JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated, January 31, 1978 by the , Sessions Judge, Sikar convicting the appellant under Sections 302-149 and 147 I.P.C. and sentencing each of them to imprisonment for life and rigorous imprisonment for one year, under these Counts. 2. The case of the prosecution which resulted in the conviction and sentence of the appellants as aforementioned may be shortly stated here. Jeewan deceased was a Khatedar of ⅛th share in land situate at a well known as Guval Kua, in the area of village Dason Kidhani. On June 22, 1975, morning, Ram Chander one of the sons of Jeewan deceased, went to plough that land and sow bajra there. Kesho Ram (PW 14) was another ploughman who was helping Ram Chander in the sowing operations. Geega deceased, an uncle of Ram Chander, was also working in that land. Jeewan deceased went there carrying food and lassi for them. At about 8-tO A. M. Mangi Lal accused, armed with a Kulhari, Fatta accused, armed with a gandasi and 14 others, armed with sticks arrived there and attacked Jeewan, Geega, and Ram Chand. Mangi Lal struck a Kulhari blow on the head of Geega, Hem Raj gave a lathi blow on the head of Jeewan. The other 14 rioters also joined them in giving indiscriminate blows to Jeewan and Geega. Ram Chand ran away after he had been hit and injured by Mangilal and Ganpat. He witnessed the rest of the assault on his father and uncle from nearby houses of Harijans. Kesho Ram also fled from the scene of offence, and thus escaped unhurt. Banwarilal, another son of Jeewan deceased, was present at the nearby well and witnessed the occurrence from there. Jeewan and Geega fell down as a result of the injuries suffered by them. Jeewan died on the spot. Geega died on the way to hospital. The report of the occurrence was lodged with the Sikar police by Ram Chand that very day at 10-45 A.M. He mentioned the names of Banwarilal and Kani Ram Balai as the eye-witnesses of the occurrence. 3. On investigation, the police sent up Hanuman, Hanuman's wife and three sons, namely, Govindi, Mangilal, Sualal and Ganpat. Rukma wife of Mangilal, Fatta, Mohan, Jinhu wife of Fatta, Gomti wife of Mohan, Guntana, Bhima Ram, Panna Ram, Hem Raj and Parma Ram for trial. 3. On investigation, the police sent up Hanuman, Hanuman's wife and three sons, namely, Govindi, Mangilal, Sualal and Ganpat. Rukma wife of Mangilal, Fatta, Mohan, Jinhu wife of Fatta, Gomti wife of Mohan, Guntana, Bhima Ram, Panna Ram, Hem Raj and Parma Ram for trial. The sixteenth accused, namely, Nanda was absconding at that time and could not therefore be forwarded for trial. 4. During the trial, the prosecution examined Kaniram, Triloka Ram, Bhagu Ram, Ram Chand. Banwarilal, Pusaram, Kesoram and Darsi Ram, as alleged eyewitnesses of the occurrence. None of them except Ram Chand and Banwarilal who are son of Jeewan deceased, has fully supported the prosecution case. The evidence of each of these witnesses may be briefly discussed here for whatever it is worth. 5. Kani Ram Balai (PWI) is one of the harijans whose houses are said to be situated at a short distance from the scene of offence. His name was mentioned in the First Information Report as one of the eye-witness of the occurrence. He testified that his house is situate at a distance of nearly 50 paces from the land of Jeewan deceased in which the occurrence took place. He corroborated the testimony of Ram Chand (P.W. 10) son of Jeewan deceased to this extent that Ram Chand had come running from the aforementioned field and told him that they were beating his father Jeewan and uncle Geega Ram in the said field. He further stated that a fight had been going on in the said field but he could not see the face of any of the participants in the fight. All he could see was that sticks were being weirded by the participants in the fight. He further stated that he had not seen Ram Chand and Keso Ram P. pws. ploughing that land that day. This witness was allowed to be cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor at his request. He denied that he was suppressing the truth to favour the accused. 6. Bhagu Ram (PW8) also does not support the prosecution case. He stated that while on his way from the village to Sikar in the company of one Devaram he heard noise from the direction of Guvai Kua and that he saw that two camels, harnessed to ploughs, were standing in the field. 6. Bhagu Ram (PW8) also does not support the prosecution case. He stated that while on his way from the village to Sikar in the company of one Devaram he heard noise from the direction of Guvai Kua and that he saw that two camels, harnessed to ploughs, were standing in the field. He further stated that he had seen two persons running away in the southern direction and four or five persons standing near the camels. This witness was also declared hostile at the instance of the public prosecutor. 