Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1630 (PAT)

Maheshwar Rajak v. State of Bihar

2018-10-11

HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA

body2018
Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J. – Originally, this appeal was preferred by the six appellants but during pendency of the appeal, appellant no. 1, namely, Maheshwar Rajak died and accordingly, his appeal stood abated. However, the remaining appellants have challenged the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence order dated 12.04.1996 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jamui in Sessions Case No. 207 of 1992 by which and whereunder he convicted the appellant Pradeep Rajak and deceased-appellant Maheshwar Rajak for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and furthermore, convicted the deceased-appellant Maheshwar Rajak, separately, for the offence punishable under Section 147 of the I.P.C. and sentenced the appellant Pradeep Rajak and deceased-appellant Maheshwar Rajak to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and deceased-appellant Maheshwar Rajak was separately sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 147 of the I.P.C. Furthermore, the remaining appellants were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302/149 of the I.P.C. and further the appellants, except deceased-appellant Maheshwar Rajak, were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 148 and 323 of the I.P.C. and accordingly, the above stated appellants were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the I.P.C. and also to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence punishable under Section 148 of the I.P.C. and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 323 of the I.P.C. However, all the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. PW-13 Laxman Sao along with Yamuna Sao (PW-2), Prem Sagar Sao (PW-10), Munshi Sao (PW-5), Gariban Sao (PW-6), Shrawan Kr. (PW-12), Bharat Sao (PW-4) and Chowkidar Dhobi Tanti (not examined) on 17.02.1991 at about 07:45 P.M. went to Sikandra police station and gave his statement to officer in charge of Sikandra police station to this effect that on the same day at about 06:30 P.M., his father Anganu Sao was sitting at his door. In the meantime, deceased-appellant Maheshwar Rajak and remaining appellants along with wife of deceased-appellant Maheshwar Rajak and Mungia Devi came there and encircled his father and started abusing him. In the meantime, deceased-appellant Maheshwar Rajak and remaining appellants along with wife of deceased-appellant Maheshwar Rajak and Mungia Devi came there and encircled his father and started abusing him. He having heard the noise came near his father and saw that deceased-appellant Maheshwar Rajak demanded rupees five hundred as extortion money but his father expressed his inability to pay rupees five hundred at once and assured to make payment later on but deceased-appellant Maheshwar Rajak ordered his associates to assault and snatch the money and thereafter, all the above stated persons started assaulting his father by means of lathi, khanti, tangi, bhala, fists and slaps. In the meantime, Yamuna Sao (PW-2), Prem Sagar Sao (PW-10), Bahadur Sao (PW-9), Munshi Sao (PW-5), Gariban Sao (PW-6), Shrawan Kr. (PW-12), Bharat Sao (PW-4), Ramcharan Sao (PW-8) and other villagers came there and made attempt to save his father but appellant Tripurari Rajak gave tangi blow to him as a result of which he sustained head injury. The other persons assaulted the other injured. Deceased-appellant Maheshwar Rajak and Pradeep Rajak assaulted on the temple of his father by means of khanti as a result of which his father fell down and died then and there. Appellant Pradeep Rajak also assaulted injured Yamuna Sao by means of khanti causing injury on his head. The aforesaid assailants took out rupees fifteen thousand from the pocket of his father and fled away from there. The informant claims that appellants (accused) had inimical term with him and others from before. 3. On the basis of aforesaid statement of PW-13, Sikandra P.S. Case No. 25 of 1991 for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and other minor sections of the I.P.C. was registered against the appellants and deceased-appellant Maheshwar Rajak along with two others. 4. PW-15 Birendra Pd. Singh, who had recorded the statement of PW-13, took charge of investigation. He inspected the place of occurrence, issued requisitions of injuries of the injured persons, recorded the statements of witnesses, seized blood stained earth, prepared the inquest report and after completion of the investigation, submitted charge sheet. The cognizance of the offence was taken and the case was committed to the court of sessions in usual way. He inspected the place of occurrence, issued requisitions of injuries of the injured persons, recorded the statements of witnesses, seized blood stained earth, prepared the inquest report and after completion of the investigation, submitted charge sheet. The cognizance of the offence was taken and the case was committed to the court of sessions in usual way. The appellants and deceased-appellant Maheshwar Rajak as well as two others stood charged for the offences punishable under Sections 342, 323, 302 read with Section 149, 307 read with Section 149 and 379 of the I.P.C. The appellant Tripurari Rajak was, separately, charged for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the I.P.C. and similarly, appellant Pradeep Rajak was also charged, separately, for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the I.P.C. Furthermore, deceased-appellant Maheshwar Rajak and appellant Pradeep Rajak stood charged for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and appellant Pradeep Rajak, Chotu Rajak, Tripurari Rajak, Bisheshwar Rajak and Tarni Rajak stood charged for the offence punishable under Section 148 of the I.P.C. whereas deceased-appellant Maheshwar Rajak, Champa Devi as well as Mulia Devi @ Mungia Devi stood charged for the offence punishable under Section 147 of the I.P.C. All the above stated appellants denied the charges and claimed to be tried. 5. In course of trial, prosecution examined, altogether, 15 prosecution witnesses and also got exhibited several documents as documentary evidence. The statements of appellants were recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which they reiterated their innocence. No evidence was adduced by the appellants in support of their defence but the trends of cross examination as well as statements made under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. goes to show that defence of the appellants was total denial of the prosecution story. 6. The learned trial court after scrutinizing the evidences available on the record convicted and sentenced the above stated appellants in the manner as stated above whereas acquitted the co-accused Mulia Devi @ Mungia Devi and Champa Devi. 7. Shri Ranbir Singh, advocate appearing as amicus curiae on behalf of the appellants challenged the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence order arguing that the learned trial court failed to appreciate the evidences in its right perspective and committed error in convicting and sentencing the appellants. 7. Shri Ranbir Singh, advocate appearing as amicus curiae on behalf of the appellants challenged the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence order arguing that the learned trial court failed to appreciate the evidences in its right perspective and committed error in convicting and sentencing the appellants. He further submits that prosecution witnesses made contradictory statements which go to the root of the prosecution case but the learned trial court ignored the aforesaid contradictions. He further submits that prosecution has not only failed to prove the place of occurrence but also failed to prove the manner of occurrence beyond all shadow of reasonable doubts and aforesaid failure of the prosecution creates doubt about the prosecution case and, therefore, benefit of doubt should have been given to the appellants but learned court below did not give benefit of doubt to the appellants. He further submits that even if the prosecution story assumed to be true for the sake of convenience, then also, it is not a preplanned murder rather the occurrence suddenly took place on account of land dispute and, therefore, at best, case under Section 304(2) of the I.P.C. is made out. He further submits that all the witnesses are related to each others and they are interested witnesses and, therefore, no reliance can safely be placed upon the statements of prosecution witnesses. He further submits that moreover, prosecution also could not succeed to prove the motive of alleged occurrence and it is well settled principle of law that in criminal cases motive plays an important role and if prosecution fails to prove the motive of the occurrence, the benefit shall go to the accused. He submits that in the present case, admittedly, prosecution failed to prove the motive of the alleged occurrence and, therefore, the benefit of doubt should be given to the appellants. 