JUDGMENT Hon’ble Naheed Ara Moonis, J.—The instant appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 20.5.1985 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Moradabad in S.T. No. 35 of 1983 arising out of case Crime No. 210 of 1982, under Sections 302 and 307 I.P.C., police station Hayat Nagar, district Moradabad whereby the appellants have been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. to undergo sentence for life imprisonment and under Section 307 read with Section 34 I.P.C. to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. During the pendency of appeal the appellant No. 1 Ram Prasad and appellant No. 2 Shiv Narain have died and the appeal against them stood abated by another Bench of this Court vide order dated 23.9.2014. 2. The prosecution case emanating from the First Information Report lodged by Nand Kishore (P. W. 1) on 25.9.1982 at 2.45 p.m. in respect of the incident occurred on the same day at about 1.15 p.m. against Ram Prasad son of Roop Chandra, Shiv Narain and Munna Lal both sons of Ram Prasad, Smt. Naraini wife of Ram Prasad. It has been stated in the First Information Report that the field of the complainant and accused Ram Prasad are adjoining situated in village Bhumawali. On 24.9.1982 on account of dispute of mound of his field some altercation took place between the father and mother of the complainant with the family of the accused persons, namely, Ram Prasad and Smt. Naraini. The dispute was compromised on the intervention of the local people. On 25.9.1982 in the morning the complainant’s father Ram Chandra and his mother Somwati were taking out grass from the field and at about 1 - 1.15 p.m. when he alongwith his parents were working near the mound in the field, the accused Smt. Naraini wife of Ram Prasad started hurling abuses regarding the incident of the previous day and grappled with his mother Somwati and exhorted her sons and her husband Ram Prasad to kill them and instigated them to kill, at this Munna Lal and Shiv Narain who were armed with knife and Ram Prasad having darati rushed to the spot and Munna Lal stabbed her mother. As the complainant and his father Ram Chandra ran towards to save her, Ram Prasad assaulted the complainant with darati while Shiv Narain and Munna Lal had assaulted his father with knife. On raising alarm the complainant’s brother Chiranji Lal, uncle Angan lal and sister Harnandi and Laxmi who were working in the nearby field at once rushed to the spot and thereafter all the accused persons took to their heals. The injured parents of the complainant ran a few paces towards house but they fell down and succumbed to the injuries. The complainant in an injured condition reached at his house. The report of the incident was written by Chiranji Lal (P.W. 2) on the dictation of the complainant stating therein that the dead body of his parents are lying in the field where several people of the locality are beside them, hence action be taken against the accused persons named in the First Information Report. 3. On the basis of the written report the First Information Report was lodged at 2.45 p.m. On 25.9.1982 at Police Station Hayat Nagar whereby a chick report was prepared by Nirbhay Shanker P.W. 6, which is exhibited as Exhibit Ka. 7 and the same was entered into the general diary vide Entry No. 13 Exhibit Ka. 8. The special report of the incident was dispatched to the concerned officer at 5.40 p.m. On registration of the First Information Report the police swung into action and the Station Officer In-charge of police station Hayat Nagar took up the investigation and sent the injured Nand Kishore for his medical examination through Head Constable 217 Raj Pal Singh. 4. The complainant Nand Kishore was examined by Dr. Qamar Ahmad at about 4 p.m. on 25.9.1982. The Doctor had found the following injuries on his person; (i) Incised wound 4 cm x 3 cm at the upper part of left upper arm, 8 cm below the tip of shoulder at the lateral aspect and the injury could not be probed on surgical ground; (ii) Incised wound 12 cm x 5 cm x 3 cm on the left forearm at the upper part volar aspect blood oozing. (iii) Incised wound 3 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm at the top of right shoulder blood oozing. (iii) Incised wound 3 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm at the top of right shoulder blood oozing. (iv) Incised would 3.5 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm at the upper part of back at the medial border of right scapula blood oozing. 5. The Doctor had found all injuries fresh caused by sharp edged weapon. Injury Nos. 1 and 3 were simple and injury Nos. 2 and 4 were kept under observation and was advised X-ray at District Hospital Moradabad. Dinesh Kumar Agarwal Compounder at Primary Health Center, Sambhal was examined as P. W. 8 who proved the bed head ticket of the injured. Nand Kishore who remained admitted at Primary Health Centre Sambhal from 25.9.1982 till 27.9.1982. Thereafter Nand Kishore was referred to District Hospital Moradabad, where his X-ray was conducted by Radiologist Dr. Purshottam Singh P.W. 7 proved X-Ray report Exhibit Ka. 10 who did not find any fracture or dislocation of his bones. According to Sri Ram Singh Pharmacist P.W. 10 the injured was admitted at District Hospital Moradabad on 28.9.1982 and was discharged from the hospital on 13.10.1982. Bed ticket was p;roved by him exhibited as Ka. 16. 