Judgment DHARAMPAL SINHA, J. 1. All the eleven respondents had been charged of the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code for causing the death of one Khusro Dhobi and one Inder Dhobi in prosecution of the common object of an unlawful assembly which they had allegedly formed at 12 noon on 17-7-1981 in a field of village Barkatha, P.S. Giridih, Muffasil Respondent No. 3 and Respondent No. 1, had further been charged of the offence punishable under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code for voluntarily causing hurt to the informant, Panchu Dhobi (P.W. No. 1) by means of Gupti and Tangi respectively. Respondents 1 to 5 were further charged under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code for voluntarily causing hurt to one Kishun Dhobi and one Dahru Dhobi. Respondents 1 and 3 were also charged of the offence punishable under Section 326 of Indian Penal Code for voluntarily causing grievous hurt to one Karoo Dhobi by means of Tcmgi and Gupti All the respondents have been acquitted of the various charges by the learned Sessions Judge, Giridih by his judgment and order, dated 11-1-1984, against which this appeal has been preferred. 2. The case was instituted on the basis of a Fardbeyan recorded on the statement of P.W. 1 at 9 P.M. on 17-7-1981 at Giridih hospital by a police officer, P.W. 10, and the prosecution case as disclosed from the fardbeyan may briefly be stated as follows. At about 12 noon the informant, P.W. 1, heard an alarm of Khusroo Dhobi (one of the deceased) from a field situated in village Barkatha, P.S.Giridih Mufassil In that field Khusroo had been collecting from before uprooted seedlings of paddy, and the informant alongwith Karu Dhobi (P.W. 8), Kishun Dhobi (P.W. 2), Dahroo Dhobi (P.W. 9) and Inder Dhobi (the other deceased) went running to the field on the alarm. They saw there all the eleven respondents variously armed. Respondents No. 3 and 5 (Dhusa Rai and Badri Rai) were armed with gupti. Respondent No. 4 (Jahlu Rai) was armed with Gandasa, Respondent No. 2 Sarju Rai was armed with Bhala and the rest were armed with lathis or Dandas. Khusroo Dhobi was given blow with Gupti and lathi by Dhusa Rai and Puran Rai respectively. Karu Dhobi was assaulted with lathi by Puran Rai and with Tangi by Govind Rai. Respondent No. 4 (Jahlu Rai) was armed with Gandasa, Respondent No. 2 Sarju Rai was armed with Bhala and the rest were armed with lathis or Dandas. Khusroo Dhobi was given blow with Gupti and lathi by Dhusa Rai and Puran Rai respectively. Karu Dhobi was assaulted with lathi by Puran Rai and with Tangi by Govind Rai. Inder Dhobi was given a blow with Pharsa by Jahloo Rai and with Gupti by Badri Rai. Kishun and Dahroo were assaulted by all the respondents. When the informant tried to save the victims he too was given blows, with Gupti by Dhusa Rai and with axe by Govind Rai. All the Respondents ran away after the assault. Two of the injured, Khusroo and Inder had sustained severe injuries and when they were being carried to Giridih hospital on a bullock cart, they succumbed to their injuries before they reached the hospital. The other injured were being treated in the Giridih hospital where the police officer recorded the Fardbeyan at 9 P.M. on the very day of the occurrence, i.e. on 17-7-1981. At the time of the occurrence one Baikunth Rai, Jaggoo Rai and Teko Rai were also present according to the Fardbeyan. 3. It seems that on the basis of the Fardbeyan (Ext. 3) the case was instituted by drawing up a formal First information report (Ext. 4) and the investigation was done by the Police Sub-Inspector (P.W. 10) who eventually submitted charge-sheet against all the respondents. The respondents were then charged as already indicated above and tried by the learned Sessions Judge who has passed the impugned judgment of acquittal in Sessions Trial No. 130 of 1982. 4. The defence of the accused persons was that they did not participate in the occurrence as alleged by the prosecution and they had been falsely implicated in the case out of enemity and that the prosecution case had been devised as a counter blast to the case instituted by Jahloo Rai (Respondent No. 4) alleging assault at two placesfirstly at about 10 A.M. by Khusroo on his brother Puran Rai in a paddy field, and thereafter, when Puran was taken to his house, near the house, where some members of the prosecution party allegedly went variously armed and caused injuries on Gobind and Jahloo by means of arrow, lathi and Pharsa. A further plea of alibi was also taken by the defence relating to one accused, Badri Rai. 5. A perusal of the lower Courts record would show that during the trial the prosecution had produced before the trial Court in all twelve witnesses. Out of them, P.W. 4 Murli Dhobi was only tendered. P.Ws.1, 2, 8 and 9, who according to the prisecution case, had been injured during the course of the occurrence, have figured as eye-witnesses of the occurrence. Two ladies, namely, Aruni Devi (P.W. 3) and Gangia Devi (P.W.5) have also figured as eye-witnesses of the occurrence. Two other witnesses, namely, P.Ws. 11 and 12 are only formal witnesses who have proved some documents, namely, the sale-deed (Ext. 8) and rent receipts (Ext. 9 series). P.Ws. 6 and 7 are two doctors who had respectively examined the four injured and done post-mortem examination on the dead-bodies; and P.W. 10 is the police officer who had investigated into the case. 6. The learned Sessions Judge considered the evidence and made some observations and gave some findings which have been assailed strongly by raising some contentions during the course of hearing of this appeal by the learned lawyers of the State and the informant. The learned Sessions Judge came to a finding that "the fact that both Khusroo Dhobi and Inder Dhobi were done to death on 17-7-1981 at about 12 noon as a result of merciless beatings inflicted upon them cannot admit of any doubt in this case." This finding has not been subjected to any comment by any side during the hearing of this appeal and seems to be unassailable. Learned Sessions Judge after considering the evidence relating to the place of occurrence came to the conclusion that the prosecution has not been able to establish by cogent and convincing evidence as to where the alleged occurrence took place. This conclusion of the learned Sessions Judge has been strongly assailed by the learned counsel for the appellant-State. As regards the manner of occurrence also the learned Sessions Judge after referring to the evidence in details concluded that the prosecution has not been able to prove the manner of occurrence alleged by it. This finding has also been seriously assailed by the learned counsel for the State and the Informant. 7. As regards the manner of occurrence also the learned Sessions Judge after referring to the evidence in details concluded that the prosecution has not been able to prove the manner of occurrence alleged by it. This finding has also been seriously assailed by the learned counsel for the State and the Informant. 7. Before considering the contentions raised during the course of hearing of the appeal and with a view to properly appreciate the specific contentions it is necessary to refer briefly to the evidence that had been brought on record during the trial of the case. P.W. 1, who was examined on 12th March, 1983, has deposed to the effect that the occurrence had taken place on Friday at 12 noon. According to him, he heard an alarm of Khusroo Dhobi and proceeded towards the land and then he saw that the assault was going on in the land of one Dayal Dhobi. He reached that land with Kishun, Dahroo, Inder and Karoo. He has named all the respondents as having been present there and specified the arms which they were holding. About Respondent No. 11, Reshmi Ghatwarin, he stated that she was hurling stones In the Fardbeyan, he had not stated about throwing of stones by this lady Respondent No. 11. It may be recalled that in the fardbeyan recorded on his statement he, as mentioned hereinbefore, had specified about the manner of assault stating that Khusroo was given blows with gupti by Dhusa Rai and with lathi by Puran Rai, Inder was given pharsa blow by Jahloo Rai and blow with gupti by Badri Karoo was assaulted with gupti by Dhusa Rai, with Vathi by Puran Rai and with axe by Govind Rai and Kishun and Dahru were assaulted by all, and this witness himself was assaulted with gupti by Dhusa Rai and with axe by Govind Rai. In his evidence before the Court also he has given substantially the same version of the manner of occurrence except that there had been slight deviation about assault on Khusroo. He has stated that Gobind Rai had also given axe blow on him which is not in the fardbeyan. Paragraph 7 of his cross-examination shows that there were previous cases between the parties and, therefore, there was enemity between both the parties. He has stated that Gobind Rai had also given axe blow on him which is not in the fardbeyan. Paragraph 7 of his cross-examination shows that there were previous cases between the parties and, therefore, there was enemity between both the parties. About the place of occurrence, he has stated in paragraph 11 of his deposition that adjacent east to the place of occurrence is mauza Hazaribad and to the north of the place of occurrence lies Biradpur. In paragraph 13 of his deposition he has stated that the land relating to which the occurrence took place had been given by Kebala to Dayal Dhobi by father of this witness. Paragraph 14 of his deposition shows that the land had previously been acquired by a Hukumnama by his father and that had been cultivated by this witness on behalf of his father. He had given boundary of the land in question. In paragraph 18 he has clarified that the land on which marpit had taken place belonged to his Bhagina (Dayal Dhobi) and not to him, and that Khusroo was collecting seedlings in that very field. He has further stated that that land was not the cause of the assault. That land, which was bone of contention, was one of Puran Baitha. So it appears from his evidence that the place of occurrence was specifically fixed as that in which Khusroo had been collecting seedlings and that belonged to Dayal Dhobi, Bhagina of this witness but the dispute between the parties was relating to some other land which was of Puran Dhobi. 