JUDGMENT 1. - Through the appeal, the appellants have called in question the judgment dated 25th of June 1998 of the learned Special Judge-Cum Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur, whereby he convicted Afzal Ahmed Under Sections 302 and 324 IPC: and Shabir Ahmed and Abrar Ahmed under Section 323 and 325/34 IPC. Afzal was sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- under the first count and rigorous imprisonment for one and half year under the second count. Shabir and Abrar were sentenced under Section 323 I.P.C. to six months rigorous imprisonment and under Section 325/34 IPC to two years R.I. and fine of Rs. 500/-. 2. The case relates to an occurrence which took place in the J.P. Colony, Section 3, Jaipur, at 2.45 p.m. on 15.3.1994. The F.I.R. Ex. P. 1 was lodged by Smt. Munni Devi (eye-witness), at 3.30 p.m. wherein it was stated that there was some quarrel between the children of the parties, but after some time Abrar Ahmed and Afzal, having knives in their hands and Shabir Ahmed having a lathi in his hand, came to the house of Yasin. (her brother-in-law) and they took away him out of the house and caused injuries by knife to his stomach and face. It was stated that Yasin succumbed to the injuries while he was being taken to the hospital. On this report, a case under Section 302 IPC was registered at Police Station Vidhyadhar Nagar. The Police after the completion of the usual investigation, submitted a challan. 3. The trial Judge framed charges under section 302, in the alternative under Section 302/34, 323 and 324 IPC against all the three accused, who pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined P.W. 1 Zamil Ahmed, P.W. 2 Salem, P.W. 3 Smt. Munni Devi, P.W. 4 Abdul Salam P.W. 5 Sohan Lal, P.W. 6 Kalu Khan, P.W. 7 Smt. Shakila, P.W. 8 Maqbool Kureshi, P.W. 9 Mohd. Shahid P.W. 10, Hayat Khan, P.W. 11 Salim, P.W. 12 Dr. Shital Jain, P.W. 13 Shiv Shanker Meena, P.W. 14 Vijay Ram, P.W. 15 Ravindra Singh, PW. 16 Narendra Singh, P.W. 17 Dr. Dharmendra Sharma, and P.W. 18 Shokat. Accused in their statements under Section 313 Cr. P.C. denied accusation. They examined Narendra Singh S.H.O. in their defence. Shahid P.W. 10, Hayat Khan, P.W. 11 Salim, P.W. 12 Dr. Shital Jain, P.W. 13 Shiv Shanker Meena, P.W. 14 Vijay Ram, P.W. 15 Ravindra Singh, PW. 16 Narendra Singh, P.W. 17 Dr. Dharmendra Sharma, and P.W. 18 Shokat. Accused in their statements under Section 313 Cr. P.C. denied accusation. They examined Narendra Singh S.H.O. in their defence. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the trial court held that the offence under Section 302 or 302/34 IPC was not established against Shabir Ahmad and Abrar Ahmad and offence under Section 323 IPC was not established against Afzal. He, therefore, acquitted them of those offences. Holding that the prosecution has brought home the guilt against accused Afzal under sections 302 and 324 IPC and against Shabir Ahmad and Abrar under Sections 325/34 and 323 IPC, he convicted and sentenced them as stated above. 4. Mr. Surana, learned counsel for the appellants, contended that the trial court has not properly appreciated by evidence and has erred in relying on the statements of P.W. 1 Zamil Ahmad, P.W. 2 Salam, P.W. 3 Smt. Munni and P.W. 7 Smt. Shakila. His contention was that the witnesses have changed the place of occurrence during the court of the trial. According to him, Zamil Ahmad and Salem had no cause to be present at the place of occurrence. He pointed out that the other eye-witnesses have not supported the prosecution. 5. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor tried to support the judgment of the trial Court. His contention was that Zamil Ahmad was having a house near the place of occurrence and Salam has given satisfactory reason for his presence there. He contended that the so called improvements made by Smt. Munni Devi, do not render the prosecution case doubtful. 6. We have given the submissions our anxious consideration. First, it is to be seen whether Zamil Ahmad had seen this occurrence. In his examination-in-chief, the witness says that he was in his house when he heard the cries and as he went out of his house, Shabir and Abrar were beating Yasin and Afzal brought a knife and caused injuries to Yasin. First, it is to be seen whether Zamil Ahmad had seen this occurrence. In his examination-in-chief, the witness says that he was in his house when he heard the cries and as he went out of his house, Shabir and Abrar were beating Yasin and Afzal brought a knife and caused injuries to Yasin. It has come in the cross-examination of the witness that he did not reside in the house situate near the place of occurrence permanently and that he was doing his business in Jhotwara, which