6. Jagdish Chandra Upadhyay the Investigating Officer of the case was examined as P. W. 11 who reached at the spot where the incident had taken place and found the dead bodies of Ram Chandra and Somwati, the parents of the complainant Nand Kishore, were lying in the field. The Investigating Officer had taken into custody the two dead bodies of Ram Chandra and Somwati for conducting inquest who found the dead bodies in a pool of blood in the field with various mark of injuries on their persons. He prepared the inquest reports (Exhibit Ka. 17 and Exhibit Ka. 21) sketch of the dead bodies challans and letter of request to the Medical Officer for conducting post-mortem vide Exhibit Ka. 18, exhibit Ka. 19, Exhibit Ka. 20, Exhibit Ka. 22, Exhibit 23 and Exhibit Ka. 24. The dead bodies of Ram Chandra and Somwati were sent under sealed cover for post-mortem, which were handed over to Constable Kali Charan and Raj Kumar alongwith the aforesaid necessary papers Exhibit Ka. 25. 18, exhibit Ka. 19, Exhibit Ka. 20, Exhibit Ka. 22, Exhibit 23 and Exhibit Ka. 24. The dead bodies of Ram Chandra and Somwati were sent under sealed cover for post-mortem, which were handed over to Constable Kali Charan and Raj Kumar alongwith the aforesaid necessary papers Exhibit Ka. 25. The Investigating Officer collected plain and blood stained soil from the spot and kept under two boxes in the presence of the witnesses and after obtaining their signatures prepared the seal cover exhibited as Exhibit Ka. 26. The Investigating Officer had also collected blood stained earth and plain earth from the house of the injured complainant Nand Kishore, which was also kept under sealed cover in the presence of the witnesses exhibited as Exhibit Ka. 28. He had also found trail of blood on the passage running between the place of occurrence and the house of Nand Kishore, which was mentioned while preparing the site plan Exhibit Ka. 27. 7. The accused Munna Lal was arrested on 26.9.1992 at 12.30 p.m. whose blood stained shirt was taken into custody and kept in sealed cover and memo was prepared by P. W. 9 S.I. Raj Pal Singh, which was exhibited as Exhibit Ka. 13. At the pointing out of Munna Lal, the knife was recovered from the field near the place of occurrence, which was smeared with blood and soil, who had stated that this was the same knife with which he had killed Ram Chandra and his wife Somwati and caused injuries to their son. The knife was sealed in the presence of the witnesses, which is exhibited as Exhibit Ka. 14. 8. The Investigating Officer had also stated that Smt. Naraini was arrested on 26.9.1982 at about 7 a.m. by Head Constable Laxmi Chand. The accused Munna Lal and the recovery memos bundle containing blood stained shirt and knife were brought to the police station at 7 p.m., which were entered into the general diary exhibited as Exhibit Ka. 15. The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of various persons under Section 161 Cr.P.C. including Nand Kishore and Chiranji Lal and had also interrogated arrested accused persons. 15. The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of various persons under Section 161 Cr.P.C. including Nand Kishore and Chiranji Lal and had also interrogated arrested accused persons. During the course of investigation Ram Prasad and Shiv Narain surrendered before the Court on 4.10.1982 and after collecting clinching material against the accused persons found prima facie offence is made out against them, hence submitted the charge-sheet on 13.10.1982, which was proved by him as Exhibit Ka. 13. 9. Dr. M. Rastogi (P.W. 3) who was posted at District Hospital, Moradabad as Medical Officer conducted the post-mortem on the dead body of deceased Somwati aged about 50 years on 26.9.1982 at about 3.45 p.m. At the time of conducting post-mortem the Doctor found that rigor mortis had passed off from upper extremities but was present on lower extremities; greenish discolouration was present over both iliac fossa and decomposition had started. The post-mortem staining was present over back. Death was estimated to have taken place about a day earlier the following injuries were found over her person; (i) Incised wound 3 cm x 1 & 1/2 cm chest cavity deep on left breast at 9' 0 Clock position, 6 cm medial to left nipple. (ii) Incised wound 1 cm x 1/2 cm x bone deep over front of head. 10. On internal examination the frontal bone was found cut under injury No. 2 and the 5th rib was found cut under injury No. 1. The pleural cavity was cut and contained about two pint fluid blood. The pericardium and heart were also cut. Three ounces of semi digested food material was found in the stomach. Gases were present and faecal was found in the large intestine and the Doctor had opined that death had occurred due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of injury to vital organs. The post-mortem report was proved by Dr. M. Rastogi, which is exhibited as Exhibit Ka.2. 11. Dr. M. Rastogi P.W. 3 conducted the post-mortem of the dead body of Ram Chandra aged about 55 years on 26.9.1982 at about 4.30 p.m. who found that rigor mortis had passed off from the upper extremity but was present over lower extremity. Decomposition had started and post-mortem staining was present on the back. Maggots were present over the wounds. Greenish discolouration was found over both iliac fossa and the time since death was opined one day earlier. Decomposition had started and post-mortem staining was present on the back. Maggots were present over the wounds. Greenish discolouration was found over both iliac fossa and the time since death was opined one day earlier. The following ante-mortem injuries were found on the body; (i) Incised wound 5 cm x 1 & 1/2 cm, chest cavity deep, just left to xiphisternum; (ii) Incised wound 7 cm x 3 cm, chest cavity deep, outer aspect of left side chest, 15 cm, below left axilla. (iii) Incised wound 2 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm x scapula deep over middle of left scapula. (iv) Incised wound 4 cm x 2 cm muscle cut over back of left scapula, 2 cm above injury No. 3. (v) Incised wound 4 cm x 2 cm chest cavity deep over right side back, 2 cm away from mid line and 6 cm below nape of neck. (vi) Incised wound 3 cm x 1 cm muscle deep 2 cm below injury No. 5. (vii) Incised wound 3 cm x 1 cm chest cavity deep over middle right back, just below lower part of scapula. 