IMPORTANT POINT
Enmity, undoubtedly, is a double-edged weapon, it may be a motive for commission of crime; it may also be a motive for false implication. If, one edge of the weapon of enmity is blunt, it cannot be sharpened by the judicial process.

JUDGMENT

S. Saghir Ahmad, J.-Enmity, undoubtedly, is a double-edged weapon; it may be a motive for commission of crime; it may also be a motive for false implication. If, as in the instant case, one edge of the weapon of enmity is blunt, it cannot be sharpened by the judicial process. The weapon of enmity in the instant case, as well shall presently see, does not cut any ground for the commission of crime.

2. The appellants were charged and tried for offences under Section 302/34 IPC for having committed the murder of Shambhu Rai on June 2, 1984 at Dhamaun Chour, Village Garh Chak Seema, P.S. Patory, Distt. Samastipur. One of the appellants, Pradeep Rai was further charged under Section 109/302 IPC for having abetted the offence by giving directions to his co-appellants, Suresh Rai and Jitendra Prasad Rai to commit the murder of Shambhu Rai. The appellant Suresh Rai was further charged under Section 27 of the Arms Act for being in possession of a country-made pistol which he had fired twice at Shambhu Rai. The appellants were convicted for the aforesaid offences by judgment and order dated 15.4.1988, passed by the 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Samastipur, and were sentenced to life imprisonment for the offences under Section 302/34 IPC, but no separate sentence was passed under Section 109/302 IPC against Pradeep Rai or under Section 27 of the Arms Act against Suresh Rai. The appeal filed by the appellants in the High Court was dismissed on 5th of May, 1998. Hence, this appeal.

3. The prosecution story, as set out in the FIR, is that on 2nd of June, 1984 at about 5.30 A.M., Sheo Deo Rai (informant - P.W. 10) along with Shatrughan Rai (P.W. 16) and Ram Narain Rai (P.W. 17), accompanied by Shambhu Rai (deceased), had gone to Dhamaun Chour to scrape grass and while they had scraped the grass for about half on hour; there came the appellants, Suresh Rai (armed with a pistol), his father Pradeep Rai (armed with a dagger) and his cousin Jitendra Prasad Rai @ Jaintri Rai (armed with a dagger). Out of them, Pradeep Rai, who was the father of Suresh Rai, asked others, namely, Sheo Deo Rai (P.W. 10). Shatrughan Rai (P.W. 16) and Ram Narain Rai (P.W. 17) to move away as they had come to commit the murder of Shambhu Rai. These persons then moved a few paces away and then Suresh Rai, at the instigation of his father. Pradeep Rai, fired two shots at Shambhu Rai, who fell down and, thereafter, Pradeep Rai and Jitendra Prasad Rai gave Chhura (dagger) blows to the deceased who died on the spot. This story has been held to have been proved both by the trial Court and the High Court.

4. Mr. U.R. Lalit, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, has contended that the three witnesses, namely, Sheo Deo Rai (P.W. 10), Shatrughan Rai (P.W. 16) and Ram Narain Rai (P.W. 17), who were produced as eye-witnesses of the incident in question, were really not present at the spot and had not seen the occurrence, which had taken place some time in the preceding night and not in the morning at 5.30 A.M. as alleged by the prosecution. It is contended that there was bitter enmity between the appellants and their family members, on the one hand, and the deceased and his family members, on the other. Sheo Deo Rai (P.W. 10), Shatrughan Rai (P.W. 16) and Ram Narain Rai (P.W. 17) were close relations of the deceased besides being related inter se. Admittedly, they were on inimical terms with the appellants. Learned counsel for the appellants has also attacked the investigation which, according to him, was wholly tainted and taking advantage of the enmity with the family of the deceased, the police, at the instance of the complainant, had roped them in this case.

5. What is correct and what is not correct has to be decided on a consideration of overall circumstances of the case as emanating from the material brought on record, including the statement of witnesses recorded by the trial Court. The prosecution story, if analysed, indicates :

1.