ORDER : K.G. Balakrishnan, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The appellants along with five others were tried by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Barwani in Madhya Pradesh. Five of them were convicted for the offence under section 302 read with section 149. Aggrieved by the same, they had filed appeal and the same was dismissed by the High Court by the impugned judgment. 2. The incident happened in a tribal village of Madhya Pradesh. There was a dispute between the first appellant Loharia and deceased Puskar as to who should hold the post of Patel for the village. On 1.2.1985 at about 12.O Clock Patwari of the village came to the house of Puskar to collect revenue. The first appellant Loharia along with other accused came to the house of deceased Puskar and hurled abuses at Puskar. There was wordy altercation between Loharia and Puskar. The first appellant and some other accused were armed with bows and arrows and they shot arrows at Jahanbai, the wife of the deceased Puskar and Nakaliya, who were present at the house of Puskar. Thereafter, the accused Loharia and others left the place. Puskar, PW-4 Kamal Singh and PW-5 Chanderiya and others took Jahanbai and Nakaliya to the Police Station in a bullock-cart. They reached Silawad Police Station at about 3.00 P.M. They parked bullock-cart in front of the Police Station and while they were standing near the cart, these appellants and the five other co-accused, who had been there and started assaulting Puskar. The first appellant was armed with axe. He hit Puskar on his chest with sharp edge of the axe. Puskar fell down and again hit him with the axe. The second appellant also hit Puskar on his head. PW-7 Tirmal intervened and the appellants assaulted Tirmal also. Tirmal sustained serious injuries and fell unconscious. Puskar died on the spot. Later, PW-7 Tirmal was removed to the hospital. PW-4 Kamal Singh went to the Police Station and gave Ex.P-33 and First Information Statement. 3. The police took over the investigation on the dead body and the accused were arrested. Pursuant to the confessional statement made by some of the accused, weapons used for the commission of crime were recovered by the police. PW-4 Kamal Singh went to the Police Station and gave Ex.P-33 and First Information Statement. 3. The police took over the investigation on the dead body and the accused were arrested. Pursuant to the confessional statement made by some of the accused, weapons used for the commission of crime were recovered by the police. The first appellant Loharia had also lodged a First Information Statement on the third day alleging that he was assaulted by deceased Puskar, PW-4 Kamal Singh and others. 4. On the side of the prosecution, Pws.1 to 10 were examined. Pws.4,5,6 and 7 were examined as eye witnesses. The appellants contended that the deceased Puskar and Pws 4 to 7 were the aggressors and the entire incident happened in the house of deceased Puskar. The Trial Court as well as the High Court declined to accept this plea and held that these appellants were guilty as aforesaid. 5. We heard the learned counsel for the appellants and counsel for the State-respondent. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the first appellant Loharia and some of his relatives sustained serious injuries and these injuries were not properly explained by the prosecution. Our attention was drawn to the medical certificate issued in the case of the first appellant and appellant Damajya and another accused Ram Singh. The certificate shows that Ram Singh had a gun-shot wound on the left shoulder and the first appellant Loharia also had a gun-shot wound on the left forearm. The injuries sustained by others were lacerated wounds of minor nature. It was urged by the appellants' counsel that these injuries were sustained by the first appellant and Ram Singh at the house of deceased Puskar and as the prosecution failed to explain these injuries, the origin and genesis of the prosecution case is still a mystery and the appellants should be given the benefit of doubt. We have carefully gone through the evidence given by the four eye witnesses. All the eye witnesses were injured and therefore their presence at the scene of occurrence need not be doubted. We have carefully gone through the evidence given by the four eye witnesses. All the eye witnesses were injured and therefore their presence at the scene of occurrence need not be doubted. PW-4, who gave the First Information Statement, deposed that there was altercation and assault in the house of deceased Puskar at about 12.0 Clock and in that incident Nakaliya and Jahanbai sustained injuries and they were taken to the Police Station in a bullock cart for giving statement before the Police Station and all of them reached the Police Station at 3.00 P.M. and on that place the appellants and others were present they assaulted Puskar and these witnesses. From the evidence of these witnesses, it is clear that the incident happened near the police Station Silawad and it was a separate incident other than the incident that had taken place at the house of deceased Puskar. The eye witnesses were cross-examined at length and nothing could be brought out to show that there was only one incident, as alleged by the defence. The two courts have believed the evidence given by the witnesses and did not find any reason to disbelieve the same. The various weapons allegedly recovered from the houses of the appellants found to be stained with blood. All the appellants came to the place of incident armed with weapons. The common object of the unlawful assembly is clearly spelt out from the conduct of the appellants. 6. The counsel for the appellants contended that this is a case and counter-case, therefore, the case based on the Ex.P-33 and 37 FIR should have been tried simultaneously by the Sessions Court and reliance was placed on the decision of this Court reported in 2003 (9) SCC 426 State of M.P. v. Mishrilal. That is a case where both sides sustained injuries in a single incident, police had registered case and counter-case. In the instant case, the appellants came in a group and attacked Puskar and others and caused injuries to them at 3.00 P.M. near the Police Station. The other incident happened at 12.0 Clock in the house of the deceased Puskar. These are two separate incidents and it cannot be said that was a case and counter-case. 7. In the instant case, the appellants came in a group and attacked Puskar and others and caused injuries to them at 3.00 P.M. near the Police Station. The other incident happened at 12.0 Clock in the house of the deceased Puskar. These are two separate incidents and it cannot be said that was a case and counter-case. 7. The prosecution succeeded in proving that the appellants committed the offence punishable under section 302 Indian Penal Code read with section 149 and they had been rightly found guilty by the Sessions Court as well as by the High Court. The appeal is without any merit and is accordingly dismissed. The appellants are directed to surrender to their bail bonds within 3 weeks from today, failing which the Sessions Court shall take immediate steps to apprehend them to undergo the remaining part of the sentence.