JUDGMENT Hon’ble Naheed Ara Moonis, J.—The instant appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 16.10.1982 passed by the IIIrd Addl. Sessions Judge Azamgarh in Sessions Trial No. 230 of 1981, (State versus Vishwanath Gaderi and others) whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced under Section 302/149 IPC to undergo life imprisonment. The appellants were further convicted and sentenced under Section 323/149 IPC to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment. The appellants No. 1 to 4 namely Vishwanath Gaderi, Suryanath Yadav, Jagni and Kanta were also convicted and sentenced under Section 148 IPC to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment. The appellant No. 5 namely Lal Chand Chauhan was directed to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment under Section 147 IPC. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently against each of the accused appellants. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellants No. 1 and 5 namely Vishwanath Gaderi and Lal Chand Chauhan have died as per office report dated 8.4.2015 confirming about their death hence the appeal against them has already abated vide order 19.5.2015 passed by another Bench of this Court. 2. Heard Sri Dilip Kumar assisted by Sri Kailash Prakash Pathak learned counsel appearing on behalf of the surviving appellants No. 2, 3, and 4, learned Government Advocate Sri Akhilesh Singh and learned AGA Sri Narendra Kumar Singh appearing on behalf of the State and have been taken through the record. 3. The emanation of the facts giving rise to the present appeal in a short conspectus is that an F.I.R. was lodged by Vishwanath alias Visuni on 25.5.1981 at 2.15 p.m. in respect of the incident of the same day occurred at 1.30 p.m. against nine persons namely Vishwanath Gadari, Suryanath Yadav, Kanta, Jami, Balchand, Barakhu, Babban and Lalchand. Out of nine accused persons, the trial Court had acquitted four persons namely Suryanath Gadari, Barkhu Yadav, Balchand Yadav and Babban thus this Court is now proceeding to hear the appeal against the surviving appellants No. 2, 3 and 4 viz. Surya Nath Yadav, Jangi alias Jami Yadav and Kanta Yadav respectively. 4. The emergence of the prosecution is that Budhiram belonging to the complainant’s village prepared a Chhappar and approached Raghunath, Baba Sukal, Vishwanath alias Bishuni, Chhotu, Kodai, Poojan, Kedar, Jagdish and Nakharu for mounting the same. Surya Nath Yadav, Jangi alias Jami Yadav and Kanta Yadav respectively. 4. The emergence of the prosecution is that Budhiram belonging to the complainant’s village prepared a Chhappar and approached Raghunath, Baba Sukal, Vishwanath alias Bishuni, Chhotu, Kodai, Poojan, Kedar, Jagdish and Nakharu for mounting the same. After erecting the Chappar, the aforesaid persons were coming back in an easy manner .They saw the accused persons namely Vishwanath Gadari, Suryanath Yadav, Kanta, Jami alias Jangi, Balchand, Barakhu, Babban and Lalchand who had cherished long drawn animosity with respect to the landed property running towards the residence of Budhiram. The accused persons namely Vishanath Gadari, Suryanath Gaderi, Jangi alias Jami Yadav, Surya Nath Yadav, Kanta yadav were armed with spears, Ballam and Lathi. The accused appellant Babban was equipped with Gandasa and Lalchand and Barkhu were armed with lathi. The accused persons dismantled the chappar erected by the complainant’s side and chased them extending exhortations. The complainant and other persons ran away after being chased by the accused persons. The father of the complainant Raghunath and Baba Sukkal were aged persons . They could not run away swiftly rather they lagged behind their companions and were encircled by the accused persons. The accused persons namely Vishwanath Gaderi and Suryanath Yadav inflicted injuries to victim Raghunath by means of their spear (Ballam). The accused persons namely Kanta and Jami inflicted injuries to the victim Sukkal by means of spears (Ballam and Barcha) and the other accused persons waylaid the mother of the complainant namely Bachhiya who came on the spot so as to get her husband rescued. The mother of the complainant viz. Bachhiya was also assaulted with lathi. On the wailing and screaming of the complainant and his associates a number of persons of the locality namely Chhotu, Radhey and Hardev arrived on the spot. The assailants seeing the precarious conditions of the injured fled from the place of occurrence. The injured persons were grappling with life after falling down on the ground. The injured persons were so brutally and dastardly thrashed that they were unconscious and senseless. The complainant