JUDGMENT : JOYMALYA BAGCHI, J. 1. The appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 22nd September, 2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.2, Barasat, North 24-Paraganas in Sessions Trial No.15(5) of 2003 convicting the appellants for commission of offence punishable under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.5000/- each in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months more. 2. Prosecution case, as alleged, against the appellants is to the effect that there was a long stand land dispute between them and the victim viz., Monoj Mallick. Over such issue, on 4.11.2002 at around 7.30 P.M. when the victim along with his son (P.W.3) and his wife (P.W.2) was at Bandhu Mohal Kali Puja pandel, the appellant no.1, Dhiren Mridha held the victim and appellant no.2 Biren Mridha assaulted him repeatedly by a ‘daa’. As a result, the victim fell down on the road side drain and the miscreants fled away. The victim was taken to Sagar Dutta Hospital where he was declared dead. Over the incident, written complaint was lodged by his son viz., Dipankar Mallick against the appellants resulting in registration of Nimta P. S. Case No.99 dated 4.11.2002 under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. In conclusion of investigation, charge sheet was filed and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and transferred to the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.2, Barasat, North 24-Paraganas for trial and disposal. Charges were framed under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellants. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. In the course of trial, prosecution examined twelve witnesses in support of its case. The defence of the appellants was one of innocence and false implication. In conclusion of trial, the trial court by judgment and order dated 22nd September, 2003 convicted and sentenced the appellants, as aforesaid. 5. Nobody appears for the appellant. Mrs. Khan, learned Advocate is requested to appear as Amicus Curiae in the matter. Mrs. Khan argued that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses do not inspire confidence. The eye witnesses do not acknowledge each others presence at the place of occurrence. No independent witness has not been examined. 5. Nobody appears for the appellant. Mrs. Khan, learned Advocate is requested to appear as Amicus Curiae in the matter. Mrs. Khan argued that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses do not inspire confidence. The eye witnesses do not acknowledge each others presence at the place of occurrence. No independent witness has not been examined. First Information Report was not immediately lodged and the matter was reported from the hospital by the doctor resulting in registration of an unnatural death case. Such circumstances improbabilise the presence of the eye witnesses at the place of occurrence. Moreover, in the absence of independent witnesses, the evidence of the interested witnesses ought not to be believed. She prayed for acquittal of the appellants. 6. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the State argued that the evidence of the eye witnesses particularly that of the wife viz., Kalpana Mallick, P.W.2 and the son, Dipankar Mallick, P.W.3 are most natural and trustworthy. Their evidence is corroborated by other eye witnesses who were present at the place of occurrence when the incident occurred. Their evidence is corroborated by the medical evidence. Under such circumstances, non-examination of independent witness does not militate against the truthfulness of the prosecution case and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 7. Let us examine the rival contentions in the light of the evidence on record. 8. P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.8 are eye witnesses in the instant case. 9. P.W.1, Papiya Mallick is the niece of the victim and she deposed that on 4.11.2002 at around 7.30 P.M. the victim was murdered at Bandhu Mahal Kali Puja pandel. She was coming down to the road at that time. Her uncle was sitting in the said pandel. The appellant no.1, Dhiren Mridha held the victim while the appellant no.2 Biren Mridha assaulted him with a ‘daa’. Thereafter, they threw him in a drain and fled away. Her elder brother, father, aunt and others took him to hospital. The doctor declared the victim dead. She was interrogated by police and disclosed everything. 10. In cross-examination, she stated that kali puja pandel was erected adjacent to the house of Sibu Das. Sibu’s house is adjacent of her house and there are 7/8 tenants in the house. Her house is surrounded by a wall about 4 feet in height. The accused persons also reside in the said compound. 10. In cross-examination, she stated that kali puja pandel was erected adjacent to the house of Sibu Das. Sibu’s house is adjacent of her house and there are 7/8 tenants in the house. Her house is surrounded by a wall about 4 feet in height. The accused persons also reside in the said compound. At around 8.00 A.M. police came to the spot and she had conversation with the police. 11. P.W.2, Kalpana Mallick is the wife of the deceased. She stated that on 4.11.2002 at around 7.30 P.M. she had gone to the Bandhu Mahal Kali puja pandel along with her husband from her mother’s house. Her husband paid respect to goddes Kali by offering Pranam. The appellant no.1 Dhiren Mridha held her husband and while the appellant no.2 Biren Mridha assaulted him thrice. Thereafter, they threw him in a pond. The victim was taken to Sagar Dutta Hospital. Doctor declared him dead. Her husband had a land dispute with the accused persons. 12. In cross-examination, she stated that she was interrogated by police. 2/3 persons were present in the puja pandel at that time. On hearing hue and cry, some people came. Within 10/15 minutes, police officer came to the post. She told the incident to the police officer who reduced it into writing. 13. P.W. 3 is the son of the victim. He deposed that on 4.11.2002 at about 7.30 p.m. while his father was in the kali puja pandel, appellant no. 1 caught hold of his father and appellant no. 2 assaulted his father with a ‘daa’. Thereafter they threw his body into a drain and fled away. He along with relations took his father to Sagar Dutta Hospital. The doctor declared him death. Prior to the incident the appellants had assaulted his father on two occasions. He wrote and signed the FIR (Ext. 1). He put his signature on the inquest report (Ext. 2). Police seized blood stained earth and blood stained wearing apparels. He identified those articles. In cross examination, he stated that Kalpana Mallick is his step mother. He deposed that nearly 15 to 20 people were present at that time in the pandel. Tarun Barai, Bhajan Karmakar were also present. He could not state the names of the other persons. Tarun Barai tried to resist but in vain. 14. P.W 4, Ramesh Mallick is the brother of the victim. He deposed that nearly 15 to 20 people were present at that time in the pandel. Tarun Barai, Bhajan Karmakar were also present. He could not state the names of the other persons. Tarun Barai tried to resist but in vain. 14. P.W 4, Ramesh Mallick is the brother of the victim. He deposed that the accused persons killed his brother on kali puja day. There was a land dispute between his brother and the accused persons. Dhiren caught hold of his brother and accused Biren assaulted his brother with a ‘daa’. Victim was taken to Sagar Dutta hospital. He was at a distance of 50 ft. from the place of occurrence. The accused persons threw the body into a drain and fled away. Thereafter he reached the place of occurrence. 15. P.W 8 is another niece of the victim. She resided with the victim in the same compound. On 4.11.2002 at around 7.30 p.m. she was present in the kali puja pandel when the incident occurred. She saw the accused persons caught hold of his uncle and assaulted him with a ‘daa’. Thereafter, they threw the body into a drain. He was taken to Sagar Duta hospital where he was declared dead. 16. P.W 9, Tapas Roy is a reported witness. He stated that the victim died on kali puja day. He resided 4/5 houses away from the house of the victim. He came to know from the son of the victim that the accused persons assaulted the victim and as a result he died. 17. P.W 5 is the post mortem doctor who conducted post mortem on the body of the victim and found incised wound 6” x ½” muscle deep transversely placed on the right side at the back of head. Wound extended ½” on the left and 5 ½” on the right side from posterior mid line. Right end of the wound extended upto right angle of men device. Left end was placed 1 ½” below the external occipital procebrance level and ½” below the right ear. On dissection it was seen to cut skin tissue muscle and great vessels. One incised wound 2” x ¼” X muscle duly transversely placed ¼” below the above wound. No other injury could be detected. In his opinion death was due to the effect of injuries, ante mortem in nature. He proved the post mortem report (Ext. 4). 18. On dissection it was seen to cut skin tissue muscle and great vessels. One incised wound 2” x ¼” X muscle duly transversely placed ¼” below the above wound. No other injury could be detected. In his opinion death was due to the effect of injuries, ante mortem in nature. He proved the post mortem report (Ext. 4). 18. P.W 10 was a police officer who was posed at Belghoria P.S on 5.11.2002. He received information from Dr. Prabir Banerjee of Sagar Dutta hospital that one Monoj Mallick was brought dead to the hospital and had suffered unnatural death and accordingly he started an UD case bearing no. 1071/2002 dated 5.11.2002. 19. P.W 11 was an ASI of police who was posted at Nimta PS on 4.11.2002. He received a written complaint from P.W 4, Dipankar Mallick. He drew up the formal FIR (Ext. 5). 