K. K. MISRA, J. The judgment impugned in this appeal is dated 8-12-1981 passed by Sri Manphool Singh, the then III Additional Sessions Judge, Hamirpur in Sessions Trial No. 201 of 1980. Five persons, namely, (i) Shyam, (ii) Gulab, (iii) Baladin, (iv) Suraj and (v) Hari Singh were booked for trial in the said case. Baladin died during the trial. The remaining four were convicted under Section 302 I. P. C. read with Section 149 I. P. C. and each sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for the murder of one Mansha. Shyam, Gulab and Suraj were also convicted under Section 148 I. P. C. and each sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment. Hari Singh was also convicted under Section 147 I. P. C. and sentenced to one years rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. During the pendency of the appeal, Shyam and Gulab appellants died. The appeal in respect of Gulab was abated under order dated 3-11-2003 and in respect of Shyam under order dated 19-2-2004. Presently, the Court is concerned only with appellants Suraj and Hari Singh. Accused Gulab and Baladin were real brothers. 3. The incident occurred on 29-3-1980 at about 10 a. m. in village Bira, P. S. Jariya, District Hamirpur, at a distance of about 4-1/2 kms. from the police station. The F. I. R. was lodged the same day at 1. 15 p. m. by Smt. Sirawan PW 1 wife of the deceased Mansha. The prosecution case, in broad essentials, was that Mansha deceased, his wife Smt. Sirawan PW 1 and minor daughter Dhanti PW 3 along with Chitwa Chamar were going to harvest Masur crop belonging to the deceased. When they were passing through a lane and came near the Gurwahi Bakhari of Tulsi Dass, Mansha was suddenly ambushed by the accused. Baladin had a gun Hari Singh was armed with lathi Shyam and Gulab had axes whereas Suraj had a pharsa. Baladin exhorted his companions to kill Mansha as he was not giving land of Shyam accused which belonged to his father-in-law Hira Lal. Baladin did nothing excepting exhorting his companions whereas the remaining four struck blows of their weapons on Mansha. Mansha, on receiving injuries, fell down. His wife, daughter and Chitwa shouted, raising alarm. The witnesses Swami Din PW 2, Lotan etc. were attracted to intervene and they challenged the assailants. Baladin did nothing excepting exhorting his companions whereas the remaining four struck blows of their weapons on Mansha. Mansha, on receiving injuries, fell down. His wife, daughter and Chitwa shouted, raising alarm. The witnesses Swami Din PW 2, Lotan etc. were attracted to intervene and they challenged the assailants. After inflicting fatal blows of pharsa, axes and lathi on the deceased, the assailants made their escape good. After they left the scene of occurrence, three persons, namely, Lotan, Swami Din PW 2 and Chitwa Chamar bodily lifted Mansha from the ground for being taken to his house in the village which was situated at about one furlong. On being taken to his house, Mansha died at about 12 O clock in the noon. His wife, Smt. Sirawan PW 1 got the report scribed by Dassi where after she (complainant) accompanied by other persons went to the police station where it was lodged and a case registered at 1. 15 p. m. The investigation came to be entrusted to Shaukat Ali S. I. PW 5. 4. As to the motive part, it was the dispute or litigation between Mansha and Shyam accused in respect of landed property belonging to Hira Lal (father-in-law of Shyam ). Hira Lal had died about 3 or 4 years before this occurrence and his daughter Dassi with her husband Shyam accused had started living in her parents village i. e. , the village of incident for about a year before the occurrence. A litigation was going on between Shyam accused and Mansha in the consolidation Court at the time of incident. Baladin and his brother Gulab accused were also actively supporting Shyam accused in this litigation, while the other two, namely, Suraj and Hari Singh had also been doing pairvi for him. Mansha was the younger brother of Hira Lal and he was a hurdle in the way of the accused in usurping the land of Hira Lal (father-in-law of Shyam accused ). The prosecution case was that Hira Lal being issueness had transferred his agricultural holding in the name of Mansha deceased to the exclusion of his son-in-law Shyam accused. It was also the prosecution case that Hira Lal had kept a lady who had brought Dassi with her and the marriage of Shyam with Dassi was performed. But for the transfer of his land, Hira Lal preferred his brother Mansha. It was also the prosecution case that Hira Lal had kept a lady who had brought Dassi with her and the marriage of Shyam with Dassi was performed. But for the transfer of his land, Hira Lal preferred his brother Mansha. The land of Hira Lal came to be mutated in the name of Mansha in the consolidation proceedings which resulted in the litigation between Mansha and Shyam. So, it was the background relating to motive. 