JUDGMENT Hon’ble Vinod Kumar Srivastava-III, J.—This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 30.8.1983 passed by Sessions Judge, Lalitpur in Sessions Trial No. 7 of 1983 (State v. Nathoo Singh and others), whereby Sessions Judge has convicted the appellants Nathoo Singh, Dhanua Kori, Durg Singh and Lakhan Singh for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 302/149 Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as I.P.C.) and sentenced to undergo each appellants three years rigorous imprisonment under Section 148 I.P.C. and also sentenced to undergo life imprisonment under Section 302/149 I.P.C. whereas, appellants Jagbhan Singh and Veer Singh have been convicted for the offences punishable under Section 147, 302/149 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo each of them two years rigorous imprisonment under Section 147 I.P.C. and also sentenced to under go life imprisonment under Section 302/149 I.P.C. However, all the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. 2. At the out set, it is pertinent to note that the appellants Nathoo Singh, Dhanua and Veer Singh died during the pendency of this appeal and therefore, appeal against them have been abated vide order dated 9.10.2014 of this Court. 3. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are as under: The complainant Pyare Raja (PW-2) lodged an F.I.R. on 8.9.1982 with the Police Station Bar District Lalitpur with the allegations that Nathoo Singh resident of his village was a man of bad character. Nathoo Singh, one and a half month before the incident had stolen the calf of Gulabiya Chamar resident of his village and in that matter Govind Singh had supported Gulabia and had told Nathoo to mend his way. Nathoo Singh felt aggrieved. A case of murder and dacoity was going on against Veer Singh appellant in which Govind Singh (deceased) was a witness. Therefore, Veer Singh also was not happy with Govind Singh (deceased). It was alleged that on 8.9.1982 at about 06:00 a.m. Govind Singh deceased and his step brother Pyare Raja-(PW-2) complainant were going to “Kuan” and when they reached in front of the house of Dhanuwa Kori, on the lane, all these appellants came out from the house of Dhanuwa Kori. Appellants Nathoo Singh, Durg Singh were armed with axe, while Jagbhan Singh and Veer Singh were armed with lathis. Dhanuwa Kori and Lakhan Singh were armed with luhangi. Veer Singh exhorted his associates to kill Govind Singh. Appellants Nathoo Singh, Durg Singh were armed with axe, while Jagbhan Singh and Veer Singh were armed with lathis. Dhanuwa Kori and Lakhan Singh were armed with luhangi. Veer Singh exhorted his associates to kill Govind Singh. All the accused-appellants assaulted with their respective weapons as a result of which Govind Singh fell down after receiving numerous injuries. On hearing the cry of complainant Pyare Raja, Lakhoo (PW-1), Ramla, Punua, Lakhan Singh s/o Kamal Singh and others reached on spot. They challenged the accused-appellants, then the accused-appellants fled away towards north. Govind Singh was seriously injured. Laying him on cot, he was rushed to hospital but on the way near Bamhori Kharait Nala, he died. The dead body was taken to police station where the report was lodged by the Pyare Raja complainant. 4. On the basis of oral information of Pyare Raja (PW-2) complainant F.I.R. was lodged on 8.9.1982 at case crime No. 30 of 1982, under Sections 147, 148, 302/149 I.P.C. Thereafter, investigation was started by I.O. Sub-Inspector Phool Chandra Tewari (PW-4). During the course of the investigation accused-appellant Durg Singh was arrested 16.9.1982 and other accused surrendered before the Court. Accused-appellants Veer Singh and Jagbhan Singh were taken in police remand and on their pointing out lathis were recovered from the Tapra of Veer Singh on 13.10.1982. The relevant fard is Ex.Ka-17. An axe of accused-appellant Nathoo Singh and luhangi of Dhanuwa were also recovered on their pointing out from village Khaira Dang, from the Tapri of Raghubir Singh on 13.10.1982 and recovery memo Ex.Ka-18 was prepared. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against all the accused-appellants in the Court. 5. After committal proceedings, charges were framed against the appellants Nathoo Singh, Dhanuwa, Durg Singh and Lakhan Singh under Section 148, 302/149 I.P.C. and against the appellants-accused Jagbhan Singh and Veer Singh under Section 147, 302/149 I.P.C. 6. The prosecution examined as many as four witnesses in support of its case. Out of which PW-1 Lakhoo and PW-2 Pyare Raja are eye-witnesses of the occurrence, while PW-3 Dr. K.C. Gupta and Phool Chandra Tewari Investigating officer are formal witnesses. The prosecution relied upon 24 documents and filed 13 material exhibits. 