CAV JUDGMENT ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI, J. 1. Appellants Babuan Mandal @ Pathar Singh, Sudhir Mandal, Raudi Paswan, Langara @ Dhaneshwar Paswan, Bauku Mandal, Swaroop Paswan, Janak Paswan, Mishri Uraon @ Mishri Dhangar had filed the instant appeal against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 27.03.1990 passed by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Saharsa in Sessions Trial No.106 of 1975 whereby and whereunder appellants Babuan Mandal @ Pathar Singh has been found guilty for an offence punishable under Section 302, 148 of the IPC. Appellant Swaroop Paswan, Langara @ Dhaneshwar Paswan, Sudhir Mandal, Raudi Paswan and Mishri Uraon @ Mishri Dhangar have been found guilty for an offence punishable under Section 302/149, 148,323 of the IPC. Appellant Janak Paswan and Bauku Mandal have also been found guilty for an offence punishable under Section 302/149, 147,323 of the IPC and accordingly they were directed to undergo RI for life under Section 302, 302/149, RI for 3 years under Section 148 IPC, RI for two years under Section 147 IPC, RI for one year under Section 323 of the IPC respectively. 2. During pendency of instant appeal as per report of the Superintendent of Police, Saharasa appellants Babuan Mandal @ Pathar Singh, Raudi Paswan, Swaroop Paswan, Janak Paswan and Mishri Uraon @ Mishri Dhangar have died and on account thereof the instant appeal on their behalf stood abated vide our order dated 14.12.2012 and now this appeal remains confined to the extent of interest of appellants Sudhir Mandal, Langara @ Dhaneshwar Paswan, Bauku Mandal only. 3. 3. The prosecution case in nutshell is that one Wakil Mandal, P.W.-8, gave his fardbeyan on 23.07.1972 at about 03:30 P.M. at Sonbarsa P.S. disclosing therein that on the same day at about 11:00 AM while he was weeding in his field, lying half mile east to his village and his grand father Khesar Mandal sitting over machan was keeping a watch over maize crop, all of a sudden Swaroop Paswan, Babuan Mandal @ Pathar Singh, Janak Paswan, Langara @ Dhaneshwar Paswan, Bauku Mandal, Sudhir Mandal and Mishri Uraon @ Mishri Dhangar variously armed with arrow and lathi came from southern side and seeing them he had raised alarm and had also asked his grand father to run away and when his grand father got down from Machan and began to flee towards western direction, Babuan Mandal @ Pathar Singh had caused injury over his chest by an arrow while Janak Paswan and Bauku Mandal had assaulted him with lathi and the remaining accused persons had also assaulted him. It has been further alleged by the informant that aforesaid persons after assaulting his grand father had escaped and this occurrence was witnessed by Brahamdeo Mandal, Kapildeo Mandal, Pradeep Mandal, Mahendra Mandal, Mushharu Mandal, Harilal Mandal who were working in the nearby field. as per the version of the informant and he along with others thereafter they carried the injured Khesar Mandal to his Darwaja where he however had succumbed to injuries. In his fardbeyan the informant had also disclosed the motive of such occurrence to institution of dacoity case by his father (the deceased) against the accused persons. 4. On the basis of the aforesaid fardbeyan Sonebarsa P.S. Case No.12/1972 was registered in which the police after investigation had submitted charge sheet and on the basis of the same appellants with other were put on trial and five accused persons (since dead) were convicted and sentenced by the impugned judgment which is the subject matter of instant appeal. 5. On the basis of the aforesaid fardbeyan Sonebarsa P.S. Case No.12/1972 was registered in which the police after investigation had submitted charge sheet and on the basis of the same appellants with other were put on trial and five accused persons (since dead) were convicted and sentenced by the impugned judgment which is the subject matter of instant appeal. 5. The defence of the appellants and other accused persons, as is evident from mode of cross-examination as well as their statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. is complete denial of occurrence in the manner alleged by the prosecution and their false implication primarily on account of land dispute persisting in between the landlord on one side and the prosecution party on the other, and roping of the appellants and other as accused only because they had taken side of the landlord. 6. While assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence it has been submitted on behalf of appellants that none of the witness so cited and examined on behalf of prosecution happen to be an eye witness to occurrence and because of the fact that there is a lot of variance as well as inconsistencies prevailing in their evidence on each and every material point. It has also been submitted that even the place of occurrence could not be properly fixed by the prosecution. In this regard learned counsel has also explained that on account of non-examination of Investigating Officer serious prejudice has been caused to the appellants in the background of the fact that there happens to be material contradiction and embellishment in the evidence of all the witnesses and specially on account of inconsistency with regard to actual place of occurrence. The evidence of all the witnesses who have been examined in this case has also been impeached on the ground that they are interested and partisan and account thereof their evidences