JUDGMENT : (Delivered by Hon'ble Alok Kumar Mukherjee, J.) 1. The aforementioned two criminal appeals filed on behalf of the accused appellants are directed against the judgment and orders dated 03.12.1980 passed by Sri R.R.Agrawal, the then 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Mathura in Sessions Trial No. 105 of 1980, whereby the appellants have been convicted under Sections 302/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. 2. The aforementioned Government appeal filed on behalf of the State-appellant is also directed against the same judgment and order, whereby the respondents nos. 1 to 7 namely Chhinga, Atar Singh, Dharamvir, Ramji Lal, Bhoop Singh, Kishini and Khema have been acquitted against the charges framed, under Section 147, respondent nos.1 and 2, under Section 148 and respondent nos. 5, 6 and 7 from Section 302/149 IPC. 3. Since both sets of appellants challenge the correctness of the same judgment and orders and they arose out of the same sessions trial, they have been heard together and are being disposed off by a common order. 4. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeals may be summarized as under: Smt. Basanti on 07.01.1980 at 11.30 a.m. gave information at Police Station Baldeo, District Mathura to the effect that her son Nihal Singh, Dori Lal, Bani Singh and Hoshiyar Singh were in service at Mathura Veterinary College. She and her sons were litigating with Chhinga and Ramji Lal, their co-sharers for partition of their land and on criminal side also. Bhoop Singh and his sons were also members of the party of Chhinga and Ramji Lal. They were all inimical with her sons. At about 11.00 a.m. her son Bani Singh brought Buggi from Mathura to the village for taking wheat. As soon as he reached her house, Atar Singh, Ramji Lal and Dharamvir followed him and caught him. As they dragged him out side the house, Smt. Bashanti and her grand-daughter Shyam Wati ran to rescue him but on the way Khema, Kishuni, Chhinga, Bhoop Singh, Ramji Lal armed with Lathi, Ballam and Farsa started to beat her son. They were also dragging him. On her alarm, Phooli and Ram Prasad came there. The assailants were beating Bani Singh but assailants also threatened rescuer with dire consequences. Rescuer had to withdraw from there. The assailants, while beating Bani Singh, dragged him towards the house of Chhinga. They were also dragging him. On her alarm, Phooli and Ram Prasad came there. The assailants were beating Bani Singh but assailants also threatened rescuer with dire consequences. Rescuer had to withdraw from there. The assailants, while beating Bani Singh, dragged him towards the house of Chhinga. Informant and her grand-daughter, while crying and pleading to spare Bani Singh followed him but they murdered Bani Singh and threw the dead body infront of the door of Chhinga. 5. At this check First Information Report was scribed, Case Crime No. 2 of 1980 under Sections 147, 148, 302 IPC was registered at Police Station and investigation was entrusted to S.I. Inam Singh in whose presence the case was registered. 6. Sri Inam Singh, Sub-Inspector immediately rushed to the place of occurrence with Shyamwati and Basanti. He reached the place of occurrence at 12.30 p.m. He prepared the panchayatnama, challan Laash, Photo Laash, letter for postmortem and other necessary papers Exs. Ka.7 to Ka.13. He found Rs. 10-15 in the pocket of the deceased which he gave in the supurdgi of Smt. Basanti vide fard supurdginama Ex.Ka-2. He recovered one pair of shoes Ex. 7 from the place of occurrence belonging to Bani Singh. He prepared the fard Ex. Ka-14. He collected blood stained and simple earth from two places shown by letters 'C' and 'D' in the site plan, sealed them in separate tins and prepared fards separately, Exts. Ka-15 and Ka-16. He recorded the statements of Smt. Basanti and Shyamwati. He also prepared the site plan Ex. Ka-17. He sent the dead body of Bani Singh for postmortem through constable Udai Bhan and Chadda Singh. He arrested accused Chhinga, Bhoop Singh and Ramji Lal from the tubewell of Bhoop Singh. He took the articles and the accused to police station Baldeo. Clerk constable Than Singh made an entry in the general diary at report no. 26 about the arrival of the accused Ex. Ka-4. 7. On 08.01.1980 the investigation was taken up by Sri Brijraj Singh, the then Station Officer police Station Baldeo. He recorded the statements of Phooli and Ram Prasad on 17.01.1980. On 22.02.1980 after completing investigation, he submitted charge-sheet against four accused Chhinga, Atar Singh, Ramji Lal and Dharamvir Ex. Ka-5. 8. 26 about the arrival of the accused Ex. Ka-4. 7. On 08.01.1980 the investigation was taken up by Sri Brijraj Singh, the then Station Officer police Station Baldeo. He recorded the statements of Phooli and Ram Prasad on 17.01.1980. On 22.02.1980 after completing investigation, he submitted charge-sheet against four accused Chhinga, Atar Singh, Ramji Lal and Dharamvir Ex. Ka-5. 8. The Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and committed the case to the Court of Session, where the appellants in criminal appeal and respondents in government appeal stood for trial. They were charged under Sections 147, 148, 302/149 IPC. They denied the charges and claim to be tried. 9. In order to prove the charges on behalf of the prosecution besides other papers FIR Ex.Ka-1, fard supurdaginama 'Thaili & Paisa' Ex. Ka-2, recovery memo of a pair of shoes Ex. Ka-14, recovery memo of blood stained and plain earth Ex. Ka-15 and Ex. Ka-16, injury report of Ramji Lal Ex. Kha-9, injury report of Chhinga Ex. Kha-10, postmortem examination report Ex. Ka-6, report of chemical examiner Ex. Ka-18, report of Serologist Ex. Ka-19, copy of extract statement of Phool Singh @ Phooli Ex. Kha-1, copy of extract statement of Ram Prasad Ex. Kha-2, extract of statement of Shyamwati Ex. Kha-4 and Ex. Kha-6, extract of statement of Basanti Ex. Kha-5 and site plan with index Ex. Ka-17. 10. In oral evidence on behalf of the prosecution, 10 witnesses were examined, thereafter statement of aforesaid appellants and respondents were recorded, whereby they denied the correctness of the facts stated by the prosecution witnesses and claimed false prosecution. In defence, they examined six witnesses. 11. After conclusion of trial, the learned Sessions Judge heard counsel for both the parties and recorded the findings of guilt against the present appellants. Rest of the accused respondents here in government appeal were acquitted by him after extending benefit of doubt. 12. The appellants feeling aggrieved with their conviction and the State from acquittal of rest of the accused, have filed their respective appeals. 13. Heard Sri Vinay Saran, learned counsel for the appellant-Dharamvir and Sri Rajul Bhargava, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Chandra Kumar Singh for rest of the appellants and Sri Ajeet Singh, learned AGA for the State. 