Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J. – These three sets of appeals have been filed by the appellants Yogendra Yadav who has been found guilty for an offence punishable under Sections 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, under Section 148 IPC wherein sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years, 302/149 IPC wherein no separate sentence was passed, appellants, Sheo Nandan Yadav, Rajendra Yadav, Sudhir Yadav, Bindeshwari Yadav, Narayan Yadav, Nandeshwari Yadav, Rabish Yadav @ Rabinshan Yadav, Huro Yadav, Sushil Yadav (since deceased) and Brahamdeo Yadav for an offence punishable under Sections 302/149 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 148 IPC wherein sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years with a direction to run the sentences concurrently, vide judgment of conviction and sentence dated 17.06.89 passed by Ist Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur in S.Tr.No.235 of 1985/62 of 1989. During pendency of these appeals, a prayer was made on behalf of appellant, Nandeshwari Yadav that he was juvenile on the date of occurrence over which a report was called for from the Juvenile Justice Board after having the enquiry conducted on this score and the same is available on the record disclosing that on the alleged date of occurrence appellant Nandeshwari Yadav was juvenile. The aforesaid theme was ordered to be considered at the time of pronouncement of judgment vide order dated 08.03.2013. Appeal No. 274/1989 to the extent of appellant Sushil Yadav has been found abated on account of his death during pendency of appeal vide order dated 08.03.2012. 2. The prosecution case in short as per First Information Report (Ext-2) given by the informant Rajendra Mandal (PW-6) on 11.01.1985 at about 7:15 p.m. at Kamharar P.S. along with Banarsi Prasad (not examined) and Indradeo Singh Mukhiya (not examined) alleging inter alia that on the alleged date and time of occurrence while he was returning from Sangrampur Hat and his son Sheo Nandan Mandal along with his co-villagers Sanjay Mandal, Anuj Mandal, Bibhnath Singh, Mahendra Singh, Jitendra Mandal, Sitaram Giri and Bir Singh were also returning having few steps ahead of him. As soon as they reached near Gumti of irrigation department at village, Manjhgaon at about 4:30 p.m. all of a sudden, YogendraYadav came out, caught hold of Sheo Nandan and shot at Sheo Nandan Mandal. As soon as they reached near Gumti of irrigation department at village, Manjhgaon at about 4:30 p.m. all of a sudden, YogendraYadav came out, caught hold of Sheo Nandan and shot at Sheo Nandan Mandal. Narayan Yadav, Rajendra Yadav, Sunil Yadav, Nandeshwari Yadav, Sudhir Yadav, Bindeshwari Yadav, Sheo Nandan Yadav were along with Yogendra Yadav who also were hidden in the aforesaid Gumti since before, came out and attacked over Sitaram Giri. At that very time, Bindeshwari Yadav was armed with Farsa while rest were armed with Lathi, Bhala, Garasa and country made pistol. After shooting Sheo Nandan Mandal, Nandeshwari Yadav shot at Sitaram Giri. Sitaram Giri tried to flee but the accused persons caught hold of him on chase and brutally assaulted with Garasa and Farsa, on account of which he also died. Thereafter, they cut Sheo Nandan Mandal through the weapon in their possession. Sheo Nandan Mandal and Sitaram Giri died at the spot. All the persons who were along with deceased ran away therefrom out of fear including he himself. After covering some distance they raised alarm attracting the villagers of village Badhunia and on account thereof the accused persons escaped towards village Manjhagaon. The motive for occurrence has been shown on account of protest made by them during course of election wherein the accused persons could not be able to take control over booth lying at village, Mahkara as well as Madhukarpur. Since thereafter the accused persons have developed a grudge. 3. On the basis of the aforesaid First Information Report a substantial case was registered whereupon investigation commenced. After concluding the same charge sheet was submitted against the appellants along with Karu Yadav as well as Jagan @ Yogendra Yadav (since acquitted) and on account thereof the accused persons were put on trial wherefrom appellants have been ultimately convicted. Hence, this appeal. 4. The defence of the appellant as is evident from mode of cross-examination as well as from their statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. is of complete denial of occurrence as well as plea of innocence. 5. The learned counsel for the appellants while raising the plea over maintainability of the judgment of conviction and sentence in question has submitted that the same is suffering from conjecture and surmises. 5. The learned counsel for the appellants while raising the plea over maintainability of the judgment of conviction and sentence in question has submitted that the same is suffering from conjecture and surmises. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellants that the learned lower court had erred in accepting the status of the witnesses to be eyewitness to occurrence which they could not. To support the same, it has been submitted that there was no occasion for all the witnesses who happens to be own kith and kin to go to village market Sangrampur Hat and more particularly their position of having returned from there in a company. In the facts and circumstances of the case, their presence as shown by informant proceeding 10 steps ahead from him happens to be improbable. Then submitted that the First Information Report did not speak as to how the deceased Sheo Nandan Mandal was returning from Sangrampur Hat and seeing that they would not be able to stand as an eyewitness to occurrence, during course of trial they have introduced a new story that Sheo Nandan was coming on bare foot and during midst of way the witnesses met with him and during said course he got lift at the hands of Sitaram Giri over bicycle. 6. Then it has also been submitted on behalf of the appellants that purposely and intentionally and only to facilitate the witnesses to claim as eyewitness to occurrence, the informant had narrated in the First Information Report the time of occurrence to be 4:30 p.m. which had itself been controverted by the witnesses who fairly stated that darkness had fallen down. There happens to be no source of identification and in the aforesaid background claiming of identification of the appellant happens to be in premeditated manner on account of animosity prevailing amongst the parties. 7. It has further been submitted that there happens to be material development in the evidence during course of trial over which the evidence of the I.O. happens to be there. As such, by way of introduction of material fact to suit with the finding of medical evidence also make the prosecution case inconsistent as well as rules out authenticity of the evidence of the witnesses. 8. As such, by way of introduction of material fact to suit with the finding of medical evidence also make the prosecution case inconsistent as well as rules out authenticity of the evidence of the witnesses. 8. It has further been submitted on behalf of the appellant that there happens to be inordinate delay in recording of the First Information Report along with transmitting, receiving the First Information Report by the Magistrate, hence possibility of false implication after due deliberation by thrusting own kith and kin as witness became much more probable and on account thereof the whole prosecution case should be seen with suspicious eye as well as appears to be frail. 9. On the other hand, opposing the plea of appellant it has been submitted on behalf of the learned A.P.P that prosecution case should not be viewed in piece meal manner. When the evidence on record is gone through and is considered in its totality, the same is not only found to be consistent with the First Information Report rather the evidence of each of the witness is found to be matching with and supporting the other. It has further been submitted that there happens to be no material development in the evidence of the witness rather the same happens to be incorporated in the First Information Report itself which has subsequently been properly explained during course of deposition. In the aforesaid background, it cannot be said that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses were twisted in such a manner to have support from the medical evidence. 10. The consistency amongst the evidence of the PWs is found to be fully supported with the objective finding of the I.O. who, just after recording of the First Information Report, rushed to the spot and inspected the place of occurrence. The medical evidence, as it is apparent gave an additional support to the prosecution case. 11. With regard to status of the witnesses as eyewitness of occurrence so challenged on behalf of the appellants has got no leg to standby on account of specific disclosure in the First Information Report at 4:30 p.m. which more or less all the witnesses have divulged. During cross-examination, mere asserting that darkness had fallen would not sack the prosecution case because of the fact that none of the witnesses was cross-examined over the theme of identification. During cross-examination, mere asserting that darkness had fallen would not sack the prosecution case because of the fact that none of the witnesses was cross-examined over the theme of identification. No cross-examination was also made with regard to density of the darkness. Apart from this, the accused were never a stranger and so no difficulty was seen at the end of the witnesses to identify them properly and that happens to be reason behind with regard specific kind of allegation attributed against the individual accused. So submitted that the judgment of conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court did not attract any sort of interference. 12. The prosecution had adduced altogether eight PWs out of whom PW-1, Anuj Prasad Singh, PW-2, Bhrigu Nandan Singh, PW-3, Mahendra Singh, PW-4 Jitendra Prasad Singh, PW-5, Sanjay Kumar Singh, PW-6, Rajendra Mandal, PW-7 Brahma Narayan Singh, PW-8, Dr. Jagarnath Prasad. 13. The prosecution had also exhibited Ext-1 series, signature of witnesses over respective documents, Ext-2, First Information Report, Ext-3 series, Inquest Report of both the deceased respectively, Ext-4 series, Seizure list, Ext-5, dead body Chalan, Ext-6 series, letter of request made by the I.O. to the ACJM, Ext-7 series, postmortem. One DW, Bablu Lal Paswan was examined. However, no documentary evidence has been brought on record. 14. PW-8, the doctor while conducting postmortem over the dead body of deceased Sheo Nandan Mandal as well as Sitaram Giri had found the following ante-mortem injuries. The postmortem examination was conducted on 12th January 1985. – (a) Sheo Nandan Mandal: – 1. Incised wound on the right side of head near right ear-size 2 ½”x1/2”x bone deep. 2. Incised wound on the right side of head just above the injury no.1, size 3”x1/2” x bone deep. 3. Incised wound on the right side of head near the middle of head, size 2 ½”x1/2” bone deep. 4. Left little finger was cleanly severed at the base of finger. 5. One circular lacerated wound ½” in diameter over the left side of chest at 6th coastal space in mid clavicular. Margin of the wound was inverted. Surrounding skin of the wound was blackened and scorching was present. On dissection wound led inside the chest cavity. The left lung was punctured. The thoracic cavity was full of liquid & blood. The bullet was lodged in lung. Margin of the wound was inverted. Surrounding skin of the wound was blackened and scorching was present. On dissection wound led inside the chest cavity. The left lung was punctured. The thoracic cavity was full of liquid & blood. The bullet was lodged in lung. In the opinion of doctor, injury no.1 to 4 were caused by sharp object while injury no.5 was caused by the fire-arm which was shot within 4”. Time elapsed since death within 24 hours. In the opinion of the doctor injury no.5 would have caused instantaneous death. (b) Sitaram Giri: – 1. Incised wound on the back of neck at the face of scalp and across of the neck extending from back to middle of left mandible. Size, 6”1 ½”x4”. The vertebra spinal chord and all the structures were clearly divided in the depth of the wound. The head was attached with some tag from the muscle and skin. 2. Incised wound on the left side of head, size 3” x 1½”x bone deep. 3. Incised wound on the back of head, size 1½”x ½” bone seep just above the injury no.1. 