12. On internal examination both pleurae and both lungs were cut and two pints of fluid blood was present in both the pleural cavity. 9th and 10th ribs on left side were fluid material and the Doctor had opined that the death was caused found cut under injury No. 2. The stomach contained two ounces ofdue to shock and haemorrhage as a result of injury to vital organs, which was proved by him and exhibited as Exhibit Ka. 3. 13. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions Moradabad. the charges were framed against the accused/appellants on 9.6.1983. The charges were read over and explained to the accused persons who abjured from the charges and claimed to be tried. 14. The prosecution in order to prove the guilt against the accused/appellants examined 11 prosecution witnesses. The prime witnesses who were examined as witness of facts are Nand Kishore P.W. 1 the complainant who is also an injured witness and son of the deceased parents Chiranji Lal P.W. 2 who is brother of the complainant and scribe of the First Information Report and P.W. 4 Leeladhar who had settled the dispute between the parties one day earlier to the incident. 15. The prosecution has examined formal witnesses Dr. 15. The prosecution has examined formal witnesses Dr. M. Rastogi as P.W. 3 who had conducted the post-mortem of the dead body of Somwati and Ram Chandra on 26.9.1982 at 3.45 p.m. and 4.30 p.m. respectively. Dr. Qamar Ahmad P.W. 5 who had examined the injuries of injured Nand Kishore P. W. 1. Nirbhaya Shanker Saxena as P.W. 6 Sub Inspector who was posted as Head Moharrir who had proved the chick First Information Report and the general diary entry and who had sent the special report. Dr. Purshottam Singh, Radiologist at District Hospital, Moradabad who had proved the X-ray report of Nand Kishore examined as P. W. 7. Dinesh Kumar Agarwal, Compounder of Primary Health Center, Sambhal examined as P. W. 8 who proved the bed head ticket of the injured Nand Kishore that he remained admitted at Primary Health Center Sambhal till 27.9.1982, which was exhibited as Exhibit Ka. 11. Sub Inspector Raj Pal Singh who was examined as P. W. 9 who had proved the memo of arrest of Munna Lal and the recovery of knife at his instance. Recovery of blood stained shirt of Munni Lal and recovery of knife, which was exhibited as Exhibit 13. Ram Singh, Pharmacist of District Hospital, Moradabad was examined as P.W. 10 who proved the bed head ticket of injured Nand Kishore that he was admitted in the hospital on 28.9.1982 and discharged on 13.10.1982, which was exhibited as Ka. 16. Jagdish Chandra Upadhyay, Inspector Vigilance, Nainital who was posted as Station Officer on 25.9.1982 had conducted the investigation of the present case and submitted the charge-sheet Exhibit Ka. 30 was examined as P. W. 11. 16. The statement of the accused persons Ram Prasad and Shiv Narain (now deceased) were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. who have denied the questions put to them as false and showed their ignorance about the incident and stated that they have been implicated due to enmity. The accused Munna Lal and Smt. Naraini they have also denied the charges levelled against them and stated that they have been implicated falsely due to enmity and had filed their written statement. 17. Smt. Naraini in her written statement contended therein that on the day of occurrence the deceased Ram Chandra had cut the mound and had fallen the mulberry tree for which she reprimanded him. 17. Smt. Naraini in her written statement contended therein that on the day of occurrence the deceased Ram Chandra had cut the mound and had fallen the mulberry tree for which she reprimanded him. On being reprimanded Ram Chandra fell upon her and sat over her chest and started assaulting her. Tula Ram the youngest son of Smt. Naraini who had accompanied her ran towards the house and on coming to know about the incident another son Munna Lal reached at the spot and as soon as Munna Lal reached Nand Kishore (the complainant) grappled with him and scuffling took place then Munna Lal had took up darati, which was lying there and assaulted Nand Kishore on account of which he sustained injuries. Munna Lal tried to save her mother but Ram Chandra the father of the complainant did not leave her and while this grappling was going on Tula Ram had come alongwith vegetable cutting knife from the house to save his mother and Munna Lal took the knife from Tula Ram and in order to save himself and his mother (Smt. Naraini) out of anger assaulted him with the knife. At that time Ram Prasad and Shiv Narain were not present. On account of the injuries sustained by her she became unconscious. The aforesaid written statement was the part of the statement made by her under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 18. The accused appellant Munna Lal who had also denied the question put to him while he was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and pleaded false implication due to enmity. However, he had filed his written statement as a counter version of the incident stating therein that on the day of occurrence he was not present at his own field since morning, as he had gone for boring work in the field of Jafar Khan. The boring set was one of Nanuki. When he came at the noon for taking meal his younger brother Tula Ram came running to the house and disclosed that his mother is being beaten by Ram Chandra hearing this he reached to the field from his house, there Nand Kishore grappled with him. He took up darati, which was lying there and in order to come out from his clutches he had given a darati blow over Nand Kishore who ran away from the spot on sustaining injury. He took up darati, which was lying there and in order to come out from his clutches he had given a darati blow over Nand Kishore who ran