JUDGMENT By Court.--All the five appellants, on being found guilty for committing murder of Deep Narayan Mandal, were convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 8.8.1992 at about 2 p.m. while the informant, Yugal Kishore Chaudhary (P.W.7) was getting seedlings of paddy planted in his field, he saw all the five appellants coming near the field of Deep Narayan Chaudhary (deceased) who was ploughing his field. Of them, Ganesh Mandal and Mannu Mandal were armed with lathis whereas other accused persons were having spade with them. They asked from Deep Narayan Mandal as to why did he cut the ridges of the field. Upon which, Deep Narayan Mandal replied that he will do that. Thereupon, the appellant, Ganesh Mandal exhorted others to kill him and then Bijay Mandal gave a spade blow on the back of the head, as a result of which, Deep Narayan Mandal fell down and then Ranjeet Mandal assaulted him with spade on his right leg below the knee. The accused, Dhananjay Mandal also assaulted him with spade whereas the accused Ganesh Mandal and Mannu Mandal assaulted him with lathi. 3. While the deceased was being assaulted, the informant, Yugal Kishore Chaudhary (P.W.7), Kishan Mandal (P.W.5) and also wife of the deceased Meena Devi (P.W. 3) who had come over there with the meal for the deceased asked the appellants to stop assaulting the deceased but the accused persons rushed towards them to assault them. Upon it the informant rushed back to some distance whereas Meena Devi (P.W. 3) started raising alarm. On hearing hulla, many persons came rushing to the place of occurrence. One of them, Adhiklal Mandal (P.W. 1) younger brother of the deceased saw accused persons fleeing from the place of occurrence. Thereafter they brought Deep Narayan Mandal to his house from where when he was being taken to Meharma Sadar Hospital, he died in the way. Doctor at Meharma Sadar Hospital declared him dead. Thereupon, the dead body was brought to Meharma Police Station but the police refused to lodge first information report and asked them to take the dead body to Belbadda Police Station. Doctor at Meharma Sadar Hospital declared him dead. Thereupon, the dead body was brought to Meharma Police Station but the police refused to lodge first information report and asked them to take the dead body to Belbadda Police Station. Thereupon the dead body was taken to Belbadda Police Station on bullock cart where Yugal Kishore Choudhary gave his Fardbeyan (Ext.-3) which was recorded by Motilal Mishra (P.W. 10). Upon which a case was registered. The said Motilal Mishra (P.W.10) took up the case for investigation and held inquest on the dead body and drew an inquest report (Ext.-5). Thereafter the dead body was sent for post mortem examination which was conducted by Dr. Umesh Prasad Singh (P.W.8) who found the following injuries:- i. Both bones of right leg fractured. ii. Sharp cut injury at scalp behind right ear on occipital region 2½' x ½' x ½" iii. Sharp cut injury on scalp at back 2" above left ear 1" x ½' x ½' iv. Fracture of scalp behind the right ear. v. Fracture of scalp above left ear. vi. Fracture of 3rd, 4th and 5th ribs. 4. Dr. issued post mortem examination report (Ext.-2) with an opinion that death was caused due to shock and haemorrhage on account of above injuries. 5. On submission of the charge-sheet and also on committal of the case to the court of sessions, the accused persons were put on trial wherein the prosecution examined altogether ten witnesses. Of them, Rohit Mandal (P.W. 2), Meena Devi, widow of the deceased (P.W. 3) and Kishan Mandal (P.W.5) claimed themselves to be the eye witnesses. P.W. 1, Adhiklal Mandal and P.W.4, Sachida Mandal claimed themselves to be the persons, who reached at the place of occurrence on hearing alarm and saw the appellants fleeing away from the place of occurrence and to whom the deceased disclosed about the name of the appellants as assailant. P.W.6, Mandhata Mushhar claimed to have seen the accused while they were returning after committing offence. The informant Yugal Kishor'e Choudhary, P.W.7 has been declared hostile. 6. The trial court by placing implicit reliance on the testimonies of the eye witnesses, P.W. 2, P.W. 3 and P.W. 5 which got corroborated by the medical evidence and also from the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 4 on certain points did find the appellants guilty and hence, recorded the order of conviction and sentence. 7. 6. The trial court by placing implicit reliance on the testimonies of the eye witnesses, P.W. 2, P.W. 3 and P.W. 5 which got corroborated by the medical evidence and also from the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 4 on certain points did find the appellants guilty and hence, recorded the order of conviction and sentence. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that all the witnesses related to the deceased are interested witnesses and as such, the trial court should not have placed reliance on their testimonies particularly when the members of the prosecution party are inimical to the accused persons. 8. It was also submitted that though Meena Devi, P.W.3 has been accepted by the trial court as an eye witness but according to her evidence as elicited in the cross-examination, she reached to the place of occurrence upon hearing hulla and as such, she is never an eye witness. 9. Learned counsel further submitted that the trial court is not justified in holding that the testimonies of the eye witnesses get corroboration from the medical evidence as according to the Doctor cut injuries over the scalp were caused by sharp cutting weapon whereas, according to the prosecution, injuries were inflicted over the scalp by spade which cannot be said to be a sharp cutting weapon and, therefore, testimonies of the eye witnesses are fit to be discarded. 10. Heard learned counsel appearing for the State. 11. It is the case of the prosecution that at 2 p.m. occurrence took place when the deceased was ploughing his field for getting the field ready for sowing seedlings of paddy. Because it was the time for sowing seedlings of paddy, every possibility is there for the presence of the farmers near the field where the occurrence took place. Therefore, P.W.2, Rohit Mandal, and P.W. 5, Kishan Mandal, who were working in the field at the time of occurrence are the natural witnesses and hence, their presence near the place of occurrence and of seeing occurrence is not in doubt, particularly when nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination for raising doubt over the truthfulness of the testimony of the witnesses. Meena Devi, P.W.3 happens to be the widow of the deceased. According to her, when she brought meal for her husband from her house, she saw accused persons assaulting the deceased. Meena Devi, P.W.3 happens to be the widow of the deceased. According to her, when she brought meal for her husband from her house, she saw accused persons assaulting the deceased. The informant in her Fardbeyan has also accepted about her presence over the place of occurrence. It is true that she in her cross-examination has stated that on hearing hulla, she came out of the house which is a bit far away from the place of occurrence. But this piece of evidence, keeping in view her testimony as testified in the examination-in-chief that when she reached at the place of occurrence with meal for her husband, occurrence took place, never suggests that the alarm which she refers to relate to post assault period. Under the circumstance, her presence at the place of occurrence cannot be doubted. 12. We do further find that P.W.2 and P.W.5 are consistent on the point that the appellants, Bijay Mandal and Ranjeet Mandal assaulted the deceased with spade on the back portion of the head whereas the appellant, Dhananjay Mandal inflicted injuries on the right leg below the knee of the deceased and the rest of two accused, namely, Ganesh Mandal and Mannu Mandal assaulted with lathi. Meena Devi, P.W. 3 though is not so specific on the point of assault but she has testified that all the accused persons did assault the deceased. The testimonies of the eye witnesses get corroboration from the medical evidence as the Doctor did find two injuries at back portion of the scalp and also over the right leg, bones of which were found fractured. That apart, 3rd, 4th and 5th ribs were also found to be fractured. The injuries over the scalp, according to the Doctor, were caused by sharp cutting weapon and hence, submission was advanced that those injuries cannot be caused by spade as it is not a sharp cutting weapon. In general it cannot be said that spade cannot have sharp edge. Moreover, the Doctor has never subscribed the view that the injuries over the scalp cannot be caused by spade. Besides that when the witnesses have been found to be trustworthy, submission advanced on behalf of the appellants that spade can never cause such injuries cannot be accepted. In general it cannot be said that spade cannot have sharp edge. Moreover, the Doctor has never subscribed the view that the injuries over the scalp cannot be caused by spade. Besides that when the witnesses have been found to be trustworthy, submission advanced on behalf of the appellants that spade can never cause such injuries cannot be accepted. Culpability of the accused persons further finds support from the testimonies of P.W. 1 and also P.W. 4, whereof they have stated that when they came near the deceased, who was lying on the ground disclosed to them about the name of the assailants, who had assaulted him. That apart, according to P.W. 1, he also saw all the appellants running away. Hardly there is any reason to disbelieve the presence of these two witnesses at the place of occurrence. Moreover, their presence becomes quite natural as they were working in the field as it was the time for sowing paddy. That apart, name of P.W.1 does not find mentioned even in the Fardbeyan of the informant wherein it has been stated that he immediately came to the place of occurrence. 13. Further we do find that the deceased, as per the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution, had not died at the spot, rather he was quite alive and therefore, he was being taken to hospital not only by the relatives of the deceased but even by the Choukidar, Gobardhan Paswan (P.W.9) but unfortunately, the deceased died in the way. But before he was being taken to hospital, he, according to P.W. 1 and P.W. 4, divulged the name of the assailants. There has been no reason not to accept this fact in absence of any material suggesting even slightly that the deceased was not in position to say anything. Thus, we do find that the prosecution has been able to establish the charge levelled against the appellants beyond all reasonable doubts and hence, the trial court is absolutely justified in recording the order of conviction and sentence which is hereby affirmed. Consequently, we do not find any merit in both the appeals. In the result, both the appeals stand dismissed.