Pankaj Naqvi, J.— 1. The present appeal, by three appellants, is directed against judgment of conviction and order of sentence, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Meerut in Sessions Trial No. 634/2004, on 12.02.2008. By the impugned judgment, appellant Manoj was held guilty of having committed offences under Sections 302/307 & 452 IPC and was directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life, 7 years and 3 years respectively on the above three counts. In addition to the substantive sentence of imprisonment, the learned Trial Judge directed appellant Manoj also to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- under Section 302 IPC and of Rs.5000/- each on the remaining two counts under Sections 307/452 IPC. In case of having defaulted in making the payment, appellant Manoj was to suffer rigorous imprisonment for further periods of 1 year, 6 months and 6 months respectively on the three respective counts. As regards appellant Sanjay and Lekhraj, they had been held guilty of having committed offence under Sections 302/34, 307/34 & 452 IPC. Similar sentences were inflicted upon each of them also both in the form of substantive imprisonment and sentence of fine as was directed to be suffered and paid by appellant Manoj. The three appellants question the correctness of the findings of the learned Trial Judge and appropriateness of the sentence, passed against each of them through the impugned judgment. 2. The prosecution case emanates from the written report Ex. Ka.1 of Vijay Singh (PW-1), who was the nephew of the deceased Brahm Singh, on the basis of which FIR of the case Ex. ka.6 was drawn up. It was stated that while the informant and other family members of the deceased were sleeping in his house, it was at around 2.15 A.M., when the cries of deceased Brahm Singh was heard by the informant and others and the informant rushed to the room, where deceased Brahm Singh was sleeping. PW-1 found that appellants Saroj and Lekhraj were standing at the entrance of the room and appellant Manoj was giving repeated blows with a Daav to the deceased. Appellants Lekhraj and Sanjay during that course, were urging Manoj to finish the job and retreat faster from there on which, the two Lekhraj and Sanjay, ran out of the place of occurrence. 3. Appellants Lekhraj and Sanjay during that course, were urging Manoj to finish the job and retreat faster from there on which, the two Lekhraj and Sanjay, ran out of the place of occurrence. 3. Seeing the deceased being assaulted, PW-2 Mahesh Kumar and PW-3 Mamta, who were the son and daughter of the deceased Brahm Singh, rushed to catch appellant Manoj upon which he gave blows with the same weapon on the two witnesses, as a result of which Mahesh was struck on his head while Mamta was injured in her hand. The three appellants ran away from there and it was found that Brahm Singh was bearing serious injuries on his head and hands and he was lying unconscious. The informant with the help of others brought the deceased by a vehicle bearing registration no. DL 6CA 2421, which was of the guests who had assembled there, to the Lokpriya hospital, where PWs 2 & 3 were admitted for treatment and seeing the serious condition of Brahm Singh, the doctor of Lokpriya Hospital asked the informant and others to take him to the general hospital, where the deceased was declared dead. 4. The motive of the occurrence has also been narrated by PW-1 in his written report. It has been stated that about 32 years ago, appellant Lekhraj, who was also an agnatic relative of both the informant and the deceased, had executed an agreement to sell 13 bighas of land to late Manphool Singh, who was the grand-father of the informant and Mahesh. Appellant Lekhraj turned dishonest and sold out the land to one Thakur Ranbir Singh and Om Prakash of village Sissoli, as a result of which late Manphool Singh filed a suit in the competent civil court which was fought upto the appellate court and finally the litigation was brought to an end by the judgment of this Court, which was in favour of the informant and his family members, as a result of which the delivery of possession over the above area of land was also handed over to the informant and his family which further was followed up by mutating the names of informant and other interest holders in the revenue records. It was stated that at the time of executing the agreement to sell, the value of the land was very low but by the time, the litigation had finally been concluded in favour of the prosecution, the appellants were entertaining grudge and animus towards the informant and others and that was the reason for committing the offence. 