JUDGMENT : SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, J. 1. In Sessions Trial Case No. 201 of 2010, Chhota Bari @ Chota ( Dumbi Bari, Mathura Bari @ Doctor, Dilip Tubid, Langra Gope and Jade Gope have faced the trial on the charge under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, IPC). A similar charge was framed against Namsi Kui who is daughter of Mathura Bari in Sessions Trial Case No. 236 or 2011. Both the sessions trials were amalgamated and a combined charge under section 302/34 IPC was framed against the above-named accused persons vide order dated 03.01.2012 for committing murder of Harish Chandra Bari @ Haro Bari in furtherance of common intention. By a common judgment dated 22.03.2014, they were found guilty and convicted under section 302/34 IPC and have suffered sentence of RI for life with a fine of Rs. 20,000/- each vide the order of sentence dated 25.03.2014. 2. Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 258 of 2014 has been filed by Mathura Bari @ Doctor and Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 254 of 2014 is on behalf of the other convicts. 3. Both the criminal appeals have been heard together and by a common judgment are being disposed of. 4. On the basis of the fardbeyan of Rani Devi, wife of Harish Chandra Bari @ Haro Bari, which was recorded on 18.07.2010 at about 05:30 PM near the house of Chhota Bari and Mathura Bari at village Bamebasa, Tonto PS Case No. 08 of 2010 was lodged against Langra Gope, Jade Gope, Dilip Tubid, Chhota Bari @ Chota @ Dumbi Bari and Mathura Bari @ Doctor. Subsequently, on an application by the Investigating Officer, Namsi Kui was also added as an accused in the report. After the investigation a charge-sheet was laid against Chhota Bari @ Chota @ Dumbi Bari, Mathura Bari @ Doctor, Dilip Tubid and Langra Gope and by a supplementary charge-sheet dated 30.01.2011 Tamsi Kui was also sent up for trial, while Jade Gope had remained an absconder. This is of some relevance that the charge-sheet /supplementary charge-sheet was filed against the accused persons under sections 147/148/149/341 and 302 r/w section 34 IPC but a charge was framed against them only under section 302/34 IPC. This is of some relevance that the charge-sheet /supplementary charge-sheet was filed against the accused persons under sections 147/148/149/341 and 302 r/w section 34 IPC but a charge was framed against them only under section 302/34 IPC. In the trial, the prosecution has examined twelve witnesses and produced inquest report, seizure memo, fardbeyan, formal FIR, the application dated 26.08.2008 seeking permission for recording the statement of Rani Devi and Shailendra Bari under section 164 CrPC, post-mortem report and statement of the witnesses recorded under section 164 CrPC. 5. Shailendra Bari PW-2 who is son of the deceased and Nagu Gape PW-6 who is his nephew were declared hostile at the instance of the prosecution. PW-3, PW-5 and PW-7 who are the independent witnesses have also not supported the prosecution case in the Court. Manki Bari PW-1 is the village Munda, Niti Bari PW-4 and Chandmuni Bari PW-10 are daughters of the deceased and Rani Devi PW-11 is his wife. The learned Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa has observed that statement of the informant and other witness were taken by the police in course of investigation and PW-4, PW-10 and PW-11 though related witness have fully supported the prosecution case against the appellants. 6. In paragraph No.25 of the judgment, the learned trial Judge held as under: "25. I find no inherent infirmities or material contradictions in the evidence of eye-witnesses i.e. PW-4 Niti Bari, PW-10 Chandmuni Bari and PW-11 Rani Devi, whose testimony appears to be consistent and convincing through out except some minor improvements in respect of actual role of each accused persons in assaulting the deceased. I further find no force in the argument of learned defence counsel that PW-4 Nili Bari was tortured by her mother to disclose the name of accused persons because her testimony has been remained intact as regards manner and place of occurrence, her presence on spot is not doubted." 7. PW-9, Dr. Nand Kumar Pandey who has conducted the post-mortem examination at 12: 15 PM on 19.07.2010 has found several sharp-cutting injuries, compound fractures and lacerated wounds on the dead body of Harish Chandra Bari. In his opinion the cause of death was severe hemorrhage caused by sharp and blunt weapon which caused shock and his death. 8. PW-9, Dr. Nand Kumar Pandey who has conducted the post-mortem examination at 12: 15 PM on 19.07.2010 has found several sharp-cutting injuries, compound fractures and lacerated wounds on the dead body of Harish Chandra Bari. In his opinion the cause of death was severe hemorrhage caused by sharp and blunt weapon which caused shock and his death. 8. By a detailed judgment, the learned Sessions Judge has held the appellants guilty for intentionally committing murder of Harish Chandra Bari @ Haro Bari in furtherance of common intention. 