V.N. SINHA, J.:–Present appeal has been filed by three convicted appellants against the judgment of conviction, order of sentence dated 06/09-09-2008, passed by Additional Sessions Judge-IV, F.T.C., Lakhisarai in Sessions Case No. 776/06, whereunder the three appellants have been convicted for the offence under Section 302/34 of the Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act with direction to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 50,000/- each. No separate sentence has been awarded for conviction under Section 27 of the Arms Act. 2. Prosecution case, as set out in the fardbeyan of informant Maheshwar Mahto (P.W.1), is that on 19.08.2003 at about 7:00 A.M. informant, his wife Binda Devi and son Praveen Kumar @ Munna (deceased) had gone to the field in the outer area of the village English for weeding grass. Two plots away from the field of the informant Ram Charitra Mahto, another deceased along with his son Santosh Kumar @ Bablu was plucking lady finger (Bhindi) from his plot. Meanwhile the three appellants along with Birju Yadav and one unknown came to the field of the informant. Appellant Ashok Yadav and his brother Ghina Yadav caught hold the son of the informant Praveen Kumar @ Munna from his neck and asked him to come along with them. Birju Yadav, Appellant No. 3 Sikandar Verma and the unknown miscreant pointing pistol took control of Ram Charitra Mahto in the adjoining field and asked him to come along with them towards western side. Informant, his wife, Santosh @ Bablu son of Ram Charitra Mahto followed the miscreants. After covering some distance Ashok Yadav and Ghina Yadav shot Praveen Kumar @ Munna and on instructions from Ashok Yadav Birju Yadav and Appellant No. 3 Sikandar Verma shot Ram Charitra Mahto. Hearing sound of firing shots villagers came. Information about the occurrence was given to Lakhisarai police and on receipt of information Sub-Inspector Sri Ram Paswan of Lakhisarai Police Station came to Village English and recorded the fardbeyan of the informant at 8:30 A.M. in Village-English. Informant having read his statement scribed by Sub-Inspector Sri Ram Paswan put his signature over the same. His another son Arvind Kumar (not examined) also put his signature over the fardbeyan besides Bablu @ Santosh Kumar (P.W. 3), son of the another deceased Ram Charitra Mahto. Informant having read his statement scribed by Sub-Inspector Sri Ram Paswan put his signature over the same. His another son Arvind Kumar (not examined) also put his signature over the fardbeyan besides Bablu @ Santosh Kumar (P.W. 3), son of the another deceased Ram Charitra Mahto. Sub-Inspector Sri Ram Paswan having recorded the fardbeyan forwarded the same to Lakhisarai Police Station where Lakhisarai P.S. Case No. 206/03 dated 19.08.2003 was registered for the offence under Sections 302/34 of the Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act with instruction that the scribe of the fardbeyan Sub-Inspector Sri Ram Paswan will investigate the case. During investigation of the case the two dead bodies, four empty cartridges were recovered and the statement of the witnesses i.e. P.W. 1 informant, P.W. 2 his wife Binda Devi, P.W. 3 Santosh Kumar @ Bablu son of another deceased Ram Charitra Mahto, P.W. 4 Pawan Kumar seizure-list witness as also villager together with Arvind Kumar another son of the informant and Dina Nath Mahto, villager who came to the place of occurrence after the occurrence was recorded. Investigating Officer after post mortem of the dead bodies on 20.08.2009 at 2:00 P.M. obtained post mortem report of the two deceased (Exhibit-6, 6/1). Having completed the investigation Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet against the three appellants as also Birju Yadav showing him absconder. In the light of the charge-sheet cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the court of Sessions for trial. After framing of charge appellants denied the charge levelled against them and claimed to be tried. 3. In support of the charge framed prosecution examined six witnesses. P.W. 1 Maheshwar Mahto is the informant of this case, P.W. 2 Binda Devi is the wife of the informant, P.W. 3 Santosh Kumar @ Bablu is the son of another deceased Ram Charitra Mahto, P.W. 4 Pawan Kumar is witness of seizure of four empty cartridges vide seizure-list (Exhibit-2), P.W. 5 Sri Ram Paswan is the Investigating Officer of the case and P.W. 6 is Dr. Rajiv Ranjan Verma who conducted post mortem on the dead bodies of Praveen Kumar and Ram Charitra Mahto (Exhibit-6, 6/1 respectively). 