JUDGMENT 1. This criminal appeal has been filed by three accused-appellants; namely-Gopal Lal, Gulab Chand and Smt. Mangi Devi, assailing the judgment and order dated 25.09.2006 passed by the Court of Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Dausa (for short 'the trial court') where under the accused-appellants have been convict for the offences punishable under Sections 302 read with Section 34 and 323 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Each of the accused-appellants, convict under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, has been sentenced to life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default whereof, they would have to further undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for five months. Similarly each of the accused-appellants, convict under Section 323 IPC, has also been sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 200/-, in default whereof, they would have to further undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for 15 days. Each of the accused-appellants, convict under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, has also been sentenced to life imprisonment with fine or Rs. 1,000/-, in default whereof, they would have to further undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for one month. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Factual matrix of the case is that an F.I.R. No. 111/2004 (Exhibit P-21) was registered at Police Station Sainthal, District Dausa on the basis of Parcha Bayan (Exhibit P-20) of deceased Girraj Prasad S/o. Shri Ramdhan caste Raigar recorded on 23.10.2004, wherein he stated that on that day, he had taken his daughter to the Government Hospital, Sainthal for treatment and while he was coming back towards his house, Gulab, Radhey Shyam sons of Prabhu Gurjar, Smt. Mangi Devi wife of Prabhu Gurjar, Banwari @ Banna son of Ramdhan Kharwal, Gopal son of Sonya Gurjar residents of Habibwala came in front of his house. They all were armed with lathies and 'kharwadi'. They caught hold of the deceased and dragged him to the agricultural field and subjected him to beating by lathies and 'kharwadi'. He sustained number of injuries on both of his legs and other parts of the body. Accused Gulab was armed with 'kharwadi' and other accused were armed with lathies. Hari Harijan, Sultan Bawariya and other residents of nearby hutment ('dhani') came to intervene and save him. He sustained number of injuries on both of his legs and other parts of the body. Accused Gulab was armed with 'kharwadi' and other accused were armed with lathies. Hari Harijan, Sultan Bawariya and other residents of nearby hutment ('dhani') came to intervene and save him. These people brought him to his house. There was dispute between him and the accused, who wanted to encroach upon his land, and therefore, they had subjected him to severe beating by lathies and 'kharwadi'. 3. Initially, investigation was carried out of Banwari Lal Meena (P.W. 12), S.H.O. Police Station Sainthal, Dausa, who recorded Parcha Bayan (Exhibit P-20) of the deceased and registered FIR (Exhibit P-21). He took the deceased to Government Hospital, Sainthal and then brought him to Government Hospital, Dausa wherefrom the deceased was referred to S.M.S. Hospital, Jaipur where he succumbed to the injuries. The police, upon completion of investigation, filed charge sheet against the accused-appellants and did not find any case worth filing challan against Banwari @ Banna Kharwal. However, accused Radhey Shyam being juvenile, case against him was filed before the Juvenile Justice Board. The trial court framed charges against the accused-appellants under Sections 302, in the alternative under Section 302/34 and 323 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the P heduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The accused-appellants denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution produced 15 witnesses and exhibited 24 documents. Thereafter, the accused-appellants were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein they pleaded innocence. In defence, 5 documents were exhibited. The trial court, on conclusion of the trial, vide judgment and order dated 25.09.2006 convict and sentenced the accused-appellants in the manner indicated above. 