Honble KANTA BHATNAGAR, J.—This appeal is directed against the judgment dated March 28, 1984 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar by which appellants Pyara Singh, Gurdayal Singh and Jela Singh & Jarnel Singh were convicted under sections 302/34, 364/54 and 341 I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 5000/- each, in default of payment of fine to undergo five years R.I. each on the first count, three years R.I. and fine of Rs. 1000/each, in default of payment of fine to undergo one years R.I. on the second count and one months R.I. each on the third count with an order that the substantive sentences for all the charges shall run concurrently. 2. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that on December 3, 1983 at about 6.30 Naseeb Kaur (P.W.2), along with her husband Bhagwant Singh was returning after collecting cotton from the field. They placed the cotton in the house of Mahendra Singh (P. W. 1) brother of Bhagwant Singh and proceeded towards their own Dhani. Gurjeet Singh was also with them. When all the three reached near the Dhani of appellant Pyara Singh, the three appellants and one Resham Singh (since acquitted by the trial court) came out from the field of cotton. Pyara Singh is said to be armed with barchi, Gurdayal Singh with Gandasi, and Jaila Singh with Lathi at that time. Pyara Singh gave a lalkar to Bhagwantsingh using the words TAGDAHOJA. He told him that as he was not comapromising with him he would be done to death. Bhagwant Singh tried to run away towards the dhani of Gulzarasingh (P.W.3) but the four miscreants cought hold of him & gave a beating. Gurdayal Singh warned that in case there would be murder at his dhani he would go against the assailants. The assailants therafter took Bhagwant Singh dragging towards the Dhani of Pyara Singh. Naseeb Kaur (P.W.2) asked them to release her husband and she went behind the assailants but she was warned that in case she would follow them, she would also be done away with. They told her that Bhagwant Singh was their enemy The assailants took Bhagwant Singh inside the dhani. Shrieks of Bhagwant Singh were heard for sometime and not thereafter. Naseeb Kaur along with Gurieet Singh went to the dhani of Mahendra Singh and informed him about the incident. They told her that Bhagwant Singh was their enemy The assailants took Bhagwant Singh inside the dhani. Shrieks of Bhagwant Singh were heard for sometime and not thereafter. Naseeb Kaur along with Gurieet Singh went to the dhani of Mahendra Singh and informed him about the incident. Mahendra Singh having fracture in his leg, asked Naseeb Kaur to go to the Police Station. They went to Gurjanta Singh, who accomopanied them to the Police Station in the Tractor of Amarjeet father of Gurieet At the information lodged F.I R (Ex. P/l) was recorded. Balwant Rai (P.W. 11) Station House Officer of that Police Station went to the site and in the morning proceeded with necessary investigation. The dead body of Bhagwant singh was found covered with a jute-bag in the Dhani of Pyara Singh beneath a tree The S.H.O. prepared the required memos. The autopsy over the dead body was conducted by Dr. Satya Prakash Sharma (P.W. 10), Medical Officer, Incharge Primary Health Centre, Anoopgarh at 2.45 p.m. on December 4 1982. The postmortem examination report is Ex. P. 28. The Doctor noted forty injuries on the Scalp, Face, Chest, Abdomen, Right Arm, Left Arm, Left hand and left Lower Leg of the deceased. Out of these injuries two were incised wou-and three punctured wounds and the remaining injuries were lacerated wounds, abrasions and contusions. There were six fractures. The cause of death accor-dingh to the Doctor was laceration of brain due to fracture of frontal bone by a blunt weapon and shock caused by the cumulative effect of the multiple injuries on different parts of body by different types of weapons. The lacerated wound on right parietal region of the scalp was in the opinion of the Doctor suffcient to couse death in the ordinary course of nature. He however stated that even in case; injury No. 1 on the right side of forehead by which frontal bone fractured dura matter was torn and subdura hammerrhage was caused, would not have been there, there was likelyhood of death of the injured on account of the remaining injuries because there was excessive internal as well as external bleeding The shoes, turban and Kada of the deceased were taken in Session from the site vide memo Ex. P/6. Pyara Singh and Gurdayal Singh were arrested vide memos Ex. P/30 and Ex. P/31 respectively on December 11, 1982. P/6. Pyara Singh and Gurdayal Singh were arrested vide memos Ex. P/30 and Ex. P/31 respectively on December 11, 1982. Jernail Singh was arrested on November 14, 1982 vide memo Ex. P/32. In pusuance of the information (Ex. P/33) furnished by Pyara Singh while in custody one Barchha and one bed sheet with one watch with black dial and black strap tied in the corner of the bed-sheet were recovered from beneath the heap of barlay from his residential Dhani