JUDGMENT Palok Basu, J. - Anokey, Ram Kumar and Ram Swarup sons of Mangal Sen and Sia Ram cousin of appellants 1, 2 and 3 have preferred this appeal against their conviction u/s 302/34, I.P.C. and sentence of imprisonment for life as awarded to them by the I Additional Sessions Judge, Rampur on 22.1.79 in S.T. No. 200 of 1978. 2. The charge against the appellants was that on 16.6.78 at about 6.00 a.m. in village Adil Nagar, P.S. Milak, District Rampur all the appellants in furtherance of their common intention committed the murder of Sita Ram and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 302/34 I.P.C. 3. According to .the prosecution case, Sita Ram was going to lake for easing himself with a LOTA in his hand, while brother Reva Ram, informant was going to his sugarcane field close by. From near the lake the four appellants came out, Anokhey and Ram Swarup who were armed with Tabals, Ram Kumar was armed with Sooja and Sia Ram was armed with spear and started beating Sita Ram. The hue and cry was raised, which attracted Fate Ram P.W. 2, Het Ram P.W. 3 and others. The accused ran away threatening the use of Taval against the witnesses should they attempt to proceed to catch them. Sita Ram died then and there. A report was lodged by Reva Ram at Police Station Milak at 9.30 a.m. and a case was duly registered vide G.D. Entry No. Ext. Ka 2 S.I. Brahm Singh, P.W. 6 took up the investigation and recorded the statement of Reva Ram at the police station. He went to the spot, prepared an inquest report, recovered the shoes from the dead body and found a LOTA lying on the spot, bloodstained and simple earth were also taken. Then Fate Ram and Met Ram were also interrogated and he prepared a siteplan. The dead body was forwarded for postmortem examination, which was conducted by Dr. R.K. Misra, P.W. 5 on .17.6.78, at about 11.15 a.m. who found following antemortem injuries on the dead body of Sita Ram: 1. Incised wound 2.3 x 5 cm x bone on right side neck and head, cutting rt. ear, right temporal bone and rt. side jaw bones and muscles and blood vessels. 2. Incised wound 15 cm x 5 cms x bone deep on rt. Incised wound 2.3 x 5 cm x bone on right side neck and head, cutting rt. ear, right temporal bone and rt. side jaw bones and muscles and blood vessels. 2. Incised wound 15 cm x 5 cms x bone deep on rt. side neck and front of neck cutting muscles, nerves, blood vessels and vertebral column and spinal cord. Incised wound 2 cms x 1/2 cm x thickness of pinna of left ear in its lower part. 4. Incised wound 2 cm x 1 cm x bone on It. side head, 5 cms behind left ear. 5. Punctured wound 2 cms x 1 1/2 cms 5 cms on It. side neck, 7 cms below left ear. Incised wound 2 cms x 1 cm x 1 cm, on It. side neck, 1/2 cm behind injury No. 5. 7. Punctured wound, 2 cms x 1 cm x 5 cm on It. side, front of neck, 4 cms below left part of lower jaw. 8. Incised wound 3 cms x 1 cm x skin on front of left shoulder. 9. Abrasion 1 cm x 1/2 cm on left side chest, 7 cms above left nipple. 10. Punctured wound 2 cms x 1 cm x abdominal cavity deep on front of abdomen middle part, 13 cms above umbilicus. 11. Incised wound 2 cms x 1 cm x skin or rt. side abdomen, upper part, 10 cms below rt. nipple. 12. Incised wound 2 cms x 1/2 cm x skin on the umbilicus. 13. Punctured wound 2 1/2 cms x 1 cm x abdominal cavity deep on rt. side abdomen, 6 cms to right of umblicus. 14. Punctured wound 2 cms x 1 cm x abdominal cavity deep on rt. side abdomen, 1 cm below injury No. 13. 4. According to the opinion of the Doctor, death was caused due to shock and haemorrhage resulting from the injuries which were about 11/4 day old. Ultimately after completing the investigation a charge sheet, Ext. Ka 13 was filed aganist the appellants. 5. The appellants pleaded not guilty to the charge and denied their participation. They suggested that Sita Ram died under some unknown circumstances around 4.00 a.m. on the same day and for this purpose they have examined a defence witness, namely, Jumma, D.W. 1. 6. The prosecution has examined three eye witnesses, Beva Ram P.W. 1, Fate Ram P.W.2 and Het Ram P.W. 3. They suggested that Sita Ram died under some unknown circumstances around 4.00 a.m. on the same day and for this purpose they have examined a defence witness, namely, Jumma, D.W. 1. 6. The prosecution has examined three eye witnesses, Beva Ram P.W. 1, Fate Ram P.W.2 and Het Ram P.W. 3. Various documents, such as chick report, G.D. entries and the memorandum prepared at the site have been duly proved by the formal witnesses. The Doctor who conducted the postmortem examination has been examined as P.W.5 and the Investigating Officer, Sri Brahm Singh has been examined as P.W. 6. 7. Placing implicit reliance on the prosecution version as deposed to by three eyewitness i the learned Trial Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellants as'' stated above, hence this appeal. 8. Sri P.N. Misra and Sri J.N. Chaturvedi have argued the matter at length for the appellants, while Sri A.K. Dwivedi, learned Addl. Government Advocate has held the brief of the State. 9. Two instances have been cited by the prosecution witnesses for providing motive for the appellants to commit the crime. About ten years ago a Marpeet had taken place between mangal Sen, father of the three appellants and Sita Ram deceased on any occasiqn regarding which a prosecution ensued and Sita Ram was acquitted. There was some litigation over the agricultural land between Mangal Sen and Dori Lal, wherein Sita Ram did pairvi for Dori Lal against Mangal Sen. Anokhey, appellant was said to have been arrested by the police in connection, with some offence, which the family;; members of Anokhey thought as having been caused by Sita Ram and in that case g Anokhey was released on bail only three days before the date of the incident. From the crossexamination of the three witnesses nothing has been brought out, as would go to indicate that the motive suggested by the prosecution was not available. It is fully proved on record that the appellants had sufficient motive to commit the murder of Sita Ram. 10. The eye witness account as given by the testimony of the three witnesses named above is fully convincing and natural soal. Even though sufficiently long crossexamination has been directed towards all the eyewitnesses, but no material contradiction worth the name has come into existence as may render their testimony doubtful. 10. The eye witness account as given by the testimony of the three witnesses named above is fully convincing and natural soal. Even though sufficiently long crossexamination has been directed towards all the eyewitnesses, but no material contradiction worth the name has come into existence as may render their testimony doubtful. The conditions of the stomach and large and small intestines fully support the prosecution case that the deceased was about to ease, when murder was committed. The prompt lodging of the first information report, the instantaneous visit to the spot by the I.O., the recovery of LOTA and shoes from the site, the duration of antemortem injuries noted in the post mortem report are more than enough circumstances indicating the credibility of the eyewitness account furnished by Reva Ram, fateh Ram and Net Ram. The learned Trial Judge has rightly placed implicit reliance on the testimony of these three eyewitness and there is no reason whatsoever to take a different view. 11. The postmortem report showing the injuries noted above, fully supports the prosecution version. However, a dispassionate argument was made by the learned counsel for the appellants that at least one of the three brothers, namely, Ram Kumar armed with Sooja, may be given the benefit of doubt as the injuries found on the deceased may not be specifically attributed to the said weapon. It is argued that way of abundant caution benefit of doubt may be extended to Ram Kumar appellant. The learned counsel for the State; however, said that the crossexamination of the Doctor and the eyewitness ... would not permit any distinction in the case any one of the appellants having regard to their respective weapons as the injuries fit h with the story propounded by the witnesses. 12. The dimensions of the incised wounds are indicative of use of Tabal on the deceased which is a heavy cutting weapon. The five punctured wounds also go to indicate use of pointed weapon such as ballam and Sooja. The argument, however, is that if Sooja was used, some injury on the deceased should normally have been circular one, as Sooja is commonly known to be a rounded pointed weapon like javline. It was emphasized that the measurements of all the five punctured wounds (except one) are 2 cms x 1 1/2 cms and this indicates only the length and the bredth. It was emphasized that the measurements of all the five punctured wounds (except one) are 2 cms x 1 1/2 cms and this indicates only the length and the bredth. It is true that the Doctor has not noted the depth of the punctured wounds nor did he find any circular wound. The description of Sooja has not been given by the eye witnesses, but all of them have only named the weapon. Therefore, as a measure of abundant caution, benefit of doubt may be extended to Ram Kumar. In view of the aforesaid discussions though the prosecution case has been proved to the hilt and the appeal deserves to be dismissed appellant Ram Kumar may be given the benefit of doubt. 13. The appeal is consequently allowed in part. The conviction and sentence awarded to Ram Kumar, appellant is set aside. He is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds are discharged. 14. The appeal if Anokhey, Ram Swarup and Siya Ram is dismissed. Their conviction and sentences are upheld. They are on bail. They will surrender to their bail bonds to serve out the sentences awarded to them.