JUDGMENT : (Per: HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE AMARESH KUMAR LAL) The appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment and the order dated 3.10.1991 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Banka in Sessions Trial No.779/89/ Trial No.366/91 by which all the appellants have been convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life under Sections 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant no.3 has been further convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant nos. 2, 3 and 5 Ashok Panjiara, Arjun Panjiara and Niranjan Panjiara have been further convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code, whereas, the appellant nos. 1 and 4 Saheb Panjiara and Ajay Panjiara have been convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code. However, all the sentences have been directed to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 29.05.1989 at about 7.00 A.M. Narayan Bagbe (deceased) and Bandhu Bagbe (P.W.2) were ploughing field of Narayan Bagbe for sowing paddy. Lakshman Bagbe (another deceased) also came to the field carrying paddy seeds. In the meantime, all of a sudden, the co-villagers Saheb Panjiara (appellant no.1) armed with Lathi, Niranjan Panjiara (appellant no.5) armed with sword, Arjun Panjiara (appellant no.3) armed with Bhala, Ajay Panjiara (appellant no.4) armed with Lathi, Ashok Panjiara (appellant no.2) armed with bomb, Triveni armed with Khanti, Gurudayal Baidya and Tura Mandal, both armed with Lathi came there and asked the informant and other ploughmen to stop ploughing the field. Narayan Bagbe (deceased) refused to stop ploughing and told that the field belonged to him, why they would stop the ploughing. Thereafter, Saheb Panjiara (appellant no.1) and Niranjan Panjiara (appellant no.5) instigated the co-accused to kill them. Thereafter, Arjun Panjiara (appellant no.3), Ajay Panjiara (appellant no.4), Niranjan Panjiara (appellant no.5) and Saheb Panjiara (appellant no.1) assaulted Narayan Bagbe with Lathi, sword and spear. After getting the injuries Narayan Bagbe fell down and succumbed to his injury on the spot. When Bandhu Bagbe (P.W.2), father and uncle, Lakshman Bagbe (deceased) of the informant tried to rescue Narayan Bagbe, the aforesaid accused also assaulted them brutally with the aforesaid weapons and they became senseless. The injured were taken to the hospital for treatment. After getting the injuries Narayan Bagbe fell down and succumbed to his injury on the spot. When Bandhu Bagbe (P.W.2), father and uncle, Lakshman Bagbe (deceased) of the informant tried to rescue Narayan Bagbe, the aforesaid accused also assaulted them brutally with the aforesaid weapons and they became senseless. The injured were taken to the hospital for treatment. The occurrence was witnessed by the co-villagers Basant Mandal (not examined), Praduman Mandal (P.W.5), Rabindra Mandal (P.W.6) and others. It has been further alleged that the accused also rushed to assault the informant, but he escaped. 3. The reason for the occurrence was that the accused tried to take possession of the land of the deceased Narayan Bagbe. 4. The fardbeyan (Ext.1) was recorded in the police station. The police rushed to the hospital and prepared the inquest report on the dead body of Narayan Bagbe (Ext. 2) and Lakshman Bagbe (Ext. 2/1). After investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet. Cognizance was taken. The case was committed to the court of sessions. Charges were framed against the appellants and three others, i.e, Nidho Raut, Madhu Raut and Makhi Raut which they denied and claimed to be tried. 5. The defence of the appellants is that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case due to land dispute between both the parties. After the trial, the appellants have been convicted and sentenced, as aforesaid. 6. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that they have been falsely implicated in this case due to land dispute. The land under dispute bearing Khata No.180/15, Plot No.1651/228 Area 26 decimals, Plot no. 1652/207 Area 20 decimals divided in three plots have been purchased by them alongwith Siya Narayan Baid and Ramswaroop Baid from Haldhar Kapri by registered sale deed dated 25.09.1979. Haldhar Kapri had purchased the land from Baldeo Mandal and his mother Rameshwari Devi by registered sale deed dated 23.09.1978, whereas the claim of the prosecution party is that the deceased Narayan Bagbe had purchased the land in the name of his wife Jaibandi Devi from the same Baldeo Mandal by registered sale deed dated 2.12.1978 and the sale deed in favour of accused Niranjan Panjiara and Shyam Narain Baid, etc. is dated 25.09.1979. The accused claimed their possession over the disputed land since the date of purchase. is dated 25.09.1979. The accused claimed their possession over the disputed land since the date of purchase. The learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that Narayan (deceased) purchased the land from Baldeo Mandal on 2.12.1978, but later on, Baldeo executed a deed of cancellation on 2.01.1979, whereas, the date of occurrence is 29.05.1979. As such, on the date of occurrence the deceased Narayan Bagbe had no right, title and possession over the land in question. 7. The learned counsel for the State has submitted that obviously, the occurrence has taken place due to land dispute, the deceased Narayan Bagbe purchased the land in dispute from Baldeo Mandal on 2.12.1978 in the name of his wife and came in possession over the land and he continued in possession, whereas, the accused purchased the land on 25.09.1979, after about nine months. It has been claimed by the defence that Baldeo Mandal executed a deed of cancellation on 2.01.1979 for the cancellation of the previous sale deed in favour of Narayan Bagbe. The deed of cancellation is not in accordance with law. The cancellation of the deed can only be made by the Collector under the Registration Act or by the competent civil court after hearing both the parties, which has obviously not been done in this case. As such, the alleged deed of cancellation dated 2.01.1979 executed by Baldeo Mandal is not in accordance with law and has got no value. There is no material on the record to show that Narayan Bagbe was ever dispossessed from his land in question, after making purchase in favour of his wife from Baldeo Mandal on 2.12.1978. Obviously, there is sufficient material on the record to show that the deceased Narayan Bagbe had right, title and possession over the land, whereas, the appellants and others were aggressors and they wanted to dispossess Narayan Bagbe from the land in question. He has further submitted that the evidence of P.Ws. 2, 9 and 10 are consistent and their evidence stands corroborated by the medical evidence of P.W.4 Dr. Ram Pyare, who had held the postmortem examinations on the dead bodies of Narayan Bagbe (Ext.4) and Lakshman Bagbe (Ext. 4/1) and also examined the injured Bandhu Bagbe (P.W.2). 8. He has further submitted that the evidence of P.Ws. 2, 9 and 10 are consistent and their evidence stands corroborated by the medical evidence of P.W.4 Dr. Ram Pyare, who had held the postmortem examinations on the dead bodies of Narayan Bagbe (Ext.4) and Lakshman Bagbe (Ext. 4/1) and also examined the injured Bandhu Bagbe (P.W.2). 8. In view of rival submission, this Court is required to reappraise the prosecution evidence to consider as to whether the prosecution has been able to substantiate its case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. 9. The prosecution has examined as many as twelve witnesses, P.W.1 Notice Giri, P.W.2 Bandhu Bagbe, P.W.3 Ram Singh, P.W.4 Dr. Ram Pyare, P.W.5 Praduman Pd. Mandal, P.W.6 Rabindra Mandal, P.W.7 Kapildeo Raut, P.W.8 Tuviaya Devi, P.W.9 Ram Bagbe, P.W.10 Manikant Singh, P.W.11 Ramphal Sah and P.W.12 Janardan Singh, in support of its case. Out of them, P.W.5 is a hostile witness, P.W.6 has been tendered, P.W.7 is a formal witness, who has proved the protest petition (Ext. 4/2), P.W.11 is a formal witness and has proved the sale deed (Ext.9) and rent receipt (Ext.10) and P.W.12 is also a formal witness, who has proved the rent receipts (Exts. 11 and 11/1). 