JUDGMENT : - Gitesh Ranjan Bhattacharjee, J.: The above noted Criminal Appeals and death reference are being dealt with and disposed of by this judgment as they all arise out of the same judgment passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, 3rd Court, Nadia in sessions trial No. 1/June, 1994. Fourteen accused persons who are the present appellants were tried by the trial court on charge under sections 148, 302/34 IPC. The trial court convicted the appellants Ananda Mondal, Sannyasi Mondal, Ramkrishna Mondal and Nemai Mondal under section 302/34 IPC and sentenced them to death and also to a fine of Rs.5,000/- each i.d. to R.I. for one year for their conviction under section 302/34 IPC and they were also convicted and sentenced to S.I. for 3 years with a fine of Rs.2,000/- i.d. to S.I. for one year under section 148 I.P.C. The other appellants were also all convicted and sentenced to S.I. for three years and a fine of Rs.2,000/- each i.d. to S.I. for one year under section 148 I.P.C. The death reference relates to death sentence imposed on the 4 appellants by the trial court for their conviction under section 302/34 I.P.C. Being aggrieved by the judgment and orders of conviction and sentence the above noted appeals have been preferred by the appellants-convicts. 2. This is a double murder case in which the victims are full brothers. Ext.1 is the FIR of the case. The FIR was written by P.W.13 Ganesh Chandra Biswas who is also a brother of the victims and it was signed by P.W.1 Dolgobinda Biswas who was however declared hostile by the prosecution at the time of trial. In the FIR it is stated that at about 730 a.m. on 22.01.89 the informant Dolgobinda came out from his house and at about 8-00 a.m. he went to the tea stall of Asit Biswas near new bus stand and halted in front of the tea stall for taking tea and at about 8-10 a.m. Muktesh Ch. In the FIR it is stated that at about 730 a.m. on 22.01.89 the informant Dolgobinda came out from his house and at about 8-00 a.m. he went to the tea stall of Asit Biswas near new bus stand and halted in front of the tea stall for taking tea and at about 8-10 a.m. Muktesh Ch. Biswas and his elder brother Naresh Biswas were taking tea sitting on the macha in front of that tea stall and suddenly Ananda Mondal (Appellant No.1) fired at Muktesh and Naresh from the tea stall of Gouranga Pramanik and immediately Muktesh and Naresh tried to flee away while shouting and within a few minutes from the adjacent area of Abhoynagar, Girin Mondal, Faru @ Sannyasi Mondal, Madhusudan Mandal, Nemai Mandal, Bikash Mondal, Sukumar Mandal, Adhir Mandal, Mathamota Anu Mondal @ Ananda, Ramkrishna Mondal, Dhiren Mondal, Haren Mandal, Gouranga Pramanik, Babu Kabiraj and others, all of Avhoynagar, p.s. Tehatta, assembled there being armed with firearms, Ramdao, Hasua, Tangi etc. and surrounded Muktesh and Naresh and fired at them and assaulted them with da, hasua as a result of which Muktesh and Naresh expired at the place of occurrence. It may be noted here that the persons named above as the assailants are appellants before us. Certain persons have also been named in the FIR as witnesses to the occurrence, such as P.W. 4 Asit Biswas, the owner of the tea stall, P.W. 3 Bhajahari Pramanik, P.W. 9 Gopal Mondal, P.W. 2 Santosh Biswas. It is stated in the FIR that after murdering Naresh and Muktesh the miscreants fired from their firearms and also exploded bombs creating terror and fled away and the people present there did not dare to chase the miscreants. Thus according to the FIR the occurrence took place at about 8-10 a.m. and the FIR was lodged at the Tehatta p.s. at 8-45 a.m. The distance between the p.o. and the p.s. is noted as 20 km. We will find from the evidence on record that the persons who went to the p.s. immediately after the occurrence for lodging the FIR went on a two-wheeler. The FIR was recorded under sections 147/148/149/302 I.P.C. and sections 25/27 Arms Act and section 9(B) of the Explosive Substance Act. 3. Now let us look to the evidence on record. We will find from the evidence on record that the persons who went to the p.s. immediately after the occurrence for lodging the FIR went on a two-wheeler. The FIR was recorded under sections 147/148/149/302 I.P.C. and sections 25/27 Arms Act and section 9(B) of the Explosive Substance Act. 3. Now let us look to the evidence on record. P.W. 1 Dolgobinda who lodged the FIR under his signature was however declared hostile by the prosecution. He is a resident of Abhoynagar. The victims Muktesh and Naresh were also the residents of Abhoynagar and the appellants are also residents of that place. Although in the FIR P.W. 1 Dolgobinda claimed to be an eye-witness to the occurrence, in his evidence in court he however says that he had not seen the killing of Muktesh and Naresh. He however says that on 8th Magh about 5 years ago at about 8-00 a.m. they were killed and he heard about the time of their killing. He however acknowledges his signature on the FIR and also says that an application had been submitted at the P.S. to which his signature appears. He however denies that he made the statements recorded in the F.I.R. He says that the accused Ananda, Ramkrishna and Nemai are brothers and his Bhaira-bhai (wife's sister's husband) Samar Mondal is also their brother. In his cross-examination on behalf of the defence he says that he signed on the FIR at his village Abhoynagar at about 3-30 p.m. as per direction of Ganesh Biswas Mainly based on this statement it has been contended on behalf of the appellants that as a. matter of fact the FIR was not at all lodged in the morning and it is an ante-timed and manufactured document and it cannot be relied upon at all. On the other hand it is submitted on behalf of the State that this hostile witness is making false statement in his evidence for the purpose of protecting the accused persons some of whom are his relations. P.W. 2 Santosh Kr. Biswas is a resident of Abhoynagar and he says that at the material time he had a fish Arat near the place where the victims Muktesh and Naresh were murdered. P.W. 2 Santosh Kr. Biswas is a resident of Abhoynagar and he says that at the material time he had a fish Arat near the place where the victims Muktesh and Naresh were murdered. According to his evidence Muktesh was sitting on a macha in front of the tea stall of Asit Biswas and he himself was sitting in his fish Arat alone and P.W. 3 Bhajahari Pramanik was sitting by the side of Muktesh and P.W. 9 Gopal and P.W. 1 Dolgobinda were standing by the side of Muktesh and at that time he heard a sound of firing and noticed that the accused Ananda Mondal was fleeing away after firing at Muktesh and Muktesh raised alarm 'Babaga Mere Fello' and fell down on the ground after taking 2 or 3 steps and at that time the accused Faro @ Sannyasi fired aiming at Muktesh. His further evidence is that at the time Naresh tried to flee away crossing Muktesh and when Naresh reached near the middle of the metal road Prankrishna fired aiming at him and Naresh fell down. He says that Naresh Biswas tried to rise after raising alarm "Babaga Mere Fello' and at the time the accused Nemai Mondal gave several fatal blows by a Ramdao to Naresh and the accused Ramkrishna came there and began to assault Naresh with Ramdao. He says that when the assailants were returning after assault, he (P.W. 2) fled away out of fear. He further says that at about 1-00 p.m. police appeared at the spot. His evidence in cross-examination shows that the bus stand market used to function from 6-00 a.m. and gradually large number of customers used to gather and at 600 a.m. 200/300 persons including customers used to assemble there. He further says that the metal road running through the market was a busy thoroughfare and from 5-00 a.m. buses used to ply there along that road. According to his evidence buses of different routes used to ply along that metal road at an interval of 40 minutes and not 15 minutes. He says that near the market the metal road was about 10 ft. wide and generally the route buses do not cover the entire metal road while plying. According to his evidence buses of different routes used to ply along that metal road at an interval of 40 minutes and not 15 minutes. He says that near the market the metal road was about 10 ft. wide and generally the route buses do not cover the entire metal road while plying. He says that the place of assault on Muktesh was at a distance of about 10 cubits from the place where he had been and the place of assault on Naresh was at a distance of about 15/16 cubits from his fish Arat. He says that he had witnessed the occurrence of assault for about 11/2 minute and just after seeing the assault on Muktesh and Naresh he left his fish Arat and fled away. It has been taken from him in his cross-examination that at that time there was firing and blasting of bombs at random and while he was sitting inside his fish Arat he heard sounds of firing and bomb blasting and he did not become frightened on hearing the sounds of bomb blasting and firing at that time. It may be noted here that P.W. 2 Santosh is a FIR named witness. 