JUDGMENT : Shree Chandrashekhar, J. Two criminal appeals; Criminal Appeal No. 325 of 1993 (P) and Criminal Appeal No.324 of 1993 (P) (DB), have been filed challenging the judgment of conviction dated 15.05.1993 and the order of sentence dated 17.05.1993 in Sessions Case No.112 of 1991/42 of 1992 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Deoghar. 2. In Criminal Appeal No.325 of 1993 (P), the sole appellant namely, Jaleshwar Mandal has been convicted under section 302 I.P.C and section 323 I.P.C and sentenced to undergo R.I for life for the offence under section 302 I.P.C. In Criminal Appeal No.324 of 1993 (P), the accused-appellants namely, Kehar Mandal, Kolhu Mandal and Dhaneshwar Mandal have been convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I for two years each for the offence under section 324 I.P.C. Other accused-appellants namely, Suresh Mandal, Mangal Mandal, Birni Mandal, Daulat Mandal, Kishun Mandal and Durga Mandal have been convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I for one year each for the offence under section 323 I.P.C. 3. Altogether fourteen persons were named as accused in Karaon P.S Case No.01 of 1991 which was lodged for the offences under section 147/148/149/323/324/307/302 I.P.C, on an allegation that due to assault by the accused persons Budhu Mandal has died and several persons have suffered injuries. During pendency of the case, one accused namely, Basudeo Mandal died. Separate charges under section 307/149 and under section 302/149 I.P.C have been framed against all the accused persons. During the trial, the prosecution has examined 14 witnesses; the informant namely, Govind Mandal has been examined as P.W 12. Brother of the deceased namely, Nunulal Mandal and his widow-Chetni Mandalain have been examined as P.W 9 and P.W 5 respectively. The investigating officer is P.W 13 and the doctor who has examined the injured persons is P.W 10. The doctor who has conducted autopsy over the dead body has been examined as P.W 11. 4. On the basis of the evidences laid before him, the learned trial Judge has held that the accused persons did not share common intention to cause death of Budhu Mandal and, therefore, they must be held liable for their individual acts. The accused-Jaleshwar Mandal has been found guilty under section 302 I.P.C for causing death of Budhu Mandal by assaulting him on his head by a tangi. The accused-Jaleshwar Mandal has been found guilty under section 302 I.P.C for causing death of Budhu Mandal by assaulting him on his head by a tangi. Other accused persons have been held guilty for the offence under section 323 I.P.C and/or section 324 I.P.C for which they have been sentenced separately. 5. During pendency of Criminal Appeal No.324 of 1993 (P) (DB), the appellant no.2 namely, Mangal Mandal, appellant no.4 namely, Birni Mandal and appellant no.5 namely, Durga Mandal have passed away and, accordingly, this appeal qua the appellant nos.2, 4 and 5 has abated. 6. The following submissions have been made on behalf of the surviving appellants; (i) assault on the prosecution witnesses in the second place of occurrence is highly doubtful, (ii) the prosecution witnesses have contradicted themselves and therefore their evidence is not trustworthy, and (iii) conviction of the accused-Jaleshwar Mandal under section 302 I.P.C given the fact that there is no allegation of repeated blow or his acting with cruelty is not justified. 7. The prosecution case is unfolded in the fard-beyan of Govind Mandal which was recorded at 1.00 p.m at Karaon P.S on 03.01.1991. The informant has alleged that on 03.01.1991 at about 11.30 a.m when he and his brother Nunulal Mandal were digging well, the accused-Kehar Mandal approached them and demanded Rs.1000/-. When they refused to accede to his demand Kehar Mandal threatened them and went to his house. Shortly thereafter, the accused-Kehar Mandal along with other accused persons variously armed with farsa, tangi and lathi came there and when the informant and his brother-Nunulal Mandal tried to escape they were surrounded and assaulted by these accused persons. The informant has alleged that Kehar Mandal, Kalu Mandal and Jaleshwar Mandal assaulted him and his brother was assaulted by Dhaneshwar Mandal, besides assault by other accused persons also. In the meantime, Budhu Mandal, Baldeo Mandal and Manbharan Mandal came there and they were also assaulted by the accused persons. 