Honble BANSAL, J.–As many as five accused were put up for trial before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Baran in Sessions Case No.52/93. The accused Basania, Moriya and Kajod were acquitted of all the charges framed against them but accused- appellants Ghisia and Ghanshyam were convicted and sentenced vide judgment dated January 6, 1996 as under:- Ghisia & Ghanshyam both. U/Sec.302 IPC for causing death of Rameshwar Life Imprisonment with a fine of Rs.100/-, in default to further undergo one months simple imprisonment. U/Sec.307 IPC for causing injuries to Brijmohan 5 years Rigorous Imprisonment with a fine of Rs.100/-, in default to further undergo one months rigorous imprisonment. (2). The said judgment has been assailed by the appellants in the instant appeal. State has not challenged the acquittal of the remaining accused by filing an appeal. (3). The brief facts of the prosecution case are that `Parchabayan Ex.P.1 of Brijmohan was recorded by PW-22 Ratan Singh, ASI, Police Station, Baran on April 6, 1993 at 7:15 a.m. in Surgical Ward of Government Hospital, Baran. In his statement Brijmohan (PW1) inter alia, stated that yesterday at about 9.00 - 10.00 p.m. he alongwith his younger brother Tolaram was going to his new house from old house. On way when they were drinking water at hand-pump situated in front of a School, they found that Kalyan Saharia, Kajod Saharia and Ghanshyam Saharia were taking liquor at the house of Basania Saharia. They were exchanging abuses also. It was further stated by Brijmohan that as soon as they left hand-pump, Ghanshyam, Kajod, Basania, Moria and Ghisia son of Kalyan came and started giving beating to them. Ghisia was armed with a sword, Ghanshyam with Gandasi, Kajod with Londi, Basania with axe and others were armed with lathies. Ghisia and Ghanshyam caused injuries with their respective weapons on his head and left shoulder. The remaining accused also caused injuries. On hearing his cries, his younger brother Rameshwar and Shrikishan came at the spot. They were also caused injuries by the accused, Brijmohan also stated that when Sardar Fakeer, his wife, Gopilal and Birdhilal reached at the place of occurrence, the accused fled away. His mother also came at the spot. It was also stated by him that his younger brother Tolaram also sustained injuries in the incident. They were brought to the hospital where they were admitted. His mother also came at the spot. It was also stated by him that his younger brother Tolaram also sustained injuries in the incident. They were brought to the hospital where they were admitted. Brijmohan also stated in his `Parchabayan that in winter season the accused had killed his goat and because of this enmity, they attacked and caused injuries to them. On the basis of `Parchabayan Ex.P.1, a formal First Information Report Ex.P.10 was written and a case was registered u/Sec.307, 147, 148 & 149 IPC by SHO, P.S., Nahargarh (District - Baran) and investigation commenced. Injured Rameshwar expired whereupon Police added Section 302 IPC. Investigation Officer Kanhaiya Lal (PW23) reached on the spot and prepared site plan Ex.P.3. Blood smeared soil and control soil was seized and sealed vide Ex.P.4. Inquest Report Ex.P.16 of the dead body of Rameshwar was prepared. Before death Rameshwar was medically examined by Dr.N.K. Tiwari (PW-14) on April 6, 1973 and he prepared injury report Ex.P.15. Shrikishan and brijmohan were also examined by Dr.Tiwari and injury reports Ex.P.16 and Ex.P.17 were prepared. Autopsy on the dead body of Rameshwar was conducted by Dr.Umesh Sharma (PW-12) on April 7, 1993 at 10.00 p.m. Post-mortem report is Ex.P.14. Blood stained `Kurta which the deceased was wearing at the time of the alleged incident, was also seized and sealed vide Ex.P.17. Statement of the witnesses were recorded u/Sec.161 Cr.P.C. Appellant Ghisia and Ghanshyam were arrested and on their information in police custody u/Sec.27 of the Evidence Act and at their instance, a Sword and a Gandasi were recovered from their houses respectively. Sword and Gandasi were sealed and the Investigating Officer prepared the Recovery Memos Ex.P.6 and Ex.P.5 respectively. Accused Basania, who has been acquitted was also arrested and on his information and at his instance, an axe was recovered from his house which was sealed and Seizure Memo Ex.P.7 was prepared. On completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was laid against the above named five accused in the court of Special Judicial Magistrate (Mobile), Baran, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions Judge, Baran. On transfer, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Baran received the file and proceeded further. (4). Learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charges u/Secs.147, 148, 302, 302/149, 324, 323, 324, 323/149 IPC against all the accused, who denied the charges and claimed trial. (5). The prosecution examined as many as 23 witnesses. On transfer, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Baran received the file and proceeded further. (4). Learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charges u/Secs.147, 148, 302, 302/149, 324, 323, 324, 323/149 IPC against all the accused, who denied the charges and claimed trial. (5). The prosecution examined as many as 23 witnesses. In their statements recorded u/Sec.313 Cr.P.C., the accused claimed innocence and stated that they were falsely implicated because of enmity. In defence two witnesses were examined. (6). Learned trial Judge, after hearing the final submissions, convicted and sentenced the appellants Ghisia & Ghanshyam as indicated here-in-above. The remaining accused have been acquitted by learned Additional Sessions Judge. (7). We have heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned Public Prosecutor, scanned and scrutinized the material on record. (8). PW-14 Dr.N.K. Tiwari stated that on April 6, 1993 as Medical Jurist, Government Hospital, Baran, he examined Rameshwar S/o Birdhi Lal, Aged 30 years, by caste-Meena, R/o Lindi, P.S. Nahargarh and found the following injuries on his person:- (1) Incised wound (bow shaped) 15 c.m. x 1-1/2 c.m. x bone exposed & fractured on parietal region of scalp extending from left temporal region to right side of scalp. (2) Incised wound 3-1/2 c.m. x 1 c.m. x bone deep over right frontal region. (3) Incised wound and swelling 2-1/2 c.m. x 1/2 c.m. x 1/2 c.m. over left forearm. (9). All the injuries were caused by sharp weapon. Injuries No.1 & 2 were sufficient to cause death. Opinion about the nature of injury No.3 was kept reserved till X-Ray report was received. Rameshwar was admitted in Surgical Ward. He was unconscious. He (Dr. Tiwari) prepared injury report Ex.P.15. Duration of injuries was within 12 hours. (10). Dr. Tiwari also stated that on the same day he examined Shrikishan S/o Birdhi Lal, aged 20 years, R/o Kundi and found the following injuries on his person:- (1) Incised wound 2-1/4 c.m. x 1/2 c.m. x 1 c.m. over right thigh near knee anteriorly. (2) Abrasion 0.3 c.m. x 10 c.m. over right side back of chest. (3) Abrasion 0.3 c.m. x 8 c.m. over left side of chest back. (4) Abrasion 0.3 c.m. x 6 c.m. over left side of chest back. (11). Injury No.1 was caused by sharp weapon and the remaining injuries were of blunt weapon. All the injuries were simple in nature. (3) Abrasion 0.3 c.m. x 8 c.m. over left side of chest back. (4) Abrasion 0.3 c.m. x 6 c.m. over left side of chest back. (11). Injury No.1 was caused by sharp weapon and the remaining injuries were of blunt weapon. All the injuries were simple in nature. Duration of injuries within 12 hours and he prepared injury report Ex.P.16. (12). Dr.Tiwari further stated that Brijmohan S/o Birdhi Lal, aged 32 years, R/o Kundi was also examined by him and there were following on his person:- (1) Incised wound 5 c.m. x 1 c.m. x upto bone deep over left fronto parietal region. (2) Incised wound 3-1/2 c.m. x 1 c.m. x upto bone deep over right occipital region. (3) Incised wound 8 c.m. x 1 c.m. x 1 c.m. left side of neck just above clavicle bone. (4) Contusion 8 c.m. x 2 c.m. over left side of chest back. (5) Contusion 6 c.m. x 2 c.m. over right side of chest back. (6) Contusion 6 c.m. x 2 c.m. over left lumbar region back. (7) Contusion 6 c.m. x 2 c.m. over right lumber region back. (8) Contusion 6 c.m. x 2 c.m. over right side of chest anteriorly. (9) Contusion 6 c.m. x 2 c.m. over right abdominal wall. (13). Dr.Tiwari also stated that injuries No.1 to 3 were of sharp weapon and injuries No.4 to 9 were caused by blunt weapon. All the injuries were simple in nature. Duration of injuries was within 12 hours. Injury Report Ex.P17 was prepared by him. (14). PW12 Dr.Umesh Sharma deposed that as Medical Jurist, Government Hospital, Baran, he conducted the post-mortem examination of the dead body of Rameshwar S/o Birdhi Lal Meena, aged 30 years on April 7, 1993 and found the following injuries:- External Injuries (1) Stitched wound of 15 cms. length on parietal region of scalp extending from left temporary region to 4 cm. right of mid- lien. (2) Stitched wound 3 cm. in length on right frontal region. (3) stitched wound 1 cm. in length on middle and front of left forearm. Internal Injuries Fracture of left frontal and parietal bone with haematoma present on left side of brain below the left fronto parietal bone. (15). PW-12 Dr. right of mid- lien. (2) Stitched wound 3 cm. in length on right frontal region. (3) stitched wound 1 cm. in length on middle and front of left forearm. Internal Injuries Fracture of left frontal and parietal bone with haematoma present on left side of brain below the left fronto parietal bone. (15). PW-12 Dr. Umesh Sharma also stated that in his opinion he cause of death was head injury with fracture of left fronto parietal bones and subdural haematoma resulting in coma. He prepared the post-mortem report Ex.P14. (16). Learned counsel for the appellants did not challenge the veracity of the statements of PW12 Dr.Umesh Sharma and PW14 Dr.N.K. Tiwari. Both are independent and impartial witnesses and in our opinion also, their testimony is wholly reliable. Thus, it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution that Rameshwar sustained 3 injuries of sharp weapon mentioned in injury report Ex.P15, Shrikishan suffered 4 injuries of blung weapon mentioned in injury report Ex.P.16 and Brijmohan sustained 9 injuries mentioned in injury report Ex.P17. Out of 9 injuries on the person of Brijmohan, 3 injuries were of sharp weapon and the rest were caused by blunt weapon. Duration of all the injuries of all the injured persons was within 12 hours. They were medically examined on April 6, 1993. The alleged incident took place at the intervening night of April 5 & 6, 1993. In view of the duration of the injuries, we are of the opinion that Rameshwar, Shrikishan and Brijmohan sustained these injuries in the alleged incident. it has also been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt that Rameshwar met with homicidal death as the injuries on his head resulted in his death. (17). Apart from PW1 Brijmohan and PW9 Shrikishan, PW2 Pana W/o Sardar Khan, PW3 Sitabai, PW4 Gopilal, PW6 Sardar Khan, PW8 Khemraj and PW11 Tolaram were said to be the eye-witnesses of the occurrence. PW2 Pana Stated in her statement that on hearing the voice of the mother of Brijmohan, she reached at the spot where she found Brijmohan and his two brothers lying there. She also found that there were injuries on the person of Brijmohan, Shrikishan and Bhagat (brother of Brijmohan). She further stated that Kajod, Bachi Bai and Ghisia (the appellant) also were lying there is injured condition. She also found that there were injuries on the person of Brijmohan, Shrikishan and Bhagat (brother of Brijmohan). She further stated that Kajod, Bachi Bai and Ghisia (the appellant) also were lying there is injured condition. She also stated that blood was oozing out of the wounds of Brijmohan and Rameshwar. As already stated that 5 persons were tried and out of them, three accused Basania, Moriya and Kajod have been acquitted by the trial Court. PW2 Pana was declared hostile by the prosecution. She did not name the person who caused injuries to Brijmohan, Rameshwar and Shrikishan. In view of that, the testimony of PW2 Pana is of no help to the prosecution to prove that appellant Ghisia and Ghanshyam were the persons who caused injuries to Rameshwar, Brijmohan and Shrikishan. (18). PW6 Sardar Khan also is sailing in the same boat. He also stated that when he alongwith his wife reached at the place of occurrence, he found Kajod, Ghisia, Bachi, Shrikishan, Brijmohan and Rameshwar lying there in injured condition. Therefore, it is clear that he also had not seen the occurrence and on his testimony, it cannot be held proved that the appellants