Hon'ble CHAUHAN, J.—Convicted and sentenced for offences under Sections 302/149, 307/149, 148, 447 IPC by judgment dated 9.9.2005, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Baran, the appellants have approached this court. For offence under Section 302/149 IPC, the appellants have been imposed with sentence of life imprisonment, imposed with a fine of Rs.1000/- and directed to further undergo four months of simple imprisonment in default thereof. For offence under Section 307/149 IPC, they have been sentenced to four years of rigorous imprisonment, imposed with a fine of Rs.500/-, and directed to undergo two months of simple imprisonment in default thereof. For offence under Section 447 IPC, they have been sentenced to two months of rigorous imprisonment; for offence under Section 148 IPC, they have been sentenced to one year of rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. Briefly, the prosecution case is that on 25.7.2004, at 2.30 PM, Ram Gopal (P.W. 4) gave a written report (Ex.P. 4) to ASI, Udai Raj Singh (P.W.22), at the Government Hospital, Baran. According to him, “around 1.00 PM while he was looking after his field, Ranjeet, Chetan, Mahendra, Ramlal, Shantilal and Shiv Kumar, came into his field, armed with sharp edged weapons. They started assaulting him. Although he tried to run away, they surrounded him and assaulted him. Due to the assault, he received grievous injuries on his hand, feet and head. His younger brother, Badri Lal, rushed to his rescue. These persons also assaulted him. He received grievous injuries on his hand, feet, waist, and head. Mangilal, Birdhi Lal, Ram Bharosi also rushed to save him. The accused persons ran away. He and his brother have been admitted in the Baran Hospital.” 3. Udai Raj (P.W.22) presented the said written report before the SHO, Police Station Kotwali, Baran. On the basis of the said written report, a formal FIR (Ex.P. 26) was chalked out for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 341, 447 IPC. However, with the death of Badri Lal at M.B.S. Hospital, Kota, the offence under Section 302 IPC was added. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined twenty-five witnesses and submitted thirty-nine documents. After recording the statement of the appellants under Section 313 Cr. P. C., the defense examined a single witness and submitted five documents. However, with the death of Badri Lal at M.B.S. Hospital, Kota, the offence under Section 302 IPC was added. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined twenty-five witnesses and submitted thirty-nine documents. After recording the statement of the appellants under Section 313 Cr. P. C., the defense examined a single witness and submitted five documents. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, by judgment dated 9.9.2007, the learned Judge convicted and sentenced the appellants, as aforementioned. Hence, this appeal before this court. 5. Mr. A.K. Gupta, the learned counsel for the appellants, has raised the following contentions before this court: firstly, the prosecution has not approached the court with clean hands. Although the prosecution claims that the FIR was chalked on the basis of the written report (Ex.P.4) given by Ram Gopal (P.W.4), but Mangilal (P.W.10) admits in his cross-examination that he and Ram Bharosi had taken Badri first to the police station. At that time, Badri was in a position to speak. They submitted a report at the police station. However, the prosecution has withheld the report submitted by Badri Lal and substituted it with a formal FIR (Ex. P. 26) allegedly based on the written report (Ex. P. 4) submitted by Ram Gopal (P.W.4). 6. Secondly, the written report (Ex.P.4) is an unreliable one as Ram Gopal (P.W.4) has clearly admitted in his cross-examination that he does not remember to whom he had dictated the report, who has written this report, to whom he had given this report. Furthermore, according to him, Maina (P.W.19) was not present in the hospital when he had given the report. According to him, Maina (P.W.19) had merely told him the names of assailants at home. On the basis of her information, he had given their names. Thus, the written report loses all its importance. 7. Thirdly, there is not only delay in the lodging of the FIR, but there is also interpolation in the FIR. These two factors cast doubt on the veracity of the prosecution story. Since the very foundation of the prosecution case is weak, the prosecution case cannot withstand legal scrutiny. 8. Fourthly, the prosecution has tried to produce a large number of eyewitnesses, namely Ram Bharose (P.W.3), Mangilal (P.W.10), Latoori Bai (P.W.15), Birdhi Lal (P.W.18), Maina (P.W.19). These two factors cast doubt on the veracity of the prosecution story. Since the very foundation of the prosecution case is weak, the prosecution case cannot withstand legal scrutiny. 8. Fourthly, the prosecution has tried to produce a large number of eyewitnesses, namely Ram Bharose (P.W.3), Mangilal (P.W.10), Latoori Bai (P.W.15), Birdhi Lal (P.W.18), Maina (P.W.19). However, while Ram Bharosi (P.W.3) has turned hostile, Mangilal (P.W.10), Latoori Bai (P.W.15), Birdhi Lal (P.W.18) and Maina (P.W.19) are all related to Ram Gopal (P.W.4) and the deceased. Therefore, they are interested witnesses. Moreover, in their cross-examination, Mangilal (P.W.10), and Birdhi Lal (P.W.18) have clearly admitted that they had reached the place of occurrence after the incident was over. Hence, they are not eyewitnesses of the incident. 9. Fifthly, the entire case, in fact, is based on the testimony of the sole eyewitness Ram Gopal (P.W.4). However, he is an unreliable witness. For, there are major contradictions in his testimonies. Therefore, the conviction could not have been based on the testimony of an untrustworthy sole eyewitness. 10. Sixthly, although the prosecution has also tried to connect the appellants to the alleged crime on the basis of recoveries made from the appellants, but even these recoveries are suspect: firstly, the recovery witness, Dhanraj (PW16), has turned hostile and has not supported the prosecution. The other independent witness, Jamna Lal (PW14) has clearly stated that police had only brought Ramlal when the recovery was made. None of the other accused persons were present at that time. Further, according to him, the weapons recovered from these appellants were brought by their children. Moreover, according to the FSL Report, the sharp edged weapon, namely the Khutia (a small axe) and the Kulhadi (a big axe), did not show any human blood on them. Further, the sticks recovered from Mahendra, Ramlal and Shiv Kumar @ Sheoji and Shanti Lal were never even sent to the FSL for its report. Therefore, these recoveries do not connect the appellants to the alleged crime. 11. Seventhly, there is contradiction in the testimonies of the medical doctors, namely Dr. Brijesh Goyal (P.W.12) and Dr. Yogesh Sharma (P.W.21). While according to Badri Lal’s the injury report (Ex.P.7) only six injuries were found on him, according to the Post-Mortem Report (Ex.P.25), eight injuries were found on him. Moreover, Dr. 11. Seventhly, there is contradiction in the testimonies of the medical doctors, namely Dr. Brijesh Goyal (P.W.12) and Dr. Yogesh Sharma (P.W.21). While according to Badri Lal’s the injury report (Ex.P.7) only six injuries were found on him, according to the Post-Mortem Report (Ex.P.25), eight injuries were found on him. Moreover, Dr. Yogesh Sharm (P.W.21) has clearly stated in his cross-examination that in case proper medical treatment were given to Badri Lal, he could have been saved. Therefore, it is not a case of murder. 12. Lastly, it is a case of false implication as there was animosity between the complainant and the accused-appellants. According to Ram Gopal (P.W.4), the appellants wanted a lay plastic pipes through the field of his nephew, Champalal. Ram Gopal was looking after his fields. Therefore, he had objected to the appellants’ taking the plastic pipes through his fields. Due to this animosity, Ram Gopal has falsely implicated the appellants all of whom belong to the same family. 13. On the other hand, Mr. N.S. Dhakar, the learned Public Prosecutor, has submitted the following pleas before this court: firstly, the written report (Ex.P.4) submitted by Ram Gopal is the first information given to the police with regard to the incident. For, Ram Bharose (P.W.3) has explained in his cross-examination that when Badri Lal and he went to the police station, the policeman asked them to write down the report. However, as they are illiterate persons, they could not write a report. Hence, no written report was submitted before the police. Therefore, the prosecution has not hidden any first information report lodged by Badri Lal from the court. 