JUDGMENT 1. - Six accused including the accused appellants, in this appeal, were put to trial in the Court of Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu, in Sessions Case No. 105/1996 for their alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 147, 148. 302, 302/149, 307, 307/149, 324, 324/149, 323, 323/149. After completion of trial and hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the accused appellants, public prosecutor and the counsel for the complainant, the learned trial Court under its judgment dated 9.2.1999 acquitted accused appellants of the charges under Section 147 and 148 IPC. Accused appellants Kishan Lal @ Kishna Ram and Sardara Ram further have been acquitted of the offence under Section 302/149 IPC. The accused appellants have also been acquitted of the alleged offence attempting to commit murder of Vishwanath i.e. under Section 307 IPC. The others accused Pawan Kumar S/o Chhinnu Ram, Smt. Mani Devi W/o Khinu Ram and Smt Swadesh W/o Pawan Kumar have been acquitted of all the charges framed against them. 2. Accused appellant No. 2 Googan S/o Chhinnu Ram has been convicted under Section 302 IPC for murder of Vishwanath. He has also been convicted under Section 324 IPC for causing voluntary injury by sharp weapon to Vijay Kumar. 3. Accused appellant No. 1 Kishan Lal @ Kishna Ram S/o Chhinnu Ram is convicted under Section 324 IPC for causing voluntary injuries by sharp weapon to Rameshwar and Mool Chand. 4. Accused appellant No. 3 Sardara Ram S/o Chhinnu Ram is convicted under Section 323 IPC for causing voluntary simple injuries by blunt weapon to Rameshwar and Mool Chand. 5. Accused appellant No. 2 Googan Ram S/o Chhinnu Ram was sentenced to undergo for life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo six months imprisonment for offence under Section 302 IPC. For the offence under Section 324 IPC he was sentenced to undergo for two years rigorous imprisonment. 6. Both the substantive sentences are ordered to run concurrently. 7. Accused appellant No. 1 Kishan Lal @ Kishna Ram is sentenced to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 324 IPC and accused appellant No. 3 Saradara Ram S/o Chhinnu Ram is sentenced to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 323 IPC. 8. Both the substantive sentences are ordered to run concurrently. 7. Accused appellant No. 1 Kishan Lal @ Kishna Ram is sentenced to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 324 IPC and accused appellant No. 3 Saradara Ram S/o Chhinnu Ram is sentenced to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 323 IPC. 8. Accused appellants filed this appeal against the judgment and order the learned trial court convicted and sentenced them for the offences, as afore-stated. 9. The State has also filed D.B. Criminal Leave to Appeal No. 194/2000 against the judgment of the learned trial Court to acquit the accused appellant and other accused persons for the offences for which they were charged. 10. The application for grant of leave to appeal was presented on 14.5.1999 and it is not granted so far. 2. Material facts of the prosecution case, in nut-shell, depict that in the intervening night of 31st of March, 1996 and 1st of April, 1996 at about 12.30 AM injured Mahaveer S/o Bhagwana Ram, PW-2 submitted a written report, Ex.P-13 at Police Station, Chirawa. He stated in the report that on 31.3.1996 at about 9.30 PM an altercation took lace between the wife of Mohan, Kishna Ram, wife of Pawan and Manni Devi. Vishwanath (since deceased) came out of his house. It is stated the accused appellants and other accused persons Phool Chand, Sardara Ram, Sushil S/o Chhinnu Ram, Swadesh W/o Pawan, Wife of Kishan and Manni Devi were present at the place of occurrence and having in their hands rods, lathi, axe, knife etc. It is alleged that as soon as he came out of his house the accused persons attacked on the body of Vishwanath, Mool Chand and Rameshwar with an intention to kill them. Deceased Vishwanath sustained many injuries on his body and instantaneously scummed to the injuries on spot. It is further alleged that Mool Chand S/o Mansa Ram and Vijay S/o Jagdish Prasad were also attacked by the accused appellants, to kill them. They also sustained grievous injuries. They were referred to hospital at Jhunjhunu. Rameshwar s/o Hardev, Sunil S/o Mahaveer and Mahaveer S/o Bhagwana have also sustained injuries. It is stated that this attack has been made having preparation and premeditation, as a result of enmity in connection with the quarrel in the morning at about 9.00 AM with regard to drainage. 3. They were referred to hospital at Jhunjhunu. Rameshwar s/o Hardev, Sunil S/o Mahaveer and Mahaveer S/o Bhagwana have also sustained injuries. It is stated that this attack has been made having preparation and premeditation, as a result of enmity in connection with the quarrel in the morning at about 9.00 AM with regard to drainage. 3. On this report, the police chalked out the FIR Ex.P-14 at 12.30 AM and registered a criminal case against the accused appellants and five others for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 302, 149, 307, 323, 324 and 341 IPC and started the investigation. 