Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 233 (GAU)

Sudip Alias Tultul Choudhury v. State of Tripura

2010-03-30

C.R.SARMA, I.A.ANSARI

body2010
JUDGMENT I.A. Ansari, J. 1. By Judgment and order, dated 21.7.2003, passed, in ST 49(WT/A) of 2000, by the Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala, the two appellants, namely, Sudip Choudhury @ Tultul and Ashok Dhar, stand convicted under Sections 448 and 302 read with Section 34, IPC and sentenced, for their conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC, to suffer imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs. 5,000 each and, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months. By the impugned judgment and order, the appellants also stand sentenced to suffer, for their conviction under Section 448 read with Section 34, IPC, rigorous imprisonment for six months each. Both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution's case, as unfolded at the trial, may, in brief, be described, thus: (i) On 2.10.1997, at about 05:30 p.m., when PW2 (Sibu Gan), a contingent employee under the Department of Panchayat, Government of Tripura, was standing in front of Dilip Saha's shop, situated on a road, near a hanging bridge, accused Amit Ghosh (since absconder), accused Swapan Karmakar (since approver and, now, PW11) and accused Tultul Choudhury (appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 53/2000), came in a Maruti Van, accused Amit Ghosh asked PW2 as to who had given him (PW2) the job. PW2 responded by saying that he had got the job during the then Government and that Amit Ghosh (since absconder) had tried to get him the job. At that stage, Amit Ghosh caught hold of PW2's neck and started beating him. PW2 resisted and reached the house of one Raj Kumar Pal and when PW2 was proceeding towards his house, he saw Prabhat Sarkar, Sudip alias Tultul, Ashok Dhar, Swapan Karmakar and Amit Ghosh going towards his house, all of them, except Prabhat Sarkar, holding daos in their hands. Noticing them going towards his house armed with daos in their hands, PW2 did not go home, he (PW2) took shelter in a damaged hut near his pond and, standing there, PW2 saw accused Amit Ghosh and his associates entering into the compound of PW2's house by calling his name and saying, "Where is Sibu", and, then, accused Amit Ghosh called his father. PW2's father accordingly came out to the verandah, accused Amit Ghosh struck over his head with a dao and forced him to go inside the house. PW2's father accordingly came out to the verandah, accused Amit Ghosh struck over his head with a dao and forced him to go inside the house. Accused Amit Ghosh and his associates too, then, followed PW2's father and went inside the house. (ii) PW2, then, reached, through another road, the shop of his younger brother (PW1) at Maharajganj Bazar and reported to him about the occurrence and also advised him not to go home on that night. By giving him the information about the occurrence, PW2 went to the house of one of his friends and spent the night there. (iii) On the following day (i.e., on 3-10-1997), at about 09:35 a.m., a telephonic information was received, at West Agartala Police Station, from a person, who did not disclose his identity, to the effect that one Anil Gan of Central Road Extension had been murdered in his own house and his dead body was lying in his own courtyard. Reducing this information into GD Entry No. 121, dated 3.10.1997, the Officer-in-Charge of West Agartala Police Station (PW12) reached the house of the said deceased. (iv) PW1, who too had spent the night at the house of one of his friends, came, on the following morning (i.e., 3.10.1997), to his shop and sent Ajoy Pal, owner of a neighbouring shop, to the house of PW1 to find out if there was any news from his house. Ajoy Pal came back and informed PW1 that he had seen blood at the varandah of the eastern side of PW1's house, whereupon PW1 went to his sister's house and, accompanied by his brother-in-law, came to his house and, on his arrival, PW1 found that the police and many other persons had already reached there. PW1 also found his father's dead body lying on the eastern side of the house with injuries on his body. At the place of occurrence, PW1 orally gave information as regards the occurrence. This oral information was reduced into writing and, based on this information and treating the same as First Information Report, West Agartala Police Station Case No. 210 of 1997, under Sections302/34, IPC, was registered against accused Amit Ghosh and others. At the place of occurrence, PW1 orally gave information as regards the occurrence. This oral information was reduced into writing and, based on this information and treating the same as First Information Report, West Agartala Police Station Case No. 210 of 1997, under Sections302/34, IPC, was registered against accused Amit Ghosh and others. The police held inquest over the dead body, prepared inquest report and got the post mortem examination performed on the said dead body, which revealed that Anil Gan had died due to multiple incised wounds, caused by sharp cutting weapon, such as, dao (a heavy sharp cutting weapon) and that the death was homicidal in nature, the injuries being sufficient to cause death. During investigation, accused Amit Ghosh (since absconder) and Ashok Dhar (i.e., the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 71/2003) were arrested and accused Prabhat Sarkar and Swapan Karmakar remained absconders. On completion of investigation police submitted charge sheet. 3. During trial, charges against Amit Ghosh, Prabhat Sarkar, Sudip alias Tultul, Ashok Dhar and Swapan Karmakar, were framed under Sections 448 and 302 read with Section 34, IPC. To the charges, so framed, all the accused pleaded not guilty. As accused Amit Ghosh and Swapan Karmakar absconded, the trial proceeded against Prabhat Sarkar, Sudip alias Tultul Choudhury and Ashok Dhar. In the meanwhile, accused Swapan Karmakar surrendered in the court of Sessions and remanded to custody. Swapan Karmakar, then, filed a petition stating to the effect that he was willing to become an approver; his statement was, then, recorded and he was accordingly made 'approver'. The trial, therefore, proceeded against the remaining three accused persons, namely, Prabhat Sarkar, Sudip alias Tultul Choudhury and Ashok Dhar. So far as accused Amit Ghosh is concerned, he had, as indicated hereinbefore, absconded and has remained an absconder till date. 4. In support of their case, prosecution examined altogether 14 witnesses. The accused persons, who had faced the trial, were examined under Section 313, Cr.PC and, in their examination aforementioned, they denied to have committed the offences alleged to have been committed by them, the case of the defence being that of total denial. No evidence was adduced by the defence. In support of their case, prosecution examined altogether 14 witnesses. The accused persons, who had faced the trial, were examined under Section 313, Cr.PC and, in their examination aforementioned, they denied to have committed the offences alleged to have been committed by them, the case of the defence being that of total denial. No evidence was adduced by the defence. As the learned trial court found accused Prabhat Sarkar not guilty, he was acquitted of the charges framed against him; whereas accused Sudip alias Tultul Choudhury and accused Ashok Dhar, having been found guilty of the offences under Sections 448 and 302 read with Section 302, IPC, came to be convicted accordingly and sentences were passed against them as mentioned above. Aggrieved by their conviction and the sentences, passed against them, they have preferred this appeal. 5. We have heard Mr. P.K. Biswas, learned Counsel for the appellant, namely, Sudip @ Tultul, in Crl. Appeal No. 53/2003, and Mr. S. Kar Bhowmik, learned senior Counsel, for the appellant, namely, Ashok Dhar, in Crl. Appeal No. 71 of 2003. We have also heard Mr. A Ghosh, learned Public Prosecutor. 6. According to the evidence of Dr. Pijush Kanti Das (PW5), he conducted, on 4.10.1997, post mortem examination on the dead body of Anil Gan and found the following injuries: 1. Incised sharp cut injury on the forehead 3" x 1" x skull depth. 2. Incised sharp cut injury on loft shoulder 4" x 1" x 1 1/2". 3. Incised sharp cut injury on the back of the neck 5" x 11/2" x 2". 4. Incised sharp cut injury on right forearm 4" x 2" x 2". 5. Incised sharp cut injury on both hands root of the thumb 4" x 2" x 2". 6. Superficial both thigh around knee. 7. It is in the evidence of PW5 that all the injuries were grievous in nature and death was caused due to shock and haemorrhage followed by cardio respiratory failure, the death was homicidal and that the injuries aforementioned were sufficient to cause death. It is also in the evidence of PW5 that the said injuries could have been caused by dao (a heavy sharp cutting weapon). 8. It is also in the evidence of PW5 that the said injuries could have been caused by dao (a heavy sharp cutting weapon). 