JUDGMENT : - Gitesh Ranjan Bhattachrajee, J. : This Criminal Appeal is directed against the orders conviction and sentences the appellants have preferred the present appeal. 2. The prosecution case, in short, as stated in the FIR is that the informant Swapan Goswami came out of the house of Srutidhar (Nando) Majumder (P.W. 2) after taking dinner at about 10-15 p.m. on 30th June, 1987 on the occasion of the marriage ceremony of the daughter of said Srutidhar while his elder brother Kalyan Goswami came out of the house of Srutidhar after finishing his dinner a little ahead of the informant Swapan Goswami. It is also stated in the FIR that certain other invitees, such as, Debi Das Goswami, Asish Mukherjee, (P.W. 5), Gurudas Banerjee (P.W. 4), Shanti Majumdar (P.W. 9), Bhiin Mondal (P.W. 8), Anil Roy Chowdhury and some others also came out of the house of Srutidhar after finishing their dinner a little before Kalyan Goswami. The allegation in the FIR is that while Kalyan Goswami came near the shop of Dilip Roy Chowdhury (P.W. 6) he was attacked by certain persons named in the FIR including the present appellants who were armed with Lathi, Tangi and Bhojali and were waiting there by the side of the shop of Dilip Roy Chowdhury and this was witnessed by the informant Swapan Goswami and also Kanan Banerjee who was accompanying him at that time. According to the FIR the appellant Sunder Chatterjee assaulted on the left side of the head of Kalyan with Bhojali and the appellant Ram Bilas assaulted on the right side with Bhojali and the appellants Pranob Chatterjee, Rasa Pal, Dona Pal and the accused Kiriti Chatterjee caught hold of Kalyan and the appellant Uttam Pal assaulted him with Tangi from the back side and in this manner Kalyan was assaulted and on seeing the incident in the light of the tube light fitted in the vicinity on the occasion of the marriage ceremony the informant and Kanan rushed to the spot and shouted for help and at that time other. persons also came to the spot on hearing hue and cry and shouting and the assailants in the meantime fled away from the place and Kalyan fell down with bleeding injuries and the informant then clasped the body of the victim and in presence of all persons who had assembled there the victim uttered the names of the assailants two or three times and then became unconscious and was then removed to the D.S.P. Hospital where he was declared dead. It is alleged in the FIR that the victim was murdered pursuant to a conspiracy made by the supporters of the political party, SUCI. 3. P.W. 1 Swapan Goswami the informant and brother of the victim Kalyan Goswami deposes in support of the FIR lodged by him. It may be noted here that the incident took place in the village Sharpi. Evidence of P.W. 1 is that on the occasion of the marriage ceremony of the daughter of Srutidhar Mazumdar of the same village he and others including his elder brother Kalyan Goswami who were invitees went to the house of Srutidhar and after taking dinner he and his relative Kanan Banerjee came out of the house of Srutidhar following his brother Kalyan Goswami, and certain other invitees namely, Santi Mazumdar, Devidas Goswami, Asish Mukherjee, Gurudas Banerjee, Bhim Mondal also came out of the house of Srutidhar after attending the feast there just a little before his brother came out from there. He says that thereafter he saw Kanti Goswami, Sundar Chatterjee (App. No.1), Rambilash Pal (App. No.2), Utthan Pal (Appl. No.6), Dona Pal (App. No.4), Ram Kanai Pal, Shyamasis Banerjee Khokan), Ram Prasad Pal, Kiriti Chatterjee, Gora Banerjee (Guruprosad Banerjee) and some other persons standing in front of the shop of Dilip Roy Chowdhury (P.W. 6), being armed with Lathi, Bhojali, Tangi etc. and he could recognise them clearly in the light of the tube light of the marriage ceremony and also of the street light and that thereafter on arrival of his said elder brother there the accused Sundar Chatterjee (App. No.1) struck him with Bhojali on the right side of his neck and his brother raised cry and instantaneously Pranab Chatterjee (App. No.3), Dona Pal (App. No.4), Rosa Pal (App. No.5) surrounded his elder brother and the accused Utthan (App. No.1) struck him with Bhojali on the right side of his neck and his brother raised cry and instantaneously Pranab Chatterjee (App. No.3), Dona Pal (App. No.4), Rosa Pal (App. No.5) surrounded his elder brother and the accused Utthan (App. No.6) struck his brother with a Tailgi from back side and his brother raised cry and he (Swapan) and Kanan also raised hue and cry shouting for help and on hearing such cry the persons who were going just ahead of his brother after attending the marriage feast and other persons also rushed to the place and on seeing them the accused persons fled away. According to P.W. 1 he caught his brother embarking and kept the head of his brother on his lap and at that state his brother told him that Sundar Chatterjee, Rambilas Pal, Utthan Pal, Pranab Chatterjee, Kanti Goswami, Ramkanai Pal, Gora Banerjee, Khokan (Alias Shyamashis Banerjee) and some others had caused him deadly injury and after repeating those words two to three times his brother fell unconscious. He says that his injured brother was removed to D.S.P. Hospital in the Mini Bus of the marriage party and the doctors declared him dead there. He gives the time of the occurance as 10-15 p.m. He says that the accused persons conspired to cause death of his said brother and they belonged to SUCI party and he further says that police visited his said brother at 12-35 his and he got the occurance written by Asish Mukherjee (P.W. 5) and handed over the same to the police. He was cross-examined on the point that while in the FIR it is stated that Pranab, Dona and Rosa caught his brother, in his evidence he says that they had surrounded his brother. He of course says that they had surrounded him and not caught him. From his cross-examination it appears that P.W. 1 Swap an Goswami along with Kanan was at a distance of about 20 ft. from his brother. He says that he resides in his paternal house in his village which is located to the South East of the P.O. but he cannot say its distance from the P.O. by guess. From his cross-examination it appears that P.W. 1 Swap an Goswami along with Kanan was at a distance of about 20 ft. from his brother. He says that he resides in his paternal house in his village which is located to the South East of the P.O. but he cannot say its distance from the P.O. by guess. He also says that the house of Anil Ghosh (P.W. 3) is situated by the side of the Primary School of their village and there is also one Anil Raichowdhury of Goyalapara which name has been noted in the FIR. The name of Anil Raichowdhury is mentioned in the written complaint as one of the persons who came ahead of the victim Kalyan Goswami from the house of Srutidhar Mazumdar. Anil Raichowdhury was however not examined in the case and Anil Ghosh (P.W. 3) was examined. P.W. 1 Swapan Goswami however, says in course of his cross-examination by way of a voluntary statement that it was wrongly recorded as Anil Raichowdhury in the written complaint in place of Anil Ghosh though he had stated 'Ghosh'. Cross-examination was made to elicit that P.W. 1 Swapan Goswami and his brother deceased Kalyan Goswami were involved in other cases and they were also arrested. It was also taken from him in cross-examination that Kalyan was detained under MISA. He says that he is a supporter of CPI(M) party for the last five years. However, he can't say why Kalyan was made a target of the conspiracy. His evidence is that he reached the hospital at about 11 p.m. He also says in his cross-examination that he narrated the entire incident when he met the Darogababu in the hospital and he narrated it verbally and at the time of such verbal narration Ashis was writing the written complaint as he asked Ashish to write it down. He also says that one road leads to the east from the Tematha in front of the shop of Dilip and this road leads to Bouripara and Muchipara. It is suggested to him in his cross-examination that his brother was attacked by some unknown miscreants when he was returning home through Muchipara and Bouripara and that being attacked in Muchipara and Bouripara his said brother came running and fell down in front of the shop of Dilip which however he denies. It is suggested to him in his cross-examination that his brother was attacked by some unknown miscreants when he was returning home through Muchipara and Bouripara and that being attacked in Muchipara and Bouripara his said brother came running and fell down in front of the shop of Dilip which however he denies. He also denies the defence suggestion that his brother was killed in connection with litigations in which he was involved and that the killing of his brother was due to the culmination of his anti-social activities. He denies the defence suggestion that out of doubt, suspicion and malice against the accused persons he has falsely involved them in this case in order to destroy the SUCI party. 4. P.W. 2 Srutidhar Mazumdar testifies to the fact that the marriage ceremony of his daughter took place in his house on the date of occurrence namely, 30.06.87. He says that on that day after 10-15 p.m. some holla-golla' (row) was heard from outside and at that time the invitees to the marriage feast were being attended and the marriage ceremony was continuing. He says that the invitees got frightened and entered inside the room and he also got frightened and the marriage ceremony was stopped. He, however, says that he did not go outside to enquire as to what was happening and in that night he heard that one Kalyan Goswami had been murdered. He was however declared hostile by the prosecution. He admits that Kalyan was one of the invitees. From him we get that Santi Mazumdar (P.W. 9) is his cousin brother whose house is there in the neighbourhood and that Anil Ghosh (P.W. 3) also resides in the neighbourhood to the further north. The evidence of P.W. 3 Anil Ghosh is that when he was returning from the house of Srutidhar after attending the marriage ceremony along with others at about 10-15/10-20 p.m. on 30.06.87 they heard some cries like 'being killed' and then instantaneously he rushed to the P.O. in front of Dilip's house where he found the injured Kalyan on the ground with his head on the lap of his brother Swapan and he heard that Kalyan was murmuring something near the ear of Swapan and on enquiry from Swapan as to what Kalyan was whispering, Swap an divulged to him that certain miscreants like Ramkanai Pal, Janardan Pal (App. No.4), Rambilas Pal (App. No.4), Rambilas Pal (App. No.2), Utthan (App. No. 6) assaulted the deceased Kalyan. He says that about 50/60 persons crowded there and he remained there for about 10 minutes and the victim was removed to D.S.P. Hospital by a Mini Bus meant for the marriage ceremony and later he heard that the injured succumbed to the injuries. He also was declared hostile by the prosecution. In his cross-examination by the defence, he says that he heard the row on the way in the midst, say, about 100 ft. away from the marriage house. He says that Kalyan was conscious when he was removed to the Mini Bus. He, however, says that the policemen came to the village in that night from Loudoha P.S. at about 11 p.m. and at that time he narrated nothing to the I.O. about what he heard from Swapan. The I.O. P.W. 12 however, says that there is nothing in the statement of Anil Ghosh that Swapan divulged to him the names of certain assailants but I.O.'s evidence shows that Anil Ghosh told the I.O. that in their presence Kalyan named his assailants. P.W. 4 Gurudas Banerjee was also declared hostile by the prosecution. His evidence is that on 30.06.87 at about 9-30/10-00 p.m. Kalyan Goswami was murdered and when he (the witness) was going back from the house of Srutidhar after having attended the marriage feast, he heard an outcry of the members of the public and he rushed to the place in front of the house of Dilip and found that injured Kalyan was being removed into a bus meant for the marriage ceremony. He says that he accompanied the persons while taking the victim to the hospital and he did not however ask anything to Kalyan as to how he was murdered and by whom. He also says that after coming back from the hospital he met Darogababu near the P.O. at about 1-00 p.m. In his cross-examination by the defence he says that having heard the outcry he had been to the P.O. and found an assembly of many persons and he had some talks with many persons of the crowd and he noticed that Kalyan was being physically removed with the help of a rickshow into a Mini Bus for the purpose of hospitalization. He says that they reached the hospital at about 11-00 p.m. He further says that Kalyan was conscious when he was being taken to the hospital. 5. P.W. 5 Asish Mukherjee says that on 30.6.87 night they were invited in connection with the marriage ceremony in the house of Srutidhar and while returning at 10-00/10-10 p.m. along with others, such as, Gurudas Banerjee, Mihir Mondal, Anil Ghosh, Santiram Mazumdar, Debidas Goswami after having attended the ceremonial feast they heard an outcry from the side of the house of Srutidhar and they rushed towards that place and found the injured Kalyan lying on the ground with his head on the lap of his brother Swapan in front of the shop of one Dilip Roychowdhury, and the injured was divulging to Swapan some names like Sunder Chatterjee, Ramkanai Pal, Rambilash Pal, Utthan Pal as assailants who injured him. In his cross-examination he says that a little while after disclosing the names of the miscreants Kalyan became senseless at the spot. He says in his examination-in-chief that Swapan got the incident diarised. He further says that he accompanied Swapan at Loudoha (Faridpur) P.S. He next says that Ejahar was written down by him in his own hand at the dictation of Swapan Goswami. He says that before happening of the actual incident he happened to see some persons sitting inside the shop of Dilip and standing outside. He cannot tell their names now as it was an incident of long past. The ld. Advocate for the appellants submits in this connection that according to the other evidence the shop of Dilip was not open at that time and therefore, how could the witness see some persons sitting in the shop. The learned Advocate for the State on the other hand submits that what the witness meant was that some persons were sitting on the varandha of the shop while others were standing outside. In his cross-examination P.W. 5 says that along with Swapan he reached Faridpur P.S. in the next morning at about 8/9 a.m. and as per asking of Darogababu he scribed out the FIR in the P.S. Darogababu, he says, was present and asked Swapan to put his signature and accordingly he complied with the same. In his cross-examination P.W. 5 says that along with Swapan he reached Faridpur P.S. in the next morning at about 8/9 a.m. and as per asking of Darogababu he scribed out the FIR in the P.S. Darogababu, he says, was present and asked Swapan to put his signature and accordingly he complied with the same. He further says that only Swapan and he had been to the P.S. next morning as already stated and that from hospital they came back on that night at about 1-30/2-00 a.m. It is submitted on behalf of the appellants that evidence as to at what time and where the written complaint was written is not consistent with the prosecution case that the complaint was written at the hospital in the night of the occurrence and was handed over to the police officer at the hospital at 12-35 a.m. which was thereafter allegedly sent to the P.S. in that very night from the hospital through constable and the case was registered in that very night in the P.S. as P.S. Case no. 1 dated 1.7.87 at 2.05 a.m. on that day. On the other hand it is submitted on behalf of the State that the statement of the witness (P.W. 5) in this respect must be the result of some confusion inasmuch as the endorsements on the written complaint itself shows that the police officer received the written complaint' on 1.7.87 at the D.S.P. Hospital, Durgapur at 00-35 a.m. and forwarded the same to the D.C. Faridpur, P.S. through constable Bikash for starting case under sections 147 /148/149/120B/302 of IPC and the same was received at the P.S. on 1.7.87 at 2.05 a.m. and the P.S. case no. 1 under the said sections was started. It may be also noted here that the FIR itself contains an endorsement of the SDJM 'Seen' under the initial of the SDJM dated 1.7.87 which shows that the FIR was placed before the SDJM on 1.7.87. The order-sheet dated 1.7.87 of the court of the SDJM also shows that the FIR was seen by him when three accused persons (FIR named) were produced before him under arrest on that day. In his cross-examination P.W. 5 Asish Mukherjee says that the accused Sundar Chatterjee and Rambilas are SUCI supporters and Swapan (P.W. 1) is a CPI(M) supporter. The order-sheet dated 1.7.87 of the court of the SDJM also shows that the FIR was seen by him when three accused persons (FIR named) were produced before him under arrest on that day. In his cross-examination P.W. 5 Asish Mukherjee says that the accused Sundar Chatterjee and Rambilas are SUCI supporters and Swapan (P.W. 1) is a CPI(M) supporter. He says that at that time he was a' CPI(M) supporter but now he is neutral. P.W. 6 Dilip Kr. Roychowdhury has a grocery shop at Sharpi. The prosecution case is that the occurrence took place in front of his shop. He says that on 30.6.87 at 10/10-15 p.m. he heard an outcry and came out and found the injured Kalyan Goswami with bleeding injury and he was removed to a Mini Bus in a Rikshaw for being taken to D.S.P. Hospital. Kalyan, he says, was in unconscious state. He says that he simply saw Kalyan being taken and he did not state how Kalyan was assaulted or injured or by whom. In his cross-examination he says that his house is attached to shop and the Srutidhar's house is 200/250 ft. to the north of his shop. He was also invited to the marriage ceremony of the daughter of Srutidhar and he attended the ceremony and also found Kalyan there. His evidence is that Kalyan was wearing Payjama and Punjabi (when he saw him at the marriage house of Srutidhar). From his evidence we get that the accused persons were also the residents of Sharpi and they are SUCI supporters and some of them are SUCI leaders of their village. He further says that Swap an Goswami, Asish Mukherjee, Gurudas Banerjee, Santi Mazumdar, Bhim Mondal, Anil Ghosh, Bhajan Goswami, Sukdev Goswami are all CPI(M) supporters. P.W. 7, Bhajan Goswami is a younger brother of the deceased Kalyan Goswami. His evidence is that on 30.6.87 at about 10-15/10-20 p.m. when he was returning from the house of Srutidhar after having attended the marriage feast he heard an outcry and rushed towards the place and found the injured Kalyan with bleeding injuries and lying on the lap of Swapan Goswami where Kanan Banerjee was also present. His evidence is that on 30.6.87 at about 10-15/10-20 p.m. when he was returning from the house of Srutidhar after having attended the marriage feast he heard an outcry and rushed towards the place and found the injured Kalyan with bleeding injuries and lying on the lap of Swapan Goswami where Kanan Banerjee was also present. He says that at that time Kalyan was alive and in response to his enquiry as to who assaulted him Kalyan answered that Sundar Chatterjee, Rambilas Pal, Pronab Chatterjee, Kanti Goswami, Ramkanai Pal, Gora Banerjee, Khokan Baneljee (Shyamsis) and many others had assaulted him grievously. His further evidence is that with the help of Asish Mukherjee, Anil Ghosh, Gurudas Banerjee who all came immediately after he had reached the place, they removed the injured in a village rikshaw to a Mini Bus of the marriage house and he was taken to Durgapur Main Hospital where the injured was declared dead by the doctor at about 11-00 p.m. He further says that Bhim Mondal, Santi Mazumdar also accompanied him to the P.O. on that night and Asish, Gurudas and Anil Ghosh reached the P.O. within 3 to 5 minutes after they had reached. From his evidence we get that Kanan Banerjee has become lunatic and he is now under treatment. This explains why Kanan Banerjee has not been examined in this case. P.W. 7 Bhajan is also a witness to the seizure and he signed the seizure lists in respect of seized articles. In his cross examination he says that police did not come to the village in that night at about 11-00 p.m. He also says that as a matter of fact, he had occasion to meet the police next day morning at 10-00 a.m. and he also signed the paper next day morning after 10-00 a.m. He also says that police did not ask him anything but he suo motu made a disclosure before police about the incident and Darogababu put his statement in black and white and he signed his name at the end of the ejahar. He further says that the policeman performed the inquest on the deadbody in the village next day at about 10-10-15 a.m. These seem to be confused statements although the same do not touch the cere aspect of the prosecution case, namely, the occurrence at the particular place. He further says that the policeman performed the inquest on the deadbody in the village next day at about 10-10-15 a.m. These seem to be confused statements although the same do not touch the cere aspect of the prosecution case, namely, the occurrence at the particular place. In cross-examination he says that he does not know whether Kalyan in that night, after having attended the marriage feast in the house of Srutidhar, came back home, changed his dress and put on a lungi and thereafter went to Bouripara on nectarnal mission. He denies the defence suggestion that Kalyan was manhandled by the Bouris and Ruidases for going there in connection with making merriment and he was heavily mauled and fell down on the ground in front of the three point crossing (Tematha). It may be mentioned here, and as would be evident from the evident of record as well as the sketch map and the index prepared by' La. Exts. 5 & 6, that the place where the injured Kalyan was found lying in front of the shop of P.W. 6, Dilip Kr. Raichowdhury was the three point junction. P.W. 8 Bhim Mondal also attended the marriage feast in the house of Srutidhar on 30.6.87 as an invitee. His evidence is that when he, Bhajan Goswami, Santi Mazumdar, Debi Prosad Goswami, Gurudas Banerjee were returning from that marriage house after having feast, they heard a 'hulla' to the effect 'being killed being killed; save' from a place a little ahead and they rushed towards the spot and found the injured Kalyan Goswami with bleeding injuries lying on the ground with head on the lap of Swapan Goswami and Kanan Banerjee and at that time, Swap an uttered out that Sundar Chatterjee, Ramprosad Pal, Ramkanai Pal, Pranab Chatterjee, Gora Banerjee, Dona Goswami had murdered his eldest brother Kalyan. In answer to question as to whether he inquired from Kalyan also as to who were the assailants, he says that in response to his enquiry the injured divulged out the names of his assailants-Sundar Chatterjee, Ramprosad Pal, Dona Goswami and others. He also speaks about the removal of the injured to the hospital. In answer to question as to whether he inquired from Kalyan also as to who were the assailants, he says that in response to his enquiry the injured divulged out the names of his assailants-Sundar Chatterjee, Ramprosad Pal, Dona Goswami and others. He also speaks about the removal of the injured to the hospital. P.W. 9, Santi Mazumdar says that on 30.6.87 at about 10-15/10-20 p.m. when he alongwith Bhajan Goswami, Bhim Mondal, Anil Ghosh, Gurudas Banerjee, Asish Mukherjee went to see off one of his relatives who had already attended the marriage ceremony, and reached near the shop of Dilip Roy Chowdhury (P.W. 6), they found some persons sitting on the verndah of the shop, namely, Sunder Chatterjee, Rambilash Pal, Utthan Pal, Pro nab Chatterjee, Kanti Goswami, Ram Kanai Pal, Gora Banerjee and they proceeded ahead and when they reached the Barna Kali Mandir, they heard an outcry "Bachao, Bachao" (Save, Save). According to his evidence, at that time Anil, Durga and Asish were a little ahead of them. His evidence is that on hearing such outcry they went back to the spot in front of the Dilip's shop and found Kalyan lying on the ground with his head on the lap of Swapan where Kanan was present and at that time Kalyan disclosed the names of the assailants, who had assaulted him i.e. Sundar Chatterjee, Rambilash Pal, Utthan Pal, Pro nab Chatterjee, Kanti Goswami, Ramkanai Pal, Gora Banerjee, and thereafter they removed the injured to the hospital by means of rickshaw and a Mini Bus and the M.O. examined him and declared him dead. He says that he was on speaking terms with the persons sitting in the verandah of Dilip's shop who were however supporters of the other party and he belonged to CPI(M). It is suggested to him in cross-examination, which however he denies, that he did not intentionally talk to them for their having allegiance to SUCI. In his cross-examination he says that he did not personally enquire from Kalyan as to who assailed him as because he on his own accord made out a suo motu disclosure. He says that Kalyan uttered out the names of his assailant twice and in the first phase he gave out the names of 7 assailants and on the second time he gave out names of 8 assailants. P.W. 10 Sk. Sagar is a S.I. of police. He says that Kalyan uttered out the names of his assailant twice and in the first phase he gave out the names of 7 assailants and on the second time he gave out names of 8 assailants. P.W. 10 Sk. Sagar is a S.I. of police. On 30.6.87 he was attached to Faridpur PB. as A.S.I. According to his evidence he was on duty at Sharpi village on that day from 1000 p.m. till 6-00 a.m. next morning and that the O.C. Khairul Alam accompanied them and the O.C. was there for about 2 hours and save and except law and order duty he (P.W. 10) performed no other duty there. 6. P.W. 11 Dr. P.N. Chatterjee is the doctor who held the post-mortem examination on the deadbody of Kalyan Goswami. He found the following external injuries on the deadbody, namely :- (1) Rigormortis was positive. Eyes closed. Mouth open. Stout body. Incised injury 5" x 1" bone deep over the occipital bone on the right side upto the posterior aspect of right ear. (2) Incised injury 6" x 1" bone deep and fracture on occipital bone 2" above the first .injury. (3) Incised injury 3" x 1" fracture on right parietal bone 1" above the second injury. (4) 4" x 1" incised injury bone deep over the parietal bone, fracture on right parietal bone. (5) 3" x 2" incised injury 3" above the first injury, fracture on occipital bone. (6) 3" incised injury over the left side of the occipital bone. (7) 2" x 1" incised injury •over the right scapula, bone deep. (8) 5" x 3" incised injury over the left side of the occipital bone just above the neck. (9) 3" x 2" incised injury over the parieto-occipital left side. (10) 2" incised injury on the shoulder joint. (11) 1" muscle deep over the left thumb and dorsal aspect of the left palm. (12) 2" incised injury at the root of the thumb. (13) Fracture maxilla. (14) Fracture nasal bone. (15) 2" incised injury bone deep over the right fore-head. (16) 2" incised injury muscle deep over the right elbow joint. (17) All upper teeth broken. After dissection of the deadbody the doctor found the stomach congested and found food particles in the stomach. (13) Fracture maxilla. (14) Fracture nasal bone. (15) 2" incised injury bone deep over the right fore-head. (16) 2" incised injury muscle deep over the right elbow joint. (17) All upper teeth broken. After dissection of the deadbody the doctor found the stomach congested and found food particles in the stomach. The doctor is of the opinion that the injuries of various nature as found were likely to be caused by sharp-cutting weapon or blunt and hard substance. In his cross-examination he says that the nature of most of the injuries would disclose that the victim was severely assaulted with strong force by the assailants from the rear side. He further says that the injuries no. 2, 3, 4 & 5 were fracture wounds on the occipital region of the scalp. His evidence is that tough injuries including the fracture injuries on the rear side of the occipital region as found in the present case was very much likely to blur the visionary power of the deceased. He, however, says that no conspicuous injury was detected on the neck itself. His evidence is that upper teeth are fitted with the maxilla and that due to breaking of upper teeth and fracture of maxillary and nasal bones nasal cavity and mouth cavity were found in the person of the deceased. He further says that while a man speaks, he requires to inhale air and in the case of a person suffering from fracture in the nasal bone and teeth, he has to respirate or swallow and suck blood during inhaling. He also says that in the case of inhaling blood by the patient, it must go inside gullet, stomach and respiratory passage, but he did not find any such thing in the present case and that the very absence of blood in the gullet, the respiratory passage and stomach would clearly show that the injured was unable to speak. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellants that the post-mortem doctor's evidence would thus show that the injured was unable to speak and that would falsify the prosecution case that the injured uttered the names of the assailants after sustaining the injuries. 7. P.W. 12, Pranab Kr. Mondal was attached to Faridpur P.S. as S.I. of police on 30.6.87. 7. P.W. 12, Pranab Kr. Mondal was attached to Faridpur P.S. as S.I. of police on 30.6.87. He says that on that day at about 10 p.m. he received anonymous telephonic call that one Kalyan Goswami had been murdered and that some tension was prevailing in the locality and he informed the matter to the D.C. and also diarised the same in Faridpur P.S. G.D. No. 806 dated 30.6.87. His evidence is that pursuant to the order of the D.C. he alongwith other police personnel rushed to Sharpi and one Bhajan showed the P.O. to them. His evidence is that Bhajan apprised that the brother of Kalyan Goswami had taken the injured to the hospital and he (the said brother) was supposed to lodge the complaint as none-else would lodge the same. P.W. 12 says that one officer was placed in-charge of guarding the P.O. containing blood stains, with force, and he rushed to the D.S.P. Hospital and reached there at 00-35 hrs. He says that in D.S.P. Hospital Swapan Goswami submitted a written complaint to him and on receipt of the same he sent it to the P.S. through constable Bikash Saha for the purpose of starting a Criminal Case under sections 147/148/149/ 120B/302 IPC and thereafter he left for the P.O. with the complainant and reached there at 2-10 a.m. at Sharpi crossing point and he received the R.T. Message from O.C. about authorization of the case for investigation by him and