7. Triloka Ram (PW.5) stated that he had gone to Sikar on the day of occurrence, and that it was on his return from there to the Village in the evening that he had heard Jeewan and Geega Ram having been killed in the field. He too was declared hostile and cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor. 8. Pusa Ram (PW3) is, like Kani Ram Balai (PWI), one of the Harijans whose house is situated very close to the scene of occurrence. He stated that on hearing the noise, he went in the direction of the place from which the noise was coming and saw the 'mar-pit' going on near the bada. He expressed his inability to say as to who was beating whom. He however, mentioned having seen there some of the accused persons namely, Bhima Ram, Hema, and Panna. Among others, who were present there, were two persons, who were described by this witness as son of Asha and Hanuman's sister's son. He however, went back on his statement for he added, almost in the same breath, that none of these persons was present there. He added in this context that the scene of offence which he described as the Jab, was crowded with people and that he would not be able to mention the names of any of those persons. The trial court permitted the Public Prosecutor to cross-examine this witness at the latter's request. His attention was drawn to his statement (Ex. P. 20) recorded by the investigating officer during the investigation and he was asked to explain the contradictions in his deposition in the trial as compared to the said statement. He denied having made the statement (Ex. P. 20) to the investigating officer in the manner in which it has been recorded. His attention was drawn to his statement (Ex. P. 20) recorded by the investigating officer during the investigation and he was asked to explain the contradictions in his deposition in the trial as compared to the said statement. He denied having made the statement (Ex. P. 20) to the investigating officer in the manner in which it has been recorded. He further stated that the Thanedar recorded it as he liked without asking him any thing about it. He further told the Public Prosecutor that the members of both the accused party and the complainant party had been threatening him in an attempt to compel him to give evidence favourable to them. 9. Keso Ram (P.W. 14) was the ploughman of Ram Chand (PW 10) who had been sowing Bajra in the land of Jeewan deceased that morning. He recalled that Geega Ram deceased was also working in the field at the time of the occurrence and that Jeewan deceased had arrived there a little earlier bringing food for them and Fodder for the camels. He testified that 6 of the accused persons namely, Hanuman, Fatta, Ganpat, Mangilal, Sualal and Mohan accompanied by two women arrived in that field and assaulted them. He mentioned in this context that Fatta accused was armed with a Kulhari and Mangilal was armed with a Gandasi and the rest with sticks. He supported the prosecution case as against the six aforementioned accused persons inasmuch as he testified that all of them started beating Jeewan and Geega Ram with their respective weapons. He stated that both he and Ram Chand PW, had fled the scene of occurrence, but before they could do so Ram Chand had already been hit and injured. He expressed his inability to identify the female companions of the assailants. He was further unable to name the assailant or assailants of Ramchand P.W. 10. Like Kani Ram, Triloka Ram, Bhagu Ram and Pusa Ram, whose evidence has been recapitulated above, Keso Ram was also allowed to be cross examined by the Public Prosecutor at his request. On his attention being drawn to the statement (Ex. P. 21) recorded under section 161 Cr. P. C. he denied that he had made the said statement to the extent it contains the names of the accused persons other than Hanuman, Fatta, Ganpat, Mangilal, Sualal, and Mohan. On his attention being drawn to the statement (Ex. P. 21) recorded under section 161 Cr. P. C. he denied that he had made the said statement to the extent it contains the names of the accused persons other than Hanuman, Fatta, Ganpat, Mangilal, Sualal, and Mohan. In cross-examination by the learned defence counsel he admitted that he had a quarrel with' Hanuman regarding a Rasta. - 11. Darsi Ram (P.W.15) is another witness who came on stand to give what he would have us believed as an eye-witness account of the occurrence. He stated that on hearing the noise he rushed to the scene of occurrence and saw Panna, Hema,. Bhima, Gumana, running in the direction of their Bada, Mangilal, Ganpat and Parma running towards the School, and Hanuman, Fatta, Mohan, Nanda, Sua Govindi, Jinku and two other women running towards the village. He further stated that Fatta was armed with a Gandasi and Mangilal with a Kulhari, In cross-examination, this witness had to admit that he had reached the scene of occurrence only ofter his brother Keso Ram (P. W. 14) had returned home and narrated the occurrence to him If so. he could not have possibly seen the accused persons running