8. Nothing, in particular, could be elicited by the defence to show that the findings reached by PW5 and the opinion given by him, as regards the nature of the injuries, which the said deceased had sustained, were incorrect or false. The defence has also not disputed the opinion as regards the cause of death. We too do not find anything inherently incorrect or improbable in the evidence given by PW5 with regard to the findings, which he reached, and the opinion, which he formed. 9. We have, therefore, no reason to doubt that Anil Gan died as a result of incised wounds received on his skull, on the back of his neck, etc., the said injuries being sufficient to cause death and that the injuries could have been caused by a heavy sharp cutting weapon, such as, dao. 10. Bearing in mind the medical evidence on record, we, now, come to the evidence of PW1. According to the evidence of PW1, on 2.10.1997, at about 05:30 p.m., his elder brother, Sibu Gan (PW2), came to his shop at Gol Bazar and told him that there was an attack, on him (PW2), on the bank of the river, by Amit Ghosh (since absconder) and asked him (PW1) not to go home. PW1 accordingly spent the night in the house of one of his friends and, on the following day (i.e., 3.10.1997), at about 7 a.m., he came to his shop and sent Ajoy Pal, owner of a neighbouring shop, to his (PW1's) house to obtain information. PW1 has deposed that Ajoy Pal, on his return, informed PW1 that he had seen blood at the varandah of the eastern side of the house of PW1. On receiving this information, PW1 went to the house of his sister and, accompanied by his brother-in-law, came to his (PW1's) house; but on reaching there, he found many other persons, including police officers, present there and the dead body of his father, Anil Gan, lying there with injuries. 11. Close on the heels of the evidence of PW1 is the evidence of his older brother, namely, Sibu Gan (PW2). 11. Close on the heels of the evidence of PW1 is the evidence of his older brother, namely, Sibu Gan (PW2). This witness's evidence is that on 2.10.1997, at about 05:30 p.m., when PW2 was in front of Dilip Saha's shop, situated on a road, near a hanging bridge, Amit Ghosh (since absconder), Swapan Karmakar (since approver and, now, PW11) and Tultul Choudhury (appellant in Crl. Appl. No. 53/2000) came in a Maruti Van and Amit Ghosh asked him (PW2) as to who had given him (PW2) the job, PW2 responded by saying that he had got the job during the then Government and that Amit Ghosh (since absconder) had tried to get him (PW2) the job. It is in the evidence of PW2 that at that stage. Amit Ghosh caught hold of PW2's neck and started beating him. PW2 has deposed that he resisted Amit Ghosh and, then, from the place, where he (PW2) was assaulted, he reached the house of one Raj Kumar Pal and when PW2 was proceeding towards his house, he saw Prabhat Sarkar, Sudip alias Tultul Choudhury, Ashok Dhar, Swapan Karmakar and Amit Ghosh, going towards the house of PW2, all of them, except Prabhat Sarkar, holding daos in their hands. PW2 saw, while taking shelter in a damaged hut near their pond, Amit Ghosh and others entering into PW2's house by calling him as to "Where is Sibu" and, then, called his father, PW2's father accordingly came out to the verandah, Amit Ghosh struck over his head with a dao and forced him to go inside the house and, then, Amit Ghosh and his associates entered into the house. 12. PW2 goes on to state, in his evidence, that on seeing the occurrence of assault on his father by Amit and his associates, he (PW2) came to the shop of PW1 and told him about the 'occurrence' and also advised him not to go home on that day. It is also in the evidence of PW2 that he, then, went to the house of one of his friends and did not return home on that night and, on the following morning, his relative, Narayan Dey, informed him, in front of Laxmi Narayan Bari, that PW2's father had been murdered on the previous night. 13. It is also in the evidence of PW2 that he, then, went to the house of one of his friends and did not return home on that night and, on the following morning, his relative, Narayan Dey, informed him, in front of Laxmi Narayan Bari, that PW2's father had been murdered on the previous night. 13. We may, however, hasten to point out that PW2 merely states, in his evidence, that he had told his brother (PW1) about the 'occurrence', What 'occurrence' had actually been reported by PW2 to PW1 is not really discernible from the evidence of PW2; but from the evidence of PW1, what is clear is that PW2 had merely told PW1 that Amit Ghosh had attacked PW2 on the bank of the river and advised PW1 not to go back home. 14. We may pause here to point out that when the evidence given by PW1 is considered in the light of the evidence given by the Investigating Officer (PW12), what transpires is that before PW1 could reach his house on 3.10.1997, a telephonic information was received on that day, i.e., on 3.10.1997, at 0900 a.m., at West Agartala Police Station, from a person, who did not disclose his identity, to the effect that Anil Gan of Central Road Extension had been murdered in his house and his dead body was lying in his courtyard. Having reduced this information into writing in the form of GD Entry No. 210, dated 3.10.1997, PW12 came to the house of the said deceased, he (PW12) held inquest over the said dead body and prepared inquest report and it was then that PW1 arrived there and, orally, informed PW12 alleging to the effect, inter alia, that his brother (PW2) had been to his shop on the previous night and told him that he (PW2) had exchange of blows with Amit Ghosh. PW1 also orally alleged before PW12 that at about 7 O' clock of the very evening of 2.10.1997, Amit Ghosh and others had attacked the house of PW1. How PW1 had come to know about the attack on his house was not revealed by PW1 nor did the Investigating Officer (PW12) make any enquiry, in this regard, from PW1. PW1 also orally alleged before PW12 that at about 7 O' clock of the very evening of 2.10.1997, Amit Ghosh and others had attacked the house of PW1. How PW1 had come to know about the attack on his house was not revealed by PW1 nor did the Investigating Officer (PW12) make any enquiry, in this regard, from PW1. Based on this later oral information given by PW1 to PW12, a case, as the evidence of PW12 and other materials on record reveal, was registered, on 3.10.1997, at 01:05 p.m., treating the said oral information, given by PW1, as the First Information of the case. Could this oral information, given by PW1 to PW12, be treated as First Information Report (in short, FIR) of the case? 15. The first question, therefore, which pauses itself for consideration, is: Whether an anonymous telephone call, made to the Officer-in-Charge of a police station, disclosing clearly commission of a cognizable offence can or cannot be treated as FIR? An FIR is nothing, but an information relating to commission of a cognizable offence, whether given orally or in writing, to an Officer-in-Charge of a police station. Any information, thus, whether given telephonically or otherwise, to an Officer-in-Charge of a police station, disclosing commission of a cognizable offence, is nothing but FIR. Acting on such an information, when the police machinery moves into motion in order to ascertain the truth of the information so received and/or to determine as to who has committed the offence and/or to apprehend the offender, 'investigation' commences. An information, received by the Officer-in-Charge of a police station, may remain confined to the effect that a cognizable offence has been committed. In order to be treated as the FIR, such an information may or may not disclose as to who has committed the offence. Such an information would nevertheless be the FIR so long as it discloses that cognizable offence has been committed nor is it necessary, in order to make an information an FIR, that name of the informant must have been disclosed to the Officer-in-charge of the police station concerned. 16. In the present case, the information, as regards the offence of murder having been committed by causing death of Anil Gan, at Central Road Extension, was, first, given to the Officer-in-Charge of the police station telephonically by a caller, whose identity could not be established. 16. In the present case, the information, as regards the offence of murder having been committed by causing death of Anil Gan, at Central Road Extension, was, first, given to the Officer-in-Charge of the police station telephonically by a caller, whose identity could not be established. The said information was nevertheless First Information Report. Having made entry as regards the said information, when the police, pursuant to the information so received, proceeded to the place of occurrence, namely, the courtyard of the said deceased, 'investigation', in order to determine the truth of the information, so received, and to nab the offender had already commenced. Any action, taken thereafter, by the Investigating Officer (PW12), including recording of the oral information, given by PW1 to PW12, were nothing, but various steps during the course of the investigation into the offence alleged to have been committed. Thus, the oral information, which was given by PW1 to PW12, was not, and could not have been treated as, the FIR. The FIR was the telephonic information, which the said police station had received as regard the fact that Anil Gan of Central Road Extension had been killed and his dead body was lying in his courtyard. 