JUDGMENT B. P. DAS, J. — The appellant having been convicted for com¬mission of offences under Section 302 as well as 307 of the Penal Code by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rourkela, has preferred this appeal. The appellant and two other accused per¬sons, namely, Lanka Jhara and Sanka Jhara, had been charged under Section 302/34 of the Penal Code for committing murder of de¬ceased Budhu Jhara and they were also further charged under Section 307/34 of the Penal Code for attempting to commit murder of Sukutu Jhara (P.W.8). The learned Additional Sessions Judge on consideration of the evidence on record, convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the Penal Code for committing the murder of Budhu Jhara and sentenced him to imprisonment for life, and also convicted the appellant under Section 307 of the Penal Code for attempting to commit the murder of Sukutu Jhara and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years, with a direc¬tion that the sentences shall run concurrently. 2. The case of the prosecution is that some days prior to the date of occurrence a relation of the deceased and the in¬jured, namely, Kendu Jhara (P.W.9) had come to their house and suspecting that the said Kendu Jhara had some illicit affairs with the sister of the accused persons, named Rukha Jhara, the accused persons had quarrelled with and assaulted Kendu Jhara and Sukutu Jhara. On the date of occurrence also some time before the occurrence there was exchange of blows between the appellant and injured Sukutu, whereafter the injured (P.W.8) had gone back home.After this incident on the date of occurrence at about evening hours, all the three accused persons came near the house of the deceased armed with weapons like Farsa, Lathi, etc. and called P.W.8. No sooner P.W.8 came out of the house, he was as¬saulted by the accused persons by means of Farsa causing serious bleeding injuries on different parts of his body, as a result of which he lost his senses and fell down at the spot. In the mean¬time his father, deceased Budhu Jhara, challenged the conduct of the accused persons and he was also assaulted by the same weapon causing similar injuries on his person resulting in his death instantaneously. F.I.R. was lodged by P.W.1 after the occurrence and investigation was taken up.On completion of investigation charge-sheet was filed for the offences stated above. 3. In the mean¬time his father, deceased Budhu Jhara, challenged the conduct of the accused persons and he was also assaulted by the same weapon causing similar injuries on his person resulting in his death instantaneously. F.I.R. was lodged by P.W.1 after the occurrence and investigation was taken up.On completion of investigation charge-sheet was filed for the offences stated above. 3. The defence plea is complete denial of the prosecution allegations and the accused persons stated that they were falsely implicated in the case by the prosecution in order to grab their properties. 4. In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution examined as many as 18 witnesses. P.W.1 is the informant and a post-occurrence witness. But he speaks about the incident prior to the date of occurrence which took place on a Saturday. P.W.2 is the widow of the deceased and mother of the injured who is an eye-witness to the occurrence. P.Ws.4 6, 7, 10,11 and 14 are seizure witnesses, P.W.5 is an eye-witness to the assault on P.W.8. P.W.8. himself is the injured and P.W.9 is the person who was one of the victims of the incident that took place prior to the date of occurrence on a Saturday. P.W.13 is the doctor who conducted the autopsy. P.W.18 is the Lady Doctor who had examined the injured Sukutu Jhara and P.W.18 is the Investigating Officer. 5. Learned counsel for appellant in course of the hearing submitted that the versions of the eye-witnesses are full of contradictions and they cannot be relied upon. He further submit¬ted that no separate charge either under Section 302 or 307 of the Penal Code having been framed against the appellant, the order of conviction is not sustainable. 6. In order to meet the first point raised by the learned counsel for appellant, we proceed to examine the evidence of the eye-witnesses to the occurrence. P.W.2 is the widow of the de¬ceased and mother of the injured Sukutu. In her evidence she has stated that on the date of occurrence at about evening hours, the injured Sukutu came form the side of the river with some bleeding injuries on his body and when she asked him as to how he sus¬tained the injuries, the appellant and two other accused persons came near her house armed with Balwa, cycle chain and Trishul and called Sukutu. As soon as Sukutu came out of the house, he was assaulted by the accused persons on different parts of his body and he fell down on the ground. At that point of time her husband returned from the side of the river after taking bath and when he challenged the conduct of the accused persons, he was assaulted by them by means of the Balwa causing severe bleeding injuries on his chest, head and other parts of his body, as a result of which he fell down in a pool of blood and passed away. Thereafter the accused persons fled away from the spot. Nothing has been brought out in her cross-examination to disbelieve this witness. P.W.5 is another eye-witness to the occurrence who has stated in his evidence that while he was sitting under a Mahula tree near the house of the deceased, the injured came running from the river side with profuse bleeding from his head and told this witness that the appellant assaulted on his head. Saying so Sukutu went inside the house. Immediately thereafter all the 3 accused per¬sons arrived near the house of Sukutu armed with Farsa, Trishul, chain and Lathi and asked Sukutu to come out of the house. When Sukutu came out of the house, he was assaulted by the appellant on his head, arm, back and neck by means of the Farsa, resulting in severe bleeding injuries. Thereafter this witness ran away from the spot and subsequently he learnt that the accused persons also assaulted the deceased causing his death. We have carefully examined the evidence of this witness and nothing has been brought out in his cross-examination to disbelieve him. 7. P.W.8 Sukutu is the injured himself. He has also cor¬roborated the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 5 so far as the assault on him is concerned. We also do not find any reason to disbelieve this witness. The contradictions pointed out by the learned counsel for appellant in the evidence of the above 3 witnesses are not so material as to discard their evidence altogether. P.W.9 is Kendu Jhara who had been assaulted on the previous occasion giving rise to assault on P.W.8 and the deceased on the date of occurrence. The contradictions pointed out by the learned counsel for appellant in the evidence of the above 3 witnesses are not so material as to discard their evidence altogether. P.W.9 is Kendu Jhara who had been assaulted on the previous occasion giving rise to assault on P.W.8 and the deceased on the date of occurrence. He has stated in his evidence that on a Thursday preceding the date of death of the deceased he was sleeping on the sand-bed of the river situated near their village and at about 7.00 p.m. as somebody poured water on him he woke up and found the sister of the accused persons standing near him. When he questioned her, she invited this witness to go into the river for fishing. When he refused, she dragged him holding his hand and took him to the water-bed in a boat and they went for fishing. Some days thereafter on a Saturday he and Sukutu while returning after catching fish, they were called by the wife of the appellant and when they went to the Jhumpudi of the appel¬lant, the found all the three accused persons present there who assaulted both of them. Much reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the State on the evidence of this witness to prove the motive of the appellant. 8. The Farsa which is said to be the weapon of offence had been seized and sent for examination. The report Ext. 27 shows that the Farsa contained blood but due to insufficiency in quan¬tity no definite opinion could be arrived at. The doctor P.W.13 who conducted the post mortem examination found as many as five incised wounds on different parts of the body of the deceased and was of the opinion that the injuries found on the body of the deceased could be caused by a Farsa except injury No. 6 which could be caused by lathi. Similarly, P.W.18, the Lady Doctor, who examined the injured P.W.8 also found as many as 6 incised wounds on the body of the injured and was of the opinion that such injuries could be caused by a Farsa. 9. Similarly, P.W.18, the Lady Doctor, who examined the injured P.W.8 also found as many as 6 incised wounds on the body of the injured and was of the opinion that such injuries could be caused by a Farsa. 9. In view of the evidence of the eye-witnesses and the two Doctors coupled with the report of the Chemical Examiner, we have no hesitation in our mind to hold that the appellant was the author of the assaults made on deceased as well as the injured (P.W.8). 10. Coming to the second question raised by the learned counsel for appellant, we think it proper to refer to a decision of this Court reported in (2001) 20 OCR 36 : Sukra Sahu and another v. State of Orissa. In the said case 16 accused persons had been charged for commission of offences under Sections 147, 148, 302/149 of the Penal Code. Out of 16 accused persons, 14 were acquitted as the charge under Section 149 of the Penal Code could not be proved. Under the aforesaid circumstances, this Court relying upon two earlier decisions of the apex Court re¬ported in AIR 1987 Supreme Court 826 : Amar Singh v. State, and AIR 1991 Supreme Court 1075 : K. Nagamalleswara v. State, held that the appellants therein, however, would be responsible for the offence, if any, committed by them in their individual capac¬ity without regard to the participation of others. In view of such decision of this Court, in the present case even if the prosecution has failed to prove the charge under Section 34 of Penal Code, the appellant shall be liable for his individual conduct. 11. In view of our discussion made above in the earlier paragraphs, we have no hesitation to hold that the appellant has been rightly convicted under Sections 302 as well as Section 307 of the Penal Code and as such, we do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. M. PAPANNA, J. I agree. Appeal dismissed.