JUDGMENT : K. P. DEO, J. 1. Since both the Criminal Appeals are arising out of common judgment, as such are being heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Heard, learned counsel for the appellants, Mrs. Abha Verma, assisted by Mr. P. K. Verma and Mrs. Bandana Sinha, Advocates and learned counsels for the State, Mr. Mukesh Kumar and Mrs. Vandana Bharti, learned Additional Public Prosecutors. 3. Both criminal appeals have been preferred against the common judgment of conviction dated 19.07.1996 and order of sentence dated 20.07.1996, passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Godda, in Sessions Case No. 123 of 1994 / 41 of 1995, whereby these appellants have been convicted for the offence committed and punishable under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, appellants, Shikhar Hansda, Khela Hansda and Totaka Hansda have further been convicted for the offence committed and punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and appellant, Khela Hansda has also convicted separately for the offence committed and punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned trial court has awarded Imprisonment for life to all the convicts for the offence committed and punishable under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and convict, Khela Hansda, who has also been convicted for the offence committed and punishable under Section 307 I.P.C., has also been awarded imprisonment for life. Convicts, Shikhar Hansda, Khela Hansda and Totaka Hansda have further been awarded rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence committed and punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. All the sentences are directed to run concurrently. The appellants, being aggrieved at and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence have preferred two Criminal appeals. Appellant, Chhoto Hansda has preferred Criminal Appeal(DB) No.297 of 1996 whereas appellants, Shikhar Hansda, Tepo Hembram (whose appeal has abated), Khela Hansda and Totaka Hansda have preferred Criminal Appeal(DB) No.315 of 1996 before this Court. 4. The prosecution case, is based upon, the fardbeyan of the informant, Fuli Murmu (P.W.8) recorded by Sub-Inspector of police, K. P. Singh, Sunderpahari police station at village Susani at 5.30 Hrs. 4. The prosecution case, is based upon, the fardbeyan of the informant, Fuli Murmu (P.W.8) recorded by Sub-Inspector of police, K. P. Singh, Sunderpahari police station at village Susani at 5.30 Hrs. on 27.05.1994, wherein, the informant has alleged that, they have land dispute with co-villagers namely, Chhoto Hansda, Shikhar Hansda, Khela Hansda and others for last 3 to 4 years and the case was earlier pending in Godda Civil Court, which is presently pending before Settlement Office, Dumka. It is alleged that, yesterday i.e on 26.05.1994 at about 6.00 A.M. when husband of informant, Muka Baskey, along with two small children went towards east of his house at a distance of 500 gaz, was plucking the Khajur fruit from the tree of Moira Murmu with the help of a piece of bamboo. In the mean time, 1. Chhoto Hansda son of Mangal Hansda, 2. Shikhar Hansda, 3. Khela Hansda both sons of Chhoto Hansda, 4. Totaka Hansda son Munshi Hansda, 5. Tepo Hembram Son of Chimti Hembram, all residents of village-Susani, P.S. Sunderpahari, District-Godda, came with axe, bow-arrow and Bhala along with three other unknown persons, to whom the informant could not know, but claimed to identify after seeing them. The informant has further alleged that her husband was surrounded by the accused persons near Khajur tree. The husband of the informant started fleeing away to save his life and entered into the house of Jolha Marandi son of Kayo Marandi. The accused persons have also entered into the house of Jolha Marandi while chasing the husband of informant with an intention to kill, upon which Bitia Hembram son of Jolha Marandi, Malti Kisku wife of Ramlal Marandi and neighbour of Jolha Marandi, namely Sona Murmu wife of Munshi Tudu and Tala Hembram, wife of Sangram Tudu forbade them from killing the husband of the informant. It is further alleged that Sona Murmu has been assaulted by means of Iron-rod on her head by Khela Hansda causing bleeding injury, due to which she fell down. After falling down, she has further assaulted by Shikhar Hansda by means of lathi attached with the Bhala on the right side of her back. It is further alleged that Sona Murmu has been assaulted by means of Iron-rod on her head by Khela Hansda causing bleeding injury, due to which she fell down. After falling down, she has further assaulted by Shikhar Hansda by means of lathi attached with the Bhala on the right side of her back. The informant has stated that after hearing the brawl, informant came running there to save her husband and saw in the room situated on the eastern side of the house of Jolha Marandi, the accused persons were assaulting her husband by means of Kulhari, Bhala and rod. The informant tried to save her husband but was also assaulted by Khela Hansda, Totaka Hansda by means of Iron rod on the back of her left knee, due to which there was swollen and scar of injury. The informant has further alleged that all the accused persons have killed her husband and after committing murder, they dragged the dead body through legs, from the room, took him towards the north put in the paddy field, which is situated on the south of the village and left the dead body. The informant has further stated that villagers namely, Jolha Marandi son of Kariya Marandi, Potma Murmu son of Charan Murmu, Lakhiram Murmu son of Saheba Tudu, Munshi Tudu son of Dhebo Tudu, Tuna Marandi son of Lila Marandi, Pradhan Murmu son of Wariyar Murmu etc. and many others have witnessed the accused persons while dragging the dead body of her husband. The informant has further stated that the accused, Totaka Hansda son of Munshi Hansda is resident of village-Amla Tola, P.S.-Amrapada, District-Sahibganj. The informant has claimed that all the accused persons because of land dispute, assaulted her husband inside the house of Jolha Marandi by means of lethal weapon causing his death and thereafter, dragged his dead body to the paddy field. The informant has further stated that she has seen the injury upon her husband at both hands, below both knees, private parts, face and chest. 5. On the basis of the fardbeyan of informant, the Police has instituted First Information Report bearing Sunderpahari P.S. case no. 40 of 1994, dated 27.05.1994, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 324, 307,452, 354 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code against five named accused persons namely, Chhoto Hansda, Shikhar Hansda, Tepo Hembram, Khela Hansda and Totaka Hansda. 6. 5. On the basis of the fardbeyan of informant, the Police has instituted First Information Report bearing Sunderpahari P.S. case no. 40 of 1994, dated 27.05.1994, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 324, 307,452, 354 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code against five named accused persons namely, Chhoto Hansda, Shikhar Hansda, Tepo Hembram, Khela Hansda and Totaka Hansda. 6. After completion of the investigation, the police has submitted charge sheet vide charge sheet no.45 of 1994 dated 20.09.1994 against all the five named accused persons, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 307, 302, 201, 452 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. 7. The cognizance of the offence has been taken vide order dated 07.10.1994 and the case has been committed to the Court of Sessions vide order dated 25.11.1994. 8. The charge has been framed against all the five named accused persons under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and accused, Shikhar Hansda, Khela Hansda and Totaka Hansda have been separately charged under Sections 323 of the Indian Penal Code and accused, Khela Hansda has been further charged under Sections 307 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code vide order dated 16.12.1994. The charge has been read over and explained to accused persons in Hindi, to which they have pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 9. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, has examined altogether ten prosecution witnesses and also exhibited a number of documentary evidence up to Exhibit-10. Dr. Shyam Narayan Singh has been examined as P.W.1, he has examined injured Sona Murmu(P.W.4) on 29.05.1994 at 8.00A.M. and found two injuries:- (1) Lacerated wound 2 c.m. x 1 c.m. On right parietal region of the head caused by hard blunt substance. Simple in nature. (2) complain of pain on right shoulder and back but on examination nothing abnormal was detected. (3) age of injury no.1 more than 48 Hrs. and within 72 Hrs. The report is in his handwriting and bears his signature, which has been proved and marked as Exhibit-1. Dr. Dilip Kumar Choudhary, the Medical Officer, who has conducted postmortem of the deceased Muka Baskey on 28.05.1994 has been examined as P.W.2 and found as many as eight injuries and the post-mortem report has been proved and marked as Exhibit-2. The report is in his handwriting and bears his signature, which has been proved and marked as Exhibit-1. Dr. Dilip Kumar Choudhary, the Medical Officer, who has conducted postmortem of the deceased Muka Baskey on 28.05.1994 has been examined as P.W.2 and found as many as eight injuries and the post-mortem report has been proved and marked as Exhibit-2. Eight injuries are:- (1) Lacerated cut over right side of neck measuring 4” x 2” x up to the carotid sheath and trachea. (2) Lacerated cut over back of right forearm below the elbow of size 1 1/2” x 1/2” x bone deep. (3) Lacerated cut over front of chest below the root of neck size 2”x2”x 1 1/2”. (4) Lacerated cut over left side of chest over the anterior axillary fold 2 1/2”x 1 1/2” x 1/2”. (5) Penetrating wound over left leg below knee 1 1/2” x 1 1/2” x 2 /1/2” fracture tibia bone. (6) Penetrating wound over right leg below knee 1 1/2” x 1/2” x 3” with fracture of the tibia. (7) Lacerated cut over right leg below the knee and 2” below the injury no.6 size 1”x1/2”x bone deep. (8) through and through cut injury of right pinna. Injured Biti Hembram, wife of Jolha Marnadi has been examined as P.W.3. This witness has stated that occurrence took place 1½ years ago (Thursday) in the morning, in her courtyard, where Muka was chased by Khela, Chandray, Shikhar, Totaka. This witness has also stated that when she has objected the accused persons, they said that they will not assault her and as such, she may not be afraid. She has further stated that she has identified Chandray and Khela, who are present in the dock. This witness during her cross-examination has further stated that when the accused persons were chasing Muka Baskey, she did not fled away rather remained in courtyard. This witness is an eye witness to the occurrence. Sona Murmu, an injured witness to the case has been examined as P.W.4. This witness has supported the case of prosecution by stating that in the morning, while she was standing near a tailoring shop and saw that Muka Baskey was chased by Chhoto Hansda, Khela Hansda, Shikhar Hansda, Tepo Hembram and Totaka Hansda along with three other persons whose names are not known to her and Muka Baskey entered into the house of Jolha Marandi. The accused persons also entered having bow and arrow, axe, lathi and Iron rod (barchi and knife). This witness has further stated that she has also entered into the house, following them and asked them not to assault, upon which she was also assaulted on her head causing injury. This witness has further stated that after killing Muka Baskey, his dead body was taken by the accused persons. She has denied during her cross-examination that Fuli Murmu, informant of the case is her sister. She has categorically stated that in relation of village, Muka is her brother but not own brother. Beta Murmu, son of Wariyar Murmu has been examined as P.W.5, he is an inquest witness, who has proved his signature and signature of Munda Murmu(P.W.6) on inquest report which has been proved and marked as exhibits 3 and 3/1 respectively. Munda Murmu has been examined as P.W.6. This witness has also identified his signature on the inquest report prepared by Sub-Inspector of Police. Sita Dehri, Mukhiya of Susani Panchaiyat has been examined as P.W.7. This witness has stated that in his presence, the Sub-Inspector of police has seized the blood-stained soil and seizure list in carbon copy was prepared, upon which he has put his signature. He has identified his signature on the seizure list, which has been proved and marked as Exhibit-4. Fuli Murmu, wife of the deceased (Muka Baskey) and informant of the case has been examined as P.W.8. This witness has reiterated her statement made in the fardbeyan and has supported the prosecution case. This witness has categorically stated that 1 ½ years ago in the month of Baisakh (Thursday) in the morning when her husband went to eat Khajur, Chhoto Hansda, Shikhar Hansda, Khela Hansda, Totaka Hansda, Tepo Hembram and other three unknown persons, whose names she does not know, have assaulted her husband by means of lethal weapons i.e. bow and arrow, knife, axe, Bhala and lathi. This witness has stated that when she went for rescue of her husband, the accused persons have also assaulted, Sona Murmu(P.W.4), Biti Hembram (P.W.3) and informant Fuli Murmu(P.W.8). This witness has stated that when she went for rescue of her husband, the accused persons have also assaulted, Sona Murmu(P.W.4), Biti Hembram (P.W.3) and informant Fuli Murmu(P.W.8). This witness has categorically stated that she was trying to save life of her husband at that time, her husband was alive, but subsequently her husband has died and thereafter, dead body of the her husband was dragged by the accused in the village and thrown in the paddy field. This witness has categorically stated that four of the accused persons are members of the same house and one accused is resident of Amla Tola. This witness has been cross-examined by the defence at length, but nothing has been elucidated to dispel the prosecution case or bring any major contradiction on record. Sri Krishan Paswan has been examined as P.W.9. He has proved the fardbeyan in the hand-writing of A.S.I., Ranjit Singh which has been marked as Exhibit-5. The endorsement on the fardbeyan made by S.I., K.P. Singh has been proved and marked as Exhibit-6 and the signature of the informant (P.W.8-Fuli Murmu) on the fardbeyan has been proved and marked as Exhibit-7. The formal First Information Report in handwriting of A.S.I., Ranjit Singh has been proved and marked as Exhibit-8. This witness has stated that initial investigation was conducted by S.I., K.P. Singh, who has written case diary from Paragraph-1 to 9 and thereafter on 17.09.1994, the charge was handed-over to him. This witness has also proved the inquest report prepared by S.I., K.P. Singh which has been marked as Exhibit-9. This witness has further stated that S.I., K.P. Singh has recorded the statement of the witnesses namely, Sona Murmu, Bitia Hembram, Malti Kisku, Tala Hembram, Munda Murmu and Beta Murmu and also inspected the place of occurrence which is at three places. The first place of occurrence is at Village Susani, 400 yards East in the bahyair near Khajur tree. The second place of occurrence is at Village Susani in the house of Jolha Marandi, from where he has seized the blood-stained soil, seizure list of the same has been prepared by K.P. Singh, Sub Inspector of Police signed by Sita Dehri (P.W.7) and Suryalal Marandi which has been proved and marked as Exhibit-10. The third place of occurrence is situated 400 yards south from the village, in the field of deceased, where the dead-body was recovered. The third place of occurrence is situated 400 yards south from the village, in the field of deceased, where the dead-body was recovered. The inquest report was prepared at that place by S.I., K. P. Singh. This witness has further stated that Malti Kisku and Tala Hembram(P.W.10) have disclosed before the I.O. that the accused persons, after chasing Muka Baskey, have killed him inside the house of Jolha Marandi. Tala Hembram has been examined as P.W.10. This witness has stated that three years ago in the month of Jeth (Thursday) in the morning while she was cleaning her bari and house, she saw the children of Arjun were taken to have Khajoor where Choto Hansda, Shekhar Hansda, Totka Hansda, Tepo Hembram and Khela Hansda also went to assault Arjun. Arjun (whose another name is Muka) was chased and he has entered into the house of Jolha Marandi where the accused persons have also entered. Chhoto was having Kulhari and others were having bow and arrow, Khela was having lathi and bow and arrow, Shikar was having bow and arrow and lathi and rest were having lathi. They entered into the house and killed him. This witness has stated that she has witnessed the occurrence of assault and has also raised brawl along with 20-25 co-villager females whose statement were also recorded by the Police. 10. On closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused persons were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 01.07.1996, to which they have pleaded that they are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in this case, but no defence witness or exhibits have been brought on record. After hearing learned counsel appearing for the parties and on the basis of the materials available on record. The learned trial court has passed the impugned judgment of conviction against all the five named accused persons under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and accused, Shikhar Hansda, Khela Hansda and Totaka Hansda have further been convicted under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and Khela Hansda has also been convicted for the offence committed and punishable under Section 307 I.P.C. Being aggrieved at and dissatisfied with the, impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the appellants have preferred two separate Criminal Appeals which are being heard and disposed of by this common judgment. 11. Heard, learned counsels for the appellants, Mrs. Abha Verma assisted by Mr. 11. Heard, learned counsels for the appellants, Mrs. Abha Verma assisted by Mr. P. K. Verma and Mrs. Vandana Sinha and learned Additional Public Prosecutors, Mr. Mukesh Kumar and Mrs. Vandana Bharti, learned counsels appearing for the State. 12. Learned counsel appearing 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 appearing for the appellants has submitted that there are vital contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants has further submitted that these appellants have been falsely implicated by the informant, as they have land dispute, as such, the appellants are entitled for benefit of doubt, as appellant, Chhoto Hansda in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.297 of 1996, was aged about 65 years at the time of the judgment and now he is approximately 87 years old and this Court may consider and grant benefit of doubt in favour of the accused/appellants. 13. Heard, Mr. Mukesh Kumar and Mrs. Vandana Bharti, learned Additional Public Prosecutors appearing for the State. Learned counsels for the State has supported the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. They have submitted that learned trial Court has passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence on the basis of the materials available on record. Learned counsels for the State has further submitted that the informant (P.W.8-Fuli Murmu) is the wife of victim (Muka Baskey) and on the basis of her fardbeyan recorded by S.I., K. P. Singh, the law has been set into motion and First Information Report has been lodged against five named accused persons, whose names have been disclosed in the fardbeyan of the informant and after completion of the investigation, the Police has submitted charge-sheet against five named accused persons, namely, Chhoto Hansda, Shikhar Hansda, Tepo Hembram, Khela Hansda and Totaka Hansda. The cognizance of the offence has been taken against the accused persons and the case has been committed to the Court of Sessions. Thereafter charge has been framed against the accused persons which has been explained to them in Hindi. The prosecution has examined altogether ten witnesses. The cognizance of the offence has been taken against the accused persons and the case has been committed to the Court of Sessions. Thereafter charge has been framed against the accused persons which has been explained to them in Hindi. The prosecution has examined altogether ten witnesses. P.W.3 (Biti Hembram), P.W.4 (Sona Murmu), P.W.5 (Beta Murmu), informant (P.W.8-Fuli Murmu) and P.W.10 (Tala Hembram) are the eye-witnesses to the occurrence apart from this, P.W.4 (Sona Hembram) and P.W.8 (Fuli Murmu) are also injured witnesses to the occurrence. 14. Heard, learned counsel for the appellants, Mrs. Abha Verma assisted by Mr. P. K. Verma and Mrs. Vandana Sinha and learned Additional Public Prosecutors, Mr. Mukesh Kumar and Mrs. Vandana Bharti, learned counsels appearing for the State and perused the materials brought on record including the First Information Report, framing of charge, evidence of ten prosecution witnesses, ten prosecution exhibits, the statement of the appellants recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as well as the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. This Court has examined the evidence of the prosecution witnesses at length. From careful scrutiny of the evidence on record, this Court has not found any contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. The prosecution has led a consistent evidence in this case that all these five accused persons/ appellants along with three unknown persons have surrounded the deceased (Muka Baskey) near Khajur tree and chased him. Muka Baskey entered into the house of Jolha Marandi to save his life, where Biti Hembram has asked these accused persons not to assault him. The accused persons have given reply to her that she should not be afraid of the same, as they are only assaulting Muka Baskey. Thereafter Muka Baskey entered into the room of Jolha Marandi where the accused persons started assaulting. Sona Murmu (P.W.4) who was standing near Tailoring shop, entered into the room of Jolha Marandi to save life of Muka Baskey, as such, she was also assaulted by the accused persons and her injury report has been brought on record, which has been proved by (P.W.1) Dr. Shyam Nandan Singh and marked as exhibit-1. Informant of the case (P.W.8-Fuli Murmu) when went to save life of his husband, Muka Baskey, she was also assaulted by the accused persons on her legs. Shyam Nandan Singh and marked as exhibit-1. Informant of the case (P.W.8-Fuli Murmu) when went to save life of his husband, Muka Baskey, she was also assaulted by the accused persons on her legs. The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are intact though they have been cross-examined by the defence at length, but nothing could be elucidated to disbelieve the prosecution case. The post-mortem report (Exhibit-2) proved by Dr. Dilip Kumar Choudhary (P.W.2), shows that the deceased has suffered, as many as, eight injuries, on neck, fore-arm, chest, knee and right pinna. The Doctor has categorically stated that time since death is between 48 hours to 72 hours which is in consonance with the occurrence, which has taken place on 26.05.1994 at 6.00 A.M. whereas the post-mortem examination has been conducted on 28.05.1994 at 8.40 A.M. The Doctor has categorically stated that cause of death is due to haemorrhage and shock, as a result of above-mentioned injuries leading to Cardio-respiratory failure. The I.O. has also been examined. There is nothing on record to create any doubt in the mind of the Court. This Court has gone through evidence and also the materials brought on record. There is nothing on record which warrant interference in the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial court. 15. Accordingly, both the Criminal Appeals i.e. Criminal Appeal (DB) Nos.297 of 1996 preferred by the appellant, Chhoto Hansda and Criminal Appeal (DB) No.315 of 1996 preferred by the appellants, Shikhar Hansda, Tepo Hembram, Khela Hansda and Totaka Hansda are hereby dismissed. 16. Consequently, the appellants who are on bail, their bails bonds are hereby cancelled and they are directed to surrender before the court below to serve out rest of the sentence, as awarded by the learned trial court, failing which, the learned Trial Court is at liberty take all steps to apprehend the accused/ appellants to serve out the sentence. 17. Let the L.C.R. along with a copy of this judgment be sent to the concerned trial court forthwith.