Honble SINGH, J.–The appellants five in number, were put to trial before learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2 (Fast Track), Kota, who vide judgment dated January 28, 2002 passed in Sessions Case No. 98/2001 convicted and sentenced them as under:- Dinesh Kumar : u/S. 302 IPC: To suffer life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 200/-, in default to further suffer six months rigorous imprisonment. u/S. 307 IPC: To suffer 10 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 200/-, in default to further suffer three months simple imprisonment. u/S. 324 IPC: To suffer one years simple imprisonment. u/S. 148 and 452 IPC: To suffer two years simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 100/-, in default to further suffer one months simple imprisonment. u/S. 323/149 IPC: To suffer six months simple imprisonment. Sattu @ Satyanarayan: u/S. 148 and 452 IPC: To suffer two years simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 100/-, in default to further suffer one months simple imprisonment. u/S. 302/149 IPC: To suffer life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 200/-, in default to further suffer six months rigorous imprisonment. u/S. 307/149 IPC: To suffer ten years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 200/-, in default to further suffer three months simple imprisonment. u/S. 324 IPC: To suffer one years simple imprisonment. u/S. 323/149 IPC: To suffer six months simple imprisonment. Sonu @ Sunil, Smt. Geeta Bai and Smt. Nirmala: u/S. 148 and 452 IPC: Each one of them to suffer two years simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 100/-, in default to further suffer one months simple imprisonment. u/S. 302/149 IPC: Each one of them to suffer life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 200/-, in default to further suffer six months rigorous imprisonment. u/S. 307/149 IPC: Each one of them to suffer ten years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 200/-, in default to further suffer three months simple imprisonment. u/S. 324/149 IPC: Each one of them to suffer one years simple imprisonment. u/S. 323 IPC: To suffer six months simple imprisonment. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. (2). It is the prosecution case that informant Suresh Kumar (PW. 10) submitted a written report (Ex. P. 5) at Police Station Mahaveer Nagar, Kota on 8.4.2001 at about 3.00 A.M. with the averments that his house is situated at Keshav Nagar, Kota and Babu Lal Nai was also residing in front of his house. (2). It is the prosecution case that informant Suresh Kumar (PW. 10) submitted a written report (Ex. P. 5) at Police Station Mahaveer Nagar, Kota on 8.4.2001 at about 3.00 A.M. with the averments that his house is situated at Keshav Nagar, Kota and Babu Lal Nai was also residing in front of his house. There had been long standing enmity between them and many a times they had altercation in the past. On 7.4.2001 at about 11 Oclock, while the informant and his family members were sleeping in the house after bolting the door from inside, the accused Babu Lal Nai along with his wife Smt. Geeta, Dinesh, Sattu @ Satyanarayan and Sonu @ Sunil (sons) and Smt. Nirmala W/o Shri Dinesh armed with deadly weapons entered in his house. Chhitar Lal, father of the informant enquired from the accused as to why they had entered in the house. On this, Babu Lal Nai and his wife Smt. Geeta exhorted to finish them. Dinesh with the sword pierced abdomen of Chhitar Lal. Babu Lal Nai inflicted injury on the abdomen of Chhitar Lal. Uma Shankar and the informant Suresh Kumar rushed to rescue Chhitar Lal. Satyanarayan inflicted blow with iron rod on the head of Chhitar Lal. Dinesh and Satyanarayan inflicted knife injury to Uma Shankar and Vinod. While Nirmala W/o Dinesh and Smt. Geeta W/o Babu Lal and Sonu @ Sunil inflicted injuries to his father and brother with lathies and iron rod. Chhitar Lal and Uma Shankar became unconscious on the spot. On hearing hue and cry, neighbours also gathered there. Injured Uma Shankar and Chhitar Lal were taken to the hospital. Chhitar Lal succumbed to the injuries while injured Uma Shankar was admitted in the hospital. On the basis of the aforesaid report, a case under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 452 and 323 IPC was registered and investigation commenced. After due investigation, chargesheet was filed. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2 (Fast Track), Kota. Charges under Sections 148, 452, 302 or 302/149, 307 or 307/149, 324 or 324/149 and 323 or 323/149, IPC were framed against the appellants who denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 18 witnesses. In their explanation under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the appellants claimed innocence. Charges under Sections 148, 452, 302 or 302/149, 307 or 307/149, 324 or 324/149 and 323 or 323/149, IPC were framed against the appellants who denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 18 witnesses. In their explanation under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the appellants claimed innocence. Appellant Dinesh examined himself as DW 1 under Section 315 Cr.P.C. Learned trial Judge on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellants as indicted hereinabove. (3). We have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants and learned Public Prosecutor and with their assistance scanned the material on record. (4). It appears from the record that the death of Chhitar Lal was concededly homicidal in nature. As per Post Mortem report (Ex. P. 2), the following ante mortem injuries were found on the dead body: 1. Stab incised wound- 3 x 1 cm x cavity deep on right hypochondrium. 2. Stab incised wound - 3 x 1 cm cavity deep loops of intestine coming out on left iliac fossa. 3. Abrassion - 3 x 2 cm on center of forehead 4. Abrasion 1/2 x 1/2 cm front of left ankle. 5. Incised wound - incised wound 3 x 1/2 cm x 1 cm Rt lobe of liver near its inferior border with haemetoma. As per the Autopsy Surgeon the death was caused due to shock as a result of ante mortem injury to liver, sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of life. (5). Other members of complainant party also sustained injuries. Injury report (Ex. P. 3) of Om Shankar S/o Shri Chhitar Lal reads as under: 1. Stiched would - 4 cm long on Rt. Claviculor region. 2. Incised wound - 3 x 1/2 cm x skin deep on Rt ring finger. 3. Stiched wound - 3 cm on Lt gluteal region. 4. Stiched wound - 4 cm long on Lt. Parietal region. As per Surgeon notes, surgical emphyseina was present in chest and about 1 ltr. blood came out. Hence injury No. 1 was found dangerous to life. (6). Vinod S/o Shri Chhitar Lal (PW. 24) vide Injury report (Ex. P. 12) received the following injuries: 1. Lacerated wound : 2 x 1 cm on forehead side 2. Lacerated wound : 2 x 1 cm on fronto parietal region on left side of head. 3. Diffusive swelling on Rt. ankle. (6). Vinod S/o Shri Chhitar Lal (PW. 24) vide Injury report (Ex. P. 12) received the following injuries: 1. Lacerated wound : 2 x 1 cm on forehead side 2. Lacerated wound : 2 x 1 cm on fronto parietal region on left side of head. 3. Diffusive swelling on Rt. ankle. (7). Suresh (PW. 10) vide injury report (Ex. P. 26) received the following injuries: 1. Lacerated wound - 1 x 1 cm on forehead on left side. 2. Contusion with swelling on left knee 2 x 2 cm. 3. Reddish contusion - 6 x 1 cm on left shoulder. 4. Abrasion - 2 x 2 on left left leg. (8). It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the members of the complainant party and accused party, were neighbours and there was a long standing enmity between them and that the accused Dinesh was in fact assailed by the complainant party and he was also injured and he had lodged a cross case, therefore, the accused persons who are members of the same family have been falsely implicated. (9). A close look at the material on record demonstrates that out of the six eye witnesses examined in the case, five are members of the same family. Suresh (PW. 10), Vinod (PW. 13) and Uma Shankar (PW. 7) are the sons of deceased Chhitar Lal while Smt. Ram Janaki (PW. 2) is wife of Suresh (PW. 10) and Smt. Krishna (PW. 3) is the wife of Vinod (PW. 13). Other remaining witness Hanuman Prasad (PW. 6) is said to be resident of the same vicinity. Likewise, the appellants also belong to the same family as the appellant Babu Lal is the father of appellants, Satyanarayan, Dinesh and Sonu while Smt. Nirmala is wife of Dinesh and Smt. Geeta is wife of Babu Lal. The complainant and accused party are neighbours and there was admittedly a long standing enmity between them as stated in the FIR as a cause behind the incident. The fact of long standing enmity is admitted by Vinod (PW. The complainant and accused party are neighbours and there was admittedly a long standing enmity between them as stated in the FIR as a cause behind the incident. The fact of long standing enmity is admitted by Vinod (PW. 13) in his cross examination wherein he had admitted that he had faced a case of outraging modesty of Pooja sister of accused Dinesh and he had confessed his guilt but it has been explained that the same