JUDGMENT Joytosh Banerjee, J. 1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 23.9.1980 passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Purulia in Sessions Trial No. 14/80 (Sessions Case No.21/80). Through the same, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found the appellants guilty convicted under section 304 Part-I read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to R.I. for 10 years each. They were also convicted under section 148 I.P.C., but no separate sentence was passed on them. The appellants, namely, Ganesh Mahato and Naresh Mahato were also found guilty under section 323 read with section 34 I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer R.I. for 6 months, directing further that such sentence would run concurrently along with the earlier sentence imposed on them under section 304 Part-I of I.P.C. 2. Shortly put the case of the prosecution as disclosed in the F.I.R lodged by the informant Bishnu Mahato (P.W.1) is that on 29th May, 1979 the informant along with his uncle (father's elder brother) Rohin Mahato were crushing the mud in order to sow seeds in the khet of his uncle at Kenduadih when the appellants came to the khet armed with various weapons like lathi, tangi, ballams and ask them to vacate that land claiming that the same belonged to them when the witness and his uncle protested the accused persons forcibly entered into the said land and accused Bhim Mahato, uncle of Rohin Mahato with tangi on his forehead, left hand, arm pit and right back. Accused Nibaran and Prahllad assaulted the uncle Rohin Mahato with lathis. Dhiren Mahato assaulted Hiralal Mahato with tangi on his right back. The accused Ganesh, Madhu, Paresh also assaulted the said Hiralal with lathis as a result of which blood stained injuries were sustained by such victim, Ganesh Mahato assaulted with the handle of the spear on the head of the informant. Accused Patesh Mahato assaulted the informant with lathi on his left hand, on seeing the uncle, Rohin Mahato lying on the land with injuries, the witness went to Tulin outpost and lodged the F.I.R. 3. At the time of trial, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge on consideration of the materials on record raised a charge under section 148 I.P.C. against all the accused persons. At the time of trial, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge on consideration of the materials on record raised a charge under section 148 I.P.C. against all the accused persons. Appellants Bhim Rajwar, Nibaran Rajwar, Prohlad Rajwar and Tirthanath alias Taraknath were further charged under section 304 I.P.C. read with section 34 I.P.C. for causing death of Rohin Mahato (described as Rohin Mahato and the charge also the evidence). Appellant/accused Ganesh Mahato, Naresh Mahato, Madhu Rajwar and Dhiren Mahato were also charged under section 304 Part-I read with section 34 I.P.C. for causing death of Hiralal Mahato. That apart appellant Ganesh and Paresh were also charged under section 323 read with section 34 I.P.C. for causing hurt to Bishnu Mahato (P.W.1). Accused/appellants pleaded not guilty to such charge and so the trial proceeded. 4. In course of the trial, the prosecution has examined in all 18 witnesses to bring home the charge. Defence on the other hand has examined 3 witnesses. 5. P.W.1 Bishnu Mahato is the informant and one of the 2 eye witnesses, other bring P.W.4 Matru Mahatani daughter of one of the victims late Rohin Mahato. According to P.W.1 on 29.5.79 at about 6 a.m. he along with his uncle Rohin Mahato were preparing the land, namely, C.S. Plot No.1923 corresponding to R.S. Plot No.3002 of mouza Tulin for sowing paddy seeds. At that time all the accused/appellants, (he named all of them in his evidence) came to the said land and asked the witness and his uncle to go out of such land. At this, the witness and his uncle protested, then Bhim Rajwar with a tangi assaulted Rohin on his forehead, left hand and arm pit. Accused/appellants Nibaran and Prohlad assaulted the said victim on his left hand by lathi. It is the further evidence of P.W.1 that on seeing such quarrel going on the case land, Hiralal was coming to the said land and he was assaulted by accused/ appellants Ganesh, Naresh and Madhu with lathis, when Hiralal fell down then Dhiren assaulted him by a tangi on his back. Thereafter, accused/ appellant Ganesh assaulted the witness on his head by the handle of the spear. Accused/appellant Naresh also launched assault on the witness in the similar fashion and struck him on the left hand. On being assaulted in that way, the witness fled away towards Tulin outpost. Thereafter, accused/ appellant Ganesh assaulted the witness on his head by the handle of the spear. Accused/appellant Naresh also launched assault on the witness in the similar fashion and struck him on the left hand. On being assaulted in that way, the witness fled away towards Tulin outpost. On his way to the outpost he met Satrughna (P.W.2) and described the incident and also the name of the assailants of Rohin and Hiralal and also the assailants who launched assault on him. His evidence goes to show at the outpost, he informed the police about the incident. Thereafter he accompanied the police officer to the place of occurrence and who saw the injured persons, there. Thereafter a written complaint was submitted to the Police Officer at the P.O. which was written by Bharat Mahato and which was signed by him. He identified the F.I.R., which was signed by the witness. The document was marked Ext.1, on the basis of the evidence of P.W.1. The cross-examination of the witness indicated that all the accused persons stood related with each other and the witness was ignorant about how the case land stood recorded in C.S. as well as R.S. operation. Still then he insisted in the cross-examination that C.S. Plot No.1923 was in possession of Rohin Mahato at the relevant point of time. 6. P.W.2, Satrughna Mahato corroborated the oral testimony of P.W.1 regarding the death of 2 victims Rohin and Hiralal Mahato at Purulia Hospital on 29.5.79. He added that at about 6 a.m. when he was going to his own land, he found P.W.1 to come running with blood injuries and on his querry he reported to the witness all about the incident before proceeding towards Tulin outpost. On hearing this, the witness proceeded towards the case land and on his way he found the accused persons to proceed to their village. The accused/appellants were then found armed with lathi, tangi and spear etc. On his arrival at the spot he found both the victims Rohin and Hiralal who were lying with injuries on such land. He also found Matru (P.W.4) and her mother, the wife of Hiralal who were seen crying. He also found that Sasadhar Mahato was standing there. In the cross-examination, the witness stated that the distance between the case land and his house was about half a mile, towards the south. He also found Matru (P.W.4) and her mother, the wife of Hiralal who were seen crying. He also found that Sasadhar Mahato was standing there. In the cross-examination, the witness stated that the distance between the case land and his house was about half a mile, towards the south. The land which belonged to the witness was on the north of his house. 7. P.W.3, Sasadhar Mahato stated in his evidence that his land was to the south of land of Hiralal and Rohin. On the date of incident while he was proceeding towards his land he found all the appellants from a distance of about 250/300 cubits. They had an altercation with Hiralal and Rohin. His evidence further indicated that he went to the spot after the incident and found the victims, namely, Rohin and Hiralal who were lying on the ground with injuries, in the persons. He also found daughter (P.W.4) and wife of Rohin and wife of Hiralal. 8. P.W.4 Matru Mahatani, the daughter of late Rohin Mahato stated in her evidence that she was taking manure to their land where seeds were to be sown and for that purpose her father and Bishnu Mahato (P.W.1) were working in that land when the appellants came in a body and all of them were armed with tangi, lathi and spear. Accused/appellant Bhim assaulted her father on his forehead, left arm, arm pit by a tangi. Thereafter, accused Dhiren assaulted Hiralal on his back after that Bishnu (P.W.1) was also assaulted by Ganesh by the haldle of spear on his left hand and Bishnu thereafter fled away. After that accused/appellant Tirtha assaulted her father with the spear on his right side chest. Accused/appellant. Ganesh assaulted Hiralal with the spear on the left side just above the abdomen. Then all the accused persons left the spot and the witness to cry. On hearing the alarm raised by her, the wife of Hiralal and her mother (P.W.7) came there. The wife of Hiralal was dead, at the time of the trial. 9. P.W.5, Abhiram Mahato deposed about the seizure of blood stained earth from the place of occurrence and about the search of accused Dhiren and others by the police officer after the occurrence. 10. The wife of Hiralal was dead, at the time of the trial. 9. P.W.5, Abhiram Mahato deposed about the seizure of blood stained earth from the place of occurrence and about the search of accused Dhiren and others by the police officer after the occurrence. 