JUDGMENT Mohammad Rafiq, J. —These two appeals are directed against the judgement dated 5.4.2010 by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Sawaimadhopur convicted the accused-appellants Firoj Khan, Najam, and Mudassar for offence under section 148 and sentenced each of them to rigorous imprisonment of one year with fine of Rs. 100 each, in default whereof, they were to further undergo one month''s imprisonment. They were also convicted for offence under section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and the accused-appellant Mustafa Khan for offence under section 302 read with Section 120B of IPC and each of them was sentenced to life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5,000 each, in default whereof, they were to further undergo rigorous imprisonment of three months. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. While the Appeal No. 282/2010 has been filed by the accused-appellants against their conviction, Appeal No. 663/2010 has been filed by the State challenging acquittal of accused-respondents Nabisher Khan, Salim Khan, Raees Khan, Jalis Khan, Anish Khan, with the prayer to convict them for all the charges framed against them. 2. Brief facts of the case giving rise to this appeal are that one Idrish Khan submitted a written report to the SHO Police Station Malarna Doongar, District Sawaimadhopur on 25.11.2006 about the incident, which took place on 24.11.2006 at 8.00 pm. Therein, it was alleged that on 24.11.2006 at 7.00 pm, his son Kamran khan was abducted pursuant to the conspiracy by his neighbours Mustafa, Nabisher, Salim, Raees and Jalis, sons of Nisar, Musarrif and Muddassir alias Bhullu, sons of Mustafa, Najam son of Nabisher, Firoj son of Vakil resident of Malarna Doongar. Firoj son of Vakil R/o Kota is a gangster and is engaged in supplying opium and weapons. That day his family members saw his son going on a motorcycle with sons of Mustafa and Firoj. Rafik also saw them at Malarna Bus Stand. Naushad son of Irshad also saw them talking in the market. They had two motorcycles. Their associates namely Amjad son of Kadir, Mahir son of Mannan, Asif son of Hanif, Anis son of Nitas, Abid son of Buniyad, Wasim alias Banti son of Salim, Atik, Anees alias Kallu, Sabir, Nafis Ahmad, all sons of Latif, Khalil son of Sardar Khan, Gaffar son of Sardar Khan and others were also moving on separate motorcycles in the market and around bus stand. They were armed with weapons. His son was being threatened of dire consequences for the last 2-3 days. His son informed him about the threats by family members of Mustafa and Firoj son of Vakil, who had come from Kota. Yesterday also, these persons took his son to forest, where he was harassed, humiliated and threatened. Today in the evening, his son kamran was abducted and taken to the forest of Bahted and Falsavata at 7.00 pm. Firoj son of Vakil, Mustafa and his brothers and sons murdered him at about 8.00 pm after thrusting a cloth in his mouth and by causing injuries by sharp edged weapon. Complainant party had a land dispute with Mustafa for which an FIR was lodged with the Police Station Malarna Doongar on 14.11.2006. Investigation of that FIR was conducted by the SHO Malarna Doongar. Recently also, Mustafa and his brothers threatened his son Fariyad. Mustafa is a land mafia and several criminal cases were registered against him with Police Station Malarna Doongar. 3. On receipt of above report, a first information report No. 270/2006 for offence under section 143, 363, 302 and 120-B IPC was registered and investigation commenced. Police on conclusion of the investigation, filed a charge sheet against nine accused persons for offence under sections 148, 149, 302 and 120B IPC. While charges for offence under section 148 and 302 in the alternative under section 302/149 IPC were framed against Firoj, Mudassir @ Bhullu and Najam, charges for offence under section 302/120B and 148 IPC were framed against rest of the accused. The prosecution produced fifteen witnesses and exhibited forty nine documents. The defence though did not produce any witness, but exhibited five documents. The trial court on conclusion of the trial, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants in the manner as stated above. 4. Shri Biri Singh Sinsinwar, learned senior counsel assisted by Shri Rajesh Choudhary argued that the trial court has erred in not correctly appreciating the prosecution evidence on record, which makes it clear that the investigating agency started investigation even before lodging the first information report. Therefore, FIR (Ex. P 23) cannot be treated to be a first information report of the incident as it is hit by section 162 of Cr.P.C., 1973 It is contended that the incident took place in the night at about 8-9 pm on 24.11.2006. Therefore, FIR (Ex. P 23) cannot be treated to be a first information report of the incident as it is hit by section 162 of Cr.P.C., 1973 It is contended that the incident took place in the night at about 8-9 pm on 24.11.2006. PW-2 Fariyad Ahmed, PW-9 Khalil Ahmed and PW-10 Naushad Khan did not narrate the incident to anybody-else. Therefore, conduct of these persons is doubtful and no reliance can be placed on their testimony. Fariyad Ahmed (PW 2), Khalik Ahmed (PW 9) and Naushad Khan (PW 10) therefore are not the reliable witnesses at all. If at all, they had seen the accused persons inflicting the injuries on the person of deceased Kamran, there was no reason for them to keep mum and not to report the matter immediately to family members of the deceased or to the police. 5. Learned senior counsel argued that the trial court has erred in not taking into consideration that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses proves this to be a case of circumstantial evidence as there being no direct evidence. All the circumstances sought to be proved against the accused do not form a complete chain. The learned trial court has disbelieved the same set of prosecution evidence and acquitted co-accused persons; namely Nabisher, Salim, Rais Khan, Jalis Khan and Anees Khan. Conviction of the accused appellants is thus based on unreliable witnesses, which did not receive any corroboration from any independent source. Enmity is a double edged weapon. If the accused persons can murder a person due to enmity on account of land dispute, then it is also equally possible that the complainant can falsely implicate the innocent persons like the appellants. Acquittal of one set of accused clearly proves that the prosecution witnesses did not come with clean hands and they tried to implicate innocent persons. 6. Shri Biri Singh Sinsinwar, learned senior counsel further submitted that enormous delay was caused in lodging FIR. The complainant lodged the complaint only with a view to implicating almost all members of the family of accused, which is why total 22 accused were named in the FIR. The incident took place at about 7.00 pm on 24.11.2006, whereas the written report was given by Idrish (PW 1) at 7.50 AM on 25.11.2006. The complainant lodged the complaint only with a view to implicating almost all members of the family of accused, which is why total 22 accused were named in the FIR. The incident took place at about 7.00 pm on 24.11.2006, whereas the written report was given by Idrish (PW 1) at 7.50 AM on 25.11.2006. This witness Idrish (PW 1) as well as Fariyad Ahmed (PW 2), Khalil Ahmed (PW 9) and Naushad Khan (PW 10) have claimed to be eye witnesses, whereas a careful scrutiny of their testimony would make it clear that none of them is an eye witness. Reading of the written report does not show that Idrish (PW 1) was an eye witness. The series of events in the written complaint is based entirely on hearsay. 7. It is contended that the conduct of Khalil (PW 9) is highly unnatural because he had stated that after seeing the incident, he went to his house and slept. He did not narrate this incident to anyone in the night. In cross examination, he stated that it was a dark night. The accused had not covered their faces. He did not see the registration number of the motorcycle and he did not make any effort to catch the motorcycle. In the cross examination, he admitted that Police Station Malarna Doongar was situated nearby, but he did not inform the police at night about the incident. The police called him to Police Station 2-3 days thereafter. He did not say anything to the police on 25th, 26th and 27th. He narrated the entire story to the police on 28th only, when he was called by the police. 8. Learned senior counsel contended that Naushad (PW 10) has mentioned that when they went closer to the place of occurrence, they noticed one black coloured motorcycle with registration no. RJ 20 SC 3295. Firoj and Shazia went towards village Batoda on that motorcycle. In cross examination, this witness has admitted that Idrish, father of Kamran had lodged a criminal case against Mustafa and his family members about 10-12 days ago in Police Station Malarna Doongar. It is owing to this enmity that Kamran was put to death by these accused. This witness has further stated that they were quite exasperated and wanted to catch the culprit and therefore became desperate. It is owing to this enmity that Kamran was put to death by these accused. This witness has further stated that they were quite exasperated and wanted to catch the culprit and therefore became desperate. In that state of mind, they did not immediately lodge the FIR as they were trying to search out the accused on their own. The FIR was therefore slightly delayed. In cross examination, this witness has stated that deceased Kamran was his real uncle and that he did not see Khallak or any of his family members on the agriculture field. Khallak has not been produced by the prosecution as a witness. Therefore, an adverse inference should be drawn against them for withholding him to be produced as a witness. 9. It is argued that Faiyaz (PW 7) has stated that he heard these people talking on 23.11.2006 about the disputed land of Idrish. Mustafa was saying that Idrish wanted to encroach upon their land and had lodged a criminal case against them with regard to the disputed land. He ought to be taught a lesson. Firoj said that in one or two days, they would liquidate Kamran and all agreed to the same. They were all in anger. Sajid (PW 11) has also made a similar statement, but the only difference between the statement of Faiyaz and Sajid is that while Faiyaz alleged that he heard the discussion of the accused persons on 23.11.2006 when they were planning to murder Kamran, Sajid has said that he heard such discussion on 21.11.2006. Faiyaz stated that when he reached the house of Mustafa at about 7.00-8.00 pm on 23.11.2006, Nabisher, Mustafa, Salim, Raees, Jalis, Anees were there. Mudassir, Najam, Nabisher, Wasim, Firoj were also there. Mustafa was saying that Idrish wanted to occupy their land and filed a false case against them about 10-15 days ago and he has to be therefore taught a lesson. All agreed that they would liquidate Kamran in a day or two. Though a substantially similar statement was made by both Faiyaz and Sajid but with reference to a different date, which shows that both are not speaking the truth. 10. Learned senior counsel submitted that recovery of pieces of broken bangles vide Ex. P 37 was made at the instance of Shazia, who was a juvenile. Though a substantially similar statement was made by both Faiyaz and Sajid but with reference to a different date, which shows that both are not speaking the truth. 10. Learned senior counsel submitted that recovery of pieces of broken bangles vide Ex. P 37 was made at the instance of Shazia, who was a juvenile. Shazia got the same recovered from iron box lying in the house of her father Aslam. Co-incidentally, the site plan (Ex. P 13) also shows that there was pool of blood at the place ''x'' marked and that pieces of green broken bangles were also lying there. It cannot be believed that accused would carry the broken pieces of bangles from the place of incident to the house of her father and get them recovered from an iron box there. This shows that the police has concocted the entire story. 11. Learned senior counsel argued that the evidence shows that the prosecution has concealed the genesis of the incident. According to site plan, the motorcycle of Kamran was found lying on the kachcha rasta leading to the disputed agriculture field. At place ''A1'', there were tyre marks of a motorcycle, which went upto 10 feet near the dead body and turned back towards the road. According to learned senior counsel, Kamran had illicit relations with Shazia and that when her husband Firoj, who came from Kota, on learning this, caught them both red handed and therefore in the scuffle that ensued, not only deceased Kamran was put to death, Shazia also had to apparently struggle with Firoz, which is why broken pieces of bangles were found at the place of occurrence. This motive of the incident has been completely suppressed by the prosecution, which has introduced an entirely different motive alleging the enmity between the accused and the complainant party with regard to land of complainant party, which was in possession of the accused party for last more than ten years. 12. As regards recovery of blood stained black pant vide Ex. P 36 at the instance of Firoj, learned senior counsel argued that this recovery vide Ex. P 36 was made highly belatedly on 10.12.2006 at the instance of accused Firoj as he was arrested by the police on 3.12.2006 vide Ex. P 25. Murari and Babulal were the attesting witnesses of the recovery, but none of them have been produced. P 36 at the instance of Firoj, learned senior counsel argued that this recovery vide Ex. P 36 was made highly belatedly on 10.12.2006 at the instance of accused Firoj as he was arrested by the police on 3.12.2006 vide Ex. P 25. Murari and Babulal were the attesting witnesses of the recovery, but none of them have been produced. The recovery of the pant cannot be taken as a proof against the accused. Learned senior counsel in this connection cited judgement of the Supreme Court in Satish Chandra & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh- (1983) 2 SCC 141 , in which it was held that even recovery of blood stained Gupti and currency notes from the accused during one and the same search was rightly not believed by the High Court because it would be highly improbable that for about 8 days after the incident, the accused would continue to keep the blood stained Gupti in the same condition without erasing or wiping out the blood stains thereon and this therefore cast doubt on the recovery. Even though the Investigating Officer has stated that he took mould of the plaster of paris impression of tyre and shoes from the place of incident vide Ex. P 24, but he did not send the same for FSL examination. 13. Learned senior counsel also submitted that charge sheet against Wasim @ Bunty for the same incident was subsequently filed for offence under sections 148/149/302/120B IPC. He was separately tried by the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Sawaimadhopur, who by judgement dated 28.4.2011 acquitted him of all the charges. The learned trial court in that case has disbelieved all the witnesses including Idrish as PW 1, Khalil Ahmed as PW 2, Fariyad Ahmed as PW 3, Naushad Khan PW 4 and Sajid Khan (PW 12). 