Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 2065 (BOM)

ARJUN s/o MARUTI SHIRSATH v. State of Maharashtra

2006-12-20

A.S.BAGGA, S.P.KUKDAY

body2006
JUDGMENT S. P. KUKDA Y, J. :- The appellant has been convicted of the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for having committed murder of Jagannath Rambhau Shirsat and for the offence punishable under section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, for having caused grievous hurt to Muktabai wife of deceased Jagannath by 2nd Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar. Being aggrieved by this order of conviction and sentence the appellant has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 646/2004 and the State has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 82812004, against acquittal of accused No.8 Babasaheb. 2. Briefly stated the relevant facts are that Rangnath (P.W.1), his brothers Ashok, Gahininath and Rajendra were living jointly with their parents Jagannath (since deceased) and Muktabai (P.W. 8) at Takli-Manur, Taluka Pathardi, District Ahmednagar. Land belonging to the villagers was acquired for the irrigation project. Affected persons were resettled at new settlement near the village known as Ambikanagar. However, as the dam water did not reach the village, Maroti (father of appellant) and others, retained possession of their property. Maroti desired to sell his open plot at the village. As the transfer was not permissible, Babasaheb Uttam Dhakne purchased right to sell stones and soil from the plot, about 20 years back. Subsequently, some ten years back deceased Jagannath purchased this plot from Babasaheb Dhakne. Appellant, Babasaheb (accused No. 8) and Buvasaheb reside separately at Ambikanagar. After his retirement from Military, appellant opened stationary shop at the village and started demanding re-conveyance of the disputed plot. As the deceased refused to oblige, the appellant filed civil suit in the Taluka Court for injunction and possession, being RCS No. 291/2001. In this suit order for status quo was passed by the Court. On 30-7-2002 there was fair at the village. At about 4.00 p.m., appellant abused the deceased in front of his shop. Thereafter, while the deceased, his wife Muktabai and son Rangnath were going to Ambikanagar for worship of the goodess, the appellant, his brothers Babasaheb (accused No.8), Buvasaheb (accused No.2), Suresh, son of Buvasaheb (accused No.7), Dyandeo (accused No.4), Bhimrao (accused No.5), Patilba (accused No.3), Ramnath (accused No.6) attacked the deceased on the road near Tamrind tree. Appellant was armed with large knife, accused No.3 was armed with an axe and others were carrying sticks. Appellant inflicted three blows on the head of the deceased by large knife. Appellant was armed with large knife, accused No.3 was armed with an axe and others were carrying sticks. Appellant inflicted three blows on the head of the deceased by large knife. As a result the deceased fell down. When P.W. 8 intervened to rescue her husband, the appellant inflicted blows on her head, back and shoulder. P.W. 10 Karbhari (brother-in-law of P.W. 8) and his son Ambadas (P.W.11) came to their rescue. Both of them were assaulted by the accused. As a result of the injuries the deceased died on the spot. By that time a police van arrived at the scene of the occurrence. The victims were taken to the hospital. After treatment of his mother, P.W.1 lodged a report of the incident with Pathardi police station at about 8.30 p.m. On the basis of this report, an offence was registered by P.S.O. Shirke at Crime No. 127/2002 under sections 147, 148, 302, 326, 324 read with 149 of the Penal Code and the investigation was entrusted to P.I. Randive (P.W. 14). 3. The investigating officer visited the hospital and recorded statement of the injured witnesses. The dead body of Jagannath was kept at the mortuary. On 31st the investigating officer held inquest on the dead body and prepared Panchanama (Exh. 69). He then visited the scene of occurrence. Sample of blood stained soil and control soil was attached under spot panchanama (Exh. 68). The appellant had sustained an injury which was bandaged. He was arrested at 2. IS p.m. Blood stained clothes on his person were attached under seizure memo (Exh. 73). Clothes of injured Muktabai were attached under seizure memo (Exh. 76). Accused Nos. 2, 3 and 5 were arrested on 1-8-2002. Accused No. 2 produced axe and six sticks. These were attached under seizure memo (Exh. 70). Accused Nos. 6 and 7 were arrested on 2-8-2002. On that day, clothes of injured Karbhari were attached under seizure memo (Exh. 102). On 4-8-2002 appellant made a confessional statement (Exh. 81) and produced large knife (Sura - Art. 13) concealed in a piton the bund of the field of Ramkisan Shinde which is near the scene of occurrence. The knife was attached under memorandum Panchanama (Exh. 82). The clothes and weapons were sent to Chemical analyzer on 12-8-2002. Accused No. 2 had sustained an injury on the stomach. 