JUDGMENT (Per Hon'ble Pratyush Kumar,J.) 1. The instant appeal, filed under Section 374 Cr.P.C. by eight accused appellants, is directed against judgment and order dated 4th March, 1982 passed by Sri J.A. Farooqi, 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Faizabad in Session Trial No. 275 of 1981 (State Vs. Manorath and others) whereby they were convicted under sections 302/149, 147, 201 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, rigorous imprisonment for one year and six months respectively. During the pendency of the appeal, appellants Ram Dulare alias Dulare, Bhadai, Birtanti, Ram Deen had died, appeal filed by them stood abated. 2. Prosecution case, in the present appeal is as under: Keshav Raj Singh R/o village Para Tajpur, P.S. Inayat Nagar, District Faizabad gave a written report at the police station on 4th April, 1981 at 7.15 p.m. mentioning therein that on that date at about 3 p.m. his son Pooran Singh went to village Maan Ka Purva to make demand to Billa alias Indra Pal to pay him back the money borrowed earlier. At that time he was harvesting his crop of gram in a chak situated on the northen side of village Maan Ka Purva. Suddenly he heard hue and cry and went towards that side and saw Billa alias Indra Pal, Dulare, Birtanti, Keshan, Ramdeen, Madai, Bachchu Lal, Maharajadeen and Manorath were beating Pooran Singh with lathis below the ''Jamun' tree near south side of the house of Khilawan and saying we would not pay back money, we would kill him. Meanwhile Dasharath Singh, Manik Lal, Ram Bahadur Singh and many villagers came there and saw the incident. Accused persons after killing his son threw the body of his son into a pond. They were threatening to Kill any one who would come near them. 3. At this written report, chick FIR was scribed. Case Crime No. 71 of 1981 was registered and requisite entry was made in the general diary of the police station. The Investigating Officer reached the spot, took out the dead body from the pond. The following day he held the inquest proceedings, sent the body to the mortuary, postmortem examination was conducted by the doctor, spot was inspected by the investigating officer, samples of blood stained and simple earth were taken. After conclusion of the investigation charge sheet was submitted against eight accused. The following day he held the inquest proceedings, sent the body to the mortuary, postmortem examination was conducted by the doctor, spot was inspected by the investigating officer, samples of blood stained and simple earth were taken. After conclusion of the investigation charge sheet was submitted against eight accused. Billa alias Indra Pal could not be chargesheeted on account of the fact that he remained absconding. 4. Case was committed to the Court of Session. All the accused persons were charged under sections 147, 302/149, 201/149 IPC. They pleaded not guilty. In the documentary evidence, prosecution filed inter alia written report Ext.Ka-1, chick FIR Ext. Ka-2, copy of report of general diary Ext. Ka-3, site-plan Ext.Ka-4, recovery memo Ext. Ka-5, inquest report Ext. Ka-7, chemical examination report Ext. Ka-11, postmortem report Ext. Ka-11. In the oral evidence seven witnesses were examined out of them three are eye witnesses, namely, Keshav Raj Singh P.W.1, father of the deceased and the first informant who fully supported the prosecution version. Manik Lal P.W.2 an eye witness and Ram Bahadur P.W.3 is also an eye witness. Both of them supported the prosecution version. Dr. M.B. Lal, P.W.7 is the doctor who conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased on 6th April, 1981 at 2.30 p.m. and proved the postmortem report. According to him death had occurred due to asphyxia as a result of strangulation. In his opinion death could have occurred at the time alleged by the prosecution. During internal examination he found larynx and trachea broken into multiple pieces. During external examination he found 28 ante mortem injuries on the person of the deceased, they are as under: 1.Lacerated wound 5 cm. x 1 cm., 6 cm. above right eye ball x bone deep. 2.Lacerated wound 4 cm. x 1 cm. x bone deep 2 cm. above injury No.1. 3.Lacerated wound 13cm. X 2 cm. x 3 cm. behind injury No.1 x bone deep. 4.Lacerated wound 3 cm. x 1.5 cm on lower pinna of right ear. 5.Lacerated wound 2 cm. x 1 cm. x bone deep with contusion multiple with swellings right check cm below right eye ball. 6.Lacerated wound 8cm. X 2cm, 6cm. above left pinna x bone deep. 7.Lacerated wound 7 cm. x 1 cm. x bone deep on the oxcipt. 8.Lacerated wound 2 cm. x 1 cm. bone deep 3 cm. 5.Lacerated wound 2 cm. x 1 cm. x bone deep with contusion multiple with swellings right check cm below right eye ball. 6.Lacerated wound 8cm. X 2cm, 6cm. above left pinna x bone deep. 7.Lacerated wound 7 cm. x 1 cm. x bone deep on the oxcipt. 8.Lacerated wound 2 cm. x 1 cm. bone deep 3 cm. anterior to injury No. VII. 9.Multiple contused swelling on the front of neck lateral side of neck extending below on upper chest, 9 cm above apefeshis and sic upto shoulder region. 10.Multiple contusion with swelling left upper arm 17 cm. x 7 cm. 11.Multiple contusion with swelling left fore arm 20 cm. x 4 cm. 12.Contused swelling on the dorsum of left hand 6 cm. x 3 cm. 13.Contused swelling 9 cm. x 4 cm. right upper arm 2 cm. below right shoulder joint. 14.Contused swelling 17 cm. x 8 cm. right upper arm below lateral region. 15.Contused swelling 8 cm. x 3 cm. anterior lateral region right upper arm. 16.Contused swelling 8 cm. x 4 cm. right corsum of hand. 17.Contused swelling 9 cm. x 4cm. on upper portion of right palm. 18.Contusion 10 cm. x 3 cm. right chest 8 cm. above right nipple. 19.Contused swelling 12 cm. x 4 cm. x 2 cm. below right nipple, abdomen. 20.Contusion 22 cm. x 3 cm. 13 cm. below left nipple on abdomen. 21.Contusion 18 cm. x 3 cm. just above umbilicus. 22.Contusion 16 cm. x 2.5 cm. right side of abdomen. 23.Contusion 10 cm. x 2.5 cm right lower abdomen. 24.Contusion 1 cm. x 3 cm. just above umbilicus. 25.Multiple contusion 3 cm. x 2 cm. on lower left leg. 26.Multiple contusion right upper leg 15 cm.x 10 cm. 27.Multiple contusion on left leg. 28.Multiple contusion on back. 5. Rest of the witnesses are police personnel. After close of prosecution evidence, statements of accused were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein they denied the facts stated by the eye witnesses. According to them they had been falsely implicated due to enmity. Witnesses were deposing against them due to enmity, they had litigation against witnesses Ram Bahadur, Manik Lal. According to them Pooran Singh was a man of bad character. Several cases were pending against him. In the darkness of the night he was murdered and his dead body was thrown into the pond. 6. Witnesses were deposing against them due to enmity, they had litigation against witnesses Ram Bahadur, Manik Lal. According to them Pooran Singh was a man of bad character. Several cases were pending against him. In the darkness of the night he was murdered and his dead body was thrown into the pond. 6. In the defence three witnesses, namely, Ram Sumer DW-1, Ram Vilas DW-2, Head Constable 386 Sarju Prasad Misra, D.W.3 were examined. Ram Sumer Dw-1 has deposed that on the date of occurrence he met Keshav Raj at 4 p.m., who inquired whether he had seen Pooran, who was untraceable. After some time he came to know that dead body of Pooran Singh was taken out of the pond. Ram Vilas DW 2 is the record keeper and proved the FIR dated 25th October, 1978 lodged against Pooran Singh. S.P. Mishra, D.W.3 has also proved two FIRs against Pooran Singh. Copies of these FIRs have been exhibited as Kha-2 to Kha-4. Ext. Kha-1 is a contradiction of Ram Bahadur proved by Chandra Deep SI PW-5. 7. After conclusion of the trial, learned Additional Sessions Judge recorded findings against the accused persons. He did not find defence evidence to be worthy of reliance. He found eye witness account of three witnesses to be trustworthy. Hence convicted the accused persons. 8. Aggrieved with the judgment the present appeal has been preferred. 9. Heard Sri Manish Bajpai holding brief of Sri M. Rakash and Mrs. Ruhi Siddiqui, learned A.G.A and perused the lower court record. 10. On behalf of the appellants it has been submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has erroneously relied on chance witnesses of partisan character. Learned trial judge has erred in believing ocular testimonies and ignored the medical evidence indicating contradiction with the ocular version. While elaborating these arguments the learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that all the three alleged eye witnesses are the planted witnesses. No one had seen the occurrence. Otherwise fact of strangulation would have found place in the first information report and in their statements recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. and also statements on oath. On the strength of testimony of Ram Sumer DW-1 he negates the presence of the first informant at the spot. No one had seen the occurrence. Otherwise fact of strangulation would have found place in the first information report and in their statements recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. and also statements on oath. On the strength of testimony of Ram Sumer DW-1 he negates the presence of the first informant at the spot. According to him Manik Lal is not only a chance witness, he is inimical to the defence on account of the fact that Ram Manorath, appellant no.1 gave evidence in a session trial against this witness. About Ram Bahadur he has submitted that he is relation of Keshav Raj Singh. Learned Session Judge did not accept the arguments mentioned above sufficient to impeach the credibility of the eye witnesses. He also rejected the argument that manner of strangulation as stated by Dr. M.B. Lal P.W.7 that the fatal injury no. 9 could be caused only when the deceased was lying on his head and one lathi was placed on his neck and pressed from both the sides. According to learned trial Judge asphyxia might be caused by drowning and injury on the neck could have been inflected by lathis before that. 11. Before we propose to deal with the arguments submitted by the respective parties, we would like to recollect the manner in which appeal against conviction is required to be considered by this Court and scope of jurisdiction conferred on the Court by Sections 