AMARESH KUMAR LAL, J.:–All these three appeals arise out of the judgment and order dated 30.3.1992 passed by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur, in Sessions Trial no. 319 of 1989/57 of 1989 arising out of Sahebganj P.S. Case no. 110 of 1987. As such, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Appellant Banaras Singh has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months each under Sections 323 and 147 of the Indian Penal Code. Appellants Rajeshwar Singh and Rambabu Singh have been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six years under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code and one year under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code. Batahu Singh has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. Champa Devi has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each under Sections 324 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code. Appellant Kapildeo Singh has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code. Appellant Baleshwar Singh has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months each under Sections 323 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code whereas appellant Lal Babu Singh has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and rigorous imprisonment for one year under Sections 302 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code respectively. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the informant Banka Singh (P.W.7) had a homestead land by the side of his house for which a proceeding under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was initiated. The proceeding was decided in favour of the informant which caused annoyance to the appellant Banaras Singh. Later on, a Panchyati was also held in the village. The Panchyati suggested the parties to get the land measured by engaging Amins of both the parties. Accordingly, one day prior to the occurrence Ramji Rai was engaged as Amin on behalf of the informant’s side and Rajilal was engaged as Amin from the side of the accused Banaras Singh. Later on, a Panchyati was also held in the village. The Panchyati suggested the parties to get the land measured by engaging Amins of both the parties. Accordingly, one day prior to the occurrence Ramji Rai was engaged as Amin on behalf of the informant’s side and Rajilal was engaged as Amin from the side of the accused Banaras Singh. Both the Amins had measured the land and put a new demarcation line on the land and got constructed the ridge in presence of the villagers and both the parties were put in possession accordingly. On the following night Kapildeo Singh, brother of Banaras Singh and Baleshwar Singh, brother-in-law of Banaras Singh came to the house of the accused-appellant Banaras Singh. On the following day, i.e., on 26.11.1987 at about 8-30 A.M. all the appellants, namely, Lal Babu Singh, Banaras Singh, Rajeshwar Singh, Rambabu Singh, Batahu Singh, Champa Devi, Baleshwar Singh and Kapildeo Singh forming an unlawful assembly, armed with lathi, farsa, spear and spade came to the disputed land and started demolishing the ridge fixed by the Amins and Panchyat. Krishna Singh (deceased), the son of the informant, asked them as to why they were demolishing the ridge. Soon thereafter appellant Lal Babu Singh assaulted him with spear causing injury in his chest and he fell down. Thereafter, Champa Devi, wife of Banaras Singh, also gave a spear blow which hit the left cheek of Krishna Singh. The informant (P.W.7) and the members of his family, namely, Matuk Singh (P.W.8), Ram Binay Singh (P.W.6), Nandlal Singh (P.W.5) and Awadh Nath Singh (P.W.4) rushed to rescue Krishna Singh. Thereafter, all the accused (appellants) started to assault them with their weapons causing injury to them. Matuk Singh (P.W.8) was seriously injured. Krishna Singh succumbed to his injuries at the place of occurrence itself. However, he was also taken to the doctor with other injured on a jeep. The occurrence was also witnessed by co-villagers, namely, Kapildeo Singh (P.W.1), Harihar Singh (P.W.2), Singheshwar Singh, Janak Dushad, Jagan Dusadh, Ram Naresh Singh, Lalandeo Pathak (not examined), Ramraj Rai (P.W.3), Bishwanath Pathak (not examined) and others. 4. The fardbeyan of the informant Banka Singh (P.W.7) was recorded by the Sub Inspector of Police Sri A. K. Jha (P.W.11) of Sahebganj Police Station at the State Dispensary, Deoria, on 26.11.1987 at 11 hours. On the basis of the fardbeyan, Sahebganj P.S. case no. 4. The fardbeyan of the informant Banka Singh (P.W.7) was recorded by the Sub Inspector of Police Sri A. K. Jha (P.W.11) of Sahebganj Police Station at the State Dispensary, Deoria, on 26.11.1987 at 11 hours. On the basis of the fardbeyan, Sahebganj P.S. case no. 110 of 1987 dated 26.11.1987 was registered. After investigation chargesheet was submitted, cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the court of sessions. Charges were framed against all the accused (appellants) for the offence punishable under Sections 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. However, Baleshwar Singh, Batahu Singh and Banaras Singh were further charged for the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. Appellants Rajeshwar Singh, Banaras Singh, Rambabu Singh and Kapildeo Singh were further charged for the offence punishable under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code. Charges were denied by the appellants. After trial all the accused (appellants) have been convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. 5. The defence was of total denial of the occurrence. Accused Rambabu Singh, son of accused Banaras Singh, gave statement in course of his examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that on the same day, at the alleged place of occurrence, all the prosecution witnesses had come to construct a hut in the morning at about 6/7 A.M. and when accused Banaras Singh went to stop them, Banka Singh and Matuk Singh assaulted him with spade and farsa upon which Banaras Singh fell unconscious. When Rambabu Singh went to rescue his father, witness Nandlal Singh assaulted him with farsa. Banka Singh cut the skull of Champa Devi with farsa when she came to the rescue of Ram Babu Singh. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that P.Ws. 1, 2, 3,4, 5, 6, 7, 8 are interested witnesses due to the land dispute and they are agnates and close relatives of the informant. As such, their evidence ought to be examined with care and caution. The independent witnesses, namely, Singheswar Singh, Janak Dusadh, Jagan Dusadh, Ram Naresh Singh, Lalandeo Pathak and Bishwanath Pathak, who saw the occurrence and were named in the fardbeyan, had not been examined by the prosecution. They were essential to be examined to unfold the prosecution case. As such, their evidence ought to be examined with care and caution. The independent witnesses, namely, Singheswar Singh, Janak Dusadh, Jagan Dusadh, Ram Naresh Singh, Lalandeo Pathak and Bishwanath Pathak, who saw the occurrence and were named in the fardbeyan, had not been examined by the prosecution. They were essential to be examined to unfold the prosecution case. It was the duty of the trial court to call all the independent witnesses named in the F.I.R. P.W.3, Ram Raj Rai, is an independent witness whose veracity has not been accepted by the trial court with regard to the assault as noted in para-67 of the impugned judgment. P.W.8 has admitted with regard to the occurrence that a counter case had been filed. The prosecution party also filed a counter case. P.W.11, the investigating officer, went to the Sahebganj Hospital on the same day of the occurrence and found Banaras Singh, Champa Devi and Rambabu Singh in injured condition and there he recorded the fardbeyan on the basis of which Sahebganj P.S. Case no. 111 of 1987 was registered and the injured were arrested in the hospital. He has also submitted that P.Ws.1 and 2 have failed to explain the injury on the persons of the appellants and denied the injury although they had caused the injuries. D.W.1, Dr. Shaligram Singh has been examined by the defence. He has found the injuries on the person of the accused (appellants), namely, Champa Devi, Rambabu Singh and Banaras Singh. 7. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that the charges were framed against the appellants for the offence punishable under Sections 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code and the prosecution has proved the charges against the appellants and as such, they should have been convicted and sentenced under Sections 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code. However, he has admitted that the State has not filed any Government Appeal against the impugned judgment. He has further submitted that the prosecution has been able to substantiate its case beyond reasonable doubt. The injuries found on the persons of some of the appellants were simple in nature. No injuries had been caused in the same occurrence, as such, the prosecution is not required to explain those injuries. He has further submitted that the prosecution has been able to substantiate its case beyond reasonable doubt. The injuries found on the persons of some of the appellants were simple in nature. No injuries had been caused in the same occurrence, as such, the prosecution is not required to explain those injuries. The appellants are the aggressors and they have committed the offence while the deceased Krishna Singh had asked them as to why they were demolishing the ridge fixed by the Amins of both the parties. P.W4, P.W.5, P.W.7 and P.W.8 are the eye witnesses who were injured in the occurrence by the appellants. Although they are interested witnesses, on that ground alone their evidence can not be discarded. They are natural witnesses and they had seen the occurrence. The ocular evidence has been corroborated by the medical evidence. All the appellants should be held guilty under Sections 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code. 8. In view of the contrary submission made on behalf of both the parties, this Court is required to reappraise the evidence to consider as to whether the prosecution has been able to substantiate its case beyond reasonable doubt. 9. The prosecution has examined P.W.1 Kapildeo Singh, P.W.2 Harihar Singh, P.W.3 Ram Raj Rai, P.W.4 Awadh Nath Singh, P.W.5 Nand Lal Singh, P.W.6 Ram Binay Singh, P.W.7 Banka Singh, P.W.8 Matuk Singh, P.W.9 Dr. Manoranjan Kr. Srivstava, P.W.10 Dr. Prabhu Narain Mahto and P.W.11 Anil Kumar Jha to bring the charge home against the appellants. 