Judgment Narayan Roy, J. 1. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. All these appellants have been convicted under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. Appellant No. 1, Shyam Lal Chaudhary, has further been found guilty for an offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months. However, the sentences have been directed to run concurrently. 3. Prosecution case, as disclosed in the fardbeyan (Ext. 6) of Meena Kumari (PW 1), briefly stated is that in the evening of 24.2.1985 at about 5.00 p.m., while he father Raghunath Chaudhary, the deceased, was giving fodder to his cattle after returning from Hathua Bazar, and at the time, the informant (PW 1), her sister Lakhpatia Kumari (PW 3) and her brother, Manager Chaudhary (PW 2) were cutting fodder in the bathan, the accused persons, namely, Sundar (appellant No. 3) armed with farsa and the rest were armed with lathi, came there and started assaulting her father and when she tried to rescue her father, she was also assaulted by accused Shyam Lal Chaudhary (appellant No. 1) with lathi, whereas her sister (PW 3) was assaulted by appellant No. 2, Jagarnath Chaudhary, with lathi. On hulla being raised, the villagers came there and the accused-persons fled away. It is further alleged that her injured father, the deceased, disclosed the names of these appellants and other accused-persons before the villagers, namely, Jeut, Banshi Chaudhary (PW 7) and Darogi. According to the informant, the genesis of the occurrence appears to be on account of attempt to molest her sister, Lakhpatia (PW 3), by appellant No. 2, Jagarnath Chaudhary, and when the same was objected to by the father of the informant, there was altercation with them, which led to this occurrence. The informant (PW 1) along wither her injured father went to Hathua Hospital, where her father succumbed to the injuries in the early morning and there her fardbeyan (Ext. 6) was recorded by PW 10 on 25.2.1985 at about 10.20 a.m. 4. On the basis of the fardbeyan (Ext. 6), a formal first information report (Ext. 7) was drawn up and a case under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was instituted against the accused-persons including the appellants. 6) was recorded by PW 10 on 25.2.1985 at about 10.20 a.m. 4. On the basis of the fardbeyan (Ext. 6), a formal first information report (Ext. 7) was drawn up and a case under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was instituted against the accused-persons including the appellants. After due investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the appellants and after taking cognizance of the offence, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and the Court of Sessions, where they were tried, found the appellants guilty and sentenced them, as indicated hereinabove. 5. The defence of the accused-persons is total denial and plea of innocence and, according to1 them, the deceased, Raghunath Chaudhary, in a drunken state, was returning from Hathua Market and in the way he fell down from the bridge, as result of which, he sustained injuries and they have falsely been implicated at the behest of Banshi Chaudhary (PW 7). 6. The prosecution, in all, examined ten witnesses. Out of them, PW 1 Meena Kumari, PW 2 Manager Chaudhary and PW 3 Lakhpatia Kumari, are the eye-witnesses of the occurrence. PW 4 Radha is the minor son of the deceased. PW 5 is Dr. Y.P Singh, who examined the injured and PWs 1 and 3 at Hathua Hospital. PW 6, Dr. H.P. Singh, held autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. PW 7 Banshi Chaudhary appears to be a hearsay witness. PW 8 Bishwanath Chaudhary is a tender witness, whereas PW 10 is a formal witness. PW 9 Rana Radha Ram Singh is the Investigating Officer of the case. It appears that the defence has also examined two witnesses, namely, Hira Lal Manjhi as DW 1 and Jawahar Prasad as DW 2. 7. The informant (PW 1), the daughter of the deceased, in her evidence supported the prosecution version of the case and has given the first version of the occurrence. In her evidence she has stated that on 25.2.1985 in the evening hours her father, after returning from Hathua Bazar, was giving fodder to his cattle and there she and her sister, Lakhpatia (PW 3), her another sister, Kismatia, and her brother, Manager Chaudhary (PW 2) were cutting ledi at her bathan and at that time, the accused-persons came there armed with farsa and lathi. Appellant No. 3, Sundar Chaudhary, assaulted her father with farsa, whereas appellant No. 2, Jagarnath Chaudhary and Shyam Lal Chaudhary, appellant No. 1, assaulted him with lathi and when she went there to rescue his father, she was assaulted by appellant No. 1, Shyam Lal Chaudhary and her sister (PW 3) was East Cr C(2)6(HC) also assaulted and received injury at the hands of appellant No. 2 Jagarnath Chaudhary. On India, the villagers came there and the accused persons fled away She has further stated in her evidence that she accompanied her father and her sister to Hathua Hospital, where her father succumbed to the injuries and there she and her sister were also treated by the doctor. PW 1 in her evidence has categorically stated that prior to the occurrence, appellant No. 2, Jagarnath Chaudhary, has tried to molest her sister, Lakhpatia (PW 3) which was resisted by them and, thus, they assaulted her father. She has been cross-examined at length, but she remained firm in her evidence. 