4. After completion of the investigation, the police submitted a charge sheet against the accused appellants and three others in the Court of Area Magistrate for offences under Sections 147, 149, 302, 307, 323 and 324 IPC. Phool Chand and Sushil, were not named in the FIR and in the investigation, also nothing found and thus challan was not filed against them. The area Magistrate after taking cognizance in the case committed it to the Court of Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu for trial as it was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. The learned trial Court charged the accused appellant No. 1 Kishan Lai @ Kishna for the offence under Section 148, 302, 302 read with Section 149, 307 in alternate 307/149 IPC. Other accused persons have been charged for the same offences by the Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu. Ail accused including accused appellants pleaded not guilty and prayed for trial. 5. The prosecution to prove its case against the accused appellants and other accused, produced both ocular as well as documentary evidence. In ocular evidence as many as 18 witnesses were examined. Statements of accused appellants were recorded under Section 313 Cr.RC. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the accused appellants and other accused, learned public prosecutor and the counsel appearing for the complainant, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced to the accused appellants for the offences, as afore-stated. Hence, this appeal. 6. Shri R.S. Agarwal, learned counsel for the accused appellants submitted that there is considerable delay in lodging the FIR, which has not been satisfactory explained and it makes the case of the prosecution highly doubtful. The prosecution has failed to establish any overact of the accused appellants. 7. The independent witnesses though available were not examined. Hence, this appeal. 6. Shri R.S. Agarwal, learned counsel for the accused appellants submitted that there is considerable delay in lodging the FIR, which has not been satisfactory explained and it makes the case of the prosecution highly doubtful. The prosecution has failed to establish any overact of the accused appellants. 7. The independent witnesses though available were not examined. Not only this in the FIR names of the independent witnesses are not mentioned. The incident was on a petty matter at the spur of moment and out of sudden provocation, without any premeditation. In this incident injuries have also been sustained by the accused appellants. Thus, the accused appellants No. 2 could not have been convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 302 IPC. It is submitted that the accused appellants and the complainant party are in relation. The aggressor were the members of complainant party. There are contradictions on material points in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. Not only this they made various improvements. PW-5 Rukmaan and PW-8 Sawarmal are the chance witnesses. Recovered weapons are not produced. These are not shown to the medical officer, investigating officer and others witnesses. Recovery of the weapons is highly doubtful and no reliance could have been placed thereon. Accused appellants sustained injuries in the incident also, but the same were not explained by the prosecution. 8. Learned counsel for the accused appellants have also placed in service the plea of self-defence and the property. It is contended that leaving apart all aspects and the materials, the case against the accused appellant No. 2 does not travel beyond Section 304 Part-II IPC. He is stated to be a young boy of 17 years of age on the date of incident. 9. In support of his contention, Shri Agarwal, learned counsel for the accused appellants placed reliance on the following decisions : (i) 1972 Cr.L.J. SC 1296, Thulia Kali v. The State of Tamil Nadu (ii) 1972 Cr.L.J. SC 262, Baldeo Singh & Others v. State of Bihar. (iii) 2002 (1) SCC 71 , Khashi Ram &. Others v. State of M.P (iv) 2002 (6) S.C.C. 494 , Toran Singh v. State of M.R (v) 1978 R.C.C. 288, Murli & Others v. The State of Rajasthan (vi) 1982 Cr.L.J. 1691, State of Gujarat v. Bhand Jusub Mamad 10. Learned counsel appearing for the State Ms. (iii) 2002 (1) SCC 71 , Khashi Ram &. Others v. State of M.P (iv) 2002 (6) S.C.C. 494 , Toran Singh v. State of M.R (v) 1978 R.C.C. 288, Murli & Others v. The State of Rajasthan (vi) 1982 Cr.L.J. 1691, State of Gujarat v. Bhand Jusub Mamad 10. Learned counsel appearing for the State Ms. Sumitra Goyal, supported the judgment and order of the learned trial Court. 11. Shri Manoj Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the complainant contended that it is a case where the appellant No. 2 mercilessly inflicted four knife blows on the body of deceased Vishwanath. It is not the case where he has inflicted only a solitary injury in self defence of person or the property. Even after the deceased fell down, he has gone to inflict injuries repeatedly. 