Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 395 (JHR)

Raja Hansda v. State of Jharkhand

2014-03-13

AMITAV K.GUPTA, D.N.PATEL

body2014
JUDGMENT D.N. Patel, J. 1. The present criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by 4th Additional District & Sessions Judge, Dumka, in Sessions Case No.30/2001. The learned Trial Court vide order dated 25th October, 2002 has punished these appellants for life imprisonment for offence punishable under Section 304/34 of the I.P.C. 2. The case of prosecution is that on 2.6.2000 at 21.15 hrs (i.e. 9.15 P.M.) the informant Bitti Hembrom (P. W9) gave fardbeyan at Ramgarh Hospital to police that on 2.6.2000 at 4.30 P.M. informant, her husband Girish Hansda (deceased) and her son Indray Hansda (P.W8) were in their home. At that time informant brotherinlaw i.e. Raja Hansda (accused no.1) and Nandan Hansda (accused no.2) came there and took Girish Hansda to the house of Raja Hansda in order to have a talk in connection with settlement of marriage of his daughter and Girish Hansda went to the House of the accused Raja Hansda.They talk about the marriage of Girish Hansda niece and also talk about the partition of ancestor land and then they started altercation with informant husband for partition land. Thereafter at 5 P.M. informant saw that her husband was caught hold by Nandan Hansda at the door of Raja Hansda house and Raja Hansda inflicted two blows of sharp edged fasuli on Girish Hansda and after getting injured, Girish Hansda run from there to save himself but both the accused persons chased him and gave 2/3 blows of fasuli on his chest and head and injured him. Then informant raise noise (hulla) and her son Indray Hansda rushed to rescue his father. The accused Raja Hansda also inflicted further blows by fasuli on the Girish Hansda even after his fall and then accused persons fled away from there. Then informant son Indray Hansda brought his father Girish Hansda to home and thereafter with the help of villagers he was taken to Ramgarh Hospital for treatment but doctor declared him dead. The informant further alleged that the reason for occurrence took place only due to differences in partition of ancestral lands. Ten witnesses were examined by the prosecution P.W.-1 Rameshwar Hembram He is the Eye witness of the occurrence and he has proved his signature in the fardbeyan i.e. marked as Ext.1 and also proved his signature in the seizure list i.e. marked as Ext.1/1. Ten witnesses were examined by the prosecution P.W.-1 Rameshwar Hembram He is the Eye witness of the occurrence and he has proved his signature in the fardbeyan i.e. marked as Ext.1 and also proved his signature in the seizure list i.e. marked as Ext.1/1. P.W.-2 Sonalal Hansda He is the Eye witness of the occurrence. P.W-3 Sanat Kisku He is the Eye witness of the occurrence and he has proved his signature and signature of Suklal Kisku in the Inquest report i.e. marked as Ext.2 and 2/1. He has also proved his signature in the seizure list i.e. marked as Ext.1/2 P.W-4 Suklal Kisku He is the Eye witness of the occurrence. P.W-5 Dhaneshwar Hembram He is the son-in-law of deceased Girish Hansda and is the Eye witness of the occurrence. P.W-6 Baburam Besra Declared Hostile witness. P.W-7 Dr. Nasimul Haque He is the Doctor who has conducted the Post-mortem of the dead body of Girish Hansda and has proved the Post-mortem report i.e. marked as Ext.3. P.W-8 Indray Hansda He is the son of deceased Girish Hansda and he is the Eye witness of the occurrene. P.W-9 Bitti Hembram She is the wife of deceased Girish Hansda and is the Eye witness of the occurrence. P.W-10 Shyamlal Tuddu He is the Investigating Officer of this case. He has proved the fardbeyan i.e. marked as Ext.4 and has also proved the endorsement of O/C Ramgarh Police Station in fardbeyan i.e. marked as Ext.4/1. He has proved the formal FIR i.e. marked as Ext.5 and also proved the carbon copy of Inquest report i.e. marked as Ext.6. He has proved the seizure list i.e. marked as Ext.7 and also proved the signature of Raja Hansda (accused) in the seizure list i.e. marked das Ext.1/3. 3. It is submitted by the counsel for the appellants that the learned trial court has not properly appreciated the fact that there are major contradiction, omission and improvement in the deposition of the prosecution witnesses and hence the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial court deserves to be quashed and set aside. 3. It is submitted by the counsel for the appellants that the learned trial court has not properly appreciated the fact that there are major contradiction, omission and improvement in the deposition of the prosecution witnesses and hence the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial court deserves to be quashed and set aside. It is further submitted that so called eye witnesses of the incident in question are in fact not the eye witnesses at all looking to their examination-in-chief and cross-examination before the learned trial court and there is a great degree of variation in the deposition of the so called eye witnesses which tantamount two major omission, contradiction and improvement. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned trial court. It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that there is inconsistency in the prosecution witness about the number of injuries sustained by the victim such as P.W.1 is speaking about two blows at head of the deceased given by appellant no.1 whereas P.W.2 is differing in his deposition in paragraph 1 that there are five or six blows given by appellant no.1. Thus, different witnesses are narrating differently the whole incident and consequently there is major contradiction between occular evidence and medical evidence. It is further submitted that P.W.7the doctor has stated that injuries are culpable caused by heavy sharp cutting weapon whereas the alleged weapon used by appellant no.1 is not a heavy sharp cutting instrument at all neither this weapon has been produced before the learned trial court. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned trial court. Hence, the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by learned trial court deserves to be quashed and set aside. It is further submitted that the motive which is alleged by the prosecution is the land dispute. These two appellants are the brothers of the victim and with a view to grab the property these appellants have been falsely implicated by the informant and alternatively it submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that assuming that the whole case is proved against appellant no.1 who has caused injury then also the benefit may be given to the appellant no.2 who has not caused any injury to the deceased. Even half a dozen eye witnesses have stated that not a single injury has been caused by appellant no.2 upon the body of the deceased, therefore, appellant no.2 should be forthwith released by the Court. It is further submitted that so far as appellant no.1 is concerned alternatively appellant no.1 may be held guilty for the offence punishable under section 304 Part II I.P.C because the whole incident has taken place because of sudden fight and only because of property dispute. This is not a preplanned action of the murder on the part of the appellant no.1 who has already remained in jail since thirteen and half years and, therefore, if both the appellants are punished for ten years R.I. then it will suffice the purpose of imposing punishment under Section 304 Part II I.P.C. It is further submitted that how this aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned trial court and as such the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial court deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4. It is submitted by learned A.P.P. that no error has been committed by the learned trial court in appreciating the evidence on record. The case of the prosecution is based upon as many as half a dozen eye witnesses, immediate is the F.I.R. The name of the appellants is mentioned in the F.I.R. The names of several witnesses have also been mentioned in the F.I.R and P.Ws.1,2,3,4,5,8 and 9 are the eye witnesses of the incident. They have clearly stated that these two appellants have caused the murder of Girish Hansda, the deceased. It is submitted by the learned A.P.P. that initially the assault had taken place at the house of appellant no.1 and thereafter victim started to run away and he came out of the house of appellant no.1 and in a gali (witnesses have referred in their own language as “kulhi”) and four of the injuries were caused after chasing the deceased by these two appellants in a gali and chasing of the deceased by the appellants reveals the intention. In furtherance of their common intention one has facilitated the murder and another has caused the murder. This is how they shared the common intention. In furtherance of their common intention one has facilitated the murder and another has caused the murder. This is how they shared the common intention. It is further submitted that there is no discrepancy in the deposition of the eye witnesses nor there is major contradiction, omission and improvement. Half a dozen of the eye witnesses, in their deposition, have stated that they had seen the occurrence and they are the natural witnesses. As stated by the Investigating Officer who is P.W.10 the house of the appellants is near the vicinity of the place of occurrence. The informant (P.W.9) who is the wife of the deceased raised alarm and immediately the son of the deceased (P.W.8) rushed to the place of occurrence and others have also rushed to the place of occurrence. Thus, they have seen the whole incident. The eye witnesses have narrated the whole incident without any exaggeration. It is submitted by the A.P.P. that there are always chances of truth in the deposition of the prosecution witness and false in uno omnibus maxim is not applicable in the criminal jurisprudence. It is further submitted by A.P.P. that there is no discrepancy between the occular and medical evidence given by Dr.Nasimul Haque(P.W.7). The injuries sustained by the deceased are tallying with the narration of the incident given by the eye witnesses. So far as production of weapon in the court is concerned it is submitted that the said weapon was recovered from the house of the appellant no.1. There are witnesses to the seizure list who are P.W.1 and P.W.3 and they are also the eye witnesses of the incident and they have proved the recovery of the weapon, thus, production of the weapon in the court is not sine qua non of the proof of the murder. Thus, the medical evidence is corroborated by the deposition of the eye witnesses. This aspect of the matter has been properly appreciated by the learned trial court. The prosecution has proved the murder of the deceased, Girish Hansda beyond all reasonable doubt. There is no error committed by the learned trial court in convicting and sentencing these two appellants for causing murder of the deceased, Girish Hansda. Hence, this appeal cannot be entertained by this Court. 5. The prosecution has proved the murder of the deceased, Girish Hansda beyond all reasonable doubt. There is no error committed by the learned trial court in convicting and sentencing these two appellants for causing murder of the deceased, Girish Hansda. Hence, this appeal cannot be entertained by this Court. 5. Having heard the counsels of both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence on record and judicial pronouncements, as stated hereinbelow, we see no reason to entertain this criminal appeal mainly for the following facts, reasons and judicial pronouncement: (i) P.W.9 is the wife of the deceased who had given fardbeyan when she went to Ramgarh hospital that on 02.06.2000 at about 4.30 p.m. this informant , Bitti Hembram( P.W.9), her husband, Girish Hansda(deceased) and her son, Indray Hansda(P.W.8) were in their home. The brotherinlaw of the informant, namely, Raja Hansda ( accused no.1) and Nandan Hansda(accused no.2) came at the house of the victim and they had gone along with Girish Hansda(deceased) at the house of the appellant no.1 to have a discussion about the marriage of daughter of appellant no.1. Girish Hansda(deceased) had gone at the house of Raja Hansdaappellant no.1 where the talk of marriage of the daughter of appellant no.1 had taken place. These two appellants are brothers of the deceased. There were some ancestral property and land with them. They started discussion about the said property which resulted into hot altercation and thereafter the informant rushed at the house of Raja Hansda( appellant no.1) where she saw that appellant no.2 had caught hold her husband (Girish Hansda) and Raja Hansda(appellant no.1) had given two blows by fasuli(sharp cutting weapon). The victim(Girish Hansda) ran out of the house to save himself but both the appellants chased him in a gali. Again he was caught hold by appellant no.2 and appellant no.1 gave blows by fasuli on his chest and head and injured him. At this time, P.W.9 raised hulla and hearing this hulla, her son(P.W.8) rushed at the place of occurrence and he also saw this incident in a gali. In gali also accused no.1 gave certain blows and thereafter, victim(Girish Hansda) became unconscious. At this time, P.W.9 raised hulla and hearing this hulla, her son(P.W.8) rushed at the place of occurrence and he also saw this incident in a gali. In gali also accused no.1 gave certain blows and thereafter, victim(Girish Hansda) became unconscious. Son of the informant(P.W.8) brought him into the house and thereafter he took him to Ramgarh hospital where the doctor declared him dead and therefore, fardbeyan was lodged at the Ramgarh hospital by the wife of the deceased(P.W.9) and because of this fardbeyan, F.I.R was lodged on the same day of occurrence, investigation was started, statement of several witnesses were recorded and the map of the place of occurrence has also been drawn by the police and on the basis of the statement recorded by the several witnesses, chargesheet was filed by the police and the case was committed to the court of session in Sessions Case NO. 30/2001 and on the basis of evidence of P.Ws.1 to 10 learned trial court convicted these appellants for the murder of the deceased and both the appellants have been punished for life imprisonment under section 302 to be read with Section 34 I.P.C. Thus, looking to the case of the prosecution it appears that P.W1,2,3,4,5,8 and 9 are the eye witnesses of the incident and P.W.7 is the doctor who has carried out post mortem of the deceased. P.W.10 is the Investigating Officer and P.W.1 and P.W.3 are the eye witnesses of the incident as well as they are the witnesses of the seizure list because the weapon was recovered from the house of appellant no.1. (ii) Looking to the deposition given by P.W.1 who is the independent eye witness and Pradhan of the village has stated that he has seen appellant no.1 causing injury at the head of the deceased in a gali when victim was caught hold by appellant no.2 He has also proved the seizure list and his signature upon the fardbeyan given by the informant(P.W.9) before the police. This witness has clearly stated about the role played by these two appellants without any exaggeration. It appears that from the crossexamination of this witness nothing has come out in favour of these appellants. This witness has stated that appellant no.2 caught hold the deceased and appellant no.1 had caused injury at the head of the deceased. Thus, one had facilitated and another had committed the murder. It appears that from the crossexamination of this witness nothing has come out in favour of these appellants. This witness has stated that appellant no.2 caught hold the deceased and appellant no.1 had caused injury at the head of the deceased. Thus, one had