JUDGMENT Mihir Kumar Jha, J. 1. These two appeals are directed against the common judgment dated 14th of March, 1990 passed by the 1st District and Sessions Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram in Sessions Trial No. 270/61 of 1978/1985, whereby and whereunder, the appellant Ram Sanehi Mishra and Basgit Koeri have been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for committing offence of murder of Baliram Mishra while the remaining appellants, namely, Raja Mishra, Gobardhan Koeri, Aliyar Koeri and Sipahi Koeri were convicted for offence under Section 302 r/w 149 of the Indian Penal Code for commission of the said murder of Baliram Mishra and all of them have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. The appellant Ram Sahehi Mishra, Raja Mishra, Gobardhan Koeri, Aliyar Koeri and Sipahi Koeri have also been convicted for offence under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years. The appellant Basgit Koeri has been further convicted for offence under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years where as the appellant Gobardhan Koeri and Aliyar Koeri have been convicted for offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years each. Similalry, the appellant Sipahi Koeri has also been convicted for offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. All the appellants however in view of committing their respective offence in course of same transaction, their sentences as mentioned above have been directed to run concurrently. 2. It has to be noted that though Rupdeo Mishra, Guput Mishra and Buchun Mishra were also convicted and sentenced by the trial court in the impugned judgment but they have died during pendency of the appeal and upon receipt of the confirmatory report from the Superintendent of Police, their appeals have been held to have abated. 3. 2. It has to be noted that though Rupdeo Mishra, Guput Mishra and Buchun Mishra were also convicted and sentenced by the trial court in the impugned judgment but they have died during pendency of the appeal and upon receipt of the confirmatory report from the Superintendent of Police, their appeals have been held to have abated. 3. At this place, it would be also relevant to mention herein that in addition to the nine appellants who had filed two appeals including aforesaid Rupdeo Mishra, Guput Mishra and Buchun Mishra whose appeals have abated on account of their death, there were two more accused persons, namely, Hari Mishra and Ramkeshwar Koeri who had died during pendency of the trial itself leaving only the nine accused persons convicted and sentenced to file this appeal out of whom these appeals now remain confined to the six appellants namely Ram Sanehi Mishra, Raja Mishra, Basgit Koeri, Gobardhan Koeri, Aliyar Koeri and Sipahi Koeri. 4. The prosecution case in brief is based on the Fardbeyan of one Ramjanam Mishra (P.W.7) who in his injured state had stated before the Sub-Inspector Suraj Narayan Singh (not examined) on 13.10.1976 at 5.40 p.m. in Sub-Divisional Hospital, Bhabua that he and his nephew Baliram Mishra (deceased) had started for their village from Bhabua by a bus at about 2.15 PM on that very day i.e. on 13.10.1976. The informant has stated that having got down from the bus on the road in the village Simra, they had proceeded towards their house and when they reached near the Lower Primary School in the village Simra, the informant sat down for urinating at a distance of 60 yards from the road while his nephew Baliram Mishra (deceased) had proceeded some ten steps ahead. The informant had claimed that he had heard the voice of the accused Rupdeo Mishra (since dead) exhorting to kill Baliram Mishra (deceased). The informant had claimed that he had heard the voice of the accused Rupdeo Mishra (since dead) exhorting to kill Baliram Mishra (deceased). Whereafter he had also seen Hari Mishra (since dead in course of trial) armed with Garasa, Guput Mishra (since dead in course of pendency of this appeal) armed with Lathi, appellant Ram Sanehi Mishra armed with Garasa, Rupdeo Mishra (since dead during pendency of the appeal) armed with Balam, appellant Rajo Mishra armed with Garasa, Buchu Mishra (since dead during pendency of the appeal) armed with Lathi, Ramkeshwar Koeri (since dead during course of trial itself) armed with Garasa, appellant Basgit Koeri armed with Lathi, appellant Gobardhan Koeri armed with Garasa, appellant Aliyar Koeri armed with Balam and appellant Sipahi Koeri armed with Loh Banda who had surrounded his nephew Baliram Mishra (deceased). 5. The further case of the informant in the Fardbeyan was that his nephew Baliram Mishra had shouting that his life had gone (Jan Gail Re) had run towards courtyard (Angana) of the school but he was intercepted by the Hari Mishra (since dead), appellant Ram Sanehi Mishra, Rupdeo Mishra (since dead), Ramkeshwar Koeri (since dead) and appellant Basgit Koeri who had assaulted with their respective weapons like Garasa, Ballam and Lathi on his head as a result of which his nephew fell down whereafter all other accused persons armed with Garasa, Balam and Lathi had also assaulted on his person. The informant has also claimed that he too was assaulted by the appellant Gobardhan Koeri, appellant Aliyar Koeri, appellant Sipahi Koeri and one Buchun Mishra (since dead) as a result of which he had sustained injury on his left hand by blows of Garasa and Balam by Gobardhan Koeri and Aliyar Koeri whereas the appellant Sipahi Koeri and Buchun Mishra (since dead) had assaulted him by Lathi and Balam on his head over left occipital region and left arm as also on his back. 6. The informant in the Fardbeyan had also claimed that at the place of occurrence, Nathuni Mishra (P.W.4), Sheo Prasad Mishra (P.W.6) and Ramji Tiwari (not examined) along with many others had seen the occurrence. 6. The informant in the Fardbeyan had also claimed that at the place of occurrence, Nathuni Mishra (P.W.4), Sheo Prasad Mishra (P.W.6) and Ramji Tiwari (not examined) along with many others had seen the occurrence. The informant had also stated that his nephew Baliram Mishra died at the spot in front of the school and after his death, a number of villagers had arrived who had also seen the accused persons armed variously with Garasa, Lathi and Balam running away towards the village Simra. 7. In the Fardbeyan itself, the informant had claimed that the entire occurrence had taken place around 3 PM on the same day i.e. 13.10.1976 and the motive for such occurrence was a land dispute, inasmuch as, the elder brother of the accused Rupdeo Mishra, namely, Mukhdeo Mishra had purchased two decimals of land from the family members of the Ram Badhari in which the accused Rupdeo Mishra was interested as it was a homestead land. He has also narrated that earlier on 12.10.1976, there was an altercation with regard to irrigation of field between Rupdeo Mishra and Hari Mishra on one side and Rambarai Mishra on the other which had led to hot exchange of words in which Rupdeo Mishra had given threat to the Rambarai Mishra saying that his son on whom he had a great confidence would very soon be done to death. 8. The informant in his ferdbayan to police has also claimed that he was carried in the injured condition on a cot from the place of occurrence by Kapildeo Singh, Shivmurat Chaubey, Gobardhan Mishra, Dadan Chaubey to Bhabua hospital where he was being treated. 9. On the basis of the Fardbeyan which was also witnessed by the G.G. Khan and Sub-Inspector Bahadur Ram Bhabhua P.S. Case No. 13 dated 13.10.1976 was instituted and the police after investigation had submitted charge-sheet not only against the six appellants but also against the rest of the five other accused persons, namely, Hari Mishra and Ramkeshwar Koeri who had died during trial as well as Rupdeo Mishra, Guput Mishra and Buchun Mishra who have died during pendency of these appeals. After commitment of the case and in course of trial, while Hari Mishra and Ramkeshwar Koeri had died, the rest of the nine accused persons including the six appellants with Rupdeo Mishra, Guput Mishra and Buchan Mishra were put on trial and were ultimately convicted and sentenced as mentioned above. 10. The defence case as would appear from the records including the trend of examination and statement under Section 313 Cr. P.C. of all the accused persons put on trial was one of total denial of the occurrence as alleged by the prosecution and it was suggested that the deceased Baliram Mishra was a wrestler and was done to death by his enemies and the appellants and others were falsely implicated due to the previous grudge and enmity. Additionally, plea of alibi was also taken on behalf of the appellant Ram Sanehi Mishra who claimed that he was a Teacher in a government school and was actually performing his duty in his school. Similarly, the appellant Basgit Koeri and other accused person Rupdeo Mishra had taken a plea that they have gone to Varanasi and were not present in the village. The appellant Raja Mishra had taken a plea of alibi that he had gone to his sister’s village while two other accused persons Buchan Mishra and Rupdeo Mishra (since dead) had taken a plea of alibi of not being present in the village at the time of the occurrence as alleged by the informant. 11. Mr. B.P. Pandey, learned senior counsel for the appellants apart from making a general criticism of the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence has basically questioned the genesis of the occurrence, inasmuch as, he had dwelt upon the aspect that the reason for going of the informant (P.W.7) as well as his nephew Baliram Mishra (deceased) from their village to Bhabua in the morning for purchase of spice worth Rs. 10/- and some vegetables did not seem to be authentic specially when it was claimed that for this purpose, they had left the village early morning at 5 O’clock and had been returning to the village in the late afternoon at 3 PM. Mr. 10/- and some vegetables did not seem to be authentic specially when it was claimed that for this purpose, they had left the village early morning at 5 O’clock and had been returning to the village in the late afternoon at 3 PM. Mr. Pandey, in this regard, has also expanded his submission by submitting that as a matter of fact, when the police did not found even trace of spices and/or green vegetable at the place of occurrence allegedly purchased by P.W.7 and his nephew Baliram Mishra (deceased), the whole story of the informant of going to Bhabua in the early morning and returning back in afternoon will not inspire any confidence. 12. Having described the improbable story of genesis of the occurrence, Mr. Pandey has also submitted that as per the First Information Report, there were only three eye-witnesses in addition to informant P.W.7 out of whom Ramjee Tiwari was also not examined but then in course of trial, the prosecution had produced a number of eye-witnesses whose presence at the place of occurrence was not even mentioned in the First Information Report. Learned counsel for the appellants had also made a detailed analysis of the prejudice caused to the appellants and other accused persons put on trial on the ground of non-examination of the Investigation Officer (I.O.) who had also recorded the Fardbeyan of the informant (P.W.7) in the Bhabua Hospital. According to him, due to non examination of I.O. the place of occurrence as stated by the informant in the Fardbeyan to be the school was also not established, inasmuch as, P.W.7 in his deposition in the court had stated that the actual assault had taken place at Bramsthan and not in the school campus. 13. Mr. Pandey, learned senior counsel for the appellants had also laid great emphasis as with regard to the presence of the undigested food as found by the doctor in the postmortem report of the deceased and he was of the view that when the P.W.7 and the deceased Baliram Mishra had left the village even before the sunrise and had returned back only in the late afternoon from Bhabua, there was nothing to show that they had taken food anywhere in their to and fro journey from the village to Bhabua and back. In addition to these facts, Mr. In addition to these facts, Mr. Pandey in course of placing evidence of the witnesses has also sought to concentrate on the contradiction in the evidence as with regard to the place of occurrence and the manner of occurrence. He had ultimately summed up the submission by taking a clear stand that on the basis of the evidence on record, the prosecution had miserably failed to prove the charge against the appellants and other accused persons and thus, the appellants were entitled for their clean acquittal. 14. Ms. Shashibala Verma, learned counsel for the State supported by Sri Krishan Prasad Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the informant have not only placed reliance on the findings arrived in the impugned judgment by the trial court but have also sought to clarify the aspect with regard to the alleged discrepancy either in the place of occurrence or the manner of assault. They have supported that the place of occurrence is a Sahan of the school and in this regard, they have referred to the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.7 and P.W.9. As with regard to the doubts being created on account of presence of undigested food found in the dead body of the deceased, it has been submitted that no one had seen as to by what time the deceased has taken his food and, therefore, the presence of undigested food found by the doctor in course of postmortem report will not in any way adversely effect the prosecution case. Both the learned counsel for the State and the informant have also submitted that non-examination of the investigating officer in this case did not cause any prejudice to the accused persons because the witness had virtually covered each and every aspect including fixing the place of occurrence and there was nothing more for the investigating officer to explain. In sum and substance, they have submitted that impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of the appellants would not require any interference of this Court. 15. Before we would advert to the aforesaid submissions, it would be necessary for us to take stock of the evidence on record. The prosecution has examined in all eleven witnesses out of whom P.W.4 Nathuni Mishra, P.W.6 Sheo Prasad Mishra and P.W.7 Ram Janam Mishra (informant) are the First Information Report named eye-witnesses. 15. Before we would advert to the aforesaid submissions, it would be necessary for us to take stock of the evidence on record. The prosecution has examined in all eleven witnesses out of whom P.W.4 Nathuni Mishra, P.W.6 Sheo Prasad Mishra and P.W.7 Ram Janam Mishra (informant) are the First Information Report named eye-witnesses. P.W.1 Ram Sakhi Pandey, P.W.2 Ramayan Mishra and P.W.11 Raghuwar Tiwari have also given an eye version account of the occurrence though they were not named as First Information Report witness. P.W.8 Ram Badai Mishra and P.W.9 Jagdish Dubey are the witnesses who have been tendered by the prosecution. P.W.5 Dr. N.K.P. Saha is a doctor who had conducted postmortem on the person of the deceased as also had examined the injury on the person of the informant whereas P.W.11 Raghuwar Tiwari is a police officer who is formal in nature and has identified the handwriting of the investigating officer, the Sub-Inspector Suraj Nath Mishra. In addition to oral evidence, the prosecution has also adduced documentary evidence in the form of seizure list (Exbt.-1), postmortem report (Exbt.-2), carbon copy of the injury report as also carbon copy of the X-ray report (Exbt.-3 & 3/1), Fardbeyan (Exbt.-4), formal First Information Report (Exbt.-5), inquest report (Exbt.-6) and carbon copy of the Case Diary (Exbt.-7). 16. The defence has also examined the two defence witnesses, namely, Gobardhan Ram and Awani Kumar Ghosh both of whom have sought to support the plea of alibi of the appellant Ram Sanehi Mishra in the school at the time of occurrence. Additionally, the defence also had led documentary evidence in the form of attendance register of the school showing presence of the appellant Ram Sanehi Mishra in the School on 13.10.1976 as Exbt.-A, Inspection Register of the School (Exbt.-B) and endorsement in the attendance register by the Inspector of the School (Exbt.-C). 17. The first and foremost thing which would immediately receive out attention is the prompt reporting of the occurrence by the informant P.W.7 who in a injured condition was removed from the place of occurrence to Bhabua hospital. 17. The first and foremost thing which would immediately receive out attention is the prompt reporting of the occurrence by the informant P.W.7 who in a injured condition was removed from the place of occurrence to Bhabua hospital. It has to be noted that as per the Fardbeyan, the occurrence had taken place around 3 PM on 13.1.1976 and in course of occurrence not only the Baliram Mishra (deceased) who was the nephew of the informant P.W.7 was done to death but even the informant P.W.7 himself was severely assaulted which required immediate medical attention. The very fact that P.W.5 the Doctor had examined the injuries of the P.W.7 in Bhabua hospital at 5.05 PM on 13.10.1976 and had found series of injuries on his person would at least go to show that the informant was an injured witness to the occurrence which had taken place in which his nephew Baliram, the deceased was said to have been killed. The occurrence taking place at 3 PM on 13.10.1976 and his examination of injuries at 5.05 PM i.e. in a space of two hours of the occurrence will automatically give strength to the prosecution case of at least there being a version of the injured eye-witness and his prompt reporting to the police. P.W.5 Dr. N.K.P. Saha who had examined the injuries on the person of the informant P.W.7 had found the following injuries:- (i) One incised would 2¼” X ¾” X bone deep on the dorsum of left hand with suspected fracture of the underlying bone. (ii) One incised would 3¼” X 1” X muscle deep on the left forearm about 5” below the elbow. (iii) One lacerated would 1½” X ¼” X skin deep on the vault of head. (iv) One abrasion with echymosis 3” in diameter over the left scapula. (v) One abrasion with echmosis 4½” X 2” on the lower point on right side of the back. (vi) One lacerated would 2” X ½” X skin deep on the outer side of the left upper arm. 18. P.W.5 Dr. (iv) One abrasion with echymosis 3” in diameter over the left scapula. (v) One abrasion with echmosis 4½” X 2” on the lower point on right side of the back. (vi) One lacerated would 2” X ½” X skin deep on the outer side of the left upper arm. 18. P.W.5 Dr. N.K.P. Saha who was the Deputy Superintendent of the Bhabua hospital and had examined the injury on the person of the informant P.W.7 has been cross-examined at length wherein he had reiterated the findings given with regard to the injury on the person of the P.W.7 and had stated that the injuries had been caused within a few hours of examination of the injured and in fact had also found some of the injuries were still bleeding. He had also given his opinion that the injury no. 1 and 2 were caused by sharp-cutting weapon such as Garasa and Balam and rest of the injuries were caused by hard and blunt substance like Lathi and Lohbanda. He has further stated that he had advised for X-ray of the injuries on the person of the informant P.W.7 and he had also examined the report of the Radiologists as also the X-ray film from which he had observed that there was fracture of second and third metacarpal bones at the junctions of the lower one-third and upper two-third of the shaft of the metacarpal bones as also lower two-third of the third metacarpal bone which had made him to opine that the injury no. 1 and 2 of P.W.7 were grievous in nature while rest of them were simple in nature. 19. This Court, therefore, would find that such injuries on the person of the P.W.7 could not have been described to be manufactured injuries so as to become an injured eye-witness. In fact, when the doctor himself had stated that on examination of the injuries of P.W.7 informant, he had immediately informed the police and the police had also arrived in the hospital and had recorded the Fardbeyan of the informant P.W.7 at 5.40 p.m. on 13.8.1976, there would be hardly anything left for the prosecution to establish that the actual version of the occurrence was also reported promptly without any delay and thus giving no opportunity to the prosecution for making any embellishment for falsely implicating the accused persons including the appellants. The police having been informed of the occurrence within less than three hours of the occurrence by itself would therefore give strength to the prosecution case in the form of at least one injured eye-witness i.e. P.W.7 the informant. In fact, when the defence itself has elicited in the cross-examination from P.W.5 the doctor as with regard timing of the arrival and examination of injury on the person of the P.W.7 and his (doctor's) sending information to the police and recording of ferdbayan of informant by police in a space of thirty five minutes, the possibility of false implication of the accused persons including the appellants would itself gets minimized if not altogether overruled. In this regard, it would be important to note here that in paragraph no.15 of the cross-examination P.W.5, the doctor had clearly stated that the police had recorded the statement of the informant in his presence which itself gives strength to the prosecution case of the accused being brought to the hospital within two hours of occurrence and his being immediately examined by the doctor at 5.05 PM as also recording of the Fardbeyan of P.W.7 in the hospital in the injured condition at 5.40 PM on 13.10.1976. 20. Thus in our considered opinion though there is no delay in lodging the F.I.R. but even if we for sake of argument proceed on the basis that the F.I.R. was not immediately recorded as soon as the informant had reached the hospital, that will not make any difference inasmuch as law regarding delay in lodging F.I.R. has been more than settled in the series of judgment of Apex Court including in the case of Ram Das and others vs. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 2 SCC 170 wherein it has been held as follows:- "It is no doubt true that mere delay in lodging the first information report is not necessarily fatal to the case of the prosecution. However, the fact that the report was lodged belatedly is a relevant fact of which the court must take notice. This fact has to be considered in the light of other facts and circumstances of the case, and in a given case the court may be satisfied that the delay in lodging the report has been sufficiently explained. However, the fact that the report was lodged belatedly is a relevant fact of which the court must take notice. This fact has to be considered in the light of other facts and circumstances of the case, and in a given case the court may be satisfied that the delay in lodging the report has been sufficiently explained. In the light of the totality of the evidence, the court of fact has to consider whether the delay in lodging the report adversely affects the case of the prosecution. That is a matter of appreciation of evidence. There may be cases where there is direct evidence to explain the delay. Even in the absence of direct explanation there may be circumstances appearing on record which provide a reasonable explanation for the delay. There are cases were must time is consumed in taking the injured to the hospital for medical aid and, therefore, the witnesses find no time to lodge the report promptly. There may also be cases where on account of fear and threats, witnesses may avoid going to the police station immediately. The time of occurrence, the distance to the police station, mode of conveyance available, are all factors which have a bearing on the question of delay in lodging of the report. In the ultimate analysis, what is the effect of delay in lodging the report with the police is a matter of appreciation of evidence, and the court must consider the delay in the background of the facts and circumstances of each case. Different cases have different facts and it is the totality of evidence and the impact that it has on the mind of the court that is important. No straitjacket formula can be evolved in such matters, and each case must rest on its own facts. It is settled law that however similar the circumstances, facts in one case cannot be used as a precedent to determine the conclusion on the facts in another. (See – Pandurang vs. State of Hyderabad, AIR 1955 SC 216 ). Thus mere delay in lodging of the report may not by itself be fatal to the case of the prosecution, but the delay has to be considered in the background of the facts and circumstances in each case and is a matter of appreciation of evidence by the court of fact." 21. Thus mere delay in lodging of the report may not by itself be fatal to the case of the prosecution, but the delay has to be considered in the background of the facts and circumstances in each case and is a matter of appreciation of evidence by the court of fact." 21. It is in this backdrop that one has to examine the evidence of P.W.7, the informant, who is an injured eyewitness. By now it is well settled that the importance of the injured eyewitness cannot be minimized, inasmuch as, he happens to be in the best position to give an account of the occurrence in which he has himself sustained injuries. 22. The Apex Court as with regard to the status of injured witnesses has consistently held that merely because they are the family members and the relatives of the deceased, their evidence cannot be altogether discarded. Reference in this connection may be usefully made to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of in the case of Bhajan Singh alias Harbhajan Singh & other vs. State of Haryana, AIR 2011 SC 2552 wherein it was held as follows:- "21. The evidence of the stamped witness must be given due weightage as his presence on the place of occurrence cannot be doubted. His statement is generally considered to be very reliable and it is unlikely that he has spared the actual assailant in order to falsely implicate someone else. The testimony of an injured witness has its own relevancy and efficacy as he has sustained injuries at the time and place of occurrence and this lends support to his testimony that he was present at the time of occurrence. Thus, the testimony of an injured witness is accorded a special status in law. Such a witness comes with a built-in guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and is unlikely to spare his actual assailants in order to falsely implicate someone. Convincing evidence is required to discredit an injured witness. Thus, the evidence of an injured witness should be relied upon unless there are grounds for the rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies therein. Convincing evidence is required to discredit an injured witness. Thus, the evidence of an injured witness should be relied upon unless there are grounds for the rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies therein. (Vide – Abdul Sayeed vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2010) 10 SCC 259 : AIR 2011 SC (Cri) 964: 2010 AIR SCW 5701; Kailas and other vs. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 793 : AIR 2011 SC 598 ; Durbal vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2011) 2 SCC 676 : AIR 2011 SC 795 : 2011 AIR SCW 856; and State of U.P. vs. Naresh and other, (2011) 4 SCC 324 : AIR 2011 SC (Cri) 761: 2011 AIR SCW 1877)." 23. The same view was in fact also reiterated in a recent judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mano Dutt & another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2012 (4) SCC 79 wherein it was held as follows:- "30. Normally, an injured witness would enjoy greater credibility because he is the sufferer himself and thus, there will be no occasion for such a person to state an incorrect version of the occurrence, or to involve anybody falsely and in the bargain protect the real culprit. We need not discuss more elaborately the weightage that should be attached by the Court to the testimony of an injured witness. In fact, this aspect of criminal jurisprudence is no more res integra, as has been consistently stated by this Court in uniform language. 31. We may merely refer to Abdul Sayeed vs. State of M.P. (2010) 10 SCC 259 , where this Court held as under: (SCC pp. 271-72, paras 28-30) "28. The question of the weight to be attached to the evidence of a witness that was himself injured in the course of the occurrence has been extensively discussed by this Court. Where a witness to the occurrence has himself been injured in the incident, the testimony of such a witness is generally considered to be very reliable, as he is a witness that comes with a built-in guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and is unlikely to spare his actual assailants in order to falsely implicate someone. Convincing evidence is required to discredit an injured witness. Convincing evidence is required to discredit an injured witness. (Vide – Ramlagan Singh vs. State of Bihar, (1973) 3 SCC 881 , Malkhan Singh vs. State of U.P. (1975) 3 SCC 311 , Machhi Singh vs. State of Punjab, (1983) 3 SCC 470 , Appabhai vs. State of Gujarat, (1988) Supp SCC 241, Bonkya vs. State of Maharashtra, (1995) 6 SCC 447 , Bhag Singh, (1997) 7 SCC 712 , Mohar vs. State of U.P. (2002) 7 SCC 606 , Dinesh Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan, (2008) 8 SCC 270 , Vishnu vs. State of Rajasthan, (2009) 10 SCC 477 , Annareddy Sambasiva Reddy vs. State of A.P. (2009) 12 SCC 546 and Balraje vs. State of Maharashtra, (2010) 6 SCC 673 ). 29. While deciding this issue, a similar view was taken in Jarnail Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2009) 9 SCC 673, where this Court reiterated the special evidentiary status accorded to the testimony of an injured accused and relying on its earlier judgments held as under: (SCC pp. 726-27, paras 28-29) 28. Darshan Singh (PW 4) was an injured witness. He had been examined by the doctor. His testimony could not be brushed aside lightly. He had given full details of the incident as he was present at the time when the assailants reached the tubewell. In Shivalingappa Kallayanappa vs. State of Karnataka, this Court has held that the deposition of the injured witness should be relied upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies, for the reason that his presence on the scene stands established in case it is proved that he suffered the injury during the said incident. 29. In State of U.P. vs. Kishan Chand, (2004) 7 SCC 629 , a similar view has been reiterated observing that the testimony of a stamped witness has its own relevance and efficacy. The fact that the witness sustained injuries at the time and place of occurrence, lends support to his testimony that he was present during the occurrence. In case the injured witness is subjected to lengthy cross-examination and nothing can be elicited to discard his testimony, it should be relied upon (Vide – Krishan vs. State of Haryana, (2006) 12 SCC 459 ). In case the injured witness is subjected to lengthy cross-examination and nothing can be elicited to discard his testimony, it should be relied upon (Vide – Krishan vs. State of Haryana, (2006) 12 SCC 459 ). Thus, we are of the considered opinion that evidence of Darshan Singh (PW 4) has rightly been relied upon by the courts below. 30. The law on the point can be summarised to the effect that the testimony of the injured witness is accorded a special status in law. This is as a consequence of the fact that the injury to the witness is an inbuilt guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and because the witness will not want to let his actual assailant go unpunished merely to falsely implicate a third party for the commission of the offence. Thus, the deposition of the injured witness should be relied upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies therein." To the similar effect is the judgment of this Court in Balraje, (2010) 6 SCC 673 ." 24. P.W.7 in his deposition in the court has categorically stated that he along with the Baliram Mishra had got down from the bus around 3 PM and they were going together to the village on road and when they reached near the school which was on the way to their village, he had seen eleven persons including appellants variously armed to have come out from the side of the school who had surrounded Baliram Mishra and had chased him and when Baliram Mishra fell down near the school he was ruthlessly and mercilessly assaulted by them, initially by six persons and later on by all others. He has also stated about the injuries inflicted on his own person and to have been removed for his treatment to Bhabua hospital. Whatever, he had stated about the place of occurrence and manner of occurrence in his examination-in-chief could not be shaken in his cross-examination. In fact, in his cross-examination, the defence itself has taken the distance between the place of occurrence and Bhabhua, to be four miles and thus could be easily reached by bus within half an hour. Whatever, he had stated about the place of occurrence and manner of occurrence in his examination-in-chief could not be shaken in his cross-examination. In fact, in his cross-examination, the defence itself has taken the distance between the place of occurrence and Bhabhua, to be four miles and thus could be easily reached by bus within half an hour. In fact, the defence also sought to seek presence of fellow passengers who had got down from the bus along with P.W.7 and the deceased Baliram Mishra but then in paragraph no. 34 of his cross-examination, P.W.7 had categorically stated that none-else except he and his nephew Baliram Mishra had alighted from the bus near their village. 