V.N. SINHA, J.:–These three appeals are directed against the judgment/ order dated 29.11.2010/ 07.12.2010, passed by 5th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nalanda at Bihar Sharif, in Sessions Case No. 109/ 2008 whereunder appellants of Criminal Appeal (SJ) Nos. 28, 157 both of 2011 have been convicted for the offence under Section 304 Part II of the Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act and have been directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10, 3 years with further direction to pay fine of Rs. 5000/-, 3000/- each under the two counts respectively. Both the sentences, however, have been directed to run concurrently. For failure to pay fine no separate sentence has, however, been imposed on the two appellants. 2. Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 154 of 2011 has been filed by the informant of the said case for enhancement of sentence imposed on the two appellants from rigorous imprisonment for 10 years to life sentence. 3. Prosecution case, as set out in the fardbeyan of the informant Ravindra Prasad Azad @ Bobby Singh, resident of Village Fatehpur, Police Station Nalanda, District Nalanda recorded by Sub-Inspector N.L. Choudhary, Station House Officer, Nalanda Police Station on the pitch road in front of Nalanda Police Station on 28.07.2007 at 14.30 hours, is that on the same day around 01.30 P.M. his neighbour appellant Suraj Singh @ Tinku, son of appellant Mohan Singh @ Dhuri Singh was forcibly ploughing his land in the outer area of Village Fatehpur. His father appellant Mohan Singh along with co-villager Sadan Singh, Mukesh Kumar and Rakesh Kumar @ Rakku armed with pistol was maintaining watch standing on the ridge of the plot. Having seen Suraj Singh forcibly ploughing the land informant along with his brother Shailendra Prasad Singh (deceased), uncle Bashisth Kumar Singh (P.W. 2) and Nageshwar Prasad Singh (P.W. 1) came running and asked Suraj Singh not to plough the land. Meanwhile, aforesaid accused persons surrounded the informant and others and began to assault. Sadan Singh assaulted the informant on his temple, rear portion of his head with the butt of his pistol causing oozing of blood. Mukesh Kumar assaulted Nageshwar Prasad Singh (P.W. 1) below his left eye also with the butt of his pistol. Rakesh Kumar @ Rakku threatened to fire. Sadan Singh assaulted the informant on his temple, rear portion of his head with the butt of his pistol causing oozing of blood. Mukesh Kumar assaulted Nageshwar Prasad Singh (P.W. 1) below his left eye also with the butt of his pistol. Rakesh Kumar @ Rakku threatened to fire. Mohan Singh @ Dhuri Singh instructed his son Suraj Singh to shoot informant and others, who took out pistol from his waist and shot his brother Shailendra Prasad Singh on his throat leading to his fall at the spot. After fall brother of the informant became restless and died after sometime. The accused persons ran away towards west. In the fardbeyan informant further stated that the occurrence took place because of the long standing land dispute with Mohan Singh. Besides the informant, Bashisth Kumar Singh (P.W. 2) also put his signature over the fardbeyan. 4. In the light of the aforesaid fardbeyan Nalanda P.S. Case No. 09/2007 was registered on 28.07.2007 at 15.35 hours for the offences under Sections 302/323/34 of the Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act against the five named accused persons including the two appellants. Station House Officer, Nalanda Police Station, scribe of the fardbeyan, himself took up the investigation of the case. Present First Information Report as also First Information Report of Nalanda P.S. Case No. 10/07 registered on 28.07.2007 at 10.00 P.M. on the basis of the fardbeyan of appellant Mohan Singh recorded by Sub-Inspector Janardan Pandey of Rajgir Police Station on 28.07.2007 at 19.30 hours in the campus of Rajgir Police Station was dispatched on 28.07.2007 but received in the Court of A.C.J.M., Nalanda at Bihar Sharif on 30.07.2007 i.e. after two days of the occurrence/ registration of the First Information Report and its dispatch. Both the aforesaid cases were investigated by Station House Officer Nand Lal Choudhary of Nalanda Police Station. After concluding the investigation of Nalanda P.S. Case No. 10/07 charge-sheet No. 67/07 was submitted on 31.08.2007 finding the said case true for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 324, 504/34 of the Penal Code against the informant of the present case (P.W. 5) and four others including Nagendra Prasad Singh (P.W.1). Perusal of the said charge-sheet indicates that M/s. Mohan Singh, Krishnandan Singh, Gopalji Singh, Babuaji Singh, Binay Singh, Mahendra Manjhi, Dr. Perusal of the said charge-sheet indicates that M/s. Mohan Singh, Krishnandan Singh, Gopalji Singh, Babuaji Singh, Binay Singh, Mahendra Manjhi, Dr. (Md.) Sarfaraz, N.L. Choudhary were shown as witness in support of the prosecution case of Nalanda P.S. Case No. 10/07. 