U. S. TRIPATHI, J. This appeal has been directed against the judgement and order dated 6th March, 1981, passed by the learned Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Allahabad in Sessions Trial No. 132 of 1979, convicting appellant Lal Bahadur under Sections 148, 302, 323 read with 149 and 324 I. P. C. and sentencing him to undergo R. I. for a period of two years under Section 148, imprisonment for life under Section 302 I. P. C. , R. I. for a period of six months under Section 323 read with 149 I. P. C. and R. I. for a period of one year under Section 324 I. P. C. , convicting appellant Hira Lal under Sections 148, 302/149, 323/149 and 324 I. P. C. and sentencing him to R. I. for a period of two years under Section 148 I. P. C. , imprisonment for life under Section 302 read with Section 149 I. P. C. , R. I. for a period of six month under Section 323 read with 149 I. P. C. and R. I. for a period of one year under Section 324 I. P. C. and convicting appellants Gaya Prasad, Sarjoo Prasad, Sukh Lal, Jagdeo Prasad and Dashrath under Sections 147, 302 read with 149, 323 and 324 read with 149 I. P. C. and sentencing them to one year R. I. under Section 147 I. P. C. , imprisonment for life under Section 302 read with 149 I. P. C. , R. I. for a period of one year under Section 324 read with 149 I. P. C. and R. I. for a period of six months under Section 323 I. P. C. All the substantive sentences of the above appellants were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution story, briefly stated, is as under: - Appellants Gaya Prasad, Sarjoo Prasad and Lal Bahadur are real brothers and sons of Ram Nath. Appellants Dashrath and Hira Lal are the sons of appellant Gaya Prasad. Appellant Sukh Lal is the first cousin brother of appellants Gaya Prasad, Sarjoo Prasad and Lal Bahadur, while appellant Jagdeo Prasad is son of Bhagwandin and Pattidar of other appellants. Appellants Dashrath and Hira Lal are the sons of appellant Gaya Prasad. Appellant Sukh Lal is the first cousin brother of appellants Gaya Prasad, Sarjoo Prasad and Lal Bahadur, while appellant Jagdeo Prasad is son of Bhagwandin and Pattidar of other appellants. Gulab Chand deceased was cousin brother of Ram Autar (P. W. 1), Sohan Lal (P. W. 2) and Bachau Lal (P. W. 3) as Lallu Lal, father of Gulab Chand deceased, Raja Ram, father of Ram Autar (P. W. 1) and Sohan Lal (P. W. 2) and Giridhari, father of Bachau Lal (P. W. 3) were real brothers. All the appellants, deceased Gulab Chand, Ram Autar (P. W. 1), Sohan Lal (P. W. 2) and Bachau Lal (P. W. 3) are residents of village Hari Ram Patti alias Katnai, P. S. Mau Aima (now Baharia), district Allahabad. Gulab Chand deceased, Ram Autar (P. W. 1), Sohan Lal (P. W. 2) and Bachau Lal (P. W. 3) had their joint chak out land towards south of house of appellant Gaya Prasad. The appellants were claiming their ownership over said land. On the morning of 28-11-1978, Gulab Chand deceased, Ram Autar (P. W. 1), Sohan Lal (P. W. 2) and Bachau Lal (P. W. 3) were constructing a cattle shed over their above chak out land by bricks. At about 11 a. m. , appellant Lal Bahadur armed with Pharsa, Hira Lal armed with Katwansa (semi circular sharp edged weapon fitted in a long stick) and appellants Gaya Prasad, Sarjoo Prasad, Dashrath, Sukh Lal and Jagdeo Prasad armed with Lathis came to the place where cattle shed was being constructed. They started abusing the deceased and his cousin brothers named above, exhorted that it would not be tolerated further and they should be killed. On above exhortation, appellant Lal Bahadur inflicted Pharsa blow on the head of Gulab Chand deceased, who sustained injury moved 2 to 4 steps and fell down. Hira Lal inflicted Katawansa blow on Sohan Lal (P. W. 2), Lal Bahadur appellant again inflicted Pharsa blow on Sohan Lal (P. W. 2 ). The other appellants inflicted Lathi blows on Ram Autar (P. W. 1), Sohan Lal (P. W. 2) and Bachau Lal (P. W. 3 ). On the alarm raised by witnesses Kishori Lal, Jamuna and several others of the village rushed to the spot and the appellants ran away. The other appellants inflicted Lathi blows on Ram Autar (P. W. 1), Sohan Lal (P. W. 2) and Bachau Lal (P. W. 3 ). On the alarm raised by witnesses Kishori Lal, Jamuna and several others of the village rushed to the spot and the appellants ran away. Gulab Chand deceased became unconscious on account of injury on his head. He was brought to his house on a charpai. At about 2 p. m. he was taken by Ram Autar (P. W. 1), Sohan Lal (P. W. 2), Bachau Lal (P. W. 3) and others on a charpai for Allahabad. They reached Baharia at about 4. 30 p. m. The last bus for Allahabad had passed from Baharia at 4 p. m. Therefore, they missed the bus for Allahabad. They waited for truck or tempo till 7 p. m. and when it was not available, they came to Sikandara at about 9 p. m. No. conveyance was available at Sikandara also, therefore, they stayed in the night at Sikandara. On the next morning they started for Allahabad taking Gulab Chand deceased on a charpai. They reached Tej Bahadur Sapru (Beli) Hospital via Kamla Nagar, Pandila and Phaphamau at 11 a. m. Gulab Chand died out side the hospital. His dead body was left in the Hospital. Bachau Lal (P. W. 3) and Sohan Lal (P. W. 2) were medically examined by Dr. Anurag (P. W. 5) at 12 noon and 12. 15 p. m. respectively at Tej Bahadur Sapru Hospital and the Doctor found lacerated wounds, contusions and abrasions on their person and prepared injury report (Ext. Ka-7 and Ka-8 ). 3. The information of death of Gulab Chand deceased was sent to P. S. Cantonment from the Hospital by means of a memo, which was received at said police station at 2. 30 p. m. On receipt of above information, Sub Inspector Mohammad Safer Khan (P. W. 4) reached Tej Bahadur Sapru Hospital and conducted inquest of the dead body of deceased. He prepared inquest report (Ext. Ka-2) and other relevant papers (Ext. Ka-3 to Ext Ka-6 ). The dead body was sealed and sent for post mortem through Constable Chandrapati Singh Yadav (P. W. 8) and Home Guard Shiv Charan for post mortem. 4. Ram Autar (P. W. 1) then prepared report of the occurrence (Ext. He prepared inquest report (Ext. Ka-2) and other relevant papers (Ext. Ka-3 to Ext Ka-6 ). The dead body was sealed and sent for post mortem through Constable Chandrapati Singh Yadav (P. W. 8) and Home Guard Shiv Charan for post mortem. 4. Ram Autar (P. W. 1) then prepared report of the occurrence (Ext. Ka-1) and lodged the same at P. S. Colonelganj at 7 p. m. Chik, F. I. R. (Ext. Ka-13) was prepared by Head Constable Badri Pratap Narain Singh (P. W. 9), who made an endorsement of the same at G. D. report (Ext. Ka-14) and registered a case against the appellants under Sections 147, 148, 329, 323, 324 and 304 I. P. C. 5. Since, the case related to P. S. Mau Aima, the papers of the case were sent to said Police Station, which were received there on 30-11-1978 at 8. 30 p. m. , the endorsement of which was made by Constable Moharrir Prabhu Nath Singh at G. D. report (Ext. Ka- 15 ). 6. Autopsy on the dead body of Gulab Chand deceased was conducted on 30-11- 1978 by Dr. Chandra Shekhar (P. W. 7), who found one lacerated wound on right side head and abrasions on left forearm and right side abdomen as ante mortem injuries and cause of death due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante mortem injury. The Doctor prepared post mortem report (Ext. Ka-12 ). 7. The investigation of the case was taken by Sri Mohan Ram (P. W. 6) who interrogated Ram Autar (P. W. 1), Sohan Lal (P. W. 2) and Bachau Lal (P. W. 3) and other witnesses on 30-11-1978. On same day he inspected the place of occurrence and prepared site plan (Ext. Ka-9 ). He took into possession blood stained Baniyan of Sohan Lal (P. W. 2) and Bachau Lal (P. W. 3) and prepared recovery memo (Ext. Ka-10 ). On 9-12-1978, the I. O. interrogated other witnesses. On 18-12-1978, he interrogated appellants and on completion of investigation submitted charge sheet (Ext. Ka-11) against the appellants on 20-12-1978. 8. Cognizance of the case was taken by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions. 9. Ka-10 ). On 9-12-1978, the I. O. interrogated other witnesses. On 18-12-1978, he interrogated appellants and on completion of investigation submitted charge sheet (Ext. Ka-11) against the appellants on 20-12-1978. 