Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1040 (GAU)

Biman Deb S/o Brojendra Deb v. State of Assam

2018-07-17

ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA, AJIT SINGH

body2018
JUDGMENT AND ORDER : 1. Seven appellants, namely, (i) Biman Deb, (ii) Amarendra Deb, (iii) Ashim Deb, (iv) Anup Deb, (v) Brojendra Deb, (vi) Smti Mukti Deb and (vii) Smti Protima Deb have been convicted under Sections 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 3,000/- with default stipulation. They have also been convicted under Section 324/149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, with default stipulation. They have further been convicted under Section 447 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo 3 months simple imprisonment. The jail sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. 2. The victims of the incident were Bidyut Dev, aged about 50 years and his younger brother - Samar Deb, aged about 45 years. Both of them were the residents of village Pachim Cheragi within Karimganj District of Assam and were co-villagers of the appellants. 3. According to the prosecution case, at about 2 p.m. on 11.9.2006, Basu Deb (PW-12) and his brother Bishu Dev alongwith their cousin Sanjib Dev were grazing cattle in their field. Incidentally two of the cattle entered into the land of Amarendra Deb and Brojendra Deb. Then Rinki Deb came and threatened Basu and others to cut them with dao. In the result, Basu, Bisu and Sanjib fled home out of fear. On being so informed by them, Uma Rani Deb (PW-1) (mother of Basu and Bisu) asked her husband - Bidyut Dev to go and bring home the cattle. When Bidyut Dev reached the field to bring back the cattle, the appellants entered into the field of Bidyut Dev and attacked him with krish (sword), long dao, lathi, broom, stick etc. Bidyut Dev shouted for help and hearing his cries, Uma Rani Deb along with her daughter - Bulti Dev (PW-2) and son Basu Dev rushed towards the field. At that time, Samar Dev and Budha Deb (PW-3) - son of Bidyut Dev - were cutting grass in a nearby paddy field. They, too, heard the cries for help of Bidyut Dev and rushed towards the place of occurrence. At that time, Samar Dev and Budha Deb (PW-3) - son of Bidyut Dev - were cutting grass in a nearby paddy field. They, too, heard the cries for help of Bidyut Dev and rushed towards the place of occurrence. Reaching there, all of them saw Anup Deb with a krish, Rinku Deb and Biman Deb with daos cutting Bidyut Dev on his head and other parts of the body as a result of which he fell down on the ground. 4. Samar Dev urged the appellants not to assault Bidyut Deb. But, Ashim Deb and Biman Deb did not listen to his fervent requests and rather inflicted cut blows on him, too. Rinku Deb also gave blows on Budha Dev with krish and dao and he also fell on the ground. Both Bidyut Dev and Samar Dev died instantaneously whereas Budha Deb sustained grievous injuries. During the assault, Amaredra Deb, Brojendra Deb, Bidhu Das, Ruma Deb, Smti Mukti Deb, Smti Protima Deb and Juwelika Deb @ Moni Deb supplied dao, lathi, broom sticks etc. to the appellants from a jungle. In the incident, Bulti Dev and Uma Rani Deb also sustained injuries. 5. Budha Deb, although injured, somehow managed to escape and reached the Cherragi Police Out Post. There, he informed Dipak Baisha (PW-15), Officer-in-charge of the said outpost, about the occurrence. Dipak Baisha then sent Budha Dev to the hospital for treatment and himself rushed to the place of occurrence after making a General Diary Entry (Exhibit-12). In the meantime, the dead bodies of Bidyut Dev and Samar Dev were brought to their house. Dipak Baisha conducted inquest over the dead bodies in the presence of Sridam Das (PW-9) and Kanai Das (PW-10). Thereafter, he sent the bodies for post-mortem examination. Dipak Baisha also drew Exhibit-13 sketch map and recorded the statement of witnesses. Uma Rani Dev lodged Exhibit-1 First Information Report on the next day i.e. 12.11.2012 before Cherragi Police Out Post which was subsequently registered at Ratabari Police Station as Case No. 76/2006 for offences under Sections 147/148/447/326/302/149 of the Indian Penal Code. Amarendra Deb was arrested and on being led by him, Dipak Bisha seized one dao vide Exhibit-9 in the presence of Md. Jahur Ali (PW-13). Later, Anup Deb, Ashim Deb and Rinku Deb surrendered before police and Dipak Baisha seized bamboo lathis vide Exhibit-8 seizure list in the presence of Johur Ali. Amarendra Deb was arrested and on being led by him, Dipak Bisha seized one dao vide Exhibit-9 in the presence of Md. Jahur Ali (PW-13). Later, Anup Deb, Ashim Deb and Rinku Deb surrendered before police and Dipak Baisha seized bamboo lathis vide Exhibit-8 seizure list in the presence of Johur Ali. Rinku Deb, Ruma Dev and Juwelika Dev@ Moni Dev being juveniles were sent to Juvenile Justice Board. Later Biman Deb was also arrested. Statements of Uma Rani Deb (Exhibit-2), Bulti Deb (Exhibit-3), Basu and Budha Dev (Exhibit-4) under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were also recorded. 