Judgment : MD. ABDUL GHANI, J. The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 17th September, 1998, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Birbhum at Rampurhat in Sessions Trial No.3 of 1997 corresponding to Sessions Case No.16 of 1997 sentencing thereby each of the two accused persons, namely, Golam Gous alias Mulu and Chand Mahammad alias Amir Chand to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- each in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one year under Section 302 read with Section 34 and 326 IPC. The prosecution case, in short, may be delineated as follows: On 9th January, 1997 at about 5.50 p.m. one Allarekha (P.W.1) lodged an FIR with Rampurhat Police Station alleging, inter alia, that on the said date at about 2.30 p.m. while his nephew Ali Mahhammad was returning from Rampurhat to his house at Pathra and when he reached Ronguipur Haldi kandor Bridge, accused Golam Gous who was concealing himself in the nearest sugarcane field suddenly came out and hurled bombs aiming at Ali Mahammad and thus Ali Mahammad sustained bleeding injuries on his person and fell on the ground. The other accused Chand Mahammad then and there stabbed seriously injured Ali Mahammad with a bhojali on his back with a view to killing him. It has been alleged that at the sound of explosion of bomb, Yeajul Haque (P.W.5), Nayeem Ali (P.W.3), Oli Mahammad (P.W.2) and many others rushed to the place of occurrence but the accused persons fled away. Seriously injured Ali Mahammad told them about the incident Thereafter Ali Mahammad was shifted by a cot from the place of occurrence to Pratappur More wherefrom he was taken to Rampurhat S.D. Hospital by a rickshaw van. Ali Mahammad was, thus, admitted to Rampurhat S.D. Hospital where he succumbed to injuries on the night of the incident i.e. on 9th January, 1997 at about 8.20 p.m. On the basis of the FIR (Ext.1) lodged by Allarekha (P.W.1) with Rampurhat Police Station, said Police Station Case No.4 dated 9th January, 1997 under Sections 326/307/34 IPC and 9B (2) of the Explosives Act was started, but due to demise of seriously injured Ali Mahammad, Section 302 IPC was added. Investigation was taken up by S.I Falguni Majhi (P.W.12) who on completion of investigation submitted charge-sheet under Sections 302/34, 307/34, 326/34 and 9B (2) of Explosives Act read with Section 34 IPC against both the accused persons. It would be manifest from the record that the learned Trial Judge upon hearing the learned Counsel of both the parties and also giving due consideration to the materials-on-record framed charges under Sections 302/34, 307/34, 326/34 IPC and 9B(2) of Explosives Act, read with Section 34 IPC against both the accused persons. The said charges were read over and explained to the appellants to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Learned Trial Judge after holding trial found both the accused persons guilty under Section 302/34 IPC and 326 IPC and sentenced them in the manner as aforesaid. Hence this appeal. Mr. Sekhar Basu, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants while arguing the case drew our attention to the contents of the FIR (Ext.1), the charges framed against accused persons, their examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C as also the evidence adduced by P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.5 and some other witnesses including Investigating Officer (P.W.12) and emphatically submitted that the learned Trial Judge while adjudicating the case failed to appreciate the evidentiary value of the P.Ws. as also the appropriate position of law and thus caused miscarriage of justice by arriving at a wrong finding. In support of his contention, he urged that there is deviation of the evidence of P.W.1 from the contents of FIR (Ext.1), inasmuch as, P.W.1 did not see the incident. He has further submitted that P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.5 being the relatives of the P.W.1 as also the victim, the oral testimony of aforesaid P.Ws. deserves no importance. He has further contended that P.W.2 being the post occurrence witness, he could not see the alleged incident of murder. Further he has submitted that there is no reason as to why the names of the assailants were not disclosed to the Doctor of hospital (P.W.8), Referring to the oral testimony of P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.4, P.W.5, P.W.6 and P.W.8, etc. Mr. Basu emphatically urged that there being existence of material inconsistencies and contradiction in the evidence adduced from the end of the prosecution, the prosecution case cannot be said to be reliable and the same is full of embellishment. Mr. Basu emphatically urged that there being existence of material inconsistencies and contradiction in the evidence adduced from the end of the prosecution, the prosecution case cannot be said to be reliable and the same is full of embellishment. Further he has argued and submitted that there being no consistent and reliable evidence as regards the place of occurrence, prosecution case stands clouded and doubtful in the eye and estimation of law. Mr. Basu further referring to the oral testimony of Dr. S K Mondal (P.W.8) and some other witnesses including P.W.6 strongly urged that in the instant case prosecution has not been able to establish and prove the charges framed against the accused persons. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the rulings reported in A.I.R 1924 Calcutta 323 [Mamfru Chowdhury & Ors. Vs. King-Emperor]; 2011 (1) CLJ (CAL) [Dibakar Singh & Another Vs. The State of West Bengal ] and urged that in view of the existing circumstances of the case as also the principles of the ruling the prosecution case cannot be said to have been established and proved beyond all reasonable doubt and accordingly the impugned order of conviction and sentence needs to be set aside. On the other hand, Mr. Amlanjyoti Sengupta, learned Counsel appearing for the State at the very outset of his argument submitted that the learned Trial Judge while disposing of the case committed no mistake or error in passing the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence. In support of his contention, he has referred to the oral testimony of the P.Ws. examined in this case as also some other materials including the alamats seized in course of investigation and produced before the learned Trial Judge during trial and argued that there being no material inconsistencies and discrepancies in the oral testimony of P.Ws., the prosecution case cannot be said to be suffering from any legal infirmities and as such the decision arrived at by the learned Trial Judge deserves to be sustained. In course of his argument Mr. Sen Gupta referred to the provisions of Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act, and submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Trial Judge, needs no interference by this Division Bench. In support of his contention Mr. Sen Gupta relied upon the ruling reported in AIR 1963 Supreme Court 1850 (State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. In support of his contention Mr. Sen Gupta relied upon the ruling reported in AIR 1963 Supreme Court 1850 (State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Cheemalapati Ganeswara Rao and Another). Learned Trial Judge upon consideration of the evidence and materials-on-record as well as having heard the submission made on behalf of both the parties believed the prosecution story and passed the impugned judgment of conviction holding inter alia that the accused persons in a planned way committed the heinous murder of Ali Mahammad on 9th January, 1997 at about 2.30 p.m. by causing serious injuries to the person of victim Ali Mahammad by way of hurling bombs and by use of bhojali in front of the house of Monohar and Morjem of Rongaipur village. On scrutiny of the record, it could be detected that out of the 12 witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution, P.W.1 and P.W.2 happen to be near relation of the deceased Ali Mahammad. P.W.2 Oli Mahammad is the younger brother of deceased Ali Mahammad and P.W.1, Allarekha is the uncle of said deceasesd Ali Mahammad, P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.5 are somehow related to the deceased. P.W.6 Fazlul Haque is the writer of the FIR (Ext.1), who practically did not see the incident leading to the death of victim Ali Mahammad on 9th January, 1997 at Rampurhat S.D. Hospital. P.W.7, G.C. Jagannath Mistri, Dy.G.C. of Home Guard, Rampurhat Police Station, handed over and identified the dead body of deceased Ali Mahammad together with inquest report and challan to the Autopsy Surgeon (P.W.10). P.W.8, Dr. Samir Kumar Mondal, gave some medical treatment to the victim Ali Mahammad as an indoor patient of Rampurhat S.D. Hospital on 9th January, 1997 evening. P.W.9, Dr. Amitava Banerjee, is another doctor of Rampurhat S.D. Hospital, who examined deceased Ali Mohammad on 9th January, 1997 at 8.20 p.m. at said hospital. P.W.10, Dr. Adhir Kumar Saha, held post mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased Ali Mahammad on 10th January, 1997. P.W.11, Sanjib Majumdar, happens to be a member of Judicial Service who recorded the statements of witnesses of Nayeem Ali (P.W.3) and Md. Mahabul Haque (P.W.4) under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code and proved their statements as Ext-4 and Ext-6. P.W.12, Falguni Majhi, Investigating Officer, held investigation of the case and submitted charge-sheet. P.W.11, Sanjib Majumdar, happens to be a member of Judicial Service who recorded the statements of witnesses of Nayeem Ali (P.W.3) and Md. Mahabul Haque (P.W.4) under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code and proved their statements as Ext-4 and Ext-6. P.W.12, Falguni Majhi, Investigating Officer, held investigation of the case and submitted charge-sheet. It would be explicit from the record that some copies of order-sheets and the copy of FIR addressed to O.C. Rampurhat Police Station filed from the end of the defence have been marked as Ext-A & B. According to P.W.1, he upon hearing sound of explosion of bomb from Haldi Kandor Bridge side came out of his Pathra village residence and rushed towards the said spot of Rongaipur. He has stated that on the way he heard sounds of further explosion of bomb and noticed that Ali Mahammad lying on the morrum road of village Rongaipur with injuries on his person caused by bombs and bhojali. On query, P.W.1 learnt from victim Ali Mahammad who was then able to speak that accused Golam Gaus had hit him with bombs and Chand Mahammad with bhojali. Further it transpires from the oral testimony of P.W.1 that he with the assistance of other persons managed to take seriously injured Ali Mahammad to Protappur More by a cot and there from he was taken to Rampurhat S.D. Hospital by a rickshaw van. This way, seriously injured Ali Mahammad was admitted to Rampurhat S.D. Hospital on 9th January, 1997 at about 4.10 p.m. where Fazlul Haque (P.W.6) was found present. It would be manifest from the record that said P.W.6 at the request of P.W.1 wrote down the FIR (Ext.1) at the said hospital as per instruction of P.W.1. It transpires in cross-examination of P.W.1 that some persons assembled at the place of occurrence and he himself told them including Fazlul Haque (P.W.6) about the names of the assailants. He also stated that P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.5 met the victim at Hospital in presence of P.W.6. From the oral testimony of Oli Mahammad (P.W.2) it appears that on the date of accident at about 2.30 p.m. while he was irrigating his land for wheat crops near Haldi Kandor he heard sounds of bomb explosion from the side of Haldi Kandor Bridge and immediately thereafter he proceeded towards the source from which the sound came. From the oral testimony of Oli Mahammad (P.W.2) it appears that on the date of accident at about 2.30 p.m. while he was irrigating his land for wheat crops near Haldi Kandor he heard sounds of bomb explosion from the side of Haldi Kandor Bridge and immediately thereafter he proceeded towards the source from which the sound came. According to P.W.2 on his arrival at the spot, he found Mulu alias Golam Gaus throwing bombs aiming at Ali Mahammad as a result Ali Mahammad received injuries and fell down and immediately thereafter accused Chand Mahammad hit Ali Mahammad with bhojali. It also reveals from the oral testimony of P.W.2 that seriously injured Ali Mahammad took attempt to run away towards the Rongaipur village but fell down on the morrum road at village Rongaipur. According to P.W.2, after causing the injuries to victim Ali Mahammad both the accused persons fled away and thereafter seriously injured Ali Mahammad was taken to Pratappur More by a cot wherefrom he was shifted to Rampurhat S.D. Hospital by rickshaw van. In cross-examination P.W.2 stated that the bombs used by accused Golam Gaus forcefully hit the body of Ali Mahammad but he did not see the first bomb thrown to Ali Mahammad. He has also stated that he himself saw the assailants causing hurt by bhojali 2 or 4 times to Ali Mahammad. According to P.W.2, Mohabul Haque (P.W.4), Nayeem Ali (P.W.3) and other persons also witnessed the incident. Nayeem Ali (P.W.3) has stated that on the relevant day of incident at about 2.30 p.m. while he was working for construction-cum-repairing of the mosque of Rongaipur village, he heard sounds of bomb explosions and then rushed to the place of occurrence and found Ali Mahammad lying on the morrum road in front of the houses of Morjem and Monohor of Rongaipur village. He has further deposed that he found accused Golam Gaus and Chand Mahammad running away after committing the offence namely throwing of bombs and hitting with bhojali. In cross-examination, P.W.3 has stated that he found injured Ali Mahammad with profuse bleeding and he was in restless condition. He has further deposed that he found accused Golam Gaus and Chand Mahammad running away after committing the offence namely throwing of bombs and hitting with bhojali. In cross-examination, P.W.3 has stated that he found injured Ali Mahammad with profuse bleeding and he was in restless condition. According to P.W.4, on the relevant date of incident i.e. on 9th January, 1997 at about 2.30 p.m., he found Ali Mahammad coming from Swadhinpur Railway Station and when he was on the Haldi Kandor Bridge and was about to go down from the Bridge, Golam Gaus and Chand Mahammad came out of the sugarcane field situated on the northern side of the Road. He has categorically stated that accused Golam Gaus threw bomb to Ali Mahammad and thereafter accused Chand Mahammad hit Ali Mahammad with bhojali on his back. P.W.4 then started shouting and as such accused Golam Gaus took attempt to assault P.W.4, by throwing a bomb, but he was somehow saved. Further it reveals from P.W.4 that Ali Mahammad in injured condition tried to proceed towards the village but after a little distance he fell down on the morrum road when accused Golam Gaus again threw bomb aiming at Ali Mahammad and the other accused Chand Mahammad also hit him with bhojali again. According to P.W.4, he narrated the incident to the Judicial Magistrate (P.W.11) who recorded the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. According to P.W.5, on the relevant date of incident i.e. on 9th January, 1997 at about 2.30 p.m. he upon hearing the sounds of bomb explosions rushed towards the morrum road of village Rongaipur and after reaching there he found Ali Mahammad lying on the morrum road with bleeding injuries on his person. According to P.W.5, both the accused having seen him at the spot ran away. Thereafter he (P.W.5) learnt from victim Ali Md. that accused Golam Gaus had hit him with bomb and accused Chand Mahammad had hit him with bhojali. P.W.6, writer of the FIR has proved the FIR (Ext.1) and his signature as Ext-1/2. According to P.W.5, both the accused having seen him at the spot ran away. Thereafter he (P.W.5) learnt from victim Ali Md. that accused Golam Gaus had hit him with bomb and accused Chand Mahammad had hit him with bhojali. P.W.6, writer of the FIR has proved the FIR (Ext.1) and his signature as Ext-1/2. In cross-examination, he has stated that on the date of incident he had gone to Rampurhat for purchase of vegetables for domestic purpose and on the said date at about 4.45 p.m. he came to know that Ali Mahammad had been killed and thereafter he went to hospital and before reaching the hospital he came to know that Ali Mahammad had been assaulted. Thereafter he met P.W.1 at hospital and wrote down the FIR (Ext.1) at the request of P.W.1. P.W.7, Jagannath Mistri, the then Dy. G.C of Home Guard who escorted the dead body of Ali Mahammad and identified the same to Autopsy Surgeon (P.W.10) of Rampurhat S.D. Hospital. P.W.8, Dr. S.K. Mondal, has stated that on 9th January, 1997 deceased Ali Md. was admitted to Rampurhat S.D. Hospital with injuries on his person as an indoor patient of male surgical ward under his supervision. Said P.W.8 examined the patient Ali Md. and found the following injuries on the person of Ali Md.:- 1. Stab injuries over left deltroit region: (a) 3” x 2” x 2”, (b) Left Scapular area, two in number – 5” x 2” x 2” each, (c) over nape of neck one in number – 3” x 2” x 2”, (d) over right scapula region one 3” x 2” x 2”. Each of number (b) injuries penetrated in lungs. 2. (a) Blast injuries with lacerated injuries over lower part of back 2” x 1” x 1”. (b) Over right buttock 2” x 1” x 1” with abrasions and charring of the surrounding skins. Further P.W.8 has stated that he took the injured Ali Mahammad to the operation theatre and undertook some minor operations. He also took care of the injured Ali Md. up to some time before 8.05 p.m. on 9th January, 1997 and he noted down in the bed-head ticket (Ext.9) that Superintendent should be informed for making necessary arrangement for recording dying declaration of the patient as the patient was under the expectation of death. He also took care of the injured Ali Md. up to some time before 8.05 p.m. on 9th January, 1997 and he noted down in the bed-head ticket (Ext.9) that Superintendent should be informed for making necessary arrangement for recording dying declaration of the patient as the patient was under the expectation of death. According to P.W.8 the nature of injuries which he noticed in the body of Ali Mahammad was truly shocking and in shock creating condition. Such injuries, according to him, might be caused by explosive substances like bombs and by bhojali. According to P.W.8, human body ordinarily contains 7 litres of blood and as an effect of the injuries he noticed in the body of victim Ali Mahammad considerable loss of blood resulting in changes in fluid balance and various degrees of shock. He has also stated that the injuries which he noticed in the body of the victim Ali Md. might cause depression of vital function as a result of shock due to trauma resulting in instantaneous death or after a while in ordinary course of nature. As a matter of fact, this happened in case of the victim Ali Md. who was seriously injured at 2.30 p.m. of 9th January, 1997 and was admitted to Rampurhat S.D. Hospital on said date i.e. on 9th January, 1997 at about 4.05 p.m. and succumbed to injuries at the said hospital at 8.20 p.m. of 9th January, 1997. It is the admitted situation that the victim Ali Md. died before recording of his dying declaration. It is in evidence of P.W.8 that dying declaration was suggested at about 8 p.m. of 9th September, 1997 and the victim died at 8.20 p.m. i.e. after 4 hours of his admission to Hospital. In our considered view, for want of sufficient time dying declaration of the victim could not be recorded for which merit of the present case cannot be curtailed. P.W.9, Dr. A.K. Saha, also happens to be another doctor (Surgeon) of Rampurhat S.D. Hospital. According to him, on 9th January, 1997 at about 8.05 p.m., he examined victim Ali Mahammad who was admitted to S.D. Hospital, Rampurhat, under the supervision of Dr. P.W.9, Dr. A.K. Saha, also happens to be another doctor (Surgeon) of Rampurhat S.D. Hospital. According to him, on 9th January, 1997 at about 8.05 p.m., he examined victim Ali Mahammad who was admitted to S.D. Hospital, Rampurhat, under the supervision of Dr. S.K. Mondal (P.W.8) and found the patient in gasping condition and ultimately he died on the same day at about 8.20 p.m. P.W.10, is the Autopsy Surgeon who as per identification of P.W.7, held post-mortem examination over the dead body of deceased Ali Mahammad on 10th January, 1997 and found the following injuries: - “Total five stab injuries present. One is upper part of left arm, four are present on upper part of back. All injuries are nearly 4” x 2” x bone-deep, penetrating deep tissues. On dissection, he found the following:- (1) Left lung found injured. Blood and clots present in thorasic cavity. (2) Left leg and left knee joint found injured by bomb-injury, blackened skin present, muscles and bones of left leg severely injured.” According to P.W.10, the death of victim Ali Mahammad was due to shock and hemorrhage for the injuries sustained by him which were ante-mortem and homicidal in nature. P.W.11, Sri Sanjit Mazumdar, a Judicial Officer who recorded the statements under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code given by P.W.3 and P.W.4, namely, Nayeem Ali and Mahabul Haque and proved the same as Ext.4 and Ext.6. P.W.12, Falguni Majhi, is the Investigating Officer, who held inquest over the dead body of the deceased Ali Mahammad at Rampurhat S.D. Hospital and sent the dead body to the hospital morgue through Dy. G.C. H.G. Jagannath Mistri (P.W.7) for postmortem examination. According to P.W.12, he seized some articles from the person of the deceased Ali Mahammad, namely, one green coloured full sleeve terricotton shirt in torn condition with blood-stained marks and bomb burnt and also one mufler with blue, green and red check and one blue under pant and one jangia under a seizure list (Ext.2). The articles seized by P.W.12 and produced before the Trial Court were marked as Mat.Ext-1 collectively. According to P.W.12, during the investigation the UD Case and the specific case were merged together and relevant entry of the UD case has been marked Ext.13. The articles seized by P.W.12 and produced before the Trial Court were marked as Mat.Ext-1 collectively. According to P.W.12, during the investigation the UD Case and the specific case were merged together and relevant entry of the UD case has been marked Ext.13. He has stated that witnesses Nayeem Ali and Mohabul Haque (P.W.3 and P.W.4) appeared before him and wanted to make voluntary statement before the Judicial Magistrate. From Ext.4 and 6 it could be ascertained that P.W.3 and P.W.4 made voluntary statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C (Ext. 4 and 6) before the learned Judicial Magistrate (P.W.11) which gives adequate corroboration and support to the FIR story leading to the death of victim Ali Md. Having scrutinized the materials-on-record it could be ascertained that the Investigating Officer (P.W.12) in course of investigation of the case, did not seize the blood-stained earth of the P.O, nor he did send the seized wearing apparels of the victim to F.S.L. for examination. In this context, it may be stated that the evidence of soaking the wearing apparels with the blood of the deceased came out of the injuries, is just and eminent and as such report of F.S.L. is not so vital. On further scrutiny it could be seen that there is some contradiction in between the statements of the P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.5, etc. made before the Investigating Officer and their evidence adduced during trial. In our considered view these are minor contradictions, which could be ignored for finding out the truth leading to death of victim Ali Md. In this context, it may be pertinent to note down that there was long standing dispute/village rivalry between the group of the victim Ali Md. and the accused persons. In the existing circumstances of the case the substantial corroborative evidence of the P.Ws.1 to 5 cannot be ignored and disbelieved and accordingly the prosecution story as set-forth in the body of the FIR (Ext.1) stands proved doubtlessly. Therefore, having gone through the evidence and materials-on-record as also giving due regard to the submissions of the learned Counsel for both the parties, it could safely be said that victim Ali Md. was killed due to use of bombs and bhojali by the accused persons on 9th January, 1997 at about 2.30 p.m on the morrum road of village Rongaipur in front of the house of Morjem, Mohohar and Monjur. was killed due to use of bombs and bhojali by the accused persons on 9th January, 1997 at about 2.30 p.m on the morrum road of village Rongaipur in front of the house of Morjem, Mohohar and Monjur. Accordingly, in our conscious consideration, P.O. happens to be the morrum road of village Rongaipur and no where else. The Autopsy Surgeon (P.W.10) who held post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased Ali Mahammad opined that the death of Ali Mahammad was due to shock and hemorrhage for the serious injuries sustained by him which was ante-mortem and purely homicidal in nature. As a matter of fact, the medical evidence gives transparent support to the prosecution case. From the evidence and materials-on-record it could be said that the circumstances under which the death of Ali Md. occurred has been substantially borne out by the medical evidence as also some other materials-on-record. In the existing circumstances of the case the decision relied upon on behalf of the defence does not yield any help to the defence. It is true that the houses of Morjem, Monohar and Monjur stand situated near the P.O., i.e. the morrum road of Rongaipur village. There is, in fact, no ocular evidence even in cross-examination of any of the P.Ws., that at the relevant time of occurrence the said people were present in their houses. In this view of the matter, non-examination of those people cannot take away the merit of the case. In our careful consideration the learned Trial Judge while examining the accused persons under Section 313 Cr. P.C, proceeded with the matter following the prescribed provisions of law by putting some relevant questions and, thus, no prejudice could be done to the accused persons, until and unless the prejudice is shown to have caused in course of examination of the accused persons, prosecution case cannot fail. In this connection, a decision reported in 1998 Supreme Court Cases (CRI) 790 [Shobhit Chamar & Another Vs. State of Bihar]; 1997 (CRI) LJ 1059 [Sukhadeo S/o Bhiwaji Tumdam Vs. State of Maharashtra] may be relied on. In this connection, a decision reported in 1998 Supreme Court Cases (CRI) 790 [Shobhit Chamar & Another Vs. State of Bihar]; 1997 (CRI) LJ 1059 [Sukhadeo S/o Bhiwaji Tumdam Vs. State of Maharashtra] may be relied on. Such views have been highlighted in Para 9 of the ruling reported in 1997 (CRI) LJ 1059, which is as follows:- “Non-compliance of the requirement under Section 313, Criminal Procedure Code could under law, be only an irregularity being so, the same cannot vitiate the whole trial or the finding by the Trial Court. In the decision, Rama Shankar Singh Vs. State of West Bengal, AIR 1962 SC 1239 , [1962 (2) CRI LJ 296], the Supreme Court held that there may be error or omission in complying with Section 313 but that does not vitiate the trial.” Similar view has been taken in the case of Shobhit Chamar & Another Vs. State of Bihar reported in 1998 SC Cases (Cri) 790 (supra).” To part with the discussions, it may be pertinent to note down that the incident of brutal and heinous murder of Ali Mahammad took place on 9th January, 1997 afternoon in an open broad day light in a pre-planned and calculated manner by both the accused persons. From the circumstances revealed in the evidence of P.Ws. examined in this case it would be conspicuous that the murder of Ali Mahammad was for taking revenge due to village rivalry. As regards the relation witnesses viz. P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.5, etc. it has been highlighted in the ruling reported in 2000 C Cr LR (SC) 515 (Hukam Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan) and in view of the said ruling there is no reason to disbelieve the relation witnesses who are supposed to be interested in conviction of real culprit. In this connection, it may be pointed out that the evidence of P.Ws. as discussed above makes any prudent man to understand and believe that the incident was the outcome of previous dispute between the deceased Ali Md. and the accused persons. From the evidence of P.Ws. No.1 to 6 and P.W.10, it would be conspicuous that the appellants used bombs and bhojali in killing the victim Ali Md. as discussed above makes any prudent man to understand and believe that the incident was the outcome of previous dispute between the deceased Ali Md. and the accused persons. From the evidence of P.Ws. No.1 to 6 and P.W.10, it would be conspicuous that the appellants used bombs and bhojali in killing the victim Ali Md. Non-mentioning of the names of the assailants before the doctor is not at all fatal and as such there cannot be any irregularity or legal infirmity for non-recording the names of the assailants by the doctor. Further in this context, it may be said that learned Trial Judge while adjudicating the case unnecessarily framed charge under Section 326 and 307 IPC, as the charge under Section 302 IPC was framed against both the accused persons; framing of charge under Section 326 stands redundant. Under such circumstances it could be said that defence has not suffered any prejudice for framing of such charges, which could render the prosecution case unacceptable and vitiating. Therefore, having considered the submission made on behalf of the respective parties and also regard being had to the evidence and materials-on-record as well as position of law we are satisfied to hold that there is no ground to interfere with the findings arrived at by the learned Trial Judge. In the result, the appeal is having no leg to stand upon and the same is liable to be dismissed. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. The appellants are directed to surrender before the Trial Court within one month from the date of communication of the order to serve out the sentence. Let a copy of this judgment along with the lower Court records be sent down to the learned Court below immediately. Urgent Photostat certified copy, if applied for, be handed over to the parties as early as possible. I agree.