JUDGMENT : Sankar Acharyya, J. Challenging the judgment and orders of conviction under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code dated 15.09.2010 and sentence of imprisonment for life dated 16.09.2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Purulia in Sessions Case No. 148 of 2009 corresponding to Sessions Trial No. 3 of 2010 this appeal has been filed by four convict appellants Ranjit Mahato, Ispat Mahato, Sharabon Mahato and Aswini Mahato. All the appellants are detained in correctional home. 2. In the Trial Court all the appellants were charged for committing murder to Ganesh Mahato on 02.01.2009 in between 6:00 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. at village – Kudlung. In FIR (exhibit- 2) the case was made out that on the fateful date the informant Sashadhar Mahato (PW 1) and his elder brother Ganesh Mahato (victim) were returning their home at village – Mahulberia from village Kudlung after seeing cock – fight play through the village road. When they came to the south of a pond named ‘Lalgoria Bandh’ the accused persons (appellants herein) being armed with axe attacked Ganesh out of previous grudge. Informant Sashadhar tried to rescue Ganesh but he could not resist the accused persons and ran towards village – Kudlung and shouted seeking help of others. He also saw that accused persons assaulted Ganesh with axe and Ganesh fell down with bleeding injuries on the road and accused persons went towards their home. Thereafter, Sashadhar and other villagers went to the spot and found Ganesh was lying dead with bleeding injuries. 3. During trial prosecution examined seventeen witnesses as PWs and also adduced documentary evidence. Accused persons were examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They did not adduce any evidence. Defence of the accused persons is their plea of not guilty. 4. Contending inter alia the appellants have contended that the impugned judgment is bad in law and liable to be set aside. They have contended that learned Judge in the Court below failed to appreciate properly the evidence on record. According to the appellants the benefit of doubt should be extended in their favour and they claim for their acquittal. 5. Contending inter alia the appellants have contended that the impugned judgment is bad in law and liable to be set aside. They have contended that learned Judge in the Court below failed to appreciate properly the evidence on record. According to the appellants the benefit of doubt should be extended in their favour and they claim for their acquittal. 5. At the time of hearing this appeal, learned Advocate for the appellants has advanced arguments that in the impugned judgment the accused persons (appellants herein) have been found guilty on the basis of evidence of sole witness Sashadhar Mahato (PW 1) as eye-witness of the alleged occurrence and said PW 2 is full brother of the deceased Ganesh Mahato and that such conviction is neither proper nor lawful. He has taken us to the time of lodging FIR (exhibit- 2 read with exhibit-6) and has claimed that by deliberation names of accused persons have been incorporated causing delay giving emphasis on the inquest report (exhibit- 1/3) where no name of assailant of Ganesh Mahato has been mentioned. He has further argued that the prosecution has not disclosed the actual time of death of Ganesh Mahato because as per post-mortem report (exhibit- 4) rice was found in the stomach of the deceased which does not suggest that the deceased had eaten rice more than three hours before his death according to medical jurisprudence. Learned Advocate for the appellants has further pointed out that PW 1 has not specifically stated as to who among the four appellants assaulted with axe to the victim. With such arguments he has claimed that prosecution has hopelessly failed to prove the case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. 6. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has argued that according to the prosecution case only PW 1 and none else saw the occurrence and his relationship with the deceased cannot be a ground to disbelieve him. He has submitted that PW 1 is the most reliable witness because it cannot be inferred that PW 1 might have screened the real culprits in order to rope some innocent persons with a charge of murder. Placing his reliance on the decision of Supreme Court in the Case of Charan Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1975 SC 246 . Placing his reliance on the decision of Supreme Court in the Case of Charan Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1975 SC 246 . He has argued that time of digesting food varies man to man and depends on consistency of food, motility of the stomach, osmotic pressure of the stomach contents, quantity of food in the duodenum, surroundings in which food is taken, emotional factors and residual variations as we learn in page – 247 of Modi’s Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, Twenty-second Edition (student Edition) edited by B.V. Subrahmanyam. According to learned Counsel for the State the incident was promptly reported to police after occurrence and there was no inordinate delay in giving information to police. He has argued that PW 1 is so natural witness that there is no ground to disbelieve him and that it is not expected that in inquest report names of assailants of the deceased shall be mentioned. He has stated that in inquest report it has not been stated that the assailants are unknown persons. He has submitted that the impugned judgment is legal and proper and it may be confirmed as no miscarriage of justice has been caused thereby. 