V. P. MATHUR, J. Seven persons including the six appellants named above and one Ghasita faced their trial (S. T. No. 11 of 1977) in the Court of Mr. R,c. Gupta, the then Additional Sessions Judge, Hamirpur. Bhawani Din son of Kamla, Ram Swaroop, Paras Ram and Kunwarpal alias Kunwar Lal were found guilty of offences punishable under Sections 148 and 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code. On the first count each one was awarded rigorous imprisonment for three years and on the second count, each one was sentenced to imprisonment for life. Appellant Shanker and Bhawani Din son of Paras Ram were found guilty of offences under Section 147 and under Sections 302/149, I. P. C. and on the first count, each one was sentenced to two years R. I. and on the second count to imprisonment for life. Ghasita died during the course of the trial. After the filing of this appeal, during the pendency of the appeal Bhawani Din son of Kamla has also died and his appeal has also thus abated. We are now to consi der the case of the remaining five appellants. 2. The occurrence took place in village-Badanpura, Police Station, Rath, district Hamirpur on 24-10-1976 at about 8 in the morning. The First Information Report was lodged by Rameshwar Dayal on 24-10-1976 at 11. 15 a. m. at Police Station Rath. It was scribed by Shyam Sunder. The distance of the thana from the scene of occurrence is of nine miles or 13 kms Two persons suffered death. They are Uma Shanker (brother of Rameshwar Dayal-first informant) and Bansidhar Lodhi-a fast friend of Uma Shanker. All the accused appellants are residents of village Badanpura. Ghasita who died during the pendency of the trial, was however originally resident of village-Masgaon, but prior, to this occurrence, he was also residing in village-Badanpura. Deceased Uma Shanker and complainant Rameshwar Dayal are real brothers and were both residents of village Badanpura. Bansidhar Lodhi also resided in the same village. The evidence further shows that prior to this occurrence. Urn) Shanker had left Badanpura and started residing with his family in the town of Charkhari and from there occasionally was visiting Badanpura, where he used to stay with his brother Rameshwar Dayal. Bansidhar was unmarried. Bansidhar Lodhi also resided in the same village. The evidence further shows that prior to this occurrence. Urn) Shanker had left Badanpura and started residing with his family in the town of Charkhari and from there occasionally was visiting Badanpura, where he used to stay with his brother Rameshwar Dayal. Bansidhar was unmarried. On account of very fast friendship between these two deceased persons, whenever Uma Shanker came to Badanpura and stayed with his brother Rameshwar Dayal, Bansidhar also used to remain in his company all along and was even sleeping in the night at the house of Rameshwar Dayal with Uma Shanker. It is said that the relations between the accused appellants and the family members of the deceased Uma Shanker and Bansidhar, prior to this occurrence were strained. About two years be fore 24-10-197t consolidation operation on had taken place in village Badanpura and some good fields of the appellants were allotted to the chak of the deceased Uma Shanker and Rameshwar Dayal-first informant. This had caused ill-will against the deceased in the hearts of the appellants. A theft had taken place in the house of one Gaya Prasad Lodhi prior to this occurrence. Gaya Prasad was of the opinion that this theft had been committed by Bansidhar and Sukhlai (P. W. 2) at the instance of Uma Shanker. A Panchayat regarding this occurrence had taken place in the village and the Panchas directed Uma Shanker and Bansidhar to compensate Gaya Prasad by paying him a sura of Rs. 1600/ -. Uma Shanker and Bansidhar however did not accept this decision and on the contrary they harled abuses at the appellants and Gaya Prasad, who belonged to the party of the appellants This incident was an additional reason for the appellants to have become inimically disposed against Uma Shanker and Bansidhar. Due to these motives, the occurrence dated 24-10-1976 did take place. 3. It is contended that prior to 24-10-1976, Uma Shanker had come from village-Charkhari to Badanpura and was staying as usual with Rameshwar Dayal (P. W. 1 ). Bansidhar was also in his company all along in the house of Rameshwar Dayal. The programme was that Uma Shanker had to leave for Charkhari in the morning of 24-10-1976. 