JUDGMENT : Ambuj Nath, J. 1. Both these criminal appeals arise out of the same impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. Accordingly, they are being disposed of by a common judgment. 2. The appellants Bhola Mahto and Mangar Mahto in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 328 of 2002 and the appellant Kulo Mahto in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 405 of 2002 have filed these appeals against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.05.2002 passed by Shri Rameshwar Rai, learned 5 th Additional Sessions Judge, Hazaribag in Sessions Trial Case No. 601 of 1999 arising out of Ichak P.S. Case No. 68 of 1999 corresponding to G.R. No. 1041 of 1999, holding the appellants guilty of the offences under sections 302/34, 307/34 and 452 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and thereby sentencing them to undergo imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each for the offence under section 302/34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE . In default of payment of fine, they were further directed to undergo R.I for one year. Appellants were further sentenced to undergo R.I for ten years along with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each for the offence under section 307/34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE . In default of payment of fine, they were further directed to undergo R.I for six months. They were further sentenced to undergo R.I for two years along with a fine of Rs. 500/- each for the offence under section 452 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE . In default of payment of fine, they were further directed to undergo R.I for three months. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The entire fine amount was ordered to be given to Phuleshwari Devi, wife of the deceased, as compensation. 3. Prosecution case was instituted on the basis of the fardbeyan of the Informant Karu Mahto, alleging therein that on 22.06.99 at about 8.00 p.m., there was some altercation between his brother Chhotan Mahto and the appellants in the local panchayat. The appellants are alleged to have assaulted his brother in the Panchayat itself. When his brother returned home, appellants followed him. They also resorted to hurling stones and bricks on him. His brother Chhotan Mahto fearing threat to his life, went to the roof of his house. The appellants followed him. The Informant also went to the roof of the house. When his brother returned home, appellants followed him. They also resorted to hurling stones and bricks on him. His brother Chhotan Mahto fearing threat to his life, went to the roof of his house. The appellants followed him. The Informant also went to the roof of the house. The appellants assaulted them and pushed both of them from the roof, as a result of which, they fell on the ground, due to which, brother of the Informant Chhotan Mahto succumbed to his injury while the Informant sustained injuries. 4. After investigation, police found the case to be true and submitted charge sheet against the appellants on 25.09.99 under sections 302, 307 and 452/34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE . Cognizance of the offences was taken by the learned C.J.M., Hazaribag on 27.09.99. Learned C.J.M., Hazaribag committed the case to the court of Sessions on 29.11.99 as the same was exclusively triable by the court of Sessions. 5. Charge was framed against the appellants on 13.04.2000 under sections 452, 307/34 and 302/34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE . The same was read over and explained to the appellants in Hindi, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. In order to prove its case, prosecution adduced both oral and documentary evidence. Arjun Yadav (P.W-1) is a hearsay witness. Sarju Narayan Mahto (P.W-2) is a formal witness. He has proved the inquest report and his signature and that of Vijay Mahto on the inquest report which have been marked Ext. 1. He has not supported the prosecution case. As such, he has been declared hostile. Sita Ram Mahto (P.W-3) has not supported the prosecution case. As such, he has been declared hostile. Phuleshwari Devi (P.W-4), wife of the deceased Chhotan Mahto, has fully supported the prosecution case. Munniya Devi (P.W-5) is the wife of the Informant Karu Mahto. She has also supported the prosecution case. Kamal Mahto (P.W-6) is the brother of the deceased Chhotan Mahto and Informant Karu Mahto. He has also supported the prosecution case. Karu Mahto (P.W-7) is the Informant of this case. He has supported the prosecution case, but he has not identified the appellants in the dock. Dr. Asrar Ahmad Farooqui (P.W-8) is the doctor who performed the postmortem on the dead body of the deceased Chhotan Mahto. He has proved the postmortem report, which has been marked Ext.-2. Karu Mahto (P.W-7) is the Informant of this case. He has supported the prosecution case, but he has not identified the appellants in the dock. Dr. Asrar Ahmad Farooqui (P.W-8) is the doctor who performed the postmortem on the dead body of the deceased Chhotan Mahto. He has proved the postmortem report, which has been marked Ext.-2. Ravikant Prasad (P.W-9) is the Investigating Officer of this case. He has proved the fardbeyan which has been marked Ext.-3. He has also proved the formal FIR, which has been marked Ext.-4. He has also proved the place of occurrence which is the house of the Informant. He has also proved the seizure list which has been marked Ext.-5. Finally, he has proved the injury report of the Informant Karu Mahto which has been marked Ext.-6. Dr. Girish Chandra Verma (P.W-10) is the doctor who examined the Informant Karu Mahto 7. Statement of the appellants was recorded under section 313 of the Cr. P.C in which they have pleaded innocence. 8. On the basis of both oral and documentary evidences available on the record, the learned Trial Court held the appellants guilty and sentenced them accordingly. 9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, submitted that the Informant has not identified the appellants in the dock. He further submitted that the Informant has stated that he could not identify the accused persons who had pushed him and his brother from the roof of the house. He has further submitted that there are vital contradictions in the statement of the witnesses regarding the manner of occurrence. He has further submitted that though, there is allegation that the deceased was assaulted by the appellants, but no such injury was found on his person. It was also submitted that the evidences which have been considered against the appellants in holding them guilty, were not put to them while recording their statement under section 313 of the Cr. P.C. On these grounds, it was prayed that these appeals be allowed and the appellants be acquitted of the charges. 10. Mrs. Vandana Bharti, learned A.P.P in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 328 of 2002 and Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, learned Special P.P. in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 405 of 2002 have submitted that there are three eyewitnesses to the occurrence. They have fully supported the prosecution case. 10. Mrs. Vandana Bharti, learned A.P.P in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 328 of 2002 and Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, learned Special P.P. in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 405 of 2002 have submitted that there are three eyewitnesses to the occurrence. They have fully supported the prosecution case. It was submitted that the eyewitnesses have corroborated each other on the date, time, place and manner of occurrence. It was further submitted that the I.O has proved the place of occurrence which happens to be the house of the Informant and the deceased. It was finally submitted that there is no vital contradiction in the statement of the witnesses. As such, the learned Trial Court has rightly held the appellants guilty and sentenced them accordingly. 11. Now, it has to be ascertained, whether the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the appellants beyond all reasonable doubt? In order to come to the aforesaid findings, it has to be further ascertained, (i) Whether the deceased Chhotan Mahto had died homicidal death? (ii) Whether the prosecution has brought impeccable evidence against the appellants to prove their complicity in the murder of the deceased? 12. From the postmortem report (Ext.-2) of the deceased Chhotan Mahato, it transpires that the following injuries were found on the person of the deceased: “2. Rigor mortis was present in all the four limbs. i) Abrasion 1”x1” front of chest right side. Fracture of ribs 2 nd to fifth on right side. Right lung was ruptured. Left lung was intact and congested. ii) Bleeding from right ear, extra dural hematoma on the right side on temporal region of brain. 3. Stomach contained mucothroid about 1 ounce. Liver was intact and pale, kidney was intact and pale. Heart both chambers were partly filled and other viscera nothing abnormal detected. 4. In my opinion, cause of death was due to shock hemorrhage from above injuries which were ante mortem in nature caused by hard and blunt substance. “ 12. From perusal of oral testimony of Dr. Asrar Ahmad Farooqui (P.W-8) who conducted the postmortem on the dead body of the deceased Chhotan Mahto, it transpires that the oral testimony of this witness fully corroborates his finding in the postmortem report (Ext.2). Sarju Narayan Yadav (P.W-2) is one of the witnesses to the inquest. He has proved his signature on the inquest report (Ext.1). Asrar Ahmad Farooqui (P.W-8) who conducted the postmortem on the dead body of the deceased Chhotan Mahto, it transpires that the oral testimony of this witness fully corroborates his finding in the postmortem report (Ext.2). Sarju Narayan Yadav (P.W-2) is one of the witnesses to the inquest. He has proved his signature on the inquest report (Ext.1). From perusal of the inquest report (Ext.1), it transpires that the police officer who had prepared the inquest report had found the injuries on various parts of the body of the deceased. It has also been mentioned that the deceased had died at the spot after being pushed from the roof top. 13. In view of the aforesaid oral and documentary evidence, it is apparent that the deceased had died a homicidal death. 14. As far as the complicity of the appellants in committing murder of the deceased Chhotan Mahto is concerned, case of the prosecution is that on 22.06.99 at 7.00 p.m., there was dispute between the deceased and the appellants in the village Panchayat where accused persons are alleged to have assaulted him and had banged him in puddle of mud. Wife of the deceased Phuleshwari Devi (P.W-4) removed his clothes and brought him home. It is further case of the prosecution that the appellants followed the deceased to his house. On seeing the appellants, the deceased out of fear rushed to the roof of his house, the appellants also went there, followed by the Informant. The appellants pushed the deceased and the Informant from the roof top. Both of them fell and the deceased succumbed to his injuries and died at the spot. 15. Phuleshwari Devi (P.W-4) has stated in her examination-in-chief that the occurrence took place on 22.06.99 at 8.00 p.m. She has further stated that at about 7.00 p.m., there was some dispute between the appellants and her husband in the village Panchayat. The appellants had assaulted him there and banged him in puddle of mud. She removed his clothes and brought him home. She has further stated that all the three appellants followed them. When her husband went to the roof top to save himself, the appellants also went there and she, Munni, Karu Mahto and Kamal Mahto also went to the roof top. She removed his clothes and brought him home. She has further stated that all the three appellants followed them. When her husband went to the roof top to save himself, the appellants also went there and she, Munni, Karu Mahto and Kamal Mahto also went to the roof top. Despite their protest, all the appellants pushed her husband Chhotan Mahto and her brother- in-law Karu Mahto from the roof top, due to them, they fell. Her husband Chhotan Mahto died at the spot while Karu Mahto sustained injury. She has identified all the three appellants in the dock. She has been cross-examined at length. She has specifically stated that there was no dispute over partition between her husband and the appellants. She has stated that the three appellants had also assaulted her husband, due to which, her husband sustained injury on his hand and leg. She has also stated that her husband fell flat on the ground on the side of the stomach. 16. Munniya Devi (P.W.-5) is the wife of the Informant. She had also supported the prosecution case. She has stated that her brother-in-law Chhotan Mahto came from panchayat wearing only underwear. She had locked the grill. Chhotan Mahto went to the roof top. She along with her sister-in-law i.e. wife of the deceased and her husband also went to the roof top. In the meantime, all the three appellants scaled the roof top from the northern side. This witness and her family members pleaded not to assault her brother-in-law, but they did not listen. They pushed her husband Karu Mahto (Informant) and her brother-in-law Chhotan Mahto from the roof top, due to which, they fell and Chhotan Mahto died at the spot. Her husband had also sustained injury. He was given medical treatment. She has identified all the three appellants in the dock. In her cross-examination, she has also stated that the appellants had given rod blow to the deceased. 17. Kamal Mahto (P.W-6) is the elder brother of the deceased and the Informant. He has stated that the occurrence took place 01 years 08 months ago in the evening time. There was a Panchayati in which some altercation took place between the appellants and the deceased. He was also present in the panchayat. The appellants banged Chhotan Mahto in puddle of mud. Chhotan Mahto had opened his clothes as he was laced with mud. There was a Panchayati in which some altercation took place between the appellants and the deceased. He was also present in the panchayat. The appellants banged Chhotan Mahto in puddle of mud. Chhotan Mahto had opened his clothes as he was laced with mud. Chhotan Mahto went to the roof top and the appellants also went there. He pleaded with the appellants to settle the dispute later, but the appellants did not listen. The appellants came from northern side door of the house and climbed to the roof top. He also followed them. He has stated that the appellants assaulted Chhotan Mahto by a rod. When they tried to intervene, they pushed Chhotan Mahto and Karu Mahto from the roof, due to which, both of them fell, Chhotan Mahto died at the spot. He has identified all the appellants in the dock. In his cross-examination, he has stated that both Chhotan Mahto and Karu Mahto are his younger brothers. He has stated that the roof top is 25 feet high. He has also stated that his house is having two stories. 18. Karu Mahto (P.W-7) is the Informant. He has stated that on the date and time of occurrence, his brother Chhotan Mahto went to the roof top. After 10-20 minutes, he saw that there was some altercation between his brother and some persons. Thereafter, his brother fell from the roof. Accused persons had pushed his brother Chhotan Mahto who died at the stop. He was also pushed, due to which, he also sustained injury, for which he was treated in the hospital. He has been declared hostile by the prosecution. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he had not identified the accused persons who had pushed his brother from the roof top. 19. Dr. Girish Chandra Verma (P.W-10) had examined the Informant Karu Mahto (P.W-7). He has stated that on 23.06.99, he had examined Karu Mahto and found the following antemortem injuries: “A). Pain in right shoulder, pain in right side chest, pain in right thumb. B). Abrasion over left side of lower chest 3”x ½ “. Age of injuries within six hours. Nature of injury – by hard and blunt object. X-ray shows fracture of right side chest II to IV ribs. Injury was grievous in nature. This injury report is in my pen and signature. Marked Ext.6. I examined the injured on requisition of police. Abrasion over left side of lower chest 3”x ½ “. Age of injuries within six hours. Nature of injury – by hard and blunt object. X-ray shows fracture of right side chest II to IV ribs. Injury was grievous in nature. This injury report is in my pen and signature. Marked Ext.6. I examined the injured on requisition of police. Such injury is possible by falling”. He has identified the injury report which has been marked Ext.