JUDGMENT : As both these appeals arise out of the same impugned Judgment, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common Judgment. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the State. 3. The appellants are aggrieved by the impugned Judgment of conviction dated 6th June 2007 and Order of sentence dated 19.06.2007, passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Pakur, in S.C. No.192 of 2006, whereby, all the five appellants have been found guilty and convicted for the offence under Sections 302 / 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Upon hearing on the point of sentence, the appellants have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for life for the said offence. 4. The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant Martha Hembram, the wife of the deceased Hopna Besra, recorded on 25.07.2006 at 10.00 A.M., in the morning at her uncultivated field near village Talpahari, P.S. Littipara, District Pakur, wherein, she has stated that on the same day at about 6.00 A.M., she had gone to her field along with her husband Hopna Besra. Her husband was putting ridge in the field, while she was standing on the path by the side of the field. In the meantime at about 7.00 A.M., the accused persons, namely, Narendra Tudu, Matal Marandi, Chunda Marandi, Bodo Marandi and Tenish Marandi, variously armed with knife, bows and arrows, lathi etc., came there and surrounded her husband and started assaulting him. Narendra Tudu, who was armed with knife, assaulted her husband causing injury at his elbow and chest, and he also assaulted her husband by arrow causing injuries near his eyes and leg. The other accused persons also assaulted her husband by lathi and knife, badly injuring him, due to which, he fell down unconscious. When she tried to save her husband, she was threatened by Narendra Tudu. When the accused persons fled away, she came near her husband and soon thereafter, her husband died. She has stated that the occurrence had taken place, due to land dispute between the parties and in the recent past, the accused persons had taken away their cattle, for which also, the police case was instituted. When the accused persons fled away, she came near her husband and soon thereafter, her husband died. She has stated that the occurrence had taken place, due to land dispute between the parties and in the recent past, the accused persons had taken away their cattle, for which also, the police case was instituted. Claiming that her husband was assaulted to death by the aforesaid accused persons, the fardbeyan was given by the informant, on the basis of which, Littipara P.S. Case No.39 of 2006, corresponding to G.R. No.442 of 2006, was instituted against the named accused persons, for the offence under Sections 302 / 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and investigation was taken up. Upon investigation, the police submitted the charge-sheet in the case. 5. After commitment of the case to the Court of Session, charge was framed against all the five accused persons for the offence under Sections 302 / 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and upon the accused persons’ pleading not guilty and claiming to be tried, they were put to trial. In course of trial, eight witnesses were examined by the prosecution, including the I.O. and Doctor, who had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased. Out of the material witnesses examined, P.W.-1 Churka Hansda and P.W.-3 Budhan Tudu have tuned hostile, and they have not supported the prosecution case at all. 6. P.W.-6 Martha Hembram is the informant in the case and the wife of the deceased. This witness has supported the case as eyewitness to the occurrence, stating that the occurrence had taken place on a Tuesday, on 25th July 2006, at about 7.00 A.M. in the morning. She had gone to her field along with her husband Hopna Besra, for putting the ridge, when Narendra Tudu, Matal Marandi, Chunda Marandi, Bodo Marandi and Tenish Marandi came there variously armed with bows and arrows, knife, tangi, lathi, etc. They started assaulting her husband by their weapons, due to which, her husband fell down. His bones were also fractured and he sustained injuries in his head, chest and near the eyes. When she tried to save her husband, she was threatened by the accused and when the accused persons fled away, she came near her husband and found him dead. His bones were also fractured and he sustained injuries in his head, chest and near the eyes. When she tried to save her husband, she was threatened by the accused and when the accused persons fled away, she came near her husband and found him dead. She has stated that the occurrence had taken place, due to land dispute between the parties, and prior to the occurrence also, the accused persons had committed the theft of their cattle on 27th June 2006, for which a case was lodged, and due to this enmity, the accused persons had committed the murder of her husband. She gave the fardbeyan to the police at the place of occurrence itself, and finding the same to be true, she put her signature on the fardbeyan, which on her identification, was marked Ext.-1. She has identified the accused persons in the Court. In her cross-examination, her attention was drawn towards her statements given before the police, but they are not of much importance, in as much as, nothing was asked regarding the assaults made upon the deceased by the accused persons, or that she was not the eyewitness to the occurrence. She has stated in her cross-examination that she had reached the field along with her husband at about 6.00 A.M., in the morning and at that time, some persons were working in the nearby fields, in which Manwel Marandi and Ravan Tudu etc., were there. She has also stated that when the accused persons were assaulting her husband, she raised the alarm, whereupon the villagers came there, but they also fled away, in which, Som Marandi was also there. She has further stated that the dead body was taken to Pakur Hospital and she had given her statement to the police at about 9.30 A.M., in the morning. She has stated that from the time, the occurrence had taken place, till the police had arrived, she remained at the place of occurrence itself. This witness has also stated that the police was informed through telephone by Som Besra, who is her brother-in-law. Her husband had received the arrow injury on elbow, above and below the knee, and on other parts of the body also. She has stated that there were sixteen injuries on her husband. This witness has also stated that the police was informed through telephone by Som Besra, who is her brother-in-law. Her husband had received the arrow injury on elbow, above and below the knee, and on other parts of the body also. She has stated that there were sixteen injuries on her husband. She has also stated that at the time of occurrence, her husband was putting ridge in the field, and he had fallen down in the field after the assaults. She has denied the suggestions to have falsely implicated the accused and to have given false evidence, due to previous enmity. 7. P.W.-4 Som Besra is the brother of the deceased, and P.W.-5 Sandeep Besra is the son of the deceased, and both these witnesses have supported the prosecution case as eyewitness to the occurrence. P.W.-4 Som Besra has stated that at the time of occurrence, he was in his house, when his bhabhi came weeping and informed that the aforesaid accused persons were assaulting her husband, whereupon, he rushed to the field and found all the five named accused persons assaulting his brother by lathi, knife and bows and arrows, and when he reached there, the accused persons fled away. He has stated that the occurrence had taken place due to the previous enmity. P.W.-5 Sandeep Besra has stated that upon hearing noise, he went towards the place of occurrence and saw that the accused persons were assaulting his father. He has stated that Narendra Tudu had assaulted his father by arrow and knife, Matal Marandi and Chunda Marandi had also assaulted his father by bows and arrows and tangi, and Bodo Marandi and Tenish Marandi had also assaulted his father by knife and lathi, due to which, he fell down and died. Thereafter, the accused persons fled away. By the time, he reached near his father, his father was dead. He has also stated that the occurrence had taken place due to the land dispute between the parties. In their cross-examination, though P.W.-5 Sandeep Besra has denied the knowledge about the murder of the father of the accused Matal Marandi, but P.W.-4 Som Besra has admitted that he along with his father and brother had been convicted in the murder case of the father of accused Matal Marandi. P.W.-5 Sandeep Besra has also stated that when he heard the noise, his mother was in the house. P.W.-5 Sandeep Besra has also stated that when he heard the noise, his mother was in the house. Though their attention were drawn towards their statements given before the police, but that is not of much importance, as there is nothing to show that these witnesses were not the eyewitnesses to the occurrence. 8. P.W.-2 Raska Besra has also claimed to be the eyewitness to the occurrence saying that at the time of occurrence, he was working in the nearby field, when all the accused persons assembled there and assaulted the deceased causing his death. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that he was also convicted in the murder case of the father of the accused Matal Marandi. His attention was drawn towards his statements before the police, and the contradictions taken from the I.O., P.W.-7 Sanjay Kumar, would show that he was actually not the eyewitness to the occurrence. 9. P.W.-8 Dr. Shyam Prasad Bhagat had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased on the date of occurrence itself, i.e., on 25.07.2006, and had found the following injuries on the dead body:- Ante-mortem injuries:- (i) Abrasion over right upper chest 3” x 1/4”. (ii) Lacerated wound over forehead 1” x 1/2” x bone deep. (iii) Left arm defused swelling clinically fracture of underline bone. (iv) Penetrating wound left elbow region on lateral aspect 1 1/2” x 1/2” x bone deep. (v) Left wrist dorsal aspect lacerated wound 1/2” x 1/4” x bone deep. (vi) Right forearm defused swelling with fracture of both bones. (vii) Defused swelling right arm, fracture of right humorous bone. (viii) Defused swelling left thigh with fracture of right femur bone. (ix) Penetrating wound 1/2” x 1/2” x bone deep lateral aspect of thigh. (x) Left mid leg penetrating wound 1” x 1/2” x bone deep. (xi) Penetrating wound left lower aspect of leg 1/2” x 1/2” x 1/2”. (xii) Defused swelling left temporal region of scalp. On Dissection:- Brain:-fracture of left temporal bone with depressed bones. Sub-dural haematoma of left side of brain. Brain matter and meninges found lacerated left side. Chest:-Lungs found N.A.D. Heart:-Both chambers empty. Abdomen:-Stomach empty, liver, kidney and spleen-N.A.D. Small and Large intestine was filled with fecal matter and gasses. Bladder was empty. On dissection of Limbs:- Fracture of right and left humerous bones. Fracture of both femur bones. Fracture of left forearm bones-Radius and ulna. Brain matter and meninges found lacerated left side. Chest:-Lungs found N.A.D. Heart:-Both chambers empty. Abdomen:-Stomach empty, liver, kidney and spleen-N.A.D. Small and Large intestine was filled with fecal matter and gasses. Bladder was empty. On dissection of Limbs:- Fracture of right and left humerous bones. Fracture of both femur bones. Fracture of left forearm bones-Radius and ulna. Fracture of right leg bones-Tibea and fabula found. He has stated that injuries were caused by hard and blunt substance and sharp and pointed weapons, and the cause of death was due to extensive hemorrhage in the internal and head injuries. He has proved the post-mortem report to be in his pen and signature, which was marked as Exhibit-3. 10. P.W.-7 Sanjay Kumar is the I.O. of the case. He has stated that on 25.4.2006 (should be 25.7.2006), he was posted as officer-Incharge of Littipara Police Station, and on that date at about 8.45 A.M., he received a telephonic information that someone was murdered at village Talpahari. He entered the station diary entry about the information and proceeded towards the place of occurrence along with police party, and in the way, he also met the village Chaukidar, who also accompanied them. He came to the place of occurrence, where he found the dead body, and he recorded the fardbeyan of the informant Martha Hembram, which he has proved, and was marked Exhibit-1/1. He also prepared the inquest report of the dead body, which he has proved and the same was marked Exhibit-2. He recorded the re-statement of the informant. He has given the details of the place of occurrence, which is the agricultural field of the deceased, where the dead body was left by the accused persons. The place of occurrence is at a distance of about hundred meter from Talpahari village. He recorded the statements of the witnesses. On 31st August 2006 he arrested the accused Matal Marandi and the other accused persons surrendered in the Court. He received the post-mortem report and after completing the investigation, he submitted the charge-sheet in the case. In his cross-examination, this witness has stated that he had received telephonic information about the occurrence, but he has no knowledge as to who had given the information on the phone. He received the post-mortem report and after completing the investigation, he submitted the charge-sheet in the case. In his cross-examination, this witness has stated that he had received telephonic information about the occurrence, but he has no knowledge as to who had given the information on the phone. He has stated that the place of occurrence is the own land of the informant and the dead body was also found in the same land by the side of ridge. He did not find any incriminating article near the dead body, which could be seized. He recorded the statements of few villagers, but the others were not ready to give their statements. In his cross-examination this witness has stated that the witness Raska Besra had not stated before him that he was working near the place of occurrence, rather he had stated that he went there upon hearing the noise in the village. This shows that P.W.-2 Raska Besra was not the eyewitness to the occurrence. Though his attention was also drawn towards the statements of P.W.-4 Som Besra and P.W.-6 Martha Hembram, but they are not of much importance. He has denied the suggestion of making faulty investigation. 11. The statements of the accused persons were recorded under section 313 of the Cr.P.C., wherein they have denied the evidence against them. No evidence was adduced by the defence. On the basis of the materials on record, the Trial Court below has convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforesaid. 12. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the impugned Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence passed by the Trial Court below, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law, in as much as, the enmity is admitted between the parties and the witnesses supporting the prosecution case are only the near relatives and highly interested witnesses, being the brother, son and wife of the deceased. It is also submitted that P.W.-2 Raska Besra had tried to support the case as eyewitness to the occurrence, but it was due to the admitted enmity with him and accused persons, as he has admitted to have been convicted in the murder case of the father of the accused Matal Marandi, and from the evidence of the I.O, it is apparent that he is not the eyewitness to the occurrence. Learned counsel further submitted that even though the informant has stated that at the place of occurrence, Manwel Marandi and Ravan Tuddu were also there, but these witnesses have not been examined by the prosecution. Learned counsel submitted that even the informant, being the eyewitness to the occurrence, is disputed by her son P.W.-5 Sandeep Besra, in as much as, he has stated that he had gone to the place of occurrence upon hearing the noise, and at that time, his mother was in the house. It is further submitted that no incriminating article, or any weapon of offence was seized near the dead body, which makes the prosecution story doubtful. Learned counsel further submitted that in view of the admitted land dispute between the parties, as also in view of the fact that the witnesses have admitted that they have been convicted in the murder case of the father of the accused Matal Marandi, even though the witnesses have supported the prosecution case, the appellants ought to have been given the benefits of doubt. 