JUDGMENT : Barman, J. - This Criminal Appeal,-from an order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Puri, convicting the Appellant No. 1 Hari Karan u/s 302 and,324 Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for life and the Appellant No. 2 Baishnab Barik. u/s 323 Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for four months, in the circumstances hereinafter stated-arises opt of a village incident originating from children's quarrel, over angling for fish in a tank, which spread to the women folk and then to the men folk ultimately leading to assaults which resulted in the death of the deceased one Dama Badanta and injuries on P.W. 2 Banambar Das. 2. The facts shortly stated are these: On November 29, 1960 sometime towards evening, P.W. 5's daughter Mani was angling for fish in the local tank at village Budhal. Phula, daughter of one Kapila Sahu (one of the persons charged but acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge) snatched away the angling rod from Mani who thereupon reported the same to her mother P.W. 5 Hara Dei. Then Hara Dei expressed her protest to Phula's mother Tara Dei who, with her daughter, was at that time passing by the Danda. There then followed abuses. By that time Hara Dei's brother P.W. 3 Dhadi Ojha and her mother P.W. 4 Paluni Bewa had returned from the field after day's work. All this was happening in front of (Danda) the home of P.W. 3 Dhadi Ojha which was facing the house of the accused Appellant Hari Karan-lane intervening between the two houses-as appears from the spot map. Accused Kulamani had a shop in front of P.W. 3 Dhadi Ojha's house where this quarrel was going on. In the shop there were some village men-folk including the accused Appellants Hari Karan and Baishnab Barik. During the incident Hari Karan appears to have taken the leading part. In fact, at his instance P.W. 4 Palui Bewa was dragged out of the house and given first blow; P.W. 3 Dhadi Ojha and his sister P.W. 5 Hara Dei were also given first blows and slaps. In the meantime P.Ws.1 and 2 had also come to the scene of occurrence and taken the side of P.Ws. 3, 4 and 5. In the meantime P.Ws.1 and 2 had also come to the scene of occurrence and taken the side of P.Ws. 3, 4 and 5. It appears that the intervention of P.Ws.1 and 2 was of no avail and in fact P.W.2 Banambar Das was assaulted by the accused Appellant Hari Karan with a knife and by accused Appellant Baishnab Barik with an Isa M.O.I. causing bleeding injury on the head. 3. The matter did not rest there. While the quarrel was still on, the deceased Dama Bedanta was passing that way. By that time it was about 7 p.m. in the night. Dama Bedanta also intervened and apparently wanted to settle the quarrel. The accused-party however resented this intervention by the deceased Dama Bedanta, in fact so much so that the accused Appellant Hari Karan assaulted Dama Bedanta with a knife at to places., left to clavicle,and left lower side of the ribs on the back with the result that Dama Bedanta fell down on the lane on the Danda bleeding profusely. 4. Later on, as the evidence shows, Dama Bedanta was carried by four of the accused-party to the north and taken out from the lane and placed on the side of the village road to the neighbouring village Sanabhaichuan as shown in the spot map. The spot where the body was subsequently removed appears to be close to the Bari side of the accused Appellant Hari Karan's house. Dama Bedanta was later carried to Bhingarpur Dispensary but by the time he was brought to the Hospital, Dama Bedanta had expired. At about 9 p.m. the same night the First Information Report was lodged by P.W. 1. Natabar Das. The police took up the investigation and thereafter seven persons including the accused Appellants Hari Karan and Baishna Brik herein were charged and sent up for trial under various charges under Sections 302, 324, 149/302, 147 and 323 Indian Penal Code. The learned Sessions Judge had acquitted five accused persons and convicted rang. Sentenced the accused Appellants as aforesaid. 5. The police took up the investigation and thereafter seven persons including the accused Appellants Hari Karan and Baishna Brik herein were charged and sent up for trial under various charges under Sections 302, 324, 149/302, 147 and 323 Indian Penal Code. The learned Sessions Judge had acquitted five accused persons and convicted rang. Sentenced the accused Appellants as aforesaid. 5. In defence the accused persons, including the accused Appellants-while completely denying their having participated in the incident which resulted in the death of the deceased and the alleged injuries on P.W. 2 Banambar Das, submitted that in view of the party faction in the village the accused persons were falsely implicated and roped in at the instance of the prosecution party including the different prosecution witnesses who gave evidence in the case. That part, it was also stated, on behalf of the accused persons, that it was the prosecution party who created trouble, in that some members of the prosecution party had entered the house of the accused Appellant Hari Karan, broken the door-leaves of his house and assaulted the accused persons, and that in fact on those allegations a counter case was filed and accordingly a First Information Report was lodged by the accused party at 8 p.m., that is to say, an hour before the First Information Report lodged by P.W. 1 in connection with the incident resulting n the death of Dama Bedanta and injuries on P.W. 2 Banambar Das as aforesaid. The learned Sessions Judge,-while acquitting the five accused persons as aforesaid convicted and sentenced the remaining two accused Appellants herein mainly on the direct evidence of five eye-witnesses to the incident, namely, P.Ws. 1 to 5. The learned Sessions Judge appears to have eliminated the immaterial and irrelevant aspects of the case from the main point for consideration before him, namely, who, if say, among the seven accused persons had actually caused injuries on P.W. 2 Banambar Das and assaulted Dama Bedanta, which ultimately resulted in the death of Dama Bedanta. It appears that in the ultimate analysis of the evidence, the learned Sessions Judge found that the prosecution had succeeded in proving the case as against the two accused Appellants while with regard to the remaining five others the prosecution failed. It appears that in the ultimate analysis of the evidence, the learned Sessions Judge found that the prosecution had succeeded in proving the case as against the two accused Appellants while with regard to the remaining five others the prosecution failed. In the present appeal, the defence's main line of attack on the learned Sessions Judge's judgment is generally based on the alleged partisan character of the prosecution witnesses in view of the alleged party faction in the village, alleged suppression of material facts by the prosecution and also other points as hereinafter discussed. 6. As regards the alleged partisan character of the prosecution witnesses, the settled view of this Court if that once it is established that the eye-witnesses belong to the hostile faction and it is also clear that they are suppressing the material portion of the occurrence, (sic) is difficult to accept their evidence as to how exactly the incident took place; doubtless, if a consistent story had been put forward it may be possible for a court of justice even to accept the testimony of partisan witnesses, especially where the village is divided into two factions and disinterested persons may not be available. In the present case, the evidence of P.W. 1 Natabar Das is that prior to the occurrence there was no party faction in the village. So also his bother P.W. 2 Banam bar Das, who was also a victim of assaults by the accused Appellant No. 1 Hari Karan and the accused Appellant No. 2 Baishnab Barik, said that he had no previous enmity with any of the accused persons. Indeed, evidence disclosed only various litigations-both civil and criminal-among the village folk which is not an unusual feature of village life. That by itself is no evidence of the existence of a party faction in the village. That apart assuming there is such a party faction in the village in the present case, even so, if it is found that the eye-witnesses P.Ws. 1 to 5 had put forward a consistent story of the incident, the court is justified in accepting the testimony of such witnesses, particularly if the village in fact is divided into two factions, and disinterested persons may not be available . Therefore, in either view, the evidence of the eye-witnesses P.Ws. 1 to 5 can not be discarded. 7. 1 to 5 had put forward a consistent story of the incident, the court is justified in accepting the testimony of such witnesses, particularly if the village in fact is divided into two factions, and disinterested persons may not be available . Therefore, in either view, the evidence of the eye-witnesses P.Ws. 1 to 5 can not be discarded. 7. This leads us to the consideration of the evidence of the eye-witnesses on merits. P.W. 1 Natabar Das and P.W. 2 Banambar Das who in one of the victims in the incident itself are brothers. P.Ws. 3, 4 and 5 are members of the same family, P.Ws. 3 and 5 being the son and daughter respectively of P.Ws. 4. The girl Mani who was angling for fish in the tank the genesis of the trouble in this case-was the grand-daughter of P.Ws. 4 and daughter of P.W. 5. The entire story of the incident at different stages was spoken to by the eye-witnesses as they appeared on the scene and saw what actually happened. In the line of sequence the first witness was P.W. 5 Hara Dei, Mani's mother to whom Mani had reported that Phula, the daughter of Kapila one of the accused persons, had snatched away the fishing rod from her and assaulted her. P.W. 5 then expressed her resentment to phula's mother Tara and Phula, who were then passing by the Danda. Then there was exchange of hot words between the two mothers. It was at that stage that P.W. 4 Paluni Bewa and P.W. 3 Dhadi Ojha returned home from the field. In the sequence of event P.Ws. 3 and 4 are the next witnesses; they corroborated the other eye-witnesses. P.Ws. 3 and 4 also joined the quarrel. P.W. 4 was given first blow. P.Ws. 3 and 5 were also given blows and slaps. It was at this stage that P.W. 1 Natabar Das appeared on the scene, while passing that way he found that the accused persons were assaulting P.Ws. 3, 4 and 5. This witness P.W. 1 Natabar Das spoke exactly what had happened in the incident as fully discussed by the learned Session Judge. In further sequence of what followed during the incident. P.W. 2 Banambar Das then appeared on the scene of occurrence after hearing some golmal. He saw the accused persons assaulting P.Ws.3, 4 and 5 at Danda of P.Ws. This witness P.W. 1 Natabar Das spoke exactly what had happened in the incident as fully discussed by the learned Session Judge. In further sequence of what followed during the incident. P.W. 2 Banambar Das then appeared on the scene of occurrence after hearing some golmal. He saw the accused persons assaulting P.Ws.3, 4 and 5 at Danda of P.Ws. 3's house. P.W. 2. remonstrated with the accused and said that he had got lease of the tank, and supported the girl Mani having angled for fish in the tank as all children are angling there. It was at this stage that the accused Appellant Baishnab Barik gave P.W. 2 a blow with a bamboo Isa (Ext. 1) causing bleeding injury on P.W. 2's head. Then the accused-Appellant Hari Karan, with a pointed knife looking thing, gave a thrust on the back of P.W. 2 who sat down on the ground. All the eye-witness said that it was at that stage that the deceased victim Dama Bedanta came to the scene of occurrence while passing by that way; that the deceased Dama Bedanta having protested he was pushed and taken towards the Danda of the accused Hari Karan. There, Hari Karan went up to the deceased Dama Bedanta and gave a thrust with a pointed knife looking thing, on the left clavicle of Dama Brdanta; that when Dana Bedanta cried aloud keeping the injury passed, the accused Appellant Hari Karan gave him another similar Trust on the left side ribs towards the back side; Dama Bedanta then fell down there on the ground. Thereafter four accused persons carried him from the Danda to the road side and Dama Bedanta died before he was brought to the Hospital as aforesaid. Thus all the eye-witnesses substantially corroborate the prosecution story by reference to stages of the incident in sequence, as it took place that fatal evening of November 29, 1960 all giving direct evidence that the accused Appellant Hari Karan assaulted P.W. 2 and murdered Dama Bedanta and that the accused Appellant Baishnab Barik assaulted P.W. 2 causing him bleeding injuries. 8. Apart from the five eye-witnesses, another witness of importance is P.W. 6 Kina Sahu who is a post-occurrence witness. 8. Apart from the five eye-witnesses, another witness of importance is P.W. 6 Kina Sahu who is a post-occurrence witness. P.W. 6 had gone to ease himself in the evening of the day of incident and on hearing a hulla from Budhul bustee that Hari Karan had killed Dama, he along with one Bansi Bedanta, who was also there, proceeded towards the bustee and found Dama lying on the rasta close to Hari Karan's Bari, where he had been removed from the Danda of Hari Karan's house by four of the accused persons as stated by P.W. 5 Hara Dei. The witness P.W. 6 Kina Sahu and his companion then lifted the body of Dama and tried to carry the same towards their village. At that stage the accused Hari Karan came from behind and caused bleeding injury with a thrust on his (P.W. 6's) back. Dama was ultimately carried up to the extremity of their village and then they went home. Later on Dama died, before he was brought to the Hospital. 9. It is evident from the testimony of these witnesses that the accused Appellants are directly involved in the crime. 10. The defence, however, strongly commented on the non-production of the knife with which assaults are said to have been made by the accused Appellant Hari Karan on the two victims as aforesaid. The defence point is that if P.W. 2 Banambar Das and snatched away the knife from the hand of Hari Karan during the occurrence then the knife would have been available to the prosecution and produced at the trial. The explanation for such nonproduction rightly is that P.W. 2 Banambar Das himself said that he did not snatch away the knife from the hand of Hari Karan during the occurrence and that the knife was not with him and nobody took it away from him. The confusion with regard to the knife has been created by the evidence of the doctor P.W. 9 who said that he had stated before the police that the injured P.W. 2 Banambar Das had expressed before him (doctor) that he (P.W. 2) was stabbed by Hari Karan with a Chhura and that he (P.W. 2) had snatched away the Chhura from the hands of Hari Karan and kept it with him (P.W. 2). The investigating officer P.W. 12, who had recorded the statement during the investigation said that P.W. 2 had stated before him (I.O.) that he (P.W. 2) snatched the Chhura from the hands of Hari Karan; he did not say that P.W. 2 kept the Chhura with him. In the face of the positive evidence of P.W. 2 Banambar Das that the knife was not with him as aforesaid, there is no substance in the defence comment on the alleged nonproduction of the knife. There is no question of drawing any adverse inference. 11. With regard to the place of murder a cloud was sought to be thrown on the prosecution case. The defence case is that the prosecution did not send any blood stains from the Danda side of Hari Karan's house where the murder is said to have taken place, thereby suggesting that the murder could not have taken place on the Danda side of the accused Appellant Hari Karan's house where the entire occurrence took place. In support of this defence contention it is pointed out that blood was found in different other places, namely, inside Hari Karan's house; the defence also relied on the position that Dama Bedanta was found lying on the road side, that is to say, close to Bari side of Hari Karan's house. This aspect was amply clarified by the prosecution by reference to the evidence of the eye-witnesses. P.W. 1 Natabar Das said that the accused persons pushed Dama and thus took him towards the Danda of Hari Karan. P.W. 3 Dhadi Ojha said that the accused persons had pushed Dama Bedanta into a lane at a distance of about 8 cubits from the house of the witness; the accused Hari Karan gave a blow with a weapon; looking like a big knife with a shining and pointed blade on the left clavicle of Dama; Dama cried out and the accused gave a similar thrust on the left lower said back of Dama whereupon Dama fell down on the lane. Thereafter-as the witness P.W. 3 further makes it clear-four of the accused persons including the accused Appellant No. 2, carried Dama to the north, to the side of the road leading from the village Budhal to the neighboring village Sanabhaichuall. The location of the murder on the Danda was further corroborated by P.Ws. Thereafter-as the witness P.W. 3 further makes it clear-four of the accused persons including the accused Appellant No. 2, carried Dama to the north, to the side of the road leading from the village Budhal to the neighboring village Sanabhaichuall. The location of the murder on the Danda was further corroborated by P.Ws. 4 apt 5 who both said that the accused persons pushed Dama to a lane nearby. Then P.W. 6 saw Dama Bedanta lying on the road side after removal by the accused persons from the Danda of Hari Karan's house. The spot map Ext. 13 also throws light and clears up the attempted confusion sought to be created in this regard. Thus no adverse inference can be drawn from the fact that no blood stains from the Danda were sent for chemical examination, although it casts a reflection on the nature of investigation that the I.O. conducted in the case. I funny endorse the comments of the learned Sessions Judge in this context. 12. The defence filed a counter-case by lodging a First Information Report (Ext. 6) at 8 p.m. the same evening which was lodged by accused Kulamani alleging that the prosecution party men armed with Tadas gave Hari Karan and Kapila Sahu 4 or 6 Tada blows. It was subsequently sought to be made out that the prosecution party committed trespass and had broken the door leaves of Hari Karan's house and assaulted the accused persons. It is significant that in the counter F.I.R. Ext. C there is no mention of alleged house trespass nor of alleged breaking open of door-leaves; all these are clearly subsequent development and by way of embellishment of the defence case. The defence sought to rely on sprinkling of blood at different places inside Hari Karan's house. It is however unusual to have blood sprinkling all over, and apparently all this was stage managed in defence. Furthermore, it appears that the injuries found on the accused persons were self-inflicted or caused by friendly hands. The defence sought to rely on sprinkling of blood at different places inside Hari Karan's house. It is however unusual to have blood sprinkling all over, and apparently all this was stage managed in defence. Furthermore, it appears that the injuries found on the accused persons were self-inflicted or caused by friendly hands. The evidence of P.W. 3 Dhadi Ojha is that after four accused persons had carried Dama Bedanta to the road side and returned they told the accused Appellant Hari Karan that Dama Bedanta would die; thereupon the accused Hari Karan asked the other accused persons to cause injuries on his (Hari Karan's) person as also on their own person and to break the door-leaves of the house; then the accused persons caused injuries on their person there. The learned Sessions Judge rightly found that there is no evidence of any fracas or mutual fight between the parties, and even the accused persons did not come with such story either in their Section 342 statement or in their F.I.R. in the counter-case Ext. C. Thus there is no case which the prosecution has to explain how the injuries were caused to the accused Appellant Hari Karan and Kapila Sahu as noted in Exts. A and B, nor is there any ground for the defence comment that there is suppression of any material portion of the occurrence by the prosecution. The learned Sessions Judge rightly found that it would be unfair to hold that the prosecution is guilty of suppression of a part of the occurrence. 13. The learned Sessions Judge rightly commented that the police records prepared for the investigation of this case lost much of its value, and he rightly felt reluctant to place much value on the records prepared by the investigating officer either while examining the occurrence witnesses or even while drawing up the First Information Report as fully discussed in his judgment which I need not repeat. The perfunctory and haphazard manner, of investigation of the case by the I.O., the non-sending of the bloodstained earth seized from the Danda for chemical examination and long delay in submitting the charge-sheet more than five weeks after the close of the examination of the P.Ws. by the I.O. are staggering circumstances which rightly deserve the adverse comments made by the learned Sessions Judge. The direct testimony of the five eye-witnesses cannot be challenged. by the I.O. are staggering circumstances which rightly deserve the adverse comments made by the learned Sessions Judge. The direct testimony of the five eye-witnesses cannot be challenged. These witnesses were on the whole truth full witnesses who corroborate one another on all material questions despite some contradictions made earlier. 14. On the medical evidence the learned Sessions Judge rightly Commented on the perfunctory nature of the postmortem examination conducted by the doctor P.W.8. In the post-mortem report the doctor did not even note that the injuries were ante-mortem. The opinion of the doctor as to the weapon by which the injuries might have been caused, appears to have been based on mere speculation because the weaved (knife) was not in front of the doctor by reference to which the doctor could give his opinion. 15. Therefore, in the ultimate analysis of all aspects of the case, with particular reference to the direct evidence of the five eye-witnesses-which remains unchallenged-as discussed above, we find no reason to interfere with the findings of the learned Sessions Judge based on appreciation of the evidence of the eye-witnesses who deposed before him. The order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge on both the accused Appellants is therefore upheld. This criminal appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. Misra, J. 16. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed