JUDGMENT : 1. This criminal appeal has been directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15th April, 2005 and 19th April, 2005, respectively, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-III, Gumla in connection with S.T. No.206 of 2003, corresponding to G.R. No. 288 of 2003, arising out of Dumri P.S. Case No.17 of 2003, whereby both the appellants have been held guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 302/34, 307/34 and 341/34 of the Indian Penal Code and they have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302/34 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for five years under Section 307/34 IPC and simple imprisonment for one month under Section 341/34 IPC. The sentences so passed were directed to run concurrently. 2. The fact, emerging from the Fardbeyan of Bishwanath Bhagat (P.W.9), recorded on 13th May, 2003 at 8:30 hours at Nawadih Chowk, is that on the date of occurrence i.e. on 12th May, 2003 in the morning at 7:00 a.m. the informant along with his father-Baiju Bhagat (P.W.8) and uncle Faga Bhagat (deceased) was ploughing his field, pertaining to Khata No.42. In the meantime, Benjamin Tirkey (Appellant No.1), armed with spear; Bilfred Tirkey, armed with Lathi; and Tuni Tirkey (Appellant No.2), armed with Tangi, reached to the place and raised objection against ploughing of the field. Tuni caused assault to the informant by means of Tangi on his head, whereas Bilfred Tirkey caused assault by means of Lathi. After sustaining injury, the informant fell down. The uncle of the informant ran to save the informant, but he was also targeted and Tuni Tirkey by means of Tangi, Benjamin Tirkey by means of spear and Bilfred Tirkey by means of Lathi caused assault to him. Baiju Bhagat, father of the informant, was also subjected to assault by means of Tangi by the appellant-Tuni Tirkey and Bilfred Tirkey caused assault by means of Lathi. The informant in order to save himself ran away from the place of occurrence and took shelter in village Jurmu. After sometime his father Baiju Bhagat also reached to Jurmu village and they saved their lives. On the following morning, the informant could learn that his uncle Faga Bhagat died due to injury sustained by him. The informant in order to save himself ran away from the place of occurrence and took shelter in village Jurmu. After sometime his father Baiju Bhagat also reached to Jurmu village and they saved their lives. On the following morning, the informant could learn that his uncle Faga Bhagat died due to injury sustained by him. On the basis of Fardbeyan of Bishwanath Bhagat Gumla, Dumri P.S. Case No.17 of 2003 dated 13th May, 2003, corresponding to G.R. No.288 of 2003, under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307 and 302/34 was registered and investigation was carried out. The police after due investigation submitted charge sheet and, accordingly, cognizance was taken. One of the co-accused Bilfred Tirkey was considered juvenile and his case was split up and these two appellants were put on trial after commitment of the case. Charges under Sections 341, 307 and 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code were framed to which the appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 3. The prosecution, to substantiate the charges, has examined altogether 13 witnesses, including informant, doctors and the Investigating Officer. Learned Trial Judge, placing reliance on the evidence and documents available, held the appellants guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 307 and 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and inflicted sentence as indicated above. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants has assailed the impugned judgment on the ground that the informant (P.W.9) and another injured-P.W.8, who is none else but father of the informant, had not given statement regarding manner of occurrence and the circumstance under which they fled away from the place of occurrence and reached to village Jurmu in order to save themselves. The informant, in his deposition, in Court, said that after having sustained injuries he became unconscious. Had it been so, he had no occasion to see the assault caused to his uncle-Faga Bhagat. He has also admitted that after he fell down, no further assault was caused. That goes to show, the appellants were not having intention to kill the informant. He has further said that he ran from the place of occurrence to save himself and reached to village Jurmu and after a while his father-Baiju Bhagat also reached to there. This contention of P.W.9 does not corroborate the statement of P.W.8. That goes to show, the appellants were not having intention to kill the informant. He has further said that he ran from the place of occurrence to save himself and reached to village Jurmu and after a while his father-Baiju Bhagat also reached to there. This contention of P.W.9 does not corroborate the statement of P.W.8. He has stated that after receiving injury, he escaped from the place of occurrence and went home and, thereafter, he had gone to village Jurmu with food to serve to Bishwanath Bhagat (P.W.9). By submitting this, it is pointed out that the informant as well as his father escaped from the place of occurrence, but they did not report the matter to the police on the date of occurrence i.e. on 12th May, 2003. They did not bother to collect information as to what happened to Faga to whom they had left in the field at mercy of the appellants. This conduct of P.Ws.8 and 9 does not appear to be natural. They did not seek help from the villagers to save Faga from further assault. It is disclosed that they spent their night peacefully. On the following morning i.e. on 13th May, 2003, when they could learn that Faga has succumbed to his injury, they proceeded to give information to the police. The delay in lodging the first information report has not been properly explained. 5. Learned counsel has further argued that according to Dr. Rameshwar Kumar Ramesh-P.W.13, age of injuries caused to P.Ws.8 and 9 had been assessed to be caused within 14 hours, whereas injury report and the evidence of the doctor indicate that they were examined on 13th May, 2003 at 9:30 hours i.e. after 24 hours of the occurrence. It is further pointed out that Dr. Saroj Kumar-P.W.1 has conducted autopsy on the dead body of Faga Bhagat and he did not find either incised wound or penetrating wound on the person of the deceased, though it is alleged that appellant-Tuni Tirkey was armed with Tangi and appellant-Benjamin Tirkey was armed with spear. Needless to say that Tangi and spear would not produce lacerated wound. Faga died due to head injury caused by hard and blunt substance. Bilfred Tirkey was having Lathi, but he has been declared juvenile and his case stood split up from case of the present appellants. Needless to say that Tangi and spear would not produce lacerated wound. Faga died due to head injury caused by hard and blunt substance. Bilfred Tirkey was having Lathi, but he has been declared juvenile and his case stood split up from case of the present appellants. In the circumstances, the appellants are not liable to be held guilty for the injuries caused to deceased Faga. 6. It is further submitted on behalf of the appellants that Jhumri Bhogatain-P.W.2 is the wife of the informant and she has clearly admitted in Para-18 of her deposition that they had discussed with family members and finally came to the conclusion, unless a case is not instituted against the appellants, they would not leave their lands. The reasons for false implication have already been admitted by P.W.2. Swasti Kumari-P.W.10 is daughter of the deceased Faga and she was aged about 10-11 years at the time of occurrence. She has stated that she brought her father Faga home after extending help by herself. This conduct of P.W.10 is also not natural. If her father was having such injury on his person, it was expected that she should have taken help from other villagers. Furthermore, the deceased came home on foot with the help of his daughter-Swasti Kumari. He was not taken to hospital for his treatment. Cause of death of Faga was due to negligence committed by his family members and, therefore, conviction and sentence under Section 302/34 IPC does not appear to be maintainable. 7. Last but not the least it is submitted that the appellants have remained in jail for about 13 years and the circumstances, which have been brought on record, do not indicate that the appellants were having intention to commit murder. They had been to the field to raise objection against ploughing because they have also been claiming their right, title and possession over the land in question. Some altercation took place in which the deceased, P.Ws.8 and 9 had sustained injuries and due to negligence adopted by family members, Faga died. The conviction of the appellants under Section 302/34 IPC may be altered to one under Section 304 Part-I IPC. 8. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the argument and submitted that P.Ws.8 and 9 are injured witnesses. They have described the entire occurrence in their depositions in Court. The conviction of the appellants under Section 302/34 IPC may be altered to one under Section 304 Part-I IPC. 8. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the argument and submitted that P.Ws.8 and 9 are injured witnesses. They have described the entire occurrence in their depositions in Court. It is admitted that mistake has been committed by the doctor in preparing injury report. The informant and his father-Baiju Bhagat were examined by the doctor on 13th May, 2003, but he had written 13th March, 2003 by mistake and that mistake appears to have occurred while he had written the age of injury as 14 years instead of 24 hours. This mistake committed by the doctor can be waived in view of evidence of Investigating Officer when he had proved the requisition slips for medical examination of P.Ws.8 and 9 and those injury slips have been proved as Exts.9 and 9/1. Just after recording of the Fardbeyan, injury slips were issued and after that both injured i.e. P.Ws.8 and 9 were treated in the hospital. There