14. Secondly, while appreciating the testimony of a witness, his psychological condition has to be appreciated by the court. Even if Ram Gopal (P.W.4) has admitted in his cross-examination that at the time of giving the written report, he merely wrote the names of those persons whose names were given by Maina (P.W.19), even this statement would not be fatal to the veracity of the FIR. Since Ram Gopal and the appellants belong to the same village, they are known to each-other, and since Ram Gopal is an injured witness, he certainly would have known the names of the assailants. Moreover, the purpose of a FIR is merely to trigger off the criminal investigation. Since Ram Gopal and the appellants belong to the same village, they are known to each-other, and since Ram Gopal is an injured witness, he certainly would have known the names of the assailants. Moreover, the purpose of a FIR is merely to trigger off the criminal investigation. Therefore, even if the FIR were based on Maina’s information, it would not dilute the veracity of the FIR. 15. Thirdly, there is no delay in lodging of the FIR, as the incident is alleged to have taken place around 1.00 PM. The injured were rushed to the hospital and the written report (Ex.P.4) was given at 2.30 PM. The FIR (Ex. P. 26) was chalked out at 5.00 PM. Hence, the written report was promptly given to the police. Moreover, the interpolation has been explained by the prosecution witness. Thus, the FIR (Ex. P. 26) is above board. 16. Fourthly, Mangi Lal (P.W.10), Latoori Bai (P.W.15) and Maina (P.W.19) have clearly stated in their testimonies that they were eyewitnesses. Hence, besides Ram Gopal (P.W.4), the prosecution has produced three more eyewitnesses. Moreover, merely because they are related to Ram Gopal (P. W. 4) and Badri Lal, they cannot be dubbed as interested witnesses. Furthermore, their testimonies are corroborated by other independent evidence. Hence, they are reliable witnesses. 17. Fifthly, even if Ram Gopal (P. W. 4) were taken as the sole eyewitness, his testimony is sufficient for convicting the appellants. The contradictions are minor ones which do not adversely affect the kernel of the prosecution story. Therefore, the learned Judge was justified in relying upon Ram Gopal’s testimony. 18. Sixthly, there are no glaring contradictions in the testimonies of Dr. Brijesh Goyal (P.W.12) and Dr. Yogesh Sharma (P.W.21). While Dr. Goyal (P.W.12) had examined Badri Lal as an injured, Dr. Yogesh Sharma (P.W.21) had performed his autopsy. Both the doctors are consistent in their testimonies that Badri Lal had suffered injuries caused by sharp and blunt weapons. Merely because Dr. Goyal had noticed six injuries and Dr. Sharma had noticed eight injuries would not demolish the case of the prosecution that Badri Lal had died a homicidal death. 19. Yogesh Sharma (P.W.21) had performed his autopsy. Both the doctors are consistent in their testimonies that Badri Lal had suffered injuries caused by sharp and blunt weapons. Merely because Dr. Goyal had noticed six injuries and Dr. Sharma had noticed eight injuries would not demolish the case of the prosecution that Badri Lal had died a homicidal death. 19. Lastly, the prosecution witnesses have consistently claimed that the appellant’s had assaulted Ram Gopal and Badri Lal as the appellants were trying to lay down a pipeline through the field belonging the Champalal, Ram Gopal’s nephew which Ram Gopal was tendering at that time. Since Ram Gopal had objected to the laying down of the plastic pipes, the appellants had assaulted him. Thus, the prosecution has also proven the cause for the assault. Hence, the prosecution has established its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The learned Public Prosecutor, therefore, has supported the impugned judgment. 20. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned judgment and examined the record. 