JUDGMENT B.D. Singh. J. This appeal has been filed by Basudeo Mahto, Raghunath Mahto, Biranchi Mahto and Debilal Mahto, who are brothers being sons of Sudan Mahto residents of village Balaunja Tola, Police Station Chas, district Dhanbad against the judgment and order of Sessions Judge convicting appellant no. 1 for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter to be referred to as the 'Code') and imposing a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life under the said Section for the murder of Lakhi Ram Mahto, and convicting appellant nos. 2 to 4 for the offence under Section 323 of the Code and imposing a sentence of one year's rigorous imprisonment on each of them for causing hurt. Appellant no. 2 was so convicted for causing hurt to Aghnu Mahto (P.W.9) whereas appellants 3 and 4 for causing hurt to Jainath Mahto (P.W.2). 2. The prosecution case, in brief is that on 11.8.66. at about 7 a.m., Upasi Mahatani (P.W.5) had gone to uproot paddy seedlings in the field known as Bara Khet and she was followed by her brothers Jainath Mahto (P.W. 2) and Padum Mahto (P.W.10) and their father Lakhi Mahton (deceased). Later Aghnu Mahto (P.W.9) went to the field with Raksha (plank for harrowing) and sikal (chain). Then they noticed that the western sub-plot of their field bearing Plot No. 1370 (which they described as niche wala khet) was being ploughed by the appellants. Appellants 1, 2 and 3 each were holding a tangi in their hands, whereas appellant no. 4 was holding a lathi. Then P.W.9 went to the appellants and enquired as to why they were ploughing his land. At this appellant no. 2 assaulted P.W.9 with the back portion of the Tangi. Lakhi Ram (Mahto) also went there, and he was assaulted by appellant no. 1 with a Tangi on the neck. He fell down and died then and there. Jainath Mahto (P.W.2) also went there and he was assaulted by appellant no. 3 with the handle portion of the tangi and by appellant no. 4 with lathi. After assaulting these persons the appellants fled away with their ploughs and bullocks P.W.5 subsequently went to her mother Bhusani Mahatani (P.W.1), wife of the deceased, and informed her about the occurrence. After receiving the information P.W.1 also went to the place of occurrence. 3 with the handle portion of the tangi and by appellant no. 4 with lathi. After assaulting these persons the appellants fled away with their ploughs and bullocks P.W.5 subsequently went to her mother Bhusani Mahatani (P.W.1), wife of the deceased, and informed her about the occurrence. After receiving the information P.W.1 also went to the place of occurrence. They made an attempt to contact the Mukhia of the village, but he could not be found there. Information was also given to the Sarpanch but he did not pay heed. However, Subedar Dhoba (P.W.8), the Choukidar, reached there. The dead body of Lakhi Ram was placed on a bullock-cart of one Shyama Charan Tiwary and along with the Choukidar, Aghnu (P.W.9), Padum (P.W.10) and Jainath (P.W.2) went to Police Station Chas at about 3 P.M. where P.W.2 lodged first information report (Ext. 2) which was recorded by Ram Janam Singh (P.W.18) who having held the inquest over the dead body of Lakhi Ram, prepared the inquest report (Ext. 3) and sent the dead body along with the Choukidar (P.W.8) and Constable Ramdhyan Singh (P.W.3) to the hospital at Dhanbad for post-mortem examination. He also found injuries on P.Ws. 2 and 9. Therefore, he sent them to Chas Hospital for treatment. Later, on the same date he proceeded towards the place of occurrence. When he reached the neighbouring village at 7-30 P.M. he had to stop there as it started raining heavily. After the rain abated a little, he started for the place of occurrence and reached there at 8.30 P.M. He examined the prosecution witnesses. On 12.8.65 he arrested appellant no. 1, seized the ganji, which he was wearing, and which according to him, contained blood-like stains, in presence of witnesses and prepared a seizure list (Ext. 4/1). On completing the investigation, he submitted charge sheet on 23.3.67. After the usual enquiry under Chapter XVIII of the Criminal Procedure Code, the appellants were committed to the Court of Sessions, where as many as 19 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution to support its story. Although, the appellants have not examined any witness in defence, from the answer of their examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and from the suggestions to the prosecution witnesses, it seems, the appellants challenged the place genesis and the manner of the occurrence. Although, the appellants have not examined any witness in defence, from the answer of their examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and from the suggestions to the prosecution witnesses, it seems, the appellants challenged the place genesis and the manner of the occurrence. They further claimed title and possession over the field bearing plot no. 1370. Appellant no. 1 also denied the seizure of his ganji by the Sub-Inspector (P.W.18). However, considering the evidence on the record, the learned Sessions Judge relied on the prosecution story and convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned above. 3. Mr. J.N.P. Verma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, reiterating the defence which was advanced before the Sessions Judge, submitted that the learned Sessions Judge erred in convicting the appellants on the basis of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. According to him, the prosecution failed to establish the time, place and the manner of occurrence. However, he did not challenge the factum of the murder of Lakhi Ram Mahto or the injuries which P.W. 2 and 9 received. Therefore, I will not pause to consider the factum of the murder of Lakhi Ram Mahto and the injuries which P.Ws. 2 and 9 received, which fact stands amply corroborated from the evidence of the Investigating Officer (P.W.18) and that of Dr. Bhrigunath Singh (P.W.17) who held the post-mortem examination over the body of Lakhi Ram Mahto and that of Dr. R.N. Sharma (P.W.13) who examined the injuries of P.Ws. 2 and 9. 