8. P.W. 2 had deposed that the occurrence took place on 17-7-1981 at 12 noon. He stated that he was uprooting seedling of paddy in his own field and then he saw that Khusroo was being assaulted by Jahloo Rai, Dhusa Rai and Puran Rai and Inder Dhobi was assaulted by Jahloo with Pharsa. He has specified that Dhusa Rai gave blow of Gupti in the leg of Khusroo and Puran gave lathi blow on the head. The informant, according to him, was assaulted with an axe by Gobind Rai and with Gupti by Dhusa Rai and with lathi by Puran Rai on the head. He has specified that Dhusa Rai gave blow of Gupti in the leg of Khusroo and Puran gave lathi blow on the head. The informant, according to him, was assaulted with an axe by Gobind Rai and with Gupti by Dhusa Rai and with lathi by Puran Rai on the head. He has also stated that Jahloo Rai gave Pharsa blow on Dahroo and Gobind Rai gave Tangi blow on the head; and about his own assault he stated that Gobind Rai assaulted him with Tangi on his left right hand and Jahloo Rai gave pharsa blow on his head, and Badi Rai assaulted him with Gupti on his left thigh. He has also stated about the place of occurrence that Khusroo was collecting seedlings in the land of Dayal Dhobi prior to the occurrence. His cross-examination shows that he is own brother of informant (P.W. 1) but he could not say the khata number and plot number of the land in which the occurrence had taken place. He has also stated about carrying of the two seriously injured persons, namely, Khusroo and Inder on the bullock cart of Dayal Dhobi and about proceeding to Giridih hospital and about their dying on the way. He further stated about his examination in the hospital. Paragraph 9 of his cross-examination shows that the place where he was working falls in mouza Hazaribad. He further stated that when he reached at the land of Dayal then the accused persons started assaulting. He also stated that he had seen the assault on Khusroo and Inder and as soon as he reached the field he saw Inder fallen on the ground. Paragraph 10 of his evidence further shows that he was the frst person to reach and no other person had reached before he had reached that place. Paragraph 12 of his cross-examination discloses that for a long time enemity was going on between the family of this witness and the family of the respondents and both civil and criminal cases were pending. He has specified that the respondents had been claiming some of the lands of khata No. 11 and some receipts had also been obtained by the respondents with respect to that land. 9. He has specified that the respondents had been claiming some of the lands of khata No. 11 and some receipts had also been obtained by the respondents with respect to that land. 9. P.W. 3 Aruni Devi has also stated that the occurrence had taken place at 12 noon on a Friday when she was sowing paddy in the field of one Teko Rai According to her evidence, Murli Dhobi was uprooting paddy seedling and this witness as well as Gangia, Devi P.W. 5 was sowing the same in the field of Teko Rai, and Khusroo, at that time, was collecting seedling in a field situated towards the south. She has stated that Respondents whom she has named came and she has specified the weapon which they were holding. She stated about the manner of assault also and according to her also Khusroo was assaulted with gupti by Dhusa Rai and with lathi by Puran Rai, with Farsa by Jahloo Rai. According to her, an alarm was raised by them and P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 9 reached there and Jahloo gave pharsa blow on Inder Dhobi the right side of abdomen. She furher stated that when Karu wanted to catch Badri, Dusha Rai gave gupti blow on the back of Karu which pierced through his body. Govind Rai, according to her, gave an axe blow on P.W 1 who was also assaulted with lathi by Puran Rai and with Gupti by Dhusa Rai. Her further evidence shows that Kishun was assaulted with axe by Govind was assaulted by Govind with Tangi and also Jahloo. Khusroo and Inder, according to her evidence, had fallen down due to the assault. 10. P.W. 5 Gangia Devi, like P.W. 3, has stated that she was working in the field of Teko Rai along with P.Ws. 3 and 4 and Khusroo was collecing seedlings in her land situated towards south. She has specified that Khusroo was working for her father-in-law, Dayal Baitha. She has further stated the names of all the respondents accused and specified as to who was holding what weapon. 3 and 4 and Khusroo was collecing seedlings in her land situated towards south. She has specified that Khusroo was working for her father-in-law, Dayal Baitha. She has further stated the names of all the respondents accused and specified as to who was holding what weapon. About particulars of assault she has stated that Jahloo Rai assaulted Khusroo with Pharsa, Puran Rai assaulted him with lathi and Dhusa Rai with Gupti, and when after alarm was raised P.W 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 9 along with Inder Dhobi reacher there in order to save Khusroo, according to her, Jahloo gave Pharsa blow on Inder, and when Karoo (P.W. 8) caught Badri Rai then accused Dhusa gave piercing blow with Gupti on the back of Karoo and the Gupti came out from the chest side. She has further specified that Panchoo was assaulted by Govind Rai with axe and with lathi by Puran Rai and with Gupti by Dhusa Rai and Kishun was assaulted by Jahloo with Pharsa, by Gobind with Tangi and by Dhusa with Gupti Reshmi, according to her evidence, was throwing stones on the injured who had fallen down. Her cross-examination shows that her attention was drawn elaborately what she has stated before the police. She has denied during the cross-examination that she had seen any assault on any of the accused. 11. The evidence of P.W. 6, Dr. P. N. Mishra discloses that on 17 7.1981 he had examined Karoo Dhobi at 7 PM, Panchoo Dhobi at 7.05 PM, Dahroo Dhobi at 8.10 PM and Kishun Dhobi at 8.15 PM He found the following injuries on the person of Panchoo Dhobi : (i) Incised wound 6" x 21/5" x 2 1/2" on the anterior of left shoulder. Clavicle fractured. (ii) Incised wound 2" x 1" x bone deep on lower surface and left lateral side on lower jaw. (iii) Bruise9" x 1" on left lateral side on back just below scapula. (iv) Swelling 3" x 2" on the middle of scalp. On Kishun Dhobi, the following injhries were found : (i) Incised wound3" x 1/4" x 3" on posterior surface of lower part of left forearm. Radius bone fractured. (ii) Incised wound 3" x 1/4" x 3" muscle deep on surface right upper arm. (iii) Incised wound skin deep 6" x 1/4" on anterior surface of left thigh. On Kishun Dhobi, the following injhries were found : (i) Incised wound3" x 1/4" x 3" on posterior surface of lower part of left forearm. Radius bone fractured. (ii) Incised wound 3" x 1/4" x 3" muscle deep on surface right upper arm. (iii) Incised wound skin deep 6" x 1/4" on anterior surface of left thigh. (iv) Incised wound 1" x 1/2" x muscle deep on left side of forehead. Injury No. (1) was griefous and was caused by some sharp cutting weapon, may be Tangi and the rest are all simple. Similarly on Daharu he found the following injuries : (i) Incised wound 10" x 3" x 6" on upper part of right upper arm. Upper part of shaft of humerus was fractured. (ii) Incised wound 3" x 1/4" x on forehead ; scalp bone cut. (iii) Incised 4" x 1/4" x bone deep on right perietal area of scalp. (iv) Incised wound 2" x 1/4" x skin deep on left index finger. On Karoo Dhobi, he found the following injuries : (i) Penetrating wound 1" x 11/2" x 4" on left side of back just outside of mideal border of left scalpula. Lung deep. (ii) Penetrating wound 1" x 1/2" x lung deep of left side of chest. All the injuries, according to him, had been caused within 12 hours on his examination and he prepared injury reports (Exts. 1 to 1/3) relating to the injuries found. He was posted by that time as Civil Assistant Surgeon at Giridih. 12. P.W 7, another Doctor, Dr. S. C Mishra, who was attached as Civil Assistant Surgeon in Sadar Hospital, Giridih, has deposed to the effect that at 1 PM on 187.1981 he had done post-mortem examination on the deadbody of Inder Dhobi and found the following antemortem injuries on his body : Incised wound 14" long x 4" deep upto periterum extending on both sides of the back cutting the periteneum, right kidney, muscles & blood vessels of posterior side. This injury was caused by sharp cutting weapon may be farsa. This injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. This injury was caused by sharp cutting weapon may be farsa. This injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. He further stated to have done postmortem examination on the same day at 1230 P.M. on the deadbody of Khusroo and found the following injuries : (i) Lecerated injury 3/4" x 11/2" x bone deep fracturing the right parietal bone on the right side of the skull. (ii) Incised wound 4" x 2" x bone deep on the back of right forearm : cutting the musclet and vessels of the right forearm. (iii) Fracture of left radius and ulna bone. (iv) Incised wound; 1/2" x 1/4" x bone deep on the front of left leg. On opening the skull, blood was found collected on the right parietal region of the skull. Injury Nos. land 3 are caused by hard blunt substance; may be lathi. Injury Nos. 2 and 4 were caused by sharp cutting weapon, may be farsa and gupti respectively. He has given a time of death within 24 hours in respect of both the deadbody and prepared the postmortem report which are marked as Exts. 2 and 2/1. 13. P.W. 8, Karoo Dhobi, has stated that at about 12 noon in the day when he was uprotting the paddy seedling along with Kishun Dhobi and Dahru, P.W. 2 and P.W. 9 and Inder Dhobi (since deceased), he heard hulla coming from the side of the field of Dayal Dhobi and he rah to that field along with all the above three persons and Panchoo also reached from the side of his house He has stated that he saw eleven accused persons assaulting Khusroo Dhobi. He has specified the arms which the accused were holding, and further specified that as to which of the accused assaulted which of the injured. According to him, Khusroo was assaulted by Jahloo with Pharsa, with lathi by Puran and with Gupti by Drusa and has indicated the portion of the body of Khusroo where there persons had given blows with their respective weapons. He has further stated that Inder Dhobi was given blow with Pharsa by Jahloo. About his own assault he has stated that Dhusa gave blow with Gupti from behind and Gupti pierced through his body crossing his chest. About assault on Panchoo, has stated that Gobind gave blow with axe on his shoulder. He has further stated that Inder Dhobi was given blow with Pharsa by Jahloo. About his own assault he has stated that Dhusa gave blow with Gupti from behind and Gupti pierced through his body crossing his chest. About assault on Panchoo, has stated that Gobind gave blow with axe on his shoulder. Puran with lathi on his back, and Badri with Gupti Dahru,, according to him, was assaulted by Gobind with axe on head and by Jati with Pharsa on his hand and Kishun was assaulted with axe by Gobind on his left hand and with Gupti by Badri at his hand. He has further stated about proceeding towards the hospital when Inder and Khusroo died and about the arrival of the police in the hospital where the injure were treated and this witness was examined by the police. This cross-examination, paragraphas 9 to 13, indicated that there were previous cases between the parties and Sarju Ram had been connected in those cases and his brother and son had been killed. 14. P.W. 9. Dahroo Dhobi, another alleged victim of the occurrence, has deposed that he along with P.W. 2, P.W. 8 and Inder Dhobi were uprooting paddy in their own land and when they heard hulla coming from the field of Dayal Dhobi and hulla was raised by Khusroo, this witness along with P.Ws. 1, 2, 8 and Inder Dhobi reached the place where from hulla was being raised. P.W 1, according to him, reached from his house and rest reached together. He stated to have seen the assault on Khusroo with lathi by Puran, with pharsa by Jahloo, with Gupti by Dhusa Jahloo, according to him, gave Pharsa blow on Inder, as a result of which intestine of Inder came out. He further stated that Karoo was given blow with Gupti by Dhusa and Gupti came out from the chest side after crossing the body. P.W. 1, according to him, was assaulted by Gobind with axe and with Gupti by Dhusa and with lathi by Puran, Kishun was assaulted, with axe by Gobind and with Pharsa by Jahloo. About his own assault he has specified that Jahloo had given Pharsa blow on his right shoulder and Gobind Rai gave axe blow on his head and his finger was also cut. The lady accused, according to this witness, had thrown stones on Khusroo when he had fallen down. About his own assault he has specified that Jahloo had given Pharsa blow on his right shoulder and Gobind Rai gave axe blow on his head and his finger was also cut. The lady accused, according to this witness, had thrown stones on Khusroo when he had fallen down. He too deposed about going to the hospital. During cross-examination in paragraph 12 he stated that he could not give khata and plot number of the land in which occurrence had taken place but he could say the boundary. According to paragraph 14 of his evidence, he had seen first of all blood coming out from the body of Khusroo and then he stated that he had seen blood coming of the body of Inder Dhobi and he has mentioned the portion of the body from which blood had been coming out. All these facts elicited from his cross-examination appear to be consistent and with the assault. He denied that any of the accused persons had been assaulted as indicated in the prosecution case. He denied completely the defences suggestion that the prosecution party had gone variously armed at the door of the accused and indulged in assault on Gobind or Jahloo. 15. P.W. 10, Gobind Prasad Singh is the police officer who recorded the fardbeyan on the statement of P.W. 1 and took up investigation. He Stated to have seen the injuries on the person of P.Ws 1, 2, 8 and 9 and prepared injury reports (Exts. 5 to 5/3) and he also stated to have seen two deadbodies relating to which he prepared inquest reports (Exts. 6 and 6/1) and referred the deadbodies of Khusroo and Inder Dhobi for post-mortem examination. His further evidence shows that he visited the place on 18-7-1981, i.e. on the following day and inspected the place which was shown by P.W. 4. He stated to have found part of the field lying parti and in part paddy seedlings had been planted. He has given the boundary of the land in question and stated that about the same he got a sketch map (Ext. 7). prepared by an Amin, Tulsi Prasad Sao. He stated to have found part of the field lying parti and in part paddy seedlings had been planted. He has given the boundary of the land in question and stated that about the same he got a sketch map (Ext. 7). prepared by an Amin, Tulsi Prasad Sao. He has stated that before he reached the place of occurrence or rather before the occurrence had taken place it had rained heavily at the place of occurrence and despite heavy rain he found little quantity of blood like colour visible on the grass on the ridge of the field. According to him, it was negligible and could not be gathered for the purpose of examination. He stated to have arrested the accused. Gobind, Jahloo and Puran and Dusa on the same day and he admitted to have found slight injuries on the persons of each of them. His evidence shows that he had examined the witnesses and after completion of the investigation submitted the chargesheet. Pragraph 11 of his evidence shows that he recorded the statement of witnesses for the last time on 27.7.1981 which indicates that all the material witnesses had been examined by this Investigating Officer within five days of the occurrence. 16. P.W. 11 is only formal witness who had proved a kebala (Ext. 8) and P.W 12 is another formal witness who had proved some rent receipts (Ext. 9 series). During the course of cross-examination he has proved his rent receipts (Ext. A and A-1) brought on record by the defence. 17. On behalf of defence, four witnesses had been examined. Out of them, D.W. 1 Dwarika Ram had proved two kebalas (Exts. B and B/1) which he had himself scribed and D.W. 2 Ganesh Ram had proved Hukumnama (Ext. C) and some rent receipts which are Exts. A/2 to A/29. D.W. 3 Bhuneshwar Tiwary is another formal witness who had produced another Hukumnama (Ext. C/1) and proved a rent receipt (Ext. A/30) and a certificate (Ext. D) granted by one Gupta Saheb This has ben proved to show the alibi of accused Badri. 18. D.W. 4 is one Dr. A.K.,Choudhury who stated to have examined on 17-7-1981 Jahloo Rai, Dhusa Rai and Puran Rai and Gobind Rai. C/1) and proved a rent receipt (Ext. A/30) and a certificate (Ext. D) granted by one Gupta Saheb This has ben proved to show the alibi of accused Badri. 18. D.W. 4 is one Dr. A.K.,Choudhury who stated to have examined on 17-7-1981 Jahloo Rai, Dhusa Rai and Puran Rai and Gobind Rai. On Jahloo Rai he stated to have found the following injuries : (i) Incised wound 3" x 1/6" x muscle deep on the posterior surface of the left forearm in the lower part. (ii) Incised wound 1" x 1/6" x muscle deep on the bore of left index finger extending on dorsal surface. (iii) Incised wound 1" x 1/6" x scalp deep on the. left parietal area of the scalp longitudinal. All the injuries were simple and were caused by sharp cutting weapon may be swrod. Age of the injury was within 12 hours. The injury report is Ext. H. On the body of Dhusa Rai, he stated to have found the following injuries : (i) Incised wound 2" x 1/4" x scalp deep on the right parietal area of scalp. (ii) Abrasion 1/2" x 1/2" on the occipital surrounded by swelling 1" in diameter. (iii) Swelling 3" x 2" on the posterior surface of the left elbow. All these injuries were simple. Injury No. 1 was caused by some sharp cutting weapon may be sword. substance may be lathi. On the body of Puran Rai, he stated to have found the following injuries : (i) Incised wound 1" x 1/3" x skin deep on the left side of nose longitudinal in direction. (ii) Incised wound 6" x 1/4" x muscle deep on the anterior surface of the left shoulder extending on the decoid area of the left upper arm. (iii) Scratch 1" x 1/4" x on the right side of the back of the dorsal area. (iv) Incised wound 2" x 1/6" x scalp deep on the left parietal area longitudinal in direction. All the injuries were simple. Injury nos. (i), (ii) and (iv) are caused by sharp cutting weapon may be by sword and no. (iii) was caused by some hard blunt substance may be lathi. And on the body of Gobind Rai, he stated to have found the following injuries : (i) Incised wund 21/2" x 1/6" x scalp deep on the right parietal area hozental in direction. (i), (ii) and (iv) are caused by sharp cutting weapon may be by sword and no. (iii) was caused by some hard blunt substance may be lathi. And on the body of Gobind Rai, he stated to have found the following injuries : (i) Incised wund 21/2" x 1/6" x scalp deep on the right parietal area hozental in direction. (ii) Bruise 3" x 1/2" on the right and Injuner area. (iii) Swelling 2" in diameter in posterior surface on the left elbow. All the injuries were simple and were caused by hard and blunt substance. All these injuries report have been marked as Exts. (H/1 to H/3). The age of the injuries was given within 12 hours of his examination and time of examination specified on Jahloo Rai at 9.35 P.M. rest examination was also done according to him on the same day and near about the same time. He prepared the injury report (H series) relating to four injured. 19. After referring to the nature of evidence which have been indicated above the learned trial court, as already indicated above, came to an unassailable iinding that Khusroo, and Inder had been killed on 17.7.1981 at about 12 noon by merciless beating. From the nature of evidence and the nature of injuries which P.W 6 has stated to have found on the person of P.Ws 1, 2, 8 and 9, there also cannot be any doubt that these four P.Ws had also been inflicted injuries and some of them were definitely of serious nature. The injuries already mentioned above will show that each of these four injured had sustained at least one grievous injury also So when the learned trial Court only stated about the established fact that Khusroo and Inder Dhobi had been killed at the time, he stated only part of the established fact ignoring the past that four others, namely, Panchu, Kishun, Karoo and Dahroo had also been inflicted serious injuries, some of which were grievous. 20. Now the first contention vehemently and strongly raised by Miss Indirani Choudhury appearing on behalf of the State was that the learned trial Court has misread the evidence about the place of occurrence and has wrongly came to the conclusion that the prosecution has not been able to establish by cogent and convincing reason as to where the alleged occurrence took place. According to her contention place of occurrence is definitely fixed as the land belonging to Dayal Dhobi. In this connection the learned lawyer for the appellant has referred to the relevant evidence relating to the place and has stated that P.W. 1 has never stated that the occurrence had taken place in the field of Puran, but the learned trial Court has made observation to the effect in paragraph 8 of his judgment and came to a wrong finding that the plase of occurrence is not fixed by cogent and reliable evidence. She has also assailed the reasoning and the observation of the learned trial Court in its judgment wherein he has mentioned that in the fardbeyan the place of occurrence has been omitted to be mentioned. She has further contended that the learned trial Court has unnecessarily put emphasis on khata number and plot number in the context of the documents brohght on record, for the ignorant and illiterate villagers are not expected to know and tell correctly the khata number and plot number. 21. The appellant lawyer has further stated that the sketch map (Ext. 7) which has been proved by the Investigating Officer (P.W. 10) also fixes the place of occurrence but the learned trial Court did not give due weight to it because the Amin, Tulsi Prasad who prepared the sketch map was not examined. She has also assailed reasoning of the trial Court where he has observed that there should have been copious bleeding at the occurrence, despite place of explanation given by the Investigating Officer that there had been heavy rains before the occurrence. 22. On the other hand, learned lawyer for the respondents has stated that the approach and reasoning of the trial Count is correct and that if there were discrepancies about the place of occurrence in the evidence of the P.Ws. as noted by the trial Court, the finding of the trial Court in this regard cannit be assailed. 23. After careful consideration of the relevant evidence on this point which I have mentioned above while referring to the evidence given toy the witnesses about the place of occurrence. I am of the considered opinion that the contention of the learned lawyer of the appellant in this regard is quite correct. 