10. P.W .6 Rash Behari Karmakar too was a seizure list witness who affixed the signature on such seizure list in connection with seizure of some blood stained earth from the place of occurrence. 11. P.W. 7, Lalmani Mahatani, the widow of deceased Rohin Mahato, came to allege that on the date of occurrence on hearing the cries raised by P.W.4, Matru from their land she along with the wife of Hiralal came to their land where they found Rohin and his elder brother who were lying on the ground with severe bleeding injuries. On their way she also found the appellants to flee away with different weapons. 12. P.W.8, is Jogeswar Mahato was tendered for cross-examination. 13. P.W.9, S.I., S.C. Deb as O.C., Jhalda P.S. received one written complaint on 29.5.79 at 17.15 hours which was forwarded by one S.I. from Tulin outpost. After that the witness started the case. 14. P.W.10, Dr. P.M. Mahato at the relevant point of time was M.O., Jhalda P.S.C. On 29.5.79 at about 10 a.m. he examined victim Bishnu Mahato and found the following injuries :- i) Lacerated injury of 3" x ½" x ¼" lying over the vertex. Active bleeding present. ii) Abrasion 2"x 1" lying over the back of the left forearm. iii) Abrasion like the size of a pea lying over the dorsem of the left hand. iv) All the three injuries were simple in nature which might be caused by hard and blunt substance like lathi or the handle of a spear. His evidence also indicated that he had the opportunity to examine both the victims Rohin Mahato and Hiralal Mahato both of village Kenduadih and finding the serious condition of both the patients, he advised for their immediate removal to Purulia Hospital. 15. P.W.11 Dr. A.K. Das Dan who held P.M. examination over the deadbody of Hiralal and found the following injuries :- i) Penetrated wound at the left lateral part of the chest 2"x 1" deep up to left plural cavity. On dissection I find an injury of left lung. 15. P.W.11 Dr. A.K. Das Dan who held P.M. examination over the deadbody of Hiralal and found the following injuries :- i) Penetrated wound at the left lateral part of the chest 2"x 1" deep up to left plural cavity. On dissection I find an injury of left lung. ii) Penetrated wound over the right side of the abdomen l" x ½" deep to abdominal cavity .On dissection liver was found injured. iii) Lacerated wound at the base of left index finger 1” x ½" into muscle deep approximately. iv) One incised wound at the left side of the back 1" x ½" x 1" depth approx. According to the opinion of the doctor, the death was due to shock and haemorrhage which was antemortem and homicidal in nature and as a result of the injuries noted in his report. He also opined that injury Nos.(i) and (ii) might be caused by some sharp cutting instrument like spear and injury No.(iii) might be caused by some hard and blunt substance like lathi or the handle of a spear. Injury No.(iv) might be caused by some sharp cutting instrument like tangi. On the same date, i.e., on 29.5.79 he held the P.M. examination over the dead body of Rohin Mahato and found the following injuries:- i) One incised wound over the back at the right scapular region 8" x 2" deep to the plural space (right side). On dissection he noted the fracture on the right scapula and injury to the right lung. He also found fracture on the ribs of the right side. ii) One penetrated wound at the left Axilla 1½" x ½" deep upto left plural space. iii) One incised wound over left forearm 1½" x ¼ " muscle deep. iv) One incised wound over the frontal region 2" x ½" bone deep. In his opinion death was due to shock and haemorrhage and as a result of the injuries sustained by the victim which were antemortem and homicidal in nature. He also opined that injury Nos. i, iii and iv might be caused by some sharp cutting instruments, like tangi. Injury No. ii might be caused by some pointed weapon like spear. 16. P.W.12 Dr. He also opined that injury Nos. i, iii and iv might be caused by some sharp cutting instruments, like tangi. Injury No. ii might be caused by some pointed weapon like spear. 16. P.W.12 Dr. R.C. Ghosh as Medical Officer, Purulia Hospital at the relevant point of time, had the occasion to examine one of the victims, namely, Hiralal Mahato and found punctured wounds on the left side of his back and right of the upper abdomen. That apart he also found incised wound and lacerated wound on the person of the said victim. 