N.C. Jain, J- This judgment of ours would dispose of Criminal Appeal No. 73 (J) of 1997 filed by Pawan Garh and Dulal Garh and Criminal Appeal No. 284 (J) of 1997 filed by Bijoy Aim. The said accused appellants have been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and also to pay a fine of Rs.500 each in default of payment of which they have been sentenced to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month each. 2. At the outset it must be noted that the occurrence is alleged to have taken place in two incidents, one after the other. In the first incident Bijoy Aim, appellant, was not there and it is only other two appellants, namely, Pawan and Dulal were alleged to be present. 3. The prosecution case as has been unfolded in the first information report (FIR) lodged by Shri Palash Jyoti Sharma, Assistant Manager, Harishpur Tea Garden, PW 3 is that at about 2.45 PM of 15th Dec 1993 Shyamal Chandra Bagchi, the owner and Managing Director of Harishpur Tea Garden and one Sardarni Smti Sumati Denta were given injuries by the appellants and others with dao, sword etc in the tea garden when they were inspecting the same. The injured persons were taken to the hospital where they were declared dead. The FIR lodged on the same day of the incident reads as under : “Humble submission is that at about 2.45 PM (157) to day while Shri Shyamal Chandra Bagchi, the Managing Director of our Harishpur Tea Garden and 'Sardarni' Smti Sumati Denta were inspecting the garden, culprits Dulal Garh, Pawan Garh, Bijoy Aim;and others unitedly surrounded them Barhola Section and injured them by assaulting with some deadly weapons such as sharp dao, sword etc. In a bid to save the proprietor and the 'Sardarni' the garden's workers Shri Marshal Sanga and few others helped the proprietor into a vehicle. But the miscreants resorted to attack in the vehicle also; they also caused damage to the vehicle by breaking its glasses. About that time Shri Tokeswar Gogoi a garden employee, came to the place of occurrence and he tried to save the Director from the attack. In doing so, the miscreants injured Shri Tokeswar Gogoi also by assaulting with sharp weapons in the head. About that time Shri Tokeswar Gogoi a garden employee, came to the place of occurrence and he tried to save the Director from the attack. In doing so, the miscreants injured Shri Tokeswar Gogoi also by assaulting with sharp weapons in the head. In the meantime when the news was spread in the garden and people started coming to the place of occurrence the said miscreants ran away from the place of occurrence. Then the injures persons were taken to hospital. But the doctor declared Shyamal Bagchi and Smti Sumati dead. It is, therefore, prayed that steps be taken after investigating the incident.” 4. In support of the allegations as contained in the FIR, the prosecution has produced Marshal Sanga, PW 1, Tokeswar Gogoi, PW 2, Palash Jyoti Sharma, PW 3, Amrit Baria, PW 4, Smti Boti Mahato, PW 5, Lazar Sindhri, PW 6, Dr.HK Mahanta, PW 7, Amritlal Borgohain, PW 8 and Pradip Kumar Gogoi, PW 9. 5. In order to find Out whether the appellants are guilty of the commission of the offence or not, it is necessary to have a look at the evidence produced by the prosecution. 6. Palash Jyoti Sharma, PW 3 who lodged the FIR has stepped into the witness box as PW 3. He has deposed that on 15.12.93 when he was in Harishpur Tea Garden, a labourer informed him at about 2.30 PM that someone had hacked Sahab and upon receipt of this information he along with staff and labourers went in a vehicle to Line No. 19 where he saw the Tata Mobile car in which Bagchi Sahab was sitting in the driving seat with his head bleeding; whereas Sumati was sitting in the near seat in injured condition. He found Marshal Sanga, PW 1, Tokeswar Gogoi, PW 2 and Amrit Baria, PW 4 near the Tata Mobile and when he asked Marshal Sanga he told the witness that Pawan Garh, Dulal Garh and Bijoy assaulted Sahab. After taking out the keys of the vehicle from the-pocket of Sahab, Lazar Sindhri drove the Tata Mobile taking the injured to the hospital when the doctor declared them dead. He testified his signature on the FIR. In cross-examination the witness stated that the FIR was lodged at 9.00 p.m. Before that the police station was verbally informed at the time of taking Sahab to the hospital. He testified his signature on the FIR. In cross-examination the witness stated that the FIR was lodged at 9.00 p.m. Before that the police station was verbally informed at the time of taking Sahab to the hospital. He denied the suggestion that he did not ask anything from Marshal, and that Marshal did not tell him that Dulal, Pawan and Bijoy had assaulted Sahab. He