JUDGMENT : P.K. Tripathy, J. - Appellants in all the four Criminal Appeals have been convicted for commission of offence under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code by the Learned Sessions Judge, Dhenkanal-Angul Dhenkanal in Sessions Trial Case No. 100-D of 1994 and sentenced to imprisonment for life. 2. All the Appellants faced trial for charge u/s 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code for committing murder of one Sudhakar Maharana to settle old score in the evening of 11.03.1994 at Siminoi bus-stand on the National Highway No. 42 situated at a distance of about 5 kMs. from Sadar Police Station, Dhenkanal. 3. Case of the prosecution is that Siminoi bazar consists of several shops on both sides of National Highway No. 42 close to Siminoi village and most of the shop-keepers are the villagers of Siminoi. Appellants and the deceased are also residents of the said village. The deceased and the Appellants were not pulling on well, since the deceased was opposing the illegal and anti-social activities of the Appellants. Such ill-feeling aggravated when the Appellants attempted to get one of their friends namely Arjuna Maharana married to the daughter of one Sesadev Maharana (P.W.8), but such proposal could not succeed and the daughter of the said Sesadev Maharana married to the nephew of the deceased. It is alleged by the prosecution that in order to settle the old score, all the Appellants decided to kill the deceased, and according to their plan, on 11.03.1994 at about 7 to 8 p.m. when the deceases was returning from the bus-stand, near a culvert the Appellants, who were waiting there, suddenly started assaulting on him with deadly weapons like sword, 'Bhujali' and 'Farsa' and because of such assault the deceased fell down near the culvert in the earthen portion of the Highway. The scream and shriek of the deceased attracted attention of few shop-keepers, and out of fear they closed down their shops and left the place. The scream and shriek of the deceased attracted attention of few shop-keepers, and out of fear they closed down their shops and left the place. Pradeep Maharana (P.W.6), a nephew of the deceased, who was returning back from the bazar and going ahead of the deceased, having heard the scream of the deceased, returned back and found the deceased lying on the side of the road with bleeding injuries on his head, hand, legs and when he rushed to the deceased, he was asked for water by the deceased, and the deceased also disclosed before him that the Appellants namely Bibhuti, Mathura, Bansi, Aparti and Pranabandhu to have assaulted him. By that time another nephew of the deceased, i.e., Antaryami (P.W.5) also arrived at the spot. Deceased also made a dying declaration before him. Thereafter the deceased was taken in a trekker to the District Headquarters Hospital, Dhenkanal, where he was declared dead. P.W. 3 is the elder brother of the deceased. At the relevant time he was in his photo studio at Gadasila at a distance of one and half kilometers from Siminoi. He was informed about the incident by his son. He came back immediately and learnt about the incident and also rushed to the hospital to see the deceased, and on the way he lodged the F.I.R. at Sadar Police Station. By the time he arrived at the hospital, the deceased had already been declared dead. Immediately after lodging the F.I.R., investigation was taken up, Appellants were arrested after passage of some time and on completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted for commission of offence u/s 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code against all the Appellants. The plea of the Appellants is one of denial. 4. In order to prove the charges, prosecution examined 13 witnesses. Out of them, P.W. 1 is the doctor, who conducted post-mortem examination of the deceased. P.W. 2 is a police constable of Sadar P.S., who guarded the dead body in the hospital and also produced the wearing apparels of the deceased before the O.I.C.P.W.3 is the elder brother of the deceased and the informant in this case. P.W. 4 is an eye-witnesses to the occurrence and P.W. 5 is a nephew of the deceased, before whom a dying declaration was made. P.W. 4 is an eye-witnesses to the occurrence and P.W. 5 is a nephew of the deceased, before whom a dying declaration was made. P.W. 6 is another nephew of the deceased, who first arrived near the deceased after the assault and gave him water. He is also a witness to a separate oral dying declaration. P.W. 7, a motorcycle mechanic, is also an eye-witness to the occurrence. P.W. 8 is Sesadev Maharana, who has stated about the atrocious activities of the Appellants and P.W. 9 is the elder brother of the deceased, who had seen the Appellants loitering on the road nearby the culvert where the occurrence took place. P.W. 10 is another witness to the occurrence and P.W. 11 is a seizure witness. P. Ws.12 and 13 are the Investigating Officers. 