Judgment P.K.Sinha and Chandra Mohan Prasad JJ. 1. Both the appeals having arisen out of the same judgment of the trial Court have been heard togethe and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Appellants Lalan Sah and Ratan Sah of criminal appeal No. 262 of 1999 stand convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code ("the Code" in short) and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. They also have been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default. to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. Appellant Lalan Sah has further been convicted under Section 323 of the Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Appellant Shankar Sah of criminal appeal No. 368 of 2000 stands convicted under Section 302 of the Code and similarly sentenced to imprisonment, and fine. All the three appellants have further been convicted under Section 342 of the Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months. All the sentences in case of each of the appellants are to run concurrently. 3. The case of the prosecution briefly stated, and as coming out of the fardbeyan (Ext. 5) recorded by Jawahar Prasad (PW 5) on 22.3.1989 at 9 p.m. in village Dudhpura is that on the same day at about 4 p.m. he heard bulla on which he ran to the darwaja and saw all the three appellants and one Arjun Sah, who since has expired, were assaulting Ram Chandra Sah, brother of the informant with the help of lathi, bhala and farsa. Mantoon Sah (not examined) who had gone to intervene was also assaulted by Shankar Sah with farsa injuring his hand and Lalan Sah assaulted the informant with lathi. The informant in his fardbeyan came down to the specifics of assault claiming that appellant Shankar Sah had given two farsa blows on the left leg of the deceased brother, whereas other accused had assaulted the deceased with lathi. After fleeing away of the miscreants, the injured was brought to the clinic of Doctor Ram Pratap Singh, who only bandaged the wound and referred him to Rosera Hospital but in the way Ram Chandra Sah expired. After fleeing away of the miscreants, the injured was brought to the clinic of Doctor Ram Pratap Singh, who only bandaged the wound and referred him to Rosera Hospital but in the way Ram Chandra Sah expired. Reason for assault as given was that before the occurrence the appellants amongst themselves were quarrelling when the deceased went to preach them peace as it was day of holi festival, but in response those accused started assaulting the brother giving rise to the occurrence. It also was claimed that earlier also deceased had quarrels with the accused side relating to land for which a panchayat was held but the accused persons had refused to obey the decision, whereafter they used to assault the informant and his family members and also threatened them with killing. 4. PW 1 Vishwanath Mahto and PW 6 Vishnu Kant Jha are formal witnesses whereas PW 9 Bhupendra Sah and PW 11 Krishna Devi had turned hostile, not supporting the prosecution case. PW 11, however, in cross-examination admitted that the accused persons were related to her. PW 2, Astanand Sah (about whom it has come and also admitted in course of argument by both the sides that he was also referred to as Achuta Nand Sah), is brother of the deceased and of the informant. PW 3 Saraswati Devi, wife of PW 2, PW 4 Dev Narayan Sah, son-in-law of the deceased, PW 5 the informant and brother of the deceased, PW 7 Kamla Devi, daughter of the deceased and wife of PW 4, and PW 10 Rameshwari Devi, wife of the deceased have come forward as eye-witnesses and have supported the prosecution case. Dr. L.N. Jha (PW 8) had conducted the autopsy on the dead body and PW 12, Chandra Bhushan Rajak, was the investigating police officer. 5. In sum total it can be said that all the ocular witnesses fully have supported the prosecution case, naming all the four miscreant including deceased Arjun Sah as assaulting Ram Chandra Sah; Shankar Sah with farsa, in the leg, and others with lathi, resulting in his death. This has been said by PW 2 as also by PW 3. These witnesses have also stated as to how the injured was taken to a private doctor who whereafter died before he could receive further treatment. Similar support to the prosecution case has been given by PWs 4. This has been said by PW 2 as also by PW 3. These witnesses have also stated as to how the injured was taken to a private doctor who whereafter died before he could receive further treatment. Similar support to the prosecution case has been given by PWs 4. 5, 7 and 10. Supporting evidences of these witnesses have been adequately discussed in the judgment of the trial Court. 6. Therefore, there is overwhelming evidence on record to prove that Shankar Sah had assaulted in the leg of the deceased with farsa whereas other appellants had assaulted with lathi. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants has pointed out some discrepancies in the evidence of witnesses. He pointed out that PW 5 had said that Lalan Sah and Arjun Sah were assaulting with lathi and Shankar Sah assaulted the deceased with farsa but he saw Ratan Sah assaulting with bhala. When we scrutinise the evidence of the doctor it will be noticed that doctor did not find any puncturing wound on the deceased caused by a weapon like bhala though he did find injuries by hard blunt substance, besides sharp cut injuries. This discrepancy, however, in our opinion can not effect the overall impact of the prosecution evidence taken together. It may be noticed that in the first information report also the informant had mentioned assault by lathi, bhala and farsa. A bhala has lathi portion also. PW 5 might have seen that the appellant was being assaulted by the lathi portion of bhala, which is the only explanation in the face of overwhelming evidence on record that Ratan Sah also had assaulted with lahi. 8. It was also pointed out that PW 2 said (para 7) in answer to a question in course of cross-examination that when he went to the place of occurrence on hulla, he saw wound in the thigh of Ram Chandra Sah and after his reaching there other witnesses had also come including PWs 3, 4, 7 and 11. But what he appears to have said in paragraph .7 of deposition is in answer to a leading question that might have been asked, to say, whether the witness had seen any injury in the thigh of the deceased when he went there to which he naturally would have answered in affirmative which answer appears to have been recorded. But what he appears to have said in paragraph .7 of deposition is in answer to a leading question that might have been asked, to say, whether the witness had seen any injury in the thigh of the deceased when he went there to which he naturally would have answered in affirmative which answer appears to have been recorded. In so far as the sequence of coming of other witnesses is concerned this witness admitted that 20 to 25 persons had come, hence he appears to have given the sequence in which he saw other persons, including the witnesses. 9. It was argued that all the witnesses are interested witnesses hence their evidence should be considered with a pinch of salt. No doubt the witnesses are related to each other, and to the deceased. It is well settled that evidence of such witnesses should not be thrown out simply because they were lelatives or on inimical terms with the accused, rather their evidence has to be considered with more care and caution, also keeping in view the overall circumstances of the case. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the place of occurrence has remained vague. We, however, find that the place of occurrence in this case is well established by evidence of witnesses. PW 10 has said that when on hulla she came out of the house with her family members she saw the assault. She has given the boundary of the place of occurrence in para 10 of deposition showing the entrance of her house to the north of the place of occurrence. PW 9 is a hostile witness who claimed in examination-in- chief that he did not see any one assaulting Ram Chandra Sah but when cross-examined by the prosecution he admitted that before the investigating police officer he had given statement that he saw the appellants including Arjun Sah assaulting the deceased with lathi and farsa who was then taken to a private doctor. About the place of occurrence he said that just in front of the house of the deceased there was a road on which he had seen the injured. PW 7 also said that she had seen the occurrence from her house coming out of it. About the place of occurrence he said that just in front of the house of the deceased there was a road on which he had seen the injured. PW 7 also said that she had seen the occurrence from her house coming out of it. She said that just to the south of the house there was a road on which assault had taken place, there being no land in between the house and the road. The informant in his evidence said that on hulla he reached on road which was just by the side of his house, where he saw the occurrence. 11. PW 3 also said that the assault had taken place on the road the I.O. in his evidence has said that the place of occurrence was the northern darwqja of the house of the informant and of the deceased. The occurrence was said to have taken place just in front of the darwaja of this north facing house. He also found blood at the place of occurrence and seized that as well from the darwaja of the accused persons he seized two lathis and one bhala. Therefore, it will appear that occurrence had taken place just out of the house of the deceased. The occurrence obviously had been over within a short span of time. The natural witnesses, therefore, were those who were residents of that house or the people living nearby. Simply because they were relatives and on inimical terms, in such circumstances and when their testimonies have been found to be trustworthy and reliable, those evidences cannot be subjected to doubts. 12. It was also argued that Mantoon Sah, said to be the injured, was not examined as a witness and that there was no motive for the killing. It is fact that Mantoon Sah was said to have been injured when he went to intervene but his non-examination will not affect the prosecution case when a large number of witnesses have supported the prosecution case. In so far as the motive is concerned, when an occurrence is proved by ocular evidence, the search for motive remains of academic interest. It has been admitted by prosecution that both the parties were on inimical terms. In such a situation even a trifling matter may give rise to a serious occurrence as appears to have happened in this case. 13. It has been admitted by prosecution that both the parties were on inimical terms. In such a situation even a trifling matter may give rise to a serious occurrence as appears to have happened in this case. 13. Therefore, we find that the prosecution has succeeded in proving that itwas on account of the assault by the appellants that the deceased ultimately had expired which is also supported by medical evidence as we will see presently. 14. Lastly it was argued on behalf of the appellants that in the circumstances of this case Shankar Sah could not have been convicted under Section 302 of the Code, and others with the help of 34 of the Code. To appreciate this argument first the medical evidence on record may be seen. The doctor, PW 8 had examined the dead body on 23.3.1989. The doctor had found two ante-mortem injuries or the body of the deceased, which are as follows : I. Incised wound 6" x 5" into bone deep on the back and medial part of the left thigh in the lower part. Transverse in direction. II. Bruises on left and right knees and on right buttock. On deep dissection, the left femoral artery and vein were found completely cut in the lower part. As per doctor witness the injury No. I was caused by sharp cutting instrument such as farsa and rest injuries had been caused by hard and blunt substance, within 48 hours. The injuries were sufficient to cause death in normal course and in the opinion of the doctor the death was caused due to shock and haemorrhage resulting from injury No. I. Obviously the doctor assigned injury No. I to be the reason of death which, besides cutting into the thigh of the deceased accidentally also had severed the artery and vein which, obviously, would have caused sufficient loss of blood within a short time. The bruises which are attributed to appellant Lalan Sah and Ratan Sah, are on non-vital parts of the body, and appear to be simple in nature since the doctor did not find any fracture. 15. First taking the case of Shankar Sah. the question that begs answer is that can be convicted under Section 302 of the Code. From the medical evidence it is clear that only one sharp cut injury was found on the body without any repetition. 15. First taking the case of Shankar Sah. the question that begs answer is that can be convicted under Section 302 of the Code. From the medical evidence it is clear that only one sharp cut injury was found on the body without any repetition. This injury, too, was caused on a non-vital part of the body. It is obvious then Shankar Sah had no intention to cause such bodily injury as to cause death because had he so wanted, and with a deadly weapon in his hand and the entire body of the deceased available before him to pounce upon, he could have inflicted one or more injuries upon the vital parts, instead of giving one blow on the thigh. It does not appear that while causing that injury Shankar Sah would have been aware that such a blow could also severe the artery and veins. However, keeping in view the injury that was caused by the farsa blow at best it could be held that the act was done by Shankar Sah with knowledge that it could cause serious injury but without intention to cause death or to cause such bodily injury as would have caused death. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the offence committed by Shankar Sah would be covered under Section 326 of the Code. In view of that, the conviction of Shankar Sah under Section 302 of the Code is hereby set aside, but since he has been found guilty of committing offence under Section 326 of the Code, he is convicted as such, and sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years and is also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default to under go R.I. for a period of one year. 16. In so far as Lalan Sah and Ratan Sah are concerned it is quite clear from the evidence on record that they were not instrumental in causing any grievous injury to the deceased rather some simple injuries by hard and blunt substance upon knees and upon buttock were found by the doctor. Therefore, they will be responsible for the acts that they actually have committed. There is nothing on the record that all the three appellants had any pre-meeting of minds and had commonly intended to cause death of Ram Chandra Sah. Therefore, they will be responsible for the acts that they actually have committed. There is nothing on the record that all the three appellants had any pre-meeting of minds and had commonly intended to cause death of Ram Chandra Sah. Even as per prosecution case as coming out of the first information report, the deceased had gone to calm them down but because of previous enmity they suddenly pounced upon him, and caused the injuries as aforesaid. Therefore, in our opinion these two appellants can be convicted under Section 323 of the Code in view of the evidence on the record. Therefore, their conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code is set aside and. instead, they are convicted under Section 323 of the Code for causing injury to Ram Chandra Sah and are sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months, each, on that count. Conviction of Lalan Sah under Section 323 of the Code, for causing injury to the informant, will stand and is upheld, so is the sentence for this offence. The sentences will run concurrently. 17. All the three appellants have been convicted under Section 342 of the Penal Code. However, we do not see any evidence that any attempt was made by the accused persons for wrongful confinement of the deceased. The conviction under Section 342 of the Code of the three appellants is hereby set aside. 18. In the result this appeal is allowed in part as indicated above. The appellants Lalan Sah and Ratan Sah are all along on bail. If they have not served out the period of sentence under this judgment they will be taken into custody and sent to jail for serving out the sentences.