JUDGMENT [PER : P.R. BORKAR,J.] This is an appeal preferred by the original accused Nos. 1,2,3 & 5 being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Amalner in Sessions Case No. 10 of (2) 2005 decided on 27th February, 2006, whereby the accused/appellants were convicted of offence punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 of the I.P.C., Section 307 r/w 34 of the I.P.C. and Section 324 r/w 34 of the I.P.C. Each accused is sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.2000/- for offence under Section 302 r/w 34 of the I.P.C.; rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs.1000/- for offence under Section 307 r/w 34 of the I.P.C. and rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 500/- for offence under Section 324 r/w 34 of the I.P.C. Various terms of imprisonment in default of payment of fine amounts were also awarded. 2. It is a case of triple murder and the facts leading to the case may be stated in brief as follows:- It is no more disputed that appellant No. 2 - Baliram is the father of appellant No. 1 - Baldev and appellant No.3 - Vinayak and husband of appellant No.4 - Sojabai. Sojabai is original accused No. 5. Original accused No.4-Yogesh Marathe is acquitted of all the offences charged. The accused reside at Turatkheda. Deceased Subhash is father of Vasudeo (P.W.10). P.W.13-Babulal and P.W.8-Sharad are brothers of deceased Subhash. Deceased Jamu was distant cousin brother of Subhash. Deceased Pramod is son of deceased Jamu Pawar. The relations of the injured and the deceased persons on one hand and accused on the other hand were strained. Appellant No.2-Baliram had filed a suit against injured P.W.8-Sharad and others. The land of accused/appellant No.2 - Baliram is adjacent to the land of P.W.13-Babulal. There was dispute over the boundary. 3. On 19.10.2004 in the afternoon a bull owned by deceased Subhash entered the land of accused Baliram. At that time there was exchange of words between P.W.13-Babulal and accused No.1-Baldev. On the same day i.e. on 19.10.2004 at about 7=00 to 7=30 p.m., appellant No.2 and his sons - appellant No.1 Baldev and appellant No.3 Vinayak started abusing P.W.13 - Babulal, P.W.8 - Sharad and others. Appellant No. 4 - Sojabai was also present there. At that time there was exchange of words between P.W.13-Babulal and accused No.1-Baldev. On the same day i.e. on 19.10.2004 at about 7=00 to 7=30 p.m., appellant No.2 and his sons - appellant No.1 Baldev and appellant No.3 Vinayak started abusing P.W.13 - Babulal, P.W.8 - Sharad and others. Appellant No. 4 - Sojabai was also present there. On hearing the abuses it is said that deceased Subhash, deceased Pramod, deceased Jamu, Vasudeo, Babulal and Sharad went to question the appellants regarding the abusing. It is prosecution case that they had gone to persuade the appellants not to abuse them. The house of the appellant is in a lane. The house of Pitambar (P.W.11) is on the opposite side of the house of the appellants in same lane. The incident had taken place in the said lane. It is prosecution case that appellant No.1 - Baldev had at that time inflicted blows with knife to Jamu, Pramod and Vasudeo (P.W.10) on their stomach and back; whereas appellant No.2 Baliram inflicted injuries with knife on Subhash Pawar, Sharad (P.W.8) and Babulal (P.W.13). Thereafter, they ran away. It is said that the injured had fallen down and thereafter appellant No.3 Vinayak beat all of them with stick. At the time of the incident appellant No.5 - Sojabai was extorting other appellants to attack and kill the injured. 4. After the incident all the injured were taken to the Cottage Hospital at Parola, where Dr. Sambhaji Patil (P.W.15) treated the injured. Jamu and Pramod were declared dead. Since the condition of other injured persons was extremely serious Dr. Sambhaji Patil after giving first aid, advised to take them to the Civil Hospital at Dhule and accordingly the injured were taken to the Civil Hospital. The post mortem on the person of Jamu and Pramod was performed by Dr. Sambhaji Patil at Parola. It is further prosecution case that the injured Subhash died as a result of the injuries on 04.11.2004. 5. It is further prosecution case that P.I. Ganesh More (P.W.19) of Parola Police Station received information regarding the incident on telephone and he immediately reached Turatkheda village. He learnt that the injured were already removed to Rural Hospital at Parola. He kept some policemen for Bandobast at Turatkheda. By that time Kishor Jamu Pawar (P.W.5) had lodged complaint at Parola Police Station regarding the incident. He learnt that the injured were already removed to Rural Hospital at Parola. He kept some policemen for Bandobast at Turatkheda. By that time Kishor Jamu Pawar (P.W.5) had lodged complaint at Parola Police Station regarding the incident. He was not present at the time of the incident, but he learnt about the incident from Sanjay Marathe (P.W.6) who was also not an eye witness. When P.I. More returned back to the Cottage Hospital, he received telephonic message from A.P.I. Thakur that the crime was registered. At the Cottage Hospital, Parole, P.I. More (P.W.19) learnt that Pramod and Jamu had died in the hospital at Parola. So, he called panch witnesses and drew inquest panchanamas Exh.50 and 51. Thereafter, the dead bodies were given for post-mortem and the Medical Officer performed post mortem on the next day. 6. It is further case of the prosecution that on 20.10.2004 at about 2.30 a.m. P.I. More (P.W.19) arrested all the five accused persons. Arrest panchanamas Exhs. 140 to 144 were drawn. After the arrest, the accused were sent to the Medical Officer, Parola for medical check-up. On 20.10.2004, P.I. More went to the place of offence. The spot shown was in the front of the house of Pitambar Pawar. Blood was found on the Ota of the house of Pitambar Pawar, so also on the road in front of the house. Samples of the bloodstained earth and ordinary earth were taken. Spot panchanama Exh.38 was drawn. On that day P.I. More recorded statement of 12 witnesses. The bloodstained clothes of the injured so also on the person of appellant Nos. 1 and 2 were attached under various panchanamas. Both appellant Nos. 1 and 2 showed their readiness and willingness to produce knives and accordingly they produced knives which were attached under discovery panchanamas. Appellant No.3 produced stick from his house. It was also attached. The muddemal articles were sent to the Chemical Analyser. 7. In this case the appellants have filed common written statement at the time of recording of their statements under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. As per the said written statement Exh.172, it is case of the appellants that all the witnesses have deposed against them falsely. They are falsely involved. There were no discoveries. Witness Narayan and Hirabai had not seen the incident. Even witness Pitambar has deposed falsely. The evidence of Dr. Sandeep Patil or Dr. They are falsely involved. There were no discoveries. Witness Narayan and Hirabai had not seen the incident. Even witness Pitambar has deposed falsely. The evidence of Dr. Sandeep Patil or Dr. Sambhaji Patil are not reliable. Except witness Narayan and Bhura all were close relatives of the injured and there is enmity between the witnesses and the accused. In-fact, appellant Nos. 1 and 2 were seriously injured and the prosecution witnesses were aggressors. The witnesses have decided to whom they should involve in the matter and to whom they should not and that is clear from the fact that none of the witnesses have stated about presence or any act on the part of original accused No.4 - Yogesh Marathe. In-fact, the appellants were the victim. Appellant No.3 is mentally challenged person. He was not in a position to know nature of the offence or understand consequences of the act. False evidence is placed before the Court. Appellant no.4 Sojabai is old lady. In para 14, it is stated that appellants were entitled to right of private defence of person and that should be considered. The judgment of the Trial Court shows that the question of right of private defence was vehemently argued. 8. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has relied upon evidence of various eye-witnesses examined, so also he relied upon discovery of weapons, attachment of bloodstained clothes and C.A. reports. He rejected the defence that the appellants were exercising right of private defence and he ultimately convicted all the appellants of the offences punishable under Section 302 r/w 34, Section 307 r/w 34 and Section 324 r/w 34 of the I.P.C. and awarded various sentences. He acquitted original accused No. 4 Yogesh. He also held that since only four persons had taken part in the incident, offence under Sections 143, 147, 148 of the I.P.C. were not committed and Section 149 of the I.P.C. is not applicable. 9. As stated earlier P.W. 5 - Kishor was not witness to the incident. He stated that deceased Subhash, Babulal (P.W.13), Sharad (P.W.8) and deceased Jamu were brothers. On 19.10.2004 at 7.30 p.m. while he was returning home in his Matador, he noticed a mob in front of house of Pitambar Pawar and Pramod, Babulal, Vasudeo and Sharad were seriously injured and were groaning. Then he went to his house and found that Jamu and Subhash were also injured seriously. On 19.10.2004 at 7.30 p.m. while he was returning home in his Matador, he noticed a mob in front of house of Pitambar Pawar and Pramod, Babulal, Vasudeo and Sharad were seriously injured and were groaning. Then he went to his house and found that Jamu and Subhash were also injured seriously. Witness Sanjay Marathe (P.W.6) told him about the incident and thereafter in a Sumo Jeep all the injured were taken to Parola Hospital. His father Jamu and brother Pramod were declared dead by the Medical officer. So, he went to Parola Police Station and lodged complaint Exh.81. The evidence of P.W.5 and the complaint lodged by him are thus based on hearsay information. 10. P.W.6-Sanjay Marathe stated at Exh.85 that on 19.10.2004 at 7.00 p.m. he was at his house. He heard shouts. The house of Subhash is by the side of his house. So, he went to the house of Subhash. Some persons brought Subhash to his house. He was injured. He said that he was assaulted by appellant No.2-Baliram. He also noticed wounds on the back and chest of Subhash. Subhash also told him that Babulal, Sharad and Jamu were also assaulted by appellant Nos. 1 and 2. He had not personally seen the incident. Thereafter, vehicle was called and all the injured were taken to Parola Hospital. Prior to taking the injured to Parola, P.W.5 - Kishor met him and inquired with him and he narrated all the facts known to him. The evidence of this witness who appears to be independent witness is significant in as much as Subhash disclosed incident at the earliest time to him. According to Subhash, who subsequently died, appellant Nos. 1 and 2 have injured all the victims. He did not name appellant Nos. 3 and 4. This witness is independent. This can be gathered from his conduct. He stated in cross-examination that at the time of the incident,there was darkness outside. There was load-shedding of electricity in the village. Subhash had also told him about afternoon incident of cattle trespass into land of the appellant. However, in cross-examination omission was brought on record that this witness has not stated before Police that Subhash told him that he was injured by both Baliram and Baldev, but it is not the case of the prosecution that both injured Subhash. Subhash had also told him about afternoon incident of cattle trespass into land of the appellant. However, in cross-examination omission was brought on record that this witness has not stated before Police that Subhash told him that he was injured by both Baliram and Baldev, but it is not the case of the prosecution that both injured Subhash. Moreover, Subhash told this witness that both appellant No. 1 Baldev and appellant No.2 Baliram had caused injuries. It does not mean necessarily that each of them have caused injuries to each injured person. Omission was also brought that it is not mentioned by him before Police that he narrated the incident to P.W.5-Kishor. However, P.W.5-Kishor has stated that he received the information from P.W.6-Sanjay Marathe and that fact is mentioned in the complaint itself. So, there is no reason to disbelieve this part. 11. P.W.8-Sharad is examined at Exh.91 and he stated that on 19.10.2004 in the afternoon a bullock of Subhash had entered in the land of the appellants. On that count the incident had occurred in the evening. Appellant No.2 - Baliram and his sons were abusing the persons from the brotherhood of Subhash and therefore P.W.8-Sharad, deceased Subhash, deceased Pramod, P.W.10-Vasudeo, P.W.13-Babulal and others went to the appellants, who were in front of the house of Pitambar Pawar, to persuade the appellants (not to abuse). At that time, appellant No.1-Baldev injured Jamu, Pramod and Vasudeo with knife by giving blows on their backs and abdomens. At that time appellant No. 2 - Baliram injured Subhash, P.W.13-Babulal and P.W.8-Sharad with a knife by giving blows on their backs and abdomens. In the incident P.W.8-Sharad sustained wounds on his chest on right side and on the back on right side. He sustained injury near left scapular region. Appellant No.3-Vinayak beat them with stick. At that time appellant No.4-Sojabai was instigating other appellants saying that the prosecution witnesses should be killed and no one should be left alive. Thereafter, they were taken to the hospital. One of the important criticism against eye witnesses including P.W.8-Sharad, P.W.10-Vasudeo and P.W.13-Babulal is that they were stating the same story in examination-in-chief and it is a parrot-like version which should not be believed. 12. It is argued that statements of these injured persons were recorded belatedly. Statement of P.W.8-Sharad was recorded on 29.10.2004 i.e. almost 10 days after the incident. 12. It is argued that statements of these injured persons were recorded belatedly. Statement of P.W.8-Sharad was recorded on 29.10.2004 i.e. almost 10 days after the incident. The witness admitted that he had not disclosed the incident to anyone prior to that date. 13. P.W.8-Sharad, however, admitted that in his presence appellant No.3-Vinayak did not give stick blow to anybody. He admitted that appellant-Baliram had prosecuted him and his father for the alleged destruction of common Bund. Omission was brought on record that this witness did not state before Police that the incident had occurred in front of house of Pitambar Pawar. Evidence of P.W.8-Sharad shows that in the evening after they returned home from the land, he disclosed his father and Subhash that the appellants Baldev abused Babulal in the field. He also disclosed this to Pramod and Jamu and thereafter they all had gone to the place of the incident. He said that they did not feel that accused persons would misunderstand them, if they all went together. A specific question was asked to him regarding injuries to the appellants and he said that he could not explain the injuries on the person of the accused. He denied the suggestion that they had dragged the appellant Baliram and Baldev from their house up to the house of Pitambar. The suggestion is denied. 14. Vasudeo (P.W.10) is another injured eye witness. He stated same story at Exh. 95. In cross-examination he stated that original accused no. 4 Yogesh was not present at the time of the incident. It was suggested to him that he had not seen the incident properly and he had not seen Yogesh due to darkness. His admissions in para 5 are worth considering. It is admitted that in the evening when they had gone to the house of accused/appellant no. 2 Baliram, all the appellants were at the house. They did not talk with appellant no. 2 Baliram at his house. There was no reason for not talking with appellant no. 2 Baliram at his house. The admissions show that the injured persons had gone to the house of (14) appellants and not that appellants went with weapons to the injured. It is case of the prosecution that appellants were abusing the persons of the brotherhood of injured. Obviously, it is unnatural to presume that the intention of prosecution party was only peaceful persuasion. The admissions show that the injured persons had gone to the house of (14) appellants and not that appellants went with weapons to the injured. It is case of the prosecution that appellants were abusing the persons of the brotherhood of injured. Obviously, it is unnatural to presume that the intention of prosecution party was only peaceful persuasion. In natural course, they would go to the house of appellants to question their conduct in abusing them and their brotherhood. Witness Vasudeo stated that as soon as appellant no. 1 Baldev gave first blow of knife to him he fell down and became unconscious. It was brought on record that though witness has stated that appellant no. 1 Baldev injured him with knife, the omission was regarding injury being on the "chest". In my opinion, since doctor’s evidence is there, such omission has no much value. Omission was proved that the witness had not stated that appellant no. 1 Baldev had injured him, Jamu and Pramod with knife on stomach and back with forceful blows. He further stated in cross-examination that he regained consciousness after 4-5 days in Civil Hospital, Dhule. 15. Babulal (P.W.13) is the third injured witness. He also stated same story in the examination-in-chief. He stated that he was admitted in the hospital for about 15 days and during that period police came to the hospital and recorded his statement. He was advised to go to Mumbai for better medical treatment. While he was hospitalised, one Executive Magistrate came to him to record his statement. Some omissions were brought on record in his cross-examination which are to the effect that the witness had not stated that appellant Baldev had injured Jamu Rupchand, Pramod Jamu and Vasudeo with knife on stomach and back and then ran away or that there was exchange of words after bullock had entered the land of the appellant. He denied that he stated about presence of Yogesh before the Executive Magistrate. Omission was also brought on record that he did not state before police that appellant no.3 Vinayak had assaulted all with stick and appellant no. 4 Sojabai was instigating remaining appellants. This witness stated that after assault on him he fell down and became unconscious. He regained consciousness at Cottage Hospital, Parola, but again stated that he might have regained consciousness after 2-3 days. 16. 4 Sojabai was instigating remaining appellants. This witness stated that after assault on him he fell down and became unconscious. He regained consciousness at Cottage Hospital, Parola, but again stated that he might have regained consciousness after 2-3 days. 16. The above said evidence is, to some extent, corroborated by Pitambar (P.W.11). Pitambar (P.W.11) in his statement at Exh. 97 stated that on the day of (16) incident at about 7.00 or 7.30 p.m. he was returning home after attending nature’s call. At that time appellant no.1 Baldev assaulted Vasudeo with a knife in front of his house. Thereafter he ran away from the spot. He knew deceased Jamu, Pramod and Subhash. He knew all appellants. The incident had taken place 18-20 feet from his house. If we see spot panchanama Exh. 38 or the map of the place of incident Exh. 41, it is clear that the houses of appellant and witness Pitambar are near each other in same lane. On the next day police came to him and he narrated the incident. This witness was declared hostile as he did not support the prosecution. However, in cross-examination para 3 he admitted that his house is at a corner by the side of high way. There is one electric pole and telephone pole near his house. There is an arrangement for electric light. He described the place of incident and nearby houses. In para 5, he admitted that at the time of incident all accused persons had gathered in front of his house. There is one Ota in front of his house. He also admitted that appellants were abusing victims and persons from their brotherhood. The abusing was on account of bullock of deceased Subhash entering the land of accused/appellant no.2 Baliram. He then stated that victims came to the spot one after other. He also came out of the house. He had also seen witness Hirabai and Umesh. He then admitted that other persons had gathered and then appellants started assaulting the injured persons. He saw assault on Vasudeo, but he did not see appellant no.1 Baldev injuring Jamu or Pramod with knife. Then he reiterated that he ran away after assault on Vasudeo, but he had seen the injured lying on the spot after the incident. He then admitted that other persons had gathered and then appellants started assaulting the injured persons. He saw assault on Vasudeo, but he did not see appellant no.1 Baldev injuring Jamu or Pramod with knife. Then he reiterated that he ran away after assault on Vasudeo, but he had seen the injured lying on the spot after the incident. Thus, this witness has admitted that incident did take place in front of his house in which at least appellant no.1 Baldev used knife in causing injury to Vasudeo. He did not see further incident. He reiterated this in para 9 of his cross-examination. 17. Thus, this hostile witness Pitambar Pawar has proved that some incident under which victims were injured had taken place in front of his house. He could identify various persons. It may be noted that the injured and the appellants are from same village. It is difficult to believe that appellants and injured would be silent during the incident. Obviously they must be shouting at and abusing to each other. So it was not difficult for villagers to identify injured and appellants, who were neighbours. They knew each other from childhood, so it was possible to identify each other even though there was no electricity. It is difficult to believe that there was total darkness. Even in case of partial visibility one can identify a person with whom he had previous acquaintance, when they come close. Identification can be also from voice. Incident has taken place at 7.00 to 7.30 p.m. There are houses on both sides of the lane in which the incident had occurred. So it cannot be said that there was no visibility. 18. Hirabai (P.W.7) is eye witness. She is wife of Sharad (P.W.8). She narrated same incident. It is said that she is interested witness. 19. At this stage we may consider the evidence of Dr. Sambhaji Patil (P.W.15) at Exh.114. Dr. Sambhaji Patil stated that he was Medical Officer, Cottage Hospital, Parola on 19.10.2004. On that day, Vasudeo (P.W.10), Babulal (P.W.13), Jamu Rupchand and Trimbak Jamu, etc., all resident of Turatkheda were brought to Cottage Hospital by their relatives. Jamu Rupchand and Pramod Jamu who were injured had already died. Witness noted various injuries on the injured persons and it is necessary to refer to them. On that day, Vasudeo (P.W.10), Babulal (P.W.13), Jamu Rupchand and Trimbak Jamu, etc., all resident of Turatkheda were brought to Cottage Hospital by their relatives. Jamu Rupchand and Pramod Jamu who were injured had already died. Witness noted various injuries on the injured persons and it is necessary to refer to them. Vasudeo (P.W.10) had one stab injury on chest right side 1 x 3 x 7 cm. in size. His condition was extremely poor and was, therefore, referred to Civil Hospital, Dhule. Injured Subhash Bhivsen was having incised wound on abdominal region and chest about 1 x 3 x 5 cm. in size. He was under shock and, therefore, he was also referred to Civil Hospital, Dhule. Babulal (P.W.13) had incised wound on infra scapular region 1 x 7 x 7 cm. in size. His condition was also extremely poor and was referred to Civil Hospital, Dhule. 20. Dr. Sambhaji Patil (P.W.15) also performed postmortem on dead bodies of Pramod Jamu, Jamu Rupchand on 20.10.2004 and he stated that on the person of Pramod Jamu Pawar there were five external injuries which were mentioned in para 17 as below : " (1) There was penetrating wound on epigastric region about 5 x 7 cm in size and 10 cm deep. (2) Edges inverted and clean cut, small intestine coming outside. (3) on the right lobe of liver perforating wound about 5 x 7 cm in size. (4) Incised wound to the inferior vena cava about 0.5 x 1.5 cm in size (5) massive internal bleeding present about three to four litres." 21. According to doctor, on internal examination of abdomen he found penetrating wound on epigastric region of size of 5 x 7 cm. According to him, the cause of death was due to hypovolaemic shock due to massive internal bleeding due to incised haemorrhage due to incised wound to inferior vena cava and perforating wound to the liver due to sharp and hard object. 22. Dr. Sambhaji Patil conducted autopsy on the dead body of Jamu Rupchand and found : "(1) stab wound on right infra scapular region lateral to vertebral column about 7 cm and between 11th to 12th ribs about 2 x 5 cm in size and 10 cm deep, margins inverted. 22. Dr. Sambhaji Patil conducted autopsy on the dead body of Jamu Rupchand and found : "(1) stab wound on right infra scapular region lateral to vertebral column about 7 cm and between 11th to 12th ribs about 2 x 5 cm in size and 10 cm deep, margins inverted. (2) wound is penetrating through (a) lattissimuschorsi, (b) sorratus, post inferior (c) guardratus lumberium (d) right kidney (3) incised wound to the right renal vessel about 1 x 2 cm in size (4) penetrating wound on right kidney, wound of entry about 1.3 cm in size wound of exit 1 x 3 in size (5) about 3 to 3.5 litres internal bleeding in the peritoneal cavity. There was no injury to head. Thoracic wall was intact except stab wound on right infra scapular region. Both right and left lungs were pale. Both ventricles were empty." .According to doctor, cause of death was due to hypovolaemic shock due to massive internal bleeding due to incised wound to the renal vessel due to sharp and hard object. According to doctor, the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. 23. Dr. Sambhaji Patil also examined all the appellants and found no injuries on the persons of appellant nos. 1, 3 and 4 and accordingly he issued certificates Exhs. 119, 121 and 122. On the person of appellant no. 2 Baliram he found (i) tenderness over chest of left side was present (22) (ii) swelling and tenderness over left thigh about 10 x 15 cm in size (iii) abrasion over lower limb about 2 x 2 cm . Those were simple injuries caused within 24 hours and he proved certificate Exh. 120. According to doctor, the injuries were possible due to fall while running on surface of floor. 24. Learned Additional Sessions Judge was right in saying that injuries to appellant no. 2 Baliram were very minor injuries and might have been accidental. They were also superficial in nature. In cross-examination, Dr. Sambhaji Patil admitted that on the person of dead body of Pramod, there was only one external injury and injuries at Sr. Nos. 3 and 4 in column 17 were corresponding to injury no. 1. According to him, after such injuries, person would not be able to walk and he may survive at the most for half an hour. Sambhaji Patil admitted that on the person of dead body of Pramod, there was only one external injury and injuries at Sr. Nos. 3 and 4 in column 17 were corresponding to injury no. 1. According to him, after such injuries, person would not be able to walk and he may survive at the most for half an hour. He further stated that so far as Jamu is concerned, person with such injury would be able to walk for half an hour. There was only one external injury caused to him. In cross-examination witness said that tenderness to appellant Baliram was possible due to blow of hard and blunt object. 25. Dr. Prakash Patil (P.W.16) has examined Pappu alias Vasudeo (P.W.10). According to him, he was brought by Sharad Bhivsen. Dr. Prakash Patil was attached to Civil Hospital, Dhule as Casualty Medical Officer. He found that Vasudeo had stab injury on left side of chest caused with sharp object. So he sent him to emergency ward and Dr. Khairnar (P.W.20) treated Vasudeo. Dr. Prakash Patil examined Babulal (P.W.13) and found one stab injury on the back and blunt trauma to back. Patient was given emergency treatment considering his condition and was also referred to Dr. Khairnar who was an expert surgeon. The injury certificate is proved at Exh. 126. Babulal was indoor patient from 19.10.2004 to 8.11.2004. Dr. Prakash Patil also examined Subhash Bhivsen who had stab injury of 5 x 5 x 1 cm. on right lumber region. He was indoor patient from 19.10.2004 to 30.10.2004. Injury was grievous, caused within 6 hours. He proved certificate at Exh. 127. Doctor also examined Sharad Bhivsen who had also incised wound on left scapular region 5 cms x 1.2 cms x 1.2 cms and incised wound on right index finger 1.2 x 1.2 cm caused with sharp weapon. 26. It is argued before this Court that though Sharad was having minor injuries, his statement was not recorded by the Investigating Officer till 29.10.2004. The history of assault given by injured persons was recorded, but no one referred to "knife" and said that they were injured with sharp weapon. It may be noted that most of the patients were seriously injured, and under the circumstances history might have been actually given by relatives who had brought them. 27. Dr. Sandeep Patil (P.W.12) performed postmortem on Subhash. It may be noted that most of the patients were seriously injured, and under the circumstances history might have been actually given by relatives who had brought them. 27. Dr. Sandeep Patil (P.W.12) performed postmortem on Subhash. He stated that Subhash had 4 stitch wounds on abdomen, lumber region, chest. The cause of death as per certificate Exh. 103 was perinephtric haematoma with kidney associated with fracture of ribs left side with haematoma in muscle of abdomen on left side with bronchopnenmoia and chronic active hepatitis. Earlier Subhash was under treatment from 19.10.2004 till 30.10.2004 and was again admitted in Sanjeevani Hospital on 3.11.2004 and died on 4.11.2004 and the patient was brought dead on 5.11.2004 to the Civil Hospital. We find these admissions in the evidence of Dr. Patil at Exh. 100. 28. Besides the oral evidence, we find evidence of Narayan Lonari (P.W.2) and Police Inspector More (P.W.19), who have proved that appellant nos. 1 and 2 gave separate statements while in police custody that each would produce knife from a plot and accordingly memorandum of statements were recorded at Exhs. 47 and 48. Thereafter both appellant nos. 1 and 2 led police to Turatkheda village and each of them produced a knife which were attached under panchanama Exhs. 43 and 44. The knives are muddemal Articles 22 and 23. 29. So far as appellant no. 3 Vinayak and appellant no. 4 Sojabai are concerned, considering the totality of the circumstances, it appears that most probably that they are falsely involved and so they are entitled to benefit of doubt. It is said by witnesses that appellant no. 3 Vinayak used stick, but as per medical evidence none of the injured or deceased had sustained a stick blow. Secondly Sharad (P.W.8) has specifically stated in his cross-examination that in his presence Vinayak did not give stick blow to anybody and it may be noted that Sharad (P.W.8) was the only person who had received relatively minor injuries. It is difficult to believe that Sojabai had shared common intention with appellant nos. 1 and 2 to kill anyone. It is not that appellants had gone to the house of victims. The victims went to the place where appellants were present. So mere presence of the appellant Nos. 3 & 4 is not enough. It is difficult to believe that Sojabai had shared common intention with appellant nos. 1 and 2 to kill anyone. It is not that appellants had gone to the house of victims. The victims went to the place where appellants were present. So mere presence of the appellant Nos. 3 & 4 is not enough. It is not possible that in the melee when incident had taken place in twilight and so many persons were present, exact words uttered by Sojabai would be heard and remembered by all injured. 30. Moreover, the motive for incident was a cattle trespass. Though appellants were enraged and though intention to cause death can be attributed to appellant nos. 1 and 2 who gave knife blows, still it is doubtful whether same can be attributed to appellant nos. 3 and 4, merely because they were present in front of their house. So in our considered opinion, appellant nos. 3 and 4 should be given benefit of doubt and acquitted. However, same cannot be said about appellant No. 1 and 2 who inflicted knife blows on as many as 6 persons, 3 out of whom died and two were hospitalised for considerable period. We rely on following observations made in the case of Virsa Singh ( AIR 1958 S.C. 465 ). "(11) In considering whether the intention was to inflict the injury found to have been inflicted, the enquiry necessarily proceeds on broad lines as, for example, whether there was an intention to strike at a vital or a dangerous spot, and whether with sufficient force to cause the kind of injury found to have been inflicted. It is, of course, not necessary to enquire into every last detail as, for instance, whether the prisoner intended to have the bowels fall out, or the kidneys or the heart. Otherwise, a man who has no knowledge of anatomy could never be convicted, for, if he does not know that there is a heart or a kidney or bowels, he cannot be said to have intended to injure them. Of course, that is not the kind of enquiry. It is broad-based and simple and based on commonsense: the kind of enquiry that "twelve good men and true" could readily appreciate and understand." 31. The prosecution has also examined panch Shantaram Patil (P.W.3) to prove panchanamas Exhs. 72 and 73 under which clothes of appellant nos. Of course, that is not the kind of enquiry. It is broad-based and simple and based on commonsense: the kind of enquiry that "twelve good men and true" could readily appreciate and understand." 31. The prosecution has also examined panch Shantaram Patil (P.W.3) to prove panchanamas Exhs. 72 and 73 under which clothes of appellant nos. 1 and 2 were attached. The evidence of Shantaram Patil is supported by evidence of Police Inspector More (P.W.19). Sangram Lonari (P.W.4) is panch for panchanamas Exhs. 75 to 79 under which clothes of deceased Pramod, deceased Jamu, injured Vasudeo (P.W.10), deceased Subhash and injured Babulal (P.W.13) were respectively attached. Absolutely there is no reason to disbelieve this part of evidence regarding discovery and attachment of clothes of injured and appellant nos. 1 and 2. More (P.W.19) in his statement on oath has specifically stated that soon after attachment, he handed over muddemal articles to Moharir of the police station for safe custody after drawing muddemal receipt. 32. Evidence of P.I. More further shows that all muddemal articles were sent to the Chemical Analyser. In para 48 of the judgment, the Trial Court has considered the reports of the Chemical Analyser, which are at Exhs. 52 to 61 and they reveal that the clothes of Jamu, Babulal and Subhash were stained with blood of group ’B’. Clothes of Pramod, Vasudeo were stained with blood of ’O’ group. Kopari (vest) of Jamu was stained with blood of ’B’ group. There were cut marks on the clothes mentioned by Chemical Analyser. We find them on T-Shirt of Pramod, full shirt of Subhash and vest of Jamu. It is further noted that the clothes of Subhash were stained with blood of ’B’ group. Blood group of Jamu, Subhash and Babulal was ’B’ group and that of Vasudeo was of ’O’ group. However blood group of accused could not be ascertained. 33. Injuries on accused no.2 Baliram clearly show his presence. So far as appellant no.1 Baldev is concerned, even independent witness like Pitambar Pawar has said that he was present with knife and assaulted Vasudeo. In para 49, the Trial Court referred to blood stains found on the clothes of appellant nos. 1 and 2 to show that they were present and they had taken part in incident. So far as appellant no.1 Baldev is concerned, even independent witness like Pitambar Pawar has said that he was present with knife and assaulted Vasudeo. In para 49, the Trial Court referred to blood stains found on the clothes of appellant nos. 1 and 2 to show that they were present and they had taken part in incident. Moreover, it is worth noting that right of private defence was taken up by the appellants and it was vehemently canvassed before the Trial Court and discussion regarding that can be seen in paras 53 to 55 of the judgment. The Trial Court observed that the injured were all without any weapon much less dangerous weapon. There was nothing on record to show that the appellants apprehended danger of death or grievous hurt to any one of them. There was no injury on appellant no. 1 Baldev. Injuries to appellant no.2 Baliram were superficial in nature. They were possible by accidental fall. They were minor injuries, and, therefore, the Trial Court observed that there was no question of any right of private defence. The action of appellant nos. 1 and 2 in causing death of 3 persons and causing serious injuries to other 3 persons with knives cannot be justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. Even assuming for a moment that these persons had gone to the lane where appellants were present to question them or for abusing them, it cannot be said that injured persons were aggressors. Necessary material to justify invoking right of private defence is not brought on record by the defence. 34. Shri Sapkal, Advocate for the appellants states that all the witnesses who supported the prosecution witnesses are interested witnesses and no independent witness is examined though they were present. It may be noted that at Exh.64 to 67 documents are produced to show that relations of the witnesses P.W.1-Bhura and P.W.2-Narayan were not cordial with the appellants. There were criminal cases between them. So, it is stated that the panch witnesses examined are not independent witnesses. However, when in a small village two groups are fighting, generally strangers would not like to involve themselves in the disputes for fear that they would incur wrath of one or the other side. It is argued that all these prosecution witnesses have taken care to see that original accused No.4-Yogesh is not convicted. However, when in a small village two groups are fighting, generally strangers would not like to involve themselves in the disputes for fear that they would incur wrath of one or the other side. It is argued that all these prosecution witnesses have taken care to see that original accused No.4-Yogesh is not convicted. None said that he was present at the time of incident or took any part, though as per the original prosecution story, he was present with an iron rod. It is also said that original accused No.4 Yogesh Marathe is of same community as that of the injured witnesses and therefore the witnesses are not stating about him. But, at the same time, it can also be an indication that irrespective of the F.I.R. which is filed on hearsay information, the witnesses did not want to involve an innocent stranger. It is also argued that at the place of offence no blood was found, but evidence of panch witness Bhura and P.I. More have indicated that there were bloodstains found at two places. Certain other contradictions and omissions were pointed out to us. The important among them have already been noted above. 35. The case of Lakshmi Singh and others V/s. State of Bihar, AIR 1976 SUPREME COURT 2263 is cited for the proposition that in a murder case, the non-explanation of the injuries sustained by the accused at about the time of the occurrence or in the course of altercation is very important circumstance from which the Court can draw the following inferences: (1) that the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and the origin of the occurrence and has thus not presented the true version; (2) that the witnesses who have denied the presence of the injuries on the person of the accused are lying on a most material point and therefore their evidence is unreliable; (3) that in case there is a defence version which explains the injuries on the person of the accused it is rendered probable so as to throw doubt on the prosecution case. 36. In the written statement the appellants did not explain that particular persons from the prosecution side have caused injuries to appellant No.2-Baliram. The appellants did not come out with a case that Baliram was injured with a particular weapon. 36. In the written statement the appellants did not explain that particular persons from the prosecution side have caused injuries to appellant No.2-Baliram. The appellants did not come out with a case that Baliram was injured with a particular weapon. Mere vague suggestion coupled with total silence at the time of statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. show that defence is not coming with any definite version of the incident. Moreover, the injuries as noted earlier were superficial and were possible by fall while running. Moreover in same para 11 (of the case Lakshmi Singh) it is also stated that there may be cases where the non-explanation of the injuries by the prosecution may not affect the prosecution case. This principle would obviously apply to cases where the injuries sustained by the accused are minor and superficial or where the evidence is so clear and cogent, so independent and disinterested, so probable, consistent and creditworthy, that it far outweighs the effect of the omission on the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries. Our attention was also drawn to para 10 of the case of Lakshmi Singh (Supra) in which evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 clearly showed that they gave graphic description of the assault with regard to the order, the manner and the parts of the body with absolute consistency which gives an impression that they have given a parrot-like version acting under a conspiracy to depose to one set of facts and one set of facts only. However, that observation was made considering several other factors discussed. At the end of para 10, it is said that there were other infirmities in the prosecution case which throw a serious doubt on the prosecution case. 37. In this case the defence did not make any serious attempt to bring the case under exception first or fourth of Section 300 of the I.P.C. 38. The next case cited is Balak Singh and others V/s. The State of Punjab, 1975 CRI.L.J.1734. The learned advocate Shri Sapkal has relied on para 8 of that case in which it is observed that where the prosecution case against the appellants and the four accused is so inextricably mixed up that it is not possible to sever one from the other. The learned advocate Shri Sapkal has relied on para 8 of that case in which it is observed that where the prosecution case against the appellants and the four accused is so inextricably mixed up that it is not possible to sever one from the other. After referring to the case of Zwinglee Ariel V/s. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1954 SC 15 and other cases it is laid down that the Court must make an attempt to separate grain from the chaff, the truth from the falsehood, yet this could only be possible when the truth is separable from the falsehood. Where the grain cannot ( 35 ) be separated from the chaff because the grain and the chaff are so inextricably mixed up that in the process of separation the Court would have to reconstruct an absolutely new case for the prosecution by divorcing the essential details presented by the prosecution completely from the context and the background against which they are made then this principle will not apply. In other words, the Supreme Court has laid down that wherever possible the Court should find out truth and should not give benefit of doubt merely because grain and chaff are mixed up by the prosecution. In this case we can easily separate the unreliable part of the prosecution story from the remaining part. For example all the witnesses have stated that all the injured were given blows on back and abdomen when some of the injured have only one injury either on the back or chest. It may be noted that the incident has taken place when visibility was not normal. It was about 7=00 to 7=30 p.m. Moreover, when serious injuries are caused to several persons one after other, it would not be possible for all to remember in what order who had given blows to whom and on what part of body. But, that does not necessarily mean that the injured have not identified the assailants and appellant Nos.1 and 2 who inflicted knife blows were falsely involved. Evidence of eye witness is corroborated in this case by discovery panchanama and C.A. report. Moreover, the defence has also accepted the presence of appellant Nos. 1 and 2 on the spot. Injuries on appellant No.2 Baliram further strengthens the case against appellant Nos. 1 and 2. Evidence of eye witness is corroborated in this case by discovery panchanama and C.A. report. Moreover, the defence has also accepted the presence of appellant Nos. 1 and 2 on the spot. Injuries on appellant No.2 Baliram further strengthens the case against appellant Nos. 1 and 2. It may be noted that an independent witness like Pitambar has stated that he had seen the appellant No.1 Baldev giving knife blow to Vasudeo. Nothing was brought in the evidence of the witness like Pitambar or hostile witness like P.W.9-Tarachand that the injured witnesses or the victims were aggressors and there was necessity of exercising right of private defence by inflicting blows with knives. So, user of the knives in causing fatal and deadly injuries was not justified by the defence by bringing necessary material on record. 39. Case of Hem Raj and others V/s. State of Haryana, 2005 CRI.L.J.2152 was relied upon. In that case in para 9 it is observed that no independent witness though available was examined and not even explanation sought to be given for not examining such witness. In para 10, however, it is observed that non-examination of independent witness by itself may not give rise to adverse inference against the prosecution. However, when the evidence of the alleged eye witnesses raise serious doubts on the point of their presence at the time of actual occurrence, the unexplained omission to examine the independent witness would assume significance. 40. In this case the prosecution has examined P.W.9-Tarachand and P.W.11-Pitambar as an independent witness. Both turned hostile. So, it is not that the independent witnesses were not examined. In para 11 in the case of Hem Raj (Supra) it was observed that the fact that no bloodstains were found on the scene of offence raised serious doubt. In this case, it is case of the defence that the prosecution witnesses had come to their house. So, it is not the case of the defence that incident had taken place somewhere else and the place of offence is changed. At the place of incident at 2 spots bloodstains were found by Police. 41. It is argued before us that it is difficult to believe the version of the witnesses that they could identify the knives. So, it is not the case of the defence that incident had taken place somewhere else and the place of offence is changed. At the place of incident at 2 spots bloodstains were found by Police. 41. It is argued before us that it is difficult to believe the version of the witnesses that they could identify the knives. In the first place, they had not sufficient opportunity to observe knives carefully in the melee which involved several persons and it was about 7=00 to 7=30 p.m. It is true that the identification of the knives by the eye-witness is difficult to believe, but reference may also be made to the observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of Bhagwan Tana Patil V/s. The State of Maharashtra, AIR 1974 S.C.21. ".............. The maxim falsus in uno falsus in omnibus is not to be blindly invoked in appraising evidence adduced in our Courts where witnesses seldom tell the whole truth, but often resort to exaggeration, embellishments and "padding-up" to support a story however true in the main. It is the function of the Court to disengage the truth from false-hood and to accept what it finds to be true, and reject the rest. It is only where truth and falsehood are inextricably mixed up polluting beyond refinement, down to the core, the entire fabric of the narration given by a witness, that the Court might be justified in rejecting his evidence in toto." 42. In our opinion, the identification of knives by the eye-witnesses in the circumstances in which the incident had occurred is a very weak piece of evidence. But that will not necessarily affect credibility of the witnesses and their version that the appellant Nos. 1 and 2 had injured them with sharp weapons, which was a history given by the injured persons before Dr. Sambhaji Patil. 43. Para 19 and 20 of Ram Swaroop and others V/s. State 2943 of Rajasthan,AIR 2004 S.C.2943, were referred to. In that case number and nature of injuries caused by the appellant as deposed by P.W.8-Madan Lal in F.I.R. were wholly inconsistent with the medical evidence on record. That was a fact found in that case. We do not find any material inconsistency in this case. In that case number and nature of injuries caused by the appellant as deposed by P.W.8-Madan Lal in F.I.R. were wholly inconsistent with the medical evidence on record. That was a fact found in that case. We do not find any material inconsistency in this case. The learned advocate Shri Sapkal relied upon case of the State of U.P. V/s. Shiv Kumar and others, 2536 2005 AIR SCW 2536, for the same proposition. 44. In the case of Tulshiram Bhanudas Kambale and Ors. V/s. The State of Maharashtra, 1999 ALL MR (Cri) 1593, the witness deliberately made improvement to bring evidence in conformity with medical evidence and it was found that it would not be prudent to accept his evidence. The learned A.P.P. Shri N.N. Jadhav argued that most of these cases relied upon by the learned advocate for the appellants are decided on the facts involved in these cases and merely picking up some observations without considering the whole case would not be proper. 45. The case of Audumbar Digambar Jagdane V/s. State of Maharashtra, 1999 CRI.L.J.1936 is cited for the proposition that the delay in disclosure to anybody by a stranger who claims to have witnessed the incident, makes testimony unreliable. Same observations are made in the case of the State of Maharashtra V/s. Ashok Hanmant Atkar, 2006 ALL MR (Cri) 15. The witness in that case did not disclose name of assailant to anybody including Police though the Police were in fact enquiring with the villagers regarding the assailant. He kept mum for a period of two days. It was held that the testimony of such person cannot be held to be reliable. 46. It is argued before us that in this case statements of deceased Subhash, P.W.8-Sharad were not immediately recorded and therefore their evidence becomes suspect. It has come in the evidence that Subhash and Vasudeo were seriously injured and needed treatment. Moreover, whenever the defence wants to rely on delay in examination of the witnesses by the Police, as held in the case of Ramanand Yadav V/s. Prabhu 1053) Nath Zha, (AIR 2004 S.C.1053), the question ought to have been asked to the I.O. for the delay and when such question was not asked and explanation is not sought, the prosecution case cannot be discarded on such count. In that case, it is also observed that when the village was faction ridden, persons in some case may not like to come and depose as witnesses and in some other cases there is likelihood of partisan approach. Mere non-examination of independent witnesses would not affect prosecution version. 47. The defence relied upon some more cases. In the case of State of Maharashtra V/s. Prabhu Barku Gade, 1995 CRI.L.J.1432, there was delay in sending muddemal articles to C.A.. In that case 8 days delay was held to be material. In that said case the delay of 8 days was held to be merely one of the circumstances in favour of the accused and not sole ground for acquittal. Our attention was drawn to para 12. In this case P.I. More (P.W.19) has stated that immediately after attachment of various muddemal articles they were sealed by labels, muddemal receipt was drawn and muddemal articles were handed to Mohrir of the Police Station. The prosecution has also examined the carrier. P.W.14-Head Constable Baviskar had carried the muddemal articles to C.A. It is stated that they were in sealed condition Head-note of reported case itself shows that there were several other reasons for acquitting the accused in that case. 48. The next case cited is 1489 AIR 2004 S.C.1489, it was case of others Hem Raj V/s. Raja Ram and others. In that case two accused persons fired and killed deceased. Third accused was present there and it is said that he exhorted other accused to kill the deceased. There is no other evidence against him. In the facts of that case, it is held that mere exhortation attributed to him would not be strong enough to prove his complicity. This case is cited to show that appellant No.4 Sojabai should not be convicted. We have already come to a conclusion that her presence was natural near her house and we are not inclined to believe the case alleged against her. We give benefit of doubt to her. We also rely on the case of Hem Raj (Supra). 49. Two more cases are cited for holding that appellant No.3 Vinayak should be acquitted. They are Sahdeo and others V/s. State of U.P., AIR 2004 S.C.3508 and Rudrappa Ramappa Jainpur and others V/s. State 4148 of Karnataka, AIR 2004 S.C.4148. We give benefit of doubt to her. We also rely on the case of Hem Raj (Supra). 49. Two more cases are cited for holding that appellant No.3 Vinayak should be acquitted. They are Sahdeo and others V/s. State of U.P., AIR 2004 S.C.3508 and Rudrappa Ramappa Jainpur and others V/s. State 4148 of Karnataka, AIR 2004 S.C.4148. In the former case there was no injury caused with Lathi on the body of the deceased and therefore, it is held that acquittal of co-accused who were armed with Lathi was proper. In this case, there was no injury with stick on any of the injured person. Moreover, P.W.8-Sharad has specifically stated that appellant No.3 Vinayak did not use stick in the incident. In the latter case of Supra) Rudrappa (Supra), it was a case of group assault. The Trial Court held that three out of nine accused persons had not taken part in assault on either deceased or injured witnesses. The High Court set aside the order of acquittal in respect of one of them while maintaining acquittal of other two. It was held by the Supreme Court that when there was no evidence showing that said accused person took part in assault even though he was present at the time of incident, he is entitled to benefit of doubt. 50. Considering totality of the circumstances, in our considered view, the appeal should be partly allowed. The appeal filed to the extent of appellant No. 1 (Baldev Baliram Lonari) and appellant No. 2 (Baliram Puna Lonari) is hereby dismissed. The orders of conviction and sentence so far as appellant No. 1 (Baldev Baliram Lonari) and appellant No. 2 (Baliram Puna Lonari) are concerned, they are confirmed. However, the appeal to the extent of appellant No. 3 (Vinayak @ Vinod Baliram Lonari) and appellant No. 4 (Sojabai Baliram Lonari) is allowed. The orders of conviction and sentence passed against appellant No. 3 (Vinayak @ Vinod Baliram Lonari) and appellant No. 4 (Sojabai Baliram Lonari) are hereby quashed and set aside and they be set at liberty, if not required in any other crime. A certified copy of this judgment, be supplied free of cost, to appellants Baldev and Baliram, through prison authorities. The operative order passed by us on 24th July, 2008 is required to be corrected to some extent. A certified copy of this judgment, be supplied free of cost, to appellants Baldev and Baliram, through prison authorities. The operative order passed by us on 24th July, 2008 is required to be corrected to some extent. The operative order is passed under the belief that all four appellants are in jail. It is brought to our notice that while allowing Criminal Application No.936 of 2006 by order dated 27.06.2006 this Court had allowed enlargement on bail of appellants Baliram, Vinayak and Sojabai, whereas the bail application of appellant Baldev was rejected. The communication dated 29.11.2006 outward No.1053 of 2006 from Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Amalner indicates that appellant Baliram, Vinod and Sojabai furnished surety and Baliram and Vinod were released on 24.07.2006. The Sessions Judge does not appear to be aware of the date of release of Sojabai, since confirmation was till then not received by him. Hence, we clarify as under:- Appellant No.3 Vinayak @ Vinod and Appellant No. 4 Sojabai, if they are on bail, their bail bonds shall stand cancelled. Appellant No.2 Baliram who is on bail shall surrender to his bail before the Sessions Court, Amalner at the earliest, in any case, not later than 28.08.2008. If appellant Baliram Puna Lonari so surrenders on or before 28.08.2008, the Sessions Judge, Amalner shall issue appropriate conviction warrant and lodge him in the prison for undergoing a remaining sentence. The conviction warrant should meticulously quote the entire period of under trial detention during the pendency of the trial as also pendency of the appeal i.e. 20.10.2004 to 27.02.2006 as shown in the operative order of Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Amalner dated 27.02.2006 in Sessions Case No. 10 of 2005 and from 27.02.2006 till he was released by order of this Court i.e. 24.07.2006. In case appellant No.2 Baliram does not so surrender, the Sessions Judge shall issue appropriate warrant for his apprehension and upon arrest and production before the Sessions Judge, the conviction warrant, as above, shall be issued. This order should be brought to the notice of learned counsel for the appellants and the learned A.P.P. Appeal partly allowed.