8. Specific allegation in the First Information Report against the appellant-Jaleshwar Mahto is of assault on the head of Budhu Mandal by tangi. It is said that Baldeo Mandal and Manbharan Mandal were also assaulted by other accused persons with lathi. 9. 8. Specific allegation in the First Information Report against the appellant-Jaleshwar Mahto is of assault on the head of Budhu Mandal by tangi. It is said that Baldeo Mandal and Manbharan Mandal were also assaulted by other accused persons with lathi. 9. During the trial in Sessions Case No.112 of 1991/42 of 1992, the entire episode was sought to be split into two parts; in the first part of the occurrence the informant-Govind Mandal and his brother namely, Nunulal Mandal were assaulted and in the second part Budhu Mandal and others were assaulted near the hand-pump (chapakal). 10. Stand taken by the defence was that the prosecution has failed to establish the second part of the occurrence in which Budhu Mandal was allegedly assaulted by Jaleshwar Mandal with tangi and other accused persons with lathi. 11. The prosecution has examined three witnesses namely, Bhatu Mandal-P.W 6, Lilo Mandal-P.W 4 and Govind Mandal-P.W 12 on the first part of the occurrence in which the informant and his brother were assaulted by the accused persons. On the point of second part of the occurrence the prosecution has examined five witnesses; Manbharan Mandal-P.W 1, Baldeo Mandal-P.W 2, Janki Mandal-P.W 3, Lilo Mandal-P.W 4 and Chetni Mandalain-P.W 5. 12. The informant in his examination-in-chief has stood by his ferd-beyan on the basis of which Karaon P.S Case No.01 of 1991 has been lodged. He has stood the test of cross-examination and nothing material has been elicited from him during the cross-examination. He has made a specific allegation of assault by Jaleshwar Mandal on the head of Budhu Mandal. He has also spoken about assault by accused-Kehar Mandal by farsa on his head and accused-Kalu Mandal by sword on his right hand; the accused-Jaleshwar Mandal also assaulted him on his left hand elbow and shoulder. Dr. Shanti Kumar Banerjee-P.W 10, who has examined the informant, has found the following injuries on his person: (i) One sharp cutting incised wound 3¼” x ¼” x bone deep reddish in colouration obliquely situated on the vertex region of scalp. (ii) (a) one sharp cutting incised wound ½” x 1/8” x 1/8” obliquely situated and reddish in colouration on the middle of the thumb finger. (b) one sharp cutting incised wound ½” x 1/8” x 1/8” obliquely situated on the lower part of the little finger right hand. (ii) (a) one sharp cutting incised wound ½” x 1/8” x 1/8” obliquely situated and reddish in colouration on the middle of the thumb finger. (b) one sharp cutting incised wound ½” x 1/8” x 1/8” obliquely situated on the lower part of the little finger right hand. (iii) one bruise mark measuring 2½” x ¾” reddish in colouration on the left elbow joint. (iv) one echymosis 3½” x ¼” reddish in colouration obliquely situated on the left shoulder gurden. 13. According to P.W 10, the injury nos.(i) and (ii) have been caused by sharp cutting weapon and the injury nos.(iii) and (iv) with hard and blunt substance. Opinion of P.W 10 on the injury sustained by the informant corroborates his statement in the court. The informant is further corroborated and supported by P.W 6-Bhatu Mandal. He has stated that he has seen hot talk between Govind Mandal and the accused-Kehar Mandal, who was demanding Rs.1000/-from him. This witness has said that when the informant and his brother tried to escape they were surrounded by the accused persons and Kehar Mandal, Kalo Mandal and Jaleshwar Mandal assaulted the informant and Dhaneshwar Mandal assaulted his brother-Nunulal Mandal. P.W 6 is an eye-witness to the occurrence in the second stage also. He says that he has seen Dhaneshwar Mandal, Suresh Mandal, Mangal Mandal, Birni Mandal and Kisun Mandal assaulting Nunulal Mandal and the accused-Jaleshwar Mandal assaulting Budhu Mandal. Brother of the informant namely, Nunulal Mandal is also an injured witness. He was examined by P.W 10-Dr. Shanti Kumar Banerjee who has found the following injuries on his person: (i) One sharp cutting incised wound 3¼” x ¼” x bone deep vertically situated on the vertex of the scalp. (ii) one sharp cutting wound measuring ½” x 1/8” x 1/8” obliquely situated on the index finger of the left hand. (iii) one echymosis mark 6½” x ¾” reddish in colouration obliquely situated on the left shoulder gurt. (iv) One echymosis measuring 2¾” x ¾” obliquely on the middle of the right fore-arm. 14. P.W 10 has opined that the injury nos.