5. As regards further facts, it was stated that on that particular day, i.e., 09.06.2004, the parents of Sunita, who had been married to PW-2 Mahesh, had come to take the newly weded bride to her parental house and as such there was an atmosphere of celebration and as a result thereof the family members and the guests had slept late in the night and the occurrence occurred at 2.15 A.M. 6. We find from the evidence that after registering the case, the investigation was taken by PW-8 SI C P Katheria, who came to the place of occurrence and inspected the same whereafter he prepared sketch map of the site Ex. ka.11. He seized the part of the mat (chattai) on which blood was found splashed and also seized the blood-stained earth from the floor of the house by preparing the seizure memo. He recorded the statements of persons present there, like, Naresh Kumar and Hem Chand and came to the medical college hospital where he found that the dead body was lying in the mortuary of the hospital and held inquest on it in presence of witnesses. He, thereafter, prepared the dead body challan and wrote a letter to the Chief Medical Officer for arranging autopsy to be held on the dead body, besides, sketching the dead body and sent all records including the copy of the written report and FIR to the Chief Medical Officer. He handed over the dead body after sealing it to Constable Subhash Chand for the purposes of getting the postmortem examination carried out on it. 7. PW-8, thereafter, came to Lokpriya Hospital and found that PW-2 and PW-3 were admitted there, and attempted to record their statements but found that they were not in a position of giving their statements and as such came to village Gokhulpur because he had an information that appellant Sanjay and Lekhraj were sitting there in a Hotel. On reaching Chaubey Hotel, Gokhulpur, appellants were found sitting there. He arrested the two appellants and questioned them there. On reaching Chaubey Hotel, Gokhulpur, appellants were found sitting there. He arrested the two appellants and questioned them there. During which course, appellant Manoj dropped certain information as regards the weapon of offence, i.e., Daav and led the police to his own house from where the weapon Daav was recovered and seized. PW-8 stated that no independent person wanted to associate himself with the discovery of the weapon. However, the discovery memo was prepared, which was marked Ex. ka.21. 8. PW-8 was transferred from the police station and as such PW-7 SI Sreshthpal Singh took over the investigation and recorded the statements of PWs 2 & 3 in the case diary. He recorded some more statements, like, that the doctors or persons who were associated with inquest as also the statements of the appellants. PW-7 filed the charge-sheet before the Court recommending the trial of the three appellants. This is how the appellants were tried and finally convicted as indicated above. 9. The defence of the appellants was of false implication on account of the very motive which was alleged by the prosecution. It was also suggested that appellant Manoj was not present at the scene of occurrence as he was working as a Security Guard in Apsara Cinema Hall, Meerut. It was further suggested to the witnesses that in fact some criminals had come to commit dacoity in the house and on being resisted, they had killed Brahm Singh and injured PWs 2 & 3 and finding the opportunity the three appellants had falsely been implicated. 10. In support of the charges, prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses. We have already pointed out that PW-1 Vijay singh was the informant who claimed to be the eye witness to the occurrence as was the claim of the other two witnesses, PWs 2 & 3 who were also claiming that they were very much present and sleeping in the house. PW-3 claimed sleeping in the very room in which the deceased Brahm Singh was sleeping while PW-2 was sleeping with his wife, the newly wed Smt. Sunita in the adjoining room. PW-4 Dr. P C Atri had examined PWs 2 & 3 for the injuries, which were incurred by them allegedly at the head and hand respectively, in the Lokpriya Hospital and had issued the injury reports Exs. ka. 2 & 3 respectively. PW-4 Dr. P C Atri had examined PWs 2 & 3 for the injuries, which were incurred by them allegedly at the head and hand respectively, in the Lokpriya Hospital and had issued the injury reports Exs. ka. 2 & 3 respectively. PW-5 Constable Sudhir Kumar had received the written report while posted as Constable Clerk in police station Ravanpur and on that basis he drew up formal FIR and made copies of the two documents, besides, also making entries of drawing up of FIR in the general diary and on receipt of the seized articles, he made the entries in their respect also in the relevant records. PW-6 Dr. J P Sharma had held postmortem examination on the dead body of Brahm Singh and had prepared the report Ex.ka.9. We have already noted that PWs 7 & 8 were the two Investigation Officers while PW-9 Rupali Mishra was the Radiologist, who had issued the report in respect of the findings after conducting x-ray of PWs 2 & 3 in respect of their injuries. The radiological report has been marked Ex.ka. 4 & 5 respectively. 11. The defence also examined two witnesses. DW-1 Bhoop Singh was a witness to the agreement which was executed by appellant Lekhraj in favour of late Manphool Singh. It was the basis on which the litigation had cropped up, which took a final shape in the form of judgment rendered by this Court and it appears to be the bone of contention and the real reason for the occurrence as per the prosecution. DW-2 Vinod Kumar was stating on the non-presence of appellant Manoj at the scene of occurrence as he was present upto 1 P.M. in Meerut. 12. On considering the evidence, both of the prosecution and the defence, the Trial Judge held the appellants guilty of the charges, and inflicted sentence on each of them as noticed by us earlier. 13. Initially, there was non-appearance of Counsel Sri B Ram, who was holding the power on behalf of the three appellants and due thereto, we requested Ms. Ainakshi Sharma to assist us as amicus curiae. We have heard her. During the course of hearing, Sri Ram also appeared and expressed his desire to assist us by arguing the appeal. After Ms. Sharma had concluded her arguments, we heard Sri Ram also. 14. It was contended by Ms. Ainakshi Sharma to assist us as amicus curiae. We have heard her. During the course of hearing, Sri Ram also appeared and expressed his desire to assist us by arguing the appeal. After Ms. Sharma had concluded her arguments, we heard Sri Ram also. 14. It was contended by Ms. Sharma that the claim of PW-1 Vijay Sharma of remaining present at the scene of occurrence appears absurd for two reasons. It was submitted that his house was situated just 9 feet away from the place of occurrence across a kacha road passing in between and there was no particular reason assigned by him as to why he should lie down in the outer section of the place of occurrence in spite of having a comfortable space for enjoying his sleep. It was contended further that the place where PW-1 had slept, could never have sufficient space for the purpose. It was only for the purpose of convincing the Court that he was an eye-witness that PW-1 claimed sleeping there during that night at that particular place which was the entry of the house. It was contended that there was no further reason appearing from the corpus of evidence as to why PW-1 Vijay Singh would come forward with the written report when there was Mahesh, the injured of the deceased or there could have been other relatives, who were present there. Submission was that probably no one was ready to come out with a false story so as to create a convincing story, which could be readily acceptable to any reasonable person. As regards injured Mahesh Kumar and Mamta, submission was that the opinion of the doctor was to the effect that the said injuries could be caused by a knife and it also created a doubt in the prosecution story that appellant Manoj had given blows with Daav not only on the deceased but also on the two witnesses. The next submission forwarded by Ms. Sharma was that the other unreasonable absurd part of the story was the manner and the way in which the three appellants are said to have retreated from the place of occurrence after accomplishing their goal, which is doubtful. Ms. The next submission forwarded by Ms. Sharma was that the other unreasonable absurd part of the story was the manner and the way in which the three appellants are said to have retreated from the place of occurrence after accomplishing their goal, which is doubtful. Ms. Sharma pointed out that the house of the appellants was situated just north to the house of the deceased and it was a wall-to-wall structure and the division was by way of the existence of a 4 feet- high-wall and it is not possible for a man of 60 years to scale over the wall, then to jump and then to come down the stairs to enter into the main section of the house to attack the deceased Brahm Singh and then again to have rushed out of the place of occurrence. Submission was that they come from a well educated family and such the act was quite doubtful. The next submission was in respect of relationship existing on or around the date of occurrence between the parties. By referring to us the evidence of PW-2, it was submitted that there was no bad relationship between the parties. It was a working relationship which might not have been very cordial. It could not be said as sour as to kill an elderly person, who was equally uncle of appellants Manoj and Sanjay and why only on that particular night when accused persons could have other opportunities or other days also. It was submitted that in fact no one had really identified the perpetrators of the offence that they had come down with arms so as to kill Brahm Singh and to injure PWs 2 & 3 and mere suspicion was playing in the minds of the family members. But, still they were not ready to come out with the report and probably PW-1 was determined to do it himself for any particular reason that he lodged a false and wrong report. 