JUDGMENT 1. The appellants were arrayed as A-4, A-3, A-2, A-6 and A-5 along with Chihak Hembrom, who was arrayed as A-1, in Session.s Case No. 142/1983. In this appeal, the appellants will be referred in the same order as they were arrayed before the Sessions Judge and the acquitted accused, Chihak Hembrom. will be referred as A-1 for the sake of convenience. 2. The trial Judge, while acquitting A-1, Chihak Hembrom, of all the charges, convicted the appellants alone. A-4 and A-3 were found guilty under Section 148, IPC and A-2, A-5 and A-6 were found guilty under Section 147, IPC A-4 was also found guilty under Section 324, IPC for causing injury to PW 1. The trial Judge found A-4, A-6 and A-3 guilty under Section 323, IPC for causing injury to PW 2. The trial Judge, while acquitting others under Section 302 read with Section 149, IPC, found A-4 Gora Tudu guilty under Section 302, IPC, for which he was sentenced to imprisonment for life. The trial. Judge imposed sentence of two years under Section 148, IPC, only one year under Section 147, IPC, two years under Section 324, IPC and six months under Section 323, IPC on the accused, who were convicted as stated above. The present appeal challenges the said conviction and sentence. 3. On 25.11.1979 at about 8.00 a.m., PW 1 Manohari Hembrom was standing at a field along with his parents. Paddy harvesting was going on. The accused persons came to the paddy field armed with various weapons and then started attacking the deceased, as a result of which the deceased, Sarkar Hembrom, suffered injuries and died. When intervened, PW 1 and PW 2 were also assaulted by the accused and they suffered injuries. On 26.11.1979, Ext. 3, fardbeyan. was given by PW 1 at Shikaripara police station to Rajnandan Sharma, who was in-charge of the police station. It was registered as a crime and investigation was taken up by the Investigation Officer (I.O. not examined). During the course of investigation, inquest was conducted and later the dead body of Sarkar Hembrom was sent to the hospital for postmortem. 4. It was registered as a crime and investigation was taken up by the Investigation Officer (I.O. not examined). During the course of investigation, inquest was conducted and later the dead body of Sarkar Hembrom was sent to the hospital for postmortem. 4. On receipt of the dead body, the doctor (he was not examined) conducted autopsy on the dead body of Sarkar Hembrom and found the following injuries:- (i) Incised wound 6" x 4" x chest cavity deep over left side of the upper part of the chest, oblique with fracture of lateral end of the shaft of the clavicle first rib, pleura and upper lobe of left lung. There was about 3 Oz. blood. (ii) One incised wound of size 4" x 3" x bone deep over right lower third of the leg with cutting of all muscles, vessels and both bone tibia and fibula. (iii) One incised wound over left feet of size 2" x 1/2" x bone deep involving fracture of 1st, 2nd and 3rd metatarsal bone. (iv) Swelling and bruise over whole left dorsal aspect of the hand. (v) Swelling and bruise over right forearm on dorsal aspect. The doctor issued Ext. 10, the post-mortem certificate, opining that death could be on account of shock and heamorrhage and that the injury No. 1 was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. 5. After completion of the investigation, the final report was filed against the appellants-accused. When they were questioned under Section 313, Cr PC, they denied all the incriminating circumstances and no witness was examined on their side. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the trial Court, having disbelieved the evidence of all the eye-witnesses (PWs 2, 3, 6, 8 and 10), erred in believing the evidence of PW 1, Manohari Hembrom, to find the appellants guilty and that the prosecution having failed to establish the cause of death of the deceased, the trial Court also erred in convicting the appellant-accused, Gora Tudu (A-4) under Section 302, IPC. Learned counsel further submits that the prosecution did not also examine the doctors who conducted autopsy and treated the witnesses and also did not mark injury reports and in the absence of any medical evidence that the deceased died on account of homicidal violence and that the witnesses have suffered injuries, the accused- appellants are entitled to acquittal. We have heard Mr. We have heard Mr. R. Mukhopadhaya, learned counsel appearing for the State. 7. Though the prosecution came out with the version that the deceased was attacked by the appellants and that the injury inflicted by the appellant No. 1, Gora Tudu. who was arrayed as A-4, caused the death of the deceased, the prosecution did not examine the doctor who conducted autopsy and did rest content by marking Ext. 10 through a compounder, who did not even mention that he was present at the time when post-mortem was conducted. It is, therefore, clear that the document, Ext. 10, was not proved in the manner known to law and in the absence of the medical evidence that the injuries found on the deceased, Sarkar Hembrom, were responsible for his death, we cannot but acquit the appellant No. 1, Gora Tudu (A-4), of the charge under Section 302, IPC. Similarly, we are also unable to find the appellant No. 1, Gora Tudu (A-4) guilty under Section 324, IPC for allegedly causing injury to the witness as the doctor, who treated the injured, was not examined. Though we have rejected most part of the prosecution case, we find that we can accept the evidence of PW 2 as regards the injury suffered by him since in his evidence he has stated that he suffered injuries at the hands of A-4, A-6 and A-5 and it is supported by the medical evidence of PW 15, who examined and gave injury report, which was marked as Ext. 5/1 through him (PW 15). Though A-4, A-6 and A-5 have allegedly attacked and caused injury on PW 2, the trial Judge found Gora Tudu A-4, Shiblal Murmu A-6 and Baburji Hembrom A-3 guilty under Section 323, IPC; but while awarding sentence, he awarded sentence of imprisonment of six months on A-4, A-6 and A-5. We, therefore, set aside the sentence imposed on A-5 as there is confusion as to whom the Sessions Judge found guilty - whether it is A-3 or A-5, but as regards A-4 and A-6 we uphold their conviction under Section 323, IPC and while confirming the sentence imposed by the trial Judge on them, modify the sentence and direct each of them to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment, they will suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months. 500/- and in default of payment, they will suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months. With the aforesaid modification in the conviction and sentence, this appeal is partly allowed.