ORDER : 1. The appellants were put on trial for offence under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC" for short). The Third Additional Sessions Judge, Nainital, by his judgment and order dated 17th December, 1993 passed in Sessions trial No. 344 of 1989 held them guilty of the charge and sentenced them to suffer imprisonment for life. Aggrieved by the same, they preferred Criminal Appeal No. 1960 of 2001 and the High Court of Uttrakhand by its judgment and order dated 18th July, 2008 dismissed the appeal. This is how the appellants are before us in the present appeal with the leave of the Court. 2. According to the prosecution, the deceased Mohan Singh was a Subedar in the Indian Army and had come to his village on leave. It is alleged that on 29th June, 1989, at about 8.00 a.m., while he was in his house, appellant No. 1, Nandan Singh and appellant No. 2, Pooran Singh, armed with Patal, a heavy sharp edged weapon, and appellant No. 3, Bachchey Singh, armed with lathi came to his house and assaulted him with their respective weapons. Mohan Singh having suffered the injuries, fell unconscious. He was first taken to the Hospital and from there, P.W. 1, Shiv Raj Singh, went to Ramnagar Police Station at 11.40 a.m. and lodged the Report. On the basis of the aforesaid information, a case under Section 307 of the IPC was registered. However, Mohan Singh died on the same day. The crime was converted into one punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. 3. After usual investigation, the Police submitted charge-sheet and the appellants were ultimately committed to the Court of Sessions to face the trial. Charge under Section 302/34 of the IPC was framed against them. The appellants denied to have committed any offence and claimed to be tried. In order to bring home the charge, the prosecution has examined P.W. 1, Shivraj Singh, P.W. 2, Sher Singh, P.W. 3, Bachchey Singh and P.W. 4, Radhika Devi as eyewitnesses to the occurrence, besides P.W. 6, Dr. N.K. Agrawal, who conducted the postmortem examination. The defence of the appellants, except appellant No. 1, Nandan Singh, is of false implication and appellant No. 1 has come out with a specific plea that he assaulted Mohan Singh in exercise of his right to private defence. 4. N.K. Agrawal, who conducted the postmortem examination. The defence of the appellants, except appellant No. 1, Nandan Singh, is of false implication and appellant No. 1 has come out with a specific plea that he assaulted Mohan Singh in exercise of his right to private defence. 4. P.W. 1, P.W. 2, P.W. 3 and P.W. 4 are consistent in their evidence that while the deceased Mohan Singh had come to his home on leave, all the appellants, variously armed, came to his house and started beating him. They have specifically stated that the appellants, Nandan Singh and Pooran Singh, were armed with Patal and the appellant, Bachchey Singh, with lathi. P.W. 3, Bachey Ram, is absolutely an independent witness and was working in the house of the deceased at the time of the incident to fix the door frame on the wall. P.W. 6, Dr. N.K. Agrarwal, who conducted the postmortem examination, has found the following injuries on the deceased: "1. One stitched wound 5.5 cm long on the left side of head about 8 cm above the left eyebrow. 2. Mark of abrasion 1 cm x 0.5 cm on the inner side of elbow of right arm. 3. One lacerated wound 1.5 cm x 0.25 cm muscle deep on the dorsal side of left thumb. 4. Contusion mark of 5 cm x 0.5 cm on the right side of chest 10 cm from the nipple inwardly. 5. Bluish mark 1 x 1 cm just near the sternum. 6. A mark of abrasion 10 cm x 5 cm on frontal side of left shoulder. 7. Abrasion 1 cm x 1 cm just near the elbow on the internal side. 8. A blue mark of 14 cm x 5 cm in slanting position from left shoulder to arm. 9. Abrasion 1 cm x 0.5 cm on the internal side of left thumb. 10. A longitudinal abrasion 7 cm x 0.05 cm on the lower side of left forearm. 11. Abrasion in the area of 5 cm x 4 cm on the left leg 24 cm below the knee. 12. Abrasion of 2 cm x 1 cm on the middle portion of left foot. 13. Abrasion 3 cm x 3.5 cm on the left leg just below the knee. 14. Blue mark with abrasion 11 cm x 5.5 cm on the dorsal side of right shoulder." 5. 12. Abrasion of 2 cm x 1 cm on the middle portion of left foot. 13. Abrasion 3 cm x 3.5 cm on the left leg just below the knee. 14. Blue mark with abrasion 11 cm x 5.5 cm on the dorsal side of right shoulder." 5. The trial court on appraisal of the evidence, accepted their evidence and convicted and sentenced the appellants as above. It rejected the plea of the appellant, Nandan Singh, of his right of private defence. Same has been affirmed in appeal by the High Court. 6. Mr. Sanjay Parikh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, submits that the appellant, Nandan Singh, has sustained penetrated incise wound and abrasion in the occurrence but the same has not at all explained by the prosecution. This, according to the learned counsel, clearly goes to show that the occurrence had not taken place in the manner projected by the prosecution. In support of his submission, he placed reliance on a large number of authorities of this Court in the cases of Laxmi Singh v. State of Bihar reported in 1976 (4) SCC 394 , Babu Ram v. State of Punjab reported in 2008 (3) SCC 709 and State of M.P. v. Mishrilal & Ors. reported in 2003 (9) SCC 426 . 7. We do not find any substance in the submission of Mr. Parikh and the decisions relied on have no bearing in the facts and circumstances of the case. The appellants have not brought on record any evidence to show that Nandan Singh sustained the injury at or about the same time when the present occurrence had taken place. When cross-examined, all the witnesses have clearly stated that they have not seen any injury on the person of the appellant, Nandan Singh. It is relevant here to state that the Doctor, who is alleged to have given the injury report, has not been examined. Further, injury report does not disclose the age of the injury. 8. On the face of what we have observed above, it cannot be said that the appellant, Nandan Singh, had sustained injury at or about the same time when the present occurrence had taken place. Once it is held so, the prosecution is not obliged to explain the injury. Hence, the decisions relied on have no bearing in the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. Mr. Once it is held so, the prosecution is not obliged to explain the injury. Hence, the decisions relied on have no bearing in the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. Mr. Parikh then submits that the deceased Mohan Singh was an aggressor and the appellants acted in exercise of their right of private defence. This argument has only been noted to be rejected. Neither there is any evidence nor any suggestion that the deceased Mohan Singh was armed with any weapon or committed any overt act to endanger their life or property. There is consistent evidence of the prosecution witnesses that they were armed with dangerous weapons and came to the house of the deceased and assaulted him there. On the face of it, the plea of right of private defence does not arise at all. 10. Lastly, Mr. Parikh submits that even if the entire prosecution story is accepted, it does not make out a case under Section 302 of the IPC and at the most the allegation proved makes out an offence under Section 304 Part I/34 of the IPC. We do not find any substance in this submission. The intention of the accused is gathered from the nature of the weapon used, place of the body chosen for assault, the force with which the weapon is used and the conduct of the accused soon before and after the occurrence. In the present case, all the appellants were armed with dangerous weapons, came to the place of occurrence together and caused as many as fourteen injuries, many of them on the vital parts of the body, including the head. Broken bone was found on the examination of the internal parts of the head injury and brain membrane was found ruptured. In the opinion of the Doctor, the aforesaid injury was sufficient to cause death of Mohan Singh. From the aforesaid, there is no escape from the conclusion that all the appellants intended to cause the death and they shared the common intention and in furtherance thereof the crime was committed. Accordingly, we also reject this submission of Mr. Parikh. 11. We are of the opinion that the trial court and the High Court have rightly relied on the evidence of the eyewitnesses and, hence, the judgment of conviction and sentence does not suffer from any error. 12. Accordingly, we also reject this submission of Mr. Parikh. 11. We are of the opinion that the trial court and the High Court have rightly relied on the evidence of the eyewitnesses and, hence, the judgment of conviction and sentence does not suffer from any error. 12. In the result, we do not find any merit in the appeal and it is dismissed, accordingly Appeal dismissed.