81) and produced large knife (Sura - Art. 13) concealed in a piton the bund of the field of Ramkisan Shinde which is near the scene of occurrence. The knife was attached under memorandum Panchanama (Exh. 82). The clothes and weapons were sent to Chemical analyzer on 12-8-2002. Accused No. 2 had sustained an injury on the stomach. He was arrested on 21-10-2002 on his discharge from the hospital. The accused came to be charge-sheeted on completion of the investigation. 4. At the trial the accused adopted the defence of total denial. Appellant filed written statement (Exh. 117) adopting right of private defence. According to the appellant he was obstructed by P.W. 1, his brothers Gahininath, Rajendra, Ashok and Bhima near Karodi village while he was returning from Pathardi. They threatened him with dire consequences if he did not withdraw the civil suit. Appellant told them that it would be proper to settle the dispute by arranging meeting of the villagers. He then came to his shop. When he was opening the shop; the deceased, P.W.10 and P.W.11 abused him and asked him to come to them. Sensing the trouble, he accosted accused No.8 who was at the market. By that time P.W. 1 joined his father with other accused. As the assailants were armed with weapons, thus, he started running away. The assailants chased him. Near Pipal tree, P.W.1 inflicted blow with gupti on the stomach of accused No.8. Other accused continued to assault him. As he feared that the assailants would kill them, he snatched iron rod from the hands of Gahininath and started waving the iron rod in the air. At this juncture, accused No.2 (since deceased) and his sister-in-law Kantabai came there. P.W. 1 inflicted injury on the stomach of accused No. 2 by gupti. On hearing the cries his nephew Ramdas came there on motor cycle. He then went to the hospital with Ramdas and subsequently lodged a report with the police. 5. The presence of the appellant and accused No. 8 at the scene of occurrence from the beginning, inimical relations between the parties in view of the controversy over the open plot, institution of Civil Suit No. 291/2001 in the Court of Civil Judge Junior Division, Pathardi and filing of the cross-complaint by the appellant in respect of this incident, is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that accused No.2 and Kantabai (wife of accused No.2) arrived at the scene of occurrence at the end of the incident. 6. At the trial, P.W. 1 has narrated the incident. The genesis of the incident is the quarrel between the appellant and the deceased in front of the shop of the appellant at about 4.00 p.m. After this incident, the deceased, P.W. 1 and P.W. 8 were proceeding to the temple of Goddess at Ambikanagar for worship. They were obstructed by the appellant and other accused near tamarind tree. Appellant opened the attack by inflicting three blows on the head of the deceased by large knife. He also inflicted blows with the same weapon on the backside on the head, shoulder joint and the back of P.W. 8, when she tried to rescue her husband. When he tried to intervene, accused No. 8 caught him from the backside and accused No. 7 inflicted stick blow on his head. Other accused then assaulted him with sticks. In response to the cries P.W. 10 and 11, who were at the market, came to their rescue. They were also assaulted by the accused. The evidence of P.W. 1 is in conformity with the recitals of F.I.R. (Exh. 64). Similar evidence is given by P.Ws. 8, 10 and 11. 7. The autopsy surgeon Dr. Kulkarni (P.W. 12) found that injury Nos. 1,2 and 5 were caused by hard and sharp weapon such as Article No. 13, injury No.3 was caused by hard and blunt weapon and injury Nos. 7, 8, 9 were caused by hard and rough surface. In his opinion, the death was caused on account of shock due to the injuries to the head and the brain resulting from following external and internal injuries noted in the post-mortem report (Exh. 90). 1) Vertical incised wound on forehead between eyebrow 3 cm x 1/2 cm x bone deep. 2) Oblique incised wound on right frontal region, upper end anterior, measuring 4 cm x 1/2 cm x bone deep. 3) Oblique CLW on occipital parietal region on middle, 8 cm x 1 cm. irregular fracture of skull bone seen. 4) Oblique incised wound left parietal region 3 cm x 1/2 cm. x bone deep. 5) Incised wound on right upper occipital region 3 cm. x 1/2 cm. x bone deep. 3) Oblique CLW on occipital parietal region on middle, 8 cm x 1 cm. irregular fracture of skull bone seen. 4) Oblique incised wound left parietal region 3 cm x 1/2 cm. x bone deep. 5) Incised wound on right upper occipital region 3 cm. x 1/2 cm. x bone deep. 6) Imprint marks on both anterior knees due to small stones and sand. 7) Abrasion on left forearm vertical 3 cm x 14 cm. 8) Abrasion on chin 1 x 14 cm. 9) Abrasion on tip of nose 14 x 14 cm. Internal injuries: Scalp and Skull fracture of frontal and parietal bone, parietal measuring 6 x 14 x 14 cm. frontal size 4 x 14 x 14 cm. Brain :- 1) Swelling with contusion with haematoma right frontal parietal region - 3 x 2 cm. 2) Contusion with swelling with hematoma on upper occipital region on left mid line 3 x 2 cm. 3) Contusion on temporal bone on anterior aspect 2 x 1 cm. each. 8. On 1-8-2002 accused No.2 approached, P. W. 12 giving history of assault on 30-7-2002. On his examination, P.W. 12 found following injuries noted in Certificate (Exh. 93) on his person :- 1) Oblique incised wound on right lower iliac, in duration present, subcutaneous bleeding around wound present - bluish black: 2) Complaints of pain on left lower chest region tenderness present no visible injury. 9. Dr. Sudhir Yermalkar (P.W. 13) attached to Rural Hospital Pathardi examined P.W. 1, P. W. 8 and P.W. 10 on 30-7-2002. P.W. 1 had sustained abrasion 1 x 1/4 cms., on forehead caused by rough edged object within 24 hours of the examination. P.W. 8 had sustained incised wound on left shoulder joint - 7 cm x 4 cm x 3 cm; incised wound on right scapular region - 6 cm x 3 cm x 3 cm; incised wound on left occipital region - 4 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm. and P.W. 10 had sustained contusion on left scapular region - 10 cm x 2 cm, caused by hard and blunt object; C.L.W. on occipital region, caused by hard and blunt object; and Abrasion on left eye, 1 cm x 1,4 cm x 1,4 cm. caused by rough object. 10. The appellant and accused No. 8 had also been to the Rural Hospital after the incident. caused by rough object. 10. The appellant and accused No. 8 had also been to the Rural Hospital after the incident. Appellant was examined by the medical officer at about 7.40 p.m. appellant had sustained CL W on occipital region 2 x 1 x 1 cms. and on abrasion on forearm 3 x 1,4 cm. Accused No.8 had sustained incised wound on the abdomen from which the intestines were protruding with omentum. 11. The evidence of Investigating Officer P. 1. Randive (P. W. 14) shows that he received information regarding the incident at about 5.30 p.m. and went to the hospital. After the treatment of the seriously injured persons, P.W. 1 went to the police station and lodged report (Exh. 64). P.S.O. registered the offence on the basis of this report at 8.30 p.m. and handed over the investigation to P.W. 14. After the offence was registered, the Investigating Officer recorded statements of P.W. 8 and 10. On the next day the inquest was held on the dead body of the deceased. P.W. 14 visited the spot and collected blood stained soil and control soil under Panchanama (Exh. 68). Appellant was arrested on that day and blood stained clothes on his person were attached under seizure memo (Exh. 76). On the next day accused Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 were arrested. Axe and six sticks, produced by accused No.2, were attached under seizure memo (Exh. 70). In pursuance of the confessional statement (Exh. 81) of the appellant, large knife used by him during the incident was attached on 4-8-2002 under seizure memo (Exh. 82). 12. Learned trial Judge found that there were no material omissions or contradictions in the evidence of the eye witnesses. Their testimony received corroboration from the medical evidence. He further found that the appellant first inflicted injuries on the head of the deceased, thus, his defence of the right of private defence cannot be accepted because he was the aggressor. Separating the grain from the chaff and keeping in mind that the principle "falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus" is not applicable in India; the Trial Judge convicted the appellant against whom there was unimpeachable evidence and sentenced him as stated earlier. He, however, acquitted other accused giving them the benefit of doubt. Separating the grain from the chaff and keeping in mind that the principle "falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus" is not applicable in India; the Trial Judge convicted the appellant against whom there was unimpeachable evidence and sentenced him as stated earlier. He, however, acquitted other accused giving them the benefit of doubt. In Criminal Appeal No. 646/2004 appellant has impugned the order of his conviction and Criminal Appeal No. 828/2004 is filed by the State challenging acquittal of accused No.8. 13. In support of the appeal, learned Counsel for the appellant has adopted two pronged approach. The first plank of the argument is that the non-explanation of the injuries sustained by the appellant and accused No. 8 leads to the conclusion that the witnesses are suppressing the genesis of the occurrence and are not disclosing the true version of the incident. Non-disclosure of the injuries sustained by the accused falsifies evidence of the prosecution witnesses. Second limb of the argument is that it is not obligatory for the accused to specifically plead right of private defence. The right of private defence can be spelled .out from the material available on record. In support of this proposition, reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Laxmi Singh and ors. vs. State of Bihar, A/R /976 SC 2263. There can be no dispute with the proposition. Section 96 of the Penal Code which deals with the doctrine of right of private defence lays down that nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private defence. Section 100 enumerates the circumstances in which the right of private defence extends