17. P.W.13, Kirity Bhusan Kalindi at the relevant point of time was Surveyor attached to the office of J.L.R.O., Jhalda. He as per request of O.C. Tulin outpost surveyed C.S. Plot No.1923 corresponding to RS. Plot No.3002 of Mouza Tulin (case land) and prepared a map. 18. P.W.14 Raman Chandra Adhikary was a Tahashildar who used to work under the landlords Jasodar Kumari Moharmoni Sauwan of Mouza Tulin. According to him he used to collect rent for C.S. Khatian No.86 of Mouza Tulin from Hiralal Mahato one of the victims but his evidence indicated that he had no occasion to realise the rent which was done by another person, namely, Umapada Adhikari who has not been examined in connection with the case. 19. P.W.15, Bharat Mahato a co-villager of the parties wrote the petition of complaint which was later on treated as F.I.R as per instruction of Bishnu Mahato (P.W.1). 20. P.W.16 Jitendra Nath Mukherjee, was A.S.I. of police at the relevant point of time was attached to Purulia Town P.S. He was deputed by the O.C. of the P.S. to hold the inquest over the dead bodies of Hiralal and Rohin Mahato of village Kenduadih. The witness held the inquest over such dead bodies at the Sadar Hospital of Purulia and later on sent those dead bodies to morgue, for the purpose of P.M. examination through one constable. 21. P.W.17, S.I. Radha Gobinda Biswas was O.C. Tulin outpost who on 29.5.79 at 7.05 hours received a written complaint from one Bishnu Mahato of village Kenduadih at Tulin outpost. On receipt of the complaint he recorded G.D. No.491 dated 29.5.79 and made an endorsement on the complaint and later on took up investigation. 21. P.W.17, S.I. Radha Gobinda Biswas was O.C. Tulin outpost who on 29.5.79 at 7.05 hours received a written complaint from one Bishnu Mahato of village Kenduadih at Tulin outpost. On receipt of the complaint he recorded G.D. No.491 dated 29.5.79 and made an endorsement on the complaint and later on took up investigation. He went to the P.O. being accompanied by the informant and police personnel, which was within half a mile from the outpost and P.O. was identified by P.W.1. He found two injured persons, namely, Rohin Mahato and Hiralal Mahato. He forwarded the injured persons to Jhalda Health Centre. He seized blood stained earth from the case land after preparing a seizure list. In course of the investigation he examined the witnesses and went to the house of the accused persons. But none of the accused persons who names transpired at the time of investigation was found in their house. On completion of the investigation he submitted the charge sheet. 22. P.W.18 Dr. S. Adhikary, who at the relevant point of time as M.O. Purulia Sadar Hospital had the occasion to examine one of the victims, namely, Rohin Mahato and on examination he found incised wounds over the back of right scapular region, over the medial wall of left axilla, over the frontal region of the scalp. The patient was admitted as indoor patient where he expired at about 4 p.m. on the same date. 23. From the evidence on record, it transpires that there are two eye witness, namely, P.W.1 and P.W.4 who in their oral testimonies not only disclosed the gruesome incident. But they also disclosed the actual part taken by the individual accused in such incident. The other witnesses on the point of occurrence, namely, P.W.2 learned all about the incident from P.W.1 who at the relevant point of time was proceeding towards Tulin outpost and coming to learn all about such incident he rushed to the P.O. to find the victim lying there in injured condition and the accused/appellants who were armed with various weapons were leaving the P.O. The other witness on this point, namely, P.W.3 was a neighbouring cultivator who was proceeding towards his lands who at first had the occasion to witness the altercation between two sides from a distance and thereafter when he came to the spot he found the accused persons going away from the spot. At the same time he also found two victims lying on the ground with their injuries. The only other witness on the point of occurrence is P.W.7, who came to the spot on being attracted by the cries raised by her daughter Matru (P.W.4) and going there she found her husband and his elder brother were lying on the ground with severe bleeding injuries. She further disclosed that on her way she found the accused persons to flee. No doubt that there are some discrepancies here and there on minor points in the evidence of the aforesaid eye witnesses and the witnesses who came to the court to corroborate the oral testimonies of such eye witness but we should remember that the court while appreciating the evidence must not attach undue importance to minor discrepancies. The discrepancies which do not shake the basic version of the prosecution came may be discarded. The discrepancies which are due to normal errors of perception or observation should not be given importance. The errors due to lapse of memory may be given due allowance. Now, appreciating the evidence on record in that light it can be said without hesitation that the evidence of the eye witnesses which gets sufficient corroboration not only from some other witnesses as pointed out above, but by the medical evidence furnished by the medical officers who had the occasion to examine the victims at Purulia Sadar Hospital and the medical officer, who held the P.M. examination over the dead bodies of the victims, should be accepted to come to a conclusion that the victims, mentioned above, died as a result of assault launched by the appellants. 24. Learned Counsel for defence has wanted to draw our attention to certain circumstances, which according to him, would go to the root of the prosecution case, making the same unacceptable, by any court of law. On the other hand, learned panel prosecutor, in his argument has supported the judgment and order of conviction recorded by learned Assistant Sessions Judge. 25. Learned Counsel for defence has wanted to draw our attention to certain circumstances, which according to him, would go to the root of the prosecution case, making the same unacceptable, by any court of law. On the other hand, learned panel prosecutor, in his argument has supported the judgment and order of conviction recorded by learned Assistant Sessions Judge. 25. The learned Advocate for the appellants in course of his argument first of all has wanted to impress us that the information in the case cannot be treated as F.I.R. as the informant P.W.1 himself in his evidence disclosed that he lodged information about the incident before the duty officer at Tulin outpost, who then went to the spot and received a written complaint. Therefore, the complaint which was treated as F.I.R. is the second information. On this point reliance has been placed on a reported decision in the case of State of A.P. vs. Punati Ramulu & Ors., reported in 1994 SCC (Cri) 734. In that case, the Apex Court found from the evidence of Circle Inspector that he received information of the incident from the police constable who was on Bandobast duty. On receiving the information of the occurrence, the said police officer rushed to the village of occurrence and started the investigation. But he did not make any entry in the general diary about the information that had been given to him by the constable who was the first person to give information to him on the basis of which the police officer proceeded to the spot and took up the investigation in hand. The Apex Court in that case found that the F.I.R in that case was received after reaching the spot and after due deliberations, consultations and discussions and in that background, the Apex Court held that the F.I.R. in that case could not be treated as F.I.R. It would be a statement made during investigation of a case and would be hit by section 162 and consequently it would be unsafe to rely on such a tainted investigation. But, in this case there is nothing to show that P.W.1 on reaching the police station gave an information disclosing commission of a cognizable offence. But, in this case there is nothing to show that P.W.1 on reaching the police station gave an information disclosing commission of a cognizable offence. The evidence adduced by P.W.1 and which is not challenged by the defence indicated that P.W.1left the spot after the accused persons launched assault on the victims as well as on the witness. From a document, namely, Ext.1/3, it transpires that S.I. of Tulin outpost made an endorsement that he received an information on 29.5.79 at 6.50 hours and receipt of such information was also entered in G.D. Entry No.491 of the same date and forwarded such information to O.C., Jhalda P.S. for starting a case under sections 147/148/149, 325 and 326 I.P.C., the further information that he took up the investigation. From a subsequent document, namely, an endorsement marked Ext.l/4, it transpires that O.C. Jhalda P.S. made an endorsement regarding the starting of the Jhalda P.S. Case No.16 dated 29.05.79. P.W.15 specifically stated in his oral testimony that he wrote the written complaint at about 6 or 6.30 a.m. and the G.D. Entry marked Ext.1/3 indicated that such a written complaint was received at Tulin outpost at 6.50 hours on that day. So this cannot be said for a moment that like the reported case, the F.I.R. was the result of a deliberation advise etc. received by the informant after the police came to the spot in connection with an earlier information received by the police at the outpost. This is more so, in view of the fact that Police Officer on getting an information about assault being launched on a person, on the case land came to the P.O. for holding preliminary inquiry, when he received the complaint, scribed by P.W.15, and in this way case was started. 