25. The submission of Mr. Pandey that there is a discrepancy as with regard to actual place of occurrence in the evidence of P.W.7 in fact gets fully clarified by reading of paragraph no. 35 of the cross-examination of the P.W.7 where he has only given the topography of the school and has stated that the Brahmsthan was between the road and the school where there was a cemented platform (Chabutra). He had also clarified that the school and Chabutra were adjacent and that the deceased Baliram Mishra was encircled by the accused persons after he had proceeded ahead on Bramsthan and was caught after being chased by the accused persons. 26. The further submission of Mr. Pandey that there was an unusual conduct on the part of the informant, P.W.7 accompanying the deceased Baliram Mishra, to have not made any effort to save him from being assaulted has also been fully answered in paragraph nos. 38 & 39 of the cross-examination wherein he had stated that even he was being assaulted by the members of unlawful assembly of eleven persons who had initially encircled Baliram Mishra and had assaulted him. 27. Mr. Pandey, however, had laid further stress on the aspect of there being no evidence of any person present in the school who had witnessed the occurrence will weaken the prosecution case. 27. Mr. Pandey, however, had laid further stress on the aspect of there being no evidence of any person present in the school who had witnessed the occurrence will weaken the prosecution case. This Court would also find no force in such submission for the simple reason that whatever was stated with regard to the presence of Jagdish Dubey (P.W.9), a teacher of the school, was on the impression gathered by the informant that he out of his fear may not depose but he had said P.W.9 was present in the school when the occurrence had taken place. This, in any event will not make any improvement in the case of the defence, inasmuch as, Jagdish Dubey P.W.9 was produced by the prosecution for his cross-examination after it had tendered him. 28. It is in the cross-examination of Jagdish Dubey (P.W.9) that he has categorically stated that the day on which Baliram Mishra was done to death, he was present in the school and the school was open and he was teaching the students and he had seen the occurrence. This part of evidence of P.W.9 would definitely go to show as with regard to the occurrence taking place in the vicinity and in fact in the campus of the school because if Jagdish Dubey was teaching his students in the school and had seen the occurrence, the place of occurrence was definitely in and around the school. As a matter of fact, Mr. Krishna Prasad Singh, learned senior counsel for the informant is absolutely justified in referring to the evidence of other witnesses that the place of occurrence is the Sahan of the school, inasmuch as, P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.7 have also categorically stated the assault taking place in the campus of the school and the dead body of Baliram Mishra was lying over there. The place of occurrence, therefore, gets easily established and there is no iota of doubt that such occurrence had taken place when the school was still functioning which would very well coincide with the time given by the informant to be around 3 PM. 29. The submission of Mr. Prasad that the trial court had committed an error in relying the evidence of the tendered witness Jagdish Dubey has also to be noted for its being rejected. 29. The submission of Mr. Prasad that the trial court had committed an error in relying the evidence of the tendered witness Jagdish Dubey has also to be noted for its being rejected. By now, it is well settled that the prosecution is not supposed to multiply the number of witness on the same issue and in all fairness it should only produce such witnesses for cross-examination. In the present case, when there were at least three eye-witnesses named in the First Information Report who had supported the prosecution case and three more were examined as eye-witnesses, there was no need for again examining the P.W.9, inasmuch as, no prejudice has been caused on this score to the defence because P.W.9, the most natural witness, the Headmaster of the school where the occurrence had taken place, was produced for his cross-examination and nothing could be elicited from him so as to demolish the prosecution case. 30. Having regard to the discussions made by the trial court with regard to the evidence of P.W.4 & P.W.6, the two other eye-witness, this Court would find that they too are reliable eyewitnesses who were not only named in the First Information Report recorded within a period of less than three hours but they too had supported the prosecution case almost in its entirety. True it is that the prosecution witnesses were examined after a lapse of more than twelve years and, therefore, there could be easily a scope for some discrepancy on account of lapse of time but then the gist of their evidence would go to fully support the prosecution case. 31. In this regard, P.W.4 Nathuni Mishra in his evidence in the court had stated that his cattle were near the school and he had seen the informant and deceased Baliram Mishra to have been going towards the village after getting down from the bus and emergence of eleven person exhorting to assault them. In his evidence, he has also named the P.W.6, P.W.3 and P.W.2 who had also seen the assault on the deceased as well as P.W.7. Though the defence has cross-examined P.W.4 at great length with regard to location of the school and the possibility of his (P.W.4) being around the school, he having explained in paragraph no. In his evidence, he has also named the P.W.6, P.W.3 and P.W.2 who had also seen the assault on the deceased as well as P.W.7. Though the defence has cross-examined P.W.4 at great length with regard to location of the school and the possibility of his (P.W.4) being around the school, he having explained in paragraph no. 15 and 16 with regard to the existence of the old and new building of the school had clearly stated in paragraph no. 17 that he was at a distance of seventy to eighty yards of that school where he was with his cattle. In paragraph no. 20 of the cross-examination, he had remained affirmed of witnessing the entire occurrence from the place where he was along with his cattle. He also stood firm with regard to the presence of other witnesses, namely, P.W.3 Mohan Mishra, P.W.7 Ram Janam Mishra, P.W.6 Sheo Prasad Mishra and Ramji Tiwari not examined. In paragraph no. 24 of the cross-examination, he had also specifically state about the place near the school where P.W.7 had been assaulted. P.W.4 thus has also fully supported the prosecution witnesses and nothing has been taken away from him despite his long cross-examination. 