facilitated and another had committed the murder. Thus, both had shared their common intention. Similarly, P.W.2 has also narrated the whole incident in detail and the role played by these two appellants. This witness is also a covillager and independent eye witness and is not the relative of the deceased at all nor he has any inimical term with the appellants. He has also narrated that appellant no.1 had caused injuries to the deceased and appellant no.2 had caught hold the deceased. Thus, all the eye witnesses are not the relatives of the deceased nor they have any motive to grab the property as narrated by the counsel for the appellants. So far as P.W.3 is concerned he is also an eye witness to the inquest report and the seizure list. He has proved his signature upon both inquest report as well as seizure list. He had also seen the incident and he has also stated before the learned trial court that appellant no.1 caused injury upon the deceased and appellant no.2 caught hold of the deceased. Weapon was also recovered in presence of P.W.3 from the house of appellant no.1. Similar is the deposition of P.W.4 who is also an independent eye witness of the occurrence and is a covillager and not related to the deceased nor he has any inimical term with these two appellants. We have seen the crossexamination of these witnesses who remained intact in examinationinchief. So far as P.W.5 is concerned he is the soninlaw of the deceased and he is an eye witness of the incident. He has also rushed because of the hulla or alarm raised by the informant(P.W.9). As he is related with the deceased it cannot be said that his deposition should be brushed aside by the Court. Whenever a close relative of the deceased depose in Court his deposition must be viewed with all circumstances. We have closely perused the depositions given by this P.W.5 and from his crossexamination it appears that this eye witness is a trustworthy and reliable witness. Whenever a close relative of the deceased depose in Court his deposition must be viewed with all circumstances. We have closely perused the depositions given by this P.W.5 and from his crossexamination it appears that this eye witness is a trustworthy and reliable witness. He has not exaggerated in his deposition nor there is any major contradiction, omission and improvement. It is clearly stated by this witness that appellant no.1 has caused injuries upon the deceased and appellant no.2 caught hold the deceased. This narration of this witness remained in tact. We see no reason to disbelieve this eye witness and no error has been committed by the learned trial court in appreciating the deposition of this eye witness. So far as P.W.8 is concerned he is the son of the deceased and he rushed to the place of occurrence on the alarm given by his mother (P.W.9) who is the informant. The son of the deceased rushed immediately in a gali where he saw that appellant no.1 was causing injuries upon his father and appellant no.2 had caught hold his father. Because of these injuries his father became unconscious. The son of the deceased brought his unconscious father at the house and thereafter to the hospital where he declared dead. Looking to his crossexamination it appears that there is no deviation of this eye witnesses from his examinationinchief though he is a close relative of the deceased and his presence at his own house is absolutely natural and looking to his over all deposition along with other it is clear that he remained intact and is a trustworthy and reliable witness as there is no major contradiction, omission and improvement in his deposition. Looking to the deposition given by P.W.9 who is also an eye witness and informant of the incident and also the wife of the deceased it is clear that she immediately lodged F.I.R at Ramgarh hospital before the police. She has narrated the whole incident in detail that for what purpose these two appellants had killed her husband at the house of appellant no.1 where there was discussion about the marriage of the daughter of appellant no.1. She has narrated the whole incident in detail that for what purpose these two appellants had killed her husband at the house of appellant no.1 where there was discussion about the marriage of the daughter of appellant no.1. After the discussion of the marriage of the daughter of appellant no.1 there was also discussion about the property of ancestral property and thereafter there was hot altercation between them and thereafter appellant no.1 started assault the deceased and appellant no.2 caught hold the deceased. After sustaining some injury, her husband, the deceased(Girish Hansda) run away from the house of appellant no.1. These two appellants chased the deceased(Girish Hansda) in a gali and appellant no.2 again caught hold the deceased and appellant no.1 gave few blows on the vital part of the body of Girish Hansda(deceased). In the meanwhile the wife of the deceased raised alarm and son of the deceased who is P.W.8 rushed from his house and he had seen his father was being assaulted in a gali by these appellants. This narration of P.W.9informant sufficiently proves the offence of murder committed by these two appellants. Looking to her crossexamination nothing has come out in favour of these two appellants. There is no major contradiction, omission and improvement in the deposition of P.W.9. Her presence at the same place of occurrence absolutely natural. She has proved the date of occurrence, place of occurrence and manner of occurrence and the role played by these two appellants without any exaggeration, omission, contradiction and improvement. We see no reason to disbelieve this eye witness. She is a trustworthy and reliable witness. Witnesses in a criminal matter are the eyes and ears of the whole incident. These eyes and ears of the criminal offence have to be proved the offence beyond all reasonable doubt. There are several eye witnesses who have stated about the occurrence and looking to the deposition of the prosecution witness murder of Girish Hansda by these two appellants has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt. Slight variation in the counting of number of blows makes the witness more reliable and more trustworthy instead of unreliable and untrustworthy because if the witnesses are giving exact narration they will be attacked by calling them as tutored witnesses. If there is any variation they will be attacked because they are inconsistent in their deposition. Slight variation in the counting of number of blows makes the witness more reliable and more trustworthy instead of unreliable and untrustworthy because if the witnesses are giving exact narration they will be attacked by calling them as tutored witnesses. If there is any variation they will be attacked because they are inconsistent in their deposition. But these eyes and ears of the incident have to be properly evaluated by the Court. If the counting of the blows is slightly erroneous that does not mean that they are untrustworthy witnesses. Counsel for the appellants submitted that as per P.W, 2/3 blows were given whereas P.W.2 deposed that 5/6 blows were given by appellant no.1. When one by one the blows are given by the accused it is too much to expect from the rustic witness the counting like mathematician. The mathematical nicety and statistical accuracy is not expected from the rustic eye witnesses specially when they are giving deposition in the court after 24 months. The deposition of the witnesses depends upon the power of observation, capacity of memory and ability of reproduction in Court. There may be some variation in these three phenomenons, namely, observation, memory and reproduction in court and that does not mean that they are not trustworthy and unreliable witnesses. On the contrary, slight variation inspires confidence of court in their deposition. Hence, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants about the counting of number of the blows by the court below is not accepted by this Court. (iii) Looking to the medical evidence given by Dr. Nasimul Haque who has carried out post mortem of the deceased (Ext.3) following ante mortem injuries were found on the body of the deceased: (a) An incised wound 4”x1”x bone deep over left side of forehead. On dissectionfrontal bone found fractured into pieces. Underneath membrance and brain tissue found lacerated with blood and blood clots present in the surrounding area of cranial cavity. (b) An incised wound 3”x1”x muscle deep over upper part of left side. (c) An incised wound 5”x1”x muscle deep over left scapular region of back. (d) An incised wound 6” x1” x muscle deep just below axillary folds of left axilla on left side of chest. (e) An incised wound 2” x 1” x muscle deep over back of left hand. (c) An incised wound 5”x1”x muscle deep over left scapular region of back. (d) An incised wound 6” x1” x muscle deep just below axillary folds of left axilla on left side of chest. (e) An incised wound 2” x 1” x muscle deep over back of left hand. (f) An incised wound 2” x1” x muscle deep over infra scapular region of back on left side. In the opinion of the doctor death was due to shock and haemorrhage due to above injuries. Injury no.1 was sufficient enough to cause in natural course of time. Weapon used heavy sharp edged object. Time elapsed since death within 36 hours. (iv) Looking to the aforesaid deposition given by the doctor (P.W.7) there are several incised wounds and they are culpable caused by sharp cutting weapon. Weapon used in the murder as narrated by the half a dozen witnesses is matching absolutely with the narration given by the medical evidence. (v). Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that as per medical opinion the weapon alleged to have been used must be heavy sharp cutting instrument and the weapon “fasuli” is not a heavy sharp cutting weapon and, therefore, so called eye witnesses are got up eye witnesses and occular and medical evidence are in contraction with each other. This contention is not accepted by the Court mainly for the reason that :a) The doctor who has given evidence as P.W.7 is not the eyewitness of the incident at all. Whatever is his opinion is as per Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872; b) The case of the prosecution is based upon several eye witnesses, namely, P.Ws.1,2,3,4,5,8, and 9 and as stated above, they are trustworthy and reliable witnesses. Their presence in the place of occurrence prima facie natural. They have clearly stated that appellant no.1 caused several blows upon the body of the deceased; c) Whenever