ORAL JUDGMENT NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH, J. This appeal was filed by three appellants. When this has now been taken up For Hearing, it is stated that appellant No 3 Ram Udar Chaudhary has died. At the time when judgment was delivered by the trial Court, Ram Udar Chaudhary was 65 years old and the judgment was delivered on 01.05.1991 that is 23 years back. We have no reason to disbelieve the statement. Accordingly, we hold that the appeal, as filed by Ram Udar Chaudhary, abates. The appeal is under consideration in respect of appellant No 1 Hira Kant Chaudhary and appellant No 2 Radhe Shyam Chaudhary who are brothers and who are sons of Ram Udar Chaudhary. 2 The appellants have been convicted for offence punishable under Sections 302/34, 307/34 and 324/34 of Indian Penal Code (IPC). They have been sentenced to life imprisonment for offence under Sections 302/34 of IPC. They have further been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years under Sections 307/34 of IPC and further one year rigorous imprisonment in respect of Sections 324/34 of IPC. All sentences are to run concurrently. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the State and perused the records. The prosecution case is based on the Fardbayan of Ramu Chaudhary (PW 14), the brother of deceased Nathuni Chaudhary which was recorded at about 8.30 pm on 25.12.1978 in respect of an occurrence that took place at about 6 pm, the same day. It is alleged that while the four brothers that is the deceased Nathuni Chaudhary, Ramu Chaudhary, Tripti Chaudhary and Shiv Kant Chaudhary were in their house, their uncle Ram Udar Chaudhary alongwith his two sons Hira Kant Chaudhary and Radhe Shyam Chaudhary, the three appellants came. They also lived there and had a common Angan/courtyard. They protested as to why paddy had been harvested from their fields on which Ramu Chaudhary and others stated that it had not been so cut. This resulted in quarrel whereafter Hira Kant Chaudhary assaulted Ramu Chaudhary with bhujali on the head and waist. Thereafter, Radhe Shyam and Ram Udar Chaudhary also assaulted others. When other people, hearing the shouts came, these people ran away. 4. It appears that the four brothers that is Nathuni, Ramu, Tripti and Shiv Kant Chaudhary were variously injured. This resulted in quarrel whereafter Hira Kant Chaudhary assaulted Ramu Chaudhary with bhujali on the head and waist. Thereafter, Radhe Shyam and Ram Udar Chaudhary also assaulted others. When other people, hearing the shouts came, these people ran away. 4. It appears that the four brothers that is Nathuni, Ramu, Tripti and Shiv Kant Chaudhary were variously injured. They were carried to State Dispensary and then to Darbhanga Medical College & Hospital (DMCH). Police took up investigation. While investigation was on, Nathuni Chaudhary, after about 14 days’ treatment, died in the DMCH itself. Police, after investigation, submitted chargesheet against the three appellants. The case being committed to Court of Session, charges were framed for murder, attempt to murder and causing injury to which they pleaded innocence and asked for being tried. 5. In course of trial, in order to substantiate the charges, prosecution examined 20 witnesses. Some of the witnesses are the injured persons themselves. They are PW 3 Tripti Chaudhary, PW 7 Shiv Kant Chaudhary, PW 14 Ramu Chaudhary, the informant. PW 15 is Chitra Lekha, the wife of the deceased brother Nathuni Chaudhary who was also present in the house. 6. In order to understand the relationship between various parties who are all agnates and descendants of Uman Chaudhary who happens to be the great grandfather of the informant and his brothers as well as great grandfather of Hira Kant Chaudhary and Radhe Shyam Chaudhary. Father of the prosecution side and Ram Udar Chaudhary are brothers being son of Alikh Chaudhary who is the son of Uman Chaudhary. It may be noted that Alikh Chaudhary, the grandfather of the two sides had four brothers - Alikh, Damodar, Makshudan and Makeshwar. It may be noted that PW 10 Siyaram Chaudhary and PW 11 Rama Nand Chaudhary are two of the prosecution witnesses who have turned hostile. They are sons of Damodar Chaudhary and Maksudan Chaudhary respectively and, accordingly, they would be uncles of the prosecution party and Hira Kant Chaudhary and Radhe Shyam Chaudhary. 