Judgment U.S. Tripathi, J. (1) Appellant Vishwa Nath has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 30.1.1981 passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Mainpuri, in Sessions Trial No. 178 of 1980, convicting the appellant under Sections 302 and 307, I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo life imprisonment under Section 302, I.P.C. and R.I. for a period of 7 years under Section 307, I.P.C. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. (2) The prosecution story, briefly stated, was that appellant Vishwa Nath is the real brother of Vijai Bahadur (since acquitted by the trial court) and son of Machley (since acquitted by the trial court) and resident of village Pundari, P.S. Ailau, district Mainpuri. Suresh Chandra (P.W. 4) is real brother of Ramesh (P.W. 5) and Jagdish (P.W. 6). They are real nephews of Machley and cousin brothers of appellant Vishwa Nath. Smt. Maharani deceased was mother of Suresh Chandra (P.W. 4), Ramesh (P.W. 5) and Jagdish (P.W. 6). The house of Vishwa Nath appellant was situate towards north of house and shop of Ahsan Khan (P.W. 10). Suresh Chandra (P.W. 4) had his house towards west of house of Machley. In between the two houses, there was open land and a chabutara. Ahsan Khan (P.W. 10) was running a grocery shop in front portion of his house. On the night of 26.12.1979 at about 8.30 p.m. Suresh Chandra (P.W. 4) had gone to the shop of Ahsan Khan (P.W. 10). He was sitting on the shop and a lighted lantern was emitting light. It was a moon lit night. Machley also came to the shop of Ahsan Khan (P.W. 10) and observed Suresh Chandra (P.W. 4) there. He asked him as to why he had not sown crop in the field of Ram Swarup, which he had taken on batai as Ram Swarup was complaining against him. Suresh Chandra (P.W. 4) told that he (Machley) had no concern with the matter. On it, Machley became annoyed and told that the land in front of his house belonged to him (Machley) and he would take it. Altercation took place between Machley and Suresh Chandra (P.W. 4). In the meantime, appellant Vishwa Nath and his real brother Vijay Bahadur also came there and participated in the altercation. On it, Machley became annoyed and told that the land in front of his house belonged to him (Machley) and he would take it. Altercation took place between Machley and Suresh Chandra (P.W. 4). In the meantime, appellant Vishwa Nath and his real brother Vijay Bahadur also came there and participated in the altercation. Smt. Maharani deceased, Ramesh (P.W. 5), elder brother of Suresh Chandra (P.W. 4), Jagdish (P.W. 6), younger brother of Suresh Chandra and Megh Nath deceased of the said village also came there. Ahsan Khan (P.W. 10) and Ambar Khan (P.W. 7) were present on his shop and house respectively. Ramesh (P.W. 5) told Machley that he was doing injustice. Hearing it, Machley exhorted his sons (Vishwa Nath and Vijai Bahadur) to kill them. On his exhortation, appellant Vishwa Nath and his brother Vijai Bahadur fired shots from country made pistols possessed by them. The shots hit Smt. Maharani deceased, Megh Nath deceased, Ramesh (P.W. 5) and Jagdish (P.W. 6). Thereafter, the appellant and his father and brother ran away from the spot. (3) Suresh Chandra (P.W. 4) prepared report (Ext. Ka-7) of the occurrence and went to police station along with injured persons and reached at police station Ailau at 00.30 a.m. in the night where he lodged report. Chik, F.I.R. (Ext. Ka-18) was prepared by Head Constable Ram Autar (P.W. 9), who made an endorsement of the same at G.D. report (Ext. Ka-19) and registered a case against Machley, Vijai Bahadur and Vishwa Nath under Section 307, I.P.C. (4) The injured persons were sent to District Hospital, Mainpuri, where they were medically examined by Dr. A.N. Saxena (P.W. 2) between 7.45 a.m. and 8.30 a.m. Dr. Saxena found following injuries on the person of respective injured : Injuries of Megh Nath. 1. Gun shot wound of entrance 1 cm. 1 cm. cavity deep on right loin just above iliac crest. Margins inverted and lacerated. No blackening, scorching or tattooing. 