4. Therefore, the only point which falls for consideration is whether the appellants are responsible for committing the murder or for causing injuries on P.Ws. 2 and 9 at the place, time and in the manner alleged by the prosecution. In order to consider these, it will be necessary to examine minutely the evidence of the eye witnesses. 5. First of all, take up for consideration the evidence of P.W.2, who is one of the sons of the deceased and also the informant. He deposed that on a Thursday about 15 or 16 months prior to the date when he deposed, in the month of Sravana, at 7 a.m. they had gone to their field (Ooper wala khet men) (which is also known as Bara Khet) and which is west of the field of occurrence. He deposed that on a Thursday about 15 or 16 months prior to the date when he deposed, in the month of Sravana, at 7 a.m. they had gone to their field (Ooper wala khet men) (which is also known as Bara Khet) and which is west of the field of occurrence. First of all his sister (P.W.5) went to the said field in order to uproot paddy seedlings. After her the deponent (P.W.2), his father (deceased) and his brother (P.W.10) went there, and saw that in the field (bearing plot no. 1370) where the occurrence took place, appellant no. 1 was standing, whereas appellant nos. 2, 3 and 4 were ploughing. Appellant nos. 1, 2 and 3 each had tangi in their hands, whereas appellant no. 4 had a lathi. His grandfather Aghnu (P.W.9) also went there with a raksha and sikal and placed those articles on the ridge of that field (ooper wale khet men). After that P.W.9 went to the other field (niche wala khet) (Plot no. 1370) where appellants were ploughing it, and he enquired from the appellants as to why they were plonghing his field. On this, appellant no. 2 assaulted P.W.9 with the back portion of the tangi. The deponent's father, namely, Lakhi Ram (deceased) also went to the field of occurrence, then appellant no. 1 dealt a tangi blow on his neck. He fell down. Subsequently, P.W.2 also, went there Appellant no. 3, with the handle of tangi as well as appellant no. 4 with lathi, assaulted P.W.2. After receiving the assault his father died there. After that, the appellants ran away with their ploughs and oxen. Later, his sister (P.W.5) went home. From there his mother (P.W.1) came to the spot. Then P.W.2 went to call the Mukhia and P.W.9 went to call the choukidar P.W. 2 could not meet the Mukhia. Then he went to Sarpanch who told him that he would come later. Then P.W. 2 returned to the spot and sent his brother (P.W.10) to call the Sarpanch but he did not come. However, P.W.9 returned with Subedar Dhoba (P.W.8). P.W.2 brought a bullock cart of Shyama Charan Tiwary and loaded on it the dead body of his father and got P.W.9 also seated in the cart and along with P.Ws. 8 and 10 went to Chas Police Station. However, P.W.9 returned with Subedar Dhoba (P.W.8). P.W.2 brought a bullock cart of Shyama Charan Tiwary and loaded on it the dead body of his father and got P.W.9 also seated in the cart and along with P.Ws. 8 and 10 went to Chas Police Station. There he related about the occurrence to the Officer Incharge of Police Station who took his statement on the basis of which first information report was drawn up by P.W.18. He further stated that after finding the entry in the first information report, on the basis of his statement as correct, he put his thumb impression on it. 6. Learned counsel vehemently criticised the evidence of this witness and submitted that he is not a truthful witness, and ought not to be relied upon. He referred to the first information report wherein, apart from the appellants, he had named Gauri Mahto, Guhi Ram Mahto and Sagarnand Pathak as the accused, who were not even charge-sheeted by the Investigating Officer. Therein P.W.2 mentioned that his ancestral field in village Balaunja was ploughed in the month of Asarh and also ten days later than Asarh. Subsequently, on 11.8.66 at about 7 or 7.30 a.m. he had gone to that field in order to plough again and to sow the paddy in it P.W.2 and his father Lakhi Ram (deceased) were scraping the ridge, His grandfather Aghnu (P.W.9) and his younger brother Padum (P.W.10) were ploughing the field. After sometime appellant nos. 1, 2 and 3 with Tangi and appellant no. 4 with lathi, went there, As soon as they reached, appellant no. 4 addressed P.W.9 and P.W.10 as "Salas" and required as to why they all were ploughing his (appellant no. 4’s) field. On this P.W.9 said that the field was his since his very birth, and therefore how could it be his (appellant no. 4's). The altercation was going on between these two, when Gauri Mahto (not charge sheeted), Guhi Ram Mahto (not charge-sheeted) reached there with lathi and Sagaranand Pathak (not charge sheeted) arrived empty handed there. Just on arrival Sagaranand Pathak ordered, assault (Maro Sale Ko). On this appellant no. 1 assaulted Lakhi Ram with tangi on his neck. Appellant no. 2 assaulted with Tangi on the neck of P.W.9. On receiving tangi blow Lakhi Ram fell down dead there. Just on arrival Sagaranand Pathak ordered, assault (Maro Sale Ko). On this appellant no. 1 assaulted Lakhi Ram with tangi on his neck. Appellant no. 2 assaulted with Tangi on the neck of P.W.9. On receiving tangi blow Lakhi Ram fell down dead there. P.W.9, however, turned his head due to which the tangi assault did not fall on his neck, but it fell on the side of the head near the ear. He also fell down there. The informant (P.W.2) was assaulted by appellant no. 4 with the handle of Tangi on both legs and on the front portion on left hand and also on left side chest. The rest of the accused, he further mentioned; were standing there in order to assault the informant and others effectevel1y, when they would try to run away. He also mentioned that his brother (P.W.10) was also there but none assaulted them. 7. Therefore, learned counsel submitted that his evidence in the court is completely contradicted from what he stated in the first information report. According to the first information report, the prosecution party was ploughing their field (plot no. 1370) whereas according to his evidence in court the appellants were ploughing the field bearing plot no. 1370 (niche wala khet) before the occurrence took place. The prosecution party then had gone to their Bara Khet (ooper wala khet) for uprooting paddy seedlings and for harrowing it. Learned counsel submitted that the field of Lala Mahto (P.W.11) intervenes between the two fields referred to above. He further drew our attention that P.W.2 finding that his first information report contradicted his evidence in the court, tried to meet the awkward situation by stating in his evidence that the statement which he made in the first information report that prosecution party was ploughing the disputed field (plot no. 1370) was not correct. As he had received injuries and his father was killed, by mistake he said so in the first information report. Learned counsel referred to his earlier evidence............ where he stated that after finding the statement made in the first information report as correct, he put his thumb impression. Further, he deposed that whatever he had stated to the Sub-Inspector was correct. Therefore, according to learned counsel P.W.2 was trying to explain the major discrepancies between the two statements made by him, in the first information report and in his evidence. Further, he deposed that whatever he had stated to the Sub-Inspector was correct. Therefore, according to learned counsel P.W.2 was trying to explain the major discrepancies between the two statements made by him, in the first information report and in his evidence. He also referred to his evidence in cross-examination, where he stated that on the date of occurrence, they had not gone to sow and plough the disputed field (plot no. 1370). He further stated that in the first information report he had not mentioned that they had gone to sow and plough the field at 7 or 7.30 a.m. He further deposed that he did not state therein, (F.I.R.) that they had gone there to mend the ridge and P.Ws. 9 and 10 were ploughing it. He had not stated therein that when they were ploughing all the four appellants went there with Tangi and Lathi. He also denied his statement made in the first information report that appellant no. 4 asked in abusive language as to why they were ploughing the field and on this P.W.9 said that the field belonged to him from his very birth and so how it could belong to appellant no. 4. He emphatically said that he did not say so in the first information report. He further denied to have said in the first information report that when altercation was going on between appellant no. 4 and P.W.9, accused Gauri, Guhi Ram Mahto and Sagaranand Pathak went there, and the latter ordered assault, whereupon appellant no. 1 assaulted Lakhi Ram with his tangi on his neck. Learned counsel submitted that with reference to the first information report, it is clear that these facts P.W.2 stated therein. Therefore, he was obviously lying when he stated that he did not say so in the first information report. P.W.2 further stated in cross-examination that from the front of the disputed field they (P.W.2 and others) had gone to the bigger field (ooper wala khet). At that time all the four appellants were ploughing the disputed field. But P.W.2 and others did not say anything to them. Before the occurrence of assault, they (appellants) had ploughed the field (plot no. 1370) for about one hour. Whereas for about one hour P.W.2 and others were also ploughing their bigger field. At that time all the four appellants were ploughing the disputed field. But P.W.2 and others did not say anything to them. Before the occurrence of assault, they (appellants) had ploughed the field (plot no. 1370) for about one hour. Whereas for about one hour P.W.2 and others were also ploughing their bigger field. Therefore, learned counsel submitted that the evidence of this witness is completely contradicted by his statement in the first information report. He further referred to Paragraph 9 of his deposition in cross-examination, where he stated that the appellants had four ploughs; three of them (appellants 2 to 4) were ploughing, whereas appellant no. 1 was standing quietly. Those who were ploughing the field were catching hold of the plough with one hand and paina (stick) with the other. He further stated that the assault was made not with paina, he had seen tangi in their hands; Learned counsel submitted that it is difficult to believe that this witness saw the occurrence of assault. It is physically impossible for the appellants to plough with one hand and to hold both tangi and paina in the other hand. In one hand they cannot keep both paina and tangi together and at the same time assault with the tangi as alleged by the prosecution. He further referred to his evidence in chief, where he stated that the disputed field was coming in possession of P.W.2 and others since long, whereas the appellants were never in possession over it. This very witness in cross-examination however stated that P.W.9 had executed a sale deed in respect of the disputed plot in the name of the appellants. He further stated that they had got the sale deed executed by fraud. He called it fraud, because at the time of execution of the sale deed full consideration money was not paid. He further stated that the demand for payment of full consideration was made on several occasions, but they did not pay the same and they were bent upon ploughing the disputed field by force. To the court question, this witness stated that the sale deed was for Rs. 900/- whereas they had paid only Rs. 400/- and since last year they (appellants) took possession of the disputed land. He further stated that appellant no. To the court question, this witness stated that the sale deed was for Rs. 900/- whereas they had paid only Rs. 400/- and since last year they (appellants) took possession of the disputed land. He further stated that appellant no. 1 was paying rent of the disputed land since 16 or 17 years, whereas P.W. 2 and others were not paying the rent. In the first information report he stated that Sudan Mahto (father of appellants), Guhi Ram Mahto and Sagaranand Pathak got a sale deed of the disputed land (plot no. 1370) executed by Parmanand Mahto, one of the co-sharers of P.W.2 but on the disputed land, before the date of occurrence, the appellants or Guhi Ram Mahto and others had not gone. Therefore, learned counsel submitted that reading his evidence and statement in the first information report, it is clear that on the date of occurrence the appellants were in possession over the disputed land. On the score also, according to him, the conviction of the appellants cannot be sustained. 