JUDGMENT V. P. Mathur, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by Mr. J. P. Semwal, the them Additional Sessions Judge, Almora, Camp at Ranikhet on 21-8-1978. The learned Judge convicted the appellants under sections 147, 148 and 302/149 of the IPC and sentenced each one of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years under section 148 IPC and imprisonment for life under section 302 read with 149 IPC. He also noted that since section 147 IPC is covered by section 148 IPC hence no separate sentence under section 147 IPC is being passed. He made the sentences concurrent. 2. Twenty nine persons in all stood trial before the learned Sessions Judge, vide Sessions Trial No. 2 of 1974. According to the prosecution version, how- ever, four persons had died at various stages of the case. They were Pan Ram, Bach Ram, Durga Ram and Kesh Ram. It is said that the occurrence tootle place near about 7-30 or 8-00 A. M. on 18-5-1972 in village Panuwadekhan Patti Talla Salt, pertaining to Patwari circle-Panuwadekhan Patti Tahsil Ranikhet, district Almora. It is also contended that while the male accused persons were all armed with lathis, the lady-accused appellants were armed with sickles and with the common object to deter deceased Mod Ram from ploughing the Plot no. 1969 and to dispossess him from the same by use of criminal force and in order to commit his murder, they all formed an unlawful assembly, assaulted Moti Ram while he was ploughing his field and committed his murder. Thereafter all the culprits are said to have gone to Moti Ram's house and there they looted one Gold Nath (nose ornament) of Moti's wife and cash amounting to Rs.600/- and also committed mischief by causing damage to his house to the extent of Rs.200/-. 3. The admitted case is that ancestors of Moti Ram had come to settle in this village from out-side. Moti Ram's falser was gifted some land by his father- in-law in village Panuwadekhan. Moti Ram had married twice. Two sons Sagat Ram PW 2 and Kundan Ram were born of the first-wife. Second wife is Smt. Jbupli Devi PW 3 and Sheesh Rami and Bahadur Ram are sons from her. Moti Ram and his family belong to Orh l(mason) sub-caste of the Harijans. Moti Ram had married twice. Two sons Sagat Ram PW 2 and Kundan Ram were born of the first-wife. Second wife is Smt. Jbupli Devi PW 3 and Sheesh Rami and Bahadur Ram are sons from her. Moti Ram and his family belong to Orh l(mason) sub-caste of the Harijans. All other Harijans of the village belong to the sub-caste of the Harijan known as Chunera and they include the appellants as well as those persons who had been acquitted by the learned Sessions judge. There was litigation regarding of plot no. 1912, which now is plot no. 1969, between Moti Ram deceased on the one hand and Ghur Ram one of the accused on the other. This took place in 1958-59. The entire plot was in possession of Moti Ram. In proceedings under section 145 CrPC about 8 to 10 yards, area of this plot was, however, delivered in possession of Ghur Ram. Then Moti Ram filed a Regular suit in respect of this land and the Assistant Commissioner Pali, Ranikhet decided Revenue suit no. 1 of 1964-65 in favour of Moti Ram and the appeal filed by Ghur Ram was dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner, Almora. Then Moti Ram took out the execution and through Amin Khim Singh PW 8 he obtained possession of this portion of the plot on 6-5-1972. Documents Exts. Ka-10 and Ka-11 prove this fact and it is nor also disputed but is admitted by the accused appellants in their statements made in Court. 4. This occurrence took place just after 11 days of the delivery of possession to Moti Ram. Sagat Ram PW 2 who is the son of Moti Ram accompanied his father Moti Ram and bis step mother Smt. Jhupuli Devi and they all came to plot no. 1912 in village Tila Tok where they intended to sow Maduwa. They bad brought a pair of bullocks and a plough. Moti Ram started ploughing the field and Sagat Ram PW 2 and Smt. Jhupuli Devi PW 3 busied themselves in picking up stones from the field. Hardly a few cubits wide area had been ploughed when eight accused appellants namely (1) Mathura Ram, (2) Kashi Ram, (3) Sad Ram, (4) Gusain Ram, (5) Durga Ram, (6) Chandan Ram, (7) Sheesh Ram and (8) Jai Kishan Ram armed with lathis came there and asked Moti Ram to desist from ploughing. Hardly a few cubits wide area had been ploughed when eight accused appellants namely (1) Mathura Ram, (2) Kashi Ram, (3) Sad Ram, (4) Gusain Ram, (5) Durga Ram, (6) Chandan Ram, (7) Sheesh Ram and (8) Jai Kishan Ram armed with lathis came there and asked Moti Ram to desist from ploughing. They were told that Moti Ram had already won the case from the court and had obtained possession through Amin and, therefore, he had a right to plough the land. While these exchanges were still going on, another batch of seven accused namely (1) Ghur Ram, (2) Soban Ram, (3) Bhim Ram, (4) Govind Ram, armed with lathis, and (5) Smt. Jaintuli Devi (6) Smt. Devki Devi and (7) Smt. Kanti Devi armed with sickles came on the spot. Thus, there was a group of fifteen accused who are the present appellants and they all demanded from Moti Ram the vacancy of the land. They asked him to unyoke his plough and when Moti Ram did not agree, Kashi Ram gave him lathi blow on his back. Simultaneously Jaikishan Ram gave him another lathi blow on his head, as a result of which Moti Ram fell down, then all the twelve male accused appellants attacked him with their lathis, while he was in fallen down condition it is contended that the female appellants, however, continued to exhort their male companions not to leave Moti Ram alive, without actually taking part in the marpit. While this marpit was going on, a third batch of 16 accused persons, who have all been acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge, consisting of (1) Faqir Ram, (2) Jai Nand Ram, (3) Govind Ram, (4) Pan Ram, (5) Prem Ram son of Bhawan Ram, (6) Gopi Ram, (7) Bach Ram, (8) Urba Ram, (9) Pan Ram son of Thepar Ram, (10) Bagi Ram, (11) Gusain Ram son of Lachan Ram, (13) Prem Ram son of Lacham Ram, (14) Durga Ram son of Charoar Ram, (15) Het Ram and (16) Sad Ram son of War Ram all armed with lathis came to the plot and joined in the assault with the other co-accused and exhorted them to kill Moti Ram and not to spare his life. All entreaties by Sagat Ram PW 2 and Smt. Jhupli Devi PW 3 failed and after killing Moti Ram, the accused persons left for his house exclaiming mat they have now to plunder the house and to destory it. Sagat Ram PW 2 and Smt. Jhupli Devi PW 3 followed them but when they reached near the house of the deceased, they were threatened by the culprits and hence they out of tear went to the house of Kundan Ram. From there, they heard the noise of the dismantling of the stones of the roof and after the accused had all left, Sagat Ram came to his house and his father's house and found that a damage to the extent of Rs. 200/- had been caused to the houses and his step mother's nose ring as well as Rs. 600/- in cash had been looted. Sagat Ram then scribed the report Ext. Ka-2 and sent it through his younger brother Bahadur Ram boy of 10-12 years of age PW 5 to his uncle Bach Ram PW 6 with a message about the murder of father and requested him to lodge the report with the Patwari, and bring him on the spot. 5. Bach Ram PW 6 lives in Katua Dhar Tok of village Panuwadekhan. Bahadur Ram PW 5 contacted him and gave him Ext. Ka-2 at about 9 or 10 A. M. on 18-5-72. He was also informed of the ghastly tragedy. He promptly reached the quarter of the Patwari in the same village, but the Patwari was out at Ranikhet for attending a staff meeting. Therefore, BACHram covered the distance of 27 miles by Bus and met the Patvvari Bipin Chandra Joshi PW 9 on 18-5-72 at 1.00 P. M. in tahsil Ranikhet and handed over Ext. Ka-2 to him. The Patwari prepared the chik report Ext. Ka-3 and came to the spot, took the dead body of Moti Ram into possession and prepared necessary papers. The recovery of blood stained and simple earth, a lathi found lying nearly and blood stained clothes of the deceased was made and the articles were sealed. Then the investigation was started. 6. The post mortem examination of the dead body was made on 20-5-1972 at 10 A. M. in the Civil Hospital, Ranikhet by Dr. Anthwal PW 1. The recovery of blood stained and simple earth, a lathi found lying nearly and blood stained clothes of the deceased was made and the articles were sealed. Then the investigation was started. 6. The post mortem examination of the dead body was made on 20-5-1972 at 10 A. M. in the Civil Hospital, Ranikhet by Dr. Anthwal PW 1. The following ante mortem injuries were found on the person of the deceased, vide, Ext. Ka-1 : 1. Lacerated wound 3" x 1/2" x bone deep left side head 4" above left hair oblique. 2. Lacerated wound 1" x 1/4" x bone deep on the right side head 3-1/2" above the right eye brow. Vertically oblique. 3. Abrasion 1" x 1" over left eye brow. 4. Abraded contusion 2" x 1" on the left side face over the left ramus of the mandible. Fracture of the mandible below injury 1st and 2nd molars loose in the socket. 5. Contused abrasion 4" x 3" on the right upper arm at the outer aspect' at upper 1/3rd junction. 6. Abraded contusion 3" x 2" on the back and lateral aspect of the right elbow joint. Fracture of oleocranium of right ulna. 7. Abraded contusion 1" x 1" over the right clavical in the middle. 8.Contused abrasion 4" x 3" on the back right fore-arm 1" above the wrist. 9.Contused abrasion 2" x 1" on the back of right fore-arm 1" above the injury no. 8. 10.Contused abrasion 2" x 2" over the anterior deltoid of left side. 11.Abraded contusion multiple in an area of 8" x 4" on the back of left upper arm and fore-arm. Lower and extending 1" below elbow. Fracture of the lower end of the humerus. 12.Abraded contusion in an area of 7" x 4" on the left side chest extending from exillary folds fracture of the 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th ribs below injury. 13.Multiple contusions in an area of 7" x 5" on the back of the left shoulder. 14. Multiple contusions in an area of 6" x 4" on the back over the right shoulder. 15. Multiple contusions in an area of 8" x 5" on the both lumber region. 16. Abraded contusions in an area of 4" x 3" on both buttocks. 17. Multiple contusions abraded cm the back and outer aspect of the right thigh. 18. 14. Multiple contusions in an area of 6" x 4" on the back over the right shoulder. 15. Multiple contusions in an area of 8" x 5" on the both lumber region. 16. Abraded contusions in an area of 4" x 3" on both buttocks. 17. Multiple contusions abraded cm the back and outer aspect of the right thigh. 18. Multiple abraded contusions in an area of 5" x 4" on the back of left thigh in the middle. Internal examination revealed fracture of the ribs 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th under injury-12, along with rupture of the pleura. On account of the fractured ribs, there was laceration of the left lung Dr. H. N. Anthwal was of the view that injury no. 12 itself was sufficient to cause the death but in his opinion the death was caused on account of shock and haemorrhage and it could have taken place at about 7-30 or 8-00 A. M. on 18-5-1972. He also says that the injuries were obviously caused with blunt weapons like lathis and the multiple abraded contusions could be a result of several lathi blows at the same place. 7. The blood stained and simple earth and the blood stained clothes were all sent to the Chemical Examiner, Agra on 27-7-1972, and his report shows that they were stained with human blood. The report is Ext. Ka-23 and is dated 9-11-1972. 8. The plea put in by the accused-appellants and others was a denial of the prosecution allegations with the contention that a false case has been foited against them because of enmity and whet actually happened was that the deceased suffered this accident on account of his bullocks which got startled and poshed down into the depression. It is further contended that some loose stones fell from above and this was the cause of death of Moti Ram. The fact of the litigation on plot no. 1969 corresponding to plot no. 1912 is admitted and it is also admitted that through Amin, possession of a part of this plot was re-taken by Moti Ram, although that portion had been given into the possession of Ghur Ram in proceedings under sec. 1415 CrPC earlier. Mathura Ram's further contention was that between Moti Ram and Keshram father of Mathura Ram etc. there was a dispute about land and on this account he has been falsely implicated. 1415 CrPC earlier. Mathura Ram's further contention was that between Moti Ram and Keshram father of Mathura Ram etc. there was a dispute about land and on this account he has been falsely implicated. It is also contended that whatever litigation and enmity, was existing there between Ghur Ram and his family members and the deceased, was limited to them and Mathura Ram etc. were only the witnesses in a criminal case against Moti Ram on behalf of Ghur Ram and others and on that account they have been falsely implicated. 9. The post mortem examination report as well as the statements of the doctor and the witnesses undoubtedly establish that Moti Ram had received a large number of injuries which have been mentioned in the post mortem examination report under eighteen heads and he died on account of shock and haemorrhage. Independently also injury no. 12 was sufficient to cause the death. The date and time of the death is also established beyond doubt and the accused persons do not dispute either the factum of death or the place of occurrence or the time thereof. They have come-forth with an alternative suggestion for the occurrence. 10. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined two eyewitnesses namely Sagat Ram PW 2 and Smt. Jhupli Devi PW 3. All others are formal witnesses. As regards the motive, the learned Sessions Judge has taken into consideration the fact that where direct and specific evidence is adduced involving the accused-appellants on the charge of murder, the consideration of motive loses all significance. It is also now well-established that even if motive is inadequate that will not be relevant to conclusively prove that the accused were or were not guilty one way or the other. The probabilities of the situation and the direct evidence will have to be looked into and assessed in order to come to the conclusion about the guilt. There is positive and direct evidence of two eye-witnesses in this case in addition to circumstantial evidence which we shall shortly refer to. It is also established that with Ghur Ram there was direct litigation of the deceased and the accused-appellants rather belong to the family of Ghur Ram or are related to him or else belong to his party because some of them had appeared as witnesses against him on side of Ghur Ram in the previous litigation. It is also established that with Ghur Ram there was direct litigation of the deceased and the accused-appellants rather belong to the family of Ghur Ram or are related to him or else belong to his party because some of them had appeared as witnesses against him on side of Ghur Ram in the previous litigation. Therefore, in addition to the direct evidence that is on the record and which has to be assessed, there is some sort of motive for the offence also. The appellants all claim false implication due to Ranjish, and enmity is a double edged weapon. Hence while false implication is possible, it also can not be ruled out that the occurrence perhaps took place in the manner as is alleged by the prosecution. Undoubtedly there is enmity even according to the admission of the appellants and this is sufficient to provide motive for the offence. 11. It was argued that the first: information report in this case was ante-timed and did not contain the names of the witnesses, the weapons used by the accused-appellants and it clearly mentions that all 29 or 30 persons named in it committed the murder of Moti Ram while now the evidence is coming that actually only twelve persons gave the beating with lathis and the ladies continued to exhort and the remaining persons who came in the 3rd batch, did not do anything. IT is also shown to the Court that the entire body-writing of the first information report Ext. Ka-2 is in green ink while the signatures of Sagat Ram son of Moti Ram and the date 18-5-72 have been written by a different (blue) ink and this also shows that perhaps Sagat Ram's signatures were obtained on blank paper and the document was prepared afterwards. In the body writing the date 18-5-1972 has been mentioned. A reading of this first information report will show that it simply mentions three facts :- (i) that the father of the applicant was ploughing the field which he had obtained by Dakhal when the 29 or 30 persons named in the first information report came on 18-5-1972; (ii) that these persons killed the applicant's father; (iii) They also damaged the houses of the applicant and his father and looted ornament and cash amounting to Rs. 600.00. 600.00. This is a very short first information report in which briefly the facts of the matter have been mentioned. The evidence shows that it was scribed in haste and there was no opportunity for deliberations. IT is now well established that the purpose of the first information report is to set the machinery of law into motion. IT is not expected to be an encyclopaedia containing the minute details. The substantive evidence will always be the evidence which is adduced in Court and which stands the test of cross examination and if the first information report finds corroboration from the same and is not contradicted by the evidence on the record, then mere brevity of the first information report can not discount the prosecution case. The scribe of this report is undoubtedly Sagat Ram. He states on oath that he wrote it out. in cross-examination, nothing has been elicited from him in this respect. There is ho suggestion to him that he was made to write this document afterwards and originally he had signed only on a blank paper. He explains that the ink in his pea had suddenly finished and therefore he had to put his signatures in another ink. This first information report was written out after about 8.00 A.M. Between the time of the occurrence and the writing of the first information report, there was alleged plunder of the house and out of fear Sagat Ram and his step mother Smt. Jhupuli Devi were hiding themselves in some body's else house. After the culprits left, he went to find out how they had dealt with the house and the property, and this must have taken some time. The first information report was written out seme time near about 9 or 9.30 A.M. Then it was handed over to his younger brother who was a boy of tender age and he was directed to go to Bach Ram who lives in Katu a Ghar Tok of the village. Bach Ram received this report at about 10.00 A.M. He also learnt about the details of the tragedy. He went to the house of Patwari, to lodge the report, but he learn that the patwari had gone to Ranikhet to attend some staff meeting. Bach Ram received this report at about 10.00 A.M. He also learnt about the details of the tragedy. He went to the house of Patwari, to lodge the report, but he learn that the patwari had gone to Ranikhet to attend some staff meeting. He, therefore, covered a distance of 27 miles by Bus and about 1.00 P.M. he handed over the First Information Report to the Patwari and then the investigation etc followed. All this sequence of events clearly shows that the First Information Report was a very prompt document about the way in which the occurrence took place. IT is preposterous to believe that if it had been obtained either the next day or even afterwards it would have still had such a short narration of facts. If this was a defect, it would then have been set right, in case the first information report was being got scribed afterwards and was ante-timed. The very fact that two inks were used one for the body writing and the other for the signatures, also indicates that the explanation given by Sagat Ram is very natural and correct, otherwise there would have been no difficulty in scribing the whole document including the signatures by the same pen and ink. The Patwari reached the spot in the evening of 18-5-1972, as appears from his statement and immediately took into possession the dead body and the blood stained earth etc. Therefore, the suggestion that the first information report was scribed some time on 19-5-1972 or even after- wards does not appeal to reason. There is nothing on the record to show that the Patwari was for any reason inimically disposed against the appellants and unnecessarily supporting false case against them at the instance of Sagat Ram. 12. The argument that in the first information report there is no mention about the coming of the accused persons in three different batches, as has been mentioned by the witnesses during trial, and therefore, the first information report should be discarded, is also not a sound argument. As has already been mentioned above, the first information report gives a very brief description of the events. All details are missing and naturally the details have come in the evidence which has been adduced before the Court. As has already been mentioned above, the first information report gives a very brief description of the events. All details are missing and naturally the details have come in the evidence which has been adduced before the Court. Again if the first information report had been written after due deliberations and consultation and false case was being concocted, as is suggested by the defence, the nature of the first information report would have been different and must have contained details and descriptions of the occurrence in conformity with the evidence that was to be adduced in Court. From the testimony of the: Investigating Officer (Patwari) it appears that he found the dead body lying three feet inside the plot. It was not lying either on the slope or in the depression. Thus the place of occurrence is established beyond doubt. 13. Dr. Anthwal was given a suggestion that the injuries of the deceased could have been received by him by fall from the ride. He was of the opinion that multiple contusions could net have been received in that way and that it would be the remotest possibility to receive multiple contusions in the manner suggested by the defence. The medical evidence supports the prosecution version of the case. 14. As regards the eye witnesses testimony, the two witnesses namely Sagat Ram son of the deceased PW 2 and Smt. Jhupuli Devi PW 3 wife of the deceased both clearly say that the occurrence took place near about 8.00 A.M. In the month of May that would be broad day light. The accused persons are all residents of the same village. It is undisputed that Moti Ram had gone to the plot in question with bullocks to plough it. Even the suggestion given by the defence to the witnesses admits the presence of bullocks and plough. The plough was found lying in the depression. It is not disputed that Moti Ram did receive a large number of injuries, as he has been mentioned in the post mortem examination report and as a result thereof he died. The suggestion given by the defence that Moti Ram fell into the depression when the bullocks suddenly got startled, remains a mere suggestion of the counsel which has been denied by the witnesses and in support of which no evidence has been adduced. The suggestion given by the defence that Moti Ram fell into the depression when the bullocks suddenly got startled, remains a mere suggestion of the counsel which has been denied by the witnesses and in support of which no evidence has been adduced. Even the appellants have not said so any where in their statements recorded in Court. Our attention was drawn to the cross examination made with Bhur Ram PW 7 wherein he has said that there was Bhyol and plough was lying there. Bhyol in the language of the hill people means a sudden slope ending in depression. It is just possible that there was some depression near the plot in question and during the course of this marpit, the plough might have fallen therein. But that does not mean that the deceased fell into the Bhyol and was killed there on account of the falling of stones. His dead body was not recovered from the Bhyol. Even according to the statement of PW 7 Bhur Ram, he saw the plough lying in the Bhyol on 19-5-1972 after the dead body had already been taken away. Hence even his statement will not help the defence. It is true that both Sagat Ram and Smt. Jhupuli Devi are interested witnesses, being closely related to the deceased and since the deceased had enmity with the appellants, hence, these witnesses apparently partisan. The only effect of all this will be that their testimony will have to be carefully scrutinised. Even where the witnesses are found to have said something, which was not reliable, their whole testimony can not be rejected. The law is that it is the duty of the Court to disengage the truth from falsehood, and accept that part of the statement of the witnesses which finds corroboration from other evidence and has a ring of truth. The principle of "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" does not apply to criminal trials. 