SHIV CHARAN, J. Under challenge in the above mentioned connected appeals is the judgment and order dated 27. 3. 1999 passed by Special Judge (SC/st Act) Far-rukhabad in S. T. No. 37 of 1996 State v. Mijaji Lal and others. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellants Mijaji Lal, Gorej Lal, Ramjeet, Raghubeer, Prem Chandra and Kukkoo Mahajan for the of fence under sections 147, 148, 323/149, 324/149 and 302 IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment for the offence under section 302 IPC and also sentenced them for the offences under sections 147, 148, 323/149 and 324/149 IPC for various terms of sentence. The appellants Prem Chandra, Raghubeer and Kukkoo have separately been convicted under section 3 (2) (5) SC/st (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (in short, "the SC/st Act") simplicitor and sen tenced them to life imprisonment. Learned Sessions Judge also awarded fine with de fault stipulation. 2. The narration of the prosecution story is as follows: - Ram Swaroop Jatav, real brother of the deceased Shri Krishna, delivered the writ ten report Ext. Ka-1 at the police station Indergarh on 18. 6. 1996 at about 9:05 a. m. with the allegations that his brother Shri Kirshna and Mijaji Lal, Gore Lal and Ram Jeet Jatav residents of the same village were on cordial relation and had been living in the village. About two years earlier Ram Bux Jatav, brother of Mijaji Lal, disap peared from the village. He was a man of criminal antecedent. No trace was received of Ram Bux since then. Mijaji Lal and his brothers were suspicious and apprehensive that his brother has been murdered by Shri Krishna somewhere else and his dead body has also been disposed of. Due to this rea son, Mijaji Lal and his brothers were hav ing enmity with Shri Krishna and his fam ily members. It is also alleged that in the intervening night of 17/18. 6. 1996, when the complainant and his brother Shri Krishna along with his family members were lying on the roof of the house and were talking, at about 1. 30 a. m. Mijaji Lal, Gore Lal and Ram Jeet along with their companions Raghubir Singh Thakur, Kukku Mahajan and Prem Chand residents of Village Hazipur ascended on the roof duly armed with gun, country made pistol, Kulhari, Takora and Gandasa (sharp edged weap ons ). 30 a. m. Mijaji Lal, Gore Lal and Ram Jeet along with their companions Raghubir Singh Thakur, Kukku Mahajan and Prem Chand residents of Village Hazipur ascended on the roof duly armed with gun, country made pistol, Kulhari, Takora and Gandasa (sharp edged weap ons ). After emerging on the spot i. e. the roof, Mijaji Lal exhorted and instigated other accused persons to kill Shri Krishna and his other family members saying that he is the murderer of his brother Ram Bux and revenge has to be taken today. After exhortation Mijaji Lal opened fire by his gun on Shri Krishna and his other compan ions also started inflicting injuries to Shri Krishna for fulfilment of their common ob ject. Smt. Janak Dulari, wife of the deceased Shri Krishna, Jabar Singh (son), Narma Devi sister of the deceased and Km. Guddi daughter of Narma Devi rushed for rescue of Shri Krishna. All the accused persons inflicted and caused injuries to these per sons by firearm and other weapons. Neck and both the arms of Shri Krishna were severed by the accused persons by their weapons. Leaving the dead body of Shri Krishna on the roof of the house, the in jured persons were brought at the police station. 3. On the basis of the written report Ext. Ka-1, FIR of the case was registered at the police station Indergarh for the offence under sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and 307 IPC and Section 3 (1) (10) (2) SC/st Act. In vestigation was taken over by the then Sta tion Officer of the police station and during investigation he went at the spot, prepared site plan of the place of incident, took the simple and blood stained earth and other articles into custody and prepared ford of these items. Inquest report and other pa pers regarding the dead body were pre pared and dead body was sent for the post mortem. As the matter was relating to the offence of SC/st Act, hence the investiga tion of the case was later on entrusted to the Deputy S. P. concerned and after com pleting all the formalities, the Deputy S. P. submitted charge-sheet against the accused persons. 4. As the matter was relating to the offence of SC/st Act, hence the investiga tion of the case was later on entrusted to the Deputy S. P. concerned and after com pleting all the formalities, the Deputy S. P. submitted charge-sheet against the accused persons. 4. After framing the charge for the above offences, the prosecution examined Ram Swaroop P. W. I, Smt. Narma Devi P. W. 2, Smt. Jankak Dulari P. W. 3, p. w. 6 as the witnesses of fact and incident. Ram Swaroop P. W. I has proved the written report Ext. Ka-1. Dr. A. P. Chaturvedi P. W. 4 is the formal witness. He conducted the post mortem of the dead body of Shri Krishna deceased on 19. 6. 1996. He proved post mortem report Ext. Ka-2. H. C. P. Divari Lal P. W. 5 is also a formal witness. He proved the chik FIR Ext. Ka-4 and copy of G. D. Ext. Ka-3. Dr. Ram Kumar P. W. 7 conducted medical ex amination of the injuries of Km. Tara, Smt. Narma Devi, Smt. Janak Dulari and Jabar Singh on 18. 6. 1996 between 8. 40 to 9. 00 p. m. He prepared the injury reports of the injured and also proved the injury reports Ext. Ka-5 to Ka-8. Ashok Kumar Tiwari Circle Officer P. W. 8 conducted the investi gation of the case and he stated that on 25. 6. 1996 he took over the investigation from the then S. O. of P. S. Indergarh and recorded the statement of the witnesses and after completing the investigation submitted charge-sheet against the accused persons which is Ext. Ka-9. Prabhu Dayal Singh P. W. 9 is the first I. O. who conducted preliminary investigation after registration of the case at the police station. He stated that C. O. Kannauj was outside of the City and hence part investigation was con ducted by him. He stated that during in vestigation he visited the spot and pre pared site plan. He proved the site plan Ext. Ka-10, Fard of blood stained and sim ple earth Ext. Ka-11, simple and blood stained rope (Banh) of the cot Ext. Ka-12, Fard of Khokha (cartridges) Ext. Ka-13, inquest report and other documents relat ing to post mortem of the dead body Ext. Ka-14 to Ka-18. 5. Accused persons in their state ments under section 313 Cr. Ka-10, Fard of blood stained and sim ple earth Ext. Ka-11, simple and blood stained rope (Banh) of the cot Ext. Ka-12, Fard of Khokha (cartridges) Ext. Ka-13, inquest report and other documents relat ing to post mortem of the dead body Ext. Ka-14 to Ka-18. 5. Accused persons in their state ments under section 313 Cr. P. C. denied the allegations and evidence of the prosecu tion. It has further been stated by the ac cused persons that deceased Shri Krishna was a known criminal and he was mur dered by some unknown miscreants and that miscreants used to visit at his resi dence. That a false case has been fabricated at the instance of certain villagers. Accused persons examined Constable Chhote Lal D. W. I, who proved the criminal history of the deceased Ext. Kha-1. This witness has also stated in his cross-examination that Ram Bux was also a person of criminal antecedent. There was a criminal history of Ram Bux also and he filed the criminal history of Ram bux Ext. Ka-20. 6. We have heard Sri B. D. Sharma and Sri J. N. Singh Advocates appearing for the appellants and learned AGA Shri A. K. Dwivedi for the State and perused the en tire material on record. 7. From perusal of the prosecution evidence it is evident that the present case is based on direct evidence. Incident took place on 18. 6. 1996 at about 1. 