23. After careful consideration of the relevant evidence on this point which I have mentioned above while referring to the evidence given toy the witnesses about the place of occurrence. I am of the considered opinion that the contention of the learned lawyer of the appellant in this regard is quite correct. The place of occurrence as indicated in the fardbeyan is the filed in which Khusroo Dhobi had been collecting paddy seedlings and there is no omission in mentioning of the place occurrence as observed by the learned trial Court in the judgment in paragraph 8. To be sure it is stated that Khusroo Dhobi was collecting paddy seedling in Apna Khet which would mean in his own field. This reference of Apna no doubt would indicate that it was Khusoos own land but in this context the relationship of Khusroo and Dayal may be kept in mind. It appears from the evidence that plot No. 697 belonged previously to Chutoo Dhobi who was father of P.Ws. 1, P.W.2, P.W. 8 and P.W. 9 as well as of Khusroo and the father had executed a sale-deed brought on record as Ext 8 in the name of his own daughter Smt. Mitni Devi who was wife of Dayal Dhobi. Considering the fact that Dayal, Mitni and this witness, P..W 1, P.W. 2, P.W. 8 and P.W. 9 and the deceased Khusroo were related closely, these witnesses could have referred to that land as their own in a general way. When the informant, P.W. 1 stated in his fardbeyan that Khusroo was collecting paddy seedling in Apna Khet, it cannot be inferred that he was in some other field and not in the field of Dayal, particularly when during the course of his evidence P.W. 1 has particularised the place of occurrence in paragraph 18 of his evidence. He has definitely and categorically stated that the land on which marpit had taken place belonged to his Bhagina and Khusroo was collecting paddy seedling in that very land. He has further stated that the assault took place due to the land of Puran Baitha "Puran Baitha Ki Zamiti Lekar Marpit Hui." He has further given the area of the land of Puran Baitha about which a separate khatian was prepared according to him. He has further stated that the assault took place due to the land of Puran Baitha "Puran Baitha Ki Zamiti Lekar Marpit Hui." He has further given the area of the land of Puran Baitha about which a separate khatian was prepared according to him. The learned trial Court appears to have misread the evidence in this regard when he has observed in his judgment that P.W. 1 had stated that the assault had taken place in the land of Puran Baitha. The land of Puran Baitha may be cause of dispute between the parties as appears from the evidence but there appears to be definite and categorical statement of P.W. 1 that the assault had taken place in the field of Dayal Dhobi. Khusroo, as indicated hereinbefore was a son of Chuto Dhobi and brother of the informant and so reference in the fard-beyan that Khusroo was collecting paddy seedling in his own field does not necessarily mean that there was some other field of Khusroo. 24 The evidence of other witnesses on this paint also seems clearly to indicate that it was the land of Dayal Dhobi in which the occurrence had taken place. P.W. 2 in paragraph 4 stated that Khusroo was collecting paddy seedlings in the land of Dayal Dhobi and the evidence of P.Ws. 8 and 9 is also to the effect that hulla was heard from the land of Dayal Dhobi and there they went. Sketch map (Ext. 7) also appears to locate the place where a little amount of blood had been seen by the Investigating Officer. The Investigating Officer (P.W. 10) has stated that he had got prepared the sketch map by the Amin and if sketch map was prepared at his instance and in his presence as this witness has said, then non-examination of the Amin should not have been a ground for not giving weight to Ext. 7. The explanation given by the Investigating Officer about there being heavy rains, in my opinion, should not have been rejected by the trial court merely on the ground that there should have been copious blood, because the rains had taken place prior to the occurrence. The evidence of the Investigating Officer indicates that despite heavy rains, some speaks of blood stains (not worth collecting) had been found on the grass of ridge. The evidence of the Investigating Officer indicates that despite heavy rains, some speaks of blood stains (not worth collecting) had been found on the grass of ridge. This indicates that the Investigating Officer could not collect blood stained earth or grass from the place of occurrence because of the heavy rains that had taken place previously. It is to be noticed that it was the third week of July when the occurrence had taken place and it is indicated from the evidence that the paddy seedlings were being planted and the Investigating Officer has stated to have found that part of the field had been planted which some remained parti. Seedilings of paddy are planted in the field when there is enough water in the field and in this back ground if there was heavy rains about which the Investigating Officer had deposed there is every possibility that the field of paddy might have contained some water and the blood oozing out of the wounds could not be found on tht ground, even if the occurrence had taken place a little after there had been heavy rains. The learned trial Court had failed to appreciate this aspect of the matter. It may be noticed that the Investifating Officer has stated that he did not look into the rent receipts or documents relating to title which seems to have been brought on the record. These documents do not seem to be relevant in this case because there is no specific plea that in exercise of right of private defence Khusroo and Inder were killed and the other P.Ws. 1, 2, 8 and 9 were injured. In this connection it may be noticed that the learned trial Court seems to have given undue weight to a fact stated by a witness in the evidence that the land lies within the area of Hazaribad mouza while some other stated that Hazaribad mouza situated east to the place of occurrence. Exact limit of area of the mouza cannot be known by an illiterate witness and it appears that all these witnesses are illiterate who could only put their LTI on their deposition indicating thereby that they cannot even write their own name. Exact limit of area of the mouza cannot be known by an illiterate witness and it appears that all these witnesses are illiterate who could only put their LTI on their deposition indicating thereby that they cannot even write their own name. Such illiterate witnesses could not be expected to be very exact about khata number and plot number or extent of mouza and if there is any slight variation or discrepancies it should be ignored. So after carefully considering all the aspects and the relevant evidence, I am of the opinion that the learned trial Court has failed to properly appreciate the evidence in this regard and has come to a wrong conclusion that the prosecution has not been able to establish by cogent and reasonable evidence the place where the occurrence had taken place. In my opinion, the place of occurrence is definitely established by fee evidence on record as the field in which Khusroo had been planting paddy seedlings on the eve of the occurrence and that the field, bearing plot No. 697 had been transferred under kebala, Ext. 8, by Khusroos father Chotu to his daughter, Mitini wife of Dayal Dhobi. 25. As regards the conclusion of the trial Court that the manner of occurrence has not been established and the observations made by the learned trial Court for discarding the evidence of the witnesses as unreliable on the ground of discrepancy, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the learned trial Court has completely failed to appreciate the evidence in broader aspects and has over emphasised the discrepancies found in their evidence in some details and her contention in this regard is that the discrepancies do occur in details because of lapse of memory or capacity of observations and difference in the intelligence quotient of different witnesses Moreover her contention is that the witnesses had been examined before the Court long after the occurrence, atleast after eighteen months of the occurrence and so discrepancies might have occurred. The learned trial Court has, according to her contention ignored the Supreme Court decision reported in AIR 1978 Supreme Court 1542 (Narotam Singh V/s. State of Punjab and another) wherein it has been observed as follows : Discrepancies do not necessarily demolish testimony; delay does not necessarily spell unveracity and tortured technicalities do not necessarily upset conviction when the Court has had a perspicacious, sensitive and correctly oriented view of the evidence and probabilities to reach the conclusion it did proof of guilt is sustained despite little infirmities, tossing peccadilloes and peripheral probative shortfall. The sacred cows of shadowy doubts and marginal mistakes, processual or other, cannot deter the court from punishing crime where it has been sensibly and substantially brought home. By these guidelines, the conviction of the appellant must stand, although we do not detain ourselves to discuss the details of the evidence. It was also contended that atleast four witnesses, namely, P.Ws. 1, 2, 8 and 9 who had themselves sustained several injuries including some grievous supported the prosecution case and their evidence should not have been discarded or disbelieved only because of some contradictions or discrepancies in details. So far as the two lady witnesses namely, P.Ws. 3 and 5 are concerned, her contention had been that their evidence should not have been discarded only because they were not named in the First Information Report. 26. On careful perusal of the evidence of the injured witnesses already, referred to above I am of the opinion that the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant-State seems to be well founded and has to be accepted. However, so far as P.Ws. 3 and 5 are concerned, their evidence, in my opinion, has been rightly held to be unreliable by the trial Court, because they were not only named in the First Information Report, but had given different statement before the police, and the Investigating Officer (P.W. 10) has stated that he had not separtely recorded the statement of P.W. 3 and about P.W. 5 he has deposed to the effect that she had not given that version before him as she had given before the trial Court So on the point of occurrence, the evidence of P.Ws 3 and 5 seems to have been rightly disbelieved by the learned trial Court. 27. 27. But so far as the injured witnesses are concerned, it appears that the learned trial Court adopted a wrong approach in finding reasons for discarding their evidence in totality. To be sure, there are some discrepancies may be even contradictions on some points, but witnesses do sometime exaggerate or make discrepancies for reasons indicated in the contention of the appellants counsel herein before mentioned and it is the duty of the trial Court in such a situation to examine how far their evidence can be considered to be reliable and acceptable and how far their evidence should be discarded, to consider what is true and what is untrue and to select the grains and to brush aside "the chaffs". There can be little doubt, as appears from the evidence and observed hereinbefore that not only two persons had been killed but four persons, namely, P.Ws. 1, 2, 8 and 9 had been seriously injured. A careful perusal of the evidence would indicate that at least about a specific assault by some of the respondents on same persons who were injured or who were killed, there seems to be quite consistent evidence and is supported by the evidence of the two doctors, P.W. 6 and P.W. 7. There is consistent evidence of all the injured witnesses that it was Jahloo who gave pharsa blow on Inder Dhobi and their evidence and the evidence of the doctor, P.W. 7 indicates that the blow was so serious that there had been a long cut extending on both sides of the back and abdomen. There is also consistent evidence that Dhusa Rai had given piercing blow with Gupti on the back of Karoo Dhobi and the Gupti pierced through the back and came out of the chest. The doctors evidence in this regard shows that he had found punctured both on the back and chest, and they were communicating with each and was possibly caused by only one blow. Similarly, atleast about some of the blows given by different respondents on Khusroo and Panchu, Kishun and Dahru. there appears to be some consistent evidence, though P.W. 1 seems to have generally stated that all had assaulted Kishun and Inder Dhobi. Similarly, atleast about some of the blows given by different respondents on Khusroo and Panchu, Kishun and Dahru. there appears to be some consistent evidence, though P.W. 1 seems to have generally stated that all had assaulted Kishun and Inder Dhobi. In this regard in my opinion, the evidence of what the injured themselves had said about who had specifically inbicted injuries on them and with what weapon at their respective bodies seems to be satisfactory and acceptable so far as the same is supported by the evidence of the doctor and by some, other consistent evidence. 28. It may be mentioned here that the reasons given by the learned trial Court for discarding the evidence of the injured witnesses do not seem to be convincing. As regards P.W. 1, the learned trial Court observed that since P.W. 1 stated during the course of cross-examination that when he reached the place of occurrence, he found Khusroo fallen with cut injury on different parts of the body, he could not have been in a position to see the assault on the person of Khusroo Dhobi. This cannot be accepted as a correct reasoning, because P.W. 1 could have seen the occurrence in course of reaching the place of occurrence where Khusroo had fallen down and when he stated that when he reached the place of occurrence, where Khusroo had fallen, he had seen the cut injuries on different parts of Khusroos body it only indicates that when he reached close to Khusroo in order to see him as indicated in the fardbeyan then he had seen the injuries on Khusroo. It does not lead to the inference that he had not seen the occurrence. The learned trial Court seems to have drawn wrong inference about P.W. 1 not seeing the occurrence at all from the aforesaid statement. Another reason for discarding the evidence of P.W. 1 as given by the learned trial Court is that he had stated that he had sustained fifty blows of lathi but only two such injuries were found on his person by the doctor (P.W. 6) as could be considered to have been caused by lathi. There cannot be a little doubt that P.W. 1 made exaggeration when he stated that he had sustained fifty lathis blows. But this doctrine of falsus in uno falsus in obnibus is not applicable to Such evidence. There cannot be a little doubt that P.W. 1 made exaggeration when he stated that he had sustained fifty lathis blows. But this doctrine of falsus in uno falsus in obnibus is not applicable to Such evidence. The learned trial Court made an observation that in the fardbeyan P.W. 1 had stated about the assault of Khusroo as having been done only by Puran with lathi and by Dhusa with Gupti, but in Court he stated that Khusroo received injuries with Bhala/Barch. But on this ground the entire evidence of P.W. 1 could not be rejected as unreliable, It must be appreciated that P.W. 1 had made the statement recorded in Fardbeyan at 9 P.M. on the date of occurrence when he himself had sustained several injuries and one of them was grievdus. Even a dying declaration (Ext. G/1) is said to have been recorded on his statement indicating that his condition was considered precarious. In such a situation he might have omitted tb give some details particularly when so many persons had been inflicted injuries by so many assailants. 29. For discarding the evidence of P.W. 2 the learned trial Court has adopted the reasoning that he had stated that he had seen the occurrence from a distance of about 400 yards from his filed where he claimed to have been working. But this reason seems to have been put undue emphasis on the distance given as 400 yards by this witness. Such illiterate witnesses have little idea of distance and in such circumstance when the witnesses claimed to have gone to the place of occurrence on hearing alarm and when he sustained injuries when he reached, it is obvious that, at least, he saw part of the occurrence from a very close distance when he had himself reached the place of occurrence and was assaulted. Another reason for discarding the evidence of P.W. 2 is that he had stated to have been struck by Gobind, Jahloo and Badri, but P.W. 1 had stated that he had been assaulted by all the accused person. What was stated by P.W. 1 should not have been a ground for rejecting the evidence of P.W. 2 when some other evidence on record fully supports and corroborates what P.W. 2 stated about assault on his own person. 30. What was stated by P.W. 1 should not have been a ground for rejecting the evidence of P.W. 2 when some other evidence on record fully supports and corroborates what P.W. 2 stated about assault on his own person. 30. As regards the evidence of P.W. 8 the learned trial Court seems to have observed that this witness admitted in his cross-examination that when he reached the place of occurrence-he found blood trickling from the body of Khusroo and the blood was qozing out of the head, eyes, thigh and back of Khusroo. According to reasoning of the trial Court the doctor had not found any injuries on the thigh, eyes and on his back. But this reasoning cannot be considered to be sound. The evidence of P.W. 7 shows that several ante-mortem injuries had been found on Khusroo and one of them was lacerated wound on right parietal bone and another incised wound 4" x 2" x bone deep on the back of the right forearm. From these injuries blood could have trickled out from the first mentioned injury reaching eye and towards back and thigh from the second injury after Khusroo had fallen down. So the evidence of P.W. 8 should not have been discarded for reason only because he had stated that when he reached the place of occurrence had seen blood trickling from eyes, thigh and back. The inference that because of this statement he had not seen the occurrence is not proper. The reasoning given by the trial Court about assault on the different victims that while some witnesses stated that only two of the assailants had inflicted injuries, while the other stated that three and yet another stated that only one of these assailants had inflicted injuries and so their evidence should not be accepted is also not fit to be accepted in view of the fact that there were so many assailants and so many victims, some might not have been able to see or to remember all the specific blows by the particular assailants on the different victims. The trial Court seems to have adopted an artificial and wooden approach and perhaps he expected mathemetical accuracy which was not proper. The trial Court seems to have adopted an artificial and wooden approach and perhaps he expected mathemetical accuracy which was not proper. If totality of the evidence could have been considered with broader approach in my opinion the learned trial Court could not have and should not have come to the conclusion that substratum of the prosecution case has not been established or manner of occurrence has not been properly established. It appears that the learned trial Court has accepted the "Chaffs" and rejected "the grains" in this case and came to a wrong finding that the prosecution has not been able to establish the charges against all the respondents. In my opinion, there is satisfactory evidence on record to establish beyond all reasonal doubt, some of the charges at least against some of the respondents who have been specifically named by the victim witnesses about their active participation by inflicting several injuries on the deceased and these witnesses. To be sure, some of the respondents were not assigned any role in the occurrence and the lady respondent has not been mentioned in the fardbeyan as a participant in the occurrence. In the background of enemity and previous cases about which some of the P.Ws. have given evidence, there may be a tendency to implicate some persons who were closely related to the assailants and so with regard to some of them it may be held that the charges against them have not been proved beyond all reasonable doubt, and they could be given benefit of doubt. But about participation of some of the respondents in the occurrence there seems to be sufficient and satisfactory evidence on the record. 31. Before, however, considering as to which of the respondents are not found, guilty it seems necessary to refer to two other aspects which have been considered by the learned trial Court as the ground for acquittal. 32. The learned trial Court has considered Exts. G/1 and G which are statements recorded as dying declaration on the statements of P.Ws. 1 and 8, respectively. Both the statements (Exts. G/1 and G) are said to have been recorded by the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Giridih. The learned trial Court has taken the view that the informant P.W. 1 hats not given the same version in the dying declaration (Ext. G/1) as has been given by him in his fardbeyan Similarly the statement (Ext. Both the statements (Exts. G/1 and G) are said to have been recorded by the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Giridih. The learned trial Court has taken the view that the informant P.W. 1 hats not given the same version in the dying declaration (Ext. G/1) as has been given by him in his fardbeyan Similarly the statement (Ext. G) contains a version which contradicts the version given by the prosecution. The learned trial Court observed that the statement had been recorded by a Magistrate and since the informant P.W. 1 could give a statement recorded as Fardbeyan (Ext. 3) at 9 P.M. and these statement (Ext.G/1) was recorded at 8.55 before the fardbeany was recorded (actually Ext. G was recorded at 8.35 P.M. and Ext. G/1 at 8.55 as it appears from the time mentioned therein), the informant was in a fit state of mind to make the statement, and so there is reasonable doubt about the prosecution version. 33. The learned counsel for the State has contended that the learned trial Court has adopted a wrong approach and taken completely wrong view in considering these so-called dying declarations. According to the contention, the learned trial Court, was not justified in plaeding reliance on the so-called dying declaration because these declaration do not show that any question Was put either to P.W. 1 or to P.W. 8 to ascertain as to whether they were in a fit state of mind to make the statement. It was further contended that the Investigating Officer (P.W. 10) has categorically stated in paragraph 11 of his evidence that at no point of time during investigation he had come to across the dying declaration and there is no reference in the case diary about dying declaration which he never requested for recording. 