JUDGMENT : B.B.Mangalmurti, J. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the State. 2. The appellants are aggrieved by the impugned Judgment of conviction dated 25th February, 2005 and Order of sentence dated 28th February, 2005, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-II, Chaibasa in S.T. No. 110 of 2004, whereby, the appellants have been found guilty and convicted for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 323/149, 324/149 and 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant Jai Singh Purty has also been convicted for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Upon hearing on the point of sentence, the appellants have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for life for the offence under Sections 302 and 302/149 I.P.C., R.I. for six months under Section 147 I.P.C., R.I. for one year under Section 148 I.P.C. and R.I. for two years under Section 324/149 I.P.C. 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 12:00 hours 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 appellants Jai Singh Purty and Samu 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. 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 P.S. Case No. 22 of 2003, corresponding to G.R. No.522 of 2003, was instituted for the offences 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, Jai Singh Purty and Samu Hessa, are concerned, they were tried in S.T. No.110 of 2004. 4. After commitment of the case to the Court of Session, charge was framed against the accused for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 307 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, and upon the accused persons’ pleading not guilty and claiming to be tried, they were put to trial. 5. In course of trial, eight witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution, including the I.O. and the two Doctors, one who had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead bodies of the deceased, and the other who had examined the injuries on the injured persons. 6. P.W.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 along with his brothers, Subhash Hessa and Ghanshyam Hessa. As soon as they reached near the house of the accused Jai Singh Purty, he saw that ten named accused persons, including the present accused, Jai Singh Purty and Samu Hessa, coming towards them, whereupon these persons started fleeing away. He has stated that Disingh Hessa 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 present accused, Jai Singh Purty and Samu Hessa, coming towards them, whereupon these persons started fleeing away. He has stated that Disingh Hessa 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 Buru assaulted him by arrow piercing his back and coming out in front. 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. He has stated that the occurrence had taken place due to the fact that there was a quarrel for the water of the hand-pump. He has identified the accused in the Court. In his cross-examination, this witness has stated that the hand-pump for which there was a quarrel, is in front of the house of Jai Singh Purty and due to fetching of water from the hand pump there was a quarrel between the ladies of his house and the ladies of Jai Singh Purty. He has stated that he was assaulted by Dorai Buru by arrow. He has stated that the house of Jai Singh Purty is situated at a distance of about 200 mtrs. and the houses of the other accused were also situated nearby. He has stated that he has no enmity with the accused persons. He has denied the suggestion to have given the false evidence. 7. P.W.2 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-head was still imbedded in the wound. He has identified the injury reports to be in his pen and signature which were marked Exhibits-1 and 1/1 respectively. 8. P.W.3 is Dr. In the injury of Bhuiyan Hessa, the arrow-head was still imbedded in the wound. He has identified the injury reports to be in his pen and signature which were marked Exhibits-1 and 1/1 respectively. 8. P.W.3 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 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. On dissection 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 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 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, may be arrow and Bhujali. He has identified the post-mortem report to be in his pen and signature and the same was marked Exhibit-2/1. 9. P.W.4 Sunai Kiu, is the wife of P.W.1 Bhuiyan Hessa. She has also supported the prosecution case, stating that the occurrence had taken place on a Sunday at about 4:30 P.M. She was at home at the time of occurrence. He has identified the post-mortem report to be in his pen and signature and the same was marked Exhibit-2/1. 9. P.W.4 Sunai Kiu, is the wife of P.W.1 Bhuiyan Hessa. She has also supported the prosecution case, stating that the occurrence had taken place on a Sunday at about 4:30 P.M. She was at home at the time of occurrence. 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 due to which he fell down. Jai Singh Purty assaulted him in his chest by bhujali. Thereafter, Budhan Singh Hessa assaulted Subhash by bhujali. She further stated that Ghanshyam and Subhash died at the spot. 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 to have given the false evidence. 10. P.W.5, Pratap Singh Hessa is the father of the deceased. He has stated that the occurrence is of 18.12.2003 at about 4:30 P.M. he was in the barn. Upon hearing the noise, he came near the house of Bhuiyan Hessa, and he saw accused persons, including the present appellants Jai Singh Purty and Samu Hessa, chasing Ghanshyam Hessa, Subhash Hessa and Bhuiyan Hessa and shooting arrow on them. 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. Bhuiyan Hessa was also injured and when Harish Chandra Hessa was trying to take out the arrow from the wound of Bhuiyan Hessa, Disingh Hessa shot arrow upon him causing injuries. Thereafter, all the accused persons fled away towards the house of Jai Singh Purty. He has stated that the occurrence had taken place due to the dispute between the ladies for fetching water from a hand-pump. Thereafter, all the accused persons fled away towards the house of Jai Singh Purty. He has stated that the occurrence had taken place due to the dispute between the ladies for fetching water from a hand-pump. In his cross-examination, this witness has stated that he went to the village Munda and told him about the occurrence. He has denied the suggestion to have given the false evidence. This witness was re-examined on recall in which he has stated that police had come to the village and had prepared the inquest reports of the dead bodies on which he and Gardi Hessa had made their signatures. He has identified his as well as signature of Gardi Hessa, which were marked Ext.3, 3/1, 3/2 and 3/3. 