7. We like to consider first as to whether the death of Ganesh Mahato is homicidal death or not. As per written FIR (exhibit- 2) Ganesh Mahato was killed by the appellants on 02.01.2009 at about 6:00 p.m. – 6:30 p.m. The inquest report (exhibit- 1/3) speaks that on 02.01.2009 at 10:45 p.m. on investigation PW 17, being a police officer of Hura P.S., over the dead body of Ganesh Mahato, found multiple cut and bleeding injuries which suggest apparently homicidal injuries. Post-mortem report (exhibit- 4) corroborates the inquest report and PW 17 with opinion of autopsy surgeon (PW 10) that the injuries are homicidal in nature. PW 10 has ruled out possibility of such injuries due to fall on sharp stone. PW 1 claiming himself as eye-witness of the occurrence stated firmly that appellants assaulted Ganesh Mahato with axe and he expired on the spot. In our view, said evidence on record is sufficient to hold beyond shadow of doubt that Ganesh Mahato died due to his homicidal death. 8. Now we take up to consider the question whether there was inordinate delay in giving information about the incident to police. In our view, said evidence on record is sufficient to hold beyond shadow of doubt that Ganesh Mahato died due to his homicidal death. 8. Now we take up to consider the question whether there was inordinate delay in giving information about the incident to police. According to prosecution case the incident of murder occurred on 02.01.2009 between 6:00 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. in the evening. It reveals from exhibit- 6 (formal FIR) that distance between place of occurrence and Hura Police Station is about 30 k.m. and written FIR (exhibit- 2) was received at P.S. at 01-25 a.m. on 03.01.2009 but exhibit- 2 speaks that it was received at village – Kudlung (place of occurrence) on 02.01.2009 at 11:25 p.m. and forwarded to P.S. by police. It is evident from exhibit- 1/3 read with deposition of PW 17 that unnatural death of Ganesh Mahato was reported at Hura Police Station on 02.01.2009 at 9:35 p.m. and on that basis Hura Police Station U.D. Case No. 1/09 dated 02.01.2009 was started. PW 2 is elected Panchayat member and Upa-Pradhan of gram panchayat. PW 1 stated that after the incident of murder he informed it to PW 2. PW 2 stated that he went to the P.O. (place of occurrence). He reported the incident of murder to the police. On the spot police came. PW 2 wrote complaint (exhibit- 2) under dictation of PW 1 which was signed by PW 1 and submitted to police. We find from the aforesaid circumstances established by cogent evidence that there was no inordinate delay in reporting the incident of homicidal death of Ganesh Mahato to police. Arguments on this point advanced by learned Counsel for the appellants is not accepted. Truly, names of appellants have not been mentioned in inquest report (exhibit- 1/3) which was prepared on the basis of inquest held by PW 17 between 10:45 p.m. to 11:55 p.m. on 02.01.2009. Thereafter, under dictation of PW 1 the complaint (exhibit- 2) was written by PW 2 and submitted by PW 1 at village – Kudlung before police within 30 minutes at 11:25 p.m. on 02.01.2009 mentioning names of appellants accompanied by one or two unnamed persons as assailants of Ganesh Mahato. Thereafter, under dictation of PW 1 the complaint (exhibit- 2) was written by PW 2 and submitted by PW 1 at village – Kudlung before police within 30 minutes at 11:25 p.m. on 02.01.2009 mentioning names of appellants accompanied by one or two unnamed persons as assailants of Ganesh Mahato. From practical point of view the theory of mentioning names of accused persons in exhibit- 2 by deliberation as argued by learned Counsel for appellants does not appear as probable or rational. 9. Admittedly, PW 1 is brother of deceased Ganesh Mahato and excepting PW 1 none else has been examined as eye-witness of the prosecution. Is the evidence of this PW 1 sufficient to prove the alleged occurrence beyond reasonable doubt? On this question we like to discuss first as to whether PW 1 is intrinsically reliable and inherently probable. According to PW 1, on the fateful day he accompanied his elder brother Ganesh Mahato from their house at village – Mahulberia to village Kudlung to see cock fight play (recorded as ‘contest of hen’ in deposition). While they were returning home from village Kudlung through village road and arrived beside a pond named ‘Lalgoria bandh’ they found the four accused persons (named) were standing and those persons attacked