Judgment Nirmal Singh, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by appellants Mansha Ram, Sat Pal, Prithvi, Mewa Singh, Mohinder, Isham, Rohtash, Aman Kumar and Sultan against the judgment/Order dated 29/30.10.1996 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal vide which they were convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year each under Section 148 IPC. They were further directed to undergo imprisonment for life under Sections 302/149 and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo R.I. for six months each. However, both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The complainant has also filed Criminal Revision No. 35 of 1997 for enhancement of the sentence from life to death punishment and also for enhancement of compensation. Since, both the cases have arisen out of the same judgment and order passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Kaithal, those are being disposed of by this common judgment. 3. The prosecution story in brief is that on 25.7.1995 at about 8.30/9 a.m., Jagga Singh and Jagdish, nephews of complainant Bhartu, were going to their fields in a bullock-cart, which was being driven by Jagir Singh son of Jagga Singh. Complainant Bhartu and Jaraso wife of Jagdish were following them. When the bullock-cart reached near the fields of Nishan Singh, accused Mewa Singh son of Mansha Ram armed with Gandasi, Pala son of Mansha Ram armed with Jaili, Mohinder, Amnu sons of Mewa Singh and Isham son of Lakhpat, all armed with Bhallas, Sultan son of Lakhpat armed with Gandasi, Prithvi son of Dhan Singh armed with Gandasi and Rohtash son of Sat Pal @ Pal armed with Gandasi all of a sudden came from the side of their fields and stopped the bullock-cart. Mewa Singh abused them and raised Lalkara to cut Jagga Singh and Jagdish into pieces and to finish the dispute of Dol for ever. On this, all the eight accused started giving injuries to Jagga Singh and Jagdish Singh with their respective weapons. However, Jaraso and complainant. Bhartu could not go near the injured as the attack was pre-planned. Jagga Singh and Jagdish Singh being empty-handed could not resist and fell down from the bullock-cart due to the injuries sustained by them. Then the complainant, Jaraso and Jagir Singh raised alarm"Bachao-Bachao". But nobody was present there to help them. However, Jaraso and complainant. Bhartu could not go near the injured as the attack was pre-planned. Jagga Singh and Jagdish Singh being empty-handed could not resist and fell down from the bullock-cart due to the injuries sustained by them. Then the complainant, Jaraso and Jagir Singh raised alarm"Bachao-Bachao". But nobody was present there to help them. When the accused were sure that Jagga Singh and Jagdish Singh have died, they went away from the spot with their respective weapons. Thereafter, Bhartu left Jagir Singh beside the dead bodies of Jagdish and Jagga Singh and went to the Police Station for lodging the FIR. On his statement, FIR was registered against all the accused and investigation was started by ASI Ram Pal. The accused were apprehended on 1.8.1995. 4. After completion of investigation, challans against the accused were presented in the Court under Sections 302/148/149 IPC. The case was committed to the Court to Sessions being triable by the said Court. 5. To prove the case, the prosecution examined PW 1 Bhartu, complainant, PW2 Jagir Singh, an eye-witness to the occurrence, PW3 Dr. S. Dabas, who conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead-bodies of Jagga Singh and Jagdish Singh, PW4 Rattan Lal, Patwari, who prepared the scaled site-plan, PW5 Vijay Kumar, who proved on record FIR No. 123/93, PW6 Ram Chander, PW7 ASI Ram Lal, I.O. of the case, PW8 Sub Inspector Dhanna Ram. 6. The accused were examined under Section 313 Cr. P.C. to explain the incriminating circumstance appearing in the prosecution evidence. They pleaded innocence and alleged false implication. Accused Mewa and Pala are sons of Mansha, whereas Lakhpat and Prithvi are sons of Dhan Singh, who is brother of Mansha. It is also admitted that Isham Singh and Sultan Singh are sons of Lakhpat, whereas Sukhbir and Rohtash are sons of Pala son of Mansha. It is also admitted to be correct that Mohinder and Amnu are sons of accused Mewa sons of Mansha. It is also admitted to be correct that their lands and those of Jagdish and Jagga are adjoining and there had been a dispute over a common Dol between their fields. It is also admitted to be correct that there were cross cases between Bhartu-complainant, on the one hand, and accused Mansha, on the other hand, which were pending during the days of occurrence. They, however, denied the occurrence. It is also admitted to be correct that there were cross cases between Bhartu-complainant, on the one hand, and accused Mansha, on the other hand, which were pending during the days of occurrence. They, however, denied the occurrence. They stated that it was in fact a blind double murder having taken place in the wee hours of the morning. People of the village had found the two dead-bodies after sun-rise and there was Rolla in the village and the people gathered there. Accused Mansha had specifically alleged that Sat Pal was not in the village and had gone on 24.7.1995 to attend the duty at Kaithal at about noon and till afternoon of 25.7.1995 he was on duty. 7. The accused were called to lead defence. In defence, accused Pala examined DW1 Amrit Singh, Incharge Booking Branch, Haryana Roadways, Kaithal, DW2 Hoshiar Singh, DW3 Kehar Singh, DW 4 Hawa Singh, DW 5 Tek Chand, conductor and DW6 Om Parkash. 