JUDGMENT 1. - Challenge in the aforementioned appeals is to the judgment dated 7.6.2002 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Alwar, whereby appellants - Tayyab Khan, Raju, Idu Khan, Kamroo, Majid Khan, Saaat Khan and Katula were convicted and sentenced as under:- U/s. 302 read with 149 Indian Penal Code : to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default to further suffer six months imprisonment. U/s. 325 read with 149 Indian Penal Code : to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months. under section 323 read with 149 IPC to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. U/s. 341 Indian Penal Code : to suffer one month's simple imprisonment. U/s. 148 Indian Penal Code : to suffer imprisonment for two years. Sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Briefly stated the prosecution story is that a written report was handed over by Kamru s/o Shri Dalmod, Village Alawada on 24.7.2000 at 8.00 AM to the ASI; Police Station; Ramgarh who reached to the spot on receiving a telephonic information. In the report, it was stated that at about 5.00 AM, Leela s/o Gyan and Ibra s/o Khushi Khan came to the house of Kamru and asked about his father Dalmod and informed that Rati Khan was held captive in the house of Kalu Khan as he was alleged to have..stolen money from the pocket of Kamru s/o Bhoopla. On this information, informant Kamruddin was asked them to pardon him. In the meanwhile, younger brother of the informant, Rehmuddin arrived there and he along with his mother Jaitooni went to the house of Kallu to get Rati Khan released from captivity. On reaching to the house of Kallu, they saw Rati Khan tied with rope. Majid s/o Shri Katoola exhorted to Rehmuddin, the lame fellow would not escape from there. Rahmuddin fired with 'Katta' and on this, Idu, Majid, Asraf and Sapat came armed with 'Farsi' while Kamroo, Tayyab, Fakru, Hanni, Mubin, Raju, Leela, Ibra, Katula and Isra came armed with 'Lathi' and 'Tanchiya' and inflicted injuries to Rehmuddin. Rehmuddin was brought to the house in injured condition and there he died. Thereafter, all the accused persons named above ran after Dalmod and surrounded him in the 'Bakhal of Kale Khan'. Rehmuddin was brought to the house in injured condition and there he died. Thereafter, all the accused persons named above ran after Dalmod and surrounded him in the 'Bakhal of Kale Khan'. Dalmod was inflicted 'Farshi' blows by Majid, Asraf and Sapat while Hanni, Raju and Mubin inflicted blows by 'Kulhari' and rest of the accused persons inflicted injuries by 'Lathi' resulting the death of Dalmod. Dalmod was tried to be saved by Jaituni, Juwari, Resham, Ratiman and Noor Jahan. They also sustained injuries while saving Dalmod. Resham was inflicted 'Farshi' injury on her feet, breast and ear by accused Idu. As per informant, he ran out of fear and saw the whole incident by standing at a little distance. The above report was sent to the Police Station with a constable and the police registered a case for offences under Sections 302, 147, 148, 149/341, and 323/324, Indian Penal Code and commenced the investigation. After the investigation, the police submitted a challan against the accused appellants and the trial commenced before the learned Single Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Alwar. The accused appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined as many as sixteen witnesses. Thereafter the statements u/s D-13 Criminal Procedure Code were recorded. Two witnesses were produced in defence. Learned trial Judge after hearing the arguments, acquitted accused Asraf and Hanni from all the offences they were chargsheeted by giving them the benefit of doubt and convicted and sentenced the accused appellants as indicated hereinabove. 3. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions advanced before us and carefully scrutinised the record. 4. The death of deceased Rehmuddin and Dalmod was indisputably homicidal nature. As per the post mortem report of Rehmuddin, the following ante mortem injuries were found on his body : 1. Laceration : 2.0 cm x 1/2 cm x 1/2 on anterior of right lower limb. 2. Laceration : 2.0 cm x 1/2 cm x 1/2 cm on right leg. 3. Laceration : 1.0 cm x 1/2 cm x 1/2 cm on left leg. 4. Incised wound 8.0 cm x 1.0 cm x bone deep. 5. Incised wound : 'L' shaped - 4.2 x 1.5 cm x 2.0 cm bone deep with fracture; and 4.0 cm x ⅕ cm x 2.0 cm bone deep fracture - middle of the inter parietal region of the skull. 6. 4. Incised wound 8.0 cm x 1.0 cm x bone deep. 5. Incised wound : 'L' shaped - 4.2 x 1.5 cm x 2.0 cm bone deep with fracture; and 4.0 cm x ⅕ cm x 2.0 cm bone deep fracture - middle of the inter parietal region of the skull. 6. Incised wound : 2.0 cm x 1.0 cm bone deep on upper part of temporal region. 