was far away from the place of occurrence. The witness admits that it was not the off day on the date of occurrence. It is significant to point out that in the site inspection memo Ex. P 3 the house of the witness has no where been shown. In his deposition the witness given his residence of Nindar Rao Ji Ka Rasta, which it was admitted during the course of arguments, was far away from the place of occurrence. Therefore, there could not be any cause for this witness to be present at the time of occurrence.It is significant to point out that the witness did not even help in lifting injured Yasin and he did not accompany him to the hospital. He even could not say as to who had taken Yasin to the hospital. The unnatural conduct of `he witness shows that he had not seen the occurrence.The witness could not state as to what dress was being worn by the accused at the time of occurrence. He even does not know as to how many louses were situate in between the houses of Yasin and the accused. The lame of the witness does not find place in the FIR Ex. P 1.All the aforesaid facts clearly show that the witness had not seen the occurrence and he has been introduced as eye witness during the course of investigation. 7. The same is true for P.W. 2 Salam. According to this witness, he had gone to purchase buffalos at Amani Shah Ka Nala and he had seen that Shabir and Abrar were beating Yasin and Afzal had stabbed Yasin. The witness admits that he was not resident of the area where the occurrence had taken place. He further admits that the place from where he had purchased buffalos was half a km. The witness admits that he was not resident of the area where the occurrence had taken place. He further admits that the place from where he had purchased buffalos was half a km. away from the place of occurrence and that he did not know the accused and Yasin from before. He also admits that he did not intervene in the occurrence. The name of this witness does not find place in the F.I.R. Not only that, he was interrogated some 15 to 20 days after the occurrence. All these facts go to show that the witness had not seen the occurrence. He was introduced as eye witness at the later stage of the investigation. 8. Now remains the testimony of P.W. 3 Munni Devi and P.W. 7 Shakila, Shakila is the wife of deceased. Her presence at the place of occurrence was natural. She deposes that she was cooking food in the kitchen when her child informed her about the incident and she rushed up to the place of occurrence. She says that she had seen accused Afzal causing knife blows to her husband. She also says that Abrar and Shabir had beaten her husband by their hands. It is true that in the police statement Ex. D. 3 she had not stated certain facts which she says in the Court but that does not render her testimony unreliable. It is common knowledge that the police statements are not recorded in great detail. Moreover, the mental condition of Shakila could not be perfect at the time she was interrogated by the Police as she had lost her husband. Of course, the witness has made improvement that the accused had given threatening to the interveners which fact she had not told to police but on that ground her entire testimony cannot be rejected. In our opinion, the trial court has not erred when it has placed reliance on her testimony and held that in the occurrence Afzal had caused knife injuries to Yasin and Shabir and Abrar had given beatings to him by hands. 9. Munni Devi P.W. 3, though, is resident of different place, but being the real sister of Shakila, was there in the house of the deceased at the time of occurrence. She says that she had seen accused Afzal inflicting knife blows to her brother-in-law and the two other accused causing injuries to him. 9. Munni Devi P.W. 3, though, is resident of different place, but being the real sister of Shakila, was there in the house of the deceased at the time of occurrence. She says that she had seen accused Afzal inflicting knife blows to her brother-in-law and the two other accused causing injuries to him. This witness has also made certain improvements but on the basis of the improvements. her entire testimony cannot be rejected. It is significant to point out that she herself had suffered injuries in the occurrence when she tried to intervene. She had suffered one incised wound on her right middle finger According to her, this injury was caused by Afzal by the knife. Her injury report is Ex. P 16, which stands proved by the testimony of Dr. Dharmendra PW. 17.In the FI.R. the place of occurrence was stated to be just out side the house of Yasin, and Munni Devi in her statement also says that the incident had taken place outside the house of her sister. However, according to Shakila, the