at his instance vide memo Ex. P/ll. In pursuance of the information Ex. P/24 furnished by Gurdayal Singh while in custody one Gandasi from his Dhani from beneath the heap of cotton lving under a cot were recovered vide memo Ex. P/24 at his instance. In pursuance of the information Ex. P/35 furnished by Jaila Singh one lathi was recovered at his instance from the roof of his residential kotha vide memo Ex. P/25. Articles recovered were seated and deposited in the mal khana of the Police station and were sent for Chemical Examination through P.W. 9 Randhir Singh L.C. of that Police Station. The identification parade of the watch and the bed-sheet was conducted by Shri R.K.Jain. Chief Judicial Magistrate on December 9, 1982 and the articles were identified by Naseeb Kaur (P.W. 2) wife of the deceased as belonging to her husband. The identification memo was Ex. P/38. 3. Upon completion of necessary investigation charge sheet against the appellants and Resham Singh co-accused was filed in the Court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Anoopgarh, The case on committal reached the Court of Additional Sessions Judge,Raisinghnagar. The learned Additional Sessions Judge chages sheeted the appellants for the offences under sections 302, 302/34, 364, 36 / 34, 341 and 120B, I.P.C. Upon denial of the charges by the accused trial proceeded Prosecution examined twelve witnesses in all. In their, statements under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure all the accused denied the allegations levelled against them and stated that the witnesses were stating so out of enmity. No defence witness was examined. The learned trial Judge did not hold the case established against Resham Singh and acquitted him of the charges. He however, held the case established agenst the three appellants for the charges under sections 302/34, 364/34 and 341, I.P.C. and convicted them for those charges vide the judgment under appeal. 4. We heard Mr. No defence witness was examined. The learned trial Judge did not hold the case established against Resham Singh and acquitted him of the charges. He however, held the case established agenst the three appellants for the charges under sections 302/34, 364/34 and 341, I.P.C. and convicted them for those charges vide the judgment under appeal. 4. We heard Mr. M.L. Garg, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Vijay Singh Choudhary, learned Public Prosecutor for the State assisted by Mr. H.S. Sandnu, learned counsel for the complainant. 5. The learned counsel for the appellants has findings of the learned trial Judge on a number of grounds. It has been strenuously contended that prosecution case solely rests on the testimony of two witnesses viz. Naseeb Kaur (P. W.2) and Gulzara Singh (P.W.3) and both of them are inimical to Pyara Singh. That, the prosecution has withheld the material witnesses like Gurjeet Singh and Gurjanta Singh first being an eye witness according to the prosecution and second being the person who accompanied Naseeb Kaur to the Police Station. Learned counsel also raised the point of delay in lodging the F.I.R. and the information being sent to the concerned Court and submitted that all this shows that there was manipulation in the case. Mr. Garg emphatically argued that it is a case of no evidence in which the investigating agency has introduced Naseeb Kaur and Gulzara Singh as eye witnesses so that Pyara Singh and other may be falsely implicated. It has also been argued that the dead body was found covered with a jute bag in the dhani of Pyaraisngh in open and possibility of some body else placing the dead body at that place and Pyara Singh and others having no knowledge of it cannot be ruled out. It has been emphatically argued that there were no dragging marks on the way through which according to Naseeb Kaur, Bhagwant Singh was taken by the miscreants. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor controverting these contentions submitted that presence of Naseeb Kaur(P.W.2) at the site stands duly established. Gulzara Singhs Dhani was nearby and he has supported the testimony of Naseeb Kaur in all material particulars and non examination of Gurjeetsingh would not effect the prosecution case. About Gurjanta Singh, the argument is that he was not an eye witnesses and therefore, he could not have thrown any light in the matter. Gulzara Singhs Dhani was nearby and he has supported the testimony of Naseeb Kaur in all material particulars and non examination of Gurjeetsingh would not effect the prosecution case. About Gurjanta Singh, the argument is that he was not an eye witnesses and therefore, he could not have thrown any light in the matter. The learned Public Prosecutor argued that the dead body being found in the open will not help the defence case because it was found in the dhani of Pyara Singh and none else could have placed it there without the inhabitants being aware of it. 7. The prosecution case rests on the testimony of Naseeb Kaur and Gulzara Singh. Gurjeet Singh was there with Naseeb Kaur. His