Judgment I.P.Singh and A.K.Verma JJ. 1. In Criminal Appeal No. 307 of 1987 the sole appellant is Sitaram Bhagat, who has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life. He has also been convicted under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year. Both the sentences are to run concurrently. In Criminal Appeal No. 318 of 1987, there are four appellants, namely, Shanker Bhagat, Maluka Bhagat, Ram Ratan Bhagat and Remeshwar Paswan. The accused appellants. Shanker Bhagat, Maluka Bhagat and Ram Ratan Bhagat have been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, Begusarai in Sessions Case No. 43 of 1985 under Sections 147 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and they have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year each under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code and to undergo R.I. for six months each under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. The sentences are to run concurrently. The accused-appellant, Rameshwar Paswan has been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code only, but keeping in view his age, the learned Sessions Judge has ordered him to be released on executing bond of Rs. 3000/- with two sureties of the like amount each on condition that he will maintain peace and good behaviour for a period of two years. Both these Criminal Appeals arises out of the same judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Begusarai in Sessions Case No. 43 of 1985. Therefore both these Criminal Appeals are disposed of by this common judgment. 2. In short the case of the prosecution is that Ram Sujan Pandit aged about five years, nephew of the informant had gone to ease in the land of accused Sitaram Bhagat and accused Sitaram Bhagat caught him and brought him to the house of the informant. The informant and his cousin brother pacified the matter and Sitaram Bhagat returned back to his house, after sometime, accused Sitaram Bhagat, Shanker Bhagat, Maluka Bhagat, Ram Ratan Bhagat and Rameshwar Paswan, armed with lathi and rod came there. Accused Rameshwar Paswan ordered for the assault, on which Shanker Bhagat and Maluka Bhagat assaulted Sheo Sharan Pandit and accused Ram Ratan Bhagat assaulted Hare Krishna Pandit with fists and slaps. Accused Rameshwar Paswan ordered for the assault, on which Shanker Bhagat and Maluka Bhagat assaulted Sheo Sharan Pandit and accused Ram Ratan Bhagat assaulted Hare Krishna Pandit with fists and slaps. The informant and Kalpu Pandit and Sita Ram Pandit protested to the accused persons and thereafter Bhago Pandit (the deceased) also protested to accused persons, on which all the five accused persons dragged bhago Pandit from the door of the informant and took him towards south of the door of Nepali Bhagat and accused Sitaram Bhagat assaulted Bhago Pandit on his head with iron rod as a result of which he fell down and his head started bleeding and then he died there. On hulla many people arrived there and thereafter the accused persons fled away. The First Information Report of this case was instituted by the informant Sarjug Pandit which is Ext. 3 in this case. After investigation Police submitted charge-sheet against the accused persons. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the case and committed it to the Court of Sessions for trial. 3. The defence of the accused persons according to the trend of the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses is that they have been falsely implicated in this case. 4. In this case 8 witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution. P.w. 1, Shiv Sharan Pandit and PW 2. Hare Krishna Pandit both are the sons of deceased, Bhago Pandit and they have supported the case of the prosecution as stated in the First Information Report. PW 1, Shiv Sharan Pandit has stated that when Ram Sujan Pandit had gone to ease on the land of Sitaram Bhagat, he caught him and brought him to his door (PW 1) while assaulting him and Kalpu Pandit and Hare Krishna Pandit pacified Sitaram Bhagat and he returned back to his house. Thereafter at about 12 Oclock in the day, Sitaram Bhagat, Shanker Bhagat, Maluka Bhagat, Ram Ratan Bhagat and Rameshwar Paswan came to his (PW 1) door and among them Sitaram Bhagat was armed with iron rod and others were armed with lathi. Rameshwar Paswan ordered for the assault, on which Shanker Bhagat and Maluka Bhagat assaulted him (PW 1) with lathi and Ram Ratan Bhagat assaulted Hare Krishna Pandit with fists and slaps. Rameshwar Paswan ordered for the assault, on which Shanker Bhagat and Maluka Bhagat assaulted him (PW 1) with lathi and Ram Ratan Bhagat assaulted Hare Krishna Pandit with fists and slaps. According to him, Saryug Pandit, Kalpu Pandit and Sitaram Pandit protested to the accused persons and his (PW 1) father also protested, on which all the five accused persons dragged his (PW 1) father and took him to the door of Nepali Bhagat, where accused Sitaram Bhagat assaulted his father on his head with iron rod as a result of which he fell down and blood was oozing out from his nose and thereafter the accused persons flied away. Further, according to him his father died there after he was put on a cot. He has stated that blood had fallen at the place of occurrence. This fact has been supported by the evidence of PW 6, Jugal Rajak who has stated that Daroga had seized blood soaked earth before him from the southern corner of the Sahan in front of the door of Nepali Bhagat. PW 7, Ramadhar Singh is the I.O. of the case and he has also made similar statement regarding seizure of the blood soaked earth from the place of occurrence. PW 7 has stated that he had seized blood soaked earth from the place of occurrence and prepared the seizure list, which is Ext. 2 in this case. He (PW 7) has also stated that the dead body of the deceased Bhago Pandit was found on the southern corner of the door of Nepali Bhagat. So the place of occurrence is also supported by the evidence of PW 7. The fact that the blood was found at the place of occurrence also supports the case of the prosecution. According to PW 1, Shiv Sharan Pandit, his injuries were examined by the doctor and inquest report of the dead body was prepared before him on which he had put his signature, which is Ext. 1, PW 2, Hare Krishna Pandit, another son of the deceased has also made more or less similar statement and supported the case of the prosecution. He has said in his cross-examination that he was present at the place of occurrence when Daroga had come there and Daroga had seized blood soaked earth before him from the place of occurrence. 1, PW 2, Hare Krishna Pandit, another son of the deceased has also made more or less similar statement and supported the case of the prosecution. He has said in his cross-examination that he was present at the place of occurrence when Daroga had come there and Daroga had seized blood soaked earth before him from the place of occurrence. PW 3, Sita Ram Pandit has stated that he was at his house and he had seen that Sitaram Bhagat was assaulting Ram Sujan Pandit with fists and slaps and brought him at his (PW 3) door and Hare Krishna Pandit pacified Sitaram Bhagat and then he returned back. At about 12 Oclock in the day Sitaram Bhagat armed with rod, Maluka Bhagat, Ram Ratan Bhagat, Shanker Bhagat and Rameshwar Paswan armed with lathi, came there and Rameshwar Paswan ordered for the assault, on which Shanker Bhagat, Maluka Bhagat assaulted Shiv Sharan Pandit with lathi and Ram Ratan Bhagat assaulted Hare Krishna Pandit with fists and slaps. He has stated that Bhago Pandit protested to the accused on which Sitaram Bhagat and other accused dragged Bhago Pandit to the south of the door of Nepali Bhagat and Sitaram Bhagat assaulted Bhago Pandit on his head with iron rod as a result of which he fell down there and died. PW 4, Kalpu Pandit is father of Ram Sujan Pandit, who had gone to case on the land of accused Sitaram Bhagat. According to him Saryug Pandit and he (PW 4) had pacified Sitaram Bhagat and Sitaram Bhagat had returned back to his house. He has stated that at about 12 Oclock in the day, Sitaram Bhagat along with Shanker Bhagat; Maluka Bhagat, Ram Ratan Bhagat and Rameshwar Paswan came there and Sitaram Bhagat was armed with rod and others were armed with lathi. He has also said that Rameshwar Paswan ordered for the assault, on which Shanker Bhagat and Maluka Bhagat assaulted Shiv Sharan Pandit with lathi and Ram Ratan Bhagat assaulted Hare Krishna Pandit with fists and slaps to which Sitaram Pandit and Saryug protested and Bhago Pandit had also protested on which the accused persons had dragged Bhago Pandit towards the door of Nepali Bhagat and Sitaram Bhagat had assaulted Bhago Pandit on his head with rod and Bhago Pandit fell down on the ground and he was put on a cot, where he died. 5. 5. PW 5, Saryug Pandit is the informant of this case. He has supported his case as stated in the First Information Report. According to him, he was at his door at 10 Oclock in the day and accused Sitaram Bhagat brought his nephew Ram Sujan Pandit assaulting him and he pacified Sitaram Bhagat. He has further said that accused Sitaram Bhagat, Shanker Bhagat, Maluka Bhagat, Ram Ratan Bhagat and Rameshwar Paswan again came to his door and Sitaram Bhagat was armed with rod and others were armed with lathi and Rameshwar Paswan ordered for the assault, on which Shanker Bhagat and Maluka Bhagat assaulted Shiv Sharan Pandit with lathi and Ram Ratan Bhagat assaulted Hare Krishna Pandit with fists and slaps and Sitaram Pandit and others protested to them. He has also said that Bhago Pandit (the deceased) also protested to the accused on which the accused persons caught and dragged him to southern corner of the door of Nepali Bhagat and Sitaram Bhagat assaulted Bhago Pandit on his head with rod as a result of which his head started bleeding and Bhago Pandit died there. He had stated about the occurrence to the Daroga who had recorded it and read it over to him and after finding it correct, he had put his signature on it. The evidence of all these witnesses, P.Ws. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 has been supported by the evidence of PW 6 before whom blood soaked earth was seized from the place of occurrence by PW 7, Ramadhar Singh, the I.O. who had inspected the place of occurrence and seized the blood soaked earth and prepared the seizure list. He (PW 7) has also stated that he had prepared inquest report of the dead body and sent the dead body for post mortem examination. He has stated that the dead body of the deceased was found on the southern end of the door of Nepali Bhagat and blood had fallen on the ground. All these witnesses (P.Ws. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7) have been cross-examined at length on behalf of the accused persons but nothing has been solicited in their cross-examination to disbelieve their evidence, PW 8 is Dr. Gulam Saiful Haque, who had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased. All these witnesses (P.Ws. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7) have been cross-examined at length on behalf of the accused persons but nothing has been solicited in their cross-examination to disbelieve their evidence, PW 8 is Dr. Gulam Saiful Haque, who had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased. He has stated that on 1.8.1983, while he was posted at Sadar Hospital, Begusarai as Civil Assistant Surgeon, he had performed post mortem examination on the dead body of Bhago Pandit and he had found the following ante mortem injures on his person: (i) Lacerated wound 2" x 1" x deep into the skull, situated on the left parietal part of head. On dissection, the under lying scalp was echchymised and clots of blood were there. The skull was fractured and the site of wound was depressed. The membrane was torn and the brain matter lacerated. Ext. 5 is the post mortem report. According to the opinion of the doctor, who had conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased, the death was due to shock and hemorrhage, as a result of above mentioned infra cravical injuries caused by hard and blunt substance. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased was assaulted on his head by iron rod as a result of which he had died. The medical evidence shows that there was only one ante mortem injury on his person. 6. It was argued by the learned lawyer for the appellants that the prosecution witnesses are related to the deceased in one way or the other and no independent witness has come in support of the prosecution case. These days it is common that the people are usually reluctant to get themselves involved in an occurrence especially where serious crimes are committed. It was submitted by the learned. Additional Public Prosecutor that non-examination of independent witnesses of the locality cannot be a ground for doubt or throw out the testimony of prosecution witnesses who are otherwise consistent and reliable and in support of his contention, he placed reliance on a decision of Division Bench of this Court reported in 1999 (3) PLJR 584 (Lalan Prasad Singh & Anr. v. State of Bihar, 1999 (3) East Cr C 43). 7. v. State of Bihar, 1999 (3) East Cr C 43). 7. The above evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution proves that the accused Sitaram Bhagat had given blow on the head of the deceased by iron rod as a result of which he had died. None of the witnesses have said that Sitaram Bhagat had given repeated blow on the head of the deceased. The occurrence had taken place after the nephew of the informant had gone to ease, who was assaulted by the accused Sitaram Bhagat and thereafter the accused persons had come to the door of the informant and then on protest made by the informant and others, accused persons had dragged away Bhago Pandit (deceased) and accused Sitaram Bhagat had assaulted Bhago Pandit (deceased) on his head with iron rod and accused Shanker Bhagat and Maluka Bhagat had assaulted Shiv Sharan Pandit with lati and Ram Ratan Bhagat had assaulted Hare Krishna Pandit with fists and slaps. The medical evidence also shows that there was only one injury; so, admittedly no repeated blow was given on the head of the deceased. The facts and circumstances of the case show that the accused Sitaram Bhagat had assaulted the deceased without any intention to cause his death. If he had intention to cause his death, he would have given repeated blow on the head or on any part of the body of the deceased. In that view of the matter, the conviction of accused Sitaram Bhagat is converted into under Section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code. 8. It was submitted by the learned lawyer for the appellants that the accused had been under the agony of the case for about 17 years. The occurrence of this case is of 31st July. 1983. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case accused Sitaram Bhagat is sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years under Section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code and his conviction under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code is maintained and his sentence under Section 147 IPC is reduced to R.I. for three months. Both the sentences shall run concurrently. The bail bond of accused Sitaram Bhagat is cancelled and he is directed to surrender in the Court of the learned Sessions Judge forthwith to serve out his sentences. Both the sentences shall run concurrently. The bail bond of accused Sitaram Bhagat is cancelled and he is directed to surrender in the Court of the learned Sessions Judge forthwith to serve out his sentences. The learned Sessions Judge is also directed to take all necessary steps in this regard. 9. With above modification in the judgment and order of conviction and sentence, Cr. Appeal No. 307 of 1987 is dismissed. 10. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the conviction of accused, Shanker Bhagat, Maluka Bhagat and Ram Ratan Bhagat under Sections 147 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code is maintained and their sentence under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code is reduced to R.I. for three months each and their sentence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code is also reduced to R.I. tor three months each the sentences shall run concurrently. Their bail bonds are cancelled and they are directed to surrender in the Court of the learned Sessions Judge forthwith to serve their sentences. The learned Sessions Judge is also directed to take all necessary steps in this regard. 11. The conviction of accused Rameshwar Paswan under Section 147 IPC is maintained. He has been ordered by the learned Sessions Judge to be released on executing bond of Rs. 3000/- with two sureties of the like amount each on condition that he will maintain peace and good behaviour for a period of two years. There does not appear any reason to interfere with the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge in respect of accused Rameshwar Paswan. 12. With above modifications in the judgment and order of conviction and sentence, Cr. Appeal No. 318 of 1987 is dismissed. 13. Both these criminal appeals are disposed of accordingly. Appeals dismissed with certain modification in convection and sentence.