374 and 386 Cr.P.C. Further we would like to refresh the observation made by the Apex Court in the case of Ishvarbhai Fuljibhai Patni Vs. State of Gujarat [1995 SCC (Crl) 222]. Para-4 of the judgment reads as under: "4. Since, the High Court was dealing with the appeal in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, against conviction and sentence of life imprisonment, it was required to consider and discuss the evidence and deal with the arguments raised at the bar. Let alone, any discussion of the evidence, we do not find that the High Court even cared to notice the evidence led in the case. None of the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant have been noticed, much less considered and discussed. The judgment is cryptic and we are at loss to understand as to what prevailed with the High Court to uphold the conviction and sentence of the appellant. None of the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant have been noticed, much less considered and discussed. The judgment is cryptic and we are at loss to understand as to what prevailed with the High Court to uphold the conviction and sentence of the appellant. On a plain requirement of justice, the High Court while dealing with a first appeal against conviction and sentence is expected to, howsoever briefly depending upon the facts of the case, consider and discuss the evidence and deal with the submissions raised at the bar. If it fails to do so, it apparently fails in the discharge of one of its essential jurisdiction under its appellate powers. In view of the infirmities pointed out by us, the judgment under appeal cannot be sustained." 12. In the case of Lal Mandi, Appellant v. State of West Bengal, Respondent [1995 CRI.L.J.2659 (Supreme Court), 2659 : 1997 (Suppl.) ACC 100 (SC)], the Apex Court in para-5 of the report has given the caution to the High Court reminding its duty in the matter of hearing of appeal against conviction. It would be gainful to reproduce the observation made in para-5 of the report, extracted below: "5. To say the least, the approach of the High Court is totally fallacious. In an appeal against conviction, the Appellate Court has the duty to itself appreciate the evidence on the record and if two views are possible on the appraisal of the evidence, the benefit of reasonable doubt has to be given to an accused. It is not correct to suggest that the "Appellate Court cannot legally interfere with" the order of conviction where the trial court has found the evidence as reliable and that it cannot substitute the findings of the Sessions Judge by its own, if it arrives at a different conclusion on reassessment of the evidence. The observation made in Tota Singh's case, which was an appeal against acquittal, have been misunderstood and mechanically applied. Though, the powers of an appellate court, while dealing with an appeal against acquittal and an appeal against conviction are equally wide but the considerations which weigh with it while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal and in an appeal against conviction are distinct and separate. The presumption of innocence of accused which gets strengthened on his acquittal is not available on his conviction. The presumption of innocence of accused which gets strengthened on his acquittal is not available on his conviction. An appellate court may give every reasonable weight to the conclusions arrived at by the trial court but it must be remembered that an appellate court is duty bound, in the same way as the trial court, to test the evidence extrinsically as well as intrinsically and to consider as thoroughly as the trial court, all the circumstances available on the record so as to arrive at an independent finding regarding guilt or innocence of the convict. An Appellate Court fails in the discharge of one of its essential duties, if it fails to itself appreciate the evidence on the record and arrive at an independent finding based on the appraisal of such evidence." 13. As an appellate court we have to re-examine and reassess the evidence on record. The medical evidence as it stands need not detain us for long because anti mortem injuries recorded by Dr. M.B. Lal P.W.7 in postmortem report Ext.Ka-11 are the facts which we take to be established. So far as time and cause of death are concerned, on the point of time since death we do not find anything to differ from the opinion of doctor, which is a well considered and on the basis of the contents of the stomach and the time stated by Keshav Raj P.W.1, when the deceased had taken his last food, we find that death could have occurred at the stated time. 14. Cause of death also be concluded to be asphyxia as a result of strangulation. But the manner in which injury No.9 could have been caused, we think opinion by the doctor is not a fact. It is merely an opinion and that opinion would bear weight which it deserves keeping in view the ocular version of the eye witnesses if found trustworthy. Generally the eye witness is treated to be trustworthy only when the Court is satisfied that he was present on the spot, he had opportunity to see the occurrence, he withstood the test of cross-examination successfully and any relevant fact bearing significance to either enhance or diminish the probative force of his deposition like corroboration from medical evidence, enmity with the person against whom he deposed etc. 15. 