The High Court
Case Details
1 Cr. App.(S.J.) No.118 of 2011 with Cr. App.(S.J.) No. 172 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI ----- (Against the judgement of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.01.2011 passed by the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC-II) Bermo at Tenughat in Sessions Trial No. 88 of 2006, arising out of Jaridih P.S. Case No.117 of 2005, corresponding to G.R. No. 818 of 2005, Bokaro, Jharkhand) Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 118 of 2011 ------ 1. Fulmani Devi 2. Bahamani Devi 3. Runi Devi 4. Mangal Manjhi @ Manjhul Manjhi 5. Lakhiram Manjhi 6. Khedan Manjhi 7. Budhu Manjhi @ Budhan Manjhi 8. Man Singh Manjhi Versus … ... Appellants The State of Jharkhand … … Respondent With Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 172 of 2011 ------ 1. Gobardhan Manjhi 2. Malti Devi … ... Appellants Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR ----- For the Appellants For the State -------- : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Mahtha, Advocate (Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 118 of 2011) : Mr. Dilip Kumar Jaiswal, Advocate (Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 172 of 2011) : Mr. Jitendra Pandey, A.P.P. (Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 118 of 2011) : Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, A.P.P. (Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 172 of 2011) -------- JUDGMENT Dated: 27th April, 2023 Both the aforesaid appeals are directed against the common judgement of conviction and order of sentence and hence they are being heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgement. 2.
Legal Reasoning
It is well settled principle of law that enmity is a double edged weapon and the defence taken on behalf of the appellants that all the witnesses are on inimical terms cannot be brushed aside only on the ground that there was enmity between both the parties and the evidences adduced on behalf of the parties are to be appreciated with great caution and care in order to appreciate the evidences in a balanced manner. 11. P.W.-1, Doman Mahto has been declared hostile but it appears from his deposition in examination in chief that he categorically stated that at the time of occurrence he had gone to attend the call of the nature and when he came back he came to know that the house of Vijay Nayak was set on fire and when he reached to the house of Vijay Nayak, P.W.-5, he saw that his house was burning completely and when the police reached the place of occurrence thereafter he alongwith the police extinguished the fire and the wife of the informant, Vijay Nayak was taking the name of Manjhi who had set her house on fire although she was not taking the specific name and thus from the version of this witness it is found corroborated that the house of the victim-P.W.-5 was set on fire and the entire house was totally engulfed due to fire. 12. P.W.-2, Mohini Devi is said to be the eye witness and victim of the incident as she is the wife of the informant-P.W.-5. She categorically stated in para-1 that she was assaulted by the wives of Gobardhan Manjhi, Mangal 6 Cr. App.(S.J.) No.118 of 2011 with Cr. App.(S.J.) No. 172 of 2011 Manjhi @ Manjhul Manjhi, Lakhiram Manjhi, Khedan Manjhi and they had disrobed her. Thereafter in order to rescue her life she entered into her house and thereafter Gobardhan Manjhi, Mangal Manjhi @ Manjhul Manjhi, Lakhiram Manjhi, Khedan Manjhi, Man Singh @ Man Singh Manjhi and Budhu Manjhi @ Budhan Manjhi had also entered into her house where Gobardhan Manjhi was holding Danda in his hand and Mangal Manjhi @ Manjhul Manjhi was holding Machis (Match Bok) in his hand and they set fire in the straw (puwal) which was kept in her house. She categorically stated that the lathi (being held by Gobardhan Manjhi) was wrapped with clothes and in that cloth the fire was burning and thereafter it was set on fire in the straw and thus she has categorically stated that it was Gobardhan Manjhi who had set her house on fire. She categorically further stated in para-2 that the belongings of the house including Chouki, Bed, Khatiya, Daliya etc. burnt on fire. She further stated that Gobardhan Manjhi had pushed her (Mohini Devi) in the house and set her on fire. Thereafter this witness came out from the house and out of fear she ran away and thus it is found that the main culprit Gobardhan Manjhi alongwith the other co-accused persons had committed the offence by assaulting the witness P.W.-2, Mohini Devi and set on fire while she was all alone in the house and thus the charges under Sections 323, 504 and 437 of the Indian Penal Code has been squarely corroborated as held by the learned Court below. From the cross-examination of P.W.-2, it is found that no material particular has come out from the mouth of the witness P.W.-2 to defend anyone of the appellants. Thus this witness P.W.2 is the main witness who is the victim and eye witness and stated categorically without any contradiction and inconsistency in her statement and it is found from the impugned judgement that the Trial Court has rightly appreciated his testimony which is falling in line with the subsequent version of the depositions of the other witnesses i.e. P.W.- 3, Mohan Mahto @ Mohan Nayak, P.W.-4, Gopal Kumar Nayak, P.W.-5, Vijay Nayak, P.W.-6, Manoranjan Kumar Sao, P.W.-7, Sukhdeo Nayak and P.W.-10, Ashok Prasad Singh. 13. P.W.-3, Mohan Mahto @ Mohan Nayak is a hearsay witness and he reached to the place of occurrence immediately after the occurrence and saw that the wife of Vijay Nayak (P.W.-2) was screaming and saying that fire was set out in her house and she was assaulted, and then P.W.-2 went to the police 7 Cr. App.(S.J.) No.118 of 2011 with Cr. App.(S.J.) No. 172 of 2011 station. This witness has categorically stated that she (P.W.-2) had taken the name of Gobardhan Manjhi in setting the house on fire. This witness has further stated that the police reached there while he was on the spot and thereafter the police alongwith this witness extinguished the fire. In the cross- examination nothing has come out to disbelieve the version of this witness. 14. P.W.-4, Gopal Kumar Nayak, is another hearsay witness who stated that when he reached to the house of Vijay Nayak and saw that the wife of Vijay Nayak (P.W.-2) was wearing half of her garments (Saya and blouse) and she was screaming on the road. This witness further stated that he saw Gobardhan Manjhi, Lakhiram Manjhi, Man Singh @ Man Singh Manjhi, Budhu Manjhi @ Budhan Manjhi, Khedan Manjhi and other women were coming out from the house of Vijay Nayak (informant) and Gobardhan Manjhi was holding Masal (burning stick) and thus the charge of Section 436 gets fully corroborated along with the assault upon P.W.-2, who is the wife of the informant. In para-2 this witness has also categorically stated that police had reached there when he was present at the spot and they saw that the house of Vijay Nayak was burning on fire and the articles of the house including Chauki, Bichwan, Puwal, Khapra and earthen made house was burning and the wife of Vijay Nayak (P.W.-2) was crying and uttering that the accused persons were pushing her in the fire but somehow she managed to escape from the place of occurrence and this witness also identified the accused appellants who were present at the time of trial in the Court including Man Singh @ Man Singh Manjhi, Budhu Manjhi @ Budhan Manjhi, Lakhiram Manjhi, Khedan Manjhi and the wives of Man Singh @ Man Singh Manjhi, Mangal Manjhi @ Manjhul Manjhi and Khedan Manjhi. The truthfulness of this witness is also evident from para-4 of the cross-examination wherein he categorically stated that he did not see anyone who was setting the house on fire rather he had seen that the house was burning and thus the case of the prosecution has been falling in line with the version of this witness and it appears to be a natural version without any exaggeration. 15. Another witness examined on behalf of the prosecution is P.W.-5 Vijay Nayak who is the informant in this case and he has fully supported his version which have been stated in the F.I.R. He has proved the written statement which has been marked as Exhibit-1. He has also proved his 8 Cr. App.(S.J.) No.118 of 2011 with Cr. App.(S.J.) No. 172 of 2011 signature on the seizure list which has been marked as Exhibit-1/1 and signature of Gopal Kumar Nayak which has been marked as Exhibit-1/2. He stated that when he was coming back to his house from the pond, he heard the cries of his wife and immediately thereafter he went to his house and found that his house was burning and she was wearing half of her garments including Saya and Blouse. He further stated that he saw Gobardhan Manjhi, Mangal Manjhi @ Manjhul Manjhi, Lakhiram Manjhi, Khedan Manjhi, Man Singh @ Man Singh Manjhi and their wives Malti Devi, Bahamani Devi, Panmati Devi, Fulmani Devi, Runi Devi and Budhu Manjhi @ Budhan Manjhi. He further stated that Gobardhan Manjhi was holding (Mashal) bamboo stick in which the clothes were wrapped and burning which is said to have been used in setting ablaze the house of the informant and thus it is found that when this witness reached to the place of occurrence he found that his house was set on fire and also saw the accused-appellants present at the place of occurrence and they were running away from there and thus the learned Trial Court has rightly appreciated the deposition and testimonies of this witness also without any inconsistency and discrepancies. In para-4 he categorically stated that the police had seized the bamboo stick wrapped with clothes from the place of occurrence and seizure list was prepared upon which this witness had put his signature which has been proved by him. In the cross-examination it is found that no incriminating material has come out to disbelieve the version of this witness. 16. Another witness i.e. P.W.-6, Manoranjan Kumar Sao examined on behalf of the prosecution is also said to be a hearsay witness and he along with P.W.-7, Sukhdeo Nayak have fully supported the case of the prosecution and both of them have stated that when they reached to the place of occurrence i.e. the house of Vijay Nayak i.e. P.W.-5, he saw that P.W.-2 was in a very fearful state and wearing only Saya and Blouse and she was crying and stating that her house had been set on fire. This witness had also stated that he had seen the house of the informant was burning. These two witnesses also stated that Gobardhan Manjhi, Butru Manjhi, Mangal Manjhi @ Manjhul Manjhi and some women were running away from the place of occurrence. This witness has also stated that when the police reached to the place of occurrence then the public and police together extinguished the fire. This witness also identified 9 Cr. App.