Judgment : Samapti Chatterjee, J. 1. The instant appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order of conviction passed in Sessions Trial No. 19 of 2006 and Sessions Case No.316 of 2005 passed by the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Court, Purulia on 8th April, 2008 holding the appellants guilty of offence punishable under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and as such the appellant was also convicted under Section 235 Cr.P.C. The accused persons are each sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for life, along with a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to suffer further Rigorous Imprisonment for two years. The sentences will run consecutively. 2. Put in a short frame, the prosecution case runs as under:- On 09.09.2003 shortly afternoon, defacto complainant Subarna Majhi of Village Sarberia, lodged a written complaint, scribed by Susanta Mishra, at Barabazar P.S., submitting that at about 10:30 that morning, his elder brother Sunil Majhi was proceeding to a a shop of the village to make some purchases, when on mainroad of the village (Kuli Rasta), accused Sudarshan Majhi, and his sons accused Bishnupada Majhi and Madhab Majhi, waylaid Sunil Majhi, and blocked the road, when he was in front of the village school. The accused persons then assaulted Sunil Majhi all over his body with axes and tangi. Sunil Majhi sustained grievous bleeding injuries and his wearing apparels were all soaked in blood, and he lay on the ground in critical condition. Defacto complainant Subarna Majhi thus prayed to the police station, that the matter be investigated, and the culprits be punished suitably. Pursuant to the complaint, Barabazar P.S. started this case under Sections 341/326/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code, against the three accused persons. Sunil Majhi was taken to Barabazar B.P.H.C. in a precarious condition, from where he was referred to Purulia Sadar Hospital, for better treatment. The relatives of Sunil Majhi tried to get him admitted to a hospital at Jamshedpur, but Sunil Majhi died on the way. Thereupon Barabazar P.S. prayed to the Learned Court of the Learned S.D.J.M. Purulia, for adding Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, and it was allowed by the Learned S.D.J.M. on 10.09.2003. On completion of investigation, the police submitted charge sheet under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, against the three F.I.R named accused persons. Thereupon Barabazar P.S. prayed to the Learned Court of the Learned S.D.J.M. Purulia, for adding Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, and it was allowed by the Learned S.D.J.M. on 10.09.2003. On completion of investigation, the police submitted charge sheet under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, against the three F.I.R named accused persons. After the case was submitted to the learned Court of Sessions, the learned Sessions Judge transferred the case to this Court by his Order, dated 12.12.2005, and during consideration of charge the accused persons were charged under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, to which they pleaded not guilty, and claimed to be tried. Accordingly trial started and after completion of trial the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted them as aforesaid. 3. P.W.1, is the younger brother of the deceased and an eye witness of the incident. He stated in his evidence that he was standing a 100 cubits from deceased Sunil Majhi and from that distance he saw that his elder brother was surrounded by three accused persons and they assaulted his elder brother with ‘Katari’ and ‘Kurul’. He lodged written FIR with the local Police Station and Susanta Mishra scribed the written FIR at his instance. Initially he took Sunil Majhi to Sarberia School and from there he took the victim to local Police Station where the victim narrated the incident to Borobabu and thereafter they took said Sunil Majhi to Barabazar BPHC Hospital. Said Sunil also narrated the incident to the Doctor there and from BPHC Hospital Sunil was shifted to Tata Hospital. On the way to Tata Hospital Sunil died. He also deposed that accused Sudharshan was his uncle and Bishnupada and Madhab were the sons of accused Sudarshan and they had a family dispute regarding landed property. He also identified the accused persons in Court. 4. P.W.2 is the father of deceased Sunil Majhi. He was informed by the villagers about the incident and after gathering the same he came to his residence and found the said Sunil Majhi in injured condition. On being asked Sunil stated that Sudarshan, Bisnupada and Madhab assaulted him with the help of ‘Katari’ and ‘Kurul’. He was taken to Barabazar Police Station and thereafter to hospital and thereafter when he was being shifted to Tata Hospital on the way he died. 5. On being asked Sunil stated that Sudarshan, Bisnupada and Madhab assaulted him with the help of ‘Katari’ and ‘Kurul’. He was taken to Barabazar Police Station and thereafter to hospital and thereafter when he was being shifted to Tata Hospital on the way he died. 5. P.W.3 is the younger brother of the deceased and also the seizure list witness. He in his evidence stated that on 09.09.2003 at about 2:20 A.M. police seized the weapons from the house of the accused persons and prepared the seizure list and he put his signature in the seizure list (marked as Exbt.I collectively). On 9th September, 2003 police collected some blood stained earth at 4 P.M in his presence and he put his signature in seizure list (marked as Exbt-4). 6. P.W.4 is the younger brother of the deceased who in his evidence stated that in front of house of Lambodar Majhi the incident took place but said Lambodar was not examined. He also asked the deceased about the incident and Sunil narrated the incident to him also. 7. P.W.5 is the elder brother of the deceased. He did not see the incident. After hearing hue and cry he came out from his room and saw Sunil in injured condition on the ground and Sunil disclosed that he was assaulted by Madhab, Bisnupada and Sudarshan. 8. P.W.6 is also a post occurrence witness. He was the seizure list witness also. 9. P.W.7 is the son of deceased and also the seizure list witness who in his evidence stated that on the date of incident at about 3:30 P.M. police came to their village. The victim was taken to Burabazar Police Station. He accompanied the victim (Father). Thereafter they went to hospital. 10. P.W.8 is the wife of the deceased. In her deposition she stated that after hearing hue and cry she rushed in front of the house of Lambodar Majhi and found his husband in injured condition. She further deposed that she could not remember whether her son Dadhichi accompanied her husband to Burabazar or not. She further deposed that she asked about the incident to her husband (since deceased) in presence of her son Dadhichi only. No other person was present there. Thereafter man y persons assembled there. 11. P.W.9, is an eye witness and younger brother of the deceased. She further deposed that she asked about the incident to her husband (since deceased) in presence of her son Dadhichi only. No other person was present there. Thereafter man y persons assembled there. 11. P.W.9, is an eye witness and younger brother of the deceased. In his evidence he stated that he was a short distance behind Sunil Majhi and he was going to have some paddy husk. On his way he saw three accused persons encircled the deceased Sunil Majhi and accused Sudhashan Majhi hit him with a ‘Katari’ and accused Madhab Majhi and Bisnupada Majhi hit Sunil Majhi with axes. 12. P.W.10 is also an eye witness of the incident. He in his evidence stated that he heard that Sunil Majhi was raising alarm and the three accused persons namely Sudarshan Majhi, Bisnupada Majhi and Madhan Majhi assaulted Sunil Majhi with ‘Katari’ and ‘Axes’. He identified Sudharshan Majhi in the Court. 13. P.W.11 is also the seizure list witness. He in his deposition stated that the police came to their village at about 10 P.M. and the accused persons handed over the police a ‘Katari’ and an ‘Axes’ which they brought out from their house. He also identified three accused persons. Police seized ‘Karari’ and ‘Axes’ by preparing a seizure list in his presence and he signed the seizure list as witness. 14. P.W.12 also an eye witness of the incident. He in his deposition stated that at that point of time he was going to the field, when he heard alarm “Banchao” (“Save me”). He immediately rushed to the spot and he saw that Sudarshan Majhi and his two sons were hacking Sunil. Sudardhan Majhi hacked Sunil Majhi with a ‘Katari’ and two sons of Sudarshan hacked Sunil Majhi with ‘Axes’. When he along with some villagers came to the scene of occurrence the accused persons fled away. He along with some other persons shifted Sunil Majhi and brought him to the school nearby. From the school Sunil was taken to Burabazar B.P.H.C and thereafter he was taken to Burbazar Police Station then Sunil was brought again to P.H.C and from there he was referred to Tata Hospital. On the way to Tata Hospital Sunil died. On reaching Tata Hospital the Doctor pronounced that he was “brought dead”. 15. From the school Sunil was taken to Burabazar B.P.H.C and thereafter he was taken to Burbazar Police Station then Sunil was brought again to P.H.C and from there he was referred to Tata Hospital. On the way to Tata Hospital Sunil died. On reaching Tata Hospital the Doctor pronounced that he was “brought dead”. 15. P.W.13 is the driver of Tata Sumo vehicle who took deceased Sunil Majhi from Burabazar Hospital to Tata Hospital. 16. P.W.14 is a villager and also one of the eye witnesses . In his evidence stated that at the relevant time he was coming from his house to the ‘Choumatha’ of their village. He saw that in front of ‘Choumatha’ accused Sudarshan hacked Sunil with a ‘Katari’ and accused Bisnupada and Madhab were also assaulting Sunil with ‘Axes’. Sunil fell down on the ground with injuries. Immediately he raised alarm and after hearing the same some people gathered at the scene of occurrence and the accused persons then fled away. Along with others he lifted Sunil and brought him to the Primary School nearby. From the school Sunil was taken by truck to Burabazar PHC Hospital and thereafter to the Police Station and thereafter he was taken to Tata Hospital. 17. P.W.15 is Autopsy Surgeon who held post mortem of the dead-body of the deceased Sunil Majhi. In his evidence he stated that he found following 13 injuries on the dead-body of deceased Sunil Majhi. (i) Bruise was present over the left thigh, lateral aspect measuring 1 ½” x ½”. (ii) Incised wound over left side of face, near the cheek 2 ½” x ¼” x muscle deep. (iii) Incised wound over left shoulder, measuring 1 ½” x ¼” x bone deep, partially cut. (iv) Incised cut injury of about 1”x 1”x1/4” below the right scapula. (v) Incised wound over lateral aspect of the back, near vertebral column (left) measuring 1”x1/2”xabdominal cavity deep (on dissection the coastal surface of the spleen was injured, and abdominal cavity was full of blood clots, and dark liquid blood). (vi) One incised wound over dorsum of left forearm, measuring 1 ½” X1/4” x muscle deep (vii) One incised wound over medial aspect of left forearm, measuring 1 ½” X1/4” x muscle deep (viii) One incised wound over right buttock, measuring 1 ½” x ½” x1”. (vi) One incised wound over dorsum of left forearm, measuring 1 ½” X1/4” x muscle deep (vii) One incised wound over medial aspect of left forearm, measuring 1 ½” X1/4” x muscle deep (viii) One incised wound over right buttock, measuring 1 ½” x ½” x1”. (ix) One incised wound over back of left thigh (lower), measuring 1” x ¼” x ½”. (x) One incised wound placed just below the left lateral malleolus 1”x ¼” x skin deep. (xi) One incised wound below the right lateral malleolus, 4”x1”x1”. (xii) One incised wound at inner side of left thigh 1”x1/2” x1”. (xiii) Lacerated injury at the base right little finger about 1 ½”x1/4”x1/4”. In his opinion the cause of death was due to shock and hemorrhage as per opinion of the medical board, as a result of the above mentioned injuries which were ante-mortem and homicidal in nature. 18. P.W.16 was another Doctor. In his evidence he stated that on 10th September, 2003 he was posted at Purulia Sadar Hospital as Medical officer. In his examination he stated that on that day a medical board was constituted who held the post mortem examination over the dead body of deceased Sunil Majhi. He signed in the carbon copy of the post-mortem report along with other two Doctors which is marked as Exbt.7/2. 19. P.W.18 was the police personnel and witness of seizure list. 20. P.W.19 was the constable who brought the dead body of deceased Sunil Majhi to morgue. 21. P.W.20 was the eye witness. In his evidence he stated that at the relevant time he was returning from his ration shop and at the ‘Choumatha’ of their village he saw a gathering. After reaching there he saw accused Sudarshan was assaulting Sunil with a ‘Katari’ and accused Madhab and Bisnupada, sons of Sudarshan Majhi were assaulting Sunil with ‘Axes’. Sunil was lying on the ground with injuries. 22. P.W.21 to 27 were tendered. 23. P.W.28 was the scribe who wrote the FIR narrated by the defacto complainant Subarna Majhi. 24. P.W.29 was the Doctor who examined the victim Sunil Majhi first. In his evidence he stated that on examination he found that the patient was conscious and he had multiple lacerated injuries over the left cheek right wrist joint, right thigh, left rib joint, left thigh and left shoulder joint. 24. P.W.29 was the Doctor who examined the victim Sunil Majhi first. In his evidence he stated that on examination he found that the patient was conscious and he had multiple lacerated injuries over the left cheek right wrist joint, right thigh, left rib joint, left thigh and left shoulder joint. The nature of the injuries were very grievous and the condition of the patient was very serious. 25. P.W.30 was the Investigating Officer of the case. In his evidence he stated that he received written complaint from one Subarna Majhi and started Burabazar P.S. Case No.34 of 2003 dated 09.09.2003 under Sections 341/326/307 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. He filed the formal FIR. He seized the wearing apparels of deceased Sunil Majhi. He arrested three charge-sheet named accused persons namely Sudarshan Majhi, Bisnupada Majhi and Madhab Majhi. On interrogation they acknowledged that they assaulted Sunil Majhi and they kept those weapons in their house. He came to the village Sarberia with accused persons and went to their house with witnesses and recovered two axes with wooden handles one of which was small in size and other medium size and one ‘Katari’ with iron handle. He also prepared the seizure list of the weapons. On 11th September, 2003 he also seized sample of blood as preserved by the Autopsy Surgeon at the time of post-mortem examination of the deceased Sunil Majhi and also a Sando Genji with blood stain and one blue coloured check Loongi with blood stain which was produced before him by a Constable being No.442 Prabir Pramanik. On 9th September, 2003 he reached the village at 14:15 hours. Dadhichi Majhi son of the deceased and some other villagers identified him the scene of occurrence. He also stated that he did not send the seized weapons for forensic examination. 26. Mr. Mainak Bakshi, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants contended that the prosecution measurably failed to establish its case. Investigation was not done properly. 27. Mr. Bakshi further contended that in front of the house of Lambodar Majhi the incident occurred but Lambodar was not examined by the prosecution. On the contrary the prosecution choose to bring all the relatives of the deceased as witnesses. No independent witnesses was examined. Evidence of eye witnesses were not corroborating with each other. 28. 27. Mr. Bakshi further contended that in front of the house of Lambodar Majhi the incident occurred but Lambodar was not examined by the prosecution. On the contrary the prosecution choose to bring all the relatives of the deceased as witnesses. No independent witnesses was examined. Evidence of eye witnesses were not corroborating with each other. 28. He further urged that P.W.9 in his evidence stated that incident took place near Primary School but others in their evidence stated that the incident took place in front of the house of Lambodar Majhi which was far from the school. P.W.9 in his evidence further stated that he never saw accused to flee away. Mr. Bakshi further submitted that P.W.10 was an eye witness but he failed to describe the weapons. He further contended that the P.W.7 was the minor child and P.W.8 was the wife of deceased. P.W.8 in her evidence stated that when she reached the place of occurrence other than she and her son P.W.7 no one was there but she again stated that after her arrival many persons gathered there, which as per Mr. Bakshi was contradictory. Mr. Bakshi further submitted testimonies of P.W.12 P.W.8, P.W.9 are full of contradictions and discrepancies. Furthermore, the P.W.14 could not be an eye witness as his view was obstructed by intervention of the other house. 29. Mr. Bakshi further contended that seizure lists prepared were not satisfactory and therefore the prosecution failed to satisfy the test of the Section 27 of the Evidence Act. 30. Mr. Bakshi further urged that weapons were not sent for FSL. 31. Mr. Bakshi further contended that nothing was clear and specific from the evidence of Autopsy Surgeon being P.W.15 that by which weapon the deceased was assaulted. P.W.29 is the first Doctor who treated Sunil Majhi. He stated in his evidence that the Sunil Majhi got lacerated injury. 32. Mr. Bakshi further contended that lacerated injury is completely different from sharp cut injury which post-mortem report suggested. It was also the contention of Mr. Bakshi that P.W.29 was not declared hostile by the prosecution. Therefore, testimony of P.W.29 also should be looked into by the Court. 33. He further submitted that no motive behind the murder was proved by the prosecution. Moreover, the dispute regarding land was settled between them as stated by P.W.1. 34. It was also the contention of Mr. Bakshi that P.W.29 was not declared hostile by the prosecution. Therefore, testimony of P.W.29 also should be looked into by the Court. 33. He further submitted that no motive behind the murder was proved by the prosecution. Moreover, the dispute regarding land was settled between them as stated by P.W.1. 34. He further submitted that none of the blows hurt the major part of the body. Therefore, appellants jointly could not be convicted of the offence punishable under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code by the prosecution. Moreover, there was no common intention or motive to kill Sunil Majhi. 35. In support of his contention Mr. Bakshi relied on a Supreme Court decision reported in (2014) SAR (Criminal Page 557 (Vijay Singh & Anr. Vs State of Madhya Pradesh) where the Supreme Court held that “the prosecution failed to frame any charge under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellants but the prosecution has been able to prove that appellants have assaulted the deceased with ballam and farsa, which are dangerous weapons-further the appellants had caused grievous injuries on the person of deceased-hence they may not be held guilty under Section 302 or 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, but surely their acts come within the mischief of Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code-conviction and sentence modified accordingly.” 36. In support of his contention regarding Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code Mr. Bakshi further relied on one Supreme Court Judgment reported in AIR 1978 (SC) Page 1492 Para 13, 14 and 15 (Dharam Pal Vs State of Haryana) where the Supreme Court held that “existence of otherwise of the common intention depends upon the facts and circumstances of the each case. The intention of the principal offender and his companions to deal with any person who might intervene to stop quarrel must be apparent from the conduct of the persons accompanying the principal culprit or some other clear and cogent incriminating piece of evidence. In the absence of such material, the companion or companions cannot justifiably be held guilty for every offence committed by the principal offender.” 37. Mr. In the absence of such material, the companion or companions cannot justifiably be held guilty for every offence committed by the principal offender.” 37. Mr. Bakshi in support of his contention that weapons were not shown to the Doctor which was a major negligence on the part of the prosecution relied on a Supreme Court decision reported in AIR (1976) 4 SCC Page-355 (Ishwar Singh Vs State of Uttar Pradesh). 38. Mr. Bakshi in continuation of his submission regarding holding examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C also relied on a Supreme Court decision reported in (2013) SAR (Criminal) Page731 (Raj Kumar Singh @ Raju @ Batya Vs the State of Rajasthan) where the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “no matter how weak the evidence of the prosecution may be, it is the duty of the Court to examine the accused and to seek his explanation as regards the incriminating material that has surfaced against him, circumstances which are not put to the accused in his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C, cannot be used against him and have to be excluded from consideration.” 39. The above mentioned Supreme Court decisions referred by Mr. Bakshi have no manner of application in the present case, as it is evident from the record that in the present case charge was also framed against the appellants under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code along with other charges. Furthermore, it is also proved that there was a common intention/motive amongst the accused persons to assault the victim as some property dispute cropped up between the accused persons and the victim. 40. Mr. Pawan Kumar Gupta, learned Advocate appearing for the prosecution submitted that on the basis of the FIR case was initiated under Section 341/326/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 41. He further contended that there was a motive/intention amongst the accused persons to murder the victim as a property dispute existed between the family of the accused persons and the family of the deceased relating to which several Court cases were filed. 42. Mr. 41. He further contended that there was a motive/intention amongst the accused persons to murder the victim as a property dispute existed between the family of the accused persons and the family of the deceased relating to which several Court cases were filed. 42. Mr. Gupta further contended that even if for the sake of argument we do not accept the postmortem report then also it was suggested that accused persons were very much there at the place of occurrence and they assaulted the deceased which would be proved from the evidence of the eye witnesses where all the witnesses stated that they saw the accused persons were assaulting the victim Sunil Majhi when they reached the scene of occurrence and they saw Sunil Majhi fell on the ground in a pool of blood and the accused persons fled away. 43. Mr. Gupta further submitted that most of the witnesses in their evidence stated that Sunil Majhi from scene of occurrence was taken to the school and from school to Burabazar PHC Hospital and then Burabazar P.S. and therefrom he was referred to Tata Hospital and on the way to Tata Hospital he expired. 44. He further contended that even the inquest report also suggested there were 7 sharp cutting injuries which could not be ignored as that was corroborated with post-mortem report as well as the testimony of the Investigating Officer and also the evidence of eye witnesses such as P.W.1, P.W.9, P.W.10, P.W.11, P.W.12. 45. Mr. Gupta further urged that there was no delay to lodge the FIR. 46. He further contended that initially Section 302 was not there but when the deceased expired then also the charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was also framed along with other charges against the accused persons. 47. Mr. Gupta further contended that all the offending weapons were produced before the Court and three accused persons confessed that they cleaned blood-stain with water. P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.4, P.W.5 and P.W.8 all in their evidence stated that victim Sunil disclosed them that Sudarshan Bisnupada and Madhab assaulted Sunil. 48. In respect of recovery of the weapons Mr. Gupta submitted that accused took the Investigating Officer to their house and disclosed before the Investigating Officer that where they have concealed the offending weapons. (‘Katari’ and ‘Kuruls’ respectively). 49. In respect of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code Mr. 48. In respect of recovery of the weapons Mr. Gupta submitted that accused took the Investigating Officer to their house and disclosed before the Investigating Officer that where they have concealed the offending weapons. (‘Katari’ and ‘Kuruls’ respectively). 49. In respect of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code Mr. Gupta contended that Section 34 must be applied in the present case as all three accused persons jointly assaulted the victim. 50. In respect of evidence of P.W.29 the first Doctor who treated the victim Mr. Gupta submitted that the P.W.29 casually and very reluctantly treated the deceased and prepared the report in most reckless manner 51. On the rival submissions as above we now proceed to decide the case. There can be no dispute that the deceased Sunil Majhi had died a homicidal death. Now the question is whether the prosecution has been able to connect the present appellant with the alleged crime? 52. On a close and critical reading of the evidence both oral as well as documentary with meticulous care, we find the evidence of eye witnesses are corroborating with the FIR as well as the post-mortem report. 53. We also could not ignore that property dispute cropped up between the accused persons and the deceased and so many cases were filed to that effect before the Court of law. 54. It is also evident from the testimonies of eye witnesses namely P.W.1, P.W.9, P.W.10, P.W.11 and P.W.12 that accused Sudharshan Majhi hacked Sunil Majhi with ‘Katari’ on 09.09.2003 and his two sons namely Bisnupada and Madhan hacked Sunil Majhi with the help of ‘axes’ and as a result of which Sunil Majhi fell on the ground in an injured condition. Initially Sunil was taken to the Primary School of the said village and thereafter he was taken to the local P.S. There Sunil Majhi narrated the incident to the Barobabu. Thereafter Sunil was taken to Burabazar PBHC Hospital where Sunil narrated the incident to the Doctor and from the BPHC he was shifted to Tata Hospital and on the way to Tata Hospital he died. Thereafter Sunil was brought to local Police Station. 55. We also find that all the offending weapons were produced before the Court and accused persons submitted that they cleaned up the blood stain from the offending weapons with water. Thereafter Sunil was brought to local Police Station. 55. We also find that all the offending weapons were produced before the Court and accused persons submitted that they cleaned up the blood stain from the offending weapons with water. We find that the P.W.1 in his evidence stated that Sunil disclosed to him that accused Sudarshan, Bisnupada and Madhan assaulted him P.W.15 Autopsy Surgeon in his evidence stated that there were 13 injuries in the body of the deceased and except injury no. 1 and 13 other injuries were caused by sharp cutting weapons. 56. We also find that the testimony of eye witnesses such as P.W.1, P.W.9, P.W.10, P.W.11 and P.W.12 corroborated with the post-mortem report as well as the FIR. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the accused persons jointly with the common motive to inflict serious injuries on the deceased with the intention of causing his death hacked the deceased on 09.09.2003 with ‘Katari’ and ‘Kuruls’. 57. However, we therefore have no hesitation to hold that the prosecution has not been fully able to prove the charge punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused persons but considering the nature of the injuries sustained by the deceased it is apparent that the appellants had the intention to cause such bodily injury as would likely to cause death of the victim. Therefore we hold that the accused persons found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 304 (Part I) of the Indian Penal Code. 58. The appeal thus stands partly allowed. 59. The appellants are convicted under Section 304 (Part I) of the Indian Penal Code. 60. The accused persons namely 1. Sudarshan Majhi, 2. Bisnupada Majhi and 3. Madhab Majhi are convicted under Section 304 (Part I) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 (ten) years. 61. Let the period of detention under gone by the convicts if any, during investigation, enquiry or trial and pending appeal of this case be set off against the term of imprisonment as per Section 428 of the Cr.P.C. 62. Let a photostat copy of the Judgment and Order be supplied to the convicts free of cost at once.