6. Post-mortem of the dead body of Bidyut Dev was conducted by Dr. S.K. Sen (PW-15). He found the following injuries:- (i) one incised wound 3½” x 1½” x 1½” on the left parietal area of scalp cutting the adjoining scalp. (ii) one piercing wound cutting right ear up to inner brain and penetrating the ear drum. (iii) one incised wound about 1½” x ½” x ½” on the medial aspect of right lower limb above right ankle and multiple bruises about 2½” x 1” on the posterior trunk including both scapular and buttock areas. Exhibit-10 is the post-mortem report of Bidyut Dev. According to the medical opinion, Bidyut Dev died due to the injuries caused which were ante mortem in nature. 7. The same doctor S.K. Sen, after examining the dead body of Samar Dev, found the following injuries:- (i) one incised wound on the left parietal-occipital area of scalp 4” x 1” x 1” cutting the adjoining scalp bones. (ii) one incised wound 2” x ½” x ½” on the left mastoid area. (iii) one incised wound 1” x ¼” x ¼” on the anterior neck. (iv) one incised wound ½” x ¼” x ¼” on the dorsum of left middle finger. Exhibit-11 is the post-mortem report of Samar Dev. According to the medical opinion, Samar Dev died due to the injuries caused which were ante mortem in nature. 8. Dr. Daya Sankar Sarma (PW-4) examined Bulti Dev, Uma Rani Dev and Basu Dev. He found the following injuries on Bulti Dev:- (i) simple swelling on the right hand near elbow. (ii) simple swelling on the left hand near elbow. (iii) reddish spot on the upper part of the back side 3 mm x ½ mm. 8. Dr. Daya Sankar Sarma (PW-4) examined Bulti Dev, Uma Rani Dev and Basu Dev. He found the following injuries on Bulti Dev:- (i) simple swelling on the right hand near elbow. (ii) simple swelling on the left hand near elbow. (iii) reddish spot on the upper part of the back side 3 mm x ½ mm. He found the following injuries on Uma Rani Dev:- (i) skin lacerated on the left hand near elbow. (ii) simple swelling on the left thigh. He found the following injuries on Basu Dev:- (i) simple cut injury on the index finger ½ mm x ½ mm. (ii) simple swelling on the left hand wrist. According to his report Exhibit-5, all the injuries were simple and caused by a blunt object. 9. Both Dr. F. Karim (PW-5) and Dr. Suparna Paul (PW-6) examined Budha Dev and found the following injuries:- (i) one cut injury on the left thigh 4” x 2” muscle deep. (ii) one penetrating injury on left forearm ½” x ½” x ½ ” with sharp margin. (iii) bruise over left arm 2” x 1.” (iv) swelling on left arm and left side of neck and cut injury on left parietal region 3” x 1” x bone deep. According to the medical report Exhibit-6 prepared by Dr. F. Karim, except the grievous penetrating injury on left forearm, all other injuries were simple. The penetrating injury on the left forearm, cut injury on left thigh and cut injury on left parietal region were caused by sharp object whereas rest of the injuries were caused by blunt object. Medical Report of Dr. Suparna Paul is Exhibit-7. 10. The police after completing the investigation submitted Exhibit 17 charge sheet against the appellants for offences under Sections 147/148/447/323/326/302/149 of the Indian Penal Code. However, no charge sheet was filed against Bidhu Dev. 11. During trial, the appellants abjured their guilt and pleaded false implication. However, the trial Court relying upon the evidence of Uma Rani Dev, Bulti Dev and Budha Dev convicted the appellants and sentenced them as aforesaid. 12. Now we shall scrutinise the evidence of Uma Rani Deb, Bulti Deb and Buddha Deb to examine the correctness of the impugned conviction and sentence of the trial court. However, the trial Court relying upon the evidence of Uma Rani Dev, Bulti Dev and Budha Dev convicted the appellants and sentenced them as aforesaid. 