K. P. MOHAPATRA, J. ( 1 ) - All the appellants have been convicted and sentenced for offences under sections 447 and 323 I. P. C. Over and above appellant Sashikant Palei, though he was charged for an offence under section 302 I. P. C. , was convicted and sentenced under section 304 I. P. C. In this appeal the appellants, have challenged he judgment of conviction and, sentence. ( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case are that the disputed paddy land was in possession of the informant Gopal Mahanta (P. W. 1) and his brother Mahura Mahanta. The appellants are said to have purchased the same from the latter and so at about 7 a. m, on 25-4-1981, along with ploughmen and being armed with dangerous weapons, such as, lathi and axe, they trespassed into the disputed land and began ploughing the same. P. W. 1 Gopal Mahanta observed the action of the appellants from his house and immediately came down and protested. The appellants picked up a quarrel, in course of which P. W. 1 was assaulted by appellant Khetrabasi by means of an axe (M. O. I. He was also assaulted by the other appellants by means of lathis. He received bleeding injuries, as a result of the assualt, His wife Sumati (P. W. 2) and his son Santanu (P. W. 8) arrived at the scene and they were also severely assaulted by one or tile other of the appellants. P. W -3 Kokila, the daughter of P. W. 1 was coming to the place of Occurrence when appellant Sashikanta met her on the way and assaulted her by means of an axe while holding out threat that he will murder all the family members of P. W. 1. All the injured persons were removed to Janghira Dispensary by P. W. 9 Khstrabasi where they were examined and treated P. W. 3 Kokila arrived at the dispensary and conveyed to P. W 1 that appellant Sashikanta had threatened to kill all the members of their family and stated her apprehension about her younger brother Bhrungaraj whom she had left alone at home. After she was treated of the injury, P. W. 1 sent P. W. 3 Kokila along with P. W. 10 Hare krishna to his, house to look for Bhrungaraj. After she was treated of the injury, P. W. 1 sent P. W. 3 Kokila along with P. W. 10 Hare krishna to his, house to look for Bhrungaraj. When he arrived at home, they found that Bhrungaraj was lying unconscious with head injury. Both P. Ws. 3 and 10 enquired from, the neighbours as to what had happened and they were told by P. W. 13 Krishna that appellant Sashikanta had entered into the house with an axe in hand by the front door and after remaining for about I minutes be left the house by the back door. Bhrungaraj was removed first to the Janghira Dispensary and as his condition was serious he was later removed to Keonjhar Hospital where he succumbed to the injuries. P. W. 1 Gopal Mahanta lodged F. I. R. (Ext. 1 ). In course of investigation, the post-mortem examination of deceased was the conducted and it was found that his death was homicidal. After close of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the appellants. ( 3 ) THE defence of the appellants was that they had purchased the disputed land from Mahura Mahanta the brother of P. W. 1 Gopal Mahanta came and threatened them not to plough the land. When the appellants agreed that the matter could be settled up at the village, P. W. 1 Gopal Mahanta and all the members of his family including his son-in-law (P. W. 9) Khetrabasi attacked and assaulted them by axe add lithi, as a result of which they sustained injuries and F. I. R. was lodged with regard to the incident by appellant Hrushikesh. In short, the appellants denied that the had assaulted any of the injured persons or were in any way connected with the death of the deceased. ( 4 ) THE learned Sessions Judge believed the prosecution case and found that all the appellants were guilty of trespass and assault. He further believed and held that appellant Sashikanta committed the murder of deceased Bhrungaraj. He, however, found him guilty of the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder because of the fact that the deceased succumbed to the injuries after some time while he was being treated at Keonjhar Hospital. So the murder was not intentional. He further believed and held that appellant Sashikanta committed the murder of deceased Bhrungaraj. He, however, found him guilty of the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder because of the fact that the deceased succumbed to the injuries after some time while he was being treated at Keonjhar Hospital. So the murder was not intentional. While he sentenced the appellants on the charges of trespass and assault to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one and two months respectively, he sentenced appellant Sashikanta to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years for the offence of homicide not amounting to murder. ( 5 ) P. W. 5, the Medical Officer of Janghira Dispensary examined P. W. 1 Gopal Mahanta, P. W. 2 Sumati, P. W. 3 Kokila and P. W. 8 Santanu on the date of occurrences itself and found mo. stly lacerated injuries on their person. He gave injury reports Ext. 5, 8, 6, and 7 respectively. According to his opinion, the injuries could be caused either by the backside of an axe or if the sharp side of it grazed against the human body. All the injuries were, however, simple in nature and were fresh. There is nothing to disbelieve his evidence. ( 6 ) P. W. 4 was the Medical Officer who conducted the post - mortem examination of the dead - body of the deceased. He found a head injury with fracture and dislocation of the skull and on account of the fatal injury, death of the deceased was caused. According to his opinion, the injury could be caused by the blunt side of an axe, such as M 0. II and was ante-mortem in nature. He proved the postmortem report (Ext. 2 ). There is nothing also to disbelieve the evidence of this witness. ( 7 ) THE injured witnesses were P. W. 1 Gopal Mahanta, P. W. 2 his wife Sumati, P. W. 3 his daughter Kokila, and P. W. 8 his son Santanu. According to the evidence of P. W. 5, all these witnesses had sustained injuries. P. W. 1 Gopal Mahanta stated in his evidence that the disputed land belonged to him and was in his Khas possession. . His brother Kahlira Mahanta sold some other land in favour of the appellants near the place, but intervened by another piece of land. According to the evidence of P. W. 5, all these witnesses had sustained injuries. P. W. 1 Gopal Mahanta stated in his evidence that the disputed land belonged to him and was in his Khas possession. . His brother Kahlira Mahanta sold some other land in favour of the appellants near the place, but intervened by another piece of land. Therefore, when he found that the appellants with their ploughman had trespassed into the disputed land and were forcibly ploughing the same he came and protested. He was followed by P. Ws. 2 and 8 all of them were assaulted by the appellants by means of the axe and the blunt side of the axe and lathi. When P. W. 3 was coming to the place of occunence, she was also assaulted by appellant Sashikanta. It is true that though all these witnesses were eyewitnesses to the occurrence and were themselves victims of the assault and their evidence has found no independent corroboration, yet their - evidence is convicted and there is no discrepancy worth the name as so to disbelieve the same with regard to the assault on them. According to the settled position of law, evidence of the injured witnesses cannot be easily displaced and disbelieved, because their presence at the time of occurrence remains undoubted. Merely because they are relations of each other, their evidence cannot also be thrown over board on that ground one - when there are other convicting reasons to accept the same. I am, therefore, of the view that the learned Sessions Judge took a correct view in arriving at a conclusion that the appellants were rank trespassers and had assaulted P. Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 8 causing injuries on their persons. The conviction of the appellants under sections 447 and 323 I. P. C. cannot, therefore, be disturbed. ( 8 ) THE important question is whether the conviction of appellant Sashikanta- under section 304 I. P. C. can be sustained in view of the meagre evidence adduced by the prosecution in order to prove the charge. There was obviously no eyewitness to the occurrence. ( 8 ) THE important question is whether the conviction of appellant Sashikanta- under section 304 I. P. C. can be sustained in view of the meagre evidence adduced by the prosecution in order to prove the charge. There was obviously no eyewitness to the occurrence. P. W. 13 Krushna was said to have stated to P. W. 3 and 10 who were sent by P. W. 1 from Janghira Dispensary to look for Bhrungaraj a boy aged about 10 pears who bad been left alone at home by P W. 3, what that he had seen appellant Sashikanta entering into the house of P. W. 1 by the front door with an axe in hand and after staying therefore 15 minutes he left the house by the back door. These two witnesses actually found- Bhrugaraj uncbnscious with head injury and ultimately he died on account of the said injury. P. W. 13 however, did not support the prosecution case in court and stated that he saw nothing and knew nothing. His evidence was rightly discarded by the learned Sessions Judge. But in my view he committed a serious error of law and, fact by placing reliance on the evidence of P. Ws. 3 and 10 who stated that P. W. 13 had informed them about the entry and exit of Sashikant into the house of P. W. 1 from which Bhrungaraj was brought out unconscious with the head injury and was taken to Janghira Dispensary. These two witnesses, however, did not disclose the above fact at the first instance before the Investigating Officer (P. W. 14 ). P. W. 3 Kokila did not at all state before the Investigating Officer about her conversation with P. W. 13. P. W. 10 also denied of having done so. Although he stated that a boy who was ploughing had told that Sashikanta had entered into the house of P. W. 1, it was not clarified as to who was this boy. The boy could be P. W. 13 as, well as somebody else. Therefore, in view the omission of P. Ws. Although he stated that a boy who was ploughing had told that Sashikanta had entered into the house of P. W. 1, it was not clarified as to who was this boy. The boy could be P. W. 13 as, well as somebody else. Therefore, in view the omission of P. Ws. 3 and 10 to state before the Investigating Officer at the first instance that they were informed by P. W. 13 about the entry and exit of appellant Sashikanta into the house of P. W. 1, their evidence court to the above effect cannot he believed and the same cannot form the basis for arriving at the conclusion that it was a piece of circumstantial evidence from -which it could be deduced that appellant Sashikanta alone was responsible for the death of the, deceased. Even if such evidence of P. Ws. 3 and 10 is believed, yet it is so meagre that in a serious charge of murder, the same cannot be utilised as a piece of circumstantial evidence to base the conviction. For complete lack of evidence either direct or circumstantial, it is impossible to categorically hold that appellant Sashikanta committed the culpable homicide not amounting to murder to the deceased. Thereforet the order of conviction and sentence imposed on him under section 304 I. P. C. cannot be sustained. ( 9 ) FOR the reasons stated above, the appeal is allowed in part. The judgment of conviction and sentence passed against the appellants under sections 447 and 323 IPC is upheld. Appellant Sashikanta is found guilty of the charge under section 304 I. P. C. and be is acquitted thereof. Appeal party allowed .