admitted that he did not see the occurrence himself, but denied the suggestion that the statements were after thought. He further denied that the suggestion that he could not cite the names of the accused persons in the e first instance. He further stated in cross examination that he wrote the ejahar as he heard from Marshal. He admitted that it was written in the FIR that Pawan, Dulal and Bijoy along with many people surrounded unitedly and assaulted Bagchi Sahab. He denied that he lodged fabricated first information report to save his job. According to him the occurrence took place 3 months after his joining the service. He further stated in cross-examination that new plantation was going on and that he had never gone there. 7. PW 1, Marshal Sanga is an eye witness of the first incident, who has stated that he was working as Jamadar Babu in the Harishpur Tea Garden for the last 8 years and that deceased Bagchi was the proprietor who was murdered on 15th Dec 93. He sta'ted that he was supervising the work of 20 (C) Section of the garden where pruning work of tea plants was going on in that Section when at about 12.30 PM Shyamal Bagchi came to that Section in a Tata Mobile car accompanied by a female Sardarni Smti Sumati Denta. After inspecting the »work Shri Bagchi took the witness along with him to Dehola, a new place of the garden which was being prepared for plantation. The car was stopped near Line No 19 and all went on foot as the car could not go to the new place which was at a distance of 400 nals from the place where the vehicle was parked. At the new place the witness found Siddhinath Lahan, Dushewswar Gogoi and Dilip Kachari along with other labourers who were working. The car was stopped near Line No 19 and all went on foot as the car could not go to the new place which was at a distance of 400 nals from the place where the vehicle was parked. At the new place the witness found Siddhinath Lahan, Dushewswar Gogoi and Dilip Kachari along with other labourers who were working. All were there for about half and hour and when they were returning to the vehicle and Bagchi Sahab was ahead of the witness, Smti Sumati Denta behind him, he saw accused Dulal giving a dao blow to Bagchi Sahab whereupon he fell down. He then heard the cry of Sumati and when he turned behind he saw her lying injured and accused Pawan standing nearby with a dao in his hand. The witness went on to state that he requested the accused not to assault. Dulal and Pawan took to their heels. He saw few boys working at a distance of 200 nals. Bagchi Sahab rose from the ground. The witness saw cut injury on the forehead which was bandaged by him by tearing of a portion of the saree of one Boti who had come there on being called along with other labourers. In the meantime, Dinesh Jogighosa and Manumati arrived. The witness along with Dinesh Gogoi helped injured Sahab to the vehicle and Boti and Manumati helped Sumati Sardarni to the vehicle. He has stated that Sahab was made to sit on the driving seat; whereas Sumati Denta was seated in the rear seat when other labourers also came and it was right at that time that someone told 'run away' and then he saw Bijoy Lal and Shivlal came running. Tokeswar Gogoi was sitting near Sahab in the car. -Bijoy came and asked as to who had hacked his nephew and Bijoy threatened the witness to go away. The witness and Dilip went to a distance of 200 nals from where they saw the garden truck coming and the witness went running behind the truck from where he went to the office and heard there that Bagchi Sahab had died. Thereafter, he went to Namrup Hospital where he saw the dead bodies of Sahab and Sumati. The witness was present at the time of holding the inquest by the police and he signed the inquest report. Thereafter, he went to Namrup Hospital where he saw the dead bodies of Sahab and Sumati. The witness was present at the time of holding the inquest by the police and he signed the inquest report. In cross-examination he stated that police took his statement once in the police station and twice in the garden and that he had stated in the police station what he had seen on the day of occurrence. His statement was taken for second time in the month of January and he did not remember as to when his statement was taken for the third time. In cross examination he stated that he did not know Amtul Gore, Jang Bahadur, Akal Singh and others and that he knew Ram Gore and Ram Nath Majhi. According to the witness Sardar and Sardarni were engaged where works were going on. He further stated in the cross examination that he was going with his head down and that he did not see from which direction Dilip had come. After hearing the notice he raised his