JUDGMENT : MANOJ KUMAR GARG, J. 1. All these six appeals have been filed against the judgment passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Attrocities) Cases, Merta dated 10.06.2011 in Sessions Case No. 17/2008 (04/2008) whereby, the accused appellants (1) Ramkunwar @ Ratan Lal (2) Narayani (3) Janki (4) Gariba Ram (5) Sukha Ram (6) Dharma Ram have been convicted for offence under Sections 148, 323/149, 324/149, 325/149, 326/149 & 302/149 IPC and sentenced as under :- U/s 148 IPC Two Years simple Imprisonment U/s 323/149 IPC One year simple imprisonment U/s 324/149 IPC Two years simple imprisonment U/s 325/149 IPC Three years simple imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo 15 days simple imprisonment. U/s 326/149 IPC Five years simple imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo 15 days simple imprisonment. U/s 302/149 IPC Life imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo one months simple imprisonment. 2. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Out of the six appeals, four appeals namely, D.B. Criminal Appeal No.632/2011, D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 559/2011, D.B. Criminal Appeal No.668/2011, D.B. Criminal Appeal No.669/2011 have been filed by the accused appellants against their conviction and sentence, whereas, D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 608/2011 & D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 910/2011 have been filed by the complainant and the State of Rajasthan respectively against the order of acquittal passed in favour of seven accused persons viz. (1) Sumitra @ Sunita (2) Indra (3) Munni (4) Hapu Ram (5) Baudi (6) Nena Ram (7) Seniki @ Sina. 3. Brief facts of the case are that complainant Prem D/o Mangu Ram filed a written report before the police station Merta Road mentioning that "we had quarrel with regard to land with Ghamanda Ram and his family members since last 25 years. Some quarrel is also going on with Deena Ram Jat and his family members which is also with regard to field and cases are also going on. About 20 days back, some quarrel had taken place between us and between family members of Ghamanda Ram and a case was also registered for the said quarrel. Some quarrel is also going on with Deena Ram Jat and his family members which is also with regard to field and cases are also going on. About 20 days back, some quarrel had taken place between us and between family members of Ghamanda Ram and a case was also registered for the said quarrel. Today on 10.10.2007 at about 12-1 O'clock when she alongwith her father Mangu Ram, brother Ram Kishore and Ram Niwas reached near Dapaliya Nada in a camel cart with herd, the accused persons namely, (1) Ratan lal @ Ram Kunwar (2) Sukha Ram (3) Gariba Ram (4) Dharma Ram (5) Karma Ram (6) Richhpal (7) Dina Ram (8) Jimnaram (9) Shivlal (10) Amra Ram (11) Chenki (12) Baudi (13) Kali (14) Munni (15) Punki (16) wife of Gariba Ram (17) wife of Dharma Ram (18) Bajudi (19) Narayani (20) Janki (21) Goga Ram (22) Mahendra (23) Mohan Ram (24) Nema Ram (25) Sukha Ram S/o Jala Ram (26) Hari Ram (27)Pukhraj (28) Giga Ram and 10-12 more persons armed with axe, lathi, Dantal, Kaniya, Pipes, Gun Pistol, iron rod etc attacked them. Due to the injuries caused by the accused persons, her father Mangu Ram, brothers Ram Kishore and Ram Niwas received so many injuries and due to the injuries, they died on the spot. It is alleged in the complaint that Pukhraj and Gariba Ram fired from their gun and pistol respectively. In the said assault, the complainant also received injuries caused by the accused. The accused person took away their camel cart. It is further stated that she went to the Dhani where she narrated the entire incident to her mother and sister-in-law. 4. On this written report (Ex. P/43), the police registered a formal FIR (Ex.P./66) under Section 302, 307, 323, 147, 148, 149, 379 IPC and 3/25 of Indian Arms Act at Police Station Merta Road. 5. After due investigation, the police filed challan against total 13 persons before the court of Civil Judge (JD) and Judicial Magistrate, First Class Merta. Thereafter, the case was transferred to the court of District and Sessions Judge, Merta and lastly, the case was transferred to the court of Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Merta where charges were framed against the accused persons and the trial commenced. The prosecution in its support examined as many as 24 witnesses and exhibited various documents. Thereafter, the case was transferred to the court of District and Sessions Judge, Merta and lastly, the case was transferred to the court of Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Merta where charges were framed against the accused persons and the trial commenced. The prosecution in its support examined as many as 24 witnesses and exhibited various documents. The statement of accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and on the defence side, statement of witnesses DW/1 to DW/8 were recorded. 6. After conclusion of the trial, the learned Special Judge by way of impugned judgment convicted six accused persons and acquitted seven accused persons. 7. As stated in the foregoing para, the convicted accused persons have preferred four appeals before this Court against their conviction and complainant and State have preferred respective appeals against the acquittal of seven accused persons. Thus, all the appeals are being decided by way of this common judgment. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that in the present case, the prosecution has come out with a case that total 28 accused persons and 10-12 other persons were named as accused persons but after investigation, the police filed challan against only 13 persons and out of those thirteen accused persons, seven accused persons were acquitted by the trial court. Thus, it is apparent that part story of prosecution was disbelieved by the police and part story was disbelieved by the trial court. Learned counsel argued that no specific role has been assigned to any of accused persons in the FIR as well as under the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. before the police and in the Court statement, the witnesses specifically named four accused persons that they gave beating to the deceased. Thus, the said version is an improved version and cannot be relied upon. It is further urged that so far as conviction of two ladies namely Narayani and Janaki are concerned, no specific role was assigned in the complaint as well as statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and therefore, the conviction of Smt. Narayani and Smt. Janaki is absolutely illegal and they deserve to be acquitted. 9. It is further urged that so far as conviction of two ladies namely Narayani and Janaki are concerned, no specific role was assigned in the complaint as well as statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and therefore, the conviction of Smt. Narayani and Smt. Janaki is absolutely illegal and they deserve to be acquitted. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant Gariba Ram urged that in the FIR, a specific allegation was made that Gariba Ram was having pistol and he fired but no gunshot injury was found on the body of any of the deceased and no pallet was recovered from the site and in the court statement, PW/17 Prem mentioned that Gariba Ram was having lathi and he caused injury to Ram Kishore. Therefore, the said version is an improved version and cannot be relied at all. Thus, the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court against the accused Gariba Ram is bad in the eye of law and he deserves to be acquitted. 10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Dharma Ram and Sukha Ram urged that so far as Dharma Ram is concerned, there is no specific role assigned in the complaint filed by Prem and later on in the court statement, it has been stated that Dharma Ram was having 'Farsi' in his hand but no blood was found on that farsi. Likewise, on behalf of Sukha Ram it is urged that in the complaint, omnibus allegation was made against the accused persons but in the court statement, she mentioned that Sukha Ram inflicted Kassi blow on the head of Ram Niwas. Thus, the improved version given by the complainant cannot be relied upon and the accused persons are liable to be acquitted of the offences levelled against them. 11. In support of their contention, learned counsel for the appellants relied upon judgment rendered in the case of Mahavir Singh Vs. State of M.P., 2016 10 SCC 220 , Bhinya Ram & Ors Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2007 Raj CANDID 1143 and Shiv Singh & Ors Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2010 Raj. CANDID 875. 12. Per contra, learned Public Prosecution as well as counsel for the complainant argued that all the accused persons with premeditation came there armed with deadly weapons in their hands and inflicted so many injuries to the deceased. State of Rajasthan, 2007 Raj CANDID 1143 and Shiv Singh & Ors Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2010 Raj. CANDID 875. 12. Per contra, learned Public Prosecution as well as counsel for the complainant argued that all the accused persons with premeditation came there armed with deadly weapons in their hands and inflicted so many injuries to the deceased. It is urged that this is a case in which three persons died and they received number of injuries on their body and injured complainant Prem also received injuries on her body, but anyhow she survived. Therefore, no lenient view can be taken in favour of the accused appellants. It is further urged that the trial court has wrongly acquitted seven accused persons as the complainant Prem has named all the accused persons and she mentioned the names of accused persons who came there with deadly weapon and caused injuries to the deceased. Thus, the order of acquittal passed against the seven accused persons is bad in the eye of law and they may also be convicted alongwith six convicted persons. In support of arguments, learned counsel for the complainant relied upon following decisions :- (i) Abdul Sayeed Vs. State of M.P.,2011 1 WLC(SC)(Cri) 131 (ii) Gunnana Pantayya @ Panetadu & Ors Vs. State of A.P., 2008 CrLR 718 (iii) Gangadhar Behra and ors Vs. State of Orissa,2003 1 WLC(SC)(Cri) 61 (iv) Mohd. Aslam Vs. State of Maharashtra,2004 CrLR 198 (v) Anna Reddy Sambasiva Reddy & Ors Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh,2009 Supp CrLR 288 13. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the record. 14. Before dealing with the arguments of the parties, it would be appropriate to discuss the oral evidence produced by the prosecution. PW/1 bhanwar lal is a motbir. PW/2 Saroj is also a motbir. PW/3 Narpat Singh is Constable and carrier in this case. PW/4 Dr. Sushil Kumar Diwakar is the doctor who conducted the postmortem of three deceased persons. PW/5 Ummed Singh is a witness of recovery. PW/6 Rajendra is also a witness of recovery. PW/7 Ram Pal is a motbir who has been declared hostile. PW/8 Gordhan Ram is ASI and part investigation has been done by him. PW9 Bhanwar lal is a motbir. PW/10 Pat Ram has been declared hostile. PW/11 Bhanwar lal is Head Constable and Malkhana incharge. PW/12 Dr. PW/6 Rajendra is also a witness of recovery. PW/7 Ram Pal is a motbir who has been declared hostile. PW/8 Gordhan Ram is ASI and part investigation has been done by him. PW9 Bhanwar lal is a motbir. PW/10 Pat Ram has been declared hostile. PW/11 Bhanwar lal is Head Constable and Malkhana incharge. PW/12 Dr. Mohammad Afzal is the doctor who examined the injured complainant Prem. PW/13 Pradeep is the witness who got information and went to the place of occurrence and saw the body of deceased lying there. Thus he came after the occurrence had taken place. PW/13 Chena Ram is a motbir. PW/15 Suresh Singh is the Constable and also a motbir. PW/16 Banna Ram is the motbir and arrested two accused persons. 15. Pw/17 Prem is the material witness in this case, who is also the injured complainant and an eye witness of the incident. She in her statement has categorically stated that when she was going with her father and brothers in a camel cart, all the accused persons came there armed with deadly weapons and started assaulting them. She has specifically stated that Ram Kumar inflicted Bhala blow to her father Mangu. Gariba Ram and Richpal inflicted injuries to his brother Ram Kishore on his head. Gariba Ram inflicted lathi blow and Richpal caused axe injuries to her brother. She further stated that Sukha Ram inflicted Kassi blow to her brother Ram Niwas which fell on his head. Karna Ram inflicted axe injury to Ram Niwas and Dharma Ram also inflicted injury by Kassi to his father. When she intervened, the accused persons gave beating to her also. The relevant statement given by the complainant injured PW/17 Prem reads as under :- 16. A cross-examination was done by the defence counsel but she could not be shaken and nothing fruitful came out of her evidence. It is relevant to mention here that no specific role was assigned to accused Smt. Narayani and Smt. Janaki. She has although specified the injuries caused by four accused appellants and omnibus statement has been given by the said witness against the other accused persons. 17. Pw/18 Rameshwari has narrated the story told by PW/17 Prem and she mentioned that all the accused persons gave beating to the deceased due to which they expired and complainant Prem received so many injuries on her body. 18. 17. Pw/18 Rameshwari has narrated the story told by PW/17 Prem and she mentioned that all the accused persons gave beating to the deceased due to which they expired and complainant Prem received so many injuries on her body. 18. Pw/19 Hari Ram is a motbir. PW/20 Lakha Ram is a carrier in this case. PW/21 Banshi lal is a motbir. PW/22 Sayari has mentioned that injured Prem came to her house and informed that all the accused persons caused injuries to them in which three persons died on the spot and she received injuries. In her cross-examination she mentioned that when she reached at the place of occurrence, at that time all the accused persons had ran away. PW/23 Moti Ram also mentioned that Prem informed him that all the accused came their and caused injuries to them due to which three persons expired and she also received injuries. PW/24 Pushpendra is S.H.O. and investigating officer who filed challan against the accused persons. 19. As far as the statements recorded on behalf of defence side are concerned, DW/1 Khemdas stated that name of accused Munni has been falsely mentioned as she was working in the field from 8 AM till 5 PM in the evening. DW/2 Shiv Karan mentioned that he alongwith accused Sepa Devi, Gurpal and sita Ram were working in the field from morning 8 AM till 7 PM in the evening, therefore, these accused persons have been falsely implicated. DW/3 Ganpat also mentioned that he alongwith Shiv Karana and Ram pal were working in the field the whole day of incident. DW/4 Japan mentioned that she alongwith Ganpat, Ramniwas and Indra were working there and name of these accused have been falsely impleaded. DW/5 Prem Sukh stated that he alongwith Narayani was working in the field from morning 8 AM till 5 PM in the evening and name of Narayani has been falsely impleaded. DW/6 Shyam lal stated that he alongwith Hapa Ram and Babu Devi were working in the field and their names have been falsely impleaded. DW/7 Narayan Ram mentioned that he and Sukha Ram were working in the field and name of Sukha Ram has been falsely impleaded. DW/8 Shrawan Ram also narrated that he and Janaki both were working in the field and therefore, Janaki has been falsely implicated in this case. 20. DW/7 Narayan Ram mentioned that he and Sukha Ram were working in the field and name of Sukha Ram has been falsely impleaded. DW/8 Shrawan Ram also narrated that he and Janaki both were working in the field and therefore, Janaki has been falsely implicated in this case. 20. We have examined the story of prosecution as well as statement of witnesses recorded on behalf of prosecution as well as defence side. 21. So far as the medical evidence is concerned, as per the post mortem report (Ex. P. 23) of the deceased Ram Kishore, the following injuries were found on the body of the deceased :- 1. Incised wound "4x1" inch bone deep in side of upper parital of occipital bone. Cutting fracture present on the occipital. 2. Incised wound 2.5" x bone leg & posterior part of parietal area. 3. Incised wound 2x inch x bone deep. Posterior & upper part of Ct temporal area. 4. Incised wound 2 "x x bone deep. Posterior and lower part of Lt temporal area. 5. Incised wound 2"x x bone at Lt and upper part of frontal area 6. Incised wound 1"x x bone deep asore Lt eye 7. Incised wound 1x 1/4x bone deep Rt ye 8. Incised wound 3x1 x 2 deep upper part of the Rt side of neck 9. Stab wound 1x x inch deep lower part of Lt side of neck 10. Incised wound 1 x 1 x bone deep medial part of clavicle 1 cutting fracture of medial part of Lt clavicle bone 11. Lacerated wound 4 inch x 2.5 inch x bone deep dorsum of left hand 12. incised wound 2 x 1 x bone deep upper and medial part of Lt fore arm(cutting fracture of upper part Lt ulna ) 13. incised wound 2 x 1 x bone deep. Dorsum of Rt hand. Fracture of forefeet metacarple 14. Chop wound 3x1x bone deep upper and anterior part of Lt leg. Cutting fracture of upper part of Lt tibia. 15. Chop wound 4x 1 inch x bone deep anterior and medial part of Lt leg cutting fracture of tibia and fibula at middle portion. 16. Chop wound 2x 1 x bone deep, upper and middle part of Rt leg (cutting fracture of upper part of tibia) 17. Stab wound 1x x deep middle portion of medial part of Rt leg. 22. 16. Chop wound 2x 1 x bone deep, upper and middle part of Rt leg (cutting fracture of upper part of tibia) 17. Stab wound 1x x deep middle portion of medial part of Rt leg. 22. All incised wounds are caused by sharp weapon stab wound are caused by sharp weapon, chop wound are by sharp and heavy weapon. Lacerated wound by blunt weapon." 23. As per opinion of medical board, cause of death is due to extensive haemorrhage cut down of blood vessel and head injury. Thus, the deceased has suffered sharp edged, stab injuries, chop injures and injuries by blunt weapon. 24. The post-mortem report of deceased Ram Niwas is Ex.P/25 in which following injuries were found on the body of deceased :- 1. Swelling of size 4x4 inch on lower part of Lt leg. Lt tibia and fibula found fracture beneath swelling. 2. Swelling of size 6x6 inch found of upper part of Lt leg laterally upper part of Lt tibia and fibula below swelling. These two injuries are caused by blunt weapon. 3. Punctured wound x inch x bone deep 2 in number present in upper and medial part of Rt leg one inch apart from each other caused by sharp weapon. 4. Punctured wound x x inch upper and anterior part of Lt leg 5. Reddish Bruise 9x inch Rt side of Anterior chart wall extending from Rt Axilla to lower part of sternum. 6. Reddish Bruise 2x 1inch Cateral part of Rt leg to contrition 7. Reddish Bruise 4x 1 below Lt lateral part of Lt leg Injury No. 5, 6 and 7 caused by blunt weapon. 8. Lacerated wound 1x liner dorsum of middle phalana of Lt middle finger. 9. Lacerated wound 1 x bone deep in dorsum of lower and medial part of lt forearm. Fracture of lower part of Lt ulna caused by blunt weapon. 10 Incised wound 1x bone deep Rt side of chin. 11. Incised wound 1 x 1 x inch present below lt side of mandible. 12. Incised 1x inch muscle deep on Lt cheek 13. Incised wound 2 x bone deep inch. Anterior part of Lt parietal area. Injury No. 10 to 10 caused by sharp weapon in nature. 14. Lacerated wound 2 inch x Irregular shape medial and posterior part of parietal area. 12. Incised 1x inch muscle deep on Lt cheek 13. Incised wound 2 x bone deep inch. Anterior part of Lt parietal area. Injury No. 10 to 10 caused by sharp weapon in nature. 14. Lacerated wound 2 inch x Irregular shape medial and posterior part of parietal area. 15 Lacerated wound 2x inch x bone deep, middle and medial part of Rt parietal area. 16. Lacerated wound 1 inch x inch x bone deep, anterior and medial part Lt parietal area 17. Incised wound 1x inch x bone deep middle and upper part of frontal area. 18. lacerated wound 4x 2inchx bone deep anterior and medial part of Rt parietal area large heametoma of size. Injury No. 14, 15, 16 and 18 caused by blunt weapon and Injury number 17 caused by blunt weapon." 25. As per opinion of medical board, cause of death is due to shock as a result of head injury. 26. The post-mortem report of deceased Mangu Ram is Ex.P/26 in which following injuries were found on the body of deceased :- 1. A completely perforated wound present on medial extending from Rt side of neck in front of lower part of sternomastoid muscle where its parameter is 2 x 2 inch margins are inverted. The wound approaches upper wound and posterior direction to Lt side about 5 inch involving injury to esophagus port part of tracher. Soft tissue muscle nerves and main blood vessel (carotid artery, carotid veins and nerves) neck and exit out of posterior and upper part of Lt side neck in front of Lt sternomastoid muscle where its size 1x1inch and margin are everted both entrance and exit wound are caused by sharp weapon. 2. Incised wound 2 (d) x 6 (L) x 2(w) inch present on Rt side of neck caused by sharp weapon. 3. Incised wound 2 inch linere muscle deep present on upper and posterior part of Rt side of neck 4. Lacerated wound 2 x 1 inch wound deep right front of temporal area extending above right eye to Rt temporal area. 5. Depressed fracture present on Rt side of frontal bone and Rt temporal bone. 6. 2 inch liner bone deep lacerated wound present on Rt side of frontal area 7. Incised wound 1x inch muscle deep present on left cheek 8. 5. Depressed fracture present on Rt side of frontal bone and Rt temporal bone. 6. 