JUDGMENT K. S. CHAUHAN, J. This criminal appeal under S. 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred being aggrieved by the judgment, finding and sentence dated 28-1-2000 passed by the Seventh Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in S.T. No. 281/1998, whereby appellant Shankarlal has been convicted under Sections 148 and 302 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced for two years R.I. and life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, R.I. for three months. Rest of the appellants Dharamraj, Devideen, Raghunath, Sanju and Virendra have been convicted under Sections 147 and 302 read with Section 149 of IPC and sentenced for one year R.I. and life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, R.I. for three months. Appellants Devideen and Raghunath have further been convicted under Section 323 of IPC and sentenced for three months R.I. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. The prosecution case in short is that on 4-4-1998 at 8:15 p.m. Ramkali Bai wife of Mangal Prasad Basor lodged FIR at Police Station Ghamapur that at 7:30 p.m. she was sitting in her house along with her husband Mangal Prasad and daughter Pramila. At that time Shankar Basor came there and abused for which her husband objected by saying that he should not use such filthy language. Shankar went to his house and returned with other accused persons. He was aimed with farsa, Phoolchand with ballam, Dharamraj, Devideen, Raghunath, Sanju and Virendra with lathis. They started giving beating to her husband Mangal and were abusing. At the same time her son Bablu came. Ramkali Bai, Bablu and Pramila tried to intervene, but they caused injuries to her and Bablu. Laxmibai, Pramila and Sujeet have witnessed the incident. On this information an offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 294, 307 of IPC was registered against the appellants, but after sometime Mangal died. Panchnama of dead body was prepared. The dead body was sent for post-mortem examination, which was conducted by Dr. A. K. Yadu (PW - 7). According to his opinion, the death was due to the head injury. The death was homicidal in nature. The head injuries were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Thereafter offence under Section 302 IPC was added. Bablu was also medically examined and injuries were found on his person. A. K. Yadu (PW - 7). According to his opinion, the death was due to the head injury. The death was homicidal in nature. The head injuries were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Thereafter offence under Section 302 IPC was added. Bablu was also medically examined and injuries were found on his person. Spot map was prepared. The statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 161, Cr. P.C. The disclosure statements of appellants under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act were recorded. In pursuance thereof weapons of offence were seized from them. Country and blood stained soil was seized from the spot. The seized articles were sent for chemical examination to FSL, Sagar. After completing the investigation, the charge sheet was filed against the appellants in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jabalpur, who committed this case to the Sessions Court for trial. The appellants were charged under Sections 147, 302 or alternatively under Sections 302/149, 323/149, 294 of IPC. They denied the guilt and claimed to be tried mainly contending that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated. Prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses and placed the documents Exhibit P-1 to P-43. Accused persons also examined one witness and placed the documents Ex. D-1 to D-21 on record. After appreciating the evidence, trial Court found the appellants guilty and sentenced thereto as stated hereinabove in Para 1 of this judgment. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment, finding and sentence the instant appeal has been preferred by the appellants on the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in proper perspective. There are several contradictions and omissions in the statements of prosecution witnesses. No independent witnesses have supported the prosecution story and only interested witnesses have deposed against them. The finding of guilt is erroneous which deserves to be set aside and the appellants are entitled for acquittal. On the contrary, Shri T. K. Modh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/State supported the impugned judgment, finding and sentence, mainly contending that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and the trial Court has not committed an illegality in convicting and sentencing the appellants, hence does not call for interference. On the contrary, Shri T. K. Modh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/State supported the impugned judgment, finding and sentence, mainly contending that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and the trial Court has not committed an illegality in convicting and sentencing the appellants, hence does not call for interference. The