2. Gun shot wound of entrance 1 cm. 1 cm. depth not proved due to profuse bleeding, on right side back of chest at medial border of right side scapula. 6 cm. right from mid line, 4 cm. below root of neck. Margins inverted and lacerated. No blackening, scorching or tattooing. Injuries were caused by fire arm and were about 1/2 day old. Injuries of Smt. Maharani Devi 1. Gun shot wound of entrance 1 cm. 6 cm. right from mid line, 4 cm. below root of neck. Margins inverted and lacerated. No blackening, scorching or tattooing. Injuries were caused by fire arm and were about 1/2 day old. Injuries of Smt. Maharani Devi 1. Gun shot wound of entrance 1 cm. 1 cm. abdominal cavity deep, left side front of abdomen 4 O'clock position 5 cm. from umbilicus. Margins inverted and lacerated. No blackening, scorching or tattooing. 2. Gun shot wound of entrance 1 cm. 1 cm. tissue deep on front of chest in middle 2 cm. below suprasternal notch. Margins inverted and lacerated. No blackening, scorching or tattooing. 3. Gun shot wound of exit 1.7 cm. 1.7 cm. through and through with injury No. 2 on right side front of chest at 12 O'clock position. 13 cm. above nipple. Margins averted and lacerated. Direction left to right transversely. Patient kept under observation, advised X-ray of chest and abdomen. Injuries were caused by fire arm and were half day old. Injuries of Jagdish 1. Gun shot wound of entrance 1 cm. 1 cm. cavity deep at 12 O'clock position. 4 cm. above umbilicus on front of abdomen mid line. 2. Gun shot wound of entrance 1 cm. 1 cm. tissue deep on right side front of abdomen at 9 O'clock position 8 cm right from umbilicus. Margins of both wounds inverted and lacerated. No blackening, scorching and tattooing. Injuries were caused by fire arm and were about half day old. Injuries of Ramesh 1. Gun shot wound of entrance 1/2 cm. 1/2 cm. muscle deep on post axillary line 12 cm. below axilla, right side back of chest. 2. Gun shot wound of entrance 1/2 cm. 1/2 cm. tissue deep on right side back of thigh in middle. Margins of both wounds inverted and lacerated. No blackening, scorching or tattooing. 3. Gun shot wound of exit 0.75 cm. 0.75 cm. through and through with injury No. 2 on post medial aspect of right thigh in middle. Margins everted and lacerated. Directions backward to forward. Injuries were caused by fire arm and were about half day old. Conditions of Megh Nath and Smt. Maharani Devi deceased were serious and, therefore, they were admitted in the hospital. Investigation of the case was taken up by Sri Deoki Nandan, I.O. (P.W. 12). Margins everted and lacerated. Directions backward to forward. Injuries were caused by fire arm and were about half day old. Conditions of Megh Nath and Smt. Maharani Devi deceased were serious and, therefore, they were admitted in the hospital. Investigation of the case was taken up by Sri Deoki Nandan, I.O. (P.W. 12). After recording statement of Head Constable Ram Autar (P.W. 9) at the police station, he reached place of occurrence where he interrogated Suresh Chandra (P.W. 4) and Ahsan Khan (P.W. 10). He inspected place of occurrence and prepared site plan (Ext. Ka-21). Thereafter, he interrogated Ambar Khan (P.W. 7). The I.O. came to District Hospital, Mainpuri, where he interrogated Smt. Maharani and Megh Nath deceased. (5) Smt. Maharani died in the hospital on 27.12.1979 and Megh Nath also died on 29.12.1979. Information regarding their death was sent to P.S. Kotwali, district Mainpuri. Shyam Veer Singh, Sub-Inspector of P.S. Kotwali was entrusted to conduct inquest of above two deceased. He reached hospital on 28.12.1979 and conducted inquest of the dead body of SMT. Maharani Devi and prepared inquest report (Ext. Ka-13) and other relevant papers (Ext. Ka-14 to Ka-16). Dead body was sealed and sent for post mortem. Lal Mani Verma (P.W. 8) Sub-Inspector, P.S. Kotwali was entrusted to conduct inquest of the dead body of Megh Nath. He reached district hospital on 30.12.1979, conducted inquest of the