JUDGMENT G.P. Mathur, J. - This appeal has been preferred by four appellants, namely, Devi Singh, Virendra Singh, Dalvir Singh and Mahabir, against their conviction under sections 302, 342 and 323 IPC read with section 34 IPC and sentence of imprisonment for life, six months and six months R.I. respectively imposed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Aligarh, by his judgment and order dated March 20, 1978. 2. The investigation in this case commenced on the basis of a written First Information Report which was lodged by Mahabir (appellant) at 00.30 hrs. on 28.9.1977 at P.S. Sikandirarao under sections 395, 397 and 342 IPC on the basis of which a case was registered as Crime No. 279. The case was subsequently converted under Section 302 IPC and Mahabir aforesaid and three others were charge-sheeted for having committed the offence of murder and wrongful confirment. Virendra Singh and Dalvir Singh accused are real brothers being sons of Lakhan. Devi Singh accused is sister's son of Lakhan, Mahabir accused is the daughter's son of the sister of Lakhan's father. 3. The prosecution case as unfolded in the statement of P.W. 1 Gyan Singh is as follows :- 4. Accused Virendra Singh and Dalbir Singh are residents of village Fatelipur (hamlet Gandesari). There was some land of Lakhan's father's sister in this village. Accused Mahabir was also living in the same village and was looking after the land of his maternal grand-mother. Ranvir the land of his maternal grand-mother. Ranvir Singh deceased belonged to village Bhaismai. Bhaismai and Fatelipur villages are situate at a distance of one furlong. The chak (agricultural land) of Ranvir deceased is situate at a distance of three bighas from the house of Gyan Singh. At about 9.30 PM on the date of incident Ranvir was going by the side of his chak when Megh Singh son of Ram Singh called him to his chabutara. Gyan Singh also went there and sat on the same chabutara, Megh Singh asked Ranvir Singh to settle the transaction regarding sale of Gyan Singh's house to him, while the talks were going on the four accused out of whom Devi Singh was armed with spear, Virendra Singh was armed with knife and Dalvir Singh and Mahabir armed with lathis, arrived there. All the four accused started assaulting Ranvir Singh. All the four accused started assaulting Ranvir Singh. Gyan Singh raised an alarm on which he was also given 2-3 lathi blows on which he ran away from there towards his house. The accused lifted Ranvir Singh and took him to their own house. After sometime sound of gun fire was heard from the house of Lakhan Singh. Gyan Singh thought of giving information at the house of Ranivir Singh and while he was proceeding towards Bhaismai he met Surajpal Singh, a retire S.I., and some others. These people caught hold of him and took him to the house of Surajpal. After sometime they took Gyan Singh to the house of Lakhan. At that time outer door of Lakhan's house was closed and five-six persons were sitting at the gate of the house. Surajpal then got the gate opened and Gyan Singh was brought inside the house of Lakhan and thereafter the gate was closed. The dead body of Ranvir Singh was lying in the court-yard of Lakhan. Thereafter Surajpal got two cartridges placed in the pocket of Kurta of Ranvir Singh and country-made pistol was placed below his hand. Surajpal, Rajendra and all the four accused talked inside a room in the house for sometime and thereafter a report was written by Rajendra Singh in the manner suggested by Surajpal. Dalvir and others then proceeded to the police station for lodging the report. The S.O. and other police personnel of P.S. Sikendararao arrived at the spot at about 4.30 on the following morning. Surajpal had obtained clothes of some ladies and some dry leave were also set on fire near a wall on his instruction. Some blood had fallen at the Chabutara where Ranvir had been initially assaulted. 