M. CHAUDHARY, J. This is a criminal appeal filed on behalf of the accused appellants from judgment and order dated 29th of January, 2002 passed by Additional Sessions Judge Court No. 8 Gorakhpur in Sessions Trial No. 101 of 1997, State v. Lotu and others, convicting accused Lotu under section 302 IPC and section 323 read with section 34 IPC and Gulabi Devi and Deena Nath under section 302 read with section 34 IPC and section 323 IPC and sentencing each of them to imprisonment for life and rigorous imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs. 1000. 00 thereunder making both the substantive sentences to run concurrently. 2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that Sant Ram and his pattidar Lotu had their cottages situate adjacently. A panchayat was held in the village and it was decided in that Panchayat that each of them shall have his cottage leaving the place equivalent to one arm for tethering their cattle and both of them kept their respective cottages accordingly. At about 12:00 noon on 13th of June, 1996 Lotu and his wife Gulabi Devi alongwith their son Deena Nath were extending their cottage over the vacant place left by them,and Ramawati, wife of Sant Ram took exception thereto. Thereon they started hurling abuses to her and Deena Nath beat her with fists and kicks and also gave danda blows to her. On the shrieks of Ramawati Sant Ram and his father Pyarey rushed for her rescue. Then Lotu taking pharsa and Deena Nath and Gulabi Devi taking lathi and danda assaulted them. Gulabi Devi and Deena Nath gave lathi and danda blows to Ramawati and Sant Ram and Lotu gave pharsa blows to Pyarey thereby causing them injuries and ran away. The said incident was witnessed by one Mangru and Kuber and several other co-villagers. Immediately Sant Ram with the help of some of the co-villagers taking his injured father Pyarey on a cot and injured mother Ramawati went to Primary Health Centre Kampier Ganj where injured Sant Ram and Ramawati were got medically examined by Dr. Wahidul Haq, medical officer in-charge. Since the condition of injured Pyarey was serious he was advised for being taken to the District Hospital Gorakhpur. 3. Medical examination of injured Ramawati by Dr. Wahidul Haq, medical officer incharge at 7:15 p. m. revealed below noted injuries on her person: 1. Wahidul Haq, medical officer in-charge. Since the condition of injured Pyarey was serious he was advised for being taken to the District Hospital Gorakhpur. 3. Medical examination of injured Ramawati by Dr. Wahidul Haq, medical officer incharge at 7:15 p. m. revealed below noted injuries on her person: 1. Contusion 3 cm x 3 cm on left side of forehead 1. 5 cm above supra orbital margin, colour red. 2. Abrasion 0. 5 cm x 0. 2 cm over prominence of right cheek, fresh blood oozing. 3. Abrasion 0. 5 cm x 0. 2 cm on right side of face 2 cm below medial angle of right eye, fresh blood oozing. 4. Contused swelling 4 cm x 3 cm on dorsum of right hand 4 cm distal to right wrist joint, colour red. She complained of pain in left shoulder. There was no visible injury. The doctor opined that all the injuries were caused by blunt object, simple in nature and fresh in duration. Medical examination of injured Sant Ram By Dr. Wahidul Haq at 7:30 p. m. revealed below noted injuries on his person: 1. Lacerated wound 2 cm x 0. 5 cm x skin deep on left side of forehead 1 cm above left eyebrow, fresh blood oozing. 2. Abrasion 0. 5 cm x 0. 2 cm on left side of forehead 3 cm above injury No. 1. 3. Lacerated wound 2 cm x 0. 5 cm x skin deep on palmar aspect of left thumb 4 cm above tip. He complained of pain in left upper arm. There was no visible injury. The doctor opined that all the injuries were caused by blunt object, simple in nature and fresh in duration. 4. Then Sant Ram went to police station Kampier Ganj and handed over written report of the occurrence to the police at 8:30 p. m. the same evening. The police registered a crime against the accused under sections 323, 324, 504 and 506 IPC accordingly and started the investigation. 5. Medical examination of injured Pyarey by Dr. V. P. Tripathi, EMO District Hospital Gorakhpur at 11. 30 p. m. the same night revealed below noted injuries on his person: 1. Incised wound 4 cm x 1 cm x bone deep on right parietal region with margins sharp and clean cut. fresh bleeding present. Advised X-ray. 2. 5. Medical examination of injured Pyarey by Dr. V. P. Tripathi, EMO District Hospital Gorakhpur at 11. 30 p. m. the same night revealed below noted injuries on his person: 1. Incised wound 4 cm x 1 cm x bone deep on right parietal region with margins sharp and clean cut. fresh bleeding present. Advised X-ray. 2. Incised wound 5 cm x 1 cm x bone deep on occipital region of the skull with margins sharp and clean cut, fresh bleeding present. Advised X-ray. 3. Abraded contusion 4 cm x 2 cm on front of skull 1 cm above the eyebrow. Advised X-ray. 4. Incised wound 4 cm x 0. 5 cm on right arm 2 cm below acromial process with margins sharp and clean cut. The doctor opined that injuries No. 1, 2 and 4 were caused by sharp edged weapon and injury No. 3 by blunt object and the injuries were about half day old in duration. General condition of the patient was poor. Pupils dilated and respiration irregular. 6. Injured Pyarey was admitted in the District Hospital. On 15th of June, 1996 SI Irshad Ahmad Khan went to the Hospital to record statement of injured Pyarey but the doctor on duty did not permit him as the injured was unconscious and was not in a position to give statement. Then the case was altered under section 307 IPC vide GD entry No. 39 (Ext. ka 15 ). 7. Injured Pyarey succumbed to the injuries sustained by him on 17th of June, 1996 at 7:35 a. m. in the Hospital. After receiving information at the police station that autopsy was to be conducted on the dead body of Pyarey kept in the mortuary SI Tribhuvan Prasad went to the Hospital and drew inquest on the dead body the same day at 12:40 noon. 8. Autopsy conducted on the dead body by Dr. O. N. Gupta, Senior Radiologist District Hospital Gorakhpur at 4:00 p. m. the same day revealed belownoted ante mortem injuries on the dead body: 1. Lacerated wound 2 cm x 1 cm bone deep on right parietal region. 2. Multiple abraded contusions in an area of 10 cm x 3 cm on right arm. 3. Abrasion 1/2 cm x 1/2 cm on left wrist joint. On internal examination occipital bone was found fractured under injury No. 1 and hematoma present. Lacerated wound 2 cm x 1 cm bone deep on right parietal region. 2. Multiple abraded contusions in an area of 10 cm x 3 cm on right arm. 3. Abrasion 1/2 cm x 1/2 cm on left wrist joint. On internal examination occipital bone was found fractured under injury No. 1 and hematoma present. The doctor opined that death was caused due to hemorrhage and shock as a result of ante mortem injuries. 9. Then the case was altered under section 302 IPC. 10. Investigation of the crime was entrusted to SI Irshad Ahmad Khan who visited the scene of occurrence, inspected the site and prepared its site plan map (Ext. ka 13 ). He also collected blood stained earth and simple earth from the place of occurrence, sealed them in separate packets and prepared its memo. He also recorded statements of the witnesses and did other necessary things. Packets of blood stained and simple earth were also got sent to serologist, Scientific Laboratory Lucknow for chemical examination. 11. After completing investigation the police submitted charge-sheet against the accused accordingly. 12. After framing of charge against the accused the prosecution examined Sant Ram (PW 1), Ramawati (PW 2) and Mangru (PW 3) as eye-witnesses of the occurrence. PW 4 Dr. Wahidul Haq, medical officer in-charge PHC Kampier Ganj who medically examined injured Ramawati and Sant Ram proved the injury reports. PW 6 CP Khichhri Prasad, the then Constable Moharrir police station Kampier Ganj who recorded check report on the basis of written report handed over to him by Sant Ram on 13th of June, 1996 at 8:30 p. m. and made entry regarding registration of the crime in GD proved these papers (Exts ka 5 & ka 6 ). PW 7 V. P. Tripathi, Orthopedist District Hospital Gorakhpur who medically examined injured Pyarey on 13. 6. 1996 at 11:30 p. m. proved the injury report (Ext ka 7 ). PW 8 SI Tribhuvan Prasad who drew inquest on the dead body of Pyarey in the noon of 17th of June, 1996 proved the inquest papers (Exts ka 8 and ka 11 ). PW 5 Dr. O. N. Gupta, Senior Radiologist, District Hospital, Gorakhpur who conducted autopsy on the dead body of Pyarey proved the post-mortem report (Ext ka 4 ). PW 9 SI Irshad Ahmad Khan who investigated the crime in main proved the police papers. 13. PW 5 Dr. O. N. Gupta, Senior Radiologist, District Hospital, Gorakhpur who conducted autopsy on the dead body of Pyarey proved the post-mortem report (Ext ka 4 ). PW 9 SI Irshad Ahmad Khan who investigated the crime in main proved the police papers. 