JUDGMENT N. N. Mithal, J. 1. THE appellants were charged u/S. 302734 Indian Penal Code for the murder of Ram Murti and Ram Pratap both being sons of Banshidhar, on 12-7-1974 at about 4 p. m. in village Chaharpur, Police Station Faridpur, District Bareilly. They were also charged u/Sec. 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code for causing injuries to Banshidhar in the same incident. 2. THE trial court has found them guilty and has sentenced them to life imprisonment for causing death of Ram Murti and Ram Pratap and for 3 months' R. I. u/Sec. 323/34 IPC for causing injuries to Banshidhar. All of them have come up in appeal. According to the prosecution case Maharban Singh, appellant Nos. 1, is the Pradhan of the village Simra Keshipur and appellants Nos. 2 and 3 are his sons. The fourth appellant Prem Gusain is alleged to be a friend of accused Meharban Singh and is said to be living in the premises of the flour mill belonging to Meharban Singh. Banshidhar and his two sons, deceased Ram Murti and Ram Pratap are the victims of the occurrence. It may be mentioned here that Banshidhar also died during the pendency of the sessions trial before his evidence could be recorded. All the three eye-witnesses, P. Ws. 1, 2 and 5, are the residents of village Simra Keshipur to which the accused also belong. It is alleged that there was previous enmity between the accused and the deceased. A day before the occurrence the deceased and the injured had objected in the distribution of Banjar land in the village to some persons by Meharban Singh, in his capacity as the Chairman of the L. M. C. and Pradhan of the village.. This annoyed Meharban and his sons and they are alleged to have remarked to Banshidhar and his sons that they always put obstacles in his way and that he would deal with them in a few days. It is alleged that on 12-7-74 Banshidhar and his sons Ram Murti and Ram Pratap had gone to Bareilly in connection with case No. 89 of 1974 u/Sec. 107/117 Cr. P. C., in the court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Faridpur. The Presiding Officer of the court was absent in connection with the collection of grain levy and, therefore, the case was adjourned to 30-7-1974. On their way back to Faridpur they met P. Ws. P. C., in the court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Faridpur. The Presiding Officer of the court was absent in connection with the collection of grain levy and, therefore, the case was adjourned to 30-7-1974. On their way back to Faridpur they met P. Ws. 1, 2 and 5 who had come for shopping at Faridpur. At about 3 P. M. all of them started from Faridpur for their village. It is alleged by the prosecution that Banshidhar and his two sons were going a little ahead and the three eye-witnesses were about 25 to 30 paces behind them. After covering a distance of about two miles, when Banshidhar and his sons approached near a culvert, known as Sandi Kl Pulia, in village Chanharpur they were ambushed by the accused who came out from behind the bushes which were growing by the side of the road, Meharban Singh and Thakur Das were armed with pistols and the other two were armed with lathis. Ram Bhajan and Prem Gosain immediately attacked Ram Murti, Ram Pratap and Banshidhar with their lathis. Ram Pratap and Ram Murti were also carrying lathis but Ram Murti could not save himself from the attack and fell down. Bansidhar was an old-man and was unarmad. He also received a few lathi blows and fell down. Ram Pratap could avoid the lathi blows more successfully. There upon at the exhortation of Ram Bhajan and Prem Gusain the other two accused, Meharban Singh and Thakur Das fired shots with their pistols which hit Ram Pratap. The accused ran away from the spot and there after the eye-witnesses proceeded to see the victims and found that Ram Pratap had already died and Ram Murti was lying unconscious and Banshidhar was semiconscious and could not speak coherently. Banshidhar was not able to move and accompany them to the police Station. There upon Damodar proceeded to the Police Station Faridpur and lodged F. I. R. at about 5 p. m. which was recorded by P. W. 7. Investigation was taken up by S. I. Sri B. K. Shukla, P.W. 9 who recorded the statement of Damodar the complainant and then he left for the place of the occurrence. He noted injuries of Banshidhar and Ram Murti and immediately sent them to the hospital at Faridpur where they were examined by Dr. Investigation was taken up by S. I. Sri B. K. Shukla, P.W. 9 who recorded the statement of Damodar the complainant and then he left for the place of the occurrence. He noted injuries of Banshidhar and Ram Murti and immediately sent them to the hospital at Faridpur where they were examined by Dr. R. C. Asthana, P.W.4, at about 6.40 p. m. He recorded 11 injuries on the person of Ram Murti vide his injury report Ex. Ka-5 as detailed below : (Injuries quoted-Ed.) He also found some injuries on the person of Banshidhar as given below and also noted that he (sic) of injury were present there. The injuries were as followings: (Injuries quoted-Ed.) 3. HE referred Ram Murti to the District Hospital as his condition was serious. The dead body of Ram Pratap was taken possession of by PW 9 who prepared a report and entrusted it to Constable Ram Lakhan Singh for being taken for post-mortem examination. HE also recorded the statements of Puran Lal and Jamuna Prasad eye-witnesses and inspected the site, prepared a site plan, took samples of plain and blood stained earth of the spot where the dead body of Ram Pratap was lying and where Ram Murti and Banshidhar lay after being injured. HE also noted that there were some blood marks between the two places and some chillies spread over where the injured were lying. The next day S.I. Sri B. K. Shukla, PW 9 reached Faridpur Hospital at 8.30 a.m. and interrogated Banshidhar. A search for the accused was made but they were not found at their houses. The accused surrendered themselves on 17-7-1974. 