JUDGMENT:- P.K. DEB, J. (1) THE two appeals being C. R. A. 475 of 1989 and C. R. A. 35 of 1990 have been directed against the Judgment and order dated 15.12.1989 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court, krishnanagar in connection with Sessions Trial No. 3 of March 1989. (2) THE grueling incident resulting in the murder of a person, infliction of grievous hurt to some others and maiming of a remaining one occurred on 22/03/1983 at about 08-00 hrs., at Dharapara, Anchal no. 2, P.S. Tehatta. The prosecution came, out with positive allegation that the appellants along with other miscreants armed and equipped with deadly weapons stormed into the house of Dwijendra Nath Biswas where Joydeb Mondal, Laxmi Joardar, Santu Mondal, Ajit Mondal and kama Mondal had taken shelter. Perturbed and terrified by the menacing advance of the miscreants, Joydeb Mondal moved into the adjacent room of Mirmadan Biswas. Instigated by Ramen Mondal, the appellants namely Joydeb Mondal, Baidyanath Mondal, Ranjit Mondal and Asta Mondal entered into the room of Mirmadan Biswas by breaking upon his door and thereafter brutally hacked Joydeb Mondal to death, using fala, kirich and gun for effecting their object. The other miscreants also did not lag behind. They went after Ajit Mondal, Santu mondal, Laxmi Joardar, Durgabala Biswas, Mantu Mondal, Provat mondal, Madhai Mondal, Tinkari Mondal and some other persons and brutally assaulted them with ramda, Tangi and other instruments. The persons receiving serious injuries were hospitalized. Joydeb mondal, who received gun shot injury as well as slab injury, died on the spot before any medical assistance could be provided for him. (3) FOLLOWING the lodging of the FIR by Dwijendra Nath Biswas, a case under sections 147/148/149/448/323/324/326/307/302/427 IPC and under section 27 Arms Act were [registered by Tehatta Police Station against as many as forty named accused persons. With the registration of the case, the police officer entrusted with the investigation of the case conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased. It was followed by sending the dead body to the morgue for post mortem examination. Efforts were made to apprehend the persons involved in the incident. Incriminating articles including blood stained earth, wearing apparels, broken tiles and bricks were seized. The investigation Officer prepared a sketch map of the place of occurrence with index. The investigation went on with the examination of the available witnesses. Efforts were made to apprehend the persons involved in the incident. Incriminating articles including blood stained earth, wearing apparels, broken tiles and bricks were seized. The investigation Officer prepared a sketch map of the place of occurrence with index. The investigation went on with the examination of the available witnesses. Eventually, on examination of the witnesses, seizure of the articles, collection of medical papers including post mortem report, charge-sheet was submitted. (4) CHARGES under sections 148,302/149 IPC and 27 Arms Act were framed following commitment of the case to the Court of Session. All the thirty-nine persons who faced the trial pleaded innocence. Accordingly, the prosecution was called upon to produce its witnesses. The prosecution did it by examining twenty-nine witnesses including the informant, the witnesses of the occurrence, the witnesses of the seizure, the doctor conducting the post mortem examination, the medical officer examining some of the injured persons, the officer incharge recording the case and the police officer investigating the matter. (5) ON scanning the entire evidence, oral and documentary, pinning reliance on the statements of the eye witnesses and the corroborative medical papers, the learned Additional Sessions Judge was pleased to convict the appellant Baidyanath Mondal, Asta Mondal, Ranjit Mondal and Joydeb Mondal for commission of offence under section 302/34 IPC. All of them were sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. l,000/- each, in default, to rigorous imprisonment for two months. (6) APPELLANT Baidyanath Mondal was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years for commission of offence under section 27 Arms Act. (7) APPELLANT Asta Mondal was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years for commission of offence under section 148 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for three years for commission of offence under section 324/149 IPC. (8) APPELLANT Sudeb Mondal, Khagen Mondal and Mirmadan were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months each for commission of offence under section 143 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for three years each for commission of offence under section 324 IPC. (9) ACCUSED Ghentu Mondal, Anil Mondal, Probir Mondal, Dhulo mondal and Chantu Mondal ware sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years each for commission of offence under section 148 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for three years each for commission of offence under section 324/149 IPC. (10) REMAINING twenty-seven; accused persons, who also faced the trial, were, however, acquitted of all the charges. (10) REMAINING twenty-seven; accused persons, who also faced the trial, were, however, acquitted of all the charges. (11) AGGRIEVED by and dissatisfied with the conviction and sentence, the appellants namely Baidyanath Mondal, Asta Mondal, Ranjit Mondal and Joydeb Mondal preferred an appeal, while the other eight persons filed the separate appeal against their respective convictions and sentences. The two appeals being C. R. A. 479 of 1989 and C. R. A. 35 of 1990 were thus heard analogously. (12) DESCRIBING the alleged incident as in absurd one, Mr. Y. Z. Dastoor, learned counsel, has submitted that it is unbelievable that the accused persons without any purpose went on assaulting the prosecution witnesses. What was the motive behind causing murder and grievous hurt has not been divulged. In view of the simmering dispute between two political groups, the death of a person and injuries of others were well capitalized to implicate the political adversaries. The recording of the FIR long after alleged incident provided ample scope to deliberate and prepare a false case. (13) TERMING the FIR as antedated and antetimed, Mr. Dastoor submits that the prosecution deliberately suppressed and withheld the document containing the first information regarding commission of