34. After carefully considering the contentions and the contents of the "dying declaration" (Exts. G and G/1), I am of the opinion that the learned trial Court has committed an error in putting much reliance on these so-called dying declaration (Exts. G and G/1) which by themselves do not show that any question was put at the outset to P.W. 1 or P.W. 8, whose statements were recorded to ascertain their states of mind. It is also not clear as to how the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Giridih, could come to the hospital and record the dying declaration. G and G/1) which by themselves do not show that any question was put at the outset to P.W. 1 or P.W. 8, whose statements were recorded to ascertain their states of mind. It is also not clear as to how the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Giridih, could come to the hospital and record the dying declaration. But apart from all this, it appears from Exts. G and G/1 that P.W. 1 and P.W. 8 were never asked to narrate about the whole occurrence but they only answered to some questions put to them. The first question that was put to P.W. 1 as appears from Ext. G/1, was as to who had assaulted him and to this question he seems to have answered by saying that Puran Rai assaulted with an axe on his shoulder, Dhusa with axe and Goboind Rai with lathi. The second question was put as to who were in the company of the assailants. He named Jahloo Rai and some females, when he was put to third question as to how the quarrel had taken place, he stated that the querrel was relating to his land and respondent Puran, Gobind, Dhusa and Jahloo were claiming the land to be their own. Then there was another question as to whether he had to pay anything, then he stated that the ladies of some of the respondents were there and they also assaulted. Similarly, as Ext. G shows, when P.W. 8 was asked as to who had assaulted him he specified Sarju, Gobind, Puran, Dhusa, Mathura, Sato, Jahloo and Badri. When he was asked as to what was the weapon of assault, he stated that Dhusa assaulted him with Gupti and then he added that only. Dhusa had. assaulted him with Gupti and he became senseless. When he was put a question as the reason of the assault, he stated that the quarrel was relating to the land of Puran who was agnate of this witness and the land was being claimed by Sarju Rai and he also added, when he was asked if he has to say anything more, that there was litigation going on. When he was put a question as the reason of the assault, he stated that the quarrel was relating to the land of Puran who was agnate of this witness and the land was being claimed by Sarju Rai and he also added, when he was asked if he has to say anything more, that there was litigation going on. The statement of P.W. 8 seems to have been recorded at 8.35 P.M. and that of Panchu at 8.55 P.M. At 9 P.M. the fardbeyan was recorded and in the fardbeyan there is endorsement of ward attendant showing that it was recorded in his presence. So in my opinion, fardbeyan has to be given due weight and when the dying declaration does not seem to contain question from any of these two witnesses as to who else had been assaulted then it was not proper on the part of the trying Court to take the view that version of the occurrence given in the fard-beyan was altogether different from the version given in the dying declarations. Moreover, it appears that when the first question was put to these witnesses about individual assault on them, P.W. 1 stated that he was assaulted with Tangi both by Puran and with Gupti by Dhusa and with lathi by Gobind. In the fard-beyan, it was stated that he was assaulted with axe by Puran and with Gupti by Dhusa. About assault on P.W. 8, there is consistent evidence that Dhusa had given Gupti blow. So it appears that about specific assault on themsevles, when specific question was asked while recording so-called dying declaration, these P.Ws. have given similar story as they have given in the Court or P.W. 1 had given in his fardbeyan. So in my opinion, learned trial Court was not justified in giving much reliance to these so-called dying declaration and he should not have taken the view that the version in the fardbeyan stands contradicted by the version given in the dying declarations as contained in Exts. G/1 and G, which also could not be given much reliance for the infirmities indicated above. 35. Another aspect which the learned trial Court has given as a ground for throwing suspicion on the prosecution case is that the prosecution has not been able to explain the injuries which had been found on Respondents Jahloo Rai, Dhusa Rai, Puran and Gobind Rai. 35. Another aspect which the learned trial Court has given as a ground for throwing suspicion on the prosecution case is that the prosecution has not been able to explain the injuries which had been found on Respondents Jahloo Rai, Dhusa Rai, Puran and Gobind Rai. The learned trial Court after mentioning in his judgment about the injuries which Dr. A. K. Choudhury, D.W. 4 stated to have found on examining these respondents on 17-7-1981 took the view that the injuries were serious and severe and not superficial and since the prosecution had not explained those injuries it doubted the prosecution case. In this connection the learned trial Court seems to have relied on a decision reported in the case of Jagdish V/s. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1979 SC 1010 , which is cited in its judgment. 36. On this point the learned counsel for the State has contended that the learned trial Court has not appreciated properly the aforesaid decision which cannot be applicable to the facts of this case. According to the contention, the injuries were not severe or serious inasmuch as all were simple and in the circumstances of this case when there was defence version that Puran had been assaulted in his field at 10 A.M. and Jahloo, Gobind and Dhusa were assaulted near their house, there was no such situation in which the prosecution could have the burden of explaining the injuries found on the persons of the aforementioned respondents. In my opinion, the contention of the learned counsel for the State raised in this regard is quite sound and acceptable. None of the injuries on any of these respondents appears to be grievous. In comparison to the injuries found on the persons of the two deceased and the four injured, namely, P.Ws. 1, 2, 8 and 9 of the prosecution party, the injuries found on the four respondent were indeed not severe or serious as the trial Court has held. Moreover, when the defence had themselves explained the injuries by giving version showing that Puran had at first been assaulted in a field and then, when he was brought to his house, the prosecution party came to the house and assaulted the other three aforesaid respondents. So in such a situation it was not incumbent upon the prosecution to explain tihe injuries. So in such a situation it was not incumbent upon the prosecution to explain tihe injuries. The decision relied upon by the trial Court also indicates that the prosecution has to explain the injuries on the accused only in certain circumstances. The Supreme Court has observed as follows : "It is true that where serious injuries are found on the person of the accused, as a principle of appreciation of evidence, it becomes obligatory on the prosecution to explain the injuries, so as to satisfy the Court as to the circumstances under which the occurrence originated. But before this obligation is placed on the prosecution, two conditions must be satisfied : (i) that the injuries an the person of iihe accused must be very serious and severe and not superficial, (ii) that it must be shown that these injuries must have been caused at the time of the occurrence in question." It is obvious that the conditions laid down by the Supreme Court for placing the obligation on the prosecution to explain the injuries did not exist in the circumstances of this case. So, in my opinion, the learned trial Court has incorrectly appreciated the ruling of the Supreme Court which cannot be applied to the facts and circumstances of this case. 37. It may be noticed here that the learned trial Court made a reference in paragraph 15 of his judgment about the defence version. It appears that the accused Jahloo had lodged a First Information Report (Ext. J) against the injured witnesses and the deceased besides some others and it was alleged therein that at about 10 A.M. when Jahloo and Dhusa were returning from a field where Puran Rai had been left, Khusroo, Murli and Inder went there armed with pharsa ,Jwath and lathi and assaulted Puran Rai who raised alarm whereupon Jahloo rushed to that field with his brother and then Khusroo, Murli and Inder ran way. It was further alleged that when Puran was brought to his house, the members of the prosecution party again went there variously armed and assaulted Jalhco and Dhusa Rai. It was stated in the said First Information Report that in his self-defence Jahloo, and Dhusa hurled lathi.and it could not be said whether some injuries were caused to the members of the prosecution party or not. It appears that on this F.I.R. (Ext. It was stated in the said First Information Report that in his self-defence Jahloo, and Dhusa hurled lathi.and it could not be said whether some injuries were caused to the members of the prosecution party or not. It appears that on this F.I.R. (Ext. J) the police made investigation and submitted final report. Later a protest complaint was filed and cognizance was taken as it obvious from the copy of the order (Ext. E/1). Learned trial Court seems to have observed that because of the fact of taking cognizance the defence version prima facie could not be discarded at this stage. It is not clear what the trial Court meant by making this observation. It is to be noticed here that the First Informant Report (Ext. J) lodged by Jahloo by itself could not be taken as substantive piece of evidence. No witness came forward to depose about the facts mentioned therein though some defence witnesses were examined. Some documents were also brought on record by the defence but it is not quite clear how they were relevant and for what purpose they were produced. The documents, namely, the saledeeds (Ext. B series) or the rent receipts (Ext. A series) or Hukumnama (Ext. C series) do not seem to have any bearing on the point tfnat arises for decision in this criminal trial. It was not the stand of the defence that they had got title or possession over the land which is the place of occurrence and the prosecution party had gone there to dispossess them and then they inflicted the injuries on the victims. In my opinion, all this evidence brought on record by the defence seems to be of no avail to the defence. One document (Ext. D) seems to have been brought on record to prove alibi of Badri Rai (Respondent No; 5). It seems to be a letter written by a Manager of a colliery to this respondent in response to an application filed by him the respondent and it shows that he was "on duty as Miner Loader, in third shift (12 mid-night to 8 A.M.) on 17.7.1981". This by itself in the absence of any other evidence in my opinion cannot establish alibi. Moreover the time of occurrence alleged by the prosecution is 12 noon on 17-7-1981 and the duty period given in Ext. This by itself in the absence of any other evidence in my opinion cannot establish alibi. Moreover the time of occurrence alleged by the prosecution is 12 noon on 17-7-1981 and the duty period given in Ext. D expired at 8 A.M. So in my opinion it is of no avail to this respondent. 38. Thus, after carefully considering the entire materials on record I am of the opinion that the learned trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence and has adopted wrong approach and reasoning as already indicated hereinbefore in coming to the conclusion that the prosecution has not been able to establish the charges against all the accused persons. From the evidence on record it appears that the participation of those of the respondents, who according to the evidence had played a definite role of inflicting injuries either to the deceased or to the four injured witnesses (P.Ws. 1, 2, 8 and 9) is established beyond all/ reasonable doubt. From the evidence on record it appears to be established that Respondent Dhusa Rai, Puran Rai, Jahloo Rai, Gobind Rai and Badri Rai had formed an unlawful assembly with the object of causing injuries to Khusroo and others who reached there and they actively participated in the occurrence and inflicted some or other injuries on the six victims, two of whom succumbed to their injuires. Further it seems to be established that Respondents Dhusa Rai, Gobind Rai, Jahloo and Badri Rai had inflicted injuries with sharp cutting weapons, namely, Gupti, Tangi or Pharsa on some of the victims and, thus, they are guilty of the offence punishable under Section. 324 of Indian Penal Code. And Puran Rai caused injury with lathi and committed the offence punishable under Section 323 of Indian Penal Code. Further it is also established that Dhusa Rai inflicted a grievous injury by means of a Gupti to Karoo ahd so he committed the offence punishable under Section 326 of Indian Penal Code. 39. It may be noticed in this connection that the charge framed by the learned trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code appears to show that common object of the unlawful assembly was to prevent the informant Khusroo from collecting the uprooted paddy seedlings. 39. It may be noticed in this connection that the charge framed by the learned trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code appears to show that common object of the unlawful assembly was to prevent the informant Khusroo from collecting the uprooted paddy seedlings. In the context of the prosecution case, the object of unlawful assembly should have been mentioned in the charge as killing or atleast causing grievous hurt or hurt to Khusroo and others and it is doubtful that the object of preventing the informant from collecting uprooted paddy seedlings, (without indicating any right), by itself could be considered necessarily as an unlawful object. But this defect in framing of the charge does not seem to be material inasmuch as it is, specifically indicated in the charge that in prosecution of common object, two of the accused, namely, Dhusa Rai and Puran Rai struck Khusroo with Gupti and lathi respectively and caused his death and similarly it is mentioned that accused Jahloo Rai and Badri Rai struck Inder Dhobi with pharsa and gupti respectively and caused his death. So despite the fact that there was some infirmity in framing of the charge by not mentioning correctly the common object there can be conviction of the aforesaid five respondents for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code when it was clearly mentioned that in prosecution of the common object of that assembly two persons were done to death by Dhusa, Puran, Jahloo and Badri Rai. 40. As regards the other respondents it may be noticed that none of the injured witnesses stated anything about playing of any role by Respondent No. 7 (Sato Rai), Respondent No. 8 (Baleshwar Rai), Respondent No. 9 (Ram Chander Rai), and Respondent No. 10 (Mathura Rai). About Respondent No. 11 (Reshmi Devi), there is some evidence that she was there and was throwing stones but this fact is not mentioned in the fardbeyan. On probability also, it appears unnatural that when so many persons were armed with Gupti, Gandasa, lathi and Pharsa and were inflicting injuries, stone pieces would be used some of the persons from accused side. About Respondent No. 2 (Sarju Rai) the evidence also does not seem to be quite satisfactory though it is alleged that he was armed with Bhala. About Respondent No. 2 (Sarju Rai) the evidence also does not seem to be quite satisfactory though it is alleged that he was armed with Bhala. There seems to be no consistency in the evidence of the injured witnesses about his holding weapon, namely, Bhala and there is no satisfactory evidence that he inflicted any particular injury on any of the victim. There is some evidence that Sarju Rai had previously threatened the members of the prosecution party that they may be killed if they would go on the land. But the threat previously given may be a reason for implicating this Respondent No. 2 (Sarju Rai).. So in view of all these, Respondent No. 2 (Sarju Rai), Respondent No. 7, (Sato Rai), Respondent No. 8 (Baleshwar Rai), Respondent No. 9 (Ram Chander Rai), Respondent No. 10 (Matihura Rai) and Respondent No. 11 (Reshmi Devi) may, in my opinion, be given benefit of doubt. 41. In view of what I have stated above, the appeal so far as Respondents 2, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 are concerned, is dismissed. But so far as Respondents 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6, namely, Gobind Rai, Dhusa Rai, Jahloo Rai, Badri Rai and Puran Rai are concerned, the appeal filed by the State as against them is allowed and finding of acquittal given in the impugned judgment dated 11.1.1988 passed in Sessions Trial No. 130 of 1982 is set aside. So far as these respondents are concerned, all these five respondents are held guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 143 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. Respondent No. 1 (Gobind Rai), Respondent No. 3 (Dhusa Rai), Respondent No. 4 (Jahloo Rai), and Badri Rai (Respondent No. 5) are further convicted of the offence punishable under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years each and Respondent Dhusa Rai is further convicted under Section 326 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years. Respondent No. 6 Puran Rai is held guilty of the offence punishable under Section 323 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Respondent No. 6 Puran Rai is held guilty of the offence punishable under Section 323 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. From the facts established by evidence, these respondents also appear to be guilty of the offence punishable under Section 148 of Indian Penal Code and Puran Rai appears to be held guilty of the offence punishable under Section 147 of Indian Penal Code, but since no charge for these offences seems to have been framed by the trial Court and in view of the conviction recorded for other offences there appears to be no necessity for passing order for conviction and sentence for the offences punishable under Sections 148 and 147 of Indian Penal Code. These sentences of imprisonment awarded to the aforementioned Respondents shall run concurrently. S. B. SINHA, J.I agree with the findings arrived at by my learned brother Dharampal Sinha, J. that this Government appeal is fit to be allowed in part. However, I would like to add a few words of my own. 42. It appears that the learned Court below has failed to decide the case keeping in view the prosecution as also the defence case. 43. From a perusal of the judgment of the learned trial Court, it becomes clear that he laid unnecessary emphasis on minor contradictions which are bound to occur in the evidence of the witnesses. 44. The respondents, in this case, did not dispute the death of Khusroo Dhobi and Inder Dhobi. The respondents further did not totally deny the occurrence in question. 45. According to the defence, the occurrence started at about 10 A.M. on 17.7.1981. allegedly when Jahlu Rai (Respondent No. 4) along-with Dhusa Rai (Respondent No. 3) had been returning to their house from the paddy field leaving behind Puran Rai (Respondent No. 6) to up-root the paddy-seedlings in the field, he heard a hullah emanating from his brother whereupon he rushed back to the field and found Khusroo Dhobi (deceased) assaulting Puran Rai with Lathi. 46. Allegedly seeing them Khusroo Dhobi fled away and thereafter the injured Puran Rai was brought back to his house by Jahlu Rai and Dhusa Rai. 47. 46. Allegedly seeing them Khusroo Dhobi fled away and thereafter the injured Puran Rai was brought back to his house by Jahlu Rai and Dhusa Rai. 47. As per the version of the defence thereafter the prosecution party came to their house and allegedly Dahru Dhobi shot an arrow hitting accused Jahlu Rai: Karu Dhobi assaulted accused Jahlu Rai with Farsa while Panchu Dhobi gave a lathi blow to Jahlu Rai. 48. It is further alleged that Inder Dhobi assaulted Dhusa Rai with fists and Murli Dhobi assaulted him with lathi; Gobind Rai, the father of Jahlu Rai was also said to have been assaulted. 49. According to the defence, in those circumstances, Jahlu Rai and his associates also assaulted the prosecution party with lathi and it was not possible for them to say who received injuries whereby. 50. It is also admitted that in relation to the aforementioned occurrence, Jahlu Rai lodged a first information report at Giridih Mufasil Police Station which ended in a final report showing the case to be a false one. Thereafter, a complaint petition was filed before the C.J.M. Giridih against the informant and others and the trial of the informant and his associates in the said case was pending at the time of trial of the appellants before the learned court below. 51. It further appears that one of the respondents, namely, Badri Rai took up a plea of alibi alleging that at the relevant time he had been coming from Chopapur colliery which is at a considerable distance from the alleged place of occurrence. 52. From the defence plea, raised on behalf of the respondents in the Court below, it is evident that according to them they had exercised their right of private defence and further one of the accused persons namely. Badri Rai was not present at the place of occurrence at all. 53. The very fact that admittedly some occurrence has taken place resulting in infliction of injuries on the prosecution party, has, thus, not been disputed by the appellants. 54. Badri Rai was not present at the place of occurrence at all. 53. The very fact that admittedly some occurrence has taken place resulting in infliction of injuries on the prosecution party, has, thus, not been disputed by the appellants. 