JUDGMENT 1. - The two appeals herein have been preferred against the judgment and order passed by the Sessions Judge, Tonk dated 29.10.1990, whereby the learned Judge has been pleased to convict all the six appellants for the offences under Section 302 read with Sections 147, 149 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. They have consequently been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302 read with Section 149, Indian Penal Code and a fine of Rs. 100/- each under Section 323, Indian Penal Code. They have further been ordered to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment under Section 147, Indian Penal Code. All the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. 2. The case of the prosecution in which the appellants stood convicted emerges out of a written report lodged by the informant Chhitar PW 1 on 6.6.1989, which was registered as First Information Report. It was alleged therein that on 5.6.1989, at about 5 p.m., his wife Mangi went to collect the chain for tying buffalo at `nohra' when the accused persons namely Kana, Badri, Prahlad son of Isra, Bhura son of Kana, Prabhati wife of Badri, Rukma wife of Kana, Jagdish son of Prahlad and Badri's sister-in-law, with common object, caught hold of Mangi and after sprinkling kerosene on her clothes lighted fire on her. Mangi instantly came out of the house after which Chhitar tried to extinguish the fire, but the accused person's caught hold of Chhitar and started beating him and did not permit him to put out the flames. It was further alleged that at that time, Bhura, Gopal and other villagers also arrived there and helped in putting out the flames before whom Mangi named the aforesaid persons who burnt her. Mangi-wife of the informant's condition was extremely serious due to which he along with the villagers carried her to Pachewar Police Station on a Trolly attached to a tractor where also she related about the incident, but since no doctor was available there, the SHO asked them to take her to Malpura, where he was to reach later and promised to record the statement and register the report. However, before Mangi could be reached to Malpura, she died on the way. It has further been recorded in the First Information Report that three-four days prior to this incident, the accused persons had also beaten up Mangi. However, before Mangi could be reached to Malpura, she died on the way. It has further been recorded in the First Information Report that three-four days prior to this incident, the accused persons had also beaten up Mangi. He further stated that there was enmity between him and the accused persons because they did not want to give him his share of the land. On this First Information Report, the police registered a case and after investigation submitted charge-sheet only against the accused persons. After the required legal formalities, the case was submitted to the Court of Session for trial. 3. The prosecution in support of its case has produced 17 witnesses and the accused persons also have produced 3 witnesses to counter the case of the prosecution. The statement of the accused persons were also recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein they have denied the allegations levelled against them and pleaded not guilty. 4. The Court of Session, on scrutiny of the evidence of the prosecution was ultimately pleased to record an order of conviction and consequently awarded sentences to all the six accused persons in the manner stated hereinabove, which is now under challenge in these two appeals. 5. In order to test the veracity or otherwise of the prosecution case, we have minutely gone through the prosecution case and the evidence of the prosecution witnesses from which it clearly emerges, that there are two categories of witnesses who have been produced in support of the prosecution case. 6. PW 1 Chhitar, who is the informant and husband of the deceased and PW 2 Ram Charan, aged 11 years at the time of the incident, is the son of PW 1 Chhitar and deceased Mangi, who claim to be eye-witnesses. 6. PW 1 Chhitar, who is the informant and husband of the deceased and PW 2 Ram Charan, aged 11 years at the time of the incident, is the son of PW 1 Chhitar and deceased Mangi, who claim to be eye-witnesses. PW 3 Suraj Karan, PW 4 Raghunath, PW 5 Bhairu, PW 6 Ganga Ram, PW 8 Narottam, PW 9 Gopal, PW 11 Bhanwar Lal, PW 12 Balu, PW 13 Surya Narain are those witnesses, who had reached to the place of occurrence almost immediately after the occurrence and had, although, not watched the actual incident of burning had heard the deceased naming the accused persons and also have given an account as to how Mangi was carried to the police station at Pachewar, where the SHO asked them to proceed to Malpura on the plea that there W3S no light at the police station, and, therefore, asked them to carry Mangi to the hospital at Malpura where the Head Constable was to reach later. 7. PW 1 Chhitar and PW 2 Ram Charan, thus, claim to be the eye-witnesses who had watched the occurrence and rest of them are those witnesses who bear testimony to the fact that the deceased had mentioned the names of the accused persons in front of them who set fire and burnt her. PW 3 Suraj Narain is another important witness, who first of all saw Mangi in a burnt state and put out the flames by pouring water on her which was asked for by the deceased herself, and also told him to extinguish the fire. 8. PW 1 Chhitar has repeated the version which he got recorded in the First Information Report to the effect that his wife had gone to bring chain for tying the buffalo at `nohra'. This `nohra' (cattle shed) is outside the house of Suraj Karan and he claims that he was sitting on the `chabutra' of the house of Suraj Karan. Along with him, Suraj Karan and his son Bhura and Lacchu Daroga were also sitting.. He has further stated that along with his wife, his son Ram Charan was also there. This `nohra' (cattle shed) is outside the house of Suraj Karan and he claims that he was sitting on the `chabutra' of the house of Suraj Karan. Along with him, Suraj Karan and his son Bhura and Lacchu Daroga were also sitting.. He has further stated that along with his wife, his son Ram Charan was also there. He has further related that one day prior to the incident, the accused Badri, Prahlad and Bhanwar Lal had driven away his buffalo and had told him that they will not allow his buffaloes in their cattle shed and had also told him that they would not give the land to him. He has further stated the reason that his wife had gone to collect the chain because she wanted to tie the animals at some other place. But Bhanwar Lal caught hold of Mangi's `chutta' (plait). Thereafter Kana, Prahlad, Rukma and Badri's sister-in-law caught hold of Mangi and Badri sprinkled kerosene or petrol on Mangi and Badri's wife Prabhati lighted a match stick and burnt fire on Mangi. His wife instantly caught fire, after which the accused persons fled away. Chhitar then rushed to extinguish the fire, but Badri, Kana, Bhura, Prahlad and Rukma caught hold of him and prevented him from putting out the fire. Relating the incident further, PW 1 Chhitar has stated that his wife started shouting and running, after which she fell in front of Suraj Karan's house. There were no clothes on her body. Suraj Karan covered her body with `dhoti' or rag (gudri). He was then released from the clutches of the accused by Gopal Daroga, Bhura and Lacchu Daroga after which the villagers arrived there and brought a tractor belonging to Bheru Meena in which Mangi was carried to the Police Station and then to Malpura. He has given out the names of several other persons also who accompanied them on the tractor and they are Balu Bhai Chopra, Nauratji Daroga, Bheruji Meena, Ganga Ram, Suwa Badada, Ramjilal Badada, Har Narain Bhopra, Bherubaba Chopra ka Narain, Gopal Balai, Bheru Gujar, Ruga Karwal, Ratna Dhabai, Bhooria Dhabai. He has further stated that he enquired also from Mangi on which she disclosed the names of all the persons. He has further stated that he enquired also from Mangi on which she disclosed the names of all the persons. They then reached at the Police Station, Pachewar, where the Police Station Incharge also enquired from Mangi and told him to carry Mangi to Malpura as there was no light at the Police Station and Police Station Incharge was also to reach there later. On reaching Balaji, Mangi lost her speech, after which they came to dispensary and there the report Ex.R 14 was registered as the FIR. 9. PW 2 Ram Charan, who is the son of the deceased Mangi and the informant Chhitar and is aged 11 years has deposed on similar lines and stated that on 5th June at about 5 O'clock he was collecting cow-dung in the cattle shed and his mother was removing the chain from the `khunta'. The accused persons prevented from tying the buffalo and Prabhati, Rukma, Babudi, Kana, Prahlad, Bhanwar Lal and her aunt came there. First of all, his aunt caught hold of her mother, but she tried to release herself, at which Bhanwar Lal caught hold of her plait (choti). Then Kana exhorted Badri to burn her and Badri readily sprinkled petrol on his mother, which was in a plastic container. His aunt Prabhati lighted a match stick, due to which Mangi caught fire. He started shouting and his mother Mangi also started shouting and ran outside and fell on the way in front of Surajdaji (meaning thereby Suraj Karan), after which Chhitar came running. Kana, Badri, Bhanwar Lal and Rameshwar started beating him, due to which he fell down. Surajda ji (Suraf Karan) thereafter offered water to his father. He has further stated that his father was sitting on the chabutara of Suraj Karan, after which large number of persons assembled there. He has then related that Kana and Badri fled away on a motor cycle and went to Pachewar. His mother was also carried on a tractor by the Meenas. He has further stated that his mother had mentioned the names of the accused persons. He, however, did not accompany his mother. 10. PW 3 Suraj Karan is the most important independent witness before whom the deceased Mangi had reached while she was still burning and screaming and ultimately fell down in front of him, near his house. He has further stated that his mother had mentioned the names of the accused persons. He, however, did not accompany his mother. 10. PW 3 Suraj Karan is the most important independent witness before whom the deceased Mangi had reached while she was still burning and screaming and ultimately fell down in front of him, near his house. Suraj Karan has' categorically stated that the deceased Mangi had mentioned the names of Bhanwar Lal, Kana, who caught hold of her plait (choti) after which Badri sprinkled kerosene on her body and his wife Prabhati lighted the match stick and set fire to Mangi's body. Chhitar who was also sitting there, went to save his wife but Chhitar's brother and his parents started to beat him which included Kana, Prahlad, Badri, Bhanwar, Isra and Sundar. In his police statement he is alleged to have named only Badri, but he has specifically denied this in his cross-examination and stated that he could not help if the Investigating Officer omitted the names of other accused persons. 11. PW 4 Raghunath, PW 5 Bheru, PW 6 Ganga Ram, PW 8 Naurat Mai, PW 9 Gopal, PW 10 Ram Narain, PW 11 Bhanwar Lal and PW 13 Satya Narain Tailor are the witnesses, who had reached to the place of occurrence and saw Mangi lying on the `darwaja' of Suraj Kaian, after which she was carried to Pachewar for a tractor-trolly and they all accompanied her to Pachewar and Malpura. They all have deposed similarly and corroborated the version of PW 1, PW 2 and PW 3 by stating that the deceased had named all the accused persons, who burnt her in the manner alleged. PW 12 Balu is the only witness who has been declared hostile and did not support the other witnesses, he deposed that he heard from Chhitar's father that she burnt herself, but he stands contradicted by his statement recorded by the police under Section 161, Criminal Procedure Code They have, thus, corroborated the version of the eye-witnesses on all counts. 12. PW 7 Gopal is the Police Officer, who-prepared the site- plan Ex.P. 3 and also prepared the inquest report of the dead body. 13. 12. PW 7 Gopal is the Police Officer, who-prepared the site- plan Ex.P. 3 and also prepared the inquest report of the dead body. 13. PW 14 Radhey Shyam Sharma, who was the Police Station Incharge, at Malpura, Police Station, has deposed that on 6.6.1989, he received a message from the SHO, Pachewar through Kajod Mai on telephone, at the police station at about 8.30 or 9 in the morning that on Chhitar's report regarding the death of his wife, a case had been registered at the Police Station, Pachewar and he had been entrusted with the investigation of the case. On this information, he started from the Police Station, Malpura to Rajkiya Chikitsalaya, Malpura, where the SHO Pachewar was also present and had already prepared the inquest report. Thereafter he got the post-mortem conducted on the dead body by Dr. O.P Agrawal and then proceeded with the investigation and recorded the statement of the witnesses and also inspected the place of occurrence, prepared the site-plan with signatures of the witnesses and seized certain articles from the place of incident, like Loogari (skirt) in presence of the witnesses. Thereafter he arrested the accused persons Badri, Kana, Bhanwar Lal, Prahlad, Prabhati and Rukma. He has further stated that while the accused Badri was in police custody he willingly gave an information that he had hidden one litre oil container in his cattle shed under the heap of grass which he could get recovered. This information given out by Badri was recorded in Ex.P 12, wherein he had put his signature along with the signature of the accused Badri. Thereafter Badri took out a container from the dry grass (cattle fodder) which had been given out in front of Chhotu and Ram Narain vide Ex.P 13. The signature of Badri also was got affixed on it and the seized container was sealed. 14. PW 15 Bhanwar Lal is the Head Constable, who was posted at Pachewar Police Station on 6.6.1989. He was the Police Station Incharge on the said date. He has deposed that Ram Karan - a Constable No. 476-brought a written report Ex.R 1 from Malpura to him, which had been signed by SHO, Kajod Mai. He has admitted his signature on Ex.P. 1, on the basis of which he had registered FIR vide Ex.P 15. 15. He was the Police Station Incharge on the said date. He has deposed that Ram Karan - a Constable No. 476-brought a written report Ex.R 1 from Malpura to him, which had been signed by SHO, Kajod Mai. He has admitted his signature on Ex.P. 1, on the basis of which he had registered FIR vide Ex.P 15. 15. PW 16 Kajod Mal is also a Police Station Incharge who was posted at Police Station, Pachewar on 6.6.1989. He has accepted that he had got the post-mortem conducted on the dead body and has further accepted that the informant Chhitar had brought a type-written report Ex.P. 1, on the basis of which investigation was entrusted to Radhey Shyam Sharma, SHO. He has also deposed that he was posted at Pachewar as SHO on 6.6.1989, on which date the deceased Mangi was brought in an alive state on the trolly of a tractor, but her relatives first of all, wanted her to be treated by a Doctor due to which she was carried to Malpura and no report could be lodged at Pachewar. He has specifically stated that the deceased Mangi's relatives at that point of time did not lodge any report at Pachewar. He has then stated that he himself went to the tractor- trolly and saw Mangi, who was alive at that time, but was unable to speak anything. He has further stated that he recorded this report in his roznamcha, but the same is not signed by any one as Mangi was carried away for treatment. 16. PW 17 is Dr. O.P Agrawal, who on post-mortem has certified that the deceased died due to burn injuries but he was unable to state whether she was burnt to death or set herself to fire. He had also examined the injuries of the informant, Chhitar, who had sustained injuries due to beating by the accused persons at the time when the tried to save his wife from burning. 17. The defence has also produced three witnesses DW 1 Ishar, DW 2 Smt. Sundar and DW 3 Mooliya. 18. DW 1 is the father of the informant and also the father of the accused persons as the accused and the informant are full brothers. He has, although, denied the prosecution case, he has not given out anything as to in what manner the deceased caught fire and got burnt to death. 18. DW 1 is the father of the informant and also the father of the accused persons as the accused and the informant are full brothers. He has, although, denied the prosecution case, he has not given out anything as to in what manner the deceased caught fire and got burnt to death. 19. DW 2 is the wife of DW 1 and, hence mother of the accused persons as also the informant. DW 3 has not deposed anything material. 20. Learned counsels for the appellants in the two appeals have first of all submitted that the case which has been reported by the informant has been lodged after a considerable delay and the delay was on account of the fact that it was lodged after due deliberation. It has also been alleged that the report lodged at the Police Station, Pachewar where first of all deceased Mangi has been carried has not been produced. 21. It has next been submitted that the eye-witnesses PW 1 Chhitar and PW 2 Ram Charan, who claim to be the eye-witnesses to the occurrence in fact are not the witnesses who had occasion to watch the occurrence, but in fact, they have falsely claimed that they had watched the occurrence. To reinforce this contention, it has been submitted that it is highly improbable that a lady could have been burnt in presence of so many persons and could not have been saved. Comments have also been made on the site-plan in order to convince this Court that it was not possible for the witness to watch the occurrence from the chabutara of Suraj Karan. It has still further been argued that although Ram Charan has claimed to be eye-witnesses, his name does not find place in the FIR and Chhitar (PW 1) has improved his version in Court by including Ram Charan as an eye-witness, and is a boy of 11 years and is his son. It has also been argued that according to Chhitar (PW 1) three persons more had a chance to witness the incident, but out of them Lacchu Daroga has not been examined and the other witnesses namely PW 3 Suraj Karan and his son PW 11 Bhanwar Lal have not claimed that they saw the actual occurrence and Mangi had reached at the Darwaja of Suraj Karan only after she had already sustained burns. Still further it has been commented that according to the sketch map, it has not been shown where the child-witness Ram Charan had been standing, and commenting on the evidence of Ram Charan, it has been contended that according to Ram Charan, the deceased continued to burn for 15-20 minutes, and it is highly improbable that after sustaining such severe burns she could have been in a position to give out the names of the accused persons, which have been practically treated as dying declaration. 22. In order to counter the arguments advanced on behalf of the prosecution case, it has been submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that if the presence of the eye-witness is not mentioned in the sketch map, the same will not affect the prosecution story and, therefore, if Ram Charan's presence has not been indicated in the sketch map, his presence on this ground cannot be doubted if his testimony otherwise is worth placing reliance. In support of this submission, learned Public Prosecutor has also cited 1986 (UC) WLN 575 and 1991 RCC 78, in order to dispel the contention urged on behalf of the appellants, it has been further submitted that omission of the name of the eye-witness in the First Information Report, does not affect the evidence of the eye-witnesses and, hence, the evidence of Ram Charan cannot be brushed aside merely on this ground [1993 Suppl. SCC (1) 208] has also been cited in support of this argument. 23. The version of the deceased Mangi naming the accused persons, which has been treated virtually as dying declaration has been challenged by the appellants' counsel and has been defended by the learned Public Prosecutor by urging that even oral dying declaration is worth placing reliance as was the case in 1984 Cr.LR (Raj.) 388. 24. While examining the rival contentions of the parties, we have noticed that in so far as the question regarding suppression of the report lodged at Pachewar is concerned, the same is without substance since the prosecution party has given a graphic account of the event how the deceased Mangi was carried from the place of occurrence to Pachewar where the Head Constable Police Station Incharge stated that as there was no light, she should be carried to Malpura for treatment where he was to reach later. Police Station Incharge Head Constable has also specifically stated in his deposition that no report was lodged at the Police Station Pachewar since the condition of the deceased who was merely injured at that time and was brought alive had to be carried to the Hospital for treatment first of all, regarding which he merely made an entry in his roznamcha, but no report of any kind was registered or recorded. The explanation of the prosecution witnesses fully inspires confidence and it is unfounded to speculate on the part of the defence that a regular report was lodged earlier at Pachewar which has been suppressed. The argument, therefore, on this count is fit to be rejected. 25. In so far as the delay in lodging the First Information is concerned, we do not find that the counsel for the appellants are justified in raising this argument for a large number of persons in the village has assembled and all of them deposed without any contradiction that the deceased Mangi although was in a burnt condition she was very much alive and was carried on a tractor-trolly first to Pachewar and then to Malpura for treatment. The relatives of the deceased and the villagers, therefore, promptly proceeded Io Pachewar for lodging the report, but the Head Constable directed them to take her to Malpura for treatment as also for lodging the report, after which she died on her way to Malpura. It has been stated in the FIR itself that the Doctor at Malpura refused to proceed without arrival of the police. The informant therefore, left the body at Malpura hospital and lodged the report promptly after her death since the report about her death could not have been possibly lodged even before she died. The prosecution party initially tried to lodge the report at Pachewar, but were directed to go to Malpura. They, therefore, took all possible steps of report the matter at Pachewar Police Station itself but they were directed to go to Malpura. If, in all these process and formalities some time elapsed, the same cannot be said to be unexplained or unusual delay so as to brush aside the report as concocted. The relative of the deceased had no occasion, as disclosed from the evidence, to go back to the village before lodging the report at Malpura. If, in all these process and formalities some time elapsed, the same cannot be said to be unexplained or unusual delay so as to brush aside the report as concocted. The relative of the deceased had no occasion, as disclosed from the evidence, to go back to the village before lodging the report at Malpura. Hence, there was no time left at the disposal of the prosecution at their village Akhadi to enter into any kind of deliberation before lodging the report. It is further clear from the evidence of the eye-witnesses as also the independent witnesses which included the villagers, who have consistently deposed that immediately, after the occurrence, the deceased Mangi and the two eye-witnesses had given out the names of the persons, who had burnt the deceased before PW 3 Suraj Karan and then before PW 4 to PW 13 who accompanied her to Malpura, or had reached at the place of occurrence on hearing the news. 26. We have, thus, entered into a meticulous examination of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses to test the strength of the prosecution case and to examine whether there are any contradiction in the depositions of the eye- witnesses and other witnesses, who corroborate the version of the eye-witnesses, namely the large number of villagers PW 3, PW 4, PW 5, PW 6, PW 8, PW 9, PW 10, PW 11 and PW 13 who had assembled and reached the scene of occurrence immediately after the incident and had accompanied the deceased at Pachewar and then to Malpura, stand the test of scrutiny so as to place reliance on their depositions. On a careful reading of their versions, it is unequivocally clear that the witnesses PW 3 to PW 13, except PW 12. Who has turned hostile, have all uniformly stated that Mangi had clearly named the persons who had burnt her. However, a few of them made a general statement that she merely mentioned that she had been burnt by her brother-in-laws and sister-in-laws which also lead to the same inference. We have also carefully read their police statement recorded under Section 161, Criminal Procedure Code to find out as to whether their versions get contradicted in any manner by their police statement, but we have found no material contradiction which can be held to be affecting the prosecution version. 27. We have also carefully read their police statement recorded under Section 161, Criminal Procedure Code to find out as to whether their versions get contradicted in any manner by their police statement, but we have found no material contradiction which can be held to be affecting the prosecution version. 27. In this context, it may be reiterated that PW 1 Chhitar, the husband of the deceased, and PW 2 Ram Charan-son of the deceased aged 11 years are the eye-witnesses to the occurrence, whereas PW 3 Suraj Karan is the witness before whom the deceased Mangi had fell (sic) down after sustaining the burns, who has deposed that Mangi fell down in front of his darwaja in an alive state and had given out the names of the accused persons as Kanha, Badri and Badri's wife Prabhati. He has further deposed that Kanha, Prahlad, Badri, Bhanwar Lal, Isra and Sundar had beaten up Chhitar. Thus, although, Suraj Karan had not watched the actual burning of the deceased, but he had deposed that Mangi was alive when she fell down and had described the manner in which the accused persons had burnt her. Thus, PW 3 Suraj Karan, PW 4 Raghunath, PW 5 Bhura, PW 6 Ganga Ram, PW 8 Naurat Mai, PW 9 Gopal, PW 10 Ram Narain, PW 11 Bhanwar Lal and PW 13 Satya Narain Tailor are all the witnesses who have further corroborated the version given out by the eye-witnesses Chhitar and Ram Charan. It has also come out in the deposition that a large number of villagers assembled at Suraj Karan's place after the deceased sustained burn injuries. All the witnesses have unanimously deposed including the police station incharge of Pachewar that Mangi was alive even at the Police Station Pachewar and died only prior to reaching Malpura. It is difficult to infer that the witnesses large in number, who are neither related to the deceased, nor to the eye-witnesses would have reason to depose falsely to the effect that Mangi was alive even after she sustained burns and did, in fact, give out the names of the accused persons. It is difficult to infer that the witnesses large in number, who are neither related to the deceased, nor to the eye-witnesses would have reason to depose falsely to the effect that Mangi was alive even after she sustained burns and did, in fact, give out the names of the accused persons. It is, no doubt, true, as stated hereinabove, that some of the eye-witnesses claim to have heard the actual names of the accused persons from the deceased herself, whereas the others merely stated that she gave a bald statement that her brother-in-law* and sister-in-law had burnt her to death. 28. However, one of the redeeming feature in the depositions of the prosecution witnesses is that all the witnesses have unanimously stated that the deceased was lying in front of the house of Suraj Karan, which corroborates the statement of the eye-witnesses that, in fact, the deceased Mangi did fall down in front of the house of Suraj Karan after sustaining burn injuries and, the second part of the deposition is unanimous in so far as the allegation of burning is levelled against the in-laws of, the deceased Mangi. Thus, there is no reason for this Court to doubt the veracity of the witnesses, who are large in number and have deposed to the effect that Mangi was alive and named the accused persons. If, in fact, she had been dead before the witnesses reached there, there would have been no reason to carry her to the hospital at Malpura for treatment. If is also difficult to infer that all the witnesses could have been gained over by the husband of the deceased, who corroborated the version of the eye- witnesses by deposing that Mangi had named the accused persons who burnt her to death. Now, if the independent witnesses have corroborated that Mangi was found burnt in front of Suraj Karan's house and was also in a state to speak, then this part of the story clearly corroborates the version of the two eye-witnesses i.e. Chhitar and his son Ram Charan. 29. Learned counsel for the appellants have urged that Ram Charan, who has been treated as eye-witness has not been named in the FIR as an eye-witness. 29. Learned counsel for the appellants have urged that Ram Charan, who has been treated as eye-witness has not been named in the FIR as an eye-witness. This argument also is fit to be rejected for Ram Charan was a boy of 11 years, and it is possible to infer that when the FIR was lodged, then the presence of a small boy at the place might have escaped notice of the informant due to which his name could not be mentioned in the First Information Report. Therefore, merely because his name has not been mentioned in the FIR cannot be a reason to brush aside his evidence and to hold that he was not an eye-witness especially when his version gets corroborated by the deceased herself, to which at least 9 witnesses bear testimony. 30. We are, therefore, led to the irresistible conclusion due to which we hold that all the five accused-appellants, namely Badri, Kanha, Bhanwarlal, Prabhati and Prahlad constituted unlawful assembly and the prime accused Badri with the assistance of Kanha, Bhanwarlal and his wife Prabhati set fire to the deceased Mangi, as a result of which she succumbed to her burn injuries and died. But, in so far as appellant No. 5 Rukma -in Cr. Appeal No. 450 of 1991 is concerned, her presence in the unlawful assembly is not proved beyond all reasonable doubt as the witnesses were not consistent in their version in so far as her presence or participation in the incident is concerned. We, therefore, allow her appeal and consider it just and proper to give her the benefit of doubt and acquit her of the charge and conviction under Section 302 read with Sections 149 and under Section 147, Indian Penal Code as also under Section 323, Indian Penal Code. She is already on bail and her bail bounds stand discharged. 31. In so far as accused-appellant Prahlad is concerned, he was very much a member of the unlawful assembly and although, no role, according to the prosecution witnesses has been consistently attributed to him, in so far as burning of the deceased is concerned, his participation nevertheless comes in the latter part of the prosecution story which is regarding beating of Chhitar. He, thus, assisted the other four persons in burning and killing Mangi. 32. He, thus, assisted the other four persons in burning and killing Mangi. 32. The appeals, therefore, preferred by Badri, Bhanwar Lal, Prabhati, Kanha and Prahlad are dismissed and, hence, their conviction and sentence under Sections 302 read with Sections 147, 149, Indian Penal Code as also under Sections 147 and 323, Indian Penal Code is maintained. Their substantive sentences, however, shall run concurrently. The appellants, accordingly, shall surrender to serve out their sentence of imprisonment for life, if they are on bail.Appeal Partly Allowed. *******