JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been filed by the appellants Nabbi, Nazir Mohammed, Hamida and Sardar against the judgment dated 21st December, 1977 passed by the Sessions Judge, Bharatpur in Sessions Case No. 38/77. In the Sessions Case aforesaid, the appellant Nabbi was prosecuted on charges under sections 148, 302, 326/149 & 323/149 IPC, appellant Nazir Mohammed was prosecuted on charges under sections 148, 302/149, 326 & 32.3/149 IPC and appellants Hamida and Sardar were prosecuted on charges under sections 147, 302/149, 326/149 and 323 IPC. The Sessions Judge has convicted appellant Nabbi under sections 302, 148 & 323/149 IPC but has acquitted him of the charge under section 326/149 IPC Appellant Nazir Mohammed has been convicted under sections 148, 302/149 and 323/149 IPC but he has been acquitted of the charge under section 326 IPC. Appellants Hamida and Sardar have been convicted under sections 302/149, 147 and 323 IPC but have been acquitted of the charges under section 326/149. All the appellants have been sentenced to imprisonment for life under section 302 or 302/149. Appellants Nabi and Nazir Mohammed have been sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment under section 148 and one month's rigorous imprisonment under section 323/149. Appellants Sardar and Hamida have been sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment under section 147 and one year's rigorous imprisonment under section 323. 2. The prosecution of the appellants for the offences above-referred relates to an incident which took place on 27th January, 1977 at about 10 to 11 a.m. in village Kheda, P.S. Kama in which one Karim sustained injuries as a result of which he died and Mamrej (PW 2) received injuries. The case of the prosecution, as disclosed in the First Information Report lodged by Bhure Khan (PW 3) at P.S. Kama on 27th January, 1977 at about 6.30 p.m. is as under : 3. On 26th January, 1977 at about 10 to 11 a.m. the informant Bhure Khan, had been assaulted by Rati Mohammed s/o Hastu and Popata s/o Karim Khan. Bhure Khan wanted to go to Kama for the purpose of lodging a report with the police about the said incident but did not go as the relatives of the aforesaid assailants approached him for a settlement. No settlement was, however, arrived at. Bhure Khan wanted to go to Kama for the purpose of lodging a report with the police about the said incident but did not go as the relatives of the aforesaid assailants approached him for a settlement. No settlement was, however, arrived at. On 27th January, 1977 Bhure Khan learnt that the police inspector, had come in village Baroli Chauji, which is quite near his village and therefore, Bhure Khan, along with Mamrej and Karim (deceased) started from their village to lodge the report with the police inspector in village Baroli Chauji. While they were passing through field no. 2 belonging to Mastu, the accused persons and one Kamar s/o Sumeru arrived there. Appellants Nazir Mohammed and Nabbi and Kamar were armed with pharsas while Hamida and Sardar were armed with lathies. Appellant Nazir inflicted a pharsa blow on the leg of Karim and a appellant Nazir inflicted a pharsa blow on the head of Karim and then Kamar inflicted a pharsa blow on Karim as a result of the said injuries, Karim fell down on the ground. Then Mamrej came to rescue of Karim and Kamar inflicted a pharsa blow on Mamrej and another pharsa blow was inflicted on the right leg of Mamrej and appellants Sardar and Hamida inflicted lathi blows, as a result of which, Mamrej also fell down. While the aforesaid assault was going on, Bhure Khan was shouting from a distance and on hearing his cries, Fatte (PW 5) and Hasmal (PW 8) arrived at the scene and thereupon the accused persons fled away. It was found that Karim had died on account of the injuries sustained by him and that Mamrej was seriously wounded. Both of them were taken to the hospital at Kama in a cart and thereafter, the report was lodged at the police station Kama. 4. After the aforesaid report had been lodged at P.S. Kama, Shri Radheshyam (PW 9) S.H.O., police Station Kama took up the investigation and prepared the inquest memo of the dead body of Karim and got the injuries of Mamrej medically examined by Dr. Kamlesh Arya (PW 1) at the Government Hospital; Kama. The post-mortem examination of the dead body of Karim was conducted by Dr. Kamlesh Arya on 28th January, 1977 at 8 a.m. According to the post-mortem report (Ex. Kamlesh Arya (PW 1) at the Government Hospital; Kama. The post-mortem examination of the dead body of Karim