head and saw Sahab falling down. He did not see him being injured although he saw Sahab falling down. He further stated that he did not see where Sumati had sustained injuries. He on hearing the cry of Sumati looked around and saw her lying down on the ground and accused Pawan neckiilg her while she was lying. He denied the suggestion that he stated before the police that Bagchi was felled by a blow with a dao from behind. He denied the suggestion that he had stated before the police that he asked Pawan and Dulal not to assault. He admitted that there were 20/25 labourers who were working at a distance of 150/200 nals and that Tokeswar Gogoi was in the new plot at the time of occurrence. Bagchi Sahab walked to the vehicle from the place of occurrence and after he sat in the vehicle Tokeswar came after receiving the information from Nandeswar. There was none when Sahab boarded the car. Tokeswar, according to the witness, was inside the car when Bijoy and Shivlal came running. He denied the suggestion that Bijoy did not threaten him. He further denied the suggestion that he did not see the occurrence. There was none when Sahab boarded the car. Tokeswar, according to the witness, was inside the car when Bijoy and Shivlal came running. He denied the suggestion that Bijoy did not threaten him. He further denied the suggestion that he did not see the occurrence. He denied the suggestion that in his statement a for the third time he stated that Pawan, Dulal and Bijoy had hacked Bagchi Sahab with dao. He admitted that Bagchi Sahab was a man of hot temperament and rough in behaviour. However, he denied that rriany people had become his enemies because of his behaviour. He admitted that his wife works in the garden, but denied the suggestion that the garden authority gave her employment as he gave evidence. In the end he denied the suggestion that he had given false evidence. 8. PW 2 stated that he had been working in the Harishpur Tea Garden since 1954. Shyamal Bagchi was the proprietor of the garden who died on 15.12.93. The witness was inspecting the works in the new plot of the garden where the plantation of tea plants was going on. The boy Nandeswar informed by saying 'Katile', 'Katile' and he went to the direction from where the boy came. He found Bagchi Sahab sitting in injured condition inside the vehicle. PW 1 Marshal was standing outside the vehicle and when the witness entered the vehicle he saw the injury on the head of the Sahab and at that time Bijoy Aim came and broke the glasses of the vehicle with dao and through the broken glasses he inflicted a dao blow on the head of Bagchi Sahab. Deben and Shivlal were standing behind the vehicle. The accused fled from the scene. The witness received injury in his head as some one had hit with a brick. The witness further stated that the injured was taken to Namrup Hospital where they died. The police according to him held inquest on the dead bodies. He admitted in cross examination that he was questioned twice by the police. First time he was examined immediately on the day of occurrence and secondly after a month in the garden office. He further stated that he had stated all the facts of the incident on the very first day. He admitted in cross examination that he was questioned twice by the police. First time he was examined immediately on the day of occurrence and secondly after a month in the garden office. He further stated that he had stated all the facts of the incident on the very first day. He had admitted that he faced some inconveniences in giving some statement on first occasion and therefore he gave statement for the second time. He went on to state that he did not ask Bagchi Sahab anything in the Tata Mobile and that he was not standing outside the vehicle. He stated that he was sitting in the car when he was injured with a brick. He denied the suggestion that he did not state in his statement before the police that Bijoy had broken the glasses of the car with a dao and injured Sahab with dao. Except Marshal and Dilip, none was there, according to the witness. The accused Bijoy, according to the witness gave 2/3 blows on the head of Bagchi Sahab. He denied the suggestion that he stated before the police that Bijoy had stabbed Sahab with the dao. A few women came there before Bijoy had assaulted. He had seen a cloth bandage on the head of Sahab. He denied the suggestion that he did not tell the police that he has seen Deben with a 'Biria' and Shivlal standing behind. He stated that he got his injury stitched and that he did not give the papers pertaining to his treatment to the police. He denied the suggestion that Bagchi Sahab had forcefully dismantled the houses of the labourers. He