took his father Raghunath, mother Bachchi and Baba Sukkal on taxi in a precarious condition at the police station. He lodged the first information report against aforementioned nine persons vide case crime No 155 of 1981 under Sections 147/148/149/307/323 IPC at Police Station Mohammdabad District Azamgarh scribed by Khursheed Ahmad. The complainant took his father Raghunath, mother Bachchi and Baba Sukkal on taxi in a precarious condition at the police station. He lodged the first information report against aforementioned nine persons vide case crime No 155 of 1981 under Sections 147/148/149/307/323 IPC at Police Station Mohammdabad District Azamgarh scribed by Khursheed Ahmad. On its basis chik report Ext.Ka.1 was prepared and the case was entered in the G.D.Ext.Ka.22. The criminal law was sent in motion and the investigation was entrusted to S.I.Sudhakar Tiwar P.W.8. The physical condition of the injured persons were deteriorating and were sent at the Public Health Centre Mohammadabad with a Majrubi Chithhi for medical examination. The victim Raghunath succumbed to injuries at the hospital without any medical aid which was confirmed by the Medical Officer Dr. S.P.Gupta P.W.4 in his report on the letter of request for his medical examination. . The victim Baba Sukkal was examined in the District Hospital on the same day i.e. 25.5.1981 at about 2.30 p.m. The following injuries were found by Dr. S.P. Gupta on his person. 1. Incised wound of the right upper abdomen 4 cm x 1 cm x 2 cm . There was bleeding from the wound. 2. Punctured wound of the left side of the above abdomen and 14 cm below the left axilla. The wound is 5cm x 5cm and depth is not taken due to penetration of the wound. The wound is bleeding . The omen tum has come out. According to the opinion of the doctor, the injury No. 1 is simple and both the injuries are caused by sharp object and penetrating object. The injury No. 2 is kept under observation and referred to District Hospital for X.ray of abdomen and for treatment. 5. On the same very day at 6.20 p.m, Bachhi was medically examined and following ante-mortem injuries were found on the person of victim Bachhi. 1. Reddish contusion 4 cm x 2.5 cm on the left fore arm . The contusion is associated with swelling. 2. Complain of pain at left gluteal region. No external injury seen. 3. Complaint of pain at back , no external injury was seen. According to the doctor’s opinion, her injuries were simple caused by hard blunt object. The duration was fresh Ex.Ka.3. 6. The contusion is associated with swelling. 2. Complain of pain at left gluteal region. No external injury seen. 3. Complaint of pain at back , no external injury was seen. According to the doctor’s opinion, her injuries were simple caused by hard blunt object. The duration was fresh Ex.Ka.3. 6. The investigating officer took the corpse of Raghunath after his death into custody and after interrogating the complainant and other witnesses converted the case under Section 302 IPC with G.D. Report . He prepared the inquest report Ext. Ka. 11, Challan Ext.Ka. 12, photo lash Ext. Ka. 13, memo for conducting the post mortem examination Ex.Ka.14 and the memo with regard to blood stained cloth of the deceased Ex.Ka.18. The corpse of Raghunath was put under sealed cover and despatched for autopsy through constable Ram Kunwar Pandey and Home Guard Gulam Yadav.The investigating officer proceeded to the place of occurrence and prepared the site plan Ex. Ka 15 and collected the blood stained earth as well as plain earth Ex.Ka.1 and Ka.2 and prepared the memos having put the same in different containers Ext. Ka.16 7. The dead body of deceased Raghunath was brought in the District Hospital Azamgarh for autopsy. The autopsy of deceased Raghunath was conducted by Dr.K.S.Mishra on 26th May 1981 at 3.00 p.m. Following ante-mortem injuries were found on the person of the deceased Raghunath. 1. Lacerated wound 2 cm x 1/2 cm x bone deep in the mid of right eye brow. 2. Punctured wound 2 cm x 1/2 cm x cavity deep outer part of the left shoulder at middle. 3. Punctured wound 2 cm x 1/2 cm x cavity deep on the left side stomach in the mid axillary line 13 cm above left hip joint. 4. Punctured wound 2 cm x 1/2 cm x cavity deep on the left side.14 cm above the left hip joint. The death of Raghunath occurred due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries. 8. Furthermore, injured Sukkal succumbed to injuries in the District Hospital on 26.5.1981 and the investigating officer prepared the inquest and after completing the necessary formalities sent the corpse for post mortem to the District Hospital Azamgarh. Dr. K.C. Chakravorty P.W.7 conducted the autopsy of Sukkal at 27.5.1981 at about 12.30 (noon) and found following ante-mortem injuries on his person. 