ORDER : Shree Chandrashekhar, J. Four persons, namely, Tej Mohan Singh Munda, Sital Singh Munda, Nayan Singh Munda and Jivlal Singh Munda have been named by Etwari Devi as assailants of her husband Karam Singh Munda. On the basis of her fardbeyan which was recorded at 7:00 a.m. on 24.09.2009, Tamar P.S. Case No. 79/09 was lodged against them on 24.09.2009 under section 324 and section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. In Sessions Trial No. 348/10/T.R. No. 73/11, the above-named accused persons have been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.5000/- under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. During the trial, the prosecution has examined eight witnesses; the informant is PW-5. 4. The learned counsel for the appellants has contended that: (i) the informant who is the solitary eye-witness is not a reliable witness; and (ii) non-examination of the interpreter and non-compliance of the provisions under section 277 and 278 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would render conviction of the appellants unsustainable. 5. Section 277 and 278 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are reproduced below: “Section 277 - Language of record of evidence — In every case where evidence is taken down under Section 275 or Section 276 — (a) if the witness gives evidence in the language of the Court, it shall be taken down in that language; (b) if he gives evidence in any other language, it may, if practicable, be taken down in that language, and if it is not practicable to do so, a true translation of the evidence in the language of the Court shall be prepared as the examination of the witness proceeds, signed by the Magistrate or presiding Judge, and shall form part of the record; (c) where under clause (b) evidence is taken down in a language other than the language of the Court, a true translation thereof in the language of the Court shall be prepared as soon as practicable, signed by the Magistrate or presiding Judge, and shall form part of the record: Provided that when under clause (b) evidence is taken down in English and a translation thereof in the language of the Court is not required by any of the parties, the Court may dispense with such translation. Section 278 - Procedure in regard to such evidence when completed — (1) As the evidence of each witness taken under Section 275 or Section 276 is completed, it shall be read over to him in the presence of the accused, if in attendance, or of his pleader, if he appears by pleader, and shall, if necessary, be corrected. (2) If the witness denies the correctness of any part of the evidence when the same is read over to him, the Magistrate or presiding Judge may, instead of correcting the evidence, make a memorandum thereon of the objection made to it by the witness and shall add such remarks as he thinks necessary. (3) If the record of the evidence is in a language different from that in which it has been given and the witness does not understand that language, the record shall be interpreted to him in the language in which it was given, or in a language which he understands.” 6. Section 277 (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that if a witness gives evidence in a language other than the language of the Court and if practicable it may be taken down in that language, but if it is not practicable to do so a true translation of his evidence in the language of the Court shall be prepared and signed by the Magistrate or the presiding Judge. Sub-section (3) to section 278 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that if the evidence of a witness is recorded in a language different from that in which it has been given by him and the witness does not understand that language, the record shall be interpreted to him in the language in which it was given or in a language which he understands. 7. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the informant knows Mundari language but as stated by the Investigating Officer does not understand Hindi language, however, her evidence was not interpreted to her in Mundari language and, therefore, no sanctity can be attached to her evidence in the Court. 8. Section 277 and section 278 of the Code of Criminal Procedure lay down the procedure how the record of evidence in a Sessions trial has to be prepared. 8. Section 277 and section 278 of the Code of Criminal Procedure lay down the procedure how the record of evidence in a Sessions trial has to be prepared. It is procedural in nature and does not confer any substantial right in a witness except to raise an objection to correctness of the evidence. In contradistinction to section 277 and section 278, section 279 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides a limited right to the accused inasmuch as sub-section (1) to section 279 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that if the accused is present in the Court in person any evidence given in a language not understood by him shall be interpreted to him in open Court in a language understood by him and sub-section (2) to section 279 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that if an accused appears by his pleader and the evidence is given in a language other than the language of the Court, and not understood by the pleader, it shall be interpreted to such pleader in that language. It is nobody’s case that the appellants do not understand Hindi or that their pleader who represented them during the trial does not understand Hindi. The record of the evidence of the informant reveals that her evidence was taken in Hindi in presence of lawyers of both the parties. In so far as objection to non-examination of the interpreter is concerned, we find that no prejudice has been caused to the witness or the accused persons. A glance at testimony of the informant would reveal that the procedure under section 277 and section 278 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was substantially followed when she was examined in the Court. In “Abdul Rahman Vs. King Emperor” reported in AIR 1927 PC 44 , Privy Council has observed that even if the deposition of a witness was not read over to him that would only amount to a curable irregularity and in the absence of prejudice which must be disclosed in an affidavit which shows exactly where the record departs from what the witness actually said, there is no point in the objection. It has been observed that the object under section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (old Code) is not to enable the witness to change his story but to ensure that the record faithfully and accurately embodies the gist of what the witness has actually said. In “Mir Mohd. Omar Vs. State of W.B.” reported in (1989) 4 SCC 436 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that the object of section 278 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is two fold: firstly to ensure that the evidence of the witness as recorded is accurate and secondly to give the witness concerned an opportunity to point out mistakes, if any. If the correction suggested by the witness is one which the Judge considers necessary he will make it at once as required by sub-section (1) but if the correction is such that the Judge does not consider necessary, sub-section (2) requires that a memorandum of the objection be made and the Judge add his remarks, if any, thereto. 9. We find that no objection was raised by the defence when the informant was examined in the court. She has been subjected to cross-examination and from her evidence it appears that she has understood contents of the suggestions put to her during her cross-examination. She has remained firm in the court on participation of the appellants in the occurrence. The mistake committed by the prosecution during the trial would not create any doubt on credibility of her evidence. The present is not a case in which non-compliance of the provisions under sections 277 and 278 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has rendered testimony of the informant doubtful. 10. The independent witnesses – PW-1, PW-2, and PW-3 – have turned hostile and PW-4 is a hearsay witness but nothing much turns on it. They are not the eye-witnesses. According to the informant, at the time of the occurrence no one except her was present in the field where she was picking grass. She has narrated the incident first to her brother-in-law who has been examined as PW-7. 11. They are not the eye-witnesses. According to the informant, at the time of the occurrence no one except her was present in the field where she was picking grass. She has narrated the incident first to her brother-in-law who has been examined as PW-7. 11. It is not necessary that before conviction of an accused is recorded on the basis of testimony of a solitary eye-witness the court must insist on corroboration rather the law is that if testimony of the sole eye-witness is cogent, reliable and trustworthy, conviction of the accused can be recorded on such evidence. In “Bhimapa Chandappa Hosamani and others Vs. State of Karnataka” reported in (2006)11 SCC 323 , the Supreme Court has observed that before conviction of an accused is recorded on the basis of testimony of a single witness the court must satisfy itself that testimony of such witness is of such sterling quality that it leaves no doubt about the complicity and involvement of the accused in the crime. 12. In her fardbeyan the informant has stated that in the evening of 23.09.2009 she was picking grass in the field of Sukhram Singh Munda. It was about 5 O’clock in the evening when Sital Singh Munda, Tej Mohan Singh Munda, Nayan Singh Munda and Jivlal Singh Munda armed with Farsa and Tangi came there, surrounded her husband and assaulted him with Tangi and Farsa. Her husband tried to flee away but they have assaulted him again. She was assaulted by Sital Singh Munda from the back portion of Farsa on her head. Her injured husband had fallen in the field of Gandharwa Singh Munda. Next day her brother-in-law came home and on his information the police has arrived there. In the court also she has reiterated her statement as recorded in her fardbeyan. She has deposed in the court that about two years back, on an evening the occurrence has taken place. The accused persons have killed her husband with Farsa and Jivlal has assaulted her with the back portion of Tangi on her head. Her brother-in-law who has been examined as PW-7 has deposed in the court that at about 3:00 p.m. he was returning from Tamar and when he reached near village Edeldih, he saw the accused persons who were armed with Tangi, Farsa and Balua. Her brother-in-law who has been examined as PW-7 has deposed in the court that at about 3:00 p.m. he was returning from Tamar and when he reached near village Edeldih, he saw the accused persons who were armed with Tangi, Farsa and Balua. They told him that they have killed his brother and threatened him not to lodge a case against them. When he reached his house he did not find his wife there. His wife and sister-in-law along with her child had hidden themselves in her house. His sister-in-law has informed him that when she was cutting grass the accused persons came there and assaulted his brother. 13. The informant is an injured witness. The prosecution has projected her as an eye-witness. She was examined by Ram Julam Mandal at about 10:00 a.m. on 24.09.2009. He has found one injury, size 1” x ½”, on the back of her head. He is a court witness. He was examined during the trial as CW-1. In his opinion, the injury found on Etwari Devi was caused by hard and blunt substance and within 24 hrs. of her examination. The learned Sessions Judge has acquitted the accused persons of the charge under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code on the ground that there was contradiction in the statement of the informant as to who has assaulted her. But, the effect of acquittal of the accused persons under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code is not that the court has disbelieved the part of the prosecution story that the informant has suffered head injury in the occurrence. The evidence of CW-1 corroborates the prosecution story as spoken by the informant. Her testimony is corroborated in large parts by the evidence of PW-7. There was no delay in lodging the First Information Report and why information to the police was not given the same evening has been revealed by her in her fardbeyan. She has stated that the river was overflowing, the terrain was difficult and she was weeping whole night. After her brother-in-law has come home the next morning and she told him about the incident, he has informed the police. The inquest report was prepared at 7:30 a.m. on 24.09.2009. This was done immediately after recording her fardbeyan at 7:00 a.m. and the post-mortem examination has been held at 12:30 p.m. on the same day. After her brother-in-law has come home the next morning and she told him about the incident, he has informed the police. The inquest report was prepared at 7:30 a.m. on 24.09.2009. This was done immediately after recording her fardbeyan at 7:00 a.m. and the post-mortem examination has been held at 12:30 p.m. on the same day. The aforesaid contemporaneous records which were prepared in a very short span of time also corroborate the prosecution’s case. In the aforesaid facts, it can be safely assumed that the accused persons were not falsely implicated in this case. 14. Through PW-5, whose testimony has been sufficiently corroborated by PW-7, the prosecution has proved participation of the accused persons in the occurrence and Karam Singh Munda has suffered a homicidal death is proved from the evidence of PW-8. 15. Dr. Samrina Kamal who has conducted the post-mortem examination has found the following injuries on Karam Singh Munda : “Incised wound: (I) 4 x1 cm into soft tissue back of right arms lower part. (II) 4 x ½ cm x soft tissue back of right palm. (III) 3x ½ cm x soft tissue back of left palm. (IV) 4 x 1cm x soft tissue left shoulder top. (V) 5 x 1 cmx soft tissue right chick. (VI) 9x 1 cm x bone deep on postero lateral right side neck upper part cutting soft tissue blood vessels and third cervical vertebrae partially. (VII) 9 x 2 cm x bone deep on right postero lateral neck middle part cutting soft tissue blood vessels trachea esophagus and fourth cervical vertebrae completely including spinal code. Lacerated wound: (I) 6 x 3 cm x bone deep left parietal region of head with contusion of left temparo parietal scalp and depressed fracture 5 x4 cm of left parietal bone. There is contusion of brain presence of subtural blood and blood clot over left side of brain. 16. According to the doctor, injuries on Karam Singh Munda were anti-mortem in nature. The injury Nos.(I) to (VII) which are incised wound were caused by sharp-cutting weapon and the injury No. (I) which was lacerated wound was caused by hard and blunt substance. 16. According to the doctor, injuries on Karam Singh Munda were anti-mortem in nature. The injury Nos.(I) to (VII) which are incised wound were caused by sharp-cutting weapon and the injury No. (I) which was lacerated wound was caused by hard and blunt substance. The aforesaid injuries on Karam Singh Munda; the lacerated wound which can be attributable to assault by Jivlal Singh Munda and the incised wound are attributable to the assault by Sital Singh Munda and other accused persons, corroborate the prosecution story of assault on Karam Singh Munda with Farsa and Tangi. 17. However, in our opinion, conviction of the appellants under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code is not proper. 18. The testimony of the informant is not consistent on assault on the neck of Karam Singh Munda. In her fardbeyan she has not made any specific allegation about assault by the accused persons, however, in the court she has deposed that Sital Singh Munda assaulted her husband on his neck. Two injuries were found by the doctor around the neck of Karam Singh Munda. The doctor has rendered an opinion that as a cumulative result of the injuries Karam Singh Munda has died. It is not the opinion of the doctor that on account of neck injures Karam Singh Munda has died. Other injuries were not caused on vital parts of the body of Karam Singh Munda. The accused persons have been convicted with the aid of section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and it is consistent case of the prosecution that all of them came in the field of Sukhram Singh Munda and assaulted Karam Singh Munda. They were holding dangerous weapons such as Farsa and Tangi and, therefore, they have shared common intention to assault Karam Singh Munda is proved from the prosecution’s evidence but they have shared common intention to commit murder of Karam Singh Munda has not been proved by the prosecution. It is so particularly in view of the fact that other injuries were caused on non-vital parts of the body of Karam Singh Munda. Some of the injuries found on Karam Singh Munda are grievous in nature. 19. Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code reads thus : “326. It is so particularly in view of the fact that other injuries were caused on non-vital parts of the body of Karam Singh Munda. Some of the injuries found on Karam Singh Munda are grievous in nature. 19. Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code reads thus : “326. Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means.- Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 335, voluntarily causes grievous hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance, or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.” 20. From the prosecution’s evidence it is establilshed that the appellants shared common intention to cause grievous injuries to Karam Singh Munda which were likely to cause his death [refer, Vijay Singh & another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2014) 12 SCC 293 and Rama Meru & another Vs. State of Gujarat reported in 1993 Supp (1) SCC 315]. 21. The appellants, named-above, are convicted and sentenced to RI for ten years under section 326/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 22. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction of Nayan Singh Munda and Tej Mohan Singh Munda who are the appellants in Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 806 of 2012 and Sital Singh Munda who is the appellant in Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 760 of 2017 under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code dated 29.03.2012 and the order of sentence of imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.5000/- for the offence under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code dated 10.04.2012 passed by the learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-III, Ranchi in Sessions Trial No. 348/10| T.R. No. 73/11 are set-aside. 23. Mr. Satish Kumar Keshri, the learned APP states that the appellants have remained in custody for more than ten years. 24. Accordingly, the appellants, namely, Nayan Singh Munda and Tej Mohan Singh Munda in Cr. 23. Mr. Satish Kumar Keshri, the learned APP states that the appellants have remained in custody for more than ten years. 24. Accordingly, the appellants, namely, Nayan Singh Munda and Tej Mohan Singh Munda in Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 806 of 2012 and Sital Singh Munda in Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 760 of 2017, shall be set free forthwith if not required in connection to any other criminal case. 25. In the result, Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 806 of 2012 and Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 760 of 2017 are partly allowed, in the above terms. 26. Let lower court records be transmitted to the court concerned, forthwith.