away from the spot on sustaining injury. His mother was continuously beaten up by Somwati while Ram Chandra was holding her. Munna Lal became infuriated and in order to save his mother Smt. Naraini, he took the vegetable cutting knife, which was brought by his younger brother Tula Ram and assaulted Ram Chandra and Somwati resulting into their death. After killing them he sat over there repenting. His mother was in an unconscious state. He was taken into custody from the place of incident by the police and was lodged in police station for two days and thereafter he was challaned on the third day and produced before the Magistrate where his statement was recorded who had narrated about the true facts of the incident. The written statement filed by Munna Lal was placed on record as a part of his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 19. The defence in support of their case further produced Tula Ram as defence witness who was examined as D.W. 1. Tula Ram is the youngest son of accused/appellants Ram Prasad and Smt. Naraini and the younger brother of appellants 2 and 3. According to him he and his mother Smt. Naraini had gone to the field in the noon, Ram Chandra, Somwati and Nand Kishore had uprooted their trees, which were away from the mound of his field. When his mother complained to Ram Chandra, Somwati and Nand Kishore as to why they had uprooted the trees they started hurling abusive language and assaulted his mother. Ram Chandra sat on his mother, he became frightened and rushed towards his house where he found Munna Lal and narrated him about the quarrel took place between his mother and Ram Chandra, Somwati and Nand Kishore. Munna Lal immediately rushed to his field. After remaining for some time at the house he (Tula Ram D. W. 1) took the vegetable cutting knife and arrived to his field he saw that quarrel was going on between his mother and brother Munna Lal with Ram Chandra, Somwati and Nand Kishore. A darati was lying there, which was picked up by Munna Lal with which he assaulted Nand Kishore. Nand Kishore ran away from there. A darati was lying there, which was picked up by Munna Lal with which he assaulted Nand Kishore. Nand Kishore ran away from there. Thereafter Munna Lal had taken the knife from him and assaulted Nand Kishore and Ram Chandra. His mother had sustained injuries on account of which she was in an unconscious state but he was not aware as to what was the nature of injuries suffered by her. He and Munna Lal remained sitting there. The knife was lying beside Munna Lal. After one hour of the incident police reached there and arrested Munna Lal. His mother was taken away by the police on a cot and Munna Lal was taken away handcuffed. D. W. 1 Tula Ram was cross-examined by the prosecution wherein he has stated that he was there in the field alongwith his mother at that time his father and brother were not there. His father had gone to sell vegetable in the market and no such quarrel regarding mound had taken place one day earlier to the incident. When he reached at the field he found that Ram Chandra (deceased) had already up rooted the mulberry tree and was cutting mound. His (Tula Ram’s) house lying hundred paces away from his field. When the scuffling started he left his mother at the field and after two minutes he came back having knife. Munna Lal his brother had not taken the knife from the house nor he had asked him to take knife. As the quarrel had already taken place, therefore, he had taken the knife and arrived at the place of occurrence one minute thereafter. He had denied that there was no settlement took place in the presence of Leeladhar (P.W.4) and Angan Lal. He had also denied that on the day of occurrence his father Ram Prasad and two brother Munna Lal and Shiv Narain (all the accused/appellants) were not working since morning at the field. He had denied that Munna Lal was present on the field and had also denied that Nand Kishore was assaulted by his father Ram Prasad with darati and Munna Lal and Shiv Narain assaulted Nand Kishore with knife. He had also denied that Munna Lal had assaulted Somwati with the knife and Shiv Narain assaulted Ram Chandra. He showed his ignorance that Somwati and Ram Chandra died on the spot. He had also denied that Munna Lal had assaulted Somwati with the knife and Shiv Narain assaulted Ram Chandra. He showed his ignorance that Somwati and Ram Chandra died on the spot. On his re-examination it was stated by him that after Nand Kishore ran away Munna Lal had caused injury to Ram Chandra and Somwati with knife. In his further cross-examination by the prosecution he has stated that on account of mistake he had stated in his earlier statement that Munna Lal had assaulted Nand Kishore in place of Somwati. He had denied the suggestion that his father is not doing the work of selling vegetables. 20. The defence has also produced the medical report of Smt. Naraini who is said to have sustained injuries during the course of incident. The medical report shows that she was examined on 25.9.1982 at 6 p.m. at Primary Health Centre Sambhal by Dr. Qamar Ahmad P.W. 5. The Doctor found one lacerated wound 1 x 0.4 cm x deep on right side of elbow from which the blood was oozing. The injury was simple and fresh and it was opined to have been caused by blunt weapon. The injury report of Smt. Naraini was proved by Dr. Qamar Ahmad, P. W. 5, which was exhibited as Exhibit Ka. 6. In his statement P.W. 5 has while proving the medical report of Smt. Naraini has stated that the injury caused to her within six hours. It could also come if fallen on hard surface like brick or other hard object if lying in the field and the injury can be said to be superficial and could be self inflicted. In his cross-examination it was stated by him that the injury of Smt. Naraini could be caused by danda and it is not definite that it is self inflicted but there is possibility of being self inflicted. 