are no contradictions in the statements of P.Ws.8 and 9 in respect of their reaching to village Jurmu. The informant directly went to village Jurmu in order to save himself, whereas Baiju Bhagat-P.W.8 had first gone to his house and then he went to village Jurmu to see his son. The place of occurrence is situated at a distance of 25 K.Ms. from the police station, the injured were apprehending danger to their lives, they were not having information regarding Faga as to what happened to him. Under the aforesaid circumstance, they kept themselves confined at village Jurmu on that very day. It is disclosed by P.W.9 in Para-22 that after one-two hours of the occurrence, he had asked Mangaleshwar Bhagat to inform police and Magaleshwar Bhagat after his return from police station had said that he has informed the police. In this context, learned counsel has submitted that Mangaleshwar Bhagat-P.W.5 did not say that he had gone to police station to inform about the occurrence. Besides injured eye-witnesses, P.W.10-Swasti Kumari, daughter of the deceased, has also supported the prosecution case and her statement should not be discarded. Long standing enmity is admitted by both the parties and that is double edged weapon which cuts both ways. P.W.1-Dr. Saroj Kumar, who had conducted postmortem examination, has proved the postmortem report as Ext.1. Besides injured eye-witnesses, P.W.10-Swasti Kumari, daughter of the deceased, has also supported the prosecution case and her statement should not be discarded. Long standing enmity is admitted by both the parties and that is double edged weapon which cuts both ways. P.W.1-Dr. Saroj Kumar, who had conducted postmortem examination, has proved the postmortem report as Ext.1. Injury No.1 is lacerated wound, causing depressed fracture of right side of occipital bone and lacerating the scalp and brain matter. This injury could be possible by Tangi and the doctor has not denied it. P.Ws.8 and 9 were having incised would on their persons and those injuries were grievous and dangerous to life and injury reports have been proved by Dr. Rameshwar Kumar Ramesh-P.W.13. The formal witnesses have proved the inquest report and the seizure list. The Investigating Officer-P.W.12 has supported the investigation done by him. The case of prosecution is completely intact against the appellants and the Trial Court has righly held the appellants guilty for the offence alleged. 9. Heard rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. There are three eyewitnesses in the case at hand and they are P.Ws.8, 9 & 10 and out of them P.Ws.8 and 9 are injured eye-witnesses. P.W.9, who is informant, has supported the contentions made by him in the Fardbeyan. He has deposed, when he along with his uncle and father was ploughing the field, the appellants armed with Tangi and spear reached to the place and caused assault to him. When he fell down, his uncle Faga (deceased) tried to intervene, but he was assaulted by the appellants and co-accused Bilfred Tirkey. Father of the informant was not spared and he was also assaulted. The informant and his father-P.W.8 succeeded to flee away from the place of occurrence and they took shelter in village Jurmu. On the following morning, they could learn that Faga has succumbed to the injury caused to him. When the informant and his father were going to lodge information, they met with police party at Nawadih Chowk where Fardbeyan was recorded. Swasti Kumari-P.W.10 is the daughter of the deceased-Faga Bhagat. It is submitted that she has been projected as an eye-witness, the informant did not say that she was present in the field at the time of ploughing. 10. Swasti Kumari-P.W.10 is the daughter of the deceased-Faga Bhagat. It is submitted that she has been projected as an eye-witness, the informant did not say that she was present in the field at the time of ploughing. 10. We have carefully gone through the evidence of Swasti Kumari and we did not find that defence counsel has succeeded to prove that she was not present at the place of occurrence. In this context, we have gone through the Fardbeyan in which the informant has stated that at about 6:00 a.m. he had proceeded to his aforesaid field for the purpose of ploughing and the occurrence took place about 7:00 a.m. Swasti is a girl, who was aged about 10-11 years at the time of occurrence. She has stated that the appellant-Tuni Tirkey caused assault to Bishwanath and her father. The occurrence took place in the field. After sustaining injury, her father fell down and she helped him to come home. In her cross-examination, she has firmly stated that she was present in the field at the time of occurrence. She further says that when the assailants left the place of occurrence, she returned back home with her father. The weapons held by the appellants have been described by her. We do not find that Swasti Kumari was tutored witness and she had not seen the occurrence. We do agree with the submission of learned A.P.P. Dr. Rameshwar Kumar Ramesh-P.W.13 while issuing injury reports has committed mistake in mentioning the date and time regarding age of injuries. Instead of writing the date of examination of injured as 13th May, 2003, he has mentioned it as 13th March, 2003 and same type of mistake he has committed while he has written the age of injuries 14 hours instead of 24 hours. The evidence on record does not indicate that any occurrence took place during night and, therefore, the age of injury should not have been mentioned within 14 hours. The injury slips (Exts.9 and 9/1) go to show that the Investigating Officer had examined the injured and described the injuries, which were appearing on their person from naked eye. What we mean to say is that to prove that P.Ws.8 and 9 are injured eye-witnesses, the prosecution has brought the injury reports on record by examining the doctor-P.W.13 and, thus, injury reports have been proved as Exts.11 and 11/1. What we mean to say is that to prove that P.Ws.8 and 9 are injured eye-witnesses, the prosecution has brought the injury reports on record by examining the doctor-P.W.13 and, thus, injury reports have been proved as Exts.11 and 11/1. The evidence of P.Ws.8 and 9 finds support from the evidence of P.W.10. We do not find any material contradictions in the statements of aforesaid three witnesses on the point of manner of occurrence, time of occurrence and place of occurrence. 11. The informant has said that after one-two hours of the occurrence, he had asked Mangaleshwar Bhagat-P.W.5 to go to police station to inform about the occurrence. It is true that P.W.5 did not say that he had gone to the police station, but the fact remains, on the following morning when the informant along with his father was going to lodge information, they met with the police near Nawadih Chowk. Considering such evidence, inference could be drawn that the police were informed and that was the reason they had been proceeding towards village Irawal, within Dumri Police Station. So far lacerated wound caused to the deceased on his head is concerned, that can well be caused by a Tangi. The examination of injury by a doctor is very important aspect to decide nature of injuries and the weapon used. According to evidence on record, the appellants were armed with spear, Tangi and Lathi. The appellant-Tuni Tirkey was armed with Tangi and it was used for causing injury to the informant, his father and his uncle-Faga Bhagat. Incised woulds were noticed on the person of the informant and Baiju Bhagat (P.W.8). If Tangi is used for causing injury on the head, sharp cut injury as well as lacerated wound, both, are possible because it depends on the angle in which the blow was inflicted and the posture and position of the person to whom injury was inflicted. It is always expected that a person, who is expecting to have head injury by means of Tangi, he would try to save himself and in that course he would try to move his body. In such circumstances, if the weapon like Tangi is used, that may create lacerated wound if it touched the target diagonally and it is not uncommon in cases in which Tangi is used for causing injury on head. Tangi is a sharp cutting heavy weapon. In such circumstances, if the weapon like Tangi is used, that may create lacerated wound if it touched the target diagonally and it is not uncommon in cases in which Tangi is used for causing injury on head. Tangi is a sharp cutting heavy weapon. In the case at hand, the deceased-Faga Bhagat had sustained depressed fracture of right side of occipital bone. The injury inflicted on the person of the deceased also suggests that it was caused by some heavy weapon and Tangi is a heavy weapon. 12. In the context of bringing the offence within the purview of Section 304 IPC, we have examined the evidence on record. It is not a case which had taken place at spur of the moment or under grave and sudden provocation or in course of free fight under heat of passion. The facts and evidences available on record do not bring the offence within any of the exception of Section 300 IPC. The evidence on record is that the appellants armed with Tangi and spear had gone to the place of occurrence and the weapons held by them are suggestive of their intention. Not only that the injuries were caused to P.Ws.8, 9 and the deceased on their vital part of the body. The injuries caused to Baiju Bhagat-P.W.8 and the informant-P.W.9 were found grievous and endangering to life. The deceased died due to head injury caused to him by the appellant-Tuni Tirkey. The intention to commit murder could always be gathered from the weapon used and part of the body targeted to cause injury. We are not agree with the submission that the offence comes within the purview of Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code. 13. In the result, we do not find merit in this appeal and the same stands dismissed. The judgment of conviction dated 15th April, 2005 and order of sentence dated 19th April, 2005 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-III, Gumla in connection with S.T. No. 206 of 2003, corresponding to G.R. No. 288 of 2003, arising out of Dumri P.S. Case No. 17 of 2003, is hereby upheld. Appeal dismissed.