JUDGMENT : - Hon'ble GUPTA, J.—This DB Cr. Appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C., has been filed against the judgment and order dated 8.8.2003 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), No.1, Kota in Sessions Case No. 27/2003 whereby the present appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:- Appellant Bablu: Under Section 302 IPC: to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months. Under Section 148 IPC:- to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- and in default thereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Under Section 452 IPC:- to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months. Appellants Sanjay and Sattu @ Satya Narayan: under Section 302/149 IPC: to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months. Under Section 148 IPC:- to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- and in default thereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Under Section 452 IPC:- to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months. Under Section 323 IPC:- to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. Under Section 325/149 IPC:- to undergo R.I. For three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months. Under Section 324 IPC:- to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months. 2. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that Ramdayal (PW/16) gave a Parchabayan, Ex.P/26 on 28.9.2002 at 2.55 AM in the hospital, on which FIR Ex.P/27 was registered on 29.9.2002 at 2.00 PM at Police Station Mahaveer Nagar, Kota. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months. 2. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that Ramdayal (PW/16) gave a Parchabayan, Ex.P/26 on 28.9.2002 at 2.55 AM in the hospital, on which FIR Ex.P/27 was registered on 29.9.2002 at 2.00 PM at Police Station Mahaveer Nagar, Kota. It has been stated in the Parchabayan that on 27.9.2012 at 8.30 PM, complainant Ramdayal (PW/16) along with his brother-in-law Dhanraj and another Ramdayal S/o Mangilal (PW/18) were taking tea on the roof of the house of Ramdayal S/o Mangilal (PW/18). PW/12 Mooli Bai wife of Ramdayal was also present at that time. They heard some noise at the entrance gate, they came down and saw that accused persons along with one-two persons armed with sword, Gandasi and Dhariya were outside the house. Thereafter, accused persons arrived at their roof from the roof of adjoining house and started beating Dhanraj and the complainant. Dhanraj rushed to the ground-floor, there also appellants and accused persons attacked Dhanraj, he sustained injuries. Dhanraj died due to injuries. The contention of the complai-nant is that he has also sustained injuries. The incident has been witnessed by Ramdayal and his wife also. On this FIR No.416/2002 has been registered for the offence u/Ss. 147, 323, 452, 307, 302, 148 and 149 IPC. Case was registered and after investigation, charge-sheet has been filed against the appellants. The case was committed to the Sessions Judge and it was transferred to Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Kota. The charges have been framed against the appellants for the offences under Section 352, 302, 149, 326, 325 and 323 IPC which was denied by the accused persons and they claimed to be tried. To prove the case against the present appellants, prosecution has examined PW/1 Deen Dayal, PW/2 Mukesh, PW/3 Ram Bharosh, PW/4 Pappu @ Pramod Kumar, PW/5 Ram Charan, PW/6 Dr. Ashok Moondra, PW/7 Babu Lal, PW/8 Sultan, PW/9 Smt. Munni Bai, PW/10 Ghanshyam, PW/11 Bhagwan Dass, PW/12 Smt. Munni Bai, PW/13 Shri Ramesh, PW/14 Gajraj Singh Solanki, PW/15 Niranjan Kumar Gautam, PW/16 Ram Dayal, PW/17 Dharam Raj, PW/18 Ram Dayal S/o Mangilal, PW/19 Narayan Lal, PW/20 Dr. Ashok Moondra, PW/7 Babu Lal, PW/8 Sultan, PW/9 Smt. Munni Bai, PW/10 Ghanshyam, PW/11 Bhagwan Dass, PW/12 Smt. Munni Bai, PW/13 Shri Ramesh, PW/14 Gajraj Singh Solanki, PW/15 Niranjan Kumar Gautam, PW/16 Ram Dayal, PW/17 Dharam Raj, PW/18 Ram Dayal S/o Mangilal, PW/19 Narayan Lal, PW/20 Dr. Govind Gupta, PW/21 Hansraj, PW/22 Hazari Lal, PW/23 Laddu Lal, PW/24 Jagdish, and PW/25 Naim Mohammad, PW/26 Dinesh Kumar, PW/27 Phool Chand, PW/28 Shankar, PW/29 Kalulal, and PW/30 Shiv Charan and exhibited documents Ex. P/1 to P/72. The accused appellants have been examined under Section 313 and in defence no witness has been produced but to support his case, the defence has relied on Ex.D/1 to D/5. After conclusion of trial, the present appellants have been convicted and sentenced as indicated above. The present appellants along with one other accused Pappu S/o Chitarlal has also been convicted for the offence under Sections 148, 452 and 302 IPC. Pappu S/o Chitarlal has been stated to be absconding. Hence this appeal has been preferred by the above three appellants. 3. The contention of the present appellants is that the whole story is concocted one. Admittedly, there was no enmity between deceased Dhanraj, Ramdayal and the present appellants. Dhanraj came there from Anta along with Ramdayal (PW/16), nobody was knowing that Dhanraj would come on that day at the place of Ramdayal S/o Mangilal (PW/18). FIR is ante-time, police reached the spot immediately after 10 minutes and they have recorded the statements of witnesses. PW/12 Smt. Munni Bai has stated that she narrated the story to police which was reduced in writing and her thumb impression was also taken on it. It was the First Information Report of the incident which has been withheld by the prosecution. FIR reached to the Court after 12 hours; the higher authorities reached the spot immediately but they have not been produced. Statement of Ramdayal has been taken at 2.55 AM whereas the incident was of 8.30 PM and Ramdayal was conscious. There was no reason to record his statement after significant delay. In injury report of Ramdayal (Ex.P/16), wounds have been shown to be stitched, prior to the stitching of wounds, no injury report has been prepared. The witnesses are not reliable. PW/9 Munni Bai has been disbelieved rightly by the court below. There was no reason to record his statement after significant delay. In injury report of Ramdayal (Ex.P/16), wounds have been shown to be stitched, prior to the stitching of wounds, no injury report has been prepared. The witnesses are not reliable. PW/9 Munni Bai has been disbelieved rightly by the court below. PW/12 Munni Bai has locked herself in bathroom hence it was not possible for her to see the incident and PW/18 Ramdayal S/o Mangilal, other alleged eye-witness, has ran away to the house of Sultan from where it was not possible for him to see the incident and only eye-witness remains is PW/16, Ramdayal who is not a reliable witness. He remained on the roof and it was not possible for him to see the incident which has taken place on the ground floor. The case of the prosecution is that accused came on the roof of PW/18 Ramdayal S/o Mangilal through the roof of Sultan but Ramdayal's house is constructed only one storey whereas Sultan's house is double storey and it was humanly not possible to come down from the roof of Sultan to the house of Ramdayal S/o Mangilal (PW/18). There is significant improvement and contradictions in the statement of witnesses, none of the witnesses are truthful hence the present appellants be acquitted from the offence. 4. Per contra, the contention of the learned Public Prosecutor is that PW/16 Ramdayal is eye-witness to the incident and PW/12 Smt. Munni Bai and PW/18 Ram Dayal S/o Mangilal are also the eye-witnesses who have seen the part of incident and other witness Munni Bai, PW/9 has also stated that she saw the accused persons coming and thereafter, she has seen the deceased and injured in pool of blood. Statement of Ramdayal has been recorded at the earliest and there is no infirmity in the Parchabayan of Ramdayal. FIR has not been suppressed. PW/9 Smt. Munni Bai has not submitted any report to the police. Investigation Officer has been produced and higher officers have reached the spot in their supervisory capacity, there was no necessity to examine them, FIR has reached the Court on the same day, hence no infirmity could be attached with it and the court below has rightly convicted the appellants. No interference is warranted. 5. Investigation Officer has been produced and higher officers have reached the spot in their supervisory capacity, there was no necessity to examine them, FIR has reached the Court on the same day, hence no infirmity could be attached with it and the court below has rightly convicted the appellants. No interference is warranted. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and learned Public Prosecutor as well as counsel for the complainant and perused the impugned judgment as well as the original record of the case. 6. PW/16 Ramdayal has stated that on 27.9.2002 at about 8.30 PM he and Dhanraj both went to the house of Ramdayal S/o Mangilal (PW/18) which is situated in nearby locality. He, Dhanraj and Ramdayal all were on his roof when they heard the noise of knocking the door by appellants who were armed with Dhariya, sword and stick and they saw that Sattu S/o Mishrilal, Sanjay S/o Keshrilal, Bablu S/o Nathulal, Pappu S/o Chitarlal and other one two persons were there. Sattu was having Gandasi, Bablu and Sanjay were having sword and Pappu was having Dhariya. They shouted that they should hand over Dhanraj and Ramdayal. PW/18 Ramdayal S/o Mangilal and PW/12, Munni tried to persuade them. Thereafter all the accused persons from the roof of adjoining house of Sultan, came at the roof of Ramdayal S/o Mangilal (PW/18). Sanjay inflicted sword injury on his head and Sattu and Sanjay also inflicted injuries on his left hand. Dhanraj tried to run down-stairs but he has also been attacked by Bablu and Pappu. Munni Bai (PW/12) also went down-stairs on ground-floor all attacked Dhanraj. Dhanraj received sharp-edged injuries on head, hand and all over the body. His contention is that he was seeing the occurrence from the roof. Dhanraj has received 22-23 injuries. After the assault all accused persons fled away. Just after the incident police arrived there and they have been shifted to Hospital. Dhanraj died and his statement has been recorded. This witness has categorically stated that how incident has taken place as stated above. 7. PW/12 Munni Bai has also stated the same story that when they were on the roof, accused persons came there, attacked on Dhanraj and PW/16 Ramdayal. Dhanraj died and his statement has been recorded. This witness has categorically stated that how incident has taken place as stated above. 7. PW/12 Munni Bai has also stated the same story that when they were on the roof, accused persons came there, attacked on Dhanraj and PW/16 Ramdayal. She ran away from the roof, came down stairs and locked herself in the bathroom and she has categorically stated that from the bathroom door, she was witnessing the incident as the upper part of the door of bathroom was of net and Investigation Officer PW/19 Narayan Lal has also verified the fact that person standing in the bathroom could see the occurrence commi-tted outside, hence the contention of the appellants that PW/12 is not the eye-witness is not acceptable. Munni Bai (PW/12) has categorically stated that she was on the roof when accused persons came there, they attacked on Dhanraj and Ramdayal and when they went chasing Dhanraj, she also went down-stairs and saw the whole occurrence from the net part of the bathroom door. 8. PW/18 Ramdayal S/o Mangilal is another witness of the incident who has stated that when they were on the roof, they heard the noise of knocking the door thereafter all accused persons came there from the roof of the adjoining house of Sultan. His contention is that when accused persons were attacking Dhanraj and Ramdayal (PW16), he went on the roof of adjoining house of Sultan and he remained there and saw the incident standing there. In his cross-examination also he has stated that adjoining the wall there is a Kachi Tapri, he was witnessing the incident from there. It is true that some part of the incident has taken place in the ground-floor of the house of PW18 Ramdayal S/o Mangilal and it was not possible for PW18 Ramdayal to see that incident from where he was at the roof of Sultan's house but he has witnessed some part of the incident that accused persons came on the roof of his house, they attacked Dhanraj and Ramdayal, inflicted injuries to PW16 Ramdayal and also chased Dhanraj with deadly weapons and after the incident he has seen Ramdayal, injured and Dhanraj died due to injuries. This witness has also testified the fact that injuries were inflicted to Dhanraj also on the road outside the house and he has also witnessed the same from the roof of his house. 9. All three witnesses has consistently stated that accused persons attacked Dhanraj and Ramdayal (PW/16) and inflicted various injuries on them. The contention of the counsel for the appellants is that in Parchabayan (Ex.P/26), PW/16 Ramdayal has stated that at roof injuries have been caused to him alone, there is no mention that any injury has been inflicted to Dhanraj at the roof of the house whereas PW/16 Ramdayal has improved his statement in the court that at the roof Bablu and Pappu inflicted injury to Dhanraj also. 10. It is true that some discrepancy is there in the statement but on this minor discrepancy, whole statement cannot be thrown out. A cumulative reading of statements of all the three witnesses PW/16 Ramdayal, PW/12 Smt. Munni Bai and PW/18 Ramdayal S/o Mangilal clearly proves that accused persons have attacked Dhanraj and Ramdayal (PW/16) at the roof. In Parchabaya also, it has been stated that accused persons have started beating Dhanraj and Ramdayal on the roof and after that Dhanraj went down-stairs to save himself, hence there is no significant discrepancy in the statements of witness Ramdayal (PW/16). 11. The contention of the counsel for the appellants is that PW/12 Munni Bai and PW/18 Ramdayal S/o Mangilal are designed witnesses but this argument is not acceptable as the incident has taken place on the house of these two witnesses, their presence was natural and PW/12 Munni Bai has stated that she locked herself in the bathroom and from there she has witnessed the incident and PW/18 Ramdayal S/o Mangilal has also stated that he has witnessed the incident from the roof of Sultan and it is natural conduct of a person that when something is happening in his presence, he would try to see it hence, there is no infirmities in the evidence of PW/12 Smt. Munni Bai and PW/18 Ramdayal S/o Mangilal. It is true that both these witnesses have seen the incident from different places and for this reason the narration of the incident by the two would also be different. It is true that both these witnesses have seen the incident from different places and for this reason the narration of the incident by the two would also be different. PW/12 Munni Bai has seen the whole incident as she was locked in the bathroom from where she could see the incident which has taken place on the ground floor and outside her house whereas PW/18 Ramdayal was seeing the incident from the roof and it was not possible for him to see the incident which has taken place on the ground floor of his house. 12. Apart from it, PW/9 Munni Bai has also stated that she has seen the occurrence but in his cross-examination, she admits that she locked herself in the room and it was not possible for her to see the occurrence which has taken place inside the house of Ramdayal. But she has seen the accused persons at the house of Ramdayal and she has also seen Ramdayal and Dhanraj lying injured which also corroborates the testimony of PW/16 Ramdayal, PW/12 Smt. Munni Bai and PW/18 Ramdayal S/o Mangilal. 13. The contention of the appellants is that PW/16 Ramdayal is not a reliable witness and conviction cannot be sustained on the sole testimony of an unreliable witness and reliance has been placed on Niranjan vs. State through Chief Sectt., Delhi Admntr. JT 2000(10) SC 5; Chhita & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan, 1987 (Supp) SCC 639; Sudhir & Anr. vs. State of M.P., AIR 1985 SC 515 and Chander Pal vs. State of Haryana, AIR 2002 SC 989 where veracity of the witness has not been relied upon looking to the peculiar facts of the case but here in the present case PW/16 Ramdayal's presence could not be denied as he himself had been injured in the incident. He was with Dhanraj, he had seen the incident when he was on the roof. It is true that it was not possible for him to see some part of the incident which has taken place on the ground floor of the house but he was on the roof and he could well conceive the facts by sound of weapons, cries etc. and his testimony has been rightly relied upon. 14. It is true that it was not possible for him to see some part of the incident which has taken place on the ground floor of the house but he was on the roof and he could well conceive the facts by sound of weapons, cries etc. and his testimony has been rightly relied upon. 14. The other contention of the appellants is that there are material contradictions in the statements of witnesses PW/12 Munni Bai, PW/16 Ramdayal and PW/18 Ramdayal S/o Mangilal. The accused appellants have attacked Dhanraj and Ramdayal all of a sudden with deadly weapons and they created a havoc. PW/18 Ramdayal and PW/12 Munni Bai ran away to save themselves. PW/16 Ramdayal remained on the roof injured. Whereas Dhanraj ran down-stairs to save himself and when all the three persons are seeing the incident from different places, it was not possible for them to observe the situation in a similar manner and when violent attack has been made, it was not possible for them to give a picturarious narration of the incident and in the light of the above, there is no discrepancy in the evidence of the witnesses. 15. PW/8 Sultan is the resident of adjoining house and he has been declared hostile and he has not supported the prosecution in total but he has testified the fact that Ramdayal (PW/18) came to his house and he has also testified the fact that between his and Ramdayal's house, there is a unfinished room ¼dPpk Vkijk½. The contention of the appellants is that it was not possible to arrive at the roof of Ramdayal (PW/18) from the house of Sultan, as Sultan's house is constructed two storey and the whole prosecution story is false. The contention of the appellants is that it was not possible to arrive at the roof of Ramdayal (PW/18) from the house of Sultan, as Sultan's house is constructed two storey and the whole prosecution story is false. Per contra, the contention of the learned Public Prosecutor is that witnesses have stated that after taking support of the wall of the house of Sultan, accused persons came on the roof of the house of Ramdayal and it has also rightly been pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor that at Sultan's house on second storey only some part has been constructed and some part of roof was lying vacant and furthermore, the other fact which nullifies the contention of defence is that during the course of scuffle PW/18 Ramdayal has went on the roof of the adjoining house and when it was possible for Ramdayal to go there, it is equally possible for the accused persons to be on the roof of Ramdayal from the adjoining house of Sultan and this contention of appellants is not sustainable. 16. Apart from the evidence of eye-witnesses, PW/19 Narayan Lal, Investigation Officer has inspected the site and PW/1 Deendayal, witness of the site plan has stated that from scene of occurrence pieces of broken door of room have been seized and blood was found on the roof of the house, in ground-floor of the room at chowk and outside the house and door was damaged and marks of beating were also found on the doors, hence the shape of the site also corroborates the evidence of eye-witnesses. 17. The contention of the appellants is that none has said that any beating has been done at the Chowk but in Chowk also blood stains have been found. The story of the prosecution is that beating was done at the roof and when Dhanraj came down-stairs, he was attacked in room and thereafter, he was taken outside the house and site plan Ex.P/1 clears it that when a person would be taken from room to the outside of the house one has to go from the Chowk and it was natural that the blood would be found at the Chowk and the incident has taken place in wild manner that deceased Dhanraj has suffered 22-23 injuries and most of them are incised wounds or stab wounds. It was natural to have the blood stains everywhere in house and it also strengthens the case of the prosecution. 18. The Investigation Officer Narayan Lal (PW/19) has also testified the fact that sword has been recovered at the instance of appellants and FSL reports testified the facts that wooden pieces, the concrete taken from the spot, sword, Lakri were having blood which also fortify the story of the prosecution. 19. The contention of the appellants is that no enmity has been proved between Dhanraj, Ramdayal and the accused persons. Admittedly, Dhanraj was not the resident of the place, he came there with Ramdayal (PW/16) from Anta and nobody was knowing that he would come there. It is true that Dhanraj was not the resident of the place, but he came there with PW/16 Ramdayal and accused persons attacked them. All eye-witnesses consistently has deposed the same. It is true that no enmity has been proved by the prosecution, but when all witnesses has stated unanimously about the incident only on the absence of motive, the whole prosecution story cannot be thrown out. Otherwise also motive is not an essential ingredient for the offence of murder and reliance has been placed on Thaman Kumar vs. State of Union Territory of Chandigarh, (2003) 6 SCC 380 , wherein it has been held: “There is no such principle or rule of law that where the prosecution fails to prove the motive for commission of the crime, it must necessarily result in acquittal of the accused. Where the ocular evidence is found to be trustworthy and reliable and finds corroboration from the medical evidence, a finding of guilt can safely be recorded even if the motive for the commission of the crime has not been proved. Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the absence of any evidence on the point of motive cannot have any such impact so as to discard the other reliable evidence available on record which unerringly establishes the guilt of the accused.” 20. Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the absence of any evidence on the point of motive cannot have any such impact so as to discard the other reliable evidence available on record which unerringly establishes the guilt of the accused.” 20. The other contention of the appellants is that PW/12 Munni Bai has stated the incident to the police, which was reduced in writing and she has also put thumb-impression on it and contention of the appellants is that it was the written FIR which has been lodged by Munni Bai just after the occurrence and it has been withheld and reliance has been placed on Sevi & Anr. vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr., AIR 1981 SC 1230 ; and Meharaj Singh (L/Nk.) vs. State of U.P., (1994) 5 SCC 188 . There is no dispute about the legal proposition that if FIR has been withheld, it would demolish the whole case of the prosecution, but here in the present case Munni Bai has only stated that after the incident, police has inquired from her and at that time Dhanraj and Ramdayal were shifted to hospital. Thereafter, she has stated that on the next date of the incident, police again came there and at that time, she was not in a fit position, as there was blood all over the house, police has prepared some documents and she put thumb impression on it thereafter she has also testified that site-plan Ex.P/1 was prepared. A conscious reading of this clearly reveals that no First Information Report has been lodged by PW/12 Munni Bai. Only her statements have been recorded and on the next day of the incident, site plan was prepared. Apart from this, no direct question in cross-examination has been put to PW/12 Munni Bai whether she has lodged any report of the incident, hence the contention of the appellants that FIR has been withheld, is not acceptable. The contention of the appellants is that after the registration of FIR, it reached late to the court after 12 hours and it also caste shadow on the truthfulness of the prosecution. FIR has been reached the Court on the same day at 5.00 PM and this is not such serious lacunae which can dismantle the whole prosecution case. 21. The contention of the appellants is that after the registration of FIR, it reached late to the court after 12 hours and it also caste shadow on the truthfulness of the prosecution. FIR has been reached the Court on the same day at 5.00 PM and this is not such serious lacunae which can dismantle the whole prosecution case. 21. The other contention of the appellants is that admittedly, the incident is of 8.30 PM in the night, soon after the occurrence police came there, shifted the injured to the hospital but Ramdayal's statement has been taken after a long delay at 2.55 AM after consultation and concoction and reliance has been placed on Bandi Mallaiah & ors. vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1980 SC 1160 ; Rajeevan & Anr. vs. State of Kerala, AIR 2003 SC 1813 ; and Mohinder Singh & Anr. vs. State of Punjab & ors., AIR 2003 SC 4399 and the contention of the appellants is that an inference should be drawn that Parchabayan has been taken after false implication of the appellants. In this connection, PW/14 Gajraj Singh has stated that he recorded the statement of Ramdayal, he reached at the hospital at 1.30 in the night and he recorded the statement of injured AT 2.55 AM and as both the injured persons were in serious condition he has also testified the fact that flying squad has shifted the injured to the hospital. Thus, the prosecution has clarified the fact that injured persons have been shifted to hospital by flying squad. Police got information of the incident through control room and after having the information of the fact that injured has been shifted to hospital, PW/14 Gajraj Singh went there and after waiting for the condition of the injured to stable, he recorded the statements. It has also been objected that no certificate has been taken from the Doctor as regards the condition of the injured, but this argument has no force as Ramdayal is alive and he has deposed before the Court as PW/16 and immediately after the incident, FIR has been lodged. It has also been objected that no certificate has been taken from the Doctor as regards the condition of the injured, but this argument has no force as Ramdayal is alive and he has deposed before the Court as PW/16 and immediately after the incident, FIR has been lodged. There is no significant delay and PW/16 Ramdayal was seriously injured hence, there was no room for any concoction and the contention of the counsel for the appellants that some other persons have committed the crime is not acceptable as there was no reason for the eye-witnesses to implicate the appellants as per the contention of the defence there was no previous enmity between the parties and there was no reason for the eye-witnesses to set free the real culprits. The contention of the counsel for the appellants is that injury report Ex.P/16 of Ramdayal reveals that his wounds have been stitched, prior to stitching no injury report has been prepared which shows that fabricated report has been prepared. The contention of PW/14 Gajraj Singh who recorded the statements of Ramdayal clearly explains the contention that when he reached the hospital, Ramdayal was in serious condition hence it was necessary that he should be medically treated first and prior to medical treatment, if injury report has not been prepared, it cannot be termed as infirmity in the prosecution case. 22. The other contention of the counsel for the appellants is that higher police authorities have reached at the spot but they have not been examined as prosecution witnesses. If the higher authorities have reached the spot, it was not necessary for the prosecution to examine them as witnesses. Investigation Officer and the person who has recorded the statements and conducted any proceedings in furtherance of the investigation have been examined. If any higher authorities in his supervisory capacity has reached the spot, it was not necessary for the prosecution to examine him and the contention is not well sounded. 23. In the light of the above discussion, the court below has rightly relied on the evidence of eye-witnesses PW/12 Munni Bai, PW/16 Ramdayal and PW/18 Ramdayal S/o Mangilal and ocular evidence has been corroborated by the medical evidence as well as the contour of the site and recovery has also been effected from the possession of the appellants. 23. In the light of the above discussion, the court below has rightly relied on the evidence of eye-witnesses PW/12 Munni Bai, PW/16 Ramdayal and PW/18 Ramdayal S/o Mangilal and ocular evidence has been corroborated by the medical evidence as well as the contour of the site and recovery has also been effected from the possession of the appellants. The appellant Bablu has inflicted sharp edged weapon injury on the head of deceased and PMR Ex.P/28 testified the fact that deceased has suffered 24 injuries, most of them are by sharp-edged weapon on head, skull and bone and cause of death is comma brought out as a result of injuries to skull and brain and injury to head has been attributed to Bablu. Hence, Bablu has been rightly held guilty for the offence under Section 302 IPC along with 148 and 452 IPC. The appellants Sanjay and Sattu were members of unlawful assembly, object of which was to cause injuries to Dhanraj and Ramdayal in furtherance of their common object, they attacked Ramdayal and Dhanraj, caused death of Dhanraj as well as inflicted injuries to Ramdayal. Their over tacts have also been testified by the witnesses, hence they have also been rightly held liable for the offence under Sections 148, 452, 302/149, 323 and 324 IPC. In the light of above discussion, we are not persuaded to interfere in the findings of the court below. Consequently, the appeal fails and is dismissed.