JUDGMENT : H.C. MISHRA, J. 1. Both these criminal appeals arise out of the same Judgment and Order, and as such, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common Judgment. 2. Heard learned counsels for the appellants and learned counsels for the State. 3. Both these appeals arise out of the Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence dated 19.01.2004, passed by the learned 6th Addl. Sessions Judge, Dumka, in Sessions Case No. 317 of 1990/5 of 2003, whereby, the appellants, Sadanand Pal and Anand Pal, (in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 380 of 2004) have been found guilty and convicted for the offences under Sections 302 and 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code, appellant Sadanand Pal has also been convicted for the offence under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code, whereas appellant Anand Pal has also been convicted for the offence under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code. All the appellants in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 188 of 2004, except appellant Radhe Shyam Pal, have been found guilty and convicted for the offences under Sections 147, 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code, whereas, appellant Radhey Shyam Pal has been found guilty and convicted for the offences under Sections 148 and 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code. Upon hearing on the point of sentence, both the appellants, in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 380 of 2004, have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, whereas, all the appellants convicted for the offence under Sections 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code, have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years. The appellants convicted for the offence under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and the appellants convicted for the offence under Section 147 IPC have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 4. It may be stated that the police had submitted the charge sheet against 12 accused persons, out of whom, one Govind Pal had died before the commitment of the case and the accused Balram Pal had died after framing of charge and during the pendency of the trial. One more accused, who was absconding, surrendered in the Trial Court, but he again absconded. One more accused, who was absconding, surrendered in the Trial Court, but he again absconded. Out of the remaining accused persons, who were also the appellants in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 188 of 2004, Chaitan Pal, Chandra Mohal Pal and Shankar Pal died during the pendency of this appeal, and this appeal stood abated against them by order dated 10.8.2017 passed in I.A. No. 6344 of 2017 in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 188 of 2004. Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 188 of 2004, thus, survives only with respect to remaining four appellants, named above. 5. According to the prosecution case, FIR was lodged on the basis of written report submitted by the informant, Bhuwan Mirdha, before the Officer-In-charge of Masanjore Police Station on 23.7.1985, wherein, he had stated that on 23.7.1985 at about 8.00 to 9.00 am in the morning, he along with his elder brother Khagen Mirdha, his cousin and another persons had gone on the field for leveling the field, which he had ploughed on the previous day, whereupon thirteen accused persons named in the written report, including these appellants, came forming unlawful assembly, variously armed with spear, sword, arrow, barchi, lathi etc., and they also came to the field with bullocks to plough and level the field. When the informant side tried to prevent them, accused Balram Pal (since dead) gave orders to the other accused persons for killing them, whereupon the accused persons came running and accused Shankar Pal assaulted Khagen Mirdha by lathi. He was also assaulted by sword on his head. Thotho Rai was assaulted by Sadanand Pal by bhala and Anand Pal assaulted him on his head by lathi, due to which, he fell down. Dhula Singh was assaulted by Anand Pal by lathi on his head and Radha Pal assaulted him by sword on his back. Sadanand Pal also assaulted him by lathi on his leg. Bhim singh was assaulted by Anand Pal by lathi on his head and other parts of the body. All the injured fell down. Upon raising alarms, villagers came there and accused persons fled away. On the basis of the written report given by the informant, Dumka Muffasil P.S. Case No. 57 of 1985 was instituted for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 324 of the Indian Penal Code, against the accused persons. All the injured fell down. Upon raising alarms, villagers came there and accused persons fled away. On the basis of the written report given by the informant, Dumka Muffasil P.S. Case No. 57 of 1985 was instituted for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 324 of the Indian Penal Code, against the accused persons. As the injured Thotho Rai died, Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was also added. After investigation, the police submitted the charge-sheet against the accused persons. 