JUDGMENT - VISHNU SAHAI, J.:---Through this appeal, the appellants challenge the judgment and order dated 30-4-1996 passed by the Joint District and Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli, in Sessions Case No. 39 of 1992, convicting and sentencing each one of them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- each, in default to undergo one year R.I. for an offence under section 302 read with section 34 I.P.C. At the outset, we may mention that subsequent to the preferring of the present appeal the appellant - Shashikant Bilaskar died and consequently, the appeal abates against him. 2. In short, the prosecution case runs as under :--- At the time of the incident, the informant Avinash Shevale P.W. 8, his uncle's son Yuvraj Shevale P.W. 7, the deceased Bilas Shevale and the appellants lived in village Beldarwadi, Taluka Shirala, District Sangli. Between the deceased and the appellants, there was enmical strain because, the former belonged to the party of Mhaskars and the latter to Bilaskars. In 1990, the appellant Mansing had assaulted Zambarao Mhaskar as the appellants had a feeling that the deceased was helping Zambarao. On 17-9-1991, at about 6.30 to 7 a.m. the informant Avinash Shevale, his uncle's son Yuvraj Shevale and the deceased Bilas Shevale along with their cattle proceeded to their field situated on the out-skirts of village Beldarwadi. The deceased had a cap, stick and quilt with him. When they came near the field of Yeshwant Shevale, wherein jowar crop was standing, they heard the sound of 'khas khas' coming from the said crop. When they looked towards the said field, they found the appellants there. The appellant - Shashikant got up and fired a short from a pistol towards Bilas but, the same providentially did not hit him. Bilas who was holding the bullocks left them and started running. He was chased by appellant Shashikant who was armed with a pistol and a knife, appellant - Mansing who also was armed with a pistol and a knife, appellant Bhimrao who was armed with a sword and the appellant - Jaykar who was armed with an axe. The appellants over - powered Bilas at some distance and launched an assault on him by knives, sword and axe. Appellants - Shashikant and Mansing are said to have assaulted with knives; Bhimrao with sword; and Jaykar with an axe. The appellants over - powered Bilas at some distance and launched an assault on him by knives, sword and axe. Appellants - Shashikant and Mansing are said to have assaulted with knives; Bhimrao with sword; and Jaykar with an axe. In the meantime, Sanjay Shevale, the cousin of the informant and Yuvraj, came and when he asked the appellants as to why they were assaulting Bilas, they told him to run away otherwise he would be killed. After fatally assaulting Bilas, the appellants ran away. Thereafter, the informant and Yuvraj went home. The informant informed his mother and the maternal aunt about the incident and returned with them to the place where the deceased had been assaulted. While they were returning, they saw the appellants running away towards Bhatwadi. While they were near the border of village Bhatwadi, the appellant Shashikant fired a shot from his pistol. On reaching the place, where Bilas was lying, they discovered that he was dead. 3. Thereafter, the same day at about 9 a.m. the informant Avinash Shevale on a bicycle went to Shirala Police Station where he lodged his F.I.R. On the basis of it, Head Constable Gulab Mujavar registered an offence vide C.R. No. 56 of 1991. 3-A The investigation was conducted in the usual manner by A.S.I. Shankar Nangre P.W. 10 and A.P.I. Ramrao Patil P.W. 11. During the course of the investigation, the weapons and the blood - stained clothes at the instance of some of the appellants were recovered but, we are not adverting into greater details with regard to the said recoveries because, for plausible reasons, contained in paras 15 to 21 of the impugned judgment, the said recoveries cannot be relied upon and have not been relied upon by the learned trial Judge. After completing the investigation, the appellants were charge - sheeted. 4. The autopsy on the corpse of the deceased Bilas Shevale was conducted on 17-6-1991 by Dr. Vilas Raval P.W. 9 who found on it, 16 incised wounds, one swelling, one contused lacerated wound, two abrasions and eight linear abrasions. The evidence of Dr. After completing the investigation, the appellants were charge - sheeted. 4. The autopsy on the corpse of the deceased Bilas Shevale was conducted on 17-6-1991 by Dr. Vilas Raval P.W. 9 who found on it, 16 incised wounds, one swelling, one contused lacerated wound, two abrasions and eight linear abrasions. The evidence of Dr. Raval shows that the fatal injury was ante mortem injury No. 1 which was : "Incised wound over left side neck, 14 cm x 5 cm x 6 cm oblique edges clear seen, sternomastoid muscle cut, carotid artery, internal jugular vein cut, cut section cervical vertebra C-3 - C-4 level, spinal cord cut section seen, blood clots seen 4 cm below left angle of mandible and 6 cm, below occipital protuberance." In the opinion of Dr. Raval, the injuries suffered by the deceased could be caused by knife, sword and axe and injury No. 1 was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. 5. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions in the usual manner where the appellants were charged for the offence punishable under section 302 read with 34 I.P.C. to which charge, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Their defence was that of denial. During the trial, the prosecution examined 12 witnesses, two of them namely the informant Avinash Shevale P.W. 8 and Yuvraj Shevale P.W. 7 were examined as eye - witnesses. The learned trial Judge believed the evidence and convicted and sentenced the appellants in the manner stated in para 1 above. 6. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the entire material on record. After the utmost circumspection, we are of the judgment that this appeal deserves to be partly allowed in - as - much-as the appellant - Mansing Kisan Bilaskar deserves the benefit of doubt. 7. As mentioned above, the occular account comprises of the testimony of two eye - witnesses namely the informant Avinash Shevale and Yuvraj Shevale who are the son and nephew of the deceased Bilas respectively. It is on the basis of the recitals contained in their examination - in - chief, that we have set out the prosecution story in para 2, above. It is on the basis of the recitals contained in their examination - in - chief, that we have set out the prosecution story in para 2, above. In short, they stated that on the date of the incident, at about 6.30 to 7 a.m. they proceeded towards their field, situated on the out skirts of village Beldarwadi, along with their cattle for grazing them. When they reached the field of Yeshwant Shevale, where jowar crop was standing, they heard the sound of 'khas khas' and discovered that the appellants were waiting in ambush there. They saw that the appellant - Shashikant fired a short from a pistol towards Bilas which providentially did not strike him. Thereafter, they saw that Bilas chased by the appellants started running. After some distance, they over - powered him and thereafter, the appellants - Shashikant and Mansing with knives, Bhimrao with sword and Jaykar with an axe assaulted him. They stated that their cousin Sanjay reached the place of the incident and when he reprimanded the appellants for assaulting Bilas, they asked him to go away threatening to kill him otherwise. Their evidence is that after the appellants had run away, after assaulting the deceased, they went home. There the informant informed his mother and his maternal aunt and along with them and Yuvraj while he was returning and had reached the border of village Bhatwadi, they saw the appellants running away and the appellant - Shashikant firing a shot in the air with his pistol. 8. We have gone through the evidence of Avinash Shevale P.W. 8 and Yuvraj Shevale P.W. 7 and we find that it inspires implicit confidence. Both these witnesses have categorically stated that the appellants - Shashikant and Mansing with knife, Bhimrao with a sword and Jaykar with an axe assaulted the deceased Bilas and the Autopsy Surgeon Dr. Vilas Raval P.W. 9 found 16 incised wounds, one swelling, one contused lacerated wound, two abrasions and eight linear abrasions on the corpse of Bilas which in his opinion were attributable to these weapons. 9. Apart from the medical evidence, assurance is lent to the evidence of these eye - witnesses by the circumstance that the Investigating Officer A.S.I. Shankar Nangre P.W. 10 recovered blood - stained earth from the place of the incident which was sent to the Chemical Analyst who found human blood on the same. 9. Apart from the medical evidence, assurance is lent to the evidence of these eye - witnesses by the circumstance that the Investigating Officer A.S.I. Shankar Nangre P.W. 10 recovered blood - stained earth from the place of the incident which was sent to the Chemical Analyst who found human blood on the same. The Supreme Court in para 10 of the oft-quoted case of (Khujji Surendra alias Tewari v. State of M.P.)1, A.I.R. 1991 S.C. page 1853 has held that presence of human blood on the recovered article is incriminating evidence. 10. Assurance to the claim of these witnesses of having seen the incident is also forthcoming by the circumstance that the F.I.R. of the incident, was lodged by the informant Avinash Shevale P.W. 8 within 3½ hours of the incident i.e. at about 10.30 a.m. on the date of the incident and in the said F.I.R. the appellants are named and it has been alleged therein that excepting appellant Mansing they assaulted the deceased with knife, sword and axe and as we have mentioned earlier, the Autopsy Surgeon found injuries of these weapons on the corpse of the deceased. It is pertinent to mention that the evidence of the informant discloses that the police station Shirala where the F.I.R. was lodged, was situated 6 k.m. from the place of the incident. In our view, the circumstance that within 3½ hours of the incident, the names of the appellants coupled with their specific overt acts corroborated by the medical evidence, saw the light of the day in the F.I.R., is a circumstance which implicitly show that both the eye - witnesses saw the incident. It is pertinent to mention that in the F.I.R., the informant Avinash Shevale had also mentioned about the presence of his cousin Yuvraj. 11. It is also pertinent to mention that both these eye - witnesses are perfectly natural witnesses of the incident in - as - much as at the time of the incident, they were accompanying the deceased for the purposes of grazing cattle. It is true that the informant being the son of the deceased Bilas, and Yuvraj being the nephew, are highly interested witnesses but, merely on this circumstance and on the circumstance that Yuvraj is a child witness, being aged about 8 years at the time of the incident, their evidence would not be rejected but, only evaluated with caution. It is true that the informant being the son of the deceased Bilas, and Yuvraj being the nephew, are highly interested witnesses but, merely on this circumstance and on the circumstance that Yuvraj is a child witness, being aged about 8 years at the time of the incident, their evidence would not be rejected but, only evaluated with caution. We have exercised that caution and we find them to be truthful. 