Judgment B. Prasad, J.-The present appeal has been filed by the appellants being convicted by the Judgment of the Special Judge (SC/ST Cases) Merta City dated 27th August, 2003. 2. By the Judgment impugned, the learned trial Court had convicted the accused appellants as under: Name of the appellants. The offence for Conviction. Sentence Mohanlal 148, 460, 302, 302/149, 326, 324/149, 323/149 Life imprisonment and Rs. 5,000/-fine, in default one years additional simple imprisonment and various allied sentences for other offences as mentioned in the impugned Judgment . Chhotaram 147, 460, 302/149, 326/149, 324/149, and 323/149, IPC. Life imprisonment and Rs. 5,000/-fine, in default one years additional simple imprisonment and various allied sentences for the other offences as mentioned in the impugned Judgment . Kuna Ram 147, 460, 302/149, 323, 326/149, 324/149, 323/149 IPC. Life imprisonment and Rs. 5,000/-fine, in default one years additional simple imprisonment and various allied sentences for the other offences as mentioned in the impugned Judgment . Jagdish s/o Rama Ram 147, 460, 302/149, 326/149, 324/149, and 323/149, IPC Life imprisonment and Rs. 5,000/-fine, in default one years additional simple imprisonment and various allied sentences for the other offences as mentioned in the impugned Judgment . Muna Lal 147, 460, 302/149, 323, 326/149, 324/149 and 323/149, IPC Life imprisonment and Rs. 5,000/-fine, in default one years additional simple imprisonment and various allied sentences for the other offences as mentioned in the impugned Judgment . Jai Singh @ Jagdish s/o Kuna Ram 147, 460, 302/149, 326/149, 324/149 and 323/149, IPC Life imprisonment and Rs. 5,000/-fine, in default one years additional simple imprisonment and various allied sentences for the other offences as mentioned in the impugned Judgment . Kailash 147, 460,302/149, 326/149, 324/149 and 323/149, IPC Life imprisonment and Rs. 5,000/-fine, in default one years additional simple imprisonment and various allied sentences for the other offences as mentioned in the impugned Judgment . Sohan Lal 147, 460, 302/149, 326/149, 323, 324/149 and 323/149, IPC Life imprisonment and Rs. 5,000/-fine, in default one years additional simple imprisonment and various allied sentences for the other offences as mentioned in the impugned Judgment . Om Prakash 148, 460, 302, 302/149, 326/149 and 323/149, IPC Life imprisonment and Rs. 5,000/-fine, in default additional imprisonment and allied sentences under the other offences mentioned in the impugned Judgment . Hanuman Ram 148, 460, 302, 302/149, 326/149, 324 and 323/149, IPC Life imprisonment and Rs. Om Prakash 148, 460, 302, 302/149, 326/149 and 323/149, IPC Life imprisonment and Rs. 5,000/-fine, in default additional imprisonment and allied sentences under the other offences mentioned in the impugned Judgment . Hanuman Ram 148, 460, 302, 302/149, 326/149, 324 and 323/149, IPC Life imprisonment and Rs. 5,000/-fine, in default additional imprisonment and allied sentences under the other offences mentioned in the impugned Judgment . Pukhraj 148, 460, 302/149, 326/149, 324 and 323/149, IPC Life imprisonment and Rs. 5,000/-fine, in default additional imprisonment and allied sentences under the other offences mentioned in the impugned Judgment .” 3. The prosecution case started with the lodging of the First Information Report with the Police Station Merta City where FIR No. 49/1999 was registered on the basis of a statement of Chhotu Lal PW. 2, an injured eye-witness. His statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer Merta City while he was admitted in the hospital. 4. According to the statement so made in the first information report, injured Chhotu Lal stated that while he, Bhanwarlal Sharavan Ram and Motiram were sitting in their own house, all the accused persons came and started assaulting them. At that time Kailash, s/o Dhonkalram, and Radhey Shyam, s/o Bhanwarlal who were standing there intervened and got the parties separated. In this attack his brother Motiram died at the spot and Shravan Ram died in JLN Hospital, Ajmer, where he was shifted for treatment. Apart form Chhotulal, other persons were also injured in this incident. On the basis of the allegation, the case was investigated and the charge-sheet was filed against the accused persons. The accused appellants were charged for various offences falling under Sections 147, 148, 452, 302, 302/149, 307, 326, 324 and 323/149. The accused denied the charges and claimed trial. 5. At the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 34 witnesses and tendered 91 documents in evidence. Under Section 313-statement accused Mohan Lal claimed innocence explaining that he had his right thumb fractured and at the time of incident his hand was incapacitated and, therefore, the allegations against him are baseless. Accused Pukhraj in his statement has stated that while they were sitting in their chowk, the accused came armed and assaulted them. In that assault he and Sohanlal got injured and they were taken to hospital for treatment. Ten witnesses were examined in defence. Accused Pukhraj in his statement has stated that while they were sitting in their chowk, the accused came armed and assaulted them. In that assault he and Sohanlal got injured and they were taken to hospital for treatment. Ten witnesses were examined in defence. The trial Court considered the statement of various witnesses who were examined by the prosecution. 6. It was noticed by the Court that PW. 1 Bhalaram has stated that at about 9.00 p.m. on the day of holi, he had gone to his friend Chhotu Rams house for meals for which he was invited. At the house of Chhotu Ram, Shravan, Moti Ram and Chhotu Ram were sitting in the Court yard, After his arrival Chhotu Ram called his wife and told her that Bhala Ram has come and, therefore, the food may be served. While the wife of Chhotu Ram had gone inside for arranging the dinner the accused came armed. Mohan Lal, Om Prakash & Hanuman had sword in their hands, Pukhraj had pharsi, Kailash was armed with a hocky stick and the other accused were armed with lathis. 7. After their arrival, Mohan gave sword blow on the head of Chhotu Lal injured. The injured started running to save themselves. In this process, while Motiram was trying to escape, Hanuman gave a sword blow on his hand and Mohanlal gave a sword blow on his neck, with this Motiram fell there. While he fell down, Pukhraj gave a pharsi blow on his neck. The women folk of the family tried to rescue. They were, Manju, Prem, Ganga, Guddi, Santosh and Teejni. While this witness was trying to escape, Hanuman gave a sword blow on his hand and Om Prakash gave a sword blow on his head. Thereafter, Hanuman hit Shravan Ram by sword on hand and Om Prakash gave a sword blow on Shravan Ram. Pukhraj gave a pharsi blow on the shoulder of Shravan. Kailash gave a hocky blow and Punaram gave a stick blow. According to this witness, the women folk who intervened in the quarrel were also assaulted by these accused persons. He had seen Kailash, s/o Dhonkalram Kailash s/o Motiram and Radhey Shyam standing there. After that Kailash and Ramsukh brought jeep and in that jeep Chhoturam, Shravan and Motiram were shifted to Merta hospital from where Shravan and Chhoturam were referred to Ajmer. He had seen Kailash, s/o Dhonkalram Kailash s/o Motiram and Radhey Shyam standing there. After that Kailash and Ramsukh brought jeep and in that jeep Chhoturam, Shravan and Motiram were shifted to Merta hospital from where Shravan and Chhoturam were referred to Ajmer. Shravan was declared dead on reaching the hospital and Chhoturam was hospitalised for 11 days. Motiram had died at Merta itself . 8. PW. 2 Chhoturam is the injured eye-witness of the incident. His statement has been considered by the trial judge in his Judgment where in he has stated that Chhoturam, Motiram and Shravan were sitting in the court yard, and they were waiting for Bhallaram. On his arrival, he asked his wife to serve the dinner. While she had gone to arrange for the dinner the accused came with arms and after arrival accused Mohanlal gave a sword blow on his head. He shouted and the women folk arrived. While his brother Motiram tried to make his escape good, Hanuman gave a sword blow on his hand and while he was getting out, accused Mohanlal gave a sword blow on his neck on which Motiram fell on the ground. While he fell down, Pukhraj gave a pharsi blow on his leg. Hanuman gave a sword blow on the hand of Shravan Ram. Accused Om Prakash gave a sword blow on the head of Shravan on which Shravan fell down. After falling, Pukhraj gave a pharsi blow on the shoulder of Shravan. The women folk who intervened were also assaulted by the accused persons. 9. The trial Court has also noticed the statements of PW. 3 Kailash, who is an eye-witness. PW. 4 Kailash Singh is an eye-witness. PW. 5 Radhey Shyam is an eye-witness. PW. 6 Smt. Prem is an injured eye-witness. PW. 7 Manju is an injured eye-witness. PW. 8 Guddi is an injured eye-witness. PW. 9 Santosh is an injured eye witness. PW. 10 Ganga is an injured eye-witness. The account of the incident given by these witnesses is almost identical. PW. 11 Dr. R.K. Mathur conducted post-mortem of the body of deceased Shravan. On his person he has found three incised wounds and one abrasion. The injuries of deceased Shravan Ram are as follows:- Shravan Ram s/o Roopa Ram; “(1) Incised wound-amputation of Rt. Forearm. Rt. The account of the incident given by these witnesses is almost identical. PW. 11 Dr. R.K. Mathur conducted post-mortem of the body of deceased Shravan. On his person he has found three incised wounds and one abrasion. The injuries of deceased Shravan Ram are as follows:- Shravan Ram s/o Roopa Ram; “(1) Incised wound-amputation of Rt. Forearm. Rt. whole forearm cut out including radius & ulmabone near elbow joint Large Vesels, Arteries, musells and skin, bones cutted out by sharp weapon. Only skin plamp on posterior supnater surface supporting forearm. Hanging of whole forearm by the small flamp of skin only 4 cm size.- Grievous Sharp - An old scar back side of chest near Rt. Scapula region - Fresh injury. .(2) Incised wound. 6 cm x 2 cm x 0.5 cm Fresh bleeding present - Oceipitopasclar region of head. Grievous-Sharp-Fresh injury. .(3) Incised wound 3 cm x 2 cm x 1 cm fresh bleeding. Lt. hand near wrist joint Simple Sharp Fresh injury. .(4) Abrasion G.C. Low 2 cm x 1 cm fresh bleeding - Left Forearm - Simple - Blunt - Fresh injury.” 10. PW. 13 Dr. Mohanram Jakhar had examined the injured persons and he had prepared the injury reports of Shravan, Bhalaram and Chhotulal. The injuries of Bhala ram and Chhotu Lal are as follows: Bhala Ram, s/o Moti Ram-“(1) Incised wound - 2 cm x 1cm x 0.5 cm- Fresh bleeding - Occipital region of head - Simple -Sharp - Duration - Fresh. .(2) Abrasion 2 cm x 0.5 cm Fresh bleeding - Rt. Great toe of Rt. foot - Simple - Blunt - Duration - Fresh. .(3) Incised wound - 3 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm - Fresh - Left - Left forearm near elbow joint - Simple - Sharp - Duration - Fresh. .(4) Lacerated wound - 2cm x 1cm x 0.5 - Fresh - Left hand - Blunt- Duration Fresh.” Chhotu Lal s/o Roopa Ram- .(1) Incised wound 3 cm x 2 cmx 1 cm Fresh bleeding - Bone deep -Right vacipated Parietal region. -Sharp - An old scar Rt. Knee joint - Duration - Fresh. .(2) Abrasion 1cm x 0.5 cm - Fresh bleeding - Mid of sterning on chest - Simple - Blunt - Duration Fresh.” 11. Injured ladies, Smt. Prem, Smt. Manju, Kum. Santosh, Kum. Guddi and Smt. Ganga were also examined. -Sharp - An old scar Rt. Knee joint - Duration - Fresh. .(2) Abrasion 1cm x 0.5 cm - Fresh bleeding - Mid of sterning on chest - Simple - Blunt - Duration Fresh.” 11. Injured ladies, Smt. Prem, Smt. Manju, Kum. Santosh, Kum. Guddi and Smt. Ganga were also examined. Their injury reports are Exhibit P 16 to Exhibit P 20. They had sustained simple injuries. Postmortem of deceased Motiram was also conducted by PW. 13. He had sustained following injuries. This very witness had examined accused Pukhraj and Sohanlal. Their injury reports are D/10 and D/11. Their injuries are as follows:- Pukhraj s/o Shanwarlal “ (1) Incised wound - 4 cm x 1 cm x 1cm - Fresh bond deep - Left side of Parietal region of head.......- Sharp - Fresh. .(2) Bruise - 1cm x 1cm - Dark reddish - Left arm - Lateral side- Simple - Blunt - Fresh. .(3) Abrasion - 1cm x 0.5 cm - Fresh bleeding - Left side of Forearm near writ joint - Simple - Blunt- Fresh.” Sohan Lal s/o Bhanwar Lal -“(1) Incised wound - 4 cm x 2cm x 1cm - Fresh Bleeding present Bone deep-bone exposed - Right hand near writ joint. -Grievous - Sharp Fresh. .(2) Abrasion 1cm x 0.5 cm - Fresh bleeding - Left thigh middle part lateral side - Simple - Blunt - fresh. .(3) Lacerated wound 3cm x 1cm x 0.5 cm - Fresh - Right thigh middle part. -Simple - Blunt -Fresh.” 12. The trial Court had considered the case of the prosecution and as that of the defence. 13. In defence, accused has examined Dr. Harish Chandra Lamoria who speaks of injury to the thumb of the right hand of the accused Mohanlal. The other doctors who have been examined to support the version, is DW. 2 Dr. Ashok Narania. DW. 3 Ram Chandra, DW. 7 Lunaram and DW. 10 Nemaram are the witnesses who speak about the identity of the accused Jai Singh. DW. 5 is Dr. C.P. Swarnakar who had done the X-rays of Sohanlal. DW. 6 is Dr. Jagdish Jugtawat. He had opined about the injuries of accused Pukhraj. The injury of accused Pukhraj on his head was found to be simple and on the right hand to be grievous. DW. 8 Kishore and DW. DW. 5 is Dr. C.P. Swarnakar who had done the X-rays of Sohanlal. DW. 6 is Dr. Jagdish Jugtawat. He had opined about the injuries of accused Pukhraj. The injury of accused Pukhraj on his head was found to be simple and on the right hand to be grievous. DW. 8 Kishore and DW. 9 Devilal are the witnesses who state that they had seen quarrel at the house of Pukhraj. 14. The trial Court, after considering the case of both the parties, came to the conclusion that a First Information Report which is alleged by the accused to be a post investigation document, is not a conclusion which can be said to be supported by the facts obtaining on record. The information received on phone by SHO Jahangir Khan was only cursory and scanty information and, therefore, that information did not constitute a formal information about a cognizable offence. The statement recorded by the Investigating Officer of injured Chhoturam in hospital has rightly been considered as a First Information Report by the prosecution the same has been marked as Exhibit P 2. 15. The trial Court, further observed that both the parties had deep rooted animosity and there was litigation pending in between both the parties. The trial Court has considered that in the First Information Report there is no description given of the various parts played by the accused. The trial Court has considered that the First Information Report contains basic details. It cannot be said that the information contained in the First Information Report will not be sufficient if it did not contain the injuries of the ladies and the weapon used by them. It will not have the effect of negating that part of the prosecution. 16. The learned trial Court has further considered the question of the scene of occurrence. The prosecution has alleged that the incident had taken place in the Court yard of Chhotu Lal and the witness has come with a story that the incident had taken place inside the house of Pukhraj whereas the incident has occurred partly in the lane also. The trial Court, after considering the case that there was no light inside the house of Pukhraj and the sword was found within the house of Chhotu Lal and, therefore, on that count also the defence version was not accepted by the trial Court. 17. The trial Court, after considering the case that there was no light inside the house of Pukhraj and the sword was found within the house of Chhotu Lal and, therefore, on that count also the defence version was not accepted by the trial Court. 17. As regards the basic case of the prosecution, contained in the statement of various witnesses, the trial Court has come to the conclusion that the witnesses in their cross-examination has withstood the test, the case has not been diluted in cross-examination and, therefore, the story of the prosecution witnesses have been believed by the trial Court. The case of the defence has also been examined in the light of the injuries sustained by Pukhraj and Sohanlal. The injuries of Sohanlal and Pukhraj are of the nature that Sohanlal had sustained a fracture near the right hand wrist and Pukhraj also had simple injuries. The injuries were not such as would require explanation by the prosecution and according to the trial Court when so many people make an assault on a group of people, such injuries are liable to be sustained. 18. As regards the defence of Mohanlal about his right hand, the trial Court has observed that the arrest memo of Mohanlal Exhibit P 14 makes a mention that on his right hand there is an old bondage. No Plaster is referred in the arrest memo. Further, on his arrest memo he had signed. If his right thumb was not in a position to be used then he would not have been in a position to append his signatures on the arrest memo. The trial Court has found that on the day of incident, he was in a position to use his right hand normally. The trial Court has also noticed the statement of PW. 1 Nema Ram who has stated that Mohanlal has been seen driving motor cycle two-three days prior to the incident. In that view of the matter the defence of Mohanlal that his right hand was not in a position to be used, was negated by the trial Court. 19. The suggestion of defence that independent witnesses were not produced was also not accepted by the trial Court. The trial Court has found that so many injured witnesses have been examined, which lead no scope for examination of further witnesses. The trial Court, further considered the case of several witnesses. 19. The suggestion of defence that independent witnesses were not produced was also not accepted by the trial Court. The trial Court has found that so many injured witnesses have been examined, which lead no scope for examination of further witnesses. The trial Court, further considered the case of several witnesses. Since, the accused had gone as assailants to the house of the victims, it cannot be said that the injuries caused by them were in exercise of the right of private defence. No probable defence has been produced by the accused and on that ground the trial Court came to the conclusion that the scope of right of private defence cannot be made available to the accused. 20. Jai Singh and Kuna Ram accused had pleaded alibi but there is no sustainable evidence produced by them and, therefore, plea of alibi was not accepted by the trial Court. The defence suggestion that there was no light at the time of the occurrence was also not accepted by the trial Court because it was a moonlit night on the occasion of holy and the incident had occurred in the Court yard of the accused where there was sufficient light available. The trial Court has also disbelieved the defence argument regarding the partision attitude of the Investigating Officer. The question of recoveries has not been considered, as the trial Court felt that it is not a case of circumstantial evidence and is based on direct evidence. The identity of Jagdish, as disputed by the defence, was not accepted. 21. Finally the trial Court came to the conclusion that since all the accused persons came together and caused the injuries and, therefore, they had shared the common object, and convictions have been recorded with the aid of Section 149. 22. Mr. D.K. Gaur, who was at one point of time representing the accused appellants submitted that he had been instructed by the accused persons to hand over the file to them and hence he is not in a position to argue the case. No other Counsel agreed to appear and argue the case. Therefore, he was appointed amicus curiae in the back ground that he had prepared the case and he submitted that he was ready to assist the Court. In that view of the matter he was directed to appear as amicus curiae. No other Counsel agreed to appear and argue the case. Therefore, he was appointed amicus curiae in the back ground that he had prepared the case and he submitted that he was ready to assist the Court. In that view of the matter he was directed to appear as amicus curiae. The learned Counsel representing the accused submitted that in the statement of the eye-witnesses specification is only made against four accused persons for causing various injuries. All other accused persons have been implicated in an omnibus manner. Referring to the statement of PW. 1 Bhala Ram, the learned Counsel submitted that this witness, PW. 1 Bhala Ram in his statement has stated that the deceased Motiram was assaulted by one Hanumanram on his hand, by accused Mohan Ram on neck, by accused Pukhraj on leg. Similarly, deceased Shravan was assaulted by accused Hanumanram on hand, by Om Prakash on head, by Pukhraj on shoulder. Balaram has also spoken about his injury which have been attributed to accused Hanumanram on his head and accused Om Prakash on hand. Learned Counsel also drew the attention of the Court towards the statement of the injured PW. 2 Chhotulal. He has also stated that deceased Motiram was assaulted by Hanumanram on hand, accused Mohanlal on neck and accused Pukhraj on leg. This witness has deposed about the injuries of deceased Shravan. 23. According to him, accused Hanuman Ram assaulted on hand, accused Om Prakash on head and accused Pukhraj on shoulder. If a serious reading is given to the statement of these two witnesses, according to the learned Counsel, the injuries were inflicted on the deceased by accused Hanuman Ram, Mohanlal, Pukhraj and Om Prakash only. All other accused persons have only been attributed omnibus allegations. In this background, the learned Counsel emphasised that it is a case of over implications. The deceased and their number of injuries can only prove that the number of accused persons could not have been as large as has been stated in the First Information Report. Thus, it is a case of exaggeration and over implication of the accused persons. In this background, the learned Counsel emphasised that it is a case of over implications. The deceased and their number of injuries can only prove that the number of accused persons could not have been as large as has been stated in the First Information Report. Thus, it is a case of exaggeration and over implication of the accused persons. The learned Counsel further urged that the witness Bhala Ram was not at the scene of occurrence from inception if his police statement is considered because he was contradicted by his statement recorded by the police which states that when he heard the cries, he reached there, whereas the case of the prosecution is that he had reached the house of Chhoturam and thereafter the accused had come. 24. The learned Counsel has further drawn out attention to the fact that name of the ladies and their presence is not as pronounced in the statement of these witnesses, as has been made out. Thus, according to the learned Counsel, the prosecution case is not based on correct facts. The learned Counsel further urged that implication of the accused under Section 302/149 would not in any case be made out because the injuries sustained by the deceased is at the hands of four accused persons, namely, Mohan Lal, Hanumanram, Om Prakash, and Pukhraj. All others have been implicated by omnibus allegations. In this background, it would be improper if an inference is drawn under Section 149 of the common object shared by the 11 accused persons. 25. According to the learned Counsel, if the implication of Section 149 is not proved then each individual has to be seen to be guilty of the offence committed by him individually. In this background the learned Counsel submitted that accused Mohanlal, Hanumanram and Om Prakash have been charged with 302 simplicitor alongwith Section 302 read with 149. All other accused persons have been charged for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 149, IPC. The other accused persons, cannot be convicted of the offence under Section 302 simplicitor because they are not alleged to have caused any specific injury. The learned Counsel further stated that the nature of injuries as submitted, are not of the magnitude wherein death was intended to be caused. The other accused persons, cannot be convicted of the offence under Section 302 simplicitor because they are not alleged to have caused any specific injury. The learned Counsel further stated that the nature of injuries as submitted, are not of the magnitude wherein death was intended to be caused. It was a case of assault based on animosity but then the accused cannot be inflicted to have caused death of the deceased. 9.26. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor urged that no doubt only four accused persons are said to have caused injuries to the deceased, as specifically mentioned and the other accused persons have only been added to have caused injuries to the deceased in an omnibus manner but that does not wash out the offence as regards the accused persons. The learned Public Prosecutor urged that the omission in the statement of PW. 1 is only of insignificant nature and that does not affect the prosecution case in its entirety. As regards the presence of the ladies, they had not been there at the instance when the accused came but they joined later and, therefore, their presence came on a point of time which is not in the immediate proximity of the start of the assault. Since, they arrived late there, their mention has been made by the ladies themselves and injuries on their persons speak of the assault made by the accused and that establish the participation of the accused persons qua their injures and their conviction under Sections then 302/149. 10.27. We have heard the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and have given our thoughtful consideration. 128. The injured eye-witness PW. 1 Bhalaram and PW. 2 Chhotu Lal have described the part played by each of the accused persons in detail, as regards the four accused persons Mohanlal, Hanumanram, Om Prakash and Pukhraj. Both of them are injured eye witnesses. In their cross-examination the basic case of the prosecution has not been shaken up. If the prosecution witnesses stand by the case of the prosecution in cross-examination, then reliance can be placed on them. In this background, participation of the four accused persons, namely, Mohanlal, Hanumanram, Om Prakash and Pukhraj in inflicting injuries on the deceased, stands amply proved. 29. The infirmities pointed out by the learned Counsel for the appellant in the statements of Bhalaram are insignificant. In this background, participation of the four accused persons, namely, Mohanlal, Hanumanram, Om Prakash and Pukhraj in inflicting injuries on the deceased, stands amply proved. 29. The infirmities pointed out by the learned Counsel for the appellant in the statements of Bhalaram are insignificant. They are not sufficient to shake the basic testimony regarding the incident. His injuries speak of his presence and are being corroborated by the testimony of PW. 2 Chhotulal, whose house was the scene of occurrence. It gives ample assurance to the conscience of the Court that assault was made at the place alleged by the prosecution. The attempt of the defence in shifting the scene of occurrence has not found favour with the trial Court. We also feel that the scene of occurrence was the house of Chhotulal. Assault has taken place as narrated by the witnesses, because there was no circumstantial evidence available at the place where the defence has alleged that the occurrence has taken place, whereas, the house of Chhotulal, the circumstances exist to establish that the occurrence had taken place only there. 30. It is also to be looked into that merely because the prosecution witnesses have named a number of other persons as assailants of the deceased, it by itself would not affect the basic case of the prosecution. Those accused persons had also participated in the occurrence, crime, they had caused injuries to the other witnesses and, therefore, during the occurrence, if their participation has been a little exaggerated then the Court will have to take an exercise of segregation of chaff from the grain. Principles of falsus in uno falsus in omnibus cannot be improped. In this process we find that the participation of accused Mohanlal, Hanumanram, Om Prakash and Pukhraj have been deposed by the witnesses, to cause injureis to deceased. The other accused persons looking to the injuries to the deceased cannot be held to have participated in causing injuries to the deceased. Their participation was not alleged as specific. It was only an omnibus accusition. 