JUDGMENT Gr. Appeal No. 43/2000R is by Kinua Oraon and Maghi Oraon, who were arrayed as A4 and A5 in Sessions Trial No. 502/1987 before the 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Gumla. Cr. Appeal No. 45/ 2000R is by Bindhyachal Pandey, Mahabir Oraon and Surya Oraon, who were arrayed as A2, A3 and A6 in the said Sessions Trial. Cr. Appeal No. 99/2000 R is by Jitbahan Oraon, who was arrayed as A1 in the same Sessions Trial. The above appeals are disposed of by the following common judgment and in the said judgment, the appellants in the above appeals will be referred as A1 to A6 in the same order as they were arrayed before the Sessions Judge for the sake of convenience. 2. The facts are as follows:- P.W. 2, Chainya Orain, is the wife of the deceased, Madra Oraon. P.W. 7, Somra Ora on , is their son. P.W.1, Ewo Oraon, and P.W. 4, Fague Oraon, are the brothers of the deceased, Madra Oraon. P.W. 3, Suka Oraon, is the nephew of the deceased. They and the accused 1 to 6 were residing in the same village. The accused were suspecting that the deceased was practising witchcraft. Therefore, they complained to the Panchayatdars. A Panchayati was convened and at the Panchayat, the deceased was made to pay a fine. The deceased, after paying the fine, gave a complaint at the police station and a criminal case was filed against A1, A2 and others. Therefore, the accused were nurturing a grievance against the deceased. This is said to be the motive for the occurrence which took place on 14.2.1987. 3. On 14.2.1987 at 11.00 p.m. the deceased, Madra Oraon, took his bed in the house and his wife, P.W. 2. and others were in the house. Suddenly, the door was broken open and all the accused. namely. A1 to A6, entered the house. A1 Jitbahan Oraon was having a Balua and A2 to A6 were having Lathis. On entering the house, they started beating the deceased and A 1 inflicted a blow with the Balua on the head of the deceased. P.W. 2, Chainya Orain, seeing the attack on her husband, intervened and she was beaten by A 1 and A2. She also received injuries. Thereafter. On entering the house, they started beating the deceased and A 1 inflicted a blow with the Balua on the head of the deceased. P.W. 2, Chainya Orain, seeing the attack on her husband, intervened and she was beaten by A 1 and A2. She also received injuries. Thereafter. the accused went to the house of Bhoja Oraon, who is the uncle of the deceased and searched for him but they could not find him. Then they came to the house of the deceased, dragged the body to some distance and left it near the house of Deodip Pandey• and then the accused left the place. P.w. 2 gave Ext. 4, the fardbeyan, on 15.2.1987 at the police station, on the basis of which a crime was registered. P.W. 9, Bhaiya Lal Singh, took up investigation in the crime. He reached the scene of occurrence and prepared a seizure list, Ext. 6 under which the broken wooden planks of the door and other articles were seized. He conducted inquest over the dead body by preparing inquest report, Ext. 5. After the inquest, the body was sent to the hospital with a requisition. P.W. 2, who had injuries, was also referred to the hospital for treatment. 4. On being referred by the Police Officer, P.W. 2, Chainya Orain. went to the hospital and was examined by P.W. 6, Dr. Pashupati Nath Mishra, who found lacerated wound on the left temporal occipital region on the person of P.W. 2, measuring 1/2' x 1/2' which was found to be skin deep. The Doctor also found scratches on the lateral aspect measuring 2" x 1/2". The Doctor noticed that she had complaint of pain. He also noticed another swelling injury on the right arm measuring 11/2' x 1" which was oval shaped. The Doctor issued Ext. 9. the injury report, with his opinion that the injuries are simple in nature. 5. On receipt of the requisition and dead body, P.W. 8, Dr. Raj Kumar Beck, conducted autopsy on the dead body of Madra Oraon. He found the following injuries:- “(1) Incised wound 2" x 1/2 x 1/2 scalp deep over the occipital region with fracture of underlying bone, blood clot present, membrance and brain matter congested. (2) Abrasion 11/2" x 1/2" over the frontal area. (3) Abrasion 1" x 1/2" over the front chest below the right nipple. He found the following injuries:- “(1) Incised wound 2" x 1/2 x 1/2 scalp deep over the occipital region with fracture of underlying bone, blood clot present, membrance and brain matter congested. (2) Abrasion 11/2" x 1/2" over the frontal area. (3) Abrasion 1" x 1/2" over the front chest below the right nipple. (4) Incised wound 2" x 1/2" x 1" over the left leg. (5) Lacerated wound 2" x 1/2" x 1/2" below the left knee with fracture of tibia and fibula. (6) Abrasion 1" x 1/2" over the right wrist joint with fracture of radius and ulna" The Doctor issued Ext. 2, the post mortem certificate, with his opinion that death is on account of shock and hemorrhage and that the injury nos. 1, 5 and 6 are grievous in nature and are sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. He further opined that injury nos. 1 and 4 could have been caused by a sharp cutting weapon like Tangi and Balua and injury nos. 2, 3. 5 and 6 could have been caused by some hard and blunt substance like Lathi and Danca. 