Prananath Majumder vs Biswanath Majumder And Ors

S. Talapatra, J

[1] Heard Mr. Kohinoor N. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as Mr. S. Debnath, learned Addl. PP appearing for the State.

[2] The appellants were charged under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and also under Section 341 read with Section 34 of the IPC by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sonamura, Sepahijala District. One of the co-accused, namely Alo Rani Shil was charged under Section 212 of the IPC and on completion of the trial, she had been acquitted from the said charge. No appeal has been filed by the State against the said order of acquittal. It is further noted that one Loknath Majumder named in the FIR as one of the assailants along with the appellants herein having been adjudged as juvenile, he had been proceeded under the provisions of the Juvenile Justice [Care and Protection of Child] Act. After regular trial, by the judgment dated 20.09.2017 delivered in ST 10(T-1) 19 of 2016, the Additional Sessions Judge, Sepahijala Distreict, Sonamura convicted the appellants under Sections 341 and 304[Part-II] of the IPC for committing unlawfully restraint and the culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Pursuant to the said judgment of conviction, both the appellants have been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years each and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- each with default stipulation for commission of offence punishable under Section 304(Part-II) of the IPC. They have been further sentenced to suffer imprisonment for one month and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each with default stipulation for committing offence punishable under Section 341 of the IPC. It has been noted in the order that the sentences shall run concurrently and the period of detention as undergone by the appellants during the investigation and the trial shall be set off from the substantive period of imprisonment. The said judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 20.09.2017 are challenged in the present appeal.

[3] The genesis of the prosecution case is rooted in the complaint filed by one Sunil Dhar, not examined it the trial, on 09.05.2016 revealing that on 09.05.2006 at around 7.30 am his father, Parikhit Dhar was going to the house of Kanu Shil by riding a bicycle. At that point of time, the appellants wielded with Dao and Cheni [two sharp cutting weapons] in their hands suddenly attacked his father. The appellants caused grave bleeding injuries by hacking him randomly with Dao and Cheni. His father was injured and taken to Kathalia CHC for treatment in a deteriorating condition. The complainant had recorded that the situation was alarming. The said complaint [Exbt.12] has been introduced in the evidence, subject to objection raised by the appellants. Based on the said complaint, Jatrapur P.S. Case No.027 of 2016 was registered under Sections 341/326/506 of the IPC. To ascertain the fact, the investigation was carried out and on completion, the investigation, the final police report was filed by sending up the appellants and the co-accused, who has been later on acquitted by the trial court.

[4] Having the police papers committed to the court of the Sessions Judge, the charge was framed against the appellants along with one co-accused, who has been acquitted later on, under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and under Section 341 read with Section 34 of the IPC for committing murder of one Parikhit Dhar by brutal assault on 09.05.2016 in a place called, KK Nagar under Jatrapur PS at about 0730 hours and also for his wrongful restraint. The appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

In order to substantiate the charge, the prosecution adduced as many as 26 witnesses and 25 documentary evidence including the postmortem examination report [Exbt.2], State Forensic Science Laboratory's Report, SFSL [Exbt.15], injury report of the deceased [Exbts.19 and 25]. After recording the evidence by the prosecution, the appellants were examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. to have their response towards the incriminating materials those surfaced in the evidence. The appellants have categorically stated that they are innocent and the evidence incriminating them are concocted. However, on hearing the argument for the appellants and the State, the trial judge has recorded the finding of conviction by observing as under:

"Therefore, on perusal of the entire evidence and materials on record I am of the view that the evidence of eye witnesses i.e. PW-12 and PW-13 regarding assault to the victim Parikshit Dhar by accused Biswanath Majumder and Prananath Majumder coupled with the evidence of PW-3, 4,10, 16 & 17 are appears to be truthful, reliable and also clearly corroborated by the injury reports as well as the postmortem report of Parikhit Dhar. But the intention of accused persons Biswanath Majumder and Prananath Majumder to commit murder of deceased Parikshit Dhar are not clearly established to prove the offence of committing murder to victim Parikshit Dhar as contemplated under Section 302 of IPC is concerned.

