Mr. S. D. Pandit, J. ( 1 ) ABOVE named three appellants stand convicted of theoffence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Codeby the Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdara in Sessions Case No. 65 /1988 and eachof them is sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one year. ( 2 ). Facts giving rise to the prosecution of appellants could be stated as under:- ( 3 ). Appellant No. 2 Gurmukh Singh and appellant No. 3 Kashmira Singh aresons of appellant No. 1 Jeet Singh. Deceased Kartar Singh was the elder brother ofaccused No. 1 Jeet Singh. These three accused were resding alongwith their familymembers in a house at Hardev Puri. But in the riots, which took place after theassassination of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, the house belonging to the appellants was set on fire. Hence appellant Jeet Singh came to his brother Kartar Singhand Kartar Singh gave him shelter by giving one room of his house and the accusedstarted occupying one room in the house of Kartar Singh. About 8/9 months afterthe accused-appellants came to reside there deceased Kartar Singh suggested hisbrother that the atmosphere was quite calm and there was no danger and thereforejeet Singh should leave his house and go back to his house. But it seems accusedwere avoiding to pay heed to his advice and they were not taking any steps to leavekartar Singh s house. Due to the same and on account of activities of children,quarells were taking place between the families of two brothers. ( 4 ). THE incident in question has taken place on 29th of December, 1985. On thatday in the morning there was petty quarrel between two families due to childrenat about 10. 00 A. M. At about 5. 00 P. M. deceased Kartar Singh, his wife Somawanti (P. W. 2) and their daughter Shakuntala (P. W. 3) were sitting in their Court yard. Atthat time appellant No. 1 Jeet Singh started urinating in front of all of them. Thereupon P. W. 2 Somawanti and Kartar Singh objected to his said behaviour andp. W. 2 Somawanti questioned him as to whether it was befitting him to do so in thepresence of her daughter. Atthat time appellant No. 1 Jeet Singh started urinating in front of all of them. Thereupon P. W. 2 Somawanti and Kartar Singh objected to his said behaviour andp. W. 2 Somawanti questioned him as to whether it was befitting him to do so in thepresence of her daughter. On that appellant Jeet Singh remarked that she wasbecoming more wise and had no control over her tongue and if she happened tocontinue to behave like that then she must be Finished. On hearing those remarksof his brother Jeet Singh, Kartar Singh said that it was better that they should go topolice and lodge a complaint with police before he could finish them. By saying gokartar Singh, his wife P. W. 2 Somawanti and daughter P. W. 3 Shakuntala left theirhouse in order to go to police station. ( 5 ). When deceased Kartar Singh, his wife P. W. 2 Somawanti and daughterp. W. 3 Shakuntala had come on the road and were going towards police station theyfound cousin brother of both appellant Jeet Singh and deceased Kartar Singh P. W. 4man Singh was also on the way and following them. When all the three came infront of house No. H-40 all the three appellants came there from their back side. Appellant Jeet Singh and Kashmira Singh caught hold of Kartar Singh and Jeetsingh asked appellant No. 2 Gurmukh Singh to take out a knife to teach a lessonto Kartar Singh for going to lodge a complaint with the police. Thereupon appellantno. 2 Gurmukh Singh took out a knife and started giving blows of knife one afteranother at random. When P. W. 2 Somawanti and P. W. 3 Shakuntala pushed aheadto rescue Kartar Singh they were pushed away by appellant No. 3 Kashmira Singhand he had also threatened them that if they happened to come ahead they wouldbe also killed. But on hearing screams of Kartar Singh and the ladies some personspassing on the road and from the neighbourhood gathered there and they peltedstones and other things on the appellants. One of the stone was seen by P. W. 2somawanti hitting appellant Gurmukh Singh. Thereafter the accused left Kartarsingh and took to their heels. ( 6 ). Then P. W. 4 Man Singh came ahead and P. W. 2 Somawanti and P. W. 4 Mansingh put Kartar Singh in one riksha. Man Singh boarded that riksha whereasp. One of the stone was seen by P. W. 2somawanti hitting appellant Gurmukh Singh. Thereafter the accused left Kartarsingh and took to their heels. ( 6 ). Then P. W. 4 Man Singh came ahead and P. W. 2 Somawanti and P. W. 4 Mansingh put Kartar Singh in one riksha. Man Singh boarded that riksha whereasp. W. 2 Somawanti took another riksha and they took Kartar Singh to Generalhospital at Shahdara. When doctor on duty examined Kartar Singh he declaredthat he was brought dead. Then the police constable on hospital duty gaveintimation about the same at 6. 00 P. M. in the police station, Shahdara. Thereuponp. W. 13 S. I. Tuisi Das rushed to General Hospital of Shahdara. He found that doctorwas examining the injuries. He also found P. W. 2 Somawanti and P. W. 4 Man Singhpresent He recorded the first information of P. W. 2 Somawanti and sent thesame to the police station to register the offence. Her FIR was registered at No. 531 85. P. W. 13 S. I. Tuisi Das also found that accused No. 1 Jeet Singh and accused No. 2 Gurmukh Singh were also present in hospital and accused No. 2 Gurmukh Singhhad injuries on his person and he was to be examined by doctor and doctor was togive M. L. C. reports regarding both Kartar Singh as well asaocused No. 2 Gurmukhsingh. He, therefore, kept his subordinate there and he himself went alongwithp. W2 Somawanti and P. W. 4 Man Singh to the place of incident. There he foundpool of blood. He collected blood stained earth and simple earth and prepared thememo of site and prepared site plan and returned to the hospital. He collectedm. L. C. reports and then arrested both accused No. 1 Jeet Singh and accused No. 2gurmukh Singh. He arranged for inquest of the dead body and sent it for postmortem and then went to police station alongwith both accused. ( 7 ). He then recorded statements of P. W. 3 Shakuntala Kaur and P. W. 4 Mansingh. He interrogated accused Gurmukh Singh. He made discovery statementand led the police and produced the blood stained knife. Then the attached knifeand other articles were sent to Central Forensic Science Laboratory. In the meantime the accused No. 3 was arrested on 30/12/1985. On completion ofnecessary investigation all the three accused were challened before Metropolitanmagistrate. He interrogated accused Gurmukh Singh. He made discovery statementand led the police and produced the blood stained knife. Then the attached knifeand other articles were sent to Central Forensic Science Laboratory. In the meantime the accused No. 3 was arrested on 30/12/1985. On completion ofnecessary investigation all the three accused were challened before Metropolitanmagistrate. But as the offence punishable under Section 302 is exclusively triableby Court of Sessions accused were committed to the Court of Sessions on 30thapril, 1986. ( 8 ). A charge is framed against the accused under Section 302 read with Section34 on 12/11/1986. All the accused have pleaded not guilty to the charge. Their defence is of total denial and false implication. ( 9 ). In order to prove its case against the accused prosecution examined in all13 witnesses. Out of them P. W. 4 Man Singh turned hostile and he did not supportthe prosecution case. Trial Court accepted the evidence particularly of two eye witnesses P. W. 2 Somawanti and P. W. 3 Shakuntala Kaur and the other evidence leadby prosecution and held them guilty of the offence with which they are charged andsentenced them as stated earlier. ( 10 ). Being felt aggrieved by the said decision accused have preferred TO thepresent appeal. It is submitted on behalf of the appellants that P. W. 2 Somawantiand P. W. 3 Shakuntala Kaur are interested witnesses and their evidence in theabsence of the corroboration by the evidence of an independent witness should notbe accepted. Their version is inconsistent, improbable and unbelievable. Theevidence of the alleged discovery of the weapon at the instance of appellantgurmukh Singh is false. The prosecution has not given any explanation of theinjuries on the person of accused No. 2 Gurmukh Singh. Therefore, the prosecutionversion could not be accepted beyond doubt. They further contended that there areinconsistencies and discripancies in the evidence led by prosecution therefore, theaccused should be given benefit of doubt. ( 11 ). Prosecution has examined in all 13 witnesses. Out of said 13 witnessesprosecution has examined P. W. 2 Somawanti, P. W. 3 Shakuntala Kaur and P. W. 4man Singh as the eye witnesses. These three eye witnesses are examined byprosecution as direct witness. ( 11 ). Prosecution has examined in all 13 witnesses. Out of said 13 witnessesprosecution has examined P. W. 2 Somawanti, P. W. 3 Shakuntala Kaur and P. W. 4man Singh as the eye witnesses. These three eye witnesses are examined byprosecution as direct witness. Out of these three witnesses P. W. 4 Man Singh hasturned hostile and he has not at all supported the prosecution and he has not stuckto his statement recorded under Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, the only eye witnesses are P. W. 2 Somawanti and P. W. 3 Shakuntalakaur. No doubt both of them are related to deceased as they are respectively hiswife and daughter. But merely because they are related and interested witnessestheir evidence could not be thrown away or discarded. We have to scrutinize theirevidence scrupulously before accepting the same. ( 12 ). P. W. 2 Somawanti has deposed that on the day of the incident there was apetty quarrel on account of children at about 10. 