L. RATH, J. ( 1 ) THE case of the State against the six appellants and nine others since acquitted is that the deceased Padma Charan Pradhan Padma (hereinafter referred to as the deceased), while was driving eight to ten heads of cattle to the kine house was attacked by the accused persons on the village tank embankment with various weapons like lathi, Tenta and Bhala attempting to rescue and snatch away the cattle by force. When their attempt was resisted by the deceased, he was assaulted seeing the assault on the deceased, P. Ws. 2 and 4 and one Shankar Pradhan ran to the snot and tried to intervene urging upon the assembly not to assault him but their intervention only further incensed the assailants and they also wanted to assault the persons who had intervened. Some other persons of the village including the informant and many others also reached the snot and found appellant No. 2 Gunduchi pradhan giving a lathi blow on the right shoulder of the deceased. Immediately thereafter appellant No. 6 Arjun Charan Pradhan gave another lathi blow on his bead. Thereafter appellant No. 1 Sarat Kumar Pradhan pierced a Tenta in the belly of the deceased as a result of which the latter fell down with bleeding injury. A hullah was raised by Purusottam Pradhan (P. W. 2) for which appellant No. 3 Prasanna Kumar Pradhan struck a Tenta blow on his right shoulder resulting in his falling down on the ground. P. W. 3 Ratnakar Pradhan protested the assault on P. W. 2 for which he received a lathi blow on his head from appellant No. 4 Brajahanadhu Pradhan and he also fell down on the ground. Abhiram Naik (P. W. 9) who protested against the assailants was likewise assaulted on his left hand by appellant No. 3 Prasanna Kumar Pradhan with the handle of a Bhala and thereafter appellant No. 5 Rasananda Pradhan gave a lathi blow on the head of Abhiram due to which the latter fell down. At this point of time many of the villagers came to the snot and the assailants went away. The intestine of the deceased was protruding out which was bandaged by a napkin and he was removed to the hospital. The other three injured persons were also brought to the hospital. At this point of time many of the villagers came to the snot and the assailants went away. The intestine of the deceased was protruding out which was bandaged by a napkin and he was removed to the hospital. The other three injured persons were also brought to the hospital. On the way the deceased was found to have expired and hence only the injured persons were taken to the hospital. Thereafter P. W. 1 came back to the village and went to the police station where his oral report was reduced to writing by the Officert in-charge which was duly read over and explained to him and he appended his signature thereto. On such report investigation was taken up after completion of which the charge sheet was submitted. ( 2 ) ALL the accused persons were charged under section 302 read with section 149 I. P. C. and further under section 24 of the Cattle Trespass Act. Appellants Sarat Kumar Pradhan, Gunduchi Pradhan, Prasanna Kumar Pradhan and Arjun Charan Pradhan were also charged under section 302/34 I. P. C. whereas appellant Prasanna Kumar Pradhan was also charged under section 307 I. P. C. for assaulting Purushottam Pradhan (P. W. 2 ). Appellants Brajabandhu Pradhan and Rasananda Pradhan were also charged under section 323 I. P. C. for having caused hurt to Ratnakar Pradhan (P. W. 3) and Abhiram Naik (P. W 9) respectively. On trial while nine accused persons were acquitted, appellant Nos. 1 and 6 were convicted under section 302 I. P. C. and sentenced to life imprisonment. Appellant No. 2 Gunduchi Pradhan was convicted under section 323 I. P. C. and was sentenced to R. I. for one year. Appellant No. 3 Prasanna Kumar Pradhan was convicted under section 307 I. P. C. and sentenced to R. I. for ten years. Appellant No. 4 Brajabandhu Pradhan as also appellant No. 5 Rasananda Pradhan were convicted under section 323 I. P. C. and each of them was sentenced to R. I. for one year. ( 3 ) P. w. 5 is the medical officer who conducted the post-mortem examination of the deceased. There were five external injuries on his body of which injury Nos. ( 3 ) P. w. 5 is the medical officer who conducted the post-mortem examination of the deceased. There were five external injuries on his body of which injury Nos. 4 and 5 were respectively a contusion of 2 x 1 size at the back of the right shoulders 1 below the tip and abrasion of 1/2 x 1/2 size on the tip of the back of the right elbow joint. Of the other three injuries, injury No. 1 was a lacerated wound 31/2 x 1 x more than-scalp depth on the temporal region of the left side of the head with large amount of blood clots present over the wound injury No. 2 was a horizontal wound in the abdomen of length 4 and width 1t at the middle with edges inverted and a portion of stomach with omentum protruding out of the injury and injury No, 3 was a punctured wound on the right side of the back below the lower angle of the scapula lying horizontally 21- x 1- at themiddle and the Tthiclmest of the muscle of the bade. The internal injures corresponding to injury No. 1 found on dissection of the body were presence of extra cranial haemorrhage below the injury No. 1 and the adjacent