30 a. m on the roof of the house of the deceased Shri Krishna. Ram Swaroop P. W. I is the brother of the deceased. He stated that all the ac cused persons were previously known to him. Mijaji Lal, Gorey Lal and Ram Jeet were real brothers and rest of the accused persons, namely, Sri Kukku, Prem Chand and Raghubir Singh Thakur were known to the accused Mijaji Lal and others and they are the resident of different village. Ram Bux was the brother of Mijaji Lal and he was a man of criminal antecedent. He disappeared about two years earlier. The ac cused persons were apprehensive that Shri Krishna is master mind for disappearance of Ram Bux. Ram Bux was the brother of Mijaji Lal and he was a man of criminal antecedent. He disappeared about two years earlier. The ac cused persons were apprehensive that Shri Krishna is master mind for disappearance of Ram Bux. It is further stated by P. W. 1 that in the night of the incident he was sleeping on the roof of his house all alone and on other roof Shri Krishna, his wife Janak Dulari, son Jabar Singh and sister Narma Devi were lying. Three small kids were also lying there. Guddi daughter of Narma Devi was also sleeping on the same roof. There was a gap of 2-3 feet in between the both roofs. The occupant of another roof stated that they are awaking and he may sleep. At about 1. 30 a. m. on the roof of his brother Shri Krishna, the accused Mijaji Lal and others ascended, on which he also awoke. Mijaji Lal was saying to Shri Krishna that he is the murderer of his brother and exhorted other accused to shoot him. On it, Mijaji Lal and other ac cused persons opened fire on Shri Krishna. Mijaji Lal was holding gun at the time of the incident. Other accused persons were holding country made pistol and Takora, Kulhari and Gandasa (sharp edged weap ons ). These accused persons also severed the neck and arms of Shri Krishna by Gandasa and Takora besides causing injuries by fire arm. When Narma Devi, Janak Du-lari and Jabar Singh rushed for the rescue of Shri Krishna, they were also beaten and caused injuries. Janak Dulari and Jabar Singh sustained fire arm injuries. Narma Devi sustained injuries by blunt object on the arm. P. W. 1 has further stated that at the time of the incident he was possessing a torch and he flashed the torch at the time of the incident and he saw the entire incident in the light of the torch. In cross-examination he also supported the prose cution story. The witness was also cross-examined on the point of criminal antece dent of the deceased. This witness has admitted in cross-examination that Mijaji Lal, Gorey Lal and Ram Jeet were resident of the same village while other accused persons are the resident of the different village. He has no enmity with them from earlier. The witness was also cross-examined on the point of criminal antece dent of the deceased. This witness has admitted in cross-examination that Mijaji Lal, Gorey Lal and Ram Jeet were resident of the same village while other accused persons are the resident of the different village. He has no enmity with them from earlier. There had been no conversation with other accused persons prior to the in cident. He heard about 7-8 shots on the spot. He also raised alarm. No fire was opened towards him and he did not rush for the rescue of his brother. He denied the suggestion of the accused persons that no incident was seen by him and he came next day in the morning after getting informa tion. He has also denied the suggestion that Shri Krishna deceased was a man of criminal antecedent and he was murdered by unknown miscreants at unknown time. 8. Smt. Narma Devi P. W. 2, Smt. Janak Dulari P. W. 3 and Jabar Singh P. W. 6 are also the witnesses of fact and incident and it is a significant point that all these three witnesses were sleeping on the same roof where the incident took place and Shri Krishna was also lying. Smt. Janak Dulari is the wife and Jabar Singh is the son of the deceased Whereas Narma Devi is the sister of the deceased. It has been stated by Smt. Narma Devi that she was married with Atma Ram in a different village earlier to the incident but her husband was mur dered and hence after the murder of the husband she had been living in the same village along with her brother. This fact has not been disputed by the accused persons also in cross- examination. Km. Guddi was also injured in the incident and she was also sleeping on the same roof at the time of the incident. Smt. Narma Devi P. W. 2 has stated in her statement that she sustained injuries in this incident of murder of Shri Krishna. It was the time at 1. 30 a. m. At the time of the incident Shri Krishna was lying on the roof along with Janak Dulari his wife and son Jabar Singh and she was lying on her roof along with Guddi her daughter. She heard the noise of fire arm from the roof of Shri Krishna. It was the time at 1. 30 a. m. At the time of the incident Shri Krishna was lying on the roof along with Janak Dulari his wife and son Jabar Singh and she was lying on her roof along with Guddi her daughter. She heard the noise of fire arm from the roof of Shri Krishna. After awaking she saw that there were six accused persons on the roof of Shri Krishna, namely, Mijaji Lal, Gorey Lal, Ram Jeet, Prem Chand, Raghu-bir Singh and Kukku. At that time she saw that Mijaji Lal was possessing gun, Gorey Lal was armed with Gandasa, Ram Jeet with Takora and rest were possessing country made pistols. These accused per sons opened fire on her brother Shri Krishna. Her sister-in-law (Bhabhi) tried to save Shri Krishna and she also sustained fire arm injuries on her arm. Jabar Singh also sustained fire arm injuries. Gorey Lal struck with a Danda to her and her daughter. All accused persons also opened fire. About 6-7 round were fired by the ac cused persons. After sustaining fire arm injuries Shri Krishna fell down on the ground and when Shri Krishna was lying, Gorey Lal chopped off the neck of Shri Krishna by Gandasa and Ram Jeet severed both the arms of Shri Krishna by Takora a sharp edged weapon. That all of them were trying to rescue Shri Krishna and were also crying. There was, a light of electricity and his brother was also flashing torch and she has identified the assailants in the light of the torch. Due to fear they did not go at the police station in the night and went at the police station in the morning. Mijaji Lal and his brothers are residents of her village and remaining three accused persons are resi dents of Hazipur and are the friends of Mijaji Lal. In cross-examination also she stated that her husband was murdered. That her son is a police constable. There was no criminal case against her husband. That she was interrogated by Daroga in connection with the murder of her brother and she narrated the entire story to the In vestigating Officer. It was also stated that there was electric light on the spot at the time of the incident besides the light of the torch. She has specifically denied the ab sence of any source of light on the spot. It was also stated that there was electric light on the spot at the time of the incident besides the light of the torch. She has specifically denied the ab sence of any source of light on the spot. She also denied the suggestion that Shri Krishna was murdered by some unknown criminals due to criminal antecedent of his brother. Janak Dulari P. W. 3 and Jabar Singh P. W. 6 are also the eye-witnesses and both these witnesses specifically stated that at time of the incident they were lying at the roof along with Shri Krishna. Janak Dulari is the wife of the deceased whereas Jabar Singh is the son. They have also stated that they tried to rescue Shri Krishna from the clutches of the accused persons and during the course of rescuing they also sustained fire arm and other injuries. Un-disputably the incident took place at about 1. 30 a. m on 18. 6. 1996 at the roof of Shri Krishna. Under these circumstances they are the natural witness of the incident. It has not been suggested by the Counsel for the accused that incident took place at some other unknown place and thereafter dead body was brought at the roof in order to show the roof as place of incident. There was no such suggestion in the statement of the witnesses from which inference can be drawn that incident took place at some un known place and thereafter the dead body was brought at the roof. Even the accused persons in their statements under section 313 Cr. P. C. has not stated that incident took place at some other place in order to show the disc edibility of the witnesses. The spot is also material. 