JUDGMENT : These three criminal appeals have been preferred separately to accused-appellants against judgment and order dated 06.01.2012 of learned Additional Sessions Judge. Ramganjmandi, District Kota, in Sessions Case No. 05/2007, where under all of them have been convicted and sentenced in the following manner:- Accused-appellants Conviction and Sentence Vijay Singh and Rakesh Under Section 302 r/w Section 34 IPC- to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/- each Under Section 452 IPC- to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/- each. Under Section 324 IPC - to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment. Daya @ Dayanand Under Section 324 r/w Section 120B IPC- to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment. Under Section 302 r/w Section 120B IPC- to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/-. 2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that a 'parcha bayan' (Exhibit P-11) of one Bhupendra Singh was recorded by Mr. Anil Kumar Vishnoi (PW-16), Sub-Inspector of Police Station, Ramganjmandi, on 19.09.2006 at 9.15 PM, wherein he alleged that at about 8.30 PM when he, his father and other female members of the family were in their house, Bahadur Singh Rajawat brought Rakesh, Vijay and Daya on his vehicle to their house. Vijay and Rakesh, who were armed with knives, entered their house with intention to kill him (Bhupendra Singh) and his father and inflicted knife blows to them. When females of the family tried to intervene, they too were subjected to beating. Rakesh, Daya, Vijay and Bahadur Singh, while leaving one motorcycle at the site of occurrence, fled away on another motorcycle. On hearing their hue and cry, Surendra Singh, Ranjeet Singh, Bharat Singh and other persons arrived at the scene of occurrence and took him (Bhupendra Singh) and his father in a jeep to Government hospital and got them admit. It was alleged that these people had rivalry of disc cable business with them. On the basis of aforesaid written report, a regular F.I.R. No. 197/2006 dated 19.09.2006 for offence under Sections 452, 307, 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, was chalked out. During the course of treatment, while investigation was pending, injured Pratap Singh succumbed to injuries and therefore offence under Section 302 IPC was added. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against three accused-appellants only. Prosecution, in support of its case, examined 19 witnesses and got 29 documents exhibited. During the course of treatment, while investigation was pending, injured Pratap Singh succumbed to injuries and therefore offence under Section 302 IPC was added. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against three accused-appellants only. Prosecution, in support of its case, examined 19 witnesses and got 29 documents exhibited. Accused-appellants, in their defence, produced 5 witnesses and got 11 documents exhibited. Accused-appellants, in their examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., stated about their false implication in the matter. Learned trial court, after conclusion of trial, convicted and sentenced the accused appellants in the manner indicated above. Hence these three separate appeals. 3. Mr. Sunil Tyagi, learned counsel for accused-appellant Vijay Singh, has argued that testimony of prosecution witnesses especially Bhupendra Singh (PW-8), his sister Gayatri (PW-9) and his wife Jyoti Kanwar (PW-10), is not at all reliable inasmuch as their testimony suffers from various contradictions, which are irreconcilable. No other independent witness has support the prosecution case, which is evident from the fact that almost all independent witnesses turned hostile Ranjeet Singh (PW-4) was also not speaking complete truth inasmuch as his statement also suffers from contradictions. He, in initial part of his statement, has alleged that on 19.09.2006 at about 8-8-15 PM, while he was taking his daughter Puja to nurse for treatment, he saw Rakesh and Vijay going on one motorcycle and Daya and Bahadur were on another motorcycle. He further stated that when he came back with his daughter after taking medicines then he saw Daya, Vijay and Rakesh coming out of the house of Pratap Singh and Bahadur was standing outside the house with motorcycle. He further stated that all of them were armed with knives and Pratap was lying outside in the veranda. Learned counsel, referring to statements of PW-8 PW-9 and PW-10, stated that these witnesses, who claimed to be eye witnesses, have not alleged that accused Daya ever entered the house with other two accused. It is also not alleged by them that accused Daya was armed with knife. These witnesses have made exaggeration to support the case of the prosecution. Regarding Bhupendra Singh (PW-8), learned counsel argued that even this witness has also not stated the truth when he said that at the time of entry of the accused, he was in the toilet and his father was in the common chowk of the house. These witnesses have made exaggeration to support the case of the prosecution. Regarding Bhupendra Singh (PW-8), learned counsel argued that even this witness has also not stated the truth when he said that at the time of entry of the accused, he was in the toilet and his father was in the common chowk of the house. When he resisted the entry of the accused, they inflicted knife blows on his person. He also stated that he saw the accused entering the house from the window of the toilet and saw Bahadur Singh standing outside the house. When he came out of toilet, he too was subjected to severe knife blows by the accused. 