10. P.W.10 is the informant of this case and son of P.W.2 Bandhu Bagbe. He has stated that on 29.05.1989 at about 7.00 A.M., he was ploughing the field of Narayan Babge for showing paddy. Narayan Bagbe and father of P.W.10 were also ploughing the field. In the meantime, eight persons from northern side, namely, Saheb Panjiara, Niranjan Panjiara, Ajay Panjiara, Arjun Panjiara, Ashok Panjiara, Nidho Rout, Madhu Rout and Makhi Rout, came there. Niranjan Panjiara was armed with sword. Arjun Panjiara was armed with Bhala. Nidho Rout was armed with Khanti and the remaining were armed with Lathi. They came to the field. Saheb Panjiara asked Narayan (deceased) to remove ploughs. Narayan told that it was his field why he would remove ploughs. After altercation Saheb Panjiara (appellant no.1) asked the co-accused to kill. Niranjan Panjiara assaulted Narayan Bagwe with sword. Arjun Panjiara assaulted with spear and the remaining accused assaulted him with Lathi. Narayan fell down. Lakshman came to his rescue. He was also assaulted. Niranjan assaulted him with sword on his head. Arjun assaulted him on chin and Nidho Rout assaulted with Khanti. The remaining accused assaulted him with Lathi. Niranjan Panjiara assaulted Narayan Bagwe with sword. Arjun Panjiara assaulted with spear and the remaining accused assaulted him with Lathi. Narayan fell down. Lakshman came to his rescue. He was also assaulted. Niranjan assaulted him with sword on his head. Arjun assaulted him on chin and Nidho Rout assaulted with Khanti. The remaining accused assaulted him with Lathi. He fell down and became senseless. P.W.2 Bandhu Bagbe (father of P.W.10) came to their rescue, he was also assaulted with spear by Arjun, which caused injury in his head and cheek and other accused assaulted him with Lathi. He fell down and became senseless. When P.W.10 came to rescue his father Ashok threatened him to kill with bomb. P.W.10 became frightened and he escaped. After the occurrence, the accused persons moved. The three victims of the occurrence were taken on the cot to the road. Narayan Bagbe died. He was taken to the police station. Bandhu Bagbe and Lakshman Bagbe were taken to the hospital. The statement of P.W.10 Manikant Singh was recorded in the police station. Lakshman Bagbe died in the hospital. He took his father P.W.2 to Bhagalpur hospital for treatment. Later on, he recovered injury. In his cross-examination, he has stated that prior to the occurrence, there has been litigation between Narayan Bagbe (deceased) and Saheb Panjiara and others. He does not know as to whether he and his father were the witnesses in that case or not. He has been cross-examined at length. It appears from the evidence of P.W.10 that there is some addition in his statement which does not go to the root of the case. His evidence inspires confidence and is trustworthy. 11. P.W.2 is an injured witness. He has stated that on the date and time of the occurrence, he was ploughing field. Narayan Bagbe was also ploughing the field. In the meantime, Lakshman Bagbe came there carrying paddy seeds. The accused persons came there from northern side. Saheb Panjiara, Ajay Panjiara, Ashok Panjiara, Madhu Rout and Makhi Rout were armed with Lathi. Arjun Panjiara was armed with spear and Nidho Rout was armed with Khanti. Niranjan was armed with sword. Saheb Panjiara and Niranjan Panjiara asked Narayan to remove the plough, Narayan refused and told that it was his field. Thereafter, Niranjan instigated the other accused to kill him. Thereafter, Niranjan and Arjun assaulted. Arjun Panjiara was armed with spear and Nidho Rout was armed with Khanti. Niranjan was armed with sword. Saheb Panjiara and Niranjan Panjiara asked Narayan to remove the plough, Narayan refused and told that it was his field. Thereafter, Niranjan instigated the other accused to kill him. Thereafter, Niranjan and Arjun assaulted. He and Lakshman Bagbe (deceased) rushed to rescue Narayan. Thereafter, Arjun assaulted him (P.W.2) with Bhala. He fell down and others also assaulted him. He regained his sense in Bhagalpur hospital. He has identified the accused in court. In his cross-examination, he has stated that the occurrence between two parties has been coming for the last 13-14 years. It appears that the evidence of this witness P.W.2 appear to be natural and inspires confidence. 