JUDGMENT : 1. Heard further argument. In course of submission, Mr. A.K. Mishra, Learned Standing Counsel states that as per the instruction received by him (copy of which is filed in a memo) no appeal has been preferred by the State as against the order of acquittal granted in favour of accused Babu Nahak for the offence u/s 302/34, I.P.C. 2. In Sessions Case No. 4 of 1997 (Sessions Case No. 392 of 96-GDC) of the Court of Second Addl. Sessions Judge, Berhampur arising out of G.R. Case No. 89 of 1996 of the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Purushottampur, three accused persons namely Debaraj Basantia, Babu Nahak and Hemanta Basantia faced the trial for the offence punishable under Sections 302/323/354/34, I.P.C. Impugned judgment was pronounced on 19.02.1999. Learned Additional Sessions Judge recorded conviction u/s 302/34, I.P.C. against accused Debaraj Basantia and Hemanta Basantia. He also recorded the conviction of accused Hemanta Basantia and Babu Nahak for the offence u/s 323/34, I.P.C. The Trial Court acquitted accused Babu Nahak from the charge u/s 302/34, I.P.C. As noted above, Learned Standing Counsel reports that no appeal has been preferred against that order of acquittal. Accused Babu Nahak has not preferred any appeal against order of conviction under Sections 323/34, I.P.C. While so convicting, the Trial Court imposed sentence of imprisonment for life against accused Debaraj Basantia and Hemanta Basantia together with fine of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousands) to each of them and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. The Trial Court also imposed sentence of rigorous imprisonment for six months on each of accused Babu Nahak and Hemanta Nahak for the offence under Sections 323/34, I.P.C. Accused persons Debaraj and Hemanta have preferred this Criminal Appeal challenging the aforesaid order of conviction and sentences. 3. To put in short, prosecution case is that Raghu ' Raghunath Basantia, the deceased (hereinafter referred to as such) was tenant with respect to some of the landed properties belonging to the deity Lord Sri Jagannath and under the control of Endowment Department. Earlier the Managing Trustee Sunia Basantia was substituted by the new Trustee Sadananda Panda. On 12.07.1996 the Endowment Inspector and the O.I.C., Purushottampur police station had come to settle the matter regulating the payment of 'Bhag' by the tenants. Obeying the direction of the Endowment Inspector the deceased deposited Rs. Earlier the Managing Trustee Sunia Basantia was substituted by the new Trustee Sadananda Panda. On 12.07.1996 the Endowment Inspector and the O.I.C., Purushottampur police station had come to settle the matter regulating the payment of 'Bhag' by the tenants. Obeying the direction of the Endowment Inspector the deceased deposited Rs. 1900 (nineteen hundred) with the new Trustee notwithstanding direction of accused Debaraj not to do so and to deposit the 'Bhag' amount with him. After departure of the Endowment Inspector and the police officer, in the evening at about 8.00 p.m. accused Hemanta and Babu came in front of the house of the deceased and started abusing him for depositing the money with the new trustee. The deceased was living in that house together with his wife Hema (P.W.9), married daughter Sushila (P.W.2) and son-in-law Deba Nahak (P.W.1). The deceased and P.W. 1 protested to that abuse and as a reaction the accused persons went back and again returned with accused Debaraj, this time being armed with various weapons. According to the prosecution, accused Debaraj was holding a sword, accused Hemanta was holding a knife and accused Babu was holding a lathi. On reaching in front of the house of the deceased, they again called the deceased, and when the latter came out, accused Debaraj dealt a blow by the sword hitting on the head of the deceased. On sustaining that blow when the deceased fell down, accused Hemanta mounting on his chest dealt knife blows, i.e., stab blows. In the.process also accused Debaraj dealt a few more blows and accused Babu dealt lathi blows to the legs of the deceased. In the process of that assault when P. Ws.2 and 9 not only shouted for help but also came to the rescue of the deceased, and accused Babu and Hemanta dragged them and put inside the cattle-shed together with P.W. 1 and they chained the door from outside. Thereafter, as alleged by the prosecution, accused persons went and obtained an Auto Rickshaw of co-accused Bhima (who did not face the trial) and put the dead body of the deceased in that Auto Rickshaw and when they were near the house of accused Debaraj, they found the villagers intervening and therefore they abandoned that Auto Rickshaw with the dead body. Some unknown person intimated the police over telephone in the morning of 13.07.1996, and after making Station Diary Entry the Officer-in-Charge of Purushottampur Police Station proceeded to the spot. There he saw the dead body and also received the F.I.R. from P.W. 1 and thereafter undertook investigation in usual and routine manner. That is the sum total of the prosecution case. 4. To substantiate the charge, prosecution examined as many as sixteen witnesses out of whom P. Ws.2 and 9 are the injured eye witnesses to the occurrence and P.W. 1 is the informant eye-witness to the occurrence. Besides them, P. Ws.5, 11 and 14 are also eye witnesses to the occurrence. Dr. B.K. Nayak, who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased, was examined as P.W. 4 and the Medical Officer Dr. R.G. Agrawal, who treated and granted Injury Certificate to P. Ws.2 and 9, was examined as P.W. 16. The post mortem report was marked as Ext. 5 and the Opinion Report on the sword M.O.I and the knife M.O.II was proved as Ext. 6. Similarly, the Injury Certificate of P. Ws.2 and 9 were respectively marked Exts.12/4 and 12/2. Rest of the witnesses are either the Investigating Officer (P.W.15) or witnesses who had seen the dead body being carried in the Auto Rickshaw or witnesses to different seizures made in course of the investigation besides preparation of the Inquest Report. In the above context the F.I.R. is Ext. 1 and the Inquest Report is Ext. 2, in which not only the condition of the injuries found in the dead body and the place from which it was found have been clearly mentioned but also the persons who committed that crime has also been noted. 5. While taking the plea of denial, accused persons have stated that because accused Debaraj played a key role in initiating Sessions Case No. 1 of 1991 against the eye-witnesses of this case, i.e., P. Ws.5 and 14, therefore at their instance a false case has been fabricated against them. It is also suggested to the witnesses in course of the cross-examination that it is P. Ws.5 and 14 and their supporters who committed the murder of the deceased and because of the aforesaid entity the accusation has been falsely fixed on them. It is also suggested to the witnesses in course of the cross-examination that it is P. Ws.5 and 14 and their supporters who committed the murder of the deceased and because of the aforesaid entity the accusation has been falsely fixed on them. In support of the defence, accused persons adduced only documentary evidence, i.e., the certified copy of the order sheets in G.R. Case No. 89 of 1996, Ext.A, certified copy of the judgment in Sessions Case No. 38 and 44 of 1992, ExtD, certified copy of Order Dated 08.12.1998 in Sessions Case No. 4 of 1997, Ext.E, certified copy of the F.I.R. in G.R. Case No. 350 of 1991, Ext.C and certified copy of the cause title in Criminal Appeal No. 330 of 1991, Ext.B. 6. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge recorded the findings that the accused persons admitted about homicidal death of the deceased though they took the plea that persons like P. Ws.5 and 14 committed that crime, therefore the case of homicidal death is proved. Thereafter, on appreciating the evidence of the above noted eye-witnesses, Trial Court found that prosecution has been able to prove that the deceased died due to the injuries inflicted by accused Debaraj and Hemanta by use of their respective weapons and therefore, they are the author of the injuries which resulted in homicidal death of the deceased. In that respect Learned Addl. Sessions Judge held that notwithstanding the allegations of dealing lathi blows by accused Babu in the absence of any specific injury found by the doctor, he is entitled to an acquittal from the charge u/s 302/34, I.P.C. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge also took into consideration the factor as to whether the telephonic message could be treated as F.I.R. and whether the contradictions in the evidence of the eye-witnesses are shaking credibility of the said witnesses. In that respect he recorded the findings that Ext. 1 is to be treated as F.I.R. and the contradictions which have been brought are not material particulars and therefore that does not shake credibility of the witnesses. Similarly he also took note of the submission of the defence and held that notwithstanding their relationship with the deceased, P. Ws.1, 2 and 9 are credible witnesses so also P. Ws.5, 11 and 14. Accordingly he recorded the order of conviction. Similarly he also took note of the submission of the defence and held that notwithstanding their relationship with the deceased, P. Ws.1, 2 and 9 are credible witnesses so also P. Ws.5, 11 and 14. Accordingly he recorded the order of conviction. He also recorded the finding that the evidence of P.W. 16 read with the evidence of P. Ws.2 and 9 are sufficient to prove that both the ladies suffered injuries in course of the occurrence during their attempt to interfere and intervene and therefore the injury caused to them in that manner by accused Babu and Hemanta amounts to offence u/s 323, I.P.C. Accordingly the Trial Court recorded conviction of the accused Babu and Hemanta u/s 323/34, I.P.C. 7. Though the Appellants do not challenge to the findings recorded by the Trial Court on the homicidal death of the deceased, but we note that the findings recorded in that respect by the Trial Court is inappropriate and not sufficient. We may note that paragraph-8 in the impugned judgment reflects about the findings on homicidal death. That paragraph reads P.W.8 is constable. His evidence remains unchallenged. As per his evidence he produced the wearing apparels of the deceased and the command certificate before the OlC who seized the same as per seizure list Ext. 3 and Ext. 3/1 is his signature. That shows that deceased Raghu Basantia was expired prior to the above said seizures. Ext. 2/3 is the inquest report also proves that deceased Raghu Basantia was murdered prior to 13.7.96 at 11.30 A.M. The accused persons have not taken the plea that Raghu Basantia was not murdered. On the other hand they have taken the plea that Raghu Basantia was murdered by convicts of S.C. 1/1991. Hence, prosecution has proved that Raghu Basantia is a human being and was murdered prior to 13.7.98. 8. Finding on homicidal death is to be recorded on proper analysis of evidence on record and not on the basis of concession granted by the accused. Relevant evidence for that purpose is evidence of P.W. 4. It emerges from the evidence of P.W. 4 that at 4.00 p.m. on 13.07.1996 he examined the dead body of the deceased on the basis of the Dead Body Chalan and the requisition for post-mortem examination besides identification of the dead body by the accompanying constable. Relevant evidence for that purpose is evidence of P.W. 4. It emerges from the evidence of P.W. 4 that at 4.00 p.m. on 13.07.1996 he examined the dead body of the deceased on the basis of the Dead Body Chalan and the requisition for post-mortem examination besides identification of the dead body by the accompanying constable. While noting the physical condition of the dead body, P.W. 4 stated that rigor-mortis was present both on upper and lower limbs, there was presence of stool at anus and features of bleeding from the mouth and nose and both the ears. He also noted that the eye-balls were missing and he found that there were incised wounds, i.e., cut injuries on the lower part of chin, left zeugmatic process, upper limbs and right palm besides a clean cut resulting in fracture of the skull bone, i.e., left parietal skull bone of the dimension 6" x 4 1/2" x 1/2". He also found loss of brain matter, fracture of the right parietal bone, rupture of meningle membranes of both the sides. P.W. 4 opined that all the injuries were ante-mortem in nature and the cause of death was due to combined effects of hemorrhagic and neurogenic shock produced from the injuries and that resulted instantaneous stoppage of heart and respiration due to injury and loss of brain matter. The aforesaid evidence indeed proves that the deceased suffer a homicidal death. P.W.4 further opined that on police requisition he examined the sword, M.O.-I and the knife, M.O.-II and opined that the injuries found on the dead body of the deceased are possible by those weapons. Though P.W. 4 was cross-examined relating to the medical theory on appearance and disappearance of rigor-mortis, virtually there is nothing brought out from his mouth so as to discredit his version on homicidal death of the deceased. We, thus, record the finding that because of the aforesaid evidence of P.W. 4, prosecution has been able to prove that the deceased suffered homicidal death. 9. Learned Counsel for the Appellants, at the outset, argues that P.W. 15 is guilty of suppression of facts, viz., the telephonic message on the basis of which he made station diary entry and therefore in the absence of such material Ext. 9. Learned Counsel for the Appellants, at the outset, argues that P.W. 15 is guilty of suppression of facts, viz., the telephonic message on the basis of which he made station diary entry and therefore in the absence of such material Ext. 1 cannot be regarded as F.I.R. Though some citations have been relied on in that respect, but none is applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. On the other hand Learned Standing Counsel relies on the case of Ramsizh Bavaji Jadeja v. State of Gujarat, (1994) 7 OCR (SC) 610, and Damodar v. State of Rajastan 2003 (6) Supreme 722 . In both the cases the matter under discussion before the Apex Court was relating to utility of information received over telephone and whether that can be regarded as F.I.R. or the subsequent report received by the police officer on arrival at the spot. In that respect, in the case of Ramsizh Jadeja (supra) their Lordships referred to and relied on the ratio in the cases of Soma Bhai Vs. State of Gujarat and Tapinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another. In all such cases Hon'ble Apex Court is clear enough to indicate that a mere information about an occurrence received through telephonic message without any further information relating to the accused, the manner in which the crime was committed, etc., the further details, such telephonic intimation cannot be regarded as F.I.R. and in such type of cases the written report received or the verbal report received and reduced to writing at the spot be regarded as F.I.R. In view of that authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court on the point of controversy in the present case, we find that Ext. 1 is to be accepted as F.I.R. and not the telephonic message on receipt of which merely a station diary entry was made and P.W. 15 proceeded to the spot. 10. Learned Counsel for the Appellants argues that P. Ws.5 and 14 and also P.W. 11 are hostile to the accused persons and that is made out from the documents Exts. A to E filed by the accused persons, and under such circumstance their evidence should have been discarded by the Trial Court. 