S.S. BYAS, J.—These two jail appeals-one by accused Anandiya and the other by accused Santosh Kumar and Kanhaiya Lal alias Collector-are directed against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Bhilwara dated February 22, 1983 convicting and sentencing them as under:- S.No. Name of the accused Section Sentence awarded 1. Anandiya (i) 302, IPC Imprisonment of life. (ii) 302/34" Imprisonment of life. 2. Santosh Kumar (i) 302/34" Imprisonment of life. (ii) 324" One years rigorous imprisonment. Imprisonment 3. Kanhaiya Lal alias Collector 302/34 IPC Imprisonment of life. 2. The facts and circumstances leading to the prosecution and conviction of the appellants, run as under: 3. At about 8.00 P.M. on 3.7.1977, deceased-victims Shivram, his father Lakhma Ram and of her persons of their family were sitting on a Chabutary out-side their house situate in village Radha-Ka-Bara Police Station Jahajpur district Bhilwara. The accused-appellants and one Kanaram are also residents of the same village. Accused Anandiya and Nathu (accused acquitted) happened to pass by their side. Shivram told accused Anandiya that the thefts were committed at his intance and the villagers were taking them to task. This annoyed accused Anandiya. He went to his house, instantly returned after five or six minutes accompanied by his two sons Santosh Kumar and Kanhaiya Lal alias Collector and two more persons Nathu and Kanaram. The accused persons started abusing Shivram and his father. Thereafter Nathu, Santosh Kumar, Kana and Kanhaiya Lal (Collector) caught hold of Shivram. Accused Anandiya had a Gupti with him. He thrust the Gupti deep into the left abdomen of Shivram. Shivram fell down and passed away instantaneously on the spot. Lakhma entreated with folded hands not to beat any further. Accused Anandiya thereupon caught hold of Lakhma and accused Kana s/o Lalu struck a blow of his sword on the left side of Lakhmas neck. It resulted in deep cutting of the neck. Lakhma also fell down and passed away then and there. Accused Santosh Kumar struck the blows of his farshi to Lakhnias son Hari Prasad, (PW 4). Accused Kana s/o Lalu struck ablow of his weapon to Lakhmas other son Ganpatlal (PW 1). The accused persons thereafter dispersed away. There was profuse bleeding from the wounds of the victims. Ganpatlal (PW 1) immediately rushed to Police Station, Jahajpur and presented written report Ex. P 1 of the occurrence at about 9.20 P.M. on the same day. Accused Kana s/o Lalu struck ablow of his weapon to Lakhmas other son Ganpatlal (PW 1). The accused persons thereafter dispersed away. There was profuse bleeding from the wounds of the victims. Ganpatlal (PW 1) immediately rushed to Police Station, Jahajpur and presented written report Ex. P 1 of the occurrence at about 9.20 P.M. on the same day. The Police registered a case and proceeded with investigation. PW 10 Umraosingh, Head Constable of Police arrived on the spot and kept a watch on the dead bodies. Next day, on 4.7.77, PW 11 Bhopalsingh Deputy Superintendent of Police arrived on the spot and took up the investigation. He prepared the inquests of the victims dead bodies, inspected the site and took in possession the blood-smeared soil from there. The post mortem examination of the victims deadbodies were conducted at about 1.20 P.M. on 4.7.77 by Dr. C.L. Vermas the then Medical Officer Incharge, Referal Hospital, Jahajpur. The doctor found the following ante-mortem injuries on the deadbody of Shivram:- (1) Stabe wound 2 c.m. x 1 c.m. x deep into the peritineal cavity, cutting through the 8th rib. On the left side of the chest in the nipple line over 8th rib-by a sharp, poluted, cutting weapon. (2) Fracture of the left 8th rib in the Nipple line. Consequent to injury No. 1. In the opinion of Dr. Verma, the cause of death of Shivram was shock caused by the stabe injury. Injury No. 2 was the result of injury No. I. He prepared post-mortem examination report EX. P 10. 3. The doctor noticed the following ante-mortem injuries on the dead body of Lakhma: (1) Incised wound 11 c m. x 5 c.m. x deep upto the vertebrae-on the left side of the neck. The wound extends from in front of the left ear cutting through the ear and below it down to the neck and upto the vertebrae-cutting through all the structures in the way, due to a heavy cutting weapon. (2) Fracture of the left mandible, consequent to injury No. 1. (3) Fractures of the left transverse proceeding at the 4th and 5th cervical vertebrae-consequent to injury No. 1. (4) Incised wound 5 cm. x 3 c m. x whole skin deep on the back of left forearm 3 c.m. above the neck. By a sharp weapon. (5) Incised wound 1.5. cm. x 0.5. cm. x whole depth. (3) Fractures of the left transverse proceeding at the 4th and 5th cervical vertebrae-consequent to injury No. 1. (4) Incised wound 5 cm. x 3 c m. x whole skin deep on the back of left forearm 3 c.m. above the neck. By a sharp weapon. (5) Incised wound 1.5. cm. x 0.5. cm. x whole depth. On the back at left palm by a sharp weapon. In the opinion of Dr. Verma, the cause of death was shock due to the injuries on the neck. The post mortem examination report issued by him is Ex. P 9. 