ORDER : These five appeals are directed against the judgement dated 01.08.2014 passed by Special Judge, Kota whereby accused-appellants have been convicted and sentenced in the following manner: "For offence 341 IPC to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further undergo simple imprisonment for 7 days; for offence u/s 302 IPC sentenced to life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 25,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for 2 years: for offence u/s 302/149 IPC sentenced to life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 25,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for 2 years and for offence u/s 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act sentenced life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 25,000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for 2 years." 2. The brief facts giving rise to these appeals are that on 19.09.2005 PW 18 Prahlad submitted Ex.P.11 written report to PW 11 Matadeen Singh, S.I. interalia alleging that on that day in the noon at 1 p.m. he received information that his son Nikhlesh alias Nikku (since deceased) was attacked by the accused having sharp edged weapons in Shripura, Randipada near the Govt. Water-tap in the street of Irfan Vakil and at present he is in M.B.S. hospital. On this information he reached in the Emergency Ward of the Hospital. Mukesh (PW19) and Soni (PW15) were found there. They told that about half an hour ago, Pallu alias Parvez, Sonu alias Billa, Musheer, Aslam Tota, Shakeel alias Bakra and two others attacked Nikku with knife and other sharp weapons with the intention to kill him. Pallu alias Parvez assaulted him with knife on left side of back of chest on ribs and Aslam Tota made assault on the chest of Nikku which he resisted on right hand and he received injury on right hand. These assailants came on motor cycle, one of them was bearing number RJ 20 13 M 7286 and another Motor Cycle was Bajaj Boxer. The cause of this incident was that on 17.09.2005, during the procession of Anant Chaturdashi. Nasir was causing disturbance at Patta Burj Akhada and his son Nikku made him to understand and moved him out of the way. The cause of this incident was that on 17.09.2005, during the procession of Anant Chaturdashi. Nasir was causing disturbance at Patta Burj Akhada and his son Nikku made him to understand and moved him out of the way. Thereafter, Nasir came back with Aslam Tota, Shakeel Bakra, Sonu alias Billa, Pallu Parvez, Musheer and they threatened his son. On account of this enmity, they have killed his son today. 3. On the basis of aforesaid written report Ex.P.12. F.I.R. No. 158/2005 was registered at Police Station, Kethunipole, Kota for offences under sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 341 IPC and Section 3 of the SC/ST Act. During the course of investigation, Ex.P.1 Panchayatnama of dead body was prepared, the postmortem of deceased was got conducted and postmortem Report Ex.P.5 was obtained, site was inspected and site-plan Ex.P.18 was prepared, accused persons were arrested, knife was recovered from co-accused Musheer Khan vide memo Ex.P.2, Katar was recovered from co-accused Aslam alias Tota vide memo Ex.P.15, motor cycle was recovered at the instance of co-accused Shakeel from the house of Raiees vide memo Ex.P.14, accused-appellant was arrested on 19.09.2005 vide memo Ex.P.24. On conclusion of investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet against all accused persons from offence under sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 341, 120B, 109 IPC and Section 3(2)(5) of the SC/ST Act and Section 4/25 of the Arms Act. The learned Magistrate committed accused persons to face Sessions Trial. The learned Trial Judge framed charges for offences under sections 148, 302, 302/149, 341 IPC and Section 3(2)(5) of the SC/ST Act against present accused-appellant and co-accused Pallu alias Parvez, Mohd. Raiees, Shakeel alias Bakra and charges for offences under sections 148, 302, 302/149, 341 IPC, Section 3(2)(5) of the SC/ST Act and Section 4/25 were framed against co-accused Aslam alias Tota and Musheer Khan. The accused persons denied charges and claimed trial. Prosecution examined as many as 23 witnesses and exhibited 30 documents. Defence produced 9 witnesses and exhibited 20 documents. The Special Judge on conclusion of the trial, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants in the manner as indicated above. Hence these appeals. 4. Shri Sushil Pujari, learned counsel for the accused-appellant Aslam @ Tota in appeal no.168/15 has argued that it was a blind murder case, where in fact there is no eye witness. The Special Judge on conclusion of the trial, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants in the manner as indicated above. Hence these appeals. 