JUDGMENT Surjit Singh, J (Oral) The present eight appeals, whose particulars are given in the heading of this judgment, are being disposed of by a common judgment, as all of them are directed against two judgments delivered in the same Sessions Trial and evidence, upon which the judgments are based, is the same. The judgments are dated 20th January, 2005 and 22nd September, 2007, delivered by Sessions Court at Una. As a matter of fact, there could have been a single judgment, but the necessity for writing a second judgment arose, because one of the appellants (convicts), namely Gurjant Singh, after the close of the evidence by the prosecution and even after his own examination, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, absconded and he had to be declared a proclaimed offender, on account of his being not traceable. A separate judgment was written in his (Gurjant Singh’s) case on 22nd September, 2007. 2. We may notice the prosecution case, which led to the trial. Una Police filed a report, under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against 15 persons, under Sections 147, 148, 302, 323, 324, 341, 212, 201 and 120-B, read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 25 of the Arms Act. Out of the challaned 15 persons, eight, namely appellant Amrish Rana, appellant Gurjant Singh, appellant Harjinder Singh, appellant Naveen Kumar, Ashok Kumar (deceased), appellant Rahul Singh, appellant Malkiat Singh and appellant Manjit Singh, all of whom have filed separate appeals, were alleged to have formed an unlawful assembly, on 10th September, 1999, with the common object of making murderous assault upon PW-1 Ashwani Kumar, PW-2 Ram Pal, deceased Rajiv, deceased Santokh Singh, deceased Raj Kumar @ Kaka, another Raj Kumar son of Hari Prakash, and in prosecution of that object, all the above-named appellants and their deceased accomplice Ashok Kumar allegedly armed themselves with deadly weapons, like swords, Gandasis, hockey sticks, clutch wire, etc. and waylaid the above-named deceased and injured, when they were going by a Maruti Car to a place called Pir Nigah, near village Malahat, at a distance of 2-3 kms from Una. The above-named appellants and their deceased accomplice Ashok Kumar had allegedly blocked the road by parking a Car, bearing registration No.PB-7A-8408 and a motor cycle to force the injured and the deceased to stop at the site of the occurrence. The above-named appellants and their deceased accomplice Ashok Kumar had allegedly blocked the road by parking a Car, bearing registration No.PB-7A-8408 and a motor cycle to force the injured and the deceased to stop at the site of the occurrence. When the injured and the deceased, who were travelling by their Maruti Car No.HP-20A-0948, reached village Malahat, the road being blocked, as aforesaid, they had to bring their Car to a halt. As soon as the Car stopped, the injured and the deceased were attacked. They were still in the Car, when attacked. Front screen of the car of the injured and the deceased was broken and the injured and the deceased were attacked with sword by appellant Amrish Rana and with Gandasi by appellant Gurjant Singh, while other appellants attacked them with hockey-sticks, dandas and clutch wire. Injured and the deceased came out of the Car, one-by-one, and when they came out they were dealt more blows with the aforesaid weapons. The incident took place around 9.30 in the night. It was a lightning attack, as the appellants took only 3-4 minutes to accomplish the intended act. Thereafter, they escaped by Car No.PB-7A8408 and the motorcycle, which they used to block the road. Injured and the deceased raised alarm, but before the residents of village Malahat could come to their rescue the appellants fled from the scene. 3. Police was informed by someone, at 9.35 p.m., telephonically. Entry, copy Ex. PW-32/A, was made in the Rojnamcha, at Police Station, Una, with regard to the said information. SHO, PW-38 Inspector Kishan Singh, after getting the aforesaid information, went towards Mehatpur to prevent the assailants from escaping to the neighbouring State of Punjab. 4. At 10.05 p.m., a doctor from Una Hospital made a call to the police that condition of some of the injured persons, brought to the Hospital, was serious and police should reach immediately to take further action in the matter. PW-29 ASI Amar Singh then went to the Hospital. He enquired from PW-28 Dr. Shiv Pal Kanwar, if the injured were fit to make statements. The said doctor certified that PW-1 Ashwani Kumar and deceased Santokh Singh were fit to make statements. Thereafter, PW-29 ASI Amar Singh recorded statement Ex. PW-29 ASI Amar Singh then went to the Hospital. He enquired from PW-28 Dr. Shiv Pal Kanwar, if the injured were fit to make statements. The said doctor certified that PW-1 Ashwani Kumar and deceased Santokh Singh were fit to make statements. Thereafter, PW-29 ASI Amar Singh recorded statement Ex. PA, under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, of PW-1 Ashwani Kumar and sent the same to the Police Station for the formal registration of the case. By the time he was free (after having recorded Ex. PA) to record the statement of Santokh Singh, the second injured person, certified to be fit to make statement, he found that he (Santokh Singh) had become unconscious. So, he could not record his statement. 