00 A. M. But it had come to an endin the morning itself. Then on that day in the evening her husband Kartar Singh andher daughter P. W. 3 Shakuntala were present and at that time the appellant No. 1jeet Singh came in front of them and started urinating. Therefore, she said to himthat her daughter Shakuntala was there and he should not behave like that. Thereupon appellant No. 1 remarked that if they happened to talk much then theywould be killed by knife. Thereupon her husband said that they were going to bedangerous and hence they should go to police and report about the same to police. Accordingly all three of them were proceeding towards police station. When theywere in front of house No. H-40 all the appellants came there. Appellant Jeet Singhand Kashmira Singh caught hold her husband by his arms and then Jeet Singh askedgurmukh Singh to teach a lesson to Kartar Singh to go to police station. Thengurmukh Singh took out a knife and started giving repeated blows on her husband. When she and Shakuntala went ahead to rescue him appellant Kashmira Singhpushed them violently and threatened them with deaths. Then the people whocollected there started pelting stones on appellants and one stone was seen by herhitting Gurmukh Singh and then accused took to their heels and ran away. Thenp. When she and Shakuntala went ahead to rescue him appellant Kashmira Singhpushed them violently and threatened them with deaths. Then the people whocollected there started pelting stones on appellants and one stone was seen by herhitting Gurmukh Singh and then accused took to their heels and ran away. Thenp. W. 4 Man Singh who came ahead and she put her husband in a riksha and Mansingh accompanied her husband by that rikshsa to hospital and she went byanother riksha to hospital. ( 13 ). The above version of P. W. 2 Somawanti is fully supported by her FIRwhich is lodged by her within 1-1/2 hours when the same was recorded in hospitalby P. W. 13 S. I. Tuisi Das. It is also corroborated by the testimony of P. W. 3shakuntala. Her version is cogent, clear and consistent. It is supported by medicalevidence on record. Dr. L. T. Ramani P. W. IO has found in all 24 incised wounds-injuries on the body of Kartar Singh. He has deposed that all those injuries wereante-mortem. He has also opined that the injuries No. 3 to 10,12,14,21 and 22 wereindividually sufficient to cause the death in the ordinary course of nature. Even thehostile witness P. W. 4 Man Singh has supported her claim that Kartar Singh was putin riksha by both of them and he took Kartar Singh by that riksha to hospital andp. W. 2 Somawanti came by another riksha to hospital. ( 14 ). The evidence of P. W. 5 0m Pal Singh and P. W. 13 SI Tuisi Das theinvestigating Officer shows that the accused-appellant Gurmukh Singh made astatement leading to discovery of the dagger and Gurmukh Singh produced thedagger Ex. P. I. The report of Central Forensic Science Laboratory at Ex. PX 3 showsthat the said dagger produced by appellant Gurmukh Singh was having the bloodstains of blood group B which is the blood group of deceased Kartar Singh. Bothp. W. 2 Somawanti and P. W. 3 Shakuntala Kaur have identified the said dagger Ex. P. I as the weapon used by appellant Gurmukh Singh in attacking deceased Kartarsingh. Therefore the discovery of said weapon Ex. P. I at the instance of appellantgives corroboration to version of both P. W. 2 Somawanti and P. W. 3 Shakuntalakaur. Bothp. W. 2 Somawanti and P. W. 3 Shakuntala Kaur have identified the said dagger Ex. P. I as the weapon used by appellant Gurmukh Singh in attacking deceased Kartarsingh. Therefore the discovery of said weapon Ex. P. I at the instance of appellantgives corroboration to version of both P. W. 2 Somawanti and P. W. 3 Shakuntalakaur. It is urged before us that the evidence of discovery of weapon should not beaccepted as it has come in evidence that the place from where recovery is made isvery near the police station. It is true that the Investigating Officer P. W. 13 Tuisidas has admitted in his corss-examination that the place of recovery is 15 pacesaway from the backside wall of police station. But evidence of P. W. 5 0m Pal Singhand P. W. 13 Tuisi Das shows that the knife was kepthidden underbushes and it wasa public park. Appellant Gurmukh Singh wanted to go to Hospital as soon aspossible in order to create evidence to show that he had sustained injuries in anaccident. Therefore, it could not be said that it is an improbability that he wouldgo to that spot. It has not come on record that that spot is not on the way betweenthe place of incident and the hospital. It has not also come on record that there wasany other convenient spot or place for bidding the weapon between the place ofassault and General Hospital. In the above circumstances we are unable to rejectthe evidence of discovery of dagger merely because the place of hiding was on thebackside of the police station. ( 15 ). It must be remembered that the assault on Kartar Singh has taken place inopen broad day light. Therefore it is not at all probable that P. W. 2 Somawanti andp. W. 3 Shakuntala will leave the real culprits and will try to implicate their closerelatives namely, brother in law and nephews who are not at all on any seriouslyinimical relations. It must be also mentioned that in the cross examination of eitherp. W. 2 Somawanti, P. W. 3 Shakuntala or P. W. 4 Man Singh who is availabletoaccused, any material is brought to show that deceased Kartar Singh had enmity ordispute with any body else who might have attacked him. ( 16 ). It must be also mentioned that in the cross examination of eitherp. W. 2 Somawanti, P. W. 3 Shakuntala or P. W. 4 Man Singh who is availabletoaccused, any material is brought to show that deceased Kartar Singh had enmity ordispute with any body else who might have attacked him. ( 16 ). Thus, we do not find any reason to discard the evidence of both P. W. 2somawanti and P. W. 3 Shakuntala. We have found that they are truthful witnesses. ( 17 ). No doubt the prosecution has not examined any independent witnesses. It has also come that the incident had taken place in a public road and people hadgathered at the place of incident. But the material on record clearly shows that noneof them had come ahead to give statements before police under Section 161 of Codeof Criminal Procedure. The evidence of both P. W. 2 Somawanti and P. W. 4 Mansingh clearly shows that the persons from public had not even come ahead to liftkartar Singh and to put him in riksha and he was carried by both of them alone. Inthis connection, the general tendency and reluctance of a citizen to appear as awitness to get himself involved in a case is now a days very rampant. This tendencyis more due to the treatment they receive at the hands of the police duringinvestigation and on account of they have to attend the Court on numerous dates. Thus there is a general tendency to remove oneself from the spot of incident as faras possible. But any way the material on record clearly shows that no statement ofany person besides P. W. 2 to 4 are recorded during investigation. Hence this is nota case of prosecution not examining a material witness though available. Thematerial brought out in the cross-examination of the Investigating Officer showsthat he tried to collect evidence of independent witness. He had approached theoccupants of House No. H-40 in front of which the incident in question took placebut he went away by back door. Therefore, in view of the facts on record it is notpossible to hold that the evidence of two eye witnesses should be rejected for wantof corroboration by independent witnesses. ( 18 ). Then it is further contended that according to P. W. 2 Somawanti andp. W. 3 Shakuntala Kaur the incident took place by about 5/5. Therefore, in view of the facts on record it is notpossible to hold that the evidence of two eye witnesses should be rejected for wantof corroboration by independent witnesses. ( 18 ). Then it is further contended that according to P. W. 2 Somawanti andp. W. 3 Shakuntala Kaur the incident took place by about 5/5. 15 P. M. whereas P. W. 4man Singh has deposed it took place at 4/45. 15 P. M. It is contended that thoughp. W. 4 Man Singh has turned hostile it is not necessary to ignore and brush aside hisevidence and his evidence must be considered. In support of that submission thecase of Keshoram v. State of Assam, AIR 1978 S. C. 1096 is cited before us. We arequite aware that merely because a witness is declared hostile and cross-examinedby the party summoning him his evidence could not be defaced. The Court has toscrutinise his testimony and accept that portion of the same which receivescorroboration from other evidence on record. Therefore, we would first consideras to whether this witness P. W. 4 Man Singh could be believed in part and whetherany portion of his evidence could be accepted. P. W. 4 Man Singh has deposed thaton that day at about 4/4. 