The court emphasized the importance of corroboration by independent witnesses in establishing the credibility of the prosecution's case and determining the shared intention of multiple accused in causing the death of a victim.

JOYMALYA BAGCHI, J.

1. The appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated February 9, 1987 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, 6th Court, Alipore in Sessions Trial No. 1(7)86 corresponding to Sessions Case No. 28(2)86 convicting the appellants for commission of offence punishable under Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 5 years each and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months has been assailed.

2. Prosecution case as alleged against the appellants and co-accused Muneswari Ali is to the effect that on 7.8.1984 at about 2.30/3 P.M. when the complainant Motilal Das and other male members were away from their house, appellant no.2 Iswar Chowdhury came to their house and abused his wife and sister-in-law. Later on appellant no.1, Samar Chowdhury, the father of Iswar, came to the house and took the latter away. On the next day i.e. 8.8.1984 at about 8.30 A.M. when the complainant and his father and brothers were discussing the incident of the previous day the appellants along with Muneswari Debi came to the house and started hurling abuses at them and as they protested the appellants left their house. Within half an hour the appellants again came to the house and hurled two bombs at the tiled roof of the complainant and attacked them with lathi and bhalla and started mercilessly assaulting their father i.e. Lochan Das and his brother Hira causing bleeding injuries. The appellants committed mischief by breaking the tiles of the roof of their house and after they raised hue and cry the appellants fled away. As a result of such injury, Hira died in hospital. Defacto-complainant Motilal Das lodged first information report at local P.S. Case no.4 dated 8.8.1984 under Sections 448/324/325/ 427/34 of IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of Explosive Substance Act. Upon the death of Hira, charge sheet was filed under Sections 448/427/323/304 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions and transferred to the Court of the Learned Additional Sessions Judge for trial. Charge was framed against the accused persons under Section 302/149/148 of I.P.C. and the same was read over and explained to them. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3. In the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses to establish its case. The defence of the appellants was one of innocence and false implication. It is their specific defence that Samar Chowdhury, the appellant no. 1, was the landlord and there was a landlord-tenant dispute and as a result the appellants have been falsely implicated in the instant case. It was further pleaded that Hira had suffered an accidental injury while he was cutting grass beside the railway track. In conclusion of trial, the Trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants, as aforesaid. Muneswari Debi, however, was acquitted of the charges.

4. Mr. Chakraborty, learned Amicus Curiae submitted that there is no evidence on record that appellants shared common intention to cause death of the victim. There is no overt act attributed to them. It is further submitted that all the witnesses are the family members of the victim and are interested witnesses who were inimical to the appellants. Hence, appellants ought not to be convicted on the basis of the evidence. He prayed for acquittal.

5. On the other hand, Mr. Gupta, the Learned Counsel for the State submitted that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses are reliable and convincing. They are unshaken in cross-examination. P.W4 is an injured eyewitness and has clearly implicated all the appellants in the assault of his son, Hira which resulted in his death. He, accordingly, prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

6. P.W. 1 to 5 are the eyewitnesses in the instant case.

7. P.W.1 is the sister of the victim. She deposed on the day of the incident the appellant n