Judgment Nirmal Yadav, J. 1. This common judgment shall dispose of all the above- mentioned three appeals directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 6.12.1996 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar vide which the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under : Santa Singh, Partap Singh and Chhinda Singh convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for six months each; Bhag Singh and Jugraj Singh convicted under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for six months each; Jugraj Singh and Bhag Singh convicted under Section 324 IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of one year; Santa Singh, Partap Singh and Chhinda Singh have further been convicted under Section 324 read with Section 149 IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year each; Partap Singh has been further convicted under Section 324 IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year; Santa Singh, Bhag Singh, Jugraj Singh and Chhinda Singh have further been convicted under Section 324 read with Section 149 IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year each; Santa Singh and Jugraj Singh have further been convicted under Section 324 IPC and sentenced to R.I. for one year each; Partap Singh, Bhag Singh and Chhinda Singh, appellants have further been convicted under Section 324 read with Section 149 IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year each; All the accused have further been convicted under Section 148 IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of one year each. Parcap Singh, Santa Singh and Chhinda Singh have also been convicted under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 and sentenced to R.I. for a period of three years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each and in defaul of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for one month each. All the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. 2. The case of the prosecution as unveiled from the statement of complainant -Jaswant Singh, resident of village Mehmoodpur, is that he is an agriculturist and residing at 3-4 killas away from the village in the fields. All the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. 2. The case of the prosecution as unveiled from the statement of complainant -Jaswant Singh, resident of village Mehmoodpur, is that he is an agriculturist and residing at 3-4 killas away from the village in the fields. Adjacent to his land, land of one Santa Singh son of Makhan Singh resident of village Mehmoodpura is situated, who is also living in the fields. On 3.10.1993, complainant along with his family had been irrigating their fields through the tubewell and some water leaked into the fields of Santa Singh. Santa Singh got enraged. In the evening at about 7.30 P.M., Santa Singh, armed with spear, along with Chhinda Singh son of Kartar Singh armed with spear, Partap Singh son of Samund Singh armed with spear, Bhag Singh son of Samund Singh Armed with Sua, Jugraj Singh son of Samund Singh armed with Kirpan, while abusing, came towards the residence. Complainants father Dal Singh requested them not to abuse, but they did not desist. Complainant, his brother Balbir Singh and their mother Surjit Kaur also came out of their residence. Santa Singh gave two blows with his spear to Dal Singh, father of the complainant, which hit him on his chest and other blows on the right side of his abdomen. Partap Singh and Chhinda Singh, accused also gave blows with their respective spears on the person of Dal Singh which hit him on the right and left arms respectively. Dal Singh fell down on the ground. Complainant raised an alarm and intervened to save him. At this, accused-Jugraj Singh gave kirpan blows to complainant which hit him on the left arm and left thumb. Bhag Singh, accused gave Sua blows on the person of the complainant which hit him on his left thigh and back. Accused Partap Singh gave a spear blow on the chest of Balbir Singh and also on his left arm and chin. Accused Santa Singh gave spear blow to Surjit Kaur (mother of the complainant) on her chest and right side of hip. Jugraj Singh, accused gave kirpan blows on her back and right hand ring finger. One Darbara Singh, son of Hansa Singh, Maasar of the complainant had also seen occurrence in the light of an electric bulb in the Courtyard of the complainant and intervened to save the victims from the accused persons. Jugraj Singh, accused gave kirpan blows on her back and right hand ring finger. One Darbara Singh, son of Hansa Singh, Maasar of the complainant had also seen occurrence in the light of an electric bulb in the Courtyard of the complainant and intervened to save the victims from the accused persons. After inflicting injuries, accused ran away with their weapons. Injured were admitted in Civil Hospital, Patti where Dal Singh, father of complainant succumbed to his injuries and the remaining injured were medically examined. 