12. Now we shall scrutinise the evidence of Uma Rani Deb, Bulti Deb and Buddha Deb to examine the correctness of the impugned conviction and sentence of the trial court. Uma Rani Deb stated in her first information report that Anup Deb with a krish, Rinku Deb and Biman Deb with daos inflicted cut injuries on Bidyut Deb on his head and other parts of the body. She also alleged that when Samar Deb came for rescue of Bidyut Deb, both Ashim Bev and Biman Dev inflicted cut blows on him wheras Rinku Dev gave krish and dao blows on Buddha Dev. She alleged that Amarendra Deb, Brojendra Dev, Bidhu Das, Ruma Deb, Smti Mukti Deb, Smti Protima Deb and Juwelika Deb @ Moni Deb supplied dao, lathi, broom stick etc. to the other appellants. 13. But, in her evidence Uma Rani Deb changed her version regarding the incident. She deposed that when Bidyut Deb went to the paddy field to collect food materials for their cows, Ashim, Anup, Biman, Rinku, Amarendra and Brojendra attacked him. Anup hit the head of Bidyut Deb with a krish( a form of dragger) and Rinku gave a lathi blow on his leg. When Samar Deb and Buddha Deb reached the place of occurrence, then Amarendra Deb gave a dao blow on the leg of Samar Deb and Ashim Deb gave a dao blow on his head. Biman Deb gave a dao blow on left side of his waist. Then Anup Deb gave a dao blow on Buddha and Ashim gave a dao blow on his head whereas Rinku gave a dao blow on his leg. Both Bidyut Deb and Samar Deb died instantaneously. When Bidyut Deb and Samar Deb died Mukti, Pratima and Juwelika struck their dead bodies and they assaulted Uma Rani Deb and Bulti Deb, too. During her cross-examination, Uma Rani Deb further clarified that appellant Pratima Deb only struck the dead bodies of Bidyut Deb and Samar Deb. 14. Bulti Deb has deposed that when she heard the shouts of Bidyut Deb, she alongwith her mother Uma Rani Deb and brother Basu Deb rushed towards the place of occurrence. During her cross-examination, Uma Rani Deb further clarified that appellant Pratima Deb only struck the dead bodies of Bidyut Deb and Samar Deb. 14. Bulti Deb has deposed that when she heard the shouts of Bidyut Deb, she alongwith her mother Uma Rani Deb and brother Basu Deb rushed towards the place of occurrence. There she saw Anup inflicting a cut injury on Bidyut Deb with a krish and Biman Deb also dealt a dao blow on his head whereas Rinku gave a dao blow on the leg of Bidyut Deb. When Samar Deb went to rescue Bidyut Deb, Amaredra gave a lathi blow on the waist of Samar Deb and Ashim gave a dao blow on his head whereas Biman Deb gave a dao blow on his waist. Thereafter, Anup Deb inflicted a dao blow on Buddha Deb and Ashim Deb struck him on his hand with a dao whereas Rinku gave a dao blow on his left leg. She also testified that during the occurrence Pratima, Mukti, Juwelika and Ruma handed over the weapons to the appellants and Pratima struck her from behind Ruma and Juwelika gave lathi blows on her hand whereas Pratima gave a lathi blow on the head of Uma Rani Deb. She further testified that Mukti gave a lathi blow to Uma Rani Deb and Rinku gave a lathi blow to Basu. During her cross-examination, she further clarified that Ashim Deb gave a krish blow to Buddha and Anup was holding a krish. 15. A conjoint reading of the testimonies of both Uma Rani Deb and Bulti Deb would go to show that at first Bidyut Dev was assaulted by Anup Deb with a krish on his head and Rinku gave a dao blow on his left leg whereas Biman Deb gave a dao blow on his head too. 16. Buddha Deb, who arrived at the place of occurrence with his uncle Samar Deb and was also assaulted, testified that Anup Deb inflicted a krish blow and Biman Deb inflicted a dao blow on the head of Bidyut Deb whereas Rinku Deb gave a dao blow on his left leg. Therefore, his testimony reveals that Ashim, Biman, Anup and Rinku Deb together attacked Bidyut Deb and inflicted injuries on his person by krish and dao. 17. Therefore, his testimony reveals that Ashim, Biman, Anup and Rinku Deb together attacked Bidyut Deb and inflicted injuries on his person by krish and dao. 17. The Exhibit-10 post mortem report of Bidyut Deb also shows that two injuries-one incised and another pierced cutting- on his head and another incised wound on his right ankle-were inflicted on him. Thus the medical evidence fully corroborates the ocular evidence of Uma Rani Deb, Bulti Deb and Buddha Deb and it can be safely held that Anup Deb and Biman Deb gave the lethal blows on the