21. The learned counsel for the appellants is unjustified in claiming that the prosecution has hidden the First Information Report submitted by Badri Lal. For, Ram Bharose (P.W.3) was produced by the prosecution; but has been declared hostile by the prosecution. Therefore, he was examined by the defense counsel after he was cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor. It is in his examination by the defense counsel that he reveals relevant facts which are in favour of the prosecution. Hence, this part of the testimony which is in favour of the prosecution can be read against the appellants. Therefore, he was examined by the defense counsel after he was cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor. It is in his examination by the defense counsel that he reveals relevant facts which are in favour of the prosecution. Hence, this part of the testimony which is in favour of the prosecution can be read against the appellants. In his deposition he claims as under:- ^^cnzh yky oxSjkg dks mBk dj eSa gh yk;k FkkA mBk dj dksrokyh esa ys x;s FksA eksVj lkbZfdy ls ysdj x;k FkkA dksrokyh ckjka esa T;knk ls t;knk nl iUnzg feuV :ds gksaxsA esjs lkFk cqf) izdk'k] fcj/kh yky lkFk FksA dksrokyh esa fjiksVz fy[kokbZ ysfdu fjiksVZ ugha fy[khA eSaus fjiksVZ fy[kokbZ FkhA eSa cnzh yky dks ysdj dksrokyh x;k FkkA ge ls ;g dgk fd fy[kdj nksA gesa fy[kuk ugha vkrk Fkk blfy, fy[kdj ugha nhA ge ckjg lok ckjg cts djhc dksrokyh vk x;s FksA dksrokyh rd vkus esa nl iUnzg feuV yxs Fks xkao lsA eSaus budks [ksr ij ls mBk;k FkkA ;g nksuksa ogh iM+s gq, FksA eSa xkao esa FkkA xkao esa eq>s lwjtey us lwpuk nh FkhA fd yM+kbZ gks xbZ mBk dj ykvks ge mBkus x;s FksA fQj cnzhyky dks dksrokyh ls vLirky tk;s ogka Hkh eksVjlkbZfdy ls yk;k x;k FkkA iqfyl okys esj slkFk ugha vk;sA tc cnzhyky dks ysdj vLirky vk;k rks iqfyl igys ls gh vLirky esa ekStwn FkhA jke xksiky th igys ls vLirky vk x;s FksA jke xksikyh th dksrokyh esa ugha x;sA** Mangi Lal (P.W.10) in his cross-examination claims as under:- ^^eSa cznhyky ds lkFk vk;k FkkA jkexksiky vLirky igys vk;k Fkk cnzhyky ckn esa vk;k FkkA cnzhyky csgks'k gks x;k FkkA eSa cnzhyky ds lkFk eksVj lkbZfdy ij cSBdj vk;k Fkk ml eksVj lkbZfdy dks jkeHkjksls pyk jgk FkkA ;g lgh gS fd ge rhuksa vkneh igys dksrokyh ckjka x;s tc dksrokyh ckjka igqaps rc cnzhyky cksy jgk FkkA dksrokyh esa fjiksVZ djok dj vLirky esa ys vk;s FksA iqfyl 'kQk[kkuk esa gekjs ckn esa vkbZ FkhA** 22. A bare perusal of both these testimonies clearly reveals that when Ram Bharose (P. W. 3) uses the word “report”, he means that he had “informed the police”. For in his examination by the defense counsel, he clearly admits that they could not give a written report to the police as he and others were illiterate persons. A bare perusal of both these testimonies clearly reveals that when Ram Bharose (P. W. 3) uses the word “report”, he means that he had “informed the police”. For in his examination by the defense counsel, he clearly admits that they could not give a written report to the police as he and others were illiterate persons. Neither Ram Bharose (P. W. 3), nor Tej Singh (P.W.23) reveal if Ram Bharose and party had given any concrete information to the police. In fact, Tej Singh (P.W.23) has not even been cross-examined on the information allegedly given by Badri/ Ram Bharose (P. W. 3). Thus, there is no evidence that complete information was given to the police by Badri or by Ram Bharose or Mangilal (P. W. 10). 23. The first written report was, in fact, given by Ram Gopal (P.W.4) to the police at the hospital. This fact is further corroborated by the testimony of Udai Raj (P.W.22). According to him, the police was informed by the hospital. It is upon this information that he reached the hospital and there the injured Ram Gopal had given a written report. He further identifies his own signature as ‘C’ to ‘D’. He further claims that he brought Ex.P.4 to the police station and gave it to the SHO. On the basis of this written report, the FIR (Ex. P. 26) was chalked out. Shri Tej Singh (P.W.23) confirms the testimony of Udai Raj Singh (P.W.22). Interestingly, Tej Singh (P.W.23) who was In-charge of the Police Station on 25.7.2004 has not even been suggested, in the cross-examination, that prior to recording of the formal FIR, Ram Bharose had already informed the police about the incident and that the written report (Ex.P.4) and the formal FIR (Ex.P.26) are not the first information report. Therefore, the prosecution has not withheld any FIR from the trial court. Thus, the first contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is unacceptable. 