JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been filed by the accused-appellants against judgment and order dated 29.9.2001 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu in Sessions Case No. 115/97 by which he convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants in the following manner:- Name of Accused-appellants Convicted u/s. Sentence awarded to the accused-appellants 1. Devkaran 302/34 IPC Imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 2,500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for six months. 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act Imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 2,500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for six months. 324 IPC Two years RI and to pay fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for three months. 341 IPC One month SI and to pay fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo SI for seven days. 2. Dayachand 302/34 IPC Imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 2,500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for six months. 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act Imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 2,500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for six months. 324 IPC Two years RI and to pay fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for three months. 341 IPC One month SI and to pay fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo SI for seven days. 3. Tejpal 302/34 IPC Imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 2,500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for six months. 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act of Imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 2,500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for six months. 324 IPC Two years RI and to pay fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo' RI for three months. 341 IPC One month SI and to pay fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo SI for seven days. 4. Parmanand 302/34 IPC Imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 2,500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for six months. 341 IPC One month SI and to pay fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo SI for seven days. 4. Parmanand 302/34 IPC Imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 2,500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for six months. 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act Imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 2,500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for six months. 323 IPC Three months RI and to pay fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for 15 days. 341 IPC One month SI and to pay fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo SI for seven days. All the aforesaid substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. It arsies in the following circumstances:- On 17.6.1997, PW-18 Sajjan Singh, SI for the Police Station Nawalgarh District Jhunjhunu received a telephonic message from the Government Hospital, Nawalgarh that four persons in injured condition were admitted in the hospital and on the basis of that information, he rushed towards the hospital where he found four persons in injured condition and thereafter, PW-7 Shankerlal gave written report Ex.P/8 on 17.6.1997 at about 3.00 a.m. in the morning to PW-18 Sajjan Singh stating inter alia that on 16.6.1997 at about 11.45 p.m., outside the guwadi of PW-1 Om Prakash, accused-appellants-Devkaran, Dayachand (both sons of Baluram), Tejpal (son of accused-appellant-Devkaran) and Parmanand (son of accused-appellant-Dayachand) started abusing PW-1 Om Prakash and upon this, PW-1 Om Prakash asked them not to do so. Thereafter, all the accused-appellants with an intention to murder PW-1 Om Prakash, Pokarram (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased No. 1'), Sri Ram (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased No. 2') and PW-2 Subhkaran, who were harijan by caste, made murderous attack with knife etc. on them. It was further stated in the report Ex.P/8 by PW-7 Shankerlal that in their village, there was a marriage of bhanja of Bhanaram and Narayanram and in that, ceremonies of bhat were performed by both of them and PW-1 Om Prakash also went there and at that time, some altercations had taken place between accused- appellant-Devkaran and PW-1 Om Prakash and for that, the accused-appellant were having enmity with the complainant party and that is why, they caused injuries to them. It was further stated in the report Ex.P/8 by PW-7 Shankerlal that the alleged incident was further witnessed by his son PW-11 Umed, PW-9 Shivkaran, PW-10 Birbal and PW-6 Hariram. It was further stated in the report Ex.P/8 by, PW-7 Shankerlal that since condition of all the aforesaid four persons i.e. PW-1 Om Prakash, PW-2 Subhkaran, deceased No. 1 Pokarram and deceased No. 2 Sri Ram was serious one, they were taken to the hospital. It was further stated in the report Ex.P/8 that since the complainant party belonged to scheduled caste category being by caste chamar and the accused party was Jat by caste, therefore, accused party had enmity with the complainant party. On that report Ex.P/8, police registered the case and chalked out regular FIR Ex.P/41 and started investigation. During investigation, PW-26 Rajendra Singh prepared the site plan Ex.P/9. The deceased No. 1-Pokarram was got medically examined on 17.6.1997 by PW-15 Dr. G.C. Gupta and his injury report is Ex.P/36, which shows that he received five injuries, out of which, injuries No. 1 & 2 were caused by sharp-edged weapon and the remaining three injuries were caused by blunt object. The X-ray report of deceased No. 1-Pokarram is Ex.P/23 and after seeing the X-ray report, PW-15 Dr. G.C. Gupta opined that his injury No. 2 was grievous and dangerous to life. It may be stated here that deceased No. 1-Pokarram died on 17.6.1997 in the hospital and thereafter, post-mortem of the dead body of the deceased No. 1-Pokarram was got conducted by PW- 23 Dr. Dharmendra Kumar Sharma and the post-mortem report is Ex.P/49, which shows that he received five injuries and the cause of death was shock brought about as a result of ante-mortem injuries to viscera and the same were found sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. The deceased No. 2-Sri Ram was also got medically examined by PW-15 Dr. G.C. Gupta and his injury report is Ex.P/37, which shows that he received two injuries, which were caused by sharp-edged weapon. The X-ray report of deceased No. 2-Sri Ram is Ex.P/20 and after seeing the X-ray report, PW-15 Dr. G.C. Gupta opined that his injury No. 1 was grievous and dangerous to life. G.C. Gupta and his injury report is Ex.P/37, which shows that he received two injuries, which were caused by sharp-edged weapon. The X-ray report of deceased No. 2-Sri Ram is Ex.P/20 and after seeing the X-ray report, PW-15 Dr. G.C. Gupta opined that his injury No. 1 was grievous and dangerous to life. It may be stated here that deceased No. 2-Sri Ram died on 14.10.1997 and the post-mortem of the dead body of the deceased No. 2 was got conducted by PW-27 Dr. Moideen Qureshi and the post-mortem report is Ex.P/45 which shows that he received four injuries and the cause of death was septicemia shock brought about as a result of ante-mortem abdominal lesions. The operation notes, treatment slip and discharge certificate of deceased No. 2 Sri Ram are Ex.P/50, Ex.P/51 & Ex.P/52 respectively and for that, PW-24 Dr. Mukesh Kumar Sharma has been produced by the prosecution. PW-1 Om Prakash was also got medically examined by PW-15 Dr. G.C. Gupta and his injury report is Ex.P/38, which shows that he received four injuries and the injury No. 1 was caused by blunt object and the remaining three injuries were caused by sharp-edged weapon. The injuries No. 2 & 4 were found simple in nature and for injuries No. 1 & 3, X-ray was advised and after seeing the X-ray report, it was opined by Dr. G.C. Gupta, PW-15 that injuries No. 1 & 3 were also simple in nature. PW-2 Subhkaran was also got medically examined by PW-15 Dr. G.C. Gupta and his injury report is Ex.P/39, which shows that he received three injuries, out of which, injuries No. 1 & 3 were caused by sharp-edged weapon and the injury No. 2 was caused by blunt object. The injury No. 3 was found simple in nature and for injuries No. 1 & 2, X-ray was advised and after seeing X-ray report Ex.P/28, the injuries No. 1 & 2 were also found simple in nature. During investigation, the accused-appellants-Parmanand, Tejpal, Dayachand and Devkaran were got arrested by PW-25 Kasiram on 19.6.1997 through arrest memos Ex.P/53, Ex.P/55, Ex.P/57 and Ex.P/59, respectively. During investigation, the accused-appellants-Parmanand, Tejpal, Dayachand and Devkaran were got arrested by PW-25 Kasiram on 19.6.1997 through arrest memos Ex.P/53, Ex.P/55, Ex.P/57 and Ex.P/59, respectively. During investigation, the accused-appellant-Parmanand gave information Ex.P/54 about the recovery of danda/lathi (article 2) and in pursuance of the said information Ex.P/54, the accused- appellant- Parmanand got recovered danda/lathi (article 2) and the same was seized by PW- 25 Kasiram through fard Ex.P/2 in presence of PW-6 Hariram and PW- 13 Ramkaran and the same was found stained with blood. During investigation, the accused-appellant-Tejpal also gave information Ex.P/56 about the recovery of knife (article 3) and in pursuance of the said information Ex.P/56, the accused- appellant-Tejpal got recovered knife (article 3) and the same was seized by PW-25 Kasiram through fard Ex.P/6 in presence of PW-6 Hariram and PW-13 Ramkaran and the same was found stained with blood. During investigation, the accused-appellant-Dayachand also gave information Ex.P/58 about the recovery of bhala (article 1) and in pursuance of the said information Ex.P/58, the accused- appellant- Dayachand got recovered bhala (article 1) and the same was seized by PW-25 Kasiram through fard Ex.P/7 in presence of PW-6 Hariram and PW-13 Ramkaran and the same was found stained with blood. During investigation, the accused-appellant-Devkaran also gave information Ex.P/60 about the recovery of katar/gupti (article 4) and in pursuance of the said information Ex.P/60, the accused-appellant- Devkaran got recovered katar/gupti (article 4) and the same was seized by PW- 25 Kasiram through fard Ex.P/4 in presence of PW-6 Hariram and PW-13 Ramkaran and the same was found stained with blood. The recovered articles were sent to FSL and the FSL report is Ex.P/61. It may be stated here that for the same incident, a report was also lodged by accused-appellant-Devkaran on 17.6.1997 in the police station Nawalgarh and the same is Ex.D/5 and upon this, FIR No. 168/97 was chalked out and case for the offence u/ss. 452, 147, 149 & 323 IPC was got registered. The injury report of accused-appellant-Devkaran is Ex.D/7, which shows that he received ten simple injuries by blunt object. The injury report of accused-appellant-Tejpal is Ex.D/8, which shows that he received four simple injuries by blunt object. 