4. Mr. Sunil Tyagi, learned counsel for the accused-appellants argued that the accused-appellants have been falsely implicated in the case inasmuch as learned trial court has convict the accused-appellants on the basis of evidence of Smt. Sajna (P.W.1), widow of the deceased and Smt. Kaushalya (P.W.11), real sister of Smt. Sajna (P.W.1) and 'bhabhi' of the deceased, but none of 1 were eye witnesses. The deceased in his Parcha Bayan (Exhibit P-20) had named only Hari Harijan and Sultan Bawariya as eye witnesses and additionally stated that certain other persons of nearby hutment ('dhani') were also present there. The deceased in his Parcha Bayan (Exhibit P-20) had named only Hari Harijan and Sultan Bawariya as eye witnesses and additionally stated that certain other persons of nearby hutment ('dhani') were also present there. While Hari Harijan was produced as P.W. 10, who turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case, Sultan Bawariya was not produced by the prosecution for the reasons best known to it. The genesis of the incident has thus been suppressed. Smt. Sajna (P.W.1) and Smt. Kaushalya (P.W.11) are not eye-witnesses, is also proved from the fact that while the incident had taken place on 23.10.2004, their police statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C., for the first time, were recorded on 26.10.2004, which proves that they were planted as witnesses much after the post mortem of the deceased was conducted on 24.10.2004, only to corroborate the injuries sustained by the deceased. 5. Mr. Sunil Tyagi, learned counsel for the accused-appellants argued that the deceased in his Parcha Bayan (Exhibit P-20) had alleged that the accused caused injuries to both his legs and other parts of the body and the police, in its proceedings ('karyawahi police') drawn at the back of Parcha Bayan (Exhibit P-20) has also referred to several injuries sustained by the deceased, but did not make any mention of the head injury, which virtually was disclosed in the post-mortem report (Exhibit P-1). No such mention of head injury was made even in the inquest report (panchayatnama, Exhibit P-7). The first investigating officer, Banwari Lal Meena (P.W.12), in his statement, has stated that initially the deceased was taken to Government Hospital, Sainthal and therefrom, he was taken to Government Hospital, Dausa, but neither any doctor, who examined the deceased at Sainthal or Dausa when he was still alive, has been produced, nor any injury report prepared there has been exhibited. Such important witness or document has been deliberately withheld by the prosecution. It might be possible that the deceased did not sustain any head injuries up till that time, but he might have received head injuries during his transfer from Sainthal to Jaipur, after the incident where for the accused-appellants cannot be held responsible. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants argued that post-mortem of the deceased was conducted by Dr. Rajesh Kumar Verma (P.W. 2), who in his statement stated that injury No. 1 was one single injury. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants argued that post-mortem of the deceased was conducted by Dr. Rajesh Kumar Verma (P.W. 2), who in his statement stated that injury No. 1 was one single injury. He in his cross-examination had stated that this was result of one single injury (Injury No. 1) which was visible from naked eyes. Therefore, had the deceased received such injuries earlier, the same would have certainly found mention either in the Parcha Bayan (Exhibit P-20) or in 'karyawahi police' drawn at the back of Parcha Bayan or in the inquest report (Exhibit P-7). This witness has also stated that when the skull of the deceased was opened, it was discovered that the deceased had received four separate injuries. Apart from head injuries, the deceased received 27 injuries on different parts of the body, all of which were simple in nature and caused by blunt weapon except Injury No. 1 and 22. Injury No. 22 was a lacerated wound leading to fracture of metacarpal bone of the right hand. This clearly shows that intention of the accused-appellants was not to commit murder of the deceased, but only to give him thrashing. Had the accused intended to murder him, they would have inflicted more grievous injuries on different parts of body of the deceased. In the heat of passion and at the spur of moment, one single head injury was caused, which proved to be, fatal and it cannot be said that the case does not fall within one of culpable homicide amounting to murder. 6. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants referred to statement of Smt. Sajna (P.W. 1) and submitted that this witness has stated that her husband left his daughter at home at around 10-11 A.M. At that time, accused Gulabo, Gopal, Radhey Shyam, Mangi, Banwari Kharwal were levelling their agricultural field. Her husband went to the agricultural field and forbade them from doing so. The accused caught hold of her husband (deceased) and gave him beating. Agricultural field was situated just across the road in front of house of this witness. She along with her sister Kaushalya (P.W. 11) went to agricultural field and made hue and cry. Still then, the accused did not spare the deceased and kept beating him by lathies and kharwadi'. When the police came, her husband