5. All the injured persons, including the deceased, who were alive when taken to the Hospital at Una, were medically examined by PW-28 Dr. Shiv Pal Kanwar. Within a few hours, one of the injured, named Rajiv Kumar died at Una Hospital. Two other seriously injured persons, namely Raj Kumar and Santokh Singh, were moved from Civil Hospital, Una, for better treatment to other places. Raj Kumar was taken to PGI, Chandigarh, where he breathed his last on 15th September, 1999. Santokh Singh was taken to Daya Nand Medical College-cum-Hospital, Ludhiana, where he expired on 16th September, 1999. Postmortem examinations were conducted by different doctors. 6. Postmortem examination of the dead body of Raj Kumar, who died on 10th September, 1999, itself, at Una Hospital, was conducted by PW-22 Dr. Parveen Bhardwaj. He noticed the following external injuries: 1. An incised wound on lower lip 2 cm fromleft angle of mouth 3x2x1 cm. Teeth were normal. 2. Incised wound 3 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep on left side of chest 7 cm above nipple at 11 O’ clock position. Placed parallel to ribs. 3. Incised wound 3 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep on left interior axillary line 13 cm above left nipple and 11 cm from wound No.2, placed obliquely. 4. Incised wound penetrating 3.5 cm x 1.5 cm on left side of lower part of the chest, on posterior axillary line. On probing it is traced to abdominal cavity, rupturing, diaphragm and spleen. 5. Incised wound 2 x 1.5 cm on right side of chest on post axillary line. It was traced to abdominal cavity rupturing liver (penetrating). 4. Incised wound penetrating 3.5 cm x 1.5 cm on left side of lower part of the chest, on posterior axillary line. On probing it is traced to abdominal cavity, rupturing, diaphragm and spleen. 5. Incised wound 2 x 1.5 cm on right side of chest on post axillary line. It was traced to abdominal cavity rupturing liver (penetrating). On opening the dead body, he noticed that pleurac was torn at two places, extending to external injuries No.4 and 5 above. Lower parts of larynx and trachea were lacerated and haemorrhaged. Peritoneum was incised on left side on upper part, cavity was full of blood. Liver was haemorrhagic and its right lobe was ruptured. Spleen was also haemorrhagic and ruptured on superior surface. The doctor opined that all the injuries were antemortem and were sufficient to cause death. According to him, time lag between the death and the postmortem was within 24 hours. He issued postmortem report Ex. PW-22/J. He opined that the injuries were possible by assault of Gandasis or Khukhris. 7. Postmortem of the dead body of Raj Kumar, who died in the PGI on 15th September, 1999, was conducted by PW-23 Dr. Surinder Singh. He noticed the following external injuries: 1. Oblique stitched wound with unhealthy granulation directed above downward and laterally was present over the right parieto occipital region of the scalp. Starting 22 cm posterior to nasion in the midline, length of wound was 10 cm. 2. 6 cm long/stitched wound directed from above downward and laterally toward the right was present over the right parietal and occipital region of scalp starting just below the middle of injury No.1. 3. 7 cm long oblique wound with unhealthy granulation directing above downward and laterally toward right starting 1.5 cm below the medial and injury No.2. 4. Curved 4 cm long wound starting 1.5 cm below injury No.3 and joining the injury No.3 in its middle. 5. Horizontal wound 4 cm long was present over right occipital region of scalp 5 cm posterior to the middle of right Pinna. 6. Abnrasion 3 x 1.5 cm with brown scab was present just posterior medial to right acromian. 7. Abrasion 5 x 1.5 cm with brown scab was present. Posterior aspect of right shoulder 1.5 cm posterior to medial injury No.6. 8. 6. Abnrasion 3 x 1.5 cm with brown scab was present just posterior medial to right acromian. 7. Abrasion 5 x 1.5 cm with brown scab was present. Posterior aspect of right shoulder 1.5 cm posterior to medial injury No.6. 8. Abrasion 3 x 1 cm with brown scab was present posterior service of right shoulder 2 cm below and medial to injury No.7. 9. Horizontal wound 5 x 1 cm size, muscle deep was present over medial aspect of right arm with both acute end 7 cm below right elbow joint. 10. Skin deep oblique wound present over 2 distal phalanx of left index finger. 11. 20 cm long partial healed wound directed above downward was present posterior aspect of left upper arm and left side of thorax. 12. 11 cm oblique curved wound concavity upward was present left occipital region. 13. 20 cm long partially healed wound which was oblique and superficial was present, starting 11 cm lateral to the mid line at the level of T1 and 11 cm at the level of TA. 14. 12 cm long partially healed wound oblique directing anterior posteriorally and laterally was present over the left fronto parietal region of scalp starting 7 cm posterior to level of left eyebrow. 15. Brown abrasion of 1 x 1 cm was present on the bridge of nose. On opening of the head, following injuries were found: Skull injuries 1. Fracture 17 cm long was present right fronto parieto occipital region of skull, starting 3 cm above right supera oribital margin. 2. Fracture of 15 cm long left fronto parietal region of skull, meeting fracture No.1 in its middle. 3. Fracture 7 cm long was present left frontal region. 4. Fracture 17 cm long starting parietal ominense meeting fracture No.1 right occipital region. 5. Fracture 8 cm long was present left parietal wound. Brain Injuries Sub archnoid haemorrhage was present, left fronto tamporal region. Subdural Haemotoma was present, right tamporal region of brain of the size 10x4x 1cm Inter haemispheric haemorrhage was present. Contusion 5 x 3 x 3 cm was present right tamporal region of brain. Lacerated contusion 5x4x3 cm was present right parieto occipital region of the brain. Laceration 5 x 1 cm present left occipital lobe. Tonsils are grooved. Intracerabral haemorrhage was present right parieto occipital lobe. Brain matter was congested and oedimatous. Contusion 5 x 3 x 3 cm was present right tamporal region of brain. Lacerated contusion 5x4x3 cm was present right parieto occipital region of the brain. Laceration 5 x 1 cm present left occipital lobe. Tonsils are grooved. Intracerabral haemorrhage was present right parieto occipital lobe. Brain matter was congested and oedimatous. All the injuries were opined to be antemortem and having been caused by sword, gandasi or khukhri. 8. Autopsy of the third dead body, i.e. of Santokh Singh, was conducted by PW-34 Dr. Gurcharan Singh. He noticed the following external injuries: 1. A stitched wound 9½” long on abdomen in midline extending from epigastric region to suprapubic region. 2. Three stitched septic wounds each 1” long on right lumber region ¾” apart to each other. 3. A stitched septic wound ¼” long 4” left lateral and above the umbilicus. 4. Stitched septic wound ¾” long 2” above and in the line to injury No.3. 5. Stitched septic wound ¾” long 4 “ lateral and in the line to injury No.3. 6. Stitched septic wound ½” long 1” above and in the line to injury No.5. 7. Stitched wound 1” long and 1½” lateral to left nipple. 8. Stitched wound 1” long on medial side of left forearm in middle 1/3rd. 9. Stitched wound 1¼” long on lateral aspect and middle 1/3rd of left thigh. 10. Stitched wound 1” long on left side of chest on lower third region on anterior axillary line. On opening the dead body, thoracic and abdominal cavity were found full of blood. Abdomen cavity was also found full of pus. Large intestine was found to be having a stitched wound on left side in lower aspect. All the injuries were opined to be antemortem. Cause of death was opined to be saepticaemia, which, according to the doctor, was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. 9. All the appellants (convicts) were arrested during the course of investigation. Appellant Amrish Rana, while in police custody, made a disclosure statement, Ex. PW-38/S, which led to the discovery of two swords, Ex. P-1 and Ex.P15, from a pond, in the area of Sub Division Gagret. Appellant Naveen Kumar made disclosure statement Ex. PW38/AO, leading to the discovery of clutch wire Ex. P-21. Appellant Amrish Rana, while in police custody, made a disclosure statement, Ex. PW-38/S, which led to the discovery of two swords, Ex. P-1 and Ex.P15, from a pond, in the area of Sub Division Gagret. Appellant Naveen Kumar made disclosure statement Ex. PW38/AO, leading to the discovery of clutch wire Ex. P-21. PW38 Inspector Kishan Singh, SHO Police Station, Una, visited the spot on 10th September, 1999, itself, around 11.35 p.m. and recovered, from the spot, two gandasis, Ex. P-6 & Ex. P7, hockey stick Ex. P-8 and Lathis/dandas Ex. P-9 & Ex. P-10 and made them into separate parcels and sealed those parcels. 10. Scene was also inspected PW-25 Dr. Arun Sharma, Forensic Expert, who gave report Ex. PW-25/A. As per his report, there were marks of violence inside and outside the Car, indicating that the deceased and the injured were attacked, when they were still inside the Car. Weapons recovered from the spot by PW-38 Inspector Kishan Singh and the clothes of deceased Rajiv were sent to the Chemical Examiner, who, vide report Ex. PAA, gave the opinion that there were stains of human blood of group ‘A” on the clothes of the said deceased and the two gandasis and a danda, recovered from the spot. 11. On completion of investigation, report was filed in the Court of concerned Judicial Magistrate, who, after complying with the requirement of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, committed the case to the Sessions Court. Seven more persons were challaned alongwith the present appellants and deceased Ashok Kumar, for allegedly screening the appellants and their deceased accomplice and helping them in destruction of evidence. 12.Learned trial Court charged the appellants and their deceased accomplice, as also the persons, who allegedly screened them from legal punishment and helped them in destruction of evidence. The appellants and their accomplice were charged with the following offences: Sr.No Names of appellants/ Their accomplices. Offences with which charged. 1. Amrish Rana Gurjant Singh Naveen Kumar Ashok Kumar Malkiat Singh Manjit Singh Rahul Singh Sections 147, 148, 120-B, 302, 341, 323, 324, 201, read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 25 of the Arms Act, read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Gurpreet Singh Shyam Sunder Parveen Kumar Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Anil Kumar Sections 120-B,201 and 212 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. 2. Gurpreet Singh Shyam Sunder Parveen Kumar Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Anil Kumar Sections 120-B,201 and 212 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. Shubhdarshan Rani Shweta Sheetal Sections 109, 120-B and 212 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. Harjinder Singh Sections 147, 148, 302, 341, 323, 324, read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 25 of the Arms Act, read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 13. Prosecution examined 38 witnesses to prove the charge. Trial Court has mainly relied upon the testimony of PW-1 Ashwani Kumar and PW-2 Ram Pal, the two injured eye-witnesses, to come to the conclusion that appellants Amrish Rana, Gurjant Singh, Harjinder Singh, Naveen Kumar, Rahul Singh, Malkiat Singh and Manjit Singh are guilty. Appellants have been convicted of the following offences and awarded the sentences, mentioned against their names: Name of the convict (s) Offences of which Sentence awarded to each of the convicts. convicted Amrish Rana Harjinder Sections 302, Imprisonment for life and a fine of Singh Naveen Kumar 324,323,341, 148 Rs.50,000/-, in default of payment of fine to Rahul Singh Malkiat read with Section undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further Singh Manjit Singh 149 of the Indian period of two years, for offence under Section Penal Code. 302, read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code; rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months, for offence under Section 324, read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code; rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of two months, for offence under Section 323, read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code; simple imprisonment for one month and a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of seven days, for offence under Section 341 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code; and rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months, for offence under Section 148, read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. One of the accomplices of the appellants, namely Ashok Kumar, died during the pendency of the trial and, therefore, the case as against him abated. Other persons challaned alongwith the appellants were acquitted. 14. During the course of trial, but after the close of the prosecution evidence, appellant Gurjant Singh absconded. He was declared proclaimed offender and the trial against the remaining accused continued. All the appellants, except appellant Gurjant Singh, were held guilty and convicted and sentenced, as noticed hereinabove, vide judgment dated 20th January, 2005. State has filed an appeal against this judgment, seeking enhancement of punishment of the accused (convicts). Convicts have filed separate appeals challenging their conviction and sentences. 15. Lateron appellant Gurjant Singh was arrested and he too was convicted of offences, under Sections 302, 324, 323, 341, 148 & 147, read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.50,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo imprisonment for a further period of two years, for offence under Section 302, read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code; rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo imprisonment for a further period of six months, for offence under Section 324, read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code; imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of 15 days, for offence under Section 323, read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code; imprisonment for one month and a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of seven days, for offence under Section 341 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code; rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo imprisonment for a further period of one month, for offence under Section 148, read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code; and rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo imprisonment for a further period of 15 days, for offence under Section 147 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, vide judgment dated 22nd September, 2007. State has not appealed against this judgment, seeking enhancement of punishment. That means the appeal of the State is for enhancement of sentence of all the appellants, except appellant Gurjant Singh. Convict Gurjant Singh has appealed for setting aside the judgment and acquitting him of all the offences. 16. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants as also the learned Deputy Advocate General, Mr. P.M. Negi, and gone through the record. 17. Case was registered on the basis of statement Ex. PA, made by PW-1 Ashwani Kumar. The statement purports to have been made by PW-1 Ashwani Kumar at 10.30 p.m., on the very night of the occurrence, i.e. 10th September, 1999. This statement was recorded by PW-29 ASI Amar Singh, who was at that time posted as Incharge, Police Post, Una. It was recorded, after the doctor certified that PW-1 Ashwani Kumar was fit to make statement. As per this statement, four persons (and not six, as testified by PW-1 Ashwani Kumar and PW-2 Ram Pal during the course of trial), namely PW-1 Ashwani Kumar, deceased Rajiv Kumar, deceased Santokh Singh and deceased Raj Kumar, were travelling by a Maruti Car, as they wanted to go to Pir Nigah and that around 9.30 p.m., when they reached village Malahat, they found that two cars had been parked and several persons were standing there and those persons included appellant Amrish Rana and Gurjant Singh, whom he (PW-1 Ashwani Kumar) knew from before. It is further recorded in Ex. PA that appellant Amrish Rana was armed with a sword and all the persons, without uttering anything, attacked them with deadly weapons and caused them injuries and thereafter all of them (the assailants) fled from the scene. PW-1 Ashwani Kumar also got recorded in Ex. PA that after hearing their hue and cry residents of village Malahat came and they carried them to District Hospital at Una. The aforesaid statement was recorded in the Hospital at Una. 18. While in the witness-box, PW-1 Ashwani Kumar, besides naming appellant Amrish Rana and Gurjant Singh, the only two named assailants in Ex. PA, named all other appellants as also their deceased accomplice Ashok Kumar and testified that they were armed with swords, gandasis, hockey-sticks, dandas, khukhris and clutch wire. The aforesaid statement was recorded in the Hospital at Una. 18. While in the witness-box, PW-1 Ashwani Kumar, besides naming appellant Amrish Rana and Gurjant Singh, the only two named assailants in Ex. PA, named all other appellants as also their deceased accomplice Ashok Kumar and testified that they were armed with swords, gandasis, hockey-sticks, dandas, khukhris and clutch wire. PW-2 Ram Pal, another injured eye-witness, also named all the appellants and their deceased accomplice Ashok Kumar as the persons, who attacked them, when they stopped their Car on seeing that two Cars had been parked at village Malahat. Both these witnesses were confronted with their previous statements. PW-1 Ashwani Kumar, besides making statement Ex. PA, under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on the very date of the occurrence, also made a statement, under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, two days later, i.e. on 12th September, 1999, which is Ex. DA. PW-2 Ram Pal made statement on 12th September, 1999, which is Ex. JB. 19. PW-1 Ashwani Kumar, when confronted with his statement Ex. PA, which is the basis of the FIR and questioned that he had named only two appellants, i.e. Amrish Rana and Gurjant Singh, as the assailants, whom he knew from before, instead of offering any explanation for his omission to name other assailants (appellants and their accomplice deceased Ashok Kumar) stated that he had named all of them but the police recorded the names of only two. When confronted with Ex. DA, statement, under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, made by him on 12th September, 1999, in which he named two more assailants, i.e. appellant Naveen Kumar and deceased Ashok Kumar, and not all the appellants, he stated that this statement had also not been correctly recorded. 20. PW-29 ASI Amar Singh stated that he had recorded statement Ex. PA correctly and did not omit to record any name (of the assailants) disclosed by PW-1 Ashwani Kumar. Similarly, PW-38 Inspector Kishan Singh, who recorded statement Ex. DA, under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, stated that he made no omission, while recording the said statement of PW-1 Ashwani Kumar. 21. PA correctly and did not omit to record any name (of the assailants) disclosed by PW-1 Ashwani Kumar. Similarly, PW-38 Inspector Kishan Singh, who recorded statement Ex. DA, under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, stated that he made no omission, while recording the said statement of PW-1 Ashwani Kumar. 21. From the above discussion, it is clear that PW-1 Ashwani Kumar has not offered any reasonable explanation for his not naming the appellants, other than Amrish Rana and Gurjant Singh, while giving the earliest version, vide Ex. PA. He made supplementary statement Ex. DA two days later and even in this statement, he did not name all the appellants, but only one of them, namely Naveen Kumar, in addition to the two appellants, already named, Amrish Rana and Gurjant Singh. Fourth assailant named by him in Ex. DA was Ashok Kumar, the deceased accomplice of the appellants. 22. Even though in his statement in the Court, PW-1 Ashwani Kumar has named all the appellants, but at the same time his not saying that he came to know about the names of the other appellants subsequently and was not knowing their names when he lodged report Ex. PA, and rather his claiming that he had got the names of all the appellants recorded in Ex.PA and Ex. DA, which is factually incorrect, the possibility of the appellants, other than Amrish Rana and Gurjant Singh, having been wrongly named as assailants, cannot be ruled out. Therefore, the statement of the witness, with respect to the involvement of appellants, other than Amrish Rana and Gurjant Singh, cannot be accepted, unless strongly corroborated by independent evidence, which is not there in the present case. 23. According to the learned Deputy Advocate General, testimony of PW-2 Ram Pal, another injured, sufficiently corroborates the statement of PW-1 Ashwani Kumar, with regard to the involvement of all the convicts/ appellants. No doubt, PW-2 Ram Pal also named all the seven convicts and their deceased accomplice Ashok Kumar as the persons, who were members of the unlawful assembly and took part in the attack, but his statement also suffers from the same lacuna as that of PW-1 Ashwani Kumar. This witness sustained only two injuries. Both the injuries were simple in nature, per testimony of PW-28 Dr. Shiv Pal Kanwar. This witness sustained only two injuries. Both the injuries were simple in nature, per testimony of PW-28 Dr. Shiv Pal Kanwar. That means he was in a position to make statement on the very day of the incident. He was present in the Hospital at 10 p.m., on the very date of the occurrence, per testimony of PW-28 Dr. Shiv Pal Kanwar. His statement could have been very easily recorded on 10th September, 1999, itself, by the police, but it was recorded only on 12th September, 1999. Even in that statement he did not name all the appellants (convicts). He named only three of them, i.e. Amrish Rana, Gurjant Singh and Naveen Kumar. The fourth named assailant was deceased Ashok Kumar. In other words, he named only those four persons, as were named by PW-1 Ashwani Kumar, in his supplementary statement, Ex. PA. He was duly confronted with statement Ex.JB, in which only four persons are named. He offered no explanation for not naming other appellants. Also, as already noticed, this statement was made two days after the occurrence and, therefore, possibility that this statement being the result of deliberations and embellishment cannot be ruled out. His statement was again recorded by the police on 10th December, 1999, or say about three months after the occurrence. Even in this statement, which is Ex. JC and with which he was duly confronted, he did not name all the appellants. 24. In view of the abovestated position, we are of the considered view that the testimony of the aforesaid two witnesses, so far as it pertains to the involvement of appellants Manjit Singh, Harjinder Singh, Rahul Singh, Naveen Kumar and Malkiat Singh, is concerned, cannot be made the basis of convicting them and there being no other evidence, worth noticing, against these appellants, there is no escape from the acceptance of their appeals and the reversal of the judgment of the trial Court (so far as these appellants are concerned). 25. Now, coming to the appeals of the other two convicts, namely Amrish Rana and Gurjant Singh, we have no doubt, in our mind, that the evidence of PW-1 Ashwani Kumar and PW-2 Ram Pal, when properly dissected and considered in the light of other evidence on record, particularly the earliest version given to the police vide Ex. 25. Now, coming to the appeals of the other two convicts, namely Amrish Rana and Gurjant Singh, we have no doubt, in our mind, that the evidence of PW-1 Ashwani Kumar and PW-2 Ram Pal, when properly dissected and considered in the light of other evidence on record, particularly the earliest version given to the police vide Ex. PA and the corroborative medical evidence, sufficiently proves that they were among the attackers and who used deadly weapons and caused fatal injuries to the three deceased and hurts to PW-1 Ashwani Kumar and PW-2 Ram Pal. 26. It is true that we have not believed the depositions of PW-1 Ashwani Kumar and PW-2 Ram Pal, so far as the involvement of appellants, other than Amrish Rana and Gurjant Singh, is concerned, but that by itself is not a ground for rejecting their testimony in its entirety. 27. The Rule falsus in uno falsus in omnibus has no application in our system of appreciation of evidence. Courts are under obligation to shift grain from chaff or the truth from falsity, unless the two are so confoundedly mingled that it is impossible to separate them. 28. The present is not a case in which truth is inseparable from falsehood. Statement Ex. PA, under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, of PW-1 Ashwani Kumar was recorded soon after the occurrence. Names of two persons find mention this statement. The statement says that besides the named two persons, i.e. Amrish Rana and Gurjant Singh, there were several other persons. The very fact that name of any other person, especially the appellants, other than Amrish Rana and Gurjant Singh, do not figure in the earliest version Ex. PA, is a sort of guarantee that when the statement was made no deliberations had taken place nor was there any intention to falsely implicate anybody and that is why the names of only two of several assailants, whom PW1 Ashwani Kumar knew, were got recorded. 29. Statement of PW-1 Ashwani Kumar is corroborated not only by the earliest version, which he gave to the police vide statement Ex. 29. Statement of PW-1 Ashwani Kumar is corroborated not only by the earliest version, which he gave to the police vide statement Ex. PA, but also by the testimony of PW-2 Ram Pal and the testimony of both of them is lent credibility by the presence of injuries on their persons, as also the fact that the doctors have opined such injuries, as also the injuries found on the person of the deceased, to have been caused by means of weapons, which appellants Amrish Rana and Gurjant Singh, were wielding, per testimony of PW-1 Ashwani Kumar and PW-2 Ram Pal. 30. Another fact, which corroborates their testimony, is that the two appellants, namely Amrish Rana and Gurjant Singh, were having injuries on their own persons, which, according to the testimony of PW-24 Dr. Parkash Daroch, were as old as the injuries found on the persons of PW1 Ashwani Kumar and PW-2 Ram Pal and the three deceased. These two appellants have offered no explanation as to how they received these injuries and, therefore, presumption should be that they sustained the injuries in the incident, in question. On the contrary, PW-24 Dr. Parkash Daroch very specifically stated that appellant Amrish Rana had disclosed that he had sustained injuries on 10th September, 1999, in an incident. Not only that PW-24 Dr. Parkash Daroch stated this fact in his testimony in the Court and, also recorded it in the medico legal certificate Ex. PW-24/B. 31. Learned counsel representing the two appellants submitted that it was dark and the number of assailants even according to Ex. PA was very large and, therefore, it was not possible for the two witnesses, namely PW-1 Ashwani Kumar and PW-2 Ram Pal to identify any of the assailants. We find no merit in the submission. Both the witnesses and the deceased and the third injured person were travelling by a Car. They were supposed to have switched on the head lights. Their Car stopped, all of a sudden, when two Cars were seen parked at the site of the incident. Occupants of the Car were attacked from front side. Assailants were, thus, in front of the Car, with head lights on, when they attacked the two witnesses and their deceased companions. Therefore, the witnesses were in a position to identify atleast those of them who were leading. 32. Occupants of the Car were attacked from front side. Assailants were, thus, in front of the Car, with head lights on, when they attacked the two witnesses and their deceased companions. Therefore, the witnesses were in a position to identify atleast those of them who were leading. 32. Next submission is that true genesis has been concealed, because in the earliest version Ex. PA, given to the police, it was stated that there were only four persons in the Car, but during the course of trial, it was stated that there were six persons. This variation in the number of persons travelling by the Car may indicate that something has been concealed but that does not mean that the deceased and the two witnesses, examined by the prosecution, had not been attacked or that the prosecution version that appellants Amrish Rana and Gurjant Singh were among the assailants, is false. The two witnesses sustained injuries in the incident. Three persons received fatal injuries. Injuries sustained by the deceased and the witnesses have been opined to have been caused by sword and gandasi etc., the weapons used by the two appellants, as testified by the two witnesses. Under these circumstances, variation in the earliest version and the testimony in the Court as to the number of the persons, who actually travelled by the Car of the complainant party, is of little consequence. 33. Further submission made on behalf of the appellants is that there are contradictions in the statements of the two witnesses as to the vehicles used by the assailants to escape from the spot. It is true that one witness says that the assailants had escaped in one Car and a Yamaha Motorcycle and the other says that they escaped on scooters, but this contradiction also, in our considered view, does not render the testimony of the witnesses unbelievable. The witnesses were in an injured state and three of their companions were seriously injured, who lateron succumbed to the injuries and, therefore, they were not supposed to be noticing, so attentively, as to how did the assailants escape from the spot. 34. Another submission made on behalf of the two appellants, Amrish Rana and Gurjant Singh, is that the alleged eye-witnesses did not identify them during the course of investigation. 34. Another submission made on behalf of the two appellants, Amrish Rana and Gurjant Singh, is that the alleged eye-witnesses did not identify them during the course of investigation. When the witnesses have very categorically stated that the two appellants were known to them from before and their names figure in the earliest version Ex. PA also, where was the need for holding test identification parade and getting these appellants identified during investigation. 35. Yet another submission made by the learned counsel representing the two appellants, Amrish Rana and Gurjant, is that the swords and gandasis were not shown to the doctors who conducted the medical examination of the two witnesses and the postmortem examinations of the three deceased nor were they shown to the two eye-witnesses during trial and, therefore, it cannot be said that the weapons produced during trial were the same as were used to cause the injuries to the witnesses and the deceased. We do not find any merit in this submission also. All gandasis and swords look alike. Usually, they have standard size and shape. When the doctors have given the opinion that the injuries could have been caused by means of swords and gandasis and the witnesses have also stated that the gandasi and sword were used by appellants Amrish Rana and Gurjant Singh, mere omission to show the weapons to the doctors and the two eye-witnesses does not weaken the prosecution case. 36. There is yet another submission made by the learned counsel representing the two appellants. It is stated that Santokh Singh, one of the deceased, who alongwith PW1 Ashwani Kumar had been certified to be fit to make statement by PW-28 Dr. Shiv Pal Kanwar, had not been examined by the police. PW-29 ASI Amar Singh, who sought the opinion of PW-28 Dr. Shiv Pal Kanwar about the fitness of PW-1 Ashwani Kumar and deceased Santokh Singh, very categorically stated that even though deceased Santokh Singh had been certified to be fit to make statement alongwith PW-1 Ashwani Kumar by the above-named doctor, but when, after completing the job of recording the statement of PW-1 Ashwani Kumar, he sought to record the statement of deceased Santokh Singh, the latter was in a very poor condition, meaning thereby that he was unable to speak. 37. 37. Last submission, which has been made on behalf of the two appellants, Amrish Rana and Gurjant Singh, is that finger prints of the assailants were supposed to be available on the weapons available on the spot as also the Car by which the deceased and the witnesses were travelling, but no effort was made to lift the said prints. It is true that the Investigating Officer was supposed to have tried to find out if finger prints were available and if available he should have lifted the same, but this lapse on his part cannot be a ground for acquittal of an accused in a serious case of murder, when there is direct evidence, which is corroborated by medical evidence and other circumstances. 38. In view of the above discussion, we are of the definite view that conviction of appellant Amrish Rana and Gurjant Singh, as recorded by the trial Court, is well founded. 39. Coming to the appeal of the State for enhancement of punishment, the facts and the circumstances of the case, especially the fact that there were more weapons used in the incident than testified by PW-1 Ashwani Kumar and PW-2 Ram Pal, which fact sugests that both the sides were armed with deadly weapons, we do not think that the case is worth consideration, for award of a sentence graver than the life imprisonment, that is to say the death penalty. Hence, the State appeal is dismissed. 40. To sum up, appeals filed by appellant Amrish Rana (Cr.A No.240 of 2005), appellant Gurjant Singh (Cr.A No.209 of 2008), and by the State of Himachal Pradesh, i.e. Cr. A No.127 of 2005, are dismissed. Appeals filed by the other appellants, namely Rahul Singh (Cr.A No.38/2005), Malkiat Singh (Cr.A No.43 of 2005), Manjit Singh (Cr.A No.46 of 2005), Naveen Kumar (Cr.A No.55 of 2005) and Harjinder Singh (Cr.A No.219 of 2005), are accepted and their conviction and sentences, as ordered by the trial Court, are set aside and they are acquitted. They being in jail, serving out the sentences awarded by the trial Court, are ordered to be released forthwith, in case their detention is not required in any other case. All the appeals stand disposed of. Pending miscellaneous applications also stand disposed of.