Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 119 (CAL)

Raghunath Soren @ Kuroram v. State of West Bengal

2015-02-13

NISHITA MHATRE, SAMAPTI CHATTERJEE

body2015
Judgment :- Samapti Chatterjee, J. 1. The instant appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order of conviction passed in Sessions Trial being No.8.8.2007 arising out of Sessions Case No.146 of 2007 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Bolpur, Birbhum convicting the appellants under Sections 302/448/342/323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code sentenced to suffer: A. Imprisonment for Life and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- in default of payment of which to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code B. Rigorous Imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.500/- in default of payment of which to undergo further Rigorous Imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Section 448 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. C. Rigorous Imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.500/- in default of payment of which to undergo further Rigorous Imprisonment for one months for the offence punishable under Section 342 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and D. Rigorous Imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.500/- in default of payment of which to undergo further Rigorous Imprisonment for one months for the offence punishable under Section 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Put in a short frame, the prosecution case runs thus:- On 14.01.2007 at about 10.05 p.m. one Sukol Soren lodged a written complaint to the Officer-in-charge, Bolpur Police Station stating that on that fateful day at about 8.30 p.m. accused Raghunath Soren along with other accused persons being armed with lathi, cycle chain and sharp cutting weapons entered the house of Baburam Soren and they desperately attacked and assaulted Baburam Soren, his son Sanatan Soren and his wife Hiramoni Soren. The accused persons dragged Sanatan Soren, Baburam Soren and Hiramoni Soren by assaulting them at a vacant land in front of the house of Paresh Soren. The accused persons in furtherance of their common intention to commit murder of Sanatan Soren, Baburam Soren and Hiramoni Soren tied and left them causing grievous injury on their bodies. The accused persons dragged Sanatan Soren, Baburam Soren and Hiramoni Soren by assaulting them at a vacant land in front of the house of Paresh Soren. The accused persons in furtherance of their common intention to commit murder of Sanatan Soren, Baburam Soren and Hiramoni Soren tied and left them causing grievous injury on their bodies. On the basis of the aforesaid information’s the Inspector-in-charge, Bolpur Police Station registered it as Bolpur PS Case No.11/2007 dated 14.01.2007 and he endorsed the case to SI of Police for taking up investigation of the case. Police started investigation and submitted charge sheet on 04.04.2007 against the accused persons. Accordingly, trial started and after completion of trial, learned Trial Judge convicted the said appellants as aforesaid. 3. In order to prove its case prosecution has examined as many as 18 witnesses. 4. P.W.1, was the brother of deceased Baburam Soren. He stated in his evidence that marriage was settled between the daughter of Chaiton Hansda and son of his maternal uncle but subsequently the marriage was not performed. On 14.01.2007 at about 8.30 p.m. all the accused persons came to the house of his elder brother and started assaulting his father Sanatan Soren, his elder brother Baburam Soren and his mother Hiramoni Soren and dragged them out of the house and threw them out of the house of Sardar Dhena Soren. He further stated that his nephew Robin Soren intimated the fact to the police from the public booth and the police came and took his parents and injured elder brother to hospital. P.W.1 and Chite Soren, wife of Baburam Soren also accompanied them. On the way to hospital the victims disclosed the name of the accused persons to the Officer-in-charge and the Officer-in-Charge took statement of father of P.W.1 and elder brother of P.W.1 by stopping their vehicle in presence of P.W.1 and his sister-in-law (wife of Baburam Soren). P.W.1 and wife of Baburam Soren put their LTIs on the said statements recorded by the police (Exbt.1 & 2 respectively). Victims also signed on the said statements. On the said night victim Baburam Soren and Sanatan Soren expired in the hospital and the mother of P.W.1 Hiramoni Soren was admitted in the hospital for two months. P.W.1 and wife of Baburam Soren put their LTIs on the said statements recorded by the police (Exbt.1 & 2 respectively). Victims also signed on the said statements. On the said night victim Baburam Soren and Sanatan Soren expired in the hospital and the mother of P.W.1 Hiramoni Soren was admitted in the hospital for two months. On being asked by the police P.W.1 identified the house of Dhena Soren (father of accused Paresh) wherein the accused persons were consuming liquor and police arrested all the accused persons from the house of Dhena Soren. Thereafter P.W.1 lodged the FIR in the police station. In the police station being instructed by P.W.1 Sunil Soren wrote the complaint and P.W.1 put his signature thereon (Exbt.