5. Learned Sessions Judge on analysis of the entire evidence, found that all the Appellants were moving in the bazaar together and nearby the spot, where the incident took place, few minutes before the incident. He also found that all the Appellants had absconded immediately after the occurrence and in spite of several raids at possible places, they could not be apprehended and only on 03.06.1994 all the five Appellants in a body surrendered before the Court. On analysis of the evidence of the eye-witnesses he found all the Appellants being involved in commission of the alleged offence and accordingly convicted them u/s 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 6. Mr. Manoj Mishra, Learned Counsel appearing for Appellants in Criminal Appeal Nos. 78 and 79 of 1997 and Mr. D.P. Dhal, Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants in Criminal Appeal Nos. 92 and 217 of 1997 assail the impugned judgment on the ground that the evidence of P.W. 4, an eye-witness to the occurrence cannot be accepted, he having disclosed about the incident several days after it took place. The dying declaration was also assailed by Learned Counsel for the Appellants, inter alia, on the ground of contradictions in the evidence of P. Ws.5 and 6 and no possibility of such witnesses to hear such dying declaration. It was also contended by Learned Counsel for the Appellants that presence of P.W. 5 at the spot is doubtful and the evidence of the eye-witnesses are full of contradictions. Mr. It was also contended by Learned Counsel for the Appellants that presence of P.W. 5 at the spot is doubtful and the evidence of the eye-witnesses are full of contradictions. Mr. A.K. Mishra, Learned Standing Counsel for the State, referring to the evidence of all the eye-witnesses, submitted that two of the eye-witnesses are consistent in their statements with regard to involvement of the Appellants in commission of the alleged offence. Nothing has been brought out in the cross-examination of all these witnesses to disbelieve their testimonies. It was also contended by Learned Counsel for the State that the dying declaration made before each of the nephews (P. Ws. 5 and 6) of the deceased is free from doubt and, therefore, the Trial Court rightly acted upon the same. 7. We have carefully examined the evidence adduced before the Trial Court. P.W. 1 is the doctor, who conducted post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased. He found as many as eight injuries on the body of the deceased and opined that the cause of death was due to excessive hemorrhage and injury on the vital organ like brain. He was also of the view that all the injuries were ante-mortem in nature and such injuries could be caused by any sharp-cutting weapon. In the cross-examination, he has stated that the lacerated injuries found by him are not possible by sharp cutting weapon, and from the evidence of this witness it is found that there is only one lacerated injury on the body of the deceased. One examination of the evidence of P.W. 1, it is clear that the deceased died a homicidal death. 8. In order to prove the charges, prosecution relied upon the oral dying declaration and the direct evidence of eye-witnesses. The oral dying declaration is deposed to by P. Ws.5 and 6. P.W. 5 in his deposition has stated that on 11. 03.1994 in the evening he had come to Sirpinoi bus-stand and while returning back to his home, he found the Appellants namely Panua, Bansi, Aparti, Mathura and Bibhu sitting on the culvert nearby the bus-stand. About five minutes after he reached home, he heard that the deceased had been assaulted and was lying on the road near the culvert. When he reached near the spot, he found his brother P.W. 6 giving water to the deceased. About five minutes after he reached home, he heard that the deceased had been assaulted and was lying on the road near the culvert. When he reached near the spot, he found his brother P.W. 6 giving water to the deceased. He asked the deceased as to how he received the injuries and the deceased disclosed before him that Appellants Panua, Bansi, Aparti, Mathura and Bibhu caused the injuries. We have carefully looked into the crossexamination of this