5. Investigation of the present case, however, continued for longer time, though inquest report of the deceased was prepared by the Investigating Officer on 28.07.2007 at 15.00 hours whereafter dead body sent for post mortem which was received in the post mortem house of the Sadar Hospital, Bihar Sharif on the same day at 4.50 P.M. and the post mortem commenced at 4.55 P.M. by Dr. Shailendra Kumar (P.W. 3). First charge-sheet of the present case was submitted on 25.10.2007 against appellant Mohan Singh keeping the investigation pending against others. Perusal of Column No. 13 of the said charge-sheet indicates that the following 13 persons were shown as witnesses in support of the prosecution case of Nalanda P.S. Case No. 09/07 : 1) Ravindra Prasad Azad @ Bobby Singh 2) Nagendra Prasad Singh 3) Anandi Prasad Singh 4) Bashisth Kumar Singh 5) Mahendra Manjhi 6) Bol Manjhi 7) Moti Lal Singh 8) Krishnandan Singh 9) Saroj Singh 10) Krishna Singh 11) Dr. Shailendra Kumar 12) Dr. Ram Nandan Prasad Singh and 13) N.L. Choudhary. Second and final charge-sheet bearing no.02/08 was submitted on 21.01.2008 against appellant Suraj Singh. In the light of the two charge-sheets cognizance was taken and after supply of police paper case was committed to the court of Sessions. Sessions Court framed charges under order dated 23.04.2008 to which the appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. In support of the charges prosecution examined six witnesses. P.W. 1 Nagendra Prasad Singh, P.W. 2 Bashisth Kumar Singh and informant P.W. 4 Ravindra Prasad Azad @ Bobby Singh are the eye-witnesses of the occurrence. P.W. 3 is Dr. Shailendra Kumar who conducted post mortem on the person of the deceased. P.W. 5 is Dr. Ram Nandan Prasad Singh who examined the injuries on the person of informant, P.W. 1 in Sadar Hospital, Bihar Sharif on 28.07.2007 at 7.00, 7.15 P.M. P.W. 6 Nand Lal Choudhary is the Investigating Officer of both Nalanda P.S. Case Nos. 09, 10 of 2007. 7. P.W. 1 Nagendra Prasad Singh is an injured eye-witness of the occurrence. Ram Nandan Prasad Singh who examined the injuries on the person of informant, P.W. 1 in Sadar Hospital, Bihar Sharif on 28.07.2007 at 7.00, 7.15 P.M. P.W. 6 Nand Lal Choudhary is the Investigating Officer of both Nalanda P.S. Case Nos. 09, 10 of 2007. 7. P.W. 1 Nagendra Prasad Singh is an injured eye-witness of the occurrence. He stated in his evidence that the occurrence took place on Saturday 28.07.2007 at 1.30 P.M. when he was in the plot situate east of village where paddy seedlings were being transplanted. Appellant Suraj Singh was ploughing land with his tractor. Mohan Singh, Mukesh Singh, Sadan Singh and Rakesh Kumar armed with pistol were standing on the ridge of the same plot. P.W. 1 along with deceased Shailendra Singh, informant Ravindra Singh and P.W. 2 Bashisth Singh also arrived there and asked Suraj Singh not to plough the plot leading to altercation. Others standing on the ridge surrounded P.Ws. 1, 2 and two of their companions. Sadan Singh assaulted the informant Ravindra Singh with the butt of his pistol on his parietal, rear portion of his head leading to oozing of blood. Mukesh Kumar assaulted P.W. 1 with the butt of his pistol causing injury just below his left eye. Rakesh Kumar held out that if any one will approach him he will shoot the person approaching him. Meanwhile, Mohan Singh exhorted his son Suraj Singh to kill, whereafter Suraj Singh took out pistol from his waist and shot Shailendra Singh on his throat. After being shot Shailendra Singh became restless and died at the spot. Accused persons ran towards west. The witnesses brought the dead body to the police station where Ravindra Singh recorded his fardbeyan on the basis of which case was registered. Inquest of the dead body was conducted by the Officer-in-Charge N.L. Choudhary in his presence. Besides P.W. 1, Anandi Prasad Singh (not examined) is the other inquest witness. P.W. 1 after recall has proved inquest report (Ext. 7) as also his signature. In cross-examination P.W. 1 accepted that the prosecution party and the accused persons are related to each other as they come from the same stock and there is land dispute between them for which Title Suit is pending. At the time of occurrence Suraj Singh was ploughing Plot No. 1334. 7) as also his signature. In cross-examination P.W. 1 accepted that the prosecution party and the accused persons are related to each other as they come from the same stock and there is land dispute between them for which Title Suit is pending. At the time of occurrence Suraj Singh was ploughing Plot No. 1334. In Paragraphs 19, 20 P.W. 1 admitted that Shailendra Singh was shot from a distance of 2 ft. and that there was blood stains over his clothes. 