15. We propose to subject all three eye witnesses to this test to find out the intrinsic worth of their depositions. Keshav Raj Singh, P.W.1 is the first informant and father of the deceased. He has given reason to be present near the place of occurrence i.e. harvesting the crop of gram. On behalf of the defence existence of his chak is not disputed. Only distance between the chak and place of occurrence is disputed and it is suggested to be 1 Km. It has come out on record that Maan Ka Purva is a hamlet of village Para Tajpur. Distance between the hamlet and the village inheres shorter distance. On behalf of the defence to strengthen their suggestion no effort has been made. In the site plan Ext. Ka-4 the investigating officer has indicated the place from where the first informant had seen the occurrence at place ''A'. The place ''x' as indicated in the site plan where the deceased was said to be assaulted is directly visible from place ''A'. S.I. Chandra Deep, P.W.5 is the first investigating officer who had inspected the spot. He has verified the correctness of the site plan. During his testimony neither he was cross examined nor suggested that he had wrongly shown the first informant observing the occurrence at point ''A' and further he was not cross examined about the distance from point ''A' and point ''x' or between the field of the first informant and the place of occurrence or distance between chak of the first informant and the place of occurrence. Therefore, we have no reason to disbelieve Keshav Raj Singh that at the time of occurrence he was harvesting the crop of gram from his chak nearby the scene of occurrence. We find for the reasons indicated above him to be probable witness and further he had opportunity to see the occurrence. During cross examination running into 18 pages his testimony remains unshaken and inspite of the findings recorded in postmortem report, he has not tried to improve and explain injury No.9. He stuck to his previous statement and remained successful. He has given good description of the incident. He has no enmity with the accused persons. We find him to be a trustworthy witness. 16. Testimony of Manik Lal, P.W.2 has also been subjected to fairly long cross-examination running into 13 pages. He stuck to his previous statement and remained successful. He has given good description of the incident. He has no enmity with the accused persons. We find him to be a trustworthy witness. 16. Testimony of Manik Lal, P.W.2 has also been subjected to fairly long cross-examination running into 13 pages. He has also given reason to be present on the spot at the relevant time. We do not think that he is a chance witness. He was going from his house situated in Mahagoopur towards flour mill to fetch his floor. It is not disputed that from Mahagoobpur to the floor mill of Para Tajpur there is a straight public way. Being passerby for good reason he is a natural witness. The only criticism against him is that in his statement under section 161 Cr.P.C., he had not disclosed specific reason for his passing by the scene of occurrence. The explanation offered by the witness appears to be very natural. According to him he had stated to the investigating officer that he was going for some personal work and the investigating officer did not ask him its detail. For that reason he did not tell that he was going to fetch the flour. 17. His testimony remained unshaken during cross-examination. He did not falter upon the details of the beating given by the appellants to the deceased. He cannot be treated to be inimical witness on account of the fact that Ram Manorath had deposed against him because in that case this witness was acquitted. He had no reason to bear any enmity after his acquittal. He is an independent witness. His presence is natural and probable. His depiction of occurrence appears to be trustworthy. His testimony inspires our confidence. 18. Ram Bahadur, P.W.3 is admittedly a relation of the first informant. But relative witness cannot be thrown out without carefully scrutinizing his testimony. In regard to evidential value of the related witnesses, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rizan and another Vs. State of Chhatisgarh, AIR 2003 SC 976 : 2003 (46) ACC 428 (SC) has thoroughly discussed the matter and observed the following: "We may also observe that the ground that the witnesses being a close relative and consequently being a partisan witness, should not be relied upon has no substance. State of Chhatisgarh, AIR 2003 SC 976 : 2003 (46) ACC 428 (SC) has thoroughly discussed the matter and observed the following: "We may also observe that the ground that the witnesses being a close relative and consequently being a partisan witness, should not be relied upon has no substance. This theory was repelled by this Court as early as in Dalip Singh's case (supra) in which surprise was expressed over the impression which prevailed in the minds of the Members of the Bar that relatives were not independent witnesses. Speaking