5. Dalvir Singh accused reached the police station in the night and handedover the F.I.R. at 00.30 hrs. on 28.9.1977 on the basis of which a case was registered. In this F.I.R. it was mentioned that at about 8.30 PM on 27.8.1977 about ten or twelve dacoits armed with lathis, spears and pistols entered the house of Lakhan and Mahabir. They forcibly dragged Virendra's wife outside the house. The deceased Ranvir was among the dacoits and he fired from his pistol which missed and thereafter Devi Singh, Virendra Singh, Dalvir Singh and Mahabir started assaulting the dacoits. Ranvir Singh received injuries and fell down and the remaining dacoits ran away. They forcibly dragged Virendra's wife outside the house. The deceased Ranvir was among the dacoits and he fired from his pistol which missed and thereafter Devi Singh, Virendra Singh, Dalvir Singh and Mahabir started assaulting the dacoits. Ranvir Singh received injuries and fell down and the remaining dacoits ran away. P.W. 11 Nareshpal Yadav, S.O. of P.S. Sikandararao, proceeded to village Fatelipur and commenced investigation. He found the dead body of Ranvir Singh in the court-yard of Lakhan Singh. After the statements of the witnesses had been recorded by him it was revealed that in fact no dacoity had been committed in the house of Lakhan or Mahabir but on the contrary they had committed the murder of Ranvir Singh and a false F.I.R. had been lodged in order to save the accused from the crime committed by them. After completing the investigation charge-sheet was submitted against the four accused under sections 302, 342 and 323 IPC all read with section 34 IPC. 6. The prosecution in support of its case has examined four eye-witnesses, namely P.W. 1 Gyan Singh, P.W. 2 Raghubir Singh, P.W. 3 Ram Bir Singh and P.W. 10 Kendra Pal. P.W. 1 Gyan Singh has supported the prosecution case as narrated above. In his cross-examination he has stated that he was caught hold by Surajpal and his companions when he was at a distance of 50-60 paces from the house of Ranvir Singh and from there he was forcibly taken to the house of Surajpal. He remained there for about one hour. He has further stated that he was not taken to any hospital for medical examination. His testimony that all the four accused assaulted the deceased Ranvir at the Chabutara of Megh Singh and that the accused carried Ranvir to their house has not been shaken in any manner in the cross-examination. 7. P.W. 2 Raghubir Singh is a resident of village Dandesari. He has stated that his agricultural land is in Fatelipur. At about 7.30 P.M. on the date of incident he was going towards his fields. When he reached near the Chabutara of Ram Singh father of Megh Singh, he saw Gyan Singh, Ranvir Singh, Megh Singh sitting there. 7. P.W. 2 Raghubir Singh is a resident of village Dandesari. He has stated that his agricultural land is in Fatelipur. At about 7.30 P.M. on the date of incident he was going towards his fields. When he reached near the Chabutara of Ram Singh father of Megh Singh, he saw Gyan Singh, Ranvir Singh, Megh Singh sitting there. The four accused, namely Mahabir, Devi Singh, Virendra Singh and Dalbir arrived there and started assaulting Ranvir Singh, Gyan Singh managed to run away but the accused lifted Ranvir Singh and carried him to their house. After sometime he heard sound of gun fire coming from the house of Lakhan. Rajendra, who was the younger brother of Virendra Singh and Dalbir Singh accused, had been murdered prior to the present incident and in the said murder case Ranvir Singh (deceased of the present case), his brother Mahabir, and two sons Gyan Singh and Kunwar Pal were accused. A criminal case was found between Surajpal a retired S.I. and Kunwar Pal, in which Ranvir Singh deceased was a witness against Surajpal aforesaid. In his cross-examination he has stated that on the date of incident he had gone to the house of Lohari in Fatalipur and has returning from there. He was going to see his maize crop and while going to his fields the house of Megh Singh fell on the way and the passage was by the side of the Chabutara. He has further admitted that he narrated about the incident to about ten persons of his village and then many people came to village Fatalipur. His statement was recorded by the Station Officer on the third day. The statement of this witness regarding the assault made upon the deceased Ranvir Singh at the Chabutara of Megh Singh by the four accused and thereafter forcibly lifting and taking Ranvir Singh to the house of Lakhan has remained unshaken in his cross-examination. 