9. Mr. A.K.Kashyap, the learned senior counsel for the appellants would submit that the informant is not an eye-witness and in any event testimony of PW-4, PW-10 and PW-11 who are related witnesses does not inspire confidence. The alternative argument advanced on behalf of the appellants is that the prosecution has failed to establish that the death of Harish Chandra Bari was caused in furtherance of common intention. The learned senior counsel has taken us to the medical evidence to buttress his submission that all the injuries caused to Harish Chandra Bari were not on the vital part of the while so all the appellants cannot be convicted with tha aid of section 34 IPC. 10. PW-1 Manki Bari who is the inquest and seizure witness has deposed in the Court that the dead body of Harish Chandra Bari was tied with a Mango tree by rope. The police brought the dead body on the ground after removing the ropes which were seized and he has put his signature on the seizure memo. In his cross-examination he has stated that the house of Mathura Bari is at a distance of about 300 yards from the house of Harish Chandra Bari and there are several houses around the house of Harish Chandra Bari including that of Bhim, Chokra Bari and Bahadur Bar. He has further stated that there was a partition between Harish Chandra Bari and Mathura Bari; both were residing separately; there was cordial relations between them, and; they were on visiting terms. PW-4 Niti Bari has stated that her father was killed in the courtyard of Mathura Bari. On hearing cries of children she along with her mother had gone there and found her father tied with a Mango tree. PW-4 Niti Bari has stated that her father was killed in the courtyard of Mathura Bari. On hearing cries of children she along with her mother had gone there and found her father tied with a Mango tree. She has made allegations of assault upon her father with rod by Chhota Bari, Mathura Bar, Dilip Tubid, Jade Gope, Langra Gape and Namsi Kui. From her statements in the cross-examination, it would appear that Mathura Bari was living at a distance of about half kilometer and Langra Gope and Jade Gope were staying nearby. In paragraph No.-7 of her cross-examination, she has stated that "maa batai ki kiska kiska nam balna hai". PW-10 Chandmuni Bari is the other daughter or the deceased. Her testimony is quite elaborate and she has also stated that Mathura Bari and Chhota Bari are her gotias. She has further deposed in the Court that around 01:30 PM her father was going towards the field when he was caught by Chhota Bar, Mathura Bar, Dilip Tubid, Jade Gape, Langra Gope and Namsi Kui. They tied him with a tree and started assaulting him - Mathura Bar, Chhota Bari and Jade with rod, Dilip Tubid with danda, Langra with danda and rod and amsi Kui with tangi. On hearing hulla, she along with her mother, brother and sister had rushed to the place of occurrence and tried to intervene but they were threatened by Namsi Kui. PW-11 Rani Devi who is wife of the deceased has reiterated her statement made in the fardbeyan. She has stated that Chhota Bar, Mathura Bar, Dilip Tubid, Jade Gope, Langra Gope and Namsi Kui brought her husband to the house of Mathura Bari and killed him. She has further stated that she along with her daughters and son had tried to save her husband but they were pushed away by Dilip Tubid, Namsi Kui and Mathura Bari. From her cross-examination, it would appear that she was confronted with her previous statements and a suggestion was given to her that she has not seen the actual killing of her husband by the accused persons. 11. According to the prosecution, Harish Chandra Bari was assaulted by the appellants around 01:30 PM on 18.07.2010 and an information to the police was given by PW-1. 11. According to the prosecution, Harish Chandra Bari was assaulted by the appellants around 01:30 PM on 18.07.2010 and an information to the police was given by PW-1. The Investigating Officer has stated in the Court that the information received by Munda Manki Bari was reduced in writing vide Sanha Entry No. 375 of 2010 and the fardbeyan of Rani Devi was recorded at 05:30 PM. In the fardbeyan, the informant has specifically stated about the place of occurrence which was the courtyard of Mathura Bar. The Investigating Officer has given a detailed description of the place or occurrence. He has found the dead body of Harish Chandra Bari tied with a Mango tree in the courtyard of Mathura Bari and Chhota Bari. The medical witness has stated that the time elapsed since death was 16 to 72 hours - post-mortem was conducted the next day at 12:15 PM. Though the time gap is quite long but it supports the prosecution theory that Harish Chandra Bari was murdered around the afternoon of 18.07.2010. A feeble attempt was made to contend that egress from the house through courtyard is an open space and therefore a possibility that the dead body of Harish Chandra Bari was brought there by someone else cannot be ruled out. It has come in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that the village is thickly populated and there are several houses around the house of the informant as well as the accused persons and Harish Chandra Bari was assaulted in broad day light. In such a situation it would be impossible for others to tie the dead body of Harish Chandra Bari with a Mango tree in the courtyard of Mathura Bari and while carrying the dead body no one in the village would see them. Apart from setting up a case of their false implication, the defence has built a case on the basis of statement of the prosecution witnesses in their cross-examination. PW-l has stated that there was a partition in the family and Harishchandra Bari and lathura Bari were cultivating their own lands. He has further deposed that relationship between both was cordial. PW-3 who is a hostile witness has denied any knowledge about land dispute between the parties. PW-4 has stated that after seeing assault on her father she did not inform anyone. He has further deposed that relationship between both was cordial. PW-3 who is a hostile witness has denied any knowledge about land dispute between the parties. PW-4 has stated that after seeing assault on her father she did not inform anyone. PW-10 has stated that her father had not instituted a case pertaining to any land dispute and PW-11 has admitted in the cross-examination that she has given her statement to the police taking help of her daughter. But, PW-4, PW-10 and PW-11 have remained quite consistent on the core of the prosecution case and they are truthful witnesses. PW-4 has herself admitted in her cross-examination that she has named the accused persons as told by her mother This statement of PW-4 appears to be in response to a suggestion by the defence that she did not know name of the accused, but this cannot be construed to mean that she was a tutored witness and not an eye-witness. About North of the evidence of PW-4, we would indicate that there has been long debate on competence of a child to depose in the Court and vulnerability of his evidence. The prevailing thought in the early days was that the children are able to understand that they would "burn in the eternal fires of hell" if they would lie under oath. The law and judicial opinion in other jurisdictions in comparison to the Indian law are not consistent, whereas section 118 of the Indian evidence Act provides that a witness shall be competent to testify unless the Court considers that he is prevented from understanding the questions put to him, or from giving rational answers by reason of tender years, extreme old age, disease whether of body or mind, or any other cause of the same kind. Evidently, by reason of tender age a witness is not rendered incompetent to give evidence and it is for the Court to form an opinion whether or not the child witness is capable of understanding the questions to accept his testimony. The aforesaid abrasion in the testimony of PW-4 which has been highlighted by the learned senior counsel does not render her evidence unacceptable. PW-10 has on her own stated in her examination-in-chief that the accused persons did not threaten her father in her presence. The aforesaid abrasion in the testimony of PW-4 which has been highlighted by the learned senior counsel does not render her evidence unacceptable. PW-10 has on her own stated in her examination-in-chief that the accused persons did not threaten her father in her presence. PW-4, PW-10 and PW-11 are the close relatives and it is quite difficult to accept that they would conceal the real culprits and by fabricating a false story implicate the innocent persons. These witnesses have remained firm in the Court on their stand that on hearing hulla they had gone to the courtyard of Mathura Bari where they found Harish Chandra Bari tied with a Mango tree and the accused persons assaulting him. In "Mano Dutt v. State of UP" (2012) 4 SCC 79 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that there is no bar in law in examining the family members or any other person as witnesses and more often than not, in such cases involving family members of both sides, it is a member of the family or a friend who comes to rescue the injured. It was further observed that such persons alone are the people who take the risk of sustaining injuries by jumping into such a quarrel and trying to defuse the crisis. The evidence of PW-4, PW-10 and PW-11 has portrayed a similar situation in the present case. In our opinion, not only there was little time for the prosecution witnesses who are village ladies to fabricate a false case about murder of Harish Chandra Bari the evidence of the Investigating Officer who found his dead body tied with a Mango tree in the courtyard of Mathura Bari is sort of clinching in this case. The Investigating Officer has not found blood marks in the courtyard of Mathura Bari but at the same time none of the witnesses has stated in the Court that he/she found blood spilled on the ground. In our opinion, the mistakes committed by the police during the investigation and failure to seize the crime weapon and in sending the blood-stained clothes of Harish Chandra Bari for FSL report are not such overwhelming circumstances so as to disbelieve the prosecution story about the murder of Harish Chandra Bari in the courtyard of Mathura Bar. 12. PW-2, PW-3, PW-5, PW-6 and PW-7 have not supported the prosecution and they were declared hostile. 