8. From the above discussions, in my judgment P.W.2 failed to establish possession over the disputed field. His evidence that the appellants were ploughing the field bearing plot no. 1370, when P.W.9, Lakhi Ram and P.W.2 arrived there from Bara Khet (ooper wala khet) and were assaulted by the appellants, stands contradicted by his earliest statement in the first information report. It may be recalled that in the first information report he had stated that he had gone to plough and sow the field (plot no. 1370-niche wala khet). He and his father Lakhi Ram were scraping the ridge whereas P.Ws. 9 and 10 were ploughing the field, when the appellants came to the field and assaulted them. Further, his evidence in court regarding uprooting of paddy seedlings by P.W.5 and her going to call her mother (P.W.1) does not find place in the first information report. P.W.5 is not mentioned at all. She plays no part there. The importance of statement made in the first information report being the earliest information, cannot be minimised. It is the strongest weapon in the hand of the defence to test the veracity of its maker by contradicting his evidence in court. P.W.5 is not mentioned at all. She plays no part there. The importance of statement made in the first information report being the earliest information, cannot be minimised. It is the strongest weapon in the hand of the defence to test the veracity of its maker by contradicting his evidence in court. P.W.2, no doubt, attempted to explain the said contradiction by deposing that due to his injuries and due to the fact that his father was killed he was confused, and in that state of mind he made the said statement in the first information report. It is true that his father was killed, but the injuries which P.W.2 received were not such as to confuse him on this important aspect of the case. He has given a long statement in the first information report mentioning other details which indicate that he was not in a confused state of mind when he lodged the first information report. Even assuming that he was confused, in his evidence he was not satisfied with giving the above explanation. He went on denying falsely various statements which he had made in the first information report, which shows that he has no regard for truth. It seems that when he lodged the first information report he wanted to establish act of possession in the disputed field (plot no. 1370). Therefore, he introduced the story that P.Ws. 9 and 10 were ploughing the field and P.W.2 and his father Lakhi Ram were scraping the ridge when the appellants arrived there and assaulted them, but later on at the time of his deposition in court, he changed that part of the story as mentioned above. Even if the contradictory portion of his statement in the first information report is eliminated, his evidence regarding assault on P.Ws. 2, 9 and the deceased is not worthy of reliance. In his evidence, he stated that appellant no. 3 assaulted him with the handle portion of tangi whereas appellant no. 4 assaulted him with lathi, but in the first information report he does not speak about any assault by appellant no. 3. Regarding appellant no. 4 in the first information report he clearly mentioned that appellant no. 4 had assaulted him with the handle of the tangi on the front portion of his both legs. Reference may be made to the evidence of Dr. 3. Regarding appellant no. 4 in the first information report he clearly mentioned that appellant no. 4 had assaulted him with the handle of the tangi on the front portion of his both legs. Reference may be made to the evidence of Dr. R.N. Sharma (P.W.13) who examined the injuries on P.W.2. It will be useful to quote the injuries which he found on P.W.2:- 1. Swelling of both calf muscles 5” x ½” right side and 4” x ½” on the left side-simple in nature and could have been caused by hard and blunt substance such as lathi or bate of the tangi. Age within 24 hours. 2. One swelling 3” x ½” below left elbow. 3. One swelling 3” x ½” right side of back. 4. One swelling 3” x 1/16” on the left side of chest. According to the evidence of P.W. 2 in court, appellant no. 3 had assaulted him with the handle of the tangi whereas appellant no. 4 assaulted him with lathi. Therefore, injury no. 1 could have been caused either by appellant no. 3 or appellant no. 4. But it does not fit in with the statement of P.W.2 in the first information report, wherein he mentioned that only appellant no. 4 had assaulted him with the handle of the tangi on his two legs. Therefore, according to the first information report injury no. 1 was caused by appellant no. 4. It is difficult to attribute as to who caused the other three injuries on him, namely, injury nos. 2 to 4. According to the evidence of the doctor, all these injuries were simple in nature and could have been caused by a hard and blunt substance, such as lathi or bate of a tangi, excepting injury no. 4 which might have been caused by means of some sharp cutting weapon. That injury could have been caused by means of a split lathi. Neither the evidence of P.W.2 not his statement in the first information report indicates as to who caused the injury no. 4. In the evidence he is not clear as to how many assaults were given by appellant nos. 3 and 4 on P.W.2, nor is he clear as to on which portion of the body he received the injury. Neither the evidence of P.W.2 not his statement in the first information report indicates as to who caused the injury no. 4. In the evidence he is not clear as to how many assaults were given by appellant nos. 3 and 4 on P.W.2, nor is he clear as to on which portion of the body he received the injury. Generally it is well established that a injured witness is most competent witness to depose at least regarding his own injury. Considering his evidence and his statement in the first information report, in this case it seems exception to the said general principle shall have to be made. It appears that he had not seen the occurrence. Now turning to his evidence regarding assault on P.W.9, he stated that appellant no. 2 assaulted P.W.9 with the back portion of the tangi whereas in the first information report he stated that appellant no. 2 assaulted P.W.9 with tangi on his neck, but P.W. 9 turned his head. Therefore, the assault instead of falling on the neck, fell on the side of the head near his ear, i.e., on temple. Reference may be made to the evidence of P.W.13 who examined the injuries on P.W. 9. It will be useful to quote the injuries which the doctor found on him :- 1. One lacerated injury ½” x ¼” x ¼” on the right side of chest, simple in nature and could have been caused by means of a hard and blunt substance, e.g., back portion of the tangi. Age within 24 hours. 