15. It appears that during the course of the statement recorded by the Committing Magistrate, PW 2 Sagat Ram had said that when the last batch of sixteen accused came, his father had already died. This contradiction has been brought on the record. It is true that now both the eye witnesses insist that even these sixteen persons who came in the last batch, did commit assault on Moti Ram who was still alive. This contradiction has been brought on the record. It is true that now both the eye witnesses insist that even these sixteen persons who came in the last batch, did commit assault on Moti Ram who was still alive. But the learned Sessions Judge has given benefit of this statement recorded by the Committing Court to those sixteen persons. IT does not mean that the case put up by the witnesses now is necessarily false. IT only means that there has been some sort of contradiction and the benefit must go to the accused. The second contradiction in the testimony of Sagat Ram is that in his statement made in the Committing Court, he said that Sher Ram was amongst the accused, and in Sessions Court said that Sher Ram had died much before this occurrence. In Sessions Court he, however, said that he never made such statement in the Committing Court. His stand now appears to be correct. If it was in his knowledge that Sher Ram was already dead on the date of the occurrence, he would not have made the statement of even his presence amongst the culprits in the Committing Court. There appears to be some sort of confusion, as a result of which the name of Sher Ram has been mentioned in the Committing Court's statement. Even in the first information report Sher Ram is not mentioned against the culprits. No body speaks about the presence of Sher Ram. It is within the knowledge of the first informant that Sher Ram was already dead and naturally he would never mention his presence amongst the culprits. Beyond these two contradictions for one of which benefit has already been given to the sixteen culprits who came in the third batch, there is no other contradiction in the testimony of these two eye-witnesses. Relationship can not be a reason for disbelieving the eye-witnesses. Specially when it is now well settled that close relatives of the victim will be the most reluctant persons to spare the real assailants. They would never falsely involve only innocent persons merely because of enmity. Both Sagat Ram and Smt. Jhupli Devi are eye-witnesses of the murder and being so closely related to the victim, their testimony has to be accepted, They have given consistent ocular account of the incident. Their presence on the spot at the time of the occurrence is established completely. Both Sagat Ram and Smt. Jhupli Devi are eye-witnesses of the murder and being so closely related to the victim, their testimony has to be accepted, They have given consistent ocular account of the incident. Their presence on the spot at the time of the occurrence is established completely. It is also extremely natural that when Moti Ram had gone to plough the field, his son and wife accompanied him as persons interested in the field itself and they started helping him by picking up the stones inside the field. The presence of these two witnesses on the scene of occurrence having been undoubted and their evidence being consistent, read in the light of the assurance which is available from the medical evidence in support of their version, these two witnesses have to be accepted as reliable. There is nothing on the record to show that all through this occurrence any other people came on the spot. On the contrary it has been elicited that these two witnesses did not think it worthwhile even to cry out for help because all other Harijans in the village belonged to the sub-caste of the accused-appellants. 