JUDGMENT M. Wahajuddin, J. - Accused persons (1) Mangroo, (2) Shyam Narain, (3) Ganga, (4) Ramji, (5) Kamla, (6) Bechan, (7) Bajrangi, (8) Siya Ram, (9) Surya Nath, (10) Dular, (11) Dhondha, (12) Ram Janam, (13) Bihari and (14) Ghurahu have all been convicted under Sections 395, 302, 307 and 323 I. P. C. read with S. 149, I. P. C., and have been awarded 7 years' R. I., life imprisonment, 5 years' R. I. and one year R. I. respectively on the aforesaid four counts. Mangroo, Ganga, Bechan and Surya Nath have been further convicted under S. 148, I. P. C., and awarded three years R. I. each, while Shyam Narain, Ramji, Kamla, Bajrangi, Dular, Dhondha, Ram Janam and Ghurahu have been further convicted under S. 147, I. P. C., and awarded one year's R.I. each. All the sentences have been made concurrent. They have come up in this appeal against their convictions and sentences on the aforesaid counts. 2. Shyam Narain is the son while Kamla, Ramji, Ram Janam, Bechan and Bihari are cousins of Mangroo. Dhondha is the nephew of Dular accused and they are of the family of Mangroo. Bajrangi accused is the brother-in-law of Mangroo. Sia Ram and Surya Nath are brother-in-laws of Shyam Narain accused. Ganga and Ghurahu are said to be friends of Shyam Narain. 3. Bechan (P. W. 1) is the son of Ram Lagan, one of the victims, who has been murdered. Manjhari (P. W. 5) is the wife of Ram Lagan. Smt. Kumari (P. W. 2) is the first wife of Bechan. Kumari deceased, one of the victims, is the daughter of Mangroo accused and was the second wife of Bechan. The third victim, who has been done to death is Paras, a child of 2 years age born to Bechan from his first wife Kumari. 4. The prosecution case in brief is that about four months prior to incident, Bechan kept Kumari deceased, daughter of Mangroo accused, as his wife by mutual consent and the couple moved to Varanasi and resided there for a month and half and their court-marriage took place there and thereafter Bechan brought Kumari, daughter of Mangroo, to his house in the village and she also resided there. Mangroo and men of his group took ill of it and kept extending threats to Bechan that they would take revenge. Mangroo and men of his group took ill of it and kept extending threats to Bechan that they would take revenge. According to the prosecution, in the night of incident, namely, in the night intervening 3/4th May, 1975, Ram Lagan and Smt. Manjhari, parents of Bechan, were sleeping outside the residential house of Bechan in village Adhiyar Ki Mandi, within the circle of Police Station Alinagar, district Varanasi, while Bechan himself, his first wife with his son Paras and second wife were all sleeping in the courtyard of the residential house and a lantern was burning there placed on a peg as usual, while Bechan's elder brother Rama, Bechan's younger brother Shyam Lal and Bechan's Bari Maa and Bechan's aunt were sleeping at the door of their house located at some distance, when at about 1 A. M., the alarm of Bechan's parents attracted Bechan and others sleeping inside the courtyard and Bechan followed by others rushed to the door of the house, flashing torch, and noticed 9 of the accused persons, namely, Mangroo, Shyam Narain, Ganga, Ramji, Kamla, Bechan son of Balwant, Bajrangi, Sia Ram and Surya Nath armed with Gandasa, spear and lathi belabouring Bechan's parents, and the moment Bechan raised alarm, Bajrangi gave a lathi blow to Bechan and Bechan and his two wives then again had a retreat to the courtyard, shutting the door of the house, and the aforesaid miscreants ultimately, removing the plank of the door started entering the house and Bechan then concealed himself under a Bhoosa heap in the room where Bhoosa was stored and the aforesaid miscreants entering the courtyard started belabouring Kumari deceased. daughter of Mangroo, and when Bechan's first wife Kumari (P. W. 2) shrieked, she too was attacked and belaboured and one spear blow was given to Paras also, and when Kumari, daughter of Mangroo, pleaded to Shyam Narain accused giving assurance to leave the place, Mangroo instigated that she is the root cause of all this and Shyam Narain gave a further axe blow to her and the miscreants also started a search for Bechan. According to the first information report, they also started a loot. According to the first information report, they also started a loot. Rama (P. W. 9), step-brother of Bechan, and others collected outside, started raising the alarm and the aforesaid 9 persons with the booty then departed from Bechan's house, and at that time accused persons Dular, Dhondha, Ram Janam, Bihari and Ghurahu armed with lathis and spears at the house of Rama were surrounding inmates of that house and when Shyam Lal, who was also there, tried to make an escape, he was belaboured and stopped there. All the 14 accused persons are said to have been departed. They are said to have been seen in the light of the lantern and torch by the witnesses and others. Bechan due to fear could not proceed to the Police Station in the night. When it dawned he along with his first wife Kumari proceeded to Police Station and lodged the report of the incident. The dead bodies of Ram Lagan and Kumari, daughter of Mangroo, were left at the scene of incident. 5. Head constable Nisar Ahmad (P. W. 6) took down the report vide check Ext. Ka-3 and registered a case in the G. D., vide G. D. entry (Ext. Ka. 4). Smt. Kumari (P.W. 2) and Paras were sent to the hospital for medical examination. Shri Ram Singh (P. W. 12), Station Officer, who was present at the police station at that time, conducted the investigation. Bechan was also injured. He was interrogated at the Police Station itself. Paras expired at the exit of the Police Station itself. The investigating Officer held the inquest of the dead body of Paras and his dead body duly sealed was sent to mortuary with the relevant papers. The witnesses of inquest were also interrogated. The Investigating Officer then proceeded to the place of incident. He found the dead bodies of Ram Lagan and Kumari, daughter of Mangroo, there. Smt. Manjhari and Shyam Lal were sent to the hospital for medical examination. Some constables were deputed to make a search for the accused persons. The inquest of the dead bodies of Ram Lagan and Kumari, daughter of Mangroo, was conducted and the relevant papers were prepared. Their dead bodies were also sent to mortuary duly sealed with the relevant papers. Ram Lagan's and Kumari's (D/o Mangroo)' blood-stained clothes were also taken into custody and sealed. The inquest of the dead bodies of Ram Lagan and Kumari, daughter of Mangroo, was conducted and the relevant papers were prepared. Their dead bodies were also sent to mortuary duly sealed with the relevant papers. Ram Lagan's and Kumari's (D/o Mangroo)' blood-stained clothes were also taken into custody and sealed. Ram Lagan's dead body was found outside the house under a thatch. Blood was noticed there and blood-stained and ordinary earth were taken into custody from there and sealed. Blood stains were also found in the courtyard, where the dead body of Kumari, daughter of Mangroo, was found. Blood stained and ordinary earth were taken into custody from there also and sealed. Near the dead body of the aforesaid Kumari a Kudal having a handle of bamboo was also found. It was taken into custody and sealed, as bloodstains were noticed. Two lathis were also found in the courtyard having bloodstains and they were also sealed in pieces. After interrogating the witnesses of inquest and memos, Rama, Shyam Lal, Manjhari, one Gulzari and second wife of Ram Lagan, were also interrogated. The constables brought Sia Ram accused under arrest and he was interrogated. The site plan (Ext, Ka. 47) was prepared after spot inspection. A lantern was found hanging in the courtyard with the support of a peg and was taken into custody and given in the Supurdigi of Bechan complainant. Two torches of Rama and Bechan were also inspected and found to be in perfect order and were given in their Supurdigi after preparing the memos. Other accused persons could not be found on that day. On 5-5-75 Rama Dhan was interrogated. The agreements relating the marriage of Bechan and Kumari, daughter of Mangroo, were taken into custody (Exts. Ka-1 and Ka-2). 