7. PW-3 Dr. K.C. Gupta, has conducted post-mortem on the dead body of deceased Govind Singh on 9.9.1982 and has proved the post-mortem report as Ex.Ka-7. In the post-mortem report, PW-3 Dr. K.C. Gupta and Phool Chandra Tewari Investigating officer are formal witnesses. The prosecution relied upon 24 documents and filed 13 material exhibits. 7. PW-3 Dr. K.C. Gupta, has conducted post-mortem on the dead body of deceased Govind Singh on 9.9.1982 and has proved the post-mortem report as Ex.Ka-7. In the post-mortem report, PW-3 Dr. K.C. Gupta has found the following ante-mortem injuries on the dead body of the deceased Govind Singh : 1. Abraided contusion 3 cm x 1 cm over the upper lid of left eye. 2. Contusion 3 cm x 2 cm over the left side cheek, 2 cm below the left eye. 3. Incised wound 1"x1 cm muscle deep over the right shoulder. 4. Two contusions measuring 1-1/2 x ½ cm, 2 cms apart from each other over the lower 1/2 of the right forearm, back. 5. Abrasion ½ cm x ¼ cm over the middle finger and terminal phalanx of the left hand. 6. Incised wound 1 cm x ½ cm x muscle deep over the lower 1/3 and front of the left thigh, 3 cm above the knee joint. 7. Incised wound 1-1/2 cm x ½ x bone deep over the middle of the left leg. 8. 2 incised wound 2 cm x 1 cm ½ to 1 cm x bone deep with the underlying fracture of the tibia bone, lower 1/2nd. 9. Lacerated wound 3 cm x ½ cm x bone deep over the lower 1/3 of the right leg with the underlying fracture of both tibia and fibula. 10. Contusion 7 cm x 4 cm over the middle and front of the right leg. 11. Incised wound 3 cm x 1-1/2 cm x bone deep over the right knee joint front. 12. Abrasion 1 cm x ¼ cm. Over the front of the left knee joint. 13. Four contusions measuring from 6 cm x 8 cm x ½ cm to 1 cm, ½ cm apart from each other, over the right scapular region. 14. Incised wound 6 cm x 1 cm x bone deep over the right temporal region with the underlying fracture of the right parital bone with the laceration of membrane and brain. 15. 13. Four contusions measuring from 6 cm x 8 cm x ½ cm to 1 cm, ½ cm apart from each other, over the right scapular region. 14. Incised wound 6 cm x 1 cm x bone deep over the right temporal region with the underlying fracture of the right parital bone with the laceration of membrane and brain. 15. Incised wound 1 cm x 1 cm x bone deep over the right side and back of the scalp, 4 cm above and lateral to the previous injury with the underlying fracture of the occipital bone with the laceration of the membrane and brain 16. Incised wound 6 cm x 1-1/2 cm x bone deep over the top and middle of the scalp with the under line fracture of the frontal and acciptial bone with the laceration of membrane and brain. 8. PW-3 Dr. K.C. Gupta has also mentioned in the post-mortem report that the stomach and small intestine were empty. Faecal matter was present in the large intestine. PW-3 Dr. K.C. Gupta, has further opined that cause of death was due to shock and haemorrhage due to ante-mortem injuries. The period of death was about one and half day before conducting the post-mortem. He has also opined that injuries on the body of deceased Govind Singh could be caused by lathi, luhangi and axe. 9. PW-4 S.I. Phool Chandra Tiwari I.O. has stated that he started investigation on 8.9.1982 and prepared the inquest report Ex.Ka-8 and other papers, challan lash, photo lash, namuna seal and letter for post-mortem Ex.Ka-9 to Ex.Ka-12. The dead body was sealed and sent with relevant papers through Constable Ramesh Chandra for post-mortem during the investigation. He recovered two blood stained towels and one blood stained tahmad near dead body of the deceased Govind Singh Ex-2 to 4 and prepared their fard Ex.Ka13. Blood stained Ban of cot Ex-1 was taken and kept under sealed cloth. The cot was given in supurdagi of Pyare Raja PW-2. He has further stated in his evidence that he went to the spot of occurrence and recorded the statement of witnesses and prepared the site plan Ex.Ka-14. The sample of the blood stained and plain earth of the spot of occurrence were taken and separately sealed, which is Ex-8 and Ex-9. The relevant fard was prepared, which is Ex.Ka 15. He has further stated in his evidence that he went to the spot of occurrence and recorded the statement of witnesses and prepared the site plan Ex.Ka-14. The sample of the blood stained and plain earth of the spot of occurrence were taken and separately sealed, which is Ex-8 and Ex-9. The relevant fard was prepared, which is Ex.Ka 15. The articles were deposited in Malkhana as per G.D. Entry Ex.Ka-16. He has further stated that after completion of the investigation, charge-sheet Ex.Ka-20 against the appellants was filed by him. 10. PW-4 Phool Chandra Tiwari I.O. has also proved G.D. No. 11 dated 8.9.1982 written by Constable Moharrir Balram as Ex.Ka22. 