(i) and (ii) were caused by a sharp cutting weapon such as tangi and injury nos.(iii) and (iv) were caused by hard and blunt substance. The prosecution witness namely, Baldeo Mandal-P.W 2 who has also suffered injuries at the hands of the accused persons was also examined by P.W 10. 14. P.W 10 has opined that the injury nos.(i) and (ii) were caused by a sharp cutting weapon such as tangi and injury nos.(iii) and (iv) were caused by hard and blunt substance. The prosecution witness namely, Baldeo Mandal-P.W 2 who has also suffered injuries at the hands of the accused persons was also examined by P.W 10. The doctor has found the following injuries on him: (i) One sharp cutting incised wound obliquely reddish in coluration measuring 2¼” x ¼” x ¼” on the external surface of left lower leg below knee joint. (ii) One bruise 2½” x ½” reddish in colouration with pain and swelling on the left palm. 15. On the question of common object of the unlawful assembly of the accused persons to cause death of Budhu Mandal, the learned trial Judge on appreciation of evidence and the attending circumstances has come to a finding that the accused persons did not share (sic.) common intention. This part of the judgment is not under challenge and, accordingly, we have also examined the individual role played by the surviving appellants in the entire episode. On the individual role played by the accused persons, the learned trial Judge has held as under: 43. -------------------------------------------------------------------And in that occurrence it is alleged that accused Kehar Mandal gave Farsi blow to the first informant, whereas accused Kolhu Mandal struck him with a sword and accused Jaleshwar Mandal assaulted him with Lathi. Similarly accused Dhaneshwar Mandal gave Tangi blow to Nunu Lal Mandal, whereas Suresh Mandal, Mangal Mandal, Birni Mandal and Basudeo Mandal assaulted him with Lathi. Therefore, accused Kehar Mandal, Kolhu Mandal and Dhaneshwar Mandal are held guilty for the offence under section 324 I.P.C, whereas accused Jaleshwar Mandal, Suresh Mandal, Mangal Mandal and Birni Mandal are held guilty for the offence under section 323 I.P.C. And for that they are convicted thereunder. 44. Similarly during the second occurrence which took place near hand-pipe it has been proved on the basis of consistent statement of the prosecution witnesses that accused Jaleshwar gave Tangi blow to deceased Budhu Mandal on his head as a result of which he fell unconscious over there and died subsequently in the hospital. 44. Similarly during the second occurrence which took place near hand-pipe it has been proved on the basis of consistent statement of the prosecution witnesses that accused Jaleshwar gave Tangi blow to deceased Budhu Mandal on his head as a result of which he fell unconscious over there and died subsequently in the hospital. The intention of accused Jaleshwar Mandal is proved from his act that he gave Tangi blow on the head of deceased Budhu Mandal after intercepting him while he was running towards his house with the knowledge that the Tangi blow given by him on the head of the deceased would be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause his death. Therefore, he is held guilty for the offence under section 302 I.P.C. And for that he is convicted thereunder. Then accused Kolhu Mandal has given Tangi blow to Baldeo Mandal, whereas accused Durga Mandal has assaulted him with Lathi. Likewise accused Daulat Mandal and Kishan Mandal assaulted deceased Budhu Mandal with Lathi. Therefore, accused Kolhu Mandal is held guilty for the offence under section 324 I.P.C, whereas accused Daulat Mandal, Kishan Mandal and Durga Mandal are held guilty for the offence under section 323 I.P.C. And for that they are convicted thereunder. In the second occurrence also I do not find any reason to believe that all the accused persons had their common object to cause murder to deceased Budhu Mandal. Therefore, I have held that each of the accused persons has been guilty for his own individual acts. 16. The eye-witness account of the prosecution witnesses; as many as seven out of which three are injured witnesses, is consistent on all material aspects. Having examined the records of the case, we are of the opinion that the learned Sessions Judge has rightly accepted the evidence of P.W 1, P.W 2, P.W 3, P.W 4, P.W 6, P.W 9 and P.W 12, to hold that the prosecution has successfully established assault on Govind Mandal, Nunulal Mandal and Baldeo Mandal by the appellants namely, Kehar Mandal, Kolhu Mandal, Jaleshwar Mandal, Dhaneshwar Mandal, Suresh Mandal, Mangal Mandal, Birni Mandal, Durga Mandal, Kisun Mandal and Basudeo Mandal due to which they suffered various injuries, and assault by Jaleshwar Mandal on the head of Budhu Mandal with tangi. We do not find any inconsistency in the evidence of the eye-witnesses. We do not find any inconsistency in the evidence of the eye-witnesses. In fact, their evidence is corroborated by the medical evidence led through P.W 10 and P.W 11. 17. On assault on the deceased, all the prosecution witnesses have deposed that Budhu Mandal was hit on his head by Jaleshwar Mandal with lathi. During the trial, an attempt was made by the defence to create doubt on the second part of the occurrence, however, the prosecution witnesses have consistently spoken about assault by Jaleshwar Mandal on the head of Budhu Mandal. The doctor who has conducted autopsy has found the following injuries on the dead-body: (i) Sharp cut injury on the top of the Scalp size about 3½” x ½” x over bone deep. (ii) Swelling – blackness on occipital bone towards left size about 3” x 1 ½” x ½” (iii) Bruise marks on the back 18. We find that the ocular evidence is fully supported by the evidence of P.W 11, the doctor. P.W 11 has stated that the injury no.(i) may be caused by tangi and the injury nos. (ii) and (iii) by lathi. Other injuries on Budhu Mandal are due to assault by the other accused persons. The prosecution witnesses have categorically asserted assault by other accused persons also to Budhu Mandal. 19. On scrutiny of the evidences led by the prosecution, we find that almost all the witnesses have named the accused persons, their participation in the occurrence and role played by them. We do not find any error in the approach of the learned trial Judge. He has correctly appreciated the evidences laid during the trial of Sessions Case No.112 of 1991/42 of 1992. On minor contradiction in the evidence of Govind Mandal, what has come on record has to be kept in mind. The informant has specifically stated that he has suffered injuries, particularly, in his hand. He is an illiterate person and, moreover, in the First Information Report a person in distress is not expected to give a graphic detail of the occurrence. After all, a First Information Report is not an encyclopedia of everything what has happened on the fateful day. 20. Having bestowed our anxious considerations to the submissions made on behalf of the surviving appellants, we do not find any merit in this criminal appeal. After all, a First Information Report is not an encyclopedia of everything what has happened on the fateful day. 20. Having bestowed our anxious considerations to the submissions made on behalf of the surviving appellants, we do not find any merit in this criminal appeal. The judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed in Sessions Case No.112 of 1991/42 of 1992 do not suffer from any infirmity in law and, accordingly, Criminal Appeal No. 325 of 1993 (P) and Criminal Appeal No. 324 of 1993 (P) (DB) are dismissed. 21. The bail granted by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Deoghar to the appellant no.3-Daulat Mandal, appellant no.6-Dhaneshwar Mandal and appellant no.7-Suresh Mandal as continued by order dated 16.07.1993 by this Court and the bail-bonds furnished by them are cancelled. They shall surrender in the court concerned, for serving the remaining sentence. 22. Let the lower-court records be transmitted to the court concerned forthwith.