6. After commitment of the case to the Court of Session, charges were framed against the accused Sadanand Pal and Anand Pal for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, against the accused Radhey Shyam Pal and Sadanand Pal for the offence under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code and against all the accused persons for the offence under Sections 147, 307/149 and 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code. Upon the accused persons' pleading not guilty and claiming to be tried, they were put to trial. 7. In course of trial, fourteen witnesses were examined by the prosecution. The Investigating Officer of the case has not been examined and P.W.-9 Ratan Mandal and P.W.-10 Tewari Singh were only tendered by the prosecution. Though the defence is denial of the charges, but no defence witness was examined by the defence. The defence has, however, proved certain documents, which are the certified copies of the FIR and the fardbeyan of Dumka Muffasil P.S. Case No. 56 of 1985, which were marked as Exhibits-A and B and the certified copies of the depositions in the said case marked as Exhibits-C series and also some other documents, marked as Exhibits-D to L. 8. P.W.-7, Bhuwan Mirdha is the informant of the case. This witness has stated that the occurrence had taken place about eight years and four months ago on a Tuesday morning. He was ploughing his field when the accused persons, namely, Balram Pal and others, in all 13 accused persons, came there. They started claiming the field, which was objected by this witness, whereupon they assaulted his brother Khagen Mirdha, who was also ploughing his field. Khagen Mirdha was assaulted by accused Radha Pal by sword on his head. Shankar Pal also assaulted him on his head and leg, whereupon they (informant side) started fleeing away. They started claiming the field, which was objected by this witness, whereupon they assaulted his brother Khagen Mirdha, who was also ploughing his field. Khagen Mirdha was assaulted by accused Radha Pal by sword on his head. Shankar Pal also assaulted him on his head and leg, whereupon they (informant side) started fleeing away. When they reached near the field of Thotho Rai, he asked Balram Pal as to why they were assaulting, whereupon Balram Pal said that he also belonged to the same party and directed the accused persons to kill him, whereupon, accused Sadanand Pal assaulted Thotho Rai by bhala and Anand Pal assaulted Thotho Rai by lathi on his head. Thotho Rai fell unconscious. The accused persons had also assaulted Tuli Singh and Biru Singh. Thotho Rai was brought to Police Station, where he had given his statement. This witness also gave the written report at the Police Station, on which, he identified his signature, which was marked as Exhibit-1. He has identified the accused persons in the Court. In his cross-examination, this witness has stated that he does not remember as to by whom, he had got the written report drafted, but it was written at the Police Station. He has stated that the land, on which the occurrence had started, was recorded in the name of Lalchand Mirdha and this witness had earlier filed a case with respect to that land against the accused persons, which he had lost. Thereafter, he had filed the appeal against the said order. This witness has stated that he claimed that land, measuring about 10 Kathas in Plot No. 1099, being the adopted son of Lalchand Mirdha, and there is document of adoption, which he could produce. His brother was assaulted in the same land. This witness has admitted in his cross-examination that for the occurrence of the same day, another case was instituted against them also, but he had not seen any bleeding injury on accused Chandra Mohan, Nitya Nand and Sadanand. This witness has stated that Thotho Rai was brought to Police Station and he was also accompanied by his mother and wife, whose statements were also recorded. This witness has further stated in his cross-examination that the land of Thotho Rai is Plot No. 1006, which was recorded in the name of his father. This witness has stated that Thotho Rai was brought to Police Station and he was also accompanied by his mother and wife, whose statements were also recorded. This witness has further stated in his cross-examination that the land of Thotho Rai is Plot No. 1006, which was recorded in the name of his father. He has denied the suggestion that no occurrence had taken place on the land of Thotho Rai, and the accused persons were assaulted on their own land. 9. P.W.