11. After closure of the prosecution evidence, statements of the appellants were recorded under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C.) and all the incriminating material/circumstances were put to them, one by one. They denied each allegations levelled against them and stated for false implication. 12. Appellant Nathoo Singh (since deceased) asserted in statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that the case under Section 107/116 was lodged between Govind Singh and Pyare Raja and his party. Govind Singh was notorious man and was history-sheeter. His sister was also dacoit. Govind Singh has inimical relations in the adjoining villages. He has been falsely implicated due to enmity. 13. Appellant Jagbhan Singh and Veer Singh and Durg Singh have stated that in their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C., that Govind Singh was Pradhan of their village and they had campaigned against the Govind Singh in election of Gram Pradhan, therefore, they have falsely been implicated due to enmity. Appellant Lakhan Singh has stated that Nathoo Singh is his brother-in-law, therefore, he has been falsely implicated. Appellant Dhanuwa asserted that there was litigation enmity between him and Govind Singh deceased, with the result that he has been falsely implicated. 14. The appellants were called upon to enter into defence. The appellant produced one witness namely S.I. Ram Karan Singh as DW-1 to prove Govind Singh deceased as history-sheeter. Appellants also placed reliance on four paper Ex-Kha-1 to Ex-Kha-4 including two challan reports under Sections 151, 107/116 marked as Ex.Kha-1 and Kha-2. 15. The learned Sessions Judge, after appreciating all the evidence and submissions made by the Public Prosecutor and defence counsel convicted and sentenced the appellants as has been referred to herein above. 16. Appellants also placed reliance on four paper Ex-Kha-1 to Ex-Kha-4 including two challan reports under Sections 151, 107/116 marked as Ex.Kha-1 and Kha-2. 15. The learned Sessions Judge, after appreciating all the evidence and submissions made by the Public Prosecutor and defence counsel convicted and sentenced the appellants as has been referred to herein above. 16. Aggrieved, the appellants have filed this appeal. 17. We have heard the submissions made by Sri N.L. Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri R.K. Maurya, learned A.G.A. for the State and also scrutinized the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record. 18. In view of the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, the paramount point for determination arises that whether all the appellants armed with deadly weapons constituted an unlawful assembly and have taken part in committing the murder of deceased Govind Singh. Submissions and conclusions: 19. Before entering into the merits of the case and appraisal of the evidence, it would be relevant to note that some significant facts of the case are that the deceased Govind Singh was Pradhan of Village Rajpura. There had been election of Gram Pradhan 2 or 3 months before the incident. The election was won by the Govind Singh but the election had resulted in groupism and enmity. Though some of the appellants are resident of other village, but their goan sabha was village Rajpura of which deceased Govind Singh was resident. It also appears from the evidence of DW-1 S.I. Ram Karan Singh Chauhan that proceedings under Section 107/116, 151 Cr.P.C. were lodged between the groups, one led by deceased Govind Singh and other by Rao Raja. This fact in itself signifies that in the village Rajpura where the occurrence took place there was two factions and as such village Rajpura was faction ridden village. 20. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that prosecution has produced only two eye-witnesses of fact. Out of which one Pyare Raja (PW-2) complainant of the case is step brother of the deceased Govind Singh and Lakhoo (PW-1) is said to be man of the party belonging to the deceased Govind Singh. Therefore, both the witnesses are highly interested and inimical. The prosecution has not produced any independent witness cited in charge-sheet namely Ramla to corroborate the prosecution case, therefore, the evidence of only interested and inimical witnesses is not of trustworthy. 21. Therefore, both the witnesses are highly interested and inimical. The prosecution has not produced any independent witness cited in charge-sheet namely Ramla to corroborate the prosecution case, therefore, the evidence of only interested and inimical witnesses is not of trustworthy. 