JUDGMENT : (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH) These two appeals have been filed by the appellants being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment of conviction dated 18.06.1991 and that of sentence dated 19.06.1991 passed by the learned 2ndAdditional Sessions Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur in Sessions Trial No.363 of 1990, whereby the appellants have been found guilty for the offences punishable under Section-302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short IPC) and have been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life. The appellant-Shambhunath Singh has been further found guilty under Section-27 of the Arms Act and appellant- Raj Kumar Mishra has been found guilty under Section-3/4 of the Explosive Substance Act. However, no separate sentence has been passed under Section-27 of the Arms Act or under Section-3/4 of the Explosive Substance Act. 2. As noted above in earlier order, these appeals have been on our list for hearing for sometime, though the learned A.P.P. and learned counsel for the informant have been appearing, no one appeared for the appellants who in the past also have been changing Lawyers at different stages. We had, accordingly, appointed Mr. Amish Kumar a Lawyer of this Court to assist us as Amicus curiae. 3. We have heard the appeal at length and perused the records. The prosecution case is based on the fardbeyan of one Nawal Kishore Chaudhary (P.W.7) who is the nephew of the deceased, Jugeshwar Chaudhary. It was recorded by Raj Kishore Singh (P.W.9), Officer-in-Charge of Bidupur Police Station at 7 am on 19.10.1989 at village Bala Tand, Police Station Bidupur, District Vaishali at Hajipur, which is 8 Kms. from the Bidupur Police Station. The fardbeyan states that at about 4 pm on 18.10.1989, the uncle of the informant, the deceased Jugeshwar Chaudhary, as usual, went to drink toddy at the place of Upendra Paswan (P.W.4). He sits besides palm tree from which he extracts and sells toddy. After sometime, the informant heard the sound of bomb blast and a gun shot from the direction where his uncle had gone. Out of curiosity he ran. When he reached the house of Jugul Singh, he found that his uncle was lying on a cot and was profusely bleeding from all over his body. After sometime, the informant heard the sound of bomb blast and a gun shot from the direction where his uncle had gone. Out of curiosity he ran. When he reached the house of Jugul Singh, he found that his uncle was lying on a cot and was profusely bleeding from all over his body. When he asked his uncle, what happened, his uncle, in presence of several other people, disclosed that while he was having toddy at the place of Upendra Paswan (P.W.4), three persons, namely, Raj Kumar Mishra, Shambhunath Singh and Sarvesh Kumar Singh came. Raj Kumar Mishra threw a bomb which exploded and he fell to the ground grievously injured. Shambhunath Singh then put a pistol on his chest and fired. Sarvesh Kumar Singh then stabbed him on his head. Neighbouring people who reached immediately decided to carry his uncle to Hajipur for treatment but soon thereafter on way itself he died. He states that his uncle was unmarried and issueless and the reason for this gruesome act was that there had been long standing dispute between Shambhunath Singh and Jugul Kishore Singh. There were cases and counter cases. The deceased had always sided with the said Jugul Kishore Singh. As a result of that this occurrence took place. On basis of this fardbeyan, police case was registered. Police took up investigation and after investigation charge-sheet was filed against Raj Kumar Mishra and Shambhunath Singh because in the meantime Sarvesh Kumar Singh had died. Cognizance having been taken and the case being committed to the Court of Sessions charges were framed. Sanction had been received for prosecution under Explosive Substance Act as well. Appellants pleaded not guilty and were tried and convicted. Hence, these two appeals. 4. In order to establish its case the prosecution has examined 11 witnesses out of which P.W.1-Bhagaya Narain Chaudhary and P.W.11-Ramchandra Prasad Verma are formal witnesses. P.W.1-Bhagaya Narain Chaudhary is a witness to the inquest. He knows nothing about the occurrence. P.W.11-Ramchandra Prasad Verma is a Clerk in the Collectorate who has proved the sanction granted by the District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Vaishali for prosecution of the appellant-Raj Kumar Mishra under Explosive Substance Act. P.W.8-Anil Kumar Singh is the doctor who conducted the postmortem examination. P.W.1-Bhagaya Narain Chaudhary is a witness to the inquest. He knows nothing about the occurrence. P.W.11-Ramchandra Prasad Verma is a Clerk in the Collectorate who has proved the sanction granted by the District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Vaishali for prosecution of the appellant-Raj Kumar Mishra under Explosive Substance Act. P.W.8-Anil Kumar Singh is the doctor who conducted the postmortem examination. P.W.9-Raj Kishore Singh is the Officer-in-Charge of Bidupur Police Station who had recorded the fardbeyan and had initially investigated the case but before he could file the charge-sheet he was transferred. Accordingly, the charge-sheet was filed by P.W.10-Hari Shankar who did not actually investigate the case. 5. P.W.2 is Bhirgunath Singh is the son of Jugul Kishore Singh and is the brother of P.W.5-Shivnath Prasad Singh. He states that at about 4 - 4:30 pm on 18.08.1989, while he was at home, he heard the sound of a bomb explosion. He then found his brother P.W.5-Shivnath Prasad Singh running and shouting that Jugeshwar Chaudhary had been killed. They all reached the place of occurrence and found Jugeshwar Chaudhary grievously injured lying there. Then they immediately arranged for a cot and carried him with the help of several others where Nawal Kishore Chaudhary (P.W.7), the nephew of the injured Jugeshwar Chaudhary, arrived and asked from his injured uncle as to how he got injured. In presence of others his injured uncle stated that Raj Kumar Mishra threw a bomb while he was having toddy. Shambhunath Singh then shot him and Sarvesh Kumar Singh stabbed him. They all then decided to immediately carry him to hospital at Hajipur but having travelled about 1 or 2 kms. they found that his uncle had died. Therefore, they returned to the house of the informant. Nothing much could be solicited in the cross-examination but the suggestion is that someone else may have killed the deceased and because of enmity the accused persons have been roped in it. P.W.3-Sudhir Prasad Singh has been brought in only to prove the handwriting of the Officer-in-Charge while registering the formal F.I.R. P.W.4-Upendra Paswan is the person to whom the deceased had gone to drink toddy. He discloses that having given toddy to the deceased Jugeshwar Chaudhary, he had climbed up on the palm tree to draw more toddy. P.W.3-Sudhir Prasad Singh has been brought in only to prove the handwriting of the Officer-in-Charge while registering the formal F.I.R. P.W.4-Upendra Paswan is the person to whom the deceased had gone to drink toddy. He discloses that having given toddy to the deceased Jugeshwar Chaudhary, he had climbed up on the palm tree to draw more toddy. While he was on the tree, he heard a bomb explosion and saw Raj Kumar Mishra and Sarvesh Kumar Singh running away from the spot. He remained on the palm tree till number of people assembled and then came down. He states that his statement was taken by the police. His testimony about seeing the miscreants and identifying them remains unshaken. 6. We then have P.W.5-Shivnath Prasad Singh who is brother of P.W.2-Bhirgunath Singh. He states that he had stepped outside from the village to relieve himself when he heard the sound of bomb explosion nearby. He rushed there and found that Raj Kumar Mishra and Sarvesh Kumar Singh were holding hand and feet of the deceased Jugeshwar Chaudhary and Raj Kumar Mishra ordered Shambhunath Singh to shoot the deceased upon which he fired. This witness then ran to the village where several others assembled. The injured was carried on a cot to his house where the informant also came and the injured disclosed that Raj Kumar Mishra had thrown a bomb on him. Shambhunath Singh had shot him and Sarvesh Kumar Singh had stabbed. In his cross-examination, he admits that there have been litigations between the two parties, i.e., between Shambhunath Singh and the father of this witness. He admits that he was first one to reach the spot where the bomb had been hurled. He then states that they tried to take the injured to the hospital but he died on the way. They came back and placed his body at the doorstep of the house of the informant. They informed the village chaukidar to go and inform to the police station. The police officer came the morning next and recorded the statement of the informant. There has been a lengthy cross-examination but his evidence could not be shaken. 7. We then have P.W.6-Jittu Paswan. He is not an eye-witness but corroborates the fact that they all had assembled near the deceased who had disclosed the manner and the person who are responsible for the occurrence. There has been a lengthy cross-examination but his evidence could not be shaken. 7. We then have P.W.6-Jittu Paswan. He is not an eye-witness but corroborates the fact that they all had assembled near the deceased who had disclosed the manner and the person who are responsible for the occurrence. In cross-examination, he admits that there had been a dispute between Jugul Kishore Singh, the father of P.Ws.2 & 5 and Shambhunath Singh in respect of a road widening work under the Jawahar Rojgar Yojana and there had been other cases as well. He denies the suggestion that the deceased had not disclosed any name and the appellants have been falsely implicated because of enmity. 8. We then have P.W.7-Nawal Kishore Chaudhary, the informant and nephew of the deceased. He states that at about 4 pm on 18.10.1989, when his uncle went to drink toddy, as usual, to the place of Upendra Paswan (P.W.4), which is South of his house, he heard the sound of bomb blast. He ran in that direction but when he reached the house of Jugul Kishore Singh his uncle had already been brought there and lying there. He was grievously injured. His uncle disclosed that Raj Kumar Mishra hurled the bomb, Shambhunath Singh shot from the pistol and Sarvesh Kumar Singh stabbed him. There were other three persons when this statement was made by his uncle. When he was being taken to hospital at Hajipur and they travelled about 4 kms. from the village his uncle died. They returned to their village. The village chaukidar informed the police. In his cross-examination, he admits that sons of Jugul Kishore Singh, i.e., P.Ws.2 & 5, are witnesses in several cases which are filed against Shambhunath Singh. He admits that there have been civil dispute also pending between the parties. He denies the suggestion that the appellants have been implicated only at the instance of Jugul Kishore Singh otherwise his testimony is unshaken. 9. We then have P.W.8- Dr. Anil Kumar Singh who conducted the postmortem examination and proved the postmortem report giving details of the injuries. The first injury is bullet wound entry which is from the front and exiting from the back. The second wound is extensive bomb injury on the chest. There is a lacerated wound on the head above the right eyes extending to the ear. The first injury is bullet wound entry which is from the front and exiting from the back. The second wound is extensive bomb injury on the chest. There is a lacerated wound on the head above the right eyes extending to the ear. These three injuries, according to him, are relatable to gun shot, bomb and knife, totally corroborates the prosecution story. 10. In order to satisfy ourselves, whether the injuries were such which could prevent a person from talking at least for sometime before he died, we have examined the injury report closely. We must admit that when the doctor was cross-examined he was not even suggested much less questioned that a person who was injured in such a manner could not have made any statement nor could he remain conscious. From the postmortem report, we find that none of the vital organs had been injured. When we compare these injuries with the time when the deceased had spoken, to us, it does not appear that his disclosure was not beyond 5 to 10 minutes after the incident. To us, it appears that he could have just about managed to speak before he died. We may note at this juncture that there is no suggestion to the other prosecution witnesses or to the doctor that the injured could not have been in a condition to speak being unconscious or otherwise. The suggestions are only with regards false implication. 11. We then have P.W.9-Raj Kishore Singh, the first Investigating Officer, who was then Officer-in-Charge of Bidupur Police Station and recorded the fardbeyan. He states that in the morning he heard about the murder in the village- Bala Tand and he came to enquire into it. He found that Jugeshwar Chaudhary has been killed. He accordingly took the fardbeyan of his nephew, Nawal Kishore Chaudhary (P.W.7) and made inquest report and then sent the dead body for postmortem and also took the statement of various witnesses. He then received the postmortem report and when he virtually finalized the investigation he was transferred. In his cross-examination, he admits that there had been some dispute between the two parties with regard to work being done under Jawahar Rojgar Yojana. 12. The next witness is P.W.10-Hari Shankar. He is the second Investigating Officer who had filed the charge-sheet. He has not investigated the case. He had taken the charge from P.W.9-Raj Kishore Singh. 