B.N.P.Singh, J.

1. Land, which is a bounty of nature, is also source of livelihood for human beings. But many lives are lost due to hostility generated by the land disputes and the instant case is an illustration. To trace the genesis of incident, one finds from the evidences placed on record that about 1 and 1/2 months back, as both Gaibi Mandal and the deceased Suresh Mandal were aspirants for purchasing 4 and 1/2 bighas of land, there was a bidding between them and it was Suresh Mandal who had outbidden the former. Offended Gaibi Mandal, who lost the bid and failed to secure possession over the land, had been consistently putting pressure on the deceased, and also his father-in-law, in whose name the transactions were made to relinquish their claim over the land and as the deceased failed to oblige him, he had to pay the price by losing his life.

2. Shorn of details, the case with which the prosecution went for trial was that on 26th September, 1980 at about 8 a.m. while Suresh Mandal (deceased) was sitting on cot, at the door of his house, along with other family members, who were his father, brother, mother, wife and brothers wife, Gaibi Mandal, Ranjit Mandal, Panchamlal Mandal, Jageshwar Mandal, Mushahru Mandal and Narain Mandal came holding arms with them and shortly on their arrival, Ranjit Mandal pumped a bullet in the left side of chest of Suresh Mandal when he dropped dead. Pellets pierced through his abdomen causing the intestine coming out from the abdomen. The assailant and those who accompanied them, shortly took to their heels. It was alleged that after the villagers had collected at the place of incident, complicity of the assailant and his associates was disclosed to them. Apprehensive of removing the dead body by them, the family members kept guarding the dead body for the whole night, and since it was a rainy night, the worried father took recourse to Police only in the following morning, when his fardbeyan was recorded at the Police Station at 9.30 a.m. on 27th September, 1980. After the Police was set in motion, investigation commenced and in the process of collection of evidence during investigation, Police recorded statement of witnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, visited the place of occurrence, prepared inquest report over the dead body in presence of P.Ws. 2 and 15, namely, Rashik Lal Mandal and Tetar Mahto, respectively, seized incriminating objects, sent the dead body to mortuary for post mortem examination, took coercive steps for apprehension of the assailants and their associates and on conclusion of investigation, laid charge sheet before the Court and on committal to the Court of Session, the appellants were eventually put on trial.

3. In the eventual trial, prosecution examined 19 witnesses, obviously to bring home charges against the appellants and those examined by the prosecution include family members of the deceased, doctor, Police Officer, some formal witnesses and also those who claimed to be either ocular or hear-say witnesses of the incident. The defence too examined three witnesses to counter the allegations attributed to the appellants and also to bring some documents on record which are Exhibits A series, B, C and D. Contrary to the allegations made by the prosecution, Narayan Mandal. one of the appellants, as would appear from the evidences placed on record on his behalf, alleged that he had been claiming possession of the land in question on strength of deed, for which he allegedly secured a decree from the Court of Law. He claimed to have been cultivating the disputed land preceding the day of incident.

4. The appellants pleaded not guilty to the charges and pleaded their false implication. The trial Court, on appreciation of evidences placed on record while negativing contentions raised at Bar on behalf of the appellants, accepted the prosecution version, placing implicit reliance on testimony of witnesses and rendered verdict of guilt against