away from the scene of occurrence as mentioned above. It appears that this witness came to give evidence against the accused to settle an old score with the accused party. He admitted that his son had been adopted by Mst. Bhanwari and that Hemraj accused, had filed the suit challenging the said adoption. He Stated that he could not recall having appeared as a witness for Mst. Bhanwari in that suit. There appears to have been a chain of litigation between him and Hanuman accused. He was reluctant to admit all these facts. The trial court rejected his evidence on the ground that it was actuated by motives of enmity and animosity against the accused. We are also of the same opinion that the evidence of this witness cannot be safely relied upon. 12. Turning now to the evidence of Banwari (P.W. 11), he stated that he left home 15 or 20 minutes after Ram Chand and Keso Ram PWs had left there, and went straight to the well carrying a bucket and a rope with him to draw water from the well. 12. Turning now to the evidence of Banwari (P.W. 11), he stated that he left home 15 or 20 minutes after Ram Chand and Keso Ram PWs had left there, and went straight to the well carrying a bucket and a rope with him to draw water from the well. He admitted that his residential house is at a distance of nearly a mile from the said well. He stated that his father arrived in the field near the said well nearly half an hour after his arrival there. He admitted that he had not drawn any water from the well until the arrival of his father there. He would have us believe that he witnessed the occurrence standing at the well. According to him, the mar-pit lasted nearly half an hour. Cross-examined as to why he did not go forward to the help of his father and uncle, he stated that he was too terrified to go there. He however, stated that he had been raising hue and cry standing at the well and that the accused persons passed by him on their way back from-the scene of offence at a distance of only two or three paces from the place where he was standing and that even then they did not try to assault him. He further stated that after the accused had gone away from the scene of offence, Balbir Singh was the first person to arrive there and that within a minute or two of Balbir's arrival, Dharsi Ram and his son, Bhagwana, also reached there. He would have us believe that he himself kept standing at the well at a distance of 30 or 25 paces from the place where his father and uncle were lying mortally wounded and that he went near them only after the arrival of not only Balbir, but also of Dharsi Ram and Bhagwana. 13. Banwari's evidence is self contradictory as to whether he was present or not when his father died. He stated at one place in his cross examination that when Balbir had been talking to his wounded father and when the latter died he was not present there, suggesting thereby that he was still standing at the well at some distance from the place where Jeewan died. He stated at one place in his cross examination that when Balbir had been talking to his wounded father and when the latter died he was not present there, suggesting thereby that he was still standing at the well at some distance from the place where Jeewan died. At another place in his cross-examination however, Banwari stated that his father died within a minute or two of his arrival at the spot. Incidentally, this witness relied the version of Dharsi Ram (PW16) that the-1/2 witness had served water to his dying father. He made it clear that he and Dharsi Ram had-brought water from the well for Geega Ram and that there was no question of his bringing water for his father who had already died. 14. Sizing up the statement of this witness as a whole we are of opinion that he was not present at the scene of occurrence and that he has given a version as tutored by his brother Ram Chand (PW 10). His presence at the Guvai well cannot possibly be believed. He had no business to go there that morning. Ram Chand and Keso Ram who had gone to sow bajra in the field of Jeewan deceased must have made their own arrangement for drinking water. It is not the case of the prosecution that Banwarilal had gone to the well to draw water from there and serve the same to the ploughmen. Such a plea would have indeed sounded highly artificial. A ploughman in a field would not require the services of another person to draw water for him. Banwarilal could not have travelled that long distance of over a smile to draw water from the well and carry it back in a bucket to his house. It is an admitted fact that he had not brought any container like a pitcher etc. to carry water for his house. Moreover, if he had gone there to fetch water for his house-hold, he would not have kept sitting at the well for such a long time without doing any thing there. His further statement that the occurrence resulting in the fatal injury to his father and uncle lasted nearly half an hour is materially at variance with