13. Learned counsel for the state on the other hand has opposed the prayer submitting that the prosecution case is fully supported by P.W.-2 Raska Besra, P.W.-4 Som Besra, P.W.-5 Sandeep Besra and P.W.-6 Martha Hembram, by giving the vivid details of the occurrence, and all these witnesses have stated that all the accused persons had assaulted the deceased with the weapons in their hands. The ocular evidence of these witnesses is fully corroborated by P.W.-8 Dr. Shyam Prasad Bhagat and the post-mortem report proved by him as Exhibit-3, in which twelve injuries were found on the dead body of the deceased, caused by hard and blunt, sharp cutting, as also by penetrating weapons. Learned counsel further submitted that though there may be some small discrepancies in the evidences of the witnesses, but there is no discrepancy as regards the place of occurrence, time of occurrence and manner of occurrence, and accordingly, the prosecution has been able to be bring home charge against the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubts, and there is no illegality in the impugned Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence passed by the Trial Court below. 14. 14. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and upon going through the evidence on record, we find that the prosecution case is fully supported by P.W.-4 Som Besra, the brother of the deceased, P.W.-5 Sandeep Besra, the son of the deceased and the informant P.W.-6 Martha Hembram, the wife of the deceased. Though these witnesses have been extensively cross-examined by the defence, but they have stood the test of cross-examination with few minor discrepancies. P.W.-5 Sandeep Besra's statement in his cross-examination, that his mother was also in the house, is also only the discrepancy in his evidence, in as much as, neither the attention of P.W.-6 Martha Hembram, nor of the I.O. P.W.-7 Sanjay Kumar was drawn to show that she was not the eyewitness to the occurrence. P.W.-2 Raska Besra, though supported the case as eyewitness to the occurrence, but the evidence of the I.O. creates doubt about his being the eyewitness to the occurrence. Even discarding his evidence, we are of the considered view that the prosecution has been fully able to bring home charge against all the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubts, on the basis of the evidences of P.W.-4 Som Besra, P.W.-5 Sandeep Besra and P.W.-6 Martha Hembram, and their ocular evidences being fully corroborated by the medical evidence of P.W.-8 Dr. Shyam Prasad Bhagat, and the post-mortem report proved by him as Exhibit-3, which show that the deceased had sustained injuries on his head and other parts of the body, and out of 12 injuries on the dead body, four injuries were found to be penetrating injuries, including on the eyes and leg of the deceased, as stated by the witnesses. We also find that there is no discrepancy as regards the place of occurrence, time of occurrence and manner of occurrence. Merely because of the fact that there was admitted enmity between both the sides, or that there is no seizure of any weapon of offence, or any other incriminating article, or that no other independent witness was examined, the evidences of these eyewitnesses, who are the natural eyewitnesses, and have stood the test of cross-examination, cannot be discarded. Merely because of the fact that there was admitted enmity between both the sides, or that there is no seizure of any weapon of offence, or any other incriminating article, or that no other independent witness was examined, the evidences of these eyewitnesses, who are the natural eyewitnesses, and have stood the test of cross-examination, cannot be discarded. We are of the considered view that the prosecution has been able to bring home charge against all the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubts, and there is no illegality in the impugned Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence passed by the Trial Court below. 15. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any illegality in the impugned Judgment of conviction dated 6th June 2007 and Order of sentence dated 19.06.2007, passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Pakur, in S.C. No.192 of 2006, convicting and sentencing the appellants Narendra Tudu, Chunda Marandi, Matal Marandi, Bodo Marandi and Tenish Marandi, for the offence under Sections 302 / 34 of the Indian Penal Code, which we hereby, affirm. All the appellants are already in custody, undergoing the sentence. 16. Before parting with this Judgment, we wish to record that P.W.-6 Martha Hembram, is the victim of the crime, being the widow of the deceased, who has lost her husband due to the offence committed by the accused persons. She should be duly compensated under the Victim Compensation Scheme, under Section 357-A of the Cr.P.C. We accordingly, direct the Member Secretary, Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority, Ranchi, to take up the matter with the concerned District Legal Services Authority, so that she may be duly compensated at an early date. Let a copy of this Judgment be sent to the Member Secretary, Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority, Ranchi, for the needful. 17. We do not find any merit in both these appeals, which are accordingly, dismissed. Let the Lower Court Records be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith, along with a copy of this Judgment.