(S.J.) No.118 of 2011 with Cr. App.(S.J.) No. 172 of 2011 Gobardhan Manjhi, Mangal Manjhi @ Manjhul Manjhi, Lakhiram Manjhi, Khedan Manjhi, Man Singh @ Man Singh Manjhi who were present in the Court at the time of trial and he also identified the three women although he could not disclose their name but stated that all were present at the place of occurrence. Thus P.W.-6 & P.W.-7 have also supported the case of the prosecution as hearsay witnesses although they have not seen the actual occurrence which was in two parts i.e. the time when the house was set on fire and P.W.-2 was assaulted and secondly when the house was burning and P.W.2 was screaming out of fear after being assaulted and standing wearing half of her garments outside her burning house. These two witnesses have reached to the place of occurrence when the house was burning. P.W.-8, Narendra Kumar Mahto have been tendered by the 17. prosecution and P.W.-9, Govind Mahto said in cross-examination that he had not seen any one to set the house on fire. 18. P.W.-10, Ashok Prasad Singh is the I.O. of the case and he has categorically stated in para-2 that he had inspected the place of occurrence and thoroughly explained the boundaries of the place of occurrence and found the burning articles and seized them and prepared the seizure list which has been marked as Exhibit-2. This witness categorically stated that when he reached to the place of occurrence he found that the earthen made house (Khaparphos house) was totally burnt in which cot, bed, straw (Puwal) were found totally burnt. This witness has further stated in para-3 that he had prepared the seizure list of the burnt articles and recorded the evidences of the witnesses also, who have been examined during the course of trial also including P.W.-2, Mohini Devi, Gopal Kumar Nayak, Manoranjan Kumar Sao, Doman Mahto, Mohan Mahto @ Mohan Nayak and in the cross-examination the defence could not take out any material particular to disbelieve the versions of the prosecution as discussed in detail in the foregoing paragraphs. 19. On the other hand the appellants have also adduced the evidences and five of the witnesses have been examined i.e. D.W.-1, Ram Prasad Murmu, D.W.-2, Chhotu Manjhi, D.W.-3, Hari Manjhi and D.W.-4, Mohammad Kutubuddin and D.W.-5, Mahabir Tudu in order to take the plea of aIibi particularly by the appellant Gobardhan Manjhi who was working in the 10 Cr. App.(S.J.) No.118 of 2011 with Cr. App.(S.J.) No. 172 of 2011 Railway Department and he took the defence that he was not present at the place and time of occurrence. 20. In order to substantiate the defence of the appellant Gobardhan Manjhi the documentary evidenceo including the attendance certificate, attendance register, Ext.-D1 and Ext.-D2 and Ext.-D2A (Substituted Attendance Register) have been produced that he was on duty in the railway at the place and time of occurrence but the plea of alibi taken on behalf of the appellant Gobardhan Manjhi does not hold good in view of the statement of the witnesses examined on behalf of the defence vide several D.Ws. as discussed in detail in foregoing paragraphs where they stated that the appellants used to attend the office from his village-Bandhdih on daily basis. 21. And thus it is found that the said occurrence has admittedly taken place at 07:00 A.M. in the morning and therefore, the defence taken on behalf of the appellant Gobardhan Manjhi is not substantiated because Gobardhan Manjhi used to attend the office from his house situated at the place of occurrence and this occurrence has taken place at 07:00 A.M. and immediately thereafter the occurrence he had fled away from the place of occurrence as stated by all the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution and therefore, the learned Trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidences adduced on behalf of the appellants and discarded them because the plea of alibi is not substantiated taken by the appellant Gobardhan Manjhi. 22. In view of the aforesaid analysis and the appraisal of the evidences including the oral and documentary adduced on behalf of both the parties, it is well founded that the learned Trial Court did not commit any error in holding the guilt of the appellants by the impugned judgement of conviction where appellant Malti Devi of Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 172 of 2011 and Fulmani Devi, Bahamani Devi and Runi Devi of Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 118 of 2011 were convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and appellant Gobardhan Manjhi of Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 172 of 2011 Mangal Manjhi @ Manjhul Manjhi, Lakhiram Manjhi, Khedan Manjhi, Budhu Manjhi @ Budhan Manjhi and Man Singh Manjhi of Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 118 of 2011 were convicted under Section 436 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. 23. Accordingly, this Court upholds the judgement of conviction dated 11 Cr. App.(S.J.) No.118 of 2011 with Cr. App.(S.J.) No. 172 of 2011 11.01.2011 passed by the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC-II) Bermo at Tenughat in Sessions Trial No. 88 of 2006, arising out of Jaridih P.S. Case No.117 of 2005, corresponding to G.R. No. 818 of 2005 against these appellants. 