through Vivian Bose, J. it was observed: "We are unable to agree with the learned Judges of the High Court that the testimony of the two eyewitnesses requires corroboration. If the foundation for such an observation is based on the fact that the witnesses are women and that the fate of seven men hangs on their testimony, we know of no such rule. If it is grounded on the reason that they are closely related to the deceased we are unable to concur. This is a fallacy common to many criminal cases and one which another Bench of this Court endeavoured to dispel in ''Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan' ( AIR 1952 SC 54 at p.59). We find, however, that it unfortunately still persists, if not in the judgments of the Courts, at any rate in the arguments of counsel." 10.Again in Masalti and ors. v. State of U.P. ( AIR 1965 SC 202 ) this Court observed: "But it would, we think, be unreasonable to contend that evidence given by witnesses should be discarded only on the ground that it is evidence of partisan or interested witnesses..... The mechanical rejection of such evidence on the sole ground that it is partisan would invariably lead to failure of justice. No hard and fast rule can be laid down as to how much evidence should be appreciated. Judicial approach has to be cautious in dealing with such evidence: but the plea that such evidence should be rejected because it is partisan cannot be accepted as correct." 11.To the same effect is the decision in State of Punjab v. Jagir Singh ( AIR 1973 SC 2407 ) and Lehna v. State of Haryana ( 2002 (3) SCC 76 : 2002 (45) ACC 566 (SC))." 2.In the case of Tukaram and others Vs. State of Karnataka 2008 AIR (SCW) 2319 : 2008 (63) ACC 202 (SC), Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that: - "Relationship is not a factor to affect credibility of a witness. It is more often than not that a relation would not a factor to affect credibility of a witness. It is more often than not that a relation would not conceal actual culprit and make allegations against an innocent person. Foundation has to be laid if plea of false implication is made. In such, cases, the court has to adopt a careful approach and analyse evidence to find out whether it is cogent and credible. 19. Ram Bahadur, P.W.3 has also given reason to be present at the spot at the relevant time. He has stated the incident in his own words and in his own way that shows that he is not a tutored witness. During cross-examination his testimony remains unshaken. The contradiction Ext Kha-1 does not amount to be a material contradiction. We are satisfied that he is also a trustful witness. 20. Our conclusion has been arrived at while keeping in mind the defence evidence. Bad character of the deceased has no significance here in view of direct evidence. Ram Summer D.W.1 had not come forward during investigation, therefore, his testimony requires strict scrutiny. When minutely examined his meeting with with Keshav Raj Singh appears to be by chance and it is improbable that Keshav Raj Singh would inquire whereabouts of his son from a resident of another village. Thus his evidence does not inspire confidence. 21. In view of above we find that ocular testimonies adduced by the prosecution to be truthful and reliable. When there is a contradiction between ocular testimony and the medical evidence, settled law is that Court would place reliance on the ocular evidence of the prosecution and contradiction arising from the medical evidence would not prove fatal for the prosecution. Before we take help from the latest decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, we would like to refer the law on this point propounded by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Before we take help from the latest decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, we would like to refer the law on this point propounded by the Hon'ble Apex Court. The Hon'ble Apex Court in this reference has observed that whenever there is conflict between medical evidence and ocular testimony, normally ocular testimony should be preferred unless it belies fundamental facts and further that if direct evidence is satisfactory and reliable, the same cannot be rejected on hypothetical medical evidence and when medical evidence shows two possibilities the one consistent with the reliable and satisfactory statement of witnesses has to be accepted. (Anil Rai v. State of Bihar; AIR 2001 SC 3173 : 2001 (43) ACC 614 (SC); Chhotanney v. State of U.P.; AIR 2009 SC 2013 : 2009 (64) ACC 920 (SC); State of M.P. v. Dharkole; AIR 2005 SC 44 : 2005 (51) ACC 175 (SC)). 