father Amar Jeet having come to stay near the dhani of Mahendra Singh for sometime they were treating him as brother and Gurjeet Singh as nephew. It is for this reason that Naseeb Kaur had stated about Gurjeet Singh being her nephew. Gurjeet Singh has also said to have accompanied Naseeb Kaur to Police Station in the Tractor. He therefore, was an important witness in the matter. The prosecution for the reasons best known to it did not care to get this witness examined. The order sheet dated November 17, 1983 of the trial Court shows that there was a telegram about the ailment of the Gurjeet Singh sent to the Court. The prosecution instead of seeking further time dropped the witness. This being the position it cannot be said that the witnesses, if produced would have stated against the prosecution. . Even it is an infirmity in the prosecution care the case cannot be discarded simply because this witness has not been examined if from the statement of the other witnesses the case is established. Gurjant Singh was not an eye witness to the occurrence. Naseeb Kaur had not approached him immediately after the occurrence. In between the occurrence and her going to Gurjanta Singh she has met Mahendra Singh and narrated the facts to him. Mahendra Singh has appeared in the witness box and stated what was told to him by Naseeb Kaur. Gurjanta Singh having accompanied Naseeb Kaur to Police Station it would have been proper for the prosecution to examine him but for the reasons best known to the prosecution he was dropped as is evident from the order sheet dated July 19, 1983. Gurjanta Singh having accompanied Naseeb Kaur to Police Station it would have been proper for the prosecution to examine him but for the reasons best known to the prosecution he was dropped as is evident from the order sheet dated July 19, 1983. That would however not be sufficient to raise suspicion on the veracity of the testimony of Naseeb Kaur. 8. The important point would be whether Naseeb Kaur and Gulzara Singh are witnesses of credence and on their testimony the prosecution case can be held to be established. Naseeb Kaur (P.W.2) has stated about four miscreants coming out from the field and giving a Lalkar to her husband and their giving a beating to him and taking him towards the Dhani of Pyara Singh. She has also stated about hearing of shrieks of her husband only for sometime and then her going to her brother-in-law Mahendra Singh and narrating him the facts. She has also stated about Gulzara Singh (P.W.3) being there at his Dhani and warning the miscreants that in case they would commit murder at his Dhani he would go against them. Similar is the version of Gulzara Singh. 9. The learned counsel for the appellants has laid much stress on the discrepancy in the statements of these two witnesses on the point that whereas Naseeb Kaur has stated about Gulzara Singh coming out at her instance and warning the assailants, Gulzara Singh has not stated so. He has stated about the four accused giving beating to Bhagwant Singh and taking him from there and he warned the assailants but he did not go near them. According to him when the four assailants took Bhagwant Singh towards their Dhani Naseeb Kaur and Gurjeet Singh went to him and told him about it. He told them that what can he do, they may go to the Police. He stated that he did not go to the Dhani of the accused because he himself had the risk. However, on all material points Gulzara Singh (P.W.3) has supported Naseeb Kaur (P.W.2). 10. The learned counsel for the appellants has tried to discredit the testimony of these two witnesses in view of their conduct. According to him Naseeb Kaur being the wife of the deceased in the natural course of events would have rushed to his rescue instead of seeing the occurrence from a distance. 10. The learned counsel for the appellants has tried to discredit the testimony of these two witnesses in view of their conduct. According to him Naseeb Kaur being the wife of the deceased in the natural course of events would have rushed to his rescue instead of seeing the occurrence from a distance. Naseeb Kaur has explained this conduct. She has stated that she had to remain at a distance of about half killa because when she tried to go behind her husband she was threatened that in case she would follow, she would also be done away with. She being a lady could not have done more than that, specialy so when the assailants were armed with weapons and Gulzara Singh also did not dome to his help. So far as Gulzara Singh is concerned, his not going to the rescue to Bhagwant Singh was quite natural because his relations with the accused party were not cordial. 11. Mr. Garg, learned counsel for the appellants has stressed that the two witnesses on whom the trial Judge has placed reliance were inimical to the accused and therefore without independent corroboration their testimony should not have been attached any weight. 