15 P. M. he was passing on the road and at that time hefound Kartar Singh lying dead on the road with injuries on his person and then hewent to his house and informed P. W. 2 Somawanti. She then came to the spot andthen both of them put him in a riksha and took him to hospital. The above versionis quite contrary to his statement made by him before police under Section 161. Hisversion before police in his statement under Section 161 is completly in line of theversion of P. W. 2 and the prosecution case, than the version he was giving for thefirst time in the Court. That version is quite contrary to his version given by himwithin four hours from the incident in his statement before police. Apart from thathis claim that he had found Kartar Singh lying dead in the street is falsified by hisown conduct. If Kartar Singh was found lying dead in the street there was noquestion of picking up his dead body to the hospital. Apart from thathis claim that he had found Kartar Singh lying dead in the street is falsified by hisown conduct. If Kartar Singh was found lying dead in the street there was noquestion of picking up his dead body to the hospital. In that case he would haveleft body there in the street and would have taken P. W. 2 Somawanti to policestation to inform the police. His conduct in rushing the injured to hospital clearlyindicates that injured Kartar Singh must have been assaulted in his presence asdeposed by Somawanti. Then the M. L. C. report on record shows that the historyof injuries given is noted as under: "alleged history of being stabbed on body. "admittedly Kartar Singh was admitted in the hospital by Man Singh. Therefore, P. W. 4 Man Singh must have given this history. That shows that he had seenthe stabbing on the body of Kartar Singh. Therefore, in view of above discussedevidence of his conduct we are unable to uphold his claim that he had found Kartarsingh lying dead on road. ( 19 ). His claim that he had removed deceased Kartar Singh by about 4. 30 P. M. and that the incident took place prior to 4. 30 P. M. is not atall believable. The learnedadvocate for the appellants have vehemently urged before us that that claim ofp. W. 4issupported by the evidence of P. W. 11 Dr. Purthy and the medico legal casepapers prepared by him. It is true that this P. W. I I has deposed that on 2 9/12/1985 at 5. 00 P. M. he had examined Kartar Singh. But if the M. L. C. prepared by him is seen then in the said M. L. C. though there is a specific columnof date and arrival is printed he has not written that timing of 5. 00 P. M. there. If hisevidence and M. L. C. is considered then it would clearly show that he is not at alla particular man and is capable of committing mistake. He has not given the timingof examining accused No. 2 Curmukh Singh in M. L. C. He has mentioned in hism. L. C. as well as deposed that there were only 13 injuries on Kartar Singh whereasevidence of P. W. IO Dr. L. T. Ramani as well as post-mortem notes show that therewere 24 incised wounds on Kartar Singh. Dr. He has not given the timingof examining accused No. 2 Curmukh Singh in M. L. C. He has mentioned in hism. L. C. as well as deposed that there were only 13 injuries on Kartar Singh whereasevidence of P. W. IO Dr. L. T. Ramani as well as post-mortem notes show that therewere 24 incised wounds on Kartar Singh. Dr. L. T. Ramani had noted only twoinjuries on the back side of Kartar Singh whereas this Public Witness 11 Dr. Purthy says thatthere were six injuries on his back. If the ocular evidence is considered then his saythat there were six injuries on back is obviously incorrect. As per evidence of P. W. 2somawanti Kartar Singh must have been taken to hospital by 6. 00 P. M. Theevidence of Public Witness 13 S. I. Tuisi Das shows that the constable on hospital duty hadgiven a ring from hospital by about 6. 00 P. M. and had informed about bringing ofinjured in hospital. Thereafter he went to hospital and there he recorded FIR ofp. W. 2 Somawanti and that FIR is registered in the police station at 7. 15 P. M. He hasdeposed that when he had reached hospital after getting telephonic message at 6. 00p. M. the doctor was examining injuries of injured. That daim of his is not deniedin his cross-examination. Therefore, if all the above circumstances are consideredthen the claim of P. W. 4 Man singh that the incident took place at 4/4. 15 P. M. andhe took injured to hospital at 5. 00 P. M. is false. That the evidence of P. W. 4 Mansingh could not be believed and accepted. Thus the version of P. W. 2 Somawantithat the incident took place at 5/5. 15 P. M. will have to be accepted without anyhesitation of mind. ( 20 ). As the incident in question has taken place at about 5/5. 15 P. M. theregistering of FIR at 7. 15 P. M. in the police station could not be said to be delayed. Then mere delay of some time in lodging FIR could not be fatal to prosecution inevery case unless some prejudice is shown to have been caused to the accused. 15 P. M. theregistering of FIR at 7. 