GANGULY, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an appeal from Jail. The appellants are Rupo Rupa Hembram, his wife phulmani Hembram and their son and daughter Kamal Hembram and Rani Hembram. They were tried as the accused in Sessions case No. 71 of 1983 under sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal code. They were convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life by Shri N. K. Saha, the learned second Addi. Sessions Judge of Birbhum. Hence this appeal. ( 2 ) THE prosecution allegation against the present 4 appellants appears to be the following: the appellants are residents of village Laghata Majhipara within police station Lavpur, District-Birbhum. Moral Majhi the deceased and his wife Rani Molvani (P. W. 3) were their neighbours. Somai Murmu (D. W. 1) is the Jan Guru (Witch Doctor) of the Santhals who also lives at Laghata and his Thant (religious place) is attached to his house. This Jan Guru proclaimed Rani Molyani the wife of the deceased Moral Majhi as a Dan (Witch ). On 10. 1. 1981 Moral went to the field for working on his own land and Rani went to Lavpur Hat. The present 4 accused went to the house of Hurko, the brother of Moral situated at Cinematala of Lavpur, about half a mile away from Laghata. There they enquired after Rani and being told that she was not there, they went away. Subsequently they went to the field, met Moral and with him again went to the house of Hurko (P. W. 1 ). They requested Hurko to go with them but the latter excused himself. Thereafter the 4 accused left the house of Hurko with Moral for Laghata. On the way at a spot situated at a distance from the house of Hurko they pushed down Moral and while the father and son held the legs and the head of Moral, the mother and the daughter beheaded him with sharp cutting weapons. Thereafter they left for their home with the severed head of Moral. They placed the head and weapons on the. Than of the Jan Guru before carrying them home with them. ( 3 ) THE assault on Moral was seen by Dasi (P. W. 10) the daughter of Hurko and 2 other women from the roof of a house at Cinematala. Dasi ran back home and informed the inmates of her house about the incident. Than of the Jan Guru before carrying them home with them. ( 3 ) THE assault on Moral was seen by Dasi (P. W. 10) the daughter of Hurko and 2 other women from the roof of a house at Cinematala. Dasi ran back home and informed the inmates of her house about the incident. Hurko, his wife Sundari (P. W. 17) and their sons Ratan and Sukul Mukul (P. Ws. 22 and 23) immediately ran towards the place of occurrence. At their sight the 4 accused ran away from the place with the severed head of Moral. Reaching the spot Hurko and others saw the headless trunk of Moral lying on the ground. ( 4 ) THE F. I. R. was lodged by Hurko. The S. I. of Police, D. Pal (P. W. 26) who recorded the F. I. R. visited the house of Rupo immediately. There from at the showing of the accused persons the severed head of Moral and the weapons of offence were recovered and seized by him. Subsequently the accused persons were charged before the learned Sessions Judge, Birbhum under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. ( 5 ) THE prosecution examined not less than 27 witnesses and exhibited the alleged weapons of offence and the other relevant materials. In their statements under section 313 Cr. P. C, the accused persons only denied the truthfulness of the prosecution allegations as revealed by the evidence. In the circumstances slated finding the prosecution witnesses reliable the learned Judge relying upon their evidence held the prosecution case full established against the accused persons and he convicted and sentenced them in the manner stated above. ( 6 ) IN the appeal before us it is urged by the learned Advocate for the appellants that the prosecution witnesses are not reliable and that their evidence together with the other materials relied on by the prosecution fail to bring home the charge against the accused persons. It becomes necessary, therefore, to enter into the evidence. ( 7 ) TO begin at the beginning, it appears that on the morning of the very day of the incident Somai, the Jan Guru (D. W. 1) was seen practicing Witch Craft at the house of the accused persons. This evidence is coming from Parbati Maddi (P. W. 7), wife of Jamini (P. W. 6) a close neighbour of the accused persons. This evidence is coming from Parbati Maddi (P. W. 7), wife of Jamini (P. W. 6) a close neighbour of the accused persons. ( 8 ) THEN there is evidence that at about midday the accused went to the house of Hurko in search of Rani alias Molyani, the wife of the deceased Moral and finding her not there they went away. This is the evidence of Hurko, his wife Sundari and their sons Ratan and Sukul (P. Ws. 1, 17, 22 and 23 ). ( 9 ) SHORTLY after that Kusum (P. W. 11) wife of Lempa Soren (P. W. 12) another close neighbour of the appellants met all the four of them. The appellant Fulmani carried a Bhojali and the appellant Rani a Katari. They asked the witness where Molyani was and the appellant Fukmani called her a Witch and uttered a threatening against her. ( 10 ) THERE is evidence that thereafter all the four accused went to the field, approached Moral who was working there and made him to go with them. This evidence comes from Jamini