JUDGMENT : C.V. Bhadang, J. 1. All these appeals arise out of the judgment and order dated 21.01.2009 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Amravati in Sessions Case No. 90/1997, by which the appellants in these appeals have been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 307, 333read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and the appellant Mumtazbegum in Criminal Appeal No. 154/2009 (original accused No. 4) has been further convicted for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and they have been sentenced accordingly. As these appeals arise out of the same judgment and order, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. The prosecution case may be briefly stated thus: "That, PW-15 Firozuddin Sayfuddin Kazi had some agricultural land at village Warud, District-Amravati, which he had converted to residential use and a layout of plot was sanctioned thereon. That area is better known as "Naya Dayara" at Warud. Firozuddin had sold one plot out of the layout to now deceased Ayyubshah and some other plots were sold to his father PW-7 Sulemanshah. The accused Mohammad Yasin and Mohammad Yunus had allegedly encroached upon the plot of the land of deceased Ayyubshah and had constructed a hut on some portion. Firozuddin had made an attempt and requested the accused to remove the encroachment, which they had initially agreed but failed to keep their promise. It is the prosecution case that they started further construction and now deceased Ayyubshah had filed some proceedings in respect of encroachment on 24.6.1997. Firozuddin and deceased Ayyubshah had been to Police Station to lodge complaint about the encroachment. On the day of incident i.e. 25.6.1997 at about 10:30 a.m. PW-15 Firozuddin along with to ASI Shankar Nimkar (PW-16) accompanied by other police staff and now deceased Ayyubshah, had gone to the plot of land for inspection. At that time, PW-12 - Aslamsha, who is brother of the deceased and injured in this case, was at home. When all of them reached near the hut, original accused No. 4 Mumtaz @ Sunnabai, who is the wife of accused No. 1 Mohd. Yasin, was washing clothes and on seeing Ayyubshah, she started abusing him and hit Ayyubshah with the bucket on his back. In the meanwhile, appellant Mohd. Yasin and Mohd. Yunus came there and there was a scuffle between them and deceased Ayyubshah. Yasin, was washing clothes and on seeing Ayyubshah, she started abusing him and hit Ayyubshah with the bucket on his back. In the meanwhile, appellant Mohd. Yasin and Mohd. Yunus came there and there was a scuffle between them and deceased Ayyubshah. It is said that in the meantime, Shahinparveen (original accused No. 5), wife of appellant Mohd. Yunus, also came there. Both accused No. 4 Mumtazbegum and accused No. 5 Shahinparveen. went inside the house and brought weapons namely; knife and a razor and it was given to appellant Yunus and Yasin by which they assaulted Ayyubshah. Appellant Yunus was having a razor, while Yasin was having knife. Ayyubshah was assaulted on abdomen and back. It is said that, in the meanwhile, appellant Mohd. Shafique (original accused No. 3) came there having Sword and assaulted Ayyubshah by the same and on account of the assault, Ayyubshah sustained severe injuries and fell down. Hearing the commotion, PW-12 -Aslamsha came out of the house and had witnessed the incident of assault by all the accused in which apart from the weapons by which Ayyubshah was assaulted by appellants Yunus, Yashin and Shafique, it is alleged that appellant Mumtaz and Shahin Parveen assaulted him by buckets and stones. In the incident, PW-12 Aslamsha and P W-16 Shankar Nimbkar and Police Constable Devidas also sustained injuries. Police Constable [PW-16] Shankar Nimbkar seeing the seriousness of the incident, called police force and in the meantime, when the police came, injured Ayyubshah was taken to the hospital where he was declared dead. PW-7 Sulemanshah, father of the deceased and PW-13 Abdul Rakim Abdul Ajij, a passerby, is also alleged to have witnessed the incident. It appears that PW-7 Sulemanshah lodged oral report of the incident with Police Station, Warud on the basis of which P. W. 18 - Head Constable Ishwarsingh Chandel registered an offence at Crime No. 180/1997 under the relevant sections against the appellants. API Solanke went to the spot and had drawn a spot panchanama. The injured persons were referred for medical treatment. He prepared inquest panchanama of dead body of Ayyubshah and the dead body was sent for postmortem examination. The Medical Officer found as many as 18 injuries on the body of Ayyubshah, out of which, injury No. 1 which was a stab wound on abdomen, was found to be fatal. The injured persons were referred for medical treatment. He prepared inquest panchanama of dead body of Ayyubshah and the dead body was sent for postmortem examination. The Medical Officer found as many as 18 injuries on the body of Ayyubshah, out of which, injury No. 1 which was a stab wound on abdomen, was found to be fatal. During the course of investigation, the statements of the witnesses came to be recorded. The appellants-accused were arrested. According to the prosecution, appellants Yunus, Yasin and Shafique made confessional statements, on the basis of which, weapons namely; knife, razor and sword were recovered. The investigating officer also seized the clothes of the appellants and made certain other seizures and the seized articles were referred for the report of the Chemical Analyser. On completion of the investigation, chargesheet came to be filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Warud which was committed to the Court of Sessions." 2. The learned Sessions Judge framed charge (Exh. 46) against all the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307 and 333 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant Mumtazbegum (A4)was additionally charged for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code for having voluntarily caused hurt to Sulemanshah [PW-7] by means of bucket. The appellants/accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The defence is that of false implication. The prosecution examined in all 20 witnesses and produced the contemporary record of the investigation. The appellants did not lead evidence in defence. The learned Sessions Judge found the appellants guilty under Sections 302, 307 and 333 r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. The appellant Mumtazbegum has also been found guilty under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code for having voluntary caused hurt to Sulemansha (PW 7). For the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, the appellants have been sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- each, in-default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for three years. For the offence punishable under Section 307 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, they have been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- each, in-default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one year. 10,000/- each, in-default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for three years. For the offence punishable under Section 307 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, they have been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- each, in-default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one year. For the offence punishable under Section 332 (the learned Sessions Judge found that the offence fell under Section 332 instead of 333 as charged) r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, they have been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- each, in-default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one year and lastly for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, the appellant Mumtazbegum (original accused No. 4) has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs. l,000/- in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants have come up in appeal. 