4. P.W. 3 Bhajahari is also a FIR named witness. From him we get that 22.1.89, the date of occurrence, was a Sunday. He is a resident of Sahebnagar under P.S. Tehatta and on that day at about 8-00 a.m. while he was coming from his house towards his godown situated to the eastern side of the old bus stand, he was called by Muktesh who was sitting on a bamboo macha at the tea stall of Asit Biswas and then he went to the tea stall and Muktesh offered him tea and at that time P.W. 9 Gopal Mondal was also present in that tea stall and they three took tea. His evidence is that as per request of Muktesh, Asit gave him betel and Muktesh was chewing it and at that time he (P.W. 3) heard a firing sound coming from the direction of the tea stall of Gouranga Pramanik and soon thereafter Muktesh fell down on the ground saying 'Ke Guli Karla'. His evidence is that as per request of Muktesh, Asit gave him betel and Muktesh was chewing it and at that time he (P.W. 3) heard a firing sound coming from the direction of the tea stall of Gouranga Pramanik and soon thereafter Muktesh fell down on the ground saying 'Ke Guli Karla'. According to his evidence Ramkrishna came there and assaulted Muktesh with ramdao on his face and on seeing that occurrence he (P.W. 3) fled away from the tea stall to his godown which was situated to the eastern side of the tea stall of Asit at a distance of about 500 cubits. His further evidence is that out of fear he was sitting at his godown and he saw Ganesh and Dolgobinda to go towards the police station on a motor cycle and 2 hours thereafter police arrived at the spot when he also went there and saw the dead body of Muktesh. He says that his head was chopped off by which evidently he must have meant that he saw cut injury on the head of Muktesh. He also noticed that the left palm of Muktesh was chopped off from near the wrist. He further speaks about the dead body of Naresh lying in front of the shop of Ananda which was situated at the southern side of the metal road and he noticed bleeding injuries on the person of Naresh. He speaks about seizure of certain articles like spectacles etc. from the dead bodies of Muktesh and Naresh under seizure lists which were signed by him. From his cross-examination we find that Prabesh Biswas who is a brother of Muktesh is the 'bhairabhai' of Tinkari who is the brother of the witness (P.W. 3). In his cross-examination he also says that while he and Muktesh were sitting side by side, he heard a sound of firing and simultaneously Muktesh jumped up but he did not try to catch hold of Muktesh and at that time he became frightened. He says that at about 10-00/10-15 a.m. police arrived at the spot, but he can not say wherefrom they came, that is, whether they came from P.S. or from the out post. He says that this is for the first time that he is stating that he saw Dolgobinda and Ganesh to proceed to P.S. on a motor cycle. P.W. 4 Asit Kr. He says that this is for the first time that he is stating that he saw Dolgobinda and Ganesh to proceed to P.S. on a motor cycle. P.W. 4 Asit Kr. Biswas is another FIR named witness. He had a tea stall at the material time at Abhoynagar and he is also a resident of that place. According to his evidence at about 8-15 a.m. on 22.1.89 Muktesh and Naresh were murdered and according to his evidence Muktesh and Naresh were standing in front of his tea stall and Bhajahari and Gopal called them to his tea stall on that date at about 8-00 a.m. and both Muktesh and Naresh took their seats on the macha outside his tea stall and Gopal ordered three cups of tea. He next says, Gopal and Bhajahari called Muktesh only and after he (P.W. 4) offered three cups of tea to them, Naresh entered inside his tea stall. He says that he (P.W. 4) went to Muktesh and offered a betel after tea and returned to his shop. His evidence is that at the material time tea stall of Gouranga Pramanik was situated just to the adjacent east of his tea stall and at that time the accused Ananda Mondal fired at Muktesh from the tea stall of Gouranga Pramanik and Muktesh jumped up and simultaneously fell on the ground in front of his tea stall and in the meantime Naresh was fleeing away from his tea stall when Prankrishna and Faro @ Sannyasi fired at Naresh as a result of which Naresh fell down by the side of the metal road. It however appears from the evidence of the La. that he did not tell the La. that Prankrishna and Faro @ Sannyasi fired at Naresh. It may be noted here that Prankrishna was not tried by the trial court and was referred for being dealt with under the Juvenile Justice Act. And he is not an appellant before us. P.W. 4 Asit Biswas says that the accused Nemai Mandal began to assault Naresh with ramdao and Ramkrishna began to assault Muktesh and chopped off a portion of his left hand by a ramdao. He further says that Ramkrishna took the cut portion of the hand, and on seeing that occurrence he (P.W. 4) fled away across the field. P.W. 4 Asit Biswas says that the accused Nemai Mandal began to assault Naresh with ramdao and Ramkrishna began to assault Muktesh and chopped off a portion of his left hand by a ramdao. He further says that Ramkrishna took the cut portion of the hand, and on seeing that occurrence he (P.W. 4) fled away across the field. From his cross-examination we find that the son of his brother Biren Biswas married the daughter of Suresh Biswas who is the brother of the victims Naresh and Muktesh. From his cross-examination we also get that the P.O. was within the fish market of Abhoyanagar and people used to assemble at that place from 5-00 a.m. and 300/400 persons used to gather in that market by 7/7-30 a.m. He says in his cross-examination that he fled away from his tea stall after the hand of Muktesh was chopped off and he went to his house crossing the field. He says that at the time when he was fleeing away from his tea stall he noticed the presence of about 200 persons at the market of Abhoynagar. 5. P.W. 5, Balaram Ghosh is also an eye witness to the occurrence. He is a resident of Abhoynagar. His evidence is that on 22.1.89 (Sunday) at about 8-00 a.m. he was purchasing fish from the fish market within Abhoynagar market in front of the fruit shop of one Nemai Mondal and at that time he heard a sound like explosion of bombs and peeping towards the eastern side he was that Muktesh was crying 'bachao, bachao' and simultaneously Muktesh fell on the ground. His further evidence is that he saw Naresh running across the metal road towards the south from the north and Prankrishna fired from a pipegun aiming at Naresh as a result of which Naresh fell down and at that time Ramkrishna assaulted Naresh on his head with a ramdao and again Ramkrishna and Nemai, as he saw, assaulted Muktesh with ramdao and Ramkrishna chopped off the left hand of Muktesh and picked up the chopped off hand and threw away the same towards the road and the accused Haren, Girin and others caught that chopped off hand. He says that Anu (Mathamota) was also present with Haren and Girin and he caught the chopped off hand and thereafter he (P.W. 5) began to run towards his house. He says that Anu (Mathamota) was also present with Haren and Girin and he caught the chopped off hand and thereafter he (P.W. 5) began to run towards his house. From him we get that Abhoynagar is also commonly known as new bus stand. In his cross-examination he says that he was at the Abhoynagar Natun Bus Stand market for about 10/15 minutes and within that time there was a 'hutopata' (scrambling) in the market and at that time there was a gathering of about 250/300 people. He explains that by 'hutopata' he meant that the persons of the Abhoynagar market were trying to leave the market out of fear. He further says that simultaneously with the bomb explosion sound the 'hutopata' began. It appears that he did not tell the La. that Ramkrishna assaulted on the head of Naresh. He also did not tell the La. about assault of Muktesh by Nemai with ramdao. P.W. 6 Mohan Ch. Mondal was declared hostile by the prosecution. He says that on 22.1.89 (Sunday) at about 730 a.m. he had been to the fish market at Abhoynagar new bus stand and was taking challan after selling fish at the Arat and at that time he heard a sound of firing from the eastern side and people present there were then moving here and there and on seeing this he left the place to the southern side of the place of occurrence and thereafter police came to the spot and saw that Muktesh and Naresh were murdered at the spot on either sides of the road. He however says that he did not see who murdered Muktesh and Naresh. The evidence of this hostile witness at least lends support to the prosecution case that the incident in which Muktesh and Naresh were murdered took place on that day in the morning at Abhoynagar new bus stand. In his cross-examination on behalf