10. Learned Counsel for the Appellants argues that P. Ws.5 and 14 and also P.W. 11 are hostile to the accused persons and that is made out from the documents Exts. A to E filed by the accused persons, and under such circumstance their evidence should have been discarded by the Trial Court. In the same breath Learned Counsel for the Appellants argues that P. Ws.1, 2 and 9 are admittedly the son-in-law, daughter and widow of the deceased and they being the close relatives of the deceased, all such witnesses are highly interested for the prosecution. He argues that the evidence of such interested witnesses should not have been accepted by the Trial Court. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand argues that the interestedness of P. Ws.1, 2 and 9 rather adds to their credibility so as not to allow the real culprit to go scot free and the evidence of P. Ws.5, 11 and 14 being found consistent to the aforesaid evidence, therefore, they do not lose their credibility. 11. Learned Counsel for the Appellants, in the above process, also stated that the evidences of the aforesaid eye-witnesses are contradictory and inconsistent relating to the actual dispute and the manner in which the occurrence took place. Learned Standing Counsel, in reply, refuses that criticism and states that all such evidences are consistent and corroborative with minor discrepancies which do not affect credibility of witnesses or the merit of the prosecution case. 12. The aforesaid points raised by the parties need careful consideration. Relationship with the deceased or hostileness towards the accused are indeed factors which should be taken into consideration by the Court while assessing the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and in that process the Court is to find if such witnesses are truthful. If the Court finds that they are truthful, then whether they corroborate each other on material particulars. If such witnesses are found corroborating to each other, then Court is to see whether any circumstance is available on record to render their evidence not acceptable. A screening process or filtering process in the above manner is termed as "to be considered cautiously and carefully". If such witnesses are found corroborating to each other, then Court is to see whether any circumstance is available on record to render their evidence not acceptable. A screening process or filtering process in the above manner is termed as "to be considered cautiously and carefully". Learned Counsels appearing for both the parties place the evidence one after the other on the aforesaid eye-witnesses to the occurrence and we find that such evidence does not suffer from any contradiction or any material particular relating to the description of the occurrence or the genesis thereof. P.W. 9, who lost her husband in the occurrence, P.W. 2, who lost her father, had no reason to allow the real culprits, i.e., P. Ws.5, 11 and 14 (as alleged by the defence), to go scot free and to rope in the Appellants with false accusation. There might have been a case initiated against P. Ws.5, 11 and 14, for which accused Debaraj was instrumental or performing a vital role, but the deceased and his family members being not associated with such occurrence in any manner, they could not have a motive to assist P. Ws.5, 11 and 14 to protect the real culprits and to rope in the accused persons with false evidence. The aforesaid defence plea of the accused itself appears to be improbable under the given facts and circumstances. Therefore, we do not subscribe to the idea advocated by the accused that P. Ws.5, 11 and 14 and their supporters are the author of the crime and P. Ws.1, 2 and 9 in the process of giving protection to them, joined the unholy concert to throw blemish on the accused persons. On the contrary the evidence on record clearly and clinchingly proves that it is the accused persons/Appellants who inflicted the injuries and caused the homicidal death of the deceased. The extent of revenge can be visualized from the fact that accused Hemanta used knife to uproot the eye-balls of the deceased by dealing several stab blows. Under such circumstance, we do not find any merit in the contention of the Appellants that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated or that there is contradictions in the evidence, for which they should be granted benefit of doubt. 13. Under such circumstance, we do not find any merit in the contention of the Appellants that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated or that there is contradictions in the evidence, for which they should be granted benefit of doubt. 13. As an alternative to the aforesaid argument, Learned Counsel for the Appellants in the pursuit to grant some respite to the Appellants, argues for conviction of lesser offence, i.e., culpable homicide not amounting to murder, punishable u/s 304, I.P.C. But looking to the whole facts and circumstances we do not find a case of sudden provocation and reaction at the spur of the moment in the hit of passion so as to attract any of the exceptions in Section 300, I.P.C. Under such circumstance, we also find no merit in such argument of the Appellants for altering the conviction from Section 302 to that of Section 304, I.P.C. 14. No other point is advanced by the Appellants as against the impugned order of conviction. On consideration of the entire facts and circumstances besides the evidence on record and for the reasons recorded above, we find no reason to interfere with the order of conviction. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed