JUDGMENT : Joymalya Bagchi, J. 1. At the outset, it is submitted that appellant Prabir Biswas in CRA 45 of 2014 has expired. Death certificate is placed on record. Hence, it is recorded that the said appeal has abated due to death of the appellant. Other appeals being CRA 455 of 2013, CRA 557 of 2013, CRA 534 of 2013, CRA 411 of 2013 CRA 792 of 2013 are taken up for hearing analogously and are being disposed of by a common judgment and order. 2. The appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 11.05.2013 & 13.05.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Special, Fast Track Court-IV, Krishnagar, Nadia in Sessions Case No.50(9)/2007 (corresponding to Sessions Trial No.II(12)/2007 convicting the appellants for commission of offence punishable under Sections 148/149/448/427/307/302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for another two years. 3. Prosecution case, as alleged, against the appellants is to the effect that there was a land dispute between Atul Biswas on the one hand and Shayamapada Sen, P.W.1 and his brother Anup Sen, the deceased herein on the other hand. A civil suit was instituted by the appellants and an order of status quo had been passed in the said suit. On 30.11.1996 at 7.45 A.M. it is alleged that the appellants had come to the homestead land of Shyamapada Sen and Anup Sen and started demolishing the paddy husking machine room which was occupied by Anup. A commotion ensued. Thereafter, Anup was assaulted by the appellants with various weapons and fell down on the ground. He was shifted to Krishnaganj Hospital. On the written complaint of Shayamapada, P.W.1, F.I.R. was registered being Krishnaganj P.S. Case No.152/96 under Sections 147/148/149/448/427/323/324/325/326/304 of IPC and under Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act. Upon the death of Anup, offence under Section 304 was added. In conclusion of investigation, charge sheet was filed in the instant case under Sections 147/148/149/448/427/323/324/325/326/304 IPC and under Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act was filed against the appellants. 4. The case being a session triable one was committed to the court of sessions and transferred to the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge Special, Fast Track Court-IV, Krishnagar, Nadia for trial and disposal. 5. 4. The case being a session triable one was committed to the court of sessions and transferred to the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge Special, Fast Track Court-IV, Krishnagar, Nadia for trial and disposal. 5. Charges were framed under Sections 148/149/448/427/323/307/302 IPC against the appellants and two co-accuseds. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. In the course of trial, the prosecution examined 18 witnesses to establish its case and exhibited a number of documents. 7. The defence of the appellants was one of innocence and false implication. 8. In conclusion of trial, the trial court by the impugned judgment and order dated 11.05.2013 & 13.05.2013 convicted and sentenced the appellants, as aforesaid. Co-accused persons, Nemai Sarkar & Balai Biswas, were, however acquitted of the charges levelled against them. 9. Mr. Basu, learned senior counsel along Mr. Majumdar, Mr. Banerjee and Mr. Datta appearing for the appellants argued that the prosecution has failed to prove appellants formed an unlawful assembly which the common object to commit the murder of Anup. No medical evidence with regard to assault on Saraswati Sen has been proved in the instant case. He argued that the homestead land on which the incident occurred is the subject matter of a civil suit instituted by Anup Biswas and Atul Biswas and an injunction order was passed therein. However, no case of trespass has been made out in the facts of the case. There is nothing on record to show that all the appellants had assaulted the victim and the names of the assailants were not disclosed to the medical personnel at the earliest opportunity. Dying declaration made by the victim is also untenable as the same is not disclosed in the first information report lodged by P.W.1 an eyewitness. Accordingly, the appellants are liable to be acquitted. 10. Mr. Maiti, learned Additional Public Prosecutor along with Mr. Ahmed, Ms. Khan, Ms. Chatterjee, Mr. Ganguly and Ms. Ray argued that the appellants had trespassed into the homestead land of P.W.1 and his brother Anup Sen with the intention of damaging the paddy husking machine room which was occupied by the victim. They were variously armed and mercilessly assaulted the victim and the ingredients of the alleged offence have been established beyond doubt. Hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 11. They were variously armed and mercilessly assaulted the victim and the ingredients of the alleged offence have been established beyond doubt. Hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 11. On the first blush we notice a fundamental flaw in the impugned judgment and order. While recording conviction on various heads, the trial judge proceeded to award a single sentence presumably under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC. This is contrary to Section 354 of the Code of Criminal Procedure wherein it is, inter alia, provided that a judgment must specify the offences for which an accused is convicted and state the punishment to which he is sentenced for each conviction. Hence, it was incumbent on the trial judge to award separate sentences in respect of each conviction in the present case and state whether the sentences awarded shall run concurrently or consecutively. Save and except awarding sentence of life imprisonment (presumably for conviction under Section 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code though not specifically provided in the said judgment) no separate sentence was awarded with regard to the convictions recorded for other offences. Failure to record separate sentence qua each conviction as in the present case is a gross infraction on the part of the trial judge. 12. Coming to the merits of the case, it appears prosecution has relied on the ocular evidence of P.Ws. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 to prove the murderous assault on the deceased Anup. 13. P.W. 1 Shyama Pada Sen is the brother of the deceased and the de facto complainant. He deposed on 30.11.1996 at around 7.30 a.m. to 7.45 a.m. the appellants had come to their land with deadly weapons and demolished the paddy husking machine room of their brother, Anup. They resisted such wrongful act. At that time Atul hit Anup on the head with a lathi. Anil hit him on his left hand with a 'daa'. Binay struck at his left leg with a 'fala'. Achinta on the advice of Bimal fired two rounds of bullet. One bullet missed the target but the second bullet hit the left ear of Anup. Haren hit on the left eye of his brother with a 'hasua'. He also threw bomb by Gobinda and Tapan. Madan and Niranjan assaulted Nirapada. He took the victim to Krishnaganj Hospital. On the way the victim disclosed the names of his assailants. One bullet missed the target but the second bullet hit the left ear of Anup. Haren hit on the left eye of his brother with a 'hasua'. He also threw bomb by Gobinda and Tapan. Madan and Niranjan assaulted Nirapada. He took the victim to Krishnaganj Hospital. On the way the victim disclosed the names of his assailants. He lodged written complaint at P.S. It was scribed by Paritosh Sarkar (P.W. 17). Police held inquest over the dead body of the victim. He signed on the inquest report. 14. P.W. 3 Tapan Biswas is a neighbour. He deposed on the fateful day he was proceeding towards his place of work. He heard hue and cry. He say Atul, Anil, Achinta, Bimal, Haren, Binay, Madan were returning from the house of Atul after demolishing the room of Anup. Ganendra, Shyamapada, Anup (deceased) and Shyamapada's wife resisted the appellants. Atul hit on the front portion of the head of Anup with a lathi. Anil struck on the left hand of Anup with a 'daa'. Haren threw a bomb which hit Gobinda. Madan assaulted Nirapada. On the instruction of Bimal, Achinta fired. He received bullet injuries on his left ear. He was admitted to Saktinagar Hospital. 15. P.W. 4 Brojen Biswas is another neighbour. On hearing hue and cry he went to the house of Anup. He saw that appellants entered the house of Anup. They were armed with deadly weapons. He was afraid and did not go to the spot. After the incident he came to the spot. Anup told him that Atul hit him with a lathi on the head. Binay assaulted him on the leg with 'bhojali'. Anil struck him with 'hasua'. Haren caused injury on his left ear. Achinta had fired on the advice of Bimal. The victim was taken to hospital. 16. P.W. 5, Gobinda Biswas, was cultivating his land. On hearing hue and cry he came to the house of Anup. Haren threw bomb upon him and he suffered bomb blast injury. He was taken to Krishnagar Hospital. 17. P.W.6, Dhiman Kr. Sarkar, was a member of B.J.P. and was a panchayet member for sometime in the locality. He helped the victim to be removed to the hospital by train. The victim told him that Atul had hit him with a lathi. Bimal had asked Achintya to fire bullets. He was taken to Krishnagar Hospital. 17. P.W.6, Dhiman Kr. Sarkar, was a member of B.J.P. and was a panchayet member for sometime in the locality. He helped the victim to be removed to the hospital by train. The victim told him that Atul had hit him with a lathi. Bimal had asked Achintya to fire bullets. Subsequently he came to know, apart from Achintya and Atul, that other miscreants had also assaulted the victim. Tapan Biswas (P.W.3) and Gobinda Biswas (P.W.5) also received injuries. They were treated in hospital. 18. P.W.7, Swarasati Sen, is the wife of P.W.1. She deposed Atul hit the victim with a lathi on the head. Anil caused serious injuries with a dao on his wrist. Binay hit him with a fala on the left thigh. Bimal directed Achintya to fire at the victim resulting in injuries on the ear of Tapan. Gobinda was hit by a bomb thrown by Haren and sustained injuries. Haren also hit Anup with a dao on his left eye. Nirapada was assaulted by Madan and Niranjan. She was also assaulted. Anup, Narapada, Tapan and Gobinda were taken to hospital. 19. P.W.8, Ganendra Nath Sen, father of the victim deposed that the appellants had trespassed into their homestead and damaged the machine room. When Anup protested, Atul caused serious injury on his right forehead with a lathi. Anil struck Anup with a dao on the left hand. Binay struck the victim on the left thigh with fala. Monoranjan caught Anup and Haren hit on his left eye with dao. Haren hurled bomb resulting in injuries on Gobinda and Tapan. On the instigation of Bimal, Achintya fired at Tapan who received injuries. Nirapada was assaulted by Madan and Niranjan. His son was shifted to Krishnaganj Hospital where he died. 20. P.Ws.9 and 13 are medical witnesses. P.W.9, Dr. Sanjay Hazra treated Gobinda Biswas (P.W.5) and Nirapada Biswas at Krishnaganj PHC. He proved the injury reports disclosing history of bomb blast and bullet injury (Ext.3 and 4). 21. P.W.13 held post mortem over the body of the deceased Anup and found the following injuries:- Right forehead : Abrasion (+), underneath haemorrhage (+) Over left eye: deep sharp cut wound measuring 1" x ", eye ball Deep with a glass piece inside. Over left thigh : deep sharp cut wound measuring 2" x 1" muscle Deep, inside with a bottle piece. Over left thigh : deep sharp cut wound measuring 2" x 1" muscle Deep, inside with a bottle piece. Brain lacerated: frontal area haemorrhage ++ 22. P.W.18 is the Investigating Officer in the instant case. 23. Analysis of the aforesaid evidence on record shows that the incident occurred on the homestead land of P.W.8, Ganendra Nath Sen. The said witness in cross examination admitted that a civil suit had been filed by Atul and Anil in respect of the said land. From such evidence it appears that the incident occurred on disputed land in respect of which the appellants had obtained an order of injuction. Hence, it cannot be said with certainty that Ganendra (P.W.8) and his sons Shyamapada Sen (P.W.1) and Anup, the deceased, were the absolute owners of the land and the appellants particularly Atul and Anil had no right to enter the land in question. 24. In the light of the aforesaid fact it is difficult for me to come to a firm conclusion that prosecution has been able to prove that the appellants had trespassed into the land of Ganendra and murdered one of his sons. As the plot of land was the subject matter of a civil suit instituted by Atul and Anil and since no evidence has been led on behalf of the prosecution that the appellants had violated the order of injunction passed therein, it cannot be said that they formed an unlawful assembly and trespassed into the land of Ganendra and his sons. If one examines the prosecution case in the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, I am of the view that it cannot be said that mere entry of the appellants on the disputed land can give rise to an inference that they were members of an unlawful assembly who shared the common object to trespass and murder Anup. It is argued that all the appellants were armed and had caused mischief on the land of the victim. No broken items were seised from the spot supporting the allegation of damage to the paddy husking machine room. Although the witnesses claimed the appellants were armed it is not the prosecution case all of them assaulted the victim. It is argued that all the appellants were armed and had caused mischief on the land of the victim. No broken items were seised from the spot supporting the allegation of damage to the paddy husking machine room. Although the witnesses claimed the appellants were armed it is not the prosecution case all of them assaulted the victim. The aforesaid facts reinforce my conclusion that all the appellants cannot be roped in as members of an unlawful assembly who shared the common object to trespass on the land, cause mischief and murder Anup in the instant case. 25. Although constructive liability of the appellants as members of the unlawful assembly has not been proved beyond doubt, genesis of the incident of assault on Anup and others by some of the appellants in the course of a commotion between Shyamapada and Anup on the one hand and the appellants on the other hand appears to have been established. 26. Ample evidence has come on record that in the course of a commotion between the two groups, Atul had hit Anup on the head with a lathi while Anil had assaulted him with a dao on his wrist. Binoy hit the victim on his leg with a fala and Haren assaulted him with a hesua on his left eye. Injury on Gobinda (P.W.5) by bomb thrown by Haren has also been established. In the course of the melee, Nirapada was assaulted by Madan and Niranjan. Ocular version of the prosecution witnesses, particularly, P.Ws.1, 3, 5, 7 and 8 with regard to the assault on the victim, as aforesaid, is corroborated by the medical evidence of P.W.9 and post mortem doctor (P.W.13). However, version of the aforesaid eye witnesses with regard to firing by Achintya causing injuries on the victims at the instigation of Bimal is not corroborated by medical evidence. Tapan (P.W.3) claimed to be injured due to firing by Achintya, but no injury report was exhibited to prove such fact. Although there is some reference to bullet injury in the injury report (Ext.3) of Gobinda (P.W.5) prepared by P.W. 9, it is not the prosecution case Gobinda had suffered bullet injury at the behest of Achintya. Hence, I am of the opinion that the role ascribed to Achintya in firing bullets in the course of the incident on the exhortation of Bimal has not been proved beyond doubt. 27. Hence, I am of the opinion that the role ascribed to Achintya in firing bullets in the course of the incident on the exhortation of Bimal has not been proved beyond doubt. 27. With regard to the dying declaration made by the victim to P.Ws.1, 4 and 6, I do not consider it prudent to rely on their depositions with regard to the said dying declaration made to them at the place of occurrence or during shift of the victim to the hospital. Had such dying declaration come from the lips of the deceased, it would have certainly found place in the first information report lodged by P.W.1, Shyamapda Sen who was present not only at the place of occurrence but had also helped to shift the victim to the hospital. No doubt, Shyamapada and other witnesses referred to the so-called dying declaration in their deposition in Court, but significant omission of such fact in the first information report is a telling one eroding the truthfulness of the witnesses with regard to the purported dying declaration made to them by the deceased. 28. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, I hold that the Atul Biswas, Anil Biswas, Binay Sarkar and Haren Sikdar @ Haren who had assaulted Anup with deadly weapons resulting in serious injuries and ultimate death shared common intention to cause the death of the victim. 29. However, there is hardly any evidence that the other appellants, namely, Achintya Biswas, Madan Biswas, Bimal Biswas, Niranjan Biswas and Manoranjan Biswas had participated in the assault of the victim resulting in his death. Hence, I am of the opinion that it cannot be said that the said appellants shared common object or common intention with others to cause death of the victim and ought to be acquitted of the charges levelled against them. 30. Accordingly, I hold that the appellants, namely, Anil Biswas, Atul Biswas, Binay Sarkar and Haren Sikdar @ Haren shared the common intention to cause death of the victim Anup and hence, they are liable to be convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The said appellants had been charged under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC during trial. Their roles in the assault of the victim (unlike the other appellants) have been specifically stated by P.Ws.1, 3, 7 and 8 which is supported by medical evidence. The said appellants had been charged under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC during trial. Their roles in the assault of the victim (unlike the other appellants) have been specifically stated by P.Ws.1, 3, 7 and 8 which is supported by medical evidence. They were fully aware of their roles in the assault of the victim which resulted in his death. Hence, conversion of their conviction from Section 302/149 IPC to Section 302/34 IPC, in my opinion, does not cause prejudice to them or occasion failure of justice. 31. In the course of the aforesaid incident, Madan and Niranjan had assaulted Nirapada with daa and lathi resulting in injuries which is supported by medical evidence (Ext.4). Other appellants did not attack the said victim and as the incident had occurred in the course of a commotion on a land which is the subject matter of a civil litigation instituted by some of the appellants, I am of the opinion that the other appellants cannot be said to have shared common object with Madan and Niranjan in attempting to murder Narapada. In the facts of the case, even Madan and Niranjan do not appear to have attempted to murder Nirapada. P.W. 9 who treated Nirapada did not state the injuries on the victim were such that might have caused death of the victim. Hence, while acquitting other appellants of the charge under sections 307/149 IPC, I convert the conviction of Madan and Niranjan to sections 325/34 IPC for assaulting Nirapada. 32. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, I hold that the appellants, namely, Atul Biswas, Anil Biswas, Binay Sarkar and Haren Sikdar are guilty of commission of offence punishable under Section 302 /34 for the murder of Anup and they are directed to suffer imprisonment for life each and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-each, in default to suffer imprisonment for two years more. 33. Appellants, namely, Madan Biswas and Niranjan Biswas are found guilty for commission of offence under Section 325/34 for assault on Nirapada and they are liable to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three (3) years each and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-each, in default to suffer imprisonment for six months more. 34. Other appellants, namely, Achintya Biswas, Bimal Biswas and Monoranjan Biswas are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. 35. 34. Other appellants, namely, Achintya Biswas, Bimal Biswas and Monoranjan Biswas are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. 35. The bail bonds of the appellants, namely, Atul Biswas, Anil Biswas, Binay Sarkar, Haren Sikdar, Madan Biswas and Niranjan Biswas are cancelled and they are directed to surrender before the trial court and serve out their sentences in accordance with law failing which the trial court shall resort to appropriate measures against them for execution of the sentence in accordance with law. 36. Period of detention suffered by the appellants, namely, Atul, Anil, Binoy, Haren, Madan and Niranjan during investigation, inquiry and trial shall be set off against their substantive sentences under Section 428 of Code of Criminal Procedure. 37. Appellants, namely, Achintya Biswas, Bimal Biswas and Monoranjan Biswas shall be discharged from their bail bonds after expiry of six months in terms of Section 437A Cr.P.C. 38. With the aforesaid modifications, all the appeals are disposed of. 39. I record my appreciation for the assistance rendered by Ms. Baisali Basu as amicus curiae to this Court for disposing the appeal. 40. Copy of the judgment along with L.C.R. be sent down to the trial court at once. 41. Urgent Photostat Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied expeditiously after complying with all necessary legal formalities. I agree.