was conducted by Dr. Kamlesh Arya on 28th January, 1977 at 8 a.m. According to the post-mortem report (Ex. PI), the following injuries were found on the person of deceased Karim : "(1) Incised wound (transverse from lateral to medial side) 61/2 "x 2" x 1⅓" (Lt. side face) started from lower part of the Left ear to medial corner of the Rt. eye. cut the nasal bones, Lt. axillary, Lt. Zygomatic Bone & Lt. Ceronoid process of Mandible. (2) Incised wound (transverse) 2" x 1" x 11/2" Middle of the Rt. Leg (From Medial Anterior to posterior) (3) Incised wound (oblique) 5" x 21/2" x 1/4" upper part of the Lt. leg Anteriorly. (From above to downwards) (4) Incised wound (transverse) 2" x 1" x 1/4 Lt. Leg in middle (from anterior lateral to posterior). (5) Abrasion Lt. knee Anterior aspect 2" x 1". According to the injury report (Ex. P2) there were 11 injuries on the person of Mamrej. Injury no. 1 was an incised wound 5" x 2" x 1" on the anterior aspect of the lower part of right leg and injury no. 2 was a lacerated wound with swelling 1" x ⅛" x ⅛" & 2" x 2" over the posterior and upper part of the left parietal bone. The Investigating officer also visited the scene of occurrence prepared in a site plan (Ex. P 10). According to the said site plan, the blood was found in the field of Mastu and marks of feet were also found in the said field. The appellants were arrested on 6th February, 1977 and on the basis of the information given by appellants Nabbi and Nazir; two pharsas were recovered and on the basis of the information given by appellants Hamida and Sardar, two lathies were recovered. The fifth assailant Kamar could not be arrested and he is absconding. After completing the investigation, the Investigating officer filed the challan against the four appellants and they were committed for trial to the court of sessions. 5. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined 12 witnesses out of whom Mamrej (PW 2) Bhure Khan (PW 3), Fatte (PW 5) and Hasmal (PW 8) are claimed to be the eye witnesses of the occurrence. 5. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined 12 witnesses out of whom Mamrej (PW 2) Bhure Khan (PW 3), Fatte (PW 5) and Hasmal (PW 8) are claimed to be the eye witnesses of the occurrence. The appellants in their statements recorded under section 313 Cr. P.C. have denied the prosecution case and have stated that they had been falsely implicated due to enmity. 6. The Session Judge by his judgment dated 21st December, 1977 has found that from the evidence adduced by the prosecution it is established that the appellants Naqbi and Nazir and accused Kamar were armed with pharsas whereas appellants Hamida and Sardar were armed with lathies and that they had assaulted Karim (deceased) and Mamrej (PW 2) and that as a result of the injuries inflicted by the appellants and Kamar, Karim had died. According to the Sessions Judge, the appellants and Kamar were members of an unlawful assembly and that the object of the said unlawful assembly was to assault Karim (deceased) Mamrej and Bhure Khan and that the fact that appellants Nabbi and Nazir were armed with pharsas and the other two appellants viz. Hamida and Sardar were armed with lathies and the way in which Karim and Mamrej were assaulted shows that the appellants had knowledge that death could be caused by the use of the deadly weapons. The Sessions Judge found that the death of Karim had been caused on account of the injury on the head with a pharsa that had been inflicted by appellant Nabbi. The Sessions Judge, therefore, convicted appellant Nabbi under section 302 IPC and the other appellants under sections 302/149. The Sessions Judge further found that although in the injury report (Ex. P 2) relating to the injuries found on the person of Mamrej, injury no. 1 is stated to be grievous but the same was not grievous inasmuch as no fracture was detected during the course the X-ray examination. The Sessions Judge has, therefore, acquitted appellant Nazir of the charge under section 326 and the other appellants of the charge under sections 326/149 but convicted appellants Sardar and Hamida under section 323/149. Appellants Nabbi and Nazir being armed with pharsas were convicted under section 148 IPC whereas appellants Hamida and Sardar, being armed with lathies, were convicted under section 147 IPC. Appellants Nabbi and Nazir being armed with pharsas were convicted under section 148 IPC whereas appellants Hamida and Sardar, being armed with lathies, were convicted under section 147 IPC. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of the sessions Judge, the appellants have filed this appeal. 