24. So far as sentence is concerned learned counsel for the appellants submitted that out of the ten appellants four of them i.e. Malti Devi of Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.172 of 2011, Bahamani Devi, Fulmani Devi, Runi Devi of Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 118 of 2011, are women and they have already remained in jail for a substantive period of time. Further these four women appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and they were sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one year for each of the offence. It has been submitted that this occurrence has taken place as far back as in the year 2005 and as such about 18 years is gone and these four women are suffering from the misery and hardship of criminal prosecution for a long period of time and therefore a lenient view may be taken because over a period of time they have reached to their middle age and therefore, in view of the aforesaid submissions all the four women appellants namely; Malti Devi of Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.172 of 2011, Bahamani Devi, Fulmani Devi, Runi Devi of Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 118 of 2011 are sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone by them and accordingly the order of sentence awarded to them is modified as above. 25. So far as the sentence to the other appellants namely; Gobardhan Manjhi of Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 172 of 2011, Mangal Manjhi, @ Manjhul Manjhi, Lakhiram Manjhi, Man Singh @ Man Singh Manjhi, Budhu Manjhi @ Budhan Manjhi and Khedan Manjhi of Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 118 of 2011, are concerned, it is also found that all of them have already remained in jail for a substantive period of time. Further, there is nothing on the record to show about their criminal history. It is also found that over a period of time they have also reached to their middle age and they have also been suffering the trauma and misery of the criminal prosecution for a long period of time i.e. since last 18 years and therefore, in view of all these mitigating factors, the purpose of justice would not be served if the appellants are sent to jail again and therefore, having taken a lenient view, it is found that the justice would be meted out if they are sentenced to the imprisonment for the period already undergone and 12 Cr. App.(S.J.) No.118 of 2011 with Cr. App.(S.J.) No. 172 of 2011 further a reasonable amount of sentence of fine is imposed in order to compensate the victim-P.W.-5, by way of compensation. 26. Accordingly, the order of sentence passed against these appellants are also set aside and they are sentence to imprisonment for the period already undergone and further these appellants are sentenced to fine to a sum of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand) in each of both the heads separately (Section 436 read with Section 149 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code) by each of the appellants in order to give it to P.W.-5 by way of compensation. 27. Since all the appellants are on bail and therefore, four months’ time is granted to them to pay the aforesaid fine and in default of payment of fine they are directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years. The appellants may deposit the fine amount through the Nazarat of the concerned Civil Court in order to give it to the informant P.W.-5, Vijay Nayak, by way of compensation. 28. The learned trial court is directed to ensure that the said fine amount is deposited within the stipulated period of time and if the same is not deposited by the appellants, then they will serve the sentence as awarded in case of default of payment of fine by taking all necessary measures as per the provisions of law to ensure that the appellants serves the sentence of imprisonment in case of default of payment of fine. 29. The appellants may be allowed to deposit the said fine amount through the Nazarat of the concerned Civil Court. At the moment the appellants deposit the fine amount, they (the appellants) shall be released forthwith on deposit of the said fine amount and they shall be released and/ discharged from the liabilities of bail bonds accordingly. The learned court below is also directed that on deposit of the said fine amount by the appellants, the notice will be sent to the informant P.W.-5, Vijay Nayak, and on his appearance the said fine amount, if so deposited by the appellants, shall be disbursed to him. In case, if the said victim is not traceable or not available or not found at the given address, or does not appear before the court, the same shall be disbursed to the close or near relatives or kith and kin of the said victim/informant Vijay Nayak, as the concerned learned trial court may deem fit and proper, and in this regard the court concerned may also involve the Para Legal Volunteer (PLV) of District Legal services Authority (DLSA), Bokaro, if required. 13 Cr. App.(S.J.) No.118 of 2011 with Cr. App.(S.J.) No. 172 of 2011 30. 31. Accordingly, both the aforesaid appeals are dismissed as above. Let the Lower Court Records and the copy of judgement be also transmitted to the learned Court below for its compliance in letter and spirit. D.S./J.Minj (Navneet Kumar, J.)
