BILAL NAZKI, J.:- This appeal is filed by the appellants against the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge. Solapur in Sessions Case No.234 of2001 on 31st July, 2002 against the present appellants. By the said order two of the accused before the trial court were acquitted of the charges. The appellants have been convicted and sentenced as following: (i) Under Section 302 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default RI, for one year. (ii) Under Section 307 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default RI, for one year. (iii) Under Section 326 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code RI, for three years and fine of Rs.500/-, in default RI, for three months. (iv) Under Section 324 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code RI. for three months and fine of Rs.200/-, in default RI. It) one month. (v) Under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code RI, for six months and fine of Rs.500/-. in default R.I. for three months. (vi) Under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code R.I. for two years and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default RI, for six months. All these sentences were derected to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case before the trial Court was that at about 0.40 his, on 26th June, 2001 one Satish Shankar Rokade was brought to Jagdalemama Hospital. Barshi for med\.ca\ treatment. He had multiple injuries and they were described in the medical certificate, Exh.58, by Dr. S.M. Bakare vide medical case papers. Exh.59. Another person by name Santosh Sakhahari Gardade was brought to the same hospital by Virbhadra Ganderao Khedkar for medical treatment for injuries caused to him as described in medical certificate. Exh.60. Amole Bhaskar Shidodkar also came to the hospital with injuries on his person described in medical certificate, Exh.61. The fourth person by name Nitin Bhaskar Gadve was also brought to the same hospital by Ravi Sharad Kulkarni for medical treatment for contused lacerated wound on right thumb. The injuries are described in Exh.65. One of the injured Pintu @ Satish Shankar Rokade died within 15 minutes of arriving in the hospital. The fourth person by name Nitin Bhaskar Gadve was also brought to the same hospital by Ravi Sharad Kulkarni for medical treatment for contused lacerated wound on right thumb. The injuries are described in Exh.65. One of the injured Pintu @ Satish Shankar Rokade died within 15 minutes of arriving in the hospital. The Police Inspector received information from PSO Chavan at about 0.15 his on 26th June, 2001 that there was a fight going on at the backside of Gavali Hotel at Shlvshakti Maidan. On receiving information, he went to the spot by Jeep with staff. He found some persons taking the injured to the hospital by jeep. So he also came to Hospital following the injured. He learnt that Pintu was dead and he saw there were 15 to 16 cut injuries on the dead body of Pintu. He made inquiry and recorded First Information Report at about 3.00 a.m., Exh.44.He also registered crime as C. R No.67 of 2001. 3. Thereafter, investigations were started. The accused Nos.1 to 3 were arrested on the same day i.e. 26th June, 2001. Their blood stained clothes were also seized on same day. Panch nama of their arrest and seizure of clothes were produced at Exh.52. Recoveries and discoveries were also made. Accused Nos.5 and 6 were arrested on 27th June, 2001. Accused No.4 was arrested on 1st July. 2001 and accused Nos.7 and 8 were arrested on 13th July, 2001. On the basis of the investigation the trial court framed charges against the accused for various offences. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses and exhibited number of documents. The defence did not examine any witness. 6 of the total 8 accused persons were convicted and sentenced as mentioned hereinabove. 4. PW 1, Dattatrey Limbraj Gaikwad, stated that he was a rickshaw driver at Barshi. At about 7.30 to 7045 a.m. He took passengers near Shivshakti ground near the bungalow of Dhage, One police van was standing there. Police called him. Santosh Gardade was there with police. They went to the house of Santosh Gardade. Santosh Gardade had shown him the place where the murder of Pintu Rokade had taken place on the earlier day. There was open plot at the western side of the house of Santosh Gardade. Police called him. Santosh Gardade was there with police. They went to the house of Santosh Gardade. Santosh Gardade had shown him the place where the murder of Pintu Rokade had taken place on the earlier day. There was open plot at the western side of the house of Santosh Gardade. There is another plot of one Kangude with wire fencing adjoining to the plot of Santosh Gardade, There was one telephone pole adjoining to that plot and there was electric light pole at the northern side of the said plot. Then he gave description of the area in detail. He found blood spots at the place. There was one sword and the cover of Jambiya lying near the place where Chintu Rokade was flat on ground. There was also heap of sand and it was found disturbed. One stick was lying near the heap of sand. There was one iron bar lying near the place where Nitin Gadve had fell down. He marked certain documents. PW I to 4 are panch witnesses and their testimony shall be discussed at a later stage. 5. PW 5 Amol Bhaskar Shidodkar is the eye-witness to the occurrence. He stated that deceased Pintu was known to him. He also knew all the accused persons. All the accused were present before the court and he identified them. The incident had occurred on 25th June, 200 I. He had been to Washi and came back from Washi at about 9 p.m. Nitin Gadve was with him while going to Washi. They came to STD. Booth of Nit in Gadve. One unknown boy told him that there was quarrel between Pintu Rokade and accused No. I. The boy also told him that Pintu Rokade was in Shivshakti Maidan. Then he and Nitin Gadve went to Shivshakti Maidan where Pintu Rokade and Santosh Gargade were present. He asked the Pintu as to why there was a quarrel. Lata Gavali was the sister of Atul Gavali. Pintu told him that there was quarrel between him and accused No.1 on account of money of Bishi of Atul Gavali. They were then chitchatting with each other while walking. When they came near the house of Santosh Gardade in order to go back to their houses, Baba Shinde, Hambir Narote, Ganesh Shinde, Shrimant Shinde, Vikram Shinde, Atul Gavali, Pramod Sonawane and Rajendra Dhage came there. They were then chitchatting with each other while walking. When they came near the house of Santosh Gardade in order to go back to their houses, Baba Shinde, Hambir Narote, Ganesh Shinde, Shrimant Shinde, Vikram Shinde, Atul Gavali, Pramod Sonawane and Rajendra Dhage came there. He named all the accused and stated there were swords with accused Nos.1 and 2, iron bar in the hands of accused No.6, chain in the hands of accused No.4, sticks in the hands of accused NasA, 5, 7 and 8. All the accused beat Nitin Gadve and Santosh Gargade by those weapons. Accused Nos.1 and 2 beat him by swords on his head, back and on right hand and on left leg. The accused also beat Pintu Rokade and thereafter went away. Ramakant Surve and Raja Gholve had been there and they took them to Jagdalemama Hospital by Sumo and Trax for medical treatment. Medical treatment was given to them. Police came to the hospital and he lodged FIR before the Police. Doctor told him that Pintu Rokade was dead. He identified his signature on the FIR which was marked as Exh.44. He also stated that there was tube light near the house of Maruti Kale at the scene of offence and he had seen the accused persons because of the light emanating from tube. He also identified the weapon placed before the court. On cross-examination he stated that the police station was at the distance of 1 & ½, Kms. from the hotel of Agrawal. The house of accused No.1 was at the distance of 1 & ½ km. to 1.75 km. from the police station. Shivshakti maidan was at the distance of 1 & y, km. from the house of accused. He also stated that there were cases filed against him and Pintu Rokade for the offences under Sections 323 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code in Barshi Criminal Court. He did not remember whether there was case filed by Umakant Doiphode against him and Pintu Rokade alleging physical assault. He did not remember whether there was any case regarding assault made on Datta Doiphode which was pending in Barshi Court. He accepted that there was a case filed against him. It was a case of robbery pending in criminal court at Barshi. This case had been filed by Amol Lad. He did not remember whether there was any case regarding assault made on Datta Doiphode which was pending in Barshi Court. He accepted that there was a case filed against him. It was a case of robbery pending in criminal court at Barshi. This case had been filed by Amol Lad. He also admitted that there was a case of beating to Atul Gaikwad under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code. He did not remember whether there were chapter cases filed by police against him in the court of Executive Magistrate. In his cross-examination, he has also stated that he had no concern or acquaintance with the unknown boy who came to him and told him about the quarrel between Pintu Rokade and accused No. I. He accepted that there were two political groups at Barshi. He did not know whether the accused was canvasing for support of Raja Raut in Assembly Election. It was true that Santosh Gadgale was employed in DCC Bank at Solapur after MLA Dilip Sopal became chairman of the DCC Bank. He denied that he was active social worker and was working for Dilip Sopal group. Then he stated that they went to Shivshakti Maidan by rickshaw after receiving information about the quarrel. They reached maidan within IO minutes. Pintu Rokade and Santosh Gargade were drinking liquor at Shivshakti Maidan when they went there. He accepted that it was rightly mentioned in FIR that after chitchatting till 00.30 hrs, on 26th June, 2001 they decided to go back to their houses. He also accepted that it was not necessary to go to the house of Santosh Gargade in order to go to his house from Shivshakti Maidan. He denied that he and Nitin Gadve also consumed liquor along with Santosh Gargade at about 9.30 p.m. The incident of beating him was going on for 3 to 4 minutes. They gave blows of the respective weapons to all of them. They did not run away when there was attack on Nitin Gadve and Gargade. It did not happen that the attack was made on him for the fir,,' time and he fell down. He did not tell to Police in FIR that the accused had assaulted first Nitin Gadve and Santosh Gargade and then him and Pintu Rokade. He Qid not give any supplementary statement on 2nd Jut) 2001. It did not happen that the attack was made on him for the fir,,' time and he fell down. He did not tell to Police in FIR that the accused had assaulted first Nitin Gadve and Santosh Gargade and then him and Pintu Rokade. He Qid not give any supplementary statement on 2nd Jut) 2001. Pintu was first taken to Jagdalemama Hospital by Sumo and then in the tax following the sumo he went to hospital. Doctor came immediately but he did not make inquiry about the injuries. They also did not inform the doctor about the cause of injuries. No neighbours were with them at the hospital. 6. PW 6 Nitin Bhaskar Gadve is another witness, who claims to be the eyewitness and who was accompanying PW 5 Amol. PW 6 stated that the incident occurred on 25th June, 2001. He and PW 5 had been to Washi for the purpose of getting work. When they came back to Barshi at about 9.00 p.m. Amol took him in his STD booth. One boy came there and told that there was quarrel between Pintu Rokade and Baba Shinde and Pintu Rokade was available at Shivshakti Maidan. After some time, he and Amol went to Shivshakti Maidan by rickshaw. Pintu Rokade and Santosh Gargade were there. At that time, Pintu Rokade told them that Atul Gavali and Lata Gavali abused him and his father on account of the money of Bishi of the sister of Atul Gavali. They were discussing at Shivshakti Maidan. After sometime he went to his shop by rickshaw and then came back again to Shivshakti Maidan in his Tata Sumo. While he was talking with Santosh Gargade in front of his house, they were standing near the electricity pole of MSEB and the light was in working condition and at that time 8 persons came towards them. He named all the accused. He stated that there were swords with accused Nos.1 and 2, sticks in the hands of accused NosA and 5, chain in the hands of accused No.3 and iron bars in the hands of accused No.6 and sticks in the hands of other accused. Accused No.1 assaulted him with sword asking where was Pintu Rokade. He sustained bleeding hurt on the thumb of right hands. There were 2 to 4 persons beating him and 2 to 4 persons were beating Santosh. Accused No.1 assaulted him with sword asking where was Pintu Rokade. He sustained bleeding hurt on the thumb of right hands. There were 2 to 4 persons beating him and 2 to 4 persons were beating Santosh. Pintu Rokade and Amol Shidodkar were standing nearby. After beating them all the accused beat Pintu Rokade and Amol Shidodkar. He had seen the incident. Accused beat them in such a way that both of them collapsed on the ground being severely injured. Pintu was lying near wire fencing and Amol near to him. There were injuries caused to his face upto the ear and right foot and also in between his legs. There were 15 to 16 injuries caused to him. The tempo trax of Ramakant Surve was parked near his house. Amol was taken to hospital by his tempo trax and Pintu by Tata Sumo. Witness stated that he himself was driving the Tata Sumo. The injured were admitted in Jagdalemama Hospital. During the course of incident the accused No.1 was injured by the sword of accused No.2. He could identify the weapons placed before the court and the accused. In his cross-examination, he stated that electric pole of MSEB was at the distance of 10 to 15 ft. from the place where Pintu and Amol were beaten. His jeep was parked facing East. He and Santosh were in front of the side of the jeep and Pintu and Amol were at the right side of the jeep. The discussions between them and Pintu were general. There was jagran Gondhal function in the house of Santosh. Santosh had invited persons to his house for that function. He could not state whether the function of Jagran Gondhal starts at about 7 to 8 p.m. and ends late by night. It was true that assailants suddenly came there and started beating them. He stated that he or other persons standing with him were not carrying any weapon. There was one criminal case pending against him regarding forgery and cheating. That was regarding encashment of bogus D.O. in the sum of Rs.35,00,000/-. He denied that his deposition was false that one boy came to STD booth and told him that there was quarrel between Pintu Rokade and Baba Shinde. 7. PW 7 Santosh Sakhahari Gardade, stated that he was in his house at about 0.30 hrs. on 26th June, 2001. That was regarding encashment of bogus D.O. in the sum of Rs.35,00,000/-. He denied that his deposition was false that one boy came to STD booth and told him that there was quarrel between Pintu Rokade and Baba Shinde. 