JUDGMENT : Kailash Prasad Deo, J. Heard, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. B. M. Tripathi, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Naveen Kumar Jaiswal, Advocate and learned counsel for the State, Mr. Ram Prakash Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 2. The instant criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 01.10.1996 and order of sentence dated 04.10.1996, passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Godda, in Sessions Case No. 342 of 1986/111 of 1988, whereby all these six appellants along with one Manoj Mandal have been convicted for the offence committed and punishable under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and awarded imprisonment for life. During pendency of the appeal, case of Manoj Mandal has been separated vide order dated 31.07.2018 passed in I. A. No.3984 of 2018 by co-ordinate Bench of this Court whereby Manoj Mandal has been sent to Juvenile Justice Board, Godda for needful. 3. The prosecution case is based upon fardbyan of Chetan Mandal (P.W.4) S/o Suman Mandal of village -Bhartikitta, P.S.-Godda(M), District – Godda recorded by S.I. Md. Idrish Khan (P.W.5), Officer-In-Charge, Godda (M) P.S. at Bhartikitta on 15.08.1985 at 18.15 Hours, whereby the informant has alleged inter-alia as follows:- The informant has alleged that today i.e. on 15.08.1985 at 3.30 P.M. when he was cutting grass at his courtyard, he heard brawl raised by his brother Bulaki Mandal, upon which the informant came out of his house in the passage and saw Shiv Prasad Mandal son of Kali Mandal having garasa in his hand, Dindayal Mandal son of Kali Mandal having garasa in his hand, Anirudha Mandal son of Kali Mandal having sword in his hand, all residents of village -Bhartikitta, P.S.-Godda(M), were entering into the courtyard of his brother Bulaki Mandal by raising the slogan 'Jai Bajrang Bali'. Shiv Prasad Mandal asked them to kill him. The informant under fear fled towards the West and turned towards South and reached to the back side of the house of his brother. The informant has further stated that as soon as he reached near the house of Sheo Shankar Purbey, he saw that his brother Bulaki Mandal and nephew Hriday Mandal were dragged out of the house near the house of Most. The informant has further stated that as soon as he reached near the house of Sheo Shankar Purbey, he saw that his brother Bulaki Mandal and nephew Hriday Mandal were dragged out of the house near the house of Most. Jahazi in the passage by (1) Shiv Prasad Mandal, (2) Dindayal Mandal, (3) Anirudha Mandal, all sons of Kali Mandal having above mentioned weapons in their hands, (4) Ghanshyam Mandal, son of Kali Mandal having Pistol and Gupti in his hand, (5) Manoj Mandal (now referred to Juvenile Justice Board) son of Shiv Prasad Mandal having axe (tanga), (6) Vijay Mandal son of Anirudh Mandal having farsa, (7) Sanjay Mandal son of Anirudha Mandal having bhala, all residents of village -Bhartikitta, P.S.-Godda(M). It is also stated that (8) Nakul Mandal resident of Khatnai, P.S.-Godda (M) was also there, who was instigating the accused persons to assault. The informant has further stated that all the above named accused persons having deadly weapon in their hand started assaulting his brother Bulaki Mandal and nephew Hriday Mandal due to which both fell down on the ground and started writhing. It is further stated that Ghanshyam Mandal fired two rounds from his pistol in the air and after both the victim fell down, all the accused persons assaulted them up to the extent that both died at the spot. The informant has stated that the occurrence has been witnessed by the female members namely, Bhutaki Devi (P.W.3), Gujo Devi (not examined), Jaikant Mandal (P.W.2), Rajendra Mandal (P.W.1) and other villagers. The accused persons after assaulting fled away towards the East. The informant has disclosed that occurrence took place as in the morning at 6.00 A.M. two she goats of Shiv Prasad Mandal have grazed the crops (Bajra) of Bulaki Mandal for which an altercation has taken place between Shiv Prasad Mandal and brother of the informant i.e. Bulaki Mandal. At that time Shiv Prasad Mandal has given a threatening of dire consequences. The informant has further stated that they have previous enmity with respect to a case of murder with the accused persons. 4. On the basis of fardbeyan of the informant, police has registered Godda (M) P. S. Case No. 147 of 1985 dated 15.08.1985 under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code against eight named accused persons. 5. The informant has further stated that they have previous enmity with respect to a case of murder with the accused persons. 4. On the basis of fardbeyan of the informant, police has registered Godda (M) P. S. Case No. 147 of 1985 dated 15.08.1985 under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code against eight named accused persons. 5. On completion of investigation, the Police has submitted charge sheet vide charge sheet no.960 of 1985 dated 13.11.1985 under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code by sent uping seven of the accused persons named in the F.I.R. Only Nakul Mandal has not been sent-up for the trial by the police. 6. The cognizance of the offence has been taken and the case has been committed to the Court of Sessions. 7. The charge has been framed against all the seven sent-up accused persons, under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code vide order dated 20.09.1991. The charge has been read over and explained to the accused persons in Hindi, to which they have pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 8. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, has examined altogether nine prosecution witnesses and also exhibited a number of documents up to exhibits-4 series. Rajendra Mandal, nephew of the informant, has been examined as P.W.1, Jaykant Mandal, son of the informant, has been examined as P.W.2, Bhutaki Devi, wife of the informant, has been examined as P.W.3, Chetan Mandal informant of the case, has been examined as P.W.4, Md. Idrish Khan, Sub-Inspector of Police and Investigating Officer of the case has been examined as P.W.5, Sukhdeo Thakur, Clerk posted in Primary Health Centre, Godda has been examined as P.W.6, who has proved that postmortem report of Bulaki Mandal, which has been marked as exhibit-4, Dr. Sandeep Prasad Lal, Medical Officer, has been examined as P.W.7, Sukhdeo Thakur is the same person, who has again examined as P.W.8 and has proved the postmortem report of Hriday Mandal, which has been marked as exhibit-4/1 and Dr. Ajay Kumar Jha, Medical Officer has been examined as P.W.9. Sandeep Prasad Lal, Medical Officer, has been examined as P.W.7, Sukhdeo Thakur is the same person, who has again examined as P.W.8 and has proved the postmortem report of Hriday Mandal, which has been marked as exhibit-4/1 and Dr. Ajay Kumar Jha, Medical Officer has been examined as P.W.9. The signature of Chetan Mandal (P.W.4) and Ram Pyare Thakur on the fardbeyan has been proved and marked as exhibit-1 and 1/1, fardbeyan has been proved and marked as exhibit-2, carbon copy of the inquest report has been proved and marked as exhibit-3, carbon copy of postmortem report of Bulaki Mandal has been proved and marked as exhibit-4 and carbon copy of postmortem report of Hriday Mandal has been proved and marked as exhibit-4/1. All the prosecution documents have been exhibited without objection. 9. After closure of prosecution evidence, statement of accused/appellants have been recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 06.01.1993, where they have claimed themselves to be innocent and also adduced three oral evidence namely Jaldhar Ram Das, Assistant Teacher of Rajkiya Madhay Vidhyalaya, Banjhu has been examined as D.W.1, Ramdhani Vaidya, another Assistant Teacher of Rajkiya Madhay Vidyalay, Banjhu has been examined as D. W.2 and Ramphal Singh co-villager has been examined as D. W.3. 10. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on the basis of materials brought on record, learned trial Court has convicted all the seven accused persons facing trial under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code vide impugned judgment dated 01.10.1996 and awarded rigorous imprisonment for life vide order of sentence dated 04.10.1996. Being aggrieved at and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the appellants have preferred the present criminal appeal along with one Manoj Mandal whose case was subsequently separated and has been sent before Juvenile Justice Board, Godda. 11. Heard, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. B. M. Tripathi, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Naveen Kumar Jaiswal, Advocate. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is bad in law and cannot sustain in the eyes of law. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the learned trial court has not scrutinized the evidence brought on record nor has taken notice of the fact that none of the injured has sustained any injury from pistol or from pointed weapon such as Gupti and bhala. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the learned trial court has not scrutinized the evidence brought on record nor has taken notice of the fact that none of the injured has sustained any injury from pistol or from pointed weapon such as Gupti and bhala. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that enmity is prevailing between the parties as the prosecution parties are the accused in the case of murder of Kali Mandal, who is father of accused Shiv Prasad Mandal, Dindayal Mandal, Anirudha Mandal and Ghanshyam Mandal. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that the prosecution has alleged that because of grazing of the crop (Bajra) of deceased Bulaki Mandal by the she-goat of Shiv Prasad Mandal in the morning and there was some altercation, as such, the occurrence has taken place. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that the reason assigned by the prosecution does not seems to be trivial for committing such incidence. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that the prosecution has not explained about presence of any puncture injury or penetrating injury as prosecution witnesses have alleged that accused persons have assaulted both the deceased by means of garasa, sword, farsa, tangi, pistol, gupti and bhala. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that none of the prosecution witnesses are independent witnesses though in the First Information Report, the informant has taken name of several persons of the village, who have witnessed the occurrence including Gujo Devi, who is none else than wife of the deceased Bulaki Mandal. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that evidence of P.W.2 has also disclosed that the occurrence has been witnessed by several co-villagers but none of the co-villagers have been examined in this case. As such, the entire prosecution evidence is based upon the testimony of four interested and related witnesses namely, Rajendra Mandal son of the deceased Bulaki Mandal and nephew of the informant as P.W. 1, Jaykant Mandal son of the informant as P.W.2, Bhutaki Devi wife of the informant as P.W.3 and Chetan Mandal informant of the case as P.W.4. As such, the entire prosecution evidence is based upon the testimony of four interested and related witnesses namely, Rajendra Mandal son of the deceased Bulaki Mandal and nephew of the informant as P.W. 1, Jaykant Mandal son of the informant as P.W.2, Bhutaki Devi wife of the informant as P.W.3 and Chetan Mandal informant of the case as P.W.4. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that even the wife of the victim and other independent co-villagers have not been examined in this case, as such, this court may on proper scrutiny of the evidence acquit the accused persons from charge and conviction under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that accused Dindayal Mandal and Shiv Prasad Mandal have taken alibi that they were not present in the village at the time of occurrence, on the alleged date of occurrence i.e. 15.08.1985 being a day of flag hosting, as the Independence day at their respective school where they were posted as a teacher. The three defence witnesses namely, Jaldhar Ram, Ramdhani Vaidya and co-villager Ramphal Singh, who have been examined as D.W.1, D.W.2, and D.W.3 have adduced their evidence but learned trial court has not accepted their evidence and wrongly convicted the appellants Dindayal Mandal and Shiv Prasad Mandal for the charge under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that autopsy of the deadbodies of Bulaki Mandal and Hriday Manda have been conducted by the Medical Officer, but those medical officers have not been examined in this case on behalf of the prosecution nor any independent witness of the village has been examined in this case by the prosecution and as such, the learned trial court on the basis of evidence of interested and related witnesses have convicted the appellants without taking adverse interference for non-examination of authors of the postmortem reports and non-examination of several independent witnesses present and available in the village as such, impugned judgment is fit to be set aside. 