JUDGMENT : SUMAN SHYAM, J. 1. Heard Mr. A.M. Bora, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. D.P. Bora, learned counsel for the appellants in Crl. Appeal No. 200/2017, Mr. K. Goswami, learned Sr. counsel appearing as amicus curiae in Crl. A. (J) No. 49/2017 and Dr. B. Ahmed, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants in Crl. Appeal No. 174/2017. Ms. S. Jahan, learned Addl. P.P. Assam has appeared on behalf of the State in all the aforesaid appeals. 2. The Crl. Appeal No. 174/2017 has been preferred by the accused/appellants, viz. (i) Md. Safique Uddin @ Safiqur Rahman, (ii) Nijam Uddin, (iii) Md. Noor Uddin, (iv) Jamir Uddin and (v) Md. Azizur Rahman. Crl. Appeal No. 200/2017 has been preferred by the accused/appellants, viz. (i) Md. Abdul Matlib, (ii) Jain Uddin and (iii) Safique Uddin and Crl. Appeal (J) No. 4/2017 has been preferred by the accused/appellants, viz. (i) Anowar Ali and (ii) Abdul Salam. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 23-04-2011, at about 10:40 p.m. the accused persons, in a body, armed with lethal weapons such as spears, gun etc. attacked the deceased with sharp weapons and also fired gunshot resulting into grievous injury on the body of the deceased Mahibur Rahman leading to his death. The accused persons had also assaulted the wife of the deceased and his 03 years old son causing injuries to them. On 24-04-2011 the brother of the deceased viz. Md. Habibur Rahman had lodged an ejahar before the Officer-in-Charge (O/C) of Hojai Police Station informing about the incident. In the FIR, names of as many as 08 accused persons have been mentioned which are as follows: (1) Abdul Matlib (2) Safiqur Rahman (3) Abdul Salam (4) Nijam Uddin (5) Nur Uddin (6) Jain Uddin (7) Jamir Uddin (8) Ajijur Rahman 4. On the basis of the ejahar dated 23-04-2011, Hojai P.S. Case No. 100/2011 was registered under Sections 147/148/149/358/326/302 of IPC read with Sections 25 (IB)/27 of the Arms Act and the matter was taken up for investigation. On completion of the investigation the Investigating Officer (I/O) had submitted charge-sheet against as many as 09 accused persons including the 08 FIR named accused. Based on the chargesheet submitted by the I/O, the learned trial court had framed charge against all the accused persons under Sections 147/148/149/458/323/302 of the IPC. On completion of the investigation the Investigating Officer (I/O) had submitted charge-sheet against as many as 09 accused persons including the 08 FIR named accused. Based on the chargesheet submitted by the I/O, the learned trial court had framed charge against all the accused persons under Sections 147/148/149/458/323/302 of the IPC. The contents of the charge so framed by the trial court was read over and explained to the accused persons, to which they had pleaded not guilty. As such, the matter went up for trial. 5. In order to bring home the charge, the prosecution side had examined 10 witnesses including the Medical Officers who had conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of the victim Mahibur Rahman and had also treated his injured wife Hafsa Begum and her minor son. The two I/Os, who had carried out investigation in connection with this case and submitted charge-sheet, were also examined as witnesses. After recording the evidence of the prosecution witnesses the accused persons were examined and their statements were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The case of the accused persons was one of total denial. However, the defense side did not adduce any evidence. 6. On conclusion of trial and upon analysis of the evidence available on record, the learned trial court had convicted all the accused persons for committing offences punishable under Sections 147/148/149/458/323/302 IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 01 year and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- each, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment to another 02 months for the offence committed under Section 147 IPC; rigorous imprisonment for 02 years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- each, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for another 02 months for committing the offence punishable under Section 148 IPC; rigorous imprisonment for 03 years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- each, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for another 03 months for committing the offence under Section 458 IPC; rigorous imprisonment for 03 months and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default, simple imprisonment for 01 month for committing offence under Section 323 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- each, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 06 months for committing the offence punishable under Sections 302/149 IPC. All the sentences were to run concurrently. 7. Assailing the impugned judgment, Mr. 10,000/- each, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 06 months for committing the offence punishable under Sections 302/149 IPC. All the sentences were to run concurrently. 