Honble SHARMA, J.–The nine appellants were indicted before the learned Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases Sawai Madhopur for having committed murder of Akhtyar. Learned Special Judge vide judgment dated March 22, 1999 convicted and sentenced the appellants as under:- BARKAT U/s. 302 IPC To undergo imprisonment for Life and fine of Rs. 200/- in default to further suffer 3 months S.I. U/s. 148 IPC One year R.I. U/s. 447 IPC One month R.I. U/s. 323/149 IPC Six months R.I. U/s. 325/149 IPC 3 years RI and fine of Rs. 100 in default to suffer one month S.I. 2. MUKHTYAR, 3. MANZOOR ALI, 4. HAJOOR ALI, 5. SHAKOOR, 6. MST. GOPA, 7. MST. CHHOTI, 8. MST. ZURHAT, 9. MST. JAIBOON: + U/s. 302/149 IPC To undergo imprisonment for Life and fine of Rs. 200/- in default to further suffer 3 months S.I. U/s. 148 IPC One year R.I. U/s. 447 IPC One month R.I. U/s. 323/149 IPC Six months R.I. U/s. 325/149 IPC 3 years RI and fine of Rs. 100 in default to suffer one month S.I. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. (2). As per the prosecution story, on November 23, 1996 at about 7.05 p.m., ASI Police Station Mantown recorded Parcha Bayan of Sarfuddin (PW. 3) who was admitted in Male Surgical Ward of Sawai Madhopur Hospital. In the Parcha bayan, it was, interalia, alleged that around 12 noon, on the same day, the informant Sarfuddin, Akhtyar (now deceased) and women namely Tofan, Farida and Sagiran were after watering their field sitting near the well. At that time accused Barkat, Mukhtyar, Manzoor, Hazoor, Shakoor, Mst. Gopa, Mst. Chhoti, Mst. Jaiboon and Mst. Zumrat came there armed with lathies and iron rods. Seeing them the members of the complainant party took to their heels. In the process of fleeing, brother of informant namely Akhtyar was surrounded by accused persons and Barkat dealt a blow with iron rod on the head of Akhtyar. Mukhtyar gave blows on the left hand, shoulder and left thigh of Akhtyar, resultantly, Akhtyar fell down on the ground. In the anxiety to save Akhtyar, the informant as also Mst. Tofan tried to screen Akhtyar by lying on him. Thereafter Manzoor, Mst. Chooti, Mst. Gopa, Mst. Zumrat, Mst. Jaiboon and Shakoor, who had lathies in their hands, belaboured injured Akhtyar and the informant. Mst. In the anxiety to save Akhtyar, the informant as also Mst. Tofan tried to screen Akhtyar by lying on him. Thereafter Manzoor, Mst. Chooti, Mst. Gopa, Mst. Zumrat, Mst. Jaiboon and Shakoor, who had lathies in their hands, belaboured injured Akhtyar and the informant. Mst. Tofan was given a blow on the head by Hazoor, and rest of them gave lathi blows on other parts of her body. On hearing hue and cry Islamuddin, Mst. Sagiran, Farida and Habib came rushing there for help. The accused then fled away. The injured persons were removed to the hospital, where Akhtyar was declared dead. (3). On the basis of Parcha Bayan of Sarfuddin, Police station Mantown Sawai Madhopur, registered a case under sections 147, 148, 149, 447, 307 and 302 IPC and investigation commenced. After doing the needful a charge sheet was filed and the case came up for trial before the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities cases Sawai Madhopur charges under sections 148, 447/149, 325/149, 302 in the alternative 302/149, 307 and 307/149 IPC were framed against the appellants, who denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 14 witnesses. In the explanation under section 313 Cr.P.C. the appellants claimed innocence. On hearing final submissions, the learned trial judge convicted and sentenced the appellants as indicated hereinabove. (4). Undisputedly the death of Akhtyar was homicidal. As per the post mortem report Ex.P.9 Akhtyar sustained following 19 injuries which were antimortem in nature and death was caused due to coma resulting from fracture of skull bones and subdural haemotoma: (i) Lacerated wound 3"x1/4" x Bony deep on the left parietal region of skull (scalp) 1" from the mid line. (ii) Lacerated wound 1 1/4"x 1/8" x Bony deep on the mid line of scalp. (iii) abrasion with contusion 1 1/2" x 1" on dissection Haemotoma is present. (iv) swelling 5" x 3" on upper 2/3 rd of left fore arm. On further dissection there is fracture of left Radius and ulna mid of shaft. (v) Lacerated wound 1" x1/2" x bony deep with bone protusion onposteror aspect of left fore arm. (vi) abrasion 1" x 1/4" on the lateral surface of upper 1/3rd of left arm. (vii) Lacerated wound 1/2" x 1/4" x 1/4" on the lateral surface of arm in the middle area (left arm). (v) Lacerated wound 1" x1/2" x bony deep with bone protusion onposteror aspect of left fore arm. (vi) abrasion 1" x 1/4" on the lateral surface of upper 1/3rd of left arm. (vii) Lacerated wound 1/2" x 1/4" x 1/4" on the lateral surface of arm in the middle area (left arm). (viii) Bruise 5" x 3" lat. aspect of arm (left arm). (ix) Abrasion 1/4" x 1/4" ant., aspect of left shoulder. (x) Abrasion 1/4" x 1/4" on the post aspect of left shoulder. (xi) A Abrasion 1" x 1/2" lateral side of mid Rt. arm. (xii) Abrasion 1/4" x 1/4" lateral side of mid Rt. arm. 1" below the injury No. 11. (xiii) Bruise 2" x 1" on lat. aspect of mid Rt. arm. (xiv) Abrasion 3" x 1/4" on the posterior aspect of Rt. mid forearm. (xv) Abrasion 1" x 1/4" Posterior aspect of lower 1/3rd of forearm. (Rt.) (xvi) Bruise 5" x 3" Antro medial aspect of left thigh. (xvii) Lacerated wound 1/2" x 1/4" x bony deep lateral surface of left thigh. (xviii) Abrasion 1/4" x 1/4" lateral aspect of Rt. knee. (xix) Abrasion 1/4" x 1/4" just below the rt. knee cap. (5). In the course of incident informant Sarfuddin, as per injury report Ex. P.1, sustained 9 injuries, out of which 2, 3, and 7 were found grievous in nature. The injuries are as under - (i) Bruise 3"x2" on the rty. arm. (ii) Swelling with tenderness 1 1/2" x3" on the posterior surface of Rt. forearm. (iii) Swelling with tenderness 1 1/2" x 1" on the Rt. perieto frontal bone of skull 3.5 " from the Pina of ear. (iv) Bruise 3" x 1 1/2" on the left buttock (v) Bruise 1 1/2" x 3 1/2" lateral side of Rt. Thigh 3" from the knee joint (Lower 1/3 rd of Rt. thigh). (vi) Bruise 2" x 2" on the lateral side of Rt. knee. (vii) Swelling with tenderness 4" x 3" on the posterior surface of Rt. leg. (viii) Abrasion 1/4" x 1/4" on the 1ft elbow joint. (ix) Complaining of pain in the left thigh. No ext. injury seen. (6). Injuries received by Mst. Tofan were also examined and as per injury report Ex. P. 3 following injuries had been received by her- (i) Lacerated wound 1" x 1/8" bony deep on the left parietal bone 4" above the Rt. ear. (ix) Complaining of pain in the left thigh. No ext. injury seen. (6). Injuries received by Mst. Tofan were also examined and as per injury report Ex. P. 3 following injuries had been received by her- (i) Lacerated wound 1" x 1/8" bony deep on the left parietal bone 4" above the Rt. ear. (ii) Lacerated wound 1 1/2" x 1/8" x skin deep. on the mid line on the parietal bone (iii) Lacerated wound 1/4" x 1/8" x 1/8" on the lateral side of Rt. arm. (iv) Swelling with tenderness 2" x 2" on the middle of left arm. (v) Swelling with tenderness 4" x 3" on the lateral side of buttock. (vi) Pain in the back left thigh No ext. injury seen. (7). The prosecution case rests on the testimony of eye witnesses namely Sarfuddin (PW. 3), Islamuddin (PW. 6), Habib (PW. 7), Tofan (PW. 8), Sagiran (PW. 9) and Farida (PW. 14). Sarfuddin (PW. 3) in his deposition stated that after watering their fields while they were sitting near the well appellant Barkat, Muktyar, Manzoor, Hazoor Sakoor, Goppa, Chhoti, Jumrat and Jaiboon came there armed with lathies and iron rods. Seeing them he along with others Islamuddin, Habib, Tofan and Sagiran took to their heels. In the process of fleeing, Akhtyar was surrounded by appellants and Barkat inflicted blow with iron rod on his head while Mukhtyar and Manzoor respectively gave blows on his right hand, shoulder and right leg. Mukhtyar inflicted another blow on the head of Akhtyar. After Akhtyar fell down the appellants indiscriminately inflicted blows on his person. When the informant made attempt to intervene Hazoor inflicted blows on his head and Mst. Chhoti, Jumrat etc. also caused injuries on his person. Hajoor also inflicted blow with iron rod on the head of Mst. Tofan. Akhtyar was taken to the Hospital where he was declared dead. In his cross examination Sarfuddin admitted that there was a litigation between his father and the father of the appellants and case of mutation was decided in 1996 in favour of Munsiya. He also admitted that he and the deceased Akhtyar had been confined in Jail for a period of four months. (8). We have scanned the testimony of other eye witnesses namely, Islamuddin (PW. 6), Habib (PW. 7), Sagiran (PW. 9), and Farida (PW. 14) and scrutinised the memos drawn by investigation Officer. (9). He also admitted that he and the deceased Akhtyar had been confined in Jail for a period of four months. (8). We have scanned the testimony of other eye witnesses namely, Islamuddin (PW. 6), Habib (PW. 7), Sagiran (PW. 9), and Farida (PW. 14) and scrutinised the memos drawn by investigation Officer. (9). Salient features of the case as noticed by us, may be summarised thus: (i) Seeing the accused coming, the complaint party took to their heels and in the process of fleeing Akhtyar left behind and Barkat dealt a blow with iron rod on the head of Akhtyar and Muktyar gave blows on his left hand, left shoulder and left thigh. (ii) Sarfuddin and Mst. Tofan when made attempt to rescue Akhtyar Hazoor inflicted injuries with iron rod on their person. (iii) The prosecution witnesses levelled vague allegations against Manzoor, Shakoor, Mst. Gopa, Mst. Chhoti, Mst. Zurhat and Mst. Jaiboon. (iv) Death of Akhtyar was caused due to coma resulting from fracture of skull bones and subdural haemotoma and the said injury was attributed to Barkat. (v) Sarfuddin sustained grievous injuries on his right forearm, right parieto frontal bone and right leg. (vi) Mst. Tofan received lacerated wounds on left and midline of parietal bone and right arm. (vii) Gafoor, the father of deceased had informed Ram Charan, ASI that quarrel had been picked up in village Pachipalya and this information was reduced into writing. (viii) A criminal case relating to incident of causing injuries to Munshiya (father of appellants Barkat, Mukhtiyar and Hazoor) was registered on July 27, 1996 against the deceased Akhtyar and the informant Sarfuddin and they remained in custody for a period of four and half months in that case. (ix) Revenue case is regard to land in dispute was decided in favour of Munshiya and land was mutated in his name. (10). Mr. S.R. Bajwa, learned Senior Counsel canvassed that all the witnesses examined by the prosecution are interested witnesses. There are material improvements in their testimony, which is crucial about the details of assault and weapons. The presence of witnesses at the the scene of occurrence is not natural. No independent witness was examined and from the material on record it is established that it is not a case of unlawful assembly. Testimony of the prosecution witnesses riddled with numerous incongruencies, rendering the same to be highly dubious. The presence of witnesses at the the scene of occurrence is not natural. No independent witness was examined and from the material on record it is established that it is not a case of unlawful assembly. Testimony of the prosecution witnesses riddled with numerous incongruencies, rendering the same to be highly dubious. The prosecution witnesses have indulged in making material embellishments in court, upon their earlier version set forth before the investigating agency. Medical evidence does not lend corroboration to the ocular evidence. Site plan does not corroborate the ocular detail given by the prosecution witnesses about the incident. Seven hours delay in lodging the FIR had not been adequately explained by the prosecution and the inordinate delay in registering the FIR looms large on the credibility of the prosecution case. (11). On the other hand Mr. B.M. Sharma, learned Public Prosecutor supported the judgment and contended that on examining the testimony of the prosecution witnesses from the point of view of trustworthiness they came under the category of reliable witnesses and the appellants were rightly convicted and sentenced by the learned trial judge. (12). We have pondered over the rival submissions. (13). It is submitted by learned Senior counsel that as per the statement of Ramcharan ASI (PW. 2), Gafoor the father of deceased, on November 22, 1996 gave him the details of incident which were incorporated by him in Rojnamcha. According to learned counsel as the report lodged by Gafoor was the actual FIR therefore, the report bearing No. 432/96 (Ex.P.40) registered at P.S. Mantown cannot be treated as FIR and is hit by section 162 Cr.P.C. We do not find any substance in this contention. It is well settled that information merely sent with a view to obtain the police help is not FIR. No piece of vague information can be regarded as first information merely because it was received first in point of time. In the instant case Ramcharan ASI categorically deposed in his cross examination that father of the deceased told him that quarrel picked up in village Pachipaliya. Undoubtedly, the father of deceased had a talk with Ram Charan ASI but such a cryptic information cannot be treated as FIR. (14). It is next contended by the learned counsel that conviction can not be founded on the testimony of the alleged eye witnesses. Sarfuddin (PW. 3) and Islammuddin (PW. Undoubtedly, the father of deceased had a talk with Ram Charan ASI but such a cryptic information cannot be treated as FIR. (14). It is next contended by the learned counsel that conviction can not be founded on the testimony of the alleged eye witnesses. Sarfuddin (PW. 3) and Islammuddin (PW. 6) being the real brothers of the deceased, Habib (PW. 7) being the father in law of Sarfuddin, Mst. Tofan (PW. 8), the wife of the deceased, Mst. Sagiran (PW. 9) being the wife of Sarfuddin and Farida (PW. 14) being the wife of Islammuddin, all are partisan witnesses and have interest in the success of prosecution case. It is no doubt true that eye witnesses examined by the prosecution are related to the deceased but witnesses Sarfuddin and Mst. Tofan sustained injuries and their presence at the scene of occurrence can not be doubted. Testimony of an injured eye witness has its own efficacy and relevancy. Fact that a witness sustained injuries shows the presence of such witness at the scene and convincing evidence is required to discredit the evidence of an injured witness. Evidence of interested witness however requires close scrutiny to find out if it has a ring of truth. The injuries sustained by Sarfuddin and Mst. Tofan are not superficial in nature. Sarfuddin received three grievous injuries over his right forearm, Right parieto frontal bone and right leg whereas Mst. Tofan sustained lacerated wounds on her left parietal bone, mid line of parietal bone and lateral side of right arm. Arguments have been addressed before us for rejecting in toto the testimony of these witnesses on the strength of some discrepancies highlighted from their testimony but we have to judge their testimony from the point of view of trustworthiness as is held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Leela Ram vs. State of Haryana (1), that trivial discrepancies ought not to obliterate an otherwise acceptable evidence. The evidence is to be considered from the point of view of trustworthiness. (15). On examining the testimony of Sarfuddin and Mst. Tofan from the point of view of trustworthiness we find it consistent qua the appellants Barkat, Mukhtyar and Hazoor. We see no reason to disbelieve their testimony in so far it relates to the implication of appellants Barkat, Mukhtyar and Hazoor with the crime. In regard to other appellants namely Manzoor, Shakoor, Mst. Gopa, Mst. Tofan from the point of view of trustworthiness we find it consistent qua the appellants Barkat, Mukhtyar and Hazoor. We see no reason to disbelieve their testimony in so far it relates to the implication of appellants Barkat, Mukhtyar and Hazoor with the crime. In regard to other appellants namely Manzoor, Shakoor, Mst. Gopa, Mst. Chhoti, Mst. Zurhat and Mst. Jaiboon, we find that only vague allegations have been levelled against them. Having analysed the testimony of prosecution witnesses from all angles it seems to us that implication of these appellants may be the result of overzealousness on the part of the prosecution witnesses to ensure, the conviction of entire family of appellant Barkat. (16). In Ganesh K. Gulve vs. State of Rajasthan (2), their Lordships of the Supreme Court indicated the principles of appreciation of evidence. It was observed that ``in order to appreciate the evidence, the court is required to bear in mind the set-up and the environment in which the crime is committed, the level of understanding of the witnesses, the overzealousness of some of the near relations to ensure that everyone even remotely connected with the crime be also convicted and everyones different way of narration of the same facts. These are only illustrative instances. Bearing in mind these broad principles the evidence is required to be appreciate to find out what part out of the evidence represents the true and correct state of affairs. It is for the Court to separate the grain from the chaff. (17). It is well settled proposition that the basis of constructive guilt under Section 149 IPC is membership of the unlawful assembly with the requisite common object or knowledge. Having scanned the material on record of the instant case we do not find sufficient evidence to show that the appellants had formed an unlawful assembly, the common object of which was to use force and violence against the deceased Akhtyar. In causing of death of Akhtyar and inflicting injuries to Mst. Tofan and Sarfuddin only the appellants Barkat, Mukhtyar and Hazoor had shared common intention and the prosecution evidence does not show that other accused persons shared any common object to use force and violence against the deceased or causing injuries to Sarfuddin and Mst. Tofan. (18). In causing of death of Akhtyar and inflicting injuries to Mst. Tofan and Sarfuddin only the appellants Barkat, Mukhtyar and Hazoor had shared common intention and the prosecution evidence does not show that other accused persons shared any common object to use force and violence against the deceased or causing injuries to Sarfuddin and Mst. Tofan. (18). The prosecution is only able to establish beyond reasonable doubt that appellants Barkat, Mukhtyar and Hazoor had shared common intention to use force and violence against Akhtyar, Sarfuddin and Mst. Tofan. Fatal injury which caused the death of Akhtyar was attributed to the appellant Barkat, therefore he is found guilty for the offences under Sections 302, 325/34 and 323/34 IPC, whereas appellants Mukhtyar and Hazoor are responsible for the guilt under sections 302/34, 325/34 and 323/34 IPC. Charges under Sections 447 and 148 IPC are however could not be proved against them. (19). The evidence led by the prosecution against the appellants Manzoor, Shakoor, Mst. Gopa, Mst. Chhoti, Mst. Jurhat and Mst. Jaiboon is wholly unsatisfactory and it cannot be regarded sufficient to base the conviction. The prosecution has failed to prove charges under Sections 302/149, 148, 147, 323/149 and 325/149 IPC against them beyond reasonable doubt. (20). As a result of the above discussion we dispose of the instant appeal as under:- (i) Appeal of appellants Manzoor, Shakoor, Mst. Gopa, Mst. Chhoti, Mst. Jurhat and Mst. Jaiboon shall stand allowed and they are acquitted of the charges under sections 302/149, 148, 447, 323/149 and 325/149 IPC. They are on bail, they need not surrender and their bail bonds stand cancelled. (ii) Appeal of appellants Barkat, Mukhtiyar and Hazoor is dismissed. Finding of learned trial judge convicting and sentencing appellant Barkat under section 302 IPC is confirmed. Appellants Mukhtyar and Hazoor stand convicted under section 302/34 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 200/- in default to further suffer 3 months simple imprisonment. All the three appellants Barkat, Mukhtyar and Hazoor also stand convicted and sentenced under sections 325/34, and 323/34 IPC each to respectively to suffer three years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 100/- (in default to further suffer one month S.I.) and six months R.I. All the sentences shall run concurrently. (iii) Appellant Hazoor is on bail, his bail bonds stand cancelled and he shall forthwith be taken in custody to serve out the sentence. 100/- (in default to further suffer one month S.I.) and six months R.I. All the sentences shall run concurrently. (iii) Appellant Hazoor is on bail, his bail bonds stand cancelled and he shall forthwith be taken in custody to serve out the sentence. (iv) The impugned judgment of learned trial judge is modified as indicated above.