NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH, J.:–The five appellants, convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter in short as ‘IPC’) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life by the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 10th April, 1992 passed by the learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Gaya in Sessions Trial No. 82 of 1990, have filed this appeal. It may be noticed here that appellant nos. 1 and 2 are brothers and appellant no. 5 is the son of appellant no. 1. Appellant no. 1 would be above 70 years of age. Appellant no. 4 would be above 82 years of age. They have been charged for committing murder of one Nathun Kewat. 2. The prosecution case, as appearing from the fard-beyan, as lodged by Luchkun Kewat (PW 7) the son of the deceased that on 18.1.1987 at about 7.00 am his father Nathun Kewat (deceased) came to the well and found that the stone kept near the well was missing. He started shouting that all the villagers have become naxalites and did not even spare the stone kept at the well. Appellant Durga Sao who was working in a nearby agriculture field objected and started abusing Nathun Kewat and said that he is going home and would return to teach him a lesson. Thereafter, appellant Durga Sao went to his home, collected all the appellants who were variously armed with garansa, sword, spear, lathi, rifle and country made pistol. They came, surrounded Nathun Kewat and assaulted. They virtually cut his legs, assaulted on head and on body. The informant is the son of the deceased Nathun Kewat saw the incident but could not do anything to save his father as he was threatened by the appellants that if any one attempted to save the deceased, he would be shot. Finding Nathun Kewat dropped to the ground with extensive bleeding, the appellants are alleged to have left saying that he was dead. Upon this fard-beyan, recorded at Jehanabad Sadar Hospital where Nathun Kewat was brought for treatment and died immediately, a formal case was registered and investigation started. Inquest was prepared, post mortem report was obtained and after investigation chargesheet was submitted against the five appellants who pleaded not guilty and were tried and convicted. Hence the appeal. 3. In order to establish the prosecution case, prosecution has examined in all ten witnesses. Inquest was prepared, post mortem report was obtained and after investigation chargesheet was submitted against the five appellants who pleaded not guilty and were tried and convicted. Hence the appeal. 3. In order to establish the prosecution case, prosecution has examined in all ten witnesses. Learned counsel for the appellants first points out that the Investigating Officer has not been examined and there is no reason given why. He submits that it caused great prejudice to the defence. We are unable to accept his submission. What prejudice has been caused has not been pointed out. Nowhere has it been alleged that the witnesses had changed their stand which they had taken in course of investigation. No contradictions were sought to be established, nor the place of occurrence was in dispute, nor seriously the defence was challenging the nature of injuries and the cause of death. Thus, in our view, no prejudice was caused to the defence by non-examination of the Investigating officer much less enough to allow the appeal. We, therefore, reject this contention. 4. Out of the ten witnesses, PW 10 is Dr. Ram Padarath Singh who conducted post mortem examination. He proves the post mortem report which shows the gruesome murder in which the deceased was assaulted leading to his death. His leg was severely cut. He was assaulted on the head and on the back grievous injuries were visible. Then, we have PW 9 Chotu Nandan Prasad. He is an advocate clerk brought to prove the formal FIR. He is, thus, a formal witness. Once again, we would deprecate this practice which is permitted by courts in Bihar to permit any person to get up and prove any document. The court did not even bother to see as to how this advocate clerk whom we refer to as ‘Sankat Mochan witness’ was competent to be permitted to take stand to prove the formal FIR. He did not know the Investigating Officer. The FIR was not registered in his presence. He was not privy to the document. Sooner this practice ends, the better it is. The rest of the 8 witnesses are all eye witnesses. Some who are named as eye witnesses in the fad-beyan itself and some who are close family members and were present there. 5. PWs 1 and 2, namely, Chottan Kewat and Binod Kewat are grandson of the deceased Nathun Kewat. Sooner this practice ends, the better it is. The rest of the 8 witnesses are all eye witnesses. Some who are named as eye witnesses in the fad-beyan itself and some who are close family members and were present there. 5. PWs 1 and 2, namely, Chottan Kewat and Binod Kewat are grandson of the deceased Nathun Kewat. This Chottan Kewat is named in the FIR as a witness. Both of them stated that they are sons of daughter of Nathun Kewat and used to stay in their maternal grandfather’s house. They were present on the date of occurrence. They had seen the appellants coming variously armed and brutally assaulted the deceased with an intention to kill and thinking that they had killed him, they left. They threatened not to interfere while they were busy in the assault on the deceased. Substantively their evidence could not be impeached by the defence. At this stage, we would like to notice of suggestion that was given to both these witnesses. Firstly, PW 1 admits that his father and his grandfather Nathun Kewat had suffered life imprisonment for murdering one Ramdhani Sao who was the son of Harmuni Sao. It may be noticed here that Harmuni Sao is the father of appellant Durga Sao. Thus, the deceased Nathun Kewat and his son had been charged with murder of the brother of appellant Durga Sao and injuring the father of Durga Sao. From this suggestion, learned counsel for the defence submits that it is apparent that Nathun Kewat and his son had suffered imprisonment for life and as evident from the judgment of the court, in that case, which is Ext. B, they had been released only about a month or two back after serving 14 years imprisonment. In spite of that Nathun Kewat used to abuse the family of the appellants and it is that provocation which led to the incident. We are not satisfied and we are not inclined to give the benefit of sudden provocation to the appellants. The reasons we indicated above. 