further denied that in his first statement. he did not tell about his witnessing the incident and that he subsequently gave false evidence as instructed by the police. He denied that he was giving tutored statement for saving his job. 9. PW 4, Amrit Baria is another labourer who stated that Bagchi Sahab was murdered one and half year back when he along with 25/30 labourers was uprooting the bamboo stumps in the garden land. Tokeswar Gogbi and Lahan Babu were also present. Nandeswar, according to the witness, informed that Bagchi Sahab had been injured whereupon he left his work and ran to the place ' of occurrence and saw Marshal and Gogoi making Bagchi Sahab sit in a vehicle. Tokeswar Gogbi and Lahan Babu were also present. Nandeswar, according to the witness, informed that Bagchi Sahab had been injured whereupon he left his work and ran to the place ' of occurrence and saw Marshal and Gogoi making Bagchi Sahab sit in a vehicle. Injured Sumati was seated in the rear seat and at that time Shivlal, Bijoy accused and others came running towards his vehicle and the labourers who had gathered there ran away. The witness further stated that he stood in the courtyard of a house at a little distance. Marshal Babu also went away. Sahab, Tokeswar Babu and Sumati remained inside the vehicle. Bijoy, accused asked as to who had assaulted his nephew and he asked Marshal to go away and then he after breaking the glasses of the vehicle hit Bagchi Sahab with a dao in his head. Deben was carrying a bamboo. In cross-examination he stated that he did not know that the people were evicted by dismantling their houses. Bagchi Sahab, according to him, went upto the car. Marshal and Jogi Gohain helped him by holding from both the sides whereas Manumati and Jogi Gohain carried Sumati. He further stated that about 15 persons had gathered by the side of the car and they ran away after seeing Bijoy, Shivlal and Deben coming. Police interrogated him a month after occurrence. Bijoy is alleged to have broken the glasses after Marshal Babu had gone away. He denied the suggestion that he did not tell the police that Shivlal had broken car glasses with tree stumps. He farther denied the suggestion that he told the police that the glasses of the vehicle had been broken with bricks and that Sahab had been hit with bricks. He denied the suggestion that he did not see any occurrence and that his statement was taken for the third time after tutoring him. 10. PW 5 is Smti Boti Mahato who had bandaged the injury of Sahab by tearing a portion other saree. She stated that she worked as a Sardarni in the tea garden when she was called by Marshal and she after going there found Bagchi Sahab and Sumati lying injured whereupon the injury was bandaged. Marshal and Jogi helped the Sahab to a vehicle. Jogi's wife carried Sumati to the car on her back. She stated that she worked as a Sardarni in the tea garden when she was called by Marshal and she after going there found Bagchi Sahab and Sumati lying injured whereupon the injury was bandaged. Marshal and Jogi helped the Sahab to a vehicle. Jogi's wife carried Sumati to the car on her back. She further stated that she was scared of seeing human blood and therefore fled out of fear. 11. PW 6 Lazar Sindhri stated that he works in tea garden and at about 2.30 PM on the day of occurrence he was at his quarter and the garden driver told while crying that Sahab had been killed. The people gathered and he also went to Section No.19 in a407 vehicle and saw Bagchi Sahab in unconscious state while seated in a driving seat of the Tata Mobile. He further stated that he saw bleeding injury in his head and that he drove the vehicle to the office and took Sahab's driver and thereafter Sahab and injured Sumati were taken to Namrup Hospital where the doctor declared them dead. This witness was not cross-examined at length. He stated in cross examination that when he went there he found Tokeswar Gogoi seated with Sahab and the police interrogated him a few days after the occurrence. 12. PW 7 is doctor DK Mahanta who performed the post mortem examination on the body of Sumati Denta after proper identification and found the following injuries: 1. One incised wound 8x1 cms bone deep on left forehead 1 cm from mid line placed horizontally. 2. Incised wound 4 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm on right check muscle deep. 3. Incised wound 3 cm x 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm on left cheek and ear horizontally. 4. Incised wound 12 cm x 1 cm x 2.5 cm on right hand from the left between the index and middle finger upto wrist joint with dislocation or wrist. 