12. We however, feel that by way of abundant caution, it would be prudent to give the appellant - Mansing Kisan Bilaskar benefit of doubt. It is true that in the F.I.R., the appellant - Mansing Bilaskar is also named but, since the only overt act assigned to him therein is of firing two shots in the air and in their substantive evidence, both the eye - witnesses have assigned this role to the appellant Shashikant Bilaskar, his position is different. Since in the F.I.R. it has not been mentioned that the appellant - Mansing assaulted the deceased with a knife and there was enmity between the deceased and the appellant - Mansing and the two eye - witnesses are sons and nephew of the deceased, the possibility of the appellant - Mansing being falsely roped in, cannot be entirely excluded. In such a situation, it would be prudent to give him the benefit of doubt. 13. Before proceeding to the operative part of the judgment, we would be failing in our fairness, if we do not refer to the four main submissions canvassed by Mr. Gupte, learned Counsel for the appellants. Mr. Gupte firstly urged that both the eye - witnesses are highly interested witnesses and consequently their evidence be rejected. We regret that we do not find merit in this submission. We have earlier observed that because of this circumstance, their evidence would only have to be evaluated with caution and not mechanically rejected. It is on account of this caution that we feel that the appellant - Mansing Bilaskar deserves the benefit of doubt. Mr. Gupte secondly urged that the witness Yuvraj Shevale P.W. 7 was a child witness, being aged about 8 years at the time of the incident, and consequently, we should not accept his evidence. We regret that legally, his submission is not tenable. The law only requires that the testimony of a child witness be evaluated with caution and not mechanically rejected. We regret that legally, his submission is not tenable. The law only requires that the testimony of a child witness be evaluated with caution and not mechanically rejected. We have exercised that caution and thereafter, reached the conclusion that his evidence is credible. Mr. Gupte thirdly urged that in view of the omissions contained in the F.I.R. and those contained in the statement of Yuvraj Shevale P.W. 7 recorded under section 161 Cri.P.C. it would not be proper to place reliance on the evidence of the informant and Yuvraj Shevale P.W. 7. We have examined the said omissions and in our view, they are in - consequential. The broad features of the prosecution case, as we have mentioned earlier, saw the light of the day in the F.I.R. which was lodged within 3½ hours of the incident taking place. Mr. Gupte finally urged that since the evidence is not clear as to who inflicted the fatal injury No. 1) on the person of the deceased, it would be unsafe to sustain the conviction of the appellant Bhimrao Jadhav and Jaykar Dhumal for the offence under section 302 read with section 34 I.P.C. We regret that we do not find any merit in this contention. The evidence of both the eye - witnesses, which has been accepted by us vis-a-vis these appellants, shows that in a pre-planned manner, they were waiting in ambush to assault Bilas and thereafter they chased Bilas and alongwith Sashikant whose appeal abates, inflicted as many as 28 injuries with knife, sword and axe on him, resulting in his instantaneous death. In our view, the evidence of the eye-witnesses shows that these appellants committed the murder of Bilas in furtherance of their common intention. Hence, this submission of Mr. Gupte fails. Mr. Gupte also made a passing submission that the appellant - Jaykar Dhumal was a juvenile at the time of the incident and should have been dealt with under the Juvenile Justice Act. We regret that we do not find any merit in the said contention because, there is no documentary evidence to show that he was below 16 years at the time when he committed the offence and consequently, he would not be entitled to the provisions of the said Act. 14. We regret that we do not find any merit in the said contention because, there is no documentary evidence to show that he was below 16 years at the time when he committed the offence and consequently, he would not be entitled to the provisions of the said Act. 14. In the result : (A) The appeal preferred by the appellant - Shashikant Kisan Bilaskar who is dead abates ; (B) The appeal preferred by the appellant - Bhimrao Sahadeo Jadhav and Jaykar Ananda Dhumal is dismissed and their convictions and sentences for the offence under section 302 read with section 34 I.P.C. are confirmed. The appellant - Bhimrao Sahadeo Jadhav is in jail and shall remain their and serve out his sentence. The appellant - Jaykar Ananda Dhumal is on bail and shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out his sentence. (C) The appeal preferred by the appellant - Mansing Kisan Bilaskar is allowed. His conviction and sentence for the offence under section 302 read with section 34 I.P.C. is set aside. In case he has paid the fine, it shall stand refunded to him. He is in jail and shall be released forthwith unless wanted in some other case. Order accordingly. -----