15. Sri Srivastava, learned AGA was submitting that PWs 2 & 3 were injured. Their presence at the scene of occurrence is not denied by the defence. The evidence indicated that there was no particular reason for the prosecution to implicate appellant Manoj and the remaining two appellants in the background of the cordial relationship which was existing between them unless they had really participated in the commission of the offence. Their presence at the scene of occurrence is not denied by the defence. The evidence indicated that there was no particular reason for the prosecution to implicate appellant Manoj and the remaining two appellants in the background of the cordial relationship which was existing between them unless they had really participated in the commission of the offence. Longer litigation ending in the judgment of the High Court, could have agonized the accused persons, especially as they had lost the cause and they had decided finally to act and terminate the deceased. Submission was that the evidence was consistent, fully supported by medical evidence and there was no sign in the house that any attempt to commit dacoity was made as suggested by the defence to the witnesses. It was submitted that it was a clear case of determined action with full knowledge of the implication of the acts. While making her submission, Ms. Sharma was urging that the implication of appellant Lekhraj and Sanjay may be for any particular reason and their participation appears doubtful. On the above submission, Sri Srivastava relied upon the part of the judgment as regards the conviction and sentence, passed upon appellant Manoj. 16. We may point out that merely being injured, does not get a status for a witness as if he or she could be telling the truth and the only truth. Injury on the person of witnesses may be testimony to their presence at the scene of occurrence, but still the courts have a pious duty to appreciate their evidence to find out as to whether they had any particular reason to falsely implicate the accused persons. In our opinion, the injured witnesses may be present at the scene of occurrence, but he could be speaking the truth and only the whole truth, could not be the principle when our society is so much guided by personal prejudices of individuals on account of many social and personal reasons. We often find that in spite of over 60 years of implementation of our Constitution, the principles of social equality, which was enshrined in our Constitution, has not been translated into realities and there are number of persons living in the society, who are still guided by their personal vices, like, untouchablity or other social evils. We often find that in spite of over 60 years of implementation of our Constitution, the principles of social equality, which was enshrined in our Constitution, has not been translated into realities and there are number of persons living in the society, who are still guided by their personal vices, like, untouchablity or other social evils. In addition to the above, we have still not blended ourselves as a society, which could be magnanimous enough to take ones litigation part of the life in ones real stride and to reconcile to the judgments of the courts which might not gone in ones favour. We treat very often a judgment passed against any of us as the real cause for entertaining bias and prejudices which ultimately concretize into an animus which often drives one to take up arms to finally do the justice in his way, as per his own cause. These are some of the social realities which still exist and this part of the reality probably could be one of the real reasons for commission of crime day in and day out. 17. Thirty two years of litigation, which was generated out of a mere document like an agreement to sell and which finally reached this Court, could have been very much agonizing. But there is no dispute in it that the appellants were finally the losers. They have to be divested of the possession over the land, which was delivered to the prosecution side. In fact it must have been more annoying due to being deprived of one's property, especially when the deprivation was through the process of law after such long bout of litigation. The other aspect of the litigation, which we find not denied, is that the sale of the land measuring 13 bighas by appellant Lekhraj for a higher price, had fructified into real execution of the deed and transfer of the property. The litigation had definitely terminated that execution by appellant Lekhraj of the gains in terms of money out of the sale he had finalized and probably had gone through with one Thakur Ranbir Singh. The evidence regarding the litigation comes from witness, like, PW-1, PW-2 and also PW-3 while the three witnesses were testifying to it. 18. Submission on behalf of the appellants was that the relationship between the parties was not sour and was almost a good working relation. The evidence regarding the litigation comes from witness, like, PW-1, PW-2 and also PW-3 while the three witnesses were testifying to it. 18. Submission on behalf of the appellants was that the relationship between the parties