R.S. VERMA, J.—Appellants Swaran Singh, Baldeo Singh, Banta Singh, Ajmer Singh alias Jasmer Singh, Harnam Singh, and Mal Singh, were put up for trial before learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Hanumangarh,for committing riot and committing murder of Chhinda Singh in prosecution of the common object of an unlawful assembly of which they were said to be members and further for voluntarily causing simple hurt to Smt. Veero by a sharp edged weapon in prosecution of the common object of the said assembly. Baldeo Singh was individually prosecuted for causing the said injuries to Smt. Veero. it is alleged that Ajmer Singh was armed with a lathi while Swaran Singh and Mal Singh were armed with barchhis. Baldeo Singh, Banta Singh and Harnam Singh are said to have been armed with gandasas. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge by his judgment dated 29.1.82 found Ajmer Singh guilty of an offence u/s 147 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years on the said, charge; he found rest of the appellants guilty of an offence u/s 148 I.P.C. and sentenced each one of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years, on that score. Appellant Baldeo Singh was found guilty of an offence u/s 324 I.P.C. while rest of the appellants were found guilty of offence u/s 324 read with 149 I.P.C. and each one of them were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years on this count. All the appellants were found guilty of offence u/s 302 read with 149 I.P.C. and each one of them was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- each and in default to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment. Out of fine recovered, a sum of Rs. 1000/- was directed to be paid to Smt. Veero as compensation. Aggrieved, the appellants have come to this Court in appeal. 2. Briefly stated, the prosecution story is that on 5-5-81, Smt. Veero PW 4 along with her husband Chhinda Singh, since deceased and resident of 2 CGR, had gone to Talwada for making sundry purchases after borrowing a cycle from Aatma Singh, Sarpanch, Both of them returned from Talwada after making the purchases, which they carried in a gunny bag. They went to the house of Aatma Singh, and returned his bicycle. They went to the house of Aatma Singh, and returned his bicycle. Thereafter Smt. Veero along with her husband Chhinda Singh were proceeding from the dhani of Aatma Singh towards their own dhani. When they reached the field of Aatma Singh at about |8.30 p.m., all of a sudden, all the accused appellants came therefrom the direction of their houses. As already stated, Mal Singh and Swaran Singh are said to have been carrying barchhis, Ajmer Singh is said to have been carrying a lathi, Harnam Singh, Banta Singh and Baldeo Singh are said to have been carrying gandasas. It is alleged that first of all Swaran Singh opened assault upon Chhinda Singh with the barchhi and hit him on his forehead. On this, Chhinda Singh threw away the gunny bag and rushed for safety. Smt. Veero raised an alarm on which appellant Baldeo Singh started assaulting her with the gandasi while the other appellants chased Chhinda Singh for a short distance and belaboured him. It is alleged that Swaran Singh gave another blow on the head of Chhinda Singh with a barchhi. Mal Singh gave barchhi blow to Chhinda Singh on his right hand. Harnam Singh gave a gandasi blow on the left hand of Chhinda Singh Baldeo Singh gave another gandasi blow on the head of Chhinda Singh. Banta Singh gave a gandasi blow on the back of Chhinda Singh. Ajmer Singh gave a lathi blow on his left hand. In the mean while, Miss Bholi PW 5 and Miss Goli PW 6, both daughters of Smt. Veero and Chhindasingh came to the spot and they saw their mother and father being belaboured as stated above. It is alleged that Baldeosiogh after giving some beating to Smt. Veero, also joined the other appellants in assaulting Chhinda Singh. Chhinda Singh fell dead and all the appellants except Mal Singh carried him to his house while Mal Singh kept standing on the path way. Thereafter, the appellants fled away. It is alleged that Smt. Veero along with one Pritarn Singh and Darshan Singh went to police station, Tibi, the same night on a tractor and lodged the report Ex. P.10 with Shri Nahar Singh PW 7, who got the same recorded. Shri Nahar Singh, thereafter proceeded for the spot and carried out necessary investigation. He prepared a panchayatnama Ex. P5 and a fard surat hal Ex. P.10 with Shri Nahar Singh PW 7, who got the same recorded. Shri Nahar Singh, thereafter proceeded for the spot and carried out necessary investigation. He prepared a panchayatnama Ex. P5 and a fard surat hal Ex. P6 in respect of the dead body of Chhinda Singh. He also prepared a site plan Ex. P4 and its legand Ex. P.4 A. He made certain recoveries from the spot vide Ex. P.1 to Ex. P.3. 3. The post-mortem of deceased Chhinda Singh was carried out by Dr. Bhim Singh on the spot on 6-5-81 at 10 a.m. He found following injuries on the person of the deceased Chhinda Singh :- "(1) Incised wound 1-1/2" x 1/4" x brain deep on left parietal bony area. (2) Incised wound l-1/2" x 1/4" x brain deep on the frontal bony area. (3) Incised wound 1" x 1/4" x 1/4" on the forehead. (4) Incised wound 5-1/2" x 1/4" x 1/4" on left side-back. (5) Bruise 1"x 1/2" left side of back. (6) Bruise 3" x 1/2" left side of back. (7) Bruise 1" x \" left scapular region. (8) Incised wound 1/2" x 1/4" x.1/4" lateral side of left fore arm." On autopsy, he found that there was fracture of left parietal bone and frontal bone underneath injuries no. 1 and 2. He found that brain membrane was lacerated and brain was ruptured underneath injuries no. 1 and 2. According to Dr. Bhim Singh, the injuries on the deceased Chhinda Singh were ante-mortem in nature and the cause of death was haemorrhage and shock due to injuries to brain caused by sharp edged weapons. According to him, the death must have ensured instantaneously after receipt of infliction of injuries no. 1 and 2 noted above. In his opinion, injuries no. 1 and 2 found on the person of Chhinda Singh were individually as well as collectively sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. According to him, Chhinda Singh must have died within 24 hours of the post-mortem examination. Dr. Bhim Singh prepared in this regard postmortem report Ex. P7. 4. Dr. Bhim Singh examined Smt. Veero the same day and found the following injuries on her person :- "(1) Incised wound 3" x 1/4" x 1/2" lateral side of left fore arm. (2) Incised wound 1/2" x 1/4" dorsal aspect of left thumb. Dr. Bhim Singh prepared in this regard postmortem report Ex. P7. 4. Dr. Bhim Singh examined Smt. Veero the same day and found the following injuries on her person :- "(1) Incised wound 3" x 1/4" x 1/2" lateral side of left fore arm. (2) Incised wound 1/2" x 1/4" dorsal aspect of left thumb. (3) Incised wound 1" x 1/4" x 1/2" in between right index and middle finger. (4) Incised wound 1/2" x 1/4" x 1/4" on left scapular region." According to him, all the injuries on the person of Smt. Veero were simple and had been caused by sharp edged weapon within 12 to 24 hours of the examination. Dr. Bhim Singh prepared an injury report Ex. P8 in this regard. 5. After the postmortem examination was over, Shri-Nahar Singh recovered clothes of the deceased vide memo Ex. P11. Likewise, after the medical examination of Smt. Veero, he recovered her wearing apparel vide Ex. P12. During the course of investigation, he interrogated amongst others Miss Goli and Miss Bholi. 6. The prosecution story is that accused appellants Harnam Singh, Banta Singh, Ajmer Singh and Baldeo Singh were arrested on 12.5.81 and with regard to such arrests, Ex. P. 13, Ex. P. 16, Pl9 and Ex. P22 were respectively prepared by Nahar Singh. It is alleged that on the basis of the information Ex. P14 supplied by Harnam Singh a gandasi was recovered on 14.5.81 vide Ex. P15. Likewise, on the basis of the information Ex. P.17, supplied by Banta Singh, a gandasi was recovered on 14.5.81 vide Ex. P18. A lathi was similarly recovered at the instance of Ajmer Singh vide Ex. P21 on the basis of information memo Ex. P20. A gandasi was recovered from Baldeo Singh vide Ex. P24 and on the basis of information Ex. P23. It is alleged that Mal Singh was arrested on 15.5.81 and at the time of his arrest, he was carrying a barchhi, which was recovered vide Ex. P25. The prosecution story is that accused appellant Swaran Singh was arrested on 30.5.81 vide Ex. P26 and on the basis of the information memo Ex. P27, a saila was recovered from his possession vide Ex. P28. 7. P25. The prosecution story is that accused appellant Swaran Singh was arrested on 30.5.81 vide Ex. P26 and on the basis of the information memo Ex. P27, a saila was recovered from his possession vide Ex. P28. 7. It may here be stated that the weapons recovered from the accused persons were not sent to the Forensic State Laboratory although the wearing apparel of the deceased and those of Smt. Veero were, inter alia, sent to State Forensic Laboratory, from where a report Ex. P30 was received. On the basis of the aforesaid investigation, the accused persons were challaned before learned Judl. Magistrate No. 2, Hanumangarh, who eventually committed the accused appellants to stand trial for offence under sections 302, 324, 147, 148 and 149 I.P.C. 8. The learned Addl Sessions Judge framed due charges against all the appellants. The appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In support of its story, the prosecution examined seven witnesses, namely, PW 1 Aatma Singh, PW 2 Dr. Bhim Singh, PW 3 Saudagar Singh, PW 4 Smt. Veero, PW 5 Miss Bholi, PW 6 Miss Goli and PW 7 Nahar Singh. 9. In their statements recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. the appellants maintained their denial of the prosecution story and pleaded that they had been falsely-impli-cated. Mal Singh pleaded alibi and stated that on the date of the incident, he was away at Berwala where he used to reside. Swaran Singh also pleaded alibi and pleaded that on the date of the occurrence, he was at Ludhiana. Swaran Singh examined in his defence DW 1 Jotthedar Baba Balkar Singh to say that Swaran Singh had joined his Society known as Panth Akali Dashmash Tarun Dal and was with him at Ludhiana on the date of the incident. The diary Ex. D4 reciting attendance of Swaran Singh at Ludhiana for the period 21.4.81 to 7.5.81 was also produced. 10. After due trial, learned Addl. Sessions Judge arrived at the finding that all the accused appellants had formed an, unlawful assembly in the field of Aatma Singh, the common object of which was to commit murder of Chhinda Singh. He further found that the accused appellants in furtherance of the common object of the aforesaid assembly, committed riot and caused murder of Chhinda Singh and Baldeo Singh caused simple injuries to Smt. Veero by gandasi. He further found that the accused appellants in furtherance of the common object of the aforesaid assembly, committed riot and caused murder of Chhinda Singh and Baldeo Singh caused simple injuries to Smt. Veero by gandasi. The learned Addl, Sessions Judge was further of the view that the accused-appellants other than Ajmer Singh were armed with sharp objects. He found that Harnam Singh, Baldeo Singh and Banta Singh were carrying gandasis while Swaran Singh and Mal Singh were carrying barchhis. He found that the story of alibi set up by Swaran Singh and Mal Singh was not substantiated. Upon such findings, he convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants as stated above. 11. In the present appeal, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the F.I.R. recorded in this case is a document of doubtful or rigin. It is submitted that the F.I.R. is said to have been recorded the very night of the incident yet it reached the concerned Magistrate next day only at 5 p.m. It is urged that this delay in sending the FIR to the court of learned Magistrate has not been satisfactorily explained and, therefore, no reliance whatsoever should be placed upon this document 12. The next contention is that Smt. Veero admitted in her cross-examina-tion that on the next day, she had been taken to police station where she bad put thumb impression on a number of papers and this fact strengthens the suspicion that the F.I.R. was not recorded at the time, at which it is claimed to have been recorded. There is no explanation from the prosecution why Smt. Veero was made to go to police station next day and why she was made to put her thumb impression on a number of papers next day. 13. The next contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that Smt. Veero in her deposition before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge could not give the graphic description regarding the injuries, which finds an elaborate mention in the F.I.R. She was not in a position to state which t of the accused persons had caused which of the injuries on the person of the deceased. Sessions Judge could not give the graphic description regarding the injuries, which finds an elaborate mention in the F.I.R. She was not in a position to state which t of the accused persons had caused which of the injuries on the person of the deceased. It is urged that according to her, she herself was being belaboured by Baldeo Singh and, hence, it is unnatural that she could have specifically observed each and every injury inflicted by each and every accused on the person of the decassed. Hence, also a graphic account of infliction of injuries by various accused persons in the FIR renders its authenticity doubtful. It is submitted that statement of Smt. Veero does not inspire any confidence. Miss Goli and Miss Bholi have generally stated about the assault on their parents, and assault by Baldeo Singh on their mother and assault by the other appellants on deceased Chhinda Singh, who were later on joined by the appellant Baldeo Singh. It is submitted that they are near relations of the deceased and their evidence should not be accepted on its face value and should be discarded. 14. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contends that in this case, there is definitely an ever implication so far as accused-appellants Swaran Singh and Mal Singh are concerned. Both of them are said to have wielded barchhis but medical evidence shows that deceased Chhinda Singh did not received single injury by a barchhi. It is, therefore, submitted that Swaran Singh and Mal Singh, deserve to be acquitted altogether, their participation in the occurrence not having been established beyond reasonable doubt. 15. It is urged that if the participation of Swaran. Singh and Mal Singh in the occurrence is excluded, then we are left only with case of Baldeo Singh, Banta Singh, Ajmer Singh and Harnam Singh. It is contended that it has not been established that any one of them caused the fatal blow to the deceased Chhinda Singh. Moreover, Baldeo Singh is said to have been busy in causing injuries to Smt. Veero and hence, his participation in assault on Chhinda Singh has not been established beyond reasonable doubt. 16. It is urged that the accused persons did not have any previous enmity with Chhinda Singh or Smt. Veero. They were on very cordial relations with them. Moreover, Baldeo Singh is said to have been busy in causing injuries to Smt. Veero and hence, his participation in assault on Chhinda Singh has not been established beyond reasonable doubt. 16. It is urged that the accused persons did not have any previous enmity with Chhinda Singh or Smt. Veero. They were on very cordial relations with them. Two incidents, of course, are said to have taken place prior to the incident in question. One incident is said to have taken place 2-1/2 months prior to this occurrence. According to the prosecution, this incident pertained to tying of a stray calf by Smt. Veero and Chhinda Singh. It is alleged that Swaran Singh and Mal Singh took away the said calf and Swaran Singh abused Smt. Veero and Chhinda Singh. It is alleged that this incident, even if believed to be true, would not have given rise to any grouse in the mind of the accused persons against the appellants and, therefore, it could not have furnished a motive to commit murder of Chhinda Singh. 17. It is urged that the other incident,, which is said to have taken place a day prior to the alleged murder is that there was some heated exchange of words between Miss Bholi and Priyatam Kaur w/o Swaran Singh, upon which Baldeo Singh and Ajmer Singh had remonstrated Bholi. It is urged that even if this incident is believed, it would not have given any grouse to the appellants for committing the murder of the deceased. At best both these incidents were very trivial in nature. 18. It is urged that in the facts and circumstances of this case, it cannot be said that the accused appellants had formed an unlawful assembly with the common object of committing the murder of Chhinda Singh or they entertained any common intention of causing death of Chhinda Singh. It is urged that in the facts and circumstances of this case, at best it could be said that the accused appellants could have intended to chastise Chhinda Singh with sharp edged weapons and as such, they could not have been held guilty for offence u/s 302 read with 149 I PC. but could have been held guilty only for an offence u/s 326 read with 34 I.P.C. 19. but could have been held guilty only for an offence u/s 326 read with 34 I.P.C. 19. It was urged that Baldeo Singh and Ajmer Singh were child accused persons within the meaning of the Rajasthan Children Act and, therefore, they could not have been sentenced by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge and they ought to have been dealt with by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge in accordance with the provisions of s. 26 of the Rajasthan Children Act, 1970. 20. Learned P. P. has opposed the appeal strenuously and she submits that in the present case, the findings of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge are based on a proper appreciation of evidence and this Court should not take a differant view from the view taken by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge and the appeal of the appellants should be rejected in its entirety. 21. We have given our earnest consideration to the rival contentions and have perused the record carefully. 22. We may state that by our order dated 26.10.88, we directed constitution of a Medical Board for examination of Baldeo Singh and Ajmer Singh so as to enable us to ascertain their ages correctly. In pursuance of this order both these accused appellants were subjected to medical examination and we examined Dr. K.K. Saberwal on 13.9.89 in proof of the reports of the Medical Board. Dr. Saberwal has opined that the age of Baldeo Singh on 28.4.89 was about 21 years. Likewise, he opined that the age of Ajmer Singh on 28 4,89 was 21 years. No other evidence on the question of age of these two accused appellants has been adduced before us. The testimony of Dr. Saberwal is supported by radiological examination in support of which, the x-ray films have been filed before us It may be stated that accused Baldeo Singh was examined before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge on 4.1.82 and he had stated his age as 14 years though the learned Addl. Sessions Judge put his estimation as 16 or 17 years, Ajmer Singh was also examined the same day and he had stated his age as 15|years and the learned Addl. Sessions Judge estimated his age as 17-18 years. On the basis of the evidence adduced before us. Sessions Judge put his estimation as 16 or 17 years, Ajmer Singh was also examined the same day and he had stated his age as 15|years and the learned Addl. Sessions Judge estimated his age as 17-18 years. On the basis of the evidence adduced before us. we have no hesitation in arriving at the conclusion that both the accused appellants were below !6 years of age on the date the incident took place. Both of them fell within the definition of "child" as defined under the Rajasthan Children Act even on the date of judgment of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, which was pronounced on 29-1-82. It may be stated that the Rajasthan Children Act was applied to the district of Ganganagar on 14-11-81. The trial in this case had commenced on 17-1-80 when the charge was framed against the accused appellants by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge. Hence, provisions of s.26 of the Rajasthan Children Act came into play and the learned Addl. Sessions Judge was not competent to pass any sentence in respect of these two accused appellants, and was bound to forward the two accused appellants to the appropriate children court for passing necessary orders. Learned PP. has not been able to refute this position. 23. Now to the merits, the incident is said to have taken place at the late evening of 5.5.81 and the report is said to have been lodged the same night at police station Tibi, which was at a distance of four miles from Chok 2 CGR. The report was allegedly lodged at 1 am. on 6.5.81. Tibi is at a distance of 30 kms. from Hanumangarh Junction, the headquarters of the Magistrate. The F.I.R.. reached the Magistrate on 6 5 81 at 5 p.m. There is no explanation for this delay whatsoever. We would not have attached much importance to this delay by itself but we find that there are other circumstances appearing on the record which induce us to doubt the claim of the Investigating Officer that the F.I.R. had been recorded on 6 5.81 at 1 a.m. Smt. Veero has categorically admitted in her cross-examination that she was made of affix thumb impression on certain papers in the police station the next morning. She has stated that police bad taken her next morning to Tibi. She has stated that police bad taken her next morning to Tibi. The prosecution has not explained as to why she had been taken to police station, Tibi next morning and why she was required to affix her thumb impressions on the papers next day in the police station. This creates a good deal of suspicion regarding the claim of the Investigating Officer that the F.I R. had been recorded on 6.5.81 at 1 a.m. Then the F.I.R. gives a very graphic account of the assault on Chhinda Singh, which could not have been given by Smt. Veero, since she was being simultaneously assaulted by Baldeo Singh. Hence, the possibility that the F.I.R. Ex. P. 10 might have been recorded after post-mortem examination of the deceased and after medical examination of Smt. Veero, cannot be ruled out, in these circumstances. We, therefore, agree with the learned counsel for the appellants that the Investigating Officer has not acted with all fairness while investigating this case. It is regrettable that Investigating Officers do not act scrupulously even in murder cases. It is, however, for the senior police officers to see how such delinquent police officers should be dealt with. We may state that in this state of affairs, Ex. P. 10 loses its sanctity and we would be left with the testimony of eye witnesses supported by other material on record. 24. Here we may state that there is no doubt that deceased Chhinda Singh met a homicidal death and he had been belaboured in the field of Aatma Singh by a number of persons. There is also no doubt that Smt. Veero was assiuited at the same time with a sharp edged object and she received simple injuries in this assault. Smt. Veero is thus a stamped witness. Miss Goli and Bholi are, of course, daughters of the deceased and Smt.. Veero but their testimony cannot be discarded altogether on the ground of their being daughters of the deceased. Their presence is very much natural at the scene of occurrence because they were living with their parents in the vicinity of the field of Aatma Singh, where this incident took place. Veero but their testimony cannot be discarded altogether on the ground of their being daughters of the deceased. Their presence is very much natural at the scene of occurrence because they were living with their parents in the vicinity of the field of Aatma Singh, where this incident took place. This is true that Smt. Veero in her examination-in-chief only deposed to regarding specific assault on her own person by Baldeo Singh and generally stated that the other accused persons started belabouring Chhinda Singh and proceeded ahead and kept assaulting him. In the F.I.R , she had given the participation of assault made by each one of the accused appellants on her husband. This is to be remembered that her statement was recorded after about five months of the incident and, therefore, she might not have exactly recalled the specific injuries caused by the various assailants to her husbands person. We are not prepared to discard her test-mony only on the ground of this discrepancy. Miss Bholi and Miss Goli had been attracted to the scene of occurrence after their mother Smt, Veero had raised an alarm and according to Miss Bholi when she came to the scene of occurrence, she found that the accused appellants were assaulting her father and her mother had already fallen down at a distance of 5-6 steps from her father. She has also not given the details of specific injuries caused by various accused appellants and there appears to be anything unnatural about her statement. It is to be recollected that the incident took place at about 8.30 in the evening when the sun might have set or might be about to set. She has stated that she did not go very near the accused persons because they had threatened her and this also explains the fact that she could not give the details of the. injuries caused by various appellants to her father. 25. Miss Goli has substantially corroborated the testimony of the afore- said two witnesses and according to her when she reached the scene of occurrence, Baldeo Singh was assaulting his mother while the other accused persons were as a siting her father. injuries caused by various appellants to her father. 25. Miss Goli has substantially corroborated the testimony of the afore- said two witnesses and according to her when she reached the scene of occurrence, Baldeo Singh was assaulting his mother while the other accused persons were as a siting her father. She has also not given the specific details of the various injuries caused by the assailants to her father or to her mother and on this ground alone, it would not be proper to reject her testimony which otherwise inspires confidence. To our mind, when a number of persons, variously armed with dangerous weapons belabour a person simultaneously, it would be very difficult for witnesses to notice graphically which of the assailants had caused which injury. Hence, if these witnesses have given only a general account about the assault, their testimony could not be doubted on this account alone. They were, however, unanimous that Mal Singh and Swaran Singh were armed with barchhis; Ajmer Singh was armed with a lathi and Harnam Singh, Banta Singh and Baldeo Singh were armed with gandasis when the assault took place. 26. Now, learned counsel for the accused appellants urged that so far as the participation of accused Swaran Singh and Mal Singh was concerned, it was not established beyond reasonable doubt inasmuch as each one of them is said to have been armed with a barchhi but no injury was found on the person of Chhinda Singh, which might have been caused by barchhi. To us, learned counsel for the appellants stands on a surer footing so far as this contention is concerned. From the medical evidence, it transpires that no piercing wounds were caused to the deceased Chhinda Singh. Had these accused appellants been armed with barchhis, then it is natural to expect that they would have given at least some piercing blows to the deceased. The absence of any such wounds on the person of Chhinda Singh creates a doubt regarding the actual participation of these two accused appellants in the occurrence and it would not be safe to affirm the convictions of these two appellants on the basis of the material available to us. 27. However, so far as the participation of other accused persons is concerned, the testimony of these witnesses stands on a sounder footing. 27. However, so far as the participation of other accused persons is concerned, the testimony of these witnesses stands on a sounder footing. Smt. Veero received gandasi blows as is evident from her own testimony corroborated by medical testimony. Deceased Chhinda Singh received injuries from gand-asis as well as from a lathi, which fact gets corroborated by the testimony of Smt. Veero and Miss Goli and Miss Bholi as also by medical evidence. 28. It may be remembered that the principle of Falsus in uno, falsus, in omnibus does not apply to witnesses in India. Even though the testimony of Smt. Veero and Miss Goli and Miss Bholi is not very reliable so far as participation of Swaran Singh and Mal Singh is concerned, even then their testimony can be accepted so far as the other accused appellants are concerned and we are in entire agreement with the learned Addl. Sessions Judge so far as the finding regarding participation of these remaining accused appellants in the incident is concerned. 29. Learned counsel for the appellants urged that recovery of weapons made at the instance of the accused appellants is not of any consequence since the weapons were not sent to Forensic Laboratory for examination. We have no hesitation in accepting this contention and this is why we have not used the evidence regarding alleged recoveries of the weapons against the accused appellants. To sum up, we find that in this case, it has been established beyond reasonable doubt that accused appellants Harnam Singh, Baldeo Singh and Banta Singh were armed with gandasis; Ajmer Singh was armed with a lathi. All these accused persons way laid deceased Chhinda Singh and his wife while the latter were returning from the dhani of Aatma Singh after handing over his bicycle. In this assault, Baldeo Singh caused simple injuries to Smt. Veero by a gandasi while Harnam Singh, Banta Singh and Ajmer Singh fatally assaulted the deceased, Harnam Singh and Banta Singh having been armed with gandasis and Ajmer Singh armed with a lathi and it was as a consequence of this assault that Chhinda Singh died on the spot. 30. Now the question is as to what was the common intention of these accused appellants in assaulting Chhinda Singh and Smt. Veero. 30. Now the question is as to what was the common intention of these accused appellants in assaulting Chhinda Singh and Smt. Veero. In our opinion when three of the accused appellants were armed with gandasis and one was armed with lathi and two of them opened assault upon Chhinda Singh with gandasis, and one attacked him with a lathi, it can be predicated with certainty that all of them shared the common intention of doing Chhinda Singh to death and it was in furtherance of such common intention that these accused appellants assaulted the deceased. It can also be predicated with, certainty that all the accused appellants had the common intention of causing simple injuries to Smt. Veero by sharp edged weapons and in furtherance of the said common intention, Baldeo Singh caused simple injuries to Smt. Veero. Learned counsel for the appellants relied upon Gafoor Vs. The State of Rajasthan (1). In that case, there was a single blow on the heads of each one of the deceased persons. The other injuries mostly were on limbs and other on non-vital parts of the body. On the person of Hulla, there were two grievous injuries caused by blunt object resulting into fracture of tibis and fibula bones of the right leg and fracture of nasal bone. There was one lacerated wound on the left parietal occipital region. On the person of Atar Khan, there was a fatal blow on the head and there were two incised wounds one on the left forearm and the other on the left scapular region. The death of the two deceased was not instaneous. It was, in these circumstances, that it was held that the common intention of the unlawful assembly was to cause grievous injuries on the person of Atar Khan and Hulla and any two members of the unlawful assembly exceeded the common object and inflicted fatal blows on the heads of Atar Khan and Hulla, the others could not be held guilty for exceeding the common object. This ruling is very much distinguishable on the facts and does not assist the case of the appellants. 31. Learned counsel for the appellants urged that Baldeo Singh did not at all participate in the assault that was opened upon deceased Chhinda Singh and, therefore, he cannot be said to have shared the common intention of the other accused appellants. This ruling is very much distinguishable on the facts and does not assist the case of the appellants. 31. Learned counsel for the appellants urged that Baldeo Singh did not at all participate in the assault that was opened upon deceased Chhinda Singh and, therefore, he cannot be said to have shared the common intention of the other accused appellants. To our mind, this argument is fallacious. All the accused appellants had come together duly armed with deadly weapons. One of them, namely, Baldeo Singh engaged Smt. Veero while all others assaulted deceased Chhinda Singh. After the assault was over, ail of them ran away in a group From these circumstances, it can be very well said that Baldeo Singh had also shared the common intention entertained by the other accused persons of the group, namely, Banta Singh, Ajmer Singh and Harnam Singh. 32. The other contention of the learned counsel for the appellants was that it is not known as to which of the accused appellants had caused the fatal blows to the deceased and, therefore, it must be presumed that all of them did not share the common intention of doing Chhinda Singh to death but some one out of them might have exceeded the common intention. Since that some one cannot be identified, in this respect, the benefit of doubt should go to the appellants. We are afraid we cannot accept this contention for the reasons we have already spelled above. Learned counsel for the appellants relied upon certain rulings in support of his contention. He first of all took support from Kaloo Vs. State of Rajasthan (2), In that case, there were only two incised wounds on the head of the deceased while the appellants were five in number. The other injuries were lacerated wounds and abrasions. In the present case, there were as many as five incised wounds on the person of the deceased, out of which three were on the head, the rest of the injuries were bruises. Thus, on facts, Kaloos case is distinguishable and does not assist us in any manner. In that case, the charge was u/s 302 read with 149 I.P.C. In the present case, only four accused appellants have been held to have participated in the occurrence and out of them, actually only three assaulted the deceased causing him as many as eight injuries. In that case, the charge was u/s 302 read with 149 I.P.C. In the present case, only four accused appellants have been held to have participated in the occurrence and out of them, actually only three assaulted the deceased causing him as many as eight injuries. Thus on this score also, the aforesaid ruling is not applicable to the facts of this case. 33. Learned counsel for the appellants laid much stress on the fact that there was no previous enmity between the deceased and the appellants. He has submitted that on this ground also, it should be held that the accused-appellants could not have intended to commit the murder of Chhinda Singh. Reliance has been placed in this connection upon Shri Kishan v. State of Uttar Pradesh(3). This is true that in the present case, no previous anmity has been established between the accused-appellants and the deceased, the two previous incidents, which have been referred to in the prosecution evidence are of a minor character but we find that in Shri Kishans case, the appellants were armed with lathis only, no deadly weapon like gandasis was used. It was in these circumstances that the conviction of the appellants was changed to one u/s 325 read with 34 I.P.C. though the Sessions Court had convicted the accused-appellants for offence u/s 302 read with 34 I.P.C. and the same had been affirmed by the High Court of Allahabad. We find that this case is very much distinguishable on facts and does not assist the appellants in any way. 34. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, taking an over-all view of the circumstances on which the deceased and his wife Smt. Veero were assaulted and the deceased Chhinda Singh met death, we are of the firm opinion that Baldeo Singh, Banta Singh, Ajmer Singh and Harnam Singh shared the common intention of causing death of Chhinda Singh and the common intention of causing simple injuries by sharp weapons to Smt. Veero. We, therefore, find that appellants Baldeo Singh, Banta Singh, Ajmer Singh and Harnam Singh are each guilty of offence u/s 302 read with 34 I.P.C. Accused appellant Baldeo Singh is guilty of offence u/s 324 I.P.C. and accused-appellant Banta Singh, Ajmer Singh and Harnam Singh are guilty of offence u/s 324 read with 34 I.P.C. 35. We, therefore, find that appellants Baldeo Singh, Banta Singh, Ajmer Singh and Harnam Singh are each guilty of offence u/s 302 read with 34 I.P.C. Accused appellant Baldeo Singh is guilty of offence u/s 324 I.P.C. and accused-appellant Banta Singh, Ajmer Singh and Harnam Singh are guilty of offence u/s 324 read with 34 I.P.C. 35. In view of what we have stated above, we find that charge u/s 147 I.P.C against Ajmer Singh fails and likewise, charges u/s 148 I.P.C. fails against appellants Swaran Singh, Baldeo Singh, Banta Singh, Harnam Singh and Mal Singh and they are acquitted of these charges. Swaran Singh and Mal Singh cannot be held guilty for offences under sections 302 read with 149 or 324 read with 149 I.P.C. 36. Accordingly, Swaran Singh and Mal Singh are acquitted of charges under sections 148, 302 read with 149 and 324 read with 149 I.P.C. 37. Now the question of sentence. Baldeo Singh was a child when the trial against him was pending. Likewise, Ajmer Singh was also a child when the trial against him was pending. They could not have been sentenced to undergo punishment by virtue of provisions of s. 26 read with s. 21 of the Rajasthan Children Act. Both of them have already attained 21 years of age and no useful purpose would be served by sending the cases of these two appellants to the Children Court now. They are liable to be set at liberty. They are on bail and their bail bonds are cancelled and they need not surrender to the same. 38. The convictions of Banta Singh and Harnam Singh u/s 302 read with 149 I.P.C. is altered to one under s. 302 read with 34 I.P.C. Likewise, their con-viction is altered to one u/s 324 read with 34 I.P.C. Banta Singh and Harnam Singh shall undergo imprisonment for life u/s 302 read with 34 I P.C., they shall undergo rigorous imprisonment of three years for offence u/s 324 read with 34 I.P.C Swaran Singh is said to be in custody. He shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. Mal Singh is on bail and he need not surrender to his bail bonds.