452, 147, 149 & 323 IPC was got registered. The injury report of accused-appellant-Devkaran is Ex.D/7, which shows that he received ten simple injuries by blunt object. The injury report of accused-appellant-Tejpal is Ex.D/8, which shows that he received four simple injuries by blunt object. After usual investigation, police submitted challan for the offence u/s. 302 for murder of deceased No. 1-Pokarram and deceased No. 2-Sri Ram, 326, 307, 324, 323, 341 & 34 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'the SC/ST Act') against the accused-appellants in the Court of Magistrate and from where the case was committed to the Court of Session. On 23.2.1998, the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Cases, Jhunjhunu framed the charges for the offence u/ss. 302/34, 307/34, 341, 324 IPC and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act against the accused-appellants. The charges were read over and explained to the accused-appellants. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. It may be stated here that initially the accused-appellants were charged for the offence u/s. 307/34 IPC, but the charge for the offence u/s. 307/34 IPC was deleted by the learned Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu vide order dated 26.3.1998. During the course of trial, the prosecution got examined as many as 27 witnesses and exhibited several documents. Thereafter, statements of the accused-appellants u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. In his statement recorded u/s. 313 Cr.P.C., the accused-appellant- Devkaran took the plea that on the fateful night, PW-1 Om Prakash and PW-2 Subhkaran and both deceased No. 1- Pokarram and deceased No. 2- Sri Ram came to his house to beat him and they caused injuries to him and accused-appellant-Tejpal and for that, he lodged the report in the police station Nawalgarh and the same can be identified as Ex.D/5. In defence, DW-1 Dr. Devendra Singh Choudhary was produced to prove the injury reports Ex.D/7 and Ex.D/8 of accused-appellants-Devkaran and Tejpal respectively. After conclusion of trial, the learned Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu through impugned judgment and order dated 29.9.2001 convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants in the manner as indicated above holding inter alia : (i) That since PW-1 Om Prakash and PW-2 Subhkaran were injured witnesses, therefore, they were treated by the learned trial Judge as eye-witnesses of the occurrence. After conclusion of trial, the learned Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu through impugned judgment and order dated 29.9.2001 convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants in the manner as indicated above holding inter alia : (i) That since PW-1 Om Prakash and PW-2 Subhkaran were injured witnesses, therefore, they were treated by the learned trial Judge as eye-witnesses of the occurrence. (ii) That deceased No. 1-Pokarram died because of the injuries received by him and similarly, deceased No. 2-Sri Ram though died after four months of the incident, but he also died because of the injuries received by him and thus, death of both deceased was not found natural one. (iii) That both deceased received injuries at the hands of the accused-appellant-Devkaran by gupti and also at the hands of accused-appellant-Dayachand by bhala and the accused-appellant- Parmanand caused lathi blows to the deceased No. 1-Pokarram. The accused-appellant-Tejpal also caused injuries to PW-1 Om Prakash with knife and the accused-appellant-Parmanand also caused lathi blows to PW-1 Om Prakash and PW-2 Subhkaran. The accused-appellant-Tej pal also gave knife blows on the person of PW-2 Subhkaran. Thus, all the accused-appellants took part in beating to both deceased as well as to injured witnesses PW-1 Om Prakash and PW-2 Sub- hkaran. (iv) That case of the accused-appellants that they caused injuries in self-defence was rejected by the learned trial Judge. (v) That the fact that at the time of alleged incident, the accused-appellant-Devkaran was armed with gupti, the accused-appellant-Dayachand was armed with bhala, the accused-appellant- Tejpal was armed with knife and the accused-appellant-Parmanand was having lathi in his hand, was found well established and proved by the learned trial Judge. (vi) That all accused-appellants caused injuries to both deceased as well as to PW-1 Om Prakash and PW-2 Subhkaran in furtherance of common intention and therefore, the learned trial Judge came to the conclusion that Section 34 IPC was applicable in the present case and thus, he convicted the accused-appellants with the aid of Section 34 IPC. (vii) That the fact of recovery of weapons at the instance of accused-appellants was also found proved and thus,it also corroborated the prosecution story. (viii) That no doubt one eye-witness Sitaram was not produced by the prosecution, but according to the learned trial judge, it would not affect the prosecution case and thus, non-production of Sitaram was not found fatal to the prosecution case. (viii) That no doubt one eye-witness Sitaram was not produced by the prosecution, but according to the learned trial judge, it would not affect the prosecution case and thus, non-production of Sitaram was not found fatal to the prosecution case. (ix) That argument that PW-1 Om Prakash and PW-2 Subhkaran were interested witnesses being relatives of deceased and therefore, their evidence was not believable, was also rejected by the learned trial Judge. (x) That so far as the injuries of accused-appellants- Devkaran and Tejpal were concerned, the learned trial Judge came to the conclusion that since they were simple and trivial in nature, therefore, case of the prosecution was not affected at all even though these injuries were not explained by the prosecution witnesses. (xi) That since both deceased and PW-1 Om Prakash and PW-2 Subhkaran were members of scheduled caste category, therefore, charge for the offence u/s. 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act was also found proved against the accused-appellants. Aggrieved from the said judgment and order dated 29.9.2001 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu, the accused-appellants have preferred this appeal. 3. In this appeal, the following submissions have been made by the learned counsel for the accused-appellants : (i) That deceased No. 1-Pokarram died on 17.6.1997 and deceased No. 2-Sri Ram expired on 14.10.1997 after about four months of the alleged incident and before that, he was discharged from the hospital and cause of his death was septicemia, therefore, death of deceased No. 2 Sri Ram could not be said to be the direct result of injuries sustained by him. Hence, findings of conviction recorded by the learned trial Judge against the accused-appellants for the offence u/s. 302/34 IPC cannot be sustained and liable to be set aside. (ii) That since PW-1 Om Prakash and PW-2 Subhkaran were interested witnesses being close relatives of deceased acid therefore, their evidence should have not been believed by the learned trial Judge. (iii) That since in this case accused-appellant-Devkaran received ten simple injuries and the accused-appellant-Tejpal also received four simple injuries and since above injuries have not been explained by the prosecution witnesses, therefore, from this point of view also, the accused-appellants are entitled to acquittal. (iv) That since accused-appellants-Parmanand and Dayachand have not received any injuries, therefore, their presence on the scene is doubtful and they have.been falsely implicated by the prosecution. (iv) That since accused-appellants-Parmanand and Dayachand have not received any injuries, therefore, their presence on the scene is doubtful and they have.been falsely implicated by the prosecution. (v) That the injuries, which were caused by the accused- appellant- Devkaran, were caused by him in his right of private defence and thus, right of private defence should have been accorded to him by the learned trial Judge and by not doing so, the learned trial Judge has failed to discharge his legal duties. (vi) That since the alleged incident had taken place all of a sudden, therefore, conviction of the accused-appellants with the aid of Section 34 IPC should not be sustained and the present case was a case of free fight. Therefore, from that point of view also, Section 34 IPC was wrongly applied by the learned trial Judge. Hence, it was submitted that the findings of conviction recorded by the learned trial Judge against the accused-appellants through impugned judgment and order cannot be sustained as they are wholly erroneous and perverse one and suffer from basic infirmity and illegality and the accused- appellants are entitled to acquittal. 4. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the appellant have supported the impugned judgment and order dated 29.9.2001 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the accused-appellants and the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the complainant and gone through the record of the case. 6. Before proceeding further, first medical evidence of this case has to be seen.Injuries and post-mortem report of deceased No. 1-Pokar Ram : 7. The deceased No. 1-Pokarram was got medically examined on 17.6.1997 by PW-15 Dr. G.S. Gupta and his injury report is Ex.P/36. 8. PW-15 Dr. G.C. Gupta in his statement recorded in Court has stated that on 17.6.1997 he was Medical Officer in the Government Hospital Nawalgarh and on that day, he medically examined deceased No. 1-Pokarram and found following injuries on his person : 1. Incised wound 3cm x 1cm x skin deep 10 cm below axillary pit over chest wall on right side along mid axillary line obliquely. 2. Stab wound 2.5cm x lcm x depth as per surgeon's report, lower fourth of left side of chest in mid axillary line obliquely placed over 9th & 10th ribs. 3. Incised wound 3cm x 1cm x skin deep 10 cm below axillary pit over chest wall on right side along mid axillary line obliquely. 2. Stab wound 2.5cm x lcm x depth as per surgeon's report, lower fourth of left side of chest in mid axillary line obliquely placed over 9th & 10th ribs. 3. Abrasion 1.5cm x 0.5cm - 10cm above right elbow posteriorly over triceps region. 4. Abrasion 1.5cm x 1 cm middle of forehead. 5. Abrasion 1.5 cm x 1 cm over bridge of nose. He has further stated that out of the above five injuries, injuries No. 1 & 2 were caused by sharp-edged weapon and the remaining three injuries were caused by blunt object. He has further stated that injuries No. 1, 3, 4 & 5 were simple in nature and for injury No. 2, the opinion was reserved and after seeing the X-ray report Ex.P/23, he opined that his injury No. 2 was grievous and dangerous to life. He has proved the injury report Ex.P/36. 9. It may be stated here that deceased No. 1-Pokarram died on 17.6.1997 in the hospital and thereafter, post-mortem of the dead body of the deceased No. 1-Pokarram was got conducted by PW-23 Dr. Dharmendra Kumar Sharma and the post-mortem report is Ex.P/49. 10. PW-23 Dr. Dharmendra Kumar Sharma in his statement recorded in Court has stated that on 18.6.1997 he was Medical Jurist in SMS Hospital, Jaipur and on that day, he conducted the post-mortem of the dead body of the deceased No. 1-Pokarram and found following injuries on his body. 1. Abrasion 2cm x 1cm mid part forehead with soft scab formation. 2. Abrasion 1.5cm x 1/2cm upper part nose. 3. Lacerated wound 5cm x 1/2cm x muscle deep on Rt. side front of chest 4cm lat. to Rt. nipple,obliquely situated. 4. Abrasion 1.5cm x 1/2cm Rt. arm lower lateral aspect with dry clotted blood. 5. Stab incised wound 2.5cm x 1.75cm x peritoneal cavity deep present on Lt. side lateral part Chest 15cm below & lateral to Lt. nipple in 9th inter costal space with haematoma formation and on removing of dressing mesentery of descending colon comes from wound. Skin around margins of wound peeled off but underlying tissues are clean cut. He has further stated that all above injuries were ante-mortem in nature. side lateral part Chest 15cm below & lateral to Lt. nipple in 9th inter costal space with haematoma formation and on removing of dressing mesentery of descending colon comes from wound. Skin around margins of wound peeled off but underlying tissues are clean cut. He has further stated that all above injuries were ante-mortem in nature. He has further stated that in peritoneal cavity, about 2 litres of blood was present. He has further stated that in large intestine descending colon), there was clean cut with haematoma formation present on upper part of descending colon. He has further stated that cause of death of the deceased No. 1 Pokarram was shock brought about as a result of ante-mortem injuries to viscera and the same were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. He has proved the post-mortem report Ex.P/49. 11. Thus, from the statements of PW-15 Dr. G.C. Gupta and PW-23 Dr. Dharmendra Kumar Sharma, it is very much clear that deceased No. 1- Pokarram received five injuries as mentioned above and the injury No. 2 of injury report Ex.P/36 was found grievous and dangerous to life and the same was caused by sharp edged weapon. The cause of death was shock brought about as a result of ante- mortem injuries to viscera and the injuries were found sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Hence, the death of the deceased No. 1-Pokarram may be classified as homicidal and not natural one.Injuries and post-mortem report of deceased No. 2-Sri Ram : 12. The deceased No. 2-Sri Ram was also got medically examined by PW- 15 Dr. G.C. Gupta and his injury report is Ex.P/37. 13. PW-15 Dr. G.C. Gupta has further stated that he medically examined deceased No. 2-Sri Ram on 17.6.1997 at about 2.50 a.m. and found the following injuries on his person : 1. Stab wound (with prolapse of omentum from the wound with fresh bleeding present) 3.5 cm x 1.5 cm x depth after surgeon's report-over left side of abdomina_ wall in its lumbar region, vertically place along anterior axillary line. 2. Incised wound (fresh bleeding +) 2cm x 0.5cm x 0.5 cm at junction of upper lip with nasal septum transversely. Stab wound (with prolapse of omentum from the wound with fresh bleeding present) 3.5 cm x 1.5 cm x depth after surgeon's report-over left side of abdomina_ wall in its lumbar region, vertically place along anterior axillary line. 2. Incised wound (fresh bleeding +) 2cm x 0.5cm x 0.5 cm at junction of upper lip with nasal septum transversely. He has further stated that both the aforesaid injuries were caused by -sharp-edged weapon and the injury No. 2 was found simple in nature and for injury No. 1, he advised for x-ray and after seeing the X-ray report Ex.P/20,he opined that the injury No. 1 was grievous and dangerous to life. He has proved the injury report Ex.P/37. 14. It may be stated here that deceased No. 2-Sri Ram died on 14.10.1997 and the post-mortem of the dead body of the deceased No. 2 was got conducted by PW-27 Dr. Moideen Qureshi and the post-mortem report is Ex.P/45. 15. PW-27 Dr. Moideen Qureshi in his statement recorded in Court has stated that on 15.10.1997 he was Medical Jurist in SMS Hospital, Jaipur and on that day,he conducted the post-mortem of the dead body of the deceased No. 2-Sri Ram and found the following injuries on his body : 1. Multiple lesions of size 3 x 2cm to 2.5 x 1.5cm over both sacroiliac joints with peeled of skin and sloughing present over occipital proteberance. 2. Recent healed scar (operated surgically) 17cm long over right para medial site of abdomen from epigestrium to infra umbilical region. 3. Lesions 2 x 1cm x abdominal wall deep on right site of front of abdomen. 10cm right laterally to umbilicus and periphery shows healed scar. 4. Lesion 8 x 7 cm to abdominal cavity deep in front of left site of abdomen, 6cm left lateral site of umbilicus with pus and slough formation with foul smelling and feacal matter coming out. He has further stated that on dissection of abdomen, purulent yellowish coloured pus present in peritoneal cavity with slough present over surface of intestine with contaminated fluid inside peritoneal cavity about 400 cc with foul smelling present. On further examination, lesion of size 4 x 3cm x luman deep on upper part of descending colon through which feacal matter coming out seen with contaminated fluid-pus and slough formation (colostomy done surgically by the treating surgeon). On further examination, lesion of size 4 x 3cm x luman deep on upper part of descending colon through which feacal matter coming out seen with contaminated fluid-pus and slough formation (colostomy done surgically by the treating surgeon). He has further stated that all lesions were ante-mortem in nature. He has further stated that the cause of death was septicemia shock brought about as a result of ante-mortem abdominal lesions. He has proved the post- mortem report Ex.P/45. 16. The operation notes, treatment slip and discharge certificate of deceased No. 2-Sri Ram are Ex.P/50, Ex.P/51 & Ex.P/52 respectively and the same have been proved by PW-24 Dr. Mukesh Kumar Sharma. He has further stated that deceased No. 2-Sri Ram was discharged from the hospital on 27.6.1997. 17. Thus, from the statements of PW-15 Dr. G.C. Gupta and PW-27 Dr. Moideen Qureshi, it is very much clear that deceased No. 2- Sri Ram received injuries by sharp edged weapon and injury No. 1 of injury report Ex.P/37 was found grievous and dangerous to life and the cause of his death was septicemia shock brought about as a result of ante-mortem abdominal lesions. It also appears from the operation notes Ex.P/50, treatment slip Ex.P/51 and discharge certificate Ex.P/52 and from the statement of PW-24 Dr. Mukesh Kumar Sharma that though the deceased No. 2 Sri Ram was discharged from hospital on 27.6.1997, but died on 14.10.1997. Hence, death of the deceased No. 2-Sri Ram may be classified as not natural one.Injuries of PW-1 Om Prakash 18. PW-1 Om Prakash was also got medically examined by PW-15 Dr. G.C. Gupta and his injury report is Ex.P/38. 