(Delivered by Hon'ble Akhtar Husain Khan, J.) Accused-appellants Dhyani, Ramesh, Jagan Nath, Maan Singh, Atar Singh, Arjun Singh, Kalia, Sri Ram and Suraj have filed present appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. against judgment and order dated 17.02.1987 passed by Session Judge, Jalaun at Orai in S.T. No. 21 of 1982, State Vs. Dhyani and others, under Sections 147/148/302/149/323/149 I.P.C., P.S. Kalpi, District Jalaun; whereby learned Session Judge has convicted accused-appellants Dhyani, Ramesh, Jagan Nath, Maan Singh, Atar Singh and Kaliya for offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C., Section 148 I.P.C. and section 323 read with Section 149 I.P.C. and accused-appellants Sri Ram and Suraj for offences punishable under Sections 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C., under Section 147 I.P.C. and section 323 I.P.C. Learned Session Judge has sentenced accused-appellants Dhyani, Ramesh, Atar Singh, Maan Singh, Kalia, Jagan Nath and Arjun to imprisonment for life for offence under Section 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C., to rigorous imprisonment for 3 years for offence under Section 148 I.P.C. and to rigorous imprisonment for six months for offence under Section 323 read with Section 149 I.P.C. Learned Sessions judge has sentenced accused-appellants Sri Ram and Suraj to life imprisonment for offence under Section 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C. to rigorous imprisonment for two years for offence under Section 147 I.P.C. and to imprisonment for six month for offence under Section 323 I.P.C. Learned Session Judge has directed that all the sentences awarded to all the accused-appellants shall run concurrently. Accused-appellants Ramesh, Jagan Nath, Kalia, Sri Ram and Suraj are reported to be dead. Appeal abated in respect of them. Sri D.P. Singh, senior advocate assisted by Sri S. Narendra, appeared on behalf of surviving accused-appellants Dhyani, Maan Singh, Atar Singh and Arjun. Sri Narendra Kumar Yadav, learned A.G.A. appeared for respondent/State. We have heard the parties and perused the records. According to F.I.R. Ext.Ka-1 in brief prosecution version is that on 22.11.1981 informant has gone to graze cattle in the jungle of Aalampur alongwith Jahar Singh and Sudhar Singh alias Subrati both residents of village Bagholi Police Station Dacor District Jalaun as well as Mauji Lal son of Ram Dayal resident of Mohalla Tarivulla. Said Jahar Singh and Sudhar Singh alias Subrati were brother in laws of informant's brother Munna and had been living with informant for about three years. One Bare Lal had also gone with them. Said Jahar Singh and Sudhar Singh alias Subrati were brother in laws of informant's brother Munna and had been living with informant for about three years. One Bare Lal had also gone with them. At about 4:30 p.m. they were returning with their cattle. Their cattle began to drink water in the bhaisa nala. Cattle of accused Dhyani, Ramesh, Jagan Nath and Man Singh were also drinking water in the said nala. Accused Ramesh, Jagan Nath and Dhyani abused and asked informant and persons accompanying him as to how they have mixed their cattle in their cattle. Complainant forbade abusing and told them that he is separating his cattle. At this juncture accused Dhyani who was armed with Kulhadi exhorted loudly to kill informant and persons accompanying him, whereupon accused Ramesh armed with Kanta, accused Maan Singh armed with Ballam, accused Jagan Nath armed with Kanta, accused Atar Singh armed with Kulhadi, accused Arjun Singh armed with Kanta, accused Kalia armed with Kanta, accused Sri Ram and Suraj armed with Lathi came on the spot and all of them started assaulting with their respective weapons. Informant Chaturbhuj suffered a blow of lathi. He ran away alongwith Badey Lal. Accused-appellants chased them. Informant Chaturbhuj and Badey Lal raised alarm, whereupon Devi Prasad s/o Sohan Lal and Ram Sewak s/o Prahlad residents of Mohalla Tarivulla and several other persons rushed to the spot giving assurance that they are reaching, whereupon all the aforesaid accused ran away towards forest. Jahar Singh, Sudhar Singh @ Subrati and Mauji Lal suffered injuries in the occurrence and all of them succumbed to injuries on spot. After occurrence complainant Chaturbhuj get F.I.R. Exhibit Ka.01 written by Ram Singh and signed it. Thereafter he presented report Exhibit Ka.01 in Police Station Kalpi on 22.11.1981 at about 17:45 p.m. whereupon Crime No. 182, under Sections 147/148/149/323/302 I.P.C. was registered in Police Station Kalpi against accused Dhyani, Ramesh, Jagan Nath, Maan Singh, Atar Singh, Arjun Singh, Kalia, Sri Ram and Suraj and investigation was started by police. Inquest reports of deceased Jahar Singh, Sudhar Singh @ Subrati and Mauji Lal were prepared and after having completed necessary formalities their dead bodies were sent for post mortem in sealed cover. Inquest reports of deceased Jahar Singh, Sudhar Singh @ Subrati and Mauji Lal were prepared and after having completed necessary formalities their dead bodies were sent for post mortem in sealed cover. Later on, investigation was completed