JUDGMENT : Dinesh Chandra Somani, J. This criminal appeal has been preferred by accused-appellants Radhey Shyam, Choutu Lal and Murari Lal sons of Ram Prasad by caste Meena under Section 374 of CrPC, 1973 who have been convicted and sentenced by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Chhabra, District Baran vide judgment dated 11.06.2008 in Sessions Case No. 21/2007. 2. After conviction, the accused-appellants were sentenced as follows:- For the offence under Section 302/149 of IPC sentenced for life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo two years' rigorous imprisonment. For the offence under Section 148 of IPC sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment. For the offence under Section 325/149 of IPC sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment. For the offence under Section 323/149 of IPC sentenced for six months' rigorous imprisonment. All the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 3. Prosecution story in brief is that deceased-Babu Lal submitted a written report Ex.P-5 at Government Hospital, Chhabra to PW-5 Naval Kishore, Head Constable on 11.10.2006 at 7:50 PM indicating that today on 11.10.2006 at 6:00 PM, he himself and Bhagchand Malav were returning together on motorcycle from the field to their house situated in village Badodiya. At Badodiya Tiraha, his son Kamlesh met them. When they went ahead from that place, then Radhey Shyam Meena, Choutu Lal Meena, Murari Lal Meena and Krishan Gopal along with 7-8 persons residents of village Bhanwar, who are not known to him but he knows them by face, suddenly came out with lathies and gandasies and attacked them and gave beating, due to which he, his son Kamlesh and Bhagchand sustained injuries. Ramesh Malav and Raju Sahu came to intervene, then Ramesh was also beaten up. Thereafter, these persons ran away towards Chhabra on a tractor. After hearing our voices, the villagers came there and brought them to hospital in a tractor etc. 4. Ramesh Malav and Raju Sahu came to intervene, then Ramesh was also beaten up. Thereafter, these persons ran away towards Chhabra on a tractor. After hearing our voices, the villagers came there and brought them to hospital in a tractor etc. 4. On the above report, an FIR (Ex.P-6) was registered by SHO Police Station, Chhabra District Baran being FIR No. 301/2006 for commission of offence under Section 143, 323, 341 and 307 of IPC. 5. On receipt of report Ex.P-5, a request letter for medical examination of Babu Lal, Kamlesh, Bhagchand and Ramesh was given to Medical Officer. The injured/ complainant Babu Lal died during treatment, therefore Section 302 of IPC was added to the FIR. Autopsy report of deceased Babu Lal was obtained, inquest report was prepared and dead body was handed over to his family members, blood stained clothes of deceased Babu Lal were seized, site plan was prepared, statements of witnesses were recorded, injury reports and X-ray reports of injured persons were obtained, accused- persons were arrested, information’s from accused- persons were obtained and recoveries of weapons were made from them. Recovered and seized articles were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) for chemical examination and after usual investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused-appellants for commission of offence under Sections 147, 148. 149, 341, 323, 325, 302 of IPC and investigation was kept pending against other four accused persons under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C., who have been shown as absconder by the learned trial Court in the impugned judgment in the array of the accused persons. 6. Learned trial Court framed the charges against the accused-appellants brought before it for trial. The accused-appellants pleaded not guilty and sought to be tried. 7. During trial, the prosecution examined as many as 22 witnesses and got 29 documents exhibited. Learned trial court put oral evidence of the prosecution witnesses and documentary evidence produced by the prosecution to the accused-appellants under Section 313 of CrPC. In reply to the prosecution evidence, the accused-appellants stated that they have been falsely implicated. The accused-appellants did not produce any witness in defence but exhibited statements of four prosecution witnesses recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. as Ex.D-1 to Ex.D-4. 8. After completion of trial, learned trial court convicted the accused-appellants as indicated hereinabove. 9. In reply to the prosecution evidence, the accused-appellants stated that they have been falsely implicated. The accused-appellants did not produce any witness in defence but exhibited statements of four prosecution witnesses recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. as Ex.D-1 to Ex.D-4. 8. After completion of trial, learned trial court convicted the accused-appellants as indicated hereinabove. 9. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence awarded to the accused-appellants, they preferred the present appeal before this Court against the judgment of the learned trial Court dated 11.06.2008. 10. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants contended that the learned trial Court has totally ignored the FIR which is foundation of the case. As per the case of prosecution, PW-5 Naval Kishore, Head Constable reached on spot after receiving the telephonic message and found there two injured persons and then he took them to the hospital, Chhabra where Babu Lal submitted the written report Ex.P-5 to him. It is mentioned in the complaint that after hearing the voices of injured persons, the villagers reached there and brought them to the hospital in a tractor. Therefore the complaint is concocted and fabricated document and it was registered afterwards, thus the conviction of the appellant is bad in law and liable to be set aside. 11. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants also contended that PW-5 Naval Kishore stated that he brought two persons in his jeep to the Hospital, Chhabra where deceased Babu Lal submitted a written report Ex.P-5 to him, whereas PW-1 Kamlesh, PW-2 Bhagchand, PW-3 Raju @ Rajendra and PW-10 Ramesh have not stated a word that any written report was given by Babu Lal to any person. PW-5 Naval Kishore stated that Babulal got the report Ex.P-5, written from another person which was not written in his presence, only signature of Babu Lal was obtained on the report in his presence. PW-5 Naval Kishore also stated that he did not record the statement of Babu Lal because he was in injured condition and was not in condition to give statement. He also stated that after giving medical treatment, Babu Lal got this report written by speaking. This statement of PW-5 Naval Kishore is contradicted by the statement of PW-19 Dr. Rajiv Soni who medically examined Babu Lal, who has stated that Babu Lal was in “coma”, so he was referred to Government Hospital, Baran. He also stated that after giving medical treatment, Babu Lal got this report written by speaking. This statement of PW-5 Naval Kishore is contradicted by the statement of PW-19 Dr. Rajiv Soni who medically examined Babu Lal, who has stated that Babu Lal was in “coma”, so he was referred to Government Hospital, Baran. Thus, it is clear that Ex.P-5 never came into existence on the date and time as shown by the prosecution. 12. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants also contended that it is clear from the statement of PW-1 Kamlesh that he was not present at the time of the occurrence. He says that his father and Bhagchand were going on the motorcycle and he was coming behind with his buffaloes, thus his presence at the place of occurrence seems to be false and fabricated. He has not specifically assigned any weapon in the hands of any of the accused-appellants. He was present in the hospital but his statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. was not recorded on 11.10.2006 and was got recorded on 13.10.2006 and there is no explanation for this delay. 13. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants also submitted that PW-1 Kamlesh, PW-2 Bhagchand, PW-3 Raju @ Rajendra and PW-10 Ramesh made improvements, contradictions and omissions in their testimony. Statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of PW-1 Kamlesh, PW-2 Bhagchand and PW-10 Ramesh were recorded on 13.10.2006 and of PW-3 Raju @ Rajendra was recorded on 09.12.2006. No explanation has come on record for the delay as to why their statements were not recorded soon after the incident. The learned trial Court has not properly and critically examined the statements of these witnesses and erred in convicting the accused- appellants. Thus, the conviction of the accused- appellants cannot be sustained. 14. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants further contended that the learned trial Court has not properly considered that the injury received by deceased Babu Lal could have been caused in a motorcycle accident. From the beginning, it is a stand of the defence that he fell down from the motorcycle on the road and received injuries. It also seems that Kamlesh also received injuries at some other place, thus the genesis of the incident has been suppressed, therefore the whole case is false and concocted. From the beginning, it is a stand of the defence that he fell down from the motorcycle on the road and received injuries. It also seems that Kamlesh also received injuries at some other place, thus the genesis of the incident has been suppressed, therefore the whole case is false and concocted. The learned counsel also submitted that the learned trial Court has not properly considered the facts and circumstances favourable to the accused-appellants, thus the conviction is liable to be set aside and prayed to accept the appeal setting aside the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court and to acquit the accused-appellants from the charge levelled against them. 15. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor for the State supported the impugned judgment and submitted that learned trial Court has rightly convicted the accused-appellants as the case of prosecution is based on cogent and reliable evidence which proved their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Learned Public Prosecutor has also submitted that prosecution story starts with the written report given by Babu Lal who received fatal injuries in the pre-planned attack of the accused-appellants. Later on injured Babu Lal died after receiving medical aid, therefore the written report ExP-5 submitted by Babu Lal deceased, is to be considered as dying declaration because it is the statement of a person as to cause of his death or as to circumstances of transaction which resulted in his death. 16. Learned Public Prosecutor also contended that there is no contradiction in the statements of PW-1, PW-2 Bhagchand, PW-3 Raju @ Rajendra and PW-10 Ramesh and they are injured eye witnesses, therefore their statements cannot be discarded. The written report ExP-5 submitted by deceased Babu Lal and the statements of injured witnesses PW-1 Kamlesh, PW-2 Bhagchand, PW-3 Raju @ Rajendra and PW-10 Ramesh are corroborated by medical evidence also. Post-mortem report of Babu Lal ExP-29 is proved by PW-21 Dr. Deepak Sharma and injury reports ExP-26, ExP-27, ExP-28 and X-ray report ExP-17, ExP-18 and ExP-19 have been proved by PW-19 Dr. Rajiv Soni. 17. Learned Public Prosecutor further contended that the present case is the one in which ocular evidence has been corroborated by medical evidence and the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and prayed to dismiss the appeal being devoid of merits. 18. Rajiv Soni. 17. Learned Public Prosecutor further contended that the present case is the one in which ocular evidence has been corroborated by medical evidence and the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and prayed to dismiss the appeal being devoid of merits. 18. The Prosecution story starts with the written report ExP-5 given by Babulal (the deceased) to PW-5 Naval Kishore Head Constable. PW-5 Naval Kishore in his statement recorded in Court has stated that on 11.10.2006 he was Head Constable in Police Station Chhabra and on that day, he reached on spot in Village- Badodiya after receiving telephonic message of quarrel. He found there was two injured persons, he took them to CHC Chhabra in his jeep. Complainant Babulal submitted a Written Report ExP-5 to him. He made his endorsement thereon. He got the injured persons medically examined. He produced Written Report ExP-5 in Police Station, where FIR was registered and the investigation was handed over to him. Thereafter injured Babulal died, thus SHO took back the investigation from him. In cross-examination, the witness stated that he was not present when Babulal got written report ExP-5 from other person but signatures of Babulal were taken in his presence. He did not record the statement of Babulal as he was not in a condition to give statement. He also stated that Babulal was not in a condition to give statement in village Badodiya. But after obtaining medical aid in hospital, Babulal got ExP-5 written by speaking from other person. 19. PW-19 Dr. Rajiv Soni was Medical Officer in Government Hospital, Chhabra who medically examined Babulal, Ramesh Chand, Bhagchand and Kamlesh on 11.10.2006 and prepared injury reports ExP-26, ExP-27 and ExP-28. The witness deposed in Court that he examined Babulal and found three incised wounds on his forehead, three injuries of swelling on his both eyes and right thigh. Injury No. 1-3 were of sharp edged weapon and injury No. 4-6 were of blunt weapon and the patient was in Coma, thus he referred him to Government Hospital, Baran. 20. PW-19 Dr. Rajiv Soni also stated that on that day he also examined injuries of Ramesh Chand and found swelling of 15X10 cm size on his Rt. calf which was simple in nature. On that day he also examined Bhagchand and found no visible injury on his body but there was complaint of pain in his right shoulder. 20. PW-19 Dr. Rajiv Soni also stated that on that day he also examined injuries of Ramesh Chand and found swelling of 15X10 cm size on his Rt. calf which was simple in nature. On that day he also examined Bhagchand and found no visible injury on his body but there was complaint of pain in his right shoulder. On that day he also examined the injuries on the body of Kamlesh and found following injuries:- (1) Swelling 12x13 cm. on left upper leg Ant. (2) Abrasion 2x0.5 cm. on left upper leg Ant. (3) Bruise 10x3 cm. on left upper arm. (4) Bruise 8x2 cm. on left shoulder. (5) Bruise 12x3 cm. on right upper arm. (6) Bruise 10x2 cm. on right lower arm. (7) Swelling 10x5 cm. on left forearm. All the injuries were caused by blunt weapon. Injury No. 3-6 were simple in nature. He advised X-Ray of remaining three injuries which were found to be grievous in nature after X-Ray Report. This witness has proved injury report of Babulal ExP-26, injury report of Ramesh Chand and Bhagchand ExP-27, injury report of Kamlesh ExP-28 and X-Ray Report of Kamlesh ExP-17. 21. PW-16 Mukesh Sanwariya was Radiographer in MBS Hospital, Kota who conducted X-Ray of left leg and left arm of Kamlesh (PW-1) and proved X-Ray cover note ExP-17. Thus, it is proved that Babulal sustained three injuries of incised wounds caused by sharp edged weapon and three injuries of swelling caused by blunt weapon. Ramesh Chand sustained one injury of swelling which was simple in nature and Bhagchand had complaint of pain in his right shoulder. Kamlesh sustained two injuries of swelling, four bruises and one abrasion total 7 injuries and all injuries were caused by blunt weapon, out of which four injuries were simple in nature and three injuries were grievous in nature. 22. PW-21 Dr. Deepak Sharma performed autopsy of deceased Babulal on 12.10.2006 as a member of Medical Board in MBS Hospital, Kota and prepared autopsy report ExP-29. Conjoint reading of statement of PW-21 Dr. 22. PW-21 Dr. Deepak Sharma performed autopsy of deceased Babulal on 12.10.2006 as a member of Medical Board in MBS Hospital, Kota and prepared autopsy report ExP-29. Conjoint reading of statement of PW-21 Dr. Deepak Sharma and autopsy report ExP-29, reveals that there were three incised wounds of different sizes on the forehead, one bruise in the form of swelling on right thigh, one abrasion on right hand and swelling on both the eyes of deceased Babulal and the witness opined that the death of Babulal was caused due to Coma as a result of injuries on his forehead which were ante mortem in nature and were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. 23. PW-1 Kamlesh is injured eye witness and son of the deceased Babulal. PW-1 Kamlesh in his statement recorded in the Court, gave a detailed account of the incident and stated that on 11-10-2006 at 6:00 PM, he was coming from field to his house with buffaloes. His father and Bhagchand were going to home from other field on motorcycle which was driven by his father and Bhagchand was sitting as pillion rider. Radhey Shyam, Choutu Lal @ Prahlad, Murari, Krishna Gopal, Subhash, Kamal Singh, Mukesh, Gorilal and 2-3 other persons armed with lathies and gandasis, attacked on his father Babulal with weapons and gave him beatings. He went to save him, then Choutu Lal, Krishna Gopal, Subhash and Kamal gave him beatings and he sustained injuries on his left leg. At that time Ramesh was also cutting grass near the place of incident. Bhagchand and Ramesh tried to save his father. The accused persons gave beating to Bhagchand and Ramesh also and then ran away towards Chhabra in a tractor. After 10-15 minutes, police of Chhabra came there in jeep and took them to Chhabra Hospital, later on they were referred to Baran and thereafter to Kota Hospital, where his father died on next day due to head injuries sustained in the incident. In cross-examination, the witness denied the suggestion that his father sustained injuries on head due to motorcycle slip. The witness also denied the suggestion that his father sustained injuries in the incident of robbery of Ballot Boxes in Jharkheri Elections. The witness also denied the suggestion that kidney of his father was damaged and the same was operated before four months. 24. The witness also denied the suggestion that his father sustained injuries in the incident of robbery of Ballot Boxes in Jharkheri Elections. The witness also denied the suggestion that kidney of his father was damaged and the same was operated before four months. 