5. Incised wound 14 cm x 1.5 cm brain deep on right frontal, temporal and occipital area placed horizontally across the upper part of the right ear which is also incised and severed. 6. Incised wound of the skull 11 cm x 0.5 cm of right frontal, temporal and occipital bone underneath the injury No. 5. Membranes are incised underneath the injury No.5 sub-dural harmarahge present on right side of the brain. 6. Incised wound of the skull 11 cm x 0.5 cm of right frontal, temporal and occipital bone underneath the injury No. 5. Membranes are incised underneath the injury No.5 sub-dural harmarahge present on right side of the brain. Incised would of the brain 8 cm x 05 cm x 1 cm of right frontal, temporal and occipital areas underneath the injury No. 5. Death in the opinion of the doctor was due to coma resulting from head injury and all the injuries according to him were ante mortem caused by heavy sharp cutting weapon and the same were homicidal in nature. He further stated that he performed post mortem examination on the body of Shyamal Chandra B agchi and found the following injuries :- 1. Incised wound 7 cm x 1 cm bone deep on right side head on back. The injury is present 5 cm from midline and with beveling of left margin. 2. Incised wound 12 cm x 1 cm brain deep on back of the head on midline over occipital. 3. Incised wound 19 cm x 1 cm brain deep on left parietal and occipital area 2 cms from midline. 4. Incised wound 12 cm x 1 cm brain deep in parietal and occipital area 4 cms from midline. 5. Incised wound 12 cm x 1 cm bone deep on left frontal and temporal area just above the left ear and 10 cm from midline. 6. Incised wound 10 cm x 1 cm x 3 cm on left side of neck upper part and back and occipital area just below the left ear. The left ear lobe is incised severed and missing. 7. Scratch 15 cm x 0.1 cm on back of chest left side upper part. 8. Incised wound 10 cm x 0.5 cm x 1 cm on back of the chest right side. 9. Incised wound 4 cm x 0.5 cm x 1 cm on right shoulder. 10. Incised wound 13 cm x 0.5 cm x 2 cm on outer part of left arm in the middle. 11. Incised wound 12 cm x 1 cm brain deep on right parito frontal area 2 cm from midline. 12. Incised wounds 3 cm x 10 cm x 0.5 cm and 2 cm x 1 cm x 0.5 cm on right forehead. 13. Incised wound 2 cm x 0.2 cm x 1 cm on upper lip. 14. 11. Incised wound 12 cm x 1 cm brain deep on right parito frontal area 2 cm from midline. 12. Incised wounds 3 cm x 10 cm x 0.5 cm and 2 cm x 1 cm x 0.5 cm on right forehead. 13. Incised wound 2 cm x 0.2 cm x 1 cm on upper lip. 14. Multiple abrasions on nose and right cheek with comminuted fracture of the nasal bone. . Death of Bagchi in his opinion was due to coma resulting from head injury and all the injuries were ante mortem caused by heavy sharp cutting weapon and homicidal in nature. In cross examination nothing substantial was asked from the doctor except as to how injuries were caused and the same were caused from back or not. 13. PW 8 Amrit Lal Borgohain being the Officer In-charge of Namrup Thana stated that he was verbally informed that Shyaihal Bagchi and Smti Sumati Denta were injured and he after entering in the hospital along with his colleague ASI Pradip Gogo'i learnt that they had died. The Assistant Manager of the garden Shri Palashjyoti Sharma at that time gave a written ejahar and this is how he started the investigation. According to this witness ASI Pradip Kumar Gogoi held the inquest on the dead bodies which Were sent for autopsy to the Medical College. He further stated that he inspect the place of occurrence, examined the witnesses and took their statements. This-witness arrested Bijoy Aim, Dulal and Pawan Garh. He had also seized certain pieces of bricks and broken glasses of the car and green bamboo a 'biria'. He also seized a tangle cutting dao, a dao used in house-hold works, a pruning knife and prepared the seizure list. After completion of the investigation he submitted the charge sheet. The witness was cross examined at length. He stated that he made GD Entry on the basis of verbal information. However, according to him he has not mentioned as to who gave the information. He further stated that he learnt from the Doctor that Bagchi and Sumati had died but he did not know the name of the Doctor and that it was not mentioned in the diary. However, according to him he has not mentioned as to who gave the information. He further stated that he learnt from the Doctor that Bagchi and Sumati had died but he did not know the name of the Doctor and that it was not mentioned in the diary. He further stated in cross-examination that Assistant Manager Palashjyoti Sharma gave written ejahar in the Thana and that on 15.12.93 he examined Tokeswar Gogoi, Ram Bagchi, Marshal Sanga and Dilip Kachari before holding inquest and