8. Cognizance of the case was taken by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions. 9. The learned Additional Sessions Judge charged appellant Lal Bahadur for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 302 (simpliciter), 323 read with 149 and 324 I. P. C. and appellant Hira Lal for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 302 read with 149, 323 read with 149 and 324 I. P. C. The appellants Gaya Prasad, Sarjoo Prasad, Sukh Lal, Jagdeo Prasad and Dashrath were charged for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 302 read with 149, 324 read with 149 and 323 I. P. C. The appellants pleaded not guilty and contended that they were falsely implicated on account of old enmity. However, they admitted their inter- se relationship. 10. The prosecution in support of its case examined Ram Autar (P. W. 1), Sohan Lal (P. W. 2) and Bachau Lal (P. W. 3) as witnesses of fact, besides Sub-Inspector Safer Khan (P. W. 4), Mohan Ram (P. W. 6), Dr. Chandra Shekhar (P. W. 7), Constable Chandrapati Singh Yadav (P. W. 8), Head Constable Badri Pratap Narain Singh (P. W. 9) and Constable Parmanand Dubey (P. W. 10 ). The appellants did not adduce any evidence in their defence. 11. The learned Additional Sessions Judge on considering the evidence of the prosecution held that prosecution had successfully proved the guilt of the appellants for the offences they were charged with and accordingly, convicted and sentenced them as mentioned above. 12. Aggrieved with their above conviction and sentence, the appellants preferred this appeal. 13. During pendency of the appeal, appellant No. 2 Sarjoo Prasad and appellant No. 4 Dashrath died. Therefore, the appeal on behalf of these two appellants (Sarjoo Prasad and Dashrath) was abated, vide, order dated 25-7-2001 passed by this Court. 14. We have heard Sri G. S. Chaturvedi, Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of remaining appellants and learned A. G. A. for the State of U. P. and have gone through the evidence on record. 15. The case of the prosecution was that Gulab Chand deceased sustained injuries in the occurrence under consideration and died on account of injuries. 14. We have heard Sri G. S. Chaturvedi, Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of remaining appellants and learned A. G. A. for the State of U. P. and have gone through the evidence on record. 15. The case of the prosecution was that Gulab Chand deceased sustained injuries in the occurrence under consideration and died on account of injuries. The appellants have not disputed the identity, death and cause of death of Gulab Chand deceased. Ram Autar (P. W. 1), Sohan Lal (P. W. 2) and Bachau Lal (P. W. 3) had stated that Gulab Chand deceased became unconscious on sustaining injury on his head. He was brought to Tej Bahadur Sapru Hospital, Allahabad, where he died before any medical aid could be given. The information regarding arrival of dead body of Gulab Chand deceased was sent to P. S. Cantonment, which was received there at 2. 30 p. m. on 29-11-1978. Sub Inspector Safer Khan (P. W. 4) conducted inquest of the dead body, sealed and sent it for post mortem through Constable Chandrapati Singh Yadav (P. W. 8) and Home Guard Sheo Charan. Constable Chandrapati Singh Yadav (P. W. 8) stated before the Court that he took the sealed dead body of deceased from Tej Bahadur Sapru Hospital to mortuary at Swarup Rani Nehru Hospital. 16. Dr. Chandra Shekhar (P. W. 7), who conducted autopsy on the dead body of Gulab Chand deceased stated that the deceased had average built body, rigor mortis present in all the four limbs. He found following ante mortem injuries on the person of the deceased: - (1) Lacerated wound 1"x1/4"x scalp deep on the right side of the head. 3 1/2" above the right pinna. (2) Abrasion 1 1/2" x 1/4" on the posterior aspect of the middle of left forearm. 2 1/2" above the left wrist joint. (3) Abrasion 1/4" x 1/10" on the upper and right side of the abdomen. The internal examination showed fracture of skull (Right Parietal bone) corresponding to injury No. 1. Haematoma 3"x2" was found underneath right parietal bone of skull. Brain was congested and clotted blood was found under the fractured bone on right half of brain at its middle. Stomach contained 2 ml. fluid. Large intestine was half full. The cause of death was shock and haemorrhage due to head injury. 