4. ACCORDING to the prosecution case the condition of Ram Murti deteriorated and he was taken to Bareilly where he was admitted at 4 p. m. on 13-7-1974 but he succumbed to his injuries on 19-7-1974 at about 4.15 a.m. The inquest report was prepared and the dead body was sealed and left in the custody of Constable Gurmukh Singh to be taken to the mortuary for post-mortem examination; post-mortem on the body of Ram Murti was conducted by Dr. R. R. Agarwal, PW 3, whose report is Ex. Ka-4 on the record. He found the following ante-mortem injuries : (Injuries quoted-Ed.) According to the medical report death was caused due to shock and haemorrhage due to skull injury. R. R. Agarwal, PW 3, whose report is Ex. Ka-4 on the record. He found the following ante-mortem injuries : (Injuries quoted-Ed.) According to the medical report death was caused due to shock and haemorrhage due to skull injury. The prosecution examined the three eye-witnesses and two doctors, i.e. the one who had examined the injuries and the other who had conducted the postmortem examination of Ram Pratap and Ram Murti. It also examined S. I. B. K. Shukla, who was initially investigating and S. I. Sri Gaya Prasad Dube who succeeded S. I. Sri B. K. Shukla after his transfer on 22-7-1974. 5. IN the appeal before us the learned counsel for the appellants has mainly stressed that all the three eye-witnesses were unreliable as they were inimical to the accused and on the basis of their testimony they could not be found guilty. It is further submitted that according to the prosecution case the appellant Nos. 1 and 2 were alleged to be carrying pistols and appellants nos. 3 and 4 were armed with lathis. None is alleged to be armed with a sharp-edged weapon and, therefore, the prosecution has failed to explain the i0ncised wound found on the front left side head of Ram Pratap. So far as the occurrence is concerned, the appellants have merely tried to show that it had not occurred at 4 p. m. as alleged by the prosecution and must have happened much later in the evening. However, the fact that the FIR had been lodged at 5 p. m. at police station which was two miles away from the place of incident and the fact that the injured were taken by the police in the jeep to the hospital and their medical examination took place at 6.40 p. m. that very day clearly goes to belie the assertion of the appellants on this point. The testimony of Dr.R.C. Asthana PW 4, is very specific and he has stated that he was the Medical Officer Incharge of the hospital at Faridpur on 12-7-1974 and on that day he had examined the injuries of Ram Murti son of Banshidhar at 6.40 p.m. He also stated that all the injuries were fresh and were of less than six hours duration. He has further stated that the injuries appeared to have been caused by some blunt weapon. He has further stated that the injuries appeared to have been caused by some blunt weapon. On the same day he also examined Banshidhar at 7.20 p.m. No effort was made to elicit from any of the witnesses that the time of examination of these injured persons was incorrect or that these injured persons had been injured much later that day. There is also evidence of Constable Kunwar Sen, PW 11, who has stated that he had taken the victims to the hospital and got them examined by Dr. R. C. Asthana. A suggestion was made to this witness that he had brought the injured persons to the hospital at night but he firmly refused it. In these circumstances the time of the occurrence cannot be said to be incorrect and has been fully established by the prosecution evidence led in this case. 6. THE next point which comes up for consideration is the reliability of the eye-witnesses who have been examined in the case. The Learned Sessions Judge has recorded a finding that all the eye-witnesses were inimical to the accused. That finding has been questioned by the State but at the same time merely because the eye-witnesses were inimical to the accused that by itself cannot be a ground for rejecting their testimony if their presence at the place of occurrence can not be doubted. It is submitted that the presence of these witnesses at the place of the incident is a chance and they have come forward to give evidence against the accused with the only motive to falsely implicate them. However, the fact that the FIR was lodged at 5 p.m. and further fact that the injured persons were examined soon there after at 6.40 p. m. and 7.20 p. m. the same day leaves no room for doubt that the three eye-witnesses must have been present at the place of occurrence. It is no doubt true that if witnesses have previous enmity with the accused person their testimony has to be thoroughly scrutinised before being accepted but it cannot by itself be a ground for totally rejecting their testimony. The three eye-witnesses had gone to the market at Faridpur. It was in the market at Faridpur that they met Banshidhar and his sons (deceased) at 3 p.n, when they started for their own village. The three eye-witnesses had gone to the market at Faridpur. It was in the market at Faridpur that they met Banshidhar and his sons (deceased) at 3 p.n, when they started for their own village. The three eye-witnesses have been cross- examined at length about the occurrence and they stood the test of cross-examination very well. In all material particulars they have supported the prosecution story and they have not (sic) in their cross-examination anywhere. This fact, coupled with the time at which the FIR was lodged and the injured were examined by Dr. R. C. Asthana, clearly goes to show that these witnesses could be relied upon and merely because they had previous enmity with the accused would not be a sufficient ground for rejecting their testimony. 7. IT has been lastly urged by the learned counsel for the appellants that there was no plausible explanation for the incised wounds on the person of Ram Pratap. The wound mentioned in the post-mortem report is 4" x 5" about 5 cm. above the left eye-brow on the left slide of the head and is carved as 'V' Such an injury can easily be caused by throwing a sharp edged stone or even by a blunt weapon which merely cuts the skin of the skull. This by itself cannot be sufficient ground for rejecting the prosecution story. 8. WE have taken into account the entire evidence and had also examined oral and documentary evidence placed on record. We are of the opinion that there is no ground for interfering with the findings of the learned Sessions Judge. We do not find any force in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. The accused are on bail. Their bail bands are cancelled. They shall be taken into custody forthwith and shall serve out their sentence. - Appeal dismissed.