that he took their statements as witnesses to the inquest. He admitted that he examined Marshal Sanga three times. However, it was denied that as the said witness did not corroborate the prosecution story, he tutored him and took his statement. He further stated that Marshal Sanga told him that he had been working in Section No. 20 and that he had gone with Sahab and that Bagchi was felled by hitting from behind and that Marshal Sanga stated before him that when he was called from the top of a dam then Amrit Baria and Nandeswar Rajkowar had come. The witness went on to state that Amrit Baria at the same time stated that those two were Pawan Garh and Dulal Garh and Baria told him on the thkd occasion that he has witnessed with his own eyes that Pawan, Dulal and Bijoy had hacked Bagchi with daos. This witness further stated that he took the statement of Tokeswar Gogoi twice, once in the Thana and second time in the garden office and that Tokeswar Gogoi did not tell anything in his first statement as he was not well. The Investigating Officer admitted that Tokeswar did not tell in his first statement that Bijoy had brokeivthe glasses of the vehicle with a dao. He however denied that since Tokeswar Gogoi did not tell anything in the first statement, he took the statement later on after tutoring him. Palashjyoti Sharma according to the witness had come, to the Thana along with injured and had given a verbal information. This witness further stated that PW 4 Amrit Baria did not tell before him 'who will save you today'. The IO further stated that PW 4 Amrit Baria did not tell him that Shivlal had broken the glasses of the vehicle with tree stump and that Bijoy and hacked Sahab with a dao in the head. This witness further stated that PW 4 Amrit Baria did not tell before him 'who will save you today'. The IO further stated that PW 4 Amrit Baria did not tell him that Shivlal had broken the glasses of the vehicle with tree stump and that Bijoy and hacked Sahab with a dao in the head. The IO went on to state that PW 4 Amrit Baria stateo! Before him that the glasses of the vehicle had been broken by hitting with bricks. He further stated that he took the statement of one witness Birbahaduria by name. He denied the suggestion that he prepared the diary by manipulation. On re- a examination the Investigating Officer stated that the statement of the witnesses had to be taken twice as they felt nervous on account of the death of their Sahab. When cross-examined again he denied the suggestion that he gave false evidence. 14. PW 9 is Pradip Kumar Gogoi being attached to Namrup Thana, held the inquest report on the dead bodies and sent them for post mortem examination. 15. The case of all the accused is of the simple denial in their statement under section 313. Both the appeals were filed from jail and therefore this Court appointed two counsel for representing the accused. The Amicus Curiae counsel in both the appeals have ably argued the case. It is argued that some labourers have murdered both the deceased as they had illicit connection with each other. From the inquest report, it has been pointed out by the counsel that semen was c coming out of the penis of deceased Sahab and this fact shows that both were caught while having sex and the labourers feeling agitated committed the murder and that the appellants have been roped in falsely. The counsel for the appellants have further argued that Sahab was a hot tampered man and since he demolished the houses of some labourers, they committed the crime. While pointing out the defects in investigation, it has been argued that the statements of some witnesses and particularly that of PW 2 was recorded thrice. The argument of the counsel is that the witnesses were compelled to depose by the investigating agency under coercion. While pointing out the defects in investigation, it has been argued that the statements of some witnesses and particularly that of PW 2 was recorded thrice. The argument of the counsel is that the witnesses were compelled to depose by the investigating agency under coercion. With reference to the existence of several injuries on the persons of the deceased, the counsel have argued that the appellants alone had not inflicted such large number of injuries even according to the witnesses and therefore, it must be the hands work of several labourers and therefore the appellants are entitled to benefit of doubt. 16. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments of the counsel for the appellants. We have also gone through the prosecution evidence in its minutest detail as has been noticed above and are of the view that the prosecution has been able to prove its case against all the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. 