4. Rajiv Ranjan Verma who conducted post mortem on the dead bodies of Praveen Kumar and Ram Charitra Mahto (Exhibit-6, 6/1 respectively). 4. P.W. 1 informant has supported the version which he recorded in the fardbeyan and asserted in Court that he along with his wife, deceased son Praveen Kumar had come to the field for weeding out grass in the morning at about 7:00 A.M. and while the three were weeding grass, the appellants and one Birju Yadav came to the field and caught hold of his son by neck and asked him to come along with them. Informant, his wife also followed them. After covering some distance appellant Ashok Yadav and Ghina Yadav shot Praveen Kumar who having received gun shot injury fell down. On instruction from appellant Ashok Yadav Birju Yadav and Sikandra Verma (Appellant No. 3) caught hold of Ram Charitra Mahto in the adjoining field and took him along with them. After covering some distance he was also shot at the same place where Praveen Kumar was shot. Ram Charitra Mahto was shot by Appellant No. 3 and absconder Birju Yadav. He further asserted that on alarm being raised villagers including his son Arvind Kumar, Pawan Kumar, Dina Nath Mahto, Nathuni, Umesh, Manoj, Amrendra Sah had come to the place of occurrence and saw the dead bodies. During cross-examination informant has stood the test of searching questions put to him and his evidence is not found shaken in any manner. 5. P.W. 2 Binda Devi, wife of informant has also supported the occurrence as eye-witness of the occurrence. She was also present in the field and was weeding grass with her husband and the deceased son and in her presence her son was shot by Ashok Yadav and Ghina Yadav. Her testimony is also not found shaken in any manner. 6. P.W. 3 Santosh Kumar @ Bablu, son of another deceased was plucking lady finger in his field along with his father deceased Ram Charitra Mahto has also supported the prosecution case as eye-witness. His testimony is also not found shaken in any manner as in his presence his father was shot. 7. P.W. 4 Pawan Kumar, seizure-list witness, has supported the seizure of four empty cartridges from the ground near the two dead bodies vide seizure-list (Exhibit-2). 8. His testimony is also not found shaken in any manner as in his presence his father was shot. 7. P.W. 4 Pawan Kumar, seizure-list witness, has supported the seizure of four empty cartridges from the ground near the two dead bodies vide seizure-list (Exhibit-2). 8. P.W. 5 Sri Ram Paswan is the Investigating Officer as at the relevant time he served as Sub-Inspector in Lakhisarai Police Station. He has stated in his evidence that on receipt of telephonic information he recorded Station Diary Entry and thereafter came to Village- English where fardbeyan of the informant was recorded at 8:30 A.M. whereafter he visited the place of occurrence i.e. field and the adjoining land where the two deceased were shot. He also stated in his evidence that blood stains were found at the place where the two deceased were shot and their dead bodies were found but he did not seize the blood stains. He further stated that at the same place where the two dead bodies were found four empty cartridges were also found and seized vide seizure-list (Exhibit-2) in presence of co-villager of the informant Pawan Kumar (P.W. 4). 9. P.W. 5 further stated that in the light of the statement of the informant and the eye-witnesses as also the objective findings and seizure of four empty cartridges from place of occurrence (Exhibit-2) he submitted charge-sheet against the three appellants and one Birju Yadav showing Birju Yadav as absconder. 10. P.W. 6 Dr. Rajiv Ranjan Verma conducted autopsy on the dead body of Praveen Kumar, Ram Charitra Mahto vide Exhibit-6, 6/1. From the post mortem report it appears that post mortem was conducted on 20.08.2003 at around 2:00 P.M. Rigor mortis had set in on both the dead bodies. Time elapsed between death and post mortem examination within 36 hours. On dissection P.W. 6 found gastric juice present in the stomach of the two deceased which is evident from Column No. 21 of the two post mortem reports. He also found that both the deceased were killed inflicting fire-arm injury on their person as one, three fire-arm injury was found on the dead body of Ram Charitra Mahto, Praveen Kumar @ Munna. 11. Learned counsel for the appellants assailed the conviction and submitted that time/manner of occurrence as asserted by the prosecution stands not proved in view of medical evidence of P.W. 6 Dr. 11. Learned counsel for the appellants assailed the conviction and submitted that time/manner of occurrence as asserted by the prosecution stands not proved in view of medical evidence of P.W. 6 Dr. Rajiv Ranjan Verma at page 102 of the brief and referred to the following portion of his evidence:– “deceased (both) have taken meal before two hours of death and such food has been present in stomach.” 