S. K. AGARWAL, J. These two appeals were preferred by Suresh, Munna, Mauji Lal, Kanka, Sohan, Mohan, Ramesh and Ghasite against their conviction and sentences under Section 302/149 IPC to life imprisonment, under Sections 325/149 IPC to one years RI, under Section 324/149 IPC to one years RI under Section 323/149 to six months RI and Suresh, Munna and Ramesh also under Section 148 IPC to six months RI, Ghasitey, Sohan, Mohan, Mauji Lal and Nanka were also convicted the sentenced to RI for six months under Section 147 IPC. All these sentences were to run concurrently. Accused Mahendra was also convicted under the above said counts but was not sentenced to imprisonment and was released on probation of good conduct as he was a child. 2. The occurrence in this case had taken place at 1. 00 p. m. on 27-6- 1979 in village Jarari, P. B. Shivrajpur. The deceased Arjun Singh, his father and brother Ram Sewak Singh were taking their meal in their house, Lala Singh called Arjun Singh to the temple on the pretext of holding a Panchayat to settle their dispute and the litigation. He accompanied Lala Singh to the temple. Little afterwards an alarm raised by Arjun was heard. The informant, Ram Sewak and his daughter-in-law came out and saw that accused Lala Singh armed with knife, Suresh Singh and Mahendra Singh armed with Tabal Ramesh and Munna with Pharsa, Shyam Lal with Ballam and Ghasite, Sohan, Mohan, Mauji, Nanka and maternal uncle of Ramesh (who in evidence was named as Raja Ram) armed with Lathis were assaulting Arjun. When the witnesses rushed to save him they were also beaten. Arjun Singh ran towards North. He was chased upto the door of Shambhu Kori. He was thrown down there and assault to death. Bharosa Singh, Ram Sewak Singh and Smt. Munni, the father, brother and wife of the deceased also suffered injuries in this incident. The incident was witnessed by Mahipat Bari, Suraj Pal Singh Thakur and many people of the village. On challenge from the witnesses the assailants ran towards East. The FIR of this occurrence was lodged on the same day at 4. 00 p. m. by Bharosa Singh, father of the deceased. 3. The trial Court after conclusion of the trial acquitted Lala Singh, Shyam Lal and Raja Ram giving them benefit of doubt. On challenge from the witnesses the assailants ran towards East. The FIR of this occurrence was lodged on the same day at 4. 00 p. m. by Bharosa Singh, father of the deceased. 3. The trial Court after conclusion of the trial acquitted Lala Singh, Shyam Lal and Raja Ram giving them benefit of doubt. Rest of the accused were convicted as discussed above. 4. The prosecution in order to support its case has produced in all 10 witnesses. Out of them Smt. Munni Devi (PW-1), Ram Sewak Singh (PW-3) and Bharosa Singh (PW-6) are eye-witnesses. The Court also summoned and examined Mahipat Bari and Suraj Pal, who were nominated as eye-witnesses in the FIR, as CW-2 and CW-3. Remaining witnesses are formal. Dr. C. K. Singh conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased. Constable Surya Bhan Singh PW-4 escorted the injured persons for medical examination. Kamta Singh PW-5 escorded the dead body to mortuary. Dr. S. K. Raghuvanshi, PW-7 medically examined Munni Devi, Bharosa Singh and Ram Sewak Singh in the evening from 7. 30 p. m. to 8. 15 p. m. Sukh Pal Singh, PW-8 is Head Moharrir. After registration of the case he prepared cheek FIR and GD entry etc. Ram Saran Singh PW-9 is first Investigating Officer. Lallan Ram, PW-10 is second Investigating Officer. He has submitted the charge-sheet, Dr. H. C. Prasad CW-1, is another Court witness, who had X-rayed the hands and skull of Munni Devi. He found fracture of left forearm bone. This is the entire evidence. 5. The accused persons denied the charges and claimed trial. Mohan stated that Mahendra used to induce his nephew to gambling. He had resisted and did not allow Ramesh to do so. Arjun Singh became angry and therefore, he has been involved. Nanka, Shyam Lal and Mauji Lal s/o Pokhar had submitted that they were taking water from the tubewell of Arjun Singh. He was charging in excess of the fixed rate. They did not pay the extra charges. A quarrel took place between them, as a result of which he was involved in the present case. No witness was, however, produced in defence. 6. Now taking up first the statements of CW-2 Suraj Pal and CW-3 Mahipat we find that these two witnesses are of no help either to the prosecution or to the defence. A quarrel took place between them, as a result of which he was involved in the present case. No witness was, however, produced in defence. 6. Now taking up first the statements of CW-2 Suraj Pal and CW-3 Mahipat we find that these two witnesses are of no help either to the prosecution or to the defence. Both of them denied their presence at the scene of occurrence. CW-2 stated that he was not present in Indalpur at the time of this incident. CW-1 claimed that he was not in Indalpur at that time. He did not know anything about the incident. He further stated in next breath that he was lying ill in his house. Both, therefore, denied to have witnessed the occurrence or otherwise they are unwilling to support the prosecution version as set-forth. These two are independent locality witnesses. 7. We are left only with the aforesaid three closely related injured eye-witnesses produced by prosecution. Munni Devi is wife of the deceased, Ram Sewak Singh PW-3 is his brother and Bharosa Singh PW-6 is father of the deceased. They had also sustained injuries in the incident. They were living in the same house and as such are most natural witnesses. 8. Learned Counsel for the appellants has urged that evidence of these witnesses cannot be accepted with corroboration from independent sources. The informant has not disclosed in the FIR that he had also sustained injuries. The FIR is not a free document. It was prepared at the police station in consultation with the Investigating Officer. The medical evidence does not corroborate the prosecution version. Lala Singh has not been attributed any role in the entire incident. It reflected adversely upon his presence and raises serious doubt regarding the first part of the prosecution case that he was to call Arjun. Suresh Singh and Mahendra are sons of Lala Singh. If Lala Singh can be involved falsely then there cannot be any guarantee about his sons participation in the incident. Complete absence of any immediate motive or any immediate cause for the appellants to assault the deceased is also a circumstance that militates against the prosecution. Mauji and Nanka amongst the lathiwalas have not been attributed any specific role of causing injuries to either of the three injured or the deceased though such roles were attributed to others. Their presence in the incident thus is highly doubtful. Mauji and Nanka amongst the lathiwalas have not been attributed any specific role of causing injuries to either of the three injured or the deceased though such roles were attributed to others. Their presence in the incident thus is highly doubtful. Appellant Munna has no concern whatsoever with any of the two sides, therefore, his presence and participation is also open to serious doubt. 9. In order to appreciate the said arguments we have to closely examine the evidence of three closely related injured witnesses to the deceased. Two independent witnesses having turned their backs on the prosecution are of no help to us. Before proceeding with the scrutiny of the remaining evidence we would like to deal with the submission regarding medical evidence and its incongruity with the evidence first. 10. The post-mortem examination report shows presence of as many as seven injuries upon the deceased. Injuries Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 are incised wounds, one is a lacerated wound and rest are multiple contusions on the back, neck, shoulder and thighs. Ribs 2 to 4 were found broken on the right side. Lung was found congested. Stomach contained 4 ounces semi digested food. Small intestine was completely empty. Large intestine was half loaded. In the opinion of the doctor death was result of shock and harmorrhage due to abovesaid injuries. Medical examination report is Ex. Ka. 1. In the opinion of the doctor death could have resulted on 27-7-1979 at 1. 00 p. m. He further opined that Injury Nos. 1 to 4 were caused by some sharp edged weapon. These injuries could be caused by knife, Pharsa, Tabal and Bhala. Injury Nos. 5 and 6 could be result of lathi blows. Injury No. 7 can also be caused by a sharp edged weapon. 11. Ballan and knife are sharp pointed weapons. They ordinarily inflict punctured wounds with clean cut margins but the doctor did not notice a single punctured wound upon the dead-body. He had further admitted that if a dead-body is kept lying on its back for two hours there are chances of coagulation of blood which may appear as contusion like appearances on the back. It is possible to read them as contusions even by an experienced surgeon. He stated that it is not possible to say affirmatively that the contusions found on the back of the deceased were due to post-mortem staining. It is possible to read them as contusions even by an experienced surgeon. He stated that it is not possible to say affirmatively that the contusions found on the back of the deceased were due to post-mortem staining. It would be ascertained only if these injuries are irreissioned. He had not opened any of these contusions to find out whether they were caused by a blunt weapon or were the result of post-mortem staining. He had further admitted that if there were other bruise on any part of the body, he must have noted that. He admitted that skin starts peeling of after 36 hours. He had not seen whether the skin was peeling of in the present case. He stated that he could not say whether hair and nail will peel of first positively. He admitted that the fractured ribs were underneath the bruise. According to him deceased must have taken his last meal within six hours of his death. It takes 2 to 2-1/2 hours for the food to be semi digested. He further admitted that he had not noted the condition of the food present in the stomach. This was his first post- mortem examination. Defence has challenged very seriously the medical evidence regarding the use of so many Lathies in the incident. 12. In order to test the submission we have to examine the injuries of other injured persons also, viz. Munni Devi, Ram Sewak Singh and Bharosa Singh. They were examined by Dr. S. K. Raghuvanshi, PW-7. Their injury reports are Ex. Ka-3, Ex. Ka-4 and Ex. Ka-5. 13. Ram Sewak Singh was medically examined on the date of occurrence itself at 7. 30 p. m. He had sustained two lacerated wounds on the forehead. Both of them were bone deep. There were also swelling on the right forearm and right side chest and thumb. These injuries in the opinion of the doctor were caused by some hard blunt object and were simple. 14. Smt. Munni Devi, wife of the deceased was examined soon thereafter at 7. 45 a. m. She had a cross incised wound on the right posterior side of head. 5. 5 cm x 1/2 cm x bone deep with the other crossing it, 5. 5 cm x 1/2 cm x bone deep. The victim was found conscious. 14. Smt. Munni Devi, wife of the deceased was examined soon thereafter at 7. 45 a. m. She had a cross incised wound on the right posterior side of head. 5. 5 cm x 1/2 cm x bone deep with the other crossing it, 5. 5 cm x 1/2 cm x bone deep. The victim was found conscious. She had also two lacerated wounds on right side and left side of her head. There was swelling at the base of occipit above neck posteriorly. Three abraded contusion on left side of face, side by side were also noticed. Traumatic swelling on the base of left arm involving left elbow joint and another abraded contusion on inner aspect of left forearm were also there. All injuries except injury No. 6 were simple. Duration was found fresh. X-ray was advised for injury No. 6. X-ray showed fracture of bone of right forearm. 15. Bharosa Singh was also medically examined at 8. 15 p. m. on the same day. One contusion was on the left side chest front over 6th rib of the size of 3 cm x 2 cm. Tenderness over 5, 6 and 7th rib was also noted. Swelling on the backside head (occipit) was noted. Abraded contusion 3 cm x 1/5 cm with swelling in an area of 8 cm x 4 cm oblique in direction on outer aspect of right forearm 8 cm from elbow joint was also found. All the injuries were simple in nature caused by some blunt object. Only Munni Devi had sustained two incised wound. Rest of injuries of these injured were of blunt weapon. In all these injured persons had suffered as many as 12 blunt weapon injuries including some swellings apart from one injury having multiple contusion on the back of deceased Arjun Singh. This injury contained fracture of some of the ribs. 16. Thus the careful analysis of the medical evidence fully established participation of some lathiwalas in the incident. Total number of injuries of sharp edged weapon upon the deceased as well as injured persons are six including two upon the head of PW-1. Use of some sharp edged weapon in the incident is thus also amply proved. 17. 16. Thus the careful analysis of the medical evidence fully established participation of some lathiwalas in the incident. Total number of injuries of sharp edged weapon upon the deceased as well as injured persons are six including two upon the head of PW-1. Use of some sharp edged weapon in the incident is thus also amply proved. 