dead body of Megh Nath and prepared inquest report (Ext. Ka-9) and other relevant papers (Ka-10 to Ka-12). The dead body was sealed and sent for post mortem. (6) Autopsy on the dead body of Smt. Maharani Devi deceased was conducted on 28.12.1979 at 2 p.m. by Dr. Jaswant Singh (P.W. 3), who found following ante-mortem injuries on her person:- 1. Gun shot wound of entry 1 cm. 1 cm. abdominal cavity deep on the left side of abdomen front in the position of 4 O'clock, 5 cm. away from umbilicus with margins inverted and lacerated. No scorching or tattooing present. The depth was directed backward and towards the right side and obliquely slightly downward. 2. Gun shot wound (wound of exit) 1 cm. 5 cm. abdominal cavity deep on right side of abdomen in iliac fossa. 2 cm. above and inner to anterior iliac spine. Margins were everted. No tattooing, blackening was present. The depth was directed backward and towards left side. Injury communicating with injury No. 1. 3. 2. Gun shot wound (wound of exit) 1 cm. 5 cm. abdominal cavity deep on right side of abdomen in iliac fossa. 2 cm. above and inner to anterior iliac spine. Margins were everted. No tattooing, blackening was present. The depth was directed backward and towards left side. Injury communicating with injury No. 1. 3. Gun shot wound 1 cm. 1 cm. muscle deep on front of chest mid line. 2 cm. below suprasternal notch. Margins inverted and lacerated. No blackening, scorching and tattooing was present. 4. One gun shot wound 1.5 cm. 1.5 cm. axillary cavity deep on right side of chest front 2 cm. below outer 1/3 of right collar bone. Margins were inverted and lacerated. No tattooing or blackening was present. The depth was directed backward, upward and horizontally. One shot found in the upper part of axillary cavity underneath the wound. On internal examination, the Doctor found that abdominal cavity contained 1 pound haemorrhage fluid. Stomach contained fluid. Small intestine lacerated at places and whole omentum. Gall bladder lacerated. The cause of death was due to shock and haemorrhage due to fire arm injuries. The Doctor prepared post-mortem report (Ext. Ka-6). The autopsy on the dead body of Megh Nath deceased was conducted on 30.12.1979 at 3.30 p.m. by Dr. R.K. Jain (P.W. 1), who found following ante-mortem injuries on his person:- 1. Gun shot wound of entry 1 cm. 1 cm. on the right side loin on the iliac crest, bone deep with fracture of petoral bone. No blackening was present. 2. Gun shot wound of entry 1 cm. 1 cm. muscle deep on the back of right side chest 5 cm. away from mid line just near the upper part of medial base of scapula. There was no blackening. Pallet was present in the rib. On internal examination reddish colour fluid was found in the stomach. The cause of death was shock and haemorrhage due to fire arm injury. The Doctor prepared post mortem report (Ext. Ka-1). (7) On 17.1.1980 the I.O. Sri Deoki Nandan (P.W. 12) interrogated other witnesses. (8) The post-mortem report of Smt. Maharani was received at P.S. Ailau on 20.1.1980. The case was, accordingly, altered under Section 302, I.P.C. vide G.D. report (Ext. Ka-20). On 4.2.1980, the I.O. searched the accused persons, but they were not found. They ultimately surrendered in the Court on 14.2.1980. (8) The post-mortem report of Smt. Maharani was received at P.S. Ailau on 20.1.1980. The case was, accordingly, altered under Section 302, I.P.C. vide G.D. report (Ext. Ka-20). On 4.2.1980, the I.O. searched the accused persons, but they were not found. They ultimately surrendered in the Court on 14.2.1980. On completion of investigation, the I.O. submitted charge-sheet against Machley, Vijai Bahadur and Vishwa Nath on 26.2.1980 under Sections 302 and 307, I.P.C. (9) Appellant Vishwa Nath and his father Machley and brother Vijai Bahadur pleaded not guilty. The case set up by them was that they had land in front of their house. On the night of occurrence, Suresh, Jagdish, Mahesh along with their father Khan Sahai came in front of their house asked them to remove cattle trough