8. Learned amicus curiae, further, submits that according to prosecution case, the alleged occurrence took place at about 06:30 P.M. in the month of February and it is a matter of common sense that in the month of February at about 06:30 P.M., there would be complete dark. He, further, submits that in the present case, neither informant nor any witnesses disclosed as to how they identified the appellants when there was no source of identification and, therefore, on this score also, the prosecution case is liable to be rejected. 9. He, further, submits that in the present case, neither informant nor any witnesses disclosed as to how they identified the appellants when there was no source of identification and, therefore, on this score also, the prosecution case is liable to be rejected. 9. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel Shri Muneshwari Prasad appearing for the informant supported the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence order arguing that in the present case, several persons sustained injury and one person died. They further submit that presence of injured witnesses on the place of occurrence cannot be doubted and moreover, the appellants and injured are next door neighbours and, therefore, even if it assumed that there was dark at the time of alleged occurrence, then also, it cannot be said that injured witnesses were not in position to identify the appellants, particularly, in the circumstance when appellants came there and assaulted the injured and deceased. They further submit that prosecution has proved its case beyond all shadow of reasonable doubts and even if this court finds some minor contradictions in the deposition of prosecution witnesses, then also, the so-called minor contradictions are not sufficient to demolish the entire prosecution case. 10. Having heard the aforesaid rival contentions of the parties, I went through the record. 11. I have already stated that prosecution examined altogether 15 prosecution witnesses to prove its case. Out of the aforesaid 15 prosecution witnesses, PW-1 Yashoda Devi, PW-2 Yamuna Sao, PW-4 Bharat Sao, PW-5 Munshi Sao, PW-9 Bahadur Sao, PW-10 Prem Sagar Sao, PW-12 Shrawan Kr. and PW-13 Laxman Sao claimed themselves to be eye witness and injured of the present case. PW-3 Asha Devi also claims herself to be eye witness of the alleged occurrence but she does not claim herself to be injured. PW-7 Tej Narayan Singh is hostile witness who admits his signature on the inquest report of the deceased. Similarly, PW-8 Ramcharan Sao is also a witness of inquest report. PW-11 Dr. Prakash Chandra Verma claims that on 17.02.1991, he examined PW-6 Gariban Sao, PW-13 Laxman Sao, PW-2 Yamuna Sao, PW-5 Munshi Sao, PW-10 Prem Sagar Sao, PW-4 Bharat Sao, PW-9 Bahadur Sao, PW-12 Shrawan Kr. and on 18.02.1991 he examined PW-1 Yashoda Devi and proved the injury reports of above stated injured. PW-14 Dr. PW-11 Dr. Prakash Chandra Verma claims that on 17.02.1991, he examined PW-6 Gariban Sao, PW-13 Laxman Sao, PW-2 Yamuna Sao, PW-5 Munshi Sao, PW-10 Prem Sagar Sao, PW-4 Bharat Sao, PW-9 Bahadur Sao, PW-12 Shrawan Kr. and on 18.02.1991 he examined PW-1 Yashoda Devi and proved the injury reports of above stated injured. PW-14 Dr. Thakur Om Prakash Singh claims that he did autopsy on the dead body of the deceased Anganu Sao on 18.02.1991. PW-15 Birendra Pd. Singh is investigating officer of the present case. Now, I would like to deal with the statements of aforesaid witnesses before coming to any conclusion. 12. PW-1 Yashoda Devi is wife of the deceased Anganu Sao. She claims herself to be an eye witness as well as injured witness. She claims that she had sustained injury on his hand. PW-11 Dr. Prakash Chandra Verma found injury on the person of PW-1 when he examined her on 18.02.1991. PW-1 claims that appellant Tripurari Rajak gave tangi blow on the kanpatti of her husband and similarly, appellant Pradeep Rajak also assaulted her husband on kanpatti whereas deceased-appellant Maheshwar Rajak assaulted him by means of lathi. She further claims that her son Laxman Sao had also sustained injury when he came to rescue his father. She further claims that Yamuna Sao, Bharat, Munshi, Shrawan had also come to save her husband. She admits that her house has been constructed on 2 kattha lands which were purchased from Bhuneshwar Lala of Sikandra and she was residing in the said house since last four years. She further admits that when she had purchased the said land, the said land was Parti. She further admits that after construction of two rooms on above stated 2 kathha lands, some portion of lands remained vacant and she as well as appellants used to tie their respective cattles on above stated vacant land. She further admits in her cross examination that house of the appellants is in front of her house and all the appellants came together. She further states that the alleged occurrence took place at her door. She further states at para 17 of her cross examination that the deceased-appellant Maheshwar Rajak was carrying lathi, appellant Pradeep Rajak was carrying paina fitted with khanti and the appellant Tripurari Rajak was carrying wooden baint fitted with tangi. She further states that the alleged occurrence took place at her door. She further states at para 17 of her cross examination that the deceased-appellant Maheshwar Rajak was carrying lathi, appellant Pradeep Rajak was carrying paina fitted with khanti and the appellant Tripurari Rajak was carrying wooden baint fitted with tangi. She further states that almost all the appellants assaulted the deceased and deceased-appellant Maheshwar Rajak assaulted the deceased Aganu on his kanpatti by means of lahti. She further admits that only one khanti blow was given to her husband and only three appellants, namely, Tripurari, Pradeep and Maheshwar assaulted her husband. She further states that she also sustained injury caused by lathi as she was sitting by side of her husband. She further states that she became unconscious and regained her consciousness in hospital. She denies the suggestion of the defence that her husband wanted to take forceful possession of the land as a result whereof the villagers had assaulted him. 13. PW-2 Yamuna Sao also claims himself to be eye witness of the alleged occurrence. This witness states that on the alleged date of occurrence in between 06:00 P.M. to 06:30 P.M., he was at his home and heard the noise. He further states that having heard the noise, he went running to the door of deceased Anganu Sao where he saw deceased-appellant Maheshwar Rajak, appellants Pradeep Rajak, Tripurari Rajak, Chhotu Rajak, Bisheshwar Rajak, Tarni Rajak, Muniya Devi and Champa Devi and all the aforesaid persons were assaulting Anganu Sao. He further claims that he tried to intervene into the matter but appellant Pradeep Rajak gave khanti blow to him as a result whereof he sustained injury on his head as well as on his both legs. He further claims that deceased-appellant Maheshwar Rajak assaulted the deceased Anganu Sao by means of lathi whereas appellant Pradeep assaulted the deceased on his kanpatti and head by means of khanti as a result whereof deceased Anganu Sao fell down and died then and there. This witness states that the occurrence of assault took place on the land of deceased Anganu Sao and the deceased Anganu Sao had purchased the aforesaid land. This witness further states that Anganu Sao had got constructed a hut. This witness states that the occurrence of assault took place on the land of deceased Anganu Sao and the