head of Bidyut Dev. Although, the eye witnesses deposed that Rinku Deb dealt a dao blow on the left leg of Bidyut Deb, Rinku Deb being a juvenile and not an appellant herein this appeal, we refrain ourselves from commenting on the same. 18. Again, so far the assault made to Samar Deb is concerned, it is the testimony of Uma Rani Deb that when Samar Deb reached the place of occurrence and tried to rescue Bidyut Deb, Amarendra Deb gave a lathi blow on the legs of Samar Deb and Ashim Deb gave a dao blow on his head whereas Biman Deb inflicted a dao blow on the left side of his waist. But, during her statement made before police she stated that Amarendra Deb, Mukti Deb, Pratima Deb and Juwelika Deb came out of their house with lathis and dao after the death of Samar Deb and it was Ashim Deb and Biman Deb who together hacked Samar Deb with daos. Interestingly, during her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, she stated that Amarendra gave a lathi blow on Samar Deb and when he fall down, Ashim Deb hacked him with a dao. Thus, it is seen that her statements varied from time to time and her testimony in the court contradicted materially her earlier statement made before the police. 19. Again, Bulti Dev testified that Amarendra Deb gave a lathi blow on the waist of Samar Deb whereas both Ashim Deb and Biman Deb gave one dao blow each on his waist. Buddha Deb also testified that Amarendra Deb gave a lathi blow on Samar and then Samar Deb fell down on the ground. Thereafter, Ashim Deb struck on the head of Samar Deb with a dao. Buddha Deb also testified that Amarendra Deb gave a lathi blow on Samar and then Samar Deb fell down on the ground. Thereafter, Ashim Deb struck on the head of Samar Deb with a dao. But, Bulti Deb in her statement before police during investigation had stated that when Samar Deb came running to rescue Bidyut Deb, both Ashim Deb and Biman Deb thrashed him on the ground and hacked him with daos on his head and other parts of the body. Thereafter, Amarendra, Mukti Deb, Pratima Deb, Ruma Deb and Juwelika Deb came out of their house carrying daos and lathis. Interestingly, during her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, she stated that when Samar Deb came to the place of occurrence, Biman and Amarendra Deb dealt lathi blows on him and on his fall, Biman Deb hacked him with a dao. Hence, her statements too, are not consistent and uniform. 20. Therefore, testimonies of both Uma Rani Deb and Bulti Deb are not wholly reliable. Uma Rani Deb testified that Samar Deb was cut on his waist by Biman Deb. But, no such injury was found on his waist during post mortem examination. Only four fatal cut injuries were found on his head. Similarly, Bulti Deb gave different versions at different points of time and according to her testimony, both Ashim Deb and Biman Deb gave dao blows on the waist of Samar Deb which is not correct as per post mortem examination report. Therefore, we are constrained to believe that Uma Rani Deb and Bulti Deb subsequently developed their versions in the court. Besides, as per Bulti Deb’s own version before police, Amarendra came out of his house along with Mukti Deb, Pratima Deb, Ruma Deb and Juwelika Deb after the death of Samar Deb, who died subsequent to the death of Bidyut Deb, and as such his presence in the place of occurrence prior to the death of Bidyut Dev and Samar Deb does not arise. Consequently, we find that the testimony of Buddha Deb is also not wholly reliable as he deposed that Amarendra Deb gave a lathi blow on Samar Deb since Amarendra Deb came out of his house after death of Samar Deb. Consequently, we find that the testimony of Buddha Deb is also not wholly reliable as he deposed that Amarendra Deb gave a lathi blow on Samar Deb since Amarendra Deb came out of his house after death of Samar Deb. However, a careful and cautious reading of the testimonies of Uma Rani Deb, Bulti Deb and Buddha Deb would prove beyond reasonable doubt that it is Ashim Deb and Biman Deb who gave lethal dao blows on the head of Samar Deb killing him instantaneously and the presence and role of Amarendra Deb in the killing of Samar Deb is doubtful, more so when the so called injuries he had purportedly inflicted on Samar Deb are not corroborated by cogent medical evidence. 