2 inch liner bone deep lacerated wound present on Rt side of frontal area 7. Incised wound 1x inch muscle deep present on left cheek 8. Incised wound 2x x 1inch x inch deep present on lower part of left side of neck. 9. Incised wound 1x x inch and Rt part of neck. 10. Incised wound 2 x x inch deep present on upper and Rt part and anterior neck. 11. Incised wound 1x x muscle deep on anterior and upper part of neck. 12. Abrasion 2x2 inch flue part of Lt forearm. 13. Fracture of lower part of Rt side of radius and ulna bone. 14. Abrasion 4 inch linen lateral part of Rt thigh. 15 Abrasion 6 inch linen lateral part of Rt thigh. 16. Incised wound 6x1x bone deep anterior and middle part of Rt leg. Fracture of upper portion of Rt tibia and fibula (Cutting fracture). 17. Incised on 2x inch muscle deep. Lower and medial part of Rt leg. 18. Incised wound 1x1/2 inch muscle deep. Lower and anterior part of Rt leg. 19 Incised wound 1x1/2 inch muscle deep. Lower and anterior part of Rt leg. One inch apart from injury no. 18. 20. Incised wound 5x1/2 inch x muscle deep medial and lower part of Rt leg. 21. Incised wound 1x1/2 inch bone deep medial and lower part of Rt leg tibia and fibula of Lt Cy are found. 22. Fractured at upper and lower part. 23. Abrasion 3x1 inch posterior and medial part of upper portion of Lt leg 24. Abrasion 4x1/2 inch medial part of Lt thigh." 27. As per opinion of medical board, cause of death is due to extensive haemorrhage as a result of cut down injury to major blood vessel of neck (Injury No.1 & 2). 28. As far as the motive part is concerned, it has come on record from the evidence of PW/17 Prem that litigations are going on between the complainant party and the accused persons for last 30 years. Thus, motive on the part of accused persons for assaulting the complainant and all the three deceased is established and proved. 29. 28. As far as the motive part is concerned, it has come on record from the evidence of PW/17 Prem that litigations are going on between the complainant party and the accused persons for last 30 years. Thus, motive on the part of accused persons for assaulting the complainant and all the three deceased is established and proved. 29. As far as the recovery part is concerned, from the possession of accused appellant Ram Kunwar @ Ratan lal, an iron knife type bhala was recovered by the police which was blood vide recovery memo Ex.P/38 which was stained and as per FSL report Ex.P/91, the blood found on the knife was matching with the bloodgroup of deceased person. From the possession of accused appellant Gariba Ram, one lathi was recovered vide recovery memo Ex.P/33, which was also blood stained and according to FSL report, blood group on the lathi was same as that of deceased person. From the possession of Sukha Ram, a sharpedged weapon Kassi was recovered vide recovery memo Ex.P/54 and as per FSL report, the blood found matched with the blood group of the deceased. Similarly, from the possession of Dharma Ram, a Farsi was recovered vide recovery memo Ex.P/41 and according to FSL report, the blood found matched with the blood group of deceased. Thus, the recovery of weapons from the accused persons is duly corroborated with the story of prosecution and the trial court has rightly believed the recovery of weapons against the accused appellants. 30. As far as the oral evidence is concerned, from the statement of eye-witness PW/17 Prem, it is apparent that the injured complainant is the sole eye witness of the horrifying incident. 31. Words coming from a 17 years old woman who witnessed her father and two young brothers beaten to death by so many armed people are not just words. This young woman is left alone in her family with injuries on her body and heart forever. Her words share the tragedy she underwent just for property issues which were going on for years. 32. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Abdul Sayeed Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2010 10 SCC 259 has categorically held that the testimony of the injured witness is accorded a special status in law. Her words share the tragedy she underwent just for property issues which were going on for years. 32. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Abdul Sayeed Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2010 10 SCC 259 has categorically held that the testimony of the injured witness is accorded a special status in law. This is as a consequence of the fact that the injuries caused to the witness is an in-built guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and because the witness will not want to let his actual assailant go unpunished merely to falsely implicate a third party for the commission of the offence. Following observations have been made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment with regard to injured witness :- "26. The question of the weight to be attached to the evidence of a witness that was himself injured in the course of the occurrence has been extensively discussed by this Court. Where a witness to the occurrence has himself been injured in the incident, the testimony of such a witness is generally considered to be very reliable, as he is a witness that comes with a built-in guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and is unlikely to spare his actual assailant(s) in order to falsely implicate someone. "Convincing evidence is required to discredit an injured witness." [Vide Ramlagan Singh v. State of Bihar, 1973 3 SCC 881 ], Malkhan Singh v. State of U.P., 1975 AIR(SC) 12, Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab, 1983 3 SCC 470 , Appabhai v. State of Gujarat, 1988 AIR(SC) 696, Bonkya v. State of Maharashtra, 1995 6 SCC 447 , Bhag Singh, 1997 7 SCC 712 , Mohar v. State of U.P., 2002 7 SCC 606 (SCC p. 606b-c), Dinesh Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, 2008 8 SCC 270 , Vishnu v. State of Rajasthan, 2009 10 SCC 477 , Annareddy Sambasiva Reddy v. State of A.P., 2009 12 SCC 546 and Balraje v. State of Maharashtra, 2010 6 SCC 673 . 