deceased Anganu Sao had purchased the aforesaid land. This witness further states that Anganu Sao had got constructed a hut. He further states that there was bamboo clumps towards northern side of hut of the deceased Anganu Sao and his house was situated towards northern side of aforesaid bamboo clumps. This witness also admits that towards eastern side of hut of deceased Anganu Sao, there was house of deceased-appellant Maheshwar Rajak and adjacent to house of deceased-appellant Maheshwar Rajak, there were houses of appellants Prateek Rajak and Chhotu Rajak. This witness further claims that Laxman, Bharat and some others arrived on the place of occurrence before arrival of this witness. This witness further states that all the appellants assaulted the deceased and specifically states that appellant Tripurari Rajak assaulted the deceased by means of tangi whereas appellant Prateek Rajak assaulted the deceased by means of khanti but again at para 16 of his cross examination, he admits that except deceased-appellant Maheshwar Rajak and appellant Pradeep Rajak, he had not seen any of the appellants assaulting the deceased. This witness further states that he sustained injury on his legs and head. At para 26 of his cross examination, he admits that PW-12 is his full brother whereas PW-5 is his cousin brother and PW-6 is his uncle. This witness also admits that PW-13 Laxman Sao, PW-4 Bharat Sao, PW-10 Prem Sagar Sao and PW-9 Bahadur Sao are his cousin brothers whereas PW-1 Yashoda Devi is his aunt. This witness further states that his statement was recorded on the same day by the police near the dead body of the deceased. This witness further states that he had made statement before the police that appellant Pradeep Rajak had given khanti blow on the kanpatti of the deceased but had not stated that appellants took out rupees fifteen thousand from the pocket of deceased rather had only stated that appellants had taken out cash. 14. PW-3 Asha Devi is daughter-in-law of the deceased and wife of PW-13, the informant of the present case. This witness also supports the prosecution case and states that she along with her mother-in-law (PW-1) was inside the house and her father in law returned from the market and sat on a cot. 14. PW-3 Asha Devi is daughter-in-law of the deceased and wife of PW-13, the informant of the present case. This witness also supports the prosecution case and states that she along with her mother-in-law (PW-1) was inside the house and her father in law returned from the market and sat on a cot. She further states that in the meantime, appellants along with female members of family of the deceased appellant Maheshwar Rajak came there and started demanding cash from the deceased and when her father-in-law refused to give cash, deceased-appellant Maheshwar Rajak gave lathi blow on the kanpatti of her father-in-law whereas appellant Pradeep Rajak assaulted on the kanpatti of her father-in-law by means of khanti as a result whereof her father-in-law fell down from the cot and died then and there. She further states that witnesses were assaulted by other appellants. The testimony of this witness goes to show that she had not sustained any injury in the alleged occurrence. This witness states that there were four rooms in her house and she along with PW-1 was sitting in middle room and in the meantime, her father-in-law came and sat on a cot in the same room. At para 11 of her cross examination, she states that appellants entered in her house and sat on the ground and started demanding cash. She further states that as soon as the appellants reached at her house, they started assaulting the deceased and at the time of assault, the deceased was sitting on the cot. She further states that when the appellants started assaulting her father-in-law, she along with PW-1 came out of the house and started raising alarm which attracted several persons and within two minutes several persons assembled there. She further states that when she as well as PW-1 raised alarm, her husband reached there from Village Khutkar and similarly, PW-4 Bharat Sao, PW-10 Prem Sagar Sao, PW-9 Bahadur Sao also came running from village Khutkar. She further admits at para-15 of her cross examination that PW-6 Gariban Sao, PW-8 Ramchandra Sao, PW-12 Shrawan Kumar, PW-2 Yamuna Sao and PW-5 Munshi Sao came on the place of occurrence but before their arrival the appellants had already fled away from there. She further admits at para-15 of her cross examination that PW-6 Gariban Sao, PW-8 Ramchandra Sao, PW-12 Shrawan Kumar, PW-2 Yamuna Sao and PW-5 Munshi Sao came on the place of occurrence but before their arrival the appellants had already fled away from there. She further admits at para 20 of her cross examination that she along with her mother-in-law and informant Laxman Sao and witness Bharat remained near the dead body for whole night and due to night no one went anywhere. She further admits at para 21 of her examination in chief that in the night of alleged occurrence information was sent to Village Khutkar from where informant Laxman came and after that he went to village Khutkar and gave information to the villagers regarding the alleged occurrence. She further states that in the next morning at about 06:00 A.M., her husband Laxman went alone to police station and after that the police came at about 08:00 A.M. She states that dead body of her father in law was sent to Jamui and after cremation of dead body, her husband and others returned to the village between about 06:00 P.M. to 07:00 P.M. 15. PW-4 Bharat Sao also claims himself to be eye witness of the alleged occurrence and states that he was sitting at the house of Yamuna Sao (PW-2) at the time of alleged occurrence and heard the noise. He claims that he went running to his home and saw the appellants who were assaulting his father. This witness states that deceased-appellant Maheshwar Rajak assaulted his father by means of lathi whereas appellant Pradeep Rajak gave khanti blow on the kanpatti of his father and appellant Tripurari assaulted Laxman (PW-13) by tangi causing injury on his head. Similarly, appellant Pradeep Rajak assaulted Yamuna Sao (PW-2) causing injury on his head. This witness states that his mother and his other brothers also sustained injury in the occurrence. This witness admits that his ancestral house was in village Khutkar but some members of his family reside at village Kirparamdih. He further states that his father was residing at Kirparamdih. This witness states that alleged occurrence took place at his house situated at village Kirparamdih. This witness states that when he reached near the place of occurrence, he saw his father lying on the door of his house and blood was coming out from his ears. He further states that his father was residing at Kirparamdih. This witness states that alleged occurrence took place at his house situated at village Kirparamdih. This witness states that when he reached near the place of occurrence, he saw his father lying on the door of his house and blood was coming out from his ears. This witness further states that when he reached near the place of occurrence, the appellants were present there and when he tried to intervene into the mater, he was also assaulted by the appellants. This witness further admits that PW-13 Laxman Sao had not come from Village Khutkar but he expressed his inability to say when Laxman came on the place of occurrence. This witness claims himself to be eye witness of the occurrence and states that his father was not lying in the room rather he was lying outside the room. This witness further claims that he as well as Laxman Sao went to police station but he had not given any written complaint to police nor he could say as to whether Laxman had given any written complaint to police but at about 8:00 P.M. of the alleged occurrence the police came on the place of occurrence. This witness further states that information regarding the killing of the deceased was given to the police and having heard the aforesaid information, the police immediately proceeded on a Jeep for the place of occurrence. This witness further claims that in the night of the alleged occurrence, the dead body of the deceased was taken away by the police. 16. PW-5 Munshi Sao also claims himself to be eye witness of the alleged occurrence and makes almost similar statement as made by the PW-4 and other witnesses. This witness admits that deceased Anganu Sao was his maternal uncle. This witness further states that the occurrence of assault had taken place at the door of deceased Anganu Sao. At para 12 of his cross examination, this witness states that a quarrel took place between both the parties but assault was not made by both the parties. He further states that quarrel had taken place inside the room as well as outside the room. The learned trial court has noted the demeanour of this witness. At para 12 of his cross examination, this witness states that a quarrel took place between both the parties but assault was not made by both the parties. He further states that quarrel had taken place inside the room as well as outside the room. The learned trial court has noted the demeanour of this witness. At para 19 of his cross examination when defence made specific question that at the time of alleged occurrence as to whether deceased was sitting inside the room or outside the room, this witness gave evasive reply saying that deceased was sitting at his door. This witness admits at para 20 of his cross examination that when he reached on the place of occurrence, the sons and nephews of the deceased were not present there and only deceased, PW-1 and PW-3 were present there. This witness states that he sustained injury on his chest by the brick. This witness further claims that at about 8:00 P.M. of the alleged occurrence he went to Sikandra where his treatment as well as treatment of other injured was done. This witness further states that his statement was taken by the police on the next day of the alleged occurrence. This witness further states that after cremation of the dead body he as well as other injured went to Sikandra hospital and his statement as well as statements of other witnesses were recorded by the police in Sikandra hospital. He further states that Daroga again came at about 5:00 PM. on the next day of the alleged occurrence at his village and remained there 5 to 10 minutes and thereafter returned to Sikandra. This witness states that he gave thumb impression on his statement and similarly, the other witnesses either gave thumb impression or made signature on their respective statements. 17. PW-6 Gariban Sao also claims himself to be eye witness of the alleged occurrence and states that he was at his door and having heard the noise went to the door of deceased Anganu Sao and saw the appellants who had encircled the deceased and deceased-appellant Maheshwar Rajak assaulted the deceased Anganu Sao by lathi whereas appellant Pradeep Rajak assaulted him by khanti. This witness claims that when he went to save the deceased, the appellant Pradeep Rajak gave khanti blow as a result of which his hand was broken. This witness claims that when he went to save the deceased, the appellant Pradeep Rajak gave khanti blow as a result of which his hand was broken. He further claims that appellants assaulted the others also. This witness admits that deceased Anganu Sao was his full brother. He further admits that ancestral house of the deceased Anganu Sao is in village Khurkat. He further states that there is one house of deceased Anganu Sao at Village Kirparamdih and the exit of the aforesaid house of deceased Anganu Sao is towards east side. This witness also states that there is some vacant land towards east side of the house of the deceased Anganu Sao. He further states that deceased used to tie his cattle on the aforesaid land. This witness admits at para 6 of his cross examination that there was a passage on the aforesaid vacant land. At para 7 of his cross examination, this witness admits that at village Kirparamdih only wife of deceased Anganu Sao was residing and his son and daughter in law oftenly go there. This witness states that he got injury when he was trying to pacify the matter but he could not see the assault of others and in the hospital he saw the injuries of others. This witness further states that the deceased Anganu Sao was lying at his door. This witness further states that informant Laxman Sao went to police station and police came at about 8:00 P.M. on the alleged date of occurrence. This witness further states that he remained in hospital for four days and his statement was recorded by the police in the hospital. This witness further states that he had made statement to police that he sustained injury on his hand by khanti. 18. PW-9 Bahadur Sao also claims himself to be eye-witness and injured of the alleged occurrence and repeated almost similar statements as stated by the other so-called eye-witnesses. This witness is son of the deceased. This witness states that at the time of alleged occurrence he was in his house and was at his door. He further claims that his father returned from the market and sat on a cot and at that time his mother and sister-in-law (bhojay) were also sitting there. This witness is son of the deceased. This witness states that at the time of alleged occurrence he was in his house and was at his door. He further claims that his father returned from the market and sat on a cot and at that time his mother and sister-in-law (bhojay) were also sitting there. This witness further states that he was inside the room and the cot on which deceased was sitting, was not inside the room rather the aforesaid cot was at the door. He further admits at para-16 of his cross-examination that when he saw his father for the first time, his father had already died. This witness further claims that he had also sustained injury on his left wrist in the alleged occurrence and the appellant Chotu assaulted him by means of bhala. This witness further claims that PW-2 Yamuna Sao came there when he raised alarm. This witness further states that when he sustained injury, he was standing by the side of the deceased. 19. PW-10 Prem Sagar Sao claims that he went to the place of occurrence on the noise. This witness also claims that he was in his house at the time of alleged occurrence. This witness happens to be another son of the deceased Anganu Sao. This witness claims that all the appellants were assaulting the deceased and when he tried to save his father, appellant Bisheswar Rajak assaulted him by means of barchi as a result whereof he sustained injury on his left hand. This witness further states that the appellants also assaulted the others. This witness states that he was inside the house and having heard alarm raised by his mother, he came to the place of occurrence. This witness further admits at para 9 of his cross-examination that his father was sitting at the door of house in which he was present at the time of alleged occurrence. He further admits that he was alone in the house. He further admits at para 11 of his cross-examination that when he reached near the place of occurrence, he saw his father lying on the ground and blood was coming out from his ears. He further states that his father did not say anything to him and his father had already died. This witness claims that he had made statement before the police in the evening at hospital. 20. He further states that his father did not say anything to him and his father had already died. This witness claims that he had made statement before the police in the evening at hospital. 20. PW-12 Shrawan Kumar also claims that he reached on the place of occurrence having heard alarm and saw the occurrence. This witness claims that he, too, sustained injury in the occurrence and it was appellant Tarni Rajak who assaulted him. This witness says that he heard the alarm raised by the deceased Anganu Sao and having heard the aforesaid alarm, he went immediately to the place of occurrence. This witness claims that when he reached on the place of occurrence, he saw the deceased sitting on a cot. This witness further claims that the appellants started assaulting the deceased after his arrival on the place of occurrence. 