-1 Khagen Mirdha is an injured in this case. He has stated that the occurrence had taken place at about eight years ago on a Tuesday morning. He had gone to plough the field of Lalchand Mirdha, as a labour of Bhuwan Mirdha. The accused persons came there and started assaulting them, whereupon, they (informant side) started fleeing away. This witness was assaulted by accused Shankar Pal by lathi and accused Radha Pal assaulted him by sword on his head. In all thirteen accused persons were also there. He has stated that when they were fleeing away, Thotho Rai was ploughing his own filed. Balram Pal directed his associates to assault Thotho Rai, whereupon, accused Sadanand Pal assaulted Thotho Pal by bhala and Anand Pal assaulted him by lathi on his head. He has identified the accused persons in the Court. He has also stated that Thotho Rai was brought to Police Station, where he gave his statement and thereafter he died. In his cross-examination, this witness has stated that Bhuwan Mirdha was his brother, but Lalchand Mirdha had adopted him as son and the occurrence had taken place for the land of Lalchand Mirdha. He had no knowledge whether accused Sadanand Pal had filed any case for the occurrence of the same day. He has stated that he had not seen any bleeding injury on Chandra Mohan, Sadanand and Nityanand, and has denied the suggestion that the prosecution side had assaulted and injured the accused persons. 10. P.W.-2 Tuli Singh is the other injured in the case. He has also stated that the occurrence had taken place about eight years ago on a Tuesday morning. He was working in the field of Bhola Dutt, whereas, Bhuwan Mirdha and Khagen Mirdha were leveling their fields, when the accused persons came and they asked them to flee away. 10. P.W.-2 Tuli Singh is the other injured in the case. He has also stated that the occurrence had taken place about eight years ago on a Tuesday morning. He was working in the field of Bhola Dutt, whereas, Bhuwan Mirdha and Khagen Mirdha were leveling their fields, when the accused persons came and they asked them to flee away. While the Mirdhas' were fleeing away, Thotho Rai was working on his own field and Thotho Rai asked the accused persons as to why they were chasing, whereupon, Balram Pal gave orders to kill him and Sadanand Pal assaulted Thotho Rai by bhala and Anand Pal assaulted Thotho Rai by lathi. Thotho Rai fell down there. He was brought to Police Station and after giving his statement in the Police Station, he died. This witness has stated that he was also assaulted by Sadanand by lathi on his head, and Radha Pal had assaulted him by sword on his back. This witness has also stated that the field in which, Mirdhas' were working, belonged to Lalchand Mirdha. In his cross-examination, this witness has stated that due to the dispute for the same land, Lalchand Mirdha was also murdered. He has also admitted that Sadanand Pal had also filed a case for the occurrence of the same day, but he had not seen any injury on the accused persons. This witness has also stated that Thotho Rai was brought to Masanjore Police Station, where, he gave his statement before the police. Thereafter, he became unconscious. Thotho Rai had named two accused persons. He has denied the suggestion that they had assaulted the accused persons and in order to save them, they had lodged a false case. 11. P.W.-3 Raj Kumari is the mother of the deceased Thotho Rai. She has stated that her son was murdered about eight years ago on Tuesday. She was in her field and Thotho was ploughing the field. On the order given by Bolai Pal (i.e., Balram Pal), accused Sadanand Pal and Anand Pal assaulted Thotho Rai. Sadanand Pal assaulted him by bhala and Anand Pal assaulted him by lathi. Thotho Rai fell down in the field. They brought him to Police Station and thereafter he died. She has identified the accused persons in the Court. On the order given by Bolai Pal (i.e., Balram Pal), accused Sadanand Pal and Anand Pal assaulted Thotho Rai. Sadanand Pal assaulted him by bhala and Anand Pal assaulted him by lathi. Thotho Rai fell down in the field. They brought him to Police Station and thereafter he died. She has identified the accused persons in the Court. In her cross-examination, she has stated that when her son was assaulted, she was present there and her daughter-in-law was also present there. Thotho Rai had bleeding injury on his head. He had become unconscious, but he was brought to consciousness and brought to house. She had also stated that she had gone to Raghunathpur and she had also gone to Masanjore along with her son. 12. P.W.-4 Sundari Bala Dasi @ Parvati is the wife of the deceased. She has also supported the prosecution case stating that the occurrence had taken place about eight years ago on a Tuesday morning. She along with her husband and mother-in-law were working in the field. Her husband was ploughing his field. In the meantime, there was a noise and on the order of Balram Pal, accused Sadanand Pal and Anand Pal assaulted her husband by bhala and lathi. Anand Pal had assaulted her husband by lathi and Sadanand Pal assaulted him by bhala on his chest, whereupon her husband fell down. Her husband was brought to house and he was taken to Masanjore Police station from where he was taken to Raghunathpur hospital and he died in the hospital. She has identified the accused persons in the Court. In her cross-examination, she has stated that when her husband was assaulted, she and her mother-in-law were also present. Her husband had become unconscious, but later on, he gained conscious after water was sprinkled on him. 13. P.W.-5 is Birbal Singh @ Biru Singh. This witness has also stated that the occurrence had taken place about eight years ago on a Tuesday morning. He was in the field of Solan Dutta, which was nearby to the field of Bhuwan Mirdha. He was ploughing the field and Tuli Singh was also ploughing the field. Bhuwan and Pawan Mirdha were also ploughing their field. In the meantime, the accused persons, came there and they started assaulting Pawan Mirdha, whereupon the informant side started fleeing away. Bhuwan Mirdha and Pawan Mirdha were shouting to save themselves. He was ploughing the field and Tuli Singh was also ploughing the field. Bhuwan and Pawan Mirdha were also ploughing their field. In the meantime, the accused persons, came there and they started assaulting Pawan Mirdha, whereupon the informant side started fleeing away. Bhuwan Mirdha and Pawan Mirdha were shouting to save themselves. When they reached near the field of Thotho Rai, Thotho Rai asked them as to why they were assaulting, whereupon, Balai Pal, gave orders to kill him. Sadanand Pal assaulted Thotho Rai by bhala near his axilla. Anand Pal assaulted Thotho Rai by lathi on his head. Thotho Rai fell down unconscious in his field. Thotho Rai was also brought to Police Station where he had given his statement. He was brought to Raghunathpur hospital, where he died. This witness has stated that he was also assaulted by Anand Pal on his head and his brother Tuli Singh was also assaulted by Radha Pal. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he had not seen any injury on the accused persons. He has denied the suggestion of giving false evidence. 14. P.W.-6 Lalbar Rai has also stated that Thotho Rai was working in his field. This witness was also present there. Thotho Rai asked Balram Pal as to why they were shouting, whereupon, Balram Pal gave orders to kill him, whereupon, accused Sadanand Pal assaulted Thotho Rai by Barcha and Anand Pal assaulted Thotho Rai by lathi on his head. Thotho Rai fell down unconscious, and the accused persons fled away. Thotho Rai was brought to Raghunathpur hospital and before he was taken to hospital, he had given his statement at the Police Station. He died in the hospital. This witness has identified accused persons in the Court. In his cross-examination, this witness has stated that the mother and wife of Thotho Rai were also present there. He has also stated that water from the field was sprinkled upon Thotho Rai, whereupon, he gained consciousness. 15. P.W.-8 Haradhan Mandal is also an eyewitness to the occurrence, upon assault of the deceased Thotho Rai. He has stated that he saw Bhuwan and Khagen came running and they were shouting to save themselves. When they reached near the field of Thotho Rai, Thotho Rai asked the accused persons not to fight, whereupon, Sadanand Pal assaulted Thotho Rai by bhala and Anand Pal assaulted him by lathi. He has stated that he saw Bhuwan and Khagen came running and they were shouting to save themselves. When they reached near the field of Thotho Rai, Thotho Rai asked the accused persons not to fight, whereupon, Sadanand Pal assaulted Thotho Rai by bhala and Anand Pal assaulted him by lathi. Thotho Rai fell down in his field and accused persons fled away. Thotho Rai was brought to hospital where he died. He has identified the accused persons in the Court. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that he had named only two accused namely, Anand and Sadanand before the police, and had not named any other accused. He has also stated that he had seen injury on the accused persons also on that day. 16. P.W.-11 Ramanuj Sharma and P.W.14 Debal Ravidas, are the formal witnesses. P.W.-11 has proved the formal FIR as Exhibit-2 and written report as Exhibit-3, whereas P.W. -14. has proved the case dairy. 17. P.W.12 Dr. M. Sultan Ahamd, had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased on 26.7.1985 and had found the following ante-mortem injuries on the dead body of Thotho Rai:— (i) One stitched infected wound over the left axilla 2?in length. (ii) One stitched infected would over the upper left forearm of 1 ½? in length. (iii) On dissection of skull fracture of the occipital region head with laceration of brain and meninges and blood clots present in the brain cavity. (iv) On dissection of the chest, fracture of right 7th, 8th and 9th ribs and left second, third and fourth ribs with laceration of pleura and both lungs with huge quantity of blood clots present in the thoracic cavity. He has opined that the death was caused due to shock and haemorrhage caused by injury Nos. (iii) and (iv), or either one, caused by hard and blunt substance and were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. He has identified the post-mortem report to be in his pen and signature, which was marked Exhibit-4. 18. P.W.13 is Dr. Shachi Nandan Jha, who had examined the injureds, including the deceased Thotho Rai, while he was alive, and had found the following injuries:— On Thotho Rai:— (i) Cut injury on the arm 2/½? × ½ ? × 1/6?. (ii) Cut injury on the left fore arm 3? × 1?. (iii) Scratch on the forehead. 18. P.W.13 is Dr. Shachi Nandan Jha, who had examined the injureds, including the deceased Thotho Rai, while he was alive, and had found the following injuries:— On Thotho Rai:— (i) Cut injury on the arm 2/½? × ½ ? × 1/6?. (ii) Cut injury on the left fore arm 3? × 1?. (iii) Scratch on the forehead. (iv) Lacerated wound on the head. (v) Bruise mark on the front of chest 4? × 1/1?. (vi) Bruise mark on the right side of thigh. On Tuli Singh:— (I) Lacerated wound on the left side of the head above forehead ½? × ¼? × 1/6?. Scratch on the left side of the back 2?in length. Injuries were simple in nature and caused by hard and blunt substance. On Biru Singh (I) One lacerated wound on the left side of the head on the anterior part ½? × 1/6? × 1/6?. He further stated that the injury was simple in nature and caused by hard and blunt substance. On Khagen Mirdha (I) Lacerated wound on the left side of the head ½? × ¼? × 1/6?. Bruise on the right thigh. Injuries were simple in nature and caused by hard and blunt substance. He has identified the injury reports to be in his pen and signature, which were marked as Exhibit-5 series. 19. On the basis of evidence on record, the accused persons were convicted and sentenced by the Trial Court below, as detailed above. 20. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the impugned Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence cannot be sustained in the eyes of the law, inasmuch as, the inquest report of the dead body has not been proved in the case. The injuries on the other injured were only simple in nature, and are not such so as to attract the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel has also submitted that the injuries on the defence side is admitted by P.W.-8 Haradhan Mandal, though the same is denied by other witnesses. It is submitted that according to the prosecution case, the first occurrence had taken place at the field of Lalchand Mirdha, which was being claimed by the informant Bhuwan Mirdha, claiming himself to be the adopted son of Lalchand Mirdha. It is submitted that according to the prosecution case, the first occurrence had taken place at the field of Lalchand Mirdha, which was being claimed by the informant Bhuwan Mirdha, claiming himself to be the adopted son of Lalchand Mirdha. Though this witness has stated that he could produce the document of adoption, but no such document has been proved in the case. It is also an admitted fact that there was dispute between the parties for the same land and there was a case between both the parties, which was decided against the prosecution side. Learned counsel has submitted that the land belonged to the accused persons and the prosecution side were wrongly claiming the land and the occurrence, if any, had taken place in exercise of the right of private defence to protect the property. Learned counsel submitted that for the occurrence of the same day, the prosecution side have also been convicted by the competent Court and the Judgment has been proved as Exhibit-H. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that the persons in the prosecution side were the aggressors on the land, and the accused persons were well within their rights to save their property and accordingly, no offence can be said to be made out against the accused persons. Learned counsel has accordingly, submitted that in any event, the accused persons ought to have been given the benefits of doubt and the impugned Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence are fit to be set aside. In support of her contention, learned counsel has placed reliance upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in Chander Pal @ Raj Pal v. State of Harayana, reported in 2004 (1) East Cr C 103 (SC) : (2003) 12 SCC 176 : AIR 2004 SC 625 . 21. Learned counsels for the State, on the other hand, have opposed the prayer and have submitted that the witnesses have fully supported the prosecution case. It is submitted by learned counsels for the State that P.W.-7 Bhuwan Mirdha, the informant in the case, P.W.-1 Khagen Mirdha, P.W.-2 Tuli Singh and P.W.-5, Birbal Singh @ Biru Singh, who are the injured in the case, have fully supported the prosecution case stating that while they were working in the field, the accused persons came and assaulted and injured the informant side. While they were fleeing away on being assaulted by the accused persons, and they reached near the field of deceased Thotho Rai, the deceased tried to intervene, whereupon, he was assaulted by the accused Sadanand Pal and Anand Pal by bhala and lathi respectively, due to which, he fell unconscious in the field itself. It is submitted that the ocular evidence is fully corroborated by the medical evidence of P.W.-12 Dr. M. Sultan Ahmad, who had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased Thotho Rai, as also P.W.-13 Dr. Shachi Nandan Jha, who had examined the injureds and had found injuries on them. Both these witnesses have proved the post-mortem report and the injury reports. Learned counsels accordingly, submitted that the prosecution has been able to prove that the accused persons forming unlawful assembly, had assembled at the place of occurrence, armed with deadly weapons and had committed the offence with intention to commit murder, in which, Thotho Rai and other injureds were assaulted and injured by the accused persons. Later, Thotho Rai died in hospital. As such, the prosecution has been able to bring home the charges against the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubts and there is no illegality in the impugned Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence. 22. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and upon going through the record, we find that the first occurrence had taken place in the field of one Lalchand Mirdha, which was being claimed by the informant Bhuwan Mirdha, claiming himself to be the adopted son of Lalchand Mirdha. Though this witness, who was examined as P.W.-7, has stated in his evidence that he could produce the document of adoption, but no such document has been produced. It is also an admitted fact that there was dispute between both the parties due to same land, in which, the informant side had lost the case. Though this witness, who was examined as P.W.-7, has stated in his evidence that he could produce the document of adoption, but no such document has been produced. It is also an admitted fact that there was dispute between both the parties due to same land, in which, the informant side had lost the case. Though, P.W.-7 Bhuwan Mirdha, P.W.-1 Khagen Mirdha and P.W.-2 Tuli Singh have supported the occurrence at the field of Lalchand Mirdh also, but we are of the considered view that in view of the fact that there was land dispute between the parties, in which, the prosecution side had failed to prove its case, as also in view of the fact that no document of adoption has been brought on record, the prosecution had failed to establish that the land on which, the first occurrence had taken place belonged to the prosecution side. Even P.W.-1 Khagen Mirdha, who admittedly is own brother of informant Bhuwan Mirdha, has stated that he had gone to work in the field as labour of Bhuwan Mirdha. Since the prosecution has failed to prove its title and possession over the land in dispute, we are of the considered view that even though the prosecution has been able to prove the fact that three other persons, namely, P.W.1- Khagen Mirdha, P.W.