JUDGMENT : 1. These Cr. Appeals have been directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 3rd April, 2006 and 4th April, 2006 respectively passed by the Addl. District & Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-I, Chaibasa in connection with S.T. No. 390 of 1999 (S) & S.T. No. 390 of 1999 (A), corresponding to G.R. No. 399 of 1997 (Manjhgaon P.S. Case No. 26 of 1997) whereby the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-I at Chaibasa has held the appellants guilty under Sections 302/34, 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them only under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and directed them to undergo R.I. for life for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution case as it appears from the fardbayan of Shakuntala Kui recorded on 27.07.1997 at 13:30 hours at village Haldiya Munda Sai is that on 27.07.1997 Krishna Chandra Hembrom (deceased) along with son of the informant was present in his field and ploughing of the field with the help of labourers was going on. In the meantime, the appellants along with other co-accused, who are named in the F.I.R. armed with Bhujali, Spade etc. came to the field, surrounded the deceased-Krishna Chandra Hembrom and hurled repeated blow by means of weapon which they were holding. Krishna Chandra Hembrom after receiving injury tried to flee away but could not succeed and fell down after covering some distance. In course of assault one of the labourer Lakhinder had intervened to save but he was also given Bhujali blow and sustained injury in his abdomen. It is disclosed that Krishna Chandra Hembrom died at the spot whereas another injured Lakhinder Hembrom died in course of treatment. The informant is the sister of deceased-Krishna Chandra Hembrom. On the basis of fardbayan of Shakuntala Kui, West Singhbhum (Sadar) Majhgaon P.S. Case No. 26/1997 dated 27.07.1997 under Sections 447/324/307/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellants and other named accused was registered. These appellants, co-accused Mangal Singh Hembrom and Krishna Chandra Pingua had been absconding and their attendance could not be secured till submission of charge-sheet, as a result, showing them absconder charge-sheet against Krishna Chandra Pingua, Sona Ram Hembrom, Moti Lal Pingua & Dashmati Kui was submitted. Accordingly, cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the court of sessions. These appellants, co-accused Mangal Singh Hembrom and Krishna Chandra Pingua had been absconding and their attendance could not be secured till submission of charge-sheet, as a result, showing them absconder charge-sheet against Krishna Chandra Pingua, Sona Ram Hembrom, Moti Lal Pingua & Dashmati Kui was submitted. Accordingly, cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the court of sessions. On the date of commitment i.e. on 06.10.1999 Sona Ram Hembrom, Krishna Chandra Pingua, Motilal and Dashmati Kui were available on record but rest of the accused were absconding. The case of all the accused was committed to the court of session. Appellant-Sagar Pingua was apprehended on 01.03.2004 and faced trial vide S.T. No. 390/1999 (S). So far appellant-Ganesh Pingua is concerned, he was arrested and forwarded to jail custody on 21.1.2005 and faced trial vide S.T. No. 390/1999 (A). Charges against the appellants were framed under Sections 302/34 and Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and they were put on trial. In Connection with Sessions Trial No. 390/1999 (S) in which the appellant-Sagar Pingua was facing trial, the prosecution has examined altogether 08 witnesses whereas in Sessions Trial No. 390/1999 (A) in which Ganesh Pingua (appellant) had been facing trial, the prosecution has examined altogether 09 witnesses to substantiate the charges. At the conclusion of trial, learned Addl. Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-I has held the appellants guilty and sentenced them as indicated above. Appellant-Ganesh Pingua has preferred Cr. Appeal No. 706/06 whereas Cr. Appeal No. 707/2006 has been preferred by appellant-Sagar Pingua. Both the appeals were tagged together and heard today and disposed of with this common judgment. 3. Learned Counsel for the appellants has assailed the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence on the ground that former accused, who were on record have been acquitted. Except the informant and her son Satya Narayan Tiriya rest of the so-called eye-witnesses had been examined in earlier Sessions Trial to which they did not deny. They have admitted that on earlier occasion when they were examined they had not supported the prosecution case. They had not disclosed either names of the accused or manner of occurrence. The aforesaid witnesses who have claimed that they had been engaged in ploughing the field by the deceased, did not stick to their statement recorded U/s 161 of the Cr. P.C. as a result acquittal was recorded. They had not disclosed either names of the accused or manner of occurrence. The aforesaid witnesses who have claimed that they had been engaged in ploughing the field by the deceased, did not stick to their statement recorded U/s 161 of the Cr. P.C. as a result acquittal was recorded. Now, during trial of these two cases in which conviction has been recorded, they have said that they were brought by informant-Shakuntala Kui to the Court and they have deposed what was tutored to them by the informant. Considering aforesaid aspect no reliance could be placed on the statement of aforesaid witnesses and the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has committed error by holding the appellants guilty placing reliance on the testimony of such witnesses. It is further submitted that the