occurrence had taken place out side the hosue of Akil Mohd. As the distance between two houses i.e. the house of deceased and that of Akil is not very much, it appears Munni Devi makes this statement that the occurrence had taken place out side the house of Yasin. It is significant to point out that the blood was found by the I.O. at place `X' in the site plan, which was near the house of Akil Ahmed. Therefore, the occurrence had certainly taken place out side the house of Akil Mohd. The statement of Munni Devi is to be understood in this manner that as the distance of two points is not much, the witness thinks that the occurrence had taken place near the house of Yasin. Munni Devi herself says that Yasin was taken infront of the house of Akil Mohammad. It appears that incident started taking place from near the house of Yasin but the injuries were caused near the house of Akil Mohammed. The discrepancy appearing in the statement of Munni Devi as to the place of occurrence, therefore, can not be given much importance as to throw away the prosecution case. 10. Apart from the direct evidence, there is the evidence of recovery of blood stained knife at the instance of Afzal accused. The discrepancy appearing in the statement of Munni Devi as to the place of occurrence, therefore, can not be given much importance as to throw away the prosecution case. 10. Apart from the direct evidence, there is the evidence of recovery of blood stained knife at the instance of Afzal accused. P.W. 16 Narendra Singh deposes that Afzal had given him the information Ex. P 12, whereupon he recovered the knife at his instance vide recovery memo Ex. P 13, He also says that he had sealed the knife at the place of recovery and had sent the same to the F.S.L. The report of.F.S.L. Ex. P 17 shows that the knife was stained with blood of human origin. Though the group of the blood on the various articles could not be determined due to disintegration yet the recovery of a knife, which was stained with blood of human origin at the instance of the accused, is the strongest circumstance against him. This circumstantial evidence strengthens the testimony of Munni and Shakila. 11. By the evidence produced. it is fully established that the Afzal had caused multiple injuries by knife to Yasin. The Medical Officer gives categorical statement that the incised and stab wounds suffered by Yasin were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. As such, the trial court has not erred in convicting appellant Afzal under Section 302 IPC. His conviction under Section 324 IPC for the injury caused to Munni is also well merited. 12. The trial court has also not erred in convicting both other appellants Shabir and Abrar under Section 325/34 and 323 because it is fully established that both the accused had given beatings by fists to the deceased. Medical Officer found that there was fracture on the nasal bone of the deceased. Since both the accused had given beatings together and they had caused many injuries, the trial court has rightly held that both of them are liable under Section 325 with the aid of Section 34 IPC. Their conviction under Sections 325/34 and 323 IPC, therefore, has to be maintained. 13. The last contention of Mr. Since both the accused had given beatings together and they had caused many injuries, the trial court has rightly held that both of them are liable under Section 325 with the aid of Section 34 IPC. Their conviction under Sections 325/34 and 323 IPC, therefore, has to be maintained. 13. The last contention of Mr. Surana was that the occurrence had taken place more than six years back and appellants Abrar and Shabir have already remained in prison for abut five months and, therefore, they may not be sent to jail again and may be dealt with under the Probation of Offenders Act.It is noticed that this was the first offence of the appellants. The apart, Shabir is an old man of more than 65 years. Taking all the facts and circumstances, we think it a fit case in which Shabir and Abrar are dealt with under the Probation of Offenders Act. 14. Consequently, the appeal of Afzal Ahmed being devoid of merit, is dismissed.Appeal of Abrar and Shabir succeeds in part. While maintaining their conviction, the sentence are set-aside. It is directed that they shall be released on probation if each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- with one surety of the like amount undertaking to keep peace and be of good behaviour for a period of two years, and to appear, if called upon to do so during that period to undergo the sentence. Both the appellants are given four weeks time to furnish bail bonds in the trial court, failing which the sentences awarded by the trial court shall revive.Order accordingly. *******