10. P.W.7 Banka Singh is the informant and father of the deceased. He has stated that on the date and time of occurrence he was in his house. His son Dhanesh informed that the ridge of the land was being demolished. His son Krishna Singh (deceased) rushed there. There was a hulla. He (P.W.7), Matuk Singh (P.W.8), Ram Binay Singh (P.W.6), Nandlal Singh (P.W.5) and Awadh Nath Singh (P.W.4) rushed there. Harihar Singh (P.W.2) and Kapildeo Singh (not examined) also rushed there. Ram Raj Rai (P.W.3) was plucking bamboo leaves there. They saw that an altercation between Lalbabu Singh (appellant) and Krishna Singh (deceased) was going on. Banaras Singh, Champa Devi, Rambabu Singh, Rajeshwar Singh, Batahu Singh, Baleshwar Singh and Kapildeo Singh were also there and they were armed with spear, farsa, spade and lathi. Lalbabu Singh assaulted Krishna Singh with spear which caused injury in his chest. They saw that an altercation between Lalbabu Singh (appellant) and Krishna Singh (deceased) was going on. Banaras Singh, Champa Devi, Rambabu Singh, Rajeshwar Singh, Batahu Singh, Baleshwar Singh and Kapildeo Singh were also there and they were armed with spear, farsa, spade and lathi. Lalbabu Singh assaulted Krishna Singh with spear which caused injury in his chest. Champa Devi assaulted him with a spear which caused injury in his left cheek. The informant and others rushed there to save Krishna Singh. All the accused assaulted the informant and others. Rajeshwar Singh assaulted him (P.W.7) with farsa which caused injury on his head and finger. He was also assaulted with farsa. Krishna Singh succumbed to his injuries there. He was put in the field of Tulsi Paswan as profuse bleeding was coming out from his body. When bleeding was lessened they carried him to the jeep and took him to the hospital as there was hope of his survival. Champa Devi is the wife of Banaras Singh. Lalbabu Singh, Rambabu Singh, Rajeshwar Singh and Batahu Singh are their sons. Kapildeo Singh is brother of Banaras Singh and Baleshwar Singh is brother-in-law of Banaras Singh. He has also stated that at the time of occurrence two Jhurs were uprooted and the ridge had been demolished within an area about 4 to 5 yards. The land belonged to him. He has also given the details about the land, the place of occurrence. He has stated that the police officer came to the hospital and recorded his statement which was read over and explained to him and he put his thumb impression. He has identified all the accused. He has stated that Dhanesh aged about ten years is his son. Krishna Singh (deceased) was also his son. In his cross-examination he has stated that the police officer recorded his fardbeyan in the Deoria Hospital. He does not know as to whether for the same occurrence accused Banaras Singh has also lodged a criminal case against the informant and others (prosecution party). He has also stated that prior to the occurrence there was a Panchyati. Ramji Rai was Amin on his behalf (the prosecution party) whereas Rajilal was Amin on behalf of the accused. Both of them had measured the land and demarcated the land and a ridge was constructed. He has also stated that prior to the occurrence there was a Panchyati. Ramji Rai was Amin on his behalf (the prosecution party) whereas Rajilal was Amin on behalf of the accused. Both of them had measured the land and demarcated the land and a ridge was constructed. The ridge which was constructed by the Amins was demolished by the accused on the date of occurrence. At the time of preparing ridge over the land, no hindrance was made by the accused. He has also stated that at the place of occurrence Krishna Singh was assaulted and other members of the prosecution party were also assaulted there. Krishna Singh succumbed to his injuries there. He has also stated that no one had any arm except the accused persons. In paragraph-25 he has stated that he did not see as to whether Champa Devi, Rambabu Singh and Banaras Singh were assaulted nor did he see any injury on their persons. He does not know as to whether Banaras Singh was arrested in the Sahebganj Hospital on the date of occurrence. He has also stated that the field of Tulsi Paswan is at a distance of eight laggi from the place of occurrence and there was some trail of blood from the place of occurrence to the field of Tulsi Paswan. He has denied the suggestion of the prosecution that he (P.W.7), Krishna Singh (deceased) and other members of the family formed an unlawful assembly and went to take possession of the land of Banaras Singh and also to cut bamboo which was protested from the side of the accused. Thereafter, they (prosecution party) demolished the ridge of the land, assaulted Banaras Singh, Champa Devi and Rambabu Singh. It has also been denied that the prosecution party was surrounded by the villagers and Krishna Singh was assaulted by them and Krishna Singh died. It appears that evidence of P.W.7 is natural and the defence has failed to demolish his evidence. 11. P.W.1 Kapildeo Singh is the co-villager of the informant. He has also supported the prosecution case and the version of the informant. He has stated that his house is at a distance of ten laggi from the place of occurrence. In his cross-examination he has stated that he is not the gotia of the informant. 