21. Besides, neither Uma Rani Deb nor Bulti Deb nor Buddha Deb made any whisper about the presence of Amarendra Deb, Mukti Deb, Pratima Deb, Ruma Deb and Juwelika Deb in the place of occurrence at the time of killing of Bidyut Deb, which would further go to prove that they were not present initially and they arrived at the place of occurrence only after deaths of Bidyut Deb and Samar Deb. 22. It is the testimony of Uma Rani Deb, that when Buddha Deb reached the place of occurrence Anup Deb gave a dao blow on him whereas Ashim Deb gave a dao blow on his head and Rinku gave a dao blow on his leg. But, during her statement before police she stated that Rinku assaulted Buddha Deb with a lathi whereas Ashim Deb gave a dao blow on his leg and Biman Deb gave a dao blow on his head. 23. Again, according to Bulti Deb, Anup Deb gave a dao blow on Buddha Deb whereas Ashim Deb inflicted injury on his hand with a dao and Rinku Deb gave a dao blow on his left leg. But, during her statement before police she stated that it was Amarendra Deb who inflicted lathi blows on the head and body of Buddha Deb. Hence, the testimonies of both Uma Rani Deb and Bulti Deb in the court are contradictory to their earlier versions and also contradicted each other on material particulars making their evidence not fully reliable. 24. But, during her statement before police she stated that it was Amarendra Deb who inflicted lathi blows on the head and body of Buddha Deb. Hence, the testimonies of both Uma Rani Deb and Bulti Deb in the court are contradictory to their earlier versions and also contradicted each other on material particulars making their evidence not fully reliable. 24. Buddha Deb-the injured himself-had deposed that Rinku gave a cut injury on his left leg whereas Anup Deb gave a dao blow on his head and Ashim Deb inflicted a cut injury on his arm. In his statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, too, he stated exactly in the same manner and as such we find his evidence to be reliable. Besides, it is very natural that the testimony of the injured witness would be more correct and would reflect a true account of the occurrence. Further, his testimony is supported by cogent medical evidence of both Dr. F. Karim and Dr. Suparna Paul. Therefore, it can be safely held that Ashim Deb, Anup Deb and Rinku Deb inflicted those injuries to Buddha Deb. According to the medical opinion, penetrating injury on the left forearm of Buddha Deb as inflicted by Ashim Deb was grievous and caused by sharp weapon whereas other injuries caused by Anup Deb and Rinku Deb were simple in nature caused by blunt weapon. The trial court convicted Ashim Deb under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code instead of convicting him under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code. Since no appeal has been filed by the State, we refrain ourselves from modifying the conviction and sentence. Further, we hold that Biman Deb was not involved in assaulting Budha Deb and as such he is not guilty under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code as held by the trial court and accordingly we acquit him of the charge under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. 25. Nanda Deb (PW-7)-widow of Samar Deb-had deposed that on the day of occurrence, when hearing commotion, she went towards the place of occurrence, she saw Anup Deb, Ashim Deb, Biman Deb, Amarendra Deb, Rinku Deb and Brojendra Deb assaulting Bidyut Dev and Samar Deb. 25. Nanda Deb (PW-7)-widow of Samar Deb-had deposed that on the day of occurrence, when hearing commotion, she went towards the place of occurrence, she saw Anup Deb, Ashim Deb, Biman Deb, Amarendra Deb, Rinku Deb and Brojendra Deb assaulting Bidyut Dev and Samar Deb. But, in her statement before police she stated that when she arrived at the place of occurrence, she saw Ashim Deb, Anup Deb and Rinku Deb assaulting Bidyut Dev and on arrival of Samar Dev, both Ashim Deb and Biman Deb thrashed him on the ground and hacked him with dao. Only thereafter, Amarendra Deb, Mukti Deb, Pratima Deb, Ruma Deb and Juwelika Deb came out of their house with dao and lathis. Hence, her testimony in the court is contradictory to her earlier statement and as such is not reliable. She had also deposed that when she arrived at the place of occurrence, both Bidyut Dev and Samar Deb were already dead and she could not give any account of the occurrence too. As such her testimony is of no consequence. Similarly, Babu Lal Deb (PW-11) baldly deposed that he saw Anup Deb, Ashim Deb, Biman Deb, Rinku Deb, Amarendra Deb, Mukti Deb, Brojendra