JUDGMENT

L. Mohapatra, J.—All the five appellants having been convicted for commission of offence under Sections 302 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘I.P.C’) and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for commission of offence under Sections 302/34 I.P.C. and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000 each, in default. to undergo further R.I. for one year, and to undergo R.I. for two years each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000 each, in default, to undergo R.I. for six months for commission of offence under Sections 201/34 I.P.C. by the learned Sessions Judge, Sundargarh in Sessions Trial No.19 of 1999, have preferred this appeal. However, the substantive sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

The case of the prosecution as revealed from the record is that the appellants and the deceased persons belong to the same village and there was enmity between appellant Singha Munda and the deceased persons, since the former suspected one of the deceased, namely, Balima Munda to be a witchcraft responsible for death of his two wives. In the night of occurrence all the appellants went to the house of the deceased persons being armed with weapons such as bhujalis and lathies and assaulted the deceased Balima Munda by means of bhujalis and also assaulted the other deceased Mania Munda, who is husband of Balima Munda by means of lathi blows. As a result of such assault on both deceased persons, they died. Two minor children PWs. 7 and 8 of the deceased couple being frightened, ran away from the house and concealed themselves in the house of one Kamaya PW 4. It is alleged by the prosecution that having killed both the deceased persons, all the appellants threw the dead inside the forest. Next day morning the son of deceased couple PW8 narrated the incident to PW4 who informed the matter to the informant PW1 and accordingly a report was submitted before the O.I.C., Koida Police Station by PW1. On receipt of the F.I.R., a case was registered and investigation was taken up. The dead bodies were recovered and on completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed for commission of offences under Sections 302 and 201/34 I.P.C.

The defence plea is complete denial of the prosecution allegation.

2. Prosecution in order to bring home the charges, examined nine witnesses, out of whom PW1 is the informant, PWs.7 and 8 are the children of the deceased couple, who are the eye-witnesses to the occurrence. PW 4 is the witness in whose house both PWs.7 and 8 took shelter in the night of occurrence. PWs. 2, 3 and 5 are witnesses to the seizure, inquest, etc. PW6 is the doctor, who conducted post-mortem examination and PW9 is the Investigating Officer.

3. The Trial Court accepting the evidence of two eye-witnesses, namely, Gambhari Munda (PW7) and Baburam Munda (PW8) found the appellants guilty of the charges and convicted them thereunder.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants assailing the impugned judgment submitted that P Ws. 7 and 8 had not witnessed the occurrence at all. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that both the witnesses had not disclosed about the incident before anyone and their statements in the cross-examination clearly show that they had not witnessed the occurrence at all. So far as recovery of weapons of offence is concerned, it is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that both the witnesses examined by the prosecution in this regard turned hostile as they did not support the prosecution case. According to the learned counsel, evidence of PWs.7 and 8 should not be believed and since there is no other evidence to connect the appellants with the alleged crime, they should be acquitted of the charges.

5. Learned counsel for the State relying on the evidence of PWs.7 and 8 submitted that there is no reason to disbelieve their testimonies. It was further contended by the learned counsel for the State that evidence of PWs.7 and 8 corroborates the evidence of PW6 the doctor, who conducted po