Ganesh Mahato assaulting with axe. PW 1 shouted and tried to save his elder brother Ganesh but failed. He was proceeding towards village – Kudlung and he also saw incident of assault by accused persons on Ganesh. Returning to the spot he found his elder brother already expired. He reported the incident to Upa-Pradhan Bahadur Mahato (PW 2) and then PW 2 reported it to P.S. over telephone. Police came to the spot and conducted inquest over the dead body of Ganesh. PW 1 signed the inquest report as a witness. Thereafter, exhibit- 2 was written by PW 2 under instruction of PW 1 and PW 1 signed it after it was read over and explained to him. This examination-in-chief apparently appears very cogent and normal course. Whether it is real or not is to be considered taking into consideration his cross-examination and other connected evidence on record. Thereafter, exhibit- 2 was written by PW 2 under instruction of PW 1 and PW 1 signed it after it was read over and explained to him. This examination-in-chief apparently appears very cogent and normal course. Whether it is real or not is to be considered taking into consideration his cross-examination and other connected evidence on record. During cross-examination he was suggested putting leading question that during continuation of cock-fight a quarrel took place over the pair of hen (‘cock’ may be appropriate term) and the persons who were watching the contest fled away for some time in different directions. PW 1 admitted that suggestion. This evidence suggests admission about presence of PW 1 and victim at the place of cock-fight. Leading questions during cross-examination are generally put to a witness in order to deny the version of the witness or to test the veracity of the witness or to establish the defence case. Aforesaid suggestion appears to us a question to test the veracity of PW 1 and the witness has successfully established his truthfulness. It implicates that there was a cock-fight play and PW 1 with the victim remained present there and accused persons also remained present there at the relevant time on the fateful day at village – Kudlung. During his cross-examination by accused persons in two sets he has given description of location of nearby places of the place of occurrence. He stated that immediately after the occurrence he went to his house between 6:30 – 7:00 p.m. and then he went to the house of PW 2 at about 7:00 – 7:30 p.m. During his examination-in-chief PW 1 stated that there was previous grudge of accused persons against the victim because their cow ate the paddy of accused persons. Admitting previous enmity PW 1 was put suggestion during cross-examination that he filed the case as there was previous enmity between their family and the family of accused persons which suggestion was denied by PW 1. Although inquest report speaks the time of arrival of police at the spot on 02.01.2009 at 10:25 p.m. but PW 1 has stated that police personnel came to village Kudlung at about 9:00 pm. In our view, such discrepancy which appears in deposition of rustic witness PW 1 is minor in nature and it does not uproot the whole prosecution case from its deep root. In our view, such discrepancy which appears in deposition of rustic witness PW 1 is minor in nature and it does not uproot the whole prosecution case from its deep root. In the totality of the evidence it is well founded that PW 1 is a village rustic man and he stood credibly during cross-examination at length. He left no room for the appellants to establish him as unreliable or his evidence is improbable on material point of appellants’ taking active part in causing the murder of Ganesh Mahato. We are not unmindful to the fact that the alleged occurrence took place in the winter season evening between 6:00 – 6:30 p.m. At the same time we cannot ignore the fact that at the starting point of time of occurrence PW 1 was closely with the victim and saw accused persons to assault Ganesh and when his attempt to save Ganesh failed he shouted for help and went towards the village and also watched the subsequent events of assault by accused persons to Ganesh. It is true that PW 1 has not stated as to who actually assaulted with axe to Ganesh but he has stated that accused persons assaulted him with axe. He has not asked by either side as to who actually assaulted with axe. However, he has not made any statement isolating any accused in particular for any overt act but he made accused to all the appellants conjointly. It is considered as his convincing oral testimony regarding common intention of all the appellants in committing the ghastly crime. Therefore, according to him each of the four appellants is liable for committing the offence of culpable homicide amounting to murder to Ganesh Mahato. This evidence of PW 1 is not unnatural. From the evidence of PW 1 read with rough sketch map with index (exhibit-7) it is evident that there is no house of inhabitants very close to the place of occurrence. As such, it is very much probable that excepting PW 1 there was no eye-witness of the occurrence. PW 2 