witness and did not find anything to disbelieve this part of the evidence of P.W. 5. P.W. 6 is another witness to the dying declaration. He has stated in his deposition that on the date of occurrence at 7.30 p.m. when he had approached the by-lane to proceed towards his village Siminoi bazaar, he heard the voice of the deceased. When he returned back, he found the deceased lying by the side of the culvert with bleeding injuries on his head, hand and legs, and when he arrived near him, the deceased asked for water. He brought water and gave to the deceased to drink. He asked the deceased as to how he received the injuries. The deceased named the Appellants Bansi, Aparti, Mathura and Bibhuti. At that time a trekker came and P.W. 5 had also arrived. Thereafter the deceased was taken to the hospital. Nothing has been brought out in the cross- examination of this witness to disbelieve this part of the evidence of P.W. 6 so far as it relates to dying declaration. 9. It was contended by the Learned Counsel for the Appellants that P.W. 5, in his deposition, has stated that the deceased implicated all the five Appellants, whereas P.W. 6 has stated that the deceased implicated four of the Appellants. Therefore, both the witnesses should not be believed so far as oral dying declaration is concerned. We are unable to accept such contention considering the fact that four names found in the evidence of both the witnesses are common and P.W. 6 has not stated the names of Appellant Panua. If at all this is an inconsistency, such inconsistency is likely to appear when the deceased after sustaining several serious injuries was speaking the names of the assailants. 10. The prosecution also relied on the direct evidence of the eye-witnesses to the occurrence. P. Ws. 4, 7 and 10 are the eye- witnesses to the occurrence. If at all this is an inconsistency, such inconsistency is likely to appear when the deceased after sustaining several serious injuries was speaking the names of the assailants. 10. The prosecution also relied on the direct evidence of the eye-witnesses to the occurrence. P. Ws. 4, 7 and 10 are the eye- witnesses to the occurrence. P.W. 4 is a resident of Siminoi. He, in his deposition, has stated that on the date of occurrence he had come to Siminoi bus-stand to the shop of Chhabila Kumar Sahu to take Tiffin in his shop. While he was returning, he found the deceased standing near the betel shop of Srinibas Parida and smoking cigarette. While smoking cigarette and proceeding towards his village, he reached near the bridge. Appellant Matrhura caught hold of him and the other four Appellants came running from all sides and dealt blows by means of sword, 'Farsa' and 'Bhujali' to the deceased. He immediately left the place out of fear. In the cross-examination he has stated that when he came from his village to the bus-stand, he had seen four of the Appellants namely Bibhbu, Bansi, Mathura and Aparti sitting on the culvert. He has stated in cross-examination that he could not mark which of the Appellant dealt blows to which part of the body of the deceased. He has also denied the suggestion made by the defence that he was stating the names of the Appellants for the first time in Court and that earlier he had never uttered their names anywhere. 11. P.W. 7 is another eye-witness to the occurrence. This witness has got a motorcycle repairing garage at Siminoi bazaar. He has stated that while he was in his garage, he heard the voice of the deceased shouting 'MARIGALI'... 'MARIGALI'. Keeping the motorcycle, he ran in the direction from which the sound was coming and found the deceased laying dead on the roadside and also found the Appellants Bansi, Bibhu and Mathura present there. He heard the Appellant Bibhu shouting at other Appellants to run away. 'MARIGALI'. Keeping the motorcycle, he ran in the direction from which the sound was coming and found the deceased laying dead on the roadside and also found the Appellants Bansi, Bibhu and Mathura present there. He heard the Appellant Bibhu shouting at other Appellants to run away. This witness was declared hostile having not stated anything about the role of the Appellants in assaulting the deceased, and in cross-examination by the Public Prosecutor he stated that he had stated before the police during investigation that he had seen the Appellant Mathura catching hold of the deceased and Appellant Bibhu dealing a 'Farsa' blow to the head of the deceased and Appellant Bansi dealing a sword blow on the leg of the deceased. 