19. PW-15 Dr. G.C. Gupta has stated that on 17.6.1997 at about 3.10 a.m., he medically examined PW-1 Om Prakash and found the following injuries on his person : 1. Lacerated wound (clotted blood over & around the wound +) 3.5 cm x 0.5 cm x scalp deep on left side of occipital region 1 cm from midline. 2. Incised wound (fresh bleeding present) 3 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep - lower and outer quadrant of left glutal region obliquely placed. 3. Incised wound (fresh bleeding +) 3.5 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep Middle third of right forearm ventrolaterally vertically placed 9cm below elbow. 4 Incised wound (fresh bleeding +) 3 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep. 3. Incised wound (fresh bleeding +) 3.5 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep Middle third of right forearm ventrolaterally vertically placed 9cm below elbow. 4 Incised wound (fresh bleeding +) 3 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep. 7 cm below R elbow over R forearm posteriorly vertically placed. He has further stated that the injury No. 1 was caused by blunt object and the remaining three injuries were caused by sharp edged weapon. The injuries No. 2 & 4 were found simple in nature and for injuries No. 1 & 3, X-ray was advised and after seeing the X-ray report Ex.P/31, he opined that injuries No. 1 & 3 were also simple in nature. He has proved the injury report Ex.P/38. 20. Thus, from the statement of PW-15 Dr. G.C. Gupta, it is very much clear that PW-1 Om Prakash received four injuries as mentioned above and out of four injuries, injury No. 1 was caused by blunt object and the remaining three injuries were caused by sharp edged weapon and they all were found simple in nature.Injuries of PW 2 Subhkaran 21. PW-2 Subhkaran was also got medically examined by PW-15 Dr. G.C. Gupta and his injury report is Ex.P/39. 22. PW-15 Dr. G.C. Gupta has stated that on 17.6.1997 at about 3.35 a.m., he also medically examined PW-2 Subhkaran and found the following injuries on his person : 1. Incised wound (fresh bleeding +) 2.5 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep on left glutal region 5 cm posterior to anterior superior iliac spine lying obliquely. 2. Bruise with tender swelling (Reddish colour) 5 cm x 3 cm - upper fourth of right leg postero laterally. 3. Incised wound (fresh clotted blood present over & around the wound) 1.5 cm x 0.2 cm x skin deep. Distatphalanyx of right thumb dorsolaterally obliquely placed. He has further stated that out of the aforesaid three injuries, injuries No. 1 & 3 were caused by sharp edged weapon and the injury No. 2 was caused by blunt object. The injury No. 3 was found simple in nature and for injuries No. 1 & 2, x-ray was advised and after seeing X-ray report Ex.P/28, the injuries No. 1 & 2 were also found simple in nature. 23. Thus, from the statement of PW-15 Dr. The injury No. 3 was found simple in nature and for injuries No. 1 & 2, x-ray was advised and after seeing X-ray report Ex.P/28, the injuries No. 1 & 2 were also found simple in nature. 23. Thus, from the statement of PW-15 Dr. G.C. Gupta, it is very much clear that PW-2 Subhkaran received three injuries as mentioned above, out of which, injuries No. 1 & 3 were caused by sharp edged weapon and the injury No. 2 was caused by blunt object. The injuries were found simple in nature. 24. Before proceeding further, the injuries of the accused-appellants- Devkaran and Tejpal may be discussed here.Injuries of accused-appellant-Devkaran 25. The injury report of accused-appellant-Devkaran is Ex.D/7 and to prove the same, DW-1 Dr. Devendra Singh Choudhary was examined in defence and he states that on 17.6.1997 he was Medical Officer in Government Hospital, Nawalgarh and on that day he medically examined accused-appellant- Devkaran and found ten simple injuries on his person. 26. Thus, from the statement of DW1 Devendra Singh Choudhary and the injury report Ex.D/7, it is very much clear that the accused appellant Devkaran received ten simple injuries.Injuries of accused appellant-Tejpal 27. The injury report of accused appellant Tejpal is Ex.D/8 and to prove the same, DW1 Dr. Devendra Singh Choudhary was examined in defence and he states that on 17.6.1997 he medically examined accused appellant Tejpal and found four simple injuries on his person. 28. Thus, from the statement of DW1 Devendra Singh Choudhary and the injury report Ex.D/8, it is very much clear that the accused appellant Tejpal received four simple injuries. 29. What would be the effect of the aforesaid injuries of the accused appellants Devkaran and Tejpal, it would be discussed later on at appropriate place. 30. The first question for consideration is whether PW-1 Om Prakash and PW-2 Subhkaran, who are injured in this case, should be treated as eye witnesses as held by the learned trial Judge or not and furthermore, it has to be seen as to who had caused injuries to both deceased and PW-1 Om Prakash and PW-2 Subhkaran. 31. 30. The first question for consideration is whether PW-1 Om Prakash and PW-2 Subhkaran, who are injured in this case, should be treated as eye witnesses as held by the learned trial Judge or not and furthermore, it has to be seen as to who had caused injuries to both deceased and PW-1 Om Prakash and PW-2 Subhkaran. 31. In assessing the value of the evidence of the eye witnesses, two principal considerations are whether, in the circumstances of the case, it is possible to believe their presence at the scene of occurrence or in such situations as would make it possible for them to witness the facts deposed to by them and secondly, whether there is anything inherently improbable or unreliable in their evidence. In respect of both these considerations, circumstances either elicited from those witnesses themselves or established by other evidence tending to improbablise their presence or to discredit the veracity of their statements, will have a bearing upon the value which a Court would attach to their evidence. 32. So far as the presence of PW-1 Om Prakash and PW-2 Subhkaran at the place of occurrence is concerned, since they are injured witnesses, therefore, their presence on the scene cannot be doubted, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Avdesh and Ors. v. State of U.P., AIR 1995 SC 375 and Ram Kumar v. State of Haryana, 1995 SCC (Cr) 355 may be referred to. 33. Testimony of injuries witness is entitled to great weight. In murder case the value of injured witness has been kept on a high pedal. For, it is generally accepted that injured witness would not in a case substitute a wrong person for his actual assailant. Presence of such witness at the time and place of occurrence cannot be doubted. 34. Apart from this, presence of PW-1 Om Prakash and PW-2 Subhkaran on the scene has been admitted even by the accused appellant Devkaran in his statement recorded u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. 35. Therefore, presence of PW-1 Om Prakash and PW-2 Subhkaran at the place of occurrence cannot be doubted in any manner and thus, they were rightly treated by the learned trial Judge as eye witnesses of the occurrence. 36. Therefore, presence of PW-1 Om Prakash and PW-2 Subhkaran at the place of occurrence cannot be doubted in any manner and thus, they were rightly treated by the learned trial Judge as eye witnesses of the occurrence. 36. Before proceeding further, it may be stated here that though the prosecution has produced PW-9 Shivkaran, PW-10 Birbal, PW-11 Urned and PW-12 Bujaram as eye witnesses of the occurrence, but they cannot be regarded as eye witnesses because of the simple reason that PW-9 Shivkaran has admitted in his cross-examination that he did not see the injured persons separating from the accused appellants. He has further admitted that he himself did not go to rescue the injured persons and he was standing near about 10 feet away from the place of occurrence. Similar are the statements of PW-10 Birbal, PW-11 Umed and PW-12 Bujaram. Therefore, these witnesses at the most may be regarded as witnesses, who had reached on the spot when the incident had already taken place. Thus, in real sense they are not eye witnesses of the occurrence, but witnesses who reached on the spot just after the occurrence. 