4. Shri Sushil Pujari, learned counsel for the accused-appellant Aslam @ Tota in appeal no.168/15 has argued that it was a blind murder case, where in fact there is no eye witness. Reliance placed by the learned Special Court on the testimony of Sandeep Bhatiya (PW13), Rishi Pal Singh (PW14), Sunil Narwal (PW15), Roshan (PW16) and Mukesh (PW19) considering them as eye witnesses, is wholly misconceived. In fact, careful reading of their statement would make it appear that they are witnesses of hearsay and none of them was witnesses of incident. Although these witnesses are alleging that appellant-Aslam @ Tota was intending to cause blow of katar (dragger) on the chest of the deceased, which he saved on his right hand and thereby sustained injuries on hand, but in the written report Ex.P11, no weapon has been assigned to him. All that is alleged is that he inflicted injuries on the right hand of the deceased. Learned counsel submitted that the information memo dated 4.10.2005 Ex.P27 recorded at the instance of accused-appellant Aslam @ Tota under Section 27 of the Evidence Act is wholly unreliable. Therein, the Investigating Officer has recorded that the accused-appellant allegedly gave information that he gave the katar (dragger), which was used in the offence to Raees, who reside in the lane of Gauri Hotel near Ghantaghar and that he could get the same recovered from him, but recovery has not been made at the instance of accused-appellant. The memo of recovery of katar (dragger) is Ex.P15, according to which it was co-accused Raees, who produced the katar (dragger) from his residence, therefore, such recovery cannot be read against accused-appellant Aslam @ Tota. Referring to the statement of Sandeep Bhatiya (PW13), learned counsel argued that this witnesses on its own showing cannot be considered as eye witness. He has stated that neither the police personnel asked them about the assailants, nor did they tell police regarding them. He also stated that he did not know the accused by face or name from before. He has admitted that he had stated in his police statement the same was told to him by Sunil Narwal (PW15). Although he was not aware whether Sunil and Mukesh had any enmity with accused-appellant Aslam @ Tota. He also stated that he did not know the accused by face or name from before. He has admitted that he had stated in his police statement the same was told to him by Sunil Narwal (PW15). Although he was not aware whether Sunil and Mukesh had any enmity with accused-appellant Aslam @ Tota. Learned counsel submitted that this witness on his own admission is a witness of hearsay and therefore he cannot be relied. 5. Shri Sushil Pujari, learned counsel submitted that Rishipal Singh (PW14) has also stated that it was Sandeep @ Babu and Roshan, who informed him about the incident. This witness is again a witness of hearsay. In fact, Matadeen (PW11), S.I., who was the duty officer at the Police Station, who immediately reached the place of occurrence, has stated that when he reached there, deceased did not speak anything in his presence. Similarly, the statement of Sunil Narwal (PW15) also cannot be relied because he too has not claimed to be eye witnesses, but is a witness of hearsay. He also stated that he did not know the accused from before the incident. The testimony of Roshan (PW16) also does not inspire any confidence. All that he has stated is that while he was standing at the turn of the lane with Goldy @ Rishipal, Sunil Narwal, Babu @ Sandeep Bhatiya and Mukesh, they heard the sound of ‘marpeet’. There were 7 persons, out of which 6 are the accused present in the court. The incident took place because of altercation between the deceased Nikku and accused-appellant Aslam @ Tota. Nikku in injured condition came rushing towards him and when he was about to fall, Sunil Narwal held him in his hands. Two accused were having sharp edged knives. This witness along with Sunil Narwal came to deceased, who narrated the incident to them that Pallu @ Parvez, Aslam, Shakil, Naeem Billa and Musheer surrounded him. Pappu @ Parvez inflicted a knife blow in his ribs from behind, Aslam also inflicted a blow by sharp edged weapons, which he received on his hand. Testimony of this witness cannot be relied because he is not an eye witness. Similarly, Mukesh (PW19) has also stated that he did not see the accused inflicting the blow on the deceased. In fact, it was deceased Nikku, who told him about the incident. Testimony of this witness cannot be relied because he is not an eye witness. Similarly, Mukesh (PW19) has also stated that he did not see the accused inflicting the blow on the deceased. In fact, it was deceased Nikku, who told him about the incident. Nikku had a fight with Aslam at the occasion of Anant Chaturdashi. Learned counsel argued that in the memo of recovery of Katar (dragger) Ex.P15, it has been stated that blood stains were visible thereon, but in the FSL report (Ex.P30) wherein at item no.7, chaku (knife) was found to contain human blood, however, Katar (dragger) was found negative for the presence of blood. It is argued that the accused Aslam @ Tota has not been attributed any vital injury. As per the injury report Ex.P4, the injury alleged to have been caused by accused-appellant Aslam @ Tota is on the hand, which is a non-vital part. He, therefore, can at best be convicted for offence under section 326 IPC. 6. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant alternatively submitted that the offence of the accused-appellant is liable to be converted from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part-II IPC. In support his arguments, he has cited the judgement of Supreme Court in Sukhdev Singh v. Delhi State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)- AIR 2003 SC 3716 and submitted that in that case the accused-appellant during course of scuffle took out his pistol and fired at deceased, which hit on thigh of another person standing nearby, but accused fired again, which hit deceased. It was held that gun shots fired by accused cannot be said to be the result of grave and sudden provocation, but were fired in course of sudden quarrel, therefore, exception-4 of Section 300 IPC would be applicable. Conviction of accused was thus altered to Section 304 Part-II. Learned counsel cited another judgement of Supreme Court in Gurdeep Singh v. Jaswant Singh & Ors.- AIR 1992 SC 987 , in which there was involvement of several accused and intention to cause death was not proved. Conviction of accused was thus altered to Section 304 Part-II. Learned counsel cited another judgement of Supreme Court in Gurdeep Singh v. Jaswant Singh & Ors.- AIR 1992 SC 987 , in which there was involvement of several accused and intention to cause death was not proved. It was held that if one accused caused injury to victim with knowledge that it was likely to cause death, although there were number of accused, but one deceased, he was liable to be convicted under Section 304 Part-II IPC and not under Section 302 IPC and other two accused causing injury but not on vital parts of deceased were held liable to be convicted under Section 326/34 IPC. Reliance is also placed on the judgement of Himachal Pradesh High Court in Sanjay Kumar v. State of H.P.-2007 Cri.L.J. 2695 where the deceased received a single blow of knife in the abdomen, which was 5 cm deep, but he did not repeat the injury. It was held on facts that the accused did not intend to cause any injury, which was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, therefore, offence under section 304 Part-II is made out. 7. As regards the conviction of accused-appellant for offence under section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, learned counsel submitted that none of the witnesses have uttered a single word in their statement that deceased was subjected to beating only because he happened to be member of Scheduled Caste. Learned court below also in its judgments has not at all discussed any evidence, which it could not have because there was no allegation of any of the witnesses thereabout. The conviction of the accused appellant under Section 3 (2)(v) has been made mechanically. Reliance in this connection is made to the division bench of this Court in Sudha Ram v. State of Rajasthan-2013 (3) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 1089. 8. Shri Abdul Rahim Khan, learned counsel appearing for the accused-appellant Pallu @ Parvez in appeal no.963/2014 adopting the arguments of learned counsel Shri Sushil Pujari has submitted that statement of prosecution witnesses namely; Sandeep Bhatiya (PW13), Rishi Pal Singh (PW14), Sunil Narwal (PW15), Roshan (PW16) and Mukesh (PW19) are full of contradictions inasmuch as these witnesses, as has been rightly argued, are not the eye witnesses, but are the witness of hearsay. The prosecution fully failed to prove the guilt of the accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt. In the FIR (Ex.P12) only two witnesses were named by informant-Prahlad, father of the deceased. The information memo of Pallu @ Parvez under Section 27 of the Evidence Act is dated 22.9.2005. What has been recorded therein is that the accused-appellant Pallu @ Parvez gave the information that the knife, which he used for killing the deceased belonged to Musheer and it was in his possession, therefore, consequential recovery was also made at the instance of Musheer and not at the instance of accused-appellant. This kind of information under section 27 could not be read against accused-appellant and, therefore, consequential recovery of knife vide Ex.P2 also cannot be read against accused-appellant Pallu @ Parvez as it has not been made at his instance, but at the instance of co-accused Musheer. Even otherwise, evidence in totality does not indicate that the accused appellant had the intention to kill the deceased, which is evident from the fact that the accused-appellant Pallu @ Parvez inflicted a single injury and did not repeat it. 9. Shri Ashvin Garg, learned counsel for the accused-appellant Sonu @ Abdul Naeem (appeal No.964/14) has submitted that father of the deceased Prahlad Kumar in the written report (Ex.P11) has mentioned only two witnesses, whom the prosecution at best can claim to be eye witnesses. He has stated that it was Sonu @ Sunil Narwal (PW15) and Mukesh (PW19), who informed him about the incident, but the remaining three witnesses namely; Sandeep Bhatiya (PW13), Rishipal Singh (PW14) and Roshan (PW16) were not even present at the place of occurrence. In fact, Matadeen (PW11), SI, who was duty officer and rushed to the place of incident on receiving the information, has ruled out the presence of two witnesses because he stated that none of these five accused were having blood stains on their clothes. These witnesses, however, claimed that they helped the deceased in severally injured condition to get into an auto rickshaw and then took him to the hospital. Matadeen Singh (PW11) has stated that while deceased Nikku was murmuring, but despite his best efforts, he did not speak anything in his presence. The prosecution has not made Nasir as accused with whom deceased, in fact, allegedly had an altercation during the occasion of Anant Chaturdashi, which was the alleged motive of the crime. Matadeen Singh (PW11) has stated that while deceased Nikku was murmuring, but despite his best efforts, he did not speak anything in his presence. The prosecution has not made Nasir as accused with whom deceased, in fact, allegedly had an altercation during the occasion of Anant Chaturdashi, which was the alleged motive of the crime. Neither name of accused Nasir was shown in the FIR, not he has been made accused with the aid of Section 120B IPC. The said motive, therefore, cannot be read against the accused-appellant. While information memo under section 27 of the Evidence Act vide Ex.P25 for recovery of knife was recorded at the instance of accused-appellant Pallu @ Parvez on 22.9.2005, but recovery of knife was shown to have been made enormously delayed on 4.10.2005 i.e. after 12 days at the instance of accused-appellant Mushir Khan and the recovery of katar (dragger) as per information memo Ex.P27 at the instance of accused-appellant Aslam @ Tota, which is absolutely illegal. 10. Learned counsel submitted that in assessing the value of the evidence of an eye witness, the two principal considerations are (i) whether, in the circumstances of the case, it is possible to believe his presence at the scene of occurrence or in such situation as would make it possible for him to witness the fact deposited by him and (ii) whether there is anything inherently improbable or unreliable in his evidence. Reliance in support of the arguments is placed on the judgement of Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Noorie- AIR 1996 SC 3073 . It is contended that conviction cannot be based on uncorroborated version of the interested prosecution witnesses. Besides, the accused was not having any direct motive to cause murder of the deceased. The witnesses are alleging that they did not know the accused from before, therefore, accused appellant cannot be said to be member of unlawful assembly. Thus, the conviction under Section 302 IPC with the aid of Section 149 IPC is absolutely illegal. The conviction for offence under section 3 (2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been mechanically recorded. Neither there was any allegation thereabout in the written report, nor the prosecution witnesses uttered a single word attributing such allegation to the accused-appellant Sonu @ Abdul Naeem or for that matter, any other accused. The conviction for offence under section 3 (2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been mechanically recorded. Neither there was any allegation thereabout in the written report, nor the prosecution witnesses uttered a single word attributing such allegation to the accused-appellant Sonu @ Abdul Naeem or for that matter, any other accused. The learned special court also in the whole of the judgment has not discussed any such evidence and has not recorded any finding, however, straightaway accused have been illegally convicted for offence under section 3 (2)(v) of the Act of 1989. Offence under section 339 IPC implicit a deceased to proceed in a single way to cause murder. In the present case, prosecution has utterly failed to prove that in which direction, the deceased was to move. The conviction of the accused appellant for offence under section 148 IPC is also illegal as none of the prosecution witnesses have stated anything about other accused than Pallu @ Parvez and Aslam @ Tota that they were armed with weapons. The trial court thus has mechanically recorded the finding of conviction. While injury no.1 as per the postmortem report Ex.P4 has been attributed to accused-appellant Aslam @ Tota, injury no.2 has been attributed to accused-appellant Pallu @ Parvez. There was no evidence on record to sustain the conviction of the accused-appellant Sonu @ Abdul Naeem for offence under section 302 simpliciter or for that matter under section 302/34 IPC. 11. Shri Sunil Tyagi, learned counsel for the accused appellant-Mushir Khan has submitted that no overt act has been assigned to accused-appellant. The recovery of knife though has been shown at the instance of accused-appellant Pallu @ Parvez, which is evident from the information memo furnished by him under Section 27 of the Evidence Act vide Ex.P25, but such knife was actually shown to have been recovered from the possession of accused-appellant Mushir vide Ex.P2. The method and manner of recovery thus makes the whole case doubtful and suspicious. This recovery is nothing, but the result of police padding and a planted recovery. It is therefore that the two witnesses of recovery Dr. Inderjeet (PW3) and Prahlad (PW20) did not support the recovery and both turned hostile. The so-called eye witnesses namely; Sandeep Bhatiya (PW13), Rishi Pal Singh (PW14), Sunil Narwal (PW15), Roshan (PW16) and Mukesh (PW19) are, in fact, not eye witnesses. It is therefore that the two witnesses of recovery Dr. Inderjeet (PW3) and Prahlad (PW20) did not support the recovery and both turned hostile. The so-called eye witnesses namely; Sandeep Bhatiya (PW13), Rishi Pal Singh (PW14), Sunil Narwal (PW15), Roshan (PW16) and Mukesh (PW19) are, in fact, not eye witnesses. While father of the deceased in the first information report has stated about two persons namely; Sonu @ Sunil Narwal (PW15) and Mukesh (PW19) that they informed him about the incident, but careful reading of the statement of these two witnesses show that they did not claim to be eye witnesses. All that they said was that deceased disclosed them the manner in which the incident took place and it in this process that while making specific allegations against two accused namely; Aslam @ Tota and Pallu @ Parvez, certain other accused were also named. This is nothing but false implication only because accused-appellant Mushir Khan is happened to be also involved by the police in some other cases. It is argued that Sunil Narwal (PW15) is a planted witness as he has stated that the incident had taken place in another 'gali' and not in the 'gali' of Datar ladies tailor. Similarly, Roshan (PW16) also stated that deceased Nikku was not his relative. It was deceased who told him about involvement of Aslam @ Tota, but he could not say where the incident took place. However, the fact is that Roshan was relative of deceased, thus was an interested witness. 12. Shri Deepak Soni, learned amicus curiae for the accused-appellant Mohammad Raees in appeal no. 964/14, has apart from adopting the arguments made by other learned counsels submitted that accused-appellant has not been named in the FIR. He has been falsely shown an accused. Police had shown concocted recovery of motorcycle without registration number at his instance. The case of the police is that while four accused came on one motorcycle, three came on another motorcycle. But the presence of the accused-appellant has not been stated on the place of incidence by any of the witnesses. 13. Shri M.I. Beg, learned counsel for the accused appellant Shakeel @ Bakra in appeal no.1091/14 submitted that accused-appellant has been falsely implicated only because of the previous criminal cases registered against him, or else he has nothing to do with the present case. 13. Shri M.I. Beg, learned counsel for the accused appellant Shakeel @ Bakra in appeal no.1091/14 submitted that accused-appellant has been falsely implicated only because of the previous criminal cases registered against him, or else he has nothing to do with the present case. His presence on the place of occurrence is highly doubtful. Neither he was named in the FIR, nor any recovery has been made from him. His actual name is Shakeel and, therefore, the allegation that he was known as Bakra, is totally false. The learned court below failed to appreciate the evidence in true perspective. No offence under section 302 IPC is made out against the accused-appellant even if the statements of witnesses namely; Sandeep Bhatiya (PW13), Rishi Pal Singh (PW14), Sunil Narwal (PW15), Roshan (PW16) and Mukesh (PW19) relied by learned trial court are considered. 14. Per contra, Shri Sudesh Saini, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the appeals and submitted that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses has to be seen in entirety. The minor contradictions in their statements cannot read out of proportion so as to completely discard their testimony. The allegation that they were planted witnesses, is totally false. The witnesses are natural and happened to be present at and around the place of incident when the incident took place. Sunil Narwal (PW15) and Mukesh (PW19) even as per the version of the first information report were present at the place of occurrence. Had they been planted witnesses or were interested, they would have rather than saying that deceased informed them about the involvement of the accused-appellants, could have straightaway claimed themselves as eye witnesses. Apart from the witnesses Sandeep Bhatiya (PW13), Rishi Pal Singh (PW14), Sunil Narwal (PW15), Roshan (PW16) and Mukesh (PW19) relied by learned trial court, Ashok Gauttam (PW21) also provides corroboration to their testimony. He has stated that incident in the present case took place because deceased Nikku had a quarrel with Nasir on the day when the procession of Anant Chaturdashi was carried out. Learned Public Prosecutor has referred to the statement of Sandeep Bhatiya (PW13), Rishi Pal Singh (PW14), Sunil Narwal (PW15), Roshan (PW16) and Mukesh (PW19) and argued that these witnesses clearly proved the presence of accused-appellants especially Pallu @ Parvez and Aslam @ Tota. Learned Public Prosecutor has referred to the statement of Sandeep Bhatiya (PW13), Rishi Pal Singh (PW14), Sunil Narwal (PW15), Roshan (PW16) and Mukesh (PW19) and argued that these witnesses clearly proved the presence of accused-appellants especially Pallu @ Parvez and Aslam @ Tota. The deceased happened to be member of Schedule Caste and, therefore, accused-appellants have rightly been convicted for offence under section 3 (2)(v) of the Act of 1989. The learned trial court marshaled and analysed the prosecution witnesses in great details and thereafter rightly convicted the accused-appellants. There is no mitigating circumstances in favour of the accused appellant. The learned Public Prosecutor has also referred to relevant exhibits, which shall be discussed at the appropriate place. 15. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 16. The first version that was disclosed by Prahlad Kumar (PW18), father of the deceased in the written report (Ex.P11) is that he received information at about 1.00 in the noon that his son Niklesh @ Nikku has been attacked in the gali (lane) of Irfan Advocate and was hospitalised in M.B.S. Hospital. He thereupon reached the hospital where Soni and Mukesh were found. They told him that Nikku was attacked by Pallu @ Parvez and Sonu @ Billa, Mushir, Aslam @ Tota, Shakeel @ Bakra and two more accused half an hour ago with a view to commit his murder. Nikku was attacked by Pallu @ Parvez at the back towards the ribs of left side and Aslam @ Tota thereafter inflicted injury on the chest of Nikku, which he tried to save on his hand resulting into injuries. Even in this written report, the informant Prahlad Kumar has stated that Nasir had a quarrel with Nikku on 17.9.2005 when the procession of Anant Chaturdashi was being carried out. Thereafter Nasir again came to him with Aslam @ Tota, Shakeel Bakra, Sonu @ Billa, Pallu Parvez and Mushir. Indisputably, the complainant, who happens to be father of the deceased has named only two witnesses namely; Sunil Narwal (PW15) and Mukesh (PW19). Sunil Narwal (PW15) has stated that incident took place around 12-12.15 noon. He along with Mukesh, Goldi @ Rishipal, Sandeep Bhatiya @ Babu and Roshan was going towards Gang Shahida. When they reached the corner of the lane of Datar tailor, they saw that 6-7 persons were beating Nikku@ Nikhilesh by knives. Sunil Narwal (PW15) has stated that incident took place around 12-12.15 noon. He along with Mukesh, Goldi @ Rishipal, Sandeep Bhatiya @ Babu and Roshan was going towards Gang Shahida. When they reached the corner of the lane of Datar tailor, they saw that 6-7 persons were beating Nikku@ Nikhilesh by knives. Seeing them, Nikku cried for help and came towards them and fell down. When this witness enquired from Nikku, who was in critical condition, he told that when sometime ago he was coming through the lane of Ifran Advocate, Pallu @ Parvez, Aslam @ Tota, Shakeel Bakra, Musheer, Sonu @ Billa and two more persons intercepted him and started causing injuries by knives. Aslam Tota inflicted a knife blow on his chest, which he saved by his right hand, in which he sustained injuries. Pallu @ Parvez has inflicted a knife blow from behind. The deceased told him that Nasir was making lot of nuisance in the procession of Anant Chaturdashi on 17.9.2005 and the deceased forced him to go out of the Akhada. Mukesh (PW19), the another witnesses named by the informant in the FIR has also narrated that the incident had taken place at about 12-12.15 noon on 19.9.2005. The above named five persons were going towards the lane of Datar tailor. They noticed the incident at the corner of that lane. The accused had knives and draggers. They were about seven persons, five of whom were present in the Court. It was deceased Nikku, who told him that Aslam inflicted a knife below from the front side where Parvez inflicted such below from behind. Thereafter they called auto and took the deceased to hospital where he succumbed to the injuries. These two witnesses have indeed not claimed to be eye witnesses, but nevertheless they are consistent in making statement that deceased rushed towards them to save himself from the clutches of the accused and at that time when he was still conscious, he narrated the entire incident to them. 17. The other witnesses namely; Sandeep Bhatiya (PW13), Rishi Pal Singh (PW14) and Roshan (PW16) have also been believed by the learned trial court. 17. The other witnesses namely; Sandeep Bhatiya (PW13), Rishi Pal Singh (PW14) and Roshan (PW16) have also been believed by the learned trial court. Sandeep Bhatiya (PW13) has also similarly stated that when all five of them were going towards the Gang Shahida and reached the corner of the lane of Datar ladies tailor, 7 persons who were armed with draggers and knives were bearing one boy. He has identified Pallu @ Parvez and Aslam @ Tota in the Court. Although, he could not identity any other accused except Shakeel and Mushir. In cross examination also this witness has stated that Soni and Mukesh enquired from the deceased and thereupon he told the incident and also that Aslam @ Tota inflicted a blow by use of katar (dragger), which he saved on his right hand and Pallu @ Parvez inflicted a knife blow at his back. This witness merely stated in cross examination that he did not know the accused prior to the incident, cannot be disbelieved at least to the extent he has stated that he has corroborated what has been stated by Sunil Narwal (PW15) and Mukesh (PW19) that on their enquiry deceased told them about the role of the accused. Rishipal Singh (PW14) has also similarly stated that 7 persons were subjecting Nikku @ Nikhilesh to beating. They had witnesses the incident from distance of about 20-50 feet. When Nikku saw them, he cried for help. This witness then went to call the auto. The deceased told about the manner of incident and role of the accused to other persons present at the place of incident. This witness has not only identified Pallu @ Parvez and Aslam @ Tota, but also Sonu @ Naeem, Mushir and Shakil @ Bakra. Roshan (PW16) has also made similar statement that on enquiry by Sunil Narwal, deceased Nikku told about the incident and also about the previous incident of altercation between the deceased Nikku and Nasir. Prahlad (PW18) has not claimed to be eye witness. But this witness has also made a statement that Pallu attacked from behind and Aslam attacked from front, which deceased saved from hand. The statement of all these witnesses in totality belies the argument of the defence that they were planted eye witnesses, but were not the eye witnesses. Prahlad (PW18) has not claimed to be eye witness. But this witness has also made a statement that Pallu attacked from behind and Aslam attacked from front, which deceased saved from hand. The statement of all these witnesses in totality belies the argument of the defence that they were planted eye witnesses, but were not the eye witnesses. Besides, as far as accused-appellants Pallu @ Parvez and Aslam @ Tota is concerned, the evidence of Sunil Narwal (PW15) can be read against them by invocation of doctrine of res gestae vide Section 6 of the Evidence Act because the deceased uttered about the role of the accused immediately after he received the injuries by sharp edged weapon and rushed towards the witnesses for help when he was still conscious. The utter-ness by deceased in that situation would be taken as part of the incident. 18. The bare reading of the impugned judgement clearly show that while 60 pages have been devoted by the Presiding officer to the reproduction of the statement of witnesses and the arguments of defence and prosecution, but his reasoning is concluded just in last three pages, which too appears to be very cryptic and cursory. No where in the judgement is there any discussion as to for what reason, the accused appellants have been convicted for the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and sentenced to life imprisonment. Only because deceased happened to be belonged to member of Scheduled Caste would not justify their conviction for the said offence. We may in this connection, refer to the judgement of Supreme Court in Sudha Ram, supra, para no.36 whereof reads as under: "36. So far as offence under section 3 (2) (v) of the Act of 1989 is concerned the law declared by the Apex Court in the case of Ramdas v. State of Maharashtra, 2007 (49) AIC 418 (SC) : (2007) 2 SCC 170 clearly lays down the proposition that to attract the harsher provisions of the Act of 1989, it must be established by the prosecution that the offence was committed on a member of S.T. community because of the fact she was a member of such community. In the instant case, we do not find any evidence on record that the deceased was murdered because he was a member of S.C. Community. In the instant case, we do not find any evidence on record that the deceased was murdered because he was a member of S.C. Community. Hence, applying the law declared by the Apex Court as aforesaid, in this regard, we are of the opinion that the essential ingredients of the offence punishable under section 3 (2) (v) of the Act of 1989 cannot be said to have been proved. Mere per petrations of a crime on a member of S.C. or S.T. community is not sufficient to attract aforesaid penal provision of the Act of 1989. It must also be shown that such an offence had been committed upon the deceased since he was a member of such community. In absence of proof such fact, we are constrained to hold that the offence punishable under section 3 (2) (v) of the Act of 1989 has not been established." 19. Coming now to the argument that recovery of knife has been made from Mushir and katar (dragger) from Mohammad Raees, whereas the information under section 27 for recovery of such weapons was recorded in the name of Pallu @ Parvez and Aslam @ Tota, this recovery may be doubtful qua Mushir and Mohammad Raees and cannot be relied as far as Mushir and Mohammad Raees are concerned because it is not even the case that they used these weapons to inflict injuries on the deceased. Mere recovery of motorcycle without registration number at the instance of Mohammad Raees does not prove anything against him, without there being corroborative evidence. However, what is significant to note is that knife was found besides for the presence of blood of human original, but katar (dragger) was found negative for the presence of blood. Mohammad Raees was not named in the FIR. There is no specific overt act against any other accused except that they were shown present at the place of incident or that they were passing through the lane in which the incident took place. In the facts of this case, therefore, while evidence of these prosecution witnesses may be relied against Aslam @ Tota and Pallu @ Parvez, but not against other four accused namely; Sonu @ Abdul Naeem, Mohammad Raees, Mushir Khan & Shakeel @ Bakra to sustain their conviction under various offences. There is no corroboration to the allegations against any of these four accused. There is no corroboration to the allegations against any of these four accused. It would be therefore highly unsafe to sustain their conviction for the alleged offences. However, at the same time, the conviction of accused-appellants Pallu @ Parvez and Aslam @ Tota for offence under section 302 IPC cannot be sustained because while accused Pallu @ Parvez is alleged to have caused one knife blow, but there is no allegation that he repeated in the injury. While injury no.1 as per the postmortem report Ex.P4 has been attributed to accused-appellant Aslam @ Tota, but that injury was not on vital part. The incident appears has taken place at the spur of the moment in a sudden quarrel. The act was done without premeditation and evidently without any intention for doing more harm than it is necessary. The fact that the accused inflicted one injury each would show that they have not taken any undue advantage of the situation. Their offence thus does not travel beyond Section 304 Part-I of IPC. The other four accused are entitled to benefit of doubt and therefore deserves acquittal. 20. In view of above discussion, the impugned judgement dated 1.8.2014 qua accused-appellants Sonu @ Abdul Naieem, Mohammad Raies, Musheer Khan and Shakeel @ Bakra is set aside and qua accused-appellants Pallu @ Parvej and Aslam @ Tota is modified and these appeals are disposed off in the following manner: (1) appeal no.925/2014 filed by Sonu @ Abdul Naieem, appeal no.964/2014 filed by Mohammad Raies & Musheer Khan and appeal no. 1091/2014 filed by Shakeel @ Bakra are allowed. The conviction of accused-appellants Sonu @ Abdul Naieem, Mohammad Raies, Musheer Khan and Shakeel @ Bakra in Sessions Case No.119/2005 for offence under Sections 3(2) (v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and under Sections 341, 148, 302 and 302/149 IPC is set aside and they are acquitted of all the charges. They may be released forthwith if not required to be detained in connection with any other matter. (2) appeal no.963/2014 filed by Pallu @ Parvej and appeal no.168/2015 filed by Aslam @ Tota are allowed in part. They may be released forthwith if not required to be detained in connection with any other matter. (2) appeal no.963/2014 filed by Pallu @ Parvej and appeal no.168/2015 filed by Aslam @ Tota are allowed in part. Their conviction in Sessions Case No. 119/2005 for offence under Sections 3(2) (v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act under Sections 148, 302 & 302/149 is set aside and they are instead convicted for offence under section 304 Part-I read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of ten years. Their conviction and sentence under section 341 IPC is, however, maintained. 21. Keeping, however, in view the provisions of Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, accused-appellants are directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- each, and a surety bond in the like amount, before the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court, which shall be effective for a period of six months, undertaking that in the event of Special Leave Petition being filed against this judgment or on grant of leave, the appellants, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Supreme Court.