Judgment A.S. Godara, J.-Both these appeals arise out of impugned Judgment and order dated 28-7-78 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Merta in Sessions Case No. 1/1977. The appellants Hanuman Singh, Mangi Lal, Suwa Lal and Bheru Singh, in Appeal No. 292/78 while being acquitted of offences under Sections 302/34 and 120-B, I.P.C., instead, were convicted under Section 304 Pt. I read with Section 34, I.P.C. and were awarded eight years’ R.I. and a fine of Rs. 4000/-and, in default of payment of fine, six months’ R. I. Being aggrieved there against, the appellants have preferred this appeal against their conviction and order of sentence. However, co-accused of the present accused-appellants, Dayal Ram, who was also challaned arid charged with commission of offences under Sections 302/109 and 120-B, I.P.C., was acquitted and hence the State by leave has preferred Appeal No. 490/78 against Dayal Ram whereas the accused-appellants of Appeal No. 292/78 have also been appealed against on account of their acquittal from the offences under Sections 302/34 and 120-B, I.P.C. Since both these appeals arise out of one and same Judgment and, therefore, the same are being disposed of by this common Judgment . .2. BirbalRam (P.W. 2) who is brother of Tilok (P.W. 12) and chhoga Ram (since deceased). They are residents of village Barsuna and so also the accused-persons. On the night intervening 24th and 25th September, 1976 at about 11.30 p.m., on learning of Chhoga Ram’s having been brought to the Government Hospital, Nagaur in an injured and unconscious condition, Bheem Singh (P.W. 10), A.S.I., Police Station, Kotwali, Nagaur reached the hospital whereat Birbal Ram (P.W. 2) handed over Ex. P. 1 written report to Bheem Singh alleging therein that on 24-9-76 at about 3 P.M. while his brother Chhoga Ram was returning home from his field, in the way, passing from the ‘angore’ (catchment area) of ‘nadi’ (village water reservoir), accused-appellants Hanuman Singh, Bheru Singh, Mangi Lal and Sukha Ram ambushed him. Bheru Singh and Mangi Lal were armed with a ‘pharsi’ and ‘kassi’ while Hanuman Singh and Sukha Ram were each armed with a lathi. They started assaulting Chhoga Ram conjointly with the weapons with which they were armed. He along with his brother Tilok (P.W. 12) was working in their field situated nearby. Bheru Singh and Mangi Lal were armed with a ‘pharsi’ and ‘kassi’ while Hanuman Singh and Sukha Ram were each armed with a lathi. They started assaulting Chhoga Ram conjointly with the weapons with which they were armed. He along with his brother Tilok (P.W. 12) was working in their field situated nearby. They rushed towards the place of occurrence from the field and, while reaching nearby, they challenged the assailants on which Chhoga Ram was left at the site .of occurrence and the assailants escaped from there. Chhoga Ram became unconscious. He was brought to the hospital at Nagaur and the Medical Officer, after providing medical first aid, advised Chhoga Ram to be taken to the hospital at Jodhpur. Bheem Singh registered FIR on the basis of report Ex. P. 1 without regular number since the alleged occurrence took place within the territorial jurisdiction of Police Station of Khatu Badi and hence Ex. P. 1 along with the FIR so chalked out was forwarded to the Police Station, Khatu whereat Deewan Singh, S.H.O. (P.W. 13) registered a fresh FIR and started investigation. Since, by then, the injured Chhoga Ram had already been transferred from Nagaur hospital to the Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Jodhpur on the same night. Accordingly, Deewan Singh also reached Jodhpur whereat Chhoga Ram was admitted as an indoor patient in an unconscious condition. He died on 25-9-76 at 6.25 P.M. and so his inquest report Ex. P. 10 was prepared by Deewan Singh. His blood stained clothes were also taken into custody vide Ex. P. 11. .3. Dr. R.K. Gehlot (P.W. 11) performed postmortem of the dead body of Chhoga Ram on 26-9-76 at 10.30 A.M. He found the following injuries on the dead body of Chhoga Ram: 1. Lacerated wound 3.0 cm x 0.5 cm x bone deep on right frontal region of the scalp posteriorly which was place obliquely starting from mid line extending laterally and anteriorly. 2. Lacerated, wound 4.0 cm x 1.0 cm x skin deep on the anterior aspect of left leg at upper one third. 3. Abrasion 7.0 cmx 1.0 cm on the medial aspect of left foot. 4. Abrasion 1.0 cm. x 1.0 cm on the anterior aspect of right leg at upper one third. 5. Abrasion 0.8 cmx 0.7 cm on the medial aspect of base of great toe. 6. 3. Abrasion 7.0 cmx 1.0 cm on the medial aspect of left foot. 4. Abrasion 1.0 cm. x 1.0 cm on the anterior aspect of right leg at upper one third. 5. Abrasion 0.8 cmx 0.7 cm on the medial aspect of base of great toe. 6. 2 Abrasions in the left renal angle region the sizes being 1.8 cmx 0.5 cm and 1.0 cmx 0.5 cm. 7. Therewas haematoma present in the right temporal is muscle and underneath the same muscle. There was epidural haematoma 10.0 cmx 7.0 cm in size in the right parieto-temporal region. 4. The brain membranes were congested. There were the evidence of tracheostomy and venesection in the right ankle region. Remaining all the organs were found healthy. 5. TheMedical Officer was of the opinion that the cause of death was coma as a result of head injury and all the injuries were ante-mortem in nature. 6. Deewan Singh (P.W. 13) inspected the alleged site of occurrence and prepared Ex. P. 12 and Ex. P. 13 site plans. The accused-persons were arrested during the course of investigation vide Ex. P. 14 to Ex. P. 18 arrest memos. He recovered three pieces of a broken lathi (Articles 4, 5, and 6) pursuant to information Ex. P.19 given by the accused Hanuman Singh vide Ex. P. 21. Similarly, on the information Ex. P.20 given by the accused Sukha Ram, the lathi (Article 7) was recovered vide Ex. P. 22 and it was suspected that the lathis/pieces of lathi recovered pursuant to disclosure statements of the accused-persons were stained with blood, all the articles so recovered were forwarded to the Rajasthan State Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur (for short ‘the RSFSL, Jaipur) for chemical examination. 7. During the course of investigation, it also transpired that some litigation took place between the family of Chhoga Ram (deceased) on the one side and the accused-persons on the other. It also transpired, during the course of investigation, that since the accused (respondent) Dayal Ram was intimate friend of Hanuman Singh and Bheru Singh and so also that of the accused Suwa Lal and Sukha Ram and the accused Hanuman Singh and Bheru. Singh suspected involvement of Chhoga Ram in enticing away their cousin sister prior to this incident and the case registered on the basis of FIR on the basis of report of Bheru Singh against Chhoga Ram etc. Singh suspected involvement of Chhoga Ram in enticing away their cousin sister prior to this incident and the case registered on the basis of FIR on the basis of report of Bheru Singh against Chhoga Ram etc. did not result in prosecution of Chhoga Ram and his associates and hence Bheru Singh and Hanuman Singh were in search of opportune time and place to kill Chhoga Ram and, therefore, all the accused-persons hatched a criminal conspiracy and, in prosecution of the same, it was Dayal Ram who approached Chhoga Ram just before the incident, asking him to visit his house immediately thereafter and, as a result, after Dayal Ram had retired towards his house, Chhoga Ram was heading towards the house of Dayal Ram and, pursuant to criminal conspiracy, the accused-appellants, who were waiting for the arrival of Chhoga Ram at the place of occurrence, suddenly ambushed and assaulted Chhoga Ram. 8. On completion of investigation, a charge-sheet under Sections 302/34 and 302/109, I.P.C. was filed in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagaur, who in turn, committed the case to the Court of Session, Merta whereat the trial was completed. 9. Theaccused-appellants Hanuman Singh, Bheru Singh and Mangi Lal were charged under Sections 302/34 and 120-B, I.P.C., Sukha Ram under Section 302/34, I.P.C. while the accused-respondent Dayal Ram was charged under Sections 302/34 and 120-B, I.P.C. to which the accused-persons pleaded not guilty and claimed a trial. 10. The prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses in addition to documentary evidence to be discussed at the relevant stage. 11. Theaccused-persons were examined under Section 313, Cr. P.C. They denied the occurrence itself and, instead, they pleaded alibi and examined as many as 12 witnesses in their defence. 