The court held that the evidence of the witnesses was reliable, despite some minor discrepancies. The court also held that the accused persons were guilty of the offences alleged, but reduced the conviction of the main accused from Section 302 to Section 304, Part-II, I.P.C. due to lack of specific intent to cause a particular injury. The court further held that the accused persons were entitled to leniency in sentencing due to the long delay in the trial.

JUDGMENT :

A. Pasayat, J. - In this appeal, the six Appellants (hereinafter referred to as "accused" by their respective names) have questioned the legality of the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sundargarh, in Sessions Trial No. 47 of 1989. Appellant Lokanath Kalo has been convicted for offence punishable u/s 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, the "I.P.C.") while the other Appellants have been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 148 and 324/149, I.P.C.. While Lokanath has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, others have been sentenced to imprisonment for one year's rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable u/s 148, I.P.C: and for one year and six months' rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable u/s 324/149, I.P.C.

2. The Appellants along with several others totalling 25 in number faced trial for having allegedly committed homicidal death of one Shibaprasad Patel (hereinafter referred to as the "deceased") and injuries to others. Prosecution case, as unfolded in the trial, is that one Amrutlal Naik (P.W.15) belongs to village Tikilipada within Hemgir Police Station limits, to which place the accused persons also belong. Informant Amrutlal and his relatives have got landed properties in the village which they were possessing. In the year of dispute i.e. 1988, they had raised paddy crop. On the date of occurrence, i.e. 1.11.1988 at about 8.99 a.m. informant got information that accused persons and some others numbering about fifty armed with deadly weapons had entered into their land to cut paddy. On getting such information, informant and Ors. namely, Kasiram, Jagmohan, Laxminarayan, Shibaprasad and some others went to the field and requested the accused persons not to cut the paddy, but the accused persons did not pay any heed to their request and rushed towards them and assaulted them by lathis and shot arrows at them; as a result of which several persons received injuries.

The condition of Shibaprasad (deceased) became serious and he was shifted to Gopalpur Government Hospita1. Information was also lodged with Officer-in-charge, Hemgir Police Station, who came to village Tikilipada and a plain paper F.I.R. was drawn. Investigation was taken up after registration of the case. Shibaprasad, the deceased, who was admitted to Sundargarh Govt. Hospital, breathed his last on 2.11.1988. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was placeholder the accused persons faced trial. Plea of the accused persons was denial of the allegations against them. On the contrary, they took the plea that they were the victims of assault made by the informant and other prosecution witnesses. Learned trial judge held the present Appellants guilty, as aforesaid, but acquitted the other accused persons.

3. In support of the appeal it has been submitted that the case suffers from lot of exaggerations and since large number of other accused persons have been acquitted, it would not be proper to place reliance on the evidence of such witnesses to find the present Appellants guilty. The witnesses were related to the deceased and No. reliance should have been placed on their version. Additionally it is submitted that considering the background, a case u/s 302, I.P.C. is not made out in respect of Appellant Lokanath.

4. It cannot be laid down as a rule of universal application that whenever a person who is related to the deceased is examined as a witness, his version has to be viewed with suspicion. A relation is more often than not a truthful witness who would not shield the culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person. However, where hostility is pleaded, the Court is to carefully consider the evidence and find out whether a truthful version has been presented by the concerned witness. In the case at hand, undisputedly there was hostility and, therefore, the Court was required to analyse the evidence with care. That appears to have been done and after elaborately