were liable to be put to close and minute scrutiny, but the trial court had totally failed to do so and therefore on a re-appraisal of the evidence by this Court will automatically establish the plea of the appellants that the prosecution had miserably failed to substance its case. Not only this, it has further been submitted, that there also happens to be serious inconsistency in the ocular evidence vis-à-vis with the medical evidence. Not only this, it has further been submitted, that there also happens to be serious inconsistency in the ocular evidence vis-à-vis with the medical evidence. It has been further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that though there happens to be disclosure in the fardbeyan itself with regard to the motive for occurrence but during course of trial the same has also not properly been supported and proved. Last but not the least, it has been also argued that when only one single arrow injury was found to be over the person of deceased the alleged offence could at best fall under the category of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. In this regard it has been specially emphasized that the occurrence is of the year 1972 in which the two appellants, save and except Bauku Mandal, are non-assailant and even with regard to Bauku Mandal, the allegation against him of being an assailant by means of lathi, a lenient view should be taken against all the appellants. 7. Per contra the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the prosecution with the help by cogent and reliable evidence has supported its case and that has been correctly taken into account by the trial court while passing the impugned judgment. It has further been submitted that appearance of appellants and five other named accused persons at the place of occurrence armed with deadly weapon is suggestive of the fact that they had moved in a preplanned manner and had caught hold of and committed murder of deceased Khesar Mandal and on account thereof though two of the three surviving appellants are non-assailant but they do not deserve any sort of leniency because of the fact that ultimately the illegal act of appellants as well led to killing of an innocent person in course of occurrence in which they had actively participated. Thus according to the learned counsel for the State when their conviction is found to be fully supported with the evidence available on the record, no interference is called for in the impugned judgment. 8. Thus according to the learned counsel for the State when their conviction is found to be fully supported with the evidence available on the record, no interference is called for in the impugned judgment. 8. To support its case the prosecution had examined altogether 12 PWs out of whom PW-1 is Mahadeo Bhagat, PW-2 is Kapildeo Mandal, PW-3 is Bishundeo Mandal, PW-4 is Pradeep Mandal, PW-5 is Musharu Mandal, PW-6 is Harilal Mandal, PW-7 is Brahmdeo Mandal, PW-8 is Wakil Mandal, PW-9 is Bhupendra Yadav, PW-10 is Mahaveer Mandal, PW-11 is Dr. C.D. Pandey and PW-12 is Mahendra Mandal. Side by side the prosecution had also adduced documentary evidence, namely Exhibit-1 Series being signature of respective witnesses over respective documents, Exhibit 2 is the fardbeyan and Exhibit 3 is the postmortem report. 9. Now coming to the postmortem report the doctor, PW-11 had found following ante-mortem injury over the dead body of Khesar Mandal during course of conduction of postmortem on 24.07.1972 at 03:00 P.M. i. Congested blood was seen coming out from nose and mouth. ii. Swelling of the right knee joint. On dissection congested and clotted blood was found. iii. Swelling of the left lower part of the arm dorsally 2 ½”x 2”. iv. Bruise 2 ½”x1/2” on left side of the abdomen. v. One arrow was seen piercing the intercostal space between 6th and 7th ribs on the left side. Only bamboo portion of the arrow was out above the skin surface. Clotted blood was seen on the chest wall. On dissection intercostals muscle was found ruptured. Arrow was seen piercing into the left body substance and diaphragm. Left side of the chest cavity was filled with blood. vi. Fracture of the 6th costal cartilage. 10. In the opinion of the doctor the death was on account of injury no.V and VI resulting shock and haemorrhage and the time elapsed since death was found to be within 24 to 36 hours. During cross-examination the doctor had narrated that the dead body was decomposed at the time of conduction of postmortem examination and had further opined that decomposition starts after six hours in summer season. During cross-examination the doctor had narrated that the dead body was decomposed at the time of conduction of postmortem examination and had further opined that decomposition starts after six hours in summer season. Nothing relevant has in fact been elicited from the mouth of the doctor in course of his cross-examination on the factum of cause of death as a result of which the cause of death being penetrating arrow injury in the chest as specifically alleged in the fardbeyan of the informant PW-8 is found to be fully proved. 11. Now adverting to the ocular evidence, PW-1 is not an eye witness to the occurrence rather he happens to be the witness of inquest as well as seizure of blood stained earth from the place of occurrence. In his deposition he had said that during course of preparation of inquest he had found arrow pierced in the body of deceased Khesar Mandal. In his cross-examination the defence could not take away anything from him in relation to aforesaid two crucial aspects. 