Judgment Prakash Tatia, J.-These two appeals are against the Judgment dated 07.04.2000, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nohar, District Hanumangarh in Sessions Case No. 55/1998 State of Raj vs. Dharampal & Ors., by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the accused-appellants Dharampal, Mahipat, Chandrabhan, Prem Kumar, Raji Ram and Nathu Ram and sentences passed against all the above accused persons are as under: -Dharampal Under Section 302, IPC Life Imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default, further 2 years R.I Under Section 147, IPC 3 months R.I. Under Section 323/149, IPC 1 months R.I. Under Section 341, IPC 15 days S.I. Under Section 326/149, IPC 3 years R.I. and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, further 1 months R.I. Mahipat Under Section 148, IPC 4 months R.I. Under Section 341, IPC 15 days S.I. Under Section 323/149 1 months R.I. Under Section 326, IPC 3 years R.I. and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default 1 months R.I. Chandra Bhan under Section 147, IPC 3 months R.I. Prem Kumar under Section 341, IPC 15 days S.I. Raji Ram under Section 323/149, IPC 1 months R.I. Nathu Ram under Section 326/149, IPC 3 years R.I. and fine of Rs. 1,000/-and in default, 1 months R.I. 2. As per the case set up by the prosecution, on 24.08.1998, there was fight between complainant partys Om Prakash (brother of complainant Mansha Ram) and Sandeep Kumar (nephew of complainant) with Hajari Lal, for which a criminal case was registered was pending in the Court at that time. On 26.08.1998, the complainant Mansha Ram with his brothers, Krishna Kumar, Bhaga Ram and Om Prakash were going on tractor towards their agriculture field as their irrigation turn was from 11.09 PM. When they reached near the bridge of the canal, at about 10.30 PM, the accused persons Mahipat, Chandra Bhan, Dharampal, Prem Kumar and Raji Ram came with gandasi, and sticks and encircled the complainant and his brothers. Accused Mahipat immediately inflicted gandasi blow on the tractor, upon which brothers of the complainant Mansha Ram, Krishna, Bhaga Ram and Om Prakash jumped from the tractor to run to their house. Mahipat inflicted a gandasi blow on the head of Om Prakash. Hearing the cries of these persons, their father Tanuram and nephews Sandeep and Sita Ram came running towards the place of incident. Mahipat inflicted a gandasi blow on the head of Om Prakash. Hearing the cries of these persons, their father Tanuram and nephews Sandeep and Sita Ram came running towards the place of incident. Complainant Mansha Ram turned back took the tractor to his house. Mansha Ram complainant after leaving his tractor at his house returned back. During this period, the accused "Dharampal went to his house and came on a jeep. Mahipat shouted “Dharampal, what you are looking for, kill all who may come under the jeep". Dharampal ran the jeep over the complainants father Tanuram. Tanuram died on the spot. After leaving Krashna and nephew Sita Ram with the dead body of Tanuram, the complainant alongwith Om Prakash rushed to the hospital. Om Prakash was admitted in the hospital. The complainant Mansha Ram alongwith Sandeep, his nephew, rushed to the Police Station, Rawatsar and lodged the written complaint which was registered as FIR No. 204/98 under Sections, 302, 307, 341, 323, 147, 148 and 149, IPC. 3. After investigation, the challan was filed against the accused Dharampal, Nathu Ram, Chandrabhan, Mahipat, Prem Kumar and Raji Ram under the aforesaid sections before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nohar. The case was committed to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Nohar. The charges were framed against Dharampal under Sections 147, 148, 341, 323/149, 324/149 326/149 and 302, IPC., whereas charges under Sections 147, 148, 341, 323/149, 324/149, 326, 302/114, IPC against Mahipat and charges under Sections 147, 148, 341, 323/149, 324/149, 326/149, IPC were framed against the accused persons Chandra Bhan. Prem Kumar, Raji Ram and Nathu Ram. The accused denied the charges and claimed trial, upon which the trial proceeded. 4. The prosecution produced eye-witnesses PW. 1 Mansha Ram, PW. 2 Krishna, Lal, PW. 3 Sandeep Kumar, PW. 4 Om Prakash and PW. 6 Brij Lal. The prosecution also produced other witnesses and in total, 12 witnesses including the above eye-witnesses. The accused denied the charges and claimed trial, upon which the trial proceeded. 4. The prosecution produced eye-witnesses PW. 1 Mansha Ram, PW. 2 Krishna, Lal, PW. 3 Sandeep Kumar, PW. 4 Om Prakash and PW. 6 Brij Lal. The prosecution also produced other witnesses and in total, 12 witnesses including the above eye-witnesses. The prosecution also produced as many as 76 documents which includes FIR, site inspection report, memo about condition of body of deceased Tanuram, Panchnama, seizer memo for blood stained soil, recovery memo of two sticks, one Gediya, old spectacle and also produced photos of deceased Tanuram taken on spot, recovery memo of the jeep, copy of the FIR No. 201/1998, copy of the charge-sheet, injury report of Hajari Lal, injury reports of Om Prakash and Krishna Lal, their X-ray report, Tanurams post-mortem report and many other relevant documents including the FSL reports. 5. The accused-persons were examined under Section 313, CrPC. The accused-appellants did not choose to produce any evidence in rebuttal but got exhibited statements of Mansha Ram, Krishna Lal, Sandeep Kumar, Om Prakash, Hajari Lal and Brij Lal and also got exhibited injury reports of Chandra Bhan and Dharampal. 6. The trial Court after hearing arguments, held that the prosecution established prior enmity between the parties and the FIR was lodged without any delay. The trial Court further found that in view of the statements of PW. 1 to PW. 4 supported by medical evidence, the prosecution successfully proved the presence of the accused-persons on the spot and also proved causing injuries by them as alleged by the complainant including killing of Tanuram by running jeep over Tanuram by Dharampal. The trial Court found that certain discrepancies in the statements and absence of minute details, how the jeep ran over Tanuram, are not of significant consequence. The trial Court also rejected the plea of the defence that all the witnesses PW. 1 Mansha Ram, PW. 2 Krishna Lal, PW. Sandeep Kumar and PW. 4 Om Prakash are close relatives and interested witnesses, therefore, it is not safe to rely upon statements of these witnesses. The trial Court further rejected the story set up by the defence whereby the defence alleged that in fact Tanuram died, as Mansha Ram tried to turn the tractor back and, while doing so, hit Tanuram and the wheel of the tractor run over the head of Tanuram. The trial Court further rejected the story set up by the defence whereby the defence alleged that in fact Tanuram died, as Mansha Ram tried to turn the tractor back and, while doing so, hit Tanuram and the wheel of the tractor run over the head of Tanuram. The trial Court also held that though blood found on the jeep was not got examined by the prosecution but that is not of much significance. The trial Court further held that though name of Brij Lal (PW. 6) is not mentioned in the FIR but his statement finds support from the statements of witnesses Om Prakash, Sandeep Kumar, Krishna Lal and Mansha Ram. In view of the above reasonings, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants for the offences mentioned above. 7. The learned Counsel for the appellants, without disputing death of the Tanuram due to injuries which are mentioned in the injury report and without disputing post-mortem report, vehemently submitted that the entire story set up by the prosecution is a concocted story and in fact, Tanuram died as he was hit by the tractor when Mansha Ram tried to take the tractor back and when Tanuram fell down by the hit of tractor, the tractor ran over Tanuram. According to the learned Counsel for the appellants, since, admittedly, the complainant party was on tractor and Tanuram was killed by running tractor over him the complainant party set up a case purposefully with a false plea of taking away tractor from the spot by Mansha Ram. According to the learned Counsel for the appellants, it is highly unbelievable that the complainant party while going on tractor on threat from any person who had deadly weapon with him instead of trying to run on the tractor itself , try to send tractor alone to safe place. And if Mansaram ran away from the scene due to fear, he would not have come back to scene bare handed. It is highly improbable that other brothers of the Mansaram, even if , in haste jumped down from the tractor, they would not have tried to ride again on the tractor to run away from reach of accused and Mansaram would not wait and would not have tried to take his brothers on the tractor to save them from aggressor. It is highly improbable that other brothers of the Mansaram, even if , in haste jumped down from the tractor, they would not have tried to ride again on the tractor to run away from reach of accused and Mansaram would not wait and would not have tried to take his brothers on the tractor to save them from aggressor. The sole object of mentioning fact in the FIR, that the tractor was taken away from scene of occurrence, itself was with an intention to show that the tractor was not present on the spot when Tanuram died and falsely implicate the appellants. It is nothing but it is complainants desperate effort to take benefit out of unfortunate event of death of their father caused by Mansaharam himself . The learned Counsel for the appellants further vehemently submitted that, had there been any intention of accused persons to kill any body, they would have used their weapons repeatedly whereas the complainant himself came with a case that Mahipat first hit gandasi blow on the tractor and when brothers of the complainant, Krishna Lal, Bhaga Ram and Om Prakash started running towards their house, Mahipat inflicted one injury of gandasi on the head of Om Prakash, that too, not with much force even as per the statement of Om Prakash himself in Court. Om Prakash admitted in his statement that he even did not fell down on the ground due to the said hit and injury. It is also submitted that when Mahipal had gandasi in his hand and other accused had sticks in their hands and as per prosecution itself , the accused came near the scene of occurrence in jeep would instead of completing their job they would wait for Dharampal so that complainants may be killed, is a story no one can believe. It is also submitted that the distance between the place of incident and the house of the complainant was of such a short distance that it can be covered by 2 to 3 or at the most five minutes run. It is also submitted that though there is allegation that first hit of gandasi was on the tractor but said tractor was neither seized nor examined by the police, otherwise it would have come on record that the tractor had blood stains of deceased Tanuram. 8. It is also submitted that though there is allegation that first hit of gandasi was on the tractor but said tractor was neither seized nor examined by the police, otherwise it would have come on record that the tractor had blood stains of deceased Tanuram. 8. The learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that even the medical report is also not is complainants desperate effort to take benefit out of unfortunate event of death of their father caused by Mansaharam himself . The learned Counsel for the appellants further vehemently submitted that, had there been any intention of accused persons to kill any body, they would have used their weapons repeatedly whereas the complainant himself came with a case that Mahipal first hit gandasi blow on the tractor and when brothers of the complainant, Krishan Lal, Bhaga Ram and Om Prakash started running towards their house, Mahipat inflicted one injury of gandasi on the head of Om Prakash that too, not with much force even as per the statement of Om Prakash himself in Court. Om Prakash admitted in his statement that he even did not fell down on the ground due to the said hit and injury. It is also submitted that when Mahipal had gandasi in his hand and other accused had sticks in their hands and as per prosecution itself , the accused came near the scene of occurrence in jeep would instead of completing their job they would wait for Dharampal so that complainants may be killed, is a story no one can believe. It is also submitted that the distance between the place of incident and the house of the complainant was of such a short distance that it can be covered by 2 to 3 or at the most five minutes run. It is also submitted that though there is allegation that first hit of gandasi was on the tractor but said tractor was neither seized nor examined by the police, otherwise it would have come on record that the tractor had blood stains of deceased Tanuram. It is also submitted that though there is allegation that first hit of gandasi was on the tractor but said tractor was neither seized nor examined by the police, otherwise it would have come on record that the tractor had blood stains of deceased Tanuram. The learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that even the medical report is also not supporting the case of the prosecution as, according to the prosecution witnesses, rather the alleged eye-witnesses, Dharampal ran tractor over Tanuram and without crossing the body of Tanuram, he brought the tractor back so that the tractor may again rum over the body of Tanuram. In this situation one eye of the deceased Tanuram could not have come out for the body and both the eyes must have gone deep in the skull of the body of Tanuram. It is also submitted that even as per the statements of Sandeep Kumar, even first tyre of the vehicle did not cross the head of Tanuram and before touching the land vehicle was taken back. The statement of all alleged eye-witnesses are contrary to site map Exhibit P-3 and site report Exhibit-Petitioner 3-A produced by the prosecution itself . It is also submitted that if one front wheel of the vehicle was on the head of the deceased Tanuram then there would not have been any injury on the gluteal region and on the legs of Tanuram because second front wheel would not reach to that portion of the legs. There no explanation for injury on the gluteal region of body of deceased Tanuram. According to the learned Counsel for the appellants, in fact, rear wheel of the tractor ran over the body of Tanuram from the side, that is, from the ribs towards head crushing ribs and half of the skull of Tanuram resulting into one eye going deep in the body and due to the pressure on the brain matter, other eye came out from the body. According to the learned Counsel for the appellants, before that the rod fixed for agriculture purpose on the back of the tractor, hit Tanuram causing injuries on the leg of Tanuram. 