JUDGMENT : R.R.Prasad, J. All the five appellants were put on trial for the charges under section 302/34 and 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code for committing murder of Sukhchand Kora in furtherance of their common intention and for causing hurt to Rashmuni Kuri, the informant (P.W.10) by dangerous weapon. The trial court having found the appellants guilty convicted each of them to undergo sentence life imprisonment under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. However, no separate sentence was passed against the appellants under section 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code, though they were found guilty for the said offence. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 10.11.1998 at about 6-7 A.M. one Sukhchand Kora cousin brother-in-law (Chachera Bhaisur) of the informant Rushmuni Kuri (P.W.10) was going towards a pond for easing himself when he reached at a field situated north to the house of the informant, the appellants armed with lathi, bow and arrow accosted Sukhchand Kora over there and started assaulting him. On seeing this, the informant Rushmuni Kuri (P.W.10), Shibmati Kuri (P.W.6) reached there and tried to intervene in the matter but the appellant Kadam Kora gave a blow by a sickle and the appellant Shivlal Kora gave lathi blow as a result she sustained injuries on her right elbow and on her head. At the same time Sukhchand Kora on being assaulted by all the accused persons sustained severe injuries and died. Thereafter the appellants fled away. 3. Further case of the prosecution is that on the same day at about 11 A.M. some information was received at Maheshpur Police Station that some unpleasant occurrence has taken place at Sitarampur village. Upon which entry was made in the station diary and then Officer-in-Charge Naresh Chandra Mishra (P.W.11) along with Sub-Inspector of Police Kamleshwar Mishra (P.W.12) came to the place of occurrence at about 11.30A.M. and found the dead body of Sukhchand Kora lying over there and recorded the fardbeyan (Ext.3) of Rashmuni Kuri (P.W.10) at about 12 O’clock. Upon which a case was registered and a formal First Information Report (Ext.7) was drawn and the matter was taken up for investigation by the Investigating Officer Kamlesh Singh who held inquest on the dead body and prepared an Inquest Report (Ext.5). Upon which a case was registered and a formal First Information Report (Ext.7) was drawn and the matter was taken up for investigation by the Investigating Officer Kamlesh Singh who held inquest on the dead body and prepared an Inquest Report (Ext.5). The Investigating Officer found three arrows and one farsa at the place of occurrence which were seized along with blood stained earth under a seizure list (Ext.4). Subsequently, the dead body was sent to Sub-divisional Hospital, Pakur for post mortem examination. Thereafter Dr. Sushil Kumar Malhotra (P.W.1) did autopsy on the dead body on 11.11.1998 at 2.30 P.M. and found the following ante mortem injuries: (i) A punctured wound 2-½” x 1-½” x viscera deep and expulsion of part of omeutum through it over left hypochondrium. (ii) A punctured wound 1” x ½ “ x abdominal cavity deep over left hypochondrium. (iii) A punctured wound ½ “ x ½ “ x abdominal cavity deep over right iliac region. (iv) sharp cut wound 3” x ½ “ x bone deep over right shoulder and partially cutting of acrominal process of right seapnla. (V)Sharp cut 1” x ½ “ bone deep and cutting of 8th & 9th rib of right side posterior over right infrascapulor region. (VI)Sharp cut 3” x ½ “ scalp deep over vertex. (VII)Sharp cut 2” x ½ “ x scalp deep over right parietal region (VIII) Sharp cut wound ½” x ½ “ x cutting of bone through and through at the level of root of left thumb. (IX)Sharp cut wound ½ “ x ½” over base of right thumb. Apart from these injuries, right side of lung was found punctured and liver was also found cut size ½ “ x ¼ “. Doctor issued post mortem examination report (Ext.1) with an opinion that injuries were caused by sharp cutting weapon such as “ Hasua” and the death occurred due to shock and haemorrhage caused by aforesaid injuiries. 4. In course of investigation, the Investigating Officer also got the informant Rashmuni Kuri examined by Dr. Vijay Kumar Thakur (P.W.13) on 10.11.1998, who found following injuries on her person. “ Incised wound 2” x ¼ “ x ¼ “ just above right elbow laterally. Nature of the injury was found to be simple caused by sharp cutting weapon. Accordingly, he issued injury report (Ext.8). 5. Vijay Kumar Thakur (P.W.13) on 10.11.1998, who found following injuries on her person. “ Incised wound 2” x ¼ “ x ¼ “ just above right elbow laterally. Nature of the injury was found to be simple caused by sharp cutting weapon. Accordingly, he issued injury report (Ext.8). 