12. PW-2 had deposed that on the alleged date and time of occurrence while he was scrapping grass in the field he found Haseri coming towards Khesar (deceased) and out of whom he had identified Babuan Mandal, Swaroop Paswan, Janak Paswan, Bauku Mandal, Sudhir Mandal, Mishri Dhangar, Raudi Paswan who were variously armed with bow, arrow and lathi. Accordingly to PW-2, while Khesar Mandal was fleeing in the western direction, the members of the mob had cordoned by moving towards east to west and then Babuan Mandal (since dead) had caused injury by arrow in the chest of Khesar Mandal which was followed by assault with lathi by Janak and Bauku and thereafter the members of the mob had fled away there from. Khesar Mandal in an injured condition was lifted and taken to his Darwaja and during course thereof he had died. He had also stated that the accused persons were supporters of Chandi with whom alone the prosecution party was on litigating terms. During cross-examination he had stated that he was nephew (Bhagina) of Mahendra Mandal and on account of death of his parents he was brought up by his Mama. Then he had also disclosed pendency of Bataidari case. In para-7 he had also admitted pendency of other cases including loot case brought up at the instance of Babuan. During cross-examination he had stated that he was nephew (Bhagina) of Mahendra Mandal and on account of death of his parents he was brought up by his Mama. Then he had also disclosed pendency of Bataidari case. In para-7 he had also admitted pendency of other cases including loot case brought up at the instance of Babuan. In para-8 he had said that he had seen the occurrence from a distance of 15 to 20 laggi and that he had not seen anyone except Babuan assaulting the deceased with arrow. According to him the members of the unlawful assembly were labourers, Sipahi etc. of Chandi. He had also stated that he shown the place of occurrence to the I.O. as well as had also shown blood having fallen at the place of occurrence and had explained that after the assault Khesar was taken to his Darwaja. He had also denied the suggestion of the defence that Khesar was actually watching the field with a bow and arrow in his hand and when he had fallen down from the Machan his own the arrow had pierced into his Chest. Thus from the evidence of this PW-2, it is evident that defence had not cross-examined him on the point of occurrence and had further admitted death of the deceased by means of pierced arrow, though accidentally and in fact self-inflicted. 13. PW-3 has been tendered by the prosecution and nothing was suggested to him by defence in his cross-examination save and except that he was Bhagina of Mahendra. 14. PW-4 an eyewitness named in the FIR had stated that Babuan injury on the chest of the deceased by an arrow whereafter Janak and Bauku had assaulted him with lathi and others also had assaulted him and then accused persons had fled away. During cross-examination he had admitted presence of litigation in the background of land dispute with land owner Chandi with prosecution party. In para-5 of his cross-examination he had shown his presence near the place of occurrence while scrapping grass and from there he had seen the Haseri coming. He had also given detailed account wherein he had witnessed the occurrence. Further he had remained firm that Babuan alone had caused injury on the person of the deceased by arrow. In para-5 of his cross-examination he had shown his presence near the place of occurrence while scrapping grass and from there he had seen the Haseri coming. He had also given detailed account wherein he had witnessed the occurrence. Further he had remained firm that Babuan alone had caused injury on the person of the deceased by arrow. Thus from his evidence it is clear that he had supported the prosecution case with regard to place and manner of occurrence. 15. P.W.5 had similarly stated that he had witnessed the occurrence while was weeding the paddy crop he had and further disclosed that during course of fleeing of Khesar he was intercepted by the members of unlawful assembly and then Babuan had struck at him with an arrow causing piercing injury in his chest. He had further disclosed that Janak and other Haseri had assaulted Khesar with lathi. Where after all of them had fled away. He had also stated that Khesar was carried to his Darwaja during midst of which he had died. In his cross-examination he had admitted presence of litigation in the background of land dispute. He also admitted that before this case Sudhir had brought a criminal case against him, Mahender and Mahaveer which had ultimately ended in compromise. In para-4 he had reiterated the manner in which the entire occurrence was committed. A bare perusal of the evidence of PW-5 would go to show that he was an eyewitness to the occurrence and the defence did not even challenge his version of place and manner of occurrence. 