JUDGMENT Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. This appeal, preferred under Section 378 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against judgment and order dated 26.05.2001, passed by 1st Fast Track Court/Additional Sessions Judge, Haldwani, in Sessions Trial No. 540 of 1995, whereby said court has acquitted the accused/respondents Chandra Pal, Dharamveer, Rajesh, Navarang and Ramesh from the charge of offences punishable under Section 302/149 and 148/120B of I.P.C. (The trial court has convicted only accused Inderpal Singh under Section 302 of I.P.C. and sentenced him to imprisonment for life). 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the lower court record. 3. Prosecution story in brief is that a First Information Report (Ex. A1) was given at Police Station Gadarpur on 07.04.1995, by PW1 Shamsher Bahadur, in which, it is stated that on said day at about 10.30 A.M. accused Chandra Pal Singh, Indrapal Singh both sons of Dharamveer, Rajesh and Navarang both sons of Natthu and one Ramesh S/o Arjun Ram came in a Jeep in Village Sakoniya and started hurling abuses at Ram Vilas Verma (deceased), whereafter he was assaulted and fires were shot at him. It was further alleged in the First Information Report that accused Chandra Pal and Indra Pal were armed with gun and rifle respectively and accused Navarang and Ramesh were armed with the swords. It is also mentioned in the First Information Report that there was a land dispute going on between the accused Chandra Pal and the deceased. On the basis of report (Ex. A1) Crime No. 125 of 1995 was registered at Police Station Gadarpur, relating to offences punishable under Section 147, 148, 149 and 302 of I.P.C., against the accused/respondents Chandra Pal Singh, Indrapal Singh, Rajesh, Navarang and Ramesh. The investigation was taken up by PW4 Sub Inspector Anant Ram Singh, who took the Police team at the spot. On 07.04.1995, itself PW6 Sub Inspector Girish Kumar Kotiya took the dead body of the deceased in his possession and prepared the inquest report (Ex. A2). He also got prepared the other necessary papers and got sent the dead body of the deceased Ram Vilas Verma in sealed condition for post mortem examination. PW5 Dr. On 07.04.1995, itself PW6 Sub Inspector Girish Kumar Kotiya took the dead body of the deceased in his possession and prepared the inquest report (Ex. A2). He also got prepared the other necessary papers and got sent the dead body of the deceased Ram Vilas Verma in sealed condition for post mortem examination. PW5 Dr. Yashpal Singh Rawat of L.D. Bhatt Hospital, Kashipur, conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of Ram Vilas Verma on 07.04.1995 at about 4.50 p.m. and prepared autopsy report (Ex. A6). He found two lacerated wounds (one exit and one entry wound) on the body of the deceased and opined that the deceased had died of shock and haemorrhage, as a result of ante mortem injuries. After interrogating the witnesses and inspecting the spot, the Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet (Ex. A5) against the accused Chandra Pal Singh, Indrapal Singh, Rajesh, Navarang, Ramesh and Draramveer Singh, for their trial in respect of offences under Section 147, 148, 149, 302 and 120B of I.P.C. 4. It appears that the Munsif/Judicial Magistrate, on receipt of the charge sheet, after giving necessary copies to the accused, as required under Section 207 of Cr.P.C., committed the case to the court of sessions for trial. On 29.08.1997, the trial court, after hearing the parties, framed charge of offences punishable under Section 120B, 148 and 302 read with Section 149 of I.P.C., against all the six accused namely Chandra Pal Singh, Indrapal Singh, Rajesh, Navarang, Ramesh and Dharamveer Singh, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On this prosecution got examined PW1 Shamsher Bahadur (informant), PW2 Nanhi Devi (eyewitness), PW3 Mehar Chand (eyewitness), PW4 Sub Inspector Anant Ram Singh (who investigated the crime), PW5 Dr. Yashpal Singh Rawat (who conducted post mortem examination) and PW6 Sub Inspector Girish Kumar Kotiya (who prepared the inquest report). 5. Oral and documentary evidence was put to the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., in reply to which, they pleaded that due to the enmity of land dispute they have been falsely implicated in the case. However, no evidence in defence was adduced. The trial court after hearing the parties found that the prosecution has successfully proved the charge of offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C., only against the accused Indrapal Singh and convicted and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. However, no evidence in defence was adduced. The trial court after hearing the parties found that the prosecution has successfully proved the charge of offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C., only against the accused Indrapal Singh and convicted and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. The trial court however found that no charge as against the remaining accused namely Chandrapal Singh, Dharamveer Singh, Rajesh, Navarang and Ramesh could be proved by the prosecution, as such, they were acquitted from the charge of offences punishable under Section 302/149, 148 and 120B of I.P.C. It is against this order of acquittal, in favour of the remaining five accused, aggrieved by which, this appeal was preferred by the State. 6. The leave stood granted vide order dated 29.09.2004, when this appeal was admitted. 7. Before further discussion it is relevant to mention here that the convict Indrapal Singh also filed a Criminal Appeal No. 820 of 2001, against the impugned judgment and order dated 26.05.2001, passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Haldwani, in Sessions Trial No. 540 of 1995, which was heard by this Court and dismissed vide its order dated 05.07.2011. As such, in the present appeal, we have to examine the correctness of the acquittal of the other accused namely Chandra Pal Singh, Dharmveer, Rajesh, Navarang and Ramesh. It is also relevant to mention here that the acquittal of Chandra Pal Singh relating to offence punishable under Section 25 of Arms Act, recorded by the trial court, in connected Sessions Trial No. 541 of 1995, is not questioned before us. 8. Now this Court thinks it just and proper to mention the ante-mortem injuries found on the body of Ram Vilas Verma by PW5 Dr. Yashpal Singh Rawat on 07.04.1995, who prepared the autopsy report (Ex. A6). The thwo ante-mortem injuries found on the dead body of Ram Vilas Verma are being reproduced below:- i) Lacerated wound of size 12 cm x 8 cm x cavity deep over right supra clavicular region, bone chip present clavicle also seen fractured, bleeding present from site. Margins of skin are everted. ii) Lacerated wound 3 cm x 3 cm cavity deep present over post axillary line 3/4 intercostal spine region. Skin margins inverted. Blood coming out in gush though wounds. There is no mark around the wound site. Blood coming out through mouth and nostrils. 9. Margins of skin are everted. ii) Lacerated wound 3 cm x 3 cm cavity deep present over post axillary line 3/4 intercostal spine region. Skin margins inverted. Blood coming out in gush though wounds. There is no mark around the wound site. Blood coming out through mouth and nostrils. 9. On internal examination, the Medical Officer found that right side 1st , 2nd , 3rd and 4th ribs were fractured. 3rd rib of left side was also found fractured. Pleura ruptured. Larynx was full of blood. Both lungs were badly damaged and ruptured. Pericardium ruptured. Heart badly ruptured. Chambers could not be recognised. Pharynx full of blood. The Medical Officer (PW Yashpal Singh Rawat) stated before the court that the injuries could have been suffered by the injured on 07.04.1995 at 10.30 a.m. He further told the court that ante-mortem injury No.1 was a wound of exit and the ante-mortem injury No.2 was a wound of entry. From the medical evidence on record, it is established by the prosecution that the deceased died culpable homicidal death. Needless to say that one of the respondent Inderpal Sngh has been convicted under section 302 of I.P.C. and his conviction is affirmed by this Court as mentioned above. 10. Now, we have to examine the role of other accused. Admittedly, there was enmity between the parties due to the land dispute. Said fact is apparent not only from the First Information Report and the statements of the two eyewitnesses, but also from the statements of the accused recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. As such, the exaggeration and implication of the close relatives or associates of the real culprit cannot be ruled out. At this state, we feel it relevant to mention here that accused Chandra Pal Singh is real brother of the convict Indrapal Singh. And accused Dharampal Singh is father of the convict Indrapal Singh. It has come on record in the statements of the eyewitnesses that it was only Indrapal Singh, who fired the shots at the deceased. Though, accused Dharamveer, Chandra Pal Singh, Rajesh, Navarang and Ramesh too said to have participated with the accused Indrapal Singh, but none of the eyewitnesses have stated that they assaulted the accused. There is no evidence on record showing that they had common object with the real culprit (Indrapal Singh) in commission of crime. 11. Though, accused Dharamveer, Chandra Pal Singh, Rajesh, Navarang and Ramesh too said to have participated with the accused Indrapal Singh, but none of the eyewitnesses have stated that they assaulted the accused. There is no evidence on record showing that they had common object with the real culprit (Indrapal Singh) in commission of crime. 11. In the above circumstances, we are of the view that the trial court has committed no error of law in holding that the charge as against accused/respondents Chadra Pal Singh, Dharamveer Singh, Rajesh, Navarang and Ramesh relating to offences punishable under section 148, 120B and 302 read with Section 149 of I.P.C. is not proved beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in view of the fact that Dharamveer Singh, whose name did not figure in the First Information Report was also named by the witnesses in their statements. He was said to be a person aged 95 years. 12. For the reasons as discussed above, we do not find force in this appeal, which is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Lower court record be sent back.