2. One diffused swelling 2¼” x 2¼” situated on the right side of chest. Simple in nature and could have been caused by means of hard and blunt substance such as back portion of a tangi. Age within 24 hours. From the evidence of P.W.2 given in the court and his statement made in the first information report it is difficult to attribute that these injuries were caused by appellant no. 2. Instead of finding the injury on the temple the doctor found it on the right side of the chest and according to the opinion of the doctor the same was caused by the back portion of a tangi. Neither in the first information report nor in his evidence P.W.2 stated that it was caused by back portion of the tangi. Instead of finding the injury on the temple the doctor found it on the right side of the chest and according to the opinion of the doctor the same was caused by the back portion of a tangi. Neither in the first information report nor in his evidence P.W.2 stated that it was caused by back portion of the tangi. Besides, he had mentioned only one assault and it is difficult to see how two injuries could have been caused by one assault. Therefore, from this also it appears that P.W.2 had not seen the occurrence as alleged by him. 9. Now I propose to consider his evidence regarding assault on his father Lakhi Ram. In the first information report he stated that appellant no. 1 assaulted Lakhi Ram with tangi on his neck and after receiving the tangi blow he fell down dead then and there. In evidence also he stated that appellant no. 1 assaulted Lakhi Ram with tangi on his neck and after receiving the assault he fell down dead. Of course, there is no discrepancy with regard to the assault on Lakhi Ram in the first information report as well as in his evidence in court. But that is not the end of the matter. Reference may be made to the evidence of Dr. Bhrigunath Singh (P.W.17) who held the postmortem examination over the body of the deceased. It will be relevant to quote the injuries which he found on the dead body:- 1. Incised wound oblique in nature from outer side of the neck left side going to the medical (Sic) side 6" x 3" x vertebral column cutting the muscles jugular vein (internal) common cartoid artery and vertebra (5th carvical) and blood clot on the spinal chord. 2. Diffused swelling on the left side of the temporal and frontal area junction. 3. Fracture of the temporal bone (squamous part). No doubt, injury no. 1 may be attributed to appellant no. 1, but it is difficult to see as to who caused the injury nos. 2 and 3. P.W.17 deposed that death, in his opinion, was caused by injury nos. 1 and 3 and shock and haemorrhage. Reliance was placed by Mr. Ramanand Sinha, who appeared on behalf of the State, on the evidence of P.W.17 wherein he stated that injury no. 2 and 3. P.W.17 deposed that death, in his opinion, was caused by injury nos. 1 and 3 and shock and haemorrhage. Reliance was placed by Mr. Ramanand Sinha, who appeared on behalf of the State, on the evidence of P.W.17 wherein he stated that injury no. 1 could have been caused by means of a sharp cutting instrument such as a tangi and injury nos. 2 and 3 by a hard and blunt substance such as fall on the ground. Injury no. 1 was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. But, in my opinion, this is of no avail to the prosecution as P.W.17 further deposed that all the injuries could not have been caused by the same blow. In cross examination he stated that ordinarily those injuries could have been caused by two violent blows of lathi or back portion of a tangi. He further mentioned that unless the fall was violent, injury nos. 2 and 3 could not have been caused. He added, however, that they could have been caused by the same fall or even by successive falls. In my opinion, injury nos. 2 and 3 could not have been caused on Lakhi Ram due to his fall, as admittedly the place of occurrence was a ploughed field. Besides, there is no evidence on the record to suggest that his fall was violent on hard substance. Therefore, the two injuries, namely, injury nos. 2 and 3, remain unexplained. It may further be noted that P.W.17 had held the post-mortem examination on 12-8-66 at 10.30 a.m. and he assessed the age of injuries to be within 24 hours. Therefore, it was argued on behalf of the prosecution that it nearly fits in with the time of the occurrence on 11-8-66. However, P.W.17 in cross-examination admitted that he had not mentioned the age of the injuries in his report. Therefore, in my opinion, much reliance cannot be placed on his evidence regarding age of the injuries. Besides, it is well established that it is difficult for a doctor to give the exact age of the injuries. Hence, we cannot fix the time of the occurrence on the basis of the opinion of the doctor. 10. On closer scrutiny we cannot fix even the place of occurrence on the evidence of P.W.2. Besides, it is well established that it is difficult for a doctor to give the exact age of the injuries. Hence, we cannot fix the time of the occurrence on the basis of the opinion of the doctor. 