JUDGMENT 1. - By this judgment, we propose to decide D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 636/2005 filed by appellants (1) Lalchand S/o Seva Ram (2) Mahaveer S/o Lalchand (3) Munshi Ram S/o Lalchand (4) Vinod Kumar S/o Lalchand (5) Jaivir S/o Lalchand (6) Satvir S/o Lalchand, all residents of Village Ber, Tehsil Bhadra, District Hanumangarh, against the judgment and order dated 27.05.2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhadra, District Hanumangarh in Sessions Case No. 03/2003, whereby the accused appellants were held guilty for commission of offences and sentenced them as under:- Sl.No. Name of accused Offence under section Sentence Fine 1 Lal chand 148 I.P.C. 2 years' Rigorous Imprisonment Rs. 2,000/- 323/149 I.P.C. 6 months' Rigorous Imprisonment Rs. 500/- 325/149 I.P.C. 3 years' Rigorous Imprisonment Rs. 2,000/ 302/149 I.P.C. for the murder of Sher Singh & Life Imprisonment Rs. 5,000/- 302/149 I.P.C. for the murder of Ram Singh Life Imprisonment Rs. 5,000/- 2 Munshi Ram 148 I.P.C. 2 years' Rigorous Imprisonment Rs. 2,000/- 323/149 I.P.C. 6 months' Rigorous Imprisonment Rs. 500/- 325/149 I.P.C. 3 years' Rigorous Imprisonment Rs. 2,000/- 302/149 I.P.C. for the murder of Sher Singh & Life imprisonment Rs. 5,000/- 302/149 I.P.C. for the murder of Ram Singh Life imprisonment Rs. 5,000/- 3 Jaivir 148 I.P.C. 2 years' Rigorous Imprisonment Rs. 2,000/- 323/149 I.P.C. 6 months' Rigorous Imprisonment Rs. 500/- 325/149 I.P.C. 3 year' Rigorous Imprisonment Rs. 2,000/- 302/149 I.P.C. for the murder of sher Singh and Life Imprisonment Rs. 5,000/- 302/149 I.P.C. for the murder of Ram Singh Life imprisonment Rs. 5,000/- 4 Satvir 148 I.P.C. 2 Years' Rigorous Imprisonment Rs. 2,000/- 323/149 I.P.C. 6 months' Rigorous Imprisonment Rs. 500/- 325/149 I.P.C. 3 years' Rigorous Imprisonment Rs. 2,000/- 302/149 I.P.C. for the murder of Sher Singh & Life imprisonment Rs. 5,000/- 302/149 I.P.C. for the murder of Ram Singh Life imprisonment Rs. 5,000/- 5 Vinod Kumar 148 I.P.C. 2 year' Rigorous Imprisonment Rs. 2,000/- 323/149 I.P.C. 6 months' Rigorous Imprisonment Rs. 500/- 325 I.P.C. 3 years' Rigorous Imprisonment Rs. 2,000/ 302/149 I.P.C. for the murder of Sher Singh & Life imprisonment Rs. 5,000/- 302/149 I.P.C. for the murder of Ram Singh Life imprisonment Rs. 5,000/- 6 Mahaveer 148 I.P.C. 2 years' Rigorous Imprisonment Rs. 2,000/- 323/149 I.P.C. 6 months' Rigorous Imprisonment Rs. 500/- 325/149 I.P.C. 3 years' Rigorous Imprisonment Rs. 2,000/- 302/149 I.P.C. for the murder of Sher Singh & Life imprisonment Rs. 5,000/- 302/149 I.P.C. for the murder of Ram Singh Life imprisonment Rs. 5,000/- 6 Mahaveer 148 I.P.C. 2 years' Rigorous Imprisonment Rs. 2,000/- 323/149 I.P.C. 6 months' Rigorous Imprisonment Rs. 500/- 325/149 I.P.C. 3 years' Rigorous Imprisonment Rs. 2,000/- 302/149 I.P.C. for the murder of Sher Singh & Life imprisonment Rs. 5,000/- 302/149 I.P.C. for the murder of Ram Singh Life imprisonment Rs. 5,000/- 3/25 (1-B(A) of the Arms Act One year's Rigorous Imprisonment Rs. 1,000/- Mahaveer Section 27 of the Arms Act 3 year's Rigorous Imprisonment Rs. 3,000/- 2. All the sentences were ordered to run consecutively. 3. In nutshell, the prosecution story, as disclosed in investigation and trial, is that statement of Balvir was recorded in General Hospital, Bhadra on 13.11.2002 at 10.30 PM, wherein he stated that his cousin-brothers Satvir, Mahaveer, Munshiram and Jaivir had a fighting with him an year ago, which caused fracture of his leg, for which they are facing trial and hence, are inimical to him. On 13.11.2002 he went to Adampur Mandi with his father, on return, his wife Urmila informed that Sher Singh and Ram Singh (brother of Balvir), while going to field were stopped by Satvir and they are fighting. 4. The complainant and his brother Sarjeet went to inquire about this fact. At about 7.40 PM, they reached the chowk in front of the house of Lalchand and saw that Lalchand having Jei, Munshiram having Gandasi, Jaivir having Barchi, Surendra and Vinod having Lathis and Mahaveer and Satvir having pistols, were beating complainant's brothers Sher Singh and Ram Singh. They caused injuries so as to cause death of complainant's brothers. The complainant and his brother Sarjeet tried to save their brothers, then Mahaveer and Satvir fired pistols to kill them. The statement further contains the injuries caused by individual persons and on the basis of that statement, FIR No. 197/2002 was registered in the Police Station Bhadra and the investigation commenced. 