6. On 6-5-1975 accused Bechan, who was arrested by Dhanapur police and was being taken to Sadar by bus, met the Investigating Officer and was interrogated. On 8-5-75 accused persons Ramji and Bihari were brought by some constables under arrest and they were interrogated. The Investigating Officer learnt on 9-5-1975 that accused persons, Kamla, Shyam Narain, Bajrangi, Mangroo, Dular and Ram Janam have surrendered in court. On 12-5-1975 it was learnt that Dhondha has also surrendered in court. Proceedings under S. 82/83, Cr. P. C., were initiated against other accused persons. The Investigating Officer learnt on 9-5-1975 that accused persons, Kamla, Shyam Narain, Bajrangi, Mangroo, Dular and Ram Janam have surrendered in court. On 12-5-1975 it was learnt that Dhondha has also surrendered in court. Proceedings under S. 82/83, Cr. P. C., were initiated against other accused persons. It was later gathered that Ghurahu and Surya Nath accused persons surrendered in court on 12-5-1975. Proceedings under S. 82/83, Cr. P. C. were taken against Ganga and on 16-5-75 it was gathered that Ganga has also surrendered. After completing the investigation a charge sheet was submitted against the present 14 appellants on 24-5-75. 7. All the accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charge and maintained to have been falsely implicated. Surya Nath, Bechan, Bajrangi, Dhondha and Ganga pleaded alibi. 8. The prosecution has in all examined 12 witnesses in this case. Head constable Nisar Ahmad is the scribe of the Check and the G. D. Constable Vilayat Hussain Khan (P. W. 8) escorted the dead body of Ram Lagan to the mortuary. Constable Lachi Ram Yadav (P. W. 11) escorted the dead body of Kumari, daughter of Mangroo, while Constable Uma Kant Misra (P. W. 10) escorted the dead body of Paras. Sri Ram Singh (P. W. 12) is the Investigating Officer. Bechan, (P. W. 1), Smt. Kumari (P. W. 2), first wife of Bechan, Smt. Manjhari (P. W. 5), mother of Bechan and Ram Singh (P. W. 9), another step brother of Bechan, have been examined as witnesses of fact relating to the incident at the house of Bechan. Ram Singh (P. W. 9) and Shyam Lal (P. W. 7) are the witnesses regarding the incident that took place at Shyam Lal's house. Dr. Govind Saran (P. W. 4) examined the injuries of Smt. Kumari, first wife of Bechan, Bechan, Shyam Lal and Manjhari, mother of Bechan, on 45.1975 between 6 A. M. to 10.20 A. M. Dr. M. S. Yadav (P. W. 3) conducted post mortem examination of the dead bodies of Ram Lagan, Smt. Kumari, daughter of Mangroo, and the child Paras on 6-5-1975 between 9 A. M. to 1P. M. 9. The defence has also examined 9 witnesses in this case. Ram Moorat (D. W. 1) and Badruddin (D. W. 2) are witnesses of alibi of Surya Nath. Birju (D. W. 3) and Bachanoo (D. W. 4) are witnesses of alibi of Bechan accused. M. 9. The defence has also examined 9 witnesses in this case. Ram Moorat (D. W. 1) and Badruddin (D. W. 2) are witnesses of alibi of Surya Nath. Birju (D. W. 3) and Bachanoo (D. W. 4) are witnesses of alibi of Bechan accused. Ram Nath (D. W. 5) is a witness of alibi of Bajrangi accused. Kasbi Nath Shukla (D. W. 6) and Jagat Prasad (D. W. 9) have been examined in connection with the alibi of Ganga accused. Jagesar (D. W. 7) is on the alibi of Dhondha accused, while Ram Jag (D. W. 8) is on the alibi of Shyam Narain accused. 10. Before dealing with the evidence of the eye witnesses, we may first lay down the medical evidence. The injuries of each injured are given below : Smt. Kumari (1st wife of Bechan) : 1. Contusion with swelling 2" X " on the left side of head 3" above the left ear. 2. Abrasion " X " on the back of left elbow joint. Nature and duration of Injuries : All simple and caused by blunt weapon. All injuries about less than half day old. Bechan s/o Ram Lagan : 1. Lacerated wound 1" X " X skull deep on the head 4" above from the bridge of the nose. 2. Abrasion " X " on the back of left elbow joint. Duration and nature of Injury :- All simple and caused by blunt weapon. About less than half day old. Shyam Lal, son of Ram Lagan : 1. Abrasion " X ?" on the back of lower part of right forearm. 2. Contusion 5" X 1" on the upper part of the back. Nature and duration of Injuries :- All simple and caused by blunt weapon about less than half day old. Manjhari w/o Ram Lagan : 1. Lacerated wound Rt. ear (pinna) " X " cartilage deep. 2. Incised wound " X " muscle deep on the left shoulder depth region. Nature and duration of Injuries:-All simple. Injury No. 1 caused by blunt and injury No. 2 by sharp edged instrument. Less than half day old. 11. The ante-mortem injuries of the three deceased victims are given below : - Ram Lagan Yadav : 1. Incised wound 2 cm X cm X scalp front upper part fore-head 4 cm above the bridge of the nose oblique. 2. Injury No. 1 caused by blunt and injury No. 2 by sharp edged instrument. Less than half day old. 11. The ante-mortem injuries of the three deceased victims are given below : - Ram Lagan Yadav : 1. Incised wound 2 cm X cm X scalp front upper part fore-head 4 cm above the bridge of the nose oblique. 2. Incised wound 12 cm X cm X scalp left side head 7 cm above left ear anterioposteriorly. 3. Incised wound 2 cm X 1 cm X scalp left side head back part 3 cm above and behind left ear. 4. Incised wound 3 cm X 1 cm X bone, left side chin just below the lower lip left lower jaw out underneath. 5. Incised wound 17 cm X 1 cm X depth up to the vertebrae upper part of neck front and exceeding more to the right side, above the larynx horizontally-throat and large blood vessels on right side. 6. Incised wound 7 cm X 1 cm X oesophagus deep 3 cm below the injury No. 5 cutting and larynx in its lower part and oesophagus underneath horizontally. 7. Incised wound 6 cm X 1 cm X muscle deep just below injury No. 6 horizontally. 8. Incised wound 5 cm X cm X skin front of right shoulder oblique. 9. Incised wound 11 cm X cm X skin right side chest and front 4 cm above and to the left of right nipple breast bone found fractured underneath. 10. Lacerated wound 4 cm X cm muscle back of right elbow. 11. Lacerated wound cm X' cm lobule torn through the lobule of right ear. 12. Lacerated wound cm X cm lobule torn through the lobule of left ear. 13. Incised would 18 cm X 4 cm X bone and muscle deep upper part of left scapular region with left scapula cut underneath - horizontal. 14. Incised wound 11 cm X cm X skin deep outer side of right hip - oblique. 15. Contusion 14 cm X 3 cm outer side left thigh lower third. 16. Incised wound 15 cm X 3 cm X bone front and outer side of left leg lower put with fracture of bones underneath. 17. Incised wound 20 cm X cm X skin outer side of right thigh, oblique middle part. 18. 15. Contusion 14 cm X 3 cm outer side left thigh lower third. 16. Incised wound 15 cm X 3 cm X bone front and outer side of left leg lower put with fracture of bones underneath. 17. Incised wound 20 cm X cm X skin outer side of right thigh, oblique middle part. 18. Incised wound 7 cm X cm X bone i deep front of right knee horizontally palalla cut underneath. 19. Incised wound 3 cm X cm X muscle right leg inner side middle part. 20. Incised wound 7 cm X 1 cm X muscle right leg outer side lower 3rd. (All incised wounds had clear cut margins). Probable time since death :- About 2 days. Opinion as to cause and manner of death : - In the opinion of the doctor death was due to shock & haemorrhage as a result of cut of thorax. Smt. Kumari, d/o Mangroo :- 1. Lacerated wound 5 cm X 3 cm X bone right side forehead just above the right eye brow, bone fractured underneath. 2. Lacerated wound 5 cm X 1 cm X scalp top of head. 3. Lacerated wound 5 cm X 1 cm X scalp left side head 7 cm above the left ear, outer posterial. 4. Incised wound 9 cm X 1 cm X brain matter on the back of head horizontally with brain matter coming out. 5. Contusion 5 cm X cm X top of left shoulder. 6. Contusion 10 cm X 3 cm back of left shoulder. 7. Contusion 6 cm X 2 cm front of right shoulder. 8. Abrasion 6 cm X 2 cm outer side right elbow. 9. Incised wound 3 cm X 1 cm X muscle inner right knee. 10. Abrasion 3 cm X 3 cm just below right knee. 11. Abrasion 7 cm X 2 cm on front of left leg. 12. Abraded contusion 7 cm X 2 cm upper right buttock. Opinion as to cause and manner of death : - In the opinion of the doctor death was due to the injury to vital organ, brain. Probable time since death : - About 2 days. Paras (2 years) s/o Bechan 1. Stab wound (with clean cut margins) 5 cm X cm X abdominal cavity deep on the right side of upper part, just below the right costal, 11 cm below the right axilla. Probable time since death : - About 2 days. Paras (2 years) s/o Bechan 1. Stab wound (with clean cut margins) 5 cm X cm X abdominal cavity deep on the right side of upper part, just below the right costal, 11 cm below the right axilla. Omentum protruding out of the wound which was bandaged. In the opinion of the doctor death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of injury to liver, and probable time since death was about 2 days. 12. Bechan (P. W. 1) is a most important witness of this case. He has deposed about the inter se relationship between most of the accused persons also deposing that accused persons Ganga and Ghurahu are close friends of accused Shyam Narain and belonged to their party. He has stated that about four months prior to the incident. Kumari, daughter of Mangroo, consented to live with him as his second wife and he took her to Varanasi and stayed with her there for about a month and half. He entered into marriage with her there. A registered agreement in connection with this marriage was also entered into (Ext. Ka-3), which he proved. He also proved its carbon copy (Ext. Ka-2). He after aforesaid stay at Varanasi returned back to the village with his second wife, Kumari (daughter of Mangroo), and they both lived in their house as such. According to him, Mangroo and persons of his clan took ill of it and even threat was extended that revenge will be taken. This statement relates to motive. 13. According to him, in the night of incident he, his two wives and children were sleeping inside the house in the courtyard and a lantern was burning and hanging on the southern wall with the support of a peg. The door of the house was shut from inside. Outside the house, his father, Ram Lagan, and his mother Manjhari (P. W. 5) were sleeping. At about 1 A. M. in the night he woke up on the alarm of his parents. He accompanied by his two wives with a torch proceeded to the door of the house and opened it and flashed the torch and saw Mangroo, Ganga, Bechan accused persons armed with Gandasa, S.a Ram and Surya Nath armed with spear and Bajrangi, Shyam Narain, Kamla and Ramji armed with lathis belabouring his parents. He accompanied by his two wives with a torch proceeded to the door of the house and opened it and flashed the torch and saw Mangroo, Ganga, Bechan accused persons armed with Gandasa, S.a Ram and Surya Nath armed with spear and Bajrangi, Shyam Narain, Kamla and Ramji armed with lathis belabouring his parents. He raised alarm and then Bajrangi gave a lathi blow on his head. He retreated inside the house and closed the door. According to him, the said miscreants started efforts to force the door open. The witness then proceeded to the Northern Kotha and concealed himself beneath the Bhoosa stored there. According to him, he lay on the side of the Kotha, where there is a window. The miscreants after forcing open the door started belabouring his two wives. Kumari, daughter of Mangroo, made entreaties addressed to Shyam Narain offering to leave the house, but Mangroo observed that she is the root cause of the matter and Shyam Narain then picking up a kudal gave a kudal blow on the head of Kumari, daughter of Mangroo, who fell down and died. His son Paras was also given a spear blow. He saw this part of the incident through the window. The miscreants tried to trace out him also. They carried a loot inside the house and then went away. Ram Lagan's murkees etc. were also taken away. He also stated that during this period Ram Janam, Ghurahu, Bihari, Dondha and Dular were surrounding his aforesaid brothers at their house, but so far that part of his statement is concerned, he himself did not witness it and it would be a hearsay evidence. 14. Deposing about the source of light, he stated that he had seen the faces of the miscreants in the light of his own torch, the lantern and the torches flashed by the miscreants and also recognised them with the help of their voices. 15. In cross-examination he admitted that Ghurahu accused is a resident of Gaz Khaja, located at a distance of one mile from his Purwa and is a Harijan, while Ganga accused is a Kahar. He has further admitted that Surya Nath and Siya Ram accused persons are residents of Khalwani, located at a distance of 5-6 kos from his Purwa. 15. In cross-examination he admitted that Ghurahu accused is a resident of Gaz Khaja, located at a distance of one mile from his Purwa and is a Harijan, while Ganga accused is a Kahar. He has further admitted that Surya Nath and Siya Ram accused persons are residents of Khalwani, located at a distance of 5-6 kos from his Purwa. It is also in evidence that Bajrangi is a resident of village Basehra, which is at a distance of 7-8 kos from his Purwa. According to him, when he proceeded to the Police Station to lodge the report his first wife also accompanied him and Paras was also taken to the Police Station. 16. His first wife Kumari (P. W. 2) has given similar version regarding the incident, which took place inside and outside the house of Bechan. She has also mentioned the individual weapons of the 9 accused persons, who figured in the incident at the house of Bechan. Her evidence would show that on hearing the alarm, her husband accompanied by her and his second wife had proceeded to the door of the house with a torch and after opening the door he flashed the torch and they all saw the aforesaid 9 accused persons belabouring Ram Lagan and Manjhari. According to her Bajrangi gave a lathi blow on the head of Bechan and he then retreated and shut the door. Thereafter she has given a similar version concerning the injuries inflicted upon her, Kumari (daughter of Mangroo) and Paras. She has also mentioned about the entreaties made by Kumari, daughter of Mangroo, and the further instigation by Mangroo and giving of kudal blow on the head of Kumari, daughter of Mangroo, by Shyam Narain, picking up the kudal lying there. The evidence of these two witnesses relate to the incident which took place inside and outside the house of Bechan. 17. Manjhari (P. W. 5) was sleeping outside the house, where Ram Lagan was also sleeping. According to her, she and her husband Ram Lagan were, at the time of the incident, sleeping outside the house in the compound on separate cot, when Mangroo, Ganga and Bechan armed with Gandasa, Surya Nath and Sia Ram armed with spears and the aforesaid others armed with lathis started belabouring her husband. She too was belaboured. They raised alarm. According to her, she and her husband Ram Lagan were, at the time of the incident, sleeping outside the house in the compound on separate cot, when Mangroo, Ganga and Bechan armed with Gandasa, Surya Nath and Sia Ram armed with spears and the aforesaid others armed with lathis started belabouring her husband. She too was belaboured. They raised alarm. Bechan and his two wives came to the door of the house and opened it and Bechan came out and raised alarm. One or two lathi blows were given on the head of Bechan by Bajrangi. Bechan retreated inside and closed the door. The miscreants forced open the door and entered inside the house. While she has further stated that the two wives of Bechan and Paras were belaboured and looting was carried inside the house, she could not have seen all that herself and that part of her statement is based on inference and what she may have gathered later. We observe so, in view of her further statement in cross-examination that after the miscreants entered the house she sat by the side of her husband and was weeping and remained there all through and her face was in east direction. The door of the house and the inner portion both are west wards from the place, she kept sitting and actually it would be on her back side and not on the front side. She has, however, given a further direct evidence that Murkees in both the ears of her husband were removed. after cutting his ears and golden Janter round the neck of her husband was also removed by the miscreants and taken away. She has also made it clear that actually the miscreants first belaboured her husband and when she started raising the alarm, she was also belaboured. According to her, up to the time her husband fell down receiving the injuries, she did not see any other residents of the village there and any such person was not seen near the compound of the house. 