14. Learned senior counsel also cited the judgement of Supreme Court in Muluwa son of Binda & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh-1975 SCC (Cri.) 759 , wherein the Supreme Court has held that since daughter of the deceased is claiming to be sole eyewitness to the murderous assault on her father, who did not disclose the details of the incident or names of assailants to anyone, not even her cousin or the police, the possibility of her having witnessed the incident was improbable. Citing the judgement of Supreme Court in Vijay Thakur v. State of Himachal Pradesh-2014 Cr.L.R. (SC) 1066 , learned senior counsel argued that conviction of accused Firoj cannot be sustained only on the basis of solitary basis of recovery unless there is some other corroborating evidence to prove it as held by the Supreme Court in that case. 15. Shri R.S. Raghav, learned Public Prosecutor for the State has opposed the appeal filed by the accused-appellants and argued that the accused-appellants have rightly been convicted for committing murder of Kamran. The evidence clearly proves that Faiyaz was with the other accused when the incident took place. Faiyaz (PW 7) and Sajid (PW 11) have proved that they heard the accused planning to commit murder of Kamran to teach a lesson to the complainant party. Sajid (PW 11) has proved the fact that he had heard the accused persons talking about the land of Idrish. Mustafa had stated that Idrish had filed a case against them and challenged them, therefore, we have to ruin him. Other brothers of Mustafa expressed their agreement with him. Firoj stated that first of all, they would liquidate Kamran. This witness has also stated that he lastly saw Kamran with Firoj, Wasim and Mudassir at the bus stand on 24.11.2006. He is also therefore is a witness of the last seen. 16. Shafwan Ahmed (PW 6) has also stated that he had gone to the bus stand after taking meals for a stroll. While he was returning back towards his home, he saw the accused Mustafa, Nazim and Mudassir on one motorcycle and Firoj and Shazia on another motorcycle on bus stand at around 9-10 pm on 24.11.2006. After sometime, he saw one more motorcycle, which was being driven by Wasim with one boy sitting on the rear seat. 17. In Appeal No. 663/2010, learned Public Prosecutor submits that all five accused respondents were also equally involved in this serious crime of murder of Kamran but the learned trial court erred in acquitting them. Learned trial court has erred in not considering this fact that the accused respondents came collectively and intentionally with the deadly weapons. They kidnapped deceased Kamran. They gave 24 blows on the body of deceased Kamran Khan, mostly with the knives, and due to that, he suffered serious injuries on his body and died. 18. Learned trial court has erred in not considering this fact that the accused respondents came collectively and intentionally with the deadly weapons. They kidnapped deceased Kamran. They gave 24 blows on the body of deceased Kamran Khan, mostly with the knives, and due to that, he suffered serious injuries on his body and died. 18. It is contended by learned Public Prosecutor that there was enmity between the complainant and accused respondents for a land and due to this enmity the accused respondents kidnapped and murdered Kamran but the learned trial court acquitted the accused respondents which is wrong and illegal. The statement of PW-3 Naresh Kumar Singhal, Medical Officer, P.H.C. Malaranadungar on 25.11.06 and from the statements of Dr. R.P. Gupta who examined the dead body of deceased Kamran Khan and also from the postmortem report, it is clear that there were number of serious injuries on the body of deceased Kamran Khan which were dangerous to life. Learned trial court wrongly acquitted these 5 accused persons by giving them benefit of doubt though these accused-respondents were equally involved in this crime with the other accused-respondents. Hence the judgment passed by the learned trial court is liable to be set aside and accused deserve to be convicted. 19. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 20. According to the first version disclosed in the FIR, there was involvement of about 20 accused, but this apparently was an attempt by complainant Idrish (PW 1) to implicate as many persons of the accused-party as possible which is why the Investigating Officer not believing him confined the charge sheet only against nine accused. The learned trial court on a further scrutiny has not found the role of Nabisher Khan, Salim Khan, Raees Khan, Jalis Khan and Anish Khan proved and therefore acquitted them of the charge for offence under section 302 IPC read with Section 120B of IPC. In order to therefore, test the correctness of the findings recorded by the learned trial court in the light of arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant and learned Public Prosecutor, we have to briefly scrutinise their testimony. 21. In order to therefore, test the correctness of the findings recorded by the learned trial court in the light of arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant and learned Public Prosecutor, we have to briefly scrutinise their testimony. 21. In statement before the Court, Idrish (PW 1) has alleged that Mustafa, Najam, Firoj (Kotawala), Wasim S/o Salim, Pandya, Mustafa''s son Musaddar @ Mudassir and wife of Firoj had taken his son Kamran and then murdered him by choking his mouth with cloth and inflicting knife blows. He alleged that accused wanted to forcibly grab the land of the informant. He had also submitted a complaint with regard to this to the police. The accused then threatened this witness with dire consequences. The accused also threatened to murder his son Fariyad, who regularly went to school. This witness has stated that there were on going disputes between both the parties for last 10-15 years. Mustafa and his sons were having possession over the disputed land for last 10-12 years. Though this witness has stated that they were trying to cultivate the disputed land, but he could not explain the reason why no revenue suit was filed by them for recovery of the possession. The SHO of Police Station Malarna Doongar told him on telephone about the murder of his son at 6.00 am. In cross examination, he categorically admitted that he did not see the accused committing murder of his son. Their names were told to him by other persons, who saw the accused taking to his son Kamran with them and, therefore, he mentioned their names in the FIR. 22. Fariyad Ahmed (PW 2) is also not an eye witness. He stated that while he and his mother were taking meal in the house at about 8.00-8.30 on 24.11.2006, his younger brother Kamran after taking meal went to village Behted to meet Firoj Kotawala at about 6.00 PM. Thereafter, he along with his nephew Naushad went on motorcycle to the agriculture field of their friend. Naushad was driving the motor cycle and he was the pillion rider. He was also having a torch. They reached the agriculture field of their friend at about 7.00 pm. While they were returning back to Behted, they on Falsawta Road heard the sound of "bachaobachao" (someone calling for help). Naushad was driving the motor cycle and he was the pillion rider. He was also having a torch. They reached the agriculture field of their friend at about 7.00 pm. While they were returning back to Behted, they on Falsawta Road heard the sound of "bachaobachao" (someone calling for help). He saw that five boys and one girl were beating and causing injuries to a boy with knives, who was lying on the ground. When he went closer, he noticed that Firoj S/o Akeel Kotawala, Najam S/o Nabisher, Mudassar S/o Mustafa, Wasim @ Bunti S/o Salim Pandya, Tajia W/o Firoj were causing injuries with knives to that boy, who was lying on the ground. On seeing them come closer, the accused persons fled away from there. Firoj and his wife ran towards Batoda by motor cycle. Najam and Mudassir also ran away on another motorcycle. Wasiim and one boy belonging to Kota also ran away on another motorcycle. At that time, one jeep came from the side of Falsawta. The driver stopped his jeep. Then they saw that he was Khalil S/o Yusuf, resident of Malarna. He had also seen the entire incident. This witness alleged that on 14.11.2006, his father filed a criminal complaint against the accused for trying to forcibly cultivate the land of the informant. 23. Khalil (PW 9) is also not an eye witness. He has stated that when he was returning back from Falsawta in jeep at about 8.30 PM and reached Behted Idgah turn, he heard the sound of someone crying for help "bachao bachao". He stopped his jeep and got down. He then saw that Firoj Kotawala, Mudassar @ Bhullu, Najam, Bunty @ Wasim, Shazia W/o Firoj were beating a boy who was lying on the ground and causing injuries to him with knives. At that time, Fariyad and Naushad came there on motorcycle from the side of Falsawta. The accused then ran away. When they went closer, they saw the boy, who was being beaten, was Kamran S/o Idrish. Kamran was profusely bleeding from back, neck and mouth. On seeing this, Fariyad and Naushad started crying. 24. Naushad (PW 10) is nephew of the deceased, being son of his brother Irshad Khan. He has stated that he along with Fariyad was returning to his home on the motorcycle. Kamran was profusely bleeding from back, neck and mouth. On seeing this, Fariyad and Naushad started crying. 24. Naushad (PW 10) is nephew of the deceased, being son of his brother Irshad Khan. He has stated that he along with Fariyad was returning to his home on the motorcycle. They heard the sound of someone crying for help near at Falsawta Road, near Idgah. They went in that direction and stopped their motorcycle. When they went closer, they noticed that five men and one women were beating and inflicting knife blows to a boy, who was lying on the ground. He identified the accused when he saw them running from the place of occurrence. Their names were Firoj S/o Vakil, R/o Kota, Najam S/o Nabisher, R/o Malarna Doongar, Mudassar @ Bhullu R/o Malarna Doongar, Bunty @ Wasim S/o Salim @ Pandya R/o Malarna Doongar, Sajia W/o Firoj. There was one more person of Kota, whom he could not identify. 25. Faiyaz (PW 7) has stated that he went to the house of Mustafa at about 7-8 pm in the evening on 23.11.2006. He saw Nabisher, Mustafa, Salim, Raees, Jalees, Anees, all six brothers sitting there. Apart from them, Mudassir, Najam, Nabisher, Wasim and Firoj were also there. Mustafa was telling his brothers that Idrish wanted to occupy their land and has filed criminal case against them 10-15 days ago and that, we have to teach them a lesson. Thereupon, Firoj and Mudassir stated that they would murder Kamran in a day or two. Sajid (PW 11) has also made somewhat similar statement with reference to what he saw at 7.00 pm on 21.11.2006. He stated that his house was located in front of the house of Salim S/o Ishaq. He went to meet Mustafa in his house at that time, Mustafa, Nabisher, Salim, Raees, Jalees, Anees, Firoj, Najam, Mudassir and Wasim were sitting there. They were talking about the land of Idrish. Mustafa was saying that Idrish has lodged a court case against them and that he has thus challenged their authority and that they have to now ruin him. Firoj thereupon stated that first of all, they would murder Kamran and then also other members of the complainant party. Investigating Officer Udai Singh (PW 13) has proved all the stages of the investigation. He has proved the inquest report of Kamran (Ex. P 2), site plan (Ex. Firoj thereupon stated that first of all, they would murder Kamran and then also other members of the complainant party. Investigating Officer Udai Singh (PW 13) has proved all the stages of the investigation. He has proved the inquest report of Kamran (Ex. P 2), site plan (Ex. P 13), recovery of broken pieces of bangles vide Ex.P 7 and seizure memo of motorcycle of the deceased vide Ex.P 8. Fariyad Ahmed (PW 2) and Sajid (PW 11) were attesting witnesses of the documents. The postmortem report of the deceased was Ex.P 10, which apart from investigating officer Udai Singh (PW 13) has also been proved by Dr. R.P. Gupta (PW 5). Information was given by Firoj Khan under section 27 of the Evidence Act was about one black colour motorcycle vide memo Ex.P 33, pursuant to which motor cycle was recovered vide Ex.P 16. Information under section 27 was given by accused Najam Khan about one motor cycle vide Ex.P 34, pursuant to which the motor cycle was recovered vide Ex.P 17. Information under section 27 was given by Firoj about sim vide memo Ex.P 42 and pursuant thereof seizure memo of one mobile set Nokia 1110 was made vide Ex.P 35. Information memo under section 27 regarding about blood stained pant vide Ex.P 43 by accused Firoj and its recovery vide Ex. P 36 and memo of site plan of the place of recovery of one pant at the instance of accused Firoj vide Ex. P 41. Recovery of one knife and shirt was made pursuant to the information given by Najam (Ex. P 31) vide Ex.P 14. Attesting witnesses Naushad Khan (PW 10) and Sajid (PW 11) have proved all these recoveries. Knife recovered at the instance of Firoj in packet-F 2 as article 8 was sent to FSL, which as per the FSL report (Ex.P 45) was found positive for the presence of human blood. Similarly, knife recovered at the instance of Najam from packet-G as article 9 was also as per FSL report found positive for the presence of human blood. The shirt recovered at the instance of Najam from packet-H as article 10 was found positive for the presence of human blood of ''B'' group. Similarly, pant recovered at the instance of Firoj from packet-K as article 12 was found positive for the presence of human blood. The shirt recovered at the instance of Najam from packet-H as article 10 was found positive for the presence of human blood of ''B'' group. Similarly, pant recovered at the instance of Firoj from packet-K as article 12 was found positive for the presence of human blood. Knife recovered at the instance of Mudassir from packet I as article 11 was also as per FSL found to contain human blood of ''B'' group. All these recoveries were fully proved not only by the Investigating officer Udai Singh (PW 13), but also Sajid (PW 11) and Naushad Khan (PW 10). 26. As far as Mudassir is concerned, while the defence has produced five witnesses namely; Haseena Bano (AW 1), Mohammed Imran (AW 2), Farooq Ahmed (AW 3), Abdul Hameed (AW 4) and Bhawani Singh Shekhawat (AW 5) to show that he was minor at the time of incident, the prosecution produced two witnesses namely; Madan Lal Bairwa (NAW 1) and Mustafa (NAW 2) and certain documents to prove to the contrary. While accused-appellant Mudassir was granted bail by this Court on consideration of the plea of juvenility set up by him, but the trial court upon considering his application as to the plea of juvenility finally rejected his claim of juvenility by order dated 17.6.2008. 