9. Dr. A. P. Chaturvedi P. W. 4 con ducted post mortem of the dead body of the deceased Shri Krishna on 19. 6. 1996 at about 2. 10 p. m According to his statement and the post mortem report Ext. Ka-2, fol lowing ante mortem injuries were found on the body of the deceased. 1. Incised wound through and through with amputation over neck. The head was separated from the trunk. 2. Multiple incised wound over an area of 35 cm x 28 cm over chest, upper abdomen & both upper limbs, chest & abdomen cavity ex posed. Ka-2, fol lowing ante mortem injuries were found on the body of the deceased. 1. Incised wound through and through with amputation over neck. The head was separated from the trunk. 2. Multiple incised wound over an area of 35 cm x 28 cm over chest, upper abdomen & both upper limbs, chest & abdomen cavity ex posed. All ribs with sternum & thoracic vertebra cut at places, chest organs, Abdomen viscera. , Kidney cut at places. Both upper limbs at the level of upper l/3rd arm cut through and through, am-puted part present. 3. Incised wound 10 cm x 4 cm on back of right elbow, bone cut. 4. Fire arm wound gutter shaped on outer side of shoulder, joint mar gins inverted & lacerated interiorly averted & lacerated posterior, blackening and tattooing pre sent around the wound. 5. Fire arm wound of entry 3. 5 cm x 3 cm x bone deep back of left glottal region on its middle part margins averted and lacerated. Tattooing and blackening around the wound present. On dissection one wadding, one Tikli, 11 small shots pel lets were recovered from muscles. 6. Incised wound in 11 numbers over front of right thigh, front knee in an area of 32 x 18 cm measuring from 15 cm x 3 cm x bone deep to 7 x 3 cm muscle deep. Dr. Chaturvedi opined that all these incised wounds were present in different direction with clean cut edges. According to the opinion of Doctor deceased died due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries. ( 10. Doctor further stated that injury Nos. 1 to 3 and 6 were caused by sharp edged weapons like Gandasa and Takora. Injury No. 4 and 6 were caused by fire arm. The death was instantaneous. In cross- examination he stated that he cannot state about the shape of Takora but all the in cised wounds were caused by sharp edged weapon. He also stated that death was possible in the intervening night of 17/18. 6. 1996 at 1. 00 to 2. 00 a. m There can be variation of six hours in timing of death. That fire arm injuries were caused from a distance of within three feets as there was blackening and tattooing. He also stated that death was possible in the intervening night of 17/18. 6. 1996 at 1. 00 to 2. 00 a. m There can be variation of six hours in timing of death. That fire arm injuries were caused from a distance of within three feets as there was blackening and tattooing. The statement of this witness shows that the deceased Shrij Krishna sustained injuries by sharp edged weapons as well as fire arm as stated by the prosecution. The head was separated from the trunk and both the arms were severed. The body was in four pieces at the time of the examination. 11. According to the prosecution story Smt. Janak Dulari wife, Jabar Singh son of the deceased, Narma Devi sister and Km. Guddi her daughter also sustained injuries in the incident. Dr. Ram Kumar P. W. 7 con ducted the medical examination of these injured. According to the Doctor following injuries were found on the body of Km. Tara alias Guddi: 1. Complaint of pain left side hip re gion but no. mark of external inju ries were visible. Advised X-ray. 12. Following injuries were found on the body of Smt. Narma Devi: 1. Traumatic swelling with contusion in the area of 3. 0 cm x 8 cm over left elbow joint and forearm upto wrist. Advised X-ray. 2. Traumatic swelling 9 cm x 5 cm area on right elbow joint. 3. Abraded contusion red in the area of 19 x 2 cm front on left side back of chest & lumber region. 4. Contusion 10 cm x 8 cm on left side thigh upper part. Injury No. 1 was kept under observa tion and Advised X-ray. Injury No. 2 to 4 were simple. All these injuries were caused by blunt object. 13. Following injuries were found on the body of Janak Dulari: 1. Lacerated wound 4 cm. x 2 cm x bone deep front on dorsum of left palm at the back of index and middle finger, surrounded by gun power 9x5 cm area margins lac erated, clotted blood present. Ad vised X-ray. 2. Lacerated wound 2. x 05 cm x muscle deep on left wrist clavical region margins inverted, clotted blood present with tattooing in area of 3 x 3 cm. Advised X-ray. 3. Red abraded contusion 6 cm. x 3 cm area right side shoulder. Injury Nos. Ad vised X-ray. 2. Lacerated wound 2. x 05 cm x muscle deep on left wrist clavical region margins inverted, clotted blood present with tattooing in area of 3 x 3 cm. Advised X-ray. 3. Red abraded contusion 6 cm. x 3 cm area right side shoulder. Injury Nos. 1 and 2 were kept under observation. Injury No. 3 was simple in nature. Duration about one day. 14. Following injuries were found on the body of Jabar Singh: 1. Gun shot wound of entries in the area of 19 cm x 3 cm over left side forearm and lower part of arm and elbow. Size 0. 2 x 0. 2 cm skin to muscle deep to 0. 5 x 0. 5 cm x skin to muscle deep margin lacerated, inverted. Clotted dry blood pres ent. Advise X-ray. 2. lacerated wound 1 cm x 0. 5 cm x muscle deep from right arm lower 1/3 part with traumatic swelling in the area of 4 cm x 4 cm. 3. Abrasion 2. 5 cm x 1 cm area front on left side lumber region. Injury No. 1 kept under observation. Injury No. 2 and 3 were simple. Injury No. 1 was caused by fire arm and injury No. 2 and 3 were caused by blunt object. Dura tion one day. 15. It is alleged by the prosecution that injuries were caused by blunt object to Km. Guddi alias Tara and Narma Devi whereas fire arm injuries were caused to Janak Dulari and Jabar Singh, wife and son of the deceased besides injury of blunt ob ject. According to the injuries of the de ceased he also sustained injuries of fire arm as well as sharp edged weapon. Firstly it is material to decide that whether the inci dent took place in the manner according to the averments of the prosecution and whether the incident took place on 18. 6. 1996 at about 1. 30 a. m. at the roof of the deceased. In this connection it would be material to ascertain that who may be the natural and reliable witness of the incident and whether there was any source of light in order to see the incident. As we have stated above, it is a definite case of the prosecution that incident took place over the roof of the deceased in the month of June 1996. As we have stated above, it is a definite case of the prosecution that incident took place over the roof of the deceased in the month of June 1996. It has been denied on behalf of the prosecution that the incident was committed by some unknown miscreants at some unknown time and afterwards the appellants have been falsely implicated in the case. But the case of the accused as suggested to the witnesses is that the de ceased Shri Krishna was a man of criminal antecedent. Unknown criminals used to visit at his residence in the night and these unknown miscreants committed the mur der of the deceased over the roof. But even then it is a established fact that Shri Krishna was done to death at the roof of his house on 18. 6. 1996. This fact is relevant in the circumstances that if the incident took place at the house of the deceased in the dead hours of the night then who will be reliable and natural witness. Public at large is not expected to be present on the spot at the time of the incident during night. In these circumstances it is expected that the deceased was sleeping over the roof along with his family members wife and son. The presence of wife and son of the deceased cannot be brushed aside from the spot and it is also a very significant circumstance in this case that wife and son of the deceased sustained fire arm injuries. It cannot be be lieved that Janak Dulari and Jabar Singh sustained injuries in some other manner at some other place at the hand of some un known persons. During the summer season the villagers are expected to sleep over the roof in the night and they cannot be ex pected to sleep inside the rooms of the house during summer season specially in the month of June when the heat remains at the climax. Under these circumstances naturally the deceased was sleeping over his roof along with his wife and son. Other inhabitants of the adjoining houses are also expected to sleep over their roof. Under these circumstances naturally the deceased was sleeping over his roof along with his wife and son. Other inhabitants of the adjoining houses are also expected to sleep over their roof. Although Ram Swaroop and Smt. Narma Devi are the brother and sister of the deceased but nothing has come in the evidence that their houses were not adjacent and in the near neighbourhood of the house of the de ceased and as the season was of summer, hence Ram Swaroop and Smt. Narma Devi were also sleeping on the roof of their house. It also cannot be expected that when they were sleeping over the roof of their houses in the close vicinity of the place of incident, they will remain indifferent from the fact that what is going on over the adja cent roof. The manner of incident shows that it was committed in a great dimension. Shri Krishna sustained injuries not only of the fire arm but also of the sharp edged weapon. The murder was committed in a very brutal manner and from the manner in which the murder was committed only inference can be drawn that the purpose and intention of the assailants was not only to commit the murder or death of the de ceased but was rather beyond that. One wanted to take revenge and settle some score from the deceased by committing the murder in such ghastly and brutal manner. If the intention was only to cause death of the deceased then by inflicting fire arm in jury death would have been caused. Then there was no necessity to chop off the head from the trunk making the body into two pieces. The prosecution has alleged that Mijaji Lal firstly caused fire arm injuries to the deceased and when Shri Krishna fell down on the roof, then his head was chopped off by Gandasa. The assailants were not satisfied by severing the head of the deceased from the trunk but had gone beyond that, both the arms were also severed and thus dead body was in four pieces when it was received by the Doctor for post-mortem. This brutal manner shows that the intention of the assailants was not only to cause murder of the deceased but was rather to commit the murder in brutal manner to teach a lesson. This brutal manner shows that the intention of the assailants was not only to cause murder of the deceased but was rather to commit the murder in brutal manner to teach a lesson. It was very grue some murder, and the manner in which the murder of Shri Krishna was committed only inference can be drawn that the case is not such in which the incident took place in a hit and run manner, but it appears that the assailants remained at the spot for con siderable time. If an incident shall be committed in such a manner, then persons who are sleeping or lying by the side of the deceased are natural witnesses. It is but natural that they will awoke and rush for the rescue of their close and dear one and in the present case also this fact appears justified. After hearing noise of fire arm wife and son of the deceased as well as other relations awoke and rushed for res cue. Ram Swaroop is the brother of the de ceased and he was lying on his roof at time of the incident. After hearing the noise of 0 fire arm he awoke and flashed torch in or der to see what is happening and he saw that the accused are six in number, then he did not rush to rescue the deceased due to fear, but even then he saw the incident. Sister and daughter rushed towards the spot. The injuries of Smt. Janak Dulari and Jabar Singh cannot be called self inflicted. even fire arm injuries were sustained by them, hence on this ground that both these inhabitants of the house sustained fire arm injuries, establishes that they were natural witness of the incident otherwise also as the incident took place at the house in the dead hours of the night, then if they might have not sustained any injuries then also there was no reason to discard their testi mony. But as stated above, the place of incident is most material to draw the infer ence that who may be the natural witness of the incident and in the circumstances natural witness shall be the person closely related to the deceased. 16. But as stated above, the place of incident is most material to draw the infer ence that who may be the natural witness of the incident and in the circumstances natural witness shall be the person closely related to the deceased. 16. It has been vehemently argued by learned Counsel for the appellants that in the present case all the witnesses examined fly the prosecution, are the close relation of the deceased, whereas possibility is that if the incident might have happened in the manner alleged by the prosecution, then other independent witnesses were natural to be present on the spot. That neither the independent witnesses were shown in the FIR nor examined and merely on the basis of the evidence of close relation of the deceased the learned Sessions Judge was not justified in convicting the appellants for the offence. Undisputedly all the witnesses who have been examined by the prosecution are the close relation of the deceased but it will not be justified to discredit the testimony of witnesses merely on the ground that they are the close relation of the deceased. It has been held by Honble Apex Court as well as by this Court in sev eral judgments that the evidence of related and inimical witnesses cannot be discarded merely on this ground. But it has been provided that their evidence must be ac cepted with care and caution. The Court is. expected to scrutinize the truthfulness of the evidence of close relation. In the pres ent case as We have stated above, the inci dent took place on the roof of the house of the deceased at about 1. 30 a. m in the dead hours of the night and in this circumstance "only the close relation may be the natural witnesses. Besides the wife and son of the deceased, prosecution also examined Ram Swaroop P. W. I real brother of the deceased and Smt. Narma Devi sister of the de ceased. We have stated above that the in juries of the wife and son cannot be said self inflicted or fabricated in order to show themselves as witnesses. Even without sustaining injuries by these closed relations their testimony could have been relied upon because they are the most natural witnesses. We have stated above that the in juries of the wife and son cannot be said self inflicted or fabricated in order to show themselves as witnesses. Even without sustaining injuries by these closed relations their testimony could have been relied upon because they are the most natural witnesses. But as in the circumstance of the case both these close relation of the de ceased rushed for the rescue of the de ceased and in that course they sustained injuries. The Honble Apex Court has held that the presence of the injured witness at the scene of occurrence cannot be doubted. It has been held in Shivalingappa Kallay-anappa and others v. State of Karnataka. 1994 SCC (Crl.) 1694. "the fact that the two deceased persons met homicidal death and that P. Ws. 2 to 4 received injuries in the same occurrence is beyond dispute. When once presence of P. Ws. 2 to 4, they being injured, at the scene of occur rence is not doubted, then their evi dence assumes great importance and unless there are strong grounds the same cannot be rejected on the basis of some minor discrepancies. " 17. Honble Apex Court further held in Nagarjit Ahir etc. v. State of Bihar: 2005 (51) ACC 740 (SC)=2005 (27) AIC 697 (SC ). "it was then submitted that in spite of the fact that large number of per sons had assembled at the bank of the river at the time of occurrence, the witnesses examined are only those who are, members of the family of the deceased, or in some manner connected with him. We cannot lose sight of the fact that four of such witnesses are injured witnesses and, therefore, in the ab sence of strong reasons, we cannot discard their testimony. The fact that they are related to the de ceased is the reason why they were attacked by the appellants. Moreo ver, in such situations though many people may have seen the occurrence, it may not be possible for the prosecution to examine each one of them. In fact, there is evidence on record to suggest that when the occurrence took place, people started running helter- skelter. In such a situation it would be indeed difficult to find out of other persons who had witnessed the occurrence. In fact, there is evidence on record to suggest that when the occurrence took place, people started running helter- skelter. In such a situation it would be indeed difficult to find out of other persons who had witnessed the occurrence. In any event, we have the evidence of as many as 7 witnesses, 4 of them injured, whose evidence has been found to be reli able by the Courts below, and we find no reason to take a different view. " 18. On the same ground Honble Apex Court held in Baitullah and another v. State of U. P. 1998 (2) ACC 239 (SC) = 1997 AIR SC 3946. "moreover, there is nothing in the cross-examination of P. Ws 2 to 4 seriously in discard their version about the occurrence. The High Court has rightly pointed out that merely because the witnesses are interested/related, their evidence cannot be brushed aside as it is normally expected that they will not leave out the real culprits and rope in the innocent persons. " 19. Same principle has also been laid down by Honble Apex Court in Rama Shish Rai v. Jagdish Singh, 2005 (52) ACC 811 (SC ). "we are clearly of the view that the findings of the High Court were er roneous, resulting in grave mis carriage of justice. The eye witnesses- P. Ws. 1, 2, 3, 5, 8 and 10 consistently supported the case of the prosecution throughout. They were subjected to lengthy cross-examination but nothing could be elicited from their mouth so as to discard the creditworthiness of their statements. The ocular evi dence of the eye-witnesses were corroborated in material particu lars with the medical evidence. In our view, therefore, the acquittal recorded by the High Court on the aforesaid reasoning is perverse. The High Comfr discarded the eye- I witness account, branded them as inimical witnesses. This is not the requirement of law. The require ment of law is that the testimony of inimical witnesses has to be con sidered with caution. If otherwise the witnesses are true and reliable their testimony cannot be thrown out on the threshold by branding them as inimical witnesses. By now, it is well settled principle of law that enmity is a double edged sword. It can be a ground for false implication. It also can be a ground for assault. If otherwise the witnesses are true and reliable their testimony cannot be thrown out on the threshold by branding them as inimical witnesses. By now, it is well settled principle of law that enmity is a double edged sword. It can be a ground for false implication. It also can be a ground for assault. Therefore, a duty is cast upon the Court to examine the tes timony of inimical witnesses with due caution and diligence. In the present case the High Court has rejected the otherwise credit wor thy testimony of eye-witnesses ac count merely on the ground that there was enmity between the prosecution party and the accused party. " 20. The judgments of Honble Apex Court and this High Court of the following cases are also relevant. 1. State of U. P. v. Farid Khan and oth ers, 2005 (52) ACC 918. 2. Rameshwar and others v. State of U. P. , 2005 (46) ACC 581. 3. Ram Kishan v. State of UP, 2004 (50) ACC 453 (SC) = 2004 (22) AIC 88. 4. Naseer v. State of U. P. 2003 (46) ACC 505 (Alld) (L. B. ). 21. Besides the above judgments there is a catena of judgments in which Honble Apex Court and this Court time and again held that the statement of-a related and inimical witness must not be discarded on this ground alone. But their statement must be accepted with care and1 caution. In the present case we have carefully and cau tiously scrutinized the statements of the witnesses who are the close relation of the deceased and we are of the opinion that the statements of these witnesses are wholly reliable and we disagree with the argument of learned Counsel for the appellants that their statement must be discarded as they are close relations. It has not come in the evidence that any independent witness was also present on the spot at the time of the incident. 22. It has also been argued by learned Counsel for the appellants that according to the prosecution story incident took place at about 1. 30 a. m in the night. Under these circumstances it is very material that 3 whether there was any light on the spot at the time of the incident so as to identify the accused persons. 22. It has also been argued by learned Counsel for the appellants that according to the prosecution story incident took place at about 1. 30 a. m in the night. Under these circumstances it is very material that 3 whether there was any light on the spot at the time of the incident so as to identify the accused persons. Learned Counsel argued in this connection that although in the FIR as well as the witnesses in their statements stated that Ram Swaroop P. W. I was having a torch at the time of the incident and he flashed torch light at the place of incident and that in the light of the torch witnesses saw the assailants, no fard recovery was prepared by the I. O. of the torch. If really Ram Swaroop was possessing a torch at the time of the incident then the same might have been shown and delivered to the I. O. and a fard should have been prepared of the torch but as fard has not been prepared of the torch, hence the presumption must be drawn that there was no torch. Learned Counsel also argued that there is no mention in the FIR and also in the site plan about the electric light. The I. O. has not shown any electric pole having a bulb so as to draw the inference of the light on the spot. That the prosecution has developed this fact in evidence that there was also the light of bulb on the spot at the time of the incident. But as I. O. has not shown any electric pole in the site plan, hence it cannot be inferred that in the light of bulb also witnesses identified the assailants. That the benefit of this fact must be given to the ac cused. It is a fact that no fard was prepared of the torch but I. O. has stated that he saw the torch. Moreover, regarding the source of light prosecution mentioned this fact in the FIR itself. Regarding the torch it is not a fact which was developed later on. If there had been some negligence on the part of the I. O. in not preparing fard then no benefit can be given to the accused. Moreover, regarding the source of light prosecution mentioned this fact in the FIR itself. Regarding the torch it is not a fact which was developed later on. If there had been some negligence on the part of the I. O. in not preparing fard then no benefit can be given to the accused. Moreo ver, one of the witness has stated that there was also the light of the moon on the date of incident as the moon was in full form at the time of the incident. Also this fact ap peared during cross examination in the evidence of the witness. But learned Coun sel for the appellants has not produced the relevant documents before the Court in this connection to falsify this statement of the witness. 23. Moreover three of the accused persons are the resident of the same village and they were known to the witnesses from earlier. There can be no doubt about the identity of these three accused persons. It may be argued on behalf of other set of accused persons who belonged to another village and were not connected and could not be identified by the witnesses. Regard ing involvement of these three accused per sons who belonged to different village will be considered later on. Regarding source of light there is consistency in the statement of the witnesses and this fact cannot be doubted in any manner. 24. Regarding negligence on the part of the I. O. AGA argued that no benefit can be given to the accused persons due to negligence of I. O. and in this connection learned Counsel cited Gopal v. State of U. P. 1999 (39) ACC 98 (FB) It has been held by Full Bench of this Court: "in our view investigation of the case if faulty even mischievous or collu sive should not be a ground to re ject the ocular testimony of the in formant who lodged the FIR promptly. " 4 25. Honble Apex Court also held in a case in Amar Singh v. Balwinder Singh and others. 2003 (46) ACC 619 = 2003 (4) AIC 580 (SC ). " 4 25. Honble Apex Court also held in a case in Amar Singh v. Balwinder Singh and others. 2003 (46) ACC 619 = 2003 (4) AIC 580 (SC ). "in Paras Yadjip and others v. State of Bi har, while commenting upon cer tain omissions of the investigating agency, it wits held that it may be that such lapse is committed designedly or because of negli gence and hence the prosecution evidence is required to be exam ined de hors such omissions to find out whether the said evidence is reliable or not. Similar view was taken in Ram Bihari Yadav v. State of Bihar, when this Court observed that in such cases the story of the prosecution will have to be exam ined de hors such omissions and contaminated conduct of the officials, otherwise, the mischief which the complainant party and this would obviously shake the confi dence of the people not merely in the law enforcing agency but also in the administration of justice. In our opinion the circumstances re lied upon by the High Court in holding that the investigation was tainted are not of any substance on which such an inference could be drawn and in a case like the pres ent one where the prosecution case is fully established by the direct testimony of the eye-witnesses, which is corroborated by the medi cal evidence, any failure or omission of the Investigating Officer cannot render the prosecution case doubtful or unworthy of belief. " 26. Hence in view of the above judg ment we are not inclined to accept the ar gument of learned Counsel for the appel lants and merely due to the reason that the I. O. failed to prepare the fard of the torch it will not be justified to draw the inference that there was no source of light to see the accused persons. We are of the opinion that witness Ram Swaroop was possessing torch and he flashed torch light on the place of incident at the time of incident and in that light of the torch witnesses saw the assailants and this fact was mentioned in the FIR itself. Moreover three of the assailants v/ere known to the witnesses from earlier as belonged to the same village. 27. Moreover three of the assailants v/ere known to the witnesses from earlier as belonged to the same village. 27. It has also been argued by learned Counsel for the appellant that the circumstances of the case shows the FIR is ante timed. He argued that according to the averments of the FIR the injured were taken at the police station at the time of lodging of the FIR. It means that after regis tration of the case Chitthi Majroobi was delivered to the injured. Under these cir cumstances crime number ought to have been mentioned on the Chitthi Majroobi. But surprisingly crime number has not been mentioned in any of the Chitthi Ma jroobi. Although it is a fact that no crime number has been mentioned on injury re port Ext. Ka 5 to Ka-8, but it can be a negligence on the part of Head Muharrir who issued the Chitthi Majroobi. In this cir cumstance of the case it cannot be inferred that up to 8. 40 p. m on 18. 6. 1996 FIR was not in existence, whereas according to chik FIR it was registered at 9. 05 a. m on 18. 6. 1996. There is a reason that as to why the injured were so lately medically exam ined. Earlier they were referred to PHC Indergarh, but later on referred to District Hospital Farrukhabad. Due to this reason also it will not be justified to draw the in ference that FIR was ante-timed. 5 28. It has also been argued by learned Counsel for the appellants that this case was registered for the offence of SC/st Act and it has been specifically provided in the Act that investigation of an offence under SC/st Act shall be conducted by an officer not below the rank of a Deputy S. P. That in spite of this provision after registration of the case, investigation was taken over by the Station Officer concerned, who was not of the rank of Deputy S. P. and due to this reason also the investigation was faulty. It is a fact that initially S. O. of P. S. Indergarh himself started the investigation, but later on the investigation of the case was en trusted to Sri Ashok Kumar Tiwari P. W. 8 and he was the Deputy S. P. at the time of the incident. It is a fact that initially S. O. of P. S. Indergarh himself started the investigation, but later on the investigation of the case was en trusted to Sri Ashok Kumar Tiwari P. W. 8 and he was the Deputy S. P. at the time of the incident. P. W. 9 Prabhu Dayal Singh, the then S. O. stated that on that date C. O. had gone at Kannauj and due to this reason he started the investigation. He only pre pared the site plan of the place of incident, prepared the inquest report and other rele vant documents for sending the dead body for post-mortem. Deputy S. P. recorded the statement of the witnesses. If the part of the investigation due to compelling circumstances was conducted by S. O. , then the investigation cannot be faulty and the case cannot be discarded for this very reason. Moreover, this is not such a fact due to which the entire prosecution shall be ren dered invalid and in our opinion no benefit can be given to the appellants on this ground. 29. Learned Counsel for the appel lants also argued that learned Sessions Judge was not justified in convicting the appellants Prem Chandra, Raghubeer and Kukkoo for the offence under SC/st Act. It has no where come in the evidence that murder of Shri Krishna was committed by the accused persons due to the reason that he belonged to scheduled caste. We agree with this argument of learned Counsel for the appellant that learned Sessions Judge was not justified in convicting the aforesaid appellants for the offence punishable under section 3 (2) (5) SC/s. T. Act. Murder of Shri Krishna was not committed by the appel lants due to the reason that he belonged to scheduled caste. Motive has been set up in the FIR as well as witnesses supported this fact. It has been alleged that one Ram Bux Jatav was the real brother of Mijaji Lal. Gorey Lal and Ramjeet Jatav and he disap peared from the village about two years earlier. Mijaji Lal and his brothers were suspicious that Shri Krishna deceased committed the murder of Ram Bux Jatav and thereafter disposed of his dead body. Hence the motive was available to Mijaji Lal and his brothers to eliminate Sri Krishna due to this reason. Gorey Lal and Ramjeet Jatav and he disap peared from the village about two years earlier. Mijaji Lal and his brothers were suspicious that Shri Krishna deceased committed the murder of Ram Bux Jatav and thereafter disposed of his dead body. Hence the motive was available to Mijaji Lal and his brothers to eliminate Sri Krishna due to this reason. We agree with the argument of learned Counsel for the appellants that the motive which was available to Mijaji Lal and others to commit the murder of Shri Krishna had nothing to do with the offence of SC/st Act. Murder of Shri Krishna was not committed on the ground that he belonged to Scheduled Caste. This part of the judgment of the Trial Court cannot be affirmed. 30. From the perusal of the entire evi dence of the prosecution it is a established fact that there are two set of accused persons in the present case. In one set of accused persons there are Mijaji Lal, Gorey Lal and Ramjeet Jatav. Motive has also been alleged by the prosecution against Mijaji Lal and his brothers. As stated above, Mijaji Lal and his brothers were apprehensive and suspecting that Shri Krishna committed the murder of their brother Ram Bux. Although no FIR was lodged against Shri Krishna 6 regarding dis appearance/murder of Ram Bux Jatav, but even then motive has been alleged regarding disappearance of Ram Bux and this fact has also not been disproved by any circum stance that this part of the prosecution story is wrong. Hence it is to be presumed that Ram Bux Jatav disappeared about two years earlier and Mijaji Lal and his brothers were suspicious regarding the hand of Shri Krishna in his disappearance. It has also been alleged by prosecution that due to this motive, murder of Shri Krishna has been committed. There is also one another set of accused persons, namely, Raghubir Singh Thakur, Kukku Mahajan and Prem Chand. It will be material to mention that Kukku Mahajan had died during pendency of this appeal and report had already been received regarding the death of Kukku Mahajan. But even then Kukku Mahajan was also an ac cused in this case and he was also an ac cused of second set of accused persons. It will be material to mention that Kukku Mahajan had died during pendency of this appeal and report had already been received regarding the death of Kukku Mahajan. But even then Kukku Mahajan was also an ac cused in this case and he was also an ac cused of second set of accused persons. The accused persons of second set belonged to different village, whereas Mijaji Lal and his brothers belonged to same village to which the deceased belonged. Learned Counsel for the appellants Raghubir Singh and Prem Chand argued that as these appellants be longed to different village and had no enmity or motive directly or indirectly, hence they have wrongly been roped in the present case. Moreover, it has also been argued that in the circumstances of the case it appears doubtful that these accused persons were known to the witnesses from earlier or they could have been identified by the witnesses on the spot. We have carefully scrutinized the evidence of the prosecution in this connection and it is a fact that these accused persons had no enmity directly or indirectly with the deceased. Moreover, not a single word has been stated regarding availability of the motive to Raghubir Singh and others for committing the murder of Shri Krishna. Regarding these accused persons it has only been alleged that they were on friendly rela tion with Mijaji Lal and others and due to this reason these accused persons joined Mijaji Lal and his brothers for committing the murder of Shri Krishna. All the wit nesses specifically stated that they had no opportunity of any dialogue with these ac cused persons. There had not been any al tercation or verbal dual with these accused persons earlier. Hence it may be a fact that these accused persons have wrongly been arrayed as accused in the present case. The complicity of these accused persons appears doubtful. It has also been argued that ac cording to the evidence of the prosecution all these three accused persons were armed with country made pistols, but it has not been stated specifically that these accused persons jointly or separately caused any in jury either to the deceased or to any of the injured. Specific role has been assigned in the commission of the offence of murder of Shri Krishna to Mijaji Lal, Gorey Lal and Ramjeet Jatav. Specific role has been assigned in the commission of the offence of murder of Shri Krishna to Mijaji Lal, Gorey Lal and Ramjeet Jatav. Mijaji Lal was armed with a gun and he opened fire on the deceased by the gun and thereafter Gorey Lal and Ram jeet chopped off the head of Shri Krishna and also severed both the arms. The role and active participation has been assigned to these accused persons; but no specific role has been assigned to remaining three accused persons. Under these circumstances we agree with the argument of learned Counsel for the appel lants that participation of these three accused persons in the commission of offence of mur der of Shri Krishna is highly doubtful and hence the benefit of doubt must be given to these accused. This doubt is not of such a na ture which entitled the Mijaji Lal and his brothers to get the benefit. The entire story cannot be held doubtful, because the partici pation of Mijaji Lal and his brothers in the commission of the offence of murder is a es tablished beyond reasonable doubt. Neither there can be any doubt regarding the identity of these three accused persons nor there is any doubt regarding their active participation in the commission of offence of murder. Hence no benefit can be given to Mijaji Lal and his two brothers if the case of the prose cution is held doubtful relating to Raghubir Singh and Prem Chand. 1. In this connection the judgment of Honble Apex Court in Israr v. State U. P. , 2005 (51) ACC 113 (SC) = 2005 (26) AIC 357 (SC) is most relevant. It has been held that: "27. To the same effect is the decision in State of Punjab v. Jagir Singh and Lehna v. State of Haryana. Stress was laid by the accused appellants on the non-acceptance of evidence tendered by some witnesses to contend about desirability to throw out the entire prosecution case. In essence prayer is to apply the principle of "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" (false in one thing, false in everything ). This plea is clearly untenable. Even if major portion of evidence is found to be deficient, in case residue is sufficient to prove guilt of an accused, notwithstand ing acquittal of a number of other co-accused persons, his conviction can be maintained. This plea is clearly untenable. Even if major portion of evidence is found to be deficient, in case residue is sufficient to prove guilt of an accused, notwithstand ing acquittal of a number of other co-accused persons, his conviction can be maintained. It is the duty of the Court to separate the grain from the chaff. Where the chaff can be separated from the grain. It would be open to the Court to convict an accused notwithstand ing the fact that evidence has been found to be deficient to prove guilt of other accused persons. Falsity of particular material witness or ma terial particular would not ruin it from the beginning to end. The maxim "falsus in unofalsus in omni bus" has no application in India and the witnesses cannot be branded as liars. The maxim "falsus in unofalsus in omnibus" has not re ceived general acceptance nor has this maxim come to occupy the status of rule of law. It is merely a rule of caution. All that it amounts to, is that in such cases testimony may be disregarded, and not that it must be disregarded. The doctrine merely involves the question of Wright of evidence which a Court may apply in a given set of cir cumstances, but it is not what may be called "a mandatory rule of evi dence". 32. Hence, in view of the aforesaid judgment of Honble Apex Court if the statement of the witnesses appears doubt ful regarding involvement of the one set of accused persons, on this ground the entire prosecution story cannot be discarded and disbelieved. In the circumstances of the present case, the involvement of one set of accused poisons appears doubtful, whereas the involvement of Mijaji Lal and his two brothers is a proved fact. Motive was available to them to commit the murder of Shri Krishna and they belong to the village of the deceased, whereas Raghubir Singh Thakur and others belong to different vil lage and there was no direct or indirect motive available to these accused persons to commit the murder of Shri Krishna. This story of prosecution cannot be believed that due to cordial relation with Mijaji Lal and his brothers these accused persons also joined them in committing the murder of Shri Krishna. Without any me and reason the unconcerned person will not join the real culprit in serious offence like murder. This story of prosecution cannot be believed that due to cordial relation with Mijaji Lal and his brothers these accused persons also joined them in committing the murder of Shri Krishna. Without any me and reason the unconcerned person will not join the real culprit in serious offence like murder. There must be some reason for the accused persons to participate in the offence of murder and not a single word has been stated by the prosecution against Raghubir Singh and others to commit the murder of Shri Krishna. Moreover, in view of several Judgments of Honble Apex Court, the Courts are expected to take out the grain from the heap of chaff and in view of the judgments of Honble Apex Court if the evidence of the prosecution appears doubt ful on one fact then it does not mean that the entire case of the prosecution must be thrown outright. 8 33. Hence keeping in view the obser vations made by the Honble Apex Court, we are of the opinion that participation of Raghubir Singh and Prem Chand appears highly doubtful. Hence they are entitled to the benefit of doubt and their appeal de serves to be allowed. 34. On the basis of the foregoing dis cussion, we come to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the ac cused appellants Mijaji Lal. Gorey Lal and Ramjeet Jatav beyond reasonable doubt. They belonged to same village of the deceased. Motive was available to these ap pellants to commit the murder of Shri Krishna and manner in which the murder of Shri Krishna has been committed establishes that murder was committed to take revenge. It is an established fact that brother of the appellant Mijaji Lal disap peared from the village about two years earlier and Mijaji Lal and his brothers were suspicious that Shri Krishna is involved in disappearance of their brother Ram Bux. They were also apprehensive that Ram Bux was murdered by Shri Krishna and dead body was disposed of. For the sake of re venge of suspected murder of his brother, Mijaji Lal and his two brothers named above committed the murder of Shri Krishna in a very cruel and brutal manner. The accused persons were not satisfied merely by causing the death of Shri Krishna by inflicting fire arm injuries or by sharp edged weapons. For the sake of re venge of suspected murder of his brother, Mijaji Lal and his two brothers named above committed the murder of Shri Krishna in a very cruel and brutal manner. The accused persons were not satisfied merely by causing the death of Shri Krishna by inflicting fire arm injuries or by sharp edged weapons. Besides causing fire arm injuries, these accused appellants chopped off the head of Shri Krishna from the trunk and also severed both the arms of the deceased in order to show their anger. The murder was very brutal and it was expected that such a murder may be committed only by a person who want to take revenge. Prosecution has also proved source of light on the spot. Reliable and natural witnesses have been produced by the prosecution and there is no reason to disbelieve the participation of the accused Mijaji Lal, Gorej Lal and Ramjeet Jatav. 35. It is worthwhile to mention that the learned Trial Court has convicted the appellants-accused both under sections 147 and 148i. P. C. whereas according to the FIR itself the accused persons were armed with deadly weapons, which were used in the incident for causing injuries to the deceased and injured persons. When the accused per sons were convicted and sentenced under section 148 IPC, then there was no need to convict and sentence them separately for the offence punishable under section 147 I. P. C. Charge under section 147 I. P. C. also should not have been framed against the appel lants-accused, who were armed with deadly weapons at the time of committing the of fence of rioting. Therefore, this part of the judgment is to be modified and conviction as well as sentence under section 147 I. P. C. is to be set aside. 36. It is also worthwhile to mention that the appellants-accused have been convicted and sentenced under section 302 simplicitor, although charge under section 302 read with section 149 IPC was framed. In our opinion, this irregularity is curable and conviction as well as sentence under section 302 IPC may be altered to section 302 read with section 149 IPC. 9 37. It is also worthwhile to mention that the appellants-accused have been convicted and sentenced under section 302 simplicitor, although charge under section 302 read with section 149 IPC was framed. In our opinion, this irregularity is curable and conviction as well as sentence under section 302 IPC may be altered to section 302 read with section 149 IPC. 9 37. Before parting with this judge ment, we would like to point out that the learned Trial Court has convicted and sen tenced the appellants-accused Prem Chandra, Raghuveer Singh and Kukkoo under section 302 IPC and these appellants have been separately convicted and sen tenced under section 3 (2) (5) SC/st Act simplicitor. This method of convicting and sentencing the appellant is not in accor dance with law. Section 3 (2) (5) SC/st Act does not constitute any substantive offence and conviction under section 3 (2) (5) SC/st Act simplicitor is wholly illegal. Section 3 (2) (5) SC/st Act provides as under: - "3 (2) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe.- (i ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (ii ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (iii ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :. . . . . . . . . (iv ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (v) commits any offence under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) punishable with imprisonment for a term of ten years or more against a person or property on the ground that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or such property belongs to such member, shall be punishable with imprisonment for life and with fine;" 38. As would appear from the lan guage used by the Legislature in section 3 (2) (5) SC/st Act, it is clear that this section does not constitute any substantive offence and if any person not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe commits any offence under the Indian Penal Code punishable with imprisonment for a term of ten years or more against a person or property on the ground that such person is a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe or such property belongs to such member, then with the aid of Section 3 (2) (5) SC/st Act enhanced punishment of life im prisonment would be awarded in such case, but conviction and sentence under section 3 (2) (5) SC/st Act simplicitor is not permis sible under law and in such cases the ac cused will be convicted for the offence under Indian Penal Code read with Section 3 (2) (5) SC/st Act and sentence of imprisonment for life and fine will be 0 awarded. Therefore, the appellants could not be convicted and sentenced under section 3 (2) (5) SC/st Act simplicitor. 39. For the reasons mentioned herein-above, Criminal Appeal No. 890 of 1999 filed on behalf of Mijaji Lal and others de serves to be dismissed, whereas criminal appeal No. 850 of 1999 filed on behalf of Raghubir Singh Thakur and others de serves to be allowed. 40. Consequently, Criminal Appeal No. 850 of 1999 is allowed. The appellants Prem Chand and Raghubir Singh are acquitted of all the offences. The order of conviction and sentence awarded by the Sessions Judge against these appellants is set aside. These accused are on bail. Their personal and surety bonds are cancelled and the sureties are dis charged. Appeal against the appellant Kuk koo stands abated due to his death. 41. Criminal appeal No. 890 of 1999 is dismissed with modification that convic tion and sentence of the appellants-accused Mijaji Lal, Gorej Lal and Ramjeet Jatav under section 147 is set aside and their con viction under section 302 IPC simplicitor is altered to section 302 read with section 149 IPC, but the sentence awarded by Trial Court is affirmed. Conviction and sen tences on other counts is also affirmed. These appellants are undergoing sentence in jail. They shall be kept there to serve out the remaining sentence. 42. Conviction and sen tences on other counts is also affirmed. These appellants are undergoing sentence in jail. They shall be kept there to serve out the remaining sentence. 42. Let a copy of this judgment along with Lower Court record be sent to the Trial Court concerned forth with for compliance. Appeal No. 850/99 Allowed Appeal No. 890/99 Dismissed. .