Judgment V.G. Palshikar, J.-This appeal is directed against the Judgment and order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2. Hanumangarh in sessions case No. 63/85 on 26-8- 87 convicting the accused appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code sentencing them to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 500/-in default further R. I. for three months. The accused appellants were also convicted under Section 307 read with Section 34 I. P. C. and sentenced to four years R. I. and a fine of Rs. 200/-in default one month R. I. 2. The prosecution story stated in brief is that at about 1.15 p.m. on 27th March, 1985, Shanker Lal with his father Prithvi Raj went to the house of Balwant Singh to request him to paciir the quarrel between Sheeshpal and Krishna Lal (accused). When they were returning and were about 15 steps away from the house of Balwant Singh near the house of Bhagirath, accused Ram Chandra, Lalu Ram, Saheb Ram, Krishan Lal and Dara Ram came and attacked them. Saheb Ram had ‘Saila’, Dara Ram had ‘Saila’, Krishan Lal had ‘Gandasi’ Ram Chandra had ‘Kasia’ and Lalu Ram had stick, Dara Ram hit Prithvi Raj in the stomach by the ‘Salia’, as a result of which Prithvi Raj fell to the ground, on this, elder brother of Prithvi Raj, Mohanl Lal, Bansilal, Bhagirath and Bakhtavar Singh came on the scene and Mohan Lal was attacked by the accused persons at the instance of Lalu Ram. Saheb Ram attacked Mohan Lal with ‘Saila’, then the accused ran away. F.I.R. was lodged by P. W. 1 Shanker Lal who is an eye-witness to the whole incidence. The prosecution has examined 5 witnesses in support of its case and except the Doctor and Investigating Officer, three others are the eye-witnesses involving in the incidence. .3. ShriDoongar Singh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants challenges the order of the learned Sessions Judge on the following grounds; .(i) That all the three witnesses are deeply interested against the accused, their deposition shows that other independent witnesses to the occurrence were present and could have been examined. .(ii) All the eye-witnesses speak of injuries caused by ‘Saila’. The medical evidence is to the contrary. No injury which could have been caused by ‘Saila’. .(ii) All the eye-witnesses speak of injuries caused by ‘Saila’. The medical evidence is to the contrary. No injury which could have been caused by ‘Saila’. (iii) Even the injured witness is not truthful qua his own injuries and therefore, cannot be believed. If that testimony is ignored, there is no evidence duly corroborated to warrant conviction. (iv) Fromthe statement of the Investigating Officer, it is evident that the accused persons were available to the police on 27-3-85 itself and yet they have not been arrested. The delay caused in arresting creates strong suspicions that the accused persons have been framed up. 4. Replying these contentions, the learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that though there, may be some exaggerations or contradictions in the deposition of the three eye-witnesses it must be born in mind that the witnesses were attacked by the accused persons, they were armed with lethal weapons. Two of them were seriously injured and in such circumstances, the contradictions or omissions or exaggerations pointed out by the learned Police Prosecutor can occur as a natural human conduct and that by itself should not therefore, be a reason for disbelieving these witnesses. Learned Public Prosecutor also took us through the deposition of the Doctor and pointed out that the Doctor has unequivocally stated that the injuries caused to the deceased and Prithvi Raj were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. She, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 5. In order to appreciate the rival contentions, it would be necessary to reapprciate the evidence on record without considering the Judgment of the learned Sessions Judge. 6. P. W. 1 Shanker Lal is son of Prithvi Raj. He deposed that he along with Prithvi Raj went to the house of Balwant Singh to request him to prevent any further quarrel between accused Krishan Lal and Sheeshpal. While they were returning, they were assaulted by the accused persons who were five in member. The accused persons were armed, Sahib Ram had’Saila’, Dara Ram had ‘Saila’, Krishan Lal had ‘Gandasi’, Ram Chandra had ‘Kasia’ and Lalu Ram had ‘Lathi (stick) and they came down heavily his father. The father was attacked in the stomach with the help of ‘Saila’ by Sahib Ram. The accused persons were armed, Sahib Ram had’Saila’, Dara Ram had ‘Saila’, Krishan Lal had ‘Gandasi’, Ram Chandra had ‘Kasia’ and Lalu Ram had ‘Lathi (stick) and they came down heavily his father. The father was attacked in the stomach with the help of ‘Saila’ by Sahib Ram. Immediately hearing the commotion, Mohan Lal along with Bansi Lal, Bhagirath and Bakhtavar Singh came on the spot and when Mohan Lal came to stop the quarrel, Sahib Ram beat Mohan Lal with ‘Saila’, as a result of which, Mohan Lal fell. In his cross-examination, the witness admits quarrel with the accused. He has admitted two omissions in the police statement. According to him, he did state so before the police and cannot give reason for the omission by the police. He has denied the