11. P.W.1 Kapildeo Singh is the co-villager of the informant. He has also supported the prosecution case and the version of the informant. He has stated that his house is at a distance of ten laggi from the place of occurrence. In his cross-examination he has stated that he is not the gotia of the informant. In paragraph-10 he has stated that he did not see that Banaras Singh, his wife Champa Devi and his son Rambabu Singh were assaulted nor did he see any injury on their person. 12. P.W.2 Harihar Singh is also co-villager of the informant. He has also supported the prosecution case. He has also stated that the police officer came to the place of occurrence, seized blood stained soil, prepared seizure list and took his signature which was also witnessed by Bishwanath Pathak, who put his thumb impression on the seizure list. He has identified his signature (Ext.1) on the seizure list. In his cross-examination he has stated that Tilak Singh was his grand-father. Lalji Singh was the grand-father of Kapildeo Singh (P.W.1). He has denied that Tilak Singh, Lalji Singh and Mahipat Singh were cousin brothers. They had common ancesters 5 to 10 generations back. On enquiry made by police officer, he has stated that at the place of occurrence there was copious blood in the area of about 1 ½ bitta. In paragraph-18 he has stated that he did not see that the appellants were assaulted nor did he see any injury on their person. 13. P.W.3 has also supported the prosecution case. He has stated that the police officer searched the house of Banaras Singh in presence of him (P.W.3) and Rajendra Singh (not examined) and recovered the blood stained bhala, farsa, lathi and spade. The police officer sealed those articles in their presence, prepared a seizure list which was witnessed by him and Rajendra Singh, who put his thumb impression and he put his signature which has been marked as Ext. 1/1 on the seizure list. In his cross-examination he has stated that he was present at the place of occurrence prior to the occurrence and was plucking bamboo leaves. He has stated in paragraph-9 that the house of Banaras Singh was searched on the date of occurrence at about 3 P.M. At the time of search no male member was present in the house. In his cross-examination he has stated that he was present at the place of occurrence prior to the occurrence and was plucking bamboo leaves. He has stated in paragraph-9 that the house of Banaras Singh was searched on the date of occurrence at about 3 P.M. At the time of search no male member was present in the house. Daughter-in-law and daughter of Banaras Singh were present there. He has denied the suggestion of the accused that no blood stained weapons were recovered from the house of Banaras Singh. 14. P.W.4, Awadh Nath Singh, is the son of the informant (P.W.7). He has also supported the prosecution case. He had also seen eight accused who were armed with various weapons. He has supported the prosecution case and is also a victim of the occurrence. In his cross-examination in paragraph-7 he has stated that he does not know as to whether accused Banaras Singh lodged a case against him and others for the assault in the Sahebganj Police Station and Banaras Singh was arrested from the State Dispensary, Sahebganj. He has stated that the prosecution party did not assault Baranas Singh, Champa Devi and Rambabu Singh or any other accused. He has further stated in paragraph-8 that he did not see that the accused were being assaulted or any injury on their persons. In paragraph-14 he has stated that he and members of his family were injured and came to the hospital. The dead body of Krishna Singh was also brought to the hospital along with them. 15. P.W.5 Nand Lal Singh is the son of P.W.8, Matuk Singh. He also supported the prosecution case and is also a victim of the occurrence. He has stated that he was assaulted by Baleshwar Singh with lathi. Other witnesses were also assaulted by the accused. In his cross-examination he has stated that he does not know as to whether Banaras Singh has lodged a case against the prosecution party for the same occurrence in which he is also one of the accused. He has stated that he did not see Banaras Singh, Champa Devi and Ram Babu Singh were being assaulted in the occurrence nor did he see any injury on their persons. He is cousin brother of the deceased. 16. P.W.6, Ram Binay Singh, is also known as Binay Singh. He has stated that he did not see Banaras Singh, Champa Devi and Ram Babu Singh were being assaulted in the occurrence nor did he see any injury on their persons. He is cousin brother of the deceased. 16. P.W.6, Ram Binay Singh, is also known as Binay Singh. He has also supported the prosecution case and is also a victim of the occurrence. He is son of P.W.8 Matuk Singh. He has stated that Batahu Singh and Banaras Singh assaulted him with lathi. His treatment was also made by the doctor. 17. P.W.8 Matuk Singh is the father of Ram Binay Singh. He has also supported the prosecution case. He is also the victim of the occurrence. In paragraph-3 he has stated that Banaras Singh and Kapildeo Singh told that he was the root of the dispute and he should be killed. Thereafter, Rambabu Singh assaulted him with farsa which caused injury on his nose and cheek. Nandlal Singh, Ram Binay Singh, Banka Singh were also assaulted by the accused. His treatment was also made by doctor in the hospital. The police officer came in the hospital and also took his statement. He has stated in paragraph-8 of his deposition that the witnesses to the occurrence, like, Singheshwar Singh, Janak Dusadh, Jagan Dusadh, Ram Naresh Singh, Lalan Pathak and Bishwanath Pathak have been gained over by the accused and they are not ready to depose in the case. In paragraph-14 he has admitted that Banaras Singh has also lodged a counter case in which he is also an accused. He has further stated that he did not see any sign of assault on the persons of Banaras Singh, Champa Devi and Rambabu Singh nor did he see any injury on their person. The police officer took his statement in the hospital on the date of occurrence itself. 18. P.W.9, Dr. Manoranjan Kumar Srivastava, had held the post mortem examination on the dead body of Krishna Singh aged about 25 years on 27.11.1987 at 10 A.M. in the S.K.M.C.H., Muzaffarpur, and found the following anti mortem injuries on his person:– (1) Incised and punctured wound 1 ½” x ½” x heart deep on the left side of chest on 5th intercostal space on mid clavicular line. On dissection he found that the muscles had sharp cut wound and the lung was also cut on its upper lobe. On dissection he found that the muscles had sharp cut wound and the lung was also cut on its upper lobe. The tract of the wound was going obliquely downwards puncturing the heart. The doctor also found 1 ½ pint of blood in the thoracic cavity. (2) Incised and punctured wound 1” x ¼” x through and through on the left cheek cutting the mandible also. In the opinion of P.W.9, the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage due to the aforesaid two injuries which were caused by sharp pointed weapon, may be by bhala, within 24 hours from the time of holding post mortem examination. He has also stated that injury no.1 was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The post mortem examination report has been marked and identified as Ext.2. In his cross-examination P.W.9 stated that the nature of injury was such that at the time of inflicting injury blood would have splashed over a big area and that there was profused bleeding. The blood did not clot after death. 19. P.W.10 Dr. Prabhu Narain Mahto, the Medical Officer of Deoria Health Sub-Centre, on 26.11.1987, on receipt of requisition from Sahebganj Police Station, examined Matuk Singh (P.W.8) and found the following injuries on his person:– (1) One sharp wound on the dorsal side of nose up to its base, 1 ¼” lateral to its base. (2) Left upper 2nd canine was broken from its base having root in situ. (3) Two upper incissors and two cannies lateral to the both incissors with their gums cut from inside. Injury nos. 2 and 3 were found to be grievous and caused by sharp cutting weapons such as farsa. Injury no. 1 was caused by sharp cutting instrument such as farsa. Opinion regarding its nature was kept reserved for X-ray examination. Age of injury was within two hours. On the same day and at the same time he examined Banka Singh (P.W.7) and found the following injuries on his person:– (1) One sharp cut injury on the right forehand starting from lateral side of eye brow upto the hair furrow, measuring 4” x ½ ” x ½ ”. (2) Sharp cut injury on the hair margin going above the upper end of injury no. 1 which was transversely placed and was measuring 2” x ¼” x ¼”. (2) Sharp cut injury on the hair margin going above the upper end of injury no. 1 which was transversely placed and was measuring 2” x ¼” x ¼”. (3) Sharp cut wound on the left little finger posteriorly on its base measuring 1” x skin deep. All the injuries were simple in nature, caused within two hours from the time of examination by sharp cutting weapon, such as, farsa. On the same day P.W.10 examined Nand Lal Singh (P.W.5) and found the following injuries on his person:– (1) Swelling of left wrist joint. (2) Scratch “Pea” size on the left dorsum of hand (3) Scratch on the tip of right index finger. (4) Bruise on the left back on scapula. All the injuries were simple in nature and were caused by hard and blunt substance, such as, lathi within two hours from the time of examination. On the same day P.W.10 examined Binay Singh (P.W.6) son of Matuk Singh and found the following injuries on his person:– (1) One lacerated wound on the vortex having swelling in an area of 2” x ½” x ¼”. (2) Coin size scratch on the left upper part of shoulder joint. Both the injuries were simple in nature, caused by hard and blunt substance, such as, lathi. On the same day P.W.10 examined Awadh Nath Singh (P.W.4) and found the following injuries:– (1) One sharp cut wound on the right forearm on its dorsal aspect, cutting three extensor tendons from little finger side. (2) A linear cut on right back in its middle, semi-tangentially placed, on transverse line near 12th rib. Injury no. 1 was caused by sharp cutting weapon such as farsa and was grievous in nature. The cutting of three tendons might cause permanent loss of power of hand, mainly ring and the little finger. Injury no. 2 was simple in nature, caused by hard and blunt substance, such as, lathi. All the four injury reports have been marked as Exts. 3 and ¾. In his cross-examination P.W.10 stated that he did not know the injured persons. He did not get injury no. 1 of Awadh Nath Singh X-rayed. Injury nos. 1, 2 and 3 of Banka Singh may cause profuse bleeding. He gave first aid to Matuk Singh and referred him to Sadar Hospital, Muzaffarpur. 3 and ¾. In his cross-examination P.W.10 stated that he did not know the injured persons. He did not get injury no. 1 of Awadh Nath Singh X-rayed. Injury nos. 1, 2 and 3 of Banka Singh may cause profuse bleeding. He gave first aid to Matuk Singh and referred him to Sadar Hospital, Muzaffarpur. He treated the remaining injured persons regarding which the papers would be available in the hospital. He treated and discharged the injured on the same day. 20. P.W.11 Anil Kumar Jha is the investigating officer. He has stated that on 26.11.1987 he was the officer-in-charge of Sahebganj Police Station. He recorded the statement of Banka Singh, which has been marked as Ext.4. On the basis of fardbeyan, the formal F.I.R. was lodged, which has been marked as Ext.5. The fardbeyan was recorded in the Deoria hospital. The dead body of Krishna Singh was taken on a jeep. He saw the dead body and prepared the inquest report in presence of Ram Naresh Singh and Singheshwar Singh, witnesses to the inquest report (Ext.6). He also wanted to record the statement of Matuk Singh (P.W.8) but he could not speak due to injury. He took the statement of other injured persons, namely, Awadh Nath Singh (P.W.4), Nand Lal Singh (P.W.5) and Ram Binay Singh (P.W.6) and saw their injuries. He prepared five injury reports, which have been marked as Exts. 7 to 7/4 and sent them to the Medical Officer, Deoria. He sent the dead body of Krishna Singh for post mortem examination. He went to village Baijalpur for investigation of the case and arrested accused Baleshwar Singh. He also searched for the other accused persons but they were found absconding. He searched the house of Banaras Singh in presence of witnesses Ram Raj Singh and Rajendra Singh and recovered blood stained five lathies, two blood stained spears and a spade which were kept hidden. The seizure list was prepared in presence of the witness which has been marked as Ext.8. He inspected the place of occurrence. It was in village Baijalpur. The land of the informant was of khata no. 51, plot no. 369, area 2 kathas in which there were bamboo clumps. It was at a distance of 150 yards in the south-western side of the house of the informant. There was demarcation on the land and new Jhurs were also found. It was in village Baijalpur. The land of the informant was of khata no. 51, plot no. 369, area 2 kathas in which there were bamboo clumps. It was at a distance of 150 yards in the south-western side of the house of the informant. There was demarcation on the land and new Jhurs were also found. There was field of Tulsi Paswan, 75 yards in the east-southern side of the bamboo clump, 40 yards from the house of the accused. The deceased had been killed at the place which was 3 yards away from the western ridge, and 15 yards from the southern ridge. There was copious blood in the field. He seized the blood stained soil from the field of Tulsi Paswan in presence of Bishwanath Singh and Harihar Singh and the seizure list was witnessed by them. The seizure list was marked as Ext. 8/1. There were trampling marks from the place of occurrence upto the bamboo clumps. The house of the deceased was at a distance of 60 yards in the north eastern side from the bamboo clump. There were trampling marks in the field. He took the statement of other witnesses. On 27.11.1987 he took the statement of Matuk Singh (P.W.8) and received the post mortem examination report and injury reports. He handed over the charge of investigation to Baiydnath Singh as he was transferred. He has identified the writing of Baiydnath Singh in the case diary from paragraphs-51 to 74, which has been marked as Ext. 9. In his cross-examination he has stated that the bamboo clump belonged to the informant, as per the version of the informant. He also found blood stains in the bamboo clump. He did not see blood spot between the field of Tulsi Paswan and the bamboo clump. He has stated that at the time of search of the house of Banaras Singh, only Baleshwar Singh was arrested. The articles recovered were sent for chemical examination. He got information that the accused were admitted in Sahebganj Hospital. He went there on 26.11.1987 at 6-30 P.M. and arrested Banaras Singh, Rambabu Singh and Champa Devi. He also received the fardbeyan of the accused after going to the police station. On the basis of the fardbeyan Sahebganj P.S. case no. 111 of 1989 was registered. He got information that the accused were admitted in Sahebganj Hospital. He went there on 26.11.1987 at 6-30 P.M. and arrested Banaras Singh, Rambabu Singh and Champa Devi. He also received the fardbeyan of the accused after going to the police station. On the basis of the fardbeyan Sahebganj P.S. case no. 111 of 1989 was registered. In paragraph-22 he stated that Ram Raj Rai (P.W.3) had stated that he saw the informant and others in injured condition and Krishna Singh was lying dead. The accused had already escaped. He did not name any accused before him. It appears that P.W.3 was not an eye witness to the occurrence. 