ORDER K. Jayachandra Reddy, J. - This is a regular appeal under Section 379, Cr. P.C. read with Section 2 of the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act. The three appellants, Phool Chand, Mool Chand and Narain alongwith eight others were tried for offences punishable under Sections 302/149 and 147 etc. The trial court required all of them except Narain, the third appellant herein. He was convicted under Section 324 and sentenced to undergo three years R.I. He preferred an appeal to the High Court and the State also preferred an appeal against all the accused including Narain in respect of their acquittal of the charge of murder. The High Court while confirming the acquittal of eight others, convicted the three appellants herein under Sections 302/34, I.P.C. and sentenced each of them to undergo imprisonment for life. Hence the present appeal. 2. The prosecution case is as follows. In Village Chisan at a certain time, which was in the Muofi of Baldev Singh, fields of some of the accused persons and of deceased Baldev Singh are situated. There was some dispute between Ramlal and the accused on the one hand and the deceased on the other, relating to a piece of land. A few days prior to the present occurrence, the accused party wanted to harvest the crop but the deceased Baldev Singh did not allow them- to do so. On 1.12.1912 at about 11 A.M. the accused party and the labourers were harvesting the crop in the disputed land. Second deceased Narender Singh son of Baldev Singh arrived with a gun. He asked the accused persons and the labourers not to harvest the crop. Then Narain, one of the appellants herein, snatched away the gun from Narender Singh and when he and the other accused persons were taking Narender Singh and his gun to Police Station Sultanpur, it is alleged that near milestone at mile No. 24, Narain and the other accused were waiting for a bus and at that time the first deceased Baldev Singh, father of Narender Singh, the second deceased came on a motor cycle. Seeing him Narender Singh ran towards him and Narain~ who was armed with a gun, shot twice at him. When Baldev Singh intervened, he too was beaten by all the accused. Seeing him Narender Singh ran towards him and Narain~ who was armed with a gun, shot twice at him. When Baldev Singh intervened, he too was beaten by all the accused. The accused gave indiscriminate beating to both the deceased and they were dragged to a nearby field and when they died as a result of the injuries, the accused made good their escape. P.Ws. 2 and 14 saw the incident of the gun being snatched away by Narain. The actual occurrence was witnessed by P.W. 11, the real brother of first deceased Baldev Singh and uncle of the second deceased, Narender Singh while going to his fields alongwith P.W.13. When the accused went away, P.W. 11 went to the Police Station, Sultanpur, 14 miles away and lodged a report. The case was registered and Since S.H.O. was not there, a police constable reached the place where dead bodies were lying and after holding the inquest the dead bodies were sent for post-mortem. P.W. 15, the Doctor came on the spot and Conducted the autopsy. He found a number of injuries on vital organs on the body of the first deceased Baldev Singh and he also found that skull was fractured and brain matter also was lacerated. Similarly on Narender Singh, the second accused he found a number of injuries and also gun-shot injuries. The accused were arrested. On Narain, the same Doctor found three lacerated wounds on the right yebrow, forehead and frontal bone. At the instance of the accused, various weapons were recovered. The accused were put up for identification parade and some of the witnesses identified them. In their statement under Section 313, Cr. P.C. the accused denied, the offence. Narain, however, pleaded that when he was cutting, the harvest, the second deceased Narender Singh came with a gun and also shot at him. But he managed to escape and snatched away the gun from him and he went and produced the gun in the police station. He also stated that Baldev Singh struck stone on his head by which he received injuries. This version was not accepted by the courts below. 3. P.W. 11, the brother of the first deceased who gave the F.I.R. also gave evidence but the courts below were not prepared to place reliance on his evidence. The High Court, however, mainly relied on the evidence of P.W. 6, Bhanwarlal. This version was not accepted by the courts below. 3. P.W. 11, the brother of the first deceased who gave the F.I.R. also gave evidence but the courts below were not prepared to place reliance on his evidence. The High Court, however, mainly relied on the evidence of P.W. 6, Bhanwarlal. The High Court after discussing the evidence of P.W. 6 pointed that there are no material infirmities in his statement and that the dead bodies were found in the fields of Khema Lashkari, who was the grand-father of P.W. 6. The High Court also pointed out that his evidence is corroborated by P.Ws. 2 and 14. 4. We have the evidence of P.W. 6 carefully. He deposed that at the time of occurrence he was collecting and bundling heaps of harvest and was working alongwith his father and others. His presence appears to be more natural at the scene of occurrence. He further deposed that on hearing the sound of gun-shot, he saw towards that direction and he heard the sound of another gun-shot and, saw that the same was fired by Narain at Narender Singh who received gun-shot injury. He also stated that Phool Chand, appellant No. 1, hit Narender Singh with a Gandasi on his head and Mool Chand, appellant No. 2 struck Baldev Singh with a Barchha on his head. Thereafter all the accused assaulted the two deceased persons. He was cross-examined at length. Nothing significant has been elicited. The criticism against the evidence of this witness is that he was examined on the third day. As already noted the occurrence happened on the way and P.W. 6 does not appear to have any associated with the deceased nor, he has any enmity with the accused. Another criticism levelled against the evidence of this witness is that his name was not mentioned in the First Information Report and that there are contradictions in his statement when compared to the statements of other witnesses. The High Court also did not take into consideration the evidence of other eye-witnesses but so far as P.W. 6 is concerned, the High Court took the view that he must have been present and witnesses the occurrence. The High Court also pointed out that the contradictions is respect of number of injuries and part played by each of the ,accused are not at all material. The High Court also pointed out that the contradictions is respect of number of injuries and part played by each of the ,accused are not at all material. Since he witnessed the occurrence from a distance of 200 feet and that in that position he would not have noted all the details as to on which parts of the body, the blows landed. P.W. 6 has clearly stated that these three persons attacked the deceased in the manner as mentioned above and in respect of this attack by the three accused, we do not find any improvements. Further P.Ws. 2 and 14 have also spoken about the presence of these appellants while the gun was being snatched by Narain from Narendra Singh, second deceased. To that extent, P.W. 6s evidence also finds corroboration. W e agree with the High Court that the view taken by the Session Court was highly unsound in acquitting all the accused. So far these three appellants are concerned, the High Court has rightly held that their participation has been consistently spoken to by P.W. 6 and since specific overt acts are attributed to him, they ought not to have been acquitted since medical evidence also corroborates the evidence of P.W. 6. The view taken by the High Court is most reasonable and the appellants have been rightly convicted. There are no merits in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. Appeal dismissed. For Citation : 1994 Crl. L.J. 243 1994 SCC (Crl.) 174