7. Incised wound : 14.0 cm x 1.5 cm x bone deep involving Rt. Maxilla, nasal bone, left maxilla with fracture of these bones. In the opinion of Dr. Pramod Kumar Mathur (PW 11) the cause of death was due to extensive injuries to the Brain and injuries of the head and face and due to shock. The time of death was found to be within twelve hours from the time of examination. 5. As per the post mortem report of Dalmod; the following ante mortem injuries were found on his body : 1. Contusion : 17.00 cm x 2 / 5 cm left side of chest. 2. Laceration : 1.5 cm x 1.0 cm on left leg tibia. 3. Laceration : 2.0 cm x 1.2 cm above injury No.2. 4. Fracture : (compound) on right leg upper ⅔rd part. 5. Fracture : Rt. radius upper ⅔rd part. 6. Incised wound : 2.5 cm x 1.0 cm x 0.5 cm on left arm. 7. Incised wound : on left parietal - brain tissue coming out. 8. Incised wound : 9.0 cm x ⅕ cm bone deep on left side of skull with fracture on middle of skull. 9. Incised wound : 11.0 cm x 1.5 cm bone deep with fracture on occipital region. 10. Incised wound ; 16.0 cm x 5.0 cm bone deep left temporal to left maxilla, left nose with fracture. 11. Blackening of right eye. In the opinion of Dr. Pramod Kumar Mathur (PW 11) the cause of death was due to extensive injuries to the brain Substance, vital part of the Brain and injuries to the head and face and due to shock. 6. Injured Smt. Resham (PW 6) received the following injuries. 1. Laceration : 3.0 cm x 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm Right leg lower ⅓rd anterior at middle. 2. Contusion : 3.0 cm x 3.0 cm left knee antso interior. 3. Contusion : 10.0 cm x 2.0 cm sternum middle of site rum anterior. 4. 6. Injured Smt. Resham (PW 6) received the following injuries. 1. Laceration : 3.0 cm x 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm Right leg lower ⅓rd anterior at middle. 2. Contusion : 3.0 cm x 3.0 cm left knee antso interior. 3. Contusion : 10.0 cm x 2.0 cm sternum middle of site rum anterior. 4. Lacerative : 1/2nd cm x 1/2nd cm Right ear lobule. 5. Contusion : 3.0 cm x 3.0 cm on neck right side. 7. Injured Smt. Noor Jehan (PW 5) received the following injuries. 1. Contusion : 3.0 cm x 3.0 cm middle of left of abdomen. 2. Contusion : 3.0 cm x 2.0 cm middle of Right parietal region skull. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants have assailed the impugned judgment on the following points : (i) the eye witnesses belong to one family and their testimony has been rendered unworthy of credit on account of contradictions, improvements and embellishments in their deposition; (ii) the eye witness have withheld the story relating to firing of Katta by Rehmuddin deceased; and (iii) the culpability of the appellants has not been proved beyond doubt in view of the defence version put forth by them. 9. Since the finding of guilt of the appellants for the offence of murder of Rehmuddin and Dalmod has been based on the appreciation of evidence of six eye witnesses, therefore, we deem it proper to refurbish with the principles of appreciation of evidence laid down by Apex Court where the testimony of eye witnesses is afflicted by embellishments and false or exaggerated versions. In State of U.P. V/s Anil Singh ( AIR 1988 SC 1998 ) , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that there is a tendency amongst witnesses in our country to back up a good case by false or exaggerated version but that is no ground to throw the case overboard, if true, in the main. The Apex Court has observed as under : "With regard to falsehood stated or embellishments added by the prosecution witnesses, it is well to remember that there is a tendency amongst witnesses in our country to back up a good case by false or exaggerated version. It is also experienced that invariably the witnesses add embroidery to prosecution story, perhaps for the fear of being disbelieved. But that is no ground to throw the case overboard, if true, in the main. It is also experienced that invariably the witnesses add embroidery to prosecution story, perhaps for the fear of being disbelieved. But that is no ground to throw the case overboard, if true, in the main. If there is a ring of truth in the main, the case should not be rejected. It is the duty of the Court to cull out the nuggets of truth from the evidence unless there is reason to believe that the inconsistencies of falsehood are so glaring as utterly to destroy confidence in the witnesses. It is necessary to remember that a Judge does not preside over a criminal trial merely to see that no innocent man is punished. A Judge also presides to see that a guilty man does not escape. One is as important as the other. Both are public duties which the Judge has to perform." 