Judgment B.R. Arora, J.-These three appeals are directed against the Judgment dated 29-11-88, passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Pratabgarh, by which the learned Sessions Judge convicted accused-appellants Ganpat Lai and Jag Ram for the offence under Sections 302/34, I.P.C., and sentenced each of them to undergo imprisonment of life; but acquitted them and the other co-accused, viz., Ratan Lal, Man Singh, Rod Chand, Madan Lal, Dal Chand, Kanhaiya Lal and Amrit Lal of the offences under Sections 148 and 302/149, I.P.C. .2. AppellantsGanpat Lal and Jag Ram, along with accused Ratan Lai, Man Singh, Rod Chand, Madan Lal, Dal Chand, Kanhaiya Lal and Amrit Lal, were tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Pratabgarh, for the offences under Sections 148 and 302/149 I.P.C. The case of the prosecution is that all the aforesaid nine accused formed an unlawfiil assembly with a common object to kill Bal Kishan and in furtherance of that common object, on 14-11-86, at about 8.00 p.m. near the house of Laxman Balai in village Achalpura, they inflicted injuries to Bal Kishan by Kulhari, Knife, Gupti, Khuntli and Lathis. According to prosecution case, Bal Kishan had borrowed yoke and wooden levelled from Laxman Balai. On the relevant day, he went to the house of Laxman Bala to return the same and after returning the yoke when he was returning from the house of Laxman Bala, accused-appellant Ganpat Lal, who was sitting near the fire (Dhuni), asked Bal Kishan why he had got his fodder eaten by the catties. Bal Kishan denied this allegation, whereupon accused Ganpat Lal cauglit-hold of him and inflicted injury by a Gupti on his stomach. Accused-appellant Jag Ram inflicted injury by a Lathi, which hit on the hand of Bal Kishan. Accused Ratan Lal tried to inflict injury to Bal Kishan by a lathi but he himself fell down on the ground. Accused Kanhaiya Lal Dal Chand, Rod Chand, Man Singh, Amrit Lal and Madan Lal, who were hiding themselves behind a bullock-cart, came there and inflicted injuries to Bal Kishan by Kuntli and Lathis. Accused Kanhaiya Lal, who was having a Kulhari with him, inflicted injuries from the right side of the Kulhari, which hit on the leg of Bal Kishan. Bal Kishan succumbed to these injuries. The .prosecution, in support of its case, examined thirteen witnesses. Accused Kanhaiya Lal, who was having a Kulhari with him, inflicted injuries from the right side of the Kulhari, which hit on the leg of Bal Kishan. Bal Kishan succumbed to these injuries. The .prosecution, in support of its case, examined thirteen witnesses. The learned Sessions Judge, after trial, acquitted all the accused, except accused-appellants Ganpat Lal and Jag Ram, of all the offences and convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants for the offence under Section 302/34 I.P.C. and acquitted both these accused appellants of the offences under Sections 148 and 302/ 149 I.P.C. It is against this Judgment dated 29-11 -88, acquitting accused Ratan Lal & Ors. of the aforesaid offences that the State has preferred D. B. Criminal Appeal No. 151 of 1989 (State vs. Ratan Lal) while the accused-appellants have preferred D. B. Criminal Appeal No. 267 of 1989, (Ganpat Lal vs. The State of Rajasthan). Accused-appellants have, also, preferred D. B. Criminal (Jail) Appeal No. 85 of 1990 (Jag Ram & Anr. vs. The State of Rajasthan) through Jail. As all these three appeals arise out of the common Judgment , we are, therefore, deciding all these three appeals by this common Judgment . 3. It is contended by the learned Public Prosecutor that the learned Sessions Judge was not justified in disbelieving the statements of PW5 Amrit Lal and PW6 Fateh Lal as well as the statements of other eye witnesses so far as the acquittal of the accused of the offences under Sections 148 and 302/149, IPC is concerned. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, from the evidence produced by the prosecution the formation of unlawful assembly and the common object of that unlawful assembly to murder Bal Kishan stand proved beyond reasonable manner of doubt and the learned trial Court was not justified in acquitting the accused of these offences. 4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the accused-appellants and the other accused acquitted, that there is a delay of three hours in lodging the FIR which has given ample opportunity to the prosecution for consultation and fabrication of the case against the accused. It has, also, been contended by the learned counsel for the accused-appellants that the prosecution has made improvement in the case from the case set-out in the FIR. It has, also, been contended by the learned counsel for the accused-appellants that the prosecution has made improvement in the case from the case set-out in the FIR. According to the learned counsel for the accused-appellants, the prosecution witnesses are wholly unreliable and they are not supported by the medical evidence. At the initial stage it has not been shown that there was any light at the place of the occurrence and, therefore, it was not possible for the prosecution witnesses to have identified the accused. It has, also, been contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellants that some independent eye witnesses have been withheld by the prosecution and, therefore, an adverse inference should be drawn against the prosecution. According to the learned Counsel for the accused-appellants the name of PW8 Onkar Lal has not been given in the FIR and, therefore, his evidence cannot be read and relied upon in convicting the accused. It is further contended that there are material discrepancies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses which make the prosecution case unreliable and the accused-appellants therefore, deserve to be acquitted. Lastly it is contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellants and the other accused that accused Ratan Lal & Ors. were rightly acquitted by the learned trial Court and the appeal, filed by the State, therefore, deserves to be dismissed. 5. We have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties. 6. The nature of the evidence, produced by the prosecution, consists of the statements of six eye witnesses, viz., PW1 Prithvi Raj, PW2 Lachhman, PW4 Nana Lal, PW5 Amrit Lal, PW6 Fateh Lal and PW8 Onkar Lal, which is sought to be corroborated by the medical evidence of PW9 Dr. Subodh Sindhu, PW3 Chaturbhuj and PW7 Shobha Lal, who lodged the FIR and the Motbir witnesses PW 10 Bhairu Lal and PW11 Kanhaiya Lal, who are the witnesses to the site-plan and the recoveries of various articles. PW 12 Shiv Lal was the Constable posted at Police Station, Nana, who took the sealed articles for FSL examination to, the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur, and PW 13 Hamid Khan, who investigated the matter and presented the challan. The learned Sessions Judge did not believe the testimony of PW5 Amrit Lal and PW6 Fateh Lal, the alleged eye witnesses of the occurrence. The learned Sessions Judge did not believe the testimony of PW5 Amrit Lal and PW6 Fateh Lal, the alleged eye witnesses of the occurrence. According to us, the learned Sessions Judge was right in disbelieving the statements of these two alleged eye witnesses. Both these witnesses are the chance witnesses. Their presence at the scene of the occurrence is not free from doubt. Their statements, to some extent, are contradictory to the statements of the other eye witnesses. They were standing at a considerable distance and their seeing the incident was not probable. Looking to the contradictions in their statements from the statements of other witnesses, we are of the opinion that they are not telling the truth and their statements do not inspire confidence and as such they were rightly disbelieved by the learned trial Court. .7. The prosecution case, therefore, rests upon the statements of the remaining four other eye witnesses. PW1 Prithvi Raj has stated that after taking his meals he was sitting near the fire (Dhuni) outside the house of one Moti Baa. At that time Moti Baa, Orikar Balai, Laxman Balai, Nana Ram, Megha and Rawata were, also sitting near the fire. Bal Kishan came to return the yoke and Paatli (wooden plank) to Laxman Balai. After returning the yoke and the wooden plank, Bal Kishan proceeded towards his house. Accused Ganpat Lal was, also, sitting near the fire. Accused Ganpart asked Bal Kishan why he had got his Chiwada (Jawar) eaten by the cattleSi whereupon Bal Kishan stated that the allegation levelled against