7. We have heard Shri P.C. Jain, the learned counsel for appellants Nabbi and Nazir and Shri R.N. Sharma, the learned counsel for appellants Hamida and Sardar, we have also heard the learned Public Prosecutor. 8. At the outset, it may be observed that the evidence of Mamrej (PW 2), Bhure Khan (PW 3) and Fatte (PW 5) is consistent in as much as all these witnesses have deposed that on the day preceding the date of the incident Rati Mohammed and Popta had assaulted Bhure Khan and that Rati Mohammed is the brother of appellants Hamida and Sardar and Popta is the nephew of the said appellants and that Bhure Khan wanted to go the police station for lodging a report but Mastu, Karim Khan and Sardar requested him not to lodge the report and assured him that the matter would be settled in the village itself. Since a settlement was not reached and on the next day and it was learnt that the police inspector had come to village Baroli Chauji, Mamrej along with Bhure Khan and deceased Karim proceeded to village Baroli Chauji for the purpose of lodging a report at about 10 to 11 a.m. while they were in the field of Mastu, the appellants and Kamar suddenly came there. Appellants Nabbi and Nasir as well as Kamar were armed with pharsa whereas appellants Hamida and Sardar were armed with lathies and soon after arriving there, appellant Nazir gave a blow on the leg of Karim with a pharsa which hit his right leg and the second blow with a pharsa was given by a appellant Nabbi on the head of deceased Karim where upon Karim fell down and accused Kamar also gave a pharsa blow. When Mamraj intervened and asked them not to assault Karim, Kamar gave a pharsa blow on his head and in order to ward off the said blow, Mamrej raised his hands and the pharsa hit the hands. Another blow with a pharsa was given by appellant Nazir which hit on the right leg of Mamrej. When Mamraj intervened and asked them not to assault Karim, Kamar gave a pharsa blow on his head and in order to ward off the said blow, Mamrej raised his hands and the pharsa hit the hands. Another blow with a pharsa was given by appellant Nazir which hit on the right leg of Mamrej. Appellants Hamida and Sardar gave lathi blows to Mamrej and he fell down. Hasmal (PW 8) who arrived at the scene on hearing the shouts from the field of Mastu, has deposed that he found that Karim was lying dead whereas Mamrej was lying injured and that he saw that all the four appellants and Kamar were running away from the scene and at that time, appellants Nabbi and Nazir and Kamar were armed with pharsas and appellants Hamida and Sardar were armed with lathies. 9. The first contention urged by the learned counsel for the appellants was that the aforesaid witnesses, namely, Mamrej, Bhure Khan, Fatte and Hasmal are partisan witnesses and that no reliance should be placed on their testimony. In this context, the learned counsel has pointed out that one Ratan Singh S/o Mastu had been murdered one year prior to the incident and Bhure Khan PW 3 is one of the accused persons who are being prosecuted in connection with the said murder and appellants Hamida and Nazir as well as Kamar had appeared as witnesses on behalf of the prosecution in the said murder case. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants was that in view of the fact that some of the members of the complainant party were accused in the case relating to murder of Ratan Singh and the accused persons had appeared as witnesses in that case, the witnesses that have been examined by the prosecution to prove its case partisan witnesses who have falsely implicated the accused persons It is no doubt true that in connection with the murder of Ratan Singh, one of the members of the complainant party, namely, Bhure Khan (PW 3), is being prosecuted and in the said prosecution accused appellants Nazir and Hamida as well as Kamar have appeared as witnesses for the prosecution. But the fact that some of the accused persons had appeared as witnesses for the prosecution in the case against Bhure Khan (PW 3) can only mean that Mamrej and Bhure Khan are interested witnesses and their evidence should be scrutinised with care. 10. We have carefully perused the evidence of Mamrej (PW 2) and Bhure Khan (PW 3). Mamrej (PW 2) had sustained 11 injuries on his person. Out of which one was an incised wound on the right leg and one was a lacerated wound in the parietal region, and his presence at that scene of the incident cannot be doubted. There is no reason why he should have not named the real assailants and falsely implicated the appellants. Bhure Khan (PW 3) is the person who had been assaulted on the previous day and he was the person most interested in lodging the report which the police with regard to the said incident and it can naturally be expected that he would be accompanying Karim (deceased) and Mamrej (PW 2) while they were going to meet the police Inspector in village Baroli Chauji. The evidence of Mamrej and Bhure Khan stands corroborated by Fatte (PW 5) and Hasmal (PW 8). Fatte has his field near the field of Mastu and Hasmal has his house near by and they reached the scene of occurrence on hearing the cries. They are natural witnesses and there is nothing to show that they are interested in the complainant. 11. Moreover, we find that the testimony of Mamrej, Bhure Khan, Fatte and Hasmal finds corroboration from other circumstances. Soon after the incident, the First Information Report was lodged at police station Kama and (he version given in the said First Information Report is consistent with the version of the incident as given in the evidence of the afore said witnesses. The testimony of the aforesaid witnesses also finds support from the medical evidence, namely, report (Ex. P 1) of the post-mortem examination of the dead body of deceased Karim and the injury report (Ex. P 2) with regard to the injuries found on the person of Mamrej. The testimony of the aforesaid witnesses also finds support from the medical evidence, namely, report (Ex. P 1) of the post-mortem examination of the dead body of deceased Karim and the injury report (Ex. P 2) with regard to the injuries found on the person of Mamrej. According to the post-mortem report, the deceased had sustained one incised in jury on the head starting from the lower part of the left ear to medial corner of right eye and an incised wound on the middle of the right leg and two incised wound on the left leg. The aforesaid injuries found on the person of deceased Karim are consistent with the evidence with regard to the incident given by Mamrej, Bhure Khan and Fatte. The incised injury on the right leg of Mamrej also lends support to the testimony of the aforesaid witnesses. The evidence of these witnesses is also supported by the site plan (Ex. P 10) prepared by the Investigating Officer , which indicates the presence of blood and marks of feet in the field of Mastu. In our opinion the aforesaid circumstances, lend corroboration to the testimony of Mamrej, Bhure Khan, Fatte and Hasmal and in view of the aforesaid circumstances, reliance can be placed on the testimony of the aforesaid witnesses. In this regard it may also be observed that Bhure Khan has stated that in the village there is only one house belonging to the complainant side and rest of the villagers belong to the side of the accused. In the circumstances, the failure on the part of the prosecution to produce other witnesses cannot be invoked as a circumstance against the prosecution. 12. The learned counsel for the appellants have, however, submitted that no reliance should be placed on the First Information Report inasmuch as there was considerable delay in lodging the same. According to the learned counsel, the distance between the place of occurrence and the police station is only 10 miles and even though the incident is alleged to have taken place at between 10 and 11 a.m. the report was lodged only at 6.30 p.m. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants was that the First Information Report was lodged after deliberation and it cannot be relied upon as a circumstance corroborating the evidence of the eye witnesses. In our opinion, there is no force in the aforesaid contention. In our opinion, there is no force in the aforesaid contention. Bhure Khan has asserted that after the incident, a cart had to be arranged and thereafter, the injured Mamrej along with the dead body of the deceased Karim were taken to the hospital at Kama and that they reached the hospital at about 6 p.m. and thereafter, the report was lodged at police station Kama. Taking into consideration the fact that Karim had died and Mamrej had received injuries,the conduct of the complainants in taking them first to the hospital and thereafter to lodge a report cannot be said to be unnatural. In view of the fact that the distance between the place of occurrence and police station Kama is 10 miles, the time taken in lodging report cannot be said to be unduly long. In our view, therefore, it cannot be said that there is undue delay in lodging the report and for that reason no reliance can be placed on the First Information Report. 