10. In State of Haryana V/s Tek Singh & Others ( AIR 1999 SC 1742 ) , Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the witnesses in close relationship have tendency to exaggerate or add facts but it has to be ignored unless it affects substratum of prosecution story and observed as under : Further, the Court while appreciating the evidence ought to have kept in mind and visualised the situation at the time of occurrence of the incident. Evidence of the witness should be appreciated by keeping ground reality and fact situation in mind. It is also established law that even with regard to the interest witness, it is the duty of the Court to separate truth from falsehood and the chaff from the grain. In view of the close relationship, witnesses naturally would have a tendency to exaggerate or add facts but while appreciating the evidence exaggerated facts are to be ignored unless it affects substratum of prosecution story. In the case of State of U.P. V. M.K. Anthony, AIR 1985 SC 48 , this Court pointed out that while appreciating the evidence of a witness, the approach must be whether evidence of the witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. In the case of State of U.P. V. M.K. Anthony, AIR 1985 SC 48 , this Court pointed out that while appreciating the evidence of a witness, the approach must be whether evidence of the witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Once that impression is found, it is undoubtedly necessary for the Court to scrutinise the evidence more particularly keeping in view the deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in the evidence as a whole ad evaluate them to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the evidence and whether the earlier evaluation of the evidence is shaken as to render it unworthy of belief. Minor discrepancies, trivial matters not touching the core of the case, hyper-technical approach in persuasion of the evidence should be avoided. The Court pertinently observed (at p. 55 of AIR) : "Even honest and truthful witnesses may differ in some details unrelated to the main incident because power of observation, retention and reproduction differ with individuals. Cross-examination is an unequal duel between a rustic and refined lawyer." 11. In view of the above principles, on appraisal of the prosecution case, it is clear that all the six eye witnesses examined by the prosecution belong to the same family. Deceased Dalmod is father of Rehmuddin (deceased), Kamm (PW 1), Ratiman (PW 2), Rati Khan (PW 4) while Jaituni (PW 3) is wife of Dalmod and Resham w/o Rustam (PW 6) is sister of Jaituni (PW 3) and Noor Jahan (PW 5) is wife of Karmu (PW 1). From the site inspection map (Ex. P.12) it is clear that the houses of the appellants and the witnesses are situated in the same vicinity of the village. As per the testimony of Rati Khan (PW 4), he was held confined at the house of Kallu while he had gone in search of baby of buffalo (Pada) at about 5.00 AM on the day of incident. He found the baby of buffalo (Pada) grazing at the place meant for cattle grazing in the house of Kallu. There, he was caught hold and tied with a rope. Rehmuddin, Jaituni, Noor Jahan and Kamru came and he was untied by Rehmuddin and Jaituni and was asked to sit with the Sarpanch. Rehmuddin wanted to go back, Majid exhorted that the lame fellow would not be allowed to go back. There, he was caught hold and tied with a rope. Rehmuddin, Jaituni, Noor Jahan and Kamru came and he was untied by Rehmuddin and Jaituni and was asked to sit with the Sarpanch. Rehmuddin wanted to go back, Majid exhorted that the lame fellow would not be allowed to go back. On this, appellants, Idu, Sapat and Majid armed with 'Farshi' Kamru armed with Jailli' and rest armed with 'Lathies', inflicted injuries on the person of Rehmuddin. Rehmuddin was taken to the 'Chabutra' of his house in injured condition and there all the appellants again inflicted injuries and there he died. Thereafter, the appellants inflicted injuries to 'Dalmod' in the 'Bakhal of Kale Khan'. Resham who tried to save Dalmod was given a 'Farshi' blow by Idu. Noor Jahan, Jahoori also went to save Damlod and they also sustained injuries. Jaituni (PW 3) has corroborated the testimony of Rati Khan (PW 4). As per her deposition, Rehmuddin was inflicted injuries by the appellants as stated by Rati Khan (PW 4) and her husband Dalmod (deceased) was inflicted injuries while he was standing in the 'Bakhal of Kale Khan'. As per deposition of Resham, she witnessed the assault on Rehmuddin and then she was given a 'Farshi' blow on her leg and then she became unconscious. Noor Jahan (PW 5) and Ratiman (PW 2) have also corroborated the testimony of Ratiman (PW 2). Ratiman (PW 2) has deposed that she went along with Jaituni and Rehmuddin when she came to know that her brother Rati Khan was held captive at the house of Kallu. Karmu (PW 1) the informant, has deposed that he had also gone to the place of occurrence and witnessed the occurrence. 12. In the statements under section 313 Criminal Procedure Code, all the appellants except Raju and Idu had taken a plea that deceased succumbed to the injuries inflicted by the villagers and that they had been inflicted on account of enmity. Appellants Raju and Idu have taken a plea that at the time of incident they were in the jungle at a distance of 11/2 Km. 13. Appellants Raju and Idu have taken a plea that at the time of incident they were in the jungle at a distance of 11/2 Km. 13. In the defence led by the appellants Sri Lal Sharma 'Sarpanch' (DW 1) has deposed that on being informed that Ratia Khan (PW 4) was held captive on the allegation of theft, he went to the spot and there in his presence Rati Khan (PW 4) was untied by the deceased Rehmuddin and his mother Jaituni (PW 3) and then Rati Khan was asked to sit with this witness where others were sitting in open outside the house of Kallu. Thereafter, Rehmuddin and his mother departed but returned within 3-4 minutes along with deceased Dalmod and Kamru (PW 1). Rati Khan (PW 4) was called by Rehmuddin and as Rati Khan went near him, he exhorted that nobody could catch hold him again. On this, Ishraf s/o Katula ran from nearby and caught Rati Khan. On this Rehmuddin fired on Ishraf who sustained injury on his ear and he was rushed to hospital. The police was also informed and when the police came at about 9.00 AM, this witness was called and there he found two persons lying dead. This part of the story has been further supported from the fact that the police had received a telephonic information at 7.15 AM which was entered in daily diary marked Ex. P 60A. In fact, it was on this information, ASI Sant Lal (PW 6) reached to the place of occurrence and obtained the written report (Ex P 1) from Kamru (PW 1). Dr. B.t. Meena (DW 2) has also confirmed the fact that he had examined Ashraf at about 9.45 AM on the said day and found gun shot injury on his left zygomatic region and prepared injury report (Ex P 17). The report (Ex P. 15A) of the incident was lodged at the police station and the FIR (Ex. D 14-A) was also chalked. 14. On conjoint reading the testimony of eye witnesses and the evidence led by the defence, it is revealed that the genesis of the prosecution case stand confirmed from defence version that the whole incident occurred on Rati Khan (PW 4) being held captive on allegation of theft and thereafter the rest of the incident had followed. 14. On conjoint reading the testimony of eye witnesses and the evidence led by the defence, it is revealed that the genesis of the prosecution case stand confirmed from defence version that the whole incident occurred on Rati Khan (PW 4) being held captive on allegation of theft and thereafter the rest of the incident had followed. From the defence version it also stands corroborated that Rati Khan (PW 4) was untied from the captivity by deceased Rehmuddin and Jaituni (PW 3) and also that deceased Rehmuddin and Dalmod were also present at the time of incident. The presence of other witnesses, namely Resham (PW 6) and Noor Jahan (PW 5) is further confirmed from the fact that they were injured in the incident in their effort to save Dalamond. Thus, we find the testimony of the eye witnesses whose presence at the time of occurrence is established is natural probable and consistent. The learned counsel for the appellants have argued that the testimony of eye witnesses has been afflicted by contradictions and improvements and that the eye witnesses have given complete go by to the incident of firing Katta by Rehmuddin though it finds mention in the report lodged to the police. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the prosecution case has been seriously doubted and benefit of doubt should go to the appellants. We have given our thoughtful consideration to this aspect and we find that facts and circumstances of the case are such where there is a ring of truth in the main-and as held by the Apex Court in Anil Singh's Case (supra) that there is a tendency amongst witnesses in our country to back up a good case by false or exaggerated version for fear being disbelieved, and this case is one where we find that in the fear of being found at fault, they appear to have given a go-by to the incident of firing Katta by deceased Rehmuddin. On applying the test as laid down in Tek Singh's case (supra), minor discrepancies trivial matters not touching the core of the case should be avoided, we find that from the testimony of eye witnesses the substratum of the prosecution story stands proved. 15. The learned counsel for the appellants have argued that all the witnesses belong to the same family and they have deposed against the appellants on account of pronounced enmity. 15. The learned counsel for the appellants have argued that all the witnesses belong to the same family and they have deposed against the appellants on account of pronounced enmity. This argument of the learned counsel is not of much significance in the facts and circumstances of the case. The appellants have though taken a plea of enmity in their statements under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code but nothing has been made out of the suggestions in the cross examination of the eye witnesses that there was any long standing grudge with the appellants. In view of this aspect of the occurrence, there has been no reason to implicate the appellants falsely. The Apex Court in Dilip Singh V/s State of Punjab ( 1954 SCR 145 ) has laid down as under : "Ordinarily, a close relative would be the last to screen the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person. It is true, when feelings run high and there is personal cause for enmity, that there is a tendency to drag in an innocent person against whom a witness has a grudge along with the guilty, but foundation must be laid for such a criticism and the mere fact of relationship far from being a foundation is often a sure guarantee of truth. However, we are not attempting any sweeping generalisation. Each case must be judged on its own facts. Our observations are only made to combat what is so often put forward in cases before us as a general rule of prudence. There is no such general rule. Each case must be limited to and be governed by its own facts." 16. The learned counsel for the appellants have tried to argue that in view of the fact of firing Katta by deceased Rehmuddin, the right of private defence of the appellants may be inferred. We find that the plea of private defence in the facts and circumstances of the case is totally untenable. At the very out- set it may be observed that in the plea taken in the statements under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code, it was stated that the appellants did not participate in the incident and that deceased Rehmuddin and Dalmod were put to death by villagers after the alleged chaos presumably caused after the Katta being fired. At the very out- set it may be observed that in the plea taken in the statements under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code, it was stated that the appellants did not participate in the incident and that deceased Rehmuddin and Dalmod were put to death by villagers after the alleged chaos presumably caused after the Katta being fired. That apart, from the testimony of Sri Lal, Sarpanch (DW 1), it has been clarified that the Katta was fired by Rahmuddin when he exhorted that nobody could again catch hold Rati Khan (PW 4) and on this when Rati Khan was caught by Sapat, Rehmuddin fired Katta causing injury. Thus, firing of Katta by deceased Rehmuddin on the appellants is not proved. Moreover, on perusal of site map (Ex. P 12) in the light of the testimony of the eye witnesses examined by prosecution, it is revealed that blood spilled on the ground was found at place 'A' where the incident alleged to have started, then at a distance of 90 ft. at a place marked 'B' where Rehmuddin was allegedly assailed by the appellants. Then 'C' is the place at a distance of 80 ft. where the dead body of Rehmuddin is shown to have been lying. Then at a distance of 220 ft. across the house of Dalmod, blood was found spilled on the ground where Dalmod was assailed and then the place 'E' is at a distance of 50 ft. where the dead body of deceased Dalmod was found lying. This shows that the appellants had gone all the way to inflict injuries to Rehmuddin at a place marked 'B' at a distance of 40 ft. from place 'A' an then the place 'C' at a distance of 80 ft. and then they further proceeded towards east at a distance of 220 ft. to assail Dalmod and chased him upto place mark 'F' at a distance of 50 ft. where the dead body was found lying. This shows that the appellants had acted in concerted manner and formed unlawful assembly and thereby inflicted injuries to Rehmuddin and Dalmod in furtherance of common object and thereby caused death. Thus, there has been no occasion when private defence was available to the appellants. 17. Having carefully scanned the impugned judgment of learned trial court, we find no infirmity in it. 18. Thus, there has been no occasion when private defence was available to the appellants. 17. Having carefully scanned the impugned judgment of learned trial court, we find no infirmity in it. 18. For these reasons we find no merit in the instant appeals and the same stand accordingly dismissed. Conviction and sentence of appellants Taiyab Khan, Raju, Idu Khan, Kamru, Majid Khan, Sapat Khan and Katula under Sections 302/149, 325/149, 323/149, 341 and 148, Indian Penal Code are maintained. 19. Appellant Katula is on bail, his bail bonds stand cancelled and he shall forthwith be taken into custody. Warrants of arrest of appellant Katula be issued. 20. Other appellants Taiab Khan, Raju, Idu Khan, Kamru, Majid Khan and Sapat Khan are in custody, they shall now serve out the sentence.Appeals dismissed. *******