12. P.W. 10 is the other eye-witness to the occurrence. This witness has a betel shop in Siminoi bus-stand. He was declared hostile, but in cross-examination by the Public Prosecutor he admitted that in his statement made u/s 164, Code of Criminal Procedure. before the Magistrate, he stated to have seen the Appellants Mathura, Bibhu, Banshi, Aparti and Panua rushing towards the deceased and injuring him by sword blows for which the deceased fell down on the ground. 13. On analysis of the evidence of these three eye-witnesses, we find that the evidence of P.W. 4 stands unshaken. His evidence also gets support from the evidence of P.W. 1 so far as injuries are concerned. Though P.W. 7 was declared hostile, in cross-examination by the Public Prosecutor he admitted to have stated before the police during investigation to have seen the occurrence. Even if this part of the evidence is discarded, his evidence that he had seen the Appellants Bansi, Bibhu, Mathura, Aparti and Panua at the spot immediately after the occurrence cannot be disbelieved. P.W. 10 having been declared hostile, his evidence may not be taken into consideration to the extent that in his statement u/s 164, Code of Criminal Procedure. he had implicated the Appellants as assailants of the deceased. It was contended by Learned Counsel for the Appellants that P.W. 4 should not be disbelieved having disclosed about the incident several days after it took place. The said suggestion made by the defence to this witness has been stoutly denied. he had implicated the Appellants as assailants of the deceased. It was contended by Learned Counsel for the Appellants that P.W. 4 should not be disbelieved having disclosed about the incident several days after it took place. The said suggestion made by the defence to this witness has been stoutly denied. We, therefore, hold that P.W. 4 is an eye-witness to the occurrence, as his evidence is partly corroborated by the evidence of P.W. 7 and the evidence of P.W. 1, who conducted post-mortem examination apart from getting ample corroboration from the dying declaration and vice versa. 14. So far as presence of Appellants near the spot at the time of occurrence is concerned, the evidence of P.W. 5 may be referred to. This witness has specifically stated that on the date of occurrence, in the evening while returning home he found all the five Appellants sitting on the culvert and five minutes after he reached home, he heard about the assault on the deceased. Similarly, P.W. 9 has stated to have seen the Appellants moving on the road near the culvert. 15. On analysis of the entire evidence, we find that on the date of occurrence all the Appellants were present near the culvert where the incident took place. When the deceased was returning from Siminoi market, all the Appellants assaulted him by means of different weapons, and such assault was witnessed by P.W. 4. We also find that immediately after the occurrence P. Ws.5 and 6 came to the spot and the deceased made dying declaration before each of them implicating the Appellants as his assailants and the doctor, P.W. 1, who conducted the post-mortem examination, also found several cut injuries on the body of the deceased, which could be only caused by sharp cutting weapons. 16. On analysis of such evidence, we are of the view that the prosecution has not left any room for doubt and has convincingly proved to the satisfaction of the Court that it is the Appellants, who planned murder of the deceased and executed the same on the date of occurrence and, therefore, they have been rightly convicted by the Trial Court for commission of offence u/s 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. We may note here that good number of decisions have been cited by the Appellants in support of their contention. Similarly, Learned Government Advocate relied on some citations. We may note here that good number of decisions have been cited by the Appellants in support of their contention. Similarly, Learned Government Advocate relied on some citations. It is not necessary to discuss the distinguishing facts in the present case and the citation. It is sufficient to indicate that on other aspect the ruling in the citation is distinguishable because of factual differences. In this case when the witnesses, as already noted, have been found credible and reliable, such evidence of P. Ws.1, 4, 5 and 6 are sufficient to prove the charge. 17. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the appeals. dismissed. Accordingly, all the four Criminal Appeals are dismissed. N. Prusty, J. 18. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed