JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been jointly filed by three accused-appellants Kripal Singh, Prahlad Singh and Jawan Singh against judgment and order of learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Jhalawar, dated 26.05.2003, whereby accused-appellant no.1 Kripal Singh was convicted for offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1000/-; for offence under Section 4/25 of the Arms Act for which he was sentenced to undergo one year imprisonment with fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine, he was to further undergo one month's imprisonment; accused-appellant no.2 Prahlad Singh was convicted for offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1000/-; for offence under Section 323 IPC he was sentenced to undergo one year imprisonment with fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine, he was to further undergo one month imprisonment; accused-appellant no.3 Jawan Singh was convicted for offence under Section 323 IPC, however, he was sentenced to the period already undergone during trial. All the sentences in the case of first two appellants were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that a 'parcha bayan' (Exhibit P-1) was given by one Bapu Singh, to S.H.O., Police Station, Unhel Camp, PHC Chaumahala (Jhalawar), stating therein that in intervening night of 22nd-23rd of August, 2002 at about 1200 Hrs., while he was sleeping in his house, he heard somebody crying for help to save his life. Such voice was coming from agriculture field of one Hari Singh, where some fight was taking place. He rushed in that direction. On reaching there he saw accused Jawan Singh, Prahlad Singh, Kripal Singh, Bahadur Singh and Man Singh beating his brother Arjun Singh. Kripal Singh had a sword in his hand and all other had lathis. When his brother Karan Singh interverned to save Arjun, Prahlad Singh administered 'lathi' blow on his head and, on receiving that 'lathi' blow, Karan Singh fell down on the ground and thereafter all the accused started beating him. When informant went to intervene, the accused pushed him aside and gave him beating. All these five accused, gave beating to his both brothers Karan Singh and Arjun Singh with intention to kill them and on account of that beating, his both brothers became unconscious. When informant went to intervene, the accused pushed him aside and gave him beating. All these five accused, gave beating to his both brothers Karan Singh and Arjun Singh with intention to kill them and on account of that beating, his both brothers became unconscious. The dispute took place on the question of connecting electricity wire. The incident has been witnessed by his sister Rajabai and sister-in-law (Bhabhi) Labhubai and several other villagers. Action be taken against the guilty. 3. On the basis of aforesaid 'parcha bayan', first information report (Exhibit P-25) was registered for offence under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 307 Indian Penal Code Soon thereafter, both Arjun Singh and Karan Singh succumbed to their injuries and therefore offence under Section 302 of the IPC and Section 4/25 of the Arms Act was also added. The police, after investigation, filed challan against all five accused-persons. Charges for aforesaid offences were framed against all accused, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. Prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses and got 51 documents exhibited. Defence, however, did not produce any witness, though exhibited 8 documents. Accused in their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the charges and stated that they have been falsely implicated. After conclusion of trial, learned trial court acquitted two accused, namely, Mansingh and Bahadur Singh, and convicted and sentenced remaining three accused-appellants as indicated above. Hence, this appeal. 5. We have heard Shri A.S. Narang, learned counsel for accused-appellants and Shri J.R. Bijarniya, learned Public Prosecutor. 6. Shri A.S. Narang, learned counsel for accused-appellants, has argued that genesis of the incident has been completely suppressed inasmuch as no explanation with regard to injuries sustained by accused-appellants has been given by the prosecution. The complainant party was aggressor because they wanted to draw an electricity wire through the land of accused party. Even Hari Singh, on whose land the dispute is said to have been taken place, was uncle of the accused-appellants. Apart from deceased Arjun Singh and Karan Singh, Bapu Singh from the side of complainant, received five simple injuries. Accused-appellant Prahlad Singh received three injuries (Exhibit D-3), out of which two were caused by sharp edged weapon and one by blunt weapon. Injury No.1 was grievous. Apart from deceased Arjun Singh and Karan Singh, Bapu Singh from the side of complainant, received five simple injuries. Accused-appellant Prahlad Singh received three injuries (Exhibit D-3), out of which two were caused by sharp edged weapon and one by blunt weapon. Injury No.1 was grievous. Accused-appellant Kripal Singh received two injuries (Exhibit D-4), one of which was grievous by sharp edged weapon and another injury was simple in nature. Accused-appellant Jawan Singh received one injury (Exhibit D-5) which was lacerated wound by blunt weapon. Learned counsel argued that the roles and weapons assigned to accused-appellants in parcha bayan/FIR/statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., were completely changed by the prosecution witnesses in their court statements and therefore, conviction of accused-appellants could not be recorded on testimony of such untrustworthy witnesses. PW-1 Bapu Singh, contrary to his version in parcha bayan has, in the court statement, stated that Prahlad delivered a blow by sword on the person of deceased Arjun Singh and thereafter all accused subjected him to beating. When deceased Karan Singh came there, he was also subjected to beating by accused Jawan Singh followed by other accused persons. He stated that Karan Singh had died on the spot whereas initially the FIR was registered for offence under Section 307 IPC and injury-reports of both Karan Singh and Arjun Singh were prepared, which shows that they were still alive; their injury-reports are on record as Exhibit P-40 and Exhibit P-39, respectively. Injury-report of informant Bapu Singh is on record as Exhibit P-41. The incident is said to have taken place in the mid night at 1200 Hrs. at some distance from their residence. PW-1 Bapu Singh himself stated that he reached the site of incident on hearing hue and cry and Karan Singh reached there after him. It cannot, therefore, be believed that PW-2 Labhu Bai and PW-3 Smt. Raja Bai could have been eye witnesses to the incident, who reached still thereafter. These two witnesses cannot be relied and accepted as eye witnesses. They have been implanted as eye witnesses intentionally. Even otherwise, PW-2 Labhu Bai has stated that initially the dispute took place between accused Kripal Singh and deceased Arjun Singh near residence of Navratan Suthar. Some altercation took place between them. Thereafter accused Kripal Singh cut the electricity wire which discontinued their power supply. They have been implanted as eye witnesses intentionally. Even otherwise, PW-2 Labhu Bai has stated that initially the dispute took place between accused Kripal Singh and deceased Arjun Singh near residence of Navratan Suthar. Some altercation took place between them. Thereafter accused Kripal Singh cut the electricity wire which discontinued their power supply. The said electricity wire was cut at a distance of 200 feet from their house as also complainant's house. Thereafter Arjun Singh and his son Balu Singh Singh went to connect the power supply wire. When they were connecting the wire near a mango tree, all five accused persons attacked them. Since Balu Singh had climbed on the mango tree, he could not do anything as he was helpless. Deceased Arjun Singh was subjected to merciless beating by these accused. On receiving information regarding this, Karan Singh also came rushing there. He too was subjected to beating. Accused-appellant Prahlad Singh inflicted a sword blow on the person of Arjun Singh. When her husband Karan Singh tried to save Arjun, accused Prahlad Singh subjected him to beating. Accused Jawan Singh also gave him beating. Accused-appellant Prahlad Singh had a sword in his hand thereby he caused injury; accused Jawan Singh gave a lathi blow on his person. PW-1 Bapu Singh was also subjected to beating by all accused. He received five stitches. Karan Singh and Arjun Singh both became unconscious on account of said beating by accused. Learned counsel for appellants argued that this witness is not telling the truth because Balu Singh had not received any stitches. 7. Shri A.S. Narang, learned counsel for appellants argued that PW-3 Raja Bai, sister of deceased, stated that they were watching video in their house. Suddenly, there was a power cut and somebody informed that wire has been cut. Balu Singh and Arjun Singh went to connect the electricity wire at a distance of 200 feet from their residence. On hearing hue and cry, they went to place of incident. Several villagers also reached there. While Balu Singh was on the tree, Arjun Singh was standing beneath the tree having a torch in his hand. First of all, accused Prahlad Singh, Bahadur Singh and Jawan Singh came there and immediately started beating deceased Arjun Singh. They caused injuries on the person of deceased Arjun Singh with sword and lathis. Thereafter Mansingh and his son also came there. First of all, accused Prahlad Singh, Bahadur Singh and Jawan Singh came there and immediately started beating deceased Arjun Singh. They caused injuries on the person of deceased Arjun Singh with sword and lathis. Thereafter Mansingh and his son also came there. Despite persistent request to them not to do so, they did not pay any heed. Accused Prahlad Singh and Bahadur Singh had swords in their hands; accused Jawan Singh, Mansingh and Kripal Singh had 'lathis' in their hands. Accused Prahlad Singh gave first blow on the person of Arjun Singh; second injury was inflicted by accused Jawan Singh by 'lathi' on his back. When the accused were beating Arjun Singh, Karan Singh came to his rescue. Thereafter, accused Jawan Singh inflicted a 'lathi' blow on his head and then accused Prahlad Singh gave a blow and thereafter all the accused gave beating to Karan Singh. At that time, deceased Karan Singh intervened to save Arjun. Accused Jawan Singh inflicted a 'lathi' blow on his head; accused Prahlad Singh inflicted another blow by sword on his person. Accused Bahadur Singh inflicted a sword on the head of Bapu Singh. Deceased Karan Singh was also hit by sword. He received three blows of 'lathis' and fell down on the ground. Learned counsel argued that these witnesses also cannot be believed because statement of PW-2 Labhu Bai under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. (Exhibit D-1) was belatedly recorded by the investigating officer on 04.09.2002 whereas incident took place on 23.08.2002. Similarly statement of PW-3 Raja Bai under Section 161 Cr.P.C. (Exhibit D-2) was also recorded belatedly on 25.09.2002 i.e. more than a month after the date of incident. 8. Shri A.S. Narang, learned counsel for appellants submitted that evidence of all the three witnesses thus clearly shows that the first version that accused Kripal Singh had sword and accused Prahlad Singh had 'lathi', was completely reversed in the court statements of the witnesses in that, while accused Prahlad Singh was assigned sword by these witnesses and accused Kripal Singh was assigned 'lathi'. Learned trial court yet convicted accused Prahlad Singh on the basis of five sharp edged injuries received by deceased Arjun Singh and accused Prahlad Singh for the single fatal injury on the head of deceased Karan Singh. Learned trial court yet convicted accused Prahlad Singh on the basis of five sharp edged injuries received by deceased Arjun Singh and accused Prahlad Singh for the single fatal injury on the head of deceased Karan Singh. It was argued that accused Prahlad Singh received three incised wounds; one of which was of size 11/2x1"x bone deep on the bridge of nose nasal bone cut; second injury was also incised wound of size 21/2"x11/2'x muscle deep on the left shoulder and third injury was lacerated wound of size 1"x1/2", which disturbed the lower jaw and symmetry of lower teeth. Injuries on the person of accused Prahlad have not been explained. Two injuries received by accused Kripal and one injury received by accused Jawan Singh have also not at all been explained. Learned counsel argued that learned trial court should have, therefore, rejected testimony of these witnesses considering them wholly unreliable because they suppressed genesis of the incident and did not give any explanation regarding injuries of the accused-appellants. 9. Shri A.S. Narang, learned counsel for accused-appellants, submitted that deceased Arjun Singh received three incised wounds which were grievous in nature, therefore he could not be in a position to attack accused-appellant Prahlad Singh, who received three incised wounds, which would mean that it was deceased Karan Singh who attacked appellant Prahlad Singh first in point of time and thereafter, in retaliation, the accused appellant attacked him. That possibility at least cannot be ruled out, which is why the accused appellants must be held to have inflicted injuries on the person of deceased in exercise of their right of private defence. Right of private defence would be available to the accused against complainant, because there was a danger of life to his companion, who is closely related to him. 10. Shri A.S. Narang, learned counsel for accused-appellants, therefore alternatively argued that what was stated in the information, which is alleged to have been procured from accused Kripal Singh vide information memo (Exhibit P-35), is that he had hidden one sword without handle in the bundle of sticks in the corner of his house, but what was eventually recovered was a sword (Exhibit P-19) having handle. No FSL report has been procured to connect the weapon with the crime. It is argued that incident had taken place suddenly at the spur of moment. No FSL report has been procured to connect the weapon with the crime. It is argued that incident had taken place suddenly at the spur of moment. What is evident from the facts is that members of complainant party were also armed with weapons, which is why sharp weapon injuries were received by three accused appellants. Therefore the accused acted within their right of private defence to save themselves because they apprehended danger to their lives. Case of accused-appellants would not be a culpable homicide amounting to murder but would rather fall within the scope of Section 304-II of the IPC. 11. Shri A.S. Narang, learned counsel for accused-appellants, argued that all the above three witnesses stated that 20-25 villagers saw the incident but no independent eye witness has been produced in evidence by the prosecution. As regards PW-4 Balu Singh, it was stated that he too was an eye witness because he accompanied deceased Arjun Singh and had climbed on a mango tree and continued to remain there till the incident took place, yet he has not been examined as an eye witness though his statement has been recorded as a witness of recovery. Learned counsel argued that it was not possible for any of the witnesses, much less PW-2 Labhu Bai and PW-3 Raja Bai, who came at the site of occurrence at much later stage, to carefully watch the incidence from a distance in the midnight and say with certainty as to which accused assaulted which member of complainant party and with what weapon. 12. Shri A.S. Narang, learned counsel for accused-appellants, in support of his arguments, has relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court in AIR 1976 SC 2263 - Laxmi Singh v. State of Bihar and Ravishwar Manjhi & Others v. State of Jharkhand - (2008) 16 SCC 561 , and of this court in D.B. Criminal Appeal No.458/1994 - Arjun and Others v. The State of Rajasthan , D.B. Criminal Jail Appeal No.44/1981 - Ashraf & Others v. State of Rajasthan. 13. 13. It was argued that the evidence that has come on record that houses of both parties were situated at a boarder of the State which is adjoining to the border of State of M.P. and the complainant party was illegally drawing electricity line from the pole situated in the State of M.P. by the wire that went through the land of accused party, to which they objected. 14. Shri A.S. Narang, learned counsel for accused-appellants, argued that accused-appellant Jawan Singh has wrongly been convicted for offence under Section 323 IPC, because if the accused is held to have acted in exercise of right of private defence, it cannot be said that he has exceeded that right of private defence. 15. It is therefore prayed that appeal be allowed and conviction and sentence of the accused-appellants under the impugned judgment be set aside and accused-appellants be acquitted of all the charges. 16. Per contra, Shri J.R. Bijarniya, learned Public Prosecutor, argued that learned trial court, in the present matter, has correctly appreciated the evidence and was perfectly justified in recording conviction of the accused-appellants. Trial court has not convicted two accused Bahadur Singh and Mansingh for whom it concluded that they were falsely implicated. Learned trial court has analyzed the evidence in the light of first version disclosed by complainant in the parcha bayan/FIR/statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Learned Public Prosecutor in this connection referred to the discussion made by the trial court in para 29 of the impugned judgment and argued that conclusion of learned trial court that accused Prahlad inflicted a 'lathi' blow on the head of deceased Karan Singh and accused Kripal Singh inflicted a sword blow on the head of deceased Arjun Singh, is in conformity with first version disclosed by the informant and witnesses. It was argued that sword was recovered at the instance of accused Kripal Singh whereas 'lathi' was recovered at the instance of accused Prahlad Singh and thus recovery of weapons also corroborates that version and justifies findings recorded by learned trial court in this regard. 17. Shri J.R. Bijarniya, learned Public Prosecutor argued that there was no question of PW-2 Labhu Bai and PW-3 Raja Bai being implanted as eye witnesses. Incident is alleged to have been taken place at about 1200 Hrs. 17. Shri J.R. Bijarniya, learned Public Prosecutor argued that there was no question of PW-2 Labhu Bai and PW-3 Raja Bai being implanted as eye witnesses. Incident is alleged to have been taken place at about 1200 Hrs. in the mid night and the first information report was recorded within two hours immediately thereafter on the basis of 'parcha bayan' given at 2.20 A.M. It is in that parcha bayan that both PW-2 Labhu Bai and PW-3 Raja Bai have been mentioned as eye witnesses. There was thus no question of their being falsely planted as eye witnesses. It was argued that accused-appellants cannot be permitted to take the arguments of right private defence and to argue that basis that the accused exceeded their right to exercise the right of private defence in assaulting the complainant party. They were not the owner of the land where the dispute took place, and that belonged to one Hari Singh. It were the accused-appellants, who were aggressors and not complainant party. In this connection, learned Public Prosecutor invited attention of the court towards site plan (Exhibit P-8) to show that the accused would not be entitled to claim right of private defence. Learned Public Prosecutor, referring from the site plan (Exhibit P-8), further argued that the electricity wire with regard to which the dispute is alleged to have been taken place between the parties, in fact was not passing through or above the land of the accused-party. The nature of injuries sustained by the accused-appellants were insignificant to justify their exercise of right of private defence to the extent of causing murder of deceased Arjun Singh and Karan Singh. Shri J.R. Bijarniya, learned Public Prosecutor therefore argued that even if those injuries are not explained, no benefit can be granted to the accused appellants because the learned trial court has passed a just and correct decision holding those two accused individually responsible for their action, who were attributed the injuries, and convicted them both separately for offence under Section 302 IPC simplicitor for one death each. As regards conviction of accused appellant Jawan Singh, his conviction has only been recorded under Section 323 IPC and he has been sentenced to a period already undergone by him during trial. This is based on the evidence of PW-1 Bapu Singh, PW-2 Labhu Bai and PW-3 Raja Bai. As regards conviction of accused appellant Jawan Singh, his conviction has only been recorded under Section 323 IPC and he has been sentenced to a period already undergone by him during trial. This is based on the evidence of PW-1 Bapu Singh, PW-2 Labhu Bai and PW-3 Raja Bai. No interference can therefore be made on that aspect. 18. Shri J.R. Bijarniya, learned Public Prosecutor argued that it were the accused appellants, who first disconnected the electricity wire and then and there they came armed with weapons and therefore the incident cannot be said to have taken place suddenly so as to extend them any undue benefit. It is therefore prayed that the appeal be dismissed. 19. We have considered rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and minutely scanned the material on record. 20. Although it is true that three eye witnesses in the present case, namely, PW-1 Bapu Singh, PW-2 Labhu Bai and PW-3 Raja Bai tried to exaggerate their version from what was disclosed in parcha bayan/FIR/statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., to which they were confronted too but at the same time what we find is that the evidence of these witnesses given in the court despite variation in the role assigned to some of accused, substantially the responsibility of the death of deceased Arjun Singh and Karan Singh remains that of these accused Kripal Singh and Prahlad Singh. While in the parcha bayan/FIR/statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., it has been alleged that accused Kripal Singh was having a sword and inflicted severe blows on the person of deceased Arjun Singh; in their court statements, these witnesses stated that accused Kripal Singh inflicted a 'lathi' blow on the person of deceased Karan Singh and accused Jawan Singh and all other accused then subjected deceased Karan Singh to beating, whereas in parcha bayan/FIR/statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the allegation of causing 'lathi' blow on the head of deceased Karan Singh has been attributed to accused Prahlad Singh. In the first version, accused-appellant Kripal Singh has been blamed for the injuries by sword on the person of deceased Arjun Singh, but, in the court statement, PW-1 Bapu Singh has stated that accused Prahlad Singh inflicted injuries by sword on the person of deceased Arjun Singh followed by all other accused. In the first version, accused-appellant Kripal Singh has been blamed for the injuries by sword on the person of deceased Arjun Singh, but, in the court statement, PW-1 Bapu Singh has stated that accused Prahlad Singh inflicted injuries by sword on the person of deceased Arjun Singh followed by all other accused. Thereafter, when Karan Singh reached the scene of occurrence, accused Jawan Singh and all other accused inflicted several blows on his person. But this version is at variances with the version of PW-2 Labhu Bai, widow of Karan Singh, who stated that all five accused subjected deceased Arjun Singh to severe beating and when somebody informed her husband Karan Singh, he rushed to the place of incident to save him. She stated that accused Prahlad Singh inflicted blow by sword on deceased Arjun Singh, but, at the same time, she also stated that when her husband Karan Singh tried to save deceased Arjun Singh, accused Prahlad Singh subjected him to beating. Thereafter accused Jawan Singh also beat him. Prahlad had sword and Jawan Singh had 'lathi' in their hands. They also beat Bapu Singh. 21. PW-3 Raja Bai, in her statement, has stated that initially all the accused started beating deceased Arjun Singh. Accused were armed with sword and 'lathis'. When they pleaded with them not to do so, accused did not pay any heed to their request. Accused Prahlad Singh and Bahadur Singh had swords in their hands. Accused Jawan Singh and Kripal Singh had 'lathis' in their hands. Accused Prahlad inflicted first blow on the head of deceased Arjun Singh followed by accused Jawan Singh, who inflicted 'lathi' blow at his back. When deceased Karan Singh tried to save deceased Arjun Singh, accused Jawan Singh inflicted 'lathi' blow on his head. Thereafter accused Prahlad Singh also inflicted blows on his person followed by all the accused. Accused Bahadur Singh inflicted blow by sword on the person of Bapu Singh. Balu Singh has been produced as a witness of recovery as PW-4, and he has not been examined as eye witness. Even if, he has not stated what he witnessed at the scene of occurrence where he was said to be present on a mango tree, that by itself cannot be a ground to discard the evidence of the prosecution otherwise available on record. 22. Even if, he has not stated what he witnessed at the scene of occurrence where he was said to be present on a mango tree, that by itself cannot be a ground to discard the evidence of the prosecution otherwise available on record. 22. The learned trial court faced with such a situation has undertaken the exercise of disengaging the truth from the falsehood and segregating grain from the chaff applying the principle 'falsus in uno falsus in omnibus'. In para 29 of the impugned judgment, learned trial court has analysed the evidence and has declined to rely that part of the statement of the witness given in the court where it found serious departure having been made by those witnesses from their previous version which amounted to exaggeration. It held that PW-1 Bapu Singh has shown presence of accused Prahlad Singh at the place of incident but he has assigned him 'lathi' instead of sword, whereas investigating officer PW-11 Yashwant Singh, has recovered a 'lathi' vide Exhibit P-15, on the information given by accused Prahlad Singh under Section 27 of the Evidence Act vide Exhibit P-38 and recovery memo Exhibit P-15 shows recovery of 'lathi' from possession of accused Prahlad Singh, therefore first version given by this witness, who is also the informant, in his parcha bayan, is corroborated. Learned trial court further held that PW-2 Labhu Bai has stated that when all accused were subjecting deceased Arjun Singh to beating and somebody informed her husband Karan Singh thereabout, he went rushing there and it was accused Prahlad Singh, who first of all beat her husband Karan Singh followed by accused Jawan Singh. This part of her statement is corroborated from Exhibit P-40, injury-report of deceased Karan Singh, because a single 'lathi' blow was found on the head of deceased Karan Singh. Learned trial court then examined statement of PW-3 Raja Bai. She stated that dispute arose on account of disconnection of electricity wire by accused party. When deceased Arjun Singh and Balu Singh went to connect the electricity wire, accused started beating deceased Arjun Singh. Hearing his hue and cry, they rushed to the place of incident. Accused Prahlad and Bahadur had swords in their hands whereas accused Jawan Singh, Mansingh and Kripal Singh had 'lathis' in their hands. Deceased Karan Singh tried to intervene to save deceased Arjun Singh. Hearing his hue and cry, they rushed to the place of incident. Accused Prahlad and Bahadur had swords in their hands whereas accused Jawan Singh, Mansingh and Kripal Singh had 'lathis' in their hands. Deceased Karan Singh tried to intervene to save deceased Arjun Singh. Accused Jawan Singh inflicted a 'lathi' blow on his head followed by accused Prahlad Singh and then all other accused started beating him. This statement also shows that accused Prahlad Singh inflicted 'lathi' blow, on the person of deceased Karan Singh. Thus, it was accused Prahlad Singh, who was held responsible for causing death of deceased Karan Singh. The injury report of Karan Singh (Exhibit P-40) and his postmortem report (Exhibit P-45), do corroborate this view of learned trial court because deceased Karan Singh, according to the postmortem report, received a lacerated wound of 3"x1" size present on the middle of scalp on the crown, and the cause of death, as given therein, was shock which occurred due to heavy external haemorrhage and injury to right parietal lobe of brain. 23. As regards death of deceased Arjun Singh, learned trial court examined postmortem report (Exhibit P-39) and in the light of statement of PW-12, Dr. Ramesh Chand observed that sharp edged weapon has been recovered at the instance of accused Kripal Singh and, in the court statements, all the three witnesses PW-1 Bapu Singh, PW-2 Labhu Bai and PW-3 Raja Bai have stated that he was one amongst those who initially started beating the deceased Arjun Singh. When we independently examine the statement of PW-3 Raja Bai, we find that she, in her statement, stated that when deceased Arjun Singh was standing under the mango tree having a torch in his hand, it was accused Prahlad Singh, Bahadur Singh and Jawan Singh, who first arrived at the scene of incident and started beating him with sword and 'lathis'. This witness excluded remaining two accused, who have been named by others and stated that they arrived later in point of time. Sword has been recovered at the instance of accused Prahlad Singh. This witness excluded remaining two accused, who have been named by others and stated that they arrived later in point of time. Sword has been recovered at the instance of accused Prahlad Singh. Five incised wounds have been corroborated by the postmortem report of deceased Arjun Singh (Exhibit P-39) and therefore the view expressed by learned trial court that the evidence to the extent it is in conformity with first version disclosed by informant/complaint in the parcha bayan/FIR/statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., to which they were confronted in their court statements, has to be accepted. We are satisfied that exercise undertaken by learned trial court in coming to that conclusion was indeed aimed at segregating the truth from the falsehood. 24. Having held so, we have to now consider as to what is the effect of non-explanation of injuries sustained by accused Prahlad Singh on his nose by sharp edged weapon leading to fracture of nasal bone and incised wound on his shoulder and lacerated wound on lower jaw which disturbed symmetry of his lower teeth. We find that this factor cannot be said to be so fatal as to render the prosecution case completely unbelievable. This court cannot throw the prosecution case overboard just for that reason alone because in the facts of the present case and in the light of evidence on record, it cannot be concluded that the genesis of the case has been suppressed. Mere non-examination of Balu Singh as eye witness and his production only as a witness of recovery would also not make any difference because there are other eye witnesses, who have proved the prosecution version. The incident, as per evidence, took place when accused disconnected electricity wire, which the complainant-party wanted to reconnect and when the accused party resisted that, the quarrel took place. Genesis of the incident is writ large in the facts of the present case. But, at the same time, we find that dispute was indeed of trivial nature. Accused resisted the complainant party from reconnecting the electricity wire even though, as per site plan Exhibit P-8, the electricity wire does not appear to be passing through or over their land. When the accused disconnected the wire and the complainant wanted to reconnect it, which was vigorously opposed by the accused party. Accused resisted the complainant party from reconnecting the electricity wire even though, as per site plan Exhibit P-8, the electricity wire does not appear to be passing through or over their land. When the accused disconnected the wire and the complainant wanted to reconnect it, which was vigorously opposed by the accused party. The incident thus took place without any premeditation at the heat of the moment leading to a sudden quarrel, and on facts the accused appellants cannot be said to have taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. The matter would therefore fall within the exception clause 4 of Section 300 of the IPC and would be therefore a culpable homicide not amounting to murder. However, the case of accused appellant Kripal Singh as per evidence in this case cannot be said to be identical to that of accused-appellant Prahlad Singh. Accused Kripal Singh inflicted the sword blows on the person of deceased Arjun Singh, three of which were found to be grievous. 25. A perusal of injury-reports/postmortem-reports shows that all the injuries sustained by deceased Arjun Singh were incised wounds and two of them were found to be grievous and one was referred for X-ray and the fact that they were repeated, does attribute intention accompanied with knowledge to accused appellant Kripal Singh of causing his death or such bodily injury as was likely to cause death bringing the case within the purview of Section 304 Part-I of the Indian Penal Code However, the case of accused appellant Prahlad Singh is different because he inflicted only single 'lathi' blow on the head of deceased Karan Singh and did not repeat such blow and that too, he inflicted such blow when deceased Karan Singh came to intervene and save deceased Arjun Singh. Intention of murder of deceased Karan Singh, therefore, cannot be attributed to accused appellant Prahlad Singh. He did so with the knowledge that his action was likely to cause death but without any intention to cause death of deceased Karan Singh or to cause such bodily injury to him as was likely to cause his death. His case, therefore, would fall within the purview of Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code Conviction of accused-appellants Kripal and Prahlad for offence under Section 302 of the IPC therefore deserves set aside and instead they are liable to be convicted accordingly. His case, therefore, would fall within the purview of Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code Conviction of accused-appellants Kripal and Prahlad for offence under Section 302 of the IPC therefore deserves set aside and instead they are liable to be convicted accordingly. 26. In the result, appeal filed by accused-appellant Jawan Singh is dismissed and his conviction and sentence under Section 323 IPC are maintained. Appeal of accused-appellants Kripal Singh and Prahlad Singh is allowed in part. While setting aside conviction and sentence of accused-appellant Kripal Singh under Section 302 IPC, we instead convict him for offence under Section 304 Part-I and sentence him to the period already undergone by him as he has already served the sentence of more than nine years. His conviction and sentence under Section 4/25 of the Arms Act are maintained. As regards accused-appellant Prahlad, while setting aside his conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC, we instead convict him for offence under Section 304 Part-II and sentence him to the period already undergone by him because he too has remained in jail for eight years and eight months. His conviction and sentence under Section 323 IPC is maintained. 27. They are ordered to be set at liberty forthwith if they are not required to be detained in any other case. However, keeping in view the provisions of Section 437A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, accused-appellants Kripal and Prahlad are directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- each, and a surety bond in the like amount, before the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court, which shall be effective for a period of six months. In the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against this judgment or on grant of leave, the appellants, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Supreme Court.Appeal stands disposed of accordingly. *******