12. Naseeb Kaur (P.W.2) has stated that her husband had filed a suit four years back against Pyara Singh as the latter had beaten him and Pyara Singh was insisting upon a compromise. That, on the day of occurrence he had told that as Bhagwant Singh was not compromising the matter, he would be killed and that he was their enemy. After his telling so the assailants had started beating Bhagwant Singh and took him to the Dhani of Pyara Singh. The enemity was of course there and that might be the motive for the commission of the crime but Naseeb Kaurs presence along with her husband was natural. Mahendra Singh brother of Bhagwant Singh has supported her on the points that on that evening she and her husband had placed their cotton in his house. Naseeb Kaurs not going to her own dhani after the incident is also not strange because as stated by her, her father-in-law Vichitra Singh has since expired and there was no other member in his family. It was therefore, quite natural for her to go to Mahendra Singh. 13. Naseeb Kaurs not going to her own dhani after the incident is also not strange because as stated by her, her father-in-law Vichitra Singh has since expired and there was no other member in his family. It was therefore, quite natural for her to go to Mahendra Singh. 13. The learned counsel for the appellants has also tried to convince that had she gone to Mahendra Singh, he would have accompanied her to the Police Station. Mahendra Singh and Nasseb Kaur both have stated that he having a fracture in his leg was not in a position to move much and as such he asked Naseeb Kaur to go to the Police Station with Gurjeet Singh. 14. Gulzara Singh (P.W.3) had admitted that Bhagat Singh is the brother of accused Pyara Singh and Bhagwant Singh and Bachan Singh and Gurbachan Singh, had institued a case against him, Karnail Singh and Gurbachan Singh. That in that incident he, Bhagwant Singh, Jagir Singh and Tara Singh were injured. He and his companions were sentenced to three years imprisonment in the matter and he had undergone the sentence. He has* admitted that there was enemity on account of that but he has also stated that they used to visit the dhani of the accused. 15. There is substance in the argument of the learned Public Prosecutor that because of this enemity Gulzara Singh might not have gone near the assailants to rescue Bhagwant Singh because in that case he himself would have sufferred at their hands. Gulzara Singh has categorically stated that he had warned the assailants that in case they would commit the murder in his Dhani he would go against them. This is not in dispute that Gulzara Singhs, Dhani was closed to the Dhani of Pyara Singh and the place where from Bhagwant Singh was taken was visible from his Dhani. From the lengthy cross-exami-nation of the witness nothing can be brought on record to suggest that he was telling a lie in order to falsely implicate the appellants. 16. Learned counsel for the appellants next argued that the statements of Naseeb Kaur (P.W.2) stands falsified from the fact that there was no mark of dragging on the route. From the lengthy cross-exami-nation of the witness nothing can be brought on record to suggest that he was telling a lie in order to falsely implicate the appellants. 16. Learned counsel for the appellants next argued that the statements of Naseeb Kaur (P.W.2) stands falsified from the fact that there was no mark of dragging on the route. To substantiate his arguments he referred to the case of Nathu Singh V. The State of Rajasthan (1) where in the evidence of the eye witnesses was taken to be suspicious for the reason that no blood was found at the place where the victim was alleged to have fallen and there was absence of trial of blood from there to the place he was said to have been taken after beating. 17. Naseeb Kaur (P.W.2) was seeing the accused from some distance. There were four persons, two of which are said to have cought hold of the hands of the victim and the other two his legs, and in that case dragging marks might not have been there. The number of injuries on various parts of the body substantiates the prosecution case of the injured being given beating from the place he was taken away and also inside the dhani where from shrieks were heard for sometime. 18. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the report of the Chemical Examiner not being placed before the Court, recovery of the weapons would not connect the assailants with the commission of the crime. There is force in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants but when the case is substantiated from the evidence of the eye witnesses as discussed earlier, failure to connect the recovery will not make the prosecution case infirm or unproved. 19. In view of the above discussion, we are in perfect agreement : with the learned trial Judge that prosecution has established the case against the three appellants beyond all reasonable doubt. The two eye witnesses to the occurrence have rightly been taken to be witnesses of sterling worth and convic-tion has rightly been based on their testimony. 20. Consequently, the appeal having no substance is dismissed.