18. All the aforesaid three witnesses are injured witnesses. Bechan, besides the abrasion on the back of left elbow joint, got a lacerated wound 1" X " X skull deep on the head. Head is a vital part of the body. A skull-deep injury may even result into death. 18. All the aforesaid three witnesses are injured witnesses. Bechan, besides the abrasion on the back of left elbow joint, got a lacerated wound 1" X " X skull deep on the head. Head is a vital part of the body. A skull-deep injury may even result into death. One would not have any such self-inflicted injury and it can be safely held that Bechan received this injury in course of the incident itself as to render his presence certain. Manjhari again, besides a lacerated wound on pinna, got an incised wound on her left shoulder, which cannot be a self-suffered injury. Kumari, first wife of Bechan, had, besides an abrasion, a contusion with swelling 2" X " the on the left side of the head. Head is a vital part of the body. Instances are not wanting where death has resulted on account of concussion. This injury again cannot be self-suffered. There is nothing to indicate that Smt. Manjhari was not at her house in that night. Ordinarily also, during night the inmates stay at their house, unless out station. It is again natural that Manjhari when present at the house would sleep outside by the side of her husband, who it is established was sleeping outside the house, and she would not be sleeping inside with his son and daughter-in-laws. So, the prosecution evidence that Manjhari was sleeping by the side of her husband is quite natural. It was the month of May, when no one sleeps in the rooms. It is, therefore, also quite natural that Bechan and his two wives with children were sleeping in the court yard inside the house. Thus, so far as these three injured witnesses are concerned, there cannot be an iota of doubt regarding their presence at the house. 19. It was argued that Bechan has simply two injuries and this would not be the position, if he was present at the house, and rather he would be the main target. As regards the presence of Bechan, we have already observed that his head injury, which was skull deep, cannot be self-suffered and was certainly received in the course of the incident. Apart from the consistent direct evidence of all the aforesaid three witnesses including Bechan that he was given a lathi blow on his head, the medical evidence fully corroborates it. Apart from the consistent direct evidence of all the aforesaid three witnesses including Bechan that he was given a lathi blow on his head, the medical evidence fully corroborates it. As to why he did not receive more injuries is explained by him and Kumari (P. W. 2). Bechan, after opening the door of the house on hearing the alarm of his parents and seeing Mangroo and others, would naturally get much concerned about the safety of his own life, when it was he who had offended Mangroo and his clan by eloping with Mangroo's daughter, whom he ultimately married at Varanasi. When the miscreants started the efforts to force open the door, it will be but natural for him to rush to any place of hiding. His version that he went to the Kotha in the North, which is on the upper storey and where Bhoosa was stored, and concealed himself there is very natural. 20. It was also argued that the evidence about the concealing himself in the Northern Kotha on the upper floor is not consistent. We do not find any force in such argument. Apart from the consistent evidence of Bechan (P. W. 1) and Kumari (P. W. 2) on the point, it is found that it was also the earliest version and in the site plan Ext. Ka-47 in the index it was stated that the place marked 'R', which is the alleged place of Bechan's concealment, is on the upper floor of the Northern room of the house and the Investigating Officer has also stated that he inspected that Kotha and Bhoosa was found there, but any blood marks as such could not be found as the upper layer of the Bhoosa was disturbed. It was argued that the Invest' ting Officer has not shown the stairs. One acts up to ones own intelligence and if it did not occur to the Investigating Officer to so prepare the site plan as to show the upper Kotha separately, also showing the stairs, any undue significance cannot be attached to the matter, particularly, when in the site plan's index he expressly noted down that place 'R' is the upper floor Kotha where Bechan is said to have concealed himself under the Bhoosa. 21. 21. It was argued that according to Kumari (P. W. 2) a search was conducted by the miscreants to find out Bechan, so they could have easily traced him there. One has to consider this aspect in the background of events, which had already transpired. The miscreants had killed Bechan's father and they had also killed his second wife Kumari (d/o Mangroo), who was so dear to Bechan, and their wrath would be fully satisfied after such brutal revenge. In fact, Bechan would suffer greater agony and pain throughout his life on account of the same. Nothing could be more tragic for him. The killing of the small child Paras would create a sense of remorse and panic also in the mind of miscreants. If in such context and background only cursory search for Bechan Iwas made by the miscreants, as they may also be apprehending that such brutality may antagonise the villagers and they may collect, there is nothing unnatural in their having departed. 22. It was next argued that Bechan could not have seen any subsequent events after concealing himself in the Bhoosa. One has to bear in mind that though Bechan would be mindful of his safety, he at the same time would be equally anxious about his two wives and children as to occasionally also peep through the window, and when the light was there in the court yard, he will see what is happening. Apart from that, the room in which Bechan concealed himself had no light, so he would not be rendering the risk of being seen inside the Kotha, unless simply by any chance any miscreant flashed his torch in that direction, which was remote. One has to take into consideration the entire context and when the entire context and surrounding circumstances are considered, Bechan's conduct cannot be termed as inherently improbable and unnatural. 23. The total number of injuries caused to the victims including those, who succumbed to such injuries, is very large. Ram Lagan has received 20 injuries spread over different parts of the body. His injuries consist of incised wounds and lacerated wounds and also one contusion of a very large dimension. Incised wounds are possible by Gandasa as well as by spear. Some of the incised wounds are of such a large dimension that there is a major likelihood of those injuries having been caused by Gandasa. His injuries consist of incised wounds and lacerated wounds and also one contusion of a very large dimension. Incised wounds are possible by Gandasa as well as by spear. Some of the incised wounds are of such a large dimension that there is a major likelihood of those injuries having been caused by Gandasa. The prosecution has assigned use of three categories of weapons, namely, spear, Gandasa and lathi and the use of such three types of weapons is borne out by the medical evidence. Smt. Kumari, daughter of Mangroo, had as many as 12 injuries. While other injuries consist of lacerated wound, contusions and abrasions and abraded contusion caused by blunt weapon. Injury no. 4 is an incised wound and the nature of that injury would indicate that it was caused by a sharp edged weapon penetrating deep. The prosecution version is that a kudal was lying in the courtyard and that injury was caused by kudal by Shyam Narain. The medical evidence fully bears it out. The Investigating Officer did find a kudal at the place of incident having blood stains. This would be borne out by the statement of P. W. 12, Sri Ram Singh, Investigating Officer, corroborated by the recovery memo (Ext. Ka. 45) and this circumstance further corroborates the prosecution evidence on the point. Coupled with these 32 injuries, one stab wound had been caused to Paras, two injuries to Smt. Kumari, two injuries to Smt. Manjhari and one to Bechan besides the abrasion. Thus, 38 injuries have been caused in all and that in itself intrinsically strongly indicates that the number of assailants was quite large and there has been a premeditated and pre-planned attack. 