named Gopal, Gulabo, Radhey Shyam, Mangi and Banwari as the assailants. She along with her sister Kaushalya (P.W. 11) went to agricultural field and made hue and cry. Still then, the accused did not spare the deceased and kept beating him by lathies and kharwadi'. When the police came, her husband named Gopal, Gulabo, Radhey Shyam, Mangi and Banwari as the assailants. This witness in cross-examination was confronted with her police statement (Exhibit D-1) wherein she did not make any allegation against Mangi Devi, nor did she allege that she used any weapon, this witness failed to give any satisfactory explanation and merely stated that she gave such version to the police, but the police did not mention the same in the statement. In cross-examination, this witness also failed to explain why she was making allegation against Banwari @ Banna in the court statement whereas she did not so allege in her police statement (Exhibit D-1), she failed to give any explanation thereabout. The police did not eventually file any challan against Banwari @ Banna, which fact also proves it to be a case of false/over implication. This witness was not speaking truth, which is evident from the fact that injuries (allegedly?) caused to her husband by a sharp edged weapon 'kharwadi', whereas not a single injury has been opined to be incised wound in the post-mortem report of the deceased (Exhibit P-1). This witness has over exaggerated by stating in cross-examination that hands and legs of her husband were cut by kharwadi'. Learned counsel further submitted that this witness in her court statement stated that Smt. Kaushalya (P.W. 1) threw water on the face of the deceased, whereas in the police statement she stated that Smt. Kaushalya poured water into the mouth of her husband. She failed to give any explanation about this serious discrepancy. 7. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants submitted that Smt. Kaushalya (P.W. 11) is also not a eye-witness because she in her cross-examination has stated that she was weaving carpet at about 200-300 yards away from the place of incident, which according to learned counsel is equivalent to 1/4 kms., and witnessed the incident from there. It this much was the distance, how could it be possible for this witness to identify the accused and state their names as also assign specific overt act to them. It this much was the distance, how could it be possible for this witness to identify the accused and state their names as also assign specific overt act to them. This witness alleged that accused Gulab, Gopal, Mangi, Radhey and Banwari Kharwal were all those, who were levelling the agricultural field. She even went to the extent of stating that the deceased was dragged by the accused from motor cycle and taken to the agricultural field. Accused Gulab Chand inflicted blunt side of kharwadi on the head of the deceased and accused Gopal also inflicted a lathi blow at the same place on the head of the deceased. Accused Mangi inflicted lathi blow on the back, hands and legs of the deceased. Radhey inflicted lathi blow on the hands and legs of the deceased. Banwari Kharwar inflicted blunt side of 'kharwadi' on the hands and legs of the deceased. While kharwadi' has not been recovered at the instance of any of the accused-appellants, one lathi each has been recovered at the instance of the accused Gulab Chand (Exhibit P-8) and Gopal Lal (Exhibit P-9) and one lathi has been recovered from the place of occurrence (Exhibit P-19). It is argued that lathi, which was recovered had no blood stains. Gajanand (P.W. 5) and Prabhu (P.W. 6), who are witnesses of recovery, have turned hostile and not supported the recoveries. Radha Kishan (P.W 7) and Ramdhan (P.W. 8), who were planted eye witnesses, also turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. Learned counsel argued that Radhey Shyam has been acquitted by the Juvenile Justice Board. It is further submitted that a complaint was filed before SDM, Dausa against the deceased Girraj and others under Section 107 and 116(3) Cr.P.C. on 23.08.2004 to bind them to maintain peace, which is Exhibit D-5. It is thus evident that a false criminal case against the accused-appellants was registered. 8. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants further argued that while the deceased in Parcha Bayan (Exhibit P-20) stated that when he was standing in front of his house, the accused had dragged him to the agricultural field whereas different version has been given by the alleged eye witnesses Sajna (P.W. 1) and Smt. Kaushalya (P.W. 11). 8. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants further argued that while the deceased in Parcha Bayan (Exhibit P-20) stated that when he was standing in front of his house, the accused had dragged him to the agricultural field whereas different version has been given by the alleged eye witnesses Sajna (P.W. 1) and Smt. Kaushalya (P.W. 11). While Smt. Sajna (P.W. 1) stated that the deceased himself went to agricultural field to forbid the accused from levelling it, Smt. Kaushalya (P.W. 11) stated that the accused had few days before the incident cultivated the agricultural field and they were levelling the field The deceased came on his motor cycle and went there to forbid them. Thus, the manner in which the incident took place has not been proved by the prosecution and genesis of the occurrence has been suppressed. 9. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants submitted that the deceased was claiming the land, which was not owned by him. It was alleged that the land was allotted to the deceased some time in the year 1989, but the trial court has noted that the allotment was cancelled in the year 1990 and the land was registered in the records as Sivay Chak land, which was in possession of the accused appellants. In fact, Kailash Prasad Meena (PW. 3), Patwari concerned, in his cross-examination, has categorically stated that the deceased had nothing to do with the land in dispute. This witness has proved that the disputed land was of Khasra No. 352 measuring 0.32 hectare which was Sivay Chak and copy of the jamabandi has also been produced on record as Exhibit P-2 and certified copy thereof is Exhibit P-2A. Khasra Girdawari of the disputed land is Exhibit P-3 and certified copy thereof is Exhibit P-3A. Trace Map is Exhibit P-4 and certified copy thereof is Exhibit P-4A. Old khasra number of the disputed land was 73 min. According to khasra girdawari, this land was shown to have been cultivated by Prabhu S/o. Manphool. Learned, counsel has submitted that this Prabhu happens to be father of the accused Gopal Lal and Gulab Chand and husband of the accused Mangi Devi. This witness has stated that the deceased Girraj Prasad had nothing to do with the land in dispute. According to khasra girdawari, this land was shown to have been cultivated by Prabhu S/o. Manphool. Learned, counsel has submitted that this Prabhu happens to be father of the accused Gopal Lal and Gulab Chand and husband of the accused Mangi Devi. This witness has stated that the deceased Girraj Prasad had nothing to do with the land in dispute. This clearly shows that the land in dispute was in possession of the accused and the deceased had tried to forcibly prevent the accused from levelling and cultivating it. Thus, the accused-appellants acted in exercise of their right of private defence. 10. Lastly, learned counsel for the accused-appellants argued that accused Mangi Devi has been falsely implicated, which is evident from the statement made by Smt. Sajna (P.W. 1), one of the eye witnesses, who did not name Mangi Devi in her police Statement (Exhibit D-1) as one of the assailants and did not ascribe any weapon to her. Kaushalya (PW. 11) in her first version also focused more on the other accused and name of Mangi Devi was incidentally mentioned by her This witness in her statement has ascribed head injuries of the deceased, which proved fatal, to the accused Gopal Lal and Gulab Chand. Thus, Mangi Devi, who is an aged woman, has been falsely implicated. In a case where the death is caused by one grievous injury and the same is assigned to number of accused, which in this case has been assigned to two accused, then each one of them at the maximum can be convict under Section 325 IPC. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the accused appellants relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in Shri Kishan and Others v. State of U.P., AIR 1972 SC 2056 and Bhajan Singh and Others v. The State of Punjab, AIR 1978 SC 1759 . With regard to question of delay in recording the police statements and non mention of the names of eye witnesses in FIR, learned counsel for the accused-appellants placed reliance upon the decisions of this Court in Moti v. The State of Rajasthan, 1980 RLW 12 and Balvendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 1983 RLW 38 . 11. With regard to question of delay in recording the police statements and non mention of the names of eye witnesses in FIR, learned counsel for the accused-appellants placed reliance upon the decisions of this Court in Moti v. The State of Rajasthan, 1980 RLW 12 and Balvendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 1983 RLW 38 . 11. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants, argued that the learned trial court has mechanically convict the accused-appellants for offence punishable under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 only because the deceased was belonging to Scheduled Caste. There is no iota of allegation either in Parcha Bayan (Exhibit P-20) of the deceased or in the statements of Smt. Sajna (PW. 1) and Smt. Kaushalya (PW 11) or even in the statement of investigating officer that the deceased was subjected to beating only because he happened to belong to Scheduled Caste. In fact, there was long standing dispute between the two parties. The deceased was trying to forcibly occupy piece of Sivay Chak land which was adjoining the agricultural field of the accused and the same was resisted by the accused-appellants. The deceased tried to do so, on the premise that earlier at one point of time this land was allotted to him by the District Collector in 1989, but such allotment was cancelled on the objection of the accused-party in the year 1990. If at all the deceased was having any right over the land in dispute, he should have taken remedy in law, but for this reason, conviction of the accused-appellants under the provisions of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 could not at all be recorded. Learned counsel in support of this argument cited judgment of the Supreme Court in Ramdas and Others v. State of Maharashtra, 2007(2) SCC 170 and decision of this Court in Sudha Ram v. State of Rajasthan, 2013(3) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 1089 . 12. Mr. Learned counsel in support of this argument cited judgment of the Supreme Court in Ramdas and Others v. State of Maharashtra, 2007(2) SCC 170 and decision of this Court in Sudha Ram v. State of Rajasthan, 2013(3) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 1089 . 12. Mr. V.S. Godara, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the appeal and argued that even if the allotment of disputed land made in favour of the deceased in the year 1989 was cancelled by the Collector in the year 1990, the land continued to be in possession of the deceased The accused-appellants were forcibly cultivating and levelling the same, the deceased objected to their doing so and he could not have been so severely beaten. The fact that accused caused as many as 27 injuries to the deceased, apart from head injuries, which proved fatal clearly show that they had the intention of murdering him, otherwise they would not have inflicted so many injuries to the deceased at the same time. For delayed recording of the statements of Smt. Sajna (P.W. 1) and Smt. Kaushalya (P.W. 11), learned Public Prosecutor submitted that in fact initially investigation was carried out by Banwari Lal Meena (P.W. 12), but when the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was also added, investigation as per the mandate of the Act was entrusted to an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. It was thereafter that the investigation was handed over to Jagdish Chandra (P.W. 14), which fact has been stated by him. It is thereafter that he recorded statements of Smt. Sajna (PW. 1) and Smt. Kaushalya (P.W. 11). Smt. Sajna (P.W. 1) happens to be widow of the deceased, therefore, she was in a state of shock and mourning and Smt. Kaushalya (PW. 11) happens to be real sister of Smt. Sajna (P.W. 1) and bhabhi of the deceased and their family was in a state of shock and mourning. 1) and Smt. Kaushalya (P.W. 11). Smt. Sajna (P.W. 1) happens to be widow of the deceased, therefore, she was in a state of shock and mourning and Smt. Kaushalya (PW. 11) happens to be real sister of Smt. Sajna (P.W. 1) and bhabhi of the deceased and their family was in a state of shock and mourning. The dead body of the deceased was received on 24.10.2004 and immediately after cremating the same, statements were recorded with delay of one or two days and it cannot be a reason to discard their evidence Even though Gajanand (P.W. 5) and Prabhu (P.W. 6) both have turned hostile, recoveries have been proved by Banwari Lal Meena (P.W. 12), investigating officer, who recorded the statement of Hari Harijan and Sultan Bawariya, witnesses named in the Parcha Bayan (Exhibit P-20) of the deceased. Internal four injuries of the brain of the deceased would clearly show that the accused-appellants had the intention to cause murder of the deceased. It is, therefore, prayed that the appeal be dismissed. 13. On hearing learned counsel for the accused-appellants, learned Public Prosecutor and perusing the record we find that there are indeed some lacuna and discrepancies in the investigation carried by the police, but at the same time we do not find it to be a case of blind, murder and total absence of evidence. We are, therefore, not inclined to accept the submission that the accused-appellants have falsely been implicated, particularly when the incident has taken place on the agricultural field, which is the bone of contention between both the parties and recoveries of weapons have been made at the instance of two accused-appellants, who have been named by the deceased in his Parcha Bayan (Exhibit P-20) from inception. The deceased apart from naming two accused-appellants