16. PW-6 reiterated the same version save and except he had not named Sudhir along with others because of the fact that he had named only Babuan, Janak, Bauku, Swaroop and Langara. He had further disclosed that Babuan had given arrow blow while Bauku and Janak had assaulted Khesar with lathi and others also assaulted. He had also stated that Khesar had fell down whereafter he was taken to his Darwaja and in midst of way he had died. During his cross-examination at Para-6 he had disclosed that he had seen the Haseri (mob) from 85 lagga coming from southern side which had diverted towards western side. He had explained that most probably the members of the mob might have perceived Khesar at the Machan itself. During his cross-examination at Para-6 he had disclosed that he had seen the Haseri (mob) from 85 lagga coming from southern side which had diverted towards western side. He had explained that most probably the members of the mob might have perceived Khesar at the Machan itself. He had also given detail wherein Babuan was leading the mob followed by Janak and Bauku and the others members of the mob were also following them. The defence could also not discredit this witness on any of the material aspect including place and manner of occurrence. PW-6 thus has also remained by and large consistent with the prosecution case save and except that he had not named appellant Sudhir. 17. PW-7 had also stated that while he was weeding he had seen the members of unlawful assembly coming towards there and on account thereof Khesar ranaway towards western direction but he was cordoned by the members of the unlawful assembly, out of whom he had claimed identification of Janak, Swaroop, Langara, Sauri, Bauku, Mishri, Babuan who were variously armed. He had also stated that Babuan had assaulted Khesar with the arrow which was followed by assault by Janak and Bauku with lathi and rest of the members also assaulted him and thereafter the members of the unlawful assembly had made their escape. Khesar was taken to his Darwaja and during midst of the way he had died. During cross-examination at para-3 he had given his exact location from where he had seen the occurrence but he was not cross-examined with regard to either manner of occurrence or even place of evidence. Thus PW-7 also appears to be a truthful eyewitness who too had not named. Appellant Sudhir as a member of unlawful assembly. 18. PW-8 is informant. He had reiterated his earlier version whatever had been stated by him in the fardbeyan and he had claimed identifying the culprits out of whom Babuan had struck Khesar with an arrow while Janak and Bauku had assaulted Khesar with lathi and in likewise manner others also had assaulted him. After escaping of the Haseri they had taken away Khesar to his Darwaja and during midst of way he had died. He had further disclosed motive of the occurrence being land dispute as well as pendency of criminal cases. During cross-examination at para-3 he had shown inter se relationship of the witnesses. After escaping of the Haseri they had taken away Khesar to his Darwaja and during midst of way he had died. He had further disclosed motive of the occurrence being land dispute as well as pendency of criminal cases. During cross-examination at para-3 he had shown inter se relationship of the witnesses. In para-4 and 5 he had explained his own position of being near to the place of occurrence on the basis of which it was possible for him to be eyewitness to the occurrence. Surprisingly even this witness has not been cross-examined on the factum of occurrence and therefore he too is not only a reliable eyewitness but has also proved both place and manner of occurrence. 19. PW-9 is a formal witness who has simply exhibited the fardbeyan. 20. PW-10 as well as PW-12 have narrated the occurrence in same way which the other PWs had disclosed above have narrated. From the cross-examination of PW-10, it is also evident that he was cross-examined mainly on the point of prevailing animosity amongst the parties including that of Bataidari case as well as criminal case but again the defence did not to cross-examine him on the point of occurrence. In similar fashion there happens to be cross-examination of PW-12 and he also been cross-examined on the point of animosity followed by pendency of criminal case wherein he also stood as one of the accused. He too was not cross-examined by the defence on the manner of occurrence. 21. Thus, rom the evidence available on the record as well as from the rival submission including the motive so divulged it is beyond pale of any doubt that both sides were on litigating term. Enmity however is a doubled edged sword and while it may be a cause of false implication but at the same time it may also be a cause for commission of offence. As disclosed above, there happens to be consistent evidence adduced on behalf of prosecution with regard to genesis as well as manner of occurrence in which Khesar (deceased) was done to death by striking with arrow by Babuan followed with assault by lathi by Janak and Bauku. The defence in fact could not shake much less discredit evidence of the PWs on any material aspect. 22. The defence in fact could not shake much less discredit evidence of the PWs on any material aspect. 