to be an eye-witness to the assault on the deceased as also to the identity of one named assailant, Rita Pandey / appellant no.1 and two unknown, i.e., appellant nos. 2 & 3. It's a case based on direct evidence where motive is not of much consequence. Moreover, P.W.-1 is a third party, i.e., he is neither related to the deceased nor to the accused. The occurrence took place in broad-day-light, on the 1st floor of the house of P.W.-1 at about 12 noon. P.W.-1 promptly lodged the FIR against Rita Pandey and 2 unknown assailants at 12.30 PM with P.S. at a distance of 2 kms. A prompt FIR ordinarily rules out any manipulations. We do not agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that as P.W.-1 was not certain as to the mode and manner of the occurrence as also the identity of the assailants as only a mere information regarding murder in his house, was reported to the Head Moharrir of the police station for the reason that P.W.-1 not only proved the FIR (Ext. Ka-15) as regards the mode and manner of the occurrence as also the identity of assailants, but reiterated the same in Section 161 statement as also in his testimony.