21. D.W.1 Dr. Shaligram Singh was examined by the accused. He has stated that on 26.11.1987 he was posted at Sahebganj Hospital in the district of Muzaffarpur as Medical Officer-in-charge in the State Dispensary. At 2-20 P.M. he examined Champa Devi and found the following injuries on her person :– (1) Lacerated wound on vortex of head measuring 3” x 1/3” x 1/3”. (2) Bruise with ecchymosis on the left forearm measuring 2” x ½”. The injuries were simple in nature and caused by hard and blunt substance. Injuries were caused within 24 hours of their examination. On the same day at 2-15 P.M. D.W.1 examined Ram Babu Singh and found the following injury on his person :– (1) Lacerated wound, on left side of face on upper part measuring 3” x 1/3” x 1/3”. Injury was simple in nature and caused by some hard and blunt substance. Injury was caused within 24 hours of its examination. On the same day at 2-25 P.M. D.W.1 examined Banaras Singh and found the following injuries on his person :– (1) Lacerated wound on right temporal area measuring 1” x ¼” x ¼”. (2) Abrasion on right ear measuring ½” x ½”. Both the injuries were simple in nature and caused by hard and blunt substance. The injuries were caused within 24 hours of their examination. He had issued the original injury reports and sent them to the police station. He had kept the copies of the injury reports and marked as Ext. 4. In his cross-examination he has stated that injury register was maintained in the Dispensary. He did not write in that register. The injury reports could be available in the Dispensary. He had issued the original injury reports and sent them to the police station. He had kept the copies of the injury reports and marked as Ext. 4. In his cross-examination he has stated that injury register was maintained in the Dispensary. He did not write in that register. The injury reports could be available in the Dispensary. He had called the police as soon as the injured had arrived. He had examined the injured of his own without any police requisition having been received first. He examined the injured in his official capacity. He was recalled for examination-in-chief on 6.11.1991. He had identified the injury reports and the signature which had been marked as Exts. D to D/2. He examined the three injured without giving requisition to the police. 22. After hearing learned counsels for both the parties and on perusal of the records, it appears that all the accused were charged for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and they were also charged separately under different Sections of the Indian Penal Code as mentioned above. There are sufficient materials on record to show that the accused persons had formed an unlawful assembly and came to the place of occurrence and demolished the ridge made at the place of occurrence. When Krishna Singh (deceased), son of the informant, protested, there was an altercation between Krishna Singh and the accused. It appears that all the accused had made unlawful assembly with common object and had committed the offence which appears from the evidence of P.W.1 in paragraphs- 1 and 2, P.W.2 in paragraphs-2, 3 and 4, P.W.4 in paragraphs- 2 and 3, P.W. 5 in paragraphs-1, 2 and 3, P.W.6 in paragraphs-1 and 2 and P.W.7 in paragraphs-2, 3 and 4. The prosecution case has been supported by P.Ws.1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8. Out of them P.Ws. 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 are the victims of the occurrence, who had received injuries in the assault made by the accused when they rushed to rescue Krishna Singh, son of informant (P.W.7). They were assaulted by the accused with various weapons. They have been examined by the doctor Shri Prabhu Narain Mahto (P.W.10). who has found injuries on their persons. 23. Although some of the witnesses are interested witnesses but their evidence is quite natural and convincing. They were assaulted by the accused with various weapons. They have been examined by the doctor Shri Prabhu Narain Mahto (P.W.10). who has found injuries on their persons. 23. Although some of the witnesses are interested witnesses but their evidence is quite natural and convincing. The evidence of witnesses stands corroborated by the medical evidence of the doctor P.W.10 who has found injuries on their persons. The injured witnesses are also eager to see that the real culprit should be punished. They are interested in the conviction of the real culprits. After careful consideration of the testimony of witnesses it appears that their evidence is convincing and trustworthy. It appears from the evidence of P.W.8 in paragraph-8 at page 80 of the paper book that some of the witnesses mentioned in the fardbeyan have been gained over. P.W.8 has specifically stated in paragraph-8 that the witnesses, namely, Sidheshwari Singh, Janak Dusadh, Jagan Dusadh, Ram Naresh Singh, Lalan Pathak and Bishwanath Pathak have been gained over and they are not ready to depose in this case. As such, we find that there is sufficient explanation by the prosecution as to why those witnesses, who have been named in the F.I.R., some of them have not been examined. 24. It appears from the evidence of D.W.1, Dr. Shaligram Singh that the injuries found on the appellants Champa Devi, Rambabu Singh and Banaras Singh were simple in nature. The doctor had examined them without any requisition by the police officer. In the light of the contention that the injuries on the accused have not been explained by the prosecution, it appears from the prosecution evidence that the witnesses have not seen the aforesaid three accused being assaulted or seen any injury on the person of Banaras Singh, his wife Champa Devi and their son Ram Babu Singh – P.W.1 vide paragraph -10, P.W. 2 vide paragraph-18, P.W.4 vide paragraphs-7 and 8, P.W.5 vide paragraph-7, P.W.6 vide paragraph-12, P.W.7 vide paragraphs-24, 25 and 27 and P.W.8 vide paragraph-15. 