3. We have heard the learned Counsels appearing for the appellants in all the three appeals and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State. With the assistance of the learned counsels, we have scrutinized the entire evidence and the impugned judgment. 4. It is submitted by Advocate Shri Nawab that the exact spot of incident is not proved by the prosecution in this case. It is submitted that the prosecution has suppressed the actual spot of occurrence. He has then submitted that there are material inconsistencies in the evidence of the eyewitnesses on vital points and as such the evidence of these eyewitnesses is not acceptable. The learned Counsel would then submit that the seizure of the knife (Article-A) is not proved from the appellant Mohd. Yasin. He submitted that the injury No. 1 which is said to be fatal is not caused by the appellant Mohd. Yasin. The learned Counsel also submitted that the articles seized are not shown to be sealed and this would result into the forensic evidence being rendered in consequential. It is submitted that admittedly there is a counter case in respect of the injuries sustained by the appellant Mohd. Yasin and others. That counter case is arising out of the same incident. It is submitted that there is evidence on record that the appellants Mohd. Yunus and Mohd. It is submitted that admittedly there is a counter case in respect of the injuries sustained by the appellant Mohd. Yasin and others. That counter case is arising out of the same incident. It is submitted that there is evidence on record that the appellants Mohd. Yunus and Mohd. Yasin had sustained injuries which are not explained by the prosecution which would be fatal. The evidence of P.W. 13 -Abdul Rakim has been criticized on account of he being a chance witness and it is submitted that he is planted in order to bolster up the prosecution case. Lastly, it is submitted that the prosecution has failed to examine one Babasha whose presence has come on record in the evidence of P.W. 16 - Shankar Nimbkar. The learned Counsel has then taken us through the entire evidence in support of the submissions as advanced. It is tried to be demonstrated that the prosecution is not coming with the genuine version of the incident and has suppressed the genesis including the actual spot of occurrence. The non-explanation of the injuries of some of the accused, if taken together with the other aspects including the material discrepancies in the evidence of the eyewitnesses, would lead to the prosecution failing to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The learned Counsel has placed reliance on the judgment in the case of Raghunath Versus State of Haryana, reported in AIR 2003 Supreme Court 165 and State of Maharashtra Versus Bharat Rambhau Sirsat and Ors., reported in 2006 ALL MR (Cri) 826. It is submitted that the alleged seizure panchanamas do not bear the signature of the appellants and as such the seizure cannot be said to be proved. Lastly, it is pointed out that the incriminating circumstance about the seizure and finding of the blood stains on the same is not put to the appellants/accused in the statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as such could not have been used against the appellants. 5. Advocate Shri Daga and Advocate Shri Rizwy have by and large adopted the submissions advanced in Criminal Appeal No. 154/2009. It is submitted that all the material witnesses are close relatives of the deceased. P. W.7-Sulemansha is the father while P.W.12- Aslamsha is the real brother of the deceased. The learned Counsel would submit that P. W. 13 - Abdul Rakim is clearly a chance/got up witness. It is submitted that all the material witnesses are close relatives of the deceased. P. W.7-Sulemansha is the father while P.W.12- Aslamsha is the real brother of the deceased. The learned Counsel would submit that P. W. 13 - Abdul Rakim is clearly a chance/got up witness. It is submitted that it is highly improbable that a person going to attend the funeral would accompany deceased, in the present case, being taken to the hospital. Insofar as the evidence of P.W. 15 - Firozuddin is concerned, it is submitted that he had sold some plots to the deceased and his father P.W.7 - Sulemansha. He had even accompanied the deceased to the alleged spot of incident and had earlier requested the appellants Mohd. Yasin and Mohd. Yunus to remove the encroachment. Thus, he is clearly an interested witness. It is submitted that apart from this, there are significant incongruities in the evidence of the witnesses inter se which has the effect of destroying their evidence. 6. Insofar as the alleged recoveries made on confessional statements are concerned, it is submitted that the pancha witnesses in this regard are not at all trustworthy. They are under the thumb of the police. One of the panchas was facing a trial for murder and rape and was also alleged to be involved in an incident of throwing acid on his own wife. It is submitted that the alleged discovery thus cannot be said to be proved. The learned Counsel submitted that even according to the case of the prosecution, there was a scuffle between the deceased and the appellant Mohd. Yasin and Mohd. Yunus. Non-explanation of the injuries found on the person of these appellants, assumes significance in this regard. He submitted that the prosecution has suppressed genesis and the spot of the incident. Insofar as the appellants Mumtazbegum and Shahinaparveen are concerned, it is submitted that at the worst, the evidence against them is of assault by stones/buckets. It is submitted that the prosecution case that the deceased was assaulted by these accused by stones/buckets for 15 minutes, cannot be accepted in the wake of the medical evidence. In other words, it is submitted that the medical and ocular evidence in this regard is clearly discrepant and as such cannot be accepted. It is, therefore, submitted that the appeals be allowed. 