16. The evidence shows that the actual marpit did not start before the arrival of the 2nd batch of the culprits. The first batch consisting of eight persons only entered into an argument with Moti Ram with a view to stop him from ploughing the land. Only when the: 2nd batch consisting of seven other persons arrived on the spot and Moti Ram did not agree to abandon the plot, the marpit started, and the first blow was given by Kashi Ram with his lathi on the back of Moti Ram and then Jai Kishan Ram gave him a 2nd blow of the lathi on his head. When Moti Ram fell down, all the male accused, twelve in number, started giving him blow after blow with lathis. The ladies however were standing. It is contended that they were constantly exhorting the male members of the unlawful assembly to finish Moti Ram on the spot. In view of the statement of Sagat Ram PW 2 made in the Committing Court of which I have made a mention earlier, the role assigned to sixteen persons who came in the 3rd batch becomes a little doubtful. In view of the statement of Sagat Ram PW 2 made in the Committing Court of which I have made a mention earlier, the role assigned to sixteen persons who came in the 3rd batch becomes a little doubtful. It may be that although they came on the spot, they perhaps did not take any part in the occurrence as they were late in coming and Moti Ram had already died by tflien. They were, therefore, given the benefit of doubt and rightly too. We may now consider about the role of the ladies namely Smt. Jaintuli Devi, Smt. Kanti Devi and Smt. Devki Devi. Smt. Jaintuli Devi is the wife of accused-appellant Soban Ram. Smt. Devki Devi is the wife of Sher Ram and Smt. Kanti Devi is the wife of accused-appellant Ghur Ram. Ghur Ram is the person with whom there was litigation in respect of the plot in question. In villages ladies go out to agricultural pilots to collect fodder etc. Therefore, the fact that these three ladies were possessed of Daratis (Sickles) will be nothing unnatural. It may be that they were also present on the spot and had come with the 2nd batch of the appellants, but it is highly improbable that they had taken any part in this occurrence and their implication merely on the ground that they were exhorting men-folk is highly unbelievable. There was hardly any reason for them to exhort the male-accused because they were already busy in inflicting injuries to Moti Ram who was in a lying down condition. If these ladies were also actually taking part in the occurrence, there is no reason why they would not have used their Darati's to cause injuries to the deceased specially when allegedly they were exhorting tine male culprits to finish him. There was hardly any need to exhort. It may also be possible that they might have seen their men-folk running to the scene of occurrence with lathis and they themselves might have been present collecting fodder in some nereby field and then came on the spot and watched the occurrence as mere spectators. In any view of the matter, the prosecution evidence about their participation in the crime is not satisfactory. 17. In any view of the matter, the prosecution evidence about their participation in the crime is not satisfactory. 17. But so far as the male appellants are concerned, the evidence is absolutely cogent and convincing to show that they arrived on the spot with the intention to kill Moti Ram. They started arguing with him and then gave persistent lathi blows causing his death. lit is true that they came in two batches and it might be that their intention was first to pursuade Moti Ram to leave the plot and to go out, but when they failed in their mission, they started the marpit. But the very fact that they came armed and joined in the marpit, shows that they all had the common object of committing the murder of Moti Ram and in prosecution of the same they used force and actually committed the murder. They were armed with lathis and therefore they will be guilty of the offence punishable under section 147 of the IPC and not under section 148 IPC. They will also be guilty of the offence punishable under section 302 read with 149 IPC. 18. In our opinion, Smt Jaintuli Devi, Smt. Kanti Devi and Smt. Devki Devi are to be given the benefit of doubt and hence to be acquitted of all the charges levelled against them. The conviction of the remaining appellants namely (1) Mathura Ram (2) Kashi Ram (3) Sad Ram (4) Gosain Ram (5) Durga Ram (6) Cnandan Ram (7) Sheesh Ram (8) Jai Kishan Ram (9) Soban Ram (10) Gaur Ram (11) Bhim Ram and (12) Govind Ram alias Govinda under section 302 read with 149 IPC and the sentence of imprisonment for life awarded by the learned Sessions Judge under section 302/149 IPC to each has got to be upheld and confirmed. 19. Instead of being convicted and awarded sentences under section 148 of the IPC, each one of them is found guilty and convicted under section 147 IPC and sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment. It is further directed that the sentences shall be concurrent., 20. These twelve appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are hereby discharged. They will surrender and be taken into custody forthwith to serve out their sentences as mentioned above. It is further directed that the sentences shall be concurrent., 20. These twelve appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are hereby discharged. They will surrender and be taken into custody forthwith to serve out their sentences as mentioned above. Smt. Jaintuli Devi, Smt. Kanti Devi and Smt. Devki Devi are given the benefit of doubt and acquitted of all the charges levelled against them. They are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties shall stand discharged.