5. After completion of investigation, when police submitted charge sheet against the appellants, cognizance of the offence was taken and in due course, when the case was committed to the court of sessions, charges were framed to which the appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. In course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses. Out of them, P.W.6 Shivmati Kuri (sister of the deceased), P.W.7 Pansuri Kuri (wife of the deceased) and P.W.10 Rashmuni Kuri are the eye witnesses whereas P.W.2 Niren Kora, P.W.3 Nakul Kora, P.W.4 Sanjay Kora and P.W.8 Kalachand Kora are the hearsay witnesses. P.W.4 Sanjay Kora is also witness to the inquest as well as seizure to blood stained earth, farsa and three arrows. P.W.5 Budheshwar Kora is also witness to the inquest. 7. After closure of the case of the prosecution the appellants were questioned under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure about the incriminating circumstances appearing against them to which they denied. 8. The trial court having placed implicit reliance on the testimonies of P.Ws. 6,7 and 10 as also the other evidences adduced on behalf of the prosecution did find the appellants guilty and hence convicted and sentenced them as aforesaid. 9. Being aggrieved with the judgment of conviction and order of sentence the appellants have preferred this appeal. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that all the witnesses claimed to be the eye witnesses being related to the deceased are highly interested and, therefore, in absence of any independent eye witness, the trial court should not have placed implicit reliance upon the eye witnesses particularly when the deceased and the appellants are inimical to each other and that P.W.6 Shivmati Kuri (sister of the deceased) has categorically stated in her cross-examination that informant Rashmuni Kuri P.W.10 had gone earlier to her to the place of occurrence and by the time she reached at the place of occurrence, the accused persons had fled away. But, on the other hand, P.W.10 Rashmuni Kuri in her evidence has said that Shivmati Kuri P.W.6 had proceeded to the place of occurrence earlier to her and in that view of the matter neither P.W.6 nor P.W.10 is the eye witness but the trial court did not take into consideration this aspect of the matter and hence, erred in holding the appellants guilty and, therefore, judgment of conviction and order of sentence are fit to be set aside. 11. Heard learned counsel appearing for the State. 12. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the records, I do find that P.W.6 Shivmati Kuri, the sister of the deceased whereas P.W.7 Pansuri Kuri the wife of the deceased and P.W.10 Rashmuni Kuri the wife of the brother of the deceased have claimed themselves to be the eye witnesses to the occurrence. It is true that all the three witnesses are related to the deceased but on that ground alone their testimonies cannot be doubted unless something is there to show or to suggest that they had some reason to falsely implicate the appellants in order to save real culprits. I do not find anything on the record as to why the aforesaid witnesses will falsely implicate the appellants. The witnesses being related cannot always be branded as interested witnesses. Here, in the instant case, all the three witnesses appear to be natural witnesses. According to informant (P.W.10), when the deceased proceeded towards a field to ease himself, she at that time saw the appellants Shivlal Koda with Farsa, Pandu Kisku with bow and arrow and rest other three were having sickles and all the appellants surrounded the deceased and started assaulting him. On seeing this, she rushed to rescue the deceased but the appellant Kadam Koda assaulted her with the sickle causing injury on the right elbow. Upon which she sustained injury which fact gets substantiated from the evidence of P.W.13 Dr. Vijay Kumar Thakur, who found sharp cut injury over the right elbow of P.W.10. Under these circumstances, the presence of this witness (P.W.10) at the place of occurrence gets established beyond any reasonable doubt. Further the testimony of this witness gets corroboration from the very first version made in Fardbeyan (Ext.3). 13. Under the circumstances, there has been no reason to discard the testimony of P.W.10. Under these circumstances, the presence of this witness (P.W.10) at the place of occurrence gets established beyond any reasonable doubt. Further the testimony of this witness gets corroboration from the very first version made in Fardbeyan (Ext.3). 13. Under the circumstances, there has been no reason to discard the testimony of P.W.10. Going further in the matter I do find that the testimony of P.W.10 gets corroboration by both the witnesses P.Ws.6 and 7, who have deposed that when on hearing hulla, they came out of the house, they saw the appellants assaulting the deceased with the weapons which they were holding. Both of them have said that Shivlal was holding Farsa whereas Pandu was having bow and arrow and other three appellants were having sickles. Their testimonies do suggest that they for the first time saw the appellant assaulting the deceased from outside of their houses. Nothing is there in the cross-examination to suggest that place of occurrence was not visible from their houses. On the contrary, from the description given by Investigating Officer (P.W.11) and also from the perusal of the sketch map (Ext.C), one can find that there is nothing in between the place of occurrence and houses of P.Ws.6 and 7 to obstruct the vision of the witnesses. In the circumstances, it is hard to accept the submission advanced on behalf of the defence that P.W.6 is not an eye witness as according to her, when she reached at the place of occurrence, the accused persons had fled away by that time. It is true that there has been some discrepancy in between the evidence of P.W.6 and P.W.10 on the point as to who did reach to the place of occurrence first. But that is not very material and does not go to the root of the prosecution case especially when it has been established by prosecution that P.W.10 was assaulted by the accused while she made an attempt to rescue the deceased and sustained injury. In the circumstances, there has been no reason at all to discard the testimonies of P.Ws.6, 7and 10. Moreover, ocular evidences get corroboration from the medical evidence as the Doctor (P.W.1) has found punctured as well as sharp cut injuries which were sufficient to cause death. That apart, ocular evidence also gets corroboration from the objective finding of Investigating Officer, who did find three arrows (material Ext. Moreover, ocular evidences get corroboration from the medical evidence as the Doctor (P.W.1) has found punctured as well as sharp cut injuries which were sufficient to cause death. That apart, ocular evidence also gets corroboration from the objective finding of Investigating Officer, who did find three arrows (material Ext. III to III/2) and farsa (material Ext.I) at the place of occurrence. Moreover, P.Ws.2, 3 and 10 have categorically stated that due to some land dispute, proceeding was going on and for that reason the accused has committed offence. This fact has never been denied by the defence and as such there appears tobe strong motive on the part of the appellants to commit murder of the deceased. 14. Coming to the next charge it be recorded that all the appellants were charged also under section 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code as the appellant Kadam Kora had given sickle blow to P.W.10 whereas Shivlal Kora had given lathi blow on the head of P.W.10 but there has been no evidence that other three appellants, Babai Kora, Sabai Kora and Pandu Kisku had assaulted P.W.10, nor there has been any circumstance to show that they were sharing common intention with other accused to cause injury to P.W.10. Therefore, the trial court erred in recording the order of conviction under section 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code so far the appellants, Babai Kora, Sabai Kora and Pandu Kisku are concerned. Further, it be recorded that Shivlal Kora, as per P.W.10, assaulted her on the head by Lathi but no such corresponding injury has been found by the Doctor (P.W.13). Moreover, the appellant Shivlal Kora, according to testimony of P.W.10, was holding Farsa in his hand. In that view of the matter, the testimony of P.W.10 that Shivlal Kora assaulted her with Lathi on her head never appears to be correct and convincing, though her testimony of being inflicted with Sickle by Kadam Kora gets corroboration from the injury report (Ext.8) and hence, Shivlal Kora and also aforesaid three appellants, namely, Babai Kora, Sabai Kora and Pandu Kisku are acquitted from the charges under section 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code whereas the appellant Kadam Kora is convicted under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code instead of section 324/34. 15. 15. Thus, regard being had to all these aspects of the matter, I do find that the trial court has rightly recorded the order of conviction and sentence against all the appellants so far offence under section 302/34 is concerned which needs no interference by this Court and accordingly, it is hereby affirmed. However, for the reason discussed above, the appellants, Shivlal Kora, Babai Kora, Sabai Kora and Pandu Kisku are acquitted from the charges under section 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code and the appellant Kadam Kora is convicted under section 324 instead of section 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code. In the result, this appeal with the modification in the order of conviction, as stated above, stands dismissed.