24. It was argued that it is a case of decoity and on account of grouse the accused persons have been falsely implicated. The broad features of the case speak for themselves and the argument does not convince us. In case of decoity boxes will be broken open and such type of signs would be found at the spot, which is not the case. It is significant to note that neither any person is said to have been armed with fire-arms, nor any shot was fired, nor any cartridge, wads etc. were found at the spot. In case of decoity boxes will be broken open and such type of signs would be found at the spot, which is not the case. It is significant to note that neither any person is said to have been armed with fire-arms, nor any shot was fired, nor any cartridge, wads etc. were found at the spot. In the present day, dacoits usually come armed with fire arms also and it is inconceivable that in such a case the micreants will come armed with Gandasa, spear and lathis only. In fact, the dacoits would apprehend resistance by the whole village, while in case of private feuds it may not be so. It is also noteworthy that while Kumari, daughter of Mangroo, has been brutally belaboured, it is not so with the case of Kumari, first wife of Bechan. In the like manner Manjhari has also not been brutally assaulted. Dacoits indulge into beating to seek disclosures of property and , in such situation ladies of the house will necessarily be a target, so that they may give way and make the disclosures. 25. It was argued why Ram lagan would be done to death. We have considered that argument, the reason why Ram Lagan was also chosen as one of the main targets is obvious. He was head of the family. Instead of opposing Bechan in his elopement with Kumari, daughter of Mangroo, and his second marriage, he accommodated the second wife of Bechan in his house and thereby welcomed her. This behaviour of Ram Lagan would necessarily enrage Mangroo and others. They would feel embittered that even the head of the family has acted in such a manner. To give lesson to Bechan killing of his father would be greatest agony for Bechan. Kumari, daughter of Mangroo, happened to be the root cause of the unfortunate developments and she would be the next target for a brutal attack. In the present case, it is these two persons who have received largest number of injuries resulting into their death. The nature of injuries are such that they speak of revenge and brutality. As to why Bechan escaped with lessor number of injuries has already been dealt with by us. 26. It is also noteworthy that there is nothing on the record to indicate that any one else entertained any major grouse as to have a motive for such brutal attack. As to why Bechan escaped with lessor number of injuries has already been dealt with by us. 26. It is also noteworthy that there is nothing on the record to indicate that any one else entertained any major grouse as to have a motive for such brutal attack. In the circumstances, we have no hesitation in holding that the real miscreants were Mangroo and persons close to him and associated with him. 27. It was next argued that any independent witness is not forthcoming to support the prosecution. In the case of Raghubir Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 1971 SC 2156 it was observed that the witnesses have a general reluctance to give evidence as to get involved in village factions. In the present case it would be all the more so, as Bechan must have lost the sympathy of the village people on his elopement with Kumari, daughter of Mangroo, and on a conservative approach villagers would have greater sympathy for Mangroo. The matter related to the elopement of the girl of that very village and people have, particularly in village life, a rigid approach in the matter. It is also a well settled law that the testimony of any witness cannot be brushed aside simply on account of their relationship with the deceased, rather the inmates of the house would be the last person to shield the really guilty persons and implicate innocent persons in their place, giving a different colour to the incident. 28. It was argued that the relations of the first wife of Bechan may have got embittered on Bechan's second marriage, particularly, when he entered into an agreement with his second wife giving his properties to her. We have considered that aspect also and we do not find any force in such arguments. Nothing has been elicited in support of such contentions. Besides, in such a case Bechan and Manjhari would never spare them. Mangroo and some other accused persons are residents of the same village and must be in a position to know as to what transpired. Mangroo does not state that relations of the first wife of Bechan were involved in the incident. What he has stated is that some strangers caused the incident. He does not state that any dacoity was committed or any relations of the first wife of Bechan figured in the incident. Mangroo does not state that relations of the first wife of Bechan were involved in the incident. What he has stated is that some strangers caused the incident. He does not state that any dacoity was committed or any relations of the first wife of Bechan figured in the incident. It is note-worthy that Mangroo's own daughter has been done to death, so he is not an unconcerned person and, if really the incident happened otherwise and not in the manner setup by the prosecution, he would not have given such a vague statement. Participants in the incident at Bechan's house : 29. It was argued that the aforesaid nine miscreants were not known to the witnesses, so it cannot be held that they all or some of them necessarily figured in the incident. All the aforesaid three witnesses, namely, Bechan, Kumari wife of Bechan and Manjhari mother of Bechan have uniformly named them, also claiming that they knew them from before, Mangroo, Shyam Narain, Ganga, Ramji, Kamla, Bechan and Bajrangi all live in the very village. Adhiyar Ki Madhai, where the incident took place. The prosecution version is that there are about 17 houses in that village. The defence stand is that. there are 25 houses. The village, in any case, is a small one and the residents of the same village would necessarily know each other, and when that is the position, we do not find any force in the argument that any of the aforesaid 7 accused persons would not be known to Bechan, Kumari wife of Bechan or Manjhari from before. In fact, nothing has been elicited in cross-examination to show that they would not be known to the aforesaid witnesses. 30. Sia Ram and Surya Nath accused persons belong to village Belwani. Belwani lies at a distance of 5-6 Kms from village Adhiyar Ki Madhai. It was argued that the distance of Belwari being 5-6 Kms from the place where the aforesaid prosecution witnesses reside, they would not be known to the prosecution witnesses. This argument from the side of the defence overlooks one important circumstance. Sia Ram and Surya Nath are brother-in-laws of Shyam Narain, who lives in village Adhiyar Ki Madhai It would be but natural for them to visit Shyam Narain's place frequently and when it is a small village other residents of the village will also come to know them. This argument from the side of the defence overlooks one important circumstance. Sia Ram and Surya Nath are brother-in-laws of Shyam Narain, who lives in village Adhiyar Ki Madhai It would be but natural for them to visit Shyam Narain's place frequently and when it is a small village other residents of the village will also come to know them. Bechan (P. W. 1) has expressly stated that Sia Ram and Surya Nath accused used to come to Shyam Narain's place and he has been seeing them since 2-3 years prior. He no doubt stated that he only knows them and their father and not any one else in their family, but that is quite natural. They being brother-in-law of Shyam Narain, he would just know them and their father and not