17. The argument of the defence Counsel that the injuries upon the persons of the deceased, on his back, neck, shoulder and thigh, noted as contusions could be due to post-mortem staining, in our opinion is devoid of any force. Underneath the contusion found on the back, ribs two to four, were found fractured on right side. This completely rules out these injuries to be the result of post-mortem staining. The incompetence of the Medical Officer, as is apparent in the present case, also cannot be given any undue weight to extend any benefit to the defence. Definitely the Medical Officer in this case was a novice to the art of post-mortem. It was his first post-mortem examination. It is pity that a raw doctor was entrusted to conduct the autopsy without the presence of any senior doctor to guide him. In the circumstance, whatever PW-2 Dr. A. K. Singh has stated favourable to the defence cannot be taken as gospel truth. Medical examinations of injuries persons had taken place promptly on the very day itself soon after registration of the case. Their medical examinations were over within 45 minutes. This further proves that these injure were neither self-suffered not suffered through any friendly hands. Large number of these injuries are on the head. PW-7 has clearly stated that these injuries could be sustained by these persons on 27-6-1979 at 1. 00 p. m. He had admitted that he had kept injury Nos. 3, 4 and 5 of Ram Sewak Singh under observation because he was unable to ascertain the weapon that caused these injuries. The injured had not visited him again,. He further stated that he had not prepared any supplementary report of injuries of Munni Devi because no X-ray plates were produced before him. CW- 1 Dr. H. C. Prasad (Radiologist) has proved her X-ray report. 18. Therefore, we entertain no doubt in our mind about use of a number of Lathi in the incident. There is no conflict between medical evidence and eye-witness account. CW- 1 Dr. H. C. Prasad (Radiologist) has proved her X-ray report. 18. Therefore, we entertain no doubt in our mind about use of a number of Lathi in the incident. There is no conflict between medical evidence and eye-witness account. The submission to this effect is accordingly discarded. 19. Testimony of PW-1 Munni Devi, wife of the deceased is of great importance as she herself sustained injuries during the course of the incident. She has specified all the weapons these assailants were armed with. She had also corroborated the fact that Arjun Singh was taking his meal alongwith his brother and father when Lala Singh called him to come to the temple to settle the dispute. He accompanied him to the temple. Little thereafter she had heard cries of her husband. The alarm had attracted her, the father-in-law and her brother-in-law to the spot. She also attributed specific role of causing knife injuries upon her husband to acquitted accused Lal Singh. She also stated that Suresh Singh and Mahendra Singh were armed with Tabbals, Ramesh and Munna were armed with Pharsa, Shyam Lal was armed with Ballam and Mauji, Nanka, Sohan, Mohan Ghasite, Raja Ram were armed with Lathies. All of them were assaulting her husband. According to her there were in all 12 assailants. When the witnesses tried to save the deceased, they were also attacked and beaten. She stated that immediately on the opening of assault her husband ran towards North. He was chased. He fell down at the door of Shambhu Kori. Here he was assaulted to death. She had further disclosed that at the time of the incident a litigation was going on between her husband and Lala Singh. According to her accused Raja Ram is maternal uncle of Ramesh. She was subjected to lengthy cross-examination in order to find out whether she knew her neighbours or not. She was suggested that Subedar Singh had assaulted them with his companions. She has denied knowing Subedar Singh. She also denied that he lives in front of her house. It is admitted that on both side of the road in front of her house there are many houses. People were living in these houses. She further admitted that the house of Lala Singh is on the other end of the village. She has denied knowing Subedar Singh. She also denied that he lives in front of her house. It is admitted that on both side of the road in front of her house there are many houses. People were living in these houses. She further admitted that the house of Lala Singh is on the other end of the village. She denied that she had eloped with Arjun Singh from Jhansi or that Munnu Singh got them arrested. She further denied that any case under Section 107 Crpc was ever prosecuted against Arjun Singh and she was handed over to Munnu Singh. She further denied that it is also wrong that six months afterwards she again fled with Arjun Singh to Kanpur. She further denied as false that her husband prosecuted Subedar Singh and Lala Singh etc. She further admitted that there is a temple in front of her house. There is a well also. Few peoples used to take water from it. No body visited this temple for offering Pooja. None from her house also offered any prayer at this temple. Her family members used to sit at the temple and also go to take water from the well. There is another temple in the village where people go to offer Puja. She admitted that she does not visit anyhouse of the village nor she knows any body who live in those houses. She further admitted that Ramesh accused had taken her field on batai. He was not giving their share. He had taken on loan one bag of wheat that too was not returned by him. He owned them about Rs. 500 or 700 which was regularly demanded by her husband from him. She admitted very clearly that they were nursing grouse against Lala Singh but denied that on account of this animosity she had named Lala Singh and Ramesh in the incident. She admitted that Suresh Singh and Mahendra Singh are sons of Lala Singh. She further admitted that now there is no major male member left in their family. She admitted that Munna is a Muslim. She stated that this Munna had earlier tried to terrorise them. She stated that he came to kill them at the instance of Ramesh. She further stated that Munna and Ghasite are friends of Ramesh. She stated that during the Marpit only Mahipat and Surya Pal came to the spot. She admitted that Munna is a Muslim. She stated that this Munna had earlier tried to terrorise them. She stated that he came to kill them at the instance of Ramesh. She further stated that Munna and Ghasite are friends of Ramesh. She stated that during the Marpit only Mahipat and Surya Pal came to the spot. She denied her statement to the Investigating Officer that the incident was witnessed apart from Mahipat and Surya Pal by many villagers and they challenged the accused. She was unable to explain this statement. Her husband was not stopped by her father-in-law from going alone. She stated that her husband had not taken full food. He left immediately. The alarm was heard within five minutes of his departure. They came out from their house and saw the assault upon Arjun being made at the platform of the temple. The accused assaulted them below the platform. She admitted that her husband in the meantime ran for about 100 yards towards north. The report was transcribed near her husbands dead- body. Her brother-in-law had sustained a Phrasa blow on his head. He had also sustained injuries on his hand and back but was not feeling any difficulty in transcribing the FIR. Daroga reached the place of occurrence at 2/2. 30 p. m. The Sub-Inspector had left the village after 7. 00 p. m. i. e. just after the departure of the dead body to mortuary. Thereafter the Investigating Officer never visited her village. She denied that the report was transcribed by Ram Sewak Singh on the dictation of the Investigating Officer. She denied that her husband was assaulted inside her house. She was suggested that her husband had seen Ram Sewak Singh misbehaving with her. He assaulted Ram Sewak Singh. She and her father-in-law tried to separate them. Her husband, father-in-law, she and Ram Sewak sustained injuries in this fraces was denied by her. She admitted that just 10-12 days before the murder of her husband mother of appellant Mauji died but denied that on the very next day of her husbands murder 13th days ceremony of Maujis mother was held. She further pleaded ignorance whether Mauji had performed last rites of his mother. She stated that the temple, situated at the distance of 4-5 paces is visible from the house. She further pleaded ignorance whether Mauji had performed last rites of his mother. She stated that the temple, situated at the distance of 4-5 paces is visible from the house. She further admitted that when she came out from her house Mauji, Nanka, and Shyam Lal were below the platform at a distance of 2-3 paces towards east. Soon after their arrival they were assaulted at a distance of one hand from the Chabutara. She stated that Mauji and others also started assaulting them. She stated that Shyam Lal gave a Ballam blow to her husband. He was assaulted with the butt end of the Ballam also. Her brother-in-law and father-in-law were beaten with Lathies. They were not assaulted with Ballam or any other sharp edged weapon. When her husband was running away assailants were giving blows from butt end of Lathies. She failed to explain the omission occurring about Shyam Lal inflicting blows from the buttend of his Ballam upon the deceased in her 161 Crpc statement. She stated that Suresh, Ramesh Lala, Munna and Mahendra assaulted her. She admitted that Nanka, Shyam Lal and Mauji used to take water from her tubewell, but denied charging any excess money from them for it. She denied that any quarrel took place with them in that connection. Her eldest son Pappu is aged about 10 years. She denied suggestions that Pappu is son of Subedar Singh. She admitted that Sohan and Mohan are real brothers. Ramesh is son of Sohan. She denied that the age of Sohan and Mohan is 70/75 years. She stated that they are not so old. She admitted that Raja Rams sister is married in her village. She is mother of the appellant Ramesh. Raja Ram is visiting his sister. They are on inimical terms with Raja Ram. She stated that if Raja Ram would have desired their money would have been paid back by Ramesh but he never desired it. Ramesh worked as labour with Sohan and Mohan. She and Ram Sewak Singh had fallen at the temple itself. They did not run behind her husband. When they reached there her husband was already dead. Mahipat and Suraj Pal came to the spot after their fall. 20. Thus, the following facts emerge out from her testimony that Arjun Singh had gone out leaving his food. She and Ram Sewak Singh had fallen at the temple itself. They did not run behind her husband. When they reached there her husband was already dead. Mahipat and Suraj Pal came to the spot after their fall. 20. Thus, the following facts emerge out from her testimony that Arjun Singh had gone out leaving his food. Five minutes after that an alarm was heard from the side of the temple. The witnesses came out of the house and saw the assault on Arjun on the platform. According to her Mauji, Nanka and Shyam Lal were standing below the platform. It means that they did not participate in the incident at the beginning. Later on she had attributed a specific role of giving Ballam blow to Shyam Lal to her. She had also stated that when her husband was running away he was beaten by butt end of Lathi by the assailants. One blow to the deceased was also attributed to Shyam Lal. But this fact does not find place in her statement under Section 161 Crpc. She proved participation of Suraj Pal, Nanka, Munna and Lala in her beating. This part of her statement appears to be purely an improvement as it does not fit in with her injuries. Lala Singh was armed with knife. Suraj Pal and Mahipat were armed with Tabal. Ramesh alone was armed with Lathi. She admitted enmity with Nanka, Mauji and Shyam Lal. Enmity is also admitted with Sohan, Mohan, Ramesh and Raja Ram. 21. So far as the injuries of PW-1 are concerned, participation of atleast three persons is not borne out. She had sustained in all seven injuries. Out of which injury No. 5 has three abraded contusions. There is only one incised wound on the posterior side of head (right side) of the dimension 5 cm x 1/2 cm x bone deep. Her husband suffered incised cross wound in the center in the dimension of 5. 5 cm x 1/2 cm x bone deep. There are two other incised wounds. Length and width of which is suggestive of use of a Tabal and Pharsa at the most. Out of five persons named by her with sharp edged weapons. Suresh, Lala, Ramesh and Munna were armed with knife, Tabal and Pharsa. Mahendra was also armed with Tabal. Medical evidence rules out use of knife and Ballam. Length and width of which is suggestive of use of a Tabal and Pharsa at the most. Out of five persons named by her with sharp edged weapons. Suresh, Lala, Ramesh and Munna were armed with knife, Tabal and Pharsa. Mahendra was also armed with Tabal. Medical evidence rules out use of knife and Ballam. Rest of the injuries were blunt injuries. Thus she had been deposing half-truth. There is possibility of false implication of some of the accused due to enmity. The real attributed by her to Shyam Lal is not borne out from her injury report as also from the post-mortem report. The motive was attributed only against Lal Singh. On the other hand as admitted to her she does not visit any house in the village nor knows any person who lives in these houses. This clearly implies that she did not know her village men by face or names. Her presence at the spot cannot be doubted. She is an injured witness but her statement with regard to manner of the incident, names of the assailants, difference in specific roles attributed to them cannot be taken as for granted. These two facts that she did not know village men by face and by their names is abundantly clear to us from her testimony. Attribution of specific roles to the accused in the above circumstance cannot be possible for her. We are unable to reconcile ourselves to the fact that she knew all the assailants who were attributed specific roles. She definitely was tutored on this count. She has very clearly admitted that she had animosity with Lala Singh and Ramesh. Suresh and Mahendra are his sons. She had also denied her husband having contested any 107/117 Crpc proceedings against accused Lala Singh. It is admitted by PW-3 Ram Sewak Singh, her devar. We also feel it very difficult to accept that Mauji whose mother had admittedly died 10-12 days before the incident will participate in the incident. The same situation will be applicable to Shyam Lal and Nanka also. They are his brothers. She had pleaded ignorance to the fact whether 13th day ceremony was held on the next day of murder of her husband and the last rites were performed by Mauji. We feel that participation of Shyam Lal, Mauji and Nanka is not free from doubt. They are his brothers. She had pleaded ignorance to the fact whether 13th day ceremony was held on the next day of murder of her husband and the last rites were performed by Mauji. We feel that participation of Shyam Lal, Mauji and Nanka is not free from doubt. Shyam Lal was already acquitted by the trial Court. Benefit could be extended to Mauji and Nanka also. Thus despite the fact that she is an injured witness her testimony with regard to participation of all the appellants cannot be in the circumstances accepted in its entirety. She apparently is guided by her-in- laws in naming some of their enemies, doubt. 22. PW-3 Ram Sewak Singh had corroborated his sister-in-law in all material particulars regarding the weapons of the assailants, initial part of the prosecution story and about the arrival of the witnesses Mahipat and Suraj Pal. According to him he transcribed the FIR on the dictation of his father at the spot near the dead-body. His father had gone to police station with the written report. He remained near the dead-body. He admitted that a case under Section 107/117 Crpc was contested between Lala Singh on the one hand and his brother on the other. He stated that Suresh and Mahendra are sons of accused Lala Singh. Rest of the appellants are members of their group. He stated that Lathi in the hand of Ramesh was broken in the assault. It was broken into four pieces. These pieces were found scattered at the spot. They were recovered by police. He stated that a Baraha (a drain for irrigation) goes in front of his house. On both side of it there are houses. The incident was witnessed by Mahipat and Suraj Pal and many others. He could not recognise these other villagers because he was injured. On their challenge the assailants ran towards east leaving his brother behind. He admitted that this statement was recorded during the day at about 4. 30 to 5. 00 p. m. by the Investigating Officer. He claimed that he had disclosed to the Investigating Officer names of only Mahipat and Suraj Pal as eye-witnesses of the occurrence. How the Investigating Officer has transcribed the word other villagers in the above statement he failed to explain. Lala called his brother from out side. 30 to 5. 00 p. m. by the Investigating Officer. He claimed that he had disclosed to the Investigating Officer names of only Mahipat and Suraj Pal as eye-witnesses of the occurrence. How the Investigating Officer has transcribed the word other villagers in the above statement he failed to explain. Lala called his brother from out side. He saw him for the first time on his coming out of his house. He stated that Lala Singh was assaulting his brother with knife. Thereafter he also assaulted him at the door of Shambhu Kori. He claimed that he had seen the incident for 12-13 minutes. He further stated a new fact that his brother was assaulted at the door of Shambhu Kori by four persons only. They are Lal Singh, Munna, Ramesh and Suresh. He further stated that from the temple upto the door of Shambhu Kori blood had trickled to the ground. The distance between the temple and door of Shambhu Kori was 100 steps. He had shown this blood to the Investigating Officer. Before his brother finally fell at Shambhu Koris door he had fallen at the door of Panditayin. He got up and ran again. Sufficient quantity of blood was fallen there also. That blood was shown to the Investigating Officer. These facts were not stated at all by PW-1. He stated that his brother had fallen face-ward at the door of Shambhu Kori but the assailants had over turned him. When the Investigating Officer reached at the scene of occurrence his brother was lying on his back. They had fallen at the temple. He claimed that he got up and ran behind the assailants. PW-1 has not stated that he stood up and ran behind the assailants who were chasing her husband. He stated that he had sustained Lathi injuries on both the hands. He admitted that his father had dictated the report that his daughter-in-law and son Ram Sewak Singh sustained injuries in the incident. He denied suggestion that the FIR was transcribed on the dictation of the Sub-Inspector. The Investigating Officer had gone back from his village at 3. 00 p. m. The Insvestigation Officer had left immediately after their departure for the medical examination. The police station is four miles from his village. Investigating Officer never visited his village after the day of occurrence. The Investigating Officer had gone back from his village at 3. 00 p. m. The Insvestigation Officer had left immediately after their departure for the medical examination. The police station is four miles from his village. Investigating Officer never visited his village after the day of occurrence. This statement of his stands corroborated from the testimony of his sister-in-law, PW-1, as well. He stated that his sister-in-law was only assaulted near the temple but he and his father near the door of Panditayin. This is altogether a new fact and was not corroborated by PW-1 and PW-6. He pleaded ignorance about the existence of Subedar Singh in his village. He claimed that his house is in front of Balarams house. He denied the defence suggestion that Munni Devi is wife of Subedar Singh. He also denied that any quarrel took place for Munni Devi in between them in which he and his brother, sister-in-law had sustained injuries. He claimed in para 8 that between this family members and Lala Singh and his sons there was no animosity. This runs contrary to the statement of PW-1. The only dispute was with regard to debt of Ramesh. He clearly admitted that no incident had taken place between Lal Singh and his sons and themselves before this incident. He also admitted that enmity with Munna and Ghasite was also on account of debt of Ramesh. He had no personal aggrandisement against them. He admitted that he had not disclosed to the Investigating Officer that other appellants belong to the group of Lala Singh. He admitted that he was also a party in the proceeding under Section 107 Crpc between his brother and Lala Singh. He admitted that in a false case of drawing liquor his brother was arrested. He pleaded ignorance whether Shyam Lal was a witness in this case against his brother. He also denied any knowledge about 13th day ceremony of Shyam Lals mother having been held just next day of the murder. He admitted that he was assaulted 3-4 steps North from the platform. His father and his Bhabhi were assaulted at a distance of 1 and 1-1/2 hands in South. He had not shown this spot to the Investigating Officer. All the three were assaulted simultaneously. His sister-in-law was assaulted by Ramesh, Munna, Mahendra and Lala. He was assaulted by Ghasite, Sohan, Mahendra and Suresh. His father and his Bhabhi were assaulted at a distance of 1 and 1-1/2 hands in South. He had not shown this spot to the Investigating Officer. All the three were assaulted simultaneously. His sister-in-law was assaulted by Ramesh, Munna, Mahendra and Lala. He was assaulted by Ghasite, Sohan, Mahendra and Suresh. They were assaulted for 2-3 minutes. He claimed that his father sustained only three injuries. But he could not name his assailants. He was also unable to tell the location of the injuries of his father. This shows that he too fell unconscious. He admitted that his father had never before dictated any FIR. He admitted that the FIR was transcribed in front of a large number of villagers. Here he contradicts PW-1. He admitted that Nanka, Shyam Lal and Mauji Lal used to irriagate their fields from his tubewell. Any quarrel for payment of charges was denied. He admitted that animosity about non-payment of Rs. 700 which was due on Ramesh. They gave him 11 bighas of agricultural land on Batai. The question of payment was put in Panchayat but Ramesh refused to honour its verdict. He pleaded ignorance that Sohan and Mohan are aged about 70-75 years but admitted that they are old and are thieves. He admitted in para 13 that when he came out of his house Ramesh had given 3-4 Pharsa blows upon him but he could not see whether all the blows landed on his person. He was giving the blows on his head. He claimed that two blows at the temple were given upon his brother. Both of them were on the head. These blows were given from behind. He admitted that the Pharsa blade was about 1-1/2 balisht. He further stated that Ramesh continued to assault his brother from blunt side of Pharsa upto the house of Panditayin. At the door of Shambhu Kori again Ramesh gave blunt side of Pharsa blow on the neck of his brother. As a result of which he fell down. He admitted that he had more injuries than his father. He refuted suggestion that FIR was transcribed after arrival of the Investigating Officer at about 7. 00 p. m. He stated that the witnesses were not ready to depose because of the fear of the assailants. 23. Thus there appears some important contradictions between his statement and the statement of his sister-in-law. He refuted suggestion that FIR was transcribed after arrival of the Investigating Officer at about 7. 00 p. m. He stated that the witnesses were not ready to depose because of the fear of the assailants. 23. Thus there appears some important contradictions between his statement and the statement of his sister-in-law. He and stated that his brother was assaulted by four persons at the door of Shambhu Kori but he and not stated this fact in his statement to Investigating Officer. Her sister-in-law, PW-1 had not stated this fact in her evidence. He had attributed specific role of causing 3-4 Pharsa blows to Ramesh upon the deceased on his head. Only two blows were struck at the temple. Both these blows were on the back. Ramesh also gave a few Pharsa blows from its blunt side. He gave the names of the four persons as assailants of his sister-in-law. Out of whom Mohan has commenced the assault but he had not named those who assaulted his brother at the door of Shambhu Kori. He had introduced a new story that his brother had first fallen in front of the house of Panditayin. Large amount of blood had fallen there but the site plan did not show this. The Investigating Officer too does not corroborate this. We cannot doubt the presence of this witness and also his injuries. The contradiction pointed out are not fatal to the prosecution when considered in its proper perspective. It cannot be safely said that they had not seen the occurrence. In an assault by such a large number of persons it is not possible to notice each and every blow and who caused what injuries. According to PW-1 both of them had fallen after sustaining injuries near the temple. But this witness recovered and got up and ran behind the assailants. Since this fact is missing in the testimony of his sister-in-law, PW-1 it cannot be determined that he is making a truthful statement. These are minute details and can be missed by an injured witness who had suffered two sharp edged weapon injuries apart from number of other injuries including a fracture to elbow also. Since this fact is missing in the testimony of his sister-in-law, PW-1 it cannot be determined that he is making a truthful statement. These are minute details and can be missed by an injured witness who had suffered two sharp edged weapon injuries apart from number of other injuries including a fracture to elbow also. While assault was going on these injured witnesses it shall not be possible for them to notice what happened with deceased Arjun Singh and simply because they are trying to explain every circumstance the evidence of these two witnesses cannot be discarded. Both these witnesses had sustained injuries on their heads. PW-1 Munni Devi being a lady may have taken more time than PW-3 to recover from her injuries. So no adverse inference is permissible from such deviations as pointed out in the statements of these witnesses. By and large these two witnesses are to be accepted on broad features of this incident. 24. The evidence of PW-6 Bharosa Singh is not different from the statement of PW-1 and PW-3. He happens to be father of the deceased. He admitted that when they were being assaulted none from the village came to the spot. He was examined by the Investigating Officer the same day. In the statement to the Investigating Officer he admitted that he had stated that the incident was witnessed by Mahipat, Suraj Pal and many other villagers. They challenged the culprits who ran towards east leaving the dead. He admitted that this was a correct statement. He further stated in the statement to the Investigating Officer that he had also sustained injuries in the incident but pleaded ignorance as to how it is not there in his statement. He further admitted that two hours after falling of his son he started dictating his report. At that time he, his son and daughter-in-law only were present. It took an hour in preparing the report. The police station is about 4 miles from his house. He went up to Mariyan on foot and thereafter by taxi. Mariyan is at a distance of 5 miles. According to him he had taken 2 and 2-1/2 hours in reaching the police station. At the police station he stayed for two hours. The police station is about 4 miles from his house. He went up to Mariyan on foot and thereafter by taxi. Mariyan is at a distance of 5 miles. According to him he had taken 2 and 2-1/2 hours in reaching the police station. At the police station he stayed for two hours. The entire time given by this witness with regard to transcription of the FIR and its registration at the police station comes out to about five hours which according to learned defence Counsel means the FIR could not have been registered at the police station before 6/6. 30 p. m. The incident had taken place at 1. 00 p. m. He further admitted that before dictating this report he had never dictated any other report. According to him, the Investigating Officer reached the spot at about 4. 00 p. m. On his return from police station he stayed at his house upto 5. 00 p. m. He further admitted that he, his son and daughter-in-law were beaten about 4 paces away from the platform of the temple. According to him Ramesh and Ghasite gave one Lathi blow each to him but he sustained three injuries. He stood up little after the departure of the assailants. At that time there was none near the dead body of Arjun Singh. According to him Ram Sewak Singh and Munni Devi were also lying near him. Both of them were unconscious. When Ram Sewak Singh regained his consciousness, the report was transcribed. He also admitted that he had fallen unconscious on receiving injuries. He further stated that he did not know who assaulted whom and with what weapons. He admitted that before the incident he had no enmity with Ramesh, Mohan and Sohan and their relation were cordial and they were on visiting terms. He denied making of any complaint by Mohan and Sohan against his son for inducing Ramesh to take to gambling. He pleaded ignorance whether his son was operating a gamblingden. He admitted that number of persons reached the spot of occurrence. They were 15 to 20 but he could not give out their names. He had no enmity with the accused persons. He admitted that now he cannot dictate this report because his mind is puzzled and is not working properly after demise of his son. He admitted that number of persons reached the spot of occurrence. They were 15 to 20 but he could not give out their names. He had no enmity with the accused persons. He admitted that now he cannot dictate this report because his mind is puzzled and is not working properly after demise of his son. He stated that the paper was put on the ground at the time of transcription of the report. Till he dictated the report none from the village arrived there. This statement otherwise cannot be easily discarded merely because he failed to mention about his injuries in the FIR or in his statement under Section 161 Crpc. He being a rustic villager may not have mentioned about his injuries in the FIR as also in his statement to Investigating Officer because they were trivial in nature and simple also. His presence inside his house and his taking lunch with his son has not been challenged at all. His presence, therefore, cannot be seriously challenged. His medical examination too was prompt. In such circumstances his injuries are also not open to doubt. The timings given by him may be simply exaggerated estimation. This witness has nominated all the appellants in the initial part of the incident. Since this witness admitted that he had fallen unconscious therefore, it is doubtful that he had seen the entire incident. It has been admitted by these three witnesses that they were assaulted by as many as 5- 6 persons and the victim ran as soon as assault on them commenced towards the house of Shambhu Kori which is at a distance of 100 paces. The statement of this witness is corroborative of initial part of the incident and cannot throw any light on the later part of the assault. His evidence still can be relied upon so far as assailants presence and participation is concerned. Even if he had fallen unconscious and had not seen the rest of assault at the house of Shambhoo Kori it can still be presumed that it were some of these appellants who caused death of Arjun Singh because they were participating in the initial assault upon the deceased and injured persons. 25. PW-4 is a constable who had taken these injured persons for their medical examinations. According to him the doctor had advised for X-ray of the injuries of Munni Devi. 25. PW-4 is a constable who had taken these injured persons for their medical examinations. According to him the doctor had advised for X-ray of the injuries of Munni Devi. She was taken to Ursala Hospital for X-ray. He started from vilalge at 5. 00 p. m. and reached Shivrajpur at about 6. 30 p. m. Hospital is about 2 furlongs from the police station. Other injured persons after their examination had left for the village but Munni Devi was detained at the police station during night. 26. It is admitted to the Head Moharir (PW-8) that the police station Shivrajpur is 3-1/2 kms. from GT Road. Trucks, Tempo and vehicles pass regularly round the clock on this road. Hospital is 250 yards from the police station. Mauji Jarari is at the distance of about 6 miles. According to this witness the Sub- Inspector did not return that day to the police station. He denied the suggestion that the Investigating Officer had returned back to the police station in the evening alongwith Ram Sewak Singh. According to him the Sub-Inspector reached the police station on 28-6-1979 at about 8. 30 in the night. Thus we dont find any plausible reason to hold that FIR of this case was anti-timed or anti dated. Had it been anti- timed or anti dated injuries of Bharosa Singh positively have found a mention in his FIR and statement under Section 161 Crpc. 27. According to the Investigating Officer the FIR of this case was registered at the police station at 4. 30 p. m. He started from the police station around 4. 30 p. m. or quarter to 5. 00 p. m. The station officer also accompanied him. This is not stated by any of the three eye-witnesses. In our opinion probably it is SHO who left the spot after 2-3 hours after supervising the inquest and sending the injured for medical examination and that is why the eye-witnesses stated that the Investigating Officer had returned after 2- 3 hours and never returned thereafter. He claimed that he returned to the police station next day in the evening at 8. 30 p. m. It is corroborated by Head Moharir, PW-8. He further admitted that the dead-body was handed over to the constables at 6. 30 p. m. They started from the village at about 7. He claimed that he returned to the police station next day in the evening at 8. 30 p. m. It is corroborated by Head Moharir, PW-8. He further admitted that the dead-body was handed over to the constables at 6. 30 p. m. They started from the village at about 7. 00 p. m. In the inquest memo time was wrongly transcribed by mistake. The recovery of broken pieces of a club is not transcribed in the memo of inquest because they were not on or near the dead-body. He refuted the suggestion that these papers were prepared belatedly and anti-timed. It is contended that this statement proved that apart from preparation of inquest memo and recovery preparation of memo of blood stained earth and simple earth and recovery memo of Lathi he had not performed anything concrete in furtherance of the investigation. He made no attempt whatsoever to record the statement of the witnesses either at the spot or at the police station. No benefit can be had from this circumstance by the defence because he was not probed any further on the subject. By the time these formalities were completed fall of darkness must have occurred and for paucity of proper light he may not have proceeded with the investigation any further during night. Such a probability cannot be excluded altogether especially in the absence of any cross-examination. 28. Now taking up the statement of PW-10 Lallan Rai, Station Officer, it transpires that the case was registered in his presence and he had taken over the investigation himself. He claimed that they had gone in search of the culprits and also searched their houses. He also went for the assailant to Kanpur. Till 30-7-1979 none of witnesses were examined under Section 161 Crpc. He admitted that the proceedings under Section 107 Crpc were initiated by the police and was pending at the time of incident. He stated that no villagers were found near the well. The well is in front of the house of deceased Arjun Singh. He did not see any trial of blood from the temple upto the place where the dead body was found lying. He stated that no villagers were found near the well. The well is in front of the house of deceased Arjun Singh. He did not see any trial of blood from the temple upto the place where the dead body was found lying. We do not accept this part of the prosecution case for the reason that Ram Sewak Singh in his overzealousness may have made some exaggeration in his statement or the blood might have been trampled and obliterated due to movement of the villagers. Thus, no benefit is possible to be afforded to the defence on this score also. In the rojnamcha on his return names of the accused are not mentioned. He has proved the statement of the witnesses regarding improvements and omission put to them in their statements. He admitted that he had recorded the statement of Mahipat. He had not recorded statement of those whose houses were in the vicinity on both sides of the road. He denied that he returned back to the police station at about 7. 00 p. m. He denied that he had taken Ram Sewak Singh to the police station and got the report scribed there. He admitted that in the first parcha no date of the receipt of the FIR and copy of the GD by the senior officers was shown. Contrary to the statement of PW-8 this witness has stated that it is not necessary that every paper which was to be sent from the police station to senior officers must be entered in the dispatch register. He admitted that Bharosa Singh had not stated that he had also sustained injuries. He only stated that his son and daughter-in-law has sustained injuries. It is borne out form the record that the police had reached the scene of occurrence on receiving the FIR. Enmity is alleged specially with Lala Singh and his sons as is borne out from the pendency of a case under Section 107/117 Crpc between the rival parties. 29. It is also urged that Munna is a Muslim and has no axe to grind against the prosecution. His participation in the incident is alleged only on the ground of his closeness to Ramesh. Except PW-1, Munni Devi, no other witness has assisting any special reason for his participation in the incident. There is no other evidence to prove his proximity with Ramesh. His participation in the incident is alleged only on the ground of his closeness to Ramesh. Except PW-1, Munni Devi, no other witness has assisting any special reason for his participation in the incident. There is no other evidence to prove his proximity with Ramesh. In the circumstances we find that he too is entitled to benefit of doubt. We are not prepared to give much weightage to the evidence of PW-1, Smt. Munni Devi, for his participation in the assault. In the result apart from Mauji and Nanka we also extend benefit of doubt to this appellant and acquit him. 30. Enmity of deceased and his family with Lala and his family and Ramesh is proved beyond doubt from the record. Participation of these persons and their relations in the incident, therefore, is not open to doubt. In an offence of murder sharing of common object of an unlawful assembly is a must. Prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that common object of the assembly was to commit murder and that the participants in the incident shared the same. Section 149 IPC does not require total participation of each and every accused in the incident if sharing of common object by them is established. It is sufficient if their participation in some manner to further such common object is proved in the incident. 31. In the present case the participation of as many as six accused persons is proved in this incident in one or the other manner. Initially all assaulted the deceased. After the arrival of the injured witnesses some of them busied themselves in the assault on them and the rest of them assaulted the deceased upto the door of Shambhu Kori when he ran from the well to save himself. This is more than sufficient to prove that each one of them had shared the common object to murder Arjun Singh since they prevented the witness from making any attempt to save him. They also assaulted them in the process. 32. We have decided to extend benefit of doubt to Mauji and Nanka since they are bothers of Shyam Lal who was acquitted by the trial Court. Munna is also entitled to acquittal because no plausible earthly reason for his participation is shown that he is a close friend of Ramesh. The possibility of his false implication could not be denied. We have decided to extend benefit of doubt to Mauji and Nanka since they are bothers of Shyam Lal who was acquitted by the trial Court. Munna is also entitled to acquittal because no plausible earthly reason for his participation is shown that he is a close friend of Ramesh. The possibility of his false implication could not be denied. We are not inclined to place reliance upon PW-1 Smt. Munni Devi that he participation because he was close to Ramesh and has extended any threat to them on his behalf for lack of any reliable corroborative evidence. 33. In the result this appeal is dismissed to the extent of participation of Sohan, Mohan, Ramesh, Suresh, Mahendra and Ghasite. Participation of Mauji Lal, Nanka and Munna is not found proved beyond reasonable doubt hence they are acquitted of all the charges for which they were convicted and sentenced. Their appeals are allowed. They are on bail. They need not surrender. Out of those convicted Sohan, Ghasite and Mohan have died during pendency of the appeal. Their appeals are dismissed as abated. Conviction and sentences of Ramesh and Suresh are hereby confirmed. Their appeals are dismissed. Their bail bonds are cancelled. They shall be taken into custody to serve out their sentences forthwith. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur is directed to submit compliance report to this Court as soon as the compliance of this order is made. 34. So far as Mahendra appellant is concerned he was convicted but was not awarded any sentence by trial Court on account of his being under 16 years of age at the time of the commission of offence. We dismiss his appeal also and maintain his conviction. Appeal partly dismissed.