27. While deciding this issue, a similar view was taken in Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab, 2009 9 SCC 719 , where this Court reiterated the special evidentiary status accorded to the testimony of an injured accused and relying on its earlier judgments held as under: (SCC pp. 27. While deciding this issue, a similar view was taken in Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab, 2009 9 SCC 719 , where this Court reiterated the special evidentiary status accorded to the testimony of an injured accused and relying on its earlier judgments held as under: (SCC pp. 726-27, paras 28-29) "Darshan Singh (PW 4) was an injured witness. He had been examined by the doctor. His testimony could not be brushed aside lightly. He had given full details of the incident as he was present at the time when the assailants reached the tubewell. In Shivalingappa Kallayanappa v. State of Karnataka, 1994 Supp3 SCC 235 this Court has held that the deposition of the injured witness should be relied upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies, for the reason that his presence on the scene stands established in case it is proved that he suffered the injury during the said incident. In State of U.P. v. Kishan Chand, 2004 7 SCC 629 a similar view has been reiterated observing that the testimony of a stamped witness has its own relevance and efficacy. The fact that the witness sustained injuries at the time and place of occurrence, lends support to his testimony that he was present during the occurrence. In case the injured witness is subjected to lengthy crossexamination and nothing can be elicited to discard his testimony, it should be relied upon (vide Krishan v. State of Haryana, 2006 12 SCC 459 . Thus, we are of the considered opinion that evidence of Darshan Singh (PW 4) has rightly been relied upon by the courts below." 28. The law on the point can be summarised to the effect that the testimony of the injured witness is accorded a special status in law. This is as a consequence of the fact that the injury to the witness is an inbuilt guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and because the witness will not want to let his actual assailant go unpunished merely to falsely implicate a third party for the commission of the offence. Thus, the deposition of the injured witness should be relied upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies therein." 33. Thus, the deposition of the injured witness should be relied upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies therein." 33. As per injury report of injured PW/17 Prem (Ex.P/52), following injuries have been found on her person :- "1. Incised wound 2x1/2inch muscle deep exterior on lateral part of Rt wrift. 2. Abrasion and swelling 1x1inch upper and exterior part of Lt forearm, 3. Lacerated wound 3 inch liner bone deep. Posterior part of Lt parietal area. 4. Abrasion 1 x 1 inch on back (lower part of inter scapular area). 5. Abrasion 6 inch liner horizontal upper part of Lt scapular area. 6. Abrasion x exterior part of Lt leg. 7. Complain of pain all over body but no visible sign of injury of except above described. 8. Complain of pain at Lt shoulder." 34. Thus, the injured witness Prem has received injuries on her body which proved that the accused appellants came there with an intention to kill all the four persons but somehow, the injured witness managed to escape but three lives were lost on the spot. There is no strong ground for rejecting the evidence of PW/17 Prem as her evidence is consistent and does not suffer from any contradictions. 35. Pw/17 Prem in her statement has specifically assigned the injuries caused by Ram Kunwar @ Ratan lal, Gariba Ram, Sukha Ram and Dharma Ram to the deceased persons. As per medical evidence, the deceased persons received injuries in numerous places all over their body. Thus, the conviction recorded by the trial court against the accused appellants Ram Kunwar @ Ratan lal, Gariba Ram, Sukha Ram and Dharma Ram are proved as corroborated by the statement of injured eye-witness PW/17 Prem. However, as far as the accused persons Smt. Narayani and Smt. Janaki are concerned, no specific role has been assigned by the said eye-witness and similarly situated other female members have already been acquitted by the trial court. Thus, we are of the opinion that conviction and sentence recorded against the accused Smt. Narayani and Smt. Janaki are not sustainable in the eye of law. 36. Thus, we are of the opinion that conviction and sentence recorded against the accused Smt. Narayani and Smt. Janaki are not sustainable in the eye of law. 36. Hon'Ble Supreme Court in the case of Abdul Mannan vs. State of Assam, 2010 3 SCC 381 has held as under :- "The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagaon, Assam, did not carefully marshall the prosecution evidence on record and was swayed away by the fact that the injuries were caused by 'sharp edged weapon' and ultimately, those injuries caused by sharp edged weapon were not found by the doctor in his evidence. The entire prosecution evidence was discarded solely on this ground. According to the High Court, the words 'sharp edged' were added subsequently between the two lines in the report. We have checked the original record and we tend to concur with the findings of the High Court. The Court must examine the entire case comprehensively. Even if some inconsistency or discrepancy is discovered, then its impact on the total prosecution version must be carefully examined. In the instant case, how any court can legitimately ignore the testimony of five eye witnesses, including two injured eye witnesses, particularly when their version is wholly consistent and gets full corroboration from the medical evidence? The statements of all eye witnesses including the injured eye witnesses are wholly consistent and are fully corroborated with the medical evidence. ...In the opinion of Dr. Talukdar, the death was a result of head injury sustained by the deceased. According to him, all the injuries were ante-mortem in nature caused by blunt force impact, homicidal in nature. The medical evidence corroborates the evidence of five eye witnesses including the statements of the injured eye witnesses. The Trial Court gravely erred in ignoring the most important and material aspect of the prosecution version." 37. As far as the question as to whether the accused persons formed an unlawful assembly, it is not disputed that the accused persons were present at the site of the incident and were armed with deadly weapons. They had shared the common intention of assaulting the deceased persons which is indicative of the fact that all the accused persons, were the members of unlawful assembly. 38. Hon'Ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramachandran and Ors. They had shared the common intention of assaulting the deceased persons which is indicative of the fact that all the accused persons, were the members of unlawful assembly. 38. Hon'Ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramachandran and Ors. v. State of Kerala, 2011 9 SCC 257 , has observed as under: "Section 149 Indian Penal Code has essentially two ingredients viz. (i) offence committed by any member of an unlawful assembly consisting of five or more members, and (ii) such offence must be committed in prosecution of the common object Under Section 141 Indian Penal Code) of the assembly or members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object. For 'common object', it is not necessary that there should be prior concert in the sense of a meeting of the members of the unlawful assembly, the common object may form on the spur of the moment; it is enough if it is adopted by all the members and is shared by all of them." 39. Learned counsel for the appellant Sukha Ram and Dharma Ram relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Bhinya Ram & Ors and Shiv Singh . The said cases do not render any help to the accused appellants as in the case of Bhinya Ram there was prevarications in the statement of eye-witnesses and in the initial version, names of all the accused persons were not contained whereas, in the present case, the injured eye witness PW/17 Prem has named all the accused appellants and stated their specific role in causing injury. In the case of Shiv Singh it was observed that the evidence of witness PW/1 Bheru was not reliable being highly fluctuable and not maintaining any consistency while deposing before the Court. On the contrary, in the present case, in the cross-examination, nothing inconsistent was found in the statement of the witness against the accused appellants and she has reiterated the version as given in the written complaint. 40. Learned counsel for the appellant Gariba Ram has relied upon the decision rendered in the case of Mahavir Singh Vs. On the contrary, in the present case, in the cross-examination, nothing inconsistent was found in the statement of the witness against the accused appellants and she has reiterated the version as given in the written complaint. 40. Learned counsel for the appellant Gariba Ram has relied upon the decision rendered in the case of Mahavir Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2016 10 SCC 220 wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court in view of contradicted testimony of an interested witness and contradictory statements by prosecution witnesses coupled with unmatched medical evidence, set aside the judgment and conviction passed by the High Court. In the present case, as stated above, statement given by the sole injured eye witness is consistent and the injuries are corroborated by the medical evidence. 41. Now as far as the appeals filed by the complainant as well as the State of Rajasthan against the acquittal of seven accused persons are concerned, it is relevant to mention that according to the complaint filed by PW/17 Prem, no role was assigned to any of the accused-respondent and in Court statement, she described specific role to only four accused persons and no specific role was assigned to other accused persons and the police after thorough investigation filed challan against only 13 persons out of 28 named persons. Since the injured witness PW/17 is the sole eyewitness and in absence of any specific role being assigned by her to other accused persons, no conviction can be recorded against them. The trial court after due appreciation of evidence has acquitted seven accused persons and therefore, there is no force in the contention so raised by the counsel for the complainant so also the learned Public Prosecutor. 