also mentioned name of Mangi Devi wife of Prabhu, Banwari @ Banna and Radhey Shyam. Radhey Shyam was juvenile, who is said to have been acquitted by Juvenile Justice Board and the police did not find any prima facie case to file challan against Banwari @ Banna. There is, thus, a definite pattern in prosecution evidence to over-implicate the accused, which is evident from the fact that when Smt. Sajna (PW. Radhey Shyam was juvenile, who is said to have been acquitted by Juvenile Justice Board and the police did not find any prima facie case to file challan against Banwari @ Banna. There is, thus, a definite pattern in prosecution evidence to over-implicate the accused, which is evident from the fact that when Smt. Sajna (PW. 1) was confronted with her police statement (D.W. 1) as to why she did not specifically name Mangi Devi and assign any active participation in the crime wherein she had mentioned that her sister Smt. Kaushalya (PW. 11) told that the deceased was being beaten by Gopal Lal, Gulab, Radhey Shyam and Mangi by lathies, but when they rushed towards the agricultural field, by that time, these four had already left. She sent Smt. Kaushalya to fetch water and some drops of water were poured into his mouth and they started crying there. Sultan Bawariya was the first, who came there and thereafter, the pedicel reached. 14. First version given by Smt. Kaushalya (P.W. 11) to the police was slightly different who stated that Gulab, Radhey Shyam and Gopal were having lathies and Mangi Devi had a piece of bamboo. Gopal caught hold of the deceased and threw him on the ground and thereafter, all four of then subjected him to beating. No recovery has been shown at the instanced of Mangi Devi. In fact, these witnesses, in their court statements, tried to improve upon their previous versions. Smt. Sajna (P.W 1) stated that her husband named Gopal, Gulab, Radhey, Mangi. Banwari, but the police did not file challan against Banwari because his name was not mentioned by these witnesses in their statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Smt. Sajna (P.W. 1) failed to give any explanation to her statement, but in that every statement (Exhibit D-1) she stated that Mangi Devi had no weapon. When she was confronted with this portion of her statement from I to J, she failed to give any explanation. Mangi Devi happens to be mother of other two accused Gopal Lal and Gulab Chand and it appears that these witnesses not only named Mangi Devi, but also named minor member of the family Radhey Shyam, who is said to have been acquitted by the Juvenile Justice Board. Smt. Kaushalya (PW. 11) also in her court statement named Radhey and Banwari and also named Mangi Devi. Smt. Kaushalya (PW. 11) also in her court statement named Radhey and Banwari and also named Mangi Devi. So far as case of Mangi Devi is concerned, we are inclined to hold that she has been falsely implicated/named by these witnesses and her case is of over implication and charges against her cannot be taken to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. 15. Having held so, we now advert to examine the appeal of remaining two accused-appellants namely Gopal Lal and Gulab Chand. They have been attributed specific roles by deceased in his Parcha Bayan (Exhibit P-20). Smt. Sajna (P.W. 1) and Smt. Kaushalya (P.W. 11) both have named them with specific overt acts and recoveries of lathies have also been made at their instance. Injuries sustained by the deceased were caused by blunt weapon. We are not inclined to uphold the submission made by learned counsel for the accused-appellants that since no injury report or no doctor from the Government Hospital, Sainthal and Government Hospital, Dausa was produced to prove whether any head injury was sustained by the deceased in the incident in question, and since the deceased did not allege so in his Parcha Bayan (Exhibit P-20) and such fact was not mentioned in 'karyawahi police' drawn at the back of Parcha Bayan, or in the inquest report (Exhibit P-7) and that head injuries appear to have been received by the deceased in the process of his being removed from Government Hospital, Sainthal to S.M.S. Hospital, Jaipur. The deceased in his Parcha Bayan (Exhibit P-20) did not specifically state that he did not receive any head injury. In fact, he stated that he received injuries on both of his legs and also on other parts of the body. Obviously, other parts of the body would include his head as well. 16. Banwari Lal Meena (P.W 12), first investigating officer in his cross-examination, when confronted with this that why he did not mention head injury in the 'karyawahi police', he stated that head and hairs of the deceased were full of blood and therefore, head injury was not apparently visible and he inadvertently did not mention the same in 'karyawahi police'. Minor lacuna in the police investigation cannot be a reason to throw the entire prosecution case overboard. Minor lacuna in the police investigation cannot be a reason to throw the entire prosecution case overboard. In the case of State of Karnataka v. K. Yarappa Reddy, AIR 2000 SC 185 , while dealing with the question of defective investigation as to whether any manipulation in the station house diary by the Investigating Officer could be put against the prosecution case, the Supreme Court held that if the other evidence, on scrutiny, is found credible and acceptable, the court should not be influenced by the machinations demonstrated by the Investigating Officer in conducting investigation or in preparing the records so unscrupulously. It can be a guiding principle that as investigation is not the solitary area for conclusion of the Court in the case cannot be allowed to depend solely on the probity of investigation. It is well-nigh settled that even if the investigation is illegal or even suspicious the rest of the evidence must be scrutinised independently of the impact of it. The Court must have predominance and pre-eminence in criminal trials over the action taken by the investigation officers. Criminal Justice should not be made a casualty for the wrongs committed by the investigating officers in the case. Therefore, such a plea is only noted to be rejected and is, accordingly, rejected. 17. Contention that the deceased named only two eye witnesses namely Hari Harijan and Sultan Bawariya, while Hari Harijan (P.W. 10) turned hostile and Sultan Bawariya was not produced by the prosecution, it should be taken as a case of no evidence by holding that Smt. Sajna (P.W. 1) and Smt Kaushalya (P.W. 11) were planted eye witnesses also cannot be countenanced. Since no injury has been sustained on the side of the accused, therefore, even if it is assumed for the present that there was dispute between the parties about the possession of agricultural land and the accused were in possession of the same, this cannot be a reason to believe the argument of the appellants that they acted in exercise of their right of private defence and the same cannot be accepted. Neither such plea has been specifically taken by them, nor has been substantiated, therefore, the argument in this regard is also liable to be rejected. 18. Neither such plea has been specifically taken by them, nor has been substantiated, therefore, the argument in this regard is also liable to be rejected. 18. We find that there are 27 injuries on the body of the deceased but except Injury No. 1 and 22, ali other injuries are of minor, superfluous and insignificant nature. There are contusions and abrasions, which show that the accused indeed had the intention of teaching a lesson to the deceased by subjecting him to severe beating, but in the present case, the incident appears to have taken place on the dispute relating to agricultural field, which according to trace map (Exhibit P-4A) and site plan (Exhibit P-24) happens to be sandwiched between the agricultural land of the deceased and that of the accused-appellants and both of them were trying to occupy the same. In fact, this land was earlier allotted to the deceased by District Collector in the year 1989, but at the instance of accused-appellants, such allotment was cancelled in the year 1990. It was this disputed agricultural field where the deceased was murdered when he went to ask the accused-appellants not to level the agricultural field for the purpose of cultivation. This even shows that the deceased was also claiming to be in possession of the disputed land. The incident, therefore, cannot be said to be premeditated inasmuch as intention of the accused-appellants to murder the deceased was also not borne out of the total 27 injuries, none of which was grievous except one fracture of metacarpal bone of the right hand and the only head injury which led to his death. The only head injury has been attributed by Smt. Kaushalya (P.W. 11) to both the accused Gulab Chand and Gopal Lal. She has stated that Gulab Chand inflicted head injuries by reverse side of the 'kharwadi' on the head of the deceased. Gopal Lal also inflicted lathi blow at the same place. The only head injury has been attributed by Smt. Kaushalya (P.W. 11) to both the accused Gulab Chand and Gopal Lal. She has stated that Gulab Chand inflicted head injuries by reverse side of the 'kharwadi' on the head of the deceased. Gopal Lal also inflicted lathi blow at the same place. Therefore, we are not inclined to hold that despite nature of injuries being such, which led to eventual death of the deceased, both the accused should be convict under Section 325 IPC, yet the evidence in totality makes out a case in favour of the accused to the extent that they had no intention to commit murder of