17. The next important question is: When an informant or the person, who informs the Officer-in-Charge of a police station as regards commission of a cognizable offence, is not examined as a witness at the trial, because of the fact that his identity is not known, whether the evidence, given by the Officer-in-Charge of the police station concerned, as to what information he had received would or would not be hearsay. It needs to be, in this regard, carefully noted that while dealing with a piece of evidence, which is regarded as hearsay, the courts must bear in mind that there is a difference between factum of an information and truthfulness/veracity of such an information. If, in a given case, the object is to merely establish that a statement was made by one person to another, it may not be hearsay; but if the object is to prove that what was started was true, then, it may become hearsay. If, in a given case, the object is to merely establish that a statement was made by one person to another, it may not be hearsay; but if the object is to prove that what was started was true, then, it may become hearsay. Thus, when 'x', an eye witness of an occurrence of murder, comes to a police station and reports the occurrence to a police officer, the evidence given by the police officer, at the trial, in the absence of the evidence given by the informant, that he was given such an information is not hearsay if the object is merely to prove that such an information was, indeed, received by the police officer; but if the object is to prove that what the police officer was reported was true, then, the police officer's evidence as to what he was reported by 'x' would be hearsay unless 'x' appears as a witness at the trial and deposes not only that he had so reported the occurrence to the police officer, but also that what he had reported was true as he had witnessed the occurrence himself. (See Bisheswar Baori @ Khetrapal v. State of Assam 2002 (2) GLT 395 :(2002) 3 GLR 378) 18. In Subramaniam v. Public Prosecutor (1956) 1 WLR 965, the Privy Council, distinguishing the factum of statement from the factum of truth, observed and held that the state of mind of a man, charged with possessing ammunition contrary to certain regulations, could be proved by what had been told to him by certain terrorists into whose hands he had come. Referring to the observations, so made by the Privy Council in Subramaniam (supra), Lord Parker, Chief Justice, in Regina v. Wills (1960) 1 WLR 55, observed, Mr. de Silva, giving the advice of the Board, said: In ruling out peremptorily the evidence of conversation between the terrorists and the appellant, the trial judge was in error. Evidence of a statement made to a witness by a person, who is not himself called as a witness, may or may not be hearsay. de Silva, giving the advice of the Board, said: In ruling out peremptorily the evidence of conversation between the terrorists and the appellant, the trial judge was in error. Evidence of a statement made to a witness by a person, who is not himself called as a witness, may or may not be hearsay. It is hearsay and inadmissible when the object of the evidence is to establish the truth of what is contained in the statement It is not hearsay and is admissible, when it is proposed to establish, by the evidence, not the truth of the statement, but the fact that it was made.The fact that the statement was made, quite apart from its truth is frequently relevant in considering the mental state and conduct thereafter of the witness or of some other person in whose presence the statement was made. (emphasis is added) In the opinion of this Court, that statement of the law is applicable to the present case. It is true that the Board were there considering the state of mind and conduct of the defendant at the time of the commission of the offence, but provided the evidence as to his state of mind and conduct is relevant, it matters not whether it was in regard to the conduct at the time of the commission of the offence or, as here, at a subsequent time, to explain his answers to the police and his conduct, when charged. Accordingly, that evidence, in the present case, was wrongly excluded." 19. Thus, the evidence, given in the present case, by PW12 (Investigating Officer) that he had received an information telephonically, at his police station, that Anil Gan of Central Road Extension had been murdered and that his dead body was lying, in his courtyard, is not wholly inadmissible in evidence in order to show as to what information PW12 had telephonically received, which prompted him to visit the place of occurrence, though the informant's identity had not been determined and the informant was not examined, By proving as to what had prompted the police machinery to move into motion, what the evidence of PW12 does is that it tells the court as to what information he had received telephonically at his police station and why and how he happened to come to the place, where Anil Gan's dead body was found lying. To the extent, therefore, as to what PW12 had been told on telephone or to the extent as to what information PW12 had telephonically received at his police station, the evidence, given by PW12, is not inadmissible evidence even though the caller remains unidentified till date. With the limited use of the evidence given by PW12, what is proved, in the absence of examination of the person, who had made the said telephone call, is the factum of information, namely, as to what information PW12 had telephonically received. It does not, however, prove that the information, which PW12 had received, was true. If the factum of truth of the information so given is required to be determined by the court, then, the evidence given by PW12, as to what he had been told, telephonically, by the caller, would be hearsay and inadmissible evidence. The court has to, therefore, remain alive at the trial as to when a statement, attributed to any person, who is not examined as a witness, can be brought on record as a factum of statement made and not as proof of the truth of the statement made. 20. Thus, the evidence, given by PW12, as to what he had been told by the telephone caller is, in the absence of the evidence of the caller, not inadmissible if the court has to rely on the evidence of PW12 to hold that PW12 had received a telephone call to the effect that Anil Gan had been murdered. But the information, that Anil Gan had been murdered as aforesaid, is quite different from the question as to whether Anil Gan had, as a matter of fact, been murdered or not. When the information, so received by PW12, made the police machinery move into motion and in order to ascertain the truth and also to investigate as to who was the offender, when the police proceeded from the said police station, arrived at the place of occurrence, examined the dead body of Anil Gan and held inquest thereon, investigation into the case must be held to have already commenced. Any information given thereafter, whether in writing or orally, to PW12 by PW1, as regards the occurrence, was nothing, but his (PW1's) statement made to the police during investigation and such a statement stands on the same footing as does a statement of a witness under Section 161, Cr.PC. Any information given thereafter, whether in writing or orally, to PW12 by PW1, as regards the occurrence, was nothing, but his (PW1's) statement made to the police during investigation and such a statement stands on the same footing as does a statement of a witness under Section 161, Cr.PC. Such a statement is not substantive evidence nor can it be treated, or could have been treated, as FIR. 21. It is, now, important to note that when the evidence of PW1 is considered in the light of the evidence of the Investigating Officer (PW12), what transpires is that on 2.10.1997, at about 5:30 p.m., PW2 came to the shop of PW1 and informed PW1 that PW2 had been attacked by Amit Ghosh (since absconder) on the bank of the river and advised PW1 not to go home, whereupon PW1 spent the night at the house of one of his friends and, on the following day, on receiving the information from the owner of a neighbouring shop, as indicated above, that blood was seen at the varandah of the eastern side of the house of PW1, PW1, accompanied by his brother-in-law, proceeded towards his house, but before he could reach his house, the police had already arrived there pursuant to the telephonic information as mentioned above and, at the said house, Anil Gan's dead body was found lying. In his cross-examination, PW1 has also clarified that it was only in the hospital that he learnt from his elder brother (PW2) about the details of the occurrence. 