1. Furthermore, injured Sukkal succumbed to injuries in the District Hospital on 26.5.1981 and the investigating officer prepared the inquest and after completing the necessary formalities sent the corpse for post mortem to the District Hospital Azamgarh. Dr. K.C. Chakravorty P.W.7 conducted the autopsy of Sukkal at 27.5.1981 at about 12.30 (noon) and found following ante-mortem injuries on his person. 1. Oblique stitched wound 5.5 cm containing of three stitches, 8.5 cm below the right nipple at 5.00 ‘O’ clock position. 2. Vertical stitched wound in the middle of stomach, 18 cms just above the umbilicus containing 12 stitches . Two drainage tubes were put. 9. The doctor opined that the death is on account of shock and haemorrhage due to ante-mortem injuries . 10. The investigating officer after collecting the credible and clinching materials showing the complicity of the accused appellants in the commission of the said offence submitted charge sheet under Sections 147/148/149/307/323/302 IPC on 18.6.1981 Ext.Ka 17. After submission of the charge sheet, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions .The accused persons denied the charges and claimed for trial. In support of the case, the defence examined Shahdev, D.W.1. Some documentary evidence was also filed by the accused persons in defence. The accused persons were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They claimed their ignorance about the version set up by the prosecution and made consistent version regarding false implication due to animosity. 11. In support of its case, the prosecution examined informant Vishwanath alias Bishuni, P.W.1 ,Budhi Ram P.W.2 who are the witnesses of fact besides formal witnesses constable Rameshwar Prasad P.W.3, Dr. S.P. Gupta P.W.4, S.I.Ram Nagina Mishra P.W.5, Dr. R.S. Mishra, P.W.6, Dr. K.C. Chaktravorty, P.W.7 and S.I.Sudhakar Tiwari P.W.8. The P.W.4 Dr. S.P. Gupta and P.W.6 Dr. R.S.Misra corroborated the prosecution version and proved the injuries on the person of Bachchi and also the injuries sustained on the persons of deceased Raghunath and Baba Sukkal. 12. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the time place of occurrence and the manner of assault in which participation of the appellants has been demonstrated in the first information report is in utter contradiction with the statement of the eye-witnesses. No other eye witness has been examined except the first informant Vishwanath alias Bishuni (P.W.1) and Budhiram as P.W.2 . No other eye witness has been examined except the first informant Vishwanath alias Bishuni (P.W.1) and Budhiram as P.W.2 . Budhiram had old enmity with Kanta on account of which he had appeared and supported the prosecution version. It is highly improvable that the complainant who was ahead of some paces from the place of occurrence would have seen the specific weapons carried by the appellants. It is specifically stated that all the accused persons came at the place of occurrence and dismounted the chhappar of Budhiram and chased the complainant and other persons who were present there. The complainant and other persons took to their heels. It is highly improbable that they would have seen the manner of assault taking place by attributing the specific role of causing injury to the father of the complainant namely Raghunath and Baba Sukkal by the appellants and other accused persons namely Surya Nath Gaderi, Barkhu Yadav ,Balchand Yadav and Babbar who have been acquitted by the trial Court. Neither the complainant nor the State has filed any appeal against their acquittal which itself corroborates that the entire prosecution story is rested on suspicion beyond reasonable doubt. It also creates serious doubt about the verity and truthfulness of the prosecution version that all the male members fled away from the place of occurrence to save their life but only Bachchi, the mother of the complainant came forward to save the life of her husband and sustained injuries which are purely simple in nature. A number of persons are alleged to have participated in the said incident with lethal weapons and caused injuries to Smt. Bachchi, Raghunath and Baba Sukkal but the complainant and Budhiram did not suffer single scratch which makes their presence highly doubtful. 