12. The learned trial Judge, after hearing both sides, vide impugned Judgment and order, holding that there was no reliable evidence for hatching up a criminal conspiracy with the accused-respondent Dayal Ram and the accused-appellants and hence Dayal Ram was acquitted of all the charges, as above, resulting in State Appeal No. 490/78. 13. Asregards accused-appellants in Appeal No. 292/78, they were acquitted of offences under Sections 302/34 and 120-B, I.P.C, as above, though convicted under Section 304, Pt. I, I.P.C. as aforementioned and hence they have also been appealed against. 13. Asregards accused-appellants in Appeal No. 292/78, they were acquitted of offences under Sections 302/34 and 120-B, I.P.C, as above, though convicted under Section 304, Pt. I, I.P.C. as aforementioned and hence they have also been appealed against. However, this Court did not grant leave to appeal against the impugned order of acquittal of accused-respondent Dayal Ram and hence his case does not fall for any consideration in these appeals. However, as regards accused-respondents who are also the appellants in Appeal No. 292/78, leave as prayed for to file appeal against their acquittal, as above, was granted. 10.14. We have heard the learned counsel for the accused-appellants who are also accused-respondents in Appeal No. 490/78 as well as the learned P.P. against acquittal as well as against the accused-appellants on behalf of the State and have also gone through the impugned Judgment as well as the record of the trial Court and we have given our considerate thought to the same. 115. The learned P.P., in Appeal No. 490/78, while taking through the evidence of P.W. 2 Birbal Ram and P.W. 12 Tilok Ram deposing as eye-witnesses and so also P.W. 1 Chunna Ram and P.W. 3 Dharma Ram who also stated that they also happened to pass from the place of the occurrence and had seen the assailants assaulting Chhoga Ram and escaping from there, along with medical evidence as well as the circumstantial evidence, submitted that the learned Sessions Judge failed to appreciate prosecution’s evidence correctly and in its right perspective and, instead, taking an erroneous view of the evidence which appears to be unreasonable and against the evidence on record that no offence under Section 302, I.P.C. was found to have been committed and, instead, the accused-respondents have been held liable under Section 304, Pt. I, I.P.C. read with Section 34, I.P.C. There is evidence of motive for the accused-respondents to have killed Chhoga Ram and the medical evidence also shows that there were not less than seven injuries found on the dead body of Chhoga Ram and the head injury resulted in his death and, therefore, it was an intentional murder specially when P.W. 11 Dr. R. K. Gehlot has clearly opined that the head injury received by Chhoga Ram (deceased) was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and, as a result, all the accused-respondents are liable to be convicted and sentenced under Section 302/34, I.P.C. simpliciter instead of under Section 304 Pt. I, read with Section 34, I.P.C, as has wrongly been done by the trial Court. 116. While opposing all these contentions of the learned P.P., the learned counsel for the accused-appellants Shri Doongar Singh, assailing the impugned Judgment of conviction, further submitted that P.W. 2 Birbal, P.W. 12 Tilok are, admittedly, real brothers of the deceased Chhoga Ram. They were, admittedly, working in their field while Chhoga Ram is alleged to have left all alone as alleged in Ex. P. 1 report by P.W. 2 Birbal for his home and there was hardly any occasion for his both the brothers to have immediately followed him and so it is neither natural nor probable that both the real brothers were immediately following him and in case, if so assumed, they were following him, they could have immediately left in the company of Chhoga Ram or Chhoga Ram could have himself waited for a few minutes to leave their field in the company of his own brothers. Besides, Ex. P. 1 clearly omitted that it was at the instance of Dayal Ram accused that Chhoga Ram left alone towards the house of Dayal Ram. Besides, presence of P.W. 1 Chuna Ram and P.W. 3 Dharma Ram who are apparently chance witnesses at the scene of occurrence, though they have also not identified the accused-appellants, is also unnatural and unreliable. Therefore, his submission is that there is absence of trustworthy evidence involving the accused-appellants in the commission of the alleged offences. 17. Besides, hisfurther submission is that Chhoga Ram (deceased) was attended by Dr. P. R. Joshi, Government Hospital, Nagaur providing first aid and, at whose instance, he was immediately shifted to Jodhpur whereat P.W.7 Pradeep Kumar Gupta attended him. It was P.W. 11 Dr. R. K. Gehlot who performed autopsy of the dead body of Chhoga Ram and he too omitted in Ex. P. R. Joshi, Government Hospital, Nagaur providing first aid and, at whose instance, he was immediately shifted to Jodhpur whereat P.W.7 Pradeep Kumar Gupta attended him. It was P.W. 11 Dr. R. K. Gehlot who performed autopsy of the dead body of Chhoga Ram and he too omitted in Ex. P.9 post-mortem report that the head injury found on the dead body of Chhoga Ram was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and so his submission is that since Bheru Singh and Mangi Lal are alleged to have been armed with deadly-cutting weapons like ‘pharsi’ and ‘kassi’ and there was absence of any injury having been caused with such weapons while Bheru Singh and Sukha Ram are alleged to have been armed with lathis and, in the opinion of the Medical Officer also, the injuries found on the dead body of Chhoga Ram could be caused by a weapon like lathi and, therefore, his further submission is that except the alleged injury No. 7 found on the head of Chhoga Ram, rest of all the injuries were not on any of the vital parts of the deceased and they were simple in nature and caused with a blunt weapon and in case there existed any criminal conspiracy to do Chhoga Ram with death and, resultantly, he was assaulted with deadly weapons, there could not have been any rhyme or reasons for non-infliction of any injury with deadly weapons alleged to be in possession of Bheru Singh and Mangi Lal accused-appellants and, therefore, his submission is that the act of the accused-appellants did not travel beyond the ambit of Section 304 Pt. II, I.P.C. and, consequently, their conviction under Section 304 Pt. I read with Section 34, I.P.C. is not sustainable. 18. II, I.P.C. and, consequently, their conviction under Section 304 Pt. I read with Section 34, I.P.C. is not sustainable. 18. Hehas also, alternatively, submitted that in absence of requisite intention or knowledge to cover the act of the accused-persons either by the offence of murder or homicidal not amounting to murder, there is absence of either common intention or pre-existing criminal conspiracy to kill Chhoga Ram and, consequently, in absence of proof of vicarious liability for either murder or homicidal death not amounting to murder and looking to the nature of the injuries except injury No. 7 alleged to have been proved fatal, a common intention for causing simple injury can be inferred and the vicarious liability of the accused-persons cannot travel beyond the periphery of Section 323, I.P.C. He relied upon the Division Bench decision of this Court reported in Dunga Ram vs. State of Rajasthan 1996 Cr LR (Raj) 593 : 1996 CriLJ 3672. 19. However, all these contentions have been vehemently opposed to by the learned P. P. on the basis of medical evidence as well as the ocular evidence of the witnesses relied upon by the trial Court, further submitting that in case the accused-respondents are not held to be liable for commission of murder of Chhoga Ram, at any cost, the findings of the learned trial Judge holding the accused-persons vicariously liable for commission of offence under Section 304, Pt. I read with Section 34, I.P.C. warrants no interference on whatsoever ground as agitated by the learned counsel for the appellants. 20. At the out set, we may observe that so far as Dayal Ram is concerned, though he was also challaned and tried along with the accused-appellants by the trial Court but, after his acquittal, this Court also did not find any merit in the application for leave to file appeal against the order of acquittal of Dayal Ram for the offences with which he was charged and, subsequently, resultant upon conclusion of the trial, acquitted thereof However, as regards the charge of any prior criminal conspiracy having been entered into to commit murder of Chhoga Ram, though, in their statements before the Court, P.W. 2 Birbal Ram and P.W. 12 Tilok Ram whose interestedness is sell-apparent, deposed that a little before the time of the alleged occurrence when Chhoga Ram was subjected to the assault. Dayal Ram also came to their field and he talked to Chhoga Ram who was asked to come to his house in the village but this finds complete omission in Ex. P. 1 report lodged by P.W. 2 Birbal on which FIR was registered. Since a written report was lodged by none but the alleged eye-witness of the occurrence and real brother of the deceased, P.W. 2 Birbal Ram and this factum of conspiracy is completely omitted there from and, not only this, further it is omitted in Ex. P.1 reported that Chhoga Ram (deceased) was going to the house of Dayal Ram and further that it was on the request and persuasion of Dayal Ram. Instead, it has been reported in Ex. P. 1 that Chhoga Ram was returning from his field to his house and not to that of Dayal Ram. Therefore, this case of conspiratorial act attributed to Dayal Ram is fatally omitted from Ex. P. 1. 21. Besides, from the evidence of P.W.2 Birbal and so also P.W. 12 Tilok, it does not appear that Dayal Ram had talked to Chhoga Ram and the conversation was audible to either of them. Had it been so, the same could not have been omitted from being mentioned in Ex. P. 1 report lodged before P.W. 10 Bheem Singh, A.S.I, by P.W. 2 Birbal Ram himself 22. Theprosecution examined P.W. 5 Ramuram who is the real uncle of P.W. 2 Birbal, P.W. 12 Tilok as well as deceased Chhoga Ram. He stated that on ‘Amavasya’ of ‘Aasoj’ preceding the incident at about 8 A.M., Dayal Ram, Hanuman Singh, Mangu Singh and Bheru Singh were seen sitting on the ‘Chabutari’ of Naiks in the village. He heard Bheru Singh telling Dayal Ram that he could not perform the task which was entrusted to him since he could not fetch Chhoga Ram to which Dayal Ram replied that in case he could prevail upon, he would bring Chhoga. He admitted that the police examined him once or twice. The prosecution has made available Ex. D.2 and Ex. D.3 police statements of this witness. The same do not find mention that the aforesaid four accused-persons were sitting on the Chabutari of Naiks and that the aforesaid conversation took place between the accused Hanuman Singh and Dayal Ram to his hearing. He also did not state therein that this incident was of ‘Amavasya’. D.2 and Ex. D.3 police statements of this witness. The same do not find mention that the aforesaid four accused-persons were sitting on the Chabutari of Naiks and that the aforesaid conversation took place between the accused Hanuman Singh and Dayal Ram to his hearing. He also did not state therein that this incident was of ‘Amavasya’. He stated in these statements that the said accused-persons were standing near the ‘Chabutari’ of Naiks and were talking to each other, whereas in his Court statement, it is stated that they were sitting on the ‘Chabutari’ and talking, as above. Though he is real uncle of the deceased and he has stated that he could over hear the conversation that allegedly took place between Hanuman Singh and Dayal Ram and even he did not inform Chhoga Ram or any of his family members about the conspiracy so being hatched up by the accused-persons along with Dayal Ram. This conduct on the part of P.W. 5 Ramuram rendered his evidence wholly unreliable and, therefore, in our opinion too, the learned trial Judge did not commit any illegality or infirmity while disbelieving or discarding evidence of P.W. 5 Ramuram and so charge of pre-existence of criminal conspiracy involving Dayal Ram as well as the accused-appellants having been also not proved by the learned trial Judge, this finding does not run counter to the material and evidence on record and, consequently, this finding warrants no interference holding that the accused persons were rightly acquitted of this charge. 23. As a result of contentions as raised by the rival sides, we are required to consider whether: (a) Chhoga Ram was done to death violently; (b) the accused-appellants committed this act and (c) in case it is so, it was a case of homicidal death amounting to murder or homicidal death not amounting to murder or any other offence and the liability of the accused-appellants therefore. 24. As regards the violent death of Chhoga Ram, there is not much dispute from the side of the accused-appellants. 25. P.W. 2 Birbal Ram and P.W. 12 Tilok are real brothers of the deceased. Besides, P.W. 5 Ramuram is his uncle. They have stated about the injuries and consequential death of Chhoga Ram in a state of coma. Ex. P.1 report also corroborates the version of P.W. 2 Birbal. P.W. 10 Bheem Singh, A.S.I, who received Ex. 25. P.W. 2 Birbal Ram and P.W. 12 Tilok are real brothers of the deceased. Besides, P.W. 5 Ramuram is his uncle. They have stated about the injuries and consequential death of Chhoga Ram in a state of coma. Ex. P.1 report also corroborates the version of P.W. 2 Birbal. P.W. 10 Bheem Singh, A.S.I, who received Ex. P. 1 report from P.W. 21 Birbal Ram at the Government Hospital, Nagaur and so also P.W. 6 Dr. P. R. Joshi, Medical Jurist, Nagaur who attended and provided medical first aid to Chhoga Ram at Nagaur, have clearly testified that Chhoga Ram had been found to be so hurt and having multiple injuries which too resulted in his unconsciousness. As also stated by the aforesaid witnesses, Chhoga Ram was immediately referred to the M. G. Hospital, Jodhpur whereat, as deposed to by P.W. 7 Dr. P. K. Gupta working as House Surgeon at M. G. Hospital, Jodhpur, Chhoga Ram was brought to the hospital on 25-9-76 and admitted as an indoor patient in Surgical Ward for treatment of his head injury. As borne out of Ex. P. 4 B.H.T. and connected treatment records Ex. P.5, Ex. P. 6 and Ex. P. 7, he was treated for the head injury and a minor operation was also conducted to facilitate respiration of the patient. However, on 25-9-76 at 6.25 p.m., as borne out of Ex. P.8 death certificate, Chhoga Ram breathed his last as an indoor patient. P.W. 11 Dr. R. K. Gehlot, being the Medical Jurist, as already detailed hereinbefore, after death of the deceased, on the next following day, at 10.30 a.m. conducted autopsy on the dead body of Chhoga Ram and he noticed aforesaid seven injuries and found that it was injury No. 7 inflicted on the skull of the deceased which was the direct cause of death of the deceased and that the same was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. He prepared Ex. P. 9 post-mortem report. 26. P.W. 13 Deewan Singh, Investigating Officer, who prepared Ex. P. 10 inquest report of the dead body of deceased Chhoga Ram also corroborated the factum of receiving multiple injuries as above by blunt weapons in the alleged incident and, lastly, being in a state of coma and unconsciousness, having died. This is not disputed by the accused-appellants as well. 27. P.W. 13 Deewan Singh, Investigating Officer, who prepared Ex. P. 10 inquest report of the dead body of deceased Chhoga Ram also corroborated the factum of receiving multiple injuries as above by blunt weapons in the alleged incident and, lastly, being in a state of coma and unconsciousness, having died. This is not disputed by the accused-appellants as well. 27. On the basis of aforesaid evidence and so also rightly held by the learned trial Judge, the deceased Chhoga Ram had died a violent and unnatural death. 28. Thenext crucial question that comes for consideration is as to whether it was act of the accused-persons either individually or collectively that resulted in the death of Chhoga Ram. 29. Theprosecution, in order to bring home charge to the accused-appellants, has adduced ocular as well as circumstantial evidence including the medical evidence. 30. It is worthwhile to mention here that, as per the prosecution story, aforesaid four accused-appellants were involved in commission of the offences and, during the pendency of these appeals, both Hanuman Singh as well as Bheru Singh accused-appellants expired and hence the said State Appeal and so the one filed by both these accused-appellants (since deceased) have abated. 7.31. Now, firstly we deal with the ocular evidence of P.W. 2 Birbal and P.W. 12 Tilok Ram who have claimed and examined as eyewitnesses of the occurrence. As already observed before, both Birbal and Tilok Ram are real brothers of the deceased Chhoga Ram. Apparently, they are close relations of the deceased and are, apparently, interested in the deceased as well. However, merely because they are related to and are also interested in the deceased Chhoga Ram, that by itself , cannot be a ground for rejection or discarding their ocular testimony in case the same is otherwise truthful. However, looking to the relationship and interestedness of these witnesses in the deceased, the Court has to evaluate and appraise their evidence exercising checks and counter checks to find out whether the evidence tendered by both these witnesses claiming to be eye-witnesses of the occurrence of truthful or not. In case the same withstands the test of truthfulness and trustworthiness, there cannot be any ground for still disbelieving or discarding their evidence. 32. P.W. 2 Birbal Ram as also supported by P.W. 12 Tilok Ram stated that they were working in their field along with Chhoga Ram (deceased). At about 3. In case the same withstands the test of truthfulness and trustworthiness, there cannot be any ground for still disbelieving or discarding their evidence. 32. P.W. 2 Birbal Ram as also supported by P.W. 12 Tilok Ram stated that they were working in their field along with Chhoga Ram (deceased). At about 3. P.M., Dayal Ram came to Chhoga Ram and told him that he should come to his house. Both of them have also stated that after a little while Chhoga Ram also left towards the house of Dayal Ram. They also followed Chhoga Ram and on reaching the ‘Angore’ of the ‘nadi’, he was ambushed by the accused Bheru Singh, Hanuman Singh, Sukha Ram and Mangi Lal. Hanuman Singh and Sukha Ram were armed with lathis while Bheru Singh and Mangi Lal had ‘pharsi’ and a ‘kassi’ each. Birbal Ram clearly stated that all the four accused-persons started assaulting Chhoga Ram with the weapons with which they were armed. Bheru Singh and Mangi Lal used reverse side of the ‘pharsi’ and the axe while giving blows to Chhoga Ram. From the distance of about 40 to 50 ‘paundas’, they challenged the assailants who left Chhoga Ram injured and lying on the ground and escaped from there. They found Chhoga Ram lying in a state of coma and unconsciousness. He had multiple injuries on his person. P.W. 12 Tilok Ram also supported this statement of P.W. 2 Birbal Ram. Both of them further stated that they lifted Chhoga Ram in injured and unconscious condition and left towards their house. In the way, Moti who is son of P.W. 12 Tilok Ram met them and he was sent for and returned with a bullock-cart. Chhoga Ram was carried to their house on the bullock-cart. Both of them further stated that they lifted Chhoga Ram in injured and unconscious condition and left towards their house. In the way, Moti who is son of P.W. 12 Tilok Ram met them and he was sent for and returned with a bullock-cart. Chhoga Ram was carried to their house on the bullock-cart. They have also stated that, at the time of the occurrence, both P.W. 1 Chuna Ram and P.W. 3 Dharma Ram were also passing from nearby to the place of occurrence as are the statements of Chuna Ram and Dharma Ram as well, They have further stated, as also corroborated by P.W. 4 Prema Ram, that the injured was taken in a jeep of Prema Ram, to the Government Hospital, Nagaur and, subsequently, to M. G. Hospital, Jodhpur whereat he breathed his last and this statement is also supported by P.W. 4 Prema Ram though on other grounds he has been sought to be cross-examined by the prosecution itself 8.33. P.W. 2 Birbal and P.W. 12 Tilok Ram have further stated that since cousin sister of the accused Bheru Singh and Hanuman Singh had left her house and disappeared and they aroused suspicion against Chhoga Ram that he had been instrumental in missing/disappearance of their cousin sister. A report was lodged with the police which resulted in filing of Final Report (unoccurred) and contrarily prosecution of the first informant Bheru Singh under Section 182, I.P.C. Both Sukha Ram as well as Mangi Lal were also inimical to the witnesses and Chhoga Ram since they had also prosecuted both Chhoga Ram and Birbal in the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Bikaner where from they were acquitted. It is further alleged that Dayal Ram had borrowed a sum of Rs. 30/-from Chhoga Ram which he subsequently refused to repay and so a dispute arose between the deceased and the accused Dayal Ram who was friendly with his co-accused persons. 9.34. Sessions Judge, Bikaner where from they were acquitted. It is further alleged that Dayal Ram had borrowed a sum of Rs. 30/-from Chhoga Ram which he subsequently refused to repay and so a dispute arose between the deceased and the accused Dayal Ram who was friendly with his co-accused persons. 9.34. As regards these witnesses, the learned counsel for the accused-appellants, while carrying through the statements of these witnesses as well as their previously recorded police statements and in addition to the statements of PW-1 Chuna Ram and PW-3 Dharma Ram, submitted that looking to the unfortunate and improbable conduct of both the brothers of the deceased and so also that of Chuna Ram and Dharma Ram, they could not have seen the actual occurrence and the so called motive has also been falsely attributed and, at the same time, since animosity is alleged to have motivated the accused-persons to assault Chhoga Ram fatally, there was motive for both sides to have either falsely involved all the accused-persons or some of them while, at the same time, there could have been a motive for the accused-persons to take revenge from the deceased and to have fatally assaulted him. Contrarily, the prosecution witnesses especially PW-2 Birbal Ram and PW-12 Tilok Ram also similarly deposed against the accused-persons. 10.35. It may also be taken note of the fact that the motive is not an ingredient of the offences alleged against the accused-appellants but, however, in case a motive is proved against the accused-persons for commission of the alleged offence, the same further lends extra strength to enable the Court to place reliance on the evidence of the prosecution. So far as the factum of animosity and previous litigations between the parties is concerned, as stated by PW-2 Birbal Ram and PW-12 Tilok Ram and so also corroborated by Ex. P.25 FIR lodged by the accused Bheru Singh (since deceased) as well as FIR Ex, P. 23 lodged by accused Mangi Lal against PW-5 Ramuram, PW-2 Birbal Ram, Chhoga Ram (deceased) and Aaidan Ram who is also brother of the deceased, there is no difficulty to hold that there was some bad blood created between the parties and so there were also litigations. However, Ex. P. 23 FIR relates back to the incident alleged to have occupied on 20-9-1969 and the occurrence of FIR Ex. However, Ex. P. 23 FIR relates back to the incident alleged to have occupied on 20-9-1969 and the occurrence of FIR Ex. P. 25 is alleged to have taken place on 23-12-1973 and so both these incidents were old ones. 11.36. As regards Ex. P. 1 report on which FIR is based, there was complete omission of allegations and involvement of Dayal Ram and any conspiracy having been so entered into. No satisfactory explanation therefore has been given in Ex. P. 1 itself Besides, both PW-2 Birbal Ram and PW-12 Tilok Ram have stated that Chhoga Ram had left his field for his house and, in the way, he was ambushed and assaulted by the said four accused-appellants and now a new story has been invented that it was Dayal Ram (since acquitted) who had approached Chhoga Ram in his field and invited him to his house. In case the parties were inimical and Dayal Ram belonged to and was friendly and in the company of the accused-persons, Chhoga Ram could not have taken any time to find out the reason behind invitation of Dayal Ram. Similarly, if some foul was smelt, Chhoga Ram could not have left for the house of Dayal Ram as are the statements of his both brothers claiming to be eye-witnesses of the occurrence. Besides, it would have been natural conduct on the part of PW-2 Birbal Ram Tilok Ram not to have allowed Chhoga Ram to travel and go to the house of Dayal Ram alone and hence their natural conduct would have been to accompany Chhoga Ram from their field towards the house of Dayal Ram. However, instead of leaving for the house of Dayal Ram, it is alleged to Ex. P. 1 itself by PW-2 Birbal Ram that the deceased Chhoga Ram was going towards his house and in the way he was ambushed and so assaulted. Even if Chhoga Ram was heading towards his house, when both Birbal Ram as well as Tilok Ram claimed that they were foll