JUDGMENT

SUJIT BARMAN ROY, C.J. — Both the appeals are being dis¬posed of by this common judgment as these are directed against the same judgment dated 6.10.1994 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Puri in Session Trial Case No. 41/335 of 1990 convicting the appellant Jambeswar Pal under Section 302 as well as under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him accordingly to suffer life imprisonment and rigorous imprisonment for six months respectively. The other appellants namely, Prahallad Pal, Narayan Pal, Umakanta Pal and Dhanes(war Pal were also convicted under Section 326/34 and under Section 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code. They were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years in respect of their conviction under Section 326/34 I.P.C. They were also sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months in respect of their conviction under Section 323/34 I.P.C. with a direction that all these sentences would run concurrently.

2. The prosecution story in brief is that on 23.6.1988 at about 5 P.M., P.W. 8, Maheswar Pal lodged a written complaint before the Asst. Inspector of Police, Gop Police Station at Charichhak Primary Health Centre. In the said complaint, the informant inter alia alleged that on 22.6.1988 at about 4 P.M. he was in his house. At that time, he saw that the appellant Dhanes¬war Pal had climbed the coconut tree situated on the back side of the house of the informant and was about to pluck coconuts. Jambeswar Pal was seen holding a sharp cutting weapon locally called “Farsa”. The remaining appellants apart from other persons mentioned therein were also present at that place and were hold¬ing lathis in their hands. Seeing this the informant went to the spot and asked the appellants as to why they were plucking coco¬nuts as on the 30th of that month the case between them would be decided on the question who could pluck the coconuts? Soon after that the appellant Jambeswar Pal assaulted the informant with Farsa on his head and nose. Soon after that the son of the informant went to the field to bring other brothers of the in¬formant. Both the brothers came and asked the appellants party as to why after plucking coconuts they have injured the informant ? Despite this, the appellants scolded and hackled them. The in¬formant’s younger brother inflicted injury on the left leg finger and head of Chhabi Pal (since deceased). The other appellants namely, Narayan Pal, Pahali Pal hackled them with lathis. Ac¬cused Pahali Pal, Dhruba Pal, Basanta Pal, and Raju Pal hackled Rabi Narayan Pal (P.W.7) with lathis. Noticing this incident, when wives of informant and deceased came for help, they were also beaten up with lathis by accused Narayan Pal, Basanti Pal and Dhruba Pal. On the basis of the said complaint, F.I.R. under Sections 341/323/324/326/307/34 I.P.C. was registered at the Gop Police Station against the appellants and other accused persons named therein. On conclusion of usual investigation, police submitted charge sheet against the appellants under Sections 302/326/324/307/34 I.P.C. In usual course the case was committed to the Court of Sessions Judge, Puri. On transfer the case was tried before the trial Court. On perusal of the materials on record, learned trial Court framed charges under Sections 302/34, 323/34, 324/34 and 307/34 I.P.C. against the appellants and they pleaded not guilty to the said charges. In course of trial in all, 14 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. None was examined on behalf of the appellants. On conclusion of the trial, the appellants were convicted and sentenced as already stated.

3. We have perused the evidence on record. We have also heard Mr. Dhal, learned counsel for the appellants as well as Mr. Mohanty, learned Addl. Government Advocate. Both of them have taken us through the evidence on record and also statements of the appellants recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In course of their examination before the trial Court