JUDGMENT A. K. PARICHHA, J. : The State is in appeal against the order of acquittal of the respondents recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Kalahandi, Bhawanipatna in Sessions Case No.38 of 1990. 2. The respondent-accused persons were charge-sheeted under Sections 148/302/323/149 I.P.C. in the above noted case on the allegation that on 4.6.1990 when the deceased and his wife were returning from their land at about noon the accused persons quarrelled with them and attacked them with tangia and lathis in furtherance of their common object to cause death to the deceased as a result of which the deceased died at the spot and his wife-P.W.1 sustained injuries. It was also alleged that the respon¬dent-accused persons attacked some of the family members of the deceased while they tried to intervene and save the deceased. P.W.8, the brother of the deceased went to the Boden Police Station soon after the occurrence and lodged the F.I.R.-Ext.4, basing on which P.S. case was registered, investigation was conducted and charge-sheet was submitted. 3. The plea of the appellants was one of denial and false implications. An additional plea was also advanced that the deceased attacked one of the respondents, namely Shyam Sundar (respondent No.3) causing injury on his head and that in order to counter that allegation, a false report was lodged. To substan¬tiate the allegation, the prosecution examined 22 witnesses and produced several documents which were marked as Exts.1 to 28. Some material object like stick and lathis, tangia, blood stained clothes etc. of the deceased were produced and were marked as M.Os. I to VII. The respondents did not examine any witness but relied on the statement of P.W.7 recorded by the I.O. marked as Ext.A. On consideration of the evidence adduced by the parties, the learned trial Court came to hold that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly recorded an order of acquittal. The said order of acquittal is now under challenge in this appeal. 4. Mr. Routray, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant-State submits that the evidence on record were not properly appreciated by the learned trial Court and that the evidence of eye witnesses, namely, P.Ws. 1 to 6, the medical evidence of the doctors; P.Ws. 7, 19 and 21 and the report of the chemical examiner are sufficient to estab¬lish the charges against the respondents. 1 to 6, the medical evidence of the doctors; P.Ws. 7, 19 and 21 and the report of the chemical examiner are sufficient to estab¬lish the charges against the respondents. He placed the state¬ments of the above noted witnesses and the reports to show that the order of acquittal is against the materials on record. 5. Mr. Sahoo, learned counsel appearing for the respondents argued per contra that when the eye witnesses named in the F.I.R. did not support the prosecution allegations and the I.O. himself stated that P.Ws. 1 to 6 did not state before him to have seen the offence of attack by the respondents on the de¬ceased and when the evidence of the eye witnesses are riddled with contradictions and omissions, the learned trial Court was perfectly justified in saying that the charges against the re¬spondents are not established beyond reasonable doubt. Mr. Sahoo thoroughly supported the impugned order. 6. The allegation made against the respondents was that they had some land dispute with the deceased and on the date of occurrence while the deceased and his wife were coming back from the land, they quarrelled and carried a combined attack with the deadly weapons like axe and lathis causing death of the deceased and injuries to P.W.1. Out of the witnesses examined, P.Ws. 1 to 6 claiming themselves to be the eye witnesses, stated about the occurrence. P.Ws. 12 to 18, some of whom have been named in the F.I.R., turned hostile and did not support the prosecution alle¬gations whole heartedly. P.W.22 is the I.O. who registered the case and conducted the investigation. He held inquest over the dead body, sent the same for post mortem examination, received post mortem examination report, made seizure of the blood stained clothes, weapons of offence and other articles, recorded state¬ments of the witnesses, sent the seized articles for chemical and serological examinations and on completion of investigation submitted charge-sheet. P.Ws. 10 to 12 are the witnesses who spoke about the seizure of articles in their presence by the I.O. P.W.21 is the doctor who examined P.Ws.1 & 5 on police requisi¬tion and found injuries on their persons. P.W.7 is the doctor who examined P.Ws.2, 3 & 6 and found injuries on their persons. P.Ws. 10 to 12 are the witnesses who spoke about the seizure of articles in their presence by the I.O. P.W.21 is the doctor who examined P.Ws.1 & 5 on police requisi¬tion and found injuries on their persons. P.W.7 is the doctor who examined P.Ws.2, 3 & 6 and found injuries on their persons. P.W.19 is the doctor who conducted post mortem examination on the deceased on police requisition and gave opinion that the death occurred due to the incised injuries on the legs. P.W.20 is the Havildar who accompanied the dead body for post mortem examina¬tion. P.W.8 is the brother of the deceased who lodged the F.I.R., Ext.4. 7. The evidence of the I.O.-P.W.22, Havildar-P.W.20 and that of the doctor-P.W.19 clearly show that the dead body of the deceased was sent for post mortem examination. The doctor-P.W.19 on examination, found that the death was due to homicidal incised injuries. The post mortem report-Ext.10 gives ample support to the statement of these witnesses and further show that besides the incised injuries, there were other ante mortem injuries on the deceased. The respondents took a plea in the trial Court that the dead body was not of the deceased but in view of the evidence of the Havildar-D. Kumar (P.W.20) and the doctor, it is clear that the police personnel and the relatives of the deceased identified the dead body before P.W.19. So there is no scope for any doubt that the deceased died due to homicidal incised inju¬ries on his legs. Similarly the evidence of the doctors; P.Ws.21 & 7 establish beyond doubt that there were injuries on the per¬sons of P.Ws. 1 to 6 when they were examined on police requisi¬tion a day after the occurrence. Now the question is whether the death of the deceased and the injuries of the above-named persons were inflicted by the accused-respondents in furtherance of their common object. 8. P.Ws. 1 to 6 and have broadly stated that the respon¬dents carried the attack on the deceased and his wife. The ques¬tion is whether the statement of those witnesses can be relied. The first objection of the learned counsel for the respondents is that these persons were not named in the F.I.R. as eye wit¬nesses and therefore, their statements are not acceptable. It is true that in the F.I.R.-Ext.4 the names of P.Ws. The ques¬tion is whether the statement of those witnesses can be relied. The first objection of the learned counsel for the respondents is that these persons were not named in the F.I.R. as eye wit¬nesses and therefore, their statements are not acceptable. It is true that in the F.I.R.-Ext.4 the names of P.Ws. 2 to 4 have not been mentioned, but it has also not been specifically stated that besides the persons named, no other person had seen the occur¬rence. In the F.I.R., the presence of P.W.5 is clearly indicated. The evidence of P.W.1 shows that while she was coming back from the land with her deceased-husband, the incident took place. According to her respondents Laxman Harijan, Kuber Harijan and Tukaram Harijan were holding tangias, respondents Mohan Harijan & Gajendra Harijan and the accused Upendra Harijan were holding thengas and they attacked her and her husband with these weapons. Her statement is sought to be discredited on the plea that she is not able to describe in details, which of the accused attacked in what manner. The evidence of P.W.1 is that when her husband was attacked by the assailants and collapsed to the ground, she laid herself on her husband in order to protect him and in the process she also received several blows dealt by the respondents. In such situation, the witness cannot be expected to narrate in details as to which assailant dealt what kind of blow on which part of the body of the deceased. moreover, it cannot be lost sight of that P.W.1 is the wife of the deceased and was all along there with the deceased at the time of the occurrence and witnessed the death of her husband. Such a witness would not normally implicate persons who are not the assailants and leave the real culprits to go free. P.Ws.2 & 3 are the children of the deceased. They claim that they saw the attack on their father. P.W.2 has named Kuber, Laxman and Tukaram as the persons who dealt axe blows on the deceased. P.W.3 also gave similar statement.She stated specifi¬cally that Laxman Harijan and Kuber Harijan attacked with axe, while Makaru Harijan and Mohan assaulted the deceased with lathis. She also stated about the assault on her mother and her¬self. She further stated that when she went to the spot, accused Tukaram assaulted her and she sustained injuries. Both P.Ws. P.W.3 also gave similar statement.She stated specifi¬cally that Laxman Harijan and Kuber Harijan attacked with axe, while Makaru Harijan and Mohan assaulted the deceased with lathis. She also stated about the assault on her mother and her¬self. She further stated that when she went to the spot, accused Tukaram assaulted her and she sustained injuries. Both P.Ws. 2 and 3 were medically examined on police requisition. The doctor who examined them, has opined that the P.Ws.2 and 3 had bruises on their person and that such injuries are possible by lathi blows. It is argued that because of the names of these witnesses are not there in the F.I.R. and because the I.O. has not specifi¬cally stated about the assault on these witnesses, their state¬ment should be disbelieved. Here again at the cost of repetition, it can be said that P.Ws. 2 & 3 are the children of the deceased and they are both child witnesses. Such witnesses would normally never speak falsehood to implicate some persons who actually did not attack them and their parents. It is not known under what circumstances, the I.O. stated that these witnesses did not give statement about the incident before him. But the fact that they had injuries on their persons soon after the occurrence, indicate a ring of truth in their version. P.W.4 is the father of the deceased. This witness stated that his daughter-in-law, P.W.1 and the grant daughters, P.Ws. 2 & 3 told him about the incident and coming to the spot immediately he found injuries on the deceased.He stated that on protest, he was also assaulted by accused Sadananda @ Saintu and Tukaram on his waist. A close reading of the statement of P.W.4 would show that he does not claim to be the direct witness to the occurrence. But he heard about the incident from P.Ws. 1 to 3 and on coming to the spot he found the injuries on the persons of the deceased and that on raising protest, he was assaulted by two of the respondents. This statement has not been discredited in the cross-examination P.Ws. 5, 6 & 8 have given support to the statement of P.Ws. 1 to 4. 1 to 3 and on coming to the spot he found the injuries on the persons of the deceased and that on raising protest, he was assaulted by two of the respondents. This statement has not been discredited in the cross-examination P.Ws. 5, 6 & 8 have given support to the statement of P.Ws. 1 to 4. No doubt there are some discrepancies in their statements and the I.O. has also contradicted them on some aspect, but in a case of this nature, one has to consider the evidence on a broad manner and minor contradictions should not be considered enough to throw away the evidence of such natural witness. 9. P.Ws. 12 to 18 have no doubt turned hostile. But the evidence of P.Ws.15 to 17 would show that they have also partially supported the prosecution allegation. According to them, they saw the respondents quarrelling with the deceased and that out of fear they left the spot. As co-villagers of the respondents they might have chosen not to say anything against them, but their evidence show that there was an incident invol¬ving the respondents and the deceased at the place and time of occurrence. The medical evidence as indicated above thoroughly support the claim of P.Ws. to 6. There is no reason why the doctors of the Government hospitals would depose anything or report anything which is not true. P.W.22, the I.O. has stated that during the course of investigation, he seized the axe from the house of Kuber on production of the said respondent. He also stated that he seized one more axe and lathi from other respon¬dents as per the seizure lists marked as Exts. 7 to 9. He stated that he sent the tangia first to the doctor for his opinion and then for chemical and serological examinations. The doctor P.W.19, after examining the axe opined that the injuries on the legs of the deceased are possible with such weapon. The report of the chemical examiner marked as Ext.21 shows that the axe seized from Kuber had blood belonging to group of ‘O’ and the blood-stains on the cloth of the deceased had also human blood group of the same group.This report links the axe of the accused-respondent Kuber with the alleged incident. The report of the chemical examiner marked as Ext.21 shows that the axe seized from Kuber had blood belonging to group of ‘O’ and the blood-stains on the cloth of the deceased had also human blood group of the same group.This report links the axe of the accused-respondent Kuber with the alleged incident. With such ocular, medical and chemical evidence on record, it is not possible to say that the respondents had no role in the death of the deceased or the injuries found on P.Ws.1 to 6. 10. The plea of the respondents before the trial Court was that one of the respondents had injury on his head and the said injury was not properly explained. In the F.I.R. itself the said injury has been explained. P.W.8 has clarified that when one of the respondents dealt a lathi blow on the deceased, the deceased picked up a stone and hit the head of the respondent Shyam Sunder with that stone causing that injury. The I.O. also stated about the same. So the injury on the head of the above said respondent was clearly explained. From the evidence and circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the deceased met his death and P.W.1 and some other witnesses received the injuries in the inci¬dent alleged as a result of the attack of the respondents. The next question is whether such act of the respondents would at¬tract the provision of Section 149 of the I.P.C.. 11. The evidence on record shows that while the deceased and his wife were returning from the land, they found the respon¬dents ploughing a piece of disputed land and raised protests and on that protest, a quarrel ensued and the incident of attack fol¬lowed. This trend of evidence show that the respondents had not formed an assembly with a premeditated object to attack or kill the deceased or his wife but the incident sprung up from a sudden quarrel. In such an incident it is not possible to attribute common object to all the respondents or make all of them liable for the offence applying the provision of Section 149, I.P.C. In such situation, the individual act of each of the respondents has to be analysed and decided. In such an incident it is not possible to attribute common object to all the respondents or make all of them liable for the offence applying the provision of Section 149, I.P.C. In such situation, the individual act of each of the respondents has to be analysed and decided. As has been indicated earlier, there are some discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses and the F.I.R., but after screening all those discrepancies, it would be seen that all the eye witnesses have uniformly named Laxman, Kuber and Tukaram as the attackers. In addition to such evidence, the F.I.R. also corroborate that the fatal axe blow was given by respondent Laxman. The doctor has said that because of the axe blow on the leg, the death of the deceased occurred. So it can be safely inferred beyond doubt that while respondents Laxman Hari¬jan, Kuber Harijan and Tukaram Harijan attacked the deceased and P.W.1, the fatal blows were given by Laxman Harijan. The very fact that the incident arose out of sudden quarrel, the offence of Section 302 I.P.C. cannot be attributed. The act of Laxman would come within the purview of Section 304 Part II of the I.P.C. as the blows were given on the legs of the deceased and not on any vital part of the body. The act of respondents Kuber and Tukaram would come within the purview of Section 325 I.P.C. So far as the other respondents are concerned,the evidence is not clinching to establish their involvement in the alleged incident and, therefore, benefit of doubt can be extended to them. 12. In the result, therefore, the order of acquittal so far as the respondents Mohan Harijan, Shyam Sundar Harijan, Tahasil Harijan, Sadananda @ Saintu Harijan and Gajendra Harijan are concerned, is confirmed. But the order of acquittal in favour of the respondents Kuber Harijan, Tukaram Harijan and Laxman Harijan is set aside. Accused-respondents Laxman Harijan is found guilty under Sections 304 Part II & 325 IPC and accused-respondent - Kuber Harijan and Tukaram Harijan are found guilty under Section 325 IPC, and convicted there under. But the order of acquittal in favour of the respondents Kuber Harijan, Tukaram Harijan and Laxman Harijan is set aside. Accused-respondents Laxman Harijan is found guilty under Sections 304 Part II & 325 IPC and accused-respondent - Kuber Harijan and Tukaram Harijan are found guilty under Section 325 IPC, and convicted there under. Accused-respondent Laxman Harijan is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years with a fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thou¬sand), in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of three months for the offence under Section 304 Part II of the I.P.C. He is further sentenced to undergo rigorous impris¬onment for one year and pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one month for the offence under Section 325, I.P.C. Accused-respondent Kuber Harijan and Tukaram Harijan are sentenced to undergo rigor¬ous imprisonment for a period of one year and a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand) each in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one month each. The period of detention undergone as UTP, if any, be set off as per section 428 IPC. 13. The appeal is thus allowed in part. I. M. QUDDUSI, J. I agree. Appeal allowed in part.