12. In this connection learned counsel also referred to the evidence of informant P.W. 1 Maheshwar Mahto in Paragraphs 61 to 64 and submitted that members of the family of informant including P.W. 2 and his deceased son had taken last meal in the previous evening at 9:00 P.M. In view of the evidence of P.W. 6 quoted above death of Praveen Kumar took place within two hours of his having meal and he having taken meal at 9:00 P.M. his death probably took place in the previous night around 11:00 P.M. and not between 7:00-8:30 A.M. on 19.08.2003 after he had come for weeding grass in the field along with his parents in the morning at about 7:00 A.M. In view of contradiction between ocular and medical evidence which is difficult to be explained it is submitted that prosecution case that Praveen Kumar was killed between 7:00-8:30 A.M. is fit to be disbelieved as medical evidence of P.W. 6 clearly establish that Praveen Kumar died within two hours of his having the last meal at 9:00 P.M. The time of his killing would come to 11:00 P.M. as P.W. 1 has categorically stated that he along with his wife and son had taken dinner (last meal) at 9:00 P.M. 13. Learned counsel next referred to the evidence of P.W. 2 Binda Devi, wife of the informant Paragraphs 44, 45 and 46 and submitted that there was water scattered in the field in which P.W. 2, her husband P.W. 1 and the deceased Praveen Kumar were weeding grass. The five accused persons first entered the field and took Praveen Kumar within their control in the field and thereafter moved out but no trampling of the standing crop or foot mark/steps has been noticed in the field by the Investigating Officer though P.W. 2 has stated that the paddy crop was trampled to the extent of 10 dhurs in the plot. In this connection he also referred to the evidence of Investigating Officer (P.W. 5) in Paragraph 37 and submitted that though blood stain was noticed by him at the place two deceased had fallen down which had not become black, yet he did not recover/seize the same from the place where the dead bodies were found. He also submitted that four empty cartridges were recovered from the place of occurrence but not the blood stains. With reference to Paragraph 39 of the evidence of Investigating Officer learned counsel submitted that failure of Investigating Officer to notice any trampling of the standing crop, together with foot marks in the field is indicative of the fact that the occurrence had not taken place in the manner in which it is said to have taken place. 14. Learned counsel next referred to the evidence of P.W. 3 Santosh Kumar @ Bablu in Paragraph 48 and P.W. 1 informant Paragraph 47 and submitted that independent witnesses i.e. the villagers after hearing the sound of gun-shot had come to the place of occurrence and were examined by the Investigating Officer as would appear from Paragraph 67 of his evidence where he has named Nathuni, Umesh, Manoj, Amrendra Sah etc. amongst the villagers who reached the place of occurrence after the occurrence but those witnesses have not been examined to support the incident even though there is challenge to the very manner of occurrence on the ground that the incident had not taken place in the morning and that the villagers never came to the place of occurrence after hearing the sound of gun-shot. 15. Learned counsel further assailed the conviction of the appellants and submitted with reference to the evidence of P.W. 1 Paragraph 71 and P.W. 3 Paragraph 22 that there was no motive for the appellants to have committed the present murder. It is submitted that P.W. 1 though stated about extortion (Rangdari) being demanded by the appellant Ashok Yadav but no such report against Ashok Yadav has ever been filed either by the informant or the two deceased. Learned counsel further submitted that P.W. 3 has admitted in Paragraph 22 that there was no dispute or enmity with members of the prosecution party. 16. Learned counsel further submitted that P.W. 3 has admitted in Paragraph 22 that there was no dispute or enmity with members of the prosecution party. 16. In the light of the submissions noted above, it is submitted that the prosecution having not established the time, manner, motive for the occurrence, the conviction of the appellants is fit to be set aside. 