22. What is important to note, now, is that neither PW2, as the evidence on record discloses, nor PW1 lodged any information, with the police, on the night of 2.10.1997 nor did they inform anyone else about the assault on PW2 and/or about the attack on their house. 23. 22. What is important to note, now, is that neither PW2, as the evidence on record discloses, nor PW1 lodged any information, with the police, on the night of 2.10.1997 nor did they inform anyone else about the assault on PW2 and/or about the attack on their house. 23. What is clear from the evidence of PW1 is that on 2.10.1997, at about 5:30 p.m., though PW2 reported to him (PW1) that there had been an attack on him by Amit Ghosh, PW2 never told PW1 that PW2 had seen Amit Ghosh, accompanied by others and armed with daos, going to the house of PWs 1 and 2 and/or that PW2 had heard Amit Ghosh calling PW2 by name or PW2 had seen the said deceased coming out of the house and/or Amit Ghosh giving a blow with a dao on the head of Anil Gan (i.e., the deceased) and, then, Amit Ghosh pushing the deceased to his house and/or Amit Ghosh and his associates going inside the house following the deceased. Had PW2 really seen the occurrence, which, according to him, had taken place in front of his house, there is absolutely no reason for him not to report the incident to, at least, his brother (PW1) if not to the police. 24. The only reasonable explanation for omission, on the part of PW2 to report to PW1 about PW2 having been a witness to the alleged assault on their father, Anil Gan, can be (and we have no reason not to infer), that PW2 had not witnessed accused Amit Ghosh and his associates assaulting the said deceased and/or the said deceased being pushed into his house. It is, to our mind, quite possible that PW2 did not go to his house apprehending danger to his life and he had, therefore, not even seen Amit Ghosh and his associates going towards his house, but apprehending nevertheless that they might attack his house and/or cause physical harm to the members of his family, he told his brother (PW1) that Amit Ghosh had attacked him (PW2) and advised his brother (PW1) not to return home. At any rate, the evidence of PW1, that he had seen the accused aforementioned going to his house, calling him (PW2) by name, coming out of his house by his father (i.e., the deceased), accused Amit Ghosh striking blow with dao on the head of the deceased, and the deceased being pushed into his (PW2's) house and accused Amit Ghosh, along with his associates, entering into the house, cannot be believed. This does not mean, we must hasten to add, that the entire evidence of PW2, particularly, as regards the assault on him, at the hands of the accused, Amit Ghosh, can also be discarded as untrue or unreliable. 25. What is, now, relevant to note is that in his cross-examination, PW2 has admitted that he had not stated before the police that he had seen Sudip alias Tultul Choudhury (i.e., appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 53/2000) going towards the house of PW2 with a dao in his hand nor did he state before the police that he (PW2) had taken shelter in the damaged hut, situated near the pond of his house. PW2 has also admitted that he has not stated before the police that he had seen accused Sudip alias Tultul Choudhury entering into the eastern side of his house along with others with dao in his hand. In fact, PW2 admits that he did not mention the name of accused Sudip alias Tultul Choudhury at all in his statement made before the police. 26. In his cross-examination, PW2 has further admitted that in his previous statements, made to the police or before the Magistrate, he had not mentioned the name of accused Prabhat Sarkar too, though Prabhat Sarkar was known to him. 27. From the cross-examination of PW2, what clearly transpires is that PW2 has made substantial improvement on his previous statements by naming, in his evidence, accused Sudip alias Tultul Choudhury as well as accused Prabhat Sarkar as persons involved in the occurrence of assault on his father, though the names of these two persons were never mentioned by him (PW2) to the police, when the alleged occurrence was fresh in his mind. This apart, it is also abundantly clear that had PW2 really witnessed any of the accused aforementioned going to the house of PW2 and/or accused Amit Ghosh assaulting PW2's father with a dao on his head and/or the accused aforementioned pushing PW2's father into his house, there was no reason for him not to have informed, if not to police, at least, his younger brother (PW1), about the assault on their father, particularly, when PW2 claims to have gone to, and met, PW1 after the alleged assault on his father had already been seen by him (PW2); whereas what PW2 had told PW1 was merely that PW2 had been attacked by Amit Ghosh on the bank of the river. 28. What, thus, becomes transparent from a close examination of the evidence of PW2, in the light of the evidence of PW1, is that PW2 had, on having been allegedly attacked by Amit Ghosh and his associates aforementioned, ran away and, instead of going towards his own house, went to hit; brother's shop apprehending that Amit Ghosh might look for him and attack him and, therefore, cautioned PW1, by informing PW1, that he (PW2) had been attacked by Amit Ghosh on the bank of the river and asked PW1 not to go home on that night. This apart, Sudip alias Tultul Choudhury's name had never been mentioned by PW2 before the police and/or before PW1. Thus, as against the appellant, Sudip alias Tultul Choudhury, the evidence given by PW2, cannot be safely believed. Whether there is any other evidence, on record, as against the appellant, Sudip alias Tultul Choudhury, is a question, which we would answer shortly. 29. Thus, as against the appellant, Sudip alias Tultul Choudhury, the evidence given by PW2, cannot be safely believed. Whether there is any other evidence, on record, as against the appellant, Sudip alias Tultul Choudhury, is a question, which we would answer shortly. 29. Coupled with the above, we must also point out that, in the case at hand, in the light of the evidence of the Investigating Officer (PW12), read with the evidence of PW1, that it was on the basis of a telephonic information, received by PW12, at the said police station, to the effect that Anil Gan of Central Road Extension had been murdered in his house and his dead body was lying in his courtyard, made an entry, in this regard, in the General Diary, and came to the house of the said deceased, where he held inquest over the said dead body and prepared inquest report, and, it was then, that PW1 arrived at his house and, orally, informed PW12 to the effect, inter alia, that his brother (PW2) had been to his shop on the previous night and told him that he (PW2) had exchange of blows with Amit Ghosh and that at about 7 O'clock of the very evening of 2.10.1997, Amit Ghosh and others had attacked the house of PW1 and, reducing this oral information into writing, the case, at hand, was registered treating the said oral information, lodged by PW1, at the place of occurrence, with the Investigating Officer (PW12), as First Information Report. If the sequence of events is clearly borne in mind, there is no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that it was on the basis of a telephonic information, which PW12 had received, that the investigation, in the present case, had commenced inasmuch as PW12, having made, on the basis of the said telephonic information, an entry, in this regard, in the General Diary, came to the place of occurrence and, it was at the place of occurrence that PW1 lodged the oral information, which stands reduced to writing and registered as First Information Report. Though the caller, who had made the telephone call to the said police station, had not disclosed his identity, the fact remains that the information, so received, was cogent inasmuch as the information was that Anil Gan of the Central Road Extension had been murdered. Though the caller, who had made the telephone call to the said police station, had not disclosed his identity, the fact remains that the information, so received, was cogent inasmuch as the information was that Anil Gan of the Central Road Extension had been murdered. Thus, the telephonic information disclosed commission of cognizable offence and, though this information has not been registered and treated as First Information Report, it is this telephonic information, which is, in law, the First Information Report of the case at hand, and it is based on this information that the police investigation commenced; and it was during the course of this investigation that the oral information was lodged by PW1, at the place of occurrence, as mentioned hereinbefore. The information, which PW1 so gave to PW12 (Investigating Officer), is nothing, but a statement made by PW1 to the police (PW12) during the investigation of the case inasmuch as the investigation had already started on the basis of the telephonic information, as aforesaid, and the machinery of law had been set into motion. The oral information, which PW1 so lodged with PW12, is nothing, but a statement made under Section161, Cr.PC; and this oral information could not have been treated, and ought not to have been treated as First Information Report of the case. Be that as it may, the First Information Report, at the case at hand, is to the effect that Anil Gan had been murdered, at his house, at Central Road Extension area. The names of the assailants were, however, not disclosed in the First Information Report. 