13. The learned counsel for the appellants have next urged that there is a straight route for the purpose of going to village Baroli Chauji and that there was no reason for the complainant party to have taken a circuitous route for the purpose of going to the said village. There is no merit in the aforesaid contention. From the evidence of Mamrej, it appears that for the purpose of going to Baroli Chauji, one can go village Gadi or via village Chhejpur. According to the said witness village Gadi as well as village Chhejpur lie towards the north side of the village and that the fields of Mastu lie on both the routes. The aforesaid evidence of Mamrej finds support from the site plan (Ex. P 10) which shows that the way for going to village Gadi passes through the field of Mastu. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that for the purpose of going to village Baroli Chauji, the complainant party was not required to pass through the field of Mastu, where the occurrence had taken place, and that there was no occasion for them to pass through the field of Mastu. 14. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that for the purpose of going to village Baroli Chauji, the complainant party was not required to pass through the field of Mastu, where the occurrence had taken place, and that there was no occasion for them to pass through the field of Mastu. 14. Another contention that was urged by the learned counsel for the appellants was that the accused party could not have known that the complainant party would pass through the field of Mastu and, therefore, there was no question of the accused persons forming an unlawful assembly with the common object of assaulting the complainant party. In our view, there is no substances in the aforesaid contention also. Mamrej has deposed that before starting for village Baroli Chauji he had told in the village that they were going to Baroli Chauji to lodge the report and has named Tendu and Chandmal as the persons who had been told about it. He further says that he had also informed these persons about the route which they were going to take. Moreover, it is established from the record that the incident took place in the field of Mastu and that Karim had sustained injuries as a result of which he died and Mamrej had sustained injuries. It is also established that appellants Nabbi and Nazir and accused Kamar were armed with pharsas whereas accused-appellants Hamida and Sardar were armed with lathies and all the appellants and Kamar had used their weapons. In the circumstances it must be held that the appellants and the accused Kamar were members of the unlawful assembly, the object of which was to assault Mamrej, Bhure Khan and deceased Karim and the arms which were carried by the members of the unlawful assembly indicates that all the members of the unlawful assembly had the knowledge that death might be caused. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the learned Sessions Judge was right in holding the appellants Nabbi and Nazir guilty of the offence under section 148 in as much as they were armed with pharsas and appellants Hamida and Sardar who were armed with lathies of the offence under section 147 and in convicting the appellants Nazir, Hamida and Sardar under section 302/149 IPC. In so far as accused Nabbi is concerned, there is consistent evidence to show that he had inflicted the injury with a pharsa on the head of deceased Karim and according to the post-mortem report (Ex. P 1), the death of Karim was caused by the injury on the head, He has, therefore, been rightly convicted of the offence under section 302 IPC. 15. For the reasons aforesaid, we are of the opinion that the conviction of appellant Nabbi under section 302 IPC and appellants Nazir, Hamida and Sardar under sections 302/149 IPC and the conviction of appellants Nabbi and Nazir under section 148 IPC and appellants Sardar and Hamida under section 147 IPC must be upheld. The conviction of appellants Hamida and Sardar under section 323 IPC and appellants Nabbi and Nazir under section 323/149 IPC also does not suffer from any infirmity and it must be upheld. 16. The sentences that have been imposed by the Sessions Judge for the various offences for which the appellants have been convicted cannot be said to be excessive in the facts and circumstances of the present case and we find no reason to interfere with the same. 17. In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the judgment dated 21st December, 1977 passed by the Sessions Judge is affirmed.Appeal dismissed. *******