JUDGMENT G.D. Dube, J. - This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order of fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Bijnor convicting and sentencing Veer Singh under Section 302, Indian Penal Code and Kallu and Shivcharan under Section 302/34, Indian Penal Code each to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine. each of them were directed to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. Rs. 1000/- was to be paid to sons of Smt. Monga out of the fine so recovered. 2. The prosecution case is that appellant Kallu Singh is the step brother of Lal Singh alias Budhar Singh first husband of Monga deceased. There was a litigation between Smt. Monga and Kallu about the property of her first husband. Smt. Monga had won her case even from Allahabad High Court. consequently Kallu Singh and his two sons Veer Singh and Shiv Charan were inimical to the deceased and his family. 3. It has been alleged that at about 2 p.m. on 20.10.79 Satyapal Singh P.W. 2 and Smt. Monga were returning from village Rampur for their residential house situated in village Zafrabad P.S. Afzalgarh, district Bijnor. When they reached near the Chak of Ram Lakhan Singh in village Anandipur three appellants surrounded them. Veer Singh was holding a knife and,Shiv Charan a lathi. They dragged Smt. Monga stating that old woman troubled them too much and therefore, they would finish her. P.W. 2 Satyapal Singh had raised alarm. While the three accused were dragging Smt. Monga towards the field of Ram Swaroop Singh Kallu Singh was exhorting his sons to kill the old lady soon as the other people were coming. The three accused pulled down the deceased. Kallu Singh was holding the hands, Shiv Charan was holding the feet and Veer Singh had given some knife blows. Thereafter they threw the body of the deceased in the nearby sugarcane field. By that time witnesses coming behind had arrived on hearing alarm. Satyapal Singh and witnesses had apprehended Kallu Singh on the spot. The other two had ran away. Satyapal Singh had dictated the first information report to one Narendra Kumar of Village Anandipur near the dead body. Thereafter the witnesses had taken the arrested accused Kallu alongwith report to the police Station. Satyapal Singh and witnesses had apprehended Kallu Singh on the spot. The other two had ran away. Satyapal Singh had dictated the first information report to one Narendra Kumar of Village Anandipur near the dead body. Thereafter the witnesses had taken the arrested accused Kallu alongwith report to the police Station. Kallu was handed over to the police and a case was registered in the police Station Afzalgarh at 5.30 p.m. 4. The investigation of this case was taken up by B.S. Chahad. He had prepared the inquest report of the dead body and sent it to mortuary for post mortem. He had prepared the site plan Ext.-Ka-7 and interrogated the witnesses. He had collected the blood stained and plain earth from the place of occurrence. After completion of the investigation the Investigating officer had submitted the charge-sheet. 5. The post mortem of the dead body had been conducted by Dr. R.B. Saxena P.W. 1 at 11.30 a.m. on 21.10.1979. He had opined that the death had taken place about one day back. He had found the following ante-mortem injuries on the person of the deceased : - (1) Multiple incised wounds resulting into one common gaping would 5" x 2" bone deep at front of neck 1" above middle notch root of neck. (2) Incised wound 1" x " x skin deep front of upper neck below the chin. (3) Incised wound 2" x " x foxcie deep at left lower jaw at its angle. (4) Multiple small abrasions all over back right side both shoulders and right arm on size " x " x " linear. On internal examination the doctor had found hoyoid bone clean cut into two part at its middle. All the structure on the neck were clean cut. The right side's 10th, 11th, and 12th ribs were fractured. The trachea was cut into two pieces. There was two litres of blood stained water in the stomach. The walls and peritoneum were red and congested. Esophagus was cut. into two parts. Splean had ruptured in an area 1" x " " The right kidney was congested and had blood clots. The doctor has opined that the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. 6. The prosecution had examined witnesses before the lower court P.W. I is the doctor who had conducted the post-mortem. into two parts. Splean had ruptured in an area 1" x " " The right kidney was congested and had blood clots. The doctor has opined that the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. 6. The prosecution had examined witnesses before the lower court P.W. I is the doctor who had conducted the post-mortem. Satyapal Singh (P.W.2) Ghasi Ram (P.W.3) Hod Singh (P.W.4) and Mukhram Singh (P.W.5) are eye-witnesses. The last three eye-witnesses had been declared hostile and cross-examined by the prosecution. Hukum Singh (P.W.6) is a formal witness. He had taken the dead body of Smt. Moonga along with papers from the place of occurrence to the mortuary. P.W. 7 is Chakradhar Prasad. He had registered the case at the police-station Afzalgarh. Pawan Singh (P.W.2) was a police officer of police station Afzalgarh. He remained together with B.S. Chahad during the investigation. He had proved the investigation part of the case. 7. The accused had pleaded not guilty to the charges. Kallu had alleged that he had been arrested from his house and was falsely shown as arrested from the place of occurrence. All the three accused had admitted in their statement under Section 313, Cr. P.C. that a litigation had taken place between Kalloo Singh and the deceased about the property of Buddhu Singh who had died about Tourteen years before the occurrence. The accused had also admitted that in this litigation Smt. Moonga had won her case from the High Court also. They, however, stated that they were still in possession over the property of Buddhu Singh. The accused had not produced any witness in defence. 8. All the three accused had been tried for the offence under Section 302, Indian Penal Code. The learned Session Judge had held all the three accused guilty. 9. It has been argued that most probably Satpal Singh had committed murder of his mother and these three appellants were falsely implicated because he was gainer by this death of Smt. Moonga. It was pointed out that Smt. Monga had a daughter Smt. Dharmawati from her first husband. There wen three sons including Satyapal Singh P.W. I from her second husband Mansing. It was pointed out that Smt. Monga had a daughter Smt. Dharmawati from her first husband. There wen three sons including Satyapal Singh P.W. I from her second husband Mansing. Smt. Dharmawati used to come to her mother very often it was argued that on account of fear that her mother may not change the will which she executed in favour of her son he was done to death. By doing so the P.W . would have accelerated the devolution of property on them by testamentary succession and would have also avoided Smt. Dharmawati, the step sister. It was also contended that it was not probable that Kalloo would have been arrested at the spot. If the three had any intention to commit murder then Kallu would not have gone without any weapon in his hand. It was also not probable that two sons would not have made any attempt to save their father from being arrested at the spot. Lastly it was also contended that Satyapal Singh is not a witness coming under the category of wholly reliable witness. Hence the solitary statement of Satyapal Singh was not sufficient to entail conviction of the appellant. 10. The occurrence had taken place at 1.00 p.m. The report in this case was lodged at 5.30 p.m. same day. There is a note in the diary entry that the appellant Kalloo was taken into police custody at the time of registration of case. This part of the prosecution story has not been challenged. Nothing has been elicited in cross-examination to show that between 1.00 P.M. and 5.30 P.M. either the police or the prosecution witnesses had taken any steps to arrest appellant Kalloo from his house. A suggestion was made to Satyapal Singh (P.W.2) and Ghasi Ram (P.W.3) in cross-examination that appellant Kalloo had arrived at the spot after hearing the death of Smt. Moonga and then arrested. This does not appeal to reason. Appellant Kalloo is resident of village Dulli Chandpur which is situate at a distance of one Kose (two miles) from the place of occurrence. Keeping in view this distance, it does not look probable that the news of death of Smt. Moonga would have travelled the distance of two miles during four hours and appellant Kallu Singh would have arrived to see the dead body at the spot. Keeping in view this distance, it does not look probable that the news of death of Smt. Moonga would have travelled the distance of two miles during four hours and appellant Kallu Singh would have arrived to see the dead body at the spot. In view of the strained relation also between Smt. Moonga and himself, appellant Kallu would not have preferred to go near the dead body of Smt. Moonga. Therefore, the suggestions made to Satyapal Singh (P.W.2) and Ghasi Ram (P.W.3) are only imaginary suggestions and there is no substance at all. 11. We cannot hold as a general rule that in all cases where a person is arrested at the spot soon after the occurrence is given a thorough thrashing at the spot, such a situation differs from case to case. Some times saner elements prevail and people do not resort to severe beating of the persons arrested at the spot. It does not transpire from the evidence of the witnesses produced by the prosecution that any one of the persons present at the spot had any weapon in their hands. Satyapal stated in cross-examination that neither he nor the witnesses had any lathi danda in their hands. Thus it is established that there was no weapon in the hands of the witnesses. Hence even if the persons assembled at the spot had assaulted the appellant the only with fists and kicks, and there by would not have caused any visible injury on the person of appellant Kallu which could have been noticed by the police officers at the police-station. This therefore, fully explain the absence of injury on the person of Kallu. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant in this respect has no force at all. 12. It was argued, that Satya Pal Singh had admitted in cross-examination that he had kept Kallu at the spot for about four hours and then had taken to the police station. It was urged that there is no explanation as to why Kallu was kept for four hours at the spot. We cannot draw any conclusion on the basis of a stray sentence occurring in cross examination. The whole evidence and the circumstances have to be looked into. The chik report (Ext. ka-6) indicated that the police station was Twelve Kms. from the place of occurrence. We cannot draw any conclusion on the basis of a stray sentence occurring in cross examination. The whole evidence and the circumstances have to be looked into. The chik report (Ext. ka-6) indicated that the police station was Twelve Kms. from the place of occurrence. Satya Pal Singh had stated in his examination-in-chief that the he had started for the police Station at about 2.30 p.m. He had walked along with the appellant for about three miles. He had waited at the nearest bus stop for fifteen to twenty minutes for bus. Thereafter he had changed the bus at Shootpuri. There too he had waited for the bus for ten to fifteen minutes. This statement appears to be correct. The sentence occurring in the cross-examination is based on some confusion. It appears that the witness had stated the above fact regarding stay at the spot treating the whole period between the occurrence and the lodging of the report as the period of stay at the spot, keeping in view the whole statement given by Satyapal and the above circumstances, we come to the conclusion that the witnesses had started at the earliest after the occurrence for the police-station. The maker of report and his party with Kallu had stayed at the spot for about one and a half hours which was quite reasonable. 13. Satyapal had stated that while appellant Kallu was pressing the hands he had asked Veer Singh to hurry up and kill the lady as people were coming. This statement appears to be correct because the occurrence had taken place near a public path way. It was probable that during the occurrence several persons had arrived and apprehended appellant Kallu at the spot. Seeing this the two sons of Kallu may not have attempted to save their father, for they could also be arrested, had such an attempt been made. 14. In view of what has been said above, we come to the conclusion that the points raised by learned counsel for the appellant doubting the arrest of appellant Kallu have no force at all. The prosecution evidence regarding the arrest of Kallu at the spot has been rightly believed by the lower court. Even hostile witnesses stated about his arrest. 15. Learned counsel for the appellant has urged that solitary statement of Satyapal Singh is not believable. The prosecution evidence regarding the arrest of Kallu at the spot has been rightly believed by the lower court. Even hostile witnesses stated about his arrest. 15. Learned counsel for the appellant has urged that solitary statement of Satyapal Singh is not believable. In this case, the prosecution witnesses, viz, Ghasi Ram, Hori Singh and Much Ram Singh had turned Hostile. They have been cross-examined by the prosecution. By this cross-examination, the prosecution has avoided the statement of these hostile witnesses. 16. The veracity of Satyapal Singh has been doubted on this ground that he was benefited by the death of his mother because this had hastened the testamentary devolution of the property. This contention of the appellant is based on statement of hostile witness Ghasi Ram who had stated in cross-examination by the accused that a letter of Rajpal (Son of Smt. Moonga) was recovered from the pocket of Smt. Moonga. It was urged that probably this letter was a part of plan of Satyapal Singh and his brother to take deceased to Rampur where she had gone to enquire from Hardeo Singh Master about the well being of her son Rajpal. It has not been elicited in the cross-examination of Satyapal Singh that any letter was recovered from the pocket of Smt. Moonga Ghasi Ram (P.W.3) was examined alter Satyapal Singh. It appears that Ghasi Ram was in league with the appellants. A leading question was put to his reading whether he (Ghasi Ram) had required at the spot whether Rajpal's letter was received and Smt. Moonga had gone to the Master at Rampur for knowing about his (Rajpal) condition, Ghasi Ram stated in reply that one letter was recovered from the pocket of Smt. Moonga. It was a letter of Rajpal. He had not enquired any thing in this respect at the spot. It appears that it was settled between the appellants and Ghasi Ram that in reply to the above question he will give the settled answer as stated above. On this basis of solitary suggestion was made to Satyapal that he had probably arranged the plan that by means of letter of Rajpal Smt. Moonga will be taken to Rampur and murdered at a lonely place on return. It is noteworthy that there is ,to note in the inquest proceedings that any letter of Rajpal was found on the person of Smi. Moonga. It is noteworthy that there is ,to note in the inquest proceedings that any letter of Rajpal was found on the person of Smi. Moonga. The P.W.2 Pawan Singh was also not cross-examined about this letter. He remained with the investigating officer throughout the investigation. No suggestion was made to this witness that any letter was recovered from the pocket of deceased. We find that the whole contention of the defence in this respect has no substance at all. It has been carved on the basis of some pre-settled replies by hostile witnesses. The general diary entry shows that Ghasi Ram, Hori Singh and Mukh Ram Singh had accompanied the P.W.2 Satyapal to the police Station. They are said to be present. Hence in the presence of these witnesses Satyapal would not have murdered his mother. 17. Satyapal Singh and his brother would not have been gainer in killing their mother. They were successors of the property of village Dulli Chandpur for which Smt. Moonga had litigated upto the High Court. It is an admitted fact that by the time of occurrence Smt. Moonga had not been able to get possession of the property. We do not think that the sons would have thwarted the attempt of Smt. Moonga to get the property by killing her at that juncture. The property at Zafarabad where Satyapal Singh resided was only ten to twelve bighas. It was, therefore, a very small property. The lady was sixty to sixty five years old at the time of occurrence. We do not think that in such a state of advanced age Satyapal Singh and his brother would have murdered their mother. 18. There could be no apprehension of Smt. Moonga cancelling the Will and transferring all the property to Smt. Dharmawati. Smt. Dhermavati was the issue from the first marriage of Smt. Moonga. She was a married woman and casual visitor to the house of Smt. Moonga. In such a situation, Smt. Moonga would not have been having much leaning towards Smt. Dharmawati. On the very date of occurrence she had gone to Rampur to know about her son Rajpal who was detained in a jail. Thus her affection was towards her sons. In such a circumstance the sons could have no apprehension that their mother would divest them of her property the contention of the appellants in this respect has no basis at all. Thus her affection was towards her sons. In such a circumstance the sons could have no apprehension that their mother would divest them of her property the contention of the appellants in this respect has no basis at all. 19. The presence of Satyapal Singh is noted in the first information report. The lodging of the report by Satyapal Singh has not been disputed. Nothing has been elicited in cross-examination of Satyapal Singh which could show that this statement is not believable. Considering all these fact, we come to the conclusion that Satyapal Singh was a reliable witness. His statement is corroborated by a medical circumstantial evidence. He is the son. He will not spare the real assailants and implicate false persons. We, therefore, hold that Satyapal Singh's evidence itself was sufficient to entail conviction of the appellants. 20. It is true that the prosecution had cross-examined the other eye-witnesses P. W.3 Ghasi Ram, P.W.4 Hori Singh and P.W.5 Mukh Ram Singh and the effect of these cross-examinations could he that the prosecution had avoided their statements. However, the Courts can rely even on such hostile witnesses if on scrutiny it transpires that they are reliable in respect of some version of the prosecution story. Ghasi Ram P.W. 3 had supported the prosecution story relating to the arrest of Kallu appellant at the spot. He had however, stated in cross-examination that he could not recognise the other two assailants. On cross-examination by the prosecution he, however, had admitted that he had recognised two persons running away from the spot. They were Veer Singh and Shiv Charan, the other two appellants. He, however, stated that he had not seen these two persons cutting the throat of deceased. In cross-examination by the defence nothing was elicited which could show that this version was not at all reliable. P.W.4 Hori Singh had supported the whole of prosecution story in his examination-in-chief. However, in the cross-examination he had stated that he had heard about the news of the murder of Moonga at a distance of two `Kose' (4 miles) from Suraj Nagar. On cross-examination by the public prosecutor the witness stated that his statement in examination-in-chief was correct and the statement given in cross-examination was incorrect. In this way this Hori Singh also supports the prosecution story. His statement cannot be ignored outright. P.W.6 Mukhram Singh had supported all the prosecution story. On cross-examination by the public prosecutor the witness stated that his statement in examination-in-chief was correct and the statement given in cross-examination was incorrect. In this way this Hori Singh also supports the prosecution story. His statement cannot be ignored outright. P.W.6 Mukhram Singh had supported all the prosecution story. He had even stated that he and other witnesses had arrested Kallu at the spot. This witness had tried to oblige the appellant by admitting in cross-examination that he had heard about the news. The lower court had written the question put to the witness by the counsel for defence. In one question reading whether he had heard about the murder of Moonga the witness had simply answered as `yes'. In this way on account of some leanings towards the accused this witness had tried to support the defence. However, in cross-examination by the public prosecutor this witness had admitted that whatever he had stated in cross-examination by the defence is incorrect, and his statement in examination-in-chief was correct. Thus, the above facts show that the version of the prosecution was supported by these three witnesses even who had some leanings towards appellant. Their presence can not be doubted. Their names are entered in the first information report and as well as, in the general diary entry relating to the case. We find that the statement of Satyapal cannot he said to he a solitary statement. His version is corroborated by even hostile witnesses. 21. It was argued that the prosecution has not explained the fracture of the ribs of the deceased. According to Dr. R.B. Saxena (P.W.1) the fracture of ribs could he caused if any one had sat on the chest of the deceased. It was pointed out that none of the eye-witnesses have stated that any one of the accused had sat over the chest. Since in the manner of occurrence as put forward by the prosecution the fracture was not possible the whole story should he disbelieved. 22. The above contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is not correct. The prosecution witnesses have stated that two accused were pressing the legs and hands. This means that Smt. Moonga was making an attempt to free herself from the clutches of the accused. 22. The above contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is not correct. The prosecution witnesses have stated that two accused were pressing the legs and hands. This means that Smt. Moonga was making an attempt to free herself from the clutches of the accused. In that state of her body, even though her hands and feet were being pressed, Smt. Moonga would not have remained lying on the ground as a log of wood. Her body would have been certainly wriggling. In order to inflict injury on the neck, it was necessary for the assailant to press the body also and to come into such a position as to be able to inflict the knife blow. That was possible only when the assailant sat over the body or coming in the line of the body of the deceased, pressed the body with one hand and inflicted the injures with the other hand. In either of the two situations, the fracture of ribs was possible. The above probability is fortified by the presence of multiple abrasion on all over back, right side, both shoulder and right arm. The spleen had ruptured. These abrasions and rupture of spleen were probable only by pressing of the body when the deceased was making an attempt to free herself. 23. The court cannot expect very minute details of the commission of a crime from villager eye-witnesses. What was the position of a criminal at the time of committing the crime and at the time of actual assault is very difficult for even well educated persons to narrate. The courts must ascertain the minute details from probabilities and see whether the injuries etc. found on the injured or deceased were probable in the circumstances of a case of close scrutiny of the evidence, we find that the manner stated by Satyapal does not rule out the fracture of ribs. Smt. Moonga was an old lady. Even on little pressure the ribs could fracture. Hence the probabilities stated by us the fracture of ribs was possible. There is no force in the argument of learned counsel for the appellants. That the fracture of rib was not explained. There is no force in the argument of learned counsel for the appellants that the fracture of ribs was nest possible in the manner of assault stated by Satyapal. 24. There is no force in the argument of learned counsel for the appellants. That the fracture of rib was not explained. There is no force in the argument of learned counsel for the appellants that the fracture of ribs was nest possible in the manner of assault stated by Satyapal. 24. The last contention of the appellants is that Kallu would not have gone fare handed if he had any intention to commit crime. This argument is not tenable. It presuppose that Kallu and his sons had prior information that Smt. Moonga was to pass on the way and would be reaching at that particular time and place. It is possible that the appellants had met Smt. Moonga accidentally and committed the murder. This argument too has no force at all. 25. It has been argued that it was not probable that Smt. Moonga would have remained without food upto the alleged time. The murder had taken place at 1.00 p.m. Her stomach was found empty. Satyapal and Smt. Moonga are said to have started for Rampur at 10.00 a.m. If they had taken some light refreshment before 10.00 a.m. then the same would have passed the stomach by the time of occurrence. In expectation that they would take some meal on return to their village, they may not have taken any thing by the time of occurrence. We feel that nothing turns out in favour of the appellants on the basis of circumstances that the stomach of the deceased was empty. 26. For the reasons mentioned above, we find no force in this appeal and is dismissed. The judgment and order of the court below are maintained. The appellants are on bail their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties discharged. They be taken into custody to serve out their sentences.