corroborated PW 1 about giving information to police by PW 2 about the incident of murder of Ganesh Mahato, arrival of police at the spot, his scribing the exhibit- 2 as per dictation of PW 1 and signing it by PW 1. PW 2 has proved his signature on exhibit- 2 as scribe also. PW 2 corroborated PW 1 about giving information to police by PW 2 about the incident of murder of Ganesh Mahato, arrival of police at the spot, his scribing the exhibit- 2 as per dictation of PW 1 and signing it by PW 1. PW 2 has proved his signature on exhibit- 2 as scribe also. This PW 2 is neither related nor co-villager of PW 1. During his cross-examination nothing against his veracity has been established. No enmity between PW 2 and any accused was suggested even to this elected Panchayat member PW 2 who is also co-villager of appellants. PW 4, being father of PW 1 and of the victim, stated in substance that on the fateful day PW 1 and victim Ganesh went from their house after taking lunch at noon (1st line of cross-examination). He stated about giving him information by PW 1 in their house of the incident of murder by appellants (named). Nothing reveals from his evidence against his truthfulness. His evidence appears to us very much convincing. This rustic villager being the bereaved father of the victim fairly stated that he did not go to see the dead body of his son. PW 5 is another brother of the deceased. He also corroborated PW 1 stating that “Sasadhar Mahato came to my house and reported me that my elder brother Ganesh Mahato was murdered by Ranjit, Ispat, Sravan and Aswini Mahato. I heard from my brother Sasadhar Mahato that my elder brother Ganesh Mahato was murdered by the help of axe”. During his cross-examination he stated nothing to disbelieve the prosecution case. Similarly, PW 6 is another brother of the victim Ganesh Mahato. He also corroborated PW 1 facing cross-examination firmly. PW 7 is the bereaved widow of the victim. She also corroborated PW 1 like PW 4, PW 5 and PW 6. PW 8 is a co-villager of PW 1. He stated that PW 1 reported him about the incident of murder of Ganesh Mahato. Since PW 1 did not state that he reported the incident to PW 8, we do not give much importance to the evidence of PW 8. However, we make it clear that PW 8 stated nothing either against prosecution or in favour of appellants. He stated that PW 1 reported him about the incident of murder of Ganesh Mahato. Since PW 1 did not state that he reported the incident to PW 8, we do not give much importance to the evidence of PW 8. However, we make it clear that PW 8 stated nothing either against prosecution or in favour of appellants. On the question of identification of assailants of Ganesh Mahato by PW 1 in the evening we like to mention that in rough sketch map with index of the place of occurrence (exhibit- 7) two lamp posts have been shown on two sides of the place of occurrence. In the inquest report (exhibit-1/3) also there is mention of street light near the place of occurrence. Undisputedly, the appellants are known persons of PW 1. We like to reiterate that PW 1 stated about previous grudge of appellants against the victim and appellants suggested PW 1 about their inimical relation with the family of PW 1. As such, we believe that there was no difficulty for the PW 1 to identify the appellants as assailants of Ganesh Mahato in the fateful evening. In this respect it will not be out of place to mention that PW 11 was Station Manager of Hura Group Electric Supply at the relevant time and he witnessed seizure of a electric bulb by police and PW 11 signed the seizure list (exhibit-5). In the seizure list it has been mentioned that said bulb was fitted with the electric post near the place of occurrence (P.O.). Considering the evidence discussed above and circumstances established we have no hesitation to hold and therefore, we hold that evidence of PW 1 is sufficient to prove the alleged occurrence beyond reasonable doubt. 10. PW 3 Satish Karmakar was declared hostile witness of prosecution. Except admission of his signature on a seizure list showing seizure of an axe as shown by accused Sharavan Mahato this PW 3 did not state anything either in favour of or against the prosecution case. 11. PW 13 Tulsi Mahato, PW 14 Gatan Karmakar and PW 16 Paldhu Karmakar and PW 9 Prasun Singh Sardar, did not state anything either in favour of prosecution or against prosecution. 12. PW 12 was posted at Hura Police Station as A.S.I. at the relevant time. He received the written complaint and drew FIR at P.S.. 13. 11. PW 13 Tulsi Mahato, PW 14 Gatan Karmakar and PW 16 Paldhu Karmakar and PW 9 Prasun Singh Sardar, did not state anything either in favour of prosecution or against prosecution. 12. PW 12 was posted at Hura Police Station as A.S.I. at the relevant time. He received the written complaint and drew FIR at P.S.. 13. PW 15 is a witness of inquest report. 