8. The learned trial Court, after hearing the defence counsel and learned PP for the State found the appellants guilty and convicted and sentenced them vide judgment and order dated 29/30.10.1996 as stated in Paragraph 1 of the judgment, against which the abovesaid appeal and revision have been filed. 9. Mr. R.S. Cheema, learned senior counsel for the appellants, assailed the judgment of the learned trial Court on the ground that it has not appreciated the evidence on record in its right perspective. He submitted that appellant Mansha Ram and Dhan Singh are sons of Bidama. Their entire families were falsely implicated in this case. He pointed out that Sat Pal @ Pala and Mewa Singh, appellant Nos. 2 and 4 are sons of Mansha Ram. Appellant No. 5, Mohinder and appellant No. 8 Aman Kumar @ Amnu are grand sons of Mansha Ram while Prithvi, appellant No. 3 is son of Dhan Singh. The other appellants are also closely related to Mansha Ram and Dhan Singh. He further contended that the complainant had implicated Sat Pal @ Pala who was on duty on the day of occurrence. This fact had been proved by the defence by leading cogent evidence. He pointed out that Sat Pal was working at Kaithal in Haryana Roadways Depot. The other appellants are also closely related to Mansha Ram and Dhan Singh. He further contended that the complainant had implicated Sat Pal @ Pala who was on duty on the day of occurrence. This fact had been proved by the defence by leading cogent evidence. He pointed out that Sat Pal was working at Kaithal in Haryana Roadways Depot. He was issuing tickets to the Conductors and was also receiving money from them and depositing it either on the same day or on the next day with the Cashier. Despite that the learned trial Court has overlooked all these facts. He further submitted that complainant Bhartu and Jagir Singh PW2, eye-witness, were not present at the time of occurrence. They have been introduced subsequently. He also contended that if the complainant and Jagir Singh would have been present at the time of occurrence, then they must have attributed one or two injuries to the appellants. PW 1 and PW2 had also stated that all the appellants had given injuries. He submitted that the witnesses have not pointed out that where from they had seen the appellants causing injuries to the deceased, Jagga Singh and Jagdish. The witnesses examined by the prosecution are highly interested and inimical towards the appellants as the litigation between the parties was pending in the Courts and due to that grudge the entire families of Mansha Ram and Dhan Singh have been falsely implicated in this case. He contended that no role has been attributed to Mansha Ram. It was alleged that he instigated his co-appellants. He also pointed out that as per the prosecution version appellant Nos. 5, 6 and 8, Mohinder, Isham and Aman Kumar @ Amnu, were armed with spear while Sat Pal @ Pala was armed with jaili. He contended that with the impact of spear or jaih, there would have been a stab wound injury but on the persons of deceased Jagga Singh and Jagdish, there was no stab wound injury. All the injuries were either lacerated or incised wounds. He contended that spear and jaili would not cause incised wound. He also submitted that due to enmity between the parties, the appellants have been falsely implicated in this case. However, the learned trial Court has not appreciated all these facts and falsely convicted and sentenced them. 10. All the injuries were either lacerated or incised wounds. He contended that spear and jaili would not cause incised wound. He also submitted that due to enmity between the parties, the appellants have been falsely implicated in this case. However, the learned trial Court has not appreciated all these facts and falsely convicted and sentenced them. 10. On the other hand, learned State counsel submitted that there is no delay in lodging the FIR. He contended that the occurrence had taken place at about 8.30 or 9.00 A.M. The said occurrence was witnessed by PW 1 Bhartu and PW2 Jagir Singh. After leaving Jagir Singh by the side of dead body, Bhartu came to the police station and made the statement at about 11.45 P.M., which was recorded and concluded at 12.30 P.M. and FIR, Ex. PA, was recorded. He also pointed out that the special report reached the Ilaqa Magistrate at 2 P.M. He contended that in such a short span, the complainant could not concoct a story and involve innocent persons as accused. He also submitted that the complainant had given the names of only nine persons who had participated in the occurrence. He also contended that there was motive on the part of the appellants to kill Jagga Singh and Jagdish as dispute was going on between the parties with regard to the common Dol. He contended that the evidence given by Bhartu and Jagir Singh is consistent with the medical evidence. He also contended that the plea of alibi taken by Sat Pal @ Pala has not been conclusively proved to the effect that he was not present at the time of occurrence. He also contended that the learned trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellants. 11. Mr. T.P.S. Mann, learned counsel appearing for the complainant, contended that the learned trial Court has rightly convicted appellant but erroneously not awarded compensation. He contended that the learned trial Court should have awarded compensation under Section 357 Cr.P.C. as the deceased were the breadwinner of the families. 12. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the record. 13. The occurrence in this case had taken place on 25.7.1995 in the field of Village Bakal near the field of Nishan Singh. 12. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the record. 13. The occurrence in this case had taken place on 25.7.1995 in the field of Village Bakal near the field of Nishan Singh. PW1 Bhartu, complainant, deposed that when Jagdish and Jagga, his nephew, reached near the field of Nishan Singh, all the nine appellants emerged from the field side and came in front of bullock-cart. At that time, Satpal @ Pal was armed with jaili, Mewa Singh, Sultan, Prithvi and Rohtas were armed with gandasi while Amnu, Isham and Mohinder were armed with Bhalla. Mansha Ram was empty-handed. On seeing the assailants, Jagir Singh left the bullock-cart and ran away. Mewa Singh abused the deceased and raised Lalkara that they should be cut into pieces and the problem of common Dol would be finished once for all. All the appellants, except Mansha Ram, started assaulting after surrounding the cart. Mansha Ram was standing at a distance of 5-6 paces and he exhorted the remaining appellants to finish Jagdish and Jagga Singh and also said that anybody came to their rescue would also be dealt with in the same fashion. The case of the prosecution hinges upon the statement of PW 1 Bhartu and PW2 Jagir Singh. Both were related to the deceased Jagga Singh and Jagdish. If the case is based on the statements of related and interested witnesses, their evidence cannot be brushed aside but it puts the Court on its guard to scrutinize their evidence with great care and caution. After scanning the entire evidence, the Court has to separate the grain from the chaff to find out as to whether all the appellants had participated in the occurrence. From the evidence led by the prosecution, it is clear that FIR was lodged promptly but the Court can overlook the fact that the case is based on the evidence of related and interested witnesses and there was prior enmity between the parties and civil and criminal litigations were going on. When there is previous enmity, there is tendency in this part of country to rope innocent persons as an accused along with real assailants, who had participated in the occurrence. When there is previous enmity, there is tendency in this part of country to rope innocent persons as an accused along with real assailants, who had participated in the occurrence. After scanning the evidence on record carefully, we have no hesitation to say that PW 1 Bhartu, complainant, had roped in innocent persons as an accused, who had not participated in the occurrence alongwith the real assailants. 14. It is relevant to mention here that appellant Mansha Ram is 82 years of age at the time of occurrence and, therefore, we are of the view that being an old man, he could not go for fighting alongwith his co-appellants. Furthermore, as per the statement made by Bhartu, complainant, Mansha Ram had not raised a Lalkara to kill Jagdish and Jagga Singh. It was Mewa Singh who had first raised Lalkara to finish them to settle the old scores. The only attribution to Mansha Singh was that when the co-appellants had already given the injuries, then he exhorted them to finish Jagga and Jagdish. However, when the co-appellants of Mansha Ram were already giving injuries to Jagga Singh and Jagdish, then there was no question of exhorting Lalkara for killing them. Therefore, the participation of Mansha Ram in the alleged occurrence is highly doubtful. 15. Appellant Satpal has taken a specific plea in his statement that he was not present at the time of occurrence as he was on duty on 24.7.1995 from 2 P.M. to 10 P.M. and on 25.7.1995 from 6 A.M. to 2 P.M. He spent the intervening night at Kaithal. To prove this fact, he has examined DW 1 Amrit Singh, Sub Inspector, DW2 Hoshiar Singh Conductor, DW3 Kehar Singh, Conductor, DW4 Hawa Singh Conductor, DW5 Tek Chand, Conductor and DW6 Om Parkash, Diesel Pump Attendant. DW 1 to DW5 had stated in their statements that they were issued tickets on 24/25.7.1995 by appellant Satpal. They deposited the amount collected with Satpal, who re-deposited the same with the Cashier either on the same day or on the next day. He also deposed that appellant Satpal prepared the waybill pertaining to 24.7.1995, 25.7.1995 and 26.7. 995. One copy of the waybill was given to the Conductor of the bus concerned and the other was retained in the office. However, the learned trial Court did not rely upon the evidence of DW1 to DW6 without assigning any reason. He also deposed that appellant Satpal prepared the waybill pertaining to 24.7.1995, 25.7.1995 and 26.7. 995. One copy of the waybill was given to the Conductor of the bus concerned and the other was retained in the office. However, the learned trial Court did not rely upon the evidence of DW1 to DW6 without assigning any reason. In Dudh Nath Pandey v. State of U.P., AIR 1981 Supreme Court 911, it has been held by the Honble Supreme Court that "defence witnesses are entitled to equal treatment with those of the prosecution. And, Courts ought to overcome their traditional, instinctive disbelief in defence witnesses. Quite often, they tell lies but so do the prosecution witnesses." As per the evidence of DW1 Amrit Singh, Sub Inspector, appellant Satpal used to prepare the waybills in duplicate, out of which one was kept in the office while the other was given to the conductor concerned. Therefore, the waybills could not be prepared later on nor the money could be deposited by the different conductors with Satpal, appellant, in back date. Thus, from their evidence it is established that the appellant Satpal was on duty on 25.7.1995 i.e. on the day of occurrence. 16. Further appellant Satpal was alleged to have been armed with a jaili while Mohinder, Amnu and Isham, appellants, were armed with Bhalla (spear). The jaili as well as spear are sharp pointed weapons. Deceased Jagga Singh and Jagdish had not received any sharp pointed weapon injury. Learned State counsel submitted that the jaili and spears might have been used from the side of its handle. However, we are not impressed with this contention of the learned counsel. If Satpal, Mohinder, Amnu and Isham had gone alongwith other co-appellants at the spot with the intention to kill Jagdish and Jagga, then they would use the weapons from its sharp side and not from the side of handle or its reverse side. It is also relevant to mention that spear is also a sharp pointed weapon but there was no injury on the persons of deceased Jagga Singh and Jagdish which could be said to be caused by either spear or jaili. It is also relevant to mention that spear is also a sharp pointed weapon but there was no injury on the persons of deceased Jagga Singh and Jagdish which could be said to be caused by either spear or jaili. In Bhola Singh v. State of Punjab, JT 1998 (8) SC 173, it has been held as under : "It is highly improbable and unlikely that when the accused armed with sharp weapons like Gandasa and Ghop had used only the blunt edged side and not the sharp edged side of the said weapons. We are convinced that these two eye witnesses had set out this version only to fit in what had been found in the post-mortem report. The normal way in which a Gandasa and Ghop could be used was only from the sharp edged side and not from the blunt edged side. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that the two eye-witnesses (PW-1 and PW-2) could have seen incident as had taken place. It gives rise to serious doubt as to their presence at the time of incident." 17. Therefore, from the above evidence led by the prosecution, it is highly doubtful that appellants Satpal @ Pal, Mohinder, Aman Kumar @ Amnu and Isham, had participated in the occurrence. The learned trial Court has committed a legal error while appreciating the evidence and has wrongly convicted and sentenced them. 18. PW 1 Bhartu had deposed in his statement that appellants, Mewa Singh, Prithvi, Sultan and Rohtas were armed with Gandasi and had given injuries to deceased Jagga Singh and Jagdish. His version has been fully corroborated by PW2 Jagir Singh, who was an eye-witness to the occurrence. Their evidence has been fully corroborated by PW3 Dr. S. Dabas, Medical Officer, who had conducted post-mortem examination on the dead bodies of Jagga Singh and Jagdish. He found the following injuries on their persons : INJURIES OF THE PERSON OF JAGGA SINGH, DECEASED "1. Incised wound 10 cms. x 2cms. on the left parietal area of scalp, underlying bone was broken into many pieces. Corresponding part of the brain was badly bruised with many intra cerebral haemorrhages. 2. Incised wound 5x2 cms on the left parietal area 2 cm. below injury No. 1 underlying bone was broken into pieces and the corresponding part of brain was badly bruised with many intra-cerebral haemorrhages. 3. Lacerated wound 6 x 2 cm. Corresponding part of the brain was badly bruised with many intra cerebral haemorrhages. 2. Incised wound 5x2 cms on the left parietal area 2 cm. below injury No. 1 underlying bone was broken into pieces and the corresponding part of brain was badly bruised with many intra-cerebral haemorrhages. 3. Lacerated wound 6 x 2 cm. on the front of middle part of left forearm, the underlying bones were fractured. 4. Lacerated wound 4x2 cm. middle of anterior surface of left leg, underlying both bones were fractured. 5. Diffused reddish swelling on dorsom of the right hands. On further dissection, fracture of second, third and fourth metacarpal was seen. 6. There was red coloured contusion 5x4 cms. on the middle of left side of chest. Underlying third, fourth and fifth ribs were fractured. INJURIES ON THE PERSON OF JAGDISH, DECEASED 1. Incised wound 7x2 cm. x bone deep on the rightparietal area of scalp, underlying bone was broken into many pieces. Corresponding part of the brain was badly bruised with many intra cerebral haemorrhages. 2. Incised wound 2 x 1.2 cm. lateral to injury No. 1. Corresponding bone is broken into pieces and corresponding part of brain was badly bruised. 3. Incised wound 5x1 cm (b) incised wound 1.5 x 0.5 cm bone deep with both bones fractured on the right leg. 4. Red coloured swelling of left thigh, corresponding fracture of femur. There were multiple fractures of femur. 5. Incised wound 10x2 cm. on dorsal side of left forearm, corresponding bones were fractured." 19. PW8 SI Dhanna Ram arrested all the appellant, from the house of Ajmer Singh. He interrogated all the appellants and on their disclosure statements, their respective weapons were recovered. In view of the consistency between the ocular version given by PW 1 Bhartu and PW2 Jagir Singh, we have no hesitation to say that appellant Mewa Singh, Prithvi, Sultan and Rohtash had caused injuries to Jagga Singh and Jagdish due to which they died. Therefore, the learned trial Court has not committed any legal error in appreciating the evidence qua Mewa Singh, Prithvi, Sultan and Rohtash and they have been rightly convicted and sentenced. 20. In view of the above discussion, the appeal qua Mansha Ram, Sat Pal @ Pala, Mohinder, Isham and Aman Kumar @ Amnu, appellant Nos. Therefore, the learned trial Court has not committed any legal error in appreciating the evidence qua Mewa Singh, Prithvi, Sultan and Rohtash and they have been rightly convicted and sentenced. 20. In view of the above discussion, the appeal qua Mansha Ram, Sat Pal @ Pala, Mohinder, Isham and Aman Kumar @ Amnu, appellant Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6 and 8, is accepted and they are acquitted of the charges levelled against them by giving them benefit of doubt. They are on bail. Their bail bonds and surety bonds are discharged. However, appeal qua Mewa Singh, Prithvi, Sultan and Rohtash, appellant Nos. 3, 4,7 and 9 is dismissed. 21. So far as Criminal Revision filed by the complainant is concerned, counsel for the petitioner has failed to make it a rarest of rare case in which capital punishment can be awarded as in the rural area of this part of country, such like incidents happen in routine on the issues like common Dol, turn of water etc. Therefore, we are of the view that capital punishment in this case cannot be awarded. 22. Deceased Jagga Singh was lambardar of the village and was about 32 years of age. He was survived by his wife, three sons, one daughter and a widowed mother. Similarly, deceased Jagdish, who was brother of Jagga Singh, was aged about 30 years and survived by his wife, four daughters and two sons. 23. The power to award compensation is not ancillary to other sentences but it is in addition thereto as it has been laid down in Balraj v. State of U.P., 1995 Cri. L.J. 3217.Similar view has been taken in Sarwan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1978 SC 1525.We are, therefore, of the view that the legal heirs of the deceased Jagga Singh and Jagdish are entitled to compensation under Section 357 (3) Cr.P.C. as the deceased were the only breadwinner of the families. Consequently, Mewa Singh, Prithvi, Sultan and Rohtash, appellant Nos. 3, 4, 7 and 9, are directed to pay Rs. 50,000/- each as compensation. The said amount be paid to the legal heirs of both the deceased equally under proper receipt and identification. In case the abovesaid appellants failed to deposit the compensation amount, they would further undergo RI for one year. This compensation amount is in addition to the fine already imposed by the learned trial Court.