6. After the completion of investigation, final report was filed against the accused, who denied all the incriminating circumstances. They stated that on account of animosity between them and the deceased, they were falsely implicated. They marked Ext. A. an order passed by the Executive Magistrate in the proceedings initiated under section 107 Cr.PC. to show that P.Ws. 3 and 4 arc not witnesses to the occurrence. They also marked Ext. B, the judgment passed in G.R. Case No. 510/1986, where A1, A2 and others were arrayed as accused, in which they were acquitted. 7. The Trial Judge, accepting the evidence let in by the prosecution, convicted A 1 to A6 under section 302 read with Section 149 I.PC. and sentenced each one of them to imprisonment for life. A 1, on being found guilty under section 148 I.PC. was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year. A2 to A6, who were found guilty under section 147 I.P.C., were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months. 8. and sentenced each one of them to imprisonment for life. A 1, on being found guilty under section 148 I.PC. was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year. A2 to A6, who were found guilty under section 147 I.P.C., were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months. 8. learned respective counsel appearing in the above appeals submit that since there is contradiction as to where the deceased was beaten, namely, whether he was beaten at the Verandah as claimed by P. W. 2 or at the rear of the house as stated by PW. 4, the case of the prosecution is to be disbelieved. They further submit that P.Ws. 1,2,3,4 and 7, who were examined as witnesses, are closely related to the deceased and in view of the animosity, which was in existence between two sides, the above witnesses had given false evidence implicating the accused in the crime. It was finally contended that since it was A 1, who was armed with Balva, and caused fatal injury on the deceased, the trial court ought not to have convicted A2 to A6 for the offence of murder. On the above submission, we have heard Mr. B.B. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the State. 9. The Doctor, P.W. 8, gave evidence in court and he stated that he found injuries on the person of the deceased and that he noted them in the post mortem certificate, Ext. 2. According to him, the deceased died on account of those injuries. The medical evidence conclusively establish that Madra Oraon died on account of homicidal violence. 10. P.W. 1, Etwo Oraon, P.W. 2, Chainya Orain, P.W. 3, Suka Oraon, P.W. 4, Fagua Oraon and P.W. 7, Somra Orain, were produced before the trial court as witnesses to the occurrence and of them, P.Ws. 1 and 4 are the brothers, P.W. 7 is the son, P.W. 2 is the wife and P.W.3 is the nephew of the deceased. The evidence of the above witnesses show that while he was sleeping in his house, at about 11.00 p.m. on 14.2.1987 the accused entered the house after breaking open the door and then attacked the deceased. The evidence further shows that A 1 inflicted fatal blow with Balua on the head of the deceased. According to the witnesses, when P.W. 2 Intervened to save her husband, she was also beaten and she suffered simple injuries. The evidence further shows that A 1 inflicted fatal blow with Balua on the head of the deceased. According to the witnesses, when P.W. 2 Intervened to save her husband, she was also beaten and she suffered simple injuries. The fact that P.W. 2 suffered simple injuries was established before the trial court by examining P.W. 6, Dr. Pashupati Nath Mishra, who treated P.W. 2 at the hospital at 6.00 a.m. on 15.2.1987. P.W. 6 has stated that the found three injuries on the person of P.W. 2 and that he issued Ext. 9, the injury report. P.W. 2 is an eyewitness and she is the wife of the deceased and therefore, a natural witness. As the occurrence had taken place in the house of the deceased, P.W. 7 being the son is also a natural witness, as he was living with his parents. The defence did not have a case before the trial court that P.W. 7 was not living with his parents. The brothers of the deceased, P.Ws. 1 and 4, and the nephew, P.W. 3, were living in the houses which were adjacent to the house of the deceased. It is, therefore, clear that all the witnesses, who were living in the houses adjacent to the house of the deceased, were examined as witnesses to speak about the occurrence. We have already noted that P.W. 2 is not only the wife of the deceased, but also has suffered injuries during the course of same transaction, during which the deceased Madra Oraon suffered fatal injuries. The appellants had no case before the trial court that P.W. 2 suffered injuries at different place and at different point of time and once they do not challenge her evidence that she suffered injuries alongwith her husband, then her evidence cannot be rejected merely because she happens to be the wife of the deceased. The defence before th3 trial court, in order to attack the evidence of P.W. 2, came with preposterous suggestion that she was having illicit relationship with P.W. 3, Suka Oraon, who is the nephew of the deceased, which was promptly denied. We are unable to understand as to how, the said suggestion that P.W. 2. The defence before th3 