12. Heard learned counsel for the State Mr. Ram Prakash Singh, Additional Public Prosecutor who has vehemently argued the case and has submitted that the prosecution case is consistent and on the basis of the materials adduced by the prosecution witnesses. 12. Heard learned counsel for the State Mr. Ram Prakash Singh, Additional Public Prosecutor who has vehemently argued the case and has submitted that the prosecution case is consistent and on the basis of the materials adduced by the prosecution witnesses. The trial court has rightly passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence which is well founded on the basis of the materials available on record. As such, this Court may not interfere in the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence as the same does not warrant any interference by this Court. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that a brawl was raised in the village, at that time witnesses were present in the house. The informant Chetan Mandal (P.W.4) came out of his house and under fear was watching the occurrence of assault by the accused persons upon his brother Bulaki Mandal and his nephew Hriday Mandal. The other witnesses such as Rajendra Mandal (P.W.1) son of deceased Bulaki Mandal, Jaykant Mandal (P.W.2) son of informant, Bhutaki Devi (P.W.3) wife of informant have also witnessed the occurrence. As per the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.4, the place of occurrence has been consistently proved by the prosecution as near the house of Most. Jahazi Devi. There is no dispute with regard to the place of occurrence adduced by the prosecution witnesses. The prosecution witnesses P.W.1 Rajendra Mandal has explained the place of occurrence in paragraph-6 of his cross-examination, Jaykant Mandal P.W.2 has proved the place of occurrence in paragraph-3 of his cross-examination, Bhutaki Devi P.W.3 has also proved the place of occurrence in para-4 of her evidence. Chetan Mandal has proved the place of occurrence in para-6 of his evidence. The manner of occurrence has been proved by all these four prosecution witnesses namely P.W.1 Rajendra Mandal, P.W.2 Jaykant Mandal, P.W.3 Bhutaki Devi and P.W.4 Chetan Mandal in their evidence. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that from perusal of the evidence of P.W.1 Rajendra Mandal, P.W.2 Jaykant Mandal, P.W.3 Bhutaki Devi and P.W.4 Chetan Mandal, are eyewitnesses to the occurrence and they are consistent with regard to the weapon of assault having with the appellants. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that from perusal of the evidence of P.W.1 Rajendra Mandal, P.W.2 Jaykant Mandal, P.W.3 Bhutaki Devi and P.W.4 Chetan Mandal, are eyewitnesses to the occurrence and they are consistent with regard to the weapon of assault having with the appellants. Learned State counsel has submitted that Shiv Prasad Mandal and Dindayal Mandal were having garasa, Anirudha Mandal was having sword, Ghanshyam Mandal was having pistol and gupti, Vijay Kumar Mandal was having farsha, Manoj Mandal was having tanga (later declared juvenile), Sanjay Kumar Mandal was having bhala. The entire prosecution witnesses have supported the same and there is no contradictions so far the evidence is concerned to the extent of holding the weapon, using the weapon and causing injuries upon the victims. Learned State counsel has submitted that presence of all the four witnesses being eye-witness to the occurrence apart from other co-villagers have been proved by P.W.3 in her evidence at para-1 and 3. Learned State counsel has further submitted that Anirudha Mandal has assaulted both the victims namely Bulaki Mandal and Hriday Mandal on their head, neck and back by means of sword, Shiv Prasad Mandal has assaulted both of them on their back by means of garasha, Dindayal Mandal has assaulted both of them by means of garasha, Ghanshyam Mandal has fired but the same has not hit though he has also come with common intention with deadly weapon such as country made pistol and gupti. Sanjay Kumar Mandal has assaulted both the victims by means of farsha, Vijay Kumar Mandal has assaulted both the victims by means of bhala and Manoj Mandal (juvenile) has assaulted both by means of tanga. Learned State counsel has thus submitted that considering the evidence on record, the learned trial court has rightly convicted the appellants as the victim Hriday Mandal has sustained as many as seven external ante mortem injuries on his body which are as under:- “(1) One incised wound above left eye from forehead to occipital bone back side dividing the ear also 6” x 