8. P.W. 2 Bashistha Kumar Singh disclosed in his evidence that the deceased Shailendra Prasad Singh was his nephew. At the time of occurrence P.W. 2 conducted agricultural operation in his Plot No. 1330 with the help of two labourers engaged in uprooting paddy seedlings. Suraj Singh was ploughing land with his tractor and Mohan Singh, Sadan Singh, Mukesh Kumar, Rakesh Kumar armed with pistol were standing on the ridge. P.W. 2 saw deceased Shailendra Singh and informant Ravindra Singh coming from the eastern side of the village and he also accompanied them. P.W. 1 Nagendra Prasad Singh came to the place of occurrence from west. P.W. 2 and others accompanying him asked Suraj Singh not to plough the land. Those who were standing on the ridge surrounded P.W. 2 and others and entered into altercation as also hurled abuses. Suraj Singh alighted from the tractor and joined them. Sadan Singh assaulted informant Ravindra Singh with the butt of his pistol on rear portion of his parietal region causing injury. Mukesh Kumar assaulted P.W. 1 with the butt of his pistol below his left eye causing injury. Mohan Singh exhorted his son Suraj Singh to kill those present whereafter Suraj Singh in aggressive posture took out pistol from his waist and shot Shailendra Singh on his throat, who became restless, fell down and died. The assailants ran towards west. The dead body was brought to the police station and fardbeyan of the informant was recorded by the Officer-in-Charge near police station turning in presence of P.W. 2, who also put his signature over the same and the witness proved the two signatures as Exhibits 1/1, 1. P.W. 2 admitted in Paragraph 5 of this evidence that he recorded his police statement 10-15 days after the occurrence as on the date of occurrence Investigating Officer had not come to the place of occurrence village. P.W. 2 admitted in Paragraph 5 of this evidence that he recorded his police statement 10-15 days after the occurrence as on the date of occurrence Investigating Officer had not come to the place of occurrence village. In the same paragraph he denied the suggestion that on the date of occurrence also Investigating Officer had come to the place of occurrence village and that he is suppressing the said fact. In the same paragraph P.W. 2 stated that he is not aware that the Investigating Officer visited the place of occurrence village the next day of occurrence as also 4-5 times between the date of occurrence and recording of his police statement. In the same paragraph P.W. 2 further denied the suggestion that he has not seen the occurrence and recorded his police statement after 10-15 days on being tutored. P.W. 2 also accepted that the occurrence took place because of the land dispute. P.W. 2 also admitted that at the time of occurrence he was in his plot situate south of Plot No. 1334 in which he was getting agricultural operations conducted with the help of two labourers and that his plot is 150 yards away from Plot No. 1334. P.W. 2 also admitted that Title Suit No. 46/07 is pending between him and accused Mohan Singh in which P.W. 2 along with informant Ravindra Singh and one Braj Kishore Singh are plaintiffs and appellant Mohan Singh, Sadan Singh and Meena Devi are the defendants. P.W. 2 further stated in his evidence that at the time of occurrence Mohan Singh and Sadan Singh were on the northern ridge of the plot. Mukesh Kumar and Rakesh Kumar were on the western ridge. He further stated that for the same occurrence Mohan Singh also lodged a case in which P.W. 2 is an accused but denied the suggestion of the defence that on 28.07.2007 around 3.00 P.M. Ravindra Singh (P.W. 4) and Nagendra Singh (P.W. 1) assaulted Mohan Singh with khanti and lathi and admitted that he suffered injury by brick-bats after the present occurrence when he reached the village. P.W. 2 also stated in his evidence that after being shot Shailendra Singh fell down in the plot and there was mud all over his clothes. 9. P.W. 2 also stated in his evidence that after being shot Shailendra Singh fell down in the plot and there was mud all over his clothes. 9. P.W. 4 informant Ravindra Prasad Azad @ Bobby Singh stated in his evidence that the occurrence took place on Saturday 28.07.2007 at 1.30 P.M. At the time of occurrence informant along with his brother deceased Shailendra Singh was engaged in transplantation of paddy in Noma Pari outer area of the village. He saw Plot No. 1334 being ploughed by tractor whereafter he and deceased Shailendra proceeded towards the said plot where P.W. 2 Bashistha Kumar Singh and P.W. 1 Nagendra Prasad Singh also arrived. He also stated in his evidence that Plot No. 1334 was purchased by Shailendra Singh through registered sale-deed and therefore was in his possession. He saw Suraj Singh ploughing Plot No. 1334 and four persons, namely, Mohan Singh, Sadan Singh, Mukesh Kumar, Rakesh Kumar armed with pistol standing on the ridge of the said plot. P.W. 4, deceased Shailendra Singh, P.W. 2 Bashistha Kumar Singh and P.W. 1 Nagendra Prasad Singh asked Suraj Singh not to plough the plot whereafter accused persons began to abuse, assault. Sadan Singh assaulted him with the butt of his pistol on parietal region causing injury on the rear portion of the head, wherefrom blood began to ooze. P.W. 1 was assaulted by Mukesh Kumar with the butt of his pistol below his left eye causing injury from which blood