Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 249 (GAU)

Sukhram Munda v. State of Assam

2019-02-22

M.R.PATHAK, SONGKHUPCHUNG SERTO

body2019
JUDGMENT : SONGKHUPCHUNG SERTO, J. 1. Heard Ms. R. Dutta, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant Sukhram Munda in Crl. A (J) No. 4/2016, Ms. R. Deka, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant Stephen Munda in Crl. A (J) No. 5/2016, Ms. P.B. Bordoloi, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant Naga Munda in Crl. A (J) No. 6/2016 and Ms. S. Kanungoi, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant Budhu Munda in Crl. A (J) No. 7/2016. Also heard Ms. S. Jahan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the State respondents in all the four appeals. 2. These 4 (four) Criminal Jail Appeals are directed against the common judgment and order dated 14.12.2015 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Tinsukia in Sessions Case No. 3 (T) of 2015, wherein and whereby, the four appellants named above were held guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 of the same code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 1000/- each, and on their failure to pay the same, they are to undergo rigorous imprisonment for further 6 (six) months. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order, the appellants who are serving their sentences in Tinsukia District Jail have come before this Court through the Superintendent of District Jail, Tinsukia. 3. The facts leading to the appeals briefly stated are as follows:- On 16.10.2014, the father of the deceased (victim) submitted a report to the Officer-in-Charge of Kakopathar Police Station stating that at about 9:00 A.M. of 15.10.2014, his son Munu Gorh (the deceased), aged 28 years went to the house of his nephew Jagadish Gorh at Rumaigabharu Sikari village and spent the night there and at 5:00 A.M. of the next day i.e. 16.10.2014, the accused Naga Munda, Stephen Munda, Sukhram @ Motu and Budhu came to the same house and took his son away with them and thereafter tied him up against a tree nearby their houses and assaulted him brutally with lathi. While this was going on, he was informed by his daughter-in-law about the incident over phone and, on receiving the information, he accompanied by some persons immediately went to the place of occurrence and saw the accused persons assaulting his son. On seeing him and the persons who accompanied him, the accused persons left the scene. While this was going on, he was informed by his daughter-in-law about the incident over phone and, on receiving the information, he accompanied by some persons immediately went to the place of occurrence and saw the accused persons assaulting his son. On seeing him and the persons who accompanied him, the accused persons left the scene. He and his companions rescued his son and took him to Kakopathar Police Station and thereafter to the hospital for treatment but at around 10:15 A.M. of the same day, he died in the same hospital while undergoing treatment. 4. On receipt of the ejahar, an FIR being Kakopathar P.S. Case No. 75/2014 under Section 302/34 IPC was registered on the same day and one S.I., Dipjyoti Dadhara was entrusted with the investigation of the case. The investigation officer, after taking over the investigation caused the postmortem conducted on the dead body of the deceased and continued with the investigation of the case and, in the course of the investigation he was of the opinion that sufficient evidence were there for prosecuting the accused. Therefore, charge under section 302/34 of IPC was submitted against all the accused. The learned Sessions Judge, after framing the charge, tried the case and at the end of the same examined the evidence adduced by the persecution and, came to the conclusion that there are sufficient evidence proving the guilt of the accused persons, therefore, held all of them guilty of the offence charged against them and sentenced them as stated above. Not being satisfied, the accused appellants have come before this Court through separate jail appeals. 5. The main contention raised by the learned counsels appearing for the appellants is that there are discrepancies and contradictions in the statement of the PW2 given in the ejahar and in his examination in chief, therefore, the case of the prosecution does not have a sound footing. 5. The main contention raised by the learned counsels appearing for the appellants is that there are discrepancies and contradictions in the statement of the PW2 given in the ejahar and in his examination in chief, therefore, the case of the prosecution does not have a sound footing. The contra-dictions as pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants is that in the ejahar the PW2 stated that his son (deceased) spent the night of 15.10.2014 in the house of Sri Jagadish Gorh and in the morning of the next day i.e. 16.10.2014, the accused persons came to the same house and took him away and thereafter, tied him to a tree nearby their houses and assaulted him brutally with lathi, but in his examination-in-chief as PW2, he stated that the accused persons came to their house and caught hold of him, tied him and took him away with them. According to the learned counsels, this vital contradiction in the statement of the witness who was also the informant renders his evidence unreliable. The learned counsels also submitted that there is a substantial contradiction between the statement given by PW2 and the statement of PW6 who is his daughter-in-law (wife of the deceased). To substantiate this submission learned counsels submitted that though PW2 in his ejahar had stated that his son was taken away from the house of his nephew, his daughter-in-law, the PW6 had stated that her husband i.e. the deceased was taken away from their house (i.e. the house of the deceased and the witness) therefore, the evidence given by these two vital P.Ws. are not trustworthy and reliable. 