JUDGMENT Per: U.C. Dhyani, J. In the present criminal appeal, criminal law was set into motion at the instance of Kamla Bora daughter of Kunwar Singh, resident of village Latoora, district Almora. She wrote a complaint (Ext. Ka-1) on 18.01.2001 enumerating the facts therein that on 18.01.2001 at 8:30 am when her father Kunwar Singh had gone to respond to nature’s call in his field, informant’s neighbours Kheem Singh son of Sher Singh, Smt. Dhanuli Devi wife of Kheem Singh, Tara Singh, Ranjeet Singh, both sons of Kheem Singh surrounded him (Kunwar Singh) and started beating with stick (lathi) and sickle (daranti). Informant Kamla Bora’s father raised an alarm. Kamla Bora along with her sister Kunti reached there and pleaded for not beating their father. Instead of refraining themselves from beating their father, accused appellants started beating Kamla and Kunti also. Daughters of the victim ran back to village. The villagers were informed. Nobody came for their help. Then Kamla Bora went to Patti Patwari, Khaingad instantly to provide the said information. 2. Patti Patwari Khaingad made an endorsement on the margin of complaint. When Patwari enquired about the condition of informant’s father, informer replied that victim was dead. 3. On complaint of Kamla Bora chik FIR (Ext. Ka-4) was lodged at PS Daungad, sub-district Baramandal Almora, district Almora on 18.01.2001 at 10:30 am. Occurrence took place at 8:30 am. The distance between the place of occurrence and police station was one kilometer. There appeared to be no delay in lodging the First Information Report which was registered as crime no. 1 of 2001 under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. Five persons were named in the FIR. It was informed to this Court that accused-appellant no.1 Kheem Singh has died during the pendency of the appeal and therefore, the case against appellant no. 1 stands abated. 4. After completing investigation, a charge-sheet for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 of IPC was submitted against the accused appellants. The case was committed to the court of Sessions. Trial began. Charges for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC were framed against the accused appellants, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Five prosecution witnesses were produced on behalf of the prosecution. The case was committed to the court of Sessions. Trial began. Charges for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC were framed against the accused appellants, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Five prosecution witnesses were produced on behalf of the prosecution. Statements of the accused persons were taken under Section 313 Cr.P.C. One witness i.e. DW 1 Harish Singh was adduced in defence. 5. After conclusion of the trial accused/ appellants Kheem Singh, Tara Singh, Ranjeet Singh and Smt. Dhanuli Devi were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. They were awarded imprisonment for life for the said offence. Each one of them was also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- , in default of payment of which, each one was directed to undergo six months’ further rigorous imprisonment. Aggrieved against aforesaid conviction and sentence, appellants preferred present appeal. 6. PW 1 Kamla Bora was aged 12 years when she came to depose before the learned trial court on 30.05.2002. After conducting her voire dire and on being satisfied that the child witness was capable of understanding the things, the court permitted prosecution and defence to ask questions. She was the informant who proved her complaint (Ext. Ka-1) and also proved sickle (material exhibit -1) and sticks (material exhibits 2-3), by which the accused appellants inflicted injuries on victim. She said that her father’s name was Kunwar Singh Bora who went on 18th January, 2001 at 8:30 am to answer nature’s call. She heard the cries of her father. She along with her twin sister Kunti reached there. Both of them saw that Kheem Singh, Ranjeet Singh, Chandan Singh, Tara Singh and Dhanuli Devi were beating her father with stick (lathi) and sickle. The stones were also being thrown at him. Her father was bleeding profusely. She requested them not to beat her father but they did not budge. They started beating her also and therefore, she came back to the village. She informed villagers that accused persons were beating her father but nobody came to her rescue. Ranjeet Singh and Tara Singh were beating her father with lathis. Chandan Singh and Kheem Singh were throwing stones at Kunwar Singh Bora (victim) and Dhanuli Devi was inflicting blows of sickle (daranti). She informed villagers that accused persons were beating her father but nobody came to her rescue. Ranjeet Singh and Tara Singh were beating her father with lathis. Chandan Singh and Kheem Singh were throwing stones at Kunwar Singh Bora (victim) and Dhanuli Devi was inflicting blows of sickle (daranti). PW 1 Kamla Bora proved the same (sticks and sickle) as material exhibits 1 to 3. When she was going to Patwari, her brother-in-law (Jija) met her. She informed the same to her brother-in-law who wrote the complaint (Ext. Ka-1). In other words, her brother-in-law was scribe of the complaint which was signed by this witness. She was scared and therefore, she did not mention the fact of killing of her father. When Patwari enquired about the same, only then she disclosed this fact to him. Accused Kheem Singh was her real uncle (taau). She also said hat there was a dispute regarding land between her father and accused persons. 7. PW 2 Kunti Bora was also 12 years old when she came to depose before the learned trial court. She was twin sister of PW 1 Kamla Bora. She was also tested voire dire and after being satisfied that the witness was capable of understanding the things, she was permitted to be examined by the learned trial court. She corroborated the testimony of her twin sister PW 1 Kamla Bora. 8. PW 3 Pooran Singh was one of the witnesses (panches) of inquest report (Ext. Ka-2). 9. PW 4 Dr. Anil Kumar Arya was posted on 19.01.2001 in District Hospital, Almora. On the same day at 1:30 pm he conducted postmortem on the dead body of Kunwar Singh and proved his report Ext. Ka-3. He found the following ante-mortem injuries on the dead body of Kunwar Singh: i. Multiple abrasions and contusions on whole of the face. ii. Contusion measuring 6 x 5 cm over right parietal region of scalp. iii. Multiple abrasions over left side of neck. iv. Laceration measuring 3 x 2 cm over left mastoid just behind left pinna. v. Multiple contusions various sized in whole of chest. vi. Abrasion measuring 5 x 2 cm on back of left shoulder. vii. Multiple contusions of various size involving whole left arm. viii. Multiple laceration and contusions involving whole left forearm. ix. Laceration measuring 4 x 2 cm skin deep over base of left ring finger. v. Multiple contusions various sized in whole of chest. vi. Abrasion measuring 5 x 2 cm on back of left shoulder. vii. Multiple contusions of various size involving whole left arm. viii. Multiple laceration and contusions involving whole left forearm. ix. Laceration measuring 4 x 2 cm skin deep over base of left ring finger. x. Multiple contusions of various size involving whole dorsum of left hand. xi. Swelling in all the four fingers of left hand except thumb. xii. Multiple contusions of various size involving whole of the right arm. xiii. Abraded swelling measuring 6 x 5 cm over the anterior surface of right shoulder. xiv. Abraded swelling (circular) over the right elbow. xv. Multiple abrasions and contusions involving whole of the right forearm. xvi. Laceration measuring 2 x 2 cm skin deep at the base of right index finger. xvii. Multiple contusions of various size involving whole of the back. xviii. Multiple contusions of various size on whole of right thigh. xix. Multiple abrasions and contusions on right foot. xx. Multiple abrasions of various size on dorsum of right foot. xxi. Multiple abrasions and contusions of various sizes involving whole of left thigh. xxii. Laceration of 2 x 1 cm into bone deep over 1/3 of left leg. xxiii. Laceration of 3 x 2 cm into skin deep over middle 1/3 of left foot. xxiv. Multiple abrasions and contusions size involving whole of the left dorsum of the left foot. xxv. Abraded contusions of 3 x 2 cm over the over back of left elbow. Doctor said that ante-mortem injuries were possible (to be sustained) by lathi, stones and sickle on 18.01.2001 at 8:30 am. These injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course to have caused the death of victim. According to him the death was caused due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries. 10. PW 5 Bhupal Singh Rautela, Patwari was posted on 18.01.2001 as Patwari, Daungard. On the basis of complaint (Ext. Ka-1), he lodged chik FIR (Ext. Ka-4). He started investigation. He also proved inquest report (Ext. Ka-2) and papers related thereto (Ext. Ka-5 to Ka-8). PW 5 Bhupal Singh Rautela also took simple soil and blood stained soil from the place of occurrence and also collected stones and sticks used in the commission of crime. He proved memos (Exts. Ka-9, Ka-10 & Ka-11) accordingly. Ka-4). He started investigation. He also proved inquest report (Ext. Ka-2) and papers related thereto (Ext. Ka-5 to Ka-8). PW 5 Bhupal Singh Rautela also took simple soil and blood stained soil from the place of occurrence and also collected stones and sticks used in the commission of crime. He proved memos (Exts. Ka-9, Ka-10 & Ka-11) accordingly. The Investigating Officer also prepared site plan (Ext. Ka-13) and recovered sticks, sickle (daranti) and stones on the pointing of accused. He also proved site plan (Ext. Ka-14), took the statements of witnesses, proved chemical analyst’s report as also material exhibits 1,2 & 3. He proved simple soil and blood stained soil as material exhibits 4 & 5. He also proved the shirt, pant, undershirt and pieces of stones as material exhibits 6, 7, 8 & 9. Finally, he submitted charge-sheet (Ext. Ka-15) against the accused persons after completing investigation. 11. Appellant no.1 was the father of appellants no. 3 & 4. Appellant no.1 has died and therefore, case against him stood abated. Appellant no.2 is the mother of appellant nos. 3 & 4. FIR was lodged by daughter of deceased. The appellants and deceased were close relatives. Appellant no.1 and deceased were real brothers. So, appellant no.1 was informant’s real uncle (tau). PW1 Km. Kamla Bora attributed the motive to the dispute between the parties as regards land. PW1 Kamla Bora and PW2 Kunti Bora are twin sisters. Both were child witnesses when they came to depose before the trial court and after voire dire they were examined by the court below. They were cross-examined on behalf of the accused persons but nothing has come in their cross-examination which may cast a shadow of doubt on their testimony. They were eyewitnesses. There is no reason to disbelieve their testimony. It is true that the evidence of related witnesses is to be scrutinized carefully. Accordingly, the evidence of PW1 Kamla Bora & PW 2 Kunti Bora was scrutinized by the same standard. Judging by that yardstick nothing has come in their testimony which may prove beneficial to the appellants. A reasonable prudent person will always believe the eyewitness account tendered by these twin sisters. So shall do the Court. It was a family quarrel. All the members of appellants’ family chose the right time and right place to assault victim. This right time and right occasion proved wrong for them. A reasonable prudent person will always believe the eyewitness account tendered by these twin sisters. So shall do the Court. It was a family quarrel. All the members of appellants’ family chose the right time and right place to assault victim. This right time and right occasion proved wrong for them. A wrong doer is always wrong whatever the time and occasion. The family members of appellant no.1 thought it better to assault victim when he was alone. All the appellants inflicted blows of sticks, stones and sickle. As many as 25 injuries were sustained by the victim. Medical evidence has corroborated the oral testimony. Doctor said that the injuries to the victim could be sustained by sticks, by blow of sickle and by pelting stones on him. Out of remaining three prosecution witnesses, besides two extremely important eyewitnesses, one was doctor and two others were formal witnesses. Whereas doctor supported prosecution version, the two others have duly filled in the gap in prosecution story. Investigating Officer conducted investigation successfully. There is no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that appellants beat victim with lathis and threw stones on him. So far as the presence of villagers is concerned, poor girls cried for help. Villagers did not come. Villagers did not show any inclination to help them. What poor girls would have done ? 12. DW 1 Harish Singh, who belongs to village Tana in district Almora deposed that when he reached Kheem Singh’s house on 17.01.2001 at 5:00 pm, he heard in the village that Kunwar Singh (victim) was missing since morning. DW 1 Harish Singh stayed in the house of appellant Kheem Singh during night. The next day around 12 noon villagers told that dead body of Kunwar Singh was lying. The villagers took the family members of victim to victim’s dead body. 13. DW 1 Harish Singh’s evidence is of no use to the appellants. It is a known fact that FIR of this incident was lodged on 18.01.2001 at 10:30 am. The occurrence took place at 8:30 am the same day. Testimony of DW 1 Harish Singh is not believable. He admitted in cross-examination that he had no relationship either with the appellants or deceased. There is no plausible reason for his visiting appellants’ village on or before the fateful day. The occurrence took place at 8:30 am the same day. Testimony of DW 1 Harish Singh is not believable. He admitted in cross-examination that he had no relationship either with the appellants or deceased. There is no plausible reason for his visiting appellants’ village on or before the fateful day. He came from a different village and yet he came to know that victim was not traceable, as if he had no other work to do. DW1 Harish Singh’s evidence does not help the appellants at all. We fail to understand why this witness was brought by defence? They should have better kept quiet. 14. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that it is a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. In the given facts we are unable to accept the said contention. Victim sustained injuries - not one, not two, not three, but as many as twenty-five injuries. A prudent person will reasonably believe that the intention of appellants was nothing but killing of victim. If twenty-five such blows were given to any person, as were given to victim, he is bound to die. The victim was an ordinary person and not Phantom or hero of a Hindi film. Everything is to be adjudged by the Court from the point of view of a common man, keeping in view the background of disputants. 15. Learned counsel for appellant no.2 further submitted that there was no incised wound on the body of victim. Learned counsel pointed out that PW 1 Kamla Bora has said that appellant no.2 was having sickle in her hand and she inflicted blow of sickle. No injury of sickle was found by doctor. Although it is not the case of prosecution that appellant no.2 used sickle as it is commonly used, i.e. inflicting injury with the sharp edged side of sickle (as the sickle can also be used by the side of handle), yet there appears to be some sense in said argument of learned counsel for appellant no. 2. In other words, sickle can also be used by its blunt side and if blunt side was used such injuries, as said by doctor, could be sustained by victim. 2. In other words, sickle can also be used by its blunt side and if blunt side was used such injuries, as said by doctor, could be sustained by victim. But in the absence of specific case of prosecution that the sickle was used as a blunt object and since the Courts are required to adjudge the things from a prudent common man’s point of view, therefore, we are inclined to accept the contention of learned counsel for appellant no.2 and thereby give appellant no.2 benefit of doubt. A reasonably informed person will always take such view. 16. The appellants hit victim randomly knowing fully well that such injuries and so many injuries will cause death of victim. It is nobody’s case that death took place at one place and dead body was kept at another place so whatever has happened, it has happened there only. It is also not the case that the victim was a thief who was chased by appellants and nabbed followed by beating. The point to be highlighted is that the appellants knew it fully well that it was likely to result into victim’s death if such injuries (in nature as well as in number) were received by victim. The prosecution has been able to prove the case against appellant nos. 3 & 4 beyond reasonable doubt and hence their appeals merit dismissal. 17. Since victim did not sustain the injury of sickle (sharp edged weapon) and informant PW 1 Kamla Bora has said that appellant no.2 used sickle therefore, appellant no.2 deserves to be given benefit of doubt, as there was no incised wound found on the body of victim. 18. Case against appellant no.1 Kheem Singh stood abated. 19. For the reasons as discussed above, the appeal preferred on behalf of appellant no. 3 Tara Singh and appellant no. 4 Ranjeet Singh is hereby dismissed. The conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court against the accused / appellants Tara Singh and Ranjeet Singh for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC is thus affirmed. The accused appellants Tara Singh and Ranjeet Singh are on bail. Their bail is cancelled. The accused / appellants Tara Singh and Ranjeet Singh are directed to surrender before the court concerned to serve out the sentence thus awarded by the trial court and affirmed by this Court. 20. The accused appellants Tara Singh and Ranjeet Singh are on bail. Their bail is cancelled. The accused / appellants Tara Singh and Ranjeet Singh are directed to surrender before the court concerned to serve out the sentence thus awarded by the trial court and affirmed by this Court. 20. So far as the appeal preferred on behalf of appellant no. 2 Smt. Dhanuli Devi is concerned, the same is allowed. The judgment / order dated 13.03.2003 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Almora is hereby set aside, only so far as the same relates to appellant Dhanuli Devi. The conviction recorded in respect thereof and sentence thus awarded to her are also set aside. Appellant Dhanuli Devi is on bail. Her bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged. She need not surrender. Let a copy of the Judgment be sent to the court concerned for compliance. Lower court record be also sent back.