12. Shri Sharma, learned counsel for the complainant submitted that none of the members of the complainant party was having any weapon and thus no question does arise of any right of self-defence to the accused. So far as to the contention raised that the injuries sustained by the accused appellant No. 2 have not been explained, Shri Sharma, making reference to the statement of the accused appellant No. 2 recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC., submitted that he himself admitted that in this incident he has not sustained these injuries. So far as to the other accused are concerned, these are only superficial injuries and even if same are not explained, it will not affect the merits of the case of the prosecution. Shri Sharma, further submitted that looking to the four knife blows inflicted by the accused appellant No. 2 on the person of deceased, it is not the case which falls under Section 304 Part-II IPC. This case does not fall under any of the exceptions carved in Section 300 IPC. 13. Concluding his submissions Shri Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the complainant, submitted that it is a clear case of brutal murder committed by the accused appellant No. 2 and he has rightly been convicted and sentenced for this ghastly crime. Merely because he was about 17 years of age on the date of incident, is hardly of any ground or relevance and substance where he has gone to the extent of inflicting repeatedly knife blows on the person of deceased Vishwanath even after he was fell down. 14. Merely because he was about 17 years of age on the date of incident, is hardly of any ground or relevance and substance where he has gone to the extent of inflicting repeatedly knife blows on the person of deceased Vishwanath even after he was fell down. 14. In support of his contention Shri Sharma, learned counsel for the complainant placed reliance on decision of the Apex Court in the case of Raja v. State of M.P, 2002 W.L.C. (Cr.) 110. 15. We have given our thoughtful and anxious consideration to the rival contentions raised by the learned counsel for the accused appellants, public prosecutor for the State and counsel appearing for the complainant. We have also minutely and carefully examined the entire evidence both ocular and documentary, which has come on record and gone through judgment and order of the learned trial Court. 16. Having gone through the judgment of the learned trial Court, we find that the accused appellants have not raised this ground of delay in filing the FIR of the incident in the Court below. Not only this in the memo of appeal, we do not find any such ground, has been raised by the accused appellants. Mere delay in filing of the FIR is not fatal in each and every case to the prosecution case. In case this delay in filing of the FIR is explained to the satisfaction of the Court, the prosecution case cannot be taken doubtful and manufactured one. The delay is explained or not which is alleged to have been made in lodging of the FIR, is a pure question of fact and unless it is raised there was occasion, necessity and desired for the prosecution to furnish any explanation for the same. The very fact that this plea has not been raised in the trial Court by the accused appellants, it can reasonably be inferred that it was not taken fatal to the prosecution case by them. 17. We find from the record of the case that the accused appellants have not put this case to the complainant as well as the investigating officer. Otherwise they would have furnished the explanation for the same. It is difficult to appreciate this approach of the accused to raise this objection first time at this stage. 17. We find from the record of the case that the accused appellants have not put this case to the complainant as well as the investigating officer. Otherwise they would have furnished the explanation for the same. It is difficult to appreciate this approach of the accused to raise this objection first time at this stage. Thus, this contention raised by the learned counsel for the accused appellants cannot be permitted to be raised in the appeal in the facts and circumstances of this case. 18. Having gone through the entire evidence of the prosecution, we are satisfied otherwise also this alleged delay in lodging the FIR is not fatal to the prosecution case. The incident was at 9.30 PM in the night. The report has been lodged at 12.30 AM i.e. after about three hours of the incident. The distance of the police station from the place of incident is about 1 kms. In this incident Vishwanath died on spot, as a result of injuries inflicted on him by accused appellant No. 2. Not only this the other persons from the complainant side namely; Rameshwar, Sunil, Mahaveer, Mula Ram and Vijay Kumar have also sustained injuries. In the facts and circumstances of this case where one member of the family is killed and as many as five other persons have sustained injuries, the most important and concerned of the complainant party was to first take care of the injured persons. Apart from this in the facts and circumstances of this case where one person of family member of the complainant has been killed and five other persons were injured, it would have taken some time by the complainant party to come to normalcy. 19. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we are satisfied that this delay in filing the FIR is hardly of any material and substance and nor it is fatal to the prosecution case. 20. We have carefully gone through the decision cited by both, learned counsel for the accused appellants and the complainant party. It is no more res integra that a decision of the Court in a given case is based on its own facts. Each case, more particularly the criminal case, is to be decided on its own facts. A slight difference in the facts of the case, makes the decision relied upon, distinguishable. It is no more res integra that a decision of the Court in a given case is based on its own facts. Each case, more particularly the criminal case, is to be decided on its own facts. A slight difference in the facts of the case, makes the decision relied upon, distinguishable. Keeping in view this legal position, we have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and scrutinised the evidence of the prosecution. As we are deciding the matter on the evidence came on record, we do not consider it necessary to make reference to the decisions cited at bar in detail. 21. The presence of the accused appellants at the place of occurrence is not disputed by the learned counsel for the appellants. The learned counsel for the accused appellants himself raised a contention that injuries on the accused appellants have not been explained by the prosecution. That goes to show that it is their case that the injuries were sustained by the accused appellants in that very incident and thus their presence at the place of incident is not in dispute. 22. Bhisam Raj (PW-18), the S.H.O., Police Station Chirawa in his statement stated that he got done the medical examination done of accused Gugan, Pawan and others. The prosecution on record has produced the injury report of accused appellants Gugan Ram only. It has not produced the injury report of other accused persons. It is the defence of the accused appellants and merely on non production of the injury reports of the other accused in every case no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution. It cannot be taken from this act of the prosecution that its case is wholly concocted, manufactured and fabricated. Along with the challan the prosecution has to produce the documents which it had considered relevant to bring home the guilt against the accused appellants. Learned counsel for the accused appellant though has raised this contention but unable to give out any satisfactory explanation why, if it was considered material for the defence, the injury reports were not called from the prosecution. It is not the case where the accused appellants prayed for production of the injury reports and the court has not ordered for their production or despite the courts order it was not produced by the prosecution. It is not the case where the accused appellants prayed for production of the injury reports and the court has not ordered for their production or despite the courts order it was not produced by the prosecution. It is a defence and in case the prosecution has not produced these documents the accused appellants have all the right to call those documents and where this right has not been exercised thus only on the basis as what it is alleged against the prosecution is blamed for non production of the documents, benefit cannot be given to the accused appellants. It cannot be taken in the facts of this case that non production of those injury reports of other accused appellants in their defence. From this conduct of the accused appellants, it can also be reasonably inferred that the injury reports would have been called by them from the prosecution, it would have gone adverse or against them. There is all the possibility that these injuries would have been seif inflicted i.e. a creation of evidence for the sake of defence and knowing this reality the accused appellants would not have considered it in their interest to call upon the prosecution to produce the same. 23. Ex.D-7 is the injury report of accused appellant No. 2 Gugan Ram. He was examined by the Medical Officer, Government Hospital on 1st of April, 1996 at 2.35 AM on the request of the S.H.O., Police Station Chirawa. On his person following injuries were : "1. Lacerated wound 1.1/2" X 1/4" X scalp deep left side of forehead in oblique direction, (simple) 2. Echymosis 2" X 1" X on anterior aspect lower part right thigh (simple) 3. Abrasion 2" X 1" in medical aspect middle of right forearm. We find from this injury report that all three injuries are simple caused by blunt object. 24. Statement of accused appellant No. 2 Gugan Ram under Section 313 Cr.RC. were recorded on 28.4.1998. These are there on record of the trial court at page No. A9/8 to A9/14. Abrasion 2" X 1" in medical aspect middle of right forearm. We find from this injury report that all three injuries are simple caused by blunt object. 