JUDGMENT Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. —Motiram s/o Mooliram, Surajbhan s/o Heeralal, Mewaram s/o Kanhaiyalal, Natthuram s/o Ratanlal, Haribabu s/o Hetram, Lajja Ram s/o Heera, Jagdish s/o Mewaram, Rameshwar s/o Indralal, Bhikki s/o Moolaram, Suresh s/o Tikaram and Rammi @ Ramesh s/o Kalliram, were tried by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Bharatpur in case arising out of FIR No. 155/84 (Ex.P.27), registered at Police Station Roopwas, District Bharatpur for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 336, 307, 323, 324, 504 IPC. Subsequently, due to death of Ram Dayal, injured, offence under Section 302 IPC was added. 2. The Court of Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Bharatpur in Sessions Case No. 41/86 (118/85) rendered the impugned judgment dated 19.2.1987 whereby acquitted seven accused, namely Surajbhan, Mewaram, Natthu Ram, Haribabu, Lajja Ram, Moti Ram and Jagdish of the charges framed under Sections 147, 452, 323/149, 324/149 and 302/149 IPC. Rameshawar accused was convicted for offences under Sections 302, 323/34 and 324/34 IPC, whereas Bhikki was convicted of offences under Sections 323, 324 and 302/34 IPC. Suresh was convicted of offences under Sections 323, 324/34, 302/34 IPC. Rammi @ Ramesh was convicted of offences under Sections 323, 324/34, 302/34 and 452 IPC. Having convicted the appellants of the above said offences, the trial Judge vide a separate order of even date sentenced the above said four accused-appellants as under:- Accused-Rameshwar U/s. 302 IPC: Life imprisonment, to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default thereof to undergo six months imprisonment. U/s. 323/34 IPC: Three months rigorous imprisonment. U/s. 324/34 IPC: Six months rigorous imprisonment. Accused-Bhikki U/s. 302/34 IPC: Life imprisonment, to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default thereof to undergo six months imprisonment. U/s. 324 IPC: Six months rigorous imprisonment. U/s. 323 IPC: Three months rigorous imprisonment. Accused-Rammi @ Ramesh U/s. 302/34 IPC: Life imprisonment, to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default thereof to undergo six months imprisonment. U/s. 323 IPC: Three months rigorous imprisonment. U/s. 324/34 IPC: Six months rigorous imprisonment. U/s. 452 IPC: Three months rigorous imprisonment. Accused-Suresh U/s. 302/34 IPC: Life imprisonment, to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default thereof to undergo six months imprisonment. U/s. 323 IPC: Three months rigorous imprisonment. U/s. 324/34 IPC: Six months rigorous imprisonment. (All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently) 3. U/s. 324/34 IPC: Six months rigorous imprisonment. U/s. 452 IPC: Three months rigorous imprisonment. Accused-Suresh U/s. 302/34 IPC: Life imprisonment, to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default thereof to undergo six months imprisonment. U/s. 323 IPC: Three months rigorous imprisonment. U/s. 324/34 IPC: Six months rigorous imprisonment. (All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently) 3. Aggrieved against their conviction and sentence, Bhikki s/o Moolaram and Rammi @ Ramesh s/o Kalli Ram preferred D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 94/87, Suresh s/o Tikaram instituted D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 105/87 and Rameshwar s/o Indralal filed D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 108/87. Since in all the three appeals same judgment of conviction and order of sentence has been assailed, all the three appeals were ordered to be heard together. 4. We shall decide these three appeals listed before us together by this common judgment. 5. During pendency of the appeals, Rammi @ Ramesh s/o Kalliram, appellant No. 2 to D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 94/1987, and Suresh s/o Tikaram, appellant to D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 105/87 have died. 6. In pursuance of orders dated 14.7.2017 and 10.8.2017, Shri Arpan Choudhary, SHO, Police Station Roopwas, District Bharatpur, has filed two separate affidavits dated 18.8.2017. Both the affidavits are taken on record. As per the said affidavits, Rammi @ Ramesh s/o Kalliram died on 18.1.1990, whereas Suresh s/o Tikaram expired on 29.5.2004. 7. In view of two separate affidavits filed which have been taken on record, D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 94/1987 qua accused-appellant No. 2 Rammi @ Ramesh s/o Kalliram and D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 105/1987 preferred by Suresh s/o Tikaram are dismissed as having abated. 8. Out of 11 accused sent for trial, now we are left with two accused, namely Bhikki s/o Moolaram, appellant No. 1 to D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 94/1987, and Rameshwar s/o Inderlal, appellant to D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 108/1987. 9. Criminal proceedings in the present case were set into motion on the basis of written report (Ex.P.1) presented by Lachhi Ram (PW.1) before Jagveer Singh (PW.10) who was then posted as SHO, Police Station Roopwas. On the basis of written report (Ex.P.1), formal FIR (Ex.P.2) bearing No. 155/84, was registered at Police Station Roopwas. 10. Written report (Ex.P.1) when translated into English reads as under:- "To, The SHO Sahab, Roopwas. On the basis of written report (Ex.P.1), formal FIR (Ex.P.2) bearing No. 155/84, was registered at Police Station Roopwas. 10. Written report (Ex.P.1) when translated into English reads as under:- "To, The SHO Sahab, Roopwas. It is submitted that on 24.12.1984 in the night at about 8.00 PM Motiram s/o Mooli, Rameshwar s/o Indra Singh, Haribabu s/o Hetram, Nattho s/o Ratanlal, Bhikki s/o Kalli, Rammi s/o Kalli, caste Nagi Brahmin, and Mewaram s/o Kanhaiya, Suresh s/o Tikaram, Surajbhan s/o Heera, Lajja Ram s/o Heera, caste Brahmin, residents of our village came armed with Lathi, Farsi and Ballam. They climbed over the roof of our house and gave abuses on the names of mother and sister. They started pelting stones upon us. We restrained them. They armed with Lathi, Ballam and Farsi, in our house, caused us merciless beating. Rameshwar caused a Farsi blow on the head of my brother Ram Dayal, Bhikki caused injury with Ballam on the neck of Jagdish (emphasis supplied). They also caused injuries to Nattho Ram and daughter Meena. In the night we came to the hospital Roopwas and got ourselves medico-legally examined and received treatment. Medico-legal reports of all the four are presented along with the application. Head injury on the person of Ram Dayal is serious. He is lying admitted in Roopwas hospital. These accused were having an old grudge with us and therefore, they have given beating. Sarman and Durga Prasad residents of village saved us, otherwise they would have killed us. I am presenting the report. Legal action be taken. Sd/ Lachhiram s/o Babulal." 11. From perusal of above written report (Ex.P.1) on the basis of which formal FIR (Ex.P.2) was registered, it is discernible that specific injury is attributed to Rameshwar accused on the head of Ram Dayal deceased, whereas Bhikky has caused an injury armed with Ballam on the neck of Jagdish (PW.2). Author of injuries on the person of Nattho Ram (PW.4) and Meena (PW.3) have not been mentioned in the FIR. Ram Dayal died subsequently. Injured Jagdish, Meena and Nattho Ram appeared in court as PW.2, PW.3 and PW.4 respectively along with complainant Lacchi Ram (PW.1). Prosecution in all examined 14 witnesses. 12. Dr. Hari Prasad Gupta (PW.6) on 24.12.1984 at 10.15 PM prepared injury report (Ex.P.15) in respect of Ram Dayal. In the injury report (Ex.P.15), following injuries have been noted:- "1. Injured Jagdish, Meena and Nattho Ram appeared in court as PW.2, PW.3 and PW.4 respectively along with complainant Lacchi Ram (PW.1). Prosecution in all examined 14 witnesses. 12. Dr. Hari Prasad Gupta (PW.6) on 24.12.1984 at 10.15 PM prepared injury report (Ex.P.15) in respect of Ram Dayal. In the injury report (Ex.P.15), following injuries have been noted:- "1. Incised wound, regular margin, bleeding present from the wound, red in colour, 3" x " x deep bone on the left side parietal region 31/2" above the left eyebrow, obliquely extended, sharp. 2. Abrasion, red, " x " on the left side maxillary region, simple, blunt. 3. Swelling with tenderness, 3" x 2" on the central and lateral part of the left arm, obliquely extended, simple blunt " 13. Injury No. 1 was suspected fracture. The Doctor opined that injury No. 1 was caused with sharp weapon, whereas other injures were caused by simple weapon. 14. On the same day at 10.30 PM, Dr. Hari Prasad Gupta (PW.6) examined Jagdish (PW.2) and in the injury report (Ex.P.16) has noted following two injuries:- "1. Incised wound regular margin, bleeding from the wound present, red, 11/4" x " x " on the left side root of the neck just above the medial end of the clavicular bone, obliquely extended. Simple, sharp. 2. Abrasion, red, " x ?" on the post and lower part of the left fore arm transversely extended, simple blunt. " Both the injuries were declared as simple. 15. On the same day on 24.12.1984 at 10.45 PM, Dr. Hari Prasad Gupta (PW.6) examined Meena (PW.3) and in the injury report (Ex.P.17) noted following injury:- "1. Lacerated wound, irregular margin, bleeding present red in colour, 11/4" x " x " on the right side elbow joint obliquely extended, simple blunt." 16. On the same day at 10.50 PM, Dr. Hari Prasad Gupta (PW.6) examined Nattho Ram (PW.4) and in the injury report (Ex.P.18) had noted following injuries on his person:- "1. Bruise with lacerated wound, irregulr margin, bleeding present, red, 21/2" x 1" size of the bruise, with " x " x " lacerated wound in the center part of the bruise, on the left shoulder region, obliquely extended, simple and blunt. 2. Abrasion, red, " x " on the upper and lateral part of the left leg just near the knee joint, simple blunt. " 17. 2. Abrasion, red, " x " on the upper and lateral part of the left leg just near the knee joint, simple blunt. " 17. Both the injuries were declared simple and were caused with blunt weapon. 18. Ram Dayal while admitted in the hospital expired on 25.12.1984 at 2.00 PM and his post-mortem was conducted on the same date at 3.00 PM. We need not notice external injuries noted in the post-mortem report (Ex.P.19) as they are same as noted in injury report (Ex.P.15). However, on internal examination, Dr. Hari Prasad Gupta (PW.6) has found presence of incised wound 3" x " x deep bone on the left side parietal region of scalp and fracture of the left parietal bone and presence of extradural haematoma in between the skull and dura matter. Doctor also found that brain membrance were congested. As per opinion of the doctor, death had occurred due to shock and brain hemorrhage caused by head injury and rupture of the middle meningeal artery. 19. Lachhi Ram, complainant first informant (PW.1) in court deposed that on the date of occurrence at 9.00 PM he was present in Chhappar in front of room of his house. Ram Dayal his brother was lying along with him. A Lalten was emitting light in the Chappar. Then accused came armed. While giving abuses, they were pelting stones. Accused were armed with Lathis, Ballam and stones. Rameshwar was armed with Farsi, Nattho was armed with Lathi, Haribabu was armed with Lathi, Bhikki was armed with Ballam, Suresh was also armed with Lathi. The witness stated that he is not aware as to what weapons were with remaining accused. His brother Ram Dayal confronted the accused as to why they are giving abuses. Moti Ram was having a Lathi in his hand. All the accused opened an attack. Meanwhile, Durga and Sarman were also attracted to the spot. Haribabu also caused injury on left temporal region of Ram Dayal. Nattho Ram accused caused injury on left arm with a Lathi on the person of Ram Dayal. Meanwhile, Jagdish came to intervene. Bhikki accused caused injury with a Ballam on his neck. Suresh also caused injury with Lathi on left hand of Jagdish. Bhikki Ram and Rammi accused also caused injury to Nattho with Lathi. Thereafter the accused had left the spot. Meanwhile, Jagdish came to intervene. Bhikki accused caused injury with a Ballam on his neck. Suresh also caused injury with Lathi on left hand of Jagdish. Bhikki Ram and Rammi accused also caused injury to Nattho with Lathi. Thereafter the accused had left the spot. Lacchi Ram (PW.1) and Durga brought Jagdish, Ram Dayal and Natthu to Roopwas hospital. Meena daughter of Natthu Ram was also transported to Roopwas hospital. After Lacchi Ram (PW.1) had departed with the injured to the hospital, accused had pelted stones at the house of Natthu. The witness stated that since in the night condition of the accused was serious, he could not come to lodge the report. The witness stated that within 40 minutes they reached at the hospital. After their arrival in hospital, after half an hour, the Doctor came and conducted medico-legal examination. 20. Jagdish (PW.2) has reiterated the version unfolded by Lachhi Ram (PW.1). He also stated that Durga and Sarman were also attracted to the spot. The witness further stated that Lacchi Ram (PW.1) told him that when he went to fetch water from the well, Suresh had given him a threat. 21. Meena (PW.3) and Nattho Ram (PW.4) being injured have corroborated the testimony of Lacchi Ram (PW.1) and Jagdish (PW.2) who was also injured in the occurrence. 22. Khushi Ram (PW.5) on 3.4.1985 had witnessed the arrest of the accused Suresh vide Exhibit-P.13. 23. We have already given gist of statement of Dr. Hari Prasad Gupta (PW.6). 24. Ghanshyam (PW.7) stated that on 25.12.1984 police had come to Village Bokoli in respect of murder of Ram Dayal. They prepared a site plan. This witness had attested the site plan (Ex.P.3). 25. Sunil Dhariwal (PW.8) deposed that on 17.8.1985 he was posted as City Magistrate, Bharatpur. This witness stated that before him a sealed paper containing voters list pertaining to Booth No. 37, Legislative Assembly Constituency, Roopwas was opened. 26. Kanhaiyalal (PW.9) deposed that on 17.8.1985 he was posted as official in the Treasury of Bharatpur. The witness stated that sealed record pertaining to voters list was opened in front of City Magistrate. 27. Jagveer Singh (PW.10) being Station House Officer has proved various facets of investigation. 28. Ramanlal Gupta (PW.11) and Brij Naresh Sharma (PW.12) were examined by the prosecution regarding plea of alibi by Surajbhan accused. 29. The witness stated that sealed record pertaining to voters list was opened in front of City Magistrate. 27. Jagveer Singh (PW.10) being Station House Officer has proved various facets of investigation. 28. Ramanlal Gupta (PW.11) and Brij Naresh Sharma (PW.12) were examined by the prosecution regarding plea of alibi by Surajbhan accused. 29. Hemchandra (PW.13) being Investigating Officer has proved various facets of investigation. 30. Kishan Singh (PW.14) another Investigating Officer in court deposed that during his investigation he came to know that accused Jagdish, Haribabu and Suresh Chand were injured in the occurrence. We reproduce the following portion of examination-in-chief of Kishan Singh (PW.14) as under:- ^^vuqla/kku ds nkSjku eSsus esMhdy T;wfjB lkekU; fpfdRlky;] Hkjriqj ds ;gka ls ekywekr dj eqyfteku txnh'k] gjhckcw o lqjs'kpUn ds pksV Áfrosnu ÁkIr fd, Fks buds vuqlkj budk MkDVjh eqvk;uk fnuakd 26-12-1984 dks gqvk Fkk ftldh eSaus Áekf.kr Áfrfyfi;ka ÁkIr dh Fkh tks pkyku ds lkFk is'k dh Fkh r¶rh'k ls eSaus ik;k fd bu eqyfteku ds pksVsa ?kVuk dh frfFk dks gh vkbZ FkhA** 31. Thereafter statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973 They denied all incriminating circumstances put to them and pleaded false implication. Accused Rameshwar took a plea of alibi by stating that on the fateful day he was not present at the place of occurrence. 32. The trial Judge held that Jagdish (PW.2), Meena (PW.3) and Nattho Ram (PW.4) are injured in the occurrence and hence, their presence at the place of occurrence is stamped and cannot be doubted. The trial Judge considering the delay in lodging of report extended benefit of doubt to seven accused. The trial court further held that to Motiram, no specific role has been assigned except that he was present at the spot armed with a lathi. The court further held that Mewaram, Lajjaram and Surajbhan have caused no injury to any person in the occurrence. The court further held that Lacchi Ram (PW.1) in court even though stated that Nattho Ram and Haribabu have caused injury on left arm and left temporal region, but qua this aspect Lacchi Ram (PW.1) was not corroborated by any witness. The court further held that the role assigned to Nattho Ram and Haribabu is not mentioned in the written report (Ex.P.1) on the basis of which FIR (Ex.P.2) was registered. The court further held that the role assigned to Nattho Ram and Haribabu is not mentioned in the written report (Ex.P.1) on the basis of which FIR (Ex.P.2) was registered. Thus, having acquitted the seven accused, the trial court held that since specific role has been assigned to the remaining four accused, they are liable to be convicted for the offences committed by them. In the preceding portion of the judgment we have already mentioned the conviction of the above said four accused recorded by the trial court. 33. We have heard Ms. Gayatri Rathore, learned counsel for the appellant Rameshwar, and Shri Mohit Balwada, learned counsel for accused-appellant Bhikki. 34. Ms. Gayatri Rathore has submitted that the night of the occurrence was a dark night and hence, it was difficult for the witnesses to identify the accused in the light emitted from a lantern. 35. We are not impressed by this argument. All accused are co-villagers of the complainant party. By voice and gait they can be well recognized by the witnesses. Furthermore, it has come in the evidence that Motiram accused was also carrying a lantern and a lantern was also installed in the Chhappar of the House of Lacchi Ram (PW.1). Therefore, even though it was a dark night, the witnesses could identify the accused. The defence failed to shake the credibility of the witnesses regarding identity of the accused. Thus, to us the prosecution has succeeded to establish the identity of the accused. 36. Ms. Gayatri Rathore has further submitted that Jagdish (PW.2) has admitted in court that there was a party faction in the village. We reproduce below the exact lines from the cross-examination of Jagdish (PW.2) on which much emphasis has been laid by the learned counsel for the appellant during the course of arguments, as under:- ^^;g lgh gS fd gekjs xkao esa nks ikfVZ;ka gS tks dkQh iqjkuh gSaA ;g lgh gS fd eqyfteku gekjh f[kykQ ikVhZ ds gSA bl okds ls ifgys gekjh eqyfteku ls dksbZ eqdnekckth ugha gqbZ vkSj u dksbZ ekjihV gqbZA** 37. We are of the view that the trial Judge has already extended benefit of doubt to the seven acquitted accused. Party faction is a double edged weapon. It can be a ground to falsely implicate the accused, but at the same time it can be reasons for the accused to cause injuries. We are of the view that the trial Judge has already extended benefit of doubt to the seven acquitted accused. Party faction is a double edged weapon. It can be a ground to falsely implicate the accused, but at the same time it can be reasons for the accused to cause injuries. In the written report (Ex.P.1) specific role has been assigned to Rameshwar and Bhikki accused. Fatal injury on the person of Ram Dayal is attributed to Rameshwar and injury on the neck of Jagdish (PW.2) has been assigned to Bhikki accused. 38. We are of the view that the witnesses will be the last person to screen the real offender by substituting the accused. Therefore, merely because party faction is prevailing in the village, witnesses will not substitute the real offender. We find this argument not good as to acquit Rameshwar and Bhikki appellants. 39. Ms. Gayatri Rathore has laid much emphasis on the testimony of Kishan Singh (PW.14) to urge that the complainant party has not explained the injuries on the person of three accused namely Jagdish, Hari Babu and Suresh Chand. 40. We find that the injury reports of Jagdish, Hari Babu and Suresh Chand have not been exhibited on record. We have perused the police record which is Part-''B'' file containing police investigation. It is true that the police during investigation had collected injury reports of above said three persons namely Jagdish, Hari Babu and Suresh Chand. A perusal of the said injuries reveals that the accused have suffered superficial simple injuries. No witnesses has been examined by the defence to prove the injury reports of accused Jagdish, Hari Babu and Suresh Chand. The doctor who conducted medico legal examination of Jagdish, Hari Babu and Suresh Chand has not been examined in defence. No plea of self defence has been raised. We may notice here that Shivcharan Lal (DW.1) has proved bed head ticket of Ram Dayal, whereas Raghvendra Singh (DW.2) has proved plea of Alibi of acquitted accused Surajbhan. Even though defence examined two witnesses, no effort was made to prove the injuries on the person of three accused namely Jagdish, Hari Babu and Suresh Chand. 41. We may notice here that Shivcharan Lal (DW.1) has proved bed head ticket of Ram Dayal, whereas Raghvendra Singh (DW.2) has proved plea of Alibi of acquitted accused Surajbhan. Even though defence examined two witnesses, no effort was made to prove the injuries on the person of three accused namely Jagdish, Hari Babu and Suresh Chand. 41. We are of the view that purposely accused have not taken the plea of self defence and have not proved injury reports of three injured accused on record, have they done so, their presence at the spot stand proved because of injuries it was stamped. We cannot assume that they have suffered injuries in the occurrence, as no evidence to this effect has been brought on record by the defence. What to say of defence evidence, no plea to this effect has been raised in the statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973 42. A perusal of the record reveals that Hari Babu in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973 has stated that due to pelting of stones he had suffered injuries. Except this, no plea of self defence or otherwise has been raised from which we can infer that the prosecution has suppressed the origin and genesis of the occurrence. Suresh Chand in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973 has stated that due to pelting of stones he suffered injuries. Similar is the stand of Jagdish in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973 Thus, accused explained injuries on their person to absolve their participation in the occurrence. 43. Ms. Gayatri Rathore has further stated that since pelting of stones is admitted, it cannot be ruled out that Ram Dayal has suffered injury No. 1 which is fatal due to pelting of stones. 44. We have perused injury No. 1 suffered by Ram Dayal deceased as noted in the injury report (Ex.P15). The said injury is incised injury, therefore, it can be caused by a sharp edged weapon and cannot be caused with a stone. Even if we agree that the injury on head with a blunt weapon can give look of incised injury, we cannot accept the arguments raised because margins of injury are regular. Therefore, it will lead to only conclusion that it was a clean cut wound. Even if we agree that the injury on head with a blunt weapon can give look of incised injury, we cannot accept the arguments raised because margins of injury are regular. Therefore, it will lead to only conclusion that it was a clean cut wound. Hence, medical evidence belie the argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, rather it lend corroboration to the prosecution evidence that Rameshwar has caused Farsi blow on the head of Ram Dayal deceased. 45. Learned counsel has laid much emphasis on the fact that two independent witnesses Sarman and Durga have not been examined by the prosecution. 46. Ms. Gayatri Rathore has read the examination-in-chief of Jagdish (PW.2) wherein it has been stated that ^^ekSds ij nqxkZ o ljeu Hkh vk x,A** 47. Learned counsel has stated that since there is a party faction in the village, non examination of independent witnesses Sarman and Durga is fatal to the prosecution. It is true that courts often look forward to the evidence of independent witnesses, but in each and every case examination of independent witness is not necessary. In the present case, testimony of Lacchi Ram (PW.1), Jagdish (PW.2), Meena (PW.3) and Nattho Ram (PW.4) inspire confidence. The relative cannot be termed as partisan witness. 48. The Supreme Court in the case of Rizan & Anr. v. State of Chhattisgarh through Chief Secretary (2003) 2 SCC 661 qua the witnesses who are relatives, has observed as under:- "7. We shall first deal with the contention regarding interestedness of the witnesses for furthering prosecution version. Relationship is not a factor to affect credibility of a witness. It is more often than not that a relation would not conceal actual culprit and make allegations against an innocent person. Foundation has to be laid if plea of false implication is made. In such cases, the court has to adopt a careful approach and analyses evidence to find out whether it is cogent and credible. 8. In Dalip Singh and Ors. v. The State of Punjab AIR (1953) SC 364 it has been laid down as under:- "A witness is normally to be considered independent unless he or she springs from sources which are likely to be tainted and that usually means unless the witness has cause, such as enmity against the accused, to which to implicate him falsely. v. The State of Punjab AIR (1953) SC 364 it has been laid down as under:- "A witness is normally to be considered independent unless he or she springs from sources which are likely to be tainted and that usually means unless the witness has cause, such as enmity against the accused, to which to implicate him falsely. Ordinarily a close relation would be the last to screen the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person. It is true, when feelings run high and there is personal cause for enmity that there is a tendency to drag in an innocent person against whom a witness has a grudge along with the guilty, but foundation must be laid for such a criticism and the mere fact of relationship far from being a foundation is often a sure guarantee of truth. However, we are not attempting any sweeping generalization. Each case must be judged on its own facts. Our observations are only made to combat what is so often but forward in cases before us as a general rule of prudence. There is no such general rule. Each case must be limited to and be governed by its own facts." 9. The above decision has since been followed in Guli Chand and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan (1974) 3 SCC 698 in which Vadivelu thevan v. State of Madras AIR (1957) SC 614 was also relied upon. 10. We may also observe that the ground that the witness being a close relative and consequently being a partisan witness, should not be relied upon has no substance. This theory was repelled by this Court as early as in Dalip Singh''s case (supra) in which surprise was expressed over the impression which prevailed in the minds of the Members of the Bar that relatives were not independent witnesses. Speaking through Vivian Bose, J. it was observed: "We are unable to agree with the learned Judges of the High Court that the testimony of the two eyewitnesses requires corroboration. If the foundation for such an observation is based on the fact that the witnesses are women and that the fate of seven men hangs on their testimony. We know of no such rule. If it is grounded on the reason that they are closely related to the deceased we are unable to concur. If the foundation for such an observation is based on the fact that the witnesses are women and that the fate of seven men hangs on their testimony. We know of no such rule. If it is grounded on the reason that they are closely related to the deceased we are unable to concur. This is a fallacy common to many criminal cases and one which another Bench of this Court endeavoured to dispel in - Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan AIR (1957) SC 54 at p.59. We find, however, that it unfortunately still persists if not in the judgments of the Courts at any rate in the arguments of counsel." 49. Therefore, we cannot accept the argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that non-examination of independent witnesses is sufficient to discard the testimony of injured witnesses. 50. Lastly, Mr. Mohit Balwada learned counsel for the appellant Bhikki has stated that Rameshwar caused only a solitary blow on the head of Ram Dayal and Bhikki has caused simple injury to Jagdish (PW.2), hence we should convert the offence. 51. In the present case, accused formed unlawful assembly. In the night at 9.00 PM they armed with lethal weapons trespassed into the house of complainant party and had caused injuries to them. It is a case of pre-planned attack. Immediately at the time of occurrence nothing had happened to trigger causing of injuries by the accused. They came armed from their houses with preparation to commit the offence. Hence, we are of the view that no case for modification of the offence is made out. 52. Consequently, having rejected all the arguments by placing implicit reliance on the testimony of injured witnesses namely Jagdish (PW.2), Meena (PW.3) and Nattho Ram (PW.4), we uphold the conviction and sentence of Bhikki son of Moolaram and Rameshwar son of Inderlal. 53. Hence, D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 94/1987 preferred by Bhikki son of Moolaram and D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 108/87 filed by Rameshwar son of Inderlal are dismissed being devoid of merit. 54. As already stated, D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 94/87 preferred Rammi @ Ramesh son of Kalliram and D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 105/87 filed by Suresh son of Tikaram are dismissed as having abated. 55. 54. As already stated, D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 94/87 preferred Rammi @ Ramesh son of Kalliram and D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 105/87 filed by Suresh son of Tikaram are dismissed as having abated. 55. The trial court is directed to issue warrant of arrest to take into custody Bhikki son of Moolaram and Rameshwar son of Inderlal to undergo their sentences awarded to them by the trial court. However, the period undergone by the above accused as under-trial and after conviction shall be set off from the sentence awarded.