9. According to the learned Counsel for the appellants, before that the rod fixed for agriculture purpose on the back of the tractor, hit Tanuram causing injuries on the leg of Tanuram. 9. The learned Counsel for the appellants further vehemently submitted that the site inspection map (Exhibit P-3) and site inspection report (Exhibit P-3-A) were also prepared just to implicate the appellants in a false case of killing Tanuram and, therefore, deliberately despite admitted fact that the tractor was present at the place of incident, the tractors tyre impressions have not been shown in description given in the site map Exhibit P-3. According to learned Counsel for the appellants, the tyre impression at mark X-1 may by of jeep but tyre impression shown running over head of deceased Tanuram are, even as per Exhibit P-3 map itself are not of the jeep and they are tyre impression of the tractor only. The plea of the prosecution that the tyre impressions of the tractor were not visible because of running of number of persons, deserves to be rejected simply because firstly, PW. 11 Manohar Lal, Investing Officer himself admitted that tractors tyre impression were very much available on the spot at the time of inspection and further, if before site inspection number of persons ran over the land than who it is possible that tyre impression of jeep will remain to its full length and only tyre impression of the tractor will be wiped out. It is also submitted that there is no explanation how the blood stains came on the two sticks. The learned Counsel for the appellants also submitted that neither there is direct reliable evidence nor there is circumstantial evidence suggesting killing of Tanuram by running the jeep over him by Dharampal-accused. It is also submitted that the motive projected by the complainant is too weak as the alleged incident of 24.08.1998 could not have been a reason for an intention to cause any grievous hurt to the complainant party, what to say about killing of one person in efforts to kill as many as persons who may come under the jeep as alleged by the prosecution witnesses. 10. The learned Public Prosecutor vehemently submitted that the trial Court considered the evidence carefully and relied upon the statements of eye-witnesses PW. 1 Mansha Ram, PW. 2 Krishna Lal, PW. 3 Sandeep Kumar and PW. 4 Om Prakash. 10. The learned Public Prosecutor vehemently submitted that the trial Court considered the evidence carefully and relied upon the statements of eye-witnesses PW. 1 Mansha Ram, PW. 2 Krishna Lal, PW. 3 Sandeep Kumar and PW. 4 Om Prakash. It is also submitted that out of these four witnesses, Krishna, Sandeep Kumar and Om Prakash also suffered injuries, therefore, their presence on place of incident cannot be denied. It is also submitted that presence of Mansha Ram on the spot is not disputed by the accused-persons. It is also submitted that the medical report further established that Tanuram died because of the injuries which he suffered by running a vehicle over his body, therefore, the medical evidence is corroborated by the oral evidence and the oral evidence also finds support from the medical evidence. It is also submitted that when there is direct evidence of trustworthy evidence, their evidence cannot be discarded by mere pointing towards certain discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses, which is in fact not there. Even if a few insignificant facts are missing or are not explained, it cannot cast doubt upon the oral statements of the eye-witnesses and the witnesses who suffered injuries in the incident. It is also submitted that it is not expected from the persons who were facing threat on their lives, to narrate minute details of event. The witneses are not supposed to know how the body tilted or moved in the accident. It is also submitted that the accused persons rightly are not disputing the death of Tanuram by crushing of his body under a vehicle. Their defence that it was by tractor, is only on afterthought and there is no evidence to prove that Tanuram died due to running over of the tractor on the body of Tanuram by Mansha Ram. 11. We have considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 12. Their defence that it was by tractor, is only on afterthought and there is no evidence to prove that Tanuram died due to running over of the tractor on the body of Tanuram by Mansha Ram. 11. We have considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 12. It is clear from the facts mentioned above, that so far as fight on the spot and death of Tanuram on the spot are concerned are not seriously disputed by the learned Counsel for the appellants and after going through entire evidence on record and after considering prosecution case as well as defence, we also find that prosecution has proved that fight took place at the place shown and Tanuram died on the spot due to crush injuries and died due to reasons given post-mortem report Exhibit P-31. Oral statements of the witnesses PW. 1 Mansaram, PW. 2 Krishna Lal, PW. 3 Sandeep Kumar PW. 4 Om Prakash corroborated by medical evidence by Doctors, PW. 8 Dr. Rajendra Kumar, PW. 9 Dr. Hanuman Singh proved fully proved that Sandeep, Om Prakash and Krashna also suffered injuries which are mentioned in injury reports Exhibit P-28, Exhibit P-29 and Exhibit P-30 respectively. The only dispute remains is that whether the prosecution established beyond doubt that Dharampal, with an intention to eliminate Tanuram, hit Tanuram by driving jeep and killed Tanuram by running over jeep to and fro on the body of Tanuram. It will be relevant to mention here that the trial Court acquitted the appellant accused Mahipat from charge of abatment under Section 114, IPC, who according to witnesses "shouted, Dharampal, what you are looking for, kill all who may come under the Jeep". .13. PW. 1 Mansharam stated that when they were going on tractor and reached near the bridge of canal, the accused-persons Mahipat, Dharmpal, Chandra Bhan, Raji Ram, Nathu Ram and Prem Kumar came there with gandasi and sticks. Mahipat had gandasi with him and rest of the accused persons had lathis with them. They encircled the complainant party and Mahipat inflicted blow by gandasi on the tractor, upon which all the three brothers of Mansha Ram jumped down to the ground to run from the place of incident. In the statement PW. 1 Mansharam, it has come that their house was about 15 to 20 poundas (steps) away from the place of incident. They encircled the complainant party and Mahipat inflicted blow by gandasi on the tractor, upon which all the three brothers of Mansha Ram jumped down to the ground to run from the place of incident. In the statement PW. 1 Mansharam, it has come that their house was about 15 to 20 poundas (steps) away from the place of incident. He also stated that he turned the tractor back and went to his house and put the tractor there and came back. This took only time of 2-3 minutes. PW. 1 Mansha Ram also admitted that when he was going towards his house, the accused-persons were inflicting blows upon his brothers. It is strange that Mansha Ram (PW. 1) ran away from the place of the incident on tractor leaving behind his three brothers and who were encircled by as many as six persons with weapons including one gandasi, only to put his tractor at his house and came back without taking any safety measures, either weapon to protect himself and his brothers or took any other person/persons who may help and save the complainant Mansha Ram and his brothers. Nothing has been said by any of the witnesses what was the necessity of sending the tractor to their house and that too without making any provision for their own safety. Rather by this, the members of the complainant party were deprived from opportunity to run away from the spot on tractor. Mansha Ram (PW. 1) in his cross-examination, admitted that when he took the tractor back to his house, he did not invite his brothers to come back on the tractor so that they may reach to their houses safely. PW. 4 .Om Prakash, in his cross-examination, admitted that Mansha Ram took the tractor without any reason and they did not ask why he is taking the tractor to his house. P.W.4 Om Prakash further admitted that none of the member of the complainant party asked Mansha Ram to bring any lathi or Sota. PW. 4 Om Prakash could not explain why Mansha Ram came back on the spot within 2-3 minutes when he safely reached away from the reach of the aggressors and he had no courage to stay and take back his brothers with him on tractor. PW. 4 Om Prakash could not explain why Mansha Ram came back on the spot within 2-3 minutes when he safely reached away from the reach of the aggressors and he had no courage to stay and take back his brothers with him on tractor. It is highly improbable that in such a circumstances Mansha Ram could muster courage to come back on the spot after leaving tractor at is house. Therefore, there is possibility that he must not have moved from the place of incident and remained on safe on tractor, therefore, he alone did not suffer any injury in the fighting. 14. In back drop of these facts if we look at site map Exhibit P-3 and site report Exhibit P-3-A, the documents produced by the prosecution itself cast serious doubt on credibility of oral statement of all injured and eye-witnesses. The investigating officer Manohar Lal (PW. 11) admitted that he did not mention about the tractors tyre impressions in Exhibit P-3 and Exhibit P-3-A despite the fact that as per his own statement, tractors tyre impressions were there on the spot. He had no explanation for this material omission, therefore, he admitted that he cannot say why he has not marked or shown the tyre impressions of the tractor. PW. 11 Manohar Lal further admitted that he has not mentioned in Exhibit P-3 site inspection map that tyre impressions shown at point X were of which vehicle. It will be relevant to mention here that the point X is the place shown in Exhibit P-3 site map. Where the deceased Tanuram was hit. The point X-1 has been shown as the tyre impressions of the jeep which are running in between North-East and South-West and across the legs of the deceased Tanuram and which not the case of even prosecution that jeep was run over on both or any of the legs of the deceased Tanuram. Where the deceased Tanuram was hit. The point X-1 has been shown as the tyre impressions of the jeep which are running in between North-East and South-West and across the legs of the deceased Tanuram and which not the case of even prosecution that jeep was run over on both or any of the legs of the deceased Tanuram. It is further worthwhile to mention here that though, in site map there is no specific mention of tractors tyre impression but out of two set of impression only one, running over the legs of the deceased have been specifically marked in the Exhibit P-3 and its description has been given in the map itself but for the tyre impression running across the head of the deceased and which were most relevant, no mark has been given in map and further in description given on the map Exhibit P-3 nothing has been written for these tyre impression. In the site inspection report Exhibit P-3-A, there is clear mention that the tractors tyre impressions were available on the spot at the time of site inspection. In these circumstances there is every possibility that tyre impression which are running across the head of the deceased Tanuram are of tractor because out of two set of tyre impression shown in Exhibit P-3, one at X1 is, as per prosecution itself , are of jeep leaving behind only un-marked tyre impression and only these un-marked tyre impressions alone are running across the head of the deceased Tanuram. The explanation for not mentioning the tyre impression in Exhibit P-3 given by Sandeep Kumar (PW. 3) stands contradicted by none else than the Investigating Officer Shri Manohar Lal (PW. 11) himself . Sandeep Kumar stated that the tyre impressions of tractor were not visible because of running of many persons on spot, whereas PW. 11 Manohar Lal admitted in his cross-examination, that the tyre impressions of tractor were there on the spot at the time of preparation of site map (Exhibit P-3). Otherwise also, the statement of PW. 3 Sandeep Kumar giving explanation for not mentioning the tyre impressions of tractor in Exhibit P-3 cannot be accepted and it cannot be believed that all the persons who were walked or ran on the spot will remove tyre impression of only tractor and tyre impression of the jeep alone will remain. Otherwise also, the statement of PW. 3 Sandeep Kumar giving explanation for not mentioning the tyre impressions of tractor in Exhibit P-3 cannot be accepted and it cannot be believed that all the persons who were walked or ran on the spot will remove tyre impression of only tractor and tyre impression of the jeep alone will remain. Apart from it statement of the witnesses PW. 1 Mansha Ram, PW. 2 Krishna, PW. 3 Sandeep Kumar and PW. 4 Om Prakash do not find support from Exhibit P-3 and Exhibit P-3A. Witnesses said that vehicle did not cross the body of the deceased Tanuram, not even touched the ground after reaching the body of the deceased Tanuram whereas Exhibit P-3 discloses that the vehicle not only cross the body of the deceased Tanuram but it went far away from the body after crushing it. 15. Apart from it, neither the tractor was taken in custody nor it was examined by the Investigating Officer, despite the fact that even as per the prosecution allegation itself , a gandasi blow was hit on the tractor first. It is alleged by the defence that there were blood stains on the wheel of the tractor. No satisfactory answer has been given by the Investigating Officer Manohar Lal (PW. 11) why he did not examine the tractor, for which the defence has taken a stand that wheel of the tractor had blood over it. .16. From the above discussion, the case set up by the prosecution becomes doubtful. There appears to be an attempt to prepare a false story of sending tractor back to the house of Mansha Ram. .Statements of witnesses about jeep running over the deceased by Dharampal cannot be relied upon. In facts, there is every possibility that Tanuram might have been killed due to running of the tractor over him. 17. It will be worthwhile to mention here that the trial Court did not believe the story set up by the prosecution that accused Mahipat abetted the offence under Section 302, IPC, and hence acquitted the accused Mahipat from the charge under Section 302 read with Section 114, IPC. 18. Therefore, order of conviction of Dharmpal under Section 302, IPC cannot be maintained and appellant Dharmpal deserves to be acquitted for the charge of the offence under Section 302, IPC. 19. 18. Therefore, order of conviction of Dharmpal under Section 302, IPC cannot be maintained and appellant Dharmpal deserves to be acquitted for the charge of the offence under Section 302, IPC. 19. However, the trial Court apart from conviction of Dharampal under Section 302, IPC, convicted Dharampal, Chandra Bhan, Prem Kumar, Raji Ram and Nathu Ram under Section 147, IPC, and passed the sentence of three months R.I. on this count. The above accused were further convicted under Section 323/149, IPC and on this count, sentence of one months R.I. has been awarded. Accused Mahipat was also convicted under Section 323/149, IPC with sentence of one months R.I. Accused Dharampal has been convicted under Section 326/149, IPC whereas accused Mahipat has been convicted under Section 326, IPC, and both were awarded sentence of three years R.I. with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-and, in default of payment of fine, one months R.I. for offence under Section 326, IPC. Accused Chandra Bhan, Prem Kumar, Raji Ram and Nathu Ram have been further convicted under Section 147, IPC as well as under Section 341, IPC. Dharampal and Mahipat were also convicted for the offence under Section 341, IPC. The sentence awarded by the Court below under Section 341, IPC, is 15 days S.I. Chandra Bhan, Prem Kumar, Raji Ram and Nathu Ram who were also convicted under Section 326/149, IPC, have been awarded sentence of three years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-and in default, one months R.I. 20. After going through the reasons given in the impugned Judgment , we are of the view that the trial Court carefully considered the evidence of the witnesses PW . 1 Mansha Ram, PW . 2 Krishna Lal, PW . 3 Sandeep Kumar and PW . 4 Om Prakash, which finds full support from the evidence of the Doctors PW . 8 Dr. Rajendra Gupta and PW . 10 Dr. Hanuman Singh and X-ray reports Exhibit P-22, Exhibit P-23 and Exhibit P-24. We do not find any illegality in the reasons given by the Court below and we are satisfied that the prosecution fully proved the charge of offence committed by the accused Mahipat of inflicting grievous injuries on the head of Om Prakash by deadly weapon gandasi. 10 Dr. Hanuman Singh and X-ray reports Exhibit P-22, Exhibit P-23 and Exhibit P-24. We do not find any illegality in the reasons given by the Court below and we are satisfied that the prosecution fully proved the charge of offence committed by the accused Mahipat of inflicting grievous injuries on the head of Om Prakash by deadly weapon gandasi. The prosecution also proved that the complainant party was wrongfully restrained by the accused persons after forming an unlawful assembly to fulfill their own object of causing simple and grievous hurts by deadly weapons. Gandasi and wooden sticks were recovered, blood of human origin was found as per the FSL reports. The injuries were proved by oral as well as the medical reports. In view of the above, the conviction of the accused persons under the various section mentioned above, except under Section 302, IPC, against Dharampal are maintained. Dharampal is acquitted from the offence under Section 302, IPC. 21. Accused Dharampal is behind the bars. Rest of the accused persons are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled. They be taken in custody to serve out the sentences awarded to them. Accused persons will serve out their sentences as awarded to them. All the sentences will run concurrently. Accused Dharampal has served out his sentence as he is behind the bar since his arrest in 1998. The maximum sentence awarded to him is three years. The jail authorities will calculate the sentences and if found to have been served out, release accused forthwith if not required in any other case. The other accused persons will be arrested and sent to jail for serving out their sentences. 22. In view of the above discussion, both the appeals (S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 182/2000 and D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 232/2000) are partly allowed as indicated above.