JUDGMENT : Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J. 1. The instant appeal was preferred by seven appellants out of them, original appellants, Sitaram Mandal, Gopi Mandal, Harihar Mandal and Jethu Mandal had died during pendency of this appeal and their appeal has been abated vide order dated 24.04.2025. 2. This appeal is preferred for setting aside the judgment of conviction and sentence of the appellants dated 21.01.2003 passed by learned 3rd Additional District & Sessions Judge, Dumka in Session Case Nos.346 of 1984/373 of 2002, whereby and whereunder the appellants have been held guilty for the offences under Sections 302 /149 of INDIAN PENAL CODE and sentenced to undergo R.I. of life and the appellants have further been held guilty for the offences under Sections 147 and 323 of INDIAN PENAL CODE and sentenced to undergo R.I. of 6 months. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. We have already heard the arguments of Mr. Jitendra Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mishra, learned A.P.P. for the State. FACTUAL MATRIX 4. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that in the morning at 7-8 AM on 10.10.1979, the informant was ploughing his field along with his brother Dhani Mandal and nephew Kailash Mandal, meanwhile, accused, Shiv Charan Mandal and Ram Das Mandal had come along with other accused persons. Accused Shiv Charan Mandal was armed with axe and other accused persons were armed with lathi. They intervened the informant party, thereafter, the scuffle took place and accused Shiv Charan Mandal assaulted the informant and his brother with axe and the rest of accused persons brutally assaulted both of them with lathi as a result of which Dhani Mandal sustained serious injuries and fell down being unconscious. Again his body was pressed by bamboo stick. It is further alleged that hearing hullah, the villagers arrived at the place of occurrence and injured persons were brought to hospital. The motive for occurrence is alleged that the father of the informant and father of Ramchandra had exchanged some land but after some days, Ramchandra had taken back his land from the informant but Ramchandra did not give the land to informant party of his own which was received by him in exchange rather it was sold to the accused Shiv Charan Mandal. A panchyati was also held in this connection but the accused persons did not honor the decision of the panchyati and in course of taking possession of P.O. land by the prosecution party, the alleged occurrence took place. On the basis of above fardbayan of the informant, Gobardhan Mandal (P.W.1) recorded by S.I. P.N. Tigga on 10.10.1979 at Sariyahat State Dispensary, FIR was registered for the offences under sections 147, 148, 323, 324 and 307 of INDIAN PENAL CODE . In course of investigation, the injured Dhani Mandal died and the case was converted under section 302 of IPC also. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the accused persons for the offences under sections 147, 148, 447, 323, 302, 324 and 307 of INDIAN PENAL CODE . Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offences and committed the case to the court of Sessions where aforesaid session case was registered. The accused persons did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, charges were framed against them and trial proceeds. 5. In course of trial altogether, 8 witnesses have been examined by the prosecution namely: P.W.1 Gobardhan Mandal(Informant) P.W.2-Tapeshwari Devi P.W.3-Ajola Devi P.W.4-Upendra Mandal P.W.5-Dasrath Mandal (Tender witness) P.W.6-Jagdish Mandal P.W.7-Dr. C.C. Sinha P.W.8-Gora Oraon (Formal witness) 6. Apart from oral evidence the prosecution has adduced the following documentary evidence, which are as under:- Ext.-1- Post-mortem Report. Ext.2-Fardbeyan Ext.3-Formal FIR 7. On the other hand, no oral evidence has been adduced by the defence but one documentary evidence has been adduced, which is certified copy of order dated 01.11.1983 at R.E. Case No.36 of 1980-81, which is marked as Ext.A. The case of the defence is denial from occurrence and false implication due to land dispute. Learned trial court after scrutinizing the evidence available on record held the appellants guilty and sentenced as stated above, which has been assailed in this appeal. Submission of learned counsel for appellants 8. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.4 are interested witnesses and admitted in their evidence that for the same occurrence, counter FIR has been lodged by accused, Shiv Charan Mandal, which indicates that both parties scuffled with each other. Submission of learned counsel for appellants 8. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.4 are interested witnesses and admitted in their evidence that for the same occurrence, counter FIR has been lodged by accused, Shiv Charan Mandal, which indicates that both parties scuffled with each other. It is further submitted that as per the evidence of alleged eye-witnesses of the occurrence, there is specific allegation of assaulting the deceased and the informant by using axe and other weapons by Shiv Charan Mandal, Ramdas Mandal and Jetthu Mandal, who all have been died during pendency of this appeal. The present appellants have no concern with the dispute between informant and the main assailants and they do not belong to their family members. There was no land dispute between the present appellants and the informant party. Learned trial court has not recorded any findings as regards to presence and participation of the present appellants in the alleged occurrence with any common object along with other co-accused persons in prosecution of which the occurrence took place. It is further submitted that one of the eye-witnesses, Kailash Mandal, who was forcibly ploughing the field at the behest of informant, has not been examined. It is further submitted that in the entire impugned judgment, no role of the appellants have been found but they have been dragged in this case with aid of Section 149 of IPC without any proof of foundational facts like any common object of appellants along with other co-accused persons or any interest in the disputed property. Therefore, conviction and sentence of the appellants is liable to be set aside, allowing this appeal. Submission of learned counsel for State 9. On the other hand, Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mishra, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State controverted the aforesaid points of argument raised on behalf of the appellants and has submitted that the trial court has very wisely and aptly apprised and appreciated and scrutinized the evidence available on record and found sufficient evidence against the appellants, who have acted in prosecution of their common object to dispossess the informant party from their land and putting obstruction in ploughing and also cause death of one Dhani Ram Mandal, therefore, there is no merits in the points of argument raised on behalf of the appellants. This appeal is devoid of merits and fit to be dismissed. 10. This appeal is devoid of merits and fit to be dismissed. 10. The only point for determination in this appeal is that as to whether the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence of the appellants suffers from any error of law, calling for any interference in this appeal. Analysis, Decision and Reasons 11. We have gone through the record of the case along with the impugned judgment in the light of contentions raised on behalf of the respective parties. 12. For better appreciation of the case, we have to apprise with the evidence adduced by the prosecution. P.W.1-Gobardhan Mandal is the informant himself. According to his evidence, he along with his men was ploughing the land pertaining to Plot No. 1493, meanwhile, the accused persons came there armed with axe and lathi and protested the prosecution party from ploughing the field. It is specifically stated that accused Shiv Charan Mandal was bearing axe, who assaulted upon Dhani Mandal, due to which he became unconscious and fell down and later on died. Accused Ram Das had also assaulted with lathi on the head of Dhani Mandal. In his cross-examination, this witness reiterates that 7-8 tangi blows were given to the deceased towards edge side on head and other parts of the body by accused, Shiv Charan Mandal. There is no whisper about presence and participation of other accused persons. P.W.2, Tapeshwari Mandalin is wife of the deceased, who is not an eye-witness of the occurrence and she has simply stated that her husband was assaulted by lathi by accused persons, Gopi Mandal, Jogendra Mandal and Laddu Mandal. In her cross-examination, she has admitted that when she reached at the place of occurrence, her husband was found lying on earth under injured condition sustaining injuries caused by tangi. P.W.3, Ajola Devi is the daughter of the informant, who is not an eye-witness of the occurrence. According to her evidence, she reached at the place of occurrence after hearing hullah and found her father lying in injured condition. P.W.4-Upendra Mandal also went to the place of occurrence after hearing hullah and saw that a scuffle was going on between Shiv Charan Mandal and Dhani Mandal. In course of scuffle, Jethu Mandal (since deceased) assaulted to Kailash Mandal by lathi. P.W.4-Upendra Mandal also went to the place of occurrence after hearing hullah and saw that a scuffle was going on between Shiv Charan Mandal and Dhani Mandal. In course of scuffle, Jethu Mandal (since deceased) assaulted to Kailash Mandal by lathi. Shiv Charan Mandal (since deceased) was having axe in his hand, Sita Ram Mandal, Harihar Mandal, Jai Narayan Mandal, Laddo Mandal, Ram Das Mandal and Jogindar Mandal were bearing lathi. He has stated nothing about the role played by the other accused persons except accused, Shiv Charan Mandal who gave tangi blows on the head of the deceased, Dhani Mandal. P.W.5, Dasrath Mandal has been tendered by the prosecution. P.W.6, Jagdish Mandal has been decalred hostile by the prosecution. P.W. 7, Dr. Charu Chandra Sinha has conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and found five lacerated wounds on the head of the deceased and reddish brown ecchymosis 3” x 1” in front of chest towards the left side in lower part 1” and ½” below left nipple. The witness has opined that all the 5 injuries on head of the deceased were grievous in nature and was enough sufficient for his death and further opined that all injuries were caused by hard and blunt substance like lathi and blunt portion of axe. The post-mortem report of the deceased has been marked as Ext.1. P.W.8-Gora Oraon is a constable and a formal witness, who has proved the fardbayan of the informant as Ext.2 and formal FIR as Ext.3. 13. We have given anxious consideration to the testimony of the ocular witnesses and found that eye-witnesses, i.e. P.W. 1, P.W. 2, P.W.3 and P.W.4 examined by the prosecution have failed to prove any specific overt act and presence of the present appellants at the place of occurrence with any common object along with other co-accused persons, who were assaulting the informant party. It is an admitted case of the prosecution that the land in question was exchanged by father of informant and father of Ramchandra and later on by passage of time, the said Ramchandra had taken back his land and sold the land of the informant to accused Shiv Charan Mandal and when the informant party had gone to plough the same, the scuffle took place in between the informant party and accused, Shiv Charan Mandal along with other accused, Ram Das Mandal, who are alleged to have assaulted the deceased and the informant party with their respective weapons. 14. In the impugned judgment and order, we do not find any verdict of the trial court regarding the role played by the present appellants in the alleged occurrence and for what motive, they assembled with other accused persons against whom there is direct allegation of assaulting the informant party. No reason has been pointed out for implication of the present appellants along with other co-accused persons in the alleged offence. There is general and omnibus findings of learned trial court that all the accused persons were held guilty with aid of section 149 of IPC without any discussion as to what was the common object of the present appellants and as to whether they have acted in prosecution of any common object as defines under section 141 of IPC. Therefore, conviction and sentence of the appellants appears to be absolutely not warranted under law on the basis of evidence available on record. Therefore, we are constrained to hold that impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence of the appellants is absolutely illegal and beyond the weight of evidence available on record, which is liable to be set aside. 15. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and sentence of the appellants dated 21.01.2003 passed by learned 3rd Additional District & Sessions Judge, Dumka in Session Case No.346 of 1984/373 of 2002 is hereby set aside and this appeal is allowed. 16. The above appellants are acquitted from the charges levelled against them and set at liberty forthwith. 17. The appellants are on bail, hence, they are discharged from liability of bail bond. The sureties are also discharged. 18. Pending I.A(s), if any, is also disposed of accordingly. 19. Let the copy of this judgment along with Trial Court Records be sent back for information and needful.