to causing of death and section 102 mandates that the right can be exercised only during the subsistence of the danger or threat to the body. Whether the person has acted in the right of private defence, in given set of circumstances, is a question of fact to be determined on the facts of each case. To ascertain whether a person has acted in self -defence, the Court has to appreciate all the surrounding circumstances in proper perspective. The right of private defence is a shield and not a sword. The right is not available to the aggressor or to the person who provokes his adversary to launch an attack. To ascertain whether a person has acted in self -defence, the Court has to appreciate all the surrounding circumstances in proper perspective. The right of private defence is a shield and not a sword. The right is not available to the aggressor or to the person who provokes his adversary to launch an attack. The fact that accused had sustained injuries during the course of the incident does not ipso facto establish the right of private defence. It must also be shown that existence of the injuries probabilities the theory of the right of private defence set up by him. Non explanation of the injuries sustained by the accused is not fatal to the prosecution, if the evidence is cogent and convincing. The effect of non explanation of the injuries has to be decided on the facts and circumstances of each case. In all criminal cases, the initial burden to establish complicity of the offender in the commission of an offence is on the prosecution. This burden never shifts. However, once the burden is discharged the onus shifts and the offender has to give proper explanation justifying acts done in the exercise of his right. The burden of proof on the accused is not as rigorous as the burden on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the accused can discharge the burden on him by establishing preponderance of probability. In Laxmi Singh and others vs. State of Bihar, (1976)4 see 394 the Apex Court has enumerated the inferences arising out of the omission to explain injuries suffered by the accused. In Laxmi Singh and others vs. State of Bihar, (1976)4 see 394 the Apex Court has enumerated the inferences arising out of the omission to explain injuries suffered by the accused. In para 12 it is observed : "It seems to us that in a murder case, the non-explanation of the injuries sustained by the accused at about the time of the occurrence or in the course of altercation is a very important circumstance from which the Court can draw the following inferences: "(1) that the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and the origin of the occurrence and has thus not presented the true version; (2) that the witnesses who have denied the presence of the injuries on the person of the accused are lying on a most material point and therefore their evidence is unreliable; (3) that in case there is a defence version which explains the injuries on the person of the accused it is rendered probable so as to throw doubt on the prosecution case." The omission on the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries on the person of the accused assumes much greater importance where the evidence consists of interested or inimical witnesses or where the defence gives a version which competes in probability with that of the prosecution one." 14. The circumstance that the accused sustained serious injuries during the course of the incident is one of the factors which has to be taken into consideration for evaluating the evidence of prosecution witnesses and determining the acceptability of the defence. Considering this aspect in Dashrath Singh vs. State of U. P., (2004)7 see 408 in para 19 it is observed by the Apex Court : "19. The injuries of serious nature received by the accused in the course of the same occurrence would indicate that there was a fight between both parties. In such a situation, the question as to the genesis of the fight, that is to say, the events leading to the fight and which party initiated the first attack assumes great importance in reaching the ultimate decision. It is here that the need to explain the injuries of serious nature received by the accused in the course of same occurrence arises. When explanation is given, the correctness of the explanation is liable to be tested. It is here that the need to explain the injuries of serious nature received by the accused in the course of same occurrence arises. When explanation is given, the correctness of the explanation is liable to be tested. If there is an omission to explain, it may lead to the inference that the prosecution has suppressed some of the relevant details concerning the incident. The Court has then to consider whether such omission casts a reasonable doubt on the entire prosecution story or it will have any effect on the other reliable evidence available having bearing on the origin of the incident. Ultimately, the factum of non-explanation of injuries is one circumstance which has to be kept in view while appreciating the evidence of prosecution witnesses. In case the prosecution version is sought to be proved by partisan or interested witnesses, the non-explanation of serious injuries may prima facie make a dent on the credibility of their evidence. So also where the defence version accords with probabilities to such an extent that it is difficult to predicate which version is true, then the factum of non-explanation of the injuries assumes greater importance. Much depends on the quality of the evidence adduced by the prosecution and it is from that angle, the weight to be attached to the aspect of non-explanation of the injuries should be considered. The decision above cited would make it clear that there cannot be mechanical or isolated approach in examining the question whether the prosecution case is vitiated by reason of non-explanation of injuries. In other words, the non-explanation of injuries of the accused is one of the factors that could be taken into account in evaluating the prosecution evidence and the intrinsic worth of the defence version. 15. Similar view is taken in Bishna vs. State of WE., (2005)12 SCC 657 . In para 49 and 50 it is observed : "49. The witnesses indisputably in their cross-examinations did not accept the said fact presumably because they were accused in the counter case, presumably on the premise that if they admitted the same, they would have accepted their guilt. It is now well settled that it is not imperative to prove the injuries on the person of the accused irrespective of the facts and circumstances of the case including the admitted facts. It is now well settled that it is not imperative to prove the injuries on the person of the accused irrespective of the facts and circumstances of the case including the admitted facts. Normally such a plea is entertained when the right of self-defence is accepted by the Court. 50. The fact as regards failure to explain injuries on the accused vary from case to case. Whereas non-explanation of injuries suffered by the accused probabilities the defence version that the prosecution side attacked first, in a given situation it may also be possible to hold that the explanation given by the accused about his injury is not satisfactory and the statements of the prosecution witnesses fully explain the same and, thus, it is possible to hold that the accused had committed a crime for which he was charged. Where injuries· were sustained by both sides and when both the parties suppressed the genesis in the incident, or were coming out with the partial truth, the prosecution may fail. But, no law in general terms can be laid down to the effect that each and every case where the prosecution fails to explain the injuries on the person of the accused, the same should be rejected without any further probe. (see Bankey Lal vs. State of U. P. 7 and Mohar Rai vs. State of Bihar 8)" In Amar Malia vs. State of Tripura, (2002) 7 SCC 91 , the Supreme Court held: "It is well settled that merely because the prosecution has failed to explain injuries on the accused persons, ipso facto the same cannot be taken to a ground for throwing out the prosecution case, especially when the same has been supported by eyewitnesses, including injured ones as wel1, and their evidence is corroborated by medical evidence as well as objective finding of the investigating officer." 16. In support of his contention in respect of non-explanation of injuries sustained by the accused and right of private defence, apart from the decision of Apex Court in the matter of Laxmi Singh (supra), learned Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on Balwan Singh and others vs. State of Haryana, 2005 SAR (Criminal) 454; Umrao vs. State of Haryana and ors., 2006 SAR (Criminal) 521; Sukhdev Singh and another vs. State of Punjab and others, 1995 CriLl. 3227; Sayyed Amirsayyad Amanoddin vs. State of Maharashtra, 2004(2) B. Cr. 3227; Sayyed Amirsayyad Amanoddin vs. State of Maharashtra, 2004(2) B. Cr. C. 147 and Kashinath Ramchandra Patil and others vs. State of Maharashtra, 2001(1) Crimes 322. The view taken in these decisions is similar to the view taken by the Apex Court in Laxmi Singh (supra) and other decisions discussed earlier. 17. The effect of the non-explanation of the injuries suffered by the accused has to be ascertained by appreciating all the attending circumstances in proper perspective. In the present case, apart from the non-explanation of the injuries suffered by the accused, learned counsel for the appellant contends that the evidence of the inimical and partisan witnesses is unreliable, as it suffers from the vice of omissions and contradiction. Referring to the admission of P.W. 8 in the cross-examination that all of them were in the hospital throughout the night, it is submitted that the F.I.R. is lodged on the next morning and this delay in lodging the report is not explained. P.W. 8 is a rustic witness. She had sustained severe injuries and was under treatment when the F.I.R. was lodged. In the absence of other circumstances to substantiate the assertion and in the face of the evidence of the Investigating Officer, it is not possible for us to sustain this contention. Similarly, the theory that P.W. 8 was not present at the time of occurrence cannot be accepted in view of the fact that immediately after the occurrence she was carried to the hospital in a police van and was examined by P. W. 13. Coupled with this, the fact that she had sustained three incised wounds, vouch for her presence at the time of incident. Learned defence counsel has also referred to the fact that the deceased had sustained in all five injuries on the head though the witnesses speak about infliction of three injuries by large knife and to the fact that only three injuries are described in the Inquest Panchanama (Exh. 69). Such contradictions do appear even in the evidence of the truthful witnesses. The witnesses are not expected to meticulously count the number of injuries inflicted on each of the victims, nor does lapse on the part of the Investigating Officer in not mentioning all the injuries in the Inquest, can affect credibility of the eye witnesses. 69). Such contradictions do appear even in the evidence of the truthful witnesses. The witnesses are not expected to meticulously count the number of injuries inflicted on each of the victims, nor does lapse on the part of the Investigating Officer in not mentioning all the injuries in the Inquest, can affect credibility of the eye witnesses. Learned Trial Judge has elaborately discussed all the objections raised by the counsel and on appreciation of the evidence has rightly come to the conclusion that the evidence of the eye witnesses deserves credence as it does not suffer from serious infirmities. We do not find any fault with the reasoning of the trial Court. Evidence of P.Ws. 1, 8, 10 and 11 in respect the assault by the appellant on the deceased has been corroborated by the medical evidence and the evidence of independent witness Ramnath (P.W. 9) who proved discovery of the weapon of offence. P.W. 8 had herself sustained injuries due to the attack by the appellant when she intervened to protect her husband. The appellant harboured grudge against the victims in view of the dispute regarding the property raised by him on his return to the village. The altercation on that day at 4.00 p.m. in front of his shop, culminated in the consorted attack on the deceased. The evidence on record so far it concerns the appellant is unimpeachable. This evidence establish beyond doubt that the appellant was the aggressor. It is not in dispute that the deceased died a homicidal death. Evidence of P.W. 12 shows that the deceased sustained injuries to the brain. There was swelling with contusion with haematoma over right frontal and parietal region of the size of 3 x 3 cm.; contusion with swelling with haematoma on upper occipital region on left of mid line 3 x 2 cm.; and contusion on temporal bone on internal aspect, 2 x 1 cm. each. As a result of the force used in inflicting injuries the frontal and parietal bones used in inflicting injuries the frontal and parietal bones of the skull were fractured. The death is caused on account of the shock due to the injuries caused to the brain and the skull fracture. The nature of the injuries, the part of the body selected and the force used establish beyond doubt that the intention of the appellant was to cause death of the victim. The death is caused on account of the shock due to the injuries caused to the brain and the skull fracture. The nature of the injuries, the part of the body selected and the force used establish beyond doubt that the intention of the appellant was to cause death of the victim. Besides, the version of the incident given by the appellant is not satisfactory. If P.W. 1 and others had in fact obstructed the appellant at a lonely place on the road near Karodi, it is difficult to believe that they would let off the victim on his assurance that the dispute would be settled at the village and then attack him at the crowded place in the village, in presence of witnesses. The evidence of prosecution witnesses P.Ws. 1, 8, 10 and 11 establish beyond doubt that the appellant is the aggressor. Re inflicted injuries on the head of the deceased with the intention of committing murder and caused three injuries to P.W. 8 by lethal weapon. Learned Counsel for the appellant argued that the accused were charged for having committed offences charged against them in prosecution of the common objection of unlawful assembly. As the other seven accused are acquitted, appellant should not have been convicted for commission of murder of the deceased. The deceased had sustained five injuries and the death resulted from the cumulative result of all these injuries. The appellant was waving iron rod. Thus, only one injury can be attributed to the appellant, hence he cannot alone be held responsible for causing the death of the deceased. In support of this contention, reliance is placed on the decision of Apex Court in the matter of Atmaram Zingaraji vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 1998 Marathwada Cases Reporter 294. In that case the death was not caused by the injuries inflicted by the appellant. Therefore, the conviction of appellant was altered from the offence punishable under section 302 to offence punishable under section 326 of Indian Penal Code. We are unable to persuade ourself to accept this contention. In the present case, the defence of the appellant has been rejected and it is found that he was wielding a large knife. The post-mortem report shows fracture of parietal and temporal bone and injuries to the brain corresponding injury Nos. 1,2,4 and 5 which are caused by the appellant. We are unable to persuade ourself to accept this contention. In the present case, the defence of the appellant has been rejected and it is found that he was wielding a large knife. The post-mortem report shows fracture of parietal and temporal bone and injuries to the brain corresponding injury Nos. 1,2,4 and 5 which are caused by the appellant. These injuries by themselves are sufficient, in the ordinary course of nature, to cause death. In this view of the matter, the contention, that death has not resulted on account of injuries caused to the deceased by the appellant, cannot be sustained. The fact that injuries are inflicted on vital part of the body, the vicious force used for inflicting the injuries resulting in fracture of the parietal and temporal bones establish that the injuries were inflicted with the intention of causing death. In the face of this evidence, contention of learned counsel for the appellant for reduction of the sentence based on the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of State of Punjab vs. Mann Singh and another, AIR 1983 SC 172 and Baul and another vs. State of U. P., AIR 1968 SC 728 cannot be sustained. In the face of reliable evidence on record, as against the appellant, we do not find any fault with the conclusion of the Trial Judge that the appellant is liable for the commission of the murder of the deceased and his rejection of the defence version of the incident. Taking overall view of the evidence on record, no fault can be found with the finding recorded by learned Trial Judge. In this view of the matter, we confirm order of conviction and sentence passed upon the appellant, by the learned Trial Judge. 18. In support of the appeal against acquittal, learned A.P.P. contends that the presence of accused No. 8 at the time of occurrence is undisputed. Evidence of P.W. 1 shows that accused No.8 took part in assaulting him. In the face of this evidence, acquittal of accused No. 8 cannot be justified. It is pertinent to bear in mind that P.W. 1 has sustained minor injury on the forehead. P.W. 10 has suffered contusion on left scapular region, CL W on occipital region and abrasion on left eye. The fact that injuries suffered by the appellant, accused Nos. In the face of this evidence, acquittal of accused No. 8 cannot be justified. It is pertinent to bear in mind that P.W. 1 has sustained minor injury on the forehead. P.W. 10 has suffered contusion on left scapular region, CL W on occipital region and abrasion on left eye. The fact that injuries suffered by the appellant, accused Nos. 2 and 8 are not explained by the prosecution witnesses and uncertainty of the role played by them, led the Trial Judge to give benefit of doubt to other accused. The evidence regarding formation of unlawful assembly, common object of the assembly and the complicity of accused Nos. 2 to 8 is also not satisfactory. The very commencement of the incident is with the assault on the deceased and P.W. 8 by the appellant. Thus, evidence regarding complicity of remaining accused cannot be treated on par with this evidence. Taking overall view of the circumstances of the present case, finding recorded by the Trial Judge in respect of the involvement of accused Nos. 2 to 8 cannot be categorized as perverse. The view taken by the Trial Judge is one of the possible view. The interference with the order of acquittal can be justified only if the trial Court has committed manifest error of law or the finding is based on no evidence and leads to the miscarriage of justice. Referring to the principles governing interference with the order of acquittal, in Ram Swaroop vs. State of Rajasthan, (2004) 13 SCC 134 , the Apex Court observed in para 25 of the report, "Similarly it is well settled that if the view taken by the trial Court while acquitting the accused is a possible, reasonable view of the evidence on record, the High Court ought not to interfere with such an order of acquittal merely because it is possible to take the contrary view. It is not as if the power of the High Court in any way is curtailed in appreciating the evidence on record in an appeal against acquittal, but having done so, the High Court ought not to interfere with an order of acquittal, if the view taken by the trial Court is also a reasonable view of the evidence on record and the findings recorded by the trial Court are not manifestly erroneous, contrary to the evidence on record or perverse". Having regard to the totality of the circumstances, in our considered opinion, it is not necessary to interfere with the acquittal of accused Nos. 2 to 8. In the result, both the appeals fail and are dismissed accordingly. Appeals dismissed.