22. A plea has also been raised that all the witnesses whoever examined in this case are inimical and further they belonged to one set of the people who were supporters of the landlord and therefore, their testimony is fit to be rejected. This aspect has been taken into consideration by the Hon’ble Apex Court times without number and recently in a decision reported in (2012) 8 SCC 651 Shyam Babu Versus State of Uttar Pradesh, it has been held as under: 22. This Court has repeatedly held that the version of an eyewitnesses cannot be discarded by the court merely on the ground that such eyewitnesses happened to be a relative or friend of the deceased. It is also stated that where the presence of the eyewitnesses is proved to be natural and their statements are nothing but truthful disclosure of actual facts leading to the occurrence, it will not be permissible for the court to discard the statement of such related or friendly witnesses. To put it clear, there is no bar in law on examining family members or any other person as witnesses. In fact, in cases involving family members of both sides, it is a member of the family or a friend who comes to rescue the injured. If the statement of witnesses, who are relatives or known to the parties affected is credible, reliable, trustworthy and corroborated by other witnesses, there would hardly be any reason for the court to reject such evidence merely on the ground that the witness was a family member or an interested witness or a person known to the affected party or friend, etc. These principles have been reiterated in Mano Dutt v. State of U.P. (2012) 4 SCC 79 and Dayal Singh v. State of Uttaranchal (2012) 8 SCC 263 . 23. In an another decision reported in (2012) 10 SCC 256 Dahari and others Versus State of Uttar Pradesh at para-11 the same issue has again been explained in following manner: 11. It is a settled legal proposition that the evidence of closely related witnesses is required to be carefully scrutinized and appreciated before any conclusion is made to rest upon it, regarding the convict/accused in a given case. It is a settled legal proposition that the evidence of closely related witnesses is required to be carefully scrutinized and appreciated before any conclusion is made to rest upon it, regarding the convict/accused in a given case. In case the evidence has a ring of truth to it, is cogent, credible and trustworthy, it can, and certainly should, be relied upon. [Vide Himanshu v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2011) 2 SCC 36 Ranjit Singh v. State of M.P. (2011) 4 SCC 336 and Onkar v. State of U.P. (2012) 2 SCC 273 ] 24. Thus, the evidence of the PWs on that very score can’t be altogether brushed aside when they themselves proved their natural presence at the place of occurrence during course of commission of occurrence and have been creditworthy, trustworthy and reliable on all the material aspects. The worst part on this score is to be gathered from the conduct of the appellants themselves who, on account of lapses on their part to cross-examine the witness more particularly relating to the manner of occurrence cannot expect to discredit their evidence only on the ground of enemity. That means to say, the manner of occurrence as disclosed by the prosecution happens to be totally unchallenged. 25. With regard to plea of the appellants, that taking into account the nature of allegation as well as conduct of the appellants it could very safely be inferred that neither they have got any intention to commit murder nor they had possessed an intention to commit murder of Khesar Mandal because of the fact that in spite of having the appellants variously armed with deadly weapon, they had not used the same during course of commission of occurrence it has to be held that for constituting an offence under Section 147 with the main offence it is not necessary that every member of the unlawful assembly also must have committed specific overt act. 26. In likewise manner it has also been submitted that arrow was used only for once and it was unfortunate that it had struck upon the chest of deceased Khesar Mandal. The aforesaid argument has been advanced in the background of the evidence of PW-4 in para-6 wherein he had disclosed that Babuan once upon a time was also one of the Bataidar who later on gone in a camp of landlord. The aforesaid argument has been advanced in the background of the evidence of PW-4 in para-6 wherein he had disclosed that Babuan once upon a time was also one of the Bataidar who later on gone in a camp of landlord. It has further been disclosed that for the last 10 to 15 days Babuan was regularly on visiting terms along with Haseri. On date of occurrence also he came to know that Babuan had led the Haseri but got himself hidden. It was also submitted that taking into account the evidence of the PW, it is evident that there was cause for false implication of Babuan with specific allegation as he had betrayed the prosecution party by going into collusion of landlord. 27. When the evidence of remaining witnesses along with respective cross-examination has been gone through, it appears that they have stood consistent with regard to manner of occurrence wherein Babuan was shown to be an assailant of deceased by means of arrow which accordingly to doctor including injury no.5 proved fatal. Side by side there also happens to be consistent version of the prosecution that during commission of occurrence none of the members prosecution party i.e. PW-8 the informant or the deceased was armed with any weapon or they had entered into fight with the appellant. In the aforesaid background, having the admitted fact that prosecution party was unarmed certainly would not justify application of Section 304 IPC either first or second part. This aspect has been taken into consideration by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Narayanan Nair Raghvan Nair v. State of Travancore-Cochin AIR 1956 SC 99 , wherein it was held as follows:- “11. …It is enough to say that the Exception requires that no undue advantage be taken of by the other side. It is impossible to say that there is no undue advantage when a man stabs an unarmed person who makes no threatening gestures and merely asks the accused’s opponent to stop fighting. Then also, the fight must be with the person who is killed.” 