JUDGMENT Kuldip Chand Sood, J.—This appeal by the appellants Lekh Ram, Ravinder Kumar, Asha Ram, Shanti Devi and Satya Devi is directed against their conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Solan in Sessions Trial No. 4-S/7 of 2000 by his judgment dated March 27, 2001 for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Each of the accused have been sentenced as follows : (i) For the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, simple imprisonment for life and fine of rupees 20,000 each. In case of default in the payment of fine, each of the convict is to undergo simple imprisonment for three years; (ii) For offence under Section 147 of the Code, each of the accused to suffer simple imprisonment for two years; (iii) For offence under Section 148 of the Code, each of the accused simple imprisonment for three years; Aggrieved, the appellants are in this appeal. Relevant facts : 2. Ashwani Sood had settled at "Shiv Shankar Garh", a small hamlet in Tehsil Kandaghat of District Solan. He was living alongwith his wife Pushpa Devi and son Anoop Kumar. His two daughters were married. Ashwani Kumar constantly being harassed by a section of villagers. He had launched various criminal proceedings against some of the inhabitants of the village including the accused. Civil litigation between the accused and deceased Ashwani Kumar was also pending in the Courts. Ashwani Kumar on the morning of February 23, 2000 left for Kandaghat to get a stay order from the Court as the accused were forcibly taking road from his land. On his return from Kandaghat, at about 6.30 p.m., he was way Lald by the accused and given beatings. The accused were armed with weapons. At about 10.00 in the night, Additional Superintendent of Police Solan telephonically informed Station House Officer, Police Station, Kandaghat that Ashwani Kumar has been killed by Shanti Devi outside his house in village Shiv Shankar Garh and that he should immediately proceed to the spot and investigate the case. The information and directions so received from the Additional Superintendent of Police were entered in the Daily Diary of the Police Station (Exhibit PW19/A). 3. Shamsher Singh, Station House Officer, Police Station Kandaghat (PW 25) alongwith other Police Officers reached village Shiv Shankar Garh. The information and directions so received from the Additional Superintendent of Police were entered in the Daily Diary of the Police Station (Exhibit PW19/A). 3. Shamsher Singh, Station House Officer, Police Station Kandaghat (PW 25) alongwith other Police Officers reached village Shiv Shankar Garh. In the meanwhile, A.S.I. Shyam Chand, Police Post Seri also reached the spot. Statement of compLalnant Anoop Kumar son of deceased Ashwani Sood under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Exhibit PW1/A) was recorded by Inspector Shamsher Singh. Prosecution case : 4. On the fateful day, deceased Ashwani Kumar left for Kandaghat to obtain stay order from the Court against the accused who were forcibly taking a road from the land of Ashwani Kumar. At about 6.30 in the evening, Anoop Kumar was in the courtyard of the house. His mother was in the kitchen. Anoop Kumar saw his father Ashwani Kumar running crying for help towards home and was being chased by Lekh Ram, Ravinder, Bipat Ram, Shanti Devi, Satya Devi, Roshan Lal, Nanki Devi, Leela Devi, Lachhi Ram, Asa Ram, Madan, Gita Devi and Santosh Kumari (the accused). All these persons were armed with sticks (Dandas). Lekh Ram was armed with Baltari (an instrument for cutting bamboo). Asha Ram was armed with Thapi and Ravinder Kumar with a hockey. All of them started beating the deceased. They first gave beatings on the road and thereafter Ashwani Kumar was dragged towards the house of Satya Devi. At that place also, deceased was given beatings by all the accused. His mother Pushpa Devi also saw the incident. Both of them got scared and went to Mamlig to the house of Besru (PW 13). Pushpa Devi narrated the incident to Besru. Thereafter, Rakesh Bhandari, son-in-law of the deceased as also Narain Dass brother of Pushpa Devi were informed about the occurrence. When Narain Dass reached Mamlig, all of them came to Shiv Shankar Garh. Police also reached on the spot. The dead body of Ashwani Kumar was found lying in the courtyard of Shanti Devi. 5. Accused Lekh Ram, Ravinder Kumar, Asa Ram, Shanti Devi, Satya Devi (appellants), Roshan Lal, Madan Lal, Bipat Ram, Geeta Devi, Nanki, Leela and Santosh Kumari were charged and tried for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 201 and 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Accused claimed trial. 5. Accused Lekh Ram, Ravinder Kumar, Asa Ram, Shanti Devi, Satya Devi (appellants), Roshan Lal, Madan Lal, Bipat Ram, Geeta Devi, Nanki, Leela and Santosh Kumari were charged and tried for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 201 and 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Accused claimed trial. Learned trial Judge convicted the appellant accused Lekh Ram, Ravinder Kumar, Asha Ram, Shanti Devi and Satya Devi as noticed above and acquitted the remaining accused for want of sufficient evidence against them. All the accused were acquitted so far offence under Section 201 of the Penal Code is concerned. 6. The appellants dis-satisfied with their conviction, are in this appeal. 7. The prosecution case entirely rests on the ocular evidence of Anoop Kumar ?(PW 1) son of the deceased and Pushpa Devi (PW 6) wife of the deceased as corroborated by the medical and other evidence on record. 8. It may be noticed at this stage that State chose not to file any appeal against the acquittal of the remaining accused noticed above. 9. Dr. J.P. Kaushik, Medical Officer, District Hospital, Solan and Dr. Anil Bansal of the same hospital conducted post mortem on the dead body of Ashwani Kumar on February 25, 2000. The team of the Doctors found the following injuries on the dead body of Ashwani Kumar: (1) Contusion over the right forearm and hand upto lower l/3rd of right arm. Reddish blue in colour. (2) Punctured wound with irregular margin of size 1xl cm. present over the post-lateral aspect of lower l/3rd of right arm. Fracture lower l/3rd right humerusseen. (3) Punctured wound over the left Index finger at metacarpe-phalangeal joint. Joint dislocated. (4) Contusion over the left forearm and hand upto lower l/3rd of left arm. Redish blue in colour. Fracture both bones left forearm. (5) Contusion over the left leg upto upper 2/3rd reddish blue in colour and there is lacerated wound of size one half" x one half x half" present over the upper l/3rd of left leg. Bone coming out from the wound. Fracture upper shaft tibia present. (6) Contusion right knee joint Anterior aspect. Reddish blue in colour. Lacerated wound of size one x half x half" over the right anterior aspect of right knee joint. Bone coming out from the wound. Fracture upper shaft tibia present. (6) Contusion right knee joint Anterior aspect. Reddish blue in colour. Lacerated wound of size one x half x half" over the right anterior aspect of right knee joint. (7) Contusion upper half of right leg-Reddish blue with lacerated wound of size 1" x half" x half" over the anterior aspect of right upper leg. (8) Lacerated wound over the left frontal region 2" x 1" x half" muscle was lacerated bone pregments seen with fracture of frontal bone. Brain matter exposed margin of wound inverted. (9) Incised wound over the mid of frontal bone region 2" x half" x half" clean cut margin everted. (10) Incised wound of size one-half" x half" x half" over the skull. 1" posterior to the wound No. 9 margin clean cut everted. (11) Lacerated wound of size 2" x half" x half" over the left parietal region about 1" lateral to the wound No. 10. (12) Curved lacerated wound of size 1" x half" x half" just 1" posterior to the wound No. 10 Margin everted. (13) Curved lacerated wound of size 3" x 1" x 1/2" 1/2" just I" posterior to injury No. 12. (14) Curved lacerated wound 6i size 3M x 1" x 1/2" x 1/2" just posterior to the wound No. 13". The Doctors also found fracture of frontal bone. The brain matter was contused. 10. In the opinion of Doctors, Ashwani Kumar died due to head injury leading to contusion of brain followed by shock and death. According to the Doctors, injuries No. 1 to 9 could be caused with sticks, dandas like Exhibits P8 to P11, hockey piece (P12), Thapi (P4) and injuries No. 10 to 11 could be caused by Baltari (P3). Homicidal death of deceased is not disputed before us. 11. It is the evidence of Anoop Kumar (PW 1) that on the fateful day, he was taking water at about 6.00 p.m. from the tap in his court yard when he saw accused Shanti Devi, Leela, Geeta, Satya, Nanki, Santosh, Madan, Vipat Ram, Ravinder, Roshan, Asha Ram, Lekh Ram chasing his father who was running towards home. It is his evidence that all the accused surrounded his father and gave beatings to him. Lekh Ram was having Baltari in his hand. Ravinder Kumar had a hockey stick and Asha Ram was armed with Thapi. It is his evidence that all the accused surrounded his father and gave beatings to him. Lekh Ram was having Baltari in his hand. Ravinder Kumar had a hockey stick and Asha Ram was armed with Thapi. The other accused were armed with Dandas. All of them gave beatings to his father with the arms they were carrying. Thereafter, the deceased was dragged and then taken to the house of Shanti Devi where he was given beatings once again in the court-yard of Asha Ram. It is his evidence that this occurrence was seen both by him and his mother. According to him, they were so scared that they left for Mamlig. On reaching Mamlig, first they went to the house of Besru Devi and narrated her the incident. Then he telephoned her maternal uncle Narain Dass from the house of one Shastru, thereafter to his sisters husband Rakish Bandar at Shimla. His maternal uncle Narain Dass came to Mamlig alongwith some police Officers. Thereafter they came to village "Shiva Shaker Garh", visited the spot where beatings were given to the deceased. They found the dead body lying in the court-yard of the residential house of Shanti Devi. His deceased father, according to Anoop Kumar, had been injured "badly". His statement under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded by the Investigating Officer, which forms basis of the FIR. The accused were arrested. Police took into possession the "Baltari" and the "Thapi" which were lying near the dead body in the courtyard of the house of Shanti Devi. The police also took into possession broken pieces of hockey from the path as also the blood stained earth. The shoes of the deceased were recovered from the house of Shanti Devi. The sticks used for giving beatings by the accused were taken into possession by the Investigating Officer. 12. The evidence of Anoop Kumar remains intact and un-shattered even after searching cross-examination on behalf of the accused 13. Evidence of Anoop Kumar (PW 1) is fully corroborated by his mother Pushpa Devi (PW 6). Pushpa Devi (PW 6) corroborating her son Anoop Kumar unambiguously states that on the eventful day, her husband had gone to Kandaghat to attend court hearing. Evidence of Anoop Kumar (PW 1) is fully corroborated by his mother Pushpa Devi (PW 6). Pushpa Devi (PW 6) corroborating her son Anoop Kumar unambiguously states that on the eventful day, her husband had gone to Kandaghat to attend court hearing. At about 6.00 p.m. she was in the kitchen and her son Anoop Kumr was taking water from the tank in the court yard, she heard cries of her husband asking Anoop Kumar to help him as he was being chased by the accused. When she came out of the kitchen, she saw Lekh Ram, Ravinder, Roshan, Asha Ram, Madan, Vipat Ram, Shanti Devi, Satya Devi, Geeta, Nanki Devi, Leela Devi, Santosh Kumari beating her husband. According to her, "Lekh Ram accused had inflicted injuries upon the person of my deceased husband with Baltari which is used for cutting bamboo. Accused Ravinder was having Hockey in his hand. Accused Ravinder inflicted injuries on her husband with Hockey. Accused Asha Ram inflicted injuries on her husband with "Thapi". 14. It is her evidence that accused Roshan Lal, Madan Lal, Vipat Ram, Satya Devi, Shanti Devi inflicted injuries on her husband with Dandas. She saw the occurrence from the courtyard of her house and thereafter, the accused took her husband to the residential house of Satya Devi and Asha Ram. At that place also, Ashwani Kumar was given beating by the accused. The accused thereafter lifted the deceased and took him to the house of Shanti Devi where again he was given beatings. She and her son got scared and went to Mamlig to telehpone her brother Narain Dass. She waited at Mamlig for her brother to come. Her brother Narain Dass came alongwith his son Jai Chand and Police Party. In the meanwhile, her son-in-law Rakesh Bhandari also reached. All of them came to the spot. Police had also reached from Solan. All of them went to the house of Satya Devi where they found dead body of her husband Ashwani Kumar lying in the courtyard of Shanti Devi. It is her evidence that civil litigation was pending between the accused and the deceased and there was a long stnading enmity between them. According to her, "accused caused the death of her husband on account of civil litigation". 15. Mr. It is her evidence that civil litigation was pending between the accused and the deceased and there was a long stnading enmity between them. According to her, "accused caused the death of her husband on account of civil litigation". 15. Mr. Anup Chitkara, learned Counsel for the appellants raised the following contentions : (a) The evidence of Anoop Kumar (PW 1) and Pushpa Devi (PW 6) does not inspire confidence and cannot be relied upon to base conviction as there being material contradictions in the version given by Anoop Kumar and Pushpa Devi; (b) The prosecution version is highly improbable and the possibility of false implication of the accused cannot be ruled out because of long standing litigation and enmity between the accused and the deceased. (c) It was not possible, at about 6.30 p.m. in the month of February for any person to identify the accused. (d) Asha Ram has falsely been implicated. The earliest version did not say that Asha Ram was carrying any Thapi in his hand; (e) Mere presence in an unlawful assembly cannot render Asha Ram liable unless prosecution proves by satisfactory evidence that there was common object and Asha Ram shared such object; (f) There is no evidence to show that Asha Ram did any overt or covert act making him a member of unlawful assembly; 16. Referring to the evidence of Anoop Kumar (PW 1), Pushpa Devi (PW 6), Narain Dass (PW 5) and Besru Ram (PW 13), Mr. Chitkara contends that Anoop Kumar and Pushpa Devi state that injuries were inflicted by the accused on the body of deceased Ashwani Kumar with the weapon(s) each of them was holding. None of these two witnesses say that Ashwani Kumar had been killed. But Besru Devi states that Pushpa Devi, when came to her house, informed her that her husbnad had been killed by Shanti Devi and Asha Ram etc. This contradiction urged Mr. Chitkara, renders the evidence of eye witnesses Anoop Kumar and Pushpa Devi unreliable. 17. It is true that Besaru Devi in her testimony deposed that when Anoop Kumar and Pushpa Devi came to her shop at Mamlig at about 8.30 p.m., Pushpa Devi informed her that her husband had been killed. This discrepancy in our view would not render the evidence of Pushpa Devi or Anoop Kumar Unreliable or suspect. 18. 17. It is true that Besaru Devi in her testimony deposed that when Anoop Kumar and Pushpa Devi came to her shop at Mamlig at about 8.30 p.m., Pushpa Devi informed her that her husband had been killed. This discrepancy in our view would not render the evidence of Pushpa Devi or Anoop Kumar Unreliable or suspect. 18. In our opinion, case must be viewed from the broad and reasonable probabilities of the case. Normal discrepancies are bound to crop in with the passage of time, errors of observations, errors of memory, mental disposition and perception of the witness as to what was communicated to him or her. This kind of discrepancy cannot be said to be such which renders the evidence of ocular witnesses unreliable. It is only material discrepancies, in evidence, not expected of normal human being, which put a Court to caution and in given circumstances may render the ocular evidence unworthy of reliance. Merely because Besaru Devi perceived that she was told by Pushpa Devi that her husbnad had been killed would not mean that the ocular evidence of Pushpa Devi and Anoop Kumar should be discarded. The discrepancy as pointed out by Mr. Chitkara is a discrepancy occurred due to normal error of memory or perception of the witness. In no way, it dents the ocular evidence. 19. The Apex Court in Gangadhar Behera and others v. State of Orissa, 2003 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 32, stressed that normal discrepancies in evidence are bound to occur with the passage of time because of various factors including mental perception, mental errors in observation, memory etc. Such discrepancies would always be there howsoever honest and truthful a witness may be. It is for the court to consider whether a discrepancy is a normal discrepancy or a material discrepancy, which cannot be reconciled making the evidence unreliable. Normal discrepancies, observed learned Judges, do not corrode the credibility of the witness or partys case. It is only material discrepancy, which renders the evidence unworthy of credit. It is for the court to consider whether a discrepancy is a normal discrepancy or a material discrepancy, which cannot be reconciled making the evidence unreliable. Normal discrepancies, observed learned Judges, do not corrode the credibility of the witness or partys case. It is only material discrepancy, which renders the evidence unworthy of credit. In Krishna Mochi and others v. State of Bihar, (2002) 6 Supreme Court Cases 81, Their Lordships ruled: ".....A witness may not stand the test of cross-examination, which may be sometimes, because he is a bucolic person and is not able to understand the question put to him by the skilful cross-examiner and at times under the stress of cross-examination, certain answers are snatched from him. When a rustic or illiterate witness faces an astute lawyer, there is bound to be imbalance and, therefore, minor discrepancies have to be ignored........" Their Lordships further observed: ".....Some discrepancy is hound to be there in each and every case, which should not weigh with the court so long it does not materially affect the prosecution case. In case discrepancies pointed out are in the realm of pebbles, the court should tread upon it, but if the same are boulders, the court should not make an attempt to jump over the same. These days when crime is looming large and humanity is suffering and the society is so much affected thereby, duties and responsibilities of the courts have become much more. Now the maxim "let hundred guilty persons be acquitted but not a single innocent be convicted" is, in practice, changing the world over and courts have been compelled to accept that "society suffers by wrong convictions and it equally suffers by wrong acquittals....." (Emphasis given) 20. Mr. Chitkara then contended that the conduct of Pushpa Devi widow of the deceased or Anoop Kumar, his son, is un-natural. They did not intervene when deceased was being beaten nor did they seek any help from the villagers or even of Besru Devi whom they visited immediately after the occurrence. The contention has no merit. It is the evidence of both Pushpa Devi and Anoop Kumar that they were totally scared. It had to be appreciated that Anoop Kumar was a school going child. Twelve persons had collected and were beating his father to death. It was natural for him to get scared. The contention has no merit. It is the evidence of both Pushpa Devi and Anoop Kumar that they were totally scared. It had to be appreciated that Anoop Kumar was a school going child. Twelve persons had collected and were beating his father to death. It was natural for him to get scared. Similar was the situation of Pushpa Devi, a woman, more so, when they were friendless in the village. They did inform their near relations, i.e. brother and son-in-law of Pushpa Devi who lived in Shimla. It was natural for them to wait for their relations at Mamlig the nearest place from the place of occurrence. The very fact that they did not even make a call to Police from Mamlig would show how scared they were. 21. Mr. Chitkara then assailed the evidence of Pushpa Devi and Anoop Kumar on the ground that they were interested witnesses and falsely implicated the accused who were on inimical terms with the deceased. The contention is that it was not possible for these two wintesses to identify the accused as the time of occurrence admittedly is about 6.30 p.m. and in the month of February, the sun would have set at that time. 22. So far the question of these witnesses being interested witnesses is concerned, merely because the witnesses are closely related to the deceased would not itself affect the credibility of the witnesses. A relation would not conceal the actual offender and make allegations against an innocent person. Where the accused raises a plea of false implication, it is for the accused to lay foundation for such plea. The Supreme Court in Dalip Singh and others v. State of Punjab, AIR 1953 Supreme Court 364, Lald down that a witness is considered to be an independent unless such witness springs from a tainted source. In other words, unless the witness had a reason or cause to wish to implicate a person falsely. Ordinarily, a close relative would be the last person to screen the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person. Mere fact of relationship cannot be a factor for criticism of the evidence. Rather, it guarantees truth. In para 26 of the judgment, Their Lordships observed : "26. Ordinarily, a close relative would be the last person to screen the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person. Mere fact of relationship cannot be a factor for criticism of the evidence. Rather, it guarantees truth. In para 26 of the judgment, Their Lordships observed : "26. A witness is normally to be considered independent unless he or she springs from the sources which are likely to be tainted and that usually means unless the witness has cause, such as enmity against the accused, to wish to implicate him falsely. Ordinarily a close relation would be the last to screen the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person. It is true when feelings run high and there is personal cause for enmity, that there is a tendency to drag in an innocent person against whom a witness has a grudge ,along with the guilty, but foundation must be Laid for such a criticism and the mere fact of relationship far from being a foundation is often a sure guarantee of truth. However, we are not attempting any sweeping generalization. Each case must be judged on its own facts. Our observations are only made to combat what is so often put forward in cases before us as a general rule -of prudence. There is no such general rule. Each case must be limited to and be governed by its own facts." 23. The dictum in Dalip Singh was approved in Guli Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras, AIR 1957 SC 614 and Guli Chand v. State of Rajasthan, (1974) 3 SCC 698. 24. In Gangadhar Behera supra, the Apex Court quoting with approval the observations in Dalip Singh, held : “The ground that the witness being a close relative and consequently being a partisan witness, should not be relied upon, has no substance. This theory was repelled by this Court as early as in Dalip Singh case in which surprise was expressed over the impression which prevailed in the minds of the Members of the Bar that relatives were not independent witnesses." Speaking through Vivian Bose, J. it was observed: "25. We are unable to agree with the learned Judges of the High Court that the testimony of the two eye witnesses requires corroboration. We are unable to agree with the learned Judges of the High Court that the testimony of the two eye witnesses requires corroboration. If the foundation for such an observation is based on the fact that the witnesses are women and that the fate of seven men hangs on their testimony, we know of no such rule. If it is grounded on the reason that they are closely related to the deceased we are unable to concur. This is a fallacy common to many criminal cases and one, which another Bench of this Court endeavored to dispel in Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1952 SC 54 (at p. 59). We find, however, that it unfortunately still persists, if not in the judgments of the courts, at any rate in the arguments of counsel/ 25. In Masalti v. State of U.R, AIR 1965 SC 202, the Supreme Court observed that it would be unreasonable to discard the evidence of near relations on the ground that such evidence is partisan or of interested witnesses. Such rejection, held Their Lordships, would lead to failure of justice. 26. In the present case, as pointed out earlier, there is nothing in the cross-examiantion of either Pushpa Devi or Anoop Kumar, which may make their evidence unreliable. The evidence of these two eyewitnesses remain unscathed despite lengthy and searching cross-examination. The eye-witness account of these two witnesses is corroborated by the medical evidence, which renders their evidence beyond any lingering suspicion. 27. As noticed earlier, it is the evidence of Dr. J.P. Kaushik (PW 20) that injuries No. 1 to 9 could be caused with hockey sticks and Thapi whereas, injury No. 10 and 11 could be caused by Baltari. Acording to the team of Doctors which conducted the post mortem on the body of the deceased Ashwani Sood, the death was caused due to the head injury, i.e. injury over the left frontal region which fractured the frontal bone exposing brain matter. The fatal injury and the other injuries No. 1 to 7 and 9 could have been caused either by the sticks held by the accused or hockey or Thapi held by accused Asha Ram. 28. The fatal injury and the other injuries No. 1 to 7 and 9 could have been caused either by the sticks held by the accused or hockey or Thapi held by accused Asha Ram. 28. It is true that the Doctor did not deny the suggestion that the injuries No. 1 to 8 could also be caused by fall but there is no evidence on record to suggest even remotely that the deceased had a fall. Such suggestion was not put even to two of the eyewitnesses. The defence put at the earliest to these two witnesses in cross-examination is that some unknown assailants, about fifteen in number, gave beatings to the deceased resulting in his death. This suggestion of the accvised was denied by Pushpa Devi (PW 6) in the following words "It is wrong to suggest that my deceased husband was killed by some body else and/have disclosed the names of accused only on the basis of suspicion and enmity...." Similarly, this suggestion of the defence was rejected by Anoop Kumar (PW 1) in the following words, "It is wrong to suggest that unknown fifteen persons were present at the spot. It is wrong to suggest that accused did not inflict injuries on the person of the deceased and it is wrong to suggest that accused have been involved in this case on suspicion only". There is not a whisper in the cross-examiantion of these two eye witnesses that the deceased had a fall due to which he received as many as twelve injuries on his body. Even if it be assumed that the deceased had a fall, he would not have received the twelve injuries two of them caused with sharp edged weapon by such single fall. The fact that the dead body of deceased was found in the compound of Shanti Devi is also not explained by the accused. 29. The next contention of Mr. Chitkara is that these two eyewitnesses could not have identified the accused as by the time the occurrence took place, it had become dark. It is noticed that these two eyewitnesses have not been cross-examined as to how they identified the accused. It is noticed that accused were not strangers to either Anoop Kumr or Pushpa Devi. They belong to the same village. They were neighbours of these two witnesses and knew them well. It is noticed that these two eyewitnesses have not been cross-examined as to how they identified the accused. It is noticed that accused were not strangers to either Anoop Kumr or Pushpa Devi. They belong to the same village. They were neighbours of these two witnesses and knew them well. A person who is well known can be identified by his profile and features even in poor visibility. A person can be identified by shape of the body, gate, manner of walking, voice and other peculiar trades. At 6.00 Oclock in February, it could not have been absolute darkness. There could be light from stars and moon. This apart, there is nothing like absolute dark. 30. In Nathuni Yadav and others v. State of Bihar and another, AIR 1997 Supreme Court 1808, deceased Bhagelu Singh Yadav and his wife were gunned down by armed assailants during summer night in the-month of June, 1980. A neighbour Ram Janam Rai was also shot dead. A Contention was raised on behalf of the accused that the witnesses could not have identified the assailants as it was a moonless night and there was no lamp burning and therefore, it would have been pitch dark when the occurrence took place. In this background. Their Lordships of the Apex Court in para 8 of the judgment observed thus : "We have considered the said contention from all its angles. Even assuming that there was no moonlight then, we have to gauge the situation carefully. The proximity at which the assailants would have confronted with the injured, the possibility of some light reaching there from the glove of stars, and the fact that the murder was committed on a roofless terrace are germane factors to be borne in mind while judging whether the victims could have had enough visibility to correctly identify the assailants. Over and above those factors, we must bear in mind the further fact that assailants were no strangers to the inmates of the tragedy bound house, the eye witnesses being well acquainted with the physiognomy of each one of the killers. We are, therefore, not persuaded to assume that it would not have been possible for the victims to see the assailants or that there was possibility for making a wrong identification of them. We are, therefore, not persuaded to assume that it would not have been possible for the victims to see the assailants or that there was possibility for making a wrong identification of them. We are keeping in mind the fact that even the assailants had enough light to identify the victims whom they targeted without any mistake from among those who were sleeping on the terrace. If the light then available though meager, was enough for the assailants why should we think that same light was not enough for the injured who would certainly have pointedly focused their eyes on the faces of the intruders standing in front of them. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander." 31. Again in Kedar Singh and others v. State of Bihar, AIR 1999 Supreme Court (1st) Supplement, an argument was raised that eye witnesses could not have witnessed the occurrence as it was a dark night and that the temple where an electric bulb of high power was said to be on could not be enough to identify the assailants. Their Lordships in the circumstances ruled: "It has also to be observed that even on a full dark night there is never total darkness. There can be other means to identify another through the shape of his body clothes, gait, manner of walking etc. etc..." 32. In the present case, there is nothing on the record to show that it was pitch dark. In the given circumstances, in our view, and the assailants could have been identified by these two eyewitnesses. In fact, both these witnesses are categorical that it was not too dark to identify the accused. 33. Mr. Anup Chitkara pointed out that the Investigating Officer Inspector Shamsher Singh in his evidence stated that according to his investigation, Anoop Kumar and Pushpa Devi identified the accused from their voices and this evidence runs counter to the evidence of Anoop Kumar and Pushpa Devi who did not say that they identified the accused from voice. We see no incongruity in the statement of Inspector Shamsher Singh. It might have come in the investigation of this witness that the two eye witnesses also identified the accused from their voices. There is no contradiction in the evidence of Anoop Kumar and Pushpa Devi on the one hand and the Investigating Officer on the other. 34. We see no incongruity in the statement of Inspector Shamsher Singh. It might have come in the investigation of this witness that the two eye witnesses also identified the accused from their voices. There is no contradiction in the evidence of Anoop Kumar and Pushpa Devi on the one hand and the Investigating Officer on the other. 34. Next is the question of false implication of the accused due to enmity. It is true that where there is enmity between the two factions then there is tendency on the part of the aggrieved victim to give an exaggerated version and to rope in even innocent members of the opposite faction in a criminal case. The Court, in such a situation, has to sift the evidence with care and conviction should be recorded only if the prosecution witnesses can be safely relied upon without raising an element of doubt. In a heinous offence such as murder related eye witnesses, as pointed out earlier, would not falsely implicate a person, because of enmity, screening the real culprit. Conviction can be based on such evidence if the evidence of the related witnesses inspires confidence. We have carefully examined the entire evidence and do not find anything in the evidence of these two witnesses, which may show that the accused appellants have falsely been implicated because of enmity. Enmity is a double-edged weapon. If there is motive to falsely implicate an accused because of enmity, then such a motive is good enough to cause murder. The Apex Court in Gangadhar Behera (supra) pointed out that exaggerated devotion to the rule of benefit of doubt must not nurture fanciful doubts or lingering suspicion and thereby destroy social defence. Justice cannot be made sterile on the plea that it is better to let a hundred guilty escape than punish an innocent. Their Lordships observed" Letting the guilty escape is not doing justice according to law" (See : Gurbachan Singh V. Satpal Singh, (1990) 1 SCC 445), Prosecution is not required to meet any and every hypothesis put forward by the accused (See State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, (1992) 2 SSC 86. A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or merely possible doubt, but a fair doubt based upon reason and common sense." 35. A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or merely possible doubt, but a fair doubt based upon reason and common sense." 35. Their Lordships quoted with approval the observations in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra, (1973) 2 SCC 793: "The dangers of exaggerated devotion to the rule of benefit of doubt at the expense of social defence and to the soothing sentiment that all acquittals are always good regardless of justice to the victim and the community, demand especial emphasis in the contemporary context or escalating crime and escape. The judicial instrument has a public accountability. The cherished principles or golden thread of proof beyond reasonable doubt which runs through the web of our law should not be stretched morbidly to embrace every hunch, hesitancy and degree of doubt. The evil of acquitting a guilty person lightheartedly as a learned author (Glanvile Williams in Proof of Guilt) has sapiently observed, goes much beyond the simple fact that just one guilty person has gone unpunished. If unmerited acquittals become general, they tend to lead to a cynical disregard of the law and this in turn leads to a public demand for harsher legal presumptions against indicted persons and more severe punishment of those who are found guilty. Thus, too frequent acquittals of the guilty may lead to a ferocious penal law, eventually eroding the judicial protection of the guitless.... A miscarriage of justice may arise from the acquittal of the guilty no less than from the conviction of the innocent."... 36. In our view it is absurd to suggest that the appellants were falsely implicated because of the litigation and enmity with the deceased. It is inconceivable and indeed difficult to believe that the wife and son of deceased would falsely involve the appellants screening the real culprits. The evi dence on record does not suggest false implication of the appellants-accused. 37. Mr. Chitkara then half-heartedly urged that some of the accused were acquitted, whereasV.fche appellants were convicted on the same set of evidence. It is true, as noticed earlier, that some of the accused were acquitted by the learned trial Judge whereas, the appellants were convicted. The reason for acquittal of some of the accused, which weighed with the learned trial Judge was that the articles recovered from those accused were not stained with human blood. Unfortunately the State chose not to file any appeal against acquittal. The reason for acquittal of some of the accused, which weighed with the learned trial Judge was that the articles recovered from those accused were not stained with human blood. Unfortunately the State chose not to file any appeal against acquittal. Nevertheless, merely because some of the accused are acquitted will not in itself entitle the convicted accused to get acquittal even if the direct testimony is the same. We are fortified in our view by the law Laid down by the Apex Court in Gangadhar Behera (supra). In para 15 of the judgment, their Lordships held: ".....Merely because some of the accused persons have been acquitted, though evidence against all of them, so far as direct testimony went, was the same does not lead as a necessary corollary that those who have been convicted must also be acquitted. It is always open to a court to differentiate the accused that had been acquitted from those who were convicted (See Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1956 SC 460)......" 38. It was next urged, with considerable vehemence, by Mr. Chitkara that Asha Ram, in any event, has falsely been implicated. The argument is that the earliest version, as given by Anoop Kumar son of the deceased in the First Information Report, did not mention that Asha Ram was carrying Thapi, (one of the weapon of offence) in his hand. He emphasized that the only difference between the situation of Asha Ram and those seven who are acquitted was the presence of bloodstains on the Thapi said to be carried by Asha Ram. The Thapi (Ext. P4) has not been linked to Asha Ram accused. 39. It is true that Anoop Kumar did not say in his statement, which formed the basis of the First Information Report that Asha Ram carried Thapi in his hand. In the FIR Apoop Kumar stated that Asha Ram was carrying Danda in his hand whereas Lekh Raj was carrying Baltari. In his statment before the Court, Anoop Kumar is categorical that Asha Ram was carrying Thapi in his hand.In his own words. "All accused surrounded my father and beat my father. Accused Lekh Ram was having Baltari in his hand, Ravinder was having hockey sticks in his hand, Asha Ram was having Thapi in his hand. Roshan Lal, Madan Lal and Bipat Ram were having Dandas in their hand....." 40. "All accused surrounded my father and beat my father. Accused Lekh Ram was having Baltari in his hand, Ravinder was having hockey sticks in his hand, Asha Ram was having Thapi in his hand. Roshan Lal, Madan Lal and Bipat Ram were having Dandas in their hand....." 40. In cross-examination when confronted with this statement, Anoop Kumar categorically stated: "I told the Investigating Agency when my statment under Section 154 Cr.P.C. was recorded that accused Asha Ram inflicted injuries on the person of my deceased father with Thapi". 41. Anoop Kumar insisted that he did tell the concerned Officer who recorded his statement under Section 154 that "Asha Ram inflicted injuries with the Thapi on the person of his father". He is fully corroborated by the statment of his mother Pushpa Devi, the other eye witness, who confirming the role of Asha Ram stated, "Accused Asha Ram was having Thapi in his hand. Accused Asha Ram inflicted injuries on the person of my husband." 42. Not only this she identified Thapi (Ext. P4) to be the same, which was in the hand of accused Asha Ram. She stated thus, "Thapi Ext.P4 is the same which was in the hand of accused Asha Ram at the tune of occurrence". She also insisted in her cross-examination that she had stated to the Investigating Officer that accused Asha Ram inflicted injuries on her deceased husband with Thapi. Now mere omission, in the FIR, about the accused Asha Ram having Thapi in his hand would not in itself make the evidence of these two witnesses unreliable. It is true that an interested witness cannot be relied upon when he makes improvements in material particulars. In such situation, the Courts should look for assurance for his testimony. Assurance to the testimony of Anoop Kumar comes from his mother Pushpa Devi. This improvement, in our view, is not significant to make the statement of Anoop Kumar infirm particularly when his presence at the time of occurrence is beyond the pale of doubt. Not only this, Anoop Kumar in his evidence is categorical that deceased was dragged to the house of Asha Ram where he was given beatings. 43. Mr. Chitkara then raised a question about the identity of Asha Ram. According to him, this Asha Ram may not be same who is arrayed as accused before the Court. Not only this, Anoop Kumar in his evidence is categorical that deceased was dragged to the house of Asha Ram where he was given beatings. 43. Mr. Chitkara then raised a question about the identity of Asha Ram. According to him, this Asha Ram may not be same who is arrayed as accused before the Court. The argument is without any foundation and is rejected. 44. In the end, attempt was made by Mr. Chitkara that Asha Ram couldnt be convicted with the aid of Section 149 of the Penal Code even if his presence is assumed on the spot. The argument is that mere presence in an unlawful assembly does not render a person liable unless there was a common object and some overt act was done by such person towards achieving that common object. He refers to the following observations in Gangadhar Behera (supra) in support of his contention: ".....Member of an unlawful assembly may have community of object upto a certain point beyond which they may differ in their objects and the knowledge, possessed by each member of what is likely to be committed in prosecution of their common object may vary not only according to the information at his command but also according to the extent to which he shares the community of object, and as a consequence of this the effect of Section 149 IPC may be different on different members of the same assembly” 45. The evidence on record conclusively show that the common object of the unlawful assembly was to kill the deceased, which is apparent from the very fact, that all the members of the unlawful assembly were armed with Lathis and other weapons. Explaining the provisions of Section 149 of the Penal Code, the Apex Court in Gangadhar Behera (supra) held: "23. "Common object" is different from a "common intention" as it does not require a prior concert and a common meeting of minds before the attack. It is enough if each has the same object in view and their number is five or more and that they act as an assembly to achieve that object. The "common object" of an assembly is to be ascertained from the acts and language of the members composing it, and from a consideration of all the surrounding circumstances. It is enough if each has the same object in view and their number is five or more and that they act as an assembly to achieve that object. The "common object" of an assembly is to be ascertained from the acts and language of the members composing it, and from a consideration of all the surrounding circumstances. It may be gathered from the course of conduct adopted by the members of the assembly What the common object of the unlawful assembly is at a particular stage of the incident is essentially a question of fact to be determined, keeping in view the nature of the assembly, the arms carried by the members, and the behaviour of the members at or near the scene of the incident. It is not necessary under law that in all cases of unlawful assembly, with an unlawful common object, the same must be translated into action or be successful. Under the Explanation to Section 141, an assembly, which was not unlawful when it was assembled, may subsequently become unlawful. It is not necessary that the intention or the purpose, which is necessary to render an assembly an unlawful one comes into existence at the outset. The time of forming an unlawful intent is not material. An assembly, which, at its commencement or even for some time thereafter, is lawful, may subsequently become unlawful. In other words it can develop during the course of incident on the spot eo instanti." 46. In the present case, the very fact that the accused, members of the unlawful assembly were carrying deadly weapons, encircled the deceased and gave beatings with those weapons with the common object of the accused to do away with the life of the deceased. The common object was entrenched in their mind, which was accomplished by causing fatal injuries. There cannot be any direct evidence of common object. It has to be gathered from the act, which the members of the unlawful assembly commit, and result, which ensues. Their Lordships in Gangadhar Behera (supra) stressed : "Though no hard-and-fast rule can be Laid down under the circumstances from which the common object can be culled out, it may reasonably be collected from the nature of the assembly, arms it carries and behaviour at or before or after the scene of incident." 47. Their Lordships in Gangadhar Behera (supra) stressed : "Though no hard-and-fast rule can be Laid down under the circumstances from which the common object can be culled out, it may reasonably be collected from the nature of the assembly, arms it carries and behaviour at or before or after the scene of incident." 47. Thus, when an offence is committed in prosecution of the common object, then such an offence would be which the members of the unlawful assembly had intended to commit in prosecution of the common object. Merely because definite role is not ascribable to each individual of the unlawful assembly, would not make Section 149 un-applicable. The contention of learned Counsel for the accused that the evidence on record does not show that Asha Ram knew before hand that the offence actually committed was likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object is noticed to be rejected. 48. Mr. Chitkara lastly urged that taking into consideration the entirety of the evidence, at the most what can be said is common object of the unlawful assembly was to cause grievous hurt and not murder. We are not persuaded. In View of the preponderance of evidence on record, number and nature of the injuries inflicted on deceased and shifting him from place of occurrence to the house of another accused speaks volume about the common intention of the unlawful assembly formed by the accused. 49. Ocular evidence of Anoop Kumar, as corroborated by his mother Pushpa Devi and another evidence including medical evidence and the probability factor proves beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed offences under Sections 147, 148, 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code as held by the learned trial Judge. 50. We notice, learned trial Judge, in his wisdom, has imposed the sentence of simple imprisonment for life and fine of rupees 20,000 unmindful of the provisions of Section 53 and 55 of the Indian Penal Code. Sentence of imprisonment for life, learned Sessions Judge would do well to remember means. "Rigorous imprisonment for life" and not "simple imprisonment for life" (See Naib Singh v. State of Punjab (1983) 2 SCC 454, Sat Pal v. State of Haryana, AIR 1993 SC 1218. 51. Sentence of imprisonment for life, learned Sessions Judge would do well to remember means. "Rigorous imprisonment for life" and not "simple imprisonment for life" (See Naib Singh v. State of Punjab (1983) 2 SCC 454, Sat Pal v. State of Haryana, AIR 1993 SC 1218. 51. While maintaining the sentences imposed by the learned Sessions Judge for offences under Sections 147,148, we substitute the sentence imposed under Section 302 IPC to imprisonment for life and fine of rupees 20,000 each. In case of default of fine, each of the convict sail undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. All the sentences shall run concurrently. Appeal dismissed.