7. In other words, it is submitted that the medical and ocular evidence in this regard is clearly discrepant and as such cannot be accepted. It is, therefore, submitted that the appeals be allowed. 7. On the contrary, it is submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that there is overwhelming ocular evidence in this case of the witnesses who are themselves found injured. It is, therefore, submitted that their presence on the spot cannot be doubted. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that this includes a police constable, namely, P.W. 16 - Shankar Nimbkar who had gone to the spot as per the directions of the superior to ascertain the encroachment. He submitted that in these circumstances the evidence of these witnesses carries great probative value. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the evidence of the eyewitnesses is consistent and reliable on material aspects, some minor discrepancies notwithstanding. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that there is a clear motive established inasmuch as the appellants Mohd. Yasin and Mohd. Yunus had encroached upon the plot of deceased and the deceased had also reported the matter to the police. On the day of incident, the deceased accompanied by P. W. 15 - Firozuddin, P. W. 16-Shankar and others had gone to the spot. The dispute started when the accused Mumtazbegum started abusing the deceased and hit him with bucket on the back which was followed by the appellants Mohd. Yasin and Mohd. Yunus coming there. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor was at pains to point out that as per the evidence on record it is the appellants Mumtazbegum and Shahinaparveen who brought the weapons, namely, knife and razor from the house and gave it to the appellants Mohd. Yasin and Mohd. Yunus. The appellant Mohd. Shafique then arrived at the spot with a sword. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor thus submitted that this is a clear case of consorted act to assault the deceased with an intention of causing his death. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that there is enough evidence to gather common intention between the appellants to cause death of the deceased and an attempt to commit murder of Aslamsha. 8. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the medical evidence supports the evidence of the eyewitnesses. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that there is enough evidence to gather common intention between the appellants to cause death of the deceased and an attempt to commit murder of Aslamsha. 8. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the medical evidence supports the evidence of the eyewitnesses. He submitted that there is further corroboration forthcoming in the form of seizure of the weapons on confessional statements of the appellants and finding of blood stains. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the absence of signatures on the confessional statements cannot be said to be fatal nor the absence of evidence about sealing. It is submitted that this would be inconsequential particularly when there is no evidence about tampering of the seized articles. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the learned Sessions Judge has properly appreciated the evidence on record and the impugned judgment does not call for any interference. 9. At the outset, it may be mentioned that it is not seriously in dispute that Ayyubshah died a homicidal death. The post mortem report of Ayyubshah mentions the following 18 injuries found on his body. "1) Stab wound on abdomen left lower 1/3rd lateral aspect/5 x 1/2 cm x cavity deep bleeding positive. 2) Incised wound on left shoulder joint posteriorly 11 x 1 x 1 cms/bleeding positive. 3) Incised wound on right upper temporal region/1 x 1/2 x 1 cm. 4) Incised wound on right ear upper aspect 2 x 1/4 x through and through vertical. 5) Incised wound on right lower temporal region behind the ear 1 x /1/2 x 1 cm oblique. 6) Abrasion on right parietal region posteriorly 2x 1/2 cms. 7) Contusion on forehead above right eyebrow 1 x 1/4 cms. 8) Incised wound on parietal region both sides posteriorly oblique 2 x 1/2 x 1 cm. 9) Contusion on forehead laterally to left eyebrow 1 x 1 cms. 10) Swelling on the right hand at thener eminence 2 x I cms. 11) Abrasion on right thumb 1 x 1 cms. 12) Abrasion on left little finger 1 x 1/2 cms. 13) Abrasion on chest left lateral upper 1/3 oblique, 4 x 1/2 cms. 14) Abrasion on chest lower aspect with abdomen right oblique 14 x 1/4 cms. 15) Contusion on left hand at hypothenar eminence 1 x 1/2 cms. 16) Contusion on left ring finger 1 x 1 cms. 12) Abrasion on left little finger 1 x 1/2 cms. 13) Abrasion on chest left lateral upper 1/3 oblique, 4 x 1/2 cms. 14) Abrasion on chest lower aspect with abdomen right oblique 14 x 1/4 cms. 15) Contusion on left hand at hypothenar eminence 1 x 1/2 cms. 16) Contusion on left ring finger 1 x 1 cms. 17) Contusion on left hip joint 1 x 1/2 cms. 18) Abrasion on right leg at knee joint posteriorly 2 x 1/4 cms." 10. The Medical Officer P.W. 14- Dr. Ambadas Sadafule has opined that cause of death is shock due to injuries to vital organs with extensive haemorrhage. Further, according to this witness the cumulative effect of injuries mentioned in para No. 17 of the postmortem report would be fatal causing death. He found that injury No. 1 i.e. stab wound on abdomen left lower 1/3rd lateral aspect admeasuring 5 cm. x 1/2 cm. x cavity deep is sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. He also found that the cause of injury No. 1 would require great force to be exercised. He has further stated that injury No. 1 can be caused by knife (Article-A).He has further submitted that injury Nos. 3 to 9 are also on vital part of the body. Injury Nos. 3 to 5 and 8 could be caused by razor (Article-H). Injury Nos. 7 and 9 to 18 can be caused by sticks (Articles-J & K). Injury No. 1 can also be caused by the sword. He has further submitted that injury Nos. 6, 7, 15 to 18 can also be caused by bucket which is a hard and blunt object. Injury Nos. 7, 9 and 17 can be caused by hard and blunt object like stone. It would be thus clear that Ayyubshah died a homicidal death. 11. According to the prosecution case, P.W. 15 - Firozuddin has converted a portion of agricultural land at Warud and a layout of plots was sanctioned therein. It has come in his evidence that his grand-father had gifted some agricultural land out of the same to Pataleshwar temple Trust. Out of the plots sanctioned, he had sold one plot to deceased Ayyubshah and some plots to his father P.W.7 - Sulemansha. The appellants Mohd. Yasin and Mohd. It has come in his evidence that his grand-father had gifted some agricultural land out of the same to Pataleshwar temple Trust. Out of the plots sanctioned, he had sold one plot to deceased Ayyubshah and some plots to his father P.W.7 - Sulemansha. The appellants Mohd. Yasin and Mohd. Yunus had allegedly encroached on some portion of the plot of the deceased and had constructed a hut thereon and further were attempting to make construction which had led to the dispute and the incident in question. P.W. 15 - Firozuddin had made an attempt to request the appellants to remove encroachment, to which they had initially agreed but had failed to keep their promise. The matter was reported a day before to Police Station, Warud. On the day of incident i.e. 25.6.1997 at about 10:30 a.m., the deceased accompanied by P.W. 15 - Firozuddin and P.W. 16 - P.C. Shankar Nimbkar had gone to the spot for inspection when the incident occurred. 