24. PW-2 Bhagchand is injured eye witness and has stated that he was with the deceased Babulal on his motorcycle at the time of incident. This witness also gave a detailed account of the incident and gave similar statements as given by PW-1 Kamlesh. In cross- examination, the witness denied the suggestion that Babulal sustained injuries on his head in the incident of robbery of Ballot Boxes in Panchayat Elections. The witness admitted that Kamlesh came on the spot when accused persons were beating to Babulal. The witness also denied the suggestion that Babulal sustained the injuries on his head due to motorcycle slip. 25. PW-3 Raju @ Rajendra is also an eye witness of the incident and is nephew of the deceased Babulal. PW-3 Raju @ Rajendra also gave a detailed account of the incident and gave similar statement as given by PW-1 Kamlesh and PW-2 Bhagchand. The witness also stated that he did not intervene because he was threatened of beating, if he comes in between. In cross-examination, the witness stated that his field is 15-20 steps away from the place of incident. 26. PW-10 Ramesh is also an injured eye witness who also gave a detailed account of the incident in his statement recorded in Court. Evidence given by this witness is similar to the evidence given by PW-1 Kamlesh, PW-2 Bhagchand and PW-3 Raju @ Rajendra. The witness also stated that he was also beaten as he went to intervene. In cross-examination, the witness denied the suggestion that Kamlesh sustained injuries due to imbalance of buffaloes. 27. PW-6 Sumer Singh, PW-7 Ram Prasad, PW-9 Chhitar and PW-15 Babulal declared hostile as they did not support the prosecution case. 28. PW-18 Ramjeevan Gupta is Dy.S.P., Chhabra who carried on further investigation. PW-18 Ramjeevan in his statement recorded in Court, gave a detailed account of disclosure statements made by accused- appellants Radhey Shyam, Choutu Lal and Murari Lal under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and recoveries made at their instance in consequence of the information’s given by them. 28. PW-18 Ramjeevan Gupta is Dy.S.P., Chhabra who carried on further investigation. PW-18 Ramjeevan in his statement recorded in Court, gave a detailed account of disclosure statements made by accused- appellants Radhey Shyam, Choutu Lal and Murari Lal under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and recoveries made at their instance in consequence of the information’s given by them. According to the evidence given by this witness, one blood stained bamboo stick was recovered and seized from the residential house of accused-appellant Radhey Shyam vide seizure memo ExP-12 and was marked “B”. The witness recovered and seized one blood stained gandasi from the residential house of accused-appellant Choutu Lal vide seizure memo ExP-11 and was marked “C”. One gandasi was recovered and seized at the instance of accused-appellant Murari Lal from a hut situated on tubewell of Mohan Lal and was marked “D”. The witness also said that he deposited the seized articles in Maalkhana and thereafter sent to Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) for chemical examination. Report received from Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) is ExP-25. 29. PW-5 Naval Kishore also stated that he was Maalkhana Incharge on 26-12-2006. He gave four sealed packets to Murari Lal (PW-11) who deposited the same in Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), Jaipur with forwarding letter, obtained receipt ExP-7 and produced, whereupon endorsement was made in Maalkhana Register. According to PW-11 Murari Lal, he obtained four sealed packets and deposited the same in Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), obtained receipt ExP-7 and gave to Maalkhana Incharge. 30. ExP-25 is report of Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL). According to report ExP-25, Lakri and Gandasi recovered and seized from accused-appellants were found blood stained but origin of blood could not be detected for the reason “not sufficient for test”. 31. PW-4 Suresh Chand is the witness of inquest report ExP-2, delivery memo of dead body ExP-3, seizure memo of blood stained clothes of deceased Babulal ExP-4 and site plan ExP-1. 32. PW-8 Madan Lal and PW-22 Durgpal Singh are also the witnesses of inquest report ExP-2, delivery memo of dead body ExP-3 and seizure memo of blood stained clothes of deceased Babulal ExP-4. 33. PW-12 Bhanwar Singh was Maalkhana Incharge in Police Station, who stated that he deposited four sealed packets in Malkhana Register. On 26.12.2006, four sealed packets were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) through Murari Lal (PW-11). 33. PW-12 Bhanwar Singh was Maalkhana Incharge in Police Station, who stated that he deposited four sealed packets in Malkhana Register. On 26.12.2006, four sealed packets were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) through Murari Lal (PW-11). Murari Lal deposited the sealed articles in Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), obtained receipt thereof and produced, whereupon endorsement was made in Maalkhana Register ExP-15. 34. PW-13 Brij Mohan is another witness of Inquest Report ExP-2 and delivery memo of dead body ExP-3. PW-14 Murari Sahu and PW-17 Jamnalal are also witnesses of Inquest Report ExP-2. 35. In the instant case, the incident occurred on 11.10.2006 at 6.00 PM and the written report ExP-5 was submitted by deceased Babulal at 7:50 PM, within two hours of the incident. Thus, there is no delay in FIR. Names of the eye witnesses of the incident are also mentioned in the written report. 36. It is argued that the statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of PW-3 Raju @ Rajendra were recorded after two months of the incident and statements of other eye witnesses were recorded on 13.10.2006 i.e. after two days of the incident but no explanation has been given for the delay. Written Report ExP-5 was submitted by the deceased Babulal soon after the incident and name of PW-3 Raju @ Rajendra is also mentioned therein. Thus, the prosecution case cannot be doubted only on the pretext that statement of PW-3 Raju @ Rajendra was recorded after two months. It is pertinent to note that names of other eye witnesses PW-1, PW-2 and PW-10 are also mentioned in the written report EXP-5. Due to injuries on head, informant Babulal went in Coma and he died on next day during treatment in Government Hospital, Kota. PW-1 Kamlesh was referred by CHC Chhabra to Government Hospital, Baran and later on he was referred to Government Hospital Kota, due to nature of injuries sustained by him. In these circumstances, recording of statements of other eye witnesses on 13.10.2006 cannot be held fatal for prosecution. Therefore, this argument of learned counsel for the appellants cannot be accepted. 37. PW-1 Kamlesh, PW-2 Bhagchand and PW-10 Ramesh are also injured persons. Medical Examination of their injuries were done soon after the incident, therefore their presence at the place of incident cannot be doubted. Therefore, this argument of learned counsel for the appellants cannot be accepted. 37. PW-1 Kamlesh, PW-2 Bhagchand and PW-10 Ramesh are also injured persons. Medical Examination of their injuries were done soon after the incident, therefore their presence at the place of incident cannot be doubted. PW-1 Kamlesh, PW-2 Bhagchand, PW-3 Raju @ Rajendra and PW-10 Ramesh gave a detailed account of the incident in their statements recorded in Court and were subjected to lenthy cross-examination but no such fact came on record which may create doubt on the testimony of these witnesses. 38. During cross-examination from PW-1 Kamlesh, the accused-appellants tried to establish that the injuries found on the body of the deceased Babulal relates to some other incident and has no relation with the incident as alleged. During cross-examination, PW-1 Kamlesh clearly stated that it is wrong to say that Babulal sustained injuries on head in an incident of robbery of ballot boxes in Panchayat Election. He also denied the suggestion that his father sustained injuries in a motorcycle accident. He also denied the suggestion that Kidney of his father was damaged and operated before four months. The accused-appellant could not establish any of the three defences taken during cross-examination of PW-1 Kamlesh. 39. There is no evidence of previous rivalry between both the parties for which a false case would have cooked up. All the four eye witnesses PW-1 Kamlesh, PW-2 Bhagchand, PW-3 Raju @ Rajendra and PW-10 Ramesh have clearly stated that accused-appellants Radhey Shayam, Choutu Lal @ Prahlad, Murari Lal and other accused persons were armed with deadly weapons, restrained Babulal going on motorcycle, attacked on him and gave beatings. There is no contradiction in the statements of these witnesses. As discussed above, it is proved that instead of other injuries, there were three incised wounds on forehead of deceased Babulal and the death of Babulal was caused due to Coma as a result of injuries on his forehead and which were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. In these circumstances it can safely be inferred that accused- appellants and other accused persons armed with deadly weapons formed an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of the common object of the assembly, knowingly restrained Babulal going on motorcycle, attacked on him and gave beatings. Therefore, every member of the unlawful assembly is guilty of the offence. 