30. We, now, come to the evidence of PW3 (Shri Sanjoy Paul); but before we discuss his evidence, we need to point out that in his cross-examination, PW1 has clarified that the distance between the house of Amit Ghosh (since absconder) and the lane, known as Karmakar Gali, where the house of the said deceased stood situated, is about 10/15 cubits and at the end of Karmakar Gali, there is a small path, which proceeds towards the house of the deceased. PW1 has also clarified that his father used to stay on the eastern side of their homestead land, which had CI Sheet roofing and bamboo fencing, PW2 used to stay on the western side of the house and, on the northern side, there was a tenant with his family, the tenant's name being Tapan Saha. PW1 has also clarified that his father used to stay on the eastern side of their homestead land, which had CI Sheet roofing and bamboo fencing, PW2 used to stay on the western side of the house and, on the northern side, there was a tenant with his family, the tenant's name being Tapan Saha. In his cross-examination, PW1 has also clarified that during the time of the occurrence, apart from his father, i.e., the deceased, his elder brother (PW2) and two sisters used to stay in the said house. Whether the said two sisters of PW1 and/or their said tenant were or were not present, at the place of occurrence, at the time, when the occurrence took place, is not, however, discernible from the evidence on record. 31. Be that as it may, what needs to be pointed out is that according to the evidence of PW3, his house is at Karmakar Gali, where, according to the evidence of PW1, the house of the deceased was also situated, and PW3's house is on the western side of the said Karmakar Gali, there being one house between PW3's house and the house of the deceased. 32. In the background of the fact as to what the location of the house of PW3 is, when we examine the evidence of PW3, we notice that according to his evidence, on 2.10.1997, at about 06:30/7:00 p.m., while he was going towards Gul Bazar, from his house, he saw Sudip alias Tultul Choudhury, Swapan Karmakar (since approver and, now, PW11), Ashok Dhar and Amit Ghosh, entering into their Gali (i.e., Karmakar Palli), and, at that time, he also noticed a dao in the hand of Amit Ghosh, but he did not notice what was there in others' hands. It is in the evidence of PW3 that out of fear, he left towards Gul Bazar and returned home at about 9 p.m. and, on the following morning, he heard alarm from the house of Anil Gan (that is, the deceased) and, on going there, he found Anil Can's dead body with injuries lying in the courtyard. 33. In his cross-examination, PW3 has claimed that he, in his statement before the police, gave the name of Sudip alias Tultul Choudhury. The learned trial court has recorded that the name of Sudip alias Tultul Choudhury was not found in the previous Statement of PW3. 33. In his cross-examination, PW3 has claimed that he, in his statement before the police, gave the name of Sudip alias Tultul Choudhury. The learned trial court has recorded that the name of Sudip alias Tultul Choudhury was not found in the previous Statement of PW3. The approach, adopted by the learned trial court for obtaining proof of the omission that Sudip alias Tultul Choudhury's name had not been mentioned by PW3 to the police, was wholly incorrect inasmuch as the learned trial Court ought to have recorded the assertion of PW3 that in his previous statement, made to the police, he did mention the name of Sudip alias Tultul Choudhury. Whether, as a matter of fact, he had named Sudip alias Tultul Choudhury or not was a question to be ascertained and proved by enquiring from the Investigating Officer, on his appearance at the trial, as to whether PW3 had or had not named accused Tultul Choudhury, in his previous statement made before the police and it was, then, for the Investigating Officer to say as to whether such a statement, as had been asserted by PW3, was, in fact, made or not. If the Investigating Officer proved that no such statement was made by PW3, it was, then, only possible for the court to take the view that no such statement, as claimed to have been made by PW3 before the police, had actually been made by PW3 to the police. No such procedure was followed in the present case. What the learned trial court did was to go through the case diary and, then, make a note, in writing, while recording the evidence of PW3, that on examination of the case diary, no such statement was found to have been made. The maintenance of the case diary, it needs to be borne in mind, is the responsibility of the Investigating Officer and, in the absence of the Investigating Officer's assertion that the statement, which PW3 claims to have made to the police, was not made, the learned trial court could not have inferred (without ascertaining from PW12, as to whether such a statement, as claimed by PW3, had or had not been actually made) that no such statement, as claimed by PW3, was made. Be that as it may, what, at the worst, the evidence of PW3 shows is that he had not named, in his previous statement, accused Sudip alias Tultul Choudhury as one of the persons, whom he had seen with accused Amit Ghosh (since absconder) entering into the lane, known as Karmakar Gali, wherein the house of the deceased was situated. 34. We may point out that though a suggestion was offered to PW3 that on 2.10.1997, there was load-shedding in their area, this, suggestion was denied by PW3 and has remained as a mere suggestion inasmuch as this suggestion has not been proved and/or even probabilised by eliciting any further evidence from PW3 or from the examination of any other witnesses to the effect that at around the time of occurrence, there" was load shedding of the electricity in the said area. In fact, there is no evidence on the record to show that on 2.10.1997, there was load-shedding in the area, where the house of the deceased was located. A suggestion, which is not admitted and/or, otherwise, proved or probabilised by the defence, can be given no credence at all. Except offering some suggestions to PW3, there was virtually no pointed cross-examination of PW3, except on behalf of accused Sudip alias Tultul Choudhury, to show that what PW3 had deposed was untrue or false. 35. What, therefore, follows from the above discussion is that the evidence given by PW3 to the extent that he had seen accused Swapan Karmakar (since approver and, now, PW11), Ashok Dhar (appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 71/2003) and Amit Ghosh (since absconder), entering into the lane known as Karmakar Gali, and Amit Ghosh was, at that time, holding a dao in his hand, has remained unshaken. It is also of immense importance to not that PW3 has deposed that on seeing the persons aforementioned entering into the lane and accused Amit Ghosh, holding a dao in his hand, he, out of fear, left for Gul Bazar. The expression, 'out of fear', which PW3 uses, very clearly conveys that the manner of the persons, who were entering into the lane, was not normal inasmuch as a person will not apprehend danger and will have no reason to feel frightened by merely seeing another person moving into his lane with a dao in his hand. 36. The expression, 'out of fear', which PW3 uses, very clearly conveys that the manner of the persons, who were entering into the lane, was not normal inasmuch as a person will not apprehend danger and will have no reason to feel frightened by merely seeing another person moving into his lane with a dao in his hand. 36. In the light of the above unshaken evidence of PW3 that he had seen Swapan Karmakar, Ashok Dhar and Amit Ghosh, entering into their land, Amit Ghosh holding a dao in his hand, when we turn to the evidence of PW7, namely, Brajanath Saha, what we find is that according to his evidence, his shop is on the left side of the Central Road Extension and in front of his shop, the main road exists. We may hasten to point out, at this stage, that according to the evidence of the Investigating Officer (PW12), the telephonic information received, on 3.10.1997, at 09:30 a.m., at West Agartala Police Station, was to the effect that Anil Gan (i.e., the deceased), of Central Road Extension had been murdered in his own house. It is, thus, clear that the shop of PW7 is, undisputedly, on the Central Road Extension and the house of the said deceased was located, inside the lane known as Karmakar Gali, near the said shop of PW7. The further evidence of PW7 is that from his shop, the distance of hanging bridge is about 500 cubits and the house of the deceased Anil Gan is, on the right side of the main road, at a distance of about 700 cubits from his shop and that since his birth, he has been residing in that area, his house being on the back side of the shop. 37. 