7. The prosecution evidence, as appearing from the examination of PW 3 Tripti Chaudhary, the injured brother Shiv Kant Chaudhari (PW 7), another injured brother and the informant Ramu Chaudhary (PW 14) is consistent. 7. The prosecution evidence, as appearing from the examination of PW 3 Tripti Chaudhary, the injured brother Shiv Kant Chaudhari (PW 7), another injured brother and the informant Ramu Chaudhary (PW 14) is consistent. They state that on the fateful day, while four brothers that is these three witnesses and Nathuni Chaudhari, their deceased brother were in the house, in the evening, Ram Udar Chaudhari, their uncle alongwith his two sons Hira Kant Chaudhary and Radhe Shyam Chaudhari came. They demanded to know as to why paddy had been cut from their land. Ramu Chaudhary (PW 14) pleaded that if by mistake this had been done, it could be decided in panchayati and they would pay for it. Hira Kant Chaudhary became agitated and said that they did not want any payment but they would kill everybody. Ram Udar Chaudhary then ordered. Hira Kant Chaudhary assaulted brutally, fatally and repeatedly Nathuni Chaudhary who fell down unconscious. Then Radhe Shyam Chaudhary assaulted Tripti Chaudhary and then they all assaulted the informant and Shiv Kant. 8. Hearing all these shouts, people started coming. Some of the prosecution witnesses state that they saw the three appellants escape whereas others state that they were immediately informed about the whole incident from the injured persons. They saw Nathuni lying unconscious in the pool of blood as also Tripti. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that if one sees the first information report, it clearly states that Hira Kant Chaudhary assaulted Nathuni with a bhujali on the head. He draws attention of this Court that in the evidence that follows in the Court, no one scribes bhujali to Hira Kant Chaudhary rather everyone is consistent that he had Samath (Musal/Paddy Pounder). Similarly, when it comes to the weapons with others, learned counsel for the defence submits that prosecution is not consistent as to who held the spear (bhala), who held bhujali, who held samath? At one place, one witness even suggests that one of them having a dagger. 10. In our view, it must be remembered that Fardbayan is not to be a detailed anthology of the events. When events start all of a sudden to the surprise of a person who is himself severely injured, it is difficult to exactly narrate the events. Later when evidence is led in the Court, things crystallize. A greater clarity is then available. When events start all of a sudden to the surprise of a person who is himself severely injured, it is difficult to exactly narrate the events. Later when evidence is led in the Court, things crystallize. A greater clarity is then available. Here, if we see the nature of injuries, the injury report, the examination of doctors and the post mortem report, it is consistent in the sense that the injuries on the deceased as per the post mortem report is consistent with repeated blows on the head by samath. Injuries on other persons are consistent with injuries by spear and bhujali. Merely because the witnesses cannot exactly recall, who assaulted whom with what weapon, would not be a ground to hold that the prosecution case is false. Basically three weapons were used. The injuries appertain to the three weapons and are consistent with it. These minor discrepancies cannot falsify the prosecution case or create a doubt about its correctness. The prosecution evidence, we find, is consistent. The question is the incident had taken place within the confines of the house. There cannot be independent witnesses. That a person was brutally, fatally and repeatedly assaulted leading to his death cannot be denied and has not been challenged. The other injuries have also not been challenged. Now the question is how the injuries happened. The prosecution has given a chain of events. Prosecution evidence is consistent. It is supported by the evidence of Chitra Lekha (PW 15), the wife of the deceased who was present there and who saw the whole incident. 