6. Secondly, the learned counsels for the appellants contended that all the P.Ws. except PW5, are all interested witnesses since they are all relatives, therefore, without any corroboration from independent witnesses, it would be dangerous to rely on their statement alone and come to the conclusion that the accused persons had committed the offence charged against them. In support of their submissions, learned counsel for the appellants cited the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Raju @ Balachandran & Ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in (2012) 12 SCC 701 . The relevant para is para 24 and the contents of the same are given here below:- "24. In support of their submissions, learned counsel for the appellants cited the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Raju @ Balachandran & Ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in (2012) 12 SCC 701 . The relevant para is para 24 and the contents of the same are given here below:- "24. For the time being, we are concerned with four categories of witnesses - a third party disinterested and unrelated witness (such as a bystander or passer-by); a third party interested witness (such as a trap witness); a related and therefore an interested witness (such as the wife of the victim) having an interest in seeing that the accused is punished; a related and therefore an interested witness (such as the wife or brother of the victim) having an interest in seeing the accused punished and also having some enmity with the accused. But, more than the categorization of a witness, the issue really is one of appreciation of the evidence of a witness. A court should examine the evidence of a related and interested witness having an interest in seeing the accused punished and also having some enmity with the accused with greater care and caution than the evidence of a third Party disinterested and unrelated witness. This is all that is expected and required". Learned counsel for the appellants also cited the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Gajula Surya Prakasarao reported in (2010) 1 SCC 88 . The relevant paragraph 22 and the contents of the same are given below:- "22. In the present case there was no critical evaluation of the evidence of PWs-3 and 4, and there was no consideration of material contradictions having crucial bearing on the veracity of the version given by PWs-3 and 4. They went on making improvements from stage to stage which makes their evidence doubtful. It is under those circumstances, we are compelled to interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below in order to prevent the miscarriage of justice". 7. Learned amicus curiae, Ms. R. Dutta, appearing for the first appellant Sukhram Munda also submitted that PW1 in his cross-examination had stated that he did not see the accused Sukhram Munda assaulting the deceased and none of the witnesses also mentioned his name, therefore, the benefit of doubt ought to have been given to the accused. 7. Learned amicus curiae, Ms. R. Dutta, appearing for the first appellant Sukhram Munda also submitted that PW1 in his cross-examination had stated that he did not see the accused Sukhram Munda assaulting the deceased and none of the witnesses also mentioned his name, therefore, the benefit of doubt ought to have been given to the accused. Learned amicus curiae Ms. R. Deka appearing for the appellant in the second criminal appeal also submitted that PW5 who is the only independent witness did not mention the name of the accused in his examination in-chief as one of the persons who assaulted the deceased, therefore, he should also be given the benefit of doubt. 8. In reply to the submissions made by the learned amicus curies representing the appellants, Ms. S. Jahan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Assam submitted that merely because the witnesses are related to the deceased, they cannot be termed as interested witnesses and discard their evidence. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that in this case, the wife of the deceased PW6 is a natural witness to the events which led to the death of her husband right from the beginning till the end. Therefore, though her statement may be scrutinized a little more deeply, only for the reason that she is the wife of the deceased, her evidence cannot be termed as untrustworthy and unreliable. Further, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the eye witness account of PW6 i.e. the wife of the deceased is well corroborated by the evidence given by other witnesses. In an attempt to support her submission, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor drew our attention to the evidence of PW1 where he stated that the accused persons brought the deceased to a place near their house under bondage and killed him there by assaulting him with lathi. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor also drew our attention to that portion of the evidence given by the same P.W. where he mentioned the name of the appellants Naga Munda, Stephen Munda and Budhu Munda as persons who assaulted the deceased. After having drown our attention to such evidence the Learned Additional Public Prosecutor went on to submit that these evidence of PW1 has well corroborated the evidence of PW6. After having drown our attention to such evidence the Learned Additional Public Prosecutor went on to submit that these evidence of PW1 has well corroborated the evidence of PW6. The Additional Public Prosecutor also submitted that evidence of the PW6 on the material facts is also well corroborated by the evidence given by the informant/PW2 when he stated that when he reached the place of occurrence he saw his son tied against a tree and all the accused persons were present there. Thereafter, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor also referred to the statement of PW2 where he stated that Smti Sombari Gorh, the wife of the deceased came to him at around 6:00 A.M. and informed that the deceased was assaulted by the accused persons and on receipt of the same he along with others went to the place of incident and saw the deceased tied against a tree with blood on his head. After having referred to the evidences stated above the learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that PW6 being the natural witness to the whole incident and her evidence having been corroborated by the evidence of the other PWs, there is no reason to disbelieve her evidence. In support of her submissions, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor referred to the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court passed in the case of Gangabhavani Vs. Rayapati Venkat Reddy & Ors., reported in (2013) 15 SCC 298 . Relevant para is para 10. Contents of the same are reproduced here below:- "15. It is a settled legal proposition that the evidence of closely related witnesses is required to be carefully scrutinized and appreciated before any conclusion is made to rest upon it, regarding the convict/accused in a given case. Thus, the evidence cannot be disbelieved merely on the ground that the witnesses are related to each other or to the deceased. In case the evidence has a ring of truth to it, is cogent, credible and trustworthy, it can, and certainly should, be relied upon. 16. In State of Rajasthan Vs. Kalki, this Court held: "7. Thus, the evidence cannot be disbelieved merely on the ground that the witnesses are related to each other or to the deceased. In case the evidence has a ring of truth to it, is cogent, credible and trustworthy, it can, and certainly should, be relied upon. 16. In State of Rajasthan Vs. Kalki, this Court held: "7. As mentioned above the High Court has declined to rely on the evidence of P.W. 1 on two grounds: (1) she was a "highly interested" witness because she "is the wife of the deceased"......For, in the circumstances of the case, she was the only and most natural witness; she was the only person present in the hut with the deceased at the time of the occurrence, and the only person who saw the occurrence. True it is she is the wife of the deceased; but she cannot be called an 'interested' witness. She is related to the deceased. 'Related' is not equivalent to 'interested. A witness may be called 'interested' only when he or she derives some benefit from the result of a litigation; in the decree in a civil case, or in seeing an accused person punished. A witness who is a natural one and is the only possible eye witness in the circumstances of a case cannot be said to be 'interested'. In the instant case P.W. 1 had no interest in protecting the real culprit, and falsely implicating the respondents". 17. In Sachchey Lal Tiwari Vs. State of U.P., while dealing with the case this Court held: 7. ...Murders are not committed with previous notice to witnesses; soliciting their presence. If murder is committed in a dwelling house, the inmates of the house are natural witnesses. If murder is committed in a street, only passers-by will be witnesses. Their evidence cannot be brushed aside or viewed with suspicion on the ground that they are mere 'chance witnesses'. The expression 'chance witness' is borrowed from countries where every man's home is considered his castle and everyone must have an explanation for his presence elsewhere or in another man's castle. It is quite unsuitable an expression in a country where people are less formal and more casual, at any rate in the matter explaining their presence." 18. In view of the above, it can safely be held that natural witnesses may not be labelled as interested witnesses. It is quite unsuitable an expression in a country where people are less formal and more casual, at any rate in the matter explaining their presence." 18. In view of the above, it can safely be held that natural witnesses may not be labelled as interested witnesses. Interested witnesses are those who want to derive some benefit out of the litigation/case. In case the circumstances reveal that a witness was present on the scene of the occurrence and had witnessed the crime, his deposition cannot be discarded merely on the ground of being closely related to the victim/deceased." Learned Additional Public Prosecutor also cited the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Nagappan Vs. State by Inspector of Police, Tamilnadu, reported in (2013) 15 SCC 252 and the contents of the relevant para 10 are given below:- "10. As regards the first contention about the admissibility of the evidence of PW-1 and PW-3 being closely related to each other and the deceased, first of all, there is no bar in considering the evidence of relatives. It is true that in the case on hand, other witnesses turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution. The prosecution heavily relied on the evidence of PW-1, PW-3 and PW-10. The trial Court and the High Court, in view of their relationship, closely analyzed their statements and ultimately found that their evidence is clear, cogent and without considerable contradiction as claimed by their counsel. This Court, in series of decisions, has held that where the evidence of "interested witnesses" is consistent and duly corroborated by medical evidence, it is not possible to discard the same merely on the ground that they were interested witnesses. In other words, relationship is not a factor to affect credibility of a witness, [vide Dalip Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab, Guli Chand v. State of Rajasthan, Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras, Masalti v. State of U.P., State of Punjab v. Jagir Singh, Lehna v. State of Haryana, Sucha Singh v. State of Punjab, Israr v. State of U.P., S. Sudershan Reddy v. State of A.P., Abdul Rashid Abdul Rahiman Patel v. State of Maharashtra, Waman v. State of Maharashtra, State of Haryana v. Shakuntla, Raju v. State of Tamil Nadu and Subal Ghorai and Ors. v. State of West Bengal." 9. v. State of West Bengal." 9. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor also submitted that the essence of Section 34 IPC is that there should be existence of common intention between the persons who committed the offence and this common intention can be established from the circumstances before the incident took place and from the circumstances that happened thereafter. Elaborating her submission, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the fact that PW6, wife of the deceased, saw the accused persons coming to their house and assaulting her husband and thereafter taking him away and again tying him against a tree near their houses and continued with their assault which led to his death shows that the appellants had a common intention to cause the death of the victim. The learned Public Prosecutor in support of her submission referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Goudappa & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka, reported in (2013) 3 SCC 675 and the contents of the relevant para 22 are given below:- "22. We have bestowed our consideration to the rival submissions and the submission made by Ms. Shenoy commend us. Ordinarily, every man is responsible criminally for a criminal act done by him. No man can be held responsible for an independent act and wrong committed by another. The principle of criminal liability is that the person who commits an offence is responsible for that and he can only be held guilty. However, Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code makes an exception to this principle. It lays down a principle of joint liability in the doing of a criminal act. The essence of that liability is to be found in the existence of common intention, animating the accused leading to the doing of a criminal act in furtherance of such intention. It deals with the doing of separate acts, similar or adverse by several persons, if all are done in furtherance of common intention. In such situation, each person is liable for the result of that as if he had done that act himself. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code thus lays down a principle of joint criminal liability which is only a rule of evidence but does not create a substantive offence. In such situation, each person is liable for the result of that as if he had done that act himself. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code thus lays down a principle of joint criminal liability which is only a rule of evidence but does not create a substantive offence. Therefore, if the act is the result of a common intention that every person who did the criminal act share, that common intention would make him liable for the offence committed irrespective of the role which he had in its perpetration. Then how to gather common intention? The common intention is gathered from the manner in which the crime has been committed, the conduct of the accused soon before and after the occurrence, the determination and concern with which the crime was committed, the weapon carried by the accused and from the nature and injury caused by one or some of them. Therefore, for arriving at a conclusion whether the accused had the common intention to commit an offence of which they could be convicted, the totality of circumstances must be taken into consideration." 10. From the record which we have perused, we found that after the ejehar was lodged and the FIR registered, the police investigated the case and submitted the charge-sheet under Section 302 read with 34 IPC and, on receipt of the same, the learned Sessions Judge framed the charges against the appellants under the sections stated above. The prosecution examined 7 P.Ws. but the accused persons did not examined any witness. 11. PW1 stated that the deceased was the son of his maternal uncle and he knew all the accused persons. He also stated that the deceased died about four months back. After having stated as such, the witness went on to state as follows:- On the day of the incident, the accused persons brought the deceased to their house by tying him and thereafter killed him by assaulting him with lathi. That the accused Budhu Munda, Stephen Munda and Naga Munda had assaulted the deceased and seeing them doing so he ran away and informed his maternal uncle Mohan Gorh, father of the deceased. When his uncle Mohan came to the place of incident, the accused persons were still there. That the accused Budhu Munda, Stephen Munda and Naga Munda had assaulted the deceased and seeing them doing so he ran away and informed his maternal uncle Mohan Gorh, father of the deceased. When his uncle Mohan came to the place of incident, the accused persons were still there. On reaching the place, his uncle untied the deceased and took him to Kakopathar hospital and thereafter, the police came and prepared the inquest report at the hospital to which he was a witness. In his cross-examination, the witness stated as follows:- That the Police interrogated him. He denied the suggestion that he had stated before the police that he was informed about the incident by Mohan Gorh. He also denied the suggestion that the accused persons did not bring the deceased to their house. The witness however, stated that he did not see the accused Sukhram Munda assaulting the deceased. On further cross-examination, the witness also stated that he did not state before the police that he had not seen the accused Budhu Munda, Stephen Munda and Naga Munda assaulting the deceased. The witness also denied the suggestions that he did not state before the police that when his uncle Mohan Gorh came, the accused persons were in the house. He, however, admitted that he did not state before the police that he had informed his uncle Mohan Gorh about the incident. The witness affirmed that the police recorded his statement in the police station and also stated that the incident took place in the morning but he cannot say the time. He also stated that he cannot say the time when Mohan Gorh reached the police station. The witness also stated that he called Mohan Gorh from his house and his house is located at a distance of about 2 kms away from the house of Mohan Gorh. He further stated that Mohan Gorh and the deceased Munu Gorh lives separately. The witness admitted that he is not aware of the reason why the accused persons assaulted the deceased. The witness also stated that near the house of accused Sukhram the house of Kulu and Puklu are situated but he did not see them coming out of their house after the incident or at the time of incident. 12. PW2 is the informant and father of the deceased. The witness also stated that near the house of accused Sukhram the house of Kulu and Puklu are situated but he did not see them coming out of their house after the incident or at the time of incident. 12. PW2 is the informant and father of the deceased. The witness in his deposition stated that his son expired on 16.10.2014. He also stated that on 15.10.2014, there was a ceremony in the house of Jagadish and in that ceremony, he and his son (the deceased) were present. The witness further stated that at around 5:00 A.M. of 16.10.2014, all the accused persons came to their house and caught hold of his son, tied him up and took him away with them on the allegation that he was involved in the missing case of the wife of one of the accused Mr. Budhu. After one hour his daughter-in-law Somari, the wife of the deceased informed him that his son was tied against a tree in the Rumai Gabaru village. Immediately on receiving the information, he went to the place and found his son tied against a tree and all the accused persons present there. The witness also stated that he noticed the injury on the head of his son and asked one of the accused Stephen as to why they had assaulted his son without first complaining to him. To his question, one of the accused Sukhram replied that his son had done something bad with his daughter-in-law. The witness went on to state that thereafter he untied his son and took him to Kokapathar police station and from there to a hospital where he succumbed to his injuries at about 10:15 A.M. The witness stated further that thereafter, he lodged an ejahar with the police station and exhibited the same as Exhibit 2. The witness admitted that his ejahar was written by someone but he has forgotten the name of the person. However, the witness stated that the ejahar was drawn as per his instruction/version. He also stated that when he lodged the ejahar, the police came and prepared the inquest report and took away the dead body of his son for post mortem. The witness also stated that he had signed on the inquest report and exhibited the same as Exhibit 1 (2). Lastly, the witness stated that the accused persons were arrested soon thereafter by the police. The witness also stated that he had signed on the inquest report and exhibited the same as Exhibit 1 (2). Lastly, the witness stated that the accused persons were arrested soon thereafter by the police. In his cross-examination, the witness stated that the ejahar was not read over to him and in that he did not mentioned that his son was accused of having done something bad with the daughter-in-law of Sukhram. The witness also stated that when the accused persons came to their house, he was not present in the house at the time and he had not seen them. The witness also stated that he did not state before the police that his daughter-in-law informed him that