had caused injuries to Rameshwar, Brijmohan and Shrikishan. (19). PW4 Gopilal stated that on hearing cries from he side of school, he went to the place of occurrence from his house and found Brijmohan, Rameshwar and Shrikishan unconscious. There were injuries on the person of Rameshwar and Brijmohan, he also stated that Ghisia, Basania, Moriya, Kajod and Ghanshyam were present there. They were armed with weapons. But in later part of his statement, he stated that he did not see anyone as he reached on the spot after the incident. Looking to this statement, we are of the opinion that PW4 Gopilal also was not the eye-witness to the alleged occurrence. (20). PW8 Khemraj stated that when he was returning from his field at about 8.30 p.m., he found Brijmohan, Tolaram, Ghisia and Ghanshyam fighting each other. Thereafter, he took Brijmohan and Tolaram to their house. So far as the alleged incident is concerned, Khemraj stated that on receiving information from Ramkishan when he reached on the spot, he found Brijmohan, Rameshwar and Shrikishan lying there. There were injuries on their person. He himself did not witness the incident. Thereafter, he took Brijmohan and Tolaram to their house. So far as the alleged incident is concerned, Khemraj stated that on receiving information from Ramkishan when he reached on the spot, he found Brijmohan, Rameshwar and Shrikishan lying there. There were injuries on their person. He himself did not witness the incident. As PW8 Khemraj had not seen the alleged incident, on his testimony also the appellants cannot be held guilty for causing death of Rameshwar and causing injuries to Brijmohan and Shrikishan. (21). PW3 Sita bai, who is mother of Brijmohan & Rameshwar, stated that when she reached at the place of occurrence she found Brijmohan, Rameshwar and Shrikishan lying there. she also stated that Ghisia, Ghanshyam, Kajod, Basania and Moriya wee running towards city. They were armed with sword, gandasi, axe and londi. There wee injuries on the person of Brijmohan, Shrikishan, tolaram and Rameshwar. In cross-examination she stated that when she heard hue and cry, she was sleeping at her house. It took half an hour to reach the place of occurrence. She saw the back of the accused at a distance of 50 steps. She also admitted that she is an old lady and her eye-sight is weak. It was also admitted by her that during night, she could not see properly. Having considered her statement given in cross-examination, we are of the opinion that she had not seen the alleged incident as well as the appellants running from the place of occurrence and so no reliance can be placed upon her testimony. She has deposed against the appellants because she is mother of the deceased Rameshwar and injured Brijmohan. (22). PW11 Tolaram stated that on the fateful night, he alongwith Brijmohan was going to his house at about 9.00-10.00 p.m. They stopped at the hand-pump for drinking water. Ghanshyam, Ghisia, Basania, Moriya and Kajod came there. Ghanshyam was armed with Gandasi and Ghisia was having a Sword, others were having axe, londi and lathi. Ghanshyam inflicted injury with Gandasi on the forehead of Brijmohan, Basania, Moriya and Kajod also inflicted injuries to Brijmohan. On close and careful scrutiny of his testimony, we have come to the conclusion that Tolaram also was not the eye-witness of the alleged incident. He also stated that on seeing `Marpeet with Brijmohan, he ran away and went to sleep at his well situated in his field. On close and careful scrutiny of his testimony, we have come to the conclusion that Tolaram also was not the eye-witness of the alleged incident. He also stated that on seeing `Marpeet with Brijmohan, he ran away and went to sleep at his well situated in his field. He further stated that on next day he came to know that Brijmohan, Rameshwar and Shrikishan had been taken to hospital, Baran and thereafter, he also came to Baran. In view of such type of his statement and unnatural conduct, we are of the view that he was not with Brijmohan and had not seen the alleged incident. He has came in Witness Box because because he is the real brother of the deceased Rameshwar and injured Brijmohan. (23). Now we come to the testimony of PW1 Brijmohan and PW9 Shrikishan, who sustained injuries in the incident. The first contention of learned counsel for the appellants was that the F.I.R. was not lodged immediately but it was registered after about 10 hours of the incident on `Parchabayan Ex.P.1 of Brijmohan and no explanation for this delay was given by the prosecution during trial. Therefore, the testimony of PW1 Brijmohan and PW9 Shrikishan should not be relied upon. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submission made by learned counsel. The testimony of the eye-witnesses cannot be disbelieved on this ground alone that the F.I.R. was not lodged promptly. Only legal requirement is that ocular testimony of the prosecution should be scanned and scrutinized keeping in view the aforesaid fact. PW1 Brijmohan stated that at the fateful right, he and his brother Tolaram were drinking water at hand-pump. Ghanshyam, Ghisia, Kajod, Kalyan, Moriya and Basania were taking liquor at a place situated behind the school. They were abusing each other. Suddenly, they came and Ghanshyam gave Gandasi blow on his head and Ghisia caused injury with sword on is left shoulder. He made hue and cry and his brother Rameshwar came at the spot. As soon as Rameshwar reached on the spot, Ghisia inflicted two injuries on his head. It was also stated by him that 2-3 injuries also were caused on his forearm. When Shrikishan came at the place of occurrence, Ghanshyam caused injury with Gandasi on his leg. Brijmohan further stated Ghanshyam inflicted injury on the forearm of Rameshwar. As soon as Rameshwar reached on the spot, Ghisia inflicted two injuries on his head. It was also stated by him that 2-3 injuries also were caused on his forearm. When Shrikishan came at the place of occurrence, Ghanshyam caused injury with Gandasi on his leg. Brijmohan further stated Ghanshyam inflicted injury on the forearm of Rameshwar. PW-9 Shrikishan deposed that on hearing cries, he and his brother Rameshwar reached at the place of occurrence and found Ghanshyam, Ghisia, Kajod, Moriya and Basania causing injuries to Brijmohan. Ghisia inflicted 2-3 injuries with sword on Rameshwars head and Ghanshyam gave Gandasi blow on the left wrist of Rameshwar. Basania also caused injury with an axe on the wrist of Rameshwar, Kajod and Moriya gave lathi blows on the person of Rameshwar and he also stated that Brijmohan were caused injuries by Ghisia, Ghanshyam, Basania, Kajod and Moriya. He further stated that Ghanshyam inflicted injury with Gandasi on his right knee. On hearing hue and cry, several persons came on the spot. (24). On close and careful scrutiny, we find that the testimony of PW1 Brijmohan and PW9 Shrikishan is trustworthy with regard to causing injuries by the appellant ghisia with sword on the head of the deceased Rameshwar and in respect of appellant Ghanshyam causing injuries with Gandasi to Brijmohan and Shrikishan and with regard to appellant Ghisia causing injury with sword to Brijmohan. as stated above, Dr.N.K. Tiwari (PW-4) found 3 injuries of sharp weapon on the person of Rameshwar. But of these three injuries, two were on he head and 3rd was on left forearm. On post-mortem examination, PW-12 Dr. Umesh Sharma also found these three injuries on he dead body of Rameshwar. Both Brijmohan and Shrikishan stated that both the injuries on the head of Rameshwar were caused by Ghisia with sword. As regards injury on left forearm, PW1 Brijmohan stated that Rameshwar sustained 2 injuries on his head and 2-3 injuries on his forearm which were caused with sword. As per the version of Brijmohan and Shrikishan, appellant Ghisia was armed with sword and Ghanshyam was having Gandasi. Although in later part of his statement, Brijmohan stated that Ghanshyam caused injury with Gandasi on the forearm of Rameshwar, but prior to this statement, as already stated above, Brijmohan stated that injuries on the forearm of Rameshwar were caused by sword. Although in later part of his statement, Brijmohan stated that Ghanshyam caused injury with Gandasi on the forearm of Rameshwar, but prior to this statement, as already stated above, Brijmohan stated that injuries on the forearm of Rameshwar were caused by sword. In view of this material contradiction, we are of the opinion that it has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant Ghanshyam caused injury with Gandasi to Rameshwar. So far as appellant Ghisia causing injury to Shrikishan is concerned, nowhere in his statement Shrikishan stated that Ghisia inflicted injury on his person. On medical examination, 4 injuries wee found on the person of Shrikishan. Injury No.1 was of sharp weapon and on right thigh near knee. On the person of Brijmohan 9 injuries were found. Injury No.1 to 3 were of sharp we open and the rest were of blunt weapon. First two injuries were on head and injury No.3 was on left side of neck just above left clavicle. Thus, Brijmohan and Shrikishan get support from medical evidence also. (25). Thus, we come to the conclusion that the prosecution has succeeded in proving that the appellant Ghisia caused 2 injuries with sword on the head of the deceased Rameshwar. Both the appellants inflicted simple injuries on the person of Brijmohan and the appellant Ghanshyam caused injury to Shrikishan also. As already stated, in the opinion of Medical Jurist PW12 Dr.Umesh Sharma, the cause of death the Rameshwar was head injuries resulting in coma due to fracture of left fronto parietal & sub- dural haematoma. Therefore, it has also been proved by the prosecution that the appellant Ghisia caused death of Rameshwar by inflicting injuries with sharp weapon on his head. As per statement of PW14 Dr.N.K. Tiwari, all the injuries found on the person of Brijmohan and Shrikishan were simple in nature. (26). Learned counsel also contended that Brijmohan and Shrikishan were not found reliable by the trial Court qua Basania, Kajod and Moriya and, therefore, their testimony could not be relied upon against the appellants also. This contention has no force. (27). The Apex Court in State of Punjab vs. Surja Ram (1) held that:- ``The last finding of the High Court is solely based on the ground that the claim of the two eye-witnesses that they had seen the murder of Brij Lal was highly improbable. This contention has no force. (27). The Apex Court in State of Punjab vs. Surja Ram (1) held that:- ``The last finding of the High Court is solely based on the ground that the claim of the two eye-witnesses that they had seen the murder of Brij Lal was highly improbable. Even if we proceed on the assumption that the finding is unexceptionable still then the High Court was not at all justified in rejecting their evidence so far as it related to the murder of Tulsa Ram on that score alone for law is well settled that when evidence of a witness is rejected in part a duty is cast upon the Court to sift his evidence with more than ordinary care and caution to find out whether the rest of the evidence is fully trust-worthy, either intrinsically or by reason of corroboration from other trustworthy sources. Indeed, as noticed earlier, the High Court itself negatived an identical threshold contention raised by the respondents based on the maxim ``Falsus in uno, Falsus in Omnibus. (28). In Nadodi Jayaraman etc. vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2), it was held that the Maxim falsus in uno falsus in omnibus cannot be mechanically applied and the mere fact that the evidence of some of the prosecution witnesses was found unsafe for convicting the co-accused, is by itself no ground for rejecting the whole body of their testimony. (29). Keeping in view the above principle laid down by the Honble Supreme court, we have scrutinized the testimony of Brijmohan and Shrikishan. In our view, their testimony with regard to causing injuries with sword by the appellant Ghisia on the person of Rameshwar, causing injuries with sharp weapon by both the appellants on the person of Brijmohan and causing injuries with sharp weapon by the appellant Ghanshyam to Shrikishan, is reliable. They themselves sustained injuries in the incident in which Rameshwar suffered fatal injuries. In Surjit Singh vs. State of Punjab (3), it was held that nephew of the deceased who had suffered grievous injuries in the occurrence was a natural and stamped witness. In Sardul Singh vs. State of Punjab (4), it was indicated that the presence of witness who received injuries during course of incident, cannot be doubted. In Surjit Singh vs. State of Punjab (3), it was held that nephew of the deceased who had suffered grievous injuries in the occurrence was a natural and stamped witness. In Sardul Singh vs. State of Punjab (4), it was indicated that the presence of witness who received injuries during course of incident, cannot be doubted. Where there are number of injuries on the deceased and the witnesses have given some details about the manner in which they were inflicted, each witness cannot be expected to note the details in seriatem. Bankya vs. State of Maharashtra (5) was the case wherein Honble Supreme court observed that presence of the injured witnesses at the scene of occurrence cannot be doubted and being victim themselves they would not leave out real assailants and substitute them with innocent persons. (30). In view of these judicial pronouncements, the testimony of Brijmohan and Shrikishan can be relied upon to the extent as indicated hereinabove. (31). The trial Court has found both the appellants guilty u/Sec.307 IPC for causing injuries to Brijmohan and thereby making attempt to commit his murder. In our opinion, this finding of the lower court is not correct as Brijmohan sustained only simple injuries. there was no intention of the appellants to cause his death or to cause such injury as was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. the trial Court has also found the appellants guilty u/Sec.302 IPC for causing death of Rameshwar. In defence, DW-1 Dr.Umesh Vijay was examined. Dr.Vijay stated that on April 6, 1993 at 8.50 a.m. as Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Ghatta-Ghatti (District Baran), he examined Smt.Bacchi Bai W/o Vishan Lal, aged 45 years, by caste Saharia, R/o Kundi and found the following injury on her head:- (1) Incised wound (margins regular) over left side scalp posterior quadrant 3 c.m. x not gaping x 1/4 c.m. deep. (32). Dr.Vijay also stated that the injury was simple in nature, caused with sharp weapon. Duration of injury was within 24 hours. he prepared Injury Report Ex.D.7. (33). Dr.Umesh Vijay also stated that on the same day, he examined Ghasi Lal (@ Ghisia) S/o Kalyan, aged 21 years, by caste Saharia, R/o Kundi and found the following injuries on his person:- (1) Incised wound 5 cm. x 1/2 cm. gaping x 1/2 cm. deep over left anterior quadrant of scalp. (2) Incised wound 7 cm. (33). Dr.Umesh Vijay also stated that on the same day, he examined Ghasi Lal (@ Ghisia) S/o Kalyan, aged 21 years, by caste Saharia, R/o Kundi and found the following injuries on his person:- (1) Incised wound 5 cm. x 1/2 cm. gaping x 1/2 cm. deep over left anterior quadrant of scalp. (2) Incised wound 7 cm. x 1/4 cm. gaping x 1/4 cm. deep over left side of neck extending down to left clavicle. (3) Incised wound 3 cm. x not gaping x 1/4 cm. deep over left index finger proximal & middle phalanx palmer surface. (4) Incised wound 3-1/2 cm. x 1/4 cm. gaping x 1/4 cm. deep over left middle finger. (5) Abrasion 5 cm. x superficial over right elbow vertrally. (34). Dr.Vijay also stated that injury No.1 to 4 were caused by sharp weapon and the rest was of blunt weapon. Duration of injuries was within 24 hours. He prepared Injury Report Ex.D8. (35). Dr.Vijay is an independent and impartial witness. There is no ground to discard his testimony. Therefore, it stands proved that the above mentioned injuries were found on the person of Smt.Bachhi Bai and Ghasi Lal (2 Ghisia) when they were medically examined by Dr.Vijay. (36). DW2 Dr.Madhusudan Tiwari also was examined in defence. He stated that on April 7, 1993 at 11.00 a.m. in C.H.C., Kishanganj, he examined Kajod S/o Ratan Lal, aged 55 years, by caste Saharia, R/o Kundi and found the following injuries on his person:- (1) Incised wound 1-1/2" x 1/2" x 3/4" x bone deep just above right frontal eminence (1 cm. above). (2) Incised wound 1" x 1/2" x 1/2" x bone deep just below the right frontal eminence (1 cm. above). (3) Incised wound 1" x 1/2" x 1/2" x bone deep 1 cm. above the lateral end of right eyebrow. (4) Lacerated wound 1 cm. x 1 cm. on posterior surface of the right elbow joint. (5) Bruise 3 cm. x 2 cm. on the posterior surface of the left shoulder joint. (37). Dr.Tiwari also stated that injury No.1 to 3 were caused by sharp weapon and the rest by blunt weapon. Duration of injuries was within 24 to 48 hours. he prepared Injury Report Ex.D.9. In our opinion, the statement of Dr.Tiwari also is trustworthy and it proves that on medical examination, aforementioned injuries were found on the person of Kajod. (37). Dr.Tiwari also stated that injury No.1 to 3 were caused by sharp weapon and the rest by blunt weapon. Duration of injuries was within 24 to 48 hours. he prepared Injury Report Ex.D.9. In our opinion, the statement of Dr.Tiwari also is trustworthy and it proves that on medical examination, aforementioned injuries were found on the person of Kajod. Kajod also faced trial, but he was acquitted by the trial Court. Looking to the duration of the injuries sustained by Smt.Bacchi Bai, Ghasi Lal @ Ghisia (the appellant) and Kajod, there is possibility that they might have received these injuries in the same incident in which Rameshwar, Brijmohan and shrikishan sustained injuries. F.I.R. was also lodged by Smt.Bachhi Bai at Police Station, Nahargarh on April 6, 1993 at 8.00 a.m. against Brijmohan, Tolaram and Rameshwar wherein it was alleged that they armed with lathies and sword came to her house on April 5, 1993 at about 11.00 p.m. and caused injuries to her and Ghasi Lal @ Ghisia. In the instant case the prosecution has failed to explain the injuries of the appellant Ghisia and others of his side. We are unable to accept the contention of learned Public Prosecutor that both the incident had occurred at two different places and the appellant Ghisia and his companions did not sustain injuries in the incident in which Rameshwar, Brijmohan, and Shrikishan suffered injuries. Looking to all the facts and circumstances of the case, the possibility that the appellant Ghisia, Smt.Bachhi Bai and Kajod might have been caused injuries by Rameshwar, Brijmohan and Shrikishan cannot be ruled out. It was alleged in `Parchabayan as well as in deposition in Court by PW1 Brijmohan that prior to the alleged incident, for eating meat, the accused had killed a goat belonging to him and because of that there was enmity between them. In view of this fact, this possibility cannot be ruled out that in the beginning, the appellant Ghisia and other persons of his family might have been attacked and caused injuries by the deceased Rameshwar, Brijmohan and Shrikishan and thereafter, the appellants caused injuries to the deceased Rameshwar, Brijmohan and Shrikishan in exercise of their right of private defence of their body. As Brijmohan and Shrikishan were caused only simple injuries, in our opinion, no offence was committed by the appellants for having caused injuries to them. As Brijmohan and Shrikishan were caused only simple injuries, in our opinion, no offence was committed by the appellants for having caused injuries to them. So far as the deceased Rameshwar is concerned, there was no common intention of the appellants to cause death or to cause such injury as was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Therefore, the appellant Ghanshyam who did not cause any injury to Rameshwar, is not liable for the death of Rameshwar and he has committed no offence. Of course, the appellant Ghisia had a right of private defence to cause injury to the deceased but, in our considered view, by causing serious injuries with a sword and that too on the head, which is a vital part of the body, he exceeded his right of private defence. The act of appellant comes under Exception 2 of Section 300 IPC and in these circumstances, he cannot be held guilty for murder u/Sec.302 IPC, but he is liable to be convicted u/Sec.304 Part I IPC as the injuries on the head of the deceased were caused with sword, a deadly weapon by him with the intention of causing such bodily injury as was likely to cause death. While causing simple injury to Brijmohan, the appellant Ghisia committed no offence. (38). Consequently, the appeal of the appellant Ghanshyam is allowed and he is acquitted of the charges u/Secs.302 and 307 IPC. The appeal of the appellant Ghisia is partly allowed. He is acquitted of the charges u/Sec.302 and 307 IPC. Instead we convict him u/Sec.304 Part (I) IPC and sentence him to suffer 7 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.15,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo 6 months rigorous imprisonment. If fine is deposited by the appellant, the same shall be paid to the legal representatives of the deceased Rameshwar.