the evidence of his brother Ram Chand PW , who stated that the occurrence lasted only 7 or 8 minutes. His further statement that the occurrence resulting in the fatal injury to his father and uncle lasted nearly half an hour is materially at variance with the evidence of his brother Ram Chand PW , who stated that the occurrence lasted only 7 or 8 minutes. We are of considered opinion that it would not be safe to place any reliance on the testimony of Banwarilal PW. 15. It may also be mentioned here in the context of the evidence of Banwarilal that an attempt was made by the prosecution through his evidence and that of Dharsi Lal (PW. 16) to prove that before his death Jeewan had spoken to Balbir Singh, disclosing to him the names of the assailants who inflicted the mortal wounds to him. This clearly shows that Balbir Singh, who unfortunately died before his evidence could be recorded in the trial, arrived at the scene of offence after the culprits had already disappeared from there. Dharsi Ram who arrived at the scene of offence a couple of minutes after Balbir's arrival there, and after he had already heard an account of the occurrence from his brother Kesho Ram could not have possibly seen the accused running in different directions from the scene of occurrence as claimed by him. .We are of the considered opinion that Jeewan had already expired before the arrival, at the scene of offence, of Balbir Singh and Dharsi Ram. Dharsi Ram's statement that Jeewan spoke to Balbir Singh in his presence and that of Banwarilal P.W. and that Banwarilal served water to him is clearly false. For one thing, Banwarilal made it clear that at that time he was not present there. For another, Banwarilal belied Dharsi Ram, inasmuch as he testified that there was no question of his serving any water to his father who had already died before he ' reached the spot and that all that he and Dharsi Ram did was to serve water to Geega Ram who was still alive and who died subsequently while he was being carried to the hsopital in a cart. Dharsi Ram's evidence regarding the so called conversation between Balbir and Jeewan, regarding Jeewan verbally requesting for water and Banwarilal serving water to him deserves to be rejected as wholly false. 16. This brings us to the evidence of Ram Chand (P. W. 10). Dharsi Ram's evidence regarding the so called conversation between Balbir and Jeewan, regarding Jeewan verbally requesting for water and Banwarilal serving water to him deserves to be rejected as wholly false. 16. This brings us to the evidence of Ram Chand (P. W. 10). He stated that Dharsi Ram brought water and served it to Jeewan. This is materially at variance with what Dharsi Ram and Banwari Lal have to say about it. It will be recalled that, according to Dharsi Ram, it was Banwarilal who served water to Jeewan deceased and, according to Banwarilal, none of them served water to Jeewan who had already died before they reached the spot. Banwarilal of course testified that they had served water to Geega Ram deceased and that part of his statement appears to be true, for Geega Ram was alive for quite sometime after the infliction of injuries to turn, and by that time Banwarilal etc. must have reached there. We are of the view that it would, in the circumstances, be more reasonable to hold that, by the : time Ram Chand returned to the scene of offence, Jeewan hid already died. 17. The First Information Report in the case was lodged by Ram Chand. He repeated the same story in his evidence in the trial. He stated that all the 16 culprits, including the 15 appellants, came into their field and assaulted them. Giving : the details of the assault, he testified that Mangilal opened the attack striking a kulhari blow on the head of Geega Ram deceased and that Hem Raj followed suit striking a strick blow on the head of Jeewan deceased. He further stated that there after all the accused participated in the infliction of blows to the deceased persons and to him. He stated that after he had suffered injuries at the hands of Mangilal and Ganpat, he had run away from there to the locality of harijans nearby and there after witnessed the occurrence from there. 18. We have given our utmost consideration to the statement of Ram Chand PW, for we are convinced that to begin with, he was present at the scene of offence, and later witnessed the occurrence from the nearby locality of the Harijans. He himself suffered three injuries during the initial phase of the occurrence. 