The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of proper examination of witnesses, admissible evidence, and explanation of injuries on the accused in influencing the prosecution's case.

Appellants Bharat Ray and Shatrughan Ray have been found guilty for an offence punishable under Section 307/34 IPC and each one has been sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years as well as to pay fine appertaining to Rs. 5,000/- in default thereof, to undergo SI for 3 months additionally, under Section 324/34 IPC, each one has been sentenced to undergo RI for 3 years with a further direction to run the sentences concurrently with a further direction that in case of deposit of fine, half of the same should be paid to the informant by way of compensation by the Additional Sessions Judge-8th, Saran at Chapra in Sessions Trial No. 17/1991 vide judgment of conviction dated 28.03.2015 and order of sentence dated 31.03.2015.

2. PW-1, Indrajit Prasad gave his Fard-e-beyan on 11.04.89 at about 12.15 PM while he was admitted at Primary Health Centre, Naya Gaon along with other injured, Jitendra Kumar (brother) and Kedar Ray (uncle) alleging inter alia that on the same day at about 10.30 AM, his father has informed that Shatrughan Ray, Bharat Ray and Birendra Ray has put “Khop” over his land in spite of protest made by his father whereupon, he along with his brother, father and uncle gone there and forbade them. All the three began to abuse and then, went to their house. Shatrughan and Birendra returned back with pistol and began to fire. Firing having been made by Shatrughan caused injury over the person of his father over his mouth as well as jaw. Birendra had fired causing injury over him. After sustaining injury, his father fell down as a result of which, they began to lift whereupon, Bharat Rai gave repeated Farsa blow causing injuries over brother of informant. He had also assaulted informant with Farsa over his head. When Kedar Ray intervened, he was also assaulted causing injury over his temporal region. On hue and cry raised by them, co-villagers, Ramdhari Rai, Jugeshwar Rai, Rajendra Rai and others came, seeing whom the accused persons fled away. Then thereafter, injured were taken to the hospital wherefrom Ramdeo, father of the informant, considering his precarious condition, referred to PMCH.

3. After registration of Sadar Chapra PS Case No. 35/89, investigation commenced and concluded by way of submission of charge-sheet whereupon trial commenced and concluded in a manner subject matter of instant appeal.

4. Defence case as is evidence from the mode of cross-examination as well as statement recorded under Section 313 CrPC is that of complete denial. It has been pleaded that prosecution party taking assistance of anti-social elements tried to grab the land of the accused forcibly which was resisted and during course thereof, Birendra was done to death while Kajal, Sunaina and others were brutally assaulted and for that, Sadar PS Case No. 34/89 has been registered against them. However, neither ocular nor documentary evidence has been adduced on behalf of defence.

5. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution had examined altogether 4 witnesses who are PW-1, Indrajit Prasad, informant, PW-2, Raghunath Rai, PW-3, Kedar Rai and PW-4, Jitendra Rai out of whom PW-4 has been tendered while remaining three are injured. Prosecution had also exhibited Ext-1, Signature of informant over Fard-e-beyan, Ext-1/1, Signature of Kedar Rai over Fard-e-beyan, Ext-1/2, Signature of Jitendra Rai over Fard-e-beyan, Ext-2, Fard-e-beyan, Ext-3 Series, injury report of respective injured.

6. It has been submitted on behalf of appellants that while recording finding of guilt, the learned lower court considered the materials which were not at all recognizable in the eye of law and in likewise manner, misconstrued the mandatory provisions of law and that being so, finding recording by the learned lower court is fit to be set aside. In order to substantiate the same, it has been submitted that when PW-1, informant, came up for evidence, a prayer was made on behalf of appellant to defer his cross-examination, which the learned lower court had allo