the entire family. Kumari (P. W. 2) also stated that prior to the incident she has been visiting Mangroo's house. When that is the position, she would naturally be seeing them. It is noteworthy that when further cross-examined and asked to give the name of their father, she correctly mentioned the name of their father. Manjhari (P. W. 5) has also stated that Sia Ram and Surya Nath used to come to the village and according to her sometimes they used to stop for a moment at her place also in the course of their way. She also stated that they are five brothers, which would again strongly indicate that she knows them. 31. We, therefore, do not find any force in the submission that the aforesaid 9 accused persons were not known to the witnesses and there may be any doubt about their identity. It was argued that some of the witnesses also deposed that, besides recognising the miscreants by face, they also recognised them by voice. This does not mean that the aforesaid witnesses simply recognised the miscreants with the help of voice and did not recognise them by face. 32. Some of the aforesaid nine accused persons have set up alibis and we may now examine that stand. Shyam Narain accused in his statement stated that two days before the incident he had gone to village Hasanpur to participate in the marriage of the daughter of Ram Jag Pradhan. 32. Some of the aforesaid nine accused persons have set up alibis and we may now examine that stand. Shyam Narain accused in his statement stated that two days before the incident he had gone to village Hasanpur to participate in the marriage of the daughter of Ram Jag Pradhan. Ram Jag D. W. 8 stated that he was Pradhan of village Hasanpur and the marriage of his daughter took place on 3-5-1975 and Shyam Narain accused participated in that marriage. Ram Jag is closely related to Shyam Narain, as Shyam Narain's sister is married to the cousin brother of Ram Jag, namely, Ram Lachhan. For alibi strict proof is required. If Shyam Narain really participated in Ram Jag's daughter's marriage and that marriage took place on 3-5-1975 there will be no dearth of independent witnesses in corroboration, while no such evidence has been led. The prosecution also directed its cross examination of Ram Jag to suggest that actually Shyam Narain and Ram Jag did not exchange Newtas. Ram Jag stated that two years earlier he had gone in the Gaona of Shyam Narain. This statement was given just to assert that there used to be exchange of Newtas. When pursued in cross-examination Ram Jag has cut a sorry figure. He was asked how many issues Shyam Narain has, and he stated that upto the time of Gaona, Shyam Narain had no issue, but later realising that Shyam Narain may be having issues more old he made a somersault deposing that may be Shyam Narain's Gaona took place 14-15 years ago. This may itself indicate that the witness is capable of making any statement without caring for the truth. The trial court was right in rejecting the evidence of alibi of Shyam Narain. 33. Bechan accused stated that he had gone to village Dhanpur to Birju's house for the settlement of his sister's marriage and then accompanied by Birju he proceeded to village Purwa and settled the marriage of hit sister with the son of Bachanu and was then arrested at the Bus station of Dhanpur. Hi stand, thus, is that his was not in the village in the night of the incident. Birju DW 3 and Bachanu DW 4 were examined in support of this stand. Hi stand, thus, is that his was not in the village in the night of the incident. Birju DW 3 and Bachanu DW 4 were examined in support of this stand. Birju deposed that his daughter is married to Bechan's younger brother and Bechan had asked him to find out a boy for his sister. He came to know of one Rajendra son of Bachanu DW 4 as an eligible boy and he sent information to Bechan who came to his house about a year ago at about 11 A. M. in the day and in the same evening he along with Bechan proceeded to Bachanu's house in Purwa Gaon, and they stayed there in the night and the Sagai was settled on the next day and feasting took place and they again stayed in the night there and on the following day they both started for Dhanapur and Bechan was arrested by the police at Bus stand Dhanapur and actually marriage of Bechan's sister with Bechanet son took place 20-25 days thereafter. It it noteworthy that whole story given by him seems to be a cock and bull story, which is not convincing. Negotiations take time and marriages are not settled without earlier negotiation in this manner as to even lead to Sagai. According to this witness he never mentioned that Bechan was with him prior to his arrest in the alleged manner for three days. This would not be the position, if Bechan was really with him and gone to Bachanu's place for the settlement of the marriage. Bachanu has stated that 25-26 days prior to the marriage of his son with Bechan's sister, Bechan and Birju had come to his place on 3rd May, 1975, to settle the marriage and on the next day Pandit was called for 'Sait' and the marriage was settled and in that night also they stayed with him and there was feasting and they then left on the 3rd day. It is unusual that boy's side will give any feast and any marriage without any prior negotiation would get settled in such a hurry. He also admitted that he is telling for the first time in the court in his evidence that Bechan was at his place on 3-5-1975. It is unusual that boy's side will give any feast and any marriage without any prior negotiation would get settled in such a hurry. He also admitted that he is telling for the first time in the court in his evidence that Bechan was at his place on 3-5-1975. Both these witnesses are related to Bechan accused and are close to him and they are highly interested in shielding Bechan and no reliance can be placed upon them. The trial court has therefore, rightly rejected the evidence on the alibi of Bechan accused. 34. Bajrangi accused maintained that Ram Nath Singh (D. W. 5), resident of Phulwaria, district Ghazipur, is his brother-in-law and he summoned him through a letter in connection with the Gaona of his daughter and a cycle was purchased through him on 3-5-1975 for giving as a gift in that Gaona. Ram Nath (D. W. 5) (who) supports him also proved a letter Ext. Kha-6, purporting to be from Ram Nath to Bajrangi. Ram Nath stated that actually it was Had who wrote this letter. Hari has not been produced. True that the letter bears postal seal dated 1-5-1975, but in these days it is not difficult to have such seals surreptitiously, particularly when Ram Nath's brother is a postal employee working in Varanasi Post Office. Alibi has to be strictly proved. Ram Nath is a highly partisan witness, being the brother-in-law of Bajrangi Ram Nath could have himself purchased the cycle and there would be no occasion for sending Bajrangi for that purpose. There is no independent corroboration of the statement of Ram Nath. Ram Nath's evidence does not inspire confidence and the trial court rightly rejected the evidence on Bajrangi's alibi. 35. The accused person Ganga Ram happened to be a temporary substitute employee in Railway. He maintained that in the night of occurrence he had gone on goods train to Gaya and Kule stations on duty. Two witnesses, namely, Kashi Nath Shukla (D. W. 6), Clerk, Station Superintendent Office, Moghalsarai, and Jagat Prasad (D. W. 9), Clerk D. S. O. Office, Eastern Railway, Danapur, were examined in this connection. Kashi Nath brought the log-book of Moghalsarai Railway station from 6-4-75 to 28-5-1975 containing the entries concerning the arrival and departure of trains and line numbers. Two witnesses, namely, Kashi Nath Shukla (D. W. 6), Clerk, Station Superintendent Office, Moghalsarai, and Jagat Prasad (D. W. 9), Clerk D. S. O. Office, Eastern Railway, Danapur, were examined in this connection. Kashi Nath brought the log-book of Moghalsarai Railway station from 6-4-75 to 28-5-1975 containing the entries concerning the arrival and departure of trains and line numbers. According to him, the first train from Gaya for Moghalsarai is 17 UP and this train had arrived at Mohgalsarai in the night intervening 3/4th May, 1975, at 12.50 in the night and departed 1.50 A. M. He admitted in cross-examination that from Gaya side another train I. V. T. M. had arrived at Moghalsarai at 7.05 P.M. He further admitted that another train had reached Moghalsarai at 7.25 P. M. on 3-5-1975. This evidence in itself would indicate that two other trains did arrive at Moghalsarai from Gaya at 7.05 P. M. and 7.25 P. M. on 3-5-1975. When the incident happened to be of the night intervening 3/4th May, 1975, the proper question to be put to this witness in examination-in-chief would have been to ask as to what trains arrived at Moghalsarai from Gaya on 3-5-1975. Deliberately in the examination-in-chief this question was not put, and the witness was asked regarding the arrival of first train on 4-5-1975, i.e., after the past mid-night of 3rd May, 1975. In the circumstances, the evidence of Kashi Nath Shukla is not helpful at all. The accused person Ganga could have come to Moghalsarai at any time on 3rd of May, 1975, as to reach his village and participate in the incident, which took place at 1 A. M. in the night intervening 3/4th May, 1982. 36. Jagat Prasad (D. W. 9) brought the Muster Roll of the Divisional Office for the month of April and May, 1975. His evidence would indicate that Ganga Ram used to work as a substitute at Gaya Station, i.e., a casual employee (when a substitute is required), and Ganga Ram worked as a substitute on 28-4-1975 and then again from 30-4-75 to 3-5-75 and then from 6-5-75 to 8-5-1975 and then from 13-5-75 to 15-5-1975, as per entries in Muster Roll for payment of the wages. It is noteworthy that the Railway Station duty is not for all the 24 hours and a judicial notice can be taken of the fact that there are shifts of 8 hours. In the circumstances, in support of the alleged alibi the proper course was to lead evidence as to from what hour to what hour Ganga Ram attended duty at Gaya Station. It is noteworthy that he did not work as a substitute on 4th or 5th of May, 1975. So if his duty was in the first shift of 3-5-1975, he could thereafter easily catch a train for Moghalsarai as to reach his village much before the time of incident, particularly, when he was not to give substitute duty on 4th and 5th May, 1982. There should be a tight proof of alibi, which is completely lacking in this case. Better evidence can easily be led to show that he was at Gaya during any specific hours and had attended duty in such specific hours, which would render his presence in the village of incident at the time of the incident impossible or improbable. It is not the case and it can safely be held that the alleged alibi set up by Ganga has not been proved. The trial court, therefore, has rightly rejected the plea of alibi set up by the concerned accused persons. 37. It was next urged that Mangroo being the father of Kumari deceased would never instigate Shyam Narain to commit her murder, but as observed earlier in the circumstances of the present case, Mangroo would be much embittered as to do away and finish his daughter when she brought disgrace to her family. The defence has itself elicited in cross-examination of Bechan that Kumari deceased had first husband, yet she eloped with Bechan, who was already married, as to bring a disgrace and insult to her whole family. She started living openly with Bechan, which would naturally cause much humiliation to Mangroo, who was residing in the same village. When that is the position, the prosecution version is neither improbable, nor unlikely. 38. As already mentioned Shyam Narain is the son of Mangroo. Ramji, Kamla and Bechan are collaterals of Mangroo and Shyma Narain. Bajrangi is the brother-in-law of Mangroo and Sia Ram Surya Nath are brothers-in-laws of Shyam Narain and all these aforesaid 8 accused persons are inter se related and inter-connected. 38. As already mentioned Shyam Narain is the son of Mangroo. Ramji, Kamla and Bechan are collaterals of Mangroo and Shyma Narain. Bajrangi is the brother-in-law of Mangroo and Sia Ram Surya Nath are brothers-in-laws of Shyam Narain and all these aforesaid 8 accused persons are inter se related and inter-connected. They would all join hands in taking revenge when Mangroo had to suffer humiliation and insult for the aforesaid reason. Accused Ganga is no doubt not related to Mangroo, but the evidence is consistent that he is an associate and friend of Shyam Narain and others. So it cannot be urged that his having joined hands with other is inherently improbable. The direct evidence, as discussed earlier, fully proves his participation also in the incident. 39. It would appear that vide Ext. Kha-3 Lok Nath, brother of Ganga accused, lodged a report against Ghurahu, and vide Ext. Kha-14 Dular accused in Sessions Trial No. 36 of 1971 gave evidence against Dukhi, Gokul and Ramdeo. Ext. Kha-19 is a copy of the charge-sheet dated 26-1-1975 showing that a case under S. 325/323, I. P. C. was initiated on a complaint by. Ram Briksh, son of Dular, against Bihari accused and another. Ext. Kha-38 would show that Ram Lagan gave evidence in a case against Harbari, father of Mangroo, in a consolidation case. These documents may be relevant for considering whether Bihari Dular, Ghurahu etc. would join the present set of 9 accused persons or not. We will consider the case of the remaining accused persons other than the set of present 9 accused persons later. We may at present only mention that the litigations are old. It would no doubt appear that vide Ext. Kha-2 Lok Nath, brother of Ganga accused lodged a first information report dated 12-12-69 against Ram Lagan deceased and his sons Rama and Bechan, besides Ramji co-accused. It would further appear that vide Ext. Kha-4 Ganga's brother's wife lodged a report dated 14-12-69 against the aforesad persons. Both these reports are very old and under petty sections. The relations between Ramji and Ganga accused persons may have improved due to long passage of time, particularly, when the first information report related to minor matters. It was urged that they may nevertheless indicate relations between Bechan (P. W. 1) Ganga happened to be un-cordial as to prompt a false roping in. The relations between Ramji and Ganga accused persons may have improved due to long passage of time, particularly, when the first information report related to minor matters. It was urged that they may nevertheless indicate relations between Bechan (P. W. 1) Ganga happened to be un-cordial as to prompt a false roping in. Any previous enmity double edged-weapon and cuts both ways. They may serve also as a motive for Ganga is a joining Mangroo and other against Bechan (P. W. 1). It would further appear that vide Ext. Kha-20 in a case, Ram Lagan v. Mangroo, Loku, Ganga, Subhagi and Shri in the Nyaya Panchayat, a compromise was effected. We fail to appreciate how this document would in any way help Ganga. It is noteworthy that Shri is the brother of Ganga, while Subhagi is Shri's wife. The document would rather indicate that Mangroo was with them as to establish an association of Ganga and others with Mangroo. The other documents filed in that connection have also been considered by the trial court and it has rightly observed that the documents simply indicate that some of the accused were somewhat inimical to the deceased. This would rather be a ground for their joining hands with Mangroo. 40. When there is direct evidence in this case, it is reliability of such evidence which has to be considered. We have fully considered the evidence of the aforesaid three witnesses, namely, Bechan, Kumari and Manjhari, equally implicating Ganga accused aid we find that the evidence of the aforesaid three witnesses fully inspires confidence and can be safely acted upon against the set of aforesaid nine accused persons. 