JUDGMENT H. C. Mishra, J. Both these criminal appeals, are jail appeals, arising out of the common Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence, and as such, they are heard together and disposed of by this common Judgment. 2. Heard Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, learned amicus curiae, appointed by this Court, for the appellants and learned counsel for the State. 3. The appellants are aggrieved by the Judgment of conviction dated 30.5.2006 and Order of sentence dated 31.5.2006, passed in Sessions Trial No. 341 of 2003, by the learned 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Dumka, whereby, the appellants have been found guilty and convicted for the offences under Sections 302/34, 307/34 and 460/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Upon hearing on the point of sentence, each of the appellants have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for life for the offence under Sections 302 / 34 of the Indian Penal Code, R.I. for a period of seven years and fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence under Sections 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and R.I. for a period of seven years and fine of Rs. 2,000/- for the offence under Section 460 of the Indian Penal Code. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 4. The prosecution story is detailed in the fardbeyan of the informant Nunu Lal Soren, who is father and father-in-law of both the deceased. According to the fardbeyan, the occurrence had taken place in the night between 8/9.8.2003 at about 2.30 A.M. The informant was sleeping with his wife in the room of his house, whereas his daughter-in-law Bitiya Hansda was sleeping in the veranda with her 5 year old son Ujit Kumar Soren. The son of the informant Babusar Soren was sleeping inside the room. At about 2.30 A.M., upon screams of his daughter-in-law and grandson, the informant along with his wife came to the courtyard of the house with a torch, and in the light of the torch, he found his daughter-in-law Bitiya Hansda and grandson Ujit Kumar Soren in injured conditions. The accused, Kahan Hansda, Nonisar Hansda, Toro Marandi and Kaleshwar Marandi were present in the courtyard, variously armed with sharp cutting weapons. Upon hearing the alarm, the son of the informant, Babusar Soren came out of the room, whereupon accused Kahan Hansda assaulted him, due to which Babusar Soren fell down getting injured. The accused, Kahan Hansda, Nonisar Hansda, Toro Marandi and Kaleshwar Marandi were present in the courtyard, variously armed with sharp cutting weapons. Upon hearing the alarm, the son of the informant, Babusar Soren came out of the room, whereupon accused Kahan Hansda assaulted him, due to which Babusar Soren fell down getting injured. At that point of time, Nonisar Hansda, Toro Marandi and Kaleshwar Marandi, were also standing there armed with sharp cutting weapons. Upon the alarm raised by the informant, the accused persons fled away. All the three injured were not in a position to speak anything and due to dead night, the informant was not in a position to take them to hospital in absence of the required facilities. Upon the alarm raised by the informant, few persons of the village, including Lakhindra Soren, came to the place of occurrence, who was sent to call the Doctor, but in the meantime, the daughter-in-law of the informant Bitiya Hansda died and the son of the informant Babusar Soren died in the morning. It is stated in the fardbeyan that the occurrence had taken place due to the previous land dispute between the parties, for which, a panchayati had also taken place earlier and due to this enmity, the accused persons had assaulted and injured the daughter-in-law, son and grand-son with the intention to cause their death, in which, the daughter-in-law and son of the informant had died. It is also alleged that the accused persons had taken away a box from the house of the informant, containing the documents of the land. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant Nunu Lal Soren, Masalia P.S. Case No. 62 of 2003 corresponding to G.R. No. 774 of 2003 was instituted for the offences under Sections 452, 324, 307, 302, 380 /34 of the Indian Penal Code and investigation was taken up. After investigation, the police submitted the charge-sheet against the accused persons. 5. Upon commitment of the case to the Court of Session, charges were framed against the accused appellants for the offences under Sections 302/34, 307/34 and 460 of the Indian Penal Code and upon the accused persons'' pleading not guilty and claiming to be tried, they were put to trial. 5. Upon commitment of the case to the Court of Session, charges were framed against the accused appellants for the offences under Sections 302/34, 307/34 and 460 of the Indian Penal Code and upon the accused persons'' pleading not guilty and claiming to be tried, they were put to trial. In course of trial, prosecution has examined 8 witnesses in this case, including the I.O. and the Doctor, out of whom, P.W.