37. As regards the occurrence, PW7 has deposed that on 2.10.1997, at about 05:30 p.m., when he was in his shop, he saw Amit Ghosh, Swapan Karmakar (since approver and, now, PW11) along with three/four others, not known to him, passing from in front of his shop from the direction of the hanging bridge towards the house of Amit Ghosh and after some time, he saw Amit Ghosh, Swapan Karmakar aforementioned and 3/4 others passing through his shop towards south, Amit Ghosh having a dao in his hand, and, at about 7/7:30 p.m., on that very day, he, again, noticed them returning from the southern side with a dao. It is in the evidence of PW7 that he also noticed that Amit's shirt had some blood like stains and that Amit and his associates went towards the house of Amit Ghosh. It is also in the evidence of PW7 that out of fear, he closed his shop and went home and, on the next day, he heard that Anil Gan had been murdered. 38. If the evidence of PW7 is considered in the light of the evidence, which PW2 has given, as regards the assault on him (PW2) at the hands of Amit Ghosh, on the bank of the river, it becomes clear that according to the evidence of PW7, Amit Ghosh and Swapan Karmakar along with 3/4 others were seen by PW7 coming from the direction of the bridge and proceeding towards the house of Amit Ghosh and on that very day, after some time, they were seen by PW7 going towards the southern direction with Amit holding a dao in his hand, and at about 7/7:30 pm, on that very day, returning from the southern side and that Amit's shirt had, at that time, stains like blood and, out of fear, PW7 closed the shop and went home. 39. PW7 was almost left untouched by cross-examination and except eliciting from him that it was after two months of the occurrence that police had recorded his statement, PW7 was not cross-examined at all. In fact, it was not even suggested to PW7, or was denied by the defence, while cross-examining PW7, that his evidence as to what he had seen, though recorded after two months of the occurrence, was false or untrue. 40. In fact, it was not even suggested to PW7, or was denied by the defence, while cross-examining PW7, that his evidence as to what he had seen, though recorded after two months of the occurrence, was false or untrue. 40. Ordinarily, when a witness of fact is examined after a gap of two months of the alleged day of occurrence, the prosecution is required to explain the reason(s) as to the failure or omission on the part of the investigating agency to examine the witness immediately after the occurrence had taken place and/or as to why his statement was recorded after such a lapse of time. However, merely because of the fact that a witness's statement has been recorded by the police after two months of the occurrence, such a witness's evidence cannot be thrown away, particularly, when the defence did not make any effort to; elicit from PW7 or from the Investigating Officer as to why PW7 was so belatedly examined. This apart, and above all, in the face of the fact that the defence has not even denied, while cross-examining PW7, that his evidence, given in the court, is untrue or false, it is legally not possible for this Court, in this appeal, to reject the evidence of merely because PW7 was examined by the Investigating Officer' after about two months of the occurrence and what transpires from this witness's unshaken evidence is that this witness's evidence lends credence to the evidence, given by PW2, that there was an assault on him by Amit Ghosh on the bank of the river and, at that time, Amit Ghosh was accompanied by Swapan Karmakar and others and PW7's evidence also shows that Amit Ghosh, accompanied by Swapan Karmakar (since approver and, now, PW11) coming from the direction of the river at about 05:30 p.m. and proceeding towards his (Amit Ghosh's) house and, particularly, when PW7 saw, thereafter, according to the undisputed evidence of PW7, Amit Ghosh, Swapan Karmakar and 3/4 others going towards the south, Amit Ghosh holding a dao in his hand and when they were seen returning, at about 7/7:30 pm, PW7 noticed some blood like stains at Amit's shirt. The evidence, so given by PW7, when considered in the light of the evidence of PW3, what becomes clear is that at around 6:30/7 p.m., as deposed to by PW3, Amit Ghosh, Swapan Karmakar, Ashok Dhar and Tultul Choudhury, were seen by him entering into the lane, where the house of the said deceased was located, and there demeanor was so frightening that PW3, out of fear, simply kept proceeding for Gul Bazar. 41. We, now, come to the evidence of PW11 (Shri Swapan Karmakar), who, while facing the trial as one of the accused in the present case, applied, on 29.8.2002, seeking to be an approver. The application having been made from the Central Jail, the statement of PW11, as an approver in this case, was accordingly recorded, on 12.9.2002, under Section 306 read with Section 307, Cr.P.C., wherein he described the occurrence in which Anil Gan had been killed. In his evidence, PW11 has deposed that as he was involved in the killing of Anil Ghosh and as his conscious was biting him, he has decided to speak the truth. 42. Before delving deep into the evidence of PW11, we may point out that it is the case of the prosecution that approver (PW11) was one of the persons, who was involved in commission of the offence of murder by intentionally putting to death Anil Gan. 43. The obvious purpose of tendering pardon to an accused is to get full and true disclosure of whole of the circumstances within his knowledge so that the facts and circumstances, surrounding commission of an offence, become known to the prosecution and be disclosed to the court for the purpose of securing conviction of the remaining accused, who may be facing trial. 44. As regards evidentiary value of an approver's evidence or the evidence of an accomplice, who may turn into an approver, it needs to be pointed out that Section 133 of the Evidence Act provides: 133. Accomplice. -An accomplice shall be a competent witness against an accused person; and a conviction is not illegal merely because it proceeds upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice. 45. Accomplice. -An accomplice shall be a competent witness against an accused person; and a conviction is not illegal merely because it proceeds upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice. 45. From a bare reading of what Section 133 contains, it becomes clear that, apart from the fact that an accomplice is a competent witness against an accused, the conviction of an accused is not wholly illegal merely on the ground that the conviction proceeds on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice. This rule of evidence is the rule of law. The rule of practice is, however, the rule of prudence. The rule of prudence demands otherwise and this rule of prudence has become the rule of practice. The rule of practice is based on illustration (b) to Section 144 of the Evidence Act, which is complementary to Section 133 and provides as under: (b) the court may presume that an accomplish is unworthy of credit, unless he is corroborated in material particulars. 46. The combined effect of the provisions, contained in Section 133 coupled with what the illustration (b) to Section 144 states, is that though conviction on the sole testimony of an accomplice is not illegal, a court shall not, as a matter of practice, accept the evidence of an accomplice without corroboration in material particulars. The rule, illustrated under Clause (b) of Section 114, is a rule of prudence rather than a statutory inhibition and it has to be applied, whenever a situation, similar to those indicated therein, arises for consideration. The power, under Section 114 to draw presumption, is always discretionary, for, it is possible to conceive of a case, where the court might consider it unnecessary to require corroboration of what an accomplice has stated, though such an occasion may be rare. 47. While dealing with the effect of the evidence of an accomplice, the Supreme Court, in Ram Narain v. State of Rajasthan (1973) 3 SCC 805 , observed and laid down as follows: Section 133 expressly provides that an accomplice is a competent witness and the conviction is not illegal merely because it proceeds on uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice. In other words, this section renders admissible such uncorroborated testimony. But this section has to be read along with illustration (b) to Section 114. In other words, this section renders admissible such uncorroborated testimony. But this section has to be read along with illustration (b) to Section 114. The latter section empowers the court to presume the existence of certain facts and the illustrations elucidate what the court may presume and make clear by means of examples as to what facts the court shall have regard in considering whether or not the maxims illustrated apply to a given case before it. Illustration (b), in express terms, says