accordingly he took up the investigation. He speaks about seizure of articles from the P.O. like blood stained earth, control earth, one pair Hawai Chappal, two broken pieces of bricks with blood stain marks, one Bhojali containing blood marks, one right foot old leather chappal, one left side spectacle frame. Ext. 2/1 & 3/1 are the two seizure lists in respect of the seized articles prepared on 1.7.87 at 6-15 a.m. and 6-40 a.m. respectively. From his cross-examination we find that Faridpur P.S. is 5 km. from Sharpi village. He says that the information that was received (obviously referring to the anonymous telephonic call) did not disclose the name of the miscreants. He reached Sharpi at 11-10 p.m. and remained there till 11-35 p.m. and during that time none amongst the villagers including Bhajan Goswami gave any hint or clue about the identity of the assailant or assailants of the injured Kalyan Goswami. He reached Sharpi at 11-10 p.m. and remained there till 11-35 p.m. and during that time none amongst the villagers including Bhajan Goswami gave any hint or clue about the identity of the assailant or assailants of the injured Kalyan Goswami. It is suggested to him in cross-examination that the place of receipt of FIR and the time of such receipt has been manipulated and that the seizure lists were fabricated afterwards. From his evidence we get that on 23.7.87 he received a Control Room message that DDI(A) Durgapur had taken up the investigation of the case and accordingly, he made over the C.D.P.W. 13 Asit Baran Reja is an S.I of police who conducted the subsequent part of the investigation after receiving the C.D. on 28.7.87 as per memo no. 4575 C.S. dtd. 10.7.87 of the D.I.G. C.I.D. West Bengal. In his cross-examination he says that on 15.7.87 he received from S.I Q.S Haque the wearing apparel etc. in respect of the deceased as alamats (which were in inquest i.e. the blood stained green coloured chequered lungi, one blood stained white coloured half shirt, one white coloured blood stained ganjee. Ext. 8 is the inquest report prepared by Q.S. Haque S.I. of police on 1.7.87 at camp, D.S.P. Hospital. The inquest report mentions that the deceased Kalyan was wearing at that time Hawai shirt, Ganjee and check lungi. The inquest was held at 6-00 a.m. on 1.7.87 at the hospital. The inquest report was signed by Bhajan Goswami (PW. 7) and two others. In the inquest report it is mentioned that on preliminary inquiry it revealed that on the previous night at about 10 p.m. when the victim was returning after taking feast he was attacked by some miscreants in front of the shop of Dilip with Lathi, Bhojali and Tangi and he fell down there in injured condition and hearing cry the relatives of the injured rushed there and he was then taken to D.S.P. Hospital where the doctor on examination declared him dead. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellants that in the inquest report no name of any assailant was mentioned and it also shows that the deceased was wearing Hawai shirt and Lungi which is inconsistent with the case of the prosecution that the deceased was returning from the marriage house after attending feast, inasmuch as one witness namely P.W. 6 Dilip Roy Chowdhury has stated that he saw Kalyan in the marriage house and Kalyan was wearing Panjabi and Payjama. It is also submitted on behalf of the appellants that one is also not expected to attend a feast in a marriage house wearing lungi and hawai shirt and the very fact that the time of inquest the injured was found wearing a lungi and a hawai shirt rather falsifies the prosecution case that the incident occurred at the place and in the manner as projected by the prosecution. P.W. 14 Q.S. Haque is a police officer who prepared the inquest report. 8. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellants that the prosecution case suffers Major set back from the following facts and circumstances : (1) The deceased was found wearing a Lungi and a Hawai Shirt at the time of inquest and this falsifies the prosecution case that the incident occurred when the petitioner was returning from marriage house after finishing the feast. (2) The prosecution case that the injured victim named the assailants to the persons who assembled after the occurrence cannot be sustained by the evidence of the post-mortem doctor according to whom the victim was unable to speak after sustaining the injuries as was indicated by the absence of blood in the gullet, the respiratory passage and stomach. (3) The evidence of the different witnesses does not exactly give out the same names said to have been disclosed by the victim. (4) The evidence of Asish Mukherjee (PW 5) who had written the complaint (FIR) does not support the prosecution case that it was written at the hospital and was given to the police officer there in the early hour of 1.7.87. Rather the witness says that it was written at the P.S. in the next morning. (4) The evidence of Asish Mukherjee (PW 5) who had written the complaint (FIR) does not support the prosecution case that it was written at the hospital and was given to the police officer there in the early hour of 1.7.87. Rather the witness says that it was written at the P.S. in the next morning. (5) Certain other points also have been highlighted on behalf of the appellants, such as, that it was only the P.W. 1 who claims to be the eye witness to the actual assault and others claim to have come there later and heard the names of assailants but did not see the assault, that the victim and his brother are criminals and they might had many enemies who might have committed the offence. The defence suggestion on behalf of the appellants is also that the victim was actually assaulted at Bouripara where he might have gone on an amorous nectarnal mission. 