25. The principle of explaining the injuries found on the accused are required to explain by the prosecution has been considered in several cases. This principle has also been considered in the case of State of Bihar Vs. Ishwar Chand Rai & Anr. 25. The principle of explaining the injuries found on the accused are required to explain by the prosecution has been considered in several cases. This principle has also been considered in the case of State of Bihar Vs. Ishwar Chand Rai & Anr. reported in 2008 (3) PLJR 60 in which one of us ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.) had occasion to consider several decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and it was held that this principle is not applicable and the prosecution was not obliged to explain the injuries on the accused. It is better to quote paragraph-31 of the judgment. “Para-31. As may appear from the decision in Mohar Rai (supra) and Lakshmi Singh (supra) as also from Kashi Ram (supra) the injuries are required to be explained by the prosecution if there is ample probability indicating the same being caused in the course of same transaction or in the same occurrence. If the injuries are not established as caused during the same occurrence and in the same transaction of assault or counter assault and if there is no material indicating that the injuries were caused either by the deceased/P.Ws., then the prosecution does not owe any explanation for the presence of the same on the accused persons. The crux of the matter is receiving of the injuries by the accused persons during the same incident either at the hands of the deceased or the witnesses. For indicating the existence of this probability the defence must introduce facts through cross-examination or show the same by the admission of the witnesses. If there is no cross-examination of any of the witnesses on the infliction of the injuries to the accused persons then it could be very difficult for the Court to raise an inference of the injuries being caused in the course of the same transaction. The other manner in which the defence could indicate the probability could be by making a statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which statement has to be read as evidence in the trial, that the injuries were caused to them at the hands either of the deceased or their witnesses. Thus, mere presence of the injuries even if they were grievous, in my considered view, could not be required to be explained, if they are not appearing caused to the accused during the course of the same transaction. Thus, mere presence of the injuries even if they were grievous, in my considered view, could not be required to be explained, if they are not appearing caused to the accused during the course of the same transaction. In absence of the materials indicating the above probability, the prosecution, in my considered view is not obliged to explain the injuries on the accused persons and, as such, the cases of Mohar Rai (supra) and Lakshmi singh (supra) could not be applied to all fact situations.” 26. P.W.9 held the post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased and found the injuries caused by sharp pointed weapon, such as, spear. It appears that the ocular evidence has been corroborated by the medical evidence. There is sufficient material on the record to show that all the accused had committed offence under Sections 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code but the learned trial court convicted Lal Babu Singh under Sections 302 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code and the remaining accused/appellants have not been convicted under Sections 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code. Since the State of Bihar has not filed any appeal against the acquittal of the appellants for the offence punishable under Sections 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code, no conviction could be made at this stage of the appellants under Sections 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code. There is also sufficient evidence to show that the appellant Lal Babu Singh has been rightly convicted under Sections 302/148 of the Indian Penal Code. There is also evidence against the other appellants who have committed offence for which they have been convicted and sentenced. 27. In the facts and circumstances stated above, we do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence. The appeals have got no merit. The appeals are dismissed. 28. The bail bonds of the appellants are cancelled and they are directed to surrender before the concerned trial court within a period of one month to serve out the sentence as imposed by the learned trial court. In case, they do not surrender within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the present judgment, the learned trial court will take steps to ensure that the appellants are arrested and committed to custody to serve the sentence as imposed upon them. In case, they do not surrender within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the present judgment, the learned trial court will take steps to ensure that the appellants are arrested and committed to custody to serve the sentence as imposed upon them. DHARNIDHAR JHA, J.:–I agree. ?