13. The injuries sustained by victims do not commensurate with actual participation of all the accused persons named in the first information report. Injured bachchi was examined only at 6.20 p.m. on the same day which creates doubt about her presence at the time of incident when the incident is alleged to have taken place at 1.30 p.m. The place of occurrence from the police station was hardly three miles. The injuries of Baba Sukkal was examined at 2.30 p.m. on the same day when the injured Bachchi is alleged to have been admitted in the hospital together with Baba Sukkal. The injuries of Baba Sukkal was examined at 2.30 p.m. on the same day when the injured Bachchi is alleged to have been admitted in the hospital together with Baba Sukkal. It is alleged that Baba Sukkal died on 26.5.1981 at 4.45 a.m. on account of the injuries sustained in the same incident but neither any statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C was recorded by the investigating officer nor any dying declaration was recorded by the doctor. At the time of preparing the Majrubi Chitthi, no case crime number was demonstrated which creates doubt that the first information report was not in existence when the injured persons were taken to hospital for medical examination. It is highly improbable that no male member did receive even a scratch nor the complainant and Buddhiram came forward to rescue the injured persons which also creates serious doubt about the presence of complainant and Buddhiram at the time of occurrence. From the cross examination of Vishwanath P.W.1, it emerges out that the accused appellants have been implicated in the present case merely on the anvil of long drawn enmity over the landed property which was going on between Lalchand and Buddhiram. The informant is the son of Raghunath and Bachchi is the wife of Raghunath thus. The testimony of P.W.1 Vishwanath cannot be taken into account about the complicity of the accused appellants as he is absolutely an interested witness. No other witnesses as named in the first information report viz. Uncle Kodai, Pujan, Kedar and sons of uncle Jagdish Yadav and Nakhru who had gone to mount the Madhai came forward to corroborate the prosecution version. 14. The eye-witnesses upon whose testimony the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellants and acquitted the other co-accused is highly unreliable as the same is inconsistent and in serious contradiction by the other evidence produced by the prosecution. In the present case, the prosecution evidence does not corroborate with the medical evidence and in the testimony of the eye-witnesses there is contradiction in respect of the manner of the alleged assault. The testimony of P.W.1 Vishwanath and P.W.2 Budhiram upon which the prosecution has placed reliance goes to show that they were not present at the place of occurrence. The complainant was nurturing animus and grudge against the accused persons since long and had every reason to implicate each of them to wreak personal vendatta. The testimony of P.W.1 Vishwanath and P.W.2 Budhiram upon which the prosecution has placed reliance goes to show that they were not present at the place of occurrence. The complainant was nurturing animus and grudge against the accused persons since long and had every reason to implicate each of them to wreak personal vendatta. The sessions Court on the same set of evidence acquitted the four accused persons namely Suryanath Gaderi, Barkhu Yadav, Balchand Yadav and Babbar and convicted the appellants under Sections 302/307/323/148/149 IPC. All the injuries sustained by the victim are identical in nature which shows that the victim had sustained injuries in some other incident and the appellants and other accused persons were implicated on account of long drawn animosity and hostility. There is material repugnance in the statement of the witnesses with regard to place, manner and time of incident viz-a-viz post mortem report coupled with motive. The inconsistency and the falsehood are so glaring that it had destroyed the verity and truthfulness of the prosecution version and the five accused persons were acquitted by the same judgment and order dated October 16, 1982. The learned trial judge has committed conspicuous error convicting and sentencing the appellants giving pivotal momentous and significance to the prosecution witnesses without delving into their conduct and mode of presence when on the same set of evidence other accused persons have been acquitted. 15. The Section 149 IPC will also not be attracted as there is no credible evidence of overt act or forming unlawful assembly. There is no evidence on record to corroborate that unlawful assembly was formed in prosecution of common object to kill particular persons. There is no cogent evidence pointing towards the fact that each member of the unlawful assembly had any plan or common object to commit such crime. Mere drawing the inference for presence will not make the accused appellants liable to be prosecuted under Section 149 IPC unless it is corroborated that the accused appellants shared the common object and were aware that such an offence is likely to be committed. Thus the guilt of the accused persons has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. The site plan prepared by the investigating officer is in clear contradiction with the ocular testimony of the prosecution witnesses. 