trial court, in order to attack the evidence of P.W. 2, came with preposterous suggestion that she was having illicit relationship with P.W. 3, Suka Oraon, who is the nephew of the deceased, which was promptly denied. We are unable to understand as to how, the said suggestion that P.W. 2. was having illicit relationship with Suka Oraon will save the accused from the crime and we find that for the said suggestion, no material was produced by the defence before the trial court to at least probabilize the said suggestion. In any event, the suggestion, as we have already said, is not only mischievous and preposterous, but is also of no use to the defence. In our view, the said suggestion is highly defamatory, which was made without any basis and that it was only a suggestion made to assassinate the character of P.Ws. 2 and 3. On going through the evidence of the witnesses, we find no reason to reject their evidence. It is to be stated that they have not only corroborated each other but their evidence is corroborated by the subsequent recovery of the broken wooden plank of the door, which was seized under Ext. 6, the seizure list prepared by P.W. 9, Investigating Officer, who reached scene of occurrence, after registration of the crime. The accused had no explanation to offer as to how the door of the house of the deceased came to be broken, when the definite case of the prosecution is that the door was broken open by the accused with a view to gain entry into the house for murdering the deceased by assaulting him. We, therefore, accept the evidence of the eye-witnesses and hold that the accused beat the deceased and in the process, also cased injury to P.W. 2. 11. The contention of the• counsel that the witnesses are related to the deceased and hence their evidence is to be rejected is to be stated only to be rejected as time and again the Courts have held that the evidence of relatives need not be rejected merely because they happen to• be the relatives of the deceased. 11. The contention of the• counsel that the witnesses are related to the deceased and hence their evidence is to be rejected is to be stated only to be rejected as time and again the Courts have held that the evidence of relatives need not be rejected merely because they happen to• be the relatives of the deceased. It is also not possible for us to reject the evidence of the eye-witnesses on the ground that there is a contradiction between the evidence of P.W. 2 and P.W. 4 as to where the deceased was attacked, whether at the Verandah or at the rear side of the house, as it is too trivial in nature and does not affect the substratum of the prosecution case. 12. We also do not find any merit in the contention of the counsel that since A1 inflicted fatal blow and that the other accused did not cause any injury leading to his death, they ought not to have been convicted. This arguments, probably, in our view, .is made without taking into consideration the import of Section 149 I.P.C. which deals with common object. The case of the prosecution is that all the accused went as a body after forming an unlawful assembly and A1 was having Balua, while other accused were having Lathis and Oandas in their hands and that the said the persons, forming the said unlawful assembly, went to the house of the deceased, broke open the door and then after entering the house, started assaulting the deceased indiscriminately, when P.W. 2 intervened, she was also attacked, as a result of which she suffered injuries. In the above circumstances, it cannot lie in the mouth of the accused to say that since A1 alone inflicted the fatal injury, the other accused, namely, A2 to A6, cannot be found guilty under section 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C. We, therefore, reject the said argument. 13. In the above circumstances, it cannot lie in the mouth of the accused to say that since A1 alone inflicted the fatal injury, the other accused, namely, A2 to A6, cannot be found guilty under section 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C. We, therefore, reject the said argument. 13. Before we part with this case, we cannot but observe that the Trial Judge committed an error in saying that no finding is required for the charge under section 323 I.P.C. He has stated that since the accused have been found guilty under section 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C., under sections 147 and 148 I.P.C. no specific finding is required under section 323 L.P.C. We do not understand as to what he meant when he said that no finding is required whether he wanted to say that no separate sentence is required or whether there is no need of any finding for the charge under section 323 LP.C. Be that as it may. 14. On the discussion made above, the accused appellants were rightly convicted under section 302 read with Section 149 L.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life and we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. The above three appeals are dismissed. It is reported that A2 to A6 (Bindhyachal Pandey, Mahabir Oraon, Kinua Oraon, Maghi Oraon, and Surya Oraon) are on bail. Their bail bonds stand cancelled. The Sessions Judge is directed to take steps to commit them to prison for serving the sentence.