13. In his cross-examination, he admits that there had been some dispute between the two parties with regard to work being done under Jawahar Rojgar Yojana. 12. The next witness is P.W.10-Hari Shankar. He is the second Investigating Officer who had filed the charge-sheet. He has not investigated the case. He had taken the charge from P.W.9-Raj Kishore Singh. 13. The next witness is P.W.11-Ram Chandra Prasad Verma who is a Clerk in the Legal Section in the Vaishali Collectorate and proved the sanction order for prosecution as granted by the District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Vaishali at Hajipur. 14. Though no witness has been examined on behalf of defence but they have exhibited several documents to show the enmity between Jugul Kishore Singh and the deceased, Jugeshwar Chaudhary on one hand with Shambhunath Singh. 15. Mr. Amish Kumar, learned Amicus Curiae has submitted that there is consistent evidence by way of admission by the prosecution witnesses themselves that there had been cases and counter cases in the past between Jugul Kishore Singh and the Shambhunath Singh. In some of the cases several of the prosecution witnesses herein are also accused including the deceased, Jugeshwar Chaudhary. He thus submits that enmity is admitted the benefit of false implication must go to the appellants. We are unable to accept this. Firstly, because the prosecution is consistent in its evidence about the disclosure made by the deceased soon before he died as to who was responsible for his grievous injuries. This has been corroborated by independent witnesses as well. If that be so then merely there had been previous enmity is no ground to discard the prosecution case because enmity cuts both ways. It can also give reason for the instant action. It provides the motive behind it. We are, therefore, not impressed with this argument. It was then argued that there has been inordinate delay in informing the police which raises a doubt with regard to the correctness of the prosecution version. It is pointed out that incident took place at about 4 pm on 18.10.1989. Several witnesses have said that after Jugeshwar Chaudhary died the village chaukidar was asked to immediately inform the police but the Officer-in-Charge of Police Station states that he came to know about this at 6 am in the morning that a murder had taken place in the village. Accordingly, he came to investigate the case. Several witnesses have said that after Jugeshwar Chaudhary died the village chaukidar was asked to immediately inform the police but the Officer-in-Charge of Police Station states that he came to know about this at 6 am in the morning that a murder had taken place in the village. Accordingly, he came to investigate the case. This shows that there was delay of over 12 hours in giving the fardbeyan. We have considered this aspect also and we are not impressed. 16. From the F.I.R. itself, it is clear that the place of occurrence is about 8 kms. away from the police station. The incident has taken place in the month of October when it become darkness sooner than usual. Therefore, if in the night no one had gone to the police station from the village, which is 8 kms. away, no grievance can be made in this regard. Moreover, no suggestion on this line or question on this line was ever asked nor any of the witnesses has been confronted with this delay. We do not think so that the delay was gross as to cast aspersion on the fardbeyan. It is then submitted that the witnesses and more importantly P.Ws.2 & 5, being sons of Jugul Kishore Singh, were interested witnesses inasmuch as they were in litigating terms with Shambhunath Singh. That may be so but the fact that the deceased had made the statement soon before his death is corroborated by Jittu Paswan (P.W.6) and the informant Nawal Kishore Chaudhary (P.W.7) himself with whom there are no disputes persuades us not to discard the evidence of others on the ground that they are interested witnesses. 17. Thus, keeping in view the consistent and unshaken testimony of the prosecution witnesses, we are unable to discard or doubt the prosecution case, which, we are of the view, stands established beyond reasonable doubt. In that view of the matter, we are unable to interfere in this matter. Accordingly, both the appeals are dismissed. Both the appellants must surrender before the Court below to serve out their sentences. Their bail bonds are cancelled. Let the records be sent to the trial Court for necessary action immediately. Appeal dismissed.