1” x 3” dividing the bones and cerebral membrane. (2) One incised wound extending from the middle of injury no. 1 to scalp behind 3” x 1” x 2” dividing the bones. (3) Incised wound on the left side of scalp dividing the parietal bone 3” x 1/2” x1” deep. (2) One incised wound extending from the middle of injury no. 1 to scalp behind 3” x 1” x 2” dividing the bones. (3) Incised wound on the left side of scalp dividing the parietal bone 3” x 1/2” x1” deep. (4) One incised wound on the back of neck 3” x 2” x 2 ½” cutting the 3rd cervical vertebra. (5) One incised wound on the right wrist to little finger root 3” x 1/2” x 1/2” deep vertical. (6) One incised wound on the left scapula back side diagonal 4” x 2” x 1 ½” deep. (7) One incised wound on the right shoulder back side 1” x 1/2” x 1/2”. On internal examination (1) Heart empty (2) lungs congested (3) Liver healthy (4) spleen congested (5) Kidneys normal (6) stomach contained partly digested semi liquid substance about 3 oz. (7) Bladder full. The doctor has opined that cause of death was cardio respiratory failure due to injury no. 1, 2, 3 and 4. Death was instantaneous-Homicidal. Time elapsed since death-18 to 24 hours.” Deceased Bulaki Mandal has also sustained as many as seven external injuries ante-mortem in nature: “(1) Horizontal incised wound on the head right side from behind in front upto nose 6” x 1 ½” x 2” deep. (2) Incised wound on the neck right back side 4” x 2 ½” x 2” deep dividing the cervical vertebra. (3) Incised wound on the scalp back side dividing the bone also 3” x 1” x 2” deep. (4) Incised wound on the right shoulder vertical 3” x 2” x 1” deep head of humoras sliced. (5) One incised wound on the right eye, nose and face 1 ½” x 1” x 1 ½” deep dividing the maxillary orbital and nosal bone. (6) Incised wound on the back at 11th thoracic vertebra 5” x 1/2” x 1 ½”deep vertical. (7) 3 minor incised wound on the back 1” x 1/4” x 1/4”, 1” x 1/3” x 1/4”, 3/4” x 1/4” x 1/4”. On internal examination (1) stomach-little fluid about 3 oz. giving alcoholic smell (2) lungs congested (3) Heart empty (4) Liver pale (5) spleen reddish (6) kidney normal (7) Bladder empty. The doctor has opined that death has caused due to cardio-respiratory failure due to injury no. 1,2,3,5 and 6. Death instantaneous. Homicidal. On internal examination (1) stomach-little fluid about 3 oz. giving alcoholic smell (2) lungs congested (3) Heart empty (4) Liver pale (5) spleen reddish (6) kidney normal (7) Bladder empty. The doctor has opined that death has caused due to cardio-respiratory failure due to injury no. 1,2,3,5 and 6. Death instantaneous. Homicidal. Time elapsed since death-18 to 24 hours.” Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that all the accused persons having common intention came at the house of Bulaki Mandal, caught hold of him and his son, dragged them on the road in front of the house of Most. Jahazi Devi which is back to the house of Bulaki Mandal and assaulted them indiscriminately causing death of Bulaki Mandal and his son Hriday Mandal at the spot. Learned counsel for the State has put reliance upon the case of Rajkishore Purohit vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others as reported in (2017) 9 SCC 483 at para-9 which is quoted hereunder: “9. Common intention is a state of mind. It is not possible to read a person's mind. There can hardly be direct evidence of common intention. The existence or non-existence of a common intention amongst the accused has to be deciphered cumulatively from their conduct and behaviour in the facts and circumstances of each case. Events prior to the occurrence as also after, and during the occurrence, are all relevant to deduce if there existed any common intention. There can be no straitjacket formula. The absence of any overt act of assault, exhortation or possession of weapon cannot be singularly determinative of absence of common intention.” The same shows that all these six accused persons have common intention as their conduct and behaviour is such that they have intention to kill Bulaki Mandal and Hriday Mandal, as such, they came there with deadly weapons such as garasa, farsa, sword, pistol, gupti, tanga, bhala in the courtyard of Bulaki Mandal with whom they have prior animosity and incidental occurrence which inflamed the things in the morning because of she-goat of Shiv Prasad Mandal grazing the crops of Bulaki Mandal, there was some altercation. As such, with common intention they entered into the house of victim and dragged Bulaki Mandal and Hriday Mandal in the passage in front of the house of Most. As such, with common intention they entered into the house of victim and dragged Bulaki Mandal and Hriday Mandal in the passage in front of the house of Most. Jahazi Devi and indiscriminately assaulted both Bulaki Mandal and Hriday Mandal, who have sustained injuries as mentioned in the postmortem reports, which have been brought on record as Exhibits-4 and 4/1 causing death of both the persons at the spot. As such, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence has been rightly passed by the learned trial court which does not require any interference by this Court. 13. Heard learned counsel for the appellants Mr. B.M. Tripathi, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Navin Kumar Jaiswal, Advocate and learned counsel for the State Mr. Ram Prakash Singh, Additional Public Prosecutor and perused the materials brought on record including the F.I.R, framing of charge, evidence of nine prosecution witnesses, four prosecution exhibits, the statement of the accused/appellants under Section 313 of the CrPC, three defence witnesses as well as the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. While examining and appreciating the evidence of the prosecution witnesses particularly, P.W.1 Rajendra Mandal, P.W.2 Jaykant Mandal, P.W.3 Bhutaki Devi and P.W.4 Chetan Mandal, who are eye-witnesses to the occurrence though they are relative of the deceased and the informant, we find that nothing has been elucidated in their cross-examination to disbelieve or dent the prosecution case. Only on the basis that these four witnesses were related to the deceased or informant, their testimony cannot be discarded on this ground alone. The evidence of all these four witnesses are consistent so far the place of occurrence, manner of occurrence, time of occurrence, the weapon used by the assailants are concerned coupled with the fact that the injuries found on the persons of the deceased Bulaki Mandal and Hriday Mandal which have been described above being ante mortem in nature Exhibits-4 and 4/1 proves the case of the prosecution. The number of injury on the person of the victims shows the conduct and behaviour of the accused persons in the facts and circumstances where all the accused persons have entered into the courtyard of Bulaki Mandal, dragged Bulaki Mandal and Hriday Mandal near the house of Most. Jahazi Devi and assaulted them indiscriminately by deadly weapons causing death of both the persons at the spot. 14. Jahazi Devi and assaulted them indiscriminately by deadly weapons causing death of both the persons at the spot. 14. As such, we are of the opinion that the judgment relied by learned counsel for the State in the case of Rajkishore Purohit (supra) is applicable in the present case. The relevant paras-9, 10 and 12 are profitably quoted hereunder: “9. Common intention is a state of mind. It is not possible to read a person’s mind. There can hardly be direct evidence of common intention. The existence or non-existence of a common intention amongst the accused has to be deciphered cumulatively from their conduct and behavior in the facts and circumstances of each case. Events prior to the occurrence as also after, and during the occurrence, are all relevant to deduce if there existed any common intention. There can be no straight jacket formula. The absence of any overt act of assault, exhortation or possession of weapon cannot be singularly determinative of absence of common intention. 10. Though judicial precedents with regard to common intention stand well entrenched, it will be sufficient to refer State of Rajasthan vs. Shobha Ram, observing as follows :- “10. Insofar as common intention is concerned, it is a state of mind of an accused which can be inferred objectively from his conduct displayed in the course of commission of crime and also from prior and subsequent attendant circumstances. As observed in Hari Ram v. State of U.P. (SCC p. 622, para 21), the existence of direct proof of common intention is seldom available and, therefore, such intention can only be inferred from the circumstances appearing from the proved facts of the case and the proved circumstances. Therefore, in order to bring home the charge of common intention, the prosecution has to establish by evidence, whether direct or circumstantial, that there was plan or meeting of mind of all the accused persons to commit the offence before a person can be vicariously convicted for the act of the other.” 12. Therefore, in order to bring home the charge of common intention, the prosecution has to establish by evidence, whether direct or circumstantial, that there was plan or meeting of mind of all the accused persons to commit the offence before a person can be vicariously convicted for the act of the other.” 12. In Ramaswami Ayyangar vs. State of Tamil Nadu, explaining the essence and purport of common intention, it was observed as follows :- “12…..The acts committed by different confederates in the criminal action may be different but all must in one way or the other participate and engage in the criminal enterprise, for instance, one may only stand guard to prevent any person coming to the relief of the victim, or may otherwise facilitate the [commission of crime]. Such a person also commits an “act” as much as his coparticipants actually committing the planned crime.” The Investigating Officer (P.W.5) Md. Idrish Khan has also supported the case of the prosecution and has proved the fardbeyan of Chetan Mandal (P.W.4) recorded by him, which has been marked as Exhibit-2. The signature of the informant and witness Rampyare Thakur on the fardbeyan have been proved and marked as Exhibits-1 and 1/1. The inquest report has been prepared in presence of witnesses Rampyare Thakur and Shaileshwar Paswan, has been written in the handwriting and signature of P.W.5 Md. Idrish Khan which has been proved and marked as Exhibit-3. The postmortem reports have been proved by Sukhdeo Thakur, Clerk of the Primary Health Centre by bringing the register on record and same person Sukhdeo Thakur has been examined as P.W.6 and P.W.8 before the learned trial court. Though the author of the postmortem reports have not been examined in this case but in absence of such author, the competent witnesses being Medical Officer of Primary Health Centre have been examined in this case as P.W.7. Dr. Sandeep Prasad Lal and as P.W.9 Dr. Ajay Kumar Jha but nothing has been elucidated to disbelieve the contents of the postmortem reports pointing guilt towards the accused persons. The accused persons have also been examined under Section 313 CrPC but they have not explained their false implication nor any document has been brought on record to suggest that the appellants have been falsely implicated in this case by leaving aside the real culprits by the informant and other prosecution witnesses. The accused persons have also been examined under Section 313 CrPC but they have not explained their false implication nor any document has been brought on record to suggest that the appellants have been falsely implicated in this case by leaving aside the real culprits by the informant and other prosecution witnesses. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, in view of the materials brought on record particularly the evidence of the eye-witnesses P.W.1 Rajendra Mandal, P.W.2 Jaykant Mandal, P.W.3 Bhutaki Devi and P.W.4 Chetan Mandal coupled with the postmortem reports which have been brought on record as Exhibits-4 and 4/1, the evidence of the Investigating Officer Md. Idris Khan (P.W.5) and the Medical Officer P.W.7 Dr. Sandeep Prasad Lal and P.W.9 Dr. Ajay Kumar Jha, we are of the considered view that all these accused persons have common intention and in furtherance of their common intention they have assaulted Bulaki Mandal and his son Hriday Mandal causing injuries due to which they died on the spot. 15. Under the aforesaid circumstances, we are of the view that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence does not require any interference by this Court as there is no perversity in the said judgment which is based on the material fact and legal evidence. 16. In the result, impugned judgment of conviction dated 01.10.1996 and order of sentence dated 04.10.1996, passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Godda, in Sessions Case No. 342 of 1986/111 of 1988, arising out of Godda (M) P. S. Case No. 147 of 1985, corresponding to G. R. No. 438 of 1985, is hereby upheld and affirmed. 17. Accordingly, the present criminal appeal is dismissed. 18. The appellants who are on bail, their bail bonds are hereby cancelled and they are directed to surrender before the court below forthwith to serve out rest of their sentence. 19. Let the lower court record be sent along with a copy of this judgment to the court concerned, at once for necessary action. Appeal dismissed.