5. During the course of investigation, the accused appellants were arrested and recoveries were made at the instance of the accused appellants in consequence of the information recorded under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The statements of the witnesses were recorded, autopsy was conducted on the body of Sher Singh and Ram Singh and the injuries of the rest of the injured were got examined. The statements of the witnesses were recorded, autopsy was conducted on the body of Sher Singh and Ram Singh and the injuries of the rest of the injured were got examined. After usual investigation, charge-sheet was filed in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhadra, from where the case was committed to the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bhadra. 6. In this case there are five injured who happens to be the eye witnesses and two persons, namely, Ram Singh and Sher Singh had died due to the injuries caused by the alleged accused appellants. 7. Initially charge-sheet was filed against accused appellants under Section 302,307,323,325,147, 148, 149 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act and investigation was kept pending under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. and on 02.01.2003, an additional charge-sheet was filed against accused Mahaveer under Section 3/25(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act and that case was also committed to the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bhadra. 8. The learned trial court, vide order dated 27.05.2003, directed the Investigating Officer that Surendra, being a juvenile offender, charge-sheet against him be filed in the competent court and the trial was conducted against the present six appellants. 9. Accused appellant Mahaveer was charged under Section 148 and 323/149 IPC for murder of Ram Singh and under section 325/149, and 302/149 IPC for murder of Sher Singh and under Section 3/25(1-B)(a) and 27 of the Arms Act, accused appellant Vinod Kumar was charged under Section 148, 323/149, and 302/149 IPC for murder of Ram Singh and under section 325 and 302/149 IPC for murder of Sher Singh and rest of the accused appellants were charged for commission of offence under Section 148 and 323/149 IPC for murder of Ram Singh and under section 325/149 and 302/149 IPC for murder of Sher Singh, to which they did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried. 10. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses, namely, PW/1 Vasudev, PW/2 Sheesh Ram, PW/3 Sarjeet, PW/4 Satyawan, PW/5 Balvir, PW/6 Smt.Urmila, PW/7 Makhan Lal, PW/8 Dharampal Singh, PW/9 Om Prakash, PW/10 Sube Singh, PW/11 Ram Pratap, PW/12 Krishna Kumar, PW/13 Dr.Subhash Rajput, PW/14 Shubh Ram, and PW/15 Sunil Kumar. 11. 10. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses, namely, PW/1 Vasudev, PW/2 Sheesh Ram, PW/3 Sarjeet, PW/4 Satyawan, PW/5 Balvir, PW/6 Smt.Urmila, PW/7 Makhan Lal, PW/8 Dharampal Singh, PW/9 Om Prakash, PW/10 Sube Singh, PW/11 Ram Pratap, PW/12 Krishna Kumar, PW/13 Dr.Subhash Rajput, PW/14 Shubh Ram, and PW/15 Sunil Kumar. 11. The incriminating evidence adduced by the prosecution was put to the accused appellants for their explanation under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and 3 witnesses, namely, D.W.1 Veermati, D.W.2 Sharda and D.W.3 Vimla were examined from the defence side. 12. After hearing both the parties, the learned trial court found the accused appellants guilty and awarded the sentence as narrated in the earlier paras. 13. In this case, each accused was charged for offence under section 148 IPC and further each accused was charged for causing the death of Sher Singh, in furtherance of the common object of the unlawful assembly and a separate charge was framed for causing the death of Ram Singh, in furtherance of a common object of the unlawful assembly. Thus, there are separate charges under section 302/149 IPC for each alleged murder. 14. The prosecution in this case, examined in total 15 witnesses, out of which PW/3 Sarjeet, PW/4 Satyawan, PW/5 Balvir,PW/6 Urmila and PW/9 Om Prakash were examined as the eye witnesses, and PW/3 Sarjeet, PW/4 Satyavan and PW/5 Balvir, PW/6 Urmila and PW/9 Om Prakash also sustained the injuries in the same incident. 15. First we come to the fact that whether the death of the deceased Sher Singh and Ram Singh was homicidal, accidental or suicidal ? 15. First we come to the fact that whether the death of the deceased Sher Singh and Ram Singh was homicidal, accidental or suicidal ? In this regard, the prosecution examined PW/13 Dr.Subhash Rajput, who deposed that on 14.11.2002 while posted as Senior Medical Officer Incharge of the Government Hospital, Bhadra, he conducted the autopsy on the body of Sher Singh s/o Chet Ram aged 50 years, b/c Jat, r/o Ber and he observed the following external injuries:- 1- lkstu uhps dh gM~Mh VwVh gqbZ 3 bap bUVw 2 bap tks fd ck,sa iSj ds fupys frgkbZ fgLls ij o lkeus dh vksjA 2- dVk gqvk ?kko 3 bUp bUVw 1@8 bap bUVw 1@8 bap nka;h cxy ds mijh fgLls ij ihNs ls lkeus dh vksjA 3- dVk gqvk ?kko 3@4 bap bUVw 1@8 bap bUVw 1@8 bap nka;h vxzHkqtk ds fiNys fgLls ij lh/kkiu fy, gq, mij ls uhps dh vksjA 4- dVk gqvk ?kko ( gM~Mh dVh gqbZ ) 3@4 bap bUVw 1@8 bap bUVw 1@8 bap nka;h fpV~uh vaxqyh ds uhps ds fgLls ij ihNs dh vksjA 5- dVk gqvk ?kko 4 bap bUVw 1 bap bUVw 1 bap cka;h Ldsiqyk gM~Mh ds ek/; esa vkKkiu fy, gq,A 6- uhyxw 6 bap 1 bap cka;h Ldsiqyk gM~Mh ds uhpys fgLls ij vkdM+kiu fy;s gq,A 7- [kjksp yxk gqvk fuyxw 2 bap bUVw 1 bap ck;h ihB ij cka;h vksj ckgj dh vksj uhpys fgLls ijA 8- [kjksp yxk fuyxw 3 bap bUVw 1 bap ihB esa cka;h vksj uhpys fgLls ijA 9- [kjksp yxk uhyxw 4 bap bUVw 2 bap ihB esa cka;h vksj e/; esaA 10- uhyxw 5 bap bUVw <+kbZ bap cka,s dqYgs ds e/; esaA 11- dVk gqvk ?kko gM~Mh o czsu dVs gqos tek gqvk [kwu ekStwnk 3 bap bUVw 1 bap bUVw cszu rd xgjkbZ cka,s VsEijy o elVk;M gM~Mh rdA 12- dVk gqvk ?kko czsu dVk gqvk tek gqvk [kwu ekStwnk 1 bap bUVw 1@2 bap bUVw czsu rd xgjkbZ flj esa cka;h vkDlhihVy gM~Mh ds mijA 13- dVk gqvk ?kko 3@4 bap bUVw 2 bap bUVw 1@4 bap ck;h eSfDtyk gM~Mh ds mijh fgLlk ijA 14- dVk gqvk ?kko 3@4 bap bUVw 1@4 bUVw 1@4 bap cka;h tkbZxksesafVd gM~Mh ds mijA 15- dqpyk gqvk ?kko 3 bap bUVw 1@2 bap peM+h rd xgjkbZ cka;h rtZuh vaxqyh o gkFk ds ihNs dh vksjA 16. He was the member of the Medical Board. According to the opinion of the Medical Board, the cause of death of deceased Sher Singh was neuro haemorhragic shock and brain injuries and all the injuries were ante-mortem in nature and were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Injury No.11 and 12 were fatal and were caused by sharp edged weapon. Injury No.4 was grievous in nature and caused by sharp edged weapon. The death of the deceased was within 24 hours from the date of postmortem examination . Further, this witness deposed that he prepared the post postmortem report Ex.P/9 which bears his signature AB, and C-D is the signature of Dr.R.S.Khedar. PW/13 Dr.Subhash Rajput also deposed that on the same day, Medical Board also conducted the autopsy on the body of Ram Singh. Further, this witness deposed that he prepared the post postmortem report Ex.P/9 which bears his signature AB, and C-D is the signature of Dr.R.S.Khedar. PW/13 Dr.Subhash Rajput also deposed that on the same day, Medical Board also conducted the autopsy on the body of Ram Singh. He observed the following external injuries on the body of Ram Singh.:- 1- uhyxw 5 bap bUVw 1 bap ihB esa cka;h vksj uhpys fgLls ij lh/kkiu fy, gq,A 2- uhyxw 4 bap bUVw 1 bap cka;h mijh Hkqtk ds mijh frgkbZ fgLls ij ihNs dh vksjA 3- uhyxw 6 bap bUVw 1 bap cka;h Ldsiqyk gM~Mh ds mijh fgLls ij frjNk iu fy, gqosA 4- uhyxw 5 bap bUVw 1 bap ihB esa nka;h vksj o uhpys fgLls ij frjNkiu fy, gq,A 5- dqpyk gqvk ?kko] ftlds fdukjs vUnj dh vksj eqMs gqos rFkk dkykiu fy, gq, ow.M vkQ ,UV~h izos'k gqvk ?kko 2 bap bUVw 1 bap bUVw 5 bap tks fd xnZu ds uhpys fgLls ij ihNs dh vksj o lkeus dh vksj ljokbZdy LFky dh vksj tk jgk FkkA dkeu dsjksfVM vkVhZ ,UtMZ Fkh ogka ls ikap csysV~l fudkys x,A 6- dqpyk gqvk ?kko fdukjs vUnj dh vksj eqMs gq, ( izos'k dk ?kko ) 2 bap bUVw Ms< bap bUVw lk<+s rhu bap nka;h Ldqiqyk gM~Mh ds mijh fgLls ij gM~Mh VwVh gqbZ ;g ?kko ihNs ls lkeus dh vkjs mij dh vksj Fkk tgka ls 6 cSysVl fudkys x;sA 7- dVk gqvk ?kko gM~Mh VwVh gqbZ o czsu dVk gqvk ( 2 bap bUVw 1@4 bap bUVw 1@2 bap ) cszu dk ?kko <+kbZ bap bUVw 1@3 bap bUVw gM~Mh rd xgjkbZ ;g ?kko nka;s VsEijy o isjkbVy gM~Mh ij lh/kkiu fy;s gq, o mij ls uhps dh vksj FkkA 8- dVk gqvk ?kko <+kbZ bap bUVw 1@2 bap vkDlhihVy gM~Mh ds mijh o e/; Hkkx esa vkMkiu fy, gq,A 9- dVk gqvk ?kko 2 bap bUVw 1@2 bap bUVw 1@2 vkDlhihVy gM~Mh ds uhpys fgLls esa e/; esa vkMkiu fy;s gq,A 10- dVk gqvk ?kko 2 bap bUVw 1@4 bap bUVw 1@4 bap cka;h QzUVy o isjkbZVy gM~Mh ds mij lh/kkiu fy;s gqos o vkxs ls ihNs dh vksjA 11- dVk gqvk ?kko 2 bap bUVw 1@4 bap bUVw 1@4 bap cka;h isjkbVy gM~Mh ij mij ls uhps dh vksjA 17. Cause of death of deceased Ram Singh was multiple injuries and the injuries on brain, which further caused neuro haemorragic shock. All the injuries were ante-mortem in nature and they were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death. Total 11 bullets were removed from the body of Ram Singh. They were all kept in the sealed bottle and were handed over to Station House Officer of Bherani for obtaining the ballistic report. He further deposed that he prepared the post postmortem report of Ram Singh, Ex.P/16, which bears his signature A to B and C to D is the signature of Dr.R.S.Khedar. Injury No.5 was fatal and was caused by blunt weapon. Injury No.7 was fatal and was caused by sharp edged weapon. Injuries No.5 and 6 could be caused by fire arm. 18. According to the evidence of this witness, the death of both the deceased Ram Singh and Sher Singh has been proved to be homicidal in nature and this fact is well established by the statement of this 19. Witness. All the eye witnesses, PW/3 Sarjeet, PW/4 Satyavan, PW/5 Balvir, PW/6 Urmila and PW/9 Om Prakash deposed that about 15 to 18 months previous to recording of their statement in the court, in front of the house of Lal chand, the incident took place and Ram Singh and Sher Singh were stopped by Lal Chand along with his sons Munshi, Jaivir, Vinod, Satvir, Mahaveer and Surendar. All the witnesses deposed that all were armed with deadly weapons and they caused injuries to Ram Singh and Sher Singh and also fired shot on Ram Singh. All the witnesses also deposed about the various injuries caused by each individual accused appellant to the deceased as well as the injured persons. 20. PW/3 Sarjeet deposed that accused appellants were armed as under:- Lal Chand- 'jai', Munshi Ram - 'Gandasi', Jaivir -' Barcha', Satvir- 'Kulhari', Mahaveer- pistol Vinod - 'Lathi', Surender - 'lathi'. He deposed that Mahaveer shot fire on Ram Singh behind his head and he further deposed that Mahaveer also shot fire towards Balvir and towards him. That fire caused injury on his right hand elbow. And some bullets caused injuries on the right hand of Balvir and chest of Balvir. 21. He deposed that Mahaveer shot fire on Ram Singh behind his head and he further deposed that Mahaveer also shot fire towards Balvir and towards him. That fire caused injury on his right hand elbow. And some bullets caused injuries on the right hand of Balvir and chest of Balvir. 21. PW/4 Satyawan deposed that the accused were armed as Under:- Lalchand- Jai, Munshi Ram - 'gandasi', Jaivir- 'Barcha', Mahaveer -pistol, Satvir- 'Kulhari', Vinod -lathi and Surender, -'lathi'. He further deposed that Mahaveer Singh shot fire at Ram Singh, which hit him behind his head. He also fired at Sarjeet and Balvir which hit the elbow of Sarjeet and chest of Balvir. 22. PW/5 Balvir deposed that the accused were armed as under:- Lalchand- 'Jai', Munshi Ram- 'barcha', Jaivir- 'gandasi', Vinod- 'lathi,' Surender- 'lathi', Mahaveer- pistol and Satvir - pistol. He further deposed that Mahaveer shot fire, which hit behind the head of Ram Singh. Balvir Singh also deposed that Mahaveer Singh shot fire on him, which hit his right hand and chest and Sarjeet also sustained injuries on his right hand by shot of Mahaveer Singh. 23. PW/6 Urmila deposed that the accused were armed with weapons as under:- Lalchand- 'jai', Munshi Ram -'gandasi', Jaivir -'barcha' Vinod- 'lathi', Surender- 'lathi', Mahaveer- pistol, and Satvir -'Kulhari'. Mahaveer shot fire which hit behind the head of Ram Singh. The another fire shot by Mahaveer Singh hit Balvir at his hand and chest. 24. PW/9 Om Prakash deposed that the accused were armed with the weapons as under:- Lalchand- 'jai', Mahaveer -pistol, Munshi Ram -'Kulhari', Jaivir- 'barcha', Satvir -'Kulhari,' Surender- 'lathi'. He further deposed that Mahaveer shot fire from the pistol which hit Sarjeet and Balvir. This witness also deposed about the recovery of the weapons of offence from various accused persons, through seizure memo Ex.P/16, Pistol at the instance of Mahaveer Singh, Seizure of 'kulhari' at the instance of Satvir through seizure memo Ex.P/18, seizure of handle of 'Jai' through seizure memo Ex.P/20 at the instance of Lal Chand . Seizure of axe through seizure memo Ex.P/21 at the instance of Munshi Ram. Seizure of blood stained 'lathi' at the instance of Vinod through seizure memo Ex.P/23 and further a seizure of 'lathi' at the instance of Surender through seizure memo Ex.P/24 and seizure of 'Barchi' at the instance of Jaivir through seizure memo Ex.P/26. 25. Seizure of axe through seizure memo Ex.P/21 at the instance of Munshi Ram. Seizure of blood stained 'lathi' at the instance of Vinod through seizure memo Ex.P/23 and further a seizure of 'lathi' at the instance of Surender through seizure memo Ex.P/24 and seizure of 'Barchi' at the instance of Jaivir through seizure memo Ex.P/26. 25. PW/5 Balvir also deposed that he reported the incident to the police through 'parcha bayan' Ex.P/7. 26. The second set of evidence adduced by the prosecution is circumstantial evidence, regarding the recovery of weapons of offence and other articles. 27. The prosecution examined PW/8 Dharampal Singh as the witness of seizing the blood stained pant of accused Mahaveer and blood stained 'pajama' of Munshi Ram and blood stained shirt of accused Vinod Kumar and he admitted his signature on the seizure memos Ex.11, 12 and 13. 28. PW/10 Sube Singh is the another witness who deposed about the circumstantial evidence of the recovery of the blood stained shirt and pajama of deceased Ram Singh through seizure memo Ex.P/36 and blood stained kurta and pajama of deceased Sher Singh, through seizure memo Ex.P/37. He further deposed that at the instance of Mahaveer Singh a pistol was recovered from a box lying in his Kotha and at the instance of Satbeer an axe was recovered lying in his Kotha and a handle of Jai was recovered at the instance of Lal chand lying in his 'Kotha' through seizure memo Ex.P/20 and an axe was recovered at the instance of Munshi Ram lying in his Kotha and a blood stained lathi was recovered at the instance of accused Vinod lying in his house and a lathi was recovered at the instance of Surendar, lying in his Kotha and Barchi was recovered at the instance of accused Balvir, lying in his house. This witness also admitted his signature on the various seizure memos. 29. PW/1 Vasudev Singh, PW/2 Sheesh Ram, PW/7 Makhan Lal, PW/11 Ram Pratap, PW/14 Shubh Ram and PW/15 Sunil Kumar deposed about the various steps taken by them during the course of investigation and further PW/7 Makhan Lal deposed about the recording of Ex.P/7, statement of injured Balvir and further forwarding it to the Police Station, Bhirani for registration of case and PW/15 Sunil Kumar deposed about each and every step taken by him during the investigation leading to its conclusion. 30. 30. PW/13 Dr.Subhash Rajput also deposed that on 13.11.02 he examined the injuries on the body of Balvir, Sarjeet, Satyawan, Urmila and Om Prakash and prepared their injury reports. 31. Learned counsel for the accused appellants tried to impeach the judgment of the learned trial on various grounds . Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor defended the judgment of the learned trial court. 32. The learned counsel for the accused appellants while impeaching the judgment of the learned trial court on various counts argued that there are serious contradictions in Ex.P/17, the first information report and the statements deposed by all the injured persons regarding the possession of the weapon of offence by each accused appellants and the injury caused by each accused appellants to the deceased as well as to the injured persons. The learned counsel for the accused appellants argued that the incident took place in front of the house of Lal Chand . Thus, all the five injured, along with two deceased persons, went to the house of Lal Chand as aggressors and, therefore, their statements cannot be relied upon, on the fact that they have been attacked by the present accused appellants. Had there been any attack by the accused appellants, they would have gone to the house of the injured or deceased. The learned counsel for the accused appellants further argued that in fact all the injured, along with the deceased, tried to molest the defence witnesses, who are the close relatives and family members of the accused appellants and while doing so, the actual fire broke out from the pistol armed by any of the deceased or the injured, and the complainant party cons pirated this false case and implicated Lal Chand,the father and his five sons, responsible for this incident. Learned counsel for the accused appellants, argued that from the statement of the eye witnesses, it is not possible to establish the guilt of the accused appellants, because even from the statement of eye witnesses, it is not proved beyond reasonable doubt that who caused the fatal injuries to both the deceased, because there are major contradictions regarding the possession of the various weapons by several accused at the time of incident. 33. 33. Learned counsel for the accused appellants vehemently argued that offence under section 148 IPC is not proved by the evidence of the prosecution, for the reason that it was a case of free fight of the prosecution between complainant and accused party because three of the accused had also sustained simple injuries. All the accused standing outside the house of Lal chand could not be attributed the knowledge about the fact that the offence actually committed was likely to be committed with the common object. Learned counsel for the accused appellants argued that such knowledge can not reasonably be attributed to the other members of the assembly because there was no common object on the part of the accused appellants to commit the death of both the deceased or to cause other injuries to injured of the complainant party. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the accused appellants relied upon the following judgments:-Gajanand v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1954 SC 695 , Shambhu Nath v. State of Bihar, AIR 1960 SC 725 , Ananta Kahod Pawar & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra, 1997 Cr.L.R. (SC) 628 , and Gafoor v. The State of Rajasthan, RLW 1983 656 . 34. We have perused all the judgments cited on the point as advanced by the learned counsel for the accused appellants. In all the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the accused appellants, it has been held that to invoke the provisions of section 148 or 149 IPC, there must be an unlawful assembly and the accused must be the member of that unlawful assembly and it should be committed in prosecution of the common object. 35. Further, the person who is sought to be made liable, knew that the offence as commonly been committed, was likely to be committed, i.e. the most important requirement necessary for application of liability under section 149 IPC is that the act for which each member of the assembly can be made liable should be an act which was either actually committed or was in any case likely to be committed in furtherance to the common object of the assembly. 36. We have perused the statement of all the eye witnesses as referred in earlier paras. 36. We have perused the statement of all the eye witnesses as referred in earlier paras. All the eye witnesses, out of them some were injured, deposed that all the accused appellants were armed with deadly weapons, out of which one was armed with a pistol, one accused with gandasi, one with jelly and one with 'kulhari' and two with 'lathis'. Thus, when all the accused persons were armed with such deadly weapons, including fire arms, it can very well be presumed that each person knew that the object of the above assembly was to inflict grievous injuries or to cause the death of the injured. 37. In our view, the facts of the above citations are different from the facts of the present case, particularly, looking to the statement of the eye witnesses and the weapons with which they were armed. 38. The contention of learned counsel for the defence that non-mentioning of place in site plan, where from witnesses viewed the incident is not favourable to the prosecution, does not appeal to the reasoning. In the instant case, eye witnesses were not static during the incident and they also sustained injuries, which fortifies their presence at the scene of occurrence. 39. Learned counsel cited the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Santa Singh v. State of Punjab, 1956 SC, 526] (S) AIR V 43 C 90 Aug. 40. Similarly, it may be useful to show the weapon of offence to the Medical Officer, to establish that resultant injuries may occur on using such weapon. In a case like the present one, where there are gun shot injuries also, wherein it is not at all necessary to show the gun to the medical expert. Thus, the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the accused appellants on this point are distinguishable on facts. 41. It is also contended that the incident took place near the residence of accused persons and there also accused got injured, therefore, defence version put forth in defence, adduced by three defence witnesses, it is also probable that these female family members of accused were being molested by complainant party and were rescued by use of force. Suffice it to say that superficial three abrasions on the person of each of the three accused, rather proved their presence at the scene of occurrence. Suffice it to say that superficial three abrasions on the person of each of the three accused, rather proved their presence at the scene of occurrence. It has been satisfactorily proved that there was enmity between the parties on account of a previous quarrel. Therefore, Sher Singh and Ram Singh were stopped on way by accused party, near to their residence and upon coming to know about it, rest of the injured also gathered there to save them. The gun which was used to shoot deceased Sher Singh was recovered at the instance of the accused Mahaveer .This was an unlicensed gun and was possessed by the accused Mahaveer .Therefore, this story falls flat on the floor that complainant party was assailants and a member there of, fired a shot which hurt another member of their own party, i.e. the complainant party. Learned defence counsel has further contended that allegedly, the complainant party was at about 5 ft. higher platform than the accused, at the time of the incident. Therefore, it is not possible that the bullet will cause straight round rupture. The consequential wound will be oblique and secondly if the injury is in the back side, then it was not possible for witnesses to see as to who fired the shot. 42. Learned counsel for the accused appellants also argued that the injury caused to deceased Ram Singh by a pistol could not be caused by any of the accused, while firing from a place 5 fts. below the level of the injured, where they were standing and in such circumstances, the bullet will strike behind the head, in a particular angle, which was not proved by the prosecution. While relying upon the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the accused appellants, he relied upon the following different authorities which are as under:- 1. Pandurang Kalu Patil v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2002 SC 733 2. Kottaya v. Emperor, AIR (34) 1947 Privy Council 66 3. Anter Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2004 SC 2865 43. We are also of the view that leaving aside deceased, other members of the complainant party, can well witness such gun fire, when deceased just turned and the bullet got across his neck. Kottaya v. Emperor, AIR (34) 1947 Privy Council 66 3. Anter Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2004 SC 2865 43. We are also of the view that leaving aside deceased, other members of the complainant party, can well witness such gun fire, when deceased just turned and the bullet got across his neck. After viewing fight, it cannot be possible for effected persons to remain in same posture and it depends upon the existing position of the victim that the bullet injury will be placed obliquely or just straight. We have carefully gone through the alleged exaggerations and contradictions in the statement of eye witnesses, which are in our view, of minor nature and essentially occurs in such depositions unless tutored thoroughly. Thus, the facts of the cases cited by the learned counsel for the accused appellants are different to the present case. 44. According to PW 5 Balvir accused Mahaveer and Satbir both were having pistols, whereas the remaining witnesses deposed that only Mahaveer was having pistol in his hand. Contradiction / error on the part of these witnesses can be because of lapse of time. As per PW/5 Balvir, the bullet just touched his arm, it may happen that virtually a person feels that bullet has just passed near by him but he cannot be called to be a fake witness only on this count. 45. The learned counsel for the accused appellants relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble apex court in Santa Singh's case (supra) and the judgment in Lawrence D'souza v. State of Bombay, 1956 SC 531 (S) (AIR V 43 C 91 Aug. 24th April 1956, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that inordinate delay in sending the cartridges to the Forensic Science Laboratory raises much suspicion. On the other hand, there is cogent evidence in this case to the fact that the cartridges or other articles which were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory have remained in the sealed condition in the police station and in the same condition was received by the Forensic Science Laboratory . Therefore, there arises no question of any suspicion by sending the cartridges to the Forensic Science Laboratory after a lapse of time. 46. It was contended that the place of the incident is a 'chouk' where 20 to 21 inhabited houses were situated, but no independent witness has supported the prosecution version. Therefore, there arises no question of any suspicion by sending the cartridges to the Forensic Science Laboratory after a lapse of time. 46. It was contended that the place of the incident is a 'chouk' where 20 to 21 inhabited houses were situated, but no independent witness has supported the prosecution version. It is a matter of common experience that neighbours will never like to take displeasure. None of them was named by accused as eye witnesses of the incident, nor such person was called as defence witnesses. When the deposition as made by the eye witnesses, is otherwise trust worthy, then it cannot be thrown out simply because of some other relationship between them. 47. Having scanned carefully the evidence, we are of the considered view that the learned trial court, while relying upon the evidence of eye witnesses, and the fact of the recovery of the weapon of offence, has committed no error in relying upon the prosecution evidence available on record. 48. So far as the injuries sustained by the accused during the same incident is concerned, although the investigating officer PW/15 Sunil Kumar admitted in his cross examination that Ex.P -6 is the photo copy of the injury report of three accused. But neither the injuries have been proved by the expert nor the original injury report was placed on record, therefore, on the basis of Ex.P-6 accused appellants could not prove the injuries sustained by three of the accused appellants, although learned counsel for the accused appellants relied on the judgment in Santa Singh v. State of Punjab, 1956 SC, 526 . But in the instant case injuries on the body of accused could not be proved by legal evidence. 49. We have perused the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the accused appellants. In Moti v. State, ILR 1962 383 Raj. there was a contradiction in the statement of eye witnesses and of the investigation officer who prepared the site inspection memo, and thus due to this major contradiction the court disbelieved the place from which the witnesses could see the incident, but in the present case, there are no such contradictions. 50. In Moti v. State, ILR 1962 383 Raj. there was a contradiction in the statement of eye witnesses and of the investigation officer who prepared the site inspection memo, and thus due to this major contradiction the court disbelieved the place from which the witnesses could see the incident, but in the present case, there are no such contradictions. 50. Learned counsel for the accused appellants also contended that injured Balvir stated in his statement that he also sustained injuries and this fact was corroborated by the evidence of Om Prakash, whereas no fire arm injury was observed by the Medical Jurist on the examination of the body of Balvir. There is similar evidence of PW/4 Satyawan that Mahaveer shot fire on Sarjeet and Balvir on the hand and chest of Balvir and no such injuries were observed by the medical jurist. 51. Thus, the ocular evidence and the inconsistency between the eye witnesses' account and the medical opinion, this argument of discrepancy in itself is sufficient to throw out the entire prosecution story. The learned counsel for the accused appellants relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dinesh & Anr. v. State of Haryana, AIR 2002 SC 2374 52. Learned counsel for the accused appellants further cited some more authorities on various arguments as under: 1. Vishwanath Shanthamallappa Dhule & Anr. v. State of Karnataka, 1997 Cr.L.R. (SC) 629 2. Mehjraj Singh v. State of U.P., 1995 Cri.L.J. 457 3. Abdul Ise Suleman v. State of Gujarat, 1995 Cri.L.J.464 4. Sharad v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622 5. In Re Kodur Thimma Reddi, AIR 1957 Andh.Pra. 758 6. Ishwar Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 1976 SC 2423 53. We have perused the above citations. 54. In our view, decided cases are of no use in appreciating the evidence. Each case depends on its own facts. A close similarity between one case and another is not enough to warrant like treatment, because a significant detail may alter the entire picture. The resemblance between two cases is not at all decisive. The contradictions between the eye witnesses is a natural phenomena,when witnesses are rustic persons their behavioural pattern, perceptions and habits must be taken into consideration and appreciated. The resemblance between two cases is not at all decisive. The contradictions between the eye witnesses is a natural phenomena,when witnesses are rustic persons their behavioural pattern, perceptions and habits must be taken into consideration and appreciated. Fringe various discrepancies in details, contradictions in narration and embellishments in non-essential parts, cannot militate against veracity of the core of testimony, if there is an impression of truth and conformity of probability in substantial fabric of prosecution story. 55. Learned counsel for the accused appellants argued that PW/6 Urmila, instead of returning to her home, which was near to the place of incident, had gone to the field to call other persons. This behaviour of PW/6 Urmila, was not natural and against the human conduct. 56. We have pondered over the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the accused appellants. 57. Evidence of a witness cannot be rejected on the ground that he did not behave in a particular manner. 58. Witness may be stunned, speechless, confused, hysterical or run away. Each person acts in a special way. There are no set of rules of natural reactions. Therefore, only on this count, the evidence of PW/6 Urmila cannot be thrown out. In view of the aforementioned discussions made by us, the learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh did not err in relying on the eye witnesses and recording the judgment of conviction dated 27.05.2005 passed in Sessions No.3/2003 and, therefore, it is maintained. 59. So far as the sentence part is concerned, the learned trial court punished each of the accused with life imprisonment for committing the murder of Ram Singh and further by consecutive sentence of life imprisonment for committing the murder of Sher Singh. We are, however, of the view that these life imprisonments should run concurrently, along with other sentences awarded for other offences. 60. Accordingly, the sentence passed by the learned trial court is modified to the extent that the sentences awarded by the learned trial court for each offence,of all accused, shall run concurrently, instead of consecutively. 61. In the result, the appeal filed by the accused appellants Lalchand, Mahaveer, Munshi Ram, Vinod Kumar, Jaivir and Satvir is partly allowed, as indicated above.Appeal partly allowed. *******