-3). Police seized weapons namely Lathi, Sabol, etc from the house of Sardar Dhena Soren on the same night and prepared seizure list and the P.W.1 put his signature over there (Exbt.-4). P.W.1 identified one bamboo lathi (Mat. Exbt.-I), one shabol (Mat. Exbt.-II), one cycle chain (Mat. Exbt.III) and one piece of iron rod (Mat. Exbt.IV). He further stated that in the four corners of Dighi more than 100 family reside. To the north-eastern corner of Dighi there was a poultry firm of Ashok Roy and to its adjacent east there was house of Satkari Bagdi. He further stated that the incident took place during the period of their ‘Badna Parab’. P.W.1 in his evidence also stated that out of fear he fled away from the place of occurrence and did not see any accused assaulting his parents and elder brother. He also stated that he did not sign any of the seized articles. 5. P.W.2, son of the deceased claiming to be the eye witness stated in his evidence that on 14th day of January, 2007 when he and his sister were studying in their house then accused persons came to their house and started assaulting his father and grandfather and dragged them out to the play ground situated in the western side of their house. Then P.W.1 rushed to his uncle Gopal Soren. Thereafter he and his uncle Gopal Soren went to the shop of Tatu for intimating the fact to the police station over telephone and then they intimated the police over phone and police came to the shop of Tatu and therefrom they took the police to their place. Then P.W.1 rushed to his uncle Gopal Soren. Thereafter he and his uncle Gopal Soren went to the shop of Tatu for intimating the fact to the police station over telephone and then they intimated the police over phone and police came to the shop of Tatu and therefrom they took the police to their place. The wives of the accused persons also assaulted his grandmother Hiramoni Soren. They were Raghunath Soren’s wife, Paresh Soren’s wife, Chuno Soren’s wife, Haro Soren’s wife and Bhadu Soren’s wife. P.W.2 further stated that thereafter he took his father and grandparents to Sadar Hospital by police vehicle and his uncle Sukol Soren and his mother Chite Soren also accompanied them. He further stated that to the eastern side of football ground there was house of Sukol Murmu and Gopin Maddi. He also further stated that at the time of incident his mother was carrying a Hurricane Lantern as it was dark. But police did not seize that hurricane lantern. 6. P.W.3, the brother of deceased claiming himself one of the eye witness stated that the incident took place on 14th January, 2007 at about 8.30 p.m. As the talk of marriage of the daughter of Chaitan Hansda with the son of his maternal uncle broke therefore the accused persons suspected them that they were responsible for breaking the negotiation. As a result when the P.W.3 along with his father Sanatan Soren brother Baburam Soren, sister-in-law Chite Soren and nephew were in the house of his elder brother Baburam Soren, the accused persons came there and started assaulting them with lathi, chain, shabol, one iron rod with knot on the top and dragged them out to the football ground on the western side of their village. Thereafter other villagers assembled there. Then he somehow managed to inform the villagers of his adjacent locality and came back after 5 to 10 minutes to the scene of occurrence. He found that the accused persons were still assaulting his elder brother and father. Thereafter they dragged them near the house of Paresh Soren and Dhena Soren. Being informed by them Tatu intimated the police over phone and the police took the injured persons to the hospital. They were admitted in the hospital and after half an hour/one hour he was informed that his father and elder brother expired. Thereafter they dragged them near the house of Paresh Soren and Dhena Soren. Being informed by them Tatu intimated the police over phone and the police took the injured persons to the hospital. They were admitted in the hospital and after half an hour/one hour he was informed that his father and elder brother expired. P.W.3 wrote the written complaint as per the instructions of his brother Sukol Soren (Exbt.-3). Police held inquest of the dead body of his brother and father and he put his signature over the inquest report (Exbt.-6). Police seized one Shabol, lathi, cycle chain, iron rod from the kitchen of Sardar Dhena Soren and prepared a seizure list. He further deposed that Satkari Bagdi, Tinkari Bagdi, Manik Bagdi, Bablu Bagdi, Musui Bagdi, Kanu Bagdi and so many other villagers were residing adjacent to the place of occurrence but for one and half hour no villager came at the scene of occurrence. He also signed the seizure list. Alamats were not stained with blood. He further stated that police did not seize blood or blood stained earth from the place of occurrence though the police visited the said scene of offence at least 6 to 7 times. He further stated that there is no electricity connection in their village. He deposed that Dhena Soren was possessing lathi, while Raghunath Soren was armed with cycle chain, Paresh Soren with shabol, Mongla Soren with sharp iron rod, Horo Soren with other chain and they assaulted his father and brother. He further stated that seized weapons were not labeled and accused persons were his relatives. 7. P.W.4 wife of the deceased Baburam Soren stated in her deposition that the incident took place on 14.01.2007 at about 8.30 p.m. She was in her house. Her husband Baburam Soren, brother-in-law Sukol Soren, father-in-law Sanatan Soren, son Robin Soren, son Lakhiram Soren and daughter Laxmi Soren were also in their house. At that time accused persons came there and started assaulting her husband with lathi, shabol and chain. They also assaulted her father-in-law and thereafter dragged them to the play ground and therefrom they were taken to a place in front of the house of Dhena Soren. The female accused persons also assaulted her mother-in-law Hiramoni Soren, at that time Paresh Soren snatched away the Lanthan from her hand and threatened her. They also assaulted her father-in-law and thereafter dragged them to the play ground and therefrom they were taken to a place in front of the house of Dhena Soren. The female accused persons also assaulted her mother-in-law Hiramoni Soren, at that time Paresh Soren snatched away the Lanthan from her hand and threatened her. Then her son Robin Soren along with her brother-in-law Gopal Soren went to the shop of Tatu and from public booth they informed the incident to the police. Within half an hour police came there and her son Robin and brother-in-law Gopal Soren were taken in the police vehicle and they came near the bank of Dighi. There from the police took her husband and her father-in-law and her mother-in-law to the police vehicle and took them to the hospital. On their way the police vehicle stopped near the Shivtala and as per enquiry of the police her father-in-law and her husband disclosed the name of the accused persons to the police and the police noted down the statement of her husband and father-in-law and thereafter her husband and father-in-law signed the said dying declarations in her presence and she put her LTI in those statements. Thereafter police took the injured persons to the hospital and after few minutes when Doctor started to examine her father-in-law and her husband then they have already expired. But her mother-in-law was admitted in the hospital as she was unconscious. Thereafter as per the direction of police she identified the house of accused persons and the police arrested accused Dhena Soren. P.W.4 gave her statement to the police after 4/5 days of the incident. He gave statement to the Magistrate in the Court and Magistrate recorded her statement and she put her LTI thereon. She further stated that more or less 20 villagers were present outside their house but nobody entered their house at the time of incident. She also stated that the accused persons after snatching the Lanthan from her broke the same. 8. P.W.5, brother of the deceased, was one of the alleged eye witness. He in his evidence stated that on 14.01.2007 at about 8.30 p.m. the accused persons blamed that they have broken the negotiation of the marriage of Shamu Soren and Munni Soren. He further stated that though it was dark but he identified that the accused persons assaulted his parents and brother. He in his evidence stated that on 14.01.2007 at about 8.30 p.m. the accused persons blamed that they have broken the negotiation of the marriage of Shamu Soren and Munni Soren. He further stated that though it was dark but he identified that the accused persons assaulted his parents and brother. At that time no villager came to the scene of occurrence but after police came villagers gathered there. 9. P.W.6 the villager was an independent witness as well as a hearsay witness. He stated in his evidence that he gave no statement before police. 10. P.W.7, the injured victim claimed as eye witness stated in his evidence that she knows all the accused persons. Since the negotiation of marriage was broken therefore on 14.01.2007 at about 8.30 p.m. the accused persons attacked their house and started assaulting her husband Sanatan Soren and her eldest son Baburam Soren with lathi, shabol, cycle chain, iron rod. She further stated that they also assaulted her and due to assault she fell down and became unconscious and she regained her consciousness in the hospital after 2/3 days of incident. She further deposed that her eyesight is poor and for that she is under treatment. 11. P.W.8 was a hearsay witness. He heard the incident from Sunil Soren. He did not give any statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. to the Investigating Officer. 12. P.W.9, the lady whose negotiation of marriage was broken. She was declared hostile by the prosecution. She stated that she could not say how the deceased died. 13. P.W.10 was the witness to the inquest reports. He stated that he deposed for first time before the Court. In his evidence he stated that he put his signatures on the inquest reports as instructed by the Darogababu but the contents of the said inquest reports were not read over to him by the Darogababu. 14. P.W.11 the Doctor who treated P.W.7 stated that he examined P.W.7 and found her conscious and on 16th January, 2007 he advised to discharge the patient. But he was told by other staff that the family members of the patient were killed by the neighbour as a result there was no one to look after her and on humanitarian ground he discharged the P.W.7 subsequently on 20th January, 2007. P.W.7 was received by her family members on 22nd January, 2007. But he was told by other staff that the family members of the patient were killed by the neighbour as a result there was no one to look after her and on humanitarian ground he discharged the P.W.7 subsequently on 20th January, 2007. P.W.7 was received by her family members on 22nd January, 2007. He further deposed that the patient was medically fit for discharge on 16th November, 2007. 15. P.W.12, is the Magistrate who recorded the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. 16. P.W.13, another Doctor who examined P.W.7 along with P.W.11 stated that at the time of admission he did not notice any mark of fracture on the person of the patient namely Hiramoni Soren. 17. P.W.14 Ward Master who stated in his evidence that Sanatan Soren and Baburam Soren were brought dead to the Bolpur SD Hospital. Since there were brought dead to the hospital therefore P.W.14 informed the matter to Officer-in-Charge, Bolpur Police Station. He further stated that Sanatan Soren was brought at about 10.30 a.m. and Baburam Soren was brought at about 10.40 p.m. 18. P.W.15 was the police constable. 19. P.W.16 the driver of police van stated in his evidence that he could not recollect the name of the persons whose dying declarations were recorded by S.I Sithil Sarkar. He further stated that no medical officer was present at the time of recording the dying declarations of the said injured persons. 20. P.W.17, the Autopsy Surgeon stated that in his opinion cause of death was due to shock, hemorrhage and injury to the vital internal organs of the deceased. The injuries were homicidal and ante mortem in nature. 21. P.W.18, the Investigating Officer who initiated Bolpur P.S Case No.11 of 2007 dated 14th January 2007. He identified the signature of Sri Kamal Bairagi in the formal FIR (Exbt-20). He stated that first he went to the house of Sanatan Soren, the place of occurrence. From there he went to the second place of occurrence where some of the injured persons were lying. He further stated that gathering the knowledge that police was on the way the miscreants fled away from the spot. Then injured Sanatan Soren, his wife and his elder son were brought to the police vehicle with the help of complainant, his relatives and also with the help of police force. He further stated that gathering the knowledge that police was on the way the miscreants fled away from the spot. Then injured Sanatan Soren, his wife and his elder son were brought to the police vehicle with the help of complainant, his relatives and also with the help of police force. P.W.18 further stated that he recorded the dying declarations of injured Baburam Soren and Sanatan Soren in presence of the said Chite Soren and Sukol Soren and also took the signatures of the injured persons on the dying declarations where Sukol Soren and Chite Soren signed as witness (Exbt.1/1) and (Exbt.2/1). He further stated that then he took those three injured persons to the hospital and got them admitted. After getting the information that the accused persons were hiding at Bhedia bridge, P.W.18 went there and arrested 10 accused persons. After being interrogated they confessed their guilt and disclosed about concealment of offending weapons. Thereafter as per disclosure of statement of Raghunath Soren, Paresh Soren, Gopal Soren and Hogla Soren, P.W.18 went to the kitchen room of Dhena Soren and recovered another cycle chain fitted with