved by him and was handed over along with the clothes of the deceased to the police. It was normally expected that a shot fired from as close a range as touching the body of the deceased could have caused scorching around the wound, but the above circumstance has to be considered in the light of the fact as to whether the deceased was wearing any cloth and the injury was caused in spite of the cloth. There is no evidence on record as regards the oral part of it. But, the inquest report Ext-4 in the present case contains the description of the clothes found on the dead body by the police at the time of holding inquest upon it. Column 7 of Ext-4 indicates that the deceased had put on a checked green lungi and a sandow baniyan. The site of injury was lower part of back on thorax. This part of the dead body would have been covered by the baniyan which is generally a densely knit cotton garment which has fibres around the threads. The shot was fired from a range which could be indicated by the opinion of Dr. Rabindra Nath Sahay (P.w.5) but the shot was intervened by the baniyan. The doctor did not find any scorching or charring around the wound. This was simply because of the reason that the scorching could not have occurred as the shot had been fired from as close a range as of being between two to four feet. The reason for not finding the charring around the wound could also be had from the fact that the unburnt carbon particles which could have infiltrated into the sub-cutaneous layer of the skin could have been filtered by baniyan. As such, there could not be any scorching or charring on the dead body. 29. The reason for not finding the charring around the wound could also be had from the fact that the unburnt carbon particles which could have infiltrated into the sub-cutaneous layer of the skin could have been filtered by baniyan. As such, there could not be any scorching or charring on the dead body. 29. The injury was so devastating that it must have caused profused bleeding from the body of the deceased who was lying at the place of occurrence till he was picked up for being shifted to Arrah. P.W.6 S.I. Kailash Prasad has stated that he found copious blood at the place of occurrence. He seized it. But the evidence does not indicate that the blood was sent for chemical analysis to the serologist. In Laxmi Singh V/s. State of Bihar reported in 1976 Criminal Law Journal 737 the judgement cited before me by the learned counsel for the appellants, non submission of report of the serologist was adversely taken into account against the prosecution to record a finding that the place of occurrence had not been established. The facts of that case are completely different from those of the present case. The other circumstance under which the judgement of Laxmi Singh was rendered was that in that case there was a counter version and there was an admission of the witnesses that the accused persons had also injuries on their persons which injuries had not been explained by the prosecution, by pointing out as to how they happened to have those injuries on their persons. The accused persons were acquitted under the above circumstances. 30. Here in the present case, there is no such situation as I have just pointed out and the evidence of witnesses, specially of P.W.6, leaves no manner of doubt that blood was found on the road. The witnesses to the occurrence also stated that the deceased was shot and killed as soon as he reached the road by the accused persons and he fell down there. Thus, the place of occurrence is established in the present case. 31. In the light of the discussions, I have just made after considering the evidence on record in the light of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants, I find that the appellants were rightly convicted for committing offences under which they have been sentenced. Thus, the place of occurrence is established in the present case. 31. In the light of the discussions, I have just made after considering the evidence on record in the light of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants, I find that the appellants were rightly convicted for committing offences under which they have been sentenced. The judgment does not appear suffering from any infirmity and as such the appeals appear to me of no merit. The two appeals are dismissed. The appellants are on bail. They shall surrender to their bonds which are hereby cancelled to serve out their sentences. AKHILESH CHANDRA, J. 32 I agree.