11. P.W.6 Harischand Hessa is informant and brother of the deceased. He has stated that the occurrence is of 18.12.2003 (Thursday) at about 4:30 P.M. He was in his house and upon hearing the noise, he came near the house of Bhuiyan Hessa, and he saw accused persons, including the present appellants Jai Singh Purty and Samu Hessa, chasing his brothers Ghanshyam Hessa, Subhash Hessa and Bhuiyan Hessa and shooting arrow on them. Jai Singh Purty was holding Bhujali in his hands and others were having bow and arrow in their hands including Samu Hessa. He has stated that when his brothers were running towards their house, 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. Bhuiyan Hessa was also injured and when he was trying to take out the arrow from the wound of Bhuiyan Hessa, Disingh Hessa shot arrow upon him causing injuries. Thereafter, all the accused persons fled away towards the house of Jai Singh Purty. He has stated that thereafter police arrived in the village and gave his fardbeyan to the police, on which he made his signature, which was marked Ext.3/4. Thereafter, all the accused persons fled away towards the house of Jai Singh Purty. He has stated that thereafter police arrived in the village and gave his fardbeyan to the police, on which he made his signature, which was marked Ext.3/4. Gardi Hessa had also made his signature on the same, which was marked Ext.3/5 He has stated that the police had seized blood stained soil also from the place of occurrence, on which also he and Gardi Hessa made their signatures. He has identified his signature as well as the signature of Gardi Hessa, which were marked Exts. 3/6 and 3/7 respectively. He identified the accused persons in the court. In his cross-examination, this witness has stated that his father and village Munda had called the police to the village and informed about the occurrence. He has stated that the reason of dispute was water of the hand pump. He has denied the suggestion of false implication of the accused. 12. P.W.7 Gardi Hessa is Munda of the village. This witness has stated that police had recorded the statement of informant Harish Chandra Hessa on which he also had put his signature. He also identified his signature on the fardbeyan, which was already marked Ext.3/5. He is also the witness of seizure of the blood stained soil and inquest reports and his signatures were marked as Exts. 3/7, 3/2 and 3/3 respectively. 13. P.W.8 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 in the Station Diary and he along with the Officer-Incharge and the police party proceeded towards the place of occurrence. The fardbeyan of the informant Harish Chandra Hessa was recorded by the Officer-Incharge, which this witness has proved, and the same was marked Exhibit-4. He has also proved the endorsement on the fardbeyan which was marked Exhibit-4/1. He has proved the formal F.I.R. which was marked Ext.5. 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 has proved the inquest report of the dead bodies, which were marked Ext. 6 and 6/1. He also seized the bloodstained soil from the place of occurrence. 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 has proved the inquest report of the dead bodies, which were marked Ext. 6 and 6/1. He also seized the bloodstained soil from the place of occurrence. He proved the seizure list of blood stained soil, which was marked Ext.7. He has stated that he had made requisition for injury reports in respect of Harish Chandra Hessa and Bhuiyan Hessa, which he has proved to be in his pen and signature, which were marked Ext.8 and 8/1. He has given the details of the place of occurrence and stated that upon getting the post-mortem 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 a short distance 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. 14. The statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., wherein they have denied the evidence against them. No evidence was adduced by the defence. On the basis of the evidences on record, both the accused persons have been convicted and sentenced for the offences as aforesaid. 15. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the impugned Judgment passed by the Trial Court below cannot be sustained in the eyes of law, in as much as, the witnesses supporting the prosecution case are only the related and interested witnesses, 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. 16. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and has submitted that the occurrence is supported by eye witnesses, two of whom were 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-examination to discredit their testimony. 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-examination to discredit their testimony. Learned counsel submitted that the oral evidences of these witnesses are fully corroborated by the medical evidence of P.W.3 Dr. Murli Manish, who had conducted the post-mortem examination 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. 17. Having heard the learned counsels for both the sides and upon going through the record, we find that there are four eye witnesses supporting the prosecution case and two of them P.W.1 Bhuiyan Hessa and P.W.6 Harish Chandra Hessa are also the injured witnesses. All of them 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 P.W.3 Dr. Murli Manish and the post-mortem reports proved by him as Exhibits-2 and 2/1, as also by the medical evidence of P.W.2 Dr. Surendra Lav and the injury reports proved by him as Exhibits-1 and 1/1. We are of the considered view that four material eye-witnesses have been examined in the case, and in the facts of this case, the evidence of these witnesses are wholly trustworthy and the prosecution case cannot be doubted only because they are relatives or highly interested witnesses. There is consistent evidence on record that ten named accused persons, including the accused Jai Singh Purty and Samu Hessa had committed the offence of rioting, who were variously armed by deadly weapons. Even the accused Jai Singh Purty had assaulted one of the deceased by bhujali, causing his death on the spot. As such, we are of the considered view that the accused Jai Singh Purty and Samu Hessa have been rightly convicted and sentenced for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 324/149 and 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code. 18. Even the accused Jai Singh Purty had assaulted one of the deceased by bhujali, causing his death on the spot. As such, we are of the considered view that the accused Jai Singh Purty and Samu Hessa have been rightly convicted and sentenced for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 324/149 and 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code. 18. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any illegality in the impugned Judgment of conviction dated 25th February, 2005 and Order of sentence dated 28th February, 2005, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-II, Chaibasa, in S.T. No. 110 of 2004, convicting and sentencing the appellants Jai Singh Purty for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and both the appellants Jai Singh Purty and Samu Hessa, for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 324/149 and 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code, which, we hereby, affirm. The appellant Jai Singh Purty is already in custody undergoing the sentence. The appellant Samu Hessa is on bail. His bail is cancelled and he is directed to surrender in the Court below forthwith for undergoing the sentence. The Court below is also directed to issue process forthwith, compelling the surrender/production of the appellant Samu Hessa for undergoing the sentence. 19. We do not find any 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.