21. PW-13 Laxman Sao is informant of the case as well as son of the deceased. This witness supports the prosecution case and, specifically, states that deceased-appellant Maheshwar Rajak assaulted the deceased Anganu Sao by lathi whereas appellant Pradeep Rajak assaulted the deceased by khanti. This witness further states that appellant Tripurai Rajak hurled tangi which was warded of by him by his right hand as a result of which he sustained injury on his little finger and he also sustained injury on his head. This witness also states the name of those appellants who assaulted the others. This witness admits that his ancestral house is in the village Khutkar. This witness further states that his father had one house in village Kirparamdih also. This witness states that alleged occurrence had taken place at the house situated at Kirparamdih. This witness further states that his father had purchased the lands of the house of Kirparamdih. This witness admits at para 12 of his cross-examination that the house of deceased-appellant Maheshwar Rajak is towards eastern side of his house and the deceased-appellant Maheshwar Rajak used to tie his cattles in front of his house and similarly, this witness also used to tie his cattles in front of his house. This witness claims that at the time of alleged occurrence, he was providing fodder to his ox. This witness further states that his father was sitting there whereas his mother and wife were also present there and similarly, his brother was also there. This witness claims that at the time of alleged occurrence, he was providing fodder to his ox. This witness further states that his father was sitting there whereas his mother and wife were also present there and similarly, his brother was also there. This witness states that the appellants came at his house and encircled his father and started abusing him upon which he forbade them to do so but the appellants started assaulting his father. He further states that deceased-appellant Maheshwar Rajak gave one lathi blow to his father whereas appellant Pradeep gave khanti blow on the kanpatti of his father. He admits at para 23 of his cross-examination that except deceased-appellant Maheshwar Rajak and appellant Pradeep, no one had assaulted his father. This witness states at para 24 of his cross-examination that having sustained injury, his father fell down from the cot and died then and there. This witness further states that appellant took out cash from the pocket of his father and when he made protest, appellant Tripurari assaulted him by tangi. This witness further states that after the alleged occurrence, he immediately proceeded to police station but on way he met chokidar Dhobi Tanti and after that he returned to his home whereas chokidar Dhobi Tanti went to police station and after that DAROGA came there. This witness further admits that when police (Daroga) came on the place of occurrence, he did not show his injury to police. This witness further states that police took the dead body of the deceased on a tractor. This witness further states that police issued requisitions and after that he went to hospital. This witness further states that after treatment he again returned to police station along with other injured and remained at police station for whole night. This witness further states that in the morning, he came to Jamui where post-mortem examination on the dead body of his father was done. This witness further states that after cremation of the dead body, he again came to hospital where another doctor gave treatment to him and after that he returned to his home. This witness admits that he had not made statement before the police that at the time of alleged occurrence, he was providing fodder to his ox. This witness further states that after cremation of the dead body, he again came to hospital where another doctor gave treatment to him and after that he returned to his home. This witness admits that he had not made statement before the police that at the time of alleged occurrence, he was providing fodder to his ox. This witness denies this fact that DAROGA had seen the dead body of the deceased for the first time at police station. This witness at para 38 of his cross-examination states that towards west side of house of the appellants, there was a passage and adjacent west to the aforesaid passage, there was his land. This witness admits that the appellants also used to tie their cattles on his vacant land but he as well as his other family members never made any protest regarding tying of cattles of the appellants. This witness denies this fact that at the time of alleged occurrence, there was no house on the land over which the alleged occurrence is said to have taken place. This witness also denies this fact that appellants have falsely been implicated. This witness also denies this fact that he got prepared forged injury reports. 22. PW-11 Dr. Praksh Chandra Verma states that on 17.02.1991 at about 9:20 P.M. he examined Gariban Sao (PW-6) and found Swelling 6” x 3” of the left lower forearm in its entire circumference and there was bony crepitus over left ulna amidst lower half and according to this witness, the aforesaid injury was caused by hard and blunt substance, may be lathi. This witness kept reserved his opinion regarding the nature of injury till receipt of X-ray report but in his cross examination, he admitted that neither any X ray plate nor any X ray report of Gariban Sao (PW-6) was produced before him. This witness proved the injury report of PW-6 Gariban Sao as Ext. 1. This witness kept reserved his opinion regarding the nature of injury till receipt of X-ray report but in his cross examination, he admitted that neither any X ray plate nor any X ray report of Gariban Sao (PW-6) was produced before him. This witness proved the injury report of PW-6 Gariban Sao as Ext. 1. This witness further states that on the same day at about 9:30 P.M. he examined PW-13 Laxman Sao and found Lacerated injury 2¼”x ¼” x muscle deep on the proximal part of left parietal bone and it was almost parallel to mid-line and 2” away from mid-line, Abrasion ¼” in diameter on the dorsel aspect of metacerpel phalengial joint of little finger of right hand and Swelling 2”x 1” on the right upper buttock close to and parallel to iliac crest. This witness kept his opinion reserved regarding the nature of injury no. 1 till receipt of X ray report and opined that all the aforesaid injuries were caused by hard and blunt substance, may be lathi but he opined that injury no. 1 may be caused by small piece of tangi and injury no. 2 and 3 may be caused by lathi. This witness proved the injury report of PW-13 Laxman Sao as Ext. 1/1. This witness further states that on the same day at about 9:45 P.M. he examined injured Yamuna Sao (PW-2) and found Lacerated injury 2”x ¼”x muscle deep on the right parietal bone obliquely place running from before backward and medially from a point 5” above middle of the zygomatic arch and the whole of parieto-temporal region was found swollen, Swelling 2 ½” x 1” on the lateral aspect of lower leg 4” above the right ankle joint and Swelling of first meta-tarso Phalangial joint of left foot and the aforesaid injury was found highly tendered. This witness opined that injury no. 2 was simple. This witness kept reserved his opinion regarding injury no. 1 and 3 till further evaluation. This witness opined that aforesaid injuries were caused by hard and blunt substance but opined that injury no. 1 was possible by khanti and injury no. 2 and 3 were possible by lathi. This witness proved the injury report of Yamuna Sao (PW-2) as Ext. 1/2. 