21. On the perusal of the entire evidence on record meticulously the learned trial judge held that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt against all the accused/appellants in respect of the incident in which Ram Chandra, Somwati and Nand Kishore had sustained injuries resulting into death of Ram Chandra and Somwati and as such convicted them for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 and 307/34 I.P.C. giving rise to the present appeal. As stated at the very outset that during the pendency of the appeal two accused/appellants, namely, Ram Prasad and Shiv Narain have expired and the appeal has stood abated against them, hence now the appeal is being heard on behalf of surviving appellant, namely, Munna Lal and Smt. Naraini. 22. We have heard the learned counsels for the appellant S/Sri Subodh Pandey and R.D. Singh, and S/Sri Rajeev Gupta, Hasan Abdi and Rahul Asthana, learned counsels appearing on behalf of the State and have been taken through the record. 23. The learned counsel for the appellants has assailed the conviction and sentence awarded by the Court below by contending that all the witnesses produced by the prosecution were highly partisan and interested witnesses. On the day of the alleged occurrence the appellant Munna Lal was not present on the spot who reached later on when his younger brother disclosed about the grappling took place between the deceased Ram Chandra with his mother Smt. Narayani in the field and when he reached at the spot scuffling was going on with the deceased Ram Chandra, he took up a darati and assaulted Nand Kishore. The learned counsel for the appellants has reiterated the vivid account given by both the accused/appellants in their statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that time place of occurrence and the manner of assault in which the participation of the appellants have been demonstrated in the First Information Report is in contradiction with the statement of the eye-witnesses suppressing the genesis of occurrence. It creates serious doubt about the truthfulness and veracity of the prosecution version that Smt. Narayani had started quarrelling with the deceased Somwati by hurling abusive language. In this incident it is alleged that Ram Chandra was having darati while Shiv Narain and Munna Lal were armed with knife and had assaulted the deceased Somwati and Ram Chandra who are parents of the complainant and the complainant had also sustained injuries with knife and darati. The injuries sustained by the victim do not commensurate with the actual participation of all the accused persons, which creates doubt about the manner of incident. There is every reason to implicate the entire family members to wreck personal vendetta. Despite the complainant had sustained injuries his his brother Chiranji Lal did not accompany him to the police station. The injuries sustained by the victim do not commensurate with the actual participation of all the accused persons, which creates doubt about the manner of incident. There is every reason to implicate the entire family members to wreck personal vendetta. Despite the complainant had sustained injuries his his brother Chiranji Lal did not accompany him to the police station. The presence of the injured complainant at the time of incident on the spot is highly doubtful as the blood stained soil was collected from the house only by the Investigating Officer. Chiranji Lal P. W. 2 has denied that he did not hug their parents nor touch them which is an unnatural conduct in spite seeing the parents in precarious condition who were gasping after receiving injuries. Hence his presence is also doubtful. 24. The learned trial judge has committed conspicuous error in convicting and sentencing the appellants giving pivotal momentous and significance of the prosecution witnesses without delving into their conduct and mode of presence. Mere presence of the appellants at the alleged time and place of occurrence would not draw inference that they had shared common intention to commit such crime. The appellant Smt. Naraini had also sustained injury in the incident and her injuries were proved by P. W. 5 Dr. Qamar Ahmad yet adverse inference has been drawn by the Court below. She is 80 years of age ailing with old age diseases. The learned trial Court has drawn wrong inferences merely on account of the presence of the appellants at the place of the incident. There is material inconsistency in the manner in which the investigation was conducted by the Investigating officer P. W. 11 with the statement of the prosecution witnesses of fact yet the trial Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt with respect to participation of each of the appellants, hence the conviction of the surviving appellants is bad in the eyes of law deserves to be set aside. 25. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently refuted the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants and contended that there is clinching evidence against all the appellants who have committed double murder in a broad day light on the fateful day when one day earlier the dispute with regard to mound between their field was settled down with the intervention of P. W. 4 Leeladhar. The dispute with regard to the cut of mound of their field is admitted when Angan Lal had told to the P. W. 4 Leeladhar that there was a dispute with Ram Chandra and Ram Prasad regarding mound between their fields and it was advised by him to get the broken mound reconstructed after showing its exact location to some other person without taking any legal recourse. The P. W. 4 Leeladhar had settled down the dispute between the two, which is amply proved by him. This fact has also been corroborated by the complainant Nand Kishore who is an injured witness and son of the deceased Smt. Somwati and Ram Chandra. The complainant party were already nurturing enmity and grudge against the appellants and their family members on account of dispute of mound demarcating their field. The incident took place when on the next day Smt. Narayani started hurling abusive language with the mother of the complainant Smt. Somwati and they entered into scuffle and Smt. Narayani exhorted her sons, namely, Shiv Narain and Munna Lal to finish all of them in order to give quietus to the dispute for ever and then at the exhortation of her mother the surviving appellant Munna Lal gave blows of knife upon Somwati and when Ram Chandra her husband rushed to save her, Shiv Narain the brother of Munna Lal, inflicted knife blows to him. Both of them after receiving knife blows ran few paces, fell down and died on the spot. There is no deviation or suppression in the manner of assault as divulged by the prosecution. Some discrepancy due to examination of witnesses after a lapse of time would not corrode the credibility of the prosecution case. All the accused persons joined together and committed gruesome crime in a very barbaric manner culminating into fatal and grievous injuries to Somwati and Ram Chandra who died on the spot and caused injury to Nand Kishore whose presence cannot be doubted. There is no reason to implicate the appellants falsely leaving to the actual assailants who had taken the life of two innocent persons. The post-mortem of the two deceased as well as the injury report of the injured fully corroborates the prosecution case with regard to injuries inflicted upon them, which cannot be doubted to discard the testimony of the two Doctors. The post-mortem of the two deceased as well as the injury report of the injured fully corroborates the prosecution case with regard to injuries inflicted upon them, which cannot be doubted to discard the testimony of the two Doctors. The testimony of injured witness Nand Kishore guarantees his truthfulness and deserves due weight as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in catena of decisions. The statement of such witness is subject to close scrutiny. It is well-settled that the evidence of injured witness must be rated high, such person would not screen the real offender to substitute innocent persons. 26. The learned A.G.A. has further argued that the prosecution witnesses were put to lengthy cross-examination but no adverse inference has been elicited in their cross-examination by the defence so as to discredit the prosecution version. The appellants had set up their case in defence as a counter version admitting their presence with slight difference with regard to the genesis of occurrence. The appellant Munna Lal and Smt. Naraini admitted their participation and involvement in the incident. Munna Lal has admitted that he had caused injuries to all the three, which resulted into death of Ram Chandra and Smt. Naraini and injured Nand Kishore in exercise of right of private defence of himself and his mother Smt. Naraini. The appellants in support of their case had examined D.W. 1 Tula Ram who is brother of the appellant Shiv Narain deceased and Munna Lal his testimony improbablizes all the defence version, which is not trustworthy to place any credence. Injuries of accused appellant Smt. Naraini was minor and superficial in nature it out weighs the effect or omission on the part of the prosecution to explain her injury. Similarly the behaviour of the son of the deceased not coming to hug the deceased parents after the assault could not be made basis to discard the entire evidence. How a person would react in a situation particularly in the present one like when they all were unarmed and the accused/appellants were assaulting with knives and darati, cannot be encompassed by any rigid formula. The trial Court has analysed the evidence meticulously and found that all the accused persons had participated in the commission of ghastly offence in furtherance of common intention and has rightly been convicted, hence their conviction deserves to be up held. 27. The trial Court has analysed the evidence meticulously and found that all the accused persons had participated in the commission of ghastly offence in furtherance of common intention and has rightly been convicted, hence their conviction deserves to be up held. 27. From threadbare analysis it transpires that one day earlier to the incident the dispute with regard to raising of mound between the two fields of the parties, were settled down by one Leeladhar who was examined as P. W. 4. Since Smt. Narayani, the wife of Ram Prasad, the present surviving appellant was not satisfied with the settlement so arrived between the parties, she would have in her mind that her family members have been defeated at the hands of the complainant’s party and made a prestige issue hence she reprimanded the deceased Somwati, the mother of the complainant, who was working in the field since morning and then grappling started by Smt. Naraini initially and at the call of Smt. Naraini her son Shiv Narain arrived there having knife who had given successive blows to the mother of the complainant Somwati and when her husband Ram Chandra tried to save her he was also met with the same fate as Shiv Narain (since deceased) and the present appellant Munna Lal had assaulted Ram Chandra with knives in a brutal manner who had sustained seven incised wound on his body. Ram Chandra and Somwati both could not save themselves when they tried to ran away from there for their lives, they fell down and succumbed to the injuries. The appellants not satisfied with this had also assaulted Nand Kishore who was there alongwith his mother since morning and was also given knife as well as darati blows by Ram Prasad and Munna Lal. Nand Kishore the injured had sustained as many as four incised wound but somehow he ran towards his house. The