9. It is true that P.W. 5 Asish Mukherjee has made some statements in his evidence giving rise to some confusion about the time and place of writing the FIR. But in our opinion that does not, in the facts and circumstances of the case, affect the core aspect of the prosecution case relating to the occurrence and the persons involved therein. That the FIR was written by P.W. 5 Asish Mukherjee in accordance with the statements of P.W. 1 Swap an Goswami is amply evident from their evidence. P.W. 5 Asish Mukherjee was deposing in court in April, 1994 almost 7 years after the occurrence. The possibility of confusing statement at that distance of time in respect of matters of details or ancillary matters cannot therefore be said to be wholly unexpected. It is evident from the order sheet of the court of the ld. S.D.J.M. that the FIR was placed before him on 1.7.87 in court along with three of the FIR named accused persons who were produced under arrest and the FIR also purportingly contains the initial of the S.D.J.M. indicating that it was produced before him in court on 1.7.87. Concoction in the matter of writing the FIR by way of an afterthought thus seems to be a remote possibility by reason of the fact that three of the FIR named accused persons were arrested by the police and produced before the Magistrate on 1.7.87 alongwith the FIR. Concoction in the matter of writing the FIR by way of an afterthought thus seems to be a remote possibility by reason of the fact that three of the FIR named accused persons were arrested by the police and produced before the Magistrate on 1.7.87 alongwith the FIR. The prosecution case that the injured, after sustaining injuries, disclosed some of the names of his assailants to the persons who came to the P.O. has been attacked on the ground that the evidence of the post-mortem doctor shows that the injured was unable to speak as was indicated by the absence of blood in the gullet, in the respiratory passage and stomach of the injured that would have been there if the patient was respirating after sustaining such injuries. That the victim Kalyan was conscious for some time after sustaining such injuries has been stated even by the hostile witness P.W. 4 Gurudas Banerjee. Another hostile witness P.W. 3 Anil Ghosh has also stated that the victim Kalyan was murmuring something near the ear of Swapan. It is thus clearly indicated that the victim Kalyan was alive and conscious at least for sometime even after sustaining the injuries. Indeed, as we have seen, some other witnesses also have said about Kalyan speaking in injured condition. At any rate, this is clearly established that Kalyan was conscious at least for sometime after sustaining such injuries. That being so, he must have been respirating and inhaling at least for sometime while he was alive even after sustaining the injuries. Therefore going by the post-mortem doctor's evidence, blood had to be there in the gullet, respiratory passage, etc. by dint of the act of respiration even if the victim did not speak during the time when he was alive after sustaining such injuries. But the doctor says that he did not find any blood there. Consequently in our opinion the doctor's evidence regarding absence of blood in the gullet, respiratory passage and stomach does not give us a clear picture about the implication of the same. But the doctor says that he did not find any blood there. Consequently in our opinion the doctor's evidence regarding absence of blood in the gullet, respiratory passage and stomach does not give us a clear picture about the implication of the same. But even then if we keep aside the statement of the victim said to have been made immediately after the occurrence without taking the same into consideration, we will, however, yet find that there are other evidence and facts and circumstances which lend credence to the prosecution version of the case regarding the involvement of the appellants in the commission of the offence they have been charged with which we will discuss a little later. It is also true that at the time of inquest which was held at 6-00 a.m. on 1.7.87 in the hospital, about 8 hours after the occurrence the victim was found to be wearing a hawai shirt and a check lungi. It is also true that P.W. 6 Dilip Roy Chowdhury has stated that he found Kalyan in the marriage house at night and Kalyan was wearing Pajama and Panjabi. We have already noted that the ld. advocate for the appellants has submitted that the fact that at the time of inquest the deceased Kalyan was found wearing a hawai shirt and lungi raises a big suspicion as to whether he was attacked at the time and place alleged by the prosecution inasmuch as one is not expected to attend a marriage feast wearing a hawai shirt and a lungi and the P.W. 6 Dilip Roy Chowdhury has categorically stated that in the marriage house he .saw Kalyan wearing Pajama and Panjabi. In our opinion, this aspect of the matter need not be given a decisive dimension so as to override the clear prosecution case about the time, place and manner of occurrence that has been otherwise established by cogent evidence and which we are again mentioning hereafter. It is quite possible that the wearing apparel of Kalyan was subsequently changed in the hospital. However, the evidence is indeed overwhelming about the time and place of the occurrence. That Kalyan attended the marriage feast in the house of P.W. 2 Srutidhar has been stated by Srutidhar himself although he was declared hostile by the prosecution. It is quite possible that the wearing apparel of Kalyan was subsequently changed in the hospital. However, the evidence is indeed overwhelming about the time and place of the occurrence. That Kalyan attended the marriage feast in the house of P.W. 2 Srutidhar has been stated by Srutidhar himself although he was declared hostile by the prosecution. P.W. 6 Dilip Roy Chowdhury also speaks about the presence of Kalyan in the marriage house of Srutidhar. As we have seen many witnesses including the hostile witnesses, P.W. 3 Anil Ghosh and P.W. 4 Gurudas Banerjee have stated that Kalyan was found in injured condition at about 10/10-15 p.m. at the particular place when they and others rushed to the spot after hearing hue and cry indicating that the victim was being killed. The evidence of the hostile witness P.W. 3 Anil Ghosh also makes it clear that he heard the names of the assailants from Swap an when he rushed to the spot on hearing cries 'being killed, being killed. P.W. 8 Bhim Mondal, we have seen, also heard the names of the assailants from Swapan when he rushed to the spot on hearing similar cries like 'being killed, being