by police in accordance with law and after having completed investigation police submitted charge sheet against accused-appellants for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 302 I.P.C., whereupon concerned Magistrate took cognizance and after compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C. committed the case to the Court of Session for Trial of all accused. Thereafter, Session Trial No. 21 of 1982, State Vs. Dhyani and Others, under Section 147/148/302/149/323/149 I.P.C., P.S. Kalpi was registered in the Session Court of District Jalaun at Orai. Learned IIIrd Additional Session Judge, Jalaun at Orai framed charges against accused-appellants Dhyani, Ramesh, Jagan Nath, Maan Singh, Atar Singh, Arjun Singh, Kalia for offences punishable under Sections 148, 302 and 323 read with Section 149 I.P.C. whereas he framed charges against accused-appellants Sri Ram and Suraj for offences punishable under Section 147, 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C. and under Section 323 read with Section 149 I.P.C. All the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Prosecution examined PW1 complainant Chaturbhuj, PW2 Dr. S.K. Misra, PW3 Ram Sewak, PW4 Rajendra Singh Yadav, PW5 H.C. Ranwant Singh, PW6 Dr. H.N. Mehta, PW7 S.I. B.D. Bhartiya and PW8 Dhruv Lal Yadav. After prosecution evidence statement of accused-appellants were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. all the accused stated that they have been falsely implicated. DW1 Mohammad Anwar was examined on behalf of accused-appellants in defence. Documentary evidence was also filed on behalf of accused-appellants in defence. Learned Session Judge heard the argument of the parties and passed impugned judgement and order dated 17.02.1987, whereby he has convicted and sentenced accused-appellants as mentioned above. Learned counsel for accused appellants contended that appellants are innocent and have been falsely implicated due to animosity. Learned counsel for accused appellants contended that F.I.R. is anti-time and whole story of prosecution is concocted. Learned counsel for accused appellants contended that out of eight witnesses examined by prosecution P.W.-1 complainant Chaturbhuj and P.W.-3 Ram Sewak are alleged to be witnesses of facts and occurrence but these witnesses are planted witnesses and their testimonies may not be relied. Learned counsel for accused appellants contended that F.I.R. is anti-time and whole story of prosecution is concocted. Learned counsel for accused appellants contended that out of eight witnesses examined by prosecution P.W.-1 complainant Chaturbhuj and P.W.-3 Ram Sewak are alleged to be witnesses of facts and occurrence but these witnesses are planted witnesses and their testimonies may not be relied. Learned counsel for accused appellants contended that the injury as well as injury report of P.W.-1 complainant Chaturbhuj is false and has been fabricated for strengthening the case of prosecution. Learned counsel for accused appellants contended that P.W.-3 Ram Sewak is a pocket witness of police. Learned counsel for accused appellants contended that there are material contradictions in statements of P.W.-1 complainant Chaturbhuj and P.W.-3 Ram Sewak. Learned counsel for accused appellants contended that deceased Jahar Singh, Subrati and Mauji Lal have been killed by persons hired by Lodhi of Bagauli and Ram Narain Dhobi. Learned counsel for accused appellants contended that evidence record is not sufficient to convict accused appellants. The conviction recorded by trial court against all accused appellants is against evidence as well as law. Learned counsel for accused appellants prayed that the appeal should be allowed and all accused appellants should be acquitted from all charges levelled against them. Learned counsel for accused appellants further contended that on the facts alleged by prosecution, Exception 4 of section 300 I.P.C. is applicable and in any case accused appellants may not be convicted for offence punishable under section 302 I.P.C.. Learned A.G.A. contended that evidence on record is sufficient to hold accused appellants guilty. He further contended that the conviction recorded by trial court is based on evidence. There is no sufficient ground to justify interference in impugned judgement and order passed by trial court. Learned A.G.A. contended that appeal has no merit and should be dismissed. We have considered the submissions made by the parties. Out of eight witnesses examined by prosecution P.W.-1 complainant Chaturbhuj and P.W.-3 Ram Sewak are witnesses of fact and occurrence. They have supported the occurrence narrated by prosecution in F.I.R. Ext.Ka-1. P.W.-1 complainant Chaturbhuj has proved First Information Report Ext.Ka-1 also in his statement. P.W.-4 Rajendra Singh Yadav has stated on oath that police has recovered Kanta and Ballam on the pointing out of accused appellant Ramesh. He has proved recovery memo of said Kanta and Ballam Ext. They have supported the occurrence narrated by prosecution in F.I.R. Ext.Ka-1. P.W.-1 complainant Chaturbhuj has proved First Information Report Ext.Ka-1 also in his statement. P.W.