and started quarrelling. They also caused injuries to Machley, Vijai Bahadur and Vishwa Nath. Suresh Chandra (P.W. 4) fired from country made pistol, which hit Smt. Maharani Devi and Megh Nath deceased, Vijai Bahadur, Vishwa Nath and their father sustained lathi injuries. (10) The prosecution in support of its case examined Dr. R.K. Jain (P.W. 1), Dr. A.N. Saxena (P.W. 2), Jaswant Singh (P.W. 3), Suresh Chandra (P.W. 4), Ramesh (P.W. 5), Jagdish (P.W. 6), Ambar Khan (P.W. 7), Sub-Inspector Lal Mani Verma (P.W. 8), Head Constable Ram Autar (P.W. 9), Ahsan Khan (P.W. 10), Bachchan Lal (P.W. 11), Sub-Inspector Deoki Nandan (P.W. 12) and Constable Prem Shankar (P.W. 13). The accused side examined Dr. S.C. Verma (D.W. 1) and Brij Raj Singh (D.W. 2). (11) The learned Sessions Judge, on considering the evidence of the prosecution and defence, came to the conclusion that prosecution had successfully proved its case and defence case was not believable. He further held that participation of Machley and Vijai Bahadur in the occurrence was doubtful and they were entitled to benefit of doubt. With these findings, he acquitted Machley and Vijai Bahadur, but convicted and sentenced appellant Vishwa Nath as mentioned above. (12) We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the respondent and have thoroughly scrutinised the evidence on record. The case of the prosecution was that on the night of 26.12.1979, at about 8.30 p.m., Suresh Chandra (P.W. 4) was present at the shop of Ahsan Khan (P.W. 10). (12) We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the respondent and have thoroughly scrutinised the evidence on record. The case of the prosecution was that on the night of 26.12.1979, at about 8.30 p.m., Suresh Chandra (P.W. 4) was present at the shop of Ahsan Khan (P.W. 10). His uncle Machley came there and told that Ram Swarup was complaining that Suresh Chandra had not cultivated his field, which he had taken on batai. Suresh Chandra replied that Machley had no concern with the matter. On it, Machley annoyed and threatened that he would take land in front of house of Suresh Chandra. In the meantime, Ramesh (P.W. 5), Jagdish (P.W. 6), Smt. Maharani Devi deceased and Megh Nath deceased came there. Vijai Bahadur and Vishwa Nath, sons of Machley also came there. Altercation started and on the exhortation of Machley, Vijai Bahadur and Vishwa Nath fired pistol shots, which hit Smt. Maharani Devi and Megh Nath deceased as well as Ramesh and Jagdish. On the other hand, the case of the appellant was that on the night of occurrence, Suresh Chandra, Ramesh and Jagdish and their father Khan Sahai came in front of his house and asked his brother Brij Raj to remove his cattle trough as the land belonged to them. Suresh Chandra was having country-made pistol and other persons were having lathis. In the meantime, Megh Nath and Smt. Maharani Devi also came there, Machley and Vijai Bahadur also came there. On the exhortation of Suresh Chandra, Ramesh, Jagdish, Mahesh and their father Khan Sahai started causing lathi injuries on Machley, Vijai Bahadur and Vishwa Nath. In the meantime, Suresh Chandra (P.W. 4) fired country-made pistol, which hit Mahesh, Jagdish, Smt. Maharani Devi and Megh Nath. This shows that the appellant has admitted the occurrence as well as the injuries by firearm on Ramesh, Mahesh, Smt. Maharani Devi and Megh Nath, but in a different manner. It is, therefore, to be considered whether the occurrence took place in the manner alleged by the prosecution or in the manner alleged by the appellant. (13) The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the occurrence took place in front of house of Vishwa Nath appellant, which supports the defence version. According to prosecution, occurrence took place in front of shop of Ahsan Khan (P.W. 10). (13) The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the occurrence took place in front of house of Vishwa Nath appellant, which supports the defence version. According to prosecution, occurrence took place in front of shop