27. Fariyad Ahmed (PW 2) has made allegations against Firoj, Najam, Mudassar, Wasim @ Bunty and Shazia of causing injuries to the deceased and has also alleged that Firoj along with his wife fled on a motorcycle no.RJ 20 SA 3295 to Batoda, Najam and Mudassir, Wasim and one person of Kota ran away on two other motorcycles. He has stated that while passing by the place of incident on the motorcycle, he heard the sound of deceased. Naushad was also with him as a pillion rider. Naushad has also corroborated his statement. Safwan Ahmed (PW 6) has stated that on 24.11.2006 at 9-10 pm when he was returning from bus stand towards his house, he saw that first of all two motorcycles came. While Mustafa, Najam and Mudassir were on one motorcycle, Firoj and Shazia were on another motorcycle. Then Wasim came on one more motorcycle. When he reached his house, Fariyad and Naushad told that Najam, Wasim, Firoj, Sazia and Mudassir had murdered Kamran. 28. Faiyaz (PW 7) and Sajid (PW 11) have stated different dates about the conspiracy being hatched by the accused. Then Wasim came on one more motorcycle. When he reached his house, Fariyad and Naushad told that Najam, Wasim, Firoj, Sazia and Mudassir had murdered Kamran. 28. Faiyaz (PW 7) and Sajid (PW 11) have stated different dates about the conspiracy being hatched by the accused. Version of the prosecution witnesses is of course discrepant in respect of certain particulars for example Faiyaz (PW 7) and Sajid (PW 11) have given two dates when they alleged that they heard accused planning to commit murder of Kamran. Even if statements of these two witnesses are ignored, the testimony of other eye witnesses supported by corroborated evidence of the three knives recovered at the instance of three accused Firoj, Nazam and Mudassir, proved charges against them beyond reasonable doubt. This is also because these knives were found to contain human blood including the fact that blood found on the knife recovered at the instance of Mudassir was found to contain human blood of ''B'' group, which is also corroborated from the shirt recovered at the instance of Najam, which too was found to contain human blood of ''B'' group and pant recovered at the instance of Firoj, which also was found to have contained human blood of ''B'' group. As per the FSL report, bushirt, pant and baniyan of the deceased from packet-E as articles 5, 6 & 7 were also found to contain human blood of ''B'' group. All these articles thus connects the weapon of offence and clothes recovered at the instance of these three accused with the crime. 29. Dr. R.P. Gupta (PW 5) has proved the postmortem Ex.P 10 according to which deceased sustained 18 injuries, which read as under: "1. Incised wound size " " bone deep on left side of occipital region of skull. 2. Incised wound size 1" " bone deep on right side of occipital bone of skull. 3. Incised wound size 1" ;" on ant'' aspect of lower ? of midline of Neck obliqueally placed. On dissection: - Subcutaneous haematoma present trachea was opened by an incised wound left carotid artery was also teared. 4. Incised wound size " " muscle deep on left lateral aspect of Neck. 5. Incised wound size 1" " muscle deep on post'' aspect of upper part of Neck. 6. 2 abrasion 1" " on ant'' aspect of left side of chest. 7. 4. Incised wound size " " muscle deep on left lateral aspect of Neck. 5. Incised wound size 1" " muscle deep on post'' aspect of upper part of Neck. 6. 2 abrasion 1" " on ant'' aspect of left side of chest. 7. Incised wound size " " muscle deep on left lateral aspect of chest. 8. Abrasion " " on ant'' aspect of left shoulder. 9. 6 incised wound size ranging from " " bone deep to 1" " x bone deep on upper part of back between left scapular region. The wounds are " apart from each others. 10. Incised wound size 11/2" " cavity deep on superior border of scapular on left side of back. On dissection: - The wound is going interiorly medically & piercing the pleura & continue on past of left lungs. The pleural cavity containing about 550 ml of clotted & fluid blood. 11. 2 incised wound size 1" " x bone deep on lower part of right scapular region of back. They are 1" apart from each other. 12. Incised wound size 11/2" " x cavity deep on right lateral aspect of middle part of back. On dissection: - The wound is going downwards & piercing the pleura & middle lobe of right lung pleural cavity containing about 450 ml of clotted & fluid blood. 13. 4 incised wound " " x bone deep on middle part of right side of back at distance of in area of 67 cm. 14. Incised wound size 11/2" " x bone deep on middle part of back in midline at the level of T 7 transversally placed. 15. 4 incised wound size 1" " x bone deep of left scapular region in area of 5"7". 1" apart from each others. 16. Incised wound 1" " x muscle deep on middle part of left side of back. 17. Incised wound size 1" " x bone deep on middle part of back at the level of T 12. 1" lateral to left side from mid line. 18. Incised wound " " x bone deep on lower part of left side of chest. All injuries are ante mortem in nature & duration of injuries is fresh before death." 30. Out of above 18 injuries, 16 were incised wound. All the injuries were ante mortem in nature. 1" lateral to left side from mid line. 18. Incised wound " " x bone deep on lower part of left side of chest. All injuries are ante mortem in nature & duration of injuries is fresh before death." 