54. No evidence has been brought on record for the purpose of showing that in fact the place of occurrence is near the house of Jahlu Rai and others or he or any other accused person received any injury which gave rise to an apprehension in their mind that unless they exercise their right of private defence, they may be killed or receive grievous hurt. 55. The fact that the respondents raised a plea of private defence goes to show that by necessary implication they have admitted the occurrence. They have further admitted that some injuries were inflicted on the prosecution party also. 56. Nothing, however, has been brought on record to show that in fact the respondents received any such injury at the hands of Khusro Dhobi (deceased) or any other persons. 57. The learned Court below, although, purported to have held that the prosecution has not been able to prove that the occurrence took place at the place, as mentioned in the first information report, also did not hold that the possibility of the occurrence having taken lace near the house of Jahlu Rai, is also probable. 58. The approach of the learned Court below for the purpose of arriving at a finding that the occurrence did not take place on the land in question, namely, plot No. 697 is not correct and it appears while doing so he did not consider the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in their proper perspective. P.W. 1 in paragraph 18 of his deposition stated that the said land did not belong to him but belonged to his sisters son. P.W. 2, in paragraphs 4 and 5 of his deposition categorically stated that the occurrence took place in the lands of Dayal Dhobi. 59. P.W. 3 had given boundary of the place of occurrence in paragraphs 9 and 17 of his deposition. P.W. 5 in paragraph 14 of his deposition gave boundary of the lands where he had been planting the seedlings. P.W. 9 in paragraph 12 of his deposition also stated the boundary of the field where the occurrence took place. 59. P.W. 3 had given boundary of the place of occurrence in paragraphs 9 and 17 of his deposition. P.W. 5 in paragraph 14 of his deposition gave boundary of the lands where he had been planting the seedlings. P.W. 9 in paragraph 12 of his deposition also stated the boundary of the field where the occurrence took place. P.W. 10, the Investigating Officer, has also stated the boundary of the place of occurrence. The place of occurrence is also proved from Ext. 7. 60. Upon a broad analysis of the evidences adduced on behalf of the prosecution, it appears that the occurrence took place in the field of Dayal Dhobi and not in front of the house of the respondents. 61. The learned Court below further doubted the place of occurrence on the ground that no blood was found at that place but the Investigating Officer (P.W. 10) clearly stated that on that day, there was a heavy rain and thus his statement to the effect that he seized only a small quantity of blood-stained earth does not appear to be improbable. 62. It is further evident that both P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 have proved motive on the part of the respondents in commission of the crime. The learned Court below has also unduly given importance to the minor contradictions in the evidences of the witnesses with regard to the manner of assault. 63. It is now well known that minor contradictions in the depositions of the prosecution witnesses should not be given undue importance if it is found that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts. 64. In Gurnek Singh and another V/s. State of Punjab, reported in 1989 SCC (Cri.) 70, the Supreme Court held as follows : "The fact that they are related to the deceased victim does not detract from the value of their evidence having regard to the fact that their presence at the scene of offence is natural and their presence near the deceased has been established beyond a shadow of doubt by reason of the fact that they themselves have sustained injuries attributable to firearms at the same time and on the same spot." 65. It is true that the prosecution has to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts but the doubt has to be reasonable and not fanciful. 66. It is true that the prosecution has to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts but the doubt has to be reasonable and not fanciful. 66. In Gurbachan Singh V/s. Satpal Singh and others, reported in 1990, Vol. I, SCC 445, where it has been held : "There is a higher standard of proof in criminal cases than in civil cases, but there is no absolute standard in either of the cases. See the observations of Lord Denning in Bater V/s. Bater, (1950) 2 All. ER 458 at page 459. but the doubt must be of a reasonable man. The standard adopted must be the standard adopted by a prudent man which, of course, may vary from case to case, circumstances to circumstances. Exaggerated devotion to the rule of benefit of doubt must not nurture fanciful doubts or lingering suspicions and thereby destroy social defence. Justice cannot be made sterile on the plea that it is better to let hundred guilty escape than punish an innocent. Letting guilty escape is not doing justice, according to law. The conscience of the Court can never be bound by any rule but that is coming itself dictates the consciousness and prudent exercise of the judgment. Reasonable doubt is simply that degree of doubt which would permit a reasonable and just man to come to a conclusion. Reasonableness of the doubt must be commensurate with the nature of the offence to be investigated." (Emphasis supplied) 67. It is therefore, clear that even in a criminal case, the question as to whether the accused persons are entitled to benefit of doubt or not varies from case to case and circumstance to circumstance. 68. In my opinion, the learned Court below has not assigned any cogent reason for disbelieving the injured witnesses. 69. In a case of this nature where two persons have lost their lives and as the prosecution case has been proved by unshaken testimonies of many prosecution witnesses coupled with the medical evidences as also the evidence of the Investigating Officer, the persons who are guilty of commission of the said offences, should not be let off only on trifling contradictions withput judging the prosecution evidences on a broad conspectus. 70. 70. In State of U. P. V/s. Anil Singh, reported in 1989 SCC (Cri.) 48, the apex Court observed : "Of late this Court has been receiving a large number of appeals against acquittals and in the great majority of cases, the prosecution version is rejected either for want of corroboration by independent witnesses, or for some falsehood stated or embroidery added by witnesses. In some cases, the entire prosecution case is doubted for not examining all witnesses to the occurrence. We have recently pointed out the indifferent attitude of the public in the investigation of crimes. The public are generally reluctant to come forward to depose before the Court. It is, therefore, not correct to reject the prosecution version only on the ground that all witnesses to the occurrence have not been examined. Nor it is proper to reject the case for want of corroboration by independent witnesses if the case made out is otherwise true and acceptable. With regard to falsehood stated or embellishments added by the prosecution witnesses, it is well to remember that there is a tendency amongst witnesses in our country to back up a good case by false or exaggerated version. The Privy Council had an occasion to observe this In Bankim Bihari Maiti v Matangini Dasi. reported in 24 Cal. WN. 626 : AIR 1919 PC 157, the Privy Council had this to say (at p. 628) : That in Indian litigation it is not safe to assume that a case must be a false case if some of the evidence in support of it appears to be doubtful or is clearly untrue. There is, on some occasions, a tendency amongst litigants........to back up a good case by false or exaggerated evidence." It was also observed : "It is also our experience that invariably the witnesses add embroidery to prosecution story, perhaps for the fear of being disbelieved. But that is no ground to throw the case overboard, if true, in the main. If there is a ring of truth in the main, the case should not be rejected. It is the duty of the Court to cull out the nuggets of truth from the evidence unless there is reason to believe that the inconsistencies or falsehood are so glaring as utterly to destroy confidence in the witnesses. If there is a ring of truth in the main, the case should not be rejected. It is the duty of the Court to cull out the nuggets of truth from the evidence unless there is reason to believe that the inconsistencies or falsehood are so glaring as utterly to destroy confidence in the witnesses. It is necessary to remember that a judge does not preside over a criminal trial merely to see that no innocent man is punished. A judge also presides to see that a guilty man does not escape. One is as important as the other. Both are public duties which the judge has to perform." 71. It is true that the High Court while reversing a judgment of acquittal should be slow and in judging so, it must meet all the reasonings of the trial Court, but the view other than taken by the appellate Court must be plausible one. 72. In State of Uttar Pradesh V/s. Chet Ram and others, reported in (1969) 2 SCC 425, it has been held : "As an abstract proposition of argument it may be stated that every case affords potential for two views being taken but it has to be realised that the alternative view must have some content of plausibility in it and without the same, the said view cannot be countenanced in law as plausible alternative." 73. In this case, it is evident that the reasonings of the trial Court in acquitting all the respondents were not sound. 74. Recently the Supreme Court in Anvaruddin and others V/s. Shakoor and others, reported in (1996) 3 SCC 266 : 1990 SCC (Crl) 463, held as follows : "We are conscious of the fact that these appeals are directed against the order of acquittal. Ordinarily, we would not have interfered with the order of acquittal under Article 136 of the Constitution. We, however, find that the entire approach of the High Court is far from satisfactory. The manner in which the High Court brushed aside the direct testimony of three eye-witnesses without marshalling the evidence, leaves much to be desired. This Court has, times out of number, reminded that the direct testimony of witnesses, whose evidence is otherwise consistent, should not ordinarily be rejected on the ground that they are partisan witnesses, unless the surrounding circumstances discredit their version. This Court has, times out of number, reminded that the direct testimony of witnesses, whose evidence is otherwise consistent, should not ordinarily be rejected on the ground that they are partisan witnesses, unless the surrounding circumstances discredit their version. Ordinarily, close relatives of the deceased would not allow the real culprits to escape. The possibility of their implicating others with the real offenders must, however, be kept in mind. Keeping that in mind we have given the benefit of doubt to Alam and Wasla. We cannot, however, persuade ourselves to the view that the High Court had not committed a serious error. We are, therefore, constrained to interfere. It is our duty to correct a manifest error by interfering under Article 136 of the Constitution for otherwise a serious crime of double murder will go wholly unpunished." (Emphasis supplied), 75. Taking, thus, all facts and circumstances, it is, therefore, clear that the learned Court below was not correct in acquitting all the respondents.Allowed in part.