28. This view on Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, has also been taken by the Apex Court in the case of Kikar Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1993) 4 SCC 238 wherein it has been held that: “9. Then also, the fight must be with the person who is killed.” 28. This view on Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, has also been taken by the Apex Court in the case of Kikar Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1993) 4 SCC 238 wherein it has been held that: “9. …Where the deceased was unarmed and did not cause any injury to the accused even following a sudden quarrel if the accused has inflicted fatal blows on the deceased, Exception 4 is not attracted and commission must be one of murder punishable under Section 302.” Thus, in a case where a man stabs another person, unless it is established that there was some threat from that person to the offender, the court cannot possibly hold that the offender by stabbing that person has not taken any undue advantage or has not acted in a cruel or unusual manner. 29. Thus, in view of our aforesaid detailed observation and anxious consideration of the evidence on record we find that the prosecution has proven its case beyond reasonable doubt against the three serving appellants as also the other five appellants who have died during the pendency of this appeal. Consequent thereupon we do not see any cogent reason to interfere with the finding and conclusion arrived by the trial court. 30. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. The appellants are on bail and their bail bonds accordingly are cancelled with a direction to them to surrender before the trial court to serve out the remaining sentence. (Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J.) As per Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mihir Kumar Jha 31. While I agree with the view taken by my learned Brother I would like to add on certain aspects on which submissions were also made by the learned counsel for the appellants. 32. It was firstly submitted that in the present case the place of occurrence has not been established and non-examination of the Investigating Officer in this regard has caused prejudice to the appellants. It is true that the Investigating Officer has not been examined in this case but then whether mere non-examination of the Investigating Officer would by itself be sufficient to demolish the other evidence brought by the prosecution on record? The answer has to be always in negative. 33. The place of occurrence from the inception of the prosecution case was the field of the informant. P.W.8. The answer has to be always in negative. 33. The place of occurrence from the inception of the prosecution case was the field of the informant. P.W.8. The Fard Beyan was recorded within 4½ hours of the occurrence and in the Fard Beyan itself the informant, P.W.8, had given the details regarding the occurrence having taken place in his field when the deceased sitting on Machan of the same field was chased by at least eight of the persons, the three appellants and five others who had died during the pendency of this appeal. The Police Officer is also said to have visited the place of occurrence soonafter recording of the Fard Beyan and when the seizure list was also prepared at the place of occurrence in presence of P.W.1 who in examination-in-chief had stated that the Police Officer in his presence has visited the place of occurrence and had seized the blood stained earth from the occurrence, it cannot be said that the prosecution did not prove the place of occurrence. It has to be noted that P.W.1 was cross-examined but nothing could be even suggested to him much less taken away from his evidence the factum with regard to seizure of blood stained earth from the place of occurrence. That apart when all the eye witnesses right from the informant, P.W.8 and other as discussed in the earlier part of this judgment had specifically asserted that the deceased was sitting on a Machan in the field and was chased by the appellants and five others forming an unlawful assembly whereafter he was asserted in the field nothing would remain there for the prosecution to establish the place of occurrence. In fact at no point of time either during the course of trial or even before us in course of hearing of the appeal any material could be shown to show that the deceased was done to death at some other place and not at the suggested place of occurrence. In that view of the matter, it has to be held that the prosecution has established the place of occurrence to be the field of P.W.8 where the deceased was sitting on the Machan and was apprehended on chase in course of fleeing away of the deceased by the appellants and five others forming unlawful assembly. 34. In that view of the matter, it has to be held that the prosecution has established the place of occurrence to be the field of P.W.8 where the deceased was sitting on the Machan and was apprehended on chase in course of fleeing away of the deceased by the appellants and five others forming unlawful assembly. 