2.31. Accused Mohanlal come with a specific plea that his right hand was incapacitated because of injury to the right thumb. Medical evidence in this score is very shaky and discrepant. As is available on record, we find that on the day when Mohanlal was arrested, he only had a dirty bandage on his hand. 2.31. Accused Mohanlal come with a specific plea that his right hand was incapacitated because of injury to the right thumb. Medical evidence in this score is very shaky and discrepant. As is available on record, we find that on the day when Mohanlal was arrested, he only had a dirty bandage on his hand. He was in a position to use his thumb because he could append his signature on the arrest memo. He has also been seen driving motorcycle. The Doctors are also not giving consistent evidence to sustain the claim by the accused. It was an old fracture and styling it to suit the defence, an attempt was made by the accused. This kind of attempt shows that the defence has no compunction. It had tried to use every possible opportunity to save its skin. In that background, the defence deserves a serious scrutiny and in that view of the matter, the findings of the trial Court, as regards the four accused persons, namely Mohanlal, Hanumanram, Om Prakash and Pukhraj, deserves to be upheld. 3.32. Since, the number of injuries on the deceased Shravanram and Motiram show that there could not have been more assailants then the one named by PW. 1 Bhalaram and PW. 2 Chhotulal it does not stand to reason that implication of the other accused persons with the aid of Section 149, IPC be sustained. We are of the considered opinion that apart from these four accused persons named by the two eye-witnesses, offence against other accused persons is not made out under Sections 302/149, IPC. 4.33. The three accused persons Mohanlal, Hanumanram and Om Prakash have been charged with the offence under Section 302 simplicitor, Therefore, sustaining their conviction under Section 302 simplicitor is natural consequence of the statement of the prosecution witnesses. As regards the accused Pukhraj, against whom the charge has not been framed under Section 302 simplicitor, but then he was facing the charge under Section 302/149. The accused was aware of the fact that he has been charged under Section 302/149 for causing the death of deceased Shravan and Motiram. He has been alleged to have caused injury to the deceased. Therefore, his conviction under Section 302 read with Section 149, IPC is changed to Section 302, IPC simplicitor. No prejudice is seen in this process to the accused. He has been alleged to have caused injury to the deceased. Therefore, his conviction under Section 302 read with Section 149, IPC is changed to Section 302, IPC simplicitor. No prejudice is seen in this process to the accused. As regards the other accused persons, namely Mohanlal, Hanumanram and Om Prakash, their conviction under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC is not required to be sustained as they have been convicted under Section 302, IPC simplicitor. 5.34. As regards the conviction of all the accused persons under Sections 147, 148, 460, 326, 326/149, 324, 324/149, 323, 323/149 is maintained. The accused persons have been implicated by injured eye-witnesses. Their conviction on that count is sustained. 6.35. The conviction of the three accused persons, Mohanlal, Hanumanram and Om Prakash is sustained under Section 302, IPC. The conviction of accused Pukhraj is altered from 302/149, IPC to 302, IPC. They have been sentenced to life. Their sentence of life is maintained. 36. As regards all the accused persons, who have been convicted and awarded various sentences, as has been detailed in the chart given in the start of the Judgment , is maintained. It is considered appropriate that their substantive sentences as already undergone by them will meet the ends of justice. In that background whatever substantive sentence already undergone by them is considered sufficient to meet out the ends of justice for their conviction for various offences. Their sentence of fine is, however, maintained. 7.37. In the result the appeal is partly allowed. Accused Mohanlal, Hanumanram, Om Prakash and Pukhraj are convicted under Section 302, IPC and sentenced to life. As regards all the accused persons, including these, their conviction as awarded by the trial Court is maintained under Sections 147, 148, 460, 326, 326/149, 324, 324/149, 323 and 323/149. However, their sentences are modified. Their substantive sentences, as already undergone are considered sufficient to meet out the sentence. However, the sentences of fine are maintained. The accused are behind the bars. They should serve out the sentence of life as awarded to them. 38. Accused Chhotaram s/o Bala Ram, Kuna Ram, s/o Gopi Ram, Jagdish, s/o Rama Ram, Mun