-6. He has stated that the injury found on the person of Karu Mahto is possible by falling. 20. From perusal of the injury report of Karu Mahto (Ext.-6), it is apparent that the oral testimony of Dr. Girish Chandra Verma (P.W-10) fully corroborates his statement regarding the nature of injury as stated by him in the injury report (Ext.-6). 21. From the aforesaid oral testimony of the prosecution witnesses, it is apparent that Phuleshwari Devi (P.W-4), Munniya Devi (P.W-5) and Kamal Mahto (P.W-6), all these three witnesses have corroborated each other about the place and time and date of occurrence. All of them have stated that on 22.06.99, there was some altercation between the deceased and the appellants in local panchayat, due to which, the appellants had banged the deceased in puddle of mud, due to which, his body was laced with mud. He removed his clothes and he went home in underwear. From perusal of the inquest report (Ext.-1), it appears that at the time of inquest, deceased was found wearing underwear only. So, statement of all these witnesses that the deceased was banged in the puddle of mud, due to which his body was laced with mud, is corroborated by finding in the inquest report. All these witnesses have stated that when the deceased Chhotan Mahto came home, he went to the roof top. All the three appellants also followed him and also went to the roof top. All these witnesses also followed the appellants. All these witnesses have stated that the appellants pushed Chhotan Mahto and Karu Mahto from the roof top, due to which, Chhotan Mahto sustained injury and died at the place of occurrence itself. They have also stated that Karu Mahto also sustained injury for which, he was treated. Phuleshwari Devi (P.W-4) has stated that the deceased fell flat on the stomach side. They have also stated that Karu Mahto also sustained injury for which, he was treated. Phuleshwari Devi (P.W-4) has stated that the deceased fell flat on the stomach side. Injury found on the person of the deceased shows that he had abrasion 1”x1” on front chest right side, fracture of ribs 2 nd to 5 th on right side, his lung was ruptured, left lung was intact and congested. These injuries will be caused if a person falls from the height on the side of his stomach. Injury of Karu Mahto (Informant) also shows that he had abrasion over left side of lower chest 3”x ½”. His ribs were also fractured. The oral testimony of all the three prosecution witnesses Phuleshwari Devi (P.W-4), Munniya Devi (P.W-5) and Kamal Mahto (P.W-6) is corroborated by the injury sustained by both Chhotan Mahto and Karu Mahto. There is nothing in the cross-examination of these witnesses to doubt their veracity. 22. Ravikant Prasad (P.W-9) is the Investigating Officer of this case. He has proved the place of occurrence. According to him, place of occurrence is two storied house of the Informant Karu Mahto from which, deceased was thrown by the appellants. 23. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has submitted that this fact that the appellants had pushed the deceased and Karu Mahto from the roof top, was not put to them when their statement was recorded under section 313 of the Cr. P.C. From perusal of the statement of the appellants recorded under section 313 of the Cr. P.C., it is apparent that the learned Trial Court had asked them to explain with regard to the evidence against them, stating that there was evidence against them that on the date of occurrence, they having common intention, pushed Chhotan Mahto and Karu Mahto from the roof top, due to which, Chhotan Mahto fell and died. It is apparent that the circumstances which have been narrated by the witnesses were put to them and they have stated that they are innocent. It is not a case that this fact that they have pushed the deceased and Karu Mahto from the roof top, was not put to them in their statement under section 313 of the Cr. P.C. 24. It is not a case that this fact that they have pushed the deceased and Karu Mahto from the roof top, was not put to them in their statement under section 313 of the Cr. P.C. 24. It is the fact that the Informant Karu Mahto (P.W-7) has not identified the appellants in the dock, but he has proved the manner and place of occurrence. He had also sustained injury. Other eye witnesses have identified the appellants as the perpetrators of the crime. 25. From the aforesaid oral and documentary evidence, it is apparent that the witnesses Phuleshwari Devi (P.W-4), Munniya Devi (P.W-5) and Kamal Mahto (P.W-6) who are the eyewitnesses, have corroborated each other on the date, time, place and manner of occurrence. The evidence on which learned Trial Court has based its finding of conviction against the appellants, has also been put to them under section 313 of the Cr. P.C. Accordingly, we come to the finding that the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the appellants beyond all reasonable doubt for committing murder of the deceased Chhotan Mahto and causing grievous injury to Karu Mahto with an intention to commit his murder. Prosecution has also been able to show that the appellants have committed house trespass with an intention to commit cognizable offence. 26. Accordingly, these appeals are dismissed. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.05.2002 is upheld.