5. After registering of the case, the Investigating Officer proceeded to the spot, prepared the inquest report of the dead body of the deceased, recorded the statements of the witnesses and did other activities related to investigation of the case including sealing of the dead body and sending the same for post- mortem. The post-mortem over the dead body was conducted by Dr. A. K. Srivastava PW 6 on 30-3-1980 at 10. 30 a. m. He was aged about 45 years and about one day had passed since he died. The following ante-mortem injuries were found on his person : (1) Contusion 2 cm x 1 cm on right side of forehead just above right eyebrow, congestion present on cutting. (2) Incised wound 2 cm x. 4 cm x scalp on right side of forehead 6 cm above right eyebrow, clots present. (3) Incised wound 2 cm x. 3 cm into scalp on top of head 12 cm above right ear, clots present. (4) Abrasion 10 cm x 1 cm on back aspect of left forearm 10 cm above left wrist joint, congestion present on cutting. (5) Abrasion 2 cm x. 4 cm on back aspect of left fore-arm, 6 cm below elbow point, congestion present on cutting. (6) Lacerated wound 2. 5 cm x 1. 2 cm on palmer aspect of left hand, muscle deep on hypothenar eminence, 2 cm below wrist joint, clots present. (7) Punctured wound. 3 cm x. 1 cm x muscle deep on the root of right hand little finger on palmer aspect, clots present. (8) Punctured wound. 3 cm x. 2 cm x muscle on palmer aspect of right hand on the web space between middle and index finger, clots present. (9) Incised wound 4. 5 cm x 1. 2 cm x muscle on back aspect of right forearm 8 cm above wrist joint, clots present. (10) Punctured wound 1. 1. (8) Punctured wound. 3 cm x. 2 cm x muscle on palmer aspect of right hand on the web space between middle and index finger, clots present. (9) Incised wound 4. 5 cm x 1. 2 cm x muscle on back aspect of right forearm 8 cm above wrist joint, clots present. (10) Punctured wound 1. 1. cm x. 2 cm x muscle deep on back aspect of right forearm 9 cm below right elbow point, clots present. (11) Punctured wound. 4 cm x. 1 cm x muscle on back aspect of right forearm 2. 5 cm above injury No. 10, clots present. (12) Abraded contusion on right arm 11 cm x 3 cm in size and 5 cm below right acromion process with fracture of right humerous, on cutting congestion present. (13) Multiple contusion on left side of back in area 13 cm x 25 cm present at distance of 10 cm below left acromion process, congestion present on cutting. (14) Five (5) incised wounds, size of largest wound 4 cm x 3. 5 cm and smallest wound 1. 5 cm x. 5 cm present at distance of 6 cm below left knee cap on front aspect of left leg in area 25 cm x 6 cm, clots present. (15) Two abrasions on right knee cap each 2 cm x. 5 cm in size, congestion present on cutting. (16) Two incised wounds, largest wound 7 cm x 2 cm and smallest 6 cm x 1 cm in size on front aspect of right leg in an area of 14 cm x 2. 5 cm present 10 cm below right knee cap, clots present. 6. The death had occurred due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries. The defence was of denial. 7. Besides the formal evidence relating to the post-mortem of the deceased and investigation, the prosecution relied upon the testimony of three witnesses Smt. Sirawan PW 1, Swami Din PW 2 and Dhanti PW 3, daughter of Mansha aged about 14 years. The trial Judge found the case to be established to the hilt and recorded the impugned judgment. 8. We have heard Sri D. S. Tiwari, learned Counsel for the appellants, Sri A. K. Bhatt, learned A. G. A. and Sri R. P. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the complainant. The record of the lower Court has been summoned which we have carefully perused. 9. 8. We have heard Sri D. S. Tiwari, learned Counsel for the appellants, Sri A. K. Bhatt, learned A. G. A. and Sri R. P. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the complainant. The record of the lower Court has been summoned which we have carefully perused. 