was not sour and was almost a good working relation. In the above reference, our attention was drawn to the evidence of PW-1, who had stated in his examination dated 27.10.2004, which is available at page 20 of the paper book that Lekhraj was the uncle of PW-1, belonging to the same line of descendants or inheritance. In addition to the above, the evidence of PW-2 at page 36 of the paper book, shows that when his marriage was being solemnized, the accused persons had not been invited; during that particular night of incident, they had again not been invited. We find reasons for not inviting the accused persons during that particular night because that was not a ceremony relating to the functions of the marriage, rather, the night was being celebrated to accord respect to guests who had arrived from the parental home of the newly weded Sunita for taking her to her parent's house after her marriage. PW-3 Mamta has also stated, which relates to the cross-examination dated 29.06.2005 that appellant Lekhraj had not been invited in the marriage feast of PW-2 Mukesh, but whether he had participated as a barati in the marriage procession, witness PW-3 was not sure about it. The evidence of PW-1 indicates that he had participated in the ceremony or in the dinner which was held during the night of the incident also. So, there was some working good relationship between the prosecution and the defence. We find the relationship was not as sour as it was with the family of the deceased and family of PW-1 Vijay Singh. In spite of fact the evidence indicated that there was equal sweet but distant relationship between all these persons, PW-2 and PW-1 as also the appellants. The reason which appears from the cross-examination of PW-1 as also from his evidence was the same litigation which arose out of the agreement to sale. Rural people are very sensitive to minor things, property, some loss of face or humiliation which is experienced by them, when it sometimes flung upon them at the social level by ignoring them in feast is very disturbing to them. Rural people are very sensitive to minor things, property, some loss of face or humiliation which is experienced by them, when it sometimes flung upon them at the social level by ignoring them in feast is very disturbing to them. Our experience shows that such ignorance or intentional bye-pass of a particular person on such occasion like a community feast, has been know to create serious knots in a social relationship which had very often exploded into serious offences. As such, we do not wonder that on account of having been ignored on some of the parts of the marriage ceremonies or might be for being ignored during that particular night, especially, when PW-1 Vijay Singh was actively participating in the dinner, could have triggered the appellant Manoj to pick up the Daav to inflict the injuries. 19. Coming to the main part of the incident, what we find is that PWs 2 & 3 were injured. We have noted that merely they were injured, they may not be treated as trustworthy witnesses. The evidence of two witnesses have to be appreciated by us as any other witness, especially, when they are the son and daughter of the deceased. PWs 2 & 3 have stated that they heard the cries of their father. PW-2 rushed out of the room where he was sleeping with his wife, situated, as per the site plan, just outside the room where deceased Brahm Singh was sleeping. Doors of the two rooms were almost situated adjacent to each other. PW-2 stated that while sleeping in the room, doors of that particular room were left ajar because it was hot. This evidence appears from on page 39 of the paper book. PW-2 has stated that the deceased was lying on a mat (chattai) and she was with her child on a cot. When she woke up hearing the cries of her father, found that appellant Manoj was giving blows with Daav. When she attempted to save her father, appellant Manoj gave a blow on her and her hand out of natural reaction, came over her head and injury was inflicted upon her hand. PW-4 Dr. When she woke up hearing the cries of her father, found that appellant Manoj was giving blows with Daav. When she attempted to save her father, appellant Manoj gave a blow on her and her hand out of natural reaction, came over her head and injury was inflicted upon her hand. PW-4 Dr. P C Atri, who had examined PW-2 in the Lokpriya Hospital has testified that PW-3 was bearing an incised injury measuring 6x2.5 cm which was present on the left wrist and was upto muscle deep, which was bleeding and wrist movements were painful. The radiological report furnished by PW-9 does not indicate that any abnormalities were detected by her, but the depth of the injury, i.e., 2.5 cm which equal to an inch and the length of the same could be indicating the force behind the blow. The blow was given while she was attempting to catch-hold of the appellant Manoj, so that he could not further assault her father. We have considered the evidence in cross-examination of PW-3, which was very lengthy, running in 7 typed pages and we could not come to find any statement which could suggest the facts which the the witness stated in the Court were the same as stated by her before the police. 20. On the competence of PW-3, it was argued by Ms. Sharma that her statement was recorded by the police after 14-15 days of the incident and on this Ms. Sharma was arguing that the Court reject her evidence as she was not ready to deliver the true story and may be that, she was persuaded by her family members to support the prosecution story. We want to point out that PW-8 SI C P Katheriya has stated in his evidence that he came to the place of occurrence and had visited the same, thereafter, he went to the general hospital to conduct inquest and then he went to Lokpriya Hospital and found PWs 2 & 3 hospitalized. He attempted to record their statements, but they were found not in a position to give statement and as such he did not take down the statement. PW-7, who took over the investigation on transfer of PW-8, has stated that he went to the house of the witnesses and recorded their statements. He attempted to record their statements, but they were found not in a position to give statement and as such he did not take down the statement. PW-7, who took over the investigation on transfer of PW-8, has stated that he went to the house of the witnesses and recorded their statements. There is nothing on record to suggest that any attempt was made either by PW-8 or PW-7 or by any police official in between to contact both PWs 2 & 3 to take down their statements. Merely because the witnesses have belatedly given their statements under Section 161 Cr P C, may not in itself be sufficient to doubt their evidence. We have just noticed the injury of PW-3 and it is true that both PWs 2 & 3 were discharged after 3-4 days but we have already noted that there was no attempt by any police officer to contact them to record their statements. As such, the evidence of PWs 2 & 3 cannot be rejected. PW-2 was sleeping with his wife, in the room adjoining the room of occurrence and as soon as he heard cries of his father, he rushed to the room and found that Brahm Singh was being given blows with Daav by appellant Manoj. He stated, by the time, he came there, he heard the remaining appellant asking Manoj to come out after finishing the job so as to running away from there, and no sooner did he reach at the scene, appellant Manoj also gave blow to him while PW-2 was attempting to catch-hold of appellant Manoj. His injuries were examined by PW-4 Dr. P C Atri and that has been marked as Ex.ka.2. 21. There were as many as three incised wounds on PW-2. The first injury was incised wound, measuring 5.5 cm x 1.5 cm present on scalp, on its left side, 5.5 cm above left pinna at 1'o clock position. The injury was bleeding. The second injury was also an incised wound, measuring 1.0 cm x 0.5 present on the root of neck posteriorly upto muscle deep, which was bleeding. The 3rd injury was again an incised wound, measuring 3.0 cm x 0.5 cm on left shoulder, 4.5 cm away from the tip of left shoulder and was at 12'o clock position, which was bleeding. The 3rd injury was again an incised wound, measuring 3.0 cm x 0.5 cm on left shoulder, 4.5 cm away from the tip of left shoulder and was at 12'o clock position, which was bleeding. PW-4 stated that he had not recorded the exact time when he examined the injured, but what we find is that the record Ex.ka 2 & 3 definitely mention the time of examination of two witnesses as 2.50 A.M. This evidence of PW-4 is available at page 49 of the paper book. When he was speaking about which injured was examined first and it was stated by him that he had examined PW-2 first and thereafter, examined PW-3. He further stated that the left parietal bone of PW-2 was fractured (at page 48 of the paper book). These were injuries which was caused to PW-2, which in any view of them, could not be caused by any other manner than as stated by the witnesses. 22. The evidence of PW-1, we again want to reiterate is blemishless; there is no fact stated by him which could embellish such part of his evidence, which are the material parts of the prosecution story. Thus, in spite of there being circumstances, which could have rendered the two witnesses interested, we have implicit faith in the merit of their evidence and we do not have any reason to discard their evidence. They have been very categorical when they stated that the accused persons had come bare-faced, without making any attempt to conceal their identities and they did not have any difficulty in picking up their identities. PW-3 had stated this fact at page 44 of the paper book and PW-2 had stated at page 37 of the paper book that the day of occurrence was only 4th or 5th day of his marriage. There was still appropriate lighting facilities available there and bulbs were still on. This fact has come at page 37 of the paper book. 23. The other submission that it was not shown in the site plan that PW-1 was sleeping on a particular place of that house, we find from the evidence of the witnesses that he (PW-1) had come to welcome the guests along with other family members. This fact has come at page 37 of the paper book. 23. The other submission that it was not shown in the site plan that PW-1 was sleeping on a particular place of that house, we find from the evidence of the witnesses that he (PW-1) had come to welcome the guests along with other family members. We have already pointed out in earlier part of the judgment that the relationship with other agnatic relatives, like, the appellants and the witnesses was not as cordial to invite them in such functions. It is true that Lekhraj had been invited in the marriage lunch/dinner but there is no evidence that he had really participated in the marriage by being one of the Barats attending the marriage. As such there could be a possibility that none of the three appellants had been invited as we have already noted. The guests were numerous. The family had other members also which was comprised by the married sisters of Mahesh. Both the witnesses PWs 2 & 3 have stated that the married sisters of Mahesh had come on the occasion of his marriage and had continued till the day of occurrence. There were children also accompanying their parents and that appears a natural fact to be stated by the witnesses. In order to entertaining such large number of persons, who were present in the house, it might have required many additional hands so as to properly feeding them. In that view, no wonder that Vijay Singh whose evidence indicates that he had a very cordial relationship and whose family was also fighting the litigation shoulder to shoulder with the deceased Brahm Singh, must have remained present throughout the night. It is true that his house was also situated across the road and he could have better facility to enjoy deep sleep there, but on that account it could not be said that he had not definitely come to his own house. It could have been better known to him and that reason could have, in our opinion, best known to him as to why he had decided at about 1 A.M not to go to his house. 24. It could have been better known to him and that reason could have, in our opinion, best known to him as to why he had decided at about 1 A.M not to go to his house. 24. The next submission that PW-1 Vijay Singh was not shown sleeping at the place of occurrence in the site plan, we have already found that unless the witness did not point out a particular place to the Investigating Officer, where he was sleeping, it was not possible for the I.O to locate the same. The mere mention of that fact in the site plan could not have been sufficient, as it would have been inadmissible in evidence. The next reason which we have found is that PW-1 had not been put any question regarding his place of sleeping. He was simply put a question as to where he was sleeping and he pointed out that fact in an answer to the question. It has not been put to him probably that he had shown any particular place to the Investigating Officers. In that view, it could be inproper for us to reject his evidence. 25. Submission of Ms. Sharma was also that the manner of occurrence was not supported by the evidence of PW-4 and PW-6, who had examined the injured and had held the postmortem examination. The reason for making the submission was that both the doctors stated in their evidence that the injuries may be caused by a weapon like knife. We have considered the evidence of PW-6 Dr J P Sharma, who was holding the postmortem examination on the dead body of Brahm Singh. We find that the fist injury which caused the death, was an incised wound, measuring 13cm x 12 cm. The underlying brain matter was cut and the portion of the back and head and brain components were hanging by means of thin thread of muscles. This description of injury no. 1 itself indicates as to what was the weapon which was wielded by force to generate the momentum due to which the nature of the injury as described by PW-6, was caused. It is a simple principle of Science that heavier the weapon and greater the force, higher would be the momentum and that would be causing more damages than is expected by a light weapon like a knife. It is a simple principle of Science that heavier the weapon and greater the force, higher would be the momentum and that would be causing more damages than is expected by a light weapon like a knife. Daav is a weapon, which would be of heavy in weight and which had been used. This is so as one blow had parted the part of the brain and skull, which was oscillating by means of a thread of muscle on the rear side of the head. A knife, in our opinion, is not as heavy a weapon as could be creating such heavy momentum as to dismember disburse the bone from the skull. It would have been definitely a heavy sharp cutting weapon. Moreover, the doctors finding was not definite, he was simply stating that such injuries might be caused by a weapon like knife. He was rather stating that the injuries found by him, were caused by a single weapon of a particular nature. On being cross-examined, he was probably stating as the same may appear from page 54, that the depth of other injuries could be caused by a knife also. In our opinion, the evidence of the doctor and the description given by of injury no. 1 and other injury fully corroborates the manner of occurrence. 26. Similar is our view as regards the evidence of PW-4. We have already extracted the injuries which were found on PWs 2 & 3 by PW-4 with the length and depth of those injuries. On considering them under the circumstances in which the blows were given upon the two witnesses, it could sufficiently be indicated that they could also be the result of a weapon like Daav. While the accused person was assaulting the deceased, PW-3 was intervening and the intention of the accused was not to kill her, his intention could only have been to repel the intervention by PW-3. Similar could be the case when PW-2 had attempted to catch-hold of appellant Manoj. 27. On considering the material testimonies and the medical evidence, which was adduced in support of the same, we are convinced that appellant Manoj had definitely given blows to deceased Brahm Singh as also to injured PWs 2 & 3 with Daav. Similar could be the case when PW-2 had attempted to catch-hold of appellant Manoj. 27. On considering the material testimonies and the medical evidence, which was adduced in support of the same, we are convinced that appellant Manoj had definitely given blows to deceased Brahm Singh as also to injured PWs 2 & 3 with Daav. There was definite presence of intention which was followed up by decisive action which had resulted in the death of Brahm Singh and injuries upon PWs 2 & 3. In that view of the matter, we find that conviction of appellant Manoj was appropriately recorded. 28. As regards appellants Lekhraj and Sanjay, we find that except that, there was feeble evidence that they were standing at the entrance of the room and was simply imploring Manoj to come out after finishing his mission, there was no further act alleged against them. Only uttering those words may not suggest sharing of common intention by saying by appellant Lekhraj. Nothing is on record that except the utterances of appellants Lekhraj and Sanjay, to show that they had in any manner conspired, which could have culminated into action. The evidence is weak as regards appellants Sanjay and Lekhraj being present at the scene of occurrence and their sharing the common intention. In that view, we do not sustain the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, passed against appellants Lekhraj and Sanjay. The conviction of appellant Manoj recorded by the trial Court is upheld. 29. On the plea of defence that appellant Manoj was working in Apsara Cinema Hall, Meerut as Security Guard and he could not be present at the scene of occurrence, the evidence has come from PW-2 at page 36 of the paper book, that the distance between the place of occurrence and the cinema hall was 9-10 kms whereas DW-2 and Investigating Officer have stated it as 14 kms. We assume that the distance was really 14 kms. Defence witnesses stated that appellant Manoj was in the cinema hall upto 1.00 A.M. and there was a gap of 1 hr and 15 mnts. between the time of occurrence and the presence of appellant Manoj in the cinema hall. We assume that the distance was really 14 kms. Defence witnesses stated that appellant Manoj was in the cinema hall upto 1.00 A.M. and there was a gap of 1 hr and 15 mnts. between the time of occurrence and the presence of appellant Manoj in the cinema hall. A distance of 14 kms on macadamised road could not be such a distance which could make it impossible for any person to reach the place of occurrence by coming 14 km in 1 hour and 15 minutes. The trial court had to be satisfied almost to the hilt that there was no possibility to indicate that the accused could not have been present at the scene of occurrence. The plea of alibi appears not convincing. 30. In view of the discussions we have undertaken in the light of the evidence available to us, we hold that the conviction of appellants Lekhraj and Sanjay, is not fit to be sustained; they are entitled to be acquitted on benefit of doubt and, accordingly, the two are acquitted of the charges for which they had been convicted and sentenced. Both of them are on bail. They need not surrender to their bail bonds. Their bail bonds and sureties are discharged. As regards appellant Manoj, we do not find any merit in his appeal. The appeal qua appellant Manoj stands dismissed. He is reported to be in custody. 31. The appeal is disposed of in terms just indicated. 32. We record the sincere efforts and assistance, rendered by Ms. Ainakshi Sharma, as learned amicus curiae to us and in token of our appreciation, we direct the Registrar General of the Court to ensure the payment of Rs.11,000/- to Ms. Ainakshi Sharma from the appropriate head. _____________