ORDER : M.M. Punchhi, J. 1. Seven accused persons stood trial before the Court of Session for offences under Sections 302/149 Indian Penal Code etc. for causing the death of one Asa Ram. The Court of Session acquitted three of them convicting the remaining four under Sections 302/34 Indian Penal Code and awarding them life sentence. On appeal, the High Court acquitted yet another one named Gopi Ram; maintaining the conviction of two, i.e., Beni Parsad and Bishambhar and altering the conviction of Vinod Kumar, the fourth one, to one under Section 323 Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to the period already undergone. The instant two cross-appeals have emanated from the verdict of the High Court. The State of Rajasthan is aggrieved against the acquittal of Gopi Ram and Vinod Kumar for offence under Sections 302/34 Indian Penal Code and the co-convicts, namely, Beni Parsad and Bishambhar are aggrieved against the maintenance of their conviction under Sections 302/34 and the award of life sentence. 2. The occurrence took place at about 10.30 p.m. on 26-6-1981, in front of the house of PW 2 where the deceased was accosted by the accused, inflicting on him six incised wounds. PWs 1, 2 and 5 were eyewitnesses to the crime. PW 5 was the brother of the deceased. He lodged the FIR at about 2.10 a.m. at the police station wherein he could name only the above-described four accused, who were ultimately convicted by the Court of Session. He failed to mention therein the three accused who were acquitted by the Court of Session. He mentioned about the presence of the three eyewitnesses also, inclusive of himself. On the matter being reported, investigation was undertaken. During the course thereof, post-mortem was conducted on the dead body of the deceased. PW 3, Dr D.D. Chandna, at the eventual trial, deposed to about the six incised wounds caused by sharp-edged weapons he had found on the person of the deceased and none caused by a blunt one. The Court of Session placed implicit reliance on the statements of PWs 1, 2 and 5 as to the participation of the four accused. PW 3, Dr D.D. Chandna, at the eventual trial, deposed to about the six incised wounds caused by sharp-edged weapons he had found on the person of the deceased and none caused by a blunt one. The Court of Session placed implicit reliance on the statements of PWs 1, 2 and 5 as to the participation of the four accused. The High Court, however, cast a doubt on the participation of Gopi Ram, accused, because of certain supplementary statements of the 1st informant recorded by the police during investigation and the prosecution agency itself not putting to trial Gopi Ram despite his name being mentioned in the FIR. It is a different matter though that Gopi Ram was called by the Court of Session to face along trial by invoking powers under Section 319 Criminal Procedure Code. Vinod Kumar's conviction under Sections 302/34 Indian Penal Code was set aside and, instead, he was convicted under Section 323 Indian Penal Code on the supposition that he had used his lathi on the deceased but, surprisingly, we find no injury matching to the one wielded by a blunt weapon. This aspect of the case need not detain us even for a moment because there is no appeal by Vinod Kumar and he seems to have become content by the verdict of the High Court. The claim of the State of Rajasthan requiring Vinod Kumar and Gopi Ram to be convicted under Sections 302/34 Indian Penal Code is obviously not valid in view of the medical evidence not supporting the claim insofar as Vinod Kumar is concerned and the prosecution itself, as led by the State, having not chosen to put to trial Gopi Ram, accused. Thus, we have no hesitation in dismissing Criminal Appeal No. 593 of 1986 preferred by the State of Rajasthan against the aforesaid two accused. 3. Thus, we have no hesitation in dismissing Criminal Appeal No. 593 of 1986 preferred by the State of Rajasthan against the aforesaid two accused. 3. Now, coming to Criminal Appeal No. 592 of 1986 with regard to Beni Parsad and Bishambhar, it is to be noticed that their convictions under Sections 302/34 Indian Penal Code and the award of life sentence cannot be open to doubt for the reason that the FIR was prompt, these two accused were named therein, the weapons alleged to be in their hands were barchi and kulhari, respectively, the six injuries found on the deceased could be caused by such weapons, the injuries led to the fracture of the temporal bone and all the injuries were cumulatively found as sufficient to have caused the death of the deceased and, lastly, all the three eyewitnesses, out of which PW 2 was wholly independent, (PW 1 suggestedly inimical and PW 5 interested), having supported the prosecution case, in particular with regard to the participation of these two accused. The High Court has given good and cogent reasons to maintain the conviction of these two accused persons and we see no reason to differ from its view. Even if we were to screen the evidence of PWs 1 and 5 entertaining the suggestion that PW 1 was inimical and PW 5, being the brother of the deceased, interested, requiring closer scrutiny, it is not possible to earmark which injury was caused by whom so as to distinguish the parts played by each accused warranting differential treatment. Even if we were able to do so, the principle of constructive liability embodied in Section 34 Indian Penal Code would take control pointing to the guilt of the aforesaid two accused and to the maintenance of the conviction and sentence. 4. For the foregoing reasons, both the criminal appeals stand dismissed. The appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 592 are on bail. They are required to surrender to their bail bonds.