Judgment H. S. BHALLA, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 2.4.1997 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, whereby he convicted the appellants under sections 148, 302/323 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Appellant Kabal Singh was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years under section 148 of the Indian Penal Code; rigorous imprisonment for life under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and he was ordered to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-; in default thereof, he was further directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months; rigorous imprisonment for one year under sections 323/149 of the Indian penal Code and he was ordered to pay a fine of Rs.500/-; in default thereof, he was further directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month; rigorous imprisonment for one year under Sec.323 of the Indian Penal Code and he was ordered to pay a fine of Rs.500/-; in default thereof, he was further directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month and rigorous imprisonment for one year under sections 323/149 of the Indian Penal Code; in default thereof, he was ordered to pay a fine of Rs.500/-; in default thereof, he was further directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. Appellant Milkha Singh was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years under Sec.148 of the Indian Penal code ; rigorous imprisonment for life under sections 302/149 of the indian Penal Code and he was ordered to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-; in default thereof, he was further directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months; rigorous imprisonment for one year under sections 323/149 of the Indian Penal Code and he was ordered to pay a fine of Rs.500/-; in default thereof, he was further directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month; rigorous imprisonment for one year under Sections 323/149 of the Indian penal Code and he was ordered to pay a fine of Rs.500/-; in default thereof, he was further directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month and rigorous imprisonment for one year under sections 323/149 of the Indian Penal Code and he was ordered to pay a fine of Rs.500/-; in default thereof, he was further directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. Appellant Baldev Singh was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years under section 149 of the Indian Penal Code; rigorous imprisonment for life under sections 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code and he was ordered to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-; in default thereof, he was further directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months; rigorous imprisonment for one year under sections 323 of the Indian Penal code and he was ordered to pay a fine of Rs.500/-; in default thereof, he was further directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month; rigorous imprisonment for one year under Sections 323/149 of the Indian Penal Code and he was ordered to pay a fine of rs.500/-; in default thereof, he was further directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month and rigorous imprisonment for one year under sections 323/149 of the Indian Penal Code and he was ordered to pay a fine of Rs.500/-; in default thereof, he was further directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. All the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The facts required to be noticed for the disposal of this appeal are that on 31.8.1987 Chhinda Singh (PW-3) along with his brother Rattan Singh (PW-4) and his father Didar Singh were working in their field in the area of village Sankatra. Rachhpal Singh (PW-5)was grazing cattle near the canal. A woman came there and informed that Rachhpal Singh has been surrounded by Kabal Singh, milkha Singh, Baldev Singh, Dhian Singh (Proclaimed Offender) and gurbax Singh @ Gacha Singh (since dead ). On hearing this, chhinda Singh along with his father and brother Rattan Singh went towards that side. All the accused were found present there and at that time Milkha Singh, Kabal Singh were armed with Takuas, Baldev singh armed with Sua, Gacha Singh armed with Kandhali and Dhian singh armed with a stick. All of them had surrounded Rachhpal singh (PW-5 ). They were exchanging abuses with Rachhpal Singh and on seeing them, Rachhpal Singh (PW-5) also abused them. 3. When the accused were about to inflict injuries to Rachhpal Singh, his father stepped forward in order to rescue him, whereupon, Kabal singh accused inflicted takua blow on the head of Didar Singh, gacha Singh @ Gurbax Singh accused inflicted Kandhali blow dang wise hitting Didar Singh on his head. Didar Singh fell down on the ground. 3. When the accused were about to inflict injuries to Rachhpal Singh, his father stepped forward in order to rescue him, whereupon, Kabal singh accused inflicted takua blow on the head of Didar Singh, gacha Singh @ Gurbax Singh accused inflicted Kandhali blow dang wise hitting Didar Singh on his head. Didar Singh fell down on the ground. Gurbax Singh @ Gacha Singh gave another injury with kandhali dang wise hitting Didar Singh on the left side of his chest. Baldev Singh accused inflicted sua blow dangwise hitting Didar Singh on his left arm. Milkha Singh inflicted takua blows to Didar Singh on his chest. When Chhinda Singh (PW-3) tried to rescue his father didar Singh, he was attacked by Kabal Singh, who inflicted two takua blows on his head. Baldev Singh gave sua blow dangwise on his left shoulder. Dhian Singh (since proclaimed offender) gave 2/3 dang blows on his left arm. Kabal Singh gave takua blow on the head of rattan Singh. Dhian Singh (Proclaimed Offender) also gave a dang blow to Rattan Singh on his left hand. Rachhpal Singh received injuries on his person. Milkha Singh accused inflicted takua blow dangwise on his head. Baldev Singh inflicted sua blow dangwise on his left arm. Dhian Singh gave 2-3 dang blows on his head and forehead. On receipt of those injuries, he fell down on the ground. Didar Singh succumbed to his injuries at the spot. Accused left the spot along with their respective weapons. The injured were medico legally examined and police was informed and after completion of necessary investigation, accused were challaned and sent up for trial. 4. Accused were charge-sheeted under Sections 148, 302/323 read with Sec.149 of the Indian Penal Code, to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 5. Prosecution, in order to prove its case, has examined Dr. Manjit Singh (PW-1), who conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Didar Singh and he found nine injuries on his person. In his opinion, the cause of death was due to shock and haemorrhage on account of injuries Nos.1,2,5 and 7, which were ante mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. 6. In his opinion, the cause of death was due to shock and haemorrhage on account of injuries Nos.1,2,5 and 7, which were ante mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. 6. This witness, on the same day,i. e. , on 1.9.1987 at 9.30 a. M. had medico-legally examined Chhinda Singh son of Didar Singh and he found six injuries on his person. Injuries No.1,2,4, 5, and 6 were declared simple. Injury No.3 was kept under observation and it was declared grievous as fracture upper part of right glenoid cavity was seen on x-ray examination. He has further disclosed that the kind of weapon used for injuries Nos.1 and 2 was sharp edged and injuries Nos.3 to 6 were caused by blunt edged weapon. 7. This witness also medico-legally examined Rattan Singh son of Didar Singh and found three injuries on his person. In the opinion of this witness, injuries No.1 and 2 were declared simple. Injury No.3 was kept under observation. He also examined Rachhpal singh son of Didar Singh and found three injuries on his person. Injuries No.1 and 2 were declared simple, while injury No.3, which was kept under observation, was declared as grievous as fracture left ulna, lower 1/3rd was seen on X-ray examination; Rishi Ram (PW-2), chhinda Singh (PW-3), Rattan Singh (PW-4), Rachhpal Singh (PW-5), Swaran Singh (PW-6), Jassa Singh (PW-7), Head Constable gurdev Singh (PW-8), Jaswant Singh (PW-9), ASI Chaman Lal (PW-10), Dr. Sham Lal Gupta (PW-11), and SI Darshan Lal (PW-12) and thereafter closed its evidence. 8. In their statements recorded under section 313 of the code of Criminal Procedure, accused denied all the prosecution allegations levelled against them and pleaded that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. They opted to lead evidence in defence and during the course of defence evidence, they examined Sat Pal, Reader (DW-1), Vir Singh (DW-2) and thereafter closed their defence evidence. 9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case minutely. The learned defence counsel vehemently argued that the ocular version and the medical evidence is inconsistent and the statements made by the prosecution witnesses are self contradictory and they are interested witnesses and no independent witness from the village has come forward to support the prosecution case. The learned defence counsel vehemently argued that the ocular version and the medical evidence is inconsistent and the statements made by the prosecution witnesses are self contradictory and they are interested witnesses and no independent witness from the village has come forward to support the prosecution case. He further submitted that the prosecution witnesses have made improvements in the statements recorded in the Court and in such like circumstances, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the appellants. Learned counsel also submitted that the statements of the witnesses are fraught with contradictions and finally prayed for the acquittal of the accused persons. 10. We have considered the contentions raised by the learned defence counsel, which have to be examined by us in the light of the evidence available on the record, but for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter, they do not cut ice with us and to our mind, no interference is called for and there is nothing to be set right. 11. The contention of the learned defence counsel that the witnesses examined by the prosecution are closely related to each other and in such like circumstances they, being interested witnesses in the success of the prosecution case, no reliance can be placed on their testimony, but we do not find any force in the contention raised by the learned defence counsel, keeping in view the law laid down on the point of interested and relations witnesses by the Hon ble supreme Court in the case of Sarwan Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1976 Supreme Court 2304, which runs as as under:- "it is not the law that the evidence of an interested witness should be equated with that of a tainted evidence or that of an approver so as to require corroboration as a matter of necessity. The evidence of an interested witness does not suffer from any infirmity as such, but the courts require as a rule of prudence not as a rule of law, that the evidence of such witnesses should be scrutinised with a little care. Once that approach is made and the Court is satisfied that the evidence of interested witnesses have a ring of truth such evidence could be relied upon even without corroboration. " 12. Once that approach is made and the Court is satisfied that the evidence of interested witnesses have a ring of truth such evidence could be relied upon even without corroboration. " 12. Record spells out that the presence of the witnesses examined by the prosecution at the place of occurrence cannot be doubted in any manner since they are stamped witnesses and have suffered injuries during the course of occurrence. Chhinda Singh (PW-3) is the eye witness to the occurrence and is also complainant in this case and he deposed before the trial Court that he has four brothers, namely, Rattan Singh, Rachhpal Singh and Chanan Singh. About a year and one month ago, he along with his father Didar singh together with his brother Rattan Singh was working in the maize crop field. His brother Rachhpal Singh was grazing cattle head near the canal. A woman came there and informed them that rachhpal Singh had been surrounded by Milkha Singh, Kabal Singh, baldev Singh, Dhian Singh and Gurbax Singh alias Gacha Singh. He along with his father Didar Singh and his brother Rattan Singh went towards that side. All the aforesaid accused were found present and at that time, Milkha Singh and Kabal Singh were armed with takuas, baldev Singh with sua, Gurbax Singh with Kandhali and Dhian Singh with dang. All of them had surrounded his brother Rachhpal Singh. They were exchanging abuses with Rachhpal Singh. On seeing them, Rachhpal Singh also abused them. When the accused were about to inflict injuries to Rachhpal Singh, his father stepped forward in order to rescue him, whereupon Kabal Singh inflicted takua blow on the head of Didar Singh. Gacha Singh inflicted Kandhali blow dangwise hitting Didar Singh on his head. On account of the injuries sustained by him Didar Singh fell down on the ground. While falling down on the ground, Gacha Singh accused caused another injury with Kandhali thrustwise hitting Didar Singh on the right side of his chest. Baldev Singh accused inflicted sua blow dangwise hitting Didar singh on his left arm. Milkha Singh accused inflicted three-four takua blows to Didar Singh on his chest. When he tried to safe his father, he was attacked by Kabal Singh, who had inflicted two takua blows on his head. Baldev Singh accused gave a sua blow dangwise on his left shoulder. Milkha Singh accused inflicted three-four takua blows to Didar Singh on his chest. When he tried to safe his father, he was attacked by Kabal Singh, who had inflicted two takua blows on his head. Baldev Singh accused gave a sua blow dangwise on his left shoulder. Dhian Singh accused gave him three-four dang blows hitting his left arm; Kabal Singh accused gave takua blow on the head of Rattan Singh; Dhian Singh accused also gave dang blows to rattan Singh on his left hand. On account of receipt of the injuries, his father died on the spot. He further disclosed that occurrence took place at 1.00 P. M. After inflicting injuries, all the accused ran away from the spot and they had carried the weapons along with them. His brother Rachhpal Singh was sent to the hospital through Gurnam singh and Mehal Singh. He left the spot to lodge a report after leaving behind his brother Rattan Singh to guard the dead body of didar Singh. He lodged the report with the Police Inspector Khem karan on the basis of which, statement, Ex. PJ, was recorded. Police accompanied him to the spot. Inquest report was prepared by the police on the spot. Even blood stained earth was lifted from two places in his presence. With regard to motive, learned counsel disclosed that twothree days prior to the occurrence, Rachhpal Singh had gone towards the border side to graze the cattle. Baldev Singh, Kabal Singh and milkha Singh, Gurbax Singh and Dhian Singh had quarrelled with the complainant party saying that Rachhpal Singh had damaged their crops by grazing the cattle heads there. With the intervention of the respectables of the village, the dispute was settled. Rattan Singh (PW-4) has also deposed in a similar fashion. They both have corroborated the statements of each other and he has also furnished the details of the occurrence with regard to the causing of injuries to them by all the accused. Both of them were cross-examined at length, but nothing of importance could be elicited in favour of the defence. All this clearly spells out that the evidence of Chhinda Singh (PW-3) is fully corroborated and the presence of these two star witnesses of the prosecution is fully proved since they also suffered injuries during the course of occurrence. Both of them were cross-examined at length, but nothing of importance could be elicited in favour of the defence. All this clearly spells out that the evidence of Chhinda Singh (PW-3) is fully corroborated and the presence of these two star witnesses of the prosecution is fully proved since they also suffered injuries during the course of occurrence. The statements of these two eye witnesses is further corroborated through the mouth of another injured witness, namely, Rattan Singh (PW-4 ). 13. According to Dr. Manjit Singh (PW-1), who conducted the post mortem examination of the deceased, there were punctured, lacerated and contusions wounds on the dead body of the deceased and injuries Nos.1,2,5 and 7 were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Injuries Nos.1 and 7 were individually sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Similarly, this doctor found incized lacerated and punctured wound on the persons of stamped witnesses, namely, Chhinda Singh (PW-3) and rachhpal Singh and Rattan Singh. He also admitted during the course of re-examination that Kandhali, Ex. P-4, is likely to cause incised wound if used thrustwise. He further clarified that there is elasticity in the skin of a living person. So is the case with the muscles of living persons. He further disclosed that after pulling out the weapon, from the place where injury has been caused, the wound would slightly contract and as such its dimension would also slightly decrease. He has also opined that injury caused by Kandhali can be punctured wound for the reason that the blade of the same is slightly tapered with some times with sharp margins and the tip of the blade is pointed. Therefore, the possibility of injury Nos.1, 2 and 7 being punctured wounds with Kandhali cannot be ruled out. Certain minor discrepancies were pointed out by the learned defence counsel by referring the statement of Chaman Lal, ASI that in the disclosure statement of Gurbax Singh accused, the word gandasi has been written and not the word kandhali, but he volunteered that word gandasi has been written inadvertently instead of word kandhali and moreover Kandhali Ex. P-4, itself was produced in the Court and the factum of recovery of Kandhali is further proved by Darshan Lal, asi (PW-12 ). P-4, itself was produced in the Court and the factum of recovery of Kandhali is further proved by Darshan Lal, asi (PW-12 ). Therefore, these minor discrepancies do not go to the root of the matter and no dent is caused in the prosecution version. It is settled law that the evidence of the stamped witnesses and the investigating Officer cannot be rejected for minor contradictions. 14. We also find that the FIR was lodged promptly after 1-1/2 hours of the occurrence and this lends support to the ocular version. Recovery of blood stained weapons from the accused confirmed their accomplicity in the offence. The accused have taken defence that some unidentified persons had inflicted injuries, but the same is not liable to be accepted, particularly when the three stamped witnesses have stepped into the witness box and have stood like a rock. 15. Moreover, the learned defence counsel has also not contested the place of occurrence, which is not far off from the fields of the complainant, where they were working. Place of occurrence was fixed by recovery of blood stained earth lifted from there. Moreover, the eye witnesses in this case are illiterate rustic villagers and their narration is not accepted to be very accurate. But if the statements of all the stamped witnesses are read a whole, it clearly spells out that it has a ring of truth and they have also narrated the specific injuries caused to them at the hands of the accused. No reason has been put forward by the defence, which could show that the complainant has voluntarily implicated the accused. Role of each accused in this occurrence is amply clear from the ocular version, which is supported by medical evidence which is not inconsistent. 16. Faced with this situation, the learned defence counsel half heartedly argued that offence, if any would fall under section 304 Part ii of the Indian Penal Code, but this contention of the learned defence counsel is liable to be noticed only for the sake of rejection. In the instant case, there were two injuries on the head of Didar Singh and both the injuries were individually sufficient to cause death. According to the eye witnesses, these injuries were caused by Kabal singh and Gurbax Singh, who were armed with Takua and Kandhali respectively. In the instant case, there were two injuries on the head of Didar Singh and both the injuries were individually sufficient to cause death. According to the eye witnesses, these injuries were caused by Kabal singh and Gurbax Singh, who were armed with Takua and Kandhali respectively. Injury No.3 is on the chest of the deceased, which was attributed to Gurbax Singh, which was also individually sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. And vital injuries were caused by deceased Kabal Singh. After the infliction of these vital injuries, Baldev Singh and Milkha Singh also caused a number of injuries to the deceased with their respective weapons. These injuries were found on the dead body of Didar Singh by the doctor at the time of post mortem examination. Moreover, it is also proved that when deceased was lying on the ground after suffering vital injuries, again injuries were inflicted to him, which clearly spells out that there was common intention of all the accused. Then again after injuries on the person of the deceased, all the five accused caused injuries to chhinda Singh, Rattan Singh and Rachhpal Singh when they intervened to save their father and all the accused caused about 22 injuries to the deceased and the witnesses. They all came to the spot and left the spot later on and took active part in the commission of the crime. Accused did not suffer any injury on their person. All this shows that the accused had pre-planned the occurrence and as such, they came fully armed to cause injuries to the deceased and the witnesses, who were unarmed and could not defend themselves. 17. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly concluded in view of the facts and circumstances discussed above that the occurrence had taken place infurtherance of the common object of the accused, who had formed an unlawful assembly and as such, offence would fall under Sec.302 of the Indian Penal Code and not under section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code. 18. In view of the discussions made above, appeal filed by the appellants fails and is hereby dismissed. Conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is affirmed.