informant in her cross-examination has admitted that she had witnessed the occurrence from a distance of about half kilometre. Had it been so, she had no occasion either to identify the accused or to speak about the weapon which they had been holding. The informant is also highly interested witness because she is the own sister of the deceased-Krishna Chandra Hembrom and land dispute prevailing between the parties has also been admitted. Satya Narayan Tiriya, who happens to be son of the informant was hardly aged 12 years at the time of occurrence. He has admitted that after assault commenced he fled away from the place but in his deposition in the Court he has tried to give eye-witness account of the occurrence. Last but not the least, it was submitted that witnesses namely Lal Mohan Gope, Satrughan Chatar, Sagar Gope and Robind Hembrom had been examined in both the Sessions Trial against both the appellants but the statement of these witnesses is not consistent. Therefore, they are not credible witnesses and no reliance could be placed on their testimony for holding the appellants guilty for the offence of murder. Non-examination of the I.O. has caused great prejudice to the appellants. 4. Counsel appearing for the State has opposed the argument and submitted that each and every case is to be decided on the material available on record. What was happened to other accused and what was the evidence available against them has not been brought on record in the case at hand. The prosecution has successfully proved the charges levelled against both the appellants. What was happened to other accused and what was the evidence available against them has not been brought on record in the case at hand. The prosecution has successfully proved the charges levelled against both the appellants. Informant has been examined and she has proved her fardbayan and supported the entire case made out in the fardbayan. The statement of informant and the contention made in the fardbayan find full corroboration from the evidence of eye-witness Satya Narayan Tiriya @ Munna, who has been examined as P.W. 1 in S.T. No. 390/1999 (S) and P.W. 8 in S.T. No. 390/1999 (A). It is submitted that Lal Mohan Gope, Satrughan Chatar, Sagar Gope and Robind Hembrom had been examined in both the cases and they have supported the prosecution case. They have conceded it fairly that in earlier Session Trial they had not deposed in favour of the prosecution. Some of them have said that they were brought by the accused persons and deposed according to their wish because they were threatened. These witnesses were engaged as labourer for working in the field by deceased-Krishna Chandra Hembrom and Krishna Chandra Hembrom was 'Munda' of the village. Presence of these witnesses at the time of occurrence is quite natural in view of the fact that ploughing was going on at Kakashal field and time of occurrence is 9:30 am. They are independent witnesses. Minor contradiction is expected to appear in the statement of Adiwasi labourer who are illiterate and rustic. Defence Counsel had not cross-examined any of the material witness on any material point save and except suggestions were put forth. The case of the prosecution stands intact on the basis of evidence available on record. Learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly held the appellants guilty for the offence of murder and the judgment of conviction need no interference. 5. We have gone through the case record of Sessions Trial No. 390/1999 (A) and Sessions Trial No. 390/1999 (S). Shakuntala Kui (informant), Satya Narayan Tiriya @ Munna (son of the informant), Lal Mohan Gope (labourer), Satrughan Chatar (labourer), Sagar Gope (labourer), Robind Hembrom (labourer), Dr. 5. We have gone through the case record of Sessions Trial No. 390/1999 (A) and Sessions Trial No. 390/1999 (S). Shakuntala Kui (informant), Satya Narayan Tiriya @ Munna (son of the informant), Lal Mohan Gope (labourer), Satrughan Chatar (labourer), Sagar Gope (labourer), Robind Hembrom (labourer), Dr. M.P. Gopalika, who had conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of Krishna Chandra Hembrom and Lakhinder, Ban Bihari Mahto (formal witness) are the common witness in both the cases only P.W. number is different and, therefore, we would like to refer the evidence of those witnesses by referring their names. Shakuntala Kui (informant) has stated that the occurrence took place on 27.07.1997 on Sunday morning at about 9:30 a.m. Her brother Krishna Chandra Hembrom had gone to Kakashali field for getting it ploughed with the help of labourers. He was accompanied by Satya Narayan Tiriya @ Munna son of the informant. While she had gone to serve breakfast to her brother and son, she had seen all the accused persons named in the F.I.R. present at the place of occurrence where Krishna Chandra Hembrom was present. The accused persons were armed with Bhujali, Khanti etc. All the accused including the appellants surrounded Krishna Chandra Hembrom, hurled blows by means of Bhujali causing injury to him on his neck and other parts of the body. After having injury Krishna Chandra Hembrom tried to flee but could not succeed and fell down and died at the spot. She has further stated that one of the labourer Lakhinder tried to intervene but he was also given fatal blow in his abdomen and, therefore, died in course of treatment. She has proved her signature appearing on the fardbayan (Ext. 1), signature on the seizure list (Ext. 1/1). She has further stated that inquest report was prepared at the spot but it was not shown at the time of her cross-examination in Court. In her cross-examination she has disclosed the relation which the accused persons were having with the deceased. She has made it clear that accused Dashmati Kui is the cousin sister of deceased-Krishna Chandra Hembrom. She has also admitted that the appellants and their family members were intending to grab the land and for that some dispute between accused person and the deceased had arisen. We do not find that any cross-examination on the point of assault has been done to this witness. She has also admitted that the appellants and their family members were intending to grab the land and for that some dispute between accused person and the deceased had arisen. We do not find that any cross-examination on the point of assault has been done to this witness. Suggestion in para 12 has been given that no occurrence has taken place in Kakashali field but the suggestion so given has been denied by this witness. Satya Narayan Tiriya @ Munna who happens to be son of the informant and he has supported the prosecution case. He was present with deceased in the field, find mentioned in the fardbayan itself. This fact also find support from the statement of informant. Now we will have to look into the statement of those witnesses, who were engaged as labourer in the field where the occurrence took place. Before recording any comment on the evidence adduced by them, we feel inclined to bring it on record that District of West Singhbhum is mainly populated by tribals and they earn their livelihood either by doing labour or by farming. Most of them are illiterate, poor and they do not know any other language than the mother tongue which is mainly 'Ho'. Now coming to the deposition of these witnesses i.e. evidence of Lal Mohan Gope, Satrughan Chatar, Sagar Gope and Robind Hembrom, who are common in both the cases, it reveals that all of them have supported the prosecution case and deposed that they were present in the field at the time of occurrence and they had seen the assault caused to Krishna Chandra Hembrom and one of the labourer Lakhinder. They have also described the weapon held by the appellants and other accused. The contradiction to which the appellants are intending to encash is that aforesaid witnesses have said that they have been brought to the Court by the informant and she had borne the expenses like conveyance and fooding. These witnesses are so innocent that they have fairly admitted that in their earlier statement, they have not said anything in favour of prosecution because they were brought by accused persons and threatened to depose according to their wish. It is not that the Trial Court has held the appellants guilty only relying on the statement of aforesaid labourers. These witnesses are so innocent that they have fairly admitted that in their earlier statement, they have not said anything in favour of prosecution because they were brought by accused persons and threatened to depose according to their wish. It is not that the Trial Court has held the appellants guilty only relying on the statement of aforesaid labourers. We find that the Trial Court has considered the statement of those witnesses as corroborative piece of evidence and mainly placed reliance on the statement of informant and her son Satya Narayan Tiriya. We have again examined the statement of aforesaid all four witnesses and we find that presence of those witnesses at the place of occurrence at the relevant point of time of occurrence has not been questioned. Only attention has been drawn as to what they had said in their earlier statement. It is apparent that statement of aforesaid witnesses is corroborative to the evidence of informant and her son, we do not find any cross-examination on the point of assault to any of the witness. Dr. M.P. Gopalika has proved the postmortem report of both the deceased and the injury described by him which he had noticed on the dead body, supports the ocular evidence disclosed by eye-witness. It is true that specific allegation has been levelled against some of the accused including the appellants. Overt act committed by appellants and other accused has been specified by informant and her son and also by other eye-witness. There appears certain contradiction in their statement, therefore, question arose whether aforesaid contradiction appearing in the statement of witnesses is to be given weight? To answer we have considered the evidence available on record. The scenario which we gathered from the evidence available is that Krishna Chandra Hembrom was present in the field, ploughing was going on with the help of labourer, in the meantime the appellants with their associates appeared at the scene of occurrence and they were holding lethal weapon like Bhujali, Khanti etc., they all surrounded their target and hurled blows by the respective weapon which they were holding as per the opportunity available to them. In such circumstances, conviction of the appellants with the aid of Section 34 is quite proper because premeditation of mind can well be gathered from the overt act committed and that can be assessed from the fact that the appellants with their associates appeared at the scene of occurrence armed with Bhujali. They were having common intention which is apparent from the fact and evidence that they surrounded their target i.e. Krishna Chandra Hembrom and caused injury to him by hurling blows by means of Bhujali. Considering all these aspect, we do not intend to give any weight to such argument and that stands rejected. In the result, we do not find any merit in these appeals and accordingly the appeals stand dismissed. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 3rd April, 2006 & 4th April, 2006 respectively passed by the Addl. District & Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-I, Chaibasa in connection with S.T. No. 390 of 1999 (S) & S.T. No. 390 of 1999 (A) stands upheld.