4. Mr. Sunil Tyagi, learned counsel referred to the site plan (Exhibit P-4) and argued that the toilet was indicated at place A-3 in the site plan, which is abutting the kitchen and it has opening in the chowk of house. Even the bathroom, which is adjacent to outer wall of the house, did not have any window. The toilet definitely did not have any window. Learned trial court in para 16 of the judgment, has therefore rightly disbelieved this part of the statement of Bhupendra Singh (PW-8) and has concluded that he could see the accused only after he came out of toilet. It is therefore highly unsafe to rely on testimony of this witness. Learned counsel for appellant argued that knife alleged to have been recovered at the instance of accused-appellant Vijay Singh, even as per the FSL report produced by the prosecution after the evidence was closed, was not found to have contained any blood. Therefore, learned trial court has committed illegality in convicting and sentencing the accused-appellant. It is argued that even otherwise ali injuries, except one sustained by deceased, were on non-vital parts of the body of the deceased and are simple in nature. Learned Counsel, in this connection, referred to statement of Dr. Babu Lal Meena, (PW-11), and post-mortem report of deceased (Exhibit P-12), and argued that doctor has not given any specific opinion with regard to any of the injuries, whether any one of them individually or cumulatively, was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. On the contrary, Dr. Babu Lal Meena. Babu Lal Meena, (PW-11), and post-mortem report of deceased (Exhibit P-12), and argued that doctor has not given any specific opinion with regard to any of the injuries, whether any one of them individually or cumulatively, was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. On the contrary, Dr. Babu Lal Meena. (PW-11), has, in cross examination, stated that deceased had only one injury, which was penetrated wound, on the right side of the lung and no other injury was found fatal. Referring to injury report of Bhupendra Singh (Exhibit P-19), read with his X-Ray report (Exhibit P-23), it is argued that all the injuries were simple in nature, which fact is also proved by Dr. Ajay Johari (PW-15). Guilt of accused appellant is thus no proved beyond reasonable doubt. 5. Mr. Sunil Tyagi, learned counsel for appellant Vijay Singh, argued that own case of the prosecution is that accused entered the house of decease threatening ('lalkara') that they wanted to murder Bhupendra Singh. It is because his father Pratap Singh tried to intervene and tried to force accused logo out of the house and that in the scuffle that ensued he receive injuries but accused never had intention to commit murder of Pratap Singh, although they could at the maximum be said to have knowledge of the fact that injuries cause to him were likely result his death. At the best, he could be convicted for offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part-1 of the IPC. Accused appellant Vijay has already undergone ten years imprisonment and therefore, alternative submission of learned counsel for appellant is that his conviction may be altered from section 302 IPC to one Section 304 Part-1 IPC and he may be sentenced to the period already undergone by him. 6. Mr. Anshuman Saxena, learned counsel for accused-appellant Rakesh, has largely adopted the arguments made by Mr. Sunil Tyagi, learned counsel for accused Vijay Singh, and additionally argued that there are indeed number of infirmities and contradictions in the statement of prosecution witnesses including Bhupendra Singh (PW-8), Gayatri (PW-9) and Jyoti Kanwar (PW-10). Manohar Singh (PW-6) and Bunty (PW-7), who were cited as eyewitnesses, have turned hostile and they have not support the prosecution case. Sunil Tyagi, learned counsel for accused Vijay Singh, and additionally argued that there are indeed number of infirmities and contradictions in the statement of prosecution witnesses including Bhupendra Singh (PW-8), Gayatri (PW-9) and Jyoti Kanwar (PW-10). Manohar Singh (PW-6) and Bunty (PW-7), who were cited as eyewitnesses, have turned hostile and they have not support the prosecution case. Recovery of knife at the instance of accused appellant Rakesh vide memo Exhibit P-18, has not been proved because attesting witnesses of such recovery, namely, Mahaveer (PW-13) and Raja Ram (PW-14), have both turned hostile. Besides, the recovered article knife was not shown to the doctor to ascertain whether the only stab wound on the person of deceased, which proved fatal, could have been caused thereby. Referring to post-mortem report of deceased Pratap Singh (Exhibit P-12), learned counsel argued that all injuries, except two, caused to the deceased were incised wounds. While his injury No. 1 was nose eaten by rats (muscle deep injury) and injury No. 9 was penetrated wound. Learned Counsel also submitted that the trial court could not rely and take note of the FSL report as it was not exhibited in evidence. Mere fact that the accused were supplied copy of the said report and this fact was put to them as a question in their examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., does not comply with the requirement of law. This has caused serious prejudice to the accused. 