JUDGMENT : B. Panigrahi, J. - The conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Phulbani in Sessions Case No. 38/88 under Sections 147 and 302 read with Section 149, IPC directing the appellants to undergo R.I. for two years and imprisonment for life, the sentences were to run concurrently, has been challenged in this appeal. 2. The bravity of the prosecution story as unfolded during trial is as follows: On 7.1.88 at-about 5.00 P.M. there was a quarrel between the deceased Govinda Jena and the appellant Damodar Patra at Bondapipili Bazar in connection with a case instituted by the deceased in the Court. At that moment Ram Chandra Jena (P.W.3), who was the brother of the deceased, found them quarrelling separated Govinda Jena from such quarrel and despatched him to his residence. While Govinda Jena on his way to his house appellant Damodar Patra grappled him and the other appellants, namely, Prakash Pradhan. Gopi Mallik. Rama Chandra Panda. Naba Patnaik and Modhu Baliarsingh surrounded the deceased and started beating him. But some how Govinda Jena escaped from their clutches and ran away towards his house But the appellants in order to further assault the deceased chased him upto his house. P.W.3 Ram Chandra Jena requested his sister-in-law (P.W.4) to keep Govinda Jena confined in her house by bolting the door from inside. Accordingly she latched the chain from inside and did not permit the deceased to go out of the house so also the appellants to enter into the house. P.W.3, Ram Chandra Jena entreated those miscreants namely, the appellants abstaining from further assaulting the deceased, but such request did not evoke any response at their end. All of them banged the door to make their entry into the house. At this stage the appellant Modhu Baliarsingh brought a stone and hit violently against the door as a result of which it gave way to the appellants to make their entry into the house. No sooner than the appellant Gopi Mallik did enter into the house, he pushed the wife of the deceased (P.W.4) aside and flung her down. He caught hold of tuft of hair of the deceased and dragged him out of his house. No sooner than the appellant Gopi Mallik did enter into the house, he pushed the wife of the deceased (P.W.4) aside and flung her down. He caught hold of tuft of hair of the deceased and dragged him out of his house. At that time the other appellants Prakash Pradhan gave a push from the backside of deceased Govinda Jena as a reason whereof he fell down in front of his house near a Chautara. Taking advantage of Govinda Jena (deceased) falling on the ground the appellant Ram Chandra Panda removed a wooden plank from the fence and dealt a blow near the right ear as a result of which the deceased received severe bleeding injury and started groaning. Appellant Naba Patnaik inflicted severe two lathis blows on his person so also appellant Damodar Patra gave fist blows and twisted his hands. When P.W.4, the wife of the deceased attempted to save the life of her husband, she was also equally injured by the appellants. P.W.3, Ram Chandra Jena, provided water to the deceased, but the deceased could not take even a sip. Seeing the condition of the deceased and thinking him to be dead, the appellants left the spot. At that point of time Bahan Chandra Pujari, brother-in-law of the deceased was present. Appellant Modhu Baliarsingh also assaulted him. Appellants Prakash Pradhan and Damodar Patra who dealt him fist blows. At that time D.W.2, Pradeep Bostiray, who was eventually present at the spot intervened between them and protected Bahan Chandra Pujari from further assault. In the FIR (Ext. 5) the names of other witnesses, namely Lazara Sharma (not examined), Bidesi Sharma (P.W.5), Promila Jena (P.W.4) and other witnesses who were said to have been present have also teen mentioned. P.W.5 and the widow of the deceased removed the deceased from the village road to his house Due to night-fall the deceased could not be shifted to the hospital. Out on the following morning he was removed to the hospital whore he was declared dead. 3. P.W.5 and the widow of the deceased removed the deceased from the village road to his house Due to night-fall the deceased could not be shifted to the hospital. Out on the following morning he was removed to the hospital whore he was declared dead. 3. P.W.3 Ram Chandra Jena lodged a report at Kotagarh P.S. which was registered as Kotagarh P.S. case no 2/88 and the Officer-in-charge of Kotagarh Police station immediately rushed to the spot for investigation, held inquest over the dead-body of the deceased Govinda Jena, examined the witnesses, visited the spot, arranged to despatch the dead body for post mortem examination, seized one wooden plank (M.O.I) some broken tiles, some broken bangles and one Stone from the spot under seizure list, Ext. 8. He arrested all the appellants on 10.1.88 and on the following day forwarded the accused-appellants to judicial custody of the Court of S.D.J.M. Baliguda. After receipt of the post mortem report ha also sent the plank (M.O.I) to the Medical Officer (P.W.1) for securing an opinion whether the injuries caused on the deceased Govinda could be possible by a plank like M.O.I to which P.W.1 answered affirmatively. After closer of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted under Sections 147. 148. 459. 