JUDGMENT : PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. I have already heard the arguments advanced by Mr. Gautam Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants along with Mr. Birat Kumar and Mr. Abhinav Raj as well as Mr. Jitendra Pandey and Mr. Naveen Kumar Ganjhu, learned Addl. P.Ps. appearing for the State. 2. Instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 09.05.2006/11.05.2006 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC-I) West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in Sessions Trial Case No.239 of 2004 arising out of Goilkera P.S. Case No.14 of 2004 (G.R. Case No.109 of 2004) whereby and whereunder, the appellants along with two co-accused persons, namely, Naranga Sirka and Jogen Purty (now deceased), have been held guilty for the offence under Section 304 (Part II) read with Section 34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years. 3. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on 06.05.2004 at about 07:00 a.m., the informant Shanti Korah was at her house, meanwhile, one Kanu Sirka came to her house and asked about her husband, namely, Yadav Korah to attend a meeting scheduled to be held under the Tamarind Tree. It is alleged that the informant was not aware about the reason for convening the meeting but her husband went to the place of meeting, wherein one Randai Kui made allegation that her husband has stolen her hen on 05.05.2004. It is further stated that reality is that informant killed and cooked her own hen on preceding day. Her husband denied the allegations. It is further alleged that the village meeting was presided over by village Munda Ram Rai Sirka (appellant in Cr.A.(S.J.) No.970 of 2006). It is further alleged that on instruction of Ram Rai Sirka (appellant) her husband’s hands were tied from behind and he was hanged with the branch of Tamarind Tree and all other accused persons started assaulting to her husband on face, chest and other parts of the body. Her husband was captured from 08:00 a.m. to 05:00 p.m. Thereafter, he was brought to his home but due to injury sustained by him, he could not take any food etc. and no treatment could be provided due to paucity of fund. It is further alleged that on 08.05.2004, Yadav Korah succumbed to his injuries. 4. Her husband was captured from 08:00 a.m. to 05:00 p.m. Thereafter, he was brought to his home but due to injury sustained by him, he could not take any food etc. and no treatment could be provided due to paucity of fund. It is further alleged that on 08.05.2004, Yadav Korah succumbed to his injuries. 4. On the basis of above fardbeyan of the informant, Goilkera P.S. Case No.14 of 2004 was registered for the offences under Sections 34 1/342/323/304/34 of the I.P.C. against the four accused persons including the appellants. 5. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the appellants along with two co-accused persons for the offences under Sections 341 , 342, 304 of the I.P.C. Accordingly, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where Sessions Trial Case No.239 of 2004 was registered. 6. After Commitment of the case, charges were framed against the accused appellants and two other co-accused persons under Sections 34 1/34, 342/34 and 304/34 of the I.P.C. which were read over and explained to them, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 7. In the course of trial, altogether 12 witnesses were examined by prosecution. Apart from oral testimony of witnesses, following documentary evidence were adduced: Exhibit 1 : Post Mortem Report Exhibit 2 : Signature of Bipin Boipai on Fardbeyan Exhibit 3 : Signature of Bipin Boipai on Inquest Report Exhibit 4 : Fardbeyan Exhibit 5 : F.I.R. Exhibit 6 : Inquest Report 8. After conclusion of trial, all the accused persons including the appellants were held guilty and sentenced for the offence under Section 304 (Part II) read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. which has been assailed in this appeal. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants assailing the impugned judgment and order has submitted that there was dispute about theft of hen between the deceased and Randai Kui. The appellant Tungir Korah is not associated with the alleged occurrence in any manner and no cogent or reliable evidence has been brought on record against him. Similarly, appellant Ram Rai Sirka being Village Munda was obliged to call meeting to settle the dispute but he was not involved in assaulting or directing the other co-accused persons to assault the deceased. Similarly, appellant Ram Rai Sirka being Village Munda was obliged to call meeting to settle the dispute but he was not involved in assaulting or directing the other co-accused persons to assault the deceased. The present appellants have been involved in this case only on the ground that they were responsible for holding meeting and were present in the meeting to resolve the dispute. The village men suddenly got excited and the deceased was assaulted by hands and fists without any intention to kill him for which the appellants are not responsible at all. The learned Trial Court has miserably failed to consider that out of 12 witnesses examined by prosecution, none have attributed any specific overt act against the appellants. The main accused is alleged to be Jogen Purty who had been died and another accused Naranga Sirka who was the main assailant all along remained in custody and has been released after sustaining entire period of sentence which has been reported in this case by Officer-In-Charge Goilkera P.S. vide letter dated 28.01.2025. The present appellants deserve to be acquitted from the charges levelled against them. Therefore, impugned judgment and order is liable to be set aside by allowing this appeal. 10. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutors appearing for the State defending the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence of the appellants has contended that the learned trial court has very wisely and aptly analyzed, scanned and appreciated the prosecution evidence and arrived at right conclusion about guilt of the appellants. The prosecution has proved the charges levelled against the appellants beyond all shadow of reasonable doubt. There is no substance in the points of argument raised on behalf of the appellants, therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence of the appellants and there is no merit in this appeal which is fit to be dismissed. 11. I have gone through the record of the case along with impugned judgment and order in the light of contentions raised on behalf of both side. 12. It appears that in the course of trial altogether twelve witnesses were examined by the prosecution. P.W.1 Shanti Korah is the informant of this case and corroborated the contents of her fardbeyan. 11. I have gone through the record of the case along with impugned judgment and order in the light of contentions raised on behalf of both side. 12. It appears that in the course of trial altogether twelve witnesses were examined by the prosecution. P.W.1 Shanti Korah is the informant of this case and corroborated the contents of her fardbeyan. According to her evidence Kanu Sirka called her husband Yadav Korah and took him away in front of the house of Randai Kui for Panchayati where Jogen Purty and others assaulted her husband by tying him with Tamarind tree from morning to evening 05:00 p.m. Thereafter, Jogen Purty, Narang and others brought her husband to the house and due to injury, her husband died. In her cross-examination, she has specifically stated that on the date of meeting, she had gone to gkV (market) and she was not present at the time of meeting and has not seen the occurrence. P.W.2 Krishna Korah is the son of the informant. He has also stated that Kanu Sirka came to his house and went with his father for Panchayati. He was also present there where Randai Kui told that her hen has been stolen by his father. It was denied by his father, thereafter, Village Munda Ram Rai Sirka ordered to assault his father then Tungir Korah, Jogen Purty and Naranga Sirka tied hands of his father and hanged on the Tamarind tree and started assaulting him. His father was assaulted by sticks, fats and fists. In his cross-examination, he has stated that the occurrence continued from 08:00 a.m. to 05:00 p.m. but he was there only for half an hour. Thereafter, he went away and did not inform to anyone rather he informed to his mother. He has also stated that after death of his father, next day the police came to his village and his statement was recorded. P.W.3 Pradhan Korah is not eye witness of the occurrence rather when Police arrived at village then he came out of his house and came to know about the death of Yadav Korah. He has also stated that he has no knowledge about any Panchayati. P.W.4 Shiv Kumar Korah has also been declared hostile by the prosecution and has not supported the prosecution case. He has also stated that he has no knowledge about any Panchayati. P.W.4 Shiv Kumar Korah has also been declared hostile by the prosecution and has not supported the prosecution case. P.W.5 Sado Korah has also deposed that he was not present at the time of occurrence rather he has gone to discharge his duty as a labour and returned in the evening. He came to know from the villagers that Yadav Korah has been died. This witness has also been declared hostile by the prosecution. P.W.6 Randai Hembram has also stated that she had gone to her parental home on the date of occurrence and her husband has also gone outside for work. She has alleged that her hen was stolen by Yadav Korah then she informed to Village Munda but she has not attended the Panchayati and she does not know about any incident of assault to the deceased. She has also been declared hostile by the prosecution. P.W.7 Kanu Sirka has also spread no knowledge about the occurrence. He has also been declared hostile by the prosecution. P.W.8 Manta Korah has stated that the deceased died due to ailment of tuberculosis and also stated that deceased was her younger brother in village relation. She has also been declared hostile by the prosecution. P.W.9 Dr. Umendra Prasad examined the dead body of Yadav Korah aged about 50 years on 10.05.2004 at about 12:00 noon and found following: External Injuries: Swelling abdomen and face. Tongue protruded between the lips. Blister present on chest and faul smelling coming out. Bruise on both wrist in oblique direction encircled in wrists. Bruise black in colour. Fracture of left forearm at middle with swelling 4” x 3.” Bruise on right ribs elbow 3”x1” and ½". Fracture of all ribs of left side below the second intercostal space and fracture of all ribs of right side below the 5th intercostal space. Internal Injuries: Head and Neck: N.A.D. Chest and Abdomen: dark red blood in chest cavity. Heart: both chambers empty. Liver and Lung: lacerated. Stomach and Bladder: empty. Time Since Death: 24 hours to 48 hours. Cause of death is opined to be due to hemorrhage and shock, caused by hard blunt object. P.W.10 Bipin Boipai is the Manki of Kuldihapir Village. Heart: both chambers empty. Liver and Lung: lacerated. Stomach and Bladder: empty. Time Since Death: 24 hours to 48 hours. Cause of death is opined to be due to hemorrhage and shock, caused by hard blunt object. P.W.10 Bipin Boipai is the Manki of Kuldihapir Village. He has stated that he was informed by Village Munda about the death of Yadav Korah then came to know that in the course of Panchayati, he was assaulted by some villagers. The wife of deceased was interrogated by police and her fardbeyan was recorded and he has also signed on that fardbeyan marked as Ext.2. This witness is also not an eye witness of the occurrence. P.W.11 Dibru Marla is also not an eye witness of the occurrence rather had gone to work and returned in the evening then came to know from children that Yadav Korah had died. This witness has also been declared hostile by the prosecution. P.W.12 Francis Topno is the Investigating Officer of the case who received rumour on 09.05.2004 at about 14:45 hours that a person of Village Mohansai has been murdered the he recorded Sanha 138 of 2004 and proceeded to Village Mohansai Tola at about 16:30 hours, where he recorded statement of Shanti Korah (P.W.1) and proved her fardbeyan as Ext.4 and formal F.I.R. as Ext.5. Dead body was sent for post-mortem examination. He also inspected the place of occurrence and came to know that the Panchayati was held near the Tamarind Tree and one branch of which was projected about 10 ft. high and it was disclosed by the informant that deceased was tied with rope on the said branch and assaulted. He also recorded the restatement of informant and statement of Krishna Korah and others and received P.M. Report of the deceased and filed charge-sheet against the accused persons. 13. From the aforesaid discussion of prosecution evidence, it is crystal clear that except P.W.2, none of the witnesses have stated any attributability in the alleged occurrence on the part of present appellants. The sole eye witness P.W.2 has also admitted in his cross-examination that he was not present throughout the occurrence rather stayed there only for half an hour and also not disclosed to any person about the said occurrence. The F.I.R. was also lodged, after three days. The sole eye witness P.W.2 has also admitted in his cross-examination that he was not present throughout the occurrence rather stayed there only for half an hour and also not disclosed to any person about the said occurrence. The F.I.R. was also lodged, after three days. Admittedly, one of the appellants is Village Munda who is responsible for organizing Panchayat in case of any dispute between the villagers. No specific role has been attributed against the present appellants rather they have been dragged in this case for offence under Section 304 PART II with aid of Section 34 of the I.P.C., the ingredients of which has also not been proved against appellants showing their complicity in the alleged occurrence. 14. It appears that learned Trial Court has not properly apprised and appreciated the testimony of witnesses and failed to ascertain the role of the present appellants in the alleged crime. In absence of any cogent and reliable evidence against the appellants, I am constrained to hold them not guilty of any offence. 15. Accordingly, impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the appellants is hereby set aside and they are acquitted from the charges levelled against them and this appeal is allowed. 16. Since, the appellants is on bail, they are discharged from the liability of their bail bonds and sureties are also discharged. 17. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of. 18. Let a copy of this judgment along with Trial Court record be sent back to the concerned Trial Court for information and needful.