3. With regard to the occurrence, three FIRs bearing No. 55/1993 under Sections 302/324/148/149 IPC against all the accused persons, No. 56/1993 under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 against accused Santa Singh and No. 57/1993 under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 against accused-Chhinda Singh were registered at Police Station Valtoha. Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Patti vide his order dated 20.12.1993 committed the accused to the Court of Sessions to face trial under Sections 302/324/148 read with Section 149 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act. All the three cases registered vide aforesaid FIRs were ordered to be consolidated as per order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar dated 30.11.1995. Upon appraisal of evidence brought on record and hearing counsel for the parties, the Sessions Court charge-sheeted the accused to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. PWI-Baljinder Singh tendered his affidavit, Ex. PA. PW2-Jaswant Singh, complainant, PW3-Balbir Singh, brother of Jaswant Singh and PW5-Surjit Kaur, the injured eye-witnesses, supported the prosecution version on all the material aspects of the case. 5. PW4-Dr. Sham Lal Gupta examined PW3-Balbir Singh medically on 4.10.1993 and upon receipt of X-ray report, found the following simple injuries on his person, as described in Medico Legal Report, Ex. PE: "1.1 incised punctured wound 2.5 cm x 1 cm depth not probed, left side of chest, Middle part, lateral aspect. Margins averted. Clotted blood is present. Advised X-ray examination. 2. Incised punctured wound 2.5 cm x 1 cm deep to bone, left fore-arm middle part medial posto aspect. Clotted blood was present. Advised X-ray examination. 3. Incised punctured wound 1 cm x 1/4 cm muscle deep under chin. On the same day, PW2-Jaswant Singh, complainant was also examined medically and injuries as stated in Medico Legal Report, Ex. 2. Incised punctured wound 2.5 cm x 1 cm deep to bone, left fore-arm middle part medial posto aspect. Clotted blood was present. Advised X-ray examination. 3. Incised punctured wound 1 cm x 1/4 cm muscle deep under chin. On the same day, PW2-Jaswant Singh, complainant was also examined medically and injuries as stated in Medico Legal Report, Ex. PF were found on his person, out of which injury No. 2 was kept under observation and other injuries were opined to be of simple nature. On receipt of X-ray report -Ex. PF/1, injury No. 2 was also declared simple in nature vide report Ex. PF/2. The injuries as stated in Ex. PF, suffered by the complainant are reproduced hereunder : "1. Incised punctured wound 2 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep on fore- arm, middle part anterior aspect. Clotted blood was present. 2. Incised punctured wound 2.5 cms x 1 cm bone deep one right lumber region, 2 cms lateral to medial plane. Advised X-ray examination. 3. Incised punctured wound lcm x l/4cm muscle deep on palmer aspect of left thumb. 4. Incised punctured wound 1.5 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep on left thigh, middle part. Medial aspect. 5. Incised punctured wound 1.5 cm x 1 cm into muscle deep, left thigh, middle part, 6 cms below to injury No. 4." 6. Injured Surjit Kaur, PW5 was also examined on the same day and injuries mentioned in Medico Legal Report, Ex.PG were found on her person, out of which injuries No. 2 and 3 were kept under observation and on receipt of X-ray report, Ex.PG/l, the same were declared to be simple in nature. The injuries mentioned in Ex.PG, suffered by PW5-Surjit Kaur, are reproduced as under: "1. Incised wound 4 cm x 1.2 cm deep to muscle right buttock. Clotted blood is present. 2. Incised punctured wound 2.5 cms x 1 cm x depth not probed on right chest, middle part, lateral aspect. Surgical emphysema is present. Clotted blood present. 3. Incised punctured wound 1.5 cms x 1 cm x bone deep, on back just right to medial plane clotting present on the middle part of back. Advised X-ray examination. 4.An incised wound 1.5 cms x 0.5 cm x muscle deep on right index finger." 7. On 4.10.1993, post-mortem on the dead body of Dal Singh son of Surain Singh, aged about 70/72 years was conducted. Advised X-ray examination. 4.An incised wound 1.5 cms x 0.5 cm x muscle deep on right index finger." 7. On 4.10.1993, post-mortem on the dead body of Dal Singh son of Surain Singh, aged about 70/72 years was conducted. Report of post-mortem is Ex. PH, according to which the following injuries were found on the dead body: "1. Incised punctured wound 6 cms x 3 cms deep to chest cavity, 1 cm below right nipple. Margins averted. On dissection; there was subcutaneous haemorrhage under the skin ribs, inter costal margin muscles are injured. Pleurae and upper lobe right lung was badly injured. There is about 500 c.c blood in the chest cavity. 2. Incised punctured wound 3.5 cms x 1.5 cms deep to abdominal cavity, lateral aspect. Right side upper abdomen. Lateral aspect, margins were everted. On dissection; there is subcutaneous haemorrhage underneath skin, muscles, peritonium and right lobe of liver is punctured. There is about 500 c.c blood in the abdominal cavity. 3. lacerated wound 2 cms x 2 cms on right upper arm medial aspect muscle deep. 4. Lacerated wound 3 cms x 2 cms on right knee joint upper part. 5. Lacerated wound 2x2 cms on right knee joint just below injury no. IV. 6. Incised punctured wound 2.5 x 1 cm muscle deep on left delta region." 8. The cause of death, in the opinion of the doctor, was shock and haemorrhage due to injuries Nos. 1 and 2 which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The injuries were reported to be ante-mortem in nature and caused by sharp pointed weapon. 9. PW6-SI Anokh Singh on 4.10.1993 while posted at Police Station Valtoha received the Medico Legal Reports of Balbir Singh, Surjit Kaur and Jaswant Singh and also letter Ex. PL with regard to arrival of dead body of Dal Singh at Civil Hospital, Patti. On the application, Ex. PK submitted by the Investigating Officer, the doctor vide his endorsement Ex. PK/ 1 opined that Surjit Kaur was unfit to make her statement. After the doctor declared Jaswant Singh and Balbir Sigh to be fit to make statement, the Investigating Officer recorded the statements of these PWs and made endorsement Ex. PB/ 1 on the basis of which formal FIR, Ex. PB/2 was recorded by Baljinder Singh, MHC vide his application Ex. PJ. After holding necessary inquiries, inquest report, Ex. After the doctor declared Jaswant Singh and Balbir Sigh to be fit to make statement, the Investigating Officer recorded the statements of these PWs and made endorsement Ex. PB/ 1 on the basis of which formal FIR, Ex. PB/2 was recorded by Baljinder Singh, MHC vide his application Ex. PJ. After holding necessary inquiries, inquest report, Ex. PQ was prepared on the dead body of Dal Singh, which was identified by Karnail Singh and Dalip Singh. He also went to the place of occurrence in village Mehmoodpura and prepared a rough site plan, Ex. PR. Blood stained earth as lifted from the place of occurrence and was put into a small tin which was sealed with letters KS and was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PS. He also recorded statements of Darbara Singh and Kulwant Singh. In the Police Station, Constable Baljinder Singh produced before him Fatuhi, Ex. P4 and Chaddar, Ex. P5 which were removed from the body of Dal Singh and the same converted into a sealed parcel, which was taken into possession vide Memo Ex. PT. On 7.10.1993, Balbir Singh, injured produced shirt, Ex. P3 before him which was sealed and taken into possession vide memo Ex. PC. PW2-Jaswant Singh produced a banyan and chaddar before him which were also taken into possession vide memo, Ex. PB after converting the same into a sealed parcel. PW5-Balbir Singh also produced before him shirt, salwar and Dupatta, Ex. P-6 to P-8 of Surjit Kaur which were sealed into a parcel and were taken into possession vide Memo, Ex. PQ. Accused Santa Singh, Partap Singh, Bhag Singh and Chhinda Singh alias Sukhwinder Singh were arrested on 10.10.1993. On 12.10.1993, accused Santa Singh was interrogated by the Investigating Officer, who made disclosure statement, Ex. PW7/A and in pursuance of same, he got recovered a sppear, Ex. P9. The blade of the spear was found to be blood stained. It was made into a parcel sealed with the seal `KS after preparing a sketch thereof. It was taken into possession vide memo, Ex. PV/PW7-B. On interrogation of accused Chhinda Singh, he made disclosure statement, Ex. PW7/D and in pursuance of same, accused Chhinda Singh got recovered spear, Ex. P 10. Blade of this spear was also found to be blood stained. This spear was also made into a parcel and was taken into possession vide memo, Ex. PV/PW7-B. On interrogation of accused Chhinda Singh, he made disclosure statement, Ex. PW7/D and in pursuance of same, accused Chhinda Singh got recovered spear, Ex. P 10. Blade of this spear was also found to be blood stained. This spear was also made into a parcel and was taken into possession vide memo, Ex. PW7/F. Accused Jugraj Singh was arrested on 12.10.1993. The Investigating Officer got prepared rough site plan, Ex. PF from the Draftsman and also recorded the statement of Surjit Kaur on 16.10.1993 when she was declared fit by the doctor. Accused could not produce any licence for keeping these weapons in their possession. 10. In their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied all the incriminating evidence against them and stated that they are innocent and have been falsely involved in the case. Accused Bhag Singh, Partap Singh and Jugraj Singh further stated that they have been implicated because of their long standing enmity with Santa Singh, co-accused. It is further stated that Ajit Singh brother of Santa Singh had caused injuries to their father and in that case Ajit Singh along with his wife had been convicted. There was no occasion to associate three from them with Santa Singh. It is further stated that one Gurpal Singh son of Waryam Singh who is a close relative of complainant party, had a dispute with them. Accordingly, they have been implicated at the instance of Ajit Singh and Gurpal Singh. They tendered copy of judgment, Ex. D1 and closed their evidence. 11. The trial Court after taking into consideration entire evidence and facts brought on record convicted and sentenced the accused as mentioned in para-1 above of the judgment. 12. We have heard Shri Amarjit Singh Virk, Advocate on behalf of Chhinda Singh, accused, Shri Vinod Ghai, Advocate on behalf of accused-Partap Singh, Bhag Singh and Jugraj Singh and Shri Rajinder Goyal, Advocate on behalf of Santa Singh, accused, while Shri S.S. Randhawa, Sr. Deputy Advocate General, Punjab on behalf of the respondent-State. 13. In support of the present appeals, some common points were urged by the learned counsel appearing for all the three sets of the accused. The pivotal question raised is with regard to delay in lodging the F.I.R. and secondly, with regard to applicability of Section 149 IPC. Deputy Advocate General, Punjab on behalf of the respondent-State. 13. In support of the present appeals, some common points were urged by the learned counsel appearing for all the three sets of the accused. The pivotal question raised is with regard to delay in lodging the F.I.R. and secondly, with regard to applicability of Section 149 IPC. It was further argued by the learned counsel that all the witnesses are interested witnesses being related to the deceased. They have also made material improvements in their statements; Darbara Singh who is stated to have taken the injured to the hospital, has not been examined. 14. Learned counsel for accused-Partap Singh, Bhag Singh and Jugraj Singh stated that accused Bhag Singh and Jugraj Singh are stated to have been armed with Sua and Kirpan, respectively, but no recovery of the said weapons had been made from these accused. He further argued that injuries attributed to accused Bhag Singh and Jugraj Singh, which are stated to have been inflicted on the person of PW2- Jaswant Singh and Surjit Kaur, are simple in nature and could have been self suffered. Learned counsel further argues that injuries attributed to accused-Partap Singh are one injury on the right arm of Dal Singh and injuries on the person of Balbir Singh, PW3 on his left side of chest, left arm and chin. Learned counsel referred to the statement of PW4-Dr. Sham Lal, who stated that injuries No. 1 and 2 on the person of Jaswant Singh, cannot be caused with a Kirpan. He further argued that no spear injury has been found on the person of Dal Singh. 15. Learned counsel for accused-Chhinda Singh argued that Chhinda Singh belongs to another village i.e. Lakhna and had no common motive or object with other co-accused to cause injuries to the complainant party. Learned counsel argued that injury attributed to Chhinda Singh is alleged to have been caused on left fore-arm of Dal Singh, but as per the post-mortem report of Dal Singh, the injury is on the left Delta region. Learned counsel further argued that as per the opinion of the doctor, injury No. 6, which has been attributed to Chhinda Singh, has not been caused with a sharp-edged weapon, but with a blunt weapon. However, as per the prosecution witnesses, Chhinda Singh had caused injuries with a spear. Learned counsel further argued that as per the opinion of the doctor, injury No. 6, which has been attributed to Chhinda Singh, has not been caused with a sharp-edged weapon, but with a blunt weapon. However, as per the prosecution witnesses, Chhinda Singh had caused injuries with a spear. Learned counsel for accused Chhinda Singh further argued that complainant-party had taken some land on mortgage from the father of Chhinda Singh. The mortgage deed expired in April, 1993 and documents in respect of mortgage had been returned, but in spite of that when the complainant-party did not hand over possession, Chhinda Singh forcibly got the land vacated from the complainant party and, therefore, there was a dispute between Chhinda Singh and complainant-party. 16. On the other hand, learned State counsel argued that prosecution case is fully supported by three injured witnesses, who were admitted in the hospital and medico legally examined at the same time on the same day when the deceased was examined; He referred to the statement of PW2-Jaswant Singh, PW3 Balbir Singh and PW5-Surjit Kaur, the two sons and wife of deceased-Dal Singh. All the three witnesses have supported the prosecution version in equivocal terms. He further argued that all the five accused came together armed with their respective weapons. They hurled abuses and when Dal Singh objected to, they all caused injuries to him in front of the house of the complainant- party. 17. On the point of delay, learned State counsel argued that there is no delay in reporting the matter. Immediately after the incident, the endeavour of the complainant party was to remove the injured to the hospital for treatment. All the injured were removed in a tractor, which took about 1-1/2 hour to reach Civil Hospital, Patti from the place of the occurrence. Immediately after the incident, the endeavour of the complainant party was to remove the injured to the hospital for treatment. All the injured were removed in a tractor, which took about 1-1/2 hour to reach Civil Hospital, Patti from the place of the occurrence. Ruqa was sent by the doctor to the police station which was received by the Investigating Officer at 8.15 A.M. Thereafter the Investigating Officer reached hospital and after the doctor declared PW2-Jaswant Singh and PW3- Balbir Singh fit to make statement at about 10.00 A.M., he started recording their statement at 11.00 A.M., which completed at about 11.45 A.M. Subsequently, statement of PW5- Surjit Kaur was also recorded when she was declared fit to make statements at 11.00 A.M., which completed at about 11.45 A.M. Subsequently, statement of PW5-Surjit Kaur was also recorded when she was declared fit by the doctor. He further argued that FIR as well as Inquest reports were submitted before PW4-Dr. Sham Lal at the time of the post-mortem, who had put his signatures on the FIR as well as on the inquest report. Learned State counsel argued that admittedly, all the family members were injured in the incident and it was night time in the year 1993 when terrorism was at its peak in the State of Punjab. It is in these circumstances, the FIR had come into existence on 4.10.1993 at 11.45 A.M. and thus, the question of any deliberations and consultations does not arise. Learned State counsel further contended that once the number of the FIR was mentioned in the inquest report and both the documents i.e. inquest report and FIR were submitted before the doctor, the Investigating Officer could not have changed, manipulated or confabulated the contents of the FIR. Narrating these circumstances, the learned State counsel argued that delay if any, has been satisfactorily explained by the prosecution. 18. In regard to the defence taken on behalf of the accused- Chhinda Singh that his father Kartar Singh got his land vacated forcibly from the complainant party after expiry of mortgage deed, the learned State counsel argued that admittedly, the mortgage deed had expired in the month of April,1993, whereas, the present occurrence took place in October-1993 i.e. after six months of the expiry of mortgage deed. Moreover, there is no evidence that possession had been taken forcibly by the accused-Chhinda Singh. Moreover, there is no evidence that possession had been taken forcibly by the accused-Chhinda Singh. It is also an admitted fact that mortgage documents had been returned prior to the present occurrence and, therefore, there is no evidence that prosecution witnesses were having any grudge against him. 19. On careful consideration of rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and evidence on record, we are of the view that though there is some delay in lodging the F.I.R., but the same has been satisfactorily explained by the prosecution. The occurrence, admittedly, took place on 3.10.1993 at 7.30 P.M. The distance between Patti and Voltoha is 25 kilometres and place of occurrence is 6 kms. from village Valtoha. The injured who were removed in a tractor by Darbara Singh had to travel a distance of about 31 kms, which must have taken about 1- 1/2 hours. As per Dr. Sham Lal, he started examining the injured at 4.00 A.M. and upto 5.00 A.M. he had examined all the three injured. The patients were referred for X-ray examination. The doctor on applications-Ex. PH and PJ moved by the Investigating Officer for recording statements of injured, declared PW2-Jaswant Singh and PW3-Balbir Singh fit to make statement at 10.00 A.M. on 4.10.1993. Surjit Kaur was declared unfit to make statement on application, Ex. PK moved by the Investigating Officer. She was declared fit to make statement only on 16.10.1993. When the doctor declared Jaswant Singh and Balbir Singh, PWs fit to make statement, the Investigating Officer started recording statement of PW2-Jaswant Singh at about 11.00 A.M. which completed at about 11.45 A.M. and on that basis, the FIR was lodged. We do agree with the argument of the learned State counsel that the version of the prosecution has already been put into writing at the time of preparing the inquest report. The inquest report as well as the FIR, was produced before the doctor at the time of conducting post-mortem of Dal Singh. The number of the FIR is also mentioned in the inquest report. As per the post-mortem report, the dead body of Dal Singh along with police papers was brought at 3.00 P.M. on 4.10.1993 i.e. before conducting the post-mortem. The number of the FIR is also mentioned in the inquest report. As per the post-mortem report, the dead body of Dal Singh along with police papers was brought at 3.00 P.M. on 4.10.1993 i.e. before conducting the post-mortem. Since the inquest report and FIR were produced before the doctor who had also put his initials on the same, the argument of the learned defence counsel that FIR is ante-time cannot be accepted. At 11.45 A.M., statement of Jaswant Singh was recorded and thereafter, some time might have been taken by the police official to reach hospital along with the dead body for conducting post- mortem. Even if the report had been submitted before the Illaqa Magistrate on 5.10.1993 at 5.00 P.M., it cannot be presumed that the FIR had not come into existence by that time. There was no occasion or the time for the Investigating Officer to manipulate or confabulate the facts. 20. As regards Santa Singh, accused, all the three witnesses, namely, Jaswant Singh, Balbir Singh, and Surjit Kaur equivocally stated that when some water from the tubewell of the complainant, had leaked into the fields of Santa Singh, he took exception to this and thereafter in the evening Santa Singh along with Chhinda Singh and other three accused, armed with spear and other weapons, came in front of the house of the complainant party and started abusing them. When Dal Singh requested them to desist from abusing, he gave two spear blows with his spear on the person of Dal Singh, which hit him on the chest and on the right side of the abdomen. The two injuries attributed to him are described as injury Nos. 1 and 2 on the person of Dal Singh. As per Dr. Sham Lal, the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage due to injuries Nos. 1 and 2, which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. It has further been opined that injuries were caused by sharp-pointed weapon. In pursuance of his disclosure statement, Santa Singh got recovered spear, Ex. P9 from his possession. As per the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, Ex. PY, spear was stained with human blood. 21. The learned defence counsel pointed out certain improvements in the statements of the injured eye-witnesses. In pursuance of his disclosure statement, Santa Singh got recovered spear, Ex. P9 from his possession. As per the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, Ex. PY, spear was stained with human blood. 21. The learned defence counsel pointed out certain improvements in the statements of the injured eye-witnesses. It was stated by PW5-Surjit Kaur that her husband had expired near village Algon which is at a distance of 6 kms., whereas, in her statement before the police she had stated that her husband had expired in the hospital at Patti. He also referred to the statement of PW3, who was not certain about the time of death of his father. These minor discrepancies or improvements do not at all, demolish the cogent and otherwise trustworthy testimony of the three witnesses with regard to the injuries having been caused by Santa Singh and Chhinda Singh to deceased Dal Singh and other witnesses. 22. Learned defence counsel also argued that no explanation has been put forth by the prosecution as to why Dal Singh was taken to Patti when there was a civil hospital at Bhikhiwind as well. He also pointed out that there was a police station at Bhikhiwind also and the matter could be reported at Bhikhiwind itself. This argument is not at all, impressive as the relatives of the injured would like to take him at the earliest, to the best hospital in the locality. Admittedly, except Dal Singh, other injured were having simple injuries and there was no urgency in their case. 23. As per testimony of all the three witnesses, Chhinda Singh caused injury on the left fore-arm of Dal Singh. As per the post-mortem report, the injury attributed to Chhinda Singh corresponds to injury No. 6 on the person of Dal Singh. Learned counsel for Chhinda Singh, accused argued that as per the witnesses, the injury was caused on the left fore-arm of Dal Singh, whereas, as per post-mortem report, the injury is on the left delta region. There is no doubt that all the three witnesses have stated that Chhinda Singh has caused injury on the left fore-arm of Dal Singh. However, in a free fight no one can give description of injuries in a picturesque manner. Admittedly, the injury is on the back of left arm of the deceased. It is further an admitted position that spear, Ex. However, in a free fight no one can give description of injuries in a picturesque manner. Admittedly, the injury is on the back of left arm of the deceased. It is further an admitted position that spear, Ex. P 10 was recovered in pursuance of the disclosure statement made by Chhinda Singh. As per the Forensic Science Laboratory report, spear was found to be stained with human blood. 24. Learned counsel for accused-Chhinda Singh argued that Chhinda Singh had no motive to cause injury to the deceased or other witnesses as he was a resident of another village. Though the accused belongs to another village, but his presence stands stablished by convincing and cogent evidence of three injured witnesses, which is also corroborated by recovery of blood stained spear, Ex. P10 and the medical evidence on record. All the three stamped witnesses have categorically stated that accused Chhinda Singh had caused injuries on the person of Dal Singh. 25. In view of the above discussion, we uphold the conviction of both the accused, namely, Santa Singh and Chhinda Singh under Sections 302 and 324 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act and sentence awarded to them by the trial Court. 26. The injuries on the person of Jaswant Singh, Balbir Singh and Surjit Kaur are simple in nature. All these three witnesses have received incised punctured wound. The injuries on the person of Jaswant Singh and Balbir Singh could have been caused by sharp-edged weapon. As per Dr. Sham Lal, injuries Nos. 1 and 4 on the person of Surjit Kaur are stated to have been caused by sharp-edged weapon and injuries Nos. 2 and 3 by blunt weapon. However, a perusal of the injuries, shows that injuries Nos. 2 and 3 are incised punctured wound which, of course, cannot be caused by a blunt weapon and the same could have been caused by spear. 27. As regards Partap Singh, he is alleged to have caused injuries on the right arm of Dal Singh, which corresponds to injury No. 3 as mentioned in the post-mortem report. This injury is stated to be caused on the right upper arm medial aspect. He is also stated to have caused injuries to Balbir Singh on his left side of chest, left arm and chin. As per the doctor, these injuries could have been caused by a sharp-pointed weapon. This injury is stated to be caused on the right upper arm medial aspect. He is also stated to have caused injuries to Balbir Singh on his left side of chest, left arm and chin. As per the doctor, these injuries could have been caused by a sharp-pointed weapon. The learned defence counsel argued that as per the prosecution witnesses, Partap Singh accused was armed with spear and not with any sharp-pointed weapon. 28. It is also clear from the evidence discussed above that accused Jugraj Singh is stated to be armed with Kirpan and has been attributed injuries caused to Jaswant Singh on his left arm and left thumb, which may co-relate to injury No. 3. There is no injury on the left arm, but, of course, there is injury on the left thumb. No Kirpan has been recovered from the person of Jugraj Singh. Similarly, he is stated to have caused injuries on the back and right index finger of Surjit Kaur i.e. injuries Nos. 3 and 4. As per the opinion of the doctor, injury No. 3 has been caused by blunt weapon, whereas, injury No. 4 could have been caused by a sharp-edged weapon. In fact, it may be possible that injuries on the person of these witnesses may have been caused by accused Santa Singh and Chhinda when the witnesses tried to save Dal Singh while they were causing injuries to him. 29. As regards Bhag Singh, he is alleged to have caused injuries on the left thigh and back of Jaswant Singh, PW2. As per PW4-Dr. Sham Lal, injury No. 4 on the left thigh, cannot be caused by a Sua. It is more than clear that none of the injuries on the person of Jaswant Singh could be caused by Sua. 30. From the above discussion and medical evidence the version of the prosecution with regard to Partap Singh, Jugraj Singh and Bhag Singh appears to be manipulated and manoeuvred. There appears to be no motive on the part of these accused for causing injuries to deceased or other witnesses. As per PW2-Jaswant Singh, Partap Singh, Bhag Singh and Jugraj Singh are the `Siris of Santa Singh. There was no provocation on the part of Partap Singh, Bhag Singh and Jugraj Singh to join their landlord as they had no motive to cause injuries to the complainant party. As per PW2-Jaswant Singh, Partap Singh, Bhag Singh and Jugraj Singh are the `Siris of Santa Singh. There was no provocation on the part of Partap Singh, Bhag Singh and Jugraj Singh to join their landlord as they had no motive to cause injuries to the complainant party. It has come in the statement of Jaswant Singh only that these three accused were doing agricultural work with Santa Singh. Similarly, if four killas of land of Kartar Singh, father of Chhinda Singh was mortgaged with the complainant and the same was got redeemed by Kartar Singh much prior to the occurrence and if one killa of land was purchased by Samund Singh, father of these three accused, the same could hardly be a motive for the accused persons to cause injuries to Dal Singh or other witnesses. If Samund Singh had purchased the land, the complainant could have no grudge against the said purchase as the land had already been redeemed and possession had been delivered much prior to the occurrence. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove that these three accused had any motive or provocation to cause injuries to the complainant party. The medical evidence is also inconsistent with the ocular evidence, as discussed above. The prosecution witnesses have also made material improvements in their statements. 31. In view of the above discussion, a serious doubt is cast on the case of the prosecution with regard to the aforesaid three accused, namely, Partap Singh, Bhag Singh and Jugraj Singh. Consequently, accused Partap Singh, Bhag Singh and Jugraj Singh are acquitted of the charges framed against them. 32. Thus, separate appeals filed by appellants Chhinda Singh @ Sukhwinder Singh and Santa Singh are dismissed, whereas, the appeal filed by appellants Partap Singh, Bhag Singh and Jugraj Singh @ Raj Singh is allowed.Order allowed.