-4 Rajendra Singh Yadav has stated on oath that police has recovered Kanta and Ballam on the pointing out of accused appellant Ramesh. He has proved recovery memo of said Kanta and Ballam Ext. Ka-38 as well as said Ballam and Pharsa material Ext.-14 and 15. P.W.-2 Dr. S.K. Misra has stated on oath that on 23.11.1981 he was posted as Orthopedic Surgeon at District Hospital Urai. He has stated that on that day at 3.20 p.m he conducted post mortem of deceased Subrati son of Surey aged about 30 years resident of village Baghauli, P.S. Dakor, District Jalaun, whose dead body was brought by Constable C.P. 44 Ram Shanker and C.P. 155 Rihanul Haq of P.S. Kalpi. P.W.-2 Dr. S.K. Misra has proved post mortem report of deceased Subrati Ext.Ka-2. He has further proved his signatures on letter to R.I., inquest report of deceased Subrati, photo nash of deceased Subrati, challan nash of deceased Subrati, specimen seal, report for post mortem, report for taking cloths of deceased Subrati, copy of chik F.I.R. and copy of G.D. also in his statement. Trial court has marked exhibits Ka-3 to Ka-11 on said signatures. Dr. S.K. Misra has stated in his statement on oath that on the same day at 4.15 p.m. he conducted post mortem of deceased Mauji Lal son of Ramdayal Yadav resident of Mohalla Tarravulla, Kalpi Town, District Jalaun, whose dead body was brought by above two constables. P.W.-2 Dr. S.K. Misra has proved post mortem report of deceased Mauji Lal Ext.Ka-12. He has further proved his signatures on letter to R.I., inquest report of deceased Mauji Lal, photo nash of deceased Mauji Lal, challan nash of deceased Mauji Lal, specimen seal, copy of F.I.R., copy of G.D., report for post mortem and report of cloths also in his statement. Trial court has marked Exhibits Ka-13 to Ka-22 on said signatures. P.W.-2 Dr.S.K. Misra has stated in his statement that on the same day i.e. 23.11.1981 he conducted post mortem of deceased Jahar Singh son of Sure aged about 28 years resident of Mohalla Raoganj, Kalpi Town, District Jalaun whose dead body was also brought by above two constables. Dr. S.K. Misra has proved post mortem report of deceased Jahar Singh Ext.Ka-23 in his statement. Dr. S.K. Misra has proved post mortem report of deceased Jahar Singh Ext.Ka-23 in his statement. He has further proved his signatures on report for post mortem, letter for cloths of deceased Jahar Singh, letter to R.I., inquest report of deceased Jahar Singh, photo nash of deceased Jahar Singh, challan nash, specimen seal, copy of F.I.R. and copy of G.D. also. Trial court has marked Exhibits Ka-24 to .Ka-33 on said signatures.. P.W.-5 H.C. Ranwant Singh has stated on oath that on 22.11.1981 he was posted as Head Moharrir in PS. Kalpi, District Jalaun. He has stated that he has prepared chik F.I.R. Ext.Ka.-35 on the basis of written report of P.W.-1 complainant Chaturbhuj Ext.Ka-1. He has stated in his statement that on the same day at 17.45 p.m. he made entry of registration of crime in G.D. He has proved copy of G.D. relating to registration of crime Ext.Ka-36 also in his statement. P.W.-5 H.C. Ranwant Singh has proved in his statement copy of G.D. Ext.Ka-37 regarding entry of seven sealed bundles. P.W.-5 H.C. Ranwant Singh has stated in his statement that at 00.30 in night he had made entry in G.D. regarding entry of accused appellants Dhyani, Ramesh, Jagan Nath and Atar Singh as well as two sealed bundles of Pharsa and Ballam in P.S. He has proved copy of said G.D. Ext.Ka.-38. P.W.-6 Dr. H.N. Mehta has stated in his statement on oath that on 22.11.1981 he was posted in Chirgaon Hospital Kalpi. He has stated that on that day at 7.20 p.m. he conducted medical examination of P.W.-1 complainant Chaturbhuj. He has proved in his statemnet injuries of P.W.-1 complainant Chaturbhuj as well as his injury report Ext.Ka.-39. PW.-6 Dr. H.N. Mehta has stated in his statement that the injuries of Chaturbhuj were fresh at the time of examination and his injuries may be caused on 22.11.1981 at about 4.30 p.m.. PW.-7 S.I. B.D. Bhartiya has stated in his statement that on 22.11.1981 he was posted as Sub Inspector in P.S. Kalpi. On that day he went with S.I. Dhruv Lal Yadav and constables to the place of occurrence. He has stated that he has prepared inquest report of deceased Mauji Lal, deceased Subrati and deceased Jahar Singh. He has proved inquest report of deceased Mauji Lal Ext.Ka-40, inquest report of deceased Subrati Ext.Ka-46 and inquest report of deceased Jahar Singh Ext.Ka-52 in his statement. He has stated that he has prepared inquest report of deceased Mauji Lal, deceased Subrati and deceased Jahar Singh. He has proved inquest report of deceased Mauji Lal Ext.Ka-40, inquest report of deceased Subrati Ext.Ka-46 and inquest report of deceased Jahar Singh Ext.Ka-52 in his statement. He has proved photo nash, challan nash, letter to C.M.O., specimen seal etc. regarding each of said three deceased on which Ext.Ka.-42 to Ext.Ka-45, Ext.Ka-47 to Ext.Ka-51 and Ext.Ka-53 to Ext.Ka-56 have been marked by trial court. P.W.