him was false and he did not get the Chiwada eaten by the cattlies and assured him that even in future if he will be found doing so then he may be caught red-handed. Thereafter accused Ganpat asked Bal Kishan that he would teach a lesson to him and .saying so he got up and went with Bal Kishan. They had covered a distance of about five to six paces. Bal Kishan was going ahead while accused Ganpat Lal was following him. Accused Ganpat thereafter took-out the Gupti-type knife and penetrated the same in the stomach of Bal Kishan. Ganpat’s father was, also, sitting near the fire. Accused Jag Ram, also, inflicted injury on the hand of Bal Kishan. Accused Ratan Lal tried to struck Gedia (small Lathi) blow to Bal Kishan but he himself fell down. Accused Ganpat thereafter took-out the Gupti-type knife and penetrated the same in the stomach of Bal Kishan. Ganpat’s father was, also, sitting near the fire. Accused Jag Ram, also, inflicted injury on the hand of Bal Kishan. Accused Ratan Lal tried to struck Gedia (small Lathi) blow to Bal Kishan but he himself fell down. Bal Kishan, after receiving the injuries, fell, down. A bullock-cart was standing about five to six paces ahead. Accused Kanhaiya Lal, who was standing behind the bullock-cart, came and inflicted injury from the right side of the Kuihari on the leg of Bal Kishan. Accused Dal Chand, Man Singh, Rod Chand, Madan Lal and Amrit Lal, who were sitting under a Neem tree, near the bullock-cart and were armed with Kuntli and Lathis etc., also, came and started inflicting injuries to Bal Kishan. Bal Kishan succumbed to these injuries at the spot. Accused Ratan Lal and his son wanted to purchase land with well from Mangi Lal Suthar while Mangi Lal Suttyir had given this land and well on share basis to Bal Kishan. Accused Ganpat Lal, Dalu and Rodi Lal had given beatings to Mangi Lal Suthar’s wife about five, months before and she got a fracture. Bal Kishan appeared as a witness in that case. After when Bal, Kishan succumbed to the injuries, Gopi Bai and Chaturbhuj came there. He has, also, stated that at that time there was a light of a bulb out-side the house of Moti Baa and the light was, a.lso, there in the office of the Gram Panchayat. A lengthy cross-examination has been conducted with this witness but nothing could be elicited which could have shaken the testimony of this witness. Similar is the statement of PW2 Lachhman, PW4 Nana Lal and PW8 Onkar Lal. From the evidence of these witnesses, the causing of the injuries to Bal Kishan by accused Ganpat Lal and Jag Ram, therefore, stands proved. But so far as the other accused are concerned, the evidence of these witnesses does not find corroboration from the medical evidence. Bal Kishan had only nine injuries on his person and as per the medical evidence, six injuries out of the nine were caused by sharp weapon whereas the remaining three injuries, i. e., injuries Nos. But so far as the other accused are concerned, the evidence of these witnesses does not find corroboration from the medical evidence. Bal Kishan had only nine injuries on his person and as per the medical evidence, six injuries out of the nine were caused by sharp weapon whereas the remaining three injuries, i. e., injuries Nos. 1,8 and 9, were superficial in nature and as per the medical evidence, these injuries can be caused by a fall on the ground as it was a hard-surface where the incident took place So far as accused Kanhaiya Lal is concerned, the prosecution has come with a specific case that he inflicted an injury by the right side of Kuihari on the leg of Bal Kishan but no such injuries was found on the leg of Bal Kishan. No evidence has been produced by the prosecution for establishing the fact regarding formation of an unlawful assembly by the accused having a common object. Even as per the prosecution case six accused were sitting under a Neem tree. They were not hidding themselves nor their participation in the prime is proved. No injury alleged to have been inflicted by them was found on the person of Bal Kishan. The prosecution has, therefore, failed to prove the case for formation of unlawful assembly with a common object by the accused. It is therefore, a clear case of over-implication of the accused by the prosecution. The prosecution has, therefore, failed to prove the case against accused Ratan Lal, Man Singh, Rod Chand, Madan Lal, Dal Chand, Kanhaiya Lal and Amrit Lal and the learned Sessions Judge was, therefore, justified in acquitting these accused of the offences under Sections 148 and 302/149 IPC. The Judgment , passed by the learned lower Court acquitting these accused of the offences under Sections 148 and 302/149 IPC, therefore, does not require any interference and D. B. Criminal Appeal. No. 151 of 1991, (State vs. Ratan Lal), filed by the State, stands dismissed. 