ORDER : Manoj Kumar Garg, J. The instant criminal appeal has been filed by the accused appellants Under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C., 1973 against the judgment dated 19.09.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Balotra Headquarter Barmer Camp Balotara in Sessions Case No. 57/2008 by which the learned Judge convicted the accused-appellants for offences under Sections 302/34, 323/34, 342/34 IPC and passed the following sentence:- Section 302/34 IPC - Life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- each in default to further undergo 1 months simple imprisonment. Section 323/34 IPC - Six months' simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- each in default to further undergo 15 days simple imprisonment. Section 342/34IPC - Six months' simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- each in default to further undergo 15 days simple imprisonment. 2. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The brief facts of the case are that on 24.07.2008, complainant Gulab Kanwar w/o Chhail Singh (PW/12) filed a report at the police station Siwana alleging that on 23.07.2008 in the evening at about 8.30-9 PM, she was cooking food, at that time, she heard hue and cry of her husband Chhail singh. When she came out with her daughter Ms. Dimple in front of the house of Chandan Singh she saw that Ganga Singh, Bhagwan Singh and wife of Chandan Singh were beating her husband with sticks and axes. When she intervened, the wife of Chandan Singh gave fist blows to her. It was stated that accused were having sticks (lathi) and axes in their hands. Her husband was shouting but later on her husband's voice stopped coming. After sometime the complainant along with her daughter went to Dhani of Chandan Singh where they saw dead body of her husband Chhail Singh lying there and both the legs as well as right hand were also broken. It was stated that they were having an old enmity with accused persons about land dispute and due to this reason, all the accused persons killed her husband. She further alleged that they also tied complainant's hands and in the morning after untiring herself she lodged the written report to the police station Siwana. 3. On the said report, the Police registered a formal FIR No. 120/08 for offence under Sections 302, 342, 323/34 IPC and started the investigation. She further alleged that they also tied complainant's hands and in the morning after untiring herself she lodged the written report to the police station Siwana. 3. On the said report, the Police registered a formal FIR No. 120/08 for offence under Sections 302, 342, 323/34 IPC and started the investigation. After usual investigation, the police filed charge sheet against the accused-appellants for offences punishable under Sections 302, 342, 323/34 IPC before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sivana Distt. Barmer. Later on the case was transferred in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Court Balotra Head quarter Barmer Camp Balotara where the charges were framed against the accused appellants for offence under Sections 302, 342, 323/34 IPC but the accused appellants denied the charges and pleaded for trial. 4. At the trial, the prosecution examined as many as fifteen witnesses in all and exhibited certain documents. Thereafter the statements of the accused-appellants were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973 It was stated that a false case has been lodged against them and they have not caused any injury to the deceased Chhail Singh and witnesses are levelling false allegations against them. No witness was examined on the defence side. 5. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Court Balotara Head Office Barmer Camp Balotara for offence under Section 302/34, 342/34 and 323/34 vide judgment dated 15.09.2009 passed sentences as mentioned earlier. 6. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants vehemently argued that a false case has been roped against the accused appellants. It is submitted that the so-called eyewitnesses Smt. Gulab Kanwar (PW/12) who was the complainant as well as Ms. Dimple (PW/13) aged about seven years have not at all seen the incident and both these witnesses are created witnesses. There are material contradictions, improvements and omissions in their statements. He further argued that according to the postmortem report of the deceased, he received so many injuries but the deceased received crush injury also and due to the said injuries Chhail Singh expired. The original genesis of the occurrence was suppressed by the prosecution. He further argued that the complainant Smt. Gulab Kanwar received eighteen injuries in all, however, the injuries are very minor injuries and only fist blows were given by the accused appellants and that too simple in nature. 