trail of blood found by the Investigating Office from the place of occurrence upto the house of the deceased and blood inside the house was recovered of which memo was also prepared by the Investigating Officer P.W. 11 while preparing the site plan Exhibit Ka. 27 on the same day. The trail of blood found by the Investigating Office from the place of occurrence upto the house of the deceased and blood inside the house was recovered of which memo was also prepared by the Investigating Officer P.W. 11 while preparing the site plan Exhibit Ka. 27 on the same day. The First Information Report was scribed by Chiranji Lal on the dictation of Nand Kishore and then First Information Report was lodged by Nand Kishore at 2.45 p.m. in respect of the incident, which took place at 1.50 p.m. on 25.9.1982. The injured was admitted in Primary Health Centre from where he was referred to the District Hospital and remained under treatment of the Doctor and could only be discharged on 13.10.1982. Thus he remained in hospital for his treatment for about 18 days. This has been amply proved from testimony of Ram Singh P.W. 10 the Pharmacist. The prosecution has also fully proved the genesis of occurrence and the manner of assault, which took place by examining the witnesses of facts. There is no scope of distortion of evidence with regard to the participation of each of the appellants as the complainant as well as the other witnesses were known to them hence the submission of false implication completely stood wiped of. Normal discrepancy due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence and recording of the statement of the witnesses after much lapse of time, errors are bound to occur, which will not affect the credibility of the witnesses. There was common intention of accused persons to do a particular crime and in furtherance of that common intention all have participated in the commission of the said offence. Even though appellant Smt. Naraini may not have committed the assault but she helped by her presence. 28. There is no hard and fast rule that the testimony of interested/related witnesses should be disbelieved. No adverse inference can be drawn against the related witnesses as the said witnesses would not leave the actual assailants to go unpunished. Relationship is not a factor to affect the credibility of a witness. 28. There is no hard and fast rule that the testimony of interested/related witnesses should be disbelieved. No adverse inference can be drawn against the related witnesses as the said witnesses would not leave the actual assailants to go unpunished. Relationship is not a factor to affect the credibility of a witness. In Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1953 SC 364 , which has since been followed by the Apex Court in various decision viz : Guli Chand v. State of Rajasthan, 1974 SCC Cr 222; Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras, AIR 1957 SC 614 , Sucha Singh and another v. State of Punjab, 2003 (7) SCC 643 , it has been laid down as under; “26. A witness is normally to be considered independent unless he or she springs from sources which are likely to be tainted and that usually means unless the witness has cause, such as enmity against the accused, to wish to implicate him falsely. Ordinarily a close relation would be the last to screen the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person. It is true, when feelings run high and there is personal cause for enmity, that there is tendency to drag in an innocent person against whom a witness has a grudge alongwith the guilty, but foundation must be laid for such a criticism and the mere fact of relationship far from being a foundation is often a sure guarantee of truth. However, we are not attempting any sweeping generalization. Each case must be judged on its own facts. Our observations are only made to combat what is so often put forward in cases before us as a general rule of prudence. There is no such general rule. Each case must be limited to and be governed by its own facts” 29. Therefore, it would be unreasonable to discard the evidence of prosecution witnesses on the ground that such evidence is of related partisan or interested witnesses. In this respect, reference may be made to the judgment in Jaishree v. State of U.P., (2005) 9 SCC 788 , wherein Hon’ble Apex Court held that whether witnesses are interested persons and whether they had deposed out of some motive cannot be the sole criterion for judging credibility of a witness, but the main criterion would be whether their physical presence at the place of occurrence was possible and probable. The injured witness fully corroborates the prosecution case. 30. The medical examination of the dead body of the two deceased as well as on the person of the injured complainant Nand Kishore fully corroborate the testimony of the Doctor M. Rastogi and Dr. Qamar Ahmad who were testified as P.W. 3 and P.W. 5 respectively. Dr. M. Rastogi had specifically confirmed that the death was the result of internal injuries to vital organs sustained by the two deceased persons with sharp weapons like knife. Hence when degree of force applied cutting the vital internal organs cannot be said that the convicted appellant Munna Lal had not intended to cause death. Whether he knows of its seriousness or serious consequences is one of fact and not of law. 31. The recovery of knife was made at the instance of the appellant Munna Lal, which was used in the commission of offence and was exhibited as Exhibit Ka. 3. The recovery of knife has been proved in his deposition by P. W. 9 Rajpal Singh. Hence the recovery of knife is an admissible piece of evidence under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act connecting Munna Lal accused with the crime. Moreover, from the written statement given by the accused Smt. Naraini and Munna Lal, they have admitted