the deceased, but they knew that injuries so caused were likely to result into death and, therefore, they had the knowledge that the death was the eventual consequential of their delivering such Injuries on the head of the deceased. Therefore, both the accused namely Gopal Lal and Gulab Chand shared common intention of causing such injuries to the deceased and therefore, instead of convicting them for offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC, it is fit case where they deserve to be convicted for offence punishable under Section 304 Part I read with Section 34 IPC. 19. Now, coming to the conviction of the accused-appellants under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, we do not find any utternance either in the Parcha Bayan (Exhibit P-20) of the deceased or in the statements of any of the prosecution witnesses including Smt. Sajna (P.W. 1) and Smt. Kaushalya (P.W. 11) that the deceased was subjected to beating only because he was a member of Scheduled Caste community. The Supreme Court in Ram Das (Supra) has categorically held that the very fact that victim happens to belong to Scheduled Caste does not attract the provisions of the Act, apart from that there is no evidence to prove any offence under the said Act. The Supreme Court, therefore, set aside the conviction of the appellant therein recorded for that offence. In the present case also, neither the deceased in his Parcha Bayan (Exhibit P-20), nor two eye witnesses, who have been relied by the learned trial court to convict the accused-appellants made any allegation whatsoever that the deceased was subjected to beating for the reason of his belonging to Scheduled Caste. In the present case also, neither the deceased in his Parcha Bayan (Exhibit P-20), nor two eye witnesses, who have been relied by the learned trial court to convict the accused-appellants made any allegation whatsoever that the deceased was subjected to beating for the reason of his belonging to Scheduled Caste. In fact, the facts prove that the deceased and the accused party already had a dispute and were in litigation and bone of contention between them was the disputed agricultural field, which was sandwiched between their agricultural fields. Both the parties claimed to occupy this agricultural field. Once this disputed agricultural field was allotted to the deceased, but such allotment was cancelled by the District Collector at the instance of the accused-appellants. We are, therefore, not inclined to sustain the conviction of the accused-appellants for the offence punishable under Section 3(2) (v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 20. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed in the following manner. 21. Conviction and sentence of accused-appellant no. 3 Smt. Mangi Devi for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 323 of the IPC as also Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, is set aside. She is acquitted of all the charges. She is already on bail pursuant to order of this court dated 16.04.2007 in D.B. Cr. Misc. Application for Suspension of Sentence No. 99/2007 and needs not to surrender. Her bail bonds stand discharged. 22. Conviction of accused-appellants no. 1 and 2, namely, Gopal Lal and Gulab Chand under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC is set aside. Instead, they are convicted for offence under Section 304 Part-I read with Section 34, IPC. They are in jail for last more than eleven years. For their conviction for offence under Section 304 Part-I read with Section 34 IPC, they are sentenced to the period already undergone by them. Their conviction and sentence for offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, is however set aside. Further, their conviction and sentence for offence under Sections 323 IPC is maintained. They are in Jail and be set at liberty forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other case and on deposit of the amount of fine. 23. Further, their conviction and sentence for offence under Sections 323 IPC is maintained. They are in Jail and be set at liberty forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other case and on deposit of the amount of fine. 23. Keeping, however, in view the provisions of Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellants, namely, Gopal Lal, Gulat Chand and Smt. Mangi Devi are directed to forthwith furnish a persona' bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- each, and a surety bond in the like amount before the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court, which shall be effective for a period of six months, undertaking that in the event of Special Leave Petition being filed against this judgment or on grant of leave, these appellants, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Supreme Court. *******