24. While appreciating the evidence of an injured witness, the court has to be alive to the social background and psychology of the witness. Ram Gopal happens to be an illiterate villager who has been suddenly assaulted, and who has seen the murder of his younger brother right before his eyes. To expect mathematical precision, and objective description of the incident is to over rate human intelligence, and to under rate human relations. Ram Gopal happens to be an illiterate villager who has been suddenly assaulted, and who has seen the murder of his younger brother right before his eyes. To expect mathematical precision, and objective description of the incident is to over rate human intelligence, and to under rate human relations. At times, there can be lapse of memory due to a traumatic experience. Therefore, even if Ram Gopal tells the court in his cross-examination that he could not remember the name of the person to whom he has dictated the report, and that the names were told by Maina (P.W.19), even this statement would not dilute the veracity of the prosecution case. For, in his examination-in-chief, Ram Gopal has described the assault and has specifically attributed two injuries, one to Chetan and the other to Ranjeet. Therefore, the learned counsel for the appellant in unjustified in claiming that the FIR has lost all its importance. 25. Moreover, Ram Gopal (P. W. 3) clearly states that the appellants are well known to him; there is dispute between them as they were trying to lay the plastic pipes for carrying water to their fields. A move objected to by Ram Gopal (P. W. 3). Thus, the appellants are well known to him. Hence, it is highly unlikely that Ram Gopal (P. W. 4) would substitute the real culprits with the present appellants. Therefore, the third contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is unacceptable. 26. There is no delay in lodging of the FIR. For according to the witnesses, the incident had occurred around 1:00 PM, the injured were rushed to the hospital, the written report (Ex. P. 4) was given at 2:30 PM, and the FIR was registered at 5:00 PM. In his cross-examination, Udai Raj (P. W. 22) tells the court that he was busy in requisitioning the doctors to examine the injured persons, and that he reached the police station at 5:00 PM and handed over the written report to Tej Singh (P. W. 23). In turn, Tej Singh (P. W. 23) corroborates Udai Singh (P. W. 22) on this point. Thus, the learned counsel is unjustified in claiming that there is an inordinate delay in lodging of the FIR. He is further unjustified in pleading that the time was utilized for falsely implicating the appellants. 27. In turn, Tej Singh (P. W. 23) corroborates Udai Singh (P. W. 22) on this point. Thus, the learned counsel is unjustified in claiming that there is an inordinate delay in lodging of the FIR. He is further unjustified in pleading that the time was utilized for falsely implicating the appellants. 27. Besides Ram Gopal (P. W. 4), the prosecution has produced four other eyewitnesses, namely Mangilal (P. W. 10), Latoori Bai (P. W. 15), Birdhi Lal (P. W. 18), and Maina (P. W. 19). Of course, Ram Bharose (P. W. 3) was also produced as an eyewitness, but he has turned hostile. Manglilal (P. W. 10) admits in his cross-examination that “I had heard Ram Gopal’s shouts, therefore, I went there. When I reached Ram Gopal was lying in the five Bigha field. Then the witness said that Ram Gopal was sitting and was conscious. The moment I reached, Ram Gopal told me that so and so had hit him. I and Ram Bharose picked him up. Before Ram Gopal told me about the assailants, they had already run away from the place of incident.” Thus, clearly Mangilal (P. W. 10) is not an eyewitness. 28. Similarly, Latoori Bai (P. W. 15) also admits in her cross-examination that when she reached the place of incident her two father-in-laws, Ram Gopal (P. W. 4) and Birdhi Lal were lying in the fields. Thus, even this witness is not an eyewitness of the incident. She reached the place after the alleged assault had already occurred, and the assailants had left the scene of the crime. 29. Likewise, Birdhi Lal (P. W. 18) also admits in his cross-examination that “It is correct to say that when I reached the place of the occurrence, Ram Gopal and Birdhi Lal were lying in the field.” Hence, even he is not an eyewitness of the occurrence. 