steel ring, one iron rod having sharp end of both the sides (with some bend on one side), one bamboo stick and one shabol as shown by the accused persons. He also recorded their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 15th January, 2007. He thereafter seized those articles and prepared a seizure list (Mat Exbt.I-IV). He also prepared rough sketch map along with index (Exbt.21, 22). He further stated that after receiving information that two injured persons succumbed to their injuries in the hospital then he went to the hospital and two UD Cases were registered. He prepared two separate inquest reports. (Exbt.6/2 and 7/2 respectively). Thereafter he arrested accused Dhena Soren also. He also sent witnesses namely Robin Soren, Sunil Soren, Suno Soren and Chite Soren for recording their statements by the learned Magistrate under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. He also examined BL and BLRO and recorded their statements. He stated that Hiramoni Soren was discharged after treatment and he collected her bed head ticket. He collected the post mortem report. P.W.18 also seized the wearing apparel of deceased under a seizure list (Exbt.17/1). He also arrested female accused person of that case and forwarded her to the Court. Four other accused persons mentioned absconded. He stated that Hiramoni Soren was discharged after treatment and he collected her bed head ticket. He collected the post mortem report. P.W.18 also seized the wearing apparel of deceased under a seizure list (Exbt.17/1). He also arrested female accused person of that case and forwarded her to the Court. Four other accused persons mentioned absconded. He was put question on cross examination that dying declarations were not recorded by him which was denied by him. He was also put question that handwriting of inquest reports and the dying declarations are not of the same handwriting which he denied. In cross examination question was put to him that there was no note in the dying declarations that the declarants were mentally and physically fit to give dying declarations. He answered that he did not mention about their physical conditions in the statement. He further stated that at the time of seizure he did not put any seal or label containing the signatures of witnesses on the articles. He further stated that there was no blood-stain on the seized articles at the time of seizure. He further stated that he did not mention in the dying declaration at what time he started recording of dying declarations and what time he completed the same. He also recorded the statement of witnesses Sunil Soren and Subol Soren on 15th January, 2007. He stated that FIR did not disclose the name of any female accused persons. He further stated that he could not recollect from the statements of witnesses that during investigation which accused was armed with which weapons and he also did not collect any blood stained earth from the place of occurrence. P.W.18 further stated that he did not go to the football ground during investigation. 22. Mr. Tapas Kumar Ghosh, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants contended that from the bare reading of so called dying declarations they create cloud of doubt in the mind of any person with ordinary prudence. Mr. Ghosh further contended that P.W.2 stated that from the telephone booth they informed the police but P.W.1 stated that the police directly came to their place. Mr. Ghosh argued that in the dying declarations specific P.S. Case was also mentioned, though FIR was lodged subsequently. Mr. Mr. Ghosh further contended that P.W.2 stated that from the telephone booth they informed the police but P.W.1 stated that the police directly came to their place. Mr. Ghosh argued that in the dying declarations specific P.S. Case was also mentioned, though FIR was lodged subsequently. Mr. Ghosh further submitted that P.W.4 stated that dying declarations were given at the ‘Shivtala’ but P.W.16, the driver stated that dying declarations of the injured person were taken after stopping the police vehicle at ‘Layek Bazar’. The said P.W.16 driver of the police vehicle further stated that no medical officer was present at the time of recording the dying declarations of the said injured persons. He also stated that he could not recollect whether those injured persons put their signatures or mark on the said dying declarations. Mr. Ghosh further vehemently urged that signatures on the dying declarations cannot be the signatures of the deceased. He also urged that P.W.7, Hiramoni Soren did not utter a single word regarding dying declarations or where the death actually took place. P.W.1 stated that deceased died at hospital but P.W.3 stated that they died after admission in hospital. P.W.4 stated they died at hospital and P.W.18 also stated that they died at hospital but in the inquest report he stated that they expired on the way to hospital and P.W.14 stated that two persons were brought dead to the hospital. In respect of arrest Mr. Ghosh vehemently urged that P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.4 stated that Dhena Soren was arrested from the house but P.W.18 the Investigating Officer stated that he arrested the accused persons near Bheria Bridge. Mr. Ghosh contended in respect of seizure of offending weapon P.W.1 stated the offending weapon was seized from the house of Dhena Soren, P.W.2 stated that from the kitchen of Dhena Soren but P.W.18 the Investigating Officer stated that as per confessional statement he recovered the offending weapons but he failed to disclose the place of recovery. Mr. Ghosh further contended that the prosecution brought P.W.10 as independent witness but he in his deposition stated that he put his signature on the inquest report as instructed by Darogababu but the contents of the said inquest reports were not read over to him by Darogababu. Regarding identification Mr. Mr. Ghosh further contended that the prosecution brought P.W.10 as independent witness but he in his deposition stated that he put his signature on the inquest report as instructed by Darogababu but the contents of the said inquest reports were not read over to him by Darogababu. Regarding identification Mr. Ghosh pointed out that incident occurred in dark night at 8.30 p.m. P.W.4 came there with a lantern but she stated that one of the accused persons broke down the lantern and other witnesses stated that there was no electricity in their village. Mr. Ghosh further contended no blood stained earth was seized, even the weapons did not carry any blood-stain and were not sent for FSL examination. He further contended that the witnesses failed to identify that which accused person was armed with what weapon. Mr. Ghosh concluded his argument by pointing out that the entire prosecution case was full of contradictions, discrepancies, loosends, lacunae, untold stories and also based on concocted story of dying declaration. Therefore the impugned judgment and order should be set aside after giving the appellants benefit of doubt. 23. Mr. Pawan Kumar Gupta learned counsel appearing for the State fairly submitted that he will not rely on the dying declarations. In demolishing the submission of Mr. Ghosh, Mr. Gupta vehemently urged that all the victims and accused persons were related. Therefore it is not impossible for the victims to identify or recognize the accused persons in the night as they (accused persons) assaulted the victims from a close range. Mr. Gupta further contended that there were six eye witnesses and the testimonies of the eye witnesses corroborated with FIR, Inquest Report and Post Mortem Report also. Mr. Gupta also vehemently emphasized that there was a motive against that occurrence as the negotiation of marriage between Sambu Soren and Munni Hansda failed. Mr. Gupta further contended that the testimonies of witnesses should not be rejected on the ground that they were related or interested witnesses. In support of his contention he relied on a Supreme Court decision reported in 2003 SCC (Cri) Page-165 (Alamgir Vs State (NCT, Delhi) Para-12. Mr. Gupta also urged that it is not appropriate to reject the case of the prosecution for want of corroboration by independent witnesses, if the case made out is otherwise true and acceptable. In support of his contention he relied on a Supreme Court decision reported in 2003 SCC (Cri) Page-165 (Alamgir Vs State (NCT, Delhi) Para-12. Mr. Gupta also urged that it is not appropriate to reject the case of the prosecution for want of corroboration by independent witnesses, if the case made out is otherwise true and acceptable. In support of his contention he relied on a Supreme Court decision reported in 1989 CRI. L.J. (SC) 88 (1) Para-13 and 15 (State of UP vs. Anil Singh). Mr. Gupta further contended that the testimonies of the witnesses should not be discarded on the ground of enmity between the witnesses on the one hand and the appellants on the other hand. On this point Mr. Gupta relied on a Supreme Court decision reported in AIR 2013 SC (Criminal) Page 2224 Para-21 and 22 (Baldev Singh vs. State of Punjab). Mr. Gupta further vehemently urged that where a group of assailants who are members of the unlawful assembly proceeded to commit the crime, all of them might not take part in the actual assault but the common object to assault the victim cannot be ignored. In support of his contention Mr. Gupta referred to a Supreme Court decision reported in 2005 CRI.L.J. (SC) Page 1402 Para-16 and 17 (Sunil Kumar and Another vs. State of Rajasthan) and AIR 2003 Supreme Court Page-539 Para 9 (Yunis @ Kariya etc. vs. The State of M.P). 