JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the appellant as also learned counsel for the State. 2. The sole appellant is aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 21.7.2010 and Order of sentence dated 26.7.2010, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C-I, West-Singhbhum at Chaibasa, in Sessions Trial No. 100 of 2006, whereby, the appellant has been found guilty and convicted for the offences under Sections 148 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Upon hearing on the point of sentence, the appellant has been sentenced to R.I. for life for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and R.I. for two years for the offence under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code, and both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. The case relates to double murder, and the prosecution case was instituted on the basis of the fardbeyan of Harish Chandra Hessa, who is the brother of the deceased Subhash Hessa and Ghanshyam Hessa, recorded on 19.12.2003 at about 9:00 a.m. at his village Kenjra, Tola Sosopi, P.S. Tonto, District West-Singhbhum, wherein he has stated that on the previous day, i.e., on 18.12.2003 at about 4:30 p.m. he was in his house. Upon hearing the noise, he came out of his house and came near the house of his brother, Bhuiyan Hessa, and he saw ten named accused persons, including the present accused Budhan Singh Hessa, chasing his brothers Ghanshyam Hessa, Subhash Hessa and Bhuiyan Hessa who were working in A.C.C. factory, at Jhinkpani. His brother, Ghanshyam Hessa was injured by an arrow whereupon, he fell down. The other brother, Subhash Hessa was trying to pull out the arrow, from the wound, whereupon Jai Singh Purty came there armed with bhujali, and pierced the bhujali in the abdomen of Ghanshyam Hessa, causing his death at the spot. Thereafter Budhan Singh Hessa chased his brother Subhash Hessa and pierced the bhujali in his chest, causing his death also at the spot. His brother Bhuiyan Hessa was also injured and when the informant was trying to take out the arrow from the wound of Bhuiyan Hessa, Disingh Hessa, shot arrow upon him causing injuries at his left hand. Thereafter, all the accused persons fled away. The informant informed the village Munda about the occurrence in the morning. His brother Bhuiyan Hessa was also injured and when the informant was trying to take out the arrow from the wound of Bhuiyan Hessa, Disingh Hessa, shot arrow upon him causing injuries at his left hand. Thereafter, all the accused persons fled away. The informant informed the village Munda about the occurrence in the morning. It is stated that the occurrence had taken place due to the dispute of fetching water from a hand-pump. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant, Tonto RS Case No. 22 of 2003, corresponding to G.R. No. 522 of 2003, was instituted for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 307 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, against the named accused persons, and investigation was taken up. After investigation, the police submitted the charge-sheet in the case. It appears that the accused persons have been apprehended at the different points of time and they have been tried separately in different Session Trials. So far as the present accused, Budhan Singh Hessa is concerned, he was tried in S.T No. 100 of 2006. 4. After commitment of the case to the Court of Session, charge was framed against the sole accused for the offence under Sections 148, 149, 324, 307 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, and upon the accused's pleading not guilty and claiming to be tried, he was put to trial. 5. In course of trial, five witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution, including the I.O. and the two Doctors, one who had conducted the post-mortem examinations on the dead bodies of the deceased, and the other who had examined the injuries on the injured persons. The informant has not been examined in the case. 6. PW 1, Bhuiyan Hessa is the brother of the deceased and he is also one of the injured in the case. He has stated that the occurrence had taken place on 18.12.2003 at about 4:30 p.m. He was returning from A.C.C. Company alongwith his brothers, Ghanshyam Hessa and Subhash. As soon as they reached near the house of the accused Jai Singh Purty, he saw that ten named accused persons, including the accused, Budhan Singh Hessa, coming out from the house of Jai Singh Purty, whereupon these persons started fleeing away. He has stated that Jai Singh shot an arrow which hit his brother Ghanshyam in his stomach. As soon as they reached near the house of the accused Jai Singh Purty, he saw that ten named accused persons, including the accused, Budhan Singh Hessa, coming out from the house of Jai Singh Purty, whereupon these persons started fleeing away. He has stated that Jai Singh shot an arrow which hit his brother Ghanshyam in his stomach. Subhash was trying to pull out the arrow from the wound of Ghanshyam, whereupon Jai Singh and Budhan Singh came there armed with bhujali, whereupon Subhash tried to flee away. Jai Singh Purty pierced the bhujali in the stomach of Ghanshyam, due to which, Ghanshyam died at the spot. Budhan Singh Hessa apprehended Subhash Hessa and pierced the bhujali in his chest, due to which Subhash Hessa also died at the spot. This witness has stated that Sita Ram Dorai Bum assaulted him by arrow piercing his back and coming out in front. He has shown the scar of the injuries on his back and abdomen to the Court. This witness further stated that Budhan Singh Hessa and Jai Singh Purty were armed with bhujali and they were also having bow and arrow. He has stated that his brother Harish Hessa came there upon hearing the noise and he tried to pull out the arrow when Disingh Hessa shot arrow upon him causing injuries on his left hand. His two brothers, Ghanshyam Hessa and Subhash died at the spot. The police arrived on the next day and he was sent to Sadar Hospital, Chaibasa, for his treatment, from where he was referred to Ranchi. He was undergoing treatment for about fifteen days and surgery was also done on his stomach. The sear of the surgery was also shown to the Court. He has stated that the occurrence had taken place due to the fact that there was a quarrel with the ladies of both the houses for the water of the hand-pump. He has identified the accused in the Court. In his cross-examination, this witness has stated that Munda was informed about the occurrence in the night of the occurrence, but he came in the morning and as it was night, the police could not be informed. He has identified the accused in the Court. In his cross-examination, this witness has stated that Munda was informed about the occurrence in the night of the occurrence, but he came in the morning and as it was night, the police could not be informed. In the morning on 19.12.2003, he, his brother and Munda went to the Police Station, which was at a distance of about 7 K.M. At about 9.00 a.m. in the morning, the police came there and prepared the papers of the dead bodies and took the dead bodies. He has stated that the house of Budhan Singh Hessa is situated in front of his house and the houses of the other accused were also situated nearby. He has denied the suggestion to have given the false evidence. 7. PW 2 Sunai Kiu, is the wife of PW 1 Bhuiyan Hessa. She has also supported the prosecution case, stating that the occurrence had taken place about three years ago at about 4:30 p.m. Upon hearing the noise, she came out and saw the accused persons and saw that Disingh Hessa assaulted Ghanshyam by arrow causing injuries in his stomach. Jai Singh Purty assaulted him by bhujali due to which he died at the spot. Thereafter, Budhan Singh Hessa assaulted Subhash, by bhujali and Subhash also died at the spot. Both the deceased were returning from ACC Factory. Bhuiyan Hessa was also with them, who was assaulted by Dorai Burn by arrow and when Harish was trying to save him, he was also shot by arrow causing injuries on his hand. Thereafter, the accused persons fled away. The Munda was informed and subsequently, the police was informed which came at the place of occurrence. The case was instituted on the statement of Harish. The dead bodies were taken away by the police and the injured were treated at Ranchi. She has identified the accused in the Court, stating that he had assaulted the deceased. This witness was also put to extensive cross-examination but there appears to be nothing of much importance in her cross-examination, and nothing could be taken by the defence to discredit her testimony. She has reiterated that she had seen the occurrence and has denied the suggestion that Budhan Singh had not assaulted Sub hash. She has also denied the suggestion to have given the false evidence. 8. PW 4 is Dr. She has reiterated that she had seen the occurrence and has denied the suggestion that Budhan Singh had not assaulted Sub hash. She has also denied the suggestion to have given the false evidence. 8. PW 4 is Dr. Murli Manish, who had conducted the post-mortem examinations on the dead bodies of the deceased on 19.12.2003. On the dead body of Ghanshyam Hessa he had found the following injuries : External Injuries : (a) Penetrating wound of size 1" x 1/2" x deep to cavity over lateral side of left side of abdomen 1" above the level of umbilicus margins were almost parallel with slight curve, elliptical shape and everted. (b) Penetrating wound of size 1" x 1/2" x bone deep on the back at the level of 4th lumber vertebra. Margins are almost parallel with slight curve. Elliptical shaped and everted. On dissection meninges - pale. Spleen - ruptured Stomach - ruptured and containing semi digested food particles. Intestine-ruptured. Other viscera N.A.D. Fracture of the 4th lumber vertebra was present. Blood was present into abdominal cavity. He has stated that the death was caused due to hemorrhage and shock due to above injuries caused by sharp cutting and pointed object. He has identified the post-mortem report to be in his pen and signature and the same was marked Exhibit-2. On the dead body of Subhash Chandra Hessa he had found the following injuries :- External Injuries : Blood clots were present in both nostrils, mouth and over chest. Penetrating wound of size 1" x 1/2" x deep to chest cavity on the left side of the chest about 1" above the left nipple. Margins were parallel to each other with slight curve and everted. Internal Injuries- Meninges -pale Blood was present in chest cavity. Left lung - ruptured. Left sided third and fourth ribs are fractured. Heart- empty. Stomach- empty. Other viscera N.A.D. He has stated that the death was caused due to the hemorrhage and shock due to above injuries caused by sharp cutting and pointed object. He has identified the post-mortem report of Subhash Chandra Hessa, to be in his pen and signature and the same was marked Exhibit-3. 9. PW 5 is Dr. Surendra Lav, who had examined the injuries of Bhuiyan Hessa and Harish Chandra Hessa and had proved the injuries on both these injured. He has identified the post-mortem report of Subhash Chandra Hessa, to be in his pen and signature and the same was marked Exhibit-3. 9. PW 5 is Dr. Surendra Lav, who had examined the injuries of Bhuiyan Hessa and Harish Chandra Hessa and had proved the injuries on both these injured. In the injury of Bhuiyan Hessa, the arrow was still imbedded in the wound. He has identified the injury reports to be in his pen and signature which were marked Exhibits-4 and 4/1 respectively. 