Maddi, his wife Parbati and Shiben Hembram (P. Ws. 6, 7, 9) all neighbours of the accused persons and all of whom were working in the field at that time. ( 11 ) IT appears that with Moral, the four accused again went to the home of Hurko. ( 12 ) THERE they again enquired after Morals wife and on being asked said that she had become a witch and that that would be adjudicated upon. They asked Hurko to go with them to Laghata and on his refusal they left together with Moral. This is the evidence of Hurko, Dasi, Sundari, Bejoy Muddi, a neighbour, Ratan and Sukul (P. Ws. 1, 10, 17, 18, 22 and 23 ). ( 13 ) THERE is evidence next that the 4 accused and Moral were seen going towards Laghata. This is also deposed to by Dasi, Moi Saren and Rajeswari Murmu (P. Ws. 10, 15 and 16 ). ( 14 ) ON the point of the assaults on Moral there is also evidence of Dasi, Moi Saren and Rajeswari Murmu (P. Ws. 10, 15, and 16 ). It is the common version of all the three that they were drying paddy on the roof of a house opposite the Cinema. 10, 15 and 16 ). ( 14 ) ON the point of the assaults on Moral there is also evidence of Dasi, Moi Saren and Rajeswari Murmu (P. Ws. 10, 15, and 16 ). It is the common version of all the three that they were drying paddy on the roof of a house opposite the Cinema. The 4 accused and Moral crossed the Railway Signal, got down from the Railway Track and were proceeding towards pucca road. But before they could reach the pucca road, Moral was pushed down to the ground. The appellant Rupo pressed Moral's two legs and Kamal pressed his head and then the wife and daughter of Rupo slashed Moral Majhi. Seeing that Dasi rushed to their house and reported the fact to her father and brothers. Moi Saren (P. W. 15) corroborates her to the fullest extent though she could not same any of the 4 accused. Rajeswari (P. W. 16) saw Moral and the 4 appellants going towards Laghata. When Moral was near the pucca road, Moi Saren and Dasi told her that Moral was being slashed up. ( 15 ) THERE is evidence that at the intimation of Dasi (P. W. 10) Hurko, Sundari, Bejoy, Ratan and Sukul (P. Ws. 1, 10, 17, 19, 22 and 23 ran in a body towards the alleged place of occurrence. They saw the 4 appellants going away from the spot with the severed head of Moral. Reaching the spot they found the headless trunk of Moral lying on the ground. ( 16 ) VERY shortly thereafter Rahamutullah Sk. (P. W. 18) saw the 4 accused going towards Laghata with the severed head of Moral. There were two women in the party and the younger woman threatened him with a Bholali. ( 17 ) THERE is also evidence that with the severed head of Moral the 4 appellants went to the Than of Jan Guru on which the head and the weapons were placed by Rani. Thereafter they left for their home with the head and the weapons. This is the evidence of Kusum Saren, her husband Lempa and Molin Murmu (P. Ws. 11, 12 and 13), all closeneigbbours of the appellants. Thereafter they left for their home with the head and the weapons. This is the evidence of Kusum Saren, her husband Lempa and Molin Murmu (P. Ws. 11, 12 and 13), all closeneigbbours of the appellants. ( 18 ) THEN there is also very good evidence to show that the severed head of Moral, the weapons of offence and blood stained apparels of the accused, Fulmani and Rani were all recovered from the house of Rupo at the showing of the appellant Rani (Ext. 4, 4 (1) and Material Ext. I to VI ). This is the evidence of Sirajudoullah Beg, Zillur Rahaman, Samsul Haque, Danabendra Pal, Siben Hembrom, Ratan and Sukul, (P. Ws. , 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 22 and 23 ). ( 19 ) THEN it appears that the evidence of the Doctor who held the post mortem supports the prosecution case (P. W. 27) and further that the chemical examination revealed human blood stains on the Bhojali and the Katari (Ext. 6 ). ( 20 ) THERE is therefore evidence on all the salient points in this case. What is more the defence has practically nothing to say against the prosecution witnesses who are either close neighbours or covillagers of the appellants. During their examination under section 313 Cr. P. C. none of the accused persons made any effort whatsoever to explain the evidence produced against them by the prosecution. Thus on the one hand there is very good and concluding evidence coming mostly from eye witnesses seeking to establish that the four accused killed Moral Majhi without any provocation whatsoever; on the other there is no attempt from the side of the appellants to establish that the said eye witnesses were not reliable or that they were inimically disposed towards them for some reason or other. In the circumstances stated it certainly cannot be said that the learned Additional Sessions Judge made any mistake by convicting the appellants relying upon the prosecution evidence and the other circumstances of the case. ( 21 ) THE learned Advocate for the appellants asked why the appellants should kill Moral when they had grievances against his wife. Why the appellants killed Moral, it is very difficult to say but then as it has been said again and again the question of motive becomes irrelevant where the evidence is clear. ( 21 ) THE learned Advocate for the appellants asked why the appellants should kill Moral when they had grievances against his wife. Why the appellants killed Moral, it is very difficult to say but then as it has been said again and again the question of motive becomes irrelevant where the evidence is clear. Gurcharan v. State of Punjab, Shivaji v. State of Maharashtra2 Podda Narayana v. State of Andhra Pradesh. 3 As it has also been said the failure of the prosecution to establish motive for the crime committed only casts a duty on the court to scrutinise the alleged evidence, particularly of the eye witnesses, with greater care; Nacchittar Singh v. State of Punjab4. In this case the evidence is quite clear as to how the appellants did away with unfortunate Moral, and this evidence is coming from witnesses whom the learned Judge found no reason to disbelieve and nor do we. It is not necessary therefore to find an answer to the question posed by the learned Advocate to maintain the order of conviction passed in this case. ( 22 ) IT is urged by the learned Advocate next that from what the appellants were alleged to have stated at the house of Hurko there was going to be an adjudication on the point of the witch hood of Rani. It is suggested that there was really such an adjudication and at that place Moral was assaulted by those attending it. It is pointed out that the evidence of the Doctor holding post mortem on the dead body of Moral clearly shows that there were other incised injuries on the face of Moral. It is suggested that since according to prosecution version Moral was be-headed by the mother and the daughter, these injuries on the face could not be explained unless the defence version in this regard is accepted. ( 23 ) WE do not find any great merit in this argument. There is nothing on the basis of which it may be held that there was really such an adjudication. There is nothing to show that the mother and the daughter satisfied themselves only by beheading the unfortunate Moral. Any way the other injuries on the face of the dead man do nothing to create any doubt as to the participation of the accused in the commission of the offence in this case. There is nothing to show that the mother and the daughter satisfied themselves only by beheading the unfortunate Moral. Any way the other injuries on the face of the dead man do nothing to create any doubt as to the participation of the accused in the commission of the offence in this case. ( 24 ) IT is urged next that neither Dasi nor her companions say that she i. e. Dasi raised a hue and cry when she allegedly saw the appellants assaulting Moral. It isurged that this is not at all normal and that as such the court should presume that Dasi did not actually see anything as claimed by her. ( 25 ) WE do not find any strength in this argument also Dasi says and that is also the evidence of her companions that she actually ran back home to tell her father and brothers about what she bad seen. That certainly may be considered as a very natural and a spontaneous reaction to what she had actually seen. Raising a hue and cry would not have helped anybody since it is nobodys case that there was anybody in the vicinity of the place of the occurrence whose attention could have been attracted by raising a hue and cry. ( 26 ) ON a consideration of all the circumstances we are of the view, therefore, that the evidence adduced in this case is too good and the learned Additional Sessions Judge made no mistake by holding the appellants guilty by relying on it. Appellants, we hold, have been rightly held guilty of committing the offence of murder in furtherance of the common intention of all of them and they have been rightly convicted under section 302/34 I. P. C. and sentenced to R. I. for life. ( 27 ) THE present appeal must therefore fail. ( 28 ) THIS is rather an unfortunate case in which a man absolutely innocent was done to death for no fault whatsoever on his part. He is also very much unfortunate that an entire family has to be sentenced to imprisonment for life for that. It is still more unfortunate that Somai Murmu, the Jan Guru who must have been at the root of all the trouble has gone unpunished in this case. He is also very much unfortunate that an entire family has to be sentenced to imprisonment for life for that. It is still more unfortunate that Somai Murmu, the Jan Guru who must have been at the root of all the trouble has gone unpunished in this case. The influence which Jan Gurus like him exercise over the simple and unlettered Santhals and such other Adivasis is well known and the time certainly has come to curb their activities which lead to unnecessary harassment and trouble to innocent persons instances of which are not at all rare. The Government should perhaps take up this matter for consideration of ways and means including legislation for achieving the desired object. A copy of this judgment be sent to the Government of West Bengal in its appropriate Department for perusal and taking necessary action, if any, Since the appeal fails, it is hereby ordered that the appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 149 of 1984 is hereby dismissed. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by Shri N. K Saba, the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Birbhum in Session Case No. 71 of 1983 are confirmed. The accused appellants do serve out the sentence of R. I. for life as passed on them by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Birbhum. I agree.