7. Learned Counsel argued that statement of Bhupendra Singh (PW-8) does not inspire confidence because he has stated that fie saw from window of the toilet as to from which direction the accused were coming, whereas no such window in the toilet was found to exist. The Police has not filed any challan against Bahadur Singh Rajawat, against whom this witness alleged that he brought remaining accused, and further, with whom he and his brother Lal Singh had rivalry of disc cable business. It was alleged that in the past Lal Singh was subjected to beating at the instance of accused party. In that incident, his one leg got fractured. Learned counsel has referred to defence exhibits, especially statement of Lal Singh (Exhibit D-7) recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in that FIR, wherein he stated that Bablu @ Pawan inflicted that injury to him with baseball bat. Vijay, Daya, Aashish and Tinu came rushing there and saved him. In that incident, his one leg got fractured. Learned counsel has referred to defence exhibits, especially statement of Lal Singh (Exhibit D-7) recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in that FIR, wherein he stated that Bablu @ Pawan inflicted that injury to him with baseball bat. Vijay, Daya, Aashish and Tinu came rushing there and saved him. Learned counsel also referred to statement of Bhupendra Singh (Exhibit D- 8) recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in that FIR. In early part of which he though alleged that these four persons caught hold of him, while accused Bablu @ Pawan gave beating to his brother Lal Singh but, in latter part of statement, he stated that in the FIR they wrongly stated that Daya, Ashish, Tinu and Vijay were those who saved Lal Singh. It is argued that Ranjeet Singh, who appeared as PW-4 in this case to support the prosecution case, also gave statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in that FIR and made allegation against Bablu @ Pawan and also Ashish, Vijay Singh, Dayanand. In that FIR, however, all the accused were acquitted of the charges of various offences. Learned counsel submitted that if at all there was any rivalry of disc cable business, that could be only between Bhupendra Singh and Lal Singh on the one hand and Bahadur Singh on the other hand, but the accused-appellants were merely employees of Bahadur Singh, who has not been proceeded against. Accused appellant could not be thus linked with the incident. Learned counsel argued that Gayatri (PW-9), daughter of deceased Pratap Singh, has also exaggerated when she stated that Vijay has made a lot of exaggeration (sic.) about role assigned to accused-appellant. Jyoti Kanwar (PW-10) W/o Bhupendra Singh, has made exaggerations and cannot be believed. Learned counsel also alternatively argued that offence of accused-appellant could, at the best, be proved for culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304-I of the IPC. 8. Mr. R.N. Mathur, learned senior counsel for accused-appellant Daya, has submitted that this appellant has been convicted with the aid of Section 120-B IPC on the assumption that he conspired with other accused to commit murder of deceased Pratap Singh. 8. Mr. R.N. Mathur, learned senior counsel for accused-appellant Daya, has submitted that this appellant has been convicted with the aid of Section 120-B IPC on the assumption that he conspired with other accused to commit murder of deceased Pratap Singh. Learned senior counsel submitted that all witnesses, especially important witness of the prosecution, namely, Bhupendra Singh (PW-8), Gayatri (PW- 9) and Jyoti Kanwar (PW-10), have consistently stated that there was business rivalry between Bhupendra Singh and Lal Singh on the one hand and Bahadur Singh on the other hand with regard to disc cable business, whereas all prosecution witnesses have also constantly stated that status of the accused Daya was merely of an employee of Bahadur Singh, like other two accused Vijay and Rakesh. Witnesses also alleged about the fact that Bahadur Singh was the one, who brought other three accused to the place of occurrence. The police has not filed any charge-sheet against Bahadur Singh and has not made him as an accused in the present case Learned trial court, in para 16 of the judgment, has given a finding that Daya, while standing in 'gali', could not have been seen from the window of the toilet, but at the same time, it has given a wrong finding that after Bhupendra Singh (PW-8) came out of toilet, he could have seen the person standing in front of the house. Gayatri (PW-9) belies this fact. Learned trial court, in para 35 of the judgment, has also given a perverse finding that mere fact that accused Daya was present at the place of occurrence shows that he was part of conspiracy and that there can be no direct evidence and therefore his mere presence would be sufficient to hold him guilty. The trial court has again recorded a perverse finding that accused knew that object of the conspiracy was to commit murder of Pratap Singh and Bhupendra Singh. There is no evidence to show that they entered the house with open knives. Learned senior counsel for appellant, in support of his argument, has relied on judgments of the Supreme Court in Saju v. State of Kerala, 2001 (1) SCC 378 and Central Bureau of Investigation, Hyderabad v. K. Narayana Rao, 2012(9) SCC 512 , and argued that according to ratio of these judgments, the offence of conspiracy against accused-appellant Daya cannot be held proved. 