16. Thus the guilt of the accused persons has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. The site plan prepared by the investigating officer is in clear contradiction with the ocular testimony of the prosecution witnesses. 16. The trial Court having considered the evidence as a whole came to the conclusion that some of the persons were wrongly named in the first information report and were charge sheeted thus they have been acquitted and neither any appeal has been filed on behalf of the State nor by the complainant hence the judgment and order passed by the learned trial judge to the extent of convicting and sentencing the appellants on the same set of evidence whereupon co-accused persons were acquitted without discerning their role, being patently erroneous and untenable may be brushed aside. The conviction and sentence awarded by the trial Court may be rendered nugatory and the appellants may also be acquitted on the same set of facts and evidence. 17. Per contra learned AGA vehemently confronted the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants contending that it is a case of double murder in a broad day light. There is strong motive behind the commission of the occurrence as there has been long drawn enmity between Buddhiram and Lalchand in respect of landed property and when the complainant Raghunath and other persons went at the residence of Budhiram for mounting the chapper, they were returning after erecting it. The accused persons formed an unlawful assembly to dismantle the chhapper and it was at that stage the accused persons caused injuries to Raghunath, Baba Sukkal and Bachchi. There was strained relation between the accused persons and the complainant’s side. The accused party being the aggressor and perpetrator of crime caused severe injuries to the members of the complainant party in a determined fashion which culminated into death of two persons Bachchi who is the wife of Raghunath had come ahead to save her husband, was also inflicted injuries with lathi by the accused persons. The presence of Bachchi at the time of incident cannot be overshadowed and overcast in the guise of delay in her medical examination. It is intrinsically unbelievable that it is a case is mistaken identity to entrap the accused persons setting at liberty to the actual assailants. The manner in which the incident had taken place has not been challenged by the defence. It is intrinsically unbelievable that it is a case is mistaken identity to entrap the accused persons setting at liberty to the actual assailants. The manner in which the incident had taken place has not been challenged by the defence. The two post mortem reports are fully corroborated by the statement of the doctors P.W.6 Dr. R.S. Misra and P.W.7 Dr.K.C. Chakravorti. The deceased suffered homicidal death and the injuries sustained was the result of the assault blown by several persons with sharp and blunt weapons. The minor variation or aberration in the prosecution version and the statement of the witnesses will not efface the entire case as the first information report was lodged promptly just after the occurrence of the incident by the complainant. The learned trial judge has convicted and sentenced the appellants on the appraisal of evidence on record. Raghunath, the father of the complainant died on the way while taking to the hospital on account of fatal injuries inflicted to him. Baba Sukkal also died 26.5.1981 in the hospital. The first information report has been lodged narrating the correct facts. The defence has not put forth any convincing suggestion with regard to date, time and place of incident whereby the prosecution testimony may be discredited. It is an axiom fact that Bachchi had sustained injuries in the same occurrence which lends support to the testimony that the witnesses were present during occurrence and Bachchi injured mother of the complainant saw the happening with her own eyes. Two persons had succumbed to unnatural death on account of injuries caused by the accused persons. There is no exaggeration or embellishment in the prosecution version. The investigating officer P.W.8 had collected credible and clinching materials showing the complicity of the accused persons. He found the dismantled chhapper which was thrown on the ground marked at ‘6’ on the place of place of the incident in the site plan Ex.Ka.15 His evidence finds full support from the evidence adduced by the ocular testimony of P.W.1 Vishawanath and P.W.2 Budhiram Chauhan viz-a-viz. Medical reports of all the victims. There is no scope of mistaken identity or distortion of evidence as the accused persons were well known to the complainant and the witnesses. 