8. Likewise, PW 2 Manager Chaudhary, the younger brother of the informant (PW 1) in his evidence, deposed on the same line as that of PW 1. This witness is aged about 10 years and the Court after putting certain questions proceeded to examine him. 9. PW 3, Lakhpatia Kumari, has also deposed on the line of PW 1, and has supported the prosecution version of the case in its entirety. She, in her evidence, has categorically stated that the appellants assaulted her father and she was assaulted by the appellants. She has further stated in her evidence that the appellants also assaulted her sister (PW 1) and prior to the occurrence, in the night when she was sleeping alone, accused Jagarnath Chaudhary, appellant No. 2, had tried to molest her, which she resisted and complained to her father and her father had made complaint to the family members of appellant No. 2, Jagarnath Chaudhary. She has also stated in her evidence that her father was taken to Hathua hospital by Jeut and Banshi Chaudhary (PW 7) on a bicycle and she and her sister had also accompanied her father to Hathua hospital. This witness was cross-examined, but she has not been discredited of her testimony. 10. She has also stated in her evidence that her father was taken to Hathua hospital by Jeut and Banshi Chaudhary (PW 7) on a bicycle and she and her sister had also accompanied her father to Hathua hospital. This witness was cross-examined, but she has not been discredited of her testimony. 10. So far PW 4 is concerned, the learned trial Court finding him not in a position to depose, as he was a minor boy, did not examine and cross-examine him formally. 11. PW 5, Dr. Y.P. Singh, in his evidence has stated thaf on 25.2.1985 at about 11.45 p.m. he examined Meena Kumari (PW 1) and had found the following injuries : "(1) Swelling around the left elbow joint, (2) Swelling on the back measuring 2" x 1" and (3) Swelling on the left thigh measuring 2", in diameter." He has further stated that at the same time he had also examined PW 3 Lakhpatia Kumari, and had found the following injuries : "(i) Swelling on the left upper arm measuring 3" x 2", and (ii) Swelling on the lower part of back measuring 3" x 2"." However, all these injuries were simple in nature caused by hard and blunt substance. He has further stated in his evidence that he had admitted Raghunath Chaudhary, the deceased, as emergency case and had found several injuries on his person. 12. PW 6,Dr. H.P. Singh, who held autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, on 25.2.1985, had found the following antemortem injuries : "(1) Stiched wound on the left side of skull (parietal bone) 2" long. (2) Stiched wound on the back of skull (occipetal bone) 2" long. (3) Incised wound over left forearm 1" x 1/2" x bone deep. (4) Defused swelling on the right side of neck. (5) Defused swelling on right side of chest." On dissection, blood clot was found on scalp. On opening skull, blood clot was found in brain substance. He had also found blood clot present underneath neck muscle on right chest wall underneath the skin. In his opinion, injury Nos. 1 and 2 were grievous in nature, whereas rest were simple injuries. Injury No. 3 was caused by sharp cutting weapon, whereas injury Nos. 4 and 5 were caused by hard and blunt substance. In his cross-examination, however, he had stated that injury Nos. 4 and 5 can be caused by fall. In his opinion, injury Nos. 1 and 2 were grievous in nature, whereas rest were simple injuries. Injury No. 3 was caused by sharp cutting weapon, whereas injury Nos. 4 and 5 were caused by hard and blunt substance. In his cross-examination, however, he had stated that injury Nos. 4 and 5 can be caused by fall. 13 PW 9, the Investigating Officer of the case, in his evidence, however, has not stated anything specific. From his evidence, it appears that he had gone to the place of occurrence, but had not inspected the same with all objectivities. From his evidence, it is, however, manifest that he had gone to the house of the accused-persons to search them, but they were found absconding and three lathi were recovered from the house of appellant No. 2, Jagarnath Chaudhary. 14. PW 10, who is a formal witness, has proved the fardbeyan (Ext. 6). 15. From the evidence of PW 7, Banshi Chaudhary, it would appear that he knew about the occurrence at the place of occurrence itself that these appellants assaulted Raghunath Chaudhary. He has further stated in his evidence that he had seen Raghunath Chaudhary in an injured condition. He has also stated in his evidence that in the hospital, Meena Kumari (PW 1) had met him. 16. From the evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 3, it is manifest that they had seen the occurrence from a close range and had identified these appellants as assailants. This is their specific evidence that appellant No. 3, Sundar Chaudhary, assaulted the deceased (their father) with farsa, whereas appellant Nos. 1 and 2, Shyam Lai Chaudhary and Jagarnath Chaudhary, respectively, assaulted him with lathi and appellant Nos. 1 and 2 further assaulted the informant (PW 1) and her sister (PW 3). These witnesses have given clear picture of the occurrence, though they appear to be minors. The prosecution version of the case, as disclosed by these witnesses, is corroborated by the evidence of PWs 5 and 6. Sufficient injuries were found on the person of PWs 1 and 3 by PW 5, Dr. Y.P. Singh, whereas from the evidence of PW 6, the prosecution version of the case is corroborated, as the doctor (PW 6) found antemortem injuries on the person of the deceased, both caused by farsa and lathi. Sufficient injuries were found on the person of PWs 1 and 3 by PW 5, Dr. Y.P. Singh, whereas from the evidence of PW 6, the prosecution version of the case is corroborated, as the doctor (PW 6) found antemortem injuries on the person of the deceased, both caused by farsa and lathi. From the evidence of PW 9, the investigating officer of the case, it is evidence that just after the occurrence the appellants were found missing from their respective houses. 17. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that the occurrence as alleged by the prosecution had not taken place, rather the same had taken place on some other manner. Learned counsel further submitted that PWs 1, 2 and 3 had not seen the occurrence and since they are minor witnesses, they should be held to be tutored witnesses and no reliance should be placed upon their testimony. Learned counsel also submitted that from the evidence of PW 5, the doctor, who firstly examined the deceased-injured, had found the deceased vomitting and smell of toddy was coming out from the substance vomitted by the deceased. Learned counsel, therefore, submitted that the deceased was highly intoxicated and while coming from Hathua Bazar, he fell down from a bridge and sustained injuries. Learned counsel at the same time submitted that the injuries found on the person of the deceased were also possible by fall. Lastly, learned counsel submitted that the learned trial Court had not put specific questions to the accused-appellants while examining them under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and on this account also, the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence vitiates. 18. DWs 1 and 2 in their evidence have stated that the deceased used to take toddy and on the fateful day, while coming from Hathua Bazar, he fell down from the bridge and sustained injuries and PW 7, Banshi Chaudhary, took him to Hathua Hospital. These witnesses have also stated in their evidence that no occurrence had taken place at the place of occurrence as disclosed by the prosecution. 19. From the evidence of the doctor (PW 6), it is proved that it was a case of homicidal death and antemortem injuries caused by sharp cutting weapon and hard and blunt substance were found on the person of the deceased. 19. From the evidence of the doctor (PW 6), it is proved that it was a case of homicidal death and antemortem injuries caused by sharp cutting weapon and hard and blunt substance were found on the person of the deceased. It is the specific case of the prosecution that the appellants assaulted the deceased with farsa and lathi. 20. It is true that PWs 1, 2 and 3 are minors, but from their evidence it appears that they have understood the questions put by the Court and they have also faced the ordeal of cross-examination and still they remained candid in saying in their evidence that the appellants had assaulted their father. These witnesses, therefore, cannot be said to be tutor witnesses. It is true that the evidence of minor witnesses should be taken into consideration with full caution. I have examined all the evidences of these prosecution witnesses with caution and objectivity and it appears to me that they are trustworthy witnesses and as they had seen the occurrence from their naked eyes, the incidence had left imprint in their mind, which they remember all through and spelt out the same in Court. From the deposition of these witnesses, examined in Court, it appears to me that they are not tutor witnesses. The evidence of the doctors (PWs 5 and 6) fully corroborates the prosecution version of the case. PWs 1 and 3 are injured witnesses, which fact is evident from the evidence of PW 5. This shows that they had seen the occurrence and they also tried to resist, whereupon they received injuries on their person, as found by the doctor (PW 5). Testing the evidence of PWs 1 and 3, I have reasons to believe that they are trustworthy witnesses and they have spelt out the truth. 21. From the evidence of PW 6, it is manifest that antemortem injuries found on the person of the deceased were sufficient to cause death. There is nothing in the evidence of PW 6, the doctor, who held autopsy that the deceased was found intoxicated and he died of intoxication. 21. From the evidence of PW 6, it is manifest that antemortem injuries found on the person of the deceased were sufficient to cause death. There is nothing in the evidence of PW 6, the doctor, who held autopsy that the deceased was found intoxicated and he died of intoxication. In this view of matter, I do not find any substance in the submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants that the deceased while highly intoxicated fell down from a bridge and sustained injuries and died out of fall nor I find any substance in the . evidence of the defence witnesses suggesting the death out of fall in intoxicated state. 22. From the evidence, as discussed above, it is held that the prosecution has proved the charges against the appellants beyond all reasonable doubts, and, the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellants require no interference. 23. In the result, this appeal is dismissed and the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence is upheld. Since the appellants are on bail, their bail bonds are, accordingly, cancelled and they are directed to surrender before the Court below to serve out the remainder part of the sentence. M.L.Visa, J. 24 I agree.