12. P.W.7 - Sulemansha has stated that on the day of incident at about 10:30 a.m. he was standing near Pataleshwar temple when the appellants Mohd. Yasin, Sunna, Shahin and Yunus had assaulted his son Ayyubshah. The learned Sessions Judge has noticed while recording the evidence that the witness was asked by the learned A.P.P. to identify the accused, but he had not identified any of them by name. He has then stated that the accused were having knives and dagger, his son Ayyubshah sustained stab wound on his abdomen and blood was oozing out. He was beaten by stones and bricks. However, he was not sent to hospital. He lodged report (Exh. 102) with the police. He has stated that he received injuries on both hands by means of buckets. He identified the knife, razor and the sword shown and the two buckets which were used by the appellant Sunna Yasin [i.e. Mumtazbegum @ Sunna Mohammad Yasin (A4)]. This witness has been cross-examined with reference to the complaint Exh. 102. He has stated that he cannot assign any reason why the names of Yasin, Sunna, Shahinaparveen and Yunus and their presence with knives and dagger is not mentioned in his report. He also could not assign any reason why the fact about assault by bricks and stones by the accused does not find place in the report. 102. He has stated that he cannot assign any reason why the names of Yasin, Sunna, Shahinaparveen and Yunus and their presence with knives and dagger is not mentioned in his report. He also could not assign any reason why the fact about assault by bricks and stones by the accused does not find place in the report. This witness has stated that on the day of incident in the morning he along with his three sons which included Ayyubshah were talking breakfast at his house. Ayyubshah received a message that police had arrived and hence, Ayyubshah left. After 20 to 25 minutes thereof, he heard hue and cry when his son P. W. 12 - Aslamsha ran outside. It is the specific evidence of this witness that he did not follow Aslamsha, on which he had stated that after about half an hour of leaving Aslamsha, he went outside and had seen Ayyubshah lying in blood stained condition and thereafter Ayyubshah was carried to the hospital. Police had arrived at the spot. This witness has then admitted that around 1:00 to 2:00 p.m. he learnt that Ayyubshah was no more. He further admits that at that time he "came to know", that Yasin, Yunus, Sunna and Shahinaparveen had assaulted his son. In the last paragraph of his cross-examination, this witness has volunteered that he was "told", that his son was assaulted by means of weapons. 13. P.W.12 - Aslamsha is the brother of the deceased. He has stated that on the day of incident which occurred between 10 to 11 a.m. he was at his house taking meals. At that time, two police persons came and called Ayyubshah saying that they had come for enquiry about the plot. Accordingly, Ayyubshah went out of the house. He continued with his meals. At that time he heard "sound of assault" and hence, came out of the house and saw that his brother Ayyubshah was lying on the ground. This witness has then stated that he saw accused Mohd. Yasin, Mohd. Yunus and Mohd. Shafique assaulting his brother by means of weapons. The appellant Mumtazbegum and Shahinaparveen were also beating his brother by means of buckets and stones on his head. They were shouting loudly to kill his brother. This witness made an attempt to rescue his brother. This witness has then stated that he saw accused Mohd. Yasin, Mohd. Yunus and Mohd. Shafique assaulting his brother by means of weapons. The appellant Mumtazbegum and Shahinaparveen were also beating his brother by means of buckets and stones on his head. They were shouting loudly to kill his brother. This witness made an attempt to rescue his brother. He has then stated that the appellant Yasin was armed with knife, Yunus was holding a razor and Shafique was holding a sword. All of them ran away brandishing their weapons towards him. In the meanwhile, police came and he carried his brother Ayyubshah to hospital in Auto, where Ayyubshah was declared dead. This witness has identified all accused before the Court. This witness has stated that he sustained injuries to his finger, on both hands, right upper arm and right side chest. He was examined by the Medical Officer at about 7 to 7:30 p.m. This witness was cross-examined with reference to his statement before the police. He has stated that his statement was recorded in the afternoon of the incident. PSI Solanke had recorded statement at about 10:00 to 11:00 a.m. This witness had stated that assault by the lady accused continued for about 10 to 15 minutes. Other accused also continued to assault his brother during that period. They had beaten his brother by means of buckets for about 10 to 15 minutes. This witness has stated that the spot of incident was 15 ft. away from his house. Except this, nothing has come in the cross-examination of this witness. 14. P.W.13 -Abdul Rakim in his evidence has stated that on 25.6.1997 nephew of one Mehebubhai had died and he was proceeding for his funeral to the graveyard at about 10:00 to 11:00 in the morning. He was proceeding on his motorcycle when he saw a scuffle involving Ayyubshah. Two police personnel were also present there. He has then stated that he saw Mohd. Yasin giving a knife blow on the abdomen of Ayyubshah and Mohd. Yunus assaulting by means of razor. Thereafter, Mohd. Shafique came there with a sword and assaulted Ayyubshah on the hand. Ayyubshah fainted and fell down. This witness has then stated that wife of Yasin was beating Ayyubshah on his head by means of stone and wife of Mohd. Yunus was assaulting Ayyubshah on the head by bucket. Yunus assaulting by means of razor. Thereafter, Mohd. Shafique came there with a sword and assaulted Ayyubshah on the hand. Ayyubshah fainted and fell down. This witness has then stated that wife of Yasin was beating Ayyubshah on his head by means of stone and wife of Mohd. Yunus was assaulting Ayyubshah on the head by bucket. The family members of Ayyubshah rushed there. Aslamsha had also sustained injury on his chest. Thereafter, the accused ran away. Ayyubshah was taken to hospital where he was declared dead. This witness had identified the accused before the Court as also the weapons. 15. Evidence of this witness is mainly criticized on account of the witness being a chance witness. It appears that this witness was also cross-examined with reference to the date of his statement, which is mentioned as 26.6.1997. However, that aspect is clarified by P.W.20-AS.I. Devidas who was at the relevant time a police constable and writer to API Solanke, who was the Investigating Officer. It has come in the evidence of P.W.20 - Devidas that API Solanke had subsequently met with an accident and was in a comatose condition. As such the evidence of API Solanke could not be recorded in this case and instead, the evidence of ASI Devidas was recorded. He has stated that date 26.6.1997 is mentioned inadvertently and the statement of P.W.13 -Abdul Rakib was recorded on 25.6.1997. Be that as it may, P.W. 13 -Abdul Rakim has also stated that his statement was recorded on the same day on which the incident took place. This witness has further been cross-examined with reference to his house, which is situated at Sai Nagar which was previously known as Vipari Nala. Muslim graveyard is near the river Chudamani. He has stated that house of Mehboobsha is at a distance of 300 to 400 ft. from the river and Nayadayara area is on the side of the old motor-stand. He refuted a suggestion that for going towards the graveyard, one need not go through Nayadayara area. 16. This witness has then stated that appellant Yunus had given 5 to 7 razor blows. It did not happen that both lady accused had beaten Ayyubshah by means of stones and later on by bucket. He denied that he is deposing false on account of his friendship with Aslamsha. 17. 16. This witness has then stated that appellant Yunus had given 5 to 7 razor blows. It did not happen that both lady accused had beaten Ayyubshah by means of stones and later on by bucket. He denied that he is deposing false on account of his friendship with Aslamsha. 17. The next material witness is P.W. 15 - Firozuddin @ Sayfuddin Kazi. It has come in his evidence that his grand-father had donated three gunthas of land for construction of Pataleshwar temple. He had converted some area to non-agricultural use and the plots were sold to Ayyubshah and his father. He has stated that the appellants Yasin and Yunus had constructed a hut on the plot of deceased Ayyubshah. He had asked it to be removed. Although they initially agreed, however, they did not remove the hut and on the contrary, started construction by the side of the hut. Therefore, the deceased had filed a proceeding in the Court and had obtained stay. He had accompanied Ayyubshah to the Police Station on 24.6.1997 and the concerned inspector had told them that he would sent two constables to inspect the spot. He has then stated that on 25.6.1997 he along with Ayyubshah and two constables had gone to the plot and when they were showing the plot from the temple when they reached near the hut, wife of Yasin by name Sunnabai was sitting with a bucket. She hit Ayyubshah on the back by the bucket and started abusing him. In the meanwhile, the appellant Yasin and Yunus came there and there was scuffle in between them and Ayyubshah. The appellant Shahinaparveen wife of Yunus came there. It is the material evidence that both these lady appellants had gone inside the house and had returned with weapons which were given to Yunus and Yasin who assaulted Ayyubshah by means of those weapons. This witness has tried to explain the injuries on the appellant Yunus and Yasin. He stated that when Sunnabai was moving the bucket, it hit on the head of Yunus and Yasin also. The younger brother of Ayyubshah then came and carried Ayyubshah to the hospital. This witness has tried to explain the injuries on the appellant Yunus and Yasin. He stated that when Sunnabai was moving the bucket, it hit on the head of Yunus and Yasin also. The younger brother of Ayyubshah then came and carried Ayyubshah to the hospital. It would be significant to note that the evidence of this witness to the extent that both the ladies i.e. Mumtazbegum and Shahinaparveen went inside the house and returned with weapons and gave the weapons to Yunus and Yasin, is an omission and an improvement over the police statement as has come on record in paragraph No. 3 of the cross-examination of this witness. This witness was unable to explain as to why this part of the evidence about these two accused bringing weapons from the house and giving it to Yunus and Yasin does not find place in their police statement. We would revert back to this aspect a little later. Except this part, we do not find that the evidence of this witness suffers from any material infirmity so as to discard the same. It is trite that the principal of falsus in uno falsus in omnibus is not applicable in India. Time and again the Courts have noticed a marked tendency in the witnesses to exaggerate and to add embroidery to a certain extent to a version which may be otherwise truthful. The Court in such case, has to sift the evidence and may act on the part of the evidence which is found to be truthful and acceptable. 18. The learned Sessions Judge has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sucha Singh and another Versus State of Punjab, reported in (2003) 7 SCC 643 : [2003 ALL MR (Cri) 2346 (S.C.)]. It would be worthwhile to reproduce the observations as under: "the relationship is not a factor which would affect the credibility of a witness because it is more often than not that a relation would not conceal the actual culprit and make allegations against an innocent person. All that the court had to do is to adopt a careful approach and analyse evidence to find out whether it is cogent and credible. The Supreme Court then considered whether if a witness is partly disbelieved his evidence has to be rejected in toto. All that the court had to do is to adopt a careful approach and analyse evidence to find out whether it is cogent and credible. The Supreme Court then considered whether if a witness is partly disbelieved his evidence has to be rejected in toto. The Supreme Court observed as under: "The maxim "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" has no application in India and the witnesses cannot be branded as liars. This maxim has not received general acceptance nor has it come to occupy the status of a rule of law. It is merely a rule of caution. All that it amounts to is that in such cases testimony may be disregarded, and not that it must be disregarded. The doctrine merely involves the question of weight of evidence which a court may apply in a given set of circumstances, but it is not what may be called "a mandatory rule of evidence/' The doctrine is a dangerous one, especially in India for if a whole body of the testimony were to be rejected, because a witness was evidently speaking an untruth in some aspect, it is to be feared that administration of criminal justice would come to a dead stop. Witnesses just cannot help in giving embroidery to a story, however true in the main. Therefore, it has to be appraised in each case as to what extent the evidence is worthy acceptance, an merely because in some respects the court considers the same to be insufficient for placing reliance on the testimony of a witness, it does not necessarily follow as a matter of law that it must be disregarded in all respects as well. The evidence has to be sifted with care. Falsity of a particular material witness or a material particular would not ruin it from the beginning to end. The aforesaid dictum is not a sound rule for the reason that one hardly comes across a witness whose evidence does not contain a grain of untruth or at any rate exaggeration, embroideries or embellishment." 19. The learned Sessions Judge has also noticed a decision in Krishna Mochi and another Versus State of Bihar, (2002) Cri. The aforesaid dictum is not a sound rule for the reason that one hardly comes across a witness whose evidence does not contain a grain of untruth or at any rate exaggeration, embroideries or embellishment." 19. The learned Sessions Judge has also noticed a decision in Krishna Mochi and another Versus State of Bihar, (2002) Cri. L.J. 2645 : [2002 ALL MR (Cri) 1993 (S.C.)] in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that normal discrepancies in evidence are those which are due to normal error of memory, due lapses of time at the time of occurrence and those are always there, however, honest and faithful witnesses may be. Taking into consideration mental condition of witness at particular moment he cannot be branded that the witness is Her. 20. The next witness is P.W. 16-Shankar Nimbkar. He was at the relevant time attached to Police Station Warud and had accompanied the deceased and P.W. 15 -Firozuddin to the spot. This witness has stated that prior thereto a report was lodged on 3.6.1997 in respect of construction on the plot of the deceased and that enquiry was entrusted to him. On 25.6.1997 he had visited the spot at about 10:30 in the morning. He was accompanied by P.C. Devidas, deceased Ayyubshah, P.W. 15 - Firozuddin and one Babasha, for inspecting the spot. He has then stated that appellant Mumtazbegum was abusing Ayyubshah and threatened to beat him. All of a sudden she threw a bucket at Ayyubshah. He then stated that appellant Mohd. Yunus came there with a razor and when this witness went to intervene, appellant Shahinaparveen had come there and had assaulted this witness with stick. He then stated that appellant Yasin came with a stick in one hand and a knife in the other. Police Constable Devidas went to intervene when the appellant Mohd. Yunus assaulted Ayyubshah on the abdomen with a razor. Police Constable Devidas then telephoned police station. This witness has also stated that the appellants Shafique (recorded as Rafique) came with a sword. After some time police staff came there when the accused fled away. This witness had also sustained injury while snatching the sword from Shafique. This witness was cross-examined with reference to his police statement. Police Constable Devidas then telephoned police station. This witness has also stated that the appellants Shafique (recorded as Rafique) came with a sword. After some time police staff came there when the accused fled away. This witness had also sustained injury while snatching the sword from Shafique. This witness was cross-examined with reference to his police statement. He has stated that he did not state during his police statement that the appellant Mumtazbegum started giving threats to Ayyubshah and Shahinaparveen came with a stick and when he tried to snatch it away, she assaulted him with a stick. He could not assign any reason as to why these aspects are not mentioned in his statement. 21. A reference to the evidence of P.W. 17- Dr. Anita Jodhane would be necessary at this stage. She had examined the deceased and had declared him dead at 11:50 a.m. and had accordingly informed Police Station, Warud vide Memos Exh. 127 and 128. On the same day, she had examined P.W.7 - Sulemansha and found the following injuries on his person. "1. Incise wound over forearm posteriorly about 5 x 2 x 2 cm. 2. Incise wound over left and forearm posteriorly 2 x 1 x 2 cm." The age of injuries was found below 24 hours can be caused by sharp object. She accordingly issued a certificate (Exh. 129). She has stated that these injuries could be caused by knife, sword or razor. 22. On the same day, she also examined P.W. 12Aslamsha and found following injuries on his person: "1) Lacerated wound over left hand middle finger about 2 x 1 x half cm. 2) Abrasion over right hand ring finger 1 x Half cm. 3) Incise wound over right shoulder 1 cm. x half cm. 4) Incise wound over right side chest near right maxilla about 1 cm. x half cm." She accordingly issued certificate (Exh. 130). She has stated that injury Nos. 3 and 4 can be caused either by sword, razor or knife and injury Nos. 1 and 2 can be caused by back side of knife. 23. She has also examined P.W. 16 - Shankar Nimbkar and found following injuries on his person. "1) Abrasion over left arm --9 cm. x 1 cm. (6 in numbers). 2) Abrasion over left hands forearm about 5 cm. x 1 cm. 1 and 2 can be caused by back side of knife. 23. She has also examined P.W. 16 - Shankar Nimbkar and found following injuries on his person. "1) Abrasion over left arm --9 cm. x 1 cm. (6 in numbers). 2) Abrasion over left hands forearm about 5 cm. x 1 cm. 3) Contusion over right forearm about 4 x 4 cm." She accordingly issued certificate (Exh. 131). She has stated that injury Nos. 1 and 2 can be caused by back side of the sword and injury No. 3 can be caused by stick or stone. 24. Lastly, she had examined police constable Devidas and found following injuries on his person. "1. Contusion over left hand finger about 2x2 cm. 2. Contusion over right side of chest about 2x2 cm." She accordingly issued certificate (Exh,132). She has stated that injuries may be caused by stick. 25. Nothing significant has come in the cross-examination of this witness. It can thus be seen that the material witnesses, P.W. 12- Aslamsha, P.W. 15 - Firozuddin and P.W. 16 -Shankar are all injured witnesses and as such their presence on the spot cannot be doubted. However, at the same time insofar as P.W.7 -Sulemansha is concerned, on a careful consideration of his evidence coupled with the cross-examination, we do find that he might not have witnessed the actual assault and in all probability might have reached the spot after the material assault on Ayyubshah was over. However, in our considered view, that would not shake the prosecution case at least insofar as the appellants Mohd. Yunus, Mohd. Yasin and Mohd. Shafique are concerned. We find that P.W. 16 - ASI is an independent police witness. His evidence is challenged by putting a suggestion that when the two accused were attacked in his presence, he did nothing and the persons gathered there got enraged and assaulted Ayyubshah and in order to extricate himself apprehending action, he has concocted false story. In the totality of the evidence, we are not prepared to accept any such defence. We find that even if evidence of P.W.7 -Sulemansha is excluded, reliance can be placed on the evidence of P.W. 12 -Aslamsha, P.W. 13 -Abdul Rakim, P.W.I 5 -Firozuddin andP.W.16 Shankar Nimbkar. Their evidence on material aspect is consistent and trustworthy some minor discrepancies notwithstanding, which