22. Contradiction between these two types of evidence also engaged attention of the Hon'ble Apex Court in a latest case of Vijay Pal Vs. State (GNCT) of Delhi 2015 (2) Supreme 581 . We would like to have a opportunity to refresh our memory by reproducing the observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court which reads as under: "When the medical testimony vis-a-vis the ocular testimony is weighed, there is no dispute that the value of medical evidence is only corroborative. It proves that the injuries could have been caused in the manner as alleged and nothing more. The use which the defence can make of the medical evidence is to prove that the injuries could not possibly have been caused in the manner alleged and thereby discredit the eye-witnesses. Unless, however the medical evidence in its turn goes so far that it completely rules out all possibilities whatsoever of injuries taking place in the manner alleged by eyewitnesses, the testimony of the eye-witnesses cannot be thrown out on the ground of alleged inconsistency between it and the medical evidence. It is also true that the postmortem report by itself is not a substantive piece of evidence, but the evidence of the doctor conducting the post-mortem can by no means be ascribed to be insignificant. It is also true that the postmortem report by itself is not a substantive piece of evidence, but the evidence of the doctor conducting the post-mortem can by no means be ascribed to be insignificant. The significance of the evidence of the doctor lies vis--vis the injuries appearing on the body of the deceased person and likely use of the weapon and it would then be the prosecutor's duty and obligation to have the corroborative evidence available on record from the other prosecution witnesses. It is also an accepted principle that sufficient weightage should be given to the evidence of the doctor who has conducted the post-mortem, as compared to the statements found in the textbooks, but giving weightage does not ipso factor mean that each and every statement made by a medical witness should be accepted on its face value even when it is self-contradictory. It is also a settledprinciple that the opinion given by a medical witness need not be the last word on the subject. Such an opinion shall be tested by the Court. If the opinion is bereft of logic or objectivity, the court is not obliged to go by that opinion. That part, it would be erroneous to accord undue primacy to the hypothetical answers of medical witnesses to exclude the eyewitnesses' account which are to be tested independently and not treated as the ''variable' keeping the medical evidence as the ''constant'. Where the eyewitnesses' account is found credible and trustworthy, a medical opinion pointing to the alternative possibilities cannot be accepted as conclusive." 23. More so we do not think that in the present case there is any contradiction between the ocular version and the medical evidence. The deceased had sustained large number of injuries inflicted by nine assailants. Witnesses were terrified to go and rescue the deceased. They maintained good and safe distance from the scene of occurrence. One person was beaten by large number of persons by lathis. It is a mere presupposition neither deceased nor the assailants moved from their places. During the occurrence injured must have taken evasive action. Assailants must have changed their places to struck blows of lathis on the vital parts of the injured specially when the injured was in lying position. According to the eye witnesses injured fell on the ground and he was mercilessly beaten by lathis. During the occurrence injured must have taken evasive action. Assailants must have changed their places to struck blows of lathis on the vital parts of the injured specially when the injured was in lying position. According to the eye witnesses injured fell on the ground and he was mercilessly beaten by lathis. The manner stated by the doctor in such scenario might have been adopted by the assailants and the witnesses took it as an assault from lathi. The learned A.G.A. during his reply suggested the other possibility that severe blows of lathis had hit the neck of the deceased causing broken larynax and trachea producing effect of strangulation. 24. In either case the eye witness account is trustworthy and fully reliable and it also receives corroboration from the medical evidence on all other points. We do not think opinion of doctor based on experience could in the present case is so determinative so as to belie the sworn statements of three eye witnesses who were tested by cross-examination and they passed this test by cross-examination successfully. Our conclusion also receives support from the observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court made in para 24 of the judgment rendered in the case of Umesh Singh v. State of Bihar (2013) 4 SCC 360 : 2013 (82) ACC 51 (SC). 25. No other argument has been raised on behalf of the appellants. 26. We do not find any factual or legal error in the impugned judgment. Grounds taken in the appeal and the arguments advanced in support thereof are without substance. Therefore, appeal fails and is dismissed. 27. Appellants no. 1 to 4, namely, Manorath, Krishna Prasad alias Krishna, Maharajdeen and Bacchu Lal are on bail. They are directed to surrender their bail before the Court of Session, Faizabad who shall take them into custody and send them to jail to serve out their sentences, failing their surrender within the stipulated time, the Sessions Judge, Faizabad is directed to take appropriate steps to procure the attendance of the surviving appellants and send them to jail to serve their sentences. 28. Office is directed to certify this order to the court concerned forthwith and send back the lower court record.