12. PW-2, PW-3, PW-5, PW-6 and PW-7 have not supported the prosecution and they were declared hostile. With reference to their statements, the learned senior counsel has strenuously tried to demonstrate that motive for committing murder of Harish Chandra Bari was not established by the prosecution. 13. The testimony of a hostile witness is not rejected in entirety and it is well-settled that a portion of the evidence of a hostile witness which is consistent with the case of the prosecution and to the extent if probablizes the defence story can be relied upon by the prosecution and the defence as well. In "Satpal v. Delhi Administration" AIR 1976 SC 294 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that in a criminal prosecution when a witness is cross-examined and contradicted with the leave of the Court his evidence is not washed off the record altogether and a part of his testimony can still to be believed. In "Syad Akbar v. State of Karnataka" (1980) 1 SCC 30 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that as a legal proposition it is now settled that the evidence of a prosecution witness cannot be rejected wholesale merely on the ground that the prosecution has declared him hostile and cross-examined him. From the cross-examination of PW-2 by the prosecution, it would appear that in his statement under section 161 CrPC he had stated that his father was tied with a Mango tree in the courtyard of Mathura Bari and Chhota Bari and he was killed there, however, in the Court he has flatly denied to have said anything about how his father was murdered. Still, his evidence is not altogether useless for the prosecution and a part of his examination-in-chief whereunder he has said that the dead body of his father was found in the courtyard of Mathura Bari Supports the prosecution case. PW-5 and PW-6 have however professed that they have no knowledge about the occurrence though PW-6 has admitted in the Court that his statement was recorded by the police, and PW-7 was simply tendered for cross-examination. PW-5 and PW-6 have however professed that they have no knowledge about the occurrence though PW-6 has admitted in the Court that his statement was recorded by the police, and PW-7 was simply tendered for cross-examination. The evidence of the hostile witnesses cannot be relied upon by the defence to discredit the prosecution case and, moreover, in a criminal trial motive may become an important factor where direct evidence on involvement of an accused is missing, but, where the prosecution has produced ocular evidence it can prove its case even without establishing motive for the crime. In "Subedar Tewari v. State of U.P" (1989) Supp. (1) SCC 91 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the motive may be known to the assassin and no one else may know what gave birth to the evil thought in the mind of the assassin. There is clear absence of any motive for the informant to fabricate a false story of murder of her husband and that too in the afternoon. 14. With reference to evidence of PW-11, Mr. A.K.Kashyap, the learned senior counsel for the appellants, has drawn our attention to paragraph No.3 of the examination-in-chief and paragraph nos. 19 to 24 of her cross-examination to contend that the evidence of PW-11 must be excluded from consideration and discarded. 15. Before proceeding further, we would indicate that in course of hearing when Mr. A.K.Kashyap, the learned senior counsel for the appellants, insisted that the statements of PW-11 in paragraph nos. 19 to 24 would amount to contradiction but on the Courts query conceded that he has not examined statement of the informant recorded under section 161 CrPC, one of us has read out re-statement of the informant from the original records for the benefit of the learned senior counsel. The reason why we have adopted this unusual procedure is our reluctance to adjourn the matter at the fag end of hearing. Now coming to the point, in every criminal trial there would be some discrepancy in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and it is quite a settled rule of law that exaggerations per se do not brittle the evidence. A witness may not have said everything about the occurrence before the police and he may also forget to depose one or two things in the Court about what had happened on the fateful day. A witness may not have said everything about the occurrence before the police and he may also forget to depose one or two things in the Court about what had happened on the fateful day. A witness may give an exaggerated version of the occurrence and he may say something more or less which compared to the testimony of other witnesses may appear inconsistent, still, it is not sufficient to discard his testimony and label him as not trustworthy. To discredit a witness the defence must show something substantial in the testimony of the witness which goes to the root of the prosecution case. We have carefully scrutinized the materials on record and upon perusal of the original statement of the informant under section 161 CrPC in the case diary, which was debated in course of the hearing, find that in paragraph nos. 3 and 23 of her evidence in the Court PW-11 has substantially exaggerated her own version of the occurrence as narrated in the fardbeyan as well as in her re-statement. 16. In "State of Rajasthan v. Rajendra Singh" reported in (2009) 11 SCC 106 , the witness when stated in the Court about snatching of gun he was contradicted by his statement under section 161 CrPC wherein he had not stated anything regarding snatching of the gun. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that this omission on such a vital point has to be regarded as a contradiction and it creates a serious doubt about the truthfulness of his version of the occurrence. The judgment in "Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta (Dr.) v. State of Maharashtra" (2010) 13 SCC 657 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has made the following observations proceeds on a similar reasoning as in "Rajendra Singh": "32. The discrepancies in the evidence of eyewitnesses, if found to be not minor in nature, may be a ground for disbelieving and discrediting their evidence. In such circumstances. witnesses may not inspire confidence and if their evidence is found to be in conflict and contradiction with other evidence or with the statement already recorded, in such a case it cannot be held that the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. (Vide Mahendra Pratap Singh v. State of U. P.) 33. In such circumstances. witnesses may not inspire confidence and if their evidence is found to be in conflict and contradiction with other evidence or with the statement already recorded, in such a case it cannot be held that the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. (Vide Mahendra Pratap Singh v. State of U. P.) 33. In case, the complainant in the FIR or the witness in his statement under Section 161 CrPC, has not disclosed certain facts but meets the prosecution case first time before the court, such version lacks credence and is liable to be discarded." 17. We do not find any reference of a knife blow by anyone of the accused persons upon Harish Chandra Bari in the statement of the witnesses recorded under section 161 CrPC. We also observe that except PW-11 none of the eyewitnesses has claimed to have seen Mathura Bari and Dilip Tubid slitting the neck of the deceased. The statement of PW-11 that Mathura Bari and Dilip Tubid slit the neck of Harish Chandra Bari with a knife was intended to meet the medical evidence which records that injury Nos. 1 and 2 were caused by sharp-cutting weapon. The aforesaid improvement made by the informant in the Court is of serious consequence and we would discard her evidence to the extent she has made allegation of knife blows by Mathura Bari and Dilip Tubid upon Harish Chandra Bari. 18. The evidence of PW-4, PW-10 and PW-11 which is corroborated by PW-2 to a certain extent is sufficient to establish presence of the appellants, except Namsi Kui, at the place of occurrence. They have played some role in the occurrence has also been established by the prosecution. However, the evidence on record is not sufficient to convict the appellants for murder of Harish Chandra Bari with the aid of section 34 of the Indian Penal Code which reads as under: "34. Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention. - When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone." 19. Section 34 IPC embodies a principle of joint criminal liability whenever a criminal act is done with a common intention. - When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone." 19. Section 34 IPC embodies a principle of joint criminal liability whenever a criminal act is done with a common intention. It is a rule or evidence and does not create a substantive offence by itself and therefore before section 34 is applied against one or more persons it must be established by evidence, direct or circumstantial, that they all shared common intention. In "C. Kunhammad v. King Emperor" AIR 1924 Mad. 229 it was held that the meaning of section 34 IPC is that if two or more persons have individually done a thing jointly the position is the same as if each of them had done it individually. In "Mahbub Shah v. Emperor" 1945 PC 118 the Privy Council has reiterated the law on section 34 IPC enunciated in "Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. King Emperor" AIR 1925 PC 1 and has held that when a criminal act is done by several persons, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if the act was done by him alone." However, a common intention must be distinguished from the same or similar intention and merely because it is shown that the accused persons carried the same intention, independently of each other, section 34 IPC would not be attracted. According to the prosecution six persons have participated in the occurrence - what is the defence or Jande Gope, the absconding accused, is not known, and the medical evidence is that Harishchandra Bari had suffered injuries by tangi and lathi. There was a dispute between Harishchandra Bari and Mathura Bari who are cousin brothers. A piece of land was made cultivable for agriculture by Harishchandra Bari over which subsequently Mathura Bari started claiming a right and asked him to leave that piece of land. It has come in the evidence of PW-11 that the land which was cultivated by Harishchandra Bari was handed over to Mathura Bar. The prosecution witnesses have stated that Harishchandra Bari was caught by the accused persons while he was going to the field. He was taken to the house of Mathura Bari and tied with a mango tree standing inside his courtyard. The prosecution witnesses have stated that Harishchandra Bari was caught by the accused persons while he was going to the field. He was taken to the house of Mathura Bari and tied with a mango tree standing inside his courtyard. There is no evidence on record to establish that the other accused persons had knowledge that neck of Harishchandra Bari may be slit. The doctor has not rendered an opinion that each of the sharp cut and incised wounds was independently sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course though the injury nos. 1 and 2 can be considered likely to cause death, but, in absence of cogent and consistent evidence who has caused sharp cut and incised wounds on the neck of Harishchandra Bari the appellants cannot be convicted for murder with the aid of section 34 IPC. What we gather from the prosecution evidence is that the common intention of the accused persons was to batter him - Namsi Kui was not involved. 20. Now we shall examine whether the appellants had requisite knowledge and intention as envisaged under section 35 IPC which provides that whenever an act which is criminal only by reason of its being done with a criminal knowledge or intention is done by several persons each of such persons who joins in the act with such knowledge or intention is liable for the act in the same manner as if the act were done by him alone with that knowledge or intention. 21. PW-9 has observed the following injuries on the dead body of Harish Chandra Bari: " Rigor mortis absent in both upper and lower limbs, External: sharp cut middle of trrot size 4"x2"x3" upto oesophagus. 2. Sharp cut injury below first injury size 3"x2" upto trachea 3. Incised wound left temporal bone size 3"x½" 4. Compound fracture:- right leg middle of Tibia and Fibula wound shows bleeding and clot size 4"x3"x3", 5. Compound fracture left upper wound of Tibia and Fibula wound shows bleeding and clot size 3"x2"x3", 6. Chest-rope Mark on chest. Size 5"x1½". 7. Left hand tied by plastic rope. 8. Echymosis over whole of back. 8"x1½". Lacerated wound right side forehead size 3"x2". Lacerated right hand extensor region size 4"x2". Lacerated wound right elbow 3"x2" ... 22. Compound fracture left upper wound of Tibia and Fibula wound shows bleeding and clot size 3"x2"x3", 6. Chest-rope Mark on chest. Size 5"x1½". 7. Left hand tied by plastic rope. 8. Echymosis over whole of back. 8"x1½". Lacerated wound right side forehead size 3"x2". Lacerated right hand extensor region size 4"x2". Lacerated wound right elbow 3"x2" ... 22. Harish Chandra Bari has suffered eight injuries on various parts of his body and he was severally beaten by hard and blunt substance is reflected in injury No. 8. From the medical evidence it is quite apparent that he has suffered several grievous injuries and the injuries on the neck must be held likely to cause death. The other injuries are on non-vital parts of the body. The injuries caused on the left temporal bone, fracture of tibia and fibula and lacerated wounds on hand and elbow of Harishchandra Bari are serious in nature but not life threatening. The other injuries caused to Harishchandra Bari which are on non-vital parts of his body and ecchymosis over his whole body provide a hint that the neck injury is handy work of one individual accused. PW-4, PW-10 and PW-11 have given a little different description of assault by each of the appellants upon Harish Chandra Bari and we find that there is clear inconsistency in their evidence as to the weapon carried by the appellants. What is more significant to take note of in the prosecution evidence is that author of these injuries is unknown, particularly, who has assaulted Harish Chandra Bari on his neck has not been stated by anyone of the witnesses, except PW-11 whose testimony in this regard is liable to be discarded. Moreover, the role assigned to Namsi Kui by the witnesses in the entire episode does not show her participation in causing injury to Harish Chandra Bar. We have kept in mind the rural set up of the case and understanding of the rural woman about the technicalities of a criminal trial, but, at the same time the court cannot read something which is not there in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. In the fardbeyan, the informant has stated that Namsi Kui had brought tangi and threatened her. In the fardbeyan, the informant has stated that Namsi Kui had brought tangi and threatened her. PW-4 has made a general allegation against all the appellants of assault upon Harish Chandra Bari by a rod, whereas PW-10 says that Namsi Kui has assaulted her father with a tangi, and quite contrary to her own statement recorded in the fardbeyan the informant has made an allegation in the Court against Namsi Kui that she had brought the knife, It is also important to note that in the Court the informant has not made any allegation of assault upon her husband by Namsi Kui. 23. In the aforesaid state of affairs, we would hold that the prosecution evidence is quite contradictory insofar as Namsi Kui is concerned. The place of occurrence is her house and therefore her presence in the house is quite natural. In our opinion, the conflicting stand of the prosecution witnesses on the role played by her is sufficient to extend the benefit of doubt to her. 24. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence of Namsi Kui under section 302/34 IPC are set-aside. 25. We hold that the appellants, namely, Mathura Bari @ Doctor [in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 258 of 2014], Chhota Bari @ Chota @ Dumbi Bari, Oilip Tubid and Langra Gope [in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 254 of 2014] have attacked Harish Chandra Bari with an intention to cause grievous hurt to him and, accordingly, they are convicted and sentenced to RI for ten years under section 326/34 IPC. 26. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction under section 302/34 IPC dated 22.03.2014 and the order of sentence of RI for life and a fine of Rs. 20,000/- dated 25.03.2014 against all the appellants passed by the learned Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa in Sessions Trial Case No. 201 of 2010 / Sessions Trial Case No. 236 of 2011 are set-aside. 27. Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, the learned APP states that the appellant No.3, namely, Namsi Kui [in Cr.A.(DB) No. 254 of 20 14] is on bail. 28. Accordingly, the appellant No.3, namely, Namsi Kui [in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 254 of 2014] who is on bail shall stand discharged of liability of the bail-bonds furnished by her. 29. Mr. Bhola Tath Ojha the learned APP has informed us that the appellant, namely, Mathura Bari @ Doctor [in Cr. 28. Accordingly, the appellant No.3, namely, Namsi Kui [in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 254 of 2014] who is on bail shall stand discharged of liability of the bail-bonds furnished by her. 29. Mr. Bhola Tath Ojha the learned APP has informed us that the appellant, namely, Mathura Bari @ Doctor [in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 258 of 2014] has remained in custody for more than thirteen years, with remission. However, as regards the other appellants, namely, Chhota Bari @ Chota @ Dumbi Bari, Dilip Tubid and Langra Gope [in Cr.Appeal (DB) No. 254 of 2014] any information except that they have remained in custody for more than six years is not available. 30. Accordingly, the appellant, namely, Mathura Bari @ Doctor [in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 258 of 2014] shall be set free forthwith, if not wanted in connection to any other case. 31. The other appellants, namely, Chhota Bari @ Chota @ Dumbi Bari, Dilip Tubid and Langra Gope [in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 254 of 2014] shall serve the remaining sentence, if not already undergone with remission. 32. The learned trial court shall prepare a fresh conviction warrant against the convict-appellants, in terms of this judgment. 33. In the result, Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 258 of 2014 is partly allowed. Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 254 of 2014 is allowed qua the appellant No.3, namely, Namsi Kui and partly allowed qua the appellants, namely, Chhota Bari @ Chota @ Dumbi Bari, Dilip Tubid and Langra Gope, in the above terms. 34. Let lower Court records be transmitted to the Court concerned, forthwith. 35. Let a copy of the judgment be transmitted to the Court concerned.