Murder is an aggravated form of culpable homicide as defined under section 299 of IPC. To prove the offence of murder the prosecution is to clearly establish that the killer intends to cause such bodily injuries which is likely to cause death or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death or with knowledge that by such act he is likely to cause death. But if it is proved that the intention of the killer to cause death or bodily injury likely to cause death, it comes under section 304 part-I of IPC. On the other hand if there is no intention of the killer to cause death but there is only knowledge of the killer that death is likely to be caused, the offence is under section 304 part II of the IPC.

In the case in hand the evidence led by prosecution clearly shows that prior to the incident the accused Biswanath Majumder and Prananath Majumder and another caused grievous hurt to the victim Parikshit Dhar by means of bamboo lathi to meet out their previous animity. But the evidence on record more particularly the evidence of PW13, Nanda Rani Paul it shows that the victim Parikshit Dhar was firstly restrained by Loknath Majumder and started assaulting him and the other accused Biswanath Majumder and Prananath Majumder joined him thereafter. So from this fact it is clear that prior to the alleged incident there was no intention of the accused Biswanath Majumder and Prananath Majumder to assault to the victim Parikshit Dhar which caused death to the victim. But at the time of commission of the alleged offence it is very much knowledge of the accused that such assault to the victim by bamboo lathi on his head and person certainly cause his death and as such the facts proved that Biswanath Majumder and Prananath Majumder were committed the offence punishable under Section 304 Part-II of IPC which is lesser punishable offence than that of an offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC in which they have been charged. So the charge under Section 302 of IPC can be converted under Section 304 Part-II of IPC at this stage. As the victim was attacked on the way in front of the house of the accused Biswanath Majumder and Prananath Majumder while he was going towards market so certainly he was wrongfully restrained by the accused Biswanath Majumder and Prananath Majumder for the purpose of causing hurt to the victim Parikshit Dhar on 09.05.2016 at 7.30 AM. So they are also very much responsible for their commission of offence punishable U/S. 341 of IPC."

[5] Mr. Kohinoor N. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the appellants has quite categorically stated that the prosecution's story is quite improbable inasmuch the witnesses, relied on most by prosecution have produced conflicint versions in the trial. For example, Lila Dhar [PW-1] has stated in the trial that an unknown youth met her when she was plucking flowers along with her grand daughter. PW-12, Sri Kanu Shil is one of the eye witnesses has stated in the trial that at about 7/7.30 am Parikhit Dhar came to his house and requested him to open his salon as he intended to have a hair-cut. At that time, he was busy with his household work. He had requested Parikhit to go to his salon and he would come later on. Then, he left his house. After a while, when had he proceeded towards his salon, then on the way, he had met with one Pranati Das. At that time, he heard hue and cry of Parikhit calling him to save his life. Accordingly, he rushed to the place of occurrence in front of the house of Biswanath Majumder without moment's delay and found Parikhit was lying with bleeding injuries on his person. Biswanath Majumder, Prananath Majumder and Chotan Majumder were assaulting him by means of lathi and his bicycle was lying on the middle of the road. He had intervened to rescue Parikhit. He made to dissuade Biswanath Majumder, Prananath Majumder and Chotan Majumder from assaulting Parikhit, but the assailants did not pay any heed to such request. When he raised hue and cry the assailants, namely Biswanath Majumder, Prananath Majumder and Chotan Majumder fled away towards eastern side of their house and on his request one Sajal Das brought one auto rickshaw for shifting the victim to hospital. Parikhit's wife was also requested to come over to the place of occurrence. The Medical Officer referred Parikhit to Melaghar hospital. From there he was shifted to GBP hospital, Agartala. PW-12 was also examined in the trial at the instance of the investigating agency. In the trial, he had identified his statement as recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. PW-13, Smt. Nanda Rani Paul, according to the prosecution, is another eyewitness. She has stated in the trial that on the day of Akshay Tritiya at about 7.30 am in the morning she was proceeding towards the house of Brajalal Pal to collect milk. At that time, on the way she saw Chotan dealing a lathi blow on Parikhit while he was proceeding beating the road running in front of their house by riding bicycle. From the impact of such lathi blow, Parikhit fell down from his bicycle. The brothers of Chotan Majumder, namely Biswanath Majumder and Prananath Majumder also came there and started beating him by means of bamboo-lathi. She has also affirmed and corroborated that the victim raised the voice by calling PW-12.