-8 S.I. Dhruv Lal Yadav has stated on oath that on 21.11.1981 he was posted as Station Incharge of P.S. Kalpi. He has stated that on 22.11.1981 at 17.45 p.m. Crime No. 182 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 323 I.P.C. was registered at P.S. Kalpi in his presence. He took investigation in his hands and recorded statement of complainant and scribe of F.I.R. as well as that of chik report Ram Singh and Head Moharrir Raman Singh. Thereafter he started for place of occurrence. Witnesses Ram Sewak and Devi Prasad met him in the way below police station. He enquired with them and went to place of occurrence. PW.-8 S.I. Dhruv Lal Yadav has stated in his statement that he instructed S.I. B.D. Bhartiya for preparing inquest report of deceased Jahar Singh, Subrati and Mauji Lal and himself went in jungle to search accused. P.W.-8 S.I. Dhruv Lal Yadav has stated in his statement that he arrested accused Dhyani, Ramesh, Jagan Nath and Atar Singh. He has further stated that on the pointing out of accused Ramesh one Pharsa and one Ballam was recovered from the bush near Barkhandi Devi Mandir. He has proved recovery memo of said weapons Ext.Ka-34. He has stated that he came back to police station and entered said accused as well as recovered weapons in police station Kalpi. He has further stated that G.D. regarding entry of said accused and weapons were written by H.C. Ranwant Singh on his dictation. P.W.-8 S.I. Dhruv Lal Yadav has stated in his statement that next day he visited place of occurrence and inspected place of occurrence. He has proved site plan of place of occurrence Ext.Ka-61 and has stated that after having completed investigation he submitted charge sheet Ext.Ka-62. D.W.-1 Mohd. Anwar has stated in his statement that he is Tax Clerk in Nagar Palika Kalpi. He has proved site plan of place of occurrence Ext.Ka-61 and has stated that after having completed investigation he submitted charge sheet Ext.Ka-62. D.W.-1 Mohd. Anwar has stated in his statement that he is Tax Clerk in Nagar Palika Kalpi. He has stated in his statement that he has brought with him tax assessment register of years 1972-73 to 1985-86. There is no house either in the name of Ram Sewak son of Prahlad or Chhote son of Prahlad. We have examined the evidence adduced by parties carefully. The defence has given suggestion to P.W.-1 complainant Chaturbhuj in cross examination that deceased Jahar Singh, Subrati and Mauji Lal have been killed by hired persons of Lodhi of Badhauli and Ram Narain Dhobi. Defence has further given suggestion to P.W.-1 complainant Chaturbhuj that he has not seen the occurrence and said deceased have not been killed by accused appellants. P.W.-1 complainant Chaturbhuj has negatived all the aforesaid suggestions of defence. Defence has given suggestion to P.W.-3 Ram Sewak in cross-examination that at the place of occurrence there is neither his field nor field of witness Devi Dayal. Defence has given further suggestion to him that he has not seen occurrence. P.W.-3 Ram Sewak has also negatived aforesaid suggestions of defence. It is apparent from suggestions given by defence to P.W.-1 complainant Chaturbhuj and P.W.-3 Ram Sewak as well as statements of accused recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. that there is no dispute regarding place of occurrence. Post mortem reports of deceased Subrati, deceased Mauji Lal and deceased Jahar Singh Ext.Ka-2, Ext.Ka-12 and Ext.Ka-23 shows that post mortem of these three deceased have been conducted on 23.11.1981 at 3.20 p.m., 4.15 p.m. and 2.30 p.m. respectively and time of death has been noted about one day. P.W.-2 Dr. S.K. Misra has stated in cross examination that the death of said three deceased may occur on 22.11.1981 from 10.30 a.m. to 10.30 p.m.. No counter version of occurrence has been given by defence and P.W.-1 complainant Chaturbhuj and P.W.-3 Ram Sewak have fully supported the version of F.I.R. Ext.Ka-1, therefore, we are of the view that time of occurrence alleged by prosecution is fully proved and is corroborated by post mortem report of said three deceased as well as statement of P.W.-2 Dr. S.K.Misra. S.K.Misra. According to chik F.I.R. Ext.Ka-7 and G.D. relating to registration of crime Ext.Ka-8 as well as statement of P.W.-5 H.C. Ranwant Singh, First Information Report Ext.Ka-1 has been presented by P.W.-1 complainant Chaturbhuj at police station Kalpi at 17.45 p.m., chik F.I.R. Ext.Ka-7 has been written at the same time and Crime No. 182 under Sections 147,148,149,323,302 I.P.C. has been registered in P.S.Kalpi against accused appellants at the same time. P.W.-8 S.I. Dhruv Lal Yadav, Investigating Officer has also stated in his statement on oath that on 22.11.1981 at 17.45 p.m. Crime was registered in P.S. Kalpi in his presence on the report of P.W.-1 complainant Chaturbhuj. P.W.-8 S.I. Dhruv Lal Yadav has stated in his statement that he recorded statement of P.W.-1 complainant Chaturbhuj at the same time under section 161 Cr.P.C.. Inquest report of deceased Subrati @ Sudhar Singh Ext.Ka-46, inquest report of deceased Mauji Lal Ext.Ka-40 and inquest report of deceased Jahar Singh Ext.Ka-52 show that inquest report of said three deceased have been prepared on 22.11.1981 at 20.15 p.m., 19.15 p.m. and 19.45 p.m. in which Crime No.182 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 302 I.P.C. has been written and copy of chik F.I.R. has been annexed with every inquest report. It is apparent from the statement of P.W.-2 Dr. S.K. Misra that post mortem of said three deceased has been conducted by him on 23.11.1981 from 2.30 p.m. to 4.15 p.m.. Statement of P.W.-2 Dr. S.K. Misra shows that copy of chik F.I.R. had been sent to him alongwith inquest report and dead body of each deceased and he had signed the copies of chik F.I.R.. Thus, considering the evidence and materials available on record, we are of the view that prosecution has fully established that First Information Report had been lodged on 22.11.1981 at 17.45 p.m. in P.S. Kalpi. Occurrence is alleged to have taken place on 22.11.1981 at 4.30 p.m. and distance of police station from place of occurrence is about 2 Kms. as is apparent from chik F.I.R. Ext.Ka-7. Thus, it is apparent that First Information Report Ext.Ka-1 had been presented by P.W.-1 complainant Chaturbhuj in P.S. Kalpi promptly within 1.15 hour of occurrence. Considering above facts and circumstances, we are of the view that there is no sufficient ground to hold F.I.R. anti time. Promptness of F.I.R. adds reliability in the version of prosecution. Thus, it is apparent that First Information Report Ext.Ka-1 had been presented by P.W.-1 complainant Chaturbhuj in P.S. Kalpi promptly within 1.15 hour of occurrence. Considering above facts and circumstances, we are of the view that there is no sufficient ground to hold F.I.R. anti time. Promptness of F.I.R. adds reliability in the version of prosecution. It is apparent from the statement of P.W.-8 Investigating Officer S.I. Dhruv Lal Yadav that at the time of registration of crime on 22.11.1981 at 17.45 p.m., he was present at P.S. Kalpi and at the same time he has recorded statement of P.W.-1 complainant Chaturbhuj. G.D. relating to registration of crime Ext.Ka-36 shows that entry of injuries of complainant Chaturbhuj has been made in G.D. relating to registration of crime. P.W.-1 complainant Chaturbhuj has stated in his statement on oath that accused Sri Ram assaulted him with lathi. He has stated that he was brought by police for medical examination and his injury was examined by doctor in Kalpi Hospital. Statement of P.W.-6 Dr.H.N. Mehta as well as injury report of P.W.-1 complainant Chaturbhuj Ext.Ka.-39 shows that his medical examination was conducted by P.W.-6 Dr. H.N. Mehta on 22.11.1981 at 7.20 p.m. and a lacerated wound and a linear scratch were found on his body. He was making complaint of pain on chest also. According to statement of P.W.-6 Dr. H.N. Mehta as well as injury report of P.W.-1 complainant Chaturbhuj Ext.Ka-39 it is apparent that the injuries of P.W.-1 complainant Chaturbhuj were found fresh at the time of occurrence. Thus, statement of P.W.-6 Dr. H.N. Mehta and injury report of P.W.-1 complainant Chaturbhuj Ext.Ka-39 show that the injuries found on the body of P.W.-1 complainant Chaturbhuj might have been caused at the time of occurrence alleged by prosectuion. It is also relevant to mention that occurrence is alleged to have taken place on 22.11.1981 at 4.30 p.m.. F.I.R. has been lodged by P.W.-1 complainant Chaturbhuj on the same day at 17.45 p.m.. Thereafter he has been sent for medical examination by police and his medical examination has been conducted at 7.20 p.m.. Thus, medical examination of P.W.-1 complainant Chaturbhuj is also very prompt. Promptness of medical examination of P.W.-1 complainant Chaturbhuj as well as entry of his injuries in G.D. relating to registration of crime Ext.Ka-36 removes possibility of fabrication. Thereafter he has been sent for medical examination by police and his medical examination has been conducted at 7.20 p.m.. Thus, medical examination of P.W.-1 complainant Chaturbhuj is also very prompt. Promptness of medical examination of P.W.-1 complainant Chaturbhuj as well as entry of his injuries in G.D. relating to registration of crime Ext.Ka-36 removes possibility of fabrication. It is relevant to mention that in cross examination of P.W.-3 Ram Sewak on page 48 (page 71 of paper book) defence has given suggestion that some one has caused injury to P.W.-1 complainant Chaturbhuj by throwing stone. This suggestion given by defence to P.W.-3 Ram Sewak shows that it is admitted by defence that P.W.-1 complainant Chaturbhuj has suffered injury at the time of occurrence. In view of discussion made above, we are of the view that P.W.-1 complainant Chaturbhuj has suffered injuries at the time of occurrence and is an injured witness. His presence at the time of occurrence may not be denied. P.W.-3 Ram Sewak has stated in his statement that he had taken field of Devi Prasad on batai where he was prsent at the time of occurrence. P.W.-3 Ram Sewak has stated in cross examination at page 37 (page 60 of paper book) that he is resident of village Mawai. Some time he lives in Mawai and some time he lives in Kalpi. He has stated on the same page in cross examination that in Kalpi there is his own house which is situated in Mohalla Tarivulla and is in the name of his elder brother. D.W.-1 Mohd Ahmad, Tax Clerk of Nagar Palika Kalpi who has been examined by defence has stated in cross examination that the tax register which he has brought with him is related to Mohalla Hari Buddha. Thus, on the basis of statement of D.W.