of Ahsan Khan (P.W. 10). It was pointed out that no blood was found on the spot which falsifies the place of occurrence alleged by the prosecution. The injuries of injured persons were such that blood ought to have come out. The prosecution offered an explanation that wounds of the injured were tied with 'angochha' therefore, blood could not fall on the spot. This explanation was developed subsequently. The trial court has not believed the above explanation. Even if we ignore the above explanation on the ground that it was a subsequent development, the blood was also not found on the place suggested by the appellant. Therefore, on account of absence of blood, the place of occurrence cannot be disbelieved. Informant Suresh Chandra (P.W. 4) and injured Jagdish (P.W. 6) have categorically stated that occurrence took place in front of shop of Ahsan Khan. No doubt, Ambar Khan (P.W. 7), Ahsan Khan (P.W. 10) and Bachchan Lal (P.W. 11) who were cited as eye-witnesses and occurrence had taken place in their presence have not supported the prosecution story. The evidence of Suresh Chandra (P.W. 4) and Jagdish (P.W. 5) fully supported the place of occurrence alleged by the prosecution. Ramesh (P.W. 5), the other injured, who stated that he could not see as to who fired pistol shots has also stated that occurrence took place in front of the shop of Ahsan Khan. The purpose of going injured and deceased in front of the house of appellant as stated by Brij Raj Singh (D.W. 2) does not appear convincing. It was suggested to Suresh Chandra (P.W. 4) that injured persons had gone to the house of appellant for removing cattle trough and pegs. Brij Raj Singh (D.W. 2) stated that the above persons asked him to remove his cattle trough. There is nothing on record to show that any cattle pegs was removed or any cattle trough was damaged. This also indicates that occurrence took place in front of shop of Ahsan Khan. Brij Raj Singh (D.W. 2) stated that the above persons asked him to remove his cattle trough. There is nothing on record to show that any cattle pegs was removed or any cattle trough was damaged. This also indicates that occurrence took place in front of shop of Ahsan Khan. It is true that Ahsan Khan (P.W. 10) stated that at the time of occurrence, his shop was closed and he was not present at his shop, but there is obvious reason for him not to support the prosecution story. As such, the place of occurrence alleged by the prosecution has been proved. (14) The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the occurrence took place in the night and there was no source of light and light of lantern was subsequently introduced. It is mentioned in the F.I.R. that there was a lighted lantern on the shop of Ahsan Khan and night of occurrence was also moon lit. The evidence of Suresh Chandra (P.W. 4) shows that when he came to the shop of Ahsan Khan, it was open and some persons were sitting there. If the shop was open, the presence of lantern light in the shop is natural as it was not expected from Ahsan Khan to run his shop in darkness. Suresh Chandra as well as Jagdish (P.W. 6) also stated that night of occurrence was moon lit. This fact was not challenged by the appellant. No doubt, Ramesh (P.W. 5), the other injured and real brother of Suresh Chandra (P.W. 4) and Jagdish (P.W. 6) had stated that there was fog at the time of occurrence. But neither prosecution nor the defence has set up this fact. Even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that lighted lantern, kept at the shop of Ahsan Khan (P.W. 10), was not sufficient to spread light on the spot, the night of occurrence was moon lit and the appellant and other accused were none else, but the family members of prosecution witnesses. Therefore, appellant and other accused could be recognised by prosecution witnesses even in dim light. It has also come in the evidence of Suresh Chandra (P.W. 4) and Jagdish (P.W. 6) that prior the occurrence, altercations had taken place. The prosecution witnesses, who were closely related