3. It is contended that prior to 24-10-1976, Uma Shanker had come from village-Charkhari to Badanpura and was staying as usual with Rameshwar Dayal (P. W. 1 ). Bansidhar was also in his company all along in the house of Rameshwar Dayal. The programme was that Uma Shanker had to leave for Charkhari in the morning of 24-10-1976. Therefore, in the very early morning hours, the two deceased Uma Shanker and Bansidhar went together to answer the call of nature towards the grove belonging to Uma Shankar and Rameshwar Dayal. They were followed by Sukhlal (P. W. 2 ). Sukhlal took some more time in evacuating, but Bansidhar and Uma Shanker finished earlier and then went to the well where they took bath. This well is also owned by Uma Shanker and Rameshwar Dayal. Then they proceeded back towards the house of Rameshwar Dayal. It was at about 8. 00 a. m. Meanwhile Sukhlal had also finished answering the call of nature and was following them at some distance. As soon as they came in front of the west faced house of Balli Gadaria, the appellants who had all concealed themselves in side a cattle house of Har Govind Lodhi, suddenly emerged. They encircled Uma Shanker and Bansidhar. Bhawani Dm son of Kamla and Ghasita were armed with ballams (both persons are now dead), Ram Swarup had a country made pistol, Kunwar Pal (Kunwar Lal was armed with an axe, Parasram had a Pharsa and Shanker and Bhawani Din son of Parasram were armed with Lathis. Bhawani Din s/o Kamla Deceased exhorted the others to kill Uma Shanker and Bansidhar, and then all the accused including the present appellants mourned the assault upon them with their weapons. The scene of occurrence was an open land lying towards the south of the cattle house of Har Govind Lodhi and in front of the west faced house of Balli Gadaria. The cries of the victims as well as the loud exhortation by Bhawani Din son of Kamla attracted on the scene of occurrence, Rameshwar Dayal (P. VV. 1), who was inside his house busy with his break fast. They also attracted his wife Shyam Bai (P. W. 4), who was helping her child to case out-side the house. The two other persons Ram Devi and Prikshit also came near the scene of occurrence. 1), who was inside his house busy with his break fast. They also attracted his wife Shyam Bai (P. W. 4), who was helping her child to case out-side the house. The two other persons Ram Devi and Prikshit also came near the scene of occurrence. All of them saw the assault from a distance of 25 to 30 paces. They could not render any help, as the culprits were all fully armed. Sukhlal saw the occurrence from a distance of 10 to 15 paces from the east of the well situate in front of the cattle house of Har Govind Lodhi. They all raised an alarm, but it was of no help. Uma Shankar and Bansidhar were bodly belaboured with the various weapons mentioned above. Uma Shanker was the first to fall down on the ground and die. It appears that perhaps Bansidhar was still resisting the attack and had not yet fallen, because it is said that Ram Swarup fired with his country made pistol at him and then he fell down. Then the two deadbodies were partly dragged and partly lifted and taken towards the east of the village up to BERI GROVE of Uma Shanker and Rameshwar Dayal. Meanwhile the uproar created by the assault and cries of the witnesses, brought Bhan Dass (P. W. 6), his brother Nirpat Singh, Ram Swarup, Ram Adhar and Har Prasad all from village Kaithi which is at a distance of only one furlong towards the south of Badanpura, who came running on the spot. By that time the two bodies had already been taken to the BERI GROVE and when the wit nesses raised an uproar, the accused persons are said to have left them at two different places before running away. They were found lying at points b and d of the site plan Ext. Ka-20 prepared by the Investigating Officer. After the running away of the culprits, the witnesses Rameshwar Dayal (P. W. 1), Shyam Bai (P. W. 4), Sukhlal (P. W. 2) and others went to the spot and found both Uma shanker and Bansidhar dead. Then Rameshwar Dayal came to his house where Shyam Sunder of Badanpura was present. Ka-20 prepared by the Investigating Officer. After the running away of the culprits, the witnesses Rameshwar Dayal (P. W. 1), Shyam Bai (P. W. 4), Sukhlal (P. W. 2) and others went to the spot and found both Uma shanker and Bansidhar dead. Then Rameshwar Dayal came to his house where Shyam Sunder of Badanpura was present. The First information Report was dictated by Rameshwar Dayal and scribed by Shyam Sunder and with it Rameshwar Dayal went to police station, Rath and handed it over to Munnu Singh, Head Constable clerk, who took it down and registered the case. 4. Sub-Inspector Yagya Dutt Rai (P. W. 7) investigated the case. He was present at the Police Station. He interrogated Rameshwar Dayal and came to the scene of occurrence at about 2 p. m. He took charge of the deadbodies and conducted the inquest on the same. Blood was found at both the places where the occurrence had originally taken place and also at the two places where the deadbodies were found lying, and samples were taken. 5. Deadbodies reached the mortuary at Rath on 25-10-76 in the morning and Dr. S. D. Tripathi, Surgeon, Government Male Hospital, Rath performed the autopsies on the deadbodies at 11. 30a. m. and 1. 30 p. m. vide, Exts. Ka-2 and Ka-3. Bansidhar was a young man with average built body and had died about 18 to 36 hours before the time of autopsy. The following ante-mortem injuries were found on his deadbody 1. Gunshot wound of entrance of the size of 2 cm x 2cm. x bone deep on left side of face 1 cm. below ear. There was blackening in an area of 13 cms X 10 cms all around the wound. 2. Two abrasions one of the size 2. 5 cm X 1. 5 cm on outer aspect of left ankle joint and other of the size of 2 cm x 1. 5 cm on outer aspect of k ft heel. 3. Two incised wounds - one of the size 7 cm X 1. 5 cm. x verbetral column deep on the back part of the left side of neck at its root and the other of the size of 7 cm X 1. 5 cm x verbetral column deep on the left side of neck above the previous wound and separated only by flap of skin 2 cm broad. 4. 5 cm. x verbetral column deep on the back part of the left side of neck at its root and the other of the size of 7 cm X 1. 5 cm x verbetral column deep on the left side of neck above the previous wound and separated only by flap of skin 2 cm broad. 4. Incised wound 4 cm x 1 cm X bone deep on occipital region of head in mid line. 5. Incised wound 5 cm x 2 cm x muscle deep on left side of head 12 cm from left ear. 6. Incised wound 5 cm x 1 cm muscle deep on right side of head 7 pm above right ear. 7. Incised wound 9 cms x 2 cm x bone deep on right side of head 5 cms from right eye cutting pinna of right ear. 8. Multiple abrasions in an area of 6 cms X 5 cms on left side of fore head just above eye browl. 9. Multiple linear bruises 2 cm broad in an area of 18 cm x 7 cm of mid line back 25 cm below neck, one bruise 7 cm x 2 cm over left scapula bone. There was a post-mortem injury also, which consisted of multiple abrasions in an area of 16 cm X 4 cm on back of left hand and wrist. 6. The internal examination revealed brain haemorrhage on both sides, and comminuted fracture of the bones at the base of the skull and of both the middle and both anterior cranial fossae. Sixty-two gun shot and four wad pieces were recovered. Both the maxilla and mandible bones were fractured. Pharynx was lacerated. Neck vessles on the left side were also a lacerated. The heart was empty. Small and large intestines contained facial matter. Bladder was empty. Dr. Tripathi was of the view that the death was due to shock and haemorrhage on account of these injuries. 7. Uma Shankar also found to have died 18 to 26 hours before the autopsy. Dr. S. Tripathi performed the autopsy on the deadbody and found the following ante-mortem injuries on his person : Ante mortem injuries : 1. Eight punctured wounds of the size varying from 1 cm x 1 cm to 0. 5 cm depty 0. 5 cm to 1. Dr. S. Tripathi performed the autopsy on the deadbody and found the following ante-mortem injuries on his person : Ante mortem injuries : 1. Eight punctured wounds of the size varying from 1 cm x 1 cm to 0. 5 cm depty 0. 5 cm to 1. 5 cm in an area of 29 cm X 10 cm of mid line of back 16 cm below neck. 2. Four bruises above the area of punctured wounds of the size of 8 cm X 2 cm and 11 cm x 2 cms on left side of back and 8 cm x 2 cm and 7 cm X 2 cm on right side of back. 3 One punctured wound. 5 cm x. 5 cm on right hip and other punctured wound. 6 cm x. 5 cm x. 5 cm on left hip. 4. One punctured wound of the size of. 5 cm X. 5cm X. 5cm on middle of back of left thigh. 5. Abrasion of the size of 4 cm X 1. 5 cm on left anterior superior iliac spine and iliac crest. 6. Two abrasions-one of the size of 3 cm x 2 cm on front of left knee and other of the size of 2 cm x 2 cm on front of right knee. 7. Multiple small abrasions on whole of right side of face. 8. Five incised wounds of the size varying from 6 cm X 2 cm to 5 cm x 2 cm each being bone deep on back of head in an area of 15 cm X 4 cm. 9. Abrasion 2 cm X 1 cm on the top of left shoulder. 10. Multiple insised wounds in an area of 14 cm x 15 crn on left side of the head above and behind left ear culling pinna of left ear, brain deep of the size 7 cm x 2 cm to 5 cm X 1. 5 cm. 8. The internal examination showed fracture of left temporal, parietal and occipital bones and laceration of the membranes of the brain. There was fracture in the left middle and posterior cranial fossa. Small and large intestines were empty. Bladder was also due to shock and haerinorrhage on account of the injuries. 9. Out of the culprits, Ghasita surrendered in Court on 20-10-1976. All others surrendered on two dates namely 1-11-76 and 4-11-76. There was fracture in the left middle and posterior cranial fossa. Small and large intestines were empty. Bladder was also due to shock and haerinorrhage on account of the injuries. 9. Out of the culprits, Ghasita surrendered in Court on 20-10-1976. All others surrendered on two dates namely 1-11-76 and 4-11-76. Blood stained articles recovered from the scene of occurrence including the earth samples were sent to the Chemical Examiner and the Serologist, whose reports have been placed on the record. 10. Prosecution examined in this case Rameshwar Dayal (P. W. 1) Sukhla (P. W. 2) and Shyam Bai (P. W. 4) as eye-witnesses of the occurrence. Bhan Das (P. W. 6) was examined to prove the fact of the dragging of the dead bodies and their being left in the grove. In all seven witnesses were examined, including Head constable clerk Mannu Singh (P. W. 5), Dr. S. D. Tripathi (P. W. 3) and Mr. Yagya Dutt Rai (P. W. 7 ). 11. The defence was a complete denial of the prosecution version. It was contended that the prosecution story regarding the motives is also base-less and unfounded. According to the defence suggestion, Uma Shanker and Banshidhar were assaulted and done to death after they had eased themselves at two different places in the grove of the complainant in the early morning hours, when it was till dark and no one saw the assault. It was only after death that the dead-bodies had been recovered and then a false case on account of enmity was foisted upon the appellants. One document purporting to be a First Information Report dated 5-8-1965 lodged by Kamla father of Bhawani Din against Bhan Dass and his brother Nirpat for an offence under Section 323, I. P. C. was placed on the record. 12. So far as the motive alleged by the prosecution for the present crime is concerned, the Learned Sessions Judge lias dealt with that aspect of the matter in detail and we are in complete agreement with him that the evidence that was adduced to prove the motives, was inadequate and insufficient, it was con tended that during consolidation operation, some good fields of the appellants were allotted to the chak of Uma Shankar and Rameshwar Dayal. This fact could be very easily proved by documentary evidence, but it has not been done. The accused persons do not admit this fact. This fact could be very easily proved by documentary evidence, but it has not been done. The accused persons do not admit this fact. It has not even been established in oral evidence by Rameshwar Dayal or his nephew Sukhlal (P. Ws. 1 and 2) as to which good plots of the appellants were allotted to the chak of the deceased,, Uma Shanker and Rameshwar Dayal, On the contrary, there is some evidence to show that there was no dispute as regards the quality of the chaks, but the dispute between Uma Shankar and Basanta, if at all, was as regards the chak road. Therefore, there is nothing on the record to prove that any good plots of any of the accused were ever allotted to the chak of the deceased Uma Shanker and Rameshwar Dayal. 13. It is however not dispute that a theft had taken place at the house of Gaya Prasad and Gaya Prasad had named Uma Shanker and Bansidhar as responsible for it and had even implicated Sukhlal in the case. The story regar ding anyanchayat and regarding a fine of Rs. 1500/. On Uma Shanker and Bansidhar is however not established at all. No evidence has been adduced. Therefore, the only motive that could be there was that in connection with the theft at the house of Gaya Prasad, the two deceased Uma Shanker and Bansidhar and P. W. 2 Sukhlal were implicated in the case. This means that there was enmity between Uma Shanker, Bansidhar and Sukhlal on the one hand and Gaya Prasad on the other. It is contended that Gaya Prasad belongs to the party of the accused-appellants. There is no proof of that fact also and hence the prosecution has failed to prove the motives alleged. 14. But absence of a motive does not mean that the prosecution case has to be thrown out on that account. Motive exists unknown and mere absence of proof will not necessarily show that there can be no motive for the commis sion of the crime. Even the accused-appellants contend that they have been falsely implicated because of Ranjish. So there was some Ranjish between the parties. We do not know as to what it was that caused Ranjish and we also do not know if it was so potent and strong as to be the basis for the present double murder. Even the accused-appellants contend that they have been falsely implicated because of Ranjish. So there was some Ranjish between the parties. We do not know as to what it was that caused Ranjish and we also do not know if it was so potent and strong as to be the basis for the present double murder. In cases in which there is eye-witness testimony to be considered, motive loses much of its value and the absence of the same or the failure of the prosecution to prove the same will have little consequence. 15. It is undoubted that both Uma Shanker and Bansidhar died on 24-10-76 on account of the murderous attack on them with the use of various weapons like ballam, country made pistol, axe, pharsa and lathis. According to the prosecution story, this occurrence took place at in the morning. The defence suggestion is that it took place even earlier when it was dark. The occurrence took place in the month of October. The prosecution story is that the occurrence started in front of the house of Balli Gadaria on the rasta land towards the south of the cattle house of Har Govind. The Investigating Officer found blood lying in large area at that spot and sample was taken. There can be no dispute, therefore, as regards the fact that some occurrence did take place there in which the persons who were belaboured, must have suffered injuries and blood fell on the spot. The deadbodies were found lying in the BERI GROVE of the first informant at two different places. Naturally the occurrence proper did not take place in the BERI GROVE at all, there the two deedbodies were left. A connection between the rasta land in front of the house of Balli Gadaria and towards the south of the cattle house of Har Govind and the BERI GROVE is clearly established. There are three witnesses who came forward as eye-witnesses of the occurrence. They are Rameshwar (P. W. 1), Sukhlal (P. W. 2) and Smt. Shyam Bai wife of Rameshwar as P. W. 4. It has already come in evidence that Sukhlal (P. W. 2) is distantly connected with Rameshwar Dayal as his nephew. The witnesses are, therefore, partisan, but, it is now well settled that evidence of relation witnesses cannot out-right be rejected. It has already come in evidence that Sukhlal (P. W. 2) is distantly connected with Rameshwar Dayal as his nephew. The witnesses are, therefore, partisan, but, it is now well settled that evidence of relation witnesses cannot out-right be rejected. The only rule of prudence will be to consider the same with care and caution. Normally the relations will be the last persons to screen the real culprits and falsely implicate in their place known enemies. Of course this rule will not apply to cases in which witnesses have not seen anything and naturally will be very willing to implicate known enemies, when real culprits are not known. We have, therefore, to scrutinise carefully the testimonies of Rameshwar Dayal, Sukhlal and Shyam Bai. 16. Rameshwar Dayal has also lodged the First Information Report. His intention is that on hearing the exhortation given by Bhawani Din son of Kamla and the alarm raised by his brother Uma Shankar, he came out of his house where he was taking his break-fast. He rushed upto a distance of about 20 to 25 paces from the scene of occurrence and from there he saw what was happen ing. He says the same thing in the First Information Report also. It appears that the facts as to from where the culprits had emerged and how they had started the assault, was told to him by Sukhlal subsequently, when both of the met in the BERI GROVE. Rameshwar Dayal has stood the cross-examination extremely well and so also Sukhlal and Shyam Bai. On some points, however, the learned counsel for the appellants has tried to challenge their testimony and we shall refer to them one by one. 17. It is firstly contended that Rameshwar Dayal possessed a gun and even when his wife Shyam Bai asked him to go inside the house and bring his gun, while the occurrence was still going on, he avoided to do so. It is contended that it show that neither Shyam Bai was present nor Rameshwar Dayal was present, otherwise as a natural conduct Rameshwar Dayal would have been the first person to bring his gun and use it, when his brother was being fatally assaul ted. Rameshwar Dayal says that he came out of house suddenly on hearing cries and then saw the assault on his brother Uma Shanker and Bansidhar. Rameshwar Dayal says that he came out of house suddenly on hearing cries and then saw the assault on his brother Uma Shanker and Bansidhar. Even is Shyam Bais testimony that she asked her husband to go in and bring the gun, if accepted, the very fact that the accused-appellants were all possessed of various weapons and all were attacking Uma Shankar and Bansidhar, could have dis couraged Rameshwar Dayal from going in and bringing his gun. He could not resist so many persons variously armed when they had come prepared to commit the murders of two persons. There is his testimony further to show that Ram Swarup appellant also pointed his pistol towards him and threatened him if he tried to intervene. In our opinion the failure of Rameshwar Dayal ,to go inside the house during the course of the assault and to bring his gun and use it, is no circumstance to hold that he was not present. 