killed. P.W. 9 Santi Mazumdar's evidence is also clear that he not only heard the names of assailants after reaching the place on hearing cries like 'save, save', but he also noticed the presence of the accused persons named by him on the verandah of the shop of Dilip Roy Chowdhury immediately before the occurrence. Having regard to the overwhelming nature of the facts, circumstances and evidence on record there is no manner of doubt that the victim Kalyan was assaulted by the assailants with different lethal weapons in front of the shop of P.W. 6 Dilip Roy Chowdhury at about 10/10-15 p.m. and he fell down there on sustaining injuries, and on hearing the cries of the victim and his brother Swapan (P.W. 1) many persons rushed there including the witnesses examined in the case. Having regard to the severity of the injuries sustained by the victim it can be easily visualised that it would not have been possible for him to run a long distance after sustaining the injuries. Having regard to the severity of the injuries sustained by the victim it can be easily visualised that it would not have been possible for him to run a long distance after sustaining the injuries. This is a circumstance which lends credence to the evidence adduced by the prosecution that the murderous assault on the victim took place at or in the immediate neighbourhood of the place where the witnesses found the injured victim when they rushed there on hearing cries. There is therefore, no scope for entertaining any doubt that the victim Kalyan was attacked and assaulted there in front of the shop of Dilip Roy Chowdhury and he fell down there on sustaining injuries as a result of such assault and that the defence suggestion that the victim might have been attacked and assaulted at a distant place at Bauripara or elsewhere and then he rushed from that place and fell down in front of the shop of Dilip seems to be absolutely improbable and unacceptable. In our opinion the facts, circumstances and evidence on record, which we have elaborately discussed, firmly fix the place of occurrence at the neighbourhood of the shop of Dilip where the victim was attacked and assaulted by the assailants. The Bauripara hypothesis sought to be projected by the defence, inspires no credibility in view of the facts and circumstances obtaining in the case. We have also seen that P.W. 9 Santi Mazumdar deposes about the presence of some persons at the shop of Dilip immediately before the occurrence and in that connection he also names some of the accused persons. This also lends credence to the version of P.W. 1 Swapan regarding the assault on his brother Kalyan by the miscreants including the appellants in front of the shop of Dilip Roy Chowdhury. The presence of Swapan Goswami near the place of occurrence at the relevant time and indeed of other witnesses is also a quite probable eventuality because all of them were coming at that time from the house of Srutidhar after attending the marriage feast there. The presence of Swapan Goswami near the place of occurrence at the relevant time and indeed of other witnesses is also a quite probable eventuality because all of them were coming at that time from the house of Srutidhar after attending the marriage feast there. That being so, when we are convinced that the victim Kalyan was attacked by the miscreants at about 10-15 p.m. in the night of the occurrence in front of the shop of Dilip and the victim fell down there on sustaining injuries, and there is absolutely nothing improbable that P.W. 1 Swapan, the brother of the victim Kalyan who was returning from the marriage house saw the incident in the glow of the tube light arranged in connection with the marriage ceremony and also of the street light there, we have no reason to discard the evidence of the P.W. 1 regarding the involvement of the appellants in the commission of the offence which also receives support from other witnesses as were discussed earlier. Swapan Goswami (P.W. 1) is the brother of the deceased Kalyan. He has also seen the occurrence and rushed to the spot on seeing the same. We find no cause or reason why Swapan would have involved innocent persons leaving aside the real culprits responsible for the .murder of his brother. The ld. Advocate for the appellants pointed out that there were some variance between the FIR version and the evidence of P.W. 1 Swapan, such as, in the FIR it is stated that some of the accused persons caught the victim Kalyan whereas in evidence he says that those persons surrounded the victim. This, in our opinion, is no substantial contradiction that could discredit the FIR case or the version of the P.W. 1 Swapan in evidence. It may be noted here that the defence have exhibited some documents for showing involvement of the deceased Kalyan and his brother P.W. 1 Swapan in different cases. Those are cases of long past, such as, 1972, 1979 or these are cases of the period subsequent to the occurrence involved in the present case. Having regard to the totality of the facts, circumstances and the evidence on record we have therefore no manner of doubt that the prosecution have been able to bring home the charge against the appellants beyond doubt and they have been rightly convicted by the trial court. Having regard to the totality of the facts, circumstances and the evidence on record we have therefore no manner of doubt that the prosecution have been able to bring home the charge against the appellants beyond doubt and they have been rightly convicted by the trial court. While maintaining the conviction, the sentence imposed by the trial court is however altered to the extent that for their conviction under section 302/149 IPC the appellants shall suffer sentence of imprisonment for life and also a fine of Rs. 3,000/- each, i.d. to r.i. for three months more. There will however be no separate sentence for their conviction under sections 147 & 148 IPC. Subject to the modification of sentence as recorded above, the appeal stands dismissed. The ld. Court below is directed to take the appellants in custody if they are in bail and commit them to prison for serving, out the sentence. Nure Alam Chowdhury, J. :1 agree. Appeal dismissed subject to modification of sentence.