17. Haematoma 3"x2" was found underneath right parietal bone of skull. Brain was congested and clotted blood was found under the fractured bone on right half of brain at its middle. Stomach contained 2 ml. fluid. Large intestine was half full. The cause of death was shock and haemorrhage due to head injury. 17. The evidence of ocular witness and that of Sub-Inspector Safer Khan (P. W. 4), Constable Chandrapati Singh Yadav (P. W. 8) and Dr. Chandra Shekhar (P. W. 7) had not been challenged. Therefore, it is established that Gulab Chand deceased died on account of head injury. 18. The prosecution has further alleged that Sohan Lal (P. W. 2) and Bachau Lal (P. W. 3) also sustained injuries in the same transaction, in which the deceased sustained fatal injury. The above two witnesses were medically examined by Dr. Anurag (P. W. 5) on 29-11-1978 at 12 and 12. 15 p. m. The Doctor found following injuries on their persons: - Injuries of Bachau Lal (P. W. 3) (1) Lacerated wound 1 1/2" x 1/4" x muscle deep situated on mid and left lateral aspect of the scalp, 3 1/2" above left ear. (2) Contusion 4" x 3/4" on the back of chest, just on the right scapular region. (3) Abrasion 1/2" X 1/4" on the lateral aspect of right forearm 3" above the right wrist joint. (4) Traumatic swelling 3" x 3" on front and lower aspect of left thigh. (5) Lacerated wound 1/4" x 1/4" muscle deep. 3rd finger of left foot. The Doctor opined that all injuries were simple caused by blunt object and were about one day old. Injuries of Sohan Lal (P. W. 2) (1) Lacerated wound 2 1/2" x 1/4" muscle deep situated on left lateral aspect of scalp 4" above left ear. (2) Lacerated wound 2" x 1/4" muscle deep centrally situated on the scalp 4 1/2" above the root of nose. (3) One abraded contusion 2" x 1/2" situated on the forehead 1/2" opposite the injury No. 1. (4) Lacerated wound 1/2" x 1/4" muscle deep on the left side of forehead 1/2" above left eye brow. (5) Abrasion 3/4" x 1/2" on back of left index finger. (6) Abrasion 1/2" x 1/4" on left little finger (back ). (7) Abrasion 1/4" x 1/10" on back of left ring finger. (4) Lacerated wound 1/2" x 1/4" muscle deep on the left side of forehead 1/2" above left eye brow. (5) Abrasion 3/4" x 1/2" on back of left index finger. (6) Abrasion 1/2" x 1/4" on left little finger (back ). (7) Abrasion 1/4" x 1/10" on back of left ring finger. (8) Abrasion 1/2" x 1/4" on medical aspect of front on right thigh 8" above right knee joint. (9) Contusion 2" x 1/2" on left scapular region. The Doctor opined that all injuries were simple caused by blunt object and were about one day old. The above medical evidences have also not been challenged by the appellants. The Doctor had further stated that the injuries of both the injured could have been sustained on 28-11-1978 at 11 a. m. Therefore, it is established that above two injured sustained injuries. 19. Date, time and place of occurrence have also not been seriously disputed by the appellants. The ocular witnesses Ram Autar (P. W. 1), Sohan Lal (P. W. 2) and Bachau Lal (P. W. 3) have stated that occurrence took place on 28-11-1978 at about 11 a. m. at village Hari Ram Patti @ Katnai, P. S. Mau Aima. The above evidence had not been challenged, as there was no cross- examination on the point of date, time and place of occurrence. Regarding place of occurrence, it was contended that no blood was found on the spot and therefore, place of occurrence has not been established. The injuries of deceased and injured as mentioned in the post-mortem report and the injury reports are not such that sufficient blood would have been fallen on the spot. Moreover, the I. O. visited the spot on 30-11-1978 i. e. on 3rd day. Even, if some blood had fallen on the spot, it would have been diminished or disappeared by the foot steps of the villagers, who came on the spot at the time of occurrence and therefore, absence of blood on the spot does not rule out the place of occurrence alleged by the prosecution. Moreover, the appellants have not suggested any counter place of occurrence and according to prosecution incident took place on account of raising construction over chak out land, which was adjacent to the house of appellants. Moreover, the appellants have not suggested any counter place of occurrence and according to prosecution incident took place on account of raising construction over chak out land, which was adjacent to the house of appellants. The I. O. found raised brick wall on the spot and it further supported the prosecution case, that the incident took place where the construction was being raised. 20. The motive of the occurrence was that Gulab Chand deceased and his cousin brothers Ram Autar (P. W. 1), Sohan Lal (P. W. 2) and Bachau Lal (P. W. 3) were raising construction over their chak out land, which was adjacent to the house of the appellant Gaya Prasad and others and they were objecting the deceased and his cousin brothers from raising construction over said land, which was adjacent to their house and Mandai and therefore, they committed murder of the deceased and caused injuries to the witnesses. The ocular witnesses Ram Autar (P. W. 1), Sohan Lal (P. W. 2) and Bachau Lal (P. W. 3) have stated that the land over which they were raising construction belonged to them. The appellants have simply denied the ownership of deceased and witnesses over the said land, but have not set up any case that the above land belonged to them. However, the spot situation as shown in the site plan (Ext. Ka-9) shows that Mandai of Gaya Prasad was adjacent towards north of the land, over which the deceased and his brothers were raising construction. The appellants have filed Khasara and Khatauni extracts of certain plots, but have not given any evidence as to what was the revenue number of the land over which construction was being raised. The above documents have, therefore, not been linked with the land in question. As mentioned above, the deceased and his cousin brothers were raising construction over the land just near the Mandai of appellant Gaya Prasad and in all probabilities it had caused annoyance to the appellants, which resulted into the occurrence of the case. As such, the motive set up by the prosecution has been established. 21. The occurrence of the case admittedly took place on 28-11- 1978 at 11 a. m. , but the report of the occurrence was lodged at 7 p. m. on next day i. e. 29-11-1978 at P. S. Colonelganj in Allahabad City. Thus, there was delay of about 32 hours. 21. The occurrence of the case admittedly took place on 28-11- 1978 at 11 a. m. , but the report of the occurrence was lodged at 7 p. m. on next day i. e. 29-11-1978 at P. S. Colonelganj in Allahabad City. Thus, there was delay of about 32 hours. The prosecution has come with an explanation for the above delay. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the explanation offered by the prosecution is not convincing and therefore, inordinate delay in lodging the report falsifies the prosecution story. We have, therefore, to consider whether the explanation offered by the prosecution regarding delay in lodging the report is sufficient and delay has been explained. 22. Informant Ram Autar (P. W. 1) had stated that Gulab Chand deceased fell down after sustaining injuries on his head and became unconscious. He was taken to his house in unconscious condition. That at about 2 p. m. he, the other witnesses and the villagers took the deceased on a charpai and proceeded for Allahabad for medical treatment. They came to village Baharia at about 4. 30 p. m. and the last bus for Allahabad had left Baharia at 4 p. m. They waited at Baharia for other conveyance, such as truck or tempo till 7 p. m. , but it was not available. Then, they proceeded further and reached Sikandara at about 9 p. m. No conveyance was available to them at Sikandara and therefore they stayed in the night at Sikandara. They proceeded again on foot taking the deceased on charpai at 4 a. m. on next day and came to Tej Bahadur Sapru Hospital, Allahabad at about 11 a. m. via Kamla Nagar, Pandila and Phaphamau. Gulab Chand deceased died just on arrival at the Beli Hospital. Thereafter, injuries of injured Sohan Lal (P. W. 2) and Bachau Lal (P. W. 3) were examined and inquest of dead body of Gulab Chand deceased was conducted. Thereafter, he prepared report and went to Police Station Colonelganj, where he lodged report at 7 p. m. He further clarified that Baharia is at a distances of 5 Kos (15 Km.) from his village and Sikandara is at a distance of 5 Km. from Baharia. 23. Thereafter, he prepared report and went to Police Station Colonelganj, where he lodged report at 7 p. m. He further clarified that Baharia is at a distances of 5 Kos (15 Km.) from his village and Sikandara is at a distance of 5 Km. from Baharia. 23. It is pertinent to mention at this stage that the above explanation given by the prosecution witnesses in their evidence had not been mentioned in the F. I. R. Rather in the First Information Report, it was mentioned that the accused person while leaving the spot gave threats that in case any person went towards Police Station, he would also be killed. Therefore, the explanation offered during evidence appears an after thought. 24. Admittedly, Gulab Chand deceased became unconscious the moment he sustained injuries i. e. at about 11 a. m. on 28- 11-1978 and was brought to his house. Informant Ram Autar (P. W. 1) stated that they taking the deceased started for hospital at about 2 p. m. Why the deceased was detained at his house from 11 a. m. to 2 p. m. has not been explained. Probably this explanation has come because last bus for Allahabad left Baharia at 4 p. m. and the informant and other witnesses stated that they reached with deceased at Baharia at 4. 30 p. m. In case, the deceased was taken from his house even half an hour before 2 p. m. the last bus would have been available at Baharia and deceased would have been brought to the Hospital at Allahabad in the evening of the occurrence. Therefore, the informant and other witnesses gave wrong time of their departure from the house at 2 p. m. The informant and other witnesses were permanent residents of the village and in all probabilities they must be knowing at what time last bus for Allahabad left Baharia and would have adjusted time for their arrival at Baharia, in such a manner, so that they could catch the bus. It cannot be said that they were not knowing at what time the last bus used to leave Baharia and they accidentally missed the bus at Baharia. In these circumstances, the explanation for missing the last bus at Baharia, non- availability of conveyance at Sikandara, night stay at Sikandara and again proceeding for Allahabad on foot was purposely set up subsequently and is not convincing. 25. In these circumstances, the explanation for missing the last bus at Baharia, non- availability of conveyance at Sikandara, night stay at Sikandara and again proceeding for Allahabad on foot was purposely set up subsequently and is not convincing. 25. On the own showing of informant and other witnesses they reached along with the deceased at Tej Bahadur Sapru Hospital, Allahabad at 11 a. m. on 29-11-1978. The two injured Sohan Lal (P. W. 2) and Bachau Lal (P. W. 3) were medically examined at 12 and 12. 15 p. m. But no report was lodged just thereafter and report was ultimately lodged at P. S. Colonelganj at 7 p. m. P. S. Colonelganj is at a distance of one and half Km. from Tej Bahadur Sapru Hospital and is well connected with road and conveyance is available every time. There is no explanation for the delay from 12 noon to 7 p. m. 26. Informant Ram Autar (P. W. 1) claims to be present along with the deceased from his village upto Tej Bahadur Sapru Hospital, but the facts and circumstances of the case creates doubt about his presence with other two injured and the deceased from the village upto Tej Bahadur Sapru Hospital. Ram Autar (P. W. 1) stated that he had also sustained Lathi blow inflicted by appellant Jagdeo Prasad, but his injuries were not examined. There is no other documentary evidence to show the presence of Ram Autar (P. W. 1) in Allahabad City prior to 7 p. m. on 29-11- 1978. Therefore, there appears force in the suggestion of the defence that when the condition of Gulab Chand deceased deteriorated in the night, he was taken to Tej Bahadur Sapru Hospital from a bus in the morning and reached there at 11 a. m. where he died. It further appears that thereafter Ram Autar (P. W. 1) was called from his village and deliberations took place as to who should be made accused and after due deliberations the report was lodged at 7 p. m. Thus, the explanation offered by the prosecution regarding delay in lodging the F. I. R. is not convincing and not believable. The inordinate delay of 32 hours in lodging in the report is indicative of the fact that the name of seven appellants, six being of the same family was mentioned after due deliberations. 27. The inordinate delay of 32 hours in lodging in the report is indicative of the fact that the name of seven appellants, six being of the same family was mentioned after due deliberations. 27. The prosecution has relied on eye witness account of Ram Autar (P. W. 1), Sohan Lal (P. W. 2) and Bachau Lal (P. W. 3 ). Out of above two witnesses, Sohan Lal (P. W. 2) and Bachau Lal (P. W. 3) are injured. The learned counsel for the appellants had challenged the presence and truthfulness of the evidence of above witnesses and contended that the injuries of Sohan Lal (P. W. 2) and Bachau Lal (P. W. 3) appear to be manufactured, as they are simple one and on non vital part. He further contended that assuming that there were some injuries on the person of Sohan Lal (P. W. 2) and Bachau Lal (P. W. 3), the, injuries simply show the presence of those witnesses and injuries are no guarantee about their truthfulness and that Ram Autar (P. W. 1) was not medically examined, which indicates that there was no injury on his person. 28. As mentioned above Ram Autar (P. W. 1) and Sohan Lal (P. W. 2) are real brothers and Bachau Lal (P. W. 3) is their first cousin brother, while Gulab Chand deceased was also their first cousin brother. It is also not disputed that the deceased as well as three ocular witnesses had equal enmity with the appellants, who also belonged to one family. As mentioned above, Ram Autar (P. W. 1) also claimed that he sustained injuries in the occurrence. He clarified in his cross-examination that Lathi blow inflicted by Jagdeo Prasad appellant hit him. But he was neither medically examined nor there is any other evidence to prove injury on his person. He has not offered any explanation as to why his injuries were not medically examined. The witness is no doubt informant, but he had lodged report of the occurrence after 32 hours and the explanation for delay is not convincing. These circumstances create doubt about the presence of Ram Autar (P. W. 1) on the spot. 29. No doubt, Sohan Lal (P. W. 2) and Bachau Lal (P. W. 3) are injured witnesses and their injuries were examined on next day of the occurrence, when they reached at Tej Bahadur Sapru Hospital at Allahabad. These circumstances create doubt about the presence of Ram Autar (P. W. 1) on the spot. 29. No doubt, Sohan Lal (P. W. 2) and Bachau Lal (P. W. 3) are injured witnesses and their injuries were examined on next day of the occurrence, when they reached at Tej Bahadur Sapru Hospital at Allahabad. The injuries on the person of a witness is no doubt guarantee about his presence, but it is no guarantee that the witness is truthful. Sohan Lal (P. W. 2) and Bachau Lal (P. W. 3) are none else, but first cousins of the deceased and they were equally inimical with the appellants. The evidence of Ram Autar (P. W. 1), Sohan Lal (P. W. 2) and Bachau Lal (P. W. 3) is in total contradiction with the medical evidence. The above three ocular witnesses have stated that appellant Lal Bahadur was armed with Pharsa and appellant Hira Lal was armed with Katwansa. They have further stated appellant Lal Bahadur inflicted Pharsa blow on the head of deceased Gulab Chand. Ram Autar (P. W. 1) further stated that Hira Lal inflicted Katwansa blow on Sohan Lal and Lal Bahadur also inflicted Pharsa blow on Sohan Lal. Sohan Lal (P. W. 2) stated that Lal Bahadur inflicted Pharsa blow on his head and Hira Lal inflicted Katwansa blow on his finger and appellants having Lathis inflicted lathi blow on Bachau Lal (P. W. 3) and Ram Autar (P. W. 1 ). Bachau Lal (P. W. 3) also stated in the same manner. 30. The evidence of Dr. Chandra Shekhar (P. W. 7), who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased shows that deceased had sustained one lacerated wound and two abrasions. No incised wound was found on the person of the deceased. There is no explanation by ocular witnesses as to why the deceased had not sustained any incised wound (Pharsa injury), when Pharsa blow was inflicted on his head. There is also no explanation in the evidence of above witnesses that Pharsa was inflicted from it back side by Lal Bahadur appellant on the head of deceased. Dr. Chandra Shekhar (P. W. 7) had specifically stated that injury No. 1 of the deceased could not be caused by any sharp edged weapon. There is also no explanation in the evidence of above witnesses that Pharsa was inflicted from it back side by Lal Bahadur appellant on the head of deceased. Dr. Chandra Shekhar (P. W. 7) had specifically stated that injury No. 1 of the deceased could not be caused by any sharp edged weapon. However, a suggestion was given to him by the prosecution that in case the edge of Pharsa became blunt by cutting wood or stone, then in the case injury No. 1 of deceased could be caused. However, Dr. Chandra Shekhar (P. W. 7) could not rule out above possibility. But in our opinion, this explanation is without any basis, because none of the ocular witnesses have stated that the edge of the Pharsa had become so blunt that it could not cause any incised wound. If, the edge of the Pharsa had become blunt, there ought to have been evidence on this point and without such evidence, the statement of Dr. Chandra Shekhar (P. W. 7) that injury No. 1 could be caused in case the edge of Pharsa would have become so blunt, is without any basis. 31. Dr. Anurag, who examined injuries of Sohan Lal (P. W. 2) had also stated that all the injuries of Sohan Lal (P. W. 2) were caused by blunt object. No clarification was sought from Dr. Anurag as to why only blunt object injuries were found on the person of Sohan Lal (P. W. 2) and no Pharsa or Katwansa injury was found. There is no explanation about absence of Pharsa or Katwansa injury. 32. In these circumstances, the evidence of ocular witnesses is in total contradiction with the medical evidence. It is true that where there is conflict between medical and oral evidence, preference should be given to oral evidence, as medical evidence is simply an opinion. But this principle is not applicable in the instant case because the oral evidence and the medical evidence are poles apart and do not coincide with each other. It cannot be said that there was only minor discrepancy between oral and medical evidence, in which circumstance preference should have been given to oral evidence. 33. As mentioned above, enmity between the parties is admitted and all the witnesses and deceased are cousin brothers. It cannot be said that there was only minor discrepancy between oral and medical evidence, in which circumstance preference should have been given to oral evidence. 33. As mentioned above, enmity between the parties is admitted and all the witnesses and deceased are cousin brothers. They are, therefore, interested witnesses and their testimony does not find corroboration from medical evidence, F. I. R. and other circumstances of the case referred to above. Therefore, assuming the presence of Sohan Lal (P. W. 2) and Bachau Lal (P. W. 3) on the spot they are not truthful witnesses, as their evidence is in total contradiction with F. I. R. and medical evidence. 34. It is true that the deceased and two witnesses sustained injuries and the injuries of deceased resulted in his death, but the evidence on record does not prove that the appellants or any one of them were responsible for above injuries and the death of the deceased. 35. From our above discussions and observation, we are of the view that the prosecution has utterly failed to establish the guilt of the appellants. Therefore, the appellants were wrongly convicted and sentenced. The appeal thus succeeds. 36. We, accordingly, allow the appeal preferred by Gaya Prasad, Lal Bahadur, Hira Lal, Sukh Lal and Jagdeo Prasad and set aside their conviction and sentence and acquit them of the offences of which they stood charged with. Those appellants are on bail, their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged. They need not surrender. The appeal preferred by appellant Sarjoo Prasad and Dashrath has already abated. Appeal allowed. .