that an accomplice is unworthy of credit unless he is corroborated in material particulars. The statute permits the conviction of an accused person on the basis of uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice; but the rule of prudence embodied in illustration (b) of Section 114 strikes a note of warning cautioning the court that an accomplice does not generally deserve to be believed unless corroborated in material particulars. In other words, the rule is that the necessity of corroboration as a matter of prudence except when it is safe to dispense with such corroboration must be clearly present to the mind of the Judge. (emphasis is supplied) 48. In Ravinder Singh v. State of Haryana (1975) 3 SCC 742 , the Supreme Court while considering the approved testimony, within the meaning of Section 133 of the Evidence Act, made the following observations: An approver is a most unworthy friend, if at all, and he, having bargained for his immunity, must prove his worthiness for credibility in court. This test is fulfilled, firstly, if the story he relates involves him in the crime and appears intrinsically to be a natural and probable catalogue of events that had taken place. The story if given of minute details according with reality is likely to save it from being rejected brevi manu. Secondly, once that hurdle is crossed, the story given by an approver so far as the accused on trial is concerned, must implicate him in such a manner as to give rise to a conclusion of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. In a rare case, taking into consideration all the factors, circumstances and situations governing a particular case, conviction based on the uncorroborated evidence of an approver confidently held to be true and reliable by the court may be permissible. In a rare case, taking into consideration all the factors, circumstances and situations governing a particular case, conviction based on the uncorroborated evidence of an approver confidently held to be true and reliable by the court may be permissible. Ordinarily, however, an approver's statement has to be corroborated in material particulars bridging, closely the distance between the crime and the criminal. Certain clinching features of involvement disclosed by an approver appertaining directly to an accused, if reliable, as determined by the touch stone of other independent credible evidence, would give the needed assurance for acceptance of his testimony on which a conviction may be based. (emphasis added) 49. For corroborative evidence the court must look at the broad spectrum of the approver's version and then find out whether there is other evidence to corroborate and lend assurance to that version. The nature and extent of such corroboration may depend upon the facts of different cases. Corroboration need not be in the form of ocular testimony of witnesses and may even be in the form of circumstantial evidence. Corroborative evidence must be independent and not vague or unreliable. [See Narayan Chetanram Chaudhury v. State of Maharashtra (2000) 8 SCC 457 ]. Relying upon its earlier judgment, in Suresh Chandra Bahri's case (supra), the Supreme Court, in Niranjan Singh v. State of Punjab (1996) 9 SCC 98 , held that once the evidence of the approver is held to be trustworthy, it must be shown that the story, given by approver, so far as an accused is concerned, must implicate him in such a manner as to give rise to a conclusion of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Insistence upon corroboration is based on the rule of caution and not merely a rule of law. 50. As regards the occurrence, PW11 has deposed that he is a permanent resident of Central Road Extension and accused Amit Ghosh (since absconder), Tultul Choudhury (appellant in Crl. Appl. No. 53/2000) and Ashok Dhar (appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 71/2000) were his close friends and they were in visiting term to him. PW11 has also deposed that Anil Gan was known to him and that the said deceased used to reside at Karmakar Gali and he was murdered, on 2.10.1997, at about 7:00 p.m. 51. Appl. No. 53/2000) and Ashok Dhar (appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 71/2000) were his close friends and they were in visiting term to him. PW11 has also deposed that Anil Gan was known to him and that the said deceased used to reside at Karmakar Gali and he was murdered, on 2.10.1997, at about 7:00 p.m. 51. Describing the occurrence, PW11 has deposed that on 2.10.1997, at about 5/5:10 p.m., he went to Mahishkhala Auto Stand, where Amit Ghosh and Tultul Choudhury came, in a white maruti van, in drunken condition and called him and when PW11 went to them, Amit told him (PW11) to come with them to the river side, whereupon they all took seats in the said Maruti Van and went to the river side and when they came down from the van near the hanging bridge, they saw Sibu Gan (PW1) standing in front of a shop there, Amit called Sibu (PW2) and at that time, accused Ashok Dhar was behind Sibu (PW2), PW11 has also deposed that Amit asked Sibu (PW2) as to who had given him the job and Sibu (PW2) responded by replying that the job was given to him by coalition Government, whereupon Amit scolded Sibu (PW2) and told him, "I have given you the job". It is in the evidence of PW11 that Amit slapped Sibu (PW2) and Sibu (PW2) reacted by giving a fist blow to Amit, Amit fell down and Sibu (PW2) fled away towards his house. Getting up from the ground, according to what PW11 has deposed, Amit told his companions, that since Sibu (PW2) had assaulted him, he would not spare Sibu (PW2) and told his companion to follow him. It is also in the evidence of PW11 that when Sibu and Amit were scuffling, accused Ashok Dhar and Prabhat Sarkar were standing near them. 52. PW11 goes on to depose that they all followed Amit to his (accused Amit's) house and, while they all were waiting there for Amit, Amit came out with four daos and gave them one each and told them to accompany him to the house of Sibu. It is in the evidence of PW11 that they all followed, on foot, Amit Ghosh towards the house of Sibu. It is in the evidence of PW11 that they all followed, on foot, Amit Ghosh towards the house of Sibu. It is also in the evidence of PW11 that the said deceased, Anil Gan, was sitting at the verandah of the eastern part of his house and on that day, it was 6:45 p.m. It is also in the evidence of PW 11 that accused Amit asked the said deceased as to where Sibu (PW2) was and the said deceased replied by saying that he was not aware as to where PW2 was; but Amit rebuked PW2's father and told that since Sibu was not found, he would be killed and gave a blow with dao on Anil Gan. Anil Gan, then, went inside his house and Amit followed him, but the remaining three accused persons remained standing in the front of the door so that Anil Gan could not come out from the room. PW11 has deposed that at that time, Ashok Dhar told them that if anybody comes from the room, he would be killed. PW 11 has also deposed that accused Amit gave several blows with dao on Anil Gan and, then, Amit Ghosh came out with the dao and told his associates that Anil Gan had been finished and asked all his associates to come to his (Amit Ghosh's) house. PW11 further deposed that they all, then, accompanied Amit, went to his house with their daos. It is in the evidence of PW 11 that the dao, which Amit was holding in his hand, had blood stains and Amit washed the said dao by his tank's water and, then, Amit brought a gunny bag from his house and put all the four daos in that bag. The further evidence of PW11 is that he, then, told Amit that he (PW11) would leave and he accordingly left Amit's house and went to his aunt's house, at Kamalghat, leaving behind Tultul and Ashok. It is also in the evidence of PW11 that it was about 7:30 pm, when he left Amit's house. 53. While cross-examining PW11, some omissions have been pointed out by the defence between the evidence of PW11 given in the court and his statement recorded on 12.9.2002. It is also in the evidence of PW11 that it was about 7:30 pm, when he left Amit's house. 53. While cross-examining PW11, some omissions have been pointed out by the defence between the evidence of PW11 given in the court and his statement recorded on 12.9.2002. It has been elicited by the defence, in this regard, that in his previous statement, PW11 had named accused Tultul as Subrata Choudhury, he had not mentioned, in his said statement, that during 1997, he was a permanent resident of Central Road Extension, he had also not stated, in his said statement, that the accused persons were his friends and they used to visit his house and that he was on visiting terms to them and/or Sibu was standing in front of a shop, when they reached near the hanging bridge. 54. Considering the fact that the name of accused Tultul is Sudip Choudhury and PW11 had, indeed, mentioned the name of Tultul, in his previous statement and also the fact that PW11 was, undisputedly, a permanent resident of Central Road Extension at the time of occurrence and/or that PW 11 was, admittedly, on friendly terms with the other accused aforementioned, the omissions, which have been pointed out by the defence, between the evidence of PW11 and his previous statements, on this aspect, are not really such as would render PW11 an inherently unreliable witness. 55. Coupled with the above, when the unshaken evidence given by PW2 is to the effect that he (PW2) was in front of a shop, when Amit Ghosh and his associates had arrived there, the omission of PW11 to state, in his previous statement, that that PW2 was standing in front of a shop, when he (PW11), Amit Ghosh, and others aforementioned reached near the hanging bride, can be attributed no importance at all. This apart, the evidence given by PW11 that on 2.10.1997, at about 5 p.m., while he was standing at Mahishkhala Auto Stand, Amit and Tultul came in a Maruti Van, in a drunken state, too, stands substantially corroborated by the evidence of PW2, who too has clearly deposed that Amit had come to him near the shop on the bank of the river in a Maruti Van accompanied by Sudip, PW11 and others. As far as the remaining part of the cross-examination of PW11 is concerned, the cross-examination consisted of nothing except offering some suggestions to PW11, which PW11 denied. In such circumstances, the evidence of PW11 cannot be ignored nor can his evidence be easily brushed aside. 56. Coupled with the above, and as already pointed out above, though the evidence of PW2 cannot be treated as an evidence of a wholly reliable witness, the fact remains that even if we do not treat the evidence of PW2 as evidence of a wholly reliable witness, the fact remains that he (PW2) cannot be treated, in the light of the discussion, which we have already held above, a wholly unreliable witness, particularly, when his evidence, given to the effect, that there was assault on him on the bank of the river, at the hands of accused Amit Ghosh, stands substantially corroborated by other evidence on record; hence, the evidence of PW2 would, at the worst, fall in the category of those witnesses, who are neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. The evidence of such a witness needs credible corroboration from some other evidence, direct or circumstantial. 57. We may pause here to point out that as far as PW1 is concerned, the defence have not been able to elicit anything to show that his evidence given in the court or any part thereof is false. PW1, thus, stands out as a wholly reliable witness and if his evidence is believed, which we see no reason to discard, his evidence clearly shows that his brother (PW2) did come, on 2.10.1997, at about 5:30 p.m., to his shop at Gul Bazar and informed PW1 that he (PW2) had been attacked by Amit on the bank of the river and, then, having asked PW1 not to return home on that night, PW2 left. The unshaken evidence, so given by the PW1, makes it impossible to reject PW2's evidence that he had, indeed, been attacked, on the bank of the river, by Amit Ghosh and the situation had become so grave and dangerous that PW2 did not find it safe to stay in his house nor did he consider it safe that his brother should go back home from his shop. This piece of evidence, when considered, in the light of the evidence of PW11, what clearly transpires is that Amit Ghosh had, indeed, a scuffle and exchange of blows with PW2 on the bank of the river, where the hanging bridge is located. Amit Ghosh had come there in a Maruti Van and, at that time, he was accompanied by Ashok Dhar and Tultul and, after exchange of blows with Amit Ghosh, PW2 ran from there and came to his brother's shop at Gul Bazar and informed his brother (PW1) that he (PW2) had been attacked by Amit on the bank of the river and he (PW2) left his brother (PW1) by asking his brother (PW1) not to go home for the night and PW1 accordingly did not go home on that night. 58. Thus, the evidence given by PW2, when considered in the light of the evidence of PW1, lends credence to the evidence of PW11 to the extent that PW2 had, indeed, been attacked by Amit Ghosh and, at that time, Tultul Choudhury and Ashok Dhar, both the appellants, were present at the spot. 59. Bearing in mind the evidence, which have so surfaced, when we revert to the evidence of PW3 and PW7, we find that according to PW7 (whose evidence we have already discussed above), Amit Ghosh, accompanied by PW11 and 3/4 others, were seen by him (PW7) proceeding from the side of the hanging bridge towards the house of Amit Ghosh and after some time, he (PW7) saw that Amit Ghosh, PW11 and 3/4 others going towards the southern side of Amit's house and, among Amit and his associates, Amit, at least, had a dao in his hand, the time being 7/7:30 pm. The evidence, so given by PW7, wholly corroborates the evidence of PW11 inasmuch as it was around 5:30 p.m. on 2.10.1997 that Amit Ghosh, Swapan Karmakar (PW11) and the two appellants went to Amit Ghosh's house from the bank of the river, where PW2 had been assaulted, and, after sometime, Amit Ghosh, accompanied by his associates, proceeded towards the house of PW2 and Amit Ghosh did have a dao in his hand. Pausing here for a moment, when we look at PW3's evidence, (which too we have already discussed above), what clearly surfaces is that PW3, while coming out of his lane, which is known as Karmakar Gali and where the house of the deceased is situated, saw Amit Ghosh and his said associates entering the lane, Amit holding a dao in his hand and his demeanor was so frightening that PW3 left for Gul Bazar and, on the following day, at about 9:00 p.m., PW3 come to know that Anil Gan had been killed. At around 7:30 p.m., on the night of the occurrence, PW7 too saw Amit Ghosh, with his associates, returning home from the southern side and at that time Amit Ghosh's shirt had blood like stains and the situation had turned so frightening that PW7 had to, admittedly, close his shop and go home and, he too heard, on the following day, that Anil Gan had been killed. 60. The evidence of PW3 and PW7, thus, when considered, in their proper prospective and dispassionately, one finds considerable support from their evidence for the evidence of PW11. The present one is not, therefore, one of such cases, where one can say that the evidence of the approver (PW11) has remained uncorroborated on material particulars. What has to be borne in mind is that each and every piece of an approver's evidence need not necessarily be corroborated; his evidence, in substance, must receive corroboration from either direct or circumstantial evidence. In the case at hand, not only direct, but even circumstantial evidence lends support to PW11's evidence on material particulars. In such a situation, we see no reason to disbelieve the evidence of PW11 and if his evidence is believed, which we do believe, we find that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that Amit Ghosh did intentionally kill Anil Gan and Ashok Dhar (i.e., the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 71/2003) had fully participated, in the said occurrence of killing of Anil Gan, as an associate of accused Anil Ghosh (since absconder). In short, thus, Anil Gan was killed, according to the evidence on record, in furtherance of the common intention of accused Amit Ghosh (since absconder) and the appellant, Ashok Dhar. 61. In short, thus, Anil Gan was killed, according to the evidence on record, in furtherance of the common intention of accused Amit Ghosh (since absconder) and the appellant, Ashok Dhar. 61. Considering the fact that we do not find, in the light of what we have discussed above, that the evidence of PW11, as against the appellant, Sudip @ Tultul Choudhury, is wholly reliable, we are of the view that the appellant, Sudeep alias Tutul Choudhury, needs to be given, at least, benefit of doubt. 62. Because of what have been discussed and pointed out above, we have no hesitation in holding that conviction of the accused-appellant, Ashok Dhar, is based on cogent, convincing, reliable and legally admissible evidence and his conviction does not warrant any interference by this Court. As far as, however, the case against the accused-appellant, Sudip alias Tultul Choudhury, is concerned, the same has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt and the accused-appellant, Sudip alias Tultul Choudhury, needs to be given, in the facts and attending circumstances of the present case, benefit of doubt. 63. In the result and for the reasons discussed above, conviction of the accused-appellant, Ashok Dhar, is maintained and his appeal is dismissed. The accused-appellant, Sudip alias Tultul Choudhury, is held not guilty of the offence of murder and is acquitted of the said charge under benefit of doubt. The appeal, filed by accused-appellant, Sudip alias Tultul Choudhury, stands allowed and his conviction and also the sentence, passed against him, are hereby set aside. The accused-appellant, Sudip alias Tultul Choudhury, is hereby directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless he is required to be detained in connection with some other case. 64. With the above observations, both these appeals shall stand disposed of.