-1 and tax register brought by him it cannot be said that there is no house in the name of elder brother of P.W.-3 Ram Sewak in Mohalla Tarivulla. As mentioned above P.W.-3 has stated that he has taken field of Devi Prasad on batai and at the time of occurrence he was in the said field of Devi Prasad. In site plan Ext.Ka-61 I.O. has shown field of Devi Prasad near place of occurrence. As mentioned above P.W.-3 has stated that he has taken field of Devi Prasad on batai and at the time of occurrence he was in the said field of Devi Prasad. In site plan Ext.Ka-61 I.O. has shown field of Devi Prasad near place of occurrence. Defence has suggested P.W.-3 Ram Sewak in cross examination that there is neither field of P.W.-3 Ram Sewak nor that of Devi Prasad at the place of occurrence. This suggestion of defence has been negatived by P.W.-3 Ram Sewak. Learned counsel for accused appellants has drawn our attention to the fact that I.O. P.W.-8 S.I. Dhruv Lal Yadav has admitted in cross examination made by defence that P.W.-3 Ram Sewak had not stated before him that he had taken field of Devi Prasad on batai. We have considered submission of learned counsel for accused appellants. P.W.-3 Ram Sewak is a witness named in F.I.R. Ext.Ka-1 and as concluded above F.I.R. is very prompt. P.W.-1 complainant Chaturbhuj has stated in his statement of oath that on his raising alarm witnesses Devi Prasad and Ram Sewak came. P.W.-3 Ram Sewak has also stated in his statement on oath that having heard the noise he went to the place of occurrence and saw occurrence. Thus, it is apparent from F.I.R. to statements of witnesses on oath before trial court that P.W.-3 Ram Sewak is an eye witness of occurrence and he had come on spot. Therefore, merely on the ground that P.W.-3 Ram Sewak did not state before I.O. in his statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. that he was in the field of Devi Prasad at the time of occurrence, presence of P.W.-3 Ram Sewak may not be denied at the time of occurrence. I.O. has not asked him as to where he was and how he came on the spot.Therefore, it is fault of I.O. and on this ground no adverse inference may be drawn against P.W.-3 Ram Sewak. As mentioned above, I.O. has shown field of Devi Prasad near place of occurrence and the defence has not examined any one to prove that Devi Prasad has not given his field to P.W.-3 Ram Sewak on batai, therefore, considering the evidence on record, we are of the view that there is no sufficient ground to disbelieve statement on oath made by P.W.-3 Ram Sewak that he had taken field of Devi Prasad on batai. In view of discussion made above, we are of the view that presence of P.W.-3 Ram Sewak at the time of occurrence is highly reliable. We have perused the entire statements of both witnesses of occurrence P.W.-1 complainant Chaturbhuj and P.W.-3 Ram Sewak. We are of the view that there is no material contradictions in their statements regarding occurrence. The facts mentioned shows that three persons have been murdered after having chased, therefore, there must be some variation in description of occurrence given by different persons. In the case of Sampath Kumar Vs. Inspector of Police, Krishnagiri, 2012 (IV) S.C.C. 124 , Hon'ble Apex Court has held that," minor contradictions are bound to appear in the statement of truthful witnesses as memory sometimes plays false, sense of observation differs from person to person." In the case of State of U.P. Vs. Krishna Master & others; 2010 Cri. L.J. 3889 (SC), Hon'ble Apex Court has held that," The prosecution evidence may suffer from inconsistencies here and discrepancies there, but that is a shortcoming from which no criminal case is free. The main thing to be seen is whether those inconsistencies go to the root of the matter or pertain to insifnificant aspects thereof." In the case of State of U.P. Vs. Krishna Master & others (supra) Hon'ble Apex Court has further held that," the basic principle of appreciation of evidence of a rustic witness who is not educated and comes from a poor strata of society is that the evidence of such a witness should be appreciated as a whole." In the case of Faquira Vs. State of U.P., A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 915, Hon'ble Apex Court has held that," minor discrepancy guarantees that witnesses are not tutored." In view of above pronouncements of Hon'ble Apex Court we are of the view that there is no sufficient ground to disbelieve P.W.-1 complainant Chaturbhuj and P.W.-3 Ram Sewak on the ground of alleged contradictions.. Occurrence is alleged to have taken place on 22.11.1981 and the statement of P.W.-1 complainant Chaturbhuj has been recorded before trial court on 23.9.1983 and thereafter cross-examination has been completed on 4.5.1984. Statement of P.W.-3 Ram Sewak has been recorded on 26.9.1984 and his cross-examination has been completed on 11.3.1985. Occurrence is alleged to have taken place on 22.11.1981 and the statement of P.W.-1 complainant Chaturbhuj has been recorded before trial court on 23.9.1983 and thereafter cross-examination has been completed on 4.5.1984. Statement of P.W.