20. P.W 12 is the investigating officer in the instant case. He was posted at Nimta P.S at 4.11.2002. On that day he was on VIP duty. Over RT message he came to know that there was disturbance at Rablindra Nagar area over an incident of assault. When he arrived at the spot he found the victim had been taken to Sagar Dutta hospital. He informed the concerned O.C. He recorded the statements of witnesses. Local people refused to give statement out of fear. The accused persons were very rowdy and as a result local people were afraid of giving statements. He seized incriminating articles from the place of occurrence. He proved the seizure list (Ext. 3/1). He visited the place of occurrence and prepared rough sketch map along with index (Ext. 6). The accused persons had absconded and could not be arrested. He collected CD of UD case of Belgharia PS. He identified the blood stained apparels of the deceased. He identified the blood stained mud collected from the place of occurrence. He came to know that prior to the death of Monoj he had assaulted by the accused persons and there were general diaries. He collected those general diaries being GD entries no. 875 dated 29.8.2002 and 454 dated 11.5.2002. On completion of investigation, he submitted charge sheet. 21. From the aforesaid evidence on record, I find that the victim had gone to the Kali Puja pandel on 4.11.2002 at 7.30 p.m. to offer prayers. On that fateful day, appellant no. He collected those general diaries being GD entries no. 875 dated 29.8.2002 and 454 dated 11.5.2002. On completion of investigation, he submitted charge sheet. 21. From the aforesaid evidence on record, I find that the victim had gone to the Kali Puja pandel on 4.11.2002 at 7.30 p.m. to offer prayers. On that fateful day, appellant no. 1 caught hold of the victim while appellant no. 2 had struck him on his head and neck with a ‘daa’. As a result of such assault, the victim succumbed to his injuries. It has been argued that although a number of local people were present at the place of occurrence, none of them have been examined to establish the aforesaid facts. It is also argued that presence of the witnesses who are family members of the victim are highly improbable. I am unable to accept such contentions raised on behalf of the appellants. Eyewitnesses have explained the circumstances in which they were present at the place of occurrence and had witnessed the incident. The incident had occurred on the evening of Kali Puja and, therefore, the presence of the victim along with his wife and son at the Kali Puja pandel cannot be said to be either improbable or unnatural. P.W 1 had stated that she was walking down the road when the incident happened. P.W 8, another niece of the victim had claimed that she was also present at the pandel for offering puja and witnessed the incident. P.W 4, the brother of the victim had stated that he was standing at a distance of 50 ft. from the pandel and witnessed the incident from such position. Their evidence remain unshaken in cross-examination and do not suffer from any contradiction or improbability which may affects their credibility or truthfulness. 22. Hence, I am unwilling to disbelieve the aforesaid natural witnesses of the incident of assault resulting in the death of the victim. It is trite law that the evidence of relations if otherwise credible, ought not to be thrown out on such score alone. Moreover, P.W 12 has given cogent explanation as to why the local people were unwilling to make statements against the appellants were extremely rowdy as they were afraid of their own safety and security. It is trite law that the evidence of relations if otherwise credible, ought not to be thrown out on such score alone. Moreover, P.W 12 has given cogent explanation as to why the local people were unwilling to make statements against the appellants were extremely rowdy as they were afraid of their own safety and security. In these circumstances, failure to examine independent local witnesses cannot be a ground to reject the otherwise credible version coming from the mouth of the relations who were present at the puja pandel when the incident of assault occurred. That apart, motive for commission of crime had also been established. There was a land dispute between the appellants and the victim and the appellants had assaulted the victim earlier. General diaries establishing such enmity have also been proved. Finally, I find that the ocular versions of the eyewitnesses with regard to assault by ‘daa is supported by the evidence of post mortem doctor P.W 5 who found innumerable injuries on the neck and head of the victim. Intention of the appellants to kill the victim is evident from the large number of grievous injuries caused by them on the vital parts of the body of the victim. 23. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am inclined to uphold the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants. 24. The period of detention, if any, undergone by the appellants during investigation, enquiry and trial shall be set off against the substantive sentences imposed upon them in terms of section 428 Cr.P.C. 25. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. 26. I record my appreciation for the able assistance rendered by Mrs. Khan, learned advocate as amicus curiae in disposing of the appeal. 27. Let a copy of this judgment along with the lower court records be forthwith sent down to the trial court at once. 28. Photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, shall be made available to the appellant within a week from the date of putting in the requisites. Rajarshi Bharadwaj, J. - I agree