4. The doctor was also of the opinion that the injuries found on the victims deadbobies were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The injuries of Hari Prasad, (PW 4) were examined by Dr. Verma. Four injuries were found on his body caused by sharp weapon, one of which was grievous. The injury report issued by him is Ex. P 8. The injuries of PW 1 Ganpatlal were examined by PW 7 Dr. P.C. Bapna, the then Medical Officer Incharge, Referal Hospital, Jahajpur. One incised wound was found on his body. The injury report issued by Dr. Bapna is Ex. P7. Accused Anandiya, Santosh Kumar Kanhaiyalal alias Collector and Nathu were arrested and in consequence of the disclosure statements made by them,some of the weapons used in the commission of the offence were recovered. The blood-stained clothes of the victims were also seized and sealed. Accused Kana s/o Lalu absconded and remained absconding for a party long time. On chemical examination, human blood was detected on some of the recovered articles, On the completion of investigation, the police submitted a challan against accused Anandiya, Santosh Kumar, Kanhaiya Lal alias Collector and Nathu in the Court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Jahajpur showing accused Kana s/o Lalu as absconding therein. The learned Magistrate committed the case for trial to the Court of Sessions Judge, Bhilwara. The learned Sessions Judge framed charges under sections 148, 302, 302/149, 307/149, 324/149 etc. of the Penal Code against them, to which they pleaded not guilty and faced the trial. Three of them viz., Santosh Kumar, Kanhaiya Lal alias Collector and Nathu pleaded alibi and stated that they were in far-distant villages at the time of the alleged occurrence. It was also pleaded that the members of the complainant party tried to drag-away Mst. of the Penal Code against them, to which they pleaded not guilty and faced the trial. Three of them viz., Santosh Kumar, Kanhaiya Lal alias Collector and Nathu pleaded alibi and stated that they were in far-distant villages at the time of the alleged occurrence. It was also pleaded that the members of the complainant party tried to drag-away Mst. Rajuri wife of Santosh Kumar. During trial, the prosecution examined 13 witnesses and filed some documents. In defence, three witnesses were examined. On the conclusion of trial, the learned Sessions Judge found no incriminating material against accused Nathu. His prevence was of course taken as proved but his participation in the commission of the offences was not taken as established. He was consequently acquitted of all the offence he was charged with. The three accused Anandiya, Santosh Kumar and Kanhaiya Lal alias Collector were convicted and sentenced as mentioned at the very out-set. Hence this appeal. 5. We have heard the learned Amicus Curiae and the learned Public Prosecutor. We have also gone through the case file carefully. 6. Mr. Adwani, the learned Amicus curiae did not and could not challenge the homicidal deaths of Lakhraa and his son Shivram. We have carefully gone through the testimony of Dr. Verma (PW 3) and the postmortem examination reports issued by him. We find no good and cogent reasons to disbelieve his opinion about the cause of deaths of the two victims. It, therefore, stands proved that the deaths of Shivram and Lakhmaram were not natural but homicidal in nature. 7. Before proceeding further, we may point out that the prosecution has examined five ocular witnesses, each of whom has claimed to have seen the occurrence. They are: PW 1 Ganpatlal, PW 2 Madan Lal, PW 4 Hari Prasad, PW 5 Gajraj and PW 6 Mst. Batul. 8. In assailing the conviction, the first contention raised by the learned Amicus curiae is that all these witnesses are closely related to the two deceased victims No independent witness of the village has been produced by the prosecution. As such the conviction of the accused appellants under sec. 302, I.P.C. on the basis of these five eye witnesses is extremely risky. It was argued that since these five witnesses were interested persons in the deceased victims, their testimony should not be readily accepted as true. As such the conviction of the accused appellants under sec. 302, I.P.C. on the basis of these five eye witnesses is extremely risky. It was argued that since these five witnesses were interested persons in the deceased victims, their testimony should not be readily accepted as true. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the contention urged before us and find no substance in it. It is true that PW 1 Ganpatlal and PW 4 Hari Prasad are the real sons of deceased-victim Lakhma and the real brothers of deceased-victim Shivram. So also, PW 2 Madan Lal, PW 5 Gajraj and PW 6 Mst. Batul are the close relatives being the cousin and cousins wife of the deceased-victim. We are unable to agree with the learned Amicus curiae that the testimony of an eye witness should discarded merely because he or she is a close relative of the victims. What is required is that the testimony of a relative witnesses should be examined carefully and cautiously. 