JUDGMENT Hon’ble R.N. Misra, J.—These appeals arise out of same judgment and order, therefore, they have been heard jointly and are being disposed of by a common judgment, which is passed in Criminal Appeal No. 546 of 2003. 2. These appeals have been preferred by the appellant Gulab Singh and Chandra Shekhar Singh against the judgment and order dated 28.1.2003, passed by Sri Dhani Ram, the then Session Judge, Sonbhadra in S.T. No. 81 of 2000, State v. Chandrashekhar Singh and another, by which they have been convicted for the offences, punishable under Section 302, 323 read with Section 34, I.P.C. and have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and RI for six months respectively. 3. The facts giving rise to these appeals are as under : The complainant-informant Raj Kumar Singh was resident of village Sahanshahpur, police station Rohania district Varanasi. He was married with Smt. Kusum Devi, the sister of accused appellant Chandra Shekhar Singh, resident of village Judwariya, P.S. Karma, district Sonbhadra. Another appellant Gulab Singh was brother-in-law of appellant Chandra Shekhar Singh, who was the resident of village Kailahat, P.S. Chunar, district Mirzapur. There was some dispute between Chandra Shekhar Singh and his brother Inder Kumar Singh regarding some agricultural land. Smt. Sudama Devi was the mother of these two persons. Awadh Narain Singh was father-in-law of the complainant-informant. He had borrowed Rs. 16,000/- for the marriage of his daughter from the complainant-informant, much before this incident and had mortgaged his six Bighas agricultural land in his favour in lieu of said money. The appellant Chandra Shekhar Singh was living separately from Inder Kumar and Sudama Devi. The mortgaged agricultural land of the complainant-informant was being managed by Inder Kumar and Smt. Sudama Devi, who were living jointly. There was dispute between the parties regarding partition of land and appellant Chandra Shekhar Singh was not liking the mortgage of agricultural land by his father in favour of complainant-informant and in the partition, he wanted his half share in said land also. 4. On 12.8.2000, the complainant-informant along with his wife Smt. Kusum Devi had came to his Sasural. It was about 10.00 a.m. when Chandra Shekhar Singh along with his brother-in-law Gulab armed with Lathi went to take forcible possession over the said mortgaged land. Smt. Sudama Devi and Inder Kumar Singh went there to make protest. 4. On 12.8.2000, the complainant-informant along with his wife Smt. Kusum Devi had came to his Sasural. It was about 10.00 a.m. when Chandra Shekhar Singh along with his brother-in-law Gulab armed with Lathi went to take forcible possession over the said mortgaged land. Smt. Sudama Devi and Inder Kumar Singh went there to make protest. When the complainant-informant and his wife came to know about this, they also went at the field. The appellant Chandra Shekhar Singh exhorted his brother-in-law Gulab Singh to kill Inder Kumar Singh and Smt. Sudama Devi and both started beating them. When the complainant-informant and his wife wanted to intervene, they were also beaten by them. Inder Kumar Singh and Smt. Sudama Devi died on the spot. 5. The matter was reported to the police, through FIR Ext. Ka-1 by the complainant-informant Raj Kumar Singh on the same day at about 4.00 p.m. as is evident from Check report Ext. Ka 6. The Karma police registered a case at crime No. 72 of 2000, under Sections 302, 323, I.P.C. against the named accused persons Chandra Shekhar Singh and Gulab Singh. The relevant entry was made in the G.D. Ext. Ka-7 and SI R.R. Dwivedi started investigation. He went on the spot and prepared inquest report, challan photo of dead bodies and letter to C.M.O., which are Ext. Ka 10 to Ext. Ka 18. He sealed the dead body and sent for autopsy, which was conducted by Dr. P.N. Singh. The autopsy report is Ext. Ka-2. He also inspected the spot and prepared site plan Ext. Ka-8 and after recording statement of witnesses and completing investigation, submitted charge-sheet Ext. Ka 19 against the accused-appellants. 6. The accused-appellants denied the allegations levelled against them and alleged their false implication due to enmity. In his statement under Section 313, Cr.P.C., the accused-appellant Chandra Shekhar Singh has stated that Smt. Anju Devi was the wife of deceased Inder Kumar Singh and litigations were going on between them. The supporters of Smt. Anju Devi killed the deceased Inder Kumar at 8.00 a.m. on the date of occurrence. The other accused Gulab Singh has stated that he was present in his native village at the date and time of occurrence. However, no evidence in defence has been given by them. 7. The accused-appellants were charged for the offences, punishable under Sections 302, 323 read with Section 34, I.P.C. 8. The other accused Gulab Singh has stated that he was present in his native village at the date and time of occurrence. However, no evidence in defence has been given by them. 7. The accused-appellants were charged for the offences, punishable under Sections 302, 323 read with Section 34, I.P.C. 8. In support of its case, the prosecution has examined Raj Kumar PW-1 and Smt. Kusum Singh PW-4 as eye-witnesses of occurrence. PW-2 is Dr. P.N. Singh, who had conducted the autopsy on the dead bodies of both the deceased persons, PW-3 is Dr. A.C. Dubey, who had examined the injuries of complainant-informant and his wife. He has proved the injury reports Ext. Ka-4 and Ext. Ka-5. PW-5 is constable Mohd. Israil, who had prepared Check report and G.D. on the basis of written report of complainant-informant and had sent the injured person for medical examination. PW-6 is S.I., R.R. Dwivedi, who had conducted the Investigation and submitted charge-sheet against the accused-appellants. 9. Considering the evidence on record and hearing the parties, the learned trial Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution case was proved and convicted the appellants and passed the aforesaid sentences against them, against which this appeal. 10. We have heard Sri P.N. Misra, learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the evidence on record. 11. The incident took place on 12.8.2000 at about 10.00 a.m. and the FIR was lodged on the same day at about 4.00 p.m. The distance to the police station from the place of occurrence was 5 Km. The FIR Ext. Ka-1 contains all the relevant facts regarding occurrence. There is nothing on record to show that this was ante-timed or there was any delay in lodging the FIR. In this incident, two persons had died and two were injured, therefore, his mental agony could well be visualized and the complainant­informant was justified in lodging the FIR after about six hours at the police station. 12. The motive behind the crime was very strong. In the FIR itself, it was mentioned that there was dispute between the appellant Chandra Shekhar Singh and his mother Smt. Sudama Devi and brother Inder Kumar regarding partition of property. 12. The motive behind the crime was very strong. In the FIR itself, it was mentioned that there was dispute between the appellant Chandra Shekhar Singh and his mother Smt. Sudama Devi and brother Inder Kumar regarding partition of property. However, this fact was not mentioned in the FIR that Awadh Narain Singh, the husband of deceased Smt. Sudama Singh and father of deceased Inder Kumar and present appellant Chandra Shekhar Singh had borrowed some money from the complainant-informant Raj Kumar Singh, who was his son-in-law for the marriage of his daughter and had mortgaged his six Bighas land to him in lieu thereof and the appellant Chandra Shekhar Singh wanted share in that mortgaged land also without repaying the mortgage money. PW-1 Raj Kumar Singh has stated in his examination-in-chief that his father-in-law Awadh Narain Singh had borrowed Rs. 16,000/- from him for the marriage of his youngest daughter and in lieu thereof, he had mortgaged the aforesaid land. Since the complainant-informant was the resident of district Varanasi and mortgaged land was situate in district Mirzapur, therefore, it was not possible for him to look after this land and for this purpose, he had authorized his mother-in-law Smt. Sudama Devi and brother-in-law Inder Kumar. This fact is not disputed that the appellant Chandra Shekhar Singh was living separately with his deceased mother and brother. This land was ancestral land as has been admitted by PW-1 in his cross-examination. However, he could not tell the Khasra number of the mortgaged land. He has stated further that since the land was being looked after by his mother-in-law and brother-in-law, therefore, irrigation receipts etc. were in their names. He has very honestly admitted this fact in his cross-examination that due to hurry and mental disturbance due to this heinous incident, he could not mention this fact in the FIR Ext. Ka-1 that some land had been mortgaged by his father-in-law in his favour for borrowing money and there was dispute between the appellant Chandra Shekhar Singh and the deceased for the share of that land. In his cross-examination, PW-1 has further stated that the appellant Chandra Shekhar Singh wanted half share in the mortgaged land also but his deceased mother-in-law and brother-in-law were asking him firstly to repay half amount of the borrowed money and then to take share in that land. In his cross-examination, PW-1 has further stated that the appellant Chandra Shekhar Singh wanted half share in the mortgaged land also but his deceased mother-in-law and brother-in-law were asking him firstly to repay half amount of the borrowed money and then to take share in that land. The appellant Chandra Shekhar Singh was not ready to repay the loan but was interested in his share only. This was unjust desire on his part and was the main cause for this heinous crime. PW-4 Smt. Kusum Singh, wife of complainant-informant Raj Kumar Singh had also stated this fact in her examination-in-chief that this fact was not relished by Chandra Shekhar Singh that her father had mortgaged six Bighas land in favour of her husband in lieu of Rs. 16,000/- borrowed by him for the marriage of her younger sister. She has also corroborated this fact that mortgaged land was being managed by the deceased persons on behalf of her husband. In her cross-examination, PW-4 has stated that the appellant Chandra Shekhar Singh was in possession of his half share in other properties except mortgaged land. This fact is admitted by the parties that at the time of incident, Awadh Narain Singh was not alive. Further, in her cross-examination, she has stated that during his life time Awadh Narain Singh had transferred mortgaged land in favour of her mother Smt. Sudama Devi (deceased) and Smt. Sudama Devi had executed a Will in her (PW-4) favour. However, mortgage deed and will deed have not been placed on record. The reason told by PW-4 was that those papers had already been filed in revenue case which was going on in Tehsil Ghorawal. In his statement, under Section 313, Cr.P.C., the appellant Chandra Shekhar Singh has denied this fact that his father Awadh Narain Singh had borrowed money from the complainant-informant and mortgaged his land in his favour. From the evidence on record, it is clear that Awadh Narain Singh had borrowed money from the complainant-informant for the marriage of his daughter and had mortgaged the aforesaid land in his favour for which there was dispute between the appellant Chandra Shekhar Singh and his deceased mother and brother. 13. This is admitted fact that both the deceased persons had died due to injuries. 13. This is admitted fact that both the deceased persons had died due to injuries. The accused Chandra Shekhar Singh has also stated in his statement under Section 313, Cr.P.C. that on 12.8.2000, at about 8.00 a.m, this incident had taken place and the deceased persons were killed by the supporters of Smt. Anju wife of deceased Inder Kumar. Thus, it is clear that the incident had taken place on 12.8.2000. The only dispute raised by appellant Chandra Shekhar Singh is regarding time of incident. According to the prosecution case, the incident had taken place at about 10.00 a.m and according to the appellant Chandra Shekhar Singh, it has taken place at about 8.00 a.m. The place of occurrence as alleged by the prosecution was agricultural field. The site plan prepared by the I.O. is Ext. Ka-8. The dead bodies of both the deceased persons were recovered by the police from the agricultural field of the parties. Nowhere place of occurrence has been disputed by the accused persons also. PW-1 Raj Kumar Singh has stated in his cross-examination that he did not know Smt. Anju but he admitted this fact that the deceased Inder Kumar had married twice. His first wife had deserted him and began to live with some one else. PW-4 Smt. Kusum, the wife of complainant-informant has admitted in her cross-examination that Smt. Anju had no relation with her family but she (Smt. Anju) was working as labourer in the house of his deceased brother Inder Kumar and she worked there for about 3 or four months. She has further admitted that Smt. Anju had filed a case for maintenance against his deceased brother Inder Kumar but she could not get anything. Further she has admitted that some litigation is going on in Tehsil Ghorawal in between her and Smt. Anju. From the side of accused persons, no evidence has been given that Smt. Anju was married with Inder Kumar but from the statements of PW-1 and PW-4 it is evident that some litigation was going on initiated by Smt. Anju regarding properties of Inder Kumar but there is nothing on record to show that Inder Kumar and his mother were killed by the supporters of Smt. Anju. This is a lame defence. 14. PW-2 Dr. P.N. Singh had conducted the autopsy on the dead bodies of Smt. Sudama Devi and Inder Kumar. This is a lame defence. 14. PW-2 Dr. P.N. Singh had conducted the autopsy on the dead bodies of Smt. Sudama Devi and Inder Kumar. The postmortem reports are Ext. Ka-2 and Ext.Ka-3 respectively. He found following ante-mortem injuries on the dead bodies of aforesaid persons. Injuries of deceased Smt. Sudama Devi (1) Lacerated wound 2 1/2 cm x 1 cm x bone deep on the right side of head 15 cm above from the right ear and two parietal bone were fractured. (2) Lacerated wound 2.5 cm x 1 cm x skin deep on the right side of chin. (3) Incised wound 5 cm x 1 1/2 cm x skin deep left side on neck 5 cm below from the left jaw. (4) Contused abrasion 4 cm x 2 cm on the right side elbow. Injuries of deceased Inder Kumar : (1) Lacerated wound 2 1/2 cm x 1 1/2 cm x bone deep on the right side caf the head 6 cm above the right ear, Right parietal and occipital bones were fractured. (2) Incised wound 3 1/2 cm x 1 1/2 cm x skin deep on the neck 6 cm below from left jaw. (3) Lacerated wound 1 1/2 cm x 1 cm x skin deep on the right chin. (4) Contusion 16 cm x 12 cm on the left chest beneath collar bone and third, fourth and fifth ribs were fractured. 15. The occipital and parietal bone of Inder Kumar was fractured and brain was full of blood. The 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th ribs were also broken. The parietal bone of Smt. Sudama Devi was also fractured. In the opinion of doctor, these injuries were sufficient in ordinary course to cause death. He has further opined that death might have been caused on 12.8.2000 at about 10.00 a.m. and there were possibilities of death at about 8.00 a.m. also. The postmortem examination was conducted by him on 13.8.2000 from 11.00 a.m. to 1.30 p.m. and it was mentioned in the postmortem reports that death was caused about one day back. As such, the prosecution case regarding time of occurrence could not be disputed. However, no evidence has been adduced by the defence that the occurrence has taken place at 8.00 a.m. 16. PW-3 Dr. A.C. Dubey had examined the injuries of Raj Kumar Singh and Smt. Kusum Singh. The injury reports are Ext. As such, the prosecution case regarding time of occurrence could not be disputed. However, no evidence has been adduced by the defence that the occurrence has taken place at 8.00 a.m. 16. PW-3 Dr. A.C. Dubey had examined the injuries of Raj Kumar Singh and Smt. Kusum Singh. The injury reports are Ext. Ka-4 to Ext. Ka-5 respectively. According to Dr. Dubey, following injuries were found on the person of Raj Kumar Singh. Injuries of injured Raj Kumar Singh. (1) Contusion 3 cm x 2 cm in the middle of skull 15 cm above from the nose and the blood was oozing of it. (2) Contusion 12 cm x 3 cm radish in colour on the right side of thigh 15 cm above from right neck. (3) There was complaint of pain on the right palm but no visible injury. Injuries of injured Smt. Kusum Singh. (1) Contused swelling 3 cm x 0.5 cm x skin deep on the left palm near the ring finger. Margins were regular and it was radish in colour. (2) Contusion 12 cm x 6 cm on the right thigh horizontal 15 cm below from the right knee. (3) Contusion 5 cm x 3 cm on the upper portion of right hand upto the joint shoulder. (4) Contusion 6 cm x 3 cm radish in colour on the left side of shoulder. (5) There was complaint of pain but no visible injury. 17. The medical examination of Smt. Kusum Singh was conducted by him on 12.8.2000 at about 4.35 p.m. but the medical examination of Raj Kumar Singh was conducted by him on the same day at about 7.00 p.m. The reason behind this as told by PW-1 was that when he visited the police station along with his wife to lodge the FIR, the constable moharrir prepared Chitthi Mazroobi for both, but he came back immediately with the I.O. on the spot and his wife was sent to Primary Health Centre, Kaprahi for medical examination. When he was relieved by the I.O. from the place of occurrence, he went to P.H.C. Kaprahi for medical examination. This fact has not been disputed by the police also. As such there was no unnecessary delay in medical examination of the complainant-informant. 18. When he was relieved by the I.O. from the place of occurrence, he went to P.H.C. Kaprahi for medical examination. This fact has not been disputed by the police also. As such there was no unnecessary delay in medical examination of the complainant-informant. 18. Much emphasis has been laid down by learned counsel for the appellants regarding incised injuries on the dead body of Inder Kumar and Smt. Sudama Devi. No doubt there was an incised wound on the body of Inder Kumar and two incised wound on the body of Smt. Sudama Devi. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that this was not the prosecution case that any sharp edged or cutting weapon was used by the accused persons in the incident in question and as such he challenged the veracity of prosecution witnesses that deceased persons were assaulted by the appellants. But we see no force in this contention because a very plausible factual explanation has been given by the prosecution witnesses regarding these incised injuries. No doubt in the FIR, there is mention of this fact that the appellant had assaulted deceased persons by Lathi but in their statements, the complainant-informant Raj Kumar and his wife Smt. Kusum Singh have clearly stated that Lathi of appellant Chandra Shekhar Singh was tattered during incident and after tattering also, he continued assault on the deceased persons and caused incised injuries by tattered Lathi. The medical position is very clear. The edges of tattered portion of Lathi could very well cause cut wound. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that this explanation during deposition in the Court was given by PW-1 and PW-4 afterthought and legal advice but this contention cannot be accepted because when the FIR is being written by any person, it is not expected from him to mention those facts in the FIR, which may be put to him during cross-examination in trial. One can imagine mental situation of a person, whose two family members have been killed and two have been injured by the assailants. 19. PW-1 and PW-4 have given complete eye account of the incident. They have clearly stated that in their presence, the appellants had assaulted deceased persons and them as well. One can imagine mental situation of a person, whose two family members have been killed and two have been injured by the assailants. 19. PW-1 and PW-4 have given complete eye account of the incident. They have clearly stated that in their presence, the appellants had assaulted deceased persons and them as well. Admittedly PW-1 Raj Kumar Singh is brother-in-law and PW-4 Smt. Kusum Singh is sister of appellant Chandra Shekhar Singh and another appellant Gulab Singh is brother-in­law of appellant Chandra Shekhar Singh. Though Gulab Singh has taken plea of alibi in his statement under Section 313, Cr.P.C. but burden to prove the alibi was on him and he has given no evidence in this regard. Therefore, his this version cannot be believed that on the date and time of incident in question, he was present in his village Kailahat. PW-1 has stated that on 11.8.2000 in the evening, he had come to his Sasural in village Jurwariya along with his wife Smt. Kusum Singh and on the next day i.e. 12.8.2000, this incident took place at about 10.00 a.m. As we have discussed earlier, PW-1 and 4 both have given the reason for the incident in question. PW-1 has stated that on 12.8.2000 at about 10.00 a.m., the appellant Chandra Shekhar Singh and Gulab Singh having Lathi in their hands went to the agricultural field which had been mortgaged to him by Awadh Narain Singh in lieu of borrowed money of Rs. 16,000/- only. After few minutes of their departure, his mother-in-law Smt. Sudama Devi and brother-in-law Inder Kumar also went there. Km. Bharti, the daughter of his sarhu had also accompanied his mother-in-law and brother-in-law. He suspected some foul game, therefore, after few minutes, he also went to the field along with his wife. He saw that the appellants were trying to take forcible possession over the said land but his mother-in-law and brother-in-law were asking appellant Chandra Shekhar Singh to repay half mortgage money then to occupy half share of mortgaged land but the appellant Chandra Shekhar Singh was saying that he would occupy the entire land without repaying any loan. Since deceased persons were objecting to forcible possession, therefore, they were beaten by the appellants with Lathis. When he and his wife wanted to intervene, they were also assaulted by them. Km. Since deceased persons were objecting to forcible possession, therefore, they were beaten by the appellants with Lathis. When he and his wife wanted to intervene, they were also assaulted by them. Km. Bharti was also requesting the appellants with folded hands not to beat her Mama, Nani and Mausa but the appellants did not pay any heed. PW-4 Smt. Kusum Singh has also given the same version. From their statements, it is clear that they were having no arm and the deceased persons had also gone there with empty hands. The appellants were assaulted with Lathi. They were well prepared for marpeet and intentionally they had gone there. In his cross-examination, PW-1 has stated that the appellant had not gone to the field with bullock and plough but had gone with Lathi only with a view to commit Mar-peet. The mar-peet had taken place in his presence. PW-1 and 4, both were injured. The injury reports Ext. Ka-4 and Ext. Ka-5 also show substantial injuries on their bodies. Therefore, their presence on the spot could not be doubted. In her examination-in-chief, PW-4 Smt. Kusum Singh has stated that first of all, Inder Kumar was beaten by appellant Chandra Shekhar Singh and Smt. Sudama Devi was beaten by appellant Gulab and when she and her husband intervened, both the appellants had beaten them and after that they again assaulted the deceased persons. Both the deceased has died on the spot. A very lengthy cross-examination was made from the side of defence from these witnesses but nothing could be found in their favour. In our opinion, the learned trial Court rightly believed the testimony of PW-1 and PW-4. 20. PW-6 S.I. R.R. Dwivedi, the I.O. of the case found the dead bodies in the field. There were injuries on the persons of deceased. He had taken search of the house of appellant Chandra Shekhar Singh but he could not recover the Lathi used in the mar-peet. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he did not ask the complainant-informant for the mortgage deed. He could not also ascertain the plot number and area of the field, in which the incident had taken place. This could be said to be negligence on his part. He has also not interrogated the doctor. But for the negligence on the part of the IO, the prosecution cannot be allowed to suffer. He could not also ascertain the plot number and area of the field, in which the incident had taken place. This could be said to be negligence on his part. He has also not interrogated the doctor. But for the negligence on the part of the IO, the prosecution cannot be allowed to suffer. In a catena of cases, this has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that “it would be playing in the hands of I.O., if on the basis of lacuna in the investigation, the accused are acquitted”. In the case of Karnail Singh v. State of M.P., 1995 A.Cr.R. 831 and Ram Bali v. State of U.P., 2004 (10) SCC 598 , this view has been taken. 21. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the witnesses produced in this case were related witnesses and no independent person was examined from the side of prosecution and the prosecution case could not be believed. But we do not agree with this contention. No body wants to indulge in the dispute of others with a view to save him from inconvenience caused by appearance in Court or before police. In the case of Krishna Mochi v. State of Bihar, (2002) 6 SCC 81 , the Apex Court had observed as under : “It is a matter of common experience that in recent times there has been a sharp decline of ethical values in public life even in developed countries much less a developing one, like ours, where the ratio of decline is higher. Even in ordinary cases, witnesses are not inclined to depose or their evidence is not found to be credible by Courts for manifold reasons. One of the reasons may be that they do not have courage to depose against an accused because of threats to their life, moreso when the offenders are habitual criminals or high-ups in the Government or close to powers, which may be political, economic or other powers including muscle power." 22. It has been further argued by learned counsel for the appellants that Km. Bharti was not produced in the Court and no reason was given by the prosecution and on this account also, the prosecution story suffers from doubt. It has been further argued by learned counsel for the appellants that Km. Bharti was not produced in the Court and no reason was given by the prosecution and on this account also, the prosecution story suffers from doubt. But we see no force in this contention because it is well settled law that to prove any fact, it is not necessary to examine a number of witnesses but any fact is decided on the basis of quality of evidence produced. As we have discussed earlier that there was no reason to impeach credibility of PW-1 and PW-4, therefore, to prove factum of incident in question no other evidence was required. 23. In the last, learned counsel for the appellants contended that the fact of the case did not warrant conviction of the appellants under Section 302, I.P.C. but utmost, they could be convicted under Section 304, I.P.C. because there was a sudden fight on provocation and only lathi was used in the marpeet. There was no pre-meditation. The intention of appellants was not to kill the deceased persons but to deter them from objecting to forcible possession. He has cited following rulings : (1) 1983 SCC (Crl) 612, Sital Singh v. State of Punjab. (2) 2008(1) ACR 151 (SC), Kulesh Mondal v. State of West Bengal. (3) 2008(1) ACR 323 (SC), Chinnathaman v. State. (4) 2008(1) ACR 717 (SC), Vineet Kumar Chauhan v. State of U.P. 24. Considering the facts and circumstances of the aforesaid cases, we are not inclined to accept the contention of learned counsel for the appellants that this was the case under Section 304, I.P.C. The facts of the case clearly reveals that there was already dispute between the parties regarding partition of the land, particularly the land, which had been mortgaged by Awadh Narain Singh to the complainant-informant in lieu of money borrowed by him for the marriage of his daughter. The other properties were already partitioned. On the relevant date and time, the appellant Chandra Shekhar Singh had intentionally called his brother-in­law Gulab Singh and intentionally went to the agricultural land which had been mortgaged to the complainant-informant and wanted forcible possession. When Smt. Sudama and Inder Kumar who were living separately with Chandra Shekhar Singh went to the said land to deter the appellants from taking forcible possession, they were assaulted by Lathi. When Smt. Sudama and Inder Kumar who were living separately with Chandra Shekhar Singh went to the said land to deter the appellants from taking forcible possession, they were assaulted by Lathi. They had gone there with full preparation to commit marpeet. The nature of injuries on the persons of deceased also shows that they were brutally assaulted. Both the deceased had got head injuries and their parietal bones were fractured which in ordinary course of nature were sufficient for causing death. The occipital bone of Inder Kumar was also broken. His four ribs were also broken. There was no sudden provocation on the spot because the appellants had gone there with full determination to kill those persons, who wanted to disrupt their plan for forcible possession over the land. There was clearly pre-meditation on their part and there was no sudden provocation. The deceased and witnesses had no arms. From the statements of PW-1 and PW-4, it Is well proved that the appellant Chandra Shekhar Singh was continuously pressurizing deceased for giving him half share In the mortgaged land also but he was not ready to pay his half share in the loan. If the case is decided on the basis of this fact, it becomes crystal clear that the appellant Chandra Shekhar Singh had planned for a big incident and that is why he had called his brother-in-law also and when the complainant-informant along with his wife went to his Sasural, the appellant Chandra Shekhar Singh became worried and this irked him. Consequently, he went to the land for taking forcible possession. He was well knowing this fact that his attempt could be objected by his mother and brother, who were looking after the mortgaged land on behalf of the complainant-informant. Both the appellants were armed with Lathi and according to their plan, they brutally assaulted the deceased and both died on the spot after sustaining severe head injuries. This was a clear case of murder, punishable under Section 302, I.P.C. and by no stretch of imagination, this could be said that appellants were not desirous to kill them. In our opinion learned trial Court had rightly convicted the appellants under Section 302, I.P.C. 25. This was a clear case of murder, punishable under Section 302, I.P.C. and by no stretch of imagination, this could be said that appellants were not desirous to kill them. In our opinion learned trial Court had rightly convicted the appellants under Section 302, I.P.C. 25. In view of our above discussions, we find that the learned trial Court has rightly believed the prosecution case and convicted the appellants for murder of Smt. Sudama Devi and Inder Kumar Singh and assault on Raj Kumar Singh and Smt. Kusum Singh. The appeal is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 26. The appeal is dismissed and judgment and order, passed by learned trial Court are confirmed. 27. The appellants are in jail. They shall remain in jail to serve out the sentences awarded by learned trial Court and confirmed by us. 28. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to C.J.M., Mirzapur for information and compliance. Report be submitted within two months. ————