area, fracture of the left temporal area of 31/211 length below the injury and meanings and laceration of the brain matter of an area of 1h/2 x 2/5 below the fracture area with haemorrhage over it. The corresponding injuries to injury Nos. 2 and 3, which were practically one injury, injury No. 2 being the injury of entrance and Injury No. 3 being the exit, were the existence of similar size wound on the inner side of the wall of the abdomen and back and there was rupture of the peritonium by 3 and the omentum by 2h/2t. The right lobe of the liver was lacerated by 2 x 1 x itt. The abdominal cavity war full of blood clots. According to the doctor, while all the injuries were ante-mortem in nature, the death was due to coma and shock due to haemorrhage from injury Nos. 1, 2 and 3 as well as due to the injury to the liver and brain which were vital parts of the body. ( 4 ) MR. According to the doctor, while all the injuries were ante-mortem in nature, the death was due to coma and shock due to haemorrhage from injury Nos. 1, 2 and 3 as well as due to the injury to the liver and brain which were vital parts of the body. ( 4 ) MR. B. M. Patnaik, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has not seriously challenged the evidence led by the prosecution since the eye-witnesses to the occurrence (P. Ws. 1 to 4 and 6) are consistent and their evidence was not shaken in any way in cross-examination. The injuries caused to the deceased and the other witnesses have been consistently deposed to by the witnesses and Mr. Patnaik very fairly conceded that except for some features which I shall presently discuses, there is nothing much in the evidence to be attacked upon. It is not necessary to discuss the evidence at large since I agree with the analysis of the evidence made by the learned Sessions Judge vide the decision of the Supreme Court In State of Karnataka v. Semareddy and another. ( 5 ) HOWEVER it Is the attempt of Mr. Patnaik to dislodge the prosecution case by urging that the case as presented had various infirmities which justifiably raise a doubt about the prosecution case and once such doubt is raised, the conviction of the appellants cannot be sustained. It is his submission that the State is required to prove the case against the accused persons with absolute certainty and that if otherwise some doubt is cast upon the version of the prosecution, the case must end in acquittal. ( 6 ) IN substance the submission of Mr. Patnaik is that if the prosecution cannot be credited with having come before the Court with true versions of the occurrence and It is found that the occurrence as presented is not that which had actually happened resulting in suppression of a part of it, then such case is to be thrown out and that the accused cannot be convicted upon such distorted presentation. For the purpose of this case it is not necessary to dilate upon the submission since on an analysis of the factual submissions of Mr. Patnaik, nothing is found to substantiate his stand. For the purpose of this case it is not necessary to dilate upon the submission since on an analysis of the factual submissions of Mr. Patnaik, nothing is found to substantiate his stand. ( 7 ) IT was the defence of the accused persons, as appears from the suggestions made to the witnesses as also the statements made under section 313 Cr. P. C. , that on the last Raja Sankranti day, appellant No. 6 Arjun Charan had been to the western end of the tank of the village to take bath where he was abused by one Basarathi pradhan of the village taking exception to Arjun and his group taking bath in the tank while the same had been excavated by them. Arjun Charan Pradhan got angry and abused Dasarathi as a result of which the latter went back to his house and arranging a posse of villagers came to their house with lathis, sticks, Kataris, axe, Tenta, Vali, etc. and pelted brickbats at their houses. Since the appellants out of fear remained indoors, the miscreants cut away trees from their orchard damaged their fence, destroyed, their houses and took away articles there from and set fire to two rooms near the western bank of accused Baidhar pradhan and took away a cot and other articles there from. They also set fire to the northern house of appellant No. 1 Sarat Kumar Pradhan. Seeing this, the accused persons came out with lathis and sticks and there was a malee and mutual assault on the tank: embankment. ( 8 ) THE circumstances relied upon by Mr. Patnaik to press his case, are the following: (1) The defence of the appellants is corroborated by the evidence of the 1. 0. who while visiting the snot found eight coconut trees, one bamboo clump, four plantain trees, one mango tree, three lemon plants, one Chakunda tree, one guava tree, two Sajana trees and forty Nagarjuna trees were cut on the southern and eastern embankments of the tank and also found brickbats lying scattered near the houses of appellant No. 2 Gunduchi Pradhan, one Banamali Pradhan and accused Baidhar Pradhan as also inside their courtyards and found the cowdung shed in the Had of accused Baidhar Pradhan having been burnt and a small home standing to the southern side of the embankment of the tank (Nuapokhari) to have been completely demolished. He also found a cot lying in a ditch on the back side of the house of Baidhar and at the time of his visit he found that the trees had been recently cut. (2) Reference to the burning of the house of the accused persons is also found in the FIR where P. W. I had stated that while he was taking the deceased to the hospital he saw the back side of the house of Baidhar Pradhan being on fire. (3) There was delay in sending the FIR to Court. (4) The statement of the 1. 0. is that he prepared a snot. map but it is not available on record. (5) The evidence of D. W. 1, the medical officer who examined the accused on police requisition, shows injuries on Rasananda Pradhan, Sarat Kumar Pradhan. Uchhab Pradhan, Balaram Pradhan Brajahandhu Pradhan and some others who are not accused but such injuries are not explained by the prosecution. (6) P. Ws. 2, 3 and 4, the injured persons were examined by the to much later; and (7) P. w. 1 could not have been an eyewitness since it is the statement of P. W 6 that P. W. 1 had reached the snot later. ( 9 ) P. W. 12, the investigating officers evidence is that he visited the snot at 8. 00 a. m. next day of the occurrence, i. e. 16-6-78. There would have been substance in the submission of Mr. Patnaik if the occurrence as alleged by the defence would have been a part of the occurrence as disclosed by the prosecution. However, no evidence is forthcoming to this effect. Absolutely no attempt has been made to bring into evidence any fact, which would lead to such a preponderance of probabilities. It is said that an FIR was lodged at the instance of the accused persons relating to the incident, but no such FIR is forthcoming. On the contrary, it is the evidence of P. W. 2 that three coconut trees were on the ridge while he was assaulted but when he returned from the hospital he found that those trees had been cut. On the contrary, it is the evidence of P. W. 2 that three coconut trees were on the ridge while he was assaulted but when he returned from the hospital he found that those trees had been cut. As such, except the statement of P. W. 1 in the FIR that while taking the deceased to the hospital he found the back side of the home of Baidhar was burning, there is not an iota of substantive evidence to link the two occurrences as parts of the same transaction. Similarly, so far as injuries on the accused persons are concerned, they were examined by the doctor D. W. 1 on 16. 6. 78 and it was found that the injuries were simple in nature consisting of swellings, bruise or laceration with their age more than twentyfour hours before the examination. There is also no evidence absolutely to show that the appellants had sustained these injuries during the course of mutual fracas. The injuries were minor in nature. It is well settled that the prosecution has no invariable obligation to explain the injuries on the person of the accused if they are minor in nature and are not caused during the occurrence itself. So far as the delay in sending the FIR to Court is concerned, it has been explained by the 1. 0. that the original FIR had been despatched by him through the Gramrakshi Basant Mallik who was traveling from Patkura in a mini bus which met with an accident near village Garajanga in which the Gramrakshi was injured and the bag containing the FIR was lost. The 1. 0. sent a true copy of the FIR again which was marked as Ext. 1. The delay has been satisfactorily explained. It is stated that the snot map is not available on records. The 1. 0. has also stated that he prepared a sketch map at the time of his snot visit which he did not find on records. It is his statement that he brought a survey knowing man and under his instructions he prepared a snot map of the different positions at the snot. The belated examination of the injured witnesses is also of no consequence. It is the consistent evidence that all injured persons were removed to the hospital. P. W. 2 stated that the 1. 0. The belated examination of the injured witnesses is also of no consequence. It is the consistent evidence that all injured persons were removed to the hospital. P. W. 2 stated that the 1. 0. saw him in the hospital but he was not in a proper state of mind and later he was examined by police at the P. S. after four or five days of his return from hospital. P. W. 4 stated that he was examined by the I. 0. at the hospital four to five days after his admission. The statement of the 1. 0. shows that the Injured persons were examined in the P. H. C. on 20-5- 78 and that he had not examined them at the police station. The explanation for the delayed examination has been brought out during the cross-examination of the witnesses. ( 10 ) P. W. 6 is an eye witness who after describing the assault of the accused persons on the deceased and other persons says that at that time, other including P. W. 1, Nisamani Nayak came to the snot and as those villagers reached, the accused persons fled away. From this it is not absolutely clear that P. W. 1 did not reach the snot at the time the assault was taking place. But even if that be so, it does not in any way dislodge the ocular account by P. Ws. 2, 3, 4 and 6. In that view of the matter, it must be taken that the assertions have been established to the hilt. ( 11 ) IN the result, the appeal has no merit and is accordingly dismissed. G. B. Patnaik, J.- I agree. .