Hon'ble Dr. GOMBER, J.—Appellants Abdul Wahid, Babu and Abdul Shakoor have filed this appeal against the judgment and order dated 10.3.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.4, Kota, in Sessions Case No. 13/1996, whereby they were convicted for offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life along with fine of Rs.5000/- each, in default whereof, to further undergo three months' simple imprisonment. The appellants were also convicted for offence under Section 148 and sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment. Both the sentences were to run concurrently. 2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that Faeem Ahmed, who happened to be employee of deceased Ahsan Ali, had lodged Ex.P.l - written report on 25.6.1988 at about 12.35 a.m. at police station Maqbara, Kota, stating therein that the deceased Ahsan Ali and him had gone to the deceased's in-laws' house in Nayapura at about 10.45 a.m. While talking to his relatives on his brother-in-law's shop, he was seen by accused Abdul Sattar and Abdul Wahid and the complainant, after noticing them and knowing about their strained relations with deceased, suggested the deceased to change the route to go home but the deceased insisted to go through their regular route. When they reached Ghantaghar, all of a sudden accused Babu, Abdul Wahid, Abdul Sattar (since died), Aziz alias Patti (died), Abdul Shakoor, Bundu (died) and Latur Ali (died), attacked the deceased Ahsan Ali and him with knives. The first knife injury was inflicted by Babu on the stomach of deceased, whereby he fell from the motorcycle and the second injury was inflicted by Abdul Wahid on his chest, also by knife. Abdul Sattar also inflicted injury by sword (katar) on his backside and the accused Abdul Shakoor and Aziz alias Patti (since deceased not before us), who were trying to inflict injuries on him, also followed him but he ran into the Gauri Hotel Lane and not seeing him, they returned and started causing injuries to the deceased. Anyhow, he escaped and went to the police station to lodge the report. According to the report, Ahsan Ali was lying at the place of occurrence in injured condition and that the incident was seen by Abdul Wahid and Jameel. Anyhow, he escaped and went to the police station to lodge the report. According to the report, Ahsan Ali was lying at the place of occurrence in injured condition and that the incident was seen by Abdul Wahid and Jameel. He further alleged that on account of enmity, seven named persons namely Babu, Abdul Sattar, Abdul Wahid, Abdul Shakoor, Aziz alias Patti, Bundu and Latur, formed an unlawful assembly to commit murder of Ahsan Ali. 3. On this report Ex.P.2, FIR No.48/1988 was registered for offence under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 307 IPC against named seven accused persons. Injured Ahsan Ali was removed to hospital for treatment, who succumbed to injuries and the police added offence under Section 302 IPC in the case. After usual investigation, the police filed charge-sheet against accused persons Babu, Abdul Wahid, Abdul Shakoor, Abdul Sattar, Bundu, Latur and Jaffar Mohammed for offence under Section 147, 148, 149 and 302 IPC and the investigation against Aziz alias Patti was kept pending u/Sec. 173(8) Cr.P.C. 4. On committal before the court of Sessions, the learned trial Judge, after hearing the charge arguments on 5.1.1989, framed charges against the accused persons Babu, Abdul Wahid, Bundu, Latur, Jaffar Mohammed, Abdul Sattar and Abdul Shakoor for offence under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 302 IPC which they denied and claimed trial. A supplementary charge-sheet was filed against accused Aziz alias Patti in his absence, since he could not be arrested by the police by that time, and on committal of case against him, his case was also consolidated with the case of other accused persons. Charges for offence under Secs. 147, 148 and 302/149 IPC were read over and explained to him also, to which he denied. 5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 22 witnesses and exhibited as many as 20 documents. After completion of prosecution evidence, the accused persons were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., who alleged false implication and examined D.W.l Rasheed Ahmed, DW.2 Usman and DW.3 Abdul Raheem, in defence and also exhibited documentary evidence being statements of Jahid Hussain and Ashmat Ali as Ex.D.l and Ex.D.3 respectively. 6. After completion of prosecution evidence, the accused persons were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., who alleged false implication and examined D.W.l Rasheed Ahmed, DW.2 Usman and DW.3 Abdul Raheem, in defence and also exhibited documentary evidence being statements of Jahid Hussain and Ashmat Ali as Ex.D.l and Ex.D.3 respectively. 6. The learned trial court formulated two issues and on the basis of material before it, acquitted the accused Jaffar Mohammed of all the charges whereas trial against four accused persons namely Abdul Sattar, Bundu alias Rahees, Latur alias Farooq and Abdul Aziz alias Patti abated on account of their death. 7. Present three appellants i.e. Babu, Abdul Wahid and Abdul Shakoor, were convicted of offence under Section 148 as also under Section 302 IPC simplicitor and sentenced as mentioned herein above. 8. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 10.3.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.4, Kota, the accused appellants, namely Babu, Abdul Wahid and Abdul Shakoor, had filed this appeal. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants as also the learned Government Advocate and perused the record. Assailing the impugned judgment, following submissions were made by the learned counsel for the appellants. 10. The first submission advanced was that witnesses PW.l, PW.3, PW.4, PW.5 and PW.8, all are relatives, hence interested witnesses and their unnatural conduct tilts the balance in favour of the accused. 11. The second submission advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants was that the conduct of PW.l Faeem Ahmad, complainant, was quite unnatural. His conduct, soon after the incident, creates doubt on his presence at the time of occurrence. 12. The third submission advanced by the learned counsel for appellants was predicated to the fact that as per the statements of PW.15 Dr. CM. Srivastava, who conducted the postmortem report of deceased Ahsan Ali, he died due to excessive bleeding from his eight injuries, but has not stated which of the injuries was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature and has also not stated whether the injuries on the person of deceased were cumulatively sufficient to cause death and, therefore, it is not proved as to who was the author of fatal injury. 13. 13. Last submission advanced by the learned counsel for appellants was that there was nothing on record to prove that the appellants formed an unlawful assembly to commit murder of Ahsan Ali and that in prosecution of common object of the unlawful assembly, they committed his murder. 14. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate, supporting the judgment of learned trial court, argued that the prosecution has sufficiently proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and there is no error in the impugned judgment. 15. Heard and considered the arguments and perused the record as also the impugned judgment. 16. Out of 22 prosecution witnesses, PW.l Faeem Ahmed is the complainant. The presence of PW.3 and PW.4 Jamil and Wahid, has been shown in the FIR, Exhibit-P/l. PW.5 and PW.8 are also examined as eye witnesses, though not named in FIR. PW.9 was declared hostile and he did not support the prosecution story, whereas PW.10 is the attesting witness of recovery of weapons. In the same manner, PW.l1, PW.12 and PW.13 were declared hostile and did not support the prosecution story. PW.14 Abdul Haleem is the attesting witness of site plan and Dr. C.M. Srivastava, PW.15, is the medical officer who conducted the postmortem on the person of deceased Ahsan Ali and prepared postmortem report Exhibit-P.l4. 17. PW.15 Dr. CM. In the same manner, PW.l1, PW.12 and PW.13 were declared hostile and did not support the prosecution story. PW.14 Abdul Haleem is the attesting witness of site plan and Dr. C.M. Srivastava, PW.15, is the medical officer who conducted the postmortem on the person of deceased Ahsan Ali and prepared postmortem report Exhibit-P.l4. 17. PW.15 Dr. CM. Srivastava claims to have conducted the postmortem on the person of the deceased on 25.6.1998 at the requisition of Police Station Makbara, Kota at about 9.30 a.m. and stated that the deceased died within 24 hours before the time of conducting the postmortem, and he found following eight injuries on his body:- ^^pksV ua- 1 & bUlkbTM oq.M 1-1/2" x 1/2" x 1/2" x 1/2" bap] vkMh nkfguh Nkrh ds uhpsA ^^pksV ua- 2 & bUlkbTM oq.M 1" x 1/4" x 1/8" bap 1/2 bap ,ckÅ feMLVªsueA ^^pksV ua- 3 & LVsi cq.M ck;h rjQ dU/ks dh gìh ds chp esa 2" x 1/2" x Mhi dsfoVhA ^^pksV ua- 4 & bUlkbTM oq.M 3" x 1/2 x 1/2 bap] ck;h rjQ dksyjcwu ds ÅijA ^^pksV ua- 5 & LVsi oq.M 2" x 1/2" x dsfoVh Mhi] cka;h rjQ cka;s fuiy ds ÅijA ^^pksV ua- 6 & LVsi oq.M 3" x 1/2" x 1/2 vLi"VA ^^pksV ua- 7 & bUlkbTM oq.M fon ,czstu ukd dh gìh ds iklA ^^pksV ua- 8 & bUlkbTM oq.M 1-1/2" ysVªy Vw ysV ,axhy vkQ yhiA 1 bap x 1/2 x 1/4" FkksjsDl ywVk dVk gqvk FkkA ck;ah rjQ 3/4" vkQ oquA cka;k QsQM+k & ,DlizsjkfiDlM bUtjh vkQ nh ykbZfuax 300 ,e-,e-,y [kwu Hkjk gqvk FkkA e`R;q dkfjr gksus dk dkj.k& vR;f/kd jä L=ko gksus ds dkj.k mldh e`R;q dkfjr gqbZ FkhA** The cause of death, according to the medical jurist, was excessive bleeding from the injuries / stab wounds all over the body. The doctor has not specifically mentioned as to whether all these injuries cumulatively or any of them or some of them were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. 18. It is clear from record that the postmortem was conducted on the requisition of the police and that the dead-body was identified by Abdul Khalid, Assistant Sub Inspector, Ismail and Liyakat Ali, 19. 18. It is clear from record that the postmortem was conducted on the requisition of the police and that the dead-body was identified by Abdul Khalid, Assistant Sub Inspector, Ismail and Liyakat Ali, 19. PW.17 Surendra Vyas, who was Station House Officer at the relevant time, has deposed that Faeem Ahmed PW.l had given a written report Exhibit P. 1 on the basis whereof FIR no.48/98 was registered for offences under Sections 302, 147, 148 and 149 IPC. The informant had informed about the injured lying at the site of occurrence, therefore, he sent Ram Prasad, Assistant Sub Inspector along with the team at the place of occurrence. He received information that the deceased was lying injured, he went on the spot and took him to MBS Hospital and left a constable to guard the site of the occurrence. At about 1.30 a.m. he received information from the Hospital that the injured Ahsan Ali died. He went to the Hospital, by then the dead-body was already sent to mortuary. In the morning at 8.30 a.m. he prepared panchnama laash Exhibit-P/11 and handed over the dead-body for last rites to Ashfaq Ali vide Exhibit-P/12 and prepared the site plan Exhibit-P/10 in the presence of Abdul Ali, Hamid Ali and after the postmortem, seized the clothes of deceased vide seizure memo Exhibit-P/13 and recorded the statements of witnesses and then he arrested the accused Bundu, Latur, and Abdul Gafoor vide arrest memos Exhibit-P/22, P/23 and P/24 respectively, and on the basis of the information of Bundu he recovered a knife and seizure memo Exhibit-P/8 was prepared. In the same manner, on the basis of information given by the accused Latur, he recovered knife vide Exhibit P.9 at his instance. Abdul Shakoor also got a knife recovered on the basis of his information, which was seized vide Exhibit P.28. According to him the accused Abdul Sattar gave information to the Deputy Superintendent of Police PW.20 Prem Prakash about the 'katar', and on the directions of Dy. S.P. he went to Mumbai and recovered sword (katar) vide Exhibit P.29 in the presence of witnesses. He sealed the packets and also the clothes of the deceased and sent them for Forensic Report and the FSL report received has been Exhibited as P.30 & P.31. S.P. he went to Mumbai and recovered sword (katar) vide Exhibit P.29 in the presence of witnesses. He sealed the packets and also the clothes of the deceased and sent them for Forensic Report and the FSL report received has been Exhibited as P.30 & P.31. He also proved the list of pending cases against accused Abdul Sattar, Abdul Wahid, Aziz, Babu, Raees alias Bundu, Latur and Abdul Shakoor as Exhibits P.32 to P.38, as they are stated to be habitual criminals. 20. The Investigating Officer, PW.20, claims to have arrested the accused Babu, Sattar and Wahid vide arrest memos of as Exhibits P.39, P.40 and P.41 respectively, and recovered knives at the instance of Babu and Wahid vide recovery memos Exhibits P.28 and P.29 on the basis of his information recorded by the Investigating Officer. However, the witnesses of recovery PW.9 to PW.12 are hostile. According to him, the accused persons were all history-sheeters and, therefore, he knew them. 21. According to him, place of occurrence was only 5 minutes away from the police station Maqbara but it was not visible because there is a turn on the way. When he reached the place of occurrence, he did not see anybody present. He admitted that there were shops on both the sides of the place of occurrence. He claims that the FIR was lodged within 10 minutes of the occurrence and not the next day. The witnesses of recovery as stated above were hostile. However, the Investigating Officer has proved the recovery memos and the informations therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve his statements with regard to the recovery of weapons. 22. As mentioned hereinabove, so called eye witnesses are PW.l, PW.2, PW.3, PW.4, PW.5 and PW.8. PW.l Faeem Ahmed claims to have accompanied the deceased on his motorcycle at the relevant time. Besides being the brother in law of his elder brother he was also an employee of the deceased for a monthly salary of Rs.700/-. It is clear from the record that he lodged the report immediately after the incident. He claims to have been chased by accused persons Abdul Shakoor and Aziz alias Patti and being scared, he claimed to have hidden himself in Gauri Hotel Lane and after seeing them return, he went to lodge the report at police station Maqbara, which is only 200 - 300 steps away. He claims to have been chased by accused persons Abdul Shakoor and Aziz alias Patti and being scared, he claimed to have hidden himself in Gauri Hotel Lane and after seeing them return, he went to lodge the report at police station Maqbara, which is only 200 - 300 steps away. If his statements are looked into along with the statements of Investigating Officer and other record, it appears that his presence at the spot cannot be disputed. Although the learned counsel for the appellants has talked volumes about his conduct, post incident, stating that he is not a reliable witness because instead of helping the injured Ahsan Ali or trying to save him or faking him to the Hospital this witness ran from the scene of occurrence and that this conduct of his, confirms that he was not present at the time of occurrence. 23. We do not agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants because every person behaves differently in a different circumstance. Admittedly it was midnight and the accused persons were seven, laced with dangerous weapons like knives and katar, it was quite natural for a person to get scared and escape from the scene so as to save his own life. His conduct, of not trying to save the injured or not taking the injured to the hospital, cannot at all be the only deciding factor because this fact also cannot be ignored that he lodged the report immediately within ten minutes of the occurrence. Had he not been present on the place of occurrence, it wouldn't have been possible. Therefore, just because he ran towards the lane and then to the police station, does not mean that he was not present at the time of occurrence. He has categorically deposed about first injury being inflicted by Babu in the stomach with knife and second by Wahid on the chest and third by Sattar (since deceased) by sword on the left shoulder of the deceased. PW.15 Dr. CM. Srivastava, who also found the first three injuries on these parts of the body. The third injury allegedly inflicted by sword on the left shoulder of the deceased is stated to have injured the pleura and then the left lung, by the doctor. PW.15 Dr. CM. Srivastava, who also found the first three injuries on these parts of the body. The third injury allegedly inflicted by sword on the left shoulder of the deceased is stated to have injured the pleura and then the left lung, by the doctor. The doctor has categorically stated that there were eight injuries on the person of the deceased and 7 & 8 were superficial. All the injuries were incised cut wounds and the deceased died due to excessive bleeding from the stab wounds all over the body of the deceased. Admittedly the doctor has not given any definite opinion about any of the injuries independently or cumulatively sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, and it is not clear as to which injury was fatal and that who could be said to be responsible for causing the death of Ahsan Ali. 24. All the injuries were by sharp edged weapon. The suggestion given by the learned counsel for the appellants that these injuries could be sustained by a broken bottle, was denied stating that one or two injuries could be caused by a broken bottle but not all of them. 25. The statement of PW.l Faeem Ahmed has proved Exhibit-P/l report wherein specific act has been assigned to Babu, Wahid and Sattar. However, accused Abdul Shakoor had been alleged to have chased the complainant along with accused Aziz alias Patti being laced with knife towards him but on account of witness running towards the lane of Gauri hotel, to hide himself, they returned and started inflicting injuries on the person of deceased Ahsan. This part of his statement is very natural because if a person, scared of people laced with weapons chasing him, runs so as to save himself, it is natural for him to look back to check as to whether the chasers were still chasing him or not. This is what PW.l did and according to him, when Abdul Shakoor and Aziz alias Patti could not find him, they returned back towards the deceased and started inflicting injuries on him. 26. The other witness PW.2 was not shown as present in Exhibit-P/l and his name does not find mention in the FIR. His version is that he was present at Apsara Hotel and he had gone there to have tea. 26. The other witness PW.2 was not shown as present in Exhibit-P/l and his name does not find mention in the FIR. His version is that he was present at Apsara Hotel and he had gone there to have tea. He claimed to have seen the accused persons Babu, Wahid, Sattar, Aziz, Latur, Shakoor, Zafar and Bundu waiting in a lane in front of Apsara Hotel near the cycle shop and according to him, as soon as Ahsan came from the side of Bajaj Khana Police Chowki, they attacked on him. He also corroborated PW. 1 saying that the first injury was inflicted by Babu in the stomach, second by Wahid on the chest and third by Sattar by sword on his back and thereafter all of them kept inflicting injuries to him. After a while the police came and took Ahsan. During his cross examination he stated that there were three hotels in that area, namely Colour Hotel, Apsara and Garib Nawaz Hotel, and all these hotels were open at that time. Even the beetle shop was open and that there were at least 100 people available at the place of occurrence. He claimed to be on his way to Ladpura along with Abdul Salam, PW.5, on his Luna and claimed to have seen the incident from a distance of 2 furlongs. He admitted that he did not know as to how many injuries were inflicted on the person of Ahsan and also that he did not go to save Ahsan although he knew Ahsan from his childhood as they had lived on rent in Ahsan's house. Strangely he was known to Faeem Ahmed but his name does not find place in the FIR nor did he make any attempt to save Ahsan Ali whom he knew from his childhood. This conduct of him is unnatural and makes his presence at the site of occurrence as doubtful. Moreover, he claims to be going to drop Abdul Salam to his house at Ladpura which is at a distance of 2 kms. and his claim that three hotels as also the beetle shop, were open and there were hundreds of people in the vicinity, that also makes his statements doubtful because the Investigating Officer has found shops closed and no one available in the area. From the vicinity, no witness has been examined by the prosecution. and his claim that three hotels as also the beetle shop, were open and there were hundreds of people in the vicinity, that also makes his statements doubtful because the Investigating Officer has found shops closed and no one available in the area. From the vicinity, no witness has been examined by the prosecution. Instead, all the witnesses are either brother, brother in laws or relatives of the deceased Ahsan living at far off places from the place of occurrence. Therefore, explanation that PW.2 and PW.5 had gone to take tea at midnight at 12.30 from their respective houses situated 2 kms. away from the scene of occurrence, does not sound normal. This conduct of theirs and the explanation given, does not inspire confidence of this court. If the statements of PW.2 are believed, then there were many people around the place of occurrence then why the police, who reached immediately after the incident, did not record the statements of any of them and how come this witness did not even go to save the deceased to whom he was known from the childhood. Therefore, this witness is totally untrustworthy. 27. In the same manner PW.3 Abdul Jamil whose presence has been shown in the FIR, claimed to have gone by motorcycle along with PW.4 Wahid from Nayapura to Ghantaghar to take a cup of tea at Apsara Hotel. He claims that they left Nayapura at 12 midnight and Wahid PW.4 was driving the motorcycle whereas he was the pillion rider and they went to. Apsara Hotel to drink tea via Ladpura, Rampura and Bajaj Khana and then after taking tea they bought a beetle from the shop situated under Apsara Hotel. Strangely none from Apsara Hotel or any other hotel or any shop has been examined as prosecution witness. He also tried to corroborate the FIR and the statements of PW.l by saying that Babu inflicted knife injury in the stomach, Wahid in the chest and Sattar by sword on the back of the deceased. During his cross examination he admitted that Wahid PW.4 is his cousin and the deceased was his brother-in-law gainer. His statements also do not inspire confidence because he claims to have seen the incident but despite being brother in law of deceased, he neither tried to rescue him nor went to lodge the report, nor did he take him to the Hospital. His statements also do not inspire confidence because he claims to have seen the incident but despite being brother in law of deceased, he neither tried to rescue him nor went to lodge the report, nor did he take him to the Hospital. The statement of PW.4 Wahid has also not been believed by the learned trial court, as mentioned at page 18 of the judgment. 28. It is worth mentioning that after the supplementary charge sheet against Aziz alias Patti he was examined again in 1995 but was declared hostile. He resiled from his previous statements. 29. PW.8 is another eye witness. He is the real brother of deceased Ahsan Ali, who claims to have gone to Ghantaghar in search of his brother at midnight. He is also a resident of Patan Pol, and when he was standing under the mosque he saw his brother Ahsan Ali and Faeem Ahmed coming on a motorcycle, who according to him, were stopped by all the seven accused persons and as soon as his brother stopped the motorcycle, Babu inflicted a knife injury in his stomach and the second injury was inflicted by Wahid on his chest and the third injury was inflicted by Sattar by sword on his back and then all of them assaulted the deceased and Faeem Ahmed, who ran towards Gauri Hotel and the accused persons chased him but Faeem Ahmed could not be caught hold of by them. During his cross examination he was confronted with his previous statements made before the police. He made considerable improvements from his previous statements. Strangely this person also did not go to lodge the report nor did he take his brother to the Hospital. During his statements before police he admitted that he did not make any hue & cry. He was alone on the beetle shop. According to him there was no tea shop at Gauri Hotel. He could not stand the test of cross examination because he admitted that his brother's wife i.e. deceased's wife, was living in her parents' house near Chaman Hotel, Nayapura and that he had not been asked by anyone to go in search of deceased nor did he know about Ahsan's having gone to meet his wife in his inlaws' house. The suggestion given to him that he was in Jaipur on the date of occurrence, was though denied by him. The suggestion given to him that he was in Jaipur on the date of occurrence, was though denied by him. Looking to his conduct after seeing his brother being assaulted by so many people and neither going to save him nor helping him shift to the Hospital, is such that does not inspire confidence and he appears to be a planted witness. In view of aforesaid discussion, the evidence of PW.2, PW.3, PW.4, PW.5 and PW.8, does not inspire confidence of this court. 30. Now the question is as to whether the statement of PW-1 Faeem Ahmed can be believed or not. He has categorically assigned the role of Babu and Wahid saying that the first injury was inflicted by Babu by knife in the stomach and second by Wahid also by knife on the chest and the third by Sattar by sword on his back. No specific injury has been assigned by PW.l against Abdul Shakoor except that he rushed behind him along with Aziz alias Patti but when he could not be seen, they went back and started beating the deceased. 31. There is no reason to disbelieve him because he, besides, being the relative (brother-in-law of brother of deceased) was also an employee of the deceased (who was said to be a contractor by profession) and his accompanying the deceased to his in-law's house and then towards home at that hour of the night is not unnatural. Moreover, he has lodged the report immediately within ten minutes of the incident and police has reached soon after the report and shifted the injured Ahsan Ali to the Hospital, who died about half an hour later in the Hospital. 32. In these circumstances, the statements of PW.l Faeem Ahmed deserve to be believed. PW.l, who was accompanying the deceased at the relevant time, had testified about the earlier enmity between the deceased and accused persons. His version of earlier enmity between the two parties has not been assailed in his cross examination. 33. Witnesses, as Bentham has said, are the eyes and ears of justice. The presence of PW.l in the present incident in the given circumstances, is natural and probable. 34. His version of earlier enmity between the two parties has not been assailed in his cross examination. 33. Witnesses, as Bentham has said, are the eyes and ears of justice. The presence of PW.l in the present incident in the given circumstances, is natural and probable. 34. So far as the argument of learned counsel for the appellants with regard to his being related and hence interested witness, is concerned, a distinction has to be drawn between a 'related' witness and an 'interested' witness; one is not equivalent to the other. The term 'interested' postulates that the person concerned had some direct interest in the result of the litigation, whereas a witness who is a natural one but yet a relative of the victim, cannot be termed as 'interested' ; a close relationship of witness to the deceased is no ground to reject his testimony if otherwise it is reliable. Thus the test is the testimony of relative witness cannot be rejected just because he is relative but it is important that the testimony should otherwise be reliable. 35. It was argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that as a general rule, a conviction cannot be sustained if it is not supported by two or more witnesses, and the evidence of the solitary witness cannot be said to be sufficient to record conviction of the accused. 36. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor relying on the Apex Court judgment in the matter of Ranjit Singh vs. State of M.P. (2011) 4 SCC 336 = 2011(1) RLW 936 (SC), wherein the earlier case law in this regard has been relied on, has submitted that though generally it is a rule of prudence followed by the courts that a conviction may not be sustained if it is not supported by two or more witnesses who give a consistent account of the incident, in a fit case the court may believe a reliable sole eye witness if in his testimony he makes specific reference to the identify of the individual and his specific overt acts in the incident. It was further submitted that the court is not concerned with the number of witnesses examined. It is only concerned with merit and statement made by the witness and witnesses need not be counted but weighed. 37. It was further submitted that the court is not concerned with the number of witnesses examined. It is only concerned with merit and statement made by the witness and witnesses need not be counted but weighed. 37. After having gone through the case law cited before us, we are of the considered view that reliance can be placed on the solitary statement of a witness, if it appears to the court that the said statement is true and correct version of the case of prosecution. The courts are concerned with the merit and the statement of a particular witness and not at all concerned with the number of witnesses examined by the prosecution. The time-honoured rule of appreciating evidence is that it has to be weighed and not counted. It is true that when the courts find that the testimony of a solitary witness is neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable, it may, in a given set of facts, seek corroboration. It has been held by the Apex Court in the matter of State of M.P. vs. Laakhan (2009) 14 SCC 433 , that even the evidence of a solitary witness can be sufficient to record conviction if same is wholly reliable. 38. In view of the proposition of law laid down by Apex Court time and again, it can be said that even the evidence of the single witness can be sufficient to record the conviction, if the same is wholly reliable and in the given circumstances, the statements of PW.l read in the context of other circumstances of the case, inspire confidence. 39. As is clear from the testimony of PW.l, the role of appellants Babu and Wahid has been specifically assigned to them and postmortem report of deceased has been proved in the version of PW.l5 Dr. CM. Srivastava. He had conducted postmortem of deceased who died at 1.30 a.m. i.e. within one hour of the incident and found eight incised wounds all over his body and the first three injuries were found on abdomen, chest piercing pleura and lung. 40. The site-plan has been proved as Ex.P/10, wherein mark ' ' is the place where victim was found lying injured. 41. The weapons of offence had been recovered at the instance of accused Babu, Wahid, Sattar, Shakoor, Latur and Bundu in the presence of PW.9, PW.10, PW.l 1 and PW.12. 40. The site-plan has been proved as Ex.P/10, wherein mark ' ' is the place where victim was found lying injured. 41. The weapons of offence had been recovered at the instance of accused Babu, Wahid, Sattar, Shakoor, Latur and Bundu in the presence of PW.9, PW.10, PW.l 1 and PW.12. Investigating Officer had arrested accused Bundu, Latur, Babu, Sattar and Wahid and their disclosure statements have been proved, although all the recovery witnesses i.e. PW.9, PW.10, PW.11, and PW.12 have turned hostile, but in their cross examination, they however admitted their signatures on the recovery memos of knives and sword. 42. From the aforenoted evidence both oral and documentary, it is clear that a specific role has been attributed to each of the present appellants. Accused Babu was armed with knife and he was the person who pierced the abdomen of the deceased by it; and accused Wahid was also armed with knife and he was the person who inflicted knife injury on the chest of the deceased whereas accused Sattar (since deceased) not before us, inflicted injury by sword on the back which pierced the pleura and then the left lung of deceased. Accused Abdul Shakoor, Aziz (not before us) and other named in the FIR chased the complainant and on his escaping and hiding in the Gauri Hotel lane they returned to the deceased and started inflicting injuries on him when he was lying. The deceased had been inflicted eight stab wounds and prudence guides us that this would take anything between few seconds. The said accused persons, instead of preventing each other from resorting to violence, participated in the incident to the fullest extent i.e. seven persons - three stab wounds have been inflicted on the front portion of the body and are on the chest abdomen and left lung. 43. It is apparent that the accused persons intended to strike and succeeded in striking knife and sword injuries on the chest and abdomen. They struck lethally. The acts committed by them clearly attract the third limb of Section 300 IPC. Intention has to be gathered from the acts of the parties and the attendant relevant circumstances on wombing the acts. 44. They struck lethally. The acts committed by them clearly attract the third limb of Section 300 IPC. Intention has to be gathered from the acts of the parties and the attendant relevant circumstances on wombing the acts. 44. Now the question is whether the offence under Section 149 IPC, which the appellants and other accused persons being seven / eight in number had been charged with, can be said to have been proved or not. Section 149 creates a specific and distinct offence. The vicarious liability of the members of an unlawful assembly extends to those acts which are done in prosecution of the common object of the unlawful assembly and such offences as the members of the unlawful assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object. Each case has to be adjudged according to the facts as unfolded. 45. In the instant case, it is clear that the principle embodied in this Section is attracted; the members of this unlawful assembly knew that by their co-joint participation in the offence actually committed, it was likely to be committed in the prosecution of their common object i.e. of the attack on the victim. This can well be gathered from seven accused persons' holding sharp-edged dangerous weapons and waiting in a street, which was a usual way of deceased to reach his home, and choosing the time of midnight when there was no activity in the vicinity and then attacking him. It is clear from all these factors that each of the co-accused persons knew about the likelihood of the commission of this offence. Actual physical attack by each member of the unlawful assembly being not a pre-requisite for the application of the Section; as this is based on the principle of vicarious liability, the offence under Section 149 IPC can well be said to have been committed. 46. Actual physical attack by each member of the unlawful assembly being not a pre-requisite for the application of the Section; as this is based on the principle of vicarious liability, the offence under Section 149 IPC can well be said to have been committed. 46. The learned Sessions Judge also recorded the finding in this regard as under :- ^^bl izdj.k esa ;g lkfcr gqvk gS fd /kkjnkj gfFk;kj ls vglku vyh dks pksVsa igqapkus ls mldh e`R;q dkfjr dh x;h Fkh vglku vyh ds 'kjhj ij dqy 8 pksVsa /kkjnkj gfFk;kj dh vkuh izekf.kr ik;h x;h gSa ftlls ;g Li"V gks tkrk gS fd vfHk;qäx.k vglku vyh dh gR;k djuk pkgrs Fks vkSj mldh bPNk ,oa Kku ls mUgksaus vglku vyh ds lkFk /kkjnkj gfFk;kj ls ekjihV dhA izLrqr izdj.k esa ;g izekf.kr gqvk gS fd ?kVuk ls dqN iwoZ vfHk;qä oghn vkSj vCnqy lÙkkj us vglku dks u;kiqjk pkSjkgs ij ns[k fy;k FkkA mlds mijkUr os nksuksa vius vU; vfHk;qäx.k lkfFk;ksa ds lkFk ?kaVk?kj esa fclk;fr;ksa dh nqdku ds ogka gkFkksa esa pkdw] dVkj fy;s [kM+s FksA vglku vyh ,oa QbZe vgen ih-M-a ds eksVj lkbZfdy ij vkrs gh lHkh vfHk;qäx.k ,dne ls vglku vyh ij VwV iM+sA izLrqr izdj.k esa ;g Hkh izekf.kr gqvk gS fd igyk okj vfHk;qä ckcw us] nwljk okj vfHk;qä oghn ls vkSj rhlkjk okj vfHk;qä lÙkkj us vglku vyh ij fd;k FkkA ;g Hkh mYys[k fd;k x;k gs fd vfHk;qä vtht ikVh vkSj 'kdwj QbZe vgen ih-M-1 ds ihNs nkSM+s FksA mlds ckn lHkh vfHk;qäx.k ,dlkFk xyh esa ls gksdj Hkkx x;sA mijksä ifjfLFkfr;ka ;g iw.kZ ladsr nsrh gS fd lHkh vfHk;qäx.k dk lkekU; mís'; vglku vyh dh e`R;q dkfjr djus dk FkkA vfHk;qäx.k la[;k esa ikap ls vf/kd Fks ,slh fLFkfr esa Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk dh /kkjk 149 ds vUrxZr izR;sd vfHk;qä nwljs vfHk;qä ds }kjk fd;s x;s —R; ds fy, mÙkjnk;h gksuk ik;k tkrk gSA bl fLFkfr dks ns[krs gq;s vfHk;qäx.k ckcw] oghn] vCnqy 'kdwj fof/k fo:) teko ds lnL; gksus ds lkFk lkFk lkekU; mís'; dh iwfr esa vglku vyh dh gR;k djus ds vijk/k gksus ik;s tkrs gSA** It is clear from above that the learned trial court held that the accused were more than five and that they formed an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of common object of unlawful assembly, they inflicted fatal injuries by dangerous weapons and committed murder of Ahsan Ali, however, the accused Babu, Abdul Wahid and Abdul Shakoor have been shown as convicted for offence under Section 302 IPC and not 302 read with 149 IPC. They have also been convicted for offence under Section 148 IPC. the appellants for offence under Section 302 read with 149 IPC. 48. It is clear that the prosecution has established its case beyond reasonable doubt against each of the appellants. Besides the eye witness account of PW-1, coupled with the medical opinion, recovery of the weapon of offence, as also the earlier enmity between the deceased and accused persons having been proved, it is evident that the accused persons are guilty of the offence for which they have been charged / convicted. 49. The conviction of accused appellants Abdul Wahid, Babu and Abdul Shakoor is upheld for offence under Section 302 IPC with the modification that all the three accused are found guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 with the aid of Section 149 IPC. The sentence of life imprisonment awarded for offence under Section 302 IPC is maintained except that the appellants are convicted for offence under Section 302 read with 149 IPC. 50. While maintaining the conviction, with aforesaid modification, and sentence awarded by the learned Sessions Judge, the appeal filed by the appellants is disposed. Appellant Abdul Shakoor is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled and he is directed to surrender to suffer the remaining sentence.