40. In these circumstances it can safely be inferred that accused- appellants and other accused persons armed with deadly weapons formed an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of the common object of the assembly, knowingly restrained Babulal going on motorcycle, attacked on him and gave beatings. Therefore, every member of the unlawful assembly is guilty of the offence. 40. Learned counsel for the appellants pointed out that the case of prosecution is that PW-5 Naval Kishore on receiving a telephonic message, reached on the spot and found there two injured persons, then he took them to hospital Chhabra in police jeep, where Babulal submitted the written report ExP-5 to him. Whereas it is mentioned in ExP-5 that after hearing the voices of injured persons, the villagers reached there and brought the injured persons to the hospital in a tractor. Therefore, the complaint is concocted and a fabricated document. It is also pointed out that PW-5 Naval Kishore in his cross-examination has stated that he did not record statement of injured Babulal as he was not in a condition to give statement due to injuries. Written report ExP-5 was given to him by Babulal in hospital which was not written in his presence. In cross-examination, PW-5 Naval Kishore, has clearly stated that Babulal was not in a condition to give statement in village Badodiya. After obtaining madical aid in Chhabra hospital, Babulal got written report ExP-5 by speaking from other person and at that time the witness was not present but signatures of Babulal on written report were obtained in his presence. It is pertinent to note that PW-1 Kamlesh and PW-2 Bhagchand clearly stated that Babulal and Kamlesh (PW-1) were brought to Chhabra hospital in police jeep. Looking to the nature of injuries sustained by Babulal in the incident and his condition thereafter, it appears that he was not sure about the vehicle and he got mentioned the fact of tractor supposing the availability of vehicles in the village. From perusal of record it reveals that PW-19 Dr. Rajiv Soni conducted medical examination of injuries of Babulal after submission of written report ExP-5 by Babulal and thereafter Babulal died in coma. To our mind, these are minor contradictions, thus, are not material and important, and not fatal to the prosecution. 41. PW-1 Kamlesh in his cross-examination has clearly stated that his father left the field before 2-3 minutes of the incident. To our mind, these are minor contradictions, thus, are not material and important, and not fatal to the prosecution. 41. PW-1 Kamlesh in his cross-examination has clearly stated that his father left the field before 2-3 minutes of the incident. The witness was on the way to home from field alongwith buffaloes and his father Babulal met him in the way. The witness also stated that the distance between field and place of occurrence is about 300 meters, thus it cannot be inferred that PW-1 Kamlesh was not present at the time occurrence. His presence on the place of incident is also proved by his injury report ExP-28 and written report ExP-5 submitted by deceased Babulal. Therefore, his presence at the place of occurrence does not seem to be fabricated by any stretch of imagination. 42. In view of discussions made above, the prosecution has been successful to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that Radhey Shyam, Choutu Lal @ Prahlad and Murari Lal accused-appellants and other accused persons armed with deadly weapons, formed an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of the common object of the assembly, knowingly restrained Babulal going on motorcycle, attacked on him and gave beatings. In this incident instead of other injuries, Babulal sustained three incised wounds of different sizes on the forehead and he died due to Coma as a result of injuries on his forehead which were ante mortem in nature and were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Therefore, all the accused-appellants are liable to be convicted for the offence under Section 302/149 and Section 148 of IPC. 43. The prosecution has been successful to prove the charges of Section 325/149 and 323/149 of IPC against the accused-appellants for voluntarily causing grievous and simple injuries to Kamlesh (PW-1) and causing simple injuries to Bhagchand (PW-2) and Ramesh (PW-10) beyond reasonable doubt, as members of unlawful assembly in prosecution of common object. Therefore, all the three accused-appellants Radhey Shyam, Choutu Lal @ Prahlad and Murari Lal are also liable to be convicted for offence under Section 325/149 and 323/149 of IPC. 44. For the above reasons, we see no infirmity in the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. There is no merit in the submissions made on behalf of the accused-appellants. 45. Resultantly the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.