are bound to be there in the evidence of any natural witness. We find that even if evidence of P.W.7 -Sulemansha is excluded, reliance can be placed on the evidence of P.W. 12 -Aslamsha, P.W. 13 -Abdul Rakim, P.W.I 5 -Firozuddin andP.W.16 Shankar Nimbkar. Their evidence on material aspect is consistent and trustworthy some minor discrepancies notwithstanding, which are bound to be there in the evidence of any natural witness. However, at this stage, it is necessary to consider the role and complicity of the appellants Mumtazbegum and Shahinaparveen. They have been held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 and Section 307 of Indian Penal Code with the aid of Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. The learned Sessions Judge has found that there is evidence to gather common intention. The material consideration in this regard might be the evidence that it is these two accused who went inside the house and brought weapons and handed over the same to appellants Mohd. Yasin and Mohd. Yunus. However, we find that this aspect as has been deposed to by P.W. 15 -Firozuddin is an improvement/embellishment over his police statement which has come on record in paragraph No. 3 of the cross-examination. Thus, we are not inclined to place reliance on this part of the evidence. Appellant Mumtazbegum has also been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code for assaulting P.W. 16 - Shankar. However, a perusal of the evidence of P.W. 16 - Shankar would show that he states that the appellant Shahinaparveen came there and gave him stick blow. In the cross-examination, this witness has stated that he did state during his police statement that appellant Mumtazbegum started giving threats to Ayyubshah and that appellant Shahinaparveen came with a stick and when he tried to snatch it away, she assaulted him with the stick. He, however, could not assign any reason why this does not find place in his statement. In the wake of such omission, we are not inclined to place reliance on the same to the extent of assault by these accused. We are inclined to give them benefit of doubt. 26. We may now briefly deal with the other submissions advanced on behalf of appellants. It is submitted that the prosecution has not established actual spot of incident. In this case, the spot panchanama (Exh. We are inclined to give them benefit of doubt. 26. We may now briefly deal with the other submissions advanced on behalf of appellants. It is submitted that the prosecution has not established actual spot of incident. In this case, the spot panchanama (Exh. 173) would show that the spot of incident is shown to be an open spot in front of Pataleshwar temple. The plot is owned by Babbubhai i.e. P.W. 15 -- Firozuddin and situated in the area better known as Naya Dayara. The spot panchanama (Exh. 83) also mentions that there was cow-dung manure stored on the same. The spot panchanama also mentions the boundaries, namely, to the East - house of Mohd. Shah, to the West - house of Guabrao, to the North - house of Vir Ahamad Shah and to the South-house of Shanta Bhoi. The spot panchanama further mentions that on account of rains, no blood stains were noticed on the spot. However, the heap of the manure was seen trampled. The learned Counsel for the appellants has then referred to printed FIR (Exh. 103) which gives the spot of occurrence as Naya Dayara near Pataleshwar Temple and it is shown to be one kilometre towards West from the police station. It is difficult to see how this would be discrepant with the description of the spot in the spot panchanama. P.W.7 -Sulemansha has also stated that he was standing near Pataleshwar temple. P.W. 12 - Aslansha has stated that the incident occurred at a distance of 15 ft. from his house while P.W. 15 - Firozuddin has stated that the distance between temple and the house of Ayyubshah is about 200 ft. P.W. 16 - Shankar Nimbkar states that house of Yasin is at a distance of 200 to 250 ft. from Pataleshwar temple. We find that the spot has been precisely described in the spot panchanama and the estimation of the witnesses, who are coming from a village background and rustic witnesses about the exact distance between the spot and the house of the accused or the deceased, would not militate against the actual spot being precisely described in the prosecution case. 27. We find that the spot has been precisely described in the spot panchanama and the estimation of the witnesses, who are coming from a village background and rustic witnesses about the exact distance between the spot and the house of the accused or the deceased, would not militate against the actual spot being precisely described in the prosecution case. 27. Even insofar as argument that Babasha whose presence has come in the evidence of P. W. 16 - Shankar Nimbkar has not been examined is concerned, it is trite that the prosecution is not obliged to examine each and every witness. This takes us to the evidence about the seizure, allegedly made on confessional statement. What we find is that the Chemical Analyzer's report (Exh. 133) does not show the blood group of the deceased. Similarly, the findings of the blood group of the appellant Mohd. Yasin, Mohd. Yunus and Mohd. Shafique is concerned, which are at Exh. 14, 15 and 16, are shown to be inconclusive. In that view of the matter, even otherwise the evidence about these recoveries would be in consequential and may not come to the aid of the prosecution. 28. This takes us to the argument about explanation of injuries on the person of appellants Mohd. Yasin and Mohd. Yunus. The learned Sessions Judge has considered this aspect in his judgment after noticing the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh Versus Atar Singh and others, 2008 CCR 7 (SC) : [2007 ALL MR (Cri) 3593 (S.C.)]. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph Nos. 13 and 14 held thus: "13. In another important case, Laxshmi Singh and Ors. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph Nos. 13 and 14 held thus: "13. In another important case, Laxshmi Singh and Ors. v. State of Bihar, 1976 (4) SCC 394 , after referring to the ratio laid down in Mohar Rai's case (Supra)m this Court observed: "Where the prosecution fails to explain the injuries on the accused, two results follow: (1) that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is untrue; and (2) that the injuries probabilise the plea taken by the appellants." It was further observed that; "In a murder case, the non-explanation of the injuries sustained by the accused at about the time of the occurrence or in the course of altercation is a very important circumstance from which the Court can draw the following inference: (1) that the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and the origin of the occurrence and has thus not presented the true version; (2) that the witnesses who have denied the presence of the injuries on the person of the accused are lying on a most material point and, therefore, their evidence is unreliable; (3) that in case there is a defence version which explains the injuries on the person of the accused assumes much greater importance where the evidence consist of interested or inimical witnesses or where the defence gives a version which competes in probability with that of the prosecution one." In Mohar Rai's case (supra) it is made clear that failure of the prosecution to offer any explanation regarding the injuries found on the accused may show that the evidence related to the incident is not true or at any rate not wholly true. Likewise in Laxmi Singh's case (supra) it is observed that any non-explanation of the injuries on the accused by the prosecution may affect the prosecution case. But such a non-explanation may assume greater importance where the defence gives a version which competes in probability with that of the prosecution. But where the evidence is clear, cogent and creditworthy and where the Court can distinguish the truth from falsehood the mere fact that the injuries are no explained by the prosecution cannot by itself be a sole basis to reject such evidence, and consequently the whole case. Much depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. These aspects were highlighted by this Court in Vajayee Singh and ors. v. State of U.P., AIR 1990 SC 1459 . 14. Much depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. These aspects were highlighted by this Court in Vajayee Singh and ors. v. State of U.P., AIR 1990 SC 1459 . 14. Non-explanation of injuries by the prosecution will not affect prosecution case where injuries sustained by the accused are minor and superficial or where the evidence is so clear and cogent, so independent and disinterested, so probable, consistent and creditworthy, that it outweighs the effect of the omission on the part of prosecution to explain the injuries. As observed by this Court in Ramlagan Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1972 SC 2593 , prosecution is not called upon in all cases to explain the injuries received by the accused persons. It is for the defence to put questions to the prosecution witnesses regarding the injuries of the accused persons. When that is not done, there is no occasion for the prosecution witnesses to explain any injury on the person of an accused. In Hare Krishna Singh and Ors. v. State of Bihar, AIR 1988 SC 865, it was observed that the obligation of the prosecution to explain the injuries sustained by the accused in the same occurrence may not arise sin each and every case. In other words, it is not an invariable rule that the prosecution has to explain the injuries sustained by the accused in the same occurrence. If the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution and believed by the Court in proof of guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, question of obligation of prosecution to explain injuries sustained by the accused will not arise. When the prosecution comes with a definite case that the offence has been committed by the accused and proves its case beyond any reasonable doubt, it becomes hardly necessary for the prosecution to again explain how and under what circumstances injuries have been inflicted on the person of the accused. It is more so where the injuries are simple or superficial in nature. In the case at hand, trifle and superficial injuries on accused are of little assistance to them to throw doubt on veracity of prosecution case. (See Surendra Paswan v. State of Jharkhand, VII (2003) SLT 797, I (2004) CCR 22 (SC), (2003) Supreme 476)." Thus, it is not an absolute rule to say that non-explanation of injuries is always fatal to the prosecution. (See Surendra Paswan v. State of Jharkhand, VII (2003) SLT 797, I (2004) CCR 22 (SC), (2003) Supreme 476)." Thus, it is not an absolute rule to say that non-explanation of injuries is always fatal to the prosecution. The question depends upon facts and circumstances of each case for instance where the injuries are of minor/superficial nature and/or where the defence is not coming with any version which competes in probability with that of the prosecution case and defence version is found to be inconsonance with the fact of sustaining of the injuries by the accused. 29. The learned Sessions Judge has found that there is no evidence to show that the injuries sustained by the appellants/accused were of serious nature although the witnesses had stated about these two appellants having sustained head injury. In that view of the matter, it has been found that the non-explanation of the injuries would not be material. We do not find any reason to take a contrary-view. Lastly a brief reference may be made to the decision in the case of Raghunath Versus State of Haryana, reported in AIR 2003 Supreme Court 165. In that case the prosecution evidence as to the place of occurrence was doubtful. The complainant party had failed to report to police station at first hour though two police stations were on their way to General Hospital. There were contradictions in evidence rendering presence of complainant and two injured eyewitnesses doubtful at place of occurrence. In such circumstances, non-explanation of the injuries on accused was found to be material as the prosecution was held to have suppressed the facts and failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. In the present case in hand as we have noticed that the spot of occurrence has sufficiently been described and has come on record and we find that the evidence of injured witnesses can be relied upon to the extent of complicity of the appellants Mohd. Yasin. Mohd. Shafique and Mohd. Yunus. The role attributed to the appellants Mumtazbegum and Shahinaparveen and part of which is by way of an omission and improvement over the police statement thus could not make out a case of common intention with the rest of the accused. Consequently, we are inclined to confirm the conviction and sentence as awarded to the appellants Mohd. Shafique. Mohd. Yunus and Mohd. Consequently, we are inclined to confirm the conviction and sentence as awarded to the appellants Mohd. Shafique. Mohd. Yunus and Mohd. Yasin, while giving benefit of doubt to appellants Shahinaparveen and Mumtazbegum. Consequently, the following order is passed. ORDER "(i) Criminal Appeal No. 139/2009 and Criminal Appeal No. 154/2009 are partly allowed. The conviction and sentence of the appellants Shahinaparveen (accused No. 5) and Mumtazbegum (accused No. 4) for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 307 and 332of Indian Penal Code is hereby set aside. (ii) The conviction and sentence as awarded to appellant Mumtazbegum for the offence punishable under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code is set aside. They are acquitted of the offences as charged. (iii) Appellants Shahinaparveen and Mumtazbegum are on bail. Their bail bonds stand cancelled. (iv) Criminal Appeal No. 139/2009 and Criminal Appeal No. 154/2009 to the extent relating to the conviction of appellants Mohd. Yunus and Mohd. Yasin stands dismissed. (v) Criminal Appeal No. 144/2009 is hereby dismissed."