JUDGMENT : - Nure Alam Chowdhury, J.: This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 19.2.97 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court Howrah in Sessions Trial Case No. XIX (July) 1995 convicting the six appellants namely Balaram Dhara (A-I), Bejoy Dhara (A-2), Asto Dhara (A-3), Smt. Mira Dhara (A-4), Tarun Das (A-5) and Trishanku Das (A-6) under section 323 of the I.P.C. and sentencing each of them to suffer R.I. for six months each and convicting the appellant (A-7) Samar Dhara under section 302 I.P.C. and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- i.d. to suffer R. I. for two months more. 2. Prosecution case in brief is that on 26.10.93 at about 01.05 hrs. statement of one Susil Kumar Mondal (P.W.1) of village Boikhali was recorded by the officer-in-charge Uluberia Police Station and sent through constable 305 Ashok Banerjee. The statement was treated as F.I.R. and on the basis of the same Uluberia P.S. case No. 187/93 dated 26.10.93 under sections 304/34 I.P.C. was started. 3. The said F.I R. revealed that on 25.10.93 (Monday) at 7.00 p.m., the informant (P.W.1) came to his maternal uncle's village at Bara Ansa on account of Bijoya Dasami. The informant had his schooling for a few years in the said village and during that period he resided in the house of his maternal uncle Ratan Das. At about 7-30 p.m. the informant (P.W.1) along with Uttam Das (since deceased), a cousin brother of informant's mother was visiting the Durga Puja pandal in that village. At that time they met Tarun Das (A-5) who was another Khurtoto Mama of the informant. As Tarun Das (A-5) had taken Rs. 400/- from the informant, Uttam Das (victim, since deceased) enquired of Tarun Das as to why Tarun was not repaying the loan of the informant. It was mentioned that Tarun Das had taken the loan from the informant and then married one Kakuli daughter of Asto Dhara (A-3). In spite of informant's demand for repayment of the loan from Tarun the loan remained unpaid and outstanding and on enquiry by Uttam Das, Tarun Das denied having accepted the loan money. When Uttam and Tarun were quarelling, Tarun's father-in- law Asto Dhara (A-3) and his wife's sister's husband Biswanath Das started assaulting Uttam and Uttam's wearing shirt was torn. In spite of informant's demand for repayment of the loan from Tarun the loan remained unpaid and outstanding and on enquiry by Uttam Das, Tarun Das denied having accepted the loan money. When Uttam and Tarun were quarelling, Tarun's father-in- law Asto Dhara (A-3) and his wife's sister's husband Biswanath Das started assaulting Uttam and Uttam's wearing shirt was torn. The informant separated them and started with Uttam for Uttam's house but Asto Dhara's wife Mira Dhara (A-4) followed them there also and told the informant and Uttam that they should come back straight about the money matters in presence of all. At this, the informant and Uttam Das decided that since all of them were related, the matter should be decided in presence of others and accordingly the informant and Uttam Das followed Mira Dhara to School tala and when they came near the Schooltala in front of Shibtala, Asto Dhara (A-3) and his two brothers Bijoy (A-2) and Balaram (A-I) and Asto's son Tarun Das (A-5) were standing on the road in front of Shibtala and as soon as Uttam Das arrived there all of them along with Asto's wife Mira surrounded Uttam Das and started assaulting him by fists and blows. The informant tried to save Uttam Das and at that time Samar Das (A-7) brought out a knife and stabbed Uttain Das on the right side of his abdomen and again stabbed Uttam Das on his chest. Uttam Das fell down on the ground and the assailants fled away. The informant rushed to Uttam's house and called his parents when many local people had already assembled there and Uttam Das had expired. The informant saw the incident in the .light from the puja pandal and the incident took place at about 8 p.m. 4. After completion of investigation charge-sheet was filed against all the seven appellants for offences punishable under sections 147/148/149/326/304 I.P.C. and the case was committed to the court of sessions and ultimately all the aforesaid seven appellants were placed on trial before the aforesaid learned Judge on the charge under sections 302/34 I.P.C. and convicted and sentenced as above. 5. Prosecution examined thirteen witnesses in support of the prosecution case. Among them P.W.1 in his evidence supported his statement treated as F.I.R. and identified all the seven appellants in court. 5. Prosecution examined thirteen witnesses in support of the prosecution case. Among them P.W.1 in his evidence supported his statement treated as F.I.R. and identified all the seven appellants in court. He specifically stated that the appellant surrounded Uttam Mama and assaulted him with fists and blows and the appellant Samar Dhara brought out a knife from his possession and stabbed Uttam on his abdomen as also on his chest and the entrails came out from his abdomen and he fell down there on the ground and died on the spot. And the incident took place between 7 p.m. to 8 p. m. P.W.2 was the Upprodhan of Bahira Gram Panchayat. He stated in his evidence that at the time of the incident of death of Uttam Das he had been in the house of his in-laws at Tulsi Beria. He was declared hostile by the prosecution. P.W.3 Smt. Suchitra Manna was a member of the local Panchayat Samity at the relevant time. She stated that she did not know how Uttam was murdered she was declared hostile by the prosecution. P.W.4 corroborated the prosecution case in his evidence. He was an eye-witness and he identified all the appellants in court. P.W.5 was the Pradhan Bahira Anchal Gram-Panchayat. He was also an eye-witness and corroborated the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.4 and also identified all the appellants in court. P.W.7 was a Sub-Inspector of Police attached to Uluberia P. S. at the relevant time. He filled up the formal F.I.R. (Ext. 3) and also recorded the Uluberia P. S. G. D. E. No. 2891 dated 25.10.93 at 22.20 hrs. and proved his signature (Ext. 8) thereon. P.W.8 was the police constable who carried the deadbody of Uttam Das from the village Bara Ansa to Uluberia Hospital