37. Now, the statements of eye witnesses PW-1 Om Prakash and PW-2 Subhkaran are being examined.Statement of PW-1 Om Prakash 38. PW-1 Om Prakash has stated that at the time of occurrence, the accused appellant Devkaran was armed with gupti (article 4), the accused appellant Dayachand was armed with bhala (article 1), the accused appellant Tejpal was armed with knife (article 3) and the accused appellant Parmanand was armed with lathi (article 2).Statement of PW-1 Om Prakash in respect of his own injuriesHe has stated that the accused appellant Devkaran gave gupti blow on his left hand. The accused appellant Dayachand caused injuries on his head with bhala from back side. The accused appellant Tejpal caused injuries on his arm-pit (bagal) by knife. The accused appellant Dayachand caused injuries on his head with bhala from back side. The accused appellant Tejpal caused injuries on his arm-pit (bagal) by knife. The accused appellant Parmanand gave lathi blow on his leg.He has further stated that when he was being beaten by the accused appellants, he cried and after hearing his cries, deceased No. 1 Pokarram, deceased No. 2 Sri Ram and PW-2 Subhkaran came there.Statement of PW-1 Om Prakash in respect of injuries to deceased No. 1 PokarramHe has further stated that thereafter, accused appellant Devkaran caused injuries to deceased No. 1 Pokarram on his left arm-pit (bagal), the accused appellant Dayachand caused injuries to him with bhala on his right arm-pit (bagal) and the accused appellant Parmanand caused injuries to him with lathi on his head.Statement of PW-1 Om Prakash in respect of injuries to deceased No. 2 Sri RamHe has further stated that the accused appellant Devkaran gave gupti blow on the left arm-pit (bagal) of deceased No. 2 Sri Ram and the accused appellant Dayachand caused injuries to him with bhala on his lip.Statement of PW-1 Om Prakash in respect of injuries to PW-2 SubhkaranHe has further stated that accused appellant Tejpal gave knife blow to PW-2 Subhkaran on his left heap (kulha) and the accused appellant Parmanand gave lathi blow on his abdomen and leg.In cross examination, he has admitted the following facts: (i) That in his police statement Ex.D/1, the fact that which accused appellant caused which injury to which injured or deceased has not been mentioned, but he has stated to the police. (ii) That it was wrong to say. that he, PW-2 Subhkaran, deceased No. 1 Pokarram and others entered the house of the accused appellant Devkaran for the purpose of beating him. Statement of PW-2 Subhkaran 39. (ii) That it was wrong to say. that he, PW-2 Subhkaran, deceased No. 1 Pokarram and others entered the house of the accused appellant Devkaran for the purpose of beating him. Statement of PW-2 Subhkaran 39. PW-2 Subhkaran has stated that at the time of occurrence, the accused appellant Devkaran was armed with gupti (article 4), the accused appellant Dayachand was armed with bhala (article 1), the accused appellant Tejpal was armed with knife (article 3) and the accused appellant Parmanand was armed with lathi (article 2).Statement of PW-2 Subhkaran in respect of his own injuriesHe has stated that the accused appellant Devkaran gave gupti blow on his left heap (kulha), the accused appellant Dayachand caused bhala blow on thumb of his left hand and the accused appellant Parmanand gave lathi blow on his right knee.It may be stated here that he has not mentioned that any injury was caused to him by the accused appellant Tejpal, though PW-1 Om Prakash says otherwise in respect of PW-2 Subhkaran.Statement o f PW-2 Subhkaran in respect of injuries of deceased No. 1 PokarramHe has further stated that the accused appellant Devkaran caused injuries to deceased No. 1 Pokarram with gupti, the accused appellant Dayachand also caused injuries to him by bhala.Statement of PW 2 Subhkaran in respect of injuries of deceased No. 2 Sri RamHe has further stated that accused appellant Devkaran caused injuries to deceased No. 2 Sri Ram.Statement of PW-2 Subhharan in respect of injuries of PW-1 Om PrakashHe has further stated that he cannot say which accused appellant caused injuries to PW-1 Om Prakash. He has further stated that when he came to his house, he was informed that deceased No. 1 Pokarram had died. He has further stated that deceased No. 2 Sri Ram died after four months of the incident.In cross examination, he has admitted the following facts: (i) That in his police statement Ex.D/2, the fact that which accused appellant caused which injury to which injured or deceased has not been mentioned, but he has stated to the police. (ii) That it was wrong to say that he, PW-1 Om Prakash, deceased No. 1 Pokarram and others entered the house of the accused appellant Devkaran for the purpose of beating him. 40. (ii) That it was wrong to say that he, PW-1 Om Prakash, deceased No. 1 Pokarram and others entered the house of the accused appellant Devkaran for the purpose of beating him. 40. A bare reading of the statements of PW-1 Om Prakash and PW-2 Subhkaran reveals that no doubt in their police statements Ex.D/1 and Ex.D/2 respectively, the fact as to which accused appellant caused which injury to which injured or deceased was not mentioned, but both PW-1 Om Prakash and PW-2 Subhkaran have categorically stated in their statements recorded in Court that which accused appellant caused which injury to which injured or deceased and they have categorically stated the role played by each accused appellant in causing injuries to both injured and both deceased and thus, the above omission in our considered opinion cannot be regarded as material one because at the time when the statements Ex.D/1 and Ex.D/2 of PW-1 Om Prakash and PW-2 Subhkaran were recorded by the police, they were admitted in hospital and in such a case, the possibility that these facts might have not been narrated by them to police or police might have not written, cannot be ruled out. Hence, because of that omission, the statements of PW-1 Om Prakash and PW-2 Subhkaran cannot be rejected. Apart from this, their statements do not suffer from any serious infirmities and rather their statements appear to be straight- forward, reliable and trustworthy. 41. From the statements of PW-1 Om Prakash and PW-2 Subhkaran, the following facts have been established: In respect of accused appellant Devkaran (i) That accused appellant Devkaran was armed with gupti (article 4). (ii) That he caused injuries to PW-1 Om Prakash with gupti. (iii) That he also caused injuries to deceased No. 1 Pokarram with gupti. (iv) That he also caused injuries to deceased No. 2 Sri Ram with gupti. In respect of accused appellant Dayachand (i) That the accused appellant Dayachand was armed with bhala (article 1). (ii) That he caused injuries to PW-1 Om Prakash with bhala. (iii) That he also caused injuries to deceased No. 1 Pokarram with bhala. (iv) That he also caused injuries, to deceased No. 2 Sri Ram with bhala. (v) That he also caused injuries to PW-2 Subhkaran. In respect of accused appellant Parmanand (i) That accused appellant Parmanand was armed with lathi (article 2). (iii) That he also caused injuries to deceased No. 1 Pokarram with bhala. (iv) That he also caused injuries, to deceased No. 2 Sri Ram with bhala. (v) That he also caused injuries to PW-2 Subhkaran. In respect of accused appellant Parmanand (i) That accused appellant Parmanand was armed with lathi (article 2). (ii) That he caused injuries to PW-1 Om Prakash with lathi. (iii) That he also caused injuries to deceased No. 1 Pokarram. (iv) That he also caused injuries to PW-2 Subhkaran. In respect of accused appellant Tejpal (i) That accused appellant Tejpal was armed with knife (article 3). (ii) That as per statement of PW-1 Om Prakash, the accused appellant Tejpal gave knife blow to him, but PW-2 Subhkaran states that he did not know who caused injuries to PW-1 Om Prakash. (iii) That he did not cause any injury to both deceased No. 1 Pokarram and No. 2 Sri Ram. (iv) That though as per the statement of PW-1 Om Prakash, the accused appellant Tejpal gave knife blow to PW-2 Subhkaran, but from the statement of PW-2 Subhkaran, it is very much clear that accused appellant Tejpal did not cause any injury to PW-2 Subhkaran. 42. No doubt PW-1 Om Prakash and PW-2 Subhkaran are close relatives of deceased, but a close relative, who is a very natural witness in the circumstances of a case, cannot be regarded as an 'interested witness', as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dalbir Kaur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1977 SC 472 . Relationship by itself is not a ground to discredit testimony of witness, if it is otherwise found to be consistent and true, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarwan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1976 SC 2304 . The mere fact that the witnesses were relations or interested would not by itself be sufficient to discard their evidence straightway unless it is proved that their evidence suffers from serious infirmities which raises considerable doubt in the mind of the Court. 43. The mere fact that the witnesses were relations or interested would not by itself be sufficient to discard their evidence straightway unless it is proved that their evidence suffers from serious infirmities which raises considerable doubt in the mind of the Court. 43. Since the presence of PW-1 Om Prakash and PW-2 Subhkaran at the place of occurrence cannot be doubted in any manner as they are injured witnesses and further, they appear to be natural witnesses of the occurrence, therefore, simply because they happen to be close relatives of deceased, their evidence cannot be doubted or discarded, as it does not appear that their evidence suffers from any serious infirmities and rather, their evidence appears to be reliable and trustworthy. 44. Before proceeding further, it may be stated here that there is no dispute on the point that the accused appellant Devkaran received ten simple injuries by blunt object and his injury report is Ex.D/7, which has been proved by DW1 Dr. Devendra Singh Choudhary. 45. There is also no dispute on the point that accused appellant Tej pal also received four simple injuries by blunt object and his injury report is Ex.D/8, which has been proved by DW1 Dr. Devendra Singh Choudhary. 46. There is also no dispute on the point that the injuries of both accused appellants Devkaran and Tejpal have not been explained by the prosecution witnesses.Non-explanation of injuries of accused appellants Devkaran and Tejpal 47. It may be stated here that in criminal trial, if the injuries are received by the accused party and they are not discussed, that trial is incomplete in true sense and may also affect the case of the prosecution and, therefore, it is the bounden duty of the prosecution that in criminal trial, it should explain the injuries received by the accused party and it is also the duty of the Court that it must also keep this aspect in mind while finalising the guilt of the accused. 