1 and 3 till further evaluation. This witness opined that aforesaid injuries were caused by hard and blunt substance but opined that injury no. 1 was possible by khanti and injury no. 2 and 3 were possible by lathi. This witness proved the injury report of Yamuna Sao (PW-2) as Ext. 1/2. This witness further states that on the same day at about 9:50 P.M. he examined Munshi Sao (PW-5) and found abrasion ¼” in diameter over medial end of forth rib close to sternum with bruise 2”x 1” having parallel line with a swelling of 2 ½” x 1½”. This witness opined that aforesaid injury was simple in nature and was caused by hard and blunt substance, such as lathi. This witness proved the injury report of Munshi Sao (PW-5) as Ext. 1/3. This witness further states that on the same day at about 10:00 P.M. he examined Prem Sagar Sao (PW-10) and found Wound ¼” in diameter into muscle deep and bleeding on the posterior aspect of left forearm with a swelling 2 ½” x 1½” around it and swelling 2” x 1” on the medial aspect of medial border of left scapula in its upper part. This witness opined that the aforesaid injuries were simple. This witness opined that injury no. 1 was caused by sharp and pointed substance like barcha and injury no. 2 was caused by hard and blunt substance, may be by lathi portion of barcha. This witness proved the injury report of Prem Sagar Sao (PW-10) as Ext. 1/4. This witness further states that on the same day at about 10:10 P.M. he examined Bharat Sao (PW-4) and found Swelling 1” in diameter on the right mastoid process just above its tip, highly painful, Bruise 2” x 1” on the antero-lateral aspect of right thigh 3 ½” above knee slightly obliquely placed with a swelling 4 ½” x 3” around it and abrasions two in number ¼” in diameter and 1” apart on the postero medial aspect of right forearm in the middle. This witness opined that except injury no. 1, rest injuries were simple in nature and opinion regarding injury no. 1 was kept reserved till receipt of X ray report. This witness opined that all the injuries were caused by hard and blunt substance. This witness proved the injury report of Bharat Sao (PW-4) as Ext. 1/5. This witness opined that except injury no. 1, rest injuries were simple in nature and opinion regarding injury no. 1 was kept reserved till receipt of X ray report. This witness opined that all the injuries were caused by hard and blunt substance. This witness proved the injury report of Bharat Sao (PW-4) as Ext. 1/5. This witness further states that on the same day at about 10:25 P.M. he examined PW-9 Bahadur Sao and found Penetrating wound ¼” x ¼” tendon deep at posterior aspect of left wrist joint with swelling 2” x 1” around it. This witness opined that aforesaid injury was simple and caused by sharp and pointed weapon, such as bhala. This witness proved the injury report of PW-9 Bahadur Sao as Ext. 1/6. This witness further states that on the same day at about 10:30 P.M. he examined Sharwan Kumar (PW-12) and found Swelling 2” x 1” on the posterior aspect of left arm in its lower third. This witness opined that aforesaid injury was simple in nature and caused by hard and blunt substance such as lathi. This witness proved the injury report of Sharwan Kumar (PW- 12) as Ext. 1/7. This witness further states that on 18.02.1991 at about 4:30 P.M. he examined Yashoda Devi (PW-1) and found Swelling of proximal third of right forearm in its lateral half and size of swelling was of 4” x 4” and Swelling 3” x 2” on the lateral aspect of upper thigh 3 ½” below the greater trochanter running downwards and anteriorly from the above point. This witness opined that aforesaid injuries were simple in nature and caused by hard and blunt substance such as lathi, brick or stones. This witness proved the injury report of Yashoda Devi (PW-1) as Ext. 1/8. 23. PW-14 Dr. Thakur Om Prakash Singh did autopsy on the dead body of the deceased Anganu Sao on 18.02.1991 at 1:30 A.M. and found following injuries on his dead body : – (i) Bruise over vault of skull, size 2” x 1” (ii) Bleeding from right ear. On dissection, there was haemotoma over vault of skull under bruised skin in an area of 2” x 1”. There was irregular comminuted and depressed fracture of both frontal bones, size 2” x 1”. On opening of the skull bone, there was laceration of meninges in an area of 1” x ½” beneath injury no. On dissection, there was haemotoma over vault of skull under bruised skin in an area of 2” x 1”. There was irregular comminuted and depressed fracture of both frontal bones, size 2” x 1”. On opening of the skull bone, there was laceration of meninges in an area of 1” x ½” beneath injury no. 2. There was contusion of left celeberal hamisphere in an area of ½” x ½” beneath injury no. 2 with about 50 C.C. of blood clot over the left celeberal hemisphere. On removal of the brain substance, 100 C.C. of blood was found to be present in the cranial cavity. According to this witness, the above injuries were ante mortem in nature and caused by hard and blunt substance.. The age of the injury till post mortem examination was within 24 hours. Rigor mortis was present and in the opinion of this witness, death was caused due to shock and haemorrhage due to injury to the brain substance leading to cardio respiratory failure. Time since death within 24 hours. This witness proved the post mortem report of deceased Anganu Sao as Ext. 3. 24. PW-15 Birendra Pd. Singh, the investigating officer of this case, states that on 17.02.1991 he was posted as Officer in charge of Sikandra police station and on the same day he recorded the ferdbeyan of PW-13 and took charge of investigation. This witness further states that on the same day he went to the place of occurrence which was situated towards east side in front of house of PW-13 and towards west side of the place of occurrence, there was house of accused Maheshwar Rajak. The sahan lands of PW-13 and accused Maheshwar Rajak were found to be connected. He found blood on the place of occurrence and seized the blood stained earth. He inspected the injuries of injured persons and issued requisitions and also sent the injured to hospital in the same night, except PW-1 Yashoda Devi. He recorded the statements of witnesses and after completion of the investigation, submitted charge sheet. On being cross examined by the defence, this witness states at para 11 of his cross examination that on 17.02.1991 at about 7:45 P.M., PW-13 alongwith PW-2, PW-10, PW-9, PW-5, PW-6. He recorded the statements of witnesses and after completion of the investigation, submitted charge sheet. On being cross examined by the defence, this witness states at para 11 of his cross examination that on 17.02.1991 at about 7:45 P.M., PW-13 alongwith PW-2, PW-10, PW-9, PW-5, PW-6. PW-12, PW-4, local chowkidar one Dhobi Tanti, co-villager Singheshwar Mahto and several other persons with dead body of deceased had come to police station and for the first time, he had seen the dead body of the deceased at Sikandra police station. This witness further states that he drawn up formal F.I.R. and prepared inquest report of the dead body. This witness further states that he noticed blood near the ear of dead body but the blood was not oozing out from the ear. This witness further states that he sent the dead body of the deceased to Jamui at about 9:00 P.M. He further admits that he prepared requisition slips of all the injured at police station and got injury reports of the injured persons from Sikandra State Hospital on 25.02.1991 and similarly, got post mortem report of the deceased on 19.03.1991. This witness further states at para 16 of his cross examination that he reached to village Kirparamdih at 10:00 P.M. and remained there for whole night and in the next morning, he inspected the place of occurrence. This witness further admits that he recorded the statements of witnesses in the night of 17.02.1991. This witness further states that he had sent the seized bloodstained earth for chemical examination but did not receive any report till his posting. This witness further admits that he has not mentioned in the case diary regarding sending of bloodstained earth to forensic science laboratory. This witness also admits at para 23 of his cross examination that PW-2 Yamuna Sao had stated before him that appellant Pradeep had given khanti blow on the head of the deceased Anganu Sao. This witness further admits at para 26 of his cross examination that he had recorded the statements of Gariban Sao, Sharwan Kumar and Munshi Sao jointly. 25. On careful examination of statements of prosecution witnesses, it is obvious that PW-1 Yashoda Devi claims that appellant Tripurari Rajak gave tangi blow on the temple of her husband and similarly, appellant Pradeep Rajak also assaulted her husband on his temple whereas deceased-appellant Maheshwar Rajak assaulted him by means of lathi. 