15 P. M. in the police station could not be said to be delayed. Then mere delay of some time in lodging FIR could not be fatal to prosecution inevery case unless some prejudice is shown to have been caused to the accused. (Seestate of U. P. v. Gokaran, AIR 1985 S. C. 131) No material is brought out throughthe prosecution witnesses by the accused to show that there was purposeful delayin lodging FIR and that a prejudice is caused to them. There is nothing on recordto infer that the prosecution has introduced some improvement and for thatpurpose there was delay in lodging the FIR. ( 21 ). It is an admitted fact that appellant No. 2 Gurmukh Singh had someinjuries on his person. As per the evidence of Dr. J. S. Purthy there were seveninjuries on his person. Out of those seven injuries there is one incised wound on thetip of the middle finger of the right hand. All other injuries are aclws and swelling. As per the evidence of both P. W. 2 Somawanti and P. W. 3 Shakuntala Kaur whenthis Gurmukh Singh was giving knife blows the people had pelted stones on himin order to disperse him. P. W. 3 Shakuntala has stated in her cross-examination thatgurmukh Singh had received more than one stone. Therefore, the aclws andswelling are possible by those stones hits on him. The incised wound on the tip ofhis middle finger is possible on account of his handling of his own knife by whichhe has inflicted 24 blows one after another on Kartar Singh. Therefore, it could notbe said that the injuries on his person are not explained. It must be also mentionedhere that during the cross-examination of P. W. 2 Somawanti P. W. 3 Shakuntala andthe Investigating Officer there is no questioning to any of them about the injurieson accused No. 2 Gurmukh Singh. None of them was asked anything about theinjuries on appellant Gurmukh Singh. In view of above discussed circumstancesit could not be said that the prosecution has not explained the injuries on the personof the appellant Gurmukh Singh. ( 22 ). Learned Counsel for the appellants have cited before us the cases of Kartarsingh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1988 S. C. 212 and Lakshmi Singh v. State of Bihar,air 1976 S. C. 2263. ( 22 ). Learned Counsel for the appellants have cited before us the cases of Kartarsingh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1988 S. C. 212 and Lakshmi Singh v. State of Bihar,air 1976 S. C. 2263. If the facts of both the cases are seen then it would be quite dearthat in both the cases the plea of right of private defence of person was raised onbehalf of accused and therefore the failure of prosecution to explain the injuries onaccused was taken into consideration and an adverse inference was drawn againstthe prosecution. Therefore, both the cases are not applicable to the facts of the casebefore us. We will also like to observe that as the prosecution witnesses were notat all asked during their cross-examination about the injuries on appellant Gurmukh Singh their evidence could not be rejected. In case of Bhagwan v. State ofmaharashtra, AIR 1974 S. C. 21 the following principles are laid down: "there is no hard and fast rule that simply because the prosecution witnesses did not explain the injuries on the person of accused their entire evidence should be dismissed. "in the case before us as a matter of fact prosecution witnesses have deposedthe cause which has resulted into causing injuries to appellant Gurmukh Singh. Even assuming in favour of accused that that explanation of injuries is notsatisfactory that could not be ground to reject their testimonies. In a recent decisionof State of U. P. v. Mukunde Singh and Others, 1994 (1) Judgements Today 109 theapex Court has laid down as under: "merely on the ground that the prosecution witnesses have not explained theinjuries on the accused the High Court ought not to have rejected theirevidence out right. "thus the contention raised on behalf of the appellant that the prosecutionwitnesses have failed to explain injuries on Gurmukh Singh and therefore theirevidence should be rejected could not be accepted. ( 23 ). It is further contended that when it is an admitted fact that appellant Jeetsingh and Gurmukh Singh were present in the hospital where Kartar Singh wastaken immediately after he was taken there as just by the time he was taken there,the prosecution version does not seem to be probable. It is contended that when theaccused Gurmukh Singh was the assailant he would not a all go to hospital andmake himself available for being arrested. It is contended that when theaccused Gurmukh Singh was the assailant he would not a all go to hospital andmake himself available for being arrested. The appellant Gurmukh Singh sconduct in going to hospital is not a conduct of a person who would have been thereal culprit. It must be remembered that there are no set rules regarding humanbehaviour and conduct. Different persons react differently to same set of circum-stances. Different persons react in different ways in situation of emergency as wellas crisis. If