Judgment V.K. Bali, J.-By this common order, we propose to dispose of all four D.B. Criminal Appeals bearing No. 436/1995, filed by Aziz @ Azizulla, 545/1997 Naeem Mulla Khan, 313/1995 Bhupendra Singh and 1211/2002 Jodhraj Singh as also the D.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 315/1995 Mukut Behari Sharma vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. Whereas Aziz @ Azizulla and Bhupendra Singh for incident leading to death of son of Mukut Behari were tried together and convicted by the learned trial Judge, vide order of conviction and sentence dated 06.05.1995, appellant Naeem Mulla with regard to same incident was tried separately and convicted vide Judgment dated 22.09.1997. Appellant Jodhraj Singh for the same incident was tried yet separately and convicted vide Judgment dated 22.07.2002. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the parties also suggest that all these matters need to be disposed of by a common Judgment , even though, the deposition of the witnesses if there be a variance in any of the trials may be separately deat with. 2. All the four appellants, named above, were tried for having committed murder of Lalla @ Vishva Priya son of Mukut Behari. As per the prosecution version, Vishva Priya was done to death on 112.1992 at about 6.00 p.m. The first information report (Exhibit P-19) with regard to incident was lodged at about 9.10 p.m. on the same date, even though, the formal FIR came to be recorded at 4.00 a.m. in theintervening night of 13/14th December, 1992. The FIR was lodged by Ashok Kumar, brother of the deceased. He handed over the report written by his father Mukut Behari to Mohanlal Chita. The special report with regard to incident reached the concerned Magistrate on 112.1992 at 5.00 p.m. 3. The written report on the basis of which the first information report was recorded when translated into English reads thus:-"Sir, it is requested that today on 13th December, 1992 in the evening when sun was setting at about 6.00 p.m. I and my uncle Mahendra Kumar Borandi were loading boxes (Pattia) which were lying on the road side in our Tractor. At that time, a Tempo came which belonged to Aziz @ Azizulla. In the Tempo, Aziz, his younger brother Naeem, Bhupendra @ Beechala, Jodhraj Singh R/o Hathikheda were sitting. They had sticks (Lathis), Dhariya, Ballam (Spear) and Iron rods etc. Two or three more persons were also sitting. At that time, a Tempo came which belonged to Aziz @ Azizulla. In the Tempo, Aziz, his younger brother Naeem, Bhupendra @ Beechala, Jodhraj Singh R/o Hathikheda were sitting. They had sticks (Lathis), Dhariya, Ballam (Spear) and Iron rods etc. Two or three more persons were also sitting. Two three days ago, deceased Lalla @ Vishva Priya had an altercation with Bhupendra Singh @ Beechla. Having enmity because of that they had came to Lalla with a plan to kill Lalla. I had doubt that because of the altercation, they might have come to fight with Lalla. Deceased Lalla was sitting at Nohara. I and my uncle Mahendra Singh proceeded towards Nohara immediately. At that place, Aziz, Bhupendra @ Beechala, Naeem the brother of Azeez and Jodhram were beating Lalla. No sooner, they saw us, they took their heels. Two or three persons also went with them. Lalla was lying near the house of Ghasi. We put him in a Tempo immediately and proceeded towards Kota and brought him to MBS Hospital, Kota. No sooner the doctor saw Lalla, he declared him dead. The accused be proceeded in accordance with law." 4. The prosecution in its endeavour to bring home the offence against the appellants examined PW. 11 Dr. Rakesh Kumar Sharma, who had conducted post-mortem of dead body of Vishva Priya at 09.45 a.m. on 112.1992. He stated that the dead body of the deceased was identified by his brotehr Ashok Kumar. The Doctor found the following injuries on the dead body of Vishva Priya. "1. Abrasion ¼ x ¼" on left shoulder posteriorily. 2. Lacerated wound 1" x ½" x B.D. vertical on left side of chin. 3. Lacerated wound 1" x ½" x 1" on left angle of mouth. 4. Lacerated wound 3" x 1" x 2" on fore head left side. Bone broken in pieces, brain matter, badly lacerated eye ball pushed inside. 4. 5. Abrasion 1" x ½" vertical on left cheek. 6. Lacerated wound 1" x ½" x ½" on left frontal parietal scalp. 7. Incised wound 4" x 2" x 2" transverse tempo parietal region left side, and 8. Bruise 1" x 1" on nose" 5. In the opinion of the doctor, the death was due to coma as a result of ante mortem head injury. 6. Lacerated wound 1" x ½" x ½" on left frontal parietal scalp. 7. Incised wound 4" x 2" x 2" transverse tempo parietal region left side, and 8. Bruise 1" x 1" on nose" 5. In the opinion of the doctor, the death was due to coma as a result of ante mortem head injury. The injuries on dead body of Vishva Priya were opined to be sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. 6. Ram Het the eye-witness of the occurrence who was examined as PW. 2 stated that he had seen the occurrence in which Vishva Priya was beaten on 112.1992 at about 5.00 to 5.30 p.m. He was with Lalla. He further stated that before going to village, he had first come to Nohara for taking meal from Ghasi. He enquired from the wife of Ghasi, who told him that Ghasi would be standing on the road side. He then came to the road where Lalla, Ghasi and Harish were standing. Lalla had told him to bring a bottle of liquor and then he and Pratap had gone to village to bring a bottle of liquor. Alok and Pratap were sitting on Scooter and after taking a bottle of liquor, he reached in the field and consumed the liquor. After taking liquor, when they were coming in the village that all four appellants Aziz, Bhupendra Beechala, Naeem and Jodhraj Singh were standing there with a tempo. They were armed with weapons. All the four started beating Lalla with sticks (Lathis) and spears. They hit Lalla on his head because of which he died. Naeem had a hockey with him. Bhupendra @ Bichala had a stick with him and Jodhraj Singh was armed with Gandasi. Bhupendra @ Bichala also hit Lalla on his head with stone because of which he died on spot. He ran from there out of fear. The accused ran towards him. In his cross-examination, he stated that first of all Aziz had given a lathi blow on head. All the four had beaten Lalla on his head. Because of the head injuries Lalla died and it is after the injuries given to him that he had died. Bhupendra hit a stone to Lalla by a stone weighing 14 to 15 Kilos. He stated that the occurrence had taken place in the village at the corner of the road. All the four had beaten Lalla on his head. Because of the head injuries Lalla died and it is after the injuries given to him that he had died. Bhupendra hit a stone to Lalla by a stone weighing 14 to 15 Kilos. He stated that the occurrence had taken place in the village at the corner of the road. He admitted that they were consuming the liquor while sitting at the tube well of Mathura Lal. He also admitted that near the place of occurrence, there is a locality in which there are houses and that 10 to 20 more persons were also present there, even though, he did not know any of those persons. The place where Lalla was lying down, lot of people had collected there. The people that may be present would be 10 to 15 meter away from where Lalla was lying. He also admitted that he did not see who had caused injuries to Lalla before he fell on the ground. 7. Ghasilal the another eye-witness of the occurrence also supported the prosecution version. There is no need to advert his cross-examination as the same was on similar lines as that of Ram Het. Ashok Kumar the brother of the deceased also supported the prosecution version. The other two eye-witnesses Alok Tripathi and Pratap Yadav did not support the prosecution version and they were declared hostile and cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor. Mohan Lal Chita deposed with regard to steps that he had taken while investigating the case. There is no need to give further details of the prosecution version as nothing based there upon has been urged before us by the learned Counsel for the appellants. 8. When examined under Section 313, CrPC, all the accused denied their participation in the commission of crime and further stated that they have falsely been implicated. Azizulla led evidence in defence to prove his non-presence at the scene of occurrence but there is no need to mention the said version, as, once again, nothing based upon the said evidence has been urged before us. 9. Learned Counsel for the appellants contends that nobody had seen Aziz @ Azizulla causing injuries to the deceased and further that which accused had caused which injury to the deceased is also not known. In the circumstances, it cannot be said with certainty as to which injury proved fatal. 9. Learned Counsel for the appellants contends that nobody had seen Aziz @ Azizulla causing injuries to the deceased and further that which accused had caused which injury to the deceased is also not known. In the circumstances, it cannot be said with certainty as to which injury proved fatal. He further contends that Bhupendra had hit the deceased with stone lying somewhere. No other accused knew that Bhupendra would pick up the stone lying somewhere at the spot and kill Vishva Priya @ Lalla. Lalla died because of head injury caused to him with a heavy weapon. The accused other than Bhupendra who were even not knowing that Bhupendra would pick up a heavy stone and crush the head cannot be convicted under Section 302, IPC with the aid of Section 34, IPC, as in the facts and circumstances of the case, they cannot be said to have shared the common intention of Bhupendra. He further contends that a considerable unexplained delay in lodging the first information report. The time was utilised by the prosecution in ascribing specific role to each of the accused. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the delay in lodging the FIR should be fatal to the prosecution case. 10. In respect of the Criminal Appeal No. 1211/2002 filed by appellant Jodhraj Singh, Mr. Biri Singh, learned Counsel representing him besides reiterating the contention of the learned Counsel representing the other appellants further contends that Jodhraj Singh was tried separately and that evidence in one case cannot be read in other. In so far as Ram Het and Ghasi are concerned, they did not support the prosecution version at all with regard to participation of Jodhraj Singh in the commission of crime and only on the deposition of Ashok Kumar who was not an eye-witness Jodhraj Singh, cannot be convicted. There was no evidence whatsoever, against Jodhraj Singh and in any case, he deserves to be acquitted. 11. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and with their assistance examined the record of the case. In the context and facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any merit in any of the appeals. The occurrence leading to the death of Lalla @ Vishva Priya had taken place at 7.6.00 p.m. on 112.1992. The first information report came to be lodged at 010. In the context and facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any merit in any of the appeals. The occurrence leading to the death of Lalla @ Vishva Priya had taken place at 7.6.00 p.m. on 112.1992. The first information report came to be lodged at 010. p.m. on the same very day even though, the formal FIR was registered at 4.00 a.m. on the intervening night of 13/112.1992. Death had taken place in the family and the first anxiety of the family members of Lalla @ Vishva Priya be his father Mukut Behari or his brother Ashok Kumar was to make every endeavour to save him. Vishva Priya was taken to hospital where the Doctor, stated that he had already died. It would certainly take sometime for the family members of the Vishva Priya to take him to the Doctor. Once, it became clear that Lalla @ Vishva Priya died, the father and the brother of the deceased last no time in lodging the FIR. It came to be recorded within three hours from the date of incident. We do not find any merit in the contentions of the learned Counsel for the appellants that there was an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR and the prosecution had utilised the time in involving all the four accused by giving a specific role to them leading to death of Vishva Priya. 12. Ram Het and Ghasi even though, known to the complainant party had no relation with them and had also no enmity with the appellants. They are indeed independent witnesses. They have fully supported the prosecution version and have stood the test of lengthy cross-examination. But for some minor variations in the statements made by them nothing material had been pointed out that may detract from their sworn testimony. It may be true, that both of them had consumed liquor with the deceased and may be deceased himself was involved in number of cases as is being suggested on the basis of evidence on record but that does not mean that the statement of eye-witnesses who might have consumed the liquor can be disbelieved unless it is proved that they had taken excessive liquor and were not in their senses. The mere fact that a person has a shady character and is involved in number of cases does not mean that anyone can cause his death for that reason alone. 13. In view of the testimony of these two witnesses namely Ramhet and Ghasi Ram, it cannot be said that Aziz @ Azizulla had not caused any injury to the deceased. These two witnesses have ascribed specific role to Aziz. Once again, the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants that what injuries were caused by whom is not known, cannot be accepted. The statements made by the two witnesses named above, involve all the four appellants, it is not material as to who had caused injury first and who had caused injury later. Once, participation and causing injuries by all the appellants is proved, it would not be material as to what injuries were caused and by whom. There is no substance in the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants that appellant Bhupendra Singh had hit the stone lying somewhere near the place of incident which resulted into the death