14. PW 17 was the investigating Police Officer. He proved statements of accused Sravan Mahato (exhibit-8) and accused Ispat Mahato (exhibit-12) leading to recovery of incriminating weapons and he proved seizure lists relating to seizure of an axe (exhibit-3/2) and a lathi (exhibit-9). He also proved seizure lists relating to seizure of blood stained earth and control earth from the place of occurrence (exhibit-10) and wearing apparels of the deceased Ganesh Mahato (exhibit-11). 15. Due to half-hearted conducting of trial from prosecution side the seized articles were not produced in Court. Though it is not proper for the prosecutor it is not fatal against the prosecution case to supersede the direct evidence with attending circumstances in favour of the prosecution. We are of the opinion that circumstances are not tangibly visible but prudentially appreciable. There is also flaw on the part of investigating agency in this case. We are of the view that faulty investigation and half-hearted conducting trial on behalf of prosecution cannot stand in the way of unfolding the truth in this case, as in spite of such deficiencies of the prosecution case, sufficient evidence is available to sustain guilt of the accused-appellants. 16. We like to discuss about the matter of existence of rice in the stomach of the deceased as evident from the evidence of autopsy surgeon PW 10 read with post-mortem report (exhibit-4). According to PW 1, he alongwith his elder brother went from their house taking meal at noon to see the cock-fight play (recorded as contest of hen). He failed to say the exact time of starting that cock-fight play. PW 4 stated, “It is a fact that Ganesh Mahato and Sasadhar Mahato left my house at 11:00-12:00 at noon after taking lunch. Both the PW 1 and PW4 are rustic villagers. As per case of prosecution the death of Ganesh Mahato occurred between 6:00 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. PW 10 opined that it takes 2 hours to 2½ hours time for digesting after taking solid food. Both the PW 1 and PW4 are rustic villagers. As per case of prosecution the death of Ganesh Mahato occurred between 6:00 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. PW 10 opined that it takes 2 hours to 2½ hours time for digesting after taking solid food. He has further opined that in winter season time of digestion is taken much time than in other season. In the instant case death of the victim took place in winter season. At the time of hearing this appeal learned counsel for the State respondent cited a decision of Apex Court in the case of Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 1973 SCC 2622. Going through that judgment we like to quote relevant observation made in paragraph-11 as – “......The sluggish chronometric sense of the country-side community in India is notorious since time is hardly since time is hardly of the essence of their slow life; and even urban folk make mistakes about time when no particular reason to observe and remember the hour of minor event like taking a morning meal existed. 10:30 a.m. could well have been an hour or more one way or the other and too much play on slippery facts goes against realism so essential in a testimonial appraisal. More importantly, the Court must not abandon a scientific attitude to medical science if it is not to be guilty of judicial superstition. To quote Modi’s Medical Jurisprudence that food would be completely digested in four to five hours or to swear by the doctor to deduce that death must have occurred before 2:00 p.m. is to misread the science on the subject of digestive processes. Modi’s Medical Jurisprudence, extracts from which have been given by both the Courts, makes out that a mixed diet of animal and vegetable foods, normally taken by Europeans, takes 4 to 5 hours for complete digestion while a vegetable diet, containing mostly farinaceous food usually consumed by Indian does not leave stomach completely within 6 to 7 hours after its ingestion. Indeed, the learned author cautiously adds that the stomachic contents cannot determine with procession the time of death “inasmuch as the power of digestibility may remain in abeyance for a long time in states of profound stock and coma”. Indeed, the learned author cautiously adds that the stomachic contents cannot determine with procession the time of death “inasmuch as the power of digestibility may remain in abeyance for a long time in states of profound stock and coma”. He also states it must also be remembered that the process of digestion in normal healthy persons may continue for a time after death”. The learned Judges reminded themselves of the imponderables pointed out by Modi which makes the ‘digestive’ testimony inconclusive and, therefore, insufficient to contradict positive evidence, if any, about the time of death. To impute exactitude to a medical statement oblivious to the variables noticed by experts and changes in dietary habits is to be unfair to the science. We are not prepared to run the judicial risk of staking the whole verdict on nebulous medical observations..............” 17. Following such observations we are of the view in this case that it is improbable to say that there would not have been existence of rice in stomach in case of death of Ganesh Mahato in the evening at 6:00 – 6:30 p.m. as they took lunch in his house at noon. In support of our view we also get protection by observation of the Apex Court made in an another decision made in the case of Charan Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1975 SC 246 . The arguments advanced by learned counsel for the State respondent is also fortified by the discussion made in pages 246 and 247 of Modi’s Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology 22nd Edition (Student edition). In this respect we also like to rely upon the discussion made in page-298 under the heading “Gastric Contents in Estimating the time Since Death” in the Seventh Edition of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology by HWV Cox. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon a decision of Allahabad High Court in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Surajpal and has drawn our attention to observation made in paragraph-14 to the effect that the food of any nature is almost completely digested within about six hours from taking meal. In our view, such observation if followed in the instant case then also the prosecution case cannot be ruled out. 18. Learned Counsel for the State has argued that presence of semi digested food in the stomach is not conclusive in itself for determining the time of death. In our view, such observation if followed in the instant case then also the prosecution case cannot be ruled out. 18. Learned Counsel for the State has argued that presence of semi digested food in the stomach is not conclusive in itself for determining the time of death. In support of his argument he relied upon observation of Mysore High Court made in paragraph-24 of the decision in the case of Fakirappa Yellappa Tukkappanawar reported in 1971 CrLJ 1511 . 19. In the light of our observations made above it may be safely said that authors’ view in Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology does not go against the prosecution case. That apart, during cross-examination of autopsy surgeon (PW 10) no question was put to him regarding authors’ view about the digesting time. Learned counsel for the appellants cited the decision of Apex Court in the case of Kusa and Ors. Vs. State of Orissa reported in (1980) 2 SCC 207 . On going through that decision we find major discussion on ‘dying declaration’ which matter is absent in the case on our hand. The principle discussed in the cited case relating to author’s view expressed in Medical Jurisprudence does not fortify the case of appellants in this case. 20. Learned Counsel for the appellants relied upon another decision of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Balaka Singh & Ors. Vs. The State of Punjab reported in (1975) 4 SCC 511 in support of his arguments relating to omission on the part of PW 17 to mention names of appellants in inquest report. On careful reading the said citation it appears that in the said case it was claimed by prosecution that FIR was lodged at 10:00 p.m. but Hon’ble Court observed that FIR was not written at 10:00 p.m. and FIR lost its authenticity. In the case before us there is no doubt about authenticity of the FIR. We have already discussed on the matter in this judgment. In our view ration of that judgment is not applicable in this case. 21. Learned Counsel for the appellants cited a decision of Supreme Court in the case of Baldev Raj Miglani Vs. Smt. Urmila Kumari on the subject of Hindu Marriage Act but we do not find similarity with this case for application of any principle discussed in the cited case in the present case. 22. 21. Learned Counsel for the appellants cited a decision of Supreme Court in the case of Baldev Raj Miglani Vs. Smt. Urmila Kumari on the subject of Hindu Marriage Act but we do not find similarity with this case for application of any principle discussed in the cited case in the present case. 22. In conclusion we find and hold that in the impugned judgment and order awarding sentence learned Additional Sessions Judge sentenced the appellants under Section 302, 34 of the Indian Penal Code but omitted to award penalty of fine in addition to life imprisonment which should have been awarded in view of the penal provision under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. If we award such penalty of fine against the appellants in this judgment it will be enhancement of sentence in this judgment in appeal against conviction and sentence. We refrain ourselves from enhancing the sentence awarded by the Trial Court. However, we do not think the impugned judgment and order of sentence ought to be set aside this ground alone. Since the imprisonment for life has been awarded by the Trial Court against the appellants it is not necessary to remand this case to the Trial Court for reconsideration of the matter of awarding sentence for the reason we have narrated above. As a result, this appeal fails. 23. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties or their engaged advocates on record observing all legal formalities. Aniruddha Bose, J. : I agree.