JUDGMENT Amareshwar Sahay and D.P. Singh, JJ. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.7.2001 and 26.7.2001 passed in Sessions Trial No. 135/99, whereby and whereunder the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner cum special Judge-I, Ranchi held the appellants guilty under Sections 302/149 IPC and sentenced them to serve RI for life. Appellants Sukdeo Bhagat, Mahadeo Bhagat, Chhota Nividan Bhagat, Bhagna of Sukhdeo Bhagat and Seela Bhagat are further sentenced to serve RI for three years under Section 148 IPC and appellants Barka Nividan Bhagat, s/o Pirku Bhagat, Chilo Bhagatain and Kamla Bhagatain are sentenced to serve RI for two years under Section 147 IPC. However, all the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. Factual matrix leading to this appeal are that on 11.10.98 informant Mangra Oraon has gone to harvest Marua crop grown by him on his land situated in Mouja Jhikpur, P.S. Mandar along with his family members i.e. wife, PW 3, daughter PW 1 and deceased Birsa in the morning. As alleged, at about 11 AM after they started harvesting Marua, all the appellants arrived there armed variously with sharp cutting weapons and surrounded them. It is further alleged that Badka Nividan Bhagat instigated all the appellants to finish the informant and his family members, after which the appellants assaulted them with arms, which they had in their hands. According to the informant, his brother Birsa Oraon was assaulted first causing injuries on his neck, chest etc. resulting in his instantaneous death on the spot. He further asserted that female appellants chased and assaulted PWs 1 and 3. They raised alarm, on which PW 4 Etwa arrived at the spot and appellants fled away. 3. The informant along with injured PW 5 went to Mandar police where his statement was recorded at 3.30 PM. The police reregistered Mandar P.S. Case No. 67/98 under various section including Section 302 IPC, arrived at the spot, investigated the case and finally submitted chargesheet under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 323, 324, 325, 307 IPC. The case was committed to the court of sessions, wherein they were charged on 12.10.99 under Sections 147, 148, 302/149 and 307/149 IPC. The appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed false prosecution. The case was committed to the court of sessions, wherein they were charged on 12.10.99 under Sections 147, 148, 302/149 and 307/149 IPC. The appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed false prosecution. The trial court after examining witnesses found and held all of them guilty under Sections 302/149 and 147, 148 IPC and convicted and sentenced them as aforesaid. 4. The present appeal has been preferred on the ground that learned trial court has not considered the improbability of the prosecution case. It further mentions that in view of admitted land dispute between the parties, false implication was probable and in such circumstance relying upon only interested witnesses was not proper. It has further been mentioned that the medical report is not supported by evidence particularly with declaration of PW 5 Etwa Oraon hostile, the only independent witness. It is further asserted that when investigating officer has not seized harvested Marua crop, entire prosecution case become doubtful. It has further been asserted that the females assailants may not have got common intention to cause death. All these points were stressed before us by Mr. Vijayant Verma, learned Counsel for the appellants. The learned APP opposed this contention on the ground that eye witnesses, who were also injured during the occurrence, have supported the prosecution case on all material points. 5. We have anxiously considered the points raised by the learned Counsel for the appellants and gone through the materials on record. In this case prosecution has examined 8 witnesses, out of which PW 7 Shankar Ekka though related with the informant, has only proved the seizure list regarding two Dandas recovered from the house of Sukhdeo Bhagat by I.O. on 12.10.98, vide Ext.4. He is not an eye witness of the occurrence. PW 4 Etwa Bhagat said to have arrived at the P.O on alarm raised by the informant, has been declared hostile as he did not support the prosecution case. He admitted in para 4 that he has not seen any assault. He even denied to acknowledge the informant and his wife. PW 5 Dr. Mini Rani Akhouri, who examined PWs 1 and 6 and found some lacerated wounds, simple in nature on them at 3.30 PM caused by hard and blunt substance, vide Exts.3 and 3/1. PW 2 Dr. He admitted in para 4 that he has not seen any assault. He even denied to acknowledge the informant and his wife. PW 5 Dr. Mini Rani Akhouri, who examined PWs 1 and 6 and found some lacerated wounds, simple in nature on them at 3.30 PM caused by hard and blunt substance, vide Exts.3 and 3/1. PW 2 Dr. Ram Sewak Sahu, who conducted post mortem on the dead body of Birsa Oraon, has found 7 injuries, all ante mortem, caused by heavy sharp cutting weapons. It appears that injury Nos. 1,2,3 and 4 were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death, vide Ext. 1. 6. In this context the eye witness of the occurrence, PW 1, Faguni Orain has asserted in her cross examination vide para 27, that the deceased was assaulted by appellants Sukhdeo, Mahadeo and Nidrey Bhagat. She clearly stated vide para 31 that Sukhdeo gave the first blow with his sword. She has asserted that she was also assaulted by females carrying lathi, farsa and iron rod. The injuries found on her person do tally with the arms carried by these ladies. 7. PW 3, mother of this witness, has further supported the prosecution version naming Sukhdeo, Mahadeo, Chhota Nividan carrying sword, farsa in their hands. According to this witness bada Nividen Bhagat instigated all the appellants to assault the informant party. She has asserted, vide para 3, the manner in which deceased was given blows with sharp cutting weapons. She further asserted vide para 15 of the cross examination the manner in which three appellants gave specific blows on the deceased. PW 6, informant has materially corroborated these two witnesses on material aspects vide para 3 of his examination in chief and vide para 5 of cross examination. 