Judgment Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, J. These two appeals are filed against the judgment and orders of conviction dated June 29, 2005, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, First Court, Purulia in Sessions Trial No. 4 of 2001, arising out of Sessions Case No. 131 of 2000, convicting the appellants under Sections 148, 452, 34 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. These two appeals are taken up for hearing together. None appears to represent the appellants. Mr. Manjit Singh, learned Public Prosecutor along with Mr. Atif Ahmed Siddiqui, learned advocate appear for the State. Since the appellants are not represented, Mr. Arindam Jana, learned advocate, is appointed as amicus curiae with his consent. Mr. Arindam Jana, assists the court admirably. The Court expresses its thanks to him. The prosecution case is that on April 10, 1994 at about 8-30 p.m. the appellants with other persons trespassed into the courtyard of Jagannath Sahis with farsa and lathi. While these persons tried to escape in a room where Ramanath, son-in-law of the family was staying, Chaitu, accused/appellant in C.R.A. 564 of 2005 hit Ramanath by farsa. Ramanath sustained severe injuries on shoulder, left hand and some portion of the body wherefrom he was profusely bleeding. The complainant Jagannath took Ramanath to Jhalda Hospital. But, the doctors declared him dead. Thereafter, the complainant Jagannath lodged written complaint on April 10, 1994 at about 21-30 hrs. at Jhalda Police Station being Case No. 52 of 1994. Consequently, case under Sections 147/148/149/447/323/326/ 302/427 of the Indian Penal Code was started. The charges were framed, 14 (fourteen) accused persons were committed to the court of the learned Sessions Judge. It is on record that during pendency of the trial three accused persons, namely, Sunil Kuiry, Shibu Bouri and Bipadtaran Bouri, died and against them the case was filed forever. The prosecution examined 18 witnesses. The accused persons were examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, but they pleaded not guilty. When the trial commenced before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, learned Public Prosecutor, in his all fairness, submitted that although 11 (eleven) accused were facing trial, there was no material evidence as against the accused persons except the three accused, namely, Baghu Bouri, Chaitu Bouri and Muruli Kuiry. When the trial commenced before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, learned Public Prosecutor, in his all fairness, submitted that although 11 (eleven) accused were facing trial, there was no material evidence as against the accused persons except the three accused, namely, Baghu Bouri, Chaitu Bouri and Muruli Kuiry. The Autopsy Surgeon, who conducted the post-mortem, opined that the cause of death was severe hypovolimic shock caused by the injuries, which are homicidal and ante mortem in nature. There are eye witnesses to establish the prosecution case. The said eye witnesses stated that the four accused persons along with other persons trespassed into the courtyard of Jagannath Sahis with farsa and lathi and they assaulted Sufal Chowkidar and murdered Ramanath. There was no allegation to indicate that these accused persons have been falsely implicated because of previous enmities between the families. We are of the opinion that the learned Additional Sessions Judge was right in accepting the prosecution case. The evidence of prosecution’s witness no.1, the prosecution’s witness no.8 and the prosecution’s witness no.10 was never challenged. Their versions were convincing. We are of the opinion that the learned trial judge was right in holding that the accused/appellants in C.R.A. 486 of 2005, namely, Baghu Bauri and Muruli Kuiry, guilty of charges punishable under Sections 148, 452 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused/appellant, Chaitu Bouri, in C.R.A. 564 of 2005 was found, also, guilty of charges punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Thus, the accused persons, Baghu Bauri and Muruli Kuiry, were convicted and they were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only each; in default, to suffer one year simple imprisonment more for the offence punishable under Sections 452 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. They were, also, sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence punishable under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused/appellant, Chaitu Bouri, murdered Ramanath at the place of occurrence. The learned Additional Sessions Judge was right in sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life and direct him to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only; in default, to suffer one year simple imprisonment more for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. The learned Additional Sessions Judge was right in sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life and direct him to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only; in default, to suffer one year simple imprisonment more for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. There was direction that in the event, the fine be realized 50% per centum of the amount would be paid to the wife of the deceased. Detention period, if any, would be set off from the substantive sentence as provided under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. We do not find any merit in the appeal. There is no infirmity in the judgment and order of sentence impugned before us. The appeal, thus, is dismissed. Shib Sadhan Sadhu, J. : I agree.