25. On careful examination of statements of prosecution witnesses, it is obvious that PW-1 Yashoda Devi claims that appellant Tripurari Rajak gave tangi blow on the temple of her husband and similarly, appellant Pradeep Rajak also assaulted her husband on his temple whereas deceased-appellant Maheshwar Rajak assaulted him by means of lathi. PW-2 Yamuna Sao claims that all the appellants including acquitted accused were assaulting the deceased but specifically stated that deceased-appellant Maheshwar Rajak assaulted the deceased with lathi whereas appellant Pradeep Rajak assaulted the deceased on his temple and head by khanti. This witness does not claim that appellant Tripurari Rajak had given tangi blow to deceased causing injury on his temple. PW-3 claims that deceased-appellant Maheshwar Rajak gave lathi blow on the temple of the deceased whereas appellant Pradeep Rajak, too, gave khanti blow on the temple of the deceased and appellant Tripurari Rajak also assaulted the deceased but this witness does not say as to by which weapon and on which place appellant Tripurari Rajak assaulted the deceased. PW-4 claims that deceased-appellant Maheshwar Rajak assaulted the deceased on his temple by lathi and similarly, appellant Pradeep Rajak assaulted the deceased by khanti on his temple. PW-5 Munshi Sao claims that deceased-appellant Maheshwar Rajak and appellant Pradeep Rajak assaulted the deceased by means of lathi and khanti but again he states that deceased-appellant Maheshwar Rajak assaulted the deceased by means of lathi whereas appellant Pradeep Rajak assaulted him by lathi as a result whereof deceased sustained injury on his temple. PW-6 Gariban Sao claims that deceased-appellant Maheshwar Rajak assaulted the deceased by means of lathi whereas appellant Pradeep Rajak assaulted the deceased on his temple by means of khanti. PW-9 Bahadur Sao claims that deceased-appellant Maheshwar Rajak gave lathi blow on the temple of the deceased and similarly, appellant Pradeep Rajak gave khanti blow on the temple of the deceased. PW-10 Prem Sagar Sao claims that deceased-appellant Maheshwar Rajak gave lathi blow on the head of the deceased whereas appellant Pradeep Rajak gave khanti blow on the temple of the deceased and furthermore, this witness claims that all the appellants and acquitted accused were assaulting the deceased by their respective weapons. PW-12 Shrawan Kr. Claims that deceased-appellant Maheshwar Rajak assaulted the deceased by means of lathi whereas appellant Pradeep Rajak assaulted the deceased by means of khanti. PW-12 Shrawan Kr. Claims that deceased-appellant Maheshwar Rajak assaulted the deceased by means of lathi whereas appellant Pradeep Rajak assaulted the deceased by means of khanti. PW-13 Laxman Sao, the informant of the present case, claims that the deceased-appellant Maheshwar Rajak by means of lathi and appellant Pradeep Rajak by means of khanti assaulted on the temple of the deceased. Therefore, it is obvious that except PW-1 Yashoda Devi, almost all the prosecution witnesses claimed that deceased-appellant Maheshwar Rajak and appellant Pradeep Rajak assaulted the deceased by means of lathi and khanti but there is contradiction in the statements of prosecution witnesses as some so-called eye witnesses claim that deceased-appellant Maheshwar Rajak and appellant Pradeep Rajak gave lathi and khanti blow on the temple of the deceased whereas some prosecution witnesses state that deceased-appellant Maheshwar Rajak gave lathi blow on the head and temple of the deceased whereas appellant Pradeep Rajak gave khanti blow on the temple of the deceased. So far as appellant Tripurari Rajak is concerned, except PW-1, not a single witness claims that appellant Tripurari Rajak had also assaulted the deceased. Although some of the prosecution witnesses claim that all the appellants alongwith acquitted accused were assaulting the deceased by means of their respective weapons but PW-14, who did post mortem examination of the deceased, found two ante mortem injuries i.e. bruise over vault of skull, size 2”x1” and bleeding from right ear as I have already stated. Therefore, claim of some of the prosecution witnesses that all the appellants along with acquitted accused assaulted the deceased by their respective weapons flats on ground, if the injuries found on the person of the deceased at the time of post mortem examination is taken into consideration. Furthermore, I find that PW-14 found bleeding from right ear and no apparent and visible injury was found on the temple of the deceased. PW-14 has admitted at para 11 of his cross examination that he was not in a position to say that bleeding from right ear was caused due to head injury but he admitted that there should be impact of weapon if injury is caused by hard and blunt substance though he further stated that he did not find any impact of weapon over injury no. 1 and 2. The aforesaid admission of PW-14 goes to show that if the injury no. 1 and 2. The aforesaid admission of PW-14 goes to show that if the injury no. 1 of deceased is caused by hard and blunt substance, there was every possibility of injury no. 2 though the PW-14 stated that he did not find any impact of weapon over injury no. 1 and 2. Furthermore, I find from perusal of testimony of PW-14 that injury no. 1 was caused by hard and blunt substance and there is contradiction in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses to show who had caused head injury to the deceased. Most of the prosecution witnesses barring one or two stated that deceased-appellant Maheshwar Rajak and appellant Pradeep Rajak gave lathi and khanti blow on the temple of the deceased though some witnesses stated that it was Muneshwar Rajak who gave lathi blow on the head of the deceased. However, I have already stated that no apparent and visible injury on the ear of the deceased was found except bleeding from the ear which might be impact of injury no. 1 of the deceased and, therefore, in my view, the prosecution failed to prove this fact who gave fatal blow to the deceased. 26. No doubt, PW-14 stated at para 1 of his examination in chief that after opening the skull bone, he found laceration of meninges in an area of 1” x ½” beneath injury no. 2 but so-called eye witnesses claimed that deceased-appellant Maheshwar Rajak and appellant Pradeep Rajak both had given lathi and khanti blow on the temple of the deceased though only one laceration was found even after opening of the skull and moreover, PW-14 has admitted that injury no. 2 might be impact of weapon used for causing injury no. 1 and, therefore, in my view, prosecution has miserably failed to prove who had caused laceration of meninges of the deceased. 27. The investigating officer (PW-15) states that the alleged occurrence took place in east side in front of house of the deceased. Further PW-15 has admitted that house of deceased-appellant Maheshwar Rajak was situated adjacent towards west of sahan land of the deceased and the sahan land of the deceased-appellant Maheshwar Rajak as well as deceased Anganu Sao were connected. PW-15 as well as some other prosecution witnesses also admitted that exit door of house of the deceased-appellant Maheshwar Rajak was towards west side. PW-15 as well as some other prosecution witnesses also admitted that exit door of house of the deceased-appellant Maheshwar Rajak was towards west side. Furthermore, almost all the prosecution witnesses admitted that houses of other appellants were situated in surroundings of the place of occurrence. Therefore, it is obvious that prosecution has proved the place of occurrence beyond all shadow of reasonable doubts. However, PW-1 as well as some other prosecution witnesses admitted that deceased Anganu Sao had purchased the lands on which his house was situated four years ago and after purchase of the lands he got constructed his phoos house on some portion of the aforesaid land. PW-1 Yashoda Devi has admitted at para 10 of her cross examination that deceased-appellant Maheshwar Rajak used to tie his cattles on the purchased land of deceased Anganu Sao. The prosecution witnesses have also claimed that the appellants took out rupees fifteen thousand from the pocket of the deceased after committing his murder and only PW-2, PW-10 and PW-13 have stated the factum of taking of money from the pocket of the deceased but the statements of aforesaid prosecution witnesses are contradictory on this point. Moreover, PW-10 and PW-13 have stated that it was deceased-appellant Maheshwar Rajak who took out rupees fifteen thousand from the pocket of the deceased but PW-10 and PW-13 had not made the above stated statement before the investigating officer PW-15. Therefore, in my view, the prosecution failed to prove the factum of snatching money beyond all shadow of reasonable doubt. The PW-13 and other prosecution witnesses claimed that all the appellants including acquitted accused came and demanded money from the deceased to drink and when deceased refused to oblige them, all