34. It is this aspect of the matter which would make us to reject the so called prejudice to the appellants on account of non-examination of the Investigating Officer. As noted above, non-examination of the Investigating Officer is not fatal to the prosecution in all the cases. Reference in this connection may be usefully made to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mano Dutt & anor. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in (2012)4 SCC 79 , wherein it was held as follows: “22. It was not always mandatory for the prosecution to examine the Investigating Officer, provided it can establish its case beyond reasonable doubt even in his absence. ... ...” 35. The same view has been taken even earlier by the Apex Court in the case of Birendra Rai & ors. v. State of Bihar, reported in (2005)9 SCC 719 , wherein it was held as follows: “14. It was then submitted that the investigating Officer was not examined in this case and that has resulted in prejudice to the accused. Having gone through the evidence of witnesses and other material on record, we do not find that any prejudice has been caused to the defence by non-examination of the investigating officer. ......” 36. Explaining this aspect at some greater length the Apex Court in the case of Raj Kishore Jha vs. the State of Bihar & ors., reported in (2003)11 SCC 519 , had held that: “11. Mere non-examination of the Investigating Officer does not in every case cause prejudice to the accused or affects the creditability of the prosecution version. In Ram Dev v. State of U.P., reported in 1995 Supp (1) SCC 547, it was noted that non-examination of the Investigating Officer does not in any way create any dent in the prosecution case, much less affect the credibility of otherwise trustworthy testimony of the eyewitnesses.......” 37. In Ram Dev v. State of U.P., reported in 1995 Supp (1) SCC 547, it was noted that non-examination of the Investigating Officer does not in any way create any dent in the prosecution case, much less affect the credibility of otherwise trustworthy testimony of the eyewitnesses.......” 37. The aforesaid view was also reiterated by the Apex Court in the case of Narendra Nath Khaware v. Parasnath Khaware & ors., reported in (2003)5 SCC 488 , in the following terms: “7. ... ... So far as the non-examination of the investigating officer is concerned, it is settled law that the same is not fatal to the prosecution case. It has been often found that in order to help the accused party, specially in case where investigating officers are won over for whatever consideration, the investigating officers absent themselves and do not appear as witness in court. ... ...” 38. In the case of Ram Gulam Chaudhary & ors. v. State of Bihar, reported in (2001)8 SCC 311 , which is almost identical to the facts of the present case, the Apex Court had again taken the same view in the following terms: “30. In our view, in this case also non-examination of the investigating Officer has caused no prejudice at all. All that Mr. Mishra could submit was that the examination of the investigating officer would have shown that the occurrence had taken place not in the courtyard but outside on the road. The investigating officer was not an eyewitness. The body had already been removed by the appellants. The investigating officer, therefore, could not have given any evidence as to the actual place of occurrence. There were witnesses who have given credible and believable evidence as to the place of occurrence. Their evidence cannot be discarded merely because the investigating officer was not examined. The non-examination of the investigating officer has not led to any prejudice to the appellants. We, therefore, see no substance in this submission.” 39. Yet again in the case of Bahadur Naik v. State of Bihar, reported in (2000)9 SCC 153 , had gone to hold that: “When no material contradictions have been brought out then non-examination of the Investigating Officer as a witness for the prosecution was of no consequence and under such circumstances no prejudice has been caused to the accused by such non-examination.” 40. It would thus be apparent that the question is one of prejudice to the accused persons on account of non-examination of the Investigating Officer and the Apex Court in the case of Behari Prasad & ors. v. the State of Bihar, reported in (1996)2 SCC 317 , as also in the case of Ambika Prasad & anor. v. State (Delhi Admn,, Delhi), reported in 2000 Cri.L.J. 810, had summarized the law after referring to the earlier judgments of the Apex Court in the following words: “10. Further, it is to be borne in mind that criminal trial is meant for doing justice to the accused, victim and the society so that law and order is maintained. Hence, as observed by this Court in State of U.P. v. Anil Singh, AIR 1988 SC 1998 {1989 Cri L J 88} it is necessary to remember that a judge does not preside over a criminal trial merely to see that no innocent man is punished. A Judge also presides to see that a guilty man does not escape. One is as important as the other. Both are public duties which the judge has to perform. Hence, we would only state that it is unfortunate state of affair that police officers resiled from their own statements and deposed something contrary before the Court. Equally, it is unfortunate that investigating officer, has not stepped into the witness box without any justifiable ground. But this conduct of the Investigating Officer or other hostile witnesses cannot be a ground for discarding the evidence of P.W.5 and P.W.7 whose presence on the spot is established beyond reasonable doubt. They have suffered injuries and their evidence is corroborated by medical evidence. It is also in conformity with what ahs been stated in FIR. In any case, Investigating Officer is not at all material witness for the purpose of establishing whether accused or the complainant party was the aggressor. Not only that accused have examined the defence witnesses for establishing their say. Hence, non-examination of the Investigating Officer cannot be a ground for holding that injured witnesses should not be believed.” 