9. Learned Counsel for the accused appellants has criticized the testimony of the eye-witnesses on the ground that two of them, namely, Sriawan PW 1 and Dhanti PW 3 are interested witnesses being the widow and daughter respectively of the deceased. Swami Din PW 2 is sought to be branded a chance witness. It has also been urged that his statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer on the following day, though he was a witness of Panchayatnama also prepared on the day of incident itself. According to the submission of learned Counsel, he was not at all an eye-witness as otherwise he would have specifically stated that he was an eye-witness at the time of preparation of Panchayatnama instead of joining the other Panches in opining that Mansha had died owing to the injuries sustained by him. Another criticism against his testimony is that though his clothes had allegedly smeared with the blood of the deceased while lifting him from the spot but he did not show his such clothes to the Investigating Officer. He washed them off. According to the learned Counsel, he was simply a got up witness produced by the prosecution to support its story. 10. Yet another argument is that the ocular testimony is in conflict with medical evidence inasmuch as injuries No. 7, 8, 10 and 11 of the deceased were punctured wounds which could not have been caused by axes and pharsa allegedly wielded by the assailants. Learned Counsel for the accused appellants reasoned that the punctured wounds having gone unexplained, the ocular version was completely belied. It is on the basis of these arguments that the impugned judgment has been assailed to be unsustainable. 11. We propose to examine the worth of these submissions having regard to the evidence on record concerning the background of the incident and that related to the actual assault. No doubt, Smt. Sirawan PW 1 is the widow of the deceased and Dhanti PW 3 is his daughter and as such interested persons, but that does not justify the rejection of their testimony. No doubt, Smt. Sirawan PW 1 is the widow of the deceased and Dhanti PW 3 is his daughter and as such interested persons, but that does not justify the rejection of their testimony. An interested witness would naturally be anxious to see that the real culprit is booked and punished. What is required is a close scrutiny of the testimonial assertions of an interested witness to ascertain whether the same stands the test of reliability. 12. Start of the background of the murder of Mansha was the litigation between him on the one hand and Shyam accused appellant (since deceased) on the other in respect of the landed property belonging to Hira Lal father-in-law of the latter. It was undisputed that Shyam was the son-in-law of Hira Lal who had died 3 or 4 years before the incident. His daughter Dassi was married to Shyam and both of them had started living in village Bira (the village of the parents of Dassi) since one year before the incident. Hira Lal was elder brother of Mansha and had transferred agricultural holding to him (Mansha) to the exclusion of his son-in-law Shyam accused. The evidence of Smt. Sirawan PW 1 was to the effect that Hira Lal was issueless but he kept a lady who had brought Dassi with her, meaning thereby that she was not his natural daughter. It was undisputed that before the occurrence the land of Hira Lal elder brother of the deceased came to be mutated in the name of Mansha on 10-3-1978 by means of order of Assistant Consolidation Officer (vide Ext. Ka-16 ). But litigation in this behalf continued to be pending between Mansha and Shyam accused even thereafter. Another documentary evidence on record (Ext. Ka-15) shows that the restoration application of Shyam accused had been dismissed on 6-11-1979. Shyam belonging to another village Mamna within P. S. Jalalpur, having come with his wife to reside in her parents village (of the incident) wanted to get back the land of Hira Lal from Mansha and Mansha being not ready therefor, it was the cause of bad blood and enmity between the two. The other accused Baladin and Gulab were extending positive help to Shyam in the said litigation. According to her, Hari Singh and Suraj were also allegedly doing pairvi on behalf of Shyam so that he could succeed in his mission. The other accused Baladin and Gulab were extending positive help to Shyam in the said litigation. According to her, Hari Singh and Suraj were also allegedly doing pairvi on behalf of Shyam so that he could succeed in his mission. Thus, it was established that there was enmity between Mansha on the one hand and Shyam, supported by the other assailants, on the other over the issue of land of Hira Lal. Ext. Ka-13 was copy of the F. I. R. under Sections 504/506 I. P. C. which Mansha had lodged on 22-12-1979 against Gulab and Suraj assailants. Ext. Ka-14 was copy of another F. I. R. lodged by Mansha against Gulab, Hari Singh, Suraj and Bhagwan Dass. Mansha had been filing such reports to complain that his land was being trespassed by the said persons. All the circumstances taken together show that the five persons nominated as assailants of Mansha had joined hands and bone of the contention was usurping of land of Hira Lal. So, the motive part was well proved by the testimony of Smt. Sirawan PW 1 considered in the light of other documentary evidence on record. 13. As to the actual assault, it was elaborated by Sirawan PW 1 that she (informant), her daughter Dhanti, her husband Mansha and labourer Chitwa were going to harvest Masur crop together. She stated that when they were passing through a lane and reached near Gurwahi Bakhari of Tulsi Dass, the accused appellants (she named all of them with their weapons) appeared there and at the exhortation of Baladin (who had a gun) the remaining four assaulted Mansha, saying that he would not abandon the land otherwise. He (Baladin) was shouting in abusive language. Shyam and Gulab assaulted her husband with axes, Suraj assaulted him with pharsa and Hari Singh gave lathi blows to her husband. The blows were inflicted in quick succession in such a manner that receiving injuries her husband fell down on the ground in a pool of blood. She and her companions were crying aloud. Her husband, who was bleeding profusely, was also wailing. Lotan and Swami Din PW 2 were attracted and the assailants made their escape good. Lotan, Swami Din and Chitwa brought her husband to her house. She was arranging for the bullock cart, but in the meantime her husband Mansha died. She and her companions were crying aloud. Her husband, who was bleeding profusely, was also wailing. Lotan and Swami Din PW 2 were attracted and the assailants made their escape good. Lotan, Swami Din and Chitwa brought her husband to her house. She was arranging for the bullock cart, but in the meantime her husband Mansha died. Then the report was got scribed by her from Dassi which she took to the police station where it was lodged. 14. Her daughter Dhanti PW 3 corroborated her testimony in material particulars. She was a girl aged about 14 years when she was examined in the Court on 23-10-1981. Her competence as a witness was judged by voir dire and then oath was administered to her. The gist of her deposition is that she was going in the company of her parents and Chitwa in order to harvest Masur crop before noon time when the incident occurred in the lane near Gurwahi Bakhari of Tulsi Dass. She also assigned respective weapons of the assailants and the role played by each of them viz. , the blows inflicted by Shyam, Gulab, Suraj and Hari Singh. 15. It is common practice in villages that women-folk are also actively involved in agricultural pursuits, particularly in the sowing and harvesting season. Therefore, there was nothing unusual that at the relevant time, the deceased was being accompanied by his wife and daughter while going to harvest Masur crop. 16. It is also not possible to agree with the argument of learned Counsel for the accused appellants that Swami Din PW 2 was a chance witness. He belonged to the same village. He spoke about the essential features of the incident of the assault of Mansha at the hands of his assailants. He named all of them with their weapons. His testimony is in harmony with that of two other eye-witnesses and despite being subjected to searching cross- examination, nothing could come about to shake the central core of his deposition that Mansha had been assaulted on the given date, time and place by Shyam, Gulab, Suraj and Hari Singh at the exhortation of Bala Din who himself was armed with a gun. According to him also, Shyam and Gulab wielded axes, Suraj gave pharsa blows and Hari Singh wielded lathi. According to him also, Shyam and Gulab wielded axes, Suraj gave pharsa blows and Hari Singh wielded lathi. He well explained his presence at the spot that he was passing through that way and had seen the incident on hearing the alarm and wails of the witnesses and the deceased. He was going to harvest the Masur crop of one Gyasi as his labourer. He also explained that due to this incident, he did not thereafter go for harvesting the crop of Gyasi. He had no animus against the assailants. He was a natural witness with plausible reason to be present at the spot. It is not at all fatal to the prosecution case that his statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer the following day of the incident. Recording of his statement on the following day of the incident cannot be interpreted as being delayed. After all, the Investigating Officer had to perform a number of activities relating to investigation. Recording of his statement could not be accorded top priority over other activities such as preparation of the inquest report, site plan, collecting blood etc. from the spot. In any view of the matter, his presence on 29-3-1980 was not doubtful. His name was there as witness in the F. I. R. which had set the machinery of law in motion. There was nothing wrong if the Investigating Officer recorded his statement the following day, he being resident of the same village and there being other parts of investigation needing urgent attention. 17. This contention also does not carry weight that he joined other Panches in opining in the inquest report that Mansha died due to the injuries sustained by him and did not say at that time that he was an eye-witness of the incident. The fact that Mansha died due to the injuries sustained by him does not militate against the factum of his being an eye-witness. The rustic illiterate villager like him knew nothing about the art of litigation and could not be expected to insist at the time of preparation of inquest report itself that it be recorded therein that he was an eye-witness. The Investigating Officer was also not supposed to record the statement of this witness under Section 161 Cr. P. C. in the inquest report itself. The Investigating Officer was also not supposed to record the statement of this witness under Section 161 Cr. P. C. in the inquest report itself. He was an eye-witness named in the F. I. R. The Investigating Officer was required to record his statement in the case diary under Section 161 Cr. P. C. which he actually did the following day. The hyper-technical argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the accused appellants to castigate the testimony of Swami Din PW 2 does not impress us. 18. As regards the washing of blood smeared clothes it is true that he admitted that he had washed his hands and blood smeared Baniyan before the Investigating Officer had arrived. But it cannot cast cloud on his being an eye-witness of the incident. The trial Court has well dealt with this aspect of the matter that it is a matter of common knowledge and social custom more so in country side that the villagers do no like to have clothes smeared with blood of a dead person as it is considered inauspicious. Mansha had died about two hours after the assault and there is nothing unusual that this witness (one of his lifters from the spot) did not preserve blood stains on his body and clothes after his death for being shown to the Investigating Officer. Otherwise also, the witness being rustic could have no idea and knowledge that the same was necessary to be retained intact as a piece of evidence. 19. Having dealt with the ocular testimony of the incident keeping in view the arguments advanced by learned Counsel for the appellants to assail the same, we do not find anything capable of causing ripple in the testimonial assertions of the eye-witnesses. 20. Now comes the question of the alleged conflict between the medical and ocular testimony. Dr. A. K. Srivastava PW 6 who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased, in all, recorded 16 ante- mortem injuries as found on the person of deceased on different parts. There were several incised wounds besides one lacerated wound, contusions and abrasions. The incised wounds could definitely be caused by the axes and pharsa and lacerated wound, abrasions and contusions could be caused by lathi. It would be recalled that Shyam and Gulab struck blows with axes and Suraj with pharsa on the deceased. Hari Singh gave lathi blows to him. The incised wounds could definitely be caused by the axes and pharsa and lacerated wound, abrasions and contusions could be caused by lathi. It would be recalled that Shyam and Gulab struck blows with axes and Suraj with pharsa on the deceased. Hari Singh gave lathi blows to him. However, the Doctor described injuries No. 7, 8, 10 and 11 as punctured wounds. At the cost of repetition, they are set out below : (7) Punctured wound. 3 cm x. 1 cm x muscle deep on the root of right hand little finger on palmer aspect, clots present. (8) Punctured wound. 3 cm x. 2 cm x muscle on palmer aspect of right hand on the web space between middle and index finger, clots present. (10) Punctured wound 1. 1 cm x. 2 cm x muscle deep on back aspect of right forearm, 9 cm below right elbow point, clots present. (11) Punctured wound. 4 cm x. 1 cm x muscle on back aspect of right forearm, 2. 5 cm above injury No. 10, Clots present. 21. The submission of learned Counsel for the accused appellants is that as per the own case of the prosecution, no pointed weapon had been used by the assailants and the punctured wounds could not be caused by axes and pharsa assigned to the assailants Shyam, Gulab and Suraj. Therefore, there is no explanation for these punctured wounds and the prosecution case is liable to be thrown away because of this conflict between the medical evidence and ocular testimony. 22. The argument may seem to be appealing at the first blush, but it does not stand a close scrutiny. What is mentioned by the Doctor in the post-mortem report or stated by him cannot be taken to be gospel truth on the simple premise that theoretically he is an expert, even if it is against the principles of medical science and is demonstrably incorrect. We have not the slightest doubt that the Doctor has misdescribed the above injuries as punctured wounds, creating uncalled for confusion. He did not probe the thickness and depth of these injuries. He only described them as muscle deep but did not measure the thickness of the muscle underneath. He also expressed his inability to pin point the kinds of skin. He did not state whether the muscle had any cut and if so its extent. He did not probe the thickness and depth of these injuries. He only described them as muscle deep but did not measure the thickness of the muscle underneath. He also expressed his inability to pin point the kinds of skin. He did not state whether the muscle had any cut and if so its extent. Injury No. 7 was on the root of right hand little finger on palmer aspect injury No. 8 was on palmer aspect of right hand on the lower aspect between middle and index finger injury No. 10 was on back aspect of right forearm 9 cm below right elbow point and injury No. 11 was on back aspect of right forearm. Seats of these injuries were not fleshy. Rather, they were somewhat bony. The chances of these injuries being punctured were not at all there. To be short, the seats and dimension of these injuries (without depth being measured) overrule the possibility of the same being punctured wounds. The Doctor himself stated that in punctured wounds, the depth would be more than length and width but he did not give any data as to the depth of these injuries. They could, therefore, not be designated as punctured wounds having regard to the seats and also length and width. He also happened to say that such wounds could be caused by tip of axe or pharsa. In fact, he could not justify the description of these injuries as punctured wounds in the testimony before the Court. Due to incompetence, lack of experience, negligence or mischief, he described these injuries as punctured wounds and the same cannot be accepted as such. The learned trial Judge has rightly held that the defence could not exploit the misdescription of injuries No. 7, 8, 10 and 11 as punctured wounds to make any dent in the prosecution case. To conclude this aspect of the matter, we do not find any conflict between the ocular testimony and medical evidence. 23. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in this appeal. There were actually five assailants who cut short the life of Mansha. They were Shyam, Gulab, Suraj, Hari Singh and Baladin. They formed an unlawful assembly in prosecution of their common object of murdering Mansha. The murder of Mansha was committed by all of them in prosecution of the object of their unlawful assembly. There were actually five assailants who cut short the life of Mansha. They were Shyam, Gulab, Suraj, Hari Singh and Baladin. They formed an unlawful assembly in prosecution of their common object of murdering Mansha. The murder of Mansha was committed by all of them in prosecution of the object of their unlawful assembly. Out of them, Shyam, Gulab, Suraj and Baladin were armed with deadly weapons making out an offence of 0 rioting punishable under Section 148 IPC Hari Singh was armed with lathi rendering himself liable to be punished under Section 147 IPC. All of them also rendered themselves liable for murder of Mansha punishable under Section 302 I PC read with Section 149 IPC. Out of them, Shyam and Gulab died during the pendency of appeal and Baladin died during trial. The conviction and sentences passed against appellants Suraj and Hari Singh do not call for any interference. Their appeal is dismissed. 24. Suraj and Hari Singh are on bail. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur shall cause them to be arrested and lodged in jail to serve out the sentences passed against them by the lower Court. Both of them shall undergo life imprisonment under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC Suraj shall further undergo two years rigorous imprisonment under Section 148 IPC. A further rigorous imprisonment of one years rigorous imprisonment shall be undergone by Hari Singh. The sentences of both of them shall run concurrently. The judgment be immediately certified to the lower Court and compliance be reported to this Court within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Appeal dismissed. .