Morgue and identified the deadbody before the autopsy surgeon. P.W.9 was the autopsy surgeon who held post-mortem examination on the deadbody of Uttam Das on 26.10.93 and found the following:- (1) One incised penetrating wound in the right chest wall, lateral to the sternum between 4th and 5th ribs, measurement was one and half inch by one fourth inch, deep into the right thoracic cavity. (2) One incised penetrating wound over the abdomen in right hypochondrium, measuring two inch by one fourth inch deep into the abdominal cavity through the injury side omentum corner out of the abdomen. (2) One incised penetrating wound over the abdomen in right hypochondrium, measuring two inch by one fourth inch deep into the abdominal cavity through the injury side omentum corner out of the abdomen. (3) Incised wound over left thumb half inch by one fourth inch skin deep. Right thoracic cavity was full of blood. Injury to the right lung causing severe haemorrhage. (4) There were abrasions over the left shoulder region, back of right side and right little finger. In his opinion cause of death was due to, shock and haemorrhage ante mortem and homicidal in nature and the incised injuries could be caused by sharp-cutting weapon and those were sufficient to cause death of a person in the ordinary course of nature. He proved the carbon copy of the P. M. Report (Ext. 4) prepared by him. 6. P.W. 10 was the I/O of the case. He proved the rough sketch map with index, the report of inquest held by him and also stated that P.W.2 stated before him that in order to save himself from assault Uttam gave a teethbite in the finger of Balaram Dhara and was about to flee away when Samar Dhara (A-7) held Uttam Das by the collar of his shirt and assaulted Uttam on his chest and body with sharp-edged knife when Uttam's entrails came out and he was bleeding profusely. 7. P.W. 11 examined Balaram Dhara (A-1) on 16.11.93 at about 9.45 hrs, regarding the injury on his left index finger which was found swollen and tender and could not give any opinion about its cause. 8. P.W.12 a Sub-Inspector of Police attached to Uluberia P.S. brought the original G. D. No. 2891 dated 28.10.93. P.W.13 the OIC of Uluberia P. S. at the relevant time, on receipt of information of stabbing at village Bara Ansha which was recorded at G.D.E.No. 2891 dated 25.10.93 went to the spot along with P.W.I0 and recorded the statement of P.W.1 which was treated as F.I.R. 9. The defence case as appears from the trend of cross-examination of the P.Ws. and from the answers given by the appellants in their examination under section 313 Cr.P.C. is of absolute innocence and denial of any involvement with the offence alleged besides further defence that no such incident took place at the time or in the circumstances or in the manner as alleged by the prosecution. and from the answers given by the appellants in their examination under section 313 Cr.P.C. is of absolute innocence and denial of any involvement with the offence alleged besides further defence that no such incident took place at the time or in the circumstances or in the manner as alleged by the prosecution. However no witnesses was examined on behalf of the defence. 10. Learned Trial Judge considered all the evidence and materials on record meticulously and convicted and sentenced the appellants as above. 11. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants contended that the F.I.R. in this case is fabricated as the earlier information regarding the incident was recorded in G.D. Entry No. 2891 dated 25.10.93 did not contain any name of the accused person as mentioned in the statement treated as F.I.R. and as such no reliance should be placed on the contents of the F.I.R. 12. It is further submitted that the genesis of the prosecution case turns round the alleged non-payment of loan of Rs. 400/- (four hundred) by appellant No.5 to P.W.1 but the prosecution failed to prove that any loan was actually given by P.W.1 to A-5 as alleged. 13. It is further submitted that no blood-stained earth being seized from the alleged place of occurrence, prosecution failed to prove that the incident took place at the place and in the manner as alleged by the prosecution. 14. It is further submitted that non-examination of any independent witness and non-examination of material witness particularly Dilip Polley, who according to the prosecution, accompanied the police officer casts a doubt about the prosecution case as alleged which have not been considered by the learned Trial Judge and accordingly vitiated the judgment and order of conviction and sentence by the learned Trial Judge. 15. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State submitted that the evidence of the three eye-witnesses P.Ws. 4, 5 and 6 corroborated by the evidence of the Autopsy Surgeon P.W. 9 have proved the offences of the appellants for which they have been convicted by the learned Trial Judge beyond reasonable doubt. 16. 15. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State submitted that the evidence of the three eye-witnesses P.Ws. 4, 5 and 6 corroborated by the evidence of the Autopsy Surgeon P.W. 9 have proved the offences of the appellants for which they have been convicted by the learned Trial Judge beyond reasonable doubt. 16. Considering the respective submissions of the parties and the materials and evidence on record, we do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the appellants by the learned Trial Judge as the committing of offence punishable under section 323 I.P.C. by the appellants Balaram Dhara, Bejoy Dhara, Asto Dhara, Smt. Mira Dhara, Tarun Das and Trisanku Das and the committing of offence punishable under section 302, I.P.C. by the appellant Sanat Dhara have been proved beyond reasonable doubt by the evidence of the eye-witnesses P.Ws. 4, 5 & 6 and the evidence of P.W. 9, the autopsy surgeon. 17. The appeal therefore fails and stands dismissed. We uphold and affirm the judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the appellants by the learned Trial Judge and order/direct the appellants who are on bail to surrender to their bail bonds forthwith to serve out the sentence as ordered by the learned Trial Judge. S. K. Gupta, J.: I agree. Appeal dismissed.