Judgment : R.N. Verma, J. The two appellants along with one Shanti Devi faced trial for allegedly committing homicidal death of one Maheshwar Mahto (hereinafter referred to as the ’deceased’). The learned court of Ist Additional Judicial Commissioner, Khunti, Ranchi convicted the two appellants by judgment dated 06.09.2005 under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo the rigorous imprisonment for life by order of sentence dated 12.09.2005 passed in Session Trial No. 560 of 2003. 2. Accusations, which led to trial of the accused persons, are as follows:- There was enmity between the three accused and the deceased and they all belonged to the same family. The father of the present two appellants namely Khudi Ram Mahto was the eldest brother, the deceased was the second brother and the youngest brother was Usha Ram Mahto. Few days earlier to the occurrence, the two appellants had forcibly ploughed the land, which was in the share of the mother of the deceased and on objection raised by the deceased, the appellant Sanjay Mahto had given threatening to the deceased and his brother of dire consequence. On 10.10.2002, the fateful day, at about 6.00-6:30 A.M., the informant Lalita Devi along with her deceased husband Maheshwar Mahto had gone on call of nature towards Damari More, Sonahatu and after obeying the call of nature, the informant came back to her house and was going to fetch water when saw some hot conversations between Shanti Devi and her husband and in the meantime, the appellant Fulendra Mahto @ Tika Mahto armed with Balua and Sanjay Mahto armed with spade came there and inflicted injuries to her husband. When her husband raised cry to save him, the informant started weeping and also raised alarm whereupon her Gotni Kaushalya Devi and her Dewar Usha Ram Mahto came there but by that time, the appellants had inflicted several injuries on the head of her husband and after receiving injuries, her husband tried to run away from there but fell down in the field. The appellants further assaulted her husband resulting to his death and fled away. The fardbeyan (Ext.-5) of the informant Lalita Devi (P.W.-10) was recorded by S.I. Krishna Kumar Mahato of Bundu Police Station at 7.00 a.m. immediately after the occurrence on the same day at village Tau near the house of the informant. The appellants further assaulted her husband resulting to his death and fled away. The fardbeyan (Ext.-5) of the informant Lalita Devi (P.W.-10) was recorded by S.I. Krishna Kumar Mahato of Bundu Police Station at 7.00 a.m. immediately after the occurrence on the same day at village Tau near the house of the informant. The said S.I. Krishna Kumar Mahto (P.W.-11) on the direction of the Officer-in-charge of the police station took up the investigation, prepared the inquest report (Ext.-6) of the dead body and sent the body for postmortem. On completion of the investigation, the I.O. submitted the charge sheet whereafter the cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. The charge against three accused including the two appellants was framed under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code which the appellants denied and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 3. The prosecution in order to establish the charge against the appellants and another accused Shanti Devi examined altogether eleven witnesses. Out of them, P.W. 1- Lahru Mahto, P.W. 2- Deo Nath Mahto, P.W.3- Sagar Prasad Mahto, P.W.4- Vishnu Mahto, P.W.5- Bahadur Mahto are all hearsay witnesses. P.W.1 is a witness of seizure of blood smeared soil, P.W. 3 and P.W. 5 are the witnesses of inquest report, P.W. 6-Kaushalya Devi, the Bhabhi of the informant, P.W.7- Usha Ram Mahato, brother of the deceased, P.W. 9- Lokesh Kumar Mahto, son of the deceased and P.W.10- Lalita Mehta, the informant, are the eye-witnesses of the occurrence. P.W.11- Krishna Kumar Mahto is the Investigating Officer. P.W. 8 Dr. Ajit Kumar Chaudhary conducted autopsy on the dead body of Maheshwar Mahto on 10.10.2002 and found the following injuries:- (i) Incised wound 13 X 4 c.m.X cavity deep on left fronto temporal region of the head situated antero posteriorly cutting the underlying bone and brain matter. (ii) 11 X 3 c.m. X bone deep on the left temporal occipital region of head cutting underlying front and brain matter. (iii) 5 X 1 c.m. X soft tissue on the left pinna cutting the left pinna over the left lateral neck 7 c.m. long. (iv) 6 X 1 c.m. X bone deep over frontal region of head middle part situated austere posteriorly cutting the underlying bone partially. (v) Linear cut 5 c.m. long on the top of right shoulder. (iii) 5 X 1 c.m. X soft tissue on the left pinna cutting the left pinna over the left lateral neck 7 c.m. long. (iv) 6 X 1 c.m. X bone deep over frontal region of head middle part situated austere posteriorly cutting the underlying bone partially. (v) Linear cut 5 c.m. long on the top of right shoulder. There was presence of blood and blood clot in the cramnial cavity. (vi) 4 X 2 c.m. X bone deep lacerated wound on the left thigh lateral side on the lower joint with fracture of left temur bone lower part. The postmortem report was marked as Ext.-3. The doctor found all the above injuries as ante-mortem. The incised wounds, in the opinion of the doctor, were caused by hard and blunt substance and injury nos. (i), (ii) and (iv) were found to be sufficient to cause death as they were grievous in nature. The defence had also examined one witness Ganesh Mahto. The statements of three accused persons were recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. wherein the appellants and another accused Shanti Devi completely denied the allegation and claimed to be innocent. The trial court on consideration of the evidence of P.Ws. 6, 7, 9 and 10 and the materials on record, recorded the finding of the guilt of the two appellants and convicted and sentenced them as stated above. However, the trial court acquitted Shanti Devi of the charge levelled against her. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants assailing the impugned judgment contended that the trial court erred in placing reliance on the evidence of the witness P.Ws. 6, 7, 9 and 10, who are highly interested and are inimical against the appellants. Learned counsel further submitted that the evidence of all the above witnesses were full of infirmities and contradictions and were not fit to be relied upon. It was also seriously contended that there are many significant improvements made by the above witnesses and it is highly improbable that though the above witnesses saw the appellants assaulting the deceased but did not even try to protect or save the deceased. Learned counsel further relying upon a judgment reported in 2015(1) East Cr.Cases 321 (S.C.) [Dilip Kumar Mondal & Another. Vs. Learned counsel further relying upon a judgment reported in 2015(1) East Cr.Cases 321 (S.C.) [Dilip Kumar Mondal & Another. Vs. State of West Bengal] submitted that from the evidence of the eye witnesses, it transpires that as there was no premeditation, due to sudden provocation quarrel took place and the appellants, as it is evident from the prosecution witnesses, inflicted the injuries. Hence, as the act of the appellant comes within the purview of exception-4 of Section 300 I.P.C., the Court below should have convicted the appellants either in part I or II of Section 304 I.P.C. 5. Resisting the contentions referred above advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has strenuously urged that though there is consistent and corroborative evidence of as many as four ocular witnesses only the evidence of the informant (P.W.10) considered together with the contents of the first information report and medical evidence is sufficient for basing conviction of the appellants. It was also contended that the fardbeyan was lodged immediately after the occurrence and, therefore, the probability of any false implication does not arise. 6. Now adverting to the ocular evidences, it is to be noticed that the informant-P.W.10 supporting the prosecution case in its entirety has stated that while on the day of the occurrence after hearing the sound, she rushed to the field from her house and saw some hot discussions between Shanti Devi, the mother of Fulendra Mahto @ Tika and her husband but she did not pay heed to their discussion and went to fetch water in a bucket but she again heard the sound of quarrel and also heard the voice of her husband and found that the appellant Tika @ Fulendra was inflicting injuries on her husband with Balua on his head, ear and leg and Sanjay also inflicted injuries with spade on his head, ear and leg. Shanti Devi was having one Lathi in her hand and was exhorting the appellants to finish the husband of this witness. After receiving injuries, her husband fell down near the ridge of the field and when this witness reached near the place of occurrence, the appellants and another accused fled away. The witness found several injuries on the body of her husband and even he was not in a position to speak. After receiving injuries, her husband fell down near the ridge of the field and when this witness reached near the place of occurrence, the appellants and another accused fled away. The witness found several injuries on the body of her husband and even he was not in a position to speak. Meanwhile her Gotni Kaushalya Devi, her Dewar Usha Ram Mahto and another Bhaisur Lahru Mahto came there but by that time, Maheshwar Mahto, the husband of this witness, had succumbed to the injures. Learned counsel at this juncture submitted that though in the fardbeyan, the informant had only stated that Sanjay Mahto had assaulted her husband with a spade and Fulendra Mahto had inflicted injuries with Balua on her husband but in her evidence in Court, the witness has made some improvements by specifically describing that the accused Sanjay Mahto and Fulendra Mahto had inflicted injuries with Spade and Balua on head, ear and leg of the deceased. The said improvements as pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants are not so vital to cast doubt on her testimony. It is well settled that the first information report is not an encyclopedia containing each and every description. 7. The evidences of other eye-witnesses P.W.6, P.W.7 and P.W. 9 are identical to that of the informant-P.W.10, which was corroborated in all material particulars by them. P.W. 6- Kaushalya Devi has stated that at about 6.00 – 6.30 a.m., she was going to pluck vegetables from her Bari (Garden) and when reached near Damari More, heard the noise of Tika Mahto, Sanjay and Shanti Devi and she stopped there. The place from where the noise was coming was clearly visible fromwhere she was standing and she saw that Sanjay having spade in his hand and Tika Mahto having Balua were assaulting her Dewar Maheshwar Mahato, the deceased, on his head, ear and leg and because of injury on head, the brain matters had come out. The witness has further confirmed that her husband Usha Ram Mahto, her Gotni Latita Devi and several other persons were there. However, in her cross-examination, she has denied to know the number of injuries the accused persons had inflicted on the deceased. The witness has further confirmed that her husband Usha Ram Mahto, her Gotni Latita Devi and several other persons were there. However, in her cross-examination, she has denied to know the number of injuries the accused persons had inflicted on the deceased. P.W. 7 Usha Ram Mahto, the husband of P.W.6, confirmed his presence near the place of occurrence by saying that at about 6:30 a.m., he was going on call of nature and when reached near the land of his mother at Sonahatu road, saw that some hot discussion was going on between Shanti Devi and the deceased and without giving heed to their discussion, he proceeded and after obeying the call of nature when he was coming back, he saw Tika Mahto and Sanjay Mahto assaulting the deceased with Balua and spade. This witness while giving details of assault has further confirmed that Sanjay and Tika had inflicted injuries on left side of the scalp and on leg and after receiving injuries, the deceased fell down and died. This witness has further confirmed that the brain matters had come out of the head and Lalita Devi, his wife Kaushalya Devi and son of the deceased Lokesh were near the place of occurrence. However, the witness during cross-examination has said that when he reached near the place of occurrence, by that time, the appellants had fled away. The witness while admitting the enmity between his family and the family of the appellants has stated that the present case was filed before the disposal of the case in which this witness has been convicted and has also confirmed the close relationship between the appellants and his family. P.W. 9 Lokesh Kumar Mahto, son of the deceased, was minor on the day of occurrence and in February, 2005 when his deposition was recorded in Court, his age was assessed as 12 years only. This witness has testified that in the morning, when he woke up, he heard the cry of her mother and she was telling that his father has been killed. The witness has further confirmed that he is a witness of the assault of his father by saying that Tika had assaulted his father with Balua on his head and ear and Sanjay had assaulted his father with spade and thereafter fled away. The witness has further confirmed that he is a witness of the assault of his father by saying that Tika had assaulted his father with Balua on his head and ear and Sanjay had assaulted his father with spade and thereafter fled away. Apparently, the incident took place in early morning at about 6:30 a.m. and the incident could have well been seen from the distance as stated by some of the witnesses. 8. P.W.11, the I.O. of the case, has testified that after hearing a rumour that one person has been killed in Dumri village near Sonahatu road after entering the same in Station Diary No. 280 dated 10.10.2002, he along with police personnel came to the place of occurrence, which is in village Demari, and found a dead body lying there. After enquiry from village Pipal, he recorded the fardbeyan of Lalita Mehta @ Baby, the widow of the deceased, and after preparing the inquest report (Panchnama), sent the dead body to RIMS, Ranchi for postmortem. The Investigating Officer has given the description of the place of occurrence and after recording the evidence of witnesses collected the blood smeared with soil from the place of occurrence and prepared the seizure list (Ext.-7) but the seized soil was never sent for forensic examination. During cross-examination, the witness has further confirmed that he had not received any information from any family members of the deceased rather he heard rumour and thereafter came to the place of occurrence. The witness has further confirmed that the house of the informant was situated almost 150 yards away from the place of occurrence. 9. The ocular evidence discussed above is quite consistent and corroborative. In spite of elaborate cross-examination, nothing fragile in their evidences has surfaced. Their evidences are cogent, truthful and trustworthy. 10. Here, we would like to take notice of the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that P.W.10- the informant in her evidence has stated that after receiving injuries when her husband died, she along with other persons including her Bhaisur went to Bundu Police Station and narrated the entire incidence on the basis of which, fardbeyan was recorded and her signature was obtained but from perusal of the F.I.R., it would appear that the fardbeyan of the informant Lalita Devi was recorded near her house in her own village Tau. Apparently, the incidence took place at about 06:30 a.m. and from the evidence of P.W.11, the I.O., it appears that after hearing rumour that one person has been killed at Sonahatu road near Dumri village, he after making entry in the police station diary rushed to the village Dumri along with police force where he found the dead body and thereafter he recorded the fardbeyan of the informant Lalita Devi at 7.00 a.m. and prepared the inquest report and sent the dead body for postmortem. So, the variance in the testimony of the informant during court and in fardbeyan is not vital in nature because the fardbeyan was recorded within half an hour of the occurrence. It was merely a colloquial expression how one reacts in a given situation. Since the fardbeyan was recorded within half an hour of the occurrence, there was no opportunity to the prosecution to develop any story. In the formal F.I.R., the distance between the place of occurrence and the police station has been shown as 2 K.Ms. It was not possible for the informant and other person to go to the police station and then come back to the place of occurrence within such a small span of time and there is no reason and occasion to disbelieve the place and time of recording fardbeyan given by the I.O. 11. From the evidence of the Investigating Officer P.W.11, it would transpire that certain omissions and inconsistencies did crop up in the evidence of the eye-witnesses but they are not at all material and vital adversely affecting the chore of edifice of the prosecution case as stated above. Some minor variations and omissions are bound to occur in the evidence of natural and truthful witnesses. It is true that all the eye-witnesses are relatives and interested but at the same time inimical to the appellants in as much as the parties had been on litigating terms on account of land dispute between them but on that account alone, their evidences cannot be rejected. It is a settled view that the evidence of relatives and interested witnesses cannot be discarded outright and conviction can be based on their evidences even without corroboration by independent witnesses provided their evidences are consistent and corroborative free from inherent taint and infirmity and the same is wholly reliable. The evidences of eye-witnesses are fully corroborated by the medical evidence. The evidences of eye-witnesses are fully corroborated by the medical evidence. Similar view was taken in the case of State of Rajsthan Vs. Hanuman reported in [ (2001) 1 SCC 337 ]. 12. So far as the submission of the learned counsel that the occurrence took place due to sudden provocation and as such, the court below wrongly convicted the appellants under Section 302/34 of Indian Penal Code rather the appellants should have been convicted either in Part-I or Part-II of Section 304 of I.P.C., is concerned, it is clearly evident from the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses that there was previous enmity between the parties and without any provocation and in furtherance of common intention, the appellants, who were armed with spade and Balua, inflicted injuries on the vital part of the body resulting in the instantaneous death of the deceased. In the judgment Dilip Kumar Mondal and another Vs. State of West Bengal (supra) cited by the learned counsel for the appellant, there was sudden provocation when the bullock cart of the deceased entered into the field of accused persons resulting in wordly altercation between the parties and accused persons inflicted injuries. In the case in hand, the appellants were forcibly ploughing the land of the deceased’s family and when protested, they inflicted injuries. Hence, the facts of the case of that judgment are completely different from the facts of the present case. 13. We are of the opinion that the entire contention put forward on behalf of the appellants to probablise their innocence and to render the prosecution case doubtful is devoid of any merit and force and the same must be rejected outright. 14. In view of the cogent, credible and trustworthy evidence of P.Ws. 6, 7, 9 and 10 about overt acts and role of both the appellants, Section 34 IPC has been rightly applied by the trial court. 15. In view of what has been discussed and observed above, conviction and sentence of the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 of Code is maintained. 16. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. It would appear from the record that one of the appellant Fulendra Mahto @ Tika Mahato is behind the bar. He shall serve out the remainder of sentence. 16. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. It would appear from the record that one of the appellant Fulendra Mahto @ Tika Mahato is behind the bar. He shall serve out the remainder of sentence. The other appellant Sanjay Mahato is on bail, his bail bond is, hereby, cancelled with a direction to him to surrender in court below within a fortnight from the date of this judgment for serving out the sentence awarded to him failing which, the court below shall take coercive step for procuring his surrender/arrest.