32. Similarly, P.W.6 Sheo Prasad Mishra has also supported the prosecution case. He has also stated that he was near the school with his cow and had seen the entire occurrence. It is true that there is a minor discrepancy in the evidence of P.W.6 to the extent that he had omitted the name of Rajo Mishra and Ram Sanehi Misra as the assailant of the deceased about whom he had stated so in his statement before the police officer and, therefore, was declared hostile at the instance of the prosecution but then whatever he had stated in the examination-in-chief or on further cross-examination by the prosecution would definitely go to show that he had named the assailants before the police. This Court, however, having regard to the fact that he has been declared hostile by the prosecution would not place its reliance on this witness P.W.6 but that also cannot weaken the prosecution case because there are other eye-witness including two of them the P.W.7 and injured eyewitness P.W.4 who have fully supported the prosecution case. 33. This Court, however, having regard to the fact that he has been declared hostile by the prosecution would not place its reliance on this witness P.W.6 but that also cannot weaken the prosecution case because there are other eye-witness including two of them the P.W.7 and injured eyewitness P.W.4 who have fully supported the prosecution case. 33. The other category of the three eye-witnesses, namely, P.W.1 Ram Sakhi Pandey, P.W.2 Ramayan Mishra and P.W.3 Mohan Mishra though they are not specifically named in the First Information Report by the informant but their presence at the place of occurrence cannot be altogether brushed aside, inasmuch as, the informant had in F.I.R. had clearly stated that apart from P.W.4 Nathuni Mishra, P.W.6 Sheo Prasad Mishra and Ramjee Tiwari (Not examined), there were other persons who were present on the place of occurrence. It has to be kept in mind that the informant was injured having six injuries on his person and had given statement before the police in the hospital and, therefore, merely because he had not named P.W.1 Ram Sakhi Pandey, P.W.2 Ramayan Mishra and P.W.3 Mohan Mishra that by itself will not weaken the prosecution case or turn them to be unreliable eyewitnesses. 34. It has to be kept in mind that Ram Sakhi Pandey (P.W.1) in his evidence in the court has stated that he had seen the dead body of the deceased Baliram Mishra in the middle of the primary school and in fact he was the witness to the inquest report prepared by the police officer as also to the seizure list. His arrival at the school in fact has been confirmed in the cross-examination in paragraph no.4 and in any event, when the inquest report bears the signature of the P.W.1 which has been proved by him as Exbt.-1, much cannot be said about the presence of P.W.1 though he cannot be held to be an eyewitness but only as a witness who has corroborated the occurrence. 35. P.W.2 Ramayan Mishra in his deposition has also clearly stated that he was in village when he had heard Hulla of Baliram Mishra who have been done to death and on hearing such Hulla, when he had gone to the school, he had found the dead body of Baliram Mishra in the school premise. 35. P.W.2 Ramayan Mishra in his deposition has also clearly stated that he was in village when he had heard Hulla of Baliram Mishra who have been done to death and on hearing such Hulla, when he had gone to the school, he had found the dead body of Baliram Mishra in the school premise. He had also stated that he had seen the injured Ramjanam Mishra in the injured condition who had given name of the assailants to the P.W.2. It is the defence itself which has clarified the possibility of P.W.2 to have reached at the school immediately after the occurrence, inasmuch as, in paragraph no.7, it has been taken from him that the distance was only fifteen yards and, therefore, he had categorically stated in the examination-in-chief to have also met the injured, his arrival at the place of occurrence must be immediately after the occurrence because by 5.05 PM, the injured P.W.7 had already examined in the hospital by the Doctor P.W.5. Thus, this Court will have no difficulty in holding that though the P.W.2 is not an eyewitness but is a truthful corroborating witness. 36. Finally, while making review of the witnesses on the point of occurrence, this Court would find that P.W.3 Mohan Mishra claimed to be present near the school at the time of occurrence and also to have seen the occurrence. He had also named the accused persons including the appellants as also the weapons in hand and had stated about the assault both on the deceased and the informant. P.W.3 was also tested in the cross-examination by the defence and both on the place of occurrence and manner of occurrence, he has remained virtually unshaken. In paragraph no.18 of the cross-examination, he has given his exact location from where he had seen the occurrence and has also stated in paragraph no.19 about the presence of P.W.4 and P.W.6 who were also with their cattle in their field. His detailed account given in paragraph no. 2 of the manner of occurrence including the deceased running away for saving his life and finally at a distance of twenty yards while being chased and simultaneously assaulted by the accused persons would totally fit in with the injuries on the person of the deceased who had as many as nine injuries on his person as found by the doctor in the postmortem report. 37. 37. These nine injuries on the deceased both in front and back side of his person would fully fit in with the manner of occurrence as described not only by the P.W.3 but also by P.W.4 and P.W.7 as would be evident from the nature of the nine injuries reading as follows:- "(i) The right pinna of the deceased was completely lacerated into pieces with fracture of underlying bones and the depression of the cheek. (ii) Two incised punctured wounds 1” X 1/2” X bone deep, each, on the right cheek about 1” lateral to the right eye with fracture of the underlying bones. (iii) One incised wound 3” X 1/2” X bone deep on the right side of the scalp about ½” above the right eye brow. (iv) One abrasion with ecchymosis 2” X 1” over the right shoulder. (v) One punctured incised would ½” X ½” X 1½” on the left side of back on the middle part. (vi) One abrasion with ecchmosis 3” X 3” on the dorsum of right hand with fracture of the second metacorpal bone. (vii) One lacerated wound 1” X 1/4” X bone deep on the dorsum of left hand near the left ring finger with fracture of third and fourth metacorpal bones. (viii) One abrasion with ecchymosis 2” in diametre on the front of the left knee. (ix) One abrasion with accchymosis 2¼” X 2” on the left side of the forehead just above the left eyebrow with black swelling at the left eyelid." 38. As a matter of fact, when the defence itself had elicited from this P.W.3 as with regard to the assault both on deceased and P.W.7 taking place almost simultaneously, the much levied criticism against the conduct of P.W.7 that he did not make any effort to save his nephew, the deceased Baliram Mishra gets automatically clarified. Thus, from an overall analysis of the P.W.3, this Court will have no difficulty in holding that he is an eye-witness to the occurrence and has supported the version of other eyewitnesses, namely, P.W.7 and P.W.4. 39. Having regard to the aforesaid evidence on record, this Court does not find any prejudice has been caused on account of non-examination of the investigating officer. 39. Having regard to the aforesaid evidence on record, this Court does not find any prejudice has been caused on account of non-examination of the investigating officer. The recording of the First Information Report is proved not only by the injured but the doctor who has categorically stated that such Fardbeyan was recorded in his presence by the police. The arrival of the police and the preparation of the inquest report and the seizure list is proved by the P.W.1. The witnesses named in the First Information Report have themselves stood the test of cross-examination and, therefore, when the place of occurrence and the manner of occurrence has been fully established with the help of the witnesses examined by the prosecution, this Court does not find any force in the submission of Mr. Pandey that the defence was prejudiced in any manner on account of non-examination of the investigating officer. 40. 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 & another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (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." 41. The same view has been taken even earlier by the Apex Court in the case of Birendra Rai & other vs. State of Bihar, (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." 42. Explaining this aspect at some greater length the Apex Court in the case of Raj Kishore Jha vs. State of Bihar & other, (2003) 11 SCC 519 , had held that: "11. Explaining this aspect at some greater length the Apex Court in the case of Raj Kishore Jha vs. State of Bihar & other, (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 vs. State of U.P. 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." 