the statement of accused Gurmukh Singh under Section 313 of Code ofcriminal Procedure is considered alongwith the suggestion put to the medicalexpert regarding the cause of injuries on his person then his going to hospital at thattime could not be said to be unnatural. The accused has taken a plea that he wason Grant Trunk Road going in a riksha and his father on cycle and at that time athree wheeler came and gave a dash to his riksha and hence he fell down andsustained the injuries. He thus wants to create evidence for the injuries sustainedby him due to hitting of stones and on account of handling of knife as well as to placehimself far away from the spot. It must be remembered that if the version given byhim in his statement under Section 313 was true then his version shows commissionof offence under Section 279 of Indian Penal Code. He would have also examinedthe riksha puller to support his claim. But no such evidence is brought on record. But one thing is quite-clear that in view of his version under Section 313 his conductin going to hospital, could not be said to be unnatural or improbable. ( 24 ). The next submission made on behalf of the appellants is that in view ofinjuries on person of Kartar Singh the claim of P. W. 2 Somawanti and P. W. 3shakuntala Kaur is not probable. It is submitted that as per evidence of P. W. I I Dr. J. S. Pruthy there were six injuries on the back of Kartar Singh and according to bothp. W. 2 and P. W. 3 accused Jeet Singh and accused Kashmira Singh had caught holdof Kartar Singh by his two arms and accused Gurmukh Singh had given blows fromhis front side. J. S. Pruthy there were six injuries on the back of Kartar Singh and according to bothp. W. 2 and P. W. 3 accused Jeet Singh and accused Kashmira Singh had caught holdof Kartar Singh by his two arms and accused Gurmukh Singh had given blows fromhis front side. Therefore, the existence of six injuries on his back makes the claimof P. W. 2 Somawanti and P. W. 3 Shakuntala Kaur unbelivable and improbable. Insupport of that submission the case of B. N. Singh Etc. v. State of Gujarat AIR 1990s. C. 1628. But before considering the facts of the said case we would like to mentionhere that we have found that the findings of P. W. I I Dr. J. S. Purthy could not bebelieved and accepted. We are unable to accept his claim that there were six injurieson the back of Kartar Singh. We found that in view of the evidence of P. W. IO Dr. L. T. Ramani, post-mortem notes and ocular evidence of P. W. 2 and P. W. 3 theevidence of P. W. I I Dr. ]. S. Purthy could not be believed and accepted. In case ofpattipati Venkaiah v. State, 1985 S. C. C. [cr] 46 it has been held that the medicalevidence should not be viewed with mathematical precision and accuracy. Thenin case of Solanki Chimabhai Ukabhai v. State of Gujarat, 1983 S. C. C. tcr1379 thehead note runs as under: "eye wilness vis a vis medical witness testimony of eye witness would bepreferable to the medical evidence unless the medical evidence completlyrules out the eye witness version. "the above cited cases support our conclusion that the evidence of Public Witness 11 Dr. J. S. Purthy regarding the injuries described by him as on the back of Kartar Singhcould not be believed in view of oral evidence of P. W. 2 and P. W. 3 and evidence ofp. W. 10 Dr. L. T. Ramani. ( 25 ). The learned Advocate for appellant No. 3 has put reliance on the following head note of AIR 1990 S. C. 1628. W. 10 Dr. L. T. Ramani. ( 25 ). The learned Advocate for appellant No. 3 has put reliance on the following head note of AIR 1990 S. C. 1628. "murder - Appreciation of evidence - witnesses interested persons - oneof accused found to be falsely implicated by them-version of them that threeaccused caught hold of deceased and remaining three inflicted knife blows -improbable in view of injuries found all over body of deceassed - Evidenceof witnesses not trust worthy - Accused entitled to be acquitted. The above head note itself shows that in that case the prosecution witnesseshad falsely implicated one person. Then in that case it was the claim ofprosecution witnesses that three persons had caught hold of the deceased andthree persons had given knife blows on the deceased. Doctor had foundinjuries all over the body and, therefore, it is observed:"if really three persons were holding the deceased in the manner spoken to by these interested witnesses, the other three persons armed with big knivescould not have indiscriminately caused the injuries on all parts of body in that manner. It would not have been possible for them to cause injuries without causing hurt to the persons so holding. Therefore, we are not prepared to accept the prosecution version. "the above observations themselves clearly show that they are based on thefacts before