17. Counsel for the State and the informant have opposed the prayer. It is submitted by them that the time, manner of occurrence is established by the ocular evidence of the three eye-witnesses of the present occurrence i.e. P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3. 18. In this connection learned counsel for the State with reference to the evidence of doctor (P.W. 6) and the findings recorded by him in the post mortem report submitted that the submission that occurrence has taken place around 11:00 P.M. on 18.08.2003 is wholly misconceived. In this connection he also referred to the evidence of the doctor at Page 102 of the brief and submitted that he has categorically stated in his evidence that both the deceased had taken meal two hours before death and time elapsed since death is within 36 hours. Learned counsel for the State further submitted with reference to Column No. 21 of the post mortem report that the submission of the counsel for the appellants that occurrence took place within two hours of the dinner is wholly misconceived as from the contents of Column No. 21 of the two post mortem reports it is quite evident that at the time of death of the two deceased some gastric juice is found present in the stomach of both the deceased. It is submitted that had the two deceased been killed within two hours of their last meal the undigested food particles ought to have been found in the stomach of the two deceased and not some gastric juice. 19. The submission of the counsel for the State appears to be well founded as taking note of the findings recorded by the doctor in the post mortem report as also contents of his deposition, the trial court held that the incident took place between 7:00 and 8:30 A.M.. 19. The submission of the counsel for the State appears to be well founded as taking note of the findings recorded by the doctor in the post mortem report as also contents of his deposition, the trial court held that the incident took place between 7:00 and 8:30 A.M.. We are of the view that such finding of the trial court is absolutely justified and there is no basis for us to conclude that the incident has taken place within two hours of the last meal of the two deceased i.e. at 11:00 P.M. on 18.08.2003. 20. Now we come to the next submission made by counsel for the appellants that Investigating Officer has not seized the blood stains from the place where the two dead bodies were found. It is true that the Investigating Officer though found blood stains at the place where the dead bodies were found but he did not seize the same. Such lapse on the part of the Investigating Officer may not persuade us to disbelieve the occurrence as from the same place where the dead bodies were found four empty cartridges were recovered from near the dead body and such fact has been established by the seizure witness (P.W. 4) Pawan Kumar vide Exhibit-2 and his deposition. Failure to seize the blood stains from the place where the dead bodies were found may not persuade us to disbelieve the consistent ocular evidence of the three eye-witnesses and the medical evidence of P.W. 6. 21. The last submission made by the counsel for the appellants that independent witnesses, namely, villagers who arrived at the place of occurrence after hearing the gun-shot have not been examined to support the fact that hearing gun-shot they came to the place of occurrence and saw the dead body of the two deceased lying on the ground. It is true that the witnesses who came to the place of occurrence after the occurrence have not been examined but failure to examine the independent villagers who were not eye-witnesses of the occurrence will not persuade us to disbelieve the ocular evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 and the medical evidence of Dr. Rajiv Ranjan Verma (P.W. 6) as we are satisfied about the quality of their testimony and the legal principle that quality and not the quantity of the testimony which is important. 22. 1, 2 and 3 and the medical evidence of Dr. Rajiv Ranjan Verma (P.W. 6) as we are satisfied about the quality of their testimony and the legal principle that quality and not the quantity of the testimony which is important. 22. In the circumstances, we do not find any merit in the appeal, which is dismissed. Appellant No. 1 is in jail. Appellant Nos. 2, 3 have been admitted to the privilege of bail during the pendency of this appeal, as such, their bail bonds are cancelled and they are directed to surrender in the court below forthwith for serving out their remainder sentence. 23. Let the L.C.R. be returned to the court below. ?