S.B.SINHA, J.

1. The appellants, who are seven in numbers have preferred this appeal against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by Sri S. K. P. Verma, 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Sessions Trial No. 112/83.

2. The appellants aforementioned stood their trial with one Govind Munshi and Dubey Hazra. Govind Munshi had been acquitted by the learned Court below whereas Dubey Hazra died during the pendency of the case.

3. By reason of the impugned judgment, the learned Court below has found all the appellants guilty of commission of an offence under Sections 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code for causing the death of one Kalu Hazra.

4. Appellant No. 1, Sitaram Hazra, appellant No. 2, Thakur Hazra alongwith the aforementioned Dubev Hazra (since deceased) were found guilty of an offence under Section 302, I.P.C. for causing the death of aforementioned Kalu Hazra.

All the anpellants were further found guilty for commission of an offence under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code for causing grievous hart to Chini Hazra (P.W. 8). Durjodhan Hazra (P.W. 2), Brihaspat Hazra (P.W. 7), Puran Hazra (P.W. 6) and Kanthi Hazra (P.W. 1).

5. The occurrence took place on 20th August, 1982 at about 6.30 AM. at village Buriasher. P.S. Govindpur in the district of Dhanbad Chini Hazra (P.W. 8) made a fardbayan before the Offlcer-in-charge of Govindpur Police Station at about 10 A.M. on 20-8-1982 alleging inter alia, therein that about 6.30 A.M., on that date to the effect that he alongwith his other family members had gone to plough the field which was situated towards the east of the village. According to the informant, when they had started ploughing the land, the appellants and two others arrived at the field and obstructed them from ploughing the land saying that they were the owners thereof and thereafter, assaulted them with the weapons which they had been carrying, as a result whereof Kalu Hazra died and the informant and his companions were injured.

6. The prosecution in support of its case examined 10 witnesses. P.Ws. 9 and 10 are formal witnesses. Other witnesses, namely P.W. 1, Kanthi Hazra, P.W. 2. Durjodhan Hazra, P.W. 4, Gour Hazra, P.W. 6, Puran Hazra, P.W. 7, Brihaspat Hazra and P.W. 8, Chini Hazra, informant are injured persons.

7. In this case, neither the Investigating Officer was examined nor the doctors, who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased Kalu Hazra and who examined the injured witnesses have been examined.

8. The post mortem report and the injury reports however have been brought on record and marked exhibits.

9. The learned Court below, on the basis of the evidences brought on record came to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt, and as indicated hereinbefore, passed the judgment of conviction and sentence as against the appellants.

10. Miss Indrani Choudhary, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant raised the following contentions :

(A) The Investigating Officer having not been examined, the prosecution case must be held to have not been able to prove its case.

(B) The learned counsel next contended that as the doctors were not examined to prove either the post mortem report (Ext. 2) or the injury reports (Exts. 3 to 3/2), the prosecution cannot be said to have proved the injuries allegedly received by the prosecution witnesses and thus the prosecution cannot be said to have proved its case in relation thereto.

(C) It was next contended that in the instant ease, all the witnesses are interested witnesses and the prosecution having not examined any independent witness, no reliance can be placed upon the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses.

(D) The learned counsel further submitted that the informant and his co-sharers have not produced any document whatsoever to prove their title or possession in respect of the land in dispute being plot No. 249 measuring an area of 79 decimals.

According to the learned counsel, a