30. Latoori Bai (P. W. 15) and Maina (P. W. 19) are mother and daughter. Latoori Bai (P. W. 15) claims that she and her daughter together reached the place of occurrence. Maina (P. W.) was not quizzed about the time of her arrival at the scene of the crime. But as Latoori Bai (P. W. 15) claims that both she and her daughter reached together, it can be safely inferred that Maina also reached the place after the incident had taken place. Maina (P. W.) was not quizzed about the time of her arrival at the scene of the crime. But as Latoori Bai (P. W. 15) claims that both she and her daughter reached together, it can be safely inferred that Maina also reached the place after the incident had taken place. Therefore, even Maina (P. W. 19) is not an actual eyewitness. Thus, the learned counsel for the appellant is justified in pleading that prosecution has tried to import certain persons as eyewitnesses. 31. This leaves Ram Gopal (P. W. 4) as the sole eyewitness. He tells the court that “Champalal is my nephew. I am looking after his five bigha, and two-and-half bigha fields. In the two-and-half bigha field I have sown corn. The rest of the field is lying fallow. The day the incident occurred, I was tending the corn. The incident took place around 12:00 or 1:00 PM. Ranjeet and Chetan came to my field and tried to lay down the plastic pipe. I objected to their lying the plastic pipe. They became annoyed with me. Then, Ranjeet, Chetan, Mahendra, Ram Lal, Amar Lal, Shanti Lal, Shivaji son of Amarlal came. Chetan had a kulhadi, the rest had wooden sticks. Ranjeet had a kutiya (a small axe). They came and surrounded me. I tried to run away; Chetan hit me over my head with a kulhadi. I fell down. Immediately, my brother Badri Lal rushed to my rescue. These persons hit him with the kutiya. Everyone assaulted us. Latoori Bai, and her daughter, Maina rushed to rescue us. Simul-taneously, Mangilal, Shankar Lal, Birdhi Lal, Jawahari Lal, Ram Bharose also came. Seeing these people, the accused ran away. I was injured in my head, elbow and feet. Badri had suffered injuries on his head, ear and thigh. I came to the hospital for treatment. There I submitted the written report, Exhibit P-4 to the police. Both of us were brought to the hospital by Ram Bharose and Budhi Prakash on the motorcycle. The doctor had seen my injuries.” 32. The relevant portions of his cross-examination inform the court that “when he went to voice his objection to the laying down of the pipelines, only Ranjeet was there”. Then the witness also claimed that “Chetan was also there. Chetan is Ranjeet’s nephew. It is correct that Chetan and Ranjeet owned different fields”. The doctor had seen my injuries.” 32. The relevant portions of his cross-examination inform the court that “when he went to voice his objection to the laying down of the pipelines, only Ranjeet was there”. Then the witness also claimed that “Chetan was also there. Chetan is Ranjeet’s nephew. It is correct that Chetan and Ranjeet owned different fields”. This witness also claimed that “besides these two, there were three or four other hired workers (Hali). I do not know these workers. I had told both Ranjeet and Chetan not to lay down the pipeline”. This witness also claimed that “although objection had been raised at the boundary (Maid), but the fight had occurred in the five bigha field belonging to Champa Lal”. He further claimed that “when he was injured, he fell on the ground. Two to five minutes later, his brother came to his rescue. Surajmal who is my aunt’s son, may have informed Badri Lal at his house. Badri Lal came from his house. When Badri Lal came, I was sitting in an injured position. When Badri Lal was ten steps away from me, he was assaulted. He could not rescue me. I was injured on the head and my brother fell about ten steps away from me. Badri Lal did not remain unconscious, but was conscious. We were picked-up and brought to the mango tree. From there we went on motorcycle. I went straight to the hospital, and my brother came later on. At the hospital who wrote the report, I cannot say as I had merely dictated the report. I had spoken the report, but I do not remember as to who wrote it. From amongst those who had come with me, who had written the report, I cannot remember. Whether it was a person who had come with us, or someone else, who had written the report, I cannot remember”. When the contradiction in Exhibit-P.4 was pointed out to this witness with regard to the nature of the weapon, the witness said “in Exhibit-P.4 from C to D, I did not say that everyone had sharp edged weapon. I cannot explain as to how this statement has been written. It is wrong to say that the other four persons had come after I was assaulted. When all four of them had come, the assault had started. I cannot explain as to how this statement