suggestion that Krishan Lai and Ram Chandra were assaulted by him and his relations. He has denied the suggestion regarding absence of Sahib Ram, Dara Ram and Lalu Ram. 7. P. W. 2 Prithvi Raj was also injured in the assault, he was hit with ‘Saila’ by Dara Ram and he saw Ram Chandra hit Shanker Lal with ‘Kasja’ and then Mohan Lal, Bansi Lal, Bhagirath and Bakhtavar Singh came and Sahib Ram hit Mohan Lal with ‘Saila’. He has stated that Sahib Ram was armed with ‘Saila’, Dara Ram armed with ‘Saila’, Krishan Lai armed with ‘Gandasi’, Ram Chandra armed with’ Kasia’ and Lalu Ram armed with stick. He has also deposed that accused Lalu Ram hit the witness and Mohan Lal with ‘Lathi’ when they were lying on the ground. He has been duly cross-examined during which he admits enmity with the accused persons and denied that it was his party which assaulted the accused. He denies the suggestion that the injuries caused to him were caused in self defence by the accused. He also frankly admits three omissions and is unable to give reasons why the police did not mention those facts. 8. P. W. 3 Bansi Lal is yet another eye-witness who came on the scene, hearing the commotion and saw accused persons heating Prithvi Singh and Shanker Lal. He states that Sahib Ram had ‘Saila’, Dara Ram had ‘Saila’, Krishanlal had ‘Gandasi’, Ram Chandra had ‘Kasia’ and Lalu Ram had stick. 8. P. W. 3 Bansi Lal is yet another eye-witness who came on the scene, hearing the commotion and saw accused persons heating Prithvi Singh and Shanker Lal. He states that Sahib Ram had ‘Saila’, Dara Ram had ‘Saila’, Krishanlal had ‘Gandasi’, Ram Chandra had ‘Kasia’ and Lalu Ram had stick. He then states that Dara Ram hit Prithvi Raj in stomach with ‘Saila’, Ram Chandra hit Shanker Lal with ‘Kasia’, Sahib Ram hit Mohan Lal with ‘Saila’ and the witness himself was injured by Krishan Lal who hit hi m by the reverse side of the ‘Gandasi’. He also states that after Mohan Lal and Prithvi Raj fell to the ground, Lalu Ram hit them with stick. In his cross-examination, the witness admits that when he saw the accused persons on the spot Ram Chandra and Krishan Lal had head injury and Lalu Ram was shouting. He also admits eniniity between the parties. 9. P. W. 4 who examined the injured witnesses P. Ws. 1, 2 and 3 and conducted the post mortem on the deceased Mohan Lal. P, W. 5 is the Investigating Officer. 10. A careful scrutiny of the deposition of this witness will show that they fully corroborate each other on all material particulars. The description given by each of them regarding the arms possessed by each accused is duly corroborated. They also corroborate each other on the question of which injury was caused by which accused to which witness or deceased. Thus the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt the complicity of the accused persons and the eye-witnesses have given full and complete account of the occurrence. There is, therefore, no reason to disbelieve any of these witnesses. 11. It is true that there was some prior quarrel between the parties as is admitted by P. W. 3 Ram Chandra and Krishan Lal had injuries on their head. Admittedly, there was quarrel between Sheeshpal and Krishan Lal earlier in the day and to prevent any further quarrel, Shanker Lal and his father Prithvi Raj had gone to Balwant Singh who was the employer of the accused persons. It cannot, therefore, be said that the accused persons caused the injuries in self defence of their body. It is an obvious case of assault as a matter of revenge, the learned Judge did not commit any error in convicting the accused persons. 12. It cannot, therefore, be said that the accused persons caused the injuries in self defence of their body. It is an obvious case of assault as a matter of revenge, the learned Judge did not commit any error in convicting the accused persons. 12. We are also not impressed by the submission that the medical evidence does not disclose any injury by ‘Saila’. Doctor has stated that there is an incised wound on the body of Mohan Lal. He has opined that the injury caused to the deceased can be caused by sharp ‘Saila’. In the face of this evidence.there is. therefore, no reason to disbelieve the witnesses when they saw such injuries were caused with ‘Saila’. It is also pertinent to note at this stage that the police have recovered the weapons as were described by the witnesses from the possession of the accused. Ex. P. 20 is the document showing recovery of the ‘Saila’ from Dhara Ram and similar recoveries are proved by Ex. P. 20, Ex. P. 21, Ex. P. 22 and Ex. P. 23. The arms were recovered on the information given by the accused. The injuries caused to the persons are corroborated by the medical evidence and there is thus, no circumstance which points out to the innocence of the accused. In our opinion, therefore, there is no reason to take different view than the one taken by the learned Sessions Judge. 13. The delay in arresting of the accused persons is also inconsequential. It is true that the accused persons were available on 27-3-1985 but it cannot be said that the Investigating Officer was wrong in not arresting them immediately, he has arrested them after due investigation and, therefore, the theory of concoction is unacceptable. 14. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed.