JUDGMENT :

BIRENDRA KUMAR, J.

1. All the eight appellants faced trial in Sessions Case No. 31/2013 arising out of FIR No. 27/2013 registered with Police Station Hindoli for offences under Sections 147, 148, 341, 323/149 and 302/149 IPC. On trial before the learned Sessions Judge, the appellants were found guilty vide impugned judgment dated 11.06.2015 and on the same day, the learned trial Judge passed the following sentences:

Sentences are to run concurrently.

2. The prosecution examined altogether 19 witnesses and 61 documents were exhibited from Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.61. Among the prosecution witnesses, only two are eye-witnesses. They are PW-6 Satyanarayan and PW-16 Devraj. The informant of the case PW-9 Bhimraj is not an eye-witness of the occurrence.

3. According to the First Information Report submitted by PW-9 Bhimraj on 09.01.2013, father of the informant namely Kalyan was going to his village from his well on the field side. PW-16 Devraj was driving the motorcycle, whereas PW-6 Satyanarayan was sitting on the middle and Kalyan was sitting behind Satyanarayan. When they reached near talai at 11 a.m. found that someone had put thorn hedges on the way. From the hedges, all the eight appellants came out. They were armed with axes, gandasis and wood sticks. All the accused persons started assault against the father of the informant and when Devraj and Satyanarayan tried to intervene, they were also assaulted. On hearing alarm, Prakash and Gangabishan reached there. Thereafter, the accused persons fled away. The injured was taken to the hospital. The informant further states that dispute for the said well between the parties was reason for old discord which led to the occurrence of assault against the father of the informant.

4. PW-6 Satyanarayan and PW-16 Devraj have supported the prosecution case as eye-witnesses of the occurrence to the extent that Satyanarayan, Devraj and Kalyan were going on the motorcycle from the well to their village and on the way, the accused persons committed assault to Kalyan which resulted in his death during the course of treatment. On perusal of entire testimony of PW-6 and PW-16, it appears that the witnesses are consistent and reliable.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that even if the testimonies of PW-6 and PW-16 are believed, it is not the prosecution case that the appellants were carrying any intention to commit murder. The doctor has found injury on non-vital parts of the body, i.e. legs and arms, whereas the accused persons had sufficient opportunity to commit injury on vital part as well, if they would have intended to commit murder. Therefore, conviction under Section 302 of IPC is apparently illegal.

6. Learned Public Prosecutor contends that the learned trial Judge has meticulously considered all the prosecution evidences specially of the eye-witnesses, and the charges were found proved against the appellants which requires no interference.

7. We have perused the material on record.

8. On the date of occurrence itself, PW-3 Chotu Lal Dadhich had examined injuries of deceased-Kalyan and noticed as follows:

“1. Cut wound at the left leg lower part.

2. Punctured wound near knee.

3. Punctured wound at the right leg.

4. Cut wound at the right leg on front side.

5. Swelling near left wrist.

6. Punctured wound at the left palm.

7. Punctured wound near right wrist.

8. Swelling with redness on left knee.

9. Swelling at the occipital region.”

The head injury was simple in nature and could have been possible by fall on any hard substance.

9. PW-12 Dr. Anil Saini, at the time of postmortem examinatio