4. Incised wound on the middle of left forearm size 3”x1/2”x2”, all structures were clearly divided in the depth of the wound and forearm was attached with some tag from the muscle and skin. 5. Incised wound on the left shoulder. Size, 2 ½”x3/4”x bone deep. 6. Right palm was clearly severed at the base of wrist joint. In the opinion of the doctor all the injuries were caused by sharp object. Injury no.1 was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Time elapsed since death was within 24 hours. 15. So from the evidence of PW-8, it is crystal clear that deceased Sheo Nandan Mandal had sustained single fire arm injury shot at from close range along with injury no.1 to 4 caused by sharp cutting weapon while on the person of Sitaram Giri, all the injuries were caused by sharp cutting weapon. During course of cross-examination, it is evident that defence could not be able to sack on any score. 16. During course of cross-examination, it is evident that defence could not be able to sack on any score. 16. Now coming to the ocular evidence, PW-1 had stated that while he was returning from Sangrampur Hat along with Sheo Nandan Mandal, Sitaram Giri, Jitendra Singh, Sanjay, Bhrigu Nandan Singh, Rajendra Mandal and others and as soon as reached near Gumti of Canal, all of a sudden, 14-15 persons came out from Gumti out of whom he identified YogendraYadav, Narain Yadav, Rajendra, Sudhir, Sushil, Nandeshwari, Sheonandan, Bindeshwari, Brahamdeo, Rabinsan, Huro Yadav, Jogeb Yadav, Karu, Baijal Yadav out of whom YogendraYadav and Nandeshwari Yadav were armed with pistol, Bindeshwari was armed with Farsa while remaining were armed with Lathi, Bhala and Garasa. Sheo Nandan was apprehended by the accused persons near Gumti itself and then thereafter YogendraYadav shot at him. Sitaram Giri was chased by accused persons and was apprehended. YogendraYadav cut Sitaram Giri with Bhujali after taking it from Narain. Yogendra thereafter also cut Sheo Nandan by Bhujali. They were also chased but managed to run away and after covering some distance began to raise alarm. Then had detailed the motive. Dispute arose on account of preventing the accused from looting the booth. 17. During cross-examination at para-7, he had stated that Rajendra Mandal was also coming along with him. He had already disclosed the names of accused to him. In para-8 he had narrated that they were coming on bicycle and met with Sheo Nandan Mandal during midst of way. Then thereafter he was given lift on the bicycle. He had also disclosed that apart from protest which they have made at the time of looting of booth, they were annoyed with the accused namely, Jogendra, Karu and Sheo Nandan since before the occurrence on account of grazing of crop. His previous statement was also drawn with regard to identification of accused, Jogendra, Karu, Huro and Sheo Nandan. In para-16 of the cross-examination he had stated that as he was ahead therefore he is not in a position to say on whose bicycle Sheo Nandan sat. In para-17, he had said that two miscreants have concealed their face by Galmochha. He then narrated that he is unable to say as to how many persons were armed with Bhala. How more persons excluding, Bindeshwari were armed with Farsa. Two or three persons were armed with Garasa. In para-17, he had said that two miscreants have concealed their face by Galmochha. He then narrated that he is unable to say as to how many persons were armed with Bhala. How more persons excluding, Bindeshwari were armed with Farsa. Two or three persons were armed with Garasa. In para-18 had stated that he heard two rounds of firing. Just after coming out the miscreants from Gumti, there was panic. After the first firing, he gave his attention towards that direction. Then had said that Sheo Nandan was apprehended four feet southern western corner from Gumti. Sheo Nandan fell down at that very place after sustaining injury. Sheo Nandan was apprehended by only one person. He had seen Sitaram Giri running from there. He also ran towards northern direction. In para-21 he had narrated that Sitaram Gira was apprehended about 2 or 3 minutes after shooting Sheo Nandan. He had seen assault over person of Sitaram Giri by means of Bhujali but he is unable to say the exact places where it was stricken. Sitaram Giri was cut during lying condition. The wheat crop was totally trampled around the place. He had also seen the assault over the person of Sheo Nandan. He had not accompanied Rajendra to P.S. rather he rushed there-from to his house. He had divulged the incident to villagers including Parshuram, Krishna as well as family members of Rajendra Mandal. When he reached at his house then the darkness had fallen. His villagers have rushed to the place of occurrence in the night itself. 18. PW-2 had stated that on the alleged date and time of occurrence while he along with others were going to their village and as soon as reached near Gumti all of a sudden 14 to 15 persons came out of whom he claimed identification of Rajendra Yadav, YogendraYadav, Narayan Yadav, Sushil Yadav, Nandeshwari Yadav, Huro Yadav, Brahmdeo Yadav, Sudhir Yadav, Bindeshwari Yadav, Siban Yadav, Karu Yadav, Jogan Yadav Rabinson Yadav. YogendraYadav and Nandehswari Yadav were armed with pistol, Narayan Yadav was armed with Bhujali, Bindeshwari Yadav was armed with Farsa, rest were armed with Lathi, Garasa and Bhala. Bindehswari caught hold of Sheo Nandan and Yogendra shot. Sheo Nandan fell down at a distance of 3 to 4 hands from Gumti. Bindeshwari, Jogendra, Rabinsan, Brahmdeo chased Sitaram Giri and apprehended him. Thereafter Yogendra cut him after taking Bhujali from Narayan. Bindehswari caught hold of Sheo Nandan and Yogendra shot. Sheo Nandan fell down at a distance of 3 to 4 hands from Gumti. Bindeshwari, Jogendra, Rabinsan, Brahmdeo chased Sitaram Giri and apprehended him. Thereafter Yogendra cut him after taking Bhujali from Narayan. While Sitaram was fleeing, Nandeshwari had fired at him but the aim missed. Bindeshwari had also given Farsa blow over Sitaram. After returning there-from Yogendra had also cut Sheo Nandan. The accused persons also chased them on account of which they ran there-from and began to raise alarm attracting the villagers of Bakunia village seeing whom the accused persons fled away. Then thereafter, he had gone to his house. He had also narrated the motive. During cross-examination at para-8 he had clearly stated that they proceeded from Sangarampur Hat much before sunset on bicycle along with Rajendra, Mahendra, Anuj, Jitendra and Sanjay. In para-9 he had stated that while they had reached near Gumti there was sufficient visibility. They had seen the accused persons. He had rushed to some distance seeing the accused persons covering 8 to 10 hands and then got down from the bicycle and witnessed the occurrence. In para-10 he had said that after the occurrence he along with Anuj had gone to their village. In para-12, there happens to be contradiction with regard to names of Sheo Nandan, Karu and Jogendra. In para-14, he had stated that villages of Kumraun had visited the placed of occurrence. From para-18, he had divulged inter-relationship between the witnesses. In para-23 he had stated that they have not apprehended an occurrence at the hands of accused. In para- 25 he had stated that only one person was near Sheo Nandan at the time of shooting. After murder of Sitaram Giri, Sheo Nandan was cut. In para-26 had disclosed that Bindeshwari had caught hold of Sheo Nandan. He further stated that he had stated before the police that Bindeshwari had assaulted Sitaram Giri with Farsa. 19. PW-3 is another material witness who had stated that he along with Bhrignandan, Anuj, Rajendra, Sitaram, Sheo Nandan, Jitendra, Sanjay were coming from Sangrampur Hat and reached near Gumti at about 4.30 p.m., 10-15 come out from Gumti out of whom, he had identified, YogendraYadav, Narayan Yadav, Rajendra Yadav, Sushil Yadav, Nanndeshwari Yadav, Rabinson Yadav, Sheo Nandan, Karu, Huro, Brahmdeo, Jogan Yadav. YogendraYadav and Bindeshwari Yadav were armed with pistol, Narayan was armed with Bhujali and Bindeshwari was armed with Farsa while rest were armed with Lathi, Bhala and Garasa. Bindeshwari caught hold of Sheo Nandan and Yogendra shot at him. On account of injury Sheo Nandan fell down. Nandeshwari fired at Sitaram Giri but the fire missed. Sitaram ran therefrom was chased by 5 to 6 persons who caught hold of him. Bindeshwari had caught. Yogendra after taking Bhujali from Narayan cloven him. Bindeshwari also gave Farsa blow then thereafter Yogendracame to Sheo Nandan and gave Bhujali blow. The accused persons moved towards them on account of which he rushed there-from raising alarm and came to his house and disclosed the incident. On the following morning he had gone to Banka where postmortem of dead body was going on. Thereafter, he returned back to his house and later on, gone to his Sasural. During cross-examination at para-7, he had stated that he proceeded from Sangrampur Hat alone but met with the others during midst of way. He had stated in para-9 that after coming to his village he had informed family members of Sheo Nandan. In para-14, there happens to be contradiction with regard to names of Yogen as well as Shiwan. In para-18, he had stated that Sheo Nandan was apprehended and then he was shot at his chest from front. After falling of Sheo Nandan, Sitaram Giri was chased and apprehended in wheat field. There happens to be contradiction in para-19. In para-20, he had shown his location during course of occurrence from where he had witnessed the occurrence. 20. PW-4 had narrated the event in the same manner as well as had also claimed identification of the accused whom he specifically named. He also had shown assailant of Sheo Nandan as well as Sitaram Giri. YogendraYadav who apart from shooting Sheo Nandan, cloven Sitaram Giri after taking Bhujali from Narayan after being apprehended on chase and further returning back to Sheo Nandan, Yogendra also cut him. When accused persons chased them, he escaped from there. He had narrated the event and on account thereof so many villagers came at the place of occurrence who also brought bicycle of Sitaram. He also identified the accused. When accused persons chased them, he escaped from there. He had narrated the event and on account thereof so many villagers came at the place of occurrence who also brought bicycle of Sitaram. He also identified the accused. During cross-examination at para-7 he had stated that at that very time so many persons were returning from Sangrampur Hat either on bicycle or on bare foot. He had not mind presence of labourers or farmers in the field near the place of occurrence because of the fact that after the occurrence he had run away from the place of occurrence raising alarm. After coming to village, he had also informed family members of Sitaram Giri. He had not gone to the P.S. His statement was recorded by the police on the next day evening. In para-11 there happens to be contradiction with regard to names of Karu, Sheo Nandan and Jogendra. In para-14, he had stated that as soon as accused persons came out from the Gumti they apprehended. In para-15, he had stated that after sustaining gun-shot injury Sheo Nandan fell down and began to toss. At para-18, he had stated the motive for occurrence. In para-20, he had disclosed that one or two persons who along with others had caught hold Sitaram had concealed their face. In para-22, he had narrated that he came to know in the same evening that police had arrived at the place of occurrence near about 7.00 or 7.30 p.m. and sent the dead body for postmortem. 21. PW-5 again reiterated the same version disclosing the fact that as soon as they reached near Gumti, Sheo Nandan was shot at by YogendraYadav. Subsequently thereof, Sitaram Giri was chased by Jogendra, Narayan, Brahamdeo, Bindeshwari who was caught hold after covering some distance and then after taking Bhujali from Narayan, Yogendra cloven away Sitaram Giri. When the accused persons returned back from Sitaram Giri, he along with other escaped therefrom. He had also identified the accused persons. During cross-examination at para-7, he had disclosed that he came at his house from the place of occurrence. In para-12 stated that Sheo Nandan was coming bare foot. He rode on bicycle in the midst of way. Then had denied his earlier statement on this score. In para-13 he had stated that when the accused persons came out from Gumti, he was north to the Gumti. In para-12 stated that Sheo Nandan was coming bare foot. He rode on bicycle in the midst of way. Then had denied his earlier statement on this score. In para-13 he had stated that when the accused persons came out from Gumti, he was north to the Gumti. He had seen the whole occurrence from canal where he stood. In para-14 he had stated that he is unable to say as to how many persons were armed with Lathi and how many persons with Bhala. He further stated that two rounds of firing were made. The first round stroke Sheo Nandan while the second round missed. He had not seen as to who fired the second round. He had simply heard the firing sound. Sheo Nandan was shot at while he was standing. In para-16 had stated that two persons had caught hold of Sitaram Giri while one person cut him away. Then his attention was drawn to his previous statement. In para-17 he had said that he had not come back to the place of occurrence. In para-8, he had stated that he had not disclosed the names of accused in the night. However, he had divulged the name of accused persons to his parents before his statement. 22. PW-6 happens to be the informant who also happens to be the father of one of the deceased Sheo Nandan. He had stated that on the alleged date and time of occurrence, Sheo Nandan was returning from Sangarampur Hat. He was also returning from Sangrampur. They came near Gumti. Bhrignandan, Anuj, Sanjay, Jitendra, Mahendra also reached there. 12 to 14 persons came out from the Gumti out of whom he had identified Jogendra, Narayan, Rajendra, Nandeshwari, Sushil, Sudhir and Shiban Yadav, Bindeshwari while he failed to identify rest of them. Yogendra and Nandeshwari were armed with pistol while Narayan was armed with Bhujali. Bindeshwari was armed with Farsa and rest were armed with Farsa, lathi and Bhala. Yogendra shot at Sheo Nandan. Nandeshwari had also fired at Sitaram but missed. Sitaram ran, was chased by 4-5 persons who caught hold of him and then Yogendra taking Bhujali from Narayan, cut him. Yogendra then returned therefrom to Sheo Nandan and also cut him. Seeing the occurrence the witnesses escaped therefrom. He also covered some distance and then became unconscious. Nandeshwari had also fired at Sitaram but missed. Sitaram ran, was chased by 4-5 persons who caught hold of him and then Yogendra taking Bhujali from Narayan, cut him. Yogendra then returned therefrom to Sheo Nandan and also cut him. Seeing the occurrence the witnesses escaped therefrom. He also covered some distance and then became unconscious. Some persons of Badhunia village came and at whose efforts he regained sense and then he saw Sheo Nandan and Sitaram Giri dead. He had not claimed identification of Karu as well as Brahamdeo Yadav. He also misidentified Nandeshwari as Huro Yadav. However, corrected it promptly. Then he along with Indradeo, Banarsi and Kailash had gone to P.S. where he gave his Fardbeyan put his signature (exhibited). He returned back to the place of occurrence along with Darogaji and shown the place of occurrence. He also had gone along with dead body to mortuary and received the dead body after postmortem. Also narrated the motive. During cross-examination at para-11, he had stated that Sheo Nandan had not accompanied him from Sangrampur. Sanjay, Anuj and he himself were coming separately. He had gone to Sangrampur to meet with his brother-in-law Ambika Prasad. At para-12 he had stated that all the persons were returning at the same time one after another. In para-13, he had stated that witnesses, Sanjay, Anuj, Bhrignandan escaped towards Badhunia village raising alarm. In para-14, he had said that as he became unconscious therefore, he is unable to say whether the persons belonging to village Badhunia had come to the place of occurrence or not. None had attempted upon him to assault. At para-18, he had said that he came along with Darogaji bare foot. Again corrected it as over tractor which was parked at the police station since before. In para-19 again he had said that he along with sepoy came over tractor while Darogaji had arrived over motorcycle. In para-22 he had stated that he had shown the place of occurrence to police. Inquest report was not prepared in his presence. In para 23, he had said that he remained at the place of occurrence uptil 7.00 p.m. along with police. So many persons of village Kumraum were present. In para 24 he had deposed that Darogaji left the place at about 7.00 p.m.. He cannot say as to where he had gone. Inquest report was not prepared in his presence. In para 23, he had said that he remained at the place of occurrence uptil 7.00 p.m. along with police. So many persons of village Kumraum were present. In para 24 he had deposed that Darogaji left the place at about 7.00 p.m.. He cannot say as to where he had gone. He along with police had carried the dead body on tractor to Banka. Para-25 and 26 are cross-examination over motive. In para-27, he had stated that first of all Bindeshwari Yadav caught hold Sheo Nandan. He was not caught hold by Jogendra. Then his attention was drawn towards Fardbeyan on this score. At the time of shooting, Bindeshwari had caught hold Sheo Nandan. Again his attention was drawn towards his previous statement. He also stated that at that very moment Sitaram Giri ran towards northern western direction who was chased by 4-5 persons. Another firing was made over Sitaram but the aim missed. He had seen the assault by Farsa and Garasa over Sitaram. Again he corrected that he had seen assault by means of Farsa but he was not remembering whether Garasa blow was given or not. Neck, hand and head of Sitaram was struck by Farsa blow. Again his attention had been drawn towards his previous statement. His attention was drawn towards his previous statement with regard to assault by Bhujali. When the accused persons chased, they all escaped there-from. He, however, covering some distance became unconscious. 23. PW-7 happens to be I.O.. He had deposed that on the alleged date and time of occurrence he was S.I. at Belhar P.S. On that day at about 7.15 p.m. he had recorded Fardbeyan of Rajendra Mandal at the P.S. which was read over to him and then thereafter he put the signature (exhibited). He took up investigation, recorded further statement of informant. Then proceeded towards place of occurrence at about 8:00 p.m. and reached at place of occurrence at 9:00 p.m. along with police constable. As pointed out by the informant he had inspected the place of occurrence and fully detailed the same. He had found the dead body of Sheo Nandan Mandal near Gumti. Copious blood was found and the same was seized. 70 yards north west to this place, dead body of Sitaram Giri was found in the wheat crop of Bhola Mandal. As pointed out by the informant he had inspected the place of occurrence and fully detailed the same. He had found the dead body of Sheo Nandan Mandal near Gumti. Copious blood was found and the same was seized. 70 yards north west to this place, dead body of Sitaram Giri was found in the wheat crop of Bhola Mandal. Copious blood was found and the same was seized. He had also found the wheat crop trampled. He had found presence of injury caused by sharp cut weapon over dead body of Sitaram Giri. He had also found sign of foot steps from Kacchi Sarak to place where dead body of Sitaram was lying. He had inspected the place of occurrence in torch light as well as in lantern light. He had prepared inquest report of both the dead body in presence of witnesses (exhibited). He also prepared seizure list with regard to seizure of blood stained earth (exhibited) He prepared dead body Chalan and sent the dead body for postmortem. Then he had gone in search of accused persons and for that conducted raid, recorded statement of witnesses. Also conducted raid at the house of the accused persons, received postmortem report, sent the blood stained earth for chemical examination after taking permission from the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. After completing investigation he submitted charge-sheet. During cross-examination in para-14, he had stated that witness Bhrignandan had not named Jogendra, Karu and Sheo Nandan. In para-15 he had endorsed that Mahendra had named Jogendra, Sheo Nandan @ Siban. In para-16 he endorsed that Jitendra had not named Karu, Sheo Nandan and Jogendra. In para 19, 20, 21, 22 and 25 there happen to be contradictions with regard to other PWs over other aspect. 24. As stated above, learned counsel for the appellants led an emphasis on the score that there is material contradiction in the statement of the witnesses and for that evidence of PW-7, I.O. has been referred inconsonance with the evidence of the respective witnesses. We have gone through the same and after having minute observation, it is evident that the same is not material one which could adversely affect upon the prosecution version. We have gone through the same and after having minute observation, it is evident that the same is not material one which could adversely affect upon the prosecution version. When there are so many accused persons involved during commission of the occurrence, then in that event it is highly improbable for all the witnesses to identify the individual accused with the weapon having in his hand as well as respective part played by each of them. Moreso, right from the initial version, the prosecution had detailed the manner of assault which is found to be fully supported, corroborated by the witness. From the evidence of doctor, PW-8, it is evident that the narration of the prosecution version is fully screed. 25. Mere presence of some sort of embellishment or exaggeration in the evidence of witness is not going to adversely affect upon the prospect of testimony of witness because of the fact that its visibility is based on so many reasons. However, sometimes it happens to be deliberate while sometimes it happens to be on account of lapse of time, mental condition, anxiety, over enthusiasm. In all circumstances, a duty is cast upon the court to separate the chaff from grain. Moreover, appearance of such event will not bite conscience of the court unless & until it happens to be material one. Material contradiction has been viewed adverse to admissibility, reliability of the evidence of a witness. In the case of Sunil Kumar Sambhu Dayal Gupta(Dr) vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2010) 13 SCC 657 explained the material contradiction as: – “Material contradictions 30. While appreciating the evidence, the court has to take into consideration whether the contradictions/omissions had been of such magnitude that they may materially affect the trial. Minor contradictions, inconsistencies, embellishments or improvements on trivial matters without effecting the core of the prosecution case should not be made a ground to reject the evidence in its entirety. The trial court, after going through the entire evidence, must form an opinion about the credibility of the witnesses and the appellate court in normal course would not be justified in reviewing the same again without justifiable reasons. (Vide State vs. Saravanan,( AIR 2009 SC 152 : 2008 AIR SCW 7060) 31. The trial court, after going through the entire evidence, must form an opinion about the credibility of the witnesses and the appellate court in normal course would not be justified in reviewing the same again without justifiable reasons. (Vide State vs. Saravanan,( AIR 2009 SC 152 : 2008 AIR SCW 7060) 31. Where the omission(s) amount to a contradiction, creating a serious doubt about the truthfulness of a witness and the other witness also makes material improvements before the court in order to make the evidence acceptable, it cannot be safe to rely upon such evidence. (Vide State of Rajasthan vs. Rajendra Singh ( AIR 1998 SC 2554 : 2008 AIR SCW 2565). 32. The discrepancies in the evidence of eyewitnesses, if found to be not minor in nature, may be a ground for disbelieving and discrediting their evidence. In such circumstances, witnesses may not inspire confidence and if their evidence is found to be in conflict and contradiction with other evidence or with the statement already recorded, in such a case it cannot be held that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. (Vide Mahendra Pratap Singh vs. State of U.P.) 33. In case, the complainant in the FIR or the witness in his statement under Section 161 CrPC, has not disclosed certain facts but meets the prosecution case first time before the court, such version lacks credence and is liable to be discarded. (Vide State vs. Sait.) (AIR 2009 SC (supp) 284: 2009 AIR SCW 2804) 34. In State of Rajasthan vs. Kalki, ( AIR 1981 SC 1390 ) while dealing with this issue, this Court observed as under: (SCC p. 754, para 8) (Para 6 of AIR) ‘8. … In the depositions of witnesses there are always normal discrepancies however honest and truthful they may be. These discrepancies are due to normal errors of observation, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of the occurrence, and the like. Material discrepancies are those which are not normal, and not expected of a normal person.’ 35. The courts have to label the category to which a discrepancy belongs. While normal discrepancies do not corrode the credibility of a party’s case, material discrepancies do so. Material discrepancies are those which are not normal, and not expected of a normal person.’ 35. The courts have to label the category to which a discrepancy belongs. While normal discrepancies do not corrode the credibility of a party’s case, material discrepancies do so. (See Syed Ibrahim vs. State of A.P,.( AIR 2006 SC 2908 : 2006 AIR SCW 4095) and Arumugam vs. State, ( AIR 2009 SC 331 : 2008 AIR SCW 7354). 36. In Bihari Nath Goswami vs. Shiv Kumar Singh this Court examined the issue and held: (SCC p. 192, para 9) ‘9. Exaggerations per se do not render the evidence brittle. But it can be one of the factors to test the credibility of the prosecution version, when the entire evidence is put in a crucible for being tested on the touchstone of credibility.’ 37. While deciding such a case, the court has to apply the aforesaid tests. Mere marginal variations in the statements cannot be dubbed as improvements as the same may be elaborations of the statement made by the witness earlier. The omissions which amount to contradictions in material particulars i.e. go to the root of the case/materially affect the trial or core of the prosecution case, render the testimony of the witness liable to be discredited.” 26. In the aforesaid background, when the evidence of respective PWs have been gone through, it is evident that having presence of discrepancy over names of accused during course of evidence of PWs already yielded in acquittal of Yogen and Karu. So far Sheo Nandan is concerned, although some of the witnesses did not name him at an initial stage, but his name figured right from FIR with specific certainty. In likewise manner, though the informant had not claimed identification of appellant Brahamdeo Yadav, but he has been properly identified by the remaining witnesses. With regard to wrong identification of appellant Nandeshwari Yadav by the informant, the same was promptly corrected by him. 27. Not only this, the detailed description of incident is not found requirement of first information report. The purpose for lodging of first information report is to inform the police to proceed with investigation on account of commission of cognizable offence. Names of accused may or may not appear according to facts of each case. At this juncture, the material facts, if known, should be disclosed to avoid future complication. The purpose for lodging of first information report is to inform the police to proceed with investigation on account of commission of cognizable offence. Names of accused may or may not appear according to facts of each case. At this juncture, the material facts, if known, should be disclosed to avoid future complication. From Ext-2, Fardbeyan it is evident that it contains full details regarding the occurrence as well as identification of accused along with their illegal activities. During course of evidence, it is evident that the same has been detailed by the witnesses including informant, which, as it appears at some occasion has been used as contradiction. However, basic version of prosecution case stood the test with regard to discrepancy over names of accused, found completely wiped out in the background of identification in Court. 28. Apart from this by examining DW-1 the appellants themselves admitted the place of occurrence as well as manner of occurrence. The only controversy brought over timing to suggest that on account of darkness, DW-1 was unable to identify the assailant. He further stated that he had met with prosecution party during midst of way. 29. Adverting to his cross-examination from which it transpires that his house lies adjacent to the house of Yogendra Yadav, the main accused and further he had got some sort of grievances against the persons belonging to Koeri caste as people of Koeri caste were responsible for causing murder of his father. In the aforesaid backdrop his hostility was but natural. However, he had accepted the occurrence. 30. In a case of Ashok Kumar vs. State of Haryana reported in AIR 2010 SC 2839 it has been held that in case DW has been examined on behalf of accused then in that event the evidence of DW has to be honoured by the accused and the evidence thereof will have direct impact over facts and circumstances of the case. For better appreciation relevant part of para-27 is quoted below: – “…The above statement of this witness (DW-3) in cross-examination, in fact, is clinching evidence and the accused can hardly get out of this statement. The defence would be bound by the statement of the witness, who has been produced by the accused, whatever be its worth.” 31. Right from PW-1 to PW-5 they have shown the time of occurrence to be 4.30 p.m.. The defence would be bound by the statement of the witness, who has been produced by the accused, whatever be its worth.” 31. Right from PW-1 to PW-5 they have shown the time of occurrence to be 4.30 p.m.. None of them has been sacked on behalf of defence on that very score. PW-6, the informant also happens to be consistent. The aforesaid event is found additionally supported with the FIR itself along with evidence of PW-7, the Investigating Officer, the distance in between P.O. to P.S. extending to 6 Kilometer and the recording of FIR at 7.15 p.m.. Covering of such long distance and then recording of FIR is indicative of the fact that there was no possibility of commission of occurrence at the time when the darkness had fallen as suggested by DW. Furthermore, the objective finding of the I.O., PW-7 with regard to arrival at the place of occurrence at about 9.00 P.M followed with other activities i.e. sending of dead body after preparing inquest report as well as dead body chalan happens to be other circumstance which belies the evidence of DW-1 so far timing is concerned. 32. Unusual conduct by the witness has been taken into consideration and explained in detailed manner by the Hon’ble Apex Court in a case Kathi Bharat Vajsur vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2012 Cr.L.J 2717 and the relevant paras are 22 and 23 which are as follows: – 22. Shri Dholakia would lay emphasis on the unusual conduct of PW 6 after the occurrence of the incident and therefore submits that the learned trial Judge was justified in disbelieving the evidence of PW 6. We cannot agree. This Court in the case of Appabhai vs. State of Gujarat, 1988 Supp SCC 241 ( AIR 1988 SC 696 ), held “11. … Experience reminds us that civilised 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 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. They think that crime like 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, therefore, cannot reject their evidence merely because they have behaved or reacted in an unusual manner. In Rana Pratap vs. State of Haryana, ( AIR 1983 SC 680 ) 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: [SCC p. 330, SCC (Cri) p. 604, para 6] (at p. 682 of AIR) “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. Everyone 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.’” 23. We are in agreement with the above observations. When an eyewitness behaves in a manner that perhaps would be unusual, it is not for the prosecution or the court to go into the question as to why he reacted in such a manner. We are in agreement with the above observations. When an eyewitness behaves in a manner that perhaps would be unusual, it is not for the prosecution or the court to go into the question as to why he reacted in such a manner. As has been rightly observed by His Lordship O. Chinnappa Reddy, J. in Rana Pratap case, ( AIR 1983 SC 680 ) (supra) there is no fixed pattern of reaction of an eyewitness to a crime. When faced with what is termed as “an unusual reaction” of an eyewitness, the court must only examine whether the prosecution story is in any way affected by such reaction. If the answer is in the negative, then such reaction is irrelevant. We are afraid that the unusual behaviour of the injured eyewitness, PW 6, will not, in any way, aid the appellants to punch a hole on to the prosecution story. 33. The unnatural conduct of the witnesses as suggested by the learned counsel for the defence will not give any dent to the prosecution version because of the fact that after witnessing such horrible event, it was bound to be perceived and reacted by the individual according to his will power, human behaviour, mental capability over shadowed by surrounding circumstances and so it cannot be taken into account to infer adverse to prosecution. 34. Much stress has been taken on behalf of the appellant to raise eyebrow over status of the witnesses being agnates and on account thereof, their testimonies are fit to be rejected. The evidence of the witnesses in its totality has to be scrutinized to see whether there was any probability visualizing therefrom which could recognize the witnesses as eye-witness to the occurrence. Save except minor omission or contradiction whatsoever may be which is not touching root of the prosecution case, the defence could not be able to sack status of the witnesses as an eyewitness to occurrence being in company of deceased while returning from Sangrampur Hat to their village and during midst of way such unfortunate occurrence had taken place costing life of two innocent persons which they, in that capacity witnessed the same. 35. Furthermore, the ocular evidence is found fully supported with the medical evidence and as such there happens to be no cause to discredit the same. 36. 35. Furthermore, the ocular evidence is found fully supported with the medical evidence and as such there happens to be no cause to discredit the same. 36. In a case of Thoti Manohar vs. State of A.P., reported in 2012 Cr.L.J. 3492, it has been held under paras 30 and 31 as follows: – “30. The learned counsel for the appellant has endeavoured hard to highlight certain discrepancies pertaining to time, situation of the land, number of persons, etc. but in our considered opinion, they are absolutely minor in nature. Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the matter cannot bring discredit to the story of the prosecution. Giving undue importance to them would amount to adopting a hypertechnical approach. The Court, while appreciating the evidence, should not attach much significance to minor discrepancies, for the discrepancies which do not shake the basic version of the prosecution case are to be ignored. This has been so held in State of U.P. vs. M.K. Anthony, ( AIR 1985 SC 48 ); Appabhai vs. State of Gujarat, ( AIR 1988 SC 696 ); Rammi alias Rameshwar vs. State of M.P., ( AIR 1999 SC 3544 : (1999 AIR SCW 3546). State of H.P. vs. Lekh Raj,( (2000)1 SCC 247 ( AIR 1999 SC 3916 : 1999 AIR SCW 4008); Laxman Singh vs. Poonam Singh, (2004)10 SCC 94 : ( AIR 2003 SC 3204 : 2003 AIR SCW 4566) and Dashrath Singh vs. State of U.P., (2004)7 SCC 408 : ( AIR 2004 SC 4488 :2004 AIR SCW 4610). No evidence can ever be perfect for man is not perfect and man lives in an imperfect world. Thus, the duty of the court is to see with the vision of prudence and acceptability of the deposition regard being had to the substratum of the prosecution story. In this context, we may reproduce a passage from the decision of this Court in State of Punjab vs. Jagir Singh Baljit Singh and Karam Singh, ( AIR 1973 SC 2407 ) wherein H.R. Khanna, J., speaking for the Court, observed thus: “A criminal trial is not like a fairy tale wherein one is free to give flight to one’s imagination and phantasy. It concerns itself with the question as to whether the accused arraigned at the trial is guilty of the crime with which he is charged. It concerns itself with the question as to whether the accused arraigned at the trial is guilty of the crime with which he is charged. Crime is an event in real life and is the product of interplay of different human emotions. In arriving at the conclusion about the guilt of the accused charged with the commission of a crime, the court has to judge the evidence by the yardstick of probabilities, its intrinsic worth and the animus of witnesses. Every case in the final analysis would have to depend upon its own facts. Although the benefit of every reasonable doubt should be given to the accused, the courts should not at the same time reject evidence which is ex facie trustworthy on grounds which are fanciful or in the nature of conjectures.” “31. In view of our aforesaid analysis, we are unable to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the evidence of the eyewitnesses should be rejected solely on the ground that they are close relatives and interested witnesses.” 37. Thus, after having minute observation as well as critical analysis of the evidence on the record it is found and held that instant appeal has got no merit at all. Accordingly, it is dismissed. All the appellants are on bail, hence their bail bonds are cancelled. They are directed to surrender before the trial court to serve out the remaining sentences. Shyam Kishore Sharma, J. – I agree.