9. Mr. 9. Mr. R.N. Mathur, learned senior counsel, further argued that Bharat Kumar (PW-3), who reached the place of occurrence immediately after it took place, has stated about the role of Rakesh and Vijay in the incident but he does not name accused-appellant Daya. Ranjeet Singh (PW-4 has exaggerated in making statement contrary to what has been stated by eye witnesses, namely, Bhupendra Singh (PW- 8), Gayatri (PW-9) and Jyoti Kanwar (PW-10). Ranjeet Singh (PW-4) has stated that he saw Daya along-with Vijay and Rakesh coming out of house of deceased Pratap Singh, whereas no other witness stated that Daya ever entered the house of Pratap Singh. This witness has even stated that all of them had knives, whereas it is not the version of any other prosecution witness that Daya was seen with knife in his hand. Recovery of knife was not made at his instance either. Surendra Singh (PW-3) has not stated anything about accused Daya. Bhupendra Singh (PW-8) has improved upon his version given to the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. (Exhibit D-3), wherein he stated that Bahadur Singh brought all the accused on his vehicle. But in the examination-in-chief, he merely stated that Bahadur Singh was seen outside the house and except stating that, he did not make any further allegation. Bhupendra Singh (PW-8) has stated that there was rivalry of disc cable business between Bhupendra Singh and Lal Singh on the one hand and Bahadur Singh on the other hana. Similarly, Gayatri (PW-9) has stated that she saw Bahadur when she went out of the house to raise hue and cry. Bahadur and Daya both fled away on motorcycle. Jyoti Kanwar (PW-10) has also stated that when she went out of the house, she saw Bahadur and Daya standing there and that Bahadur Singh had rivalry of disc cable business with her husband owing to which the incident had taken place. Gayatri and Jyoti Kanwar both identified the motorcycle of Bahadur Singh. But even then police did not make Bahadur Singh as accused. There is thus no evidence against accused Daya to prove the guilt of conspiracy against him beyond reasonable doubt and he deserves to be acquitted of the charge. 10. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the appeals and support the impugned judgment passed by learned trial court. But even then police did not make Bahadur Singh as accused. There is thus no evidence against accused Daya to prove the guilt of conspiracy against him beyond reasonable doubt and he deserves to be acquitted of the charge. 10. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the appeals and support the impugned judgment passed by learned trial court. She argued that the trial court has made perfect analysis of statements of prosecution witnesses and findings recorded by it cannot be said to be perverse or erroneous. Even if version of Bhupendra (PW-8) that he saw accused outside the gali through window of toilet is excluded, rest of his statement can yet be believed because his status as eye witness cannot be doubted since he himself sustained injuries in the same incident. Learned Public Prosecutor argued that multiple number of injuries cause to the deceased Pratap Singh, as proved by the post-mortem report, clearly shows that accused-appellants had requisite intention to commit his murder. It cannot be said to be case of mere knowledge and not an intention. Besides, accused also cause injuries to Bhupendra Singh (PW-8). Apart from Bhupendra Singh (PW-8), Gayatri (PW-9) and Jyoti (PW-10) have also proved their active participation in the crime. 11. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that no prejudice is cause to the appellants by mere fact that FSL report was receive with some delay but nonetheless copy thereof was supplied to accused and this circumstance was put to them in their examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In the FSL report, the knife recovered at the instance of the accused Rakesh was found to contain human blood of AB Group. Kurta and Paijama of deceased were also found to contain blood of AB ground. This conclusively linked him with the offence. Though knife recovered at the instance of accused Vijay was not found to contain any blood (stains) but since the recovery of knife was made with delay of eight days it is quite possible that accused washed them off. Learned Public Prosecutor argued that Bharat Kumar (PW-3) had reached the place of occurrence immediately after the incident and the crowd named accused