VISHNU SAHAI, J. ( 1 ) FIVE persons namely; Veer Bhadra, Jai Karan, Babu, Mahesh and Bhan Chand were tried by the IInd Addl. Sessions Judge, Sitapur in Sessions Trial No. 329 of 1979 for offences punishable under Ss. 148, 302, 302/149 and 307 149, I. P. C. vide judgment and order dated 22-8-1980 the learned trial Judge acquitted Mahesh and Bhan Chand on all the counts but convicted and sentenced Veer Bhadra, Jai Karan and Babu in the manner stated hereinafter :-veer Bhadra :-UNDER S. 148, I. P. C. to two years R. I. ; under S. 302, I. P. C. and Ss. 302/149, I. P. C. to imprisonment for life; and under Ss. 323/149, I. P. C. to six months R. I. Jai Karan and Babu :-UNDER S. 148, I. P. C. to two years R. I. under Ss. 302/149, I. P. C. to imprisonment for life; and under Ss. 323/149, I. P. C. to six months R. I. The substantive sentences of the said accused persons were directed to run concurrently. ( 2 ) AGGRIEVED by their convictions and sentences Jai Karan, Veer Bhadra and Babu preferred Criminal Appeal No. 498/1980 in this Court and aggrieved by the acquittal of Mahesh and Bhan Chand, the State of U. P. preferred Criminal Appeal No. 40/1982. Since both these appeals arise out of a common factual matrix and impugned judgment, we are disposing them off by one judgment. ( 3 ) SHORTLY stated the prosecution case runs as under : The informant Ashok Kumar Singh (P. W. 1) is the son of deceased-Surya Prakash Singh. At the time of the incident the informant, deceased-Surya Prakash Singh and another deceased-Ram Lal, injured Ram Chandra Singh P. W. 2 and appellants-Jai Karan, Veer Bhadra and Babu were living in village Alaipur within the limits of police station Sidhauli district Sitapur. Appellants-Veer Bhadra and Jai Karan are real brothers and appellant-Babu is son of their maternal uncle. There was enmity between Veer Bhadra and Jai Karan on one side and deceased-Surya Prakash Singh on the other, 13 months before the incident Veer Bhadra, Jai Karan, their brother Pyarey Lal and a relative had attacked Surya Prakash Singh with pistol and bhala. Surya Prakash Singh who had suffered injuries lodged F. I. R. against them. There was enmity between Veer Bhadra and Jai Karan on one side and deceased-Surya Prakash Singh on the other, 13 months before the incident Veer Bhadra, Jai Karan, their brother Pyarey Lal and a relative had attacked Surya Prakash Singh with pistol and bhala. Surya Prakash Singh who had suffered injuries lodged F. I. R. against them. A cross F. I. R. in respect of the same incident was lodged by Veer Bhadra against Surya Prakash and others. On the date of the incident i. e. 17-12-1978 at about 4. 00 p. m. Surya Prakash Singh was sitting on a cot in his courtyard situated at distance of 15-16 paces from the door of his house. His servant Ram Lal was weeding potato crop in the field situated to north of the said courtyard. Informant Ashok Kumar Singh P. W. 1, Ram Chandra Singh P. W. 2, Vishwanath Shukla, and Narendra Singh P. W. 3 were sitting near the door of his house. At that time, appellants-Veer Bhadra, Jai Karan and Babu armed with guns along with two unknown persons, one of whom was armed with a kanta and one with a Banka came. Immediately, appellant-Veer Bhadra fired on Surya Prakash Singh as a consequence of which he fell down. When informant Ashok Kumar Singh, Ram Lal and others rushed to the rescue of Surya Prakash Singh, appellants-Jai Karan and Babu fired; the former on Surya Prakash Singh and the latter on Ram Lal. Jal Karan also assaulted Ram Chandra with the barrel of gun. The two unknown persons assaulted with kanta and banka Surya Prakash Singh. After murdering Surya Prakash Singh and Ram Lal and injuring Ram Chandra the appellants and the unknown persons ran away. ( 4 ) THE evidence of Awadh Naresh (P. W. 10) shows that on the date of the incident he was going from village Alaipur to Manipurwa and at about 4. 15 p. m. when he had reached one furlong north of Alaipur, he heard sound of 2-3 fires and commotion. He saw that from the side of Alaipur appellants-Jai Karan, Veer Bhadra and Babu armed with guns and two unknown persons, one of whom was armed with a banka and one with a kanta, were coming. 