JUDGMENT Chowdhury, J. 1. This appeal on behalf of the two appellants Bhabesh Sain and Santosh Boot is directed against the Judgment and Order dated December 6, 1991 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Durgapur, Burdwan, in Sessions Trial No. 19 of 1991 corresponding to Sessions Case No. 13 of 1990 convicting both the appellants under Section 304 Part-I read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. and sentencing each of them thereunder to R.I. for 8 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, i.d , to suffer R.I. for a further period of 6 months. 2. Both the appellants were placed on trial before the learned Judge on the charge that on 17.5.89, at about 22:00 hrs. at Pursha Market, they caused the death of one Hiralal Bauri with common intention of causing such bodily injury as was likely to cause death or with their common knowledge that their act was likely to cause death and thereby committed an offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Section 304 Part-I read with Section 34 I.P.C. 3. Prosecution examined 17 witnesses to prove the charge against the appellants. 4. Among them P.Ws. 1 and 10 are the eye witnesses and P.W. 1 submitted the written F.I.R. scribed by P.W. 7. P.W. 1 was informed by P.W. 10 and he rushed to the spot with P.W. 8 and noticed the appellants assaulting Hiralal Bauri with iron rod and bamboo lathi. He protested against the act of the appellants when the appellant Bhabesh Sain came near him with a view to assaulting him by slaps, fists and blows and he also took out a pistol to threaten him and on seeing that he fled away but returned later on again. 5. P. Ws. 2, 6, 7, 8 and 9 stated in their evidence that they were not examined by the police and were permitted to be cross-examined on behalf of the prosecution. P.Ws. 3 and 4 were declared hostiled by the prosecution as they stated that they stated before the learned Judicial Magistrate as dictated by the police which were recorded under Section 164 Cr. P. C. 6. P.W. 5, is a witness after the occurrence and he did not find the appellants but he found Hiralal Bauri with bleeding injuries and groaning and lying in front of the shop of P.W. 3. 7. P. C. 6. P.W. 5, is a witness after the occurrence and he did not find the appellants but he found Hiralal Bauri with bleeding injuries and groaning and lying in front of the shop of P.W. 3. 7. P.W. 10 is the first eye-witness who witnessed the victim Hiralal Bauri being assaulted by the Appellants with bamboo lathi and iron rod at the time and place mentioned in the charge and also noticed P. W. 3 closing the Jhamp of his shop and fleeing away. 8. P.W. 11 Dr. Pranabesh Kumar Layek, attached to D.T.P.S. Hospital examined the patient Hiralal Bauri, at first on 17.5.89 and found fracture in left hand and lacerated injuries over left parietal region and the patient was found vomiting blood. Bleeding was found fresh and semiconscious and on examination the condition of the patient was found unsatisfactory and he administered Decadron injection and other injections and referred the patient to D.S.P. Hospital for better treatment. 9. P.W. 12 only heard about the incident and went to the D.S.P. Hospital and identified the dead body to the police and he was also present during the inquest by the police. 10. P.W. 13 was the judicial Magistrate who recorded the statements of P.W. 3 and P.W. 4 under Section 164 Cr. P. C. 11. P.W. 14 was an A.S.I. attached to Durgapur P.S. and he started Durgapur U/D Case No. 66/89 dated 19.5.89 on the basis of the written complaint of Dr. Omprakash Patra, R.M.S., D.S.P., Main Hospital and being endorsed by the O.C., Durgapur P.S., collected the death certificate of Hiralal Bauri, held inquest on his dead body at the morgue of the hospital being identified by the father of the deceased prepared the inquest report in presence of the witnesses, found head injury in bandaged condition on Hiralal Bauri and he also found injury on the left hand just upto the enbow, injury on right foot, just below the knee upto footsteps of Hiralal all in bandaged condition. He also stated that after inquest he prepared challan for sending the dead body for P.M, examination at D.S.P. Hospital and the said dead body was despatched to S.D. Hospital through Tapan Dutta. 12. He also stated that after inquest he prepared challan for sending the dead body for P.M, examination at D.S.P. Hospital and the said dead body was despatched to S.D. Hospital through Tapan Dutta. 12. P.W. 15 was a constable attached to D.T.P.S.I/C. He carried the written complaint handed over to him by A.S.I., Ajit Chatterjee and produced the same to the O.C. of the P.S., the next morning. 13. P.W. 16 was the O.C. of Durgapur P.S. He received the written complaint, drew up the formal F.I.R. and endorsed the case for investigation to P.W. 17 recorded as Durgapur P.S. Case No. 130 dated 18.5.89 under Sections 341/325/307/34 I.P.C. & Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act against both the appellants. 14. P.W. 17 is the Investigating Officer of the case. He visited the P.O., recorded statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. seized Alamats including blood-stained earth and controlled earth under seizure lists, and also prayed for recording the statements of P.W. 3 & P.W. 4 under Section 164 before the learned Magistrate, adding Section 302 I.P.C. after the death of Hiralal Bauri and submitted charge-sheet against both the appellants under Sections 302/34 I.P.C. after completion of investigation. 15. No witness was, however, examined on behalf of the defence and the defence case, as it appears from the trend of cross-examination and the examination of the appellants under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is that the appellants are innocent and they have been falsely implicated out of political rivalry. 16. Learned trial Judge, on consideration of all the evidence and materials on record and relying on the evidence of P.W. 10 and P.W. 1 who were the eye-witnesses to the occurrence corroborated by the medical evidence of P.W. 11 who first treated the victim at the Hospital and the post mortem report which was admitted and marked Ext. 7 without any objection from the defence convicted both the appellants and sentenced them as above. 17. Heard the learned Advocate on behalf of the Appellants who took us through the evidence of all the prosecution witnesses and the examination of the appellants under Section 313 of Cr. P. C. as also the impugned Judgment. 18. 7 without any objection from the defence convicted both the appellants and sentenced them as above. 17. Heard the learned Advocate on behalf of the Appellants who took us through the evidence of all the prosecution witnesses and the examination of the appellants under Section 313 of Cr. P. C. as also the impugned Judgment. 18. Challenging the impugned Judgment, learned Advocate on behalf of the appellant submitted that in view of the non-mentioning the names of the appellants as the assailants of the victim Hiralal Bauri by the patient party including the eye-witnesses P. W. 10 and P. W.1 and the word "somebody" being mentioned as assailants before the doctor P.W.11 clearly establishes that the appellants were falsely implicated in the case. He further submitted that the delay of about 10 hours in lodging the F.I.R. although the police station was within a distance of 10 minutes' walk proves that the F.I.R. was concocted and should not have been relied upon by the learned trial Judge. It is further submitted that the name of P.W. 10 not being mentioned as an eye-witness in the F.I.R., the learned trial Judge erred in considering him as an eyewitness and convicting the appellants by relying on his evidence. It is also submitted that the learned Judge failed to consider that P.W. 8, alleged to be present at the time and place of occurrence did not support the prosecution case. It is also submitted that the learned trial Judge erred in accepting and relying upon the post mortem report submitted on behalf of the prosecution without the evidence of the autopsy surgeon and as such on proper and judicial consideration of the aforesaid evidence and materials on record, the defence case of false implication and political rivalry should have been held as more probable and acceptable and the appellants should have been acquitted on benefit of doubt and as such the appeal should be allowed and the conviction and sentence of the appellants are liable to be set aside. Decisions reported in (1) 1986 C. Cr. LR. (Cal) 138, June @ Arjun Mandi v. State, and (2) 87 CWN 365, Gour Sk. v. State AND Panchanan Kahan v. State, regarding the admissibility of the post mortem report (Ext. Decisions reported in (1) 1986 C. Cr. LR. (Cal) 138, June @ Arjun Mandi v. State, and (2) 87 CWN 365, Gour Sk. v. State AND Panchanan Kahan v. State, regarding the admissibility of the post mortem report (Ext. 7) as inadmissible evidence without the examination of the autopsy surgeon who held the post mortem examination, and (3) AIR 1976 SC 2263 , Lakshmi Singh & Others ete. v. State of Bihar para 13, regarding his submission that the blood-stained earth seized by the I/O not being sent to the chemical Examiner, indicates that the defence version may be true, submitted the learned Advocate for the appellants. 19. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the State supported the Judgment of the learned trial Judge and further submitted that all the points raised on behalf of the appellants before this Court were also raised on behalf of the defence before the learned trial Judge and the learned trial Judge considered those submissions elaborately and exhaustively and there is nothing wrong or illegality in the findings of the learned Judge for interference by this Court and as such the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 20. On careful consideration of the respective submissions of the learned Advocate on behalf of the Appellant and the State and the evidence and materials on record, we find that all the points submitted before this Court have been elaborately and exhaustively considered by the learned trial Judge and we do not find any reason, far less any justifiable reason to interfere with the Judgment or Order of conviction and sentence of the appellants by the learned trial Judge. 21. The appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed and the order of conviction and sentence of the appellants by the learned trial Judge is upheld and affirmed. It is, however, submitted on behalf of the parties that the appellants appear to have served out the sentence. It, however, appears from records that the appellants are on bail as per orders dated 14.10.93 and 30.1.95. In the circumstances, the appellants are directed to surrender to their bail bonds to serve out the rest of the sentence. Sil, J.: I agree.