Judgment ( 1. ) THIS criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the judgment dated 28-8-97 rendered in Sessions Trial No. 302/96 by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Ujjain, thereby convicting the appellants for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life and rigorous imprisonment for five years respectively and also convicting the appellants Santosh and Dilip for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307, both read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them each to suffer imprisonment for life and Rigorous Imprisonment for five years respectively. All the substantive sentences have been directed to run concurrently. ( 2. ) THE facts of the prosecution case as unfurled before the Trial Court were that on 8-5-96, Mainabai and the deceased Kailash had purchased KIMDIS (palm-tree branches) for preparing baskets. On 9-5-96, Mainabai, Sarjubai, Raju and the deceased went from Village Panbihar to Devi Karadiya on a bullock-cart to bring those purchased palm-branches. On the way, the appellants asked them as to why they have purchased the palm-branches from their village and warned them not to take the same. Deceased Kaiiash promised the appellants not to purchase again from Village Devi Karadiya in future and proceeded with loaded bullock-cart. Thereafter, on the way, quarrel between the two parties ensued. Appellant was armed with a Farsi, Dilip was armed with a lathi and Santosh was having handle of small sickle. Premnarayan assaulted Raju on his head and when Kailash went to his rescue, Premnarayan assaulted Kailash on his head by Farsi and Santosh assaulted the deceased by sickle which struck on his cheek and hands. Dilip also assaulted Mainabai by lathi on her arm, back and buttock. ( 3. ) SARJUBAI rushed towards village to call Chowkidar Mangilal. Mangilal informed the police about the incident which was recorded in Rojnamcha Sanha and thereafter, the police party reached the spot and at the instance of Mainabai (P. W. 13), Dehati Nalishi (Ex. P-18) was drawn and on this basis the First Information Report (Ex. P-20) was reduced into writing at the police station. Police registered the crime at No. 106/96, prepared the spot map (Ex. P-19) and seized the articles vide Ex. P-3. The dead body of Kailash was sent to the hospital for post-mortem examination. Post-mortem examination report is Ex. P-5. P-18) was drawn and on this basis the First Information Report (Ex. P-20) was reduced into writing at the police station. Police registered the crime at No. 106/96, prepared the spot map (Ex. P-19) and seized the articles vide Ex. P-3. The dead body of Kailash was sent to the hospital for post-mortem examination. Post-mortem examination report is Ex. P-5. Injured Raju and Mainabai were also sent for medical examination. Their medical reports are Exs. P-4 and P-25 respectively. After performing the usual formalities of investigation, the appellants were charge-sheeted. The appellants abjured their guilt and claimed trial. They pleaded that they have been falsely implicated. The learned Trial Court, after trial, finding the appellants guilty of the offences charged, convicted and sentenced them as indicated hereinabove. ( 4. ) WE have heard Shri Jaisingh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Viveksingh for the appellants and Shri G. Desai, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State and gone through the entire record carefully. ( 5. ) HAVING regard to the fact that the deceased Kailash died as a result of injury to brain caused by sharp edged weapon, post-mortem report (Ex. P-5) as also the evidence of Dr. C. S. Bhargava (P. W. 8), it is found proved that the deceased Kailash met a homicidal death. ( 6. ) THE conviction of the appellants is based on the testimony of eye-witnesses Mainabai (P. W. 13) (injured), Sarjubai (P. W. 17), Raju (P. W. 18) (injured), mother, wife and son of the deceased respectively. Learned Counsel for the appellants criticised their statements on the ground that they are interested and partisan witnesses, and therefore, their testimony should not have been relied upon for convicting the appellants. We have carefully gone through the statements of all these three eye-witnesses and found that though they are the relations of the deceased, but, they can not be termed as partisan witnesses, because absolutely there is no evidence on record to establish that there was bad blood between the parties prior to the date of incident. All the three eye-witnesses have deposed in Court on oath that when they were returning back from Village Kheda with loaded bullock-cart, all the three appellants met them on the way. The appellant Premnarayan was having a Farsi while Santosh and Dilip were having lathi and a bamboo-stick with sickle. All the three eye-witnesses have deposed in Court on oath that when they were returning back from Village Kheda with loaded bullock-cart, all the three appellants met them on the way. The appellant Premnarayan was having a Farsi while Santosh and Dilip were having lathi and a bamboo-stick with sickle. When they were about to assault them, the deceased party wanted to know the cause for being assaulted, the appellants told that why they had purchased the palm-branches (KIMDIS) from their village. Raju (P. W. 18) came down from the bullock-cart. He was assaulted by Farsi by appellant No. 1 Premnarayan on his head. He fell down on the ground. Thereafter, all the appellants started assaulting his father-deceased Kailash by Farsi and Lathi. ( 7. ) MAINABAI (P. W. 13) intervened, she too was assaulted by the appellants Santosh and Dilip who were having lathi in their possession. ( 8. ) THE prosecution case is very specific about use of sharp edged weapon like Farsi by appellant Premnarayan and hard and blunt objects like lathi and bamboo-stick of sickle by appellant Dilip and Santosh. In the same incident, Mainabai (P. W. 13) and Raju (P. W. 18) sustained injuries. Mainabai (P. W. 13) was medically examined by Dr. Anil Sinha (P. W. 22) who found swelling on her left upper arm and complaint of pain. According to this doctor, the injury could have been caused by hard and blunt object. He advised for her X-ray examination, but no X-ray report has been filed by the prosecution. Raju (P. W. 18) also sustained injuries on his person caused by the appellants. Dr. Prahlad Bhargava (P. W. 7), on his examination, found one incised injury on the head of Raju on occipital region. Dr. C. S. Bhargava (P. W. 8) performed the autopsy on the dead body of Kailash and found as many as six injuries on his body, out of which injury Nos. 3 and 4 were caused by hard and blunt object while injury Nos. 1, 2, 5 and 6 were caused by hard and sharp edged weapon. He died because of heard injury caused by sharp-edged weapon. ( 9. 3 and 4 were caused by hard and blunt object while injury Nos. 1, 2, 5 and 6 were caused by hard and sharp edged weapon. He died because of heard injury caused by sharp-edged weapon. ( 9. ) ALL the three eye-witnesses have stated that the appellant No. 1 Premnarayan was having Farsi which is a sharp edged weapon and used the same for causing injury to deceased Kailash as well as to witness Raju (P. W. 18 ). On a close scrutiny of the statements of these eye-witnesses, we find that they are fully corroborated by medical evidence and they could not be disbelieved only on the ground that they are the close relations of the deceased. All the three eye-witnesses have stated that at the time of incident, no other person was present there except the appellants. Some persons assembled thereafter. Therefore, the question of non-examination of any other independent witnesses does not arise. ( 10. ) IT is true that all these witnesses are interested witnesses being relations of the deceased, but, they will not implicate innocent person in place of real culprit. It is a natural phenomena that a person will be interested in the prosecution and punishment of his real assailant. But, at the same time, they are not immune from reaping innocent persons alongwith the real culprit. But, in the present case, looking to the statements of these eye-witnesses vis-a-vis, the medical reports, the presence and participations of all the three appellants is well established. They were well known to the witnesses. The defence has put a question to Raju (P. W. 18) about the identity of the accused persons who has replied in Para 4 of his cross-examination that he was knowing the appellants very well by their names. Nothing substantial has come in the statements of Mainabai (P. W. 13) and Sarjubai (P. W. 17), which may create doubt the identity of the appellants. ( 11. ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellants has pointed out some technical defects in the prosecution case like non-production of Rojnamcha Sanha (daily diary) which was recorded by the police at the instance of Chowkidar Mangilal (P. W. 2) who was informed by Sarjubai (P. W. 17 ). Mangilal (P. W. 2) has deposed that on the date of incident, he was at his house. Mangilal (P. W. 2) has deposed that on the date of incident, he was at his house. A woman came to him and informed him about the Marpit with her husband at which, he reached on the spot and found one person lying dead and another in injured condition. He went to Panbihar Outpost and reported the matter, but, nowhere this witness has stated that his report was reduced into writing. On his information about the incident, Idris Khan (P. W. 16), A. S. I. reached on the spot and recorded the Dehati Nalishi at the instance of Mainabai (P. W. 13) vide Ex. P-18. In cross-examination, Para 3, he has admitted that the information given by Chowkidar Mangilal (P. W. 2) was recorded in the daily-diary. He has denied the suggestion given by the defence that Mainabai did not lodge any report to him. Non-production of information recorded in daily-diary at the instance of Chowkidar alone would not be sufficient to raise doubt on the veracity and truthfulness of the statements of three eye-witnesses out of which two were injured in the same incident. ( 12. ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellants took us through the statements of the eye-witnesses regarding some omission, contradictions and improvements regarding causing fatal blow by particular appellant to the particular injured, but these omissions and contradictions are not of any substantial nature and do not change the basic picture of the prosecution case. On a close scrutiny of the statements of the three eye-witnesses, we have no hesitation to hold them fully reliable. ( 13. ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellants has submitted that the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code is not sustainable because, there is no evidence on record that all the appellants had pre-meeting of minds, pre-meditation and pre-plan for committing murder of deceased Kailash. He pointed out the finding of the learned Trial Court arrived at in Para 77 that both the parties were not having any previous enmity and incident had occurred on a trivial issue of purchasing palm-branches by the deceased party from Village Devi Karadiya from where the appellants were also purchasing. All the three eye-witnesses have in unequivocal term stated that when they were going with bullock-cart, on the way the appellants met them. All the three eye-witnesses have in unequivocal term stated that when they were going with bullock-cart, on the way the appellants met them. Thereafter, they had some verbal talks about purchase of palm-branches and during the said talks, the appellant No. 1 Premnarayan all of a sudden dealt a farsi-blow causing injury to deceased Kailash and witness Raju (P. W. 18 ). The injuries caused by the appellants Santosh and Dilip by lathi and bamboo-stick were simple in nature. ( 14. ) THE deceased Kailash died because of head injury which was caused by sharp edged weapon attributed to appellant Premnarayan. The appellant Nos. 2 and 3 used lathi and bamboo-stick and caused fracture of radius and ulna bones of deceased Kailash. For proving common intention to commit a particular crime by the accused persons, the prosecution has to establish beyond all reasonable doubt the pre-meeting of minds, pre-meditation and pre-plan amongst the assailants for which sufficient evidence is not present in the instant case. As stated above, they were not having any previous enmity or ill-will. There was no sufficient motive for the appellants to form common intention to commit murder of the deceased Kailash. ( 15. ) THE Supreme Court in a judgment rendered in the case of Surat Singh v. State of Punjab, (1976) 4 SCC 311 , observed that :- "conviction with the aid of Section 34 not justified where the accused did not share the intention of causing death with the co-assailant and himself only caused simple injuries. " Also see : Ninaji Raoji Boudha and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra, [ (1976) 2 SCC 117 = AIR 1976 SC 1537 ]. ( 16. ) THEREFORE, we are of the opinion that the appellant No. 1 Premnarayan is responsible for causing death of deceased Kailash who dealt as many as four blows by farsi - a sharp-edged weapon causing injury on his head and he is also responsible for causing simple injury by sharp edged weapon like farsi to witness Raju (P. W. 18), punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellants No. 2 Santosh and No. 3 Dilip used lathi and bamboo-stick which were non-lethal weapons and they had caused grievous injuries to deceased and simple injury to Mainabai. Therefore, they are responsible for committing the offence punishable under Sections 325 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code respectively. The appellants No. 2 Santosh and No. 3 Dilip used lathi and bamboo-stick which were non-lethal weapons and they had caused grievous injuries to deceased and simple injury to Mainabai. Therefore, they are responsible for committing the offence punishable under Sections 325 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code respectively. The appellants were also not having intention to commit murder of injured witnesses Raju and Mainabai. Therefore, their conviction for the offence under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code is not sustainable. They are found guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 325 and 323 both read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. ( 17. ) AS a result of the discussion as aforesaid, this appeal stands allowed in part. Though the conviction of the appellant No. 1 Premnarayan for the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is set aside, he is found guilty of the offences under Sections 302 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code. His sentence for the offence under Section 302, IPC is maintained. He is further sentenced to the period already undergone with fine of Rs. 4,000/-for the offence under Section 324, Indian Penal Code. The appellants No. 2 Santosh and No. 3 Dilip are found guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 325 and 323 both read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and each is sentenced to the period already undergone with fine of Rs. 4,000/ -. In default of payment of fine, each of the appellants shall suffer R. I. for one year. ( 18. ) THE appellant No. 1 Premnarayan is in jail. The jail authorities be informed accordingly. Appellants No. 2 Santosh and No. 3 Dilip are on bail. The Trial Court is directed to discharge their bail bonds subject to their depositing the amount of fine. Out of the amount of fine of Rs. 12,000/-, if realised or recovered, Rs. 10,000/- shall be paid as compensation to the legal representatives of the deceased Kailash and Rs. 500/- to be paid to injured Raju (P. W. 18) and Mainabai (P. W. 13) respectively. ( 19. ) RECORD of the Trial Court alongwith a copy of this judgment be transmitted to that Court immediately.