witnesses is fully corroborated by the medical evidence of P.W.-11 Dr. Jai Krishna Prasad Sinha, who had found the wound of entry as well as the wound of exit and the connecting injuries inside the body which were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death. Indeed the fired portion of the bullet was also found at the place of occurrence, which had come out from the body of the deceased through the wound of exit, and has been produced in the Court below, which was marked Material Ext.-1. We find from the evidence on record that that the actions of the appellants Anand Kumar Ram and Sundar Ram in giving orders to kill the deceased and also at the time of fleeing away, threatening the witnesses by pistols, clearly show that they were also sharing the common intention to cause the death of the deceased. Though some witnesses have stated about the genesis of occurrence, being the altercation between the deceased and the accused persons in the previous night during an orchestra programme, which has not been supported by the informant P.W.-10 Bhikhari Ram in his evidence, though stated in his fardbeyan , in our considered view, is not all fatal to the prosecution case. There may be some concealments / exaggerations by the witnesses which are only normal in such cases, and are fit to be ignored. There is sufficient material on record to show that the pistol was fired upon the deceased by the accused Alok Kumar Ram upon the orders given by the other two accused, viz., Anand Kumar Ram and Sundar Ram, who also shared the common intention of causing the death of the deceased, and they also took active part in committing the offence. The submission of learned senior counsel that the F.I.R. bears the signature of the Chief Judicial Magistrate In-charge, made on 23.10.2004, which shows that the F.I.R. was ante-dated, is also not of much help to the learned defence counsel, as this circumstance has been discussed in the impugned Judgment and the Court below has found from the order-sheet of the Chief Judicial Magistrate’s Court that the F.I.R. reached the Chief Judicial Magistrate’s Court on 24.10.2004, and the date given by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, In-charge appeared to be a clerical mistake. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the considered view that the prosecution has been able to bring home the charge against all the three accused persons beyond all reasonable doubts and there is no illegality in the impugned Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence passed by the Trial Court below, worth interference by this Court.