18. Bachchi did not take care of her life rather came forward to rescue her husband, hence the submission of false implication completely stood wiped out. Medical reports of all the victims. There is no scope of mistaken identity or distortion of evidence as the accused persons were well known to the complainant and the witnesses. 18. Bachchi did not take care of her life rather came forward to rescue her husband, hence the submission of false implication completely stood wiped out. There is common intention of all the accused persons to do a particular criminal act and in furtherance of that common intention, all of them assembled together and in case anyone of these persons may not have committed the act but helps by his presence would be held to have actually participated in the commission of the said incident. There is no justification to ignore the evidence of the eye-witnesses and the medical evidence. The impugned judgment passed by the Court below deserves to be upheld against the surviving appellants. By no stretch of imagination, the act of the appellants would fall in the realm of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. They do not deserve any sort of clemency on account of gruesome and monstrous killing of two innocent persons on the trivial issue. Even if a number of accused persons have been acquitted by the trial Court. The entire evidence cannot be rejected where residue is sufficient to prove the participation of other accused appellants. The presence of P.W.1 Vishwanath and P.W.2 Budhiram cannot be discarded or doubted on the dint that they did not come to the rescue of the victims. How an unarmed person would react in a horrible situation like this cannot be fixed when the assailants were armed with deadly weapons. It has been contended that where serious injuries are found on the person of the injured persons. it becomes obligatory on the defence to satisfy the Court under what circumstances their name has figured in the commission of said offence and the injuries had not been caused at the time of the occurrence in question. 19. From the rival submission made at bar, it is clearly discernible from the thread bare analysis that there was conspicuous pre-arranged plan anterior in point of time to the commission of the offence and the criminal act has been done in concert pursuant to the pre-arranged plan. The act has been done in furtherance of the common intention. 19. From the rival submission made at bar, it is clearly discernible from the thread bare analysis that there was conspicuous pre-arranged plan anterior in point of time to the commission of the offence and the criminal act has been done in concert pursuant to the pre-arranged plan. The act has been done in furtherance of the common intention. The evidence has been judged and weighed cautiously and warily by the learned trial judge with great circumspection as all the witnesses who were examined by the prosecution had supported the prosecution version with respect to time of incident, place of occurrence and the manner of assault. There is proximity of time and place between the perpetrators of the crime and the injured persons. It is not a case of grievous injuries inflicted by an individual act of a particular accused and that the other accused persons did not have any animus. No adverse inference has been elicited in the lengthy cross examination by the defence so as to discredit or obliterate the prosecution version. There has been consistency in the prosecution version. The constable Rameshwar Prasad P.W.3 had proved the chick report and the G.D.report who had prepared the Majrubi chitthis of the injured.Dr. S.P.Gupta who had medically examined the injured Sukkal and Smt. Bachchi had proved the injury reports Exts.Ka.3 and Ka.4. S.I.Ram Nagina Mishra who had prepared the Majrubi Chitthis Ext.6 for conducting the medical examination of Sukkal proved that Rameshwar Prasad had prepared the Majrubi Chitthis of Smt. Bachchi and Raghunath Yadav. Dr. K.S.Mishra who conducted autopsy of deceased Raghunath proved that injury No. 1 would be caused by Lathis and rest of the injuries were caused by spears. Dr. K.C. Chakravorty who had conducted autopsy of Sukkal proved that the victim had died as a result of ante-mortem