Arguments
Heard the learned counsel for the appellants Mr. Rajesh Kumar Mahtha, in Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 118 of 2011and Mr. Dilip Kumar Jaiswal, in Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 172 of 2011 and the learned counsel for the State Mr. 2 Cr. App.(S.J.) No.118 of 2011 with Cr. App.(S.J.) No. 172 of 2011 Jitendra Pandey, in Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 118 of 2011and Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, in Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 172 of 2011. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants have submitted that both the aforesaid appeals are directed against the common judgement of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.01.2011 passed by the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC-II) Bermo at Tenughat in Sessions Trial No. 88 of 2006, arising out of Jaridih P.S. Case No.117 of 2005, corresponding to G.R. No. 818 of 2005, whereby and where under the appellant Malti Devi of Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 172 of 2011 and Fulmani Devi, Bahamani Devi and Runi Devi of Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 118 of 2011 were convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and they were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year to be served by each of the aforesaid appellants and further Gobardhan Manjhi of Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 172 of 2011 Mangal Manjhi @ Manjhul Manjhi, Lakhiram Manjhi, Khedan Manjhi, Budhu Manjhi @ Budhan Manjhi and Man Singh Manjhi of Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 118 of 2011 were convicted under Section 436 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and all of them were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and they were imposed a fine of Rs.2,000/- to be paid by each of the appellants and in case of default of payment of fine they were further directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and further the said appellants were convicted under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code and they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. 4. The prosecution case arose in the wake of the written report dated 02.10.2005 of P.W.-5, Vijay Nayak addressed to the officer in-charge of Jaridih police station in the district of Bokaro. The gist of the allegations as set out in the said written report of the F.I.R. was that on 02.10.2005 at about 7:00 A.M. in the morning Gobardhan Manjhi, Mangal Manjhi @ Manjhul Manjhi, Lakhiram Manjhi, Khedan Manjhi, Man Singh @ Man Singh Manjhi, Malti Devi, Bahamani Devi, Panmati Devi, Fulmani Devi, Runi Devi and Budhu Manjhi @ Budhan Manjhi entered into the house of the informant and assaulted the wife of the informant namely, Mohini Devi (P.W.-2) and also hurled upon her abusive languages and set her house on fire by which the informant sustained the loss of Rs.10,000/- because of the several belongings of the 3 Cr. App.(S.J.) No.118 of 2011 with Cr. App.(S.J.) No. 172 of 2011 informant including fodder of the cattle, clothes, bed-sheets, cots, Chauki etc. got damaged due to fire. 5. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations as set out in the written report of the informant-P.W.-5, a formal F.I.R. was drawn vide Jaridih P.S. Case No.117 of 2005, corresponding to G.R. No. 818 of 2005, registered under Sections 323, 436, 504 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and the investigation of the case commenced. After completion of the investigation the charge-sheet was submitted vide charge-sheet No.136/2005 dated 30.10.2005 and thereafter the concerned Court below took cognizance and committed the case to the Court of Session for trial. Accordingly, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge 1st Bermo at Tenughat framed the charges against the appellants alongwith one deceased appellant Panmati Devi for the offence punishable under Sections 436/149, 341/34, 323/34, 379/34, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Charges were read over to them to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried and accordingly the trial of the case commenced. After conducting the full- fledged trial the learned Trial Court passed the impugned judgement of conviction and order of sentence which is under challenge. Arguments advanced on behalf of appellants- 6. It is submitted on behalf of the appellants that the learned Trial Court did not appreciate the evidences adduced on behalf of the defence in the right perspective and committed gross error in relying upon the hearsay witnesses adduced on behalf of the prosecution. Further it has been pointed out that there was only one eye witness of the incident i.e. P.W.