their participation and involvement at the time of incident. They have stated that they have done so in exercise of right of their private defence. The younger son of accused/appellant Ram Prasad and Smt. Naraini who has been examined as defence witness was aged about 12 years at the time of incident suffers from various infirmities and the Court below has rightly found that his testimony is inconsistent from the medical evidence. The younger son of accused/appellant Ram Prasad and Smt. Naraini who has been examined as defence witness was aged about 12 years at the time of incident suffers from various infirmities and the Court below has rightly found that his testimony is inconsistent from the medical evidence. With regard to injuries of accused/appellant Smt. Naraini it has rightly been discussed by the learned trial Judge that in case Smt. Naraini had fallen down by the deceased Ram Chandra who was continuously beaten up by both Somwati deceased and the complainant Nand Kishore, Smt. Naraini would have suffered more injuries whereas the Doctor, who had examined her injury on the same day late in the evening at about 6 p.m. found only one injury over her person i.e. a lacerated wound 1 x 0.2 x into skin deep on her right elbow from which blood was oozing and the Doctor has specifically stated about that it could have been a self manufactured injury. It could have resulted due to fall only. Thus the medical report of the injured Smt. Naraini does not inspire any truthfulness with regard to the origin of the assault as set up by the defence rather the case as proved by the prosecution with oral and documentary evidence is more probable and trustworthy. 32. It has not been shown that the deceased or the injured were armed with any weapon, which were used by them in the incident and then Munna Lal had caused injury in right of private defence. It is alleged that Smt. Naraini was pushed down and Ram Chandra was sitting on her chest, then it could not give any right to Munna Lal to cause injury with knife and darati to the extent to cause so much injuries, which were proved to be fatal. Munna Lal, the appellant has caused multiple injuries to both the deceased causing death and injury to Nand Kishore with sharp edged weapon. There is great difference in the testimony of the defence witness with the post-mortem report of the deceased Somwati and Ram Chandra, therefore, the counter version as set up by the defence cannot be accepted in any circumstance of the case. 33. There is great difference in the testimony of the defence witness with the post-mortem report of the deceased Somwati and Ram Chandra, therefore, the counter version as set up by the defence cannot be accepted in any circumstance of the case. 33. We are of the opinion that the evidence has been adjudged and weighed verily by the learned trial judge, the testimony of the complainant Nand Kishore, who is an injured witness, is consistent and reliable about the manner of assault actual place of occurrence and the subsequent event that took place. He remained in hospital for the treatment of his injuries for considerable period of time. In our opinion greater weight has to be given to the testimony of injured witness Nand Kishore. It is trite law that injured witness would spare the real culprit and implicate innocent persons. The counter version as set up by the defence is absolutely untrustworthy to place any reliance for their innocence. There is no reason to falsely implicate all the accused appellants. The individual act of Munna Lal the appellant No. 3 causing injury to the complainant’s mother Somwati with knife on her vital part of the body thereafter he alongwith brother Shiv Narain (since deceased) the co-accused, badly gave successive blows to Ram Chandra with knife and darati, which were sufficient in ordinary cases to cause death, only reasonable inference can be drawn that Munna Lal had played an active role which cannot be watered down to absolve him from his guilt. The role played by Smt. Naraini the appellant No. 4 is of exhortation, who was the chief architect of the entire episode which resulted into ghastly incident. 34. In view of the aforesaid prolix discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. This Court does not find any infirmity in the judgment and order passed by the trial Court. Since the appellant No. 1 Ram Prasad and the appellant No. 2 Shiv Narain are now dead therefore the appeal on their behalf has already been abated by this Court. On an over all considerations of the entire evidence on record the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial Court to the appellant Nos. 3 and 4, namely, Munna Lal and Smt. Naraini is hereby up held and confirmed. 35. On an over all considerations of the entire evidence on record the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial Court to the appellant Nos. 3 and 4, namely, Munna Lal and Smt. Naraini is hereby up held and confirmed. 35. The appellant No. 3 Munna Lal had been taken into custody pursuant to the order dated 22.7.2015 and was produced before this Court. His bail application was rejected by order dated 27.8.2015. Therefore he is in jail custody. He will remain confined in imprisonment to serve out the term of sentence as awarded by the trial Court. 36. Smt. Naraini appellant No. 4 was taken into custody on account of issuance of non-bailable warrant by this Court vide order dated 22.7.2015 but was released on bail by order dated 27.8.2015. The bail bonds and sureties bonds are accordingly cancelled. The appellant Smt. Naraini be taken into custody forthwith and be lodged in jail to serve out her sentence as awarded by the trial Court. Resultantly, this appeal has no force and is accordingly dismissed. Office is directed to send the trial Court record for necessary compliance. 37. Judgement be certified and placed on record. ———————