Their Lordships. In that case six persons were prosecuted. Trial Courthad acquitted four and held only accused No. 1 and 5 guilty. High Court has setaside the acquital of accused No. 2,4 and 6. Against that decision matter had comebefore Apex Court and in view of material on record above observations are madeparticularly in view of concurrent findings of two Courts that accused No. 3 wasfalsely prosecuted. If the cross examination of P. W. 2 and P. W. 3 is seen, then sameshows that they were not all cross-examined as regards the manner accused Jeetsingh caught deceased Kartar Singh. Hence the facts of the case before us are quitedistinct from the facts of AIR 1990 S. C. 1628. ( 26 ). The learned Counsel for appellant No. 3 Mr. Sethi cited before us the caseof Lakhbir Singh and Another v. State of Punjab, 1988 (3) CRIMES 308. The factsof the said case clearly show that it is not applicable to the facts before us. In thatcase the presence of eye witnesses was found doubtful. ( 26 ). The learned Counsel for appellant No. 3 Mr. Sethi cited before us the caseof Lakhbir Singh and Another v. State of Punjab, 1988 (3) CRIMES 308. The factsof the said case clearly show that it is not applicable to the facts before us. In thatcase the presence of eye witnesses was found doubtful. Witnesses were havingvery strained relations with accused. Witnesses had deposed that three accusedpersons had fired shots on the victims from their three different firearms. Medicalevidence showed that all injuries sustained by all victims must have been causedby one and the same weapon. Therefore, the witneses were not believed in thatcase. ( 27 ). The learned Counsel for the appellant No. 3 has cited before us the casesof Kartar Singh and Others v. State, 1988 (2) CRIMES 634 , Awadesh and Another v. State of M. P. 1988 Criminal Appeals Reporter 129. But the facts of both the casesclearly show that they are not applicable to the facts before us. In the first case of 1988 (2) CRIMES 634 all the three eye witneses were from one and same nativeplace. They were knowing each other. They were living in one and same building. Then they tried to implicate three persons though injuries sustained indicated thatthey must have been caused by only one person. Then there was delay in recordingstatements of two of them as well as the First Information Report. Hence they werenot believed. In 1988 Criminal Appeals Reporter 129 the statements of two eyewitneses were recorded two months after the incident. There was no satisfactoryexplanation for that delay. The prosecution witnesses were found highly interested. Then there were independent known witnesses but they did not come aheadto support prosecution. Then it was also found that on facts two views werepossible and hence benefit of doubt was given to accused. Thus both cases do notapply to the facts before us. ( 28 ). Thus we have come to the conclsion that evidence of P. W. 2 Somawantiand P. W. 3 Shakuntia Kaur is cogent, clear and consistent. It is supported andcorroborated by the medical evidence of Dr. L. T. Ramani, P. W. IO. Therefore, thetrial Court was quite justified in accepting their evidence. ( 29 ). ( 28 ). Thus we have come to the conclsion that evidence of P. W. 2 Somawantiand P. W. 3 Shakuntia Kaur is cogent, clear and consistent. It is supported andcorroborated by the medical evidence of Dr. L. T. Ramani, P. W. IO. Therefore, thetrial Court was quite justified in accepting their evidence. ( 29 ). The act of accused No. 1 in catching Kartar Singh and inviting accused No. 2 Gurmukh Singh and telling him to teach a lesson and then Gurmukh Singh giving24 blows of knife and appellant Jeet Singh catching Kartar Singh till those blowswere given dearly shows that he shared the common intention along with appellant Gurmukh Singh to cause intentio;nal death of Kartar Singh. Similarly the actsof appellant Kashmira Singh of catching Kartar Singh and allowing appellant Gurmukh Singh to give 24 blows of knife and further pushing away I. W. 2 and P. W. 3and threatening them with death when they had come ahead to rescue Kartar Singhdearly show that he shared the intention of causing homicidal death of Kartarsingh. Thus all the appellants are rightly held guilty of the offence punishableunder Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. ( 30 ). Thus we hold that there is no merit in this appeal. Appeal deserved to bedismissed. Appeal is dismised. The order of conviction of appellants undersection 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code as well as the order ofsentence passed by Trial Court are maintained and confirmed. Appellant No. 1 Jeetsingh and Appellant No. 3 Kashmira Singh should surrender their bails andundergo punishment. Appellant Gurmukh Singh be informed of this decisionthrough jail authorities.