main point for consideration in this appeal is that whether the trial Court has committed an error in convicting and sentencing the appellants for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 302/149 and 323 of I.P.C. as detailed in Para 1 of the judgment. Ramkali Bai (PW - 1) has deposed that on 4-4-1998 there was Durgaashtmi festival. After performing Pooja Ramkali Bai (PW - 1), her husband Mangal and their daughter Pramila were present in their house. Their son Bablu had gone in the neighbourhood. At that time on account of the old enmity appellant Shankarlal came there and abused for which Mangal objected. Shankarlal threatened him and rushed to his house and returned therefrom with his companions. Appellant Shankarlal was armed with farsa, Phoolsingh (now deceased) with ballam and other accused persons armed with lathis came there. They entered into the courtyard of the house where her husband was standing. They surrounded her husband Mangal and started giving beating. They were shouting to kill him and at the same time Bablu came there to rescue. This witness Ramkali Bai and her daughter also tried to intervene but in vain. Mangal fell down on the ground on account of injuries sustained by him. The injuries were caused on his entire body. There was profuse bleeding. The injuries were also caused to Ramkali Bai (PW - 1) and her son Bablu (PW - 4) in the process of rescuing Mangal. Thereafter Mangal was carried to Police Station Ghamapur by Rickshaw. Ramkali (PW - 1) lodged the report (Ex. P-1). Mangal was sent to Victoria Hospital, Jabalpur where he was declared dead. This witness has been subjected to lengthy and piercing cross examination wherein the attempts have been made to bring the contradictions from F.I.R. (Ex. P-1) regarding giving threatening by Shankarlal, place of occurrence and the manner in which deceased was assaulted. On appraisal of her entire evidence, it is abundantly clear that she has mentioned in F.I.R. that the appellants surrounded her husband and caused marpeet. P-1) regarding giving threatening by Shankarlal, place of occurrence and the manner in which deceased was assaulted. On appraisal of her entire evidence, it is abundantly clear that she has mentioned in F.I.R. that the appellants surrounded her husband and caused marpeet. She has given the similar evidence before the Court. Therefore, it can not be accounted as contradictions. Even in the cross examination she has clearly stated that her husband was beaten by the appellants. Appellant Shankarlal inflicted farsa blow, Phoolchand ballam blow and other accused persons lathi blows. So far as the place of occurrence is concerned, the incident has occurred in Basor Mohalla situate at Ghamapur. The houses of Shankarlal and deceased Mangal are quite nearby adjacent to each other. On the perusal of map Ex. P-35, it is revealed that the place of occurrence is on the ground in front of house of the deceased, in such circumstance, the evidence that incident took place in the courtyard of her house, is of little importance. Since she was present at her house and the incident occurred in front of her house at 7:30 p.m. hence her presence can't be doubted. She has given the evidence in detail how the incident took place. Her evidence is intact on the material point. Pramila (PW - 2) is the daughter of deceased. She was also present at the time of incident. She has given the evidence before Court more or less in the similar way as deposed by her mother Ramkali Bai (PW - 1). She has supported her version giving evidence that appellant Shankarlal abused her father and when he prevented after giving threats he rushed to his house and thereafter came armed with farsa along with his companions, surrounded her father and caused injuries. Shankarlal inflicted farsa, Phoolchand ballam and other accused persons lathi blows on account of which her father sustained injuries and died. This witness has also been subjected to lengthy and piercing cross examination and the attempts have been made to bring the contradiction from her earlier statement Ex. D-1 but the contradictions and omissions are not material. Her evidence is intact on the point that these appellants caused injuries to her father on account of which he sustained injuries and died. Bablu (PW - 3) is the son of deceased. D-1 but the contradictions and omissions are not material. Her evidence is intact on the point that these appellants caused injuries to her father on account of which he sustained injuries and died. Bablu (PW - 3) is the son of deceased. He has deposed that after hearing the cries he rushed to his house where he saw that the accused persons were assaulting to his father. Shankarlal by farsa, Phoolchand by ballam and other appellants by lathis were giving beating to his father. His father was surrounded by them from all around and when he tried to intervene Raghunath inflicted lathi blow to him on account of which he also sustained injuries beneath his left eye. Appellant Devideen also inflicted lathi blow to his mother. After causing injuries, the appellants ran away. Thereafter the report was lodged and his father died. This witness has also been subjected to a very lengthy and piercing cross examination and has admitted that incident occurred on the ground. This witness has also been contradicted from his earlier statement Ex. D-2 but the contradiction is not material. Thus this witness Bablu (PW - 3) has also supported the version of his mother Ramkali Bai (PW - 1). Sujeet (PW - 4) is also the son of deceased. He has also given the evidence in the similar way as given by his mother Ramkali Bai (PW - 1). Pramila (PW - 2) and Bablu (PW - 3). He has mainly contended that accused Shankarlal abused his father who resisted thereafter he went to his house and returned therefrom having armed with Farsa. His companions Phoolchand armed with ballam and other appellants armed with lathi came there. They assaulted and caused injuries to his father and when his brother Bablu and mother Ramkali Bai tried to intervene they were also beaten. In the lengthy cross examination to this witness the contradictions have been brought from his earlier statement (Ex. D-3) but the contradictions are not material. He has denied the defence of the appellants put in cross examination. Thus Sujeet (PW - 4) has also supported the version of his mother Ramkali Bai (PW - 1). Laxmi Vanshkar (PW - 13) is Bhabhi (wife of elder brother of deceased). She has stated that the appellants were armed with farsa, ballam and lathi. They assaulted Mangal on account of which he sustained injuries. Thus Sujeet (PW - 4) has also supported the version of his mother Ramkali Bai (PW - 1). Laxmi Vanshkar (PW - 13) is Bhabhi (wife of elder brother of deceased). She has stated that the appellants were armed with farsa, ballam and lathi. They assaulted Mangal on account of which he sustained injuries. They also caused marpeet to Ramkali Bai (PW - 1) and Bablu (PW - 3). Lengthy cross examination has been done to this witness also but her evidence has not been rebutted and is intact on the material point. Thus Ramkali (PW - 1), Pramila (PW - 2), Bablu (PW - 3), Sujeet (PW - 4) and Laxmi Vanshkar (PW - 13) have deposed against these appellants. They have stated in one voice that the appellants assaulted Mangal on account of which he sustained injuries and died. Nothing material has been brought on record so as to discredit their testimony. Their presence at the spot is not doubted. On the contrary, their presence is natural at that time hence their evidence inspires confidence. Pramila alias Chincho Bai (P.W. 9) was also present at that time. She was examined by the prosecution but has not supported the prosecution case hence declared hostile. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that since no independent witness has supported the prosecution case and the conviction of the appellants is based on the evidence of the interested witnesses, therefore, is not sustainable in the eye of law. But the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is not tenable for the simple reason that the incident occurred in front of the house of deceased and the presence of these witnesses was natural in their houses at that time. They have given evidence regarding the manner and method in which the incident occurred. Their evidence is intact on the material point and has not been rebutted, therefore, their evidence can not be brushed aside merely on the ground that they are the family members of the deceased Mangal Prasad. The incident occurred at 7:30 p.m. The report was lodged on the same day at 8:15 p.m. The report is promptly lodged. This was recorded by Shriniwas Rao (PW - 10) and thereafter Uttam Singh Sikarwar (PW - 15) prepared the panchnama of dead body Ex. The incident occurred at 7:30 p.m. The report was lodged on the same day at 8:15 p.m. The report is promptly lodged. This was recorded by Shriniwas Rao (PW - 10) and thereafter Uttam Singh Sikarwar (PW - 15) prepared the panchnama of dead body Ex. P-3 and the dead body was sent for post-mortem examination which was conducted by Dr. A. K. Yadu (PW - 7). He has deposed in his evidence that on examination he found the following anti-mortem external injuries on the person of deceased :- 1. Incised wound left fronto parietal scalp situated 3" above left eyebrow, 5" above top of the ear AP placed, 3.5" x 1/4" x 1/2" scalp clean cut. 2. Incised wound right frontal scalp transverse, 5" above right ear 1" x 1/2 x 1/2" scalp clean cut. 3. Lacerated wound in frontal scalp in midline, 1.5" above middle of eyebrows, transverse 1.5" x 1/2" x 1/2" scalp carotid. 4. Lacerated wound below left nipple on chest 1/2 x 1/4" x 1/4" with abrasion 2" x 1/2" lateral to it and in continuation with the lacerated wound. Such muscle lacerated below. 5. Lacerated wound medial to the nipple on chest size 1/2" x 1/4" x 1/4". 6. Red contusion top of right shoulder 2" x 1/2". 7. Red contusion front of right arm upper 3rd 2" x 1/2". 8. Red contusion back of left forearm 1" x 1/2". 9. Red contusion back of right thigh 3" x 1". 10. Linear red abrasion back of right leg 7" long. On internal examination of head, it was found that haematoma was found below scalp injury Nos. 1, 2 and 3. The fracture of frontal parietal bone was also found. Subdural haematoma was also found all around brain. According to his opinion, the death occurred within 24 hours of the examination. All injuries were anti-mortem in nature. Head injuries were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. The post-mortem report is Ex. P-30 which contains his signature. Nothing has been carved out in the cross examination to discredit his testimony. Thus medically it is established that the injuries were anti-mortem and sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The death was homicidal. Thus the medical evidence also supports the prosecution case. The post-mortem report is Ex. P-30 which contains his signature. Nothing has been carved out in the cross examination to discredit his testimony. Thus medically it is established that the injuries were anti-mortem and sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The death was homicidal. Thus the medical evidence also supports the prosecution case. Uttam Singh Sikarwar (PW - 15) who is Investigating Officer of this case recorded the disclosure statements of the appellants from Ex. P-5 to Ex. P-11 and in pursuance thereof farsa has been seized from Shankarlal vide seizure memo Ex. P-12 and the lathis have been seized from the other appellants vide seizure memo Ex. P-13 to Ex. P-20. The witnesses of these documents Ramchandra (PW - 5) and Dukhilal (PW - 6) have also supported the version of Uttam Singh Sikarwar (PW - 15). Thus this fact is established that the offence of weapons were recovered at the instance of disclosure statements given by appellants. Dr. Smt. R. K. Chaudhari (PW - 11) also examined Bablu and found the injuries as detailed in medical report Ex. P-38. Thus it is established that Bablu also sustained the injuries in this incident. The defence of appellants Shankarlal, Raghunath, Sanju and Virendra is that they were not present at the spot and the defence of Dharamdas and Devideen is that at that time Dharamdas had gone at a betel shop and Bablu armed with sword abused him. Mangal was also with him. He exhorted to kill him, therefore, he ran away and reached at the house of Devideen who is his maternal uncle. His maternal uncle Devideen said to close the door but Bablu and Mangal both attempted to break the door. Apprehending that they may kill Dharamdas, he inflicted sword blow to Mangal in exercise of his right of private defence. Thus these two appellants have taken the plea of right of defence of the person. But no evidence has been adduced in support of this defence. Some photographs have been produced and exhibited in the evidence of Laxmi Vanshkar (P.W. 13). It is evident that this incident has occurred in front of the house of deceased on the ground and not at the house of Devideen. The defence taken by these appellants have not been proved by adducing material evidence to support this defence. Some photographs have been produced and exhibited in the evidence of Laxmi Vanshkar (P.W. 13). It is evident that this incident has occurred in front of the house of deceased on the ground and not at the house of Devideen. The defence taken by these appellants have not been proved by adducing material evidence to support this defence. Thus it cannot be accepted that Dharamdas and Devideen were entitled to exercise their right of private defence and kill Mangal Prasad. The only evidence adduced by the appellants is that of Ashok Kumar Rai (D.W. 1) who has only deposed that on the report of Vishram Crime No. 472/98 was registered at Police Station Ghamapur against Bablu under Section 326 of IPC. The copy of register Ex. D-21 has been produced. This evidence in no way is helpful to the defence. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that there is enmity in between the parties, therefore, the evidence of the family members of the deceased cannot be accepted. Enmity is a double edged weapon which can be used from both the sides. If the possibility of falsely implicating the accused is there then the possibility of killing the person for that count can not be ruled out. In the facts and circumstances of this case, it is abundantly proved that Mangal Prasad was killed by these appellants on account of such enmity. Since the family members of the deceased were present at the house and they have witnessed the incident and have given the true account of this incident, therefore, their evidence is reliable. The trial Court has not committed any illegality in relying upon their evidence. We find no infirmity, illegality or perversity in the finding of the trial Court hence the same is hereby affirmed. This appeal is devoid of substance and deserves to be dismissed. Consequently, this appeal fails and is dismissed accordingly. Appellant Shankarlal is in jail Appellants Dharamraj, Devideen, Raghunath, Sanju and Virendra are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled. They be directed to surrender before C.J.M., Jabalpur on 13-3-2009 for serving out the remaining part of the sentence. Since appellant No. 2 Phoolchand has died during the pendency of the appeal, hence his appeal has been abated. Appeal dismissed.