18. We have given our utmost consideration to the statement of Ram Chand PW, for we are convinced that to begin with, he was present at the scene of offence, and later witnessed the occurrence from the nearby locality of the Harijans. He himself suffered three injuries during the initial phase of the occurrence. Almost all the witnesses, including the so called hostile and not so hostile of them, have admitted that Ram Chand and Kesho Ram were the ploughmen in the land of Ram Chand's father that fateful morning. It will be recalled that even Kani Ram Balai (PWI) admitted that Ram Chand had come to the Harijan locality complaining that his father and uncle were being belaboured in his father's land nearby. We must, there fore, appraise the evidence of this witness on the footing that he is definitely an eye witness of the whole transaction resulting in the death of Jeewan and Geega, It is obvious that Ram Chand has implicated some of the accused persons on account of bitter animosity against Hanuman accused and the members of his family. He admitted that the land in which the occurrence took place was the bone of contention between his deceased father on one side and Hanuman accused on the other. He admitted that Hanuman had already obtained a decree against his father from the Collector and that his father had filed an appeal before the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan. It appears that some of the accused had appeared as witnesses against Ram Chand in a Criminal prosecution earlier. He was obviously reluctant to admit his fact inasmuch as he stated that he did not remember if they had appeared against him or not. It may therefore be safely concluded that, though decidedly an eye witness Ram Chand's testimony requires close scrutiny on account of his prove ill-will and long enmity against the accused prior to this occurrence. 19. Now, Ram Chand has implicated not only Hanuman and his sons but also Hanuman's wife and a daughter-in-law among the assailants of Jeewan and Geega deceased. He has also implicated the wives of two other accused, and Prema, Who happens to be Hanuman's sister's son. 19. Now, Ram Chand has implicated not only Hanuman and his sons but also Hanuman's wife and a daughter-in-law among the assailants of Jeewan and Geega deceased. He has also implicated the wives of two other accused, and Prema, Who happens to be Hanuman's sister's son. Prema admittedly belongs to a village at a distance of 12 miles from Dason Kidhani where this occurrence took place, PW Keshow Ram, the other ploughman who had b:en ploughing the disputed land along with Ram Chand that morning and who cannot legitimately be accused of having any soft corner for the accused stated that apart from Hanuman, Fatta, Ganpat, Mangilal, Sualal and Mohan, the only other persons seen by him among the rioters were two women whom he could not identify. He would thus exclude the complicity in the commission of these crimes of all except Hanuman, Fatta, Ganpat, Mangilal, Sualal, Mohan and two unidentified women. 20. We are satisfaction the evidence on record that both Jeewan and Geega. the two brothers, were killed as a result of the injuries inflicted to them in the land which was being ploughed by Ram Chand son of Jeewan deceased and another ploughman, namely Kesho Ram (PW 14) on June 22, 1975, morning, and which was at that time a subject matter of litigation between Jeewan deceased and Hanuman accused. Both Jeewan and Geega fell down injured in this land. Jeewan died on the Spot. Blood stained earth was collected from there by S. I. Kishan Singh (PW 18) the investigating officer, the same day. He also saw two ploughs lying in the said land. All the witnesses, including these who expressed their inability to name the accused persons, are unanimous that the assault resulting in the death of Jeewan and Geega was made on them in this land which was under the plough of Jeewan deceased that day. 21. Accused Hanuman, Fatta, Mangilal, Ganpat, Sualal and Mohan who were among the assailants of Jeewan, Geega and Ram Chand in the land in possession of Jeewan deceased went there armed with sticks and sharp edged weapons like kulhari and gandasi. 21. Accused Hanuman, Fatta, Mangilal, Ganpat, Sualal and Mohan who were among the assailants of Jeewan, Geega and Ram Chand in the land in possession of Jeewan deceased went there armed with sticks and sharp edged weapons like kulhari and gandasi. As already indicated, we have no reason to disbelieve the evidence of Kesho Ram (PW 14) who testified that Mangilal and Fatta, armed with gandasi and Kulhari respectively, and Hanuman, Ganpat, Sualal and Mohan armed with sticks, attacked, Jeewan and Geega in Jeewan's land, dealt indiscriminate blows to them and felled them there. The evidence of PW. Ram Chand thus finds collaboration to that extent from the evidence of Kesho Ram. We are not unmindful of a slight discrepancy in their evidence in as much as Ram Chand (PW. 10) stated that Mangilal was armed with a Kulhari and Fatta with a gandasi, as compared to Kesho Ram (PW 14) who stated that Mangilal was armed with a gandasi and Fatta with a Kulhari. There is not much to distinguish between a Kulhari and a gandasi. A kulhari with a longer blade can legitimately be described as a gandasi. Much significance need not therefore be attached to discrepancies of this nature. All said and done, we have no hesitation in placing reliance on the testimony of PWs. Kesho Ram and Ram Chand to the extent that accused Hanuman, Fatta, Ganpat, Mangilal, Sualal and Mohan were armed with sticks and sharp edged weapons, as stated by these witnesses and that they were among the rioters who committed rioting in the land in possession of Jeewan and killed Jeewan and Geega there. 