41. We may now consider the case of remaining 5 accused persons, namely, Dular, Dhondha, Ram Janam, Bihari and Ghurahu. According to the prosecution case they did not participate, nor figured in the incident, which took place at the residence of Bechan (P. W. 1). The role assigned to them is that at the time of incident, armed with lathis and spear they were at the house of Rama surrounding the inmates of that house. It is noteworthy that the house of Rama (P. W. 9), the step brother of Bechan, is neither adjoining, nor adjacent to the house of Bechan and is located far apart from Bechan's house. It is noteworthy that the house of Rama (P. W. 9), the step brother of Bechan, is neither adjoining, nor adjacent to the house of Bechan and is located far apart from Bechan's house. In fact, in North of the house of Bechan (P. W. 1) lies the Parti field of Ram Lagan and in West thereof there are some trees and Charni of Shyama and then lies in further west the house of Rama far away. It is also note-worthy that the exit of Bechan's house is westwards. If these aforesaid five persons were actually the members of the unlawful assembly, they would rather be in the vicinity of Bechan's house close to it, rather than stay far away without taking any part in the incident. 42. Shyam Lal (P. W. 7), brother of Rama (P. W. 9), deposed that in the night of incident he and his brother Rama, his mother and grand-mother were sleeping at the door of their house, when the alarm of Ram Lagan deceased was heard. They woke up and Rama flashed torch and then noticed the aforesaid five persons armed with lathi and spear surrounding their house. Rama proceeded to Bechan's door raising alarm and Shyam Lal also wanted to proceed there, when he was given lathi blow. He has then further stated that thereafter he saw the aforesaid 9 accused persons coming out from the house of Bechan and they as well as the present five accused persons then joining them proceeded North-wards. Rama (P. W. 9) stated that he, Shyam Lal and others were sleeping at his door in the night of incident and woke up on the alarm of Ram Lal Lagan and Manjhari and flashed torch and noticed the aforesaid five persons armed with lathis and spears standing near them. The witness got up and rushed to the door of Bechan and stood under the Peepal tree and flashed torch. According to him Shyam Lal also wanted to rush, but was given lathi blow. He thereafter claimed to have witnessed the incident at Bechan's house also maintaining that he saw Ram Lagan and Manjhari being belaboured. 43. It is noteworthy that Manjhari's statement is that up to the time she and Ram Lagan were belaboured and the latter fell down, she did not see any one near or around the boundary of her house. He thereafter claimed to have witnessed the incident at Bechan's house also maintaining that he saw Ram Lagan and Manjhari being belaboured. 43. It is noteworthy that Manjhari's statement is that up to the time she and Ram Lagan were belaboured and the latter fell down, she did not see any one near or around the boundary of her house. That would overrule the presence of Rama there. 44. The prosecution case on the point suggests that the inmates of the house of Ram Lal were being surrounded to prevent them from reaching to the aid of Bechan and others in such situation it is inconceivable that Rama would be able to escape from his house in the manner maintained by him. Apart from that, he too would be belaboured, if his house was being surrounded in the aforesaid manner and would not escape unhurt. What would be the point in surrounding the house of Rama in the manner, if any of the inmates could escape from there so easily. It is noteworthy that according to Rama (P. W. 9) when he and Shyam Lal(P. W. 7) woke up, the aforesaid five accused persons were standing near them well armed. In such situation, any question of escape of Rama unhurt is very unlikely and highly remote. True that Shyam Lal had two injuries, but they are very minor and could have been caused to him in the course of the escape by the other set of nine accused persons. He would not escape with such minor injuries, if his house was being surrounded by five persons well armed. This part of the prosecution story, therefore, is not free from reasonable doubt and as a matter of abundant caution, we hold that the case against Dular, Dhondha, Ram Janam, Bihari and Ghurahu accused person is not free from doubt and they are, therefore, entitled to benefit of doubt. 45. The mere fact that the aforesaid five accused persons are being given benefit of doubt as a matter of abundant caution would not mean that others would also be equally entitled to such benefit. The principles laid down in the case of Raghubir Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 1971 SC 2156 are directly on the point. 45. The mere fact that the aforesaid five accused persons are being given benefit of doubt as a matter of abundant caution would not mean that others would also be equally entitled to such benefit. The principles laid down in the case of Raghubir Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 1971 SC 2156 are directly on the point. The role assigned to the aforesaid set of five accused persons, namely, Dular and others, is totally distinct and separate from the roles assigned to the other set of aforesaid nine accused persons. The former set of the five accused persons neither proceeded to the house of Bechan, nor played any role there, so their cases can safely be separated from the case against the other set of nine accused persons. 46. The very case of Raghubir Singh (supra) is an authority for that proposition that the prosecution is not required to multiply witnesses. In the particular circumstances of each case the Court has to examine the importance of the witnesses produced and, as discussed earlier, the inmates of Bechan's house in the present case are the best witnesses to unfold the prosecution story. 47. It was urged on behalf of the appellants that where there are partisan witnesses, their testimony must be scrutinised with caution and the test whether the version given by such witnesses is probable is to be applied. We have already discussed and scrutinised the evidence of the three inmates of the house, who are also injured witnesses, and after careful scrutiny we have found that their testimony inspires confidence. We also find the prosecution story to be probable as per our earlier discussion. Reliance was placed upon the case Jaibir v. State, 1979 Cr. LJ. NOC. All. (1) 74 and it was urged that non-production of any named witnesses would be fatal for the prosecution. In the present case one Ram Dhani Nonia was also cited a witness, though not produced. We have considered its implication. As observed in the case of Raghubir Singh ( AIR 1971 SC 2156 ) (supra), people avoid to invite displeasure of one side or the other side when there is a village faction. In the present case otherwise also the sympathy of the village folk would be on Mangroo's side, as in conservative society Bechan's elopement with Kumari would be considered as a great sin. 48. In the present case otherwise also the sympathy of the village folk would be on Mangroo's side, as in conservative society Bechan's elopement with Kumari would be considered as a great sin. 48. It was further argued that the dead body of Ram Lagan was not found in the Sehan itself, but was found a few steps on inner side of the thatch. When one is attacked, the victim does not remain static and if on receiving injuries he ultimately fell down in the thatch, which is close to the place, there is nothing improbable to be given any importance. The case against the set of nine accused persons, namely, Mangroo, Shyam Narain, Ganga, Ramji, Kamla, Bechan, Bajrangi, Siya Ram and Surya Nath, has been proved beyond reasonable doubt and it is established that they committed the murders of Ram Lagan, Kumari daughter of Mangroo and Paras and they also caused hurt to some of the other injured persons including injuries caused on the vital part, i.e., on the head of Bechan, as to attract the application of Section 307, I. P. C., and that an unlawful assembly was formed with such object and loot was also carried. The sentences awarded to them are also not excessive and do not call for interference. 49. In the result, the appeal of Dula Dhondha, Ram Janam, Bihari and Ghurahu is allowed and their convictions on different counts and sentences awarded to them are set aside and they are given benefit of doubt and are acquitted. They are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged. The appeal of Mangroo, Shyam Narain, Ganga, Ramji, Bechan, Bajrangi, Sia Ram and Surya Nath is dismissed and their convictions on different counts and the sentences awarded to them, which are to run concurrently, are maintained. They are on bail. They shall be taken into custody to serve out the sentences awarded to them.