of the defence he says that he is a tenant in a room for his business in the house of the deceased Naresh. P.W. 7 Pravanjan Biswas was also declared hostile by the prosecution. He is a resident of Abhoynagar. He says that he did not see the occurrence with his own eyes as he was in his house, and one Prabhat Biswas of his village informed him about the murder of Naresh and Muktesh at the bus stand at Sahebnagar. P.W. 7 Pravanjan Biswas was also declared hostile by the prosecution. He is a resident of Abhoynagar. He says that he did not see the occurrence with his own eyes as he was in his house, and one Prabhat Biswas of his village informed him about the murder of Naresh and Muktesh at the bus stand at Sahebnagar. He says that the incident took place in the morning and after receiving that information he came to the bus stand and saw that people were running hither and thether. In his cross-examination he says that Dinesh, Naresh, Muktesh, Mrigesh, Prabesh, Ganesh, Suresh are full brothers. P.W. 8, Jogesh Ch. Biswas is a brother of the victims Muktesh and Naresh. His evidence is that he and his brother Prabesh were taking tea (in his house) at about 8-10/8-15 a.m. on 22.1.89 and at that time be heard two sounds of firing and bombing apparently coming from the bus stand and then they came to their house gate and at that time someone told him that Muktesh was fired and thereafter they proceeded to bus stand and when they reached near the house of Gita Mondal they found that the accused Ananda Mondal, Nemai Mondal, Ramkrishna, Mathamota, Madhab, Sukumar, Dhiren, Girin and others were going by the side of the godown, being armed with firearms and ramdao. He says that they also got smell of explosive substances and they found that Muktesh was lying near the tea stall of Asit Biswas and Naresh was lying to the southern side of the tea stall in injured condition having injuries on different parts of his body. He also says that the hand of Muktesh was separated from his body. He says that thereafter he sent Dolgobinda and Ganesh to Tehatta P.S. for giving information and that the police came to the spot and made seizures and he signed the lists as well as the inquest reports. In his cross-examination he says that the P.O. is a busy place. P.W. 9 Gopal Mandal was declared hostile. He resides at Abhoynagar bus stand. His evidence is that on 22.1.89 at about 8-00 a.m. Muktesh and Bhajahari Pramanik were sitting in the tea stall of Asit Biswas and he was also present there and Muktesh offered him tea. In his cross-examination he says that the P.O. is a busy place. P.W. 9 Gopal Mandal was declared hostile. He resides at Abhoynagar bus stand. His evidence is that on 22.1.89 at about 8-00 a.m. Muktesh and Bhajahari Pramanik were sitting in the tea stall of Asit Biswas and he was also present there and Muktesh offered him tea. He says that they got a sound of firing from the tea stall of Gouranga Pramanik and he found that Ananda Mondal had a firearm in his hand. He further says that immediately they heard sound of firing and bombing at random and people were fleeing away and he also fled away. He speaks about the subsequent arrival of police and it was found that Muktesh and Naresh were lying injured. It is evident that by saying that Muktesh and Naresh were lying injured the witness must have meant that the dead bodies of Muktesh and Naresh were lying, having injuries thereon inasmuch as there is overwhelming evidence that Muktesh and Naresh did not survive the onslaught. From the I.O. it has been taken that P.W. 9 Gopal Mandal did not tell him that he saw a revolver in the hand of Ananda. It is however to be noted that the evidence of this hostile witness at least lends support to the prosecution case that the occurrence took place there in the neighbourhood of the tea stall of Asit Biswas, and in that occurrence Muktesh and Naresh died, and Ananda Mondal was there. 6. P.W. 10 Dinesh Biswas is a brother of the victims Muktesh and Naresh. His evidence is that on 22.1.89 he was coming to Abhoynagar bus stand at 8-00 a.m. and at that time he saw Ramkrishna with ramdao, Nemai with ramdao, Ananda Mondal and other with firearms in the 'ambagan' on the other side of the 'khal' at Abhoynagar. He further speaks of using of filthy language towards him by Madhu Mondal, Anu, Bikash, Mathamota, Ananda etc. He says that he fled away. It appears that later he came to the P.O. He says that he saw Muktesh and Naresh were lying on either sides of the road in injured condition and blood was oozing. He further speaks of using of filthy language towards him by Madhu Mondal, Anu, Bikash, Mathamota, Ananda etc. He says that he fled away. It appears that later he came to the P.O. He says that he saw Muktesh and Naresh were lying on either sides of the road in injured condition and blood was oozing. He further says that the left hand of Muktesh was cut off and he was injured by firing in his body and Naresh was lying injured in a pool of blood and his mouth was it by ramdao. It was submitted on behalf of the appellants that this witness claims to have seen the two victims in injured condition and he does not say that they were dead. In our opinion this contention is not correct. What the witness means is that he saw bleeding injuries on the persons of the victims which indeed is a fact and the same is not incompatible with the fact that the victims were lying dead with the visible exhibition of bleeding injuries on their persons even when they were dead. P.W. 11 Akkari Biswas was only tendered. P.W. 12 Mrigesh Ch. Biswas is also a brother of the victims Muktesh and Naresh. He says that he has an ice candy mill at Sahebnagar bus stand and he was at his ice candy mill at 8/8-15 a.m. on 22.1.89 when the incident took place. He says that he heard the sound of bombing and firing when he was standing on the Betary Plassy Road. He says that the. sound was coming from the western side and he rushed towards the Abhoynagar bus stand and saw that the accused Ramkrishna and Nemai were hitting someone by ramdao on the southern side of the road and accused Girin Mondal hurled a bomb and Girin also rushed towards him (P.W. 12) with bomb and followed him and on seeing that he (P.W. 12) fled away towards south. He further says that the accused Prankrishna, Ananda Mondal and others were present there being armed with firearms. He further says that the accused Prankrishna, Ananda Mondal and others were present there being armed with firearms. His evidence is that after an hour when he came back he saw that police personnel had come to the P.O. and also saw Naresh lying at the place where Ramkrishna was hitting with ramdao and on other side of the road Muktesh was lying with bleeding injury on his body and his left hand .was separated from his body. It appears that on the dock he identified the accused persons except Haren and Girin. He says that the distance between Abhoynagar and Sahebnagar is about 300/350 cubits. It appears that to the I.O. he did not tell about firing and also did not tell that Girin rushed at him with bomb and followed him. Evidently these are very insignificant and inconsequential commissions, if at all. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellants that this witness P.W. 12 Mrigesh says that he saw that Ramkrishna and Nemai were hitting someone by ramdao but in that connection he does not name the victim as Muktesh or Naresh. In our opinion there is nothing fatal in it for the prosecution. As we have seen this witness was seeing the act of hitting, obviously from some distance and he then fled away and in that circumstance it might not have been possible for him to get the identity of the person who was being assaulted. He himself was too much frightened and he ran away but later when he came back to the place he saw the dead body of Naresh at that place and also found the body of Muktesh on the other side of the road. In his cross-examination he says that on his arrival near the dead bodies of his brothers he saw police personnel with huge gathering of surrounding residents. He says that a discussion was going on regarding the dead body as to how and from where they came and who murdered them. Much criticism has been made on behalf of the appellants that this statement of P.W. 12 would falsify the entire prosecution case and would rather suggest that Naresh and Muktesh were murdered elsewhere in the previous night and their dead bodies were thrown at. Much criticism has been made on behalf of the appellants that this statement of P.W. 12 would falsify the entire prosecution case and would rather suggest that Naresh and Muktesh were murdered elsewhere in the previous night and their dead bodies were thrown at. Abhoynagar New Bus Stand market place and that is why people were discussing as to who murdered them and wherefrom the dead bodies came. In our opinion this cannot be the correct appreciation of the evidence of this witness when placed in the background of the totality of