has been written. It is wrong to say that the other four persons had come after I was assaulted. When all four of them had come, the assault had started. Ranjeet and Chetan had sent someone to call for the four persons. They had sent some child from their family to call these four persons”. He further claimed that “I had told the writer of the report that the fight had broken out because I had objected to the laying down of the pipes. But the fact is not mentioned in the report (Ex.P.4). Exhibit-P.4 was read to me. He further claimed that the person who wrote the report did not tell him that in Exhibit-P.4 he had written that everyone was carrying sharp edged weapon. Exhibit-P.4 was not read out to him. Whether the report is written by Prem Chand, I do not remember. But Prem Chand is one who told me to sign the report. It is true that in Exhibit-P.4 I had not named Maina Bai and Latoori”. He further claimed that “I do not know Mahendra. I know Shanti Lal. I know Ramlal. It is wrong to say that Ramlal, Shiv Kumar, Shanti Lal were not there. I have given Mahendra’s name because my daughter, Maina, had told me his name. Maina was not present when the report was written. At home, she had told me that such and such persons had hit you. It is true that the names given to me by Maina are the names that I have mentioned in the report. There was an animosity between the accused and us. The accused had illegally trespassed our land. It is for this reason that there was an animosity. It is true that due to this animosity, we were assaulted. It is wrong to say that other villagers have committed this assault. It is wrong to say that Ranjeet and Chetan had not tried to lay down the water pipelines and that there was no dispute with them”. 33. Although a conviction can be recorded on the basis of the testimony of a sole eyewitness, but by way of prudence, it is desirable to look for corroboration of his/her testimony. Dr. Brijesh Kumar Goyal (P.W.12) had examined Badri Lal as an injured person. 33. Although a conviction can be recorded on the basis of the testimony of a sole eyewitness, but by way of prudence, it is desirable to look for corroboration of his/her testimony. Dr. Brijesh Kumar Goyal (P.W.12) had examined Badri Lal as an injured person. According to the injury report (Ex.P.7), Badri Lal had sustained the following injuries:- “1. Lacerated wound – 2”x1”x1/8” - Left pinna & back side. 2. Abrasion, swelling – 2”x1” - Left side neck. 3. Incised wound – 2”x1/4”x1/8” - Left side scalp. 4. Abrasion, swelling – 3/4”x1/2” - Right thumb. 5. Bruise – 3”x1” - Right thigh lateral. 6. Abrasion – 1/4”x1/4” - Left shoulder at upper and of clavicle.” 34. Similarly, Dr. Yogesh Sharma (P.W.21) had carried out the autopsy. According to the Post-Mortem Report (Ex.P.25), Badri had sustained the following ante-mortem injuries:- “1. Lacerated wound – 5 cm x 1 cm x skin deep on back of left ear upto tip. 2. Stitched wound – 4 cm on left parietal region near mid line, in mid of parietal region. 3. Abrasion – 7 cm x 2 cm, bruising around it on right shoulder tip. 4. Bruise – 2 x 2 cm on lateral aspect of left clavicular region. 5. Abrasion – 2 x 1 cm on tip of left shoulder. 6. Abrasion – 2 x 2 cm on back of right thumb, swelling ill-defined on back of hand. 7. Bruise – 10 x 4 cm on upper 1/3 of right thigh at ante lateral aspect. 8. Incised wound – 6 x 0.5 x skin deep on mid of left neck ante posteriorly.” 35. Ram Gopal (P.W.4) had claimed in his police statement (Ex.D.1) that all the accused were armed with sharp edged weapon. But in his testimony before the court, he claimed that while Chetan had a Kulhadi, Ranjeet had a Khutia (small axe). He also claimed that the other accused persons were armed merely with wooden sticks. When this contradiction is pointed out to him in his cross-examination, he claims that he did not give the statement that “everyone was armed with sharp edged weapon.” He further claims that “he cannot explain as to how this statement has been written.” Thus, he does not offer a cogent explanation except to deny the fact that this statement was made by him. 36. Moreover, according to him, Badri Lal had fallen to the ground. 