-2, and her statement is not corroborated by anyone of the other witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution because all the other witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution were hearsay witnesses. Further it has also been pointed out that the learned Trial Court has totally ignored the evidences adduced on behalf of the appellant Gobardhan Manjhi who was working in the Railway Department and on the date of occurrence he was on duty and therefore, his involvement in the commission of the offence is not substantiated. Further it has also been pointed out that the witness Mohini Devi P.W.-2, has been examined on behalf of the prosecution and she categorically stated that she did not see as to who had set her house on fire and therefore, the case of the prosecution has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. 4 Cr. App.(S.J.) No.118 of 2011 with Cr. App.(S.J.) No. 172 of 2011 Further, it has also been pointed out that there was a landed property dispute between both the parties and a proceeding under Section 107 of the Cr.P.C. was also initiated between them and therefore, false implication of the appellants in the commission of the offence cannot be ruled out because of the enmity between both of them. Further, the assault on P.W.-2, Mohini Devi cannot be believed as no medical examination has been done and no report to that effect has been produced on behalf of the prosecution during the course of trial and therefore, the appellants deserve to be acquitted from the charges levelled against them for want of cogent evidence. Arguments advanced on behalf of State- 7. On the other hand the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the appellants and submitted that the version of the eye witness i.e. P.W.-2 has been consistently and uniformly corroborated by the other witnesses although they are hearsay witnesses including P.W.-3, Mohan Mahto, P.W.-4, Gopal Kumar Nayak, P.W.- 5, Vijay Nayak, P.W.-6, Manoranjan Kumar Saw, P.W.-7, Sukhdeo Nayak and P.W.-10, Ashok Prasad Singh and therefore, the impugned judgement of conviction and order of sentence is based on the legal evidences adduced on behalf of the prosecution and there is no illegality or any kind of irregularity to interfere in the impugned judgement of conviction and order of sentence and therefore, this appeal is fit to be dismissed being devoid of merit. APPRAISAL & FINDINGS 8. Having heard the parties, perused the records of these cases including the Lower Court Records. 9. In order to substantiate the case, the prosecution has been able to examine altogether ten witnesses who are as under: P.W.-1, Doman Mahato, P.W.-2, Mohini, P.W.-3, Mohan Mahto @ Mohan Nayak, P.W.-4, Gopal Kumar Nayak, P.W.-5, Vijay Nayak, P.W.-6, Manoranjan Kumar Sao, P.W.-7, Sukhdeo Nayak, P.W.-8, Narendra Kumar Mahto, P.W.-9, Govind Mahto and P.W.-10, Ashok Prasad Singh. Apart from the oral evidences the prosecution has also been able to prove the documentary evidences which are as under: i. Exhibit-1- Written Report; 5 Cr. App.(S.J.) No.118 of 2011 with Cr. App.(S.J.) No. 172 of 2011 ii. Exhibit-1/1-Signature of PW-5 on seizure list; iii. Exhibit-1/2- Signature of Gopal Kumar Nayak; iv. Exhibit-2- Seizure list; v. Exhibit-3- Foraml F.I.R.; and vi. Exhibit-1/3- Endorsement on Ext.1. On the other hand the appellants has also adduced evidences in their defence and five defence witnesses have been examined: D.W.-1, Ram Prasad Murmu, D.W.-2, Chhotu Manjhi, D.W.-3, Hari Manjhi, D.W.-4, Mohammad Kutubuddin and D.W.-5, Mahabir Tudu. Apart from oral evidences adduced on behalf of the appellants some documentary evidences have also been brought on records which are as under: i. Exhibit-D1-Attendance certificate; ii. Exhibit-D2-Attendance Register; iii. Exhibit-D2/A-Attendance Register substituted. 10.