[6] Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel has thus pointed out that PWs-12 & 13 have stated that they saw the appellants assaulting the victim with lathi. But the trial Judge has recorded without taking the said piece of substantive evidence into consideration that the appellants committed the death of the victim, but without explaining the injuries caused by sharp edged werapon. Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the appellants has thereafter referred to the post mortem examination report [Exbt.2] to show the injuries ante mortem were as follows:

[i] One stitch lacerated wound, 6 cm X 0.5 cm X bone deep and bearing 3 nos. of stitches, longitudinally present on the frontal area in midline which is situated 8 cm above the glabella;

[ii] One stitch lacerated wound, 2 cm X 0.3 cm X 0.3 cm and bearing 2 Nos. of stitches obliquely present over the outer aspect of right upper eye lid.

On dissection, PW-16 found sub-scalp hematoma is present over the right side of scalp and right temporalls muscles is bruised. On removing skull cap and dura, subdural hemorrhage and sub-arachnoids hemorrhage are present over the convexities of right cerebral hemisphere. Multiple contusions are present over the base of frontal, parietal and occipital lobe of right side. Brain is congested.

[iii] One stitch lacerated wound, 4 cm X 1 cm into muscle and bearing 2 Nos. of stitches, obliquely present over the right side of face, 6 cm right to midline and 2 cm below the right eye.

[iv] One stitch lacerate wound, 2.3 cm and 0.3 cm X muscle deep and bearing 2 Nos. of stitches are present over the outer aspect of the right side of ala of nose.

[v] Multiple lacerated wound (6 in nos.) present over an area of 16 cm X 9 cm is present over the right side of face extending from root of nose to lower margin of jaw ranging in measurement from 2.5 cm X 0.5 cm X skin deep to 4 cm X 0.75 cm X muscle deep.

These injuries are surrounded by multiple abrasions [biggest 7 cm X 2.4 cm] and contusions [biggest 8 cm X 4.5 cm] over an area of 20 cm X 14 cm. Underlying bones are fractured into multiple pieces.

[vi] Two nos. of lacerated wound each measuring 1.2 cm X 0.3 cm X muscle deep are present over the inner aspect of mucosl surface of right side of upper lip. Underlying maxilla is fractured at the junction of lateral incisor and canine. Right upper central incisor is loosened. Right upper lateral incisor and canine are missing from their sockets. Mandible is fractured at the junction of right lower incisor and canine and fracture fragments are overlying each other. Inner aspect of the tongue is bruised.

[vii] One stitched lacerated wound bearing 2 Nos. of stitches and measuring 3 cm X 0.5 cm X muscle deep is present over the right side of the chin which is situated 2 cm right to midline and just above the lower border of mandible.

[viii] Multiple abrasions [6 in nos) are present over the front of left side of chest over an area of 15 cm X 12 cm and ranging in measurement from 0.5 cm X 0.5 cm to 8 cm X 2 cm.

[ix] One abrasion 1 cm X 1 cm is present over the inner aspect of back of left forearm, 3 cm above the left wrist.

[x] One lacerated wound 2 cm X 0.5 cm X 0.4 cm is present over the dorsum of left index finger which is situated 3 cm below the base.

[xi] Multiple abraded contusions [15 in Nos] are present over the front of right side of chest over an area of 30 cm X 18 cm and ranging in measurement from 0.5 cm X 0.5 cm to 11 cm X 2 cm.

[xii] Multiple abraded contusions [14 in Nos.] are present over the outer aspect of back of right arm over an area of 28 cm X 11 cm and ranging in measurement from 0.5 cm X 0.5 cm to 10 cm X 3 cm.

[xiii] One lacerated wound 2 cm X 1 cm X muscle deep is horizontally present over the back of right below.

[xiv] Multiple abrasions [4 in nos.] present over the back of right forearm over an area of 13 cm X 8 cm ranging in measurement from 1 cm X 1 cm to 1.5 cm X 1 cm.

[xv] One contusion, 6 cm X 5 cm is present over the dorsum of right hand, underlying metacarpal bones are fractured.

[xvi] Bruising present in the muscles of front of neck.

[7] Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel on the basis of the post mortem examination report as well as from the injury reports, one of which shows the multiple cut injuries on the victim, has contended that the prosecution has failed to produce any evidence to demonstrate that any sharp edged weapon was used in the assault. PW-26 has introduced the injury report [Exbt.25] as prepared by Melaghar hospital. PW-26 has categorically stated that injuries as stated by him and recorded as injuries No.1,2, 3 & 4 were caused by sharp-edged weapons and the injury No.5 was caused by blunt-edged weapon. According to Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel, there are serious discrepancies. PW-23, a Medical Officer of Kathalia CHC who first treated the victim has given the description of the injuries and those have been recorded in the trial. But the description of injuries by various hospitals are at variance. But PW-23 has in the trial stated that all these injuries could be caused by lathi [Exbt.MO.4]. Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel has contended that there is a grave doubt about the involvement of the appellants.

[8] From the other side, Mr. S. Debnath, learned Addl. PP has categorically stated that reading of the evidence, as carried out by the counsel for the appellants is selective, but if the whole evidence is read, there will be no confusion at all. He has referred to the testimonies and submitted that the testimony of PW-12 has been well corroborated by PW-13 who arrived at the place of occurrence immediately on registering the hue and cry. Even PW-16 has stated in the trial that on hearing alarm of Kanu Shil [PW-2] he rushed to the place of occurrence in front of house of Srimanta Majumder and found Parikhit was lying with bleeding injuries on his person. On being asked, PW-12 informed him that Biswanath Majumder, Prananath Majumder and Chotan assaulted him and they fled away. Mr. Debnath, Addl. PP has further contended that this piece of evidence being res gestae has its own evidentiary value. He rushed to Kalikrishanangar to bring an auto rickshaw to shift the victim to hospital. But this witness was declared hostile and was allowed to be cross-examined inasmuch as in his statement recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC he had stated that when he reached to the place of occurrence he saw three sons of Srimanta Majumder, namely Biswanath Majumder, Prananath Majumder and Loknath @ Chotan were assaulting one old man by means of lathis. He did not state that in the trial, but the part which he stated in the trial has corroborated the statement of PW-12. Similarly, PW-17 has provided res gestae evidence in respect of the statement made by PW-12. Mr. Debnath, learned Addl. P.P has relied much on forensic report [Exbt.15] as introduced by PW-20, Sr. Scientific Officer and Assistant Chemical Examiner of Tripura State Forensic Science Laboratory. According to PW-20, the blood group of Exbt.F/1 [blue coloured long jeans pant of the appellant, Biswanath Majumder], Exbt.I/1 [broken piece of bamboo stick], Exbt.I/2 [broken piece of bamboo stick] and Exbt.J [one pineapple leaf seized from the place of occurrence contained blood] was determined to be 'O' Group which matched with the blood group of the deceased as tested from the blood sample [Exbt.E]. Thus, Mr. Debnath, learned Addl. PP. having referred to the injury report, postmortem examination report and the testimonies of the witnesses, has clearly contended that the appellants had assaulted the deceased brutally and that has been established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt and hence, the finding of the trial Judge that the appellants by means of bamboo-lathi had assaulted the victim leading to his death cannot be faulted with.

[9] Having appreciated the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, we find a small incongruity between the ocular evidence of PW-12 [the eye witness] and the opinion evidence of PW-26 inasmuch as he gave the opinion that injuries No.1,2,3 & 4 were caused by sharp edged weapon. In this regard, the law is well settled. The opinion evidence cannot have the primacy over the ocular evidence. For purpose of appreciating the submissions further, we have taken a fresh survey of the evidence. It appears therefrom that PW-1, Smt. Lila Datta was seizure witness of the money which was given to her by one 'unknown youth'.

[11] PW-2, Nikhil Datta is witness to that seizure by preparing the seizure list [Exbt.1]. PW-3, Saraswati Dhar is the wife of the deceased. She had learnt the entire episode from Kanu Shil [PW-12]. She met the victim first in Melaghar hospital. She has disclosed an episode that Loknath Majumder @ Chotan [the juvenile accused] once wrote a love letter to her daughter and that infuriated the victim and he raised strong objection. In the cross-examination, the testimony of PW-3 could not be dented.

[12] PW-4, Priyalal Das had transported the injured victim to Kathalia hospital by his auto rickshaw and he found the victim lying in the injured condition. No effective cross-examination was carried out.

[13] PW-5, Manoranjan Das @ Maran. He had aided PW-12 to transport the victim to Kathalia hospital. He has stated as follows:

"I found Parikhit Dhar was [sic. had] sustained bleeding injuries on his person and on being asked the sons and other person informed me that he was assaulted by sons of Srimanta Majumder, namely Biswanath Majumder, Prananath Majumder and others."

This witness was declared hostile as he had stated during investigation that Kanu Shil [PW-12] told him that the sons of Srimanata Majumder, Prananath Majumder and Loknath assaulted Parikhit Dhar and at that time, he found those three persons fleeing towards northeast jungle from their house. He was cross- examined to a limited extent.

[14] PW-6, Pranab Chodhury had carried out the postmortem examination in GBP hospital and he gave a list of injuries, as reproduced, which he found during the post mortem examination. In the trial, he has categorically stated that all the injuries were ante mortem injuries and caused by impact of some hard and blunt object which has clearly supported the statement of PW-12. He has also observed in the postmortem examination report [Exbt.2] that the head injury that the victim has received caused death and such injury was from the impact of some hard and blunt object. He has also disclosed the name of the team members who assisted him during the postmortem examination.

PW-7, Paltan Dey is the seizure witness of two pants=-one is of Loknath Majumder and another is of Prananath Majumder by the seizure list [Exbts.3 & 4]. He had also identified the seized pants in the trial. He has claimed to have been present when inculpatory statement was made by Biswanath Majudmer in the Police custody. Such evidence is inadmissible. The other witnesses also similarly made the inculpatory statements in his presence. According to him, those statements were duly signed by the accused persons.

In the cross-examination, he has stated that he had no intention to make any false statement.

[15] PW-8, Sajal Debnath is a witness of seizure of two pants by the seizure lists [Exbts.3 & 4]. In his presence, the Deputy Collector and Magistrate of Sonamura recorded the 'confessional statement' which according to law does not have any evidentiary value.

[16] PW-9, Prithiraj Debnath, the Deputy Collector and Magistrate had recorded the disclosure statement by the accused persons but he has recorded the confessional statement as preface to the disclosure statement. But there was no discovery in his presence.

[17] PW-10, Manoranjan Das, has been already discussed. He had stated in the trial that one blood stained dao was seized vide seizure list [Exbt.9]. But no link of dao with the crime has been established. In the cross-examination, he has stated that he was just 50 meter away from Kanu Shil when he heard his cry.

[18] PW-11, Subrata Pal is the seizure witness of bloodstained earth, one bamboo-made lathi with bloodstain and one pineapple leaf with bloodstain vide the seizure list [Exbt.8]. Even he was witness to seizure of one bloodstained dao.

[19] PW-12, Kanu Shil who witnessed the transaction of crime. He has been discussed elaborately while recording submission of Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the appellants. He has categorically stated that he saw Biswanath Majumder, Prananath Majumder and Chotan Majumder were assaulting Parikhhit [the deceased] by means of lathi. That statement could not be dented during the cross-examination as carried out by the defence. But he had admitted that he did not tell the police officer that the accused persons assaulted Parikhit Dhar by means of lathi. But he had stated that he saw the accused persons including the appellants herein assaulting Parikhit Dhar.

[20] PW-13, Nanda Rani Paul @ Mita has also categorically stated that she found Chotan giving lathi blow on Parikhit while he was proceeding through the front of their house riding a bicycle. As a result of those blows, he fell down from his bicycle. Chotan, and his brothers, namely Biswanath Majumder and Prananath Majumder came there and started beating Parikhit by means of bamboo lathi. Parikhit raised alarm by calling Kanu. Thereafter, she has given the further details in respect of transportation of the injured victim and of making statement under Section 164 (5) of the Cr.P.C. She has denied the suggestion that she did not see any such incident. She has also denied the suggestion that the accused persons did not beat the victim by lathi.

[21] PW-14, Sumitra Rani Paul has confirmed the presence of PWs-12 & 13 in the place of occurrence when PW-14 reached the place of occurrence she found Parikhit lying with bleeding injuries and PWs-12 & 13 were there and raised alarm.

[22] PW-15, Ashis Majumder scribed the complaint [Exbt.12] as per the dictation of the complainant.

[23] PW-16, Sajal Das has already been discussed.

PW-17, Dilip Das has stated that on the day of occurrence in the morning, he had heard hue and cry of Kanu Shil. He had immediately rushed to the place of occurrence and found Parikhit Dhar lying with bleeding injuries in front of the house of Srimanta Majumder. Kanu Shil had immediately informed that sons of Srimanta Majumder had assaulted him. He has named the sons of Srimanta Majumder- Biswanath Majumder, Prananath Majumder and Loknath Majumder.

In the cross-examination, the defence could not extract any statement which would debase the statements made in the examination-in-chief.

[24] PW-18, Rahul Roy, was a Judicial Magistrate being posted at Sonamura at that point of time and he had recorded the statement of PW-13 under Section 164(5) of the Cr.P.C. [Exbt.11] and also the statement of PW-12 in the same manner [Exbt.10].

[25] PW-19, Sunil Debbarma, a head constable of police posted at Jatrapur police station, was the witness of seizure of yellow printed vest with bloodstain from Biswanath Majumder. Two mobile phones with 2 separate SIM cards were seized by preparing the seizure lisr [Excbt.14]. He had identified those materials.

[26] PW-20, Dr. Sabyasachi Nath has already been discussed in reference to his report [Exbts.15 & 16].

[27] PW-21, Samiran Banik a constable police, posted at Jatrapur PS was a witness to the seizure of one vest of Biswanath Majumder [Exbt.MO.6] and one mobile phone with 2 SIM cards [Exbt.MO 7].

[28] PW-22, Kamal Krishna Koloy, an Inspector of Police had received the written complaint and registered a specific police case against Biswanath Majudmer, Prananath Majumder and Loknath Majumder under Sections 341,326 and 506 of the IPC. He endorsed the case for investigation to Jibesh Shyam Roy, one Sub Inspector of Police. Later on, he himself took charge of the investigation from Jibesh Shyam Roy and completed the investigation. He has narrated briefly how he had carried out the investigation including recording of the statement of the witnesses and how he had arranged to record the statement of the vital witnesses [PWs-12 & 13] under Section 164(5) of the Cr.P.C. He has also stated that he had recorded the disclosure statement made by Biswanath Majumder, Prananath Majumder and Loknath Majumder [Exbt.5,6 & 7]. He has also examined some other witnesses. After collecting the postmortem examination report etc. he submitted the final report. From the age proof certificate it appears that Loknath Majumder was a juvenile in conflict with law and the report against him has been filed before the JJ Board.

[29] PW-23, Dr. Maharshi Debnath has been discussed before. He had stated that while treating the victim at Kathalia CHC, he had found several injuries on the person of the victim and according to him, those injuries were simple and caused by sharp and blunt edged weapons. Some injuries were caused by sharp-edged weapons. According to him, injuries No.1,3 & 5 had been caused by sharp edged weapon, meaning weapons like dao, knife etc.

[30] PW-24, Jibesh Shyam Roy investigated the case at the commencement and he caused the seizures of various incriminatory materials such as one dao with wooden handle by preparing the seizure list [Exbt.9]. He did not find the accused person in their houses as they had fled away, but he found the materials against Smt. Alo Rani Shil [the mother-in-law of Biswanath Majumder] from where, it can be inferred that she had harboured the accused persons and that is the reason why she was also implicated in the case. He has also stated how he had prepared the site map and examined the witnesses, but he had candidly admitted in the trial that he did not send the seized dao for forensic examination.

[31] PW-25, Suman Kr. Chakraborty, Dy. Director of the State Forensic Science Laboratory examined the viscera of the deceased and that was negative for common poisons.

[32] PW-26, Dr. Raunak Debbarma has been discussed as he has stated that some of the injuries were created by sharp-edged weapon and some were created by blunt edged weapon.

[33] We have referred to the relevant documents. Thus, having sifted the evidence cautiously, we are of the view that the testimonies of PWs-12 & 13 are adequate enough to return the finding of conviction against the appellants. We do not find any reason to interfere with the finding of conviction as returned by the trial Judge. However, having due regard to the aggravating, mitigating circumstances and the age of the appellants, we would reduce the sentence of imprisonment from 10 [ten] years rigorous imprisonment to 8[eight] years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/- each, in default, to suffer further simple imprisonment for 6[six] months for commission of offence punishable under Section Section 304(Part-II) of the CPC. The sentence under Section 341 of the IPC stands affirmed. The period of detention as already undergone by the appellants during the investigation and the trial, shall be set off from the substantive imprisonment. The sentences, as directed by the trial Judge, shall run concurrently. The direction of the trial Judge to grant compensation under Section 357 A of the Cr.P.C. is affirmed by us.

In the result, this appeal stands partly allowed.

Send down the LCRs forthwith.