8. From the evidence of the eye witnesses and the other evidence produced by the prosecution, the causing of injuries to Bal Kishan by accused-appellants Ganpat Lal and Jag Ram and their participation in the crimes, therefore, stands established. .9. No. 151 of 1991, (State vs. Ratan Lal), filed by the State, stands dismissed. 8. From the evidence of the eye witnesses and the other evidence produced by the prosecution, the causing of injuries to Bal Kishan by accused-appellants Ganpat Lal and Jag Ram and their participation in the crimes, therefore, stands established. .9. Thenext question which requires consideration is: whether the accused-appellants were rightly convicted by the learned trial Court for committing the murder of Bal Kishan and whether they had any intention to cause his death and whether the act of the accused-appellants, by which the death of Bal Kishan was caused, was done by them with the intention to cause the death of Bal Kishan or with an intention to cause such bodily injury to him and the bodily injuries were intended to be inflicted were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death of Bal Kishan? As per the prosecution case, appellant Ganpat Lal inflicted only one injury by the Gupti on the abdomen of Bal Kishan while appellant Jag Ram inflicted injury by a knife. The occurrence happened most unexpectedly in as sudden quarrel and without any pre-meditation. During the course of this quarrel, as per the prosecution case, appellant Ganpat Lal inflicted a solitary injury by the Gupti on the abdomen of Bal Kishan and appellant Jag Ram, also, inflicted a solitary injury on his hand by a knife. From the attending circumstances and the totality of the established facts, the appellants cannot be imputed with the intention to cause the death of Bal Kishan or with an intention to cause these fatal injuries. They can, at the most, be imputed with the knowledge that the injuries, which they were inflicting, were likely to cause the death of Bal Kishan. In the absence of any positive proof that the appellants inflicted injuries intentionally to cause the death of Bal Kishah, neither Clause Firstly nor Clause Thirdly of Section 300 IPC can be attracted and the appellants, therefore, cannot be convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC. In the absence of any positive proof that the appellants inflicted injuries intentionally to cause the death of Bal Kishah, neither Clause Firstly nor Clause Thirdly of Section 300 IPC can be attracted and the appellants, therefore, cannot be convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC. They can, at the best, be imputed with an intention of causing such bodily injuries as are likely to pause the death of Bal .Kishan and, thus, they can be convicted for the offence under Section 304 Part I, IPC and as such, both the appeals, i.e., D. B. Criminal Appeal No. 267 of 1989 and D. B. Criminal (Jail) Appeal No. 85 of 1995, filed by the accused-appellants, deserve to be partly allowed. 10. In the result, D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 151 of 1989 (State vs. Ratan Lal & Ors.), filed by the State, is dismissed. D. B. Criminal Appeal No. 267 of 1989 and D. B. Criminal (Jail) Appeal No. 85 of 1990, filed by accused-appellants Ganpat Lal and Jag Ram, are partly allowed. Their conviction and sentence, passed by the learned Sessions Judge for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC, are quashed and set aside and they are acquitted of the offence Under Section 302/34, IPC but convicted of the offence under Section 304 Part I, IPC and are sentenced to the imprisonment already undergone by them. They are in Jail. They may be released forthwith if they are not required in any other case.