JUDGMENT : This appeal has been preferred against judgment dated 25-6-2004 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Gadarwara, District Narsinghpur in S.T. No. 90/2003 convicting and sentencing appellants as follows: Conviction Sentence U/s 148 IPC R.I. for one year and fine of Rs. 500/- each. U/s 302/149 IPC for committing murders of Tejram s/o Mansaram, aged 50 years and Mahendra s/o Ajab Singh,aged 20 years Rigorous Imprisonment for life on two counts and with fine of Rs. 1,000/- each. U/s 323/149 IPC for causing injuries to Phool Singh s/o Tejram (PW/2) and Durjan Singh s/o Ramratan (PW/3). Sentence of Rs. 300/- fine on two counts. 2. Facts of the case, in short, are that on 1.12.2002 at about 7:00 a.m. Mahendra (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased No. 1') and Tejram (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased No. 2') alongwith Phool Singh (PW/2) and Durjan Singh (PW/3) who were carrying husk in two bullock carts from the field of one Kubbada Maharaj reached near the field of the appellants. Appellants objected saying that they will not allow them to take bullock carts from their field. Deceased No. 2 insisted to let them go as there was a passage. Appellant No. 2 abused and started assaulting deceased No. 2 with Gadasi, as a result of which, deceased No. 2 fell on the ground and got unconscious. While deceased No. 1 and PW/2 and PW/3 tried to intervene, appellants caused injuries to them also. Appellant No. 3 was armed with farsa and appellant No. 4 was armed with Bhala and remaining appellants were armed with lathis; they jointly assaulted the deceased No. 1, deceased No. 2 and caused injuries to PW/2 and PW/3 also. 3. On hearing shrieks, Ajab Singh (PW/1), Shankar (PW/4) and Lokman and Paras reached at the spot. Appellants fled away from the place. Deceased No. 1 died at the spot and deceased No. 2 died on way to hospital. Ajab Singh (PW/1) reached at the Police Station, Gadarwara and lodged FIR Ex. P/1 pursuant to which a case at Crime No. 0/2002 was registered against the appellants. On the basis of it, at Police Station, Jaikheda, a case at Crime No. 238/2002 was registered against the appellants. 4. On 1-12-2002 dead body of deceased No. l was sent to Government Hospital Gadarwara, District Narsinghpur for post-mortem. Dr. V. P. Patel (PW-6) found following injuries :- 1. On the basis of it, at Police Station, Jaikheda, a case at Crime No. 238/2002 was registered against the appellants. 4. On 1-12-2002 dead body of deceased No. l was sent to Government Hospital Gadarwara, District Narsinghpur for post-mortem. Dr. V. P. Patel (PW-6) found following injuries :- 1. Contusion 1 cm X "½ cm on left side of forehead near hair margin; 2. Contusion "½ cm X "½ cm on left side of forehead 3 cm below to the injury No. 1; 3. Contusion “½cm X 1 cm on wrist joint of right hand on dorsal side; 4. Contusion 9 cm X 4 cm on right hand dorsal side; 5. Lacerated wound “½cm X "¼ cm X bone deep on middle finger of right hand having fracture of lower phalange; 6. Contusion 13 cm X 3 cm on right forearm having fracture of both bones on right forearm; 7. Lacerated wound 1.5 cm X “½cm X “½cm on thumb of right hand; 8. Contusion 1 cm X “½cm on left shoulder; 9. Contusion 5 cm X 1.5 cm on back side of left shoulder; 10. Bruise 6 cm X 2 cm on left side of the back; 11. Bruise 12 cm X 2 cm on left side of the back, 2 cm below to the injury No. 10; 12. Bruise 12 cm X 2cm just below to the injury No. 11; 13. Bruise 6 cm X 2 cm, 1.5 cm below to the injury No. 12; 14. Bruise 8 cm X 2 cm on right side of the back; 15. Bruise 8 cm X 2 cm just below injury No. 14; 16. Bruise 12 cm X 2cm on right side of the back; 17. Bruise 17 cm X 15 cm multiple injuries on middle of the back; 18. Bruise 10 cm X 2cm on left side of the back; 19. Bruise 19 cm X 2cm on left side of the back of dorsal side; 20. Abrasion "¼ cm "¼ cm X 8cm multiple in number; 21. Bruise 11 cm X 2 cm on left buttock; 22. Bruise 6 cm X 2 cm just below injury No. 21 on left buttock; 23. Bruise 8 cm X 10 cm on right buttock; 24. Bruise 16 cm X 2 cm on right thigh of parietal region; 25. Bruise 5 cm X 2 cm just below injury No. 24; 26. Bruise 11 cm X 2 cm on left buttock; 22. Bruise 6 cm X 2 cm just below injury No. 21 on left buttock; 23. Bruise 8 cm X 10 cm on right buttock; 24. Bruise 16 cm X 2 cm on right thigh of parietal region; 25. Bruise 5 cm X 2 cm just below injury No. 24; 26. Abrasions 3 cm X 1 cm on right leg; 27. Bruise 8 cm X 2 cm on left buttock; 28. Bruise 7 cm X 2 cm on left thigh of posterior region; 29. Contusion 1.5 cm X “½cm on left buttock; Dr. V. K. Patel (PW-6) prepared post-mortem report Ex.P-11 and found cause of death shock due to excessive bleeding and also fractures of 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th ribs causing corresponding rupture of lungs. 5. Dr. V. K. Patel (PW-6) conducted post-mortem of dead body of deceased No. 2 and found following injuries on his person :- 1. Lacerated wound 3 cm X 1cm X skin deep on left side of skull of parietal occipital region; 2. Bruise 2 cm X 1.5 cm on right fronto parietal bone; 3. Bruise 1.5 cm 1.5 cm on right side of face anterior to right ear; 4. Bruise 1 cm X 1.5 cm on right side of face near chin; 5. Bruise 4 cm X “½cm on right side of chin; 6. Bruise 9 cm X 3 cm on lower part of chest (right hypocondrium) 7. Bruise 8 cm X 2 cm below the injury No. 6; 8. Contusion 4 cm X 1 cm on left hand of dorsal side; 9. Contusion 5 cm X 2 cm on dorsal side of left hand; 10. Incised wound 2 cm X “½cm X muscle deep on right forearm; 11. Contusion 6 cm X 3 cm on the right forearm; 12. Contusion 12 cm X 1 cm on the left thigh; 13. Incised wound 3 cm X 1.5 cm X muscle deep on the left leg 11 cm below knee; 14. Contusion 2 cm X 1 cm just below knee on left leg; 15. Incised wound 2.5 X 1 cm X muscle deep on the left leg lower part; 16. Contusion 2 cm X “½cm X skin deep on the right leg 17. Bruise 8 cm X 3cm on the right thigh 18. Contusion 2 cm X 1 cm just below knee on left leg; 15. Incised wound 2.5 X 1 cm X muscle deep on the left leg lower part; 16. Contusion 2 cm X “½cm X skin deep on the right leg 17. Bruise 8 cm X 3cm on the right thigh 18. Bruise 12 cm X 3 cm on the right thigh above injury No. 17; 19. Bruise 12 cm X 2 cm on the right buttock; 20. Bruise 12 cm X 2 cm on the below injury No. 19 21. Bruise 9 cm X 2 cm on the right thigh below buttock 22. Bruise 13 cm X 3 cm on the left buttock 23. Bruise 6 cm X 2 cm on left buttock; 24. Bruise 14 cm X 3 cm on the right side of back dorsal side; 25. Bruise 12 cm X 2 cm on the right side of back beside injury No. 24 26. Bruise 12 cm X 2 cm on the right side of back beside injury No. 25 5-A. Dr. V. K. Patel (PW/6) prepared post-mortem report of deceased No.2 Ex. P/13 in which his cause of death was found shock due to fracture in ribs causing damage to the corresponding vital organs of the body. Dr. K. Uikey (PW/8) examined injuries of Phul Singh (PW/2) and found following injuries on his person: (i) Contusion 4 c.m. x 1”½c.m. on right hand, (ii) Contusion four in numbers measuring 15 c.m. x 1”½c.m., 14”½c.m. x 1”½c.m. parallel to each other on the back. (iii) Incised wound 1 c.m. x “½x “½c.m. on the left leg. (iv) Contusion 4 c.m. x 1”½c.m. on right shoulder. (v) Contusion 12 c.m. x 1 “½c.m. wrist. Dr. K. Uikey (PW/9) prepared MLC report Ex. P/32 and found injuries No. 1, 2, 4 and 5 simple and advised X-Ray for injury No.3. 6. Dr. K. Uikey (PW/9) examined injuries of Durjan (PW/3) as follows : (i) One lacerated wound 1”½c.m. x 1 c.m. on left hand dorsal side, (ii) Contusion 11 c.m. x “½c.m. on right thigh on medial aspect. (iii) Contusion 22 c.m. x 2”½c.m. on back side from right to left, (iv) Contusion 20 c.m. x 1”½c.m. parallel to injury No. 3 on the back, (v) Contusion 4 c.m. x 4 c.m. on right hand. Dr. (iii) Contusion 22 c.m. x 2”½c.m. on back side from right to left, (iv) Contusion 20 c.m. x 1”½c.m. parallel to injury No. 3 on the back, (v) Contusion 4 c.m. x 4 c.m. on right hand. Dr. Uikey (PW/9) advised for X-Ray of PW/1 and found injuries No. 2, 3, 4 and 5 are simple in nature. He prepared MLC report Ex. P/41. 7. During investigation on 8-12-2002, appellant No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 were arrested and at the instance of appellant No.2 Gadasi, at the instance of appellant No.3 axe, at the instance of appellant No.3 spear ballam were recovered and at the instance of remaining appellants lathies were recovered. After completing investigation, police Saikheda submitted a charge-sheet against the appellants under sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 307, 302, 341, 294, 506-B, Indian Penal Code in the Court of concerned Magistrate. Case was committed to the trial Court. Trial Court framed charges under sections 148, 302/149 on two counts, 302, 307/149 on two counts and 307, Indian Penal Code, respectively. Appellants abjured guilt. Defence of the appellants in the trial Court was that of false implication on account of enmity and also claim right of self defence of person and the property. 8. To substantiate the case of the prosecution, statements of Ajab Singh (PW/1), Phool Singh (PW/2), Durjan Singh (PW/3), Shankar (PW/4), Bhaiyalal (PW/5), Dr. V. K. Patel (PW/6), Rasraj Singh (PW/7), Madhhav Prasad Jaroliya (PW/8), Dr. K. Uikey (PW/9), P. D. Pandey, A.S.I. (PW/10), Kamta Prasad, Head Constable (PW/11), S.K. Sharma, A.S.I. (PW/12) and Virendra Birthare, Sub Inspector (PW/13) were recorded. In respect of the defence of the appellants, statements of Patiram Gujar (DW/1), Ramdayal (DW/2), Gourishankar Gujar (DW/3) and Bhaiji Gujar (DW/4) were recorded. 9. After appreciating the aforesaid evidence, trial Court convicted the appellants of the charges under section 307/149, Indian Penal Code and also convicted them under section 148 and 302/149, Indian Penal Code on two- counts and 302/149, Indian Penal Code on two counts and sentenced them as above. 10. Conviction and sentence have been challenged by the appellants in this appeal on the ground that appreciation of evidence is not proper, evidence of injured witnesses and eye-witnesses are suffering from contradictions and omissions. 10. Conviction and sentence have been challenged by the appellants in this appeal on the ground that appreciation of evidence is not proper, evidence of injured witnesses and eye-witnesses are suffering from contradictions and omissions. Trial Court failed to appreciate that complainant persons were aggressor as they tried to take their carts through the field of the appellants causing damage to standing crops. Trial Court further failed to appreciate that complainant party could not control the bullock cart and injuries have been sustained by accidental fall. Evidence of defence witnesses has been disbelieved in wrong manner. Conviction is bad in law. 11. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate supported the findings of conviction and sentence both. 12. In view of the evidence of Dr. V. K. Patel (PW/6) and post-mortem reports Ex. P/11 and P/13, respectively, it remains no longer disputed that the death of the deceased No. 1 and deceased No.2 was the cumulative effect of large number of injuries sustained by them and was homicidal in nature. 13. From amongst the five eye-witnesses Shankar (PW/4)_ did not support the prosecution and was declared hostile. He disowned his previous statement Ex. P/10 in toto. PW/4, a caste fellow of the appellants as well as complainant party, admitted that he took the injured persons to the hospital. 14. Phool Singh (PW/2) and Durjan Singh (PW/3) sustained injuries on their person in the incident. Their presence on the spot cannot be, therefore, doubted. Ajab Singh (PW/1) did not receive any injury in the incident. He lodged FIR Ex. P/l at Police Station, Gadarwara. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that his son Mahendra, deceased No. 1 lost his life in this incident but he chose to remain away from the crowd and did not make any attempt to save him which is not a natural conduct and questions even his presence on the spot. 15. Per contra, it is submitted by learned Government Advocate that there cannot be a set pattern of responses of all the persons. It may differ from person to person how one reacts in a given situation. PW/3 in para 11 has stated that PW/1 was standing just 25 steps away. Though appellants chased him, but PW/1 managed to escape by moving away a little but saw the incident. It may differ from person to person how one reacts in a given situation. PW/3 in para 11 has stated that PW/1 was standing just 25 steps away. Though appellants chased him, but PW/1 managed to escape by moving away a little but saw the incident. PW/1 has denied the suggestion of over turning of the bullock cart through the ridge between the field medh and also denied the suggestion of having disputes and enmity with the appellants. Similarly Bhaiyalal (PW/5) also witnessed the incident from about a distance of 100 yards. Merely in view of the fact that defence gave suggestions of enmity of witnesses with them on the ground that he is a relative and is an interested witness, their testimony cannot be brushed aside. Their presence on the spot is natural and has been rightly believed by the trial Court. On careful perusal of testimonies of PW/1 and PW/5, we are of the opinion that they witnessed the incident and then have been rightly relied upon by the trial Court. 16. Insofar as evidence of injured witnesses PW/2 and PW/3 is concerned, they have categorically denied the fact of overturning of the bullock cart and of having received the injuries by dragging of the bullock cart. Rather they have given a clear account of their injuries by the appellants. 17. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the complainant party entered in the fields of the appellants in which gram crops was sown by them. According to Ajab Singh (PW/1), deceased No.2 wanted to take the bullock cart from the adjoining way. Infact, they entered the bullock cart through a medh having about 6 inches height. Bullock cart was stopped by appellant No.2. According to Phool Singh (PW/2), they along with bullock cart reached near the field of appellant No. 1. The bullock cart was seized by the police from the way not from the field. Durjan Singh (PW/3) also stated that police seized the bullock cart and blood stained soil from the spot but he denied the fact that bullock cart was lying in the field of appellant No. 1. According to him, police prepared seizure of only one bullock cart and allowed them to take away another bullock cart without formality. Durjan Singh (PW/3) also stated that police seized the bullock cart and blood stained soil from the spot but he denied the fact that bullock cart was lying in the field of appellant No. 1. According to him, police prepared seizure of only one bullock cart and allowed them to take away another bullock cart without formality. Bhaiyalal (PW/5) stated that near the house of appellant No. 1 quarrel was going on and house of the Pohap Singh is constructed in his field only. In para 10 of his statement, he stated that from the filed of the appellant No. 1 there was a way also. 18. In spot map Ex. P/7, two bullock carts have been shown in the filed of the appellant No. 1. Similarly blood stains have also been shown lying in the field, Virendra (PW/13) prepared the spot map Ex. P/7. It appears probable that complainant party insisted the entry of the bullock cart through the field of appellants where the gram crop was sown. According to prosecution, deceased tried to pressurise the appellants that there was a way also from the field and to let them pass but appellant No.2 took initiative and assaulted a gandasa blow on the person of deceased No.2 and then they all started assaulting both the deceased persons, PW/2 and PW/3 also. 19. From the aforesaid evidence atleast two things are clear which need a careful and conscious consideration. One, incident took place in the field, not on the way/medh, where the gram crop of the appellants was sown and two, vague allegations against the appellants regarding their presence with intention to cause death of deceased persons. In para 27 of (2011) 9 SCC 257 (Ramachandran and others vs. State of Kerala) following observation made by the Apex Court would be useful to be referred : "Thus, this court has been very cautious in a catena of judgments that where general allegations are made against a large number of persons the court would categorically scrutinise the evidence and hesitate to convict the large number of persons if the evidence available on record is vague. It is obligatory on the part of the court to examine that if the offence committed is not in direct prosecution of the common object, it yet may fall under second part of section 149, Indian Penal Code, if the offence was such as the members knew was likely to be committed. Further inference has to be drawn as to what was the number of persons; how many of them were merely passive witnesses; what were their arms and weapons. The number and nature of injuries is also relevant to be considered. "Common object" may also be developed at the time of incident." 20. It is noteworthy that in present incident one deceased sustained 29 injuries, another deceased sustained 26 injuries and two injured persons sustained 5-5 injuries each, respectively. For causing aforesaid injuries at the stage of FIR, 9 appellants were named. Eight accused persons faced trial. One accused Baijnath was acquitted by the trial Court by extending benefit of doubt. Seven appellants all belonging to one family i.e. appellant No. 1 is father of appellants No.2, 3, 4 and 5 and brother-in-law of appellant No.6 and father-in-law of appellant No.7, were held liable to cause aforesaid number of injuries. Appellant No.4 was said to have been armed with spear (Bhala-ballam), but, it is strange that no injury sustained by any of the deceased, or the injured which could have been caused by ballam like weapon. None of the witnesses stated anything specific about any overt act by appellant No.4. In such a situation, even if his presence on the spot be presumed, there is no evidence to show his presence as a member of unlawful assembly for holding him liable for sharing the common object of the remaining appellants. He therefore deserves to be acquitted. 21. As against six appellants viz. No. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7, it has come in the evidence of PW/1 & PW/5 eye-witnesses, PW/2 & PW/3 injured witnesses and in the evidence of Investigating Officer Virendra Birthare PW/13 that when both the deceased and injured witnesses entered in the field along with the bullock carts asserting that to be a passage, after heated exchange, they started assaulting them. Initially they assaulted deceased No.2. While deceased No. 1 came forward to rescue him, he was also assaulted by the appellants. Initially they assaulted deceased No.2. While deceased No. 1 came forward to rescue him, he was also assaulted by the appellants. How an occupant of field who had ploughed the field and sown the gram crops can keep mum, seeing such intervention on it. Act of the deceased persons in such a situation, of taking the bullock carts through the field was nothing but simply an invitation for quarrel on their part. Appellants assaulted without premeditation in a sudden fight and quarrel occurred on the spot between the members of two families. Ultimately two members of complainant family lost their lives. 22. Nothing has come on record to show appellants acted in an unusual manner. In our considered opinion, act of the appellants is covered under Exception 4 of section 300, Indian Penal Code. As discussed above, conviction and sentence of the appellants under section 302, Indian Penal Code, hence, deserves to be and is hereby set aside instead appellants No. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 are liable to be convicted under section 304 Part-I/149, Indian Penal Code on two counts. It is true that in this unfortunate incident, two family members of prosecution witnesses have lost their lives but it is also true that six members of the family including one father and four sons are suffering incarceration since the incident. Conviction of appellant No.4, on all the charges is set aside. 23. For offence under section 304 Part 1/149, Indian Penal Code, aforesaid appellants are sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment on each count. Conviction and sentence of appellants under sections 148 and 323, Indian Penal Code are hereby affirmed. Sentences shall run concurrently. 24. In respect of appellant No. 4 Brajesh, appeal is allowed. His conviction and sentence is set aside; he is acquitted. In respect of appellants No. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7, appeal is allowed in part as indicated above.