48. In Gajendra Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 1975 SC 1703 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that when the prosecution fails to explain the injuries on the person of the accused, depending on the facts of each case, any of the three results may follow: (i) That the accused had inflicted the injuries on the members of the prosecution party in exercise of the right of self-defence. (ii) That it makes the prosecution version of the occurrence doubtful and the charge against the accused cannot be held to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. (iii) That it does not affect the prosecution case at all. 49. In Lakshmi Singh and Ors. v. State of Bihar, AIR 1976 SC 2263 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has further observed that in a murder case, the non-explanation of the injuries sustained by the accused at about the time of the occurrence or in the course of altercation is a very important circumstance from which the Court can draw the following inferences: (i) That the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and the origin of the occurrence and has thus not presented the true version. (ii) That the witnesses who have denied the presence of the injuries on the person of the accused are lying on a most material point and their evidence is unreliable. (iii) That in case there is defence version which explains the injuries on the person of the accused it is rendered probable so as to throw doubt on the prosecution case. 50. In this respect, the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhagwan v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1974 SC 21 ; Omkarnath Singh and Ors. v. State of U.P., AIR 1974 SC 1550 ; Jagdish v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1979 SC 1010 and State of Karnataka v. Jinappa Payappa Kudachi, 1993 Cr LJ 3915 (SC) , may also be referred to. 51. Thus, from the above authorities, the law on the point of non-explanation of injuries on the person of accused party may be summarised in the following manner: (i) That failure to explain injuries on the person of the accused is not always fatal to the prosecution case. (ii) That no doubt the prosecution is bound to explain injuries on the accused, but before this obligation is placed it must be proved that first, the injuries on the accused are very serious, secondly, these injuries had been caused at the time of the occurrence in question. (ii) That no doubt the prosecution is bound to explain injuries on the accused, but before this obligation is placed it must be proved that first, the injuries on the accused are very serious, secondly, these injuries had been caused at the time of the occurrence in question. (iii) That the effect of non-explanation of injuries on the person of the accused is not a question of law but a question of fact and therefore, non-explanation is not always fatal to the prosecution case, but the fact of failure to explain is to be taken into account to test the truth of the prosecution case and the veracity of the prosecution witnesses. (iv) That the effect of non-explanation by the prosecution about the injuries on the accused persons depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and no hard and fast rule can be laid down in such matter. (v) That normally if there is such non-explanation, it may at the most give scope to argue that the accused had the right of private defence or in general that the prosecution evidence should be rejected as they have not come with the whole truth, particularly regarding the genesis of the occurrence. (vi) That in some cases, if the accused party had caused murder of some members of the complainant party and in the scuffle by way of reprisal some accused got injuries at the hands of the complainant party, in such a situation, the obligation on the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries sustained by the accused in the same occurrence may not arise. 52. Keeping the above principles in mind, it is to be seen whether non-explanation of injuries on the person of the accused appellants Devkaran and Tejpal by the prosecution witnesses has affected the case of the prosecution or not. 53. In the present case, we should not forget that from the side of the complainant party, two persons, namely, deceased No. 1 Pokarram and deceased No. 2 Sri Ram died and two persons, namely, PW-1 Om Prakash and PW-2 Subhkaran received injuries and there is also no doubt on the point that in the same incident, from the side of accused party, two persons, namely, accused appellants Devkaran and Tejpal received simple injuries. 54. 54. There is also no dispute on the point that accused appellants Devkaran and Tejpal did not receive any sharp edged injuries meaning thereby the members of the complainant party were not armed with sharp edged weapons. The fact that two persons, namely, deceased No. 1 Pokarram and deceased No. 2 Sri Ram and two injuries PW-1 Om Prakash and PW-2 Subhkaran from the side of the complainant party received sharp edged injuries itself reflects that the members of the accused party were armed with sharp edged weapons. 55. Thus, looking to the entire facts and circumstances just narrated above, when from the side of the complainant party two persons, namely, deceased No. 1 Pokarram and deceased No. 2 Sri Ram were murdered and two persons, namely, PW-1 Om Prakash and PW-2 Subhkaran received sharp edged injuries and in the same incident, two accused appellants Devkaran and Tejpal received simple injuries and further, the members of the complainant party were not armed with sharp edged weapons while the members of the accused party were armed with sharp edged weapons, therefore, in these circumstances, if the prosecution witnesses have not explained how the accused appellants Devkaran and Tejpal received injuries, in our considered opinion, it would not affect the case of the prosecution as the facts narrated above clearly reveal that it cannot be ruled out that in the scuffle, when from the side of complainant party, two persons were murdered and two persons were beaten by the members of the accused party, by way of reprisal, the injuries would have been caused to the accused appellants Devkaran and Tejpal by the members of the complainant party and in such a situation, the obligation on the part of the prosecution to explain injuries sustained by the accused appellants Devkaran and Tejpal in the same incident would not arise and apart from this, from the above facts, it appears that the members of the accused party were aggressors and they had acted in cruel and unusual manner in murdering two persons, namely, deceased No. 1 Pokarram and deceased No. 2 Sri Ram. 56. Thus, for the reasons stated above, it is held that in the present case, non-explanation of injuries of accused appellants Devkaran and Tejpal by the prosecution witnesses would not affect the case of the prosecution at all and it cannot be regarded as fatal to the prosecution case. 57. 56. Thus, for the reasons stated above, it is held that in the present case, non-explanation of injuries of accused appellants Devkaran and Tejpal by the prosecution witnesses would not affect the case of the prosecution at all and it cannot be regarded as fatal to the prosecution case. 57. Furthermore, from the above reasoning and discussion, it also appears to us that there was no reason to proceed on the footing that there was occasion of self-defence on the part of the members of the accused party or they acted in their self-defence on exceeded their right of self-defence. Hence, argument of learned counsel for the accused appellants that it was a case of self-defence, was rightly rejected by the learned trial Judge. Similarly, on the above grounds, the case of the accused party that it was a case of free fight also stands rejected.Case of accused appellant Tejpal 58. The question for consideration is whether in the facts and circumstances just narrated above, participation of the accused appellant Tejpal in the alleged incident and sharing of common intention by him with three accused appellants Devkaran, Dayachand and Parmanand in causing injuries to both deceased No. 1 Pokarram and No. 2 Sri Ram and injured PW-1 Om Prakash and PW-2 Subhkaran can be said to have been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt or not and this aspect has to be examined keeping in mind the facts that accused appellant Tejpal is the son of Devkaran, who himself is accused appellant in this case and thus, both son and father are accused appellants in this case and furthermore, accused appellant Tejpal did not cause any injury to both deceased. 59. It may be stated here that one of the cardinal principles which has always to be kept in mind in the administration of criminal justice is that a person arraigned as an accused is presumed to be innocent till he is proved guilty. The burden of proving the accused to be guilty is on the prosecution and unless it relieves of that burden, the Court cannot record a finding that the accused is guilty. 60. Even when morally or conscientiously as accused may appear to be guilty on the basis of suspicion, it cannot amount to legal proof and he cannot be convicted. Caution is a safe and unfailing guide in the judicial armoury. 60. Even when morally or conscientiously as accused may appear to be guilty on the basis of suspicion, it cannot amount to legal proof and he cannot be convicted. Caution is a safe and unfailing guide in the judicial armoury. It does not, however, justify a prior assumption and cannot warrant a finding of guilt. It is settle law that "graver the crime, greater should be the standard of proof'. Where the murder is cruel and revolting one, it is necessary to examine the evidence with more than ordinary care lest the shocking nature of the crime induce an instinctive reaction against a dispassionate judicial scrutiny of the facts and law. 61. Where two views are possible, the one beneficial to the accused should be accepted. 62. From the statement of PW-1 Om Prakash, it appears that relations between the complainant party and accused party were not cordial. 63. It may be stated here that enmity is a double edged weapon, providing motive for both for the offence as well as for false implication. The evidence in such a case has, therefore, to be scrutinised with care so that neither the guilty party wrongly escapes on the pleas of enmity nor an innocent persons gets wrongly convicted on that basis. 64. The evidence in such a case has, therefore, to be scrutinised with care so that neither the guilty party wrongly escapes on the pleas of enmity nor an innocent persons gets wrongly convicted on that basis. 64. As already stated above, the accused appellant Tejpal is son of accused appellant Devkaran, whose active participation in the crime is well proved and in such a situation, since relations between complainant party and accused party were not cordial and enmity is a double-edged weapon and tendency has developed for roping in all relations and no doubt the accused appellant Tejpal also received four simple injuries, but since he has not caused any injuries to both deceased No. 1 Pokarram and No. 2 Sri Ram and PW-2 Subhkaran and the only allegation against him is that he caused injuries to PW-1 Om Prakash by knife and the possibility that he might have rushed towards the place of occurrence to save his father-accused appellant Devkaran and in that process, he might have received injuries and he might have caused injuries to PW-1 Om Prakash, cannot be ruled out, therefore, in these circumstances, to say that the accused appellant Tejpal was sharing common intention with the other three accused appellants, namely, Devkaran, Dayachand and Parmanand in causing injuries to deceased No. 1 Pokarram, deceased No. 2 Sri Ram, PW-1 Om Prakash and PW-2 Subhkaran, cannot be accepted. Whether there was any furtherance of common intention by the accused appellant Tejpal with the other three accused appellants Devkaran, Dayachand and Parmanand or not, on that point, the prosecution evidence is not as cogent as it should have been and therefore, the accused appellant Tejpal is entitled to acquittal for the offence u/s. 302/34 IPC and also for the offence u/s. 341 IPC and the findings of the learned trial Judge in this respect are liable to be set aside. 65. However, the conviction of the accused appellant Tej pal as recorded by the learned trial Judge for the offence u/s. 324 IPC for causing injuries to PW-1 Om Prakash with knife is liable to be maintained, as from the evidence on record, it is very much clear that accused appellant Tejpal caused injuries to PW-1 Om Prakash with knife.Case of accused appellants Devharan, Dayachand and Parmanand 66. The next question of consideration whether in the facts and circumstances just narrated above, the accused appellants Devkaran, Dayachand and Parmanand in causing the murder of deceased No. 1 Pokarram have committed the offence of culpable homicide amounting to murder punishable u/s. 302 IPC or not. 67. Since all the three accused appellants Devkaran, Dayachand and Parmanand have caused injuries to deceased No. 1 Pokarram and the same gets corroboration from the medical evidence and furthermore, PW-23 Dr. Dharmendra Kumar Sharma has categorically stated that injuries of deceased No. 1 were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, therefore, the act of the above three accused appellants is squarely covered by clause 3 of Section 300 IPC and it would amount to culpable homicide amounting to murder punishable u/s. 302 IPC. 68. Hence, for causing injuries to deceased No. 1 Pokarram, the accused appellants Devkaran, Dayachand and Parmanand were rightly convicted for the offence u/s. 302 with the aid of Section 34 IPC and the findings of the learned trial Judge in this respect are liable to be confirmed one. 69. The next question for consideration is whether for causing the injuries to deceased No. 2 Sri Ram, the above three accused appellants have committed the offence of culpable homicide amounting to murder punishable u/s. 302 IPC or not. 70. There is no dispute on the point that the incident had taken place on 16.6.1997 and deceased No. 2 Sri Ram died on 14.10.1997 after about four months of the incident and from the statement of PW-24 Dr. Mukesh Kumar Sharma, it appears that deceased No. 2 Sri Ram was discharged from hospital on 27.6.1997 and PW-24 Dr. Mukesh Kumar Sharma has proved the operation notes Ex.P/50, treatment given to deceased No. 2 through Ex.P/51 and discharge certificate Ex.P/52. 71. PW-27 Dr. Moideen Qureshi, who conducted the post mortem of the dead body of the deceased No. 2 Sri Ram, has categorically stated that deceased died because of septicemia and he has further stated that he cannot say whether the injuries of deceased No. 2 were direct result of his death as he died four months later. 72. 71. PW-27 Dr. Moideen Qureshi, who conducted the post mortem of the dead body of the deceased No. 2 Sri Ram, has categorically stated that deceased died because of septicemia and he has further stated that he cannot say whether the injuries of deceased No. 2 were direct result of his death as he died four months later. 72. Since deceased No. 2 Sri Ram died because of Septicemia after four months of the incident, therefore, it can easily be concluded that deceased died due to infection and in such a case, injuries received by the deceased No. 2 cannot be said to be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. 73. Thus, looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the facts that incident took place on 16.6.1997 and deceased No. 2 Sri Ram died on 14.10.1997 after about four months of the incident and he was discharged from the hospital on 27.6.1997, though the injuries had resulted in the death of the deceased No. 2 Sri Ram, but it cannot conclusively said that they were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and thus, the offence of the accused appellants Devkaran, Dayachand and Parmanand in murdering deceased No. 2 Sri Ram would be one falling u/s. 304 Part-II IPC and for that, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Harish Kumar v. State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1993 SC 973 may be referred to. 74. If an accused inflicts injuries which eventually result in diseases like tetanus, peritonitis, septicemia etc. and further causing death, in such case, the accused must be held to have committed culpable homicide not amounting to murder and not culpable homicide amounting to murder and for that, the decision in Jageshwar Singh v. State of Bihar, 1968 AppR (SC) 73 may be referred to. 75. and further causing death, in such case, the accused must be held to have committed culpable homicide not amounting to murder and not culpable homicide amounting to murder and for that, the decision in Jageshwar Singh v. State of Bihar, 1968 AppR (SC) 73 may be referred to. 75. Thus, it is held that the act of the accused appellants Devkaran, Dayachand and Parmanand for causing murder of deceased No. 2 Sri Ram amounts to culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable u/s. 304- Part II IPC and therefore, the findings of the learned trial Judge convicting the accused appellants Devkaran Dayachand and Parmanand for the offence u/s. 302/34 IPC for causing murder of deceased No. 2 Sri Ram cannot be sustained and liable to be altered in the manner that in place of 302/34 IPC, the above three accused appellants are liable to be convicted u/s. 304 Part- I1/34 IPC. 76. The next question for consideration is whether for the offence u/s. 304 Part-II IPC, a person can be convicted with the aid of Section 34 IPC or not. 77. There has been controversy to the effect whether Sec. ' 34 IPC is applicable on the offence committed u/s. 304 Part II IPC. The Calcutta High Court in Ibra Akanda v. Emperor, AIR 1944 Cal. 393 and the Full Bench of Allahabad High Court in State v. Saidu Khan and Anr., AIR 1951 All. 21 were of the view that the section is applicable. The Hon'ble Supreme Court settled this proposition in Afhraim Sheikh v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1964 SC 1263 held, - "The question is whether the second part of Section 304 can be made applicable. The second part no doubt speaks of knowledge and does not refer to intention which has been segregated in the first part. But knowledge is the knowledge of the likelihood of death. Can it be said that when three or four persons start beating a man with heavy lathies, each hitting his blow with the common intention of severely beating him and each possessing the knowledge that death was the likely result of the beating that the requirements of Section 304 Part II are not satisfied in the case of each of them? If it could be said that knowledge of this type was possible in the case of each one of the appellants, there is no reason why Section 304 Part II cannot be read with Section 34". 78. Thus, it is held that even for an offence u/s. 304 Part II IPC, a person can be convicted with the aid of Section 34 IPC. 79. So far as the conviction of the accused appellants Devkaran, Dayachand and Parmanand for the offence u/s. 341 IPC and conviction of the accused appellants Devkaran and Dayachand for the offence u/s. 324 IPC for causing injuries to both injured PW-1 Om Prakash and PW-2 Subhkaran and conviction of the accused appellant Parmanand for the offence u/s. 323 IPC for causing injuries to both injured PW-1 Om Prakash and PW-2 Subhkaran are concerned, the same are liable to be maintained as the commission of above offences by them is well proved from the evidence just discussed above and thus, the findings of the learned trial Judge convicting the above three accused appellants for the said offences are liable to be confirmed one.Conviction of all four accused appellants for the offence u/s. 3(2) (v) of the SCIST Act 80. No doubt, members of the complainant party belonged to schedule caste category, but for proving the offence u/s. 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, besides proving ingredients of respective offence, it must further be proved that target of crime was selected on ground that they belonged to scheduled caste or scheduled tribe category. In this case, this aspect is missing and therefore, the findings of conviction recorded by the learned trial Judge for the offence u/s. 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act against all the four accused appellants cannot be sustained and liable to be set aside and all the four accused appellants are entitled to be acquitted of the charge for the offence u/s. 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act. 81. Thus, the net result of the above discussion is:-For accused appellant Tejpal (i) That the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the accused appellant Tejpal for the offence u/ss. 302/34 and 341 IPC and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act and thus, he is entitled to be acquitted of the said offences and the findings of the learned trial Judge convicting him for the said offence are liable to be set aside. 302/34 and 341 IPC and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act and thus, he is entitled to be acquitted of the said offences and the findings of the learned trial Judge convicting him for the said offence are liable to be set aside. (ii) That however, the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt against the accused appellant Tejpal for the offence u/s. 324 IPC for causing injuries to PW-1 Om Prakash and thus, findings of the learned trial Judge convicting him for the said offence are liable to be confirmed. For accused appellants Devkaran, Dayachand and Parmanand (iii) That prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the accused appellants Devkaran, Dayachand and Parmanand for the offence u/s. 302/34 IPC for causing murder of deceased No. 1 Pokarram and thus, the findings of the learned trial Judge convicting them for the said offences are liable to be confirmed one. (iv) That prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the accused appellants Devkaran, Dayachand and Parmanand for the offence u/s. 304 Part- II/34 IPC for causing murder of deceased No. 2 Sri Ram and thus, the findings of conviction recorded by the learned trial Judge against them for the offence u/s. 302/34 IPC for causing murder of deceased No. 2 Sri Ram cannot be sustained and liable to be altered in the manner that in place of 302/34 IPC, they are to be convicted u/s. 304 Part-II/34 IPC for causing murder of deceased No. 2 Sri Ram. (v) That prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the accused appellants Devkaran, Dayachand and Parmanand for the offence u/s. 341 IPC and thus, the findings of the learned trial Judge in this respect are liable to be confirmed one. (vi) That prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the accused appellants Devkaran and Dayachand for the offence u/s. 324 IPC for causing injuries to both injured PW-1 Om Prakash and PW-2 Subhkaran. (vii) That the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the accused appellant Parmanand for the offence u/s. 323 IPC for causing injuries to PW-1 Om Prakash and PW-2 Subhkaran and thus, the findings of the learned trial Judge in this respect are liable to be confirmed one. (vii) That the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the accused appellant Parmanand for the offence u/s. 323 IPC for causing injuries to PW-1 Om Prakash and PW-2 Subhkaran and thus, the findings of the learned trial Judge in this respect are liable to be confirmed one. (viii) That the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the accused appellants Devkaran, Dayachand and Parmanand for the offence u/s. 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act and thus, they are entitled to be acquitted of the said charge and the findings of the learned trial Judge convicting them for the said offence are liable to be set aside. On point of sentenceIn respect of accused appellant Tejpal 82. The conviction of the accused appellant Tejpal for the offence u/s. 324 IPC for causing injuries to PW-1 Om Prakash has been upheld and maintained by this Court and for the said offence, he was awarded two years RI by the learned trial Judge. 83. In our considered opinion, looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that out of two years sentence, the accused appellant Tejpal has already served out the sentence of more than one year and he is on bail, therefore, no useful purpose would be served in sending him to jail now and ends of justice would be met if for the offence u/s. 324 IPC, he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him.In respect of accused appellants Deoharan, Dayachand and Parmanand 84. The accused appellants Devkaran, Dayachand and Parmanand have been convicted u/s. 304 Part-II/34 IPC for causing murder of deceased No. 2 Sri Ram. 85. In our considered opinion, looking to the entire fact and circumstances of the case, if the accused appellants Devkaran, Dayachand and Parmanand for the offence u/s. 304 Part- I1/34 IPC are sentenced to undergo eight years RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for six months, it would meet the ends of justice. 86. Accordingly, this appeal filed by the accused appellants is disposed of and partly allowed in the following manner:Accused appellant Tejpal (i) That conviction and sentences of the accused appellant Tejpal for the offences u/ss. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for six months, it would meet the ends of justice. 86. Accordingly, this appeal filed by the accused appellants is disposed of and partly allowed in the following manner:Accused appellant Tejpal (i) That conviction and sentences of the accused appellant Tejpal for the offences u/ss. 302/34 and 341 IPC and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act as recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu through impugned judgment and order dated 29.9.2001 are set aside and he is acquitted of the said charges. (ii) That however, conviction of the accused appellant Tejpal for the offence u/s. 324 IPC for causing injuries to PW-1 Om Prakash, as recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu through impugned judgment and order dated 29.9.2001 is maintained. (iii) That however, for the offence u/s. 324 IPC, the accused appellant Tejpal is sentenced to the period already undergone by him and the impugned order of sentence dated 29.9.2001 passed by the learned Sessions Judge stands modified accordingly. Since he is on bail, he need not surrender and his bail bonds stand discharged/cancelled. Accused appellants Devkaran, Dayachand and Parmanand (iv) That conviction and sentences of the accused appellants Devkaran, Dayachand and Permanand for the offence u/s. 302/34 IPC for causing murder of deceased No. 1 Pokarram and for the offence u/s. 341 IPC as recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu through impugned judgment and order dated 29.9.2001 are maintained. (v) That however, conviction and sentence of the accused appellants Devkaran, Dayachand and Parmanand for the offence u/s. 302/34 IPC for causing murder of deceased No. 2 Sri Ram as recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu through impugned judgment and order dated 29.9.2001 are modified and altered in the manner that instead of 302/34 IPC, they are convicted u/s. 304 Part-II/34 IPC for causing murder of deceased No. 2 Sri Ram and for the said offence u/s. 304 Part-11/34 IPC, they are sentenced to undergo eight years RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for six months. (vi) That conviction and sentence of the accused appellants Devkaran and Dayachand for the offence u/s. 324 IPC for causing injuries to both injured PW-1 Om Prakash and PW-2 Subhkaran as recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu through impugned judgment and order dated 29.9.2001 are maintained. (vi) That conviction and sentence of the accused appellants Devkaran and Dayachand for the offence u/s. 324 IPC for causing injuries to both injured PW-1 Om Prakash and PW-2 Subhkaran as recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu through impugned judgment and order dated 29.9.2001 are maintained. (vii) That conviction and sentence of the accused appellant Parmanand for the offence u/s. 323 IPC for causing injuries to PW-1 Om Prakash and PW-2 Subhkaran as recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu through impugned judgment and order dated 29.9.2001 are maintained. (viii) That conviction and sentence of the accused appellants Devkaran, Dayachand and Parmanand for the offence u/s. 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act as recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu through impugned judgment and order dated 29.9.2001 are set aside and they are acquitted of the said charge. (ix) That all the substantive sentences of the accused appellants Devkaran, Dayachand and Parmanand shall run concurrently. (x) That since the accused appellants Dayachand and Permanand are on bail, they shall surrender before the learned trial Court for serving out the remaining period of their sentences. (xi) That the impugned judgment and order dated 29.9.2001 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu stand modified and altered in the manner as indicated above. Appeal partly allowed. *******