12. P.W.3 is the Investigating Officer. He has stated that he has lodged Banka P.S. Case no.197/1989 on the statement of Manikant Singh (P.W.10), which was recorded by S.I., Raja Ram Singh at his instance. The fardbeyan has been marked Exhibit-1. He took the investigation of the case. He prepared the inquest report of the deceased Narayan Bagbe in three copies of carbon process and the original copy was sent to the hospital for post mortem examination. The inquest report has been marked as Exhibit-2. He went to Banka hospital to see the injured Bandhu Bagbe (P.W.2) and Lakshman Bagbe (deceased). He came to know that Lakshman Bagbe died and inured Bandhu Bagbe (P.W.2) was senseless, as such, he could not take his statement. He prepared the inquest report of the deceased Lakshman Bagbe in presence of the witnesses Harendra Pd. Yadav and Kapildeo Sah (P.W.7) and sent the original copy to the hospital for post mortem examination. He took the statement of witnesses to the inquest report and went to the place of occurrence. He took the restatement of the informant. He visited the place of occurrence as pointed out by P.W.9 Ram Bagbe and other villagers, which is situated in the Mauza Chutiya ½ K.M. from the village Khedurai Deeh in the Bahiyar. The land of the informant was found divided in three plots measuring 16 Kathas. The eastern plot was found ploughed half which was recently ploughed. There was brinjal field of Keshwari Sah at a distance of one Rassi. There was trampling mark in the field. In the south-east corner, there was bloodstain. The land of the informant was found divided in three plots measuring 16 Kathas. The eastern plot was found ploughed half which was recently ploughed. There was brinjal field of Keshwari Sah at a distance of one Rassi. There was trampling mark in the field. In the south-east corner, there was bloodstain. It was pointed out that Narayan Bagbe was killed there. The second place of occurrence is the land of Narayan Bagbe adjacent plot of Vaishakhi Mandal, which was a barren land. Blood was found in the middle of that barren land, which was also found trampled. Bandhu Singh (P.W.2) was injured there when he tried to escape. In the adjacent southern side, there is land of Narayan Bagbe. This land is at a distance of about 25 yards east from the first place of occurrence. The third place of occurrence is at a distance of 10 steps from the barren land of Jaldhar Mandal. Here also blood was fallen on the land and the land was trampled. It was pointed out that Lakshman Bagbe was assaulted there. The land of accused are at a distance of 1 K.M. in the north-western side of the place of occurrence. The land due to which the occurrence took place bears Khata No.180/15, Khesra No.1651/228, Area 26 decimals, 1652/207, Area 20 decimals, which were divided in three plots. He has further stated that he collected bloodstain soil from all the three places of occurrence and prepared the seizure lists in presence of the witnesses, which have been marked as Exhibits 3, 3/1 and 3/2. The accused were searched, but they were found absconding. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he had not prepared any map of the place of occurrence. On recall for further examination-in-chief, he has stated that the witness P.W.5 Praduman Pd. Mandal had stated before him that he went to Bahiyar after hearing the noise and saw that Narayan Bagbe and Lakshman Bagbe as also Bandhu Bagbe were ploughing field with their nephew to sow paddy seeds. In the meantime, the accused armed with various weapons came there and asked to stop the ploughing, which was refused by Narayan Babge. Thereafter, Saheb Panjiara asked the co-accused to kill him. Thereafter, all the accused assaulted Narayan, due to injuries, he fell down and died there. In the meantime, the accused armed with various weapons came there and asked to stop the ploughing, which was refused by Narayan Babge. Thereafter, Saheb Panjiara asked the co-accused to kill him. Thereafter, all the accused assaulted Narayan, due to injuries, he fell down and died there. When Bandhu Bagbe and Lakshman Bagbe went to his rescue, they were also assaulted brutally and both of them became senseless. 