36. Moreover, according to him, Badri Lal had fallen to the ground. According to the injury report (Ex.P.7), Badri Lal had suffered three abrasions and a bruise. These injuries could be caused due to a fall or due to the use of sharp edged weapons wielded by Chetan and Ranjit. Therefore, a grave possibility does exist that these simple injuries were not caused by the use of wooden sticks attributed to Ram Lal, Shiv Kumar, Shantilal and Mahendra. Most importantly, this witness admits in his cross-examination that he had named Mahendra at the behest of Maina (P.W.19). Therefore, considering the fact that there was an animosity between the complainant and the accused, a distinct possibility does exist that Ram Lal, Shiv Kumar, Shantilal and Mahendra have been falsely implicated by Ram Gopal (P.W.4). 37. As far as Chetan and Ranjeet are concerned, Ram Gopal (P.W.4) is consistent in his testimony qua these two accused. According to him, both of them were armed with shard edged weapons. According to him, Chetan hit him over his head with a Kulhadi. This statement is further corroborated by Dr. Brijesh Kumar Goyal (P.W.12) and by injury report (Ex.P.8). According to Ram Gopal’s injury report (Ex.P.8), he had suffered the following injuries:- “1. Lacerated wound – 2”x1/4”x1/4” - Center of forehead scalp above hair line. 2. Incised wound – 2”x1/4”x1/4” - Scalp right side 2” above pinna. 3. Incised wound – 2”x1/4”x1/4” - Left side scalp. 4. Abrasion, tenderness – 1/4”x1/4” - Left elbow later side. 5. Tenderness - 2”x1” - Right side chest 3½” bone ant. auxiliary line. 6. Swelling – 3”x1” - Left ankle. 7. Tenderness – 2”x1” - Right calf.” Thus, he had suffered two incised wound, one lacerated wound besides other simple injuries. Therefore, his testimony about his own injuries is corroborated by his injury report (Ex.P.8). 38. According to him, Badri Lal was hit with a Khutia which has been assigned to Ranjeet. This testimony is equally corroborated by Badri Lal’s injury report (Ex. P. 7) and by the Post-Mortem Report (Ex. P. 25). Hence, the ocular evidence is corroborated by the medical evidence. 39. Although the learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the nature of the injuries has been changed in the injury report (Ex.P.7) and the Post-Mortem Report (Ex.P.25). This testimony is equally corroborated by Badri Lal’s injury report (Ex. P. 7) and by the Post-Mortem Report (Ex. P. 25). Hence, the ocular evidence is corroborated by the medical evidence. 39. Although the learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the nature of the injuries has been changed in the injury report (Ex.P.7) and the Post-Mortem Report (Ex.P.25). However, a perusal of both these documents (Ex.P.7 and Ex.P.25) clearly shows that an incised wound was caused on the left side of the skull. But during the course of treatment, injury No.2 became the stitched wound. Moreover, during autopsy it was noticed that hematoma had spread all over the skull and there was a fracture of both the parietal bones. Thus, the nature of the injury does not change, as the parietal bone could be fractured due to the incised wound mentioned in injury No.2 in the injury report. Most importantly, the Post-Mortem Report and the testimony of Dr. Yogesh Sharma clearly prove that the cause of death was “due to coma as a result of injury of head and brain, and due to fracture of the skull. It was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death”. Hence, Badri Lal had suffered a homicidal death. 40. A holistic appreciation of the evidence clearly shows that while the prosecution has succeeded in proving the case against Chetan and Ranjeet, it has failed to establish its case against Ram Lal, Shiv Kumar @ Sheoji, Shanti Lal and Mahendra. Hence, Ram Lal, Shiv Kumar @ Sheoji, Shanti Lal and Mahendra deserve to be given the benefit of doubt. 41. For the reasons stated above, this appeal is partly allowed. Ram Lal, Shiv Kumar @ Sheoji, Shanti Lal and Mahendra are granted the benefit of doubt and acquitted of offences under Sec. 302/149, 307/149, 148 and 447 IPC. 42. Since above named four accused have been acquitted, the conviction of Chetan and Ranjeet is converted from offence under Section 302/149 IPC to offence under Section 302/34 IPC. Similarly, their conviction for offence under Section 307/149 IPC is converted to offence under Section 307/34 IPC. However, their sentences, including the fine and the sentence for default for the said offences, are hereby confirmed. Likewise, their conviction and sentence for offence under Section 447 IPC is confirmed. But both Chetan and Ranjeet are acquitted of offence under Section 148 IPC.