15 p. m. when he had reached one furlong north of Alaipur, he heard sound of 2-3 fires and commotion. He saw that from the side of Alaipur appellants-Jai Karan, Veer Bhadra and Babu armed with guns and two unknown persons, one of whom was armed with a banka and one with a kanta, were coming. ( 5 ) THE evidence of the informant Ashok Kumar Singh shows that after the incident, on the place of the incident itself, he scribed his F. I. R. and on a tractor proceeded to police station Sidhauli to lodge it. ( 6 ) THE evidence of Head Constable Puttu Lal (P. W. 15) shows that on the date of incident i. e. on 17-12-1978 he was posted at P. S. Sidhauli and on the said date, the informant Ashok Kumar Singh came to the police station at 6. 15 p. m. along with his F. I. R. , on the basis of which he registered a case vide G. D. entry Ext. Ka-35. It is pertinent to mention that the distance between the place of the incident and police station Sidhauli is 12 miles. ( 7 ) THE evidence of S. O. Kailash Nath (P. W. 4) shows that on 17-12-1978 he was posted as Station Officer, in-charge of police station Sidhauli. On the said date at 6. 15 p. m. the F. I. R. was lodged in his presence and he took over the investigation thereafter. His evidence shows :-AT the police station he recorded the statement of Ashok Kumar Singh and thereafter, along with the police personnel left for the place of incident which he reached at 8. 45 p. m. the same day. He found the dead body of Surya Prakash Singh and Ram Lal lying on front of the house of the informant and performed inquest on them and thereafter, sent them for autopsy. He thereafter, sent injured Ram Chandra Singh for medical examination to P. H. C. Sidhauli. On 18-12-1978 at about 6. 00 a. m. , he inspected the place of the incident and prepared the site plan. From the place where he found the dead body of deceased persons lying, he also recovered blood stained earth and plain earth in two separate containers vide recovery memo Ext. Ka-19 and Ext. Ka-20. On 18-12-1978 at about 6. 00 a. m. , he inspected the place of the incident and prepared the site plan. From the place where he found the dead body of deceased persons lying, he also recovered blood stained earth and plain earth in two separate containers vide recovery memo Ext. Ka-19 and Ext. Ka-20. He recovered two empty cartridges and two tiklies from the place of the incident under two separate recovery memos. He found blood on the cot on which the corpse of Surya Prakash Singh was lying and seized it. The same day, he interrogated some witnesses. He did some other investigation which included recovering guns from appellants-Jai Karan and Veer Bhadra (since the learned trial Judge has placed no reliance on the said recovery, and the factum of two empty cartridges recovered from the place of incident being fired from them, we are not entering into greater details ). During the course of investigation, he arrested two unknown persons, namely, Bhan Chand and Mahesh (respondents of Criminal Appeal No. 40 of 1982) (since the learned trial Judge acquitted them on the ground that there was a solitary identification against them and the said ground in our view, is a plausible ground for acquitting them are not referring to the details in respect of their arrest identification etc. ). On completion of the investigation, the appellants and respondents were charge-sheeted. ( 8 ) GOING backwards, the injuries of Ram Chandra Singh (P. W. 2) were medically examined by Dr. D. P. Gupta (P. W. 4) on 18-12-1978 at 8. 30 a. m. at District Hospital, Sitapur. Dr. Gupta found on his person the following injuries : (1) Abraded contusion 1 cm. x. 5 cm. on right temporal region 2 cm. in front of right ear. (2) Contusion 2 cm. x 1 cm. on palmer aspect of right thumb. In the opinion of Dr. Gupta, the said injuries could have been caused on 17-12-1978 at about 4. 00 p. m. and injury No. 1 was result of friction from barrel of gun and injury No. 2 was a consequence of a assault by barrel of gun. ( 9 ) ONCE again going backwards, the autopsy on the corpse of the deceased-Surya Prakash Singh and Ram Lal was conducted on 18-12-1978 at 11. 45 a. m. and 1. 00 p. m. respectively by Dr. ( 9 ) ONCE again going backwards, the autopsy on the corpse of the deceased-Surya Prakash Singh and Ram Lal was conducted on 18-12-1978 at 11. 45 a. m. and 1. 00 p. m. respectively by Dr. R. S. Agarwal (P. W. 5 ). On the person of deceased-Surya Prakash Singh, the doctor found the following ante-mortem injuries : (1) Blood has oozed from both ears. (2) The right side of the face was blackened up to the chin and the right angle of the mouth. There was blackening on the neck also. There was a gun shot wound on the right cheek 2. 5 cm. x 2 cm. x mouth cavity deep up to the brain. The direction of the pellets was from front of upwards, backwards and towards left. Pellets and wads were found in the brain. This wound was 2. 5 cm. away from the right angle of the mouth and all the bones under this injury were fractured. (3) Lacerated wound 4. 5 cm. x 2 cm. x full thickness of the lip, on the left side of both the lips. This was gun shot wound directed upwards and towards left. Three teeth of the left side were fractured and the upper and lower jaws under the injury had been fractured. (4) Gunshot wound 1. 5 cm. x. 5 cm. x cavity deep on left side of the chin, 2 cm. below the injury No. 3. (5) Incised wound on bridge of nose 1. 5 cm. x 0. 5 cm. x bone deep. The bones below the injury had been fractured. (6) Incised wound 3 cm. x 1. 5 cm. x cavity deep on the outer side of the right eye brow. The bone below the injury had been cut. (7) Incised wound in the middle of the forehead 3 cm. x 1 cm. x cavity deep 1. 5 cm. above the injury No. 6. The bone under the injury had been cut. (8) Incised wound on outer side of right eye brow 1. 5 cm. x 0. 5 cm. x bone deep. (9) Lacerated wound 1 cm. x 5 cm. x bone deep, on the outer side of the left eye brow. The bone under the injury had been fractured. (10) Incised wound on left side of face 12 cm. x 3 cm. 5 cm. x 0. 5 cm. x bone deep. (9) Lacerated wound 1 cm. x 5 cm. x bone deep, on the outer side of the left eye brow. The bone under the injury had been fractured. (10) Incised wound on left side of face 12 cm. x 3 cm. x cavity deep, brain matter was flowing out of the wound and the bone under the injury had been cut. The injury was 5 cm. above the left ear. (11) Abrasion on the front side of the right knee 3 cm. x 2 cm. (12) Abrasion on the left side of chest 4 cm. x 3 cm. 7 cm. above the left nipple. (13) Incised wound on the front side of the right fore-arm 2 cm. x 0. 5 cm. x skin deep 5 cm. above the wrist joint. On internal examination Dr. Agarwal found scalp bones fractured and brain matter coming out from left side of scalp. He also found some other internal damage. In the opinion of Dr. Agarwal the deceased died on account of shock and haemorrhage resulting from brain injury. On the person of deceased Ram Lal, Dr. Agarwal found a gun shot wound on the right side of back 2. 5 cm. x 2. 5 cm. x cavity deep, 5 cm. above the iliac crest and 4 cm. away from the mid point on the right side. The margins of the wound were blackened and inverted. The direction was upwards toward left side of abdomen, left chest cavity and right cavity. The 4th rib on the left side was fractured and sternum on the level of the 4th rib in mid was punctured. On internal examination the doctor found some ribs fractured. In the opinion of Dr. Agarwal the deceased died on account of shock and haemorrhage due to the injuries suffered by him. ( 10 ) THE case was committed to the Court of Sessions in usual manner where the three appellants-Jai Karan, Veer Bhadra and Babu and respondents-Mahesh Chandra and Bhan Chand after being charged on a number of counts, were tried. ( 11 ) DURING trial, in all, the prosecution examined 16 witnesses. Three of them, namely, Ashok Kumar Singh (P. W. 1), Ram Chandra Singh (P. W. 2) and Narendra Singh (P. W. 3) were examined as eye-witnesses. ( 11 ) DURING trial, in all, the prosecution examined 16 witnesses. Three of them, namely, Ashok Kumar Singh (P. W. 1), Ram Chandra Singh (P. W. 2) and Narendra Singh (P. W. 3) were examined as eye-witnesses. Avadh Naresh (P. W. 10) gave evidence which was admissible under S. 6 of the Indian Evidence Act. Evidence was also led by the prosecution to prove the recovery of guns from Veer Bhadra and Jai Karan. Evidence of Ballistic Expert was also adduced. The learned trial Judge neither believed the evidence of P. W. 10 Avadh Naresh nor the evidence in respect of recovery of guns from Jai Karan and Veer Bhadra nor the ocular account furnished by Narendra Singh (P. W. 3 ). The learned trial Judge, however, accepted the eye-witness account furnished by Ashok Kumar Singh and Ram Chandra Singh and convicted the appellants on its basis but acquitted accused-Mahesh and Bhan Chand because the evidence against them comprised of a solitary identification and it was not safe to convict them on its basis. ( 12 ) AS mentioned earlier, aggrieved by the convictions and sentences. Veer Bhadra, Jai Karan and Babu preferred Criminal Appeal No. 498 of 1980 in this Court and aggrieved by acquittal of Mahesh and Bhan Chand, the State of U. P. preferred in this Court Criminal Appeal No. 40 of 1982. ( 13 ) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties. We have also perused :- The deposition of prosecution witnesses; the material exhibits tendered and proved by the prosecution; the statements of appellants-Veer Bhadra, Jai Karan, and Babu and respondents-Mahesh and Bhan Chand recorded under S. 313, Cr. P. C. ; and the impugned judgment. In our view, both Criminal Appeals Nos. 498 of 1980 and 40 of 1982 are devoid of substance and deserve to be dismissed. We now propose giving our reasons for reaching the said conclusion. ( 14 ) WE begin with Criminal Appeal No. 40 of 1982. It has been preferred by State of U. P. against the acquittal of respondents-Mahesh and Bhan Chand. A perusal of para 64 of the impugned judgment would show that the learned trial Judge acquitted the said respondents because the only evidence against them was of a solitary identification and their arrest was also suspicious. It has been preferred by State of U. P. against the acquittal of respondents-Mahesh and Bhan Chand. A perusal of para 64 of the impugned judgment would show that the learned trial Judge acquitted the said respondents because the only evidence against them was of a solitary identification and their arrest was also suspicious. In the decision of Asharfi v. State of U. P. , reported in AIR 1961 All 153 , which decision is a magnum opus on the law of identification, in para 46, James, J. has observed that "if, a suspect is mixed with nine innocent persons and is identified by a witness, the mathematical probability of the witness picking him out of chance is one in ten. Hence, only one identification cannot eliminate the possibility of the pointing out being purely though chance, and for this reason is insufficient to establish the charge. " (Emphasis supplied) ( 15 ) WE are in respectful agreement with the said observations of James, J. Since the only evidence against respondents-Mahesh and Bhan Chand is of a solitary identification and the learned trial Judge for plausible reason contained in the impugned judgment has entertained doubts about their arrest and the settled law is that this Court only interferes with an order of acquittal if, the view of acquittal is unreasonable and in our view, the view of the trial Court, in acquitting the respondents was a perfectly reasonable one the acquittal of respondents-Mahesh and Bhan Chand will have to be affirmed and Criminal Appeal No. 40 of 1982 preferred by the State of U. P. against their acquittal would have to be dismissed. ( 16 ) WE now come to Criminal Appeal No. 498 of 1980 which has been preferred by Jai Karan, Veer Bhadra and Babu. As observed earlier, we find no merit in it. The learned trial Judge has based the conviction of said persons on the ocular account furnished by the informant Ashok Kumar Singh (P. W. 1) and Ram Chandra Singh (P. W. 2 ). We now propose examining the said account. ( 17 ) WE begin with the ocular account furnished by Ram Chandra Singh (P. W. 2), the injured eye-witness of the incident. We now propose examining the said account. ( 17 ) WE begin with the ocular account furnished by Ram Chandra Singh (P. W. 2), the injured eye-witness of the incident. In para 3, we have set out the prosecution story primarily on the basis of recitals contained in the examination-in-chief of Ram Chandra Singh and do not want to burden our judgment by graphically adverting to all the details. His evidence shows that :- on the date and time of incident, he along with informant Ashok Kumar Singh, Narendra Singh and Vishwanath was sitting at the door of Surya Prakash Singh. At that time, Ram Lal (deceased) was weeding the potato crop which was sown in the field situated to the north of house of the deceased Surya Prakash Singh and Surya Prakash Singh was sitting nearby on a cot reading newspaper. At that juncture, three appellants-Veer Bhadra, Jai Karan and Babu armed with guns along with two unknown persons one of whom was armed with a kanta and one with a banka came to the place where Surya Prakash Singh was sitting and reading the newspaper, Veer Bhadra fired a shot at Surya Prakash Singh and thereafter, Jai Karan and Babu fired a shot; the shot of the former struck Surya Prakash Singh and that of latter struck Ram Lal. Thereafter, Jai Karan with barrel of gun assaulted him (Ram Chandra Singh) and those armed with Kanta and Banka assaulted Surya Prakash Singh. Thereafter, the accused persons ran away. ( 18 ) WE have gone through the evidence of Ram Chandra Singh (P. W. 2) and make no bones in observing that we find him to be a implicitly truthful and reliable witness. In the first place, he has explained his presence on the place of incident. He has stated that from before the incident he along with Ashok Kumar Singh and some others was sitting at the door of Surya Prakash Singh. We find nothing unnatural in this claim of his because he is resident of village Alaipur wherein Surya Prakash Singh was also living and wherein the incident took place. Secondly, we find that the manner of assault furnished by him is corroborated by medical evidence. His evidence shows that two shots (one each by Veer Bhadra and Jai Karan) were fired on Surya Prakash Singh and the autopsy surgeon Dr. Secondly, we find that the manner of assault furnished by him is corroborated by medical evidence. His evidence shows that two shots (one each by Veer Bhadra and Jai Karan) were fired on Surya Prakash Singh and the autopsy surgeon Dr. Agarwal in his deposition has candidly stated that the fire-arm injuries suffered by Surya Prakash Singh were caused by two shots. His evidence that two unknown persons belaboured Surya Prakash Singh with kanta and banka is corroborated by the presence of six incised wounds on the person of Surya Prakash Singh. His claim that Babu fired on Ram Lal is corroborated by the presence of gunshot injury on the person of deceased Ram Lal. Finally, his claim that Jai Karan assaulted him with barrel of a gun is corroborated by the evidence of Dr. Gupta (P. W. 4) who candidly stated that first injury suffered by him was a result of friction from barrel of gun and the second as a direct consequence of assault by barrel of a gun. ( 19 ) IT should be borne in mind that Ram Chandra Singh (P. W. 2) is an injured witness and Courts always give weightage to the testimony of an injured witness because injuries ensure the presence of such a witness and the which remains to be examined pertains to the credibility of such a witness. So far as the credibility of Ram Chandra (P. W. 2) is concerned, we do not have any doubt because we have mentioned above the manner of the incident furnished by him is squarely corroborated by medical evidence. ( 20 ) IT is true that in his cross-examination he admitted that three years prior to the incident in a case under S. 107, Cr. P. C. he was a co-accused along with the deceased-Surya Prakash Singh but in our view this circumstance would not make us to mechanically reject his testimony but only evaluate it with caution. We have exercised the said caution and find him to be a truthful and reliable witness. ( 21 ) IN our view the solitary statement of the injured Ram Chandra Singh (P. W. 2) is sufficient to sustain the conviction of appellants-Veer Bhadra, Jai Karan and Babu on all the counts. We have exercised the said caution and find him to be a truthful and reliable witness. ( 21 ) IN our view the solitary statement of the injured Ram Chandra Singh (P. W. 2) is sufficient to sustain the conviction of appellants-Veer Bhadra, Jai Karan and Babu on all the counts. ( 22 ) IT should be borne in mind that in view of the provisions contained in S. 134 of the Indian Evidence Act which read that:- "no particular number of witnesses shall in any case be required for the proof of any fact," plurality of evidence is not a requirement of law but only a rule of prudence. ( 23 ) FORTUNATELY, in this case we have plurality of ocular account in the form of evidence of Ashok Kumar Singh, P. W. 1 (informant) son of deceased Surya Prakash Singh. His evidence shows that he was a student of LL. B. Ist year in Lucknow University, Lucknow but at the time of the incident since his LL. B. examinations had been stayed by the High Court, he was at the place of his father in village Alaipur. On the date and time of the incident, he was sitting along with Ram Chandra Singh P. W. 2 and some others at his house and they were talking. At a little distance his father Surya Prakash Singh was sitting on a cot reading newspaper. At that time, the three appellants-Veer Bhadra, Jai Karan and Babu, armed with guns along with two unknown persons one out of whom was armed with a kanta and one with a banka came. Immediately Veer Bhadra fired at his father Surya Prakash Singh as a consequence of which Surya Prakash Singh fell down. When he and Ram Lal rushed to his rescue, Jai Karan and Babu fired which struck Ram Lal and Ram Chandra Singh. Surya Prakash Singh fell down from the cot on receiving fire-arm injuries. Thereafter, the unknown persons with banka and kanta assaulted Surya Prakash Singh and then the accused persons ran away. ( 24 ) WE have gone through the evidence of Ram Chandra Singh and have no reservation in accepting his claim of having seen the incident. Surya Prakash Singh fell down from the cot on receiving fire-arm injuries. Thereafter, the unknown persons with banka and kanta assaulted Surya Prakash Singh and then the accused persons ran away. ( 24 ) WE have gone through the evidence of Ram Chandra Singh and have no reservation in accepting his claim of having seen the incident. Unless he would have been present on the place of the incident and seen the incident, he could not have lodged the F. I. R. within 2 hours and 15 minutes of the incident taking place. It is pertinent to mention that the incident took place on 17-12-1978 at 4 p. m. and he lodged the F. I. R. the same day at 6. 15 p. m. at Police Station, Sidhauli which was situated at a distance of about 12 miles from the place of the incident. It is significant to point out that no suggestion was given to Head Constable Puttu Lal P. W. 15 who registered the case on the basis of the F. I. R. that the F. I. R. was ante-timed and lodged later on and instead what he was suggested was that on 17-12-1978 after lodging of the F. I. R. of this case, no F. I. R. was lodged till 7 a. m. on 18-12-1978. It is true that during cross-examination a suggestion was given to Ashok Kumar Singh that the F. I. R. was not lodged at purported time but later on he emphatically repudiated it. We see no reason for disbelieving him. ( 25 ) APART from the above, we find that the evidence of the Investigating Officer, S. O. Kailash Nath Singh (P. W. 14) shows that after Ashok Kumar Singh had lodged the F. I. R. at the police station itself, he interrogated him under S. 161, Cr. P. C. and only thereafter he left for the place of incident which he reached at 8. 45 p. m. , the same evening. It is significant to mention that no suggestion was given to S. O. Kailash Nath Singh during cross-examination that he had not interrogated him at the police station. In our view his prompt interrogation under S. 161, Cr. P. C. also shows that he witnessed the incident. ( 26 ) WE also find that reasonable assurance is forthcoming to the manner of assault furnished by him from medical evidence. In our view his prompt interrogation under S. 161, Cr. P. C. also shows that he witnessed the incident. ( 26 ) WE also find that reasonable assurance is forthcoming to the manner of assault furnished by him from medical evidence. His evidence that first, Veer Bhadra fired at Surya Prakash Singh is corroborated by fire-arm injuries on the person of Surya Prakash Singh. HIs evidence that thereafter, Jai Karan and Babu fired corroborates the solitarily gunshot wound sustained by deceased-Ram Lal and explains the other injuries sustained by Surya Prakash Singh. It is true that his evidence does not explain the injuries of Ram Chandra Singh because he candidly stated that Ram Chandra Singh suffered fire-arm injuries and Dr. Gupta found injuries as a result of friction of barrel of gun and striking of barrel of gun on his person but in our view for this reason and also because that he did not see the shot fired by Jai Karan striking the deceased Surya Prakash Singh, his evidence cannot be rejected. So far as, Ram Chandra Singh not receiving any fire-arm injury is concerned, what appears to us is that being aged about 24 years at the time of the incident, he (Ashok Kumar Singh) became non-plussed on seeing two murders being committed and when appellant-Jai Karan assaulted Ram Chandra Singh with the barrel of gun, he carried the impression that appellant-Jai Karan had fired on him (Ram Chandra Singh ). So far as his inability to state that the shot fired by Jai Karan, struck Surya Prakash Singh is concerned, we are of the view that it was on account of the same reason. ( 27 ) AT any rate we would do well to remember the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in para 12 of the oft quoted case of Solanki Chimanbhai Ukabhai v. State of Gujarat, reported in AIR 1983 SC 484 which reads thus (para 12) :-"ordinarily, the value of medical evidence is only corroborative. It proves that the injuries could have been caused in the manner alleged and nothing more. The use which the defence can make of the medical evidence is to prove that the injuries could not possibly have been caused in the manner alleged can thereby discredit the eye-witnesses. It proves that the injuries could have been caused in the manner alleged and nothing more. The use which the defence can make of the medical evidence is to prove that the injuries could not possibly have been caused in the manner alleged can thereby discredit the eye-witnesses. Unless, however the medical evidence in its turn goes so far that it completely rules out all possibilities whatsoever of injuries taking place in the manner alleged by eye-witnesses, the testimony of the eye-witnesses cannot be thrown out on the ground of alleged inconsistency between it and the medical evidence. " (Emphasis supplied)if said ratio is borne in mind, the conflict between the version of Ashok Kumar Singh and medical evidence is rendered innocuous. ( 28 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons in our view the testimony of Ashok Kumar Singh (P. W. 1) also inspires confidence. ( 29 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons, in our view the convictions and sentences of appellants-Jai Karan, Veer Bhadra and Babu suffer from no infirmity. ( 30 ) IN the result; (A) Criminal Appeal No. 498 of 1980 is dismissed. The convictions and sentences of appellants-Jai Karan, Veer Bhadra and Baboo on all the counts are affirmed. They are on bail and shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out their sentences. (B) Criminal Appeal No. 40 of 1982 preferred by the State of U. P. against the acquittal of respondents-Mahesh and Bhan Chand is dismissed. The respondents are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail bonds shall stand cancelled and sureties discharged. Appeal dismissed. .