13. The accused denied the alleged occurrence altogether attributing1 their false implication to animosity. The defence version is that Sant Ram and Sita Ram are sons of Pyarey, that Pyarey used to reside with his elder son Sita Ram and that since Pyarey had illicit relations with the wife of Sita Ram he gave his entire land to Sita Ram and therefore Sant Ram murdered his father Pyarey and implicated them in the case falsely. The accused examined DW 1 Bhagwant in their support. DW 1 Bhagwant stated that Pyarey had illicit relations with the wife of his son Sita Ram; that since Pyarey had given his entire land to Sita Ram his younger son Sant Ram used to quarrel with him and that on that very account Sant Ram made murderous assault on his father Pyarey and lodged a false report against Lotu and others. 14. Sita Ram, son of the deceased was examined by the Court. CW 1 Sita Ram stated that partition of the land had not taken place by metes and bounds and both the brothers used to reside in separate apartments in the same house and his father used to take food with him, that Lotu alongwith wife Gulabi and son Deena Nath had made murderous assault at his father and that he had taken his father to the Hospital where he was hospitalized and treated but succumbed to the fatal injuries sustained by him in the said incident. He categorically stated in his cross-examination that his father had not sustained fatal injury in any vehicle accident but since Lotu, Deena Nath and Gulabi made murderous assault at Pyarey he died due to the injuries sustained in that assault. 15. On an appraisal of the evidence on record the learned Trial Judge held the accused guilty of the charge levelled against them and convicted and sentenced them as stated above. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order the accused appellants preferred this appeal for redress. 16. Heard Sri R. C. Yadav, learned Counsel for the appellants and Sri S. S. Yadav learned AGA for the State respondent. 17. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order the accused appellants preferred this appeal for redress. 16. Heard Sri R. C. Yadav, learned Counsel for the appellants and Sri S. S. Yadav learned AGA for the State respondent. 17. After going through the impugned judgment and record of the case we find no good reason to differ with the findings recorded by the learned Trial Judge against the accused. PW 1 Sant Ram, son of the deceased and the first informant narrated all the facts of the occurrence from the beginning to the end as stated above deposing that the alleged day at about 12:00 noon as accused Lotu, Gulabi and Deena Nath were extending their cottage towards vacant place left by them his mother Ramawati took exception thereto and immediately Deena Nath beat her with fists and kicks and also gave danda blows to her,that then he and his father rushed for her rescue; that immediately Lotu armed with Pharsa and his wife Gulabi with lathi and Deena Nath with dunda assaulted them and Lotu gave pharsa blows to his father and his wife and son Deena Nath both gave lathi and danda blows to them; that sustaining the fatal injuries Pyarey could not speak and that then they taking him on a cot went to the Hospital. PW 2 Ramawati, the injured and PW 3 Mangru corroborated him stating likewise. Their sworn testimony stands corroborated by FIR of the occurrence lodged at the police station and medical evidence as well. PW 3 Mangru is quite an independent witness as he had no animus with the accused nor he is related with PW 1 Sant Ram and his family in any manner. PW 1 Sant Ram and PW 2 Ramawati both are injured witnesses. Testimony of injured witnesses has its own relevance and efficacy. FIR of the occurrence was lodged by PW 1 Sant Ram at police station Kampier Ganj situate at a distance of 20 kms from village Marhatha at 8:30 p. m. the same evening without losing any time. He alongwith his brother Sita Ram taking his injured father Pyarey went to Kampier Ganj Hospital where the doctor asked him to take him to District Hospital Gorakhpur immediately as his condition was precarious. He alongwith his brother Sita Ram taking his injured father Pyarey went to Kampier Ganj Hospital where the doctor asked him to take him to District Hospital Gorakhpur immediately as his condition was precarious. Then after his medical examination at Kampier Ganj Hospital and sending irtjured father with his elder brother to District Hospital he himself went to police station Kampier Ganj and handed over written report of the occurrence to the police at 8:30 p. m. Medical evidence leaves no room for doubt as to the factum of the occurrence and the prosecution case with regard to its time and weapons used in the assault also receives corroboration from it. The place of occurrence is also fixed up by the recovery of blood by the investigating officer therefrom. A perusal of the serologists report goes to show that the bloodstained earth contained human blood (Exts Ka 17 & Ka 18 ). All the three eye-witnesses were subjected to rambling and searching cross-examination but anything tangible could be elicited therefrom to shake their credibility. All the three appear to be honest,truthful and straightforward witnesses. However, the appellants learned Counsel has advanced following arguments assailing the Trial Courts judgment and now we shall see if any of them has got any force. 18. First, the appellants learned Counsel vehemently argued that since it is mentioned in the column of opinion of Panchas that the deceased met an accidental death in motor accident in the inquest report and Sant Ram and Sita Ram, sons of the deceased were also among the panchas the prosecution case falls to the ground. In our opinion said argument advanced by the appellants learned Counsel is wholly fallacious. No doubt, PW 8 S. I. Tribhuvan Prasad who was on duty at police station Kotwali on receiving information from the Hospital that a dead body was kept in the mortuary and inquest was to be drawn, went to the Hospital and drew inquest on the dead body mentioning in the column of opinion of panchas in the inquest report that the deceased met an accidental death in road accident but this solitary observation made by the police officer drawing inquest on the dead body cannot discard sworn testimony of the three eye-witnesses supported by FIR of the occurrence lodged at the police station without losing any time and medical evidence. Out of three eye-witnesses examined by the prosecution two are the injured witnesses. CW 1 Sita Ram, the Court witness categorically stated in his examination-in-chief that at the time of preparing the inquest report he did not tell the police officer drawing inquest that his father died in the motor accident and that he could not say as to how sub-inspector noted the said fact in the inquest report. Moreover, homicidal death of Pyarey is admitted to the accused even though with the qualification that Pyarey was done to death by his son Sant Ram. Under the circumstances the said argument advanced by the appellants learned Counsel that since the sub-inspector drawing inquest on the dead body mentioned in the column of opinion of panchas in the inquest report that Pyarey met an accidental death in motor accident and therefore the prosecution case that he was murdered by the accused falls behind is repelled. 19. Secondly, the appellants learned Counsel strenuously argued that the eyewitnesses deposed that Pyarey was assaulted with Pharsa, a sharp edged weapon hitting him at his head twice but PW 5 Dr. O. N. Gupta conducting autopsy on the dead body found only one ante mortem lacerated wound on right parietal region and therefore there is inconsistency between ocular testimony and medical evidence. He further contended that medical evidence is contradictory in itself as Dr. V. P. Tripathi, EMO who medically examined injured Pyarey deposed that his medical examination revealed two incised wounds on his head whereas Dr. O. N. Gupta who conducted autopsy on the dead body found one ante mortem lacerated wound on right parietal region. In our view the said argument advanced by the appellants learned Counsel has not got much substance in it. The ocular testimony is fully consistent with the medical evidence as far as the injury report is concerned. No doubt, Dr. V. P. Tripathi, EMO who medically examined injured Pyarey deposed that medical examination of injured Pyarey revealed two incised wounds one on parietal region and the other on occipital region; and Dr. O. N. Gupta who conducted autopsy mentioned in the post mortem report that there was one ante mortem lacerated wound on right parietal region. Injured Pyarey Lal was medically examined by Dr. O. N. Gupta who conducted autopsy mentioned in the post mortem report that there was one ante mortem lacerated wound on right parietal region. Injured Pyarey Lal was medically examined by Dr. V. P. Tripathi on 13th of June, 1996 at 11:30 p. m. and at that time his injuries were as they were caused whereas autopsy was conducted on the dead body 3-4 days thereafter i. e. 17th of June, 1996 and during that period injuries were treated and bandaged and in that process of treatment the incised wounds which were found clean cut at the time of medical examination might have lost its original character and at the time of autopsy ante mortem injury on parietal region might have appeared as lacerated. Further, at the time of medical examination Dr. V. P. Tripathi found two incised wounds, one on parietal region and other on occipital region. No doubt, the doctor conducting autopsy mentioned one ante mortem lacerated wound on right parietal region but he has mentioned in internal examination that his occipital bone was found fractured. We are, therefore, of the view that there is no material inconsistency in the medical evidence too. 20. Thirdly, the appellants learned Counsel argued that FIR of the occurrence lodged at the police station on 13th of June, 1996 at 8:30 p. m. was ante timed as PW 2 Ramawati stated in her cross-examination that from the Hospital she went to the police station and reached there at about 8-9 p. m. ; that the constable present at the police station did not take down the report and that next day the report was got scribed and then taking the report she went to the police station. It appears this witness Ramawati stated so due to some mistake because FIR of the occurrence was lodged by PW 1 Sant Ram at the police station on 13th of June, 1996 at 8:30 p. m. Neither PW 1 Sant Ram, the first informant nor PW 6 Constable Moharrir Khichadi Prasad who prepared check report on the basis of written report handed over to him by Sant Ram and registered the crime was given any suggestion that FIR of the occurrence was not lodged at the police station at time it purports to be. Hence, said argument advanced by the appellants learned Counsel that FIR was ante timed falls through. 21. Hence, said argument advanced by the appellants learned Counsel that FIR was ante timed falls through. 21. As to what offence made out, the appellants learned Counsel contended that offence under section 304 Part IIPC only is made out. We are unable to accept the said contention of the appellants learned Counsel. There is nothing on the record to suggest that the accused appellants were given any provocation by the deceased or any of the injured. There was no fight or scuffle between the parties as only altercation took place between them. Lotu gave repeated pharsa blows hitting Pyarey at his head twice. Knowledge may well be imputed to the accused that giving pharsa blows to the deceased at his head was so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause the death. The doctor conducting autopsy deposed that death was caused due to hemorrhage and shock as a result of ante mortem injuries. Hence, we are of the view that all the three accused in furtherance of their common intention to commit murder of Pyarey attacked him with their respective weapons and Lotu gave fatal pharsa blows to him hitting at his head resulting in his death. 22. For the foregoing reasons, we find no good reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Judge convicting and sentencing the accused appellants as stated above and the appeal has no merit and is liable to be dismissed. 23. The appeal is dismissed and the impugned judgment and order convicting accused Lotu under section 302 IPC and section 323 read with section 34 IPC and accused Gulabi Devi and Deena Nath under section 302 read with section 34 IPC and section 323 IPC and sentencing each of them to imprisonment for life and rigorous imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs. 1000. 00 thereunder is hereby affirmed. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gorakhpur is directed to get all the three accused appellants arrested and send them to jail to serve out the sentence imposed upon each of them. Office is directed to send copy of the judgment and record of lower Court to the Court below immediately for ensuring necessary compliance under intimation to this Court within two months from today. Appeal Dismissed. .