injuries. From the evidence of aforesaid prosecution witnesses it cannot be said that fake and fabricated case has been set up rather the entire prosecution is rested on convincing and credible evidence. Dr. K.C. Chakravorty who had conducted autopsy of Sukkal proved that the victim had died as a result of ante-mortem injuries. From the evidence of aforesaid prosecution witnesses it cannot be said that fake and fabricated case has been set up rather the entire prosecution is rested on convincing and credible evidence. It is quite natural that the victims on account of old age could not run away and the appellants availed the opportunity to make them target and the victims had been given severe blows consistently with dangerous weapon like ballam and spears as a result of which two innocent persons had died in an unnatural manner and the defence side has failed to confront the suggestion given by the prosecution. The statement made by the accused appellants under Section 313 Cr.P.C. cannot be any of worth consideration for their innocence. The presence of the witnesses cannot be ignored who had consistently supported the prosecution version. There is a channel of evidence showing connectivity of the appellants with the commission of the said gruesome crime which cannot be overshadowed in the guise of minor variation or deviation from the side of the prosecution. 20. The defence has tried to persuade the trial Court in the guise that the father of the deceased Raghunath was convicted and sentenced in the year 1991 with regard to assault inflicted on Hardev and Mahadev, the father of the accused Kanta was sent to jail and remained in jail for two months. This cannot be a ground for false implication of the accused persons by the complainant when the testimony of the complainant in the present case was recorded in the year 1982 . The complainant in 1982 was hardly aged about 22 years. When the complainant’s father was convicted in the year 1961, he would have been one or two years old and could not have any sense of grasping the word “enmity’’ between his father and the accused persons. This cannot be a pivotal ground that the complainant had lodged the first information report against the accused persons in order to wreak vengeance after a long span of 20 years. It is also highly improbable that Buddhiram with whom civil litigation was going on with Sukaloo, the father of accused Vishwanath would appear to support the prosecution in retaliation. This cannot be a pivotal ground that the complainant had lodged the first information report against the accused persons in order to wreak vengeance after a long span of 20 years. It is also highly improbable that Buddhiram with whom civil litigation was going on with Sukaloo, the father of accused Vishwanath would appear to support the prosecution in retaliation. The manner and the actual place of occurrence and the subsequent events were fully proved to the hilt by the prosecution. The testimony of the eye-witnesses was so consistent and reliable that nothing could be elicited in the lengthy cross examination to render their evidence untrustworthy. The defence has also failed to negate the time, place and the manner of assault . The defence has also not suggested any creditworthy explanation for omitting the real culprits and to implicate falsely all the accused appellants. 21. The testimony of the P.W.1 Vishwanath cannot be disbelieved merely because he is related with the victims and such a witness would not leave the actual assailant to go unpunished. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dharnidhar v. State of U.P. and others, 2010(7) SCC 759 held in the following manner : “There is no hard and fast rule that family members can never be true witnesses to the occurrence and that they will always depose falsely before the Court. The Hon’ble Apex Court had occasioned to consider whether the evidence of interested witnesses can be relied upon. The Court took the view that a pedantic approach cannot be applied while dealing with the evidence of an interested witness. Such evidence cannot be ignored or thrown out solely because it comes from a person who is closed to the victim. Where the presence of the witnesses is proved to be natural and their statements are nothing but truthful disclosure of actual facts leading to the occurrence and the occurrence itself, it will not be permissible for the Court to discard the statement of such related or family witnesses. 