10. On closer scrutiny we cannot fix even the place of occurrence on the evidence of P.W.2. No doubt, he stated in his evidence that the assault on deceased Lakhi Ram and others took place in plot no. 1370, but since I have disbelieved him on material part of the prosecution story including the assault, it is not safe to rely on his evidence regarding the place of occurrence. The Investigating Officer (P.W.18) tried his best to locate blood at the place of occurrence but he could not discover. He also uncovered the portion of the earth in order to find out blood but he could not find blood. He further stated in cress-examination that he found footprints in the field which belonged to Lalu Mahto (P.W. 11). Even there he did not find any blood mark. No doubt, he found flesh like material on the alleged place of occurrence, i.e., plot no. 1370, but, in my opinion, that does not help the prosecution. The evidence of the two doctors referred to above does not indicate that due to assault on the deceased or on P.W. 2 or P.W. 9 any part of his flesh was torn off and fell on the ground. Neither there is a report of Chemical Examiner or Serologist to indicate that the flesh was of human origin. It is also true that before the Investigating Officer could reach the place of occurrence there was heavy rainfall and there was water 8” deep ever the land. In that view of the matter, he might not have found blood there, but in the circumstances of the case benefit has to be given to the accused. It may also be noticed that P.W.18 had seized ganji from the possession of appellant no. 1 or 12-8-66 and had sent the same to the Chemical Examiner in a sealed parcel through constable Ram Janam Pathak (P.W.16) as, according to him it contained blood-like stains. The Chemical Examiner's report has been marked as Ext. 9. The report clearly indicates - that no blood was detected on the ganji which was marked 'B' for identification by the Chemical Examiner. 11. The Chemical Examiner's report has been marked as Ext. 9. The report clearly indicates - that no blood was detected on the ganji which was marked 'B' for identification by the Chemical Examiner. 11. It may be that the occurrence took place somewhere else in the night. Therefore, P.W.2 was not able to identify the real assailants. P.W.2 had stated in cross-examination that he did not know whether his father (Lakhi Ram) was accused of the murder of Kusu which took place 16 or 17 years prior thereto. But later on in the cross-examination he stated that due to the murder of Kasu there are several enemies of his father. Therefore, in my view, it may be possible that due to the said enmity they might have been assaulted somewhere else by their enemy. After examining the evidence of P.W.2 from various aspects, I am of the view that it is not safe to rely on his evidence. 12. Now I turn to consider the evidence of Aghnu Mahto (P.W.9) who is grandfather of P.W. 2 and father of deceased Lakhi Ram. It may be recalled that he was also injured. In his evidence he did not support the version of P.W.2 in the first information report. He has attempted to narrate the prosecution story as it was done by P.W.2 in court. He stated that his grandson (P.W.2) had gone with plough at about 7 or 8 A.M. They were ploughing their Bara Khet which is north of the field where assault took place. Lakhi Ram was scraping the ridge with spade. Later on, he (P.W.9) went there with Raksha (plank for harrowing) and sikal (chain) and placed them there. He further stated that all the appellants were on the place of occurrence. Appellant no. 1 was standing there and other three appellants were ploughing the disputed field (plot no. 1370). P.W.9 then went to the said field and enquired why they were ploughing his field, On this, appellant no. 2 assaulted him with the back portion of the tangi on his temple (Kanpatti). On receiving the assault he fell down. Lakhi Ram also arrived there and was assaulted by appellant no. 1 with tangi, on which Lakhi Ram fell down P.W.2 then reached there running. Appellant no. 3 assaulted P.W.2 with the handle of tangi whereas appellant no. 4 assaulted him with lathi. The appellants then ran away. On receiving the assault he fell down. Lakhi Ram also arrived there and was assaulted by appellant no. 1 with tangi, on which Lakhi Ram fell down P.W.2 then reached there running. Appellant no. 3 assaulted P.W.2 with the handle of tangi whereas appellant no. 4 assaulted him with lathi. The appellants then ran away. Lakhi Ram died there. In cross examination he stated that all the four appellants were ploughing the field. It may be noticed that in the chief he had stated that appellant no. 1 was standing whereas only the other three appellants were ploughing the field. In cross examination he also stated that none of the appellants had paina in their hand. They were driving the oxen with the handle portion of the tangi. Further he mentions that only appellant no. 4 had lathi in his hand and the remaining three had handle of the tangi. It may be recalled that P.W.2 had clearly stated in his evidence that the appellants were ploughing the field with one hand and were holding both tangi and paina in their other hand. Therefore, P.W.9 contradicts the evidence of P.W.2 in this regard. Besides, the injuries which P.W.9 received, according to his evidence, do not find support from the evidence of the doctor (P.W.13) who examined his injuries. According to P.W.13, he had received two injuries on the chest which I have already quoted earlier. Similarly his evidence regarding the injuries on P.W.2 also does not find support from the evidence of P.W.13 who found as many as four injuries on P.W.2 on various parts of his body, a reference to which I have already made. Similarly his evidence regarding the assault on Lakhi Ram is not supported from the evidence of Dr. Bhrigunath Singh (P.W.17) who held post-mortem examination over the body of the deceased. P.W.17 had found on the deceased as many as three injuries which I have quoted earlier. Injury nos. 2 and 3 remained unexplained. Therefore, the same comment which was made in regard to P.W.2 is also applicable in the case of the evidence of P.W.9, namely, that he has not seen the occurrence. It may be recalled that all the eye witnesses are related and belong to the same family and being thus highly interested, their evidence has to be closely scrutinised by other corroborative evidence on the record. It may be recalled that all the eye witnesses are related and belong to the same family and being thus highly interested, their evidence has to be