-2 Moti Lal Soren has turned hostile. 6. P.W.-5 Nunu Lal Soren is the informant of the case and he has fully supported the prosecution case, as stated in the fardbeyan. He has stated about the presence of all the accused persons in his courtyard, variously armed with sharp cutting weapons, when he came out of the room upon hearing the screams in the dead night and he saw his daughter-in-law and grandson in injured conditions. He has also stated that upon hearing the alarm, his son came out of the room, he was also assaulted by sharp cutting weapon, due to which he fell down and he was also assaulted by other co-accused Toro Marandi by knife. The accused persons fled away after taking a box from the house of the informant, containing the documents of the land and he identified the accused persons in the light of the torch. This witness has again stated that his daughter-in-law and son were declared dead by the doctor. His statement was recorded by the police, on which, he had put his signature, which he identified, and his signature on the fardbeyan was marked as Exhibit-1. He has also stated that the occurrence had taken place due to land dispute between the parties and he has identified all the accused in the Court. This witness was subjected to extensive cross-examination, but there is nothing in his cross-examination to discredit his testimony. 7. The other eye witness to the occurrence is P.W.-1 Manodi Marandi, who is the wife of the informant. She has also fully supported the prosecution case and has stated about the assaults made by all the four accused persons upon both the deceased and her grandson and the injuries sustained by them. This witness has stated in her cross-examination that she had seen all the accused persons assaulting the deceased and except minor discrepancies, there is nothing in her cross-examination to discredit her evidence. 8. This witness has stated in her cross-examination that she had seen all the accused persons assaulting the deceased and except minor discrepancies, there is nothing in her cross-examination to discredit her evidence. 8. P.W.-3, Lakhindra Soren has deposed that upon hearing the alarm, he reached the place of occurrence and saw the dead bodies of Babusar Soren and his wife Bitiya Hansda. He has also stated that he was sent to call the doctor, but the doctor refused to come in the dead night. He had also seen the grandson of the informant in injured condition. This witness has not stated anything about the offence committed by the accused appellants, but he has stated that there was land dispute between the accused persons and the informant. He has identified the accused persons in the Court. 9. P.W.-4 Sona Lal Soren, is the other son of the informant, who was at his in-laws'' place at the time of occurrence, but upon getting the information, he rushed to his house and he saw his brother and sister-in-law dead and nephew in injured condition. He was informed about the occurrence by his father, who informed him that the accused appellants had assaulted all of them. This witness also stated about the land dispute between the parties. 10. P.W.-6, Momay Soren had also reached the place of occurrence upon alarm raised and he had seen the dead bodies of both the deceased and the child in the injured condition. He has stated that in his presence, the police had seized the blood stained earth from near the dead bodies of both the deceased at the place of occurrence and prepared the seizure lists, on which, he had also put his signatures and he has identified his signatures on two seizure lists which were marked Exhibits-2 and 2/1. 11. P.W.-7 is Dr. Binay Sharan, who had conducted the post-mortem examination of the dead bodies of both the deceased and had also examined the injured child. He has stated that on 9.8.2003, at about 4.15 P.M. he had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Bitiya Marandi and found the following ante mortem injuries:- 1. incised wound 3" x 1"x communicating with abdominal cavity with prolapse of omentum over left side below left breaston dissection abdominal cavity was full of blood. Spleen was found ruptured. Left lobe of liver ruptured. 2. incised wound 3" x 1"x communicating with abdominal cavity with prolapse of omentum over left side below left breaston dissection abdominal cavity was full of blood. Spleen was found ruptured. Left lobe of liver ruptured. 2. Incised wound 2" x " x communicating to left side of pleural cavity. 3. Incised wound 1" x " x communicating to left side of pleural cavity - on dissection pleural cavity was full of blood lung was badly injured. 4. Incised wound 1" x "muscle deep over left side of chestpostural places. 5. Incised wound 1" x "x muscle deep over left side of chest below injury No.4. 6. Incised wound 3"x1"x muscle deep over left arm. 7. Incised wound 1" x " x muscle deep over left fore arm. 8. Incised wound 1" x " x muscle deep near left elbow. 9. Incised wound 1" x 1" x muscle deep over left elbow. He has stated that the cause of death was due to injuries No. 1, 2 and 3, which were sufficient to cause death in the normal course and the weapons used were sharp cutting weapons. Time elapsed since death was within 18 hours. He has identified the post-mortem report of the dead body of Bitiya Hansda to be in his pen and signature, which was marked as Exhibit-3. On 9.8.2003 at about 3.30 P.M., he had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Babusar Soren and had found the following ante mortem injuries:- 1. Incised wound 6"x2" x bone deep over fore head just above left eye - on Dissection bone was cut - on further dissection cranial cavity full of blood, brain and meninges - lacerated. 2. Incised wound 6"x1"x cutting skull bone over centre of scalp - on dissection cranial cavity full of blood, brain and meninges lacerated. 3. Incised would 3"x2"x1" muscle deep left side of upper part of neck. 4. Incised wound 2" cutting free end of left pinna. 5. Incised wound 2" x muscle deep below of left ear. 6. Incised wound 1" x "x muscle deep over left side of face. He has stated that the cause of death was due to injuries No. 1 and 2 and the weapons used were sharp cutting weapons. The time elapsed since death within 18 hours. 5. Incised wound 2" x muscle deep below of left ear. 6. Incised wound 1" x "x muscle deep over left side of face. He has stated that the cause of death was due to injuries No. 1 and 2 and the weapons used were sharp cutting weapons. The time elapsed since death within 18 hours. He identified the post-mortem report of Babusar Soren to be in his pen and signature, which was marked as Exhibit-3/1. This witness also stated that the he had examined Ujit Kumar Soren aged about 3 years on 9.8.2003 at 2.30 P.M. and had found the following injuries:- 1. Stitched wound 2" over upper part on the middle of shoulder (incised wound 2"x "x "). 2. Incised wound 2" x " x muscle deep on the right chest. 3. Incised wound "x " x muscle deep over the left shoulder. 4. Incised wound " x 1"x ". All the injuries were caused by sharp cutting weapon. He has also proved the injury report to be in his pen and signature, which was marked as Exhibit-4. 12. P.W.-8 is Arbind Kumar, who is I.O. of the case. This witness, upon getting the informant about the occurrence, reached the place of occurrence at 7.30 A.M. in the morning and recorded the fardbeyan of the informant Nunu Lal Soren. He has identified the fardbeyan of the informant and the First Information Report, which were marked as Exhibits- 5 and 6 respectively. He has also stated that he had prepared the inquest reports of the dead bodies and he made investigation at the place of occurrence. He had collected the blood stained soil near the dead bodies of Babusar Soren and his wife and had prepared the seizure lists and he has also proved the said seizure lists. He has also stated about the investigations made by him. He had seen the child Ujit Kumar Soren in the injured condition and had sent him to hospital for his treatment. This witness was subjected to extensive cross-examination, in which, he has stated that he had found the torch at the place of occurrence. 13. Learned amicus curiae, has submitted that the impugned Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence are absolutely illegal and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law, and the prosecution has failed to prove the charges against all the accused appellants beyond all reasonable doubts. 13. Learned amicus curiae, has submitted that the impugned Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence are absolutely illegal and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law, and the prosecution has failed to prove the charges against all the accused appellants beyond all reasonable doubts. It is submitted that several persons had allegedly come to the place of occurrence, upon alarm raised by the informant, but they have not supported the prosecution case and P.W.-2 Moti Lal Soren had turned hostile. The case is supported only by two eyewitnesses, P.W.-1 Manodi Marandi and P.W.-5 Nunu Lal Soren (informant), who are the parents of the deceased, and as such they are highly interested witnesses. It is submitted that in view of the fact that the land dispute between the parties is an admitted fact in this case, false implication of the accused persons cannot be ruled out and it shall not be fit to secure the conviction of the appellants only on the basis of the evidence of these highly interested eyewitnesses. Learned counsel has also submitted that admittedly the occurrence had taken place at dead night and in the village, where there was no electricity, and all the accused persons were allegedly identified only in the light of a torch, but the said torch has not been produced in the Court. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the accused-appellants beyond all reasonable doubts, and in the facts of the case, the appellants are entitled at least to the benefits of doubt. 14. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has submitted that admittedly the occurrence had taken place in the dead night in the courtyard of the informant, and accordingly, the family members are the only natural witnesses to the occurrence. Apart from both the deceased and the injured child, only two persons were present in the house, who are P.W.-1 Manodi Marandi and P.W.-5 Nunu Lal Soren and they have fully supported the prosecution case and in spite of their extensive cross-examinations, nothing could be taken to discredit their testimonies. Apart from both the deceased and the injured child, only two persons were present in the house, who are P.W.-1 Manodi Marandi and P.W.-5 Nunu Lal Soren and they have fully supported the prosecution case and in spite of their extensive cross-examinations, nothing could be taken to discredit their testimonies. Learned counsel has also submitted that the ocular evidence of both these witnesses is fully supported by the medical evidence of P.W.-7 and the post-mortem reports, proved by him as Exhibit-3 and 3/1, which show that several ante mortem injuries caused by the sharp cutting weapons, were found on both the deceased. The injuries caused by the sharp cutting weapon upon the injured child have also been proved by the same Doctor. Learned counsel, accordingly, submitted that the prosecution has been able to prove the charges against the accused-appellants beyond all reasonable doubts and there is no illegality in the impugned Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence, passed by the Trial Court below. 15. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and upon going through the record, we find that the prosecution case is fully supported by the eye witnesses P.W.-1 Manodi Marandi and P.W.-5 Nunu Lal Soren. Though these witnesses are the interested witnesses being the parents and parents-in-law of the deceased, but their presence at the place of occurrence in the dead night in the house is quite natural and presence of any other independent witness at that dead night is naturally ruled out. Both the eyewitnesses have fully supported the prosecution case, and nothing could be taken in their cross-examination to discredit their testimonies, and as such only due to the fact that they are interested witnesses, their testimonies cannot be discredited. The testimonies of both these witnesses are fully corroborated by the medical evidence of P.W.-7 Dr. Binay Sharan and the post-mortem reports of both the deceased, proved by him as Exhibits 3 and 3/1, as also the injury report of the injured child, Exhibit-4. The I.O., who is P.W.-8 Arbind Kumar, had visited the place of occurrence had seen the dead bodies of both the deceased and the injured child at the place of occurrence itself and he had also seized the blood stained earth from near both the dead bodies and had prepared the seizure lists, which have been proved by him in the Court. 16. 16. In view of the aforesaid evidences brought on record, we are of the considered view that the prosecution has been able to prove the charges against all the accused-appellants of committing the murder of both the deceased in furtherance of their common intention and also assaulting the child in furtherance of their common intention, with the intention to cause his death, beyond all reasonable doubts. The prosecution has also been able to prove the charge that the accused persons had committed lurking house trespass in the dead night for committing the offence of murder. We do not find any illegality in the impugned Judgment of conviction dated 30th of May, 2006 and Order of sentence dated 31st of May, 2006, passed by learned 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Dumka, in Sessions Trial No. 341 of 2003, convicting and sentencing the appellants for the offences under Sections 302/34, 307/34 and 460/34 of the Indian Penal, which we hereby, affirm. All the appellants are already in jail, serving out the sentence. Consequently, both these appeals stand dismissed. 17. Before parting with this Judgment, we must record that we have been very ably assisted by learned amicus curie, Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, in both these jail appeals. Let a copy of this Judgment be sent to the Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee, for payment of the prescribed remuneration to Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, Advocate. 18. Let the Lower Court Record be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith along with a copy this Judgment. Let copies of this Judgment be also sent to the concerned Jail, for serving upon the appellants through the Jail Authorities.