13. P.W.4 Dr. Ram Pyare has stated that on 29.05.1989 while he was posted as Civil Assistant Surgeon at Banka Sub-Divisional Hospital, he did the post mortem examination on the dead body of Narayan Bagbe, aged about 55 years at 3.55 P.M. and found the following ante mortem injuries : (i) Compound fracture of left leg 3” above ankle. (ii) Incised wound 2” x ½” x ¾” over left parietal bone. (iii) Incised wound 1 ½” x ½” x ¾” over left parietal bone 2” away from injury no. (ii), with fracture of parietal bone and laceration of brain matter and oozing of some blood from vessels of moninzes. (iv) Swelling of left side of chest 5 ½” x 2” with fracture of 3rd, 4th, 6th and 7th ribs 3” from midline and rupturing of pulmonary vessel. 300 m.l. of blood was collected in peritoneal cavity. Injury nos. (i) and (iv) were caused by hard and blunt substance may be lathi. Injuries nos. (ii) and (iii) were caused by sharp cutting instrument may be sword or even Bhala if it goes deeper. In the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage by the aforesaid injury. Time elapsed since death within 12 hours. The injury report has been marked as Exbt. 4 (with objection). On the same day at 3.15 P.M., he also held post mortem examination on the dead body of Lakshman Bagwe, aged about 45 years and found the following ante mortem injuries : (i) Incised wound 2 ½” x ½” x ¾” over right parietal bone in the middle with fracture of right parietal bone and laceration of brain matter the vessels of meninzes oozing out vault contained 250 m.l. of blood. (ii) Incised wound 2” x ½” x ½” over right side of chin. (iii) Incised wound ½” x ½” x 2/4” over the bridge of the nose. (ii) Incised wound 2” x ½” x ½” over right side of chin. (iii) Incised wound ½” x ½” x 2/4” over the bridge of the nose. (iv) The right side of chest had incised wound 4 ½” x ½” x ½” rupturing the 6th, 7th and 8th ribs and laceration of right lung with rupture of pulmonary artery, the plural cavity contained 325 m.l. of blood. The injury nos. (i) to (iv) were caused by sharp cutting weapon may be sword. Cause of death in the opinion of the doctor, was shock and haemorrhage due to aforesaid injuries. Time elapsed since death within 10 hours. Injury No. (iii) may be caused by Khanti and injury no. (ii) may also be caused by Bhala. The injury report has been marked as Exhibit-4/1 (with objection). On the same day, he also examined Bandhu Singh (P.W.2) and found the following injuries on his person : (i) Incised wound 2” x ½” x ½” over right side of chin. (ii) Lacerated wound 1” x ½” x ½” over right eyebrow. (iii) Swelling 3 ½” x 1” right knee. All the injuries except injury no. (i) were caused by hard and blunt substance may be lathi and injury no. (i) was caused by sharp cutting instrument may be Bhala. Age of injury within 6 hours. The injuries were simple in nature. The injury report has been marked as Exhibit-5. He has also been cross-examined. There is nothing unusual to be noted. 14. P.W.7 is a formal witness. He has only identified the signature on the protest petition (Ext.4/2). He has been further examined on recall. He has stated that the registered Zarbaiyana (deed of agreement) was executed by Baldeo Mandal in favour of Smt. Jaywanti Devi, wife of Narayan Bagbe dated 19.09.1978, which has been marked as Exhibit-7. The sale deed was executed by Baldeo Mandal in favour of Jaymanti Devi on 2.12.1978. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he did not identify Daymanti Devi from before. The executants and the witnesses are alive. 15. P.W.8, wife of the deceased-Lakshman Bagbe has claimed to have gone to the field/Bahiar with Damyanti Devi (not examined) carrying manure. The land belongs to the husband of Daymanti Devi, who was the elder brother of her husband. Manikant and Bandhu (P.W.2) were ploughing the field. She has narrated the occurrence as an eye witness to the occurrence. 