closely scrutinised by other corroborative evidence on the record. Tested in that light, the evidence of P.W.9 also is not worthy of reliance. As regards the possession over the disputed land, he stated in examination in chief that he had not sold the field where the occurrence took place, to appellant no. 1. He had sold some other field to him. In my opinion, this part of the evidence also, of this witness cannot be accepted. Reference may be made to paragraph 31 of the deposition of the Investigating Officer (P.W.18) who stated that P.Ws. 2 and 9 produced before him a certified copy of registered sale deed dated 11-9-50 executed by Aghnu in favour of Basu and Guni Ram. He further deposed that he found therefrom that Aghnu had sold plot no. 1370, area being 31 decimals. It appertained to Khata no. 98 in village Balaunja. Therefore, it is clear that P.W.9 was lying. Besides, he contradicts P.W.2 on this point whose evidence I have already referred, wherein he stated that the disputed field was sold, and only part of consideration money was due. Besides, he had stated that appellant no. 1 was paying rent for the disputed land for the last 16 or 17 years. In that view of the matter the evidence of P.W.9 also is not fit to be relied. 13. Now I propose to scrutinise the evidence of Padum Mahto (P.W.10) who is brother of P.W.2, both being sons of Lakhi Ram (deceased). According to the prosecution, he is also one of the eye witnesses to the occurrence, and is named in the first information report as well. He too in his evidence has given a go-by to the story prior to the occurrence, mentioned in the first information report. He also stated that at first they had gone to Bara khet for uprooting paddy seedlings and for the purpose of harrowing etc., whereas the appellants were ploughing the disputed field, namely, plot no. 1370. P.W. 9 went to the disputed field and forbade the appellants from ploughing, which led to the occurrence. He stated in his evidence that appellant no. 1 was standing there, whereas only appellants 2 to 4 were ploughing. 1370. P.W. 9 went to the disputed field and forbade the appellants from ploughing, which led to the occurrence. He stated in his evidence that appellant no. 1 was standing there, whereas only appellants 2 to 4 were ploughing. On being asked by P.W.9 not to plough the same, appellant no. 2 assaulted P.W.9 with back portion of the tangi. Lakhi Ram also arrived there from the Bara khet when Basu, appellant no. 1, dealt a tangi blow on his neck. Lakhi Ram fell down there. P.W.2 then reached there and was assaulted by appellants 4 and 3. The latter assaulted him with the handle of the tangi whereas the former with lathi. After the assault was over the appellants ran away with their ploughs and oxen. This witness could not stand the test of cross examination as he stated therein that whether Lakhi Ram had gone to the field of occurrence or not, he did not remember. He also stated that he could not say accurately as to how the assault took place. Therefore, it is clear that this witness also has not seen the occurrence. As regards the possession over the disputed field, he stated in cross examination that his grand-father (P.W.9) had sold the field to appellant no. 1 and Guhi 15 or 16 years prior thereto. He further stated that he did not know whether appellant no. 1 was in possession over the field since then. He also did not know whether P.W.2 and others were in possession over it. Thus, this witness also cannot be relied either on the point of occurrence or on the point of possession over the disputed field. 14. The remaining eye witness to be considered is Upasi Mahtani (P.W.5). She is sister of P.W.2 and daughter of Kakhi Ram (deceased). As mentioned earlier, no part is assigned to her in the first information report, nor she is mentioned therein. She stated in her evidence that she had gone to uproot the paddy seedlings in the Bara Khet. Later, P.Ws. 2 and 10 also went there. Subsequently, Lakhi Ram reached and lastly P.W.9 came there with raksha (plank for harrowing) and sikal (chain) and kept those implements on the ridge of Bara khet. According to her also, appellant no. 1 was standing there whereas the remaining appellants were ploughing the disputed field. P.W.9 enquired from appellant no. Later, P.Ws. 2 and 10 also went there. Subsequently, Lakhi Ram reached and lastly P.W.9 came there with raksha (plank for harrowing) and sikal (chain) and kept those implements on the ridge of Bara khet. According to her also, appellant no. 1 was standing there whereas the remaining appellants were ploughing the disputed field. P.W.9 enquired from appellant no. 2 as to why he was ploughing the field. On this, appellant no. 2 assaulted P.W.9 with back portion of the tangi. P.W.9 fell down. Lakhi Ram then came to the disputed field wherein appellant no. 1 dealt a tangi blow on his neck. He fell down there. Later when P.W.2 arrived there, appellant no. 3 assaulted him with the handle of tangi whereas appellant no. 4 assaulted him with lathi. Then she (P.W.5) went home and related about the occurrence to her mother Bhusani Mahtani (P.W.1), widow of the deceased P.W.1 then came to the field. On the point of possession P.W.5 deposed that the disputed field was always in their (P.W.2 find others') possession. In the year of the occurrence also in the month of Sravana they had ploughed the same. In cross examination, however, she stated that when Lakhi Ram had fallen down, she had gone home and she did not return to the field with her mother. From this statement it appears that on her own saying she had not seen assault on P.W.2. Further, in cross-examination she stated that P.W.9 on coming to the disputed field had not caught hold of the plough of one of the appellants. Lakhi Ram also had not caught hold of the plough of the other appellant which led to the assault. She emphatically stated that she had not stated all these in the committing court. But from her evidence in the committing court, which was tendered, it is clear that she stated there that P.W.9 had caught hold of plough of one of the appellants, whereas her father Lakhi Ram had caught hold of the plough of the other appellant, which led to the assault. Therefore, in the evidence before the Sessions Judge she was falsely denying this fact. Hence, in my opinion, the evidence of this witness also is not worthy of reliance. Besides, while dealing with the evidence of P.Ws. 13 and 17, the two medical witnesses, I have already held that the injuries which P.Ws. Therefore, in the evidence before the Sessions Judge she was falsely denying this fact. Hence, in my opinion, the evidence of this witness also is not worthy of reliance. Besides, while dealing with the evidence of P.Ws. 13 and 17, the two medical witnesses, I have already held that the injuries which P.Ws. 2, 9 and Lakhi Ram (the deceased) got on various parts of the body, do not fit in with the manner of assault as stated by the witnesses in the court. Therefore, it can safely be inferred that P.Ws. 10 and 5 also have not seen the occurrence. 15. Since I have disbelieved all the eye witnesses on the point of occurrence as well as on the point of possession, it is unnecessary to dialate upon the evidence of other prosecution witnesses led in this case. Suffice it to mention that Bhusani Mahtani (P.W.1) is not an eye witness to the occurrence. The prosecution allotted, to her only the role of a corroborative witness, who came to the scene after the occurrence was over. Since I have disbelieved the evidence of those whom she was corroborating, her evidence loses its importance altogether. On the point of possession she stated in her evidence that she did not know whether P.W.9 had executed any sale deed in favour of appellant no. 1. Therefore, her evidence is innocuous also on the point of possession. The other witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution are Kunja Hari (P.W.4), Churamani Mahto (P.W. 6), Madan Mahto (P.W.7), Subedar Dhoba (P.W.8), Lalu Mahto (P.W.11) and Jethu Mahto (P.W.12), who all have been declared hostile. It may be noted that they were not eye witnesses of the occurrence. P.W.4 stated that he had not gone to the place of occurrence although P.W.10 had gone to call him. Therefore, no importance can be attached to this witness P.W.6 deposing on the point of possession, stated that he did not know as to in whose possession the disputed field was. Hence, his evidence is also not material. P.W.7 stated that the disputed field previously belonged to P.W.9 but he sold the same to Guhi Mahto 16 years prior thereto. Since 4 years then, it was lying parti. In the year of the occurrence none had ploughed it. In 1957 appellant no. 1 had ploughed it. Hence, his evidence is also not material. P.W.7 stated that the disputed field previously belonged to P.W.9 but he sold the same to Guhi Mahto 16 years prior thereto. Since 4 years then, it was lying parti. In the year of the occurrence none had ploughed it. In 1957 appellant no. 1 had ploughed it. This witness, as mentioned earlier, was declared hostile as he contradicted his statement before the Police. I do not feel inclined to rely on the evidence of this witness either for or against the prosecution. His evidence may be ignored P.W.8 is another Chowkidar who stated that P.W.9 had gone to call him but he had not told P.W.8 as to who had assaulted him. He further stated that he had not gone, to the place of occurrence. He had seen the dead body near Kuli. P.Ws. 2 and 9 were taking the dead body in a bullock-cart. He further deposed that he did not state before the Police that after keeping the dead body on the thigh his widow was weeping at the place of occurrence. From the evidence of P.W.18 it appears that he stated so. Therefore, he was declared hostile. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, I do not feel inclined to rely on his evidence either for or against the prosecution. P.W.11 deposing on the point of possession of the disputed land, stated that the disputed land was always in possession of appellant no. 1. Since this witness was declared hostile, his Evidence also may be ignored. P.W.12 deposed that he learnt about the occurrence later on. He had seen the dead body on the bullock-cart. He deposed that he did not state before the police that he had seen Lakhi Ram dead on the ridge of the field where the occurrence took place. From the evidence of P.W.18 it appears that P.W.12 said so before him. Hence, he was declared hostile. Therefore, his evidence also is not material and may not be taken into consideration. Abdul Hamid (P.W.14.) is a formal witness who simply attested the inquest report and the first information report. Santosh Kumar Laha (P.W.15) was simply tendered for cross-examination. Ram Janam Pathak (P.W.16) is also a formal witness who took the sealed packet to the Sub-divisional Officer under the order of P.W.18. Nibaran Chandra Auddy (P.W.19) had simply prepared the sketch map. 16. Santosh Kumar Laha (P.W.15) was simply tendered for cross-examination. Ram Janam Pathak (P.W.16) is also a formal witness who took the sealed packet to the Sub-divisional Officer under the order of P.W.18. Nibaran Chandra Auddy (P.W.19) had simply prepared the sketch map. 16. Thus, considering the entire evidence on the record and after careful scrutiny of the evidence of the eye witnesses, in my opinion, the conviction of the appellants cannot be sustained. The prosecution has failed to establish the place and manner of the occurrence. They have also failed to establish the possession over the disputed field (plot no. 1370). 17. However, Mr. Ramanand Sinha, appearing on behalf of the State contended that even if it was held that the disputed field was in possession of the appellants, appellant no. 1 exceeded his right of private defence by killing Lakhi Ram. Therefore, he ought to be convicted at least under Section 304 of the Code. I would have accepted his contention but in the instant case since I have disbelieved all the eye witnesses on the point of occurrence also guilt cannot be fastened on any of the appellants including appellant no. 1. All of them, in my judgment, deserve clean acquittal. 18. In the result, the appeal succeeds and the judgment and order of the Sessions Judge convicting the appellants and imposing sentence on them, are set aside. The appellants are discharged from their bail bonds. K.B.N. SINGH, J. I agree Appeal allowed.