Deb, Pratima Deb and Juwelika Deb assaulting Bidyut Deb and Samar Deb, which is not corroborated by cogent evidence and as such not true for the reasons we have already discussed herein above. Moreover, Basu Deb (PW-12) admitted in his cross-examination that Babu Lal Deb went to the place of occurrence after Basu Deb arrived in the place of occurrence. So the question of Babu Lal Deb seeing the occurrence does not arise at all and as such his testimony, too, is not reliable. Basu Deb (PW-12) also could not give a clear account of the occurrence and he had simply deposed that the appellants had assaulted Bidyut Deb and Samar Deb with dao, lathi, krish etc. and during his cross-examination, he admitted that he could not say as to who assaulted whom. 26. Nirmal Dhar (PW-8) did not witness the occurrence and both Sridam Deb and Kanai Das (PW-10) also arrived at the house of Bidyut Deb and Samar Deb where their dead bodies were lying and they were only witnesses to the inquest. Therefore, they could not throw any light on the prosecution. 26. Nirmal Dhar (PW-8) did not witness the occurrence and both Sridam Deb and Kanai Das (PW-10) also arrived at the house of Bidyut Deb and Samar Deb where their dead bodies were lying and they were only witnesses to the inquest. Therefore, they could not throw any light on the prosecution. Although, Uma Rani Deb deposed that Mukti Deb, Pratima Deb and Juwelika Deb struck the dead bodies of Bidyut Deb and Samar Deb, they could not be held guilty for committing their murder. Uma Rani Deb also deposed that Mukti Deb, Pratima Deb and Juwelika Deb assaulted Bulti Dev, Basu Dev and herself. Bulti Deb deposed that Mukti Deb, Pratima Deb, Ruma and Juwelika Deb supplied weapons to the appellants while committing murder of Bidyut Deb and Samar Deb. But the same is not reliable for want of corroboration and she also did not say so before police during investigation. Thus, it is a material contradiction. Though, Bulti Deb testified that both Pratima and Mukti Deb gave lathi blows on Uma Rani Deb, Uma Rani Deb did not depose so and thus the testimony of Bulti Deb is not reliable for want of corroboration. Besides, medical evidence of Dr. Daya Sankar Sarma also does not support the same. Bulti Deb also deposed that Pratima struck at her back but no sign of such injury was seen in the medical report of Bulti Dev. Basu Deb did not depose as to who assaulted him and he simply deposed that the appellants assaulted him. Therefore, we find no cogent evidence against Brojendra Dev, Amarendra Deb, Smti Mukti Deb and Smti Pratima Deb. 27. Therefore, we have arrived at a conclusion that all the appellants were not involved in the crime. Prosecution could prove the involvement of only Ashim Deb, Anup Deb and Biman Deb for committing the murders of Bidyut Deb and Samar Deb. The prosecution, however, grossly failed to prove its case against Brojendra Dev, Amarendra Deb, Smti Mukti Deb and Smti Pratima Deb that they caused the deaths of Bidyut Deb and Samar Deb. The prosecution has also been able to prove its case that injuries were caused to Budha Deb by Anup Deb and Ashim Deb and not by Biman Deb. There is hardly any whisper against Brojendra Deb in the evidence and there is absolutely nothing incriminating against him. The prosecution has also been able to prove its case that injuries were caused to Budha Deb by Anup Deb and Ashim Deb and not by Biman Deb. There is hardly any whisper against Brojendra Deb in the evidence and there is absolutely nothing incriminating against him. We, accordingly, confirm the conviction and sentence of Ashim Deb, Anup Deb and Biman Deb under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and acquit Brojendra Dev, Amarendra Deb, Smti Mukti Deb and Smti Pratima Deb of the same charge. We also while maintaining the conviction and sentence of Anup Deb and Ashim Deb for an offence under Section 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code, acquit the remaining appellants of the charge. We further confirm the conviction and sentence of Anup Deb, Ashim Deb and Biman Deb under Section 447/34 of the Indian Penal Code and acquit the remaining appellants of the same charge. Brojendra Dev, Amarendra Deb, Smt. Mukti Deb and Smti Pratima Deb are in jail and hence they are directed to be released forthwith. 28. Accordingly, the impugned judgment is partly modified and the appeal is partly allowed to the extent as indicated herein above.