JUDGMENT : Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. 1. Krishan Kumar, appellant No. 1 is a tailor by profession. Smt. Sunayna Devi and Vikram Singh @ Vikky, appellant Nos. 2 and 3, herein respectively are wife and son of Krishan Kumar, appellant No. 1 herein. 2. From marshaling of the facts of prosecution case, it emerges that on 06.12.2009 at around 07:00/07:15 P.M. one Krishan Kumar, appellant No. 1 in the house bearing No. 784, Ramchandraji Sharma-ki-gali, Khuteto-ka-rasta, Kishanpole Bazar, Police Station, Kotwali, Jaipur, was having a tailor shop. On a trivial issue regarding passage, occurrence ensued leading to death of Hitesh Kumar Sharma. He was caused injuries with a scissor, an instrument used by tailor for cutting the clothes. 3. It is a further case of the prosecution that Smt. Sunayna Devi, appellant No. 2, herein had instigated her husband to cause murder of Hitesh Kumar Sharma and whereas Vikram Singh @ Vikky, son of Krishan Kumar had caused injuries to deceased - Hitesh Kumar Sharma with a stick (danda) on the non-vital parts of the body. 4. Another co-accused, namely Chandu @ Chandra named by the complainant in the written-report (Exhibit-P/20), on the basis of which a formal First Information Report (Exhibit-P/21) bearing registration No. 375 dated 06.12.2009 was registered at Police Station, Kotwali, Jaipur City, Jaipur for offence punishable under Section 302/34 of Indian Penal Code, was found to be a delinquent juvenile in conflict with law and was sent for the trial before appropriate Juvenile Justice Board. 5. Three appellants before us were tried by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Jaipur City, Jaipur. The said Court, vide its impugned judgment dated 30.05.2011, recorded conviction of Krishan Kumar, appellant No. 1 for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, whereas other co-accused, namely Smt. Sunayna Devi and Vikram Singh @ Vikky, appellant Nos. 2 & 3 were convicted with the aid of Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. 6. Having convicted the appellants for the above said offences, the ld. trial Court, vide a separate order of even date, sentenced them as under:-- "Accused - Krishan Kumar: For offence under Section 302 I.P.C. he was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-. In default of payment of fine to further undergo six months additional simple imprisonment. trial Court, vide a separate order of even date, sentenced them as under:-- "Accused - Krishan Kumar: For offence under Section 302 I.P.C. he was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-. In default of payment of fine to further undergo six months additional simple imprisonment. Accused - Sunayna Devi and Vikram Singh @ Vikky: For offence under Section 302/34 I.P.C. they were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- each. In default of payment of fine to further undergo one month's additional simple imprisonment each." 7. Aggrieved against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence, the present appellants have preferred instant appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before this Court. 8. Case of the prosecution is unfolded in the written-report (Exhibit-P/20), presented by Gagan Sharma (PW-8) before Chain Singh, (PW-16), who was then posted as Station House Officer, Police Station, Kotwali, Jaipur City, Jaipur. 9. Station House Officer, Chain Singh (PW-16), in the Court, deposed that on 06.12.2009 he received an information regarding the fight and admission of the injured in the hospital. Upon receipt of said information, he reached at S.M.S. Hospital, Jaipur, where Gagan Sharma (PW-8), presented a written-report (Exhibit-P/20), on the basis of which a formal First Information Report (Exhibit-P/21) was registered. 10. In nut-shell, complainant/informant - Gagan Sharma (PW-8) in the written-report (Exhibit-P/20) stated that on 06.12.2009 at about 07:00/07:15 P.M. he had returned to his house after attending 'barsi' (annual meet to pay homage to the departed soul) of his relatives. He was standing outside the door of his house. At that time, his uncle Hitesh Sharma was also standing with him. Both were having conversation, then Chandu @ Chandraprakash, one relative of Krishan Kumar Tailor, who is residing as a tenant in their building, came to meet Krishan Kumar and through the door he was going towards house of Krishan Kumar Tailor. Hitesh Kumar, uncle of the complainant/informant restrained him. Chandu paid no heed to the directions issued by Hitesh and proceeded towards accused - Krishan Kumar. When Hitesh, uncle again restrained Chandu @ Chandraprakash, he lost his temper and loudly raised a question that who are you to stop me and I will see you. Hitesh Kumar, uncle of the complainant/informant restrained him. Chandu paid no heed to the directions issued by Hitesh and proceeded towards accused - Krishan Kumar. When Hitesh, uncle again restrained Chandu @ Chandraprakash, he lost his temper and loudly raised a question that who are you to stop me and I will see you. Meanwhile, from the shop near to the house, Krishan Kumar, who was cutting clothes with scissor came out of the shop hearing noise of Chandu @ Chandraprakash. Krishan Kumar, who was having scissor in his hand asked Hitesh Sharma as to why, he restrained the person visiting him. Upon which, Hitesh replied that he also stays in the house. Krishan Kumar lost his temper and started abusing Hitesh. Meanwhile, Chandu @ Chandraprakash and Vikram @ Vikky, son of Krishan Kumar also came at the spot. Vikram @ Vikky was armed with stick (danda). All three, namely Krishan Kumar, Chandu @ Chandraprakash and Vikram @ Vikky started beating his uncle Hitesh. Krishan Kumar gave indiscriminate blows with the scissor. Chandu @ Chandraprakash was giving kick blows. Vikram caused injuries with stick (danda). Hitesh fell on the ground and his body was smeared in the blood. When Hitesh was lying on the ground, Krishan Kumar again gave four/five blows with the scissor on left shoulder, below left armpit, neck and on left side of the back. Gagan Sharma (PW-8), complainant/informant made efforts to save his uncle Hitesh, but Krishan Kumar will not leave Hitesh. When Krishan Kumar was giving beating to Hitesh, Sunayna, wife of Krishan Kumar also arrived at the spot and exhorted her husband to give beating. Meanwhile, Babulal (PW-3) came at the spot and made efforts to save him. After causing injuries, Krishan Kumar, his son Vikram @ Vikky and Chandu @ Chander decamped from the spot. Thereafter, Gagan Sharma (PW-8) and Babulal (PW-3) and Smt. Rashmi Sharma (PW-9), wife of Hitesh brought Hitesh to the S.M.S. Hospital, Jaipur. On arrival at the hospital, Hitesh died at 08:30 P.M. 11. To prove autopsy conducted on the dead-body of Hitesh Sharma, prosecution examined Dr. Ashok Mathur (PW-13). In the Court, this witness stated that on 06.12.2009 deceased - Hitesh was admitted in the hospital at around 08:00 P.M. He died on the very same day at 09:00 P.M. Next day i.e. on 07.12.2009 at around 11:50 A.M. Dr. To prove autopsy conducted on the dead-body of Hitesh Sharma, prosecution examined Dr. Ashok Mathur (PW-13). In the Court, this witness stated that on 06.12.2009 deceased - Hitesh was admitted in the hospital at around 08:00 P.M. He died on the very same day at 09:00 P.M. Next day i.e. on 07.12.2009 at around 11:50 A.M. Dr. Ashok Mathur (PW-13), being posted as Medical Jurist performed autopsy on the body of deceased - Hitesh. 12. In the Post Mortem Report (Exhibit-P/25), Dr. Ashok Mathur had noted following injuries:-- "1. Punctured incised wound, wedge-shaped of size 1.5 cm x 1/2 cm on front of left shoulder with abraded margin on lateral side of wound track of wound going down and medially piercing through muscles and upper part of left side pleura, after cutting through left rib then going inside upper lobe left lung with left side haemothorox of about 600 cc. 2. Punctured incised wound 1.5 cm x 1./2 cm, muscle deep with fresh clotted blood placed 2 cm medial to the injury No. 1, wedge-shaped. 3. Incised wound 1.5 cm x 1/2 cm muscle deep with fresh clotted blood on lateral aspect of left arm upper 1/3. 4. Incised 1.5 cm x 1/2 cm on supra scapular area on right side, track of wound goes deep muscle fiber. 5. Incised wound 1 cm x 1/2 cm muscle deep on back of left shoulder. 6. Incised wound 1 cm x 1/2 cm x muscle deep near injury No. 5. 7. Punctured incised wound, wedge-shaped 1.5 x 1/2 cm on left side back 5 cm below infra scapular angle, track of wound goes medially and anteriorly passing through infra costal margin then piercing through lower part of left pleura and then goes inside lower lobe of left lung with ante-mortem haematoma with tailing of wound on lateral side. 8. Incised wound 1.5 cm x 1/2 cm on left lateral aspect of lower chest at mid axillar line. 9. Abrasion 1/2 x 1/2 cm red on back of left arm. 10. Two linear abrasions 4 x 1/4 cm each, red on mid back. 11. Abrasion 1/2 x 1/4 cm on left cheek, red. 12. Abrasion 1/2 x 1/2 cm red on right knee. 13. Abrasion 1/2 x 1/2 cm on left knee, red." 13. Dr. 9. Abrasion 1/2 x 1/2 cm red on back of left arm. 10. Two linear abrasions 4 x 1/4 cm each, red on mid back. 11. Abrasion 1/2 x 1/4 cm on left cheek, red. 12. Abrasion 1/2 x 1/2 cm red on right knee. 13. Abrasion 1/2 x 1/2 cm on left knee, red." 13. Dr. Ashok Mathur (PW-13) further opined that the cause of death was hemorrhagic shock, as a result of ante-mortem injury to the left lung, as mentioned in the Post Mortem Report (Exhibit-P/25) and the said injury was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. 14. Prosecution, to secure conviction of the appellants, examined as many as sixteen witnesses, namely Trilok Sharma (PW-1), Mahaveer Prasad (PW-2), Babulal (PW-3), Ranjeet (PW-4), Prahlad Sahay (PW-5), Mahesh Chandra Sharma (PW-6), Devanand Sharma (PW-7), Gagan Sharma (PW-8), Smt. Rashmi Sharma (PW-9), Madan Lal (PW-10), Gangaram (PW-11), Laxman Singh (PW-12), Dr. Ashok Mathur (PW-13), Puroshottam (PW-14), Vinod Kumar (PW-15) and Chain Singh (PW-16) respectively, and have also proved on record documents Exhibit-P/1 to Exhibit-P/37 respectively. 15. Thereafter, prosecution closed its evidence and the statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused denied all incriminating circumstances put to them and raised a plea that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated due to dispute of the house. 16. Sunayna Devi, appellant No. 2 herein appeared in defence as DW-1. In the Court, she deposed that regarding house bearing No. 784 she had entered into an agreement with Smt. Keshar Devi and Rajesh Sharma. She had paid Rs. 1,20,000/- as earnest money. At the time of execution of sale-deed, remaining sale consideration of Rs. 2,00,000/- was to be paid. She further stated that having received earnest money, complainant-party was not executing sale-deed and the deceased - Hitesh is a nephew of Smt. Keshar Devi. Lastly, she had proved on record notice (Exhibit-D/14) issued by her Counsel to the complainant-party. 17. Out of sixteen witnesses examined, the case of the prosecution rests upon testimony of three eye-witnesses, namely Babulal (PW-3) neighbour, Gagan Sharma (PW-8), another eyewitness complainant/first informant/nephew of the deceased and Smt. Rashmi Sharma (PW-9), wife of the deceased respectively. 18. Before we deal with the testimony of eye-witnesses, we would have a quick glance regarding testimony of other eyewitnesses. 19. 18. Before we deal with the testimony of eye-witnesses, we would have a quick glance regarding testimony of other eyewitnesses. 19. Trilok Sharma (PW-1) had witnessed the preparation of the site-plan and the recovery of blood stained soil from the spot vide memo Exhibit-P/2 and Exhibit-P/3. Constable -Mahaveer Prasad (PW-2) stated that Chainsingh (PW-16), Station House Officer, Police Station, Kotwali, Jaipur City, Jaipur, in his presence had arrested accused- Krishan Kumar on 07.12.2009 at 02:30 P.M. vide arrest memo Exhibit-P/4. This witness also proved on record arrest memo of accused - Vikram @ Vikky, Exhibit-P/5 and arrest memo of accused - Sunayna, Exhibit-P/6. Lastly, this witness stated that Chandraprakash @ Chandu, delinquent juvenile in conflict with law was also taken into custody by the Investigating Officer vide memo Exhibit-P/7. Ranjeet Singh (PW-4), being photographer, had taken photographs of the spot from the digital camera and proved on record photographs, Exhibit-P/8 to Exhibit-P/11 respectively. Constable - Prahlad Sahay (PW-5) had taken sealed packets from 'Malkhana Incharge'. Head Constable - Laxman Singh (PW-12) and deposited the same in the State Forensic Science Laboratory Rajasthan, Jaipur. Thus, Constable - Prahlad Sahay (PW-5) and Head Constable - Laxman Singh (PW-12) were examined to prove link evidence. Mahesh Chandra Sharma (PW-6) and Devanand Sharma (PW-7) had attested panchnama/inquest proceedings. Madan Lal (PW-10) and Gangaram (PW-11) had witnessed the recovery of the scissor from the accused - Krishan Kumar vide Exhibit-P/22. Sub Inspector - Puroshottam (PW-14) on 06.12.2009 had prepared site-plan of the spot vide Exhibit-P/2. This witness had also lifted portion of the floor where blood had fallen vide memo Exhibit-P/3. Lastly, this witness had also taken into possession the clothes of the deceased vide memo Exhibit-P/1. Sub Inspector - Vinod Kumar (PW-15) proved formal registration of First Information Report (Exhibit-P/21). This witness stated that Constable - Nandlal brought written-report (Exhibit-P/20) from S.M.S. Hospital, Jaipur and on the basis of same a formal First Information Report was registered. Chainsingh (PW-16), being Investigating Officer, proved various facets of investigation i.e., presentation of the written-report (Exhibit-P/20), arrest of accused and recovery of weapon. Lastly, this witness deposed that accused was having shop under the name & style of Jyoti Tailor and from the said shop, beneath the sewing machine, he had recovered scissor which was used for causing injuries. 20. Now we shall revert to the testimony of eyewitnesses. 