JUDGMENT Saksena, J. -- 1. Appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 24.11.1998, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Panna, in Sessions Trial No. 48/1991, convicting him under sections 302/34 and 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 1,000/- with default stipulation and rigorous imprisonment for six months with fine of Rs. 500/- with default stipulation, respectively, on each count. Substantive sentences of the appellant have been directed to run concurrently. 2. In brief the prosecution case is that on 28.2.1991 at about 10:30 p.m. while Munnilal (PW 5) was sitting at the house of Bhaiyan (PW 3) and was celebrating the festival of Holi, Munna @ am Prakash (deceased) and Cheeni @ Shyamlal came there on a motorcycle. Bhaiyan offered them drinks. In the meanwhile, appellant came there and drank the liquor kept in the glass for Munna, whereupon a quarrel occurred between Munna and the appellant. Munnilal and other persons intervened and then appellant was taken by his brother Randheer to his house. Thereafter Munnilal, Munna @ am Prakash and Cheeni @ Shyamlal went to Kalyanpur on their motorcycle to fetch a chicken. After buying chicken, while they were returning on their motorcycle, 4-5 persons, who were hiding behind a gray coloured jeep, suddenly emerged and attacked them with Lathis. They were appellant, Phool Singh and Mangal Singh Gound Due to sudden attack, the motorcycle swerved and fell into a ditch. All the three persons came there and again assaulted them. Munnilal ran away and concealed himself in a field. Assailants kept on beating Munna and Cheeni and then went away in their jeep. In the early morning, Munnilal reached to the place of incident and found Munna almost dead. Cheeni was lying injured. Munnilal took Cheeni on a cycle and informed about the incident to his family members. Cheeni was then sent to hospital. Report of the incident was lodged by Munnilal at 7:30 a.m. on 1.3.1992, at Police Station, Panna. Police registered the case against the accused persons under sections 302/307/34 read with section 120-B of Indian Penal Code. 3. Dead body of Munna @ am Prakash was sent for postmortem examination to District Hospital, Panna. Dr. Cheeni was then sent to hospital. Report of the incident was lodged by Munnilal at 7:30 a.m. on 1.3.1992, at Police Station, Panna. Police registered the case against the accused persons under sections 302/307/34 read with section 120-B of Indian Penal Code. 3. Dead body of Munna @ am Prakash was sent for postmortem examination to District Hospital, Panna. Dr. O.P. Mar (PW 11) performed the postmortem examination of the dead body and found the following injuries on it (1) an incised wound 4" xl" x 2" on parietal region of the skull. There was depressed fracture of the bone and brain matter was protruding out from the wound, (2) a lacerated wound on right parietal region 2" x bone deep. Parietal bone was fractured, (3) a lacerated wound on temporal region of the skull, traversaly placed, measuring 2" x bone deep and (4) Upper lip vertically lacerated and one contusion on right shoulder, traversaly placed. In his opinion, the cause of the death of Munna was excessive haemorrhage and brain injuries. Injuries were homicidal in nature. Postmortem report ofMunna @ Om Prakash is Ex. P-18. Dr. Mor (PW 11) also examined the injuries of injured Munnilal and found one contusion on his right thigh, an abrasion on right ankle and another on left leg vide his injury report Ex. P-17. Dr. Devendra Kumar Pippal (PW 10) examined the injuries of Cheeni @ Shyamlal and found five injuries on his body comprising (1) a lacerated wound 2 x 1/2 x 1/2" on left side of forehead (2) la lacerated wound 1" x 1/2" x 1/4" on right side of skull (3) a lacerated wound 1/2" x 1/2" x 1/4" on chin (4) a lacerated wound 1/2" x 1/2" x 1/4" on right side of lower lip and (5) a contusion 1" xl" on wrist of right hand. Injuries of Shyamlal and Munnilal were caused by some hard and blunt object. 4. In the course of investigation, Investigating Officer Parmeshwar Urmaliya (PW 15) prepared the spot map and seized blood stained earth a bamboo stick and a 'Danda' from the spot. Seized articles were sent for chemical examination to Forensic Science Laboratory. Blood was found present on the aforesaid articles vide FSL Report Ex. P-30. 5. After investigation, charge sheet was filed in the Court and the case was committed for trial. 6. Seized articles were sent for chemical examination to Forensic Science Laboratory. Blood was found present on the aforesaid articles vide FSL Report Ex. P-30. 5. After investigation, charge sheet was filed in the Court and the case was committed for trial. 6. It is to be noted that co-accused Mangal Singh and Phool Singh absconded. Therefore, only the appellant was put up for trial. 7. During the trial, appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded false implication. He also examined his elder brother Head Constable Randheer Singh (DW 1) and Chhotelal (DW 2) in defence. 8. Trial Court, mainly relying upon the evidence of eyewitnesses Munnilal (PW 5) and Cheeni @ Shyamlal (PW 6) and finding their evidence corroborated from the medical evidence of Dr. Devendra Kumar Pippal (PW 10) and Dr. O.P. Mor (PW 11) held the appellant guilty and convicted and sentenced him as mentioned above. 9. Shri S.C. Datt, learned senior counsel, submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated. In fact, under the spell of liquor deceased and injured persons lost balance while going on the motorcycle and fell into a ditch as a result of which they suffered injuries. There was no motive or intention on the part of appellant to commit murder of Munna @ Om Prakash. The judgment of conviction and sentence passed against the appellant deserves to be set aside. Per contra, Shri Prakash Gupta, learned Panel Lawyer, on behalf of the State, submits that the evidence of eyewitnesses Munnilal (PW 5) and Cheeni @ Shyamlal (PW 6), who are injured witnesses, is reliable. Their evidence is corroborated by the medical evidence. He supports the judgment of his conviction passed by the trial Court. 10. Bhaiyan (PW 3) has testified that in the night of Holi at about 10 p.m. Munna Mali (deceased) and Cheeni came to his house and drank liquor. At the same time, appellant also came there and picked up the liquor glass of Munna. Thereupon, there ensued a quarrel between Munna and the appellant. He intervened and separated them and managed to send Sardar Singh to his house. Thereafter, Munna, Cheeni and Munnilal also went away on their motorcycle. In the morning, he came to know that Munna Mali was murdered. Thereupon, there ensued a quarrel between Munna and the appellant. He intervened and separated them and managed to send Sardar Singh to his house. Thereafter, Munna, Cheeni and Munnilal also went away on their motorcycle. In the morning, he came to know that Munna Mali was murdered. Suresh Kumar (PW 8) testified that while .Cheeni and Munna Mali were drinking liquor at the house of Bhaiyan, appellant went there and where a quarrel occurred between them over the glass of liquor. When Sardar Singh went to his house, Munna and Cheeni went towards Kalyanpur on their motorcycle. Though this witness was declared hostile by the prosecution, yet, in the cross-examination he admitted that in the night itself appellant, Phool Singh and Mangal Singh had asked him as to where Munna Mali had gone and he had told them that he had gone towards Kalyanpur by the motorcycle. He stated that then appellant told that he would do away with Munna whatever might be the result. From the evidence of Bhaiyan (PW 3) and Suresh Kumar (PW 8) it stands proved that there had been a quarrel between accused persons and Munna Mali over the glass of liquor in the night of 28th February 1991. 11. Munnilal (PW 5), who was present at the time of quarrel between appellant and Munna Mali, stated that after the quarrel, he along with Munna and Cheeni went towards Kalyanpur on the motorcycle for purchasing a chicken. In the night while they were returning on their motorcycle, on way, near the house of Chand Khan a gray coloured jeep was seen parked. As soon as their motorcycle reached near the jeep, 2-3 persons armed with 'Lathis' came in front of motorcycle and started assaulting them. He identified them. They were appellant Sardar Singh, accused Mangal Singh and Roop Singh Yadav. At that time Cheeni was driving the motorcycle. When he was hit with Lathi motorcycle swerved and fell into a ditch situated at some distance. All the accused persons then came there and assaulted Cheeni and Munna Mali. He ran away and concealed himself behind the hedge of a field. At about 5:00 a.m. he went to the locality and informed Chand Khan and other persons about the occurrence and then went to the ditch where the incident had occurred. He found Munna Mali lying there almost dead. He ran away and concealed himself behind the hedge of a field. At about 5:00 a.m. he went to the locality and informed Chand Khan and other persons about the occurrence and then went to the ditch where the incident had occurred. He found Munna Mali lying there almost dead. Cheeni was lying injured near the house of Chand Khan. He carried Cheeni to hospital on his cycle and on way also informed about the incident at the house of am Prakash. He lodged the report to police of Kotwali, Panna at 7:30 p.m. In cross-examination, he denied that their motorcycle swerved on suddenly seeing the jeep because Cheeni had consumed excessive liquor. Despite lengthy cross-examination, nothing material could be brought out by the appellant to render his testimony unreliable. His evidence is substantially corroborated by the first information report (Ex. P-12) lodged by him in the morning at 7:30 a.m. and also by the evidence ofCheeni @ Shyamlal (PW 6) who also suffered injuries in the same incident. Cheeni @ Shyamlal (PW 6) categocially stated that he was with am Prakash and Munnilal throughout. He was present with them when the quarrel took place between the appellant and Om Prakash at the house of Bhaiyan over the glass of liquor. According to him, when they were coming back on the motorcycle, appellant and Mangal Singh had inflicted Lathi blows to them. Sardar Singh dealt Lathi blows to Munna Mali whereas Mangal Singh dealt a Lathi blow on his head. As a result of attack, motorcycle swerved from the way and ultimately entered into a ditch. All the three accused persons came there and again beat them with Lathis. After some time, he lost consciousness. He firmly denied that because of heavy drink he lost his control on the motorcycle and it collided with the culvert. 12. We are not impressed with the submission made by the learned counsel for appellant that the injuries found on the body of Munna Mali and Cheeni @ Shyamlal were caused due to their accidental fall from the motorcycle. It is true that in the cross-examination Dr. 12. We are not impressed with the submission made by the learned counsel for appellant that the injuries found on the body of Munna Mali and Cheeni @ Shyamlal were caused due to their accidental fall from the motorcycle. It is true that in the cross-examination Dr. O.P. Mor (PW II), who examined the injuries of Munnilal (PW 5) and performed the postmortem examination of the dead body of Munna @ Om Prakash Mali, admitted that their injuries were possible by a fall from the motorcycle, but merely on that ground the evidence of eyewitnesses Munnilal (PW 5) and Cheeni (PW 6) cannot be discarded, which otherwise appears truthful and trustworthy. Merely because the injuries found on the body of injured persons could have been caused by accidental fall from the motorcycle, it cannot be held that they were not caused by assault with Lathis. The nature and dimensions of injuries may vary in accordance to the position and posture of the victim. It also depends upon the site and the portion of the body, which comes into contact of the weapon. There could be no hard and fast rule that if a person is assaulted by a stick, the injuries would always be linear or longitudinal. In the instant case, it may be that some of the injuries might have been caused by fall also, but it cannot be held to have been established that all the injuries were necessarily caused by the fall. From the evidence of Munnilal (PW 5) and Cheeni (PW 6), it has been established that appellant entertained grudge against Munna Mali because of the quarrel that took place between them over the glass of liquor. Evidence of these witnesses stands corroborated from the evidence of Bhaiyan (PW 3) and Suresh (PW 8), though they turned hostile. We, therefore, find the evidence of Munnilal (PW 5) and Cheeni (PW 6) clear and trustworthy and hold that the appellant, along with other accused persons caused the death of Munna @ am Prakash. 13. On perusal of the postmortem examination report (Ex. P-18) of Munna @ am Prakash and the evidence of Dr. O.P. Mor (PW 11), who carried out the postmortem examination, it is seen that the lacerated wound found on his head resulted into fracture of his parietal bone and his brain matter protruded out. In the opinion of Dr. 13. On perusal of the postmortem examination report (Ex. P-18) of Munna @ am Prakash and the evidence of Dr. O.P. Mor (PW 11), who carried out the postmortem examination, it is seen that the lacerated wound found on his head resulted into fracture of his parietal bone and his brain matter protruded out. In the opinion of Dr. Mar, his injuries were homicidal in nature. 14. After carefully and cautiously examining the evidence and material on record and bestowing our anxious consideration, we are satisfied that appellant has been rightly convicted by the trial Court under section 302/ 34 and 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code. We accordingly affirm the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court. However, we set aside the direction given by the trial Court in para 49 of the judgment in view of the provision of section 57 of the Indian Penal Code. 15. Subject to above modification, this appeal is dismissed.