there is fracture of scalp, normally in the medical opinion, there will be a reference of use of heavy weapon. But this is also disputed after looking to the fact of the present case because the weapon which was used is a fasuli which is a sharp cutting weapon and if with all force the injury is caused on head, there can be fracture on scalp and every time it is not required to use heavy substance for causing fracture of scalp. Requirement of heaviness of a weapon is done away by usage of force of a weapon used by the accused for causing head injury. Thus, whenever sterling truth is coming out from the evidence of the eye witness and even if there is slight discrepancy the same shall not be used for acquitting the appellantaccused. (vi) In view of the aforesaid evidences, even if there is slight discrepancy in medical evidence and occular evidence all weightage should be given to the occular evidence if the occular evidence is given by trustworthy eye witnesses. In the present case there are no discrepancies in between medical evidence and occular evidence at all. On the contrary, medical evidence is corroborative to the deposition of eye witnesses. Time of death is also matching with the narration given by the informant before the police in the F.I.R. (vii) Looking to the narration of the incident by the eye witnesses it is apparent that some of the injuries were caused by the appellant no.1 at his house and thereafter Girish Hansda(victim) run away out of the house of the appellant no.1 in a gali and these two appellants chased the victim which reveals their common intention. The common intention may not be present from the very beginning. It can be started even later on. There is no physical evidence on the intention. The intention has to be gathered by the court from the deposition of the witnesses. Looking to the narration of the incident given by the eye witnesses that the appellants chased the deceased from the house of appellant no.1 to a gali and again appellant no.2 caught hold the deceased and he facilitated appellant no.1 in causing injury reveals his common intention in murdering the deceased. Thus, both the appellants shared common intention in causing murder of the deceased and no error has been committed by the trial court in considering the evidence on record. (viii) It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that only appellant no.1 has caused injury upon the deceased and, therefore, benefit can be given to appellant no.2 because he has not caused any injury upon the body of the deceased. (viii) It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that only appellant no.1 has caused injury upon the deceased and, therefore, benefit can be given to appellant no.2 because he has not caused any injury upon the body of the deceased. This contention is also not accepted by the Court mainly for the reasons: a) The appellant no.2 has facilitated the appellant no.1 in causing injury upon the victim at the house of appellant no.1; b) When the deceased was running away from the house of appellant no.1, this appellant no.2 along with appellant no.1, chased Girish Hansdadeceased and again appellant no.2 caught hold of the deceased. Had he not caught hold him perhaps the victim could have been successful in running away and there could not be offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C at all. But because of this appellant no.2 Girish Hansda was caught hold and thereafter appellant no.1 caused further injury upon him. c) Chasing by this appellant no.2 and caught hold the victim twice makes him liable for murder of the deceased as he was also sharing common intention with appellant no.1 6. Looking to the evidence on record we see no reason to give the benefit to this appellant no.2 by converting the offence of murder into an offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. There are several injuries as per medical evidence. Half a dozen are incised wounds upon the body of the deceased. Some are caused by appellant no.1 firstly in the house of appellant no.1 and thereafter both the appellants chased the deceased and when he was in a gali, again blows were given due to which the victim became unconscious and when he was brought to the hospital he was declared dead. Looking to these evidences on record we see no reason to give any benefit to the appellant no.2 and no error has been committed by the learned trial court in appreciating the evidence on record for punishing both the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. to be read with Section 34 of I.P.C. 7. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid evidence on record and the judicial pronouncement, prosecution has proved the offence of murder of the deceased beyond all reasonable doubt. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid evidence on record and the judicial pronouncement, prosecution has proved the offence of murder of the deceased beyond all reasonable doubt. No error has been committed by the learned trial court in appreciating the evidence on record and we see no reason to alter the decision rendered by the learned trial court in Session Case no.30/2001. We upheld the decision delivered by the trial court. 8. There is no substance in this criminal appeal which is hereby dismissed.