17. Although the semen was oozing out from the private part of the deceased Mr. Bagchi but this fact does not give any presumption that both the deceased were having sex and the labourers felt agitated and gave fatal injuries to the deceased persons. No witness in this direction has been cross examined by the counsel for the accused. May be deceased Bagchi was a hot tampered man and may be he had demolished some houses of the labourers but these facts are not sufficient to infer that certain other labourers have committed the crime and the accused persons have been falsely implicated leaving the real culprits. In any case why should eye witnesses falsely implicate the accused and screen the real culprits. We do not find any force in the argument of the counsel that the witnesses were compelled by the investigating agency to depose falsely by tutoring them. Simply because the statement of one witness or the other has been recorded by the investigating officer twice or even thrice, it does not mean that the truth did not come in the first instance. It has come in the statement of PW 2 that he had narrated the entire occurrence in his first statement. It appears to us that the witnesses were feeling nervous as their proprietor was murdered and it was for that reason that their statements had to be recorded again. 18. It has come in the statement of PW 2 that he had narrated the entire occurrence in his first statement. It appears to us that the witnesses were feeling nervous as their proprietor was murdered and it was for that reason that their statements had to be recorded again. 18. Adverting to the argument of the counsel about the existence of several injuries upon deceased persons, it has been seen by us that more than twenty injuries were suffered by the deceased persons. We are further inclined to agree with the counsel for the appellants that the prosecution witnesses have not been able to satisfactorily explain the existence of such large number of injuries. However the question arises whether this circumstance alone can held to be sufficient in the light of the entire prosecution case for acquitting the three appellants in these two appeals. We have given our anxious thought to this argument but are of the firm view that the existence of several injuries does not create any dent in the case of the prosecution. It has come in the statement of eye witnesses as to how the injuries were inflicted by each accused. Moreover, it was stated in the first information report itself that the appellants and others unitedly surrounded the deceased and assaulted the deceased persons with deadly weapons such as dao, sword etc. Admittedly charge sheet was submitted by the prosecution against the appellants and three more persons i.e. Shivlal Garh, Deben Garh and Ram Garh. No charge was framed by the trial Court against Ram Garh as no prima facie case was found against him. The other two accused absconded and this is how the case against three appellants before us proceeded before the trial Court. May be there were some other persons who participated in the commission of crime and it is they who are responsible for giving so many injuries. Their cases would be dealt with as and when they are arrested. 19. Adverting once again to the complicity of each appellant-accused, we straight way refer to the statement of PW 1, Marshal Sanga who has stated in clear terms that when Bagchi Sahab (deceased) was ahead of him and Sumati Denta (deceased) behind him, he saw accused Dulal giving a dao blow to Bagchi Sahab whereupon he fell down. 19. Adverting once again to the complicity of each appellant-accused, we straight way refer to the statement of PW 1, Marshal Sanga who has stated in clear terms that when Bagchi Sahab (deceased) was ahead of him and Sumati Denta (deceased) behind him, he saw accused Dulal giving a dao blow to Bagchi Sahab whereupon he fell down. He also stated that at that time he heard the cry of Sumati and when he turned behind he saw her lying injured and accused Pawan Garh standing nearby with a dao in his hand and when he requested them not to assault, the two accused ran. There is absolutely nothing to disbelieve this witness when he has described the participation of both the accused for giving dao blows to the deceased persons. Doctor has found the injuries by dao. As regards the complicity of Bijoy Aim, PW 1 stated that when he made Sahab and Sumati Denta sit in the car, Bijoy-appellant came running and asked as to who had hacked his nephew and threatened the witness to go away. The witness went away and it is thereafter that Bijoy Aim gave dao blows on the head of Sahab by breaking the glasses of the vehicle with dao as has been clearly stated by PW 2 Tokeswar Gogoi. In cross examination, this witness PW 2 further explained that Bijoy gave 2/3 dao blows on the head of Bagchi Sahab. 