with appellant and other accused, were in a position to recognise them even by their voice. It has also come in the evidence of Suresh Chandra (P.W. 4) and Jagdish (P.W. 6) that prior the occurrence, altercations had taken place. The prosecution witnesses, who were closely related with appellant and other accused, were in a position to recognise them even by their voice. Moreover, Brij Raj (P.W. 7) had recognised each and every person who allegedly came to his house and nature of injuries sustained by deceased, injured and others. He has also not disclosed any source of light. If he was in a position to recognise Suresh, Ramesh, Jagdish, Smt. Maharani Devi and Megh Nath without aid of any artificial light, why the prosecution witnesses Suresh Chandra (P.W. 4) and Jagdish (P.W. 6) were not in a position to recognise appellant and other accused. This shows that there was no paucity of light for recognising the appellant and other accused. Suresh Chandra (P.W. 4) and Jagdish (P.W. 6) have stated about the manner of occurrence alleged by the prosecution. The presence of Suresh Chandra (P.W. 4) and Jagdish (P.W. 6) on the site is admitted to appellant. It is also admitted to appellant that Jagdish (P.W. 6) sustained injuries in the occurrence. No doubt, Ramesh (P.W. 5) the other injured and real brother of Suresh Chandra (P.W. 4) and Jagdish (P.W. 6) had stated in his examination-in-chief that he could not see as to who fired, but when he was cross-examined by the prosecution, he admitted entire fact except the fact that he observed Vishwa Nath and Vijai Bahadur firing pistol shots. Therefore, he also supported the manner of occurrence. (15) Jagdish (P.W. 6) was aged about 12-13 years at the time of occurrence, but his presence and injuries on his person in the occurrence are not disputed. The evidence of the witnesses shows that he was mature enough to reproduce what he observed on the spot. No doubt in his cross-examination, he stated that occurrence took place in summer season. But it is none's case and it appears that he gave above statement under some confusion. (16) Learned counsel for the appellant contended that Ramesh (P.W. 5), Ambar Khan (P.W. 7), Ahsan Khan (P.W. 10) and Bachchan Lal were not declared hostile and, therefore, the prosecution had not disowned their evidence and that their evidence falsifies the case of the prosecution. We find no force in the above contention. (16) Learned counsel for the appellant contended that Ramesh (P.W. 5), Ambar Khan (P.W. 7), Ahsan Khan (P.W. 10) and Bachchan Lal were not declared hostile and, therefore, the prosecution had not disowned their evidence and that their evidence falsifies the case of the prosecution. We find no force in the above contention. There is no mode in the Evidence Act to declare a witness hostile. Section 145 of Evidence Act permits a party to cross-examine its own witness. The prosecution has cross-examined the above witnesses with the leave of the Court, which means that prosecution had disowned their testimony and cross-examined them for the above purpose. As mentioned above the appellant has admitted gunshot injuries on the persons of two deceased, namely, Smt. Maharani Devi and Megh Nath as well as on injured Ramesh (P.W. 5) and Jagdish (P.W. 6). The medical evidence of Dr. R. K. Jain (P.W. 1), Dr. A. N. Saxena (P.W. 2) and Jaswant Singh (P.W. 3) support the prosecution version. The injuries on the person of above persons could not be caused as suggested by the defence and stated by Brij Raj Singh (D.W. 2). He stated that on the exhortation of Suresh Chandra (P.W. 4), Ramesh, Jagdish and Mahesh and their father Khan Sahai started causing lathi injuries on Machley, Vijai Bahadur and Vishwa Nath. In the meantime, Suresh Chandra (P.W. 4) fired from pistol, which hit Ramesh, Jagdish, Smt. Maharani Devi and Megh Nath. Admittedly, Ramesh and Jagdish are real brothers of Suresh Chandra (P.W. 4) and Smt. Maharani Devi is his mother. Megh Nath deceased is the resident of same village. He had no concern either with the prosecution or with the appellant. If the aim of Suresh was to fire on Machley and his sons, he would have at least taken precaution that shot would not hit his own brothers and mother. Moreover, the injuries of Vijai Bahadur and Vishwa Nath did not appear to have been sustained in the same transaction. No doubt, Dr. S.C. Verma (D.W. 1) stated that he examined Vijai Bahadur on 27.12.1979 at 12.30 p.m. and found following injuries on his person. 