-2 Tuli Singh and P.W.5- Birbal Singh @ Biru Singh, were injured in the occurrence, but the accused appellants cannot be held guilty for the offence under Sections 147, 148 and 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code for committing any offence on the said land, as it cannot be ruled out that in fact the informant side were aggressors and the defence side were exercising their right of private defence. Indeed the injuries on the defence side is admitted by P.W.-8 Haradhan Mandal, and the defence has also proved the Judgment showing that the informant side were convicted in the counter case. For the occurrence, if any, committed on the said land, we are of the considered view, that the appellants are entitled to the benefits of doubt. 23. So far as the second occurrence is concerned, which took place at the land of the deceased Thotho Rai, it is apparent from the evidence that the deceased was working on his own field, being Plot No. 1006, which was recorded in the name of his father. 23. So far as the second occurrence is concerned, which took place at the land of the deceased Thotho Rai, it is apparent from the evidence that the deceased was working on his own field, being Plot No. 1006, which was recorded in the name of his father. While the informant and other injured were fleeing away after being assaulted, and they reached near the field of Thotho Rai, he only tried to intervene, whereupon, he was assaulted by accused Sadanand Pal by bhala and accused Anand Pal by lathi on his chest and head respectively, due to which, he fell down in the field itself and subsequently, he died in the hospital. This occurrence had taken place upon the order given by the accused Balram Pal, who died during the course of trial. All the witnesses, namely, P.W.-1 Khagen Mirdha, P.W.-2 Tuli Singh, P.W.-3 Raj Kumari, the mother of the deceased, P.W.-4 Sundari Bala Dasi @ Parwati, the wife of the deceased, P.W.-5 Birbal Singh, P.W.-6 Lalbar Rai, P.W.-7 Bhuwan Mirdha and P.W.-8 Haradhan Mandal have supported the fact that the accused Sadanand Pal had assaulted the deceased by bhala and Anand Pal had assaulted the deceased by lathi on his head. The ocular evidence of these witnesses are fully corroborated by the medical evidence of P.W.-13 Dr. Shachi Nandan Jha, who had examined the deceased, while he was alive and P.W.-12 Dr. M. Sultan Ahamd, who had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased. They have proved the injury report as Exhibit-5 and post-mortem report as Exhibit-4. We are of the considered view that the prosecution has been able to bring home the charge against the accused Sadanand Pal and Anand Pal for the offence under Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code, beyond all reasonable doubts. The accused-appellants are entitled to be acquitted of the other offences, as the prosecution has not been able to prove those charges beyond all reasonable doubts. 24. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence dated 19.1.2004, passed by learned 6th Addl. Sessions Judge, Dumka, in Sessions Case No. 317 of 1990/5 of 2003, are hereby, set aside, whereby so far the accused appellants have been convicted and sentenced for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence dated 19.1.2004, passed by learned 6th Addl. Sessions Judge, Dumka, in Sessions Case No. 317 of 1990/5 of 2003, are hereby, set aside, whereby so far the accused appellants have been convicted and sentenced for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code. However, the said Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence, are hereby, upheld, so far as appellants Sadanand Pal and Anand Pal (in Cr. Appeal No. 380 of 2004) have been convicted for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, which we hereby, affirm. The appellant Sadanand Pal and Anand Pal are already in custody and they are serving out the sentence, which now, they shall serve only for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 25. All other appellants, namely, Nitya Nand Pal, Radhey Shyam Pal, Bhutal Pal and Rash Bihari Pal (in Criminal Appeal No. 188 of 2004) are given the benefits of doubt and they are acquitted of the charges. These appellants are on bail and they are discharged from the liabilities of their respective bail bonds. 26. In the result, Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 188 of 2004 is allowed, whereas Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 380 of 2004 is allowed in part. Let the Lower Court Records be sent back forthwith to the Court concerned, along with a copy of this Judgment. ANANDA SEN, J. – I agree Cr. App. (DB) No. 188/2004 allowed. Cr. App. (DB) No. 380 of 2004 Partly allowed.