21. In the present case, as it has been stated above that the village Rajpura, where the incident of murder took place was faction ridden, having two groups one led by deceased Govind Singh and other led by Rao Raja. In case Badri etc. v. State of U.P., 1975 Cri LJ 1739 SC. It has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court that in case where a murder takes place in a village, where there are two factions, bitterly opposed to each other, it would be idle to expect independent persons to come forward to give evidence and only partisan witnesses would be natural and probable witnesses to the incident. In such a case, it would not be right to reject their testimony, out of hand, merely on the ground that they belong to one faction or the other. Their evidence has to be assessed on its own merits. 22. Further, in case of Sucha Singh and another v. State of Punjab, (2003) 7 SCC 643 and Ramesh Harijan v. State of U.P., (2012) 5 SCC 777 . Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down the principle that the testimony of a witness in a criminal case cannot be discarded, merely because the witness is relative or family member of the victim of the offence or inimical. In such a case, Court has to adopt a careful approach in analysing the evidence of such witnesses and if the testimony of the related witness is otherwise found credible accused can be convicted on the basis of testimony of such related witness. 23. The learned counsel for the appellants further tried to point out some contradictions in the statement of eye-witnesses (PW-1) Lakhoo and (PW-2) Pyare Raja. Regarding the contradictions in the statement of prosecution witnesses, in the cases referred to herein above Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that if, there are no material contradictions or discrepancies in the testimony of a witness, his testimony cannot be disbelieved merely on the basis of some natural or minor contradictions, inconsistencies, exaggeration and embellishment. Regarding the contradictions in the statement of prosecution witnesses, in the cases referred to herein above Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that if, there are no material contradictions or discrepancies in the testimony of a witness, his testimony cannot be disbelieved merely on the basis of some natural or minor contradictions, inconsistencies, exaggeration and embellishment. Minor contradictions in the testimony of prosecution witnesses are bound to be there and in fact they go to support the truthfulness of the witnesses and shows that the witnesses were not tutored and they gave no parrot like, stereo typed evidence. 24. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the (PW-1) Lakhoo has stated that the distance between his house and the house of Dhanuwa (appellant), the spot of occurrence is 20-25 steps, while as per statement of Pyare Raja (PW-2) the distance is 60-70 steps. He further submitted that as per statement of (PW-1) Lakhoo, he stayed at the spot of occurrence about 2 and 3 minutes, as the deceased Govind Singh was taken to the hospital, he returned back, while PW-2 Pyare Raja has stated that when the dead body of deceased Govind Singh was taken to P.S. Bar, Lakhoo PW-1 among others was also with him. While referring to above contradictions in the statement of prosecution witnesses, learned counsel for the appellants argued that the testimony of PW-1 Lakhoo and PW-2 Pyare Raja is not believable. But this submission of learned counsel for the appellants is not acceptable, for the reason that the contradictions pointed by the learned counsel for the appellants are minor contradictions, and immaterial and have no adverse effect on prosecution case. Therefore, the above mentioned contradictions do not corrode the credibility of prosecution witnesses and testimony of PW-1 Lakhoo and PW-2 Pyare Raja cannot be disbelieved merely on the basis of above minor contradictions. 25. The instant case requires to be considered in the light of aforesaid submissions and settled legal propositions. 26. PW-2 Pyare Raja complainant, who is the step brother of the deceased Govind Singh has proved F.I.R. Ex-ka 1. 25. The instant case requires to be considered in the light of aforesaid submissions and settled legal propositions. 26. PW-2 Pyare Raja complainant, who is the step brother of the deceased Govind Singh has proved F.I.R. Ex-ka 1. He has stated that on the day of occurrence, he alongwith his brother Govind Singh deceased was going to well, in the morning at about 06:00 a.m. when they reached in front of the house of Dhanuwa Kori, all the accused persons came out from the house of Dhanuwa Kori and Veer Singh exhorted to kill Govind Singh. Nathoo Singh and Durg Singh were armed with axe, Jagbhan Singh and Veer Singh were armed with lathis, Lakhan Singh and Dhanuwa Kori were armed with luhangi. On exhortation of Veer Singh all the accused assaulted to Govind Singh with their respective weapons. Govind Singh fell down. On hearing his cry, Lakhoo, Lakhan Singh, Ramla, Punwa reached on spot and challenged the accused persons then all the accused persons, fled away towards north. He has further stated that his younger brother brought the cot and laying down Govind Singh on cot, he rushed to the hospital, but on the way near Bamhori Kharait Nala, Govind Singh died. Thereafter, the dead body of deceased Govind Singh was taken to police station and he lodged the F.I.R. Ex.Ka 1. 27. PW-2 Pyare Raja has also proved the motive of the accused and had stated that one month before this incident accused Nathoo Singh had stolen the bull of Gulabiya Chamar, in which case Govind Singh was witness and he had helped the Gulabiya Chamar, therefore, Nathoo Singh was aggrieved. Veer Singh had killed two women in a dacoity, in that case Govind Singh was witness and Veer Singh was convicted. PW-2 Pyare Raja has specifically stated in his cross-examination that firstly Durga Singh assaulted with axe and Govind Singh fell down, then Nathoo Singh assaulted with axe. At the time of occurrence, he was 10 steps behind the Govind Singh and when he tried to interfere, the accused persons threaten to kill him also. 28. PW-2 Pyare Raja has specifically stated in his cross-examination that firstly Durga Singh assaulted with axe and Govind Singh fell down, then Nathoo Singh assaulted with axe. At the time of occurrence, he was 10 steps behind the Govind Singh and when he tried to interfere, the accused persons threaten to kill him also. 28. PW-1 Lakhoo has stated that on the day of incident at about 06:00 a.m. in the morning, he was going to answer the call of nature and when he reached near the house of Jagbhan Singh, he heard cry of Pyare Raja, which was coming from near the house of Dhanuwa Kori. He rushed to the spot, and Lakhan, Punuwa Chamar and Ramle Kanchi also reached on spot. He saw that all the six accused persons were beating to Govind Singh, on the lane, in front of the house of Dhanuwa Kori. Nathoo Singh and Durg Singh were armed with axe, Jagbhan Singh and Veer Singh were armed with lathis, Lakhan Singh and Dhanuwa Kori were armed with luhangi. All the accused persons were beating Govind Singh with their respective weapons. When they tried to interfere, all the accused persons threatened that, if he would come near to them, he would be beaten like Govind Singh. After beating Govind Singh, all the accused persons fled away towards north. Thereafter laying the Govind Singh on cot, Pyare Raja took Govind Singh to the hospital but Govind Singh died on the way due to injuries. 29. From the above statements of the prosecution witnesses, it appears that prosecution has produced the most natural and probable witness of the case PW-2 Pyare Raja complainant, who was accompanying Govind Singh deceased at the time of incident, is the step brother of the deceased. Since both used to live in one house and therefore, their company in the morning hours for going to well cannot be said to be unnatural in any way. (PW-2) Lakhoo’s house is just a few steps away from the place of the occurrence, therefore, he is most probable and natural witness. 30. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the complainant Pyare Raja (PW-2) who is the step brother of the deceased Govind Singh is said to be with the deceased at the time of occurrence, but he has not received any injury and did not come to rescue his brother deceased Govind Singh. 30. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the complainant Pyare Raja (PW-2) who is the step brother of the deceased Govind Singh is said to be with the deceased at the time of occurrence, but he has not received any injury and did not come to rescue his brother deceased Govind Singh. The conduct and behaviour of (PW-2) Pyare Raja is quite unnatural and shows that complainant Pyare Raja (PW-2) was not present on spot of the occurrence at the time of incident and has not seen the incident therefore, his testimony is not of trustworthy. 31. In this context, where eye-witnesses did not come to rescue of the deceased Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sucha Singh and another v. State of Punjab, (2003) 7 SCC 643 in para 23, has held that such reactions, conduct and behaviour of the witness cannot be a ground to discard their evidence, where they were unarmed and accused were armed with deadly weapons. 32. In view of the above legal preposition, so far as inaction of (PW-2) Pyare Raja in not coming forward to rescue of the deceased is concerned, it has to be noted that at the time of incident complainant Pyare Raja (PW-2) and deceased Govind Singh both of them were unarmed and bare handed, while the appellants were armed with deadly weapons. How a person would react in a situation like this cannot be encompassed by any rigid formula. In a given case, instinct of self preservation can be the dominant instinct. Therefore, inaction of PW-2 Pyare Raja complaint, in not coming, to the rescue of his deceased brother, cannot be a ground for discarding his evidence. 33. It is evident from the record that the incident took place on 8.9.1982 at about 06:00 a.m. in the morning in village Rajpura P.S. Bar. As per Chick F.I.R. Ex-Ka-1 the place of incident is 8 miles away form P.S. Bar and F.I.R. has been lodged by the complainant Pyare Raja (PW-2) on the same day, soon after the occurrence, at about 9:25 a.m. Considering the promptness in lodging the F.I.R. By complainant Pyare Raja (PW-2), it cannot be said that it was after thought and genuineness of prosecution story cannot be doubted. 34. 34. Although it is admitted fact that there is enmity between complainant and accused/appellants and prosecution witnesses (PW-1) Lakhoo Singh and (PW-2) Pyare Raja have been cross-examined at length, but in spite of lengthy cross-examination accused-appellants have failed to point out nothing, which could make out that the (PW-1) Lakhoo and (PW-2) Pyare Raja were stating against the appellants due to inimical relations and revengeful attitude. 35. In the present case, it is also worth to note that the incident had taken place at about 06:00 a.m. in the morning. All the accused/appellants, who are of the same village, though of different puras, were expected to know the daily movements of the deceased Govind Singh and if they had assembled in the morning hours, with deadly weapons at a particular house, on the route, to take revenge, the action could not be termed as unnatural and unusual. 36. (PW-1)-Lakhoo and (PW-2)-Pyare Raja complainant have fully corroborated the prosecution story as stated in F.I.R. and categorically stated in their statement that appellants Nathoo Singh and Durg Singh have assaulted with axe, Jagbhan Singh and Veer Singh assaulted with lathis and appellants Lakhan Singh and Dhanuwa Kori assaulted with luhangi. The oral evidence of eye-witness (PW-1)-Lakhoo and (PW-2)-Pyare Raja is corroborated by medical evidence, as the post-mortem report Ex-Ka-7 transpires that there was contusions, incised wound, abrasions and lacerated wound on the person of the deceased Govind Singh. (PW-3)-Dr. K.C. Gupta, who has proved the post-mortem Ex-Ka 7, has specifically stated that the injuries on the body of deceased Govind Singh could be caused by lathi, luhangi and axe. There is not a word in cross-examination of (PW-3)-Dr. K.C. Gupta on that point and the statement of Dr. K.C. Gupta-(PW-3) went unchallenged that the injures found on the body of Govind Singh deceased were caused by such weapons. 37. The statement of (PW-1)-Lakhoo and (PW-2)-Pyare Raja regarding the spot of occurrence is also corroborated by the site plan of the place of occurrence Ex.Ka-14, which has been prepared and proved by (PW-4)-Phool Chandra Tiwari I.O. Accused-appellants have not produced any evidence on record to show that the incident took place in any other manner, therefore, the case of false implication on the basis of enmity is not established and defence plea has no substance. 38. 38. In view of the above of the oral evidence as well as medical evidence and other relevant material available on record, it is established that the appellants Jagbhan Singh, Durg Singh and Lakhan Singh alongwith the appellants Nathoo Singh (since deceased), Dhanuwa Kori (since deceased), Veer Singh (since deceased) constituted an unlawful assembly, armed with deadly weapons and in furtherance of their common object murdered the deceased Govind Singh on 8.9.1982 at 06:00 a.m. In the morning in village Rajpura. 39. On the basis of above discussion, we are of the opinion that the trial Court had meticulously considered the facts and circumstances and evidence adduced by the prosecution and thereafter passed the judgment and order of conviction of the appellants dated 30.8.1983. The judgment and order of learned Sessions Judge is based on evidence and conclusions reached by the trial Court is not erroneous and sentence awarded to the appellants is not excessive, especially in the circumstances, when it was directed that all the sentences would run concurrently. Therefore, interference is not required and the appeal is hereby dismissed. 40. The appellants Jagbhan Singh, Durg Singh and Lakha Singh are on bail their bail bonds and surety bonds are cancelled and sureties discharged. They shall be taken into custody to served out the sentence awarded by the trial Court. 41. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the Sessions Judge, Lalitpur for ensuring complaince. ——————