7. PW 7 Santosh Sakhahari Gardade, stated that he was in his house at about 0.30 hrs. on 26th June, 2001. His house was near Shivshakti Maidan. Pintu Rokade came to him at about 7.30 p.m. and told him that on account of money of Bishi, Atul Gavali and members of his house had abused him. He and Pintu were going towards Bhagwant Mandir. Baba Shinde was there. There was quarrel between Pintu Rokade and Baba Shinde. He and Pintu came towards Shivshakti Maidan. Thev were chitchatting there. They also consumed liquor. They sat there for a long time. At about 9.30 p.m. Amol and Nitin came there by Tata Sumo. Pintu told them that a quarrel had taken place. Then they again chitchatted for a long time. Then they all went towards his house in order to go back to their houses. When all of them came towards his house, Nitin told them that he would bring Tata Sumo as the house of Amol was at a long distance from that place. He brought there his Tata Sumo. Then he and Nitin Gadve were standing in front ofTata Sumo and Pintu Rokade and Amol were standing near compound talking to each other. He then named all the accused except accused No.5 and stated there were weapons like swords, aj sticks, iron bar, cycle chain, and the accused started beating them. Baba Shinde, accused No.1, caused injury to Nitin Gadve on his right thumb. Accused No.6 beat him by iron bar and accused No.4 beat him by stick. Then they went to Pintu and Amol. All of them beat Pintu and Amol. At that time persons, namely, Raja Golve, Ramakant Surve and Raja Rokade, etc. had gathered there. The accused then ran away from the place. Nitin Gadve took injured Pintu to Jagdalemama Hospital and Rama Surve and Raja Gholve to him and Amol to the hospital, Doctors declare that Pintu was dead. His house was at the distance of 10 to 15ft. from the spot of incident. There was electric light of Nagar Palika and because of this light they could see the occurrence. Nitin Gadve took injured Pintu to Jagdalemama Hospital and Rama Surve and Raja Gholve to him and Amol to the hospital, Doctors declare that Pintu was dead. His house was at the distance of 10 to 15ft. from the spot of incident. There was electric light of Nagar Palika and because of this light they could see the occurrence. He could identify the accused before the court. In his cross-examination, he, however, stated that Baba Shinde went to the police station for filing complaint after the quarrel between Baba Shinde and Pintu. After he saw Baba Shinde going to the police station, he and Pintu came to Shivshakti Maidan. He did not remember whether there was sword with Pintu while there was quarrel between accused No.1 and Pintu Rokade ne"' tlhagwant temple. He did not remember whether there was any weapon with Pintu. There was no weapon with hi",• He also admitted that there were many criminal cases lodged against him, Pintu Rokade and Amol Sidodkar. Doctors examined him when he was admitted in the hospital. Doctors asked him the cause of injuries and name of persons who had caused the injuries. He told this detail to the police. He could not say when the police came to the hospital. His statement was recorded by the police in the hospital. He denied the suggestion that he had deposed falsely that there was electric tube light of Nagar Palika and he had seen the incident because of the light. He, however, stated before the police that he had seen the incident in tube light. He could not give any reason why such statement was not a part of the statement recorded by the police. He was admitted in hospital for five days. During that time he did not go out of the hospital. He also stated that it was true that the names of accused Nos.7 and 8 were not given by him in his statement before the police on 26th June, 2001. He also stated that it is true that the words "and 23 persons" are added to the first line of page 2 of his statement dated 26th June, 2001. The said words were further narrated by him to police to add. His supplementary statement was recorded on 2nd July, 2001. He also stated that it is true that the words "and 23 persons" are added to the first line of page 2 of his statement dated 26th June, 2001. The said words were further narrated by him to police to add. His supplementary statement was recorded on 2nd July, 2001. It was true that for the first time he gave the names of accused Nos.7 and 8 to the Police on that day. He denied that letters "and 2-3" added in his statement dated 26th June, 2001 were added on 2nd July, 2001. He did not remember whether the words 'Jeep Ne' were subsequently added in his statement before the police dated 26th June, 2001 at the end of line No.5 from bottom. He did not remember when it was written and who had written it. 8. PW 8 Suresh Madhavrao Gade, is a witness to the seizure of clothes. PW 9 Dr. Amita Laxman Suryawanshi was working as a Medical Officer, Rural Hospital, Barshi. In her evidence, PW 9 stated that in the morning of 26th June, 2001 she received a phone message that a dead body was brought in hospital for P.M. Examination. She made P.M. of the dead body. The inquest panchnama of the dead body was brought to hospital. It was the dead body of Pintu @ Satish Shankar Rokade. She found following injuries on the dead body: (I) Transverse incised wound running from front of Rt. Pinna towards occiput cutting Rt. pinna of size 12 cm x I x 1.5 cm. Deep upto brain matter. (2) Incised wound over Verte of head Rt. Side running transversely of size 6 cm x 1.5 cm. X 2 cm. upto brain. (3) Incised wound Medical end of Rt. Eye towards forehead size 5 x 1.4 x 1 cm. (4) Incised wound - Rt. Angle of mouth towards cheek 6 cm x 2 x 1 cm. (5) Incised wound - Lt. Angle of mouth towards cheek 4 cm x 3 cm x 2 cm. (6) Incised wound Transversely incising the chin and mandible also of size 10 cm. x 1 x 5 cm. (7) 3 incised wounds - Rt. Thigh laterally of size 5 x 2 x 1.5 cm., 4 x 1, 5 x 1 and 6 x 2,5 x 1 cm. (8) Two incised wound Rt. Inguinal region of 3 x 1 X ½, cm. x 1 x 5 cm. (7) 3 incised wounds - Rt. Thigh laterally of size 5 x 2 x 1.5 cm., 4 x 1, 5 x 1 and 6 x 2,5 x 1 cm. (8) Two incised wound Rt. Inguinal region of 3 x 1 X ½, cm. and 3.5 x 1 x 1 III cm. (9) Transverse incised wound cutting all 5 toes and of Rt. foot attached at medical and only. (10) Two incised wound below right knee 4 x 1 x 1 cm. 8 x 1 x 1 cm. (11) Rt. thigh medially ½, x ½, x 1 cm. deep. (12) Below Lt. elbow 3 x I x I cm. (13) Lt. lateral aspect of wrist 7 x ½, X ½, cm. (14) Rt. upper arm 4 x Y, x Y, cm. (15) Right shoulder I x Y, X ½, cm. (16) Medial side of Rt. thigh 2 x ½, X ½, cm. She stated that the injuries described at Col. 17 and 18 were definitely ante mortem. The cause of death recorded by her in P.M. report was "Shock due to (1) Extensive hemorrhage from multiple incised wounds and (2) Incised wound over head leading to fatal brain injury. Injuries shown in Col. 17 and 18 could be caused by swords described in Article Nos.25 and 26. She also stated that if the liquor was consumed in small quantity 2-3 hrs, before death, it might not be detected in P.M. Examination. In cross-examination she stated that viscera was not preserved, Blood was preserved. 9. PW 10 is Dr. Sudhir Manbhar Bakare. He was a Consultant Surgeon in the Jagdalemama Hospital. He stated that Pintu Rokade had been brought to the hospital on 26th June, 2001 at about 00.40 a.m. along with his relatives. The physical condition of the patient was bad. Pulse was not recordable. B.P. was also not recordable. There was gasping respiration. The patient was unconscious. There were multiple injuries on his body. Then he gave list of injuries as follows: (I) C.L.W. On Rt. Temporal region with revulsion of Rt. Ear pinna, bone deep with fracture of Rt. Temporal bone measuring 11 x 3 cm. (2) C.L.W. Over left frontal region extending Rt. Nasal bone to Rt. Temporal region measuring 10 cm. x 3 cm. with fracture left frontal bone. (3) C.L.W. Over cheek starting from Rt. Temporal region with revulsion of Rt. Ear pinna, bone deep with fracture of Rt. Temporal bone measuring 11 x 3 cm. (2) C.L.W. Over left frontal region extending Rt. Nasal bone to Rt. Temporal region measuring 10 cm. x 3 cm. with fracture left frontal bone. (3) C.L.W. Over cheek starting from Rt. angle with fracture mandible extending on to left cheek with fracture left mandible grampus mea 26 x 6 cm. (4) C.L.W. Over chin measuring 15 x 5 cm, with fracture mandible. (5) Two C.L.Ws. Right front measuring about 6 x 5 cm, sub cut deep. (6) Two C.L.Ws. Rt, thigh lateral aspect largest measuring about 12 cm x 5 cm. and smallest by 8 x 4 cm. muscle deep. (7) Two C.L.Ws. Over right leg medial aspect upper thigh measuring 5 x 3 and 8 x 3 cm, sub cut list deep. (8) C.L.W. Over right foot with traumatic amputation of 2nd to 5th toes with fracture Rt. First tarsal. There were 12 major and other minor injuries. The patient was serious. He started treatment but the patient died in 15 minutes at about 00.55 hrs. He issued certificate of injuries. He identified his signature on the certificate and marked at as Exh.58. He stated that the injuries caused were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. All those injuries were possible by the weapon of hard and sharp edged like sword or knife placed before the Court as articles 25 and 26. He produced the original case papers and exhibited as Exh.59. He also examined the injured person Santosh Sakhahari Gar'dade at the same time. Santosh gave the history of alleged assault at 00.10 a.m. He found following injuries on the person of Santosh: (i) Contusion Lt. maxilla 4 x 4. (ii) C.L.W. Over left inner scapular 0.5 x 0.5 cm. He gave certificate to that effect. It was marked as Exh.60. The cause of injury, according to him, could be hard and blunt object like stick. On the same day at about 1.00 a.m. injured Amol Bhaskar Sidhodkar came to the hospital while he was present. There was alleged history of assault. At about 00.10 a.m. he examined him and found following injuries on his person: (i) C.L.W. Over Rt. Partial region "I" shape 12 x .15 cm, scalp deep. On the same day at about 1.00 a.m. injured Amol Bhaskar Sidhodkar came to the hospital while he was present. There was alleged history of assault. At about 00.10 a.m. he examined him and found following injuries on his person: (i) C.L.W. Over Rt. Partial region "I" shape 12 x .15 cm, scalp deep. (ii) 2 C.L.Ws, Over back Rt, Inter scapular region 10 x 4 and 8 x 4 cm. (iii) Multiple injuries over It. leg with compound fracture left tibia. (iv) C.L.W. Over right hand darsam two metatarsals with fracture metatarsal bones. He gave medical certificate to that effect. He identified his signature and exhibited as Exh.60. The injuries (i) to (iii) might be caused by hard and blunt object and injury (iv) by hard and sharp object. Injuries I to 3 could have been caused by blunt side of sword and injury No.4 could have been caused by sword or knife. He produced the original case papers and the same were marked as Exh.62 and 63 with respect to said two injured persons. In his cross-examination, he stated that there was a practice of taking names of the relatives who bring the patient to hospital. But he could not say as to who brought Pintu ROkade to the hospital. He could not say how many minor injuries Pintu had. He gave treatment to Pintu hardly for 15 minutes. He had informed immediately the M.O. that it was M.L.E. Case. All the 3 patients were brought to hospital by their relatives. The general condition of the patient Pintu was poor. Generally, they say that the condition of the patient was not poor if any of the symptoms i.e. Breathing. Pulses, B.P., are normal. General condition of Amol was also poor. His B.P. was not normal and respiration was increased. After clinical examination he was sent for X-rays and emergency management of the injuries to Dr. Deshmukh. The entry in the case papers showed the treatment given by Dr. Deshmukh. He was unable to say from the case papers whether anesthesia was administered. However, there was a rubber stamp of anesthesia. Patient was checked again at about 4.15 a.m. and blood was supplied as there was loss of blood. At about 4.15 a. m. the patient was not normal. There should be chain marks on body if a blow of cycle chain or motor cycle chain was given. However, there was a rubber stamp of anesthesia. Patient was checked again at about 4.15 a.m. and blood was supplied as there was loss of blood. At about 4.15 a. m. the patient was not normal. There should be chain marks on body if a blow of cycle chain or motor cycle chain was given. There were chain marks of cycle or motor cycle on the body of the patients. In case of incised wounds the edges of the wounds would be clean cut. It was not true that the injury caused by hard and blunt object as well as the injury caused by sharp cutting object on bony surface of the body would produce the evidence of contusion. C.L.W. meant contused lacerated wound. The injuries of C.L.Ws. were found on all the patients. Sharp edged weapons like swords may or may not cause incised wounds with clean cut injuries. In case of an injury caused by sharp cutting object like razor or blade it would produce incised wound with clean cut edges; If injury is caused by sharp cutting object like axe or sword then it would produce incised wounds but not with clean edges because the skin has elasticity. 10. PW II - Dr. Vilas Bhimrao Deshmukh. was a doctor working in the Jagdalemama Hospital, who examined Nitin Bhaskar Gadve, who was brought in the hospital by Ravi Sharad Kulkarni at about 1.00 a.m. Doctor examined him and found one injury, namely, C.L.W. over Rt. Thumb fracture proximal phalanx of right thumb, on his body. He gave certificate to that effect, which was shown to him. It bore his seal and signature, and exhibited as Exh.65. He stated that the said injury was possible by blunt side of sword. He produced the case papers and exhibited as Exh.26. He could identify the patient. 11. PW 12 Vasant Rangnath Zunjare, is the Police Inspector at Barshi Police Station. He stated that on 26th June, 2001 at about 0.15 hrs, the P.S.O. Chavan informed him that some fighting was going on at the back Side of Gavli Hotel on Shivshakti Maidan. He went to the spot in his jeep with his staff. He found some persons taking the injured Amol Bhaskar Shidodkar and Pintu @ Satish Shankar Rokade by a jeep to hospital. Santosh and Nitin were also being taken to hospital. He also went to Jagdalemama Hospital following them. He went to the spot in his jeep with his staff. He found some persons taking the injured Amol Bhaskar Shidodkar and Pintu @ Satish Shankar Rokade by a jeep to hospital. Santosh and Nitin were also being taken to hospital. He also went to Jagdalemama Hospital following them. Medical treatment to the injured was being given. He learnt that Pintu had died. There were about 15 to 16 cut injuries on the dead body of Pintu. He made inquiry about the matter with Amol and recorded FIR as per his narration. FIR was shown to him. It bore his signature and TJ, of Amol. It was marked at Exh.44. Inquest panchanama of dead body of Pintu was made. It was exhibited at Exh.30. He went to the scene of offence near Shivshakti Maidan. Santosh identified the scene of offence. Panchanama of the scene of offence was made. It was at Exh.22. He identified his signature as well as the signatures of panchas on the panch nama. He found two swords. one bamboo stick and one jambiya cover measuring 8 & 12 inch long and one hollow iron bar and one broken bamboo stick. He seized blood stained soil and plain soil for analysis. All the said articles were seized from the spot. The labels bearing signatures of panchas were attached to the articles and he identified the same. The blood stained clothes of injured Amol were produced by Rajesh Rokade. They were also seized under panch nama. That was marked as Exh.33. He identified the clothes. The clothes of brother of deceased were also seized under the same panch nama. Accused No.1 Baba Shinde, Hambir Narote and Vikram Shinde were arrested on 26th June, 2001. The blood stained clothes on their persons were also seized on the same day. On the same day C. R. No.68/2001 for offence under Section 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered in pursuance of the rep0l110dged by Accused No.1 Baba Shinde. He recorded statements of witnesses. PC - Hajgude produced the clothes of deceased Pintu. The clothes were seized under panchnama Exh.31. Police custody remand of accused Nos. I to 3 was taken on 27th June, 2001. He recorded the statements of Shankar Rokade, Manju More, Sunil Gulpol and Shridas Sinde on 27th June, 2001. Accused Shrimant Gopal Shinde and Atul Bhanudas Gavali were arrested. PC - Hajgude produced the clothes of deceased Pintu. The clothes were seized under panchnama Exh.31. Police custody remand of accused Nos. I to 3 was taken on 27th June, 2001. He recorded the statements of Shankar Rokade, Manju More, Sunil Gulpol and Shridas Sinde on 27th June, 2001. Accused Shrimant Gopal Shinde and Atul Bhanudas Gavali were arrested. He then made inquiry with Accused Shrimant Gopal Shinde and Atul Bhanudas Gaval; about the weapons used in the crime. On 30th June, 2001 the accused Ganesh Govind Shinde was arrested and others were arrested subsequently. Inquiry as to the weapons was made with Ganesh. Ganesh Shinde told him that the stick was thrown by him on the scene of offence. Accused No.1 made statements before him and on the basis of this disclosure one sword was produced by accused No.1 which was concealed in a husk. There were blood stains on the sword. That panchnama was at Exh.28. Accused No.2 also made a statement and on his disclosure one sword, one cycle chain and one iron bar concealed inside the cattle shed were recovered. There were blood stains on the sword. All the said articles were seized on the spot under panchnama. Supplementary statement of Amol Shidodkar was recorded on 1st July 2001. Supplementary statements of Santosh Gardade and Nitin Gadve were recorded on 2nd July, 2001. They disclosed the names of Accused Nos.7 and 8. Accused Nos.7 and 8 were not found till 13th July, 2001. During investigation and interrogation accused No.8 gave statements, Exh.35, and on his disclosure two sticks were produced from his tin shed, which were seized under panch nama, Exh.36. The extract of F.I.R. in C.R. No.68/2ool in S. C. No.62/2oo2 was produced. He submitted that the extract produced was true and correct as per F.I.R. in S. C. No.62/2oo2 and it was marked as Exh.74. It bore signature of S.M. Patil and P.S.O. One Ravikiran alias Baba Gopal Shinde was injured and on 25th June, 2001 itself there was another N.C. Case registered by accused No.1. It was registered as Barshi P.S.N.C.No.446/2oo 1. He stated that he would produce a copy of said N.C. also. He had investigated the Clime No.68/2oo I also. The scene of offence in both the crimes was one and the same and the panchnama of the scene of offence was also same. It was registered as Barshi P.S.N.C.No.446/2oo 1. He stated that he would produce a copy of said N.C. also. He had investigated the Clime No.68/2oo I also. The scene of offence in both the crimes was one and the same and the panchnama of the scene of offence was also same. He submitted that he had submitted the charge-sheet in S.C. No.62/2oo2. In his cross-examination, he stated that there were two groups in the town of Barshi, one headed by Rajabhau Raut and another by Dilip Sopal. It was true that there were crimes registered against Rajabhau Rasal, Ganesh Nananjkar, Pintu Rokade in Barshi Police Station. It was not true that Pintu Rokade, Amol Shidodkar, Nitin Gadve and Santosh Garade were history sheerer of their police station. It was not true that there were instructions from superiors to take immediate cognizance of crimes registered against such offenders. It was true that one Latabai Gavali had lodged a police report in the police station against Pintu Rokade, Raju Rokade, Shankar Rokade and Kalavati Rokade on 25th June, 2001 at about 11.15 p.m. It was true that on the same day at about 11.30 p.m. Ravikiran alias Baba Gopal Shinde had lodged a police report against Pintu Rokade, Rajesh Rokade and two others. Both the cases were registered as N.C. Cases No.445/2ool and 446/200 I. It was true that there were allegations made by Baba in his N. C. report that Pintu had threatened him to beat by sword. There was ban of Additional Collector against possession of armed weapons in the town of Barshi. It was published on 15th June, 2001 and had to remain effective till 29th June, 2001. 12. The testimony of P.W.1 to 4, who are panch witnesses are not discussed because the whole case revolves around the evidence of PW 5 and PW 6 who claim to be injured eyewitnesses. In the instant case, it is pointed out by the learned Counsel for the defence that there had been fight between the parties and F.J.R. was lodged which also culminated in the charge sheet against the deceased by accused No.1. The Investigating Officer has accepted that both the occurrences took place during one transaction. But in the present case the injuries caused to the accused have not been explained. The Investigating Officer has accepted that both the occurrences took place during one transaction. But in the present case the injuries caused to the accused have not been explained. In this connection learned Counsel relies on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Lakshmi Singh and Others Vs. State of Bihar, reported in (1976)4 SCC 394 . In the said judgment the Supreme Court relied on the earlier judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Mohar Rai Vs. State of Bihar, reported in AIR 1968 SC 1281 , and a paragraph from that judgment was quoted with approval, which reads thus: "The trial Court as well as the High Court wholly ignored the significance of the injuries found on the appellants. Mohar Rai had sustained as many as 13 injuries and Bharath Rai 14. We get it from the evidence of PW 15 that he noticed injuries on the person of Mohar Rai when he was produced before him immediately after the occurrence. Therefore, the version of the appellants that they sustained injuries at the time of the occurrence is highly probabilised. Under these circumstances, the prosecution had a duty to explain those injuries... In our judgment, the failure of the prosecution to offer any explanation in that regard shows that evidence of the prosecution witnesses relating to the incident is not true or at any rate not wholly true. Further those injuries probabilise the plea taken by the appellants." Then the Supreme Court explained the principles in the following terms: "This Court clearly pointed out that where the prosecution fails to explain the injuries on the accused, two results follow: (I) that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is untrue; and (2) that the injuries probabilise the plea taken by the appellants." In the present case, non-explanation of the injuries by the accused becomes more relevant in view of the fact that PW 5 and PW 6 did not appear to be the natural witnesses to the occurrence. Both of these two witnesses submit that they had gone to Washi and came back from Washi. Then they were having a cup of coffee at the STD booth of one of them, which is also 1 & ½, Kms. away from the scene of occurrence. Then they were informed by a boy that the deceased had a quarrel. Both of these two witnesses submit that they had gone to Washi and came back from Washi. Then they were having a cup of coffee at the STD booth of one of them, which is also 1 & ½, Kms. away from the scene of occurrence. Then they were informed by a boy that the deceased had a quarrel. This boy according to PW 5 was known to him, but he did not even name the boy and the boy was not even examined by the prosecution, Then according to these two witnesses they went to see as to what had happened during the quarrel to the deceased, without explaining as to how were they interested in the welfare of the deceased. At the time they went, they found the deceased enjoying liquor and then the deceased informed them that he had a quarrel with Baba Shinde. The quarrel, according to the statements of these witnesses, had taken place somewhere between 5.00 and 6.00 p.m. and the incident in which the deceased was assaulted happened at 12.00 in the night. It is also not believable that persons who had a quarrel at 5.00 p.m. or 6.00 p.m. would wait for another six hours to attack the deceased. Had they any idea of attacking him, they would have come immediately after the quarrel took place. Two F.I.Rs, were registered against the deceased on the same day. One at the instance of one of the accused and another at the instance of somebody else, Therefore, what this court feels is that true account of events on that day have not been placed before the court. Each of these two witnesses i.e. PW 5 and PW 6 grafically pointed out what overt act was made by each of the accused. They also knew what weapon was in the hands of which of the accused. This may be possible but it appears quite impossible when the incident occurred at 12.00 in the night and according to these two witnesses they could see the occurrence because of the light emanating from the tube light of the Nagar Palika. They have also stated that they had seen the incident from the right side of the Tata Sumo which was parked below the tube light. They had parked Tata Sumo belonging to one of the witnesses and they were watching the occurrence. They have also stated that they had seen the incident from the right side of the Tata Sumo which was parked below the tube light. They had parked Tata Sumo belonging to one of the witnesses and they were watching the occurrence. They have also stated that first these two witnesses were attacked then the deceased was attacked. If these two persons were attacked first they could have perhaps intervened to save the deceased or they could have at least run away. The supplementary statements were recorded of these two witnesses. The names of accused No.7 and accused No.8 were not included after for days in the first F.I.R. it is admitted date is in the supplementary F.I.R. it is admitted by there witness that they have a long history of crime against them and they are facing number of Prosecution. It is also stated by the investigating officer that there were to groups and the accused belonged to another group. There are number of contradictions between the testimony of PW 5 and PW 6. 13. For non-explanation of the injuries on the accused and for the reasons given by us disbelieving the testimony of PW 5 and PW 6, We Conclude that the true account of events on that day has not been placed by the prosecution before the court. Hense we fell that the accused deserve to be acquitted by giving them benefit of doubt. 14. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed. The accused are acquitted of the charge the leveled against them and they be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. Appeal allowed