also oozed. Rakesh Kumar held out that any one who approaches him will be shot at. Meanwhile, Mohan Singh asked his son Suraj Singh to kill P.W. 4 and others, whereafter Suraj Singh took out pistol from his waist and shot Shailendra Singh on his throat leading to his fall and death. Assailants thereafter ran towards west. Informant and others thereafter carried the dead body of his brother to Nalanda Police Station and in presence of P.W. 2 recorded his fardbeyan scribed by Officer-in-Charge Nand Lal Choudhary and having found the statement in the fardbeyan to be true put his signature over the same and proved the fardbeyan (Exhibit-3). P.W. 4 admitted filing of Title Suit against the accused persons in connection with Plot No. 1334 which was filed prior to the occurrence. P.W. 4 admitted filing of Title Suit against the accused persons in connection with Plot No. 1334 which was filed prior to the occurrence. P.W. 4 also admitted in his evidence that there was 5-6 inches water in the place of occurrence plot and that deceased after being shot dead fell in the plot. He further stated that before deceased was shot P.W. 4 and other prosecution witnesses present were assaulted. Deceased fell flat in the plot and the blood kept oozing out from the wound. P.W. 4 also stated that at the time of occurrence his brother was clad in sando vest and lungi, which was smeared with blood stain. He further stated in his evidence that he and others reached Nalanda Police Station at 2.30 P.M. and that none amongst the accused persons suffered any injury at the place of occurrence. He also admitted that Mohan Singh also instituted a case with regard to the same occurrence in Rajgir Police Station asserting that he was assaulted by P.W. 4 and other witnesses with khanti, which has been numbered as Case No. 10/07. P.W. 4 denied the suggestion of the defence that the prosecution party of the instant case wanted to forcibly recover possession of their land with the help of money power, pairvi and that his deceased brother was a man of shady character who was killed elsewhere and the present false case was lodged against them. 10. P.W. 3 Dr. Shailendra Kumar was posted as Medical Officer, Sadar Hospital, Bihar Sharif on 28.07.2007 and on that day at 4.55 P.M. he conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of Shailendra Singh who was brought by Constable No. 30 Surendra Singh and found one entry wound of size 1/2” X 1/2” at middle of anterior side of neck consisting of abraded collar and inverted edge. He also found corresponding exit wound 1” below scapula of the size of 3/4” X 1/2” with averted and lacerated edge. He further found tattooing mark all over the face, both shoulders, interior part of the neck, chest and trachea rings broken. He further stated that time elapsed since death is within 2-6 hours. The cause of death was due to haemorrhage and shock caused by fire arm injury may be pistol and proved the post mortem report (Exhibit-1). 11. P.W. 5 Dr. He further stated that time elapsed since death is within 2-6 hours. The cause of death was due to haemorrhage and shock caused by fire arm injury may be pistol and proved the post mortem report (Exhibit-1). 11. P.W. 5 Dr. Ram Nandan Prasad was posted as Medical Officer at Sadar Hospital, Bihar Sharif on 28.07.2007. On that day he examined Ravindra Prasad Azad @ Bobby Singh at 7.00 P.M. and found two simple injury on his person, lacerated wound 1/4” X 1/8” X scalp deep over occipital region of the head, lacerated wound 1/4” X 1/8” skin deep over left temporal region. Injuries were caused within six hours. In Paragraph 2 of his evidence P.W. 5 stated that the carbon copy of injury report is mentioned in Injury Register, which is in his pen and signature and on that basis carbon copy of the injury report was marked Exhibit-4. P.W. 5 further stated that the injured was produced before him by the police. 12. P.W. 6 N.L. Choudhary is the Investigating Officer of the case. He stated in his evidence that on 28.07.2007 he received telephonic information that a man has been shot dead in village Fatehpur, which was noted by him in the Station Diary but before he could become ready to leave for the place of occurrence villagers came with the dead body near the police station. Fardbeyan of the informant Ravindra Prasad Azad @ Bobby Singh was recorded in presence of witnesses which was read over to them. The informant and witnesses having found the contents true put their signature over the same. P.W. 6 identified his writing and signature over the fardbeyan, which was marked Exhibit-3, on the basis of which formal First Information Report bearing Case No. 09/07 was registered on 28.07.2007 and marked Exhibit-6, endorsement whereof was marked as Exhibit-5. P.W. 6 recorded the further statement of the informant as also noticed his injuries together with the injuries of P.W. 1 and both were referred to the hospital. Inquest report was prepared and police statement of the witnesses was recorded by him and he forwarded the dead body of Shailendra