15. P.W.8, wife of the deceased-Lakshman Bagbe has claimed to have gone to the field/Bahiar with Damyanti Devi (not examined) carrying manure. The land belongs to the husband of Daymanti Devi, who was the elder brother of her husband. Manikant and Bandhu (P.W.2) were ploughing the field. She has narrated the occurrence as an eye witness to the occurrence. But it appears from the evidence of P.W.3 in paragraph 8 that Tuniya Devi (P.W.8) did not state before him that she and her Gotni Dewanti Devi went to the field to scatter ashes in the field. She has also not narrated about the occurrence as an eye witness nor the Investigating Officer has found any sign or basket for carrying manure/ashes. As such, it appears that she was not an eye witness to the occurrence. 16. P.W.9 has stated that at the time of occurrence, he was ploughing the field of sugarcane, which he had taken on Bataidari. After hearing the noise, he went to the place of occurrence and saw that Narayan Bagbe, Bandhu Bagbe, Lakshman Bagbe, Manikant, Tuniya Devi and Dayawanti Devi were there. It appears that his evidence is not convincing and full of embellishment. We have just noticed that the Investigating Officer (P.W.3) has stated that Tuniya Devi did not state that she was at the field with Dayawanti Devi, whereas P.W.9 said that Dayawanti Devi and Tuniya Devi were also present at the place of occurrence. After going through the evidence, it appears that his evidence is not convincing. It is full of embellishments, although he is the own brother of deceased Lakshman Bagbe and in paragraph 6 of his cross-examination, he has stated that he did not go to rescue of his brother nor any one tried to assault him. 17. P.W.1 is the rickshaw puller. He has stated that he had gone to the bank of river to ease. After hearing noise, he went to the place of occurrence and saw Narayan Bagbe, Lakshman Bagbe and Bandhu Bagbe were being assaulted by the accused, who were armed with various weapons, such as, Lathi, Bhala and Sword. All the three fell down. Narayan Bagbe died there. Lakshman and Bandhu were senseless. He has also stated that after the assault, accused moved away. He and others took the injured on cot to the road and thereafter, on rickshaw to Banka hospital. All the three fell down. Narayan Bagbe died there. Lakshman and Bandhu were senseless. He has also stated that after the assault, accused moved away. He and others took the injured on cot to the road and thereafter, on rickshaw to Banka hospital. Thereafter, Narayan was taken to the police station. After half an hour, Lakshman died in the hospital. Bandhu was taken to Bhagalpur hospital. He has further stated that Narayan Bagbe had gone to plough the land, but Saheb Panjiara tried to take possession of the land, as such, he was killed. He has also stated about the presence of Tuniya Devi (P.W.8) and Dayabanti Devi (not examined) and other witnesses on the place of occurrence. P.W.3 has stated in paragraph 12 of his deposition that P.W.1 Notice Giri had not stated before him that Saheb Panjiara was trying to take possession of the land of Narayan Bagbe and as such, he assaulted him. He has also not stated about the presence of Tuniya Devi, Dayamanti Devi, Upendra Ram etc. He has stated that he had taken statement of P.W.1 at the place of occurrence, whereas, he has stated that he went to the place of occurrence after getting the information. P.W.1 has exaggerated his version, but from perusal of his evidence, it appears that he has supported the prosecution case before the Investigating Officer as well as before the trial court. 18. The defence has also examined five witnesses, D.W.1 Gobind Pd. Modi, D.W.2 Bhola Nath Sinha, D.W.3 Gouri Shankar Sahai, D.W.4 Parmeshwar Yadav and D.W.5 Awadh Kishore Jha. 19. D.W.1 has stated that the sale deed was executed by Rameshwari Devi, wife of Parokhi Mandal and Baldeo Mandal in favour of Haldhar Kapri, which has been marked as Exhibit-A (with objection). A deed of cancellation was executed by Baldeo Mandal, son of Parokhi Mandal against Jaywanti Devi, wife of Narayan Bagbe, which has been marked as Exhibit- B (with objection). In his cross-examination, he has stated that he does not know as to whether Haldhar is the brother-in-law of Baldeo Mandal. The aforesaid deed was executed on 23.09.1978 and the deed of cancellation was registered on 2.01.1979. Deed of cancellation was written after looking the deed no.12878 dated 2.12.1978. 20. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he does not know as to whether Haldhar is the brother-in-law of Baldeo Mandal. The aforesaid deed was executed on 23.09.1978 and the deed of cancellation was registered on 2.01.1979. Deed of cancellation was written after looking the deed no.12878 dated 2.12.1978. 20. D.W.2 is also a formal witness, who has stated that Jarbeyana was executed by Rameshwari Devi and Baldeo Mandal in favour of Haldhar Kapri and a sum of Rs.2300/- was given by Haldhar Kapri to Baldeo Mandal. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he does not remember as whose instance, Jarbeyana was written. There was no witness to the payment of consideration money. 21. D.W.3 is also a formal witness, who has proved the signature of Haldhar Kapri (Ext.A/1). 22. D.W.4 is also a formal witness, who has proved the writings of a clerk Prabhat Kumar Mishra on the letter and signature of S.D.J.M. Rajhans Trivedi on their letter of S.D.J.M. (Ext.G). 23. D.W.5 is also a formal witness, who has proved his signature on the information petition, which has been marked as Ext.H (with objection). 24. After careful consideration of the evidence adduced on behalf of both the parties, it appears that the occurrence has taken place due to land dispute. The deceased Narayan Bagbe purchased the land in dispute from Baldeo Mandal on 2.12.1978 in favour of his wife Jaibandi Devi and came in possession over the land and he continued in possession thereof. The accused purchased the land on 25.09.1979 from the same vendor after about nine months from the date of purchase made by the deceased. It has been claimed by the defence that Baldeo Mandal executed a deed of cancellation on 2.01.1979 with regard to the sale deed executed on 2.12.1978 in favour of Jaibandi Devi, wife of the deceased. Cancellation of a deed can be ordered by the Registrar (Collector) under the Registration Act or by the competent civil court after hearing both the parties, which has not been done in this case. As such, the deed of cancellation has got no value in the eye of law. Cancellation of a deed can be ordered by the Registrar (Collector) under the Registration Act or by the competent civil court after hearing both the parties, which has not been done in this case. As such, the deed of cancellation has got no value in the eye of law. And, by virtue of the deed of sale in favour of the wife of deceased and in lack of evidence that the deceased had been divested of the possession over the land which he had gained after having purchased the land, he continued in possession of the same. Here registration of the deed of cancellation was of no consequence. The prosecution has been able to prove its case by sufficient evidence. The case of prosecution has been supported by P.Ws. 2, 9 and 10. Their evidence is consistent and stands corroborated with the medical evidence of P.W.4 Dr. Ram Pyare, who has held the postmortem examination on the dead bodies of Narayan Bagbe and Lakshman Bagbe and their postmortem examination reports are exhibits 4 and 4/1. P.W.4 has also examined the injured Bandhu Bagbe (P.W.2) and has found the injuries on his person. It appears that the accused were aggressors and they tried to dispossess the deceased Narayan Bagbe from the land, the details of which has already been stated earlier. Most of the defence witnesses are formal in nature. Their evidence does not help the accused/appellants. 25. Considering the facts and circumstances stated above, we do not find any ground to interfere with the judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 26. In the result, this appeal is dismissed. The bail bonds of the appellants are cancelled and they are directed to surrender before the trial court to serve out the sentence as imposed by the learned trial court. Dharnidhar Jha, J. : I agree. Appeal dismissed.