8. Learned Counsel for the appellants stressed before us that P.O. where the dead body was found, did not belong to the informant. Our attention was drawn towards statements of these witnesses that Birsa fell down dead in the field of Dashrath Lohar. It has further been asserted that the informant side has not brought on record any document to support that they were harvesting Marua from their own field. 9. After going through the evidence on record, it appears that the land in which marua was being harvested was adjacent to the land of Dashrath Lohar. It has further been asserted that the informant side has not brought on record any document to support that they were harvesting Marua from their own field. 9. After going through the evidence on record, it appears that the land in which marua was being harvested was adjacent to the land of Dashrath Lohar. The witnesses have stated that Birsa was standing on the ridge of the land when assault took place and it is natural that during the assault he might have fallen in the boundary of the land. Further more the P.O. was ascertained by PW 8 Rajiv Ranjan, I.O. of the case, which provides boundary of the land where the dead body was found. He has asserted during cross examination, vide para 9, that the lands of Dashrath Lohar was situated adjacent to the land from where Marua was harvested. Further more appellants have not disputed that there was any such land dispute rather in cross examination they have brought on record that dispute was continuing in the court of DC Ranchi. The I.O. has further contradicted PW 4 by bringing contradictions on record vide para 8 of the examination in chief. He has found Marua crop standing on the disputed land and adjacent land. 10. All these three witnesses during cross examination have stated regarding the land dispute between the parties and harvesting of marua crop resulting in assault on Birsa and them. These three witnesses have also proved the manner in which assault took place. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant, witnesses should not have been relied upon by the trial court because of certain minor contradictions as to what happened after assault, when they went away fleeing to adjacent village and then reaching Mandar. It is quite natural that when armed assailants are chasing someone, he runs away for saving his life and during that time it is not important where he reaches. The aims of the witnesses were to save themselves. In this context the admission of PW 6 that he fled towards village Dumari is not of much difference, as he has arrived at Mandar P.S. covering a distance of about 18 kilometers within three hours of the occurrence. 11 Appellants have examined three DWs in their favour, who have asserted that when police reached in the evening of 11.10.98 they came to know that murder has taken place. 11 Appellants have examined three DWs in their favour, who have asserted that when police reached in the evening of 11.10.98 they came to know that murder has taken place. They have asserted that during whole day they were present in the village but they did not learn about any such incident. They have admitted in cross examination that both parties have known to them but they did not have any information that there was any dispute regarding land. DW 1 has denied that he was related with the appellants. They have admittedly came just to deny that they have any information regarding the incident. In our considered view these witnesses have got no impact on the prosecution story because they also admitted that when police arrived, they knew that Birsa Oraon was done to death. 12. All these facts have been considered by the learned trial court, vide para 17,18 and 19 of the judgment. We do not find any apparent contradiction in the statement of prosecution witnesses regarding the place of occurrence, manner of assault and subsequent registration of FIR at Mandar P.S. within three hours of alleged occurrence. The prosecution has been able to prove beyond all reasonable doubts that the male appellants assaulted Bisa Oraon with sharp heavy cutting weapons in furtherance of common intention resulting in his instantaneous death in the forenoon of 11.10.98. Therefore, judgment of conviction and sentence passed against male appellants, namely, Nividan Bhagat @ Nidre Bhagat, Nividan Bhagat, Mahadeo Bhagat and Sukdeo Bhagat is hereby confirmed under Sections 147, 148, 302/34 IPC. Since appellant No. 2, Nividan Bhagat and appellant No. 4, Mahadeo Bhagat are on bail, their bail bonds are cancelled and they are directed to surrender before the court below within thirty days, failing which learned court below shall take all coercive steps for their arrest. 13. However, on careful consideration of the materials on record, we are of the view that participation of female appellants, namely, Sheela Bhoktain, Chilo @ Pyari and Kamla Bhoktain during the said occurrence by assaulting PWs 1 and 3 does not show that they had also got common object to cause death of Birsa Oraon. Therefore, they deserve to be acquitted of the charges under Section 302/149 IPC. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed in their favour and their conviction and sentence passed under Sections 302/149 IPC is hereby set aside. Therefore, they deserve to be acquitted of the charges under Section 302/149 IPC. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed in their favour and their conviction and sentence passed under Sections 302/149 IPC is hereby set aside. Since their participation during the occurrence was limited to assault made upon PWs 1 and 3, their conviction under Sections 147 and 148 IPC is confirmed and they are further found and held guilty under Section 323 IPC. 14. Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that apart from these three appellants being female, they had already suffered confinement for more than six months in the present case during trial and after conviction, therefore, their sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone. Accordingly, their sentences under Sections 147, 148 and 323 IPC are limited to six months. 15. Having considered the facts on record, we are of the view that these three female appellants have suffered for their mistakes sufficiently, therefore, the sentence passed against them are modified to the period already undergone by them. Since all these three female appellants, namely, Sheela Bhoktain, Chilo @ Pyari and Kamla Bhoktain are on bail, they are discharged from the liability of their bail bonds. 16. Accordingly this appeal is disposed of with the aforesaid modification in sentence of female appellants.