43. The aforesaid view was also reiterated by the Apex Court in the case of Narendra Nath Khaware vs. Parasnath Khaware & other, (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.” 44. In the case of Ram Gulam Chaudhary & other vs. State of Bihar, (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.” 45. 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.” 45. Yet again in the case of Bahadur Naik vs. State of Bihar, (2000) 9 SCC 153 , the Apex Court 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.” 46. 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 & other vs. State of Bihar, (1996) 2 SCC 317 , as also in the case of Ambika Prasad & another vs. State (Delhi Admn, Delhi), 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. vs. Anil Singh, AIR 1988 SC 1998 : 1989 Cri. LJ 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. 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.” 47. 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 found by us while discussing the individual evidence of each and every witness, it has to be essentially held that no benefit can be claimed by the appellants on the score that the prosecution did not examine the Investigating Officer inasmuch as the same in no way had prejudiced them. 48. In fact, this aspect of the matter has also been dealt at great length by the trial court which has additionally recorded that the other eyewitness Ramji Tiwari named in F.I.R. could not have been examined because he had already died prior to the commencement of the trial in which the witnesses were actually examined almost after eleven years of the occurrence. Thus, non-examination of either the investigating officer or the Ramji Tiwari cannot be said to fatal to the prosecution. 49. That would bring this Court to examine the plea of Mr. Pandey with regard to presence of undigested food as found by the doctor in the postmortem report of the deceased. Mr. Pandey has submitted that P.W.7 had stated that he along with the deceased had left the village even before rising of the son and, therefore, there was no possibility of their taking food prior to leaving their house. Pandey with regard to presence of undigested food as found by the doctor in the postmortem report of the deceased. Mr. Pandey has submitted that P.W.7 had stated that he along with the deceased had left the village even before rising of the son and, therefore, there was no possibility of their taking food prior to leaving their house. He has also referred to the evidence of P.W.7 on the point that another day long stay at Bhabua town while they had purchased spices and vegetables, not a word was said by the P.W.7 to be their taking food even in Bhabua. On the basis of this analysis of evidence of P.W.7, Mr. Pandey was of the view that the presence of undigested food in the dead body of the deceased would create a big question mark on the veracity of entire prosecution case. This Court, however does not find any force in such submission for a simple reason that P.W.7 had never claimed to remain with the deceased throughout in Bhabua right from the morning when they had started together from their separate houses in village. P.W.7 in fact has stated that while he was making his own shopping, he was away from the deceased. Therefore as with regard to this period, he could not have said as to whether he had taken some food at Bhabua in the market or at any place. In fact, the prosecution was even otherwise not expected to explain this aspect as to when the deceased has taken food whether before leaving his house or in Bhabua town. 50. To that extent, the submission of Mr. Krishna Prasad Singh, learned senior counsel for the informant, seems to be correct that in fact no one has said that at what point of time, the deceased had taken food. In any event, the opinion of the doctor in the postmortem report with regard to the timing of death fully synchronizes with the time of occurrence and the aspect of presence of undigested food at best could be stretched only to the point of timing of the occurrence. The prosecution in any view of the matter is not required to explain the minute to minute activities which had taken place prior to the occurrence. 51. The prosecution in any view of the matter is not required to explain the minute to minute activities which had taken place prior to the occurrence. 51. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that presence of deep punctured injury apart from incised injury on the person of the deceased does not fit in with the weapons assigned in the hand of the appellants also in the facts of the present case can not make much headway, inasmuch as, eleven persons had assaulted the deceased out of whom while four of them namely Ram Sanehi Mishra, Raja Mishra, Hari Mishra and and Ramkeshwar Koeri had Garasa in their hand, two of them Rupdeo Mishra and Aliyar Koeri had Ballam in their hand. The nature of the weapon Ballam has been explained by the P.W.4 in paragraph no.7 of his cross-examination in which he has stated that Ballam and Bhala are same type of weapon. In fact when the doctor P.W.5 was also cross-examined on this aspect as with regard to nature of injuries, he too had clarified in paragraph no.18 that if a Ballam pierces the body, the depth will be longer and the length shorter. In presence of these evidence, it cannot be said that the injuries which were found on the person of the deceased could not have been caused by the weapons in the hands of the accused persons including the appellants. 52. At this place, it would be also necessary for us to examine the plea of alibi which was sought to be established on behalf of the appellant Ram Sanehi Mishra who in his statement under Section 313 Cr. P.C. had specifically taken a stand that at the time of occurrence, he was in his school and in fact when he had returned to his house in evening, he could come to know of the murder of Baliram Mishra (deceased). In support of his plea of alibi, two defence witnesses have been examined, namely, D.W.1 Gobardhan Ram, a teacher of the school and D.W.2 Awani Kumar Ghosh, the Block Education Extension Officer who had also proved the attendance register and the inspection register being Exhibit-A and Exhibit-B respectively. 53. In support of his plea of alibi, two defence witnesses have been examined, namely, D.W.1 Gobardhan Ram, a teacher of the school and D.W.2 Awani Kumar Ghosh, the Block Education Extension Officer who had also proved the attendance register and the inspection register being Exhibit-A and Exhibit-B respectively. 53. D.W.1 however has specifically conceded in his examination-in-chief itself that he was posted in the school with effect from 2.7.1979 whereas the appellant Ram Sanehi Mishra had already been transferred from the school prior to 2.7.1979. It would thus be clear that on the date of occurrence i.e. 13.10.1976, D.W.1 was neither the teacher of the school nor was present in the school. This Court has also, therefore, carefully looked into the attendance register from which it is found that there were in all only four teachers in the school including appellant Ram Sanehi Mishra and the rest three of them were Subedar Singh, Mithai Lal and Awadh Prasad. None of the three teachers who are said to be present along with the appellant Ram Sanehi Mishra on 13.10.1976 have turned up to support the plea of alibi of the appellant Ram Sanehi Mishra. Moreover, from perusal of the attendance register and the entry of the presence of the appellant Ram Sanehi Mishra in the date of 13.10.1976, it would be found that there is a definite interpolation both in the time of arrival and the time of departure against the name of appellant Ram Sanehi Mishra. 54. Such interpolation becomes still meaningful in view of the evidence of D.W.-2, the Block Education Extension Officer who had stated that he had remained in the school from 12.30 PM to 4.30 PM and though all other teachers had shown their time of leaving the school at 4 PM in the attendance register, the figure 4 and ½ against the name of the appellant Ram Sanehi Mishra was subsequently added by way of interpolation and overwriting only to show the presence of D.W.2 in the school. Thus, the attendance register with definite interpolation as against the name of appellant Ram Sanehi Mishra on the date of occurrence i.e. 13.10.1976 with cutting in respect of his time of arrival and departure from the school will create a big doubt regarding authenticity of the attendance register. Thus, the attendance register with definite interpolation as against the name of appellant Ram Sanehi Mishra on the date of occurrence i.e. 13.10.1976 with cutting in respect of his time of arrival and departure from the school will create a big doubt regarding authenticity of the attendance register. The different use of ink in the crucial column of attendance register against the name of the appellant Ram Sanehi Mishra would leave a lot desires so as to accept the plea of alibi of appellant Ram Sanehi Mishra to be present in the school at the time of occurrence. 55. The emergence of D.W.2 Awani Kumar Ghosh, the Block Education Extension Officer on the date of occurrence in the school for sudden inspection and his inspection report in the inspection register of the school also does not inspire confidence, inasmuch as, in his cross-examination, he has admitted that as per his earlier tour programme, the school of appellant Ram Sanehi Mishra had to be inspected by him on 14.10.1976 but, he had decided to hold sudden inspection of the school on 13.10.1976 whereas as per his tour programme on 13.10.1976, he had to inspect another school, namely, Yadavpur Upper Primary School. In his cross-examination, he had also stated that his tour diary was presented in the office of Block Development Officer but that tour diary was not produced by him and infact no effort was made to procure that tour diary which could have verified the plea of DW2 of his sudden inspection of the school on 13.10.1976. 56. In fact, his story of sudden inspection was further exposed in his own cross-examination when he had sought to explain that the reason for his holding inspection on 13.6.1976 in place of 14.10.1976 was that on 14.10.1976 he had been called in the office of the District Education Officer at Sasaram and that he could not hold inspection of Yadavpur School as per his earlier schedule programme because he was not aware of the location of Yadavpur School. Page-47 of the inspection register which contains the note of inspection of D.W.2 is not only in torn condition but has been found to be kept in a separate sheet and the same was also confirmed by D.W.1 who had brought both the attendance register and the inspection register in the court. Page-47 of the inspection register which contains the note of inspection of D.W.2 is not only in torn condition but has been found to be kept in a separate sheet and the same was also confirmed by D.W.1 who had brought both the attendance register and the inspection register in the court. This Court therefore has also looked into all the pages of the inspection register and found save and except that the crucial page no. 47 which has been kept rest of the pages of the register is intact. Thus, it appears that page no. 47 which is the last written page produced before Trial Court after 12 years of the inspection held on 13.10.1976, without there being any further entry in the said inspection register from 13.10.1976 onwards has been subsequently prepared. 57. The authenticity of such register gets further dent, inasmuch as, even when the register is said to have been opened on 25.9.1970, it has surprisingly the notes of inspection beginning from 7.2.1955. These aspects infact have been gone into very carefully by the trial court while examining the plea of alibi in paragraph no.23 of the impugned judgment and this Court, having itself perused the original documents by way of attendance register and the inspection register and the evidence of D.W.1 and D.W.2 must concur with the findings of the trial court that the note of inspection of D.W.2 and the endorsement on the attendance register by D.W.2 vide Annexure-B and Exhibit.-C were manufactured and concocted subsequently to develop plea of alibi of appellant Ram Sanehi Mishra. 58. By now it is well settled that the plea of alibi must be proved with absolute certainty so as to rule out the possibility of the presence of the accused at the place of occurrence and if the plea of alibi becomes suspicious, the same has to be discarded. On the materials on record, we will have no difficulty in holding that the appellant Ram Sanehi Mishra has completely failed to prove the plea of alibi and as such, the ocular evidence in the form of injured eyewitness claiming not only the presence of appellant Ram Saehi Mishra at the place of occurrence but also ascribing him with specific overt act cannot be disbelieved. 59. 59. Thus, the presence of the appellant Ram Sanehi Mishra at the place of occurrence and his participation in the occurrence upon rejection of his plea of alibi is also fully established from the materials on record. 60. In the light of the aforesaid analysis on the evidence on record, if the individual allegation against the appellants is taken into consideration, it would be found that the appellant Raja Mishra was armed with Garasa and appellant Aliyar Koeri was armed with Ballam whereas the appellant Gobardhan Koeri @ Gobardhan Singh was also armed with Garasa and the appellant Sipahi Koeri was armed with Lohbanda. Similarly, the appellant Ram Sanehi Mishra was armed with Garasa while appellant Basgit Singh @ Basgit Koeri was armed with Lathi. The weapons in the hand of the appellants have not only been consistently supported by the eye-witnesses but they have also stated that all 11 persons including the six appellants had formed the unlawful assembly in their bid to assault the deceased and having encircled him, the fatal blow was given by the appellant Ram Sanehi Mishra and Basgit Singh along with Hari Mishra (since dead), Rupdeo Mishra (since dead) and Ram Keshwar Koeri (since dead) and when the deceased had fallen down as a result of injury inflicted by the aforesaid five persons from their respective weapon, rest of the six accused persons had also assaulted with Garasa, Ballam and Lathi. Thus, the conviction of the appellants for offence under Section 302 r/w Section 149 I.P.C. is based on the evidence on record. Similarly the conviction of appellant Ram Sanehi Mishra and appellant Basgit Koeri for offence under Section 302 as well as conviction of rest of the appellants under Section 302 r/w 149 I.P.C. is fully justified and would require no interference. 61. There is also no dearth of evidence that the appellant Ram Sanehi Mishra, Raja Mishra, Gobardhan Koeri, Aliyar Koeri and Sipahi Koeri were armed with deadly weapons and as such, their further conviction under Section 148 I.P.C. would require no interference. Similarly, the appellant Basgit Koeri armed with Lathi had also been correctly convicted for offence under Section 147 I.P.C. 62. Similarly, the appellant Basgit Koeri armed with Lathi had also been correctly convicted for offence under Section 147 I.P.C. 62. In view of the evidence on record that the appellant Gobardhan Koeri and appellant Aliyar Koeri had caused injury on the person of the informant P.W.7 by their respective weapons and as such, their conviction under Section 324 I.P.C. alike the conviction of Sipahi Koeri assaulting the informant with Lohbanda (Lathi with a metal top) under Section 323 I.P.C. is also in keeping with the evidence on record. Let it be noted that this Court is not required now to go into the individual allegation of assault which were proven by the prosecution even in the case of other accused persons such as Rupdeo Mishra, Guput Mishra, Buchun Mishra, Hari Mishra and Ram Keshwar Koeri who had died either during the pendency of the trial or in course of appeal and in this regard, it would be sufficient to note here that involvement and active participation as also assault by the aforesaid five dead persons in league with remaining six appellants has been fully proven by the prosecution as has also been dealt at length in the impugned judgment of the trial court. 63. Thus, having given anxious consideration to the materials on record, this Court would find that the prosecution has proven its case beyond reasonable doubt against all the appellants and, therefore, the impugned judgment of the trial court would not require any interference by us. 64. In the result, both the appeals are dismissed and since the appellants are continuing on bail, their bail bonds are cancelled and they are directed to surrender for serving out their remaining sentences.