42. In the case of Mrinal Das & others v. The State of Tripura, 2011 9 SCC 479 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after looking into previous judgments, has laid down parameters, in which interference can be made in a judgment of acquittal, by observing as under: "An order of acquittal is to be interfered with only when there are "compelling and substantial reasons", for doing so. If the order is "clearly unreasonable", it is a compelling reason for interference. If the order is "clearly unreasonable", it is a compelling reason for interference. When the trial Court has ignored the evidence or misread the material evidence or has ignored material documents like dying declaration/report of ballistic experts etc., the appellate court is competent to reverse the decision of the trial Court depending on the materials placed." 43. Similarly, in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Shera Ram alias Vishnu Dutta, 2012 1 SCC 602 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:-- "A judgment of acquittal has the obvious consequence of granting freedom to the accused. This Court has taken a consistent view that unless the judgment in appeal is contrary to evidence, palpably erroneous or a view which could not have been taken by the court of competent jurisdiction keeping in view the settled canons of criminal jurisprudence, this Court shall be reluctant to interfere with such judgment of acquittal. The penal laws in India are primarily based upon certain fundamental procedural values, which are right to fair trial and presumption of innocence. A person is presumed to be innocent till proven guilty and once held to be not guilty of a criminal charge, he enjoys the benefit of such presumption which could be interfered with only for valid and proper reasons. An appeal against acquittal has always been differentiated from a normal appeal against conviction. Wherever there is perversity of facts and/or law appearing in the judgment, the appellate court would be within its jurisdiction to interfere with the judgment of acquittal, but otherwise such interference is not called for." 44. After discussion various judgments, the Hon'ble Apex Court opined as under:-- "There is a very thin but a fine distinction between an appeal against conviction on the one hand and acquittal on the other. The preponderance of judicial opinion of this Court is that there is no substantial difference between an appeal against acquittal except that while dealing with an appeal against acquittal the Court keeps in view the position that the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused has been fortified by his acquittal and if the view adopted by the High Court is a reasonable one and the conclusion reached by it had Us grounds well set out on the materials on record, the acquittal may not be interfered with. Thus, this fine distinction has to be kept in mind by the Court while exercising its appellate jurisdiction. The golden rule is that the Court is obliged and it will not abjure its duty to prevent miscarriage of justice, where interference is imperative and the ends of justice so require and it is essential to appease the judicial conscience. The trial of juvenile Richhpal and Karma Ram are still pending before the Juvenile Justice Board, Nagaur. 45. As a result of aforesaid discussion, D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 632/2011 stands partly allowed. So far as the appeal filed by accused Narayani and Janki are concerned, the same is allowed and they are acquitted from the offences under Section 302/149, 148, 323/149, 324/149, 325/149, 326/149 IPC. However, the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court against the accused Ram Kunwar @ Ratan lal for offence under Section 302/149, 148, 323/149, 324/149, 325/149, 326/149 IPC is maintained and his appeal stands dismissed. Both the accused Narayani W/o Sukha Ram and Janki W/o Ram Kunwar are on bail. Their bail bonds are discharged. 46. As far as appeal filed by Gariba Ram being D. B. Criminal Appeal NO. 559/2011 is concerned, the same stands dismissed and the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court for offence under Section 302/149, 148, 323/149, 324/149, 325/149, 326/149 IPC against him is confirmed. Similarly, the appeal filed by accused Sukha Ram and Dharma Ram being D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 668/2011 and D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 669/2011 respectively, also stand dismissed and their conviction and sentence for offence under Section 302/149, 148, 323/149, 324/149, 325/149, 326/149 IPC is affirmed. 47. As far as D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 608/2011 & D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 910/2011 filed by the complainant and the State of Rajasthan respectively are concerned, both learned counsel for the complainant so also learned Public Prosecutor have failed to show any error of law or on facts on the basis of which interference can be made by this Court in the judgment under challenge. Accordingly, D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 608/2011 & D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 910/2011 filed by the complainant and the State of Rajasthan respectively are hereby dismissed.