323 and 302 read with Section 149, IPC. 4. The appellants before the learned Sessions Judge denied the allegations of the prosecution and stated that on the date of occurrence while appellant Damodar Patro was sitting on a bench in front of the betel shop of Shankar Samal (P.W.6) deceased Govinda Jena arrived there between 4.30 and 5.30 P.M. alongwuh other witnesses and questioned the appellants as to why they had foisted a false case against him. So saying deceased Govinda Jena gave a push on the neck of appellant Damodar Patro as a result of which, he fell down. At that time his brother-in-law Bahan Pujari raised his axe to give a blow on appellant Damodar Patro, but at that moment appellant Rama Panda pushed the handle of the axe for which the axe hit on the left side head of Govinda Jena. Then Ram Chandra Jena (P.W.3) raised a wooden plank to assault on the head of appellant Damodar Patra but appellant Prokash caught hold of the axe. At the intervention of the witnesses present there, they dispersed from the betel shop and accordingly they went towards their houses. 5. Then Ram Chandra Jena (P.W.3) raised a wooden plank to assault on the head of appellant Damodar Patra but appellant Prokash caught hold of the axe. At the intervention of the witnesses present there, they dispersed from the betel shop and accordingly they went towards their houses. 5. The learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellants under Sections 147/302, read with Section 149 of the-Indian Penal Code and sentenced them as aforesaid. Therefore, being aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence pasted against the appellants by the learned Sessions Judge, the appellants filed this appeal. 6. The prosecution in order to sustain the conviction against the appellants has examined 6 witnesses of whom P.Ws. 1, 2 and 8 are said to be official witnesses. P.Ws. 3 to 5 are said to be eye witnesses to the occurrence the defence in support of their plea has examined two witnesses. 7. The prosecution has mainly relied upon the ocular evidence of P.Ws. 3 to 5 in order to sustain the conviction against the appellants. P.W.3 is the brother of the deceased and the informant in this case. On a careful consideration of his testimony it has revealed that on the date of incident in the afternoon his brother deceased Govinda had been to the market. While he reached in front of the betel shop of P.W.6 Sankar Samal appellant Damodar Patro, who was eventually present there questioned the deceased as to why he lodged a complaint case against him and Ors. So saying he gave a push to deceased Govinda whereupon the other appellants had surrounded him to assault. But the deceased Govinda in order to save his life ran away to his house. All the appellants had chased him. No sooner than Govinda entered his house, his wife closed the door preventing the appellants from entering inside the house. All the appellants pushed the door and made an unsuccessful bid by forcibly opening the door by causing even violence upon the door. At that juncture appellant Modhu Drought a stone and banged upon the door as a result of which it was opened. Thereafter appellant Gopi. went inside the house by giving a push to P.W.4 and dragged deceased Govinda outside the house by catching a tuft of his hair. At that juncture appellant Modhu Drought a stone and banged upon the door as a result of which it was opened. Thereafter appellant Gopi. went inside the house by giving a push to P.W.4 and dragged deceased Govinda outside the house by catching a tuft of his hair. After he was brought out appellant Prokash dealt a push, appellant Rama Panda deal a heavy blow by a wooden plank on toe. head of the deceased by uprooting the same from a nearby fence and -appellant Maba assaulted him by a wooden lathi. The injured Govinua after receiving the said injuries fell down on the ground. Even thereafter appellant Damodar assaulted remorselessly by giving 3 to 4 blows. They also assaulted P.W.4. the of wife of the deceased and P.W.3, the brother-in-law of P.W.4. After the incident P.Ws. 3 and 5 brought the injured to the house. As darkness had already set in, they could not shift the injured to the Hospital for treatment. They decided to take the injured to Baliguda Hospital on the following morning, but by then he was already dead. The incident was orally explained by P.W. 3 before O.I.C Kotagarh police station who reduced the same to writing and read and explained the contents to P.W.3, who after having understood the contents signed the same which was registered as FIR, Ext. 5. The wooden plank which was used by appellant Ram Panda was properly identified as M.O.I so also the stone used for opening the door by Modhu Baliarsingh was identified as M.O.II. From the cross-examination of P.W.3 it has however, emerged that there was a rancour between the deceased and the appellants prior to the occurrence on account of the appellants' supplying information to the police for illegal felling of trees by the deceased. But even assuming that there was enmity it cannot 6e inferred that the appellants have been implicated in a false case of committing murder of Govinda. The defence is unable to bring out any circumstances impeaching the credibility of P.W.3. It is true that P.W.3 was the brother of the deceased. Merely because he was a relation of the deceased, it cannot necessarily be inferred that his evidence should be incredulous. The defence is unable to bring out any circumstances impeaching the credibility of P.W.3. It is true that P.W.3 was the brother of the deceased. Merely because he was