Judgment ( 1. ) THIS revision is filed by the complainant challenging the acquittal of respondents under Sections 148, 302 read with Section 149, IPC and Section 120-B, IPC. ( 2. ) TRIAL Court framed the charges against the respondents for the offences under Sections 148 and 302, IPC in the alternative under Section 302/149, IPC and Section 120-B, IPC. Trial Court after trial has convicted the respondents for the offence under Section 323 read with Section 34, IPC. ( 3. ) TRIAL Court has recorded a finding that accused Nos. 1 to 4 had caused simple injuries to deceased Umashankar but since injuries have been caused by only four accused therefore provisions of Sections 148,149, IPC are not attracted. Charges under Sections 148,149, IPC are not proved. Trial Court has held that only charge under Section 323, IPC is proved against the respondents and offence under Section 302, IPC is not proved. Trial Court has further held that an offence under Section 120-B, IPC is also proved against the respondents. ( 4. ) IT is to be examined whether Trial Court was justified in holding that offence under Section 323, IPC is made out as simple injuries are received by the deceased. 4 (a ). Deceased was surrounded and beaten by the respondents and on account of cumulative effect of injuries he died. Post mortem Exh. P-34 was performed by P. W. 9, Dr. Y. K. Malaiya. He found following injuries on the body of deceased Umashankar:- (1) Lacerated wound 1" x 1/4" present on left arm. (2) Multiple contusion present on right cheek and neck. (3) Contusion present on front and back of right and left arm and forearm. (4) Contusion on back of right and left side of the chest. (5) Contusion on front of the left and right thigh. (6) Contusion on back of right and left leg. Doctor has opined that the cause of death was shock due to injuries and the nature of death was homicidal. Since there was no injury on the head therefore he has not opened the skull. In the reply to the query of the Court in para 6 of his deposition, doctor has admitted that the injuries received by the deceased were sufficient to cause death. ( 5. ) P. W. 5 Manoj Kumar Agrawal is an eye-witness. Since there was no injury on the head therefore he has not opened the skull. In the reply to the query of the Court in para 6 of his deposition, doctor has admitted that the injuries received by the deceased were sufficient to cause death. ( 5. ) P. W. 5 Manoj Kumar Agrawal is an eye-witness. He has deposed that on 9-10-97, respondents had a quarrel with Umashankar. They had quarrel in the night and Umashankar bolted the door from inside. When he got up in the morning at about 6 Oclock he heard that Hero-Puch motorcycle is started. When he came out of the house he saw that Umashankar was moving on his motorcycle and all the accused were running after him and beating him. Umashankar was sitting on the Hero-Puch motorcycle. Mother of Umashankar asked him to save Umashankar but since he was threatened by the respondents therefore, out of fear, she had not gone to save him and Umashankar fell outside the village in agricultural field. Father of Umashankar went to lodge report. He had seen respondents beating Umashankar and he had seen injuries on the body of Umashankar. Umashankar was having injuries on the whole body. This witness was subjected to long grueling cross-examination but he remained firm about the assault by the respondents to the deceased. ( 6. ) P. W. 2 Shivshankar Agrawal has also stated that when he heard the call for help by mother of deceased Umashankar then he along with his brothers ramdas, Shyamsunder and Purushottam saw that deceased was surrounded by all the accused and was beaten. Deceased was chased outside the field and was beaten. He is also witness of seizure. This witness was subjected to long cross-examination but he remained firm regarding the act of respondents in assaulting the injured. ( 7. ) P. W. 1 Mangal Prasad, P. W. 2 Shivshankar Agrawal, P. W. 3 shyamsunder, P. W. 5 Manoj Kumar Agrawal and P. W. 6 Nai Bahu, mother of deceased, have specifically mentioned that deceased was jointly beaten by all the respondents as mentioned in their deposition and deceased had injuries on his entire body. ( 8. ) PANCHNAMA of dead body is Exh. P-3. In the panchnama, it is specifically mentioned that dead body is having swelling on cheek, nose and on the area between temple and ear. ( 8. ) PANCHNAMA of dead body is Exh. P-3. In the panchnama, it is specifically mentioned that dead body is having swelling on cheek, nose and on the area between temple and ear. Number of other injuries are mentioned in the inquest Report. In the Inquest report, it is specifically mentioned about deep long injury on the skull. It appears that Doctor has not performed the post mortem properly. He has not written in the post mortem report that the injuries found by the Panc\has over the dead body has not been found by him. Even in the letter written by the IO for post mortem it is specifically mentioned that deceased is having a long deep wound on the skull between temple and the right side of the ear. Injuries on cheek, neck and on entire body and both the hands had blackened injuries and black coloured injuries were found on right elbow, nose, chest, both legs, back buttocks, thighs, toes, heels and on the entire body. In spite of repeated number of injuries mentioned in Exh. P-3, Doctor has referred to few injuries and he has not found any other injuries on the body in the post mortem. Thus, it is apparent that P. W. 9 Dr. Y. K. Malaiya has either not performed the post mortem properly or he has prepared the document in order to give undue benefit to the accused. Whereas many injuries were seen on the dead body which has been referred by Panchnama of dead body and which were visible and said injuries have not been referred by the Doctor. When there is overwhelming evidence, eye-witness about number of injuries on the dead body then medical evidence, which is prepared intentionally, as false evidence is liable to be ignored. ( 9. ) IF a public servant corruptly makes a report in a judicial proceeding it will be offences under Section 193, IPC and Section 196, IPC and preparation of document with an intention to save person from punishment, it will be an offence falling under Section 196, IPC. Thus, wilful act of the Doctor in not referring to other injuries in the post mortem report discloses his intention to protect the respondents who are guilty of commission of murder. Witnesses were firm on the point of beating of deceased by lathi and number of injuries received by the deceased. Thus, wilful act of the Doctor in not referring to other injuries in the post mortem report discloses his intention to protect the respondents who are guilty of commission of murder. Witnesses were firm on the point of beating of deceased by lathi and number of injuries received by the deceased. It is held that post mortem report is incomplete report prepared by the doctor to give undue advantage to the accused. Appropriate steps for prosecution of P. W. 9 Dr. Y. K. Malaiya be initiated for intentionally preparing false evidence. ( 10. ) INVESTIGATING Officer P. W. 10 Shahzad Singh has deposed that he has prepared the panchnama of dead body Exh. P-3 before the Panchas and he has written the detailed report. This report Exh. P-3 is not disputed by the defence particularly the injuries mentioned in Exh. P-3 as well as in Exh. P-34. Thus, considering the application for post mortem report in which IO has mentioned number of injuries on the body of deceased coupled with Panchnama of dead body Exh. P-3, it is apparent that deceased has suffered number of injuries but Doctor has referred to only simple injuries in order to protect the accused persons. Doctor has deposed that injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and looking to the record, Trial Court has committed grave error in ignoring the entire material on record and acquitting the respondents. It is borne out from the evidence of eyewitnesses that all the accused had formed an unlawful assembly and surrounded the injured and beaten him. He had grievous injury on the skull but the doctor best known to him has not opened the skull to see the internal injuries on the dead body. He has written that he had not opened the skull during the post mortem. It is the duty of the doctor to examine the whole body and submit report about the injuries. Thus, doctor has willfully suppressed the head injury. On perusal of pm report it is found that doctor has not carried out internal examination of the dead body. Thus, it is a case of dereliction of duty on the part of the doctor. ( 11. ) EYE-WITNESSES have categorically deposed that deceased was beaten mercilessly after he was surrounded by thirteen persons. On perusal of pm report it is found that doctor has not carried out internal examination of the dead body. Thus, it is a case of dereliction of duty on the part of the doctor. ( 11. ) EYE-WITNESSES have categorically deposed that deceased was beaten mercilessly after he was surrounded by thirteen persons. Trial Court has committed grave error in acquitting respondents under Sections 148,149, IPC on the ground that only four persons were involved in commission of murder. In para 7 of deposition of P. W. 1 Mangal Prasad, he has deposed that Umashankar was having injuries on his entire body and he was having injury on the head. He has received injury on his hand. He was sent for medical examination. It is true that evidence of this witness appears to be truthful as in Para 12 of his deposition he has admitted that he was not in a position to identify the author of each injury. It is natural that when a person is surrounded by number of accused it is difficult for eye-witness to describe the author of each and every injury. In Para 16 of cross-examination, this witness has clarified that he has seen the body of injured and he found that Umashankar was having lathi injuries on his entire body and no place on his body was left where he had not received injuries by lathi. He had bleeding head injury and he had number of other injuries on the entire body. 11. P. W. 2 Shivshankar Agrawal has also categorically deposed that deceased was mercilessly beaten by thirteen accused persons by lathi. He admitted his signatures on Panchnama of dead body Exh. P-3. In the said panchnama, injuries on the body of deceased have been described. He also admitted that accused were sitting and waiting outside the house of deceased to beat him. He had seen them at about two in the morning before the incident. Regarding injuries on the body of deceased Umashankar, he has deposed in para 35 that Umashankar had injuries on his entire body and no portion of body was left on which there was no injury. ( 12. ) P. W. 3 Shyamsunder has deposed that Umashankar was having bleeding head injury. In Para 2 of his deposition, he admitted that deceased had injury on his scrotum, in the stomach and on both the legs. ( 12. ) P. W. 3 Shyamsunder has deposed that Umashankar was having bleeding head injury. In Para 2 of his deposition, he admitted that deceased had injury on his scrotum, in the stomach and on both the legs. This witness was cross-examined and he has categorically stated that deceased Umashankar was running ahead and the respondents were running after him and beating him by lathi. He admitted in Para 23 of cross-examination that deceased was having injuries on his entire body. ( 13. ) P. W. 5 Manoj Kumar Agrawal has also deposed that respondents were waiting outside the house of deceased and when Umashankar got out of house in the morning he was surrounded by the respondents and chased and beaten by the respondents. He has deposed in Para 5 that Umashankar was having injuries on his entire body. In Para 25 of the cross-examination, he has clarified that Umashankar was having bleeding injuries on his body and entire body has turned blue. ( 14. ) P. W. 6 Nai Bahu, mother of deceased has specifically deposed about the injuries on the body of deceased. She has deposed that he had injuries on his scrotum. He had bleeding injury on the head and had injuries on his entire body. She clarified that Rooplal gave first blow by lathi to Umashankar and thereafter others had chased him and beaten him. There is no contradiction in the evidence of eyewitnesses pertaining to the manner in which respondents caused injuries to deceased and injuries received by deceased on his whole body and bleeding injury on the skull. ( 15. ) IN Dehati Naleshi Exh. P-1, it is specifically mentioned that deceased had received head injury and injuries on whole body, which resulted into his death. In Exh. P-3 injuries on the entire body of the deceased and head injury is mentioned. It is apparent that deceased was surrounded by all the respondents and was beaten. Their names have been taken by all the witnesses. ( 16. ) AS discussed in preceding paragraphs, it is apparent that Trial Court has misread the evidence and has written totally perverse judgment in acquitting the respondents for the offences under Section 302/149, IPC and Sections 148, 149 and Section 120-B, IPC. ( 17. Their names have been taken by all the witnesses. ( 16. ) AS discussed in preceding paragraphs, it is apparent that Trial Court has misread the evidence and has written totally perverse judgment in acquitting the respondents for the offences under Section 302/149, IPC and Sections 148, 149 and Section 120-B, IPC. ( 17. ) LOOKING to the overwhelming evidence on record and the evidence of doctor that injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, the finding of Trial Court is perverse in acquitting the respondents for the offence under Section 302, IPC. ( 18. ) IN the result, as discussed above, this is a case of culpable homicide amounting to murder and from the evidence on record, it is apparent that there was intention on the part of respondents to cause death of deceased and unlawful assembly was constituted. Respondents were waiting outside the house of deceased and jointly assaulted the deceased. ( 19. ) IT is held in the case of Bharwad Jakshibhai Nagjibhai and others Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 1995 (5) SCC 602 that intention of members of unlawful assembly can be gathered by the nature, number and location of injuries inflicted. ( 20. ) CONSIDERING the facts of the case, we hold that unlawful assembly was constituted and the manner in which deceased was assaulted which reflects the common intention of all the respondents. Ingredients of Section 149, IPC have been established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Prosecution has also proved the case against the respondents beyond reasonable doubt. ( 21. ) IN the result, judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court is set aside and the case is remanded to the Trial Court to pass the judgment on the basis of evidence on record for each offence keeping in mind evidence of eyewitnesses wherein it is stated that deceased had suffered injuries on the whole body. The fact is also referred in Dehati Naleshi and Panchnama of dead body Exh. P-3. Evidence of doctor will not prevail over the eye-witness account in this case. This is a case under Section 302, IPC and the intention of all the respondents was to cause death of deceased. Trial Court shall also examine and pass necessary orders against the concerned doctor for preparing document in order to give undue benefit to the accused. ( 22. This is a case under Section 302, IPC and the intention of all the respondents was to cause death of deceased. Trial Court shall also examine and pass necessary orders against the concerned doctor for preparing document in order to give undue benefit to the accused. ( 22. ) REVISION succeeds and is allowed. Respondents are on bail. They are directed to appear before the Trial Court on 2nd April, 2007. It is expected that Trial Court shall endeavor to decide the trial on the existing evidence on record within a period of one month from the date of appearance of respondents before the Trial Court. It is clarified that the trial be decided on the evidence on record. Record of the Trial Court be sent back immediately so as to reach Trial-Court before 2nd April, 2007. Criminal Revision allowed.