the facts, circumstances and evidence on the record. As we have seen, this witness P.W. 12 came back to the P.O. after a long gap of time when police had already arrived there. The place is a busy crowded bus stand. It is quite possible that movement of people to and from that place is a constant phenomenon and naturally new persons who came to the place quite some time after occurrence might have discussed amongst themselves as to wherefrom those dead bodies came and how they were murdered which, in our opinion, will not falsify the prosecution case that is otherwise supported by the overwhelming facts, circumstances and evidence on record. P.W. 13 Ganesh Ch. Biswas is also a brother of the victims Muktesh and Naresh. He came to the P.O. and saw that his two brothers Muktesh and Naresh were lying in Nutan Bazar Bus Stand in injured condition. Here also it is criticized on behalf of the appellants that the witness' says that Muktesh and Naresh were lying in injured condition but he does not say that they were dead. This criticism in our opinion is not tenable. It is evident that what the witness meant was that he saw the bodies of Muktesh and Naresh lying with injuries thereon. P.W. 13 Ganesh says that he went to Tehatta P.S. with Dolgobinda on scooter. He says that he wrote ejjahar (FIR) as per instruction of Dolgobinda. In his cross-examination he says that he stayed at the P.O. for 3/4 minutes. P.W. 14 Sufal Mondal says that on 22.1.89 he was at his house and at that time he was informed that. He says that he wrote ejjahar (FIR) as per instruction of Dolgobinda. In his cross-examination he says that he stayed at the P.O. for 3/4 minutes. P.W. 14 Sufal Mondal says that on 22.1.89 he was at his house and at that time he was informed that. Muktesh and Naresh were murdered and then he went out from his house and saw accused Ananda, Nemai, Prankrishna near switch (sluice) gate and he says that those persons drove him and he went away. He says that he saw Prankrishna armed with ramdao. P.W. 15 Mrittunjoy Dutta was only tendered by the prosecution and he was cross-examined on behalf of the defence. 7. P.W. 16 to P.W. 19 and P.W. 21 are all police witnesses. P.W. 16 is a constable who carried the dead bodies to morgue. P.W. 17 S.I. Arun Kumar Das, and. P.W. 18 S.I. Sekhar Basu were in-charge of the investigation of this case for sometime at a later stage of the investigation and virtually they did not do anything much except that the P.W. 17 submitted charge-sheet. P.W. 19 S.I Shyam Mohan Joardar says that he received the written ejjahar (FIR) from Dolgobinda Mondal (P.W. 1) and made endorsement on the written ejjahar (FIR) and also filled up the formal FIR. In his cross-examination he says that the 'dak' of Tehatta comes to sadar everyday and he testifies that the FIR was received in sadar court on 24.1.89 as written as 'seen'. It is also suggested to him on behalf of the defence that the FIR was received subsequently and it is ante-dated which however he denies. Relying on the evidence of the hostile witness P.W. 1 Dolgobinda and on the fact that the endorsement 'seen' on the FIR above the signature of the S.D.J.M. is dated 24.1.89, it is submitted by the learned Advocate for the appellants that the FIR which has been proved in this case was not the real FIR and it was manufactured, subsequently and was produced before the S.D.J.M. as late as on 24.1.89 although the FIR was purportingly lodged on 22.1.89. Having regard to the facts, circumstances and evidence on record we are however not convinced about the merit of the contention. P.W. 1 Dolgobinda, as we have seen, was declared hostile by the prosecution. Having regard to the facts, circumstances and evidence on record we are however not convinced about the merit of the contention. P.W. 1 Dolgobinda, as we have seen, was declared hostile by the prosecution. As we have seen, he has some relationship with the appellants Ananda, Ramkrishna and Nemai in the sense that they are brothers of his bhairabhai. Admittedly the FIR was signed by him but he now wants to say that he only signed it at the instruction of Ganesh Biswas (P.W. 13) who used to help him at his necessity and he also used to obey him. No such suggestion was however given to P.W. 13 Ganesh on behalf of the defence. The story sought to be introduced by the hostile witness P.W. 1 Dolgobinda seems to be an after-thought. It is difficult to believe that simply because a person used to help him at his necessity, even if true, he would have falsely implicated some persons in a double murder case on the instruction of such person, more so when some of such persons are his relations. What is rather the natural probability is that immediately after the occurrence he gave out the truth which was recorded in the FIR and he also signed it. We have also seen that there is positive evidence that both P.W. 1 and P.W. 13 went together on a two-wheeler to the Tehatta P.S. soon after the occurrence and police also came there by about 10-00 a.m. Therefore the contention that the FIR was lodged much later and there was manipulation to project that it was lodged earlier does not at all seem to be probable. It is true that the endorsement of the S.D.J.M. on the FIR is dated 24.1.89 and there is also evidence that the FIR was sent to the court on 23.1.89. But it is in evidence that 22.1.89, the date on which the FIR was lodged was a Sunday and it is a common knowledge that the next day, namely, the 23rd January was holiday being the Netaji birthday. Court was closed on both the said two days and it also can be visualised that on holidays the Magistrate only performs the most essential task of biking up 'remand file'. That being so, it can also be visualised that the FIR. Court was closed on both the said two days and it also can be visualised that on holidays the Magistrate only performs the most essential task of biking up 'remand file'. That being so, it can also be visualised that the FIR. which was sent from the P.S. on 23.1.89 was not placed before the Magistrate on the next day, the 23rd January, a holiday and was placed on 24.1.89. Having regard to the facts, circumstances and evidence on record, we have no reason to hold that the FIR which has been proved in this case was not the real FIR or that it was lodged later by making it ante-dated. On the contrary we hold that the FIR which has been proved in this case is the real FIR. 8. Before we discuss the evidence of the investigating officer of this case, P.W. 21, we would now look to the medical evidence. P.W. 20, Dr. Niharendu Deb is the doctor who held post-mortem examination on the dead bodies of Muktesh and Naresh on 23.1.89. He found the following injuries on the dead body of Muktesh : 1. One cut-throat injury over the front of the neck horizontally placed measuring 5" x 4" x bone deep with cut of trachea, oesophagus and all soft tissues there. The injury is situated in the middle of the neck. 2. One cut injury over left half of the face extending from left angle of mouth to sub-auricular region measuring 5" x 2" x bone deep, horizontal in nature and cutting off the soft tissues there. 3. One cut injury over the left half of the face extending from chin to left ear measuring 5" x 2" x bone deep, horizontal in nature. 4. One cut injury over right supraorbital region measuring 2" x 1" x bone deep. 5. One cut injury over left frontal region measuring 4" x 11/2" x bone deep. 6. Amputation of left forearm just 2", above the left wrist joint. 7. One oval shaped penetrating wound over right clevicular region measuring 1" x 1/2" x plural cavity deep in mid clevicular line with fracture of right clavicle and with scorching and averted (and inverted) margin, route of exit of bullet. 8. One oval shaped penetrating wound over back of chest in the mid line measuring 1" x 1/2" x plural cavity deep with scorching and inverted margin. 8. One oval shaped penetrating wound over back of chest in the mid line measuring 1" x 1/2" x plural cavity deep with scorching and inverted margin. This is the route of entry of bullet. 9. One cut injury over right wrist joint measuring 2" x 1/2" x muscle deep. 10. One cut injury over right forearm measuring 2" x 1/2" x muscle deep. On dissection the doctor found blood in the' plural cavity and the right lung was ruptured. Death, in the opinion of the doctor, was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of injuries sustained which were ante-mortem and homicidal in nature. The doctor is also of the opinion that the injuries Nos. 7 & 8 were bullet injuries and might be caused by firearms and other injuries might be caused by sharp and heavy instrument. _ 9. As regards the post-mortem of Naresh, the doctor found the following injuries on his person : 1. One penetrating wound over right chest in mid-auxiliary line measuring 1" x 1/2" and plural cavity deep with scorching and inverted margin-route of entry of bullet. It is situated at the 7th intercostals space. 2. One bullet is found over left chest in mid-auxiliary line and 5th intercostals space which is preserved and handed over to the escort. 3. One cut injury over right hand on the dorsum measuring 3" x 2" x bone deep. 4. Partial amputation of right little finger at distal interphelangel joint. 5. One cut injury over right ring and right middle figure measuring 2" x 1/2" x bone deep. 6. One cut injury over right thumb on palmer aspect measuring 1" x 1/2" x muscle deep. 7. Three cut injuries over back of left chest measuring 1" x 1/2" x muscle deep, second one 1" x 1/2" x muscle deep and third one 1" x 1/2" x muscle deep. 8. One cut injury over mid-occipital region circular and being 4" in diameter and it is bone deep. 9. One cut injury over left half of the face extending from chin to left side of neck close to mid line measuring 6" x 3" x bone deep cutting all the soft tissues there. 10. One cut injury over left half of the face extending from left cheek to left ear measuring 4" x 2" x bone deep. 11. 9. One cut injury over left half of the face extending from chin to left side of neck close to mid line measuring 6" x 3" x bone deep cutting all the soft tissues there. 10. One cut injury over left half of the face extending from left cheek to left ear measuring 4" x 2" x bone deep. 11. One cut injury over left ear measuring 2" x 2" x bone deep. On dissection the doctor found blood in the plural cavity and the right lung was ruptured and there was also blood in the peritoneal cavity and stomach was ruptured. Death, in the opinion of the doctor, was due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of the injuries sustained which were ante-mortem and homicidal in nature. He says that all injuries other than bullet injuries might be caused by sharp cutting weapon and bullet injuries might be caused by firearms. In his cross-examination the doctor says that it may take couple of hours for clotting of or to dry up human blood. The doctor says that after receiving such type of injuries the victim may fall on the ground and the surrounding ground measuring 3 to 4 cubits may soak with blood. It may be noted here that the police officer found clotted blood under the head of the both dead bodies lying on the spot. The doctor also says that the injuries might have been caused within 36 hours prior to the post mortem examination. He says that at the time of P.M. examination rigor mortis was found in both the cases and that considering the condition of the dead body at the time of P.M. examination it may be said that the injuries might have been caused during the last part of the night on 21.1.89. Relying on this statement of the P.M. doctor it has been submitted by the ld. Advocate for the appellants that the murder of the victims was not committed in the morning of 22.1.89 as the prosecution case is and the murder must have been committed in the later hours of the preceding night and that too not at the bus stand but elsewhere and that the dead bodies were thereafter carried and thrown at the place where they were found in the morning. This, the ld. This, the ld. Advocate for the appellants, submits is also supported by the fact that blood was not found at the spot except the clotted blood under the heads of the dead bodies of the victims. In our opinion such a possibility or probability is absolutely ruled out in view of the overwhelming facts, circumstances and evidence on record. Indeed police officer found sufficient clotted blood under the heads of the dead bodies lying on the ground. Moreover, it being winter season, the victims were wearing sweater, chadar and other garments which were found blood stained. It can be easily visualised that enough of blood coming out of the injuries sustained by the victims were soaked in the chadar and wearing garments and that was also found to be so. It is also an improbable proposition that the victims were murdered elsewhere secretly and then all the troubles were taken by the culprits to carry the dead bodies to leave them at the bus stand for attracting public attention. The fact that police found and seized fired curtridge from that very place also indicates that the said place was the place of occurrence. The doctor's evidence that the injuries might have been caused during the last part of the night has no connotation of certainty. It is only a suggested probability and this is evident from the earlier statement of the doctor that the injuries might have been caused 'within' 36 hours prior to the P.M. examination. The ocular evidence fixes the occurrence within that time-range mentioned by the doctor. In his cross-examination the P.M. doctor specifically says that seeing the multiple injuries and bullet injuries in both the P.M. examination reports it may -be said that the injuries are brutal in nature due to retaliation. 10. P.W. 21, S.I. Asish Kr. Chatterjee who took up the investigation of this case on the very date of occurrence says that he perused the FIR submitted by Dolgobinda (P.W. 1) and he visited Abhoynagar bus stand at 9-35 a.m. and found dead bodies of Muktesh and Naresh there on either sides of the pucca road. He says that the dead body of Muktesh was found lying on the eastern side of the tea stall of Asit Biswas (P.W. 4) and the dead body of Naresh towards southern side of the pucca road in front of the closed shop of Ananda Biswas. He says that the dead body of Muktesh was found lying on the eastern side of the tea stall of Asit Biswas (P.W. 4) and the dead body of Naresh towards southern side of the pucca road in front of the closed shop of Ananda Biswas. He made inquest and prepared inquest reports in presence of witnesses. He also prepared a sketch map with index which have been marked ext. 13 & ext. 14. He seized some articles such as wrapper, broken spectacles, shoes, fired cartridge, shawl, woollen muffler etc. from the place. He says that on completion of inquest he sent the two dead bodies for post-mortem examination through constable at 1120 a.m. on 22.1.89. He says that he examined witnesses and recorded their statements and thereafter held raids for arrest of the accused persons but none was available. He further says that thereafter under his direction S.I. KM. Sarkar searched all the probable houses and hide-outs but to no effect. He says that on 23.1.89 he again held raids against the accused persons and secured arrest of Gouranga Pramanik. From his evidence it appears that there were also other seizure lists under which several other articles were seized which were handed over by the P.M. doctor after holding P.M. examination. Those were the wearing apparel of the deceased victims which were removed from the dead bodies at the time of postmortem examination. He says about further raids for the accused persons and then he prayed for W.P. & A. against the accused persons and such W.P. & A. were issued. He denies the defence suggestion in his cross-examination that the seizure lists were manufactured afterwards. He says that he found both the dead bodies lying with head towards the west, legs towards the east and facing sky. He found pool of clotted blood on the ground under the heads of both the dead bodies. He says that he has not noted in the inquest reports anything regarding any sprinkling and trailing of blood. In our opinion there is nothing unnatural in it because, as we have seen, both the victims were heavily clothed with wearing apparel that must have soaked much of the blood coming out of the injuries sustained by the victims. He says in his cross-examination that he did not get any remnants of bombs from Abhoynagar bus stand. In our opinion there is nothing unnatural in it because, as we have seen, both the victims were heavily clothed with wearing apparel that must have soaked much of the blood coming out of the injuries sustained by the victims. He says in his cross-examination that he did not get any remnants of bombs from Abhoynagar bus stand. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellants that if there were blasting of bombs at the time of occurrence at Abhoynagar bus stand as said by some witnesses the I.O. should have found and seized remnants of bombs and since he did not find any such remnants it is doubtful whether the incident at all occurred at that place. In our opinion the fact that the I.O. did not find any remnants of bomb there is of no material consequence, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. The place as we have seen was a very crowded one. The accused persons mainly used firearms and ramdao for inflicting injuries on the victims. The remnants of one or two bombs which might have been used at the time of occurrence were possibly trampled and interfered with beyond the scope of easy detection or recognition under the feet of huge number, of moving persons frequenting the place after the occurrence. This is quite possible in view of the fact that the victims were not hit by bomb and therefore remnants of bomb were not expected to be found exactly at the place where the victims fell down on sustaining injuries caused by other weapons and the remnants of bombs elsewhere in that area might have been trampled by moving persons beyond easy detection. It has been taken on behalf of the defence from the I.O. that P.W. 2 Santosh did not tell him that Naresh was sitting on a machha inside the tea stall of Asit Biswas. This, in our opinion, is of no material consequence. The I.O. said that P.W. 4 Asit Biswas did not tell him that Ramkrishna and Faro fired at Naresh. This, in our opinion, is of no material consequence. The I.O. said that P.W. 4 Asit Biswas did not tell him that Ramkrishna and Faro fired at Naresh. In our opinion, this has also no material consequence, because when such a horrible and shocking incident involving a number of persons suddenly occurred, it is quite possible that the viewers while narrating the incident seen by the them at later points of time may not give every detail of the incident witnessed by tl1em at each time of narration and consequently there may be slight variation, the effect of which must be considered in the background of the totality of the facts, circumstances and evidence on record and not in an isolated way. The I.O. however says that P.W. 4 stated to him that Ram krishna took the cut portion of the chopped off hand of Muktesh. The I.O. says that P.W. 5 Balaram Ghosh did not tell him that he saw Nemai to assault Muktesh with ramdao. The I.O. says that P.W. 9 Gopal Mondal did not state to him that he saw revolver in the hand of Ananda. These are, in our opinion, only minor variations not affecting the core of the case which is sustained by plethora of evidence which we have already discussed elaborately. 11. We have discussed above the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution. The accused Sannyasi Mondal while examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. says that Ganesh Biswas (P.W. 13, the brother of the victims) arranged for medicine and Ananda and Sukumar attempted to assault Ganesh and they (Sannyasi Mondal and others) said that it was better to assault him (Ganesh) and as such he (Sannyasi) has been implicated in this case. Accused Ramkrishna also says that Ganesh used to deal in smuggling of medicine and Ananda and Sukumar obstructed Ganesh in the matter and they also assaulted Ganesh on one or two days and at that time inspite of being present there they Ramkrishna and others) did not rescue Ganesh and out of that grudge Ganesh has implicated him Ramkrishna) in this case although he is innocent. By such statements the accused persons wanted to attribute a motive to Ganesh for falsely implicating the accused Sannyasi and others in the present case. Ananda and Sukumar however do not tell any such story. Sukumar only says that Ganesh has falsely implicated him. By such statements the accused persons wanted to attribute a motive to Ganesh for falsely implicating the accused Sannyasi and others in the present case. Ananda and Sukumar however do not tell any such story. Sukumar only says that Ganesh has falsely implicated him. In fact, the defence examined one witness in the trial. He is D.W. 1, Sridam Biswas. D.W. 1 wants to say that Ganesh Biswas had an allopathic medicine shop in the room of Naresh Biswas and there was a scuffle and disturbance between Ganesh Biswas and Ananda Mondal and others over the allegation of illegal trafficking of allopathic medicines meant for hospital patients. He says that Ananda and Sukumar abused Ganesh in filthy language and he D.W. 1) settled the matter as mediator by telling Ganesh not to carryon illegal business and also by telling Ananda not to take the law in his own hand. In our opinion,- even if any such incident occurred as said by the D.W. 1 (Sridam Biswas), that could not be a sufficient reason for the brother of the victims to falsely implicate the accused persons leaving aside the real culprits. Moreover Ganesh (P.W. 13) does not implicate anyone and he does not also claim to be a eye-witness. It has however been suggested to D.W.1 in his cross-examination that he made a story to save the accused persons which however he denies. D.W. 1 says that Asit Biswas, Santosh Biswas, Balaram Ghosh, Gopal Mondal & Bhajahari Pramanik have no business at bus stand and they are cultivators and their homes are in the interior at the village. However from the evidence on record, we have no reason to doubt the presence of those witnesses at the time of occurrence. We have seen that Bhajahari Pramanik (P.W. 3) was a witness of the seizure lists also and he signed the same. This lends support to his evidence regarding his presence at the occurrence that took place there sometime before the seizures were made. It may be mentioned here that even the hostile witness (P.W. 9) Gopal Mondal has said about the existence of the tea stall of P.W. 4, Asit Biswas at Abhoynagar bus stand. 12. We have discussed above very elaborately the facts, circumstances and evidence on record. It may be mentioned here that even the hostile witness (P.W. 9) Gopal Mondal has said about the existence of the tea stall of P.W. 4, Asit Biswas at Abhoynagar bus stand. 12. We have discussed above very elaborately the facts, circumstances and evidence on record. We have also discussed the various contentions raised on behalf of the appellants for showing the weakness of the prosecution and we have found for reasons discussed by us in the context of such contentions that they are not good enough to discredit the prosecution case. We also find no substantial discrepancy between the FIR version and the evidence led by the prosecution although P.W. 1 Dolgobinda who lodged the FIR was declared hostile by the prosecution. As we have seen, the occurrence took place in the morning in a bus stand market which is frequented by a large number of people. P.W. 2 Santosh, P.W. 3 Bhajahari, P.W. 4 Asit and P.W. 5 Balaram are eye witnesses who have directly implicated a number of accused persons, namely, Ramkrishna, Ananda, Nemai and Sannyasi who actively participated in inflicting injuries on the victims. That Ananda made firing has been testified by P.W. 2 Santosh and P.W. 4 Asit. Participation of Ramkrishna in inflicting injuries on the virtims by ramdao has been testified by P.W. 2 Santosh, P.W. 3 Bhajahari, P.W. 4 Asit and P.W. 5 Balaram, Sannyasi has been implicated by P.W. 2 Santosh and P.W. 4 Asit in the matter of using firearm. Nemai has been implicated by P.W. 2 Santosh, P.W. 4 Asit and P.W. 5 Balaram in the matter of making assaults with ramdao. According to the evidence of P.W. 2 he saw Ananda fleeing away after firing at Muktesh and Muktesh fell down after taking 2/3 steps. P.W. 4 Asit also says that Ananda fired at Muktesh from the tea stall of Gouranga and Muktesh jumped and fell on the ground in front of the tea stall of Asit. P.W. 2 also says that Sannyasi fired at Muktesh after Muktesh fell down. P.W. 4 Asit says that Prankrishna and Sannyasi fired at Naresh while Naresh was fleeing away and Naresh fell down by the side of the metal road. P.W. 2 also says that after Naresh fell down Ramkrishna also came there and he began to assault Naresh with ramdao. P.W. 4 Asit says that Prankrishna and Sannyasi fired at Naresh while Naresh was fleeing away and Naresh fell down by the side of the metal road. P.W. 2 also says that after Naresh fell down Ramkrishna also came there and he began to assault Naresh with ramdao. P.W. 3 also speaks of assault on Muktesh by Ramkrishna on his face with ramdao. P.W. 4 also speaks about assault of Muktesh by Ramkrishna and chopping off a portion of left hand of Muktesh by ramdao. He also says how after cutting a portion of the left hand of Muktesh with ramdao, Ramkrishna took the cut portion of that hand. P.W. 5 speaks of assault on Muktesh by Ramkrishna with ramdao and chopping off of the left hand of Muktesh. He also says that the chopped off portion was picked up by Ramkrishna and was thrown away towards the road. He also says that Ramkrishna assaulted Naresh on head with ramdao. Nemai has been implicated by P.W. 2 and P.W. 4 in the matter of assaulting Naresh with ramdao and by P.W. 5 in the matter of assaulting Muktesh with ramdao. Even the hostile witness P.W. 9 has spoken about the presence of Ananda Mondal there with a firearm in his hand. It has been submitted by the learned Advocate for the appellants that there is some sort of relationship between some eye witnesses and victims. In our opinion, that is definitely no reason for discarding their evidence. It is also to be noted here that P.W. 2 and P.W. 5 who are some of the eye witnesses to the occurrence are not related to the victims. Apart from those eye witnesses there is the evidence of P.W. 12 Mrigesh Biswas who is a brother of the victims. As we have seen, he saw a part of the occurrence from a distance and his evidence is that he saw accused Ramkrishna and Nemai hitting someone by ramdao and he was then chased by Girin with bomb and he fled away. He further says that when he later came he saw that the dead body of Naresh was lying at the place where he saw Ramkrishna hitting someone with ramdao. His evidence thus corroborates the evidence of P.W. 2 who says about the hitting of Naresh by Nemai and Ramkrishna with ramdao. He further says that when he later came he saw that the dead body of Naresh was lying at the place where he saw Ramkrishna hitting someone with ramdao. His evidence thus corroborates the evidence of P.W. 2 who says about the hitting of Naresh by Nemai and Ramkrishna with ramdao. P.W. 12 has also spoken about the presence of Prankrishna, Ananda and others there, being armed with firearms. P.W. 14 Sufol Mondal also speaks about the presence of Ananda, Nemai and Prankrishna near the sluice gate. He (Sufol) came out of his house on being informed that Muktesh and Naresh were murdered. He also says that those persons drove him away and he saw Prankrishna with ramdao. P.W. 10 Dinesh who is a brother of the victims says that he saw Ramkrishna with ramdao, Nemai with ramdao, Ananda and others with firearms at the relevant time when he was coming to Abhoynagar bus stand at about 8 a.m. He also says that Madhu Mondal, Anu, Bikash, Mathamota, Ananda abused him in filthy language and he fled a way and took shelter in the home and then came to the P.O. and then saw that Muktesh and Naresh were lying on either sides of the road with blood-oozing injuries and the left hand of Muktesh was cut off. P.W. 8 Jogesh Biswas who is also a brother of the victims says that when he was in his house in the morning at about 8-10/8-15 a.m. he heard sounds of firing and bomb blasting coming from the bus stand and when he came to the gate of the house someone told that Muktesh was fired and then they proceeded to bus stand and when they reached near the house of Gita Mondal they found that Ananda, Nemai, Ramkrishna, Madhab, Mathamota, Sukumar, Dhiren, Girin and others were going away being armed with firearms and ramdao. We have also seen that the evidence of the hostile witness P.W. 6 Mohan Chandra also supports the prosecution case at least to the extent that the occurrence took place in that morning at the Abhoynagar bus stand. 13. We have also seen that the evidence of the hostile witness P.W. 6 Mohan Chandra also supports the prosecution case at least to the extent that the occurrence took place in that morning at the Abhoynagar bus stand. 13. Having regard to the totality of the facts, circumstances and evidence on record, we have therefore, no manner of doubt that the appellants Ananda Mondal, Sannyasi Mondal, Nemai Mondal and Ramkrishna Mondal being armed with weapons like firearms and ramdaos took active part in killing the victims Muktesh and Naresh by inflicting injuries on them at Abhoynagar new bus stand at about 8-10/8-15 a.m. It is also evident from the facts, circumstances and evidence on record as discussed that the entire operation was carried on by the accused persons with a full preparation under a prior plan else all of them would not have been there with weapons at that time and would not have simultaneously attacked the victims without any immediate provocation from them. The entire operation glaringly reflects a common object as well as a common intention on the part of the accused persons to carryon the operation for murdering the two victims. We are therefore of the opinion that the appellants Ananda Mondal, Sannyasi Mondal, Nemai Mondal and Ramkrishna Mondal were rightly convicted by the learned trial court under section 302/34 IPC. Their conviction under section 148 IPC is also justified. As regards the conviction of the other appellants under section 148 IPC we would like to say that the involvement of the appellants Girin, Madhusudan, Mathamota, Bikash, Dhiren, Sukumar and Haren has been established by the evidence regarding their association with the principal accused persons at the time of or immediately after the occurrence and their overt conducts suggesting their involvement in the operation in a culpable way and the sharing of the common object of the unlawful assembly. The evidence of P.W. 5 Balaram, as we have seen, shows that Haren, Girin and Anu (Mathamota) were not only there when the victims were being assaulted by the other accused persons but they also caught the chopped hand of Muktesh which was thrown away by Ramkrishna after chopping off the same. This clearly indicates the culpable involvement of the said accused persons in the operation which was carried out against the victims with a common object to kill them. This clearly indicates the culpable involvement of the said accused persons in the operation which was carried out against the victims with a common object to kill them. P.W. 12 Mrigesh, as we have seen, also says that Girin hurled a bomb and also chased him with bomb when he (the witness) was coming towards the bus stand and he saw Ramkrishna and Nemai hitting someone by ramdao on the southern side of the road. P.W. 8 Jogesh implicates the accused Ananda, Nemai, Ramkrishna, Madhab, Mathamota, Sukumar, Dhiren and Girin who were armed with firearms and ramdao. Similarly the evidence of P.W. 10 Dinesh Biswas implicates Madhu Mondal, Anu, Bikash, Mathamota were also with Ramkrishna, Nemai and Ananda who were armed with ramdaos and firearms when they were retreating after the operation. Therefore we hold that the appellants Girin, Madhu, Mathamota, Bikash, Dhiren, Sukumar and Haren have been rightly convicted along with the appellants Ananda, Sannyasi, Nemai and Ramkrishna by the trial court under section 148 !PC. But we find that there is no sufficient evidence to implicate the appellants Adhir Mondal, Babu Kabiraj and Gouranga Pramanik in the commission of the offence. We therefore hold that the conviction of the said three appellants namely Adhir Mondal, Babu Kabiraj and Gouranga Pramanik under section 148 IPC cannot be sustained and their conviction under the said section and the sentence imposed by the trial court upon them is liable to be set aside and the said three appellants are entitled to acquittal. It is however not very clear to us as to how the trial court could exonerate the accused persons who were convicted under section 148 IPC from further conviction under section 302/149 1PC; Since murder was committed in prosecution of the common object of the unlawful assembly and the same was actively committed by some members of the unlawful assembly, and some other members of that assembly are liable to be convicted under section 148 IPC, it is not understood why all the members of that unlawful assembly, namely, those who were convicted under section . 148 IPC were also not convicted under section 302 read with section 149 IPC. However, since the. 148 IPC were also not convicted under section 302 read with section 149 IPC. However, since the. State did not come up with any appeal in the matter and since the active involvement of the appellants who are convicted only under section 148 IPC is rather marginal in nature, we do not propose to take any further action in the matter and we leave it at that. We also find no reason to interfere with the sentence imposed by the learned court below for conviction under section 148 •IPC in respect of the accused whose conviction under said section has been sustained by us. 14. Now we will come to the vital question regarding sentence imposed by the trial court upon the four appellants who have been convicted under section 302/34 IPC. Each of the four appellants convicted under section 302/34 IPC, namely, Ananda .Mondal, Sannyasi Mondal, Nemai Mondal, and Ramkrishna Mondal has• been sentenced to death and also to a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. The question that we have to now consider is whether the death sentence imposed by the trial court on the four appellants is justified and sustainable. It is now an established law that for a conviction under section 302 IPC normally life sentence is the rule and death sentence is an exception. In Bachan Singh vs. State of-Punjab, AIR 1980 SC 898 , it has been laid down that death sentence should be imposed only in the rarest of rare cases. In Machhi Singh vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1983 SC 957 , it has been observed that death sentence must be imposed only when life imprisonment appears to be an altogether inadequate punishment having regard to the relevant facts and circumstances of the crime and provided, and only provided, the option to impose sentence of imprisonment for life cannot be conscientiously exercised having regard to the nature and circumstances of the crime and all the relevant circumstances. It has been further observed that a balance sheet of aggravating and mitigating circumstances has to be drawn up and in doing so the mitigating circumstances has to be accorded full weightage and a just balance has to be struck between the aggravating and mitigating circumstances before the option is exercised. It has been further observed that a balance sheet of aggravating and mitigating circumstances has to be drawn up and in doing so the mitigating circumstances has to be accorded full weightage and a just balance has to be struck between the aggravating and mitigating circumstances before the option is exercised. In order to apply the guidelines indicated for consideration as to whether death sentence should be passed or not in particular case, the Supreme Court in Machhi Singh vs. State of Punjab (supra) has formulated the following questions, namely, (a) Is there something uncommon about the crime which renders sentence of imprisonment for life inadequate and calls for a death sentence? (b) Are the circumstances of the crime such that there is no alternative but to impose death sentence even after according maximum weightage to the mitigating circumstances which speak in favour of the offender? The Supreme Court in Sk. Abdul Hamid vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1998 SC 942 while referring to the aforesaid decisions of the Supreme Court in Bachan Singh and Machhi Singh (supra), observes that in those cases it was pointed out that death penalty could be awarded in a rarest of rare cases and the circumstance, when the murder is committed in an extremely brutal, grotesque, diabolical, revolting or dastardly manner, so as to arouse intense and extreme indication of the community would fall within the category of rarest of rare cases. With the above guidelines in mind, formulated by the Supreme Court we now proceed to examine the question whether it is fit case where the death sentence imposed by the trial court can or should be sustained. We have seen that it is a case of double murder. The murders were committed in a crowded market place at bus stand in open daylight of the morning. It is not difficult to understand that there must have been premeditated preparation earlier for committing the offence on that day at that place and• at that time as is indicated by the I fact that a number of accused persons being armed with lethal weapons were lurking at that place like savage and cruel hyenas waiting for launching a mortal attack on their unsuspecting prays and then suddenly pounced upon them in a concerted way with grim ferocity when the victims were totally unaware of the impending tragedy that was going to befall them. There was no altercation, no immediate provocation. Double murder is itself a horrifying fact. If a murder is bad, a double murder is bad enough in an aggravated form. Indeed cruelty is implicit in every murder. The post mortem doctor's evidence, as we have seen, clearly indicates that in both the cases, it was not murder simpliciter. It- was ruthless butchery with an aggravated form of cruelty. In one case the doctor found as many as ten injuries and in the other eleven. Serious cut injuries were found on the vital parts of the victims such as face, head, neck, chest in addition to bullet injuries. The medical evidence lends credence to the ocular evidence that the culprits delivered repeated and indiscriminate blows to the victims on vital parts with dangerous sharp cutting weapon which raindao is. That the injuries are brutal in nature has been acknowledged by the post mortem doctor also. We have also seen how the hand of a victim was chopped off by an accused, namely, Ramkrishna and the cut portion of the hand was picked up by the accused and thrown away as if it was a revelry, a sport, a game and not mere murder. We do not know, what further aggravated and depraved form of murder one can imagine in a civilised society. Literally speaking, a hell was let loose by some blood thirsty devils who were human beings in structure but monsters in disposition. There is also a qualitative difference between a murder committed in secrecy or concealment and a murder committed in a crowded market place in broad daylight defying the presence of a host of peace loving viewers. A crowded place or presence of considerable number of persons itself offers a notional yet effective barrier of safety against high crimes for those who are present there because it is supposed that the criminals will not dare to attempt high crimes in such a situation firstly because they know that they are likely to be resisted and even apprehended by the persons present there and secondly because there will be many witnesses to their misdeeds thereby exposing them to the process of law more readily and easily. Commission of murder or for that matter doubtly murder in such a situation and that too in such extremely brutal and diabolical manner as has been done in the present case is not only murder of two unarmed and helpless victims but it has also the direct and desperate effect of maiming the collective safety mechanism of the community system of existence in a civilized society. This is a symptom which aggravates the enormity of the crime, and the tottering society at large needs, adequate protection and reassurance. The aggravating circumstances are thus galore in this case. Of course the motive of the crime has not been proved, but absence of proved motive is of no consequence where, as here, the enormity of the crime with elaborate details has been established beyond reasonable doubt by evidence. As regards mitigating circumstances we may say that there exists none. But even then with a view to keeping death sentence limited to a minimum number in a case as far as possible, we think that the cause of justice in this case will be served by awarding sentence of life imprisonment to the accused Ananda and the accused Sannyasi in view of the fact that they only fired from their firearms in committing the offence, while death sentence will be the only proper and adequate sentence for the other two accused, namely, Ramkrishna and Nemai who ruthlessly butchered the to victims by merciless and repeated thrusts of ramdao in a devilish way, and Ramkrishna not only chopped off a portion of the hand of the victim but also revelled in picking up the severed portion of the hand and throwing away the same and their case comes within the ambit of 'rarest of rare cases'. 15. In the result, the Death Reference is partly accepted and partly rejected. The Death Reference so far as it relates to the appellant-accused Ramkrishna Mondal and Nemai Mondal is accepted and their conviction under section 302/34 IPC and the death sentence imposed by the trial court on those two accused persons for such conviction is hereby confirmed. The order of the trial court imposing fine on those two accused persons for their conviction under section 302/34 IP-C is however set aside. 16. The order of the trial court imposing fine on those two accused persons for their conviction under section 302/34 IP-C is however set aside. 16. The Death Reference so far as it relates to the appellant-accused Ananda Mondal and Sannyasi Mondal is however rejected although their conviction under section 302/34 IPC is sustained. The death sentence imposed by the trial court upon those two accused persons, namely, the accused Ananda Mondal and Sannyasi Mondal is hereby set aside, but they are sentenced to imprisonment for life for their conviction under section 302/34 IPC along with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each i.d. to R.I. for one year. 17. The order of conviction under section 148 IPC and sentence imposed by the trial court for such conviction upon the appellant-accused (1) Ramkrishna Mondal,(2) Nemai Mondal, (3) Ananda Mondal, (4) Sannyasi Mondal, (5) Girin Mondal, (6) Madhu Sudan Mondal, (7) Mathamota Mondal, (8) Dhiren Mondal, (9) Bikash Mondal, (10) Sukumar Mondal @ Sukumar Biswas @ Sankar Biswas and (11) Haren @ Harendra Mondal is sustained. The learned court below is directed to take into custody such of the above-named accused persons who were released on bail. 18. The order of conviction under section 148 IPC and sentence imposed by the trial court for such conviction upon the appellant-accused (1) Adhir Mondal, (2) Babu Kabiraj and (3) Gouranga Pramanik is however set aside and they are acquitted of the charge in respect of which they were convicted by the trial court under the said section and they be set at liberty. 19. It may be noted here that the main appeal is C.RA. 257/98 which was jointly filed in regular way by all the fourteen convicts through their lawyer. That apart, the four of those convicts who were awarded death sentence earlier sent individual applications from jail through the Superintendent of Dum Dum Central Jail virtually praying for mercy and those applications were treated as separate appeals and numbered as C.RA. 241/ 98 (appellant-Nemai Mondal), C.RA. 242/98 (appellant-Ramkrishna Mondal), C.R.A. 243/98 (appellant-Sannyasi Mondal) and C.RA. 244/98 (appellant Ananda Mondal). All those Appeals and the Death Reference No. 4/98 which were heard together are disposed of in terms of this judgment and orders recorded above. Malay Kumar Basu, J. : I agree. Death Reference and the Appeals allowed in part.