9. The names of all these five witnesses have been mentioned in the First Information Report Ex. P.l lodged promptly within two hours of the occurrence at the police station which is only four miles away from the place of occurrence. That affords a check that these five witnesses were not falsely introduced as coular witnesses of the incident afterwards. Now, PW 1 Ganpatlal deposed that accused Santosh Kumar, Kanhaiya Lal alias Collector, Kana and Nathu caught hold of Shivram and thereafter accused Anandiya thrust the Gupti in his left abdomen and instantly took it out. Shivram fell down and passed away instantaneously on the spot. Thereafter accused Anandiya, Kanhaiya Lal alias Collector, Santosh Kumar and Nathu caught hold of Lakhma and accused Kana struck a blow of his Farshi like sword on his neck. The neck was nearly cut in half. Lakhma fell down and breathed his last then and there. The same facts were deposed by PW 2 Madanlal, PW 4 Hari Prasad, PW 5 Gajraj and P.W. 6 Mst. Batul. All these witnesses were cross-examined at great length. The learned Sessions Judge scrutinised their evidence with proper care and caution. He held that though Nathu was present but he tried to intervene and took no part in the commission of the murders. On a careful scrutiny of the testimony of these five witnesses, we are unable to take a different view. The learned Sessions Judge scrutinised their evidence with proper care and caution. He held that though Nathu was present but he tried to intervene and took no part in the commission of the murders. On a careful scrutiny of the testimony of these five witnesses, we are unable to take a different view. If these five witnesses were false or were interested in deposing falsely against the accused, Mst. Batul (P.W. 6) and P W. 5 Gajraj would not have deposed that the acquitted accused Nathu merely intervened and took no part in the commission of the offence. The finding of the learned Sessions Judge that accused Santosh Kumar, Kanhaiyalal alias Collector and Kana s/o Lalu caught hold of Shivram and accused Anandiya thrust the Gupti deep in his left abdomen, is based on a proper appraisal of the evidence of these live eye witnesses. We are unable to take different view. It, therefore, stands well proved that accused Santosh Kumar, Kanhaiya Lal alias Collector and Kana s/o Lalu caught hold of Shivram and, accused Anandiya caused his death by thrusting the Gupti in his left abdomen. 10. Coming to the murder of Lakhma Ram, these five witnesses have deposed that the four accused (including Nathu, who is acquitted) caught hold of Lakhma and accused Kana s/o Lalu struck a blow of his Farshi like sword on his neck resulting nearly in its half cut. The learned Sessions Judge did not believe the role assigned to accused Santosh Kumar and Kanhaiya Lal alias Collector in their catching hold of Lakhma Ram. As regards the role played by accused Anandiya in catching hold the deceased-victim Lakhmaram, it is not open to any doubt. The learned Sessions Judge, after a careful scanning of the evidence of the eye witnesses, held that accused Anandiya caught hold of Lakhmaram while accused Kana s/o Lalu struck a blow of sword like Farshi on his neck This finding appears correct and no interference is called for. The first contention of the learned Amicus curiae, has no substance. 11. As a result, we hold that accused Anandiya was rightly convicted under section 302, I P.C. for causing the murder of Shivram and under section 302/34, I.P.C. for the murder of Lakhmaram. 12. The first contention of the learned Amicus curiae, has no substance. 11. As a result, we hold that accused Anandiya was rightly convicted under section 302, I P.C. for causing the murder of Shivram and under section 302/34, I.P.C. for the murder of Lakhmaram. 12. It was next argued by the learned Amicus curiae that many persons named in the First Information Report were not examined by the prosecution and that makes the entire prosecution story highly doubtful We are unable to accept his contention. As many as five persons named in the First Information Report have been examined as prosecution witnesses. The other persons named in the F.I.R. are the close relatives of the deceased-victims just as are the five eye witnesses examined by the prosecution. In these circumstances the non-examination of the remaining relative witnesses is not of any importance and does not speak adversely against the prosecution. 13. It was next argued that other residents of the village were not examined and thus the independent witnesses have been with held by the prosecution. We again find no merit in the contention. All the five witnesses have deposed that the houses of the other persons are situate a little distance away and none of them was present at the scene of occurrence. In these circumstances the non-examination of the other residents of the village is of no material consequence More over, it is not necessary for the prosecution to examine all the witnesses. Only those witnesses who are required to unfold the prosecution case should be examined. 14. In respect of accused Santosh Kumar and Kanhaiya Lal alias Collec-tor, it was argued by the learned Amicus curiae that they are the sons of accused Anandiya. Accused Santosh Kumar, admittedly according to the arrest memo was of 18 years in age while accused Kanhaiya Lal alias Collector was only of 15 years in age at the time of the commission of the offence. It was also argued that the age of these two accused has been mentioned as 18 and 15 years respectively in their statements recorded under section 313, Cr.P.C. It was argued that both these accused could not share a common intention with their father or accused Kana s/o Lalu in committing the murders of the two victims. As such, their conviction under section 302/34, I.P.C. for causing the murder of Shivram is unsustainable. As such, their conviction under section 302/34, I.P.C. for causing the murder of Shivram is unsustainable. At the most, the common intention which can be attributed to them could be only for causing the grievous hurt because accused Anandiya was armed with a Gupti. Reliance in support of the contention was placed in Bhabhanand Sharma vs. the State of Assam(1), State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Ram Kishan(2 and Shambha Kurar vs. the State of Bihar(3). All these authorities were recently noticed by us in D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 140/78 (Mst. Baski vs. the State of Rajasthan) decided on 15.12.83. In Bhabhanand Sharmas case, one accused caught hold of the hands of the deceased and the two other accused caused the fatal injuries to him. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that section 34 cannot be made applicable to the accused who merely caught hold of the victim. It was observed :- "As regard B merely because he caught hold of the hands of the deceased, it is difficult to hold that he shared the common intention of the other two accused in causing the death of the deceased. His intention was to join in the commission of the acts by the other two with the intention of getting by the deceased assaulted severely with the knowledge that such an assault in all probability and likelihood might result in his death. His participation in the crime, therefore, did not take him to the extent of sharing the common intention to cause murder. Applying the principle of law under section 38, I.P.C. the case of B can be separated from that of the other two accused and he could be found guilty only under section 304 Part III as he had intentionally joined in the commission of an act with the knowledge that the assault on the deceased was likely to result in his death. 15. In the instant case, accused Santosh Kumar and Kanhaiya Lal alias Collector were of tender age at the time of the commission of the offence. According to the prosecution they merely caught hold of Shivram while their father (accused Anandiya) struck a blow of Gupti to him. There are no circumstances to indicate that these two accused persons had an intention to commit the murder of Shivram. According to the prosecution they merely caught hold of Shivram while their father (accused Anandiya) struck a blow of Gupti to him. There are no circumstances to indicate that these two accused persons had an intention to commit the murder of Shivram. There are, also, no circumstances which may induce us to hold that the intention of accused Anandiya was shared by these two accused persons, in causing the murder of Shivram. Section 34, I.P.C. required that the intention of one should be shared by the other accused. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the act of thrusting the Gupti by accused Anandiya into the abdomen of Shivram appears to be his individual act and these two accused persons cannot be saddled with criminal liability for it. Accused Kanhaiya Lal alias Collector was only of 15 years in age, when the offence was committed, Looking to his age, we are unable to hold that he could share any common intention with his father in committing the murder of Shivram. 16. As regards the offence under section 324, IPC against accused Santosh Kumar, it stands duly proved. In the result : (1) the conviction of accuced Anandiya under section 302 and 302/34, I.P.C. and the sentence awarded thereunder are maintained. His appeal shall stand cancelled; (2) the appeal of accused (1) Santosh Kumar and (2) Kanhaiya Lal alias Collector is partly allowed. Their conviction under section 302 read with 34, I.P.C. for causing the murder of Shivram and the sentence awarded thereunder are set-aside. Instead, they are convicted under section 326/34, I.P.C. and each is sentenced to the period already undergone by the, and (3) the conviction of accused Santosh Kumar under section 324,I.P.C. and the sentence awarded thereunder are maintained. His sentence under sec. 324, I.P.C. shall run concurrently with that awarded to him under sec. 326/34, I.P.C. 12. The appeals stand accordingly disposed of.