22. We have no doubt that the aforementioned six accused, along with a few others about whose identify there is no satisfactory evidence on the record, went armed to the said land with a common determination to seize possession of that land by force and to kill the resisters, if necessary. The prosecution has produced evidence to prove that Mangilal accused who had been hospitalised on June 19, 1975 due to an electric shock suffered by him that day disappeared from the hospital without permission on June 22, at about 7. A. M. and returned there at about 12. 45 P. M. to seek readmission for a bleeding nose. The hospital record produced in evidence consists of documents Ex. A. M. and returned there at about 12. 45 P. M. to seek readmission for a bleeding nose. The hospital record produced in evidence consists of documents Ex. 5 and Ex, 6 along with their annexures Balu Ram (PW2) of the Sikar hospital proved these documents and stated that Mangilal accused remained absent from his bed from 7 A. M. to 12.45 P. M. that day. In his statement under section 313 Cr. P. C. Mangilal made a bald denial that he had disappeared from the hospital as alleged and therefore offered no explanation for such absence. We are satisfied that Mangilal disappeared from the Sikar hospital to join his father, brothers and other culprits to commit this offence later that morning in his village which is at a distance of only three miles from Sikar. His conduct in rushing back to the hospital after the commission of this crime with a complaint of bleeding in the nose can hardly be of any avail to him. On the contrary, it would indicate that he was trying to , manufacture evidence of alibi in the hope that the hospital authorities may not have noticed his absence from the hospital that morning. 23. We may not dilate upon the evidence produced by the prosecution regarding the alleged recovery of the weapons of offence from Mangilal, Fattas, and Ganpat and of blood stained clothes from Mangilal, for we are not inclined to place reliance on this evidence to connect the accused with crime. The evidence produced is not necessarily inculpatory. It would therefore be unsafe to take into consideration against the accused. 24. Mr. Tibrewal, learned defence counsel, directed a good deal of his argument to the First Information Report and contended that the original report which had been made in writing by Ram Chand P. W. was, later on, snatched by him from H. C. Durga Dutt, at the instance of Balbir Singh, a former M. L. A. and a relation of Ram Chand, who wanted the same to be substituted by another report implicating more persons than those who had been implicated in the original report. If one reads the depositions of PWS. If one reads the depositions of PWS. Durga Dutt, Ram Chand and S. I. Kishan Singh in the light of the surrounding circumstances, it will be seen that the criticism made by counsel against the conduct of H C. Durga Dutt and S. I. Kishan Singh in respect of the F. I. R. is not altogether unjustified. H. C. Durga Dutt is not the scribe of the alleged substituted F. I. R. produced in the trial. The official who scribed it has not been produced as a witness. Mr. Tibrewal contends, and with same justification in our opinion, that if the said official had been produced as a witness, the defence would have shown by cross-examinations that this document is a clear case of substitution. In the facts of this case, especially so when the defence had made a complaint at the very commencement of the investigation (refer in this connection to the depositions of S. I. Kishan Singh) that H. C. Durga Dutt had destroyed the original F. I. R., it was the duty of the prosecution to call the scribe of the document produced in the court as the F. I. R., and remove all doubts in that behalf. Then there was delay in forwarding a copy of the F. I. R. to the Magistrate concerned on June 24, 1975 although the police station and the court of the magistrate are situate in close proximity of each other Delay in the dispatch of the F. I. R. to the magistrate is not necessarily a circumstance which could warrant rejection of the prosecution case in its entirety. It may however be taken to consideration in a given case to find out if the investigation was fair or not, in the instant case, we are inclined to agree that the document presented as the F. I. R, in this case is of a doubtful nature. It should not, therefore, be used in corroboration not using it as such. That is one reasons why we have preferred to give the benefit of doubt to all the accused except Hanuman, Fatta, Mangilal, Ganpat, Sualal and Mohan. There is added assurance about the participation of these six persons in the commission of this crime because the evidence of Ram Chand PW finds corroboration to that extent from the evidence of Kesho Ram PW. 25. There is added assurance about the participation of these six persons in the commission of this crime because the evidence of Ram Chand PW finds corroboration to that extent from the evidence of Kesho Ram PW. 25. The medical evidence would also support the prosecution case that the assailants of Jeewan and Geega were more than five which is the minimum number required to constitute an assembly Dr. A. N. Mathur (PW 19) who conducted the post mortem testified that Jeewan had as many as 18 injuries on his body, all ante-mortem in nature, and that 10 out of them were incised wounds. Similarly, he noted as many as 17 injuries on the dead body of Geega Ram. All these injuries were ante-mortem. Three of them were incised wounds. Both Jeewan and Geega died due to shock and haemorrhage caused by these injuries. These injuries were, in his opinion, sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The tally of the injuries on Geega and Jeewan adds upto 35. This would indicate that the assailant came in good number, some of them armed with blunt weapons. This evidence certainly corroborates the evidence of PWs Kesho Ram and Ram Chand to the effect that the six persons aforementioned had participated in the commission of this crime. 26. Before concluding, we would like to make it clear that we have used the expression 'hostile' in relation to certain witnesses, including Kesho Ram PW, merely because this expression has acquired common acceptance and is even otherwise quite compendious and convenient to describe a witness as regards whom the court permits a person calling him as a witness to put any question to him which might be put in cross-examinations. The testimony of a witness cannot be rejected out of hand merely because the court, acting under section 154, Evidence Act, permitted the party summoning him as a witness to put questions to him in the nature of cross-examination questions. It is obvious that such a mechanical rejection might in a given case deprive the court of the evidence of a witness who is stating the truth regardless of the fact whether it is favourable or unfavourable to the party calling him as a witness. It is obvious that such a mechanical rejection might in a given case deprive the court of the evidence of a witness who is stating the truth regardless of the fact whether it is favourable or unfavourable to the party calling him as a witness. It is essential that the evidence of such a witness is appraised and considered, like the evidence of any other witness, applying the usual tests of appraisal and keeping in mind the fact that even the party who called him as a witness of accusing him of suppression of truth. If the evidence of a witness measures up to all such rigorous tests and otherwise carries conviction with the court, there is no reason, in law or principle, why his evidence should be rejected in its entirety merely by dubbing him as hostile on the ground that the party calling him was permitted by the court to put questions to him in the nature of cross-examination questions. We are fortified in our opinion by a judgment of the Supreme Court, reported in Sat Paul v. Delhi Administration, A. I. R. 1976 S.C. 292. Their Lordships held in the cited case that if as a result of such cross-examination, the credit of the witness is not Shaken, the court may, after reading his statement as a whole, and with due caution and care, accept that part of his testimony which the court finds credit worthy and act upon it. We are convinced in the facts of this case that the evidence of Kesho Ram (PW 14) is trustworthy in so far as he was prepared to go and implicate six of the accused persons by name. It is possible that he may be knowing a few more names of the culprits who participated in the commission of this crime, but was not prepared to disclose them. We are however, fully satisfied that he has not falsely implicated any of the accused. 27. In view of the foregoing discussion of evidence, we allow the appeal lulled by Panna, Hema, Bhima, Parma, Govind, Jinku, Gomti, Rukma and Gumna, set aside the order of conviction and sentence passed against them and instead acquit them. The appeal filed by Hanuman, Fatta, Ganpat, Mangilal, Sualal and Mohan fails and is hereby dismissed. Their conviction and sentence under Section 147 and 302-149 I. P. C are affirmed. Fatta is on bail. The appeal filed by Hanuman, Fatta, Ganpat, Mangilal, Sualal and Mohan fails and is hereby dismissed. Their conviction and sentence under Section 147 and 302-149 I. P. C are affirmed. Fatta is on bail. He shall surrender to his bail bonds. Govindi, Jinku, Gomti and Rukma's bail bonds are hereby discharged. Hem Raj, Panna, Bhima, Gumana and Panna shall be released forthwith, if not required to be detained in connection with any other case. *******