20. PW 4 Amrit Baria has also supported the prosecution case as regards the second incident when Bijoy Aim gave blow to Bagchi Sahab. His statement has already been noticed by us in the earlier part of the judgment. He did state that he was informed by Nandeswar that Bagchi Sahab had been injured and on arrival at the place of occurrence, he saw Marshal, PW 1 and Gogoi, PW 2 making Bagchi Sahab seated in this vehicle and then Shivlal, Bijoy and others ran a towards vehicle. This witness stood in the courtyard and saw the incident at a little distance. Bijoy asked Marshal Sanga to keep away and he left. This witness has further stated that Bijoy had broken the glasses of the vehicle and hacked Sahab. His statement lends support to the testimony of PW 2. Both PWs 2 and PW 4, in our considered view prove the complicity of Bijoy in the commission of the crime. Bijoy asked Marshal Sanga to keep away and he left. This witness has further stated that Bijoy had broken the glasses of the vehicle and hacked Sahab. His statement lends support to the testimony of PW 2. Both PWs 2 and PW 4, in our considered view prove the complicity of Bijoy in the commission of the crime. In a nutshell PW 1 Marshal Sanga has proved to hilt the first incident in which the two appellants Pawan Garh and Dual Garh gave injuries to Bagchi Sahab and Sumati Denta. PW 1 Marshal Sanga is, however, not an eye witness when Bijoy Aim gave injuries inasmuch as he was directed by the assailant to keep away. According to PW 1 he left the place. This is what has been precisely stated even by PW 2 and PW 4 in whose presence the second incident has taken place. According to both these two witnesses PW 2 and PW 4, Marshal Sanga had gone away when Bijoy Aim gave injuries to Bagchi Sahab on his head with dao. We do not have even the slightest doubt in our mind that in both the incidents, participation of all the three appellants in the heinous crime is proved. There is absolutely nothing to disbelieve these three witnesses. Simply because they were working in the tea garden, they would not have come forward to give false ^ evidence until and unless they have actually seen the occurrence. 21. The statement of Boti Mahato, PW 5 is relevant only to the extent that she had bandaged the injury of Sahab by tearing a portion of her saree and this is what was also stated by PW 1, Marshal Sanga, she was not at all cross-examined. 22. PW 6 drove the vehicle. 23. PW 7 is a Doctor who performed the post mortem examination. 24. PW 8 is the Investigating Officer. This witness generally stated about the investigation of the case. He was cross examined by the defence and he did admit that the statement of the witnesses were recorded twice/thrice. But this fact alone does not lead to any definite conclusion that the investigation was either tainted or unfair. As a whole this witness does inspire confidence. 25. PW 9 and PW 10 were also attached with the police station 26. But this fact alone does not lead to any definite conclusion that the investigation was either tainted or unfair. As a whole this witness does inspire confidence. 25. PW 9 and PW 10 were also attached with the police station 26. On an analytical examination of the entire prosecution examination we are fully convinced that the appellants have murdered the deceased persons whatever might have been the motive behind the commission of the crime. May be the appellants and others were annoyed with Bagchi deceased or they felt agitated on account of suspicion in 'their mind about the illicit connections of £ Bagchi Sahab and Sardarni. Minor discrepancies in the statement of the witnesses or some lapses on the part of the investigating agency do not create any doubt about the prosecution case as such. The participation of the three appellants in the commission of the crime is proved. 27. Nothing observed by us would be taken as an expression of opinion about the guilt of the other absconding accused. They would be tried by the trial Court in accordance with law whenever they are arrested. 28. For the reasons recorded above the two appeals filed by the appellants are found to be merit less and are dismissed. In view of the fact that both the Amicus Curiae had to spend a lot of time for arguing the two appeals in Court for two days and that too with thorough preparation, we direct the State to pay them Rs.3,000 each by way of their fee. 29. The records of the case be sent to the trial Court as the same may be needed for proceeding against the absconding accused.