of Vishva Priya and, therefore, the other accused cannot be held guilty for an offence under Section 302 with the aid of Section 34, IPC either. All the appellants had attacked Vishwa Priya with their respective weapons which they were holding. The attack was primarily on the head. It may be true, that the death might have been caused because of injury caused to deceased by a heavy stone and the stone might have been picked up from the spot but in the facts and circumstances of the case, when all the appellants had aimed the head of Vishva Priya and caused injuries to him accordingly, it cannot be said that they did not share the common intention of Bhupendra Singh who picked up the stone and caused injuries which crushed the head of Vishva Priya. 14. Alok Tripathi and Pratap Yadav have indeed not supported the prosecution version and were declared hostile and cross-examined by the P.P. Even after it is held that they were not present and had not seen the occurrence conviction of the appellants in the present case can be based upon that the deposition made by Ramhet and Ghasilal. 14. Alok Tripathi and Pratap Yadav have indeed not supported the prosecution version and were declared hostile and cross-examined by the P.P. Even after it is held that they were not present and had not seen the occurrence conviction of the appellants in the present case can be based upon that the deposition made by Ramhet and Ghasilal. In so far as the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant representing Jodhraj that Ramhet and Ghasilal had not supported the prosecution version is concerned, we may mention that while making the statements earlier in point of time against other appellants they named Jodh Raj as also one of the assailant. This statement they had made in a Court of Law after they were sworn. They supported the prosecution version in all its minute details when they appeared in trial held against Jodhraj but only did not name Jodhraj Singh as assailant. It is not a case where they might have changed their version for the one given by them to the police. They varied their version with regard to participating of Jodhraj Singh alone, from the earlier statements made by them in the Court. It is well settled that the Court can even rely upon the deposition made by a hostile witness. They have supported the entire prosecution version but for participation of Jodhraj Singh as mentioned above. They admitted that they had deposed against Jodhraj Singh as well when they appeared in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, No. 3 and Additional Sessions Judge, No. 4 Kota in the case of Aziz, Naeem and Bhupendra. They however, stated they had deposed against Jodhraj Singh on asking of the people of the village but they had not themselves seen Jodhraj Singh giving beating to deceased Lalla @ Vishva Priya. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the part of the statements made by them that they had mentioned the name of Jodhraj Singh as one of the accused on asking of the Villagers has to be disbelieved. It rather appears to us that Jodhraj Singh who became a proclaimed offender and was later arrested and tried utilised the time in winning over the eye-witnesses. Prima-facie it further appears to us that Ram Het and Ghasilal had purged while making the statements where they appeared as witnesses in the case against Jodhraj. It rather appears to us that Jodhraj Singh who became a proclaimed offender and was later arrested and tried utilised the time in winning over the eye-witnesses. Prima-facie it further appears to us that Ram Het and Ghasilal had purged while making the statements where they appeared as witnesses in the case against Jodhraj. As mentioned above, they named Jodhraj Singh as one of the accused who caused injury to deceased when they appeared against the other accused on two different occasions but changed their version with regard to participation of Jodhraj Singh when they appeared against him. They were administered and had taken, oath before they made their statements while appearing against the other accused. The changed version prima facie appears to be an offence committed by them under Section 193 of the IPC. In our considered view, they need to be prosecuted for an offence under Section 193, IPC. 15. We find no merit in either of the appeals mentioned above. The same are thus dismissed. The fate of the Criminal Revision would be no different and the same shall also stand dismissed as it is not rarest of rare cases where the appellants may deserve capital punishment. The Criminal Revision is also, therefore, dismissed. 16. Issue notice to Ramhet and Ghasilal as to why they should not be prosecuted for offence under Section 193, IPC.