18. Then it is said that in the First Information Report there is a mention of the fact that the occurrence was seen by a number of persons who gave a chase and now it is contended that the neighbours did not come out of their houses and did not give chase to the culprits when they were taking away the dead- bodies. In our opinion again, this is no circumstance to discard the testimony of Rameshwar Dayal. When such an occurrence in broad day light takes place, the neighbors do not want to come into the picture at all and even if some of them might have been present in their houses, their not coming out is a very natural thing. Then we have the evidence to show that a number of persons from village Kaitha which is only a furlong away from the scene of occurrence, heard the cries and rushed towards the village Badanpura. They could however reach only by the time when the deadbodies had already been taken to the grove and there the accused out of fear for them left the deadbodies and ran away. 19. It is contended that the prosecution story is that Bansidhar and Uma Shanker had cased themselves near the grove and then taken their bath and were returning to the house of Rameshwar Dayal when this occurrence took place. 19. It is contended that the prosecution story is that Bansidhar and Uma Shanker had cased themselves near the grove and then taken their bath and were returning to the house of Rameshwar Dayal when this occurrence took place. But in the post mortem examination report we find faecal matter in the intestines of Bansidhar. We may also note the fact that his stomach was empty and his bladder was also empty. The post mortem examination report only shows that he had not had complete evacuation. There may be many reasons for that and no attempt has been made by the defence to elicit the reason for that. The fact that the bladder was empty, shows that the deceased had orinated completely. Early morning hour is the easing time for the village people. Therefore incom plete evacuation of Bahhidhar does not show that the murder took place before he had gone to answer the call of nature. At least that is not the defence version even. 20. The greatest emphasis is placed in the arguments of the learned counsel for the defence upon the point of dragging and it is contended that there were no dragging marks on the entire 100 yards area between the place where the occurrence of murder took place and the spot where the deadbodies were found lying and there were no dragging marks on the deadbodies, hence the prosecution story regarding the dragging of deadbodies is baseless and false and it has to be held that the witnesses did not see anything. In his statement in chief P. W. . 1 Rameshwar says that after the two persons fell down as a result of assault, the deadbodies were lifted and were taken towards the East by the accused. During cross-examination lit however says that his brothers dead body was removed from the scene of assault to the place where it was thrown away in the grove by some of the accused persons, who had caught hold of his hand and taken him by partial dragging. In that process the deadbody used to turn on both the sides. Similarly Bansidhar deadbody was also lifted by some of the accused and partially dragged. Two of the culprits were holding his wrist and one was holding his one leg. It was only the other leg which was dragging on the ground. In that process the deadbody used to turn on both the sides. Similarly Bansidhar deadbody was also lifted by some of the accused and partially dragged. Two of the culprits were holding his wrist and one was holding his one leg. It was only the other leg which was dragging on the ground. In the First Information Report the story is of constant dragging. When we peruse the statement of Shyam Bai (P. W. 4) we find that according to her the deadbodies were not dragged but were lifted and taken away. The post mortem examination of Bansidhar will show that there were marks of dragging on his, deadbody that they were in the nature of post mortem injuries and were abrasions in a large area measuring 16 cms x 4 cms on the back of the left hand and the wrist. His ante-mortem injury No. 2 also consists of abrasions on the outer aspect of left ankle joint and the left thigh. Similarly multiple abrasions were also found on the left side of his forehead above his eye brow. It appears that his body was dragged both before he died and also afterwards. The evidence shows that Bhawani Din and Parasram had caught hold of his one hand and wrist and one leg and in that manner had taken away the body from the scene of occurrence. Under these circum stances what actually appears to have happened was not a constant dragging throughout alter the assault but was partial lifting and partial dragging and the eye-witness testimony finds corroboration from the medical examination report so far as Banshidhar is concerned. 21. As regards Uma Shanker, the post mortem examination report shows that injuries noted at serial Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 9 on his body were all abrasions. They exist on the left side of the anterior and superior iliac spine left knee and front of the left and the right knee, the whole of the right side of face and the top of the left shoulder, it may also not be forgotten that the Investigating Officer found a pair of shoes belonging to Uma Shanker lying near his deadbody. This means that all through he was also putting on shoes. This means that all through he was also putting on shoes. He w.-s also, accord ing to the witnesses, taken from the scene of murder to the scene where the deadbodies were left by the accused persons who had caught both of his hands. It appears that whatever dragging marks could be there, were absent because he was putting on shoes and also because he was partially lifted and partially dragged. We are in agreement with the learned Sessions Judge that the injuries which these persons sustained as well as the evidence on the record conclusively goes to prove the fact of partial dragging of the deadbodies. Absence of dragging marks from the rasta also can be explained because it was not a continuous dragging all through and by the time that the Investigating Officer reached, the spot, people must have passed through that area and oblite rated whatever marks were available. It is thus clear that the criticism legelled against the testimony of Rameshwar Dayal, Sukhlal and Shyam Bai is of no consequence and there is no reason why these witnesses should be disbelieved. 22. The learned Sessions Judge has already discarded the testimony of Bhan Das (P. W. 6) and we agree with his analysis. 23. A very careful and cautious consideration of the evidence of Ramesh-war Dayal, his wife Shyam Bai and his nephew Sukhlal would, therefore, clearly prove the prosecution version of the matter, ft has been elicited during cross examination with Sukhlal that in the matter of theft of Gaya Prasad, he was arrested at the instance of the appellants. If that is to be accepted as true, then the appellants were inimically dispased against this man from before and had falsely implicated him in this case and Sukhlal is obviously an inimical witness-also, but he finds complete corroboration from the testimony of Rameshwar and Smt. Shyam Bai. There is no reason to falsely implicate these appellants with reference to an occurrence which took place in broad day light. If there is no apparent motive for the accused persons (as they contend) to have committed this occurrence, there is no apparent motive for the prosecution to falsely implicate them either. 24. There is no reason to falsely implicate these appellants with reference to an occurrence which took place in broad day light. If there is no apparent motive for the accused persons (as they contend) to have committed this occurrence, there is no apparent motive for the prosecution to falsely implicate them either. 24. In our opinion the prosecution evidence, the circumstances and the probabilities of the case clearly make out that the appellants variously armed with weapons mentioned above formed and unlawful assembly, along with Bhawani Din son of Karala and Ghasita to commit the murder of Uma Shanker and Banshidhar and took shelter inside the cattle house of Har Govind, lay in wait for these two persons with full knowledge that they were likely to return after answering the call of nature from the grove. As soon as they came near the place of hiding, they encircled them and the assault started, it continued till they died. Then the bodies were taken towers the BERI Grove of Rameshwar Dayal where they were left at two different places, when perhaps witnesses from village Kaitha rushed and challenged them. The two deceased have received so many injuries from various weapons that it cannot be doubted that the participation in this occurrence was by so many persons. In our opinion, the prosecution case was satisfactorily made out and the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 24-1-78 is completely justified on the evidence on record. We, therefore, do not find any force in this appeal which stands dismissed accordingly. The order o conviction and sentence dated 24-1-78 is upheld and confirmed. Ram Swamp, Kunwar Lal (Kunwar Pal and Paras Ram will suffer three years rigorous imprisonment for the offence punish able under Section 148, I. P. C. . and imprisonment for life under Section 302 read with 149. I. P. C. and the two sentences will be concurrent. Appellants Shanker and Bhawanidin son of Paras Ram shall also undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 147, I. P. C. and imprisonment for life under Section 302 read with 149, I. P. C. . Their sentences shall also be concurrent. They are on bail. They shall surrender and will be taken into custody forthwith to serve out their sentences. Their sureties and bonds shall be cancelled. Appeal .