Singh for post mortem through challan. Place of occurrence was inspected by him as per the information received from the informant and his witnesses. Place of occurrence Plot No. 1334 is half kilometer away from the residence of the informant. Place of occurrence was inspected by him as per the information received from the informant and his witnesses. Place of occurrence Plot No. 1334 is half kilometer away from the residence of the informant. P.W. 6 did not notice any special feature at the place of occurrence as there was rain water collected in the place of occurrence, other surrounding plots. He also stated that the prosecution party of the present case did not produce any paper with regard to Plot No. 1334 to establish their ownership of the said plot. Investigating Officer further stated that he also learnt on the date of occurrence itself that accused Mohan Singh in injured condition is present in Rajgir Police Station and reached Rajgir Police Station at 9.00 P.M. and found on his person bandaged wound. P.W. 6 further stated that at the place of occurrence neither blood stains nor empty cartridge was found. In Paragraph 10 P.W. 6 stated that P.W. 2 has not stated before him that at the time Suraj Singh was ploughing the land four persons, namely, Mohan Singh, Sadan Singh, Rakesh Kumar, Mukesh Kumar were standing on the ridge of the plot armed with pistol. In the same paragraph P.W. 6 further confirmed that P.W. 2 also did not state before him that he had seen deceased Shailendra and informant Ravindra coming from the village and going towards the plot which was being ploughed by Suraj Singh. P.W. 6 further stated in the same paragraph that P.W. 2 also did not state before him that all the members of the prosecution party (incorrectly mentioned in the paragraph as all accused persons) restrained Suraj Singh from ploughing the land, rather P.W. 2 said that two persons restrained him. In the same paragraph Investigating Officer (P.W. 6) further stated that P.W. 2 did not state before him that when all the members of the prosecution party asked Suraj Singh not to plough the land he alighted from the tractor and joined them. In Paragraph 11 P.W. 6 stated that the informant recorded before him his fardbeyan and nothing else. In the same paragraph P.W. 6 denied the suggestion that he made one sided investigation in favour of prosecution. In the same paragraph P.W. 6 stated that it is not a fact that the occurrence did not take place where it has been said to have taken place. 13. In the same paragraph P.W. 6 denied the suggestion that he made one sided investigation in favour of prosecution. In the same paragraph P.W. 6 stated that it is not a fact that the occurrence did not take place where it has been said to have taken place. 13. Before proceeding to appreciate the evidence of D.W. 1 Dr. Md. Sarfaraz, it is necessary to notice the contents of fardbeyan/ First Information Report of Nalanda P.S. Case No. 10/07 lodged by appellant Mohan Singh and recorded by S.I. Janardan Pandey of Rajgir Police Station on 28.07.2007 at 7.30 P.M. in Rajgir Police Station campus in presence of Krishnandan Singh, co-villager of Mohan Singh, on the basis of which aforesaid case was registered by P.W. 6 and he having investigated the same, submitted charge-sheet No. 67/07 dated 31.08.2007 finding the case true for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 324, 504/34 of the Penal Code. In the fardbeyan Mohan Singh stated that on 28.07.2007 he was getting his land ploughed with his tractor bearing Registration No. BR21 9378 through driver Mahendra Manjhi. Around 3.00 O’clock co-villager of Mohan Singh, Bobby @ Ravindra Prasad Azad came armed with khanti along with Karu Singh armed with iron rod, Nagendra Singh armed with lathi, Anandi Singh armed with iron rod, Mehru Singh armed with khanti and abusingly asked not to get the land ploughed. Mohan Singh replied that the land being ploughed is his raiyati land and he shall not ask the driver to stop ploughing the land. Bobby @ Ravindra Prasad Azad thereafter asked his men to assault Mohan Singh and along with Mehru Singh assaulted him with khanti on his belly. Nagendra Singh also assaulted Mohan Singh with lathi on his hand. Anandi Singh, Karu Singh assaulted Mohan Singh with iron rod on his right shoulder and back causing injury on his person. Mohan Singh having fallen down raised alarm. The tractor driver became frightened, ran away leaving the tractor. Ravindra Prasad Azad and other accused persons forcibly took away the tractor of Mohan Singh. In the fardbeyan Mohan Singh also stated that the occurrence took place because of the family dispute. According to Mohan Singh, occurrence was also witnessed by Gopalji Singh, Babuaji Singh and others, all residents of village Fatehpur. Ravindra Prasad Azad and other accused persons forcibly took away the tractor of Mohan Singh. In the fardbeyan Mohan Singh also stated that the occurrence took place because of the family dispute. According to Mohan Singh, occurrence was also witnessed