-3 Ram Sewak has been recorded on 26.9.1984 and his cross-examination has been completed on 11.3.1985. Thus, it is apparent that statements of these witnesses have been recorded after two years of occurrence and cross examination has been made in various shifts for a long period, therefore, it is natural to occur some contradiction in their statements due to erasion of memory and manner of expression. Learned counsel for accused appellants has drawn our attention to certain facts which were not stated by witnesses in their statements recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C.. But in our opinion, it is neither improvement nor embellishment. The witnesses were not examined by I.O. on certain facts. But they have given detailed reply on those facts when they were asked regarding those facts before trial court. Therefore, their statements may not be discarded on this ground. P.W.-1 complainant Chaturbhuj and P.W.-3 Ram Sewak have fully supported on oath the occurrence narrated in F.I.R. Ext.Ka-1. Both of them have stated on oath that accused appellants Dhyani and Atar Singh had Kulhadis, accused Maan Singh had Ballam, accused Ramesh, Jagan Nath, Kalia and Arjun had Kantas and accused Sri Ram and Suraj had lathies. Statement of P.W.-2 Dr. S.K. Misra as well as post mortem report Ext.Ka-2 of deceased Subrati shows that he had six ante mortem injuries and his all ante mortem injuries were incised wounds. Post mortem report of deceased Mauji Lal Ext.Ka-12 as well as statement of P.W.-2 Dr. S.K. Misra shows that deceased Mauji Lal had 14 ante mortem injuries on his body. Out of which 8 injuries were incised wound, 2 injuries were stabed wound, 2 injuries were contusion and two injuries were abraided contusion. Post mortem report of deceased Jahar Singh Ext.Ka.23 as well as statement of P.W.-2 Dr. S.K. Misra shows that 11 ante mortem injuries were found on the dead body of deceased Jahar Singh. Out of which six injuries were incised wound and 5 injuries were stabbed wound. Kulhadi and Kanta are sharp edged weapons and incised wound may be caused by these weapons while Ballam is a pointed weapon and stabed wound may be caused by Ballam. Out of which six injuries were incised wound and 5 injuries were stabbed wound. Kulhadi and Kanta are sharp edged weapons and incised wound may be caused by these weapons while Ballam is a pointed weapon and stabed wound may be caused by Ballam. Lathi is a blunt object and contusion may be caused by lathies. The weapons assigned to accused appellants as mentioned above are Kulhadi, Kanta, Ballam and lathies and the injuries found on the dead body of said three deceased may be caused by said weapons. It is apparent from F.I.R. Ext.Ka-1 as well as statements of P.W.-1 complainant Chaturbhuj and P.W.-3 Ram Sewak that all the accused participated in the occurrence with their respective weapons. Thus, we are of the view that the version of F.I.R. as well as statements of P.W.-1 complainant Chaturbhuj and P.W.-3 Ram Sewak are corroborated by post mortem report Ext.Ka-2, Ext.Ka-12 and Ext.Ka-23 as well as statement of P.W.-2 Dr. S.K. Misra. As narrated above injuries of P.W.-1 complainant Chaturbhuj is proved. Thus, we are of the view that prosecution version is fully supported by medical evidence also. There is no evidence on record to show that the said three deceased had been killed by persons hired by Lodhi of Bhagauli and Ram Narain Lodhi. It appears quite unnatural to believe that the said three deceased had been killed by some other persons and accused appellants have been falsely implicated. Documents filed on behalf of accused appellants in defence shows that the relation between the parties viz. accused appellants on one side and victims and witnesses on other side were restrained. Enmity is double edged weapon where it may be cause of false implication, it shall be strong motive for occurrence also. In the case of Dharmaveer Vs. State of U.P. reported in A.I.R. 2010 S.C. 1378, Hon'ble Apex Court has held,"The evidence of an eye witness cannot be rejected only on the ground that enmity exists between the parties." In view of this pronouncement of Hon'ble Apex Court as well as discussion made above, the statements of P.W.-1 complainant Chaturbhuj and P.W.-3 Ram Sewak may not be disbelieved on the ground of enmity. P.W.-1 complainant Chaturbhuj has stated in his examination in chief itself that deceased Jahar and Subrati were brother in laws of his brother Munna. P.W.-1 complainant Chaturbhuj has stated in his examination in chief itself that deceased Jahar and Subrati were brother in laws of his brother Munna. P.W.-1 complainant Chaturbhuj has stated in cross examination at page 5 (page 28 of paper book) that sister of P.W.-3 Ram Sewak has been married with Toti son of Hori Lal who is cousin brother of deceased Mauji Lal. Thus, it is apparent from the statement of P.W.-1 complainant Chaturbhuj that he is related to deceased Jahar Singh and Subrati and P.W.