Rakesh and Vijay as those who caused knife blows to deceased Pratap Singh and Bhupendra Singh. Learned Public Prosecutor also referred to statement of Ranjeet Singh (PW-4), who alleged regarding role of Vijay and Rakesh and also of Daya. 12. Learned Public Prosecutor also referred to statement of Ranjeet Singh (PW-4), who alleged regarding role of Vijay and Rakesh and also of Daya. 12. Learned Public Prosecutor argued that Daya, from the very beginning to end, was with other two accused. He stood as guard outside the house of deceased and in this manner helped the accused to flee away on his motorcycle. It is not possible to prove the conspiracy by direct evidence but circumstances can certainly prove the same. In this connection, learned Public Prosecutor referred to statement of Jyoti Kanwar (PW-10), who stated that when she went out of house for help, she saw Bahadur and Daya standing there, who asked accused Vijay and Rakesh to hurry up and also kill her. It is therefore prayed that appeals be dismissed. 13. We have given our anxious consideration to rival submissions and perused the material on record. 14. As far as accused-appellants Rakesh and Vijay are concerned, their role has been conclusively proved by testimony of Bhupendra Singh (PW-8), Gayatri (PW-9) and Jyoti Kanwar (PW-10). While Bhupendrg Singh (PW-8) has stated that both were having knives and when they entered the house enquiring about him (Bhupendra Singh), his father asked them to go out of the house, thereafter they attacked him with knives and caused number of injuries. When Bhupendra Singh came out of toilet, he also saw these persons attacking his father Pratap Singh with knives. His father sustained 10-11 injuries on different parts of the body. He (Bhupendra Singh) sustained one knife injury on the left thigh ana one on back, aped from swelling on the elbow. When his wife Jyoti Kanwar and sister Gayatri tried to intervene, these persons pushed them aside. Gayatri (PW-9) and Jyoti (PW-10) have support Bhupendra Singh (PW-8) in regard to allegation against accused-appellants Rakesh and Vijay. Knives have been recovered at the instance of both of them, whereas knife recovered at the instance of accused Rakesh was found to contain blood of AB positive group, which has been also found to be of deceased as per FSL report, whereas no blood could be detected in the FSL on the knife recovered at the instance of accused Vijay. Nonetheless, both of them have been linked with the crime. Nonetheless, both of them have been linked with the crime. Mere fact that non-exhibition of FSL report may not have cause any prejudice to the accused appellants because they have been supplied with the copy of FSL report and this was put as a circumstance to them under Section 313 Cr.P.C., which served the purpose of exhibiting the document. Besides, the testimony of Bhupendra Singh (PW- 8), Gayatri (PW-9) and Jyoti (PW-10) find support from the statement of Bharat Kumar (PW-3). who reached at the scene of occurrence immediately after the incident took place and heard the crowd saying that it were Rakesh and Vijay, who caused knife blows on the person of deceased Pratap Singh and injured Bhupendra Singh. He has stated that he called a jeep from neighbourhood and took both of them to the hospital. Bhupendra Singh (PW-8) at that time told him that Rakesh and Vijay inflicted knife blows. This witness has not named Daya as the person who also participated in the incident either passively or actively. 15. Ranjeet Singh (PW-4) though has stated that he saw Vijay and Rakesh coming out of the house of deceased Pratap Singh, he additionally stated that he saw Daya also coming out of the house, whereas this is not even the case of the prosecution because Bhupendra Singh (PW-8), Gayatri (PW-9) and Jyoti (PW-10) have consistently stated that it were only accused Vijay and Rakesh, who entered their house and attacked deceased Pratap Singh and injured Bhupendra. Surendra Singh (PW-5) has also stated that only two persons were seen coming out or the house of deceased. Both had knives in their hands, which were soaked in blood. They fled away from the scene of occurrence leaving behind one motorcycle. He saw Pratap Singh lying in the chowk with multiple injuries and Bhupendra Singh also was having number of injuries. He has stated that Daya was standing outside the house with motorcycle. Bhupendra Singh (PW-8) has alleged that not only Rakesh and Vijay but Bahadur and Daya also came to their house. While Rakesh and Vijay entered the house, Daya and Bahadur stood outside the house. When motorcycle of silver colour could not start, they fled away on another motorcycle. He has stated that Daya was standing outside the house with motorcycle. Bhupendra Singh (PW-8) has alleged that not only Rakesh and Vijay but Bahadur and Daya also came to their house. While Rakesh and Vijay entered the house, Daya and Bahadur stood outside the house. When motorcycle of silver colour could not start, they fled away on another motorcycle. He stated that there was rivalry of disc cable business between his brother Lal Singh on the one hand and Bahadur Singh on the other hand, whereas accused Rakesh, Vijay and Daya were employees of Bahadur