7. Assailing the impugned judgment, Mr. K. Goswami, learned senior counsel has argued that the conviction of the appellants is primarily based on the testimony of PWs. 2, 4 and 7 who have been examined as eye witnesses to the occurrence. However, according to Mr. Goswami, a close reading of the evidence of these witnesses would go to show that they had not seen the occurrence. Mr. Goswami further submits that the PW-2 has not mentioned the name of Anowar while recording his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and none of the other witnesses, save and except PW-7, had implicated Anowar. Under the circumstances, submits Mr. Goswami, there is no evidence to convict the appellant Anowar. It is also the submission of Mr. Goswami that from the evidence available on record, if two interpretations are possible, one that is favourable to the accused persons should be adopted by the court and benefit of doubt must be given to the accused persons. Mr. Goswami has also argued that although the witnesses PWs. 2, 4 and 7 have mentioned about hearing gunshots and about the accused persons shooting the victim with a gun, the postmortem report does not mention about any gunshot injury on the victim. Therefore, it is evident that the medical evidence did not support the prosecution case in its entirety. Contending that the evidence brought on record by the prosecution raises serious doubt about the involvement of the accused persons in the incident the learned counsel submits that the appellants are liable to be acquitted by giving them the benefit of doubt. 8. Mr. A.M. Bora, learned Sr. counsel has also argued that none of the witnesses PWs. 2, 4 and 7 had actually seen the incident and therefore, they are not the eye witnesses. With a view to point out the material contradictions in the testimony of these witnesses, Mr. Bora has invited our attention to the evidence adduced by PW-10, i.e. the I/O and submits that the evidence of PWs. 2, 4 and 7 is hearsay evidence and they have only heard about the incident from Hafsa (PW-1) i.e. the wife of the deceased but PW-1 herself did not support the prosecution case. Mr. Bora has also argued that PWs. 2, 4 and 7 is hearsay evidence and they have only heard about the incident from Hafsa (PW-1) i.e. the wife of the deceased but PW-1 herself did not support the prosecution case. Mr. Bora has also argued that PWs. 4 and 7 did not reach the place of occurrence together nor did they see the incident at the same time. Therefore, their evidence is not believable. According to Mr. Bora, these witnesses, viz. PWs. 2, 4 and 7 have falsely deposed so as to implicate the appellants and therefore, their evidence ought to be discarded. According to Mr. Bora, once the evidence of PWs. 2, 4 and 7 is discarded, there is nothing on record to sustain the conviction of the accused persons. Therefore, according to Mr. Bora, it is a fit case for acquittal. 9. It is also the submission of Mr. Bora that the I/O has not brought on record the statement of Hafsa Begum (PW-1) recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and during trial she was declared as a hostile witness. The same has resulted into serious lacuna in the prosecution case, the benefit of which must go in favour of the accused persons. Mr. Bora has also pointed out that since PW-1 has stated that she had lost her senses immediately after the incident and later on regained the same in the hospital, it is not clear as to how the I/O could have recorded her statement on the night of the incident. It is, therefore, the submission of Mr. Bora that the above lapses and lacuna in the prosecution case, raises a serious doubt about the involvement of his clients in the incident. 10. Dr. B. Ahmed, learned counsel for the appellants in Crl. A. No. 174/2017 has adopted the submissions advanced by the senior counsel appearing in the other appeals and submits that the I/O has not proved the G.D. entry made on the basis of the phone call received at the police station informing about the incident nor has the maker of the phone call been indentified in this case. The FIR was lodged on the next day and therefore, the same will be hit by Section 162 of the Cr.P.C. 11. Responding to the above arguments Ms. S. Jahan, learned Addl. The FIR was lodged on the next day and therefore, the same will be hit by Section 162 of the Cr.P.C. 11. Responding to the above arguments Ms. S. Jahan, learned Addl. P.P. Assam has submitted that it is no doubt correct that PW-1 had turned hostile during trial but she is a natural witness to the occurrence and has narrated the entire incident to the I/O implicating all the accused persons. From a close reading of the testimonies of PWs. 2, 4 and 7, submits Ms Jahan, it is apparent that none other than the accused persons were responsible for the death of the deceased. Ms. Jahan further submits that it is possible that the eye witnesses had not witnessed the occurrence at the beginning which took place inside the house but it appears from the evidence that they had seen the incident towards the later part which took place in the varanda. According to the learned Addl. P.P., even assuming that the eye witnesses had seen part of the occurrence even then, they can be regarded as eye witnesses to the occurrence. 12. Insofar as the common object is concerned, Ms. Jahan submits that since all the accused persons numbering more than five had gathered in the house of the deceased in the dead of the night and were later on seen fleeing the place leaving the victim in an injured condition there can be no doubt about the fact that the accused persons were in an unlawful assembly and had the common object of killing the victim. 13. A careful reading of the impugned judgment goes to show that the conviction of the accused persons is primarily based on the testimonies of PWs. 2, 4 and 7 who had claimed to have seen the occurrence. Let us therefore, analyze the evidence of these three witnesses first in point of time. 14. PW-2 Habibur Rahman is the informant in this case and he is also the brother of the deceased. According to PW-2, the occurrence took place at around 10:30 p.m. on 23-04-2011. Hearing the cries of the wife of his brother Mahibur, he went to the place of occurrence and saw that accused Matlib, Safiqur, Salam, Nizamuddin, Jainuddin, Jamiruddin, Azizur and Anowar were assaulting his brother Mahibur with weapons like spear, dagger and lathi by felling him on the ground. Hearing the cries of the wife of his brother Mahibur, he went to the place of occurrence and saw that accused Matlib, Safiqur, Salam, Nizamuddin, Jainuddin, Jamiruddin, Azizur and Anowar were assaulting his brother Mahibur with weapons like spear, dagger and lathi by felling him on the ground. PW-2 has stated that he saw the incident in the glow of the lamp. When his sister-in-law (Hafsa) and nephew Tamizur tried to save his brother, the accused persons had assaulted them too. On a hue and cry being raised, Atabur (PW-4), Sultana (PW-7), Matlib (PW-5), Safique (PW-8) and others had reached. Then the accused persons fled away. Mahibur died at the place of occurrence. PW-2 had also stated that police came and seized a crowbar vide seizure list Exhibit-1, which bears his signature. This witness has further stated that the Magistrate had conducted inquest over the dead body of Mahibur and Exhibit-2 is the inquest report, which bears his signature. He had lodged ejahar Exhibit-3. 15. During his cross-examination, PW-2 has stated that the distance between his house and the house of Mahibur is about 40/50 cubits and the house of Atabur (PW-4) is situated in between the two houses. According to PW-2, Atabur and he had reached the place of occurrence almost at the same time. The incident of assault took place on the varanda which he had witnessed from a distance of 10 feet. The assault went on for about 10/15 minutes. He had seen the incident from the courtyard. He had also seen Hafsa and Tamizur trying to save Mahibur. After 6/7 minutes people started gathering there. This witness has denied the suggestion put by defense side to the effect that the accused persons did not assault his brother and the other injured persons and that he did not witness the incident. He has also denied the suggestion to the effect that he had informed the police by stating that some unidentified persons had assaulted Mahibur. PW-2 has, however, admitted that Anowar’s name is not mentioned in the ejahar. PW-2 could not be shaken during his cross-examination. 16. Md. Atabur Rahman was examined as PW-4. He was also projected by the prosecution side as an eye witness to the occurrence. PW-4 has deposed that on the day of the occurrence he had heard gunshots towards the house of Mahibur. PW-2 could not be shaken during his cross-examination. 16. Md. Atabur Rahman was examined as PW-4. He was also projected by the prosecution side as an eye witness to the occurrence. PW-4 has deposed that on the day of the occurrence he had heard gunshots towards the house of Mahibur. He went in that direction with a torch in his hand and on reaching there he saw accused Safiqur in the varanda of Mahibur’s house. He had a kukri in his hand. PW-4 has also stated that he had seen Nuruddin, Matlib, Jainuddin, Jamiruddin and Salam assaulting Mahibur with weapons like rod, gun etc. in the varanda. When sister-in-law Hafsa came to save Mahibur the accused persons had assaulted her too. PW-4 has also stated that the accused persons had injured his nephew Tamizur. One of the accused persons fired a bullet in his direction, as a result of which, he went away from the place of occurrence. Later, when he came back, he did not find the accused persons but saw the dead body of Mahibur lying there. A crowbar was also lying near the rear door of Mahibur’s house. PW-4 has also stated that his wife Sultana Begum (PW-7) and brother Habibur also went to the place of occurrence. Police came and seized the crowbar vide seizure list Exhibit-1, which bears his signature. 17. During his cross-examination, PW-4 has replied that his house is situated about 25 feet away, towards the north side of Mahibur’s house. From the time he had heard gunshot, it took about 3/4 minutes to reach the place of occurrence. On reaching the place of occurrence, he had seen the accused persons assaulting his brother. He had witnessed the incident from a distance of 10/15 feet. This witness has also remained unshaken during his cross-examination. 18. PW-7, Sultana Begum is the wife of Md. Atabur Rahman (PW-4). She has deposed that occurrence took place at around 10:30 p.m. and she had heard sounds of gunshot coming from the house of his brother-in-law Mahibur. Atabur (PW-4) and she went to the house of Mahibur and saw Nuruddin, Jainuddin, Anuwar Ali running away from Mahibur’s house. On reaching the place of occurrence, she found Mahibur lying dead. Mahibur, his wife Hafsa and their minor son had sustained injuries. Atabur (PW-4) and she went to the house of Mahibur and saw Nuruddin, Jainuddin, Anuwar Ali running away from Mahibur’s house. On reaching the place of occurrence, she found Mahibur lying dead. Mahibur, his wife Hafsa and their minor son had sustained injuries. On being asked, Hafsa told her that the accused persons had killed Mahibur before leaving and also injured her and her son. In her cross-examination, PW-7 has stated that Atabur and herself did not enter Mahibur’s house together. At the time when she had seen the accused persons, Atabur was not there with her. She had seen the accused persons running away from a distance of 25 feet. 19. The injured wife of the deceased, i.e Musstt. Hafsa Begum was examined as PW-1. In her deposition, the PW-1 has stated that on the night of the occurrence, when her husband and she were sleeping, few persons had entered their house with their faces covered. They stabbed her husband with a knife, as a result of which, he died on the spot. When these persons left, she became unconscious. She had regained senses in the hospital. These persons had injured her too, as a result of which, she had availed treatment in the hospital. This witness was declared as a hostile witness and with the permission of the court, she was cross-examined by the prosecution. During her crossexamination, the PW-1 has denied having stated before the police that “the accused Matlib, Safikuddin, Nuruddin, Adbul Salam, Jamiruddin and Jainuddin had trespassed into their house armed with weapons; that accused Matlib, Rafiquddin, Salam and Jainuddin were armed with gun, spear, kukri and ‘sulpi’ respectively whereas Jainuddin had a (illegible) and Nuruddin was armed with a country made gun. They assaulted her husband when he was on the bed. Matlib shot her husband in the chest, she screamed. Salam had injured her 03 year old son with a kukri. He also inflicted injury on her with a kukri. The accused persons then took her husband out of the house and shot him. Nizam struck her husband on the forehead with a sharp weapon.” During her cross-examination by the accused persons PW-1 has stated that she did not inform her brother-in-law (PW-2) who lived separately and her husband had no dispute with the accused persons. The accused persons then took her husband out of the house and shot him. Nizam struck her husband on the forehead with a sharp weapon.” During her cross-examination by the accused persons PW-1 has stated that she did not inform her brother-in-law (PW-2) who lived separately and her husband had no dispute with the accused persons. Her husband had a dispute with some karbi people from Karbi Anglong and that according to karbi people her husband had encroached their land. 20. Dr. Subrata Bonik had rendered medical treatment to Tamizur Rahman and Hafsa Begum on 24-04-2011. He was examined as PW-3. According to this witness, he had found cut marks on the middle of the back with size 3” x ½” x ¼” caused by sharp object on Tamizur Rahman and cut marks on the left forearm interiorly size 4” x ½” x ½” on Hafsa Begum. Exhibit-4 and 5 are the injury reports respectively of Tamizur Rahman and Hafsa Begum which were proved by PW-3 by identifying his signature. 21. PW-5 Abdul Matlib is another neighbour of the victim and he has deposed that on the night of the incident he had heard cries coming from the house of Mahibur. While he was going towards the house of Mahibur holding a torch in his hand, he had seen a man going away by the side of sugarcane field towards the west of Mahibur’s house. He could not recognize that person. He had seen injuries on Mahibur’s body and by that time he had died. This witness was also declared as hostile witness and cross-examined by the prosecution. 22. Dr. Sintaram Hazarika (PW-6) was the doctor who had conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of Mahibur Rahman. The prosecution had examined the doctor as PW-6. In his deposition, the PW-6 had proved the postmortem report (Exhibit-6) by identifying his signature. PW-6 has also deposed as to the nature of injuries found in the dead body which are as follows: “Wounds position and character: A lacerated wound on the forehead just above and medical to left eyebrow size 6” (torn) and bone exposed. Blood clots present in the wound. The lacerated wound is angled downward medially for 2.5 cm. A penetrating wound present over the left forearm anteriorally 8 cm below the elbow at entry size 3 cm x 2.5 cm. Blood clots present in the wound. The lacerated wound is angled downward medially for 2.5 cm. A penetrating wound present over the left forearm anteriorally 8 cm below the elbow at entry size 3 cm x 2.5 cm. The track obliquely upward into the muscles for a depth of 5 cm with a track of 3 cm width cutting muscles, clot present in the wound. Multiple abrasion and bruises on the left thigh and left leg. In thorax A penetrating wound with an entry point of size 3 cm x 2.5 cm with clean inverted margins present in the anterior chest wall on its upper part over the upper part of sternum. The sternum is pierced obliquely downwards and cutting it transversely. Probing done and the probe passes through the track of the wound through the sternum into the mediastinum for 12 cm. Mediastinum is full of clotted blood. Rt. lung is injured cutting through its tissues on its medial part. Bronchioles injured with blood in bronchioles and bronchus. There is no exit point of this wound. Deep penetrating wound at the chest with injury to the right lung as described above along with penetrating injury of the Rt. forearm. These injuries are ante mortem in nature. There are entry point of the penetrating wound with clean inverted margins. X-ray’s of the dead body was done to exclude the presence of foreign bodies as there was an information in the inquest report stating ‘shot dead’ as per eye witness statement. X-ray No. R/R/R/R dated 24.4.2011 reported by Dr. B.K. Hazarika, Radiologist. The report is: Chest - No foreign body is detected in chest. Abdomen - No radio opaque foreign body is seen. Skull - No radio opaque foreign body in the skull.” According to the PW-6, the death of the deceased occurred due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of the injuries sustained by him. 23. Md. Safiqur Rahman (PW-8) is another neighbour of the deceased and an independent witness. He is also a seizure witness and has proved his signature in the seizure list Exhibit-1. It appears that PW-8 had reached the place of occurrence just after the incident. PW-8 has deposed that the occurrence took place on 23-04-2011 at around 10:30-11:00 p.m. Hearing hue and cry coming from the house of Mahibur Rahman, he went there and saw that Mahibur was lying dead on the varanda. It appears that PW-8 had reached the place of occurrence just after the incident. PW-8 has deposed that the occurrence took place on 23-04-2011 at around 10:30-11:00 p.m. Hearing hue and cry coming from the house of Mahibur Rahman, he went there and saw that Mahibur was lying dead on the varanda. Then Mahibur’s wife (PW-1) told him that some dacoits had killed Mahibur. In the incident, Mahibur’s wife Hafsa and her minor son had also sustained injuries. Police had seized an iron crowbar from the house of Mahibur vide seizure list Exhibit-1. PW-8 has further stated that Hafsa (PW-1) had told him that accused Jain, Matlib, Nuruddin, Safiquddin, Salamuddin had assaulted Mahibur. During his cross-examination the testimony of this witness could not be shaken. 24. PW-9 Sumeswar Konwar was posted as Sub-Inspector of Police at the Hojai Police Station on 23-04-2011. He had carried out investigation in connection with Hojai P.S. Case No. 100/2011. PW-9 has deposed that on that day he had made a G.D. Entry upon receipt of information from one person regarding the murder of VDP Secretary Mahibur Rahman. He had conducted investigation on the direction of the O/C of the police station and visited the place of occurrence on the same day. He had seized one iron bar from the place of occurrence vide seizure list Exhibit-1 and had also recorded statement of witnesses who were found at the place of occurrence. He had prepared sketch map and had sent the dead body of Mahibur Rahman for postmortem examination. Inquest was conducted on the dead body by Executive Magistrate Sri P.S. Johori and Exhibit-2 is the inquest report. During the course of investigation, three accused persons, viz. (1) Md. Safiuar Rahman, (2) Nizamuddin and (3) Nuruddin had been arrested by the police from Karimganj and brought to Hojai Police Station on the basis of production warrant. They were forwarded to jail after investigation. On 17-05-2011, he had also arrested accused Abdul Salam from Dimapur and forwarded him to the jail. On 31-05-2011, he had arrested accused Abdul Matlib and Jainuddin. He had collected the postmortem report but on being transferred, he had handed over the case diary to the O/C of Hojai Police Station. PW-9 has also confirmed that in course of investigation, he had recorded the statement of Hafsa Begum (PW-1). On 31-05-2011, he had arrested accused Abdul Matlib and Jainuddin. He had collected the postmortem report but on being transferred, he had handed over the case diary to the O/C of Hojai Police Station. PW-9 has also confirmed that in course of investigation, he had recorded the statement of Hafsa Begum (PW-1). Exhibit-7 is the Case Diary and Exhibt-7(1) is the statement of witness Hafsa Begum which was recorded by him as stated by her. During his cross-examination, PW-9 has stated that he had recorded the statement of Hafsa Begum on 23-04-2011 at around 11:50 p.m. The FIR was lodged on 24-04-2011 at 11:00 a.m. The G.D. Entry was made after receiving the information at 11:00 p.m. 25. Sri Rabin Choudhury was the O/C of Hojai Police Station who took over the investigation from PW-9 and completed the same. He had submitted charge-sheet (Exhibit-10) which bears his signature. 26. There is no controversy about the fact that the deceased Mahibur Rahman had died a homicidal death on the night of 23-04-2011 due to grievous injuries sustained by him on his body. It is also well established from the evidence on record that the occurrence took place on 23-04-2011 in between 10:30 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. whereby a body of persons, in an unlawful assembly, had entered the house of the deceased by breaking the lock of the rear door with a crowbar and thereafter, assaulted the victim with sharp weapon. The post mortem report (Ext-6) also mentions about multiple injuries on the body of the victim thereby indicating that the deceased was attacked by a number of persons. The only question that would, therefore, arise for consideration of this Court in this case is as to whether, there is cogent evidence available on record so as to implicate the appellants/ accused persons in the commission of offences punishable under Sections 147/148/149/ 458/323/302 IPC. 27. As noted hereinabove the prosecution had examined PWs. 2, 4 and 7 as eye witnesses to the occurrence. However, according to the learned counsel for the appellants there is material contradiction in the version of these witnesses and therefore, their evidence was liable to be discarded. Law is well settled by a long line of judicial pronouncements that testimonies of witnesses with minor contradictions/variations which do not go into the root of the matter need not be discarded by the Court. 28. Law is well settled by a long line of judicial pronouncements that testimonies of witnesses with minor contradictions/variations which do not go into the root of the matter need not be discarded by the Court. 28. In the case of Ramappa Halappa Pujar vs. State of Karnataka, (2007) 13 SCC 31 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that some contradictions in the deposition of witnesses can occur since minor variations from the earlier statement made by the witnesses are but natural. 29. In Mustak @ Kanio Ahmed Shaikh vs. State of Gujarat, (2020) 7 SCC 237 the Apex Court has also held that minor discrepancies, if any, in the version of the witnesses is to be ignored. 30. In the case of Subal Ghorai vs. State of West Bengal, (2013) 4 SCC 607 , the Supreme Court has held that sometimes witnesses do exaggerate but the evidence of such witnesses need not be discarded on account of embellishments if it is corroborated on material aspect by other evidence on record. In the light of the law laid down in the above decisions, let us, now examine if there are material contradictions in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, more particularly, PWs. 2, 4 and 7 so as to make their evidence wholly un-reliable. 31. We have already noted that the PW-2 has clearly implicated the appellants Matlib, Safiqur, Salam, Nizamuddin, Nuruddin, Jainuddin, Jamiruddin, Azizur and Anowar by deposing before the court that he had seen those accused persons assaulting his brother Mahibur with sharp weapons like spear, dagger and lathi by felling him on the ground. He has also stated that he has seen the incident in the glow of lamp. In the FIR (Exhibit-3) lodged on the next morning, the PW-2 has mentioned the names of eight accused persons which includes the present appellants. 32. As noticed above, we find that PWs 2 and 4 had reached the place of occurrence immediately on hearing the hue and cry and reached the place within a few minutes. At that time, the assailants had not left the place of occurrence. Both these witnesses have deposed that they had seen the accused persons assaulting victim and his wife. PWs 2 and 4 have clearly implicated FIR named accused Abdul Matlib, Safiqur Rahman, Abdul Salam, Nijam Uddin, Nur Uddin, Jain Uddin, Jamir Uddin, Ajir Uddin and also Anowar Ali. At that time, the assailants had not left the place of occurrence. Both these witnesses have deposed that they had seen the accused persons assaulting victim and his wife. PWs 2 and 4 have clearly implicated FIR named accused Abdul Matlib, Safiqur Rahman, Abdul Salam, Nijam Uddin, Nur Uddin, Jain Uddin, Jamir Uddin, Ajir Uddin and also Anowar Ali. PW-7 has also stated that he had seen Nur Uddin, Jain Uddin and Anowar Ali running away from the place of occurrence. 33. It would be pertinent to note herein that PWs.2 and 4 lived in the vicinity of the house of the deceased and it appears from their evidence available on record that on hearing the hue and cry on the night of the incident, both of them had rushed to the house of the deceased and had reached there almost at the same time. On reaching there, PWs.2 and 4 saw the occurrence when the accused persons were assaulting the deceased in the varanda of the house. However, it is also apparent from the evidence on record that PWs. 2 and 4 did not see that part of the incident which took place inside the house, more particularly, when the victim was being assaulted while on his bed. That part of the incident was witnessed only by wife of the deceased Hafsa (PW-1) and her minor son, both of whom were injured in the incident. Therefore, it is self-evident that having heard about the initial part of the incident from Hafsa (PW-1), PW-2 had mentioned about the same in the FIR. 34. It is also to be noted here-in that PW-7 in her evidence has stated that Atabur (PW-4) and she had reached the place of occurrence together and saw the accused persons Nuruddin, Jainuddin, Anuwar Ali running away from Mahibur’s house. She found Mahibur lying dead. From the above, it is clear that PW-7 had reached the place after the assault was over and when the accused persons were leaving the place. Although, an attempt has been made to project that there is material contradiction in the evidence of PWs. She found Mahibur lying dead. From the above, it is clear that PW-7 had reached the place after the assault was over and when the accused persons were leaving the place. Although, an attempt has been made to project that there is material contradiction in the evidence of PWs. 4 and 7 by contending that although both these witnesses have claimed to have gone to the place of occurrence together, yet, PW-7 had not seen those accused persons seen by her husband i.e. PW-4, yet, on a closer scrutiny of their testimonies, we are unable to accept the said submission of the learned counsel for the appellants. It is clear from the evidence of PW-4 that he had gone to the place of occurrence twice, once at the beginning when he had heard the hue and cry and rushed to the house of Mahibur almost at the same time along with PW-2 but when the accused persons had fired bullet at him, he ran away and returned later when he saw the accused had left and Mahibur was lying dead. From a conjoint reading of the evidence of PWs. 4 and 7, we find that the PW-7 had accompanied her husband PW-4 to the place of occurrence on the second time, i.e. when PW-4 had returned to the house of the deceased. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is material contradiction in their version. 35. Mr. A.M. Bora, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the appellant in Crl. A. No. 200/2017 has invited the attention of this Court to the deposition of the I/O (PW-10) to submit the PW-2 has admitted that he came to know about the incident from Hafsa (PW-1), i.e. the wife of the deceased and therefore, he was not an eye witness. After a careful examination of the evidence of PW-10, we are unable to agree with the said submission of Mr. Bora as well. As noted above, it may be the case that PW-2 did not seen the entire incident commencing from breaking of the rear door of the house of the deceased with the crowbar to the entry of the assailants into the house. The above position also clearly emerges from the evidence of PW-2. Bora as well. As noted above, it may be the case that PW-2 did not seen the entire incident commencing from breaking of the rear door of the house of the deceased with the crowbar to the entry of the assailants into the house. The above position also clearly emerges from the evidence of PW-2. Therefore, it may be correct to say that the PW-2 had heard about that part of the incident from PW-1, i.e. the wife of the victim and accordingly, he had narrated the incident to the I/O, which is also reflected in his crossexamination. However, as noted above, from the evidence on record, we have no manner of doubt that the PW-2 has seen the occurrence that took place in the varanda of the house of the deceased when the victim, his wife and son were being assaulted. Therefore, PW-2, in our opinion, is an eye-witness to the occurrence. Likewise, we are also of the view that PW-4 had also seen the occurrence that took place in the varanda and therefore, he is another eye witness to the occurrence. PW-4 has corroborated the evidence of PW-2. We find that their evidence is consistent and free from any material contradiction. The evidence of PW-2 and 4 read in conjunction with the testimony PW-7 inspires the confidence of this Court that these three witnesses had seen part of the occurrence. Therefore, we do not find any justifiable ground to disbelieve the PWs. 2, 4 and 7. 36. Insofar as the testimony of PW-1 is concerned, she had turned hostile. It appears that soon after the occurrence her statement was recorded by the Police and PW-1 had stated before the I/O giving a graphic description of the incident, implicating the accused persons but during her deposition, PW-1 has not only denied having made such statement before the I/O but she has also practically denied even the fact that her minor son had suffered injuries in the incident. The fact that the son of PW-1 Tamizuddin had suffered injuries in the incident is well established from the medical evidence including the injury report available on record and therefore, it is not difficult to conclude that, whatever be the reason, PW-1 was not speaking the truth before the court. The fact that the son of PW-1 Tamizuddin had suffered injuries in the incident is well established from the medical evidence including the injury report available on record and therefore, it is not difficult to conclude that, whatever be the reason, PW-1 was not speaking the truth before the court. However, it is not for this Court to speculate as to the reasons for which the PW-1 did not speak the truth before the court. Suffice it to observe herein that since PW-1 has been declared as a hostile witness and since she has given a version which is wholly inconsistent with the medical evidence brought on record, her evidence, in our opinion, would not have any probative value in this case. 37. The evidence of PWs. 2, 4 and 7 corroborates the version of each other insofar as the involvement of the accused/appellants are concerned. From their evidence it is firmly established that the accused/appellants, being armed with lethal weapons, were at the place of occurrence on the night of the incident, and they were seen to have been assaulting the deceased leading to his death. The same, in our opinion, would be sufficient proof of the fact that the accused/appellants were in an un-lawfull assembly, acting with a common object, which was to fatally assault the deceased. 38. Insofar as the evidence of PW-4 regarding firing of gunshot is concerned, it may be noted herein that the Doctor (PW-6), who had conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body had clearly deposed about existence of deep penetrating wound in the chest of the deceased. There is nothing on record which rules out the possibility of such deep penetrating wound being caused by a bullet injury. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is material contradiction between medical evidence and ocular evidence in this case. 39. It is no doubt correct that of Safique Uddin and Anowar Ali were not named in the FIR. However, during his deposition, the PW-2 has implicated Anowar Ali. PW-7 has deposed that she had also seen Anowar Ali. The evidence of PW-2, therefore, finds due corroboration from the testimony of PW-7 in so far as the involvement of Anowar Ali is concerned. 40. Insofar as Safique Uddin is concerned, it is correct that PWs. 2 and 4 have not implicated Safique Uddin. PW-7 has deposed that she had also seen Anowar Ali. The evidence of PW-2, therefore, finds due corroboration from the testimony of PW-7 in so far as the involvement of Anowar Ali is concerned. 40. Insofar as Safique Uddin is concerned, it is correct that PWs. 2 and 4 have not implicated Safique Uddin. However, PW-8 has deposed that Safique Uddin was also one of the assailants, who, according to Hafsa (PW-1) had assaulted the victim. We also find that Safique Uddin and Safiqur Rahman are the same person. PWs. 2 and 4 have implicated Safiqur Rahman. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is no evidence to convict Safique Uddin @ Safiqur Rahman. 41. The learned counsel for the appellants have also argued that the I/O had not exhibited the G.D. entry and there is no explanation as to when he had recorded the statement of PW-1, more particularly, since as per her deposition, PW-1 has said that she had become senseless soon after the occurrence and had regained senses only in the hospital. However, we find from the evidence on record that the O/C, i.e. the PW-10 has stated that he along with the I/O (PW-9) had visited the place of occurrence at around 10:30 p.m. on 23-04-2011 and the PW-9 has deposed that he had recorded the statement of PW-1 at 11:50 p.m. The PW-9 had also stated that a G.D. entry was made after receiving the information at 11:00 p.m. Therefore, we are not inclined to accept the arguments advanced by the appellants’ counsel that there was any fatal lapse on the part of the I/O in recording the statement of the witnesses or making a G.D. entry. 42. As noted above, from the cumulative assessment of the evidence available on record we find that the evidence of PWs. 2, 4 and 7 is free from any material contradiction and are also found to be consistent with the other evidence available on record. Once the evidence of the eye witnesses is found to be reliable, the mere fact that motive of the crime has not been established in this case would be of no significance. There is also nothing on record to suggest that PWs. 2, 4 and 7 would falsely implicate the appellants for committing the murder of the deceased. Once the evidence of the eye witnesses is found to be reliable, the mere fact that motive of the crime has not been established in this case would be of no significance. There is also nothing on record to suggest that PWs. 2, 4 and 7 would falsely implicate the appellants for committing the murder of the deceased. We are, therefore, left with no manner of doubt that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the charge brought against the accused persons/ appellants under Sections 147/148/149/358/326/302 IPC beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the learned trial court, in our opinion, was correct in convicting the appellants/ accused persons and sentencing them as aforesaid. 43. For the reasons stated hereinabove, we affirm the conviction of the appellants in Crl. Appeal No. 174/2017, Crl. Appeal (J) No. 49/2017 and Crl. Appeal No. 200/2017. We also uphold the sentence awarded to the appellants by the learned trial court. 44. In the Result, Crl Appeal No. 174/2017, Crl. Appeal (J) No. 49/2017 and Crl. Appeal No. 200/2017 stand dismissed. Send back the LCR.