30. Out of above 18 injuries, 16 were incised wound. All the injuries were ante mortem in nature. In the opinion of the Medical Board, the cause of death was shock (hemorrhagic shock) brought as a cumulative result of injury No. 3 over the neck and injury No. 10 on left side of back and injury No. 12 on right lateral aspect of middle part of back. The Medical Board yet opined that each of these injuries is also sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. The evidence thus proved that the deceased was subjected to multiple number of incised wounds by use of multiple number of knives, which when read along with FSL, corroborates the allegations that three knives recovered at the instance of accused-appellants Firoj, Najam and Mudassir, were actually put to use while beating the deceased, notwithstanding the lacunaes/discrepancies in the police investigation. 31. This Court, therefore, is inclined to uphold the judgement of the learned trial court in so far as conviction of accused appellants Firoj, Najam and Mudissar is concerned. However, the evidence of the prosecution in the present case as far as accused Mustafa Khan is concerned has fallen short of the proof of beyond reasonable doubt so as to uphold his conviction for the alleged offence. No recovery has been made at his instance, nor otherwise his active role is proved. 32. As regards the acquittal of Wasim @ Bunty is concerned, suffice it to say that the evidence led in the other case cannot be read in the present case, even then perusal of the judgement in the aforesaid case indicates that the learned trial court was persuaded to acquit him because he was not named by prosecution witness Khalil Ahmed (PW 2) amongst those who actively participated in the incident and caused injuries to the deceased. Khalil Ahmed (PW 2) has stated that Wasim @ Bunty actually did not participate in the incident and no recovery was made at his instance even as per the statement of Naushad Khan (PW 4) in the trial of that case. Khalil Ahmed (PW 2) has stated that Wasim @ Bunty actually did not participate in the incident and no recovery was made at his instance even as per the statement of Naushad Khan (PW 4) in the trial of that case. In any case, the evidence in the trial of co-accused Wasim can be of no use as far as present appeal is concerned. Even otherwise, on the evidence that has been brought in the present case, the role of Firoj, Najam and Mudassir stands out in contrast with other accused including Wasim @ Bunty. 33. The evidence of Faiyaz (PW 7) and Sajid (PW 11) as to the conspiracy and planning for murder of Kamran, cannot be taken as sufficient proof of his complexity with the crime, particularly when these two witnesses have differed with each other as to the timing and the date of the planning. The evidence of prosecution does not prove the ingredients of Section 120B in so far as Mustafa is concerned. He was not found present at the place of incident along with the other four accused even as per Khalil Ahmed (PW 9) and Naushad Khan (PW 10). Besides, no recovery has been made at his instance, which is the main corroborating evidence against the remaining three accused namely; Firoj Najam and Mudassir in this regard. 34. In view of above discussions, accused-appellant Mustafa Khan is held entitled to benefit of doubt. He is therefore acquitted of charges under Section 302 read with 120B of IPC. The conviction of accused-appellants Firoj, Najam and Mudassir for offence under Sections 148 & 302/149 is, however, maintained. Accused-appellant Mudassir @ Bhullu is on bail. He shall immediately surrender before the trial court, which will take him into custody and sent him to jail to serve out remaining sentence of imprisonment. In case, the aforesaid accused-appellant does not surrender within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this judgement, the trial court shall take necessary steps to take him into custody and send him into jail to serve out the remaining sentence of imprisonment. 35. In the result, the Appeal No. 282/2010 filed on behalf of accused-appellants Firoj, Najam and Mudassir is dismissed. However, the appeal filed on behalf of Mustafa Khan is allowed. Mustafa is on bail, his bail bonds are discharged. He need not surrender and is set at liberty forthwith. 36. 35. In the result, the Appeal No. 282/2010 filed on behalf of accused-appellants Firoj, Najam and Mudassir is dismissed. However, the appeal filed on behalf of Mustafa Khan is allowed. Mustafa is on bail, his bail bonds are discharged. He need not surrender and is set at liberty forthwith. 36. The Appeal No. 663/2010 filed by the State against the acquittal of Nabisher, Salim, Rais Khan, Jalis Khan and Anees Khan is dismissed. 37. Keeping, however, in view the provisions of Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, appellant Mustafa Khan is 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 appellant aforesaid, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Supreme Court. 38. Office to place a copy of the judgement in connected appeal.