the appellants along with acquitted accused committed murder of the deceased and snatched his money but as I have already stated that prosecution failed to prove the factum of snatching of money and therefore, the above stated story of prosecution appears to be doubtful and it appears to me that prosecution has suppressed the real and actual genesis of the occurrence. Admittedly, the houses of all the appellants as well as acquitted accused were in the surroundings of the place of occurrence and, particularly, the house of deceased-appellant Maheshwar Rajak was situated in front of house of the deceased and sahan lands of the deceased-appellant Maheshwar Rajak and deceased Anganu Sao were connected and, therefore, mere presence of the appellants along with acquitted accused over the place of occurrence does not mean that all the appellants along with acquitted accused had shared common object to assault and commit the murder of the deceased Anganu Sao. There is another infirmity in the prosecution case. PW-13 claims in his fardbeyan as well as in his statement before the court that on 17.02.1991 at about 07:45 PM, he gave his fardbeyan and at the time of recording his fardbeyan, several other witnesses were present and the dead body of the deceased was brought to the police station but PW-3 and some other witnesses stated that dead body of the deceased was remained lying in village Kirparamdih for whole night and in next morning dead body of the deceased was taken to hospital. Further, PW-13 admitted in his fardbeyan that after the alleged occurrence he was going to police station to lodge first information report but local Chowkidar met him on the way and, thereafter, he returned to the place of occurrence whereas local Chowkidar went to Police Station and gave information to PW-15 who subsequently reached to the place of occurrence and after that PW-13 along with PW-15 went to Police Station where his fardbeyan was recorded. The distance between place of occurrence and Sikandara Police Station was about one Kilometer. The alleged occurrence is said to have taken place at about 6:30 PM. So the aforesaid statement of PW-13 goes to show that it was not possible to record the fardbeyan of PW-13 at 7:45 PM. Moreover, the statement of PW-13 goes to show that it was local chowkidar who gave first information regarding the alleged occurrence to PW-15 but the statement of local Chowkidar has not been brought on record. 28. PW-1, PW-2, PW-4, PW-5, PW-6, PW-9, PW-10, PW-12 and PW-13 claimed that they, too, sustained injury in the alleged occurrence at the hands of different appellants. 28. PW-1, PW-2, PW-4, PW-5, PW-6, PW-9, PW-10, PW-12 and PW-13 claimed that they, too, sustained injury in the alleged occurrence at the hands of different appellants. PW-1 does not state who assaulted her but states that she sustained injury on her thigh and hand and the testimony of PW-11 corroborates this fact that PW-1 had sustained injury on her right forearm and thigh. PW-2 Yamuna Sao states that appellant Pradeep Rajak assaulted him by means of Khanti causing injury on his head as well as on his both legs. The statement of PW-11 corroborates the claim of PW-2 because PW-11 found injury on the right parietal bone, on lateral aspect of lower leg 4” above the right ankle joint and on first meta-tarso phalangial joint of left foot. PW-4 also does not disclose who assaulted him. However, PW-11 found altogether three injuries on the person of PW-4. PW-5 Munshi Sao has, nowhere, stated in his examination-in-chief that he had, too, sustained injury in the alleged occurrence but it is surprising enough that PW-11 examined him and found one abrasion on his person. PW-6 Gariban Sao states that appellant Pradeep Rajak assaulted him by means of Khanti as a result of which his hand was broken. PW-11 found swelling on his left lower forearm but admittedly, no X-ray report or X-ray plate of PW-6 was either produced before PW-11 or before the court in course of trial. PW-9 Bahadur Sao claims that appellant Chhotu Rajak gave Bhala blow causing injury on his wrist. PW-11 found penetrating wound on left wrist joint of PW-9. PW-10 Prem Sagar Sao claims that appellant Bisheshwar Rajak gave Barchhi blow causing injury on his left hand and again appellant Bisheshwar Rajak gave Barchhi blow but the portion of Barchhi did not hit him rather the wooden piece in which Barchhi was fitted hit him on his left hand. PW-11 found two injuries on the person of the PW-10. PW-12 Shrawan Kumar claims that appellant Tarni Rajak gave Khanti blow causing injury on his hand. PW-11 found one swelling on the posterior aspect of the left arm of PW-12. PW-13 claims that appellant Tripurari Rajak hurled tangi causing injury on his little finger and again assaulted him by portion of lathi as a result of which he sustained injury on his head. PW-11 found three injuries on the person of PW-13. PW-11 found one swelling on the posterior aspect of the left arm of PW-12. PW-13 claims that appellant Tripurari Rajak hurled tangi causing injury on his little finger and again assaulted him by portion of lathi as a result of which he sustained injury on his head. PW-11 found three injuries on the person of PW-13. Admittedly, all the above stated injured sustained simple injuries as prosecution failed to prove that any of the injured had sustained grievous injury. Therefore, it is obvious that prosecution succeeded to prove this fact that in the occurrence, PW-1, PW-2, PW-4, PW-5, PW-6, PW-9, PW-10, PW-12 and PW-13 sustained injury and the aforesaid injuries were caused by the appellants by their respective weapons. 29. On the basis of aforesaid discussions, I am of the opinion that prosecution failed to prove the charge levelled against the appellant Pradeep Rajak and deceased-appellant Maheshwar Rajak for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code beyond all shadow of reasonable doubts and the above stated appellants are entitled to get benefit of doubt. The prosecution also miserably failed to prove charge framed against the appellants Pradeep Rajak as well as Tripurari Rajak for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code beyond all shadow of reasonable doubts and the above stated appellants are entitled to get benefit of doubt. The prosecution also miserably failed to prove charge framed under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellants beyond all shadow of reasonable doubts and all the appellants are entitled to get benefit of doubt for the aforesaid charges and accordingly, they are acquitted of the above stated charges but the prosecution succeeded to prove charge framed under Sections 148 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code against all the appellants. Accordingly, they are found guilty for the aforesaid offences and accordingly, for the aforesaid offences their conviction are, hereby, confirmed. 30. Admittedly, the alleged occurrence took place in the year 1991 and the appellants were convicted by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jamui in the year 1996 and after that they preferred the instant criminal appeal in the year 1996 and, therefore, it is obvious that more than twenty seven years have already elapsed from the date of alleged occurrence. Admittedly, the alleged occurrence took place in the year 1991 and the appellants were convicted by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jamui in the year 1996 and after that they preferred the instant criminal appeal in the year 1996 and, therefore, it is obvious that more than twenty seven years have already elapsed from the date of alleged occurrence. Furthermore, I find that appellants remained in jail custody in course of investigation as well as during trial for a considerable period and, therefore, in my view, the ends of justice would meet, if the appellants are sentenced to the period already undergone by them in course of investigation and trial. Accordingly, the appellants are sentenced to undergo period already undergone by them. 31. Accordingly, this criminal appeal is partly allowed and the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence order stands modified in the manner as stated above. 32. Copy of first and last page of this judgment be handed over to learned Amicus Curiae for needful. Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J. – I agree.