JUDGMENT P. D. KODE, J.:- The judgment and order of conviction and sentence recorded by 2nd Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha on 7.1.2005 in Sessions Case No.157 of 2003 of the said Court is subject matter of the present appeal. At the said trial all the appellants, were charged for committing the offence of murder of one Chandrabhan Moon and voluntarily causing hurt to his wife PW-5 Sanghmitra and daughter PW-6 Subhashree on 6.9.2003 at 18.00 hours at mouza Pathar in furtherence of their common intention by assaulting Chandrabhan with wooden stick and weapon alike knife and PW-5 and PW-6 BY wooden slick. 2. By the judgment appealed, the trial court had arrived at the conclusion that appellant no.1 and 2 were guilty for commission of offence of murder of said Chandrabhan Moon and sentenced each of them to suffer imprisonment of life and to pay fine of Rs.500/ - and in default of payment of fine, to suffer R.I. for four months. The trial court had further come to the conclusion that appellant no.2 and appellant no.3 were guilty for commission of offence u/s.323 of IPC and sentenced each of them to suffer R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.200/- in default of payment of fine, to suffer R.I. for eight days. The trial court had acquitted appellant no.3 from the charge of commission of murder of Chandrabhan. 3. The said trial has emanated out of challan submitted by PW-13, P.I. Bhakte of Samudrapur Police Station as a result of investigation of Crime No.99/03 of the said Police Station. It is the case of the prosecution that on the day of incident at about 18.30 hours PW -13 had received message about the incident of assault from one Raju Burile and had rushed to village Pathar and from the said place to Cottage Hospital, Hinganghat at which the injured/victims were referred. In the meanwhile PW-9, PSI Jamir Sheikh had registered the crime No. 0/03 registered with Hinganghat Police Station at 20.40 hours upon report Exh.51 recorded by him of PW-5 Sanghmitra regarding incident which had resulted in death of her husband Chandrabhan and in which herself and her daughter PW-6 had sustained injuries. 4. The prosecution case as disclosed from the report Exh.51 and record is to the effect that: i) PW-5 Sanghmitra, her husband and children were residing at village Pathar. 4. The prosecution case as disclosed from the report Exh.51 and record is to the effect that: i) PW-5 Sanghmitra, her husband and children were residing at village Pathar. Her brother-in-laws PW -10 Naresh and Manoj were residing besides her house. On 6.9.2003 PW-10 Naresh had lodged report Exh.61 with Police Station regarding quarrel occurred place in the morning in between Manoj and appellant no.1. The same had occurred as lady who had been to village Pathar for the survey of the people Below Poverty Line after being to the house of appellant no.1 for checking had returned while going to the house of Manoj, due to having not seen TV antenna at the house of appellant no.1. Thereon appellant no.1 had suspected that PW-10 had instigated her against him. ii) PW -5 along with her daughter PW-6 were at her residence by 6 p.m. and her husband Bhanudas had thereafter returned from the field. Appellants no. 1 to 3 running behind Bhanudas had followed him. Appellants were armed with the sticks and appellant no.1 was armed with weapon like knife. Firstly appellant no.1 with stick had assaulted PW -5 on head and mouth and thereon PW-5 had fallen down. Appellant no.2 had assaulted her daughter on back by stick. Thereafter both of them had assaulted her husband with stick and appellant no.1 also with sharp weapon like knife which was with him. The same had caused the injuries on abdomen, hand and the other parts of the body of her husband. Appellant no.3 was also then present. Husband of PW-5 was lying in the door due to the injuries sustained. None else was present when the incident had occurred. After some time PW-12 Subhash Gaikwad, Prafulla Moon, Bharat Moon had given assistance to them for reaching uptill Shegaon-Kund by means of bullock cart. Thereafter by autorickshaw they had reached Hinganghat and had been to the dispensary for treatment. Within then Chandrabhan had died in the dispensary. iii) Thereafter PW-5 narrating said happening had lodged the report with Hinganghat Police Station. PW-9, PSI Jamir Sheikh, after registering crime thereon, had drawn inquest panchanama Exh.32 upon the corpse of Chandrabhan at Cottage Hospital at Hinganghat, and sent the corpse for postmortem examination. Within then Chandrabhan had died in the dispensary. iii) Thereafter PW-5 narrating said happening had lodged the report with Hinganghat Police Station. PW-9, PSI Jamir Sheikh, after registering crime thereon, had drawn inquest panchanama Exh.32 upon the corpse of Chandrabhan at Cottage Hospital at Hinganghat, and sent the corpse for postmortem examination. PW-9 had, thereafter, referred the matter to Samudrapur Police Station at which PW -13 P.I Gaikwad has effected the remaining investigation in the crime by registering Crime No.99/2003 of the said Police Station and at the conclusion of the same charge-sheeted the appellants arrested by him during the same. 5. The appellants had pleaded not guilty to the charge Exh.17 framed by the trial Court on 2.6.2004. The prosecution has examined in all 13 witnesses at a trial i.e. in addition to above referred 6 witnesses, 7 more witnesses namely panch witnesses PW-1 Raju, PW•2 Sanjay for spot panchanama and seizure of stick, gupti & blood from the spot at Exh.26; PW -3 Shankar Choube for seizure panchanama Exh.29 regarding seizure of the clothes of PW5 and 6: and PW-4 Dr. Ashwini Supare regarding Chandrabhan brought in dead condition to Cottage Hospital on day of incident at 7.30 p.m.; examination of victims PW-5 and 6 made by her and certificates Exh.42 and 43 given by her regarding the injuries noted on their person; opinion given by her in response to the query made by the police about weapon stick sent to her by the police; panch PW -7 regarding discovery and seizure of clothes of appellant no.1 in consequent to statement leading to such a discovery made by him under memorandum and discovery panchanama Exh.74 and 75; PW-8 Chandrakala, younger sister-in-law of the deceased and eye-witness to the incident; PW-11 Dr. Gedam regarding the autopsy on the corpse of the deceased performed by her at the Cottage Hospital on 7.9.2003 and P.M. Notes Exh.64 about the same and PW-12 Subhash Gaikwad regarding himself proceeding the spot after hearing hue and cry from the house of the deceased, on way having seen accused running away from the spot and dying declaration made by deceased to him implicating appellant no. 1 and appellant no.2 assaulting him respectively with knife and stick and taking of deceased Chandranbhan to Hinganghat. 1 and appellant no.2 assaulting him respectively with knife and stick and taking of deceased Chandranbhan to Hinganghat. Out of the 13 prosecution witnesses, PW-7 having not supported the prosecution was declared hostile and cross-examined on behalf of prosecution at a trial. The prosecution had also relied upon several documents which came to be prepared during the course of investigation such as collecting blood samples sending same and other articles to C.A. And C.A. Reports. 6. The defence of the appellants at the trial was that of total denial and of false implication. Each of the appellants during his/her examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. about the circumstances appearing against him/her in the prosecution evidence has claimed of same being false and/or himself being unaware of the same. With regard to the claim staked by the witnesses against them, each of the appellants claimed that deceased had run away after inflicting a blow of gupti upon the hand of appellant no.1 and fallen upon thorny fencing, there being enmity in between deceased and them. Ramesh had killed/assaulted father of appellant no.1, all of them were relatives. Though appellant no.1 had answered in affirmative regarding his wish to examine himself on oath and to examine witnesses in support of his defence, in fact, no defence evidence was adduced at the trial. 7. The trial Court after appreciation of the evidence adduced by the prosecution came to the conclusion of prosecution having established Chandrabhan Moon having died homicidal death. It also came to the conclusion that by the said evidence prosecution has established appellants no.1 and 2 in furtherence of their common intention on 6.9.2003 at village Pathar having committed the murder of the said Chandrabhan and at the same date, time and place appellants no.2 and 3 in furtherence of their common intention having voluntarily caused hurt to PW-5 and PW-6 by means of stick. In consonance with the said findings arrived, trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants for the offences for which they were found guilty as stated earlier. 8. Dr. In consonance with the said findings arrived, trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants for the offences for which they were found guilty as stated earlier. 8. Dr. U. K. Kalsi, learned counsel appearing for the appellants urged that i) the trial Court manifestly erred in convicting and sentencing the appellants as prosecution evidence has miserably failed to establish guilt of any of the appellants for commission of the offences for which they are respectively convicted and sentenced, ii) the prosecution evidence is fragile and rests upon the testimonies of interested and/or inimical witnesses and even the same is full of discrepancies, improvements and/or contradictory version, iii) the evidence of PW-5 is full of omissions and in conflict with the medical evidence adduced by the prosecution and clearly exhibits that she has implicated entire family of appellant no.3 due to her brother-in-law being convicted and the same is apparent from improvement made by her regarding role played by appellant no.3, iv) the evidence of PW-6 Subhashree clearly reveals of herself being not eye-witness to the incident and being tutored witness. Her evidence is in conflict with the evidence of PW-5 in respect of catching of the deceased as compared with the version given by her mother, v) the evidence of PW-8 Chandrakala is full of the omissions and in conflict with the medical evidence adduced. The same also reveals that she is highly interested witness as her husband was prosecuted for attempting to murder father of appellants no. 1 and 2 and husband of appellant no.3. Her evidence does not inspire confidence due to herself having evaded to answer the question regarding the distance of a place at which she was working and from which she had claimed to have returned and witnessed the incident, vi) The evidence of PW -10 considered along with other evidence clearly reveals that he was inimical with the appellants for the same reasons for which PW-5, PW-6 & PW-8 were inimical, vii) the evidence of PW-11 Dr. Gedam lacks the corroboration to her claim of the injuries caused to deceased being sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause his death, the description of gupti given by the prosecution differs from the specification of injuries given in the report of PW-II which indicates that weapon sent to her was planted by the prosecution with ulterior motive to implicate the appellants. She has also opined that the injuries on the body of victim were possible by a fall on barbed wire, agricultural implement and sharp edged. Her evidence does not advance the prosecution case, viii) The evidence of PW-12 Subhash Gaikwad also does not inspire confidence, the account given in the dying declaration allegedly given to him by deceased differs with the account given by other eye-witnesses and there exists improvement in his deposition. He was also inimical with the appellants, ix) the evidence of none of the eyewitnesses thus inspires confidence and is liable to be discarded. Even the same is not supported by other corroborative evidence which is also in conflict with the claim staked by the witnesses. x) the prosecution evidence also reveals that no blood was found on the alleged weapon of offfence knife/gupti. Furthermore evidence of panch PW-1 does not reveal gupti being found on the spot is indicative of the same being planted lateron. xi) Similarly only one blood stain being found on the clothes of appellant no.1 in spite of ten injuries being sustained by the deceased also indicates false case being concocted against the appellants. xii) The prosecution has failed to explain injuries on the person of appellant no.1. 