by Gopalji Singh, Babuaji Singh and others, all residents of village Fatehpur. Hearing the alarm raised by Mohan Singh co-villager Krishnandan Singh came to the place of occurrence and took him to Rajgir Hospital where he is being treated. As per the instruction of the attending doctor Mohan Singh came to Rajgir Police Station for recording his statement along with Krishnandan Singh. In the fardbeyan Mohan Singh further claimed that Ravindra Prasad Azad, Karu Singh, Nagendra Singh, Anandi Singh and Mehru Singh, all residents of village Fatehpur armed with lathi, khanti, iron rod came to his land and assaulted him causing injury as also took his tractor bearing Registration No. BR21 9378. The contents of the fardbeyan was read over to Mohan Singh, who found the same to be true whereafter Mohan Singh and Krishnandan Singh put their signature over the fardbeyan. S.I. Janardan Pandey having recorded the fardbeyan forwarded the same to the Officer-in-Charge, Nalanda Police Station on the same day i.e. 28.07.2007 as the place of occurrence was within his jurisdiction. 14. D.W. 1 Dr. Md. Sarfaraz was posted as Medical Officer in Referral Hospital, Rajgir on 28.07.2007 and on that day he examined Mohan Singh at 5.00 P.M. and found following injuries :– (i) Incised wound 4” X 1/2” X 1/4” X skin deep on right side of chest and abdomen (ii) Incised wound 2” X 1/2 ”X skin deep on right upper arm. (iii) Incised wound 3” X 1/2 ”X skin deep on right side of chest. (iv) Incised wound 3” X 1/2” X 1” X skin deep on left arm. (v) Incised wound 1½” X 1/4” X skin deep on left forearm. (vi) Defused swelling ¾” and diameter on left wrist joint. The above injuries are simple in nature and caused by some sharp cutting instrument, except injury no. 6, which is caused by some hard and blunt substance. Injury nos. 1 to 5 are possible by khanti fitted with iron blade. Injury no. 6 is possible by lathi. Age of injury within 6 hours. D.W. 1 proved his injury report as Exhibit-C. 15. 6, which is caused by some hard and blunt substance. Injury nos. 1 to 5 are possible by khanti fitted with iron blade. Injury no. 6 is possible by lathi. Age of injury within 6 hours. D.W. 1 proved his injury report as Exhibit-C. 15. In cross-examination Paragraph 3 D.W. 1 stated that the injured when came to him was already bandaged. After receipt of O.D. slip and before arrival of police injured was already bandaged. In the same paragraph D.W. 1 further stated that he found injury nos. 2, 4, 5 on the arm of Mohan Singh but clarified that he has not indicated in the injury report the parts of the arm on which these injuries were caused. All the incised wounds were superficial and skin deep. In the same paragraph D.W. 1 further deposed about different types of khanti and the ways it can be used. In case, khanti is used as lathi for assault the same will cause injury, which is caused by lathi and not sharp cut wound. In the same paragraph D.W. 1 further stated that if any one is using a blade to create injury, the injury caused shall not be of the width of ¼”. D.W. 1 also stated in the same paragraph that injury no. 6 may also be caused because of fall on any hard blunt substance and denied the suggestion that injury nos. 1 to 6 has been created by Mohan Singh in collusion with him for making out defence in the murder case. 16. Having appraised the materials on record including the evidence led by the parties, it appears that on the date, time of occurrence Plot No. 1334 was being ploughed with tractor either by appellant Suraj Singh or his driver Mahendra Manjhi in presence of Suraj Singh. Appellant Mohan Singh along with Sadan Singh, Mukesh Kumar, Rakesh Kumar was also present on the ridge of the said plot. Informant, deceased, P.Ws. 1, 2 came to the plot and asked Suraj Singh not to plough the land leading to altercation between them, meanwhile, Mohan Singh, Sadan Singh, Mukesh Kumar, Rakesh Kumar surrounded the informant, deceased and P.Ws. 1, 2. There ensued altercation, fight between them prompting appellant Suraj Singh to take out pistol from his waist and to shoot Shailendra Singh from a close range causing injury on throat with tattooing mark on face, shoulder and chest. 1, 2. There ensued altercation, fight between them prompting appellant Suraj Singh to take out pistol from his waist and to shoot Shailendra Singh from a close range causing injury on throat with tattooing mark on face, shoulder and chest. From the evidence of P.W. 2 it, however, appears that Title Suit No. 46/07 is pending between him and accused Mohan Singh for resolving the dispute over ownership of Plot No. 1334 in which P.W. 2 along with informant and one Braj Kishore Singh are the plaintiff and appellant Mohan Singh along with Sadan Singh and Meena Devi are defendant. In this connection, evidence of informant (P.W. 4) is also relevant as he admitted that Plot No. 1334 was purchased by deceased Shailendra Singh through registered sale deed and therefore the said plot was in his possession. It is also admitted by the prosecution party that the aforesaid Title Suit was filed much earlier to the present occurrence. Prosecution party has, however, neither produced the registered sale deed by which Plot No. 1334 was purchased by the deceased Shailendra Singh nor the plaint and the pleadings filed by them in the Title Suit to claim that the land in dispute was in their possession but admitted in their evidence that the lands in question was being ploughed by tractor from before their arrival and they asked Suraj Singh not to plough the land. 17. From the evidence of P.W. 5, injury report of informant (Exhibit-4) and the injury report of P.W. 1 (Exhibit-4/1), it is evident that both were examined by P.W. 5 in Sadar Hospital, Bihar Sharif on 28.07.2007 at 7.00, 7.15 P.M. and simple injuries were found on their person. Dead body of Shailendra Singh was received in Sadar Hospital for post mortem at 4.50 P.M. and the post mortem was conducted at 4.55 P.M. but the two injured eye-witnesses P.Ws. 1, 4 were examined by P.W. 5 in the same hospital at 7.00, 7.15 P.M. In the circumstances, it is not understandable what P.Ws. 1, 4 were doing between 2.30 P.M. or in any case from 4.55 P.M. till 7.00, 7.15 P.M. though, as per prosecution case, they suffered injury at 1.30 P.M. and recorded their fardbeyan at 2.30 P.M., as such, the claim of P.Ws. 1, 4 that they suffered injury in the same occurrence, appears to be doubtful. 1, 4 were doing between 2.30 P.M. or in any case from 4.55 P.M. till 7.00, 7.15 P.M. though, as per prosecution case, they suffered injury at 1.30 P.M. and recorded their fardbeyan at 2.30 P.M., as such, the claim of P.Ws. 1, 4 that they suffered injury in the same occurrence, appears to be doubtful. In this connection, it is relevant to notice that the Investigating Agency itself doubted the involvement of accused Sadan Singh, Mukesh Kumar in the occurrence even though they are said to have assaulted P.Ws. 4, 1 respectively with the butt of their pistol and did not submit charge-sheet against them and were not sent up for trial. Same is the position of accused Rakesh Kumar, who threatened the members of the prosecution party that if anyone will approach he shall shoot. He was also not sent up for trial. 18. Evidence of P.W. 2, who is also an eye-witness of the occurrence and signatory to the fardbeyan, is not free from doubt, as is evident from his evidence in Paragraph 5 that he recorded his police statement after 10-15 days of the occurrence. The claim of P.W. 2 that he could not record his police statement in the meantime because the Investigating Officer never visited the place of occurrence village on the date of occurrence is contradicted by the Investigating Officer (P.W. 6), who categorically stated in his evidence that he visited the place of occurrence village for inspection of the place of occurrence on the date of occurrence itself. 19. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that the First Information Report of the present case, though drawn on 28.07.2007 at 3.35 P.M. but reached the Court of A.C.J.M., Nalanda at Bihar Sharif on 30.07.2007 appears to be correct but the delay in receipt may be because of the connected First Information Report of Nalanda P.S. Case No. 10/07 registered on 28.07.2007 at 22.00 hours and both being sent to the Court of A.C.J.M., Nalanda at Bihar Sharif on 30.07.2007. 20. The assertion of the prosecution witnesses that Mohan Singh ordered Suraj Singh to shoot appears to be an attempt by the prosecution party to implicate and ensure conviction of both father and son for the murder of Shailendra Singh. 20. The assertion of the prosecution witnesses that Mohan Singh ordered Suraj Singh to shoot appears to be an attempt by the prosecution party to implicate and ensure conviction of both father and son for the murder of Shailendra Singh. In this connection, it is also relevant to point out that none of the prosecution eye-witnesses have deposed that Mohan Singh committed any overt act other than giving instruction to Suraj Singh to open fire. Members of the prosecution party having asked Suraj Singh not to plough the land which he was ploughing from before leading to altercation, fight perhaps prompted Suraj Singh to open fire. He hardly required any instruction from his father Mohan Singh to open fire. Involvement of appellant Mohan Singh in the present occurrence is also not free from doubt and appears to be an attempt of the prosecution to involve, implicate as many persons as they could, who according to the prosecution, were likely to support the appellants in the aforesaid Title Suit, namely, Sadan Singh, Mukesh Kumar, Rakesh Kumar but were not sent up for trial, even though are said to have assaulted P.Ws. 1, 4 with the butt of their pistol or threatened the prosecution party from approaching them. 21. Now coming to the appeal filed by the informant for enhancement of sentence imposed on the two appellants i.e. Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 154 of 2011. It appears, on the date, time of occurrence appellant Suraj Singh or his driver Mahendra Manjhi was ploughing Plot No. 1334 in presence of Suraj Singh. Appellant Mohan Singh, father of Suraj Singh was also present on the ridge of the said plot. Informant, deceased, P.Ws. 1, 2 came to the plot and asked Suraj Singh not to plough the lands in question leading to altercation, sudden fight between them prompting Suraj Singh to take out pistol from his waist and to shoot Shailendra Singh. It is, thus, evident that prior to the occurrence Suraj Singh was ploughing the lands in question the members of the prosecution party came to the plot in question and asked him not to plough the land, which led to altercation, sudden fight between them prompting Suraj Singh to shoot Shailendra Singh. It is, thus, evident that prior to the occurrence Suraj Singh was ploughing the lands in question the members of the prosecution party came to the plot in question and asked him not to plough the land, which led to altercation, sudden fight between them prompting Suraj Singh to shoot Shailendra Singh. It is, thus clear that the occurrence was committed by Suraj Singh without premeditation after altercation, sudden fight arose between him and the members of the prosecution party in the heat of passion after they asked him not to plough the land which he was ploughing from before. Suraj Singh does not appear to have taken undue advantage and has not acted in a cruel or unusual manner. His case appears to be covered by Exception 4 of Section 300 of the Penal Code which deals with case of prosecution not covered by Exception 1. Reference in this connection; be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Lachman Singh Vs. State of Haryana 2006 (4) CRI.L.J. 4041. In the said case there was dispute about flow of rain water which infuriated the accused persons, namely, father and son. Father asked the son to bring revolver from inside the house as the members of other side were always harassing them. Son brought the revolver from inside the house whereafter father asked the son to shoot the members of the other side. Trial Court convicted the accused persons for the offence under Section 302 of the Penal Code. High Court maintained the conviction. Supreme Court converted the conviction from the offence under Section 302 with reference to Exception 4 of Section 300 I.P.C. into one under Section 304 Part I I.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years. 22. In the instant case, there is no material on record to suggest any premeditation on the part of Suraj Singh prior to the occurrence. There was no previous deliberation or determination on his part to open fire. He was ploughing the land from before, members of the prosecution party arrived in the plot afterwards and asked him not to plough the land, fight suddenly took place for which both parties are more or less to be blamed. There was no previous deliberation or determination on his part to open fire. He was ploughing the land from before, members of the prosecution party arrived in the plot afterwards and asked him not to plough the land, fight suddenly took place for which both parties are more or less to be blamed. It may be that one of them starts it but if the other had not aggravated by his own conduct it would not have taken the serious turn as it did. There is then mutual provocation and aggravation and it is difficult to apportion the share of blame which attaches to each of them. The help of Exception 4 can be invoked if death is caused : a) without premeditation b) in a sudden fight c) without the offender taking undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. 23. In the light of the facts, evidence on record of the present case, there is no difficulty in concluding that Suraj Singh was ploughing Plot No. 1334 from before which was objected to by the members of the prosecution party including the deceased after their arrival at the place of occurrence which led to heat of passion and before the passion could cool down the parties worked themselves into a fury on account of verbal altercation in the beginning leading to the present occurrence and his case is covered by Exception 4 of Section 300 I.P.C., his conviction is required to be altered from Section 304 Part II to 304 Part I but the sentence imposed on him is not required to be altered. He may, however, be entitled for remission of sentence in accordance with law. 24. In the light of findings above, Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 28 of 2011 filed by Mohan Singh @ Dhuri Singh is allowed. His conviction, sentence is set aside. He is on bail, is discharged from the liability of his bail bond. Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 157 of 2011 filed by Suraj Singh is dismissed with modification in his conviction from Section 304 Part II to 304 Part I of the Penal Code. He is in jail custody, as such, is directed to serve out remainder of sentence imposed on him. Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 154 of 2011 filed by the informant is dismissed. PRABHAT KUMAR JHA, J.:–I agree. ?