-3 Ram Sewak is related to deceased Mauji Lal, but Hon'ble Apex Court has consistently held that testimony of witnesses may not be discarded merely on the ground of relationship. For reference following pronouncements of Hon'ble Apex Court may be cited:- 1- Vithal Vs. State of Maharashtra (2008) 1 SCC Crl. 91, 2- State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Masta Ram (2004) 8 SCC 660 , 3- Kapildeo Mandal & others Vs. State of Bihar; AIR 2008 SC 533 , At this juncture it is relevant to mention that no independent person shall dare to take risk of enmity by appearing in witness box against any person in such heinous crime. In view of discussion made and conclusion drawn above, we are of the view that F.I.R. is prompt as well as version of F.I.R. and statements of witnesses of occurrence are fully corroborated by post mortem report, site plan and statements of doctors and I.O., we find no sufficient ground to disbelieve statements of P.W.-1 complainant Chaturbhuj and P.W.-3 Ram Sewak. In the case of Narpal Singh Vs. State of Haryana 1977 Cr.L.J. 642 SC at Page 649, Hon'ble Apex Court held that" If the witnesses examined are believed, the question of inference for non-examination does not arise." Immediate cause of occurrence has been alleged in F.I.R. Ext.Ka-1 and has been supported by P.W.-1 complainant Chaturbhuj and P.W.-3 Ram Sewak. It is apparent from version of F.I.R. as well as statements of P.W.-1 complainant Chaturbhuj and P.W.-3 Ram Sewak that occurrence has taken place in a sudden quarel regarding cattle. It is apparent from version of F.I.R. as well as statements of P.W.-1 complainant Chaturbhuj and P.W.-3 Ram Sewak that occurrence has taken place in a sudden quarel regarding cattle. But it is also apparent from version of F.I.R. and statements of said witnesses that accused appellant Dhyani exhorted remaining accused appellants to eliminate informant's persons, where upon all the accused appellants including deceased appellants formed an unlawful assembly with common object of causing injuries to informant as well as deceased Jahar Singh, Sudhar Singh alias Subrati and Mauji Lal with Kulhari, Ballam, Kanta and Lathi. As mentioned above deceased Jahar Singh was caused six incised wounds and five stabbed wounds. Deceased Mauji Lal was caused 8 incised wounds, two stabbed wounds, two contusion and two abraded contusion and deceased Sudhar Singh alias Subrati was caused six incised wounds. P.W.-2 Dr. S.K. Misra has stated in his statement that ante-mortem injuries found on dead bodies of all the three deceased were sufficient for causing death. After having gone through whole facts and circumstances of the case as well as evidence on record, we are of the view that all accused appellants including deceased appellants have formed unlawful assembly and have made murderous assault on deceased Sudhar Singh alias Subrati, Jahar Singh and Mauji Lal in prosecution of common object of said unlawful assembly with deadly weapons. Therefore, Exception 4 of section 300 I.P.C. is not applicable on the facts of present case. In view of discussion made and conclusion drawn above, after having gone through the entire evidence on record as well as whole facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the evidence on record is sufficient to convict surviving accused appellants Dhyani, Ramesh, Jagan Nath, Arjun and Atar Singh for offences punishable under section 148 I.P.C., 302 I.P.C. read with section 149 I.P.C. and section 323 I.P.C. read with section 149 I.P.C.. Perusal of impugned judgement and order passed by learned trial court shows that learned trial court has gone through the entire evidence on record and has considered all aspects and relevant points for determination. The conclusion drawn and finding recorded by trial court is based on legal and judicious analysis of facts and evidence in the light of various judicial pronouncements of Hon'ble Apex Court as well as of this court. The conclusion drawn and finding recorded by trial court is based on legal and judicious analysis of facts and evidence in the light of various judicial pronouncements of Hon'ble Apex Court as well as of this court. In view of discussion made and conclusion drawn above, we are of the view that the learned trial court has rightly placed reliance on evidence adduced by prosecution to convict accused appellants Dhiyani, Man Singh, Atar Singh and Arjun Singh guilty for offences punishable under section 148 I.P.C., section 302 I.P.C. read with section 149 I.P.C. and section 323 I.P.C. read with section 149 I.P.C.. Sentences awarded by learned trial court are not excessive and no appeal has been filed by State for enhancement of sentence. Therefore, we are of the view that there is no reasonable ground to justify interference in the impugned judgement and order passed by trial court. Appeal has no merit and is liable to be dismissed. Appeal is dismissed accordingly. Accused appellants Dhiyani, Man Singh, Atar Singh and Arjun Singh are on bail. They shall surrender before trial court within 30 days from the date of this judgement for serving sentence awarded to them, failing which trial court shall ensure their arrest and shall send them jail for serving sentence. Let a copy of this judgement be sent to trial court for securing compliance. Send back records of trial court immediately. ——————