( 1 ) THIS appeal by the State of West Bengal is directed against the judgment of the division bench of the Calcutta High court. There are nine respondents namely original Accused 1 to 9. They were tried for offences punishable under S. 148, 302/149 and 326/34. The trial court convicted and sentenced each of them to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under S. 302/149 and lesser terms of imprisonment for minor offences. On an appeal the High court by the impugned judgment set aside the judgment of the trial court and acquitted all of them of all the charges. Hence the present appeal. ( 2 ) ALL the accused and the deceased Brahmananda Pathak, his brother Public Witness 12 the injured witness and his son Public Witness 1, Amalendu Pathak belong to Villagesurulia in Purulia District. There were disputes between the deceased and his men on one side aree days before the present incident she fell ill and she expressed a desire to see the deceased. On 23/7/1980 it was a Wednesday. The deceased and his son Public Witness 1 were in their rice go down in Purulia Town. Towards evening Public Witness 12, brother of the deceased came there and informed the deceased about the deteriorating condition of his other and her desire to see him. Thereafter the deceased and PWs 1 and 12 started together to their house to see the old lady. Public Witness 1 had a bicycle with him and a three-cell torch and a bag containing some papers. On the way to their house they had a grocery shop. They dropped in there for sometime and at about 8. 45 p. m. they were proceeding a place called Rakhabari, and there they noted 7 or 8 persons coming towards them from the opposite direction. Public Witness 1 flashed the torch and saw Accused 2,3,4,8 and 9 and some others and they were carrying various weapons. A-8 was armed with a tabela, A-2 and A-3 were armed with swords and A-4 and A-9 were armed with tangis. Public Witness 1 apprehending danger gave his cycle to the deceased and asked him to leave immediately. While the deceased was ready to ride on the cycle, A-8 Aswini Pathak reached there and assaulted the deceased on his neck with the tabela with the result that the deceased fell down on the ground. Public Witness 1 apprehending danger gave his cycle to the deceased and asked him to leave immediately. While the deceased was ready to ride on the cycle, A-8 Aswini Pathak reached there and assaulted the deceased on his neck with the tabela with the result that the deceased fell down on the ground. Public Witness 1 immediately ran from the place raising an alarm. While running he looked back and saw his uncle Public Witness 12 also being assaulted by A-8 and others. Public Witness 1 reached a locality called Hanchuk Para and raised an alarm. Hearing this PWs 2, 3, 6 and 7 came out followed by others from their respective houses. Public Witness 1 immediately reported the incident to them and also mentioned the names of Accused 2,3,4,8 and 9 as the assailants. ( 3 ) AFTER Public Witness 1 had run away from the place as stated above, Public Witness 12 seeing that his brother deceased had fallen, went to save him and caught hold of A-8. Both of them fell down. At that time A-2 and A-3 attacked him with swords and inflicted injuries on his neck and back. As Public Witness 12 tried to resist the attack on him by raising his hands he sustained bleeding injuries on his hands and his right little finger got severed and his wrist-watch also fell down. At that time the deceased got up and was trying to run away but he was chased and was assaulted by the assailants. Public Witness 12 in the meantime managed to get up and walk up to Hanchuk Para. At the time of the incident there was moonlight and little thereafter there was a shower of rain. At the request of Public Witness 1 some of the residents of Hanchuk Para went to inform the police over the phone and someothers made arrangement for carrying Public Witness 12 to Purulia Hospital for treatment. Public Witness 1 was informed that his father had expired. On the information received at about 11,15 p. m. the police arrived. On their way they saw Public Witness 12 being carried. Public Witness 16, Police Sub-Inspector then recorded the statement, Ex. P-1 of Public Witness 1 and sent it to the police station for registering the case. Public Witness 1 was informed that his father had expired. On the information received at about 11,15 p. m. the police arrived. On their way they saw Public Witness 12 being carried. Public Witness 16, Police Sub-Inspector then recorded the statement, Ex. P-1 of Public Witness 1 and sent it to the police station for registering the case. Public Witness 16 took up the investigation, went to the place of occurrence and held inquest next day morning and sent the dead body for post-mortem. He recorded statements of several persons including that of Public Witness 12. Public Witness 11, the Doctor, who conducted the post-mortem, found as many as six incised injuries all over the body. The Doctor also found one gunshot injury over the right lumbar region which injured the kidney and other parts. He recovered pellets from the body. He opined that the death was due to shock and haemorrhage and the incised injuries could have been caused by cutting weapons like tabela, sword and tangi and the last injury could have been caused by a firearm. Public Witness 12 also was examined by another Doctor, Public Witness 15 and he found as many as six sharp-cutting wounds on the hands and other parts of the body of Public Witness 12 and also found the little finger of his right hand missing. He opined that these injuries could have been caused by tabela and with sharp-edged weapons. After completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed. ( 4 ) THE prosecution relied mainly on the evidence of PWs 1 and 12, the eyewitnesses and also on the evidence of PWs 2, 3 and others who came out after hearing the cries of Public Witness 1 and to whom Public Witness 1 narrated the incident. The accused, when examined under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code, denied the offence and pleaded not guilty. The plea set up by the defence was that they have been falsely roped in and that the earliest report given by Public Witness 1 was a fabricated one and the identification of the assailants by PWs 1 and 12 should not be accepted because it was dark. ( 5 ) THE trial court after an elaborate discussion of the evidence of PWs 1 and 12 accepted their testimony. He did not find any serious infirmity in their evidence. The trial court held that Ex. ( 5 ) THE trial court after an elaborate discussion of the evidence of PWs 1 and 12 accepted their testimony. He did not find any serious infirmity in their evidence. The trial court held that Ex. P-1 amply corroborated the evidence of Public Witness 1 and Public Witness 12, being an injured witness, his evidence has to be accepted. Coming to the other witnesses the trial court found that Public Witness 2 turned hostile. Public Witness 3, however, supported the prosecution case and his evidence was accepted. Public Witness 4 deposed that on hearing alarm he came out and learnt from Public Witness 1 that his father was attacked by Accused 2,3,4,8 and 9 and that sometime thereafter Public Witness 12 also came with bleeding injuries. His evidence was accepted. Public Witness 5 deposed that on hearing the alarm of Public Witness 1 he came out and also saw Public Witness 12 with bleeding injuries who came there and thereafter they went to inform the police and for sending ambulance and subsequently Public Witness 12 was removed to the hospital. The trial court held that the evidence of Public Witness 5 could not be discredited on any ground. Public Witness 6 who also came out on hearing the cries of Public Witness 1 supported the evidence of Public Witness 1. Likewise Public Witness 7s evidence also, which is to the same effect, was accepted by the trial court. Thus it can be seen that the prosecution case as spoken to by PWs 1 and 12 and corroborated by the evidence of PWs 3 to 7 was accepted by the trial court. However, the other four accused whose names were not mentioned in the earliest report were mentioned subsequentlyand the case against them was also accepted by the trial court as spoken to by PWs 1 and 12. ( 6 ) WHILE so, the High court in the appeal without any discussion on the a evidence whatsoever simply held that Public Witness 12, who knew and recognised the assailants, did not mention the names to the doctor who examined him and therefore it would be unsafe to accept his evidence. ( 6 ) WHILE so, the High court in the appeal without any discussion on the a evidence whatsoever simply held that Public Witness 12, who knew and recognised the assailants, did not mention the names to the doctor who examined him and therefore it would be unsafe to accept his evidence. Coming to the evidence of Public Witness 1 the High court pointed out that the conduct of Public Witness 1 in not asking any of the villagers to go to the rescue of his father is unnatural and against normal human behaviour and it would be risky to sustain the conviction of the accused on the basis of his testimony. These are the only main reasons given for discarding the evidence of PWs 1 and 12. It is needless to say that the High court has not examined the evidence of PWs 1 and 12 in the proper perspective and on the basis of some vague grounds their evidence has been rejected and the few reasons given do not stand judicial scrutiny at all. We have carefully examined the evidence of PWs 1 and 12 along with the evidence of PWs 3 to 7, The evidence of Public Witness 5 clearly shows that Public Witness 12 who was seriously injured was immediately taken to the hospital and we fail to see as to why Public Witness 12 should tell the names of the assailants to the Doctor who was examining him for his injuries. Public Witness 1 at the earliest moment has given the earliest report Ex. P-1 to the police. In that report he has mentioned the place and time of occurrence and as to how he along with the deceased and Public Witness 12 were going to their house to see the old lady. Then he mentioned the names of Accused 2,3,4,8 and 9 as some of the assailants armed with deadly weapons and he also stated that apprehending danger he gave the cycle to his father and asked him to go away. At that juncture A-8 hit his father on the neck with the table a and immediately Accused 2, 3, 4 and 9 surrounded and were ready for assault and he saw his uncle Public Witness 12 also being assaulted but somehow he managed to escape and then raised an alarm. Before that he also heard the sound of a bomb explosion. Before that he also heard the sound of a bomb explosion. On reaching Village Surulia he saw PWs 2, 3 and others coming out hearing his cries and he told them about the incident. Thereafter he came to know that his father was dead. We have gone through Ex. P-1 carefully. In the light of the circumstances we find that it is a most natural and true report and there are absolutely no indications of any fabrication. If Public Witness 1 was prepared to fabricate a report after consultations he could have attributed specific overt acts to many other accused and the version given in Ex. P-1 has a ring of truth. The names of PWs 2, 3 and others who came out hearing his alarm are also mentioned. All other necessary details are mentioned. All these