22. The evidence of the eye-witnesses is of great value which cannot be doubted merely on some variation after the incident because it is highly onerous to assume how a witness reacts to a particular incident. The presence of Bachchi at the place of incident to save her husband was natural and she had also sustained injuries by the accused to deter her. The presence of Bachchi at the place of incident to save her husband was natural and she had also sustained injuries by the accused to deter her. Delayed medical examination of Bachchi soon after the incident, a plausible explanation has been given by the learned trial judge that her mental equilibrium would have got disturbed on account of serious injuries caused by the appellants to her husband who died shortly after the incident. She was not even medically fit to be examined as a prosecution witness. Section 134 of Indian Evidence Act clearly says that no particular number of witnesses shall in any case be required for the proof of any fact. Hence no adverse inference can be drawn against prosecution due to non-examination of injured Bachchi. It is the quality of evidence and not the quantity which is weighed to prove a fact in issue. Relation of the witnesses with the deceased will not detract or diminish their credibility. 23. There is ample evidence to prove that in all human probability, the said crime was committed by the accused persons and the Court may presume the existence of any facts which is likely to have happened. The connectivity of the circumstances are conclusive in nature excluding any other hypothesis except involvement of the accused persons. The joint liability of the accused appellants can very well be inferred from their conduct and from other relevant circumstances coupled with the medical evidence on record. When several persons simultaneously attack with common intent, no distinction between causing the fatal and non-fatal wounds could be drawn while allocating the guilt. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in Har Prasad v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1971 Cri.L.J. 1135 that in view of the large number of accused involved in the occurrence it is quite natural for the prosecution witnesses to get a bit confused. 24. In the present case the accused persons had gone to the place of occurrence fully armed with lathis, ballam , gandasa and spears and immediately after mounting the chhapper started attacking the victims with premeditation and prior concert. All the accused persons were physically present at the time of the commission of offence. 24. In the present case the accused persons had gone to the place of occurrence fully armed with lathis, ballam , gandasa and spears and immediately after mounting the chhapper started attacking the victims with premeditation and prior concert. All the accused persons were physically present at the time of the commission of offence. The criminal act was done by the accused persons and they all had formed unlawful assembly with common object and shared the common intention by engaging in that criminal enterprise for which they had come fully prepared. The evidence of P.W.1 Vishwanath and P.W.2 Budhiram is that Vishwanath Gaderi (now dead) and Suryanath Yadav had caused fatal injuries to Raghunath and accused Kanta Yadav and Jangi @ Jami had caused serious injuries to Sukkal which is fully corroborated by the medical evidence. In view of the nature of injury ,there can be no doubt that the injuries were not sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death hence their conviction under Section 302/149, 323/149 and 148 IPC is sustainable as the prosecution has succeeded in showing the existence of common purpose or design of all. It can also be deduced from the evidence that it was quite possible for all the witnesses not to have noted as to whose spears and lathi blow caused particular injuries to the victims to decipher the role of other accused persons who have been acquitted by the trial Court, therefore, the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge being reasoned and judicious deserves to be upheld. 25. In the light of verbose and prolix discussion, we come to the irreversible conclusion that the judgment and order dated 16.10.1982 passed by the IIIrd. learned Addl. Sessions Judge Azamgarh does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference by this Court. The conviction and sentence of the appellants as awarded by the learned trial judge is hereby maintained and upheld. 26. Resultantly this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. The appellants Suryanath Yadav, Jangi alias Jami Yadav and Kanta Yadav who are on bail may be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the sentence as awarded by the Court below. Office is directed to send back the record to the trial Court. 27. Judgment be certified and placed on record.