26. Secondly, it was contended on behalf of the defence that P.W.1 himself as per prosecution case sustained injury on his person but when he went to the hospital for getting treatment he did not name his assailant. So according to the learned Defence Counsel the entire allegation is of suspicious nature. In this respect, our attention is drawn to the evidence of P.W.10, Doctor P.M. Mahato. But we do not find any force behind such argument. So according to the learned Defence Counsel the entire allegation is of suspicious nature. In this respect, our attention is drawn to the evidence of P.W.10, Doctor P.M. Mahato. But we do not find any force behind such argument. The learned panel P.P. has rightly pointed out that the doctor in question did not give any indication in his evidence that he tried to assertion from P.W.1 how he had sustained the injury. In our considered opinion merely because the doctor failed to ascertain such a fact from the witness cannot be a cogent reason to raise suspicion about the entire prosecution case specially when there is overwhelming evidence regarding the incident and regarding the specific part played by the individual accused persons. 27. Thirdly, it is contended that P.W.2 in his evidence stated that his house and the case land was at a distance of half a mile with each other. His house was to the south and his land was to the north of his house. So in that background, it is contended that the witness had no occasion to see the incident or hear anything from P.W.1. But here also we do not find any substance in view of the clear evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 that P.W.1 met with P.W.2 when the former was going to Tulin outpost for the purpose of lodging information and on getting the information from P.W.1, P.W.2 went to the P.O. for the purpose of seeing what had happened. So it is not at all improbable that P.W.2. could hear all about the incident from P.W.1. Next it is contended that P.W.17, the I.O. in his evidence stated that on going to the spot he did not find P.W.4 there. According to the learned Defence Counsel this has made the evidence of P.W.4 a great suspect. This argument too is not acceptable to us in view of the admitted fact that the police officer reached the spot only after getting the information from P.W.1, that is to say, after the F.I.R. had been lodged in connection with the incident complained of. There is no circumstance furnished in the evidence or in the cross-examination of the witnesses to show that P.W.4 being the daughter of one of the victims Rohin Mahato remained all through at the spot even after seeing the gruesome murders of her father and her uncle. There is no circumstance furnished in the evidence or in the cross-examination of the witnesses to show that P.W.4 being the daughter of one of the victims Rohin Mahato remained all through at the spot even after seeing the gruesome murders of her father and her uncle. Lastly, it has been pointed out that the charge under section 148 cannot sustain here as the common object noted in such charge was to oust Rohin Mahato and Hiralal Mahato from the case land, namely, C.S. Plot No.1923. True it is that the evidence from the side of the prosecution on the point of possession of the case land is somewhat sketchy. But in our considered opinion the lacuna was duly filled in through the cross-examination as it transpires from the further cross-examination of P.W.4 on 4.8.1980 wherein P.W.1 clearly deposed that the case land that is to say, Plot No.1923 was in possession of one of the victims Rohin Mahato at the relevant point of time. That assertion was never challenged and therefore we feel no hesitation to accept the same in order to come to a conclusion that the common object of the accused persons was to oust Rohin Mahato and members of his family. 28. Considering all these facts and circumstances and evidence on record we find no cogent reason to interfere with the order of conviction and the sentence imposed upon the appellants. The appeal, therefore, must fail. Appeal is dismissed. C.J.M., Purulia, is directed to secure the attendance of the appellants, who are on bail, to send them to Jail, to serve out the sentence. Inform the C.J.M., accordingly. Let the L.C.R. along with a copy of judgment be sent down to the court below for information and necessary action, if any. Amit Talukdar, J.: I agree. Appeal dismissed.