10. PW 3 is Hari Narain Ram, who is the I.O. of the case. This witness has stated that on 19.12.2003, he was posted at Tonto Police Station. At about 10:00 a.m. there was an information that two persons had been murdered. Sanha entry was made and he alongwith the Officer-In-charge and the police party proceeded towards the place of occurrence in Village Kenjra. The fardbeyan of the informant Hansh Chandra Hessa was recorded by the Officer-In-charge, which this witness has proved, and the same was marked Exhibit-1. He has also proved the endorsement on the fardbeyan which was marked Exhibit -1/1. He was given the charge of investigation and he prepared the inquest report of the dead bodies and sent the dead bodies for post-mortem examination. He also seized the bloodstained soil from the place of occurrence. He has stated that the inquest reports and the seizure list were available in the record of the other Sessions Trial. He has given the details of the place of occurrence and stated that upon getting the postmortem report, he submitted the charge-sheet. In his cross-examination, this witness' has stated that he had not sent the bloodstained soil for forensic examination. He has stated that both the dead bodies were lying at the distance of 10 steps at the place of occurrence, but this was not recorded in the case diary. He has also admitted that he had not recovered the bicycle and the arrow from the place of occurrence. He has denied the suggestion of making perfunctory investigation. 11. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr PC, wherein he has denied the evidence against him. No evidence was adduced by the defence. On the basis bf the evidences on record, the sole accused has been convicted and sentenced for the offences as aforesaid. 12. 11. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr PC, wherein he has denied the evidence against him. No evidence was adduced by the defence. On the basis bf the evidences on record, the sole accused has been convicted and sentenced for the offences as aforesaid. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court below cannot be sustained in the eyes of law, as the informant has not been examined in the case. It is also submitted that the witnesses supporting the prosecution case are the related and interested witnesses, and no independent witness has been examined in the case, even though it is stated in the fardbeyan that several persons had seen the occurrence. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence cannot be sustained in the eyes of law: 13. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and has submitted that even though the informant could not be examined in the case, but the occurrence is supported by two eye-witnesses, one of whom was injured in the occurrence, and their evidences cannot be discarded. They are the natural witnesses to the occurrence and they have stood the test of cross-examination and nothing could be taken in their cross-examinations to discredit their testimony. Learned counsel submitted that the oral evidences of these witnesses are fully corroborated by the medical evidence of PW 4 Dr. Murli Manish, who had conducted the post-mortem examinations on the dead bodies of the deceased, finding the injuries caused by pointed and sharp cutting weapons. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 14. Having heard the learned counsels for both the sides and upon going through the record, we find that though there are only two witnesses supporting the prosecution case, but the fact remains that one of them PW 1 Bhuiyan Hessa is also the injured witness. Both the witnesses have fully supported the prosecution case as given in the fardbeyan, and there appears to be no major discrepancy in the evidence of these witnesses and the manner of occurrence as given in the fardbeyan. The oral evidence of these witnesses are fully corroborated by the medical evidence of PW 4 Dr. Both the witnesses have fully supported the prosecution case as given in the fardbeyan, and there appears to be no major discrepancy in the evidence of these witnesses and the manner of occurrence as given in the fardbeyan. The oral evidence of these witnesses are fully corroborated by the medical evidence of PW 4 Dr. Murli Manish and the post-mortem reports proved by him as Exhibits-2 and 3, as also by the medical evidence of PW 5 Dr. Surendra Lav and the injury reports proved by him as Exhibits-4 and 4/1. We are of the considered view that even though only two material eye-witnesses have been examined in the case, but in the facts of this case, the evidence of these witnesses are wholly trustworthy and the prosecution case cannot be doubted only on the ground that the other independent witnesses, or the informant have not been examined in the case. There is consistent evidence on record that ten named accused persons, including the accused Budhan Singh Hessa had committed the offence of rioting, who were variously armed by deadly weapons. Even the accused Budhan Singh Hessa had assaulted one of the deceased by bhujali, causing his death at the spot. As such, we are of the considered view that the accused Budhan Singh Hessa has been rightly convicted and sentenced for the offences under Sections 148 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Though the impugned judgment shows that there is no conviction against this appellant for causing injuries to the injured persons, even though two persons were also injured in the same occurrence, but since the appellant was not noticed earlier on this point, we are refraining from passing any finding as regards the offence relating to causing injuries to the other injurers in the case. 15. For the foregoing reasons we do not find any illegality in the impugned judgment of conviction dated 21.7.2010 and order of sentence dated 26.7.2010, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. F.T.C-I, West-Singhbhum at Chaibasa, in Sessions Trial No. 100 of 2006, convicting and sentencing the appellant, Budhan Singh Hessa @ Machuwa Hessa for the offences under Sections 148 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, which we hereby, affirm. The appellant is in custody, undergoing sentence. 16. There is no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly, dismissed. F.T.C-I, West-Singhbhum at Chaibasa, in Sessions Trial No. 100 of 2006, convicting and sentencing the appellant, Budhan Singh Hessa @ Machuwa Hessa for the offences under Sections 148 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, which we hereby, affirm. The appellant is in custody, undergoing sentence. 16. There is no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly, dismissed. Let the Lower Court Records be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith, along with a copy of this judgment. Appeal dismissed.