14. On behalf of the appellants in criminal appeals Sri Rajul Bhargava, has submitted that the impugned judgment and orders are illegal and erroneous. Heard Sri Vinay Saran, learned counsel for the appellant-Dharamvir and Sri Rajul Bhargava, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Chandra Kumar Singh for rest of the appellants and Sri Ajeet Singh, learned AGA for the State. 14. On behalf of the appellants in criminal appeals Sri Rajul Bhargava, has submitted that the impugned judgment and orders are illegal and erroneous. It has been submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove the place of occurrence and it could also not prove the motive for the crime. It has further been submitted that only related witnesses have been examined. No independent witness has been examined by the prosecution. It has further been submitted that the FIR was ante-timed. There are two version of the occurrence and the learned trial court has failed to appreciate the evidence in proper perspective. 15. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the appellants have submitted that the eye witnesses are planted; their presence are doubtful; the first informant side was aggressor; the prosecution has suppressed the genesis of the occurrence and failed to explain the injuries of the accused persons. 16. In support of the arguments, they have referred the cases of Subramani Vs. State of T.N. (2002) 7 SCC 210 and in Darshan Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another (2010) 2 SCC 333 . 17. On behalf of the appellant it has further been submitted that the learned trial judge has not considered the evidence on the point whether any right of private defence have accrued to the appellants or not. In the alternative submission is that in case the appellants had exceeded at the best they can be punished under Section 304 IPC. It has further been submitted that FIR was ante-time and written after consultation. In this reference they have cited the case in Marudanal Augusti Vs. State of Kerala (1980) 4 SCC 425 and Bijendra Vs. State of U.P. 1993 ACC (30) 470. In the last, it has been submitted that accused having similar role to Bhoop Singh, Kishini, Khema have been acquitted. For this reason appellant Dharamvir also deserves to be acquitted. 18. On behalf of the State respondent these arguments have been repelled and it has been submitted that findings recorded by the learned trial court are well substantiated from the record; evidence has been properly appreciated; cogent reasons have been given to support the findings. For this reason appellant Dharamvir also deserves to be acquitted. 18. On behalf of the State respondent these arguments have been repelled and it has been submitted that findings recorded by the learned trial court are well substantiated from the record; evidence has been properly appreciated; cogent reasons have been given to support the findings. It has further been submitted that the learned trial judge has not erred in convicting the appellants. The criminal appeals for these reasons deserve to be dismissed. 19. Learned AGA, while arguing in support of the government appeal has submitted that the learned trial court has erroneously held the respondents to be not guilty. The prosecution has successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Thus the finding of acquittal recorded in support of the respondents are perverse and illegal and deserve to be set aside. 20. On behalf of the respondents these arguments have been repelled and it has been submitted that the respondents have been rightly acquitted. The prosecution has failed to prove the charges against them beyond reasonable doubt. The findings recorded by the learned trial judge for acquitting the respondents, need no interference. 21. In support of these arguments, the following cases have been referred Marudanial Augusti (supra), Brijendra's case (supra), State of U.P. Vs. Raghuveer Singh 2014 ACC (84) 622, Khalil and another Vs. State of U.P., 2015 (11) ADJ 660 and Badam Singh Vs. State of M.P. (2003) 12 SCC 792 . 22. At this juncture, it will be gainful to recollect the scope of appeal against the acquittal. The Apex Court in the case of Babu Vs. State of Kerala (2010) 9 SCC 189 has clarified the jurisdiction enjoined on this score, while hearing this appeal on the acquittal. The paragraphs 12, 19 and 20 are quoted herein below:- "12. This court time and again has laid down the guidelines for the High Court to interfere with the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court. The appellate court should not ordinarily set aside a judgment of acquittal in a case where two views are possible, though the view of the appellate court may be more, the probable one. The appellate court should not ordinarily set aside a judgment of acquittal in a case where two views are possible, though the view of the appellate court may be more, the probable one. While dealing with a judgment of acquittal, the appellate court has to consider the entire evidence on record, so as to arrive at a finding as to whether the views of the trial Court were perverse or otherwise unsustainable. The appellate court is entitled to consider whether in arriving at a finding of fact, the trial Court had failed to take into consideration admissible evidence and/or had taken into consideration the evidence brought on record contrary to law. Similarly, wrong placing of burden of proof may also be a subject matter of scrutiny by the appellate court. (Vide Balak Ram v. State of U.P. 1974 SCC (Cri.) 8372165; Shambhoo Missir Vs. State of Bihar (1990) 4 SCC 17 , Shailendra Pratap Vs. State of U.P. (2003) 1 SCC 761 , Narendra Singh Vs. State of M.P. 2004 SCC (Cri.)1893, Budh Singh Vs. State of U.P. (2006) 9 SCC 731 , State of U.P. Vs. Ram Veer Singh, (2007) 13 SCC 102 , S. Rama Krishna Vs. S. Rami Reddy (2008) 2 SCC (Cri.) 645, Arulvelu & Anr. Vs. State (2009) 10 SCC 206 ; Perla Somasekhara Reddy Vs. State of A.P. (2010) 2 SCC (Crio.) 176 and Ram Singh Vs. State of H.P. (2010) 2 SCC 445 . 19. Thus, the law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that in exceptional cases where there are compelling circumstances, and the judgment under appeal is found to be perverse, the appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal. The appellate court should bear in mind the presumption of innocence of the accused and further that the trial Court's acquittal bolsters the presumption of his innocence. Interference in a routine manner where the other view is possible should be avoided, unless there are good reasons for interference. 20. The findings of fact recorded by a court can be held to be perverse if the findings have been arrived at by ignoring or excluding relevant material or by taking into consideration irrelevant/inadmissible material. The finding may also be said to be perverse if it is "against the weight of evidence", or if the finding so outrageously defies logic as to suffer from the vice of irrationality. The finding may also be said to be perverse if it is "against the weight of evidence", or if the finding so outrageously defies logic as to suffer from the vice of irrationality. (vide Rajinder Kumar Kindra Vs. Delhi Admn AIR 1984 SC 1805 ; Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority Vs. Gopi Nath & Sons 1992 Supp. (2) SCC 312, Triveni Rubber & Plastics Vs. CCE AIR 1994 SC 1341 , Gaya Din Vs. Hanuman Prasad (2001) 1 SCC 501 and Gamini Bala Koteswara Rao Vs. State of A.P. (2010) 1 SCC (Cri.) 288)". 23. After fully knowing our duties as an appellate court, we would like to make reference to the broad features adduced by the parties. 24. Basanti PW-1 is the first informant and mother of the deceased, she has reiterated the facts mentioned in the FIR. She has proved the check FIR Ex. Ka-1. 25. Phooli PW-2 is the witness named in the FIR, he has fully supported the prosecution version and reiterated the facts stated by Smt. Basanti PW-1. 26. Shyamwati PW-3 is the grand-daughter of the first informant, the learned trial judge has assessed her age to be between 8 to 10 years, after ascertaining her understanding, he has recorded her deposition but refrained from administering the oath. She has fully supported the prosecution version. 27. Ram Prasad PW-4 is also a named eye witness in the FIR. He has fully supported the prosecution version, but expressed his inability to identify the assailants by name. 28. Constable Than Singh PW-5 was the clerk constable who has scribed the check FIR Ex.Ka-1. He has proved the check FIR Ex. Ka-1, copy of the report of the general diary Ex. Ka-3. 29. S.I. Brijpal Singh was the second Investigating Officer. He gave details, steps taken in the course of investigation and proved the charge-sheet Ex. Ka-5. 30. Constable C.P.Singh PW-7 was the bearer of case property safely from Mathura Sadar Malkhana to State Forensic Laboratory Agra and back. 31. Dr. Awadh Bihari PW-8 is the Medical Officer, who conducted the postmortem examination of the dead body of Bani Singh on 08.01.1980 at 3.30 p.m. He found the following ante-mortem injuries on the dead body of Bani Singh:- 1. Incised wound 10 cm x 5 cm x brain cavity deep on the left side head, 6 cm above the left ear. Brain matter coming out. Incised wound 10 cm x 5 cm x brain cavity deep on the left side head, 6 cm above the left ear. Brain matter coming out. Skull bone multiple fracture direction transverse. 2. Lacerated wound 4 cm x 1 cm x bone on the left side head, 2 cm above the injury no.1. 3. Multiple lacerated wound numbering 6 in an area of 4 cm x 1 cm on the back of left side head, 20 cm behind the left ear. Each size 1 cm x 1/2 cm x bone to ½ cm x ½ cm to bone deep. 4. Contusion 1 cm x ½ cm x skin on the right eye brow. 5. Multiple contusion in an area of 4 cm x 3 cm on the right side cheek. Each size ½ cm x ½ cm. 6. Abraded contusion 10 cm x 8 cm on the front of right side chest, 4 cm below the right nipple. 7. Contusion 2 cm x ½ cm on the back of right elbow. 8. Abrasion 2 cm x 1 cm on the front of left arm middle part bone fracture underneath. 9. Multiple contusions in an area of 6 cm x 3 cm on the back of left eye brow. 10. Multiple contusions in an area of 5 cm x 3 cm on the front of left side chest lower part. 11. Multiple abrasions in an area of 20 cm x 15 cm on the back of chest both side middle and lower part. 12. Abrasion 5 cm x 2 cm on the left side knee inner side. 32. According to him, these injuries could have been sustained at 11.00 a.m. on 07.01.1980. Incised wound could have been caused by Farsa or sharp edged Ballam. Rest of the injuries could have been caused by Lathi or by blunt object. He has proved the postmortem report Ex. Ka-6. 33. S.I. Inam Singh was the first Investigating Officer, he gave details of the steps taken in the course of the investigation. He has proved the inquest report Ex. Ka-7, other accompanying papers with the dead body Ex. Ka-8 to Ex. Ka-13. He has prepared recovery memo of taking samples of blood stained and simple earth and a pair of shoes from the spot. He has also proved the site plan Ex. Ka-17. 34. He has proved the inquest report Ex. Ka-7, other accompanying papers with the dead body Ex. Ka-8 to Ex. Ka-13. He has prepared recovery memo of taking samples of blood stained and simple earth and a pair of shoes from the spot. He has also proved the site plan Ex. Ka-17. 34. Constable Udai Bhan Singh PW-10 was the bearer of the dead body. He has proved that while in his custody the dead body was transported to mortuary, Mathura, which remained safe. 35. The defence case before the trial court was that appellant Chhinga alongwith other appellants were sitting in front of his house Dori and Bani Singh armed with Farsa and Lathi came there and asked them to compromise the case under Section 307 IPC. When refused, Dori to struck him with Farsa and Bani Singh had struck him with Lathi. On their alarm Khema, Kishini, Bhoop Singh came there and saved them, they had wielded Lathi on the assailants. He had also used Farsa in his defence. Bani Singh was killed in defence. In order to prove defence on behalf of the defence Record Keeper Hifazat Husain Zaidi DW-1 has been examined, who has proved that Bahoran Singh gave an application dated 08.01.1980. 36. Bahoran Singh DW-2 has deposed that Chhinga is cousin and Ramji Lal is his father with whom Dori Lal, Nihal Singh and Hoshiyar Singh did marpeet nine months ago. About that incident Chhinga reported the matter to the police and a criminal case was going on. When he came to know about the occurrence he gave an application. He has proved the application filed by Hifazat Husain Zaidi DW-1. 37. Veer Narain Verma DW-3, who is an advocate by profession, he has deposed that on instruction from Phool Singh he had moved an application dated 05.07.1980 alongwith Vakalatnama. 38. Radhey Shyam Verma DW-4 is a compounder of Jail Hospital of District Jail, Mathura. He has brought the entry register and filed verified copies of the injuries reports dated 10.01.1980 of Ramji Lal and Chhinga. 39. Tejvir Singh Tyagi DW-5, Assistant Jailer, District Jail, Mathura had brought jail gate register and proved that on 08.01.1980 at 4.30 p.m., that the appellants Chhinga, Ramji Lal and two other accused were admitted in jail. In the remark column of the register, it has been entered that Chhinga and Ramji Lal were injured. 40. Dr. 39. Tejvir Singh Tyagi DW-5, Assistant Jailer, District Jail, Mathura had brought jail gate register and proved that on 08.01.1980 at 4.30 p.m., that the appellants Chhinga, Ramji Lal and two other accused were admitted in jail. In the remark column of the register, it has been entered that Chhinga and Ramji Lal were injured. 40. Dr. Y.K.Adholiya DW-6, has deposed that on 10.01.1980 he was Medical Officer, District Jail, Mathura and deposed that he had medically examined Ramji Lal and found the following injuries on his body:- 1. Dark brown contusion over left upper arm in the region of deltoid muscel 1.5'' x 1''. 2. Abraded dark brown contusion left side hips 2'' x ¾''. 3. Dark brown contusion right shoulder superior aspect 1.5'' x 3''. 41. He has further deposed that at 12.05 p.m., he medically examined Chhinga and found the following injuries on his body: 1. Abraded contusion medial aspect right lower leg 1'' x ½''. 2'' below knee dark brown. 2. Contusion left side back medial aspect dark broun 2''x 3/4''. 3. Contusion right shoulder superior aspect dark broun in colour 1'' x 1/2'' contusion dark broun in colour right buttock 2.5'' x ½''. 42. Since the arguments advanced before us are interwoven with the appreciation of the evidence, we find it more convenient to re-examine and re-assess the evidence of the parties to find out their evidentiary value while also dealing with the arguments submitted before us. 43. To summarize the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants in appeals on their behalf it has been pleaded that the presence of the eye witnesses has been disputed; prosecution has been blamed not to have come with clean hand, as necessary corollary, did not explain the injuries sustained by the accused and resultantly failure of the learned Sessions Judge not to consider the right of private defence allegedly available to the appellants. The last argument to strengthen these arguments that first information report was ante-timed and it was manipulated. 44. Probative force of ocular version :- Ocular version of the prosecution consists of four witnesses namely Smt Basanti, PW-1, Phooli, PW-2, Shyamwati, PW-3 and Ram Prasad, PW-4. 45. The last argument to strengthen these arguments that first information report was ante-timed and it was manipulated. 44. Probative force of ocular version :- Ocular version of the prosecution consists of four witnesses namely Smt Basanti, PW-1, Phooli, PW-2, Shyamwati, PW-3 and Ram Prasad, PW-4. 45. (a) Place of occurrence:- In order to properly appreciate the testimony of the eye witnesses, we have to ascertain the place of occurrence because place of occurrence has a reasonable nexus with the presence of the witnesses at the spot at the relevant time. In the site plan Exhibit Ka-17, place of occurrence has been shown at places marked with letters 'A', 'B' and 'D'. At place 'A', the deceased was caught by the appellants. At place marked with 'B', the deceased was beaten and at place 'D', the deceased was murdered. From place 'A', he was taken to place 'D'. The distance between these two places and other place marked in the site plan ranges from 12 steps to 42 steps. According to the prosecution version, occurrence began at the Dehliz of house of the first informant. 46. On behalf of the appellants, serious challenge has been made that prosecution has failed to prove place of occurrence but its the basis stands belied by the samples of earth taken by the Investigating Officer which unmistakably indicate it to be the place of occurrence. S.I. Inaam Singh, PW-9 supports the prosecution version that from the place of occurrence, he took the blood stained and simple earth. These samples were sent for chemical examination. This fact has been deposed by Constable Chandra Pal Singh, PW-7. Exhibit Ka-18 is the report of chemical examiner wherein blood stains were found not only on the clothes of the deceased but also in the sample of blood stained earth. Exhibit Ka-19 is the report of the serologist, who has found that in the sample of blood stained earth, blood was disintegrated for the purpose of classification. With the help of this independent evidence, we hold that prosecution has succeeded in proving the place of occurrence beyond reasonable doubt. It is make easier for us to evaluate the testimonies of the eye witnesses intrinsically. 47. (b) Smt. Basanti, PW-1:- She is a rustic house hold lady of advanced age. At the time of occurrence, her presence at the place of occurrence being at her house is natural and probable. It is make easier for us to evaluate the testimonies of the eye witnesses intrinsically. 47. (b) Smt. Basanti, PW-1:- She is a rustic house hold lady of advanced age. At the time of occurrence, her presence at the place of occurrence being at her house is natural and probable. It was a day light occurrence. She had every opportunity to see the occurrence. During cross-examination, some contradictions have been indicated to show that Smt. Basanti is not speaking truth. The occurrence took place on 7th January, 1980. Smt. Basanti was examined in the court on two dates i.e. 8th and 28th July, 1980. She was subjected to fairly long cross-examination. She was a woman of advanced age and illiterate too. While keeping in mind these factors, we are inclined to take the contradictions as a natural result of lapse of memory, her advanced age and trauma in her memory caused due to death of her son before her own eyes. The contractions are also minor ones, rather they show that she had not been tutored, she spoke from her own recollections of the event. 48. The mother would not spare the real culprits of murder of her son and would not falsely implicate the appellants on the basis of suggestions made by them. She has performed well during the cross-examination. She had no reason to depose falsely against the present appellants. Therefore, we hold that Smt. Basanti is a natural and probable witness. Her evidence is trustworthy, credible and worthy of reliance. 49. (c) Phooli, PW-2:- He is not the resident of the village where the occurrence took place. He and Ram Prasad went with Bani Singh with their Buggi to bring wheat for him to Mathura. He has described the occurrence but except appellant Dharamveer, he could not identify other appellants. During cross-examination, nothing adverse could be extracted to demolish the credibility of the witness. From his testimony, we are able to hold that on the stated date, time and place, he saw the murder of Bani Singh as narrated in the first information report with the exception that he could not identify the assailants by names except appellant Dharamveer. 50. (d) Shyamwati, PW-3:- She is the grand daughter of PW-1 and the deceased was her uncle. Her statement was recorded without administering oath. She has supported the prosecution version. Her presence is natural and probable. 50. (d) Shyamwati, PW-3:- She is the grand daughter of PW-1 and the deceased was her uncle. Her statement was recorded without administering oath. She has supported the prosecution version. Her presence is natural and probable. She is a child witness. From the answers given by her during the cross-examination, we come to the conclusion that she is narrating the events as she has seen them. Had she being tutored her testimony would have been parrot like. But in the present case, she has very vividly described the events in her own language and according to her own understanding and in her own way. She is also a credible witness. 51. (e) Ram Prasad, PW-4:- His testimony is also similar to the testimony of Phooli, PW-2 and we form the same opinion about the evidentiary value of his testimony as we have formed in reference to Phooli, PW-2 52. The argument that presence of eye witness is doubtful is not substantiated from the record. In view of the discussion made by us, the argument is devoid of merit and rejected. 53. The argument that witnesses were planted, stands answered by the discussion made herein above by us. The first informant side was aggressor, also meets the same end and no one can blame the prosecution that it had concealed the genesis of the occurrence there. Arguments are rejected as also plea regarding right to private defence because it has been seen that the appellants had gone to the house of Smt. Basanti and dragged her son while beating from the house. In the present case from the facts established, no right of private defence has occurred to the appellants, therefore, there is no occasion for them to exceed its exercise. 54. The last argument is that First Information Report was ante-timed and prepared after consultation. In support of this argument, the learned counsel has submitted that inquest report was prepared earlier and check First Information Report was scribed thereafter. To show this, it has submitted that in the check First Information Report distance from the place of occurrence to the police station has been 2 Kms., whereas in the inquest report Ex. In support of this argument, the learned counsel has submitted that inquest report was prepared earlier and check First Information Report was scribed thereafter. To show this, it has submitted that in the check First Information Report distance from the place of occurrence to the police station has been 2 Kms., whereas in the inquest report Ex. Ka-7 it has been mentioned 3 Kms., Section 147, 148 IPC were added subsequently, letter to R.I. bears only Section 302 IPC, Smt. Basanti PW-1, Shyamwati PW-3 have admitted that at the police station First Information Report was written on the dictation of Sub-Inspector and lastly the dead body had reached the police headquarter very late. To further strengthen this argument the learned counsel has submitted that special report was dispatched belatedly. 55. We find ourselves unable to accept the argument advanced on behalf of the appellants that on the basis of inquest report First Information Report must be treated to be ante-timed. The Apex Court in the case of Podda Narayana Vs. State of A.P.; AIR 1975 SC 1252 , has held that the object of the inquest proceedings is merely to ascertain whether a person died under suspicious circumstances or met with an unnatural death and, if so, what was its apparent cause. According to Supreme Court the question regarding the details how the deceased was assaulted or who assaulted him or under what circumstances he was assaulted are foreign to the ambit and scope of such proceedings. In view of above observation of the Supreme Court, we think that the omissions/inconsistencies in the inquest report are not sufficient to throw the prosecution case out of the Court. 56. We are also fortified in our view from the various cases decided by the Apex Court, this view has been constantly followed by the Apex Court, we would like to refer some of them; George Vs. State of Kerala; AIR 1998 SC 1376 ., Ravi @ Ravichandran Vs. State Rep. By Inspector of Police; 2007 Cr.L.J. 2740 (SC, State of U.P. Vs. Abdul; AIR 1997 SC 2512 , Suresh Rai Vs. State of Bihar; AIR 2000 SC 2207 , Aftab Ahmad Anasari Vs. State of Uttrnchal; AIR 2010 SC 773 , Surendra Pal & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.& Anr.; 2010 (6) ALJ 667 (SC). 57. Now remains only two grounds; one alleged statement of Basanti PW-1 and Shyamwati PW-3. Abdul; AIR 1997 SC 2512 , Suresh Rai Vs. State of Bihar; AIR 2000 SC 2207 , Aftab Ahmad Anasari Vs. State of Uttrnchal; AIR 2010 SC 773 , Surendra Pal & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.& Anr.; 2010 (6) ALJ 667 (SC). 57. Now remains only two grounds; one alleged statement of Basanti PW-1 and Shyamwati PW-3. Statement of Basanti PW-1 would indicate that it does not show that report was not dictated at the indicated time. As also statement of Shyamwati PW-3 is not indicative of ante timing of first information report. Now remains the question of delay in reaching the dead body from the place of occurrence to the mortuary. Here statement of Constable Udaibhan Singh PW-10 is relevant. According to him, he was handed over the dead body at 01:45 P.M. On the next date, he handed over the dead body to Dr Awadh Bihari. The distance between these two places is 30 Kms. and the dead body was transported by Buggi. During the night, he stayed at Dharamshala. The noticeable point is that he has not been suggested that he did not receive the dead body on 01:45 P.M. or he was not given police papers at that time. Speed of Buggi is very slow and it would easily take 8 to 10 hours in reaching the destination. Stay at Dharamshala is obviously for getting fresh, thus we do not find that for want of police paper, the dead body was held back at the police station and for this reason it had reached, on the next day, at the mortuary. 58. Lastly, one more argument in this regard has been submitted that special report was delayed by four days, because the Circle Officer had initialed the check first information report on 11th January, 1980. There is a difference between special report and check report. Delay in sending special report has not been suggested to the scribe or to the Investigating Officer. First information report was in existence on 8th January, 1980. This fact, we have ascertained from the remand papers kept in the LCR. Below the order sheet, we find the first remand request dated 08.01.1980 was from 8th January, 1980 to 21st January, 1980 signed by the Station Officer. First information report was in existence on 8th January, 1980. This fact, we have ascertained from the remand papers kept in the LCR. Below the order sheet, we find the first remand request dated 08.01.1980 was from 8th January, 1980 to 21st January, 1980 signed by the Station Officer. This remand request was accompanied by the carbon copy of the check FIR and copy of the report of the general diary wherein registration of case crime number was entered. 59. In view of above, we do not find any substance in the argument that the first information report was ante timed and it was a result of deliberation and consultation. 60. One other point has been pressed during the argument that from answers given by the prosecution witnesses during the cross-examination right to private defence is made out, then appellants should be convicted under Section 304 I.P.C. However, we find that ocular version of the occurrence totally rules out the possibility of exercise of right to private defence by the appellants. It was a case of deliberated assault and murder that too pre-maditated one. 61. We will be failing in our duties if we do not discuss the defence evidence. Statements of Hifajat Hussain Jaidi DW-1 and Veer Narain Verma DW-3 are formal in nature. The statement of Bahoran Singh DW-3 goes to show that Chinga had reported a matter. There was a police case, which was going on, but it does not show that no occurrence took place rather it provides motive for the crime. The other two witnesses are in reference to injuries sustained by the appellants Ramji Lal and Chhinga. All the injuries are superficial in nature. Prosecution is obliged only to explain those injuries which are serious cannot be self inflected. Here on 10th January, 1980 that some superficial injuries had been found on the person of these two appellants, it would not show that those injuries were caused during the occurrence in question and the prosecution had deliberately suppressed the genesis of the occurrence. 62. Defence has not cared to examine any eye witness that soon after the occurrence, the appellants were found injured that too in a serious state. 62. Defence has not cared to examine any eye witness that soon after the occurrence, the appellants were found injured that too in a serious state. In this regard reference may be made to the case of Laxmi Singh vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1976 SC 2263 , wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under:- "According to the Doctor injury No.1 was grievous in nature as it resulted in compound fracture of the fibula bone. The other two injuries were also serious injuries which had been inflicted by a sharp-cutting weapon. Having regard to the circumstances of the case there can be no doubt that Dasrath Singh must have received these injuries in the course of the assault, because it has not been suggested or contended that the injuries could be self-inflicted nor it is believable. In these circumstances, therefore, it was the bounded duty of the prosecution to give a reasonable explanation for the injuries sustained by the accused Dasrath Singh in the course of the occurrence. Not only the prosecution has given no explanation, but some of the witnesses have made a clear statement that they did not see any injuries on the person of the accused. Indeed it the eye-witnesses could have given such graphic details regarding the assault on the two deceased and Dasain Singh and yet they deliberately suppressed the injuries on the person of the accused, this is a most importance circumstance to discredit the entire prosecution case. It is well settled that fouler the crime, higher the proof, and hence in a murder case where one of the accused is proved to have sustained injuries in the course of the same occurrence, the non-explanation of such injuries by the prosecution is a manifest defect in the prosecution case and shows that the origin and genesis of the occurrence had been deliberately suppressed which leads to the irresistible conclusion that the prosecution has not come out with a true version of the occurrence. This matter was argued before the High Court and we are constrained to observe that the learned Judges without appreciating the ratio of this Court in Mohar Rai v. State of Bihar, (1968) 3 SCR 525 , ( AIR 1968 SC 1281 ) tried to brush it aside on most untenable grounds. This matter was argued before the High Court and we are constrained to observe that the learned Judges without appreciating the ratio of this Court in Mohar Rai v. State of Bihar, (1968) 3 SCR 525 , ( AIR 1968 SC 1281 ) tried to brush it aside on most untenable grounds. The question whether the Investigating Officer was informed about the injuries is wholly irrelevant to the issue, particularly when the very Doctor who examined one of the deceased and the prosecution witnesses is the person who examined the appellant Dasarath Singh also. In the case referred to above, this Court clearly observed as follows : "The trial Court as well as the High Court wholly ignored the significance of the injuries found on the appellants. Mohar Rai had sustained as many as 13 injuries and Bharath Rai 14. We get it from the evidence of P.W.15 that he noticed injuries on the person of Mohar Rai when he was produced before him immediately after the occurrence. Therefore the version of the appellants that they sustained injuries at the time of the occurrence is highly probabilised. Under these circumstances the prosecution had a duty to explain those injuries......... In our judgment the failure of the prosecution to offer any explanation in that regard shows that evidence of the prosecution witnesses relating to the incident is not true or at any rate not wholly true. Further those injuries probabilities the plea taken by the appellants." This Court clearly pointed out that where the prosecution fails to explain the injuries on the accused, two results follow : (1) that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is untrue; and (2) that the injuries probabilise the plea taken by the present case has not correctly applied the principles laid down by this Court in the decision referred to above. In some of the recent cases, the same principle was laid down. In some of the recent cases, the same principle was laid down. In Puran Singh v. The State of Punjab, Criminal Appeal No. 266 of 1971 decided on April 25, 1975:(reported in AIR 1975 SC 1674 ) which was also a murder case, this Court, while following an earlier case, observed as follows : "In State of Gujarat v. Bai Fatima (Criminal Appeal No. 67 of 1971 decided on March 19, 1975): (reported in AIR 1975 SC 1478 ) one of us (Untwalia, J.,) speaking for the Court, observed as follows : "In a situation like this when the prosecution fails to explain the injuries on the person of an accused depending on the facts of each case, any of the three results may follow : (1) That the accused had inflicted the injuries on the members of the prosecution party in exercise of the right of self defence. (2) It makes the prosecution version of the occurrence doubtful and the charge against the accused cannot be held to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. (3) It does not affect the prosecution case at all. The facts of the present case clearly fall within the four corners of either of the first two principles laid down by this judgment. (2) It makes the prosecution version of the occurrence doubtful and the charge against the accused cannot be held to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. (3) It does not affect the prosecution case at all. The facts of the present case clearly fall within the four corners of either of the first two principles laid down by this judgment. In the instant case, either the accused were fully justified in causing the death of the deceased and were protected by the right of private defence or that if the prosecution does not explain the injuries on the person of the deceased the entire prosecution case is doubtful and the genesis of the occurrence is shrouded in deep mystery, which is sufficient to demolish the entire prosecution case." It seems to us that in a murder case, the non-explanation of the injuries sustained by the accused at about the time of the occurrence or in the course of altercation is a very important circumstance from which the Court can draw the following inferences : (1) That the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and the origin of the occurrence and has thus not presented the true version; (2) that the witnesses who have denied the presence of the injuries on the person of the accused are lying on a most material point and therefore their evidence is unreliable; (3) that in case there is a defence version which explains the injuries on the person of the accused it is rendered probable so as to throw doubt on the prosecution case. The omission on the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries on the person of the accused assumes much greater importance where the evidence consists of interested or inimical witnesses or where the defence gives a version which competes in probability with that of the prosecution one." Opining thus apex court in that decision has acquitted the accused by perorating thus:- "17. Thus in view of the inherent improbabilities, the serious omissions and infirmities, the interested or inimical nature of the evidence and other circumstances pointed out by us, we are clearly of the opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. Thus in view of the inherent improbabilities, the serious omissions and infirmities, the interested or inimical nature of the evidence and other circumstances pointed out by us, we are clearly of the opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. Normally this Court does not interfere in an appeal by special leave with concurrent finding of fact, but this is one of these cases where the judgment of the High Court is manifestly perverse and where the High Court has not considered important circumstances which completely demolish the prosecution case. In fact the High Court has hardly made any real attempt to analyse or discuss the evidence and has merely affirmed the finding of the Sessions Judge by narrating the evidence relied upon by it. We have already pointed out that on one of the most important points arising in a criminal trail, namely, the non-explanation of the injuries on the person of the accused by the prosecution, the High Court has not only committed an error of fact but an error of law by showing a lack of proper appreciation of the principles decided by this Court." 63. In a more recent case State of M.P. vs. Mishri Lal (Dead) and others, AIR 2003 SC 4089 , it has been observed by the Apex Court as under: "Non-Explanation of the injuries sustained by the accused (17).The last and which appears to be fatal to the prosecution case is non-explanation of the injuries sustained by the accused. As already said accused Mishri lal received as many as five injuries, which were dangerous to life. Madusudan and Jamuna prasad received simple injuries. In Ex. P-1 as well as in the entire deposition of PWs, the prosecution has not explained the injuries sustained by the accused. In the background of the defence, as set up by the accused, it was incumbent on the part of the prosecution, to have explained the injuries sustained by the accused. The defence version is that on being retreated the bullock-cart of Babulal, the complainant party -Maharaj Singh, Gopal, Mathura Lal, Lakhan, Jagdish, Mulia, Kailash and Karan Singh came with lathis and farsa. Mathura Lal hit Mishrilal's head with the farsa and Babulal, Maharaj Singh and Karan Singh beat Mishrilal with lathis. Madhusudan ran to save his father Mishrilal and they also beat him. Mathura Lal hit Mishrilal's head with the farsa and Babulal, Maharaj Singh and Karan Singh beat Mishrilal with lathis. Madhusudan ran to save his father Mishrilal and they also beat him. When Jamuna prasad came to save, he was also beaten up and on that Jamuna prasad ran towards the house and made two fires in the air to save his father. It is the case of defence that the bullet, which struck Bhavar singh, came from towards the house of Babulal. In the face of defence version, which competes in probability with that of the prosecution case, it was mandatory on the part of the prosecution to have explained the injuries sustained by the accused and non-explanation of the injuries is fatal to the prosecution case. In Lakshmi Singh and others v. State of Bihar, (1976) 4 SCC 394 , referring to earlier decisions in Mohar Rai v. State of Bihar, (1968) 3 SCR 525 : AIR 1968 SC 1281 : 1968 Cri LJ 1479, it was held by this Court: ".........where the prosecution fails to explain the injuries on the accused, two results follow: (1) that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is untrue; and (2) that the injuries probabilise the plea taken by the appellants. ......in a murder case, the non-explanation of the injuries sustained by the accused at about the time of the occurrence or in the course of altercation is a very important circumstance from which the Court can draw the following inferences: (1) that the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and the origin of the occurrence and has thus not presented the true version: (2) that the witnesses who have denied the presence of the injuries on the person of the accused are lying on a most material point and therefore their evidence is unreliable; (3) that in case there is a defence version which explains the injuries on the person of the accused it is rendered probable so as to throw doubt on the prosecution case. The omission on the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries on the person of the accused assumes much greater importance where the evidence consists of interested or inimical witnesses or where the defence gives a version which competes in probability with that of the prosecution one. . . . . The omission on the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries on the person of the accused assumes much greater importance where the evidence consists of interested or inimical witnesses or where the defence gives a version which competes in probability with that of the prosecution one. . . . . ......However there may be cases where the non-explanation of the injuries by the prosecution may not affect the prosecution case. This principle would obviously apply to cases where the injuries sustained by the accused are minor and superficial or where the evidence is so clear and cogent, so independent and disinterested, so probable, consistent and creditworthy, that it far outweighs the effect of the omission on the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries." 64. In Raghubir Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & others, (2011) 12 SCC 235 , it has been held by the Apex Court as under: "14. It has firstly to be borne in mind that the injuries on the accused had not been explained as the prosecution witness did not utter a single word as to how they had been suffered by them. In this view of the matter, the defence can legitimately raise a suspicion that the genesis of the incident was shrouded in mystery and the prosecution had suppressed a part of the proceeding. It is true, as contended by Dr. Manish Singhvi, that each and every injury on an accused is not required to be explained and more particularly where all the injuries caused to the accused are simple in nature (as in the present case) and the facts of the case have to be assessed on the nature of probabilities. Examining the incident in the light of the above, we find that the injuries in the present case were required to be explained as there is a serious dispute as to the possession of the land in which the incident had happened, more particularly as Raghuveer Singh himself was uncertain as to the nature of the possession as per the statements on record and the Patwari had also warned the complainant party not to trespass into the land. Undoubtedly, there are a large number of injured witnesses, some of them grievously hurt, to support the prosecution case, but in the light of the finding of the High Court that there was uncertainty about the possession, this fact by itself cannot preclude the accused from claiming that no case was made out against them." 65. Recently in Mohd. Khalil Chisti vs State Of Rajasthan: (2013) 2 SCC 541 , the Apex Court affirmed the same view after taking stock of various other pronouncements in Waman vs State of Maharastra (2011) 7 SCC 295 ; Raghubir Singh (Supra); Krishnan vs State of T.N. (2006)11 SCC 304 . 66. One more point have been canvased before us is that some accused having similar role, on the basis of some evidence have been acquitted, therefore, the appellants are also entitled to be acquitted, after giving them the benefit of doubt. To appreciate this, we have arranged the accused in two sets; one set consists of Chhinga, Ramji Lal, Atar Singh and Dharamvir and second set consists of Bhoop Singh, Kishni and Khema. 67. During investigation against the accused of the second set, closure report was submitted, though they were summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. but statements on oath of eye witnesses were found contradictory about their presence on the spot from the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. 68. At this juncture we propose to consider the arguments advanced in Government Appeal. The Government has challenged the correctness of the acquittal of Bhoop Singh and his two sons Kisni and Khema. The Additional Government Advocate has firmly argued that since four appellants have been convicted on the basis of same role and on same evidence, these three respondents should also be convicted. The reason for acquittal has noticed above by us is a sound one, more so it is clear from the First Information Report that Atar Singh, Ramji Lal and Dharamvir had caught Bani Singh infront of the door of the house and he was dragged on the Rasta. Thereafter on the village road Bhoop Singh, Khema, Kisni and Chhinga joined the other assailants. Thus the learned AGA says that according to the First Information Report the role of Chhinga is similar to three respondents in government appeal. But we are unable to accept this argument. Thereafter on the village road Bhoop Singh, Khema, Kisni and Chhinga joined the other assailants. Thus the learned AGA says that according to the First Information Report the role of Chhinga is similar to three respondents in government appeal. But we are unable to accept this argument. Main enmity was between the first informant and her son on one hand and Ramji Lal and Chhinga on the other hand, Bhoop Singh and his sons are merely said to be their party men. Smt. Basanti PW-1 in her statement says that Atar Singh and Dharamvir came to the door of her house armed with Ballam and Lathi. They dragged Bani Singh from there. Thereafter other five assailants joined them. Upto this juncture, role of Chhinga and Bhoop Singh and his two sons are similar but the dead body of Bani Singh was recovered in front of the door of the house of Chhinga. This incriminating circumstance is also reflected from the statement of S.I. Inam Singh PW-9. For this reason, we are unable to accept the argument advanced by learned AGA that the respondents and Chhinga in terms of the role and evidence stand on the same footing. We reject the arguments advanced by learned AGA and found that the government appeal is without substance, there are no compelling reasons to interfere with the finding of fact recorded in favour of the respondents in the government appeal. 69. For the same reason, we reject the argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellants that acquittal of Bhoop Singh, Kisni and Khema would confer the benefits of doubt on the other appellants. 70. In view of the above all the appeals are without substance and they deserve to be dismissed, accordingly we dismiss them and affirm conviction and sentences of the appellants as also acquittal of the respondents. 71. All the appellants in criminal appeals are on bail. They are directed to surrender before the Sessions Judge, Mathura, within 30 days, who shall take them into custody and send them to jail to serve out their sentences. In case, appellants do not surrender within the stipulated time, the Sessions Judge, Mathura, shall take appropriate steps to procure their attendance and send them to jail, so that they will serve out the sentences awarded to them. 72. In case, appellants do not surrender within the stipulated time, the Sessions Judge, Mathura, shall take appropriate steps to procure their attendance and send them to jail, so that they will serve out the sentences awarded to them. 72. Office is directed to communicate this order to the court concerned to ensure compliance forthwith and further sent back the lower court record. Compliance of this judgment be reported to this Court within one month thereafter.