7. The original genesis of the occurrence was suppressed by the prosecution. He further argued that the complainant Smt. Gulab Kanwar received eighteen injuries in all, however, the injuries are very minor injuries and only fist blows were given by the accused appellants and that too simple in nature. 7. Per contra, the learned public prosecutor argued that this is a case where injured eye-witness Smt. Gulab Kanwar (PW/12) has seen the whole occurrence along with her daughter Ms. Dimple (PW/13) and he further argued that Smt Gulab Kanwar received eighteen injuries on her body so, she was an injured eye-witness. It is possible that some minor contradictions may come in her statement but on that basis the whole prosecution's story cannot be discarded. The learned public prosecutor further argued that deceased has also received many injuries and cause of death is mentioned "Hemorrhagic Shock" due to the various external injuries and injuries to vital organs which shows that all the accused caused injuries to the deceased due to which Chhail Singh expired. Learned public prosecutor further argued that after the arrest of the accused an iron rod was recovered from the possession of accused Ganga Singh on which blood stained were found which is marked as (Ex.P/3). The stick (lathi) was recovered from the possession of Bhagwat Singh @ Bhagwan Singh which is marked as (Ex.P/5). Both these weapons were sent to FSL and according to the FSL report (Ex.P/33), the blood group was found to be of the same blood group which is of the deceased. So it is a well proved case against the accused appellants and appeal filed by the accused appellants deserves to be dismissed. 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned public prosecutor. Perused the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial court and gone through record of the case. 9. As per evidence of record, Dr. Shivdutt Bora (PW/4) who had conducted the autopsy report of deceased Chhail Singh found following injuries on the body of deceased:- 1. Bruise & swelling on left eyeball 4 x 3cm. 2. Bruise 4 x 2cm on left side of neck. 3. Two bruises 3 x 2 cm each on right side of neck. 4. Lacerated wound 1 x 1cm lower lip. 5. Bruise & swelling on left eyeball 4 x 3cm. 2. Bruise 4 x 2cm on left side of neck. 3. Two bruises 3 x 2 cm each on right side of neck. 4. Lacerated wound 1 x 1cm lower lip. 5. Lacerated wound 12 x 12 cm above right elbow joint lower end of humorous bone is exposed out from wound & dislocation of right elbow joint. 6. Bruise and swelling around left elbow joint 12 x 10cm and fracture and dislocation of left elbow joint. 7. Lacerated wound of 12 x 10 cm middle of right leg and fracture of Rt Tibia and fibulla bone at middle of shaft. 8. Lacerated wound 8 x 4 cm middle of left leg and fracture of shaft of left tibia and fibulla bone. 9. Bruise and swelling Anterior chest wall and fracture of 5, 6, 7 & 8 inorgle ribs anteriorly on both side. 10. Injuries on right arm, right leg, left arm and left leg and chest wall are crushing in nature Right arm chest wall and left arm are in lying a single line. The cause of death of Chhail Singh is hemorrhagic shock due to various external injuries & injuries upon the vital organs. 10. Bhawani Singh (PW/5) was a motbir of recovery but he has been declared hostile. Surendra Singh (PW/6) was a motbir of certain documents. 11. Dr. Guman Singh (PW/7) is the doctor who examined the injured complainant Smt. Gulab Kanwar (PW/12) and prepared the injury report (Ex.P/16) and found following injuries:- 1. Bruises 10 x 2.5cm present left lember 2. Bruise 15 x 2.5cm present lower lateral chest 3. Bruise crossing 14 x 2.5cm left lateral chest 4. Bruise 14 x 0.2 lower part of chest left 5. Bruise 27 x 2.5cm lower ? of left chest 6. Bruise 13 x 2.5cm oblique on scapular left 7. Bruise 11 x 2.5cm oblique on left shoulder 8. Bruise 10cm x 2cm oblique on left shoulder 9. Bruise 4 x 2.5cm on left shoulder. 10. Bruise 9 x 2.5cm on left shoulder 11. Bruise 13 x 2.0cm on right scapular 12. Bruise 8 x 2.0cm on Lt arm 13. Bruise 10 x 2 cm on left lower arm 14. Bruise 13cm x 2.0 cm left elbow 15. Bruise 15 x 6 cm on left forearm 16. Bruise multiple 1.5 x 10cm present entire hip 17. Bruise 9 x 2.5cm on left shoulder 11. Bruise 13 x 2.0cm on right scapular 12. Bruise 8 x 2.0cm on Lt arm 13. Bruise 10 x 2 cm on left lower arm 14. Bruise 13cm x 2.0 cm left elbow 15. Bruise 15 x 6 cm on left forearm 16. Bruise multiple 1.5 x 10cm present entire hip 17. Bruise multiple 1.6x 10cm around perennial & outer portion of hip 18. Pain in perennial & lower abdomen 12. As per opinion of doctor the injuries caused by blunt weapon were simple in nature. As per statement of injured eye-witness these injuries were caused in the occurrence in question. 