his son was tied against a tree by the accused persons. The witness affirmed that except for the four accused persons, none were present at the place of occurrence and had seen the accused persons assaulting his son. He also reiterated what he has stated in this examination-in-chief that Sukhram told him that his son had committed some bad things with his daughter-in-law. In his further cross-examination, the witness clarified that he and his son live separately and they are one kilometer away from each others. He also stated that the house of the accused persons was about ½ kilometer away from his house. The witness also stated that after his daughter-in-law informed him about the incident at about 6:00 A.M., he immediately went to the place which took him about ½ an hour. He also stated that he was interrogated by the police at the police station and he did not know the contents of Exhibit 1 though he put his signature. The witness however, denied the suggestion that the accused persons did not commit any offence and he had wrongly implicated them. 13. PW3 stated that the deceased was his cousin and he knew all the accused persons. He also stated that the deceased died about four months back and, the house of the informant i.e. PW2 and his house are adjacent to each other. The witness went on to state that on the day the incident took place, the wife of Munu Gorh (the deceased) came to the informant at about 5:00 A.M. and informed that the accused persons were assaulting the deceased at Rumai Gabaru Gaon. The witness went on to state that on the day the incident took place, the wife of Munu Gorh (the deceased) came to the informant at about 5:00 A.M. and informed that the accused persons were assaulting the deceased at Rumai Gabaru Gaon. He also stated that on being requested, he along with Dulal, Jiten and the informant himself went to the place of occurrence on foot and when they reached there, they saw the deceased being tied up against a tree and also noticed blood on his head. The witness further stated that the accused persons were present at the place of occurrence. The witness furthermore stated that when the accused persons were asked as to why they had assaulted the deceased, they answered that they will again do the same. Lastly, the witness stated that thereafter, they untied the deceased and took him to the police station and from there to the hospital but he succumbed to his injuries. In his cross-examination, the witness stated that the police asked only his name therefore, he did not state anything more to the police. The witness denied the suggestion that he had given wrong statement in favour of the informant and he had not seen the incident 14. PW4 stated that on 16.10.2014, he was working as Senior Medical Health Officer at Tinsukia Civil Hospital and on that day at about 2:15 P.M., he performed postmortem examination over the dead body of Munu Gorh (the deceased) in connection with the Kakopathar P.S. Case No. 75/14. The witness went on to state that the dead body was identified by UBC/672 Gobin Cherry and Mohan Gorh, the father of the deceased. The witness thereafter gave his findings. His findings during his postmortem examination as stated by him are given here below:- "External Appearance:-Body of a middle aged man, medium built short black hair, dark complexion. Rigor mortis present. Injuries:- 1. Multiple contusions of different shapes and sizes, all over the body. 2. Scalp shown three penetrating lacerated injuries with fracture of occipital and left parietal bone Scalp:-(i) 3 cm. x 0.5 cm. lacerated injury with sharp margin over right occipital region. (ii) 1 cm. x 0.5 cm. lacerated injury with sharp margin over left parietal region. (iii) 0.5 cm. x 0.25 cm. lacerated injury with sharp margin over left parietal region. 2. Scalp shown three penetrating lacerated injuries with fracture of occipital and left parietal bone Scalp:-(i) 3 cm. x 0.5 cm. lacerated injury with sharp margin over right occipital region. (ii) 1 cm. x 0.5 cm. lacerated injury with sharp margin over left parietal region. (iii) 0.5 cm. x 0.25 cm. lacerated injury with sharp margin over left parietal region. Skull: Fracture of left parietal and occipital bone Other organs were normal and health Opinion:-In my opinion, death was due to coma as a result of head injuries, as described. All injuries were ante mortem and consistent with sharp object trauma. Approximate time since death was 12 to 36 hours. The injuries were homicidal in nature, but I have not mentioned the same in the postmortem report. All injuries are individually sufficient to cause death of a person in normal course. Ext. 3 is the postmortem report and Ext. 3(1) is my signature. The dead body was accompanied by Ext. 4 dead body challan and inquest report Ext. 1. Ext. 4(1), 1(3), 1(4), 1(5) and 1(6) are my signatures". 15. PW5 stated that he knew Sukhram Munda one of the accused but he did not know the other accused persons. He also stated that he know the deceased Munu Gorh. The witness then stated that at about 7:00 A.M. about six months ago, he saw Munu Gorh (the deceased) being tied up against a tree at Sikari Basti and amongst the person he saw at the place of occurrence, was Sukhram Munda. The witness identified the accused who was in the dock. Thereafter, the witness further stated that he along with others took the injured to Kakopathar Civil hospital where he succumbed to his injuries. The witness also stated that he did not know why Munu Gorh was assaulted. In his cross-examination, the witness stated that he did not see the persons who assaulted the deceased. The witness further stated that he did not state before the police that Sombari Gorh told him about the incident. He also stated that he had not stated before the police what he has stated in the Court The witness clarified by stating that he knew Sukhram Munda because he hails from Sikari Basti and he was present at the place of incident where he saw the deceased tied against a tree. He also stated that he had not stated before the police what he has stated in the Court The witness clarified by stating that he knew Sukhram Munda because he hails from Sikari Basti and he was present at the place of incident where he saw the deceased tied against a tree. The witness further stated that his house is situated at a distance of about two hour's journey from the house of Sukhram Munda. He also stated that he had come along with the informant Mohan Gorh who gave him bus fare. The witness, however, denied the suggestion that his depositions are all wrong and he had done so as instructed by the informant 16. PW6 is the wife of the deceased. The witness stated that she knew all the accused persons and the deceased was her husband. The witness also stated that her husband died during Durga Puja the previous year and on the day of occurrence she and her husband went to the house of Jagadish Gorh at Tengamara Gaon to attend a function but returned home after dinner. Thereafter, the witness also stated that in the morning at about 5:00 A.M. all the accused persons came to their house and called out her husband. On hearing the sound, she woke up her husband and at that time the accused persons entered their house and started assaulting her husband on his head with lathi and tied him up and took him to their house while assaulting him. The witness also stated that though she requested the accused persons not to assault her husband they did not relent to her request and after they reached their place, her husband was tied against a tree and they continued to assault him. The witness then stated that she went to her father-in-law's house and informed about the incident and thereafter, both of them came back to the house of the accused persons. On reaching the place, her husband was untied and taken to Kakopathar Civil Hospital where he succumbed to his injuries. The witness also stated that she was not aware of the reason as to why the accused persons had assaulted her husband. In the cross-examination, the she stated that it takes about two hours to reach her father-in-law house on foot from her house. The witness also stated that she was not aware of the reason as to why the accused persons had assaulted her husband. In the cross-examination, the she stated that it takes about two hours to reach her father-in-law house on foot from her house. The witness then stated that when she along with her father-in-law came to the house of the accused persons, they did not find any of the accused persons in their house. The witness also stated that she was not interrogated by the police and as such, she did not state anything before the police. The witness denied the suggestion that the accused persons did not come to their house and she had given false evidence. The witness further stated that none of the persons from their locality came to their house when the accused persons came and assaulted her husband. She also denied the suggestion that no such incident took place and none of the accused persons came to their house. 17. The last witness PW7, the I.O. of the case deposed as follows:- On 16.10.2014, while he was working as O.C. of Kakopathar P.S., the complainant Mohan Gorh came to the police station and lodged a written ejahar stating that on 15.10.2014, his son Munu Gorh had gone to the house of Sri Jagadish Gorh at Rumaigabaru Sikari Basti and stayed there for the night and on 16.10.2014 at about 5:00 A.M., Sri Naga Munda, Stephen Munda, Sukram @ Motu and Budhu Munda tied him up against a tree and assaulted him with lathi. The witness also stated that he was informed of the incident by his daughter-in-law and it was only thereafter, that he went to the place of occurrence along with some of the villagers and on reaching the place of the incident, he saw the culprits fleeing away. The I.O. also stated that the informant informed him that he had seen the culprits assaulting his son and after he rescued him he brought him to Kakopathar Police Station. The witness further stated that he was also told by the informant that during the treatment, the deceased died at about 10:15 A.M. The witness also stated that on receipt of the ejahar, Kakopathar P.S. Case No. 75/2014 under Section 302/34 IPC was registered by him and he himself took up the investigation. The witness further stated that he was also told by the informant that during the treatment, the deceased died at about 10:15 A.M. The witness also stated that on receipt of the ejahar, Kakopathar P.S. Case No. 75/2014 under Section 302/34 IPC was registered by him and he himself took up the investigation. He exhibited the ejahar as Exhibit 2 and his signature as Exhibit 2(2). The witness also stated that he recorded the statement of the informant at the police station and thereafter, went to Kakopathar hospital and prepared inquest report. He identified the same as Exhibit 1 and his signature in it as Exhibit 1(7). The witness then stated that he found injuries on the back side of the head, still bleeding, on stomach, left leg, back and private part of the deceased. The witness then stated that after the inquest, he forwarded the dead body to the Civil Hospital, Tinsukia for postmortem examination. Further, the witness stated that after he recorded the statement of the witnesses he along with the informant, went to Rumaigabharu Sikari Basti which is near the house of the accused persons and found the accused persons there and took them to custody. The witness also stated that he prepared the sketch map of the place of occurrence which he exhibited as Exhibited 5 and his signature in it as Exhibit 5(1). The witness then stated that after having arrested the accused persons, he forwarded them to the Court and on completion of investigation he submitted the charge sheet against the accused persons under Section 302/34 IPC. The witness exhibited the same as Exhibit 6 and his signature in the same as Exhibit 6(1). In his cross-examination, the witness affirmed that the ejahar was lodged on 16.10.2014 at about 5:30 A.M. and he went to the place of occurrence on the same day at about 1:00 P.M. The witness also stated that the distance between Kakopathar P.S. and the place of occurrence is about 8 Kilometers and it takes half an hour to reach that place from the police station. The witness also stated that he found other houses at a distance from the place of occurrence but admitted that he had not shown the houses in his sketch map. The witness also stated that he found other houses at a distance from the place of occurrence but admitted that he had not shown the houses in his sketch map. The witness denied the suggestion that houses of Kalu and Puklu were situated near the place of occurrence but admitted that he had not shown the location of the houses in the sketch map. The witness admitted that he had not mentioned the time of preparation of the sketch map but denied the suggestion that he did not interrogate and recorded the statements of witnesses Ram Kanda (PW3), Shyam Gowala (PW5) and Sombari Gowala (PW6). He also denied the suggestion that he did not conduct the investigation as per procedure of law. In his further cross-examination, the witness stated that he went to the place of occurrence only once and took up the investigation of the case after registration of the case. The witness also stated that he had recorded the statement of witnesses, Anil Gorh (PW1) and Sombari Gorh (PW6) at the time of conducting inquest at Kakopathar PHC. He denied the suggestion that he did not record the statement of Somabri Gorh (PW6). The witness admitted that he did not record statements of neighbors of the deceased and did not seize anything from the place of occurrence. The witness clarified that he prepared the sketch map at about 1:40 P.M. at the place of occurrence but he did not mention it in the Exhibit 5. He denied the suggestion that he prepared Exhibit 5 at the police station and as such no time has been mentioned in Exhibit 5. The witness also stated that the witness Anil Gorh did not tell him that when his uncle Mohan Gorh came the accused persons were in their house. The witness men stated that he had collected the postmortem report on 30.10.2014 and denied the suggestion that he did not conduct the investigation as per the procedure of law. 18. The witness also stated that the witness Anil Gorh did not tell him that when his uncle Mohan Gorh came the accused persons were in their house. The witness men stated that he had collected the postmortem report on 30.10.2014 and denied the suggestion that he did not conduct the investigation as per the procedure of law. 18. Now reverting to the contention raised by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that there are contradictions in the statement of the witnesses produced by the prosecution on material particulars therefore, the learned Sessions Judge has erred in concluding that the accused/appellants are guilty of the offence charged against them, we are unable to agree with them because the contradictions are not on vital or material particulars which could lead to a different conclusion then the one reached by the trial court. The fact that the accused persons came to the house of the deceased in the morning of 16.10.2014, at about 5:00 A.M. and assaulted him, tied him and thereafter took him to their place where they tied him against a tree and continued to assault him was testified by PW6 who is none other than the wife of the deceased before whom the whole incident unfolded. The testimony of the said witness was neither controverted nor contradicted by the appellants. Moreover, the testimony of the witness PW6 is corroborated by the other witnesses like; PW1, PW2 and PW3. It was testified by PW1 that the accused persons brought the deceased to their house bounded and killed him there by assaulting him with lathi. PW2, the informant also testified that after he was informed by his daughter-in-law Somari, he went to the place of occurrence and saw his son tied up against a tree and the accused persons were present there. He also testified that after he noticed the injuries on his son he asked Stephen one of the accused persons who assaulted his son as to why his son was treated in that manner but, Sukhram Munda, another accused replied that his son had committed something bad with his daughter-in-law. PW3 testified that when Munu Gorh the wife of the deceased informed her father-in-law at about 5:00 A.M. of the day of the incident, the father-in-law asked him to come along with him to the place of occurrence. PW3 testified that when Munu Gorh the wife of the deceased informed her father-in-law at about 5:00 A.M. of the day of the incident, the father-in-law asked him to come along with him to the place of occurrence. Accordingly, he along with Dulal and Jiten went on foot and when they reached the place of occurrence they saw the deceased tied up against a tree with blood on his head and the accused persons were present there. The evidence of PW6 is also corroborated by the statement of the PW5, who is an independent witness. The said witness after having stated that one day at about 7 am six months ago he saw the deceased tied up against a tree at Sikari Basti had also identified the accused persons in the court including Sukhram Munda. The evidence of Medical Officer PW4 who conducted the postmortem examination of the deceased also supports the evidence of PW6. The injuries on the body of the deceased as described by the doctor shows that he was assaulted at many places and he died due to the same. Further, the nature and number of the injuries at various places of the body of the deceased also shows that the injuries were inflicted by more than a person. Furthermore, the doctor's opinion that death was due to coma as a result of head injuries and all the injuries were ante mortem and caused with sharp object supports the version of the PW6 that her husband was first assaulted on the head with lathi by the accused persons and continued to do so on other parts of his body till he died due to the same. 19. From the above, it is seen that the evidence given by PW6 is well supported and corroborated by the evidence given by the other witnesses. Therefore, minor discrepancies here and there can not or would not make any difference. 20. Further, the prosecution case is strengthened by the evidence of the I.O. PW7 who stated that he had visited the place of occurrence on being informed by the father of the victim and took the victim to Tinsukia Civil Hospital for postmortem and, when he conducted the inquest he found injury marks on the back side of the head, the stomach, left leg, back and private parts of the deceased. The fact that the victim was assaulted by the accused persons and died due to injuries suffered from the same having been clearly established by the evidence stated above and we are of the considered view that the minor discrepancies as pointed out by the learned counsels appearing for the appellants are not sufficient to dislodge the case of the prosecution. 21. Now referring to the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the appellants passed in the case of Gajula Surya Prakasarao Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in (2010) 1 SCC 88 , the relevant portion of which has already been reproduced in the paragraphs above, we agree with the submissions of the learned counsels of the appellants that if there are contradictions which are likely to have bearing on the veracity of the version given by the prosecution witness then the evidence given by them (prosecution witness) would have to be looked into with great care. However, as stated above, in this case we are of the opinion that there are no such discrepancies or contradictions which would have crucial bearing on the veracity of the evidence given by PW6, the wife of the deceased which in fact is supported and corroborated by the evidence given by other P.Ws. on the material facts. She is the one who saw the whole incident from the beginning till the end and there is no reason to doubt her testimony which is cogent, uncontroverted and also corroborated by the evidence given by the other witnesses. 22. Coming to the other ground raised by the learned counsels for the appellants that except PW5 the other P.Ws. are all relatives therefore, they are interested witnesses, as such, their evidence should not be accepted without corroboration, we are of the opinion that in the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court cited by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor which have already been reproduced herein above, it has been made very clear that evidence of interested witness if it is consistent, credible and trustworthy, they can always be relied upon and based on the same conviction can be drawn. In the case of Gangabhavani Vs. In the case of Gangabhavani Vs. Rayapati Venkata Reddy & Ors., reported in (2013) 15 SCC 298 , which is also cited by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the Hon'ble Supreme Court drew a distinction between interested witness and natural witness and held that being a relative or being related is not equivalent to interested witness. According to the Hon'ble Supreme Court a witness may be called interested only when he or she is likely to derive some benefits from the result of litigation and a natural witness is one who was present at the place of occurrence and saw the commission of the crime. In this case, the wife of the deceased who was present at their house in that early morning when the incident took place and saw all that was done by the accused persons on her husband cannot be termed as an interested witness just because she happens to be the wife of the deceased. She is more of a natural witness and there is no reason at all why her evidence should even be doubted when it is so cogent and consistent. In the words of the Hon'ble Supreme Court: "A witness who is a natural one and is the only possible eye witness in the circumstances of a case cannot be said to be 'interested'". 23. In the light of the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we have scrutinized the evidence given by the P.Ws. who are related to each other except for PW5. After having done that, we found that the evidence given by the witnesses are cogent, credible and trustworthy and there is a ring of truth about them. As stated already PW6 who is the wife of the deceased is a natural witness because it was at and from her house that her husband was assaulted, tied and taken away and being the wife it was quite natural that she would have been home in that early hour of the morning and saw all that was done to her husband and would have also followed her husband while he was taken away by the accused/appellants in the morning of the day when the incident took place. And it is also natural that she would have seen her husband being tied against a tree and assaulted by the accused persons since she followed them. And it is also natural that she would have seen her husband being tied against a tree and assaulted by the accused persons since she followed them. Therefore, it would be trite in law to say that she being the wife of the deceased cannot be a trustworthy witness and her evidence cannot be relied upon. Further, there is nothing in evidence or even a whisper to say that the witnesses who are the relatives had a motive or interest to see that the accused persons are tried and convicted in a case like this and by doing so they would have got some benefit. Therefore, we cannot just simply conclude that they are interested witness and their evidence is tented. What we must see is whether the evidence given by them are cogent, credible and trustworthy. As stated above, the evidence given by PW6 is simple and clear and nothing that she stated has been controverted or contradicted. In fact the evidence given by her is well corroborated on the material or crucial facts which have bearing on the case of the prosecution. Therefore, we conclude by saying that the evidence given by the PW6 and other P.Ws. cannot be discarded just because they are related to the deceased. 24. We may also mention here that though the name of Sukhram Munda was not mentioned by some of the witnesses they have been very consistent in their statements that they saw all the accused involved in the commission of the crime which includes Shukram Munda. In fact PW5 specifically stated that he saw Shukram Munda at the place of occurrence. Therefore, we are unable to agree with the learned counsel representing the appellant that since his name have not been mentioned by all the witnesses, he ought to be given benefit of doubt. 25. On Section 34 of IPC, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that once the common intention of the accused persons is established from the evidence on the facts and circumstances which took place before the commission of the crime and the facts and circumstances which followed thereafter, all the persons who were involved in the commission of the offence would come under the swipe of Section 34. We agree with the submission of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor which is well supported by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Goudappa & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka, reported in (2013) 3 SCC 675 . The contents of the relevant portion of the judgment have already been reproduced in paragraphs above. In this case, the fact that the accused persons came together armed with sticks to the house of the deceased and assaulted him and thereafter took him to their locality where they again tied him against a tree and continued to assault him to the extent described by the doctor who conducted the autopsy clearly shows that they all had a common intention to commit culpable homicide amounting to murder. Further, the evidence of the informant that when he had asked one of the accused, namely, Stephen as to why his son was assaulted, Sukhram Munda had answered that they had done so because he had committed some bad act with his daughter-in-law. This, in our opinion, shows that the accused persons had a motive for having committed the offence and also strengthens the case of the prosecution that the accused persons/appellants had a common intention therefore; all of them are liable to be punished for the charge framed against them. Moreover, PW3 deposed that when they reached the place of occurrence they saw the deceased tied up against a tree, noticed blood on his head, found the accused persons present in the said place and when they were asked as to why they assaulted the deceased, the accused persons replied that they shall assault him again. All these evidences of the P.Ws. remained intact and could not be demolished by the defence. 26. In view of the above discussions, we find no merit in the appeals, accordingly they are dismissed. 27. We appreciate the assistance rendered by the learned amicus curiae. The Legal services Committee of this High Court shall pay them a sum of Rs. 7,500/- each, towards their professional fees. 28. Send back the LCR along with a copy of this judgment and order. 29. Registry shall forward four copies of this judgment and order to the Superintendent of Tinsukia Jail for his onward communication to the four convicted accused appellants named above.