41. In any case, Investigating Officer is not at all material witness for the purpose of establishing whether accused or the complainant party was the aggressor. Not only that accused have examined the defence witnesses for establishing their say. Hence, non-examination of the Investigating Officer cannot be a ground for holding that injured witnesses should not be believed.” 41. As a matter of fact when the defence did not even suggest to any of the witnesses as with regard to possibility of any other place being the place of occurrence nor did it even question the factum of occurrence as has been recorded by my learned Brother while discussing the individual evidence of each and every witness, it has to be held that no benefit can be claimed by the appellants that the prosecution did not examine the Investigating Officer. 42. The next submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that in absence of any specific allegation of overt act on the appellant Sudhir Mandal when he was also not named by P.W.6, P.W.7 and P.W.12, his case would be distinguishable, inasmuch as his identification itself is in question. In this regard it has to be noted that there are as many as six eye witnesses and out of them Kapildeo Mandal (P.W.2), Pradeep Mandal (P.W.4), Musharu Mandal (P.W.5) apart from Wokil Mandal, the informant (P.W.8) have not only named the presence of the appellant Sudhir Mandal but have also stated that he was a member of the unlawful assembly carrying the weapon of Tir Dhanus (bow and arrow) which had initially cordoned the deceased who was running away from the field and thereafter on chase was assaulted by Babuan Mandal who is said to have given the fatal bow injury in the chest of the deceased. In that view of the matter, merely because P.W.6, P.W.7 and P.W.12 had not named Sudhir Mandal in their evidence in court would not discredit the evidence of other eye witnesses. In that view of the matter, merely because P.W.6, P.W.7 and P.W.12 had not named Sudhir Mandal in their evidence in court would not discredit the evidence of other eye witnesses. It has to be also kept in mind that the conviction of the appellant Sudhir MJandal is for offence under sections 302/149 and under sections 148 and 323 I.P.C. The allegation of indiscriminate assault on the person of the deceased apart from bow injury is substantiated from the other injuries found on the right knee, arm and abdomen of the deceased and in that view of the matter, when it is also the case of the prosecution successfully proven by both ocular and medical evidence that the entire unlawful assembly of eight persons had intercepted, chased and assaulted the deceased, it cannot be said that the ingredient for committing offence under sections 302/149 I.P.C. was not made out against the appellant Sudhir Mandal or the other two appellants. 43. While it is true that it is the prosecution which has to be proved its case beyond reasonable doubt but in the present case when the suggestion given to one of the prosecution witnesses by the defence was that the deceased was sitting on Machan of the field with a bow and arrow in his own hand and he actually had sustained the piecing injury in his own chest on account of sudden fall from the Machan, the defence itself has gone to not only accept the fatal injury caused on the person of the deceased by way of piercing bow injury in the chest but has also taken the risk of entering into the defence with regard to nature of such injury. In this regard it was found that when the Doctor P.W.11 was examined, he had specifically described injury no.5 to be a arrow injury which was seen piercing the inter-costal space between 6th and 7th ribs on the left side and only bamboo portion of the arrow was out above skin surface. In this regard it was found that when the Doctor P.W.11 was examined, he had specifically described injury no.5 to be a arrow injury which was seen piercing the inter-costal space between 6th and 7th ribs on the left side and only bamboo portion of the arrow was out above skin surface. A person holding bow and arrow in his own hand could not have pierced the arrow deep in size for causing the injury in nature of injury no.5 as found by the doctor and in fact when the defence also did not cross-examine the doctor on this aspect, it has to be safely held that from the medical evidence as well the case of the prosecution as fully substantiated in the evidence of seven eye witnesses have been fully proved. 44. Thus, I have no hesitation in my mind that the prosecution has proven its case beyond reasonable doubt as against surviving three appellants and also against the five other appellants, who have died during the pendency of this appeal. 45. With the aforementioned concurring findings I fully agree with rest of the reasonings and conclusion arrived by my learned Brother. 46. In the result, this appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.