1. Lacerated wound 4 cm. 0.5 cm. scalp deep over the skull at the right parietal region-Fresh bleeding. 7.5 cm. above the right ear. 2. Lacerated wound 1 cm. 0.2 cm. skin deep. left side of skull at the left parietal region. 1. Lacerated wound 4 cm. 0.5 cm. scalp deep over the skull at the right parietal region-Fresh bleeding. 7.5 cm. above the right ear. 2. Lacerated wound 1 cm. 0.2 cm. skin deep. left side of skull at the left parietal region. 12 cm. above the left ear. 3. Lacerated wound 1 0.2 cm. skin deep, left side skull at the left parietal region 12.5 cm. above the left ear. 4. Abrasion 2 1.5 cm. in the axillary line on left side 3 cm. above the iliac crest. 5. Abrasion 0.5 in the left little finger. 6. H/O old injury in the right wrist joint. He further stated that he also examined Vishwa Nath appellant on same date at 12.40 p.m. and found following injuries on his person. 1. Abrasion 1 0.5 cm. in the right little finger on the dorsal side at the proximal inter phalangeal joint. 2. Abrasion 1 0.5 cm. in the left knee joint. Dr. S. C. Verma also examined Machley on same day at 12.50 p.m. and found following injuries on his person. 1. Abrasion 0.5 cm. 0.5 cm. over the right scapular region 8 cm. away from right shoulder. 2. Complain of pain in the right hip region. Pain in the right shoulder region. Injuries of Vishwa Nath and Machley were superficial. No doubt injuries 1, 2 and 3 of Vijai Bahadur were on head, but the Doctor has mentioned that bleeding was present on injury No. 1. He gave duration of above injuries about 12 hours. If the injuries were 12 hours old there was no possibility of presence of bleeding. Dr. Verma (D.W. 1) had to admit in his cross-examination that he mentioned "fresh bleeding" in his evidence by mistake. No cross-report was lodged by appellant or his father or brother. Head Constable Ram Autar (P.W. 9) categorically stated that neither the appellant nor his father nor brother came to the police station in the night of occurrence. There is no corroboration of the evidence of Brij Raj Singh (D.W. 2) that he came to the police station and lodged report, but his report was not written. It is true that a typed report signed by Brij Raj Singh (D.W. 2) was allegedly sent on 29.12.1979 to Superintendent of Police, Mainpuri, through post which was received in the office of S.P., Mainpuri, on 31.12.1979, in which the defence version was mentioned. It is true that a typed report signed by Brij Raj Singh (D.W. 2) was allegedly sent on 29.12.1979 to Superintendent of Police, Mainpuri, through post which was received in the office of S.P., Mainpuri, on 31.12.1979, in which the defence version was mentioned. But it is evident from the facts and circumstances of the case that when the two deceased died on 27.12.1979 and 29.12.1979, a counter case was concocted by Brij Raj Singh (D.W. 2) brother of appellant Vishwa Nath by obtaining false injury reports. Therefore, the defence version does not appear convincing and we are of the view that the said defence version was subsequently concocted. (17) The learned counsel for the appellant contended that prosecution had not explained injuries of appellant Vishwa Nath and his brother Vijai Bahadur and father Machley. As mentioned above, it could not be established that Machley, Vijai Bahadur and Vishwa Nath sustained injuries in the same transaction. As held by Supreme Court in the case of Hare Krishan Singh and other vs. State of Bihar, (1988) 2 SCC 95 , though the burden of proving the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt is on the prosecution, it is not the law or invariable rule that whenever the accused sustains an injury in the same occurrence, the prosecution has to explain the injuries, failure of which will mean that the prosecution has suppressed the truth and also the origin and genesis of the occurrence. When the prosecution comes with a definite case that the offence has been committed by the accused and proves its case beyond any reasonable doubt, it becomes hardly necessary for the prosecution to again explain how and in what circumstances injuries have been inflicted on the person of the accused. Moreover, prosecution has to explain only visible injuries if it is established that accused sustained it in the same transaction. As mentioned above injuries of Machley and Vishwa Nath were superficial and the injuries of Vijai Bahadur appears to have been subsequently manufactured, the prosecution was not under obligation to explain the above injuries. Therefore, non-explanation of the injuries of the accused is not fatal to the prosecution story, which has been proved by the evidence of Suresh Chandra (P.W. 4) and injured witness Jagdish (P.W. 6) whose presence on the spot is admitted. Therefore, non-explanation of the injuries of the accused is not fatal to the prosecution story, which has been proved by the evidence of Suresh Chandra (P.W. 4) and injured witness Jagdish (P.W. 6) whose presence on the spot is admitted. (18) The learned counsel for the appellant lastly pointed out that the two of the accused, namely, Machley and Vijai Bahadur were acquitted by the trial court on the same evidence and, therefore, appellant Vishwa Nath alone could not be convicted. He also placed reliance on the case of Koli Nana Bhana vs. State of Gujarat, 1986 Cr LJ 571 (Guj HC). But having gone through the evidence on the record and the ground on which Machley and Vijai Bahadur were accorded benefit of doubt by the trial court, we find no force in the above contention. Machley was accorded benefit of doubt on the ground that he was real uncle of Suresh Chandra (P.W. 4), Ramesh (P.W. 5) and Jagdish (P.W. 6) and Brother-in-law of Smt. Maharani Devi deceased and in such a situation, he would have not exhorted as the only role assigned to him was that of exhortation and Vijai Bahadur was accorded benefit of doubt on the ground that his right hand was paralysed and he could not fire. This shows that the benefit of doubt was accorded to those persons on their role and physical incapability and not on the ground that evidence on record was not sufficient to hold them guilty. Therefore, it cannot be said that two views were taken on the same evidence. The trial court itself has held that prosecution has established its case beyond all reasonable doubt. Having thoroughly considered the evidence on record, we are of the view that appellant Vishwa Nath was rightly convicted under Sections 302 and 307, I.P.C. and sentences of imprisonment for life under Section 302, I.P.C. and 7 years R.I. Under Section 307, I.P.C. appear appropriate. Thus, we find no force in the appeal. (19) The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. Conviction and sentence of appellant Vishwa Nath under Sections 302 and 307, I.P.C. are confirmed. He is on bail granted by this Court. He shall surrender before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mainpuri, to serve out the sentences. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mainpuri is also directed to procure the attendance of the appellant and to send him to jail for serving out the sentences. He is on bail granted by this Court. He shall surrender before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mainpuri, to serve out the sentences. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mainpuri is also directed to procure the attendance of the appellant and to send him to jail for serving out the sentences. Office is directed to send a copy of the judgment to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mainpuri immediately, who shall submit compliance report within a month.