was done at the instance of the Judge as he was told that the case could come to an end. This witness has also admitted that disputes were going on between both the parties for last 2-3 years. He has also admitted that a case for assaulting Sonu was also lodged by accused party on 30.6.99 while a cross case was also lodged against them and they were bound down to keep peace for a period of one year. (10). The Apex Court in Ravulappalli Kondaiah and Others vs. State of Andhra Pradesh ( AIR 1975 SC 216 ) observed that where the eye witnesses are highly interested and also inimically disposed towards the accused, while such witnesses never fail to denounce the real culprits, they cannot be said to be absolutely immune from tendency of roping in some innocent persons, therefore, the court should seek some assurance of this interested evidence from independent source qua each of the accused. In State of Punjab vs. Pritam Singh and Others ( AIR 1977 SC 2005 ), it was observed that where there was serious enmity between the victim and alleged assailants and the motive for accused to kill and motive for informant to falsely implicate accused are equally balanced, truth of prosecution case is to be ascertained from surrounding circumstances. (11). On reappraisal of the testimony of eye witnesses in view of the aforesaid legal position, it is revealed that informant Suresh (PW. 10) in his deposition stated that on 7.4.2001 in the night while he along with his brother Uma Shankar (PW. 7) and Vinod (PW. 13), his father Chhitar Lal, his wife Janaki Bai and Krishna W/o Vinod were in the house, the accused Babu Lal, Dinesh, Sattu. Sonu and Pooja entered in their house after breaking open the gate. 10) in his deposition stated that on 7.4.2001 in the night while he along with his brother Uma Shankar (PW. 7) and Vinod (PW. 13), his father Chhitar Lal, his wife Janaki Bai and Krishna W/o Vinod were in the house, the accused Babu Lal, Dinesh, Sattu. Sonu and Pooja entered in their house after breaking open the gate. The accused Dinesh was armed with sword, Babu Lal and Sattu with knife, Sonu with iron rod, Nirmala and Geeta with lathies and Pooja had a big stone in her hand. They all started beating. Dinesh inflicted a sword blow on the abdomen of Chhitar Lal who fell down and then Babu Lal inflicted knife blow on the other side of the abdomen. Uma Shankar (PW. 7) tried to save his father but he was also inflicted a sword blow so he fell down. On this, the accused Satyanarayan dragged him out of the house and there he inflicted 2-3 knife blows. Suresh (PW. 10) and Vinod (PW. 13) came out to save Uma Shankar (PW. 7) but they were also attacked. Sonu inflicted `Sariya (iron rod) blow on the head of Vinod and the lady accused also inflicted lathi blows to him. Pooja, who had a big stone in her hand also inflicted stone blow on his fathers chest. The accused persons ran away on seeing the residents of the vicinity. The testimony of this witness has also been corroborated by Vinod (PW. 13), Uma Shankar (PW. 7), Ram Janaki (PW. 2) and Smt. Krishna (PW. 3) who were present in the house as they were members of the same family. The only independent witness Hanuman Prasad (PW. 6) in his deposition stated that he resided in house No. 87 in the neighbourhood and when he reached to the spot on hearing hue and cry, he saw Babu Lal, Dinesh, Satyanarayan and Sonu, all four beating Uma Shankar (PW. 7) and the accused Satyanarayan inflicted knife blow on left side of neck and second blow was inflicted on his head. Then Suresh (PW. 10) came to save Uma Shankar (PW. 7), he was beaten by lathies by lady accused Geeta and Nirmala. Vinod (PW. 13) also came to save, he was inflicted `Sariya (iron rod) blow by accused Sonu on right and left side of the head. Then Suresh (PW. 10) came to save Uma Shankar (PW. 7), he was beaten by lathies by lady accused Geeta and Nirmala. Vinod (PW. 13) also came to save, he was inflicted `Sariya (iron rod) blow by accused Sonu on right and left side of the head. Deceased Chhitar Lal was lying in a pool of blood inside the house in the gallery. Then the police vehicle reached at the spot and the assailants escaped while the injured were taken to hospital and there Chhitar Lal succumbed to the injuries. (12). On conjoint reading of the testimony of the above eye witnesses Uma Shankar (PW. 7), Suresh Kumar (PW. 10) and Vinod (PW. 13), it is revealed that the accused Dinesh had inflicted the first sword blow to deceased Chhitar Lal in his abdomen and he fell on the ground, is consistent and worth credence but the statements of these witnesses that the accused Babu Lal inflicted knife blow to the deceased in his abdomen after he fell on the ground appears to improbable as no such blow can be inflicted without taking a position on the body of deceased to inflict blow with knife, and in the absence of such a deposition, it is difficult to believe these witnesses specially in view of the long standing enmity with the accused party. Moreover, the sword used in the offence has been further connected with the crime as the same has been recovered at the instance of the accused Dinesh, and the same was found to be stained with the same group of human blood as the Banyan of the deceased Chhitar Lal, as per FSL report (Ex. P. 28). Apart from deceased Chhitar Lal, no other eye witness except Uma Shankar (PW. 7) has sustained any injury by sharp edged weapon. Uma Shankar (PW. 7) in his deposition stated that when he came to save his father, accused Dinesh and Satyanarayan inflicted injuries to him. According to him accused Dinesh inflicted sword blow on his neck and he fell down and then Satyanarayan inflicted knife blow on his buttock and one more blow was inflicted by him when Dinesh and Satyanarayan dragged him out side the house. But Hanuman Prasad (PW. 6) stated that when he reached at the place of occurrence, he saw all four i.e. Babu Lal, Satyanarayan, Sonu and Dinesh beating Uma Shankar (PW. But Hanuman Prasad (PW. 6) stated that when he reached at the place of occurrence, he saw all four i.e. Babu Lal, Satyanarayan, Sonu and Dinesh beating Uma Shankar (PW. 7) and according to him it was Satyanarayan who inflicted two knife blows to the injured. This does not explain as to why Babu Lal who had knife and Dinesh who had sword, did not inflict any blow. This goes to show that the witnesses have tried to implicate by assigning knife injury by Babu Lal and Satyanarayan. Likewise, the role assigned to other accused persons except accused Dinesh, is also not consistent and in the facts and circumstances the over implication of the accused except accused Dinesh cannot be ruled out. (13). Accused Dinesh has taken a stand in his statement u/S. 315 Cr.P.C. that in fact he was attacked by the complainant party and he had sustained an injury. As per his injury report (Ex. D. 5), he sustained one incised wound 8 x 2 cm x muscle deep on left hand deep palmer aspect and other injury is abrasion 1 x 1/4 cm just above left eye. Dr. Ashok Mundra (PW. 9) has deposed that such injury on hand can be caused while using ones own weapon. The accused Dinesh who has examined himself u/S. 315 Cr.P.C. stated that the FIR (Ex. D. 8) of the cross case was lodged by him stating that the members of complainant Chhitar Lal (deceased), Suresh, Vinod, Om Prakash and Raju attacked him while he returned from his shop that night and Om Prakash inflicted sword blow on his hand. But this defence of accused Dinesh is not of much significance as from the consistent testimony of the eye witnesses, it has been proved that the occurrence, in fact, unfolded in the manner alleged by the prosecution and the deceased was assailed with sword by accused Dinesh in the house where he fell down in pool of blood and the blood stains were also found on the walls. (14). Since we find the prosecution evidence consistent and reliable qua appellant Dinesh and hence he is held guilty under sections 452, 302, 307 and 324 IPC. We, however, grant benefit of doubt to appellants Sattu @ Satyanarayan, Sonu @ Sunil, Smt. Geeta Bai and Smt. Nirmala. (15). (14). Since we find the prosecution evidence consistent and reliable qua appellant Dinesh and hence he is held guilty under sections 452, 302, 307 and 324 IPC. We, however, grant benefit of doubt to appellants Sattu @ Satyanarayan, Sonu @ Sunil, Smt. Geeta Bai and Smt. Nirmala. (15). For these reasons, we dispose of instant appeal in the following terms: (i) Appeal of appellant Dinesh Kumar stands dismissed and his conviction and sentence under Sections 452, 302, 307 and 324 are confirmed. He however stands acquitted of the charges under sections 148 and 323/149 IPC. (ii) We allow the appeal of appellants Sattu @ Satya Narayan, Sonu @ Sunil, Geeta Bai and Nirmala and acquit them of the charges under Sections 148, 452, 302/149, 307/149, 323, 324/149 and 323/149 IPC. Appellants Geeta Bai and Nirmala are on bail, they need not surrender and their bail bonds stand discharged. Appellants Sattu @ Satya Narayan and Sonu @ Sunil, who are in jail, shall be set at liberty forthwith, if they are required to be detained in any other case. (iii) The impugned judgment of learned trial Court stands modified as indicated above.