facts mentioned in Ex. P-1l could not have been incorporated if Public Witness 1 was not a natural witness to the occurrence to the extent he has witnessed. He also deposed that he had a torch and it was also a moonlit night. The accused were not strangers to him and there would not have been any difficulty in identifying them. In any event there is evidence of Public Witness 12 who was seriously injured and whose presence at the scene of occurrence cannot be doubted. He must have seen the assailants at the close quarters and he has also mentioned the parts played by Accused 2, 3, and 8. His version is in conformity with that of Public Witness 1 and the same version is also mentioned in Ex. P-1, the earliest report. Their evidence is further corroborated by the evidence of PWs 3 to 7 as mentioned above and the trial court has given good and valid reasons for accepting the evidence of these witnesses. ( 7 ) THE next question is whether a foolproof case is made out against all the respondents namely A-1 to A-9. As stated above there was bitter enmity between the two parties and they were involved in criminal cases. PWs 1 and 12 are admittedly interested witnesses and their evidence has to be scrutinised with great care and caution. Generally in such a situation their evidence has to be scrutinised in the light of Ex. P-1, the medical evidence and other surrounding circumstances and with reference to their earlier statements. PWs 1 and 12 are admittedly interested witnesses and their evidence has to be scrutinised with great care and caution. Generally in such a situation their evidence has to be scrutinised in the light of Ex. P-1, the medical evidence and other surrounding circumstances and with reference to their earlier statements. It has to be noted that in Ex. P-1 only the names of Accused 2,3,4,8 and 9 are mentioned and the names of other accused were not mentioned. Therefore we think it may not be safe to convict the other accused whose names were not mentioned in Ex. P-1. Then we are left with the case of Accused 2, 3, 4, 8 and 9. In Ex. P-1, Public Witness 1 has stated that it was A-8 who first opened the attack and inflicted a blow on the neck of the deceased. No other overt acts are mentioned obviously because he did not witness the entire occurrence. Public Witness 12 in his evidence has attributed overt acts to A-2, A-3 and A-8 only. In a case of this nature we think it is safe to convict only those accused to whom specific overt acts are attributed. Public Witness 12 deposed that in the flash of torch of Public Witness 1 he recognised the nine accused. Then he proceeded to state that A-8 was the first person to inflict a blow on the neck of the deceased with a tabela as a result of which he fell down. Thereafter Public Witness 12 caught hold of A-8 and both of them fell down and A-2 and A-3 inflicted blows with swords on him on the neck and back. At that time he saw Public Witness 1 running away. He could not give any other details of the occurrence. Thus it can be seen that though the names of Accused 2,3,4,8 and 9 are mentioned in Ex. P-1 we find from the evidence of PWs 1 and 12 that the actual overt acts are attributed only to A-2, A-3 and A-8. The medical evidence also corroborates in respect of overt acts committed by these three accused. Therefore we think it is absolutely safe to convict these three accused and give benefit of doubt to others. But by this way we are not in any manner doubting the evidence of PWs 1 and 12. The medical evidence also corroborates in respect of overt acts committed by these three accused. Therefore we think it is absolutely safe to convict these three accused and give benefit of doubt to others. But by this way we are not in any manner doubting the evidence of PWs 1 and 12. By way of abundant caution having regard to the fact that they are interested witnesses and after a careful consideration keeping in view the principles regarding the scrutiny of such interested witnesses, the other accused are given benefit of doubt for the above-stated reasons. However, we have no hesitation to accept their evidence as against A-2, A-3 and A-8 to whom specific overt acts have been attributed. In our view, the prosecution has established the guilt of these three accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The view taken by the High court in acquitting all the accused, as stated above, is wholly erroneous. ( 8 ) NOW coming to the question of applicability of S. 302/149 Indian Penal Code, taking into consideration all the circumstances of the case we are firmly of the view that more than five persons participated in the occurrence. Therefore there is no difficulty in convicting A-2, A-3 and A-8 under S. 302/149 Indian Penal Code. ( 9 ) ACCORDINGLY we set aside the judgment of the High court so far these three accused are concerned and convict A-2 Gurupada Pathak, A-3 Bidyadhar Pathak and A-8 Aswini Pathak under S. 302/149 Indian Penal Code and sentence each of them to undergo imprisonment for life. Their conviction for the offence punishable under Section 148 Indian Penal Code and sentence of RI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 100. 00 in default of payment of which to undergo further R1 for onemonth and the conviction of A-2 and A-3 under S. 326/34 Indian Penal Code and sentence of RI for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500. 00 in default of payment of which to undergo further R1 for six months, as awarded by the trial court, are restored. The other directions given by the trial court regarding disposal of the articles seized are upheld. In the result the appeal is allowed as against A-2, A-3 and A-8 and dismissed against other respondents accused. .