D.N. Patel, J.

1. The present criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by 4th Additional District & Sessions Judge, Dumka, in Sessions Case No.30/2001. The learned Trial Court vide order dated 25th October, 2002 has punished these appellants for life imprisonment for offence punishable under Section 304/34 of the I.P.C.

2. The case of prosecution is that on 2.6.2000 at 21.15 hrs (i.e. 9.15 P.M.) the informant Bitti Hembrom (P. W9) gave fardbeyan at Ramgarh Hospital to police that on 2.6.2000 at 4.30 P.M. informant, her husband Girish Hansda (deceased) and her son Indray Hansda (P.W8) were in their home. At that time informant brotherinlaw i.e. Raja Hansda (accused no.1) and Nandan Hansda (accused no.2) came there and took Girish Hansda to the house of Raja Hansda in order to have a talk in connection with settlement of marriage of his daughter and Girish Hansda went to the House of the accused Raja Hansda.They talk about the marriage of Girish Hansda niece and also talk about the partition of ancestor land and then they started altercation with informant husband for partition land. Thereafter at 5 P.M. informant saw that her husband was caught hold by Nandan Hansda at the door of Raja Hansda house and Raja Hansda inflicted two blows of sharp edged fasuli on Girish Hansda and after getting injured, Girish Hansda run from there to save himself but both the accused persons chased him and gave 2/3 blows of fasuli on his chest and head and injured him. Then informant raise noise (hulla) and her son Indray Hansda rushed to rescue his father. The accused Raja Hansda also inflicted further blows by fasuli on the Girish Hansda even after his fall and then accused persons fled away from there. Then informant son Indray Hansda brought his father Girish Hansda to home and thereafter with the help of villagers he was taken to Ramgarh Hospital for treatment but doctor declared him dead. The informant further alleged that the reason for occurrence took place only due to differences in partition of ancestral lands.

Ten witnesses were examined by the prosecution

P.W.-1 Rameshwar Hembram He is the Eye witness of the occurrence and

he has proved his signature in the fardbeyan i.e. marked as Ext.1 and also proved his signature in the seizure list i.e. marked as Ext.1/1.

P.W.-2 Sonalal Hansda He is the Eye witness of the occurrence.

P.W-3 Sanat Kisku He is the Eye witness of the occurrence and

he has proved his signature and signature of Suklal Kisku in the Inquest report i.e. marked as Ext.2 and 2/1. He has also proved his signature in the seizure list i.e. marked as Ext.1/2

P.W-4 Suklal Kisku He is the Eye witness of the occurrence.

P.W-5 Dhaneshwar Hembram He is the son-in-law of deceased Girish Hansda and is the Eye witness of the occurrence.

P.W-6 Baburam Besra Declared Hostile witness.

P.W-7 Dr. Nasimul Haque He is the Doctor who has conducted the Post-mortem of the dead body of Girish Hansda and has proved the Post-mortem report i.e. marked as Ext.3.

P.W-8 Indray Hansda He is the son of deceased Girish Hansda and he is the Eye witness of the occurrene.

P.W-9 Bitti Hembram She is the wife of deceased Girish Hansda and is the Eye witness of the occurrence.

P.W-10 Shyamlal Tuddu He is the Investigating Officer of this case. He has proved the fardbeyan i.e. marked as Ext.4 and has also proved the endorsement of O/C Ramgarh Police Station in fardbeyan i.e. marked as Ext.4/1. He has proved the formal FIR i.e. marked as Ext.5 and also proved the carbon copy of Inquest report i.e. marked as Ext.6. He has proved the seizure list i.e. marked as Ext.7 and also proved the signature of Raja Hansda (accused) in the seizure list i.e. marked das Ext.1/3.

3. It is submitted by the counsel for the appellants that the learned trial court has not properly appreciated the fact that there are major contradiction, omission and improvement in the deposition of the prosecution witnesses and hence the judgment