11. At this stage, let us also consider a suggestion given by the defence. At one stage to one witness, a suggestion is given to a prosecution witness that Hira Kant Chaudhary is employed in Arunachal Pradesh. That witness, in the cross-examination, clearly states that he had taken leave and was present in the village on that day. The other suggestion that is given that it was the four brothers in fact were quarreling amongst themselves and had got injured accordingly. They were quarreling because amongst the four of them, they had only two rooms. Nathuni Chaudhary being the eldest was married and the others did not want him to use one room exclusively. We have noted this suggestion because we find it absurd. Nathuni Chaudhary was the only married brother and he had two daughters. They were quarreling because amongst the four of them, they had only two rooms. Nathuni Chaudhary being the eldest was married and the others did not want him to use one room exclusively. We have noted this suggestion because we find it absurd. Nathuni Chaudhary was the only married brother and he had two daughters. Surely, when there had been no dispute for such a long time, no dispute could have now started amongst brothers in this regard and no such dispute could have arisen in village where ladies privacy is respected. 12. Anrudh Mahto (PW 2) is the village chaukidar who goes and informs the police. He has clearly deposed that he was outside the house when he heard shouts. When he entered, he found the four brothers Nathuni Chaudhary and others variously injured and it was immediately disclosed to him that they had been brutally assaulted by Hira Kant Chaudhary whereupon he went and informed the police. Thus, the village chaukidar had seen the four brothers injured. This is consistent with the prosecution story. PWs 17 and 18 are doctors who performed the post mortem and gave the injury report. Again, the nature of injury, as found by them, in their opinion, was consistent with the prosecution allegation. The injuries on the head of Nathuni Chaudhary, the deceased brother were consistent of repeated blows by samath in the opinion of the doctors themselves. Similar are their evidences in relation to the other three injured persons. 13. PW 1 is Harilal Prasad, the Judicial Magistrate who had been requisitioned to the Hospital to record the statement of Nathuni Chaudhary but he has deposed that all along he was there, Nathuni Chaudhary was unconscious. He later died. PWs 4, 12, 13, 16 and 20 are formal witnesses. PW 5 Ram Awtar Chaudhary is hearsay witness. PW 10 Siya Ram Chaudhary, as noticed earlier who is the grandson of Damodar Chaudhary, is an agnate. He has been declared hostile because be states that brothers were apparently quarreling amongst themselves. 14. We must next consider the argument on behalf of appellants that there was hardly any intention to kill and it was at the spur of the moment, as a result of heated discussion, the incident took place. We are unable to appreciate this submission. He has been declared hostile because be states that brothers were apparently quarreling amongst themselves. 14. We must next consider the argument on behalf of appellants that there was hardly any intention to kill and it was at the spur of the moment, as a result of heated discussion, the incident took place. We are unable to appreciate this submission. If, by mistake or otherwise, the cousins had cut the paddy which did not belong to them and this was protested, there could be no such quarrel which could justify the accused persons coming armed in the house questioning and then ordering to kill. There was no provocation whatsoever from the side of the prosecution for such extreme action. Further, the manner in which Nathuni Chaudhary was assaulted by Hira Kant Chaudhary right on the head with repeated blows virtually breaking the skull and the evidence is that even after Nathuni Chaudhary fell down unconscious, he was given more blows. The other brother is then speared. The third is then assaulted. This would clearly establish the common intention of Ram Udar Chaudhary, the father and his two sons Hira Kant Chaudhary and Radhe Shyam Chaudhari who had come armed in the house. The intention and the common intention is writ large. 15. We are, thus, unable to interfere in the matter. The prosecution evidence being consistent and we have no manner of doubt about the intention of the accused persons and, thus, we are unable to interfere in this matter. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. The judgment of conviction and the sentence stand confirmed. 16. The two remaining appellants, namely, Hira Kant Chaudhary and Radhe Shyam Chaudhary are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled. They are directed to surrender forthwith to serve out their remaining sentence.