a relation of the deceased, it cannot necessarily be inferred that his evidence should be incredulous. But a duty has been cast upon the Court to closely consider the evidence with care and circumspection and in some cases as a rule of prudence the Court may seek for corroboration from other evidence. P.W.4, who was no doubt the widow of the deceased and one of the injured in the said transaction, substantially corroborated the evidence of P.W.3 in minute details. Her evidence also has not been effaced by bringing any circumstance impeaching her trustworthiness. P.W.5 lends assurance on the ocular evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3. Therefore, on a combined reading of the evidence of P.Ws. 3 to 5 there has been no doubt that these appellants had broken open the door, dragged the deceased from his house and assaulted on different parts of his body resulting his death. It is true that P.W.6 has turned hostile. His evidence in no way helps either party. P.W.7 was working as a Constable who carried the dead body for the purpose of post mortem examination. P.W.8 was the O.I.C. of Kotgarh police station who investigated into the case and after finding prima facie materials against the appellants submitted the charge-sheet. P.Ws. 1 and 2 are the Medical Officer, who had conducted post mortem examination over the dead body of Govinda and also examined the injured. P.W.4. From the evidence of P.W.1 it has transpired that the deceased had received four injuries mostly on the head. According to the evidence of P.W.1 the death was due to head injuries which could have been caused by a wooden plank and hard and blunt weapon. 8. As against the evidence of the prosecution the defence had also chosen to examine two witnesses. They gave a complete different story than that of the, statements of the appellants recorded u/s 313 Code of Criminal Procedure. A stand has been taken by them that while the deceased was in a drunken state returning towards his house, he fell down in a drain and received injuries, whereas in their statement u/s 313, Code of Criminal Procedure. They gave a complete different story than that of the, statements of the appellants recorded u/s 313 Code of Criminal Procedure. A stand has been taken by them that while the deceased was in a drunken state returning towards his house, he fell down in a drain and received injuries, whereas in their statement u/s 313, Code of Criminal Procedure. they explained that on the date of the incident between 4.30 P.M. and 5.00 P.M. the deceased and P.Ws. 3 and 5 came to consume liquor. At that time all the appellants were also in front of the shop of P.6. Sankar Samal. The deceased challenged the appellants as to why the latter filed a forest case and gave a push to appellant Damodar Patra as a reason whereof he fell down. Bahan Pujari made an attempt to give a blow by a Tangia on appellant Damodar Patra. but appellant Ram Panda gave a push to Damodar Patra, as a result of which the iron portion of the axe hit on the right side head of the deceased. P.W.3 then picked up the split wood and assaulted Damodar Patra. The other persons who were present intervened in the scuffle and separated them. If the statements of the appellants u/s 313, Code of Criminal Procedure are taken into consideration it would rather strengthen the prosecution case by accepting their presence at least near the betel shop But we are aghast to note that different plea has been taken in defence that deceased Govinda had received such injuries by falling in the drain Therefore, the false pleas taken by the appellants have an additional link as to their involvement in the offence. 9. Learned Counsel for the appellants has high-lighted that there has been absolutely no evidence whatsoever to connect all the appellants to the effect that there was a common object to cause the death of Govinda punishable u/s 149. IPC From the evidence it is gathered that all the appellants assembled in front of the betel shop of P.W.6 Sankar with a view to commit the offence, Therefore, all the appellants attempted to assault and manhandled the deceased. But some how or other in order to save his life the deceased ran towards his house and his wife bolted the door from inside. But the appellants did not keep quiet at that stage. But some how or other in order to save his life the deceased ran towards his house and his wife bolted the door from inside. But the appellants did not keep quiet at that stage. All of them banged the door by causing violence on it. But the appellants made an unsuccessful bid to forcibly open the door. But when it was not opened one of them even brought a stone and hit against the same by which it was opened and the appellants dragged the deceased from the house and three of them assaulted on his head. Therefore, their common object is quite apparent to cause his murder. thus we do hot find in the above premises any reason to arrive at a different conclusion that the appellants had not caused, the death of the deceased making an unlawful assembly with the common object of taking away the life of deceased Govinda punishable u/s 302/147 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 10. In the result, the appeal fails and the conviction and sentence passed thereunder are hereby confirmed. Since the appellants are on ball, their bail bonds be cancelled and they may be taken into the custody. P.K. Misra, J. 11. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed