Judgment :- Kanchan Chakraborty, J: 1) This appeal is directed against the judgment and orders dated 29.4.2010 and 30.4.2010 passed by the Ld. Additional District & Sessions Judge, FT court no-1, Dinhata in Sessions Case no. 217 of 2006 S.T. no-7(VI) of 2008 thereby convicting the appellants under Section 148, 325/149 and 304 (part II)/149 of the IPC and sentencing them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years with fine of 3000/-for the offence under section 304 (Part II)/149 of IPC, R.I. for two years and pay fine of Rs. 2000/-each for committing offence under Section 325/149 of IPC and R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-each for the offence punishable under Section 148 IPC, respectively, with a direction that all the sentences should run concurrently. 2) Rafiqul Islam Khandakar lodged one F.I.R in Dinhata Police Station on 25.11.2004 stating therein that about 15 days prior to 19.11.2004, he and his brothers cut down a velly tree which had grown over their ancestral land. On 19.11.2004, at about 11 A.M. to 11 noon, the appellants being armed with Dao, axe, iron rod, lathi etc. tried to take away the velly tree which was cut down by Khandakar brothers and kept in their land. Safiqul Islam Khamdakar and Ekramul Haque Khandakar, the brothers of Rafiqul Islam tried to stop the appellants from taking away the velly tree. The appellants assaulted Safiqul Islam Khandakar and Ekramul Haqe Khandakar, on the land of one Altab, with iron rod and wooden baton on their heads and different parts of their body. Being attracted by the alarm of Safiqul and Ekramul, Apia Bewa, their mother, Babu Khandakar, their brother and Ramicha Bibi wife of Rafiqul Islam Khandakar rushed to the place of occurrence in order to save Ekramul and Safiqul. They were also assaulted by the appellants severally. Ekramul and Safiqul sustained serious injuries on their head and fell unconscious on the ground. Apia Bewa also sustained fracture injury on both of her hands. Rafiqul Islam and his neighbours took Ekramul, Safiqul and Apia Bewa to Dinhata for their medical treatment. Safiqul and Ekramul were referred to North Bengal Medical College and Hospital at Siliguri while Apia Bewa was referred to M.J.N. Hospital at Cooch Behar. Since Rafiqul Islam Khandakar was busy with medical treatment of his brothers and mother, he could not filed the F.I.R. before the 25.11.2004. Safiqul and Ekramul were referred to North Bengal Medical College and Hospital at Siliguri while Apia Bewa was referred to M.J.N. Hospital at Cooch Behar. Since Rafiqul Islam Khandakar was busy with medical treatment of his brothers and mother, he could not filed the F.I.R. before the 25.11.2004. On the basis of said F.I.R. lodged by Rafiqul Islam Khandakar, Dinhata police station case no. 222/2004 dated 25.11.2004 was started under Section 147, 148, 149, 325 and 326 of IPC. Amongst the injured, Safiqul Islam Khandakar died on 3.12.2004 at Neuro Hospital and C.T. Scan Centre private Limited, Pradhannagar, Siliguri. Section 304 of IPC was added to because of his death. Charge-sheet was filed under the above mentioned Sections and the trial commenced because the appellants pleaded their innocence. The appellants was arrayed to face charges under Section 148, 325/149 and 304/149 of the IPC. Twenty six (26) witnesses were examined by the prosecution in course of trial on behalf of the prosecution. Huge number of documents was also admitted into evidence and marked exhibit 1 to 19/1 on behalf of the prosecution. The defense preferred not to adduce any evidence excepting one witness namely Soroj Kumar Ray as D.W. 1.Upon considering of the evidence on record and materials placed before it, the learned Trial Court found that the prosecution established the case against the appellants beyond the all possible doubts and accordingly, recorded their conviction and sentence by the judgement and orders which are impugned in this appeal. 3) The appeal has been assailed, mainly, on the following grounds : i) that the learned Judge was oblivious of the fact that the First Information Report, according to the P.W. 1 was lodged on 20.11.2004 but the F.I.R. shows that it was registered on 25.11.2004 indicating that the initial F.I.R. dated 20.11.2004 was suppressed and subsequently by a new F.I.R. was introduced to implicate the present appellants falsely; ii) that there was also delay of four days in despatching the F.I.R. to the Magistrate by the police station which, obviously, created doubt on the veracity of the prosecution case; iii) that Ekramul Haque Khandakar, one of the injured, although was examined as P.W. 22 was not examined by the investigating officer; iv) that the learned Court failed to appreciate the contradictions and inconsistencies in the statements P.W. 1, P.W. 3. P.W. 7, P.W. 8, P.W. 10, P.W. 11, P.W. 14 and P.W. 22 on material facts; v) that the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate also that the P.W. 3 only mentioned names of five accused persons who had a scuffling with the injured brothers of the P.W. 1 and that too, said five persons were not named by the P.W. 3 to the I.O. vi) that the learned Trial Court failed to take note of the fact that none of the witnesses disclosed names of the assailants to the officer who performed inquest of the deceased. vii) that the vital witnesses of the prosecution were examined by the I.O. after lapse of three months from the date of registration of the F.I.R. and, as such, their version should not have been accepted by the learned Trial Court; viii) that according to the prosecution case 8 to 10 persons gathered at the place of occurrence at the time of incident but no one tried to intervene which appeared to be not common and usual; ix) that the judgment being otherwise bad in law, is liable to be set aside; 4) Mr. Souvik Mitter, Mr. Avishekh Sinha and Anasuya Sinha, learned Counsels appearing on behalf of the appellants put much stress on the fact that the date of occurrence was 19.11.2004 but the F.I.R. was lodged long thereafter on 25.11.2004. Again, the F.I.R. which was lodged on 25.11.2004 was despatched by the police station to the Court of Magistrate on 29.11.2004. There was inordinate delay not only in lodging the F.I.R. but despatching the same to the Magistrate. This fact altogether created suspicion about the genuinety of the prosecution case as sufficient time was provided to the prosecution to introduce improvements, embellishment and to set up to distorted version of the occurrence. In support of their contention, a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ishwar Singh Vs. State of West Bengal, reported in AIR 1976 SC 2423 has been referred to. 5) Per Contra, Mr. Panda, learned Counsel for the Respondent State of West Bengal contended that delay in lodging the F.I.R. was properly explained in the F.I.R. itself. The F.I.R. might have been written earlier was could not be filed in police station for the reasons mentioned in the F.I.R. This apart, Mr. 5) Per Contra, Mr. Panda, learned Counsel for the Respondent State of West Bengal contended that delay in lodging the F.I.R. was properly explained in the F.I.R. itself. The F.I.R. might have been written earlier was could not be filed in police station for the reasons mentioned in the F.I.R. This apart, Mr. Padna contended, the P.W. 1, the lodger of the F.I.R. himself stated categorically that he could not lodge the F.I.R. before 25.11.2004 because he was busy with medical treatment of his brothers and mother. Therefore, when delay was properly sufficiently and satisfactorily explained, it neither created doubt nor struck at the root of the prosecution case. He also contended that latches on the part of the police officials does not necessarily make the prosecution version untrustworthy if it is proved otherwise. 6) According to the prosecution case, Safiqul Islam Khandakar died due to injuries inflicted on him by the appellants on 19.11.2004. The post mortem on the dead body of safiqul was done on 3rd December, 2004. The report of post mortem was admitted into evidence and marked Exhibit 7. The opinion of the Medical Officer as to the cause of death has been mentioned therein as “the cause of death to the best of my knowledge is due to the effect of Ante mortem head injury produced by blunt force which is sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature”. The exhibit 8 is the injury report of Safiqul Khandakar, the deceased. Safiqul was 35 years old at that time and he was admitted in Nero Hospital and C.T. Scan Centre, Pradhannagar, Siliguri in unconscious state. The nature of injury was mentioned as grievous. He expired on 3.12.2004. It shows also that the patient admitted with alleged history of physical assault on 19.11.2004 at 12 A.M. The exhibit 14 was the information given by the Nero Hospital and C.T. Scan Centre to the officer in charge, Siliguri police station regarding death of Safiqul Islam Khandakar. The inquest report of the dead body of Safiqul Islam was marked Exhibit 3. It appears therefrom that at the time of inquest, head injury, (stitched up), was found by the Inquest Officer. The inquest report of the dead body of Safiqul Islam was marked Exhibit 3. It appears therefrom that at the time of inquest, head injury, (stitched up), was found by the Inquest Officer. On careful perusal on the evidence on record I have failed to find out any probable second story other than the prosecution story regarding the injury sustained by Safiqul Khandakar on 19.11.2004 at about 11 A.M. to 12 noon which ultimately caused his death. Therefore, one point is very clear in this case that the death of Safiqul was due to the injury sustained by him on his head on 19.11.2004 caused by blunt objects. 7) The incident, according to the prosecution case had taken place on 19.11.2004 at about 11 A.M. to 12 noon. In the incident alleged, Safiqul, Ekramul and their mother Apia Bewa were severally assaulted with lathi, iron rod, buttom etc. by the appellants. It is true that F.I.R was filed on 25.11.2004 i.e. 5 days after the incident. In the F.I.R., it has been categorically stated that Rafiqul Islam Khandaka,r the lodger of the F.I.R., was busy in the matter of medical treatment of his two brothers Safiqu, Ekramul and mother Apia Bewa and he had to attend hospital at different places for that purpose. The F.I.R. which has been marked as Exhibit 1 unequivocally shows that Rafiqul Islam Khandakar had given a reasonable explanation for delay in lodging the F.I.R. Rafiqul Islam Khandakar was examined as P.W. 1. He has stated that the injured Safiqul, Ekramul and Apai Bewa were taken to Dinhata hospital. Apai Bewa was referred to Cooch Behar Hospital and Safiqul and Ecramul were referred to Nero Hospital, Siliguri. He has stated further that the F.I.R. was prepared on his instruction by Elahi box, a Law clerk of Dinhata Court. The contents of the F.I.R. were read over to him and thereafter he put his signatures there on. He identified the exhibit 1 which he filed in the Dinhata police station. He has stated categorically that as he was busy in the medical treatment of the injured persons there was delay in lodging of the F.I.R. 8) The explanation so given in the F.I.R. and by the P.W. 1 regarding delayed filing of F.I.R. appeared to be sufficient and satisfactory considering the background of the case. Two brothers and mother of the P.W. 1 were seriously injured. Two brothers and mother of the P.W. 1 were seriously injured. They were referred to different hospitals at different Districts. Quite naturally, the P.W. 1 was busy in the matter of their medical treatment. He, however, found time even in course of that period, to prepare one F.I.R. with the help of Elahi box on 20.11.2004. But he did not rather could not file it in the police station before 25th November, 2012. This appears to be normal for the P.W. 1. The learned Trial Court came to a conclusion that the delay was sufficiently explained. I would like to share his view and in my estimate, considering the facts situation of the case, the delay in filing the F.I.R. was sufficiently and satisfactory explained. I find that the learned Court discussed the matter elaborately in paragraph 41, 42 and 43 of the judgement impugned. On careful scrutiny of the evidence of the P.W. 1, I find that nowhere the P.W. 1 stated that he lodged the F.I.R. on 20.11.2004. He stated in his cross-examination that he failed to remember whether any written complaint other than the exhibit 1 was submitted by him on 20.11.2004 in the police station. That statement of the P.W. 1 does not necessarily establish or raise suspicion as to the date of filing of the F.I.R. It is fact that it was written on 20.11.2004 but it has not been established that a second F.I.R. was prepared after words and lodged on 25.11.2004 suppressing the F.I.R. written on 20.11.2004. The evidence of P.W. 1, P.W. 15 and P.W. 26 altogether indicates that the F.I.R. written on 20.111.2004 was actually filed on 25.11.2004. There was no substitution of the original F.I.R. at least, there is no evidence to support such introduction of a revised version. The entire matter was taken into consideration by the learned Trial Court with great attention. The learned Trial Court also appreciated the evidence in this respect critically taking each and every possibility into consideration. I find myself convinced with the view taken by the learned Trial Court over the issue. No doubt there was delay in lodging the F.I.R. which was written on 4 days back but, the original F.I.R. (exhibit 1) was not a substituted one. I find myself convinced with the view taken by the learned Trial Court over the issue. No doubt there was delay in lodging the F.I.R. which was written on 4 days back but, the original F.I.R. (exhibit 1) was not a substituted one. 9) It is true also that after receiving the F.I.R. on 25.11.2004, the Dinhata Police station did not despatch the F.I.R. to the Court of Magistrate before 29.11.2004. This delay on the part of the police official in the matter of despatching F.I.R. to Court was obviously a great and vital omission but only for that reason, prosecution case cannot be said to be unacceptable and unbelievable. The impact of this delay is to be judged taking into consideration the other factors and evidence on record. This point will be taken up for consideration again later on. 10) Turning to the prosecution case it is found that on 25.11.2004 Rafiqul Islam Khandakar (P.W. 1) lodged the F.I.R. (exhibit 1) with Dinhata police station alleging therein that over an incident of taking away of a velly tree from their land by the appellants on 19.11.2004, the alleged incident of assault had taken place. The F.I.R. disclosed that Safiqul Islam Khandakar (Since deceased) Ekramul Khandakar (P.W. 22) tried to resist the appellants from taking away the tree but were assaulted severally with iron rod, wooden bottom etc. by the appellants. Being assaulted, they raised alarm and their mother Apia Bewa and younger brother Babu Khandakar and wife of the P.W. 1 rushed to the place of occurrence to save Safiqul and Ekramul. Apia Bibi was assaulted also by the appellants. Both Ekramul and Safiqul sustained bleeding injuries on their head and body. They fell unconscious on the ground. Ekramul, Safiqul and Apia were taken to Dinhata Hospital. Apia Bewa was referred to Cooch Behar Sadar in J.N. Hospital while Safiqul and Ekramul were referred to North Bengal Medical College Hospital at Siliguri. 11) The F.I.R. does not disclose who else other than Ekramul, Apia Bewa, Babu Khandakar and wife of the P.W. 1 witnessed the incident. In fact, it was not necessary also to mention the names of the witnesses. Be that as it may, the prosecution case in substance has been clearly made out in the F.I.R. Amongst the persons injured, Safiqul Islam Khandakar died subsequently. Apia Bewa was examined as P.W. 8. In fact, it was not necessary also to mention the names of the witnesses. Be that as it may, the prosecution case in substance has been clearly made out in the F.I.R. Amongst the persons injured, Safiqul Islam Khandakar died subsequently. Apia Bewa was examined as P.W. 8. Ekramul Khandakar was examined as P.W. 22. Rachima Bibi i.e. wife of the P.W. 1 was not examined and Rafiqul Islam was examined as P.W. 1. No doubt, they are the most vital and important witnesses in this case. The injured Apia Bewa i.e. P.W. 8 stated that on the relevant date and time, hearing a hue and cry, she went out from her house, rushed to the place of occurrence and found the appellants were assaulting Safiqul and Ekramul with Lathi, axe, iron rod and baton etc. Ekramul and Safiqul fell on the ground. Safiqul and Ekramul sustained injuries on their heads and different parts of their body. She stated further that she tried to save her son and fell on them. But, the appellants assaulted on her hands which were ultimately fractured. She also fell unconscious. The P.W. 8 was crossexamined extensively by the defense. She stated that police examined her in connection with the case and that she did not mentioned the names of the assailants to the Doctor at Dinhata or Cooch Behar. She also stated in her cross-examination that she appeared in the scene immediately on hearing the hue and cry and some local persons also reached there who did not try to intervene. She was cross-examined on location of the subject velly tree and exact position of the place of occurrence. A careful perusal of the evidence of Apia Bewa (P.W. 8), it can well be said that she had supported the prosecution case by consisting, corroborating and believable testimony. There was nothing in her deposition which would show that prosecution case was quite different than what was stated in the F.I.R. To be stated preciously, Apia Bewa supported the prosecution case in its entirety. Her deposition regarding location of velly tree and place of occurrence had no impact at all in the matter of judging the credibility of her testimonies. 12) P.W. 22 was Ekramul Haque Khandakar, another injured person. Her deposition regarding location of velly tree and place of occurrence had no impact at all in the matter of judging the credibility of her testimonies. 12) P.W. 22 was Ekramul Haque Khandakar, another injured person. He stated that that on the relevant date and time when the appellants were trying to take away the velly tree which he and his brothers cut down and kept in their land, he and his brother safiqul resisted the appellants. The appellants started assaulting Safiqul at random with iron rod, baton, lathi etc. He tried to resist them but assaulted severally on his head and different parts of his body. He stated further her mother Apia Bewa (P.W. 8) also tried to save them from the hands of the appellant but was assaulted by the appellants. Babu Khandakar (P.W. 10) and Rafiqul Khandakar (P.W. 1) rushed to the place of occurrence. The P.W. 22 became unconscious. I find that the P.W. 22 was cross-examined by the defense thoroughly on each and every facts but his statement in examination-in-chief remained unshakened. He was also asked about the location of the subject velly tree and place of occurrence and he stated that the velly tree was cut down a few days prior to the date of incident by them and left at the place. He had given description of the place of occurrence confidently and there was no inconsistency in his statement. He named some person who reached the place of occurrence at the relevant time, such as, Reajul Karim, Suramoti Dewa, Sahidul Haque and Nurjamal Haque. As he fell unconscious he could not say what happened afterward. He also failed to remember whether police attended him during his stay in hospital. He stated that police did not record his statement. He denied the suggestion put to him by the defense that no such incident had taken place. The P.W. 22, in fact and in substance, supported the prosecution case fulfledgedly. There was no inconsistency in his statement which would have raised doubt in the mind of Court. 13) The P.W. 1 Rafiqul who happened to be lodger of the F.I.R supported the statement of P.W. 8 and P.W. 22 as well as the facts stated by him in the F.I.R. (exhibit 1). There was no inconsistency in his statement which would have raised doubt in the mind of Court. 13) The P.W. 1 Rafiqul who happened to be lodger of the F.I.R supported the statement of P.W. 8 and P.W. 22 as well as the facts stated by him in the F.I.R. (exhibit 1). He named some persons who also rushed to the P.O. hearing the hue and cry, such as, Rafiqul Khandakar (P.W. 4), Amjad Khandakar (P.W. 5), Babu Khandakar (P.W. 10), Nurjamul Mia (P.W. 14), Sidul Mia (P.W. 3), Jahir Mia (P.W. 9), MOmana Bewa (P.W. 2) and Riajul Karim (P.W. 11). He categorically stated that Safiqul and Ekramul lost their sence on the spot after being assaulted severally on their heads and different parts of the body by the appellants. He had also stated categorically that his mother Apia Bewa tried to save Safiqul and Ekramul but was assaulted and, as a result, sustained injury on her hands. The P.W. 1 had given details of the medical treatment undergone by Safiqul (since deceased), Ekramul and Apia Bewa. He stated categorically that the velly tree which was the subject matter of the dispute, was cut down by them a few days prior to the incident and was kept in their land. He made no mistake in stating that the appellant were removing the tree by cutting the same into logs. He reached the place when the appellants were assaulting Ekramul and Safiqul. He made it clear in his cross-examination that all the appellants actively participated in the assault of his brothers and mother. No persons reached on the spot prior to him and within twothree minutes after he appeared in the scene, some local persons came there. He did not mention the names of the assailants before the Doctor at the time of medical treatment of his brother and mother. He reiterated in his cross-examination that he reached the place of occurrence within one to two minutes and denied that he reached there after the occurrence. The evidence of the P.W. 1 was inspiring the confidence of any Court of law. Not only he supported the evidence of P.W. 8 and P.W. 22 but also the facts stated in the exhibit 1. His evidence can be said to be free from inconsistency, incorroboration, exaggeration and falsehood. The evidence of the P.W. 1 was inspiring the confidence of any Court of law. Not only he supported the evidence of P.W. 8 and P.W. 22 but also the facts stated in the exhibit 1. His evidence can be said to be free from inconsistency, incorroboration, exaggeration and falsehood. If the evidence of P.W. 1, P.W. 8 and P.W. 22 are taken together, the only conclusion that can reasonably be drawn is that what they stated was believable, consisting and creditworthy. There were no exaggeration or embellishment in their statement. Their unimpeachable testimony cannot possibly be thrown away simply because they were related to each other closely. A bare perusal of their testimony disclose that they had no reason, whatsoever, to lodge a false case against the appellants. They being the injured and closed relation to each other had no reason to screen the actual culprit. From the defense side, as it appears, no second case was made out during trial regarding the injuries sustained by Safiqul, Ekramul and Apia Bewa. It is not a mandate in the in the Criminal Justice dispensation system that corroboration of testimony of injured is a must in order to sustain an order of conviction. The evidence of P.W. 1, P.W. 8 and P.W. 22 altogether was sufficient and satisfactory enough to take a decision without further corroboration. Be that as it may, in the present case, there were other eye witnesses, evidence of the investigating officer and medical witnesses which supported their statements. 14) From the evidence of the P.W. 1,8 and 22 it is found that Momina Bewa, Siful Bewa, Amjad Hossan Khandakar, Jahir Uddin Mia, Rajaul Karim, Noorjamal Haque, the local people gathered at the P.O. at the time of incident and witnessed the same. Momina Bewa was examined as P.W. 2. She stated that the occurrence took place about four years ago in between 11 A.M. to 12 noon. At that point of time, she was cooking in her house. She heard a hue and cry, went out and found Safiqul (since deceased), Ekramul (P.W. 22) and their mother Apai Bewa were lying in injured condition on the land of Altaf. She stated that she reached the place after the occurrence and she did not ask anybody how the occurrence took place. She heard a hue and cry, went out and found Safiqul (since deceased), Ekramul (P.W. 22) and their mother Apai Bewa were lying in injured condition on the land of Altaf. She stated that she reached the place after the occurrence and she did not ask anybody how the occurrence took place. This P.W. 2 was declared hostile as she stated that she did not disclose the police how the occurrence took place. She was controverted over the point by the prosecution by way of crossexamination. From the evidence of the P.W. 2 it appears clearly that Safiqul, Ekramul and Apia Bewa sustained injuries on the relevant date and time and were lying in injured condition on the land of Altaf. This portion of her statement cannot be discarded although she was declared hostile. 15) Shaidul Mia was examined as P.W. 3 he stated that about 4 years ago, on Friday, between 11 A.M. to 12 noon, the occurrence took place in the land of one Altaf. He stated that hearing hue and cry, he rushed to the place of occurrence, found appellant Jafir Uddin, Nahid, Majidul, Appiruddin, Rasid and others were taking some logs by vans. He also found Safiqul Khandakar and Ekramul Haque stopped them. There was altercation between them and those persons assaulted Safikul and Ekramul with lathi, baton, and rod and, as a result, they sustained injuries and became unconscious. He stated further that their mother tried to stop the assailant but she was assaulted on her hand and sustained injury. The injured were taken to hospital. In his cross-examination, he denied the suggestion put to him that he did not witness the occurrence and made a false statement in Court. He, however, could not say which accused assaulted whom in what manner. The evidence of P.W. 3, in my estimate, supports the prosecution case in all respect. It is found in his evidence that the dispute cropped up over logs which the appellants wanted to take away but resisted by the injured and, as a result, the appellants hit the injured with lathi, rod, baton etc. The P.W. 3 was an independent witness having no axe to grind against the appellants. There was no reason for the trial Court to disbelieve his oral testimonies. 16) Amjad Hossian Khandakar was examined as P.W. 5. He did not support the prosecution case and was declared hostile. The P.W. 3 was an independent witness having no axe to grind against the appellants. There was no reason for the trial Court to disbelieve his oral testimonies. 16) Amjad Hossian Khandakar was examined as P.W. 5. He did not support the prosecution case and was declared hostile. He did not state anything which either supported the prosecution side or the appellants. 17) Zahir Uddin Mia was examined as P.W. 9. He as also declared hostile as he detracted his statement allegedly made before the Investigating Officer of the case. Rajaul Karim was examined as P.W. 11. He stated that in the month of November, 2004, at about 11.30 to 12 noon, on the land of Altaf, the incident had taken place. At that relevant period of time, he was working in his land and heard a hue and cry. He rushed to the place of occurrence and found the appellants, 12 in number, being armed with lathi, iron rod, baton, axe etc. were assaulting Ekramul Haque Khandakar and Safiqul Khandakar at random. Both Ekramul and Safiqul sustained bleeding injuries on the head and fell on the ground. He shouted and tried to stop the appellants from assaulting Safiqul, Ekramul and their mother Apia Bewa who came there to save her sons. She was assaulted with iron rod and sustained injury on her hands. The appellants stopped assaulting and took the logs of the velly tree by vans. He identified the appellants in Court. He stated further that Safiqul, Ekramul and Apia Bewa were taken to Dinhata Hospital and the dispute was cropped up over removal of a velly tree which was cut down 15 days prior to the occurrence from the ancestral land of Safiqula and Ekramul. On careful scrutiny of his crossexamination it is found that he failed to say which appellant was having what type of weapon with him. His statement before the I.O., however, was controverted and on verification of the same with the testimony of P.W. 26 (I.O) I find that there was very negligible contradiction in his statement before the I.O. and in Court. The P.W. 11, no doubt, supported the prosecution case fulfledgedly. His statement before the I.O., however, was controverted and on verification of the same with the testimony of P.W. 26 (I.O) I find that there was very negligible contradiction in his statement before the I.O. and in Court. The P.W. 11, no doubt, supported the prosecution case fulfledgedly. From his evidence it is clear that the alleged incident had taken place over a cut down velly tree and that all the appellants assaulted Safikul, Ekramul and Apia Bewa mercilessly and, as a result, they sustained serious injuries and were taken to hospital. This case of prosecution i.e. assaulting Safiqul, Ekramul and Apai Bewa by the appellants was been supported by the P.W. 11 who appears to be an independent witness having no animity with the appellants. There was no reason of the learned Trial Court to discard his statement. 18) Nurjamal Haque was examined as P.W. 14. He stated that on the relevant date and time at about 11 A.M. to 12 noon hering hue and cry from the land of Altaf, he rushed to the place and found the appellants, being armed with lathi, baton, iron rod, axe, dao was assaulting Safiqul and Ekramul severally who sustained swelling and bleeding injuries on their mouth, head and different parts of their body. They fell down on the ground and their mother Apiai Bewa appeared there and tried to save Safiqul by embarrassing him. The appellants assaulted Apia Bewa at random and, as a result, she sustained injury on both of her hands. He stated that beside himself, Sahidul Haque (P.W.), Surmoti Bibi (P.W. 7) Rijaul Karim (P.W. 11), Amjad Khandakar (P.W.5), Momana Bibi( P.W. 2) and Zahir Uddin (P.W. 9) were also present at that time. She stated that appellant took the logs of velly tree by vans and the injured were taken to Dinhata police station first of all wherefrom to Dinhata hospital. He stated further that on the date of occurrence appellants were trying to take away the logs of the velly tree by rishaw van and Ekramul and Safiqul tried to resist them. As a result, they were assaulted by the appellants. He stated further that on the date of occurrence appellants were trying to take away the logs of the velly tree by rishaw van and Ekramul and Safiqul tried to resist them. As a result, they were assaulted by the appellants. The appellants, in course of cross-examination tried to discredit the evidence of P.W. 14 but, it appears to me that they failed to fetch out anything out of the P.W. 14 which would suggest that what he stated was entirely false and that he was a tutored witness or chance witness. The evidence of P.W. 14 also, no doubt, supported the prosecution case fulfledgedly. 19) P.W. 14 named Surmati Bibi, a local woman, to be an eye witness of the incident beside himself. Suramati Bibi was examined as P.W. 7. She supported the entire prosecution case stating categorically that the incident had taken place over a velly tree which the appellants were trying to take away by vans and that appellants were resisted by Safiqul and Ekramul who were assaulted by the appellants with rod, lathi, baton, axe etc. and, as a result, they sustained bleeding injuries, fell on the ground and that Apia Bewa was assaulted and sustained injury on her hands when she interfered to save her sons. In her cross-examination, she stated that the appellant did not assault the injured with axe. She denied the suggestion put to her in her cross-examination that she was a tutored witness. She denied the suggestion also that there was no such incident and that she did not witness such incident. This P.W. 7 also supported the prosecution case fulfledgedly and that there was no reason for the learned Trial court to disbelieve her statement. The evidence of Momana Bibi, Zahir Uddin, Amjad and riajul Karim has already been discussed. 20) The evidence so recorded by the learned Trial Court appears to be consisting, corroborating, credible and trustworthy. 21) Besides the direct evidence of the above witnesses, the evidence of Sankar Pradhan, P.W. 18, Dr. Pabir Kumar Dey (P.W. 19), Dr. W.H. Chang (P.W. 20), Dr. M.L. Dhandhania (P.W. 21), Dr. Kakuli Ray (P.W. 23), Dr. Ujjal Acharya (P.W. 24) and Dr. Soummajit Ray (P.W. 25) altogether supported the prosecution version that Ekramul, Safiqul and Apia Bewa were initially taken to Dinhata Hospital in unconscious state with severe injuries on their head, mouth and other parts of body. W.H. Chang (P.W. 20), Dr. M.L. Dhandhania (P.W. 21), Dr. Kakuli Ray (P.W. 23), Dr. Ujjal Acharya (P.W. 24) and Dr. Soummajit Ray (P.W. 25) altogether supported the prosecution version that Ekramul, Safiqul and Apia Bewa were initially taken to Dinhata Hospital in unconscious state with severe injuries on their head, mouth and other parts of body. Amongst them Apia Bewa was referred to Cooch Behar Hospital while Safiqul and Ekramul were referred to North Bengal Medical College Hospital and Nero Hospital where Safiqul died due to the injuries sustained by him on his head which was anti mortem in nature and caused by blunt object. 22) It was contended by Mr. Sinha that no witness disclosed the names of the assailants to the officer who performed inquest of the dead body of Safiqul. I do not find any importance on this submission of Mr. Sinha. Officer performing inquest of dead body was not supposed to record history of death. He was supposed to take note of the condition, position and nature of the dead body and that was what exactly done by him. It was submitted by Mr. Sinha that there was delay in examining some of the witnesses by the I.O. and thereby a strong doubt raised as to the changing of the shape of the actual fact and to introduce some eye witnesses in order to strengthen the prosecution case. In the instant case some of the eye witnesses were injured also, such as, P.W. 8 and P.W. 22. Their evidence could not be discarded. Delay in questioning some witnesses to the incident by itself, therefore, cannot amount to serious infirmity in the prosecution case. When the evidence of injured inspired confidence and supported by almost all the witnesses who reported to had gathered at the place of occurrence, delay in questioning some of such witnesses by the police officer by itself cannot be said to be serious infirmity and cannot be a ground for disbelieving their statements. It may be taken note here that nothing substantial has been brought to the notice of this Court in the cross-examination of those eye witnesses suggesting that they were not trustworthy witnesses. Therefore, merely on that ground their evidence cannot be appreciated with a pinch of salt. In this connection a Division Bench Decision of Punjab and Hariyana Court in Bhim Singh Vs. Therefore, merely on that ground their evidence cannot be appreciated with a pinch of salt. In this connection a Division Bench Decision of Punjab and Hariyana Court in Bhim Singh Vs. State of Hariyana reported in 2012 (2003) All India Criminal Law Reporter 132 can well be referred to. The Hon’ble Division Bench relying on a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ganesh Bhavan Patal and Ors. Vs. State of Maharasta reported in AIR 1979 Supreme Court 135 opined that delay in questioning witness by itself cannot amount to any serious infirmity in the prosecution case but it may assume such a character if there are concomitant circumstances to suggest that the investigator was deliberately marking time with a view to decide about the shape to be given to the case and the eye witnesses to be introduced. In the instant case, there were no such concomitant circumstances suggesting that the investigating officer was deliberately marking time in order to give a different shape of the case by introducing some new witnesses. Accordingly, I do not find substance in the submission of Mr. Sinha. Even non-examination of injured Ekramul Haque Khandakar (P.W. 22) had no serious impact on the prosecution case. He was unconscious when taken to different hospitals he was injured severally and by the time he recovered, the investigating officer collected sufficient evidence. The contention of Mr. Sinha regarding inconsistencies and contradictions in the statement of witnesses on some material facts does not appear to be fatal to the prosecution case. The contradictions which were brought to the notice of the Court were in respect of exact place of occurrence, the place where the subject velly tree was kept, which appellant was having what type of weapon, which appellant assaulted whom in what manner etc. These discrepancies appeared to be natural and normal in the fact situation of the instant case. When twelve armed persons jointly attacked three unarmed persons and assaulted them at random it was not possible for any person even the injured to say exactly who assaulted whom with what object and on what part of the body. It might be that some of them did not even hit but their intention or common object to assault safiqul and Ekramul and thereafter Apia Bewa was established by cogent and sufficient evidence. 23) Turing to the first point raised by Mr. It might be that some of them did not even hit but their intention or common object to assault safiqul and Ekramul and thereafter Apia Bewa was established by cogent and sufficient evidence. 23) Turing to the first point raised by Mr. Sinha and Mrs Sinha regarding the delay in forwarding the F.I.R. to the Magistrate, it is suffice to state that by such delay no prejudice was said to have been caused to the appellants. No question even in form of suggestion, was put to the police official and as well as the Investigating officer in their cross-examination over the issue. The appellants while examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. did not also brought that fact into the notice of the learned Trial Court and explained how and in what manner they were prejudiced by such delay. That being the position, the delay in forwarding of the F.I.R. to the Magistrate cannot be said to be fatal as no prejudice was caused to the appellants. In this context, the decision of the Hon’ble Court in Sandip Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2012 (3) AICLR 247 can well be referred to. Relying on an earlier decision in Pala Singh and another Vs. State of Punjab – AIR 1972 SC 2679 the Hon’ble Court opined that in absence of any prejudice to the accused delay in forwarding the F.I.R. to the Magistrate cannot by itself justify the conclusion that the Investigation was tained and the prosecution insupportable. The same observation were taken by the Hon’ble Court in Subhas Chandar Vs. Krishan Lal and Ors. Reported in 2001 SC 1903. 24) Mr. and Mrs. Sinha pointed out that P.W. 22 Ekramul Khandakar did not come forward to tell the Investigating Officer about the incident. Therefore, his testimony was afterthought. A decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Ravulappallai Kondaiah & Ors. Vs. State of Andra Pradesh, reported in A.I.R. 1975, Supreme Court 216 has been relied on by them in support of this contention. 25) There cannot be any dispute as to the view taken by the Hon’ble Court. However, the instant case the P.W. 22 was an injured and had undergone medical treatment for a long period. He fell unconscious after being beaten up mercilessly by the appellants. 25) There cannot be any dispute as to the view taken by the Hon’ble Court. However, the instant case the P.W. 22 was an injured and had undergone medical treatment for a long period. He fell unconscious after being beaten up mercilessly by the appellants. The P.W. 22 made it very clear in his deposition that he had no idea whether police official visited him in hospital in connection with the case. Besides being a witness to the case, he was one of the injured and brother of the deceased. Another injured i.e. his mother Apia Bewa (P.W. 8), however, was examined by the police. She was not that injured than that of P.W. 22 who undergone a prolonged medical treatment and was not in a condition to narrate the incident to the Investigating officer. This being the factual background, the observation of the Hon’ble Court cannot possibly be applied as a straitjacket formula in this case. In that decision the Hon’ble Court also held that when witnesses were relation of the deceased, by itself, does not make their evidence unreliable. In the case of Ravulappallai Kondaiah (Supra) the Hon’ble Court taken that observation while assessing evidentiary value of the statement of a defense witness not of an injured witness. Therefore, I do not accept the submission of Mr. and Mrs. Sinha that only because the P.W. 22 did not narrate the incident to the I.O. in course of investigation, what after thought. 26) It was contended by Mr. and Mrs. Sinha that the Doctors who provided medical treatment to the injured were not stated the names of the assailants. According to Mr. and Mrs. Sinha, this fact of not mentioning the names of the assailants was abnormal and unusual. I do not find any logic in their submission. The exhibit clearly indicates that history of assault mentioned therein as assault by some persons with iron rod, lathi, baton etc. It is true that names of the assailants were not mentioned in the Exhibit 8. This fact alone cannot discredit the prosecution case of assault and injury sustained by Safiqul, Ekramul and Apia Bewa. 27) Mr. and Mrs. Sinha had taken assistance from a decision of the Hon’ble Court in Pohlu Vs. It is true that names of the assailants were not mentioned in the Exhibit 8. This fact alone cannot discredit the prosecution case of assault and injury sustained by Safiqul, Ekramul and Apia Bewa. 27) Mr. and Mrs. Sinha had taken assistance from a decision of the Hon’ble Court in Pohlu Vs. State of Hariyana, reported in 2006 CRI LJ 532 and contended that some of the witnesses only mentioned names of five appellants which suggests that the other appellants had no involvement in the alleged overt act and it was not possible for the Court to specify who out of twelve appellants had actually caused injuries. Mr. and Mrs. Sinha overlooked evidence of P.W. 1,P.W. 7 (independent witness), P.W. 8 (injured), P.W. 10, P.W. 11 (independent witness), P.W. 14 (independent witness). All of them stated in their deposition that all the twelve appellants actively took part in the matter of assaulting Safiqul, Ekramul and Apia Bewa. On careful assessment of the evidence indicates clearly that involvement of all the appellants in the alleged crime has been clearly mentioned by most of the witnesses barring one or two. In Pohlu Vs. State of Hariyana (Supra), the factual aspect and evidence recorded by Court were quite different than that of this case. In that case the injured himself failed to name all the assailants. In the instant case, Apia Bewa, one of the injured, however, stated categorically the names of all the appellants while examined in Court as well as to the Investigating Officer. Therefore, the decision in Pohlu Vs. State of Hariyana (Supra) is not applicable in the facts situation and evidence recorded by the Court in this case. 28) In view of the discussion above, I find that the learned Trial Judge not only applied his judicial mind in the matter of appreciation of evidence in its true and proper perspective but also taken all probable factors into consideration while passing the impugned order of conviction and sentence of the appellants. The appellants were armed with deadly weapons and were also in a violent mood when resisted by the injured and deceased from taking away the logs of the velly tree. They had a common intention to take possession of the logs of the velly tree by any means and they were well prepared to face any consequences. The appellants were armed with deadly weapons and were also in a violent mood when resisted by the injured and deceased from taking away the logs of the velly tree. They had a common intention to take possession of the logs of the velly tree by any means and they were well prepared to face any consequences. Having such a common object they assembled there and when resisted, assaulted Safiqul, Ekramul and thereafter Apia Bewa. Safiqul died due to the injuries caused to him, specially on head, afterwards. Apia Bewa got fractured of both her hands and Ekramul Haque had to undergo a prolonged medical treatment. All these facts have been properly and critically examined by the learned Trial Court and, in my estimate, the learned Trial Court arrived at a right conclusion that the alleged offences were committed by the appellants. Therefore, this Court finds no reason to upset the order of conviction and sentence. 29) Accordingly, the appeal fails. The judgement and order passed by the learned Trial Court is affirmed.