9. Thus the learned counsel urged that since the prosecution evidence fails to inspire confidence much a less fails to establish guilt of the appellants beyond pale of doubt, they deserve to be acquitted by allowing the appeal preferred by them. 10. Mr. S. J. Jichkar, learned APP appearing on behalf of the respondent/state supported the judgment appealed and urged that no error was committed by the trial Court in convicting and sentencing the appellants for the offences which were duly estwlished by the prosecution evidence. He urged that the evidence of PW-5 is duly corroborated by report of incident immediately lodged by her. He urged that PW-5 and PW-6 are the natural witnesses for the incident occurred and hardly there is any conflict in their evidence inter-se or with medical evidence as contended on behalf of the appellants. There being no material contradictions in the account of incident given by the said eye-witnesses, their evidence was not liable to be discarded and hence rightly accepted and acted upon by the trial Court. There being no material contradictions in the account of incident given by the said eye-witnesses, their evidence was not liable to be discarded and hence rightly accepted and acted upon by the trial Court. The fact of PW-5 and PW-6 being witnesses of the incident is supported/corroborated by the injuries on their person and established by the prosecution through the evidence of doctor PW-4 who had examined them soon after the incident. The same is also supported by the evidence of PW-12 Subhash Gaikwad and particularly dying declaration made by deceased to him. The learned APP thus urged for dismissing the appeal on the count of there being no merit in the same. 11. We have given thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced by both the parties and carefully perused the record and the decisions relied. 12. Even without taking into account the other evidence adduced by the prosecution regarding various facets alone upon the evidence of PW-11 Dr. Nanda Gedam and considering the same along with inquest panchanama Exh.37, it can be safely said that by the same the prosecution had established deceased having met with homicidal death. The same is apparent as scrutiny of the evidence of PW -II nowhere reveals that claim staked by her of having performed post-mortem examination on the corpse of the deceased on 7.9.2003 at Cottage Hospital and during the same having noticed ante mortem six stab wounds and four incised wounds at specific locations as deposed by her and having noticed internal damage of collection of blood in left 8th inter coastal space with multiple injuries to peritoneum, collection of blood in cavity and injuries to both intestines has been shattered in any manner during the cross-examination. Similarly her claim of co-relating external and internal injuries also has remained unshattered. The same is the case about the opinion regarding the probable cause of death and so also the opinion given regarding injuries on person of deceased being possible by gupti sent to her. The evidence of PW -11 is well corroborated by autopsy notes Exh.64 and opinion Exh.65 given by her in response to the query made by the Police regarding weapon. Needless to add that even reference to the inquest panchanama Exn.37 and particularly the injuries noticed upon the corpse also duly corroborates her evidence regarding the injuries sustained by the deceased. 13. Needless to add that even reference to the inquest panchanama Exn.37 and particularly the injuries noticed upon the corpse also duly corroborates her evidence regarding the injuries sustained by the deceased. 13. Having regard to the evidence of PW-II and taking into account the nature of multiple injuries sustained by the deceased and established by the same. it is difficult to give any credence to the submissions canvassed by learned counsel for the appellants of PW-11 having not mentioned in P.M. notes about the injuries received by deceased Chandrabhan being sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause his death, her evidence does not inspire confidence or the same being not sufficient to establish deceased having met homicidal death due to PW-11 also having given admissions that person can survive subject to immediate treatment. Such a conclusion is apparent as all the said submissions are apparently canvased without taking into consideration the nature of evidence of PW-11 being that of an expert. The opinion given by PW-11 regarding the said injuries being sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause the death of deceased and which in fact had occurred soon after receipt of injuries, can never be liable to discarded on such a count. The same is obvious as nothing significant was elicited during the cross examination for discarding or not accepting the said opinion given by PW-11. Needless to add hardly any material was brought on record by defence to come to the conclusion of the said opinion being without any basis for the same. Similar is the case regarding the admission obtained during the cross-examination from PW-11 that person sustaining such injuries can survive subject to receipt of immediate treatment. Needless to add the same being mere possibility and not probability the submission canvassed on such a basis, the opinion given by an expert can never be liable to be discarded. 14. The same is the case regarding another submission canvassed of PW-11 having admitted during the cross-examination of incised would and stab wounds were possible by fall on barbed iron wire, agricultural implements and sharp edge. 14. The same is the case regarding another submission canvassed of PW-11 having admitted during the cross-examination of incised would and stab wounds were possible by fall on barbed iron wire, agricultural implements and sharp edge. Needless to add that the admission elicited again being in nature of possibility and not probability and the same being apparently opinion given by expert on the basis of nature of injuries, hardly said admission elicited can be said to have any significance upon the prosecution case which will be required to be judged on the basis of the other evidence on the record. Needless to add that said admission will neither have any effect upon other part of evidence of PW-11 in which PW-11 has specifically deposed of the injuries caused to the deceased being possible by gupti. Since the deceased was not assaulted while being stationary all the while, the dimensions of injuries caused to him not exactly tallying with the weapon seized and sent to PW-11 will also not have any effect upon the prosecution case or the account of assault given by the witnesses. 15. In the context of the evidence of PW-11 the learned counsel has also tried to canvass that there exist a conflict in the said medical evidence and the account of the incident deposed by the eyewitnesses and particularly that of appellant no.2 having assaulted deceased with stick. The learned counsel for the appellants urged that the evidence of PW-11 by implication rules out the possibility of deceased being assaulted by means of stick as evidence of PW-11 reveals that injuries caused to the deceased were possible by gupti and thus by implication establishes that no injury possible by stick was caused on the person of the deceased. On the same basis an attempt was made to urge that thus the said evidence over rules possibility of the deceased being assaulted by stick. 16. The careful scrutiny of the evidence of PW-11 reveals that no support to the said submission is found from her evidence. The scrutiny does not reveal any pointed question was put to PW-11 during the cross examination of the injuries noticed by her on the person of deceased were altogether ruling out the possibility of the deceased also being assaulted by means of stick. The scrutiny does not reveal any pointed question was put to PW-11 during the cross examination of the injuries noticed by her on the person of deceased were altogether ruling out the possibility of the deceased also being assaulted by means of stick. Needless to add, without any affirmative answer of such a nature from PW-11, no inference as tried to be canvassed by the defence counsel can be drawn. Such a conclusion is apparent as it is common knowledge that causing visible injury by means of stick would be dependent upon the force by which the blow would be received by victim. Apart from the same in event of victim already having received injuries on some part against receiving a stick blow on the same part may not cause a visible injury due to the stick blow. In view of the aforesaid and de-hors any particular submission made on behalf of defence by pointing out particular part of the evidence of eye-witnesses relating to assault by stick upon deceased that in all probability the same would have resulted in causing visible injury to him, it is difficult to accept the said submissions. Needless to add that merely PW-5 and PW-6 after assault upon them with a stick having sustained visible injury, would not be an ipso facto factor for accepting such defence submission, as receiving of such type of injuries would have been squarely dependent upon the factors as observed earlier. 17. Now reverting to the evidence of PW-4 Dr. Ashwini Supare also the case does not appear to be different. The scrutiny of her evidence does not reveal that claim staked by PW-4 of having examined PW-5 and PW-6 at 7.30 p.m. and having noticed injuries on their person and the said injuries being possible by hard and blunt object and the same being possible by stick having blood marks sent to her by police is shattered in any manner during the cross-examination. On the contrary the same is found well corroborated by the Medical Certificates Exh.42 and 43 and opinion given by her at Exh.44. On the contrary the same is found well corroborated by the Medical Certificates Exh.42 and 43 and opinion given by her at Exh.44. Needless to add that merely eliciting the other possibility of such injuries being possible by fall by itself cannot be said to be affecting the prosecution case which is required to be judged not on the basis of possibility but on the probability in light of the other evidence adduced on the record. As a net result of the discussion about the medical evidence adduced by the prosecution it can be safely said that the prosecution has established of deceased Chandrabhan having met with homicidal death and claims staked by PW-5 and PW-6 of having received the injuries due to being assaulted being duly corroborated by said evidence. Such a conclusion is inevitable regarding homicidal death due to evidence of PW-11 and particularly the number of injuries sustained by deceased and the location upon which the same were received, considered in proper perspective rules out possibility of death of Chandrabhan being for any other cause other than being homicidal. 18. After having considered the medical evidence now taking up the evidence of eye-witnesses and in said process firstly evidence of PW -5, her evidence clearly reveals of the same being by and large in conformity, but with some insignificant variations with the core of report Exh.51 immediately lodged by her at 20.40 hours regarding the incident which had occurred at about 18.00 hours soon after the same had resulted in death of her husband at Cottage Hospital at about 19.00 to 19.30 hours. 19. The glance at the evidence of PW-5 reveals that regarding the incident PW-5 having deposed that all the appellants had followed her husband with running when he was returning from the field. She had further claimed of appellants no.1 and 2 having caught her husband, herself having been at them for rescuing. She had deposed of then appellants no.1 and 2 having left her husband and caught hold of her, appellant no.3 having caught hold of her hairs and having told "Mara Hila". She has deposed that appellant no.2 was holding stick while appellant no.1 was holding sharp weapon i.e. gupti and another like knife. She had deposed of then appellants no.1 and 2 having left her husband and caught hold of her, appellant no.3 having caught hold of her hairs and having told "Mara Hila". She has deposed that appellant no.2 was holding stick while appellant no.1 was holding sharp weapon i.e. gupti and another like knife. PW-5 further claimed of herself being assaulted by appellant no.2 by stick on her shoulder and on her face and herself having sat down and being unable to talk. Her daughter PW-6 being beaten by appellant no.2 by stick. Her husband being dragged by appellants upto the door of her brother-in-law with appellant no.3 uttering "Dharun Thevare Ya Bakryala". Appellant no.1 was stabbing on the person of her husband upon stomach and hand. Her husband was shouting for leaving him as he had not done anything against them. Within short PW-12 being at the said place and having uttered "Kon Aahere", thereon appellants having ran away. PW-12 having taken cloth from her house and having tied upon stomach of her husband. PW-5 in further part of evidence has deposed regarding the manner in which she had accompanied her husband taken to Hospital at Hinganghat in bullock cart up-till at Shegaon and thereafter by Autorickshaw. She has deposed of doctors at hospital after examination of her husband had declared himself being dead. She has also deposed of herself being examined by the doctor and thereafter having lodged the report at the Police Station. 20. Now scrutiny of the evidence of PW-5 in light of the matters stated in the report lodged by her and the answers given during the cross-examination reveals of herself having admitted Ramesh Moon being convicted for attempt of murder of Bhanudas Nagrale i.e. father of appellant nos.1 and 2 and husband of appellant no.3. Without enlisting all the answers elicited during the cross-examination, it can be safely said that the said answers are capable of showing strained relations in between the family of PW-5 and that of the appellants and appellant no.1 having lodged complaint against PW-10 on the day of incident. However, enmity being double edged weapon, the evidence of PW-5 or even other witnesses from Moon family cannot be said to be liable to be rejected as canvassed by learned counsel for the appellants. However, enmity being double edged weapon, the evidence of PW-5 or even other witnesses from Moon family cannot be said to be liable to be rejected as canvassed by learned counsel for the appellants. The same is apparent as the said factor also connotes there being motive for the appellants for commission of offences. However, having regard to such state of affairs, it will be necessary to assess the evidence of PW-5 with necessary caution. 21. Further scrutiny of the evidence of PW-5 reveals that she was unable to give any reason regarding claim staked by her of having told the Police while lodging the report of her husband being caught hold by appellant no.2 and thereafter herself being for his rescue and thereon themselves having left her husband, having caught hold of her and appellant no.3 having told "Hila Mara" herself being caught by appellants no.1 and 2, appellant no.1 was holding two sharp weapons gupti and knife, appellant no.2 had beaten her by stick on 'shoulder, herself being unable to talk her husband being dragged by the appellants upto the door of her brother-in-law, the matters herself claimed to have uttered by appellant no.3 and so also by her husband; being not supported by the report lodged by her. 22. On the basis of the said matters, the learned counsel for the appellants has urged for discarding her evidence. The said submission was rightly repelled by the learned APP by pointing out that PW-5 being a rustic lady and all the said omissions being not in nature of contradictions and first information report being not expected to be an encyclopedia containing all the details of the incident and having due regard to tendency of even honest witnesses to exaggerate the matter under the stress of trial. Thus having regard to the said factor only the matters in the nature of improvement occurred due to exaggeration made by the witness and the matters in the nature of contradiction would be liable to be discarded from evidence of PW5. 23. Thus considering the evidence of PW-5 in such a manner, it is clear that core of her testimony that during the incident her husband was assaulted by appellant no.1 by means gupti like knife and by appellant no.2 by means of stick, similarly herself and her daughter being assaulted by a stick by appellant no.2, has clearly remained unaffected. 23. Thus considering the evidence of PW-5 in such a manner, it is clear that core of her testimony that during the incident her husband was assaulted by appellant no.1 by means gupti like knife and by appellant no.2 by means of stick, similarly herself and her daughter being assaulted by a stick by appellant no.2, has clearly remained unaffected. Similarly the claim staked of initially her husband being caught by appellant nos.1 and 2 and later on being dragged from her house in front of the house of her brother-in-law, cannot be said to be in the nature of improvement as tried to be canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellants. The same is apparent as the same is in the nature of furnishing the details about the incident at a trial and the same are not shown to be contradictory with the matters reported by her to the Police. However, the claim staked by her attributing positive role to appellant no.3 being not at all supported by the matters in the report, the same will not deserve any credence unless the same is found corroborated by other independent evidence. Such a conclusion is inevitable as her claim of appellant no.1 being armed with gupti alike knife and stick and appellant no.2 being with stick, and having used the said weapons for assaulting her husband, herself and her daughter as narrated earlier, is not found shattered during the cross-examination and on the contrary the same is found to be corroborated by the report promptly lodged by her with the Police. Similarly injury on her person and so also on the person of her daughter as established by the prosecution through the evidence of PW-4 guarantees their presence at the time of incident and being assaulted by the assailants. Needless to add that considering the place at which the incident had occurred, PW-5 would be most natural witness as claimed by her and her said claim is also not found dislodged during the cross-examination. Needless to add that scrutiny of her evidence also does not reveal any unnatural conduct on her part affecting her claim had surfaced on record. Thus the evidence of PW-5 will be required to be accepted as stated aforesaid. 24. Needless to add that scrutiny of her evidence also does not reveal any unnatural conduct on her part affecting her claim had surfaced on record. Thus the evidence of PW-5 will be required to be accepted as stated aforesaid. 24. Now scrutiny of the evidence of PW-6, who was of the age of 13 years at the time of incident, reveals of having given evidence regarding the reason behind occurrence of quarrel in the morning. She had further claimed of appellant no.2 holding weapon like stick, appellant no.1 long weapon like knife and appellant no.2 having beaten her mother by means of stick on her head and mouth when herself along with mother had been for saving of father who was caught by the appellants. She had claimed that all the accused have taken her father in front of door of her uncle and beaten her father by knife on stomach and arms and all three having fled away. She had also claimed that appellant no.3 was instigating them during assault and had also caught hold of her mother when she was making an effort to standup. She had also deposed of being examined and treated by doctor alike her mother. She had also deposed of PW-12, Prafulla Moon and Bharat Moon having been there and PW-2 having tied cloth to the stomach of her father. 25. The scrutiny of the evidence of PW-6 reveals that as pointed out by the learned defence counsel, during cross-examination she had admitted that she was knowing Advocate Sute and he had narrated her deposition in bar room library at 2.00 p.m. She had further admitted that her both uncles were knowing Advocate Sute and both of them were present in bar room and both of them had persuaded her. During further part of cross-examination she had answered that she was remembering her studies and today (on the date of evidence) she had remembered her deposition and accordingly has stated before the Court. Having regard to the effect of aforesaid admission and so also taking into consideration of age of witness at the time of incident and so also her evidence which was recorded about one year thereafter, we find it difficult to place reliance upon the same. The same is obvious as the said admission which clearly reveals that witness was tutored before deposing in court takes away all sanctity of her evidence. The same is obvious as the said admission which clearly reveals that witness was tutored before deposing in court takes away all sanctity of her evidence. Needless to add that any witness is expected to given an evidence about the facts seen, heard and perceived by him/her and then only Court can act upon the same. The tutored evidence can never said to be capable of legally establishing any fact relevant to criminal trial. Since careful scrutiny of her deposition also does not give any clue to come to the conclusion regarding which of the facts were deposed by her from her own knowledge and which were deposed due to the tutoring, her entire evidence will be liable to be discarded and will be of no assistance to prosecution for any purpose. 26. Now scrutiny of the evidence of PW-8, who was sister-in-law of the deceased, reveals of herself having staked a claim of being eyewitness and having seen the incident. She has deposed that all the appellants came from the back side of the deceased. Appellant no.3 was uttering as PAKDA PAKDA. Appellants had beaten deceased by means of knife, gupti and stick. Appellant no 1. was holding gupti, appellant 2 - stick. PW-8 had shouted. PW-5 was beaten by all the accused and she had received injury on her head. All the appellants had beaten daughter of PW-5 i.e. PW-6. All the appellants had ran away. Chandrabhan was lying in bleeding condition. PW-12 came at the said place. He tied towel to the stomach of the Chandrabhan. Then injured was carried to Hinganghat in a bullock-cart by Naresh (PW-10). Knife, Gupti and Stick were lying on the spot. 27. Upon scrutiny of evidence of PW-8, as pointed out by learned counsel for the appellants; upon questioning PW-8 about her husband being prosecuted for an attempt of murder of father of appellants no.1 and 2 and husband of appellant no.3 and himself being convicted for the same, the witness had declined to answer the question by saying "Amachya Ghari Yeuin Murder Kela Tyacha Adhi Sanga" It further reveals that PW-8 was given understanding by learned APP and even by Court, she had again avoided to give answer and repeated the said answer. Once again PW-8 was given understanding to give the answer put by the defence counsel. 28. Once again PW-8 was given understanding to give the answer put by the defence counsel. 28. The scrutiny further reveals that during further cross-examination PW-8 had admitted that on that day at about 10.30 p.m, she had been to the field of Mahadeo Burile and had returned back at about 6.00 p.m. Five female members were in the field of Mahadeo Burile. lyoti Moon, Mirmala Moon, Bhagwan Ghote were on the work. PW-8 further answered that they were getting Rs.30/- per day as a labour charges. Their work used to take place up to 6.00 p.m. Thereafter, PW-8 was suggested by learned defence counsel that field of Mahadeo Burile was 4 to 5 k.m. away from the village. However, again PW-8 has avoided to answer the said question stating that murder had occurred near her house. The note put in the evidence of PW-8 reveals that to each and every questions witness has avoided to give answers saying that "Jo Murder Ahe The Sangte, Ni Khare Bolat Ahe, Tumhi Khote Bolata." The deposition further reveals that thereafter the cross-examination was required to be adjourned till 2.30 p.m. 29. The scrutiny further reveals that thereafter the witness was suggested that about one to two hours were required to go to the field of Mahadeo Burile and to which again PW-8 has give evasive reply to the defence counsel "you know very well you have to state about the murder committed in front of my house". Thereafter further question put that you all woman labourers had jointly returned back from your work and to which PW-8 had again given evasive reply "whether do you know, I know it", The further part of the deposition reveals that PW-8 was put omissions regarding claims staked by her regarding the incident and after herself having claimed of having narrated the same to the police she was questioned the reason for same not finding in the statement. PW-8 instead of giving reason has again given evasive reply that the same had been written in her presence and she had narrated the matter seen by her. During further cross-examination PW-8 had ultimately admitted of her inability to give the reason why her claim of Chandrabhan having fallen down and having sustained bleeding injury was not found in her statement recorded by Police. During further cross-examination PW-8 had ultimately admitted of her inability to give the reason why her claim of Chandrabhan having fallen down and having sustained bleeding injury was not found in her statement recorded by Police. She had also admitted of having not narrated about the incident to Sarpanch, Police Patil and Kotwal. The scrutiny reveals that again the witness having started to avoid of giving an answers the matter was adjourned from 12th August, 2004 to 4th September, 2004. On the said day PW-8 answered about field of Mahadeo Burile being after about four field of her field. Without enlisting all further answers given by PW-8 during the cross-examination on the said day considering deposition of PW-8 in entirety and the period required for completing her deposition due to her own attitude and her conduct before the Court, make it difficult to place any reliance upon her evidence. Needless to add that considering her deposition in entirety and her anxiety to avoid the answers about an aspect upon which her claim of being eye-witness was founded i.e. whether she could have returned from the fields at a time as claimed by her to witness the incident, it will be wholly unsafe to rely upon her evidence for any purpose. 30. Now taking up the evidence of PW-12 Subhash Gaikwad, whose presence soon after incident at the spot is found supported by the evidence of PW-5 and her report Exh.51, the same reveals that on the date of incident after he had heard hue and cry from the house of Chandrabhan Moon and proceeded to said house and on the way seen appellants running towards their house from the house of Chandrabhan. He had deposed of having been to courtyard of Chandrabhan and having seen Chandrabhan lying in front of the door of house of Naresh Moon and blood oozing from the stomach of Chandrabhan and wife of Ramesh Moon/Chandrakala crying. PW-5 having sustained bleeding injury to her head. Her mouth swollen. PW-12 had further deposed that Chandrabhan was saying "Poranni Khub Marale Re, Manojne Chakune Marie, Ravindrane Kathine Marale". PW-12 deposed of having tied towel to abdomen of Chandrabhan and, thereafter, Chandrabhan being carried towards Hinganghat and on the way from Shegaon (Kund) Chandrabhan being carried by Auto to Cottage Hospital, Hinganghat. 31. Her mouth swollen. PW-12 had further deposed that Chandrabhan was saying "Poranni Khub Marale Re, Manojne Chakune Marie, Ravindrane Kathine Marale". PW-12 deposed of having tied towel to abdomen of Chandrabhan and, thereafter, Chandrabhan being carried towards Hinganghat and on the way from Shegaon (Kund) Chandrabhan being carried by Auto to Cottage Hospital, Hinganghat. 31. Now scrutiny of the evidence of PW-12 does not reveal any other significant material brought on the record affecting core of his testimony except himself having admitted of the appellants having lodged report against him even prior to the incident and himself being not in good terms with the appellants. He had denied the suggestion of himself having dispute with the appellants on the way of field and having candidly answered of dispute being in between Gaikwad and Moon families on the count of Panchsheel Flag. The scrutiny shows that though he claimed to have accompanied Chandrabhan up till Cottage Hospital and had remained there and his clothes were blood stains, he had not handed over his blood stained clothes to the police. He had denied the suggestion of the deceased being not in a position to talk and having not told of himself being assaulted by appellant no.1 by knife and Ravindra by stick. His evidence also does not reveal any other significant material being brought on record for not accepting his evidence. 32. It is indeed true that as pointed out by learned counsel for the appellants, PW-12 has admitted of there being enemity between himself and appellants. However, merely on the said count his evidence will not be liable to be rejected and at the most the same will required to be considered with caution. However, core of his evidence and particularly the deceased having made a declaration to him implicating appellant nos.1 and 2 having remained unshattered after cross-examination it will be difficult to discard his said main claim. However, core of his evidence and particularly the deceased having made a declaration to him implicating appellant nos.1 and 2 having remained unshattered after cross-examination it will be difficult to discard his said main claim. The learned defence counsel by pointing the answer given by PW-12 that there is a difference between knife, sword, gupti and sura had tried to canvass that claim staked by PW-12 of deceased having told him of appellant no.1 having assaulted him by means of Chaku and having not disclosed about assault upon his wife and daughter runs counter to the prosecution case and further lead to the inference of no declaration as claimed was made by the deceased to PW-12; his evidence is of no assistance to the prosecution and/or on the contrary the same destroyed prosecution case. It was also contended that such a claim is falsely made by PW-12 due to enemity admittedly existing in between himself and the appellants. 33. The aforesaid submission though attractive does not stand to the reason as considering then situation of the victim who had sustained about ten bleeding, injuries it appears unprobable of himself giving any detail account of incident to PW-12. Furthermore the deceased having used the word "Chaku" while narrating about the assault by appellant no.1 and PW-12 being not eye-witness, it is difficult to accept that admission given by PW-12 of there being difference in Chaku, knife and Gupti etc. would be of any consequence. Thus, close scrutiny of evidence of PW-12 not revealing any material for discarding his claim, PW-12 even having not claimed of being an eyewitness, the arrival of PW-12 at the spot being found supported by other prosecution evidence, mainly that of PW -5 and her report and enmity being double edged weapon, it is difficult to accept that on the said count the evidence of PW-12 can be said to be liable to be discarded as tried to be canvassed by learned counsel for the appellants. 34. 34. Now considering the evidence of PW-1 panch Raju, PW-2 Sanjay and that of investigating officer PW-13 regarding preparation of spot panchanama Exh.26 and though the same shows the disparity of PW-1 having not spoken of gupti also seen lying on the spot or having answered in the cross-examination that before himself reaching on the spot, panchanama was already prepared, still it is difficult to accept the defence submission that the same shows that the gupti was planted lateron. Such a conclusion is apparent the claim staked by the co-panch PW-2 and that of investigating officer of gupti was also found at the spot, had remained unshattered after the cross-examination. As a matter of fact the evidence regarding the said respect also duly corroborates the claim staked by PW-5 of the incident having occurred at place and in a manner as claimed by her. Similarly the same is also found corroborated by the evidence of PW-3 panch for seizure of clothes of PW-5. The evidence of PW-1 and PW-3 considered along with the evidence of PW-13 and so also CA reports at Exhs. 80 and 81 also establishes that during the investigation the clothes of victim and that of the appellant no.1 were seized and out of them, upon the clothes of the deceased, towels clothes of appellant no.3, clothes of appellant no.1 and PW-5 human blood of "A" group was detected. However, results being inconclusive, the blood groups of deceased, PW-5 or the appellants could not be determined. Similarly no blood was detected on gupti. However, merely because of the same, the defence submission cannot be accepted as the said corroborative evidence cannot over-weigh the evidence of PW-5 regarding the presence of the appellants at the spot. Needless to add that the submission also cannot be accepted solely on the said basis that gupti article was planted by the investigating agency. 35. Similarly considering the reasoning given in paragraph no. Needless to add that the submission also cannot be accepted solely on the said basis that gupti article was planted by the investigating agency. 35. Similarly considering the reasoning given in paragraph no. 34 by the trial Court regarding the non-examination of doctor who had examined appellant no.1, at a trial being due to his presence could not be secured within reasonable time and the prosecution having produced the medical certificate of appellant no.1 and considering the nature of injuries received by him being of a minor nature and appellants having admitted their presence at the time of incident during the stand taken by them in the examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. but suggestion of deceased having assaulted Appellant No.1 with Gupti and ran away and fallen on barbed fencing being denied by PW-5 and so also by other witnesses, it is difficult to accept defence criticism that the evidence of the prosecution is liable to be rejected on the count of having suppressed and/or not explained the injury upon the person of the appellant no.1. Needless to add that after carefully considering the reasoning given by the trial Court in paragraph no.33 of the judgment appealed, we find it difficult to find any fault with the same. 36. Thus reappraisal of entire prosecution evidence reveals that evidence of PW-5 inspires confidence regarding claims staked by her of assault made by appellant nos.1 and 2 upon her husband, herself and her daughter to the extent as observed earlier. The same is found corroborated by the evidence of PW-12 which also inspires confidence and so also by other corroborative evidence pointed out earlier. The presence of the appellants at the spot of incident is also assured by stand taken by them during their examination under section 313 of Cr.P.C. The contentions raised on behalf of the defence of there being conflict in oral account or in the prosecution evidence with medical evidence is found far from true. Similarly, no substance has been found in the defence contention of prosecution having attempted to suppress injury caused to appellant no.1 at the time of incident. The defence of the appellants of appellant no.1 having received injury due to deceased having inflicted blow of gupti on his hand is belied by the prosecution evidence. Similarly, no substance has been found in the defence contention of prosecution having attempted to suppress injury caused to appellant no.1 at the time of incident. The defence of the appellants of appellant no.1 having received injury due to deceased having inflicted blow of gupti on his hand is belied by the prosecution evidence. Having regard to the same the prosecution evidence regarding the incident i.e. of PW-5 and PW-12 deserves to be accepted. 37. The acceptance of prosecution evidence clearly establishes that at the time of incident appellant nos.1 and 2 in furtherance of their common intention had assaulted deceased i.e. Appellant no.1 by means of gupti like knife and appellant no.2 by stick and had caused multiple injuries to the deceased resulting in his death soon after the incident. It also establishes of appellant no.2 having assaulted PW-5 and PW-6 by means of sticks. Thus prosecution evidence clearly establishes appellant nos.1 and 2 having committed offence punishable u/s.302 r/w.34 of IPC and appellane.no.2 u/s.323 of IPC. In view of the same, we are unable to find any merits in the appeal preferred by appellants no.1 and 2 against their order of conviction and sentence. However, the prosecution evidence with regard to appellant no.3 having failed to establish anything more beyond presence of appellant no.3 at the spot and blood on her clothes but having failed to prove any positive overt act on her part during the incident, we are unable to uphold her conviction recorded by the trial Court for commission of offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC. The same is apparent as having due regard with the relation between the parties, her mere presence at the spot would not be sufficient to prove her guilt. Needless to add that the evidence surfaced regarding alleged overt act committed by her during the incident being in the nature of improvement made at trial was found liable to be discarded during the assessment. In view of the same, the conviction and sentence of appellant no.3 recorded by trial Court will be required to be quashed and set aside and she will be required to be acquitted from the charge of the commission of offence under section 323 of IPC by allowing the appeal preferred by her. 38. In view of the same, the conviction and sentence of appellant no.3 recorded by trial Court will be required to be quashed and set aside and she will be required to be acquitted from the charge of the commission of offence under section 323 of IPC by allowing the appeal preferred by her. 38. In the premises aforesaid, the appeal is partly allowed to the extent of setting aside order of conviction and sentence of appellant no.3 for offence under Section 323 of IPC and appellant no.3 stands acquitted from the charge of commission of the said offence. Appellant no.3 is set at liberty. The bail bonds executed by appellant no.3 stand cancelled. The fine, if any, paid by her be refunded. Appeal preferred by the appellants no.1 and 2 stands dismissed. Criminal Appeal No.95 of 2005 stands disposed of accordingly. Ordered accordingly.