IMPORTANT POINTS
Evidence of related witness can be relied upon if reliable, probable, cogent and consistent.
Minor discrepancies in evidence are not material if supported by other evidence.
Common intention can be gathered from circumstances of the case.

JUDGMENT

Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J.

In this most unfortunate and beastly incident, four persons fast asleep in their home in the early hours of the morning, oblivious to their imminent fate, were mercilessly murdered in a barbaric manner by the armed accused, without any instigation or provocation.

2. Against the concurrent judgments of conviction and sentence dated 29.04.2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Barpeta in Sessions Case No. 68/2001 and the judgment dated 5.3.2010 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 121 of 2006 passed by the Gauhati High Court, this appeal is presented by the convicted accused.

3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that 26 persons including the appellants herein, armed with deadly weapons like spears, arrows, lathis etc. surrounded the house of Md. Aziz Ali, Md. Kutub Ali, Md. Mamud Ali and Samir Ali at about 6.00 a.m. on 9.11.1995 and trespassed into their house, dragged them outside and then assaulted them. As a result of this, Md. Aziz Ali, Md. Kutub Ali, Md. Mamud Ali and Samir Ali (not mentioned as deceased in FIR) succumbed to the injuries sustained by them and one Md. Atar Ali was injured. Though 26 persons were arrayed as accused in the first information, the chargesheet came to be filed against 15 persons. During the course of the trial, one of the accused died, and two others absconded. Thus, the trial was held against 12 accused, 8 of whom are the appellants herein. The Trial Court after following due procedure convicted the appellants under Sections 148, 323 and 302 read with 149 ofthe Indian Penal Code (for short, "the IPC"), and acquitted the other accused. The judgment of the Trial Court came to be confirmed by the High Court. Hence, the convicted accused are in appeal before us.

4. Shri Raj Kishore Chaudhary, appearing on behalf of the appellants, took us through the material on record, and contended that though there are six eye-witnesses to the incident in question, all these eye-witnesses are closely related to the family of the deceased. It was also contended that the motive for commission of the offence is very weak, only being to the effect that on the day before the incident, a minor quarrel took place between the parties because the bicycles of PW1, Md. Hanif Ali and accused Md. Saifuddin (absconding) collided with each other. Thus, according to the appellants, there was no intention on their part to commit the murder of the four deceased, and moreover that no weapons were recovered from them. It was further contended that the prosecution witnesses have suppressed the death of one Turen Ali, who was part of the group of the accused, and whose death occurred during the course of the same incident. In the same incident, six persons from the group of the accused were also injured. Thus according to the learned Counsel for the appellants, the prosecution witnesses have not come before the Court with clean hands, inasmuch as they suppressed the origin and genesis of the incident.

Per contra, the advocate for the State argued in support of the judgment of the courts below.

5. It is not in dispute that in the case at hand, four persons have died viz., Md. Aziz Ali, Md. Kutub Ali, Md. Mamud Ali and Samir Ali, and that PW7 Atar Ali was injured in the same incident. The incident took place at about 6.00 a.m. on 9.11.1995 and the first information came to be registered at 8.30 a.m. on the same day. A counter first information was filed by one Promila Begum, wife of Turen Ali (deceased belonging to the group of the accused) on 11.11.1995 i.e. two days after the date of the incident in question. In the said counter case, the trial went on separately in respect of the death of Turen Ali and the injuries sustained by the other six persons (accused herein). Thus, there were cases and counter cases related to the incident in question. Since the case at hand has to be dealt with on the basis of the material on record on its own merit, we do not propose to make any comment in respect of the