24. Statement of accused appellant No. 2 Gugan Ram under Section 313 Cr.RC. were recorded on 28.4.1998. These are there on record of the trial court at page No. A9/8 to A9/14. At page No. A9/14, in reply to the question No. 23 he stated : " 31-3-96 dks esjk thi pkyd ftldk uke eSa ugha tkurk] ls esjk >xM+k gqvk Fkk rFkk thi okys us eq>s ekjk rks eSa bldh fjiksVZ djus Fkkus ij x;k vkSj MkWDVjh eqvk;uk jkf= ds 2] 2&1@2 cts djokdj eq>s NksM+ fn;k rFkk nwljs fnu eq>s iqfyl us fxjQ~rkj dj fy;kA >xM+k lokjh dks ysdj gqvk FkkA eSa 12 lhVj VsEiks pykrk FkkA " 25. These injuries which are now alleged to have been inflicted upon him by the complainant party in this incident as per the accused appellant No. 2 himself were not caused in this incident. He sustained these injuries in a quarrel with a driver of Jeep. Where the accused appellant No. 2 himself has admitted that these injuries were not caused in this incident, it is difficult to appreciate what to say to accept the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the accused appellants that the injuries on the person of accused appellant No. 2 were not explained by the prosecution in this case. 26. From the document Ex.D-7, the injury report of accused Gugan Ram dated 1.4.1996 and his statements recorded under Section 313, Cr.P.C. we are satisfied that the accused appellants have failed to establish to the satisfaction of the court that in this incident he has sustained any injury. 27. The complainant party was not carrying any arm the incident has taken place just near to the houses of the accused and complainant parties. It is true that it was in connection with the dispute between the parties re discharge of water from the drainage which spread over in front of the house of the accused. There was altercations in respect of this drainage dispute in the morning between the ladies of the complainant and accused parties and in the night also there was altercations between their ladies. 28. There was altercations in respect of this drainage dispute in the morning between the ladies of the complainant and accused parties and in the night also there was altercations between their ladies. 28. From the evidence of the prosecution and the case of the accused appellants themselves the presences of the deceased and other injured from the complainant side and two witnesses of the complainant side which are alleged to have been chance witnesses by the accused appellants and the accused appellants cannot be doubted. 29. From the document Ex.P-13, the written report submitted by Mahaveer (PW-2) at police station the accused appellants are named therein. It is also categorically stated in this written report that accused appellant No. 2 Gugan Ram was carrying knife, accused appellant No. 1 Kishan Lal was carrying axe and accused appellant No. 3 Sardara Ram was having lathi. It is true that in the report Ex.P-13 the complainant has not given out the details of & the injuries which have been inflicted by these three accused persons to the victims on different parts of their bodies but it is hardly of any substance and merits. In the F.I.R. in every case it is not necessary and essential to give out each and every minor details of the injuries. The complainant stated in the report that the accused appellants have attacked the deceased and other injured in this incident with the intention to kill them. It has further been stated that Vishwanath has sustained many injuries. It is also stated that Vijay Kumar, Mool Chand, Rameshwar and the complainant himself have also sustained injuries. 30. Mahaveer (PW-2) deposed in the Court that deceased Vishwanath is his real brother. On 31st of March, 1996 at about 9.30 PM there was altercations between the wife of Mohan on the one side and wives of Kishna Ram and Pawan on the other hand. These altercations were between the ladies in connection with the drainage. Vishwanath, who was taking rest at his house, came out. He came to the place of incident to pacify this altercation between the ladies. Phool Chand inflicted Sariya (iron bar) blow on the person of Vishwanath. Vishwanath has saved himself from this sariya blow and fell down on the platform in front of the house. Vishwanath, who was taking rest at his house, came out. He came to the place of incident to pacify this altercation between the ladies. Phool Chand inflicted Sariya (iron bar) blow on the person of Vishwanath. Vishwanath has saved himself from this sariya blow and fell down on the platform in front of the house. Accused appellant No. 2 Gugan Ram inflicted four knife blows on his body, two were hit on his left thigh, third was on Iliac Fossa and 4th was on his chest. He deposed further that accused appellant No. 2 Gugan Ram was carrying knife in his hand. 31. Vijay Kumar (PW-4) deposed that Gugan Ram accused appellant No. 2, has given 4-5 knife blows on the persons of Vishwanath. He detailed out these injuries also in his statements. He further deposed that accused appellant No. 2 was carrying knife. Accused appellant No. 2 Gugan Ram caused 2-3 injuries by knife on him also which were hit on his back of left ribs. He shows the presence of Rukman (PW-5) and Sanwarmal (PW-8) at the place of occurrence. Rukman (PW-5) stated that the accused appellant No. 2 inflicted four knife injuries on the person of deceased Vishwanath. Rameshwar (PW-6) deposed that accused appellant No. 2 Gugan was carrying the knife and inflicted four injuries by it on his body. Both these witnesses also deposed that accused appellant No. 2 Gugan Ram has inflicted four injuries by knife on the body of Vishwanath when he fell down on platform. Sanwarlal (PW-8) deposed that accused appellant No. 2 inflicted four blows on the body of Vishwanath by knife. Smt. Geeta Devi (PW-9) deposed that Gugan Ram, accused appellant No. 2, inflicted four knife blows on the body of Vishwanath. Sunil (PW-13) also deposed that Gugan Ram has inflicted four knife blows on the body of Vishwanath. Mool Chand (PW-17) deposed that accused appellant No. 2 Gugan Ram has inflicted four knife blows on the body of Vishwanath. 32. Mool Chand (PW-17) and Vijay Kumar (PW-4) were examined by Dr. Satish Chand (PW-16). He prepared the injury report of Mool Chand (Ex.P-26). He proved the documents exhibited Ex.R-26, Ex.P-27 and Ex.P-28 and his report thereon Ex.P-29. He has also proved the document Ex.P-30. He proved the injury report Ex.P-31 of Vijay Kumar. 33. Dr. 32. Mool Chand (PW-17) and Vijay Kumar (PW-4) were examined by Dr. Satish Chand (PW-16). He prepared the injury report of Mool Chand (Ex.P-26). He proved the documents exhibited Ex.R-26, Ex.P-27 and Ex.P-28 and his report thereon Ex.P-29. He has also proved the document Ex.P-30. He proved the injury report Ex.P-31 of Vijay Kumar. 33. Dr. Ratan Singh (PW-11) examined Rameshwar (PW-6), Sunil (PW-13), Mahaveer (PW-2) and also conducted post mortem on the body of Vishwanath. The injuries which were found on body of injured persons and deceased Vishwanath are as under:Deceased Vishwanath : Injuries. 1. Punctured wound (Incised) 1" X 1/2" X 3.1/2M on lateral aspect upper part of left thigh diverted upwards and medially with continuous abrasion 1.1/2" on upper part of wound. On exploration blood clots present in soft tissue/muscle : 2. Punctured wound (Incised) 3/4" X 1/2" X 1.1/4" on left Iliac Fossa 3" above anterior superior Iliac Spine directed downward medially clotted blood present on exploration. 3. Punctured wound (Incised) 1"X 1/4"X 1.1/2 or Poster lateral aspect of middle third on left thigh directed upward and backwards. 4. Punctured wound (Incised) 1.1/4" X ⅔" X 4" in 7th intercostal space in posterior auxiliary fold link on chest directed downward and medially towards unbilicus. Patient is lying supine in pool of blood which is seen coming from this wound. Surgical emphysema + in the surround chest wall. Skin sub cut tissue inter costal muscle, fracture of 8th rib pleura and lung tissue cut in the same plain and direction,. About 1.1/2 liters semi clotted blood present in the chest cavity, all injuries are antemortem in nature. INJURIES ON THE BODY OF RAMESHWAR (PW-6) 1. Incised wound 1.1/2" X 1/4" X scalp deep on right front. Parital area scalp in vertical direction. 2. Incised wound 3/4" X ⅙" X skin deep only right eye blood in oblique direction. Echymosis 1"X1" in upper part left shoulder. INJURIES ON THE BODY OF SUNIL (PW-13) 1. Echymosis 1"X 1" on right maxillary area of face. INJURIES ON THE BODY OF MAHAVEER (PW-2) 1. Abrasion 1"X linear on middle part anterior aspect right forearm (simple). 34. These four persons are the injured persons. They sustained injuries in this incident and their presence on the place of occurrence cannot be doubted. Echymosis 1"X 1" on right maxillary area of face. INJURIES ON THE BODY OF MAHAVEER (PW-2) 1. Abrasion 1"X linear on middle part anterior aspect right forearm (simple). 34. These four persons are the injured persons. They sustained injuries in this incident and their presence on the place of occurrence cannot be doubted. From their evidence and the evidence of the other prosecution witnesses it is established beyond any reasonable doubt that the accused appellant No. 2 Gugan Ram has inflicted four knife blows out of which two were on the vital part of the body of the deceased. Dr. Ratan Singh (PW-11) opined that cause of death was shock due to excessive acute internal and external haemorrhage caused mainly as a result of injury No. 4. He further deposed that these injuries found on the body of the deceased were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause his death. 35. The prosecution evidence is found support from the post mortem report of the deceased Vishwanath and the statement of Dr. Ratan Singh (PW-11). Mahaveer Prasad (PW- 2) stated that Vijay Kumar (PW-4) also sustained injury in this incident. Vijay Kumar (PW-4) deposed that Gugan Ram inflicted two or three knife blows on his body. His medical examination has been done, as said earlier, and his statement finds support from the medical evidence also. Sanwarmal (PW-8) deposed that Gugan Ram has inflicted two knife blows on the body of Vijay Kumar. Smt. Geeta Devi (PW-9) deposed that Gugan Ram, accused appellant No. 2, inflicted two knife blows on the body of Vijay Kumar. Thus, the statement of Vijay Kumar finds support from the medical evidence and corroboration from the statements of the aforesaid prosecution witnesses. The prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused appellant No. 2 has inflicted injuries on the body of Vijay Kumar by sharp edged weapon. 36. Mahaveer Prasad (PW-2) stated that accused appellant No. 1 Kishan Lal @ Kishna was carrying axe. However, he has shown his inability to state who has caused injury on the body of Rameshwar. Vijay Kumar (PW-4) deposed that Kishan lal, accused appellant No. 1, inflicted axe blows on body of Mool Chand. Mahaveer Prasad (PW-2) stated that Sardara was carrying lathi in his hand. Vijay Kumar (PW-4) stated that Sardara inflicted lathi blow on the shoulder of Mool Chand. 37. Vijay Kumar (PW-4) deposed that Kishan lal, accused appellant No. 1, inflicted axe blows on body of Mool Chand. Mahaveer Prasad (PW-2) stated that Sardara was carrying lathi in his hand. Vijay Kumar (PW-4) stated that Sardara inflicted lathi blow on the shoulder of Mool Chand. 37. Rukman (PW-5) given out the presence of Sardara and Kishna Ram at the place of incident. He also stated that Sardara, accused appellant No. 3, was carrying lathi. He inflicted lathi blow on the body of Mool Chand and Rameshwar. He further stated that Kishna Ram has inflicted injury on the body of Rameshwar by axe. Rameshwar (PW-6) deposed that Kishna Ram, accused appellant No. 1 inflicted axe blow on his head and Sardara inflicted lathi blow on his back. Sanwarlal (PW-S) also named Sardara and Kishan Lal. In the hand of Sardara Ram, he has stated, lathi was there. Kishan Lal was carrying axe. He made a categorical statement that Kishan Lal inflicted axe blow on the body of Mool Chand. Sardara Ram inflicted lathi blow on his body. Smt. Geeta Devi (PW-9) deposed that Sardara Ram inflicted lathi blow on the body of Rameshwar and Kishan Lal has inflicted axe blow on the body of Rameshwar. She has further stated that Kishan Lal has inflicted axe blow on the body of Mool Chand. She also deposed that Sardara Ram has given lathi blow on the body of Mool Chand. Sunil (PW-13) deposed that Kishan Lal inflicted injuries by axe on the body of Mool Chand. He has also inflicted axe blow on the body of Rameshwar. She deposed that Sardara Ram has given lathi blow on the body of Rameshwar. He has also given lathi blow on the body of Mool Chand. Mool Chand (PW-17) deposed that Kishan Lal inflicted blow by axe on his body. Sardara Ram caused lathi blow on his left shoulder. He further stated that Sardara Ram has also given lathi blow on the left shoulder of Rameshwar. Kishan Lal has given axe blow on the body of Rameshwar. 38. The statements of these witnesses found support from the medical evidence which has come on record. Thus the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused appellant No. 1 Kishan Lal has inflicted voluntarily injuries on the body of Rameshwar and Mool Chand by sharp edged weapon. Kishan Lal has given axe blow on the body of Rameshwar. 38. The statements of these witnesses found support from the medical evidence which has come on record. Thus the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused appellant No. 1 Kishan Lal has inflicted voluntarily injuries on the body of Rameshwar and Mool Chand by sharp edged weapon. The prosecution has also proved beyond reasonable doubt that Sardara Ram has inflicted voluntarily injuries by blunt weapon lathi on the body of Rameshwar and Mool Chand. The learned counsel for the accused appellants argued that it is a case of right of private defence of the person and the property. The reference has been made and more particularly to the fact that the ladies of the complainant party were pelting stones. So far as to the right of private defence of the property is concerned, the reference has been made to the damage caused to the tempo which belongs to accused appellant Gugan Ram. 39. We do not find any substance in this contention of the learned counsel for the accused appellants. It was a matter of altercations between the ladies. Vishwanath came there to pacify this altercation. The complainant party was not armed with any weapon. It is not the case of the defence that anybody out of them even has a lathi. What it is stated that some stones were pelted by the ladies of the complainant party is taken to be correct, we fail to see how it gives any apprehension of causing grievous bodily injuries or they have any endanger to their life as none of the complainant party was armed with the weapon. The accused appellants have come prepared lashed with the deadly weapons knife and axe. Their intention was very clear. Accused appellant No. 2 has not sustained any injury in this incident. So far as to other accused appellants are concerned, they failed to prove having been sustained any serious injury. Gugan, accused appellant No. 2 has gone to the extent of inflicting four knife blows on the body of deceased Vishwanath when he fell down while saving himself from sariya blow inflicted by Phool Chand. We do not find any justification of inflicting four knife blows on the deceased Vishwanath who fell down and lying on the platform. He was helpless person. We do not find any justification of inflicting four knife blows on the deceased Vishwanath who fell down and lying on the platform. He was helpless person. That clearly goes to show and speaks of the intention of the accused appellant No. 2. 40. Learned counsel for the accused appellant challenged the recovery of knife. He further submitted that chemical examination report of this weapon of offence, of the Forensic Science Laboratory, Rajasthan, Jaipur is not of any help to the prosecution as by this knife as per the prosecution case, the accused appellant No. 2 has also inflicted injuries on the person of Vijay Kumar (PW-4). The prosecution has not brought on record the blood group of Vijay Kumar. 41. Similar is the case with two other accused appellants who have inflicted the blows, one by gandasi and other by lathi on the person of the complainant. 42. It is established by the prosecution evidence that the accused appellants have not any right of self-defence of person. So far as to the right of private defence of property is concerned, if we go by the evidence on the record, it was the case where only front glass of the tempo was broken. Possibly it would have been taken broken by stones stated to have been pelted by their own ladies. Only front glass of the tempo is broken and we do not find any justification nor it gives any right of private defence of the property to the accused appellants and that too to the extent to kill Vishwanath by inflicting four knife blows. 43. Leaving apart the question whether independent witnesses were available or not, even we go by this acceptance that independent witnesses were available, we fail to see how the non-examination of the same will affect the merits of the case where eye witnesses of the incident have been examined. Looking to the nature of this incident we are satisfied that had any other witness been examined it would have been nothing but only a repetition of the witnesses. The eye witnesses examined by the prosecution in the case are creditworthy and reliable and, production of other witnesses was not necessary. 44. The learned counsel for the accused appellants has failed to point out any material contradiction which goes to the roof of the matter in the statements of the witnesses. The eye witnesses examined by the prosecution in the case are creditworthy and reliable and, production of other witnesses was not necessary. 44. The learned counsel for the accused appellants has failed to point out any material contradiction which goes to the roof of the matter in the statements of the witnesses. We fail to see any material improvement is made in the statements by the prosecution witnesses which may adversely affect the prosecution case. The presence of two witnesses, namely, Rukman (PW-5) and Sanwarmal (PW-8) has been proved by other prosecution witnesses. They are not the chance witnesses. When these two witnesses, who are not relation of the complainant party, have been examined, otherwise also, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the accused appellants that independent witnesses have not been examined, is not of any substance and material. 45. The learned counsel for the accused appellants urged that the accused appellant No. 2 in a sudden fight on the spur of moment has inflicted injuries on the body of Vishwanath and his case does not travel beyond Section 304 Part II, I.PC. We are not in agreement with this contention of the learned counsel for the accused appellants. This case does not fall under either of the parts of Section 304, I.P.C. Otherwise also the accused appellant No. 2 has inflicted as many as 4 knife blows on different parts of the body of Vishwanath and that too, when the deceased fell down on the platform while saving himself from the sariya blow inflicted by Phool Chand. This case where the intention of the accused appellant No. 2 was to kill Vishwanath and he succeeded in his this intention and object. It is hardly of any material and substance that accused appellant No. 2 is a young boy of 17 years. We find sufficient merits in this contention of the learned counsel for the complainant that this does not give any right to accused appellant No. 2 to go to the extent of killing a helpless person i.e. Vishwanath. The reference here fruitfully may have to the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Dhupa Chamar v. State of Bihar (AIR 2002 SCW 3277). 46. The reference here fruitfully may have to the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Dhupa Chamar v. State of Bihar (AIR 2002 SCW 3277). 46. As a result of the aforesaid discussion we are satisfied that the accused appellants have utterly failed to make out any case which calls for our interference in the judgment and order of the learned trial court. Consequently, this appeal fails and the same is dismissed. The conviction and sentence of accused appellant No. 2 Gugan Ram son of Chhinnu Ram under Sections 302 and 324, I.PC., conviction and sentence of accused appellant No. 1 Kishan Lal @ Kishna Ram son of Chhinnu Ram under Section 324 and conviction and sentence of accused appellant No. 3 Sardara Ram son of Chhinnu Ram under Section 323 I.PC. are maintained and the judgment and order of the learned trial Court dated 9th of February, 1999 in Sessions case No. 105/96, is confirmed. 47. Elaborately and minutely the entire evidence has been discussed by us while deciding the appeal, being D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 115/99, filed by three accused appellants who have been convicted under same judgment and order dated 9.2.1999 by the learned trial court. 48. Having heard the learned Public Prosecutor for the State we are satisfied that it is not a case where on appreciation of evidence of the prosecution it can be taken that the learned trial court has committed any illegality in acquitting the accused respondents for the offence for which they have been charged. 49. Accordingly, this application for grant of leave to appall is dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******