13. Jogram (PW/8) is the Head constable and carrier in this case. Man singh (PW/9) was a motbir. Amar Singh (PW/10) was a constable who recorded the statement of complainant and also registered an FIR (Ex.P/22.) Kailash Sant (PW/11) was a photographer. Gulab Kanwar (PW/12) is the complainant and injured eye-witness in this case. She mentioned that when she was cooking food she heard the noise of her husband Chhail Singh then she along with her daughter Ms. Dimple aged about seven years both went to the house of Chandan Singh where accused tied her and she saw that Ganga Singh was having a iron rod, Bhagwat Singh and Smt. Paras Kanwar were each having lathi and all started beating her husband Chhail singh. In the night all the accused were not allowed to see her husband and in the next morning she saw the dead body of her husband who had received many injuries on his body. Due to old enmity of land, the accused killed her husband. She lodged the report to the police and examined herself. She has also received as many as eighteen injuries. In cross examination some contradictions were found but those contradictions are not such that the whole statement of eye-witness can be discarded who had also received many injuries. Ms. Dimple (PW/13) was seven years old at the time of incident. She has also mentioned that all the accused tied her mother and thereafter they started beating her mother and father. In her cross-examination some improvements were there but that improvements were not serious so, we cannot discard the whole story of prosecution. Ms. Dimple (PW/13) was seven years old at the time of incident. She has also mentioned that all the accused tied her mother and thereafter they started beating her mother and father. In her cross-examination some improvements were there but that improvements were not serious so, we cannot discard the whole story of prosecution. Narendra Singh (PW/14) mentioned that he narrated the story in the form of application and after that they filed report at Police Station Shiwan. Netaram (PW/15) was SHO who investigate the matter and filed the challan. These are the prosecution witnesses. 14. It is a case in which eye-witness Gulab Kanwar wife of deceased received as many as eighteen injuries and was the incident along with her daughter Ms. Dimple(PW-13), therefore both these witnesses are eye-witness of the incident in which deceased was assaulted by the appellants and due to the injuries caused by them the deceased, Chhail Singh expired. 15. After the arrest of the accused, an iron rod was recovered from Ganga Singh, and one lathi was recovered from Bhagwat Singh @ Bhagwan Singh. Both these articles were sent to FSL and according to the FSL report (Ex.33), the blood group was found to match with the blood group of deceased which corroborates the story of prosecution. 16. According to the written report which was filed by complainant Gulab Kanwar, the wife of Chandan Singh gave beating by fist blow and no role was assigned about causing injury to deceased. According to this written report, Ganga Singh and Bhagwat Singh caused injuries to the deceased Chhail Singh and recovery of weapon was also made from both these accused-appellants. Nothing has been recovered from the possession of accused-Paras Kanwar. Gulab Kanwar (PW-12) and Ms. Dimple (Ms. Dimple) also mentioned in court statement that Smt. Paras Kanwar also caused injuries to the deceased. Both these eye-witnesses were confronted from their earlier statement and it came on record that Smt. Paras Kanwar never caused any injury to the deceased but caused injury to injured Gulab kanwar only, therefore, instead of offence under Section 302/34 IPC, she is liable to be convicted for the offence under Section 342/34 and 323/34 IPC. 17. Both these eye-witnesses were confronted from their earlier statement and it came on record that Smt. Paras Kanwar never caused any injury to the deceased but caused injury to injured Gulab kanwar only, therefore, instead of offence under Section 302/34 IPC, she is liable to be convicted for the offence under Section 342/34 and 323/34 IPC. 17. Although, the learned counsel for the accused-appellant vehemently argued that both the eye-witnesses are planted eyewitnesses and they have not seen the actual incident, because there are material improvement and omissions in their statements, however, upon carefully examining the statement of two eye-witnesses', we cannot lose sight of the fact that eighteen injuries were received by PW-12 Gulab Kanwar. Thus, she is an injured and material eye-witness in this case. With regard to motive also there is evidence of injured witnesses that there was dispute of land in between the accused appellants and deceased husband of Smt. Gulab Kanwar. 18. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Abdul Sayeed v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (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. 