8. P.W. 3 Ram Bir Singh is a resident of village Bhopalgarh. He has stated that at about 7.30 PM on the date of incident he was returning after taking medicines for his son when he heard the alarm. He saw the four accused assaulting Ranvir Singh at the Chaupal of Ram Singh with lathi, spear and knife. Thereafter the accused forcibly took Ranvir Singh to their house. Subsequently he heard the sound of gun-fire from Lakhan's house. He saw the four accused assaulting Ranvir Singh at the Chaupal of Ram Singh with lathi, spear and knife. Thereafter the accused forcibly took Ranvir Singh to their house. Subsequently he heard the sound of gun-fire from Lakhan's house. Subsequently he heard the sound of gun-fire from Lakhan's house. In his cross-examination he has admitted that both he and Ranvir Singh deceased belonged to the same caste. His village Bhopalgarh was at a distance of 4.5 furlongs from village Fatelipur. He had gone to Dr. Rifakat for taking medicines for his younger brother who was aged four years. He has also stated that he had seen spear with Devi Singh and knife with Virendra Singh and the remaining two accused were armed with lathis but he did not see the actual assault by spear or knife. However he saw blood coming out from the head of Ranvir Singh and the assault having been made at the Chabutara of Ram Singh. He further stated that he also saw the accused dragging Ranvir Singh to their house. He further stated that he had given statement to the Station Officer on 30.9.1977 to the effect that he had seen all the four accused assaulting the deceased. The statement of this witness on the point that the four accused were armed with various weapons and that Ranvir Singh was assaulted at the Chabutara of Ram Singh (father of Megh Singh) and further that the accused dragged and carried Ranvir Singh to their house has not been shaken in cross examination. 9. P.W. 10 Kendra Pal is a resident of village Dandesari. He has stated that at about 7 PM on the date of incident he was sitting on a culvert outside the village when Man Singh son of Salloo Singh came there and said that where is Devi. When Devi met him he said that Lakhan has called him as Ranvir Singh was roaming in the village and they had to settle scores with him. Devi Singh then ran through the fields. Shortly thereafter he also ran behind him, when he was at a distance of 50 paces from the house of Lakhan he saw all the four accused lifting and carrying Ranvir Singh deceased to their house. After entering the house they closed the door. Shortly thereafter sound of gun fire was heard. Devi Singh then ran through the fields. Shortly thereafter he also ran behind him, when he was at a distance of 50 paces from the house of Lakhan he saw all the four accused lifting and carrying Ranvir Singh deceased to their house. After entering the house they closed the door. Shortly thereafter sound of gun fire was heard. He has further stated that he and some other persons who had assembled there asked for opening the gate but accused did not open the same. Mahabir said from the roof of the house that they had killed one Badmash (criminal) and the remaining had run away. On this the witness said that he had not seen anyone there and in fact the accused had brought Ranvir Singh after assaulting him. Mahabir then threatened this witness that he should run away otherwise he too would be killed. In his cross examination he has stated that he was returning after attending the call of nature and it had become somewhat dark. He had seen the accused carrying Ranvir Singh from a distance of 50 paces and he did not know whether he was dead or alive. He has admitted that he had no torch or lantern but he saw the occurrence in the moon-light. He further admitted that he returned to his village at about 8 PM and narrated the incident and then some village people went to the place of occurrence. His statement under section 161 Cr. P.C. was recorded by the station officer on 30.9.1977. He has also stated that he could not know that a case of dacoity had been lodged against Ranvir Singh or that Surajpal had caught held of Gyan Singh in the aforesaid dacoity case. The testimony of this witness to the effect that he saw the four accused carrying Ranvir Singh deceased to their house and thereafter the accused closed the door of their house has not been shaken in any manner in the cross examination. 10. We have carefully scrutinised the testimony of the above mentioned four eye-witnesses. It is established from their testimony that at about 7.30 PM on the date of incident the four accused assaulted Ranvir Singh deceased at the Chabutara of Megh Singh and thereafter they carried him to their house and closed the door. 10. We have carefully scrutinised the testimony of the above mentioned four eye-witnesses. It is established from their testimony that at about 7.30 PM on the date of incident the four accused assaulted Ranvir Singh deceased at the Chabutara of Megh Singh and thereafter they carried him to their house and closed the door. It is also established that Gyan Singh P.W. 1 was also given 2-3 blows and when he was going to village Bhaisamai to give information to the family members of Ranvir Singh he was cought hold by Surajpal and his companions and was then brought to the house of Lakhan (father of accused Virendra Singh and Dalvir Singh) and was forcibly confined there for the whole night by the four accused. 11. P.W. 4 Rifakat Ali has stated that he had a clinic in village Bhaisamai at the time of the incident. The relations of Ranvir Singh and Surajpal, S.L, were strained. At about 7.30 PM on 23/24 September, 1977, Dalvir and Mahabir were sitting in the Baithak of Surajpal. Surajpal was saying that Ranvir should be finished. He heard this talk and raised objection to Surajpal on which 43 he lost temper. About three or four days thereafter at about 7.30 PM he heard alarm in village Fatelipur and also heard sound of gun fire. In our opinion the statement of this witness is not reliable. We do not think that Surajpal would have told Mahabir and Dalvir accused to finding off Ranvir Singh in the hearing of this witness. The learned Sessions Judge has held that the testimony of this witness is not worthy of reliance. We are in agreement with the reasoning given by the learned Session Judge and are of the opinion that the testimony of P.W. 4 Dr. Rifakat Ali cannot be accepted. 12. C.W. 1 Dr. N.K. Saxena performed the postmortem on the body of the deceased Ranvir Singh at 3 PM on 29.5.1977 and found 7 contusions, I lacerated wound, 7 incised wounds and three gun shot wounds on his body. The internal examination showed fracture of right temporal frontal parietal and occipital bones under injury Nos. 2 and 8. According to the testimony of the eye-witnesses the four accused were armed with lathi, spear and knife. The contusions, lacerated wounds and incised wounds could be caused by the weapons which were in the hands of the accused. The internal examination showed fracture of right temporal frontal parietal and occipital bones under injury Nos. 2 and 8. According to the testimony of the eye-witnesses the four accused were armed with lathi, spear and knife. The contusions, lacerated wounds and incised wounds could be caused by the weapons which were in the hands of the accused. It is true that the eye-witnesses do not say that anyone of the four accused was carrying any fire arm or any fire-arm injury was caused to the deceased but the eye-witnesses have given statement only to the stage till they saw the assault being made upon Ranvir Singh deceased at the Chabutara of Megh Singh and thereafter carrying him to the house of Lakhan. After Ranvir Singh was taken inside the house and gate was closed the witnesses were not in a position to see anything further. The witnesses have stated that shortly thereafter they heard sound of gun fire. It is, therefore, clear that fire arm was used after Ranvir Singh had been taken inside the house of Lakhan and no witness could possibly depose about the actual causing of fire arm injures to the deceased. The eye-witness account thus finds compete corroboration from the medical evidence on record. 13. P.W. 11 Nareshpal Yadav, S.O., has stated that he found blood at the Chabutara of Ram Singh. He took in his possession plain and blood stained earth from that place. He also found blood below the 'Neem' tree in front of the northern courtyard of the house of Lakhan and he took plain and blood-stained earth in his possession. Besides that plain and blood-stained earth was also taken in possession from the place where body of Ranvir Singh was lying. He further stated that he found some blood drops on the way from the Chabutara of Ram Singh to the house of Lakhan. P.W. 6 Chandra Bhan has stated that the S.U. had taken blood-stained and plain earth in his presence from the chabutura of Ram Singh and also from below the 'Neem' tree near the house of Lakhan and had prepared seisure memo Exsl. Ka 5 and Ka 9 on which he had put his signature. The prosecution has filed report of the Chemical Examiner which is ex. Ka.97 on the record. Ka 5 and Ka 9 on which he had put his signature. The prosecution has filed report of the Chemical Examiner which is ex. Ka.97 on the record. The report shows that the earth taken in possession from below the 'Neem' tree was stained with human blood. The evidence of recovery of blood stained earth and also the trial of blood running from the Chabutra of Ram Singh to the house of Lakhan corroborates the prosecution case. 14. P.W. 11 Nareshpal Yadav, S.O., has stated that he had found an empty cartridge in the court-yard of Lakhan which was scaled on the spot and was sent to the Balistic Expert P.W. 12 B.B. Rai Balistic Expert has stated that he had performed test with the country made pistol (Ex. 1) and in his opinion the empty cartridge (Ex. 6) had been fired from the same pistol. 15. On consideration of the above mentioned evidence on record we are satisfied that the four accused assaulted Ranvir Singh at the Chabutara of Ram Singh and thereafter forcibly took him inside their house where fire-arm injuries were also caused to him as a result of which he died there. We are also satisfied that Gyan Singh was caught by Surajpal and others and he was unlawfully confined and detained by the accused in their house. 16. Now we may examine the defence setup by the accused P.W. 5 Ram Krishna Head Constable of P.S. Sikandararao stated that in the night of 27/28.9.1977 accused Dalbir Singh gave a written F.I.R. at the police station at 12.30 which had been signed by accused Mahabir and which bears paper No. 29/Ka. On its basis he prepared a chik report which is Ex. Ka 1 on the record. Accused Mahabir has stated in his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C that the report lodged by him is correct and other facts put to him are wrong. The other three accused Namely Devi Singh, Virendra Singh and Dalbir Singh have all stated in reply to question No. 35 in their statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. that the report lodged by Mahabir is correct. Thus all the accused admit the fact that a report was lodged under the signature of Mahabir accused and the version given in the said report is the correct version of the incident. 17. Thus all the accused admit the fact that a report was lodged under the signature of Mahabir accused and the version given in the said report is the correct version of the incident. 17. In this connection it may be noticed that the report lodged by Mahabir is not in the nature of a confession nor it is a statement made to a police officer during the course of investigation and, therefore, its admissibility is not barred either by section 25 of the Evidence Act or by section 162 Cr.P.C. In almost similar circumstances where a person who lodged the F.I.R. regarding the occurrence of a murder and was himself subsequently made accused of the offence the question of admissibility of the report lodged by him was considered by the Supreme Court in Puddi v. State of Madhya Pradesh A.I.R. 1964 S.C. 1850 and it was observed as follows in para 15 of the report: "The report is not a confession of the appellant. It is not a statement made to a police officer during the course of investigation. Section 25 of the Evidence Act and Section 182 of the Code of Criminal Procedure do not bar its admissibility. The report is an admission by the accused of certain facts which have a bearing on the question to be determined by the Court, viz., how and by whom the murder of Gulab was committed, or whether the appellant's statement in Court denying the correctness of certain statements of the prosecution witnesses is correct or not. Admissions are admissible in evidence under Section 21 of the Act. Section 17 defines an admission to be a statement, oral or documentary, which suggests any inference as to any fact in issue or relevant fact, and which is made by any of the persons, and under the circumstances, thereafter mentioned, in the Act, Section 21 are of the circumstances in which an accused could prove his own admissions which go in his favour in view of the exceptions mentioned in Section 21 to the provision that admissions could not be proved by the person who makes them. It is, therefore, clear that admissions of an accused can be proved against him." 18. It is, therefore, clear that admissions of an accused can be proved against him." 18. In the F.I.R. lodged by Mahabir it is stated that the incident took place at about 8.30 PM when he and Virendra Singh were taking their food and Om Prakash and Lakhan were in the Chhappar. The gate of the house was open. Suddenly ten or twelve dacoits armed with lathis, spears and pistols came inside the house with a great speed. Ranvir was carrying a pistol. After entering the gate two shots were fired and Ranvir threatened that nobody should move otherwise he would be shot dead. Ranvir's son Virendra Singh and Dr. Rifakat forcibly dragged Virendra's wife outside. The wife of Om Prakash was also assaulted and dragged. Some dacoits entered the house and started looking for property while two dacoits remained at the gate and were firing from their fire arms. Om Prakash set fire to dry leaves due to which there was sufficient light. Mean-while Virendra got up and challenged the dacoits. Ranvir fired towards him with a pistol but the shot missed and then Mahabir assaulted Ranvir with lathi and Dalbir Singh and Devi Singh armed with lathi and spear respectively came there and started assaulting the dacoits. Virendra Singh also assaulted Ranvir Singh with knife due to which he fell down. Thereafter the dacoits ran away. Firing from their fire arms Ranvir Singh died shortly thereafter in the court yard. Gyan Singh dacoit who had run towards Bhaiamai was caught by the villacer, and was brought. It is further mentioned in the F.I.R. that the informant Mahabir and the ladies had received ordinary injuries in the incident and he dacoits could not carry away any property. 19. The accused have not led any evidence which may substantiate the version given in the F.I.R. lodged by Mahabir. They have examined three defence witnesses but their testimony is not on factum of the incident. D.W. 2 Shyam Singh Pradhan of Dandesari, has proved about some proceedings which had been initiated against Jamadar Singh at the instance of Gaon Samaj and has further deposed that a case was instituted against Ranvir Singh, son of Gyan Singh, which was pending in the Board of Revenue at Lucknow. D.W. 1 Satya Bhan Singh has deposed that the wives of Ram Bir Singh P.W. 3 and Mahabir are sisters. D.W. 1 Satya Bhan Singh has deposed that the wives of Ram Bir Singh P.W. 3 and Mahabir are sisters. D.W. 3 Harpal Singh has stated that in 1977 he was working as Inspector, C.I.D., at Agra, and he had conducted an inquiry against Naresh Pal Yadav P.W. 11 on the complaint made by Smt. Chandrawati about illegal detention of Shyam Babu and in the course of the said inquiry he had recorded the statement of Surajpal Singh, retired S.I. The testimony of these witnesses is on the point of relationship and enmity and not on the factum of incident. 20. The version given in the F.I.R. lodged by Mahabir suffers from inherent inconsistencies and improbabilities which we will presently see. It is stated that 10 or 12 dacoits entered the house of Mahabir and they were armed with fire arms, lathis and spears. It is alleged that the dacoits resorted to firing several times. Curiously enough no one on the side of the accused has received any injury which may be attributed to fire-arm or spear. It is admitted that no property was taken away by the dacoits. It is further mentioned that the wife of Virendra Singh was forcibly dragged outside the gate. Similarly the wife of Om Prakash was also assaulted and dragged. None of these ladies received any injury. P.W. 11 Nareshpal, I.O., has stated that the clothes of the ladies given to him did not show any shrinks or marks of dragging. On the contrary the clothes were torn in straight lines which shows that the same had been done subsequently in order to create some evidence of dragging or violence. The dacoity is alleged to have been committed at 8.30 PM when everyone was awake. Some known people like Ranvir (deceased), Gyan Singh, his son Virendra Singh and Dr. Rifakat are alleged to have participated in the said dacoity but they had not taken any precaution to conceal their identity. Again it appears highly improbable that Mahabir alone gathered the courage and succeeded in assaulting Ranvir with a lathi specifically when on the other side there were 10 or 12 dacoits who were armed with fire arms, spears and lathis. The F.I.R. shows that Dalvir, Devi Singh and Virendra Singh arrived after Mahabir had succeeded in assaulting Ranvir. Again it appears highly improbable that Mahabir alone gathered the courage and succeeded in assaulting Ranvir with a lathi specifically when on the other side there were 10 or 12 dacoits who were armed with fire arms, spears and lathis. The F.I.R. shows that Dalvir, Devi Singh and Virendra Singh arrived after Mahabir had succeeded in assaulting Ranvir. If really a dacoity had been committed by 10 or 12 dacoits who were armed with deadly weapons Mahabir could not have succeeded in causing injuries to Ranvir Singh deceased. 21. C.W. 2 Dr. N.B. Naithani examined the injuries of Mahabir and Virendra Singh accused at 2 PM and 2.15 PM on 28.9.1977 respectively. He found four contusions and two abrasions on the body of Mahabir and three contusions on the body of Virendra Singh. The injuries sustained by the aforesaid two persons are simple and in the opinion of the doctor were caused by blunt object. A close look at the injury reports would show that they are superficial and they all have been caused on non-vital parts of the body. Dr. Naithani has admitted in cross-examination that except for one injury on Mahabir which is on the abdomen, all other injuries could have been self-suffered. The injury on the abdomen is a contusion of the size " x ". This injury is very small in dimension and does not appear to have caused any serious damage. Except for this injury all other injuries to Mahabir are on the arm, finger and back. Similarly one injury of Virendra is on the arm and the remaining two are on the leg. Looking to the dimension, seat and nature of injuries we are convinced that they were not caused in the course of alleged dacoity but had been manufactured by the accused subsequently in order to create evidence in their favour. The alleged dacoits had no affection for Mahabir and Virendra and if really a dacoity had been committed they would have caused much more serious injuries and on vital parts of the body. 22. Another aspect of the matter is that according to the version setup by the accused they assaulted Ranvir Singh by lathis, spear and knife. The post-mortem report shows that Ranvir Singh sustained gun shot injuries as well which have been described as injury Nos. 15, 16 and 17 they are being reproduced below:- "15. 22. Another aspect of the matter is that according to the version setup by the accused they assaulted Ranvir Singh by lathis, spear and knife. The post-mortem report shows that Ranvir Singh sustained gun shot injuries as well which have been described as injury Nos. 15, 16 and 17 they are being reproduced below:- "15. Three gun shot wounds of entrance in an area of 6" x 2" in opicastrium region 3" above umbilicus each " x " x abdominal cavity deep. 16. Two gun shot wounds of entrance in an area of 2" " on pubic region just below pubic bone " x " in size. 17. Two gun shot wounds of exit in an area of 3" x 1" in perinial region each ?" x ?" x tissue." The above mentioned injuries would show that Ranvir Singh sustained at least two separate gun shot injuries. There is no explanation from the side of the accused as to how Ranvir Singh received gun shot injures. We are fully conscious of the fact that there is no burden upon the accused to explain the injuries sustained by the deceased but this certainly casts serious doubt upon the veracity of the defence. According to the defence case, as set up in the F.I.R. lodged by Mahabir, accused Gyan Singh (P.W. 1) was also amongst the dacoits, who were all armed with various kind of weapons and he was caught by the villagers. Curiously enough no weapon was recovered from his possession. All these facts show that the defence case is false. 23. In this case the accused do not dispute the fact that they had assaulted Ranvir Singh inside their house where he died. Of course they dispute the manner of the incident and have setup a counter case that Ranvir Singh was amongst 10 or 12 dacoits who had come to commit dacoity in their house and in that incident he was assaulted and killed. The evidence on record establishes that in fact no dacoity was committed in the house of the accused Mahabir. On the contrary the evidence establishes that Ranvir Singh was first assaulted by the accused at the Chabutara of Megh Singh and then he was forcibly brought inside their house where some more injuries were caused to him as a result whereof he died there. On the contrary the evidence establishes that Ranvir Singh was first assaulted by the accused at the Chabutara of Megh Singh and then he was forcibly brought inside their house where some more injuries were caused to him as a result whereof he died there. The prosecution evidence further establishes that Gyan Singh was also assaulted by the accused and was unlawfully confined by then in their house. The defence version given by the accused is not at all substantiated by the material on record. We are fully satisfied that a false F.I.R. was lodged by Mahabir accused in order to create evidence for shielding the accused from the crime committed by them. 24. On an overall consideration of the entire material on record it is fully established that the prosecution case is true. The accused have rightly been convicted and sentenced by the learned Sessions Judge. The appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. The accused are on bail. They shall surrender forthwith to undergo the sentences imposed upon them. After the accused have surrendered their bail bonds and surety bonds shall stand discharged.