Singh. Evidence thus clearly shows that allegation of business rivalry was against Bahadur Singh and not Daya, who was merely employee of Bahadur Singh. Similarly, Jyoti (PW-10) W/o Bhupendra Singh, has also stated that Bahadur Singh was having enmity with them because of rivalry of disc cable business, owing to which Lal Singh, younger brother of her husband, was subjected to beating by accused Vijay, Daya, Bahadur and Rakesh, and one of his legs got fractured. Gayatri (PW-9) has also stated that about one month before this incident, Daya and Vijay had caused fracture in leg of her younger brother Lal Singh. The defence has produced certain exhibits including the statement of Lal Singh recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. with regard to the said incident for which F.I.R. No. 179/2006 for offence under Sections 341 and 323 IPC was registered at Police Station Ramganjmandi. In that statement Lal Singh stated that he was subjected to beating by baseball bat by Bablu @ Pawan Singh. When he called for help, Vijay, Daya, Ashish and Tinu came rushing and saved him. They along-with his brother went to police station to lodge the FIR but defence also produced on record the statement of Bhupendra Singh recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in that matter, in which he alleged that while Bablu @ Pawan Singh subjected his brother Lal Singh to beating with baseball bat, Vijay, Daya, Tinu and Ashish also came there and they caught hold of him (Bhupendra Singh), then these persons also subjected him to beating. In his statement, he tried to give explanation as to why in that FiR he did not make allegation against Daya, Ashish, Tinu and Vijay by saying that in fact they were also involved in beating of his brother Lal Singh. In his statement, he tried to give explanation as to why in that FiR he did not make allegation against Daya, Ashish, Tinu and Vijay by saying that in fact they were also involved in beating of his brother Lal Singh. Ranjeet Singh, in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in that case, named these persons, who were responsible for beating Lal Singh. If there was any business rivalry between Bahadur Singh on the one hand and Lal Singh on the other hand, surprisingly in the present case Bhupendra Singh (PW-8), Gayatri (PW-9) and Jyoti (PW-10) all have named Bahadur Sigh as one who brought the accused-appellants to their house and was seen outside their house, even then the police has chosen not to file charge-sheet against him. However, as far as accused-appellant Daya is concerned, there is no sufficient evidence to conclude even on the basis of circumstantial evidence that he may have conspired to kill deceased Pratap Singh or for that matter, Bhupendra Singh. There are serious contradictions in the testimony of witnesses even about his presence. No recovery has been made at his instance. While some of the witnesses said that he just stood outside the house of complainant and certain others said that he also entered the house and was seen coming out of the house but important prosecution witnesses, namely, Bhupendra Singh (PW-8), Gayatri (PW-9) and Jyoti (PW 10), do not state that he entered the house of complainant or caused any injury to deceased or injured or even had arm/knife in his hands. 16. Ingredients of offence of criminal conspiracy are that there should be an agreement between the persons, who are alleged to conspire, and said agreement should be for doing of an illegal act or for doing, by illegal means, an act which by itself may not be illegal. In other words, the essence of criminal conspiracy is an agreement to do an illegal act and such an agreement can be proved either by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence or by both and it is a matter of common experience that direct evidence to prove conspiracy is rarely available. Accordingly, the circumstances proved before and after the occurrence have to be considered to decide about the complicity of the accused. Accordingly, the circumstances proved before and after the occurrence have to be considered to decide about the complicity of the accused. In the present case, the circumstances soon before the incident and thereafter, fall short of proving the offence of conspiracy against accused-appellant Daya, and therefore his guilt for offence under Section 302 IPC with the aid of Section 120B IPC cannot be held to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, thus entitling him to benefit of doubt. However, same cannot be said of other two accused Rakesh and Vijay, whose complicity in the crime has been proved by consistent evidence of prosecution witnesses. 17. Coming now to alternative argument of learned counsel for accused-appellants, we find that statements of prosecution witnesses especially Bhupendra Singh (PW-8), Gayatri (PW-9) and Jyoti (PW-10), have proved that when accused entered the house of deceased Pratap, they were looking for Bhupendra and enquired about him as to where was he. Pratap Singh resisted their entry and tried to force them to go out of the house. In the scuffle that ensued therefor, he receive multiple number of injuries at the hands of two accused. All the injuries are only incised wounds, except one which has been proved to be penetrated wound at the waist causing rupture of right lung. It is this injury, which according to the testimony of Dr. Babu Lal (PW-11), that has proved fatal. The doctor (PW- 11) has stated that no other injury was fatal and that he has not given any definite opinion about other injuries whether all of them or any one of them was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death of deceased. As per Dr. Ajay Johari (PW-15) all injuries sustained by injured Bhupendra Singh (PW-8) were found to be simple. 18. We may at this stage usefully refer to judgment of the Supreme Court in Jai Prakash v. State (Delhi Administration), 1991(2) SCC 32 , wherein was held that the 'knowledge' as contrasted with 'intention' signify a state d mental realization with the bare state of conscious awareness of certain facts in which human mind remains supine or inactive. Intention need not necessarily involve premeditation. Whether there is such an intention or not is a question of fact. Intention need not necessarily involve premeditation. Whether there is such an intention or not is a question of fact. Merely because the injury cause is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, does not necessarily follow that the offender intended to cause the injury of that nature. However, the presumption arises that they intended to cause death. In such a situation the Court has to ascertain whether the facts and circumstances in the case are such as to rebut the presumption and such facts and circumstances cannot be laid down in an abstract rule and they will vary from case to case, as enumerated in Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab - AIR 1958 SC 65. It was reiterated by their Lordships therein that weapon used, the degree of force released in wielding it, the antecedent relation of the parties, the manner in which the attack was made that is to say sudden or premeditated whether the injury was inflicted during a struggle or grappling, the number of injuries inflicted and their nature and the part of the body where the injury was inflicted are some of the relevant factors. Their Lordships held that in some cases there may be other explanation as well, where for different considerations may apply requiring the court to decide whether the accused s entitled to benefit of Exceptions to Section 300 IPC. 19. In the facts of the present case, it is evident that even though the accused entered the house of deceased with intention to commit murder of Bhupendra Singh (PW-8) but at that time, Bhupendra Singh was in the toilet and deceased Pratap Singh met them in the chowk of the house. He commanded them to go out of the house and in the process, scuffle took place in which both the accused inflicted injuries on his person and one of the injuries proved fatal, leading to his death. It is thus evident that there was knowledge on the part of the appellants that if they caused injuries by use of knives on the person of deceased, the possibility of the deceased being killed could not be ruled out. But this does not necessarily provide basis to conclude that there was intention on their part to kill him. Their intention probably was to merely cause such injuries, for which the appellants knew that they may result into his death. But this does not necessarily provide basis to conclude that there was intention on their part to kill him. Their intention probably was to merely cause such injuries, for which the appellants knew that they may result into his death. Of ten injuries, only one injury proved fatal, signifies that fact. 20. In the result, appeals filed by accused-appellants Rakesh S/o Shri Dharma and Vijay Singh S/o Latur Singh are allowed in part. Their conviction for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC is set aside and instead, each of them is convicted under Section 340 Part I, IPC read with Section 34 IPC. Considering that they have remained in jail for a period of nine years 6 months and 10 days excluding the period of remission, each of them is sentenced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by them. Sentence of fine awarded on this count, however, is maintained. Their conviction and sentence under Sections 452 and 324 IPC is maintained. They are in jail and be set at liberty forthwith if not needed in any other case. However, appeal filed by the accused appellant Daya @ Daya Nand S/o Narayan is allowed and his conviction under Sections 324 read with Section 120B IPC and Section 302 read with Section 120B IPC is set aside. He is on bail and need not surrender. His bail bonds stand discharged. Judgment passed by the trial court stands modified accordingly. Keeping, however, in view the provisions of Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, appellants namely Rakesh, Vijay Singh and Daya @ Daya Nand are directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond each in the sum of Rs.20,000/-, 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 filing of Special Leave Petition against this judgment or on grant of leave, the appellants, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Supreme Court. Registry to place copy of this judgment in connected files.