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 : 1973 SCC (Cri) 563 : AIR 1972 SC 2593 ], Malkhan Singh v. State of U.P., (1975) 3 SCC 311 : 1974 SCC (Cri) 919 : AIR 1975 SC 12 , Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab, (1983) 3 SCC 470 : 1983 SCC (Cri) 681, Appabhai v. State of Gujarat, 1988 Supp SCC 241 : 1988 SCC (Cri) 559 : AIR 1988 SC 696 , Bonkya v. State of Maharashtra, (1995) 6 SCC 447 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 1113, Bhag Singh, (1997) 7 SCC 712 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1163, Mohar v. State of U.P., (2002) 7 SCC 606 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 121 (SCC p. 606b-c), Dinesh Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, (2008) 8 SCC 270 : (2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 472, Vishnu v. State of Rajasthan, (2009) 10 SCC 477 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 302, Annareddy Sambasiva Reddy v. State of A.P., (2009) 12 SCC 546 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 630 and Balraje v. State of Maharashtra, (2010) 6 SCC 673 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 211]. 27. While deciding this issue, a similar view was taken in Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab, (2009) 9 SCC 719 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 107, 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 tube-well. 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 tube-well. In Shivalingappa Kallayanappa v. State of Karnataka, 1994 Supp (3) SCC 235 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 1694 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 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 2021 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 cross-examination and nothing can be elicited to discard his testimony, it should be relied upon [vide Krishan v. State of Haryana, (2006) 12 SCC 459 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 214]. 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." 19. 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." 19. Thus, when the evidence of an injured witness is to be appreciated, the under noted legal principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is required to be taken note of:- (a) The presence of an injured eye witness at the time and place of the' occurrence cannot be doubted unless there are material contradictions in his/her deposition. (b) Unless, it is otherwise established by the evidence, it must be believed that an injured witness would not allow the real culprits to escape and falsely implicate the accused. (c) The evidence of injured witnesses has greater evidentiary value and unless compelling reasons exist, their statements are not to be discarded lightly. (d) The evidence of injured witness cannot be doubted on account of some embellishment in natural conduct or minor contradictions. (e) If there be any exaggeration or immaterial embellishments in the, evidence of an injured witness, then such contradictions exaggeration or embellishment should be discarded from the evidence. (f) The broad substratum of the prosecution version must be taken into consideration and discrepancies which normally creep due to loss of memory with passage of time should be discarded. 20. From the aforementioned judicial principles, it is clear that the first step in appreciating the evidence of a witness is to examine his evidence de-hors the discrepancies appearing therein and to see whether the evidence appears to be a truthful account. 21. In the present case, the injured witness Smt. Gulab Kanwar has received 18 injuries on her body upon her intervention to save her husband, but somehow, the injured witness managed to escape. 22. In the result the appeal of the appellant Smt. Paras Kanwar is partly allowed. Her conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 302/34 is set aside and instead Smt. Paras Kanwar is convicted for the offences under Section 323/34 & 342/34. She has remained in custody from 25.07.2008 to 17.09.2008 and thereafter from 15.09.2009 to 18.12.2009, thus Smt. Paras Kanwar has remained in custody for near about four months and therefore, she is sentenced to the period already undergone by her. Accused appellant Smt. Paras Kanwar is on bail. Her bail bond stands discharged. She has remained in custody from 25.07.2008 to 17.09.2008 and thereafter from 15.09.2009 to 18.12.2009, thus Smt. Paras Kanwar has remained in custody for near about four months and therefore, she is sentenced to the period already undergone by her. Accused appellant Smt. Paras Kanwar is on bail. Her bail bond stands discharged. However, the conviction and sentence passed against the accused appellants Ganga Singh and Bhagwat Singh @ Bhagwan Singh is hereby maintained. The appeal filed in respect of these appellants is hereby dismissed.