6. We then came to the evidence of PW 3 Shakuntla Devi. She is the daughter-in-law of the deceased. She states that hearing the shouts she came out of the house and saw the appellants brutally assaulting her father-in-law. The other daughter-in-law Dharmshila Devi (PW 4) reiterates the same. The testimony of both remained unshaken. The reasons we indicated above. 6. We then came to the evidence of PW 3 Shakuntla Devi. She is the daughter-in-law of the deceased. She states that hearing the shouts she came out of the house and saw the appellants brutally assaulting her father-in-law. The other daughter-in-law Dharmshila Devi (PW 4) reiterates the same. The testimony of both remained unshaken. We, then, have PW 5 Lalti Devi who is the wife of the deceased and only corroborates the evidence of other witnesses being an eye witness herself. We, then, have PW 6 Basant Kewat who is a villager but was also an eye witness mentioned in the FIR. He has fully supported the prosecution case and his testimony remained un-impeached. PW 7 is Luchkun Kewat who is the informant and the son of the deceased. He supports the entire prosecution case. We, then have PW 8 Lalan Prasad. He is an eye witness as mentioned in the FIR itself and has fully supported the prosecution case. 7. Thus, all the prosecution witnesses have fully supported the prosecution case and they have remained untarnished in any manner. Their testimonies stand withstood lengthy cross-examination. 8. Learned counsel for the defence submitted that with reference to Ext. B, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence as passed against the deceased and brought on record by the defence, that in fact Nathun Kewat and one of his sons had been accused of killing the brother of appellant Durga Sao and injuring the father of Durga Sao and by the said judgment they had been convicted and sentenced imprisonment for life. They had accordingly, been taken into custody and had only recently within a month or two have been released after spending 14 years in jail. Even though they had suffered the punishment, having come out of jail, they were still abusing people including Durga Sao and his other family members. This is what enraged Durga Sao and led to the fatal assault. We are unable to accept this. Learned counsel for the State Sri Ajay Mishra, APP on the other hand submits that enmity between the two is writ large and stand established by Ext. B. The judgment of conviction of the deceased was for killing the brother of appellant Durga Sao. The deceased was, then, released. We are unable to accept this. Learned counsel for the State Sri Ajay Mishra, APP on the other hand submits that enmity between the two is writ large and stand established by Ext. B. The judgment of conviction of the deceased was for killing the brother of appellant Durga Sao. The deceased was, then, released. He might have abused calling the villagers naxalites but that could not be provocation to kill him. The killing was because he had been released from jail, he had to be set right for killing the brother of appellant Durga Sao and therefore, Durga Sao and his other family members ganged up and fatally assaulted the deceased. 9. The submissions as made by both learned counsel for the appellants and learned APP are mere speculative statements and submissions. This Court cannot proceed on assumptions or presumptions. It has to proceed on basis of evidence on record. As noted above, the evidence is clear and unambiguous. Though the deceased was shouting that the villagers had become naxalites and did not even spare a stone kept near the well, Durga Sao took upon himself to teach him a lesson. He told the deceased that he would go home and teach him a lesson. He goes home, collects his family members, the appellants, and then brutally assault him ensuring his death. In that process the people who tried to save were also threatened to not to make attempt to save. These facts, in our view, clearly established the intention to kill and deliberate actions to achieve that intention. Nothing more is then required to be proved by the prosecution. It is clearly a culpable homicide amounting to murder. The provocation if any was not such grave or was not grave at all nor can it be said that the action and the reaction were simultaneous because the evidence is clear that while the deceased was abusing all the villagers, no one in particular much less appellant Durga Sao. Durga Sao left the agriculture field, went home, got others and then variously armed came back and attacked informant’s father Nathun Kewat. This is not a case of grave and sudden provocation but a clear premeditation. Durga Sao left the agriculture field, went home, got others and then variously armed came back and attacked informant’s father Nathun Kewat. This is not a case of grave and sudden provocation but a clear premeditation. Learned counsel for the appellants says that the idea was to teach the deceased a lesson, then the execution was contrary thereto because not only his legs was virtually cut, others who tried to intervene, were threatened to be shot dead if they tried to save the deceased. This clearly establishes the pre-intention of the parties/appellants. Mere suggestion without corroboration is of no consequence. 10. For the reasons aforesaid, we see no reasons to interfere with the judgment of conviction and order of sentence as passed by the trial court. This appeal is accordingly, dismissed. The bail bonds of the appellants stand cancelled. They must forthwith surrender before the trial court to serve out their remaining sentences. Let lower court record be returned and the trial court should take immediate steps to secure the presence of the appellants to serve out their sentences. ?