24. On the facts and evidence as above there is no dispute that the deceased Sanatan Soren and Baburam Soren had died a homicidal death. Now the question is whether the prosecution has been able to connect the present appellants with the alleged crime? 25. Let us now examine/assess the evidence on record in the perspective of the guidelines of the Supreme Court of India. 26. On a close and critical reading of the evidence both oral as well as documentary with meticulous care we find that in the present case there are six eye witnesses likely P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.5 and P.W.7 all stated that since negotiation of marriage between the daughter of Chaintan Hansda and the son of his maternal uncle broke therefore the accused persons ostracized them in the locality (Ekghare). P.W.1 stated that on 14.01.2007 at about 8.30 p.m. at night all the accused persons came to the house of Baburam Soren and started assaulting his father Sanatan Soren, his elder brother Baburam Soren and his mother Hiramoni Soren and dragged them out and threw them in front of the house of Sardar Dhena Soren. P.W.1 also stated that the accused persons assaulted his parents and his elder brother with lathi, two iron chains, one iron rod and one shabol. While the victims were taken to hospital by the police vehicle then after reaching to the hospital his father and his brother were declared dead but his mother Hiramoni Soren (P.W.7) was admitted to the hospital with severe injuries. But he in his cross examination stated that he saw the accused persons after they assaulted his parents and his brother and dragged and threw them near the football ground which he has stated in his written complaint. 27. We also find that P.W.2 stated when he and his father Baburam Soren, grandfather Sanatan Soren were present in the house at that time the accused persons came to their house and started assaulting his father grandparents and dragged them out to the play ground. He further stated that his father and his grandparents were taken to the hospital though the police van accompanied by his mother Chite Soren but after sometime his mother came back from the hospital and told that his father and his grandfather expired in the hospital. But his grandmother was alive and admitted to the hospital. 28. We also find that P.W.3 in his deposition stated that the incident took place on 14.01.2007 at about 8.30 at night. Since the negotiation of marriage of Munni Handsa with son of his maternal uncle broke therefore the accused persons out of grudge and enmity on that day came to their house and started assaulting his brother Baburam Soren and his parents with lathi, iron chain, shabol and one iron rod with knot on the top, dragged and threw them near the football ground situated to the western side of their village. Thereafter his brother and his parents were taken to the hospital by the police van and after sometime his father and his brother were declared dead and his mother was admitted there for treatment. 29. Thereafter his brother and his parents were taken to the hospital by the police van and after sometime his father and his brother were declared dead and his mother was admitted there for treatment. 29. We also find that P.W.4, P.W.5 and P.W.7 all narrated the incident that on 14.01.2007 at about 8.30 p.m. at night since the negotiation of marriage of Munni Hansda with Sambu Soren broke therefore out of grudge and enmity the accused persons came on that date and started assaulting Baburam Soren, Sanatan Soren and his wife Hiramoni Soren (P.W.7) with lathi, shabol, iron rod and iron chain, dragged and threw the victims in front of the football ground. Thereafter the victims were taken to the hospital by the police van accompanied with P.W.2 and P.W.3. We also find that P.W.4 stated that she was carrying a Lanthan which was snatched away by Paresh Soren. 30. Considering the testimonies of the eye witnesses which corroborated with the FIR and the Post Mortem Report and also with the Inquest Report we have no doubt to hold that the deceased and the victim (P.W.7) were assaulted by the accused persons on 14.01.2007 at about 8.30 p.m. We also find that the testimonies of the eye witnesses also corroborated with the evidence of Investigating Officer (P.W.18). Therefore we have no hesitation to accept the arguments advanced by Mr. Gupta that presence of a motive/intention was very much there behind the commission of offence by the accused persons as the talk of marriage between the family of victims and the family of accused persons failed. 31. The sum total of the forgoing discussion is that the Trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence on record and has rightly held the appellants guilty. 32. We do not find any merit in this appeal. It deserves no interference. 33. The appeal, thus fails and stands dismissed. 34. The office is directed to send the Lower Court Records at once.