21. Lastly, this witness deposed that accused was having shop under the name & style of Jyoti Tailor and from the said shop, beneath the sewing machine, he had recovered scissor which was used for causing injuries. 20. Now we shall revert to the testimony of eyewitnesses. 21. Before the trial Court, Babulal (PW-3) stated that he was also doing work of tailor. He is having shop below his residence. This witness stated that Chandraprakash had come to meet accused - Krishan Kumar and at that time he was restrained by deceased - Hitesh Sharma. Due to which, an altercation had ensued. Meanwhile, other accused came. Krishan Kumar had also exchanged hot words with deceased. Thereafter, accused had opened attack and caused injuries. Lastly, this witness stated that accused - Krishan Kumar had given indiscriminate blows with scissor to deceased Hitesh. 22. To the similar effect is the statement made by complainant - Gagan Sharma (PW-8). This witness has also reiterated the same version as given by him in the written-report (Exhibit-P/20). 23. Smt. Rashmi Sharma (PW-9), widow of the deceased also corroborated the testimony of other eye-witnesses, namely Babulal (PW-3) and Gagan Sharma (PW-8) respectively. 24. Mr. S.S. Mahla, the learned counsel appearing for the accused-appellants, has doubted the presence of the eyewitnesses. It has been contended by the learned counsel that all three eye-witnesses are silent about the presence of each other. 25. In the present case, Gagan Sharma (PW-8), being nephew of the deceased - Hitesh Sharma, has deposed that he was having conversation with his uncle Hitesh (deceased). Both; Hitesh and Gagan Sharma (PW-8) were staying in the same house, bearing No. 784, Ramchandraji Sharma-ki-gali, Khuteto-ka-rasta, Kishanpole Bazar, Police Station, Kotwali, Jaipur. 26. Smt. Rashmi Sharma (PW-9), is a widow of the deceased and is a housewife. In the evening time, she was also expected to be present in her house. It is probable that after hearing noise, she was attracted to the spot where her husband was caused injuries. 27. Babulal (PW-3) is a neighbour. He is also having a tailor shop in the same building bearing No. 784, Ramchandraji Sharma-ki-gali, Khuteto-ka-rasta, Kishanpole Bazar, Police Station, Kotwali, Jaipur. Thus, presence of three witnesses at the spot is probable, natural and convincing. 28. Having failed to persuade us to disbelieve the presence of the eye-witnesses, Mr. 27. Babulal (PW-3) is a neighbour. He is also having a tailor shop in the same building bearing No. 784, Ramchandraji Sharma-ki-gali, Khuteto-ka-rasta, Kishanpole Bazar, Police Station, Kotwali, Jaipur. Thus, presence of three witnesses at the spot is probable, natural and convincing. 28. Having failed to persuade us to disbelieve the presence of the eye-witnesses, Mr. S.S. Mahla, learned counsel appearing for the accused-appellants, has urged that even if the prosecution case is assumed to be correct and is taken at its face value, we should not loose sight of the fact that the occurrence was sudden affair and it had flared up due to the conduct of the deceased as he had restrained Chandu @ Chandraprakash to use passage. 29. It has been contended by the learned counsel that accused in a heat of passion, after altercation, when hot words were being exchanged had caused injuries with the scissor, which is not a weapon, but an instrument used by the tailor for cutting the clothes. Counsel further contended that it is an admitted fact that accused - Krishan Kumar was a tailor by profession. Thus, learned counsel has urged that this Court should convert the offence from Section 302 I.P.C. to Section 304 Part-I, I.P.C. 30. We would have considered the alternative prayer advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the accused-appellants favourably, but in the present case, looking to the number of the injuries on the person of deceased - Hitesh, we find that out of thirteen injuries examined, eight injuries were incised wound being caused with the scissor. Thus, accused -Krishan Kumar had taken undue advantage by giving indiscriminate blows. 31. It is not a case of causing solitary blow. Hence, we reject the prayer made regarding conversion of the offence. 32. It is further urged before us that the witnesses have widened the net and falsely implicated Sunayna Devi and Vikram @ Vikky, wife and son of the principal accused- Krishan Kumar. 33. In the present case, occurrence had taken place on 06.12.2009 at 07:00/07:15 P.M., written-report (Exhibit-P/20) was presented before Investigating Officer at 11:00 P.M. and the case was registered at 11:18 P.M. However, special report reached at Illaqa Magistrate on the next day i.e. on 07.12.2009 at 11:00 A.M. The residence/Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate and the Police Station are situated in close by vicinity. Thus, the delay of twelve hours in reaching of special report remain unexplained. 34. The Supreme Court in the case of Bijoy Singh & Anr. v. State of Bihar, reported in [ 2002 (9) S.C.C 147 ], taking into consideration delay in reaching of the special report and over implication of the accused had held as under:-- "6. This Court in Meharaj Singh (L/Nk.) v. State of U.P. held that FIR in a criminal case and particularly in a murder case, is a vital and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of appreciating the evidence led at the trial. The object of insisting upon lodging of the FIR is to obtain the earliest information regarding the circumstances in which the crime was committed, including the names of the actual culprits and the parts played by them, the weapons, if any, used as also the names of the eyewitnesses, if known to the informant. Delay in lodging the FIR often results in embellishment, which is a creature of an afterthought. 7. Sending the copy of the special report to the Magistrate as required under Section 157 of the Criminal Procedure Code is the only external check on the working of the police agency, imposed by law which is required to be strictly followed. The delay in sending the copy of the FIR may by itself not render the whole of the case of the prosecution as doubtful but shall put the court on guard to find out as to whether the version as stated in the court was the same version as earlier reported in the FIR or was the result of deliberations involving some other persons who were actually not involved in the commission of the crime. (Emphasis supplied). Immediate sending of the report mentioned in Section 157 CrPC is the mandate of law. Delay wherever found is required to be explained by the prosecution. If the delay is reasonably explained, no adverse inference can be drawn but failure to explain the delay would require the court to minutely examine the prosecution version for ensuring itself as to whether any innocent person has been implicated in the crime or not. Insisting upon the accused to seek an explanation of the delay is not the requirement of law. (Emphasis supplied). Insisting upon the accused to seek an explanation of the delay is not the requirement of law. (Emphasis supplied). It is always for the prosecution to explain such a delay and if tendered, no adverse inference can be drawn against it. 8. In the instant case, the copy of the report referred to in Section 157 CrPC is shown to have been received by the Magistrate on 27-8-1991. Even though there is a mention in the FIR that its copy was sent through special messenger, yet no date or time of sending the said report is mentioned. The Magistrate, receiving the copy of the report, has also not noted the time of its receipt on 27-8-1991. We are of the opinion that the Magistrate receiving reports under Section 157 CrPC, particularly when it relates to the commission of the heinous crime are required to note not only the date but also the time of the receipt of the copy thereof. Mr. B.B. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the State has pointed out the existence of various circumstances which may perhaps be the cause of delay in sending the copy of the report and its receipt by the Magistrate but surely there is a difference between the "may be" and "must be". The prosecution has apparently failed to explain the delay in sending the copy of the said report in terms of Section 157 CrPC to the Magistrate of the area. This aspect has been highlighted by the learned counsel for the appellant to contend that many of the accused were innocent and wrongly roped in the case allegedly on account of enmity existing between the complainant and the accused party. There is some substance in such a submission." 35. In the light of the observations, made by the Supreme Court in the case of Bijoy Singh (supra), we cannot rule out that in the present case, testimony of eyewitnesses suffer from embellishment, and as result of after thought, improvements have crept in their evidence. Thus, by applying rule of prudence, we shall sift the grain from the chaff. 36. Taking into consideration the observations made by the Apex Court and the delay in reaching of the special report, we are of the view that the Court must be on guard and circumspect to accept prosecution case. 37. Thus, by applying rule of prudence, we shall sift the grain from the chaff. 36. Taking into consideration the observations made by the Apex Court and the delay in reaching of the special report, we are of the view that the Court must be on guard and circumspect to accept prosecution case. 37. Sunayna Devi has not been assigned any overt role in the occurrence and she has caused no injuries. It is further stated that she arrived at the spot, when her husband Krishan Kumar had already given injuries and she exhorted him by saying "maro-maro". 38. Thus, we cannot rule out false implication of Sunayna Devi as there is a tendency in this part of the Country to inflate the number of accused by assigning exhortation. Thus, we shall extend the benefit of doubt to accused - Sunayna Devi. 39. Now we shall come to the role of accused - Vikram @ Vikky. It is stated in the First Information Report that after blow with the scissor was given, Hitesh, deceased had fallen on the ground and at that time, Krishan Kumar had given four/four injuries on the left shoulder, below left armpit and at the neck and on the left side of the back. 40. A perusal of the injuries, already reproduced in the Post Mortem Report (Exhibit-P/25) reveals that the injury Nos. 9 to 13 are abrasions. Injury No. 9 is an abrasion of 1/2 cm x 1/2 cm red on the back of left arm. Injury No. 10 are two linear abrasions of 4 cm x 1/4 cm each red on mid back. Injury No. 11 is an abrasion of 1/2 cm x 1/4 cm on left cheek red. Injury No. 12 is an abrasion of 1/2 cm x 1/2 cm red on right knee and injury No. 13 is also an abrasion of 1/2 cm x 1/2 cm on left knee red. It has come in the evidence that co-accused -Chandu @ Chandraprakash had also given kick blows. Thus, these injuries can be as a result of the kick blows given by co-accused - Chandu @ Chandraprakash. 41. We cannot loose sight of the fact that the deceased was lying on the floor and was being given indiscriminate injuries with the scissor by Krishan Kumar and in that process, deceased is bound to suffer abrasion. 42. In cross-examination, Dr. 41. We cannot loose sight of the fact that the deceased was lying on the floor and was being given indiscriminate injuries with the scissor by Krishan Kumar and in that process, deceased is bound to suffer abrasion. 42. In cross-examination, Dr. Ashok Mathur (PW-13) has admitted that the injury Nos. 9 to 13 can occur as a result of fall. This witness in the Court stated as under: ^^;g lgh gS fd pksV la[;k & 9 ls 13 jxM+ [kkus vkSj fxjus Vdjkus ls vkus dh laHkkouk ls bUdkj ugha fd;k tk ldrk gSA^^ 43. Thus, we cannot rule out that the superficial minor abrasion can be as a result of fall or also by hitting of scissor from the blunt side. Even otherwise, we find that exchange of hot words have taken between Krishan Kumar and Hitesh. There was an altercation. Occurrence was sudden affair. 44. In these circumstances, we are doubtful whether Section 34 I.P.C. can be attracted to say that Vikram @ Vikky had shared common intention with the principal accused Krishan Kumar. At the most, he will be liable for offence under Section 323 I.P.C. Since, these injuries are also assigned to Chandu @ Chandraprakash, another co-accused, we cannot say with certainty that Vikram @ Vikky is author of these injuries. 45. As a matter of abundant caution, considering that the injuries can be as a result of fall or can be caused due to hitting of scissor from the reversed side or can be caused by other co-accused, we shall extend the benefit of doubt to the appellant - Vikram @ Vikky. 46. Consequently, as a result of above discussions, the present appeal preferred by principal accused - Krishan Kumar is, hereby, dismissed, confirming the finding of conviction and sentence awarded by the trial Court. However, the appeal preferred by Smt. Sunayna Devi and Vikram Singh @ Vikky are, hereby, accepted. They are acquitted of the charges by granting benefit of doubt as a matter of abundant caution. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence pronounced by the trial Court against the appellants, namely Smt. Sunayna Devi